The URL can be used to link to this page

10-26-1999CITI' C)F IPLANNINGCOMMISSION RI(.:HFIELD 4 D October 26, 1999 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Approval of Minutes Regular Planning Commission meeting of September 28, 1999 and Planning Commission study session of October 12, 1999. Public Hearing ITEM #1 99 -CUP -5 1208 East 66th Street Mark Ogren, Ogren Properties Conditional Use Permit to allow addition of a convenience store and gas station to the existing shopping center Continued from September 28 meeting ITEM #2 99 -CUP -6 East side of Garfield Avenue, 76th to 77th Streets 99 -FDP -2 Ron Clark Construction Allow construction of 40 condominium housing units New Business ITEM #3 PC Letter #44 Finding of Consistency — 6812 Queen Avenue Old Business Liaison Reports School Board Community Services Advisory Commission HRA City Council Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Service's Director at 861- 9702 ". MWWA Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting September 28, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Brenda Bjorklund; Commissioners: Terry Ahlstrom, David Gepner, Daniel Linnihan, and Mark Tolvstad. MEMBERS ABSENT: Roger Gordon and Bill Kilian COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor STAFF PRESENT: Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator Andrew Gillett, Community Development Technician The Planning Commission did not meet a quorum at 7:00 p.m. and so began the agenda out of sequence. PC Letter # 28 ITEM #3 Update on Community and Recreation Center. Rick Jabs, Task Force and Community Services Commission Chair, updated the Planning Commission on the process of funding the Community and Recreational Center. Chairperson Jabs stated that the community will vote November 2, 1999 on a 9.5 million referendum to fund the Community and Recreational Center. Commissioner Jabs reported that Community Services Commissioners have been meeting with residents in the parks to obtain citizen input and keep them informed of the process. According to Chairperson Jabs, 20 to 25 residents have been present at the meetings in the parks. Chairperson Jabs said the biggest issue the residents have is whether or not the outdoor pool will be replaced. Chairperson Jabs stated that repairs to the existing outdoor pool could range from $55,000 to $2 million and that repair or replacement of the pool is a separate issue from construction of the Community and Recreational Center. The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Bjorklund at 7:20 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 28, 1999 Page 2 M/ Gepner, S/ Tolvstad to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of August 24, 1999. Motion carried: 5 -0 PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE 99-CUP-5,1208 East 66th Street ITEM #1 Conditional use permit to allow conversion of a portion of the existing shopping center to a convenience store and add gas pumps. Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, stating that the applicant, Mark Ogren of Ogren Properties, is seeking a conditional use permit to allow use of the property as a gas station. The applicant is proposing to convert the tenant space at the west end of the commercial center to a convenience store /gas station. Three gas pumps and a lighted canopy would be installed in the parking area located to the west of the center. Ms. Urban stated that staff recommends approval of the request for a CUP with stipulations outlined in the staff report. Chairperson Bjorklund asked for clarification of conditional uses. Ms. Urban reported what conditional uses are permitted in C2 Zoning. Mark Ogren of Ogren Properties, stated that he is sympathetic to the neighborhood and has contacted the adjacent property owners. Mr. Ogren stated that he could meet most of the stipulations listed in the staff report, but did not want to move the fuel tanks to the south side of building or remove the telephone booths currently in the parking lot. Chairperson Bjorklund stated that if the fuel tanks were to remain in the proposed location the refueling trucks could have difficulty turning out of the parking lot onto 12th Avenue. Mr. Ogren stated that if the fuel tanks were installed in the south side of the property vehicles could potentially be damaged driving over the fuel inlet covers. Mr. Ogren expressed a willingness to be flexible as long the business could remain competitive. September 28, 1999 Page 3 Commissioner Ahlstrom asked Ms. Urban what the traffic counts were for the existing retail uses near the proposed gas station. Ms. Urban replied that she did not have that information at hand, but could supply it. Commissioner Ahlstrom asked Mr. Ogren what, based upon 750 trips per day, what would be the comparison between customers fueling and buying products. Mr. Ogren replied that is not yet determined, but he doesn't expect the station to be above average in terms of traffic and would only serve the area customers. Commissioner Gepner asked if Mr. Ogren's company already owned the retail space to be converted to a gas station. Mr. Ogren replied that his company did not yet own it. Commissioner Gepner asked if Mr. Ogren would buy or lease the property. Mr. Ogren replied that he would buy it. Commissioner Gepner asked if Mr. Ogren could list other gas stations he owned. Mr. Ogren stated that his company mainly supplies gas stations, but the few he owns are not as small the one proposed. Carol Richardson, 6525 12th Avenue, stated there was no public need for another gas station and that she is opposed to any commercial business next to her property. Ms. Richardson stated concern about additional traffic and crime. Julie Opitz, 6500 12th Avenue, questioned how public need is measured and stated concern over the proximity of the proposed gas station to the daycare located on 11th Avenue and about increased traffic. Greg Opitz, 6500 12th Avenue, questioned the need for another gas station /convenience store and stated concern that refueling trucks could not turn onto 12th Avenue from the parking lot. Clayton Capra, owner of Mirkwood Coffee, Comics and Games, stated concern about parking in the commercial center. Lloyd Carlson, 6501 12th Avenue, questioned the need for another convenience store and stated concern over increased traffic. Amy Thirsten, 6404 12th Avenue, stated she is in agreement with the other area residents. Ms. Thirsten went on to say that she previously lived next to a Super America for over twelve years and that problems existed even though the neighborhood residents had a good relationship with the station owner. Ms. Thirsten stated that things will happen that are not in the control of the station owner, such as late night delivery trucks sitting in the parking lot with loud refrigeration units running. Dan Frege, owner of B & D's Convenience Plus located at 813 East 66th Street, stated he is in opposition to the proposal because it would have an unfair advantage due to its hours of operation. Mr. Frege stated that his business currently averages 750 customers per day. September 28, 1999 Page 4 Bob Roos, 6504 12th Avenue, stated agreement with other residents and stated concern with additional noise. Delores Armstrong, 6620 12th Avenue, stated that existing traffic from the commercial center is bad and is opposed to any traffic increases. Richard Moore, 6926 Park Avenue, is the owner of Andon Balloons and stated that there would be too many trucks accessing the loading area of the shopping center. Janet Holman, 6524 12th Avenue, stated frustration that she was not contacted by Mr. Ogren and is opposed to the gas station because it will greatly impact her life style. Katherine Hallet, 6510 12th Avenue, stated that all ten neighbors in the area are opposed to the proposed gas station. Joanne Weier, 6521 12th Avenue, stated concern that Mr. Ogren wants to build the gas station /convenience store without a lessee. Mary Anne Olson, stated concern about traffic and loud car stereos. Debbie Doubek, 6511 12th Avenue, questioned what the residents could do if the Planning Commission made a poor decision. M /Gepner, S /Linnihan to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 5 -0 Commissioner Gepner stated in response to Ms. Doubek that the Planning Commission could not make judgments on intangibles and were only concerned about the technical qualities of the proposal. The City Council makes a decision more based on public concern. M /Gepner, S /None to approve CUP application. Motion failed: lack of second. Chairperson Bjorklund stated concern that there is not yet enough information.for the Planning Commission to make a decision. Commissioner Bjorklund requested more information regarding the flow of delivery trucks, traffic counts and parking on public right -of -way. Chairperson Bjorklund asked that staff clarify several relevant ordinance provisions. Commissioner Linnihan expressed concern over the location of the proposed gas station and disappointment that the applicant did not spend more time meeting with the neighborhood. Commissioner Linnihan reported that gas stations are typically located September 28, 1999 Page 5 at intersections of arterial or county roads. Commissioner Linnihan stated he would prefer holding the proposal over until the Planning Commission has received more information. Commissioner Ahlstrom stated that the Planning Commission does not have enough information to make a decision and that it appears that the proposal would have an adverse affect on the neighborhood. Commissioner Linnihan expressed a desire to resolve problems with the proposal before sending it on to the City Council. M /Bjorklund, S/Tolvstad to recommend continuing discussion of the CUP until October 26, 1999. Motion carried: 4 -1 (Gepner opposed) NEW BUSINESS PC Letter # 27 ITEM #2 Consideration of two resolutions finding that the Modifications of the Gramercy and Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District Plan are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Urban reviewed the two resolutions being considered which would find that the acquisition and disposition of properties related to the Richfield Rediscovered Program is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and that plans for the Richfield Rediscovered Program conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City. Ms. Urban gave a brief history and description of the Richfield Rediscovered Program and outlined the funding process for the program. Chairperson Bjorklund asked if there was a way to put more money into the Richfield Rediscovered Program. Ms. Urban responded that the program is somewhat limited by funding restraints and the fact that the acquisition of properties is on a voluntary basis. M /Gepner, S /Bjorklund to adopt a resolution finding that the plans for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 New Construction Program conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City. Motion carried: 5 -0. September 28, 1999 Page 6 M /Bjorklund, S/Tolvstad to adopt a resolution finding that acquisition and disposition of properties related to the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 New Construction Program is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried: 5 -0. PC Letter # 29 ITEM #4 Review recommendations from Town Home Focus Group. Commissioners Gepner and Tolvstad, members of the Town Home Focus Group, informed the Planning Commission on the findings of the group. OLD BUSINESS None. LIAISON REPORTS School Board: None Community Services Advisory Commission: Commissioner Ahlstrom reported that negotiations are underway with MAC to provide community gardens for Richfield residents. HRA: Commissioner Gepner reported on the HRA's discussions regarding the Lyndale Gateway Project. City Council: Mayor Kirsch stated that two applicants appealed variance denials by the Hearing and that the Council approved a plan to plant trees as submitted by the Community Services Advisory Commission. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:35 p.m. September 28, 1999 Page 7 Terry Ahlstrom Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Minutes Study Session October 12, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Brenda Bjorklund; Commissioners: Terry Ahlstrom, David Gepner, Bill Kilian, Daniel Linnihan, and Mark Tolvstad. MEMBERS ABSENT: None COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor STAFF PRESENT: John Stark, Community Development Manager Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Bjorklund at 7:00 p.m. PC Letter # 30 ITEM #1 Transportation Update Public Works Director Mike Eastling, gave the Commission an overview of the current transportation projects in Richfield. Transportation Engineer Tom Foley, gave the Commission a background of the I494/35W interchange redesign process, reviewed several alternative designs, and reviewed the design of where they are at now. Mr. Foley reviewed the collector distributor roads, how to deal with traffic coming from the south and moving west with a Texas fly -over. Mr. Foley added that they would like to have additional fly -overs but it would be cost prohibitive. Mr. Foley stated that less access is provided with the revised design and there will be changes in the Richfield and Bloomington traffic patterns. Mr. Eastling reviewed key messages and the political reality of getting the project funded. Mr. Foley reviewed the 66`h Street/TH 77 interchange improvements and the schedule for the improvements. October 12, 1999 Page 2 Mr. Foley reviewed the traffic calming results. He stated that it has been oversold as a way to remove cars, but it doesn't do that. He then reviewed examples of mixed solutions from traffic calming studies. Mr. Eastling stated that the 35W Solutions Alliance has two citizen openings and he would invite a Commission member to join. Commissioner Linnihan suggested that the Commission review the Comprehensive Plan transportation sections. Larry Wozniczka, stated that the Commission should recommend that there be no increase in traffic on the local streets from new developments at intersections. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:00 p.m. Terry Ahlstrom Planning Commission Secretary 0 Planning Commission Letter October 26, 1999 Agenda Section: Public Hearing, continued from September 28 Item #: 1 Case #: 99 -CUP -5 GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Request: Conditional use permit to allow conversion of a portion of the existing shopping center to a convenience store and add gas pumps. Applicant /Owner: Mark Ogren, Ogren Properties, Inc. Location: 1208 East 66th Street Zoning: Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Comp. Plan: References: Zoning Code City Code: C -2 (general commercial) Commercial Commercial Community Commercial see attached Citations section for excerpts) 546.05, Subds. 4 and 6 1150 (licensing) 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 November 8, 1999. ANALYSIS Proposal: The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to allow use of the property at 1208 East 66th Street as a gas station. He is proposing to convert the tenant space at the west end to a convenience store /gas station. Three gas pumps and a canopy would be installed in the parking area located to the west of the center. Background: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this item on September 28, 1999. The Commission closed the public hearing but continued discussion to October 26, 1999. The Commission requested that additional information be provided on the proposal. Issues: Public need for the facility (Section 546.05, Subd. 6): The Commission requested that the City Attorney provide an explanation of this provision. Her written response is Attachment A. In summary, she explains that the courts have ruled that a City's denial of a land use permit based on the collective opinion of the Council that too many uses currently exist is arbitrary. In the City Attorney's opinion, without more specific criteria in the City's ordinance, this provision is not a sound reason for denying the gas station conditional use permit. Status of conditions of 526.27, subd. 12: See Attachment B. Truck delivery access: Parking is permitted along 12`x' Avenue, and street parking was observed by City staff. The peak period for street parking was Saturday morning. A truck- trailer cannot make the turn onto 12d' Avenue if cars are parked on the street. Requests for no street parking are reviewed by the City's Traffic Committee; however, it is likely that any parking restrictions adjacent to the commercial area would drive parkers farther into the neighborhood. Parking restrictions would also apply to residents. Street parking from King Oscar's customers is most common during the morning and afternoon hours. The applicant proposes to schedule fuel deliveries, which occur 2 -3 times per week, during evening hours, before 10:00 p.m. The applicant does not, however, have complete control over when trucks arrive. Restricting parking on the east side of the street, 40 feet south of the south curb cut, should provide the truck with room to maneuver onto the street in the event the truck arrives at a time when cars are parking on the street. This restriction would eliminate 1 -2 parking spaces; however, a parking space would be gained where the far south curb cut would be closed. This solution is being double - checked by the City's traffic consultant. The results of that review should be available at the Planning Commission meeting. One existing business in the center receives delivery at the loading dock. The deliveries occur twice a week. The site plan indicates how a truck can maneuver to access the loading dock given the parking configuration and the trash enclosure. Parking: Attachment C provides parking counts taken over a two -week period. Site plans indicate where cars were parked at the time counts were taken. The maximum number of cars in the lot was 25. An additional Saturday and Sunday count will be taken the 23"' and 24th. Those figures will be available at the Planning Commission meeting. The amount of parking spaces attributed to the non - convenience store portion of the shopping center (based on building size) would be 41 spaces. Twenty spaces would remain for the gas station/convenience store portion of the development. 1 Traffic: The applicant has submitted information that average daily traffic in a convenience store /gas station of this size is 750 customers. Peak periods coincide with morning and evening rush hours. In the applicant's experience, there will be a certain amount of convenience store customers who walk. There are also a certain amount of shared trips in the case of a convenience store /gas station, i.e. someone going to a business in the mall will get also get gas. Average daily traffic for a shopping center of this size is 1,085 cars /day min. =332; max. = 1,389). The 16 -hour traffic count (Source: Hennepin County, 1996) for the intersection of 66 "' Street and 12 "' Avenue shows the following figures: 66 "' Street (west of 12 "') 12,768 cars 66'h Street (east of 120) 12,246 cars 12` h Avenue (north of 66"') 1,111 cars 12 "' Avenue (south of 66 "') 1,813 cars The City's Transportation Engineer has reviewed the proposed application and determined that there is more than adequate capacity in the City's road system to accommodate the increased traffic. The count of 1,11 l vehicles on 12 "' Avenue is higher than normal for a residential street (350 -600 vehicles /day); however, it is likely that many of those vehicles are turning into the commercial businesses on 66 "' Street rather than going into the neighborhood. It is unlikely that many non - neighborhood cars will turn out of the gas station into the neighborhood. The main reason for such a shortcut would be for those cars using Bloomington Avenue to head east on the Crosstown. A traffic study was conducted for the Montessori School in 1998 and estimated that 5.4 percent of traffic would be likely to head north into the neighborhood; most traffic would use 66"' Street. Turning movements of the Phillips 66 station across the street were monitored during one p.m. peak period. The results (Attachment D) indicate that a majority of customers enter from and exit to 66`h' Street. Ninety -five percent of incoming customers came from 66` h Street and 74 percent of outgoing customers used 66"' Street. Lighting: A revised lighting plan has been submitted. The revised plan meets the ordinance requirement for a light level of 0.5 foot candle at the residential property line. The lighting in the canopy will be recessed to prevent glare. The detailed canopy construction and electrical plans will be reviewed by the City's lighting consultant to ensure appropriate standards are met. An escrow is also being recommended to cover the cost of making any adjustments to the lighting once it is installed if staff determines adjustments are necessary. Noise: The City's noise ordinance contains the following provisions that would apply to the gas station if it is open after 10:00 p.m.: Noise from car stereos cannot be heard 50 feet from the source; Noise from speakers cannot be heard 50 feet from the source; Noisy gatherings of people are prohibited between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.; and i-3 • Any owner /tenant who has legal authority to control such activities as those listed above and fails to take reasonable corrective steps is also guilty of violating the noise ordinance. Landscaping: Parking lot landscape standards for a new development require an 8 -foot parking lot setback from the property line to allow for appropriate landscaping. In the case of remodeling existing sites, staff is flexible with this setback requirement, recognizing the need to work around existing building and parking locations. Providing an 8 -foot parking lot setback along the 66 ° i Street property line on this site would eliminate 12 stalls on the east end and interfere with traffic circulation on the west end. Because of these impacts and because of the amount of existing landscaping, staff does not recommend enforcing the 8 -foot setback requirement. The site is currently landscaped with 18 mature coniferous trees located along the north and east property lines and shrubs located in the right -of -way along 66 °i Street. A condition of approval should be that, at such time that the coniferous trees reach the end of their mature life, they need to be replaced with comparable species and of a size to be approved by staff Staff recommends that additional landscaping be added along the north property line to fill in the area underneath the tree canopy. The applicant would, however, like to receive input on the landscaping and fencing plans from the adjacent neighbors before finalizing the plan. Staff also recommends that additional landscaping (e.g. shrubs, perennials) be added in the 66 ° i Street right -of -way, if the County will issue a permit. There are two boulevard trees on 12' x' Avenue. The applicant has requested that the south boulevard tree be removed. Staff is in the process of evaluating the health of the tree. In the event that the tree needs to be removed for construction purposes, the applicant is responsible for replacing the tree with two boulevard trees. If the Commission believes strongly that additional landscaping is necessary, a 5 to 8 foot parking lot setback could be provided along the west property line without significantly impacting parking or circulation. This would provide an area for additional landscaping and would offer some screening of the parking and gas pump area. Meeting with residents: The applicant met with each of the commercial tenants in the development. The primary concerns of the tenants are parking and deliveries. The applicant has suggested to tenants that parking spaces can be dedicated to certain businesses to reserve those spaces directly in front of the businesses. It was determined that only one business receives deliveries at the rear of the store. These deliveries occur twice per week. It has been determined that a truck can still maneuver into the loading area given the location of the parking and the trash enclosure. The applicant scheduled a meeting with the neighborhood on Thursday, October 21. Feedback from the meeting was not available at the time this report was published. i- ACTION TO BE TAKEN Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a conditional use permit at 1208 East 66th Street with the following stipulations: 1. That a revised fence design be submitted based on feedback from the adjacent property owners and approved by the Community Development Director. 2. That a revised landscape plan be submitted based on feedback from the adjacent property owners and from the County regarding plantings in the boulevard and approved by the Community Development Director and that a landscape escrow be submitted. 3. That, at such time as the coniferous trees reach the end of their life, they be replaced with trees, the species and size of which to be approved by the Community Development Director. 4. That the design of the trash enclosure match that of the existing building and be approved by the Community Development Director. 5. That an escrow be submitted to cover the costs of lighting adjustments that might be needed in the first year of operation. 6. That a signage plan be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director. 7. That the fuel tanks be relocated to the south side of the site or the refueling hours be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 8. That the telephone booths currently in the parking lot be removed or restrictions be placed on them to limit calls between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to emergency calls only. 9. That a storm water management plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 10. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the Public Works Director. Basis: 1. The proposed use is consistent with the Community Commercial designation for the property in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. With the stated stipulations, the proposed gas station/convenience store will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code. 3. With the stated stipulation, the proposed gas station/convenience store will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements. 4. With the stated stipulations, the proposed gas station/convenience store will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare. 5. The proposed gas station/convenience store meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. i - Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a conditional use permit at 1208 East 66th Street with the following findings of fact: I . The proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. The level of noise and traffic would be such that residential properties would be negatively impacted. 2. A 25 -foot buffer yard is required to adequately screen the use from the adjacent residential property. Inclusion of the buffer yard would reduce the amount of parking such that it could not meet the required parking standard. 3. The proposal is a change -in -use of an existing structure; however, the change is such that the application should come into compliance with landscape standards for new construction and building additions. Parking standards cannot be met if the property is to meet landscape standards. 4. Trucks cannot adequately maneuver out of the site without parking restrictions placed on 12'h Avenue. Parking restrictions on 12' h Avenue in this area would negatively impact the neighborhood. An alternative to parking restrictions would be to leave the curb cut on 66`h Street open. Individual access points on 66`' Street are inconsistent with the access management guidelines of the City and County. Individual access points have an undue adverse impact on the flow of traffic on 66`' Street. I - 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. U. Service stations, service station /convenience stores, and conversion of a service station to a service station /convenience store, provided the following conditions are met: a) the business shall be subject to the provisions of Section 1150 of the City Code; b) if the use site abuts a lot which is in the R or R -1, a buffer yard of not less than 25 feet in width and 75% all -season opacity from the ground to a height of six feet shall be provided to separate all aspects of such use from abutting residential parcels. The council may reduce this requirement to not less than 15 feet if significant additional landscaping and fencing, with 100% all- season opacity, is provided to screen the service station use; and Amended, Bill No. 1996 -7, Sec. 1) c) the use site shall not be located within 300 feet of the grounds of a school, church, or hospital; d) a buffer yard of not less than ten feet in width shall be provided to separate all aspects of such use from abutting parcels; e) vehicles which are waiting for repair shall be stored in appropriately designed and screened areas as approved by the City; f) parking of vehicles on public right -of -way shall be prohibited; g) any repair, assembly, disassembly, or maintenance of vehicles shall occur within an enclosed building, except minor maintenance such as tire inflation, adding oil, or adding windshield wiper fluid; h) the minimum frontage on any street shall be 120 feet and the minimum area of the site shall be 12,000 square feet; i) any exterior speaker shall comply with the noise control limits set by Section 930 of the City Code; j) queuing space of at least 20 feet shall be provided in front of the pump island in each direction in which access can be gained to the pump -- this required space shall not interfere with internal circulation patterns or with designated parking areas, and shall not be permitted in any public right -of -way, private easement, or within the required parking lot setback; k) pump islands shall be located not less than 20 feet from any property line; 1) if the use is not located on a county road or state highway, it shall not be operated between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following day; and m) canopies shall comply with the following regulations: i) the canopy may extend up to twelve feet beyond the center line of the pump island toward the street, but in no instance shall a canopy be located closer than six feet from any lot line; ii) only one canopy shall be permitted per station, unless the station is located on a corner lot, in which case two canopies may be permitted; iii) the canopy shall be at least 14 feet in height, but not greater than 16 feet in height; iv) no signage of a permanent or temporary nature may be placed on a canopy; and v) all canopy lighting shall be recessed into the canopy ceiling. 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. Tile 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. Richfield City Code Section 1150 - Gasoline Service Stations 1150.01 i-'6 1150.01. Gasoline and oil service stations: purpose of regulation. It is determined that gasoline and oil service stations and station stores may pose particular problems in achieving compatibility with abutting and adjacent land uses because of potentially detrimental aspects of their operation. The public health, safety and general welfare requires that, because of traffic hazards, noise, light glare, outdoor storage and display of merchandise, indiscriminate advertising, inadequate incineration facilities, insufficient maintenance, unsightliness and inadequate storage of debris and used materials, such service stations and station stores be specifically regulated. 1150.03. Definitions. Subdivision 1. For the purposes of this section the terms defined in this subsection have the meanings given them. Subd. 2. "Service station" means a retail place of business engaged primarily in the sale of motor fuels, but also may be engaged in supplying goods and services generally required in the operation and maintenance of automotive vehicles and the fulfilling of motorists' needs. These may include sale of petroleum products; sale and servicing of tires, batteries, automobile accessories and replacement items, washing and lubrication services; the performance of minor automotive maintenance and repair; and the supplying of other incidental customer services and products. Subd. 3. "Station store" means a store located on the same premises as a service station and designed and operated for the additional purpose of the sale of merchandise unrelated to automotive operation, maintenance or repairs. Subd. 4. "Junked motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 169.01, which is lacking in vital component parts, or is in an inoperable condition such that it has no substantial further use consistent with its usual functions: "vital component parts" means those parts of a motor vehicle essential to its mechanical functioning, including but not limited to, the motor, drive train, and wheels. Subd. 5. "Motor vehicle in need of repair" means a motor vehicle which is inoperable and which has been received at a gasoline service station, in the normal course of its business, for the performance of minor automotive maintenance and repair. 1150.05. Fire prevention. A building used as a service station shall be constructed and maintained as required by the rules and regulations of the state fire marshall. Every facility, whether underground or above ground and whether indoors or out of doors, for the handling, storage and movement of flammable liquids shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the rules and regulations of the state fire marshal. The provisions of the fire prevention code shall also be applicable to service stations regulated in this section. 1150.07. Other code provisions: zoning. Stations shall be operated in accordance with the other provisions of this code, specifically including zoning provisions contained in the zoning code. 1150.09. Limitations on use of station premises. Subdivision 1. Sale of motor vehicles prohibited. Service station premises may not be used as a place of sale or resale, or as a place for display for sale or resale, of new or used motor vehicles. Subd. 2. Storage of junked vehicles. Junked vehicles may not be stored or kept on service station premises except pursuant to department of public safety or other law enforcement directive. When so stored junked vehicles shall be suitably screened from public view. I' C1 Subd. 3. Vehicles being repaired. Motor vehicles in need of repair may be stored or kept on service station premises for a period not to exceed seven days. A vehicle stored or kept shall be plainly marked by a placard or poster supplied by the city, 8 1/2 x 1 l inches in size, placed in a conspicuous location inside the vehicle, bearing the terms: "this vehicle received by this station for repair on (date)." A motor vehicle in need of repair may be stored or kept in excess of seven days pursuant to police directive. Failure to post a motor vehicle as required by this subdivision is unlawful. Subd. 4. Loading of trucks prohibited. Service station premises may not be used for loading, unloading or transfer of loads by any truck or truck -type vehicles, except in the case of emergency where the vehicle is mechanically inoperable and a load must be removed or transferred from such an inoperable vehicle. 1150.11. Additional limitations: parking of trucks. Subdivision 1. General rule. Service station property may be permitted to use certain off-street parking areas for the parking of trucks and trailers subject to compliance with the following conditions: Subd. 2. Off- street parking. Trucks, truck- trailers, truck tractors and other vehicles temporarily parked on the premises in compliance with this subsection must be parked entirely within areas designated as off - street parking areas, except that such vehicles may be parked elsewhere on the premises when being actually serviced. Subd. 3. Ingress and egress. No vehicle may park in a manner as to obstruct vehicular ingress and egress from the gasoline station. Subd. 4. Vision. No vehicle may park in such a manner as to obstruct the vision of persons using the public roadways or the areas of ingress and egress to the filling station so as to create a traffic hazard. Subd. 5. Advertising. No vehicle whether new or used may park upon the premises for the purpose of advertising or storing the truck for sale. Subd. 6. Operable. Vehicles parked upon the premises shall be in working mechanical condition so that they may be moved under their own power. Subd. 7. Repairs. No vehicle may be dismantled or repaired while parked in the off-street parking areas, but may be repaired in the areas normally used for such purposes upon the premises; Subd. 8. Storage. Vehicles may not be parked for permanent or semipermanent storage. Trucks which have been parked upon the premises without having been removed for a trucking use for a period in excess of 24 hours shall be presumed to be parked for storage contrary to this subsection; this clause shall not apply to a utility trailer or truck lawfully stored on licensed premises under the provisions of section 1175. Subd. 9. Fire. All vehicles shall be parked upon the premises in such a manner as to not create a fire hazard, and shall not be parked so as to obstruct the activities of any fireman called upon the scene or the use of any firefighting equipment. 1150.13. Incinerators. No materials may be burned on the premises of a service station, except in an approved commercial incinerator complying with the code of the city. Barrels and similar containers may not be used for incineration. I__ ( `-' 1150.15. Debris. Used oil cans, discarded auto parts, discarded tires and similar items of debris may not be stored on service station premises, unless the items of debris are located in an enclosure and are completely outside of public view. Such debris shall be removed from the premises at least once each week. 1150.17. Surfacing and maintenance. The entire area of service station premises shall be improved with either (i) concrete or bituminous surfacing, (ii) landscaping with grass, flowers and shrubs, or (iii) both. The premises shall also be well- maintained at all times and kept free from refuse, weeds and debris. 1150.19. Display and sale of tires. Tires for sale may not be stored or displayed outside the service station structure, except (i) in a display rack during business hours, or (ii) in a permanent outside display container located in conformance with the setback requirements contained in the zoning code and completely encloseable. The display container shall be closed when the station is not open for business. 1150.21. Merchandising standards. Service stations and station stores are subject to the provisions of section 1135 relating to outdoor merchandising and storage. In addition the following standards apply to service stations and station stores. Merchandise not displayed in a permanent or temporary outdoor display as provided in section 1135 shall be: a) displayed on wooden or metal pallets or racks of a permanent or portable design; b) stacked in an orderly compact arrangement; c) located in areas not reserved for off - street parking or landscaping; d) placed so as not to obstruct safe vision of driving public and customers; and e) prevented from. encroaching on public right of ways or private property. Q V ai- J L co co co ui o" f°-- m.0 a E) v Qz E N m 3 O Q O O L m UQw Ua_ 0 0 IN i m rn rn co N N O V O 9t,92-LZ6 (Z19) 99L9-6CV (199) 16LOWNHOM '01394maou 91499 NN 'S11OdV3NNM k,VM>IHVd 3AY1 8V030 4461 5I03IH38V AODON Z2099 NW 'J31VM1111S 032IiS A313380 Hinos 64t1 NVdNOD 110 X1080 83d013A30 JL33&DJLB HLOO T 3TBH3b%w HJL3N amoOdOud1031IH08V i I GIi Iop 1 9 1 W 1 1 I 4'I'I tiFil 21ilpI111H Il,llllli 1 1!I a•d'!P till' IdodlP 16 I 1 3 3 1 l'aab IP!,! II i LLJ LLJ plTil LLJ w C\4 0 LLJ J LLJLLJ -J C/') Li Li L 0 cn I "I' ll 11t, K LLJ Lj 3 66-2t-9 aweJp 0300 Ava+a 'o A umwo 7 9. tio 1^'3 r'J'H'T"°d"" AC -.t elms NW 'PleYV fa 1-4s 10991— •"V vu 3 NOOl9 NOISLMH 110 XIOJD 11 r 1 O$ BAS/ 3iis 1 1 i 1 (- 1 y( j• J•N " m , lam IL n i m 1 W i Ur.V1 .cn to 0 ma 0 , ' U) 1 l / Q Q Q 10 " IA 1A b Q .. I P N Q - -- _..: s, m 4 NcnlM 4 L i f Rb to a os•M v4u -- Fq 1 I 1 l a j I 66-2t-9 aweJp 0300 Ava+a 'o A umwo 7 9. tio 1^'3 r'J'H'T"°d"" AC -.t elms NW 'PleYV fa 1-4s 10991— •"V vu 3 NOOl9 NOISLMH 110 XIOJD 11 r 1 O$ BAS/ 3iis 1 1 i 1 (- 1 y( j• J•N " m , lam IL n i m 1 W i Ur.V1 .cn to 0 ma 0 , ' U) 1 l / Q Q Q 10 " IA 1A b Q .. I P N Q - -- _..: s, m 4 NcnlM 4 L i f Rb to a os•Mv4u -- 9459 -4Z6 (Z19) 91455 NN 'SIIOdV3NNIY4 AVMAdVd 3NVI 8VQ33 tl"L S1Z311HZi A00ON 13 31lHZ2V 9949-6fb (L99) Z9099 NN '831VMIIIIS 133815 AJ13360 H1f105 6t,41 ANVdY100 23d Ol3A30 WiLoammom lama ono JLsw3 lamUlLs HJL99 T MMAIVv iHiiM JNJ Vc J V I1/U J NJ V NJ i E `- 8 s b. z z 15 z ) z 5 J i U c S u w wa wtl Q N y az N °S I J N_ Q I V1 ti V1 v Vl N • CV) Z ME I u VoltoN w W W y 6 m O Y t 16ZWmzZ3GONZg p W N z v zm tai z == o z R XI 4 l) Li Z C C W Y WaW mJOYWY CW- WJY a' UW S a H1noS 3nN]AV Hl: t Y zC Z r i 3 F v Ok ii. W LLJ V) Ln r L' x LL Q 4 y NO (/) s SRrwe O Z J W i6jt Q H j U - z J H1n0S 3nN3AV H1Z l F z w3= V5 a w K lu-zu-BiI 15:37 rfom-A[hht:ul a uKi vt., *o c» ailt 1-14a r ucuu.) r-oco ATTACHMENT A I 470 P.16bury Ccn(.•t 2UO South NAth Strcct Vlatnc,pulo MN 55402 v,O) 337 -viou tc)cphnnc 612) 3i7•1.)310 f" nrtp•uw-A. A. n..cdy-S.wcn cum CORRIVE H. Ttio,mSON Altuniey ]t LA-+ U.rcct 0.a1 (612) 337 -9217 cm..) cthuuuongkcnncuy-gm -en coin October 20, ) 999 BY FAX AND MAIL Julie Urban City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 RE.- Conditional Use Permit Issues Dear Julie: You requested advice regarding the meaning of two provisions in the zoning code. The questions apparently arose in connection with the planning commission's review of a conditional use permit application for a gas station. The first question concerned Subsection 526.27, subd. 12(c) of the Richfield City Code. That section provides that a service station or service station/convenience store "shall not be located within 300 feet of the grounds of a school, church, or hospital." The property in question is located within 300 feet of a Montessory day care. You asked whether subdivision 12(c) would prevent the issuance of a conditional use permit under those circumstances. My response is no. The zoning code does not treat day care facilities as synonymous with schools or churches. See, e.g., Subsection 526.27, subd. 20(c). If the city council had intended to prohibit gas stations within 300 feet of a day care center, it could have said so, but it did not. Second, you asked whether the conditional use permit could be denied under subsection 546.05, subd. 6(f). That subsection provides that the City Council may not issue a conditional use permit unless "there is a public need for such use at the proposed location." Neighboring residents claim that there is no public need because there are five gas stations within one half mile of the site In my opinion, the City Council could not deny the conditional use permit based upon a lack of public need," under the circumstances that you have described. The Minnesota Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Metro 500, Inc. v. Ciy of Brooklyn Park, 211 N.W.2d 358 (1973). In that case, the City of Brooklyn Park denied a conditional use permit for a gas station on the CAH- 170501 RC 1 00.5 ID-20 -BB 13:35 From - KENNEDY 6 GRAVEN r612337831U ) -14o r Uj /0a r-oio Julie Urban October 20, 1999 Page 2 of 3 ground that the area already had too many service stations and that the property should be reserved for some other use allowed by the zoning ordinance. The court held that "the limitation of the number of one type of use in a particular area does not bear a sufficient relationship to the public health, safety, or general welfare of a community and that the denial of a special use permit for such a reason is therefore arbitrary." 211 N. W.2d at 363. The court indicated that the economic interaction of supply and demand should determine the number and type of permissible uses within a cone, not the city council's collective opinion on the issue. It should be noted that the Metro 500 court expressed concern about the lack of guidelines or standards to guide the city council its decision. In that case, the city council had made its decision based upon the general standard of "health, safety and public welfare." The Metro 5M court stated that it was not predicting what the outcome would be in a case where the zoning code expressly authorized the council to deny permits bacd on the number of particular uses in a zoning district, "assuming some reasonable standards for such decisions were contained in the code and that a comprehensive plan for future development was adopted by the city." 211 N.W.2d at 364. Subsection 546.05, subd. 6(f), however, does not contain any standards for determining "public need," and in that respect subdivision 6(f) is no more specific than the public health, safety, and welfare rationale used by the city council in Metro 500. It is doubtful that a court would allow the city council to deny a permit based upon subdivision 6(f), where the council is essentially. relying upon its own collective opinion as to whether a use is economically prudent. The "public need" criterion is essentially so vague that it is meaningless in the context of enforcing the ordinance. if the planning and commission and council are interested in using- "public need" as a basis for evaluating conditional use permits, 1 recommend that the ordinance be drafted to include more specific criteria (e.g., that there are not more than -'x" similar uses located within a specified distance from the prpperiy). Let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, e— Al 01-— Corrine H. Thomson CAI 1- 170501 RC 1 ou -5 I JI 1 C O 0 U a) O O C O a) C O U C cu N a 0 0 U O N C E a) O N U N C C p O w. c N O U U 0) N O uj O C OO c 0 U > O 0 n c a) cV r N cn ATTACHMENT 8 T to 0. 3 H d a Q° 00 N N m O (n >. uj O- c° a) 'a U) O 0 UN_mcuo'oa nQ n c cu = a 0 U 0 a) Q. o cu 03L a 0`° to D) Q Y 'p O C_ o,°nocp— to O O 0 7 to CL o N a) c°, Q cc tr— 66 cu ° c—co 4) Cl) a U to O E c O _ L U0 a) L a) L O O Y V° O D C L n w=c_ c3` - cam °" a) 7 C' 3 O W >> o c" o U c "" w-p.5 v°i aci c to 0 >.•'a cu N c 00.D p N= O N N V N Um ° r'D COL c t5 Dw.0vJUL) 3 OU LN U 3 N p n U) O: N t0n O. a Q m L a) w+ ' Q. - O C p f L O a) +- C O O N "' ' M >+ > r, n cu cu O N O a) N CZZ O t O L c O w a a U) °-0 a) Y fu cn a . N •• °" vi C "L" N H C 0 3U)-0oo°0 0 7U3 v c• c ..L 2 Sn0 o'c 0= N0) cn c c Uo 0v 0 0o cu a) cap o> °" a)cu ENov O L3 c 7 0 U oo c ° c: ° o0 0'o c o 3 L= E E o O 0) -p M U U L 1) c ' N N 0. o cu u + O 0— N . .N d) c C > C Q L a) (u L O ._ L O O o cn t cu ' cn cu n F- L L L .— m cu L 2 L p n F- 0 Z O Z C U E 'nC O U 7 cr a) 2-0 O)O C 0 'p N m O O U V Q w U cu C) c 0LO N C O cncu U 0) W — n Q O w m c ca O OC Cp 0 0 0 C LL a O rn — 3 (u cE°cuc u Do co U) 3 N n fU a) a) E CUN`- tea`' N C U oa n cu 7 — a) 0° 0- a'o m.0 U 3 U 0 cV a)U c cn cn in m0 C\ > a) p - c'u a•rna) w O Lo a) O C n cB cn cc,0 a) 0 c N r- 3 UNL 0- a) L L- C cn Q) E Op C 0) 0 tn C N a) O U C a) rL' L+ > O U) L- c a) ca L. Q 0 ono o,o` aEm30o n cn a) 2 cL N- o 0 °c)NZ 0 c cn cm cu CL 3 aC o O cv 0 CL O O E Q m cn o C V C CuN O CO w u C-0 L ca d (u N a) n .O O N w N O O L L U N TcOn N a) ( a O O N n p ~ a— Uiioc0'o - 0cn O8- 0 c a)0 C -0 C a) U) nCU U D0 O F- .O O p) a U C c6 Gj w L N N N N UUi cu O_ C a) cn cu n v) L -' m L cu n 2 cu 0 0 U 0 U c a) 0 m pC U c 0 cu N a) N m 0 C O N L) U Z 1) N m w O C O L Q) C OU D C m N a) L O 7', a) U C +-% a) a) c E O mN C C O O E n o U U CD O N O Vj O C a) O L ED _0 V) a) U > O a) CL U) CV tir Hy 3 0) O = c cu N LO d U c W o o m o c c c Ua) E w c a) C v v cusco Q U t-C YU 3 d O vi 0) IT E Q c otE v N m d` oi C O L E '"WM a) 2 w 0 m ern m'7 ov w N — N N H O Q) a) -2 O Qj O a) N C d N 3 a) a) L 7° N m '- O m C a) L CL m umi-0 C C Z CU C ui.N c a n. f° o .. o Nm03o. L Erna L a)m c„ Sc of cu O a) 2 N a) O E N U N U O 3 O L a)c O m mm C3 myoN rn ( L dN «. O N a) 0 m •NcUE N N rn O rn 4; N N O a) N W a) c w O b a) —O N E t Q> 0 c C o C N C a) 8 ; O v O c E O my E 0 O C m m m N a) a) ,q 2 E Q O co Q ' V n E N O m N N m cu ,! N C N a) a) N O c 0 Q- N L C N Q .— N 0 Q L m N E U m N 0 O cu E w m NO m— c O m Ow U in O O t c .. D O a) O rn N U C E O Y a) U O >` a'r N N C O N m c C , C 0 C C N U 3 a) m Q cn n a)m5-° L a) C O _0 O m m'rnm . L m U C-2 w,mm O L a)m L O m m > C 'c m mOvL2C c0 D 0 m .(nz U) U) H am cc 0 c m H a- CL H o- NH am co O cM 0 C' L L m UL 0 N O c m N w N y e 3 y > 0) c O cu cm CU a) tC ca• O L E L E Ny 3: C) N .0 m O a) O O c .- O N m O- c mqE= 2m ac CU0)E0 o N L) 0 0 N a) E O N a) m m 0 0 w U o m cu U UU O N d E c N CU CQm_rn_ c m 6•E.G E y y m . L T W c N— m C 7 a) E, L >' m m C N L U O O aa) EvxCarnn N mNC-oa) 0DCVm o a) a a) O= m E CU U n D.. c LNO y O m O U U c L O O O U w N o E C U U C 3 a O O'D w O O N— V O: N m c0 N n c a L a) 3 a) 3 Eco L o ca c cu °'c 0 C N rr Q C L y'a E m O C a) ov N 'C a) a) p m m a) O NC N L c N m L C Q U O Svc C a) O Ccc0C a), V v_,E O N o c L D E _ 0 QL °_'E E m Q NU E a) C mEmN3. c 7 L N LNmcU C O 7 V n O a) 0 n3-aQa)N m a) O n.R Hy 1 M U C a) a) pC U C 0 cu N a N cu 0 c 0 N a) U Z m N cu 0 c 0 a) c 0 U a c fu N m 0 m. U C +• a) m C E a) O cu U NC C O O w U) p U C a) N O O 0 () Na a) U > Z o a, a U) ai N o a O 7 N 6 0 aL m c cu c - 0 o M L r U F O L An O CL O E E E t cu V C` >, O vO a N C te O C a) H N E N Oa) a) a) v, L c 0 8 -0 v oa a ao n o N o Q o cp cu - rn 0 .. M C C a n U a a C C N E o c c c o N o a a) a) a) a) n mom cu a n.8 c 2 ns o o o c 0 a.` a a a)a 2 a m L y U) o C E— a) Z 0-4) i— o N O O U p 5 a) O O a) U j : cvN O O c O V O M N N O O.0 Q Ca cu C 0 O a) C O O O c Q) a ac o 0 0 N a c cu a)) co O L .o cu " N C AEa a) O mC a ' a) C O E a) O N N :: E cu O N D OC O U a 0 Q a) Q a) p) C a) Q 7 NQQd c N m O L cu c c O co 3 O E "' Ena c O N c Q' cca cu N Oc O 0) C5 >, O , L a) C a O 0 N a) p L 4 cu CO d a L '- cu N 0-0 Q E c a) Q a) . L. cu .. L p a) v_' N L o Q c co C c c O) o a 0 a) C N 0) N c U >oN o E LOEc 75 CL Ecu c.0 O .3 OoCOLO= O CL U U a)a)cu w w w c U U L o cu N U_ a cu CU s 0 cm L C Ocn i O O O cu O O cu C 0) UNa7 E ATTACHMENT C Parking Study For 1208 E 66`h Street There are a total of 89 spaces in the lot. BY DATE Date Time Cars In Lot Full Cars on 12th Ave. Cars on 13th Ave. Tues., Oct. 5, 1999 5:15 p.m. 22 25% 0 3 Wed., Oct. 6, 1999 12:15 p.m. 18 20% 3 6 Thurs., Oct. 7, 1999 12:30 p.m. 17 19% 3 5 Fri., Oct. 8, 1999 9:30 a.m. 17 19% 5 4 Sat., Oct. 9, 1999 8:20 a.m. 13 15% 13' 0 Sat., Oct. 9, 1999 5:30 p.m. 25 31% 1 4 Wed., Oct. 13, 1999 8:30 a.m. 12 13% 3 1 Wed., Oct. 13, 1999 5:30 p.m. 21 24% 1 4 Mon., Oct. 18, 1999 10:15 a.m. 17 19% 1 7" 2 BY TIME Date Time Cars In Lot Full Cars on 12th Ave. Cars on 13th Ave. Sat., Oct. 9, 1999 8:20 a.m. 13 15% 13" 0 Wed., Oct. 13, 1999 8:30 a.m. 12 13% 3 1 Fri., Oct. 8, 1999 9:30 a.m. 17 19% 5 4 Mon., Oct. 18, 1999 10:15 a.m. 17 19% 7` 2 Wed., Oct. 6, 1999 12:15 p.m. 18 20% 3 6 Thurs., Oct. 7, 1999 12:30 p.m. 17 19% 3 5 Tues., Oct. 5, 1999 5:15 p.m. 22 25% 0 3 Sat., Oct. 9, 1999 5:30 p.m. 25 31% 1 4 Wed., Oct. 13, 1999 5:30 p.m. 21 24% 1 4 On October 9, 1999 during the morning count, King Oscar's lot was completely full and on Oct. 18'h the lot was nearly full. Store Hours Tenant Hours Hobby Depot M -F 10am — 9pm Sat. 10am — 6pm Sun. 12 pm — 5 m Oulie's Oriental Market Sun. - Sat. 10am — 8 m Mirkwood M - Tu Closed W — Th 3pm — 9pm Fri. 3pm — 2am Sat. 10am — 2am Sun 10am — 6 m Andon Balloons M — Sat. 9am — 5pm Sun. Closed Something Fishy M — F 12pm — 9pm Sat. 10am — 7pm Sun. 12 pm — 6 m 140 01 1 ATTACHMENT D Turning Movements Phillips 66 1217 East 66th St. 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 1208 E 66th St 8 10 7 7 Phillips 66 00 Q N Counts Taken Wednesday, September 22, 1999 a MOAN 0 Planning Commission Letter October 26, 1999 Agenda Section: Public Hearing Item #: 2 Letter #: GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Request: Conduct a public hearing relating to a minor amendment proposed for the Comprehensive Plan. Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of property. City Council: Once the Planning Commission has approved the proposed changes, the Council would be asked to give its approval, subject to Met Council review. Metropolitan Council: Following Planning Commission and City Council approval, the Plan revisions would be sent to the Metropolitan Council for review. ANALYSIS Proposal: Ron Clark Construction is proposing to construct 40 owner - occupied condominium units on the '/2 block east of Garfield Avenue as Phase III of the Lyndale Gateway planned unit development plan. The Comprehensive Plan guide plan designation for the property is R (single family residential). The proposed development is more appropriately guided as R -MM (medium density multiple family residential). History: In March, 1999, residents of the block expressed concern about the impact of the senior housing development on their single family residential property. The RRA determined that the large structure proposed for the east side of Lyndale Avenue, the number of units, the office use, and the access onto Garfield Avenue warranted a transition land use between the senior housing/office component and the single family neighborhood. The FIRA directed CSM Corporation, the primary developer, to consider expanding the development area to include these single family residences. Aimee Gourlay of the Mediation Center met with all property owners on the block to determine the concerns and whether or not they wanted to be purchased as part of the development. Five of seven property owners decided that they wanted to be purchased. The HRA directed staff and the developer to proceed with additional development on the east side of Garfield Avenue. CSM approached Ron Clark Construction to plan a townhome project as a transition land use. The high cost of purchasing the single family homes led Ron Clark Construction to conclude that a low- density townhome project would not be financially feasible. They proposed a 40 -unit, condominium project (25 units /acre) that would continue to serve as a transitional use but that would also be financially feasible. Issues: The Comprehensive Plan goals encourage a greater diversity of housing types in the City. The Plan also encourages transitional land uses between commercial /high density areas and single family residential neighborhoods. ACTON TO BE TAKEN Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve a minor amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designating the half block on the east side of Garfield as R -MM (medium density residential). Basis: l . It is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to provide transitional land uses between commercial /high density areas and single family residential neighborhoods. 2. The proposed condominium development was requested by neighbors on Garfield Avenue who believe a land use transition is needed between the senior housing development on Lyndale Avenue and the single family residential neighborhood. Alternative: Decide not to amend the Comprehensive Plan. j mada Agenda Section: Item #: Case #: Planning Commission Letter October 26, 1999 Public Hearing 3 99- FDP -2; 99 -CUP -6 GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Request: Final development plan and conditional use permit for the 40 -unit condominium housing component (Phase III) of the Lyndale Gateway development. Applicant /Owner: Ron Clark Construction Location: East side of Garfield Avenue between 76th and 77th Streets Zoning: PC -2 Existing Land Use: Single family residential Proposed Land Use: Medium density housing Comp. Plan: R -MM (medium density residential) proposed 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 within 350 feet of the subject property. City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of November 8, 1999. ANALYSIS Proposal: Phase III of the Lyndale Gateway planned unit development plan consists of 40 owner - occupied condominium units on the ' /z block east of Garfield Avenue. The four, three -story buildings contain 10 units, arranged back -to- back. The unit sizes and configurations are as follows: 8 west end units two stories 2,014 s.f. 24 middle units three stories 1,585 s.f. 8 east end units three stories 1,692 s.f. J, l History: In March, 1999, residents of the block expressed concern about the impact of the senior housing development on their single family residential property. The HRA determined that the large structure proposed for the east side of Lyndale Avenue, the number of units, the office use, and the access onto Garfield Avenue warranted a transition land use between the senior housing/office component and the single family neighborhood. The HRA directed CSM Corporation, the primary developer, to consider expanding the development area to include these single family residences. Aimee Gourlay of the Mediation Center met with all property owners on the block to determine the concerns and whether or not they wanted to be purchased as part of the development. Five of seven property owners decided that they wanted to be purchased. The HRA directed staff and the developer to proceed with additional development on the east side of Garfield Avenue. CSM approached Ron Clark Construction to plan a townhome project as a transition land use. The high cost of purchasing the single family homes led Ron Clark Construction to conclude that a low- density townhome project would not be financially feasible. They proposed a 40 -unit, condominium project (25 units /acre) that would continue to serve as a transitional use but that would also be financially feasible. Issues: Lyndale Gateway PUD: Approval of this FDP /CUP is one of the requirements for the final approval of the neighboring Twin City Christian Homes development. Housing Component: The housing is "for sale" and is intended to be owner - occupied. The Association documents do not prevent the renting of a unit; however, market influences are likely to encourage owner - occupancy. A common element residential subdivision plat will be filed in which the units themselves are owned individually and the land is owned separately by the association, of which each individual owner is a part. Association documents will establish how the association operates, e.g. how decisions are made regarding maintenance and improvements. The proposed sale price of the units at this time is $129,000 to $149,000. Design: The four end units of each building have doors oriented to the east and west. The doors on the east end were placed there to create a more interesting design on that side of the building. Based on neighbor concerns about privacy and the issue of marketability, the developer would like the flexibility to relocate those doors to a north/south orientation. Height: The proposed height to the peak of the roof is 44 feet, for a defined height of 36 feet (in the case of a hip or gable roof, the mid point of the hip roof is the defined height of the building). Setbacks: The proposed setbacks are as follows: Front: 4 -6 feet 76"' Street Side: 63 -69 feet Rear: 7 -12 feet Loop Street Side: 12 -20 feet Parking and Access: Two units in each building have a two -car garage and eight units have a single car garage along with driveway parking in front of the garage. Eight additional guest parking spaces are provided at the east end of the development. Traffic: Anticipated traffic for a development of this size is 195 trips per day compared to an estimated 64 trips per day for the existing homes). In response to neighborhood concerns about increased traffic on Harriet Avenue, staff and consultants have devised a plan that would convert a segment of the loop street to one -way traffic. Traffic would only be permitted to travel westward on the loop street. Appropriate signage would be installed to direct traffic appropriately. Landscaping: A significant landscape plan is proposed. A total of 72 trees would be planted as part of the landscape plan. The proposed size is larger than typical plantings in new developments. The proposed size of the coniferous trees is 10 -14 feet (the standard is 6 -8 feet), ornamental trees would be 2.5 caliper inches (1.5 is standard), and other deciduous trees would be 3 caliper inches (2.5 is standard). The developer is also proposing to protect several of the existing boulevard trees if possible given the construction activity. The developer has also agreed to plant one or two trees in the back yard of each adjacent single family residential property at the occupant's chosen location in order to provide appropriate screening of the taller structure. Neighborhood Feedback: An open house was held on September 29 to present the plans for the development and gather input from the neighboring residents. Nine households attended the open house. The detailed responses were previously provided to the Planning Commissioners and are included as an attachment to the letter. In summary, the primary concerns expressed were increased traffic on Harriet Avenue, lack of privacy, negative impact on property values, tree size, building height, and lack of a fence. ACTION TO BE TAKEN Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a final development plan and conditional use permit for Phase III of the Lyndale Gateway development with the following stipulations: 1. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 2. That a stormwater management plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 3. That the property be replatted. 4. That a signage plan be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director. 5. That a revised landscape plan be submitted relocating the ash trees proposed along 76 ° i Street to allow for visibility from Harriet Avenue and including denser, shrubs at the end of the parking areas. Any planting that does not survive for one year must be replaced. 6. That a tree protection plan be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director. 7. That the developer approach each property owner on the west side of Harriet Avenue and, for those owners wanting additional screening, provide one to two trees on each property in a location agreed to by the owner and the developer. Any planting that does not survive for one year must be replaced. Basis: 1. The proposed housing fills a missing market niche in Richfield of low- maintenance, owner- occupied housing. 2. The proposed housing provides a transition between the senior housing/office development on Lyndale Avenue and the single - family residential neighborhood. 3. The loop street would be converted to a one -way street, allowing westward traffic movement only. 4. Significant landscaping is being proposed. 5. The developer has agreed to provide additional landscaping along the east property line to provide better screening of the three -story building. 6. The proposed parking is adequate for the needs of the use. 7. The proposed building design was reviewed by a townhouse design focus group. The focus group determined that the design incorporates many of the design features they determined were appropriate in Richfield. Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a final development plan and conditional use permit with a finding of fact that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties or the City as a whole. c3, , CITATIONS ZONING CODE: 536.15. PUD application. Subdivision 1. Required materials. Upon completion of the required actions in Subsection 536.13 of this code, an applicant for a PUD shall submit the application materials outlined in this Subsection. Subd. 6. Site plan materials: a) a site plan indicating the boundaries, dimensions, and area of the proposed PUD district; b) a preliminary plan showing the location; dimensions, and gross floor area of proposed structures; c) a preliminary plan showing the proposed land use(s) for each parcel and each building, the amount of floor area devoted to each use, and all areas to be designated for mixed land uses allowed by Subsection 536.11, Subd. 3 of this code; d) a preliminary plan showing the location, arrangement, and number of parking spaces, loading facilities, and mass transit facilities including bus turnouts and shelters; e) a preliminary plan showing the location and dimension of all curb cuts and driveways, and their relationship to all existing and proposed public streets; f) the proposed location, design, and dimension of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, walks, skyways, plazas, courts or other related areas; g) preliminary building plans, elevations, general specifications of materials, and unusual structural systems, prepared by an architect registered in the State of Minnesota; h) a preliminary land/building use profile including computations of gross /leaseable square footage, housing unit breakdown to square foot, bedrooms, persons /unit, and parking requirements: i) a preliminary storm water management plan and site grading plan including an analysis of the adequacy of surface drainage, storm sewer and catch basin drainage, storm water retention, and erosion control; j) a preliminary plan depicting natural features and natural features to be preserved, as well as existing vegetation with detailed locations of trees 12" or larger in diameter; k) a preliminary utility plan showing easements, sewer, water, and power services to all proposed uses; 1) a preliminary plan showing utilities and utility easements to remain, to be installed, to be relocated, and to be removed or vacated; m) a preliminary plan showing the proposed location and dimensions of all walls, fences and landscape plantings; n) a plan showing the proposed location and dimensions of all signs and lighting fixtures, including the illumination characteristics of all lighting; 3 2 o) a soils map that depicts surface and subsurface conditions that may affect construction: and p) additional information as required by the Director. 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. i T " YlosaNNIN''0931SH01i1 1aaJ1S 4184 lcay q anua -V P1011Jo0 p '- 0 1, { i S3WOHNAOJ, z` If s iunoo (I- Ismavo ! Ui C Ty F a6 @a 5 r< G] s Cs7 V] r iii? j i-SiS'$ rb; e iii in CO w - , -b -i Z; - _;s d p p Y r $ ySt i1ti S aYSSr ?'b " ee SY o14 ° w yg; Y. LeC Cb; k" 4 Tc yY asy5 z O F U O 7 E- a6 @a 5 is fi T s A z O F U O 7 E- A in cn n. YS a= 4F Yir$ x5 a ;i- L_SSgYb Y:Y v_..Ee :LY E° 3Y,e i'b bbrtb 39?iA zv y F S S Z i o„iS 5 ii vs si i`s REF i i zi p i'gl'r ba: Y Yi. p F: F 1 3 Z onaaxs. a d o ds s :lai& &is &dxis O ggg 1r im a 3se Q 3s 33 yy YV"V`'ee"¢ y55g3F,y' 7 s 8 g4 73ds u LR6b6 Er<S3flrd RYY Stg BY $8a;;h 0Al5oois E e 9ho VLOS3NNIN '4'131dH 171 b 7va 75 478E laag 9 anuanV PlaI1jvD SSWOHNMOl F` $ sunoo QZ1114Hv0 t 3 ;5 m CJ i v'6 C J n DW r. 9yyy6- Jam[ aa q ',f,.i i jlY: 9 i i w rn i W si C Io Y ' aj 5. s t. — u-11 LLV jn/ Z (n 4.L m 7 a Z G I' Q 9r % I 3N IL Q3 Gn :. y Z M i7SL a.( QVdJNO 1' Z 1-• i y x ZYe Y 3:. i fi Z x 4 i N1`L ii a t¢s a t 66 fifi s Y10s3NNt)i •U'I3I:Hl i1:gs a` s v ea tar v anuvi u ao S21WOHI 1 ` , Izi[100 612HV0 i, ii ii yy i 1 Ia IZ i l ! i a" o t•e o " i j5t.g .s,rg Q^f .Y,C B ;Y66ygw,.3 g sir;'SYa83r,n,rrg3 °gc4` _ LL1 d°Al ay6 6Al- ".ti+ T.:?. !- i i J W I LL 1 i i I d. 't za q qq \ i Y LlrE I Z I I I I ire' 6 ytyp ttTl Ed 3t' IiIT t+Q Ygq av°.uas 8 i pe o J av°.uas wn• c rmi•° z r.on• I v•v a•aa +a nsoa ttt Q L V,LOS3NNIP( , m_ w .,_,QAV _we SMO GNAW± IiQOo Q22I3@yS k q; a RLU h; a a RLU fill | k B co J h uj a a RLU z LU co LL B co J ui c uj 5.,. F. LL 01 CL 7 ZL/ qp SWOHNAOIFELUn' : Oj, nil lull a. WX 5fl V10S3NNIN'4731JH3IN = •q r A 1aai7S 4194 190A q anua.v D1a11ia9 ' o S3WOHNAkO,L J'arl0o Q'Izl gavO s R Nip 5 t Q G Q feet ae I it gpg l'66 o gg _ o 9 Y Y 0 U c 0 1 I u ice • GARRFIELD COURT 11# TOWNHOMESr RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 4 F ,, it , nan T c t s I I c c c X81} 1 SST g7 r Y, I I I' Ole 13r WX/ y' MAO P'p 1 I MAP Ap 1Y YAP / c U1 YAP' Yat 4• I YAP IS IE•" y 1 r ASH r YAP' LOT I o M Der zQ j i 11Ae/ I Lo 12. YAP / I A I r YAIC ASH -. 1 C'— C MAP I O I YAP N I 1jE• YAP m 1 I u ice • GARRFIELD COURT 11# TOWNHOMESr RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 4 F ,, it , Sa OHNAOI 1:9:mu 18 9 dl OS3NN)14 'Ql31jH71M s:9wOHNMOL u9 s noo Q1311488vo diEMU gel i r`./ .,q i FL.. lii IR 11.11 .. 'ti „ M, C Ile R I Q II 11`i : I ON - F laI OR- 1 tl E f VIOS3NN IN 'x131 .JH31b S3WOHNMO,L 18f100 C113IJ88VO I 1 Frill 1 vim 111 p_ 'C7I VURo 0 fi r I I i h 1E j• a• 11 CS CQ * ssr rtztFtl4 yiyA71NEIp p" ta e ff jjff jj 0 sa06LL I I i i I 1 i i i i i i i I I i i i 1 e A. 2 willg gio !Ei fog cE 8d ail8 y !! 1 qlj i Et tl fi jggp ptl4 " s Eg { p1 sill; t 1a Rill i MR d °QpSs AVON[ 4 -01 ,1i 1 9 im i Me.1Ei. fi r I I i h 1E j• a• 11 CS CQ * ssr rtztFtl4 yiyA71NEIpp" ta e ff jjff jj 0 sa06LL I I i i I 1 i i i i i i i I I i i i 1 e A. 2 willg gio !Ei fog cE 8d ail8 y !! 1 qlj i Et tl fi jggp ptl4 " s Eg { p1 sill; t 1a Rill i MR d °QpSs AVON[ 4 -01 ,1i 1 9 im i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager October 8, 1999 Council Memorandum No. 140 HRA Memorandum No. 57 The Honorable Mayor Housing and Redevelopment And Authority Commissioners Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Garfield Avenue Condominium Design Open House Council Members and Commissioners: An open house was held at Wood Lake Nature Center on September 29 to present the plans for the condominium development proposed for the east side of Garfield Avenue and to gather input from the neighboring residents. Forty -one neighboring households were invited to attend the open house. In addition to staff, project architect Gary Tushie and a representative of the developer Heidi Kurtz of Ron Clark Construction) were present. The occupants of all seven of the homes on the west side of the 7600 block of Harriet Avenue were present at the open house; these are the homes which are directly adjacent to the proposed development. Two people living on the east side of Harriet Avenue were also present at the open house. The written comments submitted by the participants have been compiled and are attached for your review (Attachment A). Generally speaking, the neighbor's three primary concerns were: increased traffic on Harriet Avenue; loss of privacy in their backyards; and the possibility that the development will result in a reduction of their property value. When asked what changes they would like to see to the development, the three most prevalent answers were: planting large trees along the eastem -most edge of the proposed development; a reduction of the building height to two stories; and' separating the development from the existing homes with a fence. A response to these primary concerns and suggested changes are as follows: Increased Traffic on Harriet Avenue Staff and consultants have devised a plan to reduce the traffic impact on Harriet Avenue. Attachment B shows the traffic controls which are being recommended. The primary means of reducing the traffic impact on Harriet Avenue is by converting a segment of the adjoining loop street to one way. This one way portion will only allow traffic to travel westward. The eastward movement on the loop street had been estimated by Engineering staff to be the primary concern for increased traffic on Harriet Avenue. 3-1 It was deemed infeasible to completely segregate Harriet Avenue from Garfield Avenue. Simply dead - ending the streets would pose severe public safety and maintenance problems and there is not enough right- of-way to provide a cul-de -sac. In order to provide for a cul-de -sac, two residential properties on Harriet Avenue would need to be acquired. A concern regarding truck traffic was also voiced at the open house. Staff has been assured by Twin City Christian Homes, and the adjoining office users, that construction or delivery trucks will not use Harriet Avenue. In the event that there is an issue with truck traffic, a "No Truck Access" sign will be placed on Hanfiet Avenue at 76th Street. Lack of Privaky Residents on the west side of Harriet Avenue are concemed that their activities in their backyards or inside their homes could be viewed from the east windows of the condominium units. The developer answered these concems by stating that they plan on planting mature (10' to 14') evergreen tares on the eastern edge of the development. The evergreen trees which are planned are Black Hills Spruce and Colorado Green Spruce; these trees grow to a height of 60 to 75 feet. In addition, the developer committed to the residents that they will plant one or two trees on each residential property at the occuparrt's chosen location in order to block the views of the condominium windows. The windows on the east facade of the condominiums are at approximate heights of 11 to 15 feet and 22 to 26 feet (see Attachment C). Negative Impact on Property Values While it is impossible to guarantee that the property values will not be reduced by this condominium development, staff has determined several factors which seem to indicate that this will not occur. The property values of homes adjacent to high density residential developments in Richfield have not suffered any loss of property value as a result. Ron Lachenmeyer; of BCL Appraisals (Mr. Lachenmeyer does considerable appraisal work in Richfield, much of it involving HRA programs), was asked to comment on potential property value impacts; Ron stated that in his professional opinion the values of the adjacent homes should not be negatively impacted (except perhaps during the construction period) and may actually increase as a result of the condominiums. An important factor to consider is that the sale price of the condominiums ($129,000 to 149,000) is greater than the current market values of these neighboring homes (which have an average assessed estimated market value of $89,714). Planting Trees at a Sufficient Height The developer has committed. to planting mature (10' to 14) evergreen trees on the eastern edge of the development. Reducing the Building Height to Two Stories Ron Clark Construction has been proposing a three story development since they first got in in the project this spring; even at 30 or 32 units. At two stories, the development becomes financially infeasible because there would not be enough tax increment or building proceeds to offset the land assembly costs. Construction of a Fence Along the Entire Eastern Edge of the Development In their review of the property, Public Safety staff has advised that such a long expanse of fence is a security issue and would be contrary to the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) standards for safety. The developer has indicated that it might be possible to incorporate several shorter and disjointed segments of fence along the property border. The development was reviewed at the Administrative Review Committee (ARC) meeting on October 6 at which many of these issues were addressed. Planning Commission consideration of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Final Development Plan (FDP) will be held on October 26 with final City Council consideration scheduled at their November 8 meeting. submitted, r.2 Acting City Manager SLD:cak Copy: Planning Commission Attachments ATTACHMENT A Garfield Condominium Design Open House Sept. 30, 1999 Wood Lake Nature Center Households Invited Forty -one (41) households including all residential property owners and tenants within 350 feet of the proposed townhome /condominium development. Participants NAME ADDRESS John Stark City of Richfield Heidi Kurtz Ron Clark Construction Gary Tushie Tushie-Montgomery Architects Barbara and John Nelson 7600 Harriet Avenue Richard Dahl 7608 Harriet Avenue Holly Hanson 7609 Harriet Avenue Julie Melin 7614 Harriet Avenue Ramona Lan maack 7614 Harriet Avenue Terry and Kathi Hatfield 7620 Harriet Avenue Terrence W Kittleson 7626 Harriet Avenue Nick Truedson 7632 Harriet Avenue Ruth Larson 7638 Harriet Avenue Randy White 7639 Harriet Avenue Responses on Comment Forms What are your three greatest concerns about the construction of the condominium development on Garfield Avenue? (Note: the order of responses have been rearranged in the order of their prevalence) The increased traffic on Harriet Avenue. Traffic on Harriet Avenue. The increase in traffic in front of my home. Added traffic on Harriet Avenue. 1 will have no privacy in my back yard 7626 Harriet Avenue South. Having a three story apartment building in my back yard. Disappearing of privacy in my back yard. The complete loss of privacy with a three story monster in my back yard. That my property will lose value. The affect on my property value. Devaluation of adjacent residential properties. Being able to see traffic on 76th Street going east from my driveway if trees are planted along 76th Street. Traffic generated onto 76th Street going west. Traffic back up now past Harriet during rush hour. The traffic on 76th Street. High density creating problems with children and pets. Lack of "buffer" and increased traffic. J -o" o{: What are three things, which you believe, could be changed on the development plan to address your concerns? (Note: the order of responses have been rearranged in the order of their prevalence) Mature big trees to hide the three story monster. Plant really big trees along the edge of my back yard to replace the tiny hedge in the picture. For the berm/plants lining our properties to be as tall as possible. Lower buildings to two stories to be more appropriate buffer next to single family homes. Decrease the building height from three stories to two stories. Make it a two story. 10 -12 foot fence along property lines. Consider a fence instead of bushes. Put in a "huge" privacy fence. Dead end Harriet Avenue so that it remains residential traffic. Make Harriet a dead end. Take down large silver maple and forget trees along 76th...... plant flowers like on 77th Street. A retaining wall. Place the condos two story ends to "butt" against the remaining homes. The dialogue to open to know exactly what your doing to us. Make a better effort for the existing commercial property owner(s) to deal with the Lyndale storefront. Take your tinker toys and go home. Please list any additional information on the development, which would be helpful in evaluating the development: A printed copy of plans and estimates. Architectural rendering or "point of perspective" looking from comer of Harriet Avenue showing entire project as it looks with houses in place. Be honest about how soon before you knock on my door to take my house away. Other comments: My major concerns are traffic and my neighborhood community — because of this, it will dissolve. This is very upsetting and causing lots of tears and anger and the powers that be need to wake up and realize we don't want to live in such dense housing this is not south Minneapolis - we moved out for space and now Richfield is becoming apartments and condos. This is a sucky thing to do to a really nice neighborhood A- aY,LOS3NNI)f'Q'131dHJ[il 3 tr•'s it jaaa75 4194 Tray 7 anUOAV PtDIJJWD #_• SaWOHNMOIL F` R111nooazSiduvo ! I 1. i II I I 11 ' 1 1 rI ji - i 3 o a a do 1 II i i n 1 I I I C• N\ i e C 9i ! i d 1. i II I I 11 ' 1 1 rI ji - i 3 o a a do 1 II i i n 1 I I I C• N\ i Im ==lf q Planning Commission Letter October 26, 1999 Agenda Section: New Business Item #: 4 Letter #: GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Request: Consideration of a resolution finding that the purchase and sale of 6812 Queen Avenue is consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan. Zoning: R (single family residential) Existing Land Use: Single family residential Proposed Land Use: Single family residential 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 Proposal: The property at 6812 Queen Avenue is a small one and one -half story house with several safety and maintenance problems. In order to utilize Community Development Block Grant funds (CDBG) fully, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires that the City purchase the property and subsequently transfer it to the HRA for development. The City involvement necessitates a finding of consistency by the Planning Commission. The property would be used for the New Home Program which sells property to first -time homebuyers. 0 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. Basis: 1. The purchase /sale of property by the City requires a finding of consistency by the Planning Commission. 2. The property is zoned R and its proposed single family residential re- use is consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan which allows for single family residential use in this area. 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 6812 Queen Avenue described as follows: Lot 4, Block 2, Tingdale Bros Lincoln Hills Third Addition WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the acquisition and disposition of such property for single family residential purposes would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds that the acquisition and disposition of the above described property, for single family residential use, is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Adopted this 26th day of October, 1999 by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Brenda Bjorklund, Chairperson ATTEST: Terry Ahlstrom, Secretary L/ A