030816Complete Agenda CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
6. City Manager's Report
CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
7. Claims and payrolls
Open forum(15 minutes ma)imum)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments
are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda.Individuals who wish to address
the Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
8. Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.Requests must be made at least 96
hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Regular Meeting
February 23, 2016
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Edwina Garcia; Michael Howard; and
Present: Tom Fitzhenry.
Council Members Pat Elliott.
Absent:
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director;
Wayne Kewitsch, Fire Services Director; Bill Fillmore, Liquor Operations
Director; John Stark, Community Development Director; Mary Tietjen, City
Attorney; and Theresa Schyma, Deputy City Clerk.
OPEN FORUM
None.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Garcia, S/Fitzhenry to approve the minutes of the (1) Special Concurrent City Council,
HRA and Planning Commission Worksession of February 9, 2016; (2) Regular City Council
Meeting of February 9, 2016; and (3) Special City Council Worksession of February 11, 2016.
Motion carried 4-0.
Item #1 PRESENTATION OF THE OFFICER OF THE YEAR 2015 AWARD TO
RICHFIELD POLICE OFFICER DAVID MAST
Public Safety Director Henthorne presented the award.
Public Safety Director Henthorne also announced a recent promotion in the department;
Mark Shelley was promoted from Sergeant to Lieutenant.
Council Meeting Minutes -2- February 23,2016
Item #2 UPDATE REGARDING PENN CENTRAL PRESENTED BY DAVID GEPNER
Penn Central members David Gepner, Gordon Hansen, and Tom Rublein presented the
update. Penn Central is a community-based initiative that started in 2007 as a citizen-driven effort
to help promote and revitalize the Penn Central neighborhood.
Mayor Goettel thanked them for the update and their service to the neighborhood and
community.
Item #3 COUNCIL DISCUSSION
• Hats Off to Hometown Hits
Council Member Garcia announced the March 1 Minnesota Precinct Caucuses and
encouraged residents to participate in the electoral process.
Council Member Howard commented on the Naturalization Ceremony that took place on
February 16 at Richfield Municipal Center. He thanked the Richfield Human Rights Commission for
their hard work putting on a very welcoming event where Federal Judge Donovan Frank
naturalized 36 new citizens from 18 different countries.
Council Member Fitzhenry provided an update on the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC).
He further discussed having City staff more directly involved in the NOC since there is a major
learning curve with airport issues. He would suggest having staff take a lead role with the approval
of the Council.
Council Member Fitzhenry stated there is an open co-chair position on the NOC due to a
recent resignation. He asked the Council for their support in seeking this position.
M/Goettel, S/Garcia to support Council Member Fitzhenry in seeking a co-chair position on
the Noise Oversight Committee.
Motion carried 3-0.
Mayor Goettel questioned staff about the rule preventing the Ladies Auxiliary from holding a
charity meat raffle. The location of the raffle would be the American Legion which is currently
where the Lions Club operates pull tabs. She asked staff if there is anything that can be done since
all of the money from the raffle goes to charity.
City Manager Devich responded that staff would look into the issue.
Mayor Goettel asked staff if Champps is able to relocate in Richfield due to their lease not
being renewed at their current location.
Community Development Director Stark responded that he would talk to Champps
management to find out if they are interested in relocating within Richfield.
Item #4 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
M/Fitzhenry, S/Howard to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 4-0.
Item #5 CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Meeting Minutes -3- February 23,2016
A. Consideration of the approval of the second reading of amendments to the City's Zoning
Ordinance and a resolution authorizing summary publication of said ordinance. The
proposed ordinance would update day care facility allowances in all residential districts,
such that Richfield's regulations are in agreement with those of the State. S.R. No. 29
BILL NO. 2016-3
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE TO
UPDATE DAY CARE REGULATIONS
This constitutes the second reading of Bill No. 2016-3, amending the City's Zoning Code to
update day care facility allowances in all residential districts, such that Richfield's
regulations are in agreement with those of the State, that it be published in the official
newspaper, and that it be made part of these minutes.
RESOLUTION NO. 11182
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING DAY
CARE REGULATIONS
IN ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11182.
B. Consideration of the approval of the second reading of an ordinance authorizing the
conveyance of property owned by the City of Richfield to the Richfield Housing and
Redevelopment Authority. S.R. No. 30
BILL NO. 2016-4, TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 19.01
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY
This constitutes the second reading of Bill No. 2016-4, Transitory Ordinance No. 19.01
amending the Richfield City Code by authorizing the conveyance of property owned by the
City of Richfield to the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority, that it be published
in the official newspaper, and that it be made part of these minutes.
M/Goettel, S/Fitzhenry to approve the Consent Calendar.
Motion carried 4-0.
Item #6 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR
None.
Item #7 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION SPECIFYING
THE USE OF FUNDS FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT ALLOCATION FOR 2016 AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY
REQUIRED THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS. S.R. NO. 31
Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 31.
Council Meeting Minutes -4- February 23,2016
Bill O'Meara, Community Action Partnership for Suburban Hennepin (CAPSH), thanked the
Council for their support and longstanding partnership with CAPSH. He discussed the services the
organization provides to the community.
Matt Eichenlaub, attorney at HomeLine Tenant Hotline, thanked the Council for their
support and discussed the services the organization provides to Richfield residents.
Jon Burkhow, Director of the HOME program, thanked the Council for their financial support
and partnership in promoting the HOME program. He further discussed changes and potential
growth in the organization based on population trends.
M/Fitzhenry, S/Howard to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 4-0.
M/Fitzhenry, S/Howard that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of
these minutes:
RESOLUTION NO. 11183
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED USE 2016 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY REQUIRED THIRD
PARTY AGREEMENTS
Motion carried 4-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11183.
Item #8 CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE LOCATED AT 6600 CEDAR AVENUE SOUTH.
S.R. NO. 32
Council Member Fitzhenry presented Staff Report No. 32.
Council Member Fitzhenry thanked staff for researching all options available for the Cedar
Avenue liquor store, especially considering certain pressing issues with other municipal liquor
stores.
City Manager Devich mentioned that there may be other options for acquiring parking on
that site.
Liquor Operations Director Fillmore discussed the parking issue at the Cedar Avenue liquor
store and introduced Mike Klass to discuss the potential renovation.
Mike Klass, Project Manager at Wold Architects & Engineers, presented potential upgrades
to the store including:
• 40% increase in cooler space
• 30% increase of door space
• An interior facelift much like the Lyndale Avenue store
• New layout of the employee area and bathrooms to provide better visuals down the
aisles for increased security
• New shelving systems and signage
• Removing the drop ceiling
• Modernizing the outside appearance including using the new Richfield logo
Council Member Fitzhenry asked about the timeline of the project.
Council Meeting Minutes -5- February 23,2016
Mr. Klass responded that they are ready to move but need to figure the best time to shut
down the store for the project.
Liquor Operations Director Fillmore stated the goal is to be open before the busy Memorial
Day weekend.
M/Fitzhenry, S/Goettel to authorize a capital improvement and direct staff to proceed with
the remodeling and upgrade of the municipal liquor store located at 6600 Cedar Avenue South.
City Manager Devich discussed the need for change at the Penn Avenue liquor store. The
store is profitable based on square footage but something needs to be done with the outdated
building and this issue will be coming back to the Council in the near future for a decision.
Motion carried 4-0.
Item #9 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
None.
Item #10 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS (INCLUDES MAYOR'S REQUEST FOR FLIGHT
REIMBURSEMENT TO CHINA)
M/Fitzhenry, S/Garcia that the following claims and payrolls be approved:
U.S. Bank 02/23/16
A/P Checks: 247656-248056 2,958,403.96
Payroll: 116740-117071 $ 575,285.38
TOTAL $ 3,533,689.34
Motion carried 3-0. (Mayor Goettel did not participate in the vote)
OPEN FORUM
None.
Item #11 ADJOURNMENT
The City Council Meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:09 p.m.
Date Approved: March 8, 2016
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Theresa Schyma Steven L. Devich
Deputy City Clerk City Manager
AGENDA SEC-10N: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM# 3.A.
i
STAFF REPORT NO. 33
f „ ..".. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
- 7.
3/8/2016
REPORT PREPARED BY: Melissa Poehlman,City Planner
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: John Stark,Community Development Director
3/2/2016
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: None
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
3/3/2016
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the approval of the first reading of an ordinance rezoning 211 76th Street West; 7600,
7608, and 7644 Pillsbury Avenue South; and an adjacent 30-foot strip of land from Industrial (1) and
undesignated to Planned Multi-Family Residential (PMR).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Mesaba Capital Development("Applicant") is proposing to develop an 88-unit assisted living facility on
property formerly occupied by the Richfield Public Works Garage, Gleason Mortuary, and surrounding
parcels. The applicant is requesting a change to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations in
order to make this possible. This first reading is an administrative requirement and does not obligate the
Council to approve the ordinance upon second reading; nor does it obligate the Council to approve the
Comprehensive Plan amendment or specific land use plans. The second reading, Comprehensive Plan
amendment, and final development plans will be considered by the Council on March 22, 2016.
The applicant first approached the City with interest in building an assisted living facility on this site last
summer. Reception of an initial plan presented at a joint work sesison of the City Council, Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA), and Planning Commission in August 2015, was generally favorable. The
Developer hosted a neighborhood meeting to discuss the project. The meeting was sparsely attended and no
comments were received. A pre-development agreement between the HRA and the developer was approved
on September 21, 2015.
Since that time, the Developer has worked with staff to design a project that is both financially feasible and
context-sensitive to the surrounding area. The applicant is proposing an 88-unit, 2- and 3-story assisted living
facility. The L-shaped building allows the bulk of the structure to be set back from the single-family homes
along Pillsbury Avenue, something that the neighborhood has previously indicated to be important. Access for
larger vehicles involved in deliveries, move-ins/outs, and emergency response has been provided off of 77th
Street, thereby limiting the 76th Street traffic to what would be more typical in a single-family neighborhood;
also something that the neighborhood has stated as a concern in the past. The proposed unit count exceeds
the allowable 24 units per acre in the Medium-High Density District by 10 units. A Comprehensive Plan
amendment is also necessary to move forward. In addition to a second reading of this ordinance, the
Council will be asked to consider the necessary change to the Comprehensive Plan and site plan
specifics on March 22nd.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Approve a first reading of an ordinance rezoning 211 76th Street West; 7600, 7608, and
7644 Pillsbury Avenue South; and an adjacent 30-foot strip of land from Industrial (1) and undesignated
to Planned Multi-Family Residential (PMR).
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
These parcels are currently zoned Industrial (1), a vestige of their previous use/proximity to the City's
public works garage. The Comprehensive Plan guides the block for Medium-High Density Housing of
12-24 dwelling units per acre.
B. POLICIES(resolutions,ordinances,regulations,statutes.etch
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning District Designations
The Comprehensive Plan is an expression of the Community's vision for the future. This area has been
designated as Medium or High Density since at least 1982. The rezoning of this property cannot
take place without approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. This first reading is an
administrative requirement and does not obligate the Council to approve the ordinance upon
second reading.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
• 60-DAY RULE: The 60-day clock'started'when a complete application was received on February
8, 2016. A decision is required by April 8, 2016 OR the Council must notify the applicant that it is
extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120 days total) for issuing a
decision.
• Asecond reading of the proposed ordinance is scheduled for March 22, 2016 alongside
consideration of other required land use approvals.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Required application fees have been paid.
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
• A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on February 22, 2016.
• Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper and mailed to properties
(including individual apartments) within 350 feet of the site.
• One member of the public spoke against the project. Written comments related to the proposal have
been attached.
• The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed rezoning (5-0).
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(Sl:
• Reject the proposed ordinance.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
Della Kolpin & Bo Nickoloff- Mesaba Capital Development
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
❑ Ordinance Ordinance
❑ Graphic Site Plan& Elevations Exhibit
❑ Planning &Zoning Maps Exhibit
❑ Resident Correspondence Exhibit
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING;
AMENDING APPENDIX 1 TO THE RICHFIELD CITY
CODE BY REZONING
211 76TH STREET WEST; 7600, 7608, AND 7644
PILLBURY AVENUE SOUTH; AND AN ADJACENT
30-FOOT STRIP OF LAND
TO PLANNED MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (PMR)
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 1, Paragraph (5) of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code
is amended to read as follows:
(5) M-16 That area h u tween the %liter lined of the See I ire
That ccvcccrr ccrrc�m�vr w��rrc
Railwayrin t_nf_way and Dillhi ini Avcni�e and between the rent
a.True,and bet sen the ccrrc�r
"Ree eff777 Street extender! anal 70' St�The Easterly 121.99 feet
of the North 75 feet of Lot 3, Block 4, R.C. Soens Addition.
Sec. 2. Section 9 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by
adding new Paragraph (7) as follows:
(5) M-16, Lot 1, Block 1, Richfield Assisted Living.
Sec. 4. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the
Richfield City Charter.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
~� i x
n bt
* 1
G
w
. 1
�r
? ,C
I
1 i
LU
'
I �
2 LU
LU
co
u
z
1 J i k
f
Z
IIIY
N Q
X =
w .F.
Lu
47
J
{
m g
i }
a r
`17
'1S H19L 1S3M
Hilt
1118 A' �
Ie,Ai.� �II�I�II� �� • 1a
x
b i =
1�
�.� E-i
r1�Y dhedh',;' I��� 1•� I y
cz
II g j
ml
a a
m
Q �
s
u
3
N C N
O u
3s
u
`o
6 M
yN .�
6
N
X i✓ � � �
Ll
C - C
C
p
r- LI, r
❑ Ll : I❑ �,
ISI CI C'' 1 C I k !I
JLA
CI
CI -
II
6
A -
CI C
I� µ CI C
CI C
�f�, CICI'CI SII}
j
CI E /p
15"L
N
161 \
\ A F LI i �= U _
O V
3s
u
I o
i
I
z
LLg
� N
•E
O T
J
O N
_ 3nV H12iOM1N3M
0 0
L z z
.� OQ
� p a
Z Z Z Z L
Cl)
Os
w m
co 4-1 zx Z_ E
cu CL Z. a
U N D
A+ C N
Q aVM:RVb/3�V 1NVSV3�d N
L CU E
N o
,^ z z
o /
L
}r a
�p c
0 0
V TO= oca
J 3nV 4NVN`J m
N N 6 N Q
L
—of zOm
W m
ll-
O C N N C
C X X C w
OV Zx�N 6
U-
W z
LL o E
N
•C
O O
= N 3nV H12iOM1N3M
TF0 0
}� 'n o
r �
L z z
� � U
L 2
■� L o
�' 3nv��nas��id
C a
Q LU - - - w m
LU
Of
U, z Z E
D
aVObIIVb/zl 1NVSV3�d N E
L E
N o
(n Tii
z LO
mo f° y
V J0 ca
3nV 4NVN`J a,a»�
x
CO �zI �
O0 Ell
CV �x � �__
Xx
IL-ali
O �'Z�fnNa
7x� . a._
LLd
VJ
LL
Z� E
^ a
T
OO N
3nV H12iOM1N3M a
v o 0
� o
O No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ w
x x U
N
■� fA O
O
cc d' K
� d1
a
K K ❑ W
a
r/ o o o w o o x w
of
ifU)
V� Q n o m
a
IrcuN
U
aVM:RVb/3�V INVSV3�d N E
Q '
L a
9 mu
O D U N U
V� U
y ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 @ N-
fm
y+'
VE - c
3nV 4NVb0 o
L (U E L)
J U
c c
CD oao =o
�U=� 0
0 N oo0o�
LL U U M=p
N
VJ
LLo zIL
Q E
c U
r\ T
OU1
= Q 3nV H12iOMIN3M FL
0 0
U
O �, o ❑ o 0 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ w
x x U
N
■� O
a`
0 0 ❑ o o ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑
ui
ui
A U Sf,
� 3nV J.bnaS��ld =
1 `E
a
�•+ C of
_ ❑ a
� U
_ o
.Q aVM:RVb/3�V INVSV3�d N
L E
,^ o 0 o
TEN
z
V 0
O D U N
U
mu
C/) L
VF a w a
3nV 4NVb0 E
L J o��
A+
W — c c y
f 1 @ 3 N E C
O
O m Eo.3o
0N oo�o�
N U U m=
LL p
�U2:5 1:j
From: Ghislaine Ball
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 12:52 PM
To: Joseph Hoover
Cc: Debbie Goettel; Michael Howard; Pat Elliott; Tom Fitzhenry; Edwina Garcia; John Stark; Steve
Devich; Barry LaBlanc; ghislaine; Amy Utley
Subject: Re: Memory Care at Village Shores
After all the discussions that took place - the housing commission - A NATIONAL discussion
about how concentration = segregation - why/how are we still having this discussion?
I understand that the city staff is required to put forward all proposals - I find it baffling that
these are the only projects that are coming in?
If we don't have staff resources to seek-out economically beneficial projects then let's figure it
out- lets actively seek the right people for the right positions and empower them to pursue the
vision of the citizens of Richfield.
Based on our current make-up - and honoring the guidelines of the Housing Commission plan -
not one of these proposals can be accepted.
Ghislaine
From: Joseph Hoover
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 10:33 AM
To: Debbie Goettel; Michael Howard; Pat Elliott; Tom Fitzhenry; Edwina Garcia; John Stark; Steve Devich
Cc: Barry LaBlanc; ghislaine; Amy Utley
Subject: Memory Care at Village Shores
To All:
My dad just received the attached postcard from the City of Richfield. Village Shores is now
looking at expanding and adding a memory care facility.
So now we have a memory care facility at Main Street Village at 76th & Lyndale and a proposed
memory care complex going it at St. Richards at 76th &Penn and now a proposed expansion of
units and addition of memory care Village Shores (are there others we have not been made
aware of"?). How much memory care and senior housing is Richfield Community Development
going to pursue before enough is enough?
Again, Richfield is small city with and a diverse but poor community and pursuing a memory
care development at 76th & Pillsbury will be adding residents to Richfield with little-to-no
purchasing power. This is going to have adverse economic effects that would not be the case if
we had a larger land area and/or if we were a wealthy community. If our community
development model is to take on all of the region's senior memory care housing and group homes
then I think the only way this will work is if we dissolve Richfield city government and merge
with a larger city like Minneapolis or Bloomington. We simply cannot support this type of bad
community development planning. If we are going to continue to pursue development projects
for residents with fixed, low and no income we need to have a larger area to draw the tax base
from.
Please decline Mesaba Capital of Edina's memory care facility proposal for 76th and
Pillsbury and focus on the original plan to develop market rate housing opportunities on the site
as promised. As the residents in a memory care facility will not have any (or very
little) purchasing power, it is a very poor proposal in an area already sporting a senior housing
complex with memory care and two large scale 1960s apartment complexes.
I have talked to a couple of you already on this issue, If you have questions or concerns I would
be very happy to meet and discuss matters.
Best,
_Joe Hoover
February 5,2016
Planning Commission
City of Richfield
67O0 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN
Greetings Everyone, =- -
This letter is meant to address concerns regarding the,proposal for development on the old city garage site. I
apologize for the lateness, it seems that time just flies. I do request that it get read into the record regarding
proposed developments at the City Garage Site as well as Cedar Point North/South.
As noted before in the neighborhood meeting on September 2, 2016, 1 am not necessarily opposed to this project,
though I am not necessarily for it either. I would, however, like to call your attention to several items that should
be considered before a final decision is made.
As part of the Housing Visioning Task Force, I was part of a selected group of people called to assist in your
process by creating formal policy statements to be used during any proposal process for new,or"re",
development in the city. We assessed current availability, discussed current needs and future forecasts to
develop these policy recommendations. We discussed the direction we would like to see Richfield move in order
to be able to compete with other cities in the metro. Through that I was able to learn a lot more about our city,
and how the process works.
I have read Maxfield Research Inc.'s report that was submitted to the city on January 15, 2014 regarding the
assessment for senior housing in Richfield. A map of the current senior housing in Richfield was provided on page
two. On it,one can see a large concentration of senior housing at the 66t"Street/Lyndale intersection. There is
one more senior housing facility down the street from my house, at 76th and Lyndale. Part of the Senior Housing
Policy Statement(SHPS)calls for attention to be paid to providing a better geographic balance of senior housing
throughout the city. This proposal would add more senior housing to an area that already has senior and assisted
residences, in fact, within five blocks of the proposed area. 1 do not believe that proposing seven senior
properties essentially less than two miles apart, and within the east boundary of Nicollet Avenue and the west
boundary of 1-35W, fits this parameter.
The SEEPS also refers to future developments in terms of density. As we all know, we have a considerable amount
of high density senior housing already. We lack lower density senior housing such as townhomes or garden
homes. This type of housing can provide easier transitioning to seniors, as many have been in their homes for 20-
30+years and do not wish to move into "apartment" living. Maxfield's report estimates that 85%of the demand
for senior housing in the city will come from residents already living in Richfield. The report also notes that
"ownership rate"for those age 55-64 as of 2010 was 76%and 82%for those age 65-74. Providing an alternative
to high density living might keep seniors already living in Richfield in Richfield.
This proposal consists heavily of one bedroom units. It is a well known fact that Richfield has an over abundance
of one bedroom offerings. Included in the SHPS, "Consideration should be given to senior housing projects that
can readily convert to serve other populations i.e.,market rate units) in the future, as the market dictates. This
item was discussed during the neighborhood meeting. I am sorry that I have forgotten the presenter's name, but
she stated that the facilities within the proposed property could easily apply to market rate (fitness center,
community room, beauty salon, etc). She neglected to speak of how infusing the city with many more one
bedrooms could convert to future need for the city. This point is also addressed in the Market Rate Housing
Policy Statement (MRHPS).
Finally, in regards to the SHPS, recommendations were made to extend senior housing to the Cedar Point II
housing site. This area would provide walkable opportunities for shopping,both for groceries and sundries,as
well as dining/mingling at restaurants and coffee shops. Further, perhaps areas to the west of 1-35W could be
explored to compete with Edina?
On a more personal note, I am concerned as to what effect the introduction of a high density property will have
on the traffic levels on 76th Street. A few years ago money was spent to convert this road from a four lane to a
two lane, complete with bike and walking paths. In addition to resident traffic,there will be many other vehicles
moving in and out of the property. A property such as this would create jobs, (fantastic for the city) however
these employees would be coming and going throughout the day and night. Services would require delivery
vehicles/trucks. I also think it fair to assume emergency calls to the neighborhood would potentially increase,
resulting fast moving vehicles and loud sirens. With the only access being from 76'h Street,this is going to make it
quite busy and loud three doors down from my house. At a minimum, I would suggest access From 77t" Street for
deliveries,trash pickup and emergency vehicle access.
1 implore you to still seek options for the City Garage Site that do not incorporate high density housing. I am
aware that this area is zoned for medium-high density; however I believe the people living in the area would
actually prefer to see something like garden homes or townhomes on this site. A great example of a style of
garden home development(fully ADA compliant, one level living) can be seen in St. Anthony, MN on Silver La Ice
Read, behind the development that was built after Apache Plaza was demolished. A development such as this
would better fit the neighborhood_ It would also provide housing for seniors who might otherwise stay in their
homes, regardless of ability to maintain them, in order to avoid apartment living.
In conclusion, I will say again that l am not necessarily for or against this project. I am actually much more in favor
of this plan than what was proposed with "Pillsbury Commons." I have merely provided you all with "food for
thought" as you continue forward in this process of development for the old City Garage land and with the
development at Cedar Point as well. Hopefully the eventual development is met with more open arms than
closed fists.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Amy UtIOV
75301 Pillsbury Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55122
612-501-5075
tnvol27@gmail.com
AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS
AGENDA ITEM# 5.
i
STAFF REPORT NO. 34
f „ ..".. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
- 7.
3/8/2016
REPORT PREPARED BY: Melissa Poehlman,City Planner
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: John Stark,Community Development Director
3/2/2016
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Steven L. Devich
3/3/2016
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution regarding an amendment to approved development plans for the Market
Plaza/Village Shores mixed use development at 6501 Woodlake Drive. The proposal includes an
additional 50 units of housing and site modifications to accommodate a 16,000 square foot medical
office tenant (Hennepin County Medical Center).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Owners of the Market Plaza/Village Shores development are requesting approvals that would allow them to
improve and better align the existing development with the current market. The proposed amendment requests
minimal changes to the footprint of the existing building, but rather repurposes existing, underutilized space to
allow for an additional 50 housing units and reconfigured commercial space for a large medical office tenant.
Medical office use is a permitted use in this development, the proposed changes related to the site and the
additional units require City approval.
The additional units and amenities proposed for Village Shores will allow the owners to offer a continuum of
care for senior residents; moving from a primarily independent living facility to one that offers independent,
assisted and memory care units. Exterior building modifications include a new primary entrance facing 66th
Street, enclosure of the lower-level guest parking area in order to provide new amenity space for residents,
an improved facade along 65th Street, removal of dated building embellishments, and updated paint colors.
The additional units will very nearly bring the property into compliance with the required minimum density of
50 units/acre in this area.
Commercial space will be reconfigured to accommodate a 16,000 square foot Hennepin County Medical
Center. Exterior changes related to the clinic include a significantly remodeled building facade.
It is unlikely that this particular site design, with a large surface parking lot facing a primary "downtown"
intersection, would be approved today; however, the movement of buildings is clearly impractical and in cases
such as these the Code requires the upgrading of nonconforming site improvements that affect the
appearance and impacts of the site. OF particular concern with this site, are the lack of activity and interest at
the corner and the poor pedestrian connections throughout the site.
Corner Activity/Interest:
The applicant is proposing to install two trellis structures atop a raised parking area at the corner of the lot.
These structures are intended to make this area less attractive for parking and instead lend itself to
community activities, which could include the farm stand that typically occupies this area for a few months
each summer, as well as other temporary vendors and displays. Staff has also discussed the opportunity for
the incorporation of"Lakes at Lyndale" branding on the proposed trellis structures. We are hopeful that in
the future the property owner will consider completely eliminating parking in this area in favor of either
permanent quasi-public space or an additional building. Even with the additional housing units and clinic,
staff believes that surface parking will continue to exceed needs; however, the applicant has indicated that all
parking is necessary. Astipulation prohibiting snow storage in the parking lot has been included in the
proposed resolution in order to avoid the continuation of snow storage at this prime corner.
Pedestrian Improvements:
Staff has stressed the need to improve pedestrian connections in and around this difficult site. As it exists,
pedestrians have to make counterproductive movements to access the sidewalk in front of the retailers; this is
not the way that pedestrian travel. The medical clinic will likely increase the number of visitors who come to
the site via transit, and then need to access this retail area on foot. For this reason, staff is particularly
concerned with creating a safe and direct connection for these users. The shape of the site presents
challenges in this respect; we believe the proposal is a good, although not perfect, solution. A stipulation
requiring plantings in the protective islands surrounding the proposed walkway is included in the attached
resolution.
Other pedestrian improvements include a sidewalk and striping along the east side of the privately-owned
Woodlake Drive, providing a safer connection for area residents to Richfield Lake. A connection from 66th
Street, adjacent to the primary commercial entrance, has been added to help pedestrians safely access
either the clinic or the new residential entrance.
Timing:
The applicant would like to begin construction on the commercial space around April 1, 2016 for a planned
clinic opening on or around September 1, 2016. If approved, residential modifications are anticipated to be
complete by May 2017.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the resolution amending the Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit
and Final Development Plan for 6501 Woodlake Drive (Village Shores/ Market Plaza).
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Plans for the Market Plaza/Village Shores development and the Woodlake Point Condominiums were
originally approved as part of a single Planned Unit Development in 1984. A Commercial Improvement
Program for the Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet area had been adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (HRA) in 1975, and the City was looking to redevelop an area that was described as
"inefficient," "underutilized," and "fragmented," with a "confusing inter-block circulation pattern." The
Commercial Improvement Program identified a need for rehabilitated commercial development, new
multi-family housing, and improved vehicle and pedestrian circulation. The mixed use development
addressed many identified issues.
When it initially opened, there were both parking and odor issues related to the Champp's restaurant. An
odor control system was installed and valet was parking instituted for a time. Over the years, the
popularity of the restaurant waned and a portion of the retail space has been vacant for a number of
years. In today's market, it is difficult to conceive of a scenario in which all of the existing surface
parking would be utilized on a regular basis.
B. POLICIES(resolutions,ordinances,regulations,statutes,etch
Planned Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit/Final Development Plan:
There are a number of sets of review criteria that apply to this proposal. A full discussion of all
requirements is included as an attachment to this report.
Nonconforming Site Improvements:
In cases where conformance can only be achieved through impractical means, such as moving a
building, Code requires that nonconforming site improvements affecting the appearance and impacts of
the site be improved. Staff has stressed the need for interest and activity at this intersection corner and
for pedestrian improvements. The applicant is proposing modest improvements to the southeast corner
of the property in an attempt to reduce the visual impact of the large surface parking lot. Pedestrian
improvements to provide a connection from the bus stop to the retail area and from 66th Street to
Richfield Lake are also proposed.
Sign Allowance:
Sign allowances in residential districts are significantly less than those in commercial districts. The
current zoning of this property is PMR(Planned Multi-Family Residential) and therefore the guiding
district sign regulations are those of the High-Density Multi-Family District. If this project were to be built
today, it is likely that the property would have been zoned PMU (Planned Mixed Use) instead. For that
reason, staff is recommending approval of the following variations related to signs:
• Pylon sign at intersection of 66th Street& Lyndale Avenue -Apply MU-C/C-2 District standards to
allow up to 200 square feet of sign area and up to 27 feet tall.
• Monument signs at entrances-Apply "non-residential" building standards of MR-3 District to allow
up to 50 square feet of sign area per sign. Limit height to standard multi-family allowance of 8
feet.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
• 60-DAY RULE: The 60-day clock'started'when a complete application was received on February
8, 2016. A decision is required by April 8, 2016 OR the Council must notify the applicant that it is
extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120 days total) for issuing a
decision.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The required application fee has been paid.
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
• A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on February 22, 2016 .
• Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper and mailed to properties
within 350 feet of the site.
• The Planning Commission heard testimony both for and against the proposed additional units and site
modifications.
• The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request(4-1, Hayford O'Leary dissenting).
• Dissenting Commissioner Hayford O'Leary expressed dissatisfaction with proposed improvements at
the corner (trellis structures over parking), pedestrian connections, and quantity of bicycle parking
facilities.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(B)LI
• Approve the attached resolution with modifications.
• Deny the request with findings that requirements are not met.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
David Gevers, E.J. Plesko &Associates (property owner)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
❑ Resolution Resolution Letter
❑ Required Findings Exhibit
❑ Senior Housing Policy Statement Exhibit
❑ Proposed plans(1/2) Exhibit
❑ Proposed plans(2/2) Exhibit
❑ Perspectives Exhibit
❑ Planning &Zoning Maps Exhibit
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT
6501 WOODLAKE DRIVE
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which
requests approval of an amended final development plan and conditional use permit to
allow an additional 50 units of housing and site changes at the planned unit
development located at 6501 Woodlake Drive, property legally described in the attached
Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield held a public
hearing and recommended approval of the requested amendment to the final
development plan and conditional use permit at its February 22, 2016 meeting; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was mailed to properties within 350 feet
of the subject property on February 9, 2016 and published in the Sun-Current on
February 11, 2016 and; and
WHEREAS, the requested amendment to the final development plan and
conditional use permit meets those requirements necessary for approving a planned
unit development as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 542.09, Subd. 3 and
as detailed in City Council Staff Report No. ; and
WHEREAS, the request meets those requirements necessary for approving a
conditional use permit as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 547.09, Subd. 6
and as detailed in City Council Staff Report No. ; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of an amended
planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City Council adopts as its Findings of Fact the WHEREAS clauses set forth
above.
2. An amended planned unit development, final development plan and conditional
use permit are approved for an additional 50 housing units and site
improvements as described in City Council Report No. , on the Subject
Property legally described above.
3. The approved planned unit development, final development plan and conditional
use permit are subject to the following conditions:
• A recorded copy of the approved resolution must be submitted to the City
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
• All parking lot islands, including those surrounding the pedestrian walkway,
must be landscaped (including living plant materials) in accordance with Code
requirements.
• A minimum of five percent of parking lot area must be devoted to landscape
islands with shade trees in accordance with Code requirements.
• The property owner is responsible for the ongoing maintenance and tending
of all landscaping in accordance with approved plans.
• Snow storage within the surface parking lot is prohibited. All parking spaces
and the area between trellis structures must remain clear year round.
• Odor control system may be required to mitigate cooking odors.
• Separate sign permits are required. This resolution constitutes approval of
sign size variances as stated in City Council Report No.
• All new utility service must be underground.
• All utilities must be screened from public view in accordance with Ordinance
requirements. A screening plan is required prior to the issuance of a Building
Permit.
• The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits, compliance
with all requirements detailed in the City's Administrative Review Committee
Report dated February 8, 2016 and compliance with all other City and State
regulations.
• Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit the developer must submit a
surety equal to 125% of the value of any improvements not yet complete.
• Unless specifically modified by this resolution, all previous conditions of
approval remain in place.
4. The approved planned unit development, final development plan and conditional
use permit shall expire one year from issuance unless the use for which the
permit was granted has commenced, substantial work has been completed or
upon written request by the developer, the Council extends the expiration date
for an additional period of up to one year, as required by the Zoning Ordinance,
Section 547.09, Subd. 9.
5. The approved planned unit development, final development plan and conditional
use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are
observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the
use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the Zoning
Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subd. 10.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of
March, 2016.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
F-'a roz 1 1
Tracts B, Cr D and E, Regis'.'Lr�'-j --.:r-vt°y r (?. =F lr --Tc s of kcgi�-'rar cf Ti-!`i.ls,
County of Hennepin.
Parcel 2,
Tracts A, Q E a n d 11 Registered Lard S u rvthy No. 15:x:7; F:t? f P e g i s-ra r of Ti
County of Henriepin. Thc :jrw . �f said Sur-viy !1,we t3eoIn lY d2tet miw2d
dol mnAnd hy JuJAM Qp;.' porko mt pirsuant to Tc-r--L—is Ca=p: %cs. 10017 and
17541.
Toyedier w,tt'. all ra ,Lricticns, covenants, charges a-if!
thal syaK Dcdoxym, ur Easelms, Covenants and Restrict!ons da'prl --'%Ljqu* 11,
1985, Pled of reconj 41 the :Arke of Kc CC)unty Recorder, Henr'F.-.3ii1 �:OLJnt.'f'
'-linco. .ota, cjj 012ber 17. 19M, `,' ")Orument No. 5043157.
wiW Al rlghw ord casurnwas comaine-1 in that certain lrqre°vs and Eqrcs�;
d')-j_d Septcrrbr_F 25, C-f rpCT. �r�j jj-) t1le OfFJCe LJ- 1=111--, of
Wes, Hemepin Cowqh Wnenotm, an Won:ar/ 1z-.- 1986r a-,; NO-
(Torrens Carfficite No. 832512)
T7acts -.'i a:id C, FZegi7LLm!-A : -.i-A S�w-rtLy No, 1679, of ,�egil:rar of Tides, Ccjnty
0 Annnepin, wSofiev Mth emsmW fur petestri-�ri accr= a�j cortakleci in F6Semel-i'L
H;'-J of rccc-rii Auglust 19, 1996, C-scumcm�, 2,,"-M'L32.
jorraqS Cclin7nie Nos. 832510 wA W2450)
-
d2lgnahom are ror conveNence of p -ence only, �!i.-J do
Irl
itegral part of the legal descrl ptio:n.
Required Findings
Part 1: The following findings are necessary for approval of a PUD application
(542.09 Subd. 3):
1. The proposed development conforms to the goals and objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and any applicable redevelopment plans. The
Comprehensive Plan guides the area around 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue
for Mixed Use development. The intent of that category is "to focus on
creating a city center...that will serve as a "downtown." Housing density is
intended to be high in this area (50+ du/acre). The proposed additional units
will raise the density on this site to 49.7 du/acre; a great improvement from
the current 38.2 du/acre.
Investment in and expansion of existing facilities is important to maintaining
vitality in this area.
The Housing Goals of the Comprehensive Plan are:
a. Maintain and enhance Richfield's image as a community with
strong, desirable and livable neighborhoods; and
b. Ensure sufficient diversity in the housing stock to provide for a
range of household sizes, income levels and needs.
The additional units will not only add desired density to the area, but will also
diversify the services offered within the residential development.
In 2014, the HRA adopted a Senior Housing Policy Statement. This
document has been attached for reference.
The Transportation Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan include
pedestrian-friendly and transit-friendly building and site design measures;
bike racks within new developments. The proposed additions to the site
greatly improve these conditions on the existing site.
2. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a
desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. This
requirement is met.
3. The development is in substantial conformance with the purpose and intent of
the guiding district, and departures from the guiding district regulations are
justified by the design of the development. The development is in substantial
compliance with the intent of the guiding MR-3 District. Variations are
generally minor, are consistent with the Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan
designation, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
4. The development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools,
streets or other public facilities and utilities that serve or area proposed to
serve the development. The City's Public Works, Engineering and Recreation
Departments have reviewed the proposal and do not anticipate any issues.
5. The development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring
properties. No undue adverse impacts are anticipated.
6. The terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the plan are
sufficient to protect the public interest. This requirement is met; appropriate
stipulations have been incorporated into the final resolution.
Part 2: All uses are conditional uses in the PMR District. The findings
necessary to issue a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) are as follows (Subd. 547.09,
Subd. 6):
1. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of
the City's Comprehensive Plan. See above — Part 1, #1.
2. The proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and
the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the
proposed use. The use is consistent with the intent of the Planned Multi-
Family District and the underlying High Density Residential District. The
proposal provides for multi-family senior housing at densities prescribed by
the City's Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment
plans or urban design guidelines. N/A
4. The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance
standards specified in Section 544 of this code. The proposed development
is in substantial compliance with City performance standards. Deviation from
Code requirements is requested as follows:
Sign size — The applicant has proposed larger signs than are
typically permitted in multi-family districts; however the proposed
signs are within the limits of what is typically allowed in Mixed Use
Districts.
5. The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental
facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements. The City's
Public Works and Engineering Departments have reviewed the proposal and
do not anticipate any adverse impacts.
6. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety,
or welfare. Adequate provisions have been made to protect the public health,
safety and welfare.
7. There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. See above
— Part 1, #1.
8. The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this
code for the granting of such conditional use permit. This requirement is met.
RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SENIOR HOUSING POLICY STATEMENT
Adopted: April 21, 2014
When considering proposals for senior housing, the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority shall evaluate proposals based on the
following criteria:
• The inclusion of lower-density senior housing (i.e., attached
and detached townhomes);
• If the proposed project includes high-density senior housing,
does it provide a continuum of care within the project, including
independent living, assisted living and memory care
accommodations, when feasible;
• Consideration should be given to the location of the proposed
project: how it does or does not lend itself to providing a
geographic balance of senior housing throughout the city, and
to avoid concentrations of senior housing;
• Senior housing proposals in the Cedar Point II Housing area
can be considered;
• Can the senior housing project readily convert to serve other
populations in the future (i.e., market rate units), as the market
dictates;
• Feasibility of the project based on a market survey conducted
on behalf of the HRA; and
• Feedback obtained through one or more "town hall" meetings
held jointly by the HRA and the developer to garner input from
residents regarding the proposed development, ideally held in
locations near the proposed development.
• Work with existing senior developments to continue to update,
upgrade and meet needs.
This Senior Housing Policy is intended to guide housing in a
comprehensive manner that is consistent with the City's Market Rate
Multi-Family Housing Policy and Affordable Housing Policy.
OI I
_ I
I
I •I � ; ���zr�o ���3�boN( I
r
� o ;
Ip .e
97
m
LU
4
I I
Le)10
�v r
LU
LU
m I
❑ \\ �I a. 1 e I
Etd \IL
I
.. .�
r `&s\ \`\ e� e ______ --ate' e•� � —1- �+,a �
W e
COD
ca
,Em ,
ca
1-0
O 9 = Eo
z
asLU
FE
Qy
O -
1 z�
s
- 5
f z O
,40
= _ NW'al31jHOM"S 3AV 3lVONAI^a H199
VZVld 13NUVW
m
�g
\\ W k =
o�
w a
�o
m
00
o
¢v
,1
C
w -
a r '
, 4
x
w�
F
� Y
3
4
Q _ F NW'al31jHOM"S 3AV 3lVONAI^a H199
5
VZVld 13NUVW
wo
LL wo
I
a
I
I � 1
m
`ry %
a —
m �
� a
m
w
a„
0
w -
m r
a
5 ul
0 0
s a
w
LnL
CDL------------
m
i i
w
N
co
IX
I
Ns�
wu
iLL o�
w w J
w e -
/
4ed D
wm
I
Ll p
J t
J p
� N
� R
O m
L
F LL
Ell 'm
�»���� in
Ian 1
ILI
jill
Ll 4
71 FL m
tM
i
r'
I
4r,
e
I.
u °I
� R
ii
a p
1�
� AVAZ
,
tr
uj
0
N
Q
06 Z
O
Y
N �
d y
a
r
ui
A.
j J
- I
� r
{'
•
I �
I
�,+s.
x
E
L
Z
7a; o
l N
O �
0
D
r � �
N
` ^ ONVJJ o o m
N I-,,—TL.L X2 E m U
X [TN
>
_ t
U
•(n ~
/�
li 13lHJVH X
^+ o c
CD x
w
L L O\ N C
N
JJ N
O o
►/ — w /1L( 'm
x E
W E
D
LO
fai f'ptl•.�gi'?fgf Raig;'{{s'fR �
f
O X
Ln/ V/1 f!g fifififififi„u6,=g� g�fg� f.:
;.�lgk y�lg�;s�•''a �
x
Z� N
m p
l N
O �
0
D
r 0
O
N
` ONVJ:J � w
N U
a �
IT
0
d
t
U
0
li �E 131JJVH a a c
c
a O N s;
h
U N
Y H
U
a r
a 2 � mu �
O H a c E
L o E
L U
6i i-•iQ
O V!1 di i'
r g� f!•�'fg fg l.s6lf�I.{{sf�f°e
i S ida il6 irld•i�1 .� Qil6•ir`i'!'if T
'iid i(ifd•i id i4�d iQi'[;° i !i ° a i Qi'!�� ECD a�.1 c
A sl�ral�rl�s §���a= 1 sed ct c
/o