2001.10.08 PC Meeting PacketCRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SUMMARY
Crystal City Hall, 4141 Douglas Dr N
October 8, 2001
Council Chambers
7:00 PM
1. Approval of minutes from the September 10, 2001 meeting
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Application 2001-10 for a variance to reduce the
required front yard setback from 30' to 25'. Property address is 5755 Twin Lake
Terrace (P.I.D. 03-118-21-32-0022). Application submitted by Laurene A. Rick
(applicant and property owner).
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Application 2001-11 requesting the following actions
related to property at 3200 Douglas Drive North (P.I.D. 21-118-21-23-0114), as
submitted by LivingWorks Ventures (applicant) and Zev Oman (property owner):
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from
Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density Residential;
❑ Rezoning from B-4 Community Commercial to R-3 Medium Density
Residential; and
❑ Site Plan Review for construction of a two family dwelling.
4. Discussion Item: Possible application for rezoning from B-4 to B-3, Conditional
Use Permit and Site Plan Review to allow conversion of the existing Video Update
building at 5101 36th Avenue North to a car wash.
5. Discussion Item: Presentation from Northwest Corridor Coalition regarding the
planning process for land uses along County Road 81 in Crystal and other cities.
6. Informal discussion and announcements.
7. Informational Items:
❑ City Council actions on Planning Commission items
❑ Quarterly Development Status Report
8. Adjournment
• For additional information, contact John Sutter at 763-531-1142 •
\\CY FS1\SYS\GROUPS\COMDEVLP\PLANNING\PLANCOMM\2001\10-Magendasummary.doc
September 10, 2001
CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with
the following present: E1sen, K. Graham, T. Graham, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom,
and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Community
Development Assistant Dietsche. Absent (excused) were Kamp and Koss.
Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to approve the
minutes of the August 13, 2001 meeting, with no exceptions.
Motion carried.
2. Public Hearing (continued from August 13th meeting): Consider Application 2001-9 for
a variance to reduce the required setback from a public street for a detached garage.
Property address is 6702 51St Place North (P.I.D. 08-118-21-13-0015). Application
submitted by Brent J. Weyer (applicant and property owner).
Planner Sutter stated that the three -car garage proposed by Mr. Weyer could be built in
accordance with the ordinance. The applicant does not wish for the garage to take up as
much of the useable rear yard and that is the reason for requesting the variance. The city
has not typically granted variances for this reason. However, the subject property is
unique due to the following factors:
❑ The platted drainage and utility easement along the north side of the lot is unusually
wide (10' instead of 5') and it becomes wider (20') on the east side of the property.
❑ A utility pole guy wire anchor is located in the portion of the rear yard that would be
otherwise available for placement of a detached garage.
Planner Sutter noted that for a situation to constitute an undue hardship, all of the
following conditions must be present:
"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."
Staff believes that a variance might be appropriate if it were granted only to the extent
necessary to compensate for the combination of the unique features of the property and
-� its substandard lot area. However, staff also feels that there is an argument to be made
that no variance is justified because a three -car garage could be built in accordance with
the ordinance.
Since the August 13"' meeting, staff and the applicant have explored some additional
issues and options for the property. Based on discussions with the property owner, staff
has developed two alternates for the Planning Commission to consider.
Planner Sutter explained that Alternate #I would be a modification of the original request
in accordance with the finding of the guy wire anchor as a permanent limitation of the
usability of the property. The result of this would be a variance of 4', which would
reduce the setback from 20' to 16'.
Planner Sutter explained that Alternate #2 would involve vacating the "excess triangle"
portion of the platted drainage and utility easement to allow a three -car garage to fit on
the east side of the guy wire anchor. The result would be a variance of 7', which would
reduce the setback from 10' to 3' for a side -loaded garage. This variance would be
similar to the one granted in 1998 at 4532 Florida Avenue North. Planner Sutter also
stated that Alternate #2 was preferred by the applicant.
Staff recommends approval of Application 2001-9 for variance from Crystal City Code,
in accordance with either Alternate #1 or Alternate #2 described above, for a detached
garage at 6702 51" Place North (P.I.D. 08-118-21-13-0015).
Brent Weyer, applicant and owner of 6702 51 St Place North, stated that he is pleased that
staff was able to compromise with two acceptable alternatives to his original proposal
and that Alternate #2 seemed to be the best proposal to accommodate his requests. Mr.
Weyer also stated that he has written approval from the utility company to build on the
proposed area of the easement.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if the city foresees any problems associated with
Alternate #2 and Planner Sutter responded that staff feels that there is no real reason for
the additional easement along the rear of the property , and that it is a good option to
consider. However, Planner Sutter stated that if the Planning Commission was not
convinced of Alternate #2, to consider Alternate #1, the possibility of a two -car garage,
or denial of the application.
Commissioner Nystrom inquired about the possibility of moving the guy wire to a
different location to provide for additional yard space.
Planner Sutter explained that to move the guy wire would be very difficult because there
are actually three separate guy wires on the property that are anchored at that location.
Mr. Weyer also added that he put in a request to move the wires to the power company,
however, it was denied.
A majority of the commissioners were in agreement and pleased that both staff and the
applicant compromised to come up with an alternative to the original proposal.
Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to close the
public hearing.
Motion carried.
Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner K. Graham to
recommend to the City Council to approve staff's Alternate #2, Application 2001-9 for a
variance at 6702 51St Place North.
Findings of Fact are as follows:
The request is consistent provided that the recommended conditions listed in the staff
memo are met, along with the following requirements:
The proposed variance will not:
❑ impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; or
❑ increase the danger of fire or otherwise endanger the public safety;
❑ unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets;
❑ unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood
or be contrary to the intent of the zoning code.
Furthermore, the property is subject to an undue hardship and therefore the requested
variance is granted. Specifically:
❑ The property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. Reasonable use
of the property would include an adjustment to the setback to compensate for the
presence of the guy wire anchor, which is essentially a permanent feature and cannot
be moved by the applicant.
❑ The plight of the landowner is due to the unique combination of the property's
substandard lot area, the presence of a utility pole guy wire anchor in the area that
would otherwise be buildable.
❑ The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality if the granting of
the variance is conditioned upon no parking on the part of the driveway within the
public right-of-way.
Motion carried 4-3 with Elsen, K. Graham,
Magnuson, and Von Rueden voting aye and
T. Graham, Krueger, and Nystrom voting
nay.
The City Council will consider the request at the September 25, 2001 meeting.
3. Discussion item: Possible request for a variance from the setback requirements to allow
construction of a fuel pump canopy at 6000 42nd Avenue North (Big B's Gas & Goods). _
Planner Sutter stated that Brad Carlson, owner of Big B's Gas & Goods, is considering
applying for a variance to allow construction of a fuel pump canopy extending into the
required 22' setback. The applicant wanted to discuss this issue and ask for suggestions
from the Planning Commission before applying.
Planner Sutter discussed similar instances where variances have been granted in the past,
but advised that granting such a variance may have a negative impact on the surrounding
area. To intensify the use of an existing property may cause future problems, as in the
case of at least one of the stations that were granted such a variance.
Staff recognizes the need for such canopies and the ordinance could be revised to include
canopies under a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioners were in agreement that the
ordinance needs to be updated and were surprised that the issue had not been addressed at
an earlier date.
Commissioner Magnuson 2uestioned any property loss that may have occurred in the past
due to the widening of 42° Avenue North, and if the loss could be considered
justification for a variance.
Brad Carlson, Big B's Gas & Goods, thought loss of property may have occurred years
back, perhaps accounting for the unique configuration of the pumps as they stand on the
property today. He expressed his enthusiasm in being the only filling station on 42nd
Avenue North in Crystal with full and self-service, and a 24-hour pay at the pump
service. By installing a canopy, he would not only be providing customers with the
convenience of an overhang while at the pump, but improving the appearance of the
station as well. The canopy would also incorporate attractive signage and allow the
removal of the freestanding sign on the west end of the property to make for additional
parking.
Commissioners were in agreement that the proposed canopy would really add to the
convenience for customers and enhance the appearance of the property and 42nd Avenue
North.
Mr. Carlson expressed that he would prefer the 24'x 30' canopy to ensure that four
vehicles are covered while using both sides of each pump. Commissioners agreed that
the 24'x 30' would be the most practical size for the canopy, with only a two foot
difference for the variance.
Planner Sutter stated that based on the lot size, the Planning Commission has discretion,
but must also have justification for their decision on a variance. Factors to minimize the
impacts of a commercial use should also be discussed, such as appropriate lighting and
screening from surrounding neighbors.
The Planning Commission expressed interest in finding out how much if any property
was lost in the reconstruction of 42nd Avenue North, and exploring the possibility of
adding some screening along the property to contain operations of the business. Mr.
Carlson was encouraged to proceed with the appropriate application materials.
4. Informal Discussion and Announcements
Roger Fetterly, 5831 Quebec Avenue North presented a tentative proposal to build a new
garage on his property. Discussion of location, size, accessibility, and suitability of the
garage followed. The Planning Commission suggested that Mr. Fetterly work with staff
to find an alternative to a variance.
Planner Sutter told the Planning Commission to expect a complete application and
proposal from the Vinland Center to construct a two-family dwelling on currently vacant
property at 3200 Douglas Drive North. Discussion of land use and suitability of location
followed.
Commissioner T. Graham initiated a discussion about an article in the latest newsletter.
The article referred to the parking of motor and recreational vehicles and questions arose
concerning whether or not residences of Crystal were required to have a garage. Planner
Sutter stated this used to be a requirement, but it had been eliminated at some point in the
past.
5. Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to adjourn.
Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m.
Secretary Nystrom
Chair Magnuson
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: October 2, 2001
TO: Planning Commission (October 8th meeting — Item #2)
FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Application 2001-10 for a variance to reduce
the required front yard setback from 30' to 25'. Property address is 5755
Twin Lake Terrace (P.I.D. 03-118-21-32-0022). Application submitted by
Laurene A. Rick (applicant and property owner).
The owner has constructed a freestanding deck extending 5' into the required front
yard. The deck has been built with railings and posts that make it look like a front
porch. Staff has notified the owner that the structure is in violation of the Zoning
Ordinance and must be removed. The owner does not wish to remove the deck and is
requesting a 5' variance in the front yard setback so that the deck may remain.
The following informational items are attached:
❑ plat map showing the subject property and adjacent parcels;
❑ letter from Building Official regarding the setback encroachment; and
❑ materials submitted by the owner.
B. STAFF COMMENTS
The subject property is zoned R-1 Single -Family Residential. The lot is 80' wide x 125'
deep, encompassing 10,000 sq. ft. The lot complies with the city's R-1 standards for
min. depth (100'), width (60') and area (6,765 sq. ft.). The lot's size and orientation are
consistent with others on the same block. The surrounding land use is predominantly
single-family detached.
The owner has stated that, due to a medical condition, they need a protected walkway
from the front door to the garage. (The garage does not have direct access to the
house because the bedrooms are located on the end of the house next to the garage;
to get to the garage, one must exit the house via either the front or rear doors and then
walk outside to the garage.) Protection from rain or snow already exists in the form of a
3' eave which is located along the front and rear of the house. Staff believes that the
main question here is whether a raised deck is necessary in the area under the eave for
the owner to have the desired access across the front of the house to the garage.
It is also important to note that the deck has been built to look like a front porch
extending all the way across the front of the house. Furthermore, the deck is far longer
and wider than would be necessary just to provide a walkway to the garage. The
photographs submitted by the owner indicate that the deck is being used as outdoor
living space (note the presence of lawn furniture), not just a walkway to the garage.
The deck is clearly a structure as defined in the Zoning Ordinance, and therefore must
meet the minimum front yard setback as would any other structure. For a variance from
a setback to be granted, state law requires that an "undue hardship" must be present.
For a situation to constitute an "undue hardship", all of the following three conditions
must be present:
❑ "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. "
Staff does not believe that this request meets any of these criteria. Staff also feels that
the owner has a reasonable alternative that would be consistent with the setback
requirements: Remove the blocks and support posts, and lower the deck so that it sits
directly on grade. This would also require removal of the railing and posts currently
extending above the deck. In this scenario the "deck" would be indistinguishable from a
paved walkway except that it would be made out of wood instead of concrete. The
owner would still have a wooden surface under the house's eaves, yet its appearance
would be much the same as a sidewalk or patio because it would be at grade. Another
alternative would be to remove the deck entirely (possibly re -using it in the rear yard)
and install a sidewalk or patio under the eaves across the front of the house.
C. SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT TO DENY
The property is not subject to an undue hardship and therefore the requested variance
is not granted. Specifically:
❑ "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by
this Zoning Code." Reasonable use of the property does not require a deck in the
front yard. There are reasonable construction alternatives that would give the owner
the desired walkway without encroaching on the required setback.
❑ The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not
created by the property owner." There are no circumstances unique to the property.
VARIANCE FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK - 5755 TWIN LAKE TERRACE
2
❑ "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. " The
structure looks like an attached covered porch, which will alter the essential
character of the locality if It Is allowed to remain past the required setback line
D. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of Application 2001-10 for a variance to reduce the required
front yard setback from 30' to 25'. Property address is 5755 Twin Lake Terrace (P.I.D.
03-118-21-32-0022).
The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation for City Council
consideration. The City Council will consider the request at its October 23rd meeting.
VARIANCE FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK - 5755 TWIN LAKE TERRACE
3
135.35
8
VI
M
V•-
d
M
60
A4A.G.S
I
1 5.36
,gyp ; � V
,-
135.36r
13 .36
l� kti° A046
135.3
I a o�
$ 135.39u
Q 15,0
M.A.G.
n �5°10) n
135.3
1x
d: 2
1 5.39
3
4
. �
0511>� n
q &
Y
N-.4 G•
`w w 000
5.41
135.41
�
g ° a 3
2{
�1
213.
-'
Q 0
5
w loo
(AA�'�
U.
O
g
�[ 4j Z
4 Q 4„ 4
k:
0
,fr
I
135.3
5
yi
~5�6
r 9
-
m 3:64.47
150.0
8
Se>.
o
''
13 5.4 1
17/.// S:4 „
fp 7
1.
TWIN LAKE
135.35
� 135.35
9o�ls,
r r
�
d
1
A4A.G.S
I
1 5.36
,gyp ; � V
,-
135.36r
13 .36
l� kti° A046
135.3
I a o�
$ 135.39u
`135.
M.A.G.
n �5°10) n
135.3
vl
24
1 5.39
3
4
. �
0511>� n
5
135 7
N-.4 G•
�SIID�
5.41
135.41
w
N
57545
Twm Umcc 'rmmAc�
2645.6 R as.
153
,�
►3 .3
135.55
.�
rr
1
.r
v IZ v
I
I
r
,-
135.36r
13 .36
15
135.3
I a o�
•
3
��s9s W <LO
135.36
135.3
vl
24
4'
3
4
. �
135.31
135.38
135 7
i3 .3
4
135, 3
ir345�1;0�9%.39
135.3
213.
I
5
135.3
(AA�'�
3 .3B
g
II
41
AVE.
135.41 I 135.4
135.43 155.43
J r 135.44 r 13 44 x
q ix
t0 4 0) 3 -W
13S.35
N 2/5.,559
135.55
.�
16 r
16
rr127 p1Os2
I
r
I 3 r
135.36r
Z
15
r r
Z
''
135.36
3
135.36
14 =
3
2 4
135.31
135 7
i3 .3
4
12
135.38
135.3
213.
I
5
135.3
3 .3B
II
6
I
135.3
94.11
r 9
a
9
150.0
8
15.41
13 5.4 1
AVE.
135.41 I 135.4
135.43 155.43
J r 135.44 r 13 44 x
q ix
t0 4 0) 3 -W
h
40
T
N
'9 a ��
00
q 57thb A,ve.No. h
A
j5
2 I . ~' o
m a9's�' 0
2
200
127
N 2/5.,559
16 r
oPSpN I
rr127 p1Os2
i 5
Z
°:
r r
242.66
''
14
3
2 2.95
13
2 4
2Z 3.14
12
5
213.
03
94.11
r 9
a
150.0
184.4
h
40
T
N
'9 a ��
00
q 57thb A,ve.No. h
A
j5
2 I . ~' o
m a9's�' 0
2
200
August 20, 2001
Laurene A. Rick
5755 Twin Lake Terr
Crystal, Mn. 55429
Dear Laurene A. Rick:
It has come to my attention recently during inspections in your neighborhood that you have built
a porch/deck onto the front of your home. In checking the address file for your property, I did
not find a permit for the construction. I also found that the porch/deck that you built extends into
the required front yard setback. I have enclosed a copy of the survey showing the setback from
the property lines that your home was built. It shows a 30 foot front setback which is the
minimum required. The permit issued in 1960 also shows that the proposed setback was to be 30
foot.
You are hereby notified that you must remove the addition to the front of your home by
September 17, 2001. You do have the option of applying for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance
but you must show a hardship in order for the City Council to be able to grant a variance. A
hardship can not be financial but you must show that your property can not be used as others due
to unique circumstances beyond your control. This application must also be received in our
office by September 17, 2001. There is a $125 filing fee which must accompany the application.
Failure to comply with this order will result in appropriate legal action being taken to assure
compliance with the ordinance.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 763-531-1000
Sincerely,
(14L
William D. Barber
Building Official
APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE
When I first applied for the permit to build a "deck","platform", a Crystal City Official
told us we did not need a permit as it is not attached to the house. We went on this
assumption and proceeded to build.
On the enclosed pictures, it is obvious that we have not gone beyond the existing
sidewalk and about one foot over the overhang. This has clearly enhanced the value of
the property.
As I am in my 70's and have been diagnosed with arthritis in my hips, I feel I need this
protective covering in the winter when there is ice and snow on the sidewalk. (I have no
inside door to the garage.)
LOT AND FARM SURVEYS
CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS TOPOGRAPHICAL
PLATTING
_ JAMES M. HALVERSON
Wand Survegor
REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA
PHONE PARKWAY 4-8308
2821 30TH AVE. SO. MINNEAPOLIS 6. MINN.
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
a
'Y
A
o / T-
wy
\9 4j
.c
�ki �V
LD;" Q v
Qj
I '
0
� � 1
�j
l4�
I hereby certify that this is a true and cor�ect representation
of a survey of the boundaries of:
Lot two (2), Block one (1), Priest Twin Lake Shores,
Hennepin County,Minnesota and of the location of all buildings,
if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or
on said Land. It also shows the location of the stakes as set
for a proposed building.
As surveyed by me this 15 TH. day of February 1960.
SIGNED
MI
NNE A REGISTRATION No 3813
-'
Fzi a .s•' -`.W
LOT2
L, _�, ) i L,--- .-s+ Tom,
Twin
Lake
Terrace
u -n
Page 1 of 1
file://A:\MVC-013F.JPG 2/27/00
+, .
p i
-,
r.
.:.
i s
r
.1
.,
}r,
�
_ .-�.
�,. �
a ,:
+.
-
�
_,
_„
a n
� � t
��
♦ $
gt-�^p��� kY$`
� h
,
�
' ���-
<
1 1 .or
�
{{
.....
t
_.- »w ....
..
�n
1. �. �
af7r
MM'-
?A:.:
£_
.':
Page 1 of 1
file://A:\MVC-004F.JPG
10/26/00
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: October 2, 2001
TO: Planning Commission (October 8" meeting — Item #3)
FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to consider Application 2001-11 requesting the following
actions at 3200 Douglas Dr N (P.I.D. 21-118-21-23-0114), as submitted by
LivingWorks Ventures (applicant) and Zev Oman (property owner):
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation
from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density Residential;
❑ Rezoning from B-4 Community Commercial to R-3 Medium Density
Residential; and
❑ Site Plan Review for construction of a two family dwelling.
A. BACKGROUND
The subject property is located at 3200 Douglas Drive North (P.I.D. 21-118-21-23-
0114). Its dimensions are 149.3' north -south and 129.37' east -west, for a total area of
19,315 sq. ft. or 0.44 acres. The property is presently guided Neighborhood
Commercial and zoned B-4 Community Commercial. The property is vacant.
Living Works Ventures would like to build a two family dwelling on the site. The facility
would be used as a supportive housing facility for 12 low income disabled adults. Six
people would be housed in each of the 2 dwelling units. Under the present land use
designation and B-4 zoning, residential uses are not permitted. The following changes
would be required for the development to proceed:
❑ Change the property's Future Land Use designation (Comprehensive Plan, Fig. 7)
from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density Residential.
❑ Change the property's zoning classification from B-4 Community Commercial to R-3
Medium Density Residential.
❑ Approve the submitted site and building plans.
The application for these changes has been submitted by Living Works Ventures
(applicant) and Zev Oman (property owner).
Notice of the Planning Commission's public hearing was mailed to all property owners
within 700 feet of the subject property on September 215` and published in the Sun Post
on September 26th. It should be noted that the original application requested a change
to High Density Residential and R-2 zoning. Because these two are not typically
compatible, staff has suggested that the applicant request Medium Density Residential
and R-3 zoning which are compatible. The applicant has accepted this suggestion.
The following exhibits are attached:
❑ map showing the location of the subject property;
❑ map showing future land use as shown in the current comprehensive plan;
❑ map showing future land use if the requested change were to be approved;
❑ map showing zoning districts as shown on the current zoning map;
❑ map showing zoning districts if the requested change were to be approved;
❑ narrative submitted by the applicant;
❑ site, utility and landscape plans;
❑ floor plan and west elevation of the proposed building;
❑ staff alternates for providing even more parking in the future if needed.
B. STAFF COMMENTS
1. Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan shows a mixture of residential and commercial land
uses in the area near the property. These include Low Density Residential, High
Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial and Parks & Conservation.
The basic issue appears to be whether Neighborhood Commercial (NC) or
Medium Density Residential (MDR) is the appropriate long-term use of the
subject property. The Comprehensive Plan describes them as follows:
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) - These areas are generally relatively
small in size and provide day-to-day convenience retail and service
opportunities within easy walking and biking distance of surrounding
neighborhoods. These generally contain smaller shops in shopping
centers or freestanding structures. They are intended to be more
personal in scale and as compatible as possible with the neighborhoods.
they serve. Typical uses include grocery stores, laundromats, barber and
beauty shops, pharmacies, hardware stores, offices and clinics, and non -
automotive repair shops which are accessory to retail establishments.
Automobile -intensive uses, such as filling stations, car washes and drive-
through restaurants, should not be located in these areas except as lawful
non -conforming uses.
Medium Density Residential (MDR). These are primarily transitional areas
where a mid -density gradient in housing intensity from high to low density
is appropriate and desirable to optimize land use compatibility. These
primarily correlate with existing MDR developments and redevelopment
areas. Housing types are generally single family attached units that are
designed like townhome or garden apartments that fit into a single-family
neighborhood character. Medium density housing is intended to have a
density of five to 12 units per gross acre.
3200 DOUGLAS - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING & SITE PLAN REVIEW
2
Staff believes that the proposed change would (1) facilitate infill development on
long -vacant land and (2) result in a land use more consistent with surrounding
uses than the present commercial designation. The new building would serve
as a transition between higher density apartments to the north and low density
residential south of 32nd along Douglas Drive. The market demand for housing is
strong and a change in the land use designation would facilitate the development
of what has for many years been a vacant, underutilized parcel.
However, it is important to note that having small office or retail establishments
at locations such as the subject property can be compatible with surrounding
residential uses. The fact that the property has been undeveloped for many
years may be a reflection of a lack of aggressive marketing by the seller,
unknown soil conditions, or other factors not related to the suitability of the land
for a general type of use; it does not necessarily mean that the Neighborhood
Commercial designation is flawed. The site plan for a veterinary office (approved
for this site in 1999 but never built) shows that a site of this size is certainly
sufficient for small offices. The construction of a dental office building on a
similarly sized site at 5237 Douglas further shows that the site is large enough to
accommodate appropriately scaled commercial uses.
This situation is clearly one where the Planning Commission and City Council
need to make a judgement between two equally defensible positions. Decisions
regarding the Comprehensive Plan's land use designations are where the city
has the greatest degree of discretion and judgement.
2. Rezoning.
The zoning designation is required by law to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan's land use designation. If the land use designation is
changed to Medium Density Residential, than the property should be rezoned to
R-3. If the land use designation remains Neighborhood Commercial, then
rezoning to R-3 would conflict with the plan.
The proposed building is a two family dwelling. Two family dwellings are a
permitted use in the R-3 district but are not permitted under the current B-4
zoning. If the rezoning to R-3 is approved the proposed use would be permitted.
It is important to note that, under the ordinance's definition of "family", no more
than three unrelated people can occupy a dwelling unit. However, M.S. 462.357
Subd. 8 states that "a state licensed residential facility serving from 7 through 16 .
persons.., shall be considered a permitted multifamily residential use for the
purposes of zoning". The City Attorney has advised staff that, although the
proposed facility will not be state licensed, case law suggests that facilities
similar to state licensed facilities are also covered under this statute. For these
reasons, staff believes that in this case the ordinance's limitation on the number
of unrelated people occupying a dwelling unit is 'trumped' by the state statute.
3200 DOUGLAS — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING & SITE PLAN REVIEW
3
3. Site Plan Review.
Minimum lot area for a two family dwelling is 12,500 sq. ft.; the site has 19,315
sq. ft.
Each of the proposed building's two dwelling units will have roughly 3,000 sq. ft.
of finished floor area plus an unfinished basement. Each unit will have six
bedrooms, three and one-half bathrooms, an open living -dining -kitchen area,
and a main floor laundry. The building exterior will have residential style lap
siding, a mixture of gable and hip roofs, a wraparound porch and an uncovered
patio for each unit, and a two car garage attached to the south unit. There will
also be an access door between the two units' living areas. (Please note that the
north portion of the porch will have to be eliminated because it extends into the
required rear yard setback.)
For the proposed use, a 1 -hour common wall and 1 -hour fire door are the
minimum requirements for fire protection. However, staff recommends that the
common wall be built as if each unit were located on a separate parcel, so that
future conversion to a condo/townhouse can be made if desired. Also, the use
of federal and/or state funding for this project may require fire sprinkling. The
applicant should work with the Building Official on these issues.
Water and sanitary sewer connections will be made to existing stubs at the edge
of Douglas Drive; the existing water service on 32"d Avenue will need to be
abandoned.
The site plan shows two off street spaces in addition to the two garage spaces.
This meets the requirement for a two family dwelling. However, due to the
unique type of dwelling and the large number of bedrooms in each unit, staff has
directed the applicant to show "proof of parking" for at least four additional stalls
(a total of eight). The site plan does meet this requirement. Also, staff has
sketched an alternate arrangement showing how up to 12 stalls could
theoretically be placed on the site.
The landscape plan has been reviewed and approved by the City Forester. It
should be noted that underground irrigation of turf and landscaped areas will be
required as a condition of approval.
C. SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
To approve: Medium Density Residential development on the subject property
would be compatible with adjacent land uses. The proposed development would
be consistent with the stated purpose for medium density residential areas.
3200 DOUGLAS — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING & SITE PLAN REVIEW
4
To deny: The present land use designation is appropriate. Neighborhood
Commercial uses would be desirable and practical on the subject property and
there have been no changes in the surrounding area to suggest that the land use
designation should be changed.
2. Rezoning.
To approve (assuming the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved): R-3
zoning would be consistent with the property's Medium Density Residential land
use designation.
To deny (assuming the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved): R-3
zoning would be in conflict with the property's Neighborhood Commercial land
use designation.
3. Site Plan Review.
To approve (assuming the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning are
approved): The proposed site plan is consistent with the requirements of City
Code, subject to the following conditions:
❑ This site plan approval shall not be effective until an ordinance rezoning the
subject property to R-3 becomes effective.
❑ The north portion of the porch, as indicated in staffs notes on the building
plan, will need to be eliminated because it extends into the required rear yard
setback.
❑ The existing water service on 32nd Avenue shall be abandoned at the
applicant's expense in accordance with the requirements of the city's utilities
division.
❑ In the event that parking demand exceeds the number of off-street stalls
provided, staff may order the applicant (or their successor) to install additional
spaces as necessary to accommodate all parking off-street.
❑ All turf and landscaped areas shall be irrigated with an underground system.
❑ Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall enter into a Site
Improvement Agreement and provide financial surety in the form of a cash
deposit or letter of credit to ensure satisfactory installation of the site
improvements shown in the submitted plans.
❑ In the event that the facility ceases to be used in a manner similar to a state
licensed residential facility as described in M.S. 462.357, the Zoning
Ordinance prohibition on more than three unrelated people occupying a
single dwelling unit shall apply.
3200 DOUGLAS - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING & SITE PLAN REVIEW
5
To deny (assuming the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning are
denied): The proposed use is not permitted in the B-4 district.
D. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Application 2001-11 requesting Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, Rezoning and Site Plan approval for property located at 3200 Douglas Dr
N (P.I.D. 21-118-21-23-0114), as submitted by LivingWorks Ventures (applicant) and
Zev Oman (property owner). Findings of fact and conditions of approval are as stated
in Section C of the staff report.
The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation on the request for City
Council consideration.
The City Council will consider the request at its meeting on October 23rd. Second
reading of the rezoning ordinance would occur on November 6th. Publication of the
rezoning ordinance would likely occur on November 14th. Site Plan approval would not
be effective until the Rezoning ordinance is effective (30 days after publication).
3200 DOUGLAS - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING & SITE PLAN REVIEW
6
43
I
131.zy -- "3z,zv 27.29 i'll) I
iz
4 9 *6
r -u
_e . -' 2 M
cl. \ Ac. Zmo
7 13/31 >
vO
9 BZK. I
,.r.V.39 6
13 3 8 177,29 1; 40 4-0 tml
':3
Al 0'U'50'E.
3137 co \
7,5
7Nio I Irk Z;
13 4-Z5
r 33
Z
i
L Ui
6
e.
3
>
lfl
—7 64
7
041' )4 4 0
.0
3
)..
a
0
3e 3 F
w
2494 Y4
34 1
4
,61
SUNNYBROOKA
g'4
11*7'
A
31
zic
M
2
71.751 71-15
3 i
t34. I Z
1141, 1
ui
1.0
4
DD. 3
'134.65
0)
(44 ZO)
13 .7 1 X4. 7Z
l4cft /4/4
IZ
(44 of) "n
Xto
0
210
IA
1142
13
<fir. A
5
4
0-134.71>
Er
/34.44
I >
IE
/14L
70•
02
4
C fga
.43
1
3
zgz..f
ACRES
7
6
wazwy
P.
P.
ND ADD.
227-$z
VGZ
30 13-41
to
5 z
4
o
3.ul
4
40
/21.31
>6
3
c
7 T'
CRAVE N'S
2
z
3>
131.zy -- "3z,zv 27.29 i'll) I
iz
4 9 *6
r -u
_e . -' 2 M
cl. \ Ac. Zmo
7 13/31 >
vO
9 BZK. I
,.r.V.39 6
13 3 8 177,29 1; 40 4-0 tml
':3
Al 0'U'50'E.
3137 co \
7,5
7Nio I Irk Z;
13 4-Z5
r 33
Z
i
L Ui
>
—7 64
7
041' )4 4 0
.0
3
)..
a
wqWi
w
4
�SI5 4
,61
jo
g'4
A
31
zic
71.751 71-15
ev 1420 �4
3
ui
1.0
'134.65
0)
IZ
0> 7
Xto
0
210
IA
1142
4o /30
4. S f3o
L S
130 2ji.3
3' 5' Z' 7'
SuB�c-T
(If 17Z 0)
13071-
C°1"3) P. 7
!313.0 —
PART OF LOT
a �l�
J 4Tff
�+ j �l 2 7
11 C V ' r C) ! k
Qj
6
r
ROOD
k-
rt ! 1S "' G „ 7.46 • .�,
,��
1
FIR7DD
a) 41 p _Ol
��`
W. 133.83 _2 t31d2._ !!.6'-0pz B1 8,
RAY J. ' A
a G
WN
FIRS 2 ADD.: a
16192 1939L 3 ca
�., 7l7,9z r31.9i..Q, °°�• 8 1 6. /34.44
7-0 1 /y3.95- -1 i
�, 1��•95 r� .ta ,.
133.97 J3) 97 �7rj. ?
` i 5 JA ES i /341
�Q'�P � Ij4 L
19 e.
a x1841 3 I3 4 3c.la~
z o
17 P DO'P J ;L3 J �Y D. 4.43
p Q
---Tx4.1I79•! _ � 34.I p 127•J
! 6 QO.
fit
J D
hldls davi
� S
`a Cr 13 21 �Q
134,e 34-9--- V�.� w 3
M 14�; 7 m I ,�6 pQ'N M lass 1344
r �
H
13 6 2 .�C� 2
s rsZi9 Is�r9 3a.z9 \� A .-ri �
0
13 ,30 39 N
G�
o N WZJ'Sm'E.71
T 14.1 40uj
5+ 3a 8 I � 8 � �• d
1l4.ifay� d , o
6 3
,I toi v Lu
Ln
w a s
-- !o a 1So
Fisc PACHS �
31 210
rr G�,D �►,� � N 2 -
w A6vMON
76 it
7Z.75 M75LJ
ti4. y
• a � �o • ti IGZo) a 1 �;�cb�' I
i ��y 2� l N y.yj1�27r.
1p � �J - �- JJiZ:! 72.75 104.5 __
- i �y�t �yy �� /34.65 166.5
/'�1/ .`ANO.
D
0
o h a
W" 469
,r / 0 7 X8 00Zia
2/0
o
0 3
isz. 13Ls I
Z F le
141, 74 134 1 i 4
134,11
SUNNYBROOK- MA.9
3 134 1?
3a 12 ^ .
301. j 4 C- 3
I! jai
(442,0) 13 -7 -4. 79
3R
(44!S) (446)� / D �. B
ALT
• /3
15t.a-.t f3r.45/s•s.71
4.7
A11144
R L 734.7!
D � ' D 6 (A3 ' 3 Cr
74.
134.1 D
E _07Q 2z
�5Y C ..• 134.cr 0114r
ZL1.Jf so ro
Z9 Z. �• '74.4 �74.c..
ACRES
7 ` h
ND ADD.13.41
Z9Zij
5 M, 090 04
9[, - 4
.. 3
D6
I -A, 40r
_ 3t_
L. 2
a Q7 S
3 �
13L3 N
ut
It L15 TM
N \
131_ 2 ^ \ ��. �4.Ac. 2ND
l
0
60
w
0
LOs_s,4} 130
S x
' 130 2u.3
1 3Sa.29
l LOT 25
rn
4s T 3sa. s7
1!4.33 1 7
FUTURE LAND USE AS
(I PRESENTLY GUIDED IN THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
-! LDR Low Density Residential
HDR High Density Residential
NC Neighborhood Commerr
P&C Parks & Conservation
tt1.I s ,
>�Y•
h
y
I
w a "
all, �
Z
111 73
V
1 9$
Z
zu f4
s'
134 1 3 4
11 011.97
W
SU�NNYBRQOi�
I MA -p' 27?
x
4
►F
6 �,•
•�
/•��
G�
N
3
134.11
_
(]31
167.
(j
3oz• j
a DD. 3
131 L
SMV�i
h
I
J
��
�ti
,
A
-
r,42a)
i
13 7 f1;.71
f
U_
N 13 �+ ��
133.83
13
L3A1
ADDS
{
'< o�'0)
�'...I)3.d2...
a
�0
�
/cc sz /4/
(4415) (44Of)�
s R
3
' p B
lb,
-
iad,...
w�
-RAY J.
' ,
n a7 As��
f
+c
1 131-91
` l33
" �,
�� . /11 `
5 4
FIRS
ZADQ$
9
C
�
1
f34.7t
133 .92
717,92
1339t
131,yr
•
j
�'
1
�.Ba
6
-rr
- D 6 i 3
v
Q
uE
f)3.97
I)3.
19
/3i44rz
+�
P70 • 02
19
u
4J
ESI
t a
� C ♦��
IJ4. Gf /J•1 -G7
r
I
Q
4
134 ac
_43
1,
Zcz�
291.! -
o
v
rl4 �Gh
Zap
o
p
�,.:.
r Z
3
ACRES
t_
7
17
Q0
Q
ti,l , 1
`a' 4.11 11
127.cow
33
x.43
_ N D /B4 D l t W
t`
D� �}'M
lei
Oq
192
J
c
t14ls
r3 ./
UP
5 a
- og_ a ' 04
II
IS
ytifml*S
.0 V��13 2f
O09 *
,ZAf
T
r-
s h
"
3
f a 3
M
14
3#
„6z62
r4.
3f• •94
2
13
v0Nwr//,,,
z
Li
'1
L97
3nVP4�,1o23Q�9Q4
msRsa.-. Dp�
.Zfn
8O37L_
3
N
�0tc
4r•�5
/I]StU{.
f/3N1
`.5
'
/3
•o
D
t
,Z.
.1�
�^w
IN
9
aW
9
60
\,, �I(
-
^
j'
o
..�.r�.
......
/ 3
.
lf�j 74
10
40
134.13
3
r93
cos.s
•
e
8
I
13a
T
Uj�-
>
/7 �,�
#
S
^
111. !6
aY!
6 3•�
0
.�
14. Zf
V a
4
-
�14�0)
/30 211.3
350-27
��
104
621
,ti,M 6
I,
M
LOT
23
1
3 4 r
3
a /So
i =
W
1y4 300415 14, 1 �r/.
tf 5
-6.
455.5
FISC
j3hCFi'$ I r
!Te
3sa. 57
G.33 [Se
,.'3 1
«9
210
�•,
AOat7tic�wt � $
FUTURE LAND USE
'd
72.75
7Z.1s
'210
I
•
a
AS REQUESTED
ybr►
BY THE APPLICANT:
Ui
��
>
<
�'� � s,a1
„,
+•Yi3�17'-
�Qd' R=3e.3
i -
LDR Low Density Residential
J���
TL7
7z.7f
47.3
1e4.y
--
''�?�{
QI134.65
3115 AV •� D•
_
16H.5
MDR Medium Density Residential-
/00
`
h
HDR High Density Residential
t%�
a
�✓
fZ
�d
-...... 65
168.5
"�
NC Neighborhood Commercial _
s
Z
o
t / ai
z/o °
P&C Parks &Conservation
e
�� i Ems'
0
3
Ir*t
LA
a I a c� /s 6 3
rg
lu, s l
gym n a
> 41-q3 M �0 27 Z ztz1474
S' 134 1 3 4
110 V 1147 SUNNYBR IIWAR�1 ,z ,),,,,3
.�7AY
1 V 167.46 r .. ^ 302. j 4^Dr 3
t, I 33 01 �i. _ /4J20} I> .7 .�w --. �.7X
13 .11 B y g _ A `T'4/ ~E� A
) 412 '� ol N / rt /4/LL.�V® x'...13}�2.. •5!. .v [��lS� ( aft ^ D`II
$1.1111
0 / ^� rn► N 'r.0 li/.�.ti1 /3,.>r
w'i� N e fir. Z A 5
FIRST -1 Z A - 533 9 b' �, - 4 ,3f.n
�. 737�9Z 13J,9tt J2yiZ.BB.�e D 6 _ — 3
i. /3e D
2® I -1x3.95- / u � E
' v Ils.97. fsJ.9/ �° 1j3:95 1z �7 v' O 2
><1 y a
19 = h 5 J A E C I /34 4 S f • —1341f r
13f.o1 3 3 - V{
MI r 1�2. oma/ N y
r 18 Q . Z92. 4e s�.c
2
M _ ACRES 7 6
O 431P 3 �f�i lj. R � ^
4
13 4)11 34.'x' 33 N€3 ADD. M� _�
134. 10
LAJ
C
I� rJ,r1r 34./s C7 yy� ' ao S 5 ` t2 09. O : ° 04
1 J 15 6 , .D V�13 21 -.\DOQ Y - - 4.14' 81-
l3%z s .z µJ V` 3 D la 3
1g \ 7 1 OQ'N x` r
i 13f.Z� /5f.L4 v )43 Q w C 0— E 2
' 13 a v z .�� 2 ° 3
6 c 15429 ISAc9 34,49 A 6
a 9
r 2
.7 r f); it. )7 /]¢.33 * N G�� Q� 13/.39 ` D q \ \13 AG. ?ND
9 C/)
Cho 7 3x.37 \
p T 154,1 I}4.Z 40 54.2 134•z5 3 cOs.s
V n 730
,.
4o /30a•L S
d
^ Jars 130 211,3
04.1f
- ay/ � Q
!l 3!•v,titiY g N (1) LOT 25
_ 203 5111, T,
S 4 tilt/, M in r �,I!'4s'.13 \� 4 /so < f
4555 Z ....
----
10 I w lSa 54..iso. s7
�If o FISC PACH1S I
31 210 r
ZONING DISTRICTS _
7, „s �JACCORDING TO THE, , 7zs 72,5.
CURRENT ZONING MAP:
74' 144 5
/�s s a1 l
I� < �5,,�� -._. ��°z��z.vs o+ 47-3 - - R-1 Single Family Residential
/34.65 6H.5
*Nst N_= R-4 High Density Residential
/oo
a l � D
B-3 Auto Oriented CommE , 11
B-4 Community Commercial
A / s I
/0 y ae O0 Q
•V N
I�
0
3
Tw Uz. •s 3
73
-� c } o X11 3e .2 F li
r Fc�,
y m Z UZ f4 5'4
Q V 2 yS 8O1 1.C7 k SUNNYB 0<>i .M/� )ZM134.11 167.46 s " 3aI. j 4
DD. 3
m I - n
Il 'h 33 Col r� . / I0� 13 7 M w. IJ4. 7t
13FIR ° 13 is° 7 g2 A 44CS R
y) _ '3FIR p+��)Ai 2 of N /4c fx /4/ 3
LL, 133.83 t Yw1iJD ....13132... .Q i<4IS) (44,K) " r p /h B
151,82.
N I y 9 0 /33 9 4 ;� ' .< fir. A .�' S 4
F1R5 2ADa$ JL,rte (34.71
73392 rJ>9ft + 4` 5 ^\ . 212. ti 'D6� _ -3�
v v 1 " E614
r
133.9.JHyS�7 0 -0
Z!-
pp 5 /3C 4
1! u ` `D. YI 'J C
M r P v
n 18 4 3L.<3
-z.! .6.
aw Q-. to r z ACRES7 5
Qo� 1 4.11 33 ' N I� M I� D: "
is OQ./3 v� st.lo° 127.J zxt �'€iR3'
J - 5 IUj I o f x.42 o 13-41 /3441
bo S c, N k ag, 0
OQQ 4
y z I ^
Y 91•- 4
3 6 ^ 3
134, L5
2
i f3f•Zi 17{24 u4s - cn Z Q� 3Nr GRAVE
0
13 7 9 y 2 °' S D[
t fT1.Z9 /SAaq 34,29 N
° I Z 9 I (7 �-
46 ;0 pI
.s vy fn �i w 2
7 ♦1 l fJ¢.J7 /J V33 � N Ge OO. r� 13134
ll 10 v _/�\� P w g w
r 7 v 174.3v :Sf/.79 60 V 13 3H �{ye (� u •� X20 \
.... 44o Al. 49'11'50'6. 7 \
:!'I._ C 11.1 IN•S 60 14.2 I)4.29j LOs.S o I'. 11 7
M30 Q I;tt B I r .y 40 30
T LL1
�� • �. L S fi
J v.i 1r� h 71 • V ��
Q ^ j4,:f ` /30 2,1.3
n4.15
a jr %� 4 350.21
6 3 ;3.� ;4 -,ti1~ ffV B N (1 ) LOT
Zoi Lit i. X23
f o, /Sa
Ln
i' 3y4 3d I Z 'Ry7. W a
• :rT - 1 o I
ZONING DISTRICTS
3I Esc P S I r- AS REQUESTED
BY THE APPLICANT:
7z75 >x.,5 , , �f' R-1 Single Family Residential
Y
�o ry ��24i N A 3 zl, s41'3ha I
,Yr�a21"� R-3 Medium Density Residential
ti > '
ya1 �, pd3
b�J7�L.1 7L.7S 104. 47.3
4.65 m ,69.5 R-4 High Density Residential
/aa
D m B-3 Auto Oriented Commercial
B-4 Community Commercial
Cal
-8 Bd vo a
v 7 z/o w>2 WWI
// �' M
_ Living rks Ventures
e
P O Box 308
Loretto, MN 55357
763 479 3555
LivingWorks Ventures proposes to erect a high quality residence on the vacant lot at 3200
Douglas Drive. The building will be over 5000 square feet in size, the first floor of which will be
fully accessible. The total cost of the project will be approximately $1,000,000. This LivingWorks
lodge will be home for up to six adults in each of the two units.
A LivingWorks lodge functions much like a family. Lodge members establish the house rules,
help each other out, and share chores such as shopping, cooking, cleaning and yard work. All lodge
members are employed, and in fact they must be employed in the community as a condition of
lodge residency. Employment is guaranteed at General Mills for those who do not have other job
opportunities
A staff coordinator is onsite at the lodge 10-20 hours a week (and is on can when not onsite)
to help with house logistics as well as provide support to lodge members individually and as a
group.
."14N LivingWorks Lodges are an affordable alternative to efficiency apartments and rooming houses and
provide that little extra support many people with brain injuries need to live and work productively
in the community.
LivingWorks Ventures is a nonprofit organization, established as a "sister" organization of Vinland
Center in 1998 to own and/or manage community-based properties providing low-income,
accessible housing and employment for disabled adults. The first LivingWorks Lodge opened
in New Hope in December 1998.
September, 2001
SEP -17-2001 14:14 DJ & R 61=' 676 2796 P 02/0=,
_
� ��••� BERM
� 1
N-* Tt-1 !.1..
UTILITY I DRA.IIIA&r:
EAS1:MFNT
U
PORCH
U/:. .
a •
PATI D'>r ` •
U)
Elm
(D TILITY'
DRAB A
tA5EMLN
I
RE5IDENCE I
I
I
G,ARA6,E Ai�1ROV*4s 1
INPIGATEi I
1:>5A I NAG�l
FUORE:: _..._I
ARKIN; �! i
__ SrALLS I d v I
I
52ND AVENUE
DrR
V Architecture, I PRELIMINARY 51TE 8 DRAINAGE PLAN
Inc. �• . �o.-o•
N VINLAND LODGE
St. Mdar+y Maln
2125etot�dStrwSE GRY5TAL, MINNESOTA
Sul% 314 GATE : 9/ I �/O i
Mrn lis, MN 55414
Ph. (6362-17431 ,O 5 NO: Ga 2
,chi
U
SEP -17-2001 14:16 UJ & R 612 E76 2796 P.0 ./F_1F
32ND AVENUE
HwV
Architecture, UTILITY pLANInc. (D;P�FZIE-�Lllt�-111NAIRVYI
N vINLANP LODGE
$CM$+onrMain CRYSTAL, MINNESOTA
21,€2te 3s� west SE 1
Minneapolis, MN 55414 BATE: Ci/1-7/0t
Ph. (612) J05 NO: g19226
TOTAL P. 0
SEP -17-2001 14:15 DJ & R 612 676 2796 P.03,-05
v
HILLS
tv
Iv
:2.
32NE? AVENUE
DJR
5Architecture, 0PRELIMINARY �
LANC50APE PLAN
Inc. 1.a 0'-0*
S A "thony main N VINLAND L006E
L Street
r-R'T'STAL, MINNESOTA
212 SE
Suite 314 DATE, 0111-1101
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Ph. (612)162-0431. JOB NG:' q 226
SEP -17-2001 14:15
DJ&R
612 676 2796 F,04/05
LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE:
TY. K COMMON NAME NNIC.AL NAME SIZE REMARKS
O 1D 0 TR S;
1
AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE
Acer ireernonl7 'Jeffcrsred'
2.5'" CAL B&B
X-,%4�e
3
T
REDMOND LINDEN
JAPANESE TREE LILAC CLUMP
Tiliio omerieeno 'Redmond'
Syringo re6culoto
.4.5" CAL B&B^
"A
3
SPRING SNOW FLOWERING CRAB
clump
Malus 'Spring Snow'
8' HT. B&B
S" CAL.
t*w
"tip �Nl
Amclanchier x grandiilara 'Autumn Brilliancc'
B&e
6' HT. B&B
r^
w wx
v-ov
CONIFEROUS TREES;
3
HS
Picca glouco densato
G' HT, B&B
� 4-c
_
BLACK HILLS SPRUCE
7
88
SMRUBS:
Euomymus ololuo 'Compocto'
1." HT. CONT
COMPACT BURNINC BUSH
11
RD
REDTWIGCEO DOGWOOp
Cornus senGo 'Boileyi'
3' HT, CONT
5
AW
ANTHONY WATERER SPIREA
Spiroeo x bumolde Anthony Woterer
12" HL CONT.
3
AH
ANNABELLE HYDRANGEA
Hydrongeo crboroscens 'Annabelle'
2-3' HT. CON1,
1
MC
MAGIC CARPET SPIREA
Speen japonica 'Mogic Carpet'
3
6
CL
CHINESE LILAC
Syringo x ehinersis ' 5ougcono'
3-4' HT . CONT.
ara
2
HJ
BJ
HUCHS JUNIPER
BROADMOOR JUNIPER
Juniperus horit;ontolis 'Hughes'
Juniperus sabirc 'Broodmovr'
5 GAL. CONT.
2
MJ
MINT JULEP JUNIPER
Juniperus chinensis 'Memlep,
5 CAL. CONT.
5 CAL, CONT.
j,%&vrwU
!C'4vi;�b'�' P"
--REN NIALS'
STELLA DE ORO DAYLILY
15
SO
Hemerocollis '5tclio de Oro'
1 GAL. CONT
14
OF
OSTRICH FERN
Moiteuceie siruthioptcris
1 GAL CONT
5
5
FR
FEATHER REED GRASS
Colomogrosti:
1 GAL. CONT
TO
LB
Br
LITTLE SLOESTORM GRASS
BLUE FESCUE
Schinchryrium scoporius
'Elijah
1 GAL. CONT
14
PC
PJRPLE CONEFLOWER
Fc=stuco glouco Blue'
Echinoceo Purpureo
t GAL. CONT
16
13
BS
BLACK—EYED SUSAN
Rudoeckla (ulgioo
GAL CONT
t CAL. CONT
VQr. SVILvontif 'Coldsturm'
4
55
HOSTA 'SUM&SUBSTANCE'
'ELEGANS'
H. Sum&Substonce
i CAL. CONT
4
HS
H05TA $IEBULDLANA
H, 54bololano 'Elegons'
i GAL. CCNT
2
Hr
HOSTA FORTUNE! 'HYACINTHIA'
H. fortunsi 'Hycocinthio'
t GAL. CONT
PPRE0LIINARY LAN5GAPE SCHEDULE
xMP
2
DTR
Architecture,
Inc.
SL Andwny Main
212 Second Street SE i
SuiEe 314
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Ph. (612) 362-0431
'./INLAND Lc�L7��
CRYSTAL, MI�NE50TA
DATE: X1/17/01
JOB NO: cic=&
_T+itS Popmw of-- T�w A7Rc.H -M BEr
CSS' Sr rE- PL4AI.
rimm rn ❑
v v
V/ N
m
�� ❑
•
M
v
r
z
� v o
r
v
n
a D
I
i
�
VILANDLOUDGENAI IUNAL ULN I LK
P-p� ti P.-
CRYSTAL, MN
wrcxr
R
0
g_
8[
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
Tflfs Pi112710N of ftC.{ ?a 66 ajmrN*Ta
D
It
Y
p
¢
VINLAND NATIONAL CENTER
LODGE
w LANDCRYSTAL,
, tiagg«p
E
CRYSTAL, MN
,.or�.w
uo.rcrr �ndw b I— WbM.
�y�c
5
8
n
N
f
�
O
= s
E
SECOND FLOOR PLAN.
I
TM f5 IV-T(o m of
Po" To B9-
ELimIt'wTv7j.
(05- srr�T a.nu.)
DJR
Architecture,
Inc.
i1e soj ww2 n
SWU 211
YI Y.1AM 11
JR-- M
ill's
a�
�a
x
W
z
W
U
J
a z
z o
o
f- a
a >
zW LiJ
Zoo _ W
J
z
z Ix
O
5:5: U t+z -
04.M i W
O,1t Ms= 1/23/0,
Joe w. M22.
SEF -17-2001 14=14
I
DJ :? R
612 676 2796 P. L�2.-t_i-
UTILITY 8 DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
I
i
I �
YTIL17-r
DRAT1 A
iASEMEN
� I
I I
I �
I i
I I
I �
I I
I �
i I
I � I
ul 1
fbka� + $ 12. 5v"s Tri
32ND AVENUE
DSR
l/
Architecture,
I PRELIMINARY 51TE 8
DRAINAGE PLAN
Inc,
r . 20'-cr
SL=Main
21 SOW
Sulm 314
N VINLAND LODGE
CRYSTAL, MINNMSOTA
DATE; 9/1"7/01
Min lis, MN $5414
^
Pk (6362-0431
JOI3 NO: 9a 2 --36
Foss tFu-m/24rem-w-
PAWING
fbka� + $ 12. 5v"s Tri
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SCALE 1" = 20' -0" Sept 18, 2001
Daniel R. Poorman
58 Pascal Street South
St Paul, MN 55105
Charles 3. Radloff • Architect
9979 Valley View Rd #256
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
952 941 1667
S.(
3SC
408
`
302
3�
0Wim644 Ti-maI1AwttmlaflC:a/qn
C644ST 4� . uar tacr�a
•.-»r s
Y7�lqr
3q1 5A
5V
38C
mommy 0:47
z m � n <: CD
'> Z c o s•
n 0 z
502 r o m o:
D 0 3
r N o:0
o
(rj)Z< w°��
4h-
'
3v < 0
—
— --
' r
EXISTING4
-- — --
EQUIPMENT 12' x so'
—
m Z
S'.�MW a
7
.....
*
m
cor._Mor I
BUILDING
---•-------'---
--------I
I °o r
wRWer rlaa 1
I
0
VWWY Lcc,AMN I
Li
}
,�
t
I 9] WASH TUNNE
I
O z Z p
agraR�araia (j
toa►naa I
.
,
/
---
36'X 52'o
mZ
i
° m
I I
_
1
ILDING
o ; o D
C
STOMER PA
'
-UnDETAIL
m m z
Z( 4JA 1
A'
y BAY
[L
4
F. 'z z z z
-
W z R Rl
v
.uq
WA P
.'I
(p
D Z N
>
�„( �xmoK >
�
I
w� m N
i
I I
NEW I
I
2G�8 J V A A r
W I
Z
t•
42'1
I
I
i
3a Ja <
i
A A ' �� • '-r
BUIL I
J m w o
t I
� •i
r -. r '-r
vA
i
I
I
M
� aru�caa •
�• rfYr l amus •!-I'
I
I
I
I
}
i
,
I
LOT AREA = 45,758 +/- SQ FT
I
I
II
I EXISTING BLDG 70' X 114' 7.980 SQ FT
I I
I
NEW CONSTRUCTION = 3,804 SQ FT
I
TOTAL BLDG = 12,000 SQ FT+/-
t�
?Y-!
'-Is'a
f.P-�
1 CAM DMvR
• 2C b!9
.s.
UNN
AA- ♦ alll)
PAL
-�"TM�*►
CUB FOODS
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SCALE 1" = 20' -0" Sept 18, 2001
Daniel R. Poorman
58 Pascal Street South
St Paul, MN 55105
Charles 3. Radloff • Architect
9979 Valley View Rd #256
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
952 941 1667
S.(
CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS ON PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
(since last Planning Commission meeting on September 10, 2001)
September 25, 2001:
1. CONTINUED: Application 2001-9 for a variance to reduce the required setback
from a public street for a detached garage. Property address is 6702 51St Place
North (P.I.D. 08-118-21-13-0015). Application submitted by Brent J. Weyer
(applicant and property owner).
2. APPROVED: Final Plat for Valley Place Estates, a 14 -unit townhouse development
at 7221 32nd Avenue N.
CITY OF CRYSTAL
Development Status Report — as of September 30, 2001
PLANNING & ZONING APPLICATIONS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
Glen Haven Memorial Gardens Funeral Home, 5100 West Broadway. This would be an 8,030
sq. ft. building located adjacent to the pond on West Broadway. Site plan approval was granted
in April 1999 and an extension was granted in August 2000. Approval expired because
construction was not initiated by August 15, 2001. However, they are expected to re -apply for
approval of the facility when they make a final decision to go forward with the project.
2. Glen Haven Memorial Gardens maintenance building. This would be a 5,000 sq. ft.
maintenance building with a fenced and screened outdoor storage area. Site plan approval was
granted in June 1999 and an extension was granted in August 2000. As a condition of approval
the building will be required to not have metal walls or roofing. Site plan approval will expire if
construction is not initiated before Dec. 31, 2001.
3. Alpine Dental, 5237 Douglas Dr. In August 2000, the City Council approved a site plan for a
3,500 sq. ft. dental office building. A revised site plan reorienting the building was approved on
February 20th. The site includes two parcels, one of which was a redevelopment lot sold by the
EDA to Alpine Dental in 1999. Construction is essentially completed.
4. Parkside Acres (47th & Zane). In September 2000, the City Council approved a development
plan for 40 townhomes and ten single family homes on the ten acre site. The ten single family
homes are being built on two acres along the west side of Zane Avenue and the townhomes are
being built on the remaining eight acres. The development will include a pond and wetland area,
landscaped berms along 47th Avenue, and ped/bike trails connecting the development to the
Crystal Community Center. Eighteen townhouse units are either complete or under
construction; six have been sold at an average price of $264,000. Five single family homes are
either complete or under construction; one has been sold at $278,000. For more information call
Jeff Habisch at the Parkside Acres office (535-1955).
5. Lot Division at 6828 Corvallis. The City Council approved this lot division on April 17th. It
creates a new lot at 6827 51St Place out of what was formerly a double frontage lot at 6828
Corvallis. The existing house at 6828 Corvallis will remain and a new house will be built at 6827
51St Place. The resolution approving the lot division has been recorded but the owner and
builder are still working out the details of the property transfer. Construction of the new house
will probably now have to wait until spring 2002.
6. Dunlo Motors (5241 West Broadway). The City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit and
Site Plan on June 19th for construction of a new building and reconfiguration of the parking lot.
Construction is expected to get underway this fall.
7. Valley Place Estates (7221 32nd). The City Council approved this medium density 14 -unit
townhouse development on August 21St. Construction of the infrastructure is underway and the
first units are expected to be completed by spring 2002. The developer, Z. B. Companies, has
stated that the starting price for these three bedroom / two bathroom townhomes will be
approximately $170,000.
10/03/01 \\CY_FS1\SYS\GROUPS\COMDEVLP\PLAN NING\General\DevelopmentStatusReports\2001-3rdquarter.doc
REDEVELOPMENT - SINGLE-FAMILY REHABILITATION (scattered site rehab)
8. 5536 Regent. The EDA purchased this property from HUD in August 1999 for $68,400. It was a
small rambler with 720 sq. ft. plus a full finished basement. We constructed an 18'x 24' main
floor addition and converted the house from a two bedroom / one bathroom house into a three
bedroom / two bathroom house. This increased the main floor from 720 sq. ft. to 1,152 sq. ft.
We sold the house on September 5th for $164,350. Total expenditures were $174,000, house
sale proceeds (after realtor and closing costs) were $153,000, and net expenditures were
$21,000.
9. 5204 Florida. The EDA purchased this property from HUD in March 2000 for $61,200. It was a
small rambler with 816 sq. ft. and a crawl space instead of a full basement. We are nearly
complete with the rehab and conversion it to a split level with 1,752 sq. ft. (1,189 finished). This
house will be listed for sale beginning October 11th with a list price of $161,900. Total
expenditures are estimated at $170,000, house sale proceeds (after realtor and closing costs)
are estimated at $150,000 and net expenditures are estimated at $20,000.
10. 6328 38th. The EDA approved the acquisition of this house on September 25th for $98,000. We
intend to acquire the house and draft our rehab specifications by the end of the year, seek bids
in early 2002, and complete the rehab work by late spring 2002. Total expenditures are
estimated at $178,000, house sale proceeds (after realtor and closing costs) are estimated at
$156,000 and net expenditures are estimated at $22,000.
REDEVELOPMENT — SINGLE-FAMILY NEW CONSTRUCTION (scattered site lots)
11. 7116 33rd. In October 2000 we sold this lot to Avery Homes for $38,500. The new house is a
split entry with 2,037 sq. ft. (all finished), four bedrooms, three bathrooms and a tuck -under
double garage. Construction is complete except for landscaping. It sold for $199,900 in April
2001.
12. 7124 33rd. In October 2000 the EDA sold this lot to Dempsey/Gray Contracting for $40,000. The
new house is a split level with 2,564 sq. ft. (1,670 sq. ft. finished), three bedrooms, three and
one-half bathrooms, a partially finished lookout basement and an attached double garage.
Construction is underway and is expected to be completed by late summer 2001. This house
sold for $157,000 in July 2001; however, this figure is lower than the actual market value of the
house because some of the work was performed by the buyer.
13. 6403 41St. In October 2000 the EDA sold this lot to Novak -Fleck for $60,000. Construction is
expected to start in spring 2001 and be completed by late summer 2001. The new house will be
a two-story with 3,547 sq. ft. (2,174 sq. ft. finished), four bedrooms, three bathrooms, an
unfinished walkout basement and an attached triple garage. It sold for $278,000 in June 2001.
14. 5608 Regent. In March 2001 the EDA sold this lot to Sussel Corp. for $30,000. Construction
began in June 2001. The new house will be a two-story with 2,489 sq. ft. (1,689 sq. ft. finished),
three bedrooms, two and one-half bathrooms, an unfinished basement and an attached double
garage. The assessor's estimated value is $183,200. This house is pre -sold.
15. 3408 Quail. In March 2001 the EDA sold this lot to Novak -Fleck for $44,000. Construction
began in May 2001 and the exterior is basically complete. The new house will be a two-story
with 2,394 sq. ft. (1,554 sq. ft. finished), three bedrooms, two and one-half bathrooms, an
unfinished basement and an attached double garage. It sold for $202,175 in August 2001.
10/03/01 \\CY_FS1\SYS\GROUPS\COMDEVLP\PLANNING\General\DevelopmentStatusReports\2001-3rdquarter.doc
16. 4833 Douglas. In March 2001 the EDA sold this lot to Feyereisen Construction for $40,000. The
new house will be a two-story with 2,728 sq. ft. (1,927 sq. ft. finished), 4 bedrooms, 2%
bathrooms, an unfinished basement and an attached triple garage. The assessor's estimated
value is $204,000. Construction is expected to begin in fall 2001. Sale information is not yet
available.
17. 3200 Adair. On June 5t", the EDA accepted a proposal from Novak -Fleck to buy this lot for
$60,000 and build a new house. The new house will be a split entry with 2,571 sq. ft. (2,361
finished), four bedrooms, three bathrooms and an attached triple garage. The assessor's
estimated value (house and land combined) is $211,000. We are currently awaiting a FEMA
map revision to reflect the fact that the property is now elevated out of the flood zone. Upon
FEMA approval we will proceed with sale of the lot to Novak -Fleck in accordance with their
proposal. Sale information is not yet available.
18. 4330 Adair. On September 5t", the EDA accepted a proposal from Al Stobbe Homes to buy this
lot for $46,500 and build a new house. The new house will be a two story with 2,868 sq. ft.
(1,916 finished), three bedrooms, two and one-half bathrooms and a detached double garage.
The assessor's estimated value (house and land combined) is $210,000. Sale information is not
yet available.
19. 5217 34t" Place. On September 25t", the EDA approved the acquisition of this blighted house
for demolition and land banking for future redevelopment. Assuming the owner accepts our
offer, we expect to acquire and demolish the house by the end of the year.
20. 6617 45t". On September 25t", the EDA approved the acquisition of this 496 sq. ft. house for
demolition and new home construction. Assuming the owner accepts our offer, we expect to
acquire and demolish the house by the end of the year. The existing 896 sq. ft. heated and
insulated detached garage will be preserved and sold along with the property. In early 2002, we
expect to solicit proposals from builders to buy the property and construct a new house.
Tentatively, the target price for the property will be $60,000 and the target value upon
completion will be $180,000.
10/03/01 \\CY_FS1\SYS\GROUPS\COMDEVLP\PLANNING\General\DevelopmentStatusReports\2001-3rdquarter.doc
L ! BAOORITN PARK BROOKLYN CENTER u�—i.•
ax b r(
ww ROK
FFF11
lum ell
1
DID5-00CI
�
CITY
_ I _ •- IT
OF
CRYSTAL17
C�C
IOOd 0 IOOd 1000'SCALE
FI n
cFC�C�
' �� ; ��❑SCC[
�F—i+KIIC-I'--�--�f
^moi a .,
IJ
� Lo
1 r
Fai
lEi Ro9e1N50A1.c
L -LI
I�
A ���.`.%.�, b�/a�i
Ei,
i
L���I��F o
B�I � *M
I• i' , i '�I r }Ij �� GOIOEN VALLEY
g1
r Ni I.
Rfw NOPE.
.r• .w• ��—I III CI`. ',I -- } � it �y
_:L•'/ G %.DEN v LLET . J.M.