Loading...
09-26-1972CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SEPTEMBER 26, 1972 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 29, 1972 Regular Business and/or Public Hearing Items: Item #1, Case 72-R-1 Item #2, Case 72-SP-4 Item #3, Case 72-S-1 Item #4, Case 72-R-2 CorresDondence Items: Shelter Development Corp. 6324-6342 Aldrich Ave. So. Econo-Travel Motor Hotel 1425 East 77th Street Restaurants No Limit, Inc., 1400 West 77th Street Wal-Don Builders 6500-6508 23rd Avenue So. Rezoning from "R" residential to "MR" multiple residential to construct a multiple family dwelling Site and Building Plan Review. Preliminary plat for property upon which restaurant with on sale liquor will be located. Rezoning from "R" residential to "MR" multiple residential for two double bungalow units. Item #5 Request for informal discussion on proposal to add two drive-in teller windows to the branch banking facilities of the 1st Federal Savings and Loan Association, 6445 Nicollet Avenue South. Study Items: Item #6 Report: Status of the Commission's proposed Comprehensive Development Plan for the city. Communications Items: Item #7 Reminder: The Planning Commission and City Council will meet in joint session on September 28, 1972 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the city hall to discuss the proposed capital improvements program. ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 p.m. DATE August 29, 1972 September 26, 1972 CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Item #1 Case:72-R®1 Originating Department: Planning Department Action Requested: Rezoning from R residential to MR multiple residential Exhibits: Petition for rezoning, Council memorandum #10 and #26, Richfield Lake development plans. Consideration of this item was continued from the August 29, 1972 meeting of the Commission to tonight's agenda (September 26, 1972). The action to continue this item was taken by the Commission to allow the appplicants an opportunity to meet with neighbors within the area that this project would be located. In addition, there were several questions raised at the meeting, which the Planning Commission requested staff to provide some answer to. The three questions which were referred to Staff for research and the findings of staff on each question are as follows: 1. Are the signatures appearing on the applicant's petition for rezoning legitimate?' 'A search of the files in the Assessing Department, as verified by the County Assessing Department, indicates that all persons signing the petition are the legitimate owners of property described within the petition. A copy of,thejpetition is attached hereto and labled as Exhibit A. 2. Did the city everadopt development plans for Richfield Lake? In a report entitled "General Development Guide Plan for Legion Lake Park, Richfield Lake Park, and Woodlake Park", dated October, 1965, there appears concept plans for the development of Richfield Lake. These plans apparently were prepared by the Minneapolis Consultant Firm of Nason, Law, Wehrman, and Knight, Inc., at the request of the Council, who was interested in deterraining how water bearing parks within the community should be developed in the future. A copy of the plans proposed by the consultant for Richfield lake is attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit B. There is no indication that the city committed itself to an action program aimed at implementing the plans for any of the lake parks involved in the study. As a matter of fact, current plans adopted for Woodlake and Legion Lake indicate that future plans for these areas are in direct contriduction to the proposals submitted to the city in 1965. It is expected that issues related to the development of Richfield Lake will be revived and re-4studied in the downtown design study which has been authorized for this area by the City Council. Untilthis study has been completed, there can be no definite answer given as to how this park area will be developed in the future. Planning Commission Agenda -2- September 26, 1972 Continued Item #1 Continued 3. Is the property contained in the lake bed of Richfield Lake owned by the City or private property owners adjacent to the Lake? There is some dispute as to whoa owns the northern portion of Richfield Lake property. The city is in control of the southern portion and had assumed, until the early part of this year, that it had control of the entire lake. However, a Torrens title registration proceeding was commensed by Mrs. Belle Rutman, owner of the Lyndale Food Market, against the city, claiming that she is the owner of a large portion of the bed of Richfield Lake adjacent to that property. The proceedings have not been completed on this case as yet, Apparently, if a negotiated settlement cannot be arrived at by the parties in this case, it will probably have to be adjudicated in a court of law. The city, at the current time, is attempting to negotiate with the Rutman's to purchase a portion of the property within the Richfield Lake bed for public use. Depending on the outcome of this case, will determine if the fee owner of the property involved in this rezoning, Mr. Charles Adams, can claim ownership of the property extending from the shoreline adjacent to his property to the middle of the lake bed. It is assumed; that if this rezoning is successful and if the project is in fact approved for construction at this location, the city will attempt to have Mr. Adams or the Shelter Development Corporation convey land extending from the project property into the lake to the city for use as public park. Additional information relative to this question can be found in the Council memorandum #10 and #26 dated January 18 and March 3, 1972. These memorandums have been attached to this agenda and are labeled as Exhibit C. The staff is still of the opinion that the rezoning should be approved for the reas.ons given in the staff report to the Commission dated August 29, 1972. If the Planning Commission recommends that the rezoning be approved, it should also recommend that the comprehensive plan for the city be amended so that the project would be in complete accordance with its recommendations. It is the staff's opinion that the only aspect of the project which is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan is its density characteristic. As stated earlier, the original comprehensive plan, as prepared by Midwest Planning and Research, recommended that the area under consideration be used for retail expansion purposes. It is assumed that retail expansion would have included high density apartment proposals such as the one under consideration. The Planning Commission's plan called for medium density multiple development in this area. The issue of whether or not medium or high density should be allowed in this property will have to be resolved by the City Council, which has not as yet officially taken action on the comprehensive plan. Therefore, the Commission should make the Council aware of the conflict and recommend that the plan be amended in a manner consistent with its action to rezone this property if the rezoning is approved. Planning Commission Agenda -3- September 26, 1972 Continued Item #1 Continued One final point should be mentioned. Since the last meeting of the Commission, the applicants have been successful in obtaining options on the property fronting onto Lyndale Avenue. This acquisition will provide the applicants with an opportunity to provide access from this project property directly onto Lyndale Avenue. It is staff's opinion that access directly onto Lyndale Avenue immeasurably improves the circulation system of the project. Since the area covered by the rezoning applicantion has been increased through this acquisition, it will be necessary for the applicants to amend their application to indicate the enlarged area of the project. This has been explained to the applicants and it is expected that the amended versionl of the application will have been .completed in time for the Tuesday, September 26 meeting of the Commission. A report on this amendment to the application will be given tothe Commission at that time. D PCI 99 '/1/66 , /F-'kT_ir"Z REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM pSidpLl-ja1T0 E_/r"9'�' FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE /.a-J/2r ��•�r iJs _ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 3,4,5 and 6, Block l and Lots 1,2, and 3, Block 2 and Outlot rj ldS in C. B. ADAvIS addition, City of Richfield, Minnesota. also known as Parcels 130, 135,- 140, 145, 620 all in Plat #44828 ana Parcel 170, Plat 44828. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING OWNERS OF LAND WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE. LAND ABOVE DESCRIBED, DO HEREBY CONCUR IN THIS REZONING REQUEST. SIGNATURE OFi�S _- AODRr�/SS LEGAL DESCR I PT ION I 6401 Lynda e Ave. , S. -�X�XiXIXX.X�E���1('�3F-X�fXXX -� XX�'XXXXX7�XXXXXXX '1 31� D —�— Parcel 0200 Plat 44828 Parcel 7000 Plat 44827 Lot 14, Block 6, Lyndale Oaks Parcel 1240 Plat 44827 Parcel 155 Plat 44828 Parcel 115 Plat 44828 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager January 18, 1972 Council Memorandum No. 10 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Attempt to Establish Title to the Middle of Richfield Lake Earlier this month the City together with a number of other property owners was served with a land title summons. The case involves registering the title to the property on which the Lyndale Fruit and Vegetable Market is located and an attempt to establish title out to the middle of Richfield Lake. The city attorney and I reviewed the summons and determined that it would be necessary for the City to contest the registration of the lake bed in order to protect the interests of the City in preserving the lake for public use. So that you will be awa.e of what is transpiring in this case I have attached a copy of a letter from the city attorney in which he reviews the present situation and also a copy of the answer to the summons which has been prepared and submitted on hehalf of the City. I will keep you advised of future events in this case. Respectfully submitted, Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: City Attorney LAW OFFICES HO`TJARD, LEFEVERE, LEFLER, HAMILTON AND PEARSON 2200 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING , CHARLE B. HOWAPD C LAYTON L LcFEVERE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 iELE^'NONE i o1213_ ;-05�� HERBERT P LEFLER (� JOSEPH E.HAMILTON January 17, 1972 CURTIS A. PEARSON _ J. DENNIS O'BRIEN JOHN E. DRAWZ JOHN B. D£AN .. Mr. Wayne S. Burggraaff . City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Mr. Burggraaff: Earlicr this montt; the city was served with a land title summons. The case involves registering the title to pro- perty belonging to Belle Rutman. She is undertaking to establish her title to the property on which the'Lyndale Fruit & Vegetable Market is located. More importantly, from the city's standpoint, she is attempting to establish tier title out to the middle of Richfield Lake. In order to do this she has named the city and a large num- ber of people living adjacent to the lake as defendants. Several of the residents of the area have cared me and have asked what the city expects to do. I have told them that the city will be putting in an answer and will contest the registration of the lake bed. We have now completed the research and investigation neces- sary to permit us to prepare an answer, and a copy of the answer which we have prepared in this case is enclosed for your information. I have also been in contact with the office of the Attorney General to advise him of the interest of the city in pre- servLng the _al'.c for public use. I think it is likely that the State of Minnesota will also put in an answer opposing the registration of the lake bed. It shou:d be pointed out that a fairly large percentage of the lake bed has already been "registered". After the pri- vate property owners had established their right to the lake bed, the city obtained a conveyance of the lake bed property from them, so that up to this pointx all of the lake bed that is registered property belongs to the city. In the earlier title registration proceedings neither the city '.A'N 0 � � I C ES HOWARD. LEFEVERE. LEFLER, HAMILTON AND PEARSON Mr. Wayne S. Burggraaff January 17, 1972 Page 2 (or village) nor the State of Minnesota were named as parties. Nevertheless, I am afraid that there is some precedent that the courts are allowing the abutting property owners to register their property out to the center of the lake. We will keep you advised on the progress of this matter. Very truly yours, Clavton L. LeFevere CLL:jpf Enclosure WSB/eja cc: City Atrorney ` '}� "� z �".::. „r •t �v �:."'r"'....,........... - iir.?'�i,Gtr::���,..,b,. n5:� . - rr.�,,.:..�•c�a� - ^ts' ;�V LAW OFFICES HOWARD, LEFEVERE, LEFLER, HAMILTON AND PEARSON 2200 FtRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING CHAR L E5 9. HO'NARD CL^YTON L.L_FEVERE MINNEAPOLtS, MINNESOTA 5S402 4ERSERT R. LEFLER February 22, 1972 0SEPH E.HA` ILTON CUR, 15 A. PEARSON J. DENNIS O•BRIEN jo HiN-'...DP.AINZ JOH,N 3. DEAN Mr. Wayne S . Burggraaff City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Mr. Burggraaff: _ You will'recall'.that-a Torrens-title registration proceeding has been commenced -.by --Mrs.. Belle- Rutman. against the City of Richfield and others In_-- this proceeding the applicant, Mrs_ Belle Rutman, asks for'a_court-determination that she is the owner of. the _property _where- the Lyndale Food Market is located, free and clear of all -encumbrances,- and that she is the owner of a large.portion-..of the bed of'Richfield Lake adjacent to_ that property. We have put in an answer -. in. behalf of the City of Richfield contesting her claim to -the bed of the lake and.I have sent you a copy of that answer. We have also conferred with one of the attorneys for.the State Department of Natural Resources and as a consequence of that.conference the Attorney General has put in an answer claiming that the bed of Richfield Lake either (a) belongs to.the State of Minnesota because it is the bed of a navigable lake or,-if..not, then (b) the lake is a public body of water and the configuration of the lake bed cannot be changed except with the permission of the Department of Natural Resources. Nothing further has happened on this matter and presumably no- thing will 'happen for several months. Sometime late this year or early next year.the case may be reached for trial if it has not previously been disposed of. In that connection, it is my feeling that the State of Minnesota has put in the answer that I have mentioned above for the pur- pose of facilitating negotiations between the city and Mrs. Rut - man. The state is not anxious to get into a prolonged and ex- pensive lawsuit on the question of whether or not the lake was, at the time of statehood, a navigable public body of water. LAW OFFICES HOWARD, LEFEVERE, LEFLER, HAMILTON AND PEARSON Mr. Wayne S. Burggraaff February 22, 1972 Page 2 As I may have informed you, there was a contest between the State of Minnesota and Mr. Gordon Strom at the time that Mr. Strom registered the title to a portion of the lake bottom in the vicinity of 65th Street just west of Lyndale Avenue. The area then belonging to Mr. Strom was a bay of Richfield Lake which had become separated from the main body of water by a low ridge. The question of whether or not the Strom property belonged to the State of Minnesota as part of the bed of a navigable lake was decided, by the District Court, in Mr. Strom's favor. The judge did not make a decision on the question of whether or not Richfield Lake was navigable. Instead, he found that it was immaterial because the Strom property had become separated from the main body of water and there had been a permanent recession in the water level in the bay. Consequently, Mr. Strom's title was established. Thus, while the State Conservation Department did not lose on its claim that the bed of the lake belonged to the State of Minnesota, it did not win either. The attorney for the -- Department of Natural Resources indicated to me that he did not think there would be any better evidence available to the state now than there was at the time of the trial of the Strom case. He was therefore somewhat pessimistic about the ultimate outcome of any contested case on this issue. I am inclined to share his view. It is my belief that at some point during the title registration proceedings we should determine whether or not Mrs. Rutman is willing to release her claim to the lake bed ,for a reasonable price. If she is wil- ling to do this, I would recommend to the council that the city buy her rights to the lake bed from her. The city might even want to buy some of the higher ground adjacent to the lake in order to facilitate the ultimate development of the area as a park area. If an agreement were to be reached with Mrs. Rutman, it might be advisable to permit her to proceed to register all of the lake bottom that she now claims with an agreement that after such registration has been completed, she will convey it to the city for the agreed price. This would give the city a better title than it would have if it merely bought shoreland from Mrs. Rutman so as to cut off her claim to the lake bottom. If an agreement is eventually worked out with Mrs. Rutman, this would still leave the title to part of the Richfield Lake bottom in doubt. In particular, there is a tract of LAW OFFICES HOWARD, LEFEVERE, LEFLER, HAMILTON AND PEARSON Mr. Wayne S. Burggraaff February 22, 1972 Page 3 shoreland north of the Rutman property owned by Mr. Charles Adams which would still have to be cleared up. But I would recommend that we undertake -to do that at some later time. Very truly yours, Clayton L. LeFevere CLL:jpf Richfield Lake The plan for Richfield Lake (Plate 5) has been incorporated with Wood Lake because of the proximity of the two areas. Physical development of this Lake would include creating additional land along the north, east, south and west shore lines by land fill processes. Creation of an island in the south east corner of the lake is recommended to provide interest and serve as a focal point within the lake park setting. Other features would in- clude a pedestrian path meandering around the lake, a foot bridge to the island, and an open sun shelter where people could meet and have picnics. Extensive shade tree planting will be necessary to develop a part atmos- phere with the tree crowns providing a canopy of foliage. Information obtained from the recent hydraulic study indicates that dredging is not recommended to increase the water depth. A water level could be maintained whereby the maximum depth would be approximately five feet. This would leave several areas along the shore line rather shallow and marshy. However, fill material from outside sources could be utilized to eliminate these areas as a part of the development plan. (Plate 6) Hydraulic Conclusions are as follows: o Dredging of Richfield Lake is inadvisable because of the relatively small thickness of muck and silt which forms the bottom seal. o By pumping from a well, restoration and maintenance of a level of about 116.5 with a surface area of about 50 acres can be accomplished with relative certainty. o An excess water removal facility, probably to Wood Lake, should be provided at the same time that the restoration plan is initiated. Wood Lake The plan for Wood Lake (Plate 5) shows uses similar to Legion Lake, but greater in scale because of the much larger acreage. The Development Plan defines an interesting shore line with several islands proposed to Berg and Schwartz, Ibid. 0- yql=FIELM LAKE AND V10a.0 LAKE MINNESOTA Ll J 1 z k e H F s o L n1` -- - ____ 1 117 PLATE 5 N 'CE- q AL 0 L 0 im AA E AIT P L A AJ P1C"k--H=lEL13 LAKE -AIND luVOOM, LAKE RICHFIELO MINNESOTA L 11 "I'll Ill^ L- LLVLL -TA PLATE-! E3 DATE September 26, 1972 CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Item #2 Case: 72-SP-4 Originating Department: City Council Action Requested: Site and Building Plan Review Exhibits: None The City Council requests that the Planning Commission review and re-evaluate site and building plans for the 48 unit motel proposed for location at 1425 East 77th Street by Bamar Corporation. The Planning Commission considered concept plans for this project in relation to a special use permit requested by the applicants for this motel. The Commission recommended that the Council approve the special use permit subject to several stipulations which were attached and made a part of the Commission's report to the Council which was considered by the Council at its meeting of September 11, 1972. At the time that the Council considered this matter, it was advised of the Planning Commission's disappointment over the level of detail reflected within the plans for this project. Several members of the Commission felt that the plans were of such insufficient detail that no formal action should be taken upon them at this time. The City Council concurred with this judgement and has referred concept plans for this project back to the Planning Commission for review. The Council, in referring this matter back to the Commission, instructed the applicants to prepare plans of more sufficient detail before having the matter placed back on the Council agenda for further consideration. At the time that this agenda item was being prepared, staff had not received any additional plans for review. Therefore, presentation of a staff report on these plans will have to await a time when this information will be provided. If the applicants are unable to comply with the Council's instructions for more detailed plans on this project, then the matter should be continued indefinately. DATE -September 26, 1972 CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Item #3 Case 72-S-1 Originating Department: Planning Department Action Requested: Preliminary Plat Approval Exhibits: Preliminary plat plan to be presented at the Planning Commission meeting Restaurants, No Limit, Inc., requests approval of a preliminary plat for the property at 1400 West 77th Street. This property has been approved by the City Council for the location of the Bourbon and Basin restaurant. The Council action approving a special use permit for this project was in accordance with the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval which was taken at the August 29 meeting of the Commission. The special use permit's approval was subject to several stipulations including the condition that the property be re -platted in accordance with the provisions of the city code. The preliminary plat will assure the property legal recording of the following features: 1. The combination of two parcels of land into one under single ownership. 2. The establishment of the proper boundary line for the western edge of the project property. 3. The proper location of the building on the site, 4. The establishment of the necessary easementsfor the maintenance of city serviced water and sewer facilities. 5. The establishment of final contours used for the grading of this property. The proper grading of this property will necessarily involve a portion of the property to the east of this project. For this purpose, a slope easement has been granted allowing for the proper granting of the total project. The preliminary plat.also indicates that the frontage road will be extended from its current point of termination at the Clover Motel onto this property. Finally, the plat indicates how public right of way at 76th Street will be used to continue the driveway system of the parking lot area for the project. Staff has reviewed and evaluated this information and recommends that the preliminary plat be approved subject to the following stipulations: 1. That the access and slope easements for this project be submitted to the city attorney for review prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. 2. Evidence be submitted that the state highway department has approved of the appli- cants use of the existing right of way at 76th Street as part of the driveway and parking lot system for this project. DATE September 26, 1972 CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Item #4 Case: 72-R-2 Originating Department: Planning Department Action Requested: Rezoning from R to MR for two double bungalow units. Exhibits: None Information on this request was still in process of being completed at the time that the agenda was officially closed. Complete information on this request will be presented to the Commission at the September 29, 1972 meeting. DATE August 29, 1972 _ September 26, 1972 CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Item #5 Case: Correspondence Item Originating Department: Planning Department Action Requested: Informal Discussion Exhibits: Letter from Vice -President of lst Federal Savings and Loan, as attached. Consideration of this item was continued from the August 29, 1972 meeting of the Planning Commission. Attached is a letter from Mr. Harmon T. Ogdahl, Vice -President of First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Minneapolis, requesting an informal discussion with the Commission on the possibility of locating drive -up teller windows to the existing facilities of the branch bank at 6445 Nicollet Avenue. The reason, for the discussion is that Mr. Ogdahl has received no encouragement from the staff to proceed with plans submitted with the city by the bank for evaluation and processing. The problem is that there does not appear to be enough room on the existing site to reasonably locate and operate drive-in teller windows. The plans submitted would disrupt a reasonably good traffic circulation and parking plan currently operating on the site. Also, portions of the landscaped area,.of the bank would be sacrificed if the proposed plan is implemented. The alternative is to expand the facilities eastward into the residential property adjacent to the bank and fronting onto lst Avenue. The bank owns the two parcels of land on lst Avenue extending northward from 65th Street. However, neighbors. in the area have long been opposed to any plans to expand the existing bank building. Mr. Ogdahl is hoping that the Commission might provide him With some insight and suggestions for resolving the current dilemma that his bank is confronted with. Lloyd 0..Swanson, President Richfield Planning Commission 6700 Portland Avenue Minneapolis, HUNT 55423 Gentlemen: of Minneapolis Seventh Street at Nicollet Mall, Mpls., Minn. 55402 Area 612-333-O423 August 14, 1972 During the past several years, First Federal Savings & Loan has been endeavoring to expand its area of operation in its present location at 6445 Nicollet Avenue South. Competition compels us to adapt some form of outside teller facilities or drive-in facilities as soon as we possibly can. Initially, we attempted through ownership of two parcels of land located on First Avenue directly behind our present facilities to expand and present some rather ideal facilities on the westerly portions of these lots. This, of course, requires rezoning of the referred to properties on First Avenue. To date, we have been unable to convince the neighbors that this would be beneficial to the neighborhood. As a result of this rejection_, we attempted to revise our plans to put drive-in .facilities on our present plot of ground. This plan was submitted to Mr. Worthington for consideration and whereas he was very helpful_ and made some acceptable suggestions. The end result was that this, too, was rejected. Our dilemma, as a result, is that we do not know where or how to proceed. Obviously, we must have these facilities in order to remain competitive with the other financial institutions in the area, all of who have -very adequate drive-in facilities. .We feel that we have been a very compatible business enterprise in the city of Richfield, and I am sure you will agree that our properties are maintained and beautified to a degree unsurpassed -by most other institutions. Thus, we are asking if we might appear before your body to have a frank and open discussion on w1liat our future possibilities might be in securing the facilities we so badly need. Therefore, I am asking to appear on your agenda for your August 29 meeting for an exchange of ideas in hopes that we can together develope a solution_ to our problem. Respectfully yours, Harmon T. Ogdahl Vice President Pip IT q AUG 16 1972 Richfl ield Planning �2ni. DATE August 29, 1972 September 26, 1972 O c-r-ro e✓ Z-�- i cl 1 Z CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Item #6 Case: None Originating Department: City Council Action Requested: Restudy of Comprehensive Plan Exhibits: None Consideration of this item was continued from the August 29, 1972 meeting of the Planning Commission. At the August 14 meeting of the City Council, the Planning Commission's proposal for a comprehensive plan for the city was referred back to the Commission for further study in the following areas: 1. Downtown (CBD) area. 2. Area along Xerxes Avenue from 76th Street to West 66th Street. 3. Area two lots north of 77th Street from Emerson Avenue to 17th Avenue. The Council also asked that the Commission be advised of its interest to jointly participate in this re-examination process with the Commission.��L The C_____________ �_ t__e�e (!Lstablish an appropriate time between September through December to meet with the Council to explore thesCmaAfurther. 'r S� G u d