06-27-2005PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
REVISED
June 27, 2005
6:00 p.m.
Introductory Proceedings
Roll Call
Approval of Minutes: Regular Planning Commission meeting of May 23, 2005.
Opportunity for Citizens to Address the Commission on items not on the Agenda
Public Hearing
New Business
ITEM #2 PC Report #14 Acquisition and Disposition of Emerson Lane
ITEM #3 PC Report #15 66th Street and Portland Avenue Open House Discussion
ITEM #4 PC Report #16 Finding that the acquisition of property at 6608 17th Avenue
is consistent with Comprehensive Plan
ITEM #5 Memo Discussion of proposed Zoning Code revisions
Old Business
ITEM #1 PC Report #13 Review final 2006 Capital Improvement Budget and 2007 -
2010 Capital Improvement Plan
Liaison Reports
School Board
Community Services Advisory Commission
H RA
City Council
Human Services Planning Council
Transportation Commission
City Hall Task Force
Family Friendly Initiative Task Force
Adjournment
Auxiliary aid for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be
made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 861- 9738 ".
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS ABSENT:
COUNCIL LIAISON:
STAFF PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT:
Planning Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting
May 23, 2005
Commissioners: Jeff Walz, Maureen Scaglia, Greg Van Sickle,
Kyle Hartnett, Kim Houle, and David Schneider.
Chairperson Donna Drummond, Commissioners: Jeff Karr and
Gordon Hanson
Martin Kirsch, Mayor
Christine Costello, Zoning Administrator
Melissa Poehlman, Asst. Community Development Coordinator
Commissioner Walz called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Hartnett, S /Houle to approve the PC work session with the Community Services Commission
minutes and the regular PC minutes for March 28, 2005.
Motion carried: 6 -0
PUBLIC HEARINGS
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM 91 PC Letter 11— FEMA Ordinance Amendment
ZA Costello explained that in order to maintain eligibility for flood insurance for Richfield
residents, the Federal Emergency Management Agency required an update to the portion of the
City's Zoning Code dealing with floodplain management. Although no part of Richfield is
within the 100- or 500 -year floodplain, some residents choose to carry flood insurance. These
policies would be terminated if the City did not update the Zoning Code. Since, no portion of the
City is within the floodplain, these requirements will not effect construction, rather they will
allow those who choose to carry flood insurance to continue to do so.
In response to the a question from Commissioner Walz, ZA Costello stated that the City does not
pay a fee to remain eligible for this program.
In response to a question from Commissioner Schneider, ZA Costello explained that while it is
highly unlikely there will be a flood of significance in Richfield, the ordinance must be updated
to allow residents who choose to carry flood insurance can continue to do so. ZA Costello also
explained that as she understands it, the rates for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
are more reasonable than those through a private company.
In response to a question from Commissioner Schneider, ZA Costello explained that the
construction requirements in the new ordinance do not apply to Richfield because it does not fall
within the floodplain. Those requirements must be stated in the ordinance, however there is a
provision, Section 538.05, stating that the provisions "shall apply to the floodplain of the City,
which shall include those areas designated or otherwise defined by the City as being within the
100 -year floodplain." No part of Richfield is designated in this manner, therefore these
provisions do not apply. This has been updated as a courtesy to the homeowners who currently
have the policies and to those who wish to purchase a policy in the future. ZA Costello was not
sure what the private - market would charge for a flood insurance policy.
In response to a question from Commissioner Van Sickle, ZA Costello stated that each
community's requirements are slightly different.
M /Scaglia, S/Hartnett to approve the ordinance amendments to Richfield Zoning Code Section
538.01 through 538.32 to create new floodplain management regulations.
Motion carried: 5 -1
OLD BUSINESS
LIAISON REPORTS
School Board: No report
Community Services Advisory Commission: Report from Kyle Hartnett
HRA: Report from Jeff Walz
City Council: Report from. Mayor Martin Kirsch
Human Services Planning Council: No report
City Hall Task Force: No report
Transportation Committee: Report from Maureen Scaglia
Family Friendly Initiative Task Force: No report
ADJOURNMENT
M /Hartnett, S /Scaglia to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 6 -0.
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:35 p.m.
Kyle Hartnett
Planning Commission Secretary
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CASE #
OLD BUSINESS
13
maAd PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PC MEETING DATE: JUNE 279 2005
ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the 2004 -2008 Capital Improvement Program and a finding of consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan of the Capital Improvement Program and the 2003 Capital
Improvement Budget.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
1. Recommend approval of the 2007 -2010 Capital Improvement
Program.
2. Adopt a resolution finding that the 2006 Capital Improvement
Budget and 2007 -2010 Capital Improvement Program are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
IL BACKGROUND
Each year, the City Manager makes a recommendation to the City Council regarding
the Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) for the upcoming year. The Planning
Commission is responsible for reviewing the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and
making a recommendation to the City Council. The Commission is also responsible for
CIB and the CIP are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
On March 28, 2005, the Planning Commission held a study session with the Community
Services Commission to review and discuss the CIB and CIP. Following the study
session, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive comments from the
community about the proposed CIP and CIB. There were no comments from the
community regarding the proposed CIP and CIB.
TII. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
N/A
062705 CIB- CIP.doc
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
The Planning Commission is being asked to recommend approval of the CIP
and to adopt a resolution finding that the CIB and the CIP are consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.
C. FINANCIAL
See the CIB /CIP document attached.
D. LEGAL
The Planning Commission is required by City Charter to prepare and
recommend a CIP for inclusion in the annual budget message of the City
Council.
The Planning Commission is required by State Statute to review all proposed
capital improvements within the City and make written findings to the City
Council for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
Recommend approval of the CIP with changes.
Decide not to recommend approval of the CIP and decide not to find the CIB
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
V. ATTACHMENTS
2006 Capital Improvement Budget and 2007 -2010 Capital Improvement
Program, City Manager's Second Draft, dated May 5, 2005.
Minutes of the March 28, 2005 Planning Commission public hearing regarding
the proposed 2006 CIB and 2007 -2010 CIP.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
Chris Regis, City Finance Manager
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING THAT THE 2006 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET AND
2007 -2010 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan regarding
the proposed capital improvements in the 2006 Capital Improvement Budget and 2007 -2010
Capital Improvement Program, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the proposed capital
improvements would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds that the
proposed capital improvements found in the 2006 Capital Improvement Budget and the 2007-
20010 Capital Improvement Program are in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Adopted this 27th day of June, 2005 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Donna Drummond, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Kyle Hartnett, Secretary
2006
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET
2007 -2010
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
City Manager's Second Draft
Issued May 5, 2005
2006 Capital Improvement Budget
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE PROJECT EXPENDITURE
Outdoor Pool Renovation Internal Loan Repay($1,520,390) 187,000 R
Park Maintenance ($800,000) 100,000 R
Ice Arena 2nd Sheet Loan Repay ($600,000) 50,000 R
Lincoln Field & Other Ballfield Improvements 36,000 R
Ice Arena Parking Lot Reconstruction 77,000 R
Liquor Store Relocation Internal Loan Repay ($1,100,000) 50,000 R
TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE $ 500,000
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
Hennepin County 2,000,000
CF)
Reconstruction of 66th St & Portland Ave ($8,500,000) 2,000,000 C
1,100,000
ES)
600,000 M
F) Federal Funding
2,400,000 SA
Replace Lyndale Bridge over 1 -494 ($31,500,000)
200,000
1,280,000 F
1,100,000
LS)
320,000 M
New Intersection 17th Avenue and 66th Street
Municipal State Aids
4,000,000 SA
TOTAL RIGHT -OF -WAY IMPR. 10,600,000
Special Revenue
PUBLIC FACILITIES
SA) Special Assessments 6,400,000
Central Garage Roof Replacement 400,000 CG
City Maintenance Facility 1,883,280 U
700,000 CG
2,916,720 CF
1,500,000 LS
Cedar Liquor Relocation ($1,700,000) 600,000 ES
Internal Loan Repay $50,000 /year of Special Revenue Funds) 1,100,000 IL
Public Safety 800MHz Radio System ($463,000) 20,000 PF
City Hall Renovation /New Construction 200,000 FF
Rebuild /Replace Water Plant Filter /ControlsNalves 1,800,000 U
Well clearing & Inspection 50,000 U
Replace /Modify Sludge Dewatering Equipment 800,000 U
Replace Lime Delivery System 50,000 U
Water Meter Replacement Program($2,250,000) 600,000 U
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES 12,620,000
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS 23,720,000
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
C) Hennepin County 2,000,000
CF) Capital Project Fund 2,916,720
CG) Central Garage 1,100,000
ES) Existing Store Sale Proceeds 600,000
F) Federal Funding 1,280,000
FF) Franchise Fees 200,000
IL) Internal Loan 1,100,000
LS) Land Sale Proceeds 1,500,000
M) Municipal State Aids 920,000
PF) Police & Fire Fund 20,000
R) Special Revenue 500,000
SA) Special Assessments 6,400,000
U) User Fees 5,183,280
TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE $ 23,720,000
2007 Capital Improvement Program
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE
Outdoor Pool Renovation ($1,520,390)
Park Maintenance ($800,000)
Ice Arena 2nd Sheet Loan Repay ($600,000)
Lincoln Field and Other Improvements
Ice Arena Parking Lot Reconstruction
Ice Arena Flat Roof Repair
Internal Loan - Liquor Store Relocation
TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
Reconstruction of 66th St & Portland Ave ($8,500,000)
Replace Lyndale Bridge over 1 -494 ($31,500,000)
Reconstruction of Lyndale Ave. 62nd St. to 64th St.
Traffic Signal at 77th Street & Colfax Avenue
Retaining Wall Replacement
TOTAL RIGHT -OF -WAY IMPR.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public Safety 800MHz Radio System ($463,000)
City Hall Renovation /New Construction
Richfield Lake Area Storm Water Retention Pond
Storm Sewer Improvements at Augsburg Park
Renovate Backwash Basin
Water Meter Replacement Program($2,250,000)
Norby Pond Dredging
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
C) Hennepin County
CB) City of Bloomington
F) Federal Funding
FF) Franchise Fees
M) Municipal State Aids
PF) Police and Fire Fund
R) Special Revenue
S) State Grant
SA) Special Assessments
U) User Fees
TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE
PROJECT EXPENDITURE
193,000 R
100,000 R
45,000 R
21,000 R
71,000 R
20,000 R
50,000 R
500,000
210,000 C
1,900,000 F
890,000 M
4,400,000 F
300,000 SA
800,000 CB
500,000 S
1,500,000 SA
200,000 M
100,000 FF
100,000 C
10,900,000
20,000 PF .
200,000 FF
800,000 S
750,000 U
100,000 U
825,000 U
200,000 U
2,895,000
14,295,000
310,000
800,000
6,300,000
300,000
1,090,000
20,000
500,000
1,300,000
1,800,000
1,875,000
14,295,000
2008 Capital Improvement Program
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE
Outdoor Pool Renovation ($1,520,390)
Park Maintenance ($800,000)
Lincoln Field and Other Improvements
Ice Arena Parking Lot Reconstruction
Internal Loan - Liquor Store Relocation
TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
Replace Lyndale Bridge over 1-494 ($31,500,000)
Railroad Signal 76th Street & CP Rail Line
TOTAL RIGHT -OF -WAY IMPR.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public Safety 800MHz Radio System ($463,000)
City Hall Renovation /New Construction
Water Meter Replacement Program($2,250,000)
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
CB) City of Bloomington
F) Federal Funding
FF) Franchise Fees
M) Municipal State Aids
PF) Police and Fire Fund
R) Special Revenue
S) State Grant
SA) Special Assessments
U) User Fees
TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE
PROJECT EXPENDITURE
198,000 R
100,000 R
50,000 R
102,000 R
50,000 R
500,000
17,200,000 F
5,500,000 S
700,000 SA
600,000 CB
135,000 F
40,000 M
24,175,000
20,000 PF
200,000 FF
825,000 U
1,045,000
25,720,000
600,000
17,335,000
200,000
40,000
20,000
500,000
5,500,000
700,000
825,000
25,720,000
2009 Capital Improvement Program
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE
Outdoor Pool Renovation ($1,520,390)
Park Maintenance ($800,000)
Lincoln Field and Other Improvements
Ice Arena North Service Road
Internal Loan - Liquor Store Relocation
TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
Skyway over 6600 Block/Lyndale Avenue
TOTAL RIGHT -OF -WAY IMPR.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public Safety 800MHz Radio System ($463,000)
City Hall Renovation /New Construction
Paint Penn Water Tower
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
F) Federal Funding
FF) Franchise Fees
PF) Police and Fire Fund
R) Special Revenue
U) User Fees
TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE
PROJECT EXPENDITURE
204,000 R
100,000 R
121,000 R
25,000 R
50,000 R
500,000
1,120,000 F
280,000 U
1,400,000
20,000 PF
200,000 FF
500,000 U
720,000
2,620,000
1,120,000
200,000
20,000
500,000
780,000
2,620,000
2010 Capital Improvement Program
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE PROJECT EXPENDITURE
Outdoor Pool Renovation ($1,520,390) 210,750 R
Outdoor Spray Pool 150,000 R
Park Maintenance ($800,000) 53,250 R
Lincoln Field and Other Improvements 36,000 R
Internal Loan - Liquor Store Relocation 50,000 R
TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE 500,000
User Fees
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
69th St. Sidewalk
77th Street Underpass of TH 77 ($18,750,000)
TOTAL RIGHT -OF -WAY IMPR.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public Safety 800MHz Radio System ($463,000)
City Hall Renovation /New Construction
Paint Logan Water Tower
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
750,000 M
15,000,000 F
2,812,500 S
937,500 M
19,500,000
20,000 PF
200,000 FF
500,000 U
720,000
20,720,000
F) Federal Funding 15,000,000
FF) Franchise Fees 200,000
M) Municipal State Aids 1,687,500
PF) Police and Fire Fund 20,000
R) Special Revenue 500,000
S) State Grants 2,812,500
U) User Fees 500,000
TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE 20,720,000
Capital Improvement Program - Beyond 2010
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE
Park Maintenance ($800,000)
Lincoln Field and Other Improvements
Internal Loan - Liquor Store Relocation
TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
TOTAL RIGHT -OF -WAY IMPR.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public Safety 800MHz Radio System ($463,000)
City Hall Renovation /New Construction
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
FF) Franchise Fees
PF) Police and Fire Fund
R) Special Revenue
TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE
PROJECT EXPENDITURE
100,000 R
500,000 R
850,000 R
1,450,000
20,000 PF
200,000 FF
220,000
1,670,000
200,000
20,000
1,450,000
1,670,000
z 0! z
O O O O O O OC
m o 0 O 0 0 0 0
0pECnv o v
U 0O
O Om
N N N
h O 1°f1
O N OO ' ' 00 0C OO OO
0 h Y1 h 0 O
C N
f0'/
N M
CO.
1N
Q
N
N N N0'^
v/
W
Z
Z O O O O 0 0 O O
O ' O O ' ' O O O 0 0
N r r N n n NDCOin
W O N
LL o
S > N N N
U_ 5
LL 0' C' K K
O
m O ' O O O O O O O
C O O N O O
P_ ep Y ON NO
U
Yl
C1
1 y
N
C
N N NmQ
O m
ECL0
o 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00
O NZCNh v°1 fl h V°1
2 N
W
N N N
0
w
IL O O O
N O N
O O O OOOOO O OOO OO OO OO
N O N O O O O O O O O O
1A O M N w o ON N ON
O 0 O
QJ O e°0 r Qr A O Q a ItaUacqCl) 01
UN N N N N N N N N N N
O
rO m
N CL
1
ti C WOwrDO
a E u
o
N 2
w
F O W O a r m U
Q y
o
p E ' oR' c K
W lu c O o m
mwa' w d°
W • N
m
LO
u o_ N
d W Q
T
O W
1°D O '
N c
L
U
O
li
QNmwZave
E W =° G
w cOO0N 8W M LL o m2 7 ZO.
p a LL r
m
a ii a o m°
c v1 accm j
COYap0aaam50roGcmmmca OLOOa0D2uuJ
N M V h m 1` a0 Oi
Q
H
O
U)
ui
Z
Cz
C
0
W
Y
w
LL
0
0
m N • • • • • . • • .
G 9
o E r- 0 0
U miO
N
LL N i f
0 0 o e o 0 0 0 0
o O N A O O O A N O
0 O m a) A h O {m0 a0 •rof
N m N Im m N m
N N N N
LL
G C . . . . . . . . G . . c . . . • O O
I O O O O O O
p N
m
Q
O
N O
N
N N N N
I
LL V h y LL
O O p e O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O p O . ' ' ' • . . ' ' ' O O ' O ' O O ' O O O O
O O O O v) O Yf O vl O O O Y1
p N w h t- r f00
lN'
1 h A r
N r N N m N
I
I
N N N N
I
U LL i LL H U N N U. U
e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 o e e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0
0 0 0 0 o e o 0 0 • • 0 CL .. ' o p p ct 0 0 0 o O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P. o m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o 0 0
r m ao v or m N n v m m w o n m m
tp"
m
N N M N U
10OON
O O O O O O O 4 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O m
O O O O O p e e O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
y O O O O O O 4 O O O O O O .A Yf 0 0 0 O O O O O O O h v1 O O O CHdOOOOOOOOOOOONAOOv1OOYlOOvtOANOON .-
J
0
r O Oi o O O O O O O N m O
m
o 0 17 M of h O n o o m C 9aONO/ t0 t0 O PI h N N v) N O m ml r r A 0) M V A m m C% N Ol mOUrNN '' PI a0 N •4 v
H a U
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N N N N N
w0
0 0 o u
00 °0 0o v
In 2
0 0 0 m
m
c
c
a N a N J W
m w
z ee $ Y m w ti w
F
w n c aUD
m
ad
O
c =
C
O omi ao m '' Ea
0
xa m
t m ro r a m w m y
c m m a c v m m 3 U o c LL /! y z w
a e a a m° m c LL c ro LL w a p
3 Ti v > c u i ;
m '
a O a o r a@ m x n
O m in c a x v c c
LL`
m LL V
F c i m u_ c w N 'c o CJ m U m LL f W m a QxuonY _ r x LL rn F o
a
s w ti z z m F v f in v 0
F
Q
O
U)
W
Z
Zc
L
0
J
W
LL
S
U
Ir
HO
UW
0
a
O O
LL LL
O O O
O O O
0 0 O O O
a LL
O O
O O '
O
O O
O O OO O O
O O OO
m G O O ' ' ' O O '
o N O
y
9 N N tOtN N
NO
N6
o E c
N h P-
N
O
U U m
OO
O O O O O O
O O h O O h O0 O0
m
O
O O O O N O
N
O
W)
WO /
NA 41
N N
WO
N
H O N O O N O
LL LL
A
O
r N
6 LL
r
Wi
N
HO
UW
0
a
O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
0 0 O O O O
O O
O O ' OO OO O O O
O O ' O OO
O N 4
N O O O h 0)
h 4"1 W W N
O N o N O N
N
m
N f N h P-
C-4
O
o O O O
O O O O
OO
O O O O O O
O O h O O h O0 O0
N
O
O O O O N O
N
O
W)
WO /
NA 41
LL LL
WO NA
H O N O O N O
LL LL
A
O
r N
Q m h m o m
r
Wi
N
N N N
O O • O O O O ' O O O O ' o o ' O O
Ou
p
p
N O
N W09 Q n ciO
N
N
A
O N O
N Wl
N
r-
14
r N
N M NN
C
N
O O O O
N
O O O
M
LL LL
O O O O
O O OO
O O O O O O
O O O O O O 0 R
LL LL
O Y O
Q NO
F
O 0 0 O O O
O M O Q N O O
OO N ON
O P9 N WI W1 A W A
O N
N N
0 0 • O o O O • C C
Q Li E N c
J l' c a a m m= 9 o m
r
pp N o
o a m
N O N N V
p N
E a
W O N W O
N
c m= U
u a o t m m U. aLLO3LLa
M
U •O m d Q l.1
N M
1 LL (A 7 7 7
O A O O O O O O O O O O O
O O OOOO O OOO OO OO • OO O O O OOOOO OO
O O O O O 0 O W) O O O W1 W)
A N N NO A O ND N Ic N N N AW W
N N N
N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O
n O O O O OOO OO O O OOOO OO O O O OOOOO OO
F O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
fn O O
O A W W/ Or- hCL O O O4nn Oro O O
o W Oo
Wi ri Wid
V
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
mLL
c
E • u a° U Ww2
i a m w
O m
J V NW
U m a c m F W
v
F
LL
O
rO
mmm mE Ol
J3p2
c y
v
c ti
m
w
J m` u0 m
Wo E y L
LU
LLmm L Um
O L
m m m
m m.,
N- m m m o c as a
m
c u b LL ULL
V
H O J m,
S
m a li LL UaL€ c c p ii ti o0
LL v 3
zm
2 a r LL a in
N N N N 04 N N
O OOOO
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O O O O O
Oq
O ' O O O ' O O
O O N N
O Oy O
O O O O W) h
O N h
O OI OI
O) W N
A
N O O O h 0)
h 4"1 W W N
O N O tD r r r Q
N N N
m
N
o O O O
N
O O O o O e O O
o O O O
O O O O
OO
O O O O O O
O O h O O h O0 O0
O O O
O
O O O O N O O
O
W)
WO /
NA 41 O .0 CIO O
o N D n m WO NA
H O N O O N O
N
A
O
r N
Q m h m o m
r
Wi
N
N N N M
O O O O ' O O ' o o ' O O
Ou
W09 Q n ci N N h A ND
r N r N
N M N
a
C
N
O O O O
T
O O O O
O O O O
O O OO
O O O O O O
O O O O O O 0 R OO
O Y O
Q NO
F
O 0 0 O O O
O M O Q N O O
OO N ON
O P9 N WI W1 A W A
O N
N N
z c
v
h Wi W7N
N INII N IN
O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O
OO O O OOOO
O O O O O8OOOOO O O O O O OOOOOOO
O O N N O O O O O O O O O W) h
O17 O OI OIO) W N
O O O NC7Wf"f i7 O N O O O h 0) h 4"1 W W N
O N O tD r r r Q
m
N N N N V
Y) OON
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m
OO O O OOOO
O O O O Oct0OON O O O O O OOOWlO00
O H O N O O N O O O N O O W) C
A m m o i•f Q r r. W Q m h m o m
ri Wi N ri of N n u
Ou
u
m
Q
a
C T
m m c
F- E m
V
OW F 7
3
W
m W z c
v
O OnmaQLiENc
J l' c a a m m= 9 o m
r a F o a m iI m m X 9
m v° m m m
ZnaEa
U) O> c m LL g a W
c m= U
u a o t m m U. aLLO3LLa
u
C C •C U •O m d Q l.1
LL
LL
AGENDA SECTION
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CASE #
NEW BUSINESS
2
14
dM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PC MEETING DATE: JUNE 279 2005
ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution finding that the acquisition and disposition of the property at 6812
Emerson Lane for single - family residential purposes is consistent with the Richfield
Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 11
By motion: Approve the attached resolution finding that the
acquisition and disposition of the property at 6812 Emerson Lane for
single - family residential purposes is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
II. BACKGROUND
The home and out - building at 6812 Emerson Lane are in a state of deferred
maintenance and are currently vacant. Research, including blight analysis and
estimates of required infrastructure and access updates, have led staff to recommend
the purchase of this substandard property for redevelopment.
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) plans to purchase the property,
demolish the existing buildings, and bring sewer and water services up to current
standards. The property will be subdivided for redevelopment by builder /buyer teams.
Staff would work with these teams to develop higher value single - family homes on
previously substandard lots.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
6812 Emerson Lane is currently zoned R (single family residential).
The Comprehensive Plan map also identifies this parcel for single family
residential use.
The adopted Comprehensive Plan calls for maintaining residential uses as
the "dominant land use" in Richfield. (Page 3 -2)
The Comprehensive Plan also states: Current programs that support
maintenance , upgrading and replacement of the existing housing stock
must continue and be expanded as the housing stock ages. Nothing in
the Comprehensive Plan is more important to the preservation of the
small town" character and value than maintaining the quality,
0224- 6309Bryant.doc
appearance, and marketability of the single - family residential housing
stock throughout the City. (Page 3 -2)
The Comprehensive Plan states as a specific goal to "Upgrade existing
housing stock by continuing scattered site clearance, new construction,
and remodeling programs." (Page 3 -13)
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
The HRA's purchase of the property is contingent on the Planning
Commission's finding.
C. FINANCIAL
Resources are available to accomplish the proposed project.
D. LEGAL
Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statutes requires that whenever any
public agency buys or sells property within the City, the Planning Commission
must review the proposed use of the site for consistency with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
Reject the resolution, finding that the acquisition of 6812 Emerson Lane by the
HRA for demolition and reconstruction is NOT consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
V. ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Map showing Comprehensive Plan designations for 6812 Emerson and
surrounding area
Attachment A: Relevant sections from the Richfield Comprehensive Plan
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
N/A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING THAT THE ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION
OF PROPERTY IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan regarding
the acquisition and disposition of property located at 6812 Emerson Lane, legally described as
follows:
6812 Emerson Lane as described in Attachment B; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the acquisition and disposition of
such property for single family residential purposes would be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning *Commission finds that the
acquisition and disposition of the above described property, for single family residential use, is
in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Adopted this 27th day of June, 2005 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Donna Drummond, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Secretary
Attachment B
6812 Emerson Lane is described as follows:
That part of Government Lot 6, Section 28, Township 28, North Range 24, West of the
4th Principle Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of the
West 20 acres of said Government Lot 6; thence East along Fort Snelling and
Minnetonka Road 160 feet; thence South to the shore of Wood Lake; thence along the
said Shore to the East line of said 20 acres; thence North to place of beginning,
EXCEPT the North 783 feet thereof; AND EXCEPT that part of Government Lot 6,
Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as
follows, to -wit: Beginning at a point on the West line of Lot 6, "Vehe Addition ", 16 feet
North of the Southwest corner thereof; thence West on a line parallel with the Northerly
line of said Government Lot 6 a distance of 148.0 feet; thence South on a line parallel
with the East line of the West 20 acres of said Government Lot 6 to its place of
intersection with the Northerly line of West 68th Street; thence Northeasterly along the
Northerly line of said West 68th Street to the Southwesterly corner of Lot 7, "Vehe
Addition "; thence North along the West line of said Lots 6 and 7, "Vehe Addition ", to the
point of beginning; AND EXCEPT That part of Government Lot 6, Section 28, Township
28, Range 24, lying South of the following described boundary line, to-wit-
Commencing at the Southeast corner of Lot 7, "Vehe Addition "; thence Southwesterly a
distance of 135.35 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 7, "Vehe Addition ", to the
actual point of beginning, thence continuing Southwesterly on an extension of the South
line of said Lot 7, "Vehe Addition" to the East line of the West 20 acres of Government
Lot 6, Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, ALSO; The East 10 feet of the North 783
feet of that part of Government Lot 6, lying West of the West line of Payton Manor and
the same extended, Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
ALSO; That part of the south 10 acres of the west 20 acres of Government Lot 6 of
Section 28, Township 28 North, Range 24 West, together with that part of dried up lake
bed of Wood Lake appurtenant thereto, lying easterly of Trunk Highway No. 65 as
located and established on March 23, 1956, which lies between two lines run parallel
with and distant 1 foot and 21 feet westerly of the east line of the above described tract,
northerly of a line run parallel with and distant 1 foot north of the south line of said tract,
and southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on a line run parallel
with and distant 783 feet south of the east and west quarter line of said Section 28,
distant 55 feel westerly of its intersection with a line run parallel with and distant 10 feet
west of the west line of Payton Manor extended southerly; thence run southwesterly to a
point on the east line of the above described tract distant 345 feet north of the southeast
corner thereof; thence continue southwesterly on the last described course for 60 feet
and there terminating:
Except that part of Government Lot 6, Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, shown as
parcel 65A on Minnesota Department of Transportation right of way plat numbered 27-
111 as the same is on file and of record in the office of the county recorder in and for
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
2
Except the South 12.0 feet or the North 45.0 feet of the following described tract: the
East 10 feet for the North 783 feet of that part of government Lot 6, lying west of the
west line of Payton Manor and the same extended, Section 28, Township 28, Range 24
Hennepin County, Minnesota, together with right of access, begin the right of ingress
and egress from that part of the above described tract not acquired to C.S.A.H. No. 53.
3
e Al. - I " . " —1 -W JPPX ft. A4
4'o e-
Al
Area of dl:
IX
W4 1 :; : r:") 'LwJ11A '7-.UW IBM
Attachment A
PART ONE Land Use and Density
1.1 Residential
Residential will continue as the dominant land use in Richfield as the existing low- density
residential neighborhoods and multiple - family developments are maintained and upgraded.
The Plan graphics show four residential land use areas as follows:
A. Single- family (all undesignated areas) detached and attached residential use areas with
densities of up to five units per acre represent most of the developed areas in Richfield.
Attached housing (duplexes only on 9,000 square feet) sites should be permitted in single -
family areas, but limited to no more than eight units in any eight block area. The sites for
attached housing should be developed on the basis of opportunity (distressed housing),
natural conditions, adjacent non - residential land uses, available utility and other community
services and related planning factors. Current programs that support maintenance, upgrading
and replacement of the existing housing stock must continue and be expanded as the housing
stock ages. Nothing in the Plan is more important to the preservation of the "small town"
character value than maintaining the quality, appearance and marketability of the single - family
residential housing stock throughout the City.
B. High- density, single - family attached residential use areas with densities of up to 15 units
per acre are shown on the Plan graphics as R -SFH (residential single - family, high- density).
These areas are selected on the basis of existing use, adjacent non - residential or multiple land
uses, street access, available public and private services and related planning and economic
factors. Manufactured housing would be included in this use category if the lots are owned by
the occupants and the streets and open spaces are public or quasi - public and operated by an
association. If the development is operated as a business, a conditional use permit would be
required. All of the areas designated for R -SFH use are described in subarea plans in 6.2.
C. Medium density, multiple - family residential use areas with densities of up to 24 units per
acre are shown on the Plan graphics as R -MM (residential multiple, medium density).
Richfield has too much of this form of housing, so several existing developments along 1 -494
have been redesignated for regional commercial or office use. Two developments (Century
Court and Fountainhead) have been designated as high- density multiple, and one (The
Colony) has been designated for single - family use. No new medium density, multiple housing
areas are proposed in the Plan. The proposed areas are described in more detail in the sub-
area plan graphics for the 1 -494 East and West and Interstate- Lyndale- Nicollet (ILN) areas in
Section 6.2 of this document.
D. High - density, multiple - family residential use areas with densities over 24 units per acre
are shown on the Plan graphics as R -MH. The ultimate result of these densities is high -rise
structures. For that reason, R -MH uses are appropriate in locations where transportation,
utility, security, shopping and social services are in abundance in order to support larger
numbers of people.
Richfield Comprehensive Plan, Page Three -2
5
PART FOUR Housing
4.1 Overview
Housing goals, policies and plans are intended to enable Richfield to be
city within the requirements of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act.
the City's life cycle housing include providing sufficient affordable hou:
diverse stock of housing types, and supporting residential and comm(
development planning that provides affordable housing that is accessi
recreation, and services. Because Richfield is a fully developed first ring
housing characteristics can only be accomplished through redevelopment.
4.2 Data
Basic data is essential to an accurate evaluation
effective program proposals. The Plan proposals
housing to determine current and future housing
housing policies and implementation.
4.3 Goals
The goals for future housing needs are:
Attachment A
life cycle housing"
The components of
ing, encouraging a
rcial land use and
le to employment,
suburb, changes in
of the situation and to serve as a basis for
involve updating the 1990 census data on
needs and to provide a sound basis for
A. Maintain an affordable housing stock throughout the City.
B. Provide opportunities for the development of at least 1,000 additional housing units in
the City.
C. Increase the number of single - family, attached dwellings by at least 500 units.
D. Reduce the number of medium density multiple dwelling units by 1,000, and increase
the number of high- density units by 2,000.
E. Maintain a ratio of 64 -70 percent owner occupied to 30 -36 percent renter - occupied
units.
F. Prepare and implement programs consistent with Richfield Housing Goals and
Housing Action Plan, 1996 to 2010, developed in response to the Metropolitan Livable
Communities Act.
4.4 Policies
The policies used to guide housing decisions are:
A. Maintain high - quality development standards in residential development.
B. Increase the density of housing along arterial and collector streets and in mixed use
development subareas in order to replace units lost over the last decade through the
New Ford Town /Rich Acres buyout and construction of 77th Street.
C. Provide for a more diverse housing stock by promoting development of single - family,
attached housing, a reduction in the number of medium density, multiple dwelling units
and an increase in the number of high- density units.
Richfield Comprehensive Plan —Pages Three -12 through Three -13
Attachment A
D. Upgrade the existing housing stock by continuing the "Richfield Rediscovered"
program, scattered site clearance, new construction and remodeling programs. These
programs encourage and support the rehabilitation and upgrading of the existing
housing stock of all types and values.
E. Encourage the development of housing units to serve special populations.
F. Support attractive, stable neighborhoods through strong housing code enforcement,
good public facilities and services, rehabilitation and replacement construction
incentives and active neighborhood resident organizations.
G. Review zoning, platting, building regulations and the approval process itself in order
to provide flexibility and expeditious reviews for development and redevelopment
proposals.
H. Continue the housing assistance programs through the Richfield HRA grants and
loans program.
I. Increase commercial development to provide jobs that are located near housing
development areas.
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA I'T'EM #
REPORT #
CASE #
NEW BUSINESS
15
gM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PC MEETING DATE: JUNE 279 2005
ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
Discuss the land use alternatives for the 66th Street and Portland Avenue intersection
reconstruction area.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Discussion item only. No action required.
II. BACKGROUND
As part of the traffic and planning study to address safety and congestion issues at the
intersection of 66th Street and Portland Avenue, the City has held a number of open
houses to gather feedback from policy- makers and neighbors and to formulate a vision
for the area surrounding the intersection. The Transportation Commission has been
working simultaneously to select a roadway design.
At the initial land use meeting in March, discussion focused on the context and
influences that will shape development as a result of the intersection improvements.
Attachment A offers a summary of feedback received at this meeting. A second open
house was held in May to introduce possible land use alternatives that were prepared
based on the previous visioning session and a narrowed selection of roadway design .
alternatives from the Transportation Commission. Attachment B includes a summary of
feedback and the presented alternatives are included as Attachment C.
The Transportation Commission will meet in early July to select a final roadway design.
Based on this decision, land use alternatives will be narrowed to those that are feasible
with the chosen design. These alternatives will be presented to the Planning
Commission at the regular July 25th meeting. The Planning Commission will have
multiple opportunities in the coming months to provide input on the land use design for
the area.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
The Planning Commission plays a guiding role in land use discussion.
Land use decisions will be needed to compliment roadway design.
062705 660$_17thAvenue_Acquisition
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
The intersection of 66th Street and Portland Avenue is the most
dangerous intersection in suburban Hennepin County.
Both 66th Street and Portland Avenue are County roads, therefore any
design chosen must be approved by Hennepin County.
A final roadway design must be selected by September to take advantage
of federal funds.
The improvement of the intersection, no matter the roadway alternative
chosen, will significantly impact at least two of the four corners.
C. FINANCIAL
Hennepin County has awarded the City $2 million dollars in funding for
this project.
D. LEGAL
N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
N/A
V. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: March 21, 2005 Visioning Session Comment Summary
Attachment B: May 11, 2005 Open House Comment Summary
Attachment C: All Concept Plans 5 -11 -05
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
N/A
Attachment A
66th Street & Portland Avenue Visioning Session Comments
1) What do you like best about this area of Richfield?
Park, recreation, community destination spot, walking /biking paths
Intersection is identifiable, a focal point; main route to downtown; visual connection to
downtown; transportation corridor — access to HUB and Hwy 62
Pleasant, established, stable residential; quality affordable and multi - family housing
2) What don't you like?
Lack of boulevard trees, landscaping; visually unappealing; overhead utilities
Too many gas stations
Poor safety; poor traffic flows; not pedestrian - friendly (combination of infrastructure, site
lines & traffic); "4 -lane speedway "; difficult left turns & bus stop backups
Intersection is a barrier to the park; no transition to park
3) List the three most significant issues you see for this project.
Unique identity for the corner — sense of place
Traffic & pedestrian flows, walking paths
Total cost; remediation costs
Open corner to park & pool
Development should be a positive for the neighborhood
NE corner as community campus
Preserve park and habitat
4) Looking ahead 5, 10, even 20 years, describe your vision of how this area might be
different.
Community campus w/ other corners in support of this development, i.e. nicer
commercial, mixed -use
Hide parking
Connect commercial w/ family activities at park & pool
Separate regional from local — allow those passing through to get through, put still
functional and attractive space for local traffic and residents
Relocate funeral home, American Legion
NE quadrant as signature gateway
5) If you could choose just one positive result as an outcome of this study, what would
it be?
Clear vision for future direction and development
Improved safety
Public involvement
Leave people who pass through this intersection with a good impression of Richfield
Coordination of traffic & land use
Attachment B
66th Street & Portland Land Use Study Open House Comments
Richfield, Minnesota
May 11, 2005
The 66th Street and Portland Avenue Land Use Study Open House was held to present some
of the land use alternatives to the community to gain feedback about what should happen with
any future planning. These alternatives were created to reflect options that could occur after
intersection improvements happen. Since the design of the road has not been determined,
these plans will be change to correspond with the roadway plans.
The land use alternatives were grouped by the corner they were in and community members
walked around stations that presented options for the southeast, southwest, northwest and
northeast corners. Community comments were gathered on large pads of paper next to each
set of plans and on comment sheets. Many people responded only to the plans that impacted
their property. These comments written by the community are summarized below.
Question 1: What uses do you think are most appropriate for the southeast corner?
D: Roundabout and rowhouses.
Take the whole side.
Limit public spending, preserve businesses if possible. Reconfigure station access and
egress to stop cut - throughs.
Take the houses. I didn't think I'd ever feel like wanting that to happen until more
recently. Richfield needs improvement.
Keep existing gas /repair /towing. (T &T)
What are your concerns here?
Too much traffic, speed. No front yards the way it is now.
Preserving tax base.
Effecting the yards — taking additional land is a huge concern, Despite improvements
and compensation, family safety is most important.
Bus stops
General Comments
If taking anything from the southeast side, take all of the homes — the front yards are too
to small as is and not safe enough (multiple similar comments)
Save T &T.
3 houses represented want to be bought out.
Left turn from houses along 66th — how far will medians extend?
Question 2: What uses do you think are most appropriate for the southwest corner?
Plan C or D with roundabout.
Reconfigure station access and egress to stop cut - throughs.
Important to still have retail or gas station alternatives.
Keep existing gas /grocery.
2
What are your concerns here?
All these plans for 66th and Portland impact the 66th and 5th Avenue intersection and
road use. Are these people involved in input? Will there be stoplights?
Bus stops
General Comments
1 like option B (neighbor in southwest corner)
The Sinclair proposes to work with the remainder, not to sell.
No alleys adjacent to single family (neighbor in southwest)
Driveway exits blocked (right only allowed)
Not convinced the roundabout is pedestrian and bike safe.
The roundabout will still cause stacking and block our driveway.
Roundabouts take, therefore are bad for business.
Question 3: What uses do you think are most appropriate for the northwest corner?
Any residential driveways affected by turns due to medians should become properties
the city buys out and turned into high density housing where traffic patterns can be
controlled.
Plan D
Buses. (Plan C)
Redevelop roadway using this lot.
What are your concerns here?
There is no left turn from 6520 and 6516 driveways. The only entrance would be to go
around
5th Avenue and exit south on Portland.
The apartment/condo idea is far too ambitious for this space. This area is already
overcrowded. Consider options to expand north over 6520 Portland and take the house
from the Lundquists. They will work with you. (comment from June & Henry Lundquist)
Don't tear up and re -build with TIF.
Apartments and garage uses. Bike and pedestrian safety.
General Comments
Expand idea to the north (6520 Portland should be taken — owner wants to sell)
There are a lot of old oak trees in front of the houses on the northwest corner by the
sidewalk that are an asset, estimated at $1000 per tree.
How hard will it be to turn left from the houses on the northwest corner? At least
roundabouts will make it easier to go left by going around the roundabout, not around
the block.
Oakland could get more traffic and may need a light.
Question 4: What uses do you think are most appropriate for the northeast corner?
Don't like the idea of multiple housing right beside the park. Keep the park as big as
possible — put housing in neighborhood areas.
Open the park to 66th & Portland if it becomes necessary to take existing uses.
City Hall.
Reconfigure station access and egress to stop cut - throughs.
Don't move the funeral home. No new community center. Housing north of the Legion
is okay.
Redevelop roadway using this lot.
No housing in NE quadrant. Land should be used for public uses only.
What are your concerns here?
3
Some of the proposed uses add traffic. The purpose of the intersection rework is to
correct traffic problems, not add to them.
Bus stops and utilities, bike and pedestrian safety.
General Comments
When is cost and money considered?
Keep the maximum tax base.
No housing in the park — more park & open space; don't "deed" public land to private
use.
Connecting roads and uses in the park is good but it needs to avoid creating a "cut
through" route.
Roundabout has negative impact on corner commercial.
More comments on any particular part of the plan or any overall concepts.
Too much traffic, front yards small now. The speed of traffic is too fast. The bus stop
by Amoco is bad and blocks the right land for traffic to flow. I have kids and grandkids
to worry about with more traffic each year. You can't get out of your yards to get into
traffic at busy times.
Roundabout plan removes existing commercial = bad. Significant safety concerns for
pedestrian /bike traffic with a roundabout system; not control devices. Access to
driveways is compromised. Richfield views this as a commercial area? Not family
housing? Buses create their own traffic jams.
4
p
l
LANDFORM
Concept A
lr7
Concept C
s;
NW Corner
101
Concept B
Q
ea"P.e
1
Concept D
66th & Portland
Land Use Study
Richfield, Minnesota HEN05002
J n o0
E
s
aeon _
U
a q
Q o
dQ
Q
Concept A
f"
I -
it Qt "OC
Concept D
t& .
l
LANDFORM
Concept B
SE Corner
7
b
000
J*40- da LOA6
ID
O
rJ G
4
a a
I LI O p
Concept.0
Ede
El
U
Concept E
66th & Portland
Land Use Study
Richfield, Minnesota HEN05002
i
n
k'
P
Concept A
Concept C
A,
l .
LANDFORM
SW Corner
rj
IF
y
T
d
4
d
a
Concept B
AJ-1
000
MI-7-17 1 ,
Fr
Concept D
66th & Portland
Land Use Study
Richfield, Minnesota HEN05002
9
n
k'
P
Concept A
Concept C
A,
l .
LANDFORM
SW Corner
rj
IF
y
T
d
4
d
a
Concept B
AJ-1
000
MI-7-171 ,
Fr
Concept D
66th & Portland
Land Use Study
Richfield, Minnesota HEN05002
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CASE #
NEW BUSINESS
16
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PC MEETING DATE: JUNE 279 2005
ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution finding that the acquisition of the property at 6608 17th Avenue is
consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan.
II I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 11
By motion: Approve the attached resolution finding that the
acquisition of the property at 6608 17th Avenue is consistent with the
Citv's Comprehensive Plan.
II. BACKGROUND
A single family, detached home located at 6608 17th Avenue was listed for sale by the
owner - occupant. City staff and the City Council members thought it would be
appropriate to pursue purchase of the property at this. time.
The purchase of the property makes it possible for the homeowner to proceed with their
plans and minimizes the negative impacts of an uncertain future for them. The plans for
this portion of 17th Avenue will be solidified in the next two -three months. The house
may be needed for the alignment of the new intersection at approximately 17th Avenue;
the location may be needed to help provide a site for a new liquor store or it may
become a site for a smaller commercial redevelopment adjacent to 66th Street. The
Comprehensive Pan identifies this property as Community Commercial /Office, so a
smaller commercial redevelopment in this area would be in keeping with the
Comprehensive Plan.
While the future of the property will be decided in the next couple of month the earliest
the property would be needed would be in about one year. The Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) is well suited to manage a property for the duration.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
6608 17th Avenue is currently zoned C -2 (General Commercial), but the
property was being used for single - family residential use.
The Comprehensive Plan map also identifies this parcel for Community
Commercial /Office use.
062705 6608_17thAvenue_Acquisition
The Richfield Redevelopment Plan establishes objectives for areas that
are within the Richfield Redevelopment area. The property is located
within the Richfield Redevelopment area. The objectives of the
redevelopment plan include the elimination or reduction of conflicts which
results from incompatible land use relationships. To facilitate in the
acquisition of single - family residential properties located with the city's
airport impact zones, and finally to ensure that the elements of the
Comprehensive Plan are in keeping with the objectives of the
redevelopment plan.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
The property owners have identified a new, replacement home and time is
of the essence to close on the purchase of this property.
C. FINANCIAL
Resources are available to accomplish the proposed project.
D. LEGAL
Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statutes requires that whenever any
public agency buys or sells property within the City, the Planning Commission
must review the proposed use of the site for consistency with the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Legal counsel has reviewed the proposal and the
resolution.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
Reject the resolution, finding that the acquisition of 6608 17th Avenue by the
HRA for demolition and reconstruction is NOT consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
V. ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Excerpts from the Richfield Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area.
Map showing the location of 6608 17th Avenue
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
N/A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT
A PROPOSED PUBLIC ACQUISITION OF LAND IS NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN
6608 17TH Avenue South)
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, (the "HRA ") has proposed to purchase a parcel of land having a street address of
6608 17th Avenue South, (the "Property ") and located on land legally described as Lot 2, Block
1, Cedar Sunrise Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the HRA is not proposing any change in use of the. Property, and has no
current plans to demolish the single family structure presently located on the site; and
WHEREAS, the HRA has requested that the City Planning Commission (the "Commission ")
review the proposed acquisition pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.356, Subd. 2 ;
and
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the proposed acquisition to determine its
relationship to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as
described in the comprehensive plan for the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the proposed acquisition
is not inconsistent with the comprehensive plan in that it has no relationship to said plan.
Adopted this 27th day of June, 2005 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Donna Drummond, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Secretary
Excerpts from Richfield Redevelopment Plan
Objectives of the Redevelopment Plan include:
To eliminate or reduce the conflicts which result from incompatible land use relationships,
especially between residential and non - residential.
To facilitate the acquisition of single - family residential and multi - residential properties
located within the city's airport impact zones.
To coordinate elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan with the redevelopment plan
objectives.
2
LOCATION MAP OF 6608 17TH AVENUE SOUTH
W
a
a
r
66TH ST.
66TH ST.
Q
r
ui
Q
a
co
r
200 0 200 400 Feet
3
ZONING
C-2 General
Commercial
C] R Single Family
Residential
PC-2 Planned General
Commercial
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
6 -23-05
Community Comm'L.
Reg'I. Comm'I. /Office
Com. Comm'I. /Office
Office
Single Family Res. F, S. F. Res.- High Dens.
Church
a
Church /School
Go
N
6 -23-05