05-30-2000MAO PLANNING COMMISSION
W= AGENDA
May 30, 2000
7:00 p.m.
Roll Call
Approval of Minutes
Planning Commission meeting of April 25, 2000 and Planning Commission study session
of May 9, 2000.
Public Hearing
ITEM #1 PC Report #22 Reconsider rezoning of property located at 6612 15th
Avenue to a zoning district that is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan
ITEM #2 PC Report 423 Reconsider rezoning of property located at 1100 East 66th
Street to a zoning district that is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan
ITEM #3 PC Report #24 Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan amendment for 1100
East 66th Street
New Business
Old Business
Liaison Reports
School Board
Community Services Advisory Commission
HRA
City Council
Adjournment
Auxiliary aid 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 ".
Planning Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting
April 25, 2000
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners: Terry Ahlstrom, David Gepner, Bill Kilian, Mark
Tolvstad, John Bjostad, Donna Drummond, Gordon Hanson and
Jeffery Walz.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairperson Brenda Bjorklund and Commissioner Donna
Drummond
COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor
STAFF PRESENT: Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
Mark Andrle, Community Development Technician
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson Gepner at
7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/ Kilian, S/ Hanson to improve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission
meeting of March 28, 2000 with the following changes:
In item #2, Commissioner Ahlstrom abstained from voting. Motion carried 8 -0
Ahlstrom abstained).
In the liaison reports, Commissioner Gepner stated that the HRA has an agreement with
Best Buy not OPUS.
Mark Andrle Community Development Tech, will make the changes to the March 28,
2000 minutes.
Motion carried: 7 -0.
M/Kilian, S /Tolvstad to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission Study Session
meeting of April 11, 2000.
Motion carried: 7 -0.
April 25, 2000
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
00 -CUP -7
ITEM #1 7701 Nicollet Avenue
Menard, Inc.
Conditional use permit to allow store expansion into entire
Building and to expand outdoor sales area by 2,772 sq. ft.
Zoning Administrator Julie Urban reviewed the staff report, stating that staff recommends
approval of a conditional use permit to allow an expansion of Menard Inc. at 7701 Nicollet
Avenue with several stipulations which Ms. Urban reviewed.
Mary Prochaska, representing Menard's, stated that the revised plans for the Menard's
expansion addresses the stipulations and concerns that came up during the Administrative
Review Committee except for the lighting issue which he his still working on.
Commissioner Gepner asked if there will be an outdoor lumber area. Mr. Prochaska
stated that there will not be a lumber area.
Russ Susag, 7305 1" Avenue, representing the Church of Assumption stated that the
retaining walls have been knocked down by delivery trucks and the trucks block 2 "d Avenue
when they are unloading. Mr. Susag suggested that the retaining wall block be replaced when
knocked down and that the Menard's building be redesigned to better accommodate delivery
trucks.
Mr. Prochaska stated that the revised plan calls for poured concrete for the retaining wall
instead of blocks.
M /Kilian, S /Tolvstad to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 7 -0
Commissioner Tolvstad asked if part of the problem with trucks blocking 2 "d Avenue in
the winter would be that the bump out area is not plowed enough for the truck to use.
Mr. Prochaska stated that Menard's will now be responsible for plowing the parking lot
and will plow the bump out.
Commissioner Hanson asked if delivery times to the store could be restricted to a time
when 2 " d Avenue is rarely used.
April 25, 2000
Page 3
Ms. Urban stated that in the past, retailers claim that it is very difficult to predict
and control delivery times.
M /Kilian, S /Alhstrom to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to allow an
expansion of Menard, Inc. at 7701 Nicollet Avenue with the following stipulations:
1. That a dumpster enclosure be constructed, the final design, size and height to be
approved by the Public Safety Director.
2. That a sufficient area be provided inside the building for pallet and packing material
storage and that pallets and other packing material are not permitted in the unscreened
loading dock area. Final design and size of the storage area is to be approved by the
Public Safety Director.
3. That a plan for monitoring the property and surrounding area for trash on a regular
basis be submitted to the Community Development Director.
4. That the retaining wall on the east side of 2nd Avenue be replaced with a material and
design approved by the Public Works Director and regularly maintained.
5. That the roof leaders be redesigned and /or rerouted so water doesn't overflow onto
the City sidewalk.
6. That the driveway access to Michael's loading dock and service door on 2" d Avenue
be eliminated and replaced with sod and landscaping_
7. That the sprinkler connection be relocated to a location approved by the Public Works
Director and Fire Marshall.
8. That Menard's work with the Crime Prevention Division to review the existing
lighting levels and to upgrade the lighting_ to a safe level to the extent possible
without major reconstruction of the parking lot.
Motion carried: 7 -0
NEW BUSINESS
PC Letter #18
ITEM #2 Adoption of Official Map for I -494 right -of -way
Ms. Urban reviewed the staff report and the proposed I -494 Right of Way map.
Commissioner Gepner asked if the property owners whose property is within the right of
way are restricted on what type of buildings are constructed in the right of way.
Tom Foley Transportation Engineer, stated that property owners are restricted on the type
of buildings which are constructed. A parking lot would be allowed but a large building would
not.
April 25, 2000
Page 4
Commissioner Tolvstad asked if Best Buy knows of the right of way. Ms. Urban stated
that they do and they know that they will be losing parking when 494 is improved.
M/Kilian, S/Bjostad to recommend to the City Council adoption of an I -494 Right of
Way Map as an official map indicating that the road design is accurate and additional right of
way is identified for the future reconstruction of I -494.
Motion carried: 6 -0 (Ahlstrom abstained)
OLD BUSINESS
PC Letter #19
ITEM 93 Adoption and finding of consistency for 2001 Capital
Improvement Program and 2002 -2006 Capital
Improvement Budget.
Ms. Urban reviewed the Planning Commission's obligations to find that the CIB is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and to recommend approval of the CIP.
M/Kilian, S/Hanson Recommend approval of the 2002 -2006 Capital Improvement
Program (CIP).
Motion carried 7 -0.
M /Kilian, S /Tolvstad, Adopt a resolution finding that the 2001 Capital Improvement
Budget and the 2002 -2006 Capital Improvement Program are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Motion carried 7 -0.
PC Letter #20
ITEM #4 Reconsideration of Comprehensive Plan rezonings for
two properties
Ms. Urban reviewed the rezoning of the properties at 1100 E 66th Street and 6612 15th
Avenue stating that this issue will be an item on the May 30, 2000 Planning Commission
meeting.
Ms. Urban asked the Commissioners what type of information they need regarding the
rezomngs.
April 25, 2000
Page 5
Commissioner Kilian stated that past minutes and maps of the area would be helpful.
LIAISON REPORTS
School Board: Commissioner Hanson reported that there will be staff reductions.
Community Services Advisory Commission: Commissioner Alhstrom reported that the
Commission discussed the CIP /CIB, pool fee increase and keeping the crosswalk
attendant at the pool.
HRA: Commissioner Kilian reported that the HRA discussed the Lakes at Lyndale plan,
approved an exclusive rights agreement for the City Bella project and discussed the
Cedar Avenue project.
City Council: Mayor Kirsch reported that the item for the comprehensive plan
amendment for Interchange West will be continued until the next meeting, and they
approved the daycare center.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:35 p.m.
Mark Tolvstad
Planning Commission Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
Study Session
May 9, 2000
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners: Terry Ahlstrom, David Gepner, Bill Kilian, Mark
Tolvstad, John Bjostad, Donna Drummond, Gordon Hanson and
Jeffery Walz. Chairperson Brenda Bjorklund arrived at 7:45
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor
STAFF PRESENT: John Stark, Community Development Manager
Mark Andrle, Community Development Technician
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Vice- Chairperson Gepner at
7:05 p.m.
Study Session Items
PC Report #18
ITEM #1 Meeting with Richfield Chamber of Commerce
The Planning Commission members and the Chamber members introduced themselves.
Chamber members present included: Steve Lindgren, President
Patty Sterbuck, Board Chair and owner of Broadway Pizza
Steve Kirchner, Chair Elect, RSA
Jerry Lindstrom, member and owner of Lindstrom
Embroidery
Mr. Lindgren reviewed the functions of the Chamber and their point of view regarding
planning issues and how these issues affect the decisions of small business owners.
Mr. Kirchner stated that during the negations with homeowners at the Woodlake Centre
project, City staff was too involved with the negation process.
May 9, 2000
Page 2
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he has had his embroidery business in Richfield for several
years and recently needed to expand. He stated that he could not find any available commercial
space that would fit his businesses that wasn't in a planning area. He stated that he has moved
his business to Bloomington.
Mr. Lindgren stated that designated planning areas give business owners a sense of
uncertainty of the future of their business. He suggested that City staff needs to encourage
businesses to remain in Richfield and to listen to the needs of the business owners.
Patty Sterbuck reviewed the issues she is dealing with regarding her business, such as
improvements to the building, property value assessment and parking.
The Commission and Chamber members discussed issues regarding the Comprehensive
Plan and the idea of having a staff liaison to the business owners.
Mr. Lindgren stated the Chamber would like to see a greater sensitivity toward the small
business owners and to listen to their needs.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:15 p.m.
Mark Tolvstad
Planning Commission Secretary
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CASE #
PUBLIC HEARING
1
22
gga PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PC MEETING DATE: MAY 309 2000
ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
Reconsider rezoning the property at 6612 15th Avenue to a zoning district that is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
11 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 11
Conduct a public hearing and- by motion recommend approval of an
ordinance amendment to rezone 6612 15th Avenue from C -2 (general
commercial) to R (single family residential).
111. BACKGROUND
State law requires that cities' Zoning Ordinances be made consistent with their
Comprehensive Plans. In 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed the City's zoning
classifications and identified those parcels with zoning that is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Of those parcels, the Commission determined that one category
of parcels, that in which the land use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but the
zoning is not, should be rezoned. One group of these properties was rezoned by the
City Council in December, 1999. A second group was reviewed by the Planning
Commission on February 22, 2000 and by the City Council on April 10, 2000. Based on
testimony given at the Council hearing, the City Council asked that the Planning
Commission reconsider the rezoning of two properties, 1100 East 66th Street and 6612
15th Avenue.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
The City is addressing the issue of making its zoning ordinance consistent
with its Comprehensive Plan by rezoning properties where the land use is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but the zoning is inconsistent.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
The property at 6612 15th Avenue is zoned C -2 (general commercial). It
is currently used as a single family residence. The Comprehensive Plan
designates the property as single family residential, either low or high
density. The proposed zoning is R (single family residential).
The property owner did not testify before the Planning Commission. The
property owner testified before the City Council stating her desire that the
property remain C2 (general commercial). She wants it to remain
commercial because it is adjacent to other commercial property, and it
would be advantageous to preserve future options because of possible
changes in the area due to the airport's expansion.
The property is 6,500 square feet. It would be difficult to develop the
property as a separate commercial development. The most realistic
option for commercial development would be to combine the property with
the adjacent property on 66th Street.
The map attachments illustrate the surrounding zoning, land use and
Comprehensive Plan classifications.
C. FINANCIAL
The property owner believes that the property has greater financial value
as a commercial property given potential changes in the area.
D. LEGAL
Notification: A mailed notice was sent to all property owners and
occupants within 350 feet of the property to be rezoned.
Other Actions:
Council: If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation, a Council
hearing would be rescheduled for June 26, 2000.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S
1. Request additional information from staff and continue the rezoning discussion to
the Planning Commission meeting on June 27, 2000.
2. Recommend that the City Council not rezone the property.
3. Rezone the property to a different zoning district.
V. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Map of land uses around the property
Attachment B: Map of zoning classifications around the property
Attachment C: Map of Comprehensive Plan classifications around the property.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
Pat Kargel, property owner, 6612 15th Avenue
1-3
m
E
t
LO
N
CD
L
ca
z
cn
c
0
cc
U
N
N
cc
U
rn
c
E
0
N
Ad JVWO
N N
I 111111 HIM llll0 1111111//
IMEN /111111111 MINOR 111111 1/111 111nIn
C 11111n11111111U11 Mal 11 111m111 \ 1 //n
n1UI11=111011111U1111 11m111 ..... n111 1111111
lnllnll uu11111u1 IIIUIIIII 11m11 111tltii Illtll l
ulnmi m1m1Ui IIltlllUlu 11111111: ; 1 111111111
n1n1 11///1/ nnuU 1//1// w 1 IIIUIIIII I
In1111111111 n11 111111:: ;:Mil - el IIIU11111
1111n Wn1n 1111n11 1111 \ .1 111111/1
In11 W11N 111111111 IWII \\ I /1//1/11
1111111111W111/:\` NE 1 MEN-
MEN
1
1/ //1n/ In1111111111U11 \ \1 11111111
X1111 /t 111
11111111111UU n0 1//U> MOM
11 11111111n11 .:::.'•1:::,1 111111111111
n11n11 1111 nllll 11111111
IW11111111n11 i1i111111111 MINIM
NONE
m
m E
v E
Em m ro
UEL''
10 —ti E a0i
c9 to CL
r N N
10
a
m
U-
0o
C31
cI
O
0CDco
f
t
g
0
AGENDA SECTION
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CASE #
PUBLIC HEARING
2
23
J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PC MEETING DATE: MAY 309 2000
ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
Reconsider rezoning the property at 1100 East 66th Street to a zoning district that is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Ill. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 11
Conduct a public hearing and by motion recommend approval of an
ordinance amendment to rezone 1100 East 66th Street from C -2
general commercial) to R (single family residential).
III. BACKGROUND
State law requires that cities' Zoning Ordinances be made consistent with their
Comprehensive Plans. In 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed the City's zoning
classifications and identified those parcels with zoning that is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Of those parcels, the Commission determined that one category
of parcels, that in which the land use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but the
zoning is not, should be rezoned. One group of these properties was rezoned by the
City Council in December, 1999. A second group was reviewed by the Planning
Commission on February 22, 2000 and by the City Council on April 10, 2000.
The Planning Commission decided to not rezone the property at 1100 East 66th Street.
This property has been developed as a day care facility and the owner testified that it
should remain commercially zoned. The Comprehensive Plan designation is R -SFH
high density single family residential). A motion was made to consider a C -1
neighborhood commercial designation) as a possible compromise. This motion failed,
and a motion was made and passed to leave the zoning as C -2. Based on testimony
given at the Council hearing, the City Council asked that the Planning Commission
reconsider the rezoning of this property. Several neighboring property owners testified
that the original approval of the day care facility was made on the basis that the property
would be rezoned to an appropriate multiple family district in the future.
In 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed a conditional use permit (CUP) for this
property. The property was used as a single family residence, but it was zoned
commercially. During the Planning Commission discussion of the permit, the issue of
consistency between the Comprehensive Plan, the current commercial zoning, and the
proposed day care facility was raised. A majority of the Commission determined that a
day care facility could be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's
residential classification, but that the zoning should be changed to ensure that future
a -1
uses would also be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission
recommended approval of the day care CUP with the condition that the property be
rezoned to MR -2 (medium density residential). A transcript of that portion of the
meeting is Attachment D, and the full meeting minutes is Attachment E. The final
portion of the discussion was not recorded because it occurred during the time that the
recording was switching from one tape to another.
The City Council record does not reflect a discussion of the zoning issue. The City
Council did not attach the rezoning condition to the CUP approval.
Following the review of the day care CUP, the Planning Commission reviewed the
zoning ordinance and its treatment of day cares, schools and churches. The
Commission and City Council amended the zoning .ordinance to consider day cares,
schools and churches similarly in all residential zoning districts. These facilities are now
considered conditional uses in all residential zoning districts, both single and multiple
family. At the same time, the Commission considered the issue of consistency between
zoning, land use and the Comprehensive Plan classifications. The Commission
determined that properties where the land use is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan but the zoning is not (the same situation as 1100 East 66th Street in 1998), should
be rezoned so that the zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In 1999, the
Planning Commission began rezoning properties in this situation. The property at 1100
East 66th Street was part of the second group of properties to be rezoned and was
brought before the Commission in February, 2000.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
The City is addressing the issue of making its zoning ordinance consistent
with its Comprehensive Plan by rezoning properties where the land use is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but the zoning is inconsistent.
Rezoning 1100 East 66th Street is consistent with this policy.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
The property at 1100 East 66th Street is zoned C -2 (general commercial).
It is currently used as a day care facility. The Comprehensive Plan
designates the property as single family residential, either low or high
density. The proposed zoning is MR -2 (medium density residential).
The day care facility is consistent with the residential classification in the
Comprehensive Plan; however, the commercial zoning could allow a
future commercial use that would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
The map attachments illustrate the surrounding zoning, land use and
Comprehensive Plan classifications.
The Planning Commission record indicates that it intended to recommend
rezoning the property to an appropriate multiple family residential district.
The property owner's attorney has submitted information in support of
their argument against rezoning the property (see Attachment F).
C. FINANCIAL
The property owner has constructed a commercial - quality building and
believes the change in zoning classification would have a negative impact
on the future reuse of the property.
D. LEGAL
Notification: A mailed notice was sent to all property owners and
occupants within 350 feet of the property to be rezoned.
Other Actions:
Council: If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation, first
reading would be scheduled for June 12, 2000 and second reading for
July 10, 2000.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
1. Request additional information from staff and continue the rezoning discussion to
the Planning Commission meeting on June 27, 2000.
2. Uphold the recommendation that the City Council not rezone the property.
3. Rezone the property to a different zoning district.
V. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Map of land uses around the property
Attachment B: Map of zoning classifications around the property
Attachment C: Map of Comprehensive Plan classifications around the property
Attachment D: Transcript of Planning Commission hearing, 3/24/98
Attachment E. Minutes from Planning Commission hearing, 3/24/98
Attachment F: Application from Bernie and Ratna Malawaaratchy, 4/27/00
Attachment G: City Council Minutes, 4/13/00
Attachment H: Planning Commission staff report, 3/24/98
Attachment I: City Council staff report, 4/13/98
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
Glen Schumann, Moss & Barnett, representing the property owners
Bernie and Rachna Malawaaratchy, owners of Bernie's Montessori, 1100 East 66th
Street
6LuFl
AW
WL
V,
J
W
W
W
C)
0
r
L..
m
Z
C
0
U
N
to
U
rn
c
E
0
N
V
r.
IBM
OAV 41l L
o6mw"
1111 n1 1111 r 1 _
imiiiiinll,wInn1 1 1 1 ° -' e Innlllllll
O -y
0 V) CL
r N N
I11L
v
C) LL
O
m
r
OOm
0
0
m
x.
ATTACHMENT D
o
Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 28, 1998
Kilian — From what I heard here there are three alternatives and I was
wondering how we might be able to look at the three alternatives I saw and
we have the staff recommendations that they deny as one alternative. I look
at another alternative that we have as to grant the CUP against the current
zoning, which means that I don't know how we address to change the Comp
Plan map. We would have to address the Comp Plan because..that is
not consistent with the Comp Plan. Ok so we could go ahead and grant it, but
it is not consistent with the Comp Plan is that correct?
John do you want to speak on that
Melin — I think there is as you said several options if what you suggested
granted but finding not consistent I would guess you would have to then
qualify that with some type of stipulation that you would have to amend the
plan. You could make a finding that it is in fact consistent and I think that is
what I'm hearing from some other commissioners.
Kilian - OK right we could find that it does meet the Cop Plan in which case
that property should still be rezoned into a MR2 - its not C -2 anymore right? If
the recommendation to rezone it to something else could accompanying that
finding but would not be necessary — (I would have to look at what zoning you
would recommend to change it to) - to make sure that use is allowable in that
district. I guess what my point is that if we go through and say this is ok and it
meets it, and so we go ahead and grant recommend grant if that's all that we
do the property is still zoned C2. (Melin: correct), but we have violated the
Comp Plan.
Melin — Not if you just said you find it consistent — its one or the other.
Kilian — so we say find it consistent
Melin - right, the argument put forth in the past in the original staff
recommendation for approval was the Comprehensive Plan is more than one
map. It's goals, policies, objectives, it's a lot of things and that was the basis
of the original recommendation for staff to approve and so that finding can
clearly be made, in fact it is.
Kilian - OK but that leave it zoned as C -2 (Melin: Yes) meaning that it can
convert to any commercial use any point and time (Melin: Yes). (Melin: any
permitted use) any permitted use at any point and time (Melin: conditional use
would be back before you) right so we know that is one, so in other words we
a
can just do that, we can reject the recommendation (Melin: right) and there
seems to be another ground which would say that what we could do — is - we
could. What I'm trying to say or what I'm trying to get at is where the property
really becomes a MR bla bla whatever — and what happens is that we said or
we've already said, that a daycare facility could be, if we say they can do that
we say that daycare is OK in the MR whatever areas — right and I agree that
they are not going to pop up all over the world. I would agree with that — what
would happen is that how do we protect ourselves though from that piece of
property and not have it be a C -2, in other words if that piece of property is
not a daycare it has to be high density residential it would have to be
rezoned to an appropriate residential district that would allow for the daycare.
By so if the daycare ever went away or the building went down then another
daycare would have to move in, or otherwise some other use otherwise (here
you have two people talking — can't make it out) it would have to be high
density residential that would be the third alternative.
Hadley — Am I correct in kind of doing
Linnihan — Oh what you just said on that third point does this sound like those
old problems back in math two trains started out one going up.
Hadley — am I correct that what your saying is we would define a daycare as
MR whatever and we would simply change zoning to kind of close the barn
door behind and say that, if the daycare goes away, the only reason the
daycare is there is because we define that as high density, right?
Kilian — So you close the door from anything else ever happening that's why
I'm looking at theres approve it, disapprove it, or something in- between.
Thomson — opinion on that is that what you're talking about is finding that this
use is consistent with the Comp Plan the CUP goes forward and is granted
and then you initiate a rezoning to an appropriate MR use but you also initiate
a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for that district so that a daycare
would be a conditional use in that district, which it is not now.
Linnihan — and a further safeguard is that a conditional use permit is denied.
Kilian — so in other words we could say that in a MR da da da, a daycare is a
conditional use so any place where we have that high residential and it's not a
bad idea because there could be a lot of places we might want to do
something like that but the thing is you would like to be able have it in that
kind of an area you would like to be able to close this so that a building does
not get built and become a pool hall. We never know, I mean you can never
tell what happens but if we're going to look forward to the future, let's say
according to the Comp Plan, we would like this to have been a residential
area however we look at daycare is a CUP for residential.
Three alternatives:
Staff recommendation to deny
Grant it even though it's inconsistent with the Comp Plan
Melin — find it consistent
Property should still be rezoned to MR -2
Melin — could — would have to review zoning lists and allowable uses.
P &Z:daycareminutes
March 24, 1998
Page 4
ATTACHMENT E
Community Development Manager John Melin reviewed the staff report, stating that the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority approved the purchase of a portion of the Soo Line
property located to the east of 300 West 78th Street in December, 1997. He further stated that
staff and the HRA propose to combine and re -split the two parcels to develop a 134 -unit hotel on
the southern half and a restaurant on the northern half. Mr. Melin added that the proposed uses
would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Gepner, Mr. Melin stated that the railroad
would be left with 50' of right of way (25' off of center) and that the proposal is for the purchase
of a strip of land 66' wide.
UV I
e .eat NUTWOM9 !1. . 1.!.1.! 1.• 1. ame
1. .•'.l ! •1...•11,1.•1. !. l. •1l. "1.l, .1.
98- CUP -3, 1100 East 66th Street
ITEM #4 Bernadette Mallawaaratchy, Bernie's Montessori School
Conditional use permit to allow construction of a day care
facility for up to 90 children
Community Development Manager John Melin reviewed the staff report, stating that the
applicant is proposing to construct a 4,160 square foot building to house a day care for up to 90
children. He noted that this was the continuation of a public hearing that had begun during the
regular Planning Commission meeting of February 24, 1998. He added that the applicants had
searched for alternative sites without finding a suitable location. Mr. Melin then reviewed the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the property and the possible conflict between
the two. Confirming that the City's legal counsel had been contacted, Mr. Melin stated that
counsel reviewed the situation and determined that the most defensible position was that the
development was not compatible with the site due to the Comprehensive Plan designation. He
continued by stating that the applicants worked with the architect to redesign the building and
hired a transportation engineer to conduct a study of the site. The engineer determined that the
intersection would not be overburdened by the increased traffic. Mr. Melin further stated that
the County denied any request for a curb cut onto 66th Street. In addition, he stated that the
applicants met with four neighbors (three households) for mediation, and that all parties came to
mutually agreeable conclusions regarding the issues at hand. Continuing, Mr. Melin reviewed
the landscape plan, fencing, buffering, pedestrian crosswalks, and the possible rezoning of the
property.
Responding to questions from Commissioners Gepner and Kilian, Mr. Melin stated that
the applicants paid for all additional costs for traffic studies and architectural costs that were
requested by the Commission from the regular meeting one month prior. He further stated that if
the day care were to locate there and subsequently close, the site could become any retail
business that is permitted in a C -2 district.
March 24, 1998
Page 5
Commissioner Gepner stated that the decision that was now handed forth by the City
attorney's office regarding the incompatibility of the development with the Comprehensive Plan
designation was much more definitive that the response that had been given during the study
session earlier in the month. Mr. Melin replied, stating that the City had requested that the
attorneys give a more definitive answer. Responding to a request from Chairperson Linnihan to
better explain the decision, Corrine Thomson, Kennedy & Graven, stated that the City requested
that the attorneys give an opinion of the most defensible position. She stated that legally, the
most defensible position is to find that the use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion ensued during which the attorney's position was clarified for the Commission.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Ahlstrom, Mr. Melin stated that before the
Comprehensive Plan's most recent revision, the property was designated for mixed -use,
including commercial, residential, and office.
Following a question from Commissioner Bjorklund, the Commission discussed the
possibility that a moratorium be placed upon all properties located within the City in which the
zoning and the Comprehensive Plan designation is in conflict. Ms. Thomson stated that a
decision had to be made on the issue at hand before any action on a moratorium was made due to
a law which requires the City to make a decision on conditional use permits within 60 days. Ms.
Thomson further responded to a question from Commissioner Meter, stating that the
development could be approved based solely upon the zoning. She added that the attorney's are
not attempting to dictate to the Commission which way to decide the issue. Ms. Thomson
reiterated the fact that counsel found only that the most defensible position, legally, is to find
that the use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Melin responded to questions from Chairperson Linnihan and Commissioner Meter,
stating that a daycare that is operated from a house is an accessory use, not the primary use. The
proposed daycare is a primary use for the property and therefore, a conditional use permit would
need to be obtained. He further stated that rezoning the property to MR -2 would remove the
possibility that a billiard hall could be opened on the property.
Mr. Mallawaaratchy stated that he and his wife had operated their business in Richfield
for ten years, but that the church where their business is currently located would like the
Montessori School to vacate by the end of summer. He further stated that he had gone through
mediation which had been requested by the Commission. He added that the landscape, traffic,
and building design issues had been resolved with the neighbors who attended mediation.
Responding to a question from Chairperson Linnihan, Mr. Mallawaaratchy stated that a search
for alternative sites had been conducted, including several middle schools located in Richfield.
Dawn Knutson, attorney for the applicants, stated that she had reviewed the issue
concerning the apparent inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code.
She stated that in her opinion, Montessori Schools and day cares are permitted uses in the C -2
district. She further stated that the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and
objectives listed in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Knutson reviewed several of those goals,
policies, and objectives, stating that the proposed development met each of them. She further
stated that the primary desire for the location is to be a transition area between commercial and
residential and added that the daycare would be both commercial and residential, providing a
o) -I I
March 24, 1998
Page 6
home for children during the daytime hours. Ms. Knutson continued by stating that the RSFH
designation that is listed on a map in the Comprehensive Plan is not defined anywhere in the
Comprehensive Plan, and it therefore cannot be determined that the proposal does not meet the
Comprehensive Plan based solely on that criteria. She closed by stating that the opinion that the
proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is defensible.
Ms. Thomson responded to a question from Chairperson Linnihan, stating that the public
hearing did not need to be reopened since a public hearing had already been conducted.
Responding to a question from Chairperson Linnihan, Mr. Mallawaaratchy stated that the
business would . not be able to be operated efficiently with only 60 children. Mrs.
Mallawaaratchy continued by stating that she was licensed with the State to operate a daycare
from kindergarten through elementary-aged children. She added that 10 to 15 percent of the
children in her care are siblings, pointing out that the traffic would be somewhat decreased due
to that fact.
Mr. Melin responded to a question from Commissioner Bjorklund, stating that the
assumptions in the BRW traffic study commissioned by Mr. and Mrs. Mallawaaratchy may need
to be adjusted to reflect fewer siblings than anticipated.
Chairperson Linnihan asked where the four neighbors who attended mediation lived, and
whether or not they were in close proximity to the proposed daycare. Jan Owen, 6535 l lth
Avenue, stated that she and her husband had both attended mediation and were directly to the
north of the property in question. She further stated that she was pleased with both the redesign
of the building and the traffic signals that had been proposed around the neighborhood.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Dmytrenko, Ms. Owen stated that she felt that the
bus stops along 11th Avenue would be safer with the proposed stop signs and pedestrian
crossings.
Three pages of signatures requesting that the Commission deny the recommendation for
a conditional use permit were given- to Chairperson Linnihan. The three pages were then passed
to each Commissioner.
Chairperson Linnihan re- opened the public hearing. He stated that topics would be
limited strictly to those issues that had been raised since the previous Planning Commission
meeting.
Donna Zochert, 6501 11 th Avenue, stated that she feels that cars will make U -turns in the
driveways of the neighbors rather than driving through the neighborhoods. She further stated
that she thinks that Mr. and Mrs. Owens and have achieved success through mediation with the
Mallawaaratchys only because there are issues between them and the current owners.
Doreen Pederson, 6921 Bloomington Avenue, stated that she has three children that
attend Bernie's Montessori School. She added that parents come at all different times of the day
between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and that there is never any problem with traffic at the current
location.
March 24, 1998
Page 7
Jody Johnson, 73rd Street and Pillsbury Avenue, stated that Bernie's Montessori is both
economical and well -run. She added that she is disappointed that the neighborhood opposes this
use when there are so many other negative uses that could be put on the property.
Rosemary LeBlanc, 6821 Clinton Avenue, stated that Bernie's Montessori offers children
an education as well as daycare. She further stated that she feels that her children are better
prepared for school because of their experiences at Bernie's Montessori. She added that when
she picks up and drops off her children, she sees only two or three other parents at the same time.
Anne Carl, 70th Street and Columbus Avenue, stated that one daughter had attended
Bernie's Montessori and that one son is current attending the school. She stated that she only
sees two or three other parents in the morning and only one in the evening.
Randy Curtis, 6821 Humboldt Avenue, stated that his two children attended the school
and that there are no alternatives in Richfield.
Carol Newby, 6400 11 th Avenue, stated that she moved into the neighborhood because it
was stable. She added that she is not questioning the quality of Bernie's Montessori, rather she
is questioning whether or not this is an acceptable location for the daycare.
Greg Opitz, 6500 12th Avenue, requested that a stop sign be located at the intersection of
65th Street and 12th Avenue.
Terry Stadther, 6404 11th Avenue, stated that he is still concerned with traffic. He added
that the intersection of 11 th Avenue and 64th Street will become a major intersection and that
without traffic control, children living in the area will be endangered. He further stated that he
would not have purchased his house if the daycare had already been located there.
Carol Rinder, 6420 11 th Avenue, stated that the deer, raccoon, fox, and other animals
that inhabit Veteran's Memorial Park will be endangered if the daycare is allowed to open. She
further stated that parents who are dropping off and picking up their children will leave their
engines running. She added that the house has historical significance, MAC has already spent
thousands of dollars renovating the property, pedestrians will be endangered by the increased
traffic, other options for .daycare exist in Richfield, and that the money spent on architectural
costs hasn't been wasted because the architectural plans can be used for another site.
Ms. Sikes, 6604 5th Avenue, stated that she is the parent of a graduate of Bernie's
Montessori. She stated that she supports the excellent work at Bernie's Montessori School.
Barbara Donaghy, 7229 Oak Grove Boulevard, stated that other daycare centers in
Richfield are at capacity and that the only other options to Bernie's Montessori are located in
Edina and Bloomington.
Betty Peltola, 6421 11th Avenue, stated that the lot is not large enough to place a
daycare. She further stated that the City should underwrite all of the applicant's expenses.
March 24, 1998
Page 8
Karen Mullvain, 6409 11 th Avenue, stated that a Montessori is not a residence, adding
that the Commission should not approve the daycare out of guilt.
Mr. Mallawaaratchy stated that the house will not be demolished, adding that he has
spoken to two contractors who are both interested in moving the structure to another site.
M/Hadley, SBjorklund to clQse the public hearing.
Mr. Melin responded to a question from Commissioner Hadley, stating that in case a 44
vote were to occur, the item would move forward to City Council with no recommendation.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Ahlstrom, Ms. Thomson stated that if the
Commission found that this use was compatible with the Comprehensive Plan designation, the
Commission would be required to find that any other proposals in which the same set of
circumstances were found was also compatible with the Comprehensive Plan designation.
Commissioner Kilian stated that this is not an issue related to daycare, rather it is an issue
of the zoning ordinance versus the Comprehensive Plan. He further stated that he ran a traffic
simulation and determined that the parking lot would not be sufficient enough to handle the
traffic.
Commissioner Bjorklund stated that many other uses could be located on the property
and that commercial uses line 66th Street. She also added that traffic is a major issue with this
proposal.
Commissioner _Meter. stated that there could be possibilities for traffic control other than
stop signs. He further stated that he felt that the proposal was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Hadley stated that changing the residence to a commercial property would
be changing the character of the neighborhood. He felt that that is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Gepner stated that he was disappointed with staff's recommendation to
deny the request. He further stated that he sees the Comprehensive Plan as visionary instead of
as a rock solid document. He added that the BRW traffic study allayed his fears regarding traffic
and that he would like to see the study open to the general public.
Commissioner Dmytrenko stated that the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan should be
kept intact and that ambiguities should be addressed. She added that the daycare is preferable to
other uses and that she felt that it meets the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Further discussion involved clarification of the conflict between the zoning ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan.
13
March 24, 1998
Page 9
1 • 1 1. • 1. .. • .. • V • 1 • 1 • ne
1. !. 1. •11.• "1. 1. MOR ' <1. :1• • •11.1.!'!! orls) ReFF1 • 1" •.!! •1:.
1 •.:.1. -• 1!: 1 1 • 11..1 - • 1
by 1' Community D' ••1t'/ Director.
Public
4. That the
L•
Works
business-maintain the
1. :... • ..1.! .1.'
appropriate
conditional
state. county
X11.
and city licenses,
ded—w&1he--Cquntv-
pursuant to Millnesota statuics sectiod462,36. subdivision 1.
NEW BUSINESS
PC Letter #13
ITEM #5 Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
to allow institutional uses in multiple family zoning districts
Community Development Manager John Melin reviewed the staff report, stating that
properties zoned MR -2 did not allow religious institutions as either permitted or conditional
uses. He further stated that the City Council determined that an oversight may have occurred
when the zoning ordinance was drafted. The Council requested that the Planning Commission
review the issue and consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance.
RO- It
will not be_geperated on local residential streets.
1
PC Letter #14
ITEM #6 Ratification of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
relating to stormwater management policies
ATTACHMENT ^F
LAW OFFICES
MOSS & BARNETT
April 27, 2000
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Ms. Julie Urban
Zoning Administrator
City of Richfield Community Development
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: Bernie's Montessori School
Dear Julie:
Enclosed please find the original Zoning Application and Exhibit A.
Please call if you have any questions. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Glen E. Schumann
GES abc
Enclosure
328024/1/467193.2
Gj.&
Bgf
0 Surer , j
o. 1896
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
4800 NORWEST CENTERHERMAN1, RATRL L B PETER A, YOU -9 JOSEPH G. MATBRNOWSKJ TIMOTHY L. GUMN
THOMAS A. KELLER II RICHARD J. KELBBR 90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET STEVEN T. H]mAND DENNIS R. WERENS
JAMES B. O'EREN KEVIN M. BUSCH WILLIAM' CUMMNG JOSEPH A. MANDSRNACH
EDWARD L, WNEI SUSAN C. RHODE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 -4129 JAYMES D. LITTLEJOHN
WILLIAM N. FOSTER HETHOMASM. HUGS MICHAEL R. NUIT
WILLIAM A. HAUG NICE HAY JAMES P. BALDWN
CHARLES A. PARSONS, JA THOMAS A. JUDD TELEPHONE (612) 347 -0300 VINCENT J. PAHNLANDBR OF COUNSEL
THOMAS B. HARMS DAVID W. LARSON JAN M. WAGNER LEE A HHNDERSON
RICHARD 1. JOHNSON DEANNE M. GRECO FACSIMILE 612) 339-6686 PHUJP J. YOUNG
ROBERT J. LUXES CASS S. WELL BEN M. HENSCHBL
JAMES A. RUBENSTEN GLEN B. SCHUMANN ON M. TYNJALA
THOMAS R. SHERAN ANNA R. SEVERANCE Sn3V8N B. CULBRRT RETIRED
1. MICHAEL HIRSCH M. CECILIA RAY MATHEW M. MEYER VERNE W. MOSS
EDWARD J. BLOMMS JOSEPH 0. KLEINKJ,RN nER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER DAWN M. E7U750N JAMES X. HBNNHSSY
JEFFREY L. WATSON NANCY M. KISKIS
347 PAUL J. YBCHOUT STANLEY;. STASBL
THOMAS J. SHROYBR BARRY LAZARUS 612) -0282 KELLY M. MsvEENEY PATRICK P, FLAHERTY
DAVID P. JBNDRZE)RE RONALD A. EISENBERG JRPFRSY W. POST WAYNE A. HERGO77
CURTIS D. SMITH PAUL B. ZISLA ANN K. PHILLIPS MICHAEL L. FLANAGAN
DAVE P. SENGHR BRIAN T. GROGAN WRITER'S &MAIL ADDRESS MEGAN J. HERTZLER PAUL VAN VALKENBURG
MITCHELL H. COX 1. MICHAEL COLLOTON H. LB PHAN W. SCOTT HERZOG
MICHAEL J. BRADLEY ERIC J. OLSEN SchumannG @moss- bamettcom JRRRIB M. HAYES PAUL O. HEIMANN
April 27, 2000
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Ms. Julie Urban
Zoning Administrator
City of Richfield Community Development
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: Bernie's Montessori School
Dear Julie:
Enclosed please find the original Zoning Application and Exhibit A.
Please call if you have any questions. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Glen E. Schumann
GES abc
Enclosure
328024/1/467193.2
Gj.&
Bgf
0 Surer , j
o. 1896
Apr -> 1 -00 03:18w F ropy -WSS B, BARNETTHir ' 11 uu u cr M,,, , _ -- +4000 T -467 P.03/03 F -377
d
t-.. Mz2ffqd6R2 Ma
Zoning Application PLANNING
ZONING
Street Address of Subject Propeny: 1100 East 66th Street, Richfield, MN 55423
Lcpl Oeseripdau of Subject Property: Lot 9, Block 2, Eliason 4th Addition, PZD# 26-028242b0045
Appli=nt/CCMMct Ratna & Bernie Mallawaaratchy Datc 41261QO _
prim[ or type)
Applicant Suture1!
Company Bernie's Montessori Schoo1AdJtffs.(ildiffeau)
City Richfield ZP 55423 Phone (612) 869 -3907
E_Ma Address: RATNA.M @co.hennepin.mn.us i-axg:
d
A-RQfice 'on Fer•
Con"ioual Activity Pen uit Conditional Usc Permit Final Deveiopmatt Planicowitional
Use Permit (PUD)
Noucouforming Usc Pensit _ Of — Strect Parkiu& Permit Ordinance Amrndmeni
Or Comprebenstvr Plan Amendment
Planned Unit Devclopmeru Piat (P +eliminary/Fi[tal) R- 20nutg _
Plan
Subdivision Waiver Transitional Activity Permit Variance
Amended Planned Unit DevelopuWat Amended Conditional Use Amended Off Street Parlous
Final Developmem Plan Permit Penult
Brief Desctiggionof ftm=:
See attached Exhibit A.
ocE USE ONLY:
APPUcation Received BY:
Complete
1. Appikation Regairemeots
2. Adminkuv ive Review
3. Any Additional RegttirVawzts
4. Not[- refundable F51iag fee
Amount:
KJL -
Date: 4- - oa
start
Ineompwc 1011,81s Date
City of Fbcnfieid 0 5700 Portland Avenue South • Page 3 At 861 -9760
EXHIBIT A
Applicant requests that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to conform the zoning
classification of the Subject Property to C -2, the present zoning classification and existing use of
the Subject Property.
Rezoning of Subject Property has been initiated by the City of Richfield Staff. During
review of the proposed zoning change, members of both the Planning Commission and City
Council have expressed concern about the appropriateness of the Comprehensive Plan's zoning
classification for this property. Since the issue of the proper zoning classification for the Subject
Property is before the Planning Commission, now for the fifth time in the last year and a half
three times for the City Council), the applicant believes it is appropriate for this issue to receive
full consideration and final resolution.
Applicant believes that the Property is appropriately zoned Commercial C -2 for the
following reasons:
1. Presently, the Montessori School and Daycare Center is best served by a
C -2 classification, which permits both uses.
2. Goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan are to provide a
road map for future land use decisions, such as the location of housing and
commercial development. Commercial Development is clearly recognized
as a permissible (and desirable) use of properties immediately bordering
66'' Street, The City's own zoning map and the existence of commercial
facilities along 66"' Street evidence the same. Amending the
Comprehensive Plan to conform to the existing use of the Property, which
is consistent with the existing commercial uses along this stretch of 66"1'
Street, is consistent with the City's long -term vision for development of
this commercial corridor.
3. The highest and best use of the Subject Property is its current C -2
commercial use. The property is facing 66th Street which is at present,
arguably, the busiest commercial street in Richfield. In the years to come,
the volume and commercial nature of this traffic are likely to increase due
to the new airport runway, and the Cedar Avenue developments with
proposed high rise office buildings, high rise apartment complexes,
shopping malls and possibly a light rail transit station. Work on the
Express Bus Stop at the intersection of 35W & 66h Street has already
started. The Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street developments are fast
nearing completion. All these development will increase traffic along
66th
Street and make it a busier commercial street. It would not be prudent, at
this juncture, to change commercial zoning on a property bordering
66th
Street to residential.
331203/1
I
4. The Montessori property is not distinct from all of the other properties
along
66th
which are used commercially. The property next door to 1100
East 66t' Street is a property zoned commercial C2 (King Oscar
Restaurant). Practically all properties located along
66th Street between
110'
Avenue and Cedar Avenue are commercial properties. There is no
basis for singularly carving out this property and reclassifying it, when
none of the other properties are being reclassified.
5. The only reason the City previously reviewed the zoning classification of
this property was that the size of Bernie's day care operations required a
Conditional Use Permit. The owner could have developed the property
with a permitted commercial use without City review. Had a permitted
commercial use been exercised, the City would not be considering, merely
two years later, reclassifying the property to a residential use. The present
owners should not be penalized for having developed the property as a
school and day care facility.
6. We believe that the only reason that the Comprehensive Plan shows the
property with a R -SFH classification is that a single family residence,
clearly inappropriate for a commercial district along the very heavily
traveled
66th Street, previously stood on this spot. The previous owner
Wyatt & Jacqueline Lewis tried to sell, without success, the 1100 East 660,
Street property as a residential site for about one year before Bernie's
made a Conditional Offer to Purchase subject to the City of Richfield
approving their Plans to operate a Montessori School and Child Care
Center at this site.
7. Hennepin County has valued 1100 East 66h
Street property as a
commercial property which is higher than for non- commercial properties.
Higher property taxes are also paid. It is unfair to change the zoning
because it would be impossible for this property as "residential" to be
worth the value placed for property tax purposes. It is nothing but fair for
Bernie's who pay property taxes at Commercial classification to demand
that the zoning be retained as Commercial.
8. There has been comment that the property should be rezoned residential
because it sits across the street from the park; but Bernie's property is
hardly unique in this aspect.
We believe that the following points are also relevant to the decision which is to be made
in this matter:
331203/1
A. Neighbor's have alleged in their recent City Council meeting that there
was a "promise" that the property would be rezoned as a condition of
granting the conditional use permit. This is not true. While the Planning
Commission in March of 1998 recommended to the City Council that the
q
property be rezoned to MR -2, this recommendation was not, after much
discussion, adopted by the City Council. Both the minutes of the City
Council and the Conditional Use Permit are devoid of any requirement or
suggestion that the zoning classification of the Subject Property be
changed.
B. Following the City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit in
1998, and in reliance on the terms of the Conditional Use Permit (which
did NOT require rezoning of the Property), applicants acquired title to the
Property, removed the single family home, built a commercial grade
building to specifications required by the City of Richfield (including a
sprinkler system, modified access, and landscaping), all at a cost in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars. In reliance upon the terms of the
Conditional Use Permit, which did not mandate a zoning reclassification,
applicant's lender lent money for the project. The Property continues to
be taxed as commercial property and will no doubt be taxed similarly in
years to come. In short, applicant has made a significant investment in the
community in reliance on the specified terms of its Conditional Use
Permit and the assurance that a rezoning of the Property was not required.
C. Concerns raised by the neighbors two years ago have proved unfounded,
yet the same issues continue to be raised by the neighbors without factual
support or foundation. Fear of the unknown and mere speculation or
allegation must fail in light of two years of harmonious use of the Property
as a business permitted in a C -2 Commercial zone.
331203/1 3
Council Meeting Minute_
Item #12
ATTACHMENT G
8- April 13, 1998
City Manager Prosser reviewed Council Letter No. 84 regarding the request from
Bernie's Montessori School for a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 4,160
square foot building at 1100 East 66th Street for a Montessori school and day care facility
for 90 children. He summarized and discussed the following issues:
Access
Traffic
Neighborhood impact
Trees and landscaping
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Recommendation for approval and basis of recommendation
Bernadette Mallawaarately, 13751 Shannon Parkway, Rosemount, the applicant,
stated that she had operated the Montessori School at St. Peter's for the last ten years.
She proposed construction of a 4,160 square foot building at 1100 East 66th Street for the
Montessori School and day care for 90 children. She stated the hours of operation would
be 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday - Friday. She reviewed the need for the school and day
care services. She requested the City Council to grant the conditional use permit.
Council Member Stokes asked about kitchen facilities and trash removal.
Ms. Mallawaartely stated there is no kitchen and that the children bring their
lunches.
Jeff McElmory, P.O. Box 26396, Minneapolis, architect for the project, indicated
there would be limited trash since there is no food preparation. He reviewed the inside
disposal of diapers. He indicated trash would be picked up like any other site.
Dawn Knutson, Hessian & McKasy, PA, attorney for the applicant, reviewed the
process used with the neighbors who participated in mediation. She noted that a learning
institution did not require a conditional use permit (CUP) but that the daycare did require a
CUP. She read the goals, policies, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan that the
Planning Commission found the proposal to be consistent with according to their
interpretation. She discussed the following issues regarding the proposal:
Responsive to identified needs of clients
Children's quality of life
Building design to look like a residence
Current C -2 zoning would allow retail and other similar uses without a CUP or
further approval from the City
The proposed use would have less impact than other potential uses
p( -O i
Council Meeting Minute -9- April 13, 1998
Community support
Montessori square footage standards
Dennis W. Manson, 6901 Park Avenue, inquired about traffic and parking at the
site.
Jeff McElmory, architect for the project, stated there would be 20 parking stalls on
the site. He indicated 9 -10 stalls would be used by school staff. He described how
parents drive in, park, bring the children into the building, and then leave the site at
intervals.
Bob Fritzke, 6529 11th Ave, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concerns about traffic, storage of trash containing diapers, and that the site is not
appropriate for day care.
Sandra Mueller, 6521 Fifth Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concerns about reserving the single family house on the site, the availability of other day
care facilities in the area, the undesirability of Montessori programs, and not wanting her
neighborhood park overrun by children.
Rosemary LeBlanc, 6821 Clinton Avenue, spoke in support of granting the CUP
citing the positive impact of the programs at Bernie's and the importance of keeping this
educational opportunity in Richfield.
Linda Robinson, 500 East 73rd Street #3, stated that the issue in question is not
the Montessori program but the site.
Judy Johnson, 7339. Pillsbury Avenue, spoke in support of granting the CUP citing
the quality of the school and the fact that children are the lifeblood of the community.
Kevin Scott, 5030 35th Avenue, spoke in support of granting the CUP citing the
quality of the education and the negative impact that other commercial uses would have
on the neighborhood.
Tony Heppelmann, BRW, Inc., traffic consultant for the applicant, presented and
summarized the traffic study (agenda pages 12 -10 through 12 -14) conducted regarding
the proposed Montessori and day care facility at 1100 East 66th Street. He reviewed trip
generation, trip distribution, trip assignment, capacity analysis, other traffic
considerations, and conclusions related to the location of the facility at this site.
Bob Fritzke, 6529 11 th Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concerns about traffic and a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
Jack Swan, 6409 2nd Avenue, inquired about trash removal from the site.
Tissa Senanayake, 1812 Turquoise Trail, Eagan, stated that the trash is put in
plastic garbage bags and put in a trash container outside.
I
r
l
Council Meeting Minute -10-
r
April 13, 1998
Council Member Sandahl asked if the school would be willing to build an enclosure
for the trash recepticle.
Mr. Senanayake answered affirmatively.
Sid Zochert, 6501 11th Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concerns about the use not being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, devaluation of
his property, the goal of the City to support replacement housing, the traffic statistics
presented by Planning Commissioner Bill Kilian, and traffic.
Carole Rinder, 6420 11 th Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concerns regarding the size of the parking lot, traffic, safety of children, opposition of
neighborhood, inappropriateness of the site, Bill Kilian's traffic analysis, property values,
historical significance of the house, the availability of other day care in the area, and
preservation of the residential area. She stated that she had talked to her lawyer about
obtaining a restraining order and injunction to stop the project and asked those interested
in participating to contact her.
Mary Starleaf, 6505 11 th Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
the size of the site, traffic, and Bill Kilian's traffic analysis. She suggested King Oscar's as
an alternative site.
Wyatt Lewis, 1100 East 66th Street, stated that his parcel is larger than King
Oscar's. He indicated he felt there was reasonable access getting onto 66th Street. He
stated he bought the property five years ago because it was zoned C -2 and it had been on
the market for a year. He indicated they had planned to establish their business at this
location. He stated that subsequently they opened their business in Eagan instead. He
stated that because the house is located on 66th Street there has been little interest in it
as a residential property. He indicated he had been approached by several who were
interested in developing the parcel for commercial use. He stated that he felt Bernie's
would be the better use for the community and minimize the impact on the neighborhood,
especially since it would not be open nights or weekends. In response to a question from
the Mayor, Mr. Lewis stated that if this proposal is not approved, he would sell the
property to one of the commercial interests who have approached him.
Donna Zochert, 6501 11th Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concern about the size of the site and traffic on 11th Avenue. She suggested the City buy
the site for multi - family residential development.
Karin Giesie, 2239 East Old Shakopee Road, spoke in support of granting the CUP
stating that the site would not be appropriate for residential development.
Janet Holman, 6524 12th Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concern about traffic.
Tashika Sykes, 6604 Fifth Avenue, spoke in support of granting the CUP citing her
observations that traffic does not cut through her neighborhood and the need for a school
like Bernie's in Richfield.
Council Meeting Minute -11 - ~. April 13, 1998
Frank Sable, 6521 11 th Avenue, asked if the property could be rezoned to
residential.
City Attorney Thomson reviewed the methods by which a property may be rezoned.
Doreen Pederson, 6921 Bloomington Avenue, stated that traffic is an issue with
any development and discussed the Comprehensive Plan. Dawn Knutson, attorney for
the applicant, stated that the property is zoned for commercial, a traffic study was done,
and that the home will be moved and not demolished.
Shelly Rhymers, 6401 11th Avenue, spoke in opposition to granting the CUP citing
concerns about traffic and safety.
M /Sandahl, S /Susag to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 5 -0.
Council Member Rosenberg reviewed her experiences with the Richfield Fun Club
which had about 90 children indicating that the parking was not a problem there and didn't
believe it would be a problem at this site. She stated support for the Montessori program.
She stated she was glad that day care children used the park.
M /Rosenberg, S /Susag that the proposed resolution entitled "Resolution for
Approving a Conditional Use Permit" be adopted.
Council Member Sandahl suggested the following two additional stipulations to the
conditional use permit:
That the owner must install a trash enclosure on the property at a location to be
specified by the Public Safety Director, within 30 days after the Public Safety
Director notifies the owner that a trash enclosure is warranted.
That the entrance drive must be angled so as to direct exiting traffic to
southbound 11 th Avenue.
City Attorney Thomson suggested that the Council also adopt the "Basis of
Recommendation" as set forth in Council Letter No. 84 as its findings of fact.
Council Members Rosenberg and Stokes agreed to amend the motion to accept the
addition of the two suggested stipulations and findings of fact to the resolution.
Council Member Stokes stated that she previously ran a similar operation at 81st
Street and Nicollet Avenue. She stated she had served on the Planning Commission and
Comprehensive Plan Committee. She read a section of the Comprehensive Plan which
called for the consolidation of East 66th Street commercial uses at the 13th Avenue
intersection. She felt the vision of the Comprehensive Plan for this area was not for
scattered commercial use and therefore she would not support approval of the CUP.
Council Meeting Minute 12- - April 13, 1998
Council Member Sandahl stated he would support approval of the CUP. He stated
the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and a vision, however, changes will occur. He stated
that the alternative commercial uses which would be allowed at this site would have
significant impact on the neighborhood. He stated that there probably will be some traffic
that would use 11 th Avenue. He stated it was his experience in using a 90 student day
care facility that he rarely saw other parents arriving or departing at the same time. He
stated that it was the Council's job to sort out for the community whether the impact
overshadows the benefit to the community.
Council Member Susag indicated the order of priority for the right of land use is: 1)
current use; 2) zoning; and 3) Comprehensive Plan. - He stated the City has adopted the
Comprehensive Plan as their vision. He indicated the City should move toward changing
zoning to conform to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Kirsch indicated that Bernie's had looked at this property prior to the new
Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the property owner has the right to sell to other
commercial uses that would have a large impact on the neighborhood. He stated he
would support approval of the CUP.
The motion restated with inclusion of the accepted amendments to the resolution:
M /Rosenberg, S /Susag that the following resolution be adopted with the addition of
the following two stipulations:
That the owner must install a trash enclosure on the property at a location to be
specified by the Public Safety Director, within 30 days after the Public Safety
Director notifies the owner that a trash enclosure is warranted,
That the entrance drive must be angled so as to direct exiting traffic to
southbound 11 th Avenue;
and, that the Council adopt the Basis of Recommendation as set forth in Council
Letter No. 84 as its findings of fact: and, that it be spread in the resolution book and that it
be made part of these minutes.
RESOLUTION NO. 8569
RESOLUTION FOR APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1100 EAST 66TH STREET
Motion carried 4 -1. (Stokes opposed) This resolution appears as Resolution No.
8569 in Resolution Book No. 68.
Item #13 PUSLIC HEARING AND CONS1DERgTtON Ol" RS(7i3T1hI A'PRCI.ht
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AL1.OlAf SIX SEA'S 'RES 1Al t'1`A';`;
SUBWAY tN RICHFIELD SHOP;PES,'t0 EAST 66 STREET #L
I
ATTACHMENT H
MAM Plannin g Commission Letter d -,9 5
March 24, 1998
Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Item #: 4
Case #: 98 -CUP -3
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Continuation of discussion of conditional use permit to allow
construction of a day care facility
Applicant/Owner: Bernadette Mallawaaratchy, owner of Bernie's Montessori School,
Inc.
Location: 1100 East 66th Street
Zoning: C -2 (general commercial)
Existing Land Use: Single family residential
Proposed Land Use: Commercial
Comp. Plan: High Density, Attached, Single Family Residential
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: Section 526.27; Section 546.05
Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's continued consideration was
mailed to all property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the
subject property. In addition, notices were sent to owners and
occupants in the 6400 blocks of 11 th and 12th Avenues.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing
date of April 13, 1998.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,160 square foot building to house a
day care for 90 children. The applicant will be applying for a state license to
serve 60 children. The building will, however, be built to accommodate future
growth of up to 90 children. The applicant currently operates a montessori
school for children ages 4 to 6 at St. Peter's Church. The proposed day care
would also provides services to infants and toddlers.
Lq
Issues: 1. Compre._ .sive Plan: The property is zoned C -2 .neral commercial)
p and day care facilities are conditional uses in the C -2 district. The zoning
ordinance states that the Council may not grant a conditional use permit
unless it finds that the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies,
and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan
designates the area for high density, attached, single family housing
RSFH), so the proposed use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Building Design: The proposed building has been redesigned to give it
more of a residential appearance.
3. Access: Access to the parking lot is from 11th Avenue. Hennepin County
will not grant a permit for an access off of 66th Street. Sixty -sixth Street is
a minor arterial, and the County's policy is to limit access to minor arterials
from individual properties for safety reasons.
4. Parking: Twenty parking spaces will be provided on the site. City parking
standards require one space for every five children, for a minimum
requirement of 18 spaces. The City's parking standards for day care
facilities is similar to that of other cities (see attachment).
5. Traffic: Tony Heppleman, Transportation Engineer with BRW, Inc.,
prepared a traffic analysis of the proposed day care at this site. The
analysis is attached.
6. Neighborhood Impact: The applicant attended mediation with four
neighborhood residents. According to the mediators, the neighbors were
okay with the changes made to the building's appearance. They preferred
an access onto 66th Street, but if the entrance were to be on 11 th Avenue,
they asked that a "no right turn" sign be installed at the parking lot exit.
The neighbors also asked that stop signs be installed at 64th Street and the
entrance to the park and that crosswalks be painted at the entrance to the
park. The latter requests will be forwarded to the City's traffic committee.
7. Trees and Landscaping: There are approximately twenty trees on the
property and two boulevard trees. Most of the trees will be removed to
accommodate the proposed construction. Additional trees would be
planted as part of the proposed development. Note: This is private
property, and the City does not have the authority to prohibit people from
cutting down trees located on private property.
8. Buffering: The play activity area is located to the west of the building, 20
feet from the north property line. The fencing on the north side of the play
area would be a solid fence, the remainder would be chain link. Evergreen
trees would be planted on the north side of the area to provide a buffer
from the adjacent residential uses. There are also three evergreens located
along the north property line that currently provide a buffer.
9. Rezoning: At the previous hearing, a question was raised about the process
for rezoning property. A rezoning can be initiated in the following three
ways: the City Council can initiate it; the Planning Commission can initiate
it; the owner of the property and 50 percent of the property owners within
300 feet of the property to be rezoned can petition for a rezoning.
l - cr
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
C2
Recommendation: 1. Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a conditional
use permit at 1100 East 66th Street with a finding of fact that the
proposed use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Recommend that the City Council rezone the property at 1100 East
66th Street from C -2 (general commercial) to R (single family
residential).
3. Recommend that the City Council authorize the Planning
Commission to conduct a study of all properties in the City with
zoning that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
consider rezonings of these properties.
Basis: 1. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates the property as High
Density, Single Family Residential (RSFH). The proposed use is
inconsistent with this designation.
2. The City Zoning Ordinance requires that, in order to grant a
conditional use permit, the City must find that the proposed use is
consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan designation.
3. Although the property is zoned C -2 (general commercial), state
statute states that in cases of conflict between a City's
Comprehensive Plan and its zoning, the zoning ordinance shall be
brought into conformance with the Plan.
4. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed application, the City
zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and has determined
that there is not a sufficient legal basis to approve the application
because the proposed use is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and therefore the requirement set forth in Section 546.05,
Subdivision 6(a) of the Zoning Ordinance has not been met.
1 _ "I
Alternative A. R ,mmend that the City Council approve. request for a
aRecommendations: conditional use permit at 1100 East 66th Street for a day care with
90 children with the following stipulations:
1. That a tree protection plan for those trees remaining be
submitted to and approved by the Community Development
Director.
2. That a landscape escrow be submitted to the Community
Development Director.
3. That a grading plan be submitted to and approved by the Public
Works Director.
4. That a sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and
approved by the Public Works Director.
5. That a stormwater management plan be submitted to and
approved by the Public Works Director.
6. That the business maintain the appropriate state, county and
city licenses.
7. That a resolution approving the conditional use permit be
recorded with the County, pursuant to Minnesota statutes
section 462.36, subdivision 1.
B. Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a
conditional use permit for a day care for 60 children.
C. Recommend that the City Council pass a 6 -month moratorium on
development of all parcels with a land use that is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan but has zoning that is inconsistent, and
authorize the Planning Commission to conduct a study of the
parcels.
ZONING CODE:
CITATIONS
SECTION 526 - ZONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
526.27. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the C-
2 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code.
Subd. 25. Licensed day care facilities, provided the following conditions are met:
a) pick -up and drop -off areas shall be located on the site, and shall be designed to avoid
interfering with traffic and pedestrian movements;
b) outdoor recreational areas shall be located and designed in a manner which mitigates
visual and noise impacts on adjoining residential property; and
c) such facilities shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses.
SECTION 546 -ZONING: ADMINISTRATION
546.05. Conditional use permits. Subdivision 1. Permit required. It shall be unlawful to engage in any
use listed in this code as a conditional use without first obtaining a conditional use permit (CUP) from the
City pursuant to this subsection.
Subd. 4. Planning Commission review. After receipt of a completed application, a date shall be
set for consideration before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may offer
whatever public notice of its review it deems necessary. Following this consideration, the Planning
Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the application.
Subd. 6. Conditions for issuance. The Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it
finds that all of the following conditions will be met:
a) the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Plan;
b) the proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban
design guidelines;
c) the proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified
in Section 541 of this code;
d) the proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities,
utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements,
e) the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare;
and
I
f) there is a pL_ , need for such use at the proposed locatio.._..d
g) the proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the
granting of such conditional use permit.
I - "
C
ATTACHMENT I
ITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.
Agenda April 13, 1998
Issue Statement:
Public hearing regarding a request for a conditional use permit to allow construction of a
Montessori school and day care facility for 90 children at 1100 East 66th Street.
Background:
The applicant, Bemie's Montessori School, is proposing to construct a 4,160 square foot
building to house a day care for 90 children. The applicant currently operates a Montessori
school for children ages four to six at St. Peter's Church. She wants to relocate in the area
and expand the school to add day care for infants and toddlers.
The building would be located on the north side of the property with the play activity area
located to the west of the building, 20 feet from the north property line. The play area
would be fenced, and the applicant proposes to plant evergreen trees and preserve three of
the existing evergreen trees on the north side of the property to provide a buffer from the
adjacent residential uses. The fencing on the north side of the play area would be a solid
fence, the remainder would be vinyl- coated chain link.
Twenty parking spaces would be provided on the site. City parking standards require one
space for every five children, for a minimum requirement of 18 spaces. There is no specific
area designated for dropping off and picking up children; the parking stalls would be used
for this activity.
A significant amount of grading is needed to create a relatively flat area for construction.
Retaining walls will be constructed on the north, east and south sides of the building and
parking lot.
Access: Access to the parking lot is from 11 th Avenue. Hennepin County will not grant a
permit for an access off of 66th Street. Sixty -Sixth Street is a minor arterial, and the
County's policy is to limit access to minor arterials from individual properties for safety
reasons.
Traffic: In response to neighborhood concerns about potential traffic generated on 11th
Avenue by the day care, the applicant hired Tony Heppleman, Transportation Engineer with
BRW, Inc., to prepare a traffic analysis of the proposed day care at this site. The analysis
indicates that approximately five vehicles would use 11 th Avenue to and from the north
during the peak hours (see attached analysis). Traffic is a main concern of area residents.
The analysis also indicates that both the parking lot and the intersection will function
adequately.
Neighborhood Impact: The Planning Commission recommended that the applicant go
through mediation with the neighbors to try and resolve some of the differences raised at
the first Planning Commission hearing. An invitation was sent to the neighbors on the
notification list to participate in mediation. Four neighborhood residents participated in
mediation with the applicant. According to the mediators, the neighbors were satisfied with
changes the applicant has made to the building's appearance. They preferred an access
3A -
onto 66th Street, but if tt'ls entrance were to be on 11th Avenu -v, they asked that a °no right
turn" sign be installed at the parking lot exit. The neighbors also asked that stop signs be
installed at 64th Street and the entrance to the park and that crosswalks be painted at the
entrance to the park. The latter requests have been forwarded to the City's Traffic
Committee for review.
Trees and Landscaping: There are approximately 20 trees on the property and two
boulevard trees. Most of the trees will be removed to accommodate the proposed
construction. At a minimum, three large evergreens on the north side of the property are
preserved as part of the proposed landscape plan. Additional trees would be planted as
part of the proposed development.
Comprehensive Plan: The property is zoned C -2 (general commercial); however, the
Guide Plan of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area for high density, attached,
single family housing (RSFH), more commonly called townhomes. The Zoning Ordinance
states that the Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it finds that the
proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
The issue of the Comprehensive Plan consistency was explored by staff when the
application was first submitted. At that time, staff determined that the underlying zoning
should take precedent over the Comprehensive Plan. The City Attorney later determined
that it is the City's zoning ordinance that requires consistency with the Plan for conditional
uses; therefore, the City cannot approve the proposed day care without finding it to be
consistent with the Plan. A majority of the Planning Commissioners found that although the
proposed day care does not exactly match the guide plan designation of townhomes, it is
consistent with the overall goals, policies and objectives of the Plan. Two Commissioners
found that the day care was not consistent with the guide plan designation and therefore
voted against approval of the conditional use permit.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the conditional use permit to allow construction of a day care for 90 children at
1100 East 66th Street with the following stipulations:
That a tree protection plan for those trees remaining be submitted to and approved by
the Community Development Director.
2. That a final landscape plan be approved by the Community Development Director and
a landscape escrow be submitted.
3. That a grading plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director.
4. That a sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the Public
Works Director.
5. That a stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the Public
Works Director.
6. That the business maintain the appropriate state, county and city licenses.
7. That a resolution app ving the conditional use permit be recorded with the County,
pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462.36, subdivision 1.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. On March 24, 1998, the Planning Commission voted 6 -2 to recommend approval of
the conditional use permit.
2. According to the Planning Commission's interpretation, the proposed day care is
consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Plan goals and objectives indicating consistency are as follows:
IMPLEMENTATION: The primary intent and purpose of the 1997 -2007 Plan
update is to adopt a plan that can and will be a useful tool in future zoning and
redevelopment decisions. For this reason, the Plan is focused on concepts that
are described as goals and objectives. The Subarea Plans are looked upon as
examples of how those areas of the City might be redeveloped by applying these
goals and objectives, rather than the more typical view of the Plan as a
blueprint" for development. (FOUR -2)
OBJECTIVE: Encourage and support a diversity of compatible non - residential
land uses that are accessible and responsive to the needs of Richfield and
adjacent communities. (ONE -7)
OBJECTIVE: Encourage the development of viable and responsive
neighborhood commercial services. (ONE -7)
GOAL: Achieve a standard of land use that is reflective of the "home town"
character of Richfield. (ONE -8)
PLAN PROPOSAL: Reinforce existing and create new well- defined boundaries
for all commercial developments and provide transitional use areas that protect
and improve adjacent residential areas. (ONE -10)
3. The property is zoned C -2 (general commercial) which allows for commercial uses to
be developed on the property. The proposed day care is a conditional use in the C -2
district.
4. The proposal meets the required zoning standards for new construction in the C -2
district, including setback, lot coverage and performance standards.
5. The proposed parking meets the City's parking standards.
6. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun - Current and mailed to property owners
and occupants within 350 feet of the subject property.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Recommend that the City Council deny the request for a conditional use permit at 1100
East 66th Street with the following findings of fact:
The City Zoning Ordinance requires that, in order to grant a conditional use permit,
the City must find that the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies and
objectives of the V.jmprehensive Plan. The Comprehdr-;ive Guide Plan designatiL.
for 1100 East 66th Street is RSFH (high density, single family attached housing).
The corrollary zoning districts for this designation would be the R and MR -1 zoning
districts. These districts do not allow a day care of this size.
The City Council has reviewed the proposed application, the City Zoning Ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan and has determined that it cannot approve the
application because the proposed use is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and therefore the requirement set forth in Section 546.05, Subdivision 6(a) of
the Zoning Ordinance has not been met.
The traffic from the proposed day care would have an adverse impact on the
adjacent residential neighborhood.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The Planning Commission first heard this request on February 24 but continued action until
March 24 to allow staff and the applicant to address several issues, including the
Comprehensive Plan consistency question.
Staff had originally recommended approval of the application given that the zoning is C -2
and the Comprehensive Plan states that the Guide Plan is intended to be a guide, not a
blueprint for development. Legal counsel reviewed the issue and decided that denying the
application was most defensible; however, they instructed the Planning Commission that it
is still the Commissions' role to interpret the Comprehensive Plan. A majority of the
Commissioners concluded that, in interpreting the Plan, they must consider not only the
Subarea Plan graphics but the stated goals and policies and therefore recommended
approval.
The Commission suggested that the day care property be rezoned to MR -2 (medium
density multiple residence) to prevent the possible future reuse of the building by a non -
compatible commercial business. They plan to review all instances in the City where the
zoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommend rezonings where
appropriate. The Commission will also compare the differences in regulations for day care
facilities and schools. Public and private elementary and high schools, and other similar
learning institutions are permitted uses in the C -2 district, requiring only City Council
approval of an off- street parking permit. Staff might have considered Bernie's Montessori
School a school, permitted in the C -2 district. Only the day care portion of the operation
would have required a conditional use permit.
A public hearing on the conditional use permit application is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on
Monday, April 13, 1998. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield
City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven L. Devich
Acting City Manager
SLD:ds
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION FOR APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1100 EAST 66TH STREET
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which
requests approval of a conditional use permit for a day care for 90 children on land
generally located at 1100 East 66th Street, legally described as:
Lot 9, Block 2, Eliason Fourth Addition
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the..
conditional use permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. A conditional use permit is issued for a day care for 90 children, as described
in City Council Letter No. , on the Subject Property legally described
above.
2. The conditional use permit is subject to completing the following conditions
before an occupancy permit can be issued:
That a tree protection plan for those trees remaining be submitted to and
approved by the Community Development Director.
That a final landscape plan be approved by the Community Development
Director and a landscape escrow be submitted.
That a grading plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works
Director.
That a sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved
by the Public Works Director.
That a stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the
Public Works Director.
That the business maintain the appropriate state, county and city
licenses.
That this resolution be recorded with the County, pursuant to Minnesota
statutes section 462.36, subdivision 1.
3. The conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions
regulating it are observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if
normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as
required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 546.05, Subd. 9.
Adopted-by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
April, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
AGENDA SECTION
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CASE #
PUBLIC HEARING
3
24
go PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PC MEETING DATE: MAY 309 2000
ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan amendment for 1100 East 66th Street.
U. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 11
Conduct a public hearing and by motion deny the request for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the classification of 1100
East 66th Street from R -SFH (high density single family residential) to
C -C (communitv commercial
II. BACKGROUND I
State law requires that cities' Zoning Ordinances be made consistent with their
Comprehensive Plans. In 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed the City's zoning
classifications and identified those parcels with zoning that is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Of those parcels, the Commission determined that one category
of parcels, that in which the land use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but the
zoning is not, should be rezoned. One group of these properties was rezoned by the
City Council in December, 1999. A second group was reviewed by the Planning
Commission on February 22, 2000 and by the City Council on April 10, 2000. Based on
testimony given at the Council hearing, the City Council asked that the Planning
Commission reconsider the rezoning of two properties, 1100 East 66th Street and 6612
15th Avenue. The City Council also asked the Planning Commission to review the
Comprehensive Plan classification if the zoning is not to be changed. On April 27,
2000, the owner of 1100 East 66th Street formally requested that the Comprehensive
Plan be amended to a commercial classification.
Ill., BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
The City is addressing the issue of making its zoning ordinance consistent
with its Comprehensive Plan by rezoning properties where the land use is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but the zoning is inconsistent.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
The Comprehensive Plan envisions primarily residential uses surrounding
Veterans Memorial Park. The Plan recognizes that some neighborhood
3-1 commercial may be appropriate, but that residential should be the primary
use. The Plan also envisions Community Commercial and Offices uses
on East 66th Street to the east of 1100 East 66th Street.
Specifically, the Plan states, "The desirable sites along the south side of
West 66th Street across from Veterans Park should be converted to high -
quality townhouses or patio homes as the existing multiple dwellings and
commercial sites near the end of their useful lives. The 12th Avenue
intersection should remain as a commercial corner, extending one full
block to 13th Avenue on both sides of West 66th Street. The remaining
three blocks to the east should be limited to office uses. Single- family,
high- density (RSF -H) should serve as a transition use on all sides of the
commercial and office areas." (THREE -16)
If the property at 1100 East 66th Street is not rezoned to a residential
district, then it is appropriate to consider an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan so the zoning will not be inconsistent with the Plan.
C. FINANCIAL
N/A
D. LEGAL
Notification: A mailed notice was sent to all property owners and
occupants within 350 feet of the property to be rezoned.
Other Actions:
Council: If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation, the City
Council would conduct a public hearing on July 10, 2000.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS)
1. Request additional information from staff and continue the discussion to the
Planning Commission meeting on June 27, 2000.
2. Recommend that the City Council amend the Comprehensive Plan designating the
property at 1100 East 66th Street as Community Commercial.
V. ATTACHMENTS 7=
Attachment A: Map of land uses around the property
Attachment B: Map of zoning classifications around the property
Attachment C: Map of Comprehensive Plan classifications around the property
Attachment F: Application from Bernie and Ratna Malawaaratchy, 4/27/00
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
Glen Schumann, Moss & Barnett, representing the property owners
Bernie and Rachna Malawaaratchy, owners of Bernie's Montessori, 1100 East 66th
Street
3-3
co
E
L
D
L
V/
m
0
0
Z
U)
c
0
c
N
U)
cu
U
rn
c
0
N
V
t:
UUn mn
aAV Ull
11111111 I111In11 //11111111
111111n Iilllllll WIIIIIII
IIIUUII IIUI W 11 11111
nuW mW unn
uu umu
U UUWII
m W Wl mi
mmmmmm --
nnn u n n a Irr > R 111111:
WnWIn " ",1 MMMn IIUIIIiill
10-1i E i
N mtl
v m
tt
N N
A 112 a
HIM
a
LL
m
0
om
0
0
0
3 -5
HERMAN J. RATE LE
THOMAS A. SBLUM ID
JAMBS B. O'BRESN
EDWARD L WINEI
VAIL1AM N. KO.SSTEt
WIWAM A HAUG
CHARLES A PARSONS, JR.
THOMAS B. f ARMS
RICHARD J. JOHNSON
ROBERT J. LUXES
JAMES A RUBEiSTEIN
THOMAS R. SARAN
J. MICHAEL HILSCi
EDWARD J. BLOMME
JEFFREY L. WATSON
THOMAS J. SHROYEI
DAVID P. JENDRIBJEe
CURTIS D. SMITH
DAVE P. SBNCER
MITCHELL H. COX
MICHAEL J. BRADLEY
LAw OFFICES
MOSS & BARNETT
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
PETER A, RaLLAR 4800 NORWEST CENTER
RICHARD J. mCiHR 90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREETKEVINM. BUSCH
SUSAN C. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 -4129THOMASM.H GncoMASM.xuaras
MCI HAY
THOMAS A- JUDD TELEPHONE )612) 347.0300
DAVID W. LAASON
GRANNIE M. GRECO FACSIMILE )612) 339 -6686
CASS S. WEL
GLEN R. SCHHUMANN
JANNA E SEVERANCE
M. CBCBJA RAY
JOSEPH R. E.EN WRITERS DIRECT DIAL NUMEEI
NANCY M. ESES
347BARRYLAZARUS612) -0282
RONALD A EISENBBRG
PAUL B. --A
BRIAN T. GROGAN WR!'IER'S B.MAE. ADDRESS
J. MICHAEL COLLOTON
ERIC J. OLSEN SchummuLG@moss- bamemoom
April 27, 2000
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Ms. Julie Urban
Zoning Administrator
City of Richfield Community Development
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: Bernie's Montessori School
Dear Julie:
ATTACHMENT F
JOSEPH o. wMamoWSm
STEVEN T. HITIAND
WIIJAM A. CUMMI G
JAYMBS D. LITIUNJOHON
MICHAEL R. NIRT
JAMBS P. BAIDWIN
VINC Wr J. PAHDOJANDER
AN M. WAGNER
PHILIP). YOUNG
DEN M. HE+SOHEL
JON M. TYNJALA
STEVEN B. CULBERT
MATHEW M. MEYER
DAWN M. K NUTSON
PAUL J. YECHOUT
KELLY M. MCSWDE:RY
JEFFREY W. POST
ANN K. PHILIPS
MBOAN J. HRRTM.BR
H. IS PHAN
JERRIR M. HAYES
Enclosed please find the original Zoning Application and Exhibit A.
Please call if you have any questions. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
TIMOTHY L OUST IN
DENNIS A. WEIABNS
JOSEPH A. MANDSRNACH
OPCOUNSE.
LEE A HENDERSON
RETIRED
VERVE W. MOSS
JAMES H. HENNBSSY
STANLEY R. STASE.
PATRICK P. F AHELRTY
WAYNE A HEROOTT
MICHAEL I- FLANAGAN
PAUL VAN VALEINBURO
W. SCOTT HEIZOG
PAUL O. NEMANN
Glen E. Schumann
GES abc
Enclosure
328024/1/#67193.2
1896
Y
Fr •
4'
t
t
uu' bit a -
Free-WSS i BARNETT
H
r -- -- - +4a00 T -467 P.03/03 F -377
Zoning Application PLANNING
ZONING
DOPOVNX
Sum Address of Subjcct Property: 1100 East 66th Street, Richfield, MN 55423
Lgp1 Deseripaun of Subjcctpropeny: Lot 9, Block 2, Eliason 4th Addition,-PID# 2600045
Applicant/Contact Ratna & Bernie Mallawaaratchy Datr 4196 /nn
Fsur of Type)
Applicant Sigttatiuc
Company Bernie's Montessori SchoolAdj&Lfs.(ifdiffe=)
City Richfield g.W 55423 Phone (612) 869 -3907
E- matlAddrr :RATNA•M @co.hennepin.mn.us 1-ax0;
jkpficatine ]ems
Conditional Activity Permit Conditional USc Petmit Final Devctepmtat Plan/CoWitional
Use Permit (PUD)
Nonconforming Usc Permit Of -Sava Parking Permit Ordiwnec Amca kwu
Or Comprehensive Plat! Amtcdmnt
Planned Unit Devclopn%etit PW (Pleiitttim"Y/Flnal) ilrxotstng _
PLM
Subdivision Waiver Traasiuonal Activity Peratit Variaaoe
A=ndcd Planned Unit Devclopmat Amcndud CoudWoazl Me Amended Off Street Parldug
Final Development Plan Petaut Pemt
Brief DescrigUfala ar M
See attached Exhibit A.
OFFICE USE ONLY:
Application Received Sy:
Coarzple -W Incomplete
1. Applkstion Requirements
2. Administrative Review
3. Any Additional Requirvaunts
4. Nan - refundable Vding Fee
Amou>zt:
Date: 4-
SUIT
Initials Date
City of R+cnfield - 6700 Potnana Avmm South Page 3 + 86t -97
3'q
EXHIBIT A
Applicant requests that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to conform the zoning
classification of the Subject Property to C -2, the present zoning classification and existing use of
the Subject Property.
Rezoning of Subject Property has been initiated by the City of Richfield Staff. During
review of the proposed zoning change, members of both the Planning Commission and City
Council have expressed concern about the appropriateness of the Comprehensive Plan's zoning
classification for this property. Since the issue of the proper zoning classification for the Subject
Property is before the Planning Commission, now for the fifth time in the last year and a half
three times for the City Council), the applicant believes it is appropriate for this issue to receive
full consideration and final resolution.
Applicant believes that the Property is appropriately zoned Commercial C -2 for the
following reasons:
331203/1
1. Presently, the Montessori School and Daycare Center is best served by a
C -2 classification, which permits both uses.
2. Goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan are to provide a
road map for future land use decisions, such as the location of housing and
commercial development. Commercial Development is clearly recognized
as a permissible (and desirable) use of properties immediately bordering
66a' Street. The City's own zoning map and the existence of commercial
facilities along
66th Street evidence the .same. Amending the
Comprehensive Plan to conform to the existing use of the Property, which
is consistent with the existing commercial uses along this stretch of
661'
Street, is consistent with the City's long -term vision for development of
this commercial corridor.
3. The highest and best use of the Subject Property is its current C -2
commercial use. The property is facing 66th Street which is at present,
arguably, the busiest commercial street in Richfield. In the years to come,
the volume and commercial nature of this traffic are likely to increase due
to the new airport runway, and the Cedar Avenue developments with
proposed high rise office buildings, high rise apartment complexes,
shopping malls and possibly a light rail transit station. Work on the
Express Bus Stop at the intersection of 35W & 66h Street has already
started. The Lyndale Avenue and
66h Street developments are fast
nearing completion. All these development will increase traffic along
66th
Street and make it a busier commercial street. It would not be prudent, at
this juncture, to change commercial zoning on a property bordering
66t`
Street to residential.
34
4. The Montessori property is not distinct from all of the other properties
along
66a'
which are used commercially. The property next door to 1100
East 66t1i Street is a property zoned commercial C2 (King Oscar
Restaurant). Practically all properties located along 66a' Street between
11th Avenue and Cedar Avenue are commercial properties. There is no
basis for singularly carving out this property and reclassifying it, when
none of the other properties are being reclassified.
5. The only reason the City previously reviewed the zoning classification of
this property was that the size of Bernie's day care operations required a
Conditional Use Permit. The owner could have developed the property
with a permitted commercial use without City review. Had a permitted
commercial use been exercised, the City would not be considering, merely
two years later, reclassifying the property to a residential use. The present
owners should not be penalized for having developed the property as a
school and day care facility.
6. We believe that the only reason that the Comprehensive Plan shows the
property with a R -SFH classification is that a single family residence,
clearly inappropriate for a commercial district along the very heavily
traveled
66h Street, previously stood on this spot. The previous owner
Wyatt & Jacqueline Lewis tried to sell, without success, the 1100 East 66,'
Street property as a residential site for about one year before Bernie's
made a Conditional Offer to Purchase subject to the City of Richfield
approving their Plans to operate a Montessori School and Child Care
Center at this site.
7. Hennepin County has valued 1100 East 66a'
Street property as a
commercial property which is higher than for non - commercial properties.
Higher property taxes are also paid. It is unfair to change the zoning
because it would be impossible for this property as "residential" to be
worth the value placed for property tax purposes. It is nothing but fair for
Bernie's who pay property taxes at Commercial classification to demand
that the zoning be retained as Commercial.
8. There has been comment that the property should be rezoned residential
because it sits across the street from the park; but Bemie's property is
hardly unique in this aspect.
We believe that the following points are also relevant to the decision which is to be made
in this matter:
A. Neighbor's have alleged in their recent City Council meeting that there
was a "promise" that the property would be rezoned as a condition of
granting the conditional use permit. This is not true. While the Planning
Commission in March of 1998 recommended to the City Council that the
331203/1 2
3 -q
331203/1
property be rezoned to MR -2, this recommendation was not, after much
discussion, adopted by the City Council. Both the minutes of the City
Council and the Conditional Use Permit are devoid of any requirement or
suggestion that the zoning classification of the Subject Property be
changed.
B. Following the City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit in
1998, and in reliance on the terms of the Conditional Use Permit (which
did NOT require rezoning of the Property), applicants acquired title to the
Property, removed the single family home, built a. commercial grade
building to specifications required by the City of Richfield (including a
sprinkler system, modified access, and landscaping), all at a cost in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars. In reliance upon the terms of the
Conditional Use Permit, which did not mandate a zoning reclassification,
applicant's lender lent money for the project. The Property continues to
be taxed as commercial property and will no doubt be taxed similarly in
years to come. In short, applicant has made 'a significant investment in the
community in reliance on the specified terms of its Conditional Use
Permit and the assurance that a rezoning of the Property was not required.
C. Concerns raised by the neighbors two years ago have proved unfounded,
yet the same issues continue to be raised by the neighbors without factual
support or foundation. Fear of the unknown and mere speculation or
allegation must fail in light of two years of harmonious use of the Property
as a business permitted in a C -2 Commercial zone.