Loading...
02-21-1995CITY OF RIOFIFIELD Punnin r n m on February 21, 1995 7:00 p.m. -- Regular Meeting 19 Special Meeting of January 10, 1995. GU X, AWS X: X ...... PC LETTER #2 Election of Planning Commission Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Secretary 2 PC Letter #3 Appointment of liaisons 3 PC Letter #4 Approval of PC Bylaws 4 95-ACUP-1 Richfield State Agency 5 95-ACUP-2 Fraser Community Services 6 PC Letter #6 City of Richfield Zoning Ordinance NEWBUSINES. X.. .......... .. ... .... .. .... I .......... X 7 OL.Q..... I SUSIN S XX ... ............ X. XLIAIS0N:T': REPORTS School Board Community Services Advisory Commission HRA City Council AdHoc 135/1494 Traffic Committee soomp... ... X: X : X:.: NADJOURNMENT' W 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 COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting January 10, 1995 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela Dmytrenko, Timothy Erlander, David Gepner, Thomas Scaglia, William Snyder, Kristal Stokes, and Paul Wasko MEMBERS ABSENT: Morris Nilsen II COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor STAFF PRESENT: Byron Wallace, Community Development Director; Bill Weaver, City Planner. The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 95 -Z -1, 7301 Penn Avenue South ITEM #1 Dunrite Automotive Amendment to the Zoning Code to Permit Auto Repair in the C -1 Zoning District. Community Development Director Wallace reviewed the staff report, describing the proposed amendment attached in the packet. He further described the changes proposed to section 520.01. He also described the changes to sub.520.03,sub.2 and the requirements as proposed under section 1195a. He stated that neither were in the zoning ordinance as such. He further stated that the proposed change was an amendment to expand permitted uses in the C -1 zoning district. He further described that the philosophy of the neighborhood business district or C -1 was to encourage and permit neighborhood oriented businesses, businesses that provide services or Planning Commisison Minutes January 10, 1995 Page 2 commodities primarily for the immediate neighborhood. Garages are not allowed and specifically not local service businesses. He described the proposal as permitting specialized minor mechanical repair centers licensed under Section 1195a of the city code. He read the definition of the business as defined in Section 1195a of the proposed amendment. He stated that included in this definition would be virtually all auto repair shops in the city except those that do body work or engine replacement. A muffler or quick oil change, etc. would be allowed. An auto detailing business would be allowed and the definition is an expansion not a contraction of the definition of the businesses that would be allowed. He also described the zoning ordinance as being a cumulative ordinance, uses permitted in a lower designation are allowed in a higher one as well. Auto repair businesses such as the one proposed would also be permitted without the location restrictions which would normally apply in those other zones, e.g. distance from residential, buffer and screening. This factor is acknowledged in the proposed licensing agreement. He also noted the proposed amendment only permitted auto repair in the C -1 as a replacement for an auto detailing establishment. Wallace argued that such a requirement would likely be upheld as discriminatory if a like businesses was ever denied. Other problems with the proposal include the difficulty of enforcement of such provisions as the 80% appointment requirement. He stated that if the 80% of business by appointment requirement is a way of working around a potential parking problem then the parking problem should be met head on. Such a provision could also limit the ability of customers to drop off their cars during non - business hours. He described the problems of car repair businesses in residential areas. He described the issue as being one of proximity to the adjoining residential uses, and that perhaps the best buffer for such businesses is distance; a factor recognized in both "C -2" and "I" districts. Buffering is not recognized in the proposed amendment. This would reduce the protection to a level below that of the least restrictive district reduced our requirements in those districts as well. Recommendation of staff that the ordinance not be approved. Chairperson Linnihan asked if items 5 through 12 in the proposed amendment would be considered enforcement issues and if it is reasonable to assume that enforcement and monitoring of the issues was typically done on a complaint basis? Wallace responded that it would be fair statement. Gary Ganrude 7090 S. 7th Street. He stated he was representing the land owner Sue Aram. He stated on behalf of the land owner that they would not have presumed to come before the Council and Planning Commission on something that would have a city wide effect and that was adverse to the neighborhood. He referenced the staff report as being written without the licensing requirements in mind. Planning Commision Minutes January 10, 1995 Page 3 He stated that they were attempting to do similarly as when the auto detailing shop was originally put in place. He described how the original licensing requirement only allowed a detailing establishment to be located on a site previously occupied by a service station. He stated it was in the code today and that they were proposing that specialized minor mechanical repair center only go in a site previously used as a detailing shop in a C -1 district. He stated that they did not intend any change to Richfield other than the location in question. He commented on enforcement by describing that the 80% appointment requirement is common to the way the proposed operator now works. He commented on the enforcement concerns by saying that a business should be given the benefit of the doubt and not presumed to violate requirements. He stated that the definition of minor mechanical was created to limit what was going in and also as a way to let the neighborhood know that the business would be one that would fix their cars and not commercial vehicles. He further stated that there was a higher turn over of vehicles with auto detailing than with auto repair because it took longer to repair than to clean a vehicle. He stated that they were proposing something that the neighbors would look upon-as an asset. He described the owner as operating in a similar neighborhood that finds his services of benefit and compatible: He introduced the land owner Sue Aram. Sue Aram, owner of 7301 Penn Avenue, described how she bought and developed the business. Because she was physically unable to speak further Gary Grobe her real estate agent spoke for her. He reported that Sue had purchased the property when it was a closed gas station and that she proceeded to improve the property for a large amount of money. He described that she was personally in the shop during that time and on a very limited basis detailed cars. She closed the shop for health reasons about a year and half ago. He described their marketing efforts. He stated that the market value was $325,000. He also stated that the current buyer is someone who has the financial capability and who will run the operation in a very forthright manner. Gordon Jensen, attorney in Brooklyn Park represents applicant, Mr. Jensen stated that there were several things needing consideration: 1. The issue of local business versus metro /regional. He stated that the detail shop had a very regional scope of service and was not a local business. He stated that the Planning Commission and staff did recommend a detailing shop at the time of its approval. He was corrected by Commissioner Erlander who said that the commission had opposed it at that time and was overruled by the Council. Jensen felt that it was important to look at the type of business operating there previously. 2. The specific building structure itself and its possible uses. He referenced staff's reporting that the building could be used for other uses. He stated that Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 1995 Page 4 the design of the building is for motor vehicle servicing and very adaptable to the current buyers use. 3. List of current C -1 uses. He noted that some of the other property could be modified to function as a repair facility. He referenced buffers and cited the Car -X muffler shop and the issue of such facilities being adjacent to residential. He recognized that the Car -X was in a C -2 not a C -1 zone. His purpose for bringing it up was to point out that the Car -X muffler shop could go into a C -1 with the amendment in place. Jensen noted that the current muffler shop was adjacent to residential property. He stated that Mr. Rubin's request was not for a more intensive use and not inconsistent with actions taken by the City so far. He also stated that it was not going to lead to a proliferation of auto repair facilities in the C -1 zone. It would in fact come to be a more limited and localized business than auto detailing which was currently on the site. He then introduced Tom Rubin. Tom Rubin described his current location and how he operated his business and his relationship with the City of Minneapolis. He also noted that he would act on any complaints he received and that his business would not consciously violate a regulation. He stated they would ask that their customers comply with the city's requests. He described his participation in the neighborhood organizations in their current neighborhood. He stated they were targeting the Richfield area business and presented the commission with before and after pictures of the location of his business. He described the qualifications of his employees. Commissioner Stokes asked about the kind of repairs to be made. Rubin replied that they would be limited to general engine work, transmission servicing and not overhaul, and they would not stock tires. There would be four electric hoists and air compressor to run hand tools. He said with the doors closed he could not conceive of a noise problem. He stated that the equipment used to wash and clean cars probably would make more noise than that made by auto repair within the garage. Chairperson Linnihan asked about hours of operation, specifically the definition of open. Rubin responded by saying it was a time when people could bring or pick up there cars. Linnihan asked if it was possible that work on cars would occur after 7:00 PM? Rubin replied that work would not extend beyond 7:00 P.M. if the City requested, at his current location they don't work beyond 7:00 P.M. Commissioner Linnehan asked if this facility would be used for overflow from the south Minneapolis site? Rubin replied that it was his intention to expand business into Richfield since the Minneapolis shop is only two bays. He couldn't see that expanding to Richfield could cause a major problem. Commission Linnihan stated that if he were Planning Commission Meeting January 10, 1995 Page 5 in similar situation that he could see that moving cars from one location to another would be a likely occurrence if the one location had more space than the other. Commissioner Wasko stated that he was interested in discussions with neighbors. He asked what makes Richfield an attractive location? Rubin replied that he complied with staff suggestion to go to neighbors within 350 feet. Over 50% indicated they were in favor. The building attracted him to Richfield. His market research indicated that it was also a good location. He also felt its close proximity to other shops would make it an easy commute. Commissioner Linnihan called for other questions. Community Development Director Wallace indicated that staff's position is not to make general changes in an ordinance based on a particular individual. He noted Mr. Rubin's acknowledgment of the difficulty of policing certain issues and that sometimes violations do occur. He stated he hadn't seen a Midas muffler that operated in the summer with the doors closed. He was more worried about how this amendment would permit such a business to locate in a C -2 zone and by- passing the current restrictions on distance and buffer. The Car -X was C -2 but was grandfathered in it had been a long standing repair business prior to the current zoning definitions. Commissioner Linnihan invited the audience to speak and explained the ground rules. Marilyn Randow, 68th & Harriet, gave positive testimony for Dunrite describing Dunrite's quality etc.; she encouraged approved. Harlan Skjefte, 7335 Penn Avenue, said that he talked to neighbors and discovered that nothing had been brought up during the petition signing about a change in ordinance. He represented a group of neighbors who felt that an auto repair center would lower their property values. He presented a petition containing 38 signatures of people opposed to the amendment. He stated that he had driven by Dunrite's existing shop and noted that there were a number of cars in their lot for more than one day as indicted by the presence of snow. He also observed that there were three cars being repaired outdoors. He presented the commission with a photo of the Dunrite business in Minneapolis. Michael Petty, 7245 Oliver Avenue, opposed the placement of an auto repair shop in the neighborhood. He noted also that C -1 businesses were all closed. He said that the Minneapolis location is in a commercial area and not isolated within a residential neighborhood. He reinforced the need to preserve residential. Robert L Hall ,7309 Oliver Avenue, spoke against the amendment. He noted that there was no mention of change in ordinance when the petition was circulated to Planning Commission Minutes January 10,1 995 Page 6 gain signatures for the amendment. He described at least four different stories regarding the proposed business. He described other neighborhood concerns ranging from pollution to traffic. He said that if the amendment were approved it would be a change in direction for the neighborhood, which continues to be reinforced as a residential neighborhood. Greg Mulligan, 7227 Oliver Avenue, also spoke against it suggesting the commission should take great care to adjust an ordinance without a compelling reason. M /Scaglia, S/Wasko to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 8 -0 Commissioner Stokes asked if petitions were required and how they were verified. Corrine Heine, assistant city attorney stated that there were no requirements for a petition and the petitions were those indicated by staff as a means of informing neighbors of the nature of the change in property use. Commissioner Stokes also wanted the person in the audience who brought it up to be aware of the fact that setbacks were not the issue. Commissioner Scaglia moved for denial of the request for amendment. Commissioner Erlander seconded, noting that he was the only member of the Planning Commission who was present when the original amendment permitting auto detailing was considered. He expressed his concern and described how he had been opposed to the amendment which allowed a detailing establishment on the basis that attempts would be made later to change the use. He stated that the character of the applicant was not at question, but rather it was more important to understand that a change in ordinance cannot be made because of someone's good character. Commissioner Scaglia stated that the proposed amendment was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that it indeed is a use that adversely effects the neighborhood. The issue is not enforcement but one of compatibility. Commissioner Erlander stated that the site was C -1 because of earlier intentions to change the area. He noted also, that a nonconforming use is allowed until 'a change occurs, at which point the land will start being used for what the zoning was originally intended. He stated that in this case the site will be returned to C--1 rather than allow the garage that was there before. Chairperson Linnihan described how he had driven by the existing Dunrite and that he had no doubt that the business could be an asset to Richfield, but that it just wasn't going to work at this site. He expressed concerns about the precedent Planning Commision Janaury 10, 1995 Page 7 regarding future use if the. business failed. He felt the precedent would be set for more changes that were not compatible. He could not support the amendment based on those concerns at a minimum. Commissioner Wasko stated he was concerned about increased incursion of more commercial into residential neighborhoods. He stated that the amendment was not consistent with both existing and proposed Comprehensive Plan. He is not in favor of the amendment for that reason. Commissioner Stokes concurred that their desire to vote against the amendment was not a reflection on Rubin's business ability. She stated that the focus was on landuse and she was concerned that the amendment was very site specific but had implications in other areas. She understood that it brought traffic, noise and parking infringements on residential areas. Commissioner Dmytrenko concurred with others. She believed in integrity of zoning code, and that the residential neighborhood should not be threatened. She could not support the amendment. Commissioner Snyder stated that the problem went beyond Penn but rather all C -1 areas He felt that if exception was made at Penn then a precedent would be set to do so at other areas. He felt the issue was not the individual but more the consistency of the City of Richfield and the C -1 zoning ordinance. There for that reason he would vote against the amendment. Commissioner Gepner stated that while he was a proponent of business in this instance he felt conformity of the community was important and for that reason vote against the amendment. Chairperson Linnihan stated that in view of the occurrence in 1986 he would suggest an amendment to the staff recommendation to solidify the commission position including language that would allow for the return of the issue to the commission if the City Council disagrees with the recommendation. He suggested that the alternative recommendation be deleted from the staff report to the City Council he felt that this would let the Council know that the Planning Commission felt very strongly about its recommendation. He also suggested that representatives of the Planning Commission make the presentation to the City Council. M /Scaglia, S /Erlander to recommend denial of the request to amend the City of Richfield Zoning Code and City Code. Planning Commission Minutes Janaury 10, 1995 Page 8 Motion carried: 9 -0 OLD BUSINESS The commission briefly discussed suggested formats for a public letter describing the need for an adult use ordinance. It was also suggested that written correspondence would be accepted in lieu of attendance at the public hearing. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:15 p.m. C— Timothy Erlander Planning Commission Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 24, 1995 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela Dmytrenko, Timothy Erlander, David Gepner, Thomas Scaglia, William Snyder, Kristal Stokes, and Paul Wasko MEMBERS ABSENT: Morris Nilsen II COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor STAFF PRESENT: Byron Wallace, Community Development Director; Bill Weaver, City Planner The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M Stokes, S/ Erlander to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of November 22, 1994; Special meeting of December 6, 1994; Study session of December 13, 1994 Motion carried: 8 -0 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 95 -ACUP -1,407 West 66th Street ITEM #1 Richfield State Agency Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Commissioner Linnihan requested a continuance of the issue to the February meeting in order to enable staff to follow up on concerns previously expressed by neighbors regarding traffic impacts. Planning Commission Minutes Janaury 24, 1995 Page 2 M/Stokes, S/Erlander to continue the public hearing to the next regular planning commission meeting in February. Motion carried: 8 -0 ITEM #2 PC Letter 1, Presentation and further discussion of the proposed Adult Use Ordinance Community Development Director Wallace presented the proposed adult use ordinance and its provisions. He noted that the proposed ordinance represented the culmination of considerable study and review of other approaches. He decided to high light the process. No one came into the open house held at 5:30 PM, January 24, 1995 and he had a letter from the Richfield Church of Christ supporting the amendment and received a phone call from the pastor of the church in New Ford Town. He described the type of regulation of adult uses one regulates the zoning through the zoning amendment. He summarized the U.S. Supreme Court decisions that adult uses cannot be completely excluded from a community, they did indicate that adult uses could be regulated however. The regulations must be based on the secondary effects resulting from the presence of an adult use in a particular neighborhood. They cannot be regulated on the bases of the material or the entertainment provided, only the effect. He summarized the studies done by other communities. He summarized the two approaches for dealing with adult uses, one by concentrating them in one area and the other to disperse them. The staff and Planning Commission recommended disperse. The requirements include distance from particularly sensitive landuses such as residence districts and schools. He state we were not required to provide a location for them or find a place for them. He described the two ways in Richfield has come to regulate adult uses. The first is through the zoning ordinance. He described the particular elements of the zoning ordinance that regulated adult the location of adult uses. He described the area as representing about two per- cent of the entire city and 19.8 % of the commercial districts within the city. He referenced that the City of Richfield has only had one section of its city code which addressed adult uses that was section 605. The second approach or part of the regulation is found in section 1196 Adult Establishments. He summarized the ordinance. Wallace asked Commissioner Erlander if he had any questions or issues that arose as a result of his presentations to civic organizations. Erlander stated that his impression was that most people understood the basis for the ordinance and the approach. He also reiterated that we were limited by Supreme Court findings which formed the basis for regulating adult uses. Planning Commission Minutes Janaury 24, 1995 Page 3 Wallace entered a letter from the Richfield Church of Christ into the record. The letter was in support of the adult use ordinances. He then asked the commission if they had any further questions. Russ Susag , 7305 First Avenue, expressed his appreciation and that of the City Council . Roger Stearn of the Richfield Board of Education read a resolution passed by the board supporting the adult use ordinance. Larry Wozniczka, 6746 Wentworth Avenue, suggested that 66th, 76th and 77th Streets also be considered entry points M/Scaglia, S/Erlander to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 8 -0 M/Erlander S /Scaglia to recommend the City Council approve request for amendment to Sections 520.15, 525.01 and 530.13 of the Richfield Zoning Code. with the provision that l 196 05 with the addition of Cedar Avenue be included. Motion carried: 8 -0 NEW BUSINESS OLD BUSINESS LIAISON REPORTS School Board: Commission Dmytrenko reported that the school board rejected a request by a religious school to become a charter school. Community Services Advisory Commission: 1' City Council: Director Wallace reported on the progress of the CSM project. Ad Hoc Traffic Committee: Planning Commission Minutes Janaury 24, 1995 Page 4 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:00 p.m. 4-41;-mothyy Erlander Planning Commission Secretary CITY OF R10HRELD Pwnnin6 commission Pc Letter Item: #1 Agenda Section: New Business PC Letter: #2 Date: February 21, 1995 GENERAL INFORMATION Subject: Election of Planning Commission Chairperson, Vice — Chairperson, and Secretary. Type of Request: Annual organizational meeting. References: 1. Chapter III, Section 305.5, Subd. 1 -8 of Richfield City Code attached). 2. Planning Commission Bylaws (attached). RECOMMENDATION Recommended Ar•tinn Preferred: Elect a Planning Commission Chairperson, Vice — Chairperson, and Secretary. Basis: The above action is required by the Planning Commission Bylaws. Alternative: N/A BACKGROUND Public Notices: None Hearing: None Examiner: None Public Hearing: None Planning: Commission: None City Council: None ANALYSIS Issues: The Bylaws require that the Planning Commission hold an annual organizational meeting and elect from its membership a Chairperson, Vice — Chairperson and Secretary at the first regular meeting in February. According to the Bylaws (Part II, Organization), a majority vote is necessary to first elect a Chairperson and second to elect the remaining officers. The Chairperson, Vice — Chairperson, and Secretary are to take office immediately upon election and hold office until their successors are elected next year. The Chairperson is responsible for conducting all Planning Commission meetings and public hearings. The Chairperson is also responsible for working with city administration in the planning function. The Vice — Chairperson is responsible for the duties of the Chairperson in the event the Chairperson is absent. The Secretary is responsible for the minutes of the Planning Commission. 1994 election results were Chairperson Linnihan, Vice — Chairperson Stokes and Secretary Erlander. ME CRY OF RICfIf1ELD Puinnm oommission PO Latta# Item: #2 Agenda Section: New Business PC Letter: #3 Date: February 2l, 1995 GENERAL INFORMATION Subject: Appointment of liaisons to the Community Services Advisory Commission, City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority, School Board. Type of Request: Annual organizational meeting. References: 1. Chapter III, Section 305.5, Subd. 1-8 of Richfield City Code. 2. Planning Commission Bylaws. RECOMMENDATION Recommended' Action: Preferred: The following Planning Commission actions are recommended: Approve members to serve as liaison and alternate liaison to the Community Services Advisory Board, City Council, HRA, and School Board., Basis: The above action is required by the Planning Commission Bylaws. Alternative: N/A ANALYSIS Issues: Community Services Advisory Commission: The resolution establishing the Community Services Advisory Commission provides that a liaison and alternate from the Planning Commission be appointed to the Community Services Advisory Commission. The Community Services Advisory commission meets on the second Tuesday of the month at 7:00 p.m., generally in the Conference Room'at City Hall. The Planning Commission should appoint two members to serve as liaison and alternate liaison to the Community Services Advisory Commission. Commissioner Stokes, served as liaison and Commissioner Scaglia served as alternate liaison to the Community Services Advisory Commission in 1994. City Council: The City Council meets every second and fourth Monday at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Byron Wallace served as the City Council liaison for the Planning Commission in 1994. Housing and Redevelopment Authority: The Housing and Redevelopment Authority meets every third Monday at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Byron Wallace served as the Housing and Redevelopment Authority liaison for the Planning Commission in 1994. School Board: The Commission also appoints a liaison and alternate liaison to the School Board. The School Board generally meets the first and third Monday of each month at 7:00 p.m., and the location alternates from school to school. Commissioner Dmytrenko served as liaison to the School Board, Commissioner Linnihan served as alternate liaison for the Planning Commission 1994. Ad Hoc Traffic Committee: The Ad Hoc Committee membership terms are open and end upon resignation or upon a member no longer serving with a Commission. The Committee does not have specific schedule but meets sporadically depending on what topics need consideration. Chairperson Linnihan, Commissioners Snyder and Wasko served on the Ad Hoc Traffic Committee for 1994. CITY Of RICHFIELD PuminG oommission PC Letter Item: #3 Agenda Section: New Business PC Letter: #4 Date: February 21, 1995 GENERAL INFORMATION Subject: Approval of Planning Commission Bylaws. Type of Request: Annual review of Planning Commission Bylaws. References: 1. Chapter III, Section 305.5, Subd. 1 -8 of Richfield City Code. 2. Planning Commission Bylaws. RECOMMENDATION Recommended Action: Preferred: Review the attached Planning Commission Bylaws. Basis: The above action is required in the Planning Commission Bylaws. Alternative: N/A BACKGROUND Purpose: Provide an opportunity to the Planning Commission to review the Bylaws. Amendments are covered by Section 2. of Part III of the Bylaws requiring presentation at one meeting and 2/3 vote at the following meeting. Public Notice: N/A The following Bylaws and Rules of procedure are adopted by the City's Planning Commission to facilitate the performance of its duties and functions as empowered under Chapter III, Section 305.05, Subdivision 1 -8 of the City Ordinance Code. Section 1. Regular Meetings Regular meetings of the Planning Commission shall be on the fourth Tuesday of each month commencing at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall. When the regular meeting date conflicts with the State designated precinct caucus, the regular meeting will be held on the second Tuesday of said month at the same time and place. Section 2. General Planning Meetings The second Tuesday of every month shall be reserved for discussing and deliberating on general planning matters related to the property development and future well -being of the Community. Section 3. Special Meetings Special meetings of the Planning Commission can be called by the Chairperson and one member or by three members of the Commission or at the request of the City Council. Notice, designating the time and place of the meetings, shall be given to all members not less than twenty -four (24) hours in advance thereof. Section 4. Deadline for Hearing Items The Planning Commission will accept all applications to be heard before it, no later than fifteen (15) working days preceding the regular Planning Commission meeting. Upon written notice to the Community Development Director prior to the Planning Commission meeting, an application may be withdrawn. Once an application is withdrawn, it must be refiled with the Community Development Department, City of Richfield, before any Planning Commission hearing is held. Section S. Quorum Five members of the Planning Commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. No action shall be taken in the absence of a quorum with the exception that the Planning Commission members present may take testimony for use at. a later meeting at which a quorum is present, and may adjourn a meeting to a later time without further notice. Section 6. Voting At all meetings of the Planning Commission, each member attending shall be entitled to cast one vote. Voting shall be by voice and an affirmative vote of at least four members present shall be necessary for the passage of any matter before the Planning Commission, except as otherwise provided in these Bylaws. Section 7. Proceedings a) b) Format of Meeting At a regular meeting of the Planning Commission, the following format shall be followed in conducting the business of the meeting. 1) Roll Call 2) Approval of Minutes 3) Regular Business and 4) New Business 5) Old Business 6) Liaison Reports 7) Adjournment Public Hearing Public Hearing Items The purpose of a hearing is to collect information and facts in order for the Commission to develop a planning recommendation for the City Council. At a public hearing the following procedure shall be followed for each case for which a public hearing is held: 2- 1) Chair shall state the case to be heard. 2) Chair shall call upon the Community Development Director or designee to present the staff report. 3) Chair shall ask the applicant to present his /her case. 4) Members of the Planning Commission shall be allowed to question the applicant about his /her proposal. 5) Interested persons may address the Commission, giving relevant information regarding the proposal before the Commission. a) All questions or statements by Richfield staff personnel, planning commissioners, applicants or interested citizens will be directed through the. Chair. b) All who wish to speak will be heard, but only in accordance with the above procedure and after recognition by the Chair. c) No individual may speak longer than five (5) minutes, except through previous arrangement with the Chair, or by vote of the Commission. d) The spokesperson for a group will be allowed ten (10) minutes. e) In addition to the statements by individual or groups, there will be a period, not to exceed thirty 30 minutes, during which the public may question the City's staff members present, the applicant or their representatives or any member of the Planning Commission. Questions must be directed through the Chair. 6) The hearing shall be closed. Interested persons shall not be heard again unless the hearing is reopened by a majority vote of the Commission. 7) The Commission shall discuss and clarify the item before it, and take action on it. 3- 8) Any decision of the Commission on the merits of any planning question before it shall be embodied in the form of a motion, resolution, or report, and referred to the City Council for action. c) Rules of Procedure At all regular meetings of the Planning Commission where formal action is required on a matter before the Commission, the meetings shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order. At general meetings of the Planning Commission no formal parliamentary procedure shall govern the conduct of the proceedings unless found to be necessary such as when a formal motion is before the Commission. Section 1. Election of Officers At the first regular meeting in February of each year, the Commission shall hold an organizational meeting and elect from its membership a Chairperson, Vice - chairperson, and Secretary. Each member shall cast a ballot for the member he /she wishes to be elected Chairperson. If no one receives a majority of all the members of the Commission, balloting shall continue until one member receives majority support. Vice - chairperson and Secretary shall be elected from the remaining members by the same procedure. If the Chairperson resigns from office before the next regular organization meeting, the Vice - chairperson shall automatically become acting Chairperson. If both Chairperson and Vice - chairperson resign, the Secretary shall become acting Chairperson. In any instance, where an officer of the Commission resigns or retires from office a new officer shall be elected to the vacated position at the next regular meeting of the Commission. If the Chairperson, Vice - chairperson, and Secretary are absent from a meeting, the Commission shall elect a temporary Chairperson by voice vote. In the event that the Secretary is absent from a meeting, the Chairperson shall appoint a member of the Commission to approve the minutes of that meeting. 4- Section 2. Tenure The Chairperson, Vice - chairperson, and Secretary shall take office immediately following their election and hold office until their successors are elected and assume office. Section 3. Duties of Officers The duties and powers of the officers of the Planning Commission shall be as follows: a) Chairperson 1) Presides over all meetings of the Commission. 2) Appoints committees and performs such other duties as may be ordered by the Commission. 3) Signs documents of the Commission. 4) Sees that all actions of the commission are properly taken. 5) Calls special meetings of the Commission in accordance with these Bylaws. 6) Works with appropriate city staff in organizing agendas of.all general Planning Commission meetings. b) Vice - chairperson Performs all of the duties and responsibilities of the Chairperson in his /her absence. c) Secretary 1) Assumes duties and responsibilities of the Chairperson when both Chairperson and Vice - chairperson are absent. 2) Keeps the minutes of the meetings of the Commission in an appropriate minute book. 3) Signs all minutes of the Commission as well as other official documents of the Commission 5- Section 1. Suspension of Rules The Commission may suspend any of these Rules by a 2/3 vote of those members present. Section 2. Amendments These Rules may be amended at any regular meeting by a 2/3 majority of the members of the Commission, provided that the amendment was presented and written into the minutes of a previous meeting. Section 3. Review The contents of these Bylaws and Rules of procedure should be comprehensively reviewed, evaluated, and modified where necessary, at the organization meeting held in February of each year. Adopted this 22nd day of February, 1994. Chairperson, Richfield Planning Commission Secretary, Richfield Planning Commission IM Bylaws[PCBylaw] CITY OF R10HRELD Knnnm oommission Motion Request Item: #4 Agenda Section: Public Hearing Case: #95- ACiJP -1 Date: February 21, 1995 Petitioner: Location: Type of Request: Zoning: Land Use: Comp. Plan: References: Zoning Code: City Code: GENERAL INFORMATION Richfield State Agency 407 West 66th Street Amend Conditional Use Permit PC -2 Planned General Commercial Commercial Central Business District see attached Citations section for excerpts) Section 530.01 - 530.25, 530.41 ACTION Proposed Change: Amend conditional use permit to reflect replacement of curb lane dividers with stripes. Staff Recommendation: Consider the mediation agreement in relation to the conditional use permit request. HISTORY Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Public Hearing: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on February 21, 1995 Hearing Examiner: City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of March 27, 1995. ANALYSIS Background: Approved development plans called for a divided entry/exit median within the northeast entry drive of the site. Construction modifications resulted in replacement of the median with pavement striping. Issues• Two mediation sessions were held with representatives from Richfield State Agency, Abbott Northwestern and the neighbors along Grand Avenue. Mediation results are outlined in the attached as well as the plan referred to in the October 14, 1993 mediation agreement. Approved development plans called for a divided entry/exit access for Grand Avenue with a more northerly oriented alignment. This configuration was the result of concern over a high frequency of left turn traffic off of Grand Avenue and bound for McDonalds using the prior configuration. A high proportion of this traffic originated from Richfield High School. There was also a concern that an increase in right turning south bound traffic might occur at this location as well. However, during construction the approved entry /exit was modified to eliminate the median, replacing it with pavement striping. Because of the previous concerns of adjacent neighbors several observations were made of the traffic entering and exiting the site at this location. The observations indicated that a very small number of left turns into the site occurred, which appeared to result from driver confusion. These observations indicate that elimination of the median will not change traffic movement or adversely affect surrounding property. Proposal' Amend the final development plan to reflect the change from concrete median to striping. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended Action: Preferred: Consider the mediation issues and agreement in relation to the changed traffic pattern in the recommendation to the Council. Basis' 1. Plans drafted in response to the mediation agreement contemplated a concrete median. 2. The configuration of the new parking lot precludes access to the lot that serves McDonalds. 3. There is a "no left turn" sign on Grand Avenue north bound before the entrance to the parking lot. 4. Although a survey by staff would indicate fewer cars making a left turn into the entrance, some neighbors indicate an adverse impact. 5. Petitioner indicates that a concrete median is a snow removal impediment as well as a potential hazard when partially hidden by snow. Alternative: Request further information from staff. Ri 4 ^ H 4 3 U N U cd C1. N 70 ZZ aN A2 " W z y 3 V V 0 J a yJ O J V WEST SUBURBAN MEDIATION'CENTER PHONE: 933 -0005 MEDIATION AGREEMENT CASE # 7 7"J ON at the following parties: date). Initiating Party(s): ,B j% 41 i1' tir Second Party(s):/ Other interested parties: t/ participated in the mediation session which took plac at: Mediators for the session were: VI r-- The nature of the complaint was: c- - dlmo A41., Y4 J r 1 [ r h Q'T CV1...,+f Grp Gy: During the course of the mediation the following terms of agreement were reached: c , -- — - - -: c. r1 - ate -.., cam.. Signed by: signature) (date) signature) .- (date) signature of Mediator) (date) All parties agree that all proceedings will be held in strict confidence. White Copy /Office 9/87 WEST SUBURBAN MEDIATION CENTER MEDIATION AGREEMENT ON % L` /A-Y the following parties: date) Initiating Party(s): a 1UW F4,ft --2 Second Party(s): • Other interested parties: participated in the mediation session which took place at:' Mediators for the session were: The nature of the complaint was: PHONE: 933 -0005 CASE I During the course of the mediation the following terms of agreement were reached: ign d by: signat e) (date) ig ature) l ( d. aty e) signature) (date) (sign ure) ` (d e) y= = - -_ -' m/r ;-93 - - - -- - - -- --------- - - - - signature of Mediator) (date) (si ure f ediator) (date) All parties agree that all proceedings will be held in strict confidence. White Copy /Off icep. 9/87 c 3 5 „+ Xx M d Q .N 5-5 a 1` W a i b M 1 1 1 1 1 1 ull. a L 1 1 l 1 f E. ZONING CODE: CITATIONS Section 530 - Zoning: planned unit development districts. PUD) 530.01. Planned unit development (PUD) district: purpose. It is the purpose of this section to provide for the establishment, at the discretion of the city council, of planned unit development (PUD) zoning districts on tracts of land which are suitable in location, area and character for the use and for the structures proposed. It is the objective of the city to provide for flexibility in planning mixed land uses, economic and efficient land uses, a high level of amenities, creative and superior design, greater intensity and increased community economic benefit, improved public safety and preservation of natural scenic and recreational qualities of open spaces for a better living, working and shopping environment. To accomplish those objectives, the suitability of a tract of land for the development proposed must be determined primarily by reference to the city's comprehensive plan and any redevelopment plan for the area which has been adopted by the city. Consideration shall be given.to existing and surrounding development when establishing a planned unit development district. Standards and criteria relating to such matters as design, building size, height and location, lot coverage and parking requirements contained elsewhere in the zoning code should be considered as merely guidelines in considering any PUD proposal and may be departed from in the approval of any PUD proposal if the city determines that the PUD proposal is consistent with the purposes and objectives herein described. 530.03. Ownership. The land, buildings, and improvements in a proposed PUD district shall be in a single ownership or under the management and supervision of a central authority, or otherwise subject to such long -term leases or other ownership control as the city council may deem necessary to carry out the provisions of this section. 530.05. Integrated design. The PUD will consist of a harmonious selection of uses in groupings of buildings, services, parking areas, traffic and pedestrian circulation and open spaces and shall be planned and designed as an integrated unit. If a proposed PUD district falls, in whole or in part, within a redevelopment project, the PUD plan and design shall be integrated with the general character of that redevelopment project. 530.07. Relationship of site to comprehensive plan and redevelopment plan. The planned unit development shall be consistent with the comprehensive development plan and any applicable redevelopment plan of the city. 530.09. Site. No planned unit development district shall contain less than 43,560 square feet in gross land area as defined in subsection 530.37. 530.11. PUD Types. There are six types of planned unit development districts as follows: Planned Single Family Residential PR) Planned Two Family Residential PMR -1) Planned Multiple Residential PMR) Planned Neighborhood Commercial PC -1) Planned General Commercial PC -2) Planned Industrial PI) 530.13. Uses. Subdivision 1. Permitted. Uses permitted in a PUD district are as follows: a) uses permitted in a "R" or "R -1" district are permitted in a PR district; b) uses permitted in an "R ", "R -1" or "MR -1" district are permitted in a "PMR -1" district provided that the density of two family dwellings may not exceed ten dwelling units per acre; c) uses permitted in an "MR ", "MR -11, "MR -2 ", or "MR -3" district are permitted in a PMR district, d) uses permitted in a "C -1 district shall be permitted in a PC -1 district; e) uses permitted in a "C -2 district shall be permitted in a PC -2 district; f) uses permitted in an "I" district shall be permitted in a PI district. Subd. 2. Other uses. Uses other than the permitted uses listed in subdivision 1, are allowed in a PUD district, provided (i) the use is one which is authorized in one of the six types of PUD districts, and (ii) that such additional use may not occupy more than 33 percent of the gross floor area of the PUD district. 530.15. Establishment procedures. Subdivision 1. Application. An applicant requesting establishment of a PUD zoning district shall submit a concept proposal statement in writing to the director. Acceptance by the director of the concept statement shall not obligate the city to approve the PUD plan, final PUD plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a PUD district. Subd. 2. Application: contents. The following items must be contained in the concept proposal statement: a) a legal description of the total site proposed for development, including a statement of the present and proposed ownership; b) a statement of the planning objectives to be achieved by the planned unit development through the particular approach proposed by the applicant. This statement should include a description of the character of the proposed development and the rationale for choices made by the applicant in the course of development of the concept; c) a development schedule indicating the approximate date when construction of the planned unit development or stages of planned unit development can be expected to begin and to be completed; d) additional information as may be required by the planning director to determine that the proposal is in conformance with the city's adopted comprehensive plan and any redevelopment plan. Subd. 3. Application: filing. Upon review and acceptance of the concept proposal statement by the director, an applicant for a PUD district rezoning shall apply therefor to the city on forms to be furnished by the director. The application shall be filed with the director. The application is to be completed by the applicant and shall be accompanied by a PUD plan for the entire tract of land. 530.17. PUD plan. Subdivision 1. The PUD plan shall consist of, but not be limited to, the data required by this subsection. Subd. 2. Data. Drawings required to be part of the PUD shall have a scale of not more than 50 feet to the inch. Drawings shall be submitted showing: a) the outline, overall dimensions and the area of the tract described in the application; b) the use, existing zoning, and ownership of the subject tract and adjacent properties within 350 feet of the proposed PUD district boundaries including the location of all structures and the right -of -way widths and travel widths of all adjacent public roadways; c) the location, general exterior dimensions and gross floor area of all proposed buildings; d) the type of use proposed to occupy each parcel and each building, the amount of building floor area devoted to each different use, and a legal description of all areas to be designated for uses allowed by subsection 530.13, subdivision 2; e) the location, arrangement and number of automobile parking stalls; f) the location, arrangement and general dimensions of all truck loading facilities and all passenger loading areas including bus turnouts and shelters; g) the location and dimension of all vehicular entrances an exits, driveways and their relationship to all existing and proposed public streets; h) the location, design and dimension of pedestrian entrances, exits, walks, skyways, plaza courts or other related pedestrian areas; i) the location and dimension of all walls, fences and planting areas both designed to screen the proposed district from adjacent uses and to enhance the environment of the district; 0) the location and dimension of all signs and lighting including the illumination characteristics of all lighting; k) existing buildings, roads, trees, utilities and utility easements, all shown in half tone, black and white; 1) preliminary building plans, elevation sections and general specifications of material and unusual structural systems for the proposed building or buildings, prepared by an architect registered in the State of Minnesota; m) the site grading plan including an analysis of the adequacy of surface drainage, storm sewer and catch basin drainage, erosion control, visual screening and landscaping and existing and proposed topography of the tract with vertical topographic contour intervals not greater than two feet. Subd. 3. Covenants: restrictions. As part of the PUD plan, the applicant shall submit proposed declarations of covenants, conditions and restrictions, articles of owners, associations and all other such documents as the city may deem necessary in such form and containing such provisions as will ensure that adequate property control is provided to protect the individual owner's rights and property values, to establish responsibility for maintenance and upkeep, and to ensure continuing compliance with the plan. The city shall require that such declarations of covenants, conditions and restrictions or other documents provide that in the event any association or corporation fails to maintain properties in accordance with the applicable ordinances and regulations of the city'or fails to pay taxes or assessments on properties as they become due and in the event the city incurs any expenses in enforcing its ordinances, rules and regulations, which expenses are not immediately reimbursed by. the association or corporation, the city shall have the right to assess each property its pro rata share of such expenses. These assessments, together with interest thereon and costs of collection, shall be a lien on each property against which each such assessment is made. 530.19. Coordination of subdivision regulations. Subdivision review under section 500 of the city code shall be carried out simultaneously with the review of the PUD. In addition to the PUD plan, the applicant shall submit information meeting the requirements of section 500. 530.21. Development schedule. The applicant shall submit a proposed schedule for construction beginning at the time the requested zoning may be granted by the city and continuing until all the components of the PUD are fully completed. If the construction of the proposed PUD development is to be in stages, then the components contained in each stage shall be clearly delineated. 530.23. Planning commission review: PUD plan. Subdivision 1. Referral. Upon receipt and review of the concept proposal statement and receipt of the application and PUD plan, the director shall refer the PUD plan to other appropriate departments and agencies for review. Within 30 days after the receipt of the written concept proposal statement, PUD plan and application, the director shall recommend to the planning commission either (i) approval of the proposal in the form submitted, or (ii) approval with modifications, or (iii) disapproval. Subd. 2. Findings. The recommendation of the director shall include findings of fact and shall set forth the reasons for the recommendations specifying with particularity in which aspects the plan would or would not be in the public interest, including but not limited to the following: a) the extent to which the plan departs from the requirements of this code, subdivision regulations, comprehensive development plan and redevelopment plan, if any, otherwise applicable to the subject property, including but not limited to density, bulk and use, and the reasons why such departures are or area not deemed to be in the public interest; . b) the extent to which the plan does or does not make adequate provisions for public services, vehicular traffic control, air and light, recreation and visual enjoyment; c) the nature and extent of open space, the adequacy of provision for maintenance and conservation of the common open space, and the adequacy or inadequacy of the amount and function of open space in terns of the densities proposed in the plan; d) the impact, beneficial or adverse, of the planned unit development project upon the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be established; e) in the case of a plan that proposes development over a period of years, the sufficiency of the terms and conditions proposed to protect and maintain the integrity of the plan; f) the relationship of the proposed structures to existing structures, to any redevelopment plan, and to anticipated future development of the area. Subd. 3. Public hearing. Within 45 days after receiving the director's report, the planning commission shall hold a public hearing on the application. Within 45 days after the adjournment of the public hearing, the planning commission shall submit its recommendation to the city council. The commission may (i) . recommend approval with or without modification or (ii) recommend disapproval. 530.25. Council approval. Following action by the planning commission the city council shall hold a public hearing and consider rezoning the area described. in the plan in accordance with the procedures set forth in this section. If the PUD plan is approved, the area shall be rezoned as one of the five types of PUD districts. Prior to the commencement of any construction or development of the land and after rezoning the applicant shall submit a final development plan, consistent with the PUD plan, together with an application for a conditional use permit for the development shown in the final development plan. A conditional use permit; in conformance with the approved final development plan, must be approved by a two- thirds vote of the council. 530.41. Amendment of conditional use permit. Amendment to a conditional use permit issued for land within a PUD district shall be by two- thirds vote of the council. The council may hold such hearings on a proposal to amend a conditional use permit as it may consider necessary; but at least one public hearing shall be held. The council may consider all factors considered in connection with rezoning the PUD district and issuing conditional use permits therefor as well as any other factors relevant to the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or welfare and to the protection of property or improvements in the neighborhood. s. }::: CITY OF RIOFIFIELD Knnnm commission notion Requart Item: #5 Agenda Section: Public Hearing Case: #95- ACUP -2 Date: February, 21 1995 GENERAL INFORMATION Petitioner: Fraser Community Services Location: 2400 West 64th Street Type of Request: Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of existing Fraser School. Zoning: MR Land Use: Quasi - public Comp. Plan: Institutional References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts) Zoning Code: 515.07, 545.09 . City Code: ALMOIN Proposed Change: Expansion of existing building Staff Recommendation: Approve the amended conditional use permit request with stipulations. HISTORY Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Public Hearing: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on February 21, 1995 Hearing Examiner: City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of March 27, 1995. ANALYSIS Background: There has been no major building expansion at Fraser School since 1974 while demand on its facilities has increased. The current project will add class rooms, and therapy rooms as well as office and meeting rooms to the existing building. The addition will permit Fraser to eliminate its 100+ student waiting list. The building addition will be single story. The property will be fenced to the west and around the existing play yard. Additional parking will be added. Fraser School is also pursuing an amendment of its off -street parking permit, the vacation of Queen Avenue to allow its use as a parking area, and a variance. Proposal: A single story addition to the school to accommodate children now waiting for service. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended Action: Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for an amendment to their conditional use permit, subject to approval of a variance, vacation of Queen Avenue and an amendment to the off -street parking permit. Basis: 1. The addition will help the school accommodate its growing waiting list of children. 2. Inability to complete this project will adversely affect the school's ability to meet a community need. 3. This addition when coupled with the other actions such as the vacation of Queen Ave. will help facilitate redevelopment of portions of the Penn/ 66th district. Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request with a finding of fact that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties or the City as a whole. ZONING CODE: CITATIONS Section 515 - Zoning: residence districts R, MR, R -1, MR -1, MR -2 and MR -3) 515.01. Purpose. The R district is intended to preserve the single family residential character of neighborhoods by insuring that new or replacement development will be compatible with the detached single family dwellings of the neighborhood, thus preserving neighborhood densities. Subsections 515.01 to 515.15 apply to the R district. 515.03. Principal uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are permitted uses in the R district. Subd. 2. Single family dwellings. Subd. 3. Elementary, middle, junior high and senior high schools. Subd. 4. Publicly owned and operated recreation and park facilities. Subd. 5.. Churches, synagogues, places of worship, convents, parsonages, provided that such convent or parsonage shall house no more than six unrelated individuals. 515.05. Accessory uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are accessory uses in the R district, Subd. 2. Private garages. Subd. 3. Greenhouses and garden houses. Subd. 4. Storage buildings. Subd. 5. Private swimming pools as defined in section 420 of the city code. Subd. 6. Minor public utility facilities. Subd. 7. Family and group family day care homes licensed by the appropriate governmental authorities for 12 or fewer persons, group family day care facilities licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 serving 14 or fewer persons or as otherwise permitted by law. (Amended, Bill No. 1990 -17) Subd. 8. Foster family or group homes licensed by the appropriate governmental authorities caring for six or fewer children or mentally retarded or physically handicapped persons or as otherwise permitted by law. Subd. 9. Home occupations. Subd. 10. Private driveways and sidewalks. Subd. 11. Parking areas and garages. Subd. 12. Antennae and towers conforming to section 425 of this city code. 515.07. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses permitted in the R district. Subd. 2. Daycare centers for more than 12 persons licensed by the appropriate governmental authority, group family day care facilities licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 serving more than 14 persons or as otherwise permitted by law. (Amended, Bill No. 1990 -17) Subd. 3. Foster family or group homes licensed by the appropriate governmental authorities caring for more than six children or mentally retarded or physically handicapped persons or as otherwise permitted by law. Subd. 4. Private recreational facilities. Subd. 5. Major public utilities. Subd. 6. Two family dwellings, subject to the following additional requirements: a) lot(s) shall abut on arterial or collector streets; b) two off - street parking spaces, one of which must be enclosed, shall be provided for each dwelling unit; c) only one access shall be allowed; and d) the structure must meet all setback requirements for two - family dwellings except that a single family dwelling which does not meet the required two family interior sideyard setback may be converted into a two - family dwelling if the dwelling is not expanded or if the expansion meets all applicable city code requirements. Subd. 7. Freestanding or ground -based antenna structures on interior lots abutting on two streets or comer lots abutting on more than two streets, and roof - mounted antenna higher than ten feet from the highest point of the roof. Section 545 - Zoning: adjustment: appeals: administration. 545.01. Board of adjustment and appeals created. The board of adjustments and appeals is established and continued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,. section 462.354. 545.03. Council as board. The city council is the board of adjustments and appeals. 545.05. Powers. Subdivision 1. Appeals. The board may hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of this code. Subd. 2. Variances. The board may hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of this code in cases where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this code. The board may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this code for property in the zone where the affected land is located. The board may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and.to protect adjacent property. (Amended, Bill No. 1988 -7) Subd. 3. Application: fees. Application for an appeal are made to the city manager. The fee for an appeal is set by appendix D. Subd. 4. Hearing examiners. The committee of hearing examiners established by subsection 545.15 shall hear requests for variances pursuant to sections 545.15 to 545.31. If the committee's authority expires the board shall hear requests for variances. 545.07. Adjustments. Subdivision 1. Application. Application for an adjustment or variance is made to the director by written application. The application shall be accompanied by payment of a fee as provided in appendix D of the city code in addition to the required building fee, if any. Subd. 2. Public hearing. Upon receipt of the application, the board may set a time and place for a public hearing on the application. At least ten days before the date of any such hearing, a notice of the hearing shall be published once in the official newspaper. Subd. 3. Compliance. In all cases in which - adjustments or variances are granted under the provisions of this subsection, the board may require such evidence and guarantees as it deems necessary to insure compliance with the conditions designated in connection therewith. Subd. 4. Orders. The board shall within a reasonable time make its order deciding the matter and shall cause a copy of its order to be served by mail upon the applicant. Subd. 5. Record. The board shall maintain a written record of its proceedings which shall include minutes of meetings, its findings in cases before it, and a record of action taken on each matter before it including the final order. 545.09. Conditional use permits. Subdivision 1. Issuance. Conditional use permits may be issued for any of the following: a) any of the uses of purposes of which a conditional permit is required or permitted by this code; b) public utility or public service uses or public building when found to be necessary for the public health, safety, convenience or welfare; c) commercial excavating or natural materials used for building or construction purposes; d) to classify as a conforming use any institutional use existing in any district at the time of the establishment of such district; e) to permit the location of any of the following uses in a district from which they are excluded by the provisions of this code: airport, library, community center, church, hospital and institutional of an educational, philanthropic or charitable nature, cemetery, crematory, mausoleum or any other place for the disposal of human dead; and f) for use determined pursuant to subsection 505.11. Subd. 2. Limitation. A conditional use permit may not be issued for (i) the purpose of granting an adjustment or appeal, (ii) for any use not authorized for the zoning district for which the permit is sought, iii) nor for prohibited use. Subd. 3. Application. Application for the issuance of a conditional use permit is made to the director. Proceedings to classify certain uses as conforming uses may be initiated either by an applicant or by the council. (Amended, Bill No. 1988 -7) Subd. 4. Public hearing. The council may hold such hearings on the proposal to issue a conditional use permit as it may consider necessary; but at least one public hearing shall be held by the board or by a committee of commission to be designated by the board in any application for a conditional use permit for the establishments of any use listed in subdivision 1, paragraphs a and f. (Amended, Bill No. 1988 -7) Subd. 5. Conditions. The council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it finds that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use for which the conditional use permit is sought will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental, (i) to the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or (ii) to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. (Amended, Bill No. 1988 -7) Subd. 6. Other conditions. The council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it finds that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use for which the conditional use permit is sought is in compliance with the (i) comprehensive municipal plan, (ii) an officially adopted redevelopment plans and urban design guidelines, and (iii) applicable parking regulations and landscape guidelines. (Amended, Bill No. 1988 -7) Subd. 7. Compliance. The council may impose conditions and require guarantees in the granting of conditional use permits. Any use permitted under the terms of any conditional use permit shall be established and conducted in conformity to the terms of the permit and of any conditions imposed. If any person violates a term of the permit or any condition imposed by the council in connection with the grant or issuance of a conditional use permit, the council may revoke such permit and all rights attributable to such permit. In considering the revocation of a conditional use permit, the city shall proceed as follows: a) Complaint. The director shall review any complaints received by the city involving property which is subject to a conditional use permit, and shall determine whether, in the director's judgment a violation of the terms or conditions of any conditional use permit appears to have occurred. b) Notice of apparent violation. If the director determines that an apparent violation of such terms and conditions exists, the director shall cause a notice of violation to be mailed to the owner of the property or owner's agent and to any other person known to the city to be conducting the use for which the conditional use permit was granted. The notice shall: 1) be in writing; 2) particularize the violation or violations found to apparently exist and particularize the remedial actions which must be taken to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit; 3) provide a reasonable time, but not less than ten days, for the recipient to remedy the violation or violations particularized in the notice; and 4) inform the recipient that if the particularized violations are not remedied within the stated time period, the director will request the council to consider revocation of the conditional use permit. c) Failure to comply. When notice has been given in accordance with clause (b) above and the recipient has failed to correct the violations particularized in the notice within the time allowed, the director shall refer the matter to the city manager with a recommendation that a hearing be held by the council to consider the revocation of the conditional use permit. A copy of the director's recommendation shall be mailed to the same persons who previously were mailed the notice of violation. d) Scheduling of hearing. If the city manager concurs in the recommendation of the director, the manager shall schedule a hearing before the council to consider revocation of the conditional use permit. The date of the hearing shall be as soon as is reasonably convenient. e) Upon the scheduling of the hearing, the director shall furnish mailed notice of such to the same persons who were mailed notice of the violation. The notice shall: 1) state the time, date and location of the hearing; 2) describe with particularity the violations or violation which will form the basis of the director's recommendation to the council; 3) describe the recommendation which the director intends to make to the council with respect to revocation. and 4) inform the recipient of its opportunity to be present at the.hearing, to be represented by legal counsel during the hearing, to present testimony and evidence and to cross - examine witnesses. The director shall also provide a notice containing the information described in subparagraphs (1), (2) and 3) of this paragraph to all other persons who would have been entitled to notice had the hearing been to consider the granting of the conditional use permit. f) Determination. At the conclusion of the hearing, or as soon thereafter as is reasonably possible, the council shall render its written decision. The decision shall state the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit found to have been violated; and shall state the determination of the council with regard to revocation of the conditional use permit. The council may, in lieu of revocation, permit the conditional use permit to continue subject to such further or additional terms and conditions as in its judgment are necessary to insure compliance with the conditional use permit. The council's written findings and determination shall be mailed to the persons who were mailed the director's notice of violation. If a conditional use permit is revoked, all uses and activities which are permitted only by such conditional use permit shall immediately cease. And all other licenses and permits issued by the city which require, as a condition of their issuance, the existence of the conditional use, shall be subject to termination in the manner set forth in this code or other applicable law. (Added (a) -(f), Bill No. 1988 -7) Subd. 8. Time limitations. A conditional use permit expires one year after it has been issued unless (i) time use for which the permit has been granted has commenced within one year or (ii) upon written application of the owner of the affected land the board extends the expiration date of such permit for an additional period not to exceed one year. Subd. 9. Fee. The fee for a conditional use permit is set by appendix D. Subd. 10. Other remedies. In addition to the procedure set forth in subdivision 7, the city may exercise, with or separately from such procedure, all and any other remedies and actions available to the city including, but not limited to those contained in sections 320 and 115 of this code. (Added, Bill No. 1988 -7) 545.11. Amendment procedure. Subdivision 1. Public hearings. No amendment to this code shall be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by the council. Subd. 2. Notice of hearing. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper at least ten days prior to the day of the hearing. Subd. 3. Mailing of notice. When an amendment involved changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed at least ten days before the day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the property to which the amendment relates. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use any appropriate records to determine he names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by he responsible person an shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this subdivision has been made. Subd. 4. Initiation. An amendment to this code may be initiated by the council, planning commission, or by the petition of the owners of not less than fifty percent of the land proposed to be rezoned and by the owners of at least fifty percent of the land within three hundred feet of the land proposed to be rezoned. Properties owned by federal, state, municipal entities or other political subdivisions shall be excluded from any computation of the percentage of landowners necessary for rezoning petitions initiated by landowners. Subd. 5. Issuance of building permit. No building permit for any building or structure may be issued while proceedings for rezoning of the land wherein the structure is located or to be located are pending, unless the permit would be permitted under both the existing zoning classification and the proposed zoning classification for such area, or unless council approval is first obtained. Subd. 6. Limitation: Time. Not more than one petition for the rezoning of any particular lot, piece or parcel of land shall be made within any twelve -month period. Subd. 7. Amendment: fee. The fee for a petition to rezone land is set by appendix D. Mgdm CITY Of RICHFIELD PLRMInG COMMISSIon Information Item: #6 Agenda Section: New Business PC Letter: #5 Date: February 21 , 1995 GENERAL INFORMATION Subject: City of Richfield Zoning Ordinance Type of Request: Amendment of Zoning Ordinance References: Richfield City Code Sections 505 -550 RECOMMENDATION Recommended Action: Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a comprehensive amendment of the zoning code. Basis: 1. The attached draft zoning ordinance is the one reviewed and approved over the last year. 2. The following changes should be considered: a. When submitted to the City Council, the format should include a repeal of the existing zoning ordinance and a renumbering of the sections of the revised version. b. Auto detailing should be deleted from neighborhood business. c. Adult use establishments should be included as set forth in the recent amendment. d. The remaining MR zone uses should be put in a holding zone until all such district designations are phased out. 3. The assistant City Attorney and the Building Inspector have reviewed the draft ordinance and concur in the recommendations. Alternative: Continue the review with directions to staff. DECISION MODE The City Council must hold a public hearing to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The anticipated schedule would result in a second reading and public hearing on March 27, 1995.