Loading...
12-10663r RESOLUTION NO 10663 RESOLUTION DENYING REQUEST FOR REZONING, FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PILLSBURY COMMONS WHEREAS, Connelly Development ("Developer") has submitted an application for rezoning as a planned unit development, along with applications for final development and conditional use permit approval (the "Project") , to the City of Richfield for the real property located at 7641 Pleasant Avenue and 211 West 76th Street, legally described on the attached Exhibit A and depicted on the map attached as Exhibit B (collectively, "the Property"); and WHEREAS, The Project is the second proposed development for the Property, the Developer having previously proposed in 2011 a seventy-unit apartment building on the south end of the current Site which would have resulted in more than twenty-four units per acre of high-density of one hundred percent "affordable" housing. The Applicant withdrew this earlier project in April of 2012 in favor of the current Project. WHEREAS, the Developer proposes rezoning the Property from "I" Industrial to "PMR" Planned Multi-Residential and proposes the development of the Property with a 100 percent affordable, 70-unit housing development, including 18 townhomes and a 52-unit, four-story apartment building with a density of twenty-four units per acre; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed rezoning, request for a final development plan and conditional use permit on May 29, 2011; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to residents and property owners within 500 feet of the subject property on May 17th, 2012 and; WHEREAS, on June 25, 2012, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the applications by a vote of 6 to 0; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the applications for rezoning, final development plan and conditional use permit approval on June 26, 2012; and WHEREAS, the location and density of the Project has raised important questions concerning the City's ability to reasonably absorb additional affordable housing units, as well as the appropriate mix of market rate and affordable units. An "affordable housing unit" is a housing unit priced at or below thirty percent of gross income of a household earning sixty percent of the Twin Cities median family income ($50,340 in 2012 for a family of four); and WHEREAS, the City recently received the "Richfield Rental Housing Inventory and NEET Assessment" prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. ("Stantec Report," or Stantec"). The Stantec Report concluded that presently, forty-five percent of Richfield's renter households have incomes below $35,000 and spend more than thirty percent of their income towards housing, thereby coming within the definition of "affordable housing." This statistic is higher than the metropolitan area rate and one of the highest rates among Richfield's peer communities in terms of accommodating "affordable housing."; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council and the Stantec Report concluded that there is a need in the City for multifamily affordable housing. The Stantec Report also concluded that while the present rental stock is comprised of a significant amount of one-bedroom detached or attached units (724), the vast majority of Richfield's rental housing is already located in buildings with five or more units (4,440). As a result, the City is already home to a significant number of families presently living in affordable, multi-family housing; and WHEREAS, other than the City's senior high-rises, the Project proposes a significant density (24 dwelling units per acre) of only affordable housing on one block in the City. Given the City's currently identified concentration of affordable units in the City and the resulting concentration of families who meet the income requirements for affordable housing, the issue has arisen of whether the concentration of affordable housing proposed by the Project on the Site is reasonable; and WHEREAS, the Council is concerned that while the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan targets a number of areas for medium-to high-density residential housing, the Comp Plan does not provide any guidance as to the appropriate target percentages of market rate housing versus affordable housing to guide zoning activities and future development; and WHEREAS, the City has not studied the issue of concentration of affordable housing to determine whether the proposed location of the Project and its concentration of affordable housing is reasonable. In addition, although the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan was recently approved by the Met Council, the Met Council has not addressed the issue of concentration of affordable housing in Richfield as it has in other metropolitan areas such as the City of Minneapolis, where the Met Council participated in the de-concentration of affordable housing as a result of the federal district court Holtman decision; and WHEREAS, the Council is concerned that while the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan targets a number of areas for medium-to high-density residential housing, the Comp Plan does not provide any guidance as to the appropriate target percentages of market rate housing versus affordable housing to guide zoning activities and future development; and WHEREAS, while the Council recognizes that one of the significant goals of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan is to maintain a diversity of housing types and price ranges, pursuant to information in the Stantec Report, the Project would likely add even more affordable housing concentrated in a one block area in a community that is already considered to be nearly 100 percent affordable by metropolitan housing standards; and WHEREAS, the absence of guidelines to assist the City as to what is an appropriate mix of market rate and affordable housing to meet the City's housing goals and to maintain the viability of the City and its existing residential neighborhoods should be addressed before the City and the HRA make an irrevocable decision to approve the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. Findings of Fact. The City Council hereby incorporates the foregoing recitals as findings of fact and makes the following additional findings of fact: A. The City's zoning ordinance establishes zoning classifications for individual property. The properties located at 7641 Pleasant Avenue and 211 West 76th Street are zoned I (Industrial). B. Connelly Development has submitted an application to the City for a planned unit development plan [the "PUD plan"] for 7641 Pleasant Avenue and 211 West 76th Street. The PUD plan proposes to construct a 70 unit development that includes 18 townhomes and a 52-unit apartment building. C. The PUD plan requires the Developer to have control over all of the property in the proposed PUD development. D. The Developer does not control all of the property necessary for the proposed development. E. The City and its HRA need to study further the recently released Stantec Report in light of the housing requirements in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan to determine the appropriate mix of market rate and affordable housing for these targeted areas, including the Site and throughout the City. If the Met Council is correct and the City's population does grow at least 10% over the next decade, it is critical that the City develop reasonable standards to address the following important policy issues: a. The appropriate mix generally of market rate and affordable housing throughout the City in light of the current level of affordability; b. The appropriate mix of market rate and affordable housing for the identified sites for medium to high density housing in the Comp Plan; c. The use of incentives, e.g., government financing tools such as TIF, bonuses in the zoning code, to provide for a mix of housing types and price ranges; d. The appropriate mix of market rate and affordable housing to address the creation of a disproportionate share of concentrated low-income housing in already poor segregated residential neighborhoods. e. The appropriate mix generally of market rate and affordable housing to address unintended negative impacts on adjacent single family residential property and neighborhoods. 2. On the basis of the foregoing findings, the applications for rezoning, final development plan approval and conditional use permit approval are denied. 3. The City Council directs the City Manager, City staff and staff of the HRA to review the Stantec Report, the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan, develop facts as to the appropriate mix of market rate and affordable housing and make recommendations to the City and the HRA as to whether the respective bodies should consider reasonable guidelines for market rate and affordable housing for high-density projects in the City. Staff is directed to return with such recommendations not later than June 30, 2013. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of June, 2012. ,i cek Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: 6.,_ ____ ,,,, Nancy Gib, City Clerk EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Properties Parcel C-1 The West 30 feet of Lot 1, Block 4, R.C. Soen's Addition, according to the duly recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota Parcel C-2 The South 32 feet of the North 107 feet of Lot 3, Block 4, R. C. Soens Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota and The West 123.41 feet of that part of said Lot 3 lying south of the North 107 feet thereof, and; The North 31.63 feet of the West 123.41 feet of Lot 4, in said Block 4. Parcel C-3 Lot 3, except the north 75 feet thereof, Lot 4 and Lot 5, except the south 39.00 feet thereof, all in Block 4, R. C. Soens Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota Except the following: The South 32 feet of the North 107 feet of Lot 3, Block 4, R. C. Soens Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota and The West 123.41 feet of that part of said Lot 3 lying south of the North 107 feet thereof, and; The North 31.63 feet of the West 123.41 feet of Lot 4, in said Block 4. EXHIBIT B The Property■. '44� ,. City j� r • J d �l, 1","41110 �Jj �TJ • v ■ ■ h + _ ' tiP•Air • a .14 ... 1 ',,-' 4p,, 4..4. if • .-• - ,, H.,,,,,,..4 ...,,. ...'-','' i { •s * ,. . .. ' - .r t , , i i , ( i 'City k'flag lot'f . i C-2 4 ; 11 0 i! • vi . rid ','� ` ' 1, • itili .c, i d.., . ,, , • ... 111 ity "'�. ;4111 ,,.,,,,„...„...1 ;1 • ,41 j • ,1 1 IL i + it ' i,+ 9f ...4 ir ,,,,,.. ': rr ..1• i = .' - .- i - _- -'w. ';_-„7._.ye∎ 3 .