Loading...
06-27-2000PLANNING CONIlMISSION om AGENDA June 27, 2000 7:00 p.m. Introductory Items Roll Call Approval of Minutes: Regular Planning Commission meeting of May 30, 2000. Opportunity for Citizens to Address the Commission on Items not on the Agenda Public Hearing ITEM #1 PC Letter #25 6400 Portland Avenue South Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield Underground utilities and relocating sidewalks in portion of park ITEM #2 00 -CUP -8 620 East 78th Street Hampton Court Apartments Amendment to conditional use permit ITEM #3 00 -CUP -9 900 East 78th Street Heritage Square Apartments Amendment to conditional use permit New Business ITEM #4 PC Letter #26 Clarification of Planning Commission minutes from March 24, 1998 Old Business Liaison Reports School Board Community Services Advisory Commission IRA City Council Adjournment Planning Commission Minutesaa Regular Meeting May 30, 2000 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Brenda Bjorklund; Commissioners: Bill Kilian, Mark Tolvstad, John Bjostad, Donna Drummond, Gordon Hanson and Jeffery Walz. MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners: Terry Ahlstrom and David Gepner 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 Chairperson Bjorklund at 7:05 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/ Kilian, S/ Walz to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of April 25, 2000 and the study session of May 9, 2000. Motion carried: 7 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Carl Cornell, 6615 Lake Shore Dr., presented his concerns regarding the proposed City Bella project. He stated that the new plans for the City Bella project will have buildings too close to the Lake Shore Drive condos and would block the view of the bottom floors of the condo. He added that green space would be lost and parking would be limited. He stated that the City was overusing tax increment financing. He provided a handout to the Commissioners for their review. PUBLIC HEARINGS May 30, 2000 Page 2 PC Report #22 ITEM #1 Reconsider rezoning of property located at 6612 15 1h Ave. to a zoning district that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Zoning Administrator Julie Urban reviewed the staff report and gave the background of the rezoning of 6612 15`h Avenue from C -2 to R. Patricia Kargel, 6612 15`h Avenue, questioned why after 40 years of their property is being rezoned to residential. She stated that the change in zoning to R will reduce the property value. M/Kilian, S /Tolstad to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 7 -0 Commissioner Kilian stated that the residential property to the west of 6612 151h Avenue would have two commercial properties adjoining it if the property is not rezoned. The rezoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and surrounding properties. It would not make sense to leave this property commercial when the property behind it is residential. M/Kilian, S /Bjostad to recommend approval of an ordinance amendment to rezone 6612 15` h Avenue from C -2 (general commercial ) to R (single family residential). Motion carried: 7 -0 Reconsider rezoning of property at 1100 E 15th Street ITEM #2 Avenue to a zoning district that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan amendment ITEM #3 for 1100 East 66th Street The Commission agreed to combine the staff report, public hearing, and discussion of items 2 and 3, but to have a separate vote for each item. Ms. Urban reviewed the staff report and gave the background of the rezoning of 1100 E 66`h Street from C -2 to MR -2. She explained that the City Council has asked the Commission to review the record from 1998 and to consider their recommendation. May 30, 2000 Page 3 Glenn Schumann, Attorney for Bernie's Montessori, stated that a commercial use would be the most likely future use of the property, the building is constructed for future commercial use not residential, and Bernie's would take a financial loss if the property is rezoned. He reviewed the background and purpose of a Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Schumann added that the day care is a consistent land use with the surrounding neighborhood, creates a buffer between residential and commercial properties, they have been a good neighbor, and there has been no adverse affects on the neighborhood with regards to traffic. Mr. Schumann stated that Bernie's should remain zoned as commercial and the Comprehensive Plan amended. Mr. Schumann pointed out a discrepancy between the meeting minutes sent to him and those published in the Commission packet. Ms. Urban agreed to look into the discrepancy. Jan Owen 6535 11`h Avenue, stated that she doesn't want to have commercial properties on both sides of her property and would like. to see the day care rezoned to residential. Kristal Stokes, 6733 17` h Avenue, stated that one goal of the Comprehensive Plan Committee was to preserve the edges of city parks with multi - family housing and that designating 1100 Ease 66`h Street R -SFH in the Comprehensive Plan was not arbitrary. Jenny Moore, 6410 11`h Avenue, stated the pedestrian/bike entrance for Vets Park is just a few houses from the day care. If a commercial building is constructed by the entrance it may become a safety issue for park users. Carole Rinder, 6420 11`h Avenue, stated that she and her neighbors have invested in their homes and she is afraid that her property value will decrease if a commercial use replaces the day care. She added that traffic has increased and would like to see a "No Right Turn" sign placed to limit traffic traveling north on 11 `h Avenue. Dorthy Hoffman, 6438 11` h Avenue, stated that she would like to see the zoning of the day care property be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ratna Malawaaratchy, Bernie's Montessori, stated that they would never had proceeded with building the school if they would have known that it would be rezoned. He stated that the rezoning would put a financial strain on their investment in the day care because they would have difficulty refinancing because reuse of the property would be limited. He added that traffic has not increased according to a traffic study and they have made the building attractive. Connie McDonald, 6400 15`h Avenue, stated that she found the City's traffic studies to be unreliable and her traffic counts find increased traffic in the neighborhood. M /Kilian, S /Hanson to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 7 -0 Commissioner Kilian stated that issues of traffic and impacts from the present day care were not applicable to this discussion. The issue is the Comprehensive Plan and future uses. He May 30, 2000 Page 4 stated that this property and the two properties north of the day care are classified R -SFH in the Comprehensive Plan and the daycare property needs to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He reviewed the history of the reasons behind the Planning Commission recommendation to rezone the property two years ago. Commissioner Drummond stated that the day care is providing the city with a valuable service and rezoning the property may place a financial strain on the business because a commercial -grade building has been constructed. Ms. Urban clarified that the day care would be an allowable use in a MR -2 zoning district with a conditional use permit. Chairperson Bjorklund stated that she is concerned about a new commercial use at the property that would be disruptive to the surrounding neighborhood and that a MR -2 classification would limit the type of future development that could occur on the property. M/Kilian, S /Bjorklund to recommend approval of an ordinance amendment to rezone 1100 East 66`h Street from C -2 (general commercial) to MR -2 (multi - residential medium density), Motion denied: 3 -4 (Walz, Tolvstad, Drummond, Bjostad opposed) Commissioner Bjostad stated that he is concerned with the financial burden that would be placed on Mr. Malawaaratchy if the property is rezoned. He asked if there was an alternative that would prevent future commercial uses, but not have a negative finanical impact in the meantime. Commissioner Kilian stated that the function of the Planning Commission is not to determine if there is a financial strain placed on a business, but to address land use and Comprehensive Plan issues. Commissioner Hanson asked if a C -1 classification would be more compatible. Ms. Urban stated that a C -1 only limits the size of commercial buildings not the type of uses. Chairperson Bjorklund stated that the day care and future multi- family housing would use the park and would see it as an amenity. A gas station or bar would likely not use the park, which was an important factor to the Commissioners two years ago. She explained that two years ago, the Commission sought a win -win solution and thought that allowing the day care but preventing future commercial uses by rezoning the property was a way to do so. Commissioner Drummond stated that she is concerned that Mr. Malawaaratchy had to apply for a CUP to permit the day care use two years ago when the school use would have been permitted. And now, after a commercial grade building was constructed, the zoning is being changed. May 30, 2000 Page 5 M/Kilian, S /Bjorklund to recommend approval of an ordinance amendment to rezone 1100 East 66`h Street from C -2 (general commercial) to MR -2 (multi- residential medium density). Motion approved: 6 -1 (Drummond opposed) M/Kilian, S /Bjorklund to recommend denial of the request fc amendment to change the classification of 1100 E 66`h Street from R- family residential) to C -C (community commercial). Motion approved: 6 -1 (Drummond opposed) NEW BUSINESS None. OLD BUSINESS None. LIAISON REPORTS School Board: None. Community Services Advisory Commission: Commissioner Hanson reported that they discussed their goals for next year. HRA: None. City Council: Mayor Kirsch reported that they approved a labor agreement with the fire department and approved the CUP for the Menard's expansion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:15 p.m. Mark Tolvstad Planning Commission Secretary May 30, 2000 Page 6 AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CASE # PUBLIC HEARING 25 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PC MEETING DATE: JUNE 279 2000 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Public hearing on underg rounding- utilities and relocating sidewalks in portions of Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield. Ill. RECOMMENDED ACTION: II Conduct a public hearing and By Motion: recommend to the City Council approval of the plan to move sidewalks away from the curb and require NSP to place existing overhead facilities underground. 111. BACKGROUND The Hennepin County Department of Public Works has initiated a program to financially assist inner ring suburbs with enhancements to County Roads. The amount of financial assistance is limited to 50 percent if the project enhances safety and 33 percent for aesthetic improvements. Staff has approached the County about receiving financial assistance with the following two types of improvements: 1. move sidewalks. along 66th Street and Portland Avenue in the area of Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield (VMPR) away from the curb to promote safety and to provide for more snow storage, and 2. bury overhead utility lines in the same two areas plus along 66th Street between Lynwood Boulevard and Humboldt Avenue. The sidewalks would be moved and the utilities buried along Portland Avenue between the Water Plant and near 65th Street and along 66th Street between Oakland and 11 th Avenues. The sidewalks would be asphalt and eight feet wide, similar to the paths currently in the park. As part of the sidewalk project on 66th Street, a very flat swale would be cut allowing storm water to overtop the north curb and flow to Legion Lake. This would be done to minimize flooding at the intersection of 66th Street and Chicago Avenue. That intersection floods routinely during moderate to heavy rainfalls. Although buildings are not flooded, an unsafe traffic condition is created whenever the intersection floods. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY A goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to bury underground utilities in the City. It has long been a goal of the City Council to support undergrounding of utilities. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The City can request that NSP underground utilities; however, NSP has the authority to pass the costs of the undergrounding to the ratepayers within the municipality that is requesting the undergrounding. This project would be the first time that the City of Richfield has considered using this form of financing for an undergrounding project. Staff and the City Council is seeking input from a.variety.of sources before making. any. decisions. The Community Services Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the sidewalk relocation and undergrounding. In April, the Community Services Commission hosted an open house on the issue. The issue was part of the Water Plant Open House in May. A board was set up asking people to express their opinion on the following question: Would you be willing to add $1 per month to your electric bill for eight months to have power lines buried at Veterans Memorial Park ?" The response to the question was 76 people in favor and 6 people opposed. C. FINANCIAL If the sidewalk portion of this work is approved it would be funded 50 percent by Hennepin County and 50 percent through Richfield's Municipal State Aid MSA) construction account. If the undergrounding portion of the proposed work is approved it would be funded 50 percent by Hennepin County. A source for funding the remainder of the cost has not been determined but could be funded in different ways. 1. NSP will automatically collect any unpaid portion of the cost of undergrounding by assessing the cost to electrical users' electrical bills. As of now, users would be defined as NSP customers within Richfield. The cost to residential NSP customers is estimated at $1 per month for nine months. The cost to commercial customers is estimated at $3 to $4 per month for nine months. 2. Richfield could pay its share of the cost of undergrounding directly to NSP. The cost of undergrounding is estimated by NSP at: Project Cost Richfield's share 1. 66th Street near 1 -35W $96,227 $48,113.50 2. 66th Street at VMPR $73,963 $36,981.50 3. Portland Avenue near VMPR $97,325 $48,662.50 D. LEGAL Notice of the public hearing was published in Your City and in the Sun - Current. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) Recommend that the Council not pursue undergrounding utilities and relocating the sidewalk at this time. V. ATTACHMENTS Map of VMPR showing sidewalks that are proposed to be moved. Rendering of a photograph depicting what the Portland Avenue side of VMPR would look like with sidewalks moved and power poles removed. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING City Engineering Staff VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK OF RICHFIELD Proposed Sidewalk Relocation N W E S 0 200 400 600 800 Feet ENGINEERING DIVISION 4/5!2000 6 AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CASE # PUBLIC HEARING 00 -CUP -8 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PC MEETING DATE: JUNE 279 2000 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Public hearing on an amendment to a conditional use permit for 620 East 78th Street, Hampton Court Apartments. II I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 11 Conduct a public hearing and by motion: Approve an amendment to the conditional use permit for the Hampton Court Apartments, 620 East 78th Street, to allow the addition of garages and other site changes with the stipulations listed in the Legal Basis of Recommendation. II. BACKGROUND Village Green Companies recently purchased three apartment complexes, Hampton Court, Heritage Square and the Crestwood. Village Green is planning a variety of site and building improvements at all three complexes. At Hampton Court, the following improvements are proposed: Construction of three garages with approximately 52 stalls Additional landscaping Additional lighting Fagade improvements to the main entrance of some buildings Creation of courtyard areas between the buildings with fencing and landscaping improvements Ornamental fencing along 77th and 78th Street and Chicago Avenue New signage Replaced trash enclosures The existing pool will be removed and replaced with garages and a parking area. The tot lot will remain. The parking areas on either side of the existing pool area will be expanded to the south. There are currently 291 parking stalls. The proposed changes will result in converting 38 surface stalls to approximately 52 garage stalls. An additional 16 surface stalls will also be added for a total number of 321 parking spaces. Landscaping will be added to screen the parking areas from 78th Street. Interior improvements (e.g. painting, new carpeting) are also planned. a -I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The proposed improvements are consistent with the City and HRA programs and policies to encourage physical improvements to apartment buildings and to improve the living environments for apartment residents. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The City has experienced problems with the Hampton Place apartment complex in past years. While many of the issues (e.g. poor maintenance, inadequate tenant screening) have been addressed, the new management presents an opportunity for further improvements. At such time in the future that 1 -494 is widened, 78th Street (the frontage road) will be removed. Village Green has been informed of this future event and the fact that their access to 78th Street will be eliminated. The City anticipates that, when the 78th Street access is eliminated, the property will need access off of 77th Street in addition to the access off of Chicago Avenue. The parking requirement for a multi - family complex is two spaces for every unit. The Council can reduce the ratio to 1.25 parking spaces per unit considering factors such as transit availability, shared parking, pedestrian orientation, and occupancy characteristics. A reduced parking ratio has existed without problems since the complex was built in the 1960s. The parking availability at the complex was reviewed two years ago and determined to be more than adequate. With the proposed improvements, the parking ratio would be increased from 1.32 to 1.45 spaces per unit. The southwest garage may need to be moved and /or redesigned slightly to maintain required fire lanes. C. FINANCIAL The complex is currently a source of affordable housing for many City residents. The owners plan to increase rents as improvements are made. The intent is to phase in the increases for current tenants. The property currently participates in the 4d program, which provides tax incentives to apartment housing owners to ensure that a portion of units remain affordable. The owners plan to continue participation in the 4d program. D. LEGAL Zoning: C -2 (general commercial) and MR -3 (multiple family residential) Land Use: multi - family residential Comprehensive Plan: Regional commercial /office and high density multi - family residential. Notification: Notice of the hearing was mailed to property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the subject property. Other Actions: Council: Council action would be scheduled for July 24, 2000 Findings necessary to issue a CUP (546.05, subd.6): C2_cl) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan: No change is proposed to the current use of the property. The Comprehensive Plan designates the eastern portion of the property as high density multiple family housing. The western portion of the property as Regional Commercial /Office; however, some multi - family residential development is consistent with that designation. The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines: The proposed improvements are consistent with the City's goals to encourage apartment owners to upgrade and make improvements to the City's rental housing stock. The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code: Lighting is being increased at the complex. The trash enclosures will be replaced; the proposed enclosures will be in compliance with this section. The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements. , The proposed improvements to the complex should not impact the level of service required. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare: The proposed changes will upgrade the complex and improve the living environment for residents. There is a public need for such use at the proposed location: The complex provides 221 housing units. The proposed changes will upgrade the complex and improve the living environment for residents. Stipulations of Approval: 1. That a stormwater management plan be approved by Public Works Director. 2. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 3. That a final landscape plan be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) Deny the conditional use permit amendment with a finding that the proposed changes would have a negative impact on the surrounding property and the City as a whole. V. ATTACHMENTS Code References: 546.05, 521.79 Attachment A: Existing Site Plan Attachment B: Proposed Site Plan Attachment C: Garage Elevations VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Brad Froling, Village Green Companies I d N. 11 "w's -wj- 1% m's g 3a le- jVJ jr, o` r6 I d N. 11 "w's -wj- 1% m's g 3a le- jr, I d N. 11 "w's -wj- 1% m's g 3a o` r6 u4 iN 3l to amL 41 EflwR 65 U-. s"mf g.N m J _ LU I oq ry Wi ys6 1a ha uZ E ZE s r F EE2 JILM-- - -- F z W g 4t . I I I r ml a L L ti ti s c 0 0 CIS O a O c tp lira ZI w W U z a a a w c a a a t, 4t . I I I r ml s c 0 0 CIS O a O c tp lira ZI w W U z a a a w c a a a NE Code Citations 546.05. Conditional use ep_nits. 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. 2. Limitations. A conditional use permit may not be issued for the purpose of granting an adjustment or appeal, or for any use prohibited in the zoning district for which the permit is sought. Subd. 3.. Application. Application for a conditional use permit shall be made to the Director on forms provided by the City: 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. 5. Public hearing. After receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission, a date shall be set for a public hearing. Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be published once in the official newspaper and sent by mail to all the owners of properties located wholly or partially within 350 feet. The Council shall make the final determination on the application, and in doing so shall make findings regarding its review. The Council may impose conditions and require guarantees on the granting of the permit in order to ensure compliance with the conditions designated in connection therewith. The Council shall make a decision within 60 days of submission of a completed application unless written notice of an extension is provided to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. If the Council fails to make a timely decision, the conditional use permit shall be deemed to have been approved. (Amended, Bill No. 1995 -19, Sec. 4) Subd. 6. Conditions for issuance. The Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it finds that all of the following conditions will be met: a) the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; b) the proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines; c) the proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 'of this code; d) the proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements; e) the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare; and f) there is a public need for such use at the proposed location; and g) the proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. q 521.79. high Density Multi- Fa_rrtily Residential District (MR -3). Subdivision 1. Subsections 521.79 to 521.95 apply to the MR -3 District. 521.83. Accessory uses. Subdivision 1. The uses permitted in this subsection are allowable accessory uses in the MR -3 District. Subd. 2. Parking, as authorized by a Council approved off -street parking permit. Subd. 3. Garages for any residential structure, provided they are located in a common building or space approved by the City under a uniform plan. Subd. 4. Swimming pools subject to Section 420 of the City Code, tennis courts, and similar recreational facilities. Subd. 5. Storage buildings designed for common use by residents or members of the homeowners association or similar organization, or for use by the maintenance staff for storage or as a workshop associated with normal upkeep of the property. 521.85. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the MR -3 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code. Subd. 2. Multi - family dwellings with more than 20 units. 521.87. Minimum lot area, floor area. and parking requirements for multi-family dwel inga. Subdivision 1. Standards. The standards set out in this subsection apply to all multi - family dwellings in the MR -3 District. Subd. 2. Minimum lot size: 60,000 square feet. Subd. 3. Minimum lot area: 2,000 square feet per unit, adjusted as follows: a) For each parking stall under the structure or underground, subtract 500 square feet per dwelling unit from the minimum lot area per dwelling unit, but the total number of such subtractions shall not exceed the number of dwelling units. b) For each bedroom in excess of two in any one dwelling unit, add 500 square feet to the minimum lot area per dwelling unit. Subd. 4. Minimum floor areas: a) Efficiency - 400 square feet per unit. b) One - bedroom - 550 square feet per unit. c) Two- bedroom - 750 square feet per unit. d) More than two bedrooms - add 150 square feet per bedroom to that required for a two bedroom dwelling unit. Subd. 5. Minimum parkins: Two off - street parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit. The Council, at its discretion, may reduce the minimum required parking to not less than 1.25 parking spaces per unit for complexes with 10 or more dwelling units, after consideration of factors including but not limited to the present or future availability of transit services, shared parking, pedestrian orientation, and occupancy characteristics. In addition, the Council may further reduce the parking requirement for senior housing complexes. 521.89. Requirements for multi - family structures in the MR -3 District. Subdivision 1. Standards. The standards set out in this subsection apply to all multi - family structures. Subd. 2. Maximum building height: 50 feet. Subd. 3. Minimum lot width: 150 feet. Subd. 4. Maximum lot coverage (principal structure): 30 percent. Subd. 5. Outdoor ope a) Two or fewer bedrooms: 300 square feet minimum per dwelling unit. b) Three or more bedrooms: 400 square feet minimum per dwelling unit. c) Balconies and porches with at least 70 square feet and seven feet of width which are directly accessible by individual dwelling units may be counted as contributing 150 square feet to the outdoor open space requirements listed above. Subd. 6. Minimum setback requirements: a) Front: 40 feet. b) Side: i) interior - height of building or 30 feet, whichever is greater. ii) streetside - 40 feet. c) Rear: height of building or 35 feet, whichever is greater. Subd. 7. Buffering shall be accomplished in accordance with the Richfield Landscape Requirements, on file with the Office of Community Development. Subd. 8. Parking areas shall meet the standards set in the Richfield Parking Requirements, on file with the Office of Community Development. 521.91. Requirements for accessory buildings and uses. Subdivision 1. The requirements set out in this subsection apply to accessory buildings and uses in the MR -3 District. Subd. 2. The maximum height for accessory buildings shall be 15 feet. Subd. 3. Accessory buildings shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from any rear or interior side lot line, except that if a vehicle access door faces a rear or interior side lot line, such rear or interior side setback requirement shall be not less than 20 feet. Subd. 4. The required setback between an accessory building and any other building on the lot shall be determined by Section 400 of the City Code. Subd. 5. No accessory building on any lot, except through lots, shall be situated forward of the front line of the principal building. Subd. 6. In the case of a through lot or corner lot, no accessory building shall be located within 30 feet of the lot lines abutting any street. Subd. 7. No accessory building shall be constructed on a lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building on the lot, unless specifically approved by the City Council. 521.95. Performance standards. Subdivision 1. Developments shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the standards set out in this subsection. Subd. 2. No more than 25 percent of the dwelling units in any one building shall be efficiency dwelling units. Subd. 3. Developments shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable performance standards set out in Section 541 of this code. Subd. 4. All property located within a design district or corridor overlay district shall be subject to such district's additional requirements and /or modifications. 3 AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CASE # PUBLIC HEARING 3 00 -CUP -9 90 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PC MEETING DATE: JUNE 279 2000 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Public hearing on an amendment to a conditional use permit for 900 East 78th Street, Heritage Square Apartments. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 11 Conduct a public hearing and by motion: Approve an amendment to the conditional use permit for the Heritage Square Apartments, 900 East 78th Street, to allow the addition of a clubhouse facility and other site changes with the stipulations listed in the Legal Basis of Recommendation. II. BACKGROUND Village Green Companies recently purchased three apartment complexes, Hampton Court, Heritage Square and the Crestwood. Village Green is planning a variety of site and building improvements at all three complexes. At Heritage Square, the following improvements are proposed: Addition of a 5,500 square foot clubhouse facility Additional entrance off of 77th Street to an expanded parking lot (approximately 20 stalls) adjacent to the clubhouse facility. Expanded pool deck Additional landscaping Ornamental fencing along 77th and 78th Streets Fagade improvements at some of the building entrances Additional lighting New dumpster enclosures New signage Landscaping will be added to screen the parking areas from 77th and 78th Street. Interior improvements (e.g. painting, new carpeting) are also proposed. Residents at the other two complexes will be able to use the facilities at the clubhouse. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The proposed improvements are consistent with the City and HRA programs and policies to encourage physical improvements to apartment buildings and to improve the living environments for apartment residents. B. CRITICAL ISSUES At such time in the future that 1 -494 is widened, 78th Street (the frontage road) will be removed. Village Green has been informed of this future event and the fact that their access to 78th Street will be eliminated. An additional access off of 77th Street or some added internal circulation will be needed to provide access all parking lots at that time. The parking requirement for a multi - family complex is two spaces for every unit. The Council can reduce the ratio to 1.25 parking spaces per unit considering factors such as transit availability, shared parking, pedestrian orientation, and occupancy characteristics. The reduced parking ratio of 1.47 spaces to units has existed without problems since the complex was built in the 1960s. The parking will be increased by approximately 20 stalls to provide parking near the clubhouse facility. The proposed new parking lot shown on the plans has not been approved by the City's Transportation Engineer. Additional space needs to be provided for stacking cars. C. FINANCIAL The complex is currently a source of affordable housing for many City residents. The owners plan to increase rents as improvements are made. The intent is to phase in the increases for current tenants. The property currently participates in the 4d program, which provides tax incentives to apartment housing owners to ensure that a portion of units remain affordable. The owners plan to continue participation in the 4d program. D. LEGAL Zoning: MR -3 (multiple family residential) Land Use: multi - family residential Comprehensive Plan: High density multi - family residential Notification: Notice of the hearing was mailed to property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the subject property. Other Actions: Council: Council action would be scheduled for July 24, 2000 Findings necessary to issue a CUP (546.05, subd.6): The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan: No change is proposed to the current use of the property. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as high density multiple family housing. The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines: The proposed improvements are consistent with the City's goals to encourage apartment owners to upgrade and make improvements to the City's rental housing stock. The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code: Lighting is being 3 -Oz increased at the complex. The trash enclosures will be replaced; the proposed enclosures will be in compliance with this section. Landscaping is being improved. The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements. The proposed improvements to the complex should not impact the level of service required. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare: The proposed changes will upgrade the complex and improve the living environment for residents. There is a public need for such use at the proposed location: The complex provides 150 housing units. The proposed changes will upgrade the complex and improve the living environment for residents. Stipulations of Approval: 1. That the clubhouse parking lot be redesigned to provide a longer entrance area and that the final design be approved by the Public Works Director. 2. That a stormwater management plan be approved by Public Works Director. 3. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 4. That a final landscape plan be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S Deny the conditional use permit amendment with a finding that the proposed changes would have a negative impact on the surrounding property and the City as a whole. V. ATTACHMENTS Code References: 546.05, 521.79 Attachment A: Existing Site Plan Attachment B: Proposed Site Plan Attachment C: Clubhouse Elevations VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Brad Froling, Village Green Companies Code Citations 546.05. Conditional use pennits. Subdivision 1. Permitt 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. 2. Limitations. A conditional use permit may not be issued for the purpose of granting an adjustment or appeal, or for any use prohibited in the zoning district for which the permit is sought. Subd. 3. Ap lication. Application for a conditional use permit shall be made to the Director on forms provided by the City. 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. 5. Public hearing. After receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission, a date shall be set for a public hearing. Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be published once in the official newspaper and sent by mail to all the owners of properties located wholly or partially within 350 feet. The Council shall make the final determination on the application, and in doing so shall make findings regarding its review. The Council may impose conditions and require guarantees on the granting of the permit in order to ensure compliance with the conditions designated in connection therewith. The Council shall make a decision within 60 days of submission of a completed application unless written notice of an extension is provided to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. If the Council fails to make a timely decision, the conditional use permit shall be deemed to have been approved. (Amended, Bill No. 1995 -19, Sec. 4) Subd. 6. Conditions for issuance. The Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it finds that all of the following conditions will be met: a) the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; b) the proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines; c) the proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code; d) the proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements; e) the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare; and f) there is a public need for such use at the proposed location; and g) the proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. 521.79. ffigh Density Multi - Family Residential District (MR -31. Subdivision 1. Subsections 521.79 to 521.95 apply to the MR -3 District. 521.83.: Accessory uses. Subdivision 1. The uses permitted in this subsection are allowable accessory uses in the MR -3 District. Subd. 2. Parking, as authorized by a Council approved off -street parking permit. Subd. 3. Garages for any residential structure, provided they are located in a common building or space approved by the City under a uniform plan. Subd. 4. Swimming pools subject to Section 420 of the City Code, tennis courts, and similar recreational facilities. Subd. 5. Storage buildings designed for common use by residents or members of the homeowners association or similar organization, or for use by the maintenance staff for storage or as a workshop associated with normal upkeep of the property. 521.85. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the MR -3 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code. Subd. 2. Multi - family dwellings with more than 20 units. 521.87. Minimum lot area. floor area, and parking requirements for multi- family dwellings. Subdivision 1. Standards. The standards set out in this subsection apply to all multi - family dwellings in the MR -3 District. Subd. 2. Minimum lot size: 60,000 square feet. Subd. 3. Minimum lot area: 2,000 square feet per unit, adjusted as follows: a) For each parking stall under the structure or underground, subtract 500 square feet per dwelling unit from the minimum lot area per dwelling unit, but the total number of such subtractions shall not exceed the number of dwelling units. b) For each bedroom in excess of two in any one dwelling unit, add 500 square feet to the minimum lot area per dwelling unit. Subd. 4. Minimum floor areas: a) Efficiency - 400 square feet per unit. b) One - bedroom - 550 square feet per unit. c) Two - bedroom - 750 square feet per unit. d) More than two bedrooms - add 150 square feet per bedroom to that required for a two bedroom dwelling unit. Subd. 5. Minimum narking: Two off - street parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit. The Council, at its discretion, may reduce the minimum required parking to not less than 1.25 parking spaces per unit for complexes with 10 or more dwelling units, after consideration of factors including but not limited to the present or future availability of transit services, shared parking, pedestrian 3 J orientation, and occupancy characteristics. In addition, the Council may further reduce the parking requirement for senior housing complexes. 521.89. R.equireme is for multi-family structures in the MR -3 District. Subdivision 1. Standards. The standards set out in this subsection apply to all multi - family structures. Subd. 2. Maximum building height: 50 feet. Subd. 3. Minimum lot width: 150 feet. Subd. 4. Maximum lot coverage (principal structure): 30 percent. Subd. 5. Outdoor opens ancerequirements: a) Two or fewer bedrooms: 300 square feet minimum per dwelling unit. b) Three or more bedrooms: 400 square feet minimum per dwelling unit. c) Balconies and porches with at least 70 square feet and seven feet of width which are directly accessible by individual dwelling units may be counted as contributing 150 square feet to the outdoor open space requirements listed above. Subd. 6. Minimum setback requirements: a) Front: 40 feet. b) Side: i) interior -.height of building or 30 feet, whichever is greater. ii) streetside - 40 feet. c) Rear: height of building or 35 feet, whichever is greater. Subd. 7. Buffering shall be accomplished in accordance with the Richfield Landscape Requirements, on file with the Office of Community Development. Subd. 8. Parking areas shall meet the standards set in the Richfield Parking Requirements, on file with the Office of Community Development. 521.91. Requirements for accessory buildings and uses. Subdivision 1. The requirements set out in this subsection apply to accessory buildings and uses in the MR -3 District. Subd. 2. The maximum height for accessory buildings shall be 15 feet. Subd. 3. Accessory buildings shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from any rear or interior side lot line, except that if a vehicle access door faces a rear or interior side lot line, such rear or interior side setback requirement shall be not less than 20 feet. Subd. 4. The required setback between an accessory building and any other building on the lot shall be, determined by Section 400 of the City Code. Subd. 5. No accessory building on any lot, except through lots, shall be situated forward of the front line of the principal building. Subd. 6. In the case of a through lot or comer lot, no accessory building shall be located within 30 feet of the lot lines abutting any street. Subd. 7. No accessory building shall be constructed on a lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building on the lot, unless specifically approved by the City Council. 521.95. Performance standards. Subdivision 1. Developments shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the standards set out in this subsection. Subd. 2. No more than 25 percent of the dwelling units in any one building shall be efficiency dwelling units. Subd. 3. Developments shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable performance standards set out in Section 541 of this code. Subd. 4. All property located within a design district or corridor overlay district shall be subject to such district's additional requirements and /or modifications. i l i III Ii III 9 w ills i F P J it s8 os oy 0 7 7 YR 0 nl cn iko 9 NJ 0 1 t n 9 A U 0 L Z/1 z Ez ri fi wn F-i- 10 pl, sf dl Tl- CD s t yrei p s r>s— m r i i U, u LU t li + ra.r 9N 1 iin 9 A y 0 1 71 T Lu mx 15'629 JA. •4f 7 A -- vto 1 dill 11 4 'f . g 9 aYI 59 tY3aotldA,i1 .L3Anto 2$ E m o f 15 sn ' n . o atlfill I, i, ; ,_ E ecs` 9N10',I rl9A tl01 Sa aii Y•:. 1 _- «:; u E a i l t t ©• r I 1 _ I c n iLL I _ .01 WYE E E, n cob. `a ps ff g s f - i so , 3 =E a' 88 e8 EmE e Fd "_ Z W V Q ZOG LAY L2 Q it Nz OOOZ ZD:9E:Ci 80 AeW uoW 6mp*I- EV--- \00•z£009\^ ^'00009 \:j IT z 11 0002 799E go APH U()w 6AP a-Ev --- \oo,2Eoo9\no*0000g\:j ti AGENDA SECTION: OLD BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # 4 REPORT # 26 CASE # J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PC MEETING DATE: JUNE 27, 2000 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Clarification of Planning Commission minutes from March 24, 1998. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review the record and confirm the correct minutes from the Planning Commission minutes of March 24, 1998 and authorize staff to make the necessary correction. II. BACKGROUND At the Planning Commission meeting on May 30, 2000, Ratna Malawaaratchy, owner of the property at 1100 East 66th Street, pointed out a discrepancy in the Planning Commission minutes from March 24, 1998. The version he received from the City was different from the version that was included in the Planning Commission packet. Staff has reviewed the record and has determined that the following occurred: Minutes were prepared following the Planning Commission meeting on March 24, 1998. Under Item #4 relating to the conditional use permit (CUP) for the proposed day care facility at 1100 East 66th Street, the minutes state as follows- M/Kilian, S /Gepner to recommend approval of the conditional use permit at 1100 East 66th Street for a day care with 90 children with the following stipulations:... " emphasis added] This set of minutes was mailed to the Planning Commission in their April 28, 1998 packet for approval. At the Planning Commission meeting on April 28, 1998, the Planning Commission approved amended minutes. The minutes from that meeting specifically state, M /Hadley, S /Dmytrenko, to approve the amended minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of March 24, 1998." [emphasis added] The minutes from the April meeting do not include a detailed discussion of how the March minutes were amended. A set of minutes can be found in the City computer directory in which the Planning Commission minutes are kept. The date this version was last modified is April 29, 1998 (see attachment). These minutes state as follows: M /Meter, S /Gepner to find that the proposed Montessori School and day care center are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and to recommend approval of the conditional use permit at 1100 East 66th Street for a day care with 90 children with the following stipulations:..." emphasis added] The first set of minutes in which Commissioner Kilian made the motion to approve the CUP was placed in the vault where the official Planning Commission records are kept. This set of minutes is the same as the minutes mailed to the Planning Commission in their April 28, 1998 packet. The record shows that the Planning Commission amended the minutes in some fashion at the April 28 meeting, so the version in the vault cannot be correct. The City Zoning Administrator printed copies of the minutes from March 24, 1998 for the Planning Commission meeting on May 30, 2000 directly from the computer file second version). A different staff person copied the meeting minutes in the vault and distributed them to Mr. Malawaaratchy (first version). At the May 30, 2000 meeting, Commissioner Kilian recalled that he would not have made the motion to approve the day care facility because he did not vote in favor of the CUP (see both versions of the March 24, 1998 minutes). His recollection was that he had made the suggestion regarding the stipulation to rezone the property, and Commissioner Meter made the actual motion for approval by referring to what Commissioner Kilian had stated. This recollection suggests that the second set of minutes, found in the computer directory, are correct. Unfortunately, the tapes of both meetings do not clarify the issue. Four members of the Commission were on the Commission in 1998. Staff requests that they confirm that staffs conclusion is consistent with their recollection. If that is the case, the Commission is asked to authorize staff to replace the minutes in the vault with the amended minutes found in the computer directory. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY A discrepancy in the Planning Commission minutes has been raised. The record should be clarified. B. CRITICAL ISSUES N/A C. FINANCIAL N/A - a D. LEGAL The City Attorney has reviewed the issue and recommends that the Planning Commissioners who were present at the meetings in 1998 confirm staff's review of the issue and authorize staff to place the correct, amended version of the minutes in the vault, where the official records are kept. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S Confirm a different interpretation of the record and direct staff accordingly. V. ATTACHMENTS Copy of the relevant page from the minutes contained in the vault Copy of the relevant page from minutes contained in the computer'directory Copy of the relevant page from the April 28, 1998 minutes showing that amended minutes were approved. Copy of the computer screen indicating the date the computer file of the March 24, 1998 minutes was last modified. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A MINUTES CONTAINED IN THE. VAULT V1 March 24, 1998 Page 9 AND N THE PC PACKET FOR 4/28/93 MEETING 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. M/Kilian, S /Gepner to recommend approval of the conditional use permit at 1100 East 66th Street for a daycare with 90 children 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 landscape escrow be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 3. That a sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 4. That the business maintain the appropriate state, county and city licenses. 5. That a resolution approving the conditional use permit be recorded with the Countv, pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462.36, subdivision 1. 6. That the property be rezoned to MR -2. Motion carried: 6 -2 (Hadley and Kilian opposed) 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 stab report, stating that properties zoned MR -2 did not allow religious institutions as either permitted or conditional uses. T MINUTE§ CONTAINEDAN THE COMPUTER DIRECTORY March 24, 1998 ' l Page 9 M/Meter, S/Gepner to find that the proposed Montessori SrhQol and daycare center are consistent 1. the Comprehensive •.•1. and to recommend apprgyal of the conditional permit at 1100 East 66th S1j?&t fQr a dgy carg with 90 children with thQ fQllowinp- stipulationse 1. • • •1. .•1 •. !• .. 1.1.•.1..1_' • •.1.1..! • • • •.• "• Director, by the Community Developm ent Director, 2. That a landscane escrow be submitted to and apt)roved by the Public Public Works • 4. That the business maintain the appropriate state. county and city licenses. 5--- at a resolution aimroviniz the co dition-al use permit be recorded w --- suant to Minrie ta statutes section 462.36. subdLyisim 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. M/Hadley, S/Kilian to recommend that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow religious institutions schools and daycare centers as conditional uses in the MR -1 MR -2 and MR -3 zoning districts with the condition that such uses be located on a collector or arterial street or with an access placement such that the applicant can demonstrate that significant traffic will not be generated on local residential streets. PC Letter #14 ITEM #6 Ratification of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to stormwater management policies AjS Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting April 28, 1998 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Terry Ahlstrom, Brenda Bjorklund, Pamela Dmytrenko, David Gepner, Roger Gordon, Mitchell Hadley and Ken Meter. MEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCIL LIAISON: Bill Kilian Martin Kirsch, Mayor STAFF PRESENT: Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator Brian S. Mehl, Community Development Technician The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:05 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Hadley, S/Dmytrenko to approve the amended minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of March 24, 1998. Motion carried: 8 -0 M/Hadley, S/Dmytrenko to approve the amended minutes of the Planning Commission study session of April 14, 1998. Motion carried: 8 -0 N= OLD BUSINESS PC Letter #23 — ITEM #1 Approval of 2000 -2004 Capital Improvement Program; Finding of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan for 1999 Capital Improvement Budget.and 2000 -2004 Capital Improvement Program COMPUTER FILE RECORD O. CD a d co 0 0 cn d a a rti d CD 0 0 0 0 0 kn M N N M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CL L) 0 L) L) 0 L) u m w co co 00 00 00 00 w w 00 co m w w m m m w w m m m 0 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m v) JO 00 co 0 gr CN r-- Q CN (n cr) D M t M D N CN M r I-_ x-_ I_- ZZ N V 04 tr Z, I- Ln c" in CD m m co co CN V w co w M M 0 W N in M M M r V t O Q 0 0 Q Q 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 C) O. 0 0 0 0000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CL L) 0 L) L) 0 L) u m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m v) JO 00 co 0 gr CN r-- Q CN (n cr) D M t M D N CN M r 04 04 N V 04 tr N CN 04 N 04 () N 04 mr N C4 04 N 04 04 M V C4 Cr) t 14 v. tW v m f 4 U0 u0 u0 u0 u0 u0 i0 L) 0 00 u0 u u u u u00000 u0 Q0 u0 u0 u 000 0r OD iq 7q 7q iq q u 0 0 a 0) 0) cp 0 E 0 E 0 E W E 0 E 0 E 0 0 E 0 0 0 cn 1` 0 r C) r 1;r 00 N D 0) M Nr co c cn r— 23 r w 00 CL CL C3 C) 040 CN0 co) C) MC) V0 rC) W) a Ln, c D co I- M coC3C3MMn M0 M7) CD 0 u r61', 00C" ODm m m m00 m00 m00 m m m m m m m m 000 m m m00 m m m m00 Om D6 m AE ICL co I. W0 4) 0 00 00 W u Q) Q L) 0 E E E z d) Q u a) a u E CL 03 0 u X cn E CD 0) a) In Nm 0 0 u Lu LL- 03 cm D il m CL 3 1 0a- a) -0D o fArq od CL EDr-li L ................................................ L ......................... I .................. Ilia I ........................................................ 1 .............