Loading...
2000.07.10 PC Meeting PacketCRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SUMMARY July 10, 2000 7:00 PM 1. Approval of Minutes from the May 8, 2000 Meeting. 2. Public Hearing: Application 2000-9.9 for Variance, submitted by Donald J. Somers (applicant and owner), to reduce the rear yard setback from 30' to 25' for an addition to a single family house located at 6721 Valley Place North (P.I.D. 20-118- 21-13-0061). 3. Public Hearing: Application 2000-10.3,4 for Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review, submitted by Church of St. Raphael (applicant and owner), to allow expansion of a conditional use in the R-1 Single Family Residential district for construction of a two -unit dwelling to be used as a rectory, on property located at 7301 56th Avenue North (P.I.D. 05-118-21-34-0001). 4. Public Hearing: Interim strategy to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution to all Metropolitan Water Bodies. 5. Discussion Item: Development concept submitted by SVK Development for 40 townhouses and 10 single family houses on a 10 acre site located at the northwest corner of 47th & Zane. - 6. Selection of two Planning Commission members to participate in a July 27th focus group regarding the County Road 81 corridor (Northwest Corridor Partnership). 7. Information Item: Development Status Report for second quarter 2000. 8. Informal discussion and announcements. 9. Adjournment. • For additional information, contact John Sutter at 531-1142 . \\CY_FS 1 \SYS\G ROUPS\COM DEVL P\P LAN NI NG\PLA N COM M\2000\07.10\agendasummary.doc May 8, 2000 CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the following present: Elsen, K. Graham, T. Graham, Kamp, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom, and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Community Development Director Peters, Planner Sutter, and Recording Secretary Van Krevelen. Absent (excused) was Koss. 1. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to approve the minutes of the April 10, 2000 regular meeting. Motion carried. 2. Chair Magnuson declared this was the time and place as advertised for a public hearing to consider Application 2000-6.8 for Lot Division, submitted by City of Crystal Economic Development Authority (applicant and owner), for division of an existing 127' x 290' property located at 3244 Hampshire Avenue North (P.I.D. 20- 118-21-14-0019) into two lots, one for a single-family house and the other for future redevelopment and/or public open space. Planner Sutter discussed the proposed lot division, stating that the property had a wetland and bad soil on parts of the lot, so part of it may be left as public open space. He also stated that if the remainder of the property were developed it would need to be re -platted if divided further. When questioned by the Planning Commission whether there would be access to the back parcels, he said that access would be off Georgia Avenue North. No one was heard. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Elsen to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2000-6.8 for Lot Division, submitted by City of Crystal Economic Development Authority (applicant and owner), for division of an existing 127' x 290' property located at 3244 Hampshire Avenue North (P.I.D. 20-118-21-14-0019) into two lots, one for a single-family house and the other for future redevelopment and/or public open space. The findings of fact are as follows: The proposal complies with the requirements for lot divisions in Crystal City code. It will also provide an additional opportunity for construction of new housing of a type which is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment goals. 'i 1 Motion carried. 3. Chair Magnuson declared this was the time and place as advertised for a public hearing to consider Application 2000-7.8 for Lot Division, submitted by City of Crystal Economic Development Authority (applicant) and L. Duong and H. K. Nguyen (owners), for division of property located at 7200 33`d Avenue North (P.I.D. 20-118-21-24-0002) into one 72' wide parcel to be retained by the current owners and one 2' wide parcel to be acquired by the applicant and combined with property located at 7116 33`d Avenue North for redevelopment purposes. 4. Chair Magnuson declared this was the time and place as advertised for a public hearing to consider Application 2000-8.8 for Lot Combination and Redivision, submitted by City of Crystal Economic Development Authority (applicant) and Randy McGovern (owner), for combination and redivision of property located at 7116 33`d Avenue North (P.I.D. 20-118-21-24-0032) together with the east 2' of property located at 7200 33`d Avenue North (P.I.D. 20-118-21-24-0002), for the purpose of dividing the combined property into two 60' wide lots. Planner Sutter combined item #3 and item #4 when presenting it the Planning Commission. If approved, the width of the property at 7200 33`d Avenue North would be reduced by 2'. The 2' would be combined with the property at 7116 33`d Avenue North. The property at 7116 33`d Avenue North would then be divided into two 60' wide lots to be used for new construction. He stated that the closings on the property transfers would be held after the council meeting if the City Council gives approval. No one was heard. Moved by Commissioner Elsen and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to close the public hearings. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Kamp to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2000-7.8 for Lot Division, submitted by City of Crystal Economic Development authority (applicant) and L. Duong and H. K. Nguyen (owners) for division of property located at 7200 33`d Avenue North (P.I.D. 20-118-21-24-0002) into one 72' wide parcel to be retained by the current owners and one 2' wide parcel to be acquired by the applicant and combined with property located at 7116 33`d Avenue North for redevelopment purposes. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2000-8.8 for Lot Combination and Redivision submitted by City of Crystal Economic Development Authority 2 (applicant) and Randy McGovern (owner), for combination and redivision of property located at 7116 33rd Avenue North (P.I.D. 20-118-21-24-0032) together with the east 2' of property located at 7200 33rd Avenue North (P.I.D. 20-118-21-24-0002), for the purpose of dividing the combined property into two 60' wide lots. Motion carried. The findings of fact are as follows: The proposals comply with the requirements for lot divisions in Crystal City Code. It will also provide an additional opportunity for construction of new housing of a type which is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment goals. 5. Chair Magnuson declared this was the time and place as advertised for a public hearing to consider text changes to Crystal City Code Section 520.23 Subd. 2 which would add "corrugated metal" to the list of exterior building materials that are not permitted for residential and non-residential buildings. Community Development Director Peters stated that the Planning Commission at the April 10th meeting had directed staff to draft a text change prohibiting corrugated metal as a building material. Currently the code prohibits unfinished metal and this would cover both finished and unfinished metal. Community Development Director Peters also mentioned that, as proposed, corrugated metal would be permitted in industrial areas if properly screened. He questioned the Planning Commission whether they wanted to carry it further and prohibit it in industrial areas also. After discussion it was decided to leave it as is, and the issue can be further addressed when the City Code is looked at for possible revision later in the year. No one was heard. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to close the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to recommend to the City Council to approve text changes to Crystal City Code Section 520.23 Subd. 2 which would add "corrugated metal" to the list of exterior building materials that are not permitted for residential and non-residential buildings. Motion carried. 6. Chair Magnuson declared this was the time and place as advertised for a public hearing to consider text changes to Crystal City Code Sections 515.35 Subd. 2 and 515.37 Subd. 2 which would add lawful gambling establishments as permitted uses in the B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts subject to licensing. Community Development Director Peters stated that the City Council had voted 4-3 to license charitable gambling establishments. Such uses need to be addressed in the u zoning code because currently the code does not mention charitable gambling as 3 permitted or conditional uses in any zoning districts. When questioned by the R Planning Commission he said that the Council action provides for the establishment of charitable gambling operations on premises other than on -sale liquor establishments. Community Development Director Peters also mentioned that there is a sunset date of December 31, 2002 on the licensing ordinance that provides for these operations. No one was heard. Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to recommend to the City Council to approve text changes to Crystal City Code Sections 515.35 Subd. 2 and 515.37 Subd. 2 which would add lawful gambling establishments as permitted uses in the B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts subject to licensing. Motion carried 6 — 2 with Elsen, K. Graham, Kamp, Krueger, Magnuson, and Nystrom voting aye and T. Graham and VonRueden voting nay. 7. Information Items: Open House on Friday, May 12th from 2:30 — 4:30 p.m. at 4000 Jersey. 8. Information discussion and announcements: City bus tour on Tuesday, May 30th from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. Chair Magnuson stated she will be out of town that day and Commissioner Krueger has jury duty. Commissioner K. Graham also thought she would have a conflict that day. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:38 p.m. Secretary Nystrom E Motion carried. Chair Magnuson 11WE 11 WIRINNIM DATE: July 5, 2000 TO: Planning Commission (July 101h meeting — Item #2) FROM: ,John Sutter, Planner SUBJECT: Application 2000-9.9 for Variance 6721 Valley Place North (P.I.D. 20-118-21-13-0061) Donald J. Somers (applicant and owner) Variance from Crystal City Code 515.13 Subd. 4(a), to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 30' to 25' for construction of a four season room as an addition to an existing single family house. A. BACKGROUND The applicant purchased the subject property in 1986. Sometime prior to this transaction, a previous owner had installed a deck which extends into the rear yard. No building permit was ever applied or issued for the deck, nor was any variance granted for the encroachment into the required rear yard. The rear of the house is approximately 38' from the rear lot line; the rear of the existing deck is approximately 26' from the rear lot line. The applicant wishes to remove the existing deck and construct a 12.5' x 20.5' four season room approximately in its place. This would require a variance reducing the minimum rear yard setback from 30' to 25'. The following informational items are attached: ❑ plat map showing the subject property and adjacent parcels; ❑ compilation of surveys showing existing conditions on the subject property and adjacent lots; ❑ sketch showing the proposed addition; ❑ applicant's sketch of the proposed four season room; ❑ applicant's narrative; ❑ applicant's Statement of Undue Hardship; ❑ copy of the variance granted in 1994 for an abutting property (6727 Valley PI N). B. STAFF COMMENTS 1. Subject Property and Neighborhood Characteristics The subject property is zoned R-1 Single -Family Residential. The lot is 66.35' wide x 113.04' [avg.] deep, and has an area of 7,500 sq. ft. The lot complies with the City's R-1 standards for min. depth (100'), min. width (60') and area (7,500 sq. ft.). The lot's size and orientation are consistent with others on the same block, except for the fact that it is one of the four most shallow lots in the immediate area. The surrounding land use is predominantly single-family detached homes, with the subject's block being built in the late 1970s and therefore newer than much of the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The Request City Code requires a minimum rear yard setback of 30' in the R-1 District. The requested variance would reduce this by 5' to 25'. Approval of the variance would allow the applicant to construct the desired 12.5' deep x 20.5' wide four season room addition. together with the necessary deck and stairway to provide access to another existing deck at ground level. 3. Precedent In 1994, a similar variance was requested and granted for the abutting property to the west: 6727 Valley Place. This variance reduced the rear yard setback from 30' to 24' to allow construction of a three season room addition and deck extending 14' from the rear of the house. The staff at that time recommended approval and the Planning Commission and City Council approved the request. Current staff opinion is that the 1994 variance request should have been denied because it did not meet the undue hardship test. (In 1989 the Planning Commission and City Council had denied a similar request for the same property after finding that there was no undue hardship.) Other than the 1994 variance, no other rear yard setback variances have been granted in the immediate area. However, some property owners have in the past ignored the setback, as follows: ❑ The subject property's previous owner installed a deck extending approximately 5' into the rear yard setback. No building permit or variance was applied for or issued; both would have been required to allow construction of the deck. ❑ In 1980, a previous owner of 6709 Valley Place installed a deck that appears to be entirely in the rear yard setback. While the City did issue a building permit, no variance was applied for or received. Staff feels that the presence of unpermitted or improperly permitted encroachments into the required rear yard should not be used to justify the requested variance. VARIANCE - 6721 VALLEY PL N 2 4. Undue Hardship. Section 515.56 Subd. 5 and State law require that an "undue hardship" be present for a variance to be approved. 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." Staff opinion is that the property can be put to a reasonable use without the variance. Reasonable use of the property does not require a four season room. A four season room could extend approximately 8' out from the house before it reached the required setback, so this type of room addition would be permissible; it just couldn't be as large as the 12' room desired by the applicant. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner." The lot is shallower than most, but it is not the shallowest one on the block (three others are shallower). With an average depth of 113', the subject property exceeds the City's 100' minimum lot depth. In any event, the 38' deep rear yard was an existing condition when the applicant purchased the property. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." On this item staff would agree with the applicant that there would be minimal negative impacts from the proposed addition. This is mainly because the rear of the subject property abuts Valley Place Park, thus providing a large area of open space to minimize the impact of a smaller -than -required rear yard on the subject. C. SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT (Note: Because staff opinion is that there are not sufficient finding;; of fact to approve the requested variance, the findings to approve are taken from the 1994 variance granted for 6727 Valley Place North. The Planning Commission and City Council may accept either set of findings as -is, or make modifications to the findings as they desire.) 1. Findings of Fact to Approve. The proposed variance will not: ❑ impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; ❑ unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets; ❑ increase the danger of fire or otherwise endanger the public safety; and ❑ unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to the intent of the zoning code. The hardship is caused by the substandard depth of the lot and: VARIANCE - 6721 VALLEY PL N 3 ❑ the porch and deck cannot be built without the variance; ❑ the plight of the landowner is unique to the property and not created by the landowner; and ❑ the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. Findings of Fact to Deny. The proposed variance will not: ❑ impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; ❑ unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets; ❑ increase the danger of fire or otherwise endanger the public safety; and ❑ unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to the intent of the zoning code. However, the property is not subject to an undue hardship and therefore the requested variance is not granted. Specifically: ❑ The property can be put to a reasonable use without the variance. Reasonable use of the property exists without the four season room. It would be a desirable amenity but is not a necessity. Furthermore, there is sufficient space to build an 8' deep four season room instead of the 12' deep four season room proposed by the applicant. ❑ The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances created by the property owner or previous owners, and is not due to any unusual or substandard dimensions or characteristics of the property itself. The 38' deep rear yard was an existing condition when the applicant purchased the property. The lot is not substandard; with an average depth of 113', the subject property exceeds the City's 100' minimum lot depth. D. RECOMMENDATION (Note: In the event that this variance is approved, staff will require that the applicant have a surveyor locate the footings for the four season room addition. This is necessary because the original lot survey was incorrectly drawn and we will need assurance that the footings are being placed in accordance with the variance.) Staff recommends denial of Application 2000-9.9 for Variance from Crystal City Code 515.13 Subd. 4(a), submitted by Donald J. Somers (applicant and owner) to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 30' to 25' for construction of a four season room as an addition to an existing single family house at 6721 Valley Place North (P.I.D. 20-118- 21-13-0061). The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation for City Council consideration. The City Council will consider the request at its July 18th meeting. VARIANCE - 6721 VALLEY PL N 4 15i ,- VA I 3 j 4 3 65 /lLO7 2. CA PtL ,G, 133.12 /I3 /t r WrLS 10 11 12�' 13 14 , r, I "1 •4 AOO. 133 15 J7 FF 16=suave KAU -PIl�.o3 tn.r6 it,si.,s ' ,ERMON .ANS App 13 .— �G �G M H: v sag, ,'oq z t FLEE � rs .z S 4 3 z `0 4~`I u iz AD 3 zNSE i t II 12 Iir! 15 17w Is ,off p t i p I>r 1 24 ae i ZdB.la `�� AVE t Ml 7 3 tokn I « jt x.06 j � v .� / " iL j PART ff ^ w , i VA LE lEVv �c 3 I o f (� j a t -i t 1 +i 9ry (La 2 7 N 5 sl 4 at 3 Z� MA LOT is. 29 AUD0 431.34 �LP MAEi3<.3R G, 6 ff ry 6721 3 tr- Nt r VC) /lel, P/0 - I It — 30 Tc aeJ.r rc sno �e i%. Q 2— IOT Ir 0�q.47 5.9 54 f1 61194 '`jCV ''711 M�SMQMl ,or Cbl z o 'o • ? n l OR • 7 ti ri^�oJed r.J,J..c� /-5 Ft 11 6 7 Z I w ss 53 •o., r o �. rear YW4 11'ri.. E4Je»r[nl = l,t,r"1�--, /�`` � • � — � 3.91 — a:,., � ` _ _�..__. ..._ . -v ._ _ �. v i 30 (P72-7 6115- 672,1rer c caub•ec4- Pry) 6709 t� c ,ems„,, �►„. � lint” 6z 1}- in IR9`f D-w- �.ilj- LYt DecK br«lt- in 19M QAO ,'� or rece-WA). ' GERALD t COYM tai -W ORUMWICx AVE S. LOT SURVEYS COMPAMY _umow/ Iv MMAM1bsu_.latera AVE N. GOUXN VALLEY. MINK 'CN PARIC, MINK MINK. RES. NO. 4741 LAND SURVEYORS 1HNN. N P NO. 6IN 743 VXMM UAW OF STAT! OW KOCVRgVrA tiCZrMa BY OKWNAxcs os My w ;> WWL&"LW W#1060 M0. _4J3 5747 W. Srosdway S33-9422 f L MQ MDUSTRNLL -- JUW IAL MinnSapok 1144nowts SS421 COMMEW LL - TOPOGRAPHICALa SCAU r s # CITY LOTS - PLATTING tgor$ (Ur u Sl ab O -- 0040TES IRON -166.35-- 617,/ C/IqZz�/ rel 301 reQr yari Cr-3ea Le 1., 4, Ps c�:'% . ,*,'A --,LAY VT:,! PA: -1 2,N7) A 4-j'l)ITZ�1v Wi horo6y OWWY *0 We is a *" Sad correct repros.ntatiow of A. mm yr of des bowsdsrias of Ow Sbove dscn'bed land and tir Io"*" of AN 60�gs Sad visibis Sacro4ca�ts, if Say. ie�s+n or oa wid l&a& f i SSMVMi. 00"A ff vtp )04��R 7,2 - 77-1 1, 1---- 4 My house is located on the north perimeter of Lions Valley Place Park. There are no homes behind it The rear of my house[south] has an upper and lower deck with an interconnecting stairway. My kitchen exits onto the upper deck. These decks were built by a previous owner before I purchased and took ownership in July 1987. My neighbor Greg Gray at 6727 Valley Place has a sun room that projects toward the rear of the lot the same amount as my upper deck. Another neighbor at 6709 Valley Place has a lower deck with the same depth projection as my upper deck. I am engaged and my fiancee is insisting on having a 4 seasons sun room which will increase our dining and kitchen area and open up the area to more sunlight. %tepid ZEY A PPt4CA-9, 5 Wr(�TW'O 6721 VALLEY PLACE VARIANCE APPLICATION Undue Hardship [i] The existing upper deck cannot be used for entertaining or eating during the summer because the persistant flies, mosquitoes, and wasps make it unreasonable. And the cold and snowy winter also prevents it's use. [ii] The deck was in place when I purchased the property and there was no caution by the city or the real estate company about the variance. [iii]My neighbor Greg Gray at 6721 Valley Place has a 4 Seasons porch that is identical in rear projection to my existing deck. Furthermore the neighbor at 6709 Valley Place has a deck that projects approximately 3 feet deeper than mine. This change in enclosing my deck will not detract but rather enhance the value of the neighborhood. J -PPU C& --M s STP rv"EN- c- wi o e qqR-J",) 5P o P • K � DATE: TO: FROM: M E M O R A N D July 8, 1994 July 8, 1994 G rr"'Y C&tWC4L 07 / 19 t_ M Planning Commission Steven C. Peaslee, Planner SUBJ.: Variance Request for 6' variance for a set back of 241; 30' rear yard setback required, for Greg and Roxy Gray at PID 20-118-21-13 0062, Lot 5, Block 2, valley View Park, 2nd Addition. DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Anne Norris (4' L BACKGROUND: Greg and Roxy Gray have requested a variance as noted above. The variance requested would allow the construction of a 14' x 14' three season porch and 14' x 12' deck. The property is zoned R-1 residential and is used residentially. The property to the south (in the back yard) is city owned (valley Park). The park is separated from the subject property by wetland/creek/drainage ditch. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant points out that several of the houses on the street infringe in the setback area (see sketch) Specifically 6721 valley Place immediately to the east has two unpermitted decks which extend approximately 6 feet into the setback and 6709 valley Place which had a permit granted in 1980. The lot to the immediate west (6803) is vacant, the house having been removed. The applicant points out that 3317 Hampshire sits within 5' of the lot line. However, 3317 Hampshire faces Hampshire and that side is considered the side yard. Side yard setbacks are 51. Given that the abutting property to the rear is a park well separated and buffered from the lot it does not appear that a variance as proposed would create a problem for anyone. SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT The proposed variance will not: • impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property • unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. • Increase the danger of fire or otherwise endanger the public safety • unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to the intent of the zoning code. The hardship is caused by substandard depth of the lot and • the porch and deck cannot be built without the variance • the plight of the landowner is unique to the property and VAL4EY PAce� FY CC 0`11-" not created by the landowner. the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. COMMISSION ACTION This item was reviewed by the Planning Commission in 1989 and denied. However the setback required at that time was 40' rather than 30' thus the requested variance was greater. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission grant the variance as requested for 6' variance for a set back of 241, for Greg and Roxy Gray at PID 20-118-21-13 0062, Lot 5, Block 2, Valley View Park, 2nd Addition. F , Y M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 14, 1994 TO: Jerry Dulger, City Manager FROM: Steven C. Peaslee, Planner SUBJ.: Variance Request for 6' variance for a set back of 24'. 30' rear yard setback required, for Greg and Roxy Gray at 6727 Valley Place North, PID 20-118- 21-13 0062, Lot 5, Block 2, Valley View Park, 2nd Addition. DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Anne NorrisVikyla- BACKGROUND: See the Planning Commission memo STAFF COMMENTS: See the Planning Commission and below SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACS' The proposed variance will not: • impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property • unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. Increase the danger of fire or otherwise endanger the public safety • unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to the intent of the zoning code. The hardship is caused by substandard depth of the lot and • the porch and deck cannot be built without the variance • the plight of the landowner is unique to the property and not created by the landowner. • the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission recommended the city council approve the variance but did not make a finding of hardship. The hardship finding is necessary to grant a variance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to grant the variance as requested for 6' variance for a set back of 241, for Greg and Roxy Gray at PID 20-118-21-13 0062, Lot 5, Block 2, Valley View Park, 2nd Addition. The City Council should also make the hardship finding. LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, IMC. INVOICE N0, 21226 F. B. NO. 367-58 LAND SURVEYORS SCALE 1" 0— DENOTESIRON REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 . 73rd Avenue North 660-3083 Minneapolis, Minnesota 66428 i3urnr�or� �tr��f�r�it --'�-- Denotes Surface Drainage Denotes Proposed Elevation RICHARD DEMPSEY CCNSTRUCIICN aeo.0 Denotes Existing Elevation Type of Building - Full Basement Walkout vc //e�. P/a C e Tcas1, e.ne. aur6 TG dd'G.78 /Aej. B8u.6� 0 � � o In - s+ i I ON r� 20 n, -ro13 i = �- J `t tr 8X+•7 d Pio po Jed 11 <7 ��snG �. c S.a 6 7 2 1 N ,, I I SS 53.0 - 7 B1 - 0 Wf*d at. Wall 1 s' 14 lJfil�fy� (�.ra-tea e o N 7f •y b•Gq•7 �. Lot 5, Block 2, VALLEY VIEW PARK 2ND ADDITION Top of Block f3vt. Lina B83.Z— Garage Floor 68 Z. 7 Lowest Most Floor 975. Z A4 fe q- /- K —,, 0 16, 0 Cs.- � 7 V.171�,F-11 jP,(,y-,F % d I . -f --- - - - --- -- 19V WAVAI i Ii 'VIVAIIv i i 4'/5' FEDI T Q -x& VGRoovg e-kO19A Roor- AwRN A—RX/O Lk-ORR (!avr.vcvs NEi�1J6J�,� he y Rk-�OwoOO FNcjg t - /xR TR)M J4RowAO Lu/,v,�hwS alQ� /X& 6,6R i 65 /aoo P� RMo u v7' O oolQS SEJQ 19'S &1/0 4-V /,v 10aw s i P, EA ©�$ ,� r M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 5, 2000 TO: Planning Commission (July 10t" meeting — Item #3) r FROM:John Sutter, Planner SUBJECT: Application 2000-10.3,4 for Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review 7301 56" Avenue North (P.I.D. 05-118-21-34-0001) Church of St. Raphael (applicant and owner) Conditional Use Permit for expansion of church use in the R-9 District, to include Site Plan Review for construction of a two -unit dwelling for use as a rectory. A. BACKGROUND St. Raphael's Church currently owns approximately 14 acres along Bass Lake Road in the northwest part of Crystal. Present on this site are the church, a school, and an existing rectory (residence for the priests). The applicant wishes to construct a new two -unit dwelling near the southwestern corner of the site; this new dwelling would serve as the rectory for the church. The existing rectory would be converted into office space for the church. Because the proposal is an expansion of a conditional use in the R-1 District, a Conditional Use Permit is required. This includes Site Plan Review for the new building. The following informational items are attached: plat map showing the subject property and adjacent parcels; J site plan showing the proposed new building; o planimetric map showing existing conditions on the subject property and adjacent lots, together with the location of the proposed new building; ❑ comments received from the City of New Hope; floor plan for the proposed new building; and ❑ front, side and rear elevations of the proposed new building. B. STAFF COMMENTS 1. Subject Property and Neighborhood Characteristics The subject property is zoned R-1 Single -Family Residential. Adjacent properties to the south and west of the proposed new building are located in the M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 5, 2000 TO: Planning Commission (JUly 10th meeting — Item #3) FROM: John Sutter, Planner SUBJECT: Application 2000-10.3,4 for Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review 7301 56' Avenue North (P.I.D. 05-118-21-34-0001) Church of St. Raphael (applicant and owner) Conditional Use Permit for expansion of church use in the R-1 District, to include Site Plan Review for construction of a two -unit dwelling for use as a rectory. A. BACKGROUND St. Raphael's Church currently owns approximately 14 acres along Bass Lake Road in the northwest part of Crystal. Present on this site are the church, a school, and an existing rectory (residence for the priests). The applicant wishes to construct a new two -unit dwelling near the southwestern corner of the site; this new dwelling would serve as the rectory for the church. The existing rectory would be converted into office space for the church. Because the proposal is an expansion of a conditional use in the R-1 District, a Conditional Use Permit is required. This includes Site Plan Review for the new building. The following informational items are attached: ❑ plat map showing the subject property and adjacent parcels; ❑ site plan showing the proposed new building; ❑ planimetric map showing existing conditions on the subject property and adjacent lots, together with the location of the proposed new building; ❑ comments received from the City of New Hope; ❑ floor plan for the proposed new building; and ❑ front, side and rear elevations of the proposed new building. B. STAFF COMMENTS 1. Subject Property and Neighborhood Characteristics The subject property is zoned R-1 Single -Family Residential. Adjacent properties to the south and west of the proposed new building are located in the City of New Hope. The surrounding land use is predominantly single-family detached homes built in the 1950s and 1960s. Most of these homes are ramblers. 2. Access and Utilities. The dwelling would have street access via a 10' wide driveway connecting to St. Raphael's Drive, which is within the City of New Hope. Water and sanitary sewer would also be made available from the City of New Hope. Crystal's Building Official would coordinate with New Hope during the construction process to ensure that the necessary utility services are installed as required. The City of New Hope has stated that they have no objections to the project, and staff has forwarded New Hope's application information for the necessary driveway, water and sewer permits to the applicant. 3. Proposed Building. The building would be a two-family dwelling with one common wall between the two units. Each unit would have 1,624 sq. ft. of floor area on one level (the building would not have a basement). Each unit would have two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a laundry, an open living -dining -kitchen area, and a family room with a fireplace and a patio door. The patio door would lead to a shared fenced courtyard between the two units. C. SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT Crystal City Code 515.19 Subd. 4(c) establishes certain criteria for approval of church - related uses as a conditional use in the R-1 District. Listed below are the criteria and the staffs comments on each: 1) Side yards shall be double that required for the district. With minimum setbacks of 66' on the west and 63' on the south, the proposal would provide more than double the standard 30' setback. 2) Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with 515.07 Subd. 9 of this code. The proposal adequately addresses this because: ❑ The design of the building, specifically the use of residential -style materials and shape, will cause it to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood better than the more massive structures contemplated by this provision. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / SITE PLAN REVIEW - 7300 56TH AVE N 2 ❑ The setbacks are so generous that the visual impact will probably be comparable to or less than the impact that would result if standard single family lots were developed on the site. ❑ The grassy and treed area along the west side of the proposed building will help to buffer the new building from the existing residence along Quebec Avenue. 3) Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site... With two garage stalls for each unit plus two stalls in front of each garage, this building will have four off-street parking stalls for each unit. This is double our minimum requirement of two stalls per unit. 4) Adequate off-street loading... Not applicable to a dwelling such as the proposed rectory. 5) All signing and informational or visual communication devices are in compliance with Section 406 of the City Code. No signage is shown on the submitted plan. For the purposes of the sign regulations, the rectory will be treated as a dwelling and not a commercial or institutional facility. 6) The provisions of Subsection 515.53, Subdivision 1(e) of this Code are considered satisfactorily met (possible adverse effects). Staff believes that there are no notable potential adverse effects. D. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Application 2000-10.3,4 for Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review, submitted by Church of St. Raphael (applicant and owner), for construction of a two -unit dwelling for use as a rectory on property located at 7301 56th Avenue North (P.I.D. 05-118-21-34-0001), subject to the following conditions: ❑ In the R-' District, two-family dwellings are prohibited but churches are conditional uses. Because the proposed two-family dwelling would be used as a residence by priests (employees of the church), this application is considered to be an expansion of a conditional use. It is this fact — the proposed building is an expansion of a conditional use in the R-1 District — that makes it possible for the City to consider construction of a two-family dwelling in the first place. The only way this request can be approved is if the proposed two -unit dwelling is an integral part of the church's operations and not a general two-family dwelling. If the two -unit dwelling were available to persons other than full-time employees of the church, it would be CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / SITE PLAN REVIEW - 7300 56T" AVE N 3 prohibited. For this reason, use of the two-family dwelling shall be limited to occupancy by persons employed full-time by the Church of St. Raphael. It shall not be rented or otherwise used as a dwelling by members of the general public. ❑ Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a survey and site plan, completed by a Registered Land Surveyor or Professional Engineer, showing the location of the new building, adjacent property lines, and necessary facilities to serve the new building such as the driveway, water curb stop, sanitary sewer cleanouts, etc. Copies of this survey shall be provided to both the City of Crystal and the City of New Hope. ❑ For the purposes of the sign regulations, the rectory will be treated as a dwelling in the R-1 District and not as a commercial or institutional facility. The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation for City Council consideration. The City Council will consider the request at its July 18th meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / SITE PLAN REVIEW - 7300 56TH AVE N 4 :4• 15;.5: C,p aor 2 F4P T OF LOT 4f o � � 1 as 0 w %CRc.il D• �T-..i5F�', YSTAL �a 7? �. RVEi N*.3T z3 N — 5 .� 21 4 N0. ° 5 I� 20 � � 1 PART OF LOT 40 6 � i 2 2 �` J W — > s. c Z — 18 _ 7 r r • r 17 4 CITY OF CRYSTAL Cra.9B f 1,� ,, .. < �^ ee "— 16 9 Cl?Y OF NEW HOPE e " p ^ IdZ.?5 PAPHAEL DRIVE .5:!'' to �ws.c . is ea �. c6.a4 ,�, ��� '•�v.s .:1� 10 r ba 44 . S K Dy,'r •za,G?60 21LAi 22�f 23 I )w "Id«I� 11 2 LLJ m N 2 IJS 1512 t'.c zt.r o ,zNoe W 201 2 ., • e r 134.3 '5• 13 i 14 I3 1 ' 13 ,s o 14 14 sirr}�5 }• 11; �•- . . 15 " IS r i. M4 ' P D. ADD. 16 ;,L3 :4• 15;.5: C,p aor 2 F4P T OF LOT 4f o � � 1 as 0 w %CRc.il D• �T-..i5F�', YSTAL �a 7? �. RVEi N*.3T z3 N — 5 .� 21 4 N0. ° 5 I� 20 � � 1 PART OF LOT 40 6 � i 2 2 �` J W — > s. c Z — 18 _ 7 r r • r 17 4 CITY OF CRYSTAL Cra.9B f 1,� ,, .. < �^ ee "— 16 9 Cl?Y OF NEW HOPE e " p ^ IdZ.?5 PAPHAEL DRIVE .5:!'' to �ws.c . is ea �. c6.a4 ,�, ��� '•�v.s .:1� 10 r ba 44 . S K Dy,'r •za,G?60 21LAi 22�f 23 I )w "Id«I� 11 2 LLJ m N 2 IJS 1512 t'.c zt.r o ,zNoe W 201 2 ., • e r 134.3 BASS LAKE RD. am I)W ST. RAPHAE L'S DR. i' 4c a. LAKE ROAD 4 hl � I x� p x© O 0883.6 j 895.3 p 88i .5 f � CSN u QC r � � p 895.5 p Q x Q • 887.2 x • © p • Q O C Q • Q O © 900.' p p j ,Q © x 897.7 Q Q Q x - 897. Q D IVE ,U-1 July 5, 2000 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 www ci. new -hope. mn. us Mr. John Sutter City of Crystal 4141 Douglas Drive North Crystal, MN 55422 City Hall: 763-531-5100 Police: 763-531-5170 Public Works: 763-533-4823 TDD: 763-531-5109 City Hall Fax: 763-531-5; Police Fax: 763-531-5' Public Works Fax: 763-533-7, 67 Subject: Request of the Church of St. Raphael for Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for Construction of Two -Unit Dwelling to be Used as a Rectory Dear John: The City of New Hope is in receipt of the legal notice advertising the public hearing to consider the request of the Church of St. Raphael for a conditional use permit and site plan review for the construction of a two -unit dwelling to be used as a rectory at the southwest corner of the St. Raphael property near the intersection of St. Raphael Drive and Pennsylvania Avenue North. As we are both aware, although St. Raphael Church is located in the City of Crystal, it is surrounded by City of New Hope properties. New Hope has forwarded the enclosed letter and notice to New Hope property owners within 350 feet of the request to make them aware of the request and public hearing. The City of New Hope appreciates the City of Crystal providing the appropriate documents for our review and requests to receive a copy of the staff report on the application when it is completed. The City had an opportunity to meet with representatives of St. Raphael Church, Christian Builders, Inc., and Christian Realty on June 27 to discuss the proposal and review a preliminary site plan and building details. The City of New Hope does not have any major concerns with the proposed construction of the two -unit rectory dwelling at the southwest corner of the St. Raphael property. The proposal impacts New Hope in two ways: Curb Cut Access — It is proposed that the two -unit dwelling have a single driveway access onto St. Raphael Drive near the intersection with Pennsylvania Avenue. The City will approve the curb cut access, but requests that the curb cut opening be 12 feet in width, and understands that the driveway will be 10 feet wide. The appropriate permit should be obtained from the City of New Hope and fee paid prior to the curb cut access installation. A copy of the Driveway and Street Excavation Permit application is enclosed and will also be sent to the applicant. 2. Sewer/Water Connections — It is proposed that the rectory would connect to the New Hope sewer/water system. The City of New Hope will approve the connections, but the appropriate permit must be obtained and fees paid. The connection will need to be coordinated with the New Hope Public Works Department and City Engineer. A copy of the Sewer/Water Permit application is enclosed and is being sent to the applicant. At this time, the City is uncertain exactly what the water/sewer connection fees will be. Public Works and the Finance Departments are working on those calculations and will forward that informationtoyou and the applicant once they are completed. Family Styled City i �! For Family Living V " ,� - 4;v Mr. John Sutter Page 2 June 30, 2000 Both the permits/applications listed above should be completed and submitted to the Inspections Division of the Community Development Department. Please contact Doug Sandstad, Building Official, at 531-5122, if you have any questions on these permits. Lastly, when the New Hope representatives met with representatives of St. Raphael Church, we requested that they provide survey information to the City if it was available for property line identification and utility location purposes. If the church provides that information to the City of Crystal, New Hope requests that they provide similar information to New Hope. Overall, New Hope finds that this is a good project for both cities and supports the request. Please contact me at 531-5119 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Director of Community Development Enclosures: Notice to New Hope Residents Permit Applications Cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Doug Sandstad, Building Official Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works Daryl Sulander, Director of Finance Mark Hanson, City Engineer Valerie Leone, City Clerk Planning Case File 00-14 Christian Builders Christian Realty • and A WiT IO1Q ,r�r n -r rd •d n -O u -O clK a^ Mm INIT wV *T) avms 1 t� �lalA 1W L 7 I� �1 w r -r ,r -t x -r r -r ps / A' b rimwt r • nem _r }fi �Vawc_ r}a a Q� �u E8 T -r r -r s -r r -r a• -r T_r s_r � mw�cc ,r n, � awcr 1 r.s aJr ICK 1 C.wtt a rn Ra-" x � t/t 1 { _`,� 7 7,✓ IORM) Off= Iuaw arc t r ate' \ it - -- I I ------ ands , Kk a¢ 1/7' A►. r� Vr RCA r -i , RaA r-, t� r-1 >K RCS em a ,/rtN / cAwfl t vrn .ram r-, i/Y ua a I av crwxi arras " ' r-> >/r IL _motto cAwTT w - k t woo , I " asLoa , ---7 w ./o vz---------- x , I Ir ,T RCA r-, t/a Rcx d K11trw €. aalcr uMtc w} // r-'r""x'�PL ri, VrRCA -i Vrfe \ • _ . yp t i +urna[ 1 v+aio t 1 11 ` C9twt t rA CMAMC011NwiC \ \ /, a/• I Iib Nua, M"T / yip 1 X4 {AW&AM LAWS*%= I PAIMICAMMwj. MY GRY ma \ La." ■mon, n M RA+M-a [ 1-3 y/f tr-a' L rd Y -Y •d tr-{' - awvrm w -r W -r ar-o' wTac 04 -sow Ird /tv acne e1 oto ,/Yxc ,/Y,Ir b ami"x� at 2e wgacs-tr nc IFLO,-»o,aKeR--------1 ORP M ------------ � sort: v.rr-r 1 1 1 M -O x N oA aR I I I w.an WN ox I 1 1 t --------------- I r,YrI WL%L ML 0 E K . s n i P, I M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 5, 2000 TO: Planning Commission (July 101h meeting — Item #4) FROM: John Sutter, Planner SUBJECT: Interim Strategy to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution to all Metropolitan Water Bodies. Required by Metropolitan Council prior to their approval of our Comprehensive Plan update. We have submitted our updated Comprehensive Plan to Metropolitan Council staff, and recently completed some minor corrections and informational updates which they had requested prior to forwarding our plan to the Metropolitan Council for formal approval. One remaining item, however, requires a public hearing and action by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. It is the Metropolitan Council's Interim Strategy to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution to all Metropolitan Water Bodies. Formal adoption is necessary for the Metropolitan Council to approve the City's Comprehensive Plan. Once they have given their approval, we will be able to bring the Comprehensive Plan before the Planning Commission and City Council for final approval and begin producing and distributing copies of the document. Attached is a copy of the interim strategy. According to Crystal's City Engineer, staff has already implemented most applicable provisions of the interim strategy. Therefore the effect of formally adopting the interim strategy will be essentially unnoticeable By mid -2001, the City will have likely completed its Surface Water Management Plan. This plan will address questions such as additional storm water treatment and capacity issues. It will also provide recommendations for beefing up or supplanting the interim strategy. If new policies are determined to be necessary upon completion of the Surface Water Management Plan, they will be considered for adoption at that time. Staff recommends approval of the Metropolitan Council's Interim Strategy to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution to all Metropolitan Water Bodies. The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation regarding the adoption of the interim strategy. The Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at their July 18th meeting. INTERIM STRATEGY TO REDUCE NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION TO ALL METROPOLITAN WATER BODIES November 1, 1992 Jack Frost Steven Schwanke METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minneosta 55101 Publication No. 640-92-038 WATER QUALITY IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT' NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION TO ALL METROPOLITAN WATERS Summary of The Poliev Issue In 1990 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) agreed on a goal to reduce nonpoint source pollution in the Minnesota River by 40 percent from pre -1980 levels. The two agencies have set 1996 as the target date to achieve this goal. To accomplish this goal, current land development and agricultural practices must be altered to restrict nonpoint source pollutants from entering area water bodies. While the Minnesota Ri-,:;r may be an acute case of water quality degradation due to nonpoint source pollution all water bodies in the seven county area are impacted to some degree by human activities in both urban and rural areas. The Mississippi River, especially in the Spring Lake and Lake Pepin area, is severally impacted by excessive algal growth. A major inter -state and federal study is currently being conducted to identify the causes of the excessive algal growth. However, it is known that nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, from whatever source are the prime cause of excessive algal growth. Both the State of Wisconsin and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are attempting to get the MPCA to impose phosphorus limits on the Metropolitan Plant in St. Paul as a means to reduce the algal growth. If phosphorus limits are imposed on the Metropolitan Plant this could result in capital expenditures of S80 to 360 million. Since phosphorus is found in surface water runoff it may be more cost effective to control nonpoint sources of runoff and have a more beneficial impact on the river than by controlling point sources of phosphorus. To address the acute problems on the Minnesota River, the Council developed an interim strategy for communities in the Minnesota River basin. This strategy incorporated basic water quality management practices that will improve the water quality of the area water bodies. During the public participation process in developing these strategies, it became clear that these same interim strategies were appropriate for all local governments in the seven county area. A consistent and equitable policy is established to apply these strategies metro -wide. The Problem The Metropolitan Council has documented an increase of nonpoint source pollution to area -.nater bodies. These added pollutants reduce the recreational value and accelerate the eutrophication of area water bodies. The increase of nonpoint source pollutants to area water bodies can be traced to two primary sources: land development and agriculture practices. Land development or urbanization, generally increases both the volume of runoff as well as the concentration of pollutants in the runoff. This happens with the conversion of land to hard surfaces and by the destruction of wetlands. Detention ponds or artificial depressions can help mitigate th-se impacts. The best designed ponds, however, will not reduce the increased volume of runoff following urbanization nor will they totally remove the additional pollutants following urbanization. An increase in runoff volume, total phosphorus and other pollutants are the results of urban development. 2 Agriculture is still the predominant land use in a large portion o' the seven county area and tie a major contributor of nonpoir,'. source pollutants. Nonpoint source pollution from agriculture occur:. as a result of intensive land cultivation and husbandry practices and shows up in three basic forms: soil erosion; agriculture supplements such as nutrients, pesticides and herbicides; and animal waste products. Each of these sources fill area water bodies smothering aquatic life, change the aquatic environment by limiting lirht penetration of the water, and result in the transmission of toxins t,� area water bodies. The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is fortunate to have an abundance of lakes and rivers. These water bodies provide the area with recreational, aesthetic and educational benefits envied by other parts of the United States. Preservation of these water bodies and the associated wildlife habitat is a major component of the Council's planning framework Measures to preserve and enhance the environment can be found in all of the Council's major system and policy plans. Policy 7 of the; MDIF states that the Metropolitan Council: supports the maintenance of environmental quality throughout the region and will support programs or strategies to maintain or improve the natural environment (page 16). Reducing nonpoint source pollution to area water bodies has a number of positive outcomes. Reduced nonpoint source pollution has an overall positive effect on the environment, improves the water quality in lakes, wetlands and floodplains and allows for fishable and swimable water bodies. Water resource management has historically focused on point sources such as wastewater treatment plants and industrial facilities. Efforts to reduce pollution from point sources has been effective. Nonpoint source pollution abatement is the next challenge that must be addressed to ensure that water bodies in this metropolitan area are protected. Existing Legislative and Policy Structure For Addressing the Nonpoint Source Pollution Problem The Minnesota Legislature Two pieces of legislation have been passed in the last decade that set a framework for addressing the nonpoint source pollution issue. However, it will take several years to put this framework in place and will require local governments to extensively revise their surface water management plans and activities. Watershed planning legislation In 1982 legislation was passed requiring Watershed Management Organizations (WMO) to prepare watershed plans that addressed water quality issues. Under this legislation each WMO is to prepare a plan that states objectives and policies for water quality and identifies alternatives for improving water quality and methods of implementation. These plans are to be reviewed by the Metropolitan Council "in the same manner and with the same authority and effect as provided for the council's review of the comprehensive plans of local government units" (Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.231 subd. 8 (1990)). The Council Ls required to determine whether the watershed plan conforms with the management objectives and target pollution loads stated in the Council's water resources plan prepared pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 473.157. 3 Local government planning As a part of the WMC planning process described under Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.201, each local government will be required to prepare a local water management plan, capital improvement program and official controls necessary to implement the watershed plan. As part of the local water management plan, the local government will need to define water quantity and quality protection methods adequate to meet performance standards established in the watershed plan. Local governments will also be reouired to amend their local comprehensive plans to reflect the contents of the watershed plan. Local governments will have two years to amend their comprehensive plans from the time the WMO planning process is complete. Under rules currently proposed by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), WMOs have until 1995 to complete their plans. The earliest local governments are required to revise their comprehensive plans is 1997. It could take severLI years beyond 1997 to implement local government plans. The second piece of legislation is Minnesota Statutes, section 473.157, that requires the Metropolitan Council to prepare a water resources plan that includes management objectives and target pollution loads for watersheds in the metropolitan area. From this plan WMOs will advise local governments of their target pollution loads. Local governments will revise their stormwater management plans to include implementation steps that assure the target pollution loads are met. The Metropolitan Council has set as a priority developing the target pollution loads for watersheds tributary to the Minnesota River. This is a priority because of the urgency to meet the EPA/MPCA reduction goal of 40 percent by 1996. Target pollution loads for Bevens, Carver, Chaska and Sand Creek watersheds will be developed by 1992. Pollution loads for other watersheds in the Minnesota River Basin will be developed by mid-1993. The Council will also be actively pursuing the development of target pollution loads for all watersheds in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency In accordance with the Clean Water Act, Section 319, the MPCA is charged with developing a state- wide strategy for addressing nonpoint pollution. This plan is a four year plan developed in 1990 and is periodically updated as new information becomes available. This strategy both targets and prioritizes problem areas and develops a management plan for addressing these problem areas. The management plan looks at both a voluntary and a regulatory approach to addressing problems. The state plan is also required to develop various approaches to funding problem solutions from federal state and Iocal sources. The Board of Water and Soil Resources The Board of Water and Soil Resources is the primary state agency responsible for surface water planning and is the lead agency responsible for carrying out many of the administrative aspects of the recently passed Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, better known as the "no -net loss" legislation. The act provides landowners with three options for preserving or enhancing wetlands: the wetland preservation areas option; the permanent wetland preserves option; and the wetland establishment and restoration program. If a land use practice requires the taking of a protected wetland the legislation requires a 1:1 and a 2:1 mitigation of wetlands in rural and urban areas respectively. 4 Wetlands perform essential hydrologic and water quality functions such as lowering of flood peaks, �— providing interchange between surface water and groundwater, and filtering and absort pollutants. Because of these functions, wetlands are critical for reducing nonpoint source pollution to area lakes and rivers. The Metropolitan Council In September, 1988 the Metropolitan Council adopted its Water Resources Management Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan (hereafter the policy plan). Local governments were notified of the policy plan contents in the April, 1989 systems statement and pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, had nine months to amend their comprehensive plans. The need to reduce nonpoint source pollution, to especially the Minnesota River Basin, through regulating land development is well documented in the Council's policy plan. However, because of the potential that nonpoint pollution may impact MWCC wastewater treatment plants effluent limits in the future the Council adopted Policy 1-1 of the Council's Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan which states: Mtreatment levels required for wastewater treatment plants in the metropolitan systern should clearly recognize the need to control both point and nonpoint sources of pollution from within and outside the Metropolitan Area (p. 9). The Council has actively pursued the implementation of its policy to reduce nonpoint source pollution to area water bodies. The Council's policy plan outlines the responsibilities for implementing policy 1-1. These include, but are not limited to: 1. working with watershed management organizations (WMOs) and the MPCA cn monitoring and managing nonpoint source pollution programs; and, 2. evaluating the efforts of WMOs and local governments to control nonpoint source pollution and their impact on river water quality and effects on treatment plant effluent limits. (p. 10) The Council has also used its authority under the :Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976 to review and comment on comprehensive plan amendments and environmental reviews to implement its policy on reducing nonpoint source pollution. These comments have generally focused on the need to reduce nonpoint source pollution and the possible tools that may be used to accomplish this task. In addition to policy 1-1 of the Council's Water Resources Management Plan, Part 1, the Council has two other policies addressing the environmental effects of nonpoint source pollution and water quality. The Council's Water Resources Management Plan, Part 3 states in policy 3-4 that: The Council through its numerous review and approval authorities, will preserve all protected and unprotected natural watercourses -- including associated wetlands, channels, floodplains and shorelands -- to enhance water quantity and quality and to preserve their ecological functions (page 3-26); Policy 3-6 of the same policy plan states: The Council, in conducting its project approvals and reviews, will protect the utility of the region's water and related land resources and seek their restoration, where needed. Any action that threatens the viability of the water and related resource will be negatively reviewed (page 3-30). Proposed Interim Strategy An interim strategy is needed to address both the nonpoint source pollution issue and to implement the Council's policy 1-1 of the Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan, Part 1, policies 3-4 and 3-6 of the Council's Water Resources Management Plan, Part 3. The Council is committed to working with WMOs and local governments through the planning Process outlined in Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.201. The Council also recognizes its responsibility to prepare and adopt a water resources plan that includes management objectives and target pollution loads for watersheds in the metropolitan area pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 473.157. In order to prepare the plan the Council had to prioritize its work schedule. Since the Minnesota River has been identified as having an acute problem with nonpoint source pollution this area will be addressed first and form the framework for dealing with nonpoint source pollution on a metropolitan wide basis. It wiII take several years for the Council, V7140s and local governments to prepare and implement the above referenced plans. In the interim, steps should be taken that allows local governments and WMOs to take immediate action to reduce the adverse impacts of nonpoint source pollution on area water bodies. As part of their planning efforts, local governments will need to adopt measures that implement nonpoint source pollution reduction strategies. Local governments will need to amend existing Capital Improvement Plans and local regulations to ensure the financing and long-term management and maintenance of ponds and wetlands receiving stormwater runoff. The Metropolitan Council recognizes that implementation is an important issue for local government and for the long- term effectiveness of any effort to reduce nonpoint source pollution. This interim strategy is a minimum that the Council will accept as part of any local government comprehensive plan. It should be recognized by local governments that more comprehensive revisions to stormwater plans may be required once the Council and WMOs complete their planning under Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.201 and 473.157 in order to meet water quality goals. 1. Local governments throughout the metropolitan area must adopt design standards for new stormwater ponds that will reduce the contaminant loadings from surface water runoff. One set of design criteria that is wide* iccepted is from.. the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP). Appendix A is attached and describes NURP designed pond performance standards. These criteria, or similar specifications which are equally effective, should be incorporated in the stormwater plan of every local government in the metropolitan area. At the present time, this policy does not direct the retrofitting of existing stormwater ponds. 2 2. Local governments in the metropolitan area must also include in their stormwatcr plans the NIPCA's urban "gest management practices," titled Protecting Water C,-uality in Urban Areas or an equi v.:Ient seL of standards. : hese standards are to be used for all new or redeveloped land developm mt. These local governments :rust also notify their residents of ways to implement "best management practices" and available resources, if additional information is needed. 3. All local governments in the metropolitan area must adopt the Department of Natural Resource shoreland regulations as found in the Statewide Standards For Management Of Shoreland Areas as prescribed by the timeline in (Minnesota Regulations Parts 6120.2500 - 6120.3900) and consistent with the DNR's implementation strategy. Local governments should work with the DNR to determine the most effectivc way to implement the DNR's shoreland regulations. 4. All local governments in the metropolitan area must adopt as part of their comprehensive plans and official controls the measures described in items 1 and 2 by January 1, 1993. Each local government should notify the affected Watershed Management Organizations of its intentions to comply with items I and 2. 5. After January 1, 1993, the Council may require modification of plan amendments that involve land use activities that would generate surface water runoff, unless the local government has adopted the interim measures described in items 1 through 3. The Council will not require a plan modification regarding nonpoint source pollution if a local government has adopted NURP standards and MPCA's "best management practices" by January 1, 1993 and is following the DNR's shoreland regulation implementation strategy. 6. The Metropolitan Council will continue to develop target pollution loads for all watersheds in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. 7. The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities will advise its member cities of the urgent need to implement runoff and land managem-nt practices that improve the quality of direct and indirect runoff discharges to area water bodies. 8. The Metropolitan Council and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities will work with State of Minnesota agencies to reduce nonpoint source pollution to area water bodies in Greater Minnesota. 9. The Metropolitan Council and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities will monitor the effectiveness of the above-mentioned interim steps to address the nonpoint source pollution problem in the metropolitan area. 7 APPENDIX A TYPICAL WET DETENTION POND PERFORMANCE Suspended Solids Oxygen Demand Total Phosphorus Dissolved Phosphorus Nitrate Nitrogen -Kjeldahl Nitrogen Copper Lead Zinc 20 40 60 80 l no PERCENT REMOVAL M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 5, 2000 TO: Planning Commission (July 101h meeting — Item #5) FROM: John Sutter, Planner S� SUBJECT: Discussion item: Development concept for a 50 -unit residential development proposed for 10 acres located at the northwest corner of 47th and Zane (vacant cemetery property). SVK Development has submitted a development concept illustrating what they have in mind for the 10 acres of vacant cemetery -owned land at the northwest corner of 47' and Zane. In addition to several discussions with City staff, the developer also participated in an information meeting held on June 12" for Planning Commissioners, City Council members and neighborhood residents. At this time, the developer's engineer is finalizing their full site plan and preliminary plat for submittal by July 24th and consideration before the Planning Commission on August 14th. For this reason, staff would like the Planning Commission to have an opportunity to discuss the development concept as a group and provide the developer with your thoughts prior to the July 24th application submittal deadline. Enclosed are the following items: ❑ notice of he June 12th informational meeting; ❑ notes from the June 12" information meeting; ❑ news article in the Sun Post dated June 21St; and ❑ concept plan for the proposed development. a NOTICE OF INFORMATIONAL MEETING Monday, June 12, 2000, at 7 p.m. City Council Chambers, Crystal City Hall 4141 Douglas Drive North Potential development on a 10 acre site (vacant Glen Haven Cemetery property) located at the northwest corner of 47th Ave N and Zane Ave N The site concept below has been submitted by SVK Development for initial discussion and review. The development would include forty townhouses and ten single family lots. It would also include a pond, landscaped berms along 471h Avenue, and trail connections from the neighborhood to the Crystal Community Center complex. At the June 12th meeting, the developer will be available to discuss the proposal in greater detail and answer any questions you may have. If you have questions for City staff, feel free to call City Planner John Sutter at 531-1142. ------- - - - - -- ,, 5 POND // l\ 1 fir - i 31 ���lll � �� 73 �•� � a Ii{� ./� �� 7Z 25 �i --- �3 - 335 -- - y.-- i r: �,. ,39 3B 1 THIS NOTICE IS BEING MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS WITHIN 1,050 FEET OF THE DEVELOPMENT S17E W 6/12/00 INFORMATIONAL MEETING ON VACANT GLEN HAVEN CEMETERY PROPERTY Ross Larson with Landform Engineers presented the proposed project to the residents. He stated that there would be 10 single family houses and 40 townhouses. There would be an association for the townhomes, and berming in front and along west side to screen from 47`" Avenue. There would be a small portion deeded to the City for existing ballfield. Density would be about 5 units per acre. Dick Curry said that there were plans for the townhomes, but nothing designed yet for the 10 single family houses. He said they tried to resolve the issues brought up when the previous developer had proposed building on that land. All would be walkouts or lookouts, and he said the townhouses they are proposing would blend in well. There would only be one garage facing the street. He showed the residents what the units they built in St. Louis Park looked like, and a sketch of how these would look. Thev would be similar, but some of the more expensive aspects would be removed. Owners would still have the option of upgrading countertops, carpets, etc. There were many questions from residents: Will it be on a slab? No, everything will have a full basement. What are the projected price per unit for the townhouses? Base price would be 160,000 —130,000. Whv do these diagrams look like both garages face the street on some of the townhouses? On the cul-de-sac it would be too difficult to do. Whv are the driveways side by side on the single family houses 13 & 44? This is a very preliminary drawing, they can all go on north side. Would single family houses be part of association? No Would the single family houses be homogenous? No, they will all look different, but will be geared toward families. What would the square footage of the townhouses be? 1100 — 1200 on the main floor and same below when finished. Will it be owner occupied units? Yes Will any of the townhomes be built for the physically impaired? They won't be geared toward the physically impaired, but can be adapted that way if requested. Why is there only one outlet for traffic? John Sutter said the Fire and Police Depts. are both comfortable with one outlet, and original plan had access onto Zane, but then cars headlights would be pointing directly into properties so it was changed. Will a storm sewer be tied into and will the surrounding properties be assessed to pay for it? All runoff will fit into ponding area, and no assessments to surrounding properties for storm sewer. The runoff will go through a NURP pond to clean it and then either go into the 60" storm sewer line or be absorbed through the sand. This property is relatively flat, how big of mountains will they have to make to build walkouts/lookouts:' The single family homes would only be 2'-3' above curb height and the townhomes approximately 5' above existing ground. (m,7� W, flims - (%1121 ) Can kids ride their bikes through the property? John Sutter stated that the City would require the trails to be open to the public and that roads and sidewalks would be accessible. The only thing not permitted would be parking in the development. What about the safety issues with the pond, especially with children in the area. How will thev address that? Scott Kevitt stated that he's thinking this would be more of a wetland area with plant life and maybe an island, instead of an actual pond. What about the batting cage at the ballfield? The batting cage has to go. At whose expense? John said that is vet to be determined. How high would the berms be and would they be rolling or straight? Scott Kevitt said thev would be 6' — 7' , but didn't address whether they would be rolling or straight. How high would berms be initially? 2 %Z feet hopefully. Are there any plans to control mosquito growth in the pond? No, no plans for that. This is a private drive, can the City regulate parking on this site? There will be a CLP for the townhouses, they can only have parking on one side. What zoning are we being asked to change? PUD, would require rezoning because thev are building townhouses. Roads are a little narrower because no right of way is required. Will the association govern parking for recreational vehicles and prohibit garden clots and landscaping? All will be in the rules and regulations, but generally no overnight parking of RV's and only plantings right next to house allowed. Who will run the association? The developer initially but then the owners. How much will this affect traffic flow to the stoplight on Adair? You should barely notice it. Several other residents had concerns about traffic, aren't enough stop signs on Adair. will there be a stop sign put at the T-interesection on the corner of 48`h, streets are too busy already. will there be a sidewalk along Zane, will something be done with storm water running down Zane, etc. John Sutter said that these weren't really issues for the developer, and would need to be addressed separately. He would bring their concerns to the City Engineer but that several of these problems would probabiv have to wait to be resolved when the streets are reconstructed in the future. This project looks like it's being driven by the City. Who owns the property, how much is the Citv involved, and who is responsible for mowing the grass'' The cemetery still owns the property. The City is the regulator and has only provided information to the developers so they can address the issues that were a problem before. Dick Curry staters that he told them to mow yesterday. What is the timespan for the project? Probably would be a 2-3 year project. Is sewer line capable of handling another 90 homes'' John said he would check with City Engineer. Will it be school bus accessible? Yes, you can take a hook and ladder fire truck through there so a school bus should have no problem. 4 ,w, rK 4r,+"Med - 04 /?./2000) www.miiSun.com New plan for vacant lot at 47th and Zane is met with less disdain By Carin Rosengren Sun Newspapers The dozens of residents who carne to a June 12 neighborhood meeting about a housing proposal for the vacant lot at 47th and Zane avenues are, and have been, of singular mind in making sure that only the best proposal be approved. As they showed at the informational meeting last week, they can be of singu- lar voice, too. At the podium in City Council chambers as he pointed to a site plan of the proposal, SVK Development representative Dick Perry paused as he described the map. "...and the driveways have access off of ... what street is this?" he said, almost under his breath. "Zane," said the 60 -plus -member audi- ence, simultaneously. The proposal came 15 months after the Crystal City Council and Planning Com- mission rejected a request for a planned - unit development (PUD) by another devel- oper. That plan called for 60 townhouses on the site, or six units per acre, which is one more unit per acre than allowed by its low- density residential zoning. Neighborhood residents turned out in droves to oppose that plan and seemed prepared to it again. But SVK Develop- ment took many cues from the previous failed attempt and assembled a plan that seemed to appease the crowd on June 12. The grassy, 10 -acre lot is adjacent to Glen Haven Memorial Gardens on the northwest corner of 47th and Zane avenues. It is owned by Crystal Lakes Cemetery Association. SVK's proposal calls for.a 40 -unit town- house development with a pond on the ma- jority of the land, plus 10 single-family homes along Zane between 47th and 48th avenues. T1.1, I.nl nh71n „': n.n 111 I , 1 hr'll rlvl in pr1i77v of two, and an owner -run association would maintain the grounds and building exteriors. "We could see doing 60 units," Perry told the audience. "As a developer, that's where we wanted to go." But SVK principals allowed the previ- ous developer's failed attempt to guide their own. The new proposal for a 40 -unit townhouse development plus 10 single- family homes equals five units per acre. "Our goal is to have people from Crystal who have been in their homes 25 or 30 years," Perry said. 'These are good for peo- ple who no longer want to take care of them or who no longer can take care of them." The meeting last week was to present a preliminary plan to residents, said City Plan- ner John Sutter. Before construction could begin, the plan will be discussed during at least three formal meetings in the future and must be approved by the City Council. Residents asked questions about the townhouses' foundations, prices, storm and sanitary sewer lines, landscaping and street access. The townhouses and single-family homes each will be either a walkout or a lookout with a full basement. The target price range is approximately $160,000- $180,000, with options for amenities that will increase the values. Each will have about 2,400 square feet available, with 1,200 square feet finished on the main floor. The single-family homes would be built with different styles, with one or two levels and according to the homeowner's wishes. Access to the townhouse developmen- t's private roads would be on 47th Av- enue. A walking trail would lead to the nearby Crystal Community Center. If approved by the City Council, the pro- ject would be constructed on a sales -driven limel inr', likrly fiver f%vo or Ilrrev. Vvars. Crystal/Robbinsdale, New Hope/Golden Valley Sun-Post/Wednesday, June 21, 2000 3A j ttt .w. - Su"Hod Graphic This architect's drawing shows a preliminary proposal by SVK Development for 40 units of townhouses and 10 single-family homes on the 10 -acre lot at 47th and Zane avenues In Crystal. 'C$i—i'�` _ ...._' ..e. ., •'. F'..'i}T.pa��.7r I i I -------------------- —` 1 �' 111ffffff 1 (L IL , 1 1 _ �_ J1 _ _ G11 n w 33 26 ' � 1", X�111 TI Arvah 0S_ y F Kla t 49T4 AVENUE NO4TN --.----_ - i a 1 I WW 9 N Su"Hod Graphic This architect's drawing shows a preliminary proposal by SVK Development for 40 units of townhouses and 10 single-family homes on the 10 -acre lot at 47th and Zane avenues In Crystal. S 9RV1!(A9 T"L fu t, 25 /f 2-T 25 2 r. 35 36 3-- 38 40 BERM 6 ®ZONING SUMMARY %/ aRR.ftff to" CO EM SITE SUMMARY -01O TOWraiRE t 5 TOTAL MOGT_L-0M9 50 TOTAL ACREAGE OF GMlli 10.0 ACRE9 LDEVLUPM t 3V:KD.-Iop.-t MTY �3/ A� 3335 P.—YI-M. A-, K _Crystal WN 55427 77- (812) 5,45-3557 ®SETBACK SUMMARY 3w 4A Y (6C . R - 5.1 sm CORNK LOT STREET SIX 6 Tahaats fQONT 20' ORN6-ys REM 11 =TYPICAL TOWNHOME UNIT =SITE LOCATION MAP - 4 -IT -1 i AVENUE NO,;R-74 - NORTH e 0 40 80 SCALE IN FEET PROJECT PARKSIDE Crystal, Minnesota FILE 14,0:'1Ez C1DW0c1w.ZxLG "W -ECT NO CUS&OL CONCEPT CO.1 LL�—) 01 z LLI z zLLI Lu (Y Z-7 NORTH e 0 40 80 SCALE IN FEET PROJECT PARKSIDE Crystal, Minnesota FILE 14,0:'1Ez C1DW0c1w.ZxLG "W -ECT NO CUS&OL CONCEPT CO.1 LL�—) 01 z LLI zLLI NORTH e 0 40 80 SCALE IN FEET PROJECT PARKSIDE Crystal, Minnesota FILE 14,0:'1Ez C1DW0c1w.ZxLG "W -ECT NO CUS&OL CONCEPT CO.1 LL�—) M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 5, 2000 TO: Planning Commission (July 10" meeting — Item #6) FROM John Sutter, Planner SUBJECT: Selection of two Planning Commission members to participate in a July 27th focus group regarding the County Road 81 corridor (Northwest Corridor Partnership). The City of Crystal is participating in an effort to improve the County Road 81 corridor. This cooperative venture, called the Northwest Corridor Partnership, includes Hennepin County, the cities of Robbinsdale, Crystal, Brooklyn Park, Osseo and Maple Grove, the local business community, the U of M's Humphrey Institute and the Design Center for the American Urban Landscape. One of the tasks for the partnership is to seek input from local stakeholders. To this end, the partnership will be holding two focus groups representing the cities in the corridor: Two City Council reps from each city are invited to the focus group on Wednesday, July 26th; and two Planning Commission reps from each city are invited to the focus group on Thursday, July 27th A letter from the U of M explaining the focus groups is attached. At its meeting on July 5th, the City Council selected Council members Garry Grimes and Tom Krueger for the July 26' focus group. The Planning Commission will need to select two of its own members to attend the focus group to be held on Thursday, July 27th Planning Commission action is requested. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Twin Cilie (timpa, Date: June 22, 2000 To: Anne Noms, City of Crystal State and Local Pniie_t• Pro rain HitmphrrN Cenre•r Huirrrt H. Hunrl>lrrr hr>tittrn of -"W-19th, hcline Sntrth Pai�lir -1 tjair� Alirtrreapnlis. IA -5-47455-04") 012-02()-o +- Far: 612-62ti_v,1_t t E-mail: ,/pp(Q hhh.amrr.,,du h»n:UInr r.hirh.unrrr.rcltriCdrrtcrs/.SLP,c Cc: Hennepin County, Design Center, Smith Parker, Northwest Corridor Partnership, Dennis Kraft (Rcbbinsdale), AI Madsen (Maple Grove), Dave Callister (Osseo), Curt Boganey (Brooklyn Park) From: Frank Douma, State & Local Policy Program, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota, Ccnsuftant to Hennepin County , 5'1,01 J RE: City Designation of Two City Council and Two Planning Commission Representatives to Serve as Focus Group Participants for the Northwest (Highway 81) Corridor Study Two programs at the University of Minnesota. The State & Local Policy Program of the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, and the Design Center for the American Urban Landscape, are under contract with Hennepin County to conduct studies related to the role of transportation and transit in the future use and development of the Hennepin County Highway 81 corridor. This is part of an overall effort initiated by Hennepin County Commissioner Mike Opat, who has assisted in the formulation of the Northwest Corridor Community Works Partnership, a consortium of public and private representatives from along the corridor, including the municipalities of Robbinsdale. Crystal, Brooklyn Park, Maple Grove and Osseo. A major part of this effort includes interaction with local stakeholders. Focus group discussions have already been held with transportation and economic development staff from the above municipalities, as well as similar staff from Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council, including iytetro Transit, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. As a next step, researchers from the State & Local Policy Program and the Design Center would like to hold focus group discussions with City Council and Planning Commission representatives from each of the municipalities involved with the Northwest Corridor effort. Consequently, we are requesting that eachv .fir de-signatS City vvunna and two Planning Commission members to p rFicinate in group meetings with representatives from other municipalities. There will be two separate focus group meetings for City Council and Planning Commission representatives. Each meeting will be held at the Brooklyn Park Community Activities Center from 7p.m. to 9p.m. The proposed date of focus group meetings are as follows: • City Council Representatives: Wednesday, July 26; and • Planning Commission Representatives: Thursday, July 27. Focus group discussions will explore concerns and opportunities related to the Highway 81 corridor. Feedback gathered from each focus group will be summarized and used in the preparation of research materials for the upcoming Northwest Corridor Partnership meeting, scheduled for August 16, 2000. To advance efforts of the Northwest Corridor Partnership and to ensure maximum participation by all designated council and commission members, City Administrators are requested to initiate City Council designation and approval of municipal representatives as soon as possible. Please contact Frank Douma at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs to confirm the date of consideration by the City Council. Once designated and approved, please provide the names and contact information of the City Council and Planning Commission representatives who will participate in the above referenced focus group discussions. Also please direct any questions concerning this process to Frank Douma at (612) 626-9946 or via email at fdeuma(?hnn.umn.edu. Questions regarding the Northwest Corridor Partnership effort and related studies may be directed to Larry Blackstad at Hennepin County, Department of Transit and Community Works. Larry may be reached at (612) 348-5859 or via email at!arry.blackstadCaco.hernepin.mn.us. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. UonwiwuLics ifl ,_)I ig t;ouiity Rd. 81 have #ormt ))�Lition to give new life to the h highway, which ties together several Hennepin County suburbs. Looking to upgrade a northwestp-a-­s­sag'( N-11 Communities along the County Rd. 81 corridor in northwestern Hennepin County are hoping that Improvements along the long -neglected roadway cal boost their individual development plans. Burlington Northern Santa y- " {e railroad line HINNEPIN i �Sttirl in use, but s a potential buswal f't,, and bice tralL i►SSeO y�l Plans a byroad rangeAecof aim. d Institution va.J QI its ;business district, ®tr Hopes to bend the amenities o% both �r suburbs and cities in a dense, mined used w development on 2,000 acres known as the Gravel Mining Area, north of Interstate Hwy. 94 and south of " County Rd 8L fts' �- #, Star Tribune photo by Bruce Bisping hrtersection of County Rd. 81 and Hwy.169 In Brooklyn Park forms part of the Devirs Triangle, dubbed for Its ablilty to confound motorists. Improvements are planned By Mark Brunswick Star Tribune Staff Writer et in a corridor that was once the bed of a glacial lake and later an ideally flat trading route for Indians, County Rd. 81 today is a LJ four -lane spine for the northwest suburbs. (I More than 28,000 vehicles use parts of it each day, driving by the i hopeful economic resurgence of Robbinsdale, the seemingly out -of - place commuter airport in Crystal, the industrial netherworld on the backside of Brooklyn Park, and the fast -sprouting homes and apart- 19064POUE ments in northwestern Maple Grove. ^ The road faces an identity crisis of sorts: It was formerly Hwy. 169, but was turned over to Hennepin County in an exchange for another roadway in 1988. There are pockets of promise, and places, such as the long -vacant Joyner's bowling alley property near Brooklyn Boule- vard, that are apparition like as motorists speed by. h k A coalition of businesses and public entities hopes to turn County Rd. 81 into many things for many constituents: a tree -lined gateway in Robbinsdale, a mixed-use corridor in Crystal, and a more -efficient transitway for commuters and growing industries overall. The idea is to bring together the affected parties, using the road as a common denominator. c Things haven't always been so harmonious. � COUNTY RD. 81 centMuas on BIL o, r,.xl rrranJ! — Metrnnolitnn Council nrrdirts civniTllt;ant popul,76nn Rrnwtb in area. ants 6 office and retail the citys corpprehensive plan.ca9s for ma<gnrnent of, fronfag�e ' " 9 �,,p roods and �1CU ; 4�i Mc'ti k to construction of left4urn NEW, Imes. Crystal Airport which occupies a large site.,; adjacent to the road, may' Someday be relocated But that is unlit" to happen in , + the next 20 years, so the city hopes to mttigate noise with .f 34th 11r K landscaping 8nd buffering . strategies. � * . - -µ*'�' ' ""`' ,. wants to d>erge the.road from a higMHay to � unb� parkway, unifying its dowrrtown area and aeatkig a move � and. '�. transit-frierxfly viAage-ace ahnosphene. fts' �- #, Star Tribune photo by Bruce Bisping hrtersection of County Rd. 81 and Hwy.169 In Brooklyn Park forms part of the Devirs Triangle, dubbed for Its ablilty to confound motorists. Improvements are planned By Mark Brunswick Star Tribune Staff Writer et in a corridor that was once the bed of a glacial lake and later an ideally flat trading route for Indians, County Rd. 81 today is a LJ four -lane spine for the northwest suburbs. (I More than 28,000 vehicles use parts of it each day, driving by the i hopeful economic resurgence of Robbinsdale, the seemingly out -of - place commuter airport in Crystal, the industrial netherworld on the backside of Brooklyn Park, and the fast -sprouting homes and apart- 19064POUE ments in northwestern Maple Grove. ^ The road faces an identity crisis of sorts: It was formerly Hwy. 169, but was turned over to Hennepin County in an exchange for another roadway in 1988. There are pockets of promise, and places, such as the long -vacant Joyner's bowling alley property near Brooklyn Boule- vard, that are apparition like as motorists speed by. h k A coalition of businesses and public entities hopes to turn County Rd. 81 into many things for many constituents: a tree -lined gateway in Robbinsdale, a mixed-use corridor in Crystal, and a more -efficient transitway for commuters and growing industries overall. The idea is to bring together the affected parties, using the road as a common denominator. c Things haven't always been so harmonious. � COUNTY RD. 81 centMuas on BIL o, r,.xl rrranJ! — Metrnnolitnn Council nrrdirts civniTllt;ant popul,76nn Rrnwtb in area. PAGE B6 • STAR TRIBUNE * Metro/State SATURDAY, MARCH i l • COUNTY RD. 81 from B1 A unified vision is sought for backbone of growing corridor "This was an important gate- way to our city, and we'd have to bug Hennepin County for things like cutting their grass," said Rob- ; binsdale Mayor Mike Holtz. "They would eventually get around to it, but it wasn't high on their priority list." Today the county is part of the Northwest Corridor Partnership, which also includes businesses such as North Memorial Medical Center and Scherer Bros. Lum- ber, and the cities of Robbins - dale, Crystal, Brooklyn Park, Os- seo and Maple Grove. The changes the partnership might seek could include even the most simple step: giving the road a name rather than just a number. "I think'Opportunity Highway' would be good," said Hennepin County Commissioner Mike Opat, who is coordinating the partnership. Opat said he recognized that scheduled improvements along County Rd. 81 could be done in coordination with the plans of other groups, producing a more unified vision without increasing costs. (Each project would retain its own budget.) Opat also said he hopes to have results within two years. "When we fix a county road, it should be more than just fixing it from one curb to the next," he said. "We should take a look at how things work on each side of the street." For instance, North Memorial, Robbinsdale's largest employer with 5,000 workers, has a rapidly expanding campus. "We need to have access to 81," said ScottAn- derson, the hospital's CEO. He also cited the need for clear routes for getting to County Rd. 81 from other places. Accessibility is an issue not only for patients but also for em- ployees and potential employees. Many rely on public transporta- tion to get to the hospital, whose buildings cast a shadow over the busy road. The partnership had its first organizational meeting last week. The Hennepin County Board supports it in concept, but no actual budget has been es- tablished. One commissioner, while en- dorsing the idea, said she has concerns that the burden on tax- payers will gradually grow. "These things have had a way of getting out of hand pretty quickly in the past, and the county ends up paying," said Penny Steele, whose district includes Maple Grove. "That's what I will be watching." Growth spurt The workhorse suburbs north- west of Minneapolis long have taken a backseat in planning and prestige. But the tide has been turning. The Metropolitan Coun- cil predicts significant population growth along the County Rd. 81 corridor in the next two decades, with more than 87,000 people be- ing added in Maple Grove and Brooklyn Park alone. While the completion of Hwy. 610, a four -lane freeway between Interstate Hwy. 94 in Maple Grove and Hwy. 10 in Coon Rap- ids, is expected to be the major east -west link for the northern suburbs, County Rd. 81 also is a focus for development and tran- sit improvements. A dedicated busway into Min- neapolis along a parallel Burling- ton Northern Santa Fe railroad line is possible. Right-of-way would have to be obtained from the railroad, which uses the track for a daily round trip between Rogers and Minneapolis, but the corridor is part of the Metropoli- tan Council's Regional Transit Master Plan for implementation between 2010 and 2020. Meanwhile, Metro Transit is working with Robbinsdale to open a $3 million transit station near Hubbard Avenue and Coun- ty Rd. 81 next year. The railroad line also has po- tential as a pedestrian and bike trail linking with the Elm Creek Park Reserve in Maple Grove, Champlin and Dayton. Meanwhile, the county already plans major design changes the County Rd. 81's intersection with Hwy. 169 and 85th Avenue N., an area that has been dubbed the Devil's Triangle for its history of confounding motorists and con- tributing to accidents. Business interests Peter Scherer, president of Scherer Bros. Lumber Co., which has administrative offices in Brooklyn Park, sees County Rd. 81 as critical. Retaining and hir- ing employees is a significant is- sue, and workers are commuting to the company's locations in Brooklyn Park and along the Min- neapolis riverfront from as far away as Elk River, North Branch and St. Cloud. When Scherer Bros. began planning to expand its 80 -em- ployee window -construction divi- sion, space couldn't be found quickly enough in Minneapolis. The company put pins on a map, representing where workers lived, to determine convenient sites for expansion. Locations along County Rd. 81 kept coming back as some of the best options. "Most people buying houses in outlying areas are doing it be- cause of affordability issues," Sherer said. "If we can work to- gether to make housing more af- fordable in closer, we'll all be bet- ter off. Especially if it doesn't have to be 100 percent govern- ment -subsidized." Then he added: "We are in the lumber business, after all. If there's more construction, they'll need more lumber." CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS ON PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS (since last Planning Commission meeting on May 8, 2000) May 16, 2000: ❑ Approved: Application 2000-6.8 for Lot Division, submitted by City of Crystal Economic Development Authority (applicant and owner), for division of an existing 127' x 290' property located at 3244 Hampshire Avenue North (P.I.D. 20-118-21-14-0019) into two lots, one for a single family house and the other for future redevelopment and/or public open space. ❑ Approved: Application 2000-7.8 for Lot Division, submitted by City of Crystal Economic Development Authority (applicant) and L. Duong and H. K. Nguyen (owners), for division of property located at 7200 33rd Avenue North (P.I.D. 20-118-21-24-0002) into one 72' wide parcel to be retained by the current owners and one 2' wide parcel to be acquired by the applicant and combined with property located at 7116 33`d Avenue North for redevelopment purposes. ❑ Approved: Application 2000-8.8 for Lot Combination and Redivision, submitted by City of Crystal Economic Development Authority (applicant) and Randy McGovern (owner), for combination and redivision of property located at 7116 33rd Avenue North (P.I.D. 20-118- 21-24-0032) together with the east 2' of property located at 7200 33rd Avenue North (P.I.D. 20-118-21-24-0002), for the purpose of dividing the combined property into two 60' wide lots. June 6, 2000: ❑ Approved: Text changes to Crystal City Code Section 520.23 Subd. 2 adding "corrugated metal" to the list of exterior building materials that are not permitted for residential and non- residential buildings. ❑ Approved: Text changes to Crystal City Code Sections 515.35 Subd. 2 and 515.37 Subd. 2 adding lawful gambling establishments as permitted uses in the B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts subject to licensing. June 20, 2000: ❑ Approved: Final plat for Memory Lane Estates (8 -unit townhouse project located at 6900 42" Ave N).