Loading...
11-26-1996CITY Of R10HAELD PLRnninra commission AGenDA November 26, 1996 7:00 p.m. ROIlR (C@lu A • rt : 1 c f Mil ut Special Planning Commission meeting of October 29, 1996 and Study Session meeting of November 12, 1996. I' blic , ink ITEM #1 The Transmission Shop - Rezoning of 6938 -40 and 6944 -46 Cedar Avenue from MR -1 to C -2 and a conditional use permit to expand existing automotive repair building. New IBUDD,M(500 l• :wine 1 MIt School Board Community Services Advisory Commission 76th Street (East of 35W) Task Force 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 Services Director at 861- 9702 ". PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting October 29, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Timothy Erlander, David Gepner, Mitchell Hadley, Kevin Hansen, Paul Wasko and Dawn Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Pamela Dmytrenko and Kristal Stokes COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor STAFF PRESENT: John Melin, Community Development Manager Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator Cynthia Kirchoff, Staff Planning Assistant The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Erlander, S /Hadley to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of September 24, 1996. Motion carried: 7 -0 M /Erlander, S /Weitzel to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission study session meeting of October 8. 1996. Motion carried: 7 -0 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 96- CUP -13 6900 Bloomington Avenue South, American Portable Telecom October 29, 1996 Page 2 Zoning Administrator Urban presented the staff report stating that American Portable Telecom is proposing to construct a 134 -foot telecommunications tower in Christian Park adjacent to the existing tennis courts. Commissioner Weitzel questioned why the proposal is for a 134 -foot instead of an 80- foot tower, which would meet the setback requirement. Ms. Urban stated that the 80 -foot height is not sufficient as a 115 -foot tower is the minimum for a second user and that it would be more beneficial to have fewer, taller towers. Chairperson Linnihan stated that adding 50 feet to an existing 80 -foot tower in the original location would seem less invasive than constructing a 134 -foot telecommunications tower adjacent to the tennis courts. Ms. Urban stated the original proposal, affixing the tower onto an existing 80 -foot lightpole, was in the front yard of some residents, whereas, the current proposed site is located in the rear yard and where less activity takes place. Commissioner Wasko questioned if staff received an outside opinion regarding the telecommunication tower. Ms. Urban stated that this proposal was reviewed by City staff. Commissioner Weitzel questioned whether the City can limit users and their number within the community. Ms. Urban stated that a government cannot prohibit a company from providing services. Commissioner Weitzel questioned if the City has the authority to limit the spacing between telecommunication towers. Ms. Urban stated that the spacing of towers varies by the company, so any limit placed by the City would be arbitrary. Chairperson Linnihan stated that it would be beneficial to assist companies in determining potential sites. Commissioner Gepner questioned the rationale behind the increase in the height of the proposed tower from 100 feet to 134 feet. Ms. Urban stated that this will make it easier to accommodate 2 or 3 users, will cover a broader area and will require fewer antennas. Linda Whitman, an APT representative, stated that a 100 -foot tower is appropriate for only one user and a 115 -foot tower is necessary for two users. She also noted that the higher the tower, then the more colocators or users. Commissioner Gepner inquired about the noise level from the telecommunication towers. Ms. Whitman directed the question to an engineer with APT who stated that the only noise would be the cooling unit. October 29, 1996 Page 3 Commissioner Gepner questioned where a second user's equipment would be located. Ms. Whitman stated that the colocator would use their own equipment and lease the land from the City. Chairperson Linnihan asked how far the ground equipment could be placed from the tower and whether there would be interference. Commissioner Wasko questioned APT's role in the community as other telecommunication companies have offered incentives such as free wiring and cellular phones to schools. He suggested that APT contact Richfield Public Schools. Doug Scott, of APT, stated that AT &T and USWest have a relationship with the Ramsey Washburn schools. He stated that the school district will be contacted if it meets their needs. Chairperson Linnihan questioned the idea of burying the ground equipment. Mr. Lease, of APT, stated that it depends on soil conditions. Commissioner Wasko questioned if APT has approached the middle school about a telecommunication tower. Linda Whitman stated that it was her understanding that the school was not enthusiastic. Cliff Niesen, 6927 Bloomington, presented a petition with 47 signatures supporting an additional 180 -day moratorium on tower development. He stated that additional time was needed to study setback regulations, health standards, property devaluation and other issues. John Theiringer, 6945 Bloomington, stated that the residents needs /concerns must be addressed. He commented on the following: number of other providers that applied for licenses, decreased residential property values, Christian Park zoning, environmental effects, the possibility of 2 or 3 users, the location of the tower 1/2 mile from the airport, impact of the north/south runway, ground water runoff, the possibility of locating on the MAC tower, the tower's insurance liability, the variation in proposed height. Steve Kenney, of CB Commercial, stated that USWest would be interested in colocating with APT on the proposed tower. Al Whitman, 1704 15th Avenue, the Assistant Superintendent of the Minneapolis Park Board, Minneapolis, stated that the tower is not a recreational use and should not be allowed in a park. October 29, 1996 Page 4 John Hernick, 6833 Bloomington, stated that the park does get used by residents. Ms. Whitman stated that: the area by the tennis courts has confined uses and is not necessarily unused. in Bloomington, commercial property values increased. the FAA gave approval for the location of this tower because of its proximity to the airport. the tower will not increase the impervious area or groundwater runoff. the tower. will be removed when it is not used and the site will be returned to its original condition. the proposal does not include a fence surrounding the ground equipment and they carry no insurance in the event of an accident on or around this equipment. a height of 115 feet is needed to reassure a colocator. the setback reduction is needed because of the limited placement within the park. Ron Urbach, 6926 16th Avenue, stated that colocators and liability insurance should be mandatory. He questioned whether APT is paying for the relocation of the gates and if the tower will restrict the tennis court rehabilitation. Gretchen Black, Leisure Services Coordinator, stated that the gates will be replaced by APT as well as the black top surface. She stated that the City is insured through the League of Minnesota Cities. Ron Urbach questioned who the lease revenue from a second user will benefit. Gretchen Blank stated that if an additional user is found they will pay the City for ground space. She commented that the City Council will determine where the revenue is deposited. Commissioner Hansen questioned if the lease revenue can be deposited in the park fund and if the City Council would consider using it to benefit the parks. Mike Niesen, Bloomington, stated that towers are being located in parks in Bloomington but the parks are much larger and therefore have less of an impact on neighbors. He questioned the benefit of the tower to the residents. M /Hadley, S /Erlander to close the public hearing portion of this meeting. Motion carried: 7 -0. Commissioner Weitzel asked why we are allowing towers in the parks. Ms. Urban stated that Richfield is primarily residential with small commercial areas. She commented that the City must provide reasonable accommodation to telecommunication companies. She stated that there are a limited number of locations for towers in Richfield. October 29, 1996 Page 5 Commissioner Erlander asked if the airport was a feasible location but Richfield was an easier target." An engineer of APT stated that the airport is not a feasible location because it would create a hole in transmissions. Chairperson Linnihan stated that two stipulations should be included: 1) that the City receive a legal opinion from the City Attorney regarding liability and 2) investigate burying the ground equipment. Mayor Kirsch stated that the City should request a written comment from the school district as to their position on telecommunication towers. Commissioner Wasko requested that APT investigate a relationship with the school district. Commissioner Gepner requested that the City and APT compromise on a height for the tower. Commissioner Hansen stated that he is affected by the proposed tower and that he would recommend limiting the height, burying the equipment and that the lease revenue benefit the residents impacted by the tower. Chairperson Linnihan reviewed the stipulations: 1. that the City receive, in writing, the school board's position on telecommunication towers. 2. that the City receive a legal opinion on liability issues from the City Attorney. 3. that APT investigate the feasibility of burying the ground equipment. 4. that the tower be limited to 115 feet and that APT seek a second user for the tower. M/Erlander, S /Hansen to approve the conditional use permit with the above stipulations. Motion carried: 7 -0 M/Hansen, S /Hadley to recommend that the City Council consider allocating funds from tower leases to the parks. Motion carried: 7 -0 NEW BUSINESS ITEM 92 PC Letter #15 Modification to the TIF Plan for the ILN and LHN Districts October 29, 1996 Page 6 Community Development Manager Melin presented the staff report stating that the HRA requests that the Planning Commission consider a resolution finding that a proposed modification to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Chairperson Linnihan questioned if the City will lose money if this item is not approved. Mr. Melin stated that approximately $4 Million would be returned to the taxing jurisdictions and would not be available for community reinvestment. M /Erlander, S /Wasko to adopt the attached resolution which makes a finding -that the modified Redevelopment Plan for the ILN and LHN Districts is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Motion carried: 7 -0 LIAISON REPORTS HRA: Zoning Administrator Urban stated that the HRA reviewed the Galyan's proposal and asked for consideration of a hotel on the Naegele site before deciding on Galyan's. She stated that the HRA explored the issue of providing garages with the Vo -Tech homes. She commented that this would make the homes more expensive, but the HRA would like to market them that way on a trial basis. City Council: Commissioner Erlander stated that MAC voted to provide notice to the City that they will be revoking the lease for the golf course. 76th Street Task Force: Commissioner Gepner stated that a hybrid plan for downsizing 76th Street was developed by the consultant. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:15 p.m. Planning Commission Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Study _1 S y Sess ion November 12, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela Dmytrenko, Timothy Erlander, David Gepner, Mitchell Hadley, Kristal Stokes, Paul Wasko, and Dawn Weitzel. MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Hansen COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor STAFF PRESENT: John Melin, Community Development Manager Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator Cynthia Kirchoff, Planning Staff Assistant The Planning Commission study session was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:05 p.m. NEW BUSINESS Item #1 Tattoo Ordinance Zoning Administrator Urban presented the staff report stating that a moratorium was placed on the development of tattoo businesses and that the Board of Health requested that the Planning Commission review the issues and make a recommendation regarding the treatment of these types of businesses in the zoning ordinance. Chairperson Linnihan stated the City should adopt a policy similar to Edina's and not allow them within the City. He stated that these type of businesses offer no benefit to the City and that they should be restricted to the "adult use" category. Commissioner Erlander questioned where Edina received the authority to restrict them altogether. Commissioner Stokes questioned the advantages and disadvantages of listing tattoo parlors as an adult use. She stated that an existing hair /beauty salon could offer make -up tattoos. November 12, 1996 Page 2 Commissioner Erlander stated that they would have to show that tattoo parlors affect property values to include them with adult uses. Chairperson Linnihan stated that the ordinance should make it costly to locate in Richfield. He commented that make -up tattoos could be added to the services provided by reputable salons. Commissioner Stokes stated that the purpose of this ordinance should be to license tattoo parlors. Ms. Urban asked if the commissioners would like to make a distinction between tattoo parlors and permanent make -up. She also stated that she would review the adult use issues with the attorneys. Item #2 Residential Setbacks and Lot Coverage Zoning Administrator Urban presented the staff report stating that the City's remodeling programs have at times have come into conflict with the Zoning Ordinance in terms of residential setbacks. Commissioner Gepner questioned the basis of the 30 foot front yard setback. Ms. Urban stated that this number is common in other communities. Chairperson Linnihan asked if adding requirements when making exceptions would be an administrative problem. Mr. Melin stated that it would not be if the ordinance language is clear. Commissioner Stokes suggested that since the City has very few types of homes, examples of additions /concept plans could be created. She stated that this would give the City some control over the additions and that a fee could be charged to pay for the plans. Commissioner Gepner stated that this would give the resident an idea of what they can do within the setbacks. Commissioners Stokes and Dymtrenko commented on the benefits of reducing front setbacks. The Commissioners considered the issue of lot coverage and encouraged further exploration. Chairperson Limlihan stated that objectives should be established and any proposed changes should be measured against those objectives. Chairperson Linnihan stated that the City would like to encourage longer -term residents and creative design and offer design concepts or case studies. Commissioner Stokes stated that the City could display design concepts at the Remodeling Fair. November 12, 1996 Page 3 Item #3 Commercial Building and Impervious Surface Coverage Community Development Manager Melin presented the staff report stating that commercial coverage requirement issues have surfaced due to the existing conditions and proposals for large developments such as Galyan's. Chairperson Linnihan commented that coverage requirements do work for PUDs, but questioned how they would work in different areas because some people do not support green space. Mr. Melin stated that some properties are and would still be in violation if the coverage requirements are revised. Ms. Urban stated that if there is not room for green space, the lot may not be large enough for a proposed expansion. Chairperson Linnihan asked what the City gains by green space requirements. He stated that the City should maximize landscape requirements or standards. Commissioner Stokes stated that there is not a lot of attention given to green space. Mr. Melin stated that more attention is given to green space in residential districts than in commercial districts. Chairperson Linnihan suggested that incentives be offered. Chairperson Linnihan suggested that local businesses be surveyed regarding the requirements for green space and that the Chamber might be willing to participate. The study session came to a close at 8:20 p.m. Planning Commission Secretary CITY OF R10HRELD PLnnninG oommission Motion Roquort Item: #1 Agenda Section: Public Hearing Case: #96 -RZ -4; 96- CUP -11 Date: November 26, 1996 GENERAL INFORMATION Petitioner: The Transmission Shop Location: 6958 Cedar Avenue South Type of Request: Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit to allow an 8,594 square foot addition to the existing 5,600 square foot automotive repair building. Zoning: C -2 (general commercial) and MR -1 (two family residence); Proposed rezoning to C -2 Land Use: Commercial and residential Comp. Plan: Mixed Land Use, District A (wholesale, light industrial, offices and some retail) References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts) Zoning Code: 526.27, Subd. 16 ACTION Proposed Change: Approval of a rezoning and conditional use permit would allow the demolition of two existing two - family dwellings for an expansion of the existing automotive service building. Staff Recommendation: Approve the rezoning and conditional use permit request with stipulations. HISTORY Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing was mailed to all property owners and residents within 350 feet of the subject property. Public Hearing: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on November 26, 1996. Hearing The Hearing Examiner will conduct a public hearing on December 17, Examiner: 1996, City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council first reading date of December 9, 1996. ANALYSIS Background: The existing 6 -bay automotive service building was constructed at 6958 Cedar Avenue in 1984. In 1993, the applicant proposed to relocate the business to 7200 Cedar Avenue but his application for a conditional use permit was denied. The applicant has since purchased the two duplexes located to the north of 6958 Cedar Avenue and plans to expand the existing transmission shop. Proposal: The applicant proposes to demolish the two duplexes and construct an addition onto the existing building. The 8,594 square foot addition would add 6 service bays, 4,750 square feet of warehouse space and 500 square feet of office space to the building. The two lots (8,305 and 9,215 square feet) are zoned MR -1 and would be combined with the existing commercial lot (22,361 square feet) and rezoned to C -2 (general commercial). The existing building has a 15 -foot rear setback. The applicant proposes to expand the building in line with the 15 -foot setback, which will require a variance the current required rear setback is 25 feet). Issues: • Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designation for the property is Mixed Land Use, suggesting wholesale, light industrial, office and some retail uses. The proposed Comprehensive Plan update suggests office and office- warehouse uses along Cedar Avenue. Both plans support removing housing along Cedar Avenue and replacing it with uses more compatible with the airport. Adjacent Land Uses: The property is bordered by single family uses to the west, two family dwellings to the north, Cedar Avenue on the east, and an apartment building to the south. Building Design /Appearance: The proposed addition is designed to match the existing building. The exterior material used on the existing building is no longer available; the addition material will be selected to match. Parking: Thirty -eight parking spaces would be provided on site, which meets the City's parking standards of 4 spaces plus 2 spaces per service stall and additional spaces for office and warehouse space. The business is currently short of parking. Landscaping: A 15 -foot buffer of evergreens and fencing exists along the western property line. The line of evergreens will be continued along the property line. The rear of the 21 to 24 foot tall building has no openings and serves as a large screen to the neighborhood to the west. In addition, existing fences and a grade change from the residential property to this property provide buffering. Staff would not require the applicant to continue the fencing along the west property line. The buffer yard should not be used for storing items or for any other use but as a buffer yard. Landscaping will also be provided to screen the appearance of the parking lot from Cedar Avenue. Evergreens will be planted on the north side to screen the parking lot and soften the appearance of the building for the two - family dwelling to the north. The applicant plans to save and re -plant as many of the existing trees as possible. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended Action: Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the request to rezone 6938 -40 and 6944 -46 from MR -1 to C -2 with the following stipulation: 1. That the existing duplexes be demolished and replaced with an appropriate commercial use. Basis: 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's goal to develop airport- compatible uses along Cedar Avenue. 2. The proposed rezoning will enable an existing commercial business to expand. 3. The existing duplexes would be demolished and replaced with an expanded commercial structure. 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. Recommended Action: Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a conditional use permit to allow an 8,594 square foot expansion to the existing automotive service building at 6958 Cedar Avenue with the following stipulations: 1. That the final landscape plan be approved by the Community Development Director and a cash escrow be submitted. 2. That the storm water management plan be approved by the City Engineer. 3. That a utility plan be approved by the City Engineer. 4. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the City Engineer. 5. That a lighting plan for the parking lot be approved by the Community Development Director. 6. That the exterior material be approved by the Community Development Director. 7. That the buffer yard not be used for storage or any other use but as a buffer yard. Basis: 1. The existing building does not adequately serve the needs of the business. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Adequate parking is being provided on the site. 4. The orientation of the building and the proposed landscaping provide adequate buffering between the use and the adjacent residential property. 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 526.27. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the C -2 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code. Subd. 16. Public - mechanical garages, provided the following conditions are met: a) if the use site abuts a lot which is in the R or R -1 district, a buffer yard of not less than 25 feet in width and 75% all -season opacity from the ground to a height of six feet shall be provided to separate all aspects of such use from abutting residential parcels. The Council may reduce this require to not less than 15 feet if significant additional landscaping and fencing, with 100% all -season opacity, is provided to screen the public - mechanical garage use; b) the use site shall not be located within 300 feet of the grounds of a school, church, or hospital; c) a buffer yard of not less than ten feet in width shall be provided to separate all aspects of such use from any abutting parcel; d) vehicles which are inoperable shall not be stored on the premises, except in appropriately designed and screened areas as approved by the City; e) parking of vehicles on public right -of -way shall be prohibited; f) if the use is not located on a county road or state highway, it shall not be operated between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following day; and g) all repair, assembly, disassembly, and maintenance of vehicles shall occur within an enclosed building, except minor maintenance such as tire inflation or adding windshield wiper fluid. REQ'D. SETBACK 1 hl EXISTING I I BUILDING I I-- L\/ D. J4247± i , Q'B.l SETBACK i0 1 1 N II T I1 1 0 MW!si2 fi-mi 0 10 20 30 40 50 SCALE IN FEET DATE: 11 -14 -96 w Z w aL. 0 w v SITE PLAN ul z 0 o .1. f ui W Cf) 00 00 CLC 0 fit Lf it I i II i I II z 0 W w i W CD O O LuW LL Cl — z UJ Ln o U) qDch LU c!) 19 z C) ZZ's 0 CLNJ oW BLACK HILLS SPRUCE EXISTING TREES EXISTING TREES 6958 CEDAR AVENUE PROPOSED ADDITION ALPINE CURRANT TECHNY GLOBE ARBORVITAE I J EXISTING EXISTING SHRUBS TO REMAIN 1 BUILDING l I EXISTING SHRUBS TO REMAIN I SOD--" SOD " GREEN, ASH RED MAPLE f GREEN' ASH tL1 ROCK MULCH & VINYL EDGING AT ALL PLANTINGS LANDSCAPE PLAN M;Q 0 10 20 30 40 50 SCALE IN FEET DATE: 11 -14 -96 I Z RED MAPLE L11 SOD i GREEN ASH v YRED MAPLE EXISTING SIDEWALK NE CURRANT ROCK MULCH & VINYL EDGING AT ALL PLANTINGS LANDSCAPE PLAN M;Q 0 10 20 30 40 50 SCALE IN FEET DATE: 11 -14 -96