Loading...
2002.10.14 PC Meeting PacketCRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SUMMARY October 14, 2002 7:00 p.m. Crystal City Hall - Council Chambers 4141 Douglas Dr N A. CALL TO ORDER B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 9, 2002 meeting C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Application 2002-21: Variance to increase the maximum rear yard structure coverage to allow installation of additional pavement at 3513 Kyle Avenue North. 2. Application 2002-22: Variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback to allow an addition to a single family house at 6511 58th Avenue North. D. OLD BUSINESS E. NEW BUSINESS F. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Memo from Patrick Peters regarding Planning Commission minutes 2. Correspondence with Lorraine Bedman regarding 7025 46th Ave N 3. City Council actions on Planning Commission items 4. Quarterly Development Status Report G. OPEN FORUM H. ADJOURNMENT CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 A. CALL TO ORDER Page 1 of 6 The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the following present: K. Graham, T. Graham, Nystrom, Sears, Strand, and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Community Development Assistant Dietsche. Absent were Kamp, Krueger, and Magnuson. B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to approve the minutes of the August 12, 2002 meeting with the following exceptions: T. Graham suggested to strike the second bullet point and following four paragraphs included in the motion for Application 2002-15, a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for a salt storage building at 6125 41St Ave N. Motion carried 5-1 with T. Graham, Nystrom, Sears, Strand, and VonRueden voting aye and K. Graham voting nay. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS Consider Application 2002-16 for a Preliminary Plat to divide 7025 46th Ave N into two lots, together with variances to reduce the minimum lot area and rear yard setback requirements. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommended denial for a Preliminary Plat and variances based on the suggested findings of fact stated in section "c" of the staff report. Lorraine Bedman, 7025 46th Ave N, addressed the Planning Commission and distributed a packet of information related to her application for their review. Ms. Bedman stated that she had previously submitted a similar application and feels that she is entitled to approval of the application because of an undue hardship and the fact that many properties in Crystal have been granted variances for the same reason. Commissioner T. Graham pointed out that Lot 2 is short of the minimum lot area requirement by a couple hundred feet and wondered if Ms. Bedman had offered to buy some land from her neighbor to make up the difference. Ms. Bedman replied that she did offer to buy some land from the neighbor, but received no response. Page 2 of 6 Jack Irving, 7020 45`x' Place N, stated concern about the existing garage, drainage issues, loss of trees, and new garage placement if the variances were to be granted. Paula Menth, 7013 45th Place N, stated that she did not like the idea of building a large home on a small lot and does not understand how Ms. Bedman considers the property to meet the classification of an undue hardship. Greg Bimberg, 4517 Louisiana Ave N, asked whether a study had been done to determine how the addition of a new home on the proposed lot might affect the surrounding property values. Commissioner Von Rueden replied that property values usually increase with the construction of a new home in the surrounding area, however no study is being done to determine whether this area would be affected this way. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner K. Graham to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner T. Graham stated that in order to grant a variance, all three criteria of an undue hardship must be met. The property in question does not meet the criteria, and therefore should not be granted a variance. Commissioner Nystrom was in agreement. Commissioner K. Graham stated that she felt like the Planning Commission was not necessarily being consistent lately in granting variances. At the August 12, 2002 meeting, a variance was granted even though it was questionable whether or not the property met the criteria of an undue hardship. She stated that the neighborhood of this area is already crowded and the addition of a new home on a small lot would not have that much of an impact. Although she stated there was no undue hardship unique to this property, Lot 2 is not that far from meeting the minimum lot area requirement. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner T. Graham to recommend to the City Council to deny a request for a variance from the minimum lot area requirement for Lot 2 of Bedman Addition as proposed In Application 2002-16. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff report and because there is no undue hardship. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Sears to recommend to the City Council to deny a request for a variance from the minimum rear yard setback requirement for Lot 1 of Bedman Addition as proposed in Application 2002-16. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff report and because there is no undue hardship. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Strand to recommend to the City Council to deny a request for a Preliminary Plat of Page 3 of 6 Bedman Addition as proposed in Application 2002-16. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff report and because variances were denied. Motion carried 2. Consider Application 2002-17 for a variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback to allow an addition to a single family house at 6922 42nd Ave N. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval to reduce the minimum front yard setback to allow an addition, based on the suggested findings of fact stated in section "c" of the staff report. Bill Wolff, 6922 42nd Ave N, stated that the addition would match the existing roof line and sided with cut stone that looks like brick. Eventually, Mr. Wolff stated that he would also like to add a full second story onto the house and that is the reason for not matching the exterior siding of the proposed addition to the existing stucco exterior. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner K. Graham to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Several commissioners were confused as to what was considered to be the front yard and side yard of the property. Planner Sutter stated that for the purposes of zoning Kentucky Ave N was the front yard and 42nd Ave N was the side yard. A majority of the Planning Commission was in agreement that since the property was a non -conforming use, it should not be permitted to be expanded. Since the house is situated on a sizable parcel and an addition could be proposed elsewhere, a variance to allow expansion into the setback is not really justifiable. => Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner K. Graham to recommend to the City Council to deny Application 2002-17 for a variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback at 6922 42nd Ave N. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff report and that the property can currently be put to a reasonable use. Motion carried 5-1 with K. Graham, T. Graham, Nystrom, Strand, and VonRueden voting aye and Sears voting nay. 3. Consider Application 2002-18 for a variance to reduce the minimum rear yard setback to allow an addition to a single family house at 5709 Wilshire Blvd. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and staff recommended approval of the garage variance request, but denial of the house variance request in accordance with the suggested findings of fact and conditions for approval as stated in section "c" of the staff report. Although the lot suffers from an undue hardship by the city platting the lot too shallow, the house could be expanded differently, as proposed by staff. Page 4 of 6 Kevin Harty, 5709 Wilshire Blvd, stated that there are some interior challenges that constitute the proposed location of the addition. He stated that the house variance was most important, because of the necessity to expand the kitchen, but the garage variance would be appreciated so the renovations could be done at the same time. Mr. Harty expressed that he would be willing to compromise on the garage dimension, as well as framing of the garage and the house addition to match the existing appearance. He also stated that none of the surrounding neighbors had any objections to the addition. Commissioner VonRueden questioned whether or not the existing breezeway that connected the garage with the house was ever approved and Planner Sutter stated that he was unsure. => Moved by Commissioner Strand and seconded by Commissioner Sears to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Several of the commissioners stated that an undue hardship was evident. Commissioner T. Graham stated that reasons for granting a variance should be consistent for each application. Since the property is currently a conforming use, granting the variance for the addition would not have that much of an impact to the surrounding area. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner T. Graham to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-18 for a variance to reduce the minimum rear yard setback to 14 feet for an attached garage at 5709 Wilshire Blvd. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff report. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Strand to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-18 for a variance to reduce the minimum rear yard setback for the proposed addition to the kitchen at 5709 Wilshire Blvd. Findings of fact are that the variance is necessary to provide access from the house to the garage and the lot depth is inadequate where the house addition would go. Motion carried. 4. Consider Application 2002-19 for a lot combination and division to reconfigure 6621 32°d Ave N and 3156 Hampshire Ave N into three single family residential lots. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval for a lot combination and division to reconfigure 662132 nd Ave N and 3156 Hampshire Ave N into three single family residential lots, in accordance with the findings of fact and conditions of approval stated in section "c" of the staff report. Planner Sutter stated that Housing Maintenance Compliance Orders issued by the city's Housing Inspector will be - completed within six months. Page S of 6 Commissioner VonRueden questioned what will be done with the existing garage and Mr. Fleck replied that it will be demolished and a new garage will be constructed elsewhere for the existing house. Nancy Danielson, 3149 Hampshire Ave N, asked Mr. Fleck if he intended to reside on the property and he replied that he did not. Ms. Danielson was also concerned about the possibility of the new structures being rental or multi -family properties. Commissioner VonRueden replied that single-family homes may be rented out in this area, but that any sort of multi -family dwelling construction would be prohibited on the property because the area is not zoned for that type of use. Ms. Danielson also asked if the new lots would remain vacant. Planner Sutter stated that a property owner may choose to not build on a vacant lot but that for financial reasons most developers prefer to get something built on the property as soon as possible. => Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Sears 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 Application 2002-19 for a lot combination and division at 662132 nd Ave N and 3156 Hampshire Ave N. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff report and that the existing garage will be removed. Motion carried. 5. Consider Application 2002-20 to rezone 6820 44th Ave N from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Single and Two Family Residential. Planner Sutter summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval for rezoning the existing two family dwelling at 6820 44th Ave N. The property complies with the requirements for R-2 zoning. Commissioner K. Graham questioned whether the existing structure was a duplex and Planner Sutter replied that it was indeed a two-family dwelling. Lorraine Bedman, 7025 46t1' Ave N, stated that she was not aware that a single-family dwelling could be converted into a two-family residence and that she might consider that to be a possibility for her property. Planner Sutter replied that there would be many additional requirements such as the building code for construction of a new two family dwelling or conversion of an existing structure into a two family dwelling. He stated that the structure on the subject property was originally built as a lawful two family dwelling and that made this situation different from the situation on Ms. Bedman's property. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner K. Graham to close the public hearing. Page 6 of 6 Motion carried. =:> Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Sears to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-20 for rezoning 682044 th Ave N from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Single and Two Family Residential. Findings of fact are as stated in the staff report and that the property meets city code requirements. Motion carried. D. OLD BUSINESS None. E. NEW BUSINESS None. F. GENERAL INFORMATION • City Council actions on Planning Commission items • First -Ring Suburb Forum G. OPEN FORUM H. ADJOURNMENT = Moved by Commissioner K. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. M E M O R A N D U M DATE: October 9, 2002 TO: Planning Commission (October 14th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider Application 2002-21 for a Variance to increase the maximum rear yard structure coverage from 30% to 45% at 3513 Kyle Avenue North. A. BACKGROUND The subject property is a 40' wide x 128' deep lot with 5,125 sq. ft. (0.12 acres). It is guided Low Density Residential and zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. A new house and detached two car garage were built on this lot in 1999. The driveway extends west from the garage to an alley. The applicant/owner wishes to install an auxiliary parking space alongside the driveway. However, the installation would increase the property's nonconformance with the maximum 30% rear yard structure coverage standard. The applicant is requesting a variance to increase the maximum rear yard structure coverage from 30% to 45%. Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property on October 2� . The following exhibits are attached: A. plat map showing the location of the subject property; B. survey submitted by the applicant; C. narrative submitted by the applicant; D. site drawing submitted by the applicant; and E. scale drawing and coverage calculations prepared by city staff. B. STAFF COMMENTS The requested variance would increase the maximum rear yard structure coverage from 30% to 45%. As shown on staff's coverage calculations this would allow creation of the auxiliary parking space. It would also allow for future addition of a small 4' x 8' deck or patio in the future. The main issue in this case is whether reasonable use of the property includes having an auxiliary space in addition to the garage and driveway. Staff opinion is that this property is unduly impacted by the city's maximum structure coverage rule because its lot dimensions are unusually small and the garage is accessed off an alley. C. SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL For approval: Strict application of the 30% maximum rear yard coverage in this particular case would constitute an undue hardship for the following reasons (Crystal City Code 515.56 Subd. 5): ❑ "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by this Zoning Code." If the variance is not granted, the property owner will be denied reasonable use of the property. Most Crystal lots can accommodate accessory structures such as garages, driveways and a single auxiliary parking space and still comply with the 30% maximum rear yard coverage. However, properties with garages accessed from alleys do not have the same opportunity for these reasonable and customary accessory uses. Strict application of the ordinance in the case of the subject property would prevent the property from being put to a reasonable use. ❑ "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner." The plight of the landowner is the result of the property's small size and alley access. The existing structures are reasonably sized and they have been placed in a manner that is about as efficient as possible. The house is a two story design; this minimizes the footprint of the house. It is located as far forward on the lot as the ordinance allows; this maximizes the rear yard area. The area covered by structures in the rear yard is not unusual; 20' x 24' is a typical size for a two car garage and there are no decks or sheds "using up" the allowed structure coverage. ❑ "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. " Having garages, driveways and auxiliary parking spaces completely within the rear yard is the standard form of development on properties served by alleys, even if it does exceed the 30% coverage limit. The submitted survey and city calculations show that a 45% limit on the subject property would result in rear yard open space typical for alley -served properties. 2. For denial: Because staff believes that all three of the undue hardship criteria are met, we have no suggested findings of fact for denial. D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Application 2002-21 for a Variance to increase the maximum rear yard structure coverage from 30% to 45% at 3513 Kyle 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 meeting on November 6th VARIANCE - 3513 KYLE 000 ,1 f 1-10 ...... - 24-4 4. 9 *A-,- -- A IALL. I, P79 a, T 35th 106 17CA 5 A.( 7 cj L j 9 zoo 10 12 13 115, 4 14 4 171.1 0 3 C, >- t 4 ct u 5 6 1 lo 1&,7z '17- �w 1117.1ffl" -"*1 Co LIIZM OF GOLDEN VALLEY (1411JT". 114917114. r-,ZoL. 6-0 ld' f4 o 60 21 144.4 1.4.15 2v 20 2 ,(52.45— 19 3 6o.5 la 4 5.2 44_ 17 14 jj C4 4 I Ir I 4 11 2 17 4 4 a o 0 25. 4 : 2 .7 1&0 I%PA� rt Established in 1962 INVOICE NO. 54624 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. F.B.NO. 626-76 LAND SURVEYORS SCALE: 1" = 20' REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 0 Denotes Iron Monument 7801 73rd Avenue North 812-680-3003 ❑ Denotes Wood Hub Set Fax No. 680-3622 for excavation only Minneapolis. Minnesota 56428 x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation 3 u r u r U u r s is r r t i f i r tt t r E Denotes Proposed Elevation Denotes Surface Drainage AVERY HOMES NOTE: Proposed grades are subject to results of soil tests. Proposed Zdlog Information I - must be checked with approved building plan and development or grading pion before excavation and construction. Proposed Top of Block q 10. t_ Proposed Garage Floor D2rA VlEo Proposed Lowest Floor Type of Building c 4p C.d ts 11 G�'�Gc,� ' e' ��• 29.3 _ 44 °�\ s• � l2'I.b� �3%'�ZatS-eC`�,`°^ '� �'— t.i� 1 T >� tot i Nutri �; .0 —12705 P�� ti�t�ai — a /V 3 f�7 ��co �'• �0 �\\G1 t �C! �Z � 7 Lot 12, Block 2, WOODLAND HOMES only easements shown ore from plats of record or information vided by client. hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of orvey of the boundaries of the above described land and .the dian of all buildings Grid visible encroachments, if any, from or on I land veyed by us this 5th day of October 1y 9g PO RCN /Jc4Ln9STt E� FRo�T 4Azb r r) — /!L Signed Chories F. Anderson, Minn. Reg. No.2175Z Gregory R. Pro—h, Minn Reg No. 24992 STfti CM N ; OF UtjpVjt= car ------- �rn_C1t.___�1f1L�-L2�—� � _Y»4Y�. �ac.�—t�vY7 _ �--ic1f¢�.—�'?G"`►'�%. J���W2r- ql l 7 ��--- ---- ---- - ���-- OAr—t��,(`� -- �h Of/ OW�pfd S 4.. oil_ •?N �Ot.t_$SZ--� •------- --- A7rl rr a,[ ¢- VI/L ��,� J-~ul� '-�_Uk4llJ is - e-. c a ii -_S �»-�r�fe� �ia• , -- - � 'I��� - � �� C =° _ti►/Q__�rn� �Lase 14— — - - - - -- __ /� ct�n7� A _crew/ �- -- _ -- b1Q,d�Y�- -�--- _tt- : ani _a[adoli �T_Onc�- ----vwtw'�•� rnU- 4 c jvy cwr -- - -- -a- no --- �rvnlig - s _, JA _ : c� .�l,tX ,_ wi c r -_t S _ _r- � iter ��t n,9 �r� w 'ec14 z.' r ua ASS, LT & C 0 NC- BUY KNOX, INC. WORKSHEET NO YES ME TREE STUMPS ❑4� R TREE ROOTS ❑ F+ I /\j 'SPRINrQJNG SYSTEM ❑ n � PHONE WIRES ❑ # (� ELECTRIC WIRES ❑ HOJM�E,PH NE����j DAYPHONE CABLE ❑ GR WATER SHUT OFF ❑ CONCRETE ❑ APPOINTMENT LEAD SOURCE DATE SOLD / q � _ DRAINAGE PROBLEMS ❑ —7 �� GRADE CHANGE ❑ /�`f TIME HEAVING ❑ ri / LEADM pis OVERHEAD 6 prn TREE LIMPS . \0 APPOINTMENT SALESPERSON Z 2 1 ROOF OVERHANG ❑ [ CIRCLE GAS LINE ❑ <MAP CO-OP �� TIME. SAW CUT AT STREET ❑ POP_. DIS. AP GR W �P T WL C EXCAVATE &4 • SCHEDULER: PIS S/P BASE .' .. � FJe C MMENTS: 60 a� G � \�;y 0 � JACK `+ o HAMMER© EXTRA TRUCKS OUT kuk SAW CUT EXTRA TRK y!✓s g • LOADS IN CLAY BARRIER oc n( REPLACE WITH VC INVT. PR. ©------------- © SEAL KEYSTONE TIMBERS ROUP • FINiS garding this installation is everything you wanted in writing? We have received your installation booklet. Custc�s to pay py1em. ��. 1 �X cid t n EXISTING Ld � DRIVEwkY 'o CxPAA5'a4y A �l 351 3 )CYLVCMM* Calculation for Rear Yard Accessory Buildings & Structures <<< EXISTING >>> Address: 3513 Kyle Ave N Permit Number: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Proposed ............................ 0.00 Existing Structures to be Removed Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30 Rear Lot Dimensions 0.00 Calculation of Total Coverage after Project Completion Length Width Sq. Ft. 952.00 1 68.00 40.00 2720.00 area of rear yard SUBTOTAL ......................... Maximum Structure Coverage in Rear Yard to be Removed [- Line 30]....... 0.00 max. coverage Line 1 max. Sq. Ft. 952.00 as a%: 35.0% 2 30% 2720.00 816.00 maximum rear yard coverage Remaining Existing Structures in Rear Yard 816.00 952.00 (136.00) Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 3 20.00 24.00 480.00 garage 4 16.00 20.00 320.00 driveway 5 4.00 10.00 40.00 sidewalk 6 4.00 24.00 96.00 sidewalk 7 4.00 4.00 16.00 air conditioner pad 8 0.00 9 0.00 10 0.00 11 0.00 12 0.00 13 Existing .............................. 952.00 Proposed Structures in Rear Yard Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 14 0.00 15 0.00 16 0.00 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Proposed ............................ 0.00 Existing Structures to be Removed Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30 to be Removed .................... 0.00 Calculation of Total Coverage after Project Completion 30 Existing [+ Line 13] ................ 952.00 31 Proposed [+ Line 241 ............. 0.00 32 SUBTOTAL ......................... 952.00 33 to be Removed [- Line 30]....... 0.00 34 TOTAL ............................... 952.00 as a%: 35.0% Remaining Rear Yard Sq. Ft. Available after Project Completion + Line 2 - Line 34 Remaining 35 816.00 952.00 (136.00) rearyardcoverage-calcsheet-existing.xls 10/2/2002 Calculation for Rear Yard Accessory Buildings & Structures <<< PROPOSED >>> Address: 3513 Kyle Ave N Permit Number.- Rear umber: 30 Rear Lot Dimensions 0.00 Length Width Sq. Ft. Project Completion 1 68.00 40.00 2720.00 area of rear yard 31 Maximum Structure Coverage in Rear Yard 240.00 32 max. coverage Line 1 max. Sq. Ft. 1192.00 2 30% 2720.00 816.00 maximum rear yard coverage -- 34 Existing Structures in Rear Yard 1192.00 as a%: 43.8% Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 3 20.00 24.00 480.00 garage 4 16.00 20.00 320.00 driveway 5 4.00 10.00 40.00 sidewalk 6 4.00 24.00 96.00 sidewalk 7 4.00 4.00 16.00 air conditioner pad 8 0.00 9 0.00 10 0.00 11 0.00 12 0.00 13 Existing .............................. 952.00 -� Proposed Structures in Rear Yard Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 14 20.00 10.00 200.00 auxiliary parking space 15 20.00 2.00 40.00 widen driveway to line up with the south side of the garage 16 0.00 17 18 19 0.00 20 0.00 21 0.00 22 0.00 23 0.00 24 Proposed ............................ 240.00 Existing Structures to be Removed Length Width Total Sq. Ft. 25 0.00 26 0.00 27 0.00 28 0.00 29 0.00 30 to be Removed .................... 0.00 Calculation of Total Coverage after Project Completion 30 Existing [+ Line 13] ................ 952.00 31 Proposed [+ Line 241 ............. 240.00 32 SUBTOTAL ......................... 1192.00 33 to be Removed [- Line 30].......0.00 -- 34 TOTAL ............................... 1192.00 as a%: 43.8% Remaining Rear Yard Sq. Ft. Available after Project Completion + Line 2 - Line 34 Remaining 35 816.00 1192.00 (376.00) rearyardcoverage-calcsheet-proposed.xls 10/2/2002 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: October 9, 2002 TO: Planning Commission (October 14th meeting) FROM: A-J�ohn Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator p tr SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider Application 2002-22 for a Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 27 feet at 6511 58th Avenue North. A. BACKGROUND The subject property is a 80' wide x 135' deep lot with 10,813 sq. ft. (0.25 acres). It is guided Low Density Residential and zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. The existing house is a 1'/2 story built in 1950. According to both the original building permit for the house and recent field measurements by the applicant/owner, the front of the house is set back 30 feet from the front lot line; this matches the requirements of the ordinance. The applicant applied for and received a building permit in summer 2002. The permit application showed a "bay window" but in terms of the ordinance it is a house addition because it is an expansion of the floor structure. The Building Inspector approved the permit with notes stating that the front of the addition has to be set back at least 30 feet from the front lot line. The inspector's notes also state that if it did encroach on the front yard setback it could not do so by more than 2 feet and it could not increase the floor area of the house. The inspector's notes further directed the applicant to mark the property line location so the inspector can verify compliance with the setback at the time of the required footing inspection. The applicant then built the addition which projects 2%2 feet into the front yard setback. The applicant did not call for a footing inspection before going ahead with completing the addition. Upon final inspection the Building Inspector notified the applicant that the addition was inconsistent with the approved plans and did not comply with the front yard setback. The applicant does not want to remove the unlawful addition and is requesting a variance to reduce the front yard setback so the addition can remain in place. Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property on October 2� . The following exhibits are attached.- A. ttached:A. plat map showing the location of the subject property; B. survey with house addition sketched by staff; C. narrative submitted by the applicant; D. excerpt from the building permit with Building Inspector's notes circled; E. photographs submitted by the applicant; and F. list of open building permits on the property. B. STAFF COMMENTS The requested variance would reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 27 feet. This would allow the house addition to extend into the required front yard. The main issues in this case are whether the hardship is self-created and whether there is something unique about the property that justifies the city applying a lower standard to the subject property than it does to other properties. Staff opinion is that this hardship was created by the applicant when he built an addition that was inconsistent with the plans approved by the Building Inspector. The hardship was exacerbated when the applicant failed to have the required footing inspection to verify the setback before he completed the addition. If he had called for the required footing inspection, the error could have been caught before the addition was completed. Staff also believes that the subject property is not unique in any way that would justify applying a lower standard for the front yard setback. C. SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT 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. 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: ❑ "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. " 2. For denial: Strict application of the minimum front yard setback 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 applicant still retains reasonable use of the property because the house addition is not necessary for reasonable use of the property. Strict application of the minimum front VARIANCE - 6511 58TH yard setback only prevents the property owner from expanding the house to the front; there are other expansion opportunities available to the applicant. Furthermore, the ordinance does allow bay windows (installed in and mounted to the wall) to extend up to 2 feet into the required front yard setback. ❑ 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 an ordinary and typical single family lot. There is nothing unique about the property to justify lowering the setback requirement. The hardship cited by the applicant is purely self-created because (1) the applicant failed to construct the addition in accordance with the approved plans, and (2) the applicant failed to call for a footing inspection which would have made it possible for the error to be caught before the addition was completed. ❑ The variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the locality. The house would project forward 2'/2 feet more than the other houses on the block. D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of Application 2002-22 for a Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 27 feet at 6511 58th Avenue North. If the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of the request, then staff suggests that the following conditions be imposed: ❑ The applicant shall have the final inspection for the open permits completed within 30 days of approval of the variance request, if approved by the City Council. 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 meeting on November 6th VARIANCE - 6511 58TH • � 13 3 0 15 6 v lr4. 11. g 14 ; 4rAKE1 4%"111N r ` IN. 514 1l1. 2 ti 6 13 g 11 5 i 45 15 UNtn� 7 9 pp 12 X10 N (d 6 �. •� 9 a 7� Qom' 8 11 ,g IO � tufo ,/S. n3.4 r s • � cs e• 9 N J. 0 114./1 r:'•o i, f5 14 10 9� N c 6 5 a of (/w/) N 1!�' ' ..3 N6 n 9 4 3-•2� 1 II 65 iL Will 15 J7,45 12 18 19 r�•5Al 13 =T g 9' IO• "II' 12"' 13 o L ' v .R o 14 NO. e z kkBi AD 3$ ;3j 15 r{o Comm. :. U 2 I M 75 �. 74.1 A 17 7 4r _ 16 13 ; la 6 o � r✓•. 5 4 3 2 M IS 9 69 1 z kkBi AD 3$ ;3j ° Im ICU— IIT. 3 w 2.�, A C 4 I1 rt 1b S U B. " 3� _OT 9 �2D��� • ee o/. F LOT I a '' 432.56,. _ 3 LANDCO ADD. (8az� 15 r{o Comm. :. U 75 �. 74.1 A pis 7 4r 9 6_ 7_ 6 N 7 '� 6 5 4 3 2 M 10' 9 a' 16 6 5 rn.a 9 12 . 13 14 15 16 17 Bo 4ZA5 TIS 1 11 12 13 14 T 1 10 c o ° Im ICU— IIT. 3 w 2.�, A C 4 I1 rt 1b S U B. " 3� _OT 9 �2D��� • ee o/. F LOT I a '' 432.56,. _ 3 LANDCO ADD. (8az� 15 r{o Comm. :. U 75 �. 74.1 A pis 7 4r 9 6_ 7_ 6 .h 4 r 'All X11 10' 9 a' s 17 3 �= Co g 177.7 ,I CLOVE PDALEV.. 00 0 7_rY�� C'i� 4 AVE. 3 �, I. 15 :. 75 �. 74.1 A pis 7 4r 9 6_ 7_ 6 5 4 fR 'All X11 10' 9 a' 16 6 5 104 11 12 . 13 14 15 16 17 It 4 19 TIS ,I CLOVE PDALEV.. 00 0 7_rY�� C'i� 4 AVE. 3 �, I. 6° 40 57 th AVE. 5 60 6 . 7 0 � I N'. 9 T � � 15 :. 75 �. 74.1 A pis 7 6 S • 4' 3 15 fR 'All X11 10' 9 a' 16 6 5 4 1`9 20 ' 1• �oAOL �e ss cs • uk 124 13 14' 15 16 17 18 19 2'6' 21 22 4 23 -nil rg 6° 40 57 th AVE. 5 60 6 . 7 0 � I N'. 9 T � � 75 h 11 10, 9 a 7 6 S • 4' 3 15 nt 1213 li 16 16 17 It! 1`9 20 ' 1• �oAOL BRENTWOOD w QC X !� $1 12 11 » 10 9 a 7 6 S i5 517r� }60 10 Ilt.1 }S% 4 L7 OF 58TH AVE. fy. in M 80.00 Plaf. ---- {,-79.88 Meas-- J to N Howse � N I � M ; ADbrn, nl AM of ct y a rct) 1 � 1 v rx� CV M rO T N6P.,T14 City of Crystal; This is a description of the variance I am applying for. The variance is for a bay window that encroaches on the city ordinance a total of 6 inches. I, as the owner, applied for a permit, and had it inspected as required. After the first inspection of my plans by Jack Molin, I misinterpreted his notes and completed a bay window that now sticks out from the house 6 inches to far. Jack has inspected the window and can verify it is structurally build very well and up to code. As per Mr. Molins visual inspection he explained to me his prior notes and it was obvious I misinterpreted them. Mr. Molin's notes read "If min. of 30' front yard can not be maintained then window must be no more than 2'-0" into the 30'-0" front yard and must not add floor area to house". After pulling a copy of the plate from downtown Mpls to verify the property line, and verify there is 30' from the house to the property line the window was installed. I was under the impression if I had 30' I could extend over the 24 inches. After materials were special ordered, delivered, and the window was installed, I'm out of code by 6 inches. I realize that this is my mistake, and I have no problem paying for this variance and/or a fine for the mistake I made, but I really feel it would be wrong to ask me to remove this window over a total of one problem which is only 6 inches. When inquiring about a variance, I was told "It doesn't matter if it's 6" or 10', it's still doesn't meet the ordinance". I agree it doesn't meet this ordinance, but the cost to tear down this window and start over would be great, not to mention the time I personally put into it to install it. If there was a possibility to simply remove the window and shorten it up I would be glad to do it. In this case, the side windows would not fit, and the 4' deep footing would have to be removed and replaced. The side windows, which are now installed, cannot be returned, and all the wood for the framing could not be re -used. I have sent photo's to show you the framing and why the windows cannot be re -used. The total cost of this project would be about $1500.00 with additional supplies, if I can still use the front window, which at this point I don't know. This cost does not include labor/time. I waited and saved to finance this project, and would really rather not redo it over a total of 6". In closing I would just like to say that I feel this home improvement only betters the appearance of the neighborhood. I have the approval of all surrounding neighbors and Jack Molin visually inspected it. I also contacted Gary, one of the city council members and he looked at the window. He contacted another council member on this matter. I'm not sure if the other counsel member has actually visually seen my window as Gary did, but you can contact them as far as the appearance goes. Sincerely; Thomas A. Bergen CO P j 'A eg10 N rn 1e:9 dj AT InO •(1 � sr� T • _ v D Q J si -s T Av { M t, y-�. * • w s. "a < i `, " S _ '� '• Mtr !# f a JO., !S 6 - +*' r 1 x io ems Y"r d 1 r »y Y .a�.. >�+�:,%�k'yag�$"Np � �+k�'�•u�°�'x�,1.':aay �c � �•n r, x � � �*:'� �?:.0 .^ry... ���a� wyte'�i�1 '"s',k+..x,% c ,fir �� i'� �*° . �s, •. � , h:. piz 3 nx y�-+��t, � +mak � s� ,Nc>� ,'" d i.�' fir c' -4. _s '�� �"kM�`' rl� 1 '�; k e t r � +k,. f it • ,� r°' *k. t '�„µ n " ,�';,+clyxY'' +, .� rn N tri Tn w w Jw.. aen 101— d e . 47 ' s r r w L � G s xi f - a� v ;. .✓. ��pps," `%h ,+. - ..+x.hrrx ;.., un....nr.re+w. 4 � i q m �jr����, t�►ll ��T s�� M m .-. �J�'��- �� Date: 10/09/2002 PermMes.rpt Permit # Type Sub Type / Description CY023037 BL Add/Alt Residential Windows CY020937 BL Add/Alt Residential NEW DECK CY014351 BL Add/Alt Residential DECK ADDITION City of Crystal PERMIT FIND RESULTS Work Type / Valuation Issued Final Address Remove/Install 07/29/2002 // 6511 58TH AVE N $ 2,000.00 New 07/30/2001 // 6511 58TH AVE N $ 2,410.00 New 07/31/1998 // 6511 58TH AVE N $ 2,410.00 Page: 1 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: September 25, 2002 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Patrick Peters, Community Development Director& SUBJECT: Planning Commission minutes I understand that there may be some concern about the completeness and/or accuracy of Commission minutes taken by staff. In order to utilize Community Development staff time more efficiently, I recently directed staff to reduce the amount of detail contained in the Commission minutes to include only main points of discussion from and actions taken at the meeting. I know that past meeting records have contained a significant level of detail; however, the minutes are not intended to be a transcription of each meeting. The purpose of the minutes is to summarize the character and direction of the conversation that took place during the meeting and to provide a record of any actions. Of course, an accurate reflection of the commission's discussion is important. Be assured that we will not compromise the accuracy and completeness of the meeting record. If there are specific points of discussion that you feel were not reflected accurately or at all in the minutes, you always have the prerogative of making a motion to amend the minutes prior to their approval. In addition, improvements have been completed recently to the audio -video system in the Council Chambers. Beginning with the October 14 meeting, the Commission meetings will be recorded and the tapes retained for future reference. Thanks. CITY. CRYSTAL i 0 City of Crystal 4141 Douglas Dr N Crystal MN 55422 voice: 763-531-1000 facsimile: 763-531-1188 internet: www. ci. crystal. mn.us F.Y.I. to: Mayor and City Council Plan ing Commission From: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator Date: October 8, 2002 Subject: Correspondence from Lorraine Bedman following denial of her request for a Preliminary Plat and Variances to divide 7025 46th into two lots Attached please find, in chronological order, copies of correspondence with Lorraine Bedman since her request was denied on September 17tH Staff opinion is that the City Council has taken action to deny her request and therefore the matter is - closed. For this reason, we do not intend to respond to her latest letter (received on October 4th) Feel free to call me at 763-531-1142 if you have any questions. City of Crystal C s 4141 Douglas Dr N CITY9. CRYSTAL Crystal MN 55422 voice: 763-531-1000 facsimile: 763-531-1188 internet: www.ci.crystal.mn.us September 18, 2002 Lorraine J. Bedman 7025 46th Ave N Crystal MN 55428 Subject: Application 2002-16 DENIED: Plat of Bedman Addition, a division of an existing lot at 702546 1h Avenue North (P.I.D. 08-118-21-43-0072) into two lots. Dear Ms. Bedman: At its September 17th meeting, the City Council denied your application for Preliminary Plat of Bedman.Addition. This action took the form of three separate motions, as follows: 1. The City Council voted unanimously to denv a request for a variance to reduce the minimum lot area on Lot 2 of the proposed Bedman Addition. Findings of fact are as follows: 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 isnot 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. Lorraine J. Bedman September 18, 2002 - page 2 - 2. The City Council voted unanimously to deny a request for a variance to reduce the minimum rear Yard setback on Lot 1 of the proposed Bedman Addition. Findings of fact are as follows: 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. The City Council voted unanimously to adopt Resolution 2002-81 denying approval of the Preliminary Plat of Bedman Addition. Findings of fact are stated in the resolution, a copy of which is enclosed. Regards, John utter, Planner & Redevelopment Coordinator enclosure CITY OF CRYSTAL RESOLUTION NO. 2002_81 RESOLUTION DENYING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BEDMAN ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Crystal, as follows: WHEREAS, the City of Crystal is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the state of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Crystal has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, Lorraine Bedman has submitted Planning and Zoning Application 2002-16 requesting approval of the Preliminary Plat of Bedman Addition; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Preliminary Plat of Bedman Addition is not in - compliance with applicable rules and regulations of Crystal City Code; and WHEREAS, specifically, Lot 2 on the proposed plat would be deficient in lot area and the existing structure on Lot 1 would become nonconforming due to a deficient rear yard. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Crystal hereby denies approval of the Preliminary Plat of Bedman Addition, City of Crystal, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Adopted by the Crystal City Council this 17th day of September, 2002. ATTEST: Ja + t Lewis, City Clerk 09/12/02 F:\GROUPS\COMD EVLP\PLANNINGWpplications\2002\I6(46th-7025)\resclution-prelimplat-denial.doc September 23, 2002 Mr: John Sutter City of Crystal 4141 Douglas Drive No. Crystal, MN. 55422-1696 Dear Mr. Sutter: Re: Plat of Bedman Addition, 7025 -46th Ave. No. P.I.D. 08-118-21-43-0072 into two lots. I am appealing the denial by the Crystal Planning Commission and the Crystal City Council of the subdivision proposed by Lorraine J. Bedman, 7025 -46th Avenue North on the basis that the hardship .criteria had not been met. The definition in Webster's Dictionary states'l. hard circumstances of life 2. a thing hard to bear; specific cause of discomfort or suffering, as poverty,pain, etc. 11 The previous applications submitted addressed the issues listed above. I submitted 3 applications in all and this has been going on since March' 15, 2002. Since I am a senior citizen and the lot is large the extra mowing is a pain as well as shoveling snow in the winter. I stated the City of Crystal was negligent in that it did nothing about the addition that is sitting on the line of the house next door to the East. In fact you seem to ignore this a-nd are taking footage from me which is illegal. I have been assaulted in the past twice by the previous owner and her family because they ,were always trying to encroach on my property as they -knew their house was illegally on the line. This also presents a problem in the winter as there is not enough room to move the snow. I would have expected the City of Crystal to try to make amends for their derelict of duty in the past. Instead when I had a contractor lined up in 1990 to move my garage up they told the contractor I would have to have the garage 75 feet back. The garage 'across, -the street was about 30 feet from the road as well as the garage south on Louisiana. I guess we have a double standard here. I also wish to bring to your attention the letter from Mrs. Mossey was not included in the packet given to me previously and was not addressed at the Planning Commission Meeting as is therefore after the .fact. I also was not informed that my subdivision would be included at the September 17, 2002 City Concil Meeting. There was not a cover letter and the Agenda that was inserted did not list my subdivision on the Agenda. I was therefore denied my right to address the Council. This subdivision has been handled very badly. The negative way it was presented to the Crystal Planning Commision and the neglect to inform me of the City Council Meeting so I could state.myside of -� the issue and the insertion of other material not previously presented is just another example of derelict of duty by city personnel. � L Re: Plat of Bedman Addition Information was inserted from 1987 and 1989 and when I tried to address this I was told that was past. However, since it seems to always be present I would also like to address the issue that Mr. Jack Irving had himself nominated to the Planning Commision sc he could vote my subdivision down in 1989. Just recently the Mayor of Roseville was kicked out of office because of conflict of interest. This was certainly the case (conflict of interest) when Mr. Irving was directly opposing me,as he lives behind me and then gets nominated to the Planning Commission. Your 30 foot rear yard setback certainly meets my 29.5 rear yard setback and because of the negligence by the City of Crystal in not enforcing their zoning requirements (the house on the East of me is on the line), that .5 should not be an issue. That house was also sold about 12-2 years ago and with all of Crystal's rules. and regulations it was not insppcted and this zoning problem was'` -� not addressed? You have also approved lots that have been deficient in square footage in the past and because this is a corner lot Subd. 11. Variances: Corner Lots: Special Rule should be considered and the application should be approved by both the Planning Cammission and the City Council. The lot is 7037 of the required 7500 sq; ft. Yours uly, Lo raine J. Bedman Enc . 3. CC: Patrick Peters, Anne Norris, Pete Meintsma, Atty. General Planning Commission Chairperson September 23, 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 Lorraine J. Bedman 7025 46" Ave N Crystal MN 55428 - Subject: Application 2002-16 DENIED: Plat of Bedman Addition, a division of an existing lot at 7025 46" Avenue North (P.I.D. 08-118-21-43-0072) into two lots. Dear Ms. Bedman: I am in receipt of your letter dated September 23, 2002 regarding the above referenced application and its denial by the City Council on September 17, 2002. You raise several. issues in your letter and I will try to answer them separately: 1. The City Council decision is final. There is no appeal process other than the courts. 2. In previous correspondence and the staff memos, we have repeatedly discussed the specific, detailed definition of "undue hardship" in state law and city code as it applies to variance requests. 3. Setbacks are measured from lot lines. The house at 7011 46th is lawfully non -conforming ("grandfathered in") as to the 5' minimum side yard setback requirement. This does not affect the location of the lot line and therefore it has no bearing one way or the other on the setback requirements. 4. As I explained in my letter to you dated April 8, 2002, there no longer is a requirement for detached garages to be set back 75 feet. 5. We did not include the letter from Mrs. Mossey in the Planning Commission staff memorandum because her letter arrived after the memo had been prepared. However, we did include it in the City Council staff memorandum. 7. I notified you that the City Council would consider your application at its September 17, 2002 meeting in my letter to you dated July 30, 2002. We mentioned this again in the Planning Commission staff memo dated September 4, 2002. Finally, we also informed you of this when we sent you the agenda and City Council staff memo for the September 17, 2002 meeting (your item was listed as Item #2 on the regular agenda). The house at 7011 46th was inspected by our Housing Inspector on August 16, 2002 andrepair orders were written. Our Housing Inspector verified that all repair orders were complete as of August 29, 2000. No orders were written for the side yard setback issue because we.,do Pot , require lawfully non -conforming structures to be relocated upon sale of the property. Ms. Lorraine J. Bedman September 23, 2002 - page 2 - 8. 1 cannot respond to your general statement that the city has approved other lots deficient in area. If you provide the specific addresses we may be able to explain when the lot divisions were approved, whether the lots complied with city code, and whether any variances were necessary. 9.. "Subd. 11. Variances: Corner Lots:.Special Rule" does not appear in Crystal City Code. It was repealed by Ordinance 90-5. Even if it still was in effect, it would not have applied to your request for a lot area variance for the purpose of subdividing your existing lot. Because the City Council has made a decision on your application, the city considers this matter closed. Regards, _ Jo Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator cc: Peter Meintsma, Mayor Anne Norris, City Manager Patrick Peters, Community Development Director Planning Commission members (ece"Ve- to/Ottl o-) Mr. John Sutter City of Crystal 4141 Douglas Dr.'N. Crystal, MN. 55422 Dear Mr. Sutter: Re: Bedman Addition Plat, 7025 -46th Ave. No. (P.I.D. 08-118-21-43-0072) I received your letter stating the Crystal City:Council denied my plat. I am disappointed that I was not told this was on the agenda. However, due to alfall on that date; I would not have been able to attend this meeting and defend my position. Neverthe- less I could have sent a representtive if I had know the exact date. I did appeal both decisions on September 23,2002 with a letter to you but you did not acknowledge this as yet. I would appreciate your information on the proceedure and if I should again address the Planning Commission Meeting and the City Council Meeting and the respective dates when this will again be addressed. I also wish to point out that at the Planning Commission Meeting Mr. Irving said he thought perhaps my trees were hanging over on his property. I do have his Elm tree also overlapping my property and have to clean up these leaves all the time. There shoudl be some restrictions on how close neighbors can plant deciduous trees so close to the property lines that we need to rake up their leaves. I also have the trouble on the east side of the house as their maple trees are hanging over the garage and the wires and I am afraid the electricity will go out in the winter. I wish to suggest also that if your personnel have a problem hearing or remembering what has been said that they use a recorder to correct this problem in the future. Yours truly, �/� Lor aine Bedman CC: Patrick Peters, Anne Norris, Peter Meintsma,Planning Commission CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS ON PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS (since last Planning Commission meeting on September 9, 2002) September 17, 2002: 1. DENIED: Application 2002-16, 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. 2. APPROVED: Application 2002-17, a variance to reduce the minimum front yard setback to allow an addition to a single-family house at 6922 42nd Avenue North. 3. APPROVED: Application 2002-18, a variance to reduce the minimum rear yard setback to allow additions to a single-family house at 5709 Wilshire Boulevard. 4. APPROVED: Application 2002-19, a lot combination and re -division of 6621 32"d Avenue North and 3156 Hampshire Avenue North to create three single family residential parcels. 5. APPROVED (First reading): Application 2002-20, rezoning an existing two-family dwelling at 6820 44th Avenue North from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Single & Two Family Residential, with a second reading on October 1, 2002. October 1, 2002 1. APPROVED (Second reading): Application 2002-20, rezoning an existing two-family dwelling at 6820 44th Avenue North from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Single & Two Family Residential. CITY OF CRYSTAL Development Status Report (as of September 30, 2002) PLANNING & ZONING APPLICATIONS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Parkside Acres. The City Council approved a development plan in September 2000 for 40 townhomes and ten single-family homes on this ten acre site. The single-family homes are being built on two acres along Zane north of 47th and the townhomes are being built on the remaining eight acres along Adair north of 47th. The development includes a pond and wetland area, landscaped berms along 47th, and trails around the development connecting it to the Community Center. 24 townhouse units have been sold at an average price of $288,000. Five single-family homes have been sold at an average price of $308,000. For more information call the Parkside Acres office (535-1955). 2. Lot Division at 6828 Corvallis. The City Council approved this lot division on April 17, 2001. The original parcel went all the way through the block, with frontage on both Corvallis and 51St Place. The existing house at 6828 Corvallis has been rehabbed and sold. The new house at 6827 51St Place is listed for sale at $229,900 on the MLS. 3. Valley Place Estates (7221 32nd). The City Council approved this medium density 14 -unit townhouse development on August 21, 2001. Construction of the townhomes and site improvements are nearly complete. The developer has set the starting price for these three bedroom / two bathroom townhomes at approximately $179,900. 4. Crystal Business Park (5500 Lakeland). The Preliminary Plat has been approved but the Final Plat is on hold pending Hennepin County's determination of right-of-way requirements for the reconstruction of County Road 81. This is a clean-up item from a 1999 redevelopment project that culminated in construction of a 92,000 sq. ft. office -warehouse building. 5. Big B's Gas & Goods (6000 42nd). On February 5, 2002, the City Council approved a request for variances from the front yard and side street side yard setbacks to allow construction of a canopy over the fuel pump islands. Construction on the canopy has not yet begun. 6. Edgewood Gardens infill subdivision (Edgewood between 38th and 39th). This is an EDA project and is described in detail in #20 below. 7. Glen Haven Memorial Gardens (5'100 Douglas). On April 16th, the City Council approved the cemetery's request to build a 500 sq. ft. mausoleum. Construction has not yet begun 8. Lot Combination and Division at 3528 and 3538 Brunswick. This is an EDA project and is described in detail in #24 below. 9. Living Works Ventures (3200 Douglas). This request included rezoning from B-4 Community Commercial to R-3 Medium Density Residential and Site Plan Review for a two family dwelling. The dwelling will be used as a supportive housing facility for people with brain injuries. The City Council gave final approval on August 5, 2002 but construction is not expected to begin until spring 2003. 10/03/02 FAG ROUPS\COMID EVLP\PLANNING\General\DevelopmentStatusReports\2002-3rdquarter.doc 10. Preliminary and Final Plat to divide 4957 Florida, together with variances. The City Council approved this lot division on August 5, 2002. It will create a new lot at 6511 50th for construction of a new house. The existing house at 4957 Florida will remain. Construction of �- the new house is underway; it will be a two story, 3 bedroom, 2'/Z bathroom house with 1,624 finished sq. ft. plus an 812 sq. ft. basement. This project also includes new detached two -car garages for both the new house and the existing house. Both garages will be accessed off the adjacent alley and this required variances to increase the maximum rear yard structure coverage from 30% to 40%. 11. Lot Division at 4060 Hampshire. This was approved by the City Council on July 16, 2002 after the city purchased 4060 Hampshire on the open market. The lot division incorporated the east 173' into the adjacent Hagemeister Pond Park leaving the remaining 256' to be re -sold with the existing house. The city has a contingent purchase agreement to sell the house for $189,900. 12. Lot Division at 4059 Douglas. This was approved by the City Council on August 20, 2002 after the city purchased 4059 Hampshire on the open market. The lot division incorporated the west 145' into the adjacent Hagemeister Pond Park leaving the remaining 150' to be re -sold with the existing house. The city has the house listed for sale at $189,900 on the MLS. 13. Salt Storage Building at the Crystal Public Works Facility (6125 41S). A conditional use permit, site plan and variances from the setback and height restrictions were approved by the City Council on August 20, 2002. Construction of the 50' x 70' salt storage building plus the 25' x 70' lean-to for vehicle parking is currently underway and will be completed by winter. 14. Variance for house at 6922 42"d. The City Council approved this variance request on September 17, 2002. It will permit a main floor addition to an existing house to encroach 21' into the required front yard setback. The variance will also permit the addition of a second story to the house in the future. 15. Variance for house at 5709 Wilshire. The City Council approved this variance request on September 17, 2002. It will permit two encroachments into the required rear yard setback: An attached two -car garage encroaching 16' and a house addition encroaching 2'. A building permit application has been submitted and construction is expected to start this fall. 16. Lot Combination and Division at 6621 32"d. The City Council approved this request on September 17, 2002 to reconfigure two existing parcels into three parcels. One of the three parcels will include the existing house at 6621 32nd (the house will be substantially rehabbed and a new garage will be built this fall). The other two parcels will be 13,000 sq. ft. lots available for new home construction. 17. Rezoning of 6820 44th. The City Council approved this request on September 17, 2002 to rezone this existing two-family dwelling from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Single and Two Family Residential. REDEVELOPMENT - SINGLE-FAMILY REHABILITATION (scattered site rehab) 18. 632838 th . The EDA acquired this three bedroom, one bath house in December 2001 and rehabbed it during spring and summer 2002. Rehab work included new windows, doors, roofing, soffits, siding, mechanicals, plumbing, electrical, drywall, floors, cabinets, paint and 10/03/02 F:\GROUPS\COMDEVLP\PLANNING\General\DevelopmentStatusReports\2002-3rdquarter.doc appliances. A new 22'X 24' detached garage and hard surfaced driveway were also installed. The EDA sold the property on August 29, 2002 for $167,900 to a qualifying low/moderate income family. To help make the house affordable, the EDA worked with the Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation to secure $17,000 in down payment assistance. REDEVELOPMENT — SINGLE-FAMILY NEW CONSTRUCTION (scattered site lots) 19. 6617 45th. In October 2001, the EDA purchased this property for demolition and new home construction. The existing 500 sq. ft. home was demolished in November by the City's Public Works Department. (The existing 896 sq. ft. garage, which is heated and insulated, remains on the property.) In March 2002 we sold the property to Al Stobbe Homes for construction of a new two-story house with 2,727 sq. ft. (1,791 finished), 3 bedrooms, and 2 Y2 bathrooms. Construction is complete and the property is listed for sale at $259,900 on the MLS. 20. Edgewood Gardens. In December 2001 the EDA acquired the property at 6328 38th for rehab and resale (see #18 above). In February 2002 the EDA acquired the home located at 6404 38th for demolition and redevelopment and a home at 3821 Douglas Dr N for rehab and resale. In March 2002 the City Council transferred the vacant parcel located at 3818 Florida to the EDA for development. These four parcels are being incorporated and replatted into a new subdivision with eight parcels. The City Council approved the Preliminary Plat on May 21, 2002 and the Final Plat on August 5, 2002. The use of the eight parcels is described below: LOT ADDRESS PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY PRICE 1 3821 Edgewood being sold to Feyereisen Construction for new house $ 72,500 (3,166 sq. ft. w/ 2,122 finished; 4 bedrooms; 2Y2 baths) 2 3813 Edgewood being sold to Al Stobbe Homes for new house $ 75,000 (3,442 sq. ft. w/ 1,916 finished; 3 bedrooms; 2%2 baths) 3 3808 Edgewood being sold to Novak -Fleck for new house $ 76,000 (3,746 sq. ft. w/ 2,413 finished; 4 bedrooms; 2%2 baths) 4 3812 Edgewood being sold to All Quality Builders for new house $ 70,000 (3,591 sq. ft. w/ 2,439 finished; 3 bedrooms; 2Y2 baths) 5 3820 Edgewood being sold to Novak -Fleck for new house $ 66,000 (2,694 sq. ft. w/ 1,796 finished; 3 bedrooms; 2'/2 baths) 6 640438 1h being sold to Al Stobbe Homes for new house $ 62,000 (2,870 sq. ft. w/ 1,916 finished; 3 bedrooms; 2'/2 baths) 7 632838 1h rehabbed by EDA and sold; see #20 above << n/a >> 8 3821 Douglas being sold as -is (closing scheduled for Oct. 25, 2002); $ 159,900 buyer will have to complete code compliance items 21. 4355 Welcome. On June 12, 2002 the EDA purchased this property for demolition and new home construction. The house and garage were demolished in mid September 2002 by the City's Public Works Department. The target price for the property is $55,000 and the target 10/03/02 F:\GROUPS\COMDEVLP\PLANNING\General\DevelopmentStatusReports\2002-3rdquarter.doc value (lot & new home combined) is $220,000. Proposals from builders for new homes on this lot are due February 3, 2003 and construction is expected to begin in spring 2003. 22. 4641 Douglas. On June 19, 2002 the EDA purchased this property for demolition and new home construction. The house and garage were demolished in late September 2002 by the City's Public Works Department. The target price for the property is $55,000 and the target value (lot & new home combined) is $220,000. Proposals from builders for new homes on this lot are due February 3, 2003 and construction is expected to begin in spring 2003. 23. 5757 Quail. On July 29, 2002 the EDA purchased this property for demolition and new home construction. The house and garage were demolished in late September 2002 by the City's Public Works Department. The target price for the property is $55,000 and the target value (lot & new home combined) is $220,000. Proposals from builders for new homes on this lot are due February 3, 2003 and construction is expected to begin in spring 2003. 24. 3528 Brunswick. On July 15, 2002 the EDA purchased this property for demolition and new home construction. The house and garage will be demolished in early October 2002 by the City's Public Works Department. The target price for the property is $55,000 and the target value (lot & new home combined) is $220,000. Proposals from builders for new homes on this lot are due February 3, 2003 and construction is expected to begin in spring 2003. REDEVELOPMENT — DEMOLITION AND LAND -BANKING FOR FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT 25. 4326 Zane. In March 2002 the EDA acquired this property for land banking for future redevelopment. The acquisition price was $68,000. Demolition was completed in July 2002 by the City's Public Works Department. _ 10/03/02 FAG ROUPS\COMID EVLP\PLANNING\General\DevelopmentStatus Reports\2002-3 rd quarter. doc D 3 O O