Loading...
03-24-1998M099A PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA March 24, 1998 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Approval of Minutes Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 24, 1998. Planning Commission study session of March 10, 1998. Public Hearing ITEM #1 98 -CUP -4 10 East 66th Street Armstrong Subway Conditional use permit to allow Subway, a take -out restaurant, to add seating ITEM #2 98 -CUP -2 300 West 78th Street Candlewood Hotel Co. Conditional use permit to allow construction of a 134 -unit, extended stay hotel ITEM #3 PC Letter #12 Soo Line Property, adjacent to 300 West 78th Street Consideration of a resolution finding that acquisition and disposition is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan PUBLIC HEARING NOT REQUIRED) ITEM #4 98 -CUP -3 1100 East 66th Street Bernadette Mallawaaratchy, Bernie's Montessori School Conditional use permit to allow construction of a day care facility for up to 90 children New Business ITEM #5 PC Letter #13 Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow institutional uses in multiple family zoning districts ITEM #6 PC Letter #14 Ratification of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to stormwater management policies Old Business ITEM #7 PC Letter #15 Amendment to the Bylaws, Section 6, Part I, relating to voting Liaison Reports School Board Community Services Advisory Commission HRA City Council Adjournment Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting February 24, 1998 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Terry Ahlstrom, Brenda Bjorklund, Pamela Dmytrenko, David Gepner, Roger Gordon, Mitchell Hadley, Bill Kilian, and Ken Meter. MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL LIAISON None Martin Kirsch, Mayor STAFF PRESENT: Steven Devich, Administrative Services Director John Melin, Community Development Manager Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator Brian S. Mehl, Community Development Technician The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:04 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Hadley, S/Bjorklund to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of January 27, 1998. Motion carried: 9 -0 M/Hadley, S /Kilian to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission study session of February 10, 1998. Motion carried: 9 -0 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 98 -RZ -1 ITEM #1 Rezoning of properties along I -494, between Pleasant Avenue and Cedar Avenue, that are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan February 24, 1998 Page 2 Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, stating that one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to encourage more intensely developed, higher quality regional commercial and office uses along the City's freeways. She further stated that several properties along I -494 are zoned industrial, meaning that many of the properties could be developed in a manner inconsistent with 'the City's Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Urban explained that the staff recommendation was to rezone those properties with zoning inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. She explained that the Commission might want to consider three possible exceptions to the rezoning including the gas station at 7744 12th Avenue, Sherwin - Williams at 84 78th Street, and an apartment building at 7727 Wentworth Avenue. She passed out a letter from Sherwin - Williams and pointed out that Sherwin- Williams is concerned that the proposed rezoning to MR -3 would make them nonconforming. Commissioner Kilian expressed support for leaving the gas station zoned C -2 because the Comprehensive Plan calls for some neighborhood commercial uses in the area. He asked whether or not the Commission should then amend the Comprehensive Plan to show the different location for neighborhood commercial. Ms. Urban recommended that the Commission consider any changes to the Comprehensive Plan when they do their annual review of the Plan in November. In response to a question from Commissioner Meter, Ms. Urban explained that the Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning districts did not necessarily have the same names. She explained that staff selected the zoning districts that most closely reflect the Comprehensive Plan designation and that they didn't need to be identical. Richard Trang, 7727 Wentworth Avenue, stated that he bought his property because it was zoned industrially. He further stated that he had plans to redevelop the site commercially in the future and that he would prefer that the property be zoned the same as Sherwin - Williams, located directly to the south. He felt that rezoning to a multiple family district would devalue the property. Bill Hurtzina, representative of Burger King, asked whether or not the rezoning of the Burger King property from industrial to general commercial would hinder the business from remodeling in the future. Chairperson Linnihan stated that the current industrial zoning and the proposed general commercial zoning treat restaurants similarly, so it shouldn't have an impact. Richard Whittmer, 7627 Blaisdell Avenue, asked for a description of the Comprehensive Plan and an explanation regarding the purpose it serves. Chairperson Linnihan replied that it is a visionary document that is required by the Metropolitan Council. He added that it is used by the seven - county metro area for development purposes, it must be updated, every ten years, and that it was drafted by a broad -based group of representatives in Richfield which included commissioners, council members, church representatives, school personnel and residents. M /Hadley, S /Dmytrenko to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 9 -0 February 24, 1998 Page 3 Commissioner Gepner questioned why the three parcels in question were designated multiple housing. Commissioner Kilian suggested that the goal was to create larger parcels of similar land uses. Commissioner Gepner asked whether or not the Commission was willing to start making exceptions to the Comprehensive Plan whenever there was some disagreement with the concept. Commissioner Bjorklund responded by stating that changes should be made considering the reality of the situation and that the Comprehensive Plan is just a blueprint for the development that could occur. Zoning Administrator Urban pointed out that the C -2 district allows multiple housing as a conditional use, so it would allow for some consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and still address the owners' concerns. Commissioner Dmytrenko stated that she thought that the gas station was useful in its current location. M/Bjorklund, S/Meter to recommend that the City Council rezone properties that are inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan as identified in Attachment A, with the following stipulations: 1. 7727 Wentworth Avenue S be rezoned C -2, 2. 84 78th Street West be rezoned C -2, and 3. 7744 12th Avenue S not be rezoned. Motion carried: 9 -0 CASE 98- CUP -3, 1100 East 66th Street ITEM #2 Bernadette Mallawaaratchy, Bernie's Montessori School, Inc. Conditional use permit to allow construction of a day care facility for 90 children Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, stating that the applicant proposed to construct a 4,160 square foot day care center that would house 90 children. She added that the play area would be located 20 feet from the north property line, would be fenced, and that the applicant would plant four evergreen trees to provide a buffer from the adjacent residential uses. She further stated that there would be 20 parking spaces provided and that a significant amount of grading would have to be done to construct the building. Ms. Urban reviewed the trees and landscaping of the property, the adjacent land uses, and the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property, stating that the Plan identified the property for high density, attached, single family housing, but that the underlying zoning of the property is general commercial. February 24, 1998 Page 4 Ms. Urban stated that she had received a phone call from a neighbor who stated that he was concerned with the amount of grading that would have to occur, the loss of landscaping, and the resulting traffic burden that would be placed upon 11 th Avenue. Ms. Urban stated that she had looked at traffic counts and patterns in the area in response to the concern. She reported that the drivers who would most likely cut through the neighborhood would be those wanting to make a left turn on 66th Street. She explained that traffic counts at 12th Avenue showed that 30 percent of southbound cars turned left at 66th Street. Applying that percentage to the traffic from the day care indicates that an estimated 13.5 cars per hour during the morning and afternoon peak periods could potentially cut through the neighborhood. Responding to a question from Chairperson Linnihan, Ms. Urban stated that it may be possible to construct the exit from the Montessori School parking lot in such a way that it becomes difficult for a vehicle to make a right -hand turn into the neighborhood. She further responded to a question from Commissioner Ahlstrom, stating that there would be no through traffic into King Oscar's parking lot. Bernadette Mallawaaratchy, applicant, stated that her business had been located in St. Peter's Church since 1988. She added that there is a great need for day care in Richfield and that she would like to provide that service at the proposed site. Responding to questions from the Commission, Ms. Mallawaaratchy stated that she currently has 45 students of preschool age only and that she chose the site due to its proximity to the park, swimming pool, and the fact that it was zoned commercially. She stated that her clientele comes mostly from Richfield and that she currently has a 3 -month waiting list for placement in the day care center. She further stated that there are no more than 20 students in the play area at a time with the exception of picnics and walks that are taken in the summer months. She added that the hours of operation would be from 6:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m., although peak hours for traffic would be from 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Ms. Mallawaaratchy stated that she currently has six employees, but that the number would double when the new location opened, adding that many of the employees take the bus to work. Commissioner Ahlstrom asked about state requirements regarding the ratio of students per teacher. Ms. Mallawaaratchy replied that the mandated ratio was one teacher per four infants, one teacher per seven toddlers, and one teacher per ten pre- school aged children. Responding to questions from Commissioners Hadley and Kilian, she stated that she wished to move from St. Peter's because both the church and her day care center were at capacity and had no room to grow. She added that she was not aware of parents who drove to the day care center, parked, and then rode the bus to work. The following individuals addressed the Commission with issues that concerned them regarding the proposed Montessori school: February 24, 1998 Page 5 Vicki Dice, 6439 11th Avenue Understood the need for day care, but not at the proposed location Peak hours coincided with the designated hours for school bus pick up and drop off Preferred to see traffic enter and exit parking lot from 66th Street Responding to questions from the Commission, Ms. Dice stated that she would prefer to see a day care center as opposed to many other types of commercial endeavors, she would reconsider her position if traffic was rerouted onto 66th Street instead of 1 lth Avenue, and that a school bus stop was located at 6400 11 th Avenue. Carol Rinder, 6420 11 th Avenue Day care center fits nicely into proposed location, but would prefer to see the single family residence remain in place Concerned with traffic Stated that parents who are late for work are not concerned with driving carefully Jan Owen, 6535 11th Avenue Concerned with traffic Prefers to see trees remain along north property line Would like to see the building redesigned to look more like the Minnesota Valley School of Music Wouldn't be concerned by the noise from the children because Veterans Memorial Park is already across the street Bob Fritzke, 6529 11th Avenue Thinks that parents would park on I Ith Avenue and take bus to work Difficult left turn from southbound 11th Avenue onto 66th Street Twenty parking spots would not be enough Building is not attractive Pheasants roost in trees that would be removed along property line Grading would be significant Felt that his property values would depreciate Preferred to see the underlying zoning change to residential Betty Peltola, 6421 11th Avenue Lot is not large enough for 90 children Concerned with traffic backing up onto 66th Street if parking lot gets too congested Traffic travels "too fast for children crossing 11 th Avenue while walking to the park Mary Starley, 6505 11th Avenue Lot is not large enough for 90 children Traffic would be too congested . Lot to the north was a double lot that was recently split and had a new house constructed February 24, 1998 Page 6 Terry Stadther, 6404 11th Avenue Would not have moved into current house if day care had been located at proposed site Traffic would affect property values Traffic would pass through four bus stops The 3- to 4- bedroom houses located along 11 th Avenue are an important asset to the City and need to be protected Townhouses would be more appropriate for the site of the proposed day care center Existing house probably can't sell because it faces 66th Street Janet Holman, 6524 12th Avenue King Oscars has brought in undesirable element Area suffers from air pollution problems because of King Oscars Bill Owen, 6535 11th Avenue Would prefer to see Montessori rather than other commercial properties that could be located on site Marilyn MacHacek, 6421 12th Avenue Questioned whether or not is was possible to place "No Parking" signs along 11th Avenue that were enforced during peak hours Questioned how far the day care center would be from the north property line Ms. Urban stated that "No Parking" signage would apply to residents, as well as other individuals who parked on the street. Commissioner Kilian stated that the day care center would be located 20 feet from the north property line. 011ie Hoffman, 6438 11th Avenue Parking lot and chain link fence would be unattractive for park users Concerned with traffic on 11 th Avenue Traffic is already unbearable along 66th Street Irene Sable, 6521 11th Avenue Concerned with school buses picking up five and six year old students for transportation to and from school Dorothy Hoffman, 643 8 11 th Avenue Parking lot is not sufficient and is inappropriate for that location Greg Opitz, 6500 12th Avenue One parking space per five students is not enough Concerned with traffic February 24, 1998 Page 7 Mr. Mallawaaratchy, spouse of the applicant Richfield needs more day care centers The needs of the children should supersede that of the trees because trees can be replaced Neighbors could walk their children to the day care center There is a park and ride area located nearby that the parents could use 11th Avenue doesn't really lead anywhere other than into the neighborhood; there is no outlet onto the freeways The hours of operation wouldn't be burdensome to the neighbors A day care center would be much more desirable to the neighbors than many other commercial businesses Jeff McElmury, architect of the proposed day care center The building can easily be redesigned More landscaping can be added to recover the loss of trees A "No Right Turn" sign can be placed at the exit from the parking lot All the issues brought forth by the neighbors can easily be resolved Commissioner Kilian requested clarification on space needs for the number of children in a day care center. Jenny Moore, 6410 11th Avenue Concerned with traffic Dogs walking in the park would pose a threat to children Must be another place to locate a day care center Mark Johanns, 6525 11th Avenue The facility will operate 12 months out of the year Concerned with the noise of children Noted that playground facilities were intentionally located in the west end of the park to keep noise away from the neighborhood on the east side of the park Stated that the park is not a good place for the children to play Sid Zochert, 6501 11th Avenue Stated that his wife had difficulty getting a home business license despite the fact that she would only have 12 customers per day Responding to a question from the audience, Community Development Manager John Melin stated that the zoning could be changed to single family residential, but that the rezoning could not be used to deny this proposal. This proposal would have to be decided before a rezoning could be considered. Betty Peltola, 6421 11 th Avenue Concerned with the drop off from the existing sidewalk if the area was graded February 24, 1998 Page 8 Maureen Larson, 6511 11 th Avenue Stated that a day care center should not be located on a major street like 66th Street Ray Bossert, 6425 11 th Avenue Noted that no one in the audience has pre - school aged children Jackie Lewis, 1100 East 66th Street and owner of the property in question, stated that she could not sell her property because of its location on 66th Street. She added that she had wanted to have her own business located on the site, and that the neighbors would probably prefer to see a day care center than the business she had wanted to operate. M/Hadley, S/Dmytrenko to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 9 -0 Commissioner Kilian stated that he was concerned with the number of parking spaces and with the traffic on 11th Avenue. He expressed support for the Comprehensive Plan designation of townhomes for the property and that that goal should prevail. Commissioner Gordon stated that he does not like the appearance of the building and would prefer to see more detailed plans. He added that he, too, would like to see traffic routed onto 66th Street instead of 11th Avenue. Commissioner Gordon further stated that he likes the concept of the day care center, stating that it may help the swimming pool located in Veterans Memorial Park. Commissioner Bjorklund stated that she was concerned with the trees and the home values in the neighborhood. She cautioned that people remember that the Commission's power does have limits and she would like a clarification of the Commission's authority. Ms. Urban outlined some alternate recommendations, stating that the Commissioners could approve the proposal, delay the vote, or reject the proposal. Commissioner Kilian and Hadley both stated that a day care center would not be an appropriate use for the site. Commissioner Ahlstrom suggested that staff and the applicant search for a new site. Responding to a question from Commissioner Bjorklund, Ms. Urban stated that the proposed use does not reflect the use designated in the Comprehensive Plan. She added that legal counsel has supported the theory that the zoning prevail in this situation; however, there is some question surrounding the issue, so the Commission could consider applying the Comprehensive Plan over the zoning. Chairperson Linnihan suggested that the applicant and some representatives from the neighborhood try mediation to see if a compromise was possible. February 24, 1998 Page 9 Commissioner Meter stated that he would like to see the business remain in Richfield and expressed support for trying mediation. He added that he would like to hear from some of the parents currently using the day care facilities provided by the Montessori School, but that other sites should probably be explored. Commissioner Dmytrenko stated that the use should conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Gepner expressed his support for mediation to see if some of the differences could be worked out between the applicant and the neighbors. M/Kilian, S /Hadley to recommend denial of the conditional use permit with the finding that the use does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Motion failed: 4 -5 (Biorklund, Gepner, Gordon, Linnihan, and Meter opposed). M/Meter, S /Gepner, to delay action until the Regular Planning Commission meeting of March 23, 1998 with the following stipulations: 1. Staff provides further information regarding traffic at the location, 2. The buildiniz is redesigned, 3. Mediation services are used b thehe applicant and the neighbors, 4. A legal opinion is provided regarding the Comprehensive Plan versus the zoning designation, 5. Staff continue to explore alternative sites, 6. Revised and complete elevations are submitted, and 7. A detailed landscape plan is submitted. Motion passed: 5 -4 (Ahlstrom, Dmytrenko, Hadley, and Kilian opposed). Commissioner Gordon requested to be excused from the remainder of the Planning Commission meeting. Chairperson Linnihan stated that a ten minute recess would be taken. NEW BUSINESS PC Letter #7 ITEM #3 Initiation of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and introductory discussion of the CIP process February 24, 1998 Page 10 Administrative Services Director Steven Devich stated that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process was ready to begin and that the Planning Commissioners are asked to review the CIP in preparation for the upcoming CIP Plan. He added that Commissioners may also propose new projects at any time during the review process. Mr. Devich added that all proposed projects are put into one document and then that document is edited for the 1999 CIP Plan. He further stated that the approval of the Plan should come no later than April. Discussion ensued regarding the timeline of the process. The item was unanimously tabled until the Regular Planning Commission meeting of March 24, 1998. PC Letter #8 ITEM #4 Consideration of a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for a proposed second sheet of ice at Veterans Memorial Park Chairperson Linnihan recused himself from the issue due to a conflict of interest; Commissioner Hadley became Acting Chairperson and Commissioner Dmytrenko became Acting Secretary. Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, stating that a group of residents had approached the City concerning the addition of a second sheet of ice to the Richfield Ice Arena. The City Council directed staff to undertake a feasibility study regarding the proposal. The Planning Commission is required to make a determination as to whether or not the proposed capital improvement is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Two possible designs for the second sheet of ice were presented and explained. Responding to a question from Commissioner Gepner, Administrative Services Director Steven Devich stated that the feasibility study was being conducted in order to determine whether or not the ice sheet would be self - supporting. He further stated that the second sheet of ice is necessary due to the expansion of girls varsity and junior varsity hockey. In response to a question from Commissioner Ahlstrom, Dan Linnihan, 6345 Logan Avenue, stated that the second sheet of ice would be used for practice while the original sheet of ice would be used for tournament play as well as practice. Mr. Devich stated that the arena currently seats around 1,800 spectators. Commissioner Meter requested clarification on the stipulation that the ice arena location not conflict with plans for a multi -use facility. Mr. Devich stated that the proposed location is the east side of the building, which won't conflict with a multi -use facility. February 24, 1998 Page 11 M/Kilian, S /Bjorklund to adopt the resolution findingthat the proposed addition of a second sheet of ice to the ice arena is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with the stipulation that the placement of the addition of the ice sheet does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan goal to functionally coordinate the ice arena with a possible Community Activities Building in the future. Motion carried: 7 -0 PC Letter #9 ITEM #5 Election of Planning Commission Chairperson, Vice - Chairperson and Secretary Zoning Administrator Urban stated that the Bylaws require the Planning Commission to hold an annual organizational meeting and elect from its membership a Chairperson, Vice - Chairperson and Secretary at the first regular meeting in February. M /Bjorklund, S/Kilian to re -elect Commissioner Linnihan as Chairperson. Motion passed: 8 -0 M/Dmytrenko, S/Hadley to elect Commissioner Bjorklund as Vice - Chairperson. Motion passed: 8 -0 M/Linnihan, S /Bjorklund to re -elect Commissioner Hadley as Secretary. Motion passed: 8 -0 PC Letter 410 ITEM #6 Appointment of liaisons to the Community Services Advisory Commission, City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority and School Board Zoning Administrator Urban stated that the Bylaws require the Planning Commission to appoint liaisons to the Community Services Advisory Commission, City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), and School Board. The following commissioners were appointed as liaisons: School Board - Commissioner Dmytrenko Commissioner Bjorklund (alternate) February 24, 1998 Page 12 Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) - Commissioner Gepner Commissioner Kilian (alternate) City Council - Mayor Martin Kirsch Commissioner Hadley (alternate) Chairperson Linnihan (alternate) Community Services Advisory Commission - Commissioner Ahlstrom Commissioner Meter (alternate) PC Letter #11 ITEM #7 Annual Review of Planning Commission Bylaws Presentation of amendment to Section 6, Part I, relating to voting Zoning Administrator Urban stated that the Bylaws require an annual review of the Bylaws by the Planning Commission. She added that the language in the section pertaining to voting could be considered ambiguous. Ms. Urban stated that the language, when read literally, states that four affirmative votes are needed to approve an item, creating a situation where an item would pass despite a vote of 4 -5. voting: M/Bjorklund, S /Hadley to present the following amendment to Section 6, Part I re argding At all meetings of the Plannine Commission, each member attendine shall be entitled to cast one vote. Voting shall be by voice. An affirmative vote of four members or of a majority of members present, whichever is greater, shall be necessary for the passage of any matter before the Planning Commission, except as otherwise provided in these Bylaws, and a vote on the amendment shall be scheduled for the regular Planning Commission meeting on March 24, 1998. Motion passed: 8 -0 PC Letter #12 ITEM #8 Establish 1998 -99 dates for Planning Commission study sessions February 24, 1998 Page 13 Zoning Administrator Urban stated that the dates for the 1998 -99 Planning Commission study sessions should be set and requested additional topics for discussion. Several Commissioners stated that they would like to have study sessions for the following topics: PASSS Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan consistency issues Review of South Lyndale Avenue redevelopment plan Review of the neighborhood /land planning initiative in St. Louis Park Long -term commercial planning Criteria used to select Commissioners Richfield Memories" video M/Hadley, S /Bjorklund to adopt the resolution, setting dates for the 1998 -99 Planning Commission study sessions and topics. Motion passed: 8 -0 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:57 p.m. Mitchell Hadley Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Minutes Study Session March 10, 1998 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Brenda Bjorklund, Pamela Dmytrenko, David Gepner, Roger Gordon, Mitchell Hadley, Bill Kilian, and Ken Meter. MEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCIL LIAISON: Terry Ahlstrom Martin Kirsch, Mayor STAFF PRESENT: Steven Devich, Administrative Services Director John Melin, Community Development Manager Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator Brian S. Mehl, Community Development Technician The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:00 p.m. DISCUSSION TOPICS PC Letter 913 ITEM #1 1999 Capital Improvement Budget and 2000 -2004 Capital Improvement Program Administrative Services Director Steven Devich presented the draft Capital Improvement Program/Capital Improvement Budget (CIP /CIB), stating that the 1999 CIB is recommended by the City Manager while the 2000 -2004 CIP is recommended by the various commissions. He added that the role of the Planning Commission is to make a determination regarding whether or not they comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Devich continued by reviewing the projects that have been proposed for the years 1999 through 2004. Responding to questions from Chairperson Linnihan and Commissioner Gepner, Mr. Devich stated that the items will be prioritized according to such issues as funding sources, seniority (projects that have been proposed for the longest amount of time), and priority. He further stated that the total City budget is approximately $25 million, and that not all proposed projects will get completed according to the timeline that was presented. March 10, 1998 Page 2 PC Letter #14 ITEM #2 Airport Mitigation Strategy Vivian Hart and Julianne Manship spoke to the Planning Commission about their roles in the airport mitigation strategy and they ways in which they would like to bring discussion of the issue to the public. Ms. Hart stated that her philosophy is to bring in groups that existed prior to any mitigation plan, add new groups of people who are not part of any existing group, and facilitate discussion between them. Ms. Manship added that she sees her role as being a facilitator between the City, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, and the residents. Discussion ensued regarding the cost of the redevelopment in east Richfield, the timeline for the release of the Environmental Impact Statement, and the development of a final mitigation plan. Further discussion involved the reasons for and against the presentation of the current draft redevelopment concept to the public and whether or not the public should create a plan from scratch. It was generally agreed that the current redevelopment concept should be the starting point for discussions. The Commission decided to begin taking the issues to the public in March. PC Letter #15 ITEM #3 Consistency Between Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan Community Development Manager John Melin reviewed the staff report, stating that there is a considerable amount of inconsistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the City's zoning designations. He stated that in 1995, the Legislature passed language that states that in cases of conflict between a City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinance shall be brought into conformance with the Plan. Until that time, the zoning superseded the Plan in cases of conflict. Part of the problem with the new language is that it doesn't necessarily state that the Plan supersedes the zoning, just that the zoning should be brought into conformity with the Plan. To further complicate the situation, the City's Comprehensive Plan, which was approved by the Metropolitan Council, includes language that states that the City does not intend to rezone currently inconsistent sites to conform to the Plan proposals. Discussion followed regarding the issues that can result from having inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan and zoning, the possibility of placing a moratorium on development within the City, and other possible changes to either the zoning ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission agreed that further study on inconsistent properties is necessary. Staff agreed to bring specific instances before the Commission at their May study session. March 10, 1998 Page 3 Jim Thomson, Kennedy & Graven, and Don Brauer, Comprehensive Plan consultant, attended the study session to provide further guidance to the Commission on the issue. Mr. Thomson also reviewed the role of the Planning Commission and the discretion it has in recommending approval or denial of zoning applications. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:45 p.m. Mitchell Hadley Planning Commission Secretary st \fit Planning IT \r !'1 L' Agenda Section: Public Hearing Item #: 1 Case #: 98 -CUP -4 Commission Letter March 24, 1998 GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Request: Conditional use permit to allow Subway, a take -out restaurant, to add seating Applicant/Owner: Jim Armstrong, Armstrong Subway Location: 10 East 66th Street Zoning: C -2 (general commercial) Existing Land Use: Commercial Proposed Land Use: Commercial Comp. Plan: Regional Commercial /Office References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts) Zoning: 526.23 (d); 526.27, 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 April 13, 1998. ANALYSIS Proposal: The Subway, located at 10 East 66th Street in the Richfield Shoppes, is currently a take -out only restaurant. Take out restaurants are permitted uses in the C -2 district. Subway wants to add two tables and up to six chairs in the restaurant. The addition of the seating makes the restaurant a Type II restaurant (traditional /cafeteria style), which requires a conditional use permit. Issues: Parking: Six seats would require three parking stalls, according to City parking standards for a sit -down restaurant. This is the same number of stalls that the current square footage of the take -out restaurant (759 sq. ft.) requires, based on the City requirement of one space per 1,000 square feet. A ACTION TO BE TAKEN Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a conditional use permit to allow a six -seat restaurant at 10 East 66th Street with the following stipulation: 1. That a resolution approving the conditional use permit be recorded with the County, pursuant to state statute. Basis: 1. Adequate parking is available to accommodate the minimal increase in parking demand that may be created by the six seats. 2. The Health Inspector has reviewed the proposed seating plan and determined that there is sufficient room in the restaurant to add the seating. Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a conditional use permit at 10 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. r-A r -3 ZONING CODE: CITATIONS SECTION 526 - ZONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS 526.21. General Commercial District (C -2). Subdivision 1. Subsections 526.21 to 526.37 apply to the C -2 District, 526.23. Permitted uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are permitted uses in the C -2 District. d) Class W (take out only) restaurants which do not provide drive -up window service; 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. 7. Class I (full service) restaurants and Class II (traditional/cafeteria) restaurants, provided the following conditions are met: a) a buffer yard of not less than 25 feet in width shall be provided to separate all aspects of such use from abutting residential parcels -- the Council may reduce this requirement to not less than 15 feet if significant additional landscaping and berming are provided to screen the restaurant use; and b) alcoholic beverages shall not be served unless the lot abuts an arterial or collector street. I-q r O to 65th Street East dd3 d6 X01 I 3113 sf Simek's Meats & Seafood 6113 sf 6503 -05 I Paper Warehouse 6507 2239 sf H &-R-Block 6509 o t/ c 1937 sf Cyber Palace o 6511 2600 sf Vision World c F7304 sf 651 Richfield Flowers 21 517 4796 sf 4200 sf Futon Gallery 3 6519 3000 sf 6519 'f r Crosstown Cy le i------- - - - - -- -- r- 6521 `2nn sf Tanl n x-6523 _ 1465 sf 81 86525 _ _ _ _ _ Check Express- i 6527 775 sf Carl T -a cg; 6 U 6 29 1120 -sf_- -Lit_ a Caesar's 1 - - -- - - _ CFFAdv5eonotusfUr z res In Video I O FE G N LL i_y W i ^^r. i.i. O s^ U) L O Z W U cc 23 m 15 w o t/ c oc N ZcN 9 ep p tv II CIIIIIIIIIO 66th Street East O FE G N LL i_y W i ^^r. i.i. O s^ U) L O Z W U cc m CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10 EAST 66TH STREET 11' -6" v T -0" T -6" c+ c 6" WIDE n n CV T-3- M W W CHAIRS yoooaa U) p U O TABLE O OEO IT-3" Planning Commission Letter March 24, 1998 Agenda Section: Public Hearing Item #: 2 Case #: 98 -CUP -2 GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Request: Conditional use permit to allow construction of a 134 -unit, extended stay hotel Applicant /Owner: Candlewood Location: 300 West 78th Street Zoning: C -2 (general commercial) Existing Land Use: Public Proposed Land Use: Commercial Comp. Plan: Regional Commercial /Office References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts) Zoning Code: 526.27, Subd. 9; 546.05, Subds. 4 and 6 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 April 13, 1998. ANALYSIS Proposal: The developer is proposing to construct a three -story, 66,950 square foot Candlewood Hotel on a portion of the former Lampert Lumber site at 300 West 78th Street. The site also includes property being purchased from the Soo Line railroad. The extended -stay hotel would provide 98 studio rooms and 36 one - bedroom suites for a total of 134 rooms. There would be 141 parking spaces, which meets City parking standards of one space for every room plus spaces for hotel employees. The exterior of the building would be stucco and red brick. The proposed parking lot layout and landscape plan meet City parking lot and landscape standards. History: The property was purchased by the City in 1992 to provide space for Public Works employees and equipment displaced by the reconstruction of 77th Street. The Public Works functions that were housed in the building have been relocated to City Hall, the Water Plant, and the garage facilities at 77th Street and Pillsbury. Issues: Access: The I -494 expansion plans call for 78th Street to be eliminated as a frontage road. The site plan shows a curb cut onto 78th Street; however, the project has been designed to function without that access. The trash enclosure will need to be relocated to accommodate for the future loss of 78th Street. The access onto 78th Street requires a permit from MNDOT. MNDOT requires that the applicant sign an agreement stating their awareness of the future closure of 78th Street as a condition of the permit. Access onto 77th Street will be shared with a potential restaurant on the northern portion of the property. A cross access agreement will be required to guarantee access to the hotel once 78th Street is eliminated. A median cut has been approved by the Public Works Department. Median cuts along 77th Street are not generally allowed for individual businesses; however, the cut is an adequate distance from the signalized intersections, so will not interfere with traffic on 77th Street. The Public Works Department has developed criteria for evaluating median cut requests in the future. Soo Line Railroad: A 66 foot wide strip of land to the east of the subject property belongs to the Soo Line Railroad and had been leased for years to the owners of 300 West 78th Street. The City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority is in the process of purchasing the railroad property. The property is being purchased so it can be combined with the Lampert property and re- divided into two parcels. The City is pursuing a restaurant use for the second parcel_ Future Restaurant: City staff are seeking a restaurant developer for the northern half of the site. A conditional use permit for a restaurant would be brought before the Planning Commission once a developer is identified. The restaurant will be responsible for site improvements on the northern half of the site. Depending on the size of the future restaurant, shared parking between the two uses is likely and an agreement reflecting the parking arrangement would be required. 0 "Z c2-3 Signage: A pylon sign is proposed for the freeway side of the development. The site plan indicates a 30 foot tall monument sign; however, it would not be allowed to exceed the maximum allowable height of 27 feet. A monument sign, in accordance with signage guidelines for the 77th Street corridor, is being proposed on the 77th Street side of the development. Candlewood will also be asking the City Council to grant a permit for an off -site directional sign. The Council can grant an off -site directional signage for hotels to provide travelers with directions to the hotel. Future restaurant signage would need to be reviewed at such time that a restaurant would apply for a conditional use permit. It is anticipated, however, that a restaurant will share space on the monument sign but require a separate pylon sign on the freeway side of the property. Plat: The City has requested that the developer replat the property to establish two separate properties. Prior to platting, the City Council will be asked to approve a subdivision waiver of the platting to allow for sale of the property to Candlewood in the next few weeks. The property would be platted before construction is completed. ACTION TO BE TAKEN Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 134 -unit, extended stay hotel at 300 West 78th Street with the following stipulations: 1. That a final landscape plan and landscape escrow be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 2. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 3. That cross access and parking agreements be established with a future owner of the north half of the property. 4. That an agreement be signed stating the developer's awareness of the closure of 78th Street when I -494 is widened and that closure of the access will not be the basis for a claim of severance damages by the owners of the Candlewood Hotel. 5. That the property be replatted. 6. That final, detailed signage plans be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 7. That a resolution approving the conditional use permit be recorded with the County, pursuant to state statute. a - Basis: 1. The proposed hotel use is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for regional commercial uses along the I -494 corridor. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the goals of the Interstate- Lyndale- Nicollet (ILN) redevelopment district to maximize the area's potential and redevelop the area east of Lyndale Avenue with mixed and highway- oriented commercial uses. 3. The proposed development meets City parking, landscaping and other performance standards required by Section 541 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The layout of the site allows it to function without 78th Street, in the event that I -494 is widened and the frontage road is removed. 5. The development is laid out to accommodate a future restaurant use, maximizing the development potential of the currently underutilized site. Any proposed restaurant would, however, require a separate conditional use permit. Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a conditional use permit at 300 West 78th Street with a finding of fact that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties or the City as a whole. of - y d -5 CITATIONS ZONING CODE: :. SECTION 526 - ZONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS 526.21. General Commercial District (C -2). Subdivision 1. Subsections 526.21 to 526.37 apply to the C -2 Distfict. 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. 9. Hotels /motels, provided the following conditions are met: a) a buffer yard of not less than 35 feet in width shall be provided to separate all aspects of such use from abutting residential parcels -- the Council may reduce this requirement to not less than 25 feet if significant additional landscaping and berming are provided to screen the hotel/motel use; and b) access to the site shall be only from arterial or collector streets. SECTION 546 - ZONING: ADMINISTRATION 546.05. Conditional use permits. Subdivision 1. Permit required. It shall be unlawful to engage in any use listed in this code as a conditional use without first obtaining a conditional use permit (CUP) from the City pursuant to this subsection. Subd. 4. Planning Commission review. After receipt of a completed application, a date shall be set for consideration before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may offer whatever public notice of its review it deems necessary. Following this consideration, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the application. Subd. 6. Conditions for issuance. The Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it finds that all of the following conditions will be met: a) the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; b) the proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines; c) the proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code; d) the proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements; e) the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare; and f) there is a public need for such use at the proposed location; and g) the proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. Land Use Context — v j I JL- 300 West 78th Street ME ti° • - ` - - I- -II- - II- - NIC( II I A L pLAY ` r LuJL JL JL_ JL EQUIPMENT o 1 i I 1 1 C] 1 El 1 O 1 I 1 _ 1 . 1 1 Q Iii 1 1 D w 1 1 1 0 J W D o` r a D (1 1 i, :11 IAMP TON INN M 3 HH o 0 I M M 1 1 1 w Q 1 Cr w d D i 0 0 o IF I 1 1 1 w Q 1 1 a a CX La 1 I El r D''L t d=' I j 1 L 0 1 14 =oJ; 114- o I SHOP 1 _ l r 300 West 78th Street O 1 N __! 1 ( I CITY JIR 1 i 0 M P - TIRES PLU ' RICHF1ELD-W_OOm! GTO I 1 LL f - 1 g MORTUARYl1 W JU1 1 CrFEkINT Y GARA E CLUA R.'W LINE li r uric I 1 A r DRYWALL JJ If -l 1i ti )RAC E v 19 78TH ST•.__- N March 18, 1998 IF I 1 1 1 w Q 1 1 a a CX La 1 I El r D''L t d=' I j 1 L 0 1 14 =oJ; 114- o I SHOP 1 _ l r 300 West 78th Street O 1 N __! 1 ( I CITY JIR 1 i 0 M P - TIRES PLU ' RICHF1ELD-W_OOm! GTO I 1 LL f - 1 g MORTUARYl1 W JU1 1 CrFEkINT Y GARA E CLUA R.'W LINE li r uric I 1 A r DRYWALL JJ If -l 1i ti )RAC E v 19 78TH ST•.__- N March 18, 1998 li r uric I 1 A r DRYWALL JJ If -l 1i ti )RAC E v 19 78TH ST•.__- N March 18, 1998 aZ 11 419 MINI; dill III,, e Iv 4 a E.:[[::.[.:: I.••.[t.'.[ 11. i.'[ I .....)]C::.i[:..]L.: ON 1) 11 i 11 1 1 i PIN- ii 0 1[t e Iv HMI F ww L a N tMCO 1 I I I 4 a HMI F ww L a N tMCO 1 I I I n z s p 5R 9 S • 0 ' ss I Our I I I 9 a,m Q ell 19e En: SJ I I I 9 4 g y R r 0 9 n 2-1 I t LJ ft. iV7 r w U1e i 3 a6s . • . o a F11l1= Y SaE 7bl g bf e 7 o ear g`- E €`CE5E° o ol- 6dso: a r a did I x o cc S "$ t8- nsu s. g PSQ N;lN 6 fi aga d IA o °:ate bE ^ g a eO8 = u Mb Y-- : -^ 9'S 9§ Fm = =ai. FQ d a -` gg•« fury 1 OIII s,leV, 'sl n•. Ywl• ]nl 1 I l DDS 7u. s. dl+ 11tl3UgJ IS n AVA JO 1H91d! W31SAS llva 'd'9 l; 1 3 0*" A ez•.cs •.l.eo.0 : o of c , c Dtl of Y. ` n•rt ° o l]], DD•DCS lsn n na 00b t ,sr r,] lcc] Y g: w S L Q N 8 9. 0Irk.d,1o.0 S N t M:J8y 9r ti. C7 Oi, 01•D l"OVU.• K a ae 2-1 I scsar -_ u,.. • c.rnaa yyE BgE5Y i Y95 VIOS3<NIA •0131 dH3Itl ...a..a • •++•••u • n•niw. •..».aa 13108 OOOS310WO •out •olvix v 1110AV1 3115 'I uiti Y CY dya v a LL 3 v.. WM • 1053N1111 •0131POIN MOM 00011310MI3 1fl0A 1 3DYNIV80 4 ONI0TiO 1 If i; f.uo • .II .F IIY.a {e9 oal 'eoWlaoceY - a s Is gig a joi c4H value 1 11 II. 1 fl1, S 3• Q a t: R a a/ 13 a o L0d0811 3NIl OOS It x f•e c ZF 14— f.uo • .II .F IIY.a {e9 oal 'eoWlaoceY - a s Is gig a joi c4H value 1 11 II. 1 fl1, S 3• Q a t: R a a/ 13 Ho i :&U I 6 I~ 25 V) i N ai6'R\ 1IG w t M 1310a 0002310N1/7 road s.iv xw 1fl0AY1 AWIAft uolw s e iv C' db !r gagff HL bg = g» g y fa.j wo r O 8 s 0 -1 ei Nd It a o a zs -..-a y _, of s ' o »W b.;evz •bs -5 S3y e tl yll: $ b b "^a §3° oo: E8888$ Y « ClY`> g C g ugi s Avg §_lib3 sa-1,.» ` 35iWa7: °` J b bggW gt- 5 >Kb aa;I » 4iv_..Yg BW c gg~e S «{{•Y' 7`.< g _ b 5 2:Z ;a2 Ee «= «` »• ° -ggiC 3 Sis i d_ £B3Si- ,g7yX_!3. 3:`s -r2 Y.Y1C e YSS 7 q•a`a.6ya a 9- oEtt -s3 s s: dd" C. q. =ak a vo 1 e iv C' db !r gagff HL bg = g» g y fa.j wo r O 8 s 0 -1 ei I LLI Orr q ij N ED d-15 I Oil Orr q ij N ED d-15 D-J 0- I 0- gu M m-" t] IM mm l,., A An c2-1-7 MI II aq c2-1-7 a x I CJ a I I lit 000000 000000 a 000 I oc J'1 Planning Commission Letter C:ITI" C)f hICHFIELI March 24, 1998 Agenda Section: New Business Item #: 3 Letter #: 12 GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Request: Consideration of a resolution finding that the acquisition and disposition of Soo Line property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning: C -2 (general commercial) Existing Land Use: Public Proposed Land Use: Commercial (hoteVrestaurant) Comp. Plan: Regional Commercial/Office 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. HRA: The HRA authorized purchase of the property in December, 1997. Planning Commission approval would facilitate the disposition of this property by the HRA in a timely manner. 3 ra ANALYSIS Proposal: The.Housing and Redevelopment Authority approved the purchase of a portion of Soo Line property located to the east of 300 West 78th Street former Lampert Lumber site) in December, 1997. The property is adjacent to 300 West 78th Street. Staff and the HRA propose that the two parcels be combined and re- split. The south half would be sold to Candlewood, a developer, to develop a 134 -unit hotel on the property. The north half would be sold to a restaurant user. The current Comprehensive Plan classifies the property as Regional Commercial/Office. The proposed hotel and potential restaurant development would be consistent with this classification. ACTION TO BE TAKEN Recommendation: Adopt the attached resolution finding that the proposed acquisition/disposition of the Soo Line property 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 use as a hotel and potential restaurant is consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan which allows for regional commercial development in the area. 3. The subject property is excess railroad property. Its purchase and use for the hotel and restaurant development will not impact future use of the Soo Line as a bike trail. Alternative: Reject the attached resolution, finding that the proposed use of the subject property does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. 3a RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT THE ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Soo Line Property) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan regarding the acquisition and disposition of property located east of 300 West 78th Street described as follows: Beginning at a point 120 feet Northerly, as measured at right angles, of a point upon the South line of Section 34, Township 38 North, Range 24 which is 91 feet Westerly of the Southeast corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4 SW 1/4) of said Section 34; thence North 540 feet; thence East 66 feet to a point on the Westerly railroad right of way line; thence South along said Westerly right of way line a distance of 540 feet, more or less, to a point 120 feet Northerly of the South line of said Section 34; thence West to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the acquisition and disposition of such property for commercial 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 commercial use, is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Adopted this 24th day of March, 1998 by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Daniel Linnihan, Chairperson ATTEST: Mitchell Hadley, Secretary 33 1 Planning Commission Letter March 24, 1998 Agenda Section: Public Hearing Item #: 4 Case #: 98 -CUP -3 GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Request: Continuation of discussion of conditional use permit to allow construction of a day care facility Applicant/Owner; Bernadette Mallawaaratchy, owner of Bernie's Montessori School, Inc. Location: 1100 East 66th Street Zoning: C -2 (general commercial) Existing Land Use: Single family residential Proposed Land Use: Commercial Comp. Plan: High Density, Attached, Single Family Residential References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts) Zoning: Section 526.27; Section 546.05 Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's continued consideration was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the subject property. In addition, notices were sent to owners and occupants in the 6400 blocks of 11th and 12th Avenues. City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of April 13, 1998. ANALYSIS Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,160 square foot building to house a day care for 90 children. The applicant will be applying for a state license to serve 60 children. The building will, however, be built to accommodate future growth of up to 90 children. The applicant currently operates a montessori school for children ages 4 to 6 at St. Peter's Church. The proposed day care would also provides services to infants and toddlers. y -a Issues: 1. Comprehensive Plan: The property is zoned C -2 (general commercial) and day care facilities are conditional uses in the C -2 district. The zoning ordinance states that the Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it finds that the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area for high density, attached, single family housing RSFH), so the proposed use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Building Design: The proposed building has been redesigned to give it more of a residential appearance. 3. Access: Access to the parking lot is from 1 lth Avenue. Hennepin County will not grant a permit for an access off of 66th Street. Sixty -sixth Street is a minor arterial, and the County's policy is to limit access to minor arterials from individual properties for safety reasons. 4. Parking: Twenty parking spaces will be provided on the site. City parking standards require one space for every five children, for a minimum requirement of 18 spaces. The City's parking standards for day care facilities is similar to that of other cities (see attachment). 5. Traffic: Tony Heppleman, Transportation Engineer with BRW, Inc., prepared a traffic analysis of the proposed day care at this site. The analysis is attached. 6. Neighborhood Impact: The applicant attended mediation with four neighborhood residents. According to the mediators, the neighbors were okay with the changes made to the building's appearance. They preferred an access onto 66th Street, but if the entrance were to be on 11 th Avenue, they asked that a "no right turn" sign be installed at the parking lot exit. The neighbors also asked that stop signs be installed at 64th Street and the entrance to the park and that crosswalks be painted at the entrance to the park. The latter requests will be forwarded to the City's traffic committee. 7. Trees and Landscaping: There are approximately twenty trees on the property and two boulevard trees. Most of the trees will be removed to accommodate the proposed construction. Additional trees would be planted as part of the proposed development. Note: This is private property, and the City does not have the authority to prohibit people from cutting down trees located on private property. 8. Buffering: The play activity area is located to the west of the building, 20 feet from the north property line. The fencing on the north side of the play area would be a solid fence, the remainder would be chain link. Evergreen trees would be planted on the north side of the area to provide a buffer from the adjacent residential uses. There are also three evergreens located along the north property line that currently provide a buffer. 9. Rezoning: At the previous hearing, a question was raised about the process for rezoning property. A rezoning can be initiated in the following three ways: the City Council can initiate it; the Planning Commission can initiate it; the owner of the property and 50 percent of the property owners within 300 feet of the property to be rezoned can petition for a rezoning. q -a ACTION TO BE TAKEN Recommendation: 1. Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a conditional use permit at 1100 East 66th Street with a finding of fact that the proposed use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Recommend that the City Council rezone the property at 1100 East 66th Street from C -2 (general commercial) to R (single family residential). 3. Recommend that the City Council authorize the Planning Commission to conduct a study of all properties in the City with zoning that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and consider rezonings of these properties. Basis: 1. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates the property as High Density, Single Family Residential (RSFH). The proposed use is inconsistent with this designation. 2. The City Zoning Ordinance requires that, in order to grant a conditional use permit, the City must find that the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. 3. Although the property is zoned C -2 (general commercial), state statute states that in cases of conflict between a City's Comprehensive Plan and its zoning, the zoning ordinance shall be brought into conformance with the Plan. 4. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed application, the City zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and has determined that there is not a sufficient legal basis to approve the application because the proposed use is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore the requirement set forth in.Section 546.05, Subdivision 6(a) of the Zoning Ordinance has not been met. LI Alternative A. Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a Recommendations: conditional use permit at 1100 East 66th Street for a day care with 90 children with the following stipulations: 1. That a tree protection plan for those trees remaining be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 2. That a landscape escrow be submitted to the Community Development Director. 3. That a grading plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 4. That a sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 5. That a stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 6. That the business maintain the appropriate state, county and city licenses. 7. That a resolution approving the conditional use permit be recorded with the County, pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462.36, subdivision 1. B. Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a conditional use permit for a day care for 60 children. C. Recommend that the City Council pass a 6 -month moratorium on development of all parcels with a land use that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but has zoning that is inconsistent, and authorize the Planning Commission to conduct a study of the parcels. 14- 5 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. 25. Licensed day care facilities, provided the following conditions are met: a) pick -up and drop-;off areas shall be located on the site, and shall be designed to avoid interfering with traffic and pedestrian movements; b) outdoor recreational areas shall be located and designed in a manner which mitigates visual and noise impacts on adjoining residential property; and c) such facilities shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses. SECTION 546 - ZONING: ADMINISTRATION 546.05. Conditional use permits. Subdivision 1. Permit required. It shall be unlawful to engage in any use listed in this code as a conditional use without first obtaining a conditional use permit (CUP) from the City pursuant to this subsection. Subd. 4. Planning Commission rcvicx%-. After receipt of a completed application, a date shall be set for consideration before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may offer whatever public notice of its review it deems necessary. Following this consideration, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the application. Subd. 6. Conditions for issuance. The Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it finds that all of the following conditions wIII be met: a) the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; b) the proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines; c) the proposed use is or wIII be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code. d) the proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements; e) the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare; and f) there is a public need for such use at the proposed location; and g) the proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. 7Z CC W6 13$ SNOIWd MIA O u 9i Y.Ol l .&3$ D0 Mn a 1 d p 1 I II I I I G 00i, PoNVO0,01 lz ' 4 L+, „g 431tu5 v991S+30014 ° I FzW ;y 77 MUM] MOSS31NOW S.31NN38 Q u i R P ]N QOM 07•Ad0 W v+ - p tl i 1 1 i LSV3 1338IS; 4199 a] g0 _ i W6 13$ SNOIWd MIA OY.Ol l .&3$ D0 Mn 1 d F(4 p 1 I 3 II I I I wW 5; a i S I I 00i, PoNVO0,01 lz ' 4 L+, „g 431tu5 v991S+30014 ° I FzW ;y 77 MUM] MOSS31NOW S.31NN38 Q u i R P ]N QOM 07•Ad0 W v+ - p tl i 1 1 i LSV3 1338IS; 4199 a] g0 _ i O p 1 I IIII wW 5; SII I z< II g1 I I I I 1 A 1 J AYI' 17 I I 31x0 ON33 Td0 I 31V0 Or 4 ` 30H3d anos I OOSM3N - -§ a l l V IoL i 993 3 ` I - 3 3 rgt3s tld Mn0B N 1T'8135 •JOl6 Mn MN305M IN30 1'0' A'%Z L -H I wW 5; SIIz< Or S t IN3S ga za XJ 8135 0NKMI WJV8135 n ow d 4 ` 30H3d anos I OOSM3N - -§ a l l V IoL i 993 3 ` I - 3 3 rgt3s tld Mn0B N 1T'8135 •JOl6 Mn MN305M IN30 1'0' A'%Z L -H I RQgig r1053nHin'Q1Ilf1gW d' YI 5 321V31V4 IZIOSS31NOW S,31N2338 Q° vi 'y v N b' O $ j ouu 8 w 1. a 0 ISV3 1322US 4799 i 80 O t4 y i Y tv3— I LM OS I Ji gl x I I d AtlE n ® ® l.l.M 31 .3M vl Im i 3Er5 33M3J N3eo 31vD 4 =D o d ofa k O U k Q C S O no 9 a W 9 4 tl 0-- w I s CL Z I 0 new arras 4 I I o I by yl g nraac n iKnrrm g f -7 1 Planning Commission Letter March 24, 1998 Agenda Section: Public Hearing Item #: 4 Case #: 98 -CUP -3 Type of Request: Applicant/Owner: Location: Zoning: Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Comp. Plan: References: Zoning Code: GENERAL INFORMATION Continuation of discussion of conditional use permit to allow construction of a day care facility Bernadette Mallawaaratchy, owner of Bernie's Montessori School, Inc. 1100 East 66th Street C -2 (general commercial) Single family residential Commercial High Density, Attached, Single Family Residential see attached Citations section for excerpts) Section 526.27; Section 546.05 Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's continued consideration was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the subject property. In addition, notices were sent to owners and occupants in the 6400 blocks of 11th and 12th Avenues. City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of April 13, 1998. ANALYSIS Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,160 square foot building to house a day care for 90 children. The applicant will be applying for a state license to serve 60 children. The building will, however, be built to accommodate future growth of up to 90 children. The applicant currently operates a montessori school for children ages 4 to 6 at St. Peter's Church. The proposed day care would also provides services to infants and toddlers. y -a Issues: 1. Comprehensive Plan: The property is zoned C -2 (general commercial) and day care facilities are conditional uses in the C -2 district. The zoning ordinance states that the Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it finds that the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area for high density, attached, single family housing RSFI), so the proposed use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Building Design: The proposed building has been redesigned to give it more of a residential appearance. 3. Access: Access to the parking lot is from 11th Avenue. Hennepin County will not grant a permit for an access off of 66th Street. Sixty -sixth Street is a minor arterial, and the County's policy is to limit access to minor arterials from individual properties for safety reasons. 4. Parking: Twenty parking spaces will be provided on the site. City parking standards require one space for every five children, for a minimum requirement of 18 spaces. The City's parking standards for day care facilities is similar to that of other cities (see attachment). 5. Traffic: Tony Heppleman, Transportation Engineer with BRW, Inc., prepared a traffic analysis of the proposed day care at this site. The analysis is attached. 6. Neighborhood Impact: The applicant attended mediation with four neighborhood residents. According to the mediators, the neighbors were okay with the changes made to the building's appearance. They preferred an access onto 66th Street, but if the entrance were to be on 11th Avenue, they asked that a "no right turn" sign be installed at the parking lot exit. The neighbors also asked that stop signs be installed at 64th Street and the entrance to the park and that crosswalks be painted at the entrance to the park. The latter requests will be forwarded to the City's traffic committee. 7. Trees and Landscaping: There are approximately twenty trees on the property and two boulevard trees. Most of the trees will be removed to accommodate the proposed construction. Additional trees would be planted as part of the proposed development. Note: This is private property, and the City does not have the authority to prohibit people from cutting down trees located on private property. 8. Buffering: The play activity area is located to the west of the building, 20 feet from the north property line. The fencing on the north side of the play area would be a solid fence, the remainder would be chain link. Evergreen trees would be planted on the north side of the area to provide a buffer from the adjacent residential uses. There are also three evergreens located along the north property line that currently provide a buffer. 9. Rezoning: At the previous hearing, a question was raised about the process for rezoning property. A rezoning can be initiated in the following three ways: the City Council can initiate it; the Planning Commission can initiate it; the owner of the property and 50 percent of the property owners within 300 feet of the property to be rezoned can petition for a rezoning. q -a 3 ACTION TO BE TAKEN Recommendation: 1. Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a conditional use permit at 1100 East 66th Street with a finding of fact that the proposed use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Recommend that the City Council rezone the property at 1100 East 66th Street from C -2 (general commercial) to R (single family residential). 3. Recommend that the City Council authorize the Planning Commission to conduct a study of all properties in the City with zoning that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and consider rezonings of these properties. Basis: 1. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates the property as High Density, Single Family Residential (RSFH). The proposed use is inconsistent with this designation. 2. The City Zoning Ordinance requires that, in order to grant a conditional use permit, the City must find that the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. 3. Although the property is zoned C -2 (general commercial), state statute states that in cases of conflict between a City's Comprehensive Plan and its zoning, the zoning ordinance shall be brought into conformance with the Plan. 4. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed application, the City zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and has determined that there is not a sufficient legal basis to approve the application because the proposed use is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore the requirement set forth in Section 546.05, Subdivision 6(a) of the Zoning Ordinance has not been met. Alternative A. Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a LI Recommendations: conditional use permit at 1100 East 66th Street for a day care with 90 children with the following stipulations: 1. That a tree protection plan for those trees remaining be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 2. That a landscape escrow be submitted to the Community Development Director. 3. That a grading plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 4. That a sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 5. That a stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 6. That the business maintain the appropriate state, county and city licenses. 7. That a resolution approving the conditional use permit be recorded with the County, pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462.36, subdivision 1. B. Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a conditional use permit for a day care for 60 children. C. Recommend that the City Council pass a 6 -month moratorium on development of all parcels with a land use that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but has zoning that is inconsistent, and authorize the Planning Commission to conduct a study of the parcels. 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. 25. Licensed day care facilities, provided the following conditions are met: a) pick -up and drop -off areas shall be located on the site, and shall be designed to avoid interfering with traffic and pedestrian movements; b) outdoor recreational areas shall be located and designed in a manner which mitigates visual and noise impacts on adjoining residential property; and c) such facilities shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses. SECTION 546 - ZONING: ADMINISTRATION 546.05. Conditional use permits. Subdivision 1. Permit required_. It shall be unlawful to engage in any use listed in this code as a conditional use without first obtaining a conditional use permit (CUP) from the City pursuant to this subsection. Subd. 4. Planning Commission review. After receipt of a completed application, a date shall be set for consideration before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may offer whatever public notice of its review it deems necessary. Following this consideration, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the application. Subd. 6. Conditions for issuance. The Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it finds that all of the following conditions will be met: a) the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; b) the proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines; c) the proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code; d) the proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements; e) the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare; and f) there is a public need for such use at the proposed location; and g) the proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. Y3 33 ip O M m JNW ISM A'S NJV913S DNUdVd NIN NDVGns 0 Mn O a a m ene VV ® l_ \] 1 W ry M Q o i r 133tus h9s lsv3 aal l 3iiVOxtl4 9 12IOS59,LNOAI S,91N21 H aNlmine a350doad a 4F t f 4v+ a i U Y3 33 ip O M m JNW ISM L -h I A'S NJV913S DNUdVd NIN NDVGns 0 Mn O Y QIIII 3 Y 1-isoi— -- I ® I 0 5b7 I I I II IIv '19 o J I fflo/ WA N I SSSIII b qs 31V0 MN3! 31V'J I ea O rn W e I ui 1 el3s o ONKnum d N0vel3s I $ I a cl 0'02 of .0 CL I I y 3N nN3e ands Y d I 1 Ila 5 o I b Q T I „ y d---+ 3 e 9 7 9 1 Ad IqV &3S 'JQ19 Mn ASZ 3DN3057tl 1N71VI'QY L -h I M1 m /R= 2¥3g SIN A %mmm \ 3 5 a= ' ~ ° do8d i p OODO WA 000 000002 AMo R, $ $ z' - }: 33m _ 3 m k & K c A |» § § ® \ ui ° | | j 2 & 2 " § ) U § 3 -7 1 -b-i 2 " § ) U § 3 -7 1 -b-i V1053NNIF 133-15 99 LSY3 0011 4 • y 3ZIVOAVG I2IOSS3,LNOY S,31NZ o pY 100H35 M3N O tl b i E Y— L 3— -711 I Q I I 100 10(3 I it II I I I s o yonIb e I 7 I I I I I I a E) GI I I I I I I I I I I I Q I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o o I I I I I I I I b L--- 13Y- 313w"= -3N 0 -29 A -A g Lz ,^Rj g r10...... Q134N0j 133wS u19915r300iL f 6 . 1 3Ntl Atla ?w 1NOMINOW S,31z3mWnec 10pN0$ M3N W Q K n w III w_ ww ww r rr wr M_ wr ZENwr_ rr rw rr rr wr rr rr rr per rr rw r r wr wr wr rr Yw rr rr r= E rw rw rw F rw ww rr rw wr rr rr rr 111pip I m == =--I= I www ww w r w w w _ rr rw ww w rr w rw w r r rim wr rr wr m• rw wr rr w ww ww rr w rr wr r r rr rw w r. r rr -- wr rr w rr __ wE rS 11111 111111 141111 k5 111111 IIIIHIIIIIIII ': rw r ri 2I Cm I mm r-I l" -r1 H 0!YUI KI1: HI ILLU 9-/,), 1.7 March 11, 1998 Mr. Thomas Foley Transportation Engineer City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Access for Site at Northeast Corner of 11 th Avenue and 66th Street (CSAH 53) Dear Tom: Thank you for the opportunity to review the access related to pending redevelopment of the site at the northeast corner of 11 m Avenue and 66h Street. The city and developer can expect that the county would not allow any direct access onto 66th Street (CSAH 53) for reasons described as follows: The site, currently a single family type of residence, does not presently have direct access to 66th Street. Alternative access to 1Ph Avenue is very feasible. A new entrance, were it allowed, would be only about 110 feet from the existing driveway to an adjacent restaurant. The same new driveway would be less than 100 feet from 11ffi Avenue. The spacing on either side of a presumed new driveway is far less than desirable, especially Tor a roadway with an ADT of about 14,000. The possibility of a shared access with King Oscar's restaurant is interesting but not a real factor until the property owners agree and propose such an access. We would be willing to re- examine our position stated above if and when a shared access were proposed. Again, thank you for the up -front coordination, which best serves the general public's need for safe and efficient transportation. Sincerely, I wk 2kl Warren K. Porter, P.E. Senior Professional Engineer WKP:jrh cc: Tom Johnson ti /. __ _i t v I IIi Department orPublic Works 320 Washington Avenue South XwydkdFJM Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 -8496 612)930 -2300 FAX:(612)930 -2513 TDD:(612)930 -2696 y -l3 Attachment Parking Requirements for Day Care Facilities Community Parking Requirement Requirement Applied to Proposed Facility* 90 children Bloomington Same as office use; 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft: 17 spaces required Brooklyn Park 1 space per employee plus 1 per 7 children 25 spaces required Eden Fraine Same as office use, 6 spaces per 1,000 sq ft: 25 spaces required Edina 1 space per employee plus 1 space per 20 children 17 spaces required Minnetonka I space per 6 children 15 spaces required ........................ Richfield 1 space per 5 children 18 spaces required 20 X20 spaces being provided) St. Louis Park 5 s aces, lus 1 s ace er 5 children 23 s aces re uired The maximum number of 12 employees used to generate requirement although not all 12 employees would be scheduled at the same time. Community Parking Requirement Requirement Applied to Proposed Facility* 60 children Bloomin onia.... Same as office use, 4 spaces per 1,000 sq_ ft: 17 spaces required Brooklyn Park 1 space per employee plus 1 per 7 children ............... ............................... 21 spaces required Eden Prairie Same as office use; 6 spaces per 1,000 sq:.ft: 25 spaces required Edina 1 space per employee plus 1 space per 20 children 15 spaces requtred ......... ......... Minnetonka 1 space per 6 children 10 spaces required Richfield 1 space per 5 children 12 spaces required 20 spaces being..provided).............. St. Louis Park 5 spaces, plus 1 space per 5 children 17 spaces required The maximum number of 12 employees used to generate requirement although a 60 -child day care would not necessarily require 12 employees and not all 12 employees would be scheduled at the same time. WYATT & JACKIE LEWTS 1100 E. 66TH STREET RICHFIELD MN 55423 612/861 -6704 - March 11, 1998 Mayor Kirsch City Council Members City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave S Richfield MN 55423 Dear Mayor Kirsch & City Council Members: RECEIVED PAIR 1 6 1998 L oQ cr-p / 0 C v y° This letter is written in response to the recent Planning Commission meeting held on February 24, regarding the sale of 1100 E. 66th Street to Bernie's Montessori Daycare. We are the current owners of the proposed site and would like to make some comments regarding this project both from a p ;rsonal viewpoint as well as that of a working parent. 1. There seemed to be some confusion at the meeting about what was being decided. Our property is zoned commercial and we fully intend to sell it to a commercial developer. We are not going to sell it for residential use. The site's highest and best use is for commercial development. The City realized this and wisely zoned it commercial. The fact that every site along this point of 66th Street has been developed commercially reinforces this point. What we are deciding is not whether we put up a daycare or have it residential, but whether we put up a daycare or another commercial building. We felt that Bernie's Montessori represented the best choice for this location and we are sure that if you consider the other commercial options, you will too. At the meeting very little time and testimony was spent on the actual daycare needs of Richfield. We have been using daycare for three years and even though we are residents of Richfield we have been unable to find good daycare in Richfield. As working parents, it is not an option to be told that there is a three month waiting period as is the current state at Bernie's Montessori. We have had to travel 20 minutes out of the way to take our children to daycare as this is a service that is poorly represented in Richfield. Richfield is a city in transition. There is a large senior population in Richfield but we are under the impression that the City is trying to attract younger people to the area to keep the vitality of the city. However, in order to do this the City needs to be able to provide the amenities for a younger population and daycare is one of these amenities. While we can understand the concerns of the surrounding residents, it is our opinion that no one presented a solid reason for not building the daycare at that location. The issue of the trees is not a solid reason for declining the proposal. The issue of turning left at 66th St. -- on a very rare occasion we may have to wait up to one minute to make a left turn. However, we are sure we do not have to point out fluff issue versus real issue to you. We do not believe that the current surrounding residents understand the needs of working parents. Working parents usually do not put their children into daycare by choice -- they have to work. Therefore, it is important to have the highest standard daycare services possible available to them. Also, with the many changes in Welfare Reform that recently took effect, an increase in daycare openings is needed even more. The Montessori Daycare Association has an international reputation for offering daycare of the highest standard. For them to be able to increase their service offering to the City of Richfield is an outstanding opportunity for the residents and businesses of Richfield as well as the City of Richfield through increased revenues. I C- q -16 To: Mayor Kirsch & City Council Members From: Wyatt & Jackie Lewis March 11, 1998 Page 2 The site at 1100 East 66th Street is an excellent location for the daycare given that it is already zoned for commercial use; it is on a strip of 66th Street that is all commercially developed; and it provides easy access to Highways 77, 62, 494 and 35W. We believe that if you look at other daycare centers in surrounding cities you will see that they do not have huge parking lots and many of them look just like the plan that was presented at the meeting. They are all also on major roads. We purchased the site for its commercial zoning. When we purchased the site, it had been on the market for one year as a residential lot. That is a good indication in itself that the site needs to be developed commercially. We are therefore selling the site and believe it should be developed commercially. Having lived at the location for five years we know better than anyone that it should be developed commercially. We hope you will pass this proposal as it is an excellent opportunity for Bernie's Montessori, the residents and businesses of Richfield and the City of Richfield as a whole. Sincerely, q`f5 G1+ 6744 Wentworth Ave. S. Richfield MN 55423 February 27, 1998 Daniel Linnihan, Planning Commission Chair City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield MN 55423 Dear Dan, This letter relates to Planning Commission meeting of February 24, 1998, hearing on proposed Day Care use at 1100 East 66th Street. The Planning Commission is to be commended for their courtesy in receiving public input. The following observations came to mind after close of the public hearing. The Comprehensive Plan indicates the intent to preserve that location as residential use. It seems that the Planning Commission must rule on consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Testimony on this case gives credit to the wisdom of the Planning Commission's work on that plan. Existing zoning was raised as a concern. Rezoning of properties to their current use occurred for many properties during the past few years under your leadership. This site seems to have been missed from being rezoned to residential. Construction of a new house to the north of this property three years ago supports the need for such a zoning change. The owner - builder testified that 10 feet of his land is still zoned commercial. Risk of other commercial uses moving to that site should the Day Care ever wish to cease operation must be considered. A structure with residential appearance is needed to protect the adjoining, prime residential area. Any conditional use must insure client access from 66th Street. Thank you and the Commission for your service to Richfield. Very truly yours, Larry Wozniczka J- I ( H q Office 1996 Luger Realty CENTURION° Office, 1996 4536 France Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55410 612) 925 -3901 March 10, 1998 Mayor Kirsch City Council Members City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mayor Kirsch K. City Council Members: I am writing this letter in regards to the proposed Montessori School at 1 100 E. 66i1' Street. I have been a Realtor for the last 21 years and have serviced Richtield and surrounding communities. In addition, I was a Richfield resident for six years. A substantial portion of my real estate work is in Richfield. I have become very knowledgeable about the market. Let me describe the typical demographic profile ol'a Richfield buyer. They are young, married couples buying their first home or a very young family with one or two children. These types of buyers are the kind of individuals that Richfield needs and wants to attract. At one time Richfield was a youthful community. Now it has an aging population and a declining school enrollment. In order to grow and be a vital community into the twenty -first century, we have to encourage these young families to settle and raise their families here. submit to you that if children are the true assets of any community, then childcare is an integral component. Childcare is a national crisis. As a local issue, we see it vividly being played out in this proposal. In order to purchase a home, many young families require both parents to work in order to achieve the American dream of home ownership. Yet, Richfield lacks quality childcare. The beneficiaries of this school will not only be Richfield families who will use its facilities, but the w hole community. I submit to you that after everything is debated, the underlying question should be, is this good for Richfield? The answer in my mind is a resounding yes! We will all benefit by providing quality childcare for the children of Richfield. Why encourage young families to move into our community and then deny them quality childcare? I strongly urge and recommend that the City Fathers pass this proposal. Cc: John Melin Julie Urban Each Office Is Independently Owned And Opeuded Lf -)-7 March 11, 1998 Ms. Julie Urban Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 Ms. Julie Urban: This letter is in regards to a proposal that went before the Planning Commission on February 24, 1998, concerning preliminary building plans to construct a new day care facility at 1100 East 66h Street. We are writing in support of this proposal and urge the City of Richfield to approve and support this as well. As parents living in Richfield, we feel strongly that our children need to be provided with the best child care and education as possible. It is important that the children feel safe and secure in their environment so they grow up to be healthy adults. Our children have attended Bernie's Montessori for the last two years and have had excellent care. Due to lack of space at their present location, they need to expand and decided that the best option would be to build a new day care facility. The site chosen is close to the Richfield swimming pool, ice arena and adjacent park. What a perfect location for child care! The community of Richfield needs quality child care like Bernie's Montessori provides. Please show the children of Richfield you care by letting Bernie's build at their desired location. Sincerely, k J a"'-P VrN- Linden R Doreen Pederson 6921 Bloomington Av. S q-1,9 q-0 March 11, 1998 Ms. Julie Urban Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. So, Richfield, MN 55423 Ms. Julie Urban: This letter is in regards to a proposal that went before the Planning Commission on February 24, 1998, concerning preliminary building plans to construct a new day care facility at 1100 East 66`s Street. We are writing in support of this proposal and urge the City of Richfield to approve and support this as well. As parents living in Richfield, we feel strongly that our children need to be provided with the best child care and education as possible. It is important that the children feel safe and secure in their environment so they grow up to be healthy adults. Our children have attended Bernie's Montessori for the last two years and have had excellent care. Due to lack of space at their present location, they need to expand and decided that the best option would be to build a new day care facility. The site chosen is close to the Richfield swimming pool, ice arena and adjacent park. What a perfect location for child care! The community of Richfield needs quality child care like Bernie's Montessori provides. Please show the children of Richfield you care by letting Bernie's build at their desired location. Sincerely, Linden & Doreen Pederson 6921 Bloomington Av. S Iq y -ad Deborah R. Brekken 201 West 73 -1/2 Street Richfield, MN 55423 March 16, 1998 Ms. Julie Urban Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 SUBJ: Bernie's Montessori School Good Morning! The purpose of this letter is to offer my support to "Bernie's Montessori School" project at the new location of 1100 East 66th Street. As a Richfield resident, homeowner, and taxpayer for over 20 years, I would not hesitate to have her school in my neighborhood. Both of my children attended her school during their younger years, and because of the excellent start they received with Bernie and her staff, they have both gone on to excel and Sheridan Hills & Richfield Intermediate School. I agree that Richfield is a small community, and we should plan its' growth and change very carefully. We do not need another liquor store, tanning booth, or pawn shop. However, it's terribly sad and short- sighted to not make room for our future citizens, and to help them with their growth and education. I am hoping that the zoning commission will consider the needs of the entire community and approve the new location for Bernie's Montessori. Sincerely, = i lam Sent bj:ReENTRY HOUSE INC Mar-10-98 08:45am A Prom 6128690313*612 861 9749 page 2/ 2 4,dl, 2- 5J2=f7j- W13 C3 5 -1 Planning r'iry n March 24, 1998 Agenda Section: New Business Item #: 5 Letter #: 13 GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Request: Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow religious institutions as either permitted or conditional uses in the MR- 2 (medium density multiple residence) and other multiple family residential districts. References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts) Zoning Cod 521 City Council: The City Council has asked for a recommendation from the Planning Commission by April 13, 1998. ANALYSIS History: Last Fall, City staff were presented with a proposal to construct a religious facility at 609 West 74th Street. The property is zoned MR -2 (medium density multiple residence). Religious institutions are not listed as either a permitted or conditional use in this district, so staff informed the applicants that the proposed facility would not be permitted at that location. The applicants appealed staff's determination to the City Council. The City Council determined that it may have been an oversight to not list religious institutions as either a permitted or conditional use in multiple family districts. They asked the Planning Commission to review the issues and consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. 5a Prior to the revision of the Zoning Ordinance in 1995, uses in the City's zoning districts were cumulative. For example, multiple family districts listed specific permitted and conditional uses, along with the language, "and those uses permitted in the R district ". The Zoning Ordinance revision removed this language, and the Ordinance now specifically lists the permitted and conditional uses in each district. Existing churches and schools are all located in either the R (single family residential) or C -2 (general commercial) districts, so institutional uses, such as churches and schools, may have been omitted from the multiple family districts because it seemed unlikely that these areas would be needed by institutional uses. These uses may also have been consciously omitted from multiple family districts in order to preserve these districts for housing. Issues: 1. Attachment A indicates how religious institutions are treated in multiple family districts in other communities. Some communities treat them as conditional uses, others treat them as permitted uses. 2. Attachment B indicates how religious institutions are treated in the different zoning districts in Richfield. 3. Cities cannot regulate religious institutions so as to promote a religion or to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Cities do have the authority to regulate religious institutions on the basis of land use and the impacts such a land use might have on other land uses. The regulations must be neutral and be applicable to land uses, in general (e.g. setbacks, lot size). Proposal: Institutional uses, such as churches and schools, can have an impact on residential uses because of their size and the amount of traffic generated. These types of institutional uses also provide services to residents and are appropriately located near residential areas. It may be appropriate to allow institutional uses, such as schools and churches, in multiple family zoning districts. Because of the potential impact these uses can have on residential uses, these uses should be conditional. As conditional uses, the City can place appropriate conditions on a proposed institutional use to minimize the potential impact on the neighborhood. Special Conditions: A condition that staff would recommend is that these institutional uses be located on a collector or arterial street or provide an access such that significant traffic is not generated on local residential streets see St. Louis Park requirement for churches). The applicant would have the burden to show that significant traffic would not be generated on local residential streets. Zoning Regulations: In the MR -1 district, the same standards that apply to non - residential uses in the R district should be used for churches and schools. In the MR -2 and MR -3 districts, staff would recommend that the same standards that apply to all uses be applied to institutional uses. Attachment C indicates the standards currently applied to churches and schools as well as proposed standards for multiple family districts. s -1 S -3 ACTION TO BE TAKEN Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow religious institutions and schools as conditional uses in the MR -1, MR -2 and MR -3 zoning districts with the condition that the institutional use be located on a collector or arterial street or with an access placement such that the applicant can demonstrate that significant traffic will not be generated on local residential streets. Basis: 1. Other communities permit churches and other institutional uses as permitted or conditional uses in all multiple family districts. 2. The City Council requested that the Planning Commission consider the addition of religious institutions to the MR -2 district. 3. It is appropriate to place conditions on institutional uses because of the potential impact on adjacent residential uses. Alternative: 1. Recommend that the City Council amend the zoning ordinance to allow religious institutions in the MR -1, MR -2, and MR -3 districts as a conditional use with the condition that the religious use be located on a collector or arterial street or with an access placement such that the applicant can demonstrate that significant traffic will not be generated on local residential streets. 2. Recommend that the City Council amend the zoning ordinance to allow religious institutions in the MR -1, MR -2 and MR -3 districts as a permitted use. 3. Recommend that the City Council amend the zoning ordinance to allow religious institutions and schools in the MR -1, MR -2 and MR- 3 districts as permitted uses. 4. Recommend that the City Council not amend the zoning ordinance to allow religious institutions and schools in the MR -2 and other multiple family residence districts. 5-9 `1 CITATIONS ZONING CODE: 521.59. Multi - Family Residential District (MR -2). Subdivision 1. Subsections 521.59 to 521.77 apply to the MR -2 District. Subd. 2. Purposes. The purposes of the MR -2 District are to: a) reserve appropriately located areas for multi - family dwellings; b) preserve as many as possible of the desirable characteristics of the single family district while permitting higher population densities; c) provide opportunities for infill cluster housing development and allow greater intensities and wider varieties in the types of housing available to City residents; Added, Bill No. 1996 -22) d) ensure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling unit; e) minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of buildings of excessive size (or density) in relation to the surrounding land, buildings, or infrastructure; f) provide adequate space for off - street parking and loading; and g) protect residential properties from noise, illumination, unsightliness, odors, dust, dirt, smoke, fire, vibration, heat, glare, and other objectionable or hazardous influences. 521.61. Permitted uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are permitted uses in the MR -2 District. Subd. 2. Multi - family dwellings (excluding cluster home developments) with eight or fewer units. Amended, Bill No. 1996 -22) Subd. 3. Licensed residential care facilities or community based residential care facilities with eight of fewer units, provided such facilities serving more than six persons are not located within 1/4 mile of another such facility. Care facilities located in the MR -2 District shall be subject to the same zoning regulations as multi - family dwellings in the MR -2 District. Added, Bill No. 1998 -1) Subd. 4. Minor public utilities. 521.63. Accessory uses. Subdivision 1. The uses permitted in this subsection are allowable accessory uses in the MR -2 District. Subd. 2. Parking, as authorized by a Council approved off - street parking permit. Subd. 3. Garages for any residential structure, provided they are located in a common building or space approved by the City under a uniform plan. 5 -5 Subd. 4. Swimming pools subject to Section 420 of the City Code, tennis courts, and similar recreational facilities. Subd. 5. Storage buildings designed for use by the maintenance staff for storage or as a workshop associated with normal upkeep of the property. Subd. 6. Licensed family day care homes serving three or fewer persons, or group family day care facilities licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 serving six or fewer persons, or as otherwise permitted by law. Subd. 7. Licensed foster family homes serving three or fewer children, or as otherwise permitted by law. Subd. 8. Satellite dish antennas and other antennas and towers that are incidental to the principal use on the premises, provided that they conform to Section 425 of the City Code and meet the following additional requirements: a) if more than one such structure is proposed, they shall be clustered in a single grouped location where possible; b) no advertising message shall be on the antenna structure; c) such structures shall be screened to the greatest extent practicable to minimize visual impacts on surrounding properties. Screening shall include landscape materials for ground mounted antenna structures, and materials compatible with those utilized on the exterior of the building for roof mounted antenna structures. Screening plans shall be approved by the Director; and d) such roof - mounted structures shall not extend higher than ten feet above the highest point of the roof, except as provided for in Section 521.65, Subd. 6 of this code. Subd. 9. Home occupations which arc operated in accordance with Section 511.21 of this code. Subd. 10. Fences, walls, and hedges as permitted in Section 511.23 of this code. Subd. 11. Other uses customarily associated with, but incidental to the principal use, as determined by the City pursuant to Section 511.05 of this code. 521.65. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the MR -2 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code. Subd. 2. Multi- family dwellings with nine to 25 units. Subd. 3. Cluster home developments, provided that the following conditions are met: a) the design of the development shall be in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of building materials, architectural design, scale and mass of the structure, or other similar urban design characteristics; b) the number and location of driveways and curb cuts shall minimize conflict with vehicular traffic and should not adversely impact adjacent land uses; c) the density of the development shall not exceed the density recommended in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Added, Bill No. 1996 -22) 5_ Subd. 4. Licensed residential care facilities or community based residential care facilities with nine to 25 units, provided they are not located within 114 mile of another such facility. Care facilities located within the MR -2 District shall be subject to the same zoning regulations as multi- family dwellings in the R -1 District. (Amended, Bill No. 1998 -1) Subd. 5. Accessory day care facilities serving more than three persons licensed by the appropriate governmental authorities, or accessory group family day care facilities licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 serving more than six persons, or as otherwise permitted by law, provided such facilities are located in common areas of multi - family buildings and the following conditions are met: a) designated pick -up and drop -off areas shall be located on the site; and b) outdoor play areas shall be set back at least 15 feet from all lot lines and buffering shall be provided to mitigate noise and adverse visual impacts on neighboring properties. Subd. 6. Accessory foster family homes licensed by the appropriate governmental authorities serving more than three children, or as otherwise permitted by law. Subd. 7. Accessory roof - mounted antennas which extend higher than ten feet above the highest point of the roof. Subd. 8. Major public utilities. Subd. 9. Other uses similar to those conditionally permitted by this section, as determined by the City pursuant to Section 511.05 of this code. J —( cj O s V L El v rn A s w c a V1 C r.+ r.i Ir Q L 5-71 y' cn ib C OOC' 0 p• ar y O Lr rr f+ : c N i U Ui O U rA f O cd Ufi cy U y Y o 00 w a as 'z CL U U c: U: U ci c y yU cd Oi Oi. z E O: O Z: z Aprr rte V UctOZ,:U N : 0: U: ; U UU; Ui Ui i Ui N:w W5 p C r: C"i•rn: ci yi•rHi UE Ui ad Ui Uf O i y: y: y vfi Oi OE y: CA: yi y: G co: i cC i Ui U: M i 03 i U UCi u M+? H Ei Ei E: Ci CCi co; coico: m: cn: G v r L h O G U: Ui U O CC U: y: y: U 3 cis: cis v-v' UlU:c_ i0i0i0 U i...: r: r p; p i UUU a c O: CO co 0: -4ix: is OQ F+ : i.: t" y Ei:1 U: Ui O i O O V U Oi y:'O i C1 C' Ep Di 0 5-71 5-9 s - Attachment B Allowable Zoning Districts for Religious Institutions Zoning District Treatment of Institutional Uses Special Conditions/Requirements R Conditional use 1 acre minimum lot size I.......................... R -I ... ............................... Not permitted MR -I Not permitted MR -2 Not permitted MR-3 Not permitted C -I ..... ............................... Not permitted .............................................................................................................................. C -2 Permitted use .. ............................... same re uirements as other C -2 uses C -3 Transitional Activity (time limit) same requirements as other transitional activities in C -3 ............................... I Permitted use same requirements as other I uses 1 c d% s u C m rA C 0 C 0 a L L, C bD C N a 0 d L W s 3 O c M O a :r O U N c 0 U C 0 U b 6J L 6J a N w Ld CL CC C O lir "O O O v 5-11 tn :: icq icq rr Q ON o O Oi L N : ct7 iiQ dU•= Y i.t bq•= w iQr'E'i H U O O? O. O D U to OE Qom: 3 3 n o M M y ZiOMi+ BEd•"' "O Een:m b OpiNU V n 0'•0;0;0 iO OEN NEB: Go L OEpE O O z y tn:OEOEgn kr) N OEO N EM; in C). Q O: 61 W) O `• to : O n:C):rn V yE O EN kn : O Ecq: OiO o; Q a; O: O E 0 i 0 i 0 E O E N N:OE M iM EME G O L C); O O O O: z x cl E CC E cr R yE rA Lo): w C L Ci v: a: CC U E dE Y! O: OE Of LE 6 a i Qtr E'C i'fl? e i Viir i r E . •'. C/ 5-11 l.0 -1 Planning Commission Letter March 24, 1998 Agenda Section: New Business Item #: 6 Letter #: 14 GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Request: Ratification of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to stormwater management policies Applicant /Owner: City of Richfield References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts) Zoning Code: 526.43 and 541.19 Public Notice: Not applicable. City Council: The City Council approved the amendment on January 26, 1998. ANALYSIS Proposal: To obtain compliance with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements, portions of the Zoning Ordinance must include certain languague. The language relates to stormwater management, drainage and erosion control, required approvals, and exceptions. History: This item was taken to the City Council for consideration by the Public Works Department. Public Works was unaware that all amendments to the Zoning Ordinance require review by the Planning Commission. The City Attorney has recommended that the Planning Commission review the amendment and either ratify it, as approved, or return it to the City Council for reconsideration. ACTION TO BE TAKEN Recommendation: Ratify the amendment to sections 526.43 and 541.19 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to stormwater management. Basis: 1. The proposed amendments are necessary to be in compliance with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements. 2. The proposed amendments are in keeping with City practicies and procedures. 3. It was an oversight that the proposed amendment was not brought before the Commission before it was approved by the City Council. Alternative: Reject the amendment and request that the City Council reconsider the amendment. BILL NO. 1998 -2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 835.03, SUBDMSION 2; 835.05; AND 720.19 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD; AND AMENDING SECTIONS 526.43 AND 541.19 OF THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 835, Bodies of Water, Subsection 835.03 entitled Definitions, Subd. 2 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 2. "Bodies of water" means Richfield Lake, Wood Lake, Legion Lake, Mother's Lake, and all other lakes, streams, ponds, wetlands, marshes, water courses, and bodies of water situated in whole or in part within the city, and any lands immediately adjacent to or abutting the bodies of water, including the 100 -year flood plain of the bodies of water. Section 835, Bodies of Water, Subsection 835.05 entitled General Rule, Subd. 2 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 2. Exceptions. This section does not apply to the following: a) the placing of any obstruction as part of a planned development which has been authorized in accordance with this code, provided such obstruction is not inconsistent with the city's comprehensive surface water management plan or has received a variance from appropriate water management organization as necessary; b) an obstruction made in accordance with a permit issued by the department of natural resources of the state of Minnesota for the dredging, excavation, or lake level or shore line change of a body of water provided such obstruction is not inconsistent with the city's comprehensive surface water management plan or has received a variance from the appropriate water management organization as necessary; or c) an obstruction in which the 100 -vicar flood plain storage volume lost is compensated for within the same 100 -year flood plain by expanding the existing 100 -year flood plain volume in another location; or e) J41 an obstruction placed pursuant to a variance granted in the case of unique hardship to property by the Council acting as the board of adjustments and appeals pursuant to the zoning code, provided such obstruction is not inconsistent with the city's comprehensive surface .%alcr management plan or has received a variance from the appropriate water management organization as nccessiiry. Section 720, Storm Sewer System, Subsection 720.19 entitled Drainage and erosion control, Subdivision 1 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield is hereby amended to read as follows: y Bill No. 1998 -2 -2- Subdivision 1. Drainage plan, In the development, improvement or alteration of land, the direction, quantity or quality of drainage shall not be changed unless plans for the development are submitted to the city engineer, and are found to be in compliance with the city's comprehensive surface water management plan or have received a variance from the appropriate water management organization as necessary. Run -off shall be properly channeled into a storm drain, watercourse, ponding area or other public facility. Secuon 526; Zoning. Commercial Districts, Subsection 526.43 entitled Site Plan Approval, Subd. 2 of the ittcli.field Zomng:Code is hereby amended to read as follows:' Subd 2. ApprovaC required. It shall be unlawful to do any of the following.within_lhe C -3 District wit bout first obtaining site plan approval a) construct. a.building; - b) move a building to any lot; . c)::. expand or. change the use of a building or lot or modify a building;: accessory structure -:or: site or land' feature in any manner which results in a different intensity. `of use,: including the requirement for additional parking, d) grade or take other actions to prepare a lot for developmencexcept in conformance with a'permit or an approved plan which complies with the city's comprehensive surface water management plan or has received a variance from the appropriate water manaaement organization as necessary; or e) remove earth, soils, gravel, or other natural material from or.place the same on a.lot, except in conformance with a permit or an approved plan which complies with the city's comprehensive surface water management plan or has received a variance from the appropriate water mans ement organization as necessary, Section 541, Zoning: Performance Standards, Subsection 541.19 entitled Stormwater Management of the Richfield Zoning Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 541.19. Storm water management. All new and modified developments shall comply—_te4he-emew pfaetieahle, with the City's comprehensive surface eater sler+iwateF management plan as administered through the City Enginm.'S ^m^° office of the Director of Public Works or receive a variance from the appropriate water management organization as necessary. Passed by the City Council of the City, of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of January, 1998, Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 7 -! Planning Commission Letter March 24, 1998 Agenda Section: Old Business Item #: 7 Letter #: 15 GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Request: Annual review of Planning Commission Bylaws References: (see attached) Bylaws: aws: ANALYSIS Proposal: The Planning Commission considered an amendment to the bylaws at its February 24, 1998 meeting. The amendment relates to voting and clarifies the number of affirmative votes needed to approve an item. With the amendment, a majority of members is required to pass an item unless there are just five members present, in which case, a super majority (four members) would be needed to pass a motion. Voting Scenarios: Members Present Votes Needed to Pass an Item 9 5 8 5 7 4 6 4 5 4 (super majority) Fewer than 5 members cannot take action on an item Issues: When the Planning Commission reviews planning applications, it is making a recommendation to the City Council. Regardless of whether or not the Commission recommends for or against a planning application, the application goes before the City Council for a vote. The staff report to the City Council lists the Planning Commission vote. Approval of an amendment to the by -laws requires a two- thirds majority vote. q -a ACTION TO BE TAKEN Recommendation: Approve the following amendment to Section 6, Part I of the Planning Commission by -laws regarding voting: At all meetings of the Planning Commission, each member attending shall be entitled to cast one vote. Voting shall be by voice, and a An affirmative vote of a majority of members present or four members - present, whichever is greater shall be necessary for the passage of any matter before the Planning Commission, except as otherwise provided in these Bylaws. Basis: 1. Annual review of the Bylaws is required by the Planning Commission Bylaws. 2. Section 6, Part I contains ambiguous language relating to voting and should be amended to clarify the number of votes needed to approve an item. Alternative: Recommend no changes to the By -laws. 7 -a