05-27-1997CITY OF RICHFIELD
Knnninc-, commission
RGEMR
May 27, 1997
7:00 p.m.
Concurrent meeting with Community Services April 22, 1997 and the Special Planning
Commission meeting of May 13, 1997.
ITEM #1 97 -CUP -5 7600 Emerson Avenue, Richfield HRA - three unit
townhome concept is proposed
ITEM 2 97 -CUP -6 7120 -28 Chicago , Rabby Motilall - allow business
grocery and video) store
ITEM 3 97 -CUP -7 1201 East 66th Street, Exhaust Pros - allow use of
property as auto repair
ITEM #4 PC LETTER #15 Finding of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan -
609 East 66th Street/6600 Oakland Avenue
i:: X ...... ......
School Board
Community Services Advisory Commission
HRA
City Council
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Concurrent Meeting with Community Services
April 22, 1997
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Terry
Ahlstrom, Pamela Dmytrenko, David Gepner, Roger Gordon,
Mitchell Hadley, Kevin Hansen, and William Kilian
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brenda Bjorklund
COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor
STAFF PRESENT: John Melin, Community Development Manager
Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director
COMMUNITY SERVICES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Elayne Gilhousen; Commissioners: Bob Dietl,
Tim Erlander, Arnie Auchstetter, Denise Schaefer, Carolyn
Krohn and Tom Loweth
COMMUNITY SERVICES
STAFF PRESENT: Gretchen Blank, Recreation Services Acting Director
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan
at 7:05 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M /Kilian „S /Hadley to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission
meeting of March 25, 1997.
Motion carried: 8 -0
April 22, 1997
Page 2
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM #1
Discuss Draft 1998 Capital Improvement Budget and
1999 -2003 Capital Improvement Program
Administrative Services Director Devich reviewed the budget document,
explained its function, explained the difference between the Capital Improvement
Budget and the Capital Improvement Program and went through the specifics of the
1998 Capital Improvement Budget item by item. He then responded to a question from
Chairperson Linnihan regarding the Ice Arena roof work. Recreation Services Acting
Director Gretchen Blank discussed the activity building and the Commissioners then
discussed the history of the pool and whether it made money or not.
Devich responded to -a question from Linnihan regarding the cost of the new furnace at
the Nature Center saying that it would go out for bid if cost was over $25,000.
Devich responded to a question from Commissioner Kilian regarding how much of the
26.4 million 1998 capital improvement budget was actually available as opposed to
that which is assumed to be coming to the City from various sources.
Devich responded to questions regarding specific retaining walls and proposed traffic
calming. He then reviewed the 1999 Capital Improvement Program.
Blank responded to a question from Linnihan regarding the status of the Soo Line trail.
Devich then reviewed the 2000, 2001, and 2002 Capital Improvement Budget.
Blank responded to a question about how much park land would be needed for the
proposed activity center and public works garage.
The Commissioners then discussed the idea of a civic campus at 66th and Portland
and some Commissioners expressed concern about the joint public works garage and
activity center because of safety issues.
Devich then reviewed the 2003 Capital Improvement Budget.
The Commissioners then discussed whether or not any other sites had been
considered for the activity center and how the public would be involved in the decision -
making process. Blank responded that, in an effort to gather resident's input, two open
April 22, 1997
Page 3
houses will be held on Wednesday, May 7 at Richfield Junior High and Wednesday,
May 14 at Richfield Intermediate School.
Mr. Lawrence Wozniczka, 6744 Wentworth Avenue asked what the Planning
Commission would be doing specifically regarding the Capital Improvement Program
and whether a public hearing was required. Devich responded that there is no public
hearing associated with the Planning Commission action and that the City Council will
consider the Planning Commission's action as advisory when they adopt the City
budget.
The Planning commission chose to defer action on the Capital Improvement Program
until May 13, 1997.
LIAISON REPORTS
School Board: Commissioner Dmytrenko reported that the board decided to
delay the Levy Referendum conversion until next year and revisit the issue then. She
stated that the expected tax increase due to the conversion would be $90 for a
100,000 home. The Board also increased the official walking distance for Junior High
students to 1 1/2 miles and for Sr. High students to 2 miles and they revised the pay to
ride policy and increased the fee for 1998. The Board terminated 27 teaching positions
for budget reasons. Also, the school district offices are being reorganized because Bob
Nelson is retiring and rather than hiring a replacement, his duties will be assigned to
other people. The Board appointed five members to the Student Attendance Review
Board (SARB) to deal with habitually truant students and avoid the court system
through community involvement. Commissioner Dmytrenko went over the budget
report stating that revenue is down right now due to the Southdale abatement and tax
shift.
Community Services Advisory Commission: Commissioner Hansen stated
that the commission had reviewed the Capital Improvement Program and Capital
Improvement Budget,
HRA: Commissioner Gepner reported that the HRA had two competing
proposals for the former car wash site. One from Minnesota Valley School of Music
and the other from Clinton Press, Inc. and the HRA elected the Minnesota Valley
School of Music. The HRA also approved the purchase of three Richfield Rediscovered
sites for resale to developers. The program is successful and has a waiting list. The
HRA also reviewed the Section 8 Housing Report.
City Council: Commissioner Hadley reported that Tires Plus had been
approved at the Pannekoeken site. He also added that the owner of the Lyndale
Garden Center was at the Council meeting and had made some negative remarks
April 22, 1997
Page 4
about the City's process and what he felt was a lack of information and notification from
the City. The City Council moved to table action on the pond location decision until a
later date.
ADJOURNMENT
M /Hadley, S /Kilian to adjourn at 9:40 p.m.
Motion carried: 8 -0
Mitchell Hadley
Planning Commission Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
Special Planning Commission Meeting
May 13, 1997
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Terry Ahlstrom,
Brenda Bjorklund, Pamela Dmytrenko, David Gepner, Roger
Gordon, Mitchell Hadley, and Bill Kilian.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Hansen
COUNCIL LIAISON: None
STAFF PRESENT: Mike Eastling, Public Works Director
Tom Foley, Transportation Engineer
John Melin, Community Development Manager
Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
Brian S. Mehl, Community Development Technician
p.m.
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:04
OLD BUSINESS
PC Letter #14
ITEM #1 Review the 1998 Capital Improvement Budget and
make a recommendation on the 1999 -2003 Capital
Improvement Program
M/Kilian, S /Gordon to approve the 1999 -2003 Capital Improvement Program.
Motion carried: 6 -0; ( Bjorklund and Gepner absent)
ITEM #2 76th Street (East of I -35W) Corridor Study
Mike Eastling, Public Works Director, reviewed the public works projects that will require
expenditures over the next few years. He discussed several public works projects that have
become higher priorities in the last few months.
May 13, 1997
Page 2
Mr. Eastling responded to a question from Chairperson Kilian, stating that the annual MSA
construction allotment will probably not change in the next six years. He then responded to a
question from Chairperson Linnihan, stating that the double left -turn lane on Lyndale Avenue
will be necessary in the future, once the Meridian Crossings Office development is finished.
Chairperson Bjorklund asked what would happen if the $17 million did not go toward funding
the underpass at 77th Street. Mr. Eastling responded that 77th Street would be overdeveloped at
that point.
Mr. Rowell, 7601 Grand Avenue South, asked about the traffic accident patterns at 76th Street
and Lyndale Avenue South. Mr. Eastling stated that he will review those figures and see if a
problem exists.
Mr. Eastling responded to a question from Commissioner Ahlstrom, stating that the entrance to
the Shops at Lyndale will receive a new traffic signal in Fall, 1997. He further added that the
City wants to limit the number of traffic signals along 77th Street to aid traffic flow.
Tom Foley, Transportation Engineer, reviewed the 76th Street (East of 35W) Plan. He stated
that the City Council asked that the Planning Commission rank the proposal as a candidate for
capital improvement, consider development of a comprehensive plan for bikes and sidewalks,
and consider adding the 76th Street project to the 1998 operating budget.
Mr. Foley showed two designs of the possible restructuring of 76th Street. Discussion followed
concerning buses, crosswalks, and parking on the street. Commissioner Gordon questioned who
the bike paths were being created for, and Mr. Eastling responded that they were being designed
for neighborhood type uses. He added that more experienced cyclists would continue to use the
streets for biking.
Mr. Foley raised the issue that a pedestrian bridge may need to be built over 3 5 W to
accommodate the bikes and riders who wish to use the new bike trail along 76th Street. Several
commissioners agreed that a pedestrian bridge is needed. Commissioner Linnihan stated that the
76th Street Project should be linked with other projects such as a pedestrian bridge and turning
the existing Soo Line railroad tracks into a bike trail. Commissioner Gepner stated that by
combining several of these projects, the City may receive more grant money. Commissioner
Bjorklund added that a starting point for these projects would need to be known. There was a
consensus among the commissioners that phasing in the 76th Street Project would lead to
increased interest in creating bike paths around the city.
Mr. Rowell, 7601 Grand Avenue South, asked if the Soo Line bike path would be connected to
the Minneapolis bike trails. Mr. Eastling stated that the City of Minneapolis has agreed to work
with the City of Richfield to connect the two projects.
Mr. Eastling stated that he would develop some scenarios ranking the various public works
projects for the Planning Commission to review at a later date.
ADJOURNMENT
May 13, 1997
Page 3
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:58 p.m.
Mitchell Hadley
Planning Commission Secretary
Planning Commission Letter
May 27, 1997
Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Item #; 1
Case #: 97 -CUP -5
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Conditional use permit
Applicant /Owner: Housing and Redevelopment Authority/Rockport Homes
Location: 7600 Emerson Avenue
Zoning: R (single family residential)
Existing Land Use: Vacant
Proposed Land Use: Townhomes
Comp. Plan: Medium density buffer
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: Section 521.07, subd. 7; Section 521.09, subd. 2; Section 521.11,
subd. 7
Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing
was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 350 feet of
the subject property.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing
date of June 10, 1997.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: Rockport Homes proposes to construct three townhome units on the triangular
shaped parcel at 7600 Emerson Avenue. The property is zoned R (single family
residential), but the proposed townhome projects meets the definition of a cluster
housing development. Cluster housing developments are conditional uses in the R
district.
History: The property is a parcel remaining from the 77th Street project. The City sold the
remnant parcel to the HRA for residential development.
Issues: Design: Cluster housing is permitted in the R district if the project design is
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The following design features are
present and make the units compatible with the neighborhood:
One single story unit; two one - and -half story units
Gable roofs with some dormers to soften the roof line
Building materials of brick and siding
The project is being developed through the Richfield Rediscovered program
which applies design guidelines to all units developed through the program (see
attachment).
The proximity of the site next to an arterial street also makes it an appropriate
location for attached housing, typically a transitional land use.
Setbacks: The same setbacks applied to single family housing in the R district are
applied to cluster housing developments. Cluster housing developments are
permitted some flexibility in setback requirements to allow for creativity in the
layout of the developments. The development proposes the following setbacks:
Front setback of 25 feet where standard is 30 feet
Streetside setback of 15 feet where standard is 12 feet
Rear setback of 60 feet where standard is 25 feet
The reduced front setback is supported by the following site and building design
conditions:
The front setback varies from 25 feet to 32 feet, the units, garages and
entrances are staggered.
The 77th Street screen wall runs along the southwest portion of the property.
An increased front setback would move the structure (and the view of the first
unit) closer to the wall.
The parcel is triangular in shape, which reduces the allowable building
envelope and makes conformance with standard setbacks difficult.
The reduced setback would not negatively impact the neighborhood. There
are no properties adjacent to 7600 Emerson.
Landscaping: The Zoning Ordinance requires landscaping for cluster housing
developments. The following landscaping will be provided:
The design guidelines of the Richfield Rediscovered program (under which the
townhomes are being developed) require that a certain amount of shrubs and
plantings be installed.
There are several existing mature trees on the site that will be preserved, as
required by the HRA.
The developer will plant evergreens in the northwest corner of the site to
shield the development from some of the impact of 76th/7.7th Street traffic.
Since the development does not abut any single family property, additional
landscape buffering would not be required.
Neighborhood Meeting: A meeting was held in May to show the townhome
concept to the neighborhood. The neighbors were supportive of,the concept.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a conditional
use permit at 7600 Emerson Avenue for construction of three
townhome units with the following stipulations:
1. That the project comply with Richfield Rediscovered design
guidelines.
2. That a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions be
executed and recorded as approved by the City Attorney.
3. That the conditional use permit resolution be recorded with the
County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36,
Subdivision 1.
Basis: 1. The proposed attached housing is an appropriate land use in this
transitional area between an arterial street and a single family
neighborhood.
2. The units are designed with a single family character which is
compatible with the existing neighborhood.
3. The reduced front setback meets the test required by the Zoning
Ordinance in that it would not negatively impact the neighborhood
and a superior design is achieved.
4. The placement of the units preserves many of the existing mature
trees on the site.
5. The proposed housing fills a need the City has identified in its
Comprehensive Plan and Livable Communities Goals for the
development of more diverse housing types.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a conditional use
permit at 7600 Emerson 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 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. 7. Cluster home developments with three to ten units, provided the following conditions are
met:
a) the design of the development shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in
terms of building materials, architectural design; scale and mass of the structure, or
other similar urban design characteristics;
b) landscaping shall be provided in accordance with the Richfield Landscape
Requirements, on file with the Office of Community Development:
c) two off - street parking spaces, one of which must be enclosed in a garage, shall be
provided for each dwelling unit;
d) there_shall be a minimum of 500 square feet of outdoor open space provided on the lot
per dwelling unit:
e) the number and location of driveways and curbcuts shall minimize conflict with
vehicular traffic and should not adversely impact adjacent land uses;
f) the density of the development shall not exceed the density recommended in the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
521.09. Lot area, width, depth, and coverage. Subdivision 1. Standards. The standards set out in this
subsection apply in the R District.
Subd. 2. Minimum lot area, width, and depth:
S ....... Ld7'ArtE 4...... LUT 11?T1 LDT;P7"i .: >:
S[NGLE RAMWY. -- 6,700 S . Ft. 50 Ft. 100 Ft.
0.. )ItAMY' (CUPa 9,000 S
4.
Ft. 60 Ft. 100 Ft.
CTUDSTER HOME.:'. 4,000 Sq. Ft. Per 60 Ft, 100 Ft.
DEyEI.OPIv>CEtv`S (Ct31') > Unit
N(J1.R;)rSIDE11iT1AI. 40,000 S . Ft. 150 Ft. 100 Ft.
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. 7. Setback reductions for principal buildings. The following setback reductions apply in
the R District:
f) the setback requirements for cluster home developments may be reduced to 25 feet in
the front and 12 feet in the rear if the following criteria are met:
i) the project can demonstrate that a superior design is achieved through the
reduced setback. Evidence of a superior design may include but is riot
limited to the preservation of a natural feature, creation of an amenity,
creation of public open space, or incorporation of special features to meet
the needs of the target population;
ii) the reduced setback does not adversely affect the surrounding
neighborhood in terms of a decrease in privacy, noise, overcrowding, or
other similar impacts;
ill) the impact of the reduced setback is minimized through the presence of
features such as landscaping or other means of buffering, a limited
number of building openings in the portion of the structure that infringes
upon the setback, building orientation, minimized garage door dominance,
or other similar features.
DE M' 4XIM...:lK.:: ON REAR:: INfERI(7R STREEfiIl)
SINGLE;FAMI'GY 30 Ft. 25 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 25 Ft.
TWO.ANIiLY::(CUP >_ : 30 Ft. 25 Ft. 10 Ft. 12 Ft. 25 Ft.
CL1STER ROME ,: ;<. 30 Ft. 25 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 25 Ft.
CUR'::: >`<< »i`: >[ >«< > > > <;<
ACCESSORY ..;:: 30 Ft. 3 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 14 Ft.
NQN RESIDENTIAL 40 Ft. 30 Ft. 30 Ft. 30 Ft. 42 Ft.
RVR,..... 40 Ft. 10 Ft. 10 Ft. 30 Ft. l5 Ft.
Subd. 7. Setback reductions for principal buildings. The following setback reductions apply in
the R District:
f) the setback requirements for cluster home developments may be reduced to 25 feet in
the front and 12 feet in the rear if the following criteria are met:
i) the project can demonstrate that a superior design is achieved through the
reduced setback. Evidence of a superior design may include but is riot
limited to the preservation of a natural feature, creation of an amenity,
creation of public open space, or incorporation of special features to meet
the needs of the target population;
ii) the reduced setback does not adversely affect the surrounding
neighborhood in terms of a decrease in privacy, noise, overcrowding, or
other similar impacts;
ill) the impact of the reduced setback is minimized through the presence of
features such as landscaping or other means of buffering, a limited
number of building openings in the portion of the structure that infringes
upon the setback, building orientation, minimized garage door dominance,
or other similar features.
i
NORTH
5 -7 -97
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
i
I
I
i
i I
I
n
Zi
W
Q
Z
O
oc
w.
wl
I
I
I
I
i
1
I
il
f
3
L
D
C
T
1
i
7 7
m.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
for Owner - Occupied Multi -unit Development
Quality Considerations:
The property design should blend in with adjoining properties to the extent possible. The
house building lines, roof lines, door and window placement use to minimize blank wall
mass; and building orientation to the street, must present a balanced and pleasing view from
all sides.
All sites must be fully landscaped, which includes complete sod installation and
appropriately placed plants and shrubs.
In addition, the final grade of the property must improve, or not have a detrimental impact
on, storm water drainage patterns in the neighborhood. Reworking the existing site grade to
improve neighborhood drainage may be requested of the developer.
Mature trees existing on site must be retained to the extent possible.
Design Considerations:
Each dwelling has a separate entrance.
Provide separate areas for private leisure /outdoor living space.
Garage offset for individuality as well as minimizing mass. Garages must be provided tier
each living unit. attached or detached. The garage presence must be minimized W the overall
property appearance.
Allow for future basement finishing for additional bedroom or living space.
Main level laundry.
Covered entry to dwelling and garage space.
Separate service doors to garage, if possible.
Appearance to blend with existing developments on block, whether single family, lower -
pitched roofs or other.
Exterior materials should be low maintenance. Decorative brick is encouraged for character
and longevity. Hardboard siding materials are not acceptable.
p:rr \7600emer]
IM o0im, - Planning Commission Letter
May 27, 1997
Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Item #: 2
Case #: 97 -CUP -6
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Conditional use permit to allow a business establishment over 2,500
square feet in a C -1 (neighborhood commercial) district.
Applicant /Owner: Rabby Motilall
Location: 7120 -28 Chicago Avenue
Zoning:
Existing Land Use:
Proposed Land Use:
Comp. Plan:
References:
Zoning Code
C -1 (neighborhood business)
Commercial
Commercial
Medium density buffer
see attached Citations section for excerpts)
526.07
Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing
was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 350 feet of
the subject property.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing
date of June 9, 1997,
ANALYSIS
Proposal: The applicant proposes to purchase the shopping center at 7120 -28 Chicago
Avenue and operate a grocery and video store in approximately half of the
center. Three of the current tenants would continue to occupy existing space in
the center.
The store will offer both American and West Indian food as well as videos. The
shopping center is located in a C -1, neighborhood commercial, zoning district
which permits businesses designed to serve the neighborhood. The availability
of West Indian food may draw people from outside the immediate
neighborhood; however, the primary customer draw will likely be from the
neighborhood.
The current Zoning Ordinance limits the size of permitted neighborhood
business establishments to 2,500 square feet. Any establishment over 2,500
square feet requires a conditional use permit. The applicant proposes to
combine two of the existing shopping center spaces for a total of 3,500 square
feet, requiring a conditional use permit.
Issues: Parking Lot: The Engineering Division recommends that several
improvements be made to the parking lot. The-improvements include seal
coating the parking lot, providing full perimeter curb and gutter, relocating the
curbing along the boulevard to provide a three foot setback from the property
line, and installing a catch basin for on -site pick up of storm water. Landscaping
to screen the parking could also be planted at the time that curbing is installed.
Engineering recommends that these items be completed within a five to ten year
period.
City staff is also looking at ways to encourage more substantial improvements in
the entire neighborhood commercial area (not just the shopping center).
Access: The applicant plans to secure an easement over the adjacent property
to the south) to allow for a second means of egress from the parking lot. The
easement will also allow for access to the grocery store service door.
Parking: Twenty -nine parking spaces would be provided on the site. The lot
would be restriped with two spaces striped and signed for handicapped use.
Trash Enclosure: Existing and future trash dumpsters must be screened in an
enclosure. The Health Inspector recommends that trash dumpsters for this type
of use be accommodated inside the building. The applicant will explore
different options for locating and screening all trash dumpsters.
Signage: The existing signs are roof signs, which are prohibited by the City's
sign ordinance. The signs are subject to an amortization provision which
expires on October 4, 1997. The applicant has been informed that the signs
need to come into conformance with the sign ordinance by October. He has
also been given design suggestions for potential changes he could make to the
building to accommodate signage.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a
conditional use permit to allow a business establishment larger than
2,500 square feet at 7120 -28 Chicago Avenue with the following
stipulations:
1. That location and screening of all trash enclosures be approved
by the Health Inspector and Community Development Director.
2. That all signage meet sign ordinance regulations.
3. That a lighting plan be submitted and approved by the
Community Development Director.
4. That a plan for making improvements to the parking lot be
submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director.
5. That the conditional use permit resolution be recorded with the
County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36,
Subdivision 1.
Basis: 1. The proposed grocery and video store is an appropriate
neighborhood commercial use designed to serve area residents.
2. The proposed use will provide needed services to the
neighborhood.
3. The size of the shopping center and the amount of parking will
remain the same, and the grocery and video store (retail uses) is
replacing retail uses.
4. Adequate parking is available for the shopping center. City
standards require 28 spaces; 29 spaces are provided.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a
conditional use permit 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
526.07. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the C-
1 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code.
Subd. 3. Neighborhood retail, service, and office establishments (excluding those listed in Section
526.09) with over 2,500 square feet of gross floor area, provided the Council finds that the use is
designed specifically to serve the residents of the neighborhood area.
SITE PLAN.
7120 - 28 CHICAGO AVENUE
LL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I
WZ
I
I
2000 SO. FT.
1 i
w I
CL
O
CL
1000 SO. FT. 4500SO. FT.
HC LU
LZHC '
I
QGROCERY / VIDEO
STORE O
3500 SO. FT. z Q
U
W V
o I
I I a I
160.
I
PROPERTY LINE
I
I
SITE PLAN.
Planning Commission Letter
May 27, 1997
Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Item #: 3
Letter #:
Case #: 97 -CUP -7
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Conditional use permit to allow use of property as automotive repair
Applicant /Owner: Tom Christensen
Location: 1201 East 66th Street
Zoning: C -2 (general commercial)
Existing Land Use: Commercial -- auto detailing
Proposed Land Use: Commercial -- auto repair
Comp. Plan: Medium density buffer
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: 526.27, subd. 16
Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing
was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 350 feet of
the subject property.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing
date of June 9, 1997.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: The applicant proposes to operate an automotive repair business, Exhaust Pros,
on the property at 1201 East 66th Street. The existing building contains two
repair bays and a small waiting area.
Eleven parking spaces will be provided on site. The parking spaces will be
striped and one space appropriately signed as a handicapped space.
Lighting will be installed on the building and the light post in the southwest
corner of the property will be repaired.
History: The property has been occupied by various auto - related uses in the past. Most
recently, an auto detailing business was operated on the property.
Auto repair is a more intensive land use than auto detailing; therefore, a new
conditional use permit is required.
Issues: Curbing: There were originally four curb cuts to the property. The two
openings closest to the intersection were required to be closed. The openings
were closed last summer but an inferior job was done. The area needs to be
regraded, resodded and interior curbing completed.
Staff originally recommended that the applicant relocate the curbing along 66th
Street five feet to the south to provide an appropriate parking lot setback from
the right -of -way and space for landscaping. The Engineering Division has agreed
to allow the installation of bumper curbs instead of redoing the curbing. Since
curb work needs to be done to complete the work that was done last summer,
staff recommends that the applicant at least explore the cost of moving the curb
line.
Landscaping: For several years, staff have requested that landscaping be
installed, but this request has never been met. The applicant proposes to install
some plantings in the northwest corner of the site. In addition, staff recommends
that bushes be planted along the edge of the parking lot along 66th Street to
provide some screening of cars.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a
conditional use permit at 1201 East 66th Street to allow use of the
property as an auto mechanical repair garage with the following
stipulations:
1. That the parking lot be striped and a handicapped space marked and
signed appropriately.
2. That the interior parking lot curbing along 66th Street and 12th
Avenue be completed and that the applicant explore the cost and
consider moving the curbing along 66th Street five feet to the south.
3. That landscaping be provided in the northwest corner and along the
edge of the parking lot.
4. That a wall pack light, with shielding, be installed above the service
bay doors.
5. That the trash dumpster be kept inside the building or an enclosure
constructed according to code specifications (Section 541.17).
6. That the building meet building code requirements for an H -4
occupancy.
Basis: 1. The proposed automotive use is consistent with past uses of the
property; the building was built for an automotive use.
2. The site provides eleven parking spaces; City parking standards
require eight spaces for a repair garage with two service bays.
3. The applicant proposes to regrade and resod the boulevard and to
provide landscaping.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a conditional
use permit at 1201 East 66th Street 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 vard 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.
o
N
N
M.
EAST 66TH STREET
108.58' 1 22'
EXISTING SID
EXISTING S
x ,
EXIST'
1
63' -3"
02 1
i
EWALK
91
co
N
OD
t
co
m
3 PAVEMENT I .
i
I o
0
0
EAST 66TH ST.
I
EXISTING I
I
BUILDING N
1380 SO. FT. 1
49' -4" 26'
138.58'
SITE AREA - 13,858 SQUARE FEET
P R f ®d .SITE P' L A N
120 1.' E.:66THr ST.. fl
PLANNING
4, ZONING
scale 1 =.25' I ® ,eya.i,,,.no..a b.
s
Plannin g Commission Letter
May 27, 1997
Agenda Section: New Business
Item #: 4
Letter #:
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Consideration of a resolution finding that the acquisition and
disposition of 609 East 66th Street is consistent with the Richfield
Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning: C -2 (general commercial)
Existing Land Use: Single family residential/commercial
Proposed Land Use: Single family residential
Comp. Plan: Mixed land use
References: Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statutes requires that whenever
any public agency buys or sells property within the City, the Planning
Commission must review the proposed use of the site for consistency
with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
H RA: Planning Commission approval would facilitate the
acquisition/disposition of this property by the HRA in a timely
manner.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: The Housing and Redevelopment Authority proposes to purchase the property
at 609 East 66th Street. The building is currently occupied used as a single
family residence and commercial business. The existing commercial business,
Hat Trick Hockey, is moving to another location.
The existing use of the property as both residential and commercial is
nonconforming under current zoning standards. The HRA plans to resell the
property to a builder/buyer team to reconvert the property to single family
residential use.
The current Comprehensive Plan classifies the property as Mixed Land Use.
Single family residential is an allowable use under this classification. Once a
builder/buyer team is selected, additional issues concerning the zoning of the
property (it is zoned C -2 commercial in which single family residential
property is a conditional use) will need to be resolved.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Adopt the attached resolution finding that the proposed
acquisition/disposition and use of 609 East 66th Street is in conformance
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Basis: 1. The sale of HRA property requires a finding of consistency by the
Planning Commission.
2. The property is zoned C -2 and its continued use as a single family
residence is consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan which
allows for mixed land use in this area.
Alternative: Reject the attached resolution, finding that the proposed use of the subject
property does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING THAT THE ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION
OF PROPERTY IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
609 EAST 66TH STREET)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan
regarding the acquisition and disposition of property located at 609 East 66th Street
described as follows:
Lot 18, Block 1, Auditors Subdivision Number 340, Hennepin County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the acquisition and
disposition of such property for residential purposes would be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds
that the acquisition and disposition of the above described property, for single family
residential use, is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Adopted this 27th day of May, 1997 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Daniel Linnihan, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Mitchell Hadley, Secretary
ROE
Z
40
LU
01 O
to
low,
moo
Ln7)
C
CL
E
loo ..
gym.
G oCav '..._
U U U
CL
LU
CL Ir
LW
l000 >
W
w LU LU
cn ri) W
Z
Z z M
loco .. _ o 0 0 LU
z
ui LL) LU z
x x x
Bonn
LU
lobo
r
LLJ ul
LU
DOO Z LL) CL
uj cr cn
j _
j Z
w z IL
il : ]lyli, , _ _ Z
cr 0
uj U.
LU 0
Wr.
LLJ LULL
FT
I. -X
D
W Co.
cn
LU w
uj Ch
own
LLJ LLI LU
z W x
W m LU
W
LL
oloo LU INN