11-28-1995CITY Of R10HRELD
nnnninG commission
nGEnDR
November 28, 1995
7:00 p.m.
ROIlIl C EU
f pp r• c-r.>l l c f' 'V i Mu_ t e
Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 24, 1995, study session of October
24, 1995, special meeting of November 9, 1995, and special joint meeting with City
Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority of November 14, 1995.
1 "uhti• - 1E ar•in _
ITEM #1 95- APUD -1 CSM Corporation
Shops at Lyndale, Phase II
Amended Planned Unit Development Plan,
Final Development Plan and Conditional
Use Permit to allow a modification of the
parking ratio, building size and layout
New 1 u i11e
ITEM #2 PC LETTER #9 Acquisition /Disposition, HRA
7200 3rd Avenue
6415 14th Avenue
6715 14th Avenue
6837 Logan Avenue
Splinter Parcel at 77th Street and Emerson
ITEM #3 Comprehensive Plan
Housing Element -- Bruce Nordquist, Housing Supervisor
School Board
Community Services Advisory Commission
HRA
City Council
AdHoc 135/1494 Traffic Committee
I cl,j ur•>>l e nt
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Study Session
October 24, 1995
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela Dmytrenko,
Timothy Erlander, David Gepner, Mitchell Hadley, Kevin Hansen,
Kristal Stokes, and Paul Wasko
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dawn Postudensek
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Martin Kirsch; Susan Rosenberg; Mike Sandahl; Russ
Susag;
HRA MEMBERS: Russ Susag; Mike Sandahl; Joan Helmberger; Vern Luettinger
STAFF PRESENT: Byron Wallace, Community Development Director
Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
The Planning Commission study session was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at
6:00 p.m.
Chairperson Linnihan introduced Fred Hoisington and Michael Schroeder from Hoisington
Koegler Group. Mr. Schroeder presented the range of alternatives developed for the Lyndale
Avenue commercial area.
The first alternative involves adding streetscaping to create some consistency in the area.
Some buildings are removed to create visible parking. Screening is added behind the buildings.
The second alternative suggests that every building has the potential for redevelopment.
Alternative 2a shows buildings redeveloped, parking added, and the buildings pulled up to the
street. Alternative 2b shows buildings set to the back and parking added in front of the buildings.
The district would not expand under these two plans.
Alternative 3a expands a portion of the district and pushes several buildings to the back
and sides creating a square in the center. Alternative 3b expands a portion of the district, places
the buildings in the front and the parking in the back. Several of the buildings could be two
stories. The entrances to the parking areas are clearly defined.
Alternative 4 shows minimal reinvestment. Some of the existing buildings are expanded
and facade improvements made. Some buildings are removed to create parking.
October 24, 1995
Page 2
Fred Hoisington pointed out two additional alternatives: making facade improvements
only and doing nothing. Mr. Hoisington emphasized that there is a cost to all of the alternatives,
even doing nothing.
Vern Luettinger, HRA Commissioner, asked how many homes would be removed in the
plans that expand district. Mr. Schroeder estimated 14 -18 homes.
Planning Commissioner Wasko asked Mr. Hoisington to explain the phasing of the various
plans. Mr. Hoisington explained that in any of the plans, the west side of the 7600 block would
likely go first.
Planning Commissioner Gepner asked what provisions were made for pedestrian access.
Mr. Schroeder responded that a number of the alternatives promote the idea of "parking once,
shopping twice ". Discussion followed regarding the possibility of building a bridge over Lyndale
Avenue. Mr. Hoisington explained that cost was a prohibitive factor and that in his experience,
people don't use it unless it's integrated with a building.
Mr. Hoisington explained that all of the alternatives have a tax impact and pointed out that
alternatives one and four remove buildings so would generate fewer taxes. Tax impact will be
added as a criteria for evaluating the alternatives.
Commissioner Luettinger asked Mr. Hoisington to describe people's reactions to the
possibility of losing their homes. Mr. Hoisington stated that a number of the people adjacent to
the commercial area in the 7600 block stated that they would consider selling if the price were
right. He explained that they were going to try and document the experience of the businesses on
77 1/2 Street in time for the public meeting on November 9. There's a sense that many of the
businesses didn't want to move but did feel they were treated fairly.
Mr. Hoisington reviewed the format for the corridor meeting on November 9. Council
Member Susag suggested that the timing of the alternatives, the fact that nothing would happen
all at once, should be emphasized to the public.
Council Member Sandahl stated that it was important to show the range of alternatives,
evaluate them and then determine which ones were feasible. Council Member Sandahl requested
that the plans be fully annotated for the public meeting.
Mr. Hoisington reviewed the schedule for the planning process reminding everyone of the
corridor meeting on November 9 and the workshop on November 14. After the November
meetings, there will be no public meetings until the corridor meeting on January 18, Hoisington
Koegler Group will spend the time in between working with staff and with Publicorp on the
feasibility of the preferred alternatives.
ADJOURNMENT
October 24, 1995
Page 3
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:55 p.m.
Timothy Erlander
Planning Commission Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
October 24, 1995
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela Dmytrenko,
Timothy Erlander, David Gepner, Mitchell Hadley, Kevin Hansen,
Kristal Stokes, and Paul Wasko
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dawn Postudensek
COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor
STAFF PRESENT: Byron Wallace, Community Development Director
Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:00
p. M.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Stokes, S/Hadley to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting
of September 26, 1995.
Motion carried: 8 -0
M/Erlander, S /Stokes to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission study session of
October 10, 1995, with the addition of Dick Walker's name to the list of persons in attendance.
Motion carried: 8 -0
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CASE 95-CUP-4,7608 Knox Avenue
ITEM #1 Gholham Shakrohi/Minnesota Taxi, Inc.
Conditional Use Permit
October 24, 1995
Page 2
Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, stating that Minnesota Taxi, Inc.
received an off - street parking permit this Fall to operate a taxi dispatch business at 7608 Knox
Avenue. The business is requesting a conditional use permit to allow them to repair their own
vehicles on site. The property received a conditional use permit for an automotive shop a few
years ago. The property is now under new ownership and the new owner has made several
improvements to the property.
Ms. Urban explained that several conditions were placed on the off - street parking permit
that should also apply to the conditional use permit. These conditions include adding landscaping,
restriping the parking lot and installing full perimeter curb and gutter. The third service bay is
also required to remain open to allow access to the rear parking.
Commissioner Wasko asked if the business had provisions for removing oil or other
hazardous waste.
Ron Mielke, 6001 West 99th Street, representing the owner, explained that Minnesota
Taxi would be doing minor repair on site. The vehicles would be taken to an outside garage for
major repairs. The applicant has a contract to have oil removed.
M/S/ Erlander to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 8 -0
M/Erlander, S /Stokes to recommend approval of the Conditional Use permit with the
stipulations that the conditions of the off - street parking_ permit, approved by the City Council on
October 9, 1995, be met and that the building meet all building and fire codes that apply to the
type of repair work to be done.
Motion carried: 8 -0
CASE 95- APUD -1, 98 West 66th Street
ITEM #2 Bradley Midwest Management
Amended Planned Unit Development
Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, stating that the applicant is
requesting an amendment to the Hub Shopping Center's planned unit development. The portion
of the building where Hardee's is currently located would be taken over by Burger King. Burger
King is proposing to expand the building and add a children's play area. The expansion will
remove five parking spaces from the lot.
Ms. Urban stated that the applicant feels ample parking exists around this building to serve
the building's uses. Ms. Urban explained that design standards were established for the Hub in
the 1970s. These standards are dated and should not be applied to the expansion. The Planning
Commission may want to review the design standards at a future date.
October 24, 1995
Page 3
Commissioner Stokes asked the applicant to talk about how the expansion might aid
traffic flow around the building and in the area of the drive- through.
Ron Fiscus, of Yaggy -Colby Associates, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Fiscus
explained that the configuration of the drive- through would not change but that there were
opportunities for additional signage to direct traffic. Mr. Fiscus stated that they believe the
expansion will make the building more vibrant and attractive.
Mike Dimond, of Cardinal Development Co., explained that the Westwind Group will
own this franchise. They currently own 50 Burger Kings in the Twin Cities area including the
restaurant at 66th and Xerxes.
Chairperson Linnihan asked Mr. Fiscus to describe the play feature. Mr. Fiscus explained
that it will be a full -size play feature located inside. It will be multi - colored like the new ones
being installed in outdoor parks.
Commissioner Wasko asked the applicant to describe the facilities the Hub provided for
bicycles. Al Reichstadt, of Bradley Midwest Management Co., explained that there is a bike rack
located just west of the restaurant building. There is also a bike rack located near Blockbuster
Video.
Commissioner Stokes asked about signage. Mr. Fiscus explained that the Burger King
signs would replace the existing Hardee's signs located within the building sign band.
M/Dmytrenko, S /Stokes to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 8 -0
M/Wasko, S/Erlander to recommend approval of the amended planned unit development
final development plan with the stipulation that a stormwater drainage plan be approved by the
City Engineer.
Motion carried: 8 -0
CASE 95- CUP -5, 1201 East 66th Street
ITEM #3 The Custom Shop, Jerome Clark
Conditional Use Permit
Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report explaining that the Custom Shop
proposes to operate an auto detailing business at 1201 East 66th Street. Ms. Urban described the
nature of the business and explained that no changes are proposed for the existing building.
October 24, 1995
Page 4
Ms. Urban stated that City Auto Glass Company received a conditional use permit for the
property in 1990 but closed a couple of years ago. Ms. Urban explained that there are currently
four driveways to the property. Two of the driveways are in close proximity to the signalized
intersection at 66th Street and 12th Avenue and should be closed for safety reasons.
Director Wallace described the history of the property explaining that the driveways were
to have been closed five years ago. The owner of the property had requested that he be assessed
for the improvements and the Council approved an assessment. An assessment would have meant
that City Auto Glass paid for the improvements, and they refused to do so. They went out of
business after a short period of time.
Chairperson Linnihan questioned what guarantee we had that the driveways would be
closed this time. Director Wallace responded that we have no guarantee unless we require an
escrow for the work. The Commission agreed that if the driveways aren't closed, an escrow
needs to be submitted before the conditional use permit will become effective.
The Commission asked whether landscaping should be part of the escrow. Ms. Urban
explained that the land in front of the parking lot is city right -of -way so permission has to be
granted by the Community Services Department and the amount allowed is limited.
Commissioner Wasko questioned whether or not we could limit the hours of operation.
Director Wallace explained that the business has to be licensed and that the hours are limited by
the license.
M/Hadley, S/Erlander to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 8 -0
M/Erlander, S /Stokes to recommend approval of the conditional use permit with the
following stipulations: 1. that the two driveways nearest the intersection of East 66th Street and
12th Avenue be closed and replaced with curbing to match the existing curbing and the area
sodded. 2. that an escrow for the cost of closing the driveways be submitted or the driveways
closed before the conditional use permit becomes effective.
Motion carried: 8 -0
Planning Commission. Letter #8
ITEM #4 Ordinance Revisions
Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report stating that the 1995 Legislature
passed a law that requires all governmental agencies to approve or deny a written request relating
to zoning within 60 days of receiving a request. If an agency fails to meet the deadline, the
application is automatically approved.
October 24, 1995
Page 5
Ms. Urban explained how the City currently processes most applications within 60 days
but that the language in the zoning ordinance allows for a longer period of time. The ordinance
needs to be changed to be consistent with state law. Ms. Urban went through the sections of the
ordinance that have language in conflict with the state law. Ms. Urban described the proposed
language changes and stated that they have been reviewed by the City Attorney.
M/Erlander, S /Stokes to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment that
establishes a deadline for zoning cases that is in compliance with state law.
Motion carried: 8 -0
LIAISON REPORTS
School Board: Commissioner Dmytrenko reported that Richfield had been selected as a
pilot site for the new graduation requirements and that the Board was responding to a negative
article in the Star Tribune about schools participation in the pilot project. The junior high school
is beginning a strategic planning process. The Community Education building is being renamed
the Elliot Community Center.
Community Services Advisory Commission: Chairperson Linnihan reported that the
Community Services Commission could not meet with the Planning Commission until January, so
they will be providing written comments to the Planning Commission on the proposed changes to
the park plan.
City Council: Community Development Director Wallace explained that the Council
denied a request by Naegle to relocate a billboard from the CSM site to 72nd Street and Cedar
Avenue.
OLD BUSINESS
ITEM #1 Comprehensive Plan Update
Chairperson Linnihan reported that Bob Nelson recommended the Commission make a
presentation to the School Board on the first or third Monday in November. Mr. Brauer agreed
to attend the meeting on the first Monday at Sheridan Elementary.
Don Brauer described the proposed guide plan for the LHN area. Mr. Brauer explained
that the trail is moved to 64th Street to connect it to Nicollet Park. The housing along the
freeway and 66th Street is designated R -SFH (single family attached housing). The group
suggested that the post office be moved to the new City Hall site.
Mr. Brauer proposed to incorporate the single family homes along Lake Shore Drive into
the condominium development. Director Wallace explained that they have been part of
October 24, 1995
Page 6
redevelopment proposals for the area in the past. Director Wallace brought up the potential
combination of the Vets and Legion clubs, which would make the VFW site available for
redevelopment.
Mr. Brauer explained that he had designated the houses south of the bank R -SFH because
it is a busy street and the designation would make such a change to a higher density possible.
Along the railroad tracks the proposed plan shows R -SFH because the apartment buildings are
aging and as the trail along the tracks comes closer to reality, the area may attract townhome -type
developments. Mr. Brauer recommended realigning Garfield park to give it more usable
dimensions.
The group reviewed the changes made to the East 66th Street plan. The fire station is
placed on the northeast corner of Portland and 66th Street and the area north of that designated
public. Director Wallace pointed out that the Legion had received offers from a developer who
wants to build cooperative senior housing on the site. The group discussed the suitability of the
site for housing. Director Wallace stated that the VFW property is being discussed as a possible
mixed use area and should probably be designated as such in the plan.
Mr. Brauer explained the changes the group suggested for the I -494 West corridor. The
Century Courts property is designated as R -SFH, R -MH (high density multiple family), and CR/O
regional commercial/office). The bike trail is moved to 75th Street because much of the area
along 75th Street is already publicly -owned land and because it's not as busy a street as 76th
Street.
Mr. Brauer reviewed the updated spread sheet showing the loss and addition of housing,
park land, and commercial areas. Mr. Brauer stated that there were three corridors left but that
there's not much to talk about in these corridors. He recommended designating some of the
housing along Nicollet Avenue as R -SFH. He also suggested that the area at Chicago and 70th be
designated to turn back to residential. Director Wallace pointed out that the doctor's office and
the shopping center in that neighborhood are up for sale.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:30 p.m.
Timothy Erlander
Planning Commission Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Special Meeting
November 9, 1995
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela Dmytrenko,
Timothy Erlander, David Gepner, Mitchell Hadley, Kevin Hansen,
and Kristal Stokes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dawn Postudensek and Paul Wasko
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Martin Kirsch, Mayor; Members Donald Priebe, Susan Rosenberg
and Russ Susag
HRA MEMBERS: Chairperson Thomas Harms; Commissioners Joan Helmberger and
Russ Susag
STAFF PRESENT: James Prosser, City Manager
Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
The Planning Commission special meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at
7:10 p.m.
Lyndale Avenue Corridor Meeting
Chairperson Linnihan explained the purpose for the meeting and introduced Fred
Hoisington and other members of the consulting team. Mr. Hoisington reviewed the conclusions
of the public meetings and the individual meeting responses. He explained the guiding principles
that were developed from those meetings.
Mr. Hoisington asked the group to work on an opening exercise in which each table
would talk about why it's important to reinvest in commercial areas.
Michael Schroeder, of Hoisington Koegler Group, explained the six alternative concepts
he had developed for the area. Mr. Hoisington added two alternatives, one of which is to do
nothing and the second is to make facade improvements to the existing buildings.
Mr. Hoisington explained the criteria that had been developed, based on the results of the
September meetings, to evaluate the various alternatives. He stated that he had added two
criteria: tax impact and business improvement. He asked the group if they wanted to add any
more. The suggestion was made that the impact on individual homeowners and their property
November 9, 1995
Page 2
values be added as a criteria. Mr. Hoisington asked people to prioritize the criteria, choosing the
four most important criteria for evaluating the plans. People placed importance on the following
criteria: appearance, residential compatibility, parking, traffic /accessibility, impact on
homeowners, tax impact, economic feasibility, who will pay ?, loss of businesses, and public input.
Mr. Hoisington presented some information on the market study, building values, and
economic wisdom. He gave some preliminary pros and cons for each alternative using the
criteria. Mr. Hoisington asked the tables to discuss the alternatives and to pick which ones they
could support.
The group was provided with an opportunity for comments and questions. Susan Payne,
7504 Aldrich, stated that even though public input wasn't given as high a priority as other criteria,
policymakers should realize that everyone's attendance at the meeting showed how much the
public wanted to provide input. Russ Susag, Council Member and HRA Commissioner, stated
that he realized the need for good communication and that this process has been set up to allow
for communication and public input.
A resident expressed his distrust of the City because of past projects. Tom Harms, HRA
Chairperson, provided some background on how this project came about. He asked the group to
try to judge this project and process on its own merits.
Tom Price, 7421 Lyndale, stated that the businesses were concerned about the uncertainty
of the plans and whether or not they could be involved in the plans. Mr. Hoisington explained
that unfortunately it's still uncertain to what degree the existing businesses will be involved. It
can happen to some degree in all the alternatives. The more that gets done, the less involvement
from existing businesses there is likely to be.
A resident asked if the City has the money to pay for any of the alternatives. Sid Inman,
financial consultant to the City, explained that the main tool cities have to do these kinds of
projects is tax increment financing. Using this tool, cities can use the use the money from the
increase in value to pay for the improvements. Because of the way tax increment is structured,
the more you do, the more there's money available.
A resident stated that he's noticed that commercial property in the City isn't as well kept
up as residential property. He stated that he was impressed that the City is being proactive about
the issues it faces as a first ring suburb.
Steven Sawitzke, 7608 Lyndale Avenue, asked if there was a reason particular businesses
were targeted for demolition in some of the alternatives. Mr. Hoisington explained that these are
concept plans and there was no specific reason for targeting certain buildings for demolition at
this point. The idea is that some buildings would be removed to make space for parking.
Mr. Sawitzke asked if Mr. Hoisington could explore removing the backs of the buildings
on the west side. Several of the buildings have been added onto all the way to the alley. If these
additions were removed, space could be created for parking and some of the conflict with the
residential area eased. Mr. Hoisington stated that they could explore this idea.
November 9, 1995
Page 3
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:00 p.m.
Erlander
Commission Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Special Meeting
November 14, 1995
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela Dmytrenko,
Timothy Erlander, David Gepner, Mitchell Hadley, Kevin Hansen,
Dawn Postudensek, Kristal Stokes, and Paul Wasko
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Martin Kirsch, Mayor; Council Members: Donald Priebe and Russ
Susag
HRA MEMBERS: Chairperson Thomas Harms; Commissioners: Joan Helmberger and
Russ Susag
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
STEERING COMMITTEE
MEMBERS: Bill Kilian, Sue Sandahl
STAFF PRESENT: James Prosser, City Manager
Tom Ferber, City Clerk
Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
Tom Foley, Transportation Engineer
The Special Planning Commission, City Council and Housing and Redevelopment
Authority meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:00 p.m.
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL AND HRA MEETING
Fred Hoisington, Hoisington Koegler Group, reviewed the six alternatives developed for
the Lyndale Avenue Commercial Area. He explained that the purpose of this meeting was to
narrow the options to one or two alternatives that he would explore further.
Mr. Hoisington reviewed the process that was undertaken at the public meeting on
November 9. He stated that Alternatives 1 and 2b received the most "dots" in terms of number
but that it's important to note that all of the alternatives received some support. He explained the
conclusions he drew from the public meeting emphasizing that the results need to be viewed
qualitatively as well as quantitatively. The results showed that people are willing to look at
November 14, 1995
Page 2
alternatives that could relocate businesses. The people see a need for physical changes but are
concerned about the impact the changes would have on residents and businesses. The results
indicate that there is little support for doing nothing. Mr. Hoisington broke down the results by
geography.
Mr. Hoisington provided a summary of the pros and cons for each alternative showing
that alternatives 1 through 3 best meet the criteria that has been established. Mr. Hoisington
recommended that the group decide on one alternative that he would explore further.
Chairperson Linnihan described his impressions from all of the meetings to date. He found
that in the one -on -one interviews people seemed more supportive of finding a real solution. At
the meeting on Thursday, the same people seemed to be more supportive of solution number one,
which would be the least disruptive. He also questioned whether or not the businesses realized
that they would likely be the ones to pay under alternative number one.
HRA Chairperson Harms stated that he thought the way in which the question was framed
steered people toward the easy answers.
Planning Commissioner Erlander stated that he received a double message at Thursday's
meeting. People seemed to understand that something needed to be done, but they won't
necessarily choose to do something if they don't have to.
City Manager Prosser pointed out that people were obviously interested in appearance and
parking but they didn't show as much concern with economic feasibility. It's the job of this group
to worry about feasibility. Mr. Hoisington briefly reviewed the economic feasibility of the plans.
Planning Commissioner Stokes said that she sat at table six, which ended up being a mix
of people from all over. Her table picked the plan that was the least intrusive believing that it was
inevitable that something was going to happen. Commissioner Stokes pointed out that the people
at her table seemed to think alternative one would be slower paced and therefore a better plan.
Mr. Hoisington responded that the opposite was more likely true, alternative one would happen
all at once but the others would happen over time.
Council Member Susag questioned whether or not alternative two would really be feasible
and would it be possible to talk to the development community about the feasibility. Mr.
Hoisington explained that they have done some looking at feasibility by talking to developers and
doing a market study. Sid Inman from Publicorp would also be looking at the alternatives.
Council Member Susag pointed out that it probably wouldn't be feasible to expect convenience
services to locate there. Mr. Hoisington agreed that they wouldn't attract only neighborhood -
level convenience services. He reminded the group that they don't have to do the same
alternative on all of the blocks.
City Manager Prosser pointed out that the Planning Commission was asked to try and
build a consensus in the neighborhood. Consensus does not mean that that the raw numbers have
to add up to a particular plan at this point. It means finding something people can live with. The
group is in the process of finding out what people's concerns are. Mr. Hoisington will now
November 14, 1995
Page 3
explore whether or not those concerns can be addressed. If they can't be overcome, the group
can look at other options.
HRA Chairperson Harms stated that the group needs to look at some options specifically
and then ask people to evaluate the specifics and how they're impacted. He suggested the group
look at the alternative that impacts the most and then try and deal with the concerns. He
proposed that Hoisington start at the high end, looking at alternative three, because it's easier to
take away than to add. It should be presented at a greater level of detail stressing that it's not the
plan. Several members of the group stated that they concurred with that suggestion. Mr.
Hoisington agreed to study alternative three in depth and present the details at the meeting in
January.
PLANNING COMMISSION OLD BUSINESS
ITEM #1 Comprehensive Plan
Don Brauer explained the revisions that were made to the I -494 West and LHN draft
plans. Chairperson Linnihan pointed out that they had talked about the area south of Market
Plaza being a mixed use area. Mr. Brauer stated that he would remove the boundary shown so
that the whold block could be high density residential or commercial/office.
Mr. Brauer handed out a written section on urban infrastructure. He explained that much
of the information was pulled from the Surfacewater Management plan and the street and alley
system. Tom Foley's suggestions for transportation policies were also incorporated.
Tom Foley, Transportation Engineer, explained the guiding principles that were proposed
for transportation. The principles include the following: create a hierarchy of streets, protect
residential neighborhoods by funneling traffic to arterials, promote safe and efficient travel,
provide a variety of transportation modes, promote travel demand management, encourage land
use development supportive of transit, encourage shared parking, work with neighboring cities to
assure consistent transportation policies.
Sue Sandahl asked Mr. Foley what people's attitudes usually were toward traffic calming,
an idea he was proposing. Mr. Foley stated that he feels it's looked at positively but that he could
talk to other communities for more information on public attitudes.
Bill Kilian pointed out that there is no major north -south arterial between Cedar and
Portland Avenues. Mr. Foley agreed and said that if they were to add one he would suggest 12th
Avenue because it crosses I -494. Mr. Kilian suggested that the amount of on- street parking had
increased over the past several years and wondered if anything could be included in the
Comprehensive Plan to discourage it. The group discussed some options for reducing on- street
parking.
November 14, 1995
Page 4
Mr. Kilian pointed out that 25 percent of the City's acreage is taken up by streets and
asked how this compares to other cities. Mr. Brauer explained that it's a little high compared to
others, that 20 -25 percent is common. Mr. Kilian asked if it would be helpful to reduce street
acreage. Mr, Foley pointed out that it serves as a traffic calming method and also helps
stormwater drainage.
Mr. Foley reviewed the transportation - related advantages and disadvantages to the groups
ideas for Wilson Park, Fairwood Park and rerouting Cedar Avenue. He stated that the plan for
Wilson Park had more advantages than disadvantages in terms of the transportation impact. He
explained that rerouting Cedar Avenue was a major undertaking and more than the transportation
impact needs to be considered. The group discussed closing the road near Fairwood Park.
Chairperson Linnihan asked staff to explore the possibility of closing the street temporarily to test
the impact.
Commissioner Wasko asked Mr. Brauer if it was appropriate to include
telecommunications in the infrastructure section. Mr. Brauer agreed to explore the possibility.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:50 p.m.
Timothy Erlander
Planning Commission Secretary
4 `'''' 'ti .......:... CITY OF RICFIFIELD
PLRnninG oommission
Ration Requait
Item: #1 Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Case: #95-APUD-2 Date: November 28, 1995
GENERAL INFORMATION
Petitioner: CSM Corporation
Location: Shops at Lyndale, Phase II
Type of Request: Amend Planned Unit Development, Final Development Plan and
Conditional Use Permit to allow a modification of the parking ratio and
building size and layout.
Zoning: PC-2 (Planned General Commercial)
Land Use: Commercial
Comp. Plan: Freeway Strip
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: 536.21, 536.25
ACTION
Proposed Change: Approval of the amendment would allow a modification of the parking
ratio, building size,and layout contained in the plan that was approved by
the City Council on May 8, 1995.
Staff
Recommendation: Approve the amended planned unit development, final development plan
and conditional use permit.
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 November 28,
1995.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of
December 11, 1995.
ANALYSIS
Background: On May 8, 1995, the City Council approved a proposal by CSM to
construct Phase II of the Shops at Lyndale. The approved plan for Phase II
included four anchor buildings, two restaurant "pads" and an area for "in-
line shops" for a total of 114,199 square feet. Phase 1I included 520
parking spaces.
Proposal: CSM is requesting an amendment to the approved plan to incorporate a
large - scale, two -story anchor tenant.
The proposed changes are as follows:
Reduce the number of anchor tenants from four to two.
Increase the total size from 114,199 to 130,148 square feet.
Add a second story to the first anchor building on the west side and
increase the building size to a total of 100,000 square feet. The total
height of the main portion of the building would be 42 feet. The height
at the point of the center atrium would be 56 feet.
Create a second anchor tenant space of 10,897 square feet.
Reduce the amount of space for the "in -line shops to 7,946 square feet.
Add parking to the west end of the Phase II site to accommodate the
increase in square footage for a total of 616 spaces and a parking ratio
of 4.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
Move the docking area to the east end of the building.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the request with the following
stipulation:
1. That amended stormwater drainage and utility plans be approved by the
City Engineer.
Basis: 1. The proposed amended Final Development Plan is consistent with the
ILN Redevelopment Plan and Comprehensive Plan.
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 536: Zoning — Planned Unit Developments
536.21. Compliance with the PUD plan and final development plan. Subdivision 1. Chanizes.
The development of a PUD district shall be in substantial compliance with the approved PUD plan,
final development plan, and conditional use permit. Compliance shall not be considered substantial if
there is:
a) more than ten percent change in floor area in any one structure;
b) more than a ten percent change in the approved separation of buildings;
c) any change in the original approved setbacks from property lines;
d) more than five percent change in the ground area covered by the building;
or
e) any change in the ratio of off - street parking and loading space to gross floor
area.
536.25. Plan amendments. Any amendment to a final development plan and conditional use permit
shall require a two -thirds vote of the Council. The Council may hold such hearings on a proposal to
amend a final development plan and 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 the conditional use permit therefor, as well as any other factors
relevant to the public health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, or general welfare and to
the protection of property or improvements.in the neighborhood.
t
kS
vxlNN1W'
01313NOIH H
o
Q-
Pei
o-
o-
o-
0
z
I
millillm I I
O-rt-
0
MEN
MEN
4-
9
11 1 0 5 1 N N 111 ' 0 -1 3 1 i H 0 1 H i1 i9 e
V
t
EgiB8 Stel5 € '!e
nr-\g2 i I —n '1 4 rnp i- :,a2 -0 dnn Nov. 1, 1995 16:02:08
3 N N I W' 0 1 3 1 3 H 3 1 H
ye9
I
i
i
i
I
i
i
o-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I i
II
ii
ii
ii
ii
I I I I
I I I I
a
I
I
I
i
i
i
I
o- - - -- - --- - - - - -- - - - -- ----- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -
I - - - - 1,---- - - - - - - - - -
o- - - - - - - - -- _ _ -_- -_ - ______ -__- -_ - - -
1,- - --
i
1 -- -- ---------- - - - -
I I I i
1. '-5 16 : 10,44
J
V 1 0 S 3 N N1 W' 01 31 J H 01 a El i$ppp } }}
CO
i
if
n ^ten ynv 1 1-9 15'.54;20
ippp65 8
iiS5 pEpE"B5 y9 1
id EiiA4 a& E fi: F 6
0
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
V U
W
I
7
I
I y
II
I p
II O
li LL
I
li NK
0
V 1 0 S 3 N NI W' 0 1 31 3 H 31 a
pr gg
0
i I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
H.UW'3AV HOWOW
I I I I
I I
I I I
I I I
HJMS'3AV 1W.1H9
I I I I
I I I I
i I I 1
1 I I I
I I I 1
I I I I
I I I I
141170S "3AV XV370.7
I I I I
i _,.:,,. a., -"p •..n gym,: . cn. . ?a no
L
H11X)S'3AV 3WO;811 — k
o
4 ^"
JIII
brn
i s
I
m
0
up
I! . o
1 1
I
A I °
uaaVI
3IVI-
Iw I e
s
1 o IV @
Y rt
z IBS
I
I I
1 1
I I
1 1
1 1
I I
I ".I
t 1
II
ipepp><iy
90 9E99
i
a
z
p
44 //
f //f
1=
WcnQ
2a
I
z
g
WCL
CO
U
0
z
g
rnnr, s
to
C an A agpc -
I! . o
1 1
I
A I °
uaaVI
3IVI-
Iw I e
s
1 o IV @
Y rt
z IBS
I
I I
1 1
I I
1 1
1 1
I I
I ".I
t 1
II
ipepp><iy
90 9E99
i
a
z
p
44 //
f //f
1=
WcnQ
2a
I
z
g
WCL
CO
U
0
z
g
U-
U
cob
m*
ALDI
3
Z
00160000
i
L--- --- --- ------ -- -- --- - -f
HinOS '3Ad 37V(7NA7
0
O
Z O
O F
O NwUYI
U
I I
I i I
I o I
I I
I I
w
a
J O w
Zl7 r0N
U wN
S N
U
N
I w
10
xU N
W w
O dpr7
ZU
y
Q a
p 4N
O N2OUN
M
LJ
r
Q
2
o
e g
a
Fz
d
Cl)
wT
m \ rn n
ll \
I
I ICI I I nrl
f II II 'I
III
III I
I V 1
I I I I I I I U I I I I {
I
I I
i I I
I I
I I
1 I
I I
I 1
1 I
I I
I I
1 I
i
I I
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I I I
1 I
I I
I I
1 I
w I
I I
i I 1
I p I
I 1
1 I
I I Y II I
I I
I 1
i I
i I I
1 1
I I I
I I
I 1
I I
I I I I ITI
I I I I I I I I In lillIkI
I I
A-1
11-61 IIIIIII
I I
I I
i I I
1 I
i I I
I I
I
1 I
I 1
1 V
i I I
I I
1 I
I 1
1 I
b 6
Cb
I I
I I
I I
I I
1 I
I I
1 I4OI
N w
I I r I w l
I N
m ro c
a:
VV o•
Z
I?ou
oe
OwWVN d<
gyp`°
U ziUUV
a;
rF
z
T
Z
R p
O
O
L
ti
u Q
W JJ
S
r
W
Q
2
CL
a:
VV o•
Z
OwWVN d<
x,
U ziUUV
a;
aim
x;
o:
aw
w
w: a
O. N7
o
O ¢ U q
o..rwp
2 VN6
z
T
Z
R p
O
O
L
ti
u Q
W JJ
S
r
W
Q
2
CL
V 1 0 5 3 N N I W' 0-1 3 1 A H 7 1 N
E$ •j f
y S "
SXIIV,9
80
y
f Re i tlE778p e F b & a
I ion Nov. 1, 1995 16'.07: 24
OITY OF R10HRELD7m!
Puinnm oommission
LGttcr
Item: #2 Agenda Section: New Business
PC Letter: #9 Date: November 28, 1995
GENERAL INFORMATION
Subject: Acquisition and disposition of 7200 3rd Avenue, 6415 14th Avenue, 6715 14th
Avenue, 6837 Logan Avenue and 77th Street and Emerson Avenue splinter
parcel.
Type of Request: Consideration of a resolution fording that the proposed use of 7200 3rd Avenue,
6415 14th Avenue, 6715 14th Avenue, 6837 Logan Avenue and the splinter
parcel at 77th Street and Emerson Avenue is in conformance with the Richfield
Comprehensive Plan.
References: Chapter 462 of the 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 (single family residence)
Comp. Plan: Single Family; Medium Density /Buffer
Proposed Use: Single family residential
Public Notice: Not required
City Council: Planning Commission approval would facilitate the acquisition /disposition of
these properties by the Council in a timely manner.
ANALYSIS
Issues: The proposed single family homes would be built through the Richfield
Rediscovered Program. The proposed single family use is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan for all of the subject parcels.
RECOMMENDATION
Recomtmended
Action:
Preferred: Adopt the attached resolution, finding that the proposed acquisition /disposition
and use of the subject properties is in conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
gaSis: 1. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that 7200 3rd Avenue, 6415 14th
Avenue, 6715 14 Avenue, and 6837 Logan are designated for single family
use.
2. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the splinter parcel at 77th Street and
Emerson Avenue is designated as Medium Density /Buffer in which single
family residential is a suggested use.
3. All of the lots meet the area and width requirement for a home in an 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.
ATTACHMENT ONE
Subject Property: 7200 3rd Avenue
Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 6, Wooddale Second Addition
Subject Property: 6415 14th Avenue
Legal Description: Lot 21, Block 3, Nokomis Gardens Rearrangement of Block 1, 2,
3, 4, and 5 Girard Parkview, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Subject Property: 6715 14th Avenue
Legal Description: Block 4, Rich Fields Addition, N 66 5/10 Ft of S 3815/10 Ft of
W 1313/10 Ft, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Subject Property: 6837 Logan Avenue
Legal Description: Lot 11, Block 5, Wood Lake Highlands
Subject Property: Emerson and 77th Street Splinter Parcel
Legal Description: That part of Lots 5 and 6, Northfelt Addition, as remaining from
the relocation of 77th Street
LL)
U,
V
A Cl)
ujLU
atn-,,- Lmm vr
LO Lf)
77
cs L
N'l
ul F-
cn
7-3
ONE
Cl
M"M
ZVI.
7mTmTlnTm Mill M,17, TTM6R, MME P, -7-1-w " =
UJ -16 -4
INA
w Raw, I ni—r— cc ME m
zi
UI 2
411U
Lij
LU
In. wY >
rn
z
LLJ
LLJ
cc
U)
mmo
51
v5,
CO
to
Lij
LU
In. wY >
rn
z
LLJ
LLJ
cc
U)
I U
H -
4
Haw r
Ga 4J -
O W ro C
co .
4
C
U C O -1
U \ W N
C
44 14
O
D
1 7-I '
H1 ~ a1 H
W a) i . Cl) O 4-3 C a-P
N
a)4J w 04 U)
W r O
O
I
4-1 0 N S
C
L
Y Q . C w O 4 O-
a+ k 4 r
Q a '
U)
U U
CL
Z v
W `
H H Ixz
zo aN zN aN
CN
a
N X U 2: U U
00
W
W
z 'r qtr
c
Cn
Z
z
CL
P<4
P
N H
O W
V
i
z sJl3
s•
Outline
Review and Discussion of the Comprehensive Plan
Housing Element
1. Introduction
Role of the Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element
Life cycle Housing
2. Growth and development of the housing stock
3. Impacts and change
4. Development of plans and strategies to respond
5. Implementation and progress report
6. An action plan for the future:
1983 plan and policies adopted by reference
Housing program and market place framework
The development of specific numerical goals
Updating the demographic data
A Comprehensive Plan that is supportive and Flexible to the
broadest variety of housing choices possible.
P: Housing:Housele]
Brief Excerpts from the Plan
are attached:
Cover Page
Table of Contents
Housing Policies
CITY OF RICHFIELD
HOUSING PLAN
NOVEMBER, 1983
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAG E
Introduction 1
Data Summary and Analysis 2
Demographics 2
Housing 6
Land Use and Availability 17
Housing Policies 20
Numerical Housing Goals and Objectives 23
Existing Housing Assistance Programs 26
Proposed Housing Program Direction 28
Housing Rehabilitation Programs 32
Financial Devices 35
Official Controls 37
Housing Revenue Bond Programs 44
Single Family Housing Mortgage Revenue Bond Program 48
Multi - Famliy Housing Mortgage Revenue Bond Program 55
HOUSING POLICIES
Richfield is a fully developed suburb with an established land use pattern.
The policy decisions which the community makes are targeted toward maintaining-.
the existing housing and providing a variety of housing opportunities.
General Housing Policies Will Be:
1. To require high standards of residential development.
2. To see a diversified housing supply with a balance between higher and
lower value homes with the reservation that lower value housing shall
not become so extensive as to place an undue financial burden on the
local tax base.
3. To permit all types of housing, provided each is properly located in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, and the site plans and
structural quality are in accord with health and building standards as
well as urban design standards and promote a safe, secure energy
efficient residential environment.
4. To maintain programs which will sustain the existing housing supply in
a safe, sound condition and be developed and administered in a manner
consistent with the housing goals of the community.
5. To actively pursue alternative housing options for the elderly
including cooperatives, condominiums and apartments to free up existing
housing units for younger larger families.
6. To reaffirm the role of the community as a source of middle income
housing opportunities and to continue to strive to make use of any
programs available to meet the housing needs of that segment of
population.
Assisted Housing Policies Will Be:
1. Richfield will work towards meeting the "fair share" low and moderate
income housing goals as outlined by the Metropolitan Council in the
Metropolitan Housing Guide.
2. Richfield will continue to pursue funding from all available sources
and administer housing asssistance programs for all segments of the low
and moderate income population including family, large family, elderly,
renters, and homeowners.
3. Richfield will continue its acquisition of substandard residential
properties and will continue its use of land write -down techniques as
incentive for development of low and moderate income housing.
4. Richfield will continue to provide housing rehabilitation grants and
loans to assist low and moderate income persons in maintaining their
homes.
20
5. To ensure that a variety of new ownership and rental housing
opportunities are provided, the City should consider participation in
housing development projects through housing revenue bond financing and
the use of other financial techniques such as tax-increment financing,
recognizing that it must also assess the potential financial impact of"
such activities on other affected public agencies and services.
6. The City should encourage the use of programs and resources
available through the federal government and the Minnesota Housing
Finance Agency as well as powers granted it through enabling
legislation to expand local opportunities for both homeownership and
rental housing.
7. Housing opportunities provided in the city through federal, state or
local efforts should be affirmatively marketed and available to all
housing producers and consumers and, in particular, minorities, low -
income households, families with children, the handicapped and
households displaced by public or private action.
Market Rate Housing Policies Will Be:
1. Richfield will continue to maintain and administer a zoning ordinance
which protects the health, safety and welfare of the community but
which does not contain standards which exclude any economic group in
the city.
2. Richfield will work towards a revision of the residential zoning
regulations to promote the conservation of the existing housing base
while utilizing residential districts with varying lot size and density
requirments to allow varying housing values, size, type and environment.
3. Richfield will require that City -owned land that is sold for private
housing development be developed with affordable units compatible with
the Comprehensive Plan.
Maintenance, Rehabilitation, Energy Conservation and Redevelopment Policies
Will Be:
1. Richfield will develop neighborhood conservation programs and housing
rehabilitation programs which will encourage residents to maintain
their property.
2. Richfield will develop a systematic housing code enforcement program
which will require residents to maintain their property.
3. Richfield will preserve the integrity and value of existing residential
areas by prohibiting intrusion of incompatible land uses through active
enforcement of the City's zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Richfield will require the removal of vacant or abandoned structures
which are deemed a hazard to citizen health or safety if such
structures cannot be brought up to acceptable standards within a
reasonable period of time or if rehabilitation is not economically
feasible.
21
5. Richfield will actively encourage the replacement of back of the lot
garage houses" and other buildings of substandard construction.
6. Richfield will allow the development of mixed commercial* and,
residential uses in the Lyndale/Hub /Nicollet redevelopment area and
future redevelopment areas to provide higher density alternate housing
types convenient to commercial services and facilities.
7. Richfield will allow the development of higher density housing
opportunities along arterial streets to provide buffers to adjacent
uses.
Richfield will promote the installation of energy related improvements
to conserve energy use in the community through an energy conservation
program that:
provides citizens with information on programs and assistance
available for energy reduction improvements;
prepares to implement special authority from the state
legislature to finance energy improvements if private finance
sources are not available at rates similar to loans provided
through tax exempt financing;
helps property owners assess the cost effectiveness and
appropriate types of improvements to be made.
Richfield will also promote energy conservation through housing
rehabilitation and code enforcement programs.
22
D R A F T `95 comprehensive plan update 11/15/95
volume one ................executive summary
promote safe and efficient transit travel
Specific proposals for transit planning and development include:
continue to support development of high speed bus
demonstration project for communter trips.
support development of additional regional transit hubs
including the 1 -35W / 79th Street project.
add a new circulator bus route between Southdale and
The Mall of America to improve east -west transit in
Richfield.
encourage travel demand management strategies such
as park and ride, HOV lanes on freeways, shared
parking, and flexible work schedules.
h. public and private schools and libraries (insert summary of current
plans)
3.4 HOUSING ......... policies and plans are intended to enable Richfield to be a "life
cycle housing" city within the requirements of the Metropolitan Livable
Communities Act, with sufficient affordable housing, diverse stock of housing
types, and residential and commercial land use and development planning that
provides affordable housing that is accessible to employment, recreation, and
services. Because Richfield is a fully developed, first -ring suburb, changes in
housing characteristics can only be accomplished only redevelopment. The `95
PLAN proposals include:
a. update the 1990 census data on housing to determine current and
future housing needs, and to provide a sound basis for housing
policies and implementation.
b. goals for future housing needs are:
maintain the current ratio of affordable housing by providing
development sites throughout the city.
provide opportunities for development of at least 1,000
additional housing units in the city.
increase the number of single family- attached dwellings by at
least 500 units.
reduce the number of medium density multiple dwelling units
by 1,000, and increase the number of high density units by
2,000.
maintain a ratio of 55% owner occupied to 45% rental units.
c. policies to guide housing decisions are:
maintian high quality development standards for residential
development.
THP RRAI IFR rPni IP Wr A, fnnu7 PArF ONE-16v...-. . v. •v v. , •.. v .................. -.2 . . __ NE . r
D R A F T `95 comprehensive plan update 11/15/95
volume one ................executive summary
increase density of housing along arterials and collector
streets, and in mixed use development subareas to replace
units lost over the last decade.
provide for a more diverse housing stock by promoting
development of single family- attached housing, reduction in
the number of medium density multiple dwelling units, and an
increase in the number of high density units.
upgrade existing housing stock continue the "Richfield
Rediscovered" and other programs to encourage and support
rehabilitation and upgrading of existing housing stock of all
types and values.
encourage development of housing units to serve special
populations.
support attractive, stable neighborhoods through strong
housing code enforcement, good public facilities and services,
rehabilitation and replacement construction incentives, and
active neighborhood resident organizations.
review zoning, platting, building regulations, and the approval
process itself, in order to provide flexibility and expeditious
reviews.for development and redevelopment proposals.
continue housing assistance programs through the Richfield
HRA grants and loans programs.
increase commercial development to provide additional jobs
near convenient to housing development areas.
3.5 ECONOMICS/FISCAL ......... planning must recognize the trend toward less state
and federal funding, while at the same time the need for more public funds for
capital and operating budgets in a maturing community. The '95 PLANPlan
proposals include:
a. study and evaluate all fees and charges for public services to see
that revenues cover the full costs of services and all supporting
infrastructure maintenance and reserves, and propose grant or
subsidy, policies to respond to the needs of special groups or
populations
b. study and evaluate privatization options for public functions that are
fully or partially funded with tax revenues.
c. enlarge and extend tax increment financing districts to encourage
development and redevelopment that increases tax base.
d. adopt industrial revenue bonding procedures to finance private
development that increases tax base.
e. continue to use revenue and general obligation bonds to finance
public facility capital improvement programs
TI-IF RPAI IFP r.Pr)l IP W -,.=2 PAGE ONE -17