1972-4742rRESOLUTION No. 4742
RESOLUTION CONCERNING SHELTER DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION REQUEST FOR REZONING FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 300 - 310 WEST 78TH STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
as follows:
I. The council makes the following findings:
A. Shelter Development Corporation has requested that the following
described property be rezoned from the industrial classification to the multiple
residence classification:
The West 305 feet of the East 330 feet of the Southeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter
of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, except that part
heretofore taken for Interstate Highway #494 (300 West
78th Street) .
~` B. The property is in the middle of a larger area vahich is presently
all zoned for industrial use. For many years it has been and it now is occupied
by industrial uses . It is bounded on the north by an area zoned for multiple
residence use and occupied by multiple residences and single family residences,
none of which exceed two stories in height. It is bounded on the south by Inter-
state Highway X494 which is one of the most heavily traveled highways in the
state. It is bounded on the east by the tracks of the Minneapolis-Northfield &
Southern Railway and there is railroad siding to serve this particular property.
The tracts of land both east and west of the property are presently devoted to
intensive industrial uses. If the industrial and commercial properties in the
vicinity of the subject property continue to be devoted to such uses, the subject
property would not be a suitable location for housing units .
C. The present zoning of the property permits development or redevelop-
ment for commercial or industrial purposes. The property is one of the more
valuable parcels of land in the city and is particularly adapted to development
for commercial or industrial purposes by reason of its location in relation to the
highway, the railroad right-of-way and the uses to which surrounding properties
are and may be devoted. Tt is not well adapted to multiple residence development.
D. The city presently has a large part of its total area. developed with
multiple residences. It has less industrial and. commercial development, in rela-
tion to its total development, than adjacent communities and is in need of more
such development in order to have a better balance in its total development. There
-1-
4) (l U
are only a limited number of sites in the city, which, as a practical matter,
are suitably located and zoned for commercial and industrial development
and which are likely to be developed or redeveloped for such purposes in the
foreseeable future. The subject property is one of these.
E . The city is in the process of formulating along-range comprehen-
sive municipal plan under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.351
to 462.364. A proposed comprehensive municipal plan has been prepared by the
city planning commission and has been recommended to the city council for
adoption. Such comprehensive municipal plan, however, has not yet been acted
upon by the city council. At the time of this application, the council has been
conducting a series of hearings on the proposed plan. The proposed plan would
permit the subject property to be developed with a variety of uses including
multiple residence structures , under certain circumstances . While this concept has
been approved by the planning commission, and may therefore form a basis for their
recommendation on the proposed rezoning, the comprehensive municipal plan has
not been approved or adopted by the city council.. The council, therefore., does not
deem it advisable to rezone the subject property until the council has completed
its deliberations on the proposed comprehensive plan and has determined what the
city's long-range policies will be, not only with regard to the subject property,
but with regard to the entire area in which the subject property is located.
F. The applicant seeks to have the property rezoned in order to permit
the construction of a large twin-tower, 14-story multiple residence structure,
which project would be developed and financed under' Section 236 of tYie National
Housing Act, The project would, therefore, be constructed for the primary purposes
of providing housing for. the elderly and for other low and moderate income families.
The property is particularly unsuitable for such occupancy because it is not readily
accessible to the city's parks, playgrounds, shopping centers or public transportation.
It is separated from the public parks and open spaces of the city by major arterial
thoroughfares and is located in such a way that pedestrian traffic would be more
hazardous than is generally the case in other areas of the community. The industrial
and commercial development of the adjacent properties, the absence of adequate
recreational space on or near the subject property and the nature and volume of
traffic in the vicinity would. create an undesirable mix of residential and non-resi-
dential uses .
G. The applicant has indicated that the proposed project would not be
air-conditioned although provision would be made to permit air-conditioning to be
installed by the occupants of the individual residential units. Testimony has been
presented indicating that in the absence of air-conditioning the occupants of apart-
ments immediately adjacent to Interstate Highway #494 experience serious problems
with noise and fumes from the vehicular traffic on the highway. Units in the pro-
posed project would be located in closer proximity to the highway than many of the
apartment units which are on other tracts of land abutting- upon the freeway. The
~ possibility of adverse influences from the highway appears to be greater on this
project than is true of other multiple residence projects in the community. Moreover,
if the location of multiple residence projects adjacent to a freeway has proven to be
-2-
an undesirable practice, this practice should not be extended ,particularly
for a project constructed for occupancy by people with relatively less mobility
than occupants of other housing units in the community.
H. The applicant has provided the city with information indicating
that even if the property were rezoned as requested, it would also be necessary
to grant a number of variances from the existing regulations of the city relating
to multiple residence projects . Such variances would be necessary because
applicant's proposed project would (a) violate the city's requirements as to
open space and green area, (b) violate the city's height regulations, (c) vio-
late the city's density regulations and (d) violate the city's standards as to
off-street parking spaces. Even if the subject property were at some time to
be rezoned to make it eligible for multiple residential development, the council
would not deem it advisable to rezone the property for that purpose in order to
accommodate a project which could not comply with the city's minimal require-
ments .
I. The applicant has justified its proposed I4-story structure and.
its violation of the open space, density and other requirements of the city on
the ground that the price of the land involved is so high as to demand the
proposed density in order to make applicant's project economically viable,
The high price or value of the land, however, may be an indication that this
is an uneconomic location for the proposed project.
If the price to be paid for the land is contingent upon being permitted
to exceed the open space, density and other regulations of the city, ar~d if the
use of the property is then justified on the ground that it is the only use which
will permit payment of the purchase price, this appears to the council to be
circular ;reasoning.
J. The height of applicant's proposed project would be in stark
contrast to the one and two-story residential structures in the immediate
vicinity of the subject property and would be incompatible with such residen-
tial development.
2. This council therefore determines that the requested rezoning would
not, in its judgment, insure a safer, more pleasant and more economical envir-
onment, but would be contrary to the public health, safety and general welfare .
The requested rezoning is denied .
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th day of February,
1972,
~oren L. Law f Nayor
ATTEST:
_~ ~ ,.
_~ ivy-:~~'~il., ~ = ~~ /'-~°~ ~~
-3-
Thomas j~jMoran City Clerk