112811 Packet=091110
WaVORMS PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
November 28, 2011
6:00 p.m.
Studv Session Items
ITEM #1 Transportation project update
••� PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
November 28, 2011
7:00 p.m.
Introductory Proceedings
Roll Call
Approval of Minutes: Planning Commission meeting of October 24, 2011.
Opportunity for Citizens to Address the Commission on items not on the Agenda
Scheduled to Speak: Barry LeBlanc or Eric Rodel regarding Pillsbury Commons/76th Street
and Pillsbury Avenue
New Business
0
Public Hearing
ITEM #1 11 SP-01 Continue the public hearing to consider a request for a
11-VAR-01 number of variances and overall site plan approval for a retail
automotive store (O'Reilly Automotive) at 1120 66th Street
East to December 13, 2011.
ITEM #2 11-APUD-02 Consider a request for a major amendment to the Planned
Unit Development plan for the HUB Shopping Center. The
amendment would allow for a commercial daycare within the
Shopping Center.
ITEM #3 PC Letter #24 Consider a request for an ordinance change related to
accessory structures on exceptionally large lots.
Old Business
Liaison Reports
Community Services Advisory Commission
City Council
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
Richfield School Board
Transportation Commission
Chamber of Commerce
Other
Next Meeting Date: December 12, 2011
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 612/861-9738".
Planning Commission
Ewe Minutes
r
October 24, 2011
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Robert Hall, Dan Kitzberger, Josh Root,
Tom Rublein, Maureen Scaglia, Dennis Schuller and Gordon
Vizecky
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Rick Jabs
STAFF PRESENT: Melissa Poehlman, City Planner
John Stark, Community Development Director
OTHERS PRESENT: Pat Elliot, City Council
Acting Chairperson Kitzberger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Hall, S/Vizecky to amend the minutes of October 3, 2011 to reflect that Commissioner
Hall was absent.
Motion carried: 6-0
M/Rublein, S/Vizecky to approve the minutes of October 3, 2011 as amended.
Motion carried: 6-0
M/Rublein, SNizecky to approve the minutes of September 26, 2011.
Motion carried: 6-0
M/Vizecky, S/Root to approve the minutes of October 10, 2011 and October 24, 2011.
Motion carried: 6-0
M/Hall, S/Rublein to remove the minutes of October 24, 2011 from the previous motion.
Motion carried: 6-0
OPEN FORUM
October 24, 2011
None
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
ITEM #1
Case No. 11-CP-02 & 11-CP-03 — Conduct a public hearing and consider an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that will designate 7401 Lyndale Avenue
and the west 140 feet of 7421 Lyndale Avenue (immediately adjacent to the street)
as Community Commercial, and 609 74th Street West as Neighborhood
Commercial.
City Planner Melissa Poehlman (Poehlman) explained that the properties at 7401 and
7421 Lyndale Avenue were discussed last year in the course of reviewing incongruent
zoning and comprehensive plan designations. No decision was made at that time. An
application for an adjacent property (609 74th Street West) requires that the future land
use for this area be considered again. A public study session was held on October 3rd
to discuss possibilities for this area. The proposed changes are the result of direction
that staff received from the Planning Commission at this study session.
Poehlman distributed a letter to the Commission from Attorney Tim Keane, representing
the owner of 7421 Lyndale Avenue (Thomas Price). The Commission was given time to
read the submitted letter.
Mr. Thomas Price, 7421 Lyndale Avenue, asked the Commission to leave him and his
property alone.
Commissioner Scaglia arrived.
Mr. Price stated that he has no objection to the proposal at 609 74th Street. He would
like his property classifications to be left as they are or to consider the changes
presented by his attorney.
Mr. Mark Nichols, 8901 Lyndale Avenue S. #102, applicant for the proposed changes at
609 74th Street, asked for a summary of the changes requested in the letter submitted to
the Commission.
Poehlman read the summary statement from Attorney Keane's letter requesting that the
east portion of Mr. Price's property be rezoned to MR-3 (High Density Residential) as
opposed to MR-2 (Multi -Family Residential); and that the western 290 feet, as opposed
to the western 140 feet as exists and is proposed to remain, of the property be zoned C-
2 (General Commercial).
M/Root, SNizecky to close the public hearing.
Motion carried. 7-0
October 24, 2011
Commissioner Vizecky referenced the discussion at the October 3, 2011 study session
and neighborhood concerns about "stepping down" development from higher to lower
intensity as approaching the single- and two-family homes. A designation of MR-3
would be inconsistent with this goal.
In response to a question from Commission Rublein, Poehlman stated that the height
limit in the MR-2 District is 35 feet and in the MR-3 District it is 50 feet.
Commissioner Rublein stated that it would be unfair to consider this alternative proposal
without specifically notifying the neighborhood and asked if the motion could be
divided?
Staff confirmed that it could.
Commissioner Hall voiced his support for the motion as proposed, stating that he
believes it is appropriate for the future of this area.
Commissioner Vizecky stated that the Commission would be open to further discussion
of Mr. Price's property when he has a specific proposal; and that as was discussed at
the study session, this is an unusual property that will likely require a Planned Unit
Development designation and special consideration.
M/Vizecky, S/Root to recommend approval of the attached ordinance rezoning
properties located at 6401 Lyndale Avenue South, 515 64th Street West and 521 64t"
Street West from C-2 (General Commercial) and R (Single -Family Residential) to PMR
(Planned Multi -Family Residential).
Motion carried: 6-0 (Hall abstained)
ITEM #2
Case No. 11-RZN-04 & 11-ASP-04 — Conduct a public hearing and consider 1) an
ordinance rezoning 609 74th Street West from Multi -Family Residential (MR-2) to
Service Office (SO); and 2) a site plan amendment at 609 74t" Street West to allow
operation of a commercial service business.
Poehlman presented the staff report, indicating that the request was related to the
previous agenda item and that given the recommended approval of a Comprehensive
Plan change at this location, a zoning change would be appropriate.
Mr. Mark Nichols, prospective owner and business operator, indicated that he would be
happy to answer questions from the Commissioners.
M/Root, S/Rublein to close the public hearing.
Motion carried. 7-0
M/Vizecky, S/Root to recommend approval of 1) an ordinance rezoning 609 74t" Street
West from Multi -Family Residential (MR-2) to Service Office (SO); and 2) a site plan
October 24, 2011
amendment at 609 74th Street West to allow operation of a commercial service
business.
Motion carried. 7-0
ITEM #3
Case No. 11-RZN-05 — Conduct a public hearing and consider the attached
ordinance amending Richfield City Code Appendix 1 to change the zoning
designation of all but the west 140 feet of 7421 Lyndale Avenue from C-1
(Neighborhood Commercial) to MR-2 (Multi -Family Residential).
Poehlman presented the staff report, indicating that this item was again related to the
first item agenda and that given the recommended approval of Item #1, it would logically
follow to approve this item.
M/Hall, S/Vizecky to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 7-0
Commissioner Hall stated that he abstained from the earlier vote because he wanted to
know what impact these actions will have on Mr. Price and his property. Commissioner
Hall asked Mr. Price to address this.
Jim Erickson, consultant for Mr. Price, responded that their intention tonight is to let the
Commission know that future redevelopment proposals for this site may involve more
intensity than what will be allowed under the proposed zoning. They recognize that no
change will happen now, given that there is no proposal, but feel it's important to be on
the record stating as much.
M/Vizecky, S/Root to recommend approval of an ordinance amending Richfield City
Code Appendix 1 to change the zoning designation of all but the west 140 feet of 7421
Lyndale Avenue from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to MR-2 (Multi -Family
Residential).
Motion: 7-0
ITEM #4
PC Letter No. 22 — Conduct a public hearing and consider the attached ordinance
amending Subsection 537.13, Subdivision 2 related to the consideration of the
expansion of dimensional or bulk nonconformities in the Mixed Use Districts.
Poehlman presented the staff report, highlighting the proposed conditions for the
issuance of a permit to allow expansion of nonconforming buildings in the Mixed Use
Districts.
In response to a question from Commissioner Rublein, Poehlman explained that in
actuality no part of the building is required to be saved under this provision because
State Law allows for the total replacement of nonconforming buildings.
October 24, 2011
M/Root, SNizecky to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 7-0
Commissioner Hall stated that an extensive discussion of this item took place at a joint
Planning Commission and City Council study session last month and he supports the
item.
Motion carried: 7-0
ITEM #5
Case No. 11-CUP-04 — Conduct a public hearing and consider a Conditional Use
Permit to allow the expansion of a nonconforming building at 7701 & 7717
Nicollet Avenue.
Poehlman presented the staff report indicating that this application is predicated on the
approval of the ordinance amendment presented in the previous report. Staff detailed
the proposal from Menards, Inc. to construct a new building that would be considered
an expansion of a nonconforming building. Poehlman reviewed the Code requirements
that would be met by the proposal and those that would not. Staff recommended
approval of the proposal with a stipulation that the proposal be modified in order to not
exceed the existing amount of impervious surface.
Mr. Theron Berg, representing Menards, highlighted the changes that had been made to
the proposal since the study session in September.
Commissioner Vizecky asked if stormwater requirements are met by the proposal.
Poehlman responded that they are.
Commissioner Root questioned why the parking could not be removed in favor of
landscaping given that the parking study concludes that there is significantly more
parking than will be needed at peak hours of business.
Mr. Berg stated that Menards does not agree with the conclusions of the parking study
and feel that the parking is necessary.
Commissioner Root asked if Menards had used the consultant hired to conduct the
parking study in the past.
Mr. Berg responded that they had.
Commissioner Rublein stated that he believes the parking to be necessary based on his
experience at other Menards stores. He asked if enhanced parking lot lighting had
been considered and if the decorative fixtures along the building could be continued
along the wrought iron fence on the south side.
Mr. Berg stated that they could consider improvements.
October 24, 2011
Commissioner Root stated that he thinks it is very important to get this development
right given its prominence on the street and the fact that it is the first of hopefully many
other projects coming up in the area. He supports staff's recommendation to require
that the impervious surface not be increased with the redevelopment of the site.
M/Root to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the expansion of a
nonconforming building at 7701 & 7717 Nicollet Avenue as proposed in the resolution.
No second.
Commissioner Schuller asked Mr. Berg if there was some compromise between the
existing proposal and staff's recommendation.
Mr. Berg stated that additional parking lot islands could be added — reducing the parking
by approximately 10 spaces.
Commissioner Hall stated that he sees the proposal as a vast improvement from the
existing conditions and supports the compromise with additional parking lot islands.
Mr. Curt Keel (sp.), representing Dolphin Real Estate and Dolphin Fast Food, operators
of the Burger King restaurant at 140 - 78th Street East, read a prepared statement
urging the Planning Commission to recommend denial of the proposal. The statement
asserted that the proposal would block light and visibility to the Burger King property
and eventually put it out of business. Further, the operators believe that approval of the
proposal would constitute a taking of their property.
Community Development Director John Stark (Stark) informed the Commission that the
assertion that this approval would constitute a taking would be addressed with the City
Attorney prior to consideration by the City Council in November.
Mr. Ken Severson, 7316 Lyndale Avenue, asked if snow storage would be allowed in
landscaped areas (if parking were reduced), if sidewalks could be constructed of
pervious materials and voiced concerns over the proposed access to and from the site.
Poehlman responded that snow storage is allowed in landscaped areas, that the City is
open to considering pervious pavement but maintenance issues would need to be
addressed, and that access decisions had been thoroughly discussed by all jurisdictions
involved (Hennepin County, the City and Mn/DOT).
Commissioner Hall asked Burger King was notified of the study session in September.
Poehlman responded that she did not know if they were notified specifically. The
meeting was posted, as legally required, but mailed notice is not required.
At the request of the Commission, Mr. Berg addressed statements made by Mr. Keel.
Mr. Berg stated that Menards had tried to negotiate with Dolphin Real Estate, but that
negotiations fell apart as a dollar amount could not be agreed upon.
October 24, 2011
Commissioner Rublein stated that the specific negotiations were not pertinent to the
Planning Commission's decision.
In response to questions from Commissioners Hall and Rublein, Mr. Berg stated that the
fence adjacent to the north and west lot lines of the Burger King site is 14 feet tall and
that a lower height would not work for their operations.
M/Vizecky, S/Rublein to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Hall asked that staff raise his concern related u-turns and stacking of
cars at 2nd Avenue with the City Engineer.
M/Vickecky, S/Scaglia to recommend approval of a revised resolution for a Conditional
Use Permit to allow the expansion of a nonconforming building at 7701 & 7717 Nicollet
Avenue. The revised resolution should require additional greenspace in the realm of
the proposed additional parking lot islands.
Motion carried. 6-1 (Root dissenting)
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM #6
PC Letter No. 23 — Consider rescheduling the December 26, 2011 Planning
Commission Meeting to December 14, 2011.
Poehlman reminded the Commission that December 26t" is a federal holiday and
recommended moving the December meeting to December 14tn
M/Vizecky, S/Hall to approve rescheduling the regular December meeting of the
Planning Commission to December 14tn
Motion carried. 7-0
OLD BUSINESS
None
LIAISON REPORTS
Community Services Advisory Commission: Report by Commissioner Rublein
City Council: No report
HRA: Report by Commissioner Root
Richfield School Board: Report by Commissioner Kitzberger
Transportation Commission: No report
Chamber of Commerce: Report by Commissioner Vizecky
October 24, 2011
Other: Commissioner Hall reported on funding sources for the Lyndale Garden Center
redevelopment project.
ADJOURNMENT
M/Vizecky, S/Root to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried. 7-0
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:01 p.m.
Robert Hall
Secretary
AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA ITEM # 1
REPORT #
CASE # 11-SP-01, 11-VAR-
01
...dOW PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PC MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2011
ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
Continue the public hearing to consider a site plan and variance requests for a retail
automotive store at 1120 66t" Street East to December 13, 2011.
111. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 11
I�By motion: Continue the public hearing to consider a site plan and II
variance requests at 1120 66t" Street East to December 13. 2011.
II. BACKGROUND
The applicant (O'Reilly Automotive) is proposing to construct a retail automotive store at
the proposed location. The applicant has requested additional time to revise their
plans.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• None
C. FINANCIAL
N/A
D. LEGAL
• Notice of this public hearing was published in the Sun Current in accordance
with State and Local requirements.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• None
V. ATTACHMENTS
None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CASE #
11-APUD-02
..dgM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PC MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2011
ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing regarding a request for an amendment to a planned unit development to allow a
commercial daycare within an existing shopping center HUB Shopping Center).
Ill. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 11
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Recommend
approval of an amendment to the approved Planned Unit
Development, Final Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit at 33
West 65th Street (HUB Shopping Center) to allow a commercial
davcare.
II. BACKGROUND
The addition of a new use, not included in the Final Development Plan, is considered to
be a major amendment to an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD). The owners
of the HUB Shopping Center have applied for a major amendment to permit a
commercial daycare to operate from within the retail center. The proposed full -service
daycare (infant through after -school children served) will occupy approximately 4,000
square feet and include a cafeteria and kitchen. The daycare will occupy space on the
north side of the building, avoiding potential traffic conflicts with retail tenants. An
outdoor play area is not proposed.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
The findings necessary for approval of a PUD or a PUD amendment are as follows:
a) The proposed development conforms to the goals, policies, and objectives of the
City's Comprehensive Plan and any applicable redevelopment plans; This
requirement is met. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Mixed
Use.
b) The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable
and unified environment within its own boundaries; This requirement is met.
c) The proposed development is in substantial conformance with the purpose and
intent of the guiding district, and departures from the guiding district regulations
are justified by the design of the development, This requirement is/will be met.
The purpose of the Guiding C-2 (General Commercial) District is to allow a wide
variety of retail and service businesses serving Richfield and beyond. This
requirement is met. These uses are expected to be attractive in appearance
from all sides and compatible with nearby residential properties through
compliance with the Performance Standards specified in Section 544. The
appearance of the north side of the building near the new proposed use should
be enhanced through improvements to the adjacent parking lot and boulevard.
Section 509.25, Subdivision 7 addresses upgrading nonconforming site
improvements that affect the appearance and impacts of a site. It is not
intended to require extensive changes that would be extremely impractical such
as ,moving or lowering buildings.
• Nonconforming parking: Existing parking exceeds requirements.
Additional parking is not necessary for the proposed use.
• Nonconforming landscaping and screening: The existing site does not
meet landscaping or screening requirements. Given the scope of the
project, staff feels that it would be unreasonable to require compliance
with landscaping and screening requirements throughout the entire site.
Staff proposes that approval of the proposed amendment be conditioned
upon parking lot and screening improvements in the parking lot and
boulevard area adjacent to the proposed use (e.g. larger parking lot
islands, parking lot screening).
d) The development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets
or other public facilities and utilities that serve or are proposed to serve the
development, This requirement is met.
e) The development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring
properties, This requirement is met.
f) The terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the plan are
sufficient to protect the public interest; This requirement is met.
The findings necessary to issue a Conditional Use Permit or an amended Conditional
Use Permit (547.09, Subd.6) are as follows:
a) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the
City's Comprehensive Plan; This requirement is met.
b) The proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the
purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the
proposed use; This requirement is met.
c) The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans
or urban design guidelines; This requirement is met.
d) The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards
specified in Section 544 of this code; The site is legally nonconforming and
regulations related to nonconforming site improvements apply. Compliance with
items related to parking lot islands and screening, as detailed in Subsection
544.03, Subdivision 7 of the Code shall be required in the parking lot area
adjacent to the proposed new use.
e) The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental
facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements; This
requirement is met.
f) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or
welfare; This requirement is met.
g) There is a public need for such use at the proposed location; This requirement is
met.
h) The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code
for the granting of such conditional use permit, This requirement does not apply
as commercial daycare facilities are a permitted use in the guiding district.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• An amendment to a Planned Unit Development, Final Development Plan and
Conditional Use Permit requires that the City evaluate the development
conformance with zoning regulations.
• Nonconforming site improvements are governed by Section 509 of the Zoning
Code. As the intent of the regulations is to improve properties without
requiring impractical site changes, the parking lot and surrounding screening
of the area adjacent to the new proposed use should be addressed.
• The owner has been made aware of the fact that if and when additional
amendments are requested for areas throughout the site, additional site
improvements will be necessary. This includes sidewalk improvements
related to Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Act accessibility requirements.
C. FINANCIAL
• The required application processing fee has been paid.
D. LEGAL
Zoning: PC-2 (Planned General Commercial)
Land Use: Current: Shopping Center
Proposed: Shopping Center with daycare
Comprehensive Plan: Mixed Use
Notification: Property owners within 350 feet
Other Actions:
Council: Scheduled for City Council review December 13, 2011
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Recommend approval of the proposed amendment with additional and/or modified
stipulations.
• Recommend denial of the proposed amendment.
TTACHMENTS
• Kesowtion
• Existing site plan, including landscaping
• Shopping Center tenant plan
• Planning & Zoning maps
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Mr. Jeffrey P. Agnes of Aarchitects, LLC — representing
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOMENT,
FINAL DEVELOMPENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL DAYCARE FACILITY
WITHIN THE "HUB" SHOPPING CENTER
AT 33 WEST 65TH STREET WEST
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests an
amendment to the Planned Unit Development, Final Development Plan and Conditional Use
Permit to allow a commercial daycare facility occupying 4,060 square feet within the existing
shopping center at property legally described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield recommended approval of
the requested amendment at its November 28, 2011 meeting; and
WHEREAS, the requested amendment meets those requirements necessary for
approving a Planned Unit Development as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section
542.09, Subd. 3 and as detailed in City Council Staff Report No. ; and
WHEREAS, the requested amendment meets those requirements necessary for
approving a Conditional Use Permit as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 547.09,
Subd.6 and detailed in City Council Staff Report No. ; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the amended
Planned Unit Development, Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. An amended Planned Unit Development, Final Development Plan and Conditional
Use Permit are issued to allow a 4,060 square foot commercial daycare facility, as
described in City Council Staff Report No. , on the Subject Property legally
described in Exhibit A.
2. This amended Planned Unit Development, Final Development Plan and Conditional
Use Permit is subject to the following conditions:
• That final parking lot landscaping and screening plans addressing
nonconforming items in the area adjacent to the daycare location are
submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director.
• That the conditions and stipulations of all previously approved plans not
specifically changed through this amendment remain effective.
• That the recipient of this amended Planned Unit Development, Final
Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit record this resolution with the
County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, Subdivision 1 and
Richfield Zoning Code 547.09, Subdivision 8.
3. The Planned Unit Development, Final Development Plan and Conditional Use
Permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and
shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more
months, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subd. 9.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
December, 2011.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Richfield Hub Superblock, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Together with that part of vacated Pleasant Avenue described as follows:
All that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 28,
Range 24, Hennepin County described as follows:
Beginning at the most northerly northwest corner of Lot 3, Block 1, Richfield Hub
Superblock, as platted and of record in the office of the County Recorder; thence South
00 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the westerly line of said
Lot 3, a distance of 142.11 feet; thence South 89 degrees 56 minutes 52 seconds West, a
distance of 30.00 feet, to the most westerly line of said Lot 3; thence North 00 degrees 20
minutes 18 seconds East along the northerly extension of said most westerly line, a
distance of 142.11 feet to the westerly extension of the most northerly line of said Lot 3;
thence along said westerly extension 30.00 feet to the point of beginning.
Together with all that part of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection of the southerly extension of the westerly line of said Lot 3 and
the southerly line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees
20 minutes 18 seconds East along said southerly extension a distance of 183.00 feet to the most
westerly southwest corner of said Lot 3 and the actual point of beginning of the land to be
described; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 seconds East along the southerly line of said
Lot 3 a distance of 48.13 feet to a westerly line of said Lot 3; thence South 00 degrees 25
minutes 38 seconds West a distance of 3 3. 00 feet to the most southerly southwest corner of said
Lot 3; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 seconds East along the southerly line of said Lot 3
a distance of 253.99 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 3; thence South 00 degrees 25
minutes 38 seconds West along the westerly line of Lot 2 said Block 1 and its southerly
extension a distance of 107.00 feet to a line drawn parallel with and 43.00 feet northerly of said
southerly line of Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 59
minutes 52 seconds West parallel with said southerly line of said Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter a distance of 35.90 feet; thence North 00 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds East
a distance of 27.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 seconds East parallel with said
southerly line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 15.00 feet to a
line drawn parallel with and 282.00 feet easterly of said southerly extension of the westerly line
of said Lot 3; thence North 00 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds East along said parallel line a
distance of 71.56 feet to the north line of the south 141.56 feet of said Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 seconds West along said north line of
the south 141.56 feet a distance of 282.00 feet to said southerly extension of the westerly line of
said Lot 3; thence North 00 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds East along said southerly extension a
distance of 41.44 feet to the point of beginning.
L -
STREET
IIII la"g 00 N89"58'16'W 321.19
ROCKS W/
N44°5 BUSHES I I BITJIVINQUS PAVEMENT N
I 47.9E ` I I I -- - o
I I � 7.9E ;�\ l w
\ /
VI--- _-UTILTY EASEMENT PER
a WEST NCY38-16-E fS°.:_ t \
n. N89'56'52'E 329.40 8,06",
\00.00 l I R tNOef'- - --- - -- -- - ..
BITUNINOUS PAVEMENT I 0 /
4
4 G -
f
oi
/ F N
/
}O ' EXWNG- BUILDING 00
b
/ z
/ y4
v7-�d N89'59'52E 250.
N / /
d�
14 (
i EXISTING BUILDING ,{®
f
SO'25 38'W ,
%3300
89'59°52E 2 9
J ® _j 253.99 (DESC
'. S89'59'521Y 282.00
I`Wm 59'52'E---
14.60 (MEAS)/15.00 (DESC) z0 ol
b NO'20'18'E
- - - - 27.00
SB9'59'52'W"C_ NO'205'
35.90
L _ __j
'-5'LY UNE OF SE 1/4 OF NW :/t, -SEC, rWP. 28, RGE 24
& Menk, Inc. 2011. All Rights
12104165\C30\SURVEY\EXIST
11-09-2011
/ _
/
10
ORNAM S(AS
/ S
�'
SS
/
S
0
/
m� ® e�
o
41 BITUMINOUS PeAVEMENT ORNAMENTAL
1
I r
_
g
eT
I
b
Z
2 `` �5'
GRASS
3y y
' BUILDING. N� �.
WEST 66TH STREET
o c ,':
U H S
I
1
933.98 BUSHES W/
ORNAMENTAL GRASS
( COUNTY ROAD NO. 53 )
LEGEND
CONCRETE
SURFACE •
MONUNENT FOUND
O
"'Ap10RE
MULCH
�J
BENCH
_
®
I:ATCH BASIN
ROCK
ELECTRIC TRAASFORM_R
L�
HYDRANT
_-�
GRASS
LIGHT POLE
O
MANHOLE
PAVERS
fa
WATER VALVE
rL^Jt
DEclDuous TREE
®
BUSH
DESCRIPTION
Lots 2 aad 3, Block 1, Richfield Hub Superblock, according to the recorded plot thereof. Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Together with Ihat part of vacated Pleasant Avenue descnbed as 1,11...
All that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quartar of Section 27. Township 28, Range 24. Hennepin County
described as follows:
Beginning at the most northerly northwest comer at of 3. Black 1, Richfield Hub Superblock, as platted and of
ecwd in the office of the Count Recorder thence South
r y enc t 00 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds West, tl
bearing, along the westerly line of said Lot S. o distance of 142.11 feet: thence South 89 degrees 56 minuminutes 52
seconds West. a distance of 30.00 feet, to the most westerly line of sod Lot 3; thence North 00 degrees 20
minutes 18 seconds East .long the northerly exlenswn of said most westerly line, a drst.no. of 142.11 feel to the
westerly -tension of the most northerly Ime of lard Lot 3 thence along said wastedy extensors 30.00 feet to the
point of beg nn rg.
I Together with all that part of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter descnoed as follows,
I
Commencm of the int,rseclion of the hert t 9 rout y extens ono the westerly tire of sad Lot 3 and the southerly line said
iu
Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, thence North 00 degrees 20 n nines 18 seconds East along said southerer ly
extension a distance of 183.00 feet to the most westerly southwest cor er lof said Lot 3 and the actual point of beginning
of the land to be described; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 seconds East along the southerly line of said Lot 3
a distance of 48,13 feet to o westerly tine of sold Lot 3, hence South00 degrees 25 minutes 38 seconds West a
distance of 33.00 feet to the most southerly aulhwest corner of sac Lot 3; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 52
seconds East along the southerly line of said Lot 3 n distanre of 753.99 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 3,
thence South 00 degrees 25 minutes 38 seconds West along the westerly line of Lot 2 said Block 1 and its southerly
extension o distance of 107.00 feel to a ;i a drawn parallel with and 43.00 feel northeriy of said southerly Ime of
Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 seconds West parallel with said
outherly line of soil Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 35,90 feel; thence North 00 degrees 20
inutes 18 seconds Eost o distance of 27.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 1 seconds East parallel with
.aid southerly line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quorlcr a distance of 15.00 feet to a line drawn parallel
with and 282.00 feet easterly of said southerly extension of the we,tcrly [in, of said Lot 3, thence North 00 degrees 20
minutes
18 s onds East I 1. said arollel n a dislonce o/ 71.56 feet toIncorth 1 long t e of the south longs feet f
P
said 5outhast Quarter o t Northwest
I Q ( he Norl esl Quarter, ihencc South 89 degree, 5 , ate 9 minutes the
es onds West don said north
ec a
I line of the south 141.56 feet a distance ofc202.00 feel to said southerly extens on of the westerly line e(s d Lot 3;
thence North 00 degrees 20 mnutes 18 se onds East aly said southerly eaten i.a a distance of 41.44 feet to the point
of beginning.
AREA The subject property contain, 728,120 square feet (1672 acres)
PARKING: 1,057 regular parking spaces and 44 handicap spaces ore shown.
O I (includes parking spaces lying partially/e,rpletly outside of subject property)
V) SURVEYOR'S NOTES e
1. Gli-t.L.. f the b-it,9 system is based upon the south line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 28. Range
24, Hennepin County County, Minnesota, which s assumed to bear North 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 seconds East
W 2. The on -site improvements are shown based on a survey by 8n.toa & Mark, Inc in 1992 Ind observed changes from that
sorvey noted during a ,Is inspection on November 8, 2011
WI _ 3) This survey was performed, and the survey map prepared, without benefit of ether o title insurance commitment or an
attorneys Utle opinion. The record boundary and easement information (if any) shown hereon Is based on information provided by
Q I the .Pent, Research of documents affectng title to the properly s rveyed or adjoining properties nos been hinted to a cu scey
eview of record information and it is recommended that all life matters affecting this property and survey be reviewed by o
1� attorney or other title professional.
! I CERTIFICATION:
LLJ I On behalf of Bolton & Menk, Inc,
J I I hereby certify that this survey, plan o report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that 1 am a duty
OLicensed Loud Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minrosota.
November 7, 2011
I Rlchar lams Jr.
Minne License Numb, 1 840
Rev, 11-9-11: Trees and Bushes; Grass Areas: Dale; Parking Count: Legend
MAIL, Me (;HASKA, MN I
T12.104165 FIELD BOOK: 351. PG. 215
Richfield Hub and West Shopping Center
36 West 66th Street, Richfield, MN
GLA: 215,304
Major Tenants: Walgreens, Dollar Tree, Marshalls, Michaels, Rainbow Foods, Bally Total Fitness
Matthew Johnson 1 (612)798-7964 1 matthew.johnsoli@brixmor.com I Central Regional Office 1 (847) 272-9800 1 WWW.BRIXMOR.COM
Not. It - W. Ow, and—',.L 1- 9—r.1 Wy-f of thn MoPprng -otxr and .: not.. v a oantv.:tug Par of P., Mndlo:d ei.l the sh.aPing canto, wdl ov 1-01, es oanlr;ma M-vl
6.16A
Unit Retailer Sq. Ft.
5,411
01A Great Clips
1,216
02 Michaels
24,235
03/03A Dollar Tree
11,801
10 Hennepin Care South
7,545
12 Foot Locker
2,500
18 Hallmark
4,320
14 Marshalls
28,785
15 GameStop
1,698
16 Dots
6,000
17 Sally Beauty
1,440
19 Golden Tobacco
1,440
20 Little Caesars
1,440
21A Cost Cutters
1,234
21B City Nails
1,891
22 Hub Jewelers
3,432
23 Walgreens
12,000
25 Opportunity Partners
5,418
26 China Garden
1,809
27 Taco Morelos
2,890
able
3,15()
,ler
362
33 GNC
1,221
ble
go?
34 Burger King
4,401
34-2A Centro Leasing
932
A Rainbow Foods
52,195
B Bally Total Fitness
26,185
C
<t
y
O
u_
Z
SlI47MIKIiil
•
Plb Z8 II
nk
33 W 65th St - 11 /11
PUD AMENDMENT
0 110 220 440 660 880
Feet
Zoning Designations
R - Single Family Res.
MR-2 - Multi -Family Res.
C-2 - General Commercial
PC-2 - Planned General Commercial
IAGIS\Community Development\Staff\Melissa\Projects\Zoning Cases\HUB - PUD amendment - Z.mxd
AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA ITEM # 3
REPORT # 24
CASE #
..40 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PC MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2011
ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing to consider an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance. The proposed
ordinance will create separate standards for accessory buildings on exceptionally large
residential lots.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Recommend
approval of the attached ordinance amending Subsection 514.05,
Subdivisions 3 and 4; and Subsection 518.05, Subdivisions 3 and 4
related to accessory structures on residential lots that exceed 15,000
sauare feet.
II. BACKGROUND
City staff recently received an application requesting a variance to allow an additional
accessory structure on an exceptionally large lot. After reviewing the proposal, staff
came to the conclusion that while the request seemed reasonable, the fact that the
large parcel had been assembled by the property owner (through acquisition of abutting
lots over time) precluded application for a variance. One of the criteria necessary for
issuing a variance is that unusual or unique circumstances that make a variance
necessary (in this case — the unusual size of the lot) cannot have been created by the
property owner. Staff suggested that an actual amendment to the Ordinance that would
apply to all exceptionally large properties might be more appropriate.
Explanation of Proposed Ordinance Changes:
Currently, the Single -Family Residential (R) District allows for a combination of
accessory structures that does not exceed 1,200 square feet in total. The maximum
size of a garage is generally 1,000 square feet and other accessory structures are
limited to 175 square feet. The total allowable square footage of 1,200 equates to
approximately 18 percent of a 6,700 square foot lot which can be used for accessory
purposes.
The Low Density Single -Family Residential (R-1) District allows for a combination of
accessory structures not to exceed 1,300 square feet. The same individual maximums
apply to garages and other accessory structures. This equates to 13 percent of a
10,000 square foot lot.
There are relatively few lots in the City that exceed 15,000 square feet (approximately
160 throughout the City). It seems reasonable to allow these property owners some
additional flexibility in terms of accessory buildings given the size of their lots. The
proposed change bases the amount of allowable space that can be dedicated to
accessory uses on a percentage of the total lot size, as opposed to a fixed number
(13% of the lot is proposed). The proposed change will also allow larger individual non -
garage accessory buildings (maximum 300 square feet as opposed to 175 square feet).
Setbacks, impervious surface, building coverage and limits on the actual number of
structures will remain the same, as will height limitations.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The regulations of the Zoning Code are intended to promote harmonious
relationships among land uses and to ensure that public and private lands
ultimately are used for the purposes that are most appropriate and beneficial
from the standpoint of the City as a whole.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• There is an important balance that must be maintained to protect property
and promote investment throughout the City.
C. FINANCIAL
• The required application processing fee has been paid.
D. LEGAL
• Notice of this public hearing was published in the Sun Current in accordance
with State and Local requirements.
• Other Actions:
• Council: The recommendation of the Planning Commission will go to the
City Council for two readings. If the City Council adopts the
recommended changes, they will take effect 30 days after the approved
Council resolution is posted in the Sun Current newspaper.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Recommend approval of the proposed ordinance with additional changes.
• Recommend denial of the proposed ordinance.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Ordinance
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
0 Mr. Scott Sharpe, applicant and property owner representative.
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE RELATED TO ZONING
AMENDING SUBSECTION 514.05, SUBDIVISIONS 3 AND 4;
AND SUBSECTION 518.05, SUBDIVISIONS 3 AND 4
RELATED TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON
RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT EXCEED 15,000 SQUARE FEET
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1 Subsection 514.05, Subdivisions 3 and 4 of the Richfield City Code are
amended to read as follows:
Subd. 3. Private garages (includes attached and detached) or carports
that do not exceed 1,000 square feet in gross floor area, do not exceed
an aggregate of 1,200 square feet (or 13% of lot area in the case of lots of
15,000 square feet or more) in gross floor area when combined with all
other accessory buildings and attached garages on the lot, and are
constructed in accordance with Subdivision 2 of this subsection.
Subd. 4. Greenhouses, storage buildings, and gazebos that do not
exceed 175 square feet (300 square feet in the case of lots of 15,000
square feet or larger) in gross floor area, do not exceed an aggregate of
1,200 square feet (or 13% of lot area in the case of lots of 15,000 square
feet or more) in gross floor area when combined with all other accessory
buildings and attached garages on the lot, and are constructed in
accordance with Subdivision 2 of this subsection.
Section 2 Subsection 514.05, Subdivisions 3 and 4 of the Richfield City Code are
amended to read as follows:
Subd. 3. Private garages (includes attached and detached) or carports
that do not exceed 1,000 square feet in gross floor area, do not exceed
an aggregate of 1,300 square feet (or 13% of lot area in the case of lots of
15,000 square feet or more) in gross floor area when combined with all
other accessory buildings and attached garages on the lot, and are
constructed in accordance with Subdivision 2 of this subsection.
Subd. 4. Greenhouses, storage buildings, and gazebos that do not
exceed 175 square feet (300 square feet in the case of lots of 15,000
square feet or larger) in gross floor area, do not exceed an aggregate of
1,300 square feet (or 13% of lot area in the case of lots of 15,000 square
feet or more) in gross floor area when combined with all other accessory
buildings and attached garages on the lot, and are constructed in
accordance with Subdivision 2 of this subsection.
Section 3 This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the
Richfield City Charter.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
, 2011.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk