05-26-1998J
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
May 26, 1998
7:00 p.m.
Roll Call
Approval of Minutes
Regular Planning Commission meeting of April 28, 1998. Planning Commission study
session of May 12, 1998.
Public Hearing
ITEM #1 98 -CUP -6 609 West 74th Street
Minneapolis Meeting Rooms, Inc.
Conditional use permit to allow construction of a 1,350
square foot religious facility
ITEM #2 PC Letter #27 Airport Mitigation Proposal
Consideration of adoption of the Airport Mitigation
Proposal
New Business
ITEM # PC Letter #28 Finding of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Gramercy Tax Increment Financing Plan
Old Business
Liaison Reports
School Board
Community Services Advisory Commission
H RA
City Council
Adi ournment
Planning Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting
April 28, 1998
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Terry Ahlstrom,
Brenda Bjorklund, Pamela Dmytrenko, David Gepner, Roger
Gordon, Mitchell Hadley and Ken Meter.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Kilian
COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director
Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
Brian S. Mehl, Community Development Technician
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:05 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Hadley, S /Dmytrenko to anorove the amended minutes of the regular Planning
Commission meeting of March 24, 1998.
Motion carried: 8 -0
M/Hadley, S/Dmytrenko to approve the amended minutes of the Planning Commission
study session of April 14, 1998.
Motion carried: 8 -0
OLD BUSINESS
PC Letter #23
ITEM 91 Approval of 2000 -2004 Capital Improvement Program;
Finding of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan for
1999 Capital Improvement Budget and 2000 -2004
Capital Improvement Program
April 28, 1998
Page 2
Administrative Services Director Steve Devich briefly reviewed the changes to the
Capital Improvement Program and Capital Improvement Budget, including an internal fund loan
of $500,000 for the second ice sheet at the Ice Arena.
Mr. Devich responded to questions from the Commission, affirming that the budget was
written with the presupposition that Rich Acres Golf Course would be open during the 1999
season. He further stated that the relocation of the traffic signal located at 78th and Penn is based
upon potential redevelopment of the Interchange West area. Responding to Commissioner
Meter, Mr. Devich stated that alternate funding sources for the proposed multi -use recreation
facility may come from park replacement funds or from bonding.
MBjorklund, S /Gordon to recommend approval of the 2000 -2004 Capital Improvement
Program (CIP).
Motion carried: 8 -0
M/Bjorklund, S/Dmytrenko to adopt a resolution finding that the 1999 Capital
Improvement Budget and 2000 -2004 Capital Improvement Plan are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Motion carried: 8 -0
PC Letter 924
ITEM #2 Airport Mitigation Strategy Update
Vivian Hart, Community Organizer, provided a summary of the airport mitigation
community meetings and distributed a binder detailing the comments that were made at each
meeting. She stated that 50+ residents had formed a team called CARE (Caring Citizens
Concerned About Richfield's Environment) who drafted a letter to their neighbors urging them
to get involved with the mitigation. Ms. Hart responded to questions from the Commission,
stating that MAC had not released a copy of the Environmental Impact Statement and had been
given information regarding the community meetings. She added that MAC was formally
invited to the Open House, but couldn't attend. The MAC Planning and Environment
Committee had agreed to hold a special meeting with Richfield residents. Ms. Hart affirmed that
a date had not yet been set for that meeting.
Commissioner Dmytrenko stated that the school board was reviewing the mitigation
strategy and that a presentation was given to local high school students regarding the issue.
PC Letter #25
ITEM #3 Amendment to Section 511 of the Zoning Ordinance
relating to the expansion of nonconforming structures
April 28, 1998
Page 3
Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, stating that in the past,
nonconforming structures had to obtain variances in order to make additions that were in line
with existing structures. She further stated that this made it difficult to expand some buildings
because the addition would be out of line with the existing structure. Ms. Urban further reviewed
the proposed amendment, stating that it would make it possible for nonconforming uses to
expand, provided that the addition met several provisions.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Bjorklund, Ms. Urban stated that
commercial properties would be excluded from the amendment.
M /Gepner, S/Hadley to recommend that the City Council amend Section 511 of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow an expansion of nonconforming structures under certain conditions.
Motion carried: 8 -0
PC Letter #26
ITEM #4 Amendment to Section 521 of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow covered porches as an exception to residential
front yard setback requirements
Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, stating that the Planning
Commission had previously considered an ordinance amendment allowing reductions in the
residential front setback requirement, although the Commission suggested that the reduction be
limited to front porches. Ms. Urban stated that the proposed amendment would affect the R, R -1
and MR -1 zoning districts, allowing property owners to add a front porch closer than 30 feet to
the front property line. She further reviewed the provisions included in the amendment.
Commissioner Meter stated that porches shouldn't be limited to one story.
Commissioner Hadley agreed, stating that the provision requiring the Community Development
Director to approve of any plan would keep inappropriate second story porches from being
constructed.
M /Hadley, S/Linnihan to recommend that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance
to allow front porch additions as permissible front and street -side setback reductions in the R, R-
1 and MR -1 districts.
Motion carried: 8 -0
LIAISON REPORTS
School Board: Commissioner Dmytrenko stated that information had been sent to
parents regarding the proposed reconfiguration of the schools in the Richfield School District.
April 28, 1998
Page 4
Community Services Advisory Commission: Commissioner Ahlstrom stated that the
Commission had reviewed the fees, hours of operation and usage of the swimming pool for the
1998 season.
HRA: Mayor Kirsch stated that the HRA reviewed several development plans for the
Holy Angels block and the 6400 through 6600 blocks of Emerson Avenue. He briefly described
several of the proposals.
City Council: Mayor Kirsch stated that the Council reviewed ordinances regarding
transient merchants and parking lots. He further stated that the state legislature had approved
giving $2 million to the City for ballfield replacement.
Maintenance Facility: Commissioner Gepner stated that the task force toured the
present maintenance facility.
66th Street Bridge Reconstruction: Commissioner Gepner stated that MnDOT had
been contacted about putting more architectural quality into the bridge and noise walls. He
further stated that MnDOT staff struggled with doing things differently than the standard
MnDOT construction.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:50 p.m.
Mitchell Hadley
Planning Commission Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
Study Session
May 12, 1998
0
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Terry Ahlstrom,
Pamela Dmytrenko, David Gepner, Roger Gordon, Mitchell
Hadley, Bill Kilian and Ken Meter.
MEMBERS ABSENT
COUNCIL LIAISON
Brenda Bjorklund
Martin Kirsch, Mayor
STAFF PRESENT: 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 7:05 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
PC Letter 926
ITEM #1 Airport Mitigation Strategy
Review public comments and discuss potential
changes to redevelopment concept
Don Brauer, airport consultant, reviewed comments made by Steve Pflaum, Attorney at
Law, in addition to concerns expressed by Richfield residents during the previously held public
meetings. He stated that he had strengthened the language regarding incentives to attract
families with school -aged children and added that the largest concern among residents was the
uncertainty of the mitigation strategy.
The Planning Commission stated concerns with the following items in the Mitigation
Concept:
Item 1.2 j -- Chairperson Linnihan asked if it was legal and/or possible to annex
MAC property adjacent to Taft Park and the City of Richfield;
Item 1.2 j -- Chairperson Linnihan requested stronger language stating that the City
is not surrendering land to MAC;
May 12, 1998
Page 2
Item 1.3.6 P -- Chairperson Linnihan requested additional language requiring that
aircraft be towed from the cargo bays to the runway, thereby diminishing light
emissions and engine runnings near the community;
Item 1.4.12 W -- Chairperson Linnihan requested additional language stating that
infrastructure be in place before construction occurs;
Items 1.4.10 T and 1.5.3 -- Chairperson Linnihan requested additional language
stating that a process for receiving and responding to on -going complaints be in
place for the time after construction is complete and the additional runway is
operational;
Item 5.6 -- Chairperson Linnihan requested stronger language, specifically
requesting that a change order would have to be followed in such cases that
substantial changes were made to the development plan;
Item 1.4.10 T -- Commissioner Meter requested that language be added regarding
the replacement of the 35 Richfield businesses and that attempts be made to relocate
those businesses within the city;
Item 1.4.10 T -- Commissioner Meter requested language requiring incentives to
attract families without children, similar to those incentives for families with
children;
Item 1.2 f -- Commissioner Meter stated that there may be a conflict regarding the
proposed widening of Nicollet Avenue and the City's preliminary proposal to
reduce Nicollet Avenue to three lanes; and
Item 1.3.2 C -- Commissioner Meter requested that language be added referencing
the mature trees that will be lost due to redevelopment of neighborhoods.
Responding to questions from the Commission, Mr. Brauer stated that if the golf course
were moved to the Fort Snelling site, the City may have to operate under three separate leases.
He further stated that the replacement of the archery facilities and the community gardens is
referenced under Item 1.4.9 R.
Commissioner Kilian stated that in his communications with residents along
Bloomington Avenue, several residents stated that they would like the avenue to become a
residential -type street rather than a collector street as it has been in the past. Commissioner
Meter questioned the possibility of lowering the grade of TH77 in order to lessen the impact of
vehicular noise on the surrounding area. Commissioner Kilian requested that language be added
to the mitigation proposal stating that all monies should be relative to 1998 dollars.
Commissioner Bjorklund's previously submitted comments were read aloud, stating that the
overall proposal was too conservative and didn't address current noise levels, odor - related
impacts or air cargo noise.
William Gillick, 7638 Bloomington Avenue, questioned why high density buildings
would be located in Washington Park. Mr. Brauer stated that the concept was to build
Edinborough -type buildings in the park and to replace the park land at a different location in the
City.
May 12, 1998
Page 3
Discussion ensued regarding the current traffic on Cedar Avenue and 66th Street due to
redevelopment occurring on MAC property. Mayor Kirsch requested that staff check to see if
there are ordinances regarding 24 -hour operations.
Scott Freeman, 6212 Bloomington Avenue, stated that the residents on the 6200 and 6300
blocks of Bloomington Avenue would not be protected from aircraft noise due to the location of
Taft Park. He stated that the mitigation proposal doesn't mention sound abatement in that area
because large buildings wouldn't be able to be constructed in that area of town. He further
requested that the vacant apartment buildings located in New Ford Town be razed as soon as
possible.
Discussion followed regarding the meeting between MAC and Richfield residents that
would occur on the evening of May 13, 1998.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:05 p.m.
David Gepner
Acting Planning Commission Secretary
Planning 1 1
CIT1' 01-
RICHFIELD May 26, 1998
Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Item #: I
Case #: 98 -CUP -6
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Conditional use permit to allow construction of a 1,350 square foot
religious facility
Applicant/Owner: Minneapolis Meeting Rooms, Inc.
Location: 609 West 74th Street
Zoning: MR -2 (medium density multiple)
Existing Land Use: Single family residential
Proposed Land Use: Quasi - public
Comp. Plan: Multiple family housing
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: 521.65 and 521.72; 546.05, Subds. 4 and 6 [CUPs]
Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing
was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 350 feet of
the subject property.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing
date of June 22, 1998.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: Minneapolis Meeting Rooms, Inc. is proposing to construct a 1,350 square
foot facility to serve as a meeting room for religious purposes. The property is
currently occupied by a single family house and garage; these structures would
be removed.
Twenty -one parking spaces would be provided on site, which would allow for
a maximum seating capacity of 52 people. The parking would be screened
from the residentially -zoned property to the east with a fence.
Landscaping would be provided in accordance with the City's landscape
requirements. A large maple tree on the west side of the property would
remain.
f -
History: Last Fall, Minneapolis Meeting Rooms presented a proposal to construct a
religious facility at 609 West 74th Street (zoned MR -2) to City staff. Staff
informed the group that religious institutions were not allowable uses in the
MR -2 district. Minneapolis Meeting Rooms appealed that determination to the
City Council. The City Council was unable to find that religious institutions
were allowable uses in the MR -2 zoning district, under the current Zoning
Ordinance, but the Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to
consider amending the ordinance to allow institutional uses in multiple family
zoning districts.
On March 24, 1998 and April 14, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed
and approved an ordinance amendment to allow religious institutions as
conditional uses in multiple family housing districts. The City Council is
holding second reading of that amendment on May 26, 1998. If the
amendment is approved, the ordinance would become effective on July 3,
1998.
Issues: 1. Use of the Facility: The facility is expected to be used three days a week in
the morning and /or evening hours. The building is accessory to a main
church facility located in Minneapolis.
2. Traffic Impacts: The ordinance amendment being considered by the City
Council would require that property to be used for institutional uses be
located on a collector or arterial street or be located such that significant
additional traffic would not be generated on residential streets. The subject
property is not located on a collector or arterial street, however, the
driveway is approximately 180 feet from Lyndale Avenue, which is an
arterial. Given the small size of the facility and the close proximity to
Lyndale Avenue, it is unlikely that significant traffic will spill over into the
residential streets.
3. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan refers to the Lyndale
Avenue Redevelopment Plan for this area. The Lyndale Avenue
Redevelopment Plan designates this parcel, along with property to the
south and west, for multiple family housing. With the adoption of the
proposed ordinance amendment, a religious institution would be considered
an appropriate use in a multiple-family housing area.
i __
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a conditional
use permit at 609 West 74th Street with the following stipulations:
1. That an ordinance amendment be approved to allow religious
institutions as conditional uses in the MR -2 zoning district.
2. That the conditional use permit not be valid until the ordinance
amendment becomes effective.
3. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the Public
Works Director.
4. That a stormwater management plan be approved by the Public
Works Director.
5. That a landscape escrow be submitted for the cost of the
landscaping.
Basis: 1. The proposed parking lot and site plan meet City standards.
2. Screening is provided between the parking lot and the adjacent two -
family residence district.
3. The proposed landscaping meets City standards.
4. The size of the facility, the property's proximity to an arterial street,
and the limited hours of operation make it unlikely that significant
traffic will be created in the adjacent residential neighborhood.
5. The proposed use is not consistent with the multiple family housing
designation found in the Lyndale Avenue Redevelopment Plan;
however, religious institutions are appropriate uses to be located
near residential areas.
6. If the ordinance amendment is approved by the City Council, the
proposed use could be considered consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
7. The City Council requested that staff begin processing the
applicants' conditional use permit in a timely manner, doing so
before the ordinance becomes effective, if possible.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a conditional use
permit at 609 West 74th Street with a finding of fact that the proposed
use would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties or the City
as a whole.
1 -3
CITATIONS
ZONING CODE:
Proposed ordinance amendment to the MR -2 zoning district provisions:
Section 6.' Subsection 521.65 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is amended by
adding the following new subdivisions:
Subd. 7. Public or private elementary and high schools, and other similar learning
institutions, provided the following conditions are met:
a) the use site shall abut a collector or arterial street or be located such that
significant traffic will not be generated on local residential streets,
b) pick -up and drop -off areas shall be designed to enhance vehicular and
pedestrian safety;
c) outdoor recreational facilities designed for group activities shall be set back at
least 40 feet from any lot line,
d) buffering shall be provided to mitigate noise and adverse visual impacts on
adjacent properties, and
e lighted playing fields shall be permitted only upon demonstration that off -site
impacts can be substantially mitigated.
Subd. 8. Religious institutions and related convents or parsonages_ provided the
following conditions are met:
a) the use site shall abut a collector or arterial street or be located such that
significant traffic will not be generated on local residential streets,
b) outdoor facilities designed for group activities shall be set back at least 40 feet
from any lot line; and
c) buffering shall be provided to mitigate noise and adverse visual impacts on
adjacent properties.
Subd. 9. Licensed day care facilities, provided the following conditions are met:
a) the use site shall abut a collector or arterial street or be located such that
significant traffic will not be generated on local residential streets,
b designated pick -up and drop -off areas shall be located on the site, and
c) outdoor play areas shall be set back at least 15 feet from any lot line which
abuts a residential parcel.
I—q
Section 7. Subsection 521.65, subdivisions 7, 8 and 9 of Appendix B to the Richfield City
Code are renumbered as follows:
Subd. -710. Accessory roof - mounted antennas which extend higher than ten feet above
the highest point of the roof.
Subd. 811. Major public utilities.
Subd. 912. Other uses similar to those conditionally permitted by this section, as
determined by the City pursuant to Section 511.05 of this code.
Section 8. Section 521 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is amended by adding
the following new subsection:
521.72. Minimum lot size, setback and height requirements for non - residential uses. Subdivision
1. Standards. The standards set out in this subsection apply to non - residential uses in the MR -2
District.
Subd. 2. Minimum lot size: 15,000 square feet.
Subd. 3. Minimum lot width: 75 feet.
Subd. 4. Maximum building height: 35 feet.
Subd. 5. Maximum lot coverage (principal structure); 30 percent.
Subd. 6. Minimum setback requirements:
a) Front: 30 feet.
b) Side:
i) interior: 20 feet
ii) streetside: 30 feet
c) Rear: 25 feet.
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:
6
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.
Q
z
F
I w I
U]
I
b.
I
I
I
i fA
i
i
o
M
S
9-6 b .
a
I !
Isla $
I I
p I i
I i
I
I ,
I
6 3U.0 /1 MI 711 A 7f1 lSY•%,
g ]%
r— oli
V1 Q # IF
Z
3
o0' =
o
y .e
95
E
N
b
In"
I'll
1 '
511
N'
O
N
F J N
r
z to
4. K A /1•S 7Q D /1 AN 7Q 10
Z 171OY 0 W1gN Al D 0/1 UM 39 D 7f1 Kh
9ZWl
i fA
i
i
o
M
S
9-6 b .
a
I !
Isla $
I I
p I i
I i
I
I ,
I
6 3U.0 /1 MI 711 A 7f1 lSY•%,
g ]%
r— oli
V1 Q # IF
Z
3
o0' =
o
y .e
95
E
N
b
In"
I'll
1 '
511
N'
O
N
i -9
rt A
aUUll p1Ap — -
O+] swoon a uaaw snodw3N
S • !
vc'sc
l.a .a_4 OL• .Vll
C
x
S i
Y
C
A _- _
S _
Y
e a • • a 7THF
I
A
w
0 9
9
F
I
dl
tit! a
I 35
9L'SE1
iauun
W
W
KI
rl
W
K
4;
33 p,
W W
a~i Ci
u
U
r
u
C
i
W
Vi W
OFz
y
r, ¢ W $.
OU smoo" ONU331V Sf70e
4H
O
1)
h
Lu
W
n%
u WWV'
ov
ozjWpWW
U
C
f
V
5
7
Y
IF
lit
III-Ikll till
LU
lit
LU
lit
La
fl-i
anI
I
iii
tL
71
L4
5
nK
I-ILI
0
0
0 z
X
z
0
LAJ
UJI
N
O
W
z
3
z
Planning Commission Letter
swum aF
RICHFIELD May 26, 1998
Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Item #: 2
Letter #: 27
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the "Mitigation
Proposal for the Impacts to Richfield Stakeholders resulting from
Development and Operation of a New North -South Runway (17/35)"
Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration was published in
the Sun - Current.
City Council: The City Council will review the Mitigation Proposal at a study
session on June 1 and take action on the Proposal on June 8, 1998.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: The attached report contains the City of Richfield's concept for mitigating the
impacts that would be produced by the proposed north -south runway at
Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Richfield believes that the
proposed runway project will have significant and disproportionate noise
impacts on the Richfield community. The proposed runway project must
include a comprehensive mitigation plan that reduces negative impacts on the
Richfield community to the fullest extent possible.
The report includes the following components:
Overview and Executive Summary
Identification of stakeholders and the impact on each from the runway
Definition of -the impacts caused by the runway
Mitigation proposals to address the impacts
Implementation
The Proposal includes the following elements:
redevelop the portion of Richfield subjected to significant noise impacts
from the new runway by replacing residential land with compatible
development and minimizing the loss of population through replacement of
higher densities of housing;
a -
provide sound insulation for homes in impact and transition areas that
would not be redeveloped;
reduce social impacts on schools, residents and businesses by use of
incentive programs to retain existing residents and businesses and attract
families with children to the redeveloped community,
replace parks and related facilities being removed for the runway;
provide for transportation and transit improvements;
construct a 200 -foot wide greenbelt along TH77;
mitigate increased freeway traffic noise;
protect groundwater quality;
annex MAC ,property in Taft Park and not allow MAC to acquire any more
Richfield property;
mitigate construction impacts; and
provide full funding for the redevelopment project and compensate the City
and the School District for lost revenues.
If the Council approves the Mitigation Proposal, it is likely that they will ask
the Planning Commission to consider a formal amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan incorporating the Mitigation Proposal.
Issues: Community meetings: Several community meetings were held in April to
inform residents and property owners about the Mitigation Proposal and to
solicit feedback regarding the redevelopment aspect.
Many of the comments and concerns have been addressed through stronger and
clearer language in the Proposal. Others concerns have to do with the detail or
lack of detail in the Proposal. The concerns about details need to be addressed
through ongoing communication with residents.
The concerns and feedback on the Mitigation Proposal can be summarized as
follows:
SUPPORTED ASPECTS:
commercial development
bringing in more families with children
proactive, aggressive response to issue
upgrading the community (e.g. along Cedar Avenue)
trying to insulate homes in transition area
prefer to be bought out now rather than not being able to sell later
maintain/increase tax base
MORE INFORMATION NEEDED:
timing of the changes
details on how things will occur
type of housing development that will occur in the redevelopment area
health impacts
the amount that will be paid for one's home
expanded commercial area may devalue residential property values
NOT ENOUGH ATTENTION PAID TO ... :
the impact on people outside of the redevelopment area and what will be
done to mitigate impacts (e.g. financial assistance)
the redevelopment area should be widened
residents should help shape the plan
not addressing noise impacts outside
GENERAL CONCERNS (may or may not be fully addressed):
impact on schools
impact of the cargo facilities
wait to redevelop until the real impact is known
REASONS FOR LACK OF SUPPORT:
the proposal is too expensive
the City should fight the runway instead
more of a redevelopment plan than mitigation
people will not want to live in the redeveloped area
too many single family homes are lost
don't want low income or rental housing
don't want to move
the Proposal doesn't solve the .noise problem
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigation Proposal and
submit it as the City's official comments to the Environmental Impact
Statement for the North -South Runway (17/35).
Basis: 1. The Mitigation-Proposal is a proactive means to address the
significant impacts of the North -South runway on the Richfield
community.
2. The Environmental Impact Statement for the runway has been
released and comments are due to the Environmental Quality Board
by June 15, 1998. s.
3. The City Council asked the Planning Commission to work with the
City's consultants to develop the Mitigation Proposal.
4. The redevelopment element is based on the goals and objectives
established for the Cedar Avenue corridor in the Comprehensive
Plan.
5. Several community meetings were held to inform residents and
property owners about the plan.
Alternative: 1. Recommend that the City Council not adopt the Mitigation
Proposal
2. Recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigation Proposal
with changes.
fsyYAy-ifFyy.'
CITY C1F
RICHFIELD May 26, 1998
Agenda Section: New Business
Item #: 3
Letter #: 29
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Consideration of a resolution finding that the Modification to the
Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Redevelopment Plan,
establishment of the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District and
adoption of the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing Plan are
consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning: R (single family residential) and C -2 (general commercial)
Existing Land Use: Commercial
Proposed Land Use: Mixed Use (residential and commercial)
Comp. Plan: Community Commercial
References: Chapter 469 of Minnesota State Statutes requires that the Planning
Commission review Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing
Plans for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. A
written opinion must be provided within 30 days of the date review
is requested.
Public Notice: Not required
City Council: A public hearing is scheduled for June 22, 1998
HRA: HRA approved the plan amendment on May 18, 1998, contingent
upon a Planning Commission finding of consistency
ANALYSIS
History: The majority of the area south of 66th Street and west of Lyndale Avenue has
been identified for redevelopment since 1975. In the late 1970s, the HRA
purchased property which subsequently provided a site for the Lake Shore
Drive condominiums. Since that time, various proposals have been advanced
for other portions of the area but none have moved beyond the conceptual
stage.
3-
Proposal: Gramercy Corporation is requesting public assistance to help offset
development costs of constructing a senior cooperative housing project and
new VFW and to keep the per unit share cost of the housing at a reasonably
affordable level.
Phase I of the Gramercy Tax Increment District would consist of the
Gramercy Park Cooperative, a 14 -story, 218 unit limited equity cooperative
for seniors, and a new 8,000 square foot VFW facility. The project would be
built on the current VFW property and an adjacent parcel currently occupied
by Labor Ready Temporary Services.
Phase II of the District is likely to include:
approximately 44,000 square feet of commercial space, including a
Lyndale Hardware store (existing or new);
approximately 62,000 square feet of medical clinic and office; and
a housing component, with a variety of unit types.
Issues: Tax Increment Financing Plan: The TIF Plan (not included) consists of
two sections.
1. The first section modifies the-text of the Redevelopment Plan for the
City's Redevelopment Project Area and establishes the Gramercy TIF
District. The text changes add language relating to the Gramercy
Redevelopment TIF District.
2. The second section is the Gramercy TIF Plan. It lists the properties
included in the district, its classification as a redevelopment district, the
original tax capacity, the estimated increment to be captured, source of
revenue, use of funds, duration of the district, impact on other taxing
jurisdictions, the "but for ... " analysis, and other statutory requirements.
The following nine properties are to be included in the Gramercy TIF District
see attached map).
6617 Lake Shore Drive
6639 Lake Shore Drive
6724 Lyndale Avenue
709 Graham Avenue
6630 Lyndale Avenue
6633 Lake Shore Drive
710 Lake Shore Drive
6700 Lyndale Avenue
6620 Lyndale Avenue
Schedule: The anticipated schedule for Phase I development is as follows:
June: Gramercy submits an application for a planned unit
development (PUD)
July: City Council initiates rezoning to a PUD
Planning Commission review of PUD
August: City Council holds public hearing on PUD
October: VFW relocation
November: Gramercy begins site clearance
Spring, 2000: project completion
3r
Comprehensive Plan Excerpts:
The Guide Plan designation of the property is Community Commercial. The
VFW, clinic and retail portions of the redevelopment is consistent with this
designation. The housing portion of the redevelopment is consistent because
the Comprehensive Plan encourages high density housing in commercial
areas, and the City's commercial zoning allows a mixture of commercial and
housing uses. The following Comprehensive Plan goals are met by the
proposed development:
Encourage and support the development of strong commercial districts
that respect the values and standards of the citizens of Richfield. (ONE -7)
Provide for high- density multiple dwellings within the redeveloped
regional and community commercial areas. (ONE -10)
increase the number of high- density multiple dwelling units by 2,000.
ONE -17)
Increase the density of housing along arterials and collector streets and in
mixed use development subareas to replace units lost over the last
decade. (ONE -17)
Provide for a more diverse housing stock by ... increasing the number of
high- density [multiple] units. (ONE -17)
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Adopt the attached resolution which makes the finding that the
Modification to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area
Redevelopment Plan, the establishment of the Gramercy Tax Increment
Financing District and adoption of the Gramercy Tax Increment
Financing Plan are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Basis: 1. The proposed reuse of the property is consistent with the Richfield
Comprehensive Plan designation of Community Commercial which
allows for commercial and high density multiple housing uses in this
area.
2. The proposed reuse of the property is consistent with the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan to increase the number of high density multiple
housing units in the City.
3. Since the late 1970s, it has been the intention of the HRA to redevelop
this area.
4. The Redevelopment and Tax Increment Plans meet the requirements of
state law and established procedures within Richfield.
Alternative: Find that the Program and Plans are not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
3-3
CITATIONS
Minnesota State Statutes
469.027 Redevelopment plan.
Any person may submit a redevelopment plan to 'an authority, or an authority may consider a
redevelopment plan on its own initiative. An authority shall immediately transmit the plan to
the planning agency of the city in which the area to be redeveloped is situated, for its study, or, if
no planning agency exists, the plan shall be submitted to an agency indicated by the governing
body of the city. An authority shall request the written opinion of the planning or other agency on
all redevelopment plans submitted to it prior to approving those redevelopment plans, and the
planning or other agency shall submit its written opinion within 30 days.
469.175
Subd. 3. Municipality approval. A county auditor shall not certify the original net tax capacity
of a tax increment financing district until the tax increment financing plan proposed for that
district has been approved by the municipality in which the district is located. If an authority that
proposes to establish a tax increment financing district and the municipality are not the same, the
authority shall apply to the municipality in which the district is proposed to be located and shall
obtain the approval of its tax increment financing plan by the municipality before the authority
may use tax increment financing. The municipality shall approve the tax increment financing plan
only after a public hearing thereon after published notice in a newspaper of general circulation in
the municipality at least once not less than ten days nor more than 30 days prior to the date of the
hearing. The published notice must include a map of the area of the district from which
increments may be collected and, if the project area includes additional area, a map of the project
area in which the increments may be expended. The hearing may be held before or after the
approval or creation of the project or it may be held in conjunction with a hearing to approve the
project. Before or at the time of approval of the tax increment financing plan, the municipality
shall make the following findings, and shall set forth in writing the reasons and supporting facts
for each determination:
1) that the proposed tax increment financing district is a redevelopment district, a renewal or
renovation district, a mined underground space development district, a housing district, a soils
condition district, or an economic development district; if the proposed district is a redevelopment
district or a renewal or renovation district, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination
that the district meets the criteria of section 469.174, subdivision 10, paragraph (a), clauses (1)
and (2), or subdivision 10a, must be documented in writing and retained and made available to the
public by the authority until the district has been terminated.
2) that the proposed development or redevelopment, in the opinion of the municipality, would
not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably
foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be
expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in
the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present
value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the
plan. The requirements of this clause do not apply if the district is a qualified housing district, as
defined in section 273.1399, subdivision 1.
3) that the tax increment financing plan conforms to the general plan for the development or
redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
PLAN FOR THE GRAMERCY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS OF THE CITY
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Richfield has proposed to modify the
Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and to adopt the
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District
collectively, the "Plans ") and has submitted the Plans to the Richfield Planning
Commission pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Plans to determine their
consistency with the plans for the development of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission that the
Plans are consistent with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of
the City of Richfield and the Commission hereby recommends their approval to the City
Council.
Passed this 26th day of May, 1998 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Daniel Linnihan, Chairperson
Mitchell Hadley, Secretary
3-4
3-5
5; iz D;
WIS
Nu
it
ME
44ioc
2AW W(M -
RLS,
f
3n. tfV037
7
Q lKil
Nat ka.
milt1uu
Rol
cc
10M3
sneftmoDsremmoD
CNVIWO aNY7WO
to
1z CNfUbOd
It N
o'
Oat Q1 C
ONZ
cc • 10 SN2AalS
1-1, F--k
Sis, is,
LL 112
m3aswis -nawtwls
H1dOAkjN3M D-11
H OAUNW U
E
LU "MSI d
Cl= 1=
11IV'SYJ1d
bo
131t1wNLuAIMIJVH
7=1 013udvo
LINE] I
I L [7
3"3TOCIN113AV31yowl
AKYW
W-.1100 W-110Z.
0.na
TIN, uj
7-=—j
7 ILL
NlAdl OMAdl
s3rff CD
wool
w0ao. w0dom
CV)
NOl/KRN .0—
LuAno rlD
NN3d 1-9d 0
C14
Na3no Naano
rossnu
C5
063HS
S—owl SMOHI I.
NldriNo,,dn o
INMNIA INBONIA
II
NdrW-
3Avmtmx Q3AVS3X83X
ig
ap
C"
Cd
2
PROPOSED GRAMERCY TIF DISTRICT
E
66 N St FzE - -- ---- - - - - --
Properties to be decertified
from the LHN TIF District
I(I
ri
B
r