The URL can be used to link to this page

02-27-1996CITY OF RICFIFIELD PLRMinG OOf T1f issi0n nGEnDR February 27, 1996 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL MONESSOMM APPROVAL OF MINUTES Special Planning Commission meeting of January 17, 1996, January 18, 1996, Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 23, 1996, special Planning Commission meeting of January 25, 1996, January 27, 1996, at 11:00 A.M. and 1:00 P.M. and Study Session meeting of February 13, 1996. PUBLIC HEARING >' ITEM #1 96 -PUD -1 TOLD Development Co. - Planned Unit Development Plan and Rezoning from C -3 and R to PC -2, to allow construction of Meridian Crossings office development ITEM #2 96 -FDP -1 TOLD Development Co. - Conditional Use Permit and 96 -CUP -1 Final Development Plan to allow construction of Phase I of Meridian Crossings office development ITEM #3 96 -FDP -2 TOLD Development Co. - Conditional Use Permit and 96 -CUP -2 Final Development Plan to allow construction of Phase II of Meridian Crossings office development NEW: BUS:'NESS... . ITEM PC Letter #1 Election of Planning Commission Chairperson, Vice - Chairperson and Secretary ITEM #5 PC Letter #2 Appointment of Liaisons ITEM 6 PC Letter #3 Approval of PC Bylaws ITEM #7 PC Letter #4 Introductory discussion of the CIP process OLD BUSINESS ITEM #8 PC Letter #5 Discussion of Section 526 ordinance amendment for auto related uses ITEM #9 Lyndale Avenue Strategic Development Plan - update on schedule ITEM #10 Comprehensive Plan Update - update on communication Plan LIAISON .RE RT School Board Community Services Advisory Commission H RA City Council ENT .:::......::. 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 MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT p.m. Special Meeting January 17, 1996 Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Timothy Erlander, Mitchell Hadley, Kevin Hansen and Kristal Stokes David Gepner, Pamela Dmytrenko, Dawn Postudensek and Paul Wasko Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:10 Chairperson Linnihan gave a brief summary of the meeting's purpose and introduced Fred Hoisington of Hoisington Koegler Group. Mr. Hoisington reviewed the opportunities and problems that exist in the corridor. He explained the criteria that had been established to evaluate the plans for upgrading the area and stated that the criteria can be used in the future to evaluate potential projects. Mr. Hoisington briefly reviewed the alternative plans that had been developed. He explained the conclusions he came to after the first corridor meeting and reviewed the economic wisdom that the City needs to follow. These two factors led to the development of a hybrid plan. Mr. Hoisington gave an overview of the information that they had learned since the first corridor meeting. The market study was completed and indicated that there is a market for neighborhood- oriented uses as well as small office space. They assessed the impact on residential values and considered the impact -of the widening of Lyndale Avenue. They reviewed traffic impacts and assessed the costs of the various alternatives. Michael Schroeder of Hoisington Koegler reviewed the components of the hybrid plan. He explained that it was a concept of what might happen in the corridor. He explained that they would recommend that the 7600 block be expanded. He showed illustrations of potential landscape treatments and explained that business access to the alley in the 7500 block should be restricted. He also suggested that half the street at 75th Street be closed to eliminate short cuts through the neighborhood. Mr. Hoisington discussed a potential strategy for accomplishing the hybrid plan in the corridor. He explained that there is not enough money to do everything at once. The City will need to establish priorities if it decides to adopt the plan. Mr. Hoisington stated that he would recommend the City take a proactive approach to the 7600 block. In the 7400 and 7500 blocks, January 17, 1996 Page 2 the City should be prepared to respond to a potential proposal if one were to come along, and the City should use the established criteria to evaluate all proposals. Mr. Hoisington emphasized that relocation benefits would be a required part of any development and that businesses being relocated would be treated fairly. He stated that the streetscapes would likely be done in phases. Patrick O'Brien, 7618 Lyndale Avenue, asked to what extent the existing businesses would be able to stay. Mr. Hoisington responded that some will probably stay and that some might be able to do things on their own. He stated that the Council could suggest that any developer try to incorporate as many of the existing businesses as possible. Mr. Hoisington explained that some businesses will have difficulty paying the higher rents. Mr. O'Brien asked about the benefits that are paid to businesses who have to relocate. He stated that he has heard from the lawyers for the former business owners on 77 1/2 Street and that some of those owners are now suing the City. He questioned how fairly the businesses were treated if they were suing. Mr. Hoisington explained that a city and business may disagree over how much should be paid and that it has to be worked out. Chairperson Linnihan stated that the City is required to follow federal guidelines when it relocates home and businesses, and Mr. O'Brien should feel free to contact City staff if he has specific questions about benefits. Bob Lurtsema, 7644 Lyndale Avenue, stated that his neighboring businesses were relocated because of the 77th Street project, and they were very happy with the way they were treated. He asked if it would be possible for one of the smaller businesses to do part of the redevelopment on their own. Mr. Hoisington responded that it might be possible if the person could garner the necessary resources. Patrick O'Brien asked what the time frame was for the 7600 block. Mr. Hoisington stated that it depends on the level of interest but would guess 3 to 5 years. Patti Sterbuck, 7514 Lyndale Avenue, stated that her property value remained relatively stable for years and then was devalued $33,000 last year. She hadn't received an answer as to why it dropped so dramatically. Mr. Hoisington promised to look into the matter. David Johnson asked if the City would consider being proactive and purchasing all the properties. Mr. Hoisington stated that it is generally cheaper when a developer does it but would discuss the possibility with staff. Mr. Sawitzke stated that if the City purchased the property, they would have a better definition of the timeline. Randall Burmeister, 7412 Lyndale Avenue, stated that he was relocated from 77th Street and was treated fairly. He cautioned people not to move before the City moves you because it affects your benefits. Elliot Wolson, property owner, asked if there was a demand for second and third story space. Mr. Hoisington stated that they were still exploring the idea and that the more levels, the more financially feasible a project is. January 17, 1996 Page 3 Paul Husman, 7516 Lyndale Avenue, asked about the time lapse if a business wanted to be part of the project but had to leave while the new building was being constructed. Dean Johnson stated that the City should explore phasing the development to make it easier for an existing business to be a part of the project. Lorraine Teel, 7529 Lyndale Avenue, questioned how the City would determine which businesses would be interested in staying. She suggested that the City ask the question now so they have some idea of the interest and can convey that to a developer. Clarence Sutton, 7622 Lyndale Avenue, stated that he was concerned about the level of rents that would be charged and stated that CSM didn't want certain uses to be a part of that project regardless of the ability to pay rent. Mr. Hoisington explained that the desire is there on the part of the City but that the economics may prohibit some businesses from staying. Mr. Husman asked if it would be possible for some businesses to work together and approach a developer. Mr. Hoisington stated that it might be and emphasized that each business should evaluate all of their options and find the situation that will work best for them. Mr. Hoisington invited the business people to attend the neighborhood meeting on the 18th. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:45 p.m. Planning Commission Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS AB SENT STAFF PRESENT p.m. Special Meeting January 18, 1996 Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela Dmytrenko, Timothy Erlander, Mitchell Hadley, Kristal Stokes and Paul Wasko David Gepner, Kevin Hansen and Dawn Postudensek Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:05 Chairperson Linnihan gave a brief summary of the meeting's purpose and introduced Fred Hoisington of Hoisington Koegler Group. Mr. Hoisington reviewed the history of the planning process and explained that they hope to have Council and Planning Commission approval of a plan in the next two months. He described the opportunities and problems that exist in the corridor. He explained the criteria that had been established to evaluate the plans for upgrading the area and stated that the criteria can be used in the future to evaluate potential projects. Mr. Hoisington briefly reviewed the alternative plans that had been developed. He explained the conclusions he came to after the first corridor meeting and reviewed the economic wisdom that the City needs to follow. He stated that these two factors led to the development of a hybrid plan which combines alternatives one, two and three. Mr. Hoisington gave an overview of the information that they had learned since the first corridor meeting. The market study was completed and indicated that there is a market for neighborhood- oriented uses as well as small office space. They assessed the impact on residential values and considered the impact of the widening of Lyndale Avenue. They met with developers to discuss the feasibility of two and three story buildings. They.reviewed traffic impacts and assessed the costs of the various alternatives. Michael Schroeder of Hoisington Koegler reviewed the components of the hybrid plan. He explained that it was a concept of what might happen in the corridor. He explained that they would recommend that the 7600 block and the southeast corner of the 7500 block be expanded. Redevelopment would occur in the rest of the corridor within the existing boundaries and over a much longer period of time. Redevelopment might also occur on the northeast corner of the 7400 block when the properties are ready to turn over. He showed illustrations of potential landscape treatments for the buffer and explained that business access to the alley in the 7500 block should be restricted. He also suggested that half of the street at 75th Street be closed to eliminate short cuts through the neighborhood. Mr. Schroeder described some ideas for making the area more January 18, 1996 Page 2 than just buildings and parking lots. Pocket parks and areas in the parking lots for events could be incorporated into a development. Mr. Hoisington discussed a potential strategy for accomplishing the hybrid plan in the corridor. He explained that there is not enough money to do everything at once. The City will need to establish priorities if it decides to adopt the plan. Mr. Hoisington stated that he would recommend the City take a proactive approach to the 7600 block and the southeast corner of the 7500 block. In the 7400 and 7500 blocks, the City should be prepared to respond to a potential proposal if one were to come along, and the City should use the established criteria to evaluate all proposals. Mr. Hoisington emphasized that relocation benefits would be a required part of any development and that homes and businesses being relocated would be treated fairly. He stated that the streetscape would likely be done in phases. Mr. Hoisington asked the group to point out the good points of the plan. Dick Franzmeier, 7532 Garfield, stated that the buffering between residential and commercial was a good point. A resident pointed out that restricting access at 75th Street would be a positive improvement. Jan Berge, 7345 Aldrich, stated that she was concerned that closing 75th Street would redirect traffic to 74th Street. Chairperson Linnihan responded to the concern by stating that the Planning Commission is exploring these kinds of traffic calming devices throughout the City and has asked staff to experiment with the techniques. Susan Payne, 7504 Aldrich, stated that a good point of the plan is that it will make the area look better but wanted to know how that is guaranteed. Mr. Hoisington stated that establishing guidelines would help guarantee a good looking project. Another resident stated that he liked the fact that the buildings would be brought to the street, cars would be hidden and foot traffic encouraged. He also expressed concern that everything would look the same. Michael Schroeder stated that the intent isn't for the buildings to look the same but to have the streetscape tie the buildings together. Gert Franzmeier, 7532 Garfield, pointed out that it was an improvement to the existing hodge -podge and wondered if a "Welcome to Richfield" sign could be incorporated. John Walswick, 7633 Garfield, stated that he was concerned about being isolated because of the buffering combined with the wall. He was also concerned that increased traffic would make it difficult for him to get in and out of the neighborhood. He also stated that he thinks the entire residential block should be taken instead ofjust half of it. Wilma Cross, 7521 Aldrich, stated that she's concerned about the impact closing 75th Street would have on her ability to access her garage. Jo Romer, 7405 Aldrich, pointed out that the plan doesn't address the parking problem at Metro Dental. Mr. Hoisington stated that they are trying to meet with the owner of Metro Dental and get to the root of the problem. January 18, 1996 Page 3 A resident pointed out that he was concerned that pedestrians would have easy .access to the residential neighborhood. Michael Schroeder stated that a physical barrier could be part of the buffer as well. Jan Berge expressed concern with people hanging out in areas like the pocket parks. She wondered what the police department's response was to the plan. In response to a resident's question, Mr. Hoisington stated that some of the existing businesses may be able to be part of the new development and others will be relocated. A resident asked if standards would be required for signage and lighting. Michael Schroeder stated that under this plan, lighting would be more unified and that it could be done in such a way that respects the neighborhood. Controls could also be built in for signage. Dick Franzmeier asked what types of businesses would be attracted to the development. Mr. Hoisington estimated that they would be of a small scale and more service oriented. Some residents expressed concern about the impact on property values and requested something in writing stating that their values wouldn't be affected. In response to a resident's question, Mr. Hoisington explained that the timeframe they estimated for the 7600 block was three to five years. Mr. Hoisington promised to explore the answer to a resident's question about what would happen to the value of the homes that are slated to be taken. John Walswick questioned if people participating in a first time buyers program would be able to receive that benefit if they moved. Jo Romer questioned the traffic impact and how the City is addressing the issue. Chairperson Linnihan explained some of the proposed transportation improvements. He invited the group to attend the Planning Commission presentation on the Comprehensive Plan on January 25 at 7:00 p.m. in the high school auditorium. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:45 p.m. Timothy Erlander Planning Commission Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 23, 1996 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: Susan Rosenberg HRA Members: Chairperson Thomas Harms; Commissioners: Vern Luettinger and; Joan Helmberger STAFF PRESENT: Jim Prosser, City Manager Bruce Palmborg, Acting Community Development Director Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator Steve Kenny, Planning Assistant Secretary The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Erlander, S /Hadley to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of December 12. 1995. and Study Session meetings of December 19, 1995 and January 9, 1996. PUBLIC HEARINGS. Lyndale Avenue Strategic Development Plan ITEM 91 Hoisington Koegler Group January 23, 1996 Page 2 Fred Hoisington discussed the outcomes of the two public meetings. Mr. Hoisington stated the criteria and standards of the plan. He focused on the primary concerns of the businesses and the residents. Businesses were interested in what the plan would mean to them. The residents appeared to see the plans favorably, but there were some concerns over parking and public safety issues. Mr. Hoisington discussed the next steps in the process. These steps are to prepare a newsletter, edit and approve the plan, take the plan to the City Council, and eventually hold a public meeting. This process should be completed in 6 weeks. The Planning Commission discussed the Lyndale Strategic Development Plan. Chairperson Linnihan commented that the newsletter would answer the public's questions about the Plan. Jim Prosser addressed Chairperson Linnihan's comment by stating that the newsletter would act as a guide, but that one on one contact would be the most efficient way to answer the public's questions. Council Member Susan Rosenberg discussed her observations from the two corridor meetings. HRA Chairperson Tom Harms asked the Planning Commission to make a decision about the plan. Fred Hoisington discussed the steps to keep the public involved over the long process. City Manager Prosser suggested that the Planning Commission should weigh the pros and cons of the Lyndale Strategic Development Plan in order to make a decision on the Plan. Chairperson Linnihan suggested another public hearing to review Fred Hoisington's Plan. Bruce Palmborg stated that before a public hearing can take place the plan needs to address the redevelopment law. City Manager Prosser stated that legal requirements would be looked at before any public hearings. NEW BUSINESS ITEM 92 Goals and Objectives for 1996 The Planning Commission discussed its goals and objectives for 1996. These goals are to discuss the following issues: Blight Ordinance Infrastructure Water Quality and Storm Water Management Auto related uses- February Study Session (C -2) January 23, 1996 Page 3 Townhomes Traffic calming- Spring project Review Zoning Ordinance -April 1996 Pawn shops gun shops (blight related) Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan meeting Chairperson Linnihan asked staff to establish a draft schedule for the topics. LIAISON REPORTS School Board: Commissioner Dmytrenko reported enrollment projections for the coming school year. The School Board does not anticipate a significant increase in its student population. The School District will receive less money due to the tax hearing results from the Southdale abatement. The District is currently interviewing candidates for the School Board. Community Services Advisory Commission: No report HRA: No report City Council: Commissioner Erlander stated that the Pull Tab Ordinance was rescinded and Petsmart is being held up due to the veterinarian clinic. Ad Hoc Traffic Committee: The Committee does not exist anymore. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:30 p.m. Timothy Erlan *er- --- Planning Commission Secretary H:P &Z:Temp1ate:A11 Files :PCMinute] PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES fi4k. i @ ., Special Meeting January 25, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pam Dmytrenko, Timothy Erlander, David Gepner, Mitchell Hadley, and Kristal Stokes MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners: Kevin Hansen, Dawn Postudensek, and Paul Wasko STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Palmborg, Acting Community Development Director Steve Kenny, Planning Commission Staff Assistant The Planning Commission special meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:30 P.M. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Stokes welcomed everyone and gave an introduction to the Comprehensive Plan. She explained the purpose of the plan and why it's being updated. Commissioner Stokes explained the process that the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee and Planning Commission undertook to develop the Plan. She explained that the purpose of the meeting was to get public feedback on the draft Plan. She described the future process for approving the Plan. She emphasized that this is a concept plan and that real changes will depend on priority, financial resources, and the availability of property. A couple from the area of 73rd and 15th Avenue expressed their concerns about being relocated due to the proposal to enlarge Wilson Park. Commissioner Stokes addressed the couple's concerns by explaining the Comprehensive Plan and the issue of relocation. She emphasized that relocation would be a voluntary process and not an act of condemnation. Larry Wozniczka, 6744 Wentworth, was concerned that the Comprehensive Plan would not explicitly state in its mission statement that the Comprehensive Plan is a concept and not a mandate. He made three recommendations that should be included into the Comprehensive Plan. January 25, 1996 Page 2 His first recommendation was that the Plan should include set liveable noise levels for the residences near the airport. His next recommendation is for the Plan to show some intent for a Soo -Line recreational corridor. Finally, He would like to see another I -35W pedestrian crossing to link neighborhoods possibly improving the 76th Street crossing. Don Brauer addressed Larry Wozniczka's recommendations stating that the Comprehensive Plan addresses the last two recommendations. The first recommendation is addressed by the Metropolitan Council. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:30 p.m. Timothy Erlander Planning Commission Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE Special Meeting January 27, 1996 11:00 A.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairperson Kristal Stokes; Commissioners: Timothy Erlander, David Gepner, and Mitchell Hadley MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pam Dmytrenko, Kevin Hansen, Dawn Postudensek, and Paul Wasko STAFF PRESENT: Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator Steve Kenny, Planning Commission Staff Assistant The Planning Commission special meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Stokes at 11:10 a.m. No quorum was present. NEW BUSINESS Vice Chairperson Kristal Stokes welcomed everyone and gave an introduction to the Comprehensive Plan. Vice Chair Stokes explained the purpose of the plan and why it's being updated. She showed slides of the City describing the changes that have occurred since the last Plan was written. Vice Chair Stokes explained the process that the Comprehensive Plan steering committee and Planning Commission undertook to develop the Plan. She explained that the purpose of the meeting was to get public feedback on the draft Plan. She described the future process for approving the Plan. She emphasized that this is a concept plan and that real changes will depend on priority, financial resources, and the availability of property. A resident from the area of 68th Street and 12th Avenue stated that she was concerned with increased traffic on 12th Avenue. She's also concerned about the recent ordinance that was passed that restricts the things that can be placed in the boulevard. She expressed a desire to see the HUB turned around. A resident expressed concern about taking homes to expand Wilson Park. Vice Chair Stokes explained that the committee was concerned about housing numbers too and had taken steps to increase the number of housing units in the City. She also explained the rationale behind January 27, 1996 Page 2 Don Brauer, consultant to the project, stated that Washington Park provides an opportunity for a mixed use development but that any park land taken would have to be replaced. A resident expressed concern with flooding around Wilson Pond. Mr. Brauer recommended that he review the City's new stormwater management plan which explains the improvements that are planned for the system. A resident stated that he would like to see pedestrian access to Southdale. Mr. Brauer responded that Southdale was designed for cars but that Edina does have a pedestrian plan for the area. Responding a resident's question, Mr. Brauer explained that the plan suggests places for bike pathways but that the actual design of the paths would come later. In response to a resident's concern about the length of the "walk" signals at intersections, Mr. Brauer stated that the problem with changing the length is that most of the lights are on state or county roads. He explained that the legislature is looking at this issue. A resident questioned why the Plan was looking to increase the number of apartments. Mr. Brauer explained that the Plan looks for an increase in attached housing or townhome -type developments and an increase in high density housing. Donna Drummond, 6438 Knox Avenue, encouraged the Planning Commission to work to make the City pedestrian and bicycle friendly. She stated that she is supportive of the City's housing programs and wanted to complement the City on the improvements that have been made to the City's parks. Mr. Brauer stated that the City has a good parks system and that the Plan will encourage connecting the parks with trails. The Plan also suggests that the City purchase houses located within the parks, as they become available. A resident asked if the Plan addressed the opportunities presented by exposure along I- 494. Mr. Brauer explained that the plan supports office and commercial development along the freeway as well as high density housing. A resident raised additional concerns about the Wilson and Washington Park issue. He stated that he felt he should have been notified about the change. A resident questioned whether the City is getting rid of too much housing. Mr. Brauer explained that Richfield currently has the highest percentage of housing of any metropolitan area community. The Plan recommends that housing be replaced with other uses in some areas where it makes sense. In response to a resident's question, Mr. Brauer clarified that there is an error on one of the maps and that the two houses north of Wilson Pond aren't proposed to be taken. January 27, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Brauer reviewed the Plans ideas for West I -494. Mr. Brauer emphasized that the Plan doesn't propose to "take" property but rather it proposes that the City take advantage of opportunities. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 12:10 p.m. Tim4othylander Planning Commission Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTF S w2rapaTa Special Meeting January 27, 1996 1:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairperson Kristal Stokes; Commissioners: Timothy Erlander, Mitchell Hadley, and Pam Dmytrenko. MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Kevin Hansen, Dawn Postudensek, and Paul Wasko STAFF PRESENT: Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator Steve Kenny, Planning Commission Staff Assistant The Planning Commission special meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Stokes at 1:00 p.m. No quorum was present. NEW BUSINESS Vice Chairperson Kristal Stokes welcomed everyone and gave an introduction to the Comprehensive Plan. Vice Chair Stokes explained the purpose of the plan and why it's being updated. She showed slides of the City describing the changes that have occurred since the last Plan was written. Vice Chair Stokes explained the process that the Comprehensive Plan steering committee and Planning Commission undertook to develop the Plan. She explained that the purpose of the meeting was to get public feedback on the draft Plan. She described the future process for approving the Plan. She emphasized that this is a concept plan and that real changes will depend on priority, financial resources, and the availability of property. A resident from the area of 64th Street and Vincent Avenue applauded the efforts of the Richfield Rediscovered Program, but he believes that Richfields expectations for this program are too low. He was concerned about the average property values as being too low. Another concern of his was regarding set backs and square footage. He believes that the current set backs act as a negative limit towards the value of the homes and property. January 27, 1996 Page 2 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 1:35 p.m. imoth Erlander Planning Commission Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTFS Study Session February 13, 1996 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 STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Bill Kilian and Gertrude Ulrich COUNCIL Members: None STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Palmborg, Community Development Director Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator Steve Kenny, Planning Assistant Secretary The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:00 p.m. NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Linnihan announced that the City Council approved Bruce Palmborg as the Community Development Director. Community Development Director Palmborg informed the Planning Commission about his new role and how it would relate to the Planning Commission and the Commission's meetings. OLD BUSINESS Item #1 Comprehensive Plan update Commissioner Stokes described the outcomes of the various Comprehensive Plan public meetings. She said that the feedback from the meetings was on an informal basis and it appeared that the public wanted more opportunities to provide feedback. Commissioner Stokes stated that Susan Rosenberg would like to see newspaper articles on the Comprehensive Plan. February 13, 1996 Page 2 Zoning Administrator Urban suggested that Jill Schultz do a public relations piece on the Comprehensive Plan which would help to better market this plan to the public. Steering Committee Member Ulrich commented on the success of the League of Women Voters Cable program on the Plan. Chairperson Linnihan suggested that the Planning Commission needs to hold some meetings at the park shelters or schools. He suggested that these meetings be organized by wards. He stated that the meetings could be presented by Planning Commission representatives in their own ward if possible. Chairperson Linnihan offered that the Planning Commission needs to promote these meetings in a reasonable time frame. He suggested that this process should be completed in 6 weeks. Commissioner Stokes suggested that the neighborhood Block Captains could distribute fliers to their neighbors. Steering Committee Member Kilian stated that the Planning Commission should keep an attendance sheet at all the meetings. Commissioner Erlander discussed his meeting with the Optimists Club. The reaction from the meeting appeared to be positive. Chairperson Linnihan suggested that the Planning Commission send a mailing to all of the residents in the wards that are effected by the Comprehensive Plan. Larry Wozniczka, 6744 Wentworth Ave., stated that he was concerned with how the Planning Commission was addressing and listening to people's comments. He submitted a written correction to the comments Staff had recorded. Commissioner Postudensek was worried about the number of the mailings targeted for these meetings and the cost of the mailing. Community Development Director Palmborg stated that Staff would take care of finding funding for the communication effort. Chairperson Linnihan suggested that the important thing is to get the schedule set and that the meetings be held in March. Commissioner Stokes was concerned about the maps as an effective way to communicate the plan. The Planning Commission should emphasize the goals then use the maps. Chairperson Linnihan suggested that the Planning Commission should explore other ways to communicate the Comprehensive Plan and the announcements of the ward meetings. The media blitz would consist of post cards, newspaper, SouthWest News, and church bulletins. He suggested that the Planning Commission revisit this idea half way through the ward meetings. February 13, 1996 Page 3 Commissioner Wasko commented about using the internet to implement feedback. Zoning Administrator Urban informed the group that the City currently does not have that capability. Chairperson Linnihan suggested that a hotline could be used to record feedback. Chairperson Linnihan suggested that the group is currently working on phase 1 of the communication plan and that phase 2 will be addressed at a later meeting. . .. . The Planning Commission discussed the Comprehensive Plan comments from the comment cards that were handed out at the two meetings at the senior high school. ITEM #2 Review of Zoning Ordinance Automobile related Uses Zoning Administrator Urban summarized the conditions of the Automobile Related Uses Ordinance. She explained that the ordinance cannot distinguish between existing and new businesses. She discussed the buffer requirements for the different auto related uses. Zoning Administrator Urban described the nature of the neighborhood complaints compiled by Public Safety relating to automobile related uses. Steve Jensen, Transmission Shop owner, is concerned about having to abide to the buffer plan that is being proposed. Zoning Administrator Urban stated that Mr. Jensen would likely need a variance in order to expand his business. Chairperson Linnihan wondered if the current ordinance is too restrictive. He commented that another option could be to reduce the size of the buffer, but require more stringent methods of buffering. He stated he would like the Planning Commission to look at the ordinance and look at requests like Mr. Jensen's in a flexible way. The Planning Commission discussed the ways to accommodate Mr. Jensen's request to expand on his building and site. Commissioner Stokes suggested that the setbacks stay the same, but the ordinance would require a higher percentage of screening. Commissioner Wasko was concerned that Commissioner Stokes suggestion would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Wasko suggested that the Planning Commission look into limiting the square footage allowed. Chairperson Linnihan suggested that the Planning Commission explore the options of amending the Automobile Related Use Ordinance and Public mechanical garages Use at the regular meeting on February 27. February 13, 1996 Page 4 ITEM #3 Review of Draft Study Session Schedule Chairperson Linnihan asked the Planning Commission to offer any comments on the Study Session Schedule. Zoning Administrator Urban announced an upcoming seminar that the Planning Commission members can attend. Commissioners should contact her if they're interested in attending. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:30 p.m. Erlander Planning Commission Secretary H:P &Z:Template:All Files:PCMinutej On CITY OF R10HRELD PLRnninG commission Motion Request Item: #1 Agenda Section: Public Hearing Case: #96 -PUD -1 Date: February 27, 1996 GENERAL INFORMATION Petitioner: TOLD Development Company Location: That area known as The Cloverleaf, bounded by 77th Street to the north, The Shops at Lyndale to the east, I-494 and its frontage road to the south, and Girard Avenue to the west. Type of Request: Consideration of a planned unit development (PUD) plan and rezoning of land from C -3 (high density commercial) and R (single family residential) to PC -2 (planned general commercial) to allow Meridian Crossings, an office development. Zoning: Portion of the property north of old 77th Street, extended, is R (single family residential); Portion of the property south of old 77th Street, extended, is C -3 (high density commercial). Land Use: vacant Comp. Plan: Freeway Strip References: Zoning Code: Section 536 outlines the establishment of PUD districts. ACTION Proposed Change: Approval of the PUD and rezoning, in conjunction with other City approvals, would allow TOLD to develop Meridian Crossings Staff Recommendation: Approve the PUD plan and rezoning. 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 Bearing: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on February 27, 1996. City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council first reading on March 11, 1996, and a second reading and public hearing on April 8, 1996. ANALYSIS Background: The Interstate - Lyndale - Nicollet (ILN) redevelopment and tax increment financing district was established in 1985. This area is targeted for development and redevelopment for several reasons including the proximity to major roadways -- I -35W, I-494, 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue -- and the opportunity to increase the City's tax base and improve its image. The completion of 77th Street and the redevelopment of the area between the Cloverleaf and Lyndale Avenue have increased interest in the area. For many years, the subject property was the site of the Cloverleaf Motel. The Cloverleaf closed in the early 1980s, and the property was later purchased by CDR, a Texas -based development company. CDR proposed a 26 -story office and hotel development for the site. Neighborhood concerns stalled the project and CDR later went bankrupt. The City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) purchased the property from the Resolution Trust Company (RTC) in 1991 -92. The HRA purchased the property with the understanding that an office development would occur on the site once market conditions improved and a suitable development was proposed. In October of 1995, the HRA signed a development agreement with TOLD Development Company to sell the property to TOLD for the construction of an office development on the site. Proposal: TOLD is requesting City approval of Meridian Crossings, a two -phase office development consisting of 337,700 to 434,700 square feet of office space and two parking decks. The developer proposes building flexibility into the approved plan to enable TOLD to respond to tenant needs and market conditions. Phase I: Phase I would include a 6 to 8 story office building with a gross building area of 144,600 to 193,100 square feet. A 2 to 3 level parking deck and underground space within the building will provide parking for 544 to 730 cars. Parking is based on providing 4 spaces for every 1,000 square feet of rentable space (136,000 to 182,450 rentable square feet). Phase H: Phase II would include an 8 to 10 story office building with a gross building area of 193,100 to 241,600 square feet. A 2 to 3 level parking deck and underground space within the building will provide parking for 730 to 916 cars at 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of rentable space (182,450 to 228,900 rentable square feet). Additional flexibility would allow the developer to construct either Phase I or Phase II first, depending on tenant demand. If the project is approved, construction could begin on one of the two phases in the Summer of 1996 with completion expected in the Summer of 1997. Construction on the remaining phase is expected to be completed within 3 to 5 years. Issues: Building Design and Site Last_ Meridian Crossings provides Class -A office space with buildings that are rectangular in shape and will feature a stopped glass curtain wall facing the interchange of I -35W and I494. The site layout attempts to preserve as many of the existing mature oak trees as possible. The entry road from 77th Street was designed to minimize the loss of trees and emphasize their contribution to the site. Site Access, Traffic and Neighborhood Impact: The main entrance to the project will be from 77th Street, just west of old Emerson Avenue. The developer has requested a signal light at this entrance as a signal justification report projects that a signal will be warranted with the construction of both phases. The entrance to the Shops at Lyndale at Emerson Avenue will be closed. Access will be provided to the retail development from the signalized entrance. Additional entrances to Meridian Crossings are provided on Girard Avenue and on the I-494 frontage road (Market Drive). The developer has agreed to work with the City at such time that the I -35W and 1-494 interchange is upgraded to ensure continued access to the frontage road. A pathway will connect pedestrians from 77th Street to the building entrances. An analysis of traffic impacts indicates that development of both phases will likely trigger some additional roadway improvements on Lyndale Avenue at 77th Street and /or at I-494. The City has already secured funding for a right turn lane from eastbound 77th Street to Lyndale Avenue. It is anticipated that the turn lane will be installed before the first phase is completed. A second left turn lane from northbound Lyndale Avenue to 77th Street is the next likely improvement that would be made. The City will regularly monitor the area for problems and make any additional improvements that are necessary. (The traffic analysis assumes the highest level of development, an 8 and a 10 story building.) The 77th Street screen wall will be extended from Emerson Avenue to the I- 35W entrance which will reduce the noise and visual impact of the development on the residential neighborhood to the north. A study was done to measure the impact of the buildings' shadows (from 6 to 10 stories) on the residential neighborhood and indicates a minimal impact. Environmental Issues: A Type II wetland, located on the northwest comer of the site, will be filled as part of the project. The wetland is of low quality and has already been impacted by previous development. The developer has applied for a permit to fill the wetland and replace it with a high quality wetland adjacent to Legion Lake, just east of the Water Plant. The developer has submitted an Environmental Assessment Worksheet EAW) to the City and the Environmental Quality Board for review and public comment. The EAW was based on the assumption that the development would be 8 and 10 stories. The developer will seek a negative declaration on the EAW from the City Council on April 8, 1996. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended Action: Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the PUD plan and rezoning of the subject area from R and C -3 to PC -2. Basis: 1. The proposed PUD plan and rezoning is consistent with the ILN Redevelopment Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The PC -2 classification is appropriate for the proposed office use. 3. The realignment of 77th Street and erection of the noise wall create a division between the site and the residential area which will serve to minimize the impact of the development on the residential neighborhood. 4. The design and layout of the proposed development respects as well as maximizes the advantages of the site. 5. The development is in substantial conformance with the intent and regulations of the C -3 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. 4}60t-Yf6l091 NGGfi N.I'einey uvp3 Mara od.w. a r,vvu.ro GscnBv3 lvnJavn6 @ avnwro r WI9 rotpiG u.n OS9L•LG99 ([i9J S9L•tiK6 N1'IO.J.ounLl Gn cn6.3 yrn7 a oanw3 u vpQ 6VSG -0tt (9! 0 69CfA til'o.wii of R! anp '>J X0^00 [J 9 e}osauuiw 'pailpa sbuissoao ueipuan Q = y' a C,6 1 CITY OF R10HRELD K«nnm commission Action R®queit Item: #2 Agenda Section: Public Hearing Case: #96- FDP -1, #96 -CUP -1 Date: February 27, 1996 GENERAL INFORMATION Petitioner: TOLD Development Company Location: That area known as The Cloverleaf, bounded by 77th Street to the north, The Shops at Lyndale to the east, I-494 and its frontage road to the south, and Girard Avenue to the west. Type of Request: Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to allow development of Phase I of the Meridian Crossings office development. Zoning: Subject area would be rezoned to a planned unit development for office use. Land Use: Proposed to be office. Comp. Plan: Freeway Strip References: Zoning Code: Section 536 outlines the PUD process Section 546.05 outlines the conditional use permit process ACTION Proposed Change: Staff Recommendation: Approve the final development plan and 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 27, 1996. City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of April 8, 1996. ANALYSIS Proposal: Phase I of Meridian Crossings includes construction of a 6 to 8 story office building with a gross building area of 144,600 to 193,100 square feet. A 2 to 3 level parking deck and underground space within the building will provide parking for 544 to 730 cars. Issues; Meridian Crossings provides Class -A office space with buildings facing the interchange of I -35W and 1-494. The exterior will be constructed of pre- cast concrete with glass and granite chip accents. The building will be set back 40 feet from the property line along the south side of the site. The developer proposes that flexibility be built into the approved plan to allow TOLD to respond to tenant needs and market conditions. The flexibility would allow TOLD to construct the Phase I building within the range of 6 to 8 stories. The height of a 6 -story building would be approximately 82 feet and an 8- story building would be approximately 108 feet. The parking deck will be located to the north of the building. The maximum height of the parking deck would be 20 feet above grade for 2 structured levels and 30 feet above grade for 3 structured levels. A concept landscape plan for the site indicates that many of the existing oak trees will be retained and supplemented with additional landscaping. A detailed landscape plan will be submitted and approved by staff. The main entrance to Phase I would be from 77th Street with an additional entrance on the I494 frontage road. The site plan takes into account potential plans for upgrading the freeway interchange. The developer and the City will enter into an agreement to work together on the access from the site to the frontage road at such time that the interchange is upgraded. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended Action: Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the conditional use permit and final development plan for Phase I, with the following stipulations: 1. That the City Engineer approve the erosion control plan and storm water management plan. 2. That the Community Development Director approve a detailed landscape plan which includes specifications for protecting existing trees during construction. 3. That the Community Development Director approve the signage plan for the site. 4. That an agreement be established between the developer and the City to work together on the access from the site to the frontage road at such time that the freeway interchange is upgraded. 5. That the Conditional Use Permit not be issued until a building permit is applied for. Basis: 1. The proposed final development plan is consistent with the ILN Redevelopment Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The design and layout of the proposed development respects as well as maximizes the advantages of the site. 3. Analyses of the traffic and environmental impacts of the development indicate that the site and location can accommodate a building of 6 or 8 stories. 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. CITATIONS ZONING CODE: 546.05. Conditional use permits. Subdivision 1. Permit required. It shall be unlawful to engage in any use listed in this code as a conditional use without first obtaining a conditional use permit (CUP) from the City pursuant to this subsection. Subd. 2. Limitations. A conditional use permit may not be issued for the purpose of granting an adjustment or appeal, or for any use prohibited in the zoning district for which the permit is sought. Subd. 3. Application. Application for a conditional use permit shall be made to the Director on forms provided by the City. Subd. 4. Planning Commission review. After receipt of a completed application, a date shall be set for consideration before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may offer whatever public notice of its review it deems necessary. Following this consideration, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the application. Subd. 5. Public hearing. After receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission, a date shall be set for a public hearing. Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be published once in the official newspaper and sent by mail to all the owners of properties located wholly or partially within 350 feet. The Council shall make the final determination on the application, and in doing so shall make findings regarding its review. The Council may impose conditions and require guarantees on the granting of the permit in order to ensure compliance with the conditions designated in connection therewith. The Council shall make a decision within 120 days of submission of a completed application or such longer period not objected to by the applicant. If the Council fails to make a timely decision, the conditional use permit shall be deemed to have been approved. Subd. 6. Conditions for issuance. The Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it finds that all of the following conditions will be met: a) the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; b) the proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines; c) the proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code; d) the proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements; e) the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare; and f) there is a public need for such use at the proposed location; and g) the proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. Subd. 7. Recording of CUP. Upon commencement of an approved conditional use, a certified copy of the conditional use permit shall be filed by the applicant with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. The permit shall contain the legal description of the property. Subd. 8. Expiration of CUP. A conditional use permit shall expire one year after it has been issued unless: a) the use for which the permit was granted has commenced within the one year period; or b) upon written request of the person or corporation holding the CUP, the Council extends the expiration date for an additional period not to exceed one year. Subd. 9. Term of CUP. A conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as the conditions regulating it are observed, unless specifically stated otherwise. A conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months. Time shall be calculated as beginning on the day following the last day in which the use was in normal operation and shall run continuously thereafter. Subd. 10. Amendment to CUP. Holders of a conditional use permit may propose amendments to the permit by following the procedure set in this subsection for issuance of a new permit. Significant changes in the circumstances or scope of the use shall require approval of the Council. Such changes may include, but are not limited to, hours of operation, increase in number of employees, expansion of structure or premises, or major operational modifications, as determined by the Director. The Planning Commission may recommend, and the Council may impose, additional or modified conditions as a result of the amendment. q R L- PSGUuiw `Pl@llgDia Z Q,6 co SOUISSOJO ueip pan v Q W — Sit OQ ub O CM Pa9t-tF6 (ile) new ra'e„aa aa uivNi w,V%q odr+•puvl b AI61nptq 6ucw,gv3 v.na•n6 Q o,vuwq, iq v'eryaip uvn w9a:c, a.° u Gnro-nP.v3 P ^•0 mae -L— b b ucw W s cp w eno. w n wV' ma e K'Ctl Peei^6pg11 ¢DG9 e0 w•u- bleiaG 0101 q R L- PSGUuiw `Pl@llgDia Z Q,6 co SOUISSOJO ueip pan v Q W — Sit OQ ub O CM 1` 0"9-CFG fa 9) W09L-L£f55 1L1'ladvwuy b <nvp uv mpyy 6waw 6v31 n 'J 6.nuvarn vp ra9J mca N4.I'-" 'ou-W 9 P3 VId W C KI»vpw tl Y vr+1v 6G-01f ra9J 69£GS tAl 'o^oJ OM9d61Vv—!m O,101 elosauulw °plaIJ401H buissoao ueip!aaW_ 12 • W Q 441 0 m w_ w 0 m d r 0 N 0 ro mw m 0 w e 0Z V J co i m G` r H Eu 9 Rl 1 ei da S—E, s ,n„ O N W L C i0 W d3 O N L Z 0 z 3 J M5 W Y cc O N P99L•LEYGG N.I*I —N L7 , o16'Jr 00E9 elosauuiw 'pleijuoiaoGaxL'+EGrae 6uissoao ueip!j@N IL @mQ+-0L41119/ 69EGG W 'nD cltlN -1 UJ G I o„^6'PL P P9T @'de9 1 o- UOZQ Sid O N W L C i0 W d3 O N L Z 0 z 3 J M5 W Y cc O N 009C•Lf5(09) Q009L-LEfSG 14!'9 odiivauLJ m oan G.31 ^'J b 6in uswibv3 T J' m 000[-9£6 fQ 9J e W ;osauu 'pjaljyoia 6ulssoa:D ueipiaaW 1lu 0008-0[4 (p9J~ 69£55 N1J 'wC l vidv4l I = d w W n\ MMM 1 I I I I I I i I J R1W J c Z JJ I 8 o iO 5 N CO m W d O N ySyS J I I I U i L CIO xµ A f7 I lV W T j J n L •. ccr Cj MA AMR tiv:: vv v \vv ;•. CITY OF R10FIFIELD Knnnm oommission nation Request Item: #3 Agenda Section: Public Hearing Case: #96- FDP -2, #96 -CUP -2 Date: February 27, 1996 GENERAL INFORMATION Petitioner: TOLD Development Company Location: That area known as The Cloverleaf, bounded by 77th Street to the north, The Shops at Lyndale to the east, I-494 and its frontage road to the south, and Girard Avenue to the west. Type of Request: Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to allow development of Phase II of the Meridian Crossings office development. Zoning: Subject area would be rezoned to a planned unit development for office use. Land Use: Proposed to be office. Comp. Plan: Freeway Strip References: Zoning Code: Section 536 outlines the PUD process Section 546.05 outlines the conditional use permit process ACTION Proposed Change: Staff Recommendation: Approve the final development plan and 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 27, 1996. City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of April 8, 1996. ANALYSIS Proposal: Phase II of Meridian Crossings includes construction of an 8 to 10 story office building with a gross building area of 193,100 to 241,600 square feet. A 2 to 3 level parking deck and underground space within the building will provide parking for 730 to 916 cars. Issues: Meridian Crossings provides Class -A office space with buildings that are rectangular in shape and facing the interchange of I -35W and 1-494. The building will be set back 40 feet from the property line along the west side of the site. The developer proposes that flexibility be built into the approved plan to allow TOLD to respond to tenant needs and market conditions. The flexibility would allow TOLD to construct the Phase II building within the range of 8 to 10 stories. The height of an 8 -story building would be approximately 108 feet and a 10 -story building would be approximately 133 feet. The parking deck will be located to the northeast of the building. The maximum height of the parking deck would be 20 feet above grade for 2 structured levels and 30 feet above grade for 3 structured levels. The main entrance to Phase II would be from 77th Street with an additional entrance on Girard Avenue. A concept landscape plan for the site indicates that several of the existing oak trees will be retained and supplemented with additional landscaping. Landscaping and berming will be provided to the north of the Phase II parking deck to minimize the impact on the adjacent property. A detailed landscape plan will be submitted and approved by staff. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended Action: Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the conditional use permit and final development plan for Phase II, with the following stipulations: 1. That the City Engineer approve the erosion control plan and storm water management plan. 2. That the Community Development Director approve a detailed landscape plan which includes specifications for protecting existing trees during construction. 3. That the Community Development Director approve the signage plan for the site. 4. That the Conditional Use Permit not be issued until a building permit is applied for. Basis: 1. The proposed final development plan is consistent with the ILN Redevelopment Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The design and layout of the proposed development respects as well as maximizes the advantages of the site. 3. Analyses of the traffic and environmental impacts of the development indicate that the site and location can accommodate a building of 8 or 10 stories. 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. L'MJL-f'F61tP3vffCGlil'einvy uv03 p uiNVNVvelnpNedeavLUVI P,N elosauuIA 'PIGI 018X31.. eG q b, >,aoTv e11V vMxGV.A pUj co c0 nrw 6 31ui7 tl EsaeN Wj uW r a Qsbuissojou-ecppaW fJ .13vNIa6eGK as I UZ pUj co c0 r a QW = O Q tl.{i as p 1 I mmec -cco ras) 209L. LE446 N-1 "I iW b =N,pO uv 20EB Gns nG9 pn 0 6wiaa pg P99L -rES rae) YYE64 rai •o„o.y l T Pwl +a uuoMl 66161vgea,v 4926 -0LY (L9) 6 %64 1Q.j •fin0 oI vW Cml cn^6 "P!f P £'WRI 0269 m0 '00 vsudal n G 4101 2JosauUTA - plai;yaia o buissoao ueip!JOA a lig Z I I I I I li I &P N 1 O C N - N z 3 I I II I I I t I I I I III I w I - I 0 I a U O ^V CL N S co L n t I I I I I I I m o a I I w I II I I I t I I I I III I w I - I 0 I a U O ^V CL N S co L n t B-,-B,,, m m91'LErSS lid e-CCO uau Q € b qus mmFB pjaljyol8 A mmm6 rEG fC rYFK tLl'uiaYli rP3 EJOSGUuiw g N X mmaG -mtr Lp ei buissoao uoppen 6 %SG N.1'onoaJ Cidvy Q.121 h^6 "va vGNn mmFO J = J U 9! 0 0y w¢ OQ i ai Li 0i c W D to O N W d C0 N W L OZ NW W M W 0 H Bu w011 I 1no YKK 1i•b 1eP3 b uVRI •WGI 2losauuiw Iplai4golu 09•L-LiK• 1wi l gatl1iiva• 1 b -Buw au .PSCrp• r SOUISSOaO uleipiaaW E Eg ddd Q s= 2 Z E7 W u aQ ai I a 41 6 m m U y z G J M5 W cc O r N O r cc i WOFy u R jig; JS Cp ir S i i z o Fy LU WU C O W U 3 0 l a LA, W N Q V N C R J ip s. 9 °QQ r- w F- 00sz;g eliwi91 . N OOCO 3 Ae uulosauulW - plal }t a lu 0002- K6(ZI9) YYES$ NN' ° "'.'d P3 / nom [ W06-02t 219) MSG NN • - -.J td'N w0 0 79YNuowiI.7.0 alai c i WOFy u R jig; JS Cp ir S i i z o Fy LU WU C O W U 3 0 l a LA, W N Q V N C R J ip s. 9 °QQ r- w F- ir S i i z o Fy LU WU C O W U 3 0 l a LA, W N Q V N C R J ip s. 9 °QQ r- w F- CITY OF R10HAELD PLnnninG commission Item: #4 Agenda Section: New Business PC Letter: #1 Date: February 27, 1996 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 Richfield City Code 2. Planning Commission Bylaws (attached). RECOMMENDATION 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 Purpose: Public Notice: N/A Hearing N/A Examiner: Public Hearing: N/A Planning N/A Commission: City Council: N/A 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 on 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. 1995 election results were Chairperson Linnihan, Vice - Chairperson Stokes and Secretary Erlander. H: P& Z: PCLtr:0227Chai] Knnnm oommission Letter Item: 5# Agenda Section: New Business PC Letter: 2 Date: February 27, 1996 GENERAL INFORMATION Subject: Appointment of liaisons to the Community Services Advisory Commission, City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and School Board. Type of Request: Annual organizational meeting References: 1. Chapter III. Section 305.5, Subd. 1 -8 Richfield City Code 2. Planning Commission Bylaws. RECOMMENDATION Recommended Action: Preferred:. The following Planning Commission actions are recommended: Approve members to service 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 BACKGROUND Purpose: Public Notice: N/A Hearing N/A Examiner: Public Hearing: N/A Planning N/A Commission: City Council: N/A ANALYSIS Ins: 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. Commissioners Stokes and Wasko served as alternate liaisons to the Community Services Advisory Commission for 1995. 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 for 1995. 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 Housing and Redevelopment liaison for the Planning Commissions for 1995. 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, Commissioners Linnihan and Hansen served as alternate liaisons for the Planning Commission for 1995. Ad Hoc Traffic Committee: The Ad Hoc Traffic Committee was disbanded. H: P &Z: PCLtr:0227Liai] PLnnninG oommission Letter Item: #6 Agenda Section: New Business PC Letter: Y Date: February 27, 1996 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 Richfield City Code 2. Planning Commission Bylaws (attached). RECOMMENDATION Preferred: Review the attached Planning Commission Bylaws. Basis: The above action is required by the Planning Commission Bylaws. Alternative: N/A Purpose: Public Notice: Hearing Examiner: Public Hearing: Planning Commission: City Council: H: P &Z: PCLtr:0227By laJ BACKGROUND 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. N/A N/A N/A N/A 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 111, 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 5. 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) 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 Public Hearing Items 4) New Business 5) Old Business 6) Liaison Reports 7) Adjournment 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 14th day of March, 1995. Chairperson, Richfield Planning Commission Secretary, Richfield Planning Commission III Bylaws[PCBylaw] PWIf InG oommission Letter Item: 7# Agenda Section: New Business PC Letter: 4# Date: February 27, 1996 GENERAL INFORMATION Subject: Initiation of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and introductory discussion of the CIP process. Type of Request: References: 1. Richfield City Charter, Chapter 7. 2. Minn. State 462.351- 462.364. 3. State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. RECOMMENDATION Rec mmended Review "Capital Improvement Programming": A handbook for Acts: Local Planning". No official action is required at this time. The Planning Commission will review the first draft of the Plan in March and act on the Plan in April. Basis: The Planning Commission is required by City Charter to prepare and recommend a Capital Improvement Program for inclusion in the Annual Budget Message of the City Council. BACKGROUND Issues: Historically, February marks the beginning of the CIP process, where Planning Commissioners are asked to review the CIP handbook in preparation for the upcoming CIP Plan. Commission members may also propose new projects now or at a later stage of the review. JH:P &Z: PCLtr:0227CIP] CITY OF RIOFIFIELD PLinnm oommission Lettef Item: #8 Agenda Section: Old Business PC Letter: #5 Date: February 27, 1996 GENERAL INFORMATION Subject: Consideration of an ordinance amendment to eliminate the provision that prohibits service stations and auto - mechanical garages from locating next to an R or R -1 district and replace the provision with a buffer yard requirement. References: (see attached for specific citations) Zoning Code: Section 526.27, Subds. 12 and 16 Section 511.13, Subds. 2 -5 ANALYSIS Background: The revised zoning ordinance prohibits automobile - related uses from locating on any site that abuts an R or R -1 district. Previously, the ordinance was written in such a way that staff used some discretion as to whether the fact that a site abutted an R or R -1 district was a reason to deny a conditional use permit application. The effect of the ordinance change was to make any existing automobile - related use that abuts an R or R -1 district a legally nonconforming use. The zoning ordinance prohibits the expansion of legally nonconforming uses (see Section 511.13, subd. 3). Thirteen auto - related business in the City were impacted by the change and are not able to expand their business. A review of several metro area communities shows that a wide range of restrictions are applied to auto - related uses (See Attachment A). In some communities, large distance requirements are imposed on auto - related businesses when they are located next to residential districts. Other communities apply those distance requirements to all commercial uses located next to residential districts. As in Richfield, many communities have regulations directed at all auto - related uses, regardless of where they are located (e.g. items stored outside must be screened, work must be performed indoors, a buffer must be provided between the auto use and adjacent uses). Under the current ordinance restrictions, the primary areas where auto - related business can locate in Richfield the I-494 corridor, Penn Avenue north of 66th Street, East 66th Street east of Portland Avenue, and Cedar Avenue north of 66th Street and south of 72nd Street. Note: The revised ordinance also prohibits some auto - related businesses from locating within 300 feet of a church, school or hospital. l Proposal: Replace the provision that prohibits service stations /convenience stores and auto - mechanical garages from locating next to an R or R -1 district with one of the following provisions: OPTION 1: If the use abuts an R or R -1 district, institute a buffer yard requirement of 30 feet which must have not less than 75 percent, all- season opacity from the ground to a height of 6 feet. The buffer yard requirement may be reduced to 20 feet if 100 percent all- season opacity is met. CONE ENT: A large buffer yard requirement can have the effect of discouraging the expansion of auto - related businesses. A buffer yard of 30 feet can take up a significant portion of a lot, reducing the available land. (See Attachment B for the lot depth of several auto - related businesses.) Businesses would be able to apply for a variance from the requirement something they can't do when the use is nonconforming). This adds another layer of review and approval to the process. It may be easier for an existing auto - related business to claim undue hardship because they already have a building in place. OPTION 2: If the use abuts an R or R -1 distract, institute a buffer yard requirement of 25 feet which must have not less than 75 percent, all season opacity from the ground to a height of 6 feet. The buffer yard requirement may be reduced to 15 feet if 100 percent all- season opacity is met. COMMENT: This requirement is a more reasonable distance given the size of Richfield lots, however, 15 feet is not a large area if the intent is to create a separation. Fifteen feet is also currently a requirement for parking lots in all commercial districts that are adjacent to residential districts. OPTION 3: If the use abuts an R or R -1 district, institute a buffer yard requirement in OPTION 2 or a buffer yard as wide as the height of the building, whichever is greater. COMMENT: Fourteen to fifteen feet is a somewhat standard height, so this provision would only increase the setback for unusually tall buildings. OPTION 4: If the use abuts an R or R -1 district, institute the buffer yard requirement in OPTION 1 or OPTION 2. In addition, for uses providing auto mechanical service, limit the number of service bays. OPTION 4A: Require a buffer yard, but instead of limiting the number of service bays, limit the allowable square footage of the building. COMMENT: The size of several existing businesses is listed in Attachment B. The number of service bays ranges from 3 to 10. The size of the buildings ranges from 836 sq. ft. to 14,000 square. feet. A limit within these ranges might be considered. Issues: 1. There is a need to protect residential areas from any negative effects caused by the proximity of residential areas to auto - related uses. A landscape buffer between the two uses can provide some protection and increase the compatibility of the two uses. 2. Several automobile - related uses were made nonconforming uses with the revised ordinance. This nonconformity is a disincentive for a business to make any changes to the property. 3. By replacing the restriction against locating adjacent to residential districts with a buffer yard requirement, the existing businesses become legally nonconforming buildings. Nonconforming buildings are allowed to expand, as long as the expansion meets current City Code requirements. This removes some of the disincentive for businesses to improve their property. It also enables the Planning Commission and City Council to evaluate proposals on a case -by -case basis. 4. There are currently five types of automobile - related uses that cannot locate next to an R or R -1 district. Service stations /convenience stores and public mechanical garages are lower noise generators, provide service to the neighborhood, and are currently treated less strictly than the other three types of businesses. RECOMMENDATION Recommended Action: Preferred: Discuss and review the issues; recommend that the City Council approve one of the attached ordinance amendments to allow service stations /convenience stores and public mechanical garages to locate on a site abutting an R or R -1 district if a significant buffer yard exists or is established. Basis: 1. A buffer yard is a means to separate residential and automobile - related uses. 2. The revised ordinance made several existing automobile - related businesses nonconforming uses, which prohibits them from expanding and creates a disincentive for improving the property. Alternative: 1. Conduct further study and discussion of the issues. 2. Recommend that the City Council not adopt the recommended ordinance at this time. ZONING CODE: CITATIONS Zoning: Commercial Districts 526.27. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the C -2 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code. Subd. 12. Service stations, service station /convenience stores, and conversion of a service station to a service station /convenience store, provided the following conditions are met: a) the business shall be subject to the provisions of Section 1150 of the City Code; b) the use site shall not abut a lot which is in the R or R -1 District -- for the purpose of this subdivision, a lot which merely adjoins the use site at one corner shall not be deemed to abut the use site; c) the use site shall not be located within 300 feet of the grounds of a school, church, or hospital; d) a buffer yard of not less than ten feet in width shall be provided to separate all aspects of such use from abutting parcels; e) vehicles which are waiting for repair shall be stored in appropriately designed and screened areas as approved by the City; f) parking of vehicles on public right -of -way shall be prohibited; g) any repair, assembly, disassembly, or maintenance of vehicles shall occur within an enclosed building, except minor maintenance such as tire inflation, adding oil, or adding windshield wiper fluid; h) the minimum frontage on any street shall be 120 feet and the minimum area of the site shall be 12,000 square feet; i) any exterior speaker shall comply with the noise control limits set by Section 930 of the City Code; j) queuing space of at least 20 feet shall be provided in front of the pump island in each direction in which access can be gained to the pump -- this required space shall not interfere with internal circulation patterns or with designated parking areas, and shall not be permitted in any public right -of -way, private easement, or within the required parking lot setback; k) pump islands shall be located not less than 20 feet from any property line; 1) if the use is not located on a county road or state highway, it shall not be operated between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following day; and m) canopies shall comply with the following regulations: i) the canopy may extend up to twelve feet beyond the center line of the pump island toward the street, but in no instance shall a canopy be located closer than six feet from any lot line; ii) only one canopy shall be permitted per station, unless the station is located on a corner lot, in which case two canopies may be permitted; iii) the canopy shall be at least 14 feet in height, but not greater than 16 feet in height; iv) no signage of a permanent or temporary nature may be placed on a canopy; and v) all canopy lighting shall be recessed into the canopy ceiling. Subd. 16. Public- mechanical garages, provided the following conditions are met: a) the use site shall not abut a lot which is in the R or R -1 District -- for the purpose of this subdivision, a lot which merely adjoins the use site at one corner shall not be deemed to abut the use site; b) the use site shall not be located within 300 feet of the grounds of a school, church, or hospital; c) a buffer yard of not less than ten feet in width shall be provided to separate all aspects of such use from any abutting parcel; d) vehicles which are inoperable shall not be stored on the premises, except in appropriately designed and screened areas as approved by the City; e) parking of vehicles on public right -of -way shall be prohibited; f) if the use is not located on a county road or state highway, it shall not be operated between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following day; and g) all repair, assembly, disassembly, and maintenance of vehicles shall occur within an enclosed building, except minor maintenance such as tire inflation or adding windshield wiper fluid. Zoning: General Provisions 511.13. Nonconforming uses and structures. Subdivision 1. Purposes. This subsection is intended to limit the number and extent of nonconforming uses by prohibiting their enlargement, their re- establishment after abandonment, and alteration or restoration after the destruction of the structures they occupy. Subd. 2. Continuance of nonconforming uses and buildings. A nonconforming use or building lawfully existing upon the effective date of this code or amendments thereto may be continued at the size and in a manner of operation existing upon such date, subject to the provisions of this subsection. Subd. 3. Enlargement of nonconforming use prohibited. There shall be no enlargement, expansion, intensification, replacement, structural alteration, or relocation of any building or premises devoted to a nonconforming use except to make it a conforming use. Normal building maintenance and repair shall be excepted from this subdivision. Subd. 4. Enlargement of nonconforming building. A nonconforming building occupied by a conforming use may be enlarged if the expansion meets all applicable City Code requirements. Subd. 5. Termination of nonconforming use. A nonconforming use shall not be resumed if normal operation of the use has been abandoned for a period of 12 or more months. Time shall be calculated as beginning on the day following the last day in which the use was in normal operation and shall run continuously thereafter. Following the expiration of 12 months, only uses which conform to this code shall be established. If a nonconforming use of land on which there is no substantial building is discontinued for a period of 10 or more days, any subsequent use of the land shall be in conformity with this code. Bill No. 1996- Amendment to Appendix B of the City Code of the City of Richfield The City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1: Section 526 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: Commercial Districts" is hereby amended by amending Section 526.27, Subd. 12 (b) to read as follows: Subd. 12 Service stations, service station /convenience stores, and conversion of a service station to a service station /convenience store, provided the following conditions are met: b) the use site shall fiet -erbuta lot 74hieh is-ift the i er n , Dist_:et far- -thee purpose of this subdivision, a lot whieh fnefely adjoins the use site at aft shall" not be deemed abut the if the use site abuts a lot which is in the R or R -1. a buffer yard of not less than 30 feet in width and 75 percent all- season opacity from the ground to a height of 6 feet shall be provided to separate all aspects of such use from abutting residential parcels. The Council may reduce this requirement to not less than 20 feet if significant additional landscaping with 100 percent all -season opacity is provided to screen the service station use: and Section 2: Section 526 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: Commercial Districts" is hereby amended by amending Section 526.27, Subd. 16 (a) to read as follows: Subd. 16 Public- mechanical garages, provided the following conditions are met: a) the - u"se-site shall - not- abut -a lot %F•-rhie c-isin the or- R 1 Disstr --iet f-ef the shall ftet be deemed abut the tise site; if the use site abuts a lot which is in the R or R -1, a buffer yard of not less than 30 feet in width and 75 percent all -season opacity from the ground to a height of 6 feet shall be provided to separate all aspects of such use from abutting residential parcels. The Council may reduce this requirement to not less than 20 feet if significant additional landscaping_ with 100 percent all -season opacity is provided to screen the public - mechanical garageuse: Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this th day of 1996. Bill No. 1996 - Amendment to Appendix B of the City Code of the City of Richfield The City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1: Section 526 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: Commercial Districts" is hereby amended by amending Section 526.27, Subd. 12 (b) to read as follows: Subd. 12 Service stations, service station /convenience stores, and conversion of a service station to a service station /convenience store, provided the following conditions are met: b) the use site shall not abut a let wiieh ism the — 'ems- er- R 1 Distrief — for -the per-pose of this subdiyisieft, a lot whieh iner-ely adjoins the use site at one shafl not be .7.... med to abut the if the use site abuts a lot which is in the R or R -1. a buffer yard of not less than 25 feet in width and 75 percent all -season opacity from the ground to a height of 6 feet shall be provided to separate all aspects of such use from abutting residential parcels. The Council may reduce this requirement to not less than 15 feet if significant additional landscaping with 100 percent all -season opacity is provided to screen the service station use, and Section 2: Section 526 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: Commercial Districts" is hereby amended by amending Section 526.27, Subd. 16 (a) to read as follows: Subd. 16 Public- mechanical garages, provided the following conditions are met: a) the - HSe-site shall fiat abut —a-lot whieh is in - 1— Distriet fef the hall ftet be deemeded t abut the site; if the use site abuts a lot which is in the R or R -1. a buffer yard of not less than 25 feet in width and 75 percent all- season opacity from the ground to a height of 6 feet shall be provided to separate all aspects of such use from abutting residential parcels. The Council may reduce this requirement to not less than 15 feet if significant additional landscaping with 100 percent all- season opacity is provided to screen the public- mechanical garageuse: Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this th day of 1996. Bill No. 1996 - Amendment to Appendix B of the City Code of the City of Richfield The City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1: Section 526 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: Commercial Districts" is hereby amended by amending Section 526.27, Subd. 12 (b) to read as follows: Subd. 12 Service stations, service station /convenience stores, and conversion of a service station to a service station /convenience store, provided the following conditions are met: b) tn.-- use site shall mt abut a lot whieh is 1TZI[e TC o1 R— I- 177.To7Gi IVI — the per-pose of this subdWisien, a lot whieh fnefely adjoifts the use site at on shall fiet be deemed to abut the use ske; if the use site abuts a lot which is in the R or R -1, a buffer yard of 25 feet in width, or a buffer yard of the height of the building, whichever is greater, and 75 percent all- season opacity from the ground to a height of 6 feet shall be provided to separate all aspects of such use from abutting residential parcels. The Council may reduce this requirement to not less than 15 feet, or the height of the building, whichever is greater, if significant additional landscaping with 100 percent all -season opacity is provided to screen the service station use: and Section 2: Section 526 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: Commercial Districts" is hereby amended by amending Section 526.27, Subd. 16 (a) to read as follows: Subd. 16 Public- mechanical garages, provided the following conditions are met: a) the use site shaft fiet abut a l9t -whieh i"s -ift the R 9r- R 1 Distriet f;5F the shall H t be deemed to abut the site; if the use site abuts a lot which is in the R or R -1, a buffer yard of not less than 25 feet in width, a buffer yard the height of the building, whichever is greater and 75 percent all- season opacity from the ground to a height of 6 feet shall be provided to separate all aspects of such use from abutting residential_ parcels. The Council may reduce this requirement to not less than 15 feet, or the height of the building whichever is greater, if significant additional landscaping with 100 percent all- season opacity is provided to screen the public - mechanical garage use: 0 2 k R 0 2 r W Z U o U m 2 2 2 4 7 2 / 3 C 7 2 2 q k o con R 5 2 A c gam 40. @ C cqs 7 2 2 R Op' 7 7 q 2 2 2 k t322 n f u tw t O V a a O U II ao r V b a 0 0 a F U U `•: U U a' U `•: V Q' U ul U N Ny co O r cad zi b p d 3 a r. y cd yy U .V O C c`nd JUD N ° A{ j ed y Co d E W w( Z b as U U vii vii vii - pq T! C? N M a U i i U a1C QU€ A zi o a V cd M A A w a A w rn rA z cd cd cn In cu cdcd U64iV1idi pgVrn d W: u rn a a 0 V 0 S rA D PC 0 0 a e Q cc 6D 4 G y C bA ^' + £7 coto G a o y n t0 N N U cn ` M i cl Col c cs o " •o N (U b cn 0 co u CIO od n p V U U UU UU U €U a U i a cn o U U A o a cz c as it 0 C7 n ° v a a Q O O U a c 0 v e 0 a d 0 a E S a H, . a-+ •a•3 i a7 rn p p w ,p v' y na O bey y to Cc w II a u o U U U U U U:: u U aV N y fi N CVM Cl? as as : • as as E . A rya e e e c F. H CD ? U o U Or W, N a O O C CIO Cd Ir 0 T tw rn a I I u c V 0 U::0 0 0 U U U UI U U U U 0 U a V ti 6 3 cn c H U •' U U c N a G e U N a 3 tw N M N H o cn O O U E' 0 U e as C 0 b Q e 0 a 0 a ca a Fit u U a C0 V A U r, a a Vi w C w C w V1yy i V of i U i U cad N Cp., T w L'; 0 i a..+ Uii a..r'• '+ i ate+ r i 3 ai V: U Ui E v x C U 6 O g V 8 E 8 8 V C/) . V) . cOd v, z H in z C,3: W) co U U V U U iN M iN M iM Eai y U i i 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 0 cd p cd p. U cuA `• Ny 1.4 r, a ATTACHMENT B AUTO - RELATED USES H : CdAdmin: P &Z: Bldgsize] No. of Size of Service Lot Depth Name Address Bldg Bays to R district) Height Super America 826 W 66th Street 2,534 sq. ft. 130' 15' Goodyear 3013 W 66th Street 14,000 sq. ft. 10 130' N/A Amoco 7544 Lyndale Ave 2,192 sq. ft. 3 136' N/A Transmission Shop 6958 Cedar Ave 5,028 sq. ft. 6 122' N/A Transmission Shop 7444 Lyndale Ave 3,004 sq. ft. 3 155' 14' Car -X Muffler Shop 6645 Penn Ave 5,646 sq. ft. 6 133' 14' Sinclair 6600 Portland Ave 1,900 sq. ft. 143' N/A Mobile 66th & Penn 1,696 sq. ft. 126' N/A Amoco 6601 Penn Ave 836 124' N/A H : CdAdmin: P &Z: Bldgsize]