08-25-1998J
PIANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
August 25, 1998
7:00 p.m.
Roll Call
Approval of Minutes
Regular Planning Commission meeting of June 23, 1998. Planning Commission study sessions
of July 14, 1998 and August 11, 1998.
Public Hearing
ITEM 91 98 -PUD -1 710 Lake Shore Drive and 6724 Lyndale Avenue
Gramercy Corporation
Planned unit development plan and rezoning of land from C -2 and R to
PMR for construction of a 218 -unit senior housing cooperative and
VFW club facility
ITEM #2 98- FDP -1; 710 Lake Shore Drive and 6724 Lyndale Avenue
98 -CUP -9 Gramercy Corporation
Final development plan and conditional use permit for construction of
218 -unit senior housing cooperative and VFW club facility
ITEM #3 98- CUP -10 6401 Lyndale Avenue
VFW Post 5555
Conditional use permit for temporary use of facility for VFW club
New Business
ITEM #4 PC Letter #37 Resolution finding that the purchase and sale of property at 76th
Street and Penn Avenue is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
Old Business
ITEM #5 PASSS Update
Biaison Reports
School Board
Community Services Advisory Commission
HRA
City Council
Adjournment
Planning Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting
June 23, 1998
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Terry Ahlstrom,
Pamela Dmytrenko, David Gepner, Roger Gordon, Mitchell
Hadley, and Bill Kilian
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brenda Bjorklund and Ken Meter
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 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Kilian, S/Hadley to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting
of May 26, 1998.
Motion carried: 7 -0
M/Hadley, S/Kilian to approve the amended minutes of the Planning Commission study
session of June 9, 1998.
Motion carried: 7 -0
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CASE 98- CUP -6, 7645 Nicollet Avenue South
ITEM #1 Mahoney Construction and Richfield Housing and
Redevelopment Authority
Conditional use permit to allow construction of a twin home
June 23, 1998
Page 2
Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, stating that Mahoney Construction
is proposing to build a twin home on the property located at 7645 Nicollet Avenue. She further
stated that the two units would be separately owned, there would be a zero foot setback along the
common wall of the units and each would have three bedrooms, 1,250 square feet of living space
and two -car, attached garages.
Responding to questions from the Commission, Ms. Urban stated that several other twin
homes exist in Richfield, citing one example on Portland Avenue. She added that the units will
be priced between $115,000 to $120,000 per unit and will be nearly identical with the exception
that the northern unit will have a,gable on the front elevation.
Jack Erickson, Viking Paints, questioned whether the soil will be checked for
contaminants prior to development due to the fact that a gas station had once occupied the
property. Ms. Urban replied that the soil had been checked long before this development had
been proposed.
M/Hadley, S/Kilian to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 7 -0
M/Hadley, S/Kilian to recommend approval of the 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;
3. That a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions be prepared and recorded; and
4. That a subdivision waiver be approved for the property split.
Motion carried: 7 -0
CASE 98- CUP -7, 6600 Oakland Avenue South
ITEM #2 Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Conditional use permit to allow expansion of the structure
and continued use as residential property
Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, stating that the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) is proposing to remodel the property at 6600 Oakland Avenue.
She further stated that the property could continue to be used as residential property and be
considered a nonconforming use if no changes were made to the building. However, the
structure can be remodeled and the use brought into conformance through a conditional use
permit.
Ms. Urban presented two options for redevelopment of the structure. One option
involved converting the existing commercial space into a 1,000 square foot garage and
June 23, 1998
Page 3
demolishing the existing detached garage. The second option would demolish the existing
commercial space while keeping the existing detached garage. Ms. Urban added that the
Comprehensive Plan calls for a community commercial use on the site, although staff felt that
the site would be better utilized as residential absent a comprehensive redevelopment plan for the
corner.
Chairperson Linnihan stated that he was concerned with the C -2 zoning of the property.
Commissioner Kilian responded that several properties in east Richfield were zoned C -2 but had
residential uses.
Responding to questions from the Commission, Ms. Urban stated that a conditional use
permit would allow expansion of the existing residential property and that the house is not
currently occupied. Discussion ensued regarding the two options for redevelopment that had
been presented to the Commission. Commissioner Kilian expressed his preference for the option
that removed the commercial add -on so the property would be consistent with other residential
developments along 66th Street.
M/Kilian, S/Hadley to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 7 -0
M/Kilian, S /Ahlstrom to recommend approval of the conditional use permit at 6600
Oakland Avenue with the following stipulations:
1. That the existing commercial structure be removed and any additions be located to the south
of the main structure,
2. That the curb cut to and the pavement along 66th Street be removed, and
3. That a conditional use permit resolution be recorded with the County.
Motion carried: 7 -0
Zoning Ordinance amendment that would allow legally
ITEM #3 nonconforming industrial uses in the C -2 District to apply
for a Transitional Activity Permit
Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, stating that the Planning
Commission had 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. She further stated
that a proposed zoning 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. Ms. Urban
reviewed the criteria that the transitional activity would have to comply. In addition, she stated
that there would be a 10 year limit to apply for a TAP from the date the ordinance is adopted and
June 23, 1998
Page 4
that property owners could be required to acknowledge, in writing, that they understood the
interim nature of the TAP.
Responding to questions from the Commission, Ms. Urban stated that the 10 year limit
would not have to be included. However, she stated that the provision was included based upon
a request by Commissioner Bjorklund at an earlier meeting. She further stated that the criteria
stating that the material cost will not increase the public cost of development would be measured
in dollars. She explained how increased costs in land and building value could adversely impact
future development. Discussion ensued regarding the need for the 10 year "sunset" provision.
Bill Griffith, 1500 Norwest Financial Center, representative of Minnesota Mini - Storage,
stated that the TAP would be beneficial to businesses located within the area. Mr. Griffith
requested that a clarification be included that would allow an owner to apply for and receive a
TAP for the purpose of selling, refinancing or preparing for the sale or refinancing of the
property. He further stated that the provision limiting the application time to 10 years and the
requirement that any new owners apply for and receive a TAP would run headlong into one
another. Mr. Griffith requested that one provision or the other be excluded for the ordinance
amendment. Discussion ensued regarding the request.
Jack Erickson, Viking Paints, stated that he was concerned with the $25,000 limit on
redevelopment. Staff explained that the limit was only effective during the moratorium on
redevelopment in the area which would be ending in September.
Pete Valhousen, owner of the property located at 7721 1st Avenue, stated that the
building he owns has a use that is commercial and another use that is industrial. He further
stated that he would like to be able to market the building -as entirely industrial in the future.
M/Hadley, S /Gepner to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 7 -0
The Commission discussed the request to remove the 10 year limit on applying for a
TAP. Mr. Griffith discussed the issue, stating that it would be prudent to either allow the TAP to
continue with the land and keep the 10 year limit, or to allow the TAP to continue with the use
and eliminate the 10 year limit. Ms. Urban stated that staff would prefer to eliminate the 10 year
provision.
M/Hadley, S/Kilian to 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 with the provision that the 10 year limitation, referenced in
Subsection 526.63, Subd. 11, be stricken from the ordinance amendment.
Motion carried: 6 -1 (Gepner opposed)
June 23, 1998
Page 5
OLD BUSINESS
PC Letter 933
ITEM #4 Review of properties with zoning that is inconsistent with
the Comprehensive Plan
Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, stating that there are
approximately 500 parcels in the City with zoning that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan designation. She further stated that the parcels could be divided into several categories,
some of which may warrant rezoning and others which should not be rezoned at the time. Ms.
Urban reviewed an attachment outlining the categories which the parcels could be divided into
and explained examples of each, general locations of the parcels and recommended actions for
each.
Commissioner Linnihan stated that he would most like to focus on those parcels where
the Comprehensive Plan and the land use are consistent, but where the zoning is inconsistent. He
added that he would like to avoid dealing with properties in the mitigation area at this time and
suggested that some parcels could be revisited when the Comprehensive Plan is updated in
November. Discussion followed regarding the need to rezone or not to rezone properties that are
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
LIAISON REPORTS
Marilyn Anderson, 1820 West 76th Street, requested to speak to the Commission
regarding child abuse that she felt was occurring at Richfield Intermediate School. The
Commission explained the proper routes to follow when reporting such information.
Carl Beckdall, 500 East 66th Street, stated that he would be interested in purchasing the
property located at 6600 Oakland Avenue. He added that he would prefer the commercial aspect
of the structure to remain. Ms. Urban gave Mr. Beckdall the name and number of the proper
person to speak to regarding the request.
School Board: Commissioner Dmytrenko stated that the School Board voted in June to
reorganize the school district. She further stated that Steve Gamble will resign from the Board
later this year and that applications will be taken in order to fill the vacant position. She added
that the Board approved the new budget.
June 23, 1998
Page 6
Community Services Advisory Commission: Commissioner Ahlstrom stated that three
new members were appointed to the FOWL board. He further stated that the Adventure Gardens
mini -golf course was having problems with work that had been contracted and that the Monroe
Park building needs repairs.
HRA: Commissioner Kilian stated that CSM Corp. gave the HRA an update on the
status of the Interchange West area. He further stated that the Gramercy Park issues that were to
be discussed were delayed until the following HRA meeting.
City Council: Mayor Kirsch stated that the City Council chose the contractor for the
City Hall parking lot expansion, approved the modifications to the L -H -N TIF district and
approved the creation of the Gramercy TIF district. He further stated that the City Council
discussed airport issues, including proposed negotiations between the City, the Metropolitan
Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Council.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:30 p.m.
Mitchell Hadley
Planning Commission Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
Study Session
July 14, 1998
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Brenda Bjorklund,
Pamela Dmytrenko, David Gepner, Mitchell Hadley, Bill Kilian
and Ken Meter.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Terry Ahlstrom and Roger Gordon
COUNCIL LIAISON: None
STAFF PRESENT: John Melin, Community Development Manager
Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
Perry Thorvig, Community Development Specialist
Brian S. Mehl, Community Development Technician
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:04
p.m.
STUDY SESSION ITEMS
PC Letter #34
ITEM #1 PASSS Information Presentation
Community Development Specialist Perry Thorvig reviewed the staff report, stating that
in 1989, the City and HRA, with the assistance of a resident and business advisory committee,
developed a plan for the Penn Avenue and Sixty -Sixth Street (PASSS) area. The plan laid out
the way land along Penn Avenue should be used and established design standards for the
appearance of new buildings and public improvements. The PASSS redevelopment and tax
increment financing district was established in 1989, although there has been very little market
interest and little public involvement in implementation of the redevelopment plan. He further
stated that in May, the HRA and City Council entered into an agreement with Ryan Companies
of Minneapolis to study the feasibility of redevelopment in the PASSS corridor from 62nd Street
to 70th Street. He added that it may be appropriate for the Planning Commission to have a direct
role in the current redevelopment study. Staff suggests that a member of the Planning
Commission act as liaison to the leadership committee that will be formed by the Mediation
Center. The member would have the same status as the other stakeholders, but would not have
July 14, 1998
Page 2
voting rights. The member, however, would be able to identify needed information, develop
recommendations and report back to the Planning Commission.
Responding to questions from the Commission, Mr. Thorvig stated that Ryan Companies
had retail and quasi - industrial uses in mind for the Penn Avenue area. He further stated that
several housing developers had been contacted and that Ryan had been given a copy of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Chairperson Linnihan stated that the Comprehensive Plan calls for neighborhood
commercial for the area and not regional commercial such as the Shops at Lyndale. He further
suggested that Mr. Thorvig contact Peter Flynn to be a representative on the leadership
committee.
Responding to questions, Mr. Thorvig stated that Ryan has mostly developed offices and
commercial areas, but that the company was pursuing similar development in another part of the
metropolitan area.
Commissioner Gepner stated that he would like the PASSS area to be different from
other parts of the City. Commissioner Meter stated that the existing Bruegger's Bagels at 66th
and Penn is an example of a good investment in the PASSS area. Commissioner Bjorklund
suggested that the area around Victoria and Grand in St. Paul be used as a model.
Commissioner Meter suggested that more than one Planning Commissioner be on the
leadership committee and that the Commission should have a regular active role in development
and design issues. He further suggested that a community organizer should be included in the
process.
Commissioner Kilian questioned the criteria for a successful development and stated that
the southernmost blocks of the PASSS area could be problematic due to the single family homes
in that part of the district. Chairperson Linnihan questioned whether or not the City is keeping
track of the number of townhomes that are being developed so that the City doesn't overbuild.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Gepner, Mr. Thorvig stated that Ryan is
now forming lists of community volunteers. Chairperson Linnihan stated that the Commission
would like to have an open dialogue with Ryan. Mr. Thorvig stated that he would try to schedule
the Ryan representative for an upcoming Planning Commission meeting.
ITEM #2 Demographics Video
The Planning Commissioners viewed a video concerning the past, present and future
trends in U.S. and Twin Cities' demographics. Topics included population growth, education
level, income, race, gender mix, and birth and death rates.
July 14, 1998
Page 3
ITEM #3 Builders Association Video
The Planning Commission viewed a video concerning the overdevelopment of the
metropolitan area, including the large parcel sizes that are being developed in outer -ring suburbs.
The video discussed ways in which the rapid expansion could be curbed.
ITEM #4 Richfield Memories Video
The Planning Commission watched a video detailing the history of the City of Richfield.
It outlined the development of the City, individuals who played an important role and included
historic photos of buildings and places from the past.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:15 p.m.
Mitchell Hadley
Planning Commission Secretary
X"
5 r .
X :. ;, Planning Commission Letter
CTO
RICHFIELD August • • 8
Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Item #: I
Case #: 98 -PUD -1
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Consideration of a planned unit development plan (PUD) and rezoning
of land from C -2 (general commercial) and R (single family
residential) to PMR (planned multiple residence to allow development
of a 218 -unit Senior Housing Cooperative and VFW club facility.
Applicant/Owner: Gramercy Corporation
Location: 710 Lake Shore Drive and 6724 Lyndale Avenue
Existing Zoning: R (single family residential) and C -2 (general commercial)
Proposed Zoning: PMR (planned multiple residence)
Existing Land Use: Quasi - public
Proposed Land Use: Multiple Family Residential and Quasi- Public
Comp. Plan: Community Commercial
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: Section 536 outlines the establishment of PUD districts.
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 September 14, 1998.
I -I
ANALYSIS
Proposal: Gramercy Corporation is proposing to construct a 16 -story, 218 -unit senior
housing cooperative at the northwest corner of Lyndale Avenue and Lake
Shore Drive. The first two floors (one underground) provide covered parking
for 230 vehicles. An additional 61 spaces of surface -level parking are also
available.
A two -story, 8,000 square foot VFW facility will be located to the east of the
housing cooperative, connected through the parking ramp and via an enclosed
walkway.
Gramercy has signed a purchase agreement with the VFW to purchase the
VFW property and lease the new facility to the club. The HRA has initiated
condemnation proceedings on the property at 6724 Lyndale Avenue and a
stipulation agreement has been signed (occupied by Labor Ready Temporary
Services).
Because of the small site (1.6 acres) and the mix of land uses, Gramercy is
proposing to rezone the site to a planned unit development. The planned
multiple residence (PMR) district allows up to 33 percent of the total square
footage to be used for non - multiple residence uses.
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 condominium. Since that time various proposals have been advanced for
other portions of the area but none have moved beyond the conceptual stage.
The Gramercy Park Cooperative provides an opportunity to not only develop
another portion of the "southwest" quadrant, but it can also provide the
impetus for treating the balance of the area.
A new tax increment district was created in 1998 for the Gramercy projects
and other developments in the Southwest quadrant of Lyndale Avenue and
66th Street. On May 26, 1998, the Planning Commission found that the
creation of the TIF district and redevelopment plan was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The City Council approved the creation of the district
and the redevelopment plan on June 22, 1998.
Issues: • Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designation for the area is
Community Commercial. The Community Commercial designation
encourages high- density multiple family housing as well as community -level
commercial uses. The proposed uses for the Gramercy project are
consistent with the Plan.
Relationship to Adjacent Land Uses: The project area is surrounded by
high density multiple family housing to the northwest, community and
regional commercial to the north and northeast, single family residential
across Lyndale Avenue to the east and Wood Lake Nature Center to the
south. There are also two single family residence located to the west of the
proposed project. The Comprehensive Plan designation for these
residences is high- density multiple family housing. The area is conveniently
located along a bus line and near retail, service and recreational uses.
Comparison to Original Zoning District Regulations: See Attachment
A.
Right -of -Way Vacation: The City has initiated the vacation of some right -
of -way along Lake Shore Drive. The existing property line does not follow
the alignment of the road. Vacating the excess right -of -way provides
Gramercy with additional private property for the development. Through
the platting process, the City will obtain additional right -of -way along
Lyndale Avenue. Currently, there is an easement to allow the City to place
a sidewalk on VFW property in order to serve Lyndale Avenue pedestrians.
The additional right -of -way will allow the City to obtain place the sidewalk
on right -of -way instead of private property.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a planned
unit development plan and rezoning to planned multiple residence at
710 Lake Shore Drive and 6724 Lyndale Avenue with the following
stipulations:
1. That the rezoning not be effective until Gramercy Corporation
obtains title to both properties.
1 -3
Basis: 1. The proposed PUD plan is in conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan designation of Community Commercial.
2. The proposed PUD plan is in conformance with the redevelopment
plan approved by the City Council on June 22, 1998.
3. The development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable
and unified environment within its own boundaries.
4. The development is in substantial conformity with the purpose and
intent of the original zoning district and departures from the original
regulations are justified by the design.
5. The development will not create an excessive burden on parks,
schools, streets or other public facilities and utilities which serve the
development.
6. The development will not have undue adverse impacts on
neighboring properties. The proposed uses are consistent with
adjacent properties.
7. The terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the
plan are sufficient to protect the public interests. Additional right -of-
way will be obtained through the platting process. An easement will
be obtained in the southeast corner for a future entrance monument
for the Richfield Lake area.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request to approve a
planned unit development plan and rezone property at 710 Lake Shore
Drive and 6724 Lyndale Avenue with a finding of fact that the proposed
use would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties or the City
as a whole.
I-y
CITATIONS
ZONING CODE:
SECTION 536 - ZONING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
536.01. Planned Unit Developments. Subdivision 1. This Section 536 applies to planned unit
development zoning districts.
Subd. 2. Planned unit development defined. A planned unit development is a development of land
that is under unified control and is planned and developed as a whole in a single development
operation or in a prograihmed series of development stages. The development may include streets,
circulation ways, utilities, buildings, open spaces, and other site features and improvements. A
planned unit development is built according to a detailed final development plan, as approved by
the City Council.
Subd. 3. Short name. The term "planned unit development" may be referred to as PUD in this
code.
Subd. 4. Definition: original district. As used in this Section, the term 'original district" means
the zoning district from which land is proposed to be rezoned to a PUD.
Subd. 5. Pu oses. The purposes of this section are to:
a) provide for the establishment of PUD zoning districts where appropriate;
b) provide a means of flexibility to the strict application of the land use regulations in this
code, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort,
aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City and its residents;
c) promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the
same time, encouraging superior design and construction materials;
d) allow greater intensities and wider varieties in the types of environment available to City
residents;
e) preserve and enhance natural features and open space;
f) improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; and
g) provide transitions in land use in keeping with the character of adjacent land uses.
Subd. 6. Departure from original district regulations. The various zoning regulations and
requirements (e.g., use, building setback, height) which apply to the original district should be
considered as guidelines and may departed from in the approval of any PUD to accomplish the
purposes described in Subd. 5 of this Subsection.
536.03. Unified control. A planned unit development shall be in a single ownership or under the
management and supervision of a central authority, or otherwise subject to such long -term leases or other
ownership controls as the Council deems necessary.
i -5
536.05. Integrated design. A PUD shall consist of a harmonious selection of uses in groupings of
buildings, services, parking areas, traffic and pedestrian circulation and open spaces, and shall be planned
and designed as an integrated unit.
536.07. Coordination with subdivision regulations. Subdivision review under Section 500 of the City
Code shall be carried out simultaneously with the review of a PUD.
536.09. Minimum lot area requirement. A PUD district shall contain not less than 43,560 square feet in
lot area. For the purposes of this Section 536 only, lot area shall include the PUD site, plus one -half of the
area of abutting streets and alleys.
536.11. PUD districts and allowable uses. Subdivision 1. Establishment of PUD districts. The
following table denotes the six types of PUD districts, the abbreviations for such PUD districts, and the
allowable uses within each PUD district:
Planned Residential PR R & R -1
Planned Two Family Residential PMR -1 MR -1
Planned Multi-Family Residential PMR MR -1, MR -2, & MR -3
Planned Neighborhood Commercial PC -1 C -1
Planned General Commercial PC -2 C -2 & C -3
Planned Industrial PI I
Subd. 2. PMR -1 density limitation. In the PMR -1 District, the density of two family dwellings
shall not exceed ten dwelling units per acre.
Subd. 3. Mixed land uses. Uses other than the allowable uses listed in Subd. I. above, are
permitted in a PUD district, provided that:
a) the use is one which is authorized in one of the six types of PUD districts;
b) such additional use shall not occupy more than 33 percent of the gross floor area within
the planned unit development; and
c) not withstanding the foregoing, an adult establishment as defined and regulated in
Section 1196 of the City Code is not permitted in any PUD district other than a PC -2
district.
536.17. Review of PUD application. Subdivision 1. Procedure. Upon receipt of a completed PUD
application and the fee set by Appendix D of the City Code, the following review procedure set out in this
subsection shall commence.
Subd. 2. Planning Commission review. The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing
on the PUD application and serve mailed notice of such hearing to the applicant and all property
owners situated wholly or partially within 350 feet of the proposed PUD district. The Planning
Commission shall submit its recommendation to the Council. The Planning Commission may
recommend approval with or without modifications, or may recommend denial of the PUD
application. (Amended, Bill No. 1995 -19, Sec. 2)
Subd. 3. Council consideration. Following action by the Planning Commission, the Council shall
hold a public hearing and consider rezoning the area described in the plan. If the PUD plan is
approved, the area shall be rezoned as one of the six types of PUD districts.
Subd. 4. Required findings. The findings necessary for approval of a PUD application shall be as
follows:
a) the proposed development conforms with the goals and objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Development Plan and any applicable redevelopment plans;
b) the proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and
unified environment within its own boundaries;
c) the development is in substantial conformity with the purpose and intent of the original
district, and departures from the original district regulations are justified by the design
of the development;
d) the development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, or other
public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the development;
e) the development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring properties; and
f) the terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the plan are sufficient to
protect the public interests.
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
m 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
0
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.
Y
Attachment A
a PU 4s, nc
Use multiple family; commercial; multiple single family
comm.e.r.ci.al.... family
I .......
MF CmC1
li6ci; Front Se 25 feet 30 feet 35 feet 30 feet
Rear Setback ................ 25 feet bldS:..ht. 20 feet 25 feet
1111-1
Side Interior Setback 12 feet bldg....ht. 3 feet 5 feet
Streetside Setback 15 feet 30 feet 25 feet 12 feet
iHeight1*'*'**'*"***'**'*****"******'******'*'1**46* feet I i---Ie-e-t 4 .... 0 .... feet - e-. -t ... I5et'*
The south side of the property (along Lake Shore Drive) is established as the front yard in the PUD Plan.
W
cli
I
lipCLOLLI
E— 0
LL.
9
if
I j F;iiP I . ; (' i 0 , -
L
L
J_/
j-7
m Nit0ma
WE wiff mini 111;=
11 i::1 IN i21 iii' iii =11 ZI iii iii iii)
iil ii iii iii "ii iil iiI NI N111 i2111
C II.I IIII Iz:I IS Itrl IN IUl I/ Ilrl IN Intl IOl
lir p/ n/ in iu a pI iu BU 11111H tr itr
II all 11 /l Iltl It /l trl O 11/1 It/l IM
MIN III
Illrr/ n J tlt
Kai
I I I I I I I I I il I I I I I I I I I 'I
WEgi
NOgimu= ORLor. L,
1.-, 11
co
o o
0
4) N2CL rn
N o " a.
tmo cr 6 a- c- a-.0 0
N
tD
Z:. z
onlia z z
1
wf
0 pow
cc
O
LL
cITV OF
Planning Commission Letter
RICHFIELD August • • 8
Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Item #: 2
Case #: 98- FDP -1; 98 -CUP -9
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Consideration of a final development plan and conditional use permit
Applicant /Owner: Gramercy Corporation
Location: 710 Lake Shore Drive and 6724 Lyndale Avenue
Zoning: PMR (planned multiple residence) proposed
Existing Land Use: Commercial
Proposed Land Use: Multiple Family Residential/Commercial
Comp. Plan: Community Commercial
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 and occupants within 350 feet of
the subject property.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing
date of September 14, 1998.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: Gramercy Corporation is proposing to construct Gramercy Park Cooperative, a
16 -story, 218 -unit senior housing cooperative at the northwest corner of
Lyndale Avenue and Lake Shore Drive.
The first two floors (one underground) provide covered parking for 230
vehicles. Common facilities such as an exercise room, billiards room, craft
room, community room and kitchen, storage facilities, auditorium, general
store, library, barbershop and dry cleaners are available on the third or terrace
level. Eight different unit types will be available ranging in size from 683 to
2,019 square feet.
i
A two -story, 8,000 square foot VFW facility will be located to the east of the
housing cooperative, connected through the parking ramp and via an enclosed
walkway. The 3,000 square foot second floor will include bar and office space.
The 5,000 square foot first floor will house the restaurant portion of the club.
A terrace on the east side will provide space for outdoor dining. Sixty -one
spaces of surface -level parking will also be available for use by the VFW.
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 condominium.. Since that time various proposals have been advanced for
other portions of the area but none have moved beyond the conceptual stage.
The Gramercy Park Cooperative provides an opportunity to not only develop
another portion of the "southwest" quadrant, but it can also provide the
impetus for treating the balance of the area.
A new tax increment district was created in 1998 for the Gramercy projects
and other developments in the Southwest quadrant of Lyndale Avenue and
66th Street. On May 26, 1998, the Planning Commission found that the
creation of the TIF district and redevelopment plan was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The City Council approved the creation of the district
and the redevelopment plan on June 22, 1998.
Issues: • Parking: City parking standards require one parking space per unit for
senior housing. The proposed development provides 230 indoor parking
spaces. Residents in the cooperative will be allowed one parking space per
unit. In their other projects, Gramercy has found that one space per unit is
more than adequate to meet the needs of the senior population. Five to ten
percent of residents in their projects do not have a car at all. That
percentage is likely to be higher in this project because of its close
proximity to public transit. The parking stalls not used by residents will be
available for guest and staff parking.
City standards require that a restaurant facility serving alcohol provide two
parking spaces for every seat. The 61 available outside spaces would allow
for a maximum seating capacity of 122. In the past, the VFW has utilized
the Wood Lake Nature Center parking lot to accommodate overflow
parking for larger events. The proposed VFW will not, however, include a
banquet facility, and it will be considerably smaller than the existing VFW
so the parking demand will not be as high as it is with the current facility.
a
Landscaping: The tight site provides limited areas for landscaping.
Landscaping will be provided primarily on the south and east sides of the
building where the fronts of the housing development and VFW are
oriented. The parking area to the north of the building may be available for
landscaping in the future, depending on additional redevelopment
opportunities in the southwest quadrant (a public parking ramp could be
included in redevelopment plans which may be used by the VFW).
Terraces will be available for both the VFW and the housing residents.
The largest area of existing trees and brush is located on the west side of
the property. These trees (approximately 15) and brush will have to be
removed from the Gramercy property. The vast majority of trees located in
the public right of way (a 16 foot wide strip of land to the west of the VFW
property) will be unaffected by construction. A few trees in this right of
way will be removed. Gramercy will replace the trees removed from the
right -of -way. Landscaping will also be provided on the Gramercy property
to replace the trees being removed.
Access: Access to the underground parking will be available off Lake
Shore Drive, via the westernmost curb cut. A turnaround area is planned in
front of the main entrance and access to the ground floor parking level will
be provided in this area. The easternmost entrance will provide access to
the VFW parking lot and to the service/delivery entrance to the building.
Access off of Lyndale Avenue will be provided by the existing alley. The
alley will be maintained for public access at this time because it is used to
access the single family homes located on Lake Shore Drive. Gramercy will
be given temporary rights to use the alley during the construction period.
Alternate access will be provided to the single family homes across three
HRA -owned properties located behind the commercial building located to
the north of the VFW. The access points have been approved by the City's
Transportation Engineer. He has also concluded that the local street
system can handle the additional traffic.
Housing Cooperative: Cooperative housing is a type of senior housing
that is currently unavailable in Richfield. Unlike a condominium situation,
the building has one mortgage and tenants purchase shares in the building.
The cost of the share is not for the full value of the unit so additional
monthly cooperative fees are charged to cover "rent" and utility costs.
2-3
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a final
development plan and conditional use permit at 710 Lake Shore Drive
and 6724 Lyndale Avenue with the following stipulations:
1. That a planned unit development plan and rezoning to PMR be
approved by the City Council.
2. That a final landscape plan, including tree replacement both on and
off site, be approved by the Community Development Director and a
cash escrow submitted for the cost of the landscaping.
3. That a stormwater management plan be approved by the Public
Works Director.
4. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the Public
Works Director.
5. That appropriate measures be taken to ensure that cooking odors
from the VFW will not negatively impact future cooperative
residents or other surrounding properties.
6. That the property be replatted.
Basis: 1. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and
objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive
Plan designation is Community Commercial, which allows for high
density multiple family housing and a facility such as the VFW.
2. The proposed use is consistent with the redevelopment plan adopted
for the Southwest Quadrant of Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street.
3. The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance performance standards: the facility meets the parking
requirements for a senior housing facility and a
restaurant /establishment that serves alcohol, trash will be stored
inside, adequate parking lot lighting will be provided, and on -site
stormwater pick -up will be provided.
4. The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on
governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed
improvements.
5. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health,
safety, or welfare.
6. There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. There
is a significant number of seniors in the City and adjacent
communities who are seeking/will be seeking alternatives to living in
a single family home. The cooperative style of housing is currently
unavailable in Richfield. At this time, approximately 40 percent of
the Gramercy Park units have been pre -sold to Richfield residents.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a final
development plan and conditional use permit at 710 Lake Shore Drive
and 6724 Lyndale Avenue with a finding of fact that the proposed use
would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties or the City as
a whole.
y
CITATIONS
ZONING CODE:
536.19. Final development plan and conditional use permit. Subdivision 1. Upon approval of the PUD
application and rezoning, but prior to the commencement of any construction or development of land, an
applicant shall submit a final development plan, together with an application for a conditional use permit
for the development shown in the final development plan, which is consistent with the PUD application.
Approval of such final development plan and conditional use permit requires a two- thirds vote of the
Council.
Subd. 2. A final development plan shall consist of the following:
a) if required, a final plat of the land to be developed;
b) all materials required under Section 536.15, Subd. 6 of this code in "final" form; and
c) additional information as required by the Director or Council.
Subd. 3. Legal instruments. As part of the final development plan and conditional use permit, the
applicant shall submit "final" declarations of covenants, conditions and restrictions, articles of
owners, associations and all other such documents as the City may deem necessary pursuant to
Section 536.15, Subd. 7 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
sct 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.
o q T 'IHAV -4 Vq i
PUSIX3
KJ
k'I
IV
O
14
Vol
d
000
LL
Iz
U= i1— 17 b I 1 11 1 j it u
o q T 'IHAV -4 Vq i
PUSIX3
KJ
k'I
IV
O
14
Vol
d
000
44t
C
r
r
r
f: =l h =i) i -1 'i - lff . mill i=l.r`I =I.
I .::I ;::I ;::I ::I ::I ::I
grmall m
I ?::I ;::I .::i ::! 0:I 5::1
MI1::':I :(il ilil :
I
iil ii iil : it 11
I I IIII IIII IIII Iill IN IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII
III 1 I IIII IIII Iill IIII IIII •III ,f1ll ,III Iill IIII11IIII1IIIII
MINE! S 11111 H 0:N:1 11 l
I_ : s :l .sl .::I ssl NMI ::I ;: :I : :I :s: ;s :l 1801
rz zi
4; UZ 3 - 0 in NA
GO-
Z
0
D
Q
F-
O
0
LL.
F-
0
z
cT
CI
J kJ kv 11 kw-) lJ %?) la 11.7 Q!
11 22, 1 1slVII114:
J kJ kv 11 kw-) lJ %?) la 11.7 Q!
I k
1:
TTIit T-1-117-1----
i L
11
i
J kJ kv 11 kw-) lJ %?) la 11.7 Q!
U
Cie
0
LL.
0
Ci
CE
CC
CS
Z
E5 L2
4
D5
LA,
E j
ZZ7
03 10, gal
U
Cie
0
LL.
0
Ci
CE
CC
CS
I J
Z
4
ZZ7
I J
4
TliI
t- - - - - -}
I iii
11"
I I P
z
IM
010;U1 pjgl fill
z
co
arc -is
go-
M 3 1 .2 X. .
pi I a . -
6R %
2IA
I
C9
G
I
I
I
I
I
7) ul U
I
co
t
7) ul U
I t
7) ul U
z]
P §q
C
C
C
C
C
N
Z C- Q
V
Nowl
C
C
C
C-
i
E
I I I
I I I
I I I
I
l i
i
I — — —
I
I -
i
j
g
I
i
i
F
I I
I
i
i
Ij
II
ii
ij
i
i ij
1
I Ij
iii
I Ij
li
Ij
jj
L- ;
S
ii
LLY
a C
IE:
I
I
lhs
I
I I
I I I
s: sJOB
I I I I
i I I I
I I I I
I i I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
i
I
l i
i
I — — —
I
I -
i
j
g
I
i
i
I I
I
i
i
Ij
II
ii
ij
i
i ij
1
I Ij
iii
I Ij
li
Ij
jj
L- ;
S
ii i i i
i i
1----- - - -- -
1-- -- - -- --- — —
I I
1-- ---- - - - - --L
I i iii
I i
I I
a C
IE:
I
I
I
I
I I
I I I
I I II
i I I I
I I I I
I i I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I ij
I Ij
I Ij
I
l i
i
I — — —
I
I -
i
j
g
I
i
i
I I
I
i
i
Ij
II
ii
ij
i
i ij
1
I Ij
iii
I Ij
li
Ij
jj
L- ;
I
ii i i i
i i
1----- - - -- -
1-- -- - -- --- — —
I I
1-- ---- - - - - --L
I i iii
I i
I I
i
I
IE:
I
I
I
I
I I
I I II
D
D
D
D
u w b b yJ0
U_ _j
OLLI
LL e p
fill
Iz
Fju LI
1 2
ZE 16
14
L Ca ra
14
LL
Mill
i. A W L
rE
zz
clTti of
RICHFIELD August • • 8
Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Item #: 3
Case #: 98- CUP -10
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Conditional use permit to allow use of facility for VFW Post 5555
club.
Applicant /Owner: VFW Post 5555
Location: 6401 Lyndale Avenue South
Zoning:
Existing Land Use:
Proposed Land Use:
Comp. Plan:
C -2 (general commercial)
Commercial
Commercial
Community Commercial
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 and occupants within 350 feet of
the subject property.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing
date of September 14, 1998. A public hearing on a liquor license is
tenatively scheduled for October 12, 1998.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: The VFW is proposing to temporarily relocate its club facility to the former
Pizza Hut space at 6401 Lyndale Avenue. The Pizza Hut was a take -out only
restaurant so a new conditional use permit is required.
The current VFW facility has been sold to Gramercy Corporation who is
proposing to build a senior housing cooperative and new, smaller -sized VFW
facility on the property. The VFW will use the temporary location until the
new location is ready, which will be approximately a year from the start of
construction. They are seeking a conditional use permit for the temporary
location for a maximum of 18 months.
3'
The facility will include a kitchen/bar, the gambling operation, and 61 seats.
The VFW plans to conduct a limited operation until the new facility is
available. The office portion of the club will be located somewhere else. The
VFW is in the process of applying to transfer gambling and liquor /club licenses
to this property.
There are 97 parking spaces available in the shopping center. City parking
standards require one parking space for every 2 seats in a restaurant serving
alcohol, so thirty -one spaces are required for the proposed VFW facility.
Parking counts taken over a two -week period indicate that the parking lot is
underutilized and can accommodate the additional demand generated by the
VFW. The fewest number of parking spaces available in the lot was 54 spaces
on a Thursday afternoon. In addition, the peak usage period for the VFW is
evenings and week -ends, which is opposite that of the other shopping center
uses.
The VFW hours of operation are from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m., Sunday - Wednesday
and from 8 a.m. to 1 a.m., Thursday - Saturday.
Issues: • Duration of Permit: The current VFW facility has been sold to Gramercy
Corporation who is proposing to build a senior housing cooperative and
new, smaller -sized VFW facility on the property. The VFW will use the
temporary location until the new location is ready, which will be
approximately a year from the start of construction. They are seeking a
conditional use permit for the temporary location for a maximum of 18
months.
Adjacent Land Use: The proposed club space is located on the west side
of the property, away from the adjacent residential property; however,
screening exists between the shopping center parking lot and the adjacent
residential property. The conditional use permit for Pizza Hut required that
a sign be installed prohibiting right turns out of the north end of the parking
lot onto 64th Street. The VFW CUP should continue this requirement as a
way of discouraging use of 64th Street by commercial traffic.
Location Search: The VFW explored several options for locating a
temporary facility. Such a facility is difficult to find because even though it
is temporary, the facility still needs to meet all building and health codes.
The VFW considered a location on Penn Avenue but the facility did not
have adequate parking and significant improvements would have had to be
made to accommodate a kitchen facility.
Another location considered was the existing King Oscar's restaurant. This
location did not work because of difficulties with keeping the two
operations separate (e.g. liquor license, liability).
The VFW also considered combining operations with the Bloomington
VFW; however, the national organization would not allow them to merge
with another club, even on a temporary basis.
3J
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a conditional
use permit at 6401 Lyndale Avenue with the following stipulations:
1. That the conditional use permit expire on February 14, 2000 or at
such time that the VFW relocates to a different facility, whichever is
sooner.
2. That the "No Right Turn" sign located near the north parking lot
access be maintained.
3, That the number of handicapped parking stalls meet the requirement
of four spaces for a parking lot with 97 stalls.
Basis: 1. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the property is Community
Commercial; the proposed club facility is consistent with this
designation.
2. The proposed facility meets zoning performance standards: adequate
parking is available, a trash enclosure currently screens the dumpster,
and the parking lot was recently reconstructed in compliance with
City standards.
3. Fencing and landscaping provide screening between the shopping
center and the adjacent residential property.
4. The lot abuts an arterial street so alcoholic beverages can be served
with a liquor license.
5. The relocation is temporary while a new VFW facility is being
constructed.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a conditional use
permit at 6401 Lyndale Avenue with a finding of fact that the proposed
use would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties or the City
as a whole.
3-73
CITATIONS
ZONING CODE:
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.
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
3-y
g) the proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the
granting of such conditional use permit.
1
Q
i• 1 t l! 1 '"
W 1!!
fist a
I p •
a
list
Cool I I I 1 9
t t;; 1
s ty i i t
E ifl;i 1 l;
I ;' I I $!Ill
l
tf1411! I•
LjN '
1.
A(c , it
da¢ i
I
O N m it
3
Q
p J
O
s
a EI
1
ljal
N
N N Q
Rp
w \ .
O Oo
O
O
O
O— O
O
O Q
V
I
0
F-
W
J
ti
O
I
2 Z Z Sno
b
0-
O Oo
O
O
O
O— O
O
O Q
V
I
0
F-
W
J
ti
O
I
Parking Counts
Woodlake Plaza Shopping Center
1998
Day Date Time Spaces
Occupied
Spaces
Available
Total
Spaces
Monday ..................................... July..27............ 2 :30..p: rr!:................... 30................ 67............ ...............9?
Wednesday July.29..............9.00..a m -................. 21.................................. 76.. .............................9?
Thursday .................... 30.. 1. 00..p : m:....... 54 97.............. July..
Friday.................... ............. July. 31........... 10: 30.. a: n:!:......
43.................
28......-......... 69................ ...............97....----
F! id ................................. 4: 30..p:m:.... 27 70. .............................9?
Sunday .................... .........................August
July.31.............
2 5:00 p:' n:.................... 12................................. 85................ ...............97..............
Monday .......... ............................... August..3..............1. 45..p: m:................... 26................. 71 97
Tuesday .......... ............................... August..4...........1.1 45 -.a: m:................... a. 30 67 ............................... 97
Tuesda Au ust 4 6:30 m. 14 83 97
1
Planning Commission
CITY F
RICHFIELD August 25, 1998
Agenda Section: New Business
Item #: 4
Letter #: 37
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Consideration of a resolution finding that the purchase and sale of
residual property at 76th Street and Penn Avenue is consistent with
the Richfield Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning: MR -2 (medium density multiple housing)
Existing Land Use: multiple family
Proposed Land Use: multiple family
Comp. Plan: Single family residential
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: Planning Commission approval would facilitate the
acquisition/disposition of this property by the HRA in a timely
manner.
ANALYSIS
Background: The intersection at 76th Street and Penn Avenue was widened in 1995. Two
apartment buildings north of 76th Street and east of Penn Avenue were taken
for the project. The owner of the property at Oliver Avenue and 76th Street
chose to retain ownership of the remaining land and plans to develop a four -
unit apartment building on the property. The entire property at 76th Street
and Penn Avenue was purchased by Hennepin County. The County -owned
parcel contains 7,135 feet and is not large enough to develop an apartment
building on.
Proposal: HRA staff have been working with several apartment owners in the block to
facilitate building updates and coordination of the parking areas. The HRA
proposes to obtain ownership of the County -owned residual parcel and sell it
to the original owner. The parcel would be used for joint parking and
landscaping to serve the apartment buildings in the block as well as the
proposed new building.
Issues: The subject parcel is classified as Single Family Residential in the
Comprehensive Plan despite the current multiple family land use. In
staffs opinion, this lack of a multi - family classification was an oversight
as it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan policy to not locate
single family housing along major arterial streets. There is no reference to
the area in the Plan text, and it is not referred to in earlier drafts of the
Plan or in meeting minutes. The proposed use of the parcel for multiple
family housing parking is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive
Plan. It would be appropriate for the Commission to direct staff to
correct the Plan graphics in relation to this area and change the
classification from Single Family Residential to Medium Density Multiple
Family Residential. All multiple family properties in the 7400 and 7500
blocks of Penn and Oliver Avenues should be changed to Medium
Density Multiple.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Adopt the attached resolution finding that the proposed
acquisition/disposition and use of the subject property is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan with the following
stipulation:
1. That the Plan graphics be changed to show the subject parcel
as Medium Density Multiple Housing as is consistent with the
Plan goals.
Basis: 1. The acquisition/sale of HRA property requires a finding of
consistency by the Planning Commission.
2. The property is zoned MR -2 and its proposed use is
consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan goals.
3. The fact that the Plan graphics do not designate the subject
parcel as RMH is an oversight and correcting the graphics to
show the parcel as RMH would be appropriate.
Alternative: Reject the attached resolution, finding that the proposed use of
the subject property does not conform to the Comprehensive
Plan.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING THAT THE ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION
OF PROPERTY IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan
regarding the acquisition and disposition of property located at 76th Street and Penn
Avenue, described as follows:
That part of the West 182 feet of the South 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the
Southwest 1/4 lying South of the North 222 feet thereof, except roads
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the acquisition and
disposition of such property for multi - family housing and parking purposes would be
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan goals.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds
that the acquisition and disposition of the above described property, for multiple family
housing and parking use, is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Adopted this 25th day of August, 1998 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Daniel Linnihan, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Mitchell Hadley, Secretary
1
W
m
2
W
Q
Z
W
a
6
APT.
t APT.
76TH STREET
REMNANT PARCELS
J
Acl**
NORTH
SCALE 1 NCH - 40 FEET DATE 9 -19-96
W
m
W
Q
Q
W
J
0-
z
mi
a
w
II V/
z
w
x
w
r
W
a
O
V
A
wi
w
mmm
w
x
V
W
D) 0) m -oc0) o co c c 2)rnc CCOVi c
c v cm cn o .v ca '" C m o c9 v c
cu
ca --
cn 0)
cn
L `.0 Q O C U C
O
O O C ,`
d L Q U N >, O 0) c a) ° w O p 0 U m C O
0 .c C = O N 0 0
o 0 3
CU -0
cN
UNDO o o ocva) a) N . cE
o c o Q °tom a) cu o m rn
a)
C °- CU °
N
v a) C Y m U c p Q p .- N O
C O 3 U a)
0) L a O U (9 °
O M 0 a
C o rn° _moo Kb), o Q,
U a) pv 'N S E c
N
N
0) 7 j L 0 °
E U 00 7 L co w 0) N •c
O
00
0) = a)
0 C CL 7 L '
O j a) _N "= L N O> -o m 'O .,,._
C »-
C O
Q
O
D Mn O ° o x T L E c °)° aE C ° cvc cEa`°i tivi Via) >; _ a)oNC m 0)c
0 (0c :c°mE °rn coQ°' 'c°iocc"va) L ca)o_ E
N %I.-
0 0) c -0 >
N N o aj o a) Q
0-o m a) c `O. - > > C— ,
E cc °- c co
O E N 0 j (D U c .. > V a) -0 U °'
cn
CU
w _
ca
0 0 0 N C U N N
O C - 0 0 U 0) U N C N p
O ° a7OOp0b ` `' C O d
0) NC C a)E -0cc-
ocQNrnOcU
OON
C >+ >% a. O O C Q. E "N - a) O 0 0) cc :. r 0) > . > C C_ w.
V
tD
O
a)
j c U W C W O L U N '
0 O O Q. N 'U C N O`
00 zu-6
aa))
0 -a 00 > m 0)2 3v ° U aa0 ' Q
7 EM U U Q . C L a) dU) . co
U
O a) a) a) 'O 'O N a) c -c O N 00 cmoocaccacu0) c'(U o c
7j-D'~ ov -gy° o
a M c
m C 0) ) a)c
v; in c
C
C O >. O . L -0 "0 0
cu O
O
N
N
U a) p N t t a
7
N Q .a) c C t .0 - _N O 0 a) U
cc
pcu
0 0 0 p 0 a C
N U "-
0) D m E , • cn co a) 0 .
O U 0 0 .Q N 0 0 0> - J--
co
N ns N U p 0 a) - c
00CV,o a-2 Q a) 0) 2,;
H C p cu
aa))
o a) 4-- o°c 0) -C fl- m
0
c '> E c° C , -o .o C 4-- 0,
w <o - Ec o oco o> m
c'
r
N a °-0 CU;,_ -->' @
Co
c 0 .o ff a)Ua
U C U N 0 .- .
r •p a) C
omo >, -
p o c ° N E a) CO
cu oo-Caa)ac
a)m 0 a)ocoUU> C -° (
D
N C Q "' C NV __ E c co CU U ° 0)E o Nom. N
a) v a) a)
n U 0) 0) .E-0 C) :3
N UEc0)E -=
c o a) E C-- o >,L N rn v a) o•E c 5
cu -C .. 0 0 O L p
0
0 O O
cn
N m > n ca Eo L N a) •
O '
0.0 0
CU 0
O .0 U J U O O' a) (
Q C Q O c C 'p 0 L ..
0 U C U c o
cn -c E Q c -O 0) N c C c c .- cainOa) a) UN .
o
0)
Q QO
O N cu (0 ' 0 C
ca
O O a)
o -o
NCO °N'omai a>i
a °c aNi Eaac n
C-imL c w-0 mkt
Fes-
Q
c0)
o m
W —y
W
q -5
c Cl) s L (Ci ° O c c 0 - U y V t c'
o
a) .-.
o
N ..
0 4)
C
O> c .0 p
O (
1) :t:; "ate 0 cfl N c Q) c a N
N C (a a) _A Z ° O `O N N 8 p - pU) 0
O (n (U a) >, C O c a) o Q a) a)
N - N N
O a) Ea) Ea°
oc°E30 -r-0W aic .°
NEo °o a-4 >-0 a —3c
L N a) L rn — O a) ` a) a) U — > CD
rnJ o,a° Qmm 3 Qcuc
oaQ -0— c >cCa c C
am,
c
c
o~ ci o >,c°(0- Qua
aci 'o cn
c9 U c cNV C X >,
W a) 3 N d CD a) a)
CU a)
J CU rn N Oc O' a o
N O ° 3
N-
o
a) t • c° N H
c9
c
c° O `-
3
p
0
12o CL-"= a)
a)
rn -
c ° 0
CU O)w `o >ca3 Qc °' 3 a) c EN
v_
E
oQ'Z > cW ° >a
ai cu >
w
aci c uoi QE c N E a) N Q° m
ct5 ()
Ea)
a) E >J 3 c.- m a E a)
ate) v >w oQ .— _ >
LL c° m 0 0
0 °' a) O
a)
o Z a) N a
N ca c E c rn-v 3,c cn w N E
3c.Ea)0o 3°'5
c`v
c
E a)N ca —N c
o > Np c o '3
Q a 0,0-0-0
cu p C— 0 o o cv N "- N
O -0 - O Q . _ .- O 7 a c O-
W O V c E M ° c aci
7 5
C C
FL-
0 N a) Q a` o >, o m o 32- r rn N a) cu -- ai
cv c a)
vim ,
a°i ° c C c 3
cU 0 - " c'c v) • c
C7 a)0oac)o0 >aoic >32oa) xc >
aa))aa)) =
3 =>
Qa 3-Q4 m< 3 w o¢F— v U a)Q
Z(n a) a) o o L I a) >, a) o 3 a) a) c
a) O- M N cv ° w a) a)
C7 - >, ca O
N p O
a) 3 j fl. = Z -p .. -p J
a CL o _'n tf ° 0LL ow
w u c 3N
N - O w N O m E 7 O >+ O C •« J
Q a°i m N cv 3 v O ca Y o cu ' za) a) —_ cv
a) m a)
E
N a -0 U a c c • x
p cn ° a)
s }
co
v8 a)N"-'WCO-
vc°coEU °
QzN> W W O E N Cn
Ec c api 8 u sQ a Nam °'w'wrO.ocu o x o ..? s
r•c C .
c •p
ch O p c . , W c- •v ca
W
a a) a) o v a) o C: ° E m= m o
c >
O C . a) p E a) s cn
m; N a) Q N a o J a V- E 3 N cn `+ w
ca o a c
C
0)a°c'Q aoa 3
c 3-0= cw
Q• c N .o aa) =:caZo "aa)== c ca
cn ` L J O a)
D a) > f.. aa)c -0-- Ecn(D
U E-0 W ccaa Q-
Nc':a N 3 "
O
voi aNiQUv
L°.
N a) .. X0-
1 N E
c o
av;
aa))
MEvvioc -C°
aa)) -
E U) ac— "L a)3
Q.. cn - p - CL W a) fl- o E c Q z z E
N
d o a ca 2 c —° c
m o °- Z W w ?, ? a) m
a) O•- cam > N `-O a ECM c
w0 v N m a) > , N a)
C >°
cn 2 Q U J ca a)
cis O v cII N °v m a)wC
C Q N>
GL d °)N U ! --v N
ao)_°
m=-° c E ~ c Q
c c a) a a) O a C z °) c
cn > a a)
0cu N CE Jca Ua)
N .
cN
o° 0 ° E 3° a). -.c -0 0 :3Z—
rn a) c cuaVp °-c..c — a)EU))aopo.N N o-03 E
n ° w p m a) Q: O W Q a) t a) W
w cv F- L) ! cu cn a ° . c ti F- c 0
00
N
W
u