At the December 2013 meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission, there were two main items on the agenda:

1. A Conditional Use Permit for a new child care center in the Crystal Gallery Mall
2. Setback variances for a private property on Quail Ave

Conditional Use Permit- Child Care Center

The Crystal Gallery Mall is in the process of rejuvenating, and as a part of that process it has secured a child care center to be located on the side of the mall that was previously used for office space.

A conditional use permit is required for any child care centers in the C2 zone.

The owner was also requesting a variance to place the outdoor play area closer to the property line than is usually allowed. This is due to the unique shape of the property. A small part of the fence will be located 7 feet from the public sidewalk.

The only item we discussed was the fence on the play area. The owner presented a plan for a black chain link fence. We discussed whether this type of fence was adequate for both safety and atheistic reasons, but ultimately decided it was up to the property owner.

The CUP was passed unanimously.

Setback Variances

The second item we took up was a pair of setback variances for a private property on Quail Ave. A couple recently purchased the home there and are looking to put an addition on the house, and are considering a future addition to the garage.

The house is in a very strange part of Crystal, over by Twin Lake, right by the Twin Lake Shores walking path.

The land that is used for the walking path was originally supposed to be a road, so the houses face toward the lake / path.  Quail Ave was supposed to be an alley, so the garages face Quail.

The road was never built, and eventually Quail became the road, so there are a few houses that “face the wrong way” and have their garages in what could be considered their front yard.

The City Planner suggested that we take up the variances for the house and garage separately, which we did.

The variance for the house was non-controversial. There is a small bump-out on the house that is 3.5 feet from the property line, and the setback requirement is 5 feet.

The homeowners are not actually touching that part of the house- the variance is required because the property is technically legally nonconforming (“grandfathered in”). They are allowed to keep things as-is indefinitely, but once they do any work they are supposed to either bring the property into compliance or get a variance.

The variance for the house passed unanimously.

The garage variance was the cause of much more conversation.

The garages on this street are all located about 1 foot from the property line and the street, which was originally an alley.

The City Planner was recommending that we deny the variance request for the garage, which would mean that if the homeowner would ever wish to expand the garage, they would instead be forced to demolish it and move the wall 3 feet back from the street, and 3 feet from the neighboring property.

I visited the property before the meeting, and while I was there I noticed that this garage backs up to the garage next door. They are both the same distance from the street. There is a small gap between the two garages, as they both back up against the respective property lines.

I argued that we should allow the variance, because the homeowner replacing the existing structure in the same place would not “alter the essential character of the locality,” which is the legal standard used to make these decisions.

The homeowner addressed the commission and stated that he had discussed the project with his wife, and upon examining the structure they agree that the garage should be demolished and moved back 3 feet from the street. He requested that they be able to keep the north wall of the garage where it currently is.

We voted unanimously to continue the matter until the next meeting, at which time the city staff will present us with new findings based on the modified request.

Met Council

At the end of the meeting we reviewed the letter that the city sent to the Met Council, challenging their ridiculous projections for 2040.

There were three items on the agenda for the City of Crystal Planning Commission Meeting on November 12, 2013:

1. Conditional Use Permit for an 8 foot fence. 

   This was pretty non-controversial, the measure passed unanimously after a brief discussion.The owner of a new liquor store wants to install a new fence and new lighting on his property. City code only allows for a 6 foot fence, so a conditional use permit was required for the 8 foot height. The only minor point of contention was that apparently the “good” side of the fence (the flat side) has to point toward your neighbor’s property while the fence posts need to be pointing toward your side. We also required that the owner remove the fence posts from an old fence after concerns from the owner of an adjoining property.

2. Consider amending city code to allow multi-color electronic signs. 

   This topic generated much more discussion than I expected. The same liquor store owner wants to be able to install a multi-color digital sign outside his store, but that is not currently allowed by city code, so he requested that we change the code.The property directly across the street, which is in New Hope, has a sign like this right now. The signs are allowed in all neighboring cities.City staff looked at surrounding cities and came up with a proposal to allow the signs as long as they met light level restrictions, didn’t display any animation, and kept the image on the screen for a minimum of 2 minutes.I personally felt that the restriction on animation and the screen minimum were unnecessarily restrictive, but that was a minority view among the commissioners.  There were a few commissioners who opposed the signs at all, lest we turn Bass Lake Road into the Vegas Strip.I did ask the city staff if the proposed restrictions on animation and display length were based on any hard data, or just on what other cities are doing. My concern is making bad policy simply for the reason that “other people are doing it.”  The city planner said the decision was made based on “common sense” rather than any specific data.

   There was debate about putting the process on hold until we could discuss it further, or possibly allowing the signs only with a conditional use permit. I spoke out against waiting, as we had a new business owner that had a reasonable request, and I didn’t want to delay him any more than necessary.

   The commission voted 6-3 to recommend the proposed code changes to the city council. I voted yes.

3. The third item was an update on the Met Council’s preliminary 2040 forecasts for Crystal. There’s enough here to warrant a separate post. The bottom line is that the city will continue to push back against Met Council “projections” which are, in the city’s view, pure nonsense.

As a member of Crystal’s Planning Commission, one thing that I deal with is the City’s comprehensive plan.

The comprehensive plan outlines the city’s plan for growth over the next 20 or so years. A city is required to have one by state law, and the document requires Met Council approval.

The next update to the comprehensive plan is due in 2018, and covers the period to 2040. Even though we’re still several years out, the Met Council has already begun work on the 2040 plan.

The planning commission recently received information on the Met Council’s “Preliminary Forecasts” for 2040, which was focused on three areas: Population, Households, and Employment.

In each case the Met Council’s “forecasts” were not based in reality.

Crystal is projected to see an increase of 28% in population, 35% in households, and 55% in employment by 2040.

To reach the population and household numbers, Crystal would have to see growth increase by a rate of 5 times more than the rate we achieved during the housing boom of 2000-2007.

Said another way, we need to add about as many housing units per year for the next 26 years as we usually add in a decade. It’s just not going to happen.

The employment number is even more insane.  I’m not sure where the land comes from for all the new jobs, since we’re supposed to be using it all to add housing units.

Crystal’s city planner attended a workshop with the Met Council to discuss the city’s concerns with the “projections”. The concerns were echoed by the planners from other cities, meaning the asinine numbers are not unique to Crystal.

The Met Council admitted there were flaws in the computer models they used to form the projections, but were noncommittal about when or if the flaws would be corrected.

Crystal’s city planner wrote a great recap of the issues with the process, which you can find here.

His update includes this line, which I believe describes the issue perfectly: “maybe [The Met Council’s] ‘forecasts’ are really just MC’s aspirations and should just be treated as such.”

Anyone with even a passing familiarity of the Twin Cities Metro Area would realize quickly that the Met Council’s “projections” are pure make-believe.

A computer model that treats a corn field in Farmington the same way as it treats a fully developed neighborhood is Crystal, as this one does, is pure garbage.

When I first reviewed the comprehensive plan, one of the first questions I had was over the use of the term “projections,” as the projections in the current comprehensive plan are not realistic either. That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

What’s frustrating as a taxpayer is that we have city staffs all over the Metro wasting time responding to the Met Council’s fantasy plan- several years before the numbers should even be relevant.

The Met Council’s “projections” are used to justify demand for light rail, among other things.

It’s clear that the Met Council is more interested in pushing an agenda than providing for common sense regional planning. It’s time that cities start understanding that, and acting accordingly.