13-10843r RESOLUTION NO. 10843
RESOLUTION DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR CEDAR POINT COMMONS
WHEREAS, Ryan Companies ("Owner") has submitted an application for an
amendment to the planned unit development, conditional use permit and final
development plan of Cedar Point Commons, to the City of Richfield for real property
legally described as (collectively, "the Property):
LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, BLOCK 2, CEDAR POINT COMMONS
WHEREAS, the application proposes to develop approximately one half of the
Property as a Fast Food (Class III) Restaurant with drive-up service; and
WHEREAS, the currently approved plans call for four multi-tenant retail buildings
to occupy the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield held a public
hearing and recommended denial of the requested final development plan and
conditional use permit at its September 9, 2013 meeting; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current and
mailed to properties within 350 feet of the subject property on August 27, 2013; and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2013, the Planning Commission recommended
denial of the application by a vote of 4 to 3; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application for an amendment to the
planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit on
September 24, 2013.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
1. Findings of Fact. The City Council hereby makes the following findings of
fact:
A. The City's zoning ordinance establishes zoning classifications for
individual property. The property legally described as Lots 1, 2,
and 3, Block 2, Cedar Point Commons ("the Property") are zoned
PC-2 (Planned General Commercial).
B. A planned unit development, final development plan and
conditional use permit was approved for the Property on June 27,
2006. This plan called for four retail buildings to be constructed on
the property.
B. Ryan Companies has submitted an application to the City for an
amendment to the planned unit development, final development
plan and conditional use permit for the Property which would allow
construction of a fast food restaurant with drive-up service
approximately one-half of the Property.
C. Planned unit development plans are required to conform to the
goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and any
applicable redevelopment plans. Comprehensive Plan policies
include "support [for] commercial land uses that are diverse and
responsive to their context." The City finds that the proposal does
not add to the diversity of uses within the City and that a Fast Food
Restaurant that serves over 50 percent of its customers via drive-
thru service is not responsive to a context that includes a major
pedestrian and bicycle greenway. The Cedar Avenue Corridor
Master Plan further emphasizes the idea of "walkability" and the
establishment of neighborhood centers. The proposed use is not
in keeping with these goals.
D. Planned unit developments are required to be designed in such a
manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its
own boundaries. In order to accommodate a customer base that
disproportionately remains in their vehicle, pedestrian safety within
the site is compromised. Customers who wish to eat at the
restaurant are forced to cross in front of drive-thru lane traffic to
enter the building. As proposed the site is also problematic for
delivery and garbage vehicles. These large vehicles cannot be
accommodated without further inconveniencing customers who will
leave their vehicle to enter the restaurant. As proposed, the
development does not form a desirable and unified environment
within its own boundaries.
E. Planned unit developments are required to be in substantial
conformance with the purpose and intent of the guiding district, and
departures from guiding district regulations must be justified by the
design of the development. The proposed development fails to
meet requirements related to: parking, landscaping, lighting, and
vehicle loading/unloading requirements. Departures from Code
requirements cannot be justified by the design of development.
F. Planned unit developments may not create undue adverse impacts
on neighboring properties. No specific undue adverse impacts to
neighboring properties have been identified.
G. The defined purpose of planned unit development regulations is to
provide an opportunity for innovative and creative development,
while assuring that development will complement existing
neighborhood character. The City does not find that the proposal is
innovative or creative in such a way to provide superior benefit to
the community. Requested variations from Code requirements and
an amendment to the currently approved plan cannot be justified
based on the proposed plan.
2. On the basis of the foregoing findings, the application an amendment to the
planned unit development, final development plan, and conditional use permit
are denied.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of
September, 2013.
DIL ; ;# '
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, ty Clerk