The URL can be used to link to this page

2002.09.09 PC Meeting PacketCRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SUMMARY September 9, 2002 7:00 p.m. Crystal City Hall - Council Chambers 4141 Douglas Dr N A. CALL TO ORDER B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • August 12, 2002 meeting C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Application 2002-16: Preliminary Plat to divide 7025 46th Avenue North into two lots, together with Variances to reduce the minimum lot area and rear yard setback requirements. 2. Application 2002-17: Variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback to allow an addition to a single family house at 6922 42nd Avenue North. 3. Application 2002-18: Variance to reduce the minimum rear yard setback to allow an addition to a single family house at 5709 Wilshire Boulevard. 4. Application 2002-19: Lot Combination and Division to reconfigure 6621 32nd Avenue North and 3156 Hampshire Avenue North into three single family residential lots. 5. Application 2002-20: Rezoning 6820 44th Avenue North from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Single & Two Family Residential. D. OLD BUSINESS E. NEW BUSINESS F. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. City Council actions on Planning Commission items. 2. First -Ring Suburb Forum G. OPEN FORUM H. ADJOURNMENT August 12, 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, Sears, and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter, Community Development Assistant Dietsche, and Public Works Director Mathisen. Absent was Commissioner Strand. Call to order Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to approve the minutes of the July 8, 2002 meeting with no exceptions. Motion carried. 2. Public hearings ❑ 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. This public hearing was continued from the July 8, 2002 meeting. Planner Sutter reviewed the staff report from the last meeting and added that staff could 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. No one appeared to testify before the commission. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden 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 2002-14 for a Lot Division at 4059 Douglas Drive N. Findings of Fact are as stated in the staff memo. Motion carried. ❑ Consider Application 2002-15 for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for a salt storage building at 6125 41St Ave N (City of Crystal Public Works Facility), together with Variances to reduce the side yard setback and increase the maximum allowable height. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval for the Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, and Variances. Several Planning Commissioners were concerned about the request for a variance for the side yard setback. Both Planner Sutter and Public Works Director Mathisen stated that the site is already very tight. In order to maximize the use of the space and allow adequate access and traffic clearance for vehicles, the proposed placement of the building is necessary. The proposed height of the building also seemed to be of concern. Mathisen replied by stating that city did not design the building. The building height is determined by the volume of materials necessary to make the salt/sand mixture. Commissioner T. Graham questioned the findings of facts stated in the staff memo, specifically whether or not the property could be put to reasonable use without the proposed storage building. Several commissioners agreed and added that if a resident were to request the same variances, the Planning Commission would probably deny their request based on lack of hardship as defined in the zoning ordinance. Planner Sutter stated that Commissioner T. Graham's point was indeed valid, and it would be a judgement call for the Planning Commission to P -*N decide what it considers to be a reasonable use. Maintaining safe city streets during the winter season is an essential function of the city. Since the storage building has to be located within the city, the proposed location is the most logical, economical, and efficient. Mathisen added that a relatively large, paved area is necessary to mix the salt and sand and the existing parking lot would serve this purpose. Many of the trucks and equipment use to mix the salt and sand are also housed on site. Therefore, it would not be very economical to locate the storage building elsewhere. Several suggestions were made to re -design the storage building to eliminate the need for the variances. Also, screening from adjacent residential homes was a concern of many commissioners, as well as the increase in noise the storage building would create. Mathisen stated that he was aware of both issues and stated that the proposed storage building would create a noise buffer from the rest of the public works facility from the adjacent residential homes. However, he said that he would be willing to install additional screening to minimize the impact to surrounding homes. Kevin Van Emmerik, 4020 Douglas Dr N, stated his concern for the loss of trees that may result from constructing the storage building so close to the tree line. The city has already started to grade the property, and he felt that some of the trees that had already been taken down did not necessarily need to be removed. He also stated that he understood that the building had to be a certain height, but would like to see it built at least 10 feet inward from the property line. The Planning Commission continued to discuss the issue at length and reiterated reasons why or why not variances for the storage building should be granted. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner K. Graham to recommend to the City Council to approve a variance to increase the maximum building height from 20 to 37 feet as defined in the ordinance. Findings of fact are the first four points stated on page 4 of the staff memo. Motion carried 7-1 with K. Graham, T. Graham, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom, Sears, and VonRueden voting aye and Kamp voting nay. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to recommend to the City Council to approve a variance to reduce the minimum side yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff memo. Role call for the vote was started, but Commissioner Nystrom asked for clarification of the motion because she was confused as to what was actually stated in the motion. Because several other commissioners were also confused by the wording of the motion, the suggestion was made to strike the motion and vote altogether. Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Kamp to strike the previous motion and vote. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner K. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to recommend to the City Council to approve a variance to reduce the minimum side yard setback from 15 feet to 7 feet. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff memo. Motion carried 5-3 with K. Graham, Krueger, Magnuson, Sears, and VonRueden voting aye and T. Graham, Kamp, and Nystrom voting nay. • Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner VonRueden to recommend to the City Council to approve a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for a salt storage building at 6125 41 sc Ave N. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff memo. Motion carried 6-2 with K. Graham, T. Graham, Krueger, Magnuson, Sears, and VonRueden voting aye and Kamp and Nystrom voting nay. 3. Old Business None. 4. New Business None. 5. General Information • City Council actions on Planning Commission items 6. Open forum 7. Adjournment Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Chair Magnuson Secretary T. Graham M E M O R A N D U M DATE: September 4, 2002 TO: PI ping Commission (September 9th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider Application 2002-16 for a Preliminary Plat to divide 7025 46"' Avenue North into two lots, together with variances to reduce the minimum lot area and rear yard setback requirements. A. BACKGROUND The subject property is a corner lot abutting Louisiana Avenue and 46th Avenue. Its dimensions are 149.96' along Louisiana and 101.22' along 46th. Lot area is 15,179 sq. ft. (0.35 acres). The property is guided Low Density Residential and zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. An existing older house is located on the northern portion of the property. There is also a detached two car garage on the southeastern portion of the property. The driveway extends north from the garage to 46th Avenue. The property is currently in compliance with lot size, setback and rear yard coverage requirements. The property owner, Lorraine Bedman, has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat to create two parcels, one for the existing house on the corner and another for a new house with frontage on Louisiana. Lot 1 would retain the existing house and the current address of 7025 46th. Lot 2 would be available for construction of a new house; it would tentatively be addressed as 4550 Louisiana. This application also includes a request for variances to reduce the minimum lot size on Lot 2 and reduce the minimum rear yard setback on Lot 1. Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property and published in the Sun Post on August 28th The following exhibits are attached: A. plat map showing the existing parcel; B. plat map showing proposed new parcels; C. excerpt from proposed plat showing existing setbacks D. excerpt from proposed plat showing what setbacks would be if the plat is approved; E. excerpt from proposed plat showing the rear yard setback issue on Lot 1; F. information from the 1987 preliminary plat application (denied Dec. 1, 1987); G. information from the 1988 preliminary plat application (denied March 21, 1989); H. correspondence between staff and the applicant during the past few months; and I. a reduced copy of the proposed Preliminary Plat. B. STAFF COMMENTS Overview. The proposed plat would create two lots. Lot 1 (7025 46th) would accommodate the existing house. Lot 2 (tentatively 4550 Louisiana) would be available for construction of a new single family house. The existing detached garage would have to be moved off of Lot 2 because the Zoning Ordinance does not permit accessory structures without a principal building, and because the lot is vacant there would be no principal building at the time of plat approval. 2. Right-of-way requirements. The proposed plat includes the required 30' right-of-way for Louisiana Avenue, which has previously been taken by easement but not platted. The required 30' right-of-way for 46th Avenue was dedicated in the underlying plat (Auditor's Subdivision #314). 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. LOT PROPERTY LOT LOT LOTAREA NUMBER ADDRESS WIDTH DEPTH sq. ft. [acres] Lot 1 702546 th 80.48' 101.23' 8,148 [0.19] Lot 2 4550 Louisiana 69.50' 101.245' 7,036 [0.16] Lot 2 does not comply with the minimum lot area requirement in the R-1 District. This is the reason for the first variance request. 4. Setbacks. Once the lot division is completed, both properties' front hyards would face west towards Louisiana Avenue. (7025 46th would retain its 46t Avenue address because the house still faces that direction, but as far as the Zoning Ordinance is concerned the lot front will be along Louisiana.) 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'. The existing house would have a rear yard setback of 27' and therefore the lot division would make the existing house a nonconforming structure. This is the reason for the second variance request. Any new house built on the new lot at 4550 Louisiana would have to comply with minimum setbacks. 5. Rear Yard Coverage. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits structure coverage in the rear yard from exceeding 30% of the rear yard area. PRELIMINARY PLAT & VARIANCES - 7025 46TH 2 On Lot 1, the existing driveway running along the east side of the house causes the property to exceed the maximum 30% rear yard coverage. Most of this driveway would probably be removed since the garage in its present location on Lot 2 would not serve the existing house. However, because we do not know whether the existing garage will be relocated to Lot 1 or moved off the site, we cannot determine at this time whether Lot 1 will comply with the 30% maximum rear yard structure coverage. On Lot 2, if the existing garage is left in place to serve a new house, it would likely exceed the maximum 30% rear yard structure coverage once a hard surfaced driveway is built to provide access to it from Louisiana Avenue. Any building permit applications submitted for either lot will be analyzed by staff to ensure compliance with the 30% maximum rear yard coverage. 6. Infrastructure. Because both of the proposed parcels would be served by existing streets, water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer, no infrastructure improvements will be required as a condition of plat approval. 7025 46th will continue to use its existing water and sanitary sewer service lines. The new house at 4550 Louisiana will need to connect to existing mains under Louisiana 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 4550 Louisiana 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 the city will execute the Final Plat. 8. SAC charges. For construction of the new house at 4550 Louisiana, the developer will need to pay a $1,200 Sewer Availability Charge. This is normally handled as part of the building permit process. C. SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL Variance from the minimum lot area requirement (for Lot 2). a. Suggested findings of fact to approve: The Zoning Ordinance has a three-part test for determining whether a variance can be granted. A finding of undue hardship requires that all three criteria be met. Because staff does not believe that any of the criteria are met in this case, we can offer no suggested findings of fact to approve. The three-part test is as follows: PRELIMINARY PLAT & VARIANCES - 7025 46TH 3 ❑ "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. " b. Suggested findings of fact to deny: Strict application of the minimum lot area requirement in this particular case would not constitute an undue hardship because it fails to meet any of the three required criteria (Crystal City Code 515.56 Subd. 5). Specifically: ❑ The property in question can be put to a reasonable use if used as required by this Zoning Code. If the variance is not granted, the property owner still retains reasonable use of the property in the form of an oversized single-family lot. Strict application of the minimum lot area requirement only prevents the property owner from further subdividing the property to create an additional lot; it does not prevent the property owner from continuing to use the property in its present form. ❑ The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property. The plight is created by the property owner. The property is large enough for division into two standard single-family lots but for the presence of the existing house. However, there are many other oversized single family lots in Crystal that could also be subdivided but for the presence of an existing single family house. The property owner could eliminate the plight by either demolishing the existing house or acquiring additional property to the south. ❑ The variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the locality. The resulting lot would be less than the minimum size established in the ordinance and 30% less than the prevailing size across Louisiana Avenue to the west. 2. Variance from the minimum rear yard setback requirement (for Lot 1). a. Suggested findings of fact to approve: The Zoning Ordinance has a three-part test for determining whether a variance can be granted. A finding of undue hardship requires that all three criteria be met. Because staff does not believe that any of the PRELIMINARY PLAT & VARIANCES - 7025 46TH 4 criteria are met in this case, we can offer no suggested findings of fact to approve. The three-part test is 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. " b. Suggested findings of fact to deny: Strict application of the minimum lot area requirement in this particular case would not constitute an undue hardship because it fails to meet any of the three required criteria for undue hardship (Crystal City Code 515.56 Subd.5). Specifically: ❑ The property in question can be put to a reasonable use if used as required by this Zoning Code. If the variance is not granted, the property owner still retains reasonable use of the property in the form of an oversized single-family lot. Strict application of the minimum rear yard setback requirement only prevents the property owner from further subdividing the property to create an additional lot; it does not prevent the property owner from continuing to use the property in its present form. ❑ The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property. The plight is created by the property owner. The existing house would only be out of compliance with the rear yard setback if the property is subdivided. The hardship is clearly self-created. ❑ The variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the locality. The resulting rear yard would be less than the minimum size established in the ordinance and approximately half the size of the existing adjacent rear yards. 3. Preliminary Plat of Bedman Addition. a. Suggested findings of fact to approve: If both of the requested variances are granted, then the Preliminary Plat - would be consistent with the requirements of Crystal City Code. The following conditions of approval are recommended: PRELIMINARY PLAT & VARIANCES - 7025 46TH 5 ❑ Within six months of approval of the Final Plat by the City Council, the existing garage on Lot 2 shall either (1) be removed from the site; (2) be relocated on Lot 1 in accordance with city code; or (3) become a permitted accessory structure in accordance with city code via the submittal and approval of a building permit application for a new house on Lot 2. ❑ If the existing garage is not relocated to Lot 1 to provide parking for the existing house, then a new two -car garage shall be built in accordance with city code on Lot 1 within six months of approval of the Final Plat by the City Council. ❑ The city will not sign the Final Plat until it has received the $1,000 park dedication fee for the new lot. b. Suggested findings of fact to deny: If either of the requested variances are not granted, then the Preliminary Plat would not be consistent with the requirements of Crystal City Code. D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of Application 2002-16 for a Preliminary Plat to divide 7025 46th Avenue North into two lots, together with variances to reduce the minimum lot area and rear yard setback requirements, in accordance with the suggested findings of fact for denial in Section "C" above. The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation on the request for City Council consideration. Staff suggests that the motions be structured as follows: Recommend approval / denial / continuance of a request for a Variance from the minimum lot area requirement (for Lot 2). Findings of fact are 2. Recommend approval / denial / continuance of a request for a Variance from the minimum rear yard setback requirement (for Lot 1). Findings of fact are 3. Recommend approval / denial / continuance of a request for a Preliminary Plat of Bedman Addition. Findings of fact are If approved, the conditions of approval are The City Council will consider the request at its next regular meeting on September 17th PRELIMINARY PLAT & VARIANCES - 7025 46TH 6 n j ul,z7 IS 2 do 15 70 2 b N I 32: Z.4 16 I- ` .- h i 1321. 3 15 �• ;z 31.1 127 ' 33. I 15 14 =_,3 353.5 14 t 3 a � LJ '^ Z13 W 9 13Z.11 13ES2 =n 2 n131 O 3t, 13 4 2Q 13 4 > Q IS 4 .I 65,61 N - 12 ' S 12 12 5 O 14 3 cl itl. 4 1.83 t.d Z 14 1 ` II 6 Ii 6 a Q ta n ift 131.52 figs131.19 z 7 cc 15 4 Q 13 4 rw J 10 7 3.C/ L 10 7 1 2. 4 6 131-74 9 sv r 2, 5 c QZ.5 9 s cr 12 5 3o Q 4 13139 r J n j ul,z7 131.37 do ^ 1311C 132.11 ,,1 jo 70 2 133,61 N I 131.51 16 I- ` .- h 135.0c 13 15 �• ;z 31.1 127 172, de 33. I 15 L1B 353.5 '46 3 ' 33.ic a � v '^ 9 8 9 13Z.11 13ES2 =n n j ul,z7 131.37 do ^ 1311C 132.11 ,,1 jo 70 2 133,61 N I 131.51 16 I- ` .- h 135.0c 13 15 �• ;z 31.1 127 172, de 33. I 15 2 '^ 15 2 '46 3 ' 33.ic (L a l cz 33.16 51 I 3 9 13Z.11 13ES2 =n 2 n131 O 3t, 13 4 2Q w � 3 c6 Z 65,61 N - u. 0 12 14 3 O 14 3 cl itl. 4 131 A. Z 14 1 1.1 s 6 a Q ta n z 7 cc 15 4 Q 13 4 rw J uZ.k 13Z.1 3.C/ L 131.30 Ijl K 12 s cr 12 5 Q 13 2.d 2 'o 13139 11 6 2.91 2.92 131.41 fil• I P 10 7 31.44- 12. 4 152.9 1 N P 9 8 7 2. L 2.9 H AV E. ' 7 132J9 131.48 131." 33. e1 .ol 15 2 133,61 N 14 131.51 3J eC 135.0c 13 15 �• 2 to 127 i. J 33. I 14 II J '46 3 ' 33.ic (L a l cz 33.16 O g'ta 9 r7 2 f O 3t, 13 4 2Q w 58 3 c6 Z 65,61 r '0 - u. 0 12 5 O b cl F 1.1 s 6 ta 131.63 .010 10 7 cc .cc \^ P rw 3.C/ L 3.0 60 132.94 132J9 16 r I 33. e1 .ol 15 2 133,61 N 14 3 3J eC 135.0c 13 4 59901 tiN H 127 5 33. I M. (I II 6 33.13 33.ic = 10 7 7.IC 33.16 a Q g'ta 9 r7 3.13o f 73' CITY OF CFYS7AL C;TY OF NEW HOPE 76./ be [oo a v P 46 AA ^ " " " 66 �1 N 0��` 65. G5.9 LS. �ti�6e/ 6� 63 K 2N I GS 59901 tiN H -� abT1 A 91.25 4 tiD � t� I � }; _j r`d hl a a a Q 2t3 Z �� L: ` f O tA (2020) N .. 3 �► J � = -1 o) 2Q Ui 6e CL c6 SI 77 c LL 1 G1 L6 65 67 66 a 64 C 8 .7 '6 N I 69.B _ 65. G5.9 LS. �ti�6e/ 6� 63 K 2N I GS 59901 tiN H -� abT1 A 91.25 4 tiD � t� I � }; _j r`d SrP ^3 to 3rd F a Q 2t3 Z �� L: ` f O tA (2020) N .. 3 �► J � = -1 o) 2Q Ui 6e CL c6 S7. 65,61 r '0 6o b 74.4 w 6a 7= cG W (1) \� 1 aQt 7t 60 A C 11.27 n� p50� 77 c LL 1 G1 L6 65 67 66 a 64 C 8 .7 '6 N I 69.B _ 65. G5.9 LS. �ti�6e/ 6� 63 K 2N I GS 59901 tiN H -� abT1 A 91.25 4 tiD � t� I � }; _j r`d SrP ^3 to 3rd F a Q 2t3 Z �� L: ` f O tA (2020) N .. 3 �► J � = -1 o) 2Q Ui 6e CL c6 61,2 _7/.22 _ TA 6561 65.6/60 65.97 6� g; P) LI C 8 .7 '6 6z.2 I 69.B _ 65. G5.9 LS. 0 ^ -r46 -- VE 4]S _7/.22 2 I B/.ZZ 6561 65.6/60 'MI Q C y 1 w-�r 22 `U �ti�6e/ 6� 63 �On� �H� 2N I GS 59901 tiN H -� abT1 A 91.25 4 cc3�t L0 60 o }; _j r`d SrP ^3 to 3rd II ' a Q 2t3 e a U+, 1 6 q MQ > N b N .. 3 �► J � = -1 o) �' yN Ui /oL28 La 29 656•! 'cs:64 LS 6/ 65,61 r '0 4]S 9c.22 $c Ll 5-.61 65 101.3 "( DA31 -LYLEM C RL I Hillcrest w-�r 22 `U 7 ^� 6� 63 Tb 2N I GS N,LAj 81.31 Z i3O` -� abT1 A Ge 4 cc3�t L0 60 Qr +� }; _j r`d SrP ^3 to 3rd II ' 00 `~ 12 i3 w d• J in cr. '01'3` Q 9 Aud. Sub. No. :314 = -1 o) 0 - - faS.l 6J.. 65 101.3 -LYLEM C RL I Hillcrest �c21 h 7 ^� 6� 63 5N 4 3� 1 " 2N I GS N,LAj 81.31 Z d g 0 UJ 0 Ge Ce lse L0 60 Qr +� }; _j W SrP ^3 to 3rd II ' Port of Lot 30 12 i3 w d• J in cr. '01'3` Q 9 '^ Aud. Sub. No. :314 = -1 o) �. 3 U Ui a .4.4 bo co So G Co Ie1,3G 6o 383.3 LA 668 h [1.36. 65,68 5.61 ^ i 45 th AV ............... M-WTY � 41 H T4 :u 2 'X: ul.z7 15 1 2 �c Z.a131. 66 3 131-13 132.11 14 t 3 3 W> 131 31 13 14 3 133,o9 125 < 13 4 5 6 12 5 10 12 5 M 131.38 .131.3 6 a II 6 zo) ol lb 131.44 10 7 7 8 131-76 1309 IN -9 9 131,7 z -131,72 v. 30139 dam- ul.z7 131.27 1 '\` 13I,1321- 66 15 131.22 132.11 13242 1.43 3 131 31 131 31 13 14 3 133,o9 125 Z .1 Zf 13 2.81^ 13Z,o 4 6 M -N IKIZ 10 12 5 M 131.38 .131.3 32. 41 a S. zo) ol lb 131.44 7 0- B1,44 7Z. v., 8 Is AVE. 0 z cr- 76d 40 16 1 '\` 13I,1321- 66 15 2 132.11 13242 1.43 3 Z 14 -U� - 13 A4 133,01 133,o9 125 Z .1 Zf 13 2.81^ 13Z,o '144 11 6 M -N IKIZ 10 7 13 Z. 4 133.19 9 n 32. 41 a 76d 40 GC 1 L1 1 66 15 66 133,03 14 3 133.*C 133 -AC 13 LL 133,01 133,o9 7 Z Akh. A 113JI II r 13313 133.14 10 7 uj —81.2j!r 133.19 0 '4� Ct:e a S. zo) D 7Z. v., C, -47 M-r—� E 57.6 74.4 co 7X cc In- Lll z 77 GC Is 67 C; � " % IQ I Anwiff - V i . . 46 th---AV-E 132.18 131.17 GC 1 L1 1 66 15 60 60 133,03 14 3 133.*C 133 -AC 13 LL 133,01 133,o9 7 Z 133J, 113JI II r 13313 133.14 10 7 uj —81.2j!r 133.19 0 '4� Ct:e a S. zo) D 7Z. 44 C, IQ I Anwiff - V i . . 46 th---AV-E 132.18 131.17 16 1 133--f 133.-1 15 60 60 133,03 14 3 133.*C 133 -AC 13 4 133,01 133,o9 7 Z 133J, 113JI II r 13313 133.14 10 7 uj —81.2j!r 133.19 9 a S. 13 1. Cl so ---A33-ft ry- L OF rAL C:TY OF NEW HOPE jol.zz 60 7r.2'L 1. zz 6561 is.&/ 60 60 .0).. oz F2 Z A a Ix uj —81.2j!r 9 z D 601 Z J_ a o 05 2 3 1� ILL Lffr.2 ��LYLE - CARUSON.) Hillc;st uj 7 > Z 4 3- 2. I. < WLL CR ti 104.7 UJ rs i -j V),* >- g -dTz- LA >-; -j i Lucs.e1 65,68 10 11 Part of 12 13 —1 ir Lot 30 AIJA �c 9 3rd Md. Subj d. U, A - 3 LL, Z No. 314 (G-1 0) - --.,) 15,0 Arb cc 1-� f-36 4 A 45 th -7 7- 11-2Z Z o 05 2 3 1� ILL Lffr.2 ��LYLE - CARUSON.) Hillc;st uj 7 > Z 4 3- 2. I. < WLL CR ti 104.7 UJ rs i -j V),* >- g -dTz- LA >-; -j i Lucs.e1 65,68 10 11 Part of 12 13 —1 ir Lot 30 AIJA �c 9 3rd Md. Subj d. U, A - 3 LL, Z No. 314 (G-1 0) - --.,) 15,0 Arb cc 1-� f-36 4 A 45 th -7 7- EXISTING CONDITIONS - Minimum Setbacks for the Principal Structure: • North (front): 30' • South (rear): 30' • East (side): 5' • West (side street): 1' 30-60 101.22 2 w Q LOT �w .D Na - m\43 4 W 9 `9 • � N 2 -S -Fr. N 0 in Al o. -702c; N 334 N 1 ' • • UNI• I I 0t.24 101-24- J wood Fence Q O Q C U1 LOT 2 �Q IV t — -DID -J 0 O J . CP .� o �- IN 30. LN l O 1. ZS EXISTING CONDITIONS - Minimum Setbacks for the Principal Structure: • North (front): 30' • South (rear): 30' • East (side): 5' • West (side street): 1' �- Edge off' 51�o minous PROPOSED PLAT - Minimum Setbacks for Principal Structures: Lot 1 (7025 46th) Lot 2 (4550 Louisiana) • West (front): 30' • West (front): 30' • East (rear): 30' • East (rear): 30' • South (side): 5' • South (side): 5' • North (side street): 10' • North (side): 5' l -S- F ►Jo. _(01.2-2 All L'•OT �-�"v Q •I 9 LA A r N B-5.4- 3.4.! WIN.. IA r Atom" 0 s rWl *%am" Aft t C) �. • r ) z Q C E � Q `^ v �I •O T 2 o 2oA ._ a 9 Qom\' r , 20•o 0 V � /7l^,, . V n 1 _ 7 30. ___j0-0 O 1.25 PROPOSED PLAT - Minimum Setbacks for Principal Structures: Lot 1 (7025 46th) Lot 2 (4550 Louisiana) • West (front): 30' • West (front): 30' • East (rear): 30' • East (rear): 30' • South (side): 5' • South (side): 5' • North (side street): 10' • North (side): 5' l -S- F ►Jo. 2 0�' Bi�um�nouS 131. u 4.5 Problem with rear yard setback on Lot 1 (7025 46th) For this lot division to be approved, a variance from the rear yard setback would be needed. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 30' rear yard but the rear yard of Lot 1 (7025 46th) would be about 2.5' too short. Specifically: 101.22' deep lot — 38.3' front yard — 33.4' house — 2' bay window = 27.52' rear yard. Thus a variance would be needed to reduce the rear yard setback from 30' to 27'. Without this variance, the lot division cannot be approved. �• O 101.22 1 Mto 00 LLJZip\ 10- i Q LOT 30\0 1, L g I I.2q8.o _ fi LA4 rn O �I 2 -S -Fr. 334 Q QLn Q O T 2 0 20 .o — -D , \w N 9 � a J .LIN CP - I 30. 0' (o t. 2S 4.5 Problem with rear yard setback on Lot 1 (7025 46th) For this lot division to be approved, a variance from the rear yard setback would be needed. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 30' rear yard but the rear yard of Lot 1 (7025 46th) would be about 2.5' too short. Specifically: 101.22' deep lot — 38.3' front yard — 33.4' house — 2' bay window = 27.52' rear yard. Thus a variance would be needed to reduce the rear yard setback from 30' to 27'. Without this variance, the lot division cannot be approved. 1 I 10- i L �I 4.5 Problem with rear yard setback on Lot 1 (7025 46th) For this lot division to be approved, a variance from the rear yard setback would be needed. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 30' rear yard but the rear yard of Lot 1 (7025 46th) would be about 2.5' too short. Specifically: 101.22' deep lot — 38.3' front yard — 33.4' house — 2' bay window = 27.52' rear yard. Thus a variance would be needed to reduce the rear yard setback from 30' to 27'. Without this variance, the lot division cannot be approved. lncuic e H -11045 9 Q P. B. 378-1 •Y &-.ale 1" = 20' `t' � �- �✓'�-n cmc �. /�;�, Edge o(' 6,fOminous Owner 8 developer: Lorraine J. Bedman u 7025 46th Ave. N. - -" Crystal, Mn. 55428 I• 30. O (01.22 Phone: 533-4458 ` Prepared By; I Lot Surveys Company Inc. I 7601 73rd Ave. N. z ` \ Minneapolis, Mn. 55428 I Q0 lob(�l i lm i\ Phone: 560-3093 LJm � � . \ \tel\) CJ Q LOT I �� Ld Property Description: t \ The North 1/2 of Lot 29 "Auditors Subdivision Number 314, Hennepin T 112 a y�43 s County, Minnesota", according to m d 9R the recorded plat thereof. Area including road = 19,681 sq. N2-S-Fr.N a ►.1o. -Tot l ft. ( .45 Acres) 1 m I Llo. '702�i � Area Lot 1 = 9109 sq. ft. r 1 ��, - Area Lot 2 = 6075 sq. ft. 9 m QNJ f _/ Sanitary Sewer and water services H3 N / P Q for lot 2 are not now in place. - 101.24 i i � �= W� Fcr,ce • J r i �\ �n i Q ° 0 i ,r Bim= 0 Q O \w LOT 2 o LL, % a C-) ,V zo.o I `•� '504>0 011 l O 1. ZS \ 17, IN 2o.q j Ate00- � /Vo► � �..� «sem..-��t�. Fool TO: Planning Commission FROM: -Bill Monk, City Engineer DATE: November 4, 1987 RE: Bedman Addition Preliminary Plat The existing single family residence at 7025 - 46th Ave. N. occupies the north half of Lot 29, Auditor's Subdivision No. 314. The lot area, excluding right-of-way, measures 15,184 square feet with 101 feet of frontage along 46th Ave. and 150 feet along Louisiana Ave. The proposed splitting of the parcel to create a second building site is shown on the attached plat reduction. In considering this plat several items must be noted: - While Lot 2 meets the dimensional ordinance requirements, it is deficient in lot area with only 6,075 square feet; whereas the ordinance requires 7,500 square feet. Since the front yard is established by the short side frontage, the replat changes the Lot 1 front yard to Louisiana Avenue. This renders the existing house non- conforming with a deficient rear yard setback of less than 40 feet. The construction of a garage on Lot 1 will therefore require at least one variance as will any other type of work requiring a building permit in the future. The City has approved plats involving variances in the recent past, namely the Opsahl Addition and St. James 2nd Addition. As in those situations, the Commission must consider the consequences of the variance and non -conformity on the lots themselves as well as the impact on surrounding property. WM : j rs Encls 11/16/87 UPDATE On November 9 the Planning Commission recommended denial of the Bedman Addition preliminary plat. This action was based on concerns over the deficient area of Lot 2 at 6,075 square feet and the anticipated difficulties involved with variances for Lot 1 given its non -conforming status and the location of the existing structure. F^2 CIT�CRYSTAL 4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, MN 55422-1696.537-8421 iLw- ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE. December 30, 1987 Mrs. Lorraine Bedman 7025 - 46th Avenue North Crystal, MN 55428 Dear Mrs. Bedman: In an attempt to dispel the confusion and frustration associated with the City Council's action to deny the Bedman Addition preliminary plat, the following restatement of the City's position appears in order: Although Lot 2 meets the dimensional minimums required in Section 515.15, Subd. 2, of City Code, the lot is deficient in lot area with only 6,075 square feet. In checking our records, the current ordinance requirement for a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet was adopted as a part of Code modifications Completed in 1964. Regardless of the ordinance date, the current standards apply to your request. - As the plat is proposed, Lot 1 is rendered a non- conforming lot with a deficient rear yard setback of less than the required 40 feet. Creation of such a non -conformity is contrary to the intent of Section 515.05 of City Code which restricts and attempts to eliminate non -conforming buildings, structures and uses. - Crystal acquired a 30 -foot wide street easement for 46th Avenue abutting your property in 1938. This easement was later dedicated as public right-of-way in 1942 as a part of the plat of Auditor's Subdivision No. 314. A 30 -foot wide street easement for Louisiana Avenue was granted to Crystal in 1957. It is this easement area that the City requires be dedicated for right-of-way purposes as your property is platted. The 30 -foot width is a long-standing City-wide standard for half a right-of-way section. As right-of-way, this area is not included in calculations of the area of abutting lots. Mrs. Lorraine Bedman December 30, 1987 Page 2 - In considering your proposed subdivision, the City Council reviewed the proposed plat as submitted. Should you wish to move the lot line between lots 1 and 2 as mentioned at the meeting, a new application should be submitted for Planning Commission and City Council review and would include another public hearing. This is the only way the plat will be formally placed on an upcoming agenda. As we discussed briefly in a recent phone conversation, almost all Council items are presented by means of an introductory staff report. This report is intended as an objective presentation of the application being considered and how it relates to City Code and past policy. The staff presentation is not a vehicle to promote the applicant's views nor.those of area property owners. Individual comments and arguments are heard following the staff presentation. Should you have questions concerning the items mentioned above or wish to submit a modified plat document for consideration, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, William Monk City Engineer WM : j r s cc: Jerry Dulgar March 28, 1988 Few 3 4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, MN 55422-1696 •537-8421 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Mrs. Lorraine Bedman 7025 - 46th Avenue North Crystal, MN 55428 Dear Mrs. Bedman: On December 1, 198;, the City Council acted to deny your subdivision request based on the lot area variance and non- conforming structure issues inherent in the preliminary plat proposal. Said denial completed action on your subdivision request unless the Council as a whole acts to reconsider. As you have called several times seeking to have the plat item put on the Planning and Council agendas, I have en- closed a copy of the standard form required to initiate the review process. This office is not in a position to seek further consideration of your lot division without submittal of a new application. Should you instead decide to pursue your claims of discrimi- nation by this office or members of the City Council in con- sidering your plat request, I can only suggest you seek the advice of legal counsel. The City believes its actions have been proper and unbiased. Sincerely, William Monk City Engineer WM : j rs Encl r) A'01/. /4 PREL BED /-\ V r_.r:- N. Invoice F.B. 378 Scale I" Edge oc Bituminous Owner Lorraine -P 7025 46t Crystal, I zo F Phone, 5 >0 Prepared Lot Sury 7601 73r Minneapo Phone: 5 1101 Property lJ The Nort Subdivi,s County, I (TLtJ the reco Area inc U0. -to( I ft.; ( .4' Area Lot r\) Sanitary > < LOT ID 6. 1, 7, 4 919 99 N-� 0 J1. 0 N !Z.3 35-4- 01-24- wood Fa.nc¢ Q7�'\V LOT 2 to 0 0' U) 0 Q 0 CP 011-PQ7 N 1 3 >0 1010 to k. ZS I zo F Phone, 5 Prepared Lot Sury 7601 73r Minneapo Phone: 5 1101 Property lJ The Nort Subdivi,s I zo F 0' Phone, 5 Prepared Lot Sury 7601 73r Minneapo Phone: 5 LJ Property The Nort Subdivi,s County, I the reco Area inc U0. -to( I ft.; ( .4' Area Lot Area.Lot Sanitary for lot 0' G-1 DATE: February 27, 1989 TO: Jerry Dulgar, City Manager FROM: Bill Monk, City Engineer SUBJECT: Bedman Addition Preliminary Plat The preliminary plat for the Bedman Addition has been resubmitted for Council consideration. The common lot line between Lots 1 and 2 has been shifted northward 7 feet which increases the lot size of Lot 2 to 6,770 square feet. On February 13 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the modified plat on a vote of 5 to 4. To assist in review of this subdivision request, the staff report for the original plat proposal, which was denied by the City Council in December of 1987, is attached. Also attached is a follow-up letter to the applicant which more fully described a number of aspects of the proposal. This data is followed by a reduction of the revised plat and a copy of a petition recently submitted by the applicant. Although questioned in the attached petition, the plat under consideration involves a variance to lot size requirements. Lot 2 does not meet the provisions of Section 515.15, Subd. 2 of City Code which requires 7,500 square feet of area. As noted in the attachments, this lot size requirement has been in effect for 25 years. s= Encls RESOLUTION NO. 89- 14 RESOLUTION DENYING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PLAT FOR BEDMAN ADDITION. BE IT RESOLVED, By the City Council of the City of Crystal, Minnesota, as follows: I. Mrs. Lorraine Bedman, as owner and developer of prop- erty located at 7025 - 46th Avenue North in the City, has applied to this Council for preliminary approval of a re -plat of the property into two lots. 2. The application was reviewed by the Planning Commission and this Council after notice and public hearing as required by law. 3. This Council' has considered all of the testimony relating to the application, the deliberations of the Planning Commission, petitions of various property owners, and the staff reports of the City Engineer. 4. Based on the testimony and other information presented to this Council with regard to the application, it is found and determined: (a) The approval of the plat would result in the creation of a lot not meeting the minimum lot area requirements of the Zoning Code; (b) the approval of the proposed plat would render the existing structure on the property non -conforming because of inadequate rear yard set -back; (c) the non -conforming nature of the lots and uses created by the proposed plat would require numerous variances from the Zoning Code in the event of future improvement or construction; (d) applicant has not presented any evidence of any undue economic hardship on the land involved justifying the requested variance form the City's zoning and subdivi- sion regulations; and (e) the proposed subdivision would be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code to restrict and eliminate non -conforming uses and structures in the City. C-2. (CONT-) 5. For the reasons stated above, the application for subdivision of land by Ms. Bedman is denied. Dated: a 1989. Mayor Attest: City Clerk OO11REO3.F16 Cl March 18, 2002 City of Crystal 4141 Douglas Dr N Crystal MN 55.422 voice: 763-531-1000 facsimile: 763-531-1188 internet: www.ci.crystal.mn.us Lorraine J. Bedman 702546 th Ave N Crystal MN 55428 Subject: APPLICATION INCOMPLETE: Plat of Bedman Addition, a division of an existing lot atr 7025 46th Avenue North (P.I.D. 08-118-21-43-0072) into two lots. Dear Ms. Bedman: We have received the application described above. Unfortunately, your application is incomplete. We cannot consider your application until at a minimum the following items are submitted: 1. You need to specify which variances(s) you are requesting. I assume based on the Preliminary Plat that you are requesting a variance from the minimum lot area requirement, to reduce it from 7,500 sq. ft. to 7,037 sq. ft. You may also be requesting other variances but I am not aware of them. In any event, we cannot consider your application by making assumptions about what you are requesting. 2. You need to submit a Statement of Undue Hardship explaining how any variance(s) you are requesting meet the criteria in Section 515.56 of Crystal City Code (see enclosed sheet). 3. You need to submit a drawing showing exactly where the garage would be moved to or, if it would not be moved, how it would be reconfigured on the second lot to accommodate construction of a new house. Distances to lot lines, the principal structure, etc. will need to be shown. Normally this is required to be shown on the Preliminary Plat but in this case we will accept it if you hand draw this information onto a copy of the Preliminary Plat. However, it must be clearly drawn to scale (straight lines, accurate dimensions, etc.). 4. You need to submit an 8Y2" x 11" or 11" x 17" reduction of the Preliminary Plat*; this also applies to any drawings made on a copy of the Preliminary Plat (such as the one mentioned in #3 above). *Note: Due to the fact that the Preliminary Plat you have submitted (dated Oct. 27, 1987) is over 14 years old, if your application is approved you will be required to have a Registered �` Land Surveyor do a new Preliminary Plat and submit it along with the Final Plat. h%lar Because your application is incomplete, and due to the lead times necessary to advertised e Iequiredv public hearing, the Planning Commission cannot consider the application at its April 81 2002 meet ng In order for the Planning Commission to consider the application at the following meeting on Ma X13; 2002, you will need to submit the four items listed on the previous page no later than April 02,r IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING MINNESOTA STATUTES 15.99: State law requires that an application be approved if a decision is not made within 60 days of all required items being submitted. You have not submitted all required items. For this reason, the 60 -day decision making period has not yet begun and, in accordance with the law, it will not begin until you submit all required items. This letter serves as the required notice to you in accordance with M.S. 15.99 Subd. 3. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 763-531-1142. Regards, John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator enclosure H-1 April 4, 2002 Mr. John Sutter City of Crystal 4141 Douglas Dr. N. Crystal, MN. 55422 Dear Mr. Sutter: When I came t -Q the City Hall to pick up the materials needed for a variance and sub -division of the property Mr. Patrick Peters gave.me the materials I needed to complete the process and he explained the deadline it was due. I distinctly told Mr. Peters the variance was for the differ- ence between the required 7500 sq. ft. and the lot size on the survey of 7037 sq. ft. Mr. Peters Xeroxed the plat survey with all of the necessary information listed thereon. I rechecked 1, 2, 5., 6, and 8 and determined these were answered on the lot survey and the attachment that I included when I paid the $500.00 fee on March 15, Since I indicated this lot would be sold and it would be up to the buyer to furn- ish the necessary information on the plan to build. I also rechecked Subd. 5 i, ii, iii, and felt this did not apply to this circumstance"," I applied for a permit approximately 15 years ago, rather the contractor that I had obtained to 'do the work was told I had to have my garage back 75 sq. feet and,therefore,I didn't move it as I didn't think the expense involved would shorten my driveway enough, the burden of shoveling snow in the winter, to justify the expense involved. I feel I was singled out be- cause many of my neighbors do not have this restriction. I had plenty of room to relocate this garage. I noted that you did not publish this subdivision request in the papers the past two weeks, so therefore I am wondering why. Yours ruly, Lor aine J. dman cc: Patrick Peters C] April 8, 2002 Lorraine J. Bedman 7025 46th Ave N Crystal MN 55428 City of Crystal 4141 Douglas Dr N Crystal MN 55422 voice: 763-531-1000 facsimile: 763-531-1188 internet: www.ci.crystal.mn.us H -z Subject: APPLICATION INCOMPLETE: Plat of Bedman Addition, a division of an existing lot at 702546 th Avenue North (P.I.D. 08-118-21-43-0072) into two lots. Dear Ms. Bedman: I am in receipt of your letter dated April 4, 2002. You appear to raise two basic issues in this letter: • The application for variance and subdivision is not on the agenda for the April 8, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. • In the past, the Zoning Ordinance required a 75' minimum setback for detached garages. Also, in a phone conversation with Patrick Peters prior to your April 4, 2002 letter, you raised the following issue: • After someone has submitted an incomplete application, how could they withdraw the application and receive a refund of the application fee? I will address each of these one -at -a -time for clarity: 1. The application for variance and subdivision is not on the agenda for the April 8, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. Your application is not being considered by the Planning Commission because it is incomplete. Please refer to my March 18, 2002 letter for an explanation of the reasons your application is incomplete. 0; While you may have told Patrick Peters what the variance was for, we cannot accept your verbal statement in lieu of the written statement that is required by the application. You need to submit a request in writing, including the specific nature of the request, as explained in both the application instructions and my March 18, 2002 letter. y{ Ms. Lorraine J. Bedman CO �T� April 8, 2002 - page 2 - While you may feel that 515.56 Subd. 5 does not apply to your request, for a variance to be granted you need to show that your situation represents an undue hardship that is consistent with all three of the criteria listed in that section of City Code. This also was explained in both the application instructions and my March 18, 2002 letter. 2. Requirements in the past regarding a 75' minimum setback for the existing detached garage. This requirement was removed from the Zoning Ordinance in late 1998. Detached garages are now generally permitted in the rear yard as long as they are not within 3' of the property line. (Detached garages are still prohibited in the front yard, however.) For these reasons, I do not believe the 75 foot setback" is still an issue. 3. The process for withdrawing the application and receiving a refund of the application fees. It is my understanding that, in previous conversations with Mr. Peters, you have expressed an interest in possibly withdrawing your application and receiving a refund of your application fee. To do so, you need to submit a written statement saying that you are withdrawing your application. We would then issue a refund for the application fees you paid. The current status of your application is the same as it was described in my March 18, 2002 letter: It is incomplete and for this reason we will not schedule the public hearing until all required items are submitted. Also, in accordance with M.S. 15.99, the 60 -day decision period does not begin until all required items have been submitted, and we notified you in my March 18, 2002 letter what those missing required items are. Unless you withdraw you application as described in item #3 above, we will continue to wait for you to submit the required items. If you do withdraw your application as described in item #3 above, you may of course re -apply once you are ready to submit all of the required items. Regards, John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator Chairperson City Council City Of Crystal 4100 Douglas Drive North Crystal, MN 55422-1696 Dear Chairperson: �1 vK7C6t. r--,�l L-�f-1VILc.� C1`hl lVjq�J�� May 1, 2002 C�e)yl,PYL v I applied for a Variance and Plat/subdivision with the City_of Crystal on March 15, 2002. I enclosed a short paragraph attachment as well as a check for $500.00. H•3 - I had an updated survey which had been done by a survey company showing the lot lines and all existing buildings and also the size of Lot 1 and Lot 2. Because you require 7500 sq. ft.,and the Lott 2 was 7037 sq. ft, I needed the varienceato subdivide the property. This survey complied with items 1 and 2 on your sheet. I also stated that since this property will be sold I would not be able to provide future buildings on this lot, since.that would be up to the new owners. The existing garage would be moved forward or sold to the new lot owner and a new garage would be erected. I have lived at this address for 42 years, since 1960. The hardship would be that the existing lot and (frlveway require a lot of upkeep for an older person. I had a contractor lined up in 1987,to move my garage up and I was denied the permit. I have plenty of ;doom there. I brought this to Mr. Sutter's attention and he said this was changed in 1998. I was told I had to have my garage back 75 ft. This is not accurate as my neighbors have had thoir garages about 25-30 ft.,and this has been since the 1970"s for both attached and detached garages. I feel I have been denied by rights. I gave the City of Crystal a $500.00 check to cover the cost of the variance and subdivision, which they cashed on March 19, and have not processed.my application. It has not b• een in the newspaper and they keep telling me my application is not complete. I feel this is just an excuse not to process it and to deny me my rights. I have been consistently denied my rights and have been harrassed. The house next door is on the line 'as they put on an addition. The city has not done anythings about this. The house was sold about a year ago and this house should have been moved or destroyed and the city did not do anything about this. The City of Crystal has all these Rules and Regulations, however they are not enforc- ing them in certain cases. The ones that are in compliance are the oomess to suffer, which is a double standard. I would appreciate your immediate attention to this matter.. Yours truly, Lo raine J. Bedman 7025 -46th Avenue North Crystal, MN. 55428 CI May 8, 2002 Ms. Lorraine Bedman 7025-46 th Avenue North Crystal, MN 55428 Dear Ms. Bedman: 4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, MN 55422-1696 This letter is in response to your May 1 letter to the Crystal City Council regarding your variance and plat/subdivision application. I know our Planner, John Sutter, has been communicating with you about what information is still needed from you in order for your application to be complete and processed. Attached are the letters sent by John Sutter to you regarding the requirements for complete variance and subdivision applications. To restate, you need to provide the following: 1. A clear statement of the variance you are requesting (i.e., variance to the 7,500 square foot minimum lot size); 2. A statement of the undue hardship which should be considered in your application for variance. Please keep in mind the Planning Commission and City Council must consider variances with the following tests in mind: a) the property cannot be put to a reasonable use if the provisions of the zoning code are applied; b) your situation is due to circumstances unique to your property not created by you; and c) the variance will not alter the character of the area. Economic considerations alone are not considered an undue hardship if a reasonable use for the property exists.; 3. A drawing showing exactly where the garage would be moved to, or if it is not to be moved, how it would be reconfigured on the second lot to accommodate construction of a new house. This drawing needs to be drawn to scale so it is clear where the house will be located with respect to lot lines, etc.; and 4. An 8-1/2" x 11" or 11" x 17" copy of the preliminary plat of the proposed subdivision. Once this information is received, we will start processing the applications, including scheduling a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission. H-4 July 26, 2002 Mr. John Sutter City of Crystal 4141 Douglas Drive N. Crystal, MN. 55422-1696 Dear Mr. Sutter: Q2Wel" 0 "7 2-q 1 2002 , 1� Re: Plat of Bedman Addition, 7025 -46th Ave. N. P.I.D. 08-118-21-43-0072) into two lots. I will again try to complete this application and try to answer your questions that you state in your March 18,2002, correspond- ence. 1. The variance request is for consideration of 7,037 sq. ft. instead of the regular 7500 sq. ft. required and garage - moved or new. 2. Subd. 5. variance hardship i. needs to be considered to comply with minimum square foot requirement, ii the plight would be not to alter the lot line regulations of not adhering to the 3 ft. lot line. iii, the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality, as everything would remain intact. 3. The garage if sold would remain in the exact spot, which is 8.5 feet from the lot line. You have a copy of the survey in your office, which I presented to Mr. Peters when I applied for the application. You may refer to this at any time. This survey was done by a professional survey company and I felt this was sufficient for your information. 4. I am enclosing an 82 x 11 copy of the preliminary plat. Should the garage need to be moved it would be moved to the front of the house to keep it in compliance with the backyard square footage. This would then be the back yard - facing 46th Avenue and the front yard would be facing Louisiana Ave. The garage would be moved and attached to the house or a new garage would be built that would be attached to the house. There is another house on the south end of the block that has an attached garage facing Louisiana Ave. I have contacted a Realtor about this lot, so I would appreciate your attention as soon as possible. Yours trul Lorraine J. Bedman ENC. J2 Cl July 30, 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 H 6010 Lorraine J. Bedman 7025 46th Ave N Crystal MN 55428 Subject: APPLICATION COMPLETE: Plat of Bedman Addition, a division of an existing lot at 702546 th Avenue North (P.I.D. 08-118-21-43-0072) into two lots. Dear Ms. Bedman: I am in receipt of your letter dated July 26, 2002, which appears to include the specific variance request and the required statement of undue hardship. Your application has therefore been scheduled for a public hearing at the next available Planning Commission meeting on September 9th We will publish the notice of public hearing on August 28th. We will also mail it to all property owners within 350' of the subject property at that time. At the public hearing on September 9th, the Planning Commission will consider your application and any comments from the public. It is strongly recommended that you or a representative attend the meeting and be prepared to answer questions about your application. At the September 9th meeting, the Planning Commission will likely vote to recommend approval or denial of your application. The City Council would then'consider your application at its meeting on September 17tH In order to help you prepare for the public hearing, I am providing you with the following comments and concerns of staff based on the materials you have submitted thus far: We feel the variance request to reduce Lot 2's lot area requirement from 7,500 to 7,037 sq. ft. is not supported by a strong hardship argument. There are other large single family lots in Crystal that cannot be divided due to the position of an existing house. Obviously, you have a different opinion on this matter, and you will need to make your case to the Planning Commission. As with any variance, you will need to convince them that your variance request meets the three hardship tests described in Crystal City Code, Section 515.56 Subd. 5 ("Enclosure A"). 2. In addition to the lot area variance needed for Lot 2 (see #1 above), your request must also include a variance from the rear yard setback requirement on Lot 1. This is because the east lot line will become the rear lot line, the minimum rear yard setback is 30', and the existing house is less than 30' from the east lot line. This is illustrated on the enclosed drawing ("Enclosure D"). Your application does not mention this variance but since it is necessary for the plat to be approved I am going to assume that you are also requesting this variance unless you tell me otherwise by 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday August 21St As with #1 above, we do not feel there is a strong hardship argument for this variance. Lorraine J. Bedman July 30, 2002 - page 2 - 3. For the existing garage, it appears that you have not yet determined whether it will be relocated elsewhere on the site or simply removed. We know that it cannot be left in its present location for the new house on Lot 2 because, once a driveway from the garage to Louisiana is installed, Lot 2 would be way over the 30% maximum rear yard coverage limit. For these reasons, we will proceed under the assumption that the existing garage will be removed from the property if the plat is approved If you decide to relocate the existing garage elsewhere on the site, you will need to submit a building permit application at that time. We have looked at a couple of scenarios for relocating the garage elsewhere on the site: You could potentially relocate the existing garage from Lot 2 to Lot 1. Your sketch ("Enclosure E") shows a scenario with the garage moved to the north side of the existing house. While this would comply with all setback requirements, there might be problems with the driveway slope down to Louisiana Avenue. There would also be building and fire code issues with having the garage so close to the house. Another scenario for the garage is to relocate it just northeast of the existing house (see "Enclosure F"). It could use the same driveway, although it might need to be resurfaced and you might want to widen it to accommodate two cars. You might also want to add an optional auxiliary parking space that can also serve as a turn -around space. The only building and fire code issue I can foresee is the proximity of the southwest corner of the garage to the northeast corner of the house. The main issue with this scenario is that it would require a variance from the 30% maximum rear yard coverage. If you feel this scenario represents the most likely re -use of the existing garage, then you should probably add this to your current application so you don't have to apply for it later. Staff opinion is that if the other variances are granted, then this variance would need to be granted as well because it is necessary for providing the required off-street parking in the rear yard. If you wish to add this variance request to your application I will need you to communicate this to me in writing no later than 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday August 21St In accordance with Minnesota Statutes 15.99, the 60 day decision period began on July 26th (when you submitted a complete application) and will end on September 24th (60 days after July 26th). If the City Council does not make a decision on September 17th, the city may need to further extend the decision period. In no event may the city extend the decision period beyond November 22nd (120 days after July 26th) Feel free to contact me at 763-531-1142 with questions Regards, Jon Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator enclosures HI -7 August 20, 2002 Mr. John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coord. City of Crystal 4141:Douglas Dr. N. Crystal, MN 55422 Dear Mr. Sutter Re: Plat of Bedman Addition, 7025 -46th Ave. N. 1. The variance request for the new lot from -the 7,500 to 7,037 as stated by you is not a strong hardship argument. However, there have been exceptions and inconsistencies in the past for subdividing property. One example was St. James Addition in 1989 plus others. Subd. 11 Variances : Corner Lots Special Rule deals with non—conforming of existing structures (see copy attached). The specifics were given to you (i) that the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use ... as it could not be subdivided; (ii) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. This property was bought in 1960 when the lot size requirements were 60 X 100 (iii) the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. When platted and built on,this would be bene— ficial to the City in extra taxes and would not alter the lot. 2. The rear lot setback for hdt #1, which includes the house) would have to be viewed with Subd. 11:, Variances: Corner Lots: Special Rule, 3. The existing garage if left could be turned around and a new driveway from Louisiana Ave.,would be put in existance for the new home. The garage could be left as is and only be used for storage. There would only be one driveway per lot. You stated and also drew a diagram in on the survey the potential location that would be acceptable on Lot 1, so I am presuming this is acceptable with the City of Crystal. I ars also including a copy of one bid for building a new garage on lot #1, if lot No. 2 is sold with the garage. Yours-, truly x Lorraine J. /edmYan Enc. 2 CC: Patrick Peters. Anne Nnrric August 26, 2002 Mr. John Sutter City of Crystal 4141 Douglas Drive N. Crystal, MN. 55422-1696 Dear Mr. Sutter: Re: Plat of Bedman Addition, 7025 -46th Ave, No, P.I.D. 08-118-21-43-0072 I Received Letter re Application 2002-16 for subdivision of a lot. I noted (3) on you description of request is innacurate. The year lot setback is only .5. My lot size is 101.22 less the 38.3 on the Louisiana Ave side minus 33.4 for the house would make the rear lot 29.52 so this is less than 5 inches (4;8") to be exact. I also had another diagram of moving the garage to the North side (46th) Avenue which would make this the rear yard of 38.8 ft. and the Louisiana Ave. side the front. I believe neither one of these would need a variance of any kind. Since the City of Crystal never approved the 7500 sq. ft lot dimension,I don't think I need any variances and therefore should be able to subdivide the 16t. Please check your dimensions again. I gave you a copy of the survey and the dimensions of the lot. I als6 called you on Fri., Aug.24, and told you about the error. I had the receptionist,f;'ye you a - note. Yours ruly, S Lorraine Bedman P.S. I would appreciate your sending out an amended letter immediately. CC: Patrick PUL ers, Anne Norris C August 28, 2002 HW9 City of Crystal 4141 Douglas Dr N Crystal MN 55422 voice: 763-531-1000 facsimile: 763-531-1188 internet: www.ci.cUstal.mn us Lorraine J. Bedman 7025 46" Ave N Crystal MN 55428 Subject: APPLICATION 2002-16: Plat of Bedman Addition, a division of an existing lot at 7025 46th Avenue North (P.I.D. 08-118-21-43-0072) into two lots. Dear Ms. Bedman: We have reviewed your verbal message dated August 23, 2002 and your letter dated August 26, 2002. ❑ In regards to your assertion that there were errors of fact in my July 30, 2002 letter, we believe there are no such errors in the letter and we stand by the information contained therein. o In regards to your assertion that no variance is needed to subdivide the lot, we believe that this assertion is incorrect but you are free to express your opinion to the Planning Commission and City Council We will prepare our staff report in accordance with the information contained in my letter dated July 30, 2002. Copies of all correspondence will be attached to the staff report. Regards, Jol�j Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator INVOICE NO. LOT SURVEYS COMPANY INC. F. B. NO. ! SCALE I"' 20' LAND SURVEYORS 0— DENOTES IRON REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 - 73rd Avenue North 560.3093 J Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 Oururgara Teriifuate GO PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BEDMAN ADDITION `t6 T iJ Invoice # 21045 94 F. B. 378-1 Scale I" = 20' Edge of BJ jrn-nouS Owner 8 developer: Lorraine J. Bedman a 7025 46th Ave. N. � ..------- ---- - --- --...- _---...— _ o° Crystal, Mn. 55428 r r� 30. O 30 ' I i I I j z 7601 73rd Ave. N. Minneapolis, C� i Mn. 55428 Phone: 560-3093 I LJ LJ Property Description: LJ t; The North 1/2 of Lot 29 "Auditors Lj Subdivision Number 314, Hennepin t County, Minnesota", according to 1 the recorded plat thereof. I 1 e Sion¢ TV V j Q ft. (.45 Acres) j LOT Area Lot 1 =8148 sq. ft. V r r� 30. O {01.22 j z 7601 73rd Ave. N. Minneapolis, i Mn. 55428 Phone: 560-3093 LJ LJ Property Description: t; The North 1/2 of Lot 29 "Auditors Lj Subdivision Number 314, Hennepin {{qqs County, Minnesota", according to the recorded plat thereof. I 1 e Sion¢ Area including road = 19,681 sq. j Q ft. (.45 Acres) j LOT Area Lot 1 =8148 sq. ft. Area Lot 2 =703'7 sq. ft. i J) Sanitary Sewer and water services Qfor lot 2 are not now in place. d' jWZ It.z qe.o Q m\4 a q q N 2-S Fr. N 0 m Alo. -lo2S `; 33.4 N N� 101-24- 01.24wend W—,dF¢nc¢ Q0 1 C _ aNt Q y� Q LOT 2 o 28 0 \�v IL Q Y V� ej LA 20.0 O Q 9 IN C'0 30. >0 l0l.2S 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 vis- ible encroachments, it any, from or on said land. Surveyed by us this 29th day of Dk tober 19 87 aevtlapeO f�f8. 13, 19en �vN , 1-0 �N :2 <� J �V M Phone: 533-4458 Prepared By; i l Signed f . Raymond A. Prasch, Minn. Reg. No. 6743 Lot Surveys Company Inc. j 7601 73rd Ave. N. Minneapolis, i Mn. 55428 Phone: 560-3093 LJ LJ Property Description: t; The North 1/2 of Lot 29 "Auditors Subdivision Number 314, Hennepin {{qqs County, Minnesota", according to the recorded plat thereof. I 1 e Sion¢ Area including road = 19,681 sq. j 1..10.-(011 ft. (.45 Acres) j Area Lot 1 =8148 sq. ft. Area Lot 2 =703'7 sq. ft. i Sanitary Sewer and water services Qfor lot 2 are not now in place. i l Signed f . Raymond A. Prasch, Minn. Reg. No. 6743 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: September 5, 2002 TO: Planning Commission (September 9th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider Application 2002-17 for a Variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback to allow an addition to an existing single family house at 6922 42nd Avenue North. A. BACKGROUND The subject property is a corner lot abutting Kentucky Avenue and 42nd Avenue. Its dimensions are 110.05' along Kentucky and 139.47' along 46th. Lot area is 15,343 sq. ft. (0.35 acres). The property is guided Low Density Residential and zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. _ An existing older house is located near the northwest corner of the property. There is also a detached four car garage near the northeast corner of the property. The driveway extends south from the garage to 42nd Avenue. The property is currently in compliance with all setback requirements except for the front yard. The existing house encroaches 21' into the 30' minimum required front yard. The property owner, William and Janay Wulff, wish to build a 6' addition onto the north side of the house. They also plan in the future to remove the existing roof and add a full second story to the house. Both construction projects would increase the non- conformity of the existing house and therefore a variance from the front yard setback would be required. Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property and published in the Sun Post on August 28tH The following exhibits are attached: A. plat map showing the subject property; B. site drawing submitted by the applicant; C. site drawing with property and setback lines highlighted by staff; D. narrative and statement of undue hardship submitted by the applicant; E. photographs submitted by the applicant; F. plans submitted by the applicant for the main floor addition; and G. staff notes on plans showing approximate location of property and setback lines. i B. STAFF COMMENTS. 1. Overview. The existing house was built in 1936. The site was platted in 1958. In addition to the lot occupied by the existing house at 6922 42nd, this plat included the eight single family lots to the north. It appears that the location of the existing house is the reason for the slight westward curve of Kentucky Avenue. However, even with this adjustment to the street alignment, the existing house encroaches 21 feet into the required setback. lA 3. The requested variance would reduce the front yard setback from 30' to 9' to the extent necessary to allow (1) a 6' addition on the north side of the house and (2) removal of the existing roof and construction of a full second story. Setback requirements. SETBACK ACTUAL, IF MINIMUM EXCESS OR DESCRIPTION APPROVED REQUIRED (DEFICIENCY) Front Yard (west) 9' 30' (21') Rear Yard (east) 96' 30' 66' Side Yard (south) 55' 15' 40' Side yard (north) 10' 5' 5' General comments. The main issue in this case is whether reasonable use of the property includes the right to upgrade the existing house in ways that further increase the nonconformity of the house and the permanency of the nonconformity. While it is a general principal of the Zoning Ordinance that non -conforming buildings will go away someday, variances may be granted where this principal creates an undue hardship. Staff opinion is that there are strong arguments both for and against a variance in this case. For this reason, we have prepared suggested findings of fact for both approval and denial. We lean towards approval because the city imposed the hardship on the existing structure when the site was platted in 1958. While it is true that the city's plat approval was made at the request of the property owner at that time, the city chose not to require the existing house to be removed as part of the platting. By approving the plat but allowing the existing house to remain, it appears that the city intended for the house to remain for a significant amount of time. VARIANCE - 6922 42ND 2 C. SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 1. For approval: The Zoning Ordinance has a three-part test for determining whether a variance can be granted. A finding of undue hardship requires that all three criteria be met. The three-part test is as follows: (a) "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by this Zoning Code." Reasonable use of the property is for single family residential purposes. There are no other uses that would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. (b) "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner." The plight was created when the surrounding area was platted in 1958. The city had an opportunity to require removal of the existing house but it instead chose to create a nonconformity by allowing it to remain. The plat was adjusted to the extent practicable, but even with those adjustments it was not possible to avoid making the existing house nonconforming. This is a unique situation created when a house originally built in on a semi -rural parcel was overtaken by platted development. (c) "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. " The degree of encroachment would not be increased if the request were approved. Such approval shall be subject to the following conditions: ❑ The variance does not apply to the entire front yard setback. It only applies to the portions of the required front yard currently occupied by the existing house plus an additional 6' to the north. The setback shall remain as required in the ordinance for the remainder of the front yard. ❑ To accommodate the possibility that Hennepin County may make improvements to the 42nd Avenue (CSAR 9) corridor, the property owner shall grant an easement for trail and sidewalk purposes over the south seven feet of the property within 30 days of approval of the variance. ❑ The city will not issue any more building permits on the property until the four open permits issued 1995, 1996, 1998 and 1999 receive their final inspection and approval by the Building Inspector. 2. For denial: The Zoning Ordinance has a three-part test for determining whether a variance can be granted. A finding of undue hardship requires that all three criteria be met. VARIANCE - 6922 42ND Strict application of the minimum front yard setback in this particular case would not constitute an undue hardship because it fails to meet any of the three required criteria (Crystal City Code 515.56 Subd. 5). Specifically: ❑ The property in question can be put to a reasonable use if used as required by this Zoning Code. If the variance is not granted, the property owner still retains reasonable use of the property. The existing house may be maintained in its present form without a variance. The property owner has the option of maintaining the house in its present form; the desire to have a larger house does not require the city to grant a variance. ❑ The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property. The plight is created by the property owner. The owner purchased the property in 1988 and should have been aware that they were buying a nonconforming structure that could not be expanded. The plight results from the property owner's desire to further expand a nonconforming structure into the required setback. ❑ The variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the locality. The area and volume of the encroachment into the front yard setback would both increase if the requested variance is granted. The other homes to the north comply with the front yard setback. D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Application 2002-17 for a Variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback to allow an addition to an existing single family house at 692242 nd Avenue North. The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation on the request for City Council consideration. The City Council would consider the recommendation at its next regular meeting on September 17tH VARIANCE - 6922 42ND 4 I ---a \ �o d� ' W J °p iyr% o � 5cr Z N1 E C'+, , CITY OF CRYSTAL. � 0 LL o � 6 °O T� 0 9 7G.1T4 74 7410 + ^ tl I i13 V 9 �.� 43 rd AVE. - N. r uj 30�/v 2 j,Ib3.02 3 N A%' -No.) °r to •�. Tom. j A 17 Toe [j13� t 6 v 47 1 8 ' c 10 b 11 V 200 . v i� 3e 150 30 je I ° 2 r 3 ul r a 'z o 4 00 s�5 5f' 15n N 6 x, .. foe s . w.�s'.tw }g 4 r•�5 41st I pe T ISS 3 s IS).S 8 9 GtRA40 T. caYNI LOT SURVEYS COMPANY X69)7 Ja�HO� E. N.x 300'BRUNSWICK AVE, S. GOLOEN VALLEY, MINN. LAND SURVEYORS SAOOKLYN PARK, MINN. RZOIETEI+SD WDIM "Will OT !STATE Or J[iXNZAOTA I.i0ENSED NY OSDINANCE OF CITY OP LQ"E"OLrm 6917 Idaho Ave. N. 5339922 13— "Minneapolis 27, Minnesota INDUSTRI#M. • 1tSOtC1&L, COMBINING MORE THAN 30 YEARS OF ur COMMERCIAL - TOPOGRAPHICAL btporg Ctrti f irate LAND SURVEYING EXPERIENCE IN THE CITY LOTS - PLATTtNG Fav • + METROPOLITAN ARF Mr. 3• T. Heflin Inuoicc i, -13Z C9 r + 0 cer -I_ y that t^Is ? a :z -ie r �Ounv-a r i E s C= ',`ie � r� i :L: _ .'.moi • v � 3 y � ': «' T IJ f, -•� l:._',t3�1 .i a✓.U��'itJ T+ 3;1c: `::1✓ 1JCa ll"'_,f _^. n,:1 V:i {{ ti', encs '3+a.ci�i;E�n : , f tt a�'.nJ1 , fro,, � or o:�ga-' i la:,. t r`•] '3f ili�JLI'�1.,..i �i1} l:j...• Signed LrJi Swt1vmYS t.O L2PA�.Y r-doop"r � � 27''6" :t�� `�` �, �C•--�.•••..�� "�� :. �� .._ { �_ � qI .R all' 79 �• 1 cer -I_ y that t^Is ? a :z -ie r �Ounv-a r i E s C= ',`ie � r� i :L: _ .'.moi • v � 3 y � ': «' T IJ f, -•� l:._',t3�1 .i a✓.U��'itJ T+ 3;1c: `::1✓ 1JCa ll"'_,f _^. n,:1 V:i {{ ti', encs '3+a.ci�i;E�n : , f tt a�'.nJ1 , fro,, � or o:�ga-' i la:,. t r`•] '3f ili�JLI'�1.,..i �i1} l:j...• Signed LrJi Swt1vmYS t.O L2PA�.Y r-doop"r f A" of PR-oPo5ED MAW A�D1Tto 1`t , jmw — t4Nis N U 10,Y— TO ,Y - To -Re Z-all me- ORD, AMMI! 3 . ��/\� . � � \ ?fes ?.»/f d§\% ,<.ƒ� » <; �«�¥�\� � . % !� \� - »� a! �\\/� \� � . §�- �\�� . , _ � ƒ�� \\��/�� \� ± � » © � ��«l�� ,� +� �� %� - //�� \\ a� y� ae \ I- N s OF 3 L.L 6M 3 C4te�• 4PP . 'SCT94(:JC LfWSS' _UDq M E M O R A N D U M DATE: September 6, 2002 TO: Planning Commission (September 9t" meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider Application 2002-18 for a Variance to reduce the minimum rear yard setback to construct additions to an existing single family house at 5709 Wilshire Boulevard North. A. BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the south side of Wilshire Boulevard between Xenia and Yates Avenues. Its dimensions are 110.15' along the north (Wilshire), 95' along the south, 126.94' along the east and 73.50' along the west. Lot area is approximately 9,521 sq. ft. (0.22 acres). The property is guided Low Density Residential and zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. An existing house is located on the property. At present, it has a breezeway/porch and garage attached at the southwest corner of the house. The house is currently in compliance with all setback requirements except for the breezeway/porch and the garage. The existing breezeway/porch encroaches 2' into the 30' minimum required rear yard. The existing garage encroaches 12' into the 30' minimum required rear yard. The property owner, Kevin Harty, wishes to remove the breezeway/porch and expand the attached garage from 12.5' x 20' to 22' x 28'; this would encroach an additional 4' into the rear yard setback. He also wishes to build a 5' addition onto the south side of the house; this would encroach the same amount as the existing breezeway/porch. Both aspects of construction would involve new construction within the rear yard setback and therefore a variance from the setback would be required. Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property and published in the Sun Post on August 28tH The following exhibits are attached: A. Plat map showing the subject property; B. narrative submitted by the applicant; C. site drawing submitted by the applicant; D. site drawing of applicant's request with proposed buildings and setback lines highlighted by staff; and E. site drawing of staff's recommendation with proposed buildings and setback lines highlighted by staff. B. STAFF COMMENTS The existing house was built in 1947. The area was platted in 1939 and was subsequently further subdivided to create the subject property. The encroachment of the existing breezeway/porch and garage into the rear yard is considered to be lawfully nonconforming. However, these structures will be removed as part of this project and the Zoning Ordinance requires that any new structures comply with all setbacks unless a variance is granted. The proposed garage would be 22' wide and 28' deep. The requested variance would reduce the rear yard setback from 30' to 14' for the garage. The proposed house addition would be 14' wide and 5' deep. The requested variance would reduce the rear yard setback from 30' to 28' for the house addition. It is important to note that the owner does have the option of removing the existing garage and breezeway/porch and building a detached garage in the required rear yard. The 30% rear yard coverage rule would not be a problem. Assuming the house ends up set back 30' from the rear lot line, up to 855 sq. ft. of detached structures (garages, decks, patios, sidewalks, etc.) could be built in the rear yard. A 22' x 28' garage would only take up 616 sq. ft., leaving 239 sq. ft. for other detached structures. Despite all of this, staff feels that the unusually shallow nature of the lot justifies a variance even if the owner has other options such as a detached garage. After reviewing the submitted site plan, staff has determined that the following issues need to be addressed in relation to the request: o The front setback must be measured perpendicular to the front lot line. This would result in the proposed garage also encroaching into the front yard setback by 2' Staff therefore feels that the garage must be reduced in size by 2' across the front. ❑ The justification for a variance for the garage is based on the fact that it is located on the unusually shallow side of the lot. The variance should only be granted to the extent necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. With the above noted 2' reduction across the front of the garage, it would be 26' deep instead of the 28' originally proposed. Staff feels that a 22' wide x 26' deep garage provides reasonable use of the property. An argument could be made that the garage should not be allowed to extend any further back than the existing garage; this would result in a 22'x 22' garage, which is essentially the minimum size for a two car garage. ❑ The justification for the variance for the house addition is trickier. There are many houses in Crystal where the owners would like to add on in a particular location but cannot due to setbacks. Staff feels that the house addition should be required to comply with the required rear yard setback and no variance should be granted. However, an argument could be made that the house addition will not encroach any more than the existing breezeway/porch and that the variance is necessary because the lot depth is still relatively shallow in the location of the proposed house addition. The following is a summary of the applicant's request and the staff recommendation: VARIANCE - 5709 WILSHIRE 2 C. REQUIRED APPLICANT'S REQUEST: STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: SETBACK SETBACK DIFFERENCE SETBACK DIFFERENCE garage; front 30' 28' -2' 30' 0 garage; rear 30' 14' -16' 14' -16' house; rear 30' 28' -2' 30' 0 SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 1. Reduce rear yard from 30' to 14' for an attached garage. a. For approval: The Zoning Ordinance has a three-part test for determining whether a variance can be granted. A finding of undue hardship requires that all three criteria be met. The three-part test is as follows: "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by this Zoning Code. " Reasonable use of the property is for single family residential purposes including a two car garage. Strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance in this case would prevent reconstruction of the existing attached garage to two car size. 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner." The plight was created when the surrounding area was platted in 1939 and later when the city approved a subsequent lot division creating the subject property with an unusually shallow lot depth on one side. This is a unique situation where a lot was created without providing for adequate front and rear yards on one side of the lot. 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The variance will not have a negative impact on the surrounding area. Such approval shall be subject to the following conditions: ❑ This variance does not apply to the entire rear yard setback. It only applies to the portion of the required rear yard to be occupied by the rear 16' of a 22' x 26' garage. ❑ The front of the garage shall comply with the required front yard setback measured perpendicular to the front lot line. VARIANCE - 5709 WILSHIRE 3 b. For denial: A finding of undue hardship requires that all three criteria be met. Because believes that all three criteria are met in this case, we can offer no suggested findings of fact to deny. 2. Reduce rear yard from 30' to 28' for a house addition. a. For approval: The Zoning Ordinance has a three-part test for determining whether a variance can be granted. A finding of undue hardship requires that all three criteria be met. Because staff does not believe that all of the criteria are met in this case, we can offer no suggested findings of fact to approve. The three-part test is as follows: 1. "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by this Zoning Code. " 2 "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner." 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. " In the event that the request is approved, staff recommends the following condition for approval: ❑ This variance does not apply to the entire rear yard setback. It only applies to the portion of the required rear yard to be occupied by the rear 2' of a 5' x 14' house addition. b. For denial: A finding of undue hardship requires that all three criteria be met. Staff feels that one of the three criteria cannot be met and therefore the variance should not be approved. Specifically: ❑ The property in question can be put to a reasonable use if used as required by this Zoning Code. If the variance is not granted, the property owner still retains reasonable use of the property and may construct a 3' addition in the desired location or may construct other, larger additions in other locations. There are many situations where property owners want to expand into a required setback but are prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance from doing so. The applicant has VARIANCE - 5709 WILSHIRE 4 not made a case that circumstances unique to the property justify a variance to allow an encroaching 5' house addition instead of a conforming 3' house addition. D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the garage variance request but denial of house variance request, in accordance with the suggested findings of fact and/or conditions for approval in Section "C" above. The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation on the request for City Council consideration. Staff suggests that the motions be structured as follows: Recommend approval / denial / continuance of a request for a Variance to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 30' to 14' for an attached garage. Findings of fact are If approved, the conditions of approval are 2. Recommend approval / denial / continuance of a request for a Variance to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 30' to 28' for a house addition. Findings of fact are If approved, the conditions of approval are The City Council will consider the request at its next regular meeting on September 17tH VARIANCE - 5709 WILSHIRE 5 TVIVOK 6V I f, - q *J4'3, f N 87*ZO'W I" Ito 14 Ito 30 go GO .0 r.0 Zi z 4 $Gl — 6 + OW to ST DENIS U -Z w , -ILU < 3 �) q 2 Q w C4 C4 LL ui > t, 4n U) > 04 0 'A 4A., 04 31 i6 <C42 WORyo M! 11.4 q w I (D 0 13 30.92 50 0" Cl I I ffAD D;y z i)o A&H 134AI 8.37 5, L 1 .0 11 - 34 fV J$4,11 U.0 4 A d MC VAYI 4 50 34, z 1349 t - z < 5 ZANLE P L A C E,-"' (D 3 V its 24 * �N4J� 1 134.15 13 .12 v 3 0 \ W-0/5 ' ...1 134' � Ll .115'. lz p Lp I AUD. 36 ti 13 14A c Sze 4 .. C.S. CASTONIA av I A 0 qa 30�.31'•i�. \ 8 LV D. .3 �134.26 134.71-- -73 k —I o I W 134.3o -7 1 4-31 I -6 n 134.52 134,32 In r4 4 - 13444 a4.34—j 7o 67 73 W. 0 Go r. 0 !E;2,JP�� 40- 1 4Ass 05.3 0,/7 to.$ C.S. -Z, -cf. Irdy -9 - A/iv/d IV) 0 bell?ve o-n-ar to be 1� 451A' -5. \ Lis P J ns proceeall?p show this gle a.5 ;4o be an e,-ror. A2oPpCT}� 670f W# Le*ike� -73 k —I o I W w W. 0 Go r. 0 !E;2,JP�� 40- 1 4Ass 05.3 0,/7 to.$ C.S. -Z, -cf. Irdy -9 - A/iv/d IV) 0 bell?ve o-n-ar to be 1� 451A' -5. \ Lis P J ns proceeall?p show this gle a.5 ;4o be an e,-ror. A2oPpCT}� 670f W# Le*ike� Kevin Harry 5709 Willshire Blvd Crystal, MN Purpose of the request is to enlarge existing single car garage with an attached breezeway to a double car garage. The breezeway will be removed. The current garage is a 20' in length. We are requesting a variance to add an additional 4' on rear set back as well as adding 4' to the front of the exiting garage. The addition of the 4' to the front of the exiting garage area will still be within code. We are also planning to add a 5' X 14' addition to the rear of the exiting house in order to enlarge our kitchen area. CERTIFICA`T'E OF SURVEY FOR: Kevin Harty Legal Description: Westerly 70.00 feet and the westerly 95.00 feet all in D x�G6.sa east% y 25.00 feet of the Block 5, "BOULEVARD ACRES." Y \ q0 Z11, rIP1V AQ�A� 9, �P7. SeS4?Ff-1_.I 4.5 Nb• 5709, �usr 4u orl 867,9 X hl do4?O '� f"EiVCE Scale: 1 " = 20' o Denotes iron monument x M x000.o = Existing elevation Y Bearings re assumed a Benchmark: ��,s , 1. ,o o ° Z Z'NH, N�, enia Ave, N, and Wils ire Blvd. i 1929 adjusted elevation = 869.30 feet. `• ' S�uRrI .� 1 •• representation o,v Ppo�rty • ti �� p he location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible ,- s surveyed by me this 27th day of August, 2002, erb F. Lemire LS Minnesota Reg. NO. 13349 4416 Abbott Ave. N Robbinsdlae, MN 55422 Phone: 763,537-0497 rIP1V AQ�A� 9, �P7. SeS4?Ff-1_.I 4.5 Nb• 5709, �usr 4u orl 867,9 X hl do4?O '� f"EiVCE Scale: 1 " = 20' o Denotes iron monument x M x000.o = Existing elevation Y Bearings re assumed a Benchmark: ��,s , 1. ,o _ ° Z Z'NH, N�, enia Ave, N, and Wils ire Blvd. N,G.V.D. 1929 adjusted elevation = 869.30 feet. ,10.5429 hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation f a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and of he location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible ncroachments, if any, from or on said land. s surveyed by me this 27th day of August, 2002, erb F. Lemire LS Minnesota Reg. NO. 13349 4416 Abbott Ave. N Robbinsdlae, MN 55422 Phone: 763,537-0497 Legal Description: Westerly 70.00 feet and the east y 25.00 feet of the westerly 95.00 feet all in Lo 1, Block 5, "BOULEVARD ACRES." 140 �0 I x I . V. it J'o • s�uR�y /� F�UI� av p,�b�rf y L.�✓E I // sr g �gz sB sQFt J ��'�� 1y 0 _ xeLg,g• G,7� z� N _ car•'+l i7T-- 4& 4 a,5 a %T70 5 / cyQav I 4, ONe LIAIX N f�,�i STvRy X7.9 x 1 � N N�� x�l — — -- —sem Scale: = 2 o Denote on monument x000.o xisting elevation Bearings are assumed Benchmark renia 5 ,o U zs TNN, NEE Ave. N,and Wilshire Blvd. N,G.V.D. adjusted elevation = 869.30 feet. we, 5423 F.¢rgnJ� �vlSF I hereby certify that this is a true and. correct representation oma survey of the boundaries of the above described land and of t location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. As surveyed by me this 27th day of August, 2002, erb F. Lemire; LS Minnesota Reg. NO. 13349 4416 Abbott Ave. N Robbinsdlae, MN 55422 Phone: 763.537-0497 —A -w - -��LC o Legal Description: / Westerly 70.00 feet and the east ray ray 25.00 feet of the westerly 95.00 feet all in L,�1, Block 5, "BOULEVARD ACRES." � I CJ 0 qousew 2� E `cyA%v1000 a i I �c �,eian>E �g7. �-e S�?Ff• X79 x 45 o v P�o/�rfy ay' I V) 16, EK.sty��, N Scale. 20' o Denotes iron monument x000.0 Existing elevation y earings are assumed Benchmark: j >oo zs 1�G8•S - --- - _ . . Z'N, N enia Ave. N.and Wilshire Blvd. 1 Z5 N.G.V.D. 1,929 adjusted elevation = 869.30 feet.. ,0,5429 ,� F',¢.yi»E �OEfSF hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation f a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and of he location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible ncroachments, if any, from or on said land. s surveyed by me this 27th day of August, 2002. erb F. Lemire LS Minnesota Reg. NO. 13349 4416 Abbott Ave. N Robbinsdlae, MN 55422 }'lione: -16-;.537-(?nq7 " DATE: September 6, 2002 TO: Planning Commission (September 9th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider Application 2002-19 for Lot combination and Division to reconfigure 6621 32nd and 3156 Hampshire into three single family residential lots. A. BACKGROUND The subject property includes two parcels: 6621 32nd and 3156 Hampshire. ❑ 6621 32nd (P.I.D. 20-118-21-41-0063) is a 100' x 200' parcel at the southeast corner of 32nd and Hampshire (except for the small right-of-way curve at the corner). There is an existing single family house located on this parcel. ❑ 3156 Hampshire (P.I.D. 20-118-21-41-0064) is a 100'x 200' parcel immediately south of 6621 32nd. This parcel is currently vacant. The subject property is therefore 200' x 200' (except for the small right-of-way curve at the corner). Total area is 40,000 sq. ft. (0.92 acres). The property is guided Low Density Residential and zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. The property owner, Wayne Fleck, has submitted an application to divide the property into three parcels. One parcel would contain the existing house and detached garage while the other two parcels would be vacant single family lots for new home construction. No variances are being requested as part of this application. Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property and published in the Sun Post on August 28tH The following exhibits are attached: A. plat map showing the current parcels; B. plat map showing the proposed parcels; C. excerpt from the survey showing proposed lot lines, required yards and possible right-of-way to be vacated; D. point-of-sale orders from the city's Housing Inspector; and E. compete copy of the survey submitted by the applicant. B. STAFF COMMENTS 1. Overview. The request would result in three parcels: a. Parcel "A" — 6621 32"d This parcel would retain the address of 6621 32nd along with the existing house and detached garage. As a separate action, staff intends to initiate a right-of-way vacation for the small curved area at the northwest corner of Parcel "A". This will yield a lot 100' wide and 130' deep, or 13,000 sq. ft. (0.3 acres). Because this would not be a new lot or new house, neither the $1,000 park dedication fee nor the $1,200 SAC charge will be required. The existing house will need to be rehabbed to include, at a minimum, the work orders from the city's housing inspector. These include removal of the garage. The property appears to comply with all zoning requirements except for the 30% maximum rear yard coverage, which we cannot determine at this time because the survey does not show all structures including driveways. Because the garage will be replaced and the driveway likely reconfigured, the necessary rear yard coverage information will be submitted as part of the building permit for the new garage. For this reason we are not requiring the applicant to submit the necessary information at this time. b. Parcel "B" — 3146 Hampshire This parcel would get a new address to make it consistent with the numbering scheme across the street to the west. It would be a vacant 100' x 130' lot and would provide plenty of room for construction of a new single family home. Utilities would be accessed on Hampshire Avenue. A $1,200 SAC charge will need to be paid upon submittal of the building permit application. However, the $1,000 park dedication fee will not be required because there is an existing vacant lot of record in this location. No building permit will be issued for this lot until the Certificate of Housing Maintenance Compliance is issued for the existing house on Parcel "A". C. Parcel "C" — 6607 32"d This parcel would be assigned a new address in accordance with the existing numbering scheme on 32nd Avenue. It would be a vacant 70'x 200' lot and would provide plenty of room for construction of a new single family home. Utilities would be accessed on 32nd Avenue. A $1,200 SAC charge will need to be paid upon submittal of the building permit application. The $1,000 park dedication fee will be required as part of the platting process because this an additional lot is being created. VARIANCE — 5709 WILSHIRE 2 C. No building permit will be issued for this lot until the Certificate of Housing Maintenance Compliance is issued for the existing house on Parcel "A". 2. Right-of-way requirements. No additional right-of-way is required. City staff may initiate the vacation of the curved right-of-way at the northwest corner of Parcel "A". 3. Lot requirements. The proposed lots meet or exceed all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for single family homes in the R-1 District. 4. Setbacks. Required minimum setbacks will be as follows: Parcel "A" — 6621 32nd Parcel "B" — 3146 Hampshire Parcel "C" — 6607 32nd Front (west) = 30' Rear (east) = 30' Side Street (north) = 15'* Side (south) = 5' Front (west) = 30' Rear (east) = 30' Sides (north and south) = 5' Front (north) = 30' Rear (south) = 30' Sides (east and west) = 5' *If the garage faces the side street, it must be set back at least 20'. It appears that all three parcels will be in compliance with setbacks. 5. Rear Yard Coverage. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits structure coverage in the rear yard from exceeding 30% of the rear yard area. For Parcel "A", this will be checked as part of the building permit process for replacing the garage. For the new homes on Parcels "B" and "C", this will be checked as part of the permit application process. SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL The proposal would be consistent with the requirements of Crystal City Code if the following conditions are met: ❑ Within six months of approval of the lot combination and division resolution by the City Council, the existing buildings at 6621 32nd shall be brought fully into compliance with the outstanding work orders issued by the city's Housing Inspector. ❑ The city will not record the lot combination and division resolution until it has received the $1,000 park dedication fee for the new lot. VARIANCE — 5709 WILSHIRE 3 D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends aTroval of Application 2002-19 for Lot combination and Division to reconfigure 6621 32n and 3156 Hampshire into three single family residential lots in accordance with the findings of fact and conditions of approval 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 September 17tH VARIANCE - 5709 WILSHIRE 4 I i Mb N .Q �^ t14 4Z rj4 jZ +� 81- 8 0 -d 2 D 1. .— ^' I \I. 267.46 m !09.17 t ` 17 i I I: ' 13 • 't 2 0,4; U.G <l zc7. D 133.83 s RAY J. , l �•+ " 16 7 4 ro► cq 2(67. 4 e7�let Z67.Ba IFIRS 2Ar �J'Oti7E rR 44^' 289.8E 33 f � � ,- 733.92 73t .5 2.o .i riNiA.F� �zApD. h 1 /33.87. 133,9 /4.0/ 2= 20.0 19 'n a IA O n MI 18 /3 .< 4 n 2 °.22a 29a. 2Z 17 DONNAS 1¢a 139 zce 3z I (Q I ° 16 �• s +ADD. Z(. RQ 2 n o z5a,ar' i3�L 3�•z I N 13 678o GT.29 i 45 268, 8 13 9 rzasa 114 Z9 lSS�z+ 9 i3ss a 67 +: to as17t1 GS 75 .77 ;o 135 iS4 21, W wry } i "o-llfi,u 14 `41.7y ^+ 30 w $ p v O ♦6lii �,` e 13 r I - � ?oo 13 . f /35 IJ5 t 4 _ Cy Z w �, ,, a 0 9 t : M t 727.5 e'er r W a o �Sj bl5 _W 4 ^ C�` c oto pW.� Il W- > 1! •OJ c ,I . sage g . /r2s •• 70•• 27:5.. 30 3A \6r ... � `�'� � AVE. ' NO.70 /00 2 ul tot / !i5 270 Lali o 2 sUNNYVIEW PARK -d-f2 :a7.446 t.� 26 46 _ t3 72,34 r (09.34 i z67.�.6 2t�}� I N J j a 2; - 79 72.21 109.17 m -DITION17 i I O .Sa RT1 Z4 of <I. 133.83 iWL/iJ U. QI -FIkopofzc$ RAY J.�,-'�' $C N 16 a 5 = I 4TTT fi.D FIRS � Ar 267.84 13? 12 w 113 u T. 267. 4 ex z I� 269,84 �J4SEP .4 �{ Zp v I 3 .. 19 AC r ' 7 470,0.3 ND I A N 14 N N &&07 . . _.. Ir 2.+c r z T N M Z o.22Anew 21 �2No � DONNAS i � , , o' 249 32 H i I N ., `, _ /.S 4 Cha.► "� r39.a: D D. z; ext onn .11 J 290.41 z4a. 7 elm � N 12^,� 1 ,i (3f•Z•I' /3>;2' � -Ig 90.58 1 268 B 13 . 4.29 Is 4, 3A. 9 67 . 67. R9 43 7 0 !x8.56 0 12 IPo f I 2 �-7`1vR i 9 r�.;gPlL ik 1 2 II.77� V � ^ �/ 1 I .t ..1.14.1."1 n �, r2;. J 7 /7 .33 M �p `=P�GC74. ,#P� 00; A•,Sr, I•l �± _/347 q.. y' 67 .3v r34.3v csy.3q re° 421.46 rn M 164.41 _._. 494.86 5. 85°3'1 W. ,1, - t �• rn n '• O jo 129 124 , h v ID •r. _ It � h 0 r 7G I7 o - r 7, t O' 3e 134,4 i34.4 30 A Ij• '" 14 8,11.75 L•s6u in 9 �j 14.4 I3 ,4 1 111 z Z _ " 2 p r` fV 13 n 3 13 LI, uio 134.38 r'n `; 4 13436 134,32 _ /34.11 1f4 -M b c g 4 13 4.17 60 13 5. 135.LZ 30 A Ij• '" 14 8,11.75 L•s6u in 9 �j S bac 1 11511 13 LI, uio 7 r'n `; 4 1351'1 .135.11 . b c g 4 6 13"5.11 13 ?0 0 , awo .1 Ch r = m4A 34 f' � ' I�4 E q r15 zst v, t r � !�`• . li 35•IL - ,. /95 a '6• ION Z 31 r. .2 90. 3 3 i o IZ7.5 a v W 0:.. .0q 13; �• r has st) - .c •a sato � N c ,L,• Ir s 70•• 2Zs fn is 6r o Q N .� 1" - tl4 31 I ._(34.3z (3 a 1! •ua - of ��. y. �� 6o mt G 8- $ 31 t AVE. NO. _, e 'mss "_t. , O !Z5 E• o 70 So so ioo O 9 1! 6`50 r I c 134•! 1 H 13 .3l ' C oo O _ ' 11431* Ar 13•3 14MI.. _ .T 1 .Z 270 234, 134.45 115 135 1 r °° ti Sr..B �°' 1 m '• 8 71 34. 34-4( `ko b I r ,c' Ilk TIN SUNNYVIEW #.16 430 45 % 3 6 3 m��0 PARK w 1 I 134.3Z 1141Z q pl v\ o o4. v. 1 q'. 5 4 .� re�115 moi/ 4 ry as I _ 1 1 J-42 LOT O Tkip 7 rr e( A JGJ 32ND AVENUE N. 169.6 (170.00 PLAT) 4 S89-59'49"E MEASURED- 9 9 74 EASURED99.64 D � �e �► '�, 70.00 �o a O ; 34.0 1r O o 'ss EXISTING a Q ! I n O T N RESIDENCE N , �r 34.0 4.0 .24� W O 0 0 • W4.00 \\ w I of cil rn o •� � e• ca _O ! o-) N o rm • s ��. o cn 0 o • o O i 3 s V � Q�'`ry !imom . i t UTILITY EASEMENT u7 FOUND IRON 19Q 73 N 9'59 49 W MEASURED (200.00 PLAT) City of Crystal * 4141 Douglas Drive North * Crystal, MN 55422 * 763-531-1000 CITY CRYST.4AL Certificate of Housing Maintenance Compliance TO CERTIFICATE EXPIRATION DATE This is to certify that the building located at 6621 32nd Ave N is in compliance with the applicable codes and ordinances of the City of Crystal as determined by a visual inspection of the premises and a review of city records. This certificate does not indicate compliance with an inspection program other than that of the City of Crystal. This inspection has been made by the city as a public service and does not constitute any representation, guaranty or warranty to any person as to the conditions of buildings inspected. The city does not intend any reliance to be made on this inspection and does not assume any responsibility or liability in the inspection and certification of compliance. The legal occupancy of the structure is (check one): CERTIFICATE NO. 02-578 ISSUED BY ADDRESS m Single-family residence ❑ Two-family residence DATE ISSUED Housing Condition Report and Compliance Order 6621 32nd Ave N INITIAL INSPECTION DATE 07/18/02 I have this day inspected these premises under the authority of the Crystal Housing Maintenance Code, Section 425. The following conditions pertaining to minimum housing standards were observed and the following corrective actions ordered: L1Ulllu �+ ✓ ✓"'�� - c�7 Utility meter reading In Out �� / Meter C,�� IMPORTANT: • COMPLIANCE ORDERS MUST BE CORRECTED WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE INITIAL INSPECTION. • WHEN ALL ORDERS HAVE BEEN CORRECTED, PLEASE CALL 763-531-1000 TO SCHEDULE A REINSPECTION. • UPON SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF ALL COMPLIANCE ORDERS, THE CERTIFICATE OF HOUSING MAINTENANCE COMPLIANCE WILL BE ISSUED TO THE INDIVIDUAL SPECIFIED ON THE APPLICATION FORM. • THE CERTIFICATE OF HOUSING MAINTENANCE COMPLIANCE IS VALID FOR ONE YEAR FROM DATE OF ISSUANCE. • ANY COMPLIANCE ORDERS CONCERNING HEALTH, SAFETY, OR NUISANCE CONDITIONS SHALL BE CORRECTED WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY IS SOLD. COMPLIANCE DATE: /6 / C �'- 60 days from initial inspection G:\HOUSING\CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.d. City of Crystal Housing Inspe or HOUSING MAINTENANCE CODE INSPECTION CHECKLIST Prior to the sale of any single-family or two-family home in Crystal, the City's Housing Inspector an inspection to ensure —.compliance with the Housing Maintenance Code. Items subject to inspection include, but are not limited to, those identified below. 'ompliance orders issued upon inspection will determine work to be performed, if any. Address: 6621 32nd Ave N Date:_ 07/18/02 Meter: In Out -7/ EVALUATION CODES ,/: INSPECTED C: CORRECTION REQUIRED Q NA: NOT APPLICABLE # I CODE ITEM COMMENTS Exterior Conditions 1 Siding b, soffits, fascia and trim are in acceptable condition 2 ding has less than 25% peeling eelin pai�� nt per side 3 4 undation appears sound with no holes, gaps or evidence of shifting Roof appears in good condition with no leaks or missing shingles 5 Fence is in good 6 No junk or debris in the yard Driveway is in acceptable condition 8 Concrete steps and landings are in acceptable condition 9 eck appears in acceptable condition and properly constructed 1° o sidewalk heaves greater than 2" 11 o broken windows 12 Firewall between garage and house is intact with no holes or missing sheet rock 13 Door between garage and house has closer and is metal or solid wood Garage appears structurally sound, in good repair, properly wired G --. --t I . -V_ 35 36 37 38 Electrical (certification by a licensed contractor may be required) Min 60 AMP service (provided no alterations, additions, modifications, not overloaded) AU services are properly grounded, including bonding around water Trreters -Iype Edison -base fuses (where applicable) . Min. 10' clearance for overhead service conductors above grade, open porches and decks. Other clearances subject to NEC reqts. (Exception: 8' m�earance prior to 1963) Ipcandescent fixtures not within 12" of combustibles fluorescent fixtures not within 6" of combustibles AST grounding type outlets are grounded tension cords are not used in place of permanent wiring bathroom outlets are in proper working condition r; -e__ i LOT SPLIT FOR WAYNE FLECK 32ND AVENUE N. 11 (170.00 PLAT) 169.64 S89'59'49"E MEASURED D F IRON �OI-V 1 99.64 70.00 o J v N p u Eyd 6 j D41 C >, C b75 34.0 ti Q O V CY r lel o b EXISTING c�I N RESIDENCE o 0 34.0 14.0 20.24 40.20 /ZU Yt5 CS o �V) [vN X Q Uj C) 00 w O O 014.00 w to of ta.o- L CF)\� O M � � (V 0----- �� -- -Na 129.68 O z O U1 Op Y rn O � Uj0 En O n� `C N o0o `� CD O ��/ �O' O O o vj o � �°. Q�0) I �ry 1. n V T I v UTILITY EASEMENT --- /` —1 2g-73 ------ 70.00 oUND 199.73 N89'59'49"W MEASURED (200.00 PLAT) T D T v n D D D V N W r($ E S 0 20 40 60 SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEET PARCEL "A" Lot 5, Block 4, SUNNYVIEW HILLS, according to the duly recorded plat thereof, except the East 70.00 feet thereof. PARCEL "B" Lot 6, Block 4, SUNNYVIEW HILLS, according to the duly recorded plat thereof, except the East 70.00 feet thereof. PARCEL "C" The East 70.00 feet of Lots 5 and 6, Block 4, SDNNYVIEW HILLS, according to the duly recorded plat thereof. or U o J v N p u Eyd 6 C >, C b75 N V CY r lel � O � u T Yt5 o Uj C) -Na T U1 "9Y v Y rn S E rn rn En M E M O R A N D U M DATE: September 6, 2002 TO: PI ping Commission (September 9th meeting) FROM: 0ohn Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider Application 2002-20 for Rezoning and existing two-family dwelling at 6820 44th Avenue North from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Single and Two Family Residential. The subject property contains an existing two-family dwelling presently zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. There is also a detached two car garage on the property. The following exhibits are attached: A. plat map showing the location of the property; B. aerial photo showing the location of the property; C. information from the Hennepin County Assessor's files; and D. narrative submitted by the applicant. There recently was a fire in one of the units and as a result the building is being substantially renovated. The property owner is making a substantial investment in the property and for this reason is seeking rezoning of the property to change it from a non -conforming use to a permitted use. The property would meet or exceed the requirements for R-2 zoning: STANDARD REQUIRED ACTUAL Minimum Lot Area 12,500 sq. ft. 15,734 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 100' 107.77' Because the property would meet the minimum standards for R-2 zoning and such zoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's Low Density Residential designation for the property, staff feels it would be appropriate for the property to be rezoned from R-1 to R-2. Staff wishes to emphasize that not all existing two family dwellings should be zoned R-2. In fact, there are many two family dwellings presently zoned R-2 that, unlike the subject property, do not meet the requirements for R-2 zoning. Situations like the subject property, where an existing two family dwelling complies with the requirements of city code, are fairly rare in Crystal. Staff recommends approval of Application 2002-20 for Rezoning and existing two-family dwelling at 6820 44'h Avenue North from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Single and Two Family Residential. 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 September 17'h REZONING - 6820 44TH r , F R* 21 ,spy ' .............. ......... 2'626. I 53.7 I 3 19.9-1 .. ,�11 e13 1'. L. I D 3'4 757 S3c 30 y .... 84. 10 1711 z VIEW uj r` 2 to N h 5 P 4 .- 2i ap 0' `00' .� N:. b 11\$1 ��'7) 1,�8� �0�1 I�.A� IM - 14 Yhk j MNr v N s 1 D4 bo.tl5 60 ` 5. M s .)s n 3 N , 6 ' gfl cD LI_ kl V p V 3.324 SY'95 SB.)5 58.93 5-8.93 0 7.e o 5-7.89 dam. 119 11 i . Q U J Q �� FA I Ft 1 to —4. �•r r ; to = • �9 Y I �� AC ES r �v a _ -,r�"� o a n �1 �ti FellTw tio1 p I — 4 m n.13 1 ,p Lu 7 60� !C 5 6B 2o6e ` III 0 \.?. Iv z i Q C17Y OF CRYSTAi. ""J5I Iz4st - 117.95 eae9 7 95- o ! 4. /Ir ,4 lot v I 17.9 5 IIS. 7e 14 N- Iv . T ECO 0 r> ' �� 7 = _ 2 2 a 21 S V — 27 123 qp�o _ d d ( O W till t,so 12 �q 3 $i 140 8 6r 13[ f3c -01 0 PART OF 1 3 w v e 3 ..off �y �g415 s z t j �� 4ir �• O tr' 42 .l W e UH� 6 h 5-a IL 4 `n 9V °�� Z38�C'0�..` �'< c� Iz4.7r4� d.sllt.�o�9 —j7 2 v 7c.! 74 74 74 L!' \ G }• 13c �� `t v 10 �+, .�. 171.J7 ) iZ3.3i O 6e 6a 468 3 ^•04�Q1 _ � s .� e Y ' uj 1 i 0 J 8 $.!I•r�• 2 if na . ca +. O o +r � tiS • 43 rd AVE, - N. t, 3 0 3 110 iY.63 �e Ali N 6f 4 L6.4 e I 14 i v Lb 3 r 4 o iss \\ \\ P 9 4 3 �^ob2 9�v 3 v 13�(/�u 2 Ul er i `' tc4 j CC 4 s Ibjo... 12 N Q Lq m 4 I o` B u• :Nr ,.;�3�\MEMORY '47 „ LANE ADDITION'4 d C` :ti � s/ LOT ') , �2 Y0 BLOCK Parcels Covered by same homestead. List parcel numbers ADDRESS (/, ") y ZONING DESCRIPTION OR SUBDIVISION %tet X �- AGE �� __LOT SIZE Check Type of Property Residential 1� Lakeshore NAME —1-e V E I 1 Y Sales Mo./Yr. I Price 4 –%J oor) Appraisal N Permits ■ ructures Structures 11111111�1�1111�1111111l��l��s�71 1■1111�.7�n1i1�1 n 111141��I1!!■ ■111111n�®�ei■�®e®�l�1�1®eee ��ra��1111117■��in��Q��i■��.c�i.� .111111111.1l� ��® ®e011��7 111■ 11111111'0r�m11®10 • CJ�110©9111 11111111 I■ III 1111111 11 I■ 1; 111111 1 �I111�7 0 11COC�1�I ■ 111111111G1elI111te1 �ii,..0 eel .�■��■1 1111.■.■ 1111■■ 1111■■�■11111■■■1■1111■I■■ 111111111111111■I�■ 1111■111■■■11■11■■■ 111■111/11®11® X11 1� 1®1 ■ 11111111■1■1111111111111111 ■� 11 11 111 ■ ■111 �11■1■1111111111111111■ 1111; ■11111111111111 ■111111® /111111/ �ii1111®111'11 1■1111111 111111 X111 1■'1■�111 ■ 11111111■IIIIINI■11111 11�■11111111■■1111 I■I�■ - 11111111: 111111111 11 ■1I1 IIRJ® 111 II 111 11111 11111■■■■111111■■1111111■I■■, .1�1■■� ■111■■ 111/1111 11111111® IIIAIII 111 111■1■Ii1111■1111 11111■■' - 1111111 11 min 110®® X111111■�. Ellie ■ IN ■1■1 11■■I■■mile' �1■■ ��■�� ■ �I■ .�■ Gll��©3 FAR ■■� ■ � 1111■■■■I■1111 111■�ii■' H11'd�lL�©�I Is 111 ■I 111■■■ 11111111 ■111 110 1111g11nc 2r.�: . 111 1 . ■m 1111■■ 111111111 11111I ON NAME —1-e V E I 1 Y Sales Mo./Yr. I Price 4 –%J oor) Appraisal N Permits August 28, 2002 TO: City of Crystal FROM: Steve Hinrichs RE: Planning and Zoning Application 6824/6820 44th Avenue This application is due to a fire that started in the lower level of 6820 44th Avenue on July 18th, 2002. The fire was contained to that side with severe smoke damage. There was also smoke damage on the 6824 side. The results are that the 6824 side will be getting new floor covering, new windows in the basement and repainted interior. The 6820 side has been stripped down to the studs on both the basement and main levels. The interior will be rebuilt from replacing charred floor joists, to all new sheetrock, new bath and kitchen, new flooring throughout the home and new attic insulation. The furnace and water heater will also be new. When the project is finished, the 6820 side will have an almost completely new interior. In addition, the exterior of the home will be repainted. We have owned and maintained this home as a rental since the mid 1980's. We have strived to maintain a high quality home that fits well in the neighborhood. It has had a history of low rental turnover. The current renters have lived in the home for 6 and 10 years respectively. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS ON PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS (since last Planning Commission meeting on August 12, 2002) August 20, 2002: 1. APPROVED: Application 2002-14, a lot division at 4059 Douglas Drive. 2. APPROVED: Application 2002-15, a site plan, conditional use permit and variances to allow construction of a salt storage building at 6125 — 41St Ave N (Public Works Facility). MAYOR MARTIN J. KIRSCH CITY COUNCIL JOHN ENGER SUSAN ROSENBERG SUZANNE M.SANDAHL GERTRUDE ULRICH CITY MANAGER SAMANTHA ORDUNO Community Development Department August 19, 2002 Dear Planning Commission Chairperson or Staff: The "First Ring Futures" forum, sponsored by the Richfield Planning Commission, is set for Monday evening, September 9th at 7:00 p.m. in the Richfield Council Chambers, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield. We invite Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff from Twin Cities first -ring suburbs to hear Myron Orfield discuss his recent publication "Valuing America's First Ring Suburbs—A Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest", issued by the Brooking's Institute. We encourage everyone to obtain a copy of this publication before the September 9th forum by visiting the Brooking's Institute web -site at: www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/firstsuburbs/firstsuburbsexsum.htm Lastly, Please Call Jackie at 612-861-9760 to let us know how many people from your community plan to join us on the 9th. Also, please feel free to distribute copies of the enclosed flier to planning commissioners and planning staff in your community. Call Bruce Sylvester with any questions or comments at 612-861-9766. We look forward to seeing you on the 9th! Sincerely, David Gepner, Chairperson, Richfield Planning Commission. DG:bks Enclosed: Flier �! M-IaN BECA(45E, Tg15 60 Mr-ZA cry LlriT 0'42 i�►'1'1�tt C.Y l��-�-- t n� 1--ilW��i The Urban Hometown 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.9760 FAX: 612.861.8974 wwwasichfield.mn. us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER FIRST -RING SUBURB FORUM MONDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 7:00 PM RICHFIELD CITY HALL 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING STAFF FROM FIRST -RING SUBURBS ARE INVITED TO HEAR MYRON ORFIELD CO-AUTHOR OF THE BROOKING INSTITUTE'S RECENTLY RELEASED REPORT "VALUING AMERICA'S FIRST SUBURBS"* SPEAK ABOUT THIS REPORT AND ITS RECOMMENDATIONS. Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Columbia Heights Crystal Edina Fridley Golden Valley Hopkins Little Canada Maplewood Mendota Heights New Hope Newport Richfield Robbinsdale Roseville St. Anthony Park St. Louis Park West Saint Paul South Saint Paul Falcon Heights North Saint Paul Bloomington The Brooking's Institute report is available on-line at: www.brookin s� edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/firstsuburbs/firstsuburbsexsum.htm PLEASE CONTACT BRUCE SYLVESTER AT THE CITY OF RICHFIELD 612-861-9760 FOR MORE INFORMATION