Loading...
08-26-1997CITY OF. RIOHFIELD PLnnnin(; commission nGenDFI August 26, 1997 7:00 p.m. ROIlIl Ap rc il c f' MlI1Ute ti Regular Planning Commission meeting of July 22, 1997 and Joint Study Session with Community Services of August 12, 1997. ITEM #1 97 -CUP -9 6724 Penn Avenue South Penn Auto Care Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a Four -bay Public Mechanical Garage evv : utiil titi School Board Community Services Advisory Commission HRA City Council Adjc nr ire t Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting July 22, 1997 0 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Terry Ahlstrom, Brenda Bjorklund, David Gepner, Roger Gordon, Mitchell Hadley, and Bill Kilian. MEMBERS ABSENT: Pamela Dmytrenko, Kevin Hansen COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor STAFF PRESENT: John Melin, Community Development Manager Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:05 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Kilian requested that staff check the minutes of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to make sure Commissioners Stokes and Susag were the members who voted against the six month exclusive development rights for CSM in the Interchange West area. M/Kilian, S /Hadley to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of June 24, 1997. Motion carried: 6 -0 (Gepner absent) M/Hadley, SBjorklund to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission study session of July 8, 19979 Motion carried: 6 -0 (Gepner absent) PUBLIC HEARINGS July 22, 1997 Page 2 ITEM #1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, explaining that the Metropolitan Council approved the City's Comprehensive Plan update on June 12, 1997 with the stipulation that the City add notification language that is required by state law. The language states that the Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Transportation will be notified in the event of any construction or alteration that would exceed 200 feet in height taking place within a certain distance of the airport. Ms. Urban explained that the omission of the language was an oversight on staff's part and that the City had every intention of complying with the notification requirement. M/Hadley, S/Kilian to close the gublic hearing. Motion carried: 6 -0 (Gepner absent) M/Hadley, S /Kilian to recommend approval of the resolution to' amend the Comprehensive Plan update. Motion carried: 6 -0 (Gepner absent) Ms. Urban explained that the City Council would consider adopting the amendment as well as the Plan itself at their meeting on Monday, July 28. NEW BUSINESS ITEM #2 Ordinance Amendment -- Licensed Residential Care Facilities Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report providing some background on the issues relating to licensed residential care facilities, or group homes. Ms. Urban explained that the City's Zoning Ordinance contains a 1/4 mile distance requirement that is in conflict with state law and needs to be removed from the Ordinance. Ms. Urban explained that staff took this opportunity to review all of the provisions in the Zoning Ordinance relating to group homes. Ms. Urban reviewed the state and federal laws governing the City's treatment of group homes and explained that the City is somewhat limited in its ability to regulate these types of July 22, 1997 Page 3 facilities. The laws require the City to treat housing for handicapped people the same way it treats housing for non - handicapped people. Ms. Urban passed out a revised version of the possible ordinance amendment and explained the basis for the changes. She explained which items were changes necessary to make the ordinance consistent with state statute and which items were policy issues for the Commission to discuss. Commissioner Bjorklund clarified the two issues the Commission was being asked to consider in single family districts, the first being the removal of the 1/4 mile distance requirement for programs serving six or fewer persons and the second being the treatment of programs serving from seven to sixteen persons. Commissioner Kilian pointed out that programs serving from seven to sixteen persons could continue to be considered conditional uses in a single family district and stressed that the CUP could be used to take programs on a case -by -case basis. Zoning Administrator Urban reminded the Commission that any conditions they place on these types of programs cannot be more restrictive than those they would place on housing for non - handicapped people. Chairperson Linnihan suggested that the issue of allowing the larger programs in single family districts was more of a land use issue. Because we wouldn't'allow multi- family housing for non - handicapped people in single family districts, we maybe shouldn't allow the larger programs for handicapped people in single family districts. Commissioner Kilian questioned whether or not we would be discriminating against handicapped people if we prohibited the larger programs from single family districts since we do not prohibit the size of non - handicapped families in single family districts. Chairperson Linnihan asked what groups are served by licensed residential care facilities. Zoning Administrator Urban explained that the programs primarily serve persons with development disabilities but that persons who are mentally ill, chemically dependent and youth in crisis are also served. Most of the programs in Richfield, she explained, are for persons who are developmentally disabled. Ms. Urban could not say definitively whether or not a program for ex- convicts would be included in this group. Commissioner Bjorklund suggested that staff clarify the definition of a licensed residential care facility and include that definition in the City's ordinance. Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the two options the Commission could consider in regulating group homes in multi - family districts. The first option would be to take language from state statute and require a conditional use permit for programs serving from seven to sixteen persons. The second option would be to require a conditional use permit only if one would be required for the same size housing for non - handicapped people. That number would vary depending on the multi - family district. Following a discussion of the differences between the two approaches, Commissioner Bjorklund suggested staff get a written opinion from the Assistant City Attorney on whether or not each approach would be legally defensible. July 22, 1997 Page 4 Chairperson Linnihan suggested the Commission table the discussion until the August study session and that staff provide further information at that time on the types of populations served by these programs. Commissioner Kilian requested additional information on whether we need to treat group homes like non - handicapped families or non - handicapped unrelated persons living together. ITEM #3 Review of Zoning Ordinance -- Section 521 Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, beginning with the issue of the City's allowable garage size. Chairperson Linnihan received a complaint about a garage that was recently built requesting that the Commission consider the size and height of garages allowed in the City. Commissioner Kilian pointed out that 1,000 square feet is a very large garage and that the Commission might consider a smaller size. Commission Bjorklund expressed her support for having a maximum rear yard coverage limitation similar to the requirement in St. Louis Park. Commissioner Ahlstrom suggested that the Commission should maybe leave the ordinance alone until a more serious problem exists that needs to be corrected. Zoning Administrator Urban suggested that the garage being complained about does not provide a compelling case for changing the rules. She suggested that staff or the Commission bring other examples of large garages that are more problematic if they want to pursue the issue further. Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the issues relating to accessory sheds. She showed pictures of two sheds that were built to the maximum height of 14 feet. She explained that staff had received complaints about these tall structures. She pointed out that the definition of height when the roof was a hip or gable roof and the definition of a story were apparently providing people with a "loophole" to build the taller sheds. The Commission agreed that 14 feet seemed high for a shed. A maximum height of 10 or 12 feet was discussed. Community Development Manager Melin suggested that staff would check out where the measurement definition came from and perhaps make adjustments in the way height is measured. Zoning Administrator Urban explained that the Commission had discussed the issue of reducing front setbacks and lot coverage for larger lots back in November. Since there were four new Commissioners, staff was reintroducing the general topic for feedback before going any further with the idea. Commissioner Kilian gave support to increasing the allowable lot coverage for larger lots stating that it is not hard to reach the maximum coverage of 25 percent or 2,500 square feet. July 22, 1997 Page 5 Commissioner Bjorklund cautioned against relaxing the standards too much. She stressed that we need to make sure that we can legally make people adhere to design guidelines. Chairperson Linnihan suggested the City could start with allowing porches, see how it works and then expand the ordinance to allow other additions later. Commission Ahlstrom expressed support for allowing people to add front porches pointing out a couple of houses that had added porches and what a difference they made to formerly ordinary looking structures. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. LIAISON REPORTS School Board: There was no School Board liaison report. Community Services Advisory Commission: There was no Community Services Advisory Commission report. HRA: Commissioner Gepner explained that the HRA heard a status report on tax increment financing (TIF). The Commissioners requested a memo providing an explanation of the use of TIF in the Richfield Rediscovered program. Commissioner Gepner explained that the HRA gave CSM Corporation a reduction in their letter of credit given the completion of several items at the Shops at Lyndale. The HRA also looked at a third proposal for the Lyndale South area. Mayor Kirsch requested that staff invite the Planning Commission to the HRA meeting where they compare the three proposals. City Council: Commissioner Hadley reported that the Council approved the conditional use permit for the telecommunications tower on Cedar Avenue, and they extended the moratorium on tattoo businesses for another year. The Council also approved a 3/2 beer and wine license for the Cyber Palace, which is located at 66th Street and Nicollet. The Council also discussed the charges for use of the Community Center and the lack of meeting space available in town. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:20 p.m. July 22, 1997 Page 6 Mitchell Hadley Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Minutes Joint Study Session with Community Services August 12, 1997 MEMBERS PRESENT: Secretary Mitchell Hadley; Commissioners: Terry Ahlstrom, Brenda Bjorklund, Pamela Dmytrenko, David Gepner, Roger Gordon, and Bill Kilian. MEMBERS ABSENT: Daniel Linnihan and Kevin Hansen COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor STAFF PRESENT: Mike Eastling, Public Works Director John Melin, Community Development Manager Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator Steven Devich, Administrative Services Director Randy Hughes, Operations Coordinator Gretchen Blank, Recreation Services Director The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Community Services Chairperson Gilhausen at 7:05 p.m. NEW BUSINESS ITEM #1 Presentation on City Maintenance Facility Mike Eastling, Public. Works Director, discussed the history of the existing maintenance facility and explained why a new facility is needed. He described the City's attempt to develop a joint facility with the State in New Ford Town and explained how the current site was chosen after the Metropolitan Airports Commission decided not to sell New Ford Town land to the City. Director Eastling went through the components of four alternatives for the new facility explaining the advantages, disadvantages and costs of each. The first plan met all possible Public Works needs and included room for growth and capacity to store Public Safety and election items. The second plan was the very minimum needed and the other two plans fell somewhere in- between the first two options. Director Eastling explained that staff had originally prepared three alternatives but that they had developed the fourth option based on feedback they received from the City Council. The City Council had encouraged staff not to under -build the facility because it needs to meets the City's needs for many years. August 12, 1997 Page 2 Commissioner Bjorklund questioned the need to build a facility with growth potential when the City's population is declining. She asked if the City was taking efforts to privatize services. Director Eastling explained that the Public Works Department is looking at ways to minimize costs and to privatize services whenever that is the most effective option. Recreation Services Director Blank reminded the group that regardless of the population, the City's infrastructure is in place and will require ongoing care. Administrative Services Director Devich stated that the City has tried to take the long view in planning this facility and City services as whole by focusing on equipment and technology that can generate cost savings. He pointed out that the City needs certain technology, equipment and facilities to allow it to be both cost effective and competitive. Commissioner Kilian asked whether or not staff had considered providing more mezzanine space since it is a cost effective means of creating space. Director Eastling pointed out that many of the vehicles require two -story space so mezzanine space could not be constructed over much of the building. In addition, the existing mezzanine does not require an elevator because it would not be accessed from inside the building but would be accessed at grade from the west side of the building. Adding second story space on the east side of the building would likely require the additional expense of an elevator because it would not be at grade. Discussion followed regarding the advantages and disadvantages of including an exercise room in the facility. Some commissioners spoke against the cost and negative appearance caused by providing such a service in a tax payer funded facility. Others pointed out the cost savings of directly providing this service in terms of reduced lost time from injury and lower insurance rates. In response to questions from the Commission, Director Eastling stated that $500,000 was received from the 77th Street project for the garage. He explained that the soils have been tested and are okay for construction. Discussion followed regarding the net gain and loss of park land and the impact of the additional traffic. Director Eastling stated that the facility could be constructed to allow for several means of access to and from the facility to minimize the traffic impact on the park. In addition, installation of a traffic light could be considered at the intersection of 64th Street and Portland Avenue. Administrative Services Director Devich went over the funding available for the facility. He explained that additional funds would likely need to be secured through bonding. Commissioner Ahlstrom pointed out that while the facility would be a significant investment, the costs are not as great when spread out over the life span of the facility. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Mitchell Hadley August 12, 1997 Page 3 Planning Commission Secretary i A Planning Commission Letter August 26, 1997 Agenda Section: Public Hearing Item #: I Case #: 97 -CUP -9 GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Request: Conditional use permit to allow construction of a four -bay public mechanical garage Applicant /Owner: Kurt Bohnen, South Penn Auto Care Location: 6724 Penn Avenue Zoning: C -2 (general commercial) Existing Land Use: Vacant Proposed Land Use: Commercial Comp. Plan: Mixed Land Use References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts) Zoning Code: 526.27, subd. 16 Miscellaneous Info.: Excerpts from PASSS Design Framework 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. Hearing Examiner: The Hearing Examiner will hear a front yard setback variance request on September 9, 1997. City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of September 22, 1997. ANALYSIS Proposal: The applicant proposes to construct a four -bay public mechanical garage on the vacant property at 6724 Penn Avenue. Twelve parking spaces would be provided in compliance with City parking standards. The bay doors for the 3,120 square foot building would be oriented to the south side of the property. A shared access between the property and the adjacent Fireside Pizza property would be included to allow for better circulation for both properties. The access could also allow for some shared parking during the off hours for either business. It t History: In October, 1994 the building located at 6724 -26 Penn Avenue burned down. The fire damaged building, formerly containing Nokomis Sheet Metal and a laundromat, was demolished and the property put up for sale. In March, 1997 a dental practice obtained an off - street parking permit and front setback variance to construct a dental office building on the site. The dentists decided to stay in their existing location and not construct the proposed building. Issues: • Buffer: The required fifteen foot buffer is provided along the west property line to screen the use for the adjacent residential property. A six foot tall fence and landscaping will be provided in the buffer area. Design: The property is located within the PASSS (Penn Avenue and Sixty -Sixth Street) design district. The building appearance and exterior materials meet the requirements of the design district. Setback: The applicant is requesting a front setback variance to allow a front setback of 23 feet, in line with the setback of the existing buildings in the area. The Hearing Examiner will hear the variance request on September 9, 1997. Neighborhood Feedback: A letter was received from a resident in the neighborhood and is attached. The resident was a member of the PASSS committee in the late 1980s and is concerned that the proposed use is not consistent with the plan developed at that time. The PASSS plan establishes design guidelines for the area that have been applied to the design of this building. Uses, however, are controlled through the Zoning Ordinance or through wholesale redevelopment of the area. The proposed use is a conditional use according to the Zoning Ordinance, and it appears that the use meets the required conditions. ACTION TO BE TAKEN Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a conditional use permit at 6724 Penn Avenue with the following stipulations: 1. That a front setback variance be granted. 2. That a cash escrow or letter of credit be submitted for the cost of the landscaping. 3. That a sediment erosion and control plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 4. That a stormwater management plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 5. That fence specifications be approved by the Community Development Director. 6. That signage be in conformance with PASSS guidelines and be approved by the Community Development Director. 7. That a cross access /shared parking agreement with the property to the south be developed and recorded on the property titles. 8. That a conditional use permit resolution be recorded with the County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, Subdivision 1. Basis: 1. The building design and exterior materials meet the guidelines of the PASSS design district. 2. .Parking is being provided in accordance with City parking standards. 3. A fifteen foot buffer with fencing and landscaping will provide screening for the adjacent residential use. 4. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a conditional use permit at 6724 Penn Avenue with a finding of fact that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties or the City as a whole. f' 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 -I 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. DESIGN FRAMEWORK MANUAL FOR THE PENN AVENUE -66TH STREET AREA PASSS) RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA PREPARED FOR: Housing and Redevelopment Authority - and City Council Richfield, Minnesota PREPARED BY: Department of Community Development Richfield, Minnesota OCTOBER 1989 DECEMBER 11, 1989 o W W o U J a PENN aVENl I, AND SIXTY SIX STREET mM3JDV 1MMUN11•QE YE pFYENI OEO f1ME N' 1 V A. INTRODUCTION The Design Framework Manual will help create a positive new image for the Penn Avenue Sixty Sixth Street Area ( PASSS). It will provide direction and establish appropriate design guidelines for all improvements that would affect the PASSS environment whether publicly or privately funded. Because development efforts will be undertaken by many different developers, designers, and business interests over a long period of time, parameters are necessary to guide the emerging design character. The elements discussed in the Design Framework Manual include: 1. Streetscape Elements Manual is the 2. Architectural Building Elements 3. Site Design Elements urban design guidelines for the PASSS Area 4. Convenience and Efficiency Elements The guidelines will help create a sense of continuity and harmony that "building as design decisions are made. Harmony and continuity are achieved permit applications shall contain the information because elements are evaluated in terms of the total PASSS Area environment. They must be considered as new buildings are in conformity with the designed and renovation projects are formulated. These comprehensive plan, redevelopment plan and characteristics must also be considered at the boundary of commercial and residential land uses. the proposed Rather than prescribing one specific style or set of design construction will be located ". elements, however, this manual will provide guidelines outlining what the end products should reflect.;.thereby establishing an to a review and area identity. By following these guidelines harmony and approval process by the City of Richfield. continuity may be achieved, yet individual expression is still permitted. This method should result in beneficial solutions on the basis of design rather than a rigid approach which is difficult to implement. City Code Section 410 indicates that urban design guidelines may be formulated and made applicable to an area of the community by action of the City Council. This Design Framework Manual is the urban design guidelines for the PASSS Area by action of the City. Council on December 11, 1989. The code states that "building permit applications shall contain the information necessary to determine whether the construction will be in conformity with the comprehensive plan, redevelopment plan and the urban design guidelines applicable to_ the area in which the proposed construction will be located ". All final design proposals will be subject to a review and approval process by the City of Richfield. The City shall have the right to reject proposed construction on the basis of design or development impacts which it determines may jeopardize stated goals and objectives. 1 - r' C. ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING ELEMENTS Consideration is to be given to the visual impact of development efforts through the use of design building elements. While individual expression in building design is encouraged, harmony, and continuity between the streetscape and buildings is to be considered. - 1. BUILDING STRUCTURE - EXTERIOR TREATMENT No specific architectural style or period (e.g., Colonial, Western, etc.) is to be implemented. Rather, the building materials used and the facade treatment, are to be integrated and compatible with adjoining development. Exterior design and materials shall be subject to City review and approval. a. Building Materials Warm" or "soft ", natural materials will be used to provide the area with a pleasant and inviting character. These materials generally include deep tone brick, stone, stucco, and wood. Glass may be utilized as a facade material but in conjunction with natural materials. Glass curtain walls are not acceptable as are highly standardized or assembly line facades. Metal should only be used for trim or fittings. Exposed aluminum surfaces shall be permitted on the building exterior as part of a window or door system, however, the surfaces shall be colored. To prevent a cluttered or fractured appearance, the number of building materials to be used per structure. should be limited. b. Facade Treatment Wherever a structure is exposed to public view, exterior facade materials on all walls are to reflect the character of the overall building. The image of the rear and side facades should carry out a unified treatment with the front facade. There will be few situations where there will be a building rear which does not visually impact pedestrians, persons in motor vehicles or adjoining residential property. A rear facade should not be allowed to develop into a neglected area. 13 - 2. STORAGE SCREENING. TRASH HANDLING AND LOADI_NG AREAS All outdoor storage, trash and loading areas are to be totally screened from view. Screening shall be by means of a permanent wall constructed of the same materials as the principle structure and softened with landscape materials, subject to City approval. The screenwall is to be designed so as to appear to be an integral part of the principle structure. If located separately from the principle building structure, it is to be designed to blend in, utilizing similar building materials and softened with landscaping. Where possible, trash handling, loading and storage areas are encouraged to be located within the principle structure. The conduct of these uses must not interfere with the use of public rights -of -way. Space must be provided for recycling and storage of recyclables. 3. ROOF TREATMENT a. Roof Drainage All roof drainage shall be shielded from view. Interior drainage systems are required on new buildings. Drainage shall be connected to the municipal storm sewer system. On renovation projects, interior drainage is encouraged. b. Screening of Equipment - Mechanical equipment is to be shielded from view. Material shall be compatible with the building design. 4. UTILITIES All on -site utility and service lines required for'the service of a development are to be placed underground if practical. Any existing utility lines, private or public, running through the site and necessary for retention shall be granted easements with reasonable accessibility for servicing. Utility meters shall not be placed on front facades or side facades visible from the street unless screened by materials compatible with the building design. D. SITE DESIGN ELEMENTS The design of each individual development should take into consideration building scale and placement on the parcel. Consideration is to be given to scale and placement in context with adjacent development and the overall PASSS Area. 18 - 1. SCALE Building scale should be integrated with adjacent structuresintermsofmassing. Whether there are a series of lower, small individual structures, or a parcel with significant massing, such as a "signature" building, the structure should be compatible with adjoining development. Three dimensional models should be constructed to help evaluate proposals for new construction or renovation proposals which envision significant expansion of an existing facility. 2. ORIENTATION Buildings, by proper orientation, can take advantage of the pedestrian and motor vehicle circulation systems. Storefront facades rather than displaying cold, blank walls could utilize show windows. Proper placement of entrances can enhance traffic flow to businesses. New structures should specifically consider the element of convenience in providing access for pedestrians, and should not "turn their backs" with blank walls to public view. 3. SETBACK STANDARDS Setback requirements shall be as designated by the City of Richfield zoning requirements. Adequate street frontage for pedestrian streetscape improvements are to be provided within this setback area. Snow storage space must also be provided when necessary. 4. BUFFERING There may be situations where non- compatible land uses adjoin each other such as residential and commercial uses. The placement of the improvements on the site including structures, parking areas, access drives, landscaping, and berming, for example, should be done to minimize the non - compatibility. A related issue is the selection of equipment which emits noise or odors from the roof top or exterior walls. Motors which produce minimal noise should be selected when the noise may disturb nearby residential uses. Odors from the preparation of food, for example, should be processed by equipment which minimizes the impact of odors on adjoining uses. E. CONVENIENCE AND EFFICIENCY ELEMENTS The PASSS Area is perceived as a desirable commercial area for its convenience aspect. Design features must incorporate this convenience and efficiency wherever possible. 19 - 1. PARKING AREAS Parking areas are a primary component of this element, and must be readily visible, accessible, and identifiable. The location of curb cuts for street access and pedestrian circulation safety must be given consideration. The entrance or exit to all parcels must be designed and maintained so that any vehicle in the curb cut shall be clearly visible to approaching vehicles or pedestrians. Pedestrian walkways shall be barrier free, separated from parking and traffic areas by raised curbs or medians. Parking stalls, cross walks, directional arrows and traffic lanes must be clearly identified by painted markings or other suitable means, and be properly maintained. Curb cutz shall have a minimum width of twenty six (26) feet, and no curb cut may be closer than forty (40) feet from an intersection. The exact location of curb cuts shall be approved by the City. Raised concrete islands shall be constructed at the end of parking stall rows to define circulation and break up expanses of bituminous surfaces. These islands shall be six (6) inches high and planted with landscape materials and irrigated. Storm sewer drains must be provided on site. 2. BUILDING ACCESSIBILITY As indicated previously in the Site Design Guidelines section, street level shops are encouraged to be directly accessible from the street level. Avoid storefronts which turn their backs to the street. Fortress like blank walls are to be avoided. Transparent, street -level windows are encouraged where applicable. F. CONCLUSION The PASSS Study Design Framework Manual is to provide an overview of design parameters to guide the overall design character for the PASSS Area. As this document establishes the general parameters for which design decisions may begin to be made, the next step would be in the form of detailed construction documents. Two other items, not specifically detailed in the manual, but impacting the visual appearance of the area are maintenance, and temporary displays. Prompt maintenance of streetscape and building elements can have a tremendous impact on the ability to establish and maintain a strong positive identity for the PASSS Area. In addition, temporary displays can become for a short period of time a major force in the streetscape and should be designed to complement the appearance of the area. It is hoped that private improvements in the Penn Avenue and Sixty Sixth Street area will be closely coordinated and maintained in terms of materials, use, design and compatibility with the public improvements. 20 - 81 N Q I k, 1 VlOS3NNIN1 '(n3131g1tl KM)OS 3nN3AV NNM Yd19 3dvO olnv Nr d ten i= 5lj 0 oa. rlOQ7.Mw 4tla b. l3EMLW%MMW Noilonui.swio 3963unrd t.._........... . YYY . 1 M.M. 1 0 Z 0 J_ D m 0 Z F k 9 fit s H 022 9 a 11 FIT 81 N Q I k, 1 VlOS3NNIN1 '(n3131g1tl KM)OS 3nN3AV NNM Yd19 3dvO olnv Nr d ten i= 5lj 0 oa. rlOQ7.Mw 4tla b. l3EMLW%MMW Noilonui.swio 3963unrd t.._........... . YYY . 1 M.M. 1 0 Z 0 J_ D m 0 Z F k 9 fit s H 022 9 a un. u., n• . nu VIOS3NNIW'Ol3ljFgltl Fi1110S 3f1N3AV NN3d iLB 3UVO OInV NN3d HIMS X'OLL3TMM9NW 3003WU Zi P Y Z O 1 VJ August 17, 1997 Julie Urban Zoning Administrator Richfield Municipal Building 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Ms Urban; I am writing about the application for a conditional use permit for 6724 Penn Avenue So. A general comment: There is nothing that makes a shopping area look tackier than auto servicing shops and used car lots. I served on the Penn & 66th Street (PASSS) committee in 1989. It was recognized by the members that the area needed both intelligent regulation and investment. Since then, Lunds & the NW corner strip center have seen significant improvements. There have also been other upgrades of a smaller nature such as the bagel and bicycle shops. On the other side of the coin, there doesn't seem to be any regulation of signage as was strongly recommended. The design of the former dry cleaning building should never have been approved. Other negative developments have been the muffler shop, the motorcycle shop, the Walzer low -end used cax lot and the approval of the car wash at the Amoco station. This latter will cause accidents due to icing in spite of the wait before driving off requirement. An auto repair shop will only accelerate the downward trend of the area. The residential neighbors deserve better. I am not sure I will be able to attend the hearing. Please see that my feelings are conveyed to the appropriate people. Pte) 1) _m Paul Dyste 6732 Oliver Av S Y 1680 Concordia Street Wayzata, MN. 55391 June 3, 1997 Mr. Bruce Palmborg City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Bruce: Attached please find invoice documentation for consulting services as follows: 1. April & May - Mainstreet Shops $1,600 R4 4D 2. May - Galaxy 3 0 0 O 3Y vD /.ei Total for the period $1,900 Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, David A. Se o Galax y on Chicago Ave. South David A. Sebok Consulting Services - 1997 DATE ACTIVITY HOURS I BILLING AMOUNT NOTES i 3©o 7,25Z &-04Z 02-/ -4'fc c/16:- S/7L -- Ui S/ 7- TO D'7-ED t t I i I I I I 1 I t t i t I j I i I t I i I i I i I I r I I TOTAL i 4,3 co , o-C