Loading...
01-25-1994CITY OF RIOI•IFIELD Knnnm Commission FiGEnDR January 25, 1994 7:00 p.m. -- Regular Meeting it I I Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 26, 1993. ITEM #1 PC LETTER #1 Plan Modification #7 (RSA) ITEM #2 PC LETTER #2 6625 Stevens Acquisition /Disposition, HRA ITEM #3 PC LETTER #3 Proposed Parking Ordinance ITEM #4 PC LETTER #4 ARC Activity Report 31t( _1 IBUO)OInsoo i is School Board Community Services Advisory Commission HRA City Council AdHoc 135/1494 Traffic Committee Addj© =ni msimt Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Service's Director at 861- 9702." PLANNING CONIIVIISSION MINUTES J MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCIL LIAISON Regular Meeting October 262 1993 Chairperson William Snyder; Commissioners: Robert Elliott, Timothy Erlander, Michael Gallagher, Daniel Linnihan, Thomas Scaglia, Kristal Stokes, and Paul Wasko Morris Nilsen II None STAFF PRESENT: Byron Wallace, Community Development Director; Bill Weaver, City Planner; Shawn Drill, Zoning Administrator; and Diane Anastos, Associate Planner The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Snyder at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MI7gUTES M/Wasko, S/Erlander to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of September 28, 1993 with the following correction on Item #4, Page 8: That the name Wasko be changed to Linnihan, where the motion to close the public hearing was seconded. Motion carried: 8 -0 PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM #1 CASE 93 -CP -1, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Medium Density Buffer City Planner Weaver stated that staff is proposing to amend the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan regarding medium density buffer zones. He said a development framework is currently being developed which will reflect the values of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee. This framework will incrementally describe the character, elements, type and scale of development that the community desires over a 5, 10, 15 and 20 year pattern. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1993 Page 2 Mr. Weaver said that general urban design standards will also be developed. These standards will be more detailed to identify things such as development scale and 'standards for infrastructure, including transportation systems and freeway widening. The Steering Committee will break into subcommittees that will identify and analyze sub -areas or districts such as the Interstate - Lyndale - Nicollet (II,N), Lyndale- Hub - Nicollet (LEM, and Penn -66 (PASSS). This analysis will lead to development and implementation of design standards for each sub -area, via the Comprehensive Plan. When development proposals are submitted, we will have guidelines in place that reflect the community values and land use plan for that particular area. Overlay zoning will be used to add the additional requirements to specific sub -areas and corridors. Mr. Weaver said that sub -area urban design guidelines will address things like signage, lighting, building setback, roof lines, landscaping, parking, building height, and other issues that come from the sub - committees values and visions of how the community should physically be developed in the future. Mr. Weaver stated that the current Comprehensive Plan looks at the City as a whole and uses generalized guidelines. It fails to recognize sub - areas, different characteristics of each area, and the effects of commercial uses on adjacent land uses. In examination of the LHN, he noted that the two northern gateways are Nicollet and Lyndale Avenues. These gateways and corridors need to be better defined. There are also district transition areas that should provide buffering between the commercial districts along the corridors and the residential uses behind them. The interfaces and effects on adjacent land uses need to be closely examined for each area. A zone of medium density buffer uses should be used to ease the transition between differing land uses. Mr. Weaver said the medium density buffer has conceptually been redesignated as a residential transition area. There are several medium density buffer situations and conflicts throughout the City. He noted that what may work well as medium density buffer in one district may not be appropriate for another district. Because staff anticipates several iterations of this plan over the next year or so, the interim solution is to provide a definition for the medium density buffer designation. Mr. Weaver said medium density buffer zones should be defined and used to ease the land use intensity within the transition area, to preserve the residential scale and character of adjacent land, and to limit non - residential intrusions. Typical uses would be single to fourplex dwellings, residentially scaled businesses of two stories or less, open space, and buffer yards. The intent is to provide a gradual change in uses and to make new development compatible with their surroundings. Staff recommended adoption of a resolution which would provide a definition for medium density buffer. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1993 Page 3 Responding to Chairperson Snyder, Mr. Weaver said that the amendment would not prevent Norwest Bank from developing their property as planned. Community Development Director Wallace added that this action was simply a policing up of the Comprehensive Plan because medium density buffer is not defined. Staff feels a definition is needed if we are to effectively control development. He said that the amendment does not constitute a major change, but rather is a housekeeping measure. Responding to Commissioner Scaglia, Mr. Weaver said that the proposed medium density buffer definition would fit in with the plan being developed. He said the actual definition probably will not change, however, the name might change to something like residential transition zone. Philosophically it would include the proposed definition, and the general intent of preserving residential characteristics of neighborhood would remain. The maturity of Richfield, size and layout, established development pattern, and fact that there is not a lot of vacant land, makes it evident that there will continue to be commercial uses adjacent to residential uses in the future. Responding to Chairperson Snyder, Mr. Weaver said that buffer yard is described in the landscape ordinance. Responding to Commissioner Wasko, Mr. Weaver said that the Norwest item was a separate action that would be fully reviewed later in the meeting. The public hearing was announced. No one wished to speak on the matter. M/Scaglia, S/El iott to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 8 -0 Commissioner Gallagher said he felt that it is important to provide a definition for the land designated as medium density buffer. He noted that a major issue of the Steering Committee is the blending of differing uses. There are several examples around the City where there is no buffering to separate differing uses. The space between commercial and residential can be very abrupt and harsh where no transitional area is provided. M/Scaglia, S /Stokes to adopt the resolution which recommends that the Council amend the Comprehensive Plan to define and clarify medium density buffer. Motion carried: 8 -0 Chairperson Snyder announced that he was rearranging the agenda and moving Item #5 Planning Commission Letter #18) under Old Business between Items 1 and 2. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1993 Page 4 OLD BUSINESS Planning Commission Letter #18 ITEM #5 Review of Norwest Bank Rezoning Proposal for 6438 and 6444 First Avenue Community Development Director Wallace reviewed the staff report, stating that the City Council had some concerns at first reading regarding what would happen to these parcels if they were rezoned and Norwest moved out. The concern was that a new user might want to utilize the land for another C -2 use that would not be compatible with the neighborhood. The Council asked the staff and Planning Commission to look into ways to address this issue including replatting, placing a condition on the rezoning to limit the use, or placing a restrictive covenant on the parcels. Mr. Wallace said the City Attorney recommends the Commission specifically look at the restrictive covenant over the other two methods. The replatting method could present problems because certain uses could be appropriate along Nicollet but not along First Avenue. With a single lot of record, it would be difficult to measure where the encroachment into the neighborhood begins. In addition, placing conditions on the rezoning could be very difficult to enforce over time because the conditions could be missed or forgotten after changes in ownership. Mr. Wallace said the restrictive covenant would provide the most effective method of controlling future use. He noted that the covenant could only be released by the Council. This requires that anyone wishing to change the use would have to get approval from. the City Council. Responding to Commissioner Erlander, Mr. Wallace said that maintenance of the buffer area along First Avenue would be included in the covenant. Responding to Chairperson Snyder, Mr. Wallace said that Norwest's use could be held to the specific site plan related to this project. However, the intent of the covenant is to ensure that a subsequent owner does not try to remove the buffer area for the purpose of constructing a large building on these lots. Responding to Commissioner Linnihan, Mr. Wallace said that the restrictive covenant would come up on the title policy, whereas conditions on the rezoning could get lost in the shuffle. He also responded that the spot.zone issue brought up by a resident at the last meeting was irrelevant regarding this stipulation. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1993 Page 5 Responding to Commissioner Wasko, Mr. Wallace said that there are other cases where the City has used restrictive covenants. He said that placement of restrictive covenants on property is not at all unusual. Responding to Commissioner Scaglia, Mr. Wallace said that Norwest had no major problems with the stipulation. There is an issue that may require a few minor language changes before the stipulation is finalized. Dennis Meek, President of Norwest Bank for the Richfield, Edina and Bloomington area, stated that this covenant will ensure that the buffer area will be maintained. He noted that because they are involved with. lending, investment, and insurance services as well. as banking, the stipulation should be modified to address those aspects of Norwest's business. He also stated that Norwest was in agreement with the restrictive covenant. Responding to Commissioner Linnihan, Mr. Meek defined their operations which encompass banking, lending, investment, and insurance service within the bank building. Responding to Commissioner Stokes, Mr. Meek said that the covenant would not permit them to make changes to the approved plans for the drive -up teller area. Mr. Wallace noted that there may be minor changes to the terminology of the draft restrictive covenant stipulation included in the Planning Commission packet. M/Erlander, S /Gallagher to recommend that the Council add a stipulation at second reading of the Norwest rezoning proposal, requiring that the applicant prepare and record against the property at 6438 and 6444 First Avenue, an instrument which incorporates the site plan, landscaping buffering and access requirements that restricts the future use of the subject parcels. The instrument must be satisfactory, to the City Attorney. and must provide that the restrictions may not be released without the approval of the City Council. Motion carried: 8 -0 PUBLIC HEARING (continued) CASE 93 -RZ-6, Rezone the following MR properties: ITEM #2 901 East 66th St., 6600 -10th Ave., 6615 Elliot Ave., 6614 6615 -10th Ave., 6614 -11th Ave., and parcel at VMP Zoning Administrator Drill reviewed the staff report, stating that this proposal is part of the City's on -going effort to rezone all of the MR land in Richfield. This rezoning was Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1993 Page 6 initiated by the City, and there are no development plans or changes associated with this rezoning. Mr. Drill stated that the MR zone was the original and only multi- family zone dating back to the 1940's and 50's. The MR class is very general, and has little ability to regulate land use. He said that about 15 years ago, the City established the MR -1, MR -2, and MR -3 classifications to better regulate multi- family housing, and to recognize the differences between duplex, small apartment, and large apartment uses. The MR class was to be deleted at that time. Mr. Drill reviewed the rezoning plans for the individual parcels covered by this case. Responding to Commissioner Stokes, Mr. Drill described the area for rezoning within Veterans Memorial Park (VMP). Responding to Commissioner Elliott, Mr. Wallace said that there is still one duplex property along Portland Avenue that the City has not had the opportunity to acquire for park purposes. The public hearing was announced. No one wished to speak on the matter. M/Linnihan, S /Stokes to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 8 -0 M/Scaglia, S /Linnihan to recommend approval of the rezonings. Motion carved: 8 -0 NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Letter #16 ITEM #3 Review of Currency Exchange Use for Inclusion in Ordinance to Regulate Pawn Shops, Secondhand Goods Dealers, and Auction Houses Zoning Administrator Drill reviewed the staff report, stating that the proposed ordinance amendment to regulate pawn shops, secondhand goods dealers, and auction houses was presented to the City Council on October 11. At staff's recommendation, currency exchanges were added to the proposed ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1993 Page 7 Mr. Drill said the Council requested that the Planning Commission review currency exchange uses and make a recommendation as to their inclusion in the proposed ordinance. Currency exchanges are not currently addressed by the zoning code. If they were added to the proposed ordinance, they would be allowed in the C -2 and industrial districts with a conditional use permit. Mr. Drill said currency exchanges have been delineated as uses which have similar characteristics as pawn shops, secondhand goods dealers, and auction houses. Minneapolis, Plymouth, and Bloomington already classify currency exchanges as conditional uses, and other metropolitan cities are also considering making currency exchanges a conditional use. Mr. Drill noted that there is currently one check cashing business in Richfield. Super Cash is located at 6417 Lyndale Avenue. The City has not had any problems with this business, and it would be grandfathered in. Staffs main concern and purpose for the request is that the current zoning code lacks the ability to regulate other currency exchanges that may want to locate in Richfield in the future. Staff feels that currency exchange uses warrant review, and is recommending that they be included in. the ordinance amendment for pawn shops, secondhand goods dealers, and auction houses. Mr. Drill reviewed the attachments, noting that Attachment B incorporates currency exchanges with the same conditions as pawn shops, secondhand goods dealers, and auction houses. Attachment C provides different spacing requirements which are in -line with state licensing guidelines, and also provides some leniency for this use relating the minimum distance from residential zones. Attachment C also regulates hours of operation. Mr. Drill provided the Commissioners with a copy of the police report for Super Cash, and a copy of state law for currency exchange businesses. Responding to Commissioner Wasko, Mr. Drill said that the Planning Commission should review the use and determine what regulations are appropriate for this use. Mr. Wallace emphasized that the Super Cash business has not been a problem for the City. There have been suggestions from City residents that currency exchanges be considered similar to the other uses addressed in the proposed ordinance. He reviewed the problems associated with currency exchanges in Illinois. He also said that the owners of Super Cash were active in improving the image and business in Minnesota. r Wynn Zocher, 6221 -11th Avenue, said that he didn't feel that there was a relationship between auction house and currency exchange businesses. Mr. Wallace said that these uses Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1993 Page 8 were not meant to be connected. He said that these were merely business types that should have specific regulations. Gloria Anderson, owner of Super Cash, said that she was concerned that they may not be able to move to another shopping center location in the future if currency exchanges are included in the ordinance. She said that currency exchanges were regulated by the state through annual review and renewal of their license. Responding to Chairperson Snyder, Mrs. Anderson stated if the ordinance were approved, they would not be permitted to relocate in the Richfield Shoppes, because it is within 100 feet from a residential zone. Mrs. Anderson said that her customers do not want to go to Minneapolis to cash checks, and appreciate their location close to public transit and shopping areas. She described the security measures used inside the business. Responding to Commissioner Stokes, Mrs. Anderson said she felt Super Cash is a good example of the business, but overall, is indicative of the currency exchange industry in Minnesota. She also responded that she did not know the exact percentage of check cashers that belong to the Check Cashers Association, but believes it is well over 50 percent. Responding to Commissioner Elliott, Mrs. Anderson said their Bloomington store is located in the Town and Country Shopping Center, at 7854 Portland Avenue. Responding to Commissioner Wasko, Mrs. Anderson said that their current Richfield location of two years is not working out, and they are interested in moving to a location with more visibility and parking. Responding to Commissioner Erlander, Mrs. Anderson said that about 90 percent of the checks they cash are payroll checks. There are also some welfare checks, tax refunds, and a few personal checks. The amount of checks average about $150 to $200. Commissioner Stokes stated that she was pleasantly surprised when she visited Super Cash. It was clean, safe, and well appointed. She said she was not convinced that currency exchanges should be included in the proposed ordinance. Responding to Commissioner Wasko, Mr. Drill said that the City Council would resume second reading of the ' proposed ordinance on November 8. Mr. Wallace also responded that gun shops are not addressed in the ordinance. Commissioner Erlander said that he feels currency exchanges should be regulated and that he would support including them in the proposed ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1993 Page 9 M/Erlander, S /Gallagher to recommend that the City Council include currency exchanges in the ordinance amendment for pawn shops, secondhand goods dealers. and auction houses, as outlined in Attachment B. Commissioner Elliott discussed possible variances to the distance requirements if currency exchanges are included in the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Scaglia said he felt the issues for currency exchange have not been thoroughly defined or resolved. He said he wasn't comfortable including them at this point. Responding to Commissioner Elliott, Mr. Wallace said that in order for a currency exchange to open at the present time, it would have to be one -half mile away from another currency exchange, would need a state license, and would have to be in a commercial/industrial district, but would not require a conditional use permit. Responding to Commissioner Linnihan, staff or Mrs. Anderson did not know of any pending currency exchange license applications. r Mr. Wallace reviewed the options and alternatives of the Planning Commission regarding this issue. Motion failed: 3 -5 (Elliott, Linnihan, Scaglia, Stokes, and Wasko opposed) M/Linnihan S /Scaglia to recommend that a moratorium be placed on currency exchange uses until an ordinance is developed to regulate such uses. The Planning Commission is to make a recommendation on this matter within their next two meetings. Motion carried: 8 -0 Planning Commission Letter #17 ITEM #4 Third Quarter Report of Administrative Review Committee (ARC) Activities Associate Planner Anastos summarized the staff report. No action was required by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1993 Page 10 LIAISON REPORTS School Board: Commissioner Linnihan briefed the Commission on the progress for the scheduled improvement projects. He also discussed enrollment figures and class size. Community Services Advisory Commission: Commissioner Stokes said the next meeting will be November 30. City Council: Mr. Wallace said that the Council approved the adult uses moratorium; the clinic at Richfield State Agency; and the daycare center at 6341 Penn. HRA: Mr. Wallace said that there will be a residential real estate tour of Richfield next week. He also briefed the Commission on the Project for Pride in Living and Affordable Suburban Housing Program to help organize the owners and managers of apartment complexes within the City. Ad Hoc Traffic Committee: Commissioner Scaglia discussed the recent neighborhood meetings held with residents about the 76th and 77th Street projects. 114, cAIMUN DPLi l The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:20 p.m. Timothy Erlander Planning Commission Secretary J CITY Of R10HRELD rumrwLeoHONmmission Item: #1 Agenda Section: New Business PC Letter: #1 Date: January 25, 1994 GENERAL INFORMATION Subject: Plan Modification Number 7 to the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet (LHN) Commercial Development Improvement Program, which incorporates the Richfield State Agency (RSA) medical office facility into the LHN Commercial Development Improvement Program. Type of Request: Consideration of a resolution finding that LHN Plan Modification Number 7 is in compliance with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan Map. References: Chapter 469 of Minnesota State Statutes requires that the Planning Commission review plan modifications to determine conformance with the comprehensive plan. BACKGROUND Zoning: PC -2 (planned general commercial) Comp. Plan CBD (central business district) Public Notice: Not required City Council: Planning Commission approval would facilitate completion of the Council process prior to the end of March. ANALYSIS Issues: The LHN Commercial Development Improvement Program area encompasses the property bounded by the dashed line in Attachment A. The RSA medical office facility property, as described in Attachment B, lies within the bounded area Plan Modification Number 7 would incorporate the RSA medical office facility property into the LHN Commercial Development Improvement Program.. RECOMMENDATION Recommended Action: Preferred: Adopt the attached resolution, finding that LHN Plan Modification Number 7 is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Basis: 1. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that this property is designated for central business district uses, which includes medical office facilities. 2. Staff review of the proposal finds that Plan Modification Number.7 is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Alternative: Reject the attached resolution, finding that Plan Modification Number 7 does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. However, such action would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. i -as I I i' I I e uoreott•no ooet•w i I f; i I' I I il` i I i III I f ' I e . f ! i i I 1 II: i_ I l / \ L_.1 `111 ept1. e UJ. 1, 1, . • r, s 1 ,,i I I II,.II II •1 JJJ 1 , , Il l/, rj •' t. r a. mw we f I PEI I 1 [0 II11! Il rn I{f•YMT Ave. f Z f - Iu..YO. .re i o w n n it IiIII I II T i : I _ n•nocu •re. — f,I - m o., ere•• .re II I I Illili llll Ye. LYNDALE / HUB / NICOLLETT a COMMERCIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM RICHFIELD, MN ATTACHMENT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 2, Block 1, Richfield Bank Addition RESOLUTION NO. 86 RESOLUTION OF THE.RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING MODIFICATION NO. 7 TO THE LYNDALE /HUB /NICOLLET COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Richfield (City) and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (HRA) to continue to improve and foster development within that portion of the City known as the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area); and WHEREAS, on November 24, 1975, the City Council adopted a redevelopment plan for an urban renewal project for the Project Area entitled the " Lyndale- Hub- Nicollet Commercial Development Improvement Program" (Plan); and WHEREAS, the HRA has identified additional property for acquisition in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the HRA has caused a modified Plan to be prepared and on January 18, 1994, transmitted said Plan to the Richfield Planning Commission (Planning Commission) for review pursuant to Minn. S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (HRA Act) and Minn. Stat., Sections 469.174 to 469.179 (TIF Act) and has requested the written opinion of the Planning Commission regarding the modified Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planing Commission has had an opportunity to review said modified Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds that the modified plan is consistent with the general plans for redevelopment of the City as a whole. Adopted this 25th day of January, 1994 by the Planing Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. ATTEST: Timothy Erlander, Secretary CITY OF RICHFIELD, MMNNF.SOTA William Snyder, Chairperson CITY Of R10HRELD rtnnnmra oommsssion letter Item: #2 Agenda Section: New Business PC Letter: #2 Date: January 25, 1994 GENERAL INFORMATION Subject: Acquisition and disposition of 6625 Stevens Avenue by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). Type of Request: Consideration of a resolution finding that the proposed use of 6625 Stevens Avenue is in conformance with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan. References: Chapter 462 of Minnesota State Statutes requires that whenever any public agency buys or sells property within the City, the Planning Commission must review the proposed use of the site for consistency with the city's comprehensive plan. BACKGROUND Zoning: R- residence Comp. Plan Single family (see attached map) Proposed Use: Single family residential Public Notice: Not required City Council: Planning Commission approval would facilitate the acquisition /disposition of this property by the Council in a timely manner. ANALYSIS Issues: The proposed new home would be built through the Richfield Rediscovered Program. RECOMMENDATION Recommended Action: Preferred: Adopt the attached resolution, finding that the proposed acquisition /disposition and use of the subject property is in conformance with the. Comprehensive Plan. Basis: 1. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that this lot is designated for single family residential use. 2. This lot meets the area and width requirement for a home in the R district. Alternative: Reject the attached resolution, finding that the proposed use of the subject property does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. However, such action would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. RESOLUTION NO. 87 RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD PLANNING COMNIISSION FINDING THAT THE ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan regarding the acquisition and disposition of property located at 6625 Stevens Avenue South, described as follows: The north one -half of the west one -half of Lot 6, Goodspeeds' Second Plat. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the acquisition and disposition of such property for single family residential purposes would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning, Commission finds that the acquisition and disposition of the above described property, for single-family residential use, is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Adopted this 25th day of January, 1994 by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA William Snyder, Chairperson ATTEST: Timothy Erlander, Secretary . I I r ••.: V 33 a„t w ® iii — — - — ?:+1,E `a `—. Lei` -.:. • _ ,,.... M hrt ..Jil lllllll4l tttugtltt IIuttlitt .'i•`?':"' • llli '.'"" , r. • •••• . : .:: : IM n.• M lilt°taii(:::::::'`::': .trcrrnrrr n mrrm , :- r,;r^.- ::...::'.:::.: • • ..:.,_:: • ,.. M t.n./. w " - —'• t'1' n < _trtttlt n:: , r.nr IT7 (C —_ r` 1!`/f' -"' — +1, 1m11 „•• ` tom .,,::.::.`: _` o.o M - err.. s . . r, rC''•c- 461I^ M - T ,, Utrar,rrr _ _a } r_• 1j j ... t,,,,P„ .. °; f I _ C F .. ` r _' J= `+- : c'''+iii •J1L111111 i.... IS1 dIDm"i w =.: usuuue uuiuuti xra'c".;. .. l iitl '1!I!1 Ktur• w t :tss ssssm aseRrrcn --__ .maim liiiifmmm `1B ID!D ' n'mG:f w w. • -y,J t CI. —= f — I (( jj/j}7J,'. ' — Gn,P M. t,,.•,,,,I. "..111 "IMI *.u,^.n^' ;, ..;t":,:- nrn tllllfl f11111_ct!Lntt, j:•,y •;; •'•nurrurrnrrcrn murruurnnts•.+ w _ ^ 1(; cc7tr RL ATrfliirn tTf1 -i 7 TiiTlifiTfl iiiPRIITI Ti.......... w• M — — I II_ I_ 1= ^rte nT C .: rw o M ,•; r —, ,-. "rr? i—lir- ;vc_r''t mcr ref r "::r: ^ -R. 7.'Tfl•r^ ^r. nl! mttt, ll, :^. :!. l 1/I fS V• s w • el a a J "?,' A 1.T.i` •l Jr•1y(— i P_ ^ ) j'`ir'T° j,ryJ c )''•i,.1• UL. - -L- J n. w W Z G N Z W G O W W O W o> W Z W a 0 v fn In 1 C C v z s ° J _ l u 5 2= c L U $ c a 0.= 'o° .7. `v= os _ off.= a Z 2 .0 Gu rJ O 5:7S G VUci7 N1 1 t'1 I Q U U C 1 • E E z W to x m sQz2eo z a Lon Lon i-- v o o LE _ oa V o =° ao Ce a0 0 P- C CID o Opu cl o I>D u E CITY Of R10HRELD Pwmn6°o «meson Item: #3 Agenda Section: New Business PC Letter: #3 Date: January 25, 1994 GENERAL INFORMATION Subject: Consideration of an ordinance amendment to regulate parking in the front yards of R and R -1 zoned lots. References: See attachment. ANALYSIS Background: Last summer, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on the establishment of new parking areas in the front yards of single and two family dwellings. Administrative standards were also adopted by resolution, to allow such new parking areas if .specific conditions could be met. The Council is requesting that the planning Commission study the issues involved with front yard parking, and with the appropriate zoning controls to regulate such parking. Issues: The City's current zoning ordinance does not address the issue of parking in front yards of single family districts. Over the past several years, the City Council and staff have received several complaints that this land use is not regulated. Many residents have requested that an ordinance be approved to limit the amount of parking allowed in front yards. In a few cases, people have paved over or graveled their entire front yard to the lot line, effectively making it a parking lot. One individual has had as many as eight vehicles parked in the front yard at a time. In this case — and much to the City's chagrin -- there were no controls available because all the vehicles were operable, licensed, and parked on an established driveway. The Environmental Health Division states that several people who want to park additional cars in their front yard point to this property, and suggest that they want to do the same thing. Several issues regarding establishment of new parking areas should be considered. They include the following: 1) setback from abutting residential lot lines; 2) surface treatment - note: most metropolitan cities do not allow gravel; 3) limit on the amount of impervious surface within the front yard area; 4) limit on the number of parking spaces allowed within the front yard area; 5) regulations for that portion of the driveway which lies within the boulevard; 6) should a city permit be required for new parking areas in the front yard? RECOMMENDATION Recommended Action: Preferred: Discuss and review the issues; recommend that the City Council approve an ordinance amendment to regulate front yard parking in the R and R -1 districts. A sample ordinance is provided, however, the Planning Commission should feel free to make any changes it feels appropriate. Basis: 1. The current zoning ordinance does not adequately regulate parking in front yards of the single family districts. An ordinance would provide regulatory control to: minimize, to the extent possible, the amount of impervious surface in the City to control the quality and quantity of storm water run -off; protect aesthetics of the City; and protect property values of the neighborhood. 2. The duplex (MR -1) district is not included in the sample ordinance at this time because we have not experienced the same problems in these areas. If parking controls for the MR -1 district are deemed necessary at a later time, consideration should be given to make them more lenient based on the higher density of land use and a practical need for more parking with two dwelling units. Alternative: 1. Conduct further study and discussion of the issues. 2. Recommend the City Council not adopt an ordinance to regulate such front yard parking at this time. 515.05. Accessory uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are accessory uses in the R district. Amend Subds. 10, 11, and 12 to read as follows: Subd. 10. Private driveways. parking areas, and sidewalks provided the following conditions are met: a) all such driveways. parking areas, and sidewalks shall be setback no less than one foot from any lot line abutting another parcel. except that with certain hardship cases or shared access agreements, the Director may reduce or rescind this setback reauirement: b) all such driveways, parking areas. and sidewalks be constructed with concrete, asphalt, concrete pavers. brick set in compacted sand. or other material approved by the Director: c) unless the Director authorizes a greater amount for landscape purposes. the maximum driveway, parking -mea, and sidewalk coverage within the front yard area shall comply with the following-table: g Lot Width Maximum Coverage Within the Front Yatd Area 50 feet or less: 507. 1-60 feet: 4 8 30 61 -70 feet: 46% 71 -80 feet: 44% over 80 feet: 42% d) within the front yard area, no more than three parking spaces shall be permitted. The area between each garage stall and the street shall count as one parking space: e) driveways, where located within the boulevard, are subject to the following requirements: i) they shall not exceed 22 feet in width (curb cut radii excluded): 60 curb cut radii (five feet minimum) shall not encroach upon the boulevard of adjacent property* iii) on corner lots, driveways must be setback at least 30 feet from an intersection, as measured from the point where the extended curb lines of the streets intersect: L) only one curb cut shall be permitted from a public street to an interior lot. A corner lot may have one curb cut from each public street, provided the driveway setback requirement in item (iii) above is met: and v) items (i), 60, (iii), and (iv) above may be varied by the Director upon a showing of necessity and public convenience. f1 driveways_ parking areas, and sidewalks legally existing on or before January 1. 1994, may continue to exist and to be repaired and maintained except that upon full replacement, such driveway, parking area. or sidewalk shall comply with this subdivision. Subd. 4-211. AnteneeAntennas and towers conforming to section 425 of hlt6 lie city code. CC= W ° D PLANNM COMMISSION Letter Item: #4 Agenda Section: New Business PC Letter: #4 Date: January 25, 1994 GENERAL INFORMATION Subject: Fourth Quarter Report of Administrative Review Committee (ARC) activity References: 1. Activity Report (attached) 2. Summary of cases (attached) BACKGROUND Purpose: The planning staff feels it is important to keep the Planning Commission informed of ARC activities. A report of ARC activities is prepared on a quarterly basis. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended Action: Review the attached ARC materials. No discussion or decision is necessary. The report is for informational purposes, however, feel free to contact planning staff if you have any questions or comments. ARC- 4QU.DOC DATE December 29, 1993 ARC- 4QU.DOC ADMMSTRATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIVITY REPORT FOURTH QUARTER OF 1993 APPLICANT ADDRESS REQUEST Michael Thornton 7644 Knox Avc. Conditional use permit to allow automotive sales and service. SUMMARY OF CASES Michael Thornton, 7644 Knox Ave- reviewed request for a conditional use permit to allow automotive sales and repair operations. Applicant is in the process of preparing complete site plans. ARC- 4QU.DOC