Loading...
2002.07.08 PC Meeting PacketCRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SUMMARY July 8, 2002 7:00 p.m. Crystal City Hall — Council Chambers 4141 Douglas Dr N A. CALL TO ORDER B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 10, 2002 meeting C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Application 2002-8: Site Plan Review to construct a 9,978 sq. ft. office building at 3200 Douglas Drive North. Note: This public hearing has been continued from the June 10, 2002 meeting. 2. Application 2002-11: Rezoning 3200 Douglas Drive North from B-4 Community Commercial to R-3 Medium Density Residential, together with Site Plan Review for a two family dwelling. 3. Application 2002-12: Lot Division at 4957 Florida Avenue North, together with Variances to increase the maximum rear yard coverage on both lots from 30% to 40%. 4. Application 2002-13: Lot Division at 4060 Hampshire Avenue North to detach the east 173 feet and incorporate it into the adjacent Hagemeister Pond Park. 5. Application 2002-14: Lot Division at 4059 Douglas Drive North to detach the west 145 feet and incorporate it into the adjacent Hagemeister Pond Park. D. OLD BUSINESS 1. Set date for joint work session with the City Council. E. NEW BUSINESS F. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. City Council actions on Planning Commission items. 2. Quarterly Development Status Report. G. OPEN FORUM H. ADJOURNMENT June 10, 2002 CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the following present: K. Graham, T. Graham, Kamp, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom, and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Community Development Assistant Dietsche. Call to order Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to approve the minutes of the May 13, 2002 meeting with the following exceptions: Commissioner T. Graham asked that the motion recorded in the minutes to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-02 specifically state that office uses would be allowed by Conditional Use Permit in MDR, instead of how it was originally recorded, as Alternate B in the staff memo. Motion carried. 2. Public hearings ❑ Consider Application 2002-08 for a Site Plan Review to construct a 9,978 sq. ft. office building at 3200 Douglas Drive N. Commissioner Magnuson stated that since the applicant submitted an incomplete application, the public hearing would be continued for one additional month to give the applicant time to submit the required items. Planner Sutter added that if the required items are not submitted by June 28th , staff will recommend that the Planning Commission vote to deny the application at its July 8th meeting. Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Kamp to continue until the July 8th meeting the public hearing on Application 2002-08 for a Site Plan Review to construct an office building at 3200 Douglas Drive N. Motion carried. ❑ Consider Application 2002-09 for a Lot Combination and Division for 3528 Brunswick Ave N and 3538 Brunswick Ave N. The Crystal Economic Development Authority (EDA) is in the process of purchasing 3528 Brunswick Ave N for demolition and re -sale of the lot for construction of a new house. As part of this acquisition, the EDA has also reached an agreement with the owners of 3538 Brunswick Ave N to realign the common lot line between their property and 3528 Brunswick. Upon approval of the request, the properties would each be approximately the same dimensions: 85' wide and 196' deep, with an area of 16,660 sq. ft. (0.38 acre). Planner Sutter stated that staff can foresee no negative impacts resulting from the request. The dimensions of both parcels would appear to allow their use with or without approval of the request. The main effects of this request would be to (1) rearrange the lot lines to give both parcels a more typical lot layout, and (2) complete the Brunswick Ave right-of-way by granting the west 10' of 3528 Brunswick to the City of Crystal for street purposes. Staff recommended approval of Application 2002-09 for Lot Combination and Division at 3528 and 3538 Brunswick Ave N. Findings of fact are that the request is consistent with Crystal City Code. The Planning Commission was asked to make a recommendation on the request for the City Council to consider at its June 18'' meeting. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Kamp to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-09 for a Lot Combination and Division of 3528 Brunswick Ave N and 3538 Brunswick Ave N. Findings of Fact are that the request is consistent with the city code and 10' of 3528 Brunswick Ave N would be donated to the City of Crystal for street purposes. Motion carried. ❑ Consider Application 2002-10 to adopt the proposed Storm Water Management Ordinance in accordance with Metropolitan Council directives. Planner Sutter stated that as part of its review of our Comprehensive Plan update in 2000, Metropolitan Council informed Crystal that we would need to adopt a Storm Water Management Ordinance. Staff had asked that Metropolitan Council allow the city to wait until the watersheds' Second Generation Storm Water Management Plan is complete before adopting new regulations, since the regulations will have to be significantly revised once the Second Generation plan is done. Metropolitan Council has refused this request. For this reason, staff is bringing the Metropolitan Council's model ordinance to the Planning Commission and City 10 -IN Council for your consideration, even though it will need to be significantly revised once the Second Generation plan is done. The ordinance either does not typically apply to projects in Crystal or it duplicates what the city already does as part of its plan review processes. Nevertheless, failure to adopt Metropolitan Council's model ordinance may jeopardize applications for Livable Communities funding and requests for approval of Comprehensive Plan amendments. Planner Sutter stated that staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. The Planning Commission was asked to make a recommendation on the request for the City Council to consider at its June 18th meeting. If First Reading is approved at that time, Second Reading would occur on July 2°d, publication would occur on July 10th and the ordinance would be effective on August 9th. Commissioners were concerned how the adoption of the ordinance may affect current practices. Planner Sutter assured the Planning Commission that, since the city has implemented the practices where applicable, there would be little or no effect. Moved by Commissioner K. Graham and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-10 to adopt a proposed Storm Water Management Ordinance in accordance with Metropolitan Council directives. Findings of Fact are that the adoption of the ordinance is necessary to complete the Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried. Old Business ❑ Review City Council actions on bylaw changes previously approved by the Planning Commission. Planner Sutter stated that to address the concerns of the City Council, staff is suggesting the following additional changes to the bylaws be made: * Article II, Section A (Election of Officers) to add the following language: "No officer shall serve for more than three consecutive years in the same position." * Article III (Meetings), Section A shall read as follows: "The Commission shall hold a minimum of twelve regular monthly meetings on the second Monday of each month at 7:00 p.m., unless otherwise set by the Commission at the January meeting of each year or cancelled by the Chair due to there being no business to consider. In addition, the date and time for any one monthly meeting may be changed by a majority vote of the quorum." Article IV (Attendance) shall read as follows: "Attendance is required at all meetings. Absence from more than three regular meetings in a calendar year is unacceptable because it impairs the Commission's ability to fulfill its responsibilities to the community. For this reason, upon a Commissioner's fourth absence from a regular meeting within a calendar year, the Chairperson shall notify the Mayor of such absences and the City Council may take action to remove the Commissioner." Planner Sutter stated that a motion should be made to either (1) refer the bylaws back to the City Council for consideration as they were previously approved by the Planning Commission, or (2) refer the bylaws back to the City Council for consideration with additional changes such as the ones noted above. Several commissioners expressed concern about the possibility of adding term limits for officers to the bylaws. Commissioner Krueger questioned why the City Council would refer this issue back to the Planning Commission for discussion when a vote was already taken to forgo term limits. He stated that he sees no reason for term limits, but if the City Council has decided that term limits would be in the best interest of the Planning Commission, they should just approve the bylaws as they choose. Commissioners VonRueden, Nystrom, and Magnuson were in agreement. Commissioners T. Graham and Kamp stated that introducing term limits would give other commissioners the opportunity to take on a leadership role and that different officers may provide a different perspective, as well as implement team building. Commissioner K. Graham agreed and stated term limits are necessary for the vitality of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Krueger reiterated that term limits encourage inexperienced people to run for officers and may prevent the best Planning Commissioner from continuing their run as an officer. Commissioner Magnuson tried to clarify this issue by stating that the term limits are not meant to limit any Planning Commissioner from running as an officer. It would just give others the opportunity to run for officer positions, instead of having one person occupy the same position for an extended period of time. Commissioners were also concerned about the number of absences each member was able to have without consequence. Suggestions were made to decrease the number of excused absences to no more than two in a calendar year and also to change the period of time in which the absences could occur to a 12 month period. Also, commissioners agreed that it was imperative for any Planning Commissioner not able to attend a regular meeting, to contact staff prior to the meeting to notify them of their absence. Planner Sutter reminded the commission that attendance would only be taken at the regular meetings and an absence at a special meeting would not be counted against the commissioner. He also stated that the reason for rewriting this article n was to eliminate the task of trying to distinguish what determined whether or not an absence should be considered excused or unexcused. The article would now state that any absence for any reason will be counted toward their allotted total. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner K. Graham to refer the bylaws of the Planning Commission back to the City Council with the following changes to the staff recommendation: Article II, Section A (Election of Officers) to add the following language: "No officer shall serve for more than twee five consecutive years in the same position." 2. Article III (Meetings), Section A shall read as follows: "The Commission shall hold a minimum of twelve regular monthly meetings on the second Monday of each month at 7:00 p.m., unless otherwise set by the Commission at the January meeting of each year or cancelled by the Chair due to there being no business to consider. In addition, the date and time for any one monthly meeting may be changed by a majority vote of the quorum." 3. Article IV (Attendance) shall read as follows: "Attendance is required at all meetings. Absence from more than three regular meetings in a calendar year is unacceptable because it impairs the Commission's ability to fulfill its responsibilities to the community. For this reason, upon a Commissioner's fourth absence from a regular meeting within a calendar year, the Chairperson shall notify the Mayor of such absences and the City Council may take action to remove the Commissioner. All Commissioners are expected to notify cit staff prior to any meeting if unable to attend." Motion failed 4-3, with T. Graham, Kamp, and K. Graham voting aye and Krueger, VonRueden, Magnuson, and Nystrom voting nay. Commissioner Magnuson suggested referring the issue back to the City Council and have it be noted that the Planning Commission is in agreement with all recommended changes, except for the article referring to term limits. Also, the Planning Commission would like to ask the City Council to add the language to Article IV that refers to notifying staff prior to any absence from a regular meeting. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to approve Article III and Article IV with additional text and refer the bylaws back to the City Council. Motion carried. ❑ Set date for joint work session with the City Council. Because setting a date for this work session has been postponed since the February Planning Commission meeting, conflicts have come up and the original dates suggested by staff will no longer work. Planner Sutter suggested that the meeting be scheduled for sometime in August or September, to allow adequate notice for both the City Council and the Planning Commission. 4. New Business 5. General Information • City Council actions on Planning Commission items • The Planning Commission asked staff to send a copy of the unapproved minutes out at or before the same time the City Council receives the unapproved minutes 6. Open forum 7. Adj ournment Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m. Chair Magnuson Secretary T. Graham M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 1St, 2002 TO: tanning Commission (for July 8th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Application 2002-8: Site Plan Review to construct a 9,978 sq. ft. office building at 3200 Douglas Drive North (P.I.D. 21-118-21-23-0114), submitted by Zev Oman (applicant and property owner). The applicant submitted an incomplete application, paid the fee, and requested that staff go ahead and publish/mail the Notice of Public Hearing because they would submit their revised site, landscaping and building plans by Friday, May 31St. Because they did not do so, staff is recommending that this item be continued for one additional month to give the applicant time to submit the revised plans. As stated our June 4th letter to the applicant (copy attached), staff would recommend denial of the application if all required items are not submitted by June 28tH The missing items were not submitted by the June 28th deadline. Please note that the original deadline was May 17th; the applicant has already had six extra weeks to submit their required information. For this reason, staff recommends that no further extensions be granted and that Application 2002-8 be denied. The findings of fact are that the applicant has failed to submit a complete application even after being given extensions of time by city staff and the Planning Commission. Planning Commission action is requested. The City Council would consider the Planning Commission's recommendation at its meeting on July 16tH CJ June 4, 2002 City of Crystal 4141 Douglas Dr N Crystal MN 55422 voice: 763-531-1000 facsimile: 763-531-1188 internet: www.ci.crystal.mn.us Attn: Zev Oman The Crystal Building, LLC 11221 96" Ave N Maple Grove MN 55369 Subject: APPLICATION INCOMPLETE: Site Plan Review to construct a 9,978 sq. ft. office building at 3200 Douglas Drive North (P.I.D. 21-118-21-23-0114), submitted by Zev Oman (applicant and property owner). Dear Mr. Oman: In response to your Planning & Zoning Application for 3200 Douglas, we have set the public hearing for the June 10tH Planning Commission meeting. In our letter dated May 23rd, we informed you that the application is incomplete. We also notified you that, in order for the Planning Commission to consider the application at the June 10th meeting, you would need to submit the following information no later than 4:30 p.m. on Friday, May 31, 2002: ❑ Two sets of revised plans; a full-size set and an 11" x 17" reduction. These plans also need to be scaleable. For example, the full-size set of plans might be on a scale of 1"=20' and the 11" x 17" set on a scale of 1"=40'. Because we have not yet received these items, staff will recommend that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing until the next meeting on JulX 8tH This action assumes that you will submit the missing information by 4:30 p.m. on June 28t . If the missing information is not submitted by that date, then staff will recommend that the Planning Commission and City Council take action to deny the application due to incompleteness. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 763-531-1142. Regards, Yn Sutter, anner and Redevelopment Coordinator cc: Delta Architects tel: 847-444-0400 fax: 847-444-0401 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 2, 2002 TO: Planning Commission (July 8t" meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Public Hearing to consider Application 2002-11 requesting Rezoning from B-4 Community Commercial to R-3 Medium Density Residential, together with Site Plan Review for construction of a two family dwelling at 3200 Douglas Dr N (P.I.D. 21-118-21-23-0114), as submitted by Living Works Ventures (applicant) and Zev Oman (property owner): A. BACKGROUND The subject property is located at 3200 Douglas Drive North (P.I.D. 21-118-21-23- 0114). Its dimensions are 149.3' north -south and 129.37' east -west, for a total area of 19,315 sq. ft. or 0.44 acres. The property is presently guided Medium Density Residential (MDR) but zoned B-4 Community Commercial. The property is vacant. Living Works Ventures would like to build a two family dwelling on the site. It would be a supportive housing facility for 12 low income disabled adults. Six people would be housed in each of the two dwelling units. Under the recently approved MDR land use designation, the B-4 zoning should be changed to R-3 Medium Density Residential. In addition to requesting this zoning change, the applicant is seeking site plan approval for the property. The proposed site and building plans are essentially unchanged from those submitted as part of a request denied last year due to inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. However, since that time the Planning Commission and City Council have approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment which included changing the land use designation of the subject property from commercial to MDR. Notice of the Planning Commission's public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 700 feet of the subject property and published in the Sun Post on June 26tH The following exhibits are attached: ❑ map showing the location of the subject property; ❑ map showing current zoning districts; ❑ map showing future land use as guided in the Comprehensive Plan; ❑ site, utility & landscape plans, plus staff's recommended parking layout; ❑ floor plan and west (Douglas Drive) elevation of the proposed building, ❑ narrative submitted by the applicant; and ❑ comments submitted by the public. B. STAFF COMMENTS 1. Rezoning. The zoning designation is required by law to be made consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's land use designation. Now that the future land use designation has been changed to Medium Density Residential, the property will need to be rezoned from B-4 to R-3. Without the applicant's request, staff would have incorporated this change into the new zoning map to be adopted as part of the re -write of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff feels that the applicant's request merely expedites a zoning change that we would have had to make anyway. The proposed building is a two family dwelling. Two family dwellings are a permitted use in the R-3 district but are not permitted under the current B-4 zoning. If the rezoning to R-3 is approved the proposed use would be permitted. It is important to note that, under our Zoning Ordinance's definition of "family", no more than three unrelated people can occupy a dwelling unit. However, M.S. 462.357 Subd. 8 states that "a state licensed residential facility serving from 7 through 16 persons... shall be considered a permitted multifamily residential use for the purposes of zoning". The City Attorney has advised staff that, although the proposed facility will not be state licensed, case law suggests that facilities similar to state licensed facilities are also covered under this statute. For these reasons, staff believes that in this case the ordinance's limitation on the number of unrelated people occupying a dwelling unit is 'trumped' by the state statute. 2. Site Plan Review. Minimum lot area for a two family dwelling is 12,500 sq. ft.; the site has 19,315 sq. ft. Each of the proposed building's two dwelling units will have roughly 3,000 sq. ft. of finished floor area plus an unfinished basement. Each unit will have six bedrooms, three and one-half bathrooms, an open living -dining -kitchen area, and a main floor laundry. The building exterior will have residential style lap siding, a mixture of gable and hip roofs, a covered porch along the west side of the building, a separate patio for each unit, and a two car garage attached to the south unit. There will also be an access door between the two units' living areas. For the proposed use, a one-hour common wall and one-hour fire door are the minimum requirements for fire protection. However, staff recommends that the common wall be built as if each unit were located on a separate parcel, so that future conversion to a condo/townhouse can be made if desired. Also, the use of federal and/or state funding for this project may require fire sprinkling. The applicant should work with the Building Inspector on these issues. REZONING & SITE PLAN REVIEW - 3200 DOUGLAS 2 Water and sanitary sewer connections will be made to existing stubs at the edge of Douglas Drive; the existing water service on 32nd Avenue will need to be abandoned. There would be an attached two car garage on the south side of the building. It would have interior access to the south unit and exterior access to the north unit. (Note: Contrary to what is shown on the first floor plan, the garage on the north side of the building would not be included in this proposal.) The site plan shows two off street spaces in addition to the two garage spaces. This meets the minimum parking requirements for a two family dwelling. However, due to the unique nature of the facility and the large number of residents per unit, staff is recommending that four off street spaces be required in addition to the two car garage (see attached drawing). This is consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation made when this proposal was previously considered in 2001. In addition, the applicant has shown "proof of parking" for a total of six off street spaces in addition to the garage. The landscape plan has been reviewed and approved by the City Forester. The plan includes four large and four small deciduous trees, three large evergreens, and numerous smaller trees and shrubs. The only area without significant tree planting is the east side of the building where the abutting land is currently vacant. The Planning Commission discussed this issue in 2001 but it did not determine specifically what additional landscaping is needed on the east side of the building. It should be noted that underground irrigation of turf and landscape areas, and the use of wood mulch instead of landscaping rock in the planting beds, are required as conditions of approval. 3. Douglas Drive Special Area Plan. The Comprehensive Plan includes some specific guiding principles for development along Douglas Drive south of 36th Avenue. (The Comprehensive Plan text is in italics; staff comments follow each item.) Development shall be consistent with the density limits established for the residential uses shown on the Future Land Use map. If a development site includes areas guided for different densities, the developer may request that the city average the guided density on a pro -rated basis over the entire site. However, the city may require the developer to conform with each guided density instead of a pro -rated average. Density bonuses in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance may be granted in cases where the city determines that there is a public benefit that will be enjoyed beyond the boundaries of the development itself. The proposed building would be at the bottom end of the range for Medium Density Residential. REZONING & SITE PLAN REVIEW — 3200 DOUGLAS 3 • Development shall not reduce the development potential of other parcels by impeding access or leaving undeveloped any adjacent small, isolated, difficult -to -develop parcels. The only undeveloped parcels are located to the east. These parcels have frontage on the Colorado Avenue right-of-way and do not appear to be dependent on the subject property for development. In fact, staff believes that development of the subject property might serve as a catalyst for further development in the area. There have been discussions at previous Planning Commission meetings about the single family home directly north of the subject property. Within the last year, the owner of this property has completed significant repairs including some structural and foundation work. Staff believes that, while the single family home is not consistent with the MDR future land use designation, it can remain as a non -conforming use and probably will do so for many years because of the substantial investments made by the property owner. • Development shall include additional right-of-way for Douglas Drive or other public streets as necessary to preserve and enhance the transportation system. The 40' right-of-way for Douglas Drive and 30' right-of-way for 32"d Avenue (both measured from the center line) were dedicated on the previous plat. No additional right-of-way dedication is necessary or foreseen at this time. • Development shall preserve a public open space corridor along Bassett Creek for the purposes of flood prevention, open space preservation and a possible future public trail. Not applicable to the subject property. • Development shall be compatible with adjacent land uses and systems, including but not limited to issues of traffic, parking, noise, buffering, screening, impervious coverage, building size, form and materials. The preferred residential development style would be townhomes or similar structures where each unit has a private entrance instead of apartment -style buildings where residents share a common entrance. The proposed building and site improvements would be compatible. Traffic, parking and noise impacts will be minimal. Screening is provided on the north side of the property next to the existing non -conforming single family house. The building is designed to look like a large twin home (which, in fact, is what it is) with separate entrances for each dwelling unit. The building design includes many features to minimize its bulk such as the open front REZONING & SITE PLAN REVIEW — 3200 DOUGLAS 4 porch, front and back facades that jog, horizontal lap siding, and a mixture of hip and gable rooflines. • Certain office -type commercial uses may be compatible in areas guided Medium Density Residential or High Density Residential adjacent to Douglas Drive. The Zoning Ordinance should be revised to provide for these on a limited basis as Conditional Uses in the corresponding zoning districts. In the interim, such uses may be considered in accordance with the provisions of 515.27 Subd. 4 [e] & (f]. In no event shall a commercial use be permitted that is found to be incompatible with adjacent land uses. Not applicable to the subject property. C. SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Rezoning. To approve: R-3 zoning would be consistent with the property's Medium Density Residential future land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan. To deny: Staff has no suggested findings of fact to deny because the requested rezoning is what would need to be done anyway when the entire Zoning Map is - re -done to make it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Site Plan Review. To approve: The proposed site plan is consistent with the requirements of City Code, subject to the following conditions: ❑ This site plan approval shall not be effective until an ordinance rezoning the subject property to R-3 becomes effective. ❑ The existing water service on 32nd Avenue shall be abandoned at the applicant's expense, in accordance with the requirements of the city's utilities division. ❑ No less than two garage stalls and four surface parking spaces shall be provided, in accordance with sketch showing the layout recommended by staff. In the event that parking demand exceeds the number of off-street spaces provided, staff may order the applicant (or their successor) to install additional spaces as necessary to accommodate all parking off-street. ❑ All turf and landscaped areas shall be irrigated with an underground system. ❑ Planting beds shall be filled with wood mulch, not landscaping rock. REZONING & SITE PLAN REVIEW — 3200 DOUGLAS 5 ❑ Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall enter into a Site Improvement Agreement and provide financial surety in the form of a cash deposit or letter of credit to ensure satisfactory installation of the site improvements shown in the submitted plans. ❑ In the event that the facility ceases to be used in a manner similar to a state licensed residential facility as described in M.S. 462.357, the Zoning Ordinance prohibition on more than three unrelated people occupying a single dwelling unit shall apply. To deny: Staff has no suggested findings of fact to deny, because the proposed site plan would comply with the standards of Crystal City Code, the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and the Comprehensive Plan including the Special Area Plan for Douglas Drive south of 36th Avenue. D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Application 2002-11 requesting Rezoning from B-4 Community Commercial to R-3 Medium Density Residential, together with Site Plan Review for construction of a two family dwelling at 3200 Douglas Dr N (P.I.D. 21-118- 21-23-0114). Suggested findings of fact and conditions of approval are as stated in Section C of the staff report. The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation on the request for City Council consideration. The City Council will consider the request at its meeting on July 16th. Second reading of the Rezoning ordinance would occur on August 5th. Publication of the Rezoning ordinance would likely occur on August 14th. Site Plan approval would not be effective until the Rezoning ordinance is effective (30 days after publication). REZONING & SITE PLAN REVIEW - 3200 DOUGLAS 6 0 _j u_ M� dC 44 /34,44 0 I ,Z 0 —7fl 13 uo 31 ACRES 4A 7 ?ND ADD. SUNNYBROO�� ja IIZA, 2 2 Z, r, I* 13/�*i NZ 3 I 5 A - z Lq �74 y31, 44 dC 44 /34,44 0 I ,Z 0 3 N r 3,3 114,25 W 0 4 51 11\� 4 LLJ Ito C -P - Ek. 21 c IV f.4 ipl* 413 to' it- " '), / " _V �a. 31 st AVE. -'MO. E h7 j)Y 4 4r 1 ZZ 27 PART OF LOT 23 —7fl 13 uo 31 ACRES 4A 7 ?ND ADD. CIT ja IIZA, 2 2 Z, r, I* 13/�*i c: I 5 A - z Lq �74 3 N r 3,3 114,25 W 0 4 51 11\� 4 LLJ Ito C -P - Ek. 21 c IV f.4 ipl* 413 to' it- " '), / " _V �a. 31 st AVE. -'MO. E h7 j)Y 4 4r 1 ZZ 27 PART OF LOT 23 Tw 01 Lft Qm s Z rG2,f{ S' 134 Z 3{ I ls- �� v r 11i Ch b' 4 �. SUNNYBRQOf� 14tA 1)' 2w 134-17�z . ` 7 5d \Q' r ! ` G .�.r I!4 a � � PD ROOD /442 13 'FIR 13 v -8 .0) z 3 U- 133.83�...13}�Z... •il.d�_V (.�°S)� p' 13�3•�Z - 0 RAY Jft • i„S 1 B' AB n y s� o /33,12 °° 4 ;Y �� oar- /[.�` 5 - FIRS�_'IZ A�JD,x� -kr u4 -I34.m 133.92 133.9t + O 73is 3 3,97_ 137,97- - r\ z zo '" I -\11/y3.9 E sy. h3.95 n ,ts a - u Q UY /33.97 /32,97 k�. 5 - 07 C) a Q 2 r 17 h �\R.• P 7 19•¢ JI""1 ES I - - �5 C .0 pa 18 :hPN , QJQO/2 •h_PT 0 r � 3 �•� _o LJ. ,q /3ux_:4332 s& - , s{.O/ V 3 3 4 Z91. S F'7 pACRE V� ADD. 13 33 •D8 84.( 192 M V�~ r4.M 4 a. L11 J I Q 5 w 13 ./ a� S 5 2 V9.0 04 Fst /s P ` 4° �ry inA _ CA I1 1S 6 . .ten 01 /M4N 91• �3: Cj13 2-1 D 4 3 D6q{.L n 3.r 1'4 7 .3 /3f•LI' IJf.L4 - 1)4.Z -- '" N C J 2 P. 13 v 2 �� Z a 7 a 3D 1 - 134.29 /3Azq 94,29 r Q. 13L3d fD a 1. A- 'hip 3}.J7 /]1173 :r N 0�Q• h ? !1 10M ' �QQ t w g w � 13 6Go N !9'Ir'5e E. . 7 , ....: •• -mac^' a _ � � w 114.1 1}4.1 6n 1 13x.2 I!4•IS 3 LOs-S 4e q} 130 �- �► w7 ��+v 7 w '^ 114.Ifav, d , �ti ti 3so.t7 d 3 des• titi 8 l LOT 25 tof' L11 I v , ZI1 T. /So b f ` 5 4 rSrp/. L7 S 1,1!'4!'01, \�� ` ` 79.4 9d f i ~>r W M ¢sss Z 5.t...... -- to 1 -�, / /Se -- 3Sa.57 ?'FISC p/lGFi1$ I o z (G y) 3 I N Zia 2 �/ s Ad�t?4wr ZONING DISTRICTS _ ACCORDING TO THE `7 71.75 72.75 1".5 v� I CURRENT ZONING MAP: 0a 13 v, a `Zo)a r- Uj �� a ti~� '� T4s ���4.5 02 47.3 3 /d R-1 Single Family Residential .iJrt1 'MV 164. l i0 \ S .9)3 2� 1 .. 3• 134.65 168.5 ��gt AVE.�9 z�_= o R-4 High Density Residential 3 ( /00 �o „ ' / r m ND m B-3 Auto Oriented Comme,� <I w O I� JZ f 65 168.5 B-4 Community Commercial t /0 7 et 00 O SA /5 2/0 D2 5• +c �"'� .l IS,+4i tfy OD FIRST 13 i ° ' « AD 3l—I RAY J. ELS(W rIRST�-'- ADR til}i Il/,it 2m .Jl.9r ;3r.7 "•'� n! i� S IV{ r3f I; C ? 7 t3�.L9 , t3,�rp ... f62F tJ AJ7 ,► �. .SIA. t :54.;; t. . 43 aC) D. 3(44 N /144,4 { 7#Q3 '1i1 ` r > 70 0 z ` 76 n t j� LJ t W i r. SCI �*x j Z 5 a Z D Q9 zi -1141 134.4 to _ z 3 � CRAVEN sy € } Rpt N 1 8 (� a' rr` M z jai -=moi kL_ S L 4 1} ? R i: t to t r �a o i V• i J i yl L O \ � ..b �� � ,..• ' �Q� 8 {� �"' 8 t � { � • ��,+.. rao '.spa Ljj +lhJl}rt - ; °. i"i '^ ^!•ti'Li2��' t �,Y � E *' f _SA } ! FUTURE LAND USE �''"CH'S Zia AS GUIDED IN THE zp COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: It LDR Low Density Residential =s MDR Medium Density Residential` HDR High Density Residential — r &C Parks & Conservation v� PART OF LOT � 2a r2a .._ jl �p �� �... � _...... '_"•'"""'"t3 1 G 1"��..�..�.._�..._.._._...._...._..e..,_.,,....L,w� '�. __„,„...`__..�..a.:Jn.a..............._._........... aj L SEP -17-2001 14:14 DJ & R C 612 676 2796 P.02.'0�. UTILITY d GRAINAC�E EASEMENT 1 I I 52ND AVENUE Dry Architecture, I PRELIMINARY 51TE 8 DRAINAGE PLAN Inc. r . �o�-o• N VINLAND LODGE R'0."�1 Kwrl CRYSTAL, MINNESQTA 212 Second Street SE Sulm 314 DATE; q/17/01 Min lis, MN 55414 ��� NO: GQ ��� Ph. 16 362. K31 ITI>rITY� ACA MAIt EMEN I I I Q I I I I � I I I � I I I - I I a��owsl INDICATE I DRIA I NAG 8 FUTURE I rPARKiNG I STALLS I � v I � Q 52ND AVENUE Dry Architecture, I PRELIMINARY 51TE 8 DRAINAGE PLAN Inc. r . �o�-o• N VINLAND LODGE R'0."�1 Kwrl CRYSTAL, MINNESQTA 212 Second Street SE Sulm 314 DATE; q/17/01 Min lis, MN 55414 ��� NO: GQ ��� Ph. 16 362. K31 SEP -17-2101 1A:16 DJ & R 612 676 2796 P. OFold f! BERM •�I — -... i {II 177 I ii"�ANIT/♦RY � d I I 1 I �RE5ID�NG� 2 � I 17-1/rr I I 32ND AVENUE FO Architecture, UTILITY PLAN Inc. ()PF;ZlE-:LlMlNAR"l N VIN>_AND LODGE SL'�"�1 maia GfZYSTAL, MINNr5OTA 212 Semrc! Street SE Suite 314 PATE: Q/17/01 MinnsJOB NO; gg226 It MN 55414 �. f61 ) 362-0431 TOTAL POS, SEP -17-2001 14:15 DJ & R E,12 676 2796 P - O�.'05 32ND AVENUE (OW Architecture, I PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN Inc. i• • 20..0. N VINLAND L006E 212 n5ecax! 5�t w SE ln rR GY5TAL, MINNE50YASuite314 N DATE: W11/01 Minneapolis, MN 55414 �1� JOB NO: Rg226 Ph. (61 2)362-0431 SEP -17-2001 14:15 DJ & R 612 676 2796 P. 04:•015 LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE: TY. KFY COMMON NAME ANICAL NAME SIZE REMARKS B IO rnrrS TREES; AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE 1 Acer freemomi 'Jcticrsred' 2.5" CAL B&B w� u wx9 3 REDMOND LINDEN Tillo omerieono 'Rcdrnond' 2.5" CAL. 8&S a 1 3 JAPANESE TREE LILAC CLUMP Syringa reticuloto clump 6' HT. B&B a -40 SPRING SNOW FLOWERING CRAB Malus 'Spring Snow' 1.5" CAL. S&B ;+ moa Amclanchler x grondifloro 'Autumn Brillion",' 6' HT. S&B v -a CONIFEROUS TREES; 3 BS Picea glouco densoto 6' HT, BgB +-& " x _ BLACK HILLS SPRUCE i 7 88 SHRUBS: Euonymus lotus 'Compocto' 12" HT. CONT COMPACT BURNING BUSH 11 RD REDTV/ICGEO DOGWOOD Cornus sericio 'Boileyi' 3' HT, CONT 5 AW ANTHONY WATERER SPIREA Spiroeo x Dumolde 'Anthony Woterer' 12` HT. CONT. vvMV114 3 AH ANNABELLE HYDRANGEA Hydronge0 erborescens 'Annobelle' 2-3' HT. CON1, rNA�,vfcs 1 MC MAGIC CARPET $PIREA Spireo joponico 'Mogi Carpet' 3 CL CHINESE LILAC Syringo x ehinensis ' SOugcono' 3-4' HT.. CONT. 1"PtIr , 6 HJ HUCHS JUNIPER Juniperus horitOntali5 'Hughes' 5 GAL. CONT. jft', wu 2 BJ BROADMOOR JUNIPER Juniperus soDirw 'Broodmoor' 5 CAL. CONT. 1116hr ", 2 NJ MINT JULEP JUNIPER Juniperus chinensis 'm6wep, 5 GAL, CONT. f'4v;am"rz P-ERENNIALS' STELLA DE ORO OAYULY 15 SO Hemerocollis 'Stelro do Ora' 1 GAL. CONT 14 OF OSTRICH FERN Motteuceie struthioptcris 1 GAL. CONT 5 5 FR FEATHER REED GRASS Colcmogrosti: 1 GAL. CONT LB LITTLE BLVESTORM CRASS Schimchryrivm Scoporiv: 1 GAL. CONT 10 Br BLUE FESCUE Festuca glouco 'Elijah Blue' 1 GAL, CONT 14 PC PURPLE CONErLOWER E"hincceo Purpurea 16 GAL. CONT 13 SS 84ACK-EYED SUSAN Rudtleckio fulplao 'Coldsturm' t CAL. CONT 4 SS HOSTA 'SUM&SUBSTANCE' Var. Svllivpnti H. Sum&SuDstonce 1 GAL. CONT 4 HS H05TA SIESULDIANA 'ELEGANS' H, Siebold�ano 'Etegons' t GAL, CCNT 2 HF HOSTA FORTUNE[ 'HYACINTHA' H, fortunei 'Hycocinthic' T GAL, CONT PRELIMINARY LANpSGAPE 5CHEDULE 1• v 20'-0• DJR Arc Architecture, inc. N VINLANP LOPGE --� St. Anthony Main- 212 SecoM Sow SE CRYSTAL, MINNrz5-OTA SUIm 314 L7ATE: 9/17/01 Minneapolis, MN $5414 Ph -(612)362-043] J05 NO: 9g226 UTILITY 4 DRAINAC7E _ {EAS'=MENI" Uj SETP�AG" 3ERM' 1 1 G POrZGH / In R>=51IN'�F TIL17Y1iASEMEN p I I { 1 e I � RESIDENCE I 1 I Y ® 1 I II \\ I I I LIl I I 6A►RA6E Ai�ROW15 { INL11GATE DRIA I NAS�� _J -- I i 24'-O" FARMING v 1 Ni 3 32ND AVENUE DSR PLIMINARY 51TE 8 DRAINAGE PLAN Architecture, 1 RE , �o -1 Inc, N VINLAND LOOSE st Mlho mwn GR5TAL, MINN_50TA 212 Second YStreet SE DATE: 9% I7/OI Suite 314 Minne"(iso MN $5414 JO5 NO: Fb.(612)362-0431 *5 PUEC*rnomk� SY j4"r.4F��. MAG i4f & s'S "rOThL Z G Z m �r i Z 0D �Z z z 0 o s z ,D a Z D r m z m (Sonc)No Ra�o , C F- C, C, r� u 6 BIR Arclumcmrc, Inc. r Itj VEW fiC-m WE -S --K- CD5\461-l"E5 D ivt-�:) o�mua K uc cu �,Lt Al R iVb D LivingWorks Ventures P 0 Box 308 Loretto, MN 55357 763 479 3555 LivingWorks Ventures proposes to erect a high quality residence on the vacant lot at 3200 Douglas Drive. The building will be over 5000 square feet in size, the first floor of which will be fully accessible. The total cost of the project will be approximately $1,000,000. This LivingWorks lodge will be home for up to six adults in each of the two units. A LivingWorks lodge functions much like a family. Lodge members establish the house rules, help each other out, and share chores such as shopping, cooking, cleaning and yard work. All lodge members are employed, and in fact they must be employed in the community as a condition of lodge residency. Employment is guaranteed at General Mills for those who do not have other job opportunities A staff coordinator is onsite at the lodge 10-20 hours a week (and is on call when not onsite) to help with house logistics as well as provide support to lodge members individually and as a group. LivingWorks Lodges are an affordable alternative to efficiency apartments and rooming houses and provide that little extra support many people with brain injuries need to live and work productively in the community. LivingWorks Ventures is a nonprofit organization, established as a "sister" organization of Vinland Center in 1998 to own and/or manage community-based properties providing low-income, accessible housing and employment for disabled adults. The first LivingWorks Lodge opened in New Hope in December 1998. June, 2002 --,%\ In regards to property 21-118-21-23-0114. I find the style of the twin homes looks nice on the drawing. The concern I have is the home to the north does not have a double size garage associated with the home. There seems to be no garage at all for the north home. I'm not sure if the plan was to share the garage between the two homes? In looking at new home constructed within the city I believe a minimum of two car garage is preferred with each new home. Considering the lot across the street, along 32nd and the potential for many new homes being constructed. My desire is to encourage larger single family homes. Also, I think that developing that large lot would be a good addition to the proposed basset creek extension. If you direct the developers to look at the new home one — two blocks east on 32"d, this is my preferred design for the corner lot i.e., a three car single family home, running in the $300K price. This is my thought on the matter and I prefer larger single-family homes. I really believe there is more than enough town homes in this area. I would also help guide the development across the street with many of this type of homes. Respectively submitted, Dave Luebke EQC and local area resident 3206 Florida N. M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 3, 2002 TO: Planning Commission (April 8th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider Application 2002-12: Lot Division at 4957 Florida Avenue North, together with Variances to increase the maximum rear yard coverage on both lots from 30% to 40%. A. BACKGROUND The subject property is a corner lot abutting Florida Avenue and 50th Avenue. Its dimensions are 127.83' along Florida and 140' along 50th. Lot area is 17,895 sq. ft. (0.41 acres). The property is guided Low Density Residential and zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. An existing older house is located on the eastern portion of the property. There is also a detached two car garage that not only does not comply with current setbacks but also encroaches into the 50th Avenue right-of-way. The property owner, Rose Osbourne, has submitted an application for Lot Division to create two parcels, one for the existing house and another for a new house with frontage on 50th. The new house would tentatively be addressed as 6511 50th, and the existing house would retain the address of 4957 Florida. This application also includes a request for variances to increase the maximum rear yard structure coverage on both lots from 30% to 40%. Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property and published in the Sun Post on June 26tH The following exhibits are attached: ❑ plat map showing the existing parcel; ❑ plat map showing proposed new parcels; ❑ calculations of rear yard coverage for each new parcel; and ❑ survey showing the proposed parcels. B. STAFF COMMENTS 1. Overview. The proposed lot division would create two lots. One (4957 Florida) would accommodate the existing house and relocated garage. The other (tentatively 6511 50th) would be available for construction of a new single family house. The existing detached garage would be moved to the rear yard of 5947 Florida. A new detached garage would be built for 6511 50th. Both driveways would have access off the alley. (Note: the survey shows the relocated garage at 4957 Florida having access directly to that street; staff would like to see it have access via the alley instead, to reduce traffic conflicts where the alley meets Florida Avenue.) 2. Right-of-way requirements. For this lot division to be approved, a street easement will need to be granted across the east 10' of 4957 Florida. This will complete the right-of-way for Florida Avenue, making it a full 60' wide. 3. Lot requirements. Section 515.15 requires a minimum width of 60', a minimum depth of 100' and a minimum area of 7,500 sq. ft. If the street easement had not been taken, both lots would meet these requirements: PROPERTY ADDRESS WIDTH LOT DEPTH 4957 Florida 70.00' ` 127.83' 651150" 60.00' 127.83' LOT AREA SQ FT [ACRES] DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY 8,948 [0.21] existing house; relocated garage 7,670 [0.18] new house; new garage "The lot width figure for 4957 Florida assumes a 10' street easement will be dedicated. Without this dedication, the lot width would be 80'. Both proposed parcels would comply with the city's lot requirements in the R-1 district. 4. Setbacks. Once the lot division is completed, both properties' front yards would face north towards 50th Avenue. (4957 Florida would retain its Florida address because the house still faces that direction, but as far as the Zoning Ordinance is concerned the lot front will be along 50tH ) Section 515.13 requires a minimum front yard setback of 30', a minimum side yard setback of 5' and a minimum rear yard setback of 30'. For 4957 Florida, the east side setback would be 10' instead of 5' because that side yard abuts a street. Detached accessory buildings in the rear yard (such as garages) are permitted within 3' of the lot line with certain restrictions. The new house and garage at 6511 50th would comply with minimum setbacks. The relocated garage at 4957 Florida would comply with minimum setbacks and it would also solve an existing setback/encroachment problem. 5. Rear Yard Coverage. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits structure coverage in the rear yard from exceeding 30% of the rear yard area. In prior years, the structure coverage standard had been misinterpreted by staff as if it were a building coverage standard. However, the ordinance's definition of structure clearly includes decks, driveways and other structures in addition to buildings. LOT DIVISION & VARIANCES - 4957 FLORIDA 2 Beginning in 2002, staff began enforcing the 30% standard correctly in accordance with its definition. While the correct interpretation is not a problem on most properties, it may create a hardship on properties with detached garages accessed off an alley. The proposed lot division is an example of this potential hardship. Specifically, the 30% standard would prohibit the placement of a double garage and driveway in the rear yard of 4957 Florida. It would allow a double garage and driveway in the rear yard of 6511 50th, but not any decks, patios, etc. Staff intends to incorporate new coverage standards as we re -write the Zoning Ordinance, after we review other cities standards' and apply them to "test cases" to see what the impact would be on properties in Crystal. In the meantime, staff supports granting variances from this requirement on a case -buy -case basis. The hardship would have to based on an assumption that "reasonable use" of a standard -size lot in Crystal includes a two car garage, driveway, and potential for decks, patios, etc. More information on the specific variance hardship is described in Section "C" below. 6. Infrastructure. Because both of the proposed parcels would be served by existing streets, water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer, no improvements will be required as a condition of lot division approval. 4957 Florida will continue to use its existing water and sanitary sewer service lines. The new house at 6511 50th will need to connect to existing mains under 50th Avenue. 7. Park Dedication Fee. As required by Section 510 of City Code, a park dedication fee of $1,000 for the new lot at 6511 50th must be paid upon approval of the lot division. Park dedication fees are placed in the City's Park and Open Space Fund and are used to make capital improvements to the City's park and recreation system. The $1,000 fee shall be paid before City staff will record the resolution authorizing division of the property. 8. SAC charges. For construction of the new house at 6511 50th, the developer will need to pay a $1,200 Sewer Availability Charge. This is normally handled as part of the building permit process. The developer should contact a Customer Service Representative at 763-531-1000 for more information about SAC charges or other building permit related matters. C. SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 1. Lot division. The proposed lot division, as described on the enclosed survey, would be consistent with Crystal City Code provided the following conditions are met: ❑ A street easement over the east 10' of the property shall be granted to the City of Crystal. LOT DIVISION & VARIANCES - 4957 FLORIDA 3 ❑ The existing garage shall be relocated as necessary to bring it into compliance with Crystal City Code. If the garage is relocated to the rear yard, its driveway shall connect to the alley, not Florida Avenue. ❑ The existing shed shall be removed or relocated in compliance with Crystal City Code. ❑ The existing driveway and other paved areas in the north yard of 4957 Florida shall be removed. This requirement does not apply to stoops, steps and sidewalks needed for access to the house. Disturbed areas must be landscaped. ❑ The existing curb cut on Florida Avenue shall be removed and new street curb installed in accordance with city requirements. ❑ The city will not record the lot division resolution until it has received the $1,000 park dedication fee for the new lot. 2. Variances to increase the maximum rear yard structure coverage on both lots from 30% to 40%. Strict application of the coverage requirement in this particular case would constitute an undue hardship for the following reasons (Crystal City Code 515.56 Subd. 5): ❑ "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by this Zoning Code." If the variance is not granted, the property owner will be denied reasonable use of the property. Reasonable use for a standard Crystal lot includes a two car garage, driveway, and the potential for outdoor living spaces such as decks or patios. On most standard Crystal lots, the property can accommodate these uses and still comply with the 30% coverage rule. However, properties with detached garages accessed from alleys do not have the same opportunity for these reasonable and customary accessory uses, even if the property meets the city's minimum width, depth and area. Strict application of the 30% coverage rule in the case of the new parcels at 4957 Florida and 6511 50th would prevent these properties from being put to a reasonable use. ❑ "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner." The property is large enough for division into two standard single-family lots. The plight of the landowner is not totally unique; it is shared with any property owner with a garage that is accessed from an alley. While there are other properties in Crystal with the same problem, they would also be strong candidates for a variance given the "reasonable use" finding above. Ultimately, the City will likely solve this problem by revising the Zoning Ordinance. LOT DIVISION & VARIANCES - 4957 FLORIDA 4 ❑ "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. " The 30% coverage rule has been inconsistently enforced in the past. Having garages and driveways in the rear -most part of the property, even if it does exceed the 30% limit, is the standard form of development on properties served by alleys. The submitted survey and city calculations show that a 40% Limit on the subject property would result in rear yard open space typical for alley -served properties. D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Application 2002-12: Lot Division at 4957 Florida Avenue North, together with Variances to increase the maximum rear yard coverage on both lots from 30% to 40%, in accordance with the Findings of Fact and conditions for Approval listed in Section "C" above. The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation on the request for City Council consideration. The City Council will consider the request at its next regular meeting on August 16t" LOT DIVISION & VARIANCES - 4957 FLORIDA 5 -Z , -1-1 ;7 - Olt) o� - OV- kJ t.wO N 0 L, tlo M w Eye :aj�� N6r 4A E UTA7 Of, j b ► i 0,� ci T 05 tab. 1 25, 1 < IMUEA 77S too 70 f6d 100 too 1 roa ye 0 L -D 0. 1-41 ALI., "oo4 i. (j , �D D D. to n 7r loo PAM; da 70 74 -N to _JS ba 4 74. 4 9a be RL A41 T L Awl q 41 72 go 40 0 4 7-4 7- IA ca bo /3a AV, —AF t- iu 157 ii -I X'o I T, 7 IMP 1 F, 5 F. 7 13".. 77i 11 f is — 1 1:4 1 — Ld 15 74 —Laj, �o 2 r ug 14 131 [t3 :1 A 7- w iQ w 4 C. If2w 3 4 A, 13,14 4 3 ILI jt ui 1. 3 113 40 LA - LL) 4 BILI H3 1 UG N ImN 111.0Z I 1,4C4 lz 10 jj,f 9 2 3 14 4 1 UJ 5 7- w iQ w 4 C. If2w 3 A, 13,14 4 (30+0) ILI jt ui 1. 3 LA - LL) 4 BILI ImN A, 13,14 ImN 14 4 1 UJ 5 3At Ap Z7 53A ni A41 r4o PA -0- P -03M k'O I t io 65 1 Cia*Ave aJaress) DA 4 < " IP v ill 7- 't 4-a /aAl ku'4 i -f Ll S— A V El V4 97 70 j 7 7T0— 60 70 w Y A E '\S 4 40 0 o 7a 133 74 b4 WN Z.O"�Nl AMVE- m 14494 10 tj ��­ 1 113 3 Go. 133 51 4b ui Ix tai a3.44cp H-11 1_ 3 261 U2 21t AR 4 uj 0,2 . -4 1 AA 3 JJ3 6z E '\S 4 40 0 o 7a !1114 -7 1;.r 74ji. 14 139 tj 2 14 7 i il!3 T? 6 till 74 133 74 4 tj ��­ 1 113 3 133 51 4b I ' �0='p a3.44cp H-11 1_ 3 261 U2 21t AR 4 uj 0,2 . -4 1 3 JJ3 W 4 3 3 133.6- to A;& 2 Uj 3< 4 133.7; I'v 4 V -7 4 13371 !1114 -7 1;.r 74ji. 14 139 tj 2 14 7 i il!3 T? 6 till 74 133 74 4 tj ��­ 1 113 3 133 51 4b I ' �0='p a3.44cp H-11 1_ 3 261 U2 !11, AR ?gid uj 0,2 . to' . 1 9 W 4 8 a 4-., 3 !1114 -7 1;.r 74ji. 14 139 tj 2 14 7 i il!3 T? 6 till 74 133 74 3 IZP Id 12 a to 3JZJAb 0 0 0 uj 0 A _t 3 IZP Id 12 a to 3JZJAb ?gid uj 0,2 . W 4 A _t Calculation for Rear Yard Accessory Buildings & Structures Address: 4957 Florida (assuming 10' is granted for the street easement) If maximum rear yard structure coverage is.......... 30% Rear Lot Dimensions Length Width Sq. Ft. 1 56.96 70.00 3987.20 Maximum Structure Coverage in Rear Yard max. coverage Line 1 max. Sq. Ft. 2 30% 3987.20 1196.16 Existing Structures in Rear Yard Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 3 6.00 6.00 36.00 4 0.00 5 0.00 6 0.00 7 0.00 8 0.00 9 0.00 10 0.00 11 0.00 12 0.00 13 Existing .............................. 36.00 Proposed Structures in Rear Yard Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 14 21.75 24.74 538.10 15 31.00 23.00 713.00 16 0.00 17 0.00 18 0.00 19 0.00 20 0.00 21 0.00 22 0.00 23 0.00 24 Proposed ............................ 1251.10 Existing Structures to be Removed Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 25 25 0.00 26 26 0.00 27 27 0.00 28 28 0.00 29 29 0.00 30 to be Removed .................... 0.00 0.00 Calculation of Total Coverage after Completion 30 Existing [+ Line 13] ................ 36.00 31 Proposed [+ Line 24] .............. 1251.10 32 SUBTOTAL .......................... 1287.10 33 to be Removed [- Line 30]....... 0.00 34 TOTAL ................................ 1287.10 1287.10 AS % OF REAR YARD........... 32.3% 32.3% Rear Yard Sq. Ft. Available after Completion Completion + Line 2 - Line 34 Remaining 35 1196.16 1287.10 (90.93) If maximum rear yard structure coverage is.......... 40% Rear Lot Dimensions Length Width Sq. Ft. 1 56.96 70.00 3987.20 Maximum Structure Coverage in Rear Yard max. coverage Line 1 max. Sq. Ft. 2 40% 3987.20 1594.88 Existing Structures in Rear Yard Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 3 6.00 6.00 36.00 4 0.00 5 0.00 6 0.00 7 0.00 8 0.00 9 0.00 10 0.00 11 0.00 12 0.00 13 Existing .............................. 36.00 Proposed Structures in Rear Yard Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 14 21.75 24.74 538.10 15 31.00 23.00 713.00 16 0.00 17 0.00 18 0.00 19 0.00 20 0.00 21 0.00 22 0.00 23 0.00 24 Proposed ............................ 1251.10 Existing Structures to be Removed Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 25 0.00 26 0.00 27 0.00 28 0.00 29 0.00 30 to be Removed .................... 0.00 Calculation of Total Coverage after Completion 30 Existing [+ Line 13] ................ 36.00 31 Proposed [+ Line 24] .............. 1251.10 32 SUBTOTAL .......................... 1287.10 33 to be Removed [- Line 30]....... 0.00 34 TOTAL ................................ 1287.10 AS % OF REAR YARD........... 32.3% Rear Yard Sq. Ft. Available after Completion + Line 2 - Line 34 Remaining 35 1594.88 1287.10 307.79 rearyardcoverage-florida-4957.xls 7/3/2002 Calculation for Rear Yard Accessory Buildings & Structures Address: 6511 50th If maximum rear yard structure coverage is.......... 30% Rear Lot Dimensions Length Width Sq. Ft. 1 71.85 60.00 4311.00 Maximum Structure Coverage in Rear Yard max. coverage Line 1 max. Sq. Ft. 2 30% 4311.00 1293.30 Existing Structures in Rear Yard Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 3 0.00 4 0.00 5 0.00 6 0.00 7 0.00 8 0.00 9 0.00 10 0.00 11 0.00 12 0.00 13 Existing .............................. 0.00 Proposed Structures in Rear Yard Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 14 24.00 24.00 576.00 15 31.00 23.00 713.00 16 0.00 17 0.00 18 0.00 19 0.00 20 0.00 21 0.00 22 0.00 23 0.00 24 Proposed ............................ 1289.00 Existing Structures to be Removed Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 25 0.00 26 0.00 27 0.00 28 0.00 29 0.00 30 to be Removed .................... 0.00 Calculation of Total Coverage after Completion 30 Existing [+ Line 13] ................ 0.00 31 Proposed [+ Line 24] .............. 1289.00 32 SUBTOTAL .......................... 1289.00 33 to be Removed [- Line 30]....... 0.00 34 TOTAL ................................ 1289.00 AS % OF REAR YARD........... 29.9% Rear Yard Sq. Ft. Available after Completion + Line 2 - Line 34 Remaining 35 1293.30 1289.00 4.30 If maximum rear yard structure coverage is.......... 40% Rear Lot Dimensions Length Width Sq. Ft. 1 71.85 60.00 4311.00 Maximum Structure Coverage in Rear Yard max. coverage Line 1 max. Sq. Ft. 2 40% 4311.00 1724.40 Existing Structures in Rear Yard Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 3 0.00 4 0.00 5 0.00 6 0.00 7 0.00 8 0.00 9 0.00 10 0.00 11 0.00 12 0.00 13 Existing .............................. 0.00 Proposed Structures in Rear Yard Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 14 24.00 24.00 576.00 15 31.00 23.00 713.00 16 0.00 17 0.00 18 0.00 19 0.00 20 0.00 21 0.00 22 0.00 23 0.00 24 Proposed ............................ 1289.00 Existing Structures to be Removed Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 25 0.00 26 0.00 27 0.00 28 0.00 29 0.00 30 to be Removed .................... 0.00 Calculation of Total Coverage after Completion 30 Existing [+ Line 13] ................ 0.00 31 Proposed [+ Line 24] .............. 1289.00 32 SUBTOTAL .......................... 1289.00 33 to be Removed [- Line 30]....... 0.00 34 TOTAL ................................ 1289.00 AS % OF REAR YARD........... 29.9% Rear Yard Sq. Ft. Available after Completion + Line 2 - Line 34 Remaining 35 1724.40 1289.00 435.40 rearyardcoverage-50th-6511.xls 7/3/2002 Bearings are based on an assumed datum. Scale: 1 inch = 30 feet CER TI FI CA TE OF SURVEY FOR: R.M. MICHAELS CONSTRUCTION, INC. S89058'59"W 220.00 50TH A VE. N. BACK OF w U Z W LL - NO / 1G S89058'59"W — -- LCA 60.00 I OR Garage Top of Block O t` El isting 70, i N I m - I i_- ` Dimensions shown hereon are for staking of the 24.76 I � ro N .30 ,0 .30 � SHED construction. 4.50 31.bb 14.5�+ N I o 00! N O M K, CU 8 Proposed g o w U Z W LL - NO / 1G S89058'59"W — -- S89°58'59 "W 60.00 Garage Floor 24.7 Garage Top of Block O N El isting 70, i m - Garage i_- ` Dimensions shown hereon are for staking of the 24.76 I u � ro dimensions with architectural plans prior to .30 ,0 .30 � SHED construction. 4.50 31.bb 14.5�+ � a M 11.62-7 36"ITREI CU 8 Proposed g o Cn J ,6 House N N r- Z. LO 04 I 0 -0 STOOP � 4.33 31.00 14.67 I co ro `o co ®!8" TREE W �� I IS" TREE 26.07 -6" REE ;Z3Z ma Ld CONC. N ^� ` °'• K7 o � (N e12" TREE 0 O 24.00---1 O -- o Proposed o N Garage N 24.00 'b U. U N89057'35 IE N89057'35"E N Moved t2 Garage o 2a.7s --$B�fl F N89057'35"E 220.00 — ALLEY WAY 0 f 00 N K) Nm 0 0Y 0::) U 0 Y INCE Q M DESCRIPTION: HENNEPIN CO UNTY, MINNESOTA All that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section8-118-21, describedasfollows: Commencing at a point on the east line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter ofthe Northeast Quarter of said Section 8, distant 167 84 feet North of the south line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section; thence along said east line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section, 164.84 feet, more or less, to the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section; thence West along the north line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter 220 feet, thence South parallel with the east line 164.88 feet; thence East 220 feet to the point of beginning. Except, the West 60 feet of said tract and also subject to a public easement over the North 30 feet and over the East 20 feet of the above described tract and subject to a public easement for alley purposes over the South 7.0 feet of the above described tract. LEGEND: 0 Denotes set iron pipe • Denotes found iron pipe X900.0 Denotes existing elevation (910.0) Denotes proposed elevation Denotes proposed drainage This survey has been prepared without benefit of a title commitment policy or title opinion, therefore only easements from the record plat have been shown as a part of this survey. `o PROPOSED GRADES: q�+ ►� Garage Floor Garage Top of Block O House Top of Block co m Lowest Floor Benchmark: NOTES TO SURVEY: Dimensions shown hereon are for staking of the proposed building only, verify all building � ro dimensions with architectural plans prior to i1.i construction. This survey has been prepared without benefit of a title commitment policy or title opinion, therefore only easements from the record plat have been shown as a part of this survey. `o w O j o co m � � U O � ro i1.i O N U N N Q 2 yJ � a Z CU I ro ro `� o o J ro ro o Z. LO 0 -0 0z q") 'Co c y h ZI u v��.. co ro `o co 1 •� �� I 44 4a ;Z3Z ma o o � � U O ' d LO to � v •� �� I 44 4a Cc 0 L' N .00zi o � V M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 3 d, 2002 TO: P at5ning Commission (for July 8th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Application 2002-13: Lot Division at 4060 Hampshire Avenue North to detach the east 173 feet and incorporate it into the adjacent Hagemeister Pond Park. A. BACKGROUND The City of Crystal is gradually acquiring property for Hagemeister Pond Park. The subject property includes a large, low, wooded area butting the park's western edge. The city acquired the property and is requesting lot division to detach the rear 173' and incorporate it into the park. The east 256' would be re -sold along with the existing house. The following informational items are attached: ❑ plat map showing the area around the property; and ❑ survey showing the area to be detached. B. STAFF COMMENTS The parcel remaining with the house would be 91'x 256, or 23,296 sq. ft. (0.53 acres). The existing house would easily comply with the setback and other requirements of Crystal City Code. The park parcel would be combined with the existing park property. Staff can foresee no negative impacts resulting from the request. C. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Application 2002-13 for Lot Division at 4060 Hampshire. Findings of fact are that the request is consistent with Crystal City Code. The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation on the request for the City Council to consider at its July 16th meeting. u — 71% P-viili ARK 10 I ~ JQ f t} I * Er xs 4 in• tip " s 1 Oji tfi, is i FN erj , p �i� - 4 �.. '\ _ t,Se ( ,� t►j.95 AY RR i26P.'t.. :r,<,� t � 4 V PARA' z j CMQUNTy r�~' R p CL y 41 ST Cn PLACE,., >.,.« �.• .�70 �at.t 69 68 6cs: i35 4►� d S w Lli'"j� *ta'Z 19 �U Ott "t 2 , C7�`*� r t - a► tl' t ACV" deEv 4• t i v i8 xi 4t.G N 7732 1 77 j (+S.�Gi ��lf(,S {i` 91t„"►IF lt<.1. ? �` �,. Z? 7# j1X.t57 x 4 4.f i -- --r---- — HAL, A&A CIA �73E 1 v !'lop oil +� n Rsrr j yt yri A 28 is{,t4 t 4Z.'a +L4 Ad V � • F 32 Q 27 9 2 1 33 V i. 2£ Ffl s 34 25 11 35 ° i 24 I Z+ t w 3 ._w.____ n .642 W 37 22 _14 ?" 28, s,!t710 Rs.srT 4. D it 0 t t. 9. r. I5 . jf"U,�� E. S 2n�. ]ON PDIT 4,1, * ; ..._ t,� ��`j tet- �C\ �.�-- "`tom mo 43 t2 1.. Mc5, 85,"Y"ia`.13 �. 133,7s LLJa �; �� �i 0 t q % 1ff4 IJ �iL Dj 4i aM59v _ ', Ida {: a" .a `" ��'.'x.S� �-. A y h r•. I f � � ? � t � � ? � I t h t t � A, -; � �1 � 133, ....�. s, �+ 1 _• ., `_�§ _ f^ t � - „- t"Jt 7 LS � �� 3�. "t" t.: I`c +r:f i u, . .� "' .� �: a `a ��t� ^ •. tE� I' C .i aid * Er xs 4 in• tip " s 1 Oji tfi, is i FN erj , p �i� - 4 �.. '\ _ t,Se ( ,� t►j.95 AY RR i26P.'t.. :r,<,� t � 4 V PARA' z j CMQUNTy r�~' R p CL y 41 ST Cn PLACE,., >.,.« �.• .�70 �at.t 69 68 6cs: i35 4►� d S w Lli'"j� *ta'Z 19 �U Ott "t 2 , C7�`*� r t - a► tl' t ACV" deEv 4• t i v i8 xi 4t.G N 7732 1 77 j (+S.�Gi ��lf(,S {i` 91t„"►IF lt<.1. ? �` �,. Z? 7# j1X.t57 x 4 4.f i -- --r---- — HAL, A&A CIA �73E 1 v !'lop oil +� n Rsrr j yt yri A 28 is{,t4 t 4Z.'a +L4 Ad V � • F 32 Q 27 9 2 1 33 V i. 2£ Ffl s 34 25 11 35 ° i 24 I Z+ t w 3 ._w.____ n .642 W 37 22 _14 ?" 28, s,!t710 Rs.srT 4. D it 0 t t. 9. r. I5 . jf"U,�� E. S 2n�. ]ON PDIT 4,1, * ; ..._ t,� ��`j tet- �C\ �.�-- "`tom mo 43 t2 1.. Mc5, 85,"Y"ia`.13 �. 133,7s LLJa �; �� �i 0 t q % 1ff4 IJ �iL Dj 4i aM59v _ ', Ida {: a" .a `" ��'.'x.S� �-. A y h r•. I f � � ? � t � � ? � I t h t t � A, -; � �1 � 133, ....�. s, �+ 1 _• ., `_�§ _ f^ t � - „- t"Jt 7 LS � �� 3�. "t" t.: I`c +r:f i u, . .� "' .� �: fa� CITY OF CRYSTAL, UTlL)TH- pE e- fF' L 4 T I, Ac.. ► _� A it EXISTING LEGAL! DESCRIPTION: Lot 3, GAUL:KE'S ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota according to the recorded plat. The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and the location of all buildings and visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Surveyed by us this 12th day of June 200 2 Established in 1962 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAYS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 73rd Avenue North '763-560-3088 Fax No. 560-3522 Yinneapolia. Minnesota 55428 §urv.r:gvrs T-Prtif irate N. Ilk _J W d _ . -- y -I Z,. -12- PARCEL'. A That part of Lot 3, GAWKE'S ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota according to the recorded plat lying Hest of the East 172.72 feet as measured along the North and South lot lines_ according to the recorded plat. Subject to easements of record. 63002 INVOICE N0. F.6.NO 913-39 SCALE: 1 " =30' o Denotes Iron Monument C Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation only xoa,r.0 Denotes Existing Elevation 000.0 Denotes Proposed Elevation mC— Denotes Surfoce Drainage NOTE. Proposed grades are subject to results of soil tests. Proposed= information must be checked with approved building plan and development or grodin g plan before excavation . and construction. _ Proposed Top of Bbd* Proposed Garage Floor Proposed Lowest Floor Type of Buiidung PARCEL; B The East 172.72 feet as measured along the North and South lot lines of Uot 3, GAUL:KE'S ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota according to the recorded plat. Subject to easements of record. i J / Charles F. Anderson, Minn. Reg. No.21753 or Gregory R. Prasch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 3 d, 2002 TO: nning Commission (for July 8th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Application 2002-14: Lot Division at 4059 Douglas Drive North to detach the west 145 feet and incorporate it into the adjacent Hagemeister Pond Park. A. BACKGROUND The City of Crystal is gradually acquiring property for Hagemeister Pond Park. The subject property's western half is a low, wooded area. The city has acquired the subject property and is requesting lot division to detach the rear 145' for eventual incorporation into the park. The east 150' would be re -sold along with the existing house. Between the subject property and the park are two other parcels. The city has expressed its intent to acquire them for park purposes. Negotiations for these other acquisitions are ongoing. The following informational items are attached: ❑ plat map showing the area around the property; and ❑ survey showing the area to be detached. B. STAFF COMMENTS The parcel remaining with the house would be 150' x 86.72, or 13,008 sq. ft. (0.3 acres). The existing house would easily comply with setbacks and other requirements of Crystal City Code. The park parcel would be combined with the existing park property once the city acquires the parcels in between it and the existing park. Staff can foresee no negative impacts resulting from the request, as long as the city has maintenance access to the new parcel until such time as it can be combined with the park property. In the short term, the new parcel would be landlocked and therefore its use would need to be restricted for park purposes. C. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Application 2002-14 for Lot Division at 4059 Hampshire. Findings of fact are that the request is consistent with Crystal City Code, provided maintenance access is ensured and use of the new parcel is limited to park purposes. The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation on the request for the City Council to consider at its July 16th meeting. L i z .J,: , 2S 4 ,4 � t� F o s ' Y�� xa c t6 is c j z97 '44, is I) t....�._,. ° F:129i 24 m.... �... •r.,,tiT�7 `w_ i\.il i Ai : i ,: 4Y ,, 65. ,$ '. KS. (r t'Y B ._�....M .:�i<*.7 «.. acs _�m --- _" '-..••,- t zz7 � a -^•-, ^ 2'r i D.H9.,.` P i$ Jb14 S�L77 1 v iCa• 2•S T Q_q)C101PQTYLIBRARYDEP �/�(A ci�. , 2. cc i;« of L 7 t { 70 t3r.1 c ! C Ij y Q, " 'a� ;+. � X� r°' ��,i.• �� i5�t9� � Kra � v.tc.z-xe-es�� 1R Q Z - - e a r� { ri�• `�''� 11v �i+ �,i e+ 1•` n_.'U itj �a't ils .LD �.J ��A� �1 ��o a 'LCC ( 'All kJrR. {.i tJ Arfry {. a. 1_ � � •' �D. vre.-:. 7ds5:.uz 5g f k �. --.- -- - c?t G 4 ^R2.ti 1 es. s. i0tl.3S..3.5 3M.ts wS•�i a ruc.s� 3 •s lio ��-51 I I' E 2. j r Y 1411, 4: Arl c amu 7 � i cc IS I � c n: Aa ziU 3D 31 z7a EQ ' 3. 6j 30Iii 1., 1 s�t7� /70 'I.N.R.6421N , ;c� `� ;r�, i* L__1721at >ElG9 - a a 'iiiwlr ! U o r p 4 ; { , ,! t o } ,r .. i E_ n i 3 l.! l.J j l,/ f,£ a t(j�tSl - — -._ zap 7 q ,.� 9A -5u, cr! o ��� g tx / Lu , s_� i 13 LU7 c,t r, } f ai ; °•' S?11 >I j 1 f +o , E w S ---i`" I a3 , 133 ; t97 OILM }f ,� « + CMR. 64.3 W i Whin q j T E ice « z { . ,. "'moi ..t �yrr ... � (. i � - _ - _ ♦ � h I 3 i 1 i CITY OF CRYSTAL; "PROPOSED LOT DIVISION" Established in 1962 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3083 Fax No. 560-3522 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 3ururg ars T ertif irate Existing Legal Description: Lot 1, 81ock 1, DOUG OSTMAN ADDITION Hennepin County, Minnesota. The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and the location of all buildings and visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Surveyed by us this 27th day of June 2002. 3 21 PROPOSED PARCEL; A The West 145.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, DOUG OSTMAN ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota according to the recorded plat thereof. Subject to easements and restrictions of record, if any. PROPOSED PARCEL; B That part of tot 1, Block 1, DOUG OSTMAN ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota according to the recorded plat thereof lying East of the West 145.00 feet. Subject to easements and restrictions of record, if any. q INVOICE F.B.NO._ SCALE: N0. 63178 925-72 — 30, O Denotes Iron Monument ID Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation only x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation 000.0 Denotes Proposed Elevation --■�� Denotes Surface Drainage NOTE: Proposed grades are subject to results of soil tests. Proposed building information must be checked with approved building plan and development or grading plan before excavation and construction. Proposed Top of Block Proposed Garage Floor Proposed Lowest Floor Type of Building Signed dAp-, 61 �� Charles F. Anderson, Minn. Rea_. No.21753 or Gregory R. Prasch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 3, 2002 TO: Planning Commission (for July 8th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Set date for joint work session with the City Council In response to the Planning Commission's request for an annual joint work session, the City Council has chosen Tuesday, July 23rd for such a meeting. The work session is assumed to be from 7-9 p.m. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS ON PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS (since last Planning Commission meeting on June 10, 2002) June 18, 2002: 1. APPROVED: Application 2002-9, Lot Combination and Re -division to realign the common lot lines at 3528 and 3538 Brunswick Ave N. 2. APPROVED: (First reading) Application 2002-10, a proposed Storm Water Management Ordinance in accordance with Metropolitan Council directives, with a second reading of the ordinance on July 2, 2002. 3. APPROVED: Proposed changes to the Planning Commission by-laws as requested by the Planning Commission. However, Council directed staff to draft an ordinance requiring all commissions to have term limits. July 2, 2002: 1. APPROVED: (Second reading and Adoption) Application 2002-10, a proposed Storm Water Management Ordinance in accordance with Metropolitan Council directives. CITY OF CRYSTAL Development Status Report (as of June 30, 2002) PLANNING & ZONING APPLICATIONS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Glen Haven Memorial Gardens - funeral home (5100 West Broadway). This would be an 8,030 sq. ft. building located adjacent to the pond on West Broadway. Approval was granted in April 1999 and an extension was granted in August 2000. Approval expired because construction was not initiated by August 15, 2001. They are expected to re -apply for approval of the facility once they make a final decision to go forward with the project. However, the timeline for this is not known and it is possible that some other land use will eventually be proposed on the site previously approved for the funeral home. 2. Glen Haven Memorial Gardens - maintenance building. This would be a 5,000 sq. ft. maintenance building with a fenced and screened outdoor storage area. Site plan approval was granted in June 1999 and an extension was granted in August 2000. As a condition of approval the building will be required to not have metal walls or roofing. Construction began in fall 2001 and is essentially complete except for the installation of landscaping. 3. Parkside Acres. In September 2000, the City Council approved a development plan for 40 townhomes and ten single-family homes on the ten acre site. The ten single-family homes are being built on two acres along Zane Avenue north of 47th and the townhomes are being built on the remaining eight acres along Adair Avenue and Adair Court north of 47th. The development will include a pond and wetland area, landscaped berms along 47th Avenue, and ped/bike trails connecting the development to the Crystal Community Center. Sixteen townhouse units have been sold at an average price of $287,000. Five single-family homes have been sold at an average price of $308,000. For more information call Jeff Habisch at the Parkside Acres office (535-1955). 4. Lot Division at 6828 Corvallis. The City Council approved this lot division on April 17, 2001. It creates a new lot at 6827 51 st Place out of what was formerly a double frontage lot at 6828 Corvallis. The existing house at 6828 Corvallis has been rehabbed and sold. A new two-story house at 6827 51St Place is nearly complete. 5. Dunlo Motors (5241 West Broadway). The City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan on June 19, 2001 for construction of a new building and reconfiguration of the parking lot. Construction of the new building, demolition of the old building, reconfiguration of the parking lot and installation of landscaping are complete. 6. Valley Place Estates (7221 32nd). The City Council approved this medium density 14 -unit townhouse development on August 21, 2001. Construction of the infrastructure is mostly complete and the townhouse units are currently under construction. The developer, Z. B. 07/08/02 \\CY_FS1\SYS\GROUPS\COMDEVLP\PLANNING\General\DevelopmentStatusReports\2002-2ndquarter.doc Companies, has set the starting price for these three bedroom / two bathroom townhomes at approximately $179,900. 7. Crystal Business Park (5500 Lakeland). The Preliminary Plat for Crystal Business Park was approved but the Final Plat is on hold pending Hennepin County agreeing to vacate some right- of-way along County Road 81. This is a clean-up item from a 1999 redevelopment project that culminated in construction of a 92,000 sq. ft. office -warehouse building. 8. Big B's Gas & Goods (6000 42nd). On February 5, 2002, the City Council approved a request for variances from the front yard and side street side yard setbacks to allow construction of a canopy over the fuel pump islands. Construction on the canopy has not yet begun. 9. Lot Combination and Division at 5826 West Broadway. The City Council approved this request on February 19th. The effect was to re -align a common lot line between two properties so that it followed an existing fence line and eliminated a setback enforcement issue with a recently moved -in garage. The only remaining issue is the need for the driveway to be hard surfaced. However, this will probably be completed in July 2002. 10. Douglas Drive Land Use. Due to concerns and issues raised by the Planning Commission and City Council during consideration for a development proposal at 3200 Douglas in 2001, staff prepared a Comprehensive Plan amendment to add a Special Area Plan for the area near Douglas Drive south of 36th Avenue. This includes changes to the Future Land Use map. After much Planning Commission discussion and public comment, the City Council amended the Comprehensive Plan. The generalized effect of the plan is to recognize the Douglas Drive corridor south of 36th as a predominantly medium density residential corridor, instead of the current mixture of commercial and high density residential designations. 11. Edgewood Gardens. This infill subdivision is described in detail in #21 below. 12. Glen Haven Memorial Gardens (5100 Douglas) — Mausoleum. On April 16th, the City Council approved a request from the cemetery to build a mausoleum. It will have a footprint of approximately 500 sq. ft. This request also included a Zoning Ordinance text amendment that allows cemeteries as a conditional use in the R-1 district subject to certain restrictions. 13. Almsted's Super Valu (4210 Douglas). On April 16th, the City Council approved a request to have a temporary/seasonal outside sales area for garden -related items. This will be automatically renewed every year assuming the location and size of the garden center does not change. 14. Cub Foods (5301 36th). On April 16th, the City Council approved a request to have a temporary/seasonal outside sales area for garden -related items. This will be automatically renewed every year assuming the location and size of the garden center does not change. 15. Buffalo Wild Wings outdoor seating area (5590 West Broadway). On May 21St, the City Council approved a request to build a 36 -seat outdoor dining patio at Buffalo Wild Wings, 5590 West Broadway. 07/08/02 \\CY_FS1\SYS\GROUPS\COMDEVLP\PLANNING\General\DevelopmentStatusReports\2002-2ndquarter.doc REDEVELOPMENT - SINGLE-FAMILY REHABILITATION (scattered site rehab) 16. 632838 1h . The EDA acquired this house in December 2001. Rehab work is essentially complete, with new or refurbished windows, doors, roofing, soffits, siding, mechanicals, plumbing, electrical, drywall, floors, cabinets, paint and appliances. The main floor has a living room, kitchen, informal dining room, three bedrooms and one bathroom. The basement includes a laundry area, a rough -in for a future bathroom, and additional space for future finishing. A new 22' x 24' detached garage and hard surfaced driveway have also been installed. The property has a land area of 9,465 sq. ft. (73' wide and 129' deep). On June 20th, the house was listed on the MLS for $167,900. Total expenditures are estimated at $192,000, property sale proceeds are estimated at $160,000 and net public expenditures are estimated at $32,000. We plan to use CDBG funds to cover this gap; as a consequence, the buyer's household income cannot exceed $48,950 for a three-person household, $54,400 for a four -person household or $58,750 for a five -person household. To help make the house affordable at those income levels, qualifying buyers may be eligible for up to $18,000 in down payment assistance through Hennepin County and the Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation. REDEVELOPMENT — SINGLE-FAMILY NEW CONSTRUCTION (scattered site lots) 17. 4833 Douglas. In March 2001 the EDA sold this lot to Feyereisen Construction for $40,000. The new house is a two-story with 2,728 sq. ft. (1,927 sq. ft. finished), 4 bedrooms, 2'/2 bathrooms, an unfinished basement and an attached triple garage. It sold for $225,000 in May 2002. 18. 3200 Adair. In November 2001 the EDA sold this lot to Novak -Fleck for $60,000. The new house is a split entry with 2,571 sq. ft. (2,361 finished), 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms and an attached triple garage. It sold for $246,000 in April 2002. 19. 4330 Adair. In October 2001 the EDA sold this lot to Al Stobbe Homes $46,500. The new house is a two story with 2,868 sq. ft. (1,916 finished), 3 bedrooms, 2'/z bathrooms and a detached double garage. It sold for $264,000 in April 2002. 20. 6617 45th. In October 2001, the EDA purchased this property for demolition and new home construction. The existing 500 sq. ft. home was demolished in November by the City's Public Works Department. (The existing 896 sq. ft. garage, which is heated and insulated, remains on the property.) The target price for the property was $60,000 and the target value (lot, existing garage & new home combined was $198,000. Proposals from builders for new homes on this lot were submitted January 25t and the EDA selected the proposal from Al Stobbe on February 5th. The new house is a two-story with 2,727 sq. ft. (1,791 finished), 3 bedrooms, and 2'/2 bathrooms. Construction is approximately 50% complete. 21. Edgewood Gardens. In December 2001 the EDA acquired the property at 6328 38th for rehab and resale (see #16 above). In February 2002 the EDA acquired the home located at 6404 38th for demolition and redevelopment and a home at 3821 Douglas Dr N for rehab and resale. In March 2002 the City Council transferred the vacant parcel located at 3818 Florida to the EDA for 07/08/02 \\CY_FS1\SYS\GROUPS\COMDEVLP\PLANNING\General\DevelopmentStatusReports\2002-2ndquarter.doc development. These four parcels are being incorporated and replatted into a new subdivision with eight parcels described below: LOT TENTATIVE PROPOSED USE OF TARGET TARGET # ADDRESS THE PROPERTY LOT PRICE VALUE ■ 1 3821 Edgewood to be sold for new home construction $70,000 $270,000 ■ 2 3813 Edgewood to be sold for new home construction $70,000 $270,000 ■ 3 3808 Edgewood to be sold for new home construction $70,000 $270,000 ■ 4 3812 Edgewood to be sold for new home construction $70,000 $270,000 ■ 5 3820 Edgewood to be sold for new home construction $60,000 $240,000 ■ 6 640438 th to be sold for new home construction $60,000 $240,000 ■ 7 3821 Douglas to be sold as -is to contractor for rehab n/a n/a ■ 8 6328 38th rehabbed by EDA; presently being sold n/a n/a The Preliminary Plat for Edgewood Gardens was approved by the City Council in May 2002; the Final Plat is scheduled to go before the City Council for approval in July 2002. Grading and installation of infrastructure for the development is expected to begin in July. Proposals from builders for new homes on these lots are due August 2nd and the EDA will consider the proposals on August 20tH 22. 4355 Welcome. On June 12th the EDA purchased this property for demolition and new home construction (although the prior owner occupied the house until July 1S). The extremely blighted house and garage should be demolished in early August by the City's Public Works Department. The target price for the property is $50,000 and the target value (lot & new home combined) is $206,000. Proposals from builders for new homes on this lot are due September 13th and the EDA will consider the proposals on October 1St. Construction is expected to begin in late 2002 for completion by summer 2003. 23. 4641 Douglas. On June 19th the EDA purchased this property for demolition and new home construction (although the prior owner occupied the house until June 28th.). The functionally obsolete house and garage should be demolished in early August by the City's Public Works Department. The target price for the property is $55,000 and the target value (lot & new home combined) is $220,000. Proposals from builders for new homes on this lot are due September 13th and the EDA will consider the proposals on October 1 st. Construction is expected to begin in late 2002 for completion by summer 2003. 24. 5757 Quail. In July 2002 the EDA expects to purchase this property for demolition and new home construction. The extremely blighted house and detached garage should be demolished in late August by the City's Public Works Department. The target price for the property is $55,000 and the target value (lot & new home combined) is $220,000. Proposals from builders for new homes on this lot are due September 13th and the EDA will consider the proposals on October 1St. Construction is expected to begin in late 2002 for completion by late summer 2003. 07/08/02 \\CY_FS1\SYS\GROUPS\COMDEVLP\PLAN NING\General\DevelopmentStatusReports\2002-2ndquarter.doc 25. 3528 Brunswick. In July 2002 the EDA expects to purchase this property for demolition and new home construction. The functionally obsolete house should be demolished in late August by the City's Public Works Department. As part of this project, the EDA is realigning this property's boundary with 3538 Brunswick and completing the dedication of Brunswick Avenue right-of-way. this will change the subject property's dimensions from 100' x 103' (10,300 sq. ft.) to 85' x 196' (16,660 sq. ft.). The target price for the property is $70,000 and the target value (lot & new home combined) is $270,000. Proposals from builders for new homes on this lot are due September 13th and the EDA will consider the proposals on October 1St. Construction is expected to begin in late 2002 for completion by late summer 2003. 26. 631238 1h . This tentative address represents a potential new lot that could be created from the excess rear yard areas of 3801 and 3807 Douglas. The EDA has authorized staff to work with the two property owners; however, at this time the EDA's involvement is on hold pending final decisions by both owners to proceed. If the project does proceed, the EDA's expected target price for the property would be $60,000 and the target value (lot & new home combined) would be $240,000. REDEVELOPMENT — DEMOLITION AND LAND -BANKING FOR FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT 27. 4326 Zane. In March 2002 the EDA acquired this extremely blighted house for demolition and land banking for future redevelopment. The acquisition price was $68,000. Demolition should be completed in July 2002 by the City's Public Works Department. 07/08/02 \\CY_FS1\SYS\GROUPS\COMDEVLP\PLANNING\General\DevelopmentstatusReports\2002-2ndquarter.doc BB OOe LVN PARK..BBOo•LrN CENiEB ,•• �•- ,7•0 \\\ rt-------------- — — — — \—�-\ --- NEW NOK DGUDUDU tiff I:. I.IK -r � • ' .J�J Iq �� 'i 1= _C� 0 CITYL nnn OF CRYSTAL C=CC ..�< �3 •`;� Uliffil-U�aa� SCALE ����'pp(�'M� III �N\` •�q U�C I��•C \ \ _ 1OO O• 0 1000• 2000' DCCCI. oG�a�aCC r I a1�..[L.•o .t ©CGCG ' ' L to s �I ' , II IF I 7 1I162.1$2.& I u hFUS U bi L +¢ OI ROBBINSOALE / 3 l.L• W y'i ��� •LKt �) I ( '� �) II a;. ;; ;i 7j Lf ;II ..F10" C� IT _Jt_] n �(� .,[ • 'r -I ,7ro .,�wj�-' i _� �i I t f—_• innf J itw i t I II I GOIOEN vnllEY i 7„ C r I �L Li ME'M NOPE al � ' I et .� I `.__I.YI1=f •�t _ Thr �' GOLDEN VALLET , �'