The URL can be used to link to this page

05-28-1996CITY OF RICFFFIELD Po 1nInG OOtYImissIOf1 AGO1DA May 28, 1996 LOCATION CHANGE: RICHFIELD WATER PLANT ROLL::CALL Special Planning Commission meeting on April 23, 1996, regular meeting on April 23, 1996, study session on May 14, 1996 and special meeting on May 20, 1996. UP:. BLLC HEAR. ING <> <> ITEM #1 96- ACUP -1 The Academy of Holy Angels, 6600 Nicollet Avenue - Amend conditional use permit to allow construction of a seasonal sports dome. ITEM 96 -RZ -2 City of Richfield, 7700 Lyndale Avenue - Rezone from.0 -3 to C -2 to construct a fourth municipal liquor store. . NEW BUSINESS OLD BUSINESS ! - LIAISON REPORTS: .... School Board Community Services Advisory Commission HRA City Council 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 MINUTF,S ado r1TV nr- Meeting April 23, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela Dmytrenko, Timothy Erlander, David Gepner, Mitchell Hadley, Kevin Hansen, Dawn Postudensek, and Kristal Stokes. MEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCIL LIAISON: Paul Wasko Martin Kirsch, Mayor STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Palmborg, Community Development Director Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator Robert Robson, Planning Staff Assistant The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:45 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Hadley asked staff to change the March 26, 1996 minutes to include the following sentence in paragraph 4 of page 4, "He stated because of the current existence of the grooming the question was rendered moot." M/Stokes, S/Hadley to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of March 26, 1995. as corrected. WWI M/Stokes, S/Hadley to approve the minutes of the Study Session of April 9. 1996. Motion carried: 8 -0 PUBLIC HEARINGS April 23, 1996 Page 2 plan. PC Letter #6 Lyndale Avenue Strategic Development Plan - Recommendation Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of the Chairperson Linnihan opened the floor for discussion to the public. Jo Romer, 7405 Aldrich, expressed concern that parking problems have not been corrected in the plan. She requested that the barrier for the project near her property be the same as the barrier that is planned for the rest of the project. Fred Hoisington, Hoisington Koegler Group, stated that continuity of the barrier will be incorporated in the final plan. Larry Wozniczka, 6744 Wentworth, expressed concern that tax increment financing (TIF) is going to be used for this development. He would like to see the City pursue a development that can be done independently of TIF. Steve Lindgren, Chamber of Commerce, said that the report goes too far in saying that there has been extensive input from business. He stated that a distinction should be made between concept and plan; north of 76th Street is a concept and south of 76th Street is a plan. He expressed concern about comments made at the public meetings that businesses could not afford rents. M/Erlander, S /Stokes to close the public hearing. Commissioner Erlander stated that the plan is not written in concrete. Chairperson Linnihan said that businesses should do their own cost benefit analysis. He also stated that the distinction between the plan for south of 76th Street and the concept for north of 76th Street should be made clear in the plan. He recommended passage of the plan with the changes suggested tonight. Commissioner Stokes stated that she was not clear on what changes were being recommended. Chairperson Linnihan offered 2 stipulations: Plans and illustrations be reissued to include screening for the 7400 block of Aldrich, and the difference between plan and concept be made clear in the development plan. M/Erlander, S /Stokes, to approve the Lyndale Avenue Strategic Development Plan with the stated stipulations. April 23, 1996 Page 3 96 -RZ -1, 6228 Penn Avenue ITEM #2 Lunds, Inc. Rezoning of property from MR (multiple residence) and I (industrial) to C -2 (general commercial) Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, stating that a rezoning of the property would allow the applicant to commercially develop the western portion of the property in the future and bring the property under one zoning district. She recommended approval of the rezoning request. John Pazahanick of Lunds summarized what Lunds has done so far and he emphasized that Lunds has worked closely with the neighbors throughout the process. He asked for support for Lunds' plans. In response to a question from Chairperson Linnihan, Mr. Pazahanick stated that the expansion will be some type of auxiliary retail which would be compatible with the rest of the store. Commissioner Hansen asked about how well the process of working with the neighbors went. Mr. Pazahanick responded that Lunds' involvement with the residents of the neighborhood went well. Neighbors were involved in the designing of the berm. Commissioner Postudensek inquired about what concerns the neighbors had with phase 1 and phase 2 of Lunds' remodeling. Mr. Pazahanick answered that the residents were concerned with the receiving docks and traffic. Lunds responded by turning the docks away from the neighborhood and by improving the circulation of trucks. He added that Lunds tried to address all the neighborhood's concerns. Commissioner Gepner asked about how future off street parking would be handled. Ms. Urban responded that the off street parking permit process would be brief because most problems have already been addressed. Commissioner Stokes asked if there would be a separate outside entrance to the phase 2 development and Mr. Pazahanick answered that there would be no new entrance to the site. Chairperson Linnihan opened the floor for discussion to the public. John Richards, 6229 Russell, supports the rezoning request. He felt that Lunds has lived up to most of its promises including not reopening the 62nd Street access. He stated that Lunds has not removed snow as had been promised, and they have also not stuck to the agreed upon 7 A.M. to 10 P.M. delivery schedule. April 23, 1996 Page 4 Joyce Adamson, 6240 Russell, stated that the landscaping berm has not met expectations because the berm near Highway 62 is very low and the trees are too small to abate noise. She said that trucks are arriving early in the morning before 7 A.M., and that if phase two has loading in back of the building it will add more noise and traffic to the neighborhood. She added that parking may not be adequate for additional development. Mr. Pazahanick responded that the store will try harder to meet the delivery schedule commitment. He said he did not remember the commitment to remove snow from the site but that the practice of bringing snow from other stores to this site has been stopped, and that the berm and curb should stop any flooding onto the neighbors properties. He stated that parking for phase two should be no problem. He also said that the receiving docks for the new space have not been designed yet, but that the plan is very flexible, and Lunds will try to orient the trucks away from nearby houses. Chairperson Linnihan wanted to know if loading could be shared. He stated that the noise might be blocked by phase two expansion and the Fraser School expansion. Mr. Pazahanick responded that the berm for reducing noise was designed with the neighbors' input, and that the berm is well taken care off and includes trees. He said that Lunds has made a real effort to respond to neighborhood concerns. Chairperson Linnihan asked if shipping and receiving practices have changed since the initial expansion. Mr. Pazahanick answered that Lunds has tried to address the traffic problems but that they still have to improve the delivery schedule. Chairperson Linnihan stated that the Planning Commission could impose stipulations on the rezoning but perhaps instead they could ask Lunds for a commitment to work on the delivery schedule. Mr. Pazahanick said that Lunds will make an effort to enforce the delivery schedule. Commissioner Stokes inquired about what input the City staff has had in the storm water runoff issue. Mr. Pazahanick stated that Lunds has went through an extensive process to make sure that water will be handled properly. Commissioner Stokes then asked if all the snow water would be contained on Lunds' property and Mr. Pazahanick answered that yes all the water will be contained on the store's property. Mr. Richards disagreed with Mr. Pazahanick stating that snow was put on top of the berm and if there had been a quick melt this year flooding would have occurred. Ms. Adamson expressed concern that Lunds is being vague about what business will go into the phase two development. She also stated that the berm does not work and that dock noise is still present. Commissioner Stokes wanted to know if the hours of operation are addressed during the parking permit process. Ms. Urban responded that it depends on the type of use. M/Postudensek, S /Stokes to close the public hearing. April 23, 1996 Page 5 Commissioner Erlander offered three stipulations: deliveries must occur between 7 A.M. and 10 P.M., no snow should be put on top of the berm, and snow dumping from other stores should not be allowed. Commissioner Hansen questioned if a delivery schedule stipulation could be put into the rezoning request. Commissioner Dmytrenko questioned if the Planning Commission and the City Council will have some control over how the property is used in the future. She commends Lunds for working with the neighbors. M/Erlander, S /Gepner, to approve the rezoning request with the stated stipulations. a e 6 .! ! • • Staff agreed to follow up with Lunds regarding the delivery schedule when they amend their off street parking permit. M/Erlander, S /Stokes to approve the rezoning request without stipulations. I UV 96- PUD -2, 1200 East 78th Street ITEM #3 Northern Hospitality, Inc. Planned Unit Development and Rezoning to allow construction of a 59 -unit AmericInn Hotel. 96 -CUP -4 & 96- FDP -3, 1200 East 78th Street ITEM #4 Northern Hospitality, Inc. Conditional Use Permit and Final Development Plan to allow construction of a 59 -unit AmericInn Hotel. Ms. Urban presented the staff report on items 3 and 4 and recommended approval of the planned unit development and rezoning request, and the conditional use permit and final development plan with the stipulations that are detailed in the staff report. April 23, 1996 Page 6 Commissioner Hansen asked if the access to the hotel from 12th Avenue will be closed in the future. Ms. Urban responded yes and that AmericInn feels that they will be well enough established when that happens to survive. Commissioner Stokes wanted to know if shared parking opportunities had been explored to help meet demands from the meeting room business. Ms. Urban responded that most of the meetings will be held during the day when hotel customers are gone and so parking should not be a problem. She added that land may become available for additional parking when 78th Street is closed. Commissioner Postudensek asked if there is a problem with parking in the area. Ms. Urban said that she was not aware of any parking problems other than with the Ground Round. Perry Platisha, Northern Hospitality Inc., took the floor and asked for the Planning Commission's support. In response to a question from Commissioner Postudensek, Mr. Platisha stated that the hotel would be fully occupied 2 -3 days a week. Commissioner Gepner wanted to know if there were any other AmericInns in the area. John Siber, AmericInn, answered that there were several hotels in Minnesota including one in Redwing and several in the metro area. In response to Chairperson Linnihan's question regarding the hotel's style, Mr. Siber stated that the hotel would be marketed as a "home away from home ". Chairperson Linnihan opened the floor for discussion to the public. Jerry Green, Richfield Court Owner Representative, said they were not opposed to the hotel but expressed concern about the hotel's height, overflow parking, and the buffer zone between the hotel and the apartment building. Commissioner Hansen inquired about what is directly adjacent to the backside of the hotel and how tall Richfield Court is. Mr. Green responded that Richfield Court's garages are directly behind the hotel site and the apartment building is 2 1/2 stories. In response to concerns over the hotel's height, Ms. Urban stated that the City does not want a shorter hotel because that would increase the building's footprint which would reduce parking and access to the site. She added that shade would prevent landscaping from surviving. Commissioner Gepner asked if there will be a 20 foot separation between the buildings. Ms. Urban responded that she was unsure how far the garages are set back from the property line. Mr. Green expressed desire to have something done with the space between the buildings. Ms. Urban said that perhaps lighting or plantings could be put in the space between the garages and the hotel. April 23, 1996 Page 7 In response to Commissioner Postudensek's question about parking, Mr. Siber responded that the hotel does not typically have a max out parking load even when the building is 100 percent full. Chairperson Linnihan added that he assumed that Americlnn had addressed the parking issues because they want to keep their customers satisfied. Commissioner Dmytrenko asked about the purpose of the meeting rooms and Mr. Siber answered that the meetings rooms were designed to be used by the hotel's customers. M/Stokes, S/Erlander to close the public hearing. M/Stokes, S/Erlander, to jaP rove the, planned unit development and rezoning request with the stipulation as stated in the staff report. l a_l • ; 1 M/Stokes, S/Erlander, to approve the conditional use permit and final development plan with the stipulations as stated in the staff report. NEW BUSINESS PC Letter #7 ITEM #5 1998 -2002 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Commissioner Stokes stated that the City Council had decided to table the issue of a new parking lot at Veterans Park. Chairperson Linnihan said that the joint meeting with Community Services went well and that he liked the new format. C UP M/Postudensek, S/Hadley, to approve the 1998 -2002 Capital Improvement Program Motion carried: 8 -0 OLD BUSINESS April 23, 1996 Page 8 Comprehensive Plan ITEM #6 - Review of public comments Review of draft plan Don Brauer discussed the major concerns that citizens have with the comprehensive plan. He recommended a couple of language changes but felt overall that the plan was well received. Chairperson Linnihan was concerned that the City effectively convey that Wilson Park changes will not result in the demolition of any houses. He wants the City to make it clear that the acre for acre replacement of park land does not have to occur at Wilson Park. He wants to communicate to Richfield's citizens that historically the City has not condemned property for park land. Mr. Brauer stated that the City should emphasize what has been done in the past to illustrate that houses will not be condemned. Chairperson Linnihan pointed out that citizens should continue to improve their houses because if a buyout did happen the improvements would raise the price that they would get for their property. Letter should be sent to people by Wilson Pond explaining what is happening. Commissioner Erlander agreed a letter should be sent, but he said that it still would not solve the problem. Commissioner Stokes said that the concerns regarding airport issues combined with the concerns over the comprehensive plan have increased people's anxiety. Chairperson Linnihan expressed concern that comprehensive plan meetings attracted mainly people who were age 50 and over, and that younger people in the community are being left out of the process. The group then discussed various ways to reach a broader segment of the population. LIAISON REPORTS School Board: Commissioner Dmytrenko stated that there is now a meeting room at the district office of the School Board that is available for the public to use. She also discussed the results of a survey which shows that Richfield's students are very similar to the rest of the Nation's students with respect to drug and alcohol use. The survey results pointed out that efforts have to be made to reinforce positive behaviors among students while discouraging negative ones. April 23, 1996 Page 9 Community Services Advisory Commission: Commissioner Stokes stated that Community Services is going to revisit the Park Plan within the next few months. Community Services would like to have a copy of the Lyndale Avenue Strategic Development Plan because they have some concerns regarding the street lights. Community Services is also likely to re- investigate the balance of attention that is paid to neighborhood parks versus Veterans Park. HRA: Ms. Urban stated that the Cloverleaf site had been sold to TOLD. She also said that an elderly housing study has been proposed. City Council: The Holy Angels mediation regarding the dome was not successful. The TOLD proposal passed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:10 p.m. Timothy Erlander Planning Commission Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting April 23, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela Dmytrenko, Timothy Erlander, David Gepner, Mitchell Hadley, Kevin Hansen, Dawn Postudensek, and Kristal Stokes MEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCIL LIAISON: Paul Wasko Martin Kirsch, Mayor STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Palmborg, Community Development Director Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator Robert Robson, Planning Staff Assistant The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 6:30 p.m. NEW BUSINESS ITEM #1 PRESENTATION OF LYNDALE AVENUE STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY FRED HOISINGTON OF HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP Fred Hoisington presented the Lyndale Avenue Strategic Development Plan. In response to a resident's question regarding stop lights, Mr. Hoisington stated that the plan did not address the issue of stop light changes. In response to a resident's question regarding the 3 to 5 year time line for the 7600 block of Lyndale, Mr. Hoisington stated that, if financing and a developer can be found, the 7600 block could be done in 3 to 5 years. April 23, 1996 Page 2 A resident expressed concern regarding what would happen to people who do not want to sell. Mr. Hoisington responded that hopefully the City and the developer would negotiate for the purchase of all the properties and that condemnation would only be used as a last step. Fred Ryan, property owner, asked about the additional road taking that is proposed for the east side of the 7600 block of Lyndale. Mr. Hoisington stated that a second left turn lane would have to be added south of 77th Street on north bound Lyndale due to the increased traffic demands that are forecast because of the developments to the south of 77th Street. Steve Lindgren of the Chamber of Commerce asked about the definition of the term blight as it is used in the plan. Mr. Hoisington stated that the definition of blight comes from the Tax Increment Financing law. Bruce Palmborg said that blight is defined in state statutes as involving the physical deterioration of buildings or the economic obsolescence of buildings Mr. Lindgren also wanted to know how big the expanded Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district might be. Mr. Hoisington responded that no boundary has been set. Bob Lurtsema, property owner, wanted to know if the City had a particular developer in mind and Mr. Hoisington said no. Clarence Sutton, 7622 Lyndale, inquired about when the work might begin once the money is found for the development. Mr. Hoisington said that the time table is not known for sure and that work might not begin within the next three years. Mr. Palmborg added that the City will keep people informed and that there will be no suprises. If someone hears a rumor they should call him at 861 -9760. In response to a question about how a property owner located just outside the initial redevelopment will be affected Mr. Hoisington said that the 7400 and 7500 blocks are a concept and not a set plan. Cooperation between the City and property owner should be encouraged to insure that any remodeling or redevelopment plans fit the concept. Larry Wozniczka, 6744 Wentworth Avenue, inquired about whether or not the needed redevelopment could be accomplished without using TIF. April 23, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Hoisington responded that it would likely not be feasible to accomplish the kind of redevelopment that is needed without using TIF. Planning Commission Chairperson Linnihan added that the financing issue will largely be dealt with by the Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA). Creative financing will be needed to see the project to completion. In response to questions about parking, Mr. Hoisington stated that no zoning ordinance would be effective in correcting the Metro Dental Clinic's parking problems. The dental clinic parking problem will not go away because the business is so successful. But the City should monitor the situation and better enforce snow emergency routes. . Mr. Hoisington responded to concerns about how the property values of homes in the area will be affected by stating that no serious impacts are anticipated. Improvements to the area may even increase property values. Chairperson Linnihan added that this is a concept and value questions could be better answered after a developer is chosen. Mr. Lindgren asked about what action the Planning Commission was going to take tonight. Chairperson Linnihan responded that the Planning Commission would vote on forwarding the plan to the HRA. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:40 p.m. Timothy Erlander Planning Commission Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Study Sessiol May 14, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela Dmytrenko, Timothy Erlander, David Gepner, Mitchell Hadley, Dawn Postudensek, Kristal Stokes, and Paul Wasko MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Hansen STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Palmborg, Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist, Housing Supervisor Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator Robert Robson, Planning Staff Assistant p.m. The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:05 OLD BUSINESS ITEM #1 TOWNHOME /CLUSTER HOME DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION The meeting began with introductions and Linda Donaldson of Brighton Development Company, Paul Madson of Paul Madson Associates, Michael Lander, and John Oksness provided brief backgrounds on their experiences with developing townhomes and cluster homes. Ms. Donaldson discussed the issue of how land values will make it difficult to use only Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for these types of projects. She stated that TIF will not work because the tax revenues from housing will not be as high those collected from commercial projects. She said that TIF will have to be combined with some other form of financing to make projects work. She discussed the site at 71st Street and Chicago Avenue and how land prices were too high to make a townhome project viable for that location. She stated that townhome developments might need more of a land subsidy than do single family housing projects. Michael Lander stated that non - single family housing is the next big market because the baby boom empty nester segment of the population is growing. He said that townhomes are the May 14, 1996 Page 2 preferred choice in this market. He also added that this development might be an advantage for inner ring suburbs like Richfield. Mr. Lander also commented that there is limited land available for infill townhomes. He said that what is needed is a vehicle for acquiring sites, paring them, rezoning them, and making them available to developers to allow for a profit. He added that the City needs to make land available at 8 to 10 percent of value. He said that he is currently selling his townhomes in the Lakes Area of Minneapolis at 125 percent of the market. In response, Housing Supervisor Bruce Nordquist stated that the City of Richfield could do subsidies to provide raw land but would not subsidize the actual townhome developments. Chairperson Linnihan discussed how the Comprehensive Plan uses townhome and cluster home developments as buffer zones between residential and commercial areas. Mr. Lander responded that the trend in planning is to go back to the traditional style of community with integrated neighborhoods. He said that inner ring suburbs will benefit from this if they make sure to integrate the townhomes into the rest of the community. He stated that it might not work to use these developments as buffer zones between commercial and residential areas. He re- emphasized the need to integrate these developments into the neighborhoods and added that the ideal size would be from 4 to 20 units. Ms. Donaldson added that you do not want to put housing where no one wants to live but that different people might want different things. John Oksness stated that these developments need to come in a mix of sizes. He said that what style they are, single level versus multiple level, depends on who you want to market them to. He added that the senior demand is tremendous and single level townhomes is the preferred style for the senior market. Chairperson Linnihan made the observation that properties on arterial streets do not seem to be as well taken care of as properties on non - arterial streets. He wanted to know if they could be purchased for less than other houses. Mr. Nordquist answered that there seems to be little difference between houses on arterial streets versus those on non - arterial streets. He added that traditionally houses on arterial streets have been discounted 5 to 10 percent which makes them more attractive for rental housing. Mr. Madson said that there is less political resistance to townhome and cluster home developments in Minneapolis than there is in Richfield. He added that 14 1/2 units per acre is as dense as you will want to get in these developments in Richfield. He stated that he would like to see zoning questions handled on a case by case basis. He also said that full block developments would need reduced setbacks but that infill projects should have the same setbacks as the surrounding buildings in order to give them a neighborhood feel. Mr. Lander and Mr. Oksness both added that setback requirements need to be flexible and that the projects should match the neighboring setbacks so that they fit in. A discussion then took place regarding garage and parking requirements. Mr. Madson stated that covered parking spots are needed, not parking lots, and that alleys need to be developed to encourage the placement of garages in the rear of properties. Ms. Donaldson added May 14, 1996 Page 3 that the market perceives a need for two car garages. She also said that the street parking for people who come and go needs to be encouraged. Mr. Madson stated that there should be some sort of landscaping requirements but that using the value of development can create obstacles. Mr. Oksness added that because developers want to sell their projects they are already motivated to make them attractive, so any requirements should give developers some flexibility. Ms. Donaldson emphasized that the first multi -unit development that is built should be top of the line so that people get a good first impression of such developments. The market for townhome developments was also discussed. Ms. Donaldson said that the townhome market for infill projects does not have enough of a track record to indicate how interest rates will affect sales. She added that people still view single family homes as a better deal. Mr. Oksness added that he would not be able to sell townhomes at $150,000. Mr. Nordquist stated that the best approach would be to move cautiously at first and let the market decide what value of townhomes should be built. Mr. Lander discussed design requirements and the fact that there are not many designs that will fit into Richfield. He suggested that Richfield could have a consultant create a few basic townhome designs which small contractors could buy and use to build townhomes in Richfield. The designs would be pre- approved by the City but the developers could still customize them if they wanted to. Ms. Donaldson stated that there are too many documents involved with home owner associations and that too much money is spent on legal fees. She also said that small condo associations do not work well and that bigger associations can be created by joining several developments together. Mr. Lander disagreed and stated that small associations can work. Mr. Lander concluded the discussion by stating that the RFP process is not the best way to go. He said that the City should select certain builders to work with instead. The Planning Commission concluded the meeting by discussing the upcoming HRA/City Council meeting regarding Lyndale Avenue. It was agreed that as many of the Planning Commissioners as possible should be present to recommend the report. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:15 p.m. Timothy Erlander Planning Commission Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela Dmytrenko, Timothy Erlander, David Gepner, Mitchell Hadley, Kristal Stokes, and Paul Wasko MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT NEW BUSINESS Kevin Hansen and Dawn Postudensek Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator Mayor Kirsch called the special meeting of the HRA and City Council, with the Planning Commission, to order at 6:35 p.m. City Manager Prosser introduced Planning Commission Chair, Dan Linnihan. Chairperson Linnihan gave some background on the Lyndale Avenue study and introduced the consultant, Fred Hoisington. Mr. Hoisington presented the report, "The Lyndale Gateway ", that reflects the results of the study. Mr. Hoisington reviewed the problems, the process that was taken and the concept plan that was developed. He explained the guiding principles that were used and reviewed the economic feasibility portion of the report. Mr. Hoisington reviewed the strategies the report recommends for the area. Fred Ryan and Russ Walzer, property owners in the area, stated that they felt the Planning Commission listened to them but didn't hear their comments. They stated that they feel there are no problems in the area. They presented a letter signed by 27 of the businesses and owners in the area that expressed their desire to leave things as they are. HRA Chairperson Harms asked how long they had owned property in the area and questioned whether they could claim that there aren't any problems. Mr. Walzer responded that he did see some parking problems on the west side. He added that the threat of redevelopment has prevented them from doing anything to the properties. Chairperson Harms stated that this is the first time the City has looked seriously at this specific area so the ILN redevelopment shouldn't have been a disincentive. Councilmember Susag stated that he would be interested in hearing what the owners would be willing to do regarding appearance as well as parking. Fred Ryan stated that the May 20, 1996 Page 2 parking issue has been resolved with the parking lot on the old Total Petroleum site. Councilmember Susag stated that parking on the west side hasn't been solved. Jan Berge, 7345 Aldrich, expressed safety concerns regarding the potential closing of 75th Street. She stated concern that the Metro Dental parking issue isn't going to be resolved. She expressed her willingness to host a neighborhood meeting. She stated that she's concerned about selling her home with the impending redevelopment. She received information from the State that said she would have to disclose the information about the redevelopment to a potential buyer. She stated that she didn't feel that people were listened to. Mayor Kirsch questioned why Mrs. Berge and others would not want to live near an area that would be fixed up and pointed to other areas in the City where redevelopment had a positive impact on property values. Mrs. Berge stated that she's not convinced it will have a positive impact. City Manager Prosser explained that the City was looking at various traffic calming methods city -wide and that staff will experiment with the methods first. He added that traffic calming wouldn't solve all problems. Chairperson Harms suggested that staff and the City Attorney could look into providing some form of prepared disclosure statement that would provide accurate information that residents could use. Steve Lindgren, Chamber of Commerce, presented a written statement from the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber expressed its appreciation to the Planning Commission. He stated that the Chamber Board will act on a position statement on the 22nd and that the position will be based on the decision of the businesses in the study area. He stated that the plan is not acceptable to the Chamber and that it is not what the businesses envision for the area. Mr. Lindgren added that the idea of using money from the LHN TIF district should be presented to the community first. He stated that the Chamber was willing to participate in future meetings. Commissioner Luettinger stated that the HRA would be interested in hearing what the Chamber would like to see happen. Larry Wozniczka, 6744 Wentworth, emphasized that the businesses are against the plan. He questioned the property valuations in the report on pages 6 and 22 -23 and why the numbers were different. He stated that the decline in value is probably because some buildings were eliminated. He challenged the Council to set a forum for this discussion that isn't funneled through the Planning Commission. Chairperson Harms stated that the Planning Commission had a difficult task. He stated that their role was to start the dialogue, look at the area and get people excited. He added that the plan isn't etched in stone. Gertrude Ulrich, 7601 Aldrich, stated that she's in support of the plan even though it will take her home. She urged the Council not to spend money on a paint up /fix up alternative but to May 20, 1996 Page 3 do it right. She encouraged everyone to walk down the alley and see what needs to be done. She stated that she recognized the need for improvements 30 years ago. She added that parking is a problem and so is traffic, although 77th Street has improved the traffic situation. She pointed out that people on the east side of Aldrich are getting older and that now is the time to do something before new people move in who are unaware of the problems. Councilmember Susag complemented the Planning Commission. He stated that they can't cover everything in one hour. He suggested that the issue of the LHN money needs to be explored further, possibly by a task force. M/Harms to accept the package submitted to the HRA. Commissioner Sandahl pointed out that this doesn't mean everything in the document will happen but that it's a recognition of the work that's been done. S/Luettinger. Motion carried: 5 -0. M/Sandahl (for the City Council) to accept the report. S /Susag; Rosenberg. Councilmember Priebe clarified that he was willing to accept the report but not the moving of tax dollars from the LHN district. Mayor Kirsch pointed out that it's just one of many options. HRA Chairperson Harms stated that these materials will be used to do further study and that nothing should be ruled in or out at this point. The HRA will come up with a problem and plan for what is feasible and what the community as a whole wants to do. The Planning Commission's work is a starting point for the process. Motion carried: 5 -0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:50 p.m. 7 - r Timot ander Planning Commission Secretary Item: #1 Agenda Section: Public Hearing Case: #96- ACUP -1 Date: May 28, 1996 GENERAL INFORMATION Petitioner: Academy of the Holy Angels Location: 6600 Nicollet Avenue South Type of Request: Amended conditional use permit to allow construction of a seasonal sports facility and field. Zoning: R (single family residential) Land Use: Quasi- public Comp. Plan: Institutional References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts) ZoninjzCode: Section 521.07, subd. 9; Section 521.11, subd. 2 and 5 ACTION Proposed Change: Approval of the amended conditional use permit would allow the applicant to construct a seasonal sports facility and field. Staff Recommendation: Approve the amended conditional use permit request with stipulations. HISTORY Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Public Hearing: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on May 28, 1996. Hearing Examiner: The Hearing Examiner will decide for or against a variance by May 24, 1996. City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of June 10, 1996. ANALYSIS Background: On March 23, 1996 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the request by the Academy of Holy Angels for an amended conditional use permit. In response to neighborhood concerns, the Commission recommended that Holy Angels and the neighbors try mediation to work through some of the issues. Southwest Suburban Mediation Center was contacted to conduct mediation. Two sessions were held in which the neighbors raised several issues. Some responses were given regarding the issues but they remained unresolved. The Mediation Center, a professional mediation service, was hired to continue mediation. The second mediation was also unsuccessful. Proposal: The applicant is requesting an amended conditional use permit to allow the construction of a seasonal sports dome and a surrounding security fence. The turf would be covered by an air supported structure to allow sporting activities during the winter season. The existing grass athletic field would be converted to artificial turf. Bleachers and lighting would be installed to allow evening use of the field during the summer and fall. The structure would have a height of 65 feet at the center. A 10 foot high fence would surround the structure to prevent unauthorized access. A concessions building would be constructed to the east of the field. Issues: LOCATION: Holy Angels reviewed four alternative locations for the dome. The original plan located the dome over the existing practice field which is set back 39 feet from the west property line (119 feet from the residential property lines). One alternative Holy Angels reviewed would sink the dome into the ground. Soil conditions allow for a depth of 10 feet. Holy Angels believes that the benefit of 10 feet does not outweigh the high cost. A second alternative would locate the dome along 66th Street. The negatives to this alternative include proximity to a busy street, increased noise in the neighborhood from the speaker system, drainage, and accessibility. A third alternative would place the dome diagonally across the property. The disadvantages include increased distance from the residences at the north end of Pleasant Avenue only and the downward slope of the northern portion of the property. . Holy Angels is requesting approval of a fourth alternative location that moves the dome to the east. In this alternative location, the dome would be set back 114 feet from the west property line. An additional 80 feet of railroad and street right -of -way would separate the dome from the residential property lines on. Pleasant Avenue (a total distance of 194 feet). The disadvantages include the removal of 37 mature oak trees and relocation of part of the parking lot. SIZE AND APPEARANCE: The structure is 215 feet wide and 374 feet long. The size allows for two half size soccer fields to be configured within the dome as well as regulation size soccer and football fields. The height of 65 feet is directly related to the size and length. The dome is made of teflon-coated plastic with an interior insulating layer. The dome is a temporary structure and can only be inflated for a maximum of 180 days, according to building and fire code regulations. Existing trees on the site will help screen the structure and will be supplemented with evergreen trees on top of a berm along the west property line. Some existing trees will be removed with the construction. The building is a temporary structure, so the site will remain in its existing condition for the balance of the year. A perspective is included in the attached site plans which shows the view of the dome from the west side of Pleasant Avenue. TRAFFIC AND PARK NG: Holy Angels has 105 parking spaces on their property. In addition, Holy Angels has an agreement with the adjacent St. Peter's school and church to use their parking lot (375 parking stalls) for a total of 480 spaces. The agreement provides for shared parking except during Mass times which are Saturdays at 5 p.m. and Sunday mornings before noon. The school is not likely to have major events during these times. There is some parking spillover onto Wentworth Avenue during the school day from students who drive on an occasional basis. In general, adequate parking is available for normal school activities. The proposed bleachers provide seating for 1,000 people. The dome itself has an occupancy load of 300 people. The City's Transportation Engineer estimates a demand for 300 parking stalls for the occasional event, like a football game (4 to 5 per year) or graduation (1 per year), that will generate a large number of people. Based on this estimate, the 480 stalls should provide ample parking for special events. It should be noted that the City typically doesn't require businesses, organizations or residents to provide parking for occasional occurrences. There is above average traffic on 68th Street (between 1,065 to 1,397 average daily trips from Nicollet to Lyndale) because the City's grid system enables residents to use 68th Street to avoid 66th Street. There will likely be a 5 to 10 percent increase in daily traffic on 68th Street (140 to 107 cars) when there are major school events. The increase may be noticeable for a short period of time before and after the event. (See Attachment A) The alternative location requires that part of the existing parking lot be moved. The City generally requires that all new, non - residential parking lots be installed with full perimeter curb and gutter. Holy Angels feels that this requirement makes the cost of the alternative location prohibitive. SECURITY FENCE: The 10 foot high security fence is required to protect the structure from potential damage that could.occur with unauthorized access. The visual impact of the fence will be reduced in the alternative location. LANDSCAPING: Thirty -seven trees will be removed at the alternative location. Seventeen, fourteen -foot evergreens will be planted along the western property line on top of a berm to help screen the structure. The height of the berm has not been determined; the berm will be made of the dirt that is removed to construct the field and dome. The trees to be removed are primarily ash and elm trees. Holy Angels plans to continue replacing the lost trees with additional trees over time. LIGHTING: The lighting for the uncovered field will be designed to minimize the brightness perceived from the adjacent neighborhood. Glare shields and louvers can be used to mitigate the impact. Security lighting will be located around the perimeter of the dome to provide further protection against unauthorized access. (See Attachment B) NOISE: Dr. David Braslau conducted a noise assessment of the proposed facility based on its original location. The additional 70 feet does not alter Dr. Braslau's conclusions. Dr. Braslau determined that the blowers used to inflate the dome will emit an estimated noise level of 65 decibels at 3 feet. By the time the sound reached the residential neighborhood, it would be reduced to a level of 40 decibels. At forty decibels, the sound would be less than the median noise level of the existing background noise (50 decibels during the week day; an estimated 42 decibels during the evening). A low hum may be distinguishable at times when the background noise is well below the median level. The noise level generated by the heater would be 75 decibels. The equipment can be shielded to reduce the sound to a similar level. Some "cycling" or variation can occur with the seasons. Dr. Braslau-raised a concern with the drum -like sound created by soccer balls hitting the walls of the structure. He recommends that a net be installed for kicking practice so balls are not directed at the dome itself. The greatest amount of noise will be generated by the speakers that will be used during outdoor athletic events. Again, these speakers can also be shielded to minimize the noise impact. Because speech is different from background noise, it may still be intelligible even with shielding. The speakers can be designed to minimize this effect as well. (See Attachment Q DRAINAGE: Water drains through the turf to a one foot layer of sand underneath. Beneath the sand is a drainage system that takes the water out to the ground. The water eventually drains to 66th Street and can be handled by the existing storm water system. The Engineering Division has approved the long term drainage plan for the site. (See Attachment D) USE OF THE FACILITY: The facility would be used for physical education classes, practice for a variety of sports, and as a playing field primarily for soccer and football. Holy Angels anticipates other school - related activities may also take place in the facility. Holy Angels will also selectively rent the facility to Richfield community sports leagues and other activities. The facility is expected to be open during the hours the school is normally operated, from 6 a.m. to 12 p.m. Holy Angels plans to establish an advisory board made up of community members to encourage regular communication and receive input about the operation of the facility. COMPARABLE FACILITIES: There are several other domes located throughout the Twin Cities area. The Nicollet Tennis Center at 40th Street and Nicollet Avenue is located in a park and is adjacent to a residential area. The Tennis Center has two domes, each of which is slightly smaller than the proposed Holy Angels structure. Augsburg College has a dome that is approximately the same size as the proposed structure. That dome is located at the edge of the college campus. (See Attachment E) VARIANCE: The zoning ordinance does not anticipate this type of structure. Because the structure could be up for a maximum of 180 days and will be re- inflated every year, the zoning ordinance is being applied as if the structure were permanent. Because it is also an athletic field, rules regarding fields also apply. The alternative requires moving the field, so current standards regarding fields have to be applied (40 foot setback). The original location utilized an existing, legally nonconforming field so current set backs weren't applied. The new field will be 28 feet from the south property line. The maximum allowable height of an accessory building in an R district is 15 feet and the maximum allowable height of a fence is 6 feet. It could be argued that the dome is a principal building, the maximum height of which is 42 feet. That height can be increased to a maximum of 75 feet if the setbacks are increased by one foot for each foot of building height over 42 feet. The 64 foot high dome would have to be set back 52 feet from the side as well as the rear property line to meet this requirement. The Hearing Examiner kept the record open on the variance and accepted additional written testimony from all interested parties until May 21st. The Hearing Examiner will make a decision on the variance by May 24, 1996. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended Action: Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the request with the following stipulations: 1. That the structure meet the Uniform Building and Fire Codes and be inflated no more than 180 days in a given' year. 2. That a lighting plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director based on a review of the specifications by an electrical engineer that indicates minimal intrusion on adjacent properties. 3. That a plan for the speaker system be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director based on a review of the specifications by Dr. David Braslau at a recommended level of 40 decibels or less to minimize the impact on the adjacent neighborhood. 4. That netting be erected inside the dome for practice purposes to prevent the impact of balls on the walls of structure. 5. That Holy Angels establish an advisory committee or some other forum for communication so residents and other community organizations have a means of communicating their concerns regarding the facility with the school. 6. That a plan for protecting the remaining trees during construction be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director in consultation with the City Forester. 7. That a landscape escrow be submitted for the cost of the landscaping. 8. That the agreement with St. Peter's for the utilization of the St. Peter's parking lot remain in effect. 9. That the Hearing Examiner grant variances for the field, structure and security fence. Basis: 1. An athletic field is a necessary component of an educational institution. The proposed sports facility enables the applicant to use the athletic field throughout the year and meet the needs of its students. 2. The distance from neighboring properties, the existing and added landscaping, and the temporary nature of the structure reduces its impact on the neighborhood. 3. The design of the lighting and speaker systems will be such to minimize the impact on the adjacent neighborhoods. 4. Adequate parking is provided between Holy Angels and St. Peter's. Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request with a fording of fact that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties or the City as a whole. ZONING CODE: CITATIONS SECTION 521 - ZONING: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 521.07. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the R District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code. Subd. 9. Public or private elementary and high schools, and other similar learning institutions, provided the following conditions are met: a) pick -up and drop -off areas shall be designed to enhance vehicular and pedestrian safety; b) outdoor recreational facilities designed for group activities shall be set back at least 40 feet from any lot line; c) buffering shall be provided to mitigate noise and adverse visual impacts on adjacent properties; and d) lighted playing fields shall be permitted only upon demonstration that off -site impacts can be substantially mitigated. 521.11. Required building setback and maximum height. Subdivision 1. Standards. The standards set out in this subsection apply in the R District. Subd. 2. Required setback and maximum height: Subd. 5. Additional height for non - residential buildings. The following height exceptions apply to non - residential buildings in the R District: a) the maximum building height may be increased to no more than 75 feet, provided that the required setbacks shall be increased by one foot for each foot of building height in excess of 42 feet; and b) notwithstanding paragraph a) above, the maximum height for towers, spires, or water tanks may be increased to no more than 150 feet provided that such structure does not exceed 15 percent lot coverage or 1,600 square feet in gross floor area at the base, whichever is less. iIAXIMilkt: MW 9 T SI1`tRi 30 Ft. 25 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 25 Ft. 30 Ft. 25 Ft. 10 Ft. 12 Ft. 25 Ft. S$O)El 30 Ft. 3 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 14 Ft. 7hi «SII)E}`IAL 40 Ft. 30 Ft. 30 Ft. 30 Ft. 42 Ft. AGLS80R'<<'<«< -> 40 Ft. 10 Ft. 10 Ft. 30 Ft. 15 Ft. Subd. 5. Additional height for non - residential buildings. The following height exceptions apply to non - residential buildings in the R District: a) the maximum building height may be increased to no more than 75 feet, provided that the required setbacks shall be increased by one foot for each foot of building height in excess of 42 feet; and b) notwithstanding paragraph a) above, the maximum height for towers, spires, or water tanks may be increased to no more than 150 feet provided that such structure does not exceed 15 percent lot coverage or 1,600 square feet in gross floor area at the base, whichever is less. e klpl, millirr..'1+6.r v/ 0 z 033 a 7c 0 M LL 3" SN3A31S 111111111 221MIllsJ 0 iP:B i LLJ U 0 Z f-,\) 1:1 ca'' I 111JI'M r O-j ca Liar z 7 c r lima w =I IIMMOR11111M M 0 0 r4 i w 3AV HIUOMIN3M 0 IC:11 T 3AV AuneSlIld I 7rM-7,1 rAM 13,014. 3 1 Ica Is M .2 FIV.At IIM Di C 3"131HU11H 3AV Glaukiwo Mill gloom 0L) 1 UNION 1111111101. dl 1 MM Di C 3"131HU11H 3AV Glaukiwo Mill gloom 0L) 1 UNION 1111111101. dl 1 MM a I LIW ilia E I C S) I I at I / d I 8 i J 8 I Site Plan snomwnlis n Z Q J Q rah 1- X t r r6 ' n ni 3Nn oos e fa.yrM .r arva 11 J 7J 1 I t h MN h N pI 0 1 i Original Proposal 1 1 t N I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I t 1 t 8 I t I F 1 Jt snoNiwnlie Vr7 1 z 1 1 I 1 i la 1 1 t t t 40- < A"400".1. .urvJi c" M7 I I Diagonal Alternative MKIM i i_ 4M/JJMW V 1 J 8 1 oil 3Nn OQS A11riMW M Id 1 Ci In I i I I i 3 I3 i i_ 4M/JJMW V 1 J 8 1 oil 3Nn OQS A11riMW M Id 1 SPORTS FACILITY 0 o... — r. ox --- Attachment A Memorandum DATE: May 16, 1996 TO: Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator FROM: Thomas Foley, Transportation Engine SUBJECT: Traffic and Parking at Academy of the Holy Angels I am responding to your memo of May 10, 1996. According to AHA, there are 105 parking stalls on their property. Also, there are 375 parking stalls on St. Peter's adjacent and available for evening and weekend activities. The Academy of the Holy Angels is proposing to build bleachers with a capacity for 1,000 people. Its current enrollment is about 625 students. Projected enrollment is 690 for next year. School event parking is an occasional occurrence and parking lots are not generally designed with them in mind. BRW, Inc. has surveyed event parking, although not at the high school level. They estimate three people per car for event parking. Also, ten percent of the people at a high school event may be dropped off by parents or transported by bus. At this rate there is a need for 300 parking stalls. Given the 480 parking stalls between AHA and St. Peter's, there is ample parking for athletic events. However, there is no guarantee that cars will not be parked on residential streets. As people become familiar with the new facility, it is likely that they will learn that off - street parking is adequate, thus reducing the demand for on- street parking. There may be only five or six times when the facility is at or over capacity. That is for football games and graduation. Other events should not draw large crowds. For traffic dispersion after an event, there are four exits from St. Peter's and one from AHA. The AHA site must exit onto Nicollet Avenue for people traveling north and south. The exit must empty cars parked in all 105 parking stalls. St. Peter's has four exits, two on Nicollet Avenue and two on 68th Street. 5/16/96 Page 2 I am assuming most traffic will want to exit onto Nicollet Avenue to travel north and south. Some traffic desiring to exit onto 68th Street will do so to travel west on 66th Street or to travel south on Lyndale Avenue. Traffic counts on 68th Street show traffic volumes of 1,397 average daily traffic just east of Lyndale Avenue and 1,065 average daily traffic just west of Nicollet Avenue. These figures are higher than on most residential streets because 68th Street is used by Richfield residents as a short cut to avoid 66th Street. On the days of major school events, additional traffic will use 68th Street to get to and from the event. I am assuming 60% of the vehicles parked in the St. Peter's lot will exit onto Nicollet Avenue. None of the traffic exiting from the Academy of Holy Angels lot will exit onto 68th Street, although a few of them may turn onto 68th Street. I also am assuming 40% of a possible 240 cars parked in St. Peter's lot will exit onto 68th Street and 75% of these cars will head west on 68th Street and 25% will turn east. Therefore, 68th Street on days of major school events will experience an increase of 144 vehicle trips to the west and 48 trips to the east from the St. Peter's parking lot. These volumes represent a temporary five to ten percent increase in daily traffic on 68th Street on days of major school events. Residents may notice an' increase in traffic for thirty minutes before and twenty minutes after each event. Most major events will occur in the evening or weekends during off -peak traffic periods on Nicollet Avenue and 68th Street. Therefore, traffic will be able to disperse in less than twenty minutes. I do not foresee traffic to and from an event as a major traffic problem! Attachment B Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 1013 IBM MEMORANDUM May 16, 1996 To: Julie Urban From: Paul Paige, RLA/110 Re: Lighting Issues at Holy Angels School in Richfield In my review of the lighting proposed at the Holy Angels School, I have determined a few issues that need to be addressed: 1.) With regards to light trespass, the lumens will need to be provided at the property line to determine appropriateness /code compliance. 2.) Pole height limitations may need to be verified considering the project's proximity to the airport. 3.) Fixture luminance (brightness) as perceived from the adjacent neighborhood needs to be addressed. Glare shields and louvers are recommended if they are not already being specified. If the photometrics were calculated without the shields, I would recommend recalculating with them as they will impact the light pattern on the field. 4.) Regarding the actual lighting performance, I have not made any recommendations. The performance is relative to the level of play anticipated for the field, and other criteria to be determined by the school. The lighting representative they are working with is probably referencing.the IES (Illuminance Engineering Standards) to determine appropriate light levels for this field and sport. cc: Fred Hoisington 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 612) 835 -9960 Fax (612) 835 -3160 Attachment C ACADEMY OF THE HOLY ANGELS Richfield, Minnesota NOISE ASSESSMENT of the Proposed Athletic Facility and Inflatable Air Structure Prepared for the City of Richfield by David Braslau Associates, Inc. 3 May 1996 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Noise Assessment of the proposed Academy of the Holy Angels athletic facility and inflatable air structure was requested by the City of Richfield to identify potential noise impacts on the adjacent residential area to the west. A presentation was made by Dr. David Braslau to the mediation group meeting on Tuesday evening, 16 April 1996, in the Richfield Community Center. The primary issues and potential for impact discussed at that time are summarized in Section 2.0 of this assessment. During that meeting, several outstanding questions were raised by the neighborhood regarding noise issues that had not yet been addressed. Responses to those questions are contained in Section 3.0 of this report. Academy of the Holy Angels - Noise Assessment Page 1 2.0 NOISE ISSUES The noise issues discussed at the mediation meeting on 16 April 1996 are summarized below. A copy of the overheads used during that presentation is included here as APPENDIX A. The primary source of noise at these homes is traffic on 66th Street and the Crosstown. Even though the Crosstown is a half -mile from the area, it is elevated and carries a rather high traffic volume. The observed weekday daytime background level was 50 dBA. Saturday background was observed to be 42 dBA which is representative of levels that might be expected during the evening hours. This is several dBA lower than the 45 dBA background level estimated at the mediation meeting. The fan(s) that are used to keep the dome inflated will be enclosed or shielded by the bleachers on the east side of the athletic field. Although no sound level was provided for this fan, it was described as a low flow/high pressure fan which generally emits less sound than a high flow/low pressure fan. With an estimated level of 65 dBA at 3 feet, the level is estimated to be less than 40 dBA at the residential area which is at or below the estimated ambient level. The heater and fan to maintain temperature in the bubble will also be shielded by the bleachers. While a sound level of 65 dBA was reported for this source prior to the meeting, a level of 75 dBA was observed at the Augsburg bubble. With careful shielding of this equipment, the sound level could be reduced to 40 dBA or below at the residential area to the west. Some cycling of this equipment (and hence associated sound) will occur depending upon temperature Academy of the Holy Angels - Noise Assessment Page 2 1.11' 1.11 •' • 1' • • /.i•_ •-•• _ Based upon previous studies of crowd noise, the noise level from spectators is estimated at a maximum of 72 dBA. This will last only a short time since maximum shouting effort can only be supported for a short duration. Moreover, this level of noise occurs only periodically during sporting events. Crowd noise occurs more suddenly than aircraft but lasts a shorter time. A typical level of an overflying jet aircraft was observed at 72 dBA in the area, but that level lasted for 20 to 40 seconds. m=- FINITSTO-47MV711 11 1 !.• 11 • ..1 _. . ._, . • • • :_ •m. With speakers mounted on light poles on the west side of the playing field, but pointed towards the east to cover the bleachers, the estimated level at the homes is 60 dBA without any additional shielding of the speakers. This assumes directional speakers that focus the energy towards the east and do not spill or waste sound energy behind the speakers. With structural shielding of the speaker, a level of 45 dBA is expected at the residential neighborhood. Since speech carries information content and is different from background noise, it may be intelligible although careful speaker design should be able to minimize its intrusiveness. Trucks or trains traveling between the homes and bubble generate noise that could also be reflected from a structure on the Holy Angels property. Because of its construction, the fabric bubble will reflect primarily higher frequencies that decay faster in the atmosphere. Also, because the bubble is curved (see copy of overhead in APPENDIX A) , reflected sound is likely to be reflected upwards and over the adjacent neighborhood. A permanent structure with vertical walls could generate reflected noise and hence possibly increase noise levels from intervening traffic. This also suggests, however, that any low frequency noise generated within the bubble is likely to be less attenuated by the bubble fabric. Academy of the Holy Angels - Noise Assessment Page 3 MM / l 1 11 a A .1 . 1. • The bubble material is more transparent to sound than normal construction. Therefore, sound from activities within the bubble should be minimized. No amplified sound should be used within the bubble. Normal sounds will be slightly enhanced within bubble (+ 3 to 5 dB) because it is an enclosed space. Based upon the weight of the bubble material, an attenuation of 10 to 15 dB at typical speech frequencies can be expected. Therefore, sounds from within the bubble should be somewhat lower than from the same location but without the bubble. MO - 1 F101634113FROMMM ! e_1 ! 1 1 The north/south orientation of the athletic field is preferred over the east/west orientation f 11iTK4 Bleachers may provide less shielding of fan noise when oriented east/west Pole- mounted speakers cannot be as well - shielded from homes Some trees will have to be removed Academy of the Holy Angels - Noise Assessment Page 4 3.0 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM MEETING ON 16 APRIL 1996 Sound Level Measurements at Augsburg Dome Readings were taken at several locations in and around the dome. Some general findings are presented below. The only sound that was detectable at the emergency doors was air leaking around the door itself, causing a sound level of 64 dBA. This would drop to about 35 dBA at the nearest residence and would probably not be audible. The loudest noise observed was from a vent on the adjacent building which provided heat and pressure. At 3 feet this measured 75 dBA. Even if this were unshielded, it would drop to about 35 dBA at the nearest residence. When shielded by the bleachers it would be even lower. One unexpected sound that was observed could be a problem if not contained. Only two students were kicking a soccer ball towards a goal inside the dome; when they missed, the impact of the ball on the dome was somewhat akin to a weak drum and has the potential for being somewhat disturbing. The impact level measured 62 dBA at 15 feet and could be as high as 50 dBA at the nearest residence. Since as many as 20 students might be shooting goals at any one time, it is critical that a net be hung inside the dome where a ball could impact the dome wall at a relatively high velocity. This is evidently common at some other locations. The readings are summarized in the table below. Location/sound source Typical Sound Level (dBA) Air outlet inside dome ( @3 ft) 68 Center of dome 59 Emergency door (inside dome)(@ 3 ft) 63 ncy -------------- - - - - -- Emerge door (outside dome)(@ 3 ft) 62 Ball impact against (@ 15 feet) 64dome Heater" vent ( @3 ft) 75 Academy of the Holy Angels - Noise Assessment Page 5 Sound from within the Dome While an exact prediction of sound level from activities within the dome is difficult; the following comments can be made: No bleachers will be erected in the dome Therefore any crowd noise would be lower than might be expected in summer with open bleachers While any sound generated within the dome may be slightly higher than outdoors because of the enclosure, sound outside of the dome will likely be somewhat lower than it would be outdoors because of the transmission loss of the dome material No plans for loudspeakers are anticipated within the dome Therefore sound levels are likely to be lower with the dome than without the dome As noted above, netting should be used to prevent the impact of balls on the dome itself Sound from Loud Sneakers The residents expressed concern that, since they could hear loud speakers from Richfield High School, this would be a greater problem with the new Holy Angels facility. Richfield High School is located approximately 2,400 feet south of Holy Angels. The location of speakers and level used at Richfield High School has not been determined. However, assuming that those speakers are 100 feet from the intended spectators and set to provide 85 dBA at a typical spectator, a sound level as high as 57 dBA might be perceived in the Holy Angels neighborhood. With a background sound level of 40 to 45 dBA, this sound would be clearly audible. If those speakers were placed only 50 feet from the audience, the level would fall to 51 dBA. If the speakers were properly directed at the spectators, the level could fall to 31 dBA or lower and may not be audible at that distance. Based upon the type of treatment of loud speakers discussed above, it can be seen that careful design of sound system at Holy Angels will be necessary to control the level at the adjacent residential neighborhood. The audience will be approximately 350 feet from the residences. By Academy of the Holy Angels - Noise Assessment Page 6 placing the speakers no further than 50 feet from the bleachers and directing the sound at the spectator area only, the level at the nearest residences could probably be reduced with careful design to 40 dBA or less. Therefore, while the Richfield High School athletic area sound system may be audible, this is not directly relevant since careful design can greatly reduce sound levels off -site from public address systems. Whether the level can be reduced low enough to prevent intelligibility of the signal is uncertain, however, since speech may be understood even at very low levels. This will have to be determined during the design phase. holyang.rep 96030 Academy of the Holy Angels - Noise Assessment Page 7 APPENDIX A Copy of Overheads from Meeting on 16 April 1996 APPENDIX A Copy of Overheads from Meeting on 16 April 1996 I— J V LL U W uiJ H a V Z a J O 2 U) N N O Z O d 0 N a 0 L D U C 0) ca :3 O Q c cc Z L 5 QD N c o O S U a U L- W a) C C W 0 C U o Z m L E a) ca U L W E O Ar` W U O O U co O Q cn U U a cu U w Q c 0 i E E U i U_ C L U Q) I— a) Q a) 1 cn C 75 cn c O U U U a 0 U c U 75 c 0 z L c C 0 U C O U W 75 c U L OP.. 18/' 1 p•w• t' - " . u '1 : ' r J- .. ;••( sf..,; :• _• w S ; r 1 w :, `' '• ,r :-_ ,: -. dam,• Ir ILSA O-A m: LAO 117 • !. Y ~ f— 3 a - Ism r •^ a - 7 i • a. :: yi- h rti ::.• -. w _..- `. as f.+ j'(ti arm,:. _ . r . -0. fto lot 1 _.a t. tom' ,.5 rjb- .. • . S. - - r.aLF c a — -, r - t ! T • w _ . ,,•2 j. [, - .::+: - ' • - . -, tom Q' --' w•.t. ' t .} .•)1 • CCC44"'••• ': a''L-' _ ---, - r "•'_. "?'L.;•L_ T'. 1111 '(;i,K.•, r ,._•' --- -•-•.. ..3a= :".•w'n 4c it =. — r:sf. yr_ v • 3 - - i E : r. Fes' •' • ; r `: , a 'j • f / \ 3 -•'•? va.• i. - ._... _ ' 1 i ' ' +' .. $t a L• + y _ - r^ ` is i d a .i aR " ' • ii }7 L$ j jij`' .. '';• 7 '' r i )I ° '._ -'. a ..• •1 •, .:`J, \ at -yJ. • _ a,._, -•• M1(.4 'aft.'.; 4' ,, P. . '. •- r"' •? `. i .r ' -; c `•. Is Is Qom•+ - .. . f S , - t 'i- 5 Y'•: - '•. Z • Y is i .. •T' _ r _ v -,;; • f: =".- _' r 'i. : $' e $ r: L-,A T -^ p ~.. -ry. , r ~•' ` r - t L -a "` S _ - 4 m` ir' y` i 1.Y As P4. " IL le All 1.6 Y' v+a(, - , y ' ., T b , 1` r - - 1';r F' • -_ 1•- i., s . r'i.•' ` a -_ '• ^- ..•.: q' ' +`` `tti:i-'i, 'r7r a' ,'. ii• a" i u .a ' .f'••e _ 1. - S" j- `•._•- • t.•• [s. ;' `•• a._ .' - F41, - y , _ 7.• S W -( •, , • Y•r 1` -: • • t.• : f',"u.,,; U_ L fr cu D cu L V 7 cu O L- E O L 4 0 cu E Q N E s O N a) co E O cu E co W W MQ W 0 LO O Ln II II a .> 0 W n0 W 0 W Q D O C O O. cn C cn C U O 4- n E O N N O cn Z co cuL U O O N N c cu 0 qt CO cn CO O U C N N cu ' N E cn li W N L cu L a) Q E a) t C O C. cm C a) n L W U U N O co O cu 0 U a) C O N 3 N O cn N fl CU CU D 0 Cca N 0 L aQ Q CD crcn O O Q? U r•' Q C O U CUNt E N O cu i O cn O U- w fn Z SCALE 1/40 V-O" o 14 rl O a 0) C 4- L- O CL N U E O co E O cu N N N O Z N C U N O L co L- 110- m cu 0 E cn W O E L cn cu co cn cu cu U cu C cu S C N co O co L U O N 0 O O L U C4 C U co 11' O N L O CN N N CD C N N co 4 N O N N L 0 Qi U N L_ cn L a cu a N N C E d) Q t E O U E O L cu N co L c a s N t t N N co N O O m m c0 It c E O N t E E N Qcncn W W n Speaker: ALTEC MRII594A + 291- OL / -16L Cluster: ROOF D0VXCe: Cfilil Loo : K = +0.0 f V = -220.0 f 2 +60.0 f Aim: EL= -15.0 AZ = +90.0 ROT *0.8 Freg: 2000 Contour: -3 dB Bea" Center: SPL - 70.5 dB C Distance = 301 Path time = 26 Edge Points: p -7.3 dB re: center. p -4.7 dB re: venter. p -0.6 dB re: center. Q -4.7 dB re: center. Boundary Surf ace No. 1 Created using AooustaCADD <TM> Apr, 16, 1996 at 15:36 One speaker directed across field Clipping: OFF eat = STADIUM 47 O N E s co O N O O N N o Z C cn U O O cn N N o Z C O C O N N C V 4_ C Q X E O Cf) N co UON E N U C 65 0 C E Z N C N cr N a N O p O S N O O 4«- O co L N O E OU cb CO N N 3 N cu Cc E C Co N N O N 0 m O y. 0 O j N N N co co Z I— Q O CL U N C N N 2 S C co N D CY 0) C Q N C L co 3 cu N N cn L C E CL U N I Q L C O p m U m c N Q C cn U O O cn N N o Z C O C O N C V 4_ to Q X E E O Cf) N co UON E N C 65 0 C E Z C N cr N a N O p O S N O O 4«- O co 0 CL co C C O t, m co O E co cb CO N N In t-- 0O p cu Cc E C Co N N C O N E m O y. 0 O j N0 co H Z I— Q z Q W Ja Q N Cl) m U N L O U) O C C m s m L WL Q N N N C O U N L_ U) U) m N C W 4 4— O O m C L L J O C C O C O 0 W O O L Q. cu E co cu L L U a) Vi, co E O L E O L FD L N N u O C C cu U N L N O N Q cn C O E 1 O I..L O E N L N O cu co LLL 1 Cl coO CDa7 y cm C O L I aI N!0 f N l I D 4 A ii r it i i In l I aeon ufllt 1 I li 1 m IIA ;><;p r t zn t 1 J O r, I n, I.IJ m m aI N!0 A N Z iL D A ii r it i i In I li 1 m 3 II I m n, I.IJ m m W z N i I. ST• ^ql'4 n, I.IJ m m Attachment D MEMORANDUM DATE: April 16, 1996 TO: Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator FROM: George Atkinson, Engineering Supervi or - X0 SUBJECT: Drainage at Academy of Holy Angels I have received a plan detailing methods to handle storm water runoff from the proposed domed athletic field at the Academy of Holy Angels. Although the plan in my possession is somewhat inadequate in terms of erosion and sediment control during construction, the site does provide adequate rate and quality control for on site pre - treatment. The existing storm sewer pipe into the site from 66th St. will have to be cleaned out and inspected (replaced if its condition is deteriorated) and erosion control in the form of silt fence or approved equal will have to be provided around this outlet. Erosion control fence will also have to be placed on all downhill gradients around the entire construction site. Aside from these rather minor issues, which will be addressed, the plan is feasible and will adequately provide for storm water management if the proposed dome is installed. Attachment E INFORMATION ON METROPOLITAN AREA DOMES FACILITY: Augsburg College ADDRESS: 2211 Riverside Avenue, Minneapolis CONTACT: Bill Traut of Kraus Anderson. AREA: Mix of residential, commercial, medical, & educational. SIZE: This dome is 368'8" long by 214'8" wide and it is 60' to 65' high. MATERIAL: Constructed of vinyl coated polyester. MISCELLANEOUS: This dome is the same style as the proposed Holy Angels dome. The only difference is that the Holy Angels dome will be 6 feet longer. Augsburg's dome is seasonal and it has already been taken down for the summer. FACILITY: Bielenberg Sports Center ADDRESS: 4125 Tower Drive, Woodbury CONTACT: Dave Black, Manager of the Bielenberg Sports Center. AREA: Located in the middle of a park that is surrounded by farm land. SIZE: This dome is 270' long by 180' wide and it is 55' high. MATERIAL: Constructed of a polyvinyl coated fabric. FACILITY: Decathlon Club ADDRESS: 1700 East 79th Street, Bloomington CONTACT: Dave, Head Engineer of the Decathlon Club. AREA: Commercial SIZE: This dome is 320' long by 120' wide and it is 33' high. MATERIAL: Constructed of tedlar coated reinforced plastic. MISCELLANEOUS: The dome has been taken down for repairs. FACILITY: Nicollet Tennis Center ADDRESS: 4005 Nicollet Avenue South, Minneapolis CONTACT: Mike Vidar, Manager of the Nicollet Tennis Center. AREA: Residential SIZE: There are two domes.They are both 308' long by 124' wide and they are 40' high. MATERIAL: Constructed of high strength polyester. Coated on both sides with polyvinyl chloride. Page 1 Hearing Examiner Testimony Academy of Holy Angels 6600 Nicollet Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 -2498 Fox 612- 798 -2610 * Phone 612 - 798-2600 The Academy of Holy Angels, accredited by the North Central Association since 1932, offers a unique and vital choice in education. The Academy community seeks to continue that tradition into the 21st century. The mission of Holy Angels, a Catholic secondary school, is to teach, guide, and motivate students from diverse populations. The Academy develops the whole person by nurturing in students a sense of responsibility from spiritual, intellectual, physical, emotional, and social perspectives. The Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet own the buildings and grounds and the school is presently operated by a private corporation. The corporation is currently negotiating a long -term lease with the Sisters. Holy Angels seeks to enter the new millennium as a unique and vital school whose students and graduates share an aspiration to be leaders and creators of the future. To achieve this vision, the Academy offers a balanced program of strong curricular and co- curricular activities and the leadership of the school has committed to gathering the human, fiscal, and facility resources necessary to achieve fulfillment of this vision. 1. What is Holy Angels proposing to do? As an integral part of its vision, Holy Angels is proposing to construct a multi- purpose seasonal athletic facility. The concept and design of the facility employ state -of- the-art technology and materials, while achieving economies of construction and operation. 2. Why is Holy Angels interested in building a new athletic facility? The decision to move forward with the proposed was not arrived at lightly. Serious discussions took place at all levels of the Academy over an extended period of time and various altematives were considered. However, it became abundantly clear that Holy Angels has a large number of students who participate in co- curricular activities and a substantial shortage of suitable facilities in which to do so. In an era where both parents frequently work, students and parents want these activities. Also, winter time involvement in activities decreases by approximately 50% due to limited indoor playing time and practice facilities. 3. Why is this facility so critical to the Academy? The construction of this facility will constitute a visible and compelling symbol of the Academy's intention to function, and to thrive at the same location which has served it well for the past six and one -half decades. But perhaps of equal importance, achieving the vision of the school is viewed as an issue which will directly and dramatically affect its ability to attract students as well as impact the school's future viability. t Upon our heritage we build the future. 4. Who are the architects and builders? Tushie Montgomery Associates and Kraus - Anderson Construction Company are respectively the architects and builders. 5. What will the proposed project consist of upon completion? The plans for the facility call for an artificial playing surface; an inflatable, air supported dome allowing for winter usage; two external bleachers to accomodate approximately 1,000 spectators; and an attached building with a lobby, office, team changing rooms, restrooms, concessions and a ticket office. It is modeled after Augsburg College's athletic facility with some improvements and refinements to meet the needs of Holy Angels. The playing surface dimensions will be approximately 215' wide by 374' long. The facility will have lights for evening events, a public address system, and a press box. The project will be fenced for security and safety. 6. When will the dome portion of the facility be up? The dome is expected to be up from approximately November 1st to April 30th; but in no case to exceed 180 days. This is expected to be a stipulation of the Conditional Use Permit. 7. Who will be the principal users of the facility? Priority will be given to the students of the Academy during the school day and the Richfield community, neighbors, and local youth and adult sports leagues will be given priority before and after Academy activities. This will eliminate waiting for hours as is common at Augsburg. 8. How will the proposed facility be used? The Academy and the community would use the facility for physical education, training and conditioning, football, soccer, softball, track training, and other sports with the later addition of sports courts. In addition, the facility could accomodate lock -ins, retreats, fine arts exhibits, all class reunions, church functions, catered events, and other similar activities. Holy Angels will also be selectively renting the facility to organized, youth and adult sports leagues (i.e. Richfield Soccer Association). Community activities such as athletic leagues, craft fairs, aerobics, walking and running, classes and clinics, fine arts displays, elementary school track and field, antique and collector shows, chess tournaments, family reunions, and small indoor carnivals are representative of the types of activities that could be expected at the facility. This facility will be the only indoor soccer arena in Richfield. 9. What will not be in the facility? No permanent seating exists within the facility and no rock concerts will be booked. Further, the facility will be an alcohol and tobacco free space. 10. Who have been working on this proposed project? Talented people from our community have been working diligently to develop the construction documents, arrange financing, and develop a conservative, workable business plan to operate the facility. Of special note, the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet have been especially supportive. AHA has also been working with City of Richfield staff, Planning Commission members, and Council members to receive the necessary approvals to proceed with the' project. 11. How will the Academy pay for the facility? Tuition will not be raised to pay for this facility; rather, fundraising, corporate sponsorship, and selective rentals are expected to retire the debt. 12. What traffic and parking problems are expected to be created by the facility? Traffic and parking patterns are not expected to change and St. Peter's has offered their parking lot for overflow parking. No new entrances or exit streets are expected to be necessary to accomodate the facility. 13. Will an Environmental Assessment Worksheet or an Environmental Impact Statement be required? Because of its nature, this project does not warrant or require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet or an Environmental Impact Statement. 14. Can the sight of the facility and fencing be obscured in some manner? Current plans call for new trees to be increased in size to 12 - 14 feet. 15. How will the facility affect water drainage? The facility as designed should be capable of handling 8" of water per hour which enhances drainage near the west end of the campus. 16. How many options have been considered for location of the facility on campus? In response to suggestions from the community, three additional locations have been considered for the proposed facility. Initially, the plan located the facility running north and south in parallel and close proximity to the Soo Line railroad tracks. Subsequently, three additional sites were actively investigated ... (1) parallel with 66th street, (2) diagonal across the Academy's property; and, (3) seventy (70) feet east of the original site plan. The Academy also investigated digging the facility into the ground to reduce the visible size. However, the architect determined that it could only be ten (10) feet lower in the ground. This would cost an additional $300,000 to $500,000. Of the options, #3 appears to be feasible, the safest, and the most economical. It also appears to be the least objectionable to the community, and the Academy will pursue this option. 17. What will be the normal operating hours of the facility? When the dome is up, the facility is most generally expected to be open during the hours the school currently operates, approximately 6:00 a. m. to 12 midnight. Weekend hours are expected to be abbreviated. 18. Will the lighting and public address system be annoying to neighbors? Lighting and sound experts are being consulted to minimize the lighting and sound intrusion into the surrounding neighborhood. 19. What security will be provided for events held at the athletic facility? Off -duty Richfield police officers will continue to provide security during major events as they have in the past. However, Richfield Public Safety does not view the Holy Angels campus as a troublesome area and does not expect the project or its events will be a cause for concern. 20. The dome of the facility is air supported. Will the blower noise be annoying? The blower noise will be shielded from the community by its location and a sound expert provided by the City of Richfield has indicated the noise level should be minimal at the originally planned site. Moving the project further east should minimize the sound even further. 21. If the proposed facility is constructed, what is AHA's plans for ongoing communication with the community? Holy Angels anticipates establishing an advisory board composed of representative members of the community as a method of encouraging regular communication and receiving input concerning the operation of the facility. 22. The Academy of Holy Angels - an asset to the Richfield community. The Academy of Holy Angels has been located in Richfield since 1931 and is currently a 3,500,000 business. The Academy has provided an academically strong education to thousands of Richfield residents at no cost to the taxpaying public. The school's current payroll for faculty living in Richfield is approximately $200,000. Forty -six Richfield families currently send their children to the Academy. A large incoming freshman class in the Fall is expected to significantly increase this attendance. The school district portion of the taxes paid by these Richfield families does not pay for the education of their children. The Academy does business with 38 firms in Richfield and spends approximately 75,000 with them annually. Holy Angels also serves the community of Richfield by: Providing theater and athletic events which are well attended by Richfield residents. Staff and students serving on commissions. Participating in community events such as sponsoring a scene for Halloween in the Park and providing singers and a bugle player for Memorial Day services. Being a member of the Richfield Chamber of Commerce. 23. What are the advantages to Richfield of having a seasonal sports facility on the Holy Angels campus? When not in use by AHA students, Richfield residents and organizations will receive first priority to use the facility. The Academy is presently working with community representatives to accurately assess Richfield's total needs for the facility. School district facilities are increasingly overcrowded and the stadium should help to reduce the pressure on existing space. Playing soccer is generally not permitted within Richfield facilities and the proposed stadium would provide quality space for this activity and others. There will no cost to the taxpayers. The stadium should enhance the visibility of the City of Richfield. People will be "going to Richfield" rather than Blaine, Woodbury Augsburg, and other similar locations. Richfield and other surrounding area teams will have a quality facility in which to practice and play and they will enjoy a "home field" advantage. It should provide quality space for all types of community activities. Local businesses should benefit from the presence of athletes, parents, and spectators from outside the Richfield community. Most important, it will measurably assist in the development and education of Richfield youth. rce/5 -17 -96 Hearing Examiner Testimony May 20, 1996 Bruce Palmborg Director of Community Development City of Richfield Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Bruce, In response to your letter of May 13, 1996, this letter submits testimony to the Hearing Examiner regarding the Academy of Holy Angels (AHA) athletic dome proposal. This letter is written on behalf ourselves and a number of neighbors and residents organized for this case as SAVER (Save A Valued Environment in Richfield). 1) VARIANCES HEARING OF MARCH 16, 1996 Hearing Officer, Connie Murray, at the March 26 hearing, received testimony on variance requests to allow height of 60' for seasonal inflated structure and for height of 10' security fence. a.) Since that hearing, the height has been described as 65'. The increased height adds to the concerns that this massive (approximately six - stories high) structure is not compatible with a residential neighborhood, would be psychologically depressing and visually offensive when inflated during the winter months, create a low- quality image of Richfield, block the solar access of adjoining property owners and residents, devalue properties near the proposed site which, in turn, leads to reduced tax revenue), increase traffic on nearby residential streets, likely lower the quality of future developments in the area, and other issues presented at the March 26 hearing and subsequent meetings. b.) The 10' security fence introduces visual blight and would be most apparent during the time the dome is down. The proposed location on land elevated above residential properties nearby amplifies its offensiveness —both visually and audibly. 2) SETBACK VARIANCES The 39' setback from the property line falls short of requirements of Richfield Code 521.11, requiring a 40' setback, plus one additional foot of setback for each foot of structure height above 42'. Setback is of prime importance to preserving the character of residential zones. In the case of the large mass of the proposed inflated dome, setback reductions further depress nearest properties. (Our research has found no other dome equal to the size of the proposed dome in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, save the Metrodome in downtown Minneapolis. And no others, regardless of size, are located in residential areas.) The proposed quasi - public use requires convenient access and is unique in that east Pleasant Avenue has yet to be developed along this site. West Pleasant Avenue is already a very narrow, substandard sized street (just 20' wide). Anticipated need to develop access at east Pleasant argues against any relaxation in setback and suggests need for extended setback. Why was setback not considered at the variance hearing? 3) OTHER VARIANCES A number of other concerns relating to the proposed dome have been raised. Perhaps research of city code would identify the need for additional variances. Concerns include: a.) Noise: The inflation mechanism for the dome adds to the ambient noise in the neighborhood, as does Page 2 May 20, 1996 Hearing Examiner re. AHA athletic dome crowd noise, amplified loud- speaker noise and other mechanical noise. b.) Inflated Structures: Safety and visual impacts deserve review. c.) Hours of Operation and Types of Activities: Weekend and late evening usage is proposed and would provide additional disruption to the neighborhood. CONCLUSION Zoning ordinances are in place to protect residents and property owners. Variances should not be granted if detrimental to the residential community. Residents and homeowners can reasonably expect the support of the city in upholding established codes and ordinances of the city. Residents are being asked to bear the brunt of the burden for the proposed dome, while the Academy of Holy Angels reaps the rewards. By proposing to locate this massive structure 100' from residential properties —in the furthermost corner away from the school itself and as close to residential properties as possible —AHA is effectively turning its back to the numerous offensive aspects of the structure. Other issues, such as depreciation of property values, off - street parking, access, drainage, impact on community development, light emissions, loss of solar access and others seem to relate more to the conditional use permit than to variances. Residents concerns on such matters will be provided upon request. being asked to bear the brunt of the burden for the propose ile the Academy of Holy An ge rewards. By pro o ' e this massive structure 100' from residential properties —in the further er way from the school f and as close to residential properties as AHA is effe e - itsJ2umerous offensive asDe structure. Granting of variances for the proposed dome will have a negative impact on residential neighborhoods. Please contact us for additional arguments to support denying the requested variances. Sincerel 6 Burton Miller Co -Chair Save A Valued Environment in Richfield 6712 Pleasant Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 869 -4997 0 ames Vargo Co -Chair Save A Valued Environment in Richfield 6630 Pleasant Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 866 -3953 Copies to: Dr. Jill Reilly, Principal, AHA Mayor Martin Kirsch Block Captains, SAVER, Athletic Dome Case CITY OF R10HRELD Knnrom commission Rclion Requoit Item: #2 Agenda Section: Public Hearing Case: #96 -RZ -1 Date: May 28, 1996 GENERAL INFORMATION Petitioner: City of Richfield Location: 7700 Lyndale Avenue South Type of Request: Rezoning from C -3 (high density commercial) to C -2 (general commercial) Zoning: C -3 Land Use: Commercial Comp. Plan: Freeway Strip References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts) Zoning Code: 526.57; 526.49; 526.53 ACTION Proposed Change: Rezone 7700 Lyndale Avenue South from C -3 to C -2 to allow construction of a municipal liquor store Staff Recommendation: . Approve the 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 Hearing: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on May 28, 1996. Hearing Examiner: The Hearing Examiner will conduct a public hearing on June 18, 1996. City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of June 10, 1996. ANALYSIS Background: The City is in the process of purchasing the property at 7700 Lyndale Avenue to install a right turn lane from eastbound 77th Street to southbound Lyndale Avenue. The property taken for the roadway requires removal of the building that houses the Conoco service station, so the entire property is being purchased by the City. Proposal: On August 14, 1995 the Council approved a plan to develop a fourth municipal liquor store on the residual property. The 10,850 square foot store will be located on the north half of the site. Parking will be shared with the adjacent Shops at Lyndale shopping center. The building itself will be designed to complement the shopping center: Issues: 1. The property was zoned C -3 (high density commercial) in the late 1980s to encourage high density commercial development along I-494. The parcel that will remain after the taking will not be large enough to support high density commercial development. The minimum lot size for a project in the C -3 district is 1.5 acres; the parcel at 7700 Lyndale Avenue after the taking will be 0.4 acres. 2. The proposed building will require a variance due to the irregular shape of the parcel. The Hearing Examiner will review the variance request on June 18, 1996. 3. The City Council conducted a first reading of the rezoning on May 13, 1996 and directed the Planning Commission to review the proposed rezoning. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended Action: Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the request to rezone the property at 7700 Lyndale Avenue South from C -3 to C -2. Basis: 1. The parcel that remains in this portion of the ILN Redevelopment Area does not meet the minimum lot size requirement for the C -3 district and is not large enough to support high density development. 2. The proposed municipal liquor store offers a workable project given the site constraints. 3. The proposed retail use and C -2 zoning are consistent with the adjacent retail shopping center and with the Comprehensive Plan. Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request with a finding of fact that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties or the City as a whole. ZONING CODE: CITATIONS SECTION 526 - ZONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS High Density Commercial District (C -3) 526.47. Minimum floor -area ratio. The minimum floor -area ratio (FAR) for any lot shall be 0.75. 526.49. Minimum lot width and area. Subdivision 1. Width. The minimum lot width shall be 150 feet. Subd. 2. Area. The minimum lot area shall be 1.5 acres. 526.53. Setback requirements. Subdivision 1. The requirements set out in this subsection shall be the minimum setback requirements for all improvements in the C -3 District, including new construction or structural alteration. Subd. 2. Buildings and parking structures. Building and parking structure setbacks along public streets shall be at least 40 feet. A building or parking structure may extend to an interior lot line if that structure and the adjacent structure are designed with such placement in mind and a compatible relationship of uses, results including circulation drives, open space, parking areas, and glazed facades. Otherwise, the setback from the interior lot line must be at least ten feet or equal to at least one - quarter the height of the building, up to a maximum of 20 feet of setback. Subd. 3. Surface parking areas. Surface parking areas shall be set back from any public street right -of -way at least ten feet, or a distance sufficient to allow the placement of a landscaped screen or berm with an average height of three feet between the street right -of -way and the edge of the parking area. Surface parking areas shall be set back from any building at least ten feet, or a distance sufficient to allow the placement of landscaping designed to soften the appearance of the building if such building is visible from any public right -of - way. Subd. 4. Vehicular circulation aisles. Internal driveways shall be set back from interior lot lines or structures at least ten feet or a distance sufficient to allow the placement of landscaping intended to soften the appearance of the driveway from a public right -of -way or an adjacent building or parking ramp. PROPOSED ZONING 77TH STREET INTERSTATE 494 POST TAKING PROPERTY LINE W D z W Q W J a 0 z 9 A,! NORTH SCALE: V=10' 5 -6 -96 T I LYNDALE AVE. `Ul.ITH 1 fJRICHFIELD MUNICIPAL LIQUOR r RICHFIELD, MINNESOTAE$ gutl fJRICHFIELD MUNICIPAL LIQUOR r RICHFIELD, MINNESOTAE$ gut 4k figa• VIOS INNIW dOfIOl'l -lVdIOIN11W G131dWAH i oW Wvv O I i him Ir/ .................._ Jill i I . g = 5 a5z g = 5 a