Loading...
03-02-87 agenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 9 March 2, 1987 Issue Statement: Consideration of Request to Limit 3.2 On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Liquor Licenses Within the City of Richfield Background: The City Council has previously requested that the staff consider limitation of on-sale 3.2 non-intoxicating liquor licenses within the City of Richfield in order to limit the adverse impact that 3.2 on-sales might have upon public services provided to the community. Recommendation: Do not authorize limitations at this time. Basis for Recommendation: 1. State statutes apparently would permit a limitation of the number of on-sale non-intoxicating 3.2 liquor licenses within a city. Although this authority is not specifically enumerated, the city attorney has concluded that it appears to be permitted. 2. A review by public safety indicates that the impact of 3.2 sales on public safety has been minimal. 3. City staff considered other possible advantages to limiting 3.2 non-intoxicating liquor sales including limitations to establish a clear community standard relating to on-sale. Over all, the general opinion of the staff was that the impact of any control would be minimal, especially compared with the administrative burden of establishing limitations and criteria for the limitation. Alternative Recommendation: 1. It does appear that limitations on 3.2 on-sale, as well as off-sale, could be provided. While staff has concluded that the advantages to be gained by this limitation is rather minimal, this is certainly a policy issue to be considered by the city council. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented at the workshop session of March 2, 1987. 7 Re ec ully submitted, James D. Prosser City anager JDP/eja i On-Sale 3.2 Beer Sandy's Tavern 3(lA) 6612 Penn Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 On-Sale Wine and 3.2,Beer 4 ? Z?-C; Davanni's Pizza & Hot Hoagies 3(lA) 2312 West 66th Street Richfield, MN 55423 Lariat Lanes 2(OA) Frogi's Sandwich Shop 7(OA) 6320 Penn Avenue South d/b/a/ Spanky's Richfield, MN 55423 6344 Penn Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Airport Bowl 10(OA) 7711 - 14th Avenue South Miller Fireside Pizza 8(OA) Richfield, MN 55423 6736 Penn Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Frenchman's 6(OA) 1400 East 66th Street Prest Motor Inn 16(OA) Richfield, MN 55423 d/b/a/ The Inn Airport 7640 Cedar Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 ' Godfather's Pizza O(OA) 2 West 66th Street Richfield, MN 55423 North Star Pizza Corp. 16(OA) d/b/a Shakey's Pizza 500 East 78th Street Kenny's Restaurant 4(OA) Richfield, MN 55423 6700 Penn Avenue South • Richfield, MN 55423 Chuck E. Cheese 37(3A) 2900 West 66th Street Richfield, MN 55423 Kinhdo Restaurant 10(OA) 6345 Penn Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Brick Oven Beanery (New license) 1420 East 78th Street Richfield, MN 55423 Is • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 8 March 2, 1987 Issue Statement: Discussion of a future strategy for the ILN Redevelopment Area with members of the HRA and Planning Commission. Background: A significant amount of investment by the HRA, the ILN Residential Advisory Committee, ILN Committee, neighborhood residents, city staff and the BRW consulting firm, has produced a redevelopment plan for the Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet Area. The development opportunity which the redevelopment plan provides for the area is unique, and must be properly managed to realize its potential and the established goals. In general, the goals of this district include creating a favorable environment to foster the growth of appropriate businesses and minimizing or eliminating the conflicts between the residential and commercial areas. It will probably take a.number of years to accomplish these goals in the area south of 77th Street. This conclusion is based on general market conditions and our experience with the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet area. In the LHN area, the redevelopment • plan was approved in 1975. Construction on the first redevelopment parcel was initiated three years later in 1978. Nine years following, in 1987, the last redevelopment project will be initiated on the Graham Avenue site. Most of this development took place in a very growth orientated market. The city is ready for redevelopment in the ILN, but the market for appropriate development is less favorable than at the time the LHN was developed. The market is not currently growth orientated. The challenge then is to protect the redevelopment potential of the ILN area until the market is ready. Maintaining our persistence is important, not only to gain appropriate development in this area, but also to develop a tax base necessary to meet community needs. The strategy being recommended (for the ILN area) protects the redevelopment plan which resulted from an extensive public planning effort. Discussions have also been held with developers. This process culminated on February-10 when the BRW consulting firm invited developers active in the greater Minneapolis market to a meeting which was also attended by Mayor Hamilton, Chairman Harms and staff. Attached is a list of people in attendance at the meeting and a summary of the discussion. Recommendation: 1 A new zoning district be defined within the ordinances of the city. Such a district be identified within the area, bounded by I35W, 1494 Lyndale Avenue, 77th Street Emerson Avenue and 76th Street. The ordinance would require that new ?- • development meet minimum standards in terms of lot size and floor area ratios. Height restrictions to prevent shadows on single-family and two family dwellings would also be included. 2) A request for development proposals be prepared and sent to selected developers. The developer or developers selected would have exclusive rights to,redevelop designated areas south of 77th Street for a period of several years. Performance standards for the developer would be part of a contract. 3) The interim ordinance, which restricts the issuance of building permits, be extended by resolution of the City Council at their meeting of March 9, for 6 additional months or until recommendations 1 and 2 are completed if in less than six months. However, the area north of 77th Street, adjacent to Lyndale Avenue, and the area east of Lyndale Avenue south of 77th Street, would be deleted from the interim ordinance. The Council would direct staff to prepare such an ordinance amendment and present it to the Planning Commission and the Council. Basis for Recommendation: These three recommendations would help achieve the goals of the redevelopment plan and assure optimum development of the area over a long period of time. 1. The new zoning district would permit redevelopment but only the type which met the criteria of the ordinance. 2. Granting an exclusive right to a developer would help the city achieve a more uniform integrated development. Development would proceed on the basis of an overall development strategy. It would result in more efficient use of the land. 3. The interim ordinance extension is needed to permit the drafting and processing of the new zoning district ordinance and the evaluation and selection of an exclusive developer. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Reject the establishment of a new zoning district and let development and redevelopment take place within the broad frame work of the existing ordinance. Owners would then have greater freedom to utilize their property. 2. Do not grant exclusive rights to a single developer as we may not be able to find one developer for the entire area and it is likely that people would be critical of granting exclusive rights to one, developer. 3. Let the interim ordinance terminate and the basis for issuing permits would return to that which existed prior to the initiation of the planning process. Discussion/Decision Mode: The interim ordinance expires March 22, 1987. Thus action must be taken at the March 9, 1987 Council meeting if the ordinance is to be extended. The extension of the ordinance should be --5 • considered within the context of an overall strategy. Thus, this three step process is proposed for your discussion. Respectfully submitted, Ja, eD. Prosser Ci nager JDP/eja cc: Housing & Redevelopment Authority Commissioners Planning Commission 0 MEMORANDUM DATE: Fet-ruary 10, 1987 TO: City Council SUBJECT: Summary of ILN Redevelopment Project Workshop with BRW Consultants, City Staff, Policy Makers and Developers PARTICIPANTS: See Attached List LOCATION: 3RW Office - 700 Third Street, Mpls. Peter Jarvis, a principle with BRW opened the meeting by stating the ourpose. Three primary questions summarized the purpose. 1 Within the next 5 years, is the market for the area in question (1494 freeway, property frontage west of Lyndale Avenue) going to be as strong as was perceived when the planning study was initiated 2 years ago for office, retail and residential development, i.e., should the city continue to pursue dense development for the area? • 2 How important is it for the city to be involved in site assembly vs. developer being responsible for most of the site assembly and allowing the development market to define- redevelopment? 3 How might the city rezone the area to allow higher density development? (Identify the incentives which a developer may need), i.e., minimum FAR, minimum parcel size Arijs Pakalns gave a synopsis of project history and reviewed the Redevelopment Plan. Peter Jarvis then asked each developer to respond to the identified questions with their thoughts, be they positive or negative. As you will note, the responses were not always directly related to the questions but are still instructive. Comments from: Boyd Stofer, Senior Vice President of United Properties The CDR site on an A to D rating scale is a B- to C+ site due to several factors: -Site is land locked (it is not on a full diamond freeway interchange) • -Area lacks a positive environmental image -Lyndale Avenue is the "front" door which needs to portray an attractive image. Quality of 1494 & Lyndale Avenue sets the mood for CDR site. (Structures west of Lyndale Avenue should be removed, at least the area should be cleared) -This location is probably third in the southwest market after the 1494 area and west as far as Eden Prairie, (this includes an overbuilt office and hotel market) There are many sites in these areas which have better access and higher quality environment. The airport area and stadium site would be ranked after 1494 and 35W Timing for Richfield's development in this area may be 5 years away. Comments from: Bill Schatzlein, Vice President of Project Development with M. A. Mortenson Company -Area has an identity problem it is not clearly part of a "neighborhood -When looking at the site it is questionable as to how one would get there -To be suitable for residential development, the area would need 30 to 50 residential units/acre to be feasible but marketability of that many units would be questionable -Multifamily housing is currently overbuilt Comments from: Warren Beck, Managing Partner of Gabbert & Beck -site is not a discretionary retail store location -It's questionable as to whether or not a retail project could compete in the market place even if the market was right due to the neighborhood image problem. Also appropriate retail development may not be dense enough to support TIF. -The intersection of Lyndale and 494 should be developed first -Buildings should not incorporate office, retail & housing into one structure -Mixed uses do not work well structurally & physically Comments from: Chuck OuFresne, Executive Vice President of Lincoln Properties: -With the Mega Mall development on the east the market along 1494 will improve and thus the land value in this area will increase -Office, and hotel markets are tight at this time 0 J-f- 6 LJ Conclusion: ;ghat should the city's development strategy he for the future? City Should: -Not rely on the timely development of the CDR concept -Develop an overall concept plan -Get feedICack from developers regarding concept plan Develop a master plan, with development phases, & implement ry year 2000 Select a developer or developers and give them a 4 to 5 year period to put together tenants for specific developments E s ?J J _ PLANNING TRANSPORTATION ?Zl TR ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE BEN 4M RINGRCS WOI.S?ELQ JARVIS, GAADNER INC. • THRESHER SQUARE - 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOU3. MN 55415 • PHONE 612!370-0700 CITY OF RICHFIELD ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WORKSHOP FEBRUARY 10, 1987 PARTICIPANTS CITY OF RICHFIELD: John Hamilton Mayor Tom Harms HRA Chairman Lidy Flom Community Development Aide Rick Jopke City Planner dim Prosser City Manager Bruce Palmborg Acting Community Development Director Rion Batty City Attorney's Office CONTRIBUTING DEVELOPERS: Warren Beck Managing Partner Gabbert and Beck Chuck Du Fresne Executive Vice President Lincoln Properties Sandra Linstroth Development Coordinator Lincoln Properties Bill Schatzlein Vice President of Project Development M.A. Mortenson Company Boyd Stofer Senior Vice President United Properties BRW, Inc. Peter Jarvis, AICP Principal Arijs. Pakalns, AIA, AICP Senior Associate • DMp,L BENNETT DONALD W RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFEL.D PETER E JARm LAWRENCE J. GARDNER THOMAS F. CARROLL CRAIG A AMUNDSEN DONALD E. HUNT MARK G. SWENSON JOHN B. MCNAMARA DONALD L CRAIG RICHARD Q PILGRIM DALE N BECKMANN DENNIS J SUTUFF MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX ::T '/ L? CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 7 . March 2, 1987 Issue Statement: Meeting with members of the Advisory Board of Health to discuss their goals and objectives and annual report Background: It has been the practice for the city council to meet with every advisory board and commission at least once each year. Monthly meetings with the city's commission have been scheduled for the monthly study sessions beginning with the March 2 meeting. Members of the Advisory Board of Health will be present to present their goals and objectives, and their annual report to the city council. Recommendation: Meet with members of the Advisory Board of Health to discuss matters of mutual concern. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The Advisory Board of Health is appointed by the City Council to make recommendations to the City Council regarding health and environmental concerns in the city. Therefore, it is desirable to meet with the members to discuss these concerns. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay this meeting until a later date. However, members of the Advisory Board of Health have been invited to attend this meeting and it may be difficult to delay at this time. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter has been placed as the first item on the March 2, 1987 study session agenda. Re fully submitted, Jam D. Prosser City Manager JDP/eja