06-23-1998J
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
June 23, 1998
7:00 p.m.
Roll Call
Approval of Minutes
Regular Planning Commission meeting of May 26, 1998. Planning Commission study session of
June 9, 1998.
Public Hearing
ITEM #1 98 -CUP -6 7645 Nicollet Avenue
Mahoney Construction and Richfield Housing and
Redevelopment Authority
Conditional use permit to allow construction of a twin home
ITEM #2 98 -CUP -7 6600 Oakland Avenue
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Conditional use permit to allow expansion of the structure
and continued use as residential property
ITEM #3 PC Letter #32 Zoning Ordinance amendment that would allow legally
nonconforming industrical uses in the C -2 District to apply
for a Transitional Activity Permit
New Business
Old Business
ITEM #4 PC Letter #33 Review of properties with zoning that is inconsistent with
the Comprehensive Plan
Liaison Reports
School Board
Community Services Advisory Commission
H RA
City Council
Adi ournment
Planning Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting
May 26, 1998
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Terry Ahlstrom,
Brenda Bjorklund, David Gepner, Roger Gordon, Mitchell Hadley,
Bill Kilian and Ken Meter.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Pam Dmytrenko
COUNCIL LIAISON: 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 7:04
p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Kilian, S /Gordon to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting
of April, 18, 1998.
Motion carried: 6 -0
M/Hadley, S/Kilian to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission study session of
May 12, 1998.
Motion carried: 6 -0
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CASE 98- CUP -6, 609 West 74th Street
ITEM #1 Minneapolis Meeting Rooms, Inc.
Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a
1,350 Square Foot Religious Facility
May 26, 1998
Page 2
Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, stating that Minneapolis Meeting
Rooms, Inc. proposed to construct a 1,350 square foot facility to serve as a meeting room for
religious purposes. She further stated that twenty -one parking spaces would be provided on site
and that landscaping would be provided in accordance with the City's landscape requirements.
Ms. Urban further reviewed the history of the proposal, stating that the City Council directed the
Planning Commission to consider amending the zoning ordinance to allow institutional uses in
multiple family zoning districts. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved an ordinance
amendment and the City Council held the second reading of that amendment on May 26, 1998.
In response to a question from Chairperson Linnihan, Ms. Urban stated that the facility
would not be located on a collector street. She further stated that staff felt the size of the facility
in conjunction with the location near Lyndale Avenue would meet the requirement of the
ordinance regarding traffic impacts.
M/Gepner, S/Hadley to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 8 -0
M/Kilian, S/Meter to recommend approval of the 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, and
5. that a landscape escrow be submitted for the cost of the landscaping.
Motion carried: 8 -0
PC Letter #27
ITEM #2 Airport Mitigation Proposal
Consideration of Adoption of the Airport Mitigation
Proposal
Commissioner Kilian reported on a meeting that he and Commissioner Gordon had with
the CARE TEAM. Several concerns were discussed, including expansion of the mitigation area
to Portland Avenue, further review of the area west of Taft Park and the marketability of
residential properties within the mitigation area.
May 26, 1998
Page 3
The commissioners discussed the expansion of the redevelopment area. Commissioner
Kilian suggested that a contingency fund be administered in which homeowners who wish to
make improvements to their homes could receive matching funds for work completed.
Commissioner Meter questioned whether or not the City would have anything to lose by
expanding the mitigation area to Portland Avenue. Chairperson Linnihan stated that there wasn't
enough mitigation for the southeast corner of Richfield against high- frequency noise.
Commissioner Bjorklund stated that a contingency plan for the area west of the mitigation area to
Portland Avenue would encourage investment in the properties. Don Brauer, airport consultant,
explained that the redevelopment/impact line needed to be defined based on a sound basis. He
further explained that the noise analysis done by BBN Technologies provides a basis for the
existing line. In his opinion, the City's legal position would be weakened if the line is moved
without a noise -based rationale for doing so.
Mr. Brauer outlined the changes that were made to the mitigation proposal based on
suggestions that the commissioners had made at previous meetings.
Commissioner Dmytrenko's concerns about the loss of schoolchildren and the financial
consequences were presented to the Commission. In response, Mr. Brauer identified the formula
used to determine the total loss to the community. Chairperson Linnihan stated that
compensation should be required through eternity rather than just for ten years. Discussion
regarding the topic followed.
Commissioner Kilian recommended several typographical changes to the mitigation
proposal. Commissioner Meter requested additional language regarding the relocation of trees
within the City.
Audree Duffee, CARE TEAM representative, stated concerns that the current mitigation
proposal is too restrictive. She requested language regarding property value guarantees.
Chairperson Linnihan stated that Ms. Duffee should present the idea to the City Council during
the June 1, 1998 study session.
Joanne Goldberg, 7339' 12th Avenue, stated that the current number of overflights in
southeast Richfield are unbearable. She further stated concerns that the mitigative area isn't
large enough.
Tom Hanson, 73rd Street and 12th Avenue, questioned the Commission regarding the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that was released by the airport.
Tony Fernandez, 69th Street and Bloomington Avenue, stated that a review of the Part
150 legislation might help educate the public about the EIS.
M/Hadley, S/Kilian to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 8 -0
May 26, 1998
Page 4
M/Kilian, S /Gordon to recommend approval of the Mitigation Plan and submit it as the
City's official comments to the Environmental Impact Statement for the North -South Runway
07/351. with changes as outlined by the Commission.
Motion carried: 8 -0
NEW BUSINESS
PC Letter #28
ITEM #3 Finding of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Gramercy Tax Increment Financing Plan
Community Development Manager Melin reviewed the staff report, giving a history of
the properties located west of Lyndale Avenue, north of Lake Shore Drive, and south of 66th
Street. He further stated that Gramercy Corporation is requesting public assistance to help offset
the 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. Mr. Melin described
the two phases of the proposed project and the Tax Increment Financing Plan.
Responding to questions from the Commission, Mr. Melin stated that the TIF assistance
would amount to $3 million over 25 years. He further stated that a new TIF district was
proposed because the Gramercy site is not currently located within an existing district and that
the Lyndale Hardware building and neighboring sites are located within the Lyndale -Hub-
Nicollet district.
Lou Stocko, Development Director for Gramercy Corp., gave a brief history of
Gramercy's involvement with the City of Richfield over the last three years. He further
described the project as it has been proposed and the stage at which the project is currently.
Commissioner Meter expressed his desire to see some public space incorporated into the
development.
M/Hadley, S /Gepner to adopt a resolution making the finding that the Modification to the
Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Redevelopment Plan, the establishment of the Gramercy
Tax Increment Financing District and the adoption of the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing
Plan are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Motion carried: 7 -1 (Meter opposed)
May 26, 1998
Page 5
LIAISON REPORTS
School Board: No report.
Community Services Advisory Commission: Commissioner Ahlstrom stated that the
CIP /CIB was approved by the Commission. He further stated that the Commission discussed
five possible sites for the proposed relocation of the maintenance facility.
HRA: Commissioner Gepner stated that the HRA responded to questions from the public
regarding funding sources for the 66th Street Bridge replacement. In addition, more detailed
plans were requested from CSM for the possible redevelopment of the Interchange West area.
City Council: Mayor Kirsch stated that the City Council approved additional funding for
the replacement of the 66th Street Bridge. The Council also approved the City Hall parking lot
expansion, held the second reading for the zoning ordinance amendment allowing institutional
uses in the MR -2 district, held the second reading for the acceptance of $2 million in ballpark
replacement funds, and approved an exclusive agreement with Ryan Co. for the Penn Avenue
area. In addition, the Council was briefed on the status of the Interchange West area.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:50 p.m.
Mitchell Hadley
Planning Commission Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
Study Session
June 9, 1998
a
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: Tom Foley, Transportation Engineer
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.
STUDY SESSION ITEMS
ITEM #1 Community Apartment Program
Presentation by Julianne Manship, CAP Director
Community Apartment Program Director Julianne Manship presented two handouts to
the Commission which outlined the objectives, overview of the approach and identified
stakeholders of the program. She stated that one of the purposes of CAP was to change attitudes
regarding rental units and apartment dwellers within the City of Richfield. Ms. Manship further
discussed other programs associated with CAP, including RAMA and Crime -Free Multi -
Housing.
Discussion followed regarding the virtues of the program and the methods by which the
success of the program could be measured. Different approaches were discussed, including
quantitative and qualitative methods of determining success.
Chairperson Linnihan extended an invitation to Ms. Manship to return to the Planning
Commission at a later date to update the commissioners on the program and to discuss the issue
further.
June 9, 1998
Page 2
ITEM #3 Transit Vision
Transportation Engineer Foley reviewed the objectives and service goals that were
outlined during the Richfield Transit "Visioning" Process undertaken in March, 1998. Mr. Foley
further explained that four different options had been studied and discussed each of them briefly.
Additionally, he discussed some of the criteria upon which the options had been reviewed,
including the human presence, central "hub" location and ability for expansion at a later date.
Commissioner Bjorklund suggested that in her experience, the transit system serving the
City of Richfield was adequate. She further questioned whether or not the funding for this
project would be better spent on other programs. Discussion ensued regarding the need for
expanded transit in the City.
Responding to questions from Commissioner Gepner, Mr. Foley stated that the Beeline
Service was provided jointly by the City's of Bloomington and Edina.
Commissioner Meter suggested that transit needs be surveyed before any planning is
done for a new transit facility in the Richfield Lake Area. The Commission discussed the needs
that a transit facility should address.
ITEM #2 I -494 Rezoning Update
Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, stating that the City Council
conducted a second reading of the I -494 rezonings. Due to public testimony, the Council tabled
its discussion of the rezonings and requested that. staff and the Planning Commission reconsider
the impact of the rezonings on existing uses and properties. Referring to a letter from an attorney
representing Minnesota Mini - Storage, Ms. Urban reviewed three changes that had been
suggested to lessen the impact of the rezonings on existing properties. In addition, she reviewed
the Transitional Activity Permit (TAP) that was created for the C -3 zoning district in response to
issues similar to those raised by Minnesota Mini - Storage.
Chairperson Linnihan expressed concerns that owners who receive a TAP might believe
that the permit lasts for life and may be unaware that redevelopment of the site would still be
possible. Commissioner Hadley added that he would like to see clearer language regarding the
TAP with regard to the issues surrounding the I -494 rezonings.
Commissioner Bjorklund recommended that a "sunset" provision be added that would
limit the timeframe during which an owner could apply for a TAP.
June 9, 1998
Page 3
Ms. Urban stated that an alternative option was to recommend to the City Council that the
previous recommendation to rezone stand. Discussion ensued regarding how the issue would
best be addressed. Commissioner Kilian suggested that the Comprehensive Plan should not be
changed and that the language used to issue a TAP be tightened.
Commissioner Meter stated that he disagreed with the direction of the Comprehensive
Plan along the I -494 strip.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:40 p.m.
Mitchell Hadley
Planning Commission Secretary
mmggg'. 0" Planning Commission Letter
June 23, .1998
Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Item #: 1
Case #: 98 -CUP -6
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Conditional use permit to allow construction of a twin home
Applicant /Owner: Mahoney Construction/Richfield Housing and Redevelopment
Authority
Location: 7645 Nicollet Avenue
Zoning: MR -1 (two family residence)
Existing Land Use: Vacant
Proposed Land Use: Residential
Comp. Plan: High Density Single Family Residential (RSFH)
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: 521.43, Subd. 4, 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 July 13, 1998.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: Mahoney Construction is proposing to build a twin home on the property at
7645 Nicollet Avenue. The two units would be owned separately. Each two -
story unit would have approximately 1,250 square feet of living area on the
second level, three - bedrooms, additional unfinished lower level space, and a
two -car, attached garage.
History: The property has been vacant since the City purchased it for the 77th Street
road construction project. At the time, the property was zoned commercially
and occupied by a video store. The City purchased the entire property from
the owner and used a portion of it for the road project. Because the parcel is
now separated from the commercial area by 77th Street and and the sound
wall, the remaining parcel was rezoned to MR -1 (two family residence).
Issues: Twin Home Requirements: Because a twin home is one structure under
separate ownership, there are several conditions that need to be met. The
comparison of the requirements and the proposed development can be found in
Attachment A.
Driveway Access: One curb cut is provided to the site to limit the amount of
pavement and to provide access at a farther distance from the intersection of
77th Street and Nicollet Avenue. An easement will be needed to allow access
across property lines.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a conditional
use permit at 7645 Nicollet with the following stipulations:
1. That separate utility services be provided to both units.
2. That an easement be recorded to allow use of a shared curb cut.l
3. That a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions be
prepared and recorded.
4. That a subdivision waiver be approved for the property split.
Basis: 1. The proposed development meets the conditions required by the
Zoning Ordinance for a twin home.
2. The property is appropriately developed as housing given its location
to the north of the screen wall.
3. The proposed two -unit development is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan designation of high density single family
attached housing.
4. Landscaping will be required under Contract for Private
Development the builder will sign with City to purchase the property.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a conditional use
permit at 7645 Nicollet Avenue with a finding of fact that the proposed
use would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties or the City
as a whole.
ZONING CODE:
1 -a
CITATIONS
SECTION 521 - Zoning: Residential Districts
521.43. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the
MR -1 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this
code.
Subd. 5. Twin homes and conversion of two family dwellings into twin homes provided the
following conditions are met:
a) each of the lots created in subdividing land on which a twin home is constructed or a
two family dwelling is converted shall be equal in area or as near equal as is reasonably
possible;
b) each lot so created shall contain not less than 5,000 square feet in area, shall be not less
than 40 feet in width, and shall be shown on a survey prepared by a registered
surveyor;
c) except for the setback along a common property line, all other setback and yard
requirements for a two family dwelling shall be met;
d) separate services shall be provided to each residential unit for sanitary sewer, water,
electricity, natural gas, telephone and other utilities;
e) the two units, either existing or proposed, shall be situated in a side by side manner;
f) no existing duplex structure shall be split into two separate ownerships unless and until
the common party wall fire rating is brought up to new construction standards, as
provided in Section 400 of the City Code;
g) the owner of property to be subdivided shall execute and record at their expense a
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions" as approved by the City
Attorney. Said document is necessary to protect the rights of the individual owners
sharing a single structure and the public as it relates to such things as maintenance,
repair, and reconstruction in case of damage to the original structure. The declaration
shall provide protection to the property owners and the City on the following subjects:
1) building and use restrictions;
ii) party walls; and
iii) relationships among owners of adjoining living units and arbitration of
disputes. The intent of these regulations is to promote harmony between the
neighbors sharing a single structure and to protect the City and neighborhood
from improper maintenance and/or disputes such as the following examples:
each living unit being painted a different exterior color, or each living unit
having a different roof color or type. The City shall be a third party
beneficiary of such declaration.
1 -
h) accessory buildings along the common lot line may have a zero setback provided all
other setbacks are met, and all building and fire codes are met; and
i) the authority to divide a single lot into two lots shall be subject to subdivision
regulations in Section 500 of the City Code.
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.
i- Y.
ATTACHMENT A
Twin Rome Requirements
Subsection 521.43, subd. 4)
Ordinance Requirement North Lot South Lot
a) lots shall be equal in area or as near approx. 5,084 sq. ft. approx. 5,208 sq. ft. (slightly
equal as is reasonable possible larger because of additional
77th Street setback
requirement) ...............................
b) lots shall be 5,000 sq. ft. in area approx. 5,084 sq: ft: approx. 5,208 sq. ft.
lots shall be 40 ft. in width 41 feet 43 feet
lots shall be shown on a survey to be submitted (required to be submitted (required for
for Subdivision Waiver Subdivision Waiver
c) setbacks for a two family dwelling
shall be met except along the
common lot line
Front: 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft.
Rear: 25 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft.
Side: 10 ft. 12 ft.
Streetside: 15 ft. 15 ft.
d) separate services shall be provided to to be provided to be provided
both units for all utilities
e) units shall be side by sidecondition met condition met ...............................
f) not applicable (existing duplexes
on1X1........................................................................................................................................................................................................
g) a "Declaration of Covenants, to be provided to be provided
Conditions and Restrictions" shall be
prepared and recorded .............................................................................................................................
h) accessory buildings along the not applicable not applicable
common lot line may have a zero
setback
i) subdivision regulations of Section A Subdivision Waiver will A Subdivision Waiver will be
500 shall be met be submitted to the City submitted to the City
Council to split the lots Council to split the lots into
into separate ownership separate ownership
5 .
it
JI
I wa
0 0
L
a
I
Zo
N
a
N
I
I Q
I
1d 13110IOW 9179
U
3nN3AV 131100IN
JJ
3
Y
0W^^
W z
0.
O
a
00
1d 13110IOW 9179
U
3nN3AV 131100IN
JJ
3
Y F"
w
Im
cn
F-
ti
z
a
J
CL
F-
0
Z
coQf
co
til
Q
0
0
N
II
W
J
Q
U
N
ZZ
Z
ELM
o
OW
UU
rs
I Iii, 'iil
LIM
Ii!!I!II11
Illllilllllll
MOMMmoon
om
Illlllllillll
IIIIIIIILIIiI
COMMOWN
momm
MOMS
alo
IIIaillI
f lll
III I Il tl
1'
tf .
i _
LLJ
i --'7
a
E • r --_ , '
s a i
N
j t
flit E - ;
al.
offlAlit-, Ilpf 19
lit
lb °
ye o
sl g off: °a _
p p
9y
r : irii C.i ' i':tl6 9
WE
R
y b
e .
Q
J
I
p 111 bThe
11
7-
1 i
I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
i•.K DI -.l
YJI i-.91
i1111i; r -- -- --- - -- I> r— }
b
I b
oe a
D1 .
e
1 I
I'll I II I A 'c r • o-'[
L_____J Z
II II !ll I
i a;
I
Z
q ilil
j
R II
P6i
11j (''aay GD$ tla8 I •.c 'Dd Di 4
tj
11
I II •.4(i Y yea I 1 j + - I 7
GGGYYY
I D
x
1 I
8N3ii8B
If
1 I. - • R
I i
Ili ?I yy I III I I. I I!
ail;, _HIIII
II
IIL_J
IV
I I II e 4 Bi it i • I ,
J
I Q
4
w
JI i'•91
aars smams
1'
H
w
L................
4
A -A I
wl
IS
of IV
m0aw a
64
Firs'!
A RN
klisl rookiN
ill, -J 11
it
T IN
Ilia.
A," !R.
I
so
AI -f I?
4WD Q v Ix
IL.
A-Al Q189
9,61
0-.- -
10-.9
13 I
pic
o
LU
I
I ,
I
I _
i._._._._.
I I
I
I
OI -.91 i-.i OI -DI ! -.t DI-DI
aan an -a
ola -a
i
i
Z
Q
J
a
J'
Wi
W
J`
W
a
a
I
I
o
x
I• II 1,
IIr
I
i Z
Q
a;
J'
WIMgt
Ll
J
i'
a
I.
01 OIR-t
DI -.91 DI•DI ! -.t DI -OI
O- D•.ri
O-.rr
I• II 1,
IIr
a
ra6
Planning Commission Letterd
June 23, 1998
Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Item #: 2
Case #: 98 -CUP -7
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Conditional use permit to allow expansion of the structure and
continued use as residential property
Applicant /Owner: Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Location: 6600 Oakland Avenue
Zoning: C -2 (general commercial)
Existing Land Use: Mixed use (commercial and residential)
Proposed Land Use: Residential
Comp. Plan: Community Commercial
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: 526..27, subd. 21; 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 July 13, 1998.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: The HRA is proposing to remodel the property at 6600 Oakland Avenue. The
existing commercial space would be converted to an attached garage. The
existing detached garage and the entryway into the commercial space would be
removed. A small addition would be added to the residential structure to fill in
the open space between the house and the commercial structure.
The property could continue to be used as residential property and be
considered a nonconforming use if no changes were made to the building.
Once changes are made to a structure that is occupied by a nonconforming use,
the use has to be brought into conformance. In this case, the use can be
brought into conformance through a conditional use permit.
di
History: The HRA purchased the property at 6600 Oakland Avenue in 1997. At the
time, Hat Trick Hockey was located in the north portion of the building. The
residential portion of the structure was occupied by the property owner.
Issues: Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as
Community Commercial. The property is zoned general commercial (C -2),
which is consistent with the Plan; however, single family residential is an
allowable conditional use in the C -2 district. In addition, the property was
purchased in May, 1997 under the former Comprehensive Plan which
designated the property as Mixed Land Use. The Planning Commission
determined that the purchase and sale of the property as residential was
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan at that time.
The Comprehensive Plan also calls for a comprehensive commercial
development on this property and the commercial properties located along
Portland Avenue. Absent a comprehensive redevelopment of this corner, it is
appropriate to retain the residential use.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a conditional
use permit at 6600 Oakland Avenue with the following stipulations:
1. That the existing detached garage be removed and the space
converted to a garage be limited to 1,000 square feet in size.
2. That the curb cut to and the pavement along 66th Street be removed.
3. That a conditional use permit resolution be recorded with the
County.
Basis: 1. The proposed expansion and remodeling will improve the property.
The structure could continue to be used as a non - conforming
residential use if no improvements were made to the property.
2. The existing commercial space and related parking is obsolete; it is
appropriate to remove the commercial function from the property.
3. A community commercial development on this property would only
be appropriate if coordinated with redevelopment of adjacent
commercial parcels. Such redevelopment is unlikely at this time.
4. In May, 1997, the Planning Commission determined that the
purchase and sale of the property by the HRA was consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan at that time.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a conditional use
permit at 6600 Oakland Avenue with a finding of fact that the proposed
use would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties or the City
as a whole.
ZONING CODE:
CITATIONS
SECTION 526 - ZONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
526.27. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the C-
2 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code.
Subd. 20. Single family dwellings that comply with the R -1 District provisions and requirements,
as set out in Section 521.17 of this code.
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.
J
66TH STREET
WALK
REMOVE ASPHALT 70.00'
AND CURB CUT
40.5' 28.7'
I
f•....?.....: .........:....: ::::.::
i
1
0
0
N
r
DEMOLISH
CONSTRUCT
CONTINUOUS
FACADE FACADE
r
0
10
1
REMOVE GARAGE
N 70.00' _
NORTH
SCALE: 1" = 20'
r
DATE: 6 -12 -98
6600 OAKLAND
AVENUE
CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT
W
Z
W
al
Z
a
J
Y
a
O
SITE PLAN
w
Z
J
H
w
a
O
cr
la
I
in
e
I
N
I
I
T
Lq
O
REMOVE GARAGE
N 70.00' _
NORTH
SCALE: 1" = 20'
r
DATE: 6 -12 -98
6600 OAKLAND
AVENUE
CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT
W
Z
W
al
Z
a
J
Y
a
O
SITE PLAN
Planning Commission Letter
June 23, 1998
Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Item #: 3
Letter #: 32
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Consideration of an ordinance amendment that would allow industrial
uses in the C -2 district to apply for a Transitional Activity Permit.
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: 546.05, Subds. 4 and 6
Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing
was mailed to all property owners whose industrial properties are
proposed for rezoning.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council first reading
date of July 13, 1998 for an ordinance amendment or continued
discussion of property rezonings.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: The Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council that industrial
property located along I -494 be rezoned to a zoning district that is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed ordinance amendment would
allow owners of industrial property to apply for a Transitional Activity Permit
TAP) that would allow interim or transitional activities to take place in the C-
2 district until the goals of the Comprehensive Plan are realized. The TAP
recognizes that it may be several years before the I -494 area will develop in a
manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In the meantime,
nonconforming industrial uses can continue to exist and be extended or
expanded if certain standards are met.
The criteria that would have to be met to obtain a TAP are as follows:
3 -i
a) the transitional activity is in connection with a property that was zoned
and used as industrial prior to the effective date of the I -494
rezonings.
b) the transitional activity is in connection with an industrial use that was
either permitted or conditional in the I district;
c) the transitional activity will maintain the vitality and economic success
of the applicant's business during the transition period of the industrial
property to commercial uses;
d) the transitional activity will not have an adverse impact upon
development of land within the C -2 District in the manner intended for
the district under the City's land use regulations or its Comprehensive
Plan;
e) the transitional activity will not materially increase the potential public
cost of development within the C -2 District because of significant
increases in the land and building value; and
f) the transitional activity will be compatible with surrounding uses, will
have no adverse impact upon surrounding properties, and will be in
full compliance with all standards and requirements contained in this
code applicable to uses and structures in the C -2 District.
The TAP provisions allow the Council to place conditions on approval of a
TAP. The Commission expressed concern that property owners
acknowledge, in writing, that they understand the interim nature of the TAP.
The Commission and the Council would be able to add this as a condition of
approval.
The amendment also proposes a deadline that requires nonconforming
industrial properties to apply for a TAP within 10 years from the date the
ordinance is adopted. After the 10 year period has expired, nonconforming
industrial properties would not be allowed to expand without coming into
conformance with the provisions of the C -2 zoning district.
History: On April 13, 1998 the City Council conducted a second reading of the I -494
rezonings. In response to public testimony, the Council tabled its discussion of
the rezonings and asked staff and the Planning Commission to reconsider the
impact of the rezonings on existing uses and properties. While they recognize
the Comprehensive Plan goals, they want to provide current property owners
with flexibility in using their properties.
Issues: • Comprehensive Plan: The intent of the rezonings is to encourage the
development of uses that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
to not allow the development of uses that would be inconsistent with the
Plan. Industrial zoning would allow uses that are inconsistent with the Plan
designation of Regional Commercial/Office. The Plan recognizes that, in
most cases, the City will not rezone properties unless a redevelopment plan
is in place; however, it was determined that the property along I -494 is
valuable and warrants protection against inconsistent uses being developed.
3_C
l
Expansion Potential: The Minnesota Mini- Storage property and the
block to the east are the properties to be rezoned. These properties are
both zoned and used industrially. In many cases, there is no room on these
properties for expansion, regardless of the C -2 or I zoning designation.
Conditional Use Permit: Minnesota Mini - Storage recommended that the
City consider making nonconforming industrial uses conditional uses in the
C -2 district. This is not an option under the existing ordinance because one
of the criteria for approving a conditional use permit is that the use be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This criteria would have to be
removed from the ordinance.
Transitional Activity Permits in the C -3 District: TAPs are allowed in
the C -3 zoning district (high density commercial). The language proposed
for the C -2 district is similar to that of the C -3 district except that it refers
specifically to those properties that were zoned industrially. It also
removes references to nonconforming structures. The zoning regulations
for structures in the C -3 district are very strict, so flexibility was needed to
allow an building expansions. The zoning regulations for structures in the
C -2 district are very similar to those of the I district so that same flexibility
already exists.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve the rezonings as
recommended and amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow
nonconforming industrial uses to apply for Transitional Activity
Permits.
Basis: 1. The City Council requested that additional flexibility be given to
property owners to allow them to use their property until the goals
of the Comprehensive Plan can be realized.
2. The Transitional Activity Permit allows industrial property owners
flexibility in using their property until the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan can be realized.
3. The Transitional Activity Permit establishes criteria that must be met
for a nonconforming industrial uses to be allowed to expand or be
extended.
4. The proposed rezonings are consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The moratorium on development will expire in September 1998. It
is appropriate to move forward with the rezonings and ordinance
amendment before the moratorium period expires.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council approve the rezonings as
recommended and not amend the Zoning Ordinance.
3 -3
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subection 526 of Appendix B of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield is
amended by adding subsection 526.3_ as follows:
526.63. Transitional activity permits. Subdivision 1. Purpose. A goal of the City's Comprehensive
Plan is to gradually phase out industrial zoning in the City. The Council recognizes that the transition
from industrial to commercial uses will occur over time and may require an extended period of transition
to be fully realized. The Council further recognizes that it may be appropriate and desirable to permit,
subject to the conditions and limitations of this subsection, the owners of lands within the C -2 District,
that were zoned and used industrially prior to , 1998, to engage in certain interim activities with
respect to the land, the uses during the transition period which will both permit existing industrial
development within the C -2 District to remain viable but which will not have the effect of either
delaying the transition or increasing the public costs connected with such transition. This subsection is
intended to establish the circumstances under which certain transitional activities may take place and to
set forth the regulations, limitations and conditions applicable to such activities.
Subd. 2. Transitional activities. The extension or expansion of nonconforming industrial uses in
the C -2 district shall be referred to as transitional activities.
Subd. 3. Permit required. It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupier of any land within the C -2
District to engage in any transitional activity without having first obtained a permit to do so. It
shall be unlawful for the owner or occupier of such land to engage in any transitional activity in
contradiction to the terms and conditions of any issued transitional permit.
Subd. 4. Application for a transitional activity permit shall be made to the Director on forms
provided by the City and shall contain or be accompanied by the following:
a) a site plan drawn to scale showing the dimensions of the parcel and the dimensions and
locations of all structures:
b) in instances where the site is to be utilized in connection with a use or structure located on
a contiguous parcel, the site plan shall contain the same detail for the contiguous parcel,
c) the proposed uses:
d) the proposed modifications, alterations, renovations or improvements to be made in
connection with the transitional activity, and the estimated cost of each,
e) the time for completion of all modifications, alterations, renovations or improvements,
fl evidence of ownership or interest in the property,
g) the fee specified in Appendix D of the City Code: and
h) estimated market value before and after, the change in taxes before and after, and change
to potential cost of public development.
ordinance /526tran.doc
1 -4
Subd. 5. Public hearing The provisions of subsection 526.43, Subd. 5 shall be applicable to
public hearings concerning the issuance of transitional activity permits.
Subd. 6. Criteria and standards. A transitional activity permit shall not be granted unless the
Council makes the following findings:
a) the transitional activity is in connection with a propertv that was zoned and used as
industrial prior to , 1998.
b) the transitional activity is in connection with an industrial use that was either permitted or
conditional in the I district:
c) the transitional activity will maintain the vitality and economic success of the applicant's
business during the transition period of the industrial property to commercial uses:
d) the transitional activity will not have an adverse impact upon development of land within
the C -2 District in the manner intended for the district under the City's land use
regulations or its Comprehensive Plan:
e) the transitional activity will not materially increase the potential public cost of
development within the C -2 District because of significant increases in the land and
building value, and
fl the transitional activity will be compatible with surrounding uses, will have no adverse
impact upon surrounding properties, and will be in full compliance with all performance
standards and requirements contained in this code applicable to uses and structures in the
C -2 District.
Subd. 7. Duration of permit. Any transitional activity permit granted by the Council shall state on
its face the date or event that shall result in the expiration of such permit. Any interim use may
be terminated by a change in zoning regulations.
Subd. 8. Conditions. In approving a transitional activity permit the Council may place conditions
and limitation upon the permit which, in the Council's discretion will assure:
a) that the transitional activity will be compatible with surrounding uses:
b) that the activity is merely of a transitional nature and will not impede the orderly transition
from industrial to commercial uses in the C -2 District: and
C) that the public costs occasioned by the ultimate development of former industrially zoned
property in the C -2 District will not be materially increased as a result of the transitional
activity.
Subd. 9. Revocation. The Citv may revoke anv transitional activity permit granted under this
subsection upon violation of any condition of the permit, any law of the United States or the
State of Minnesota, or any ordinance of the City. The procedure to be followed in considering
such action shall be the same as the procedure described in Subsection 546.05, Subds. 12 -13 of
this code.
Subd. 10. Permit not assignable. The right to emwe in transitional activities shall be the personal
right of the person(s) named on the permit. Transitional activity permits may not be transferred
or assigned to another even though such other person or entity may succeed to permittee's
interest in the land. The permit shall terminate upon such transfer or assignment, and
permittee's successor in interest in the land shall not engage in any transitional activity until
such successor has obtained a new transitional activity permit.
ordinance/5 2 6tran. doe
3--5
Subd. 11. Deadline for application. An application for a Transitional Activity Permit in the C -2
district must be made by October 1. 2008.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of ,
1998.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
ordinance /526tran.doc
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
4
m4ad-0 Planning Commission Letter
June 23, 1998
Agenda Section: Old Business
Item #: 4
Letter #: 33
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Review list of properties with zoning that is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan
ANALYSIS
Issues: There are approximately 500 parcels in the City with zoning that is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan designation. These properties can be divided up
into several categories, some of which may warrant rezoning and others which
should not be rezoned at this time.
The categories are listed and explained on Attachment A. Stafps
recommended action for the different categories is included in the attachment.
Rezoning is being recommended primarily for properties where the land use is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but the zoning would allow something
different to be developed.
A map is also attached showing where the inconsistent properties are located.
If the Commission decides to pursue the recommended rezonings, a process
similar to that followed for the MR (multiple residence) district rezonings could
be followed.
l
History: In 1995, the Legislature passed language stating that, in cases of conflict
between a City's Comprehensive Plan and its zoning, the Zoning Ordinance
shall be brought into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Up until that
time, the zoning prevailed. The language also directs cities to bring their
zoning into compliance with their Comprehensive Plan by the end of 1998.
This directive can create problems in communities that are fully developed and
that have Comprehensive Plans that recommend land use changes. A survey of
other fully developed communities indicates that there is disagreement with the
language change. Most of the communities surveyed do not intend to rezone
all parcels to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The City's
Comprehensive Plan, which was approved by the Metropolitan Council,
includes the following language regarding the consistency issue.
The City does not intend to rezone currently inconsistent sites to
conform to the Plan proposals. This rezoning would create a plethora of
non - conforming use situations that compromise, at least, and seriously
hurt, at worst, current owners and occupants without good purpose.
Specific sites will be rezoned as a result of a participatory and logical
redevelopment planning process for each specific area as the opportunity
presents itself.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Review the information and provide direction to staff.
Basis: 1. State statute provides that cities shall not have zoning that is
inconsistent with their Comprehensive Plans.
2. The City's Comprehensive Plan states that the City will not
undertake a wholesale rezoning of properties that have zoning that is
inconsistent with the Plan but will do so as redevelopment occurs.
3. The City's Zoning Ordinance should not encourage development that
is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Several areas are being studied for possible redevelopment. It would
be appropriate to not rezone these areas at this time.
r
z
d
H
H
d
q, a?
U
O.
cc
En
cc O
co
co
w
c0
to E Q i 5
G r N U 3cd
o ; : O W 7
1? <> > 0 o, U i b a i
is is
P: a b
d .....
a)
c
c a) C c OR N• N N C.
v b E c N O
CL • N N E U i GO C N N i O w U
a a> v, O
R
a a a c
2 3
a a b
OlY C aJ
0 C: O
O 0D
C
i «J «+ Q,
i C C> E
a
O
a ; • a 0A p G C
CO G= O y O C O O a O
C
M cc Q
a ou n
to
Ei'`
2-1 i ..J p y U: b O
ns::: >:<: «: cz cV : "D
aci = o GL a C .c
as
CO 0Z3 0d
qq
ct 1 M:
a a ac c w° cny 3
En
sa < G1:i:i;G7
a
V1 N i Q\ O M
cz a) cd a` ~
V
cdV ccd C cd N
EN
Q:i. i ? i2iii i; ifi
E .
N. • i ' C V cd i
b
PU
ii>
o w
acO w
U co GcaUOC
cz
a y N
t: M Co
31
cb c°'.
c
i ' N 'vi p O
ate
ce pcocoC
C-4
p Nco
Ts a
s ro
co•c o
E C
c a-
i'C E ell A ro a caU
i
o o o
N.U.
to i aA ca bA O
U
7i zc" 104
5 Cii;z;i:5:
a) W W a)
In
in O O C O O a)
02 v c o
i C C Ct
cnd n. co
a _
C
ti
d cdE: ' cC C cd W 0
a .. • .ca a'
N
o
N a) a)
U E c0 M U U C
q, a?