04-28-1987Page 3
Planning Commission Minutes
March 24, 1987
M/Kritzman, S/Jensen to close public hearing.
Motion carried: 9 to 0.
Commissioner McDermott inquired if both lots would meet the
minimum lot requirement of 6,750 square feet. Mr. Kazi stated
that both lots would be conforming lots.
M/McDermott, S/Erlander to recommend to the City Council approvalofthepreliminaryplatasshownforthepropertylocated_ at 7234_14th Avenue South with the stipulation that the existing garage
be_removed or relocated to comply with city setback requirements
Commissioner Jensen stated that the Planning Commission is
dealing with the land use and the property owner has the right to
subdivide a lot as long as the conditions are met and the citysetbackrequirementsaremet.
Commissioner Lunas agreed with Commissioner Jensen but will vote
to deny the subdivision because of the configuration of the lot
and the potential crowding on the lot.
Commissioner Erlander stated that the Planning Commission is not
in the position to vote against a property owner who complieswiththelaw. He felt the Planning Commission would be exceedingtheirauthoritybecausethesubdivisionmeetsallthestandards.
Commissioner Kennedy commented that a precedence would be
established if the subdivision was approved. He also questionediftheapplicanthadanycommunicationwithhisneighbors
regarding the subdivision. Mr. Gleason stated that he had talked
to 2 neighbors, who were in favor of the subdivision.
Commissioner McDermott stated that the requirements for land use
goes with the property, not with the property owner.
Motion carried: 7 to 2 (Commissioners Lunas and Kennedy voted
denial)
ITEM ~2, CASE X87-SUP-1, SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST AT 6500
LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH, WENDY'S RESTAURANT
Mr. Towhid Kazi presented to staff report.
Commissioner Murray questioned where the easement and setbacks
were on the lot. Mr. Kazi stated that the easement is 20 feet
and Wendy's structure is located 20 feet from the easement.
Page 6
Planning Commission Minutes
March 24, 1987
Commissioner McDermott abstained from voting because of her
strong feeling of what belongs in redevelopment areas and does
not agree with some changes in the LHN area, such as certain
setbacks, but Wendy's does not negatively impact the health,
safety and welfare of the people residing or working in the
surrounding neighborhood.
Commissioner Kennedy stated that the proposal was a responsible
proposal and complies with the requirements of the law.
Motion carried: 6-2-1 (Commissioner McDermott abstained,
Commissioners Lunas and Murray denied)
Mr. Karns stated that because of the cost of the sign he would
like to withdraw his commitment to upgrade the parking lot. Mr.
Jopke stated that the applicant must meet the stipulations of the
special use permit, but the offstreet parking agreement would not
be changed by the special use permit.
Mr. Karns also stated he would like the option to put up either a
wood or coppertone facia. Mr. Jopke stated that the facia
material was not part of the special use permit stipulation.
The Planning Commission believed that the applicant should meet
with staff before the City Council meeting to settle on the
material to he used for the facia of the building.
ITEM #3, INFORMATION LETTER ~~15, DISCUSSION CONCERNING
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE CITY'S SIGN ORDINANCE
Mr. Rick Jopke introduced the sign ordinance to the commission in
preparation for the study session scheduled April 6, 1987 with
the City Council.
ITEM ~4, INFORMATION LETTER X16, PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAW
APPROVAL
M/Herrboldt, S/Kennedy toamend Part I, Section 1. Reoular
Meetings, by changing the meeting time to 7:00 PM.
Motion failed: 5 to 4 (Denial by Commissioners Erlander, Jensen,
Kauth, McDermott, Murray)
M/Jensen, S/Kennedy to approval the current Planning Commission
bylaws with the meeting time to start at 7:30 PM.
Motion carried: 8 to 1 (Denial by Commissioner Herrboldt)
Page 7
Planning Commission Minutes
March 24, 1987
ITEM #5, INFORMATION LETTER X17, DISCUSSION CONCERNING POTENTIAL
VACATION OF THE EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY AT THE INTERSECTIONS
IN THE TINGDALE BROTHERS LINCOLN HILLS ADDITION.
Mr. Rick Jopke presented the staff report.
Commissioner Kauth inquired whether there were any other
subdivisions similar to the Tingdale addition. Mr. Jopke stated
that staff was not aware of any.
Mr. Jopke stated that the Council gave first reading approval to
an ordinance that would allow the city to initiate the vacation
process.
ITEM 6, INFORMATION LETTER X18, REVIEW OF PROPOSED 1989-1993
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.
A joint meeting with the Community Services Advisory Commission
and the Planning Commission was set for April 14, 1987 to discuss
the Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Jopke was going to check
the starting time.
OLD BUSINESS
LIAISON REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Barbara Kritzman
Planning Commission Secretary
unless he knows that the property can be rezoned to allow him to
develop the dental office on the site. For that reason Mr.
Johnson has asked that the City Council initiate the rezoning
process. On March 23rd, the City Council initiated the rezoning
process and referred the matter to the Planning commission for
review and recommendation.
Mr. Johnson has also requested that the city or the HRA purchase
the property from the County. He would then purchase the
property from the City or HRA. The city attorney's office has
indicated that the city could not purchase the property and sell
it to Mr. Johnson, but the HRA could. The HRA on March 16th
indicated they are agreeable to purchasing the property if Mr.
Johnson signs an agreement with the HRA in which he agrees to
purchase the property from the HRA at cost. The advantage to Mr.
Johnson in dealing with the HRA is that he does not have to bid
at an auction for the property. According to state statutes, the
HRA will have to create a 2 parcel redevelopment project to do
this. This has not been done yet. Also in accordance with state
statutes the Planning Commission will have to review the purchase
and disposition of the property by the HRA for conformance with
the city's comprehensive plan.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council approve an ordinance to rezone the property at 6941-
45 Penn Avenue from PAR-2, multiple residence to C-1, limited
business.
It is further recommended that the Planning Commission pass the
attached resolution finding the acquisition and disposition of
the property by the HRA to be consistent with the city's
comprehensive plan.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. This property is vacant and has been vacant for a number of
years. The development of the site, as proposed, will add to
the tax base of the city.
2. A number of proposed multifamily developments have failed for
economic reasons.
3. The site is on Penn Avenue which is a heavily traveled
arterial roadway which would also indicate that some
intensification of use might be proper.
4. The proposal would be "spot zoning". The site is not
contiguous to another commercial zoning district. The site
is currently zoned MR-2 which is also a "spot zone". The type
of development being proposed would be compatible with the
surrounding single family neighborhood if proper screening and
buffering is provided.
C I T Y O F R I C H F I E L D, M I N N E S O T A
C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T
Item ~k2
Case ~~87-RZ-2
Agenda of April 28, 1987
Planning Commission
City of Richfield
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on the request for the rezoning of the property at
6229-31 Pillsbury Avenue South from single-family residential "R"
district to Multiple residence "MR-1" district.
Background
Mr. and Mrs. Duane Mumm, property owner at 6229-31 Pillsbury
Avenue South has requested that the city approve rezoning of her
property from single family residence (R) district to multifamily
residence (MR-1) district.
The site has an area of 13,313.26 square feet. There is a two
family dwelling already on the site which has been there for
quite sometime. The existing two family use of the structure is
legally nonconforming. There is a 22 foot x 45 foot garage
located on the northeast corner of the lot and meets the
requirements for accessory structure in MR-1 district.
Zoning Ordinance Requirement:
1. Section 3.31A, Subdivision 9 outlines the requirements for
multiple residence (MR-1) district.
2. Section 3.42, outlines the procedural requirements for
rezoning of a property.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission to deny the request for
rezoning of the property at 6229-31 Pillsbury Avenue South from
single family residence (R) district to multiple residence (MR-1)
district.
Basis of Recommendation;
Staff has reviewed the application against the city zoning
ordinance and found the following:
1. The site meets the lot width, area and lot coverage
requirement for (MR-1) multiple residence district. The
existing building setbacks are 44 feet in the front, 56.86
feet in the rear, and 10 feet and 26.5 feet in the interior.
The required building setbacks are 30 feet (front), 25 feet
rear) and 10 feet (interior). The existing structure meets
all the setback requirements for multiple residence (MR-1)
district.
2. The existing two family use is permitted in multiple
residence district, therefore the approval of the rezoning
request would make the use legally conforming. The
surrounding properties within the block are zoned single
family residence and the existing land uses in the area are
conforming to the zoning district classification.
3. The Comprehensive Development Plan indicates that the site
should be medium density/buffer. Multifamily duplexes would
be considered a principal use for the site. MR-1 zoning
would be allowed in the area. This designation is for
future development only and should not accommodate any
existing uses on a piecemeal basis. The zoning ordinance
does allow nonconforming uses to continue legally with the
intent that the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning
classification would be compatible at some point in the
future.
The comprehensive plan also suggests that "medium density
housing should be built along freeways, arterial streets,
and collector streets where there would be minimal
disruption of single family residential neighborhood".
The site in question is near the freeway but Pillsbury Avenue
is considered neither an arterial or collector street. The
surrounding properties are single family residential use
and are zoned "R" (single family residence) district. It is
staff's opinion that the proposed rezoning would be contrary
to the comprehensive plan land use policy.
4. It is staff's opinion that the approval of the rezoning
would be a spot zoning and the city has been reluctant to
pursue spot zoning in the past. The existing nonconforming
use could continue. The city should uphold the intent of
the zoning ordinance regarding nonconforming use and follow
the comprehensive plan land use policies as closely as
possible.
Alternative Recommendation;
The Planning Commission may wish to recommend rezoning of the
property from single family residence "R" district to multiple
residence MR-1 district for the following reasons;
1. The existing t~vo family use of the site would not be changedduetotherezoning.
2. The status of the existing legally nonconforming use would
be changed to legally conforming use due to the rezoning.
3. The existing two family use does not seem to have any
adverse impact on the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood which is evidenced by the number of signatures
obtained by the applicant in support of the rezoning.
4. The existing two family use is consistent with the
Comprehensive Development Plan.
Decision Mode
Public hearing is scheduled for April 28, 1987 at 7:30 p.m.
before the Planning Commission on the request for rezoning. A
notice of the public hearing was sent to property owners within
350 feet of the subject property.
Council Hearing:
Council would give first reading to the ordinance amendment
relating to rezoning of the property on May 11, 1987. Second
reading and public hearing before the City Council will take
place on May 27, 1987.
Respectfully submitted,
Towhid Kazi
Assistant Planner
TK/jls
C I T Y O F R I C H F I E L D, M I N N E S O T A
C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T
Item ~~3
Case ~k87-RZ-3, 87-AV-1
Agenda of April 28, 1987
Planning Commission
City of Richfield
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on the request for an alley vacation and rezoning
of northerly portion of 6528 16th Avenue South from 'R' single
family residence to 'C-2' general commercial.
Background:
Hines and Sons, Inc. and Mt. Calvary Church have petitioned the
city to vacate the easterly half of a 12 foot alley between
Bloomington Avenue South and 16th Avenue South and also to rezone
the northerly 20 feet of the lot addressed as 6528 16th Avenue
South from single family residence 'R' district to multiple
residence MR-1 district. The lot proposed to be rezoned is
vacant at the present time. The applicant wishes to construct a
3 story 15 unit apartment building for the elderly. The vacation
of the requested portion of the alley would allow the church
building to be structurally connected with the proposed apartment
building thus providing convenience accessibility for the elderly
residents to participate in church activities. The vacation of
the easterly portion of the alley would provide each of the
abutting property owners with an additional 800 square feet of
land.
The properties within 250 feet north of the centerline of West
66th Street are zoned C-2 general commercial all the way from
11th Avenue to Cedar Avenue. The zoning district boundaries in
most cases do not conform with property lines in this area. This
results in there being many properties where a portion of a lot
is zoned C-2 and the remainder of the lot is zoned 'R' single
family residence. The subject property is such a case. The
rezoning being requested results in the total lot being C-2
general commercial.
The properties abutting north side of the alley are single family
residential uses. Two single family dwellings, the church and a
commercial structure are located south of the alley.
Two single family lots (6528 and 6532 16th Avenue) north of the
alley along 16th Avenue are owned by the applicants. South of
the alley the abutting single family dwelling west of the church
is owned by a group of people associated with the church. The
existing uses would remain the same except for the two properties
at 6528 and 6532 16th Avenue. The single family residential uses
on the properties abutting the alley are nonconforming.
A special use permit would be required for the apartment use in a
C-2 general commercial district. The applicant intends to apply
for a special use permit if the council approves the vacation of
the alley and the proposed rezoning.
Zoning Ordinance Requirement:
1. Section 3.42, outlines the procedural requirements for
rezoning of a property.
2. Section 12.04 (city ordinance), outlines the regulations for
vacation of an alley.
Staff Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny 1) the
vacation of the easterly portion of the 12 foot alley located
between Bloomington Avenue and 16th Avenue South; 2) approve the
rezoning of the northerly 20 feet of the lot addressed as 6528
16th Avenue South from single family residence 'R' district to
general commercial 'C-2' district.
Basis of Recommendation:
The basis for the above recommendations is the following:
Vacation of Alley
1. The proposed vacation would create a dead end alley.
This would make snowplowing and other maintenance
activities extremely difficult because trucks would have
to backup approximately 130 feet. This is not
acceptable to city maintenance staff.
2. The existing alley provides access to the single family
dwellings and the commercial property abutting the
westerly half of the alley. The vacation of the portion
of an alley would create maintenance problems and hinder
smooth access to the two garages abutting the alley.
3. Utilities present within the alley are a 4 inch
waterline and two power lines. Utility easements would
have to be provided if the vacation is approved.
Rezoning
1. The proposed rezoning would allow the property owner to
have a single zoning district classification, i.e. C-2
general commercial, for the said property.
2. The proposed rezoning would not be "spot zoning". The
area to be rezoned C-2 general commercial is contiguous
to an existing C-2 general commercial zoning district.
3. North of the subject property are single family
residential uses, south of the subject property is a
single family use, to the east of the site is an
institutional use and west of the site are single family
residential uses. All the single family dwellings
abutting the alley are rental properties. An apartment
use of low/medium density would create a buffer between
single family residences and the more intensive uses
along 66th Street.
4. The comprehensive development plan designates the site
to be developed as single family residential uses. C-2
general commercial zoning is therefore inconsistent.
Alternative Recommendation.
1. The Planning Commission may choose to recommend approval of
the vacation of the whole alley between Bloomington Avenue
and 16th Avenue. Such an approval would have to be
contingent upon proper access and maintenance agreements
being provided. The city would also require utility
easements.
2. The Planning Commission may deny the rezoning of the portion
of the subject property because it is not consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The Planning Commission may deny the vacation of portion of
an alley but approve the rezoning.
Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled before the Planning Commission for
7:30 PM on Tuesday, April 28, 1987 in the Council Chambers.
Notice of the hearing was mailed to property owners within 350
feet.
First reading of the ordinances to vacate the alley and to rezone
the property is scheduled for May 11, 1987. Second reading and
public hearing on the proposed ordinances will be scheduled for
City Council meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 1987.
Respectfully submitted,
z.~~ ~
Towhid Kazi
Assistant Planner
TK/jls
C I T Y O F R I C H F I E L D, M I N N E S O T A
C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T
Item ~~4
Information Letter ~k21
Agenda of April 28, 1987
Planning Commission
City of Richfield
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an ordinance amendment to create a new C-3 high
density commercial zoning district and related requirements.
Background•
On March 2, 1987 the HRA and .Planning Commission met with the
City Council to discuss a strategy for managing that portion of
the ILN south of 77th Street. The primary management tool was to
be a new zoning district identified as C-3 High Density
Commercial.
The development opportunity which the city has in the ILN area is
unique and must be properly managed to realize its potential and
the established goals. In general the goals include creating a
favorable environment to foster the growth of appropriate
businesses; minimizing or eliminating the conflicts between the
residential and commercial areas; broadening the tax base; and
providing for economic growth and employment opportunities.
it will probably take 10 to 15 years to accomplish these goals in
the area south of 77th Street. This conclusion is based on the
market conditions and the LHN experience. 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 may 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 "soft". The market is not growth
orientated. The challenge then is to protect the redevelopment
potential of the area until the market is ready.
Staff has had discussions with developers and consultants. These
discussions culminated on February 10th when the BRW consulting
firm invited developers active in the greater Minneapolis market
to a meeting which was also attended by Mayor Hamilton, HRA
Chairman Harms and staff. (Attached is a summary of the
discussion).
The ordinance would require that new development meet
minimum standards in terms of lot size and area and floor area
ratios. Height restrictions to prevent shadows on single-
family and two family dwellings would also be included.
Four critical elements of the ordinance warrant comment
Subdivision 3, Subdivision 6, Subdivision 9 and Subdivision 11.
Subdivision 3 addresses nonconforming uses. Almost all of the
existing buildings within the district would become
nonconforming. Under this proposed ordinance such buildings
could be expanded by no more than ten percent within any two
consecutive calendar years. The existing zoning ordinance in
Section 3.29, Subdivision 2, addresses nonconforming uses. There
are two significant restrictions in the existing ordinance which
would affect these structures. First, if a structure was damagedtotheextentthatitlostmorethan50% of its value, it could
not be rebuilt. Secondly, existing uses which are not permitted
under the proposed ordinance would also become nonconforming.The nonconforming uses created would be those which rely on
outdoor storage. Under the provisions of Section 3.29,
nonconforming uses could not be expanded to occupy a greater land
area.
Subdivision 6 regulates floor. area ratio. The FAR, or floor area
ratio, establishes a relationship between the number of square
feet of building and the square feet of lot area. This ordinance
proposes an FAR of at least 0.75. Thus, a lot of 100,000 squarefeetwouldrequireabuildingofatleast75,000 square feet. To
accommodate development with this FAR, multistory buildings and
parking structures would be necessary. This minimum FAR
requirement is key to achieving the aforementioned goals for the
area. A model to help depict this concept will be used at the
Planning Commission meeting.
Subdivision 9 prohibits buildings of a height which would cast a
shadow on land occupied by single-family and two-family dwellings
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. An exception could
be made to this restriction, however, if a developer proposed a
mitigating measure. An example of such a measure would be the
purchase by the developer of a solar access easement from the
impacted property owner.
Subdivision 11 deals with parking. The parking standards in this
ordinance vary from the present requirements of the city.
Restaurant parking requirements are slightly less than the
existing ordinance. For the office space the proposal requires
slightly more spaces than existing requirements for small office
buildings and less for larger office buildings. The lower
requirements are justified because the type of development
required by this proposed ordinance through the FAR and other
minimum standards would result in development with shared
parking. Parking provided on a shared bases is utilized more
efficiently and thus the number of spaces required is less.
The parking standards in this proposed ordinance are based on the
experience of the consulting firm of BRW and the Institute of
Transportation Engineers.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council approve an ordinance to create the C-3 zoning
district and related requirements as outlined in the attached
materials.
Basis of Recommendation:
The new zoning district ordinance and the rezoning of this
property to the C-3 designation are critical to the successful
management of the ILN area. The goals of broadening the tax
base, providing for economic growth and employment opportunities,
fostering a favorable environment for appropriate businesses and
eliminating the conflicts between the residential and commercial
areas, can best be achieved this way.
The creation of this new zoning district is also consistent with
the goals and policies of the city's Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan also indicates that the area along I-494
should be developed as high density freeway strip type uses. The
Comprehensive Plan also indicates that the freeway strip policy
will be "To establish a design plan to coordinate development of
the I-494 strip which encourages high density mixed land use."
The proposed ordinance revision will help bring this about.
Alternative Recommendations:
1. Reject the proposed zoning ordinance revision.
2. Modify portions of the proposed zoning ordinance revision.
Decision Mode:
1. If a new zoning district is to be utilized as a management
tool for a portion of the ILN, it must be in effect prior to
September 22, 1987 when the building permit moratorium
expires.
2. The City Council has referred the concept to the Planning
Commission. A public hearing on the item has been scheduled
for the April 28, 1987 Planning Commission meeting. Mailed
and published notice of this hearing has been provided.
3. Two informational meetings have been held. On April 21,
a meeting has been scheduled for business people from the
area at 8:00 a.m. at the American Legion. In the evening at
8:00 p.m. a meeting has been scheduled for the residents. It
will be held at Emerson Avenue Congregational Church.
4. Staff has met with some of the existing property and/or
business owners in this area who have indicated an interest
in redevelopment in this area to review the future direction
of the city in this portion of the ILN.
Respectfully submitted,
Rick Jopke
City Planner
RJ/jls
DATE:
T0:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
February 10, 1987
City Council/HR.A
Summary of ILN Redevelopment Project Workshop with
BRW Consultants, City Staff, Policy Makers and
Developers
LOCATION: BRW Office - 700 Third Street, Mpls.
Peter Jarvis, a principle with BRW opened the meeting by stating
the purpose. Three primary questions summarized the purpose.
1 Within the next 5 years, is the market for the area in
question (I494 freeway, property frontage west of Lyndale
Avenue) going to ire 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 wi~ich needs to portray an
attractive image. duality of I494 & Lyndale Avenue sets
ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM N0. 11
April 15, 1987; Revised April 22, 1987
Page 2
2) Office buildings.
3) Hotels/Motels
4) Residential buildings.
5) Parking structures.
6) Other businesses which are determined by the council to be of the
general character as the uses listed in this section and which would not be
obnoxious or detrimental to the area in which they would be located.
Subd. 3. Nonconforming Uses. All provisions of Section 3.29 shall apply to
this district except that:
1) A nonconforming structure may be expanded within any consecutive two
calendar-year period by no more than ten percent (10%) of its gross floor area
provided the expansion meets all other applicable city ordinance requirements.
Subd. 4. Procedures. All proposals shall be reviewed under the site plan
approval process as set forth below:
1) Approval Required. Without first obtaining site plan approval it shall
be unlawful to do any of the following within the "C-3" district:
a) construct a building;
b) move a building to any lot;
c) expand or change the use of a building or parcel of land or modify
a building, accessory structure or site or land feature in any manner which
results in a different intensity of use, including the requirement for addi-
tional parking;
d) grade or take other actions to prepare a site for development,
except in conformance with a permit or an approved plan; or
e) remove earth, soils, gravel or other natural material from or place
the same on a site, except in conformance with a permit or an approved plan.
Notwithstanding the above, site plan approval shall not be required for enlarge-
ment of a building by 10 percent or less of its gross floor area or changes in
the leasable space of amulti-tenant building, provided no variances are
required and the modifications do not significantly intensify use of the site.
ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM N0. 11
April 15, 1987; Revised April 22, 1987
Page 3
2) Application. Application for a site plan review shall be made to the
city planner on forms provided by the city and shall be accompanied by the
following:
a) a plat or map of the property showing the proposed improvements;
b) project phasing and timing;
c) evidence of ownership or an interest in the property;
d) a fee as specified in Appendix D;
e) complete building elevations and typical floor plans, signed by a
registered architect, civil engineer, landscape architect or other appropriate
design professional; and
f) such other information as may be required by the city.
3) Public Hearing. Upon receipt of a completed application, a date shall
be set for a public hearing before the planning commission. The hearing will be
held no less than 10 days after mailed notice is sent to the owners of proper-
ties located wholly or partially within 350 feet of the site. Within 45 days
after the close of the public hearing the planning commission shall submit its
recommendations to the city council. Following such notice and hearing as the
city council deems appropriate, the city council shall make a decision regardingtheapplication.
Subd. 5. General Criteria and Standards.
1) General Standards. In evaluating a site plan, the planning commission
and city council shall consider its compliance with the following:
a) consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's develop-
ment guides, including the comprehensive plan and any redevelopment plans
established for the district;
b) consistency with this ordinance;
c) preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent prac-
ticable by minimizing tree and soil removal;
d) creation of a harmonious relationship of buildings and open spaces
with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a
visual relationship to the development;
ILN REDEYELOPMf NT PROJECT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM N0. 11
April 15, 1987; Revised April 22, 1987
Page 6
j) details and cross sections of all required screening.
4) Minimum Landscaping Requirements.
a) All open areas of a lot which are not used or improved for required
parking areas, drives or storage shall be landscaped with a combination of
overstory trees, understory trees, shrubs, flowers and ground cover materials.
All landscaped areas shall be irrigated by an underground mechanical irrigation
system. The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery,
trees, sculpture, foundations, decorative walks or other similar site design
features or materials in a quantity having a minimum value in conformance with
the following table:
MINIMUM LANDSCAPING VALUES
Minimum Landscape Value (All
Project Value construction costs including
Including building construction, plant material and installation
site preparation, and site except design fees and other
improvements) administrative costs)
Below $1,000,000
1,000,001 - $2,000,000
2,DOO,OOD1 - $3,000,DDO
3,000,001 - $4,000,000
Over $4,000,000
2%
20,000 + 1% of Project
Value in excess of $1,000,000
30,000 + 0.75% of
Project Value in excess of
2,000,000
37,500 + 0.25% of
Project Value in excess of
3,000,000
1%
In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable species exist on a site
prior to its development, the application of the standards in this subdivision
may be adjusted by the city to allow credit for such material, provided that
such adjustment is consistent with the intent of this ordinance.
b) A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many existing
trees as is practicable and to incorporate them into the site plan.
ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM N0. 11
April 15, 1987; Revised April 22, 1987
Page 8
d) Notwithstanding any other provisions in this ordinance to the
contrary, screening required by this section shall be of a height needed to
accomplish the goals of this section.
Subd. 6. Minimum Floor-Area Ratio. The minimum gross floor-area ratio (FAR)
for any lot shall be 0.75.
Subd. 7. Minimum Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be 150 feet.
Subd. 8. Minimum Lot Area. The minimum lot area shall be 1.5 acres.
Subd. 9. Height Regulations. No building shall be so tall that a shadow is
cast onto a single-family or two-family land parcel between the hours of
9:00 a.m, and 3:00 p.m, on any day of the year. The city council may make
exceptions to this requirement if the applicant can prove to the council's
satisfaction that measures have been taken to mitigate this solar access
requirement.
Subd. 10. Setback Requirements. The following minimum requirements apply to all
improvements hereafter erecte or structurally altered in a "C-3" district, sub-
ject to modifications and exceptions provided in Section 3.39 of this chapter.
1) Buildings and Parking Structures.
a) Building and parking structure setbacks along public streets shall
be 40 feet.
b) A building or parking structure may extend to an interior lot line
if that structure and the adjacent structure are designed with such placement in
mind and a compatible relationship of uses, including circulation drives, open
space, parking areas, and glazed facades, results. Otherwise, the setback from
the interior lot line must be 10 feet or equal to at least one-quarter the
height of thQ building up to a maximum of 20 feet of setback.
2) Surface Parking Areas:
a) Surface parking areas shall be set back from any public street
right-of-way 10 feet or a distance sufficient to allow the placement of a
landscaped screen or berm with an average height of three feet between the
street right-of-way and the edge of the parking area.
b) Surface parking areas shall be set back from any building 10 feet
or a distance sufficient to allow the placement of landscaping designed to sof-
ten the appearance of the building if such building is visible from any public
right-of-way.
ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM N0. 11
April 15, 1987; Revised April 22, 1987
Page 10
Subd. 13. Security Required.When screening, landscaping or other similar impro-
vements to property are required by this ordinance security accpetable to the
city shall be supplied by the owner in an amount equal to at least one and one-
half times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements. The
security shall be conditioned upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the
city for engineering, legal or other fees .in connection with making or
completing such improvements. The security shall be provided prior to the
issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time equal to
one full growing season after the date of installation of the landscaping. In
the event construction of the project is not completed within the time
prescribed by building permits and .other approvals, the city may, at its option,
complete the work required at the expense of the owner and the surety.
The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all landscaping
if the delay is due to conditions which are reasonably beyond the control of the
developer. Extensions may be granted due to seasonal or weather conditions.
When an extension is granted, the city shall require such additional security as
it deems appropriate.
Upon completion of the improvements and inspection and final approval by the
city, the security may be released.
Subd. 14. Terms of Approval.
1) A building permit shall be obtained and construction of the project
shall begin no later than one year following the date on which site plan appro-
val is granted, unless a different time period is specified and approved by the
city council or in a developer's agreement with the city. After the expiration
of such period the approval shall be null and void unless the city council
grants an extension of time or a building permit has been issued and substantial
work performed on the project. Upon request by the applicant, the city council
may grant an extension of time for a site plan approval.
2) The city council may impose conditions in granting approval to site
plans to promote the intent of this section or to protect adjacent properties.
3) Site plans shall be valid only for the project for which approval is
granted. Construction of all site elements shall be in substantial compliance
with the plans and specifications approved by the city council. Compliance
shall not be considered substantial if there is:
a) more than a ten percent change in floor area in any one structure;
b) more than a ten percent change in the original approved separation
of buildings;
C I T Y O F R I C H F I E L D, M I N N E S O T A
C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T
Item ~~5
Information Letter ~~22
Agenda of April 28, 1987
Planning Commission
City of Richfield
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to establish the
boundaries of the new C-3 High Density Commercial Zoning District
Background:
On the previous item on this agenda the Planning Commission
discussed and made a recommendation concerning the creation of an
ordinance amendment to create a new C-3 high density commercial
zoning district and related requirements. The Planning
Commission should now make a recommendation concerning what land
should be included in the C-3 zoning district boundaries.
Recommendation;
It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend council
approval of an ordinance to rezone the property in the area
generally bounded by 77th Street, Pleasant Avenue, 494 and 35W
from C-2 General Commercial to C-3 High Density Commercial.
Basis of Recommendation:
The rezoning of this property to C-3 high density commercial is
critical to the successful management of the ILN area. The goals
of broadening the tax base, providing for economic growth and
employment opportunities, fostering a favorable environment for
appropriate businesses and the elimination of the conflicts
between residential and commercial areas can best be achieved
this way.
The rezoning is also consistent with the city's comprehensive
plan which indicates the area should be developed as high density
freeway strip type uses. The rezoning of this property will help
bring about the type of development anticipated in the
comprehensive plan.
C I T Y O F R I C H F I E L D, M I N N E S O T A
C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T
Item ~~6
Information Letter ~k23
Agenda of April 28, 1987
Planning Commission
City of Richfield
Issue Statement:
Revisions of the boundaries of the area covered by the ILN
Moratorium.
Background:
During previous discussions concerning the extension of the
Building Permit Moratorium ordinance in the ILN, staff has
indicated that we would also look at revising the boundaries of
the area subject to that moratorium. Attached for your review is
an ordinance revision which would reduce the area covered by the
ILN building permit moratorium. If that ordinance is passed the
area north of the first lot north of 77th Street would no longer
be in the building permit moratorium area.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend City
Council approval of the attached ordinance.
Basis of Recommendation:
The purpose of extending the Building Permit Moratorium an
additional six months was to allow time to complete the
development and implementation of the C-3 Zoning District
Ordinance and to develop a process to identify a developer or
developers for the area in the ILN south of 77th Street. The
area north of 77th Street would not be subject to either the C-3
Zoning District or to the developer selection process therefore
it is not necessary to keep the building permit moratorium in
place for that particular area. The first lot north of 77th
Street continues to be in the moratorium area because it has been
designated for acquisition for the street improvement project.
It would be to the city's benefit to keep the restrictions on
that particular area to minimize the city's future costs.
Alternative Recommendations:
The alternative recommendations would be as follows:
1. Reject the ordinance amendment and maintain the boundaries of
the moratorium area as they are now until the moratorium
expires in September of 1987.
2. To modify the area covered by the moratorium to include more
or less area.
Decision Mode•
A public hearing has been scheduled before the Planning
Commission on April 28th. Published notice of this hearing has
been provided.
Respectfully submitted,
Rick Jopke
City Planner
RJ/jls
BILL N0.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TRANSITORY ORDINANCE
N0. 17.18 ENTITLED "AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE
ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE
PLANNING PROCESS IN A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY,
REGULATING, RESTRICTING AND PROHIBITING CERTAIN
USES, DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN SUCH AREA".
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Transitory Ordinance No. 17.18 of the ordinance code of the City
of Richfield entitled "An Interim Zoning Ordinance Adopted for
the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process in a Certain Area
of the City, Regulating, Restricting and Prohibiting Certain
Uses, Developments and Subdivisions Within Such Area" is hereby
amended in the following respect:
Section 1, paragraph A thereof is amended to read:
A. The City is concerned with the proper and more economic
use, development and possible redevelopment that area of the
City generally referred to as "Interstate-Lyndale Area",
hereinafter referred to as the "Area", the boundaries of
which Area are more specifically described as follows:
All of the property between Interstate No. 35W and the
Minneapolis Northfield Southern Railroad tracks and south of
77th Street with the following additions (a) the area west
of Emerson Avenue, east of Interstate No. 35W, between 76th
and 77th Streets; (b) in the area between Emerson and
fr Pleasant Avenues, the first parcel abutting the
north side of 77th Street; and ~~` ~~~ ~~}~~~ ~z~e~c--a~fi
Ald-'
c) the east one-half block of the block between 75th and
76th Streets between Aldrich and Lyndale Avenues; ~;--t~-e
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of , 1987.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk