Loading...
2002.08.12 PC Meeting PacketCRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SUMMARY August 12, 2002 7:00 p.m. Crystal City Hall - Council Chambers 4141 Douglas Dr N A. CALL TO ORDER B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 8, 2002 meeting C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 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. Note: This public hearing has been continued from the July 8, 2002 meeting. 2. Application 2002-15: Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for a salt storage building at 6125 41St Avenue North (City of Crystal public works facility), together with Variances to reduce the side yard setback and increase the maximum allowable height. D. OLD BUSINESS E. NEW BUSINESS F. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. City Council actions on Planning Commission items. G. OPEN FORUM H. ADJOURNMENT July 8, 2002 CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the following present: Kamp, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom, Sears, and Strand. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Community Development Assistant Dietsche. Absent were K. Graham, T. Graham, and VonRueden. Call to order Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to approve the minutes of the June 10, 2002 meeting with no exceptions. Motion carried. New Planning Commissioners Joseph Sears and Michelle Strand were sworn in by Chair Magnuson. 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 the applicant has failed to submit a complete application. No one appeared to testify before the commission. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to recommend to the City Council to deny Application 2002-08 for a Site Plan Review to construct an office building at 3200 Douglas Drive N. Findings of Fact are that the applicant has failed to submit a complete application. Motion carried. ❑ Consider Application 2002-11 for Rezoning 3200 Douglas Drive N from B- 4 Community Commercial to R-3 Medium Density Residential and Site Plan Review for a two-family dwelling. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and recommended approval, subject to 1111 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 32"d 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. ❑ 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. Several commissioners expressed concern about complications that may arise if a second garage was proposed in the future. Planner Sutter responded by stating that since a second garage is not included in this specific application, the issue has not been discussed in detail. Dwelling units require one indoor parking space. Since there is a two car garage on the property, one indoor space is provided for each dwelling unit. Planner Sutter added that there is indeed enough space for a second garage to be built (where the proposed patio would be located) at a later date. However, permission would have to be obtained through Hennepin County for the addition of a driveway and curb cut off of Douglas Drive N. Also the lot would have to be divided so the north lot would change from a rear yard to a side yard. Commissioner Sears questioned whether or not soil studies had been done on this property and if so, what the outcome was. Representatives of Living Works Ventures confirmed that soil studies were done last year and some fill will be required to correct the inconsistency in the soil. Susan Rivard also gave a brief description of the type of residents that would be living in the dwelling as well how the dwelling will be used. Commissioners Sears and Magnuson were concerned about the use of the basement of the dwelling and its proximity to the flood plain of Bassett Creek. Planner Sutter replied by stating that although the dwelling is close to the flood plain, it is not included in the designated 100 year zone. Therefore, the elevation of the basement is not a concern. Commissioner Magnuson pointed out that the installation of a sump pump may be something to consider, regardless. Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Sears to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-11 for Rezoning 3200 Douglas Drive N from B-4 Community Commercial to R-3 Medium Density Residential and Site Plan Review. Findings of Fact are as follows: Findings of Fact to approve Rezoning and Site Plan Review as stated in the staff report. The Planning Commission also recommended that the applicant address the issues related to the addition of a second garage and the installation of a firewall between the two dwelling units. Motion carried. ❑ Consider Application 2002-12 for a Lot Division at 4957 Florida Ave N and variances to increase the maximum rear yard coverage for both lots from 30% to 40%. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and recommended approval, subject to the following conditions: ❑ A street easement over the east 10' of the property shall be granted to the City of Crystal. ❑ 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. Rose Osbourne, 4957 Florida Ave N, stated that the survey does not indicate the preferred driveway relocation for the existing parcel. She stated that she would prefer the option discussed by staff to move the garage and provide access from the alley instead of Florida Ave N. Ms. Osbourne also questioned if the location of the new house could be moved back in order to prevent some trees from having to be cut down to make room for construction. Commissioners Magnuson and Kamp stated that the location of the house would affect the rear yard coverage area, but that this public hearing was only to consider the lot division and variances. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Kamp to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-12 for a Lot Division and Variances at 4957 Florida Ave N. Findings of Fact are as follows: 1. Lot division would comply with city code 2. Strict application of the coverage requirement in this particular case would constitute and undue hardship as follows: • "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by this Zoning Code. " • "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. " • "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. " Motion carried. ❑ Consider Application 2002-13 for a Lot Division at 4060 Hampshire Ave N to detach the east 173 feet and incorporate it into the adjacent Hagemeister Pond Park. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Strand to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-13 for a Lot Division at 4060 Hampshire Ave N. Findings of Fact are as stated in the staff memo. Motion carried. o Consider Application 2002-14 for a Lot Division at 4059 Douglas Drive N to detach the west 145 feet and incorporate it into the adjacent Hagemeister Pond Park. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Commissioner Magnuson wanted to know how landlocking this parcel would affect surrounding properties. Planner Sutter replied that it would not affect neighboring properties. This was a voluntary acquisition by the property owner and the division should not affect the value of the home the city is re -selling. Nothing would be done with the parcel until access through other properties would allow the parcel to be connected to the park. Several commissioners were concerned how the city intends to gain maintenance access to this parcel until it is directly connected to the park. Planner Sutter stated that he was not exactly sure how the city intends to gain access for the short term, but he guessed probably it would be with a temporary easement. For the long term, the city would prefer to incorporate it into the park. Commissioner Kamp suggested that the issue regarding maintenance access should be resolved before the lot division is granted. All commissioners agreed that without knowing where the temporary easement would be located, they cannot anticipate how this may affect surrounding properties. Denise Seth, 4047 Douglas Drive N, asked the Planning Commission what the future plans are for this area and the park. She expressed concern that her property would be affected by adjacent acquisitions. Planner Sutter responded by stating that 4047 Douglas Drive N is a unique property because of how the house is situated on the lot. If the property ever became available for acquisition, the city could incorporate a smaller portion of the lot into the park, or tear the house down altogether and add the entire parcel to the park. However, lot configuration, etc. would be taken into consideration to minimize the impact to surrounding parcels. Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Strand to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Kamp to recommend to the City Council to continue until the August Planning Commission meeting, the discussion of Application 2002-14 for a Lot Division at 4059 Douglas Drive N. Motion carried. 3. Old Business ❑ Set date for joint work session with the City Council. The Planning Commission agreed to set Tuesday, July 23, 2002 as the date for the joint work session with the City Council. The work session is scheduled from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Location to be determined by city staff. 4. New Business 5. General Information • City Council actions on Planning Commission items • Quarterly Development Status Report 6. Open forum Discussion about the City Council's actions regarding the Planning Commission Bylaws. 7. Adj ournment Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Sears to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Chair Magnuson Secretary T. Graham G� M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 8, 2002 TO: Planning Commission (for August 12th meeting) FROM: �ohnutter, 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 Planning Commission continued the public hearing at its July 8th meeting so the city could secure an easement to provide access in the interim. 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, access for maintenance will be available via a 15' easement along the south side of the property. 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 the 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 August 20th meeting. Y :4+ f' x6t R i .99 e2 ez 262,2, 3 ...tv.. .# - e 1r5.t �.•a*.a! :q ;�, Re�'2�a.&3..•• ^-�.. C t7gl o. "S H'rFHAJ� 14Aa Cl' u- +C TY I � ( Gon ! ! �Qf ARY F ' a +o.. a.fs ER 41) Mu mLE4RACEw 52.i� E-%T " o 2 hADD 0 ass;, fxss rz r .fza)81c1 e lnfe 3 z 6% 8 � �,sc 63 �> ,aa 1s�.x « N Q;. JJ,q.4f mom Ul 4 4on2 5 2yo sa 8 v ` --..�.__ w ... x,21 - - } a y JM (� ! `"i kik w h. nCS�c(iG i$4xZQ) h +'° a L 3aM n j .i RMfk+t- 411.3sft 8 - _7) •t x a 3: _ 321.?d f z '' I tii sS,r ; +c zt2 Sd E. ,_.._., 574 C f'WW. 01's iix.c wGwa ( x Tid 2 tsx.Tc a os,4« fao.ss xs.is rS-sT ` � r��C+ � k 4 ��c,25) 2� ��°(�� � •-. �`+, ew hL ti 0i o J Ai ti^�>Z 4Ll y K N ire Ook, 9915 ' r OP • _... 40 QLD a 30,30 r 7.7s �4 'moo a --� ` p. it7213�OT 93.�i x.t±Fx_i.s7 uic) `�: trr /,151) r, C- 3 iAW '.3.. G a a f a71 X41 t .. U .. n T! X. 7 d v 33,':9 ����:30 � 3 '$ i'43.1� '3Z.2� :32.28 Q ._ � `l 14. 1. L l � 'r ; -s � ""'`� ��:. wts i •t ��. '.'e `3Z.:h i . _ 1.'41 r5o 300 !33.'33 }uj23?<Z i3*_;?•3 i E ++ t +� CITY OF CRYSTAL; "PROPOSED LOT DIVISION" �� Pine 10 Pine 13 x I� hl e red vie" , OqI �f 6ty`'t� to N I cc �' I 145•ov j PARCEL; A 5i I I I C.L.Fence Established in 1962 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 Fax No.560-3522 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 3ururgorz Tprtif irate �^—X295.12 — --------�-�- Existing Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 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. Rev G1r.,o o5E0 Drawn By `l. Auma lm Board Fence File Nome doa1-1fb92572inv63178.S90 -- -- -------------- ----------- e D r i v e w a y Gdf o9e N L6 00 43.4 PARCEL; a —295.09 — Concrete Block Wall 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. Subliect to easements and restrictions of record, if any_ PROPOSED PARCEL: B That part of Lot 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. INVOICE N0. 63178 F.B.N0. 925-72 SCALE: 1 " = 30' O x000.0 000.0 NOTE: Q Denotes Iron Monument Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation only Denotes Existing Elevation Denotes Proposed Elevation Denotes Surface Drainage 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 D� Proposed easement for irgress and egress purposes over the South 15.00 �feet of that part of 1,ot 1, Block 1, � DOUG OSIMAN ADDITION, Elennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded Q plat thereof lying East of the West q 145.00 feet thereof. Signed Charles F. Anderson, Minn. Reg. NO.21753 or Gregory R. Prosch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 8, 2002 TO: Planning Commission (for August 12th meeting) FROM:John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Application 2002-15: Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for a salt storage building at 6125 41St Avenue North (City of Crystal public works facility), together with Variances to reduce the side yard setback and increase the maximum allowable height. A. BACKGROUND The City of Crystal is required by state law to enclose its road salt and salt/sand stockpiles. Due to the necessity of having the stockpiles and street maintenance vehicles in the same location, the city must locate the salt storage building on the grounds of the existing public works facility at 6125 41St Avenue North. The subject property is guided for Public/Institutional uses and is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. The construction of a building on the site requires a Conditional Use Permit along with Site Plan Review. Because the proposed building would exceed the maximum building height and it would not meet the required minimum setback, variances from those standards are also being requested. The required public notice for these items was mailed and published on August 2nd The following informational items are attached: ❑ narrative from the Public Works Director describing the project; ❑ plat map showing the property; ❑ aerial photo showing the property; ❑ site plan showing the proposed location of the storage building; ❑ photographs showing what the building will look like; and ❑ proposed building elevations. B. STAFF COMMENTS 1. Project Overview. - The proposed building would have an enclosed 50'x 70' space (3,500 sq. ft.) for materials storage plus a 25' x 70' lean-to (1,750 sq. ft.) for the parking of vehicles impounded by the police department. CRYSTAL PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY SALT STORAGE BUILDING - C.U.P., SITE/BLDG PLAN, AND VARIANCES PAGE 1 The lower 10' of the walls would be poured concrete and the upper portion of the walls would be painted wood siding. The roof will be asphalt shingled. The building height would be 41 feet measured to the peak of the roof or 37 feet at the midpoint of the roof (which is how height is determined in the Zoning Ordinance.) Maximum height in the R-1 District is "two stories". Staff has typically assumed that each story is the equivalent of ten feet. Therefore a variance is being requested to increase the maximum building height from 20 feet to 37 feet. The minimum setback from the west lot line is 15 feet. The building would be set back five feet (measured from the outside of the support buttresses) or eight feet (measured from the building wall). Therefore a variance is being requested to reduce the minimum side yard setback from 15 feet to five feet. 2. Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review Because it is a public utility complex, the existing use of the property would require a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review if it were established today. However, the existing use was established prior to enactment of the Zoning Ordinance and therefore it is considered to be a lawful non -conforming use. Only the proposed new building is subject to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The suggested findings of fact are as follows: 515.19 Subd. 4(a): Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the community provided that.- 1) hat: 1) Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained and required set backs and side yard requirements are met. The proposed building will have lower walls (more visible from within the public works complex) of poured concrete and upper walls (more visible from the surrounding area) of painted wood siding. The roof (more visible from the surrounding area) will have asphalt shingles. The building materials will therefore be consistent with the properties they will be predominantly viewed from. A side yard setback variance is being requested; see below. 2) Equipment is completely enclosed in a permanent structure with no outside storage. The existing outdoor storage on the site is lawfully non -conforming. The proposals will reduce the non -conformity by enclosing materials stockpiles that are currently outdoors. CRYSTAL PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY SALT STORAGE BUILDING - C.U.P., SITE/BLDG PLAN, AND VARIANCES PAGE 2 3) Adequate screening from neighborhood uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Subsection 515.07, Subdivision 9 of this Code. Because the new building reduces the amount of lawfully non -conforming outdoor storage on the site, the screening requirements do not apply. 4) The provisions of Subsection 515.53, Subdivision 1 e) of this Code are considered and satisfactorily met. 515.53 Subd. 1(e): The Planning Commission shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment or conditional use. Its judgment shall be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors: 1) Relationship to municipal comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides the area for Public/Institutional uses. The purpose of the proposed building is consistent with this designation. 2) The geographical area involved. The property is located at an elevation significantly lower than the surrounding residential uses, and despite the R-1 zoning a majority of the land abutting the site is not used for residential purposes. Only 36% of the site's perimeter abuts residences; of the rest, 28% abuts other public/institutional uses and 36% abuts low, wooded, wetland areas. 3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. The proposed building is not expected to depreciate the value of property in the area because it is consistent with a longstanding use that should have already been taken into account in the real estate market. 4) The character of the surrounding area. See #2 above 5) The demonstrated need for such use. Removal of snow and ice from public streets is clearly an essential function of a city, and road salt and salt/sand mixtures are necessary for the city to perform this function. State law and environmental concerns require that the stockpiles of these necessary materials be enclosed. CRYSTAL PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY SALT STORAGE BUILDING - C.U.P., SITE/BLDG PLAN, AND VARIANCES PAGE 3 3. Variances — Maximum Building Height and Side Yard Setback. Staff feels that both the requested variances meet the hardship test because they are necessary for the city to carry out its essential municipal function. There are no alternatives to constructing the building because state law requires that the city enclose its road salt and salt/sand storage. There are no alternatives to the proposed location of the building because the material stockpiles need to be where the street maintenance equipment is based. The height variance is needed for the roof to shed snow and accommodate the height of the material stockpiles inside. The side yard setback variance is needed to prevent the building from being pushed into the middle of the maintenance vehicle staging and maneuvering area. The suggested findings of fact are as follows: In accordance with 515.56 Subd. 3: • The proposed building will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. • The proposed building will not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. • The proposed building will not Increase the danger of fire or otherwise endanger the public safety. • The proposed building will not unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this Zoning Code. In accordance with 515.56 Subd. 4: Strict enforcement of the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. The city has no choice but to construct the proposed building in this location. Street maintenance is an essential function of the city, materials needed for this function must be stored on the subject property, and new regulations require that said materials be enclosed in a building. In accordance with 515.56 Subd. 5: • The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by this Zoning Code, because reasonable use of the property CRYSTAL PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY SALT STORAGE BUILDING - C.U.P., SITE/BLDG PLAN, AND VARIANCES PAGE 4 includes the city's public works facility which is an essential function of the city. • The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner, because the State of Minnesota is requiring that the city provide covered storage for its road salt and salt/sand stockpiles. • The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality because the proposed building is consistent with the longstanding use of the property as the city's public works facility. C. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for a salt storage building at 6125 41St Avenue North (City of Crystal public works facility), together with Variances to increase the maximum allowable height and reduce the side yard setback. The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation on the request for the City Council to consider at its August 20th meeting. Suggested motions are as follows: Approve the requested Conditional Use Permit for expansion of a public utility use in the R-1 District, in accordance with the site and building plans submitted for a 3,500 sq. ft. building for materials storage and a 1,750 sq. ft. lean-to for covered vehicle parking. Findings of Fact are as stated in Section 13(2) of the staff report. 2. Approve a Variance to increase the maximum building height from 20 feet to 37 feet, said building height to be measured as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Findings of Fact are as stated in Section B(3) of the staff report. 3. Approve a Variance to reduce the minimum side yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet, said setback to be measured from the outside of the buttresses rather than the building wall. Findings of Fact are as stated in Section B(3) of the staff report. CRYSTAL PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY SALT STORAGE BUILDING - C.U.P., SITE/BLDG PLAN, AND VARIANCES PAGE 5 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 30, 2002 TO: City Manager, Community Development FROM: Tom Mathisen, City Engineer SUBJECT: Request for Variance, Public Works Salt Storage Building State law requires that road salt and salt/sand mixture stockpiles be kept in an enclosed structure to eliminate contaminated runoff that would pollute surface and groundwater resources. The rule is enforced by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The MPCA has been after the city for over five years to comply with the law. In addition, the recent addition of Shingle Creek to a national list of compromised waters due to high chloride levels makes it even more imperative that this work be completed. For lack of any other location in the city for such a Public Works facility, and also for reasons of efficiency and a central location, the only logical site is the current Public ,..� Works campus at 41" and Colorado. The building will be 50'X 70' with a 50'X25' lean-to off the south end for additional covered storage of vehicles seized by the Police Department. Due to the required geometrics of creating a stockpile inside a building, the necessary overall height is 41 feet, which will require a height variance. Based on the building footprint, and operational requirements for filling the building (in the future with a conveyor) and loading trucks in the winter, there was only one location on the property that would work. These storage buildings generally do not have a door and should face east or south for protection from rain and snow. To minimize the impact on other operational and storage activities at Public Works, the only location is to place the building south of the Utilities building, and orient it facing east. The existing Utilities building has a five foot side -yard setback, which was the requirement in the early seventies when it was built. That rule was subsequently changed to a fifteen foot setback. Public Works is facing a hardship based on the lack of an alternative suitable site, the limited space and size of the overall facility, and the operational requirements of the building. Pushing the new building ten feet further off the property line into the main traffic and parking area will have a significant permanent negative impact on the movement of materials and equipment around the Public Works facility. Also, there is currently is a six foot drop in grade from the backyards of the single family homes facing Douglas Drive to the Public Works campus. Up until now this drop has been maintained by concrete blocks used for materials storage bins. The bins will be remove prior to construction. Because the new building has a ten foot high concrete wall, it would be possible for this wall to double as a retaining wall against the private property to the west, if the setback was reduced from fifteen to five feet, the second variance request. The Public Works Department has met with the two affected property owners. Their initial impressions regarding the height and setback variance application were not negative. Public Works respectfully requests that both a 41 foot height and 5 foot setback variance be granted. Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. Mathisen City Engineer is/pu bwo rks/prof ects/saltstoragevar. doe N o 3 _ Lo � M N � p v, N M.0 _ es s �j CV sr6 •9 ., °9 3lV0SNI82023 d0d0 A110 '�-d1SAa0 j0 I. _ V1 230 0 Ai10 0 'ool 7 9Ft oo! - os vS 00 1,0 `J Z F- J ooi a` v ^ Q ooi n e N i °.. ov/ Z,0 o_ d LI ti m I - =i v tial ° P M ODI _ p d � 0 0 S'689 a 3 .4c, - 00-1 I oLs, r-' �b Y O / o n m Ei•6c N 9t 66 SC v� Q Q� d -I ^ e o/S I•s . ti 1a1 n N w v� jo J' ` O V• 9 .r IZI sE'ec „� L6'66 sC S61 of of / o ! a c 061 tf'IS 1 99 001 ee. og 001. 8/'i ZS '1#Y9 7''£7 YL'9Y7 t Yl ' ti �� P YTIj■ iGif LS ! o BE'H L'[7 Y IN o °G GVSJ ° 06 °4 � M _ - N of °6 O6 zz is p d � 0 0 S'689 a 3 .4c, - 00-1 I oLs, r-' �b Y O / o n m Ei•6c N 9t 66 SC v� Q Q� d -I ^ e o/S I•s . ti 1a1 n N w v� jo J' ` O V• 9 .r IZI sE'ec „� L6'66 sC S61 of of / o ! a c 061 tf'IS 1 99 001 ee. og 001. 8/'i ZS '1#Y9 7''£7 YL'9Y7 t Yl ' ti �� P YTIj■ iGif LS ! o BE'H L'[7 Y IN o ZB 9zi 4 za IS .,� ,_'�, .ON s '3Ati QOflM39G3 0 Js �' Z2'1E9�����-424 "^i' °6 ° °G o6 . i'L1E \9 r1. .:..1 _^ _ N M M ... ` ' °G GVSJ ° 06 °4 � M _ °6 O6 zz is 01o 06 0< 06 06 t�"f og o 06 06 ZB 9zi 4 za IS .,� ,_'�, .ON s '3Ati QOflM39G3 0 Js �' Z2'1E9�����-424 "^i' °6 ° °G o6 . i'L1E \9 r1. .:..1 _^ _ N M M ... ` ' F"" CH tL A3-13 3 OIJ Example of Similar Building 2 mlow - v4w 'o Impp, — � T v T % r& W 1 "W4 CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS ON PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS (since last Planning Commission meeting on July 8, 2002) July 16, 2002: • DENIED: Application 2002-8: Site Plan Review to construct a 9,978 sq. ft. office building at 3200 Douglas Drive North. • APPROVED (first reading): 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. • CONTINUED: 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%. Item continued to August 5th meeting to allow resubmittal as a Preliminary Plat with no substantive changes. • APPROVED: 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. August 5, 2002: • APPROVED (second reading): 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. • APPROVED: Application 2002-12: Preliminary and Final Plat to divide 4957 Florida Avenue North into two lots, together with Variances to increase the maximum rear yard coverage on both lots from 30% to 40%.