The URL can be used to link to this page

012312 Packet••� PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA January 23, 2012 7:00 p.m. Introductory Proceedings Roll Call Approval of Minutes: November 28, 2011 Study Session and November 28, 2011 regular Planning Commission meeting. Opportunity for Citizens to Address the Commission on items not on the Agenda Public Hearing ITEM #1 12-CUP-02 Consider a request for a conditional use permit for a full service restaurant — Pizza Luce 800 66th Street West ITEM #2 11-SP-01, 11- Consider a request for a number of variances and overall site VAR-01 plan approval for a retail automotive store at 1120 66th Street East ITEM #3 12-CUP-01, 12- Consider a request for a conditional use permit and variances VAR-01 for a dog kennel with an outdoor relief area located at 6315 Penn Avenue New Business ITEM #4 PC Letter #1 Consideration of a resolution finding that the acquisition of 6420 17th Avenue and 6315 16th Avenue by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for future multi -family housing is consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan Old Business Liaison Reports Community Services Advisory Commission City Council Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Richfield School Board Transportation Commission Chamber of Commerce Other City Planner's Report Next Meeting Date: January 24, 2012 (Joint CC/HRA/PC Worksession) starting at 5:45 p.m. 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". J Planning Commission Study Session Minutes November 28, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rick Jabs, Commissioners Daniel Kitzberger, Maureen Scaglia and Dennis Schuller MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Robert Hall, Josh Root, Tom Rublein, and Gordon Vizecky STAFF PRESENT: Melissa Poehlman, City Planner Jeff Pearson, City Transportation Engineer OTHERS PRESENT: None Chairperson Jabs called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. ITEM #1 Transportation Project Update City Transportation Engineer Jeff Pearson presented a summary of 2011 transportation projects and the schedule for the next few years. The presentation included discussion of the Metropolitan Council Sewer Project along 76th Street, the 1-494 Parallel Route Optimization Project, Richfield Parkway and Taft Lake alternatives and more. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:43 p.m. Rick Jabs Chairperson, Acting Secretary Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rick Jabs, Commissioners Robert Hall, Dan Kitzberger, Josh Root, Tom Rublein, Maureen Scaglia, Dennis Schuller and Gordon Vizecky MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Melissa Poehlman, City Planner John Stark, Community Development Director OTHERS PRESENT: Pat Elliot, City Council Chair Jabs called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Root, S/Rublein to approve the amended minutes of October 24, 2011 reflecting that Commissioner Hall voted against approval of the motion to approve the minutes of October 10th and October 24th. Motion carried: 8-0 OPEN FORUM Mr. Eric Rodel, 7601 Pillsbury Avenue, addressed the Commission regarding the possible Pillsbury Commons project at 76th Street and Pillsbury Avenue. Mr. Rodel expressed concerns regarding population/overcrowding, traffic, home values and agreement with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Barry LeBlanc, 7521 Pillsbury Avenue, addressed the Commission regarding the possible Pillsbury Commons project at 76th Street and Pillsbury Avenue. Mr. LeBlanc also distributed a packet of materials to the Commission. This packet has been attached as an addendum to these minutes. Mr. LeBlanc expressed concerns regarding the 100 percent affordability of the proposed units and home values. Mr. George Holter, 6424 Emerson Avenue, addressed the Commission regarding the possible Pillsbury Commons project at 76th Street and Pillsbury Avenue. Mr. Holter expressed interest in purchasing the property in question for a bus garage for his business, Richfield Bus Company, Mr. Holter stated that he was sure others would be interested in purchasing the property as well. November 28, 2011 NEW BUSINESS None PUBLIC HEARING(S) ITEM #1 Case No. 11-SP-01 & 11-VAR-01 — Continue a public hearing to consider a site plan and variance requests for a retail automotive store at 1120 66th Street East to December 13, 2011. (*Note — amended later in meeting to reflect proper meeting date of December 12, 2011.) City Planner Melissa Poehlman (Poehlman) explained the applicant requested additional time to revise plans. M/Root, S/Vizecky to continue the public hearing. Motion carried. 7-0 (Scaglia absent from vote) ITEM #2 Case No. 11-APUD-02 — Conduct a public hearing and consider an amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development, Final Development Plan, and Conditional Use Permit at 33 West 65th Street (HUB Shopping Center) to allow a commercial daycare. Poehlman presented the staff report indicating that staff's recommendation was to approve the request conditioned upon the approval of a screening plan for the parking lot area immediately adjacent to the proposed daycare location. M/Root, S/Vizecky to close the public hearing. Motion carried. 8-0 In response to a question regarding parking lot safety from Chair Jabs, Pamela Barney of Brixmore Management, stated that traffic volumes in this area of the shopping center are very low. In response to a question from Commissioner Hall, Ms. Barney stated that they find the requirement for additional screening acceptable. Landscape Architect Matt Wilkins presented a draft plan for these improvements. In response to a question from Commissioner Schuller, Ms. Barney stated that incompatible uses would not be able to locate next to the daycare given the fact that there is no additional leasable space next to the proposed daycare space. November 28, 2011 M/Root, SNizecky to recommend approval of a resolution approving an amendment to the Planned Unit Development, Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to allow a commercial daycare facility within the "HUB" Shopping Center at 33 West 65th Street. Motion carried: 8-0 Poehlman interrupted the agenda to ask the Commission to amend the earlier motion related to continuation of the public hearing related to 1120 66th Street East to reflect the fact that the correct date of the meeting will be December 12th, not the 13th. M/Root, S/Rublein to amend the earlier motion and continue the public hearing to December 12, 2011. Motion carried. 8-0 ITEM #3 PC Letter No. 24 — Conduct a public hearing and consider the attached ordinance amending Subsection 514.05, Subdivisions 3 and 4; and Subsection 518.06, Subdivisions 3 and 4 related to accessory structures on residential lots that exceed 15, 000 square feet. Poehlman presented the staff report explaining that the proposed amendment would affect approximately 160 properties throughout the City. It would allow these property owners to construct modestly larger accessory structures, the cumulative total square footage of which could not exceed 13 percent of the lot. Applicant Scott Sharpe presented plans for one such property located at 6830 Newton Avenue. In response to a question from Commissioner Hall, Poehlman stated that home occupation regulations would remain in effect and limit negative impacts related to business operations on residential lots. Poehlman further stated that the amendment was drafted to allow for additional flexibility on lots that are significantly larger than the norm; however, the Commission could recommend that the proposed regulations apply to additional properties. Pat Elliot, 6720 Oliver Avenue, spoke favorably of the property at 6830 Newton Avenue and voiced support for the action. M/Root, SNizecky to close the public hearing. Motion carried. 8-0 M/Hall, S/Schuller to amend the proposed ordinance to apply to all lots over 10,000 square feet, rather than 15,000 square feet. Poehlman asked for clarification regarding whether the proposed amendment was intended to address only the 13 percent regulation applying to the total overall square November 28, 2011 footage of accessory uses, or if Commissioner Hall's intent was to also allow for the larger individual accessory structures on lots exceeding 10,000 square feet. Chair Jabs indicated support for the motion as presented by staff. Commissioner Schuller withdrew his second and Commissioner Hall withdrew his motion. M/Vizecky, S/Root to recommend approval of an amendment to Richfield City Code Subsection 514.05, Subdivisions 3 and 4; and Subsection 518.05, Subdivision 3 and 4 related to accessory structures on residential lots that exceed 15,000 square feet. Motion carried. 8-0 OLD BUSINESS None LIAISON REPORTS Community Services Advisory Commission: Report by Commissioner Rublein City Council: Report by Commissioner Hall HRA: Report by Commissioner Root Richfield School Board: Report by Commissioner Kitzberger Transportation Commission: Report by Commissioner Scaglia Chamber of Commerce: Report by Commissioner Vizecky Other: None ADJOURNMENT M/Rublein, S/Vizecky to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. 8-0 The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:01 p.m. Robert Hall Secretary 4 Barry LeBlanc 7521 Pillsbury Ave south Richfield 612.861.1142 Home Number Good Evening Planning commission, I am not a very good public speaker so I have prepared this letter which I will read for record and the attachments to build my conversation from. I come before you to relay the concerns of the residents about.the Pillsbury Commons project located on the old Richfield city lot at 76th and Pillsbury Ave.. We have been thrust into this approximately 7 weeks ago trying to understand how to convey our questions and concerns. I know that you can not answer these questions tonight but request a reply in a email or letter to share with my neighbors: We the neighbors were under the impression that this land would be for owner occupied town homes We now know since March 2011 that the city had approved via staff or some commission that land would be used for a 70 units -153 Bed room-143 parking spots for 100% totally affordable housing With the exception of 4 units that would be used by the Simpson Housing Services for transitional housing Executive Director Julie Manworren: http_//www simsimpsonhousing.org/about.html imanworren@simpsonhousing.org See attached Email from John Stark Dated November 14th, 2011 Question: Where in the Richfield comprehensive plan is there information about 100% affordable housing unit? Where in the Richfield comprehensive plan is there information about Transitional housing? Question: Why dose Richfield have to carry the burden of this type of structure when by state standards our neighbor cities show more need than Richfield? The information can be found on the Minnesota Housing web site hM:././www.mnhousing.ggv Question: Who will be responsible for the upkeep of the building when the developer walks away? See attached document dated October 11, 2011 on a Simpson housing property in Minneapolis whereas the city through Tax payer dollars paid $329, 000 for upkeep on a 17 unit apartment building. Please also see the attached document concerning the Casteel Town Homes built by the proposed developer Ron Clark The Town homes have completed over $450,000 in repairs in the last 9 years. The home owners are now denied compensation on the repairs of approximately $166,000. Question: When do we stop the derogation of value for Richfield homes? The following information is a year-to-year comparison 2010/2011 city by city home values httn• //www.zillow.coml Richfield had the largest drop of the four cities in the south metro. MSP metro area the decline was 9.8% Minneapolis, MN up .4% Richfield down 12.8% Edina down 10.7% Bloomington down 9.1% Question: How can The City of Richfield select tenets to an apartment complex based on the color of their skin? Why would we even want to recruit one social -economical group over another? Please see the attached Proposal from Ron Clark to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. The last question I will ask is about the property that is directly behind the Pillsbury Commons proposed site, do you realize that this property is going for the same finance and has already received one grant so far for a unit similar to this project? Who is driving this project within the city? In closing, I am your neighbor bound by the streets of Richfield, I thank you for your time Best Regar&49.�__ arry LeBlanc '�Aa.o_j oqoq &R V4�-100.cev( caev Ejubject: RE: Minnesota Housing - November Meeting From: John Stark Qstark@cityofrichfield.org) To: barry04O4@yahoo.com; Date: Monday, November 14, 2011 8:08 AM Mr. LeBlanc, I have never been under the impression that this proposed project was "80% housing at a fair retail rate and 20% for affordable housing" as you state in your message. I have been aware since at least March 2011 that this project was proposed to be 100% affordable to families earning 50% and 60% of the area median income. Please let me know if you have any other questions. - John Stark - Director - Community Development Department - City of Richfield - (612) 861-9775 - istark _cityofrichf<eld. org APlease consider the environment before printing this email From: Barry LeBlanc Sandia Aerospace [mailto:barry04O4@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 2:17 PM To: John Stark Subject: Re: Minnesota Housing - November Meeting Mr. Stark, I am under the impression that you think the Pillsbury Commons project is a 80% housing at a fair retail rate and 20% for affordable housing, but if you look at Page 36 of PDF, page 19 you will see the targeted renters. 100 % of the house holds are of disadvantage. So the question is what do you know of this project? Did you know this would be 100 % affordable house with the recommended state guild line? Regards, Barry LeBlanc RFP Development Summary Selected Applications: 11/17/2011 Board Agenda Item: 9.B.(1).(b).1 Exhibit B: Development Summaries Purpase OProject The Pillsbury Commons proposal is for the new construction of a four story elevator apartment building in Richfield, adjacent to the Nine Mile Creek bike/walk trait on 76th St. that is currently under construction. The development will provide 70 housing opportu ' s, primarily for families, including four units for households experiencing long-term homelessness, in close proximity to the vibrant commercial node MWt 77th Street and Lyndale Ave South. This area contains housing, recreation, and employment opportunities, and is well connected by bus service to oth ionai centers in Minneapolis, Edina, and Bloomington, including downtown Minneapolis, the Mall of America, and the airport The project is planned ude underground parking, an exercise facility, community room, office space, and an outdoor play area. This development will provide housing primarily for families, targeting househILc households experiencing long-term homelessness. ov4h6�0" Acquisition: $5,942 Construction (including Environmental): $1 37 Soft Costs (excluding Reserves): $38,5 Non -Mortgageable Costs (excluding rves . Reserves: $6,823 Total Development Cost: $179,641 Sources Amou Capital Funds Amount LMIR 1st Mortga $3,170, LMIR 1st Mortgage $3,170,493 Syndication Pr $9,0 0 Deferred Developer F 4 4q Z Subsidy Funds Amount four units designated for Strategic Goal Long Term Homeless Family New Affordable Housing New Const. Units Rehab 4 70 11 /17/2011 Unit Unit Gross Rent Type Count Rent Restriction 1 BR 6 $775 50% AMI 2BR 43 $931 50% AMI 2BR 2 $558 30% AMI 3BR 1 $1,220 30% AMI 3BR 17 $1,075 50% AM[ 3BR 1 $645 30% AMI Total Recommended: $3,170,493 1 Total: 70 Total Sources: $12,574,903 Run Date: 11/02/2011 Page 19 Request for City Council Committee Action from the Department of Community Planning and Economic Development Date: October 11, 2011 To: Council Member Lisa Goodman, Chair, Community Development Committee Subject: 2011 Emergency Solutions Grant Funding Recommendations Recommendation: Approve up to $555,759 of Fiscal Year 2011 Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds for the following projects: a) Up to $210,759 for Higher Ground (formerly Boxleitner) located at 1xx Glenwood Avenue North by Catholic Charities or an affiliated entity; b) Up to $320,000 for Passage Community located at 1x East 24th Street by Simpson Housing Services or an affiliated entity; and c) Up to $25,000 for Families Moving Forward located at 1xxx Emerson Avenue by Plymouth Church Neighborhood Foundation or an affiliated entity. Previous Directives: 1. Higher Ground (formerly Boxleitner): On January 23, 2009, the Minneapolis City Council approved the sale of 165 Glenwood Avenue to Community Housing Development Corporation in the amount of $835,000 for the new construction project J. Jerome Boxleitner Place. 2. Passage Community: In August 1986, the MCDA Board of Commissioners approved up to $425,730 in ESG funds for rehabilitation work at the Passage Community Project. On January 3, 2003, the Minneapolis City Council approved up to $329,000 ($300k in CDBG and $29k in Non Profit Admin funds) for the Passage Community Project for the purposes of rehabilitation of the property. Rehab included replacement of exterior doors, repairs to exterior brick surface and chimney, installation of a security system, replacement of a water heater, kitchen appliances and new flooring in kitchens and bathrooms. 3. Families Moving Forward: None. Department Information Prepared by: Tiffany Glasper, Senior Project Coordinator, 612-673-5221 Approved by: Thomas A. Streitz, Director, Housing Policy & Development Charles T. Lutz, Deputy Executive Director Presenters in Committee: Tiffany Glasper Financial Impact No financial impact Community Impact • Neighborhood Notification: Each proposal has been reviewed by the official neighborhood group of the neighborhood in which it is located. • City Goals: In five years all Minneapolis residents will have a better quality of life and access to housing and services. • Sustainability Targets: Special Needs Housing - Rehabilitation • Comprehensive Plan: 4.10 - Minneapolis will increase its housing that is affordable to low and moderate income households. • Zoning Code: Each project complies or will comply to the zoning code prior to the funds being provided. Supporting Information The federal Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program provides funds that may be used for a variety of purposes including the major rehabilitation or renovation of emergency shelters or transitional housing facilities for persons experiencing homelessness. HUD has released to the City $585,009 of Fiscal Year 2011 ESG funds out of an FY11 grant of $812,813. Five percent of the amount ($29,250) will be used for City staff administrative costs and the balance of $555,759 will be used for eligible project activities under current ESG rules. An RFP for the 2011 ESG funds was issued in May 2011 and staff received three viable proposals: 1. Up to $210,759 for Higher Ground (formerly Boxleitner) located at 1xx Glenwood Avenue North by Catholic Charities or an affiliated entity; 2. Up to $320,000 for Passage Community located at 1x East 24th Street by Simpson Housing Services or an affiliated entity; and 3. Up to $25,000 for Families Moving Forward located at 1xxx Emerson Avenue by Plymouth Church Neighborhood Foundation or an affiliated entity. The review of these proposals included the following elements: 1. Conduct a property inspection to determine whether the proposed work is needed and realistic; whether there is additional more urgent work needing to be done; and assessment of the cost reasonableness. 2. Determination of project eligibility under the federal ESG program rules. 3. Consideration of an applicant's proposal to provide leverage/matching funds. 4. Review of the organization's long-term operating capacity and financial status. 5. Readiness of project to close and start the construction in a timely manner and to spend the 2011 ESG money by 5/31/13. 6. Recipients of ESG funds are required by law to provide for the participation of at least one homeless for formerly homeless person(s) in a policy -making function in the organization. Staff is recommending that all of the three 2011 ESG applications be funded. Attached are the Project Data Worksheets providing detailed information about the projects including development sources and uses. A general overview of each proposal is provided below: 1. Higher Ground (formerly J. Jerome Boxleitner): On January 23, 2009, the Minneapolis City Council approved the sale of 165 Glenwood Avenue to Community Housing Development Corporation in the amount of $835,000 for the new construction project J. Jerome Boxleitner Place. This new construction project, scheduled to be complete and occupied by June 2012, was fully funded without City assistance. The project is a transitional housing and shelter facility owned and operated by Catholic Charities. The new facility provides multiple housing options in one location in order to ease the transition from homelessness to permanent housing. The current request for $210,759 in ESG funds is to cover the costs associated with furnishings, equipment and a security system for the transitional. housing portion of the project. The CPED Construction Specialist indicates that costs for the security system are reasonable. The costs for furnishings and equipment will be determined through a cost comparison analysis. 2. Passage Community: The $320,000 of ESG funds will be used to address multiple exterior rehabilitation needs including water infiltration issues, window repair/replacement, foundation repairs and tuck pointing. The CPED Construction Specialist indicates that the repairs are necessary and that the costs are reasonable. Passage Community is operated by Simpson Housing Services and provides 17 units of transitional housing to homeless or formerly homeless individuals. 3. Families Moving Forward: The $25,000 ESG funds will be used to replace a damaged water main line to the Day Center building, which has needed constant attention and repairs over the last few years. Plymouth Church Neighborhood Foundation owns and operates the day center, which acts as a transportation hub where buses take older children to school and younger children to day care. The day center provides showers, laundry facilities, computer access, space for education activities, personal storage space and an open kitchen. The CPED Construction Specialist has indicated that the requested repairs and updates are needed and the costs are reasonable. If these projects are approved,_ ESG rules require that the expenditure of the 2011 ESG monies be completed by May 31, 2013. COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT May 16, 2011 Dear Casteel Place Homeowner: Gittleman Management Corporation 1801 American Boulevard East, Suite 21 Bloomington, Minnesota 55425 MAIN (952) 277-2700 fAx (952) 277-2739 This letter is to advise you of a Special Meeting of Members of Casteel Place Homeowners Association, a non-profit Minnesota corporation, to be held in the Conference Room at the offices of Gittleman Management Corporation, 1801 American Boulevard East, Suite 21, Bloomington, Minnesota,* on Wednesday evening, June 1, 2011, at 6:30 p.m. The primary purpose of the meeting is to put forward a vote for a special assessment to each individual owner at Casteel Place for roof repairs and attic insulation. See attached Evaluation and Proposal. There will be a representative of the General Contractor at the meeting to answer any questions and/or concerns you may have. The total cost of the project is $140,000.00. Each unit will be assessed $3,500.00. Per Article 5 of Casteel Place Declarations, "each of the units is hereby allocated the fractional percentage of undivided interests in common elements and common expense obligations.". You may choose to pay this in one lump sum or a monthly payment of $68.48 over a five year period. This will be assessed to each unit July 1, 2011 should the vote pass. We must have 2/3 of the voting power to approve this special assessment. The Board of Director's recommends the approval of this Special Assessment. In the last two years the association has spent approximately $26,000 on miscellaneous roof repairs, snow and ice dam removal, installation of heat tape, not to mention the two insurance claims made from ice dams causing interior damage. Other advantages to having the repairs made are: • Savings in utility expenses • Prevention of rodents gaining access • Better re -sale value • beeping insurance costs down If you are unable to attend the meeting you can complete the enclosed Directed Proxy and mail to our office in the self addressed stamped envelope. If you cannot attend the meeting and would like to have someone vote for you. Please complete the proxy and return it to our office in the enclosed stamped envelope. All ballots and proxies must be received in our office by June 1, 2011. If you have any questions or concerns prior to the meeting feel free to contact my office directly at 952- 567-6810 or liorijZ@gittleman.com Thank you, GITTLEMAN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION Lisa M. Joritz Association Manager www.gittleman.com Evaluation We have encountered severe ice damming around the complex. The most severe ice dams have been located on either side of the round roof adjacent to the center units. To combat the ice dams temporarily, we installed heat tape in the gutter and down spouts of these areas. Heat tape has some inherent flaws as all connections must be kept dry. Failure to keep the extension cord connection to the heat tape and the connection at the home exterior outlet dry will lead to the GFI tripping and a possibility of being unable to reset the GFI. Power consumption is also an issue and the heat tape is equivalent to running a 100 watt bulb continuously. On one side of one building we have re -roofed the area on both side walls of the round roof. When we did re -roof this area we found the step flashing to be missing. This is a primary component in making the roof to wall transition water tight. We also re -roofed an area of an end unit where a water leak occurred on a sidewall/roof transition. Again, no step flashing was installed but the area was caulked which is an unacceptable alternative to flashing. A blower door test was also performed on three units. The tests revealed a generic situation exists in all units are as follows: - All units have unsealed duct work at the ceiling soffit. This duct work is providing a positive pressure heat loss and is forcing warm air into the attic space causing premature melting of the snow. - There is heat loss through the lighting fixtures and electrical penetrations in the side wall that is allowing warm air to pass into the attic. - The bath fan is allowing a fair amount of heat loss as it doesn't appear to be dampered properly. Proposal As I see it there are two main problems to minimize and/or eliminate ice dams and water intrusion into the properties of Casteel Place. The first problem is what appears to be a lack of flashing on sidewall penetrations. I am recommending that all sidewall areas be inspected and if the flashing is missing that these areas be brought up to code immediately. We have seen three instances where flashing is non-existent and structural damage was occurring. The other major deficiency is the insulation and ventilation. These two items work together and are both necessary in minimizing ice dams. I am recommending that the existing insulation be removed in all units. The reason for this is two fold. The first reason is to expose any and all penetrations through the dry wall the second reason is that mice have been making their home in the attic. We will spray foam all penetrations and seal up the area where the heat duct travels around the perimeter of the bedrooms. The attics would then be blown with cellulose insulation treated with boric acid to eliminate the mice problem. The attic would be an R-48. Mike Bischel Bischel Building 11/28/11 Print Subject: Opposed to Pillsbury Commons Apartment complex!!! From: honeydogs@netzero.com (honeydogs@netzero.com) To: citycouncil@cityofrichfield.org; Cc: barry04O4@yahoo.com; Date: Monday, November 28, 2011 5:17 AM From: Steve Miller 7520 Girard Avenue South Richfield, MN. 55423 I am highly opposed to the construction of the Pillsbury Commons High Density Apartment Complex! !! This city does NOT need another apartment complex. There are enough housing complexes within the city already. Many of which are not being bought or rented because of the over priced costs. Why don't you make the greedy owners of those units lower their prices so the people that are targeted to be tenants for this new construction can afford them?! ! Oh yeah, you can't do that because the owners will be upset. Though you seem to have little care as to the what others in this city think. The council has been driving small businesses out of the city and jobs for people without college degrees are basically all gone. Of course this new construction is probably already a done deal and the following 2 public hearings are just a farce. Same as the Best Buy Corporate monstrosity. Which still plugs the 76th Street/Penn Avenue traffic flow by having a flood of cars leaving work at the same time, which the council said wouldn't happen. Ha ha Ha Why does this Pillsbury commons project have to be 4 stories high Oh yeah! Greed! ! ! ! And what and who gives the council the power to destroy houses already existing to build these monstrosities? Just because you were voted in doesn't give you the power to further destroy our city. Use the city garage site for affordable single family starter homes to entice more young people to begin their families in Richfield so they stay until. they're old enough to retire to one of the many senior complexes in the city. The Sun Current article from the Nov. 24, 2001 states that a house will be taken and raised for a second phase of this project and would make a homeowner move because of ft. That is just totally unacceptable. Ohhh its just 1 little horn and a little inconvenience. Putting fear, stress, and uncertain thoughts into homeowners is not right and not your right to do so. Now homeowners in the area and throughout Richfield will not be able to sell their horns or if they actually can, they about:blank 1/2 11/28/11 Print wolYt get but a percentage of the value of the property. Why doesn't the city council go out of its way to make all the houses and apartments in Richfield to be non - vacant before they start building housing that is not needed. Richfield was formed on a rich ground of dirt to let families grow and all the council is doing is covering the whole city up with concrete and skyscrapers. Y'all want to keep building complexes and monstrosities. Move to Minneapolis, get on their council and take on all the vacancies they have and sell out and build what you want! !! Enough with destructions. Bring back entry level jobs. Bring back small affordable single family houses. Let small existing houses build 2 or 3 car garages that are not twice as big as the existing house. Versus only being a percentage of the size of the existing house. All houses should be able to have a 2 car garage if the owner wishes. Regards Steve Miller P. S. With the housing boom a few years ago, the house values went sky high and property taxes followed with higher taxes. And with the fallout and excessive drop in house values, how corm the taxes stayed at the overpriced home value rates? 57 Year Old Mom Looks 27 Mom Reveals $3 Wrinkle Trick Angering Doctors... iconsumerknowledge. com about:biank 2/2 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CASE # PUBLIC HEARING I 12-CUP-02 .wmM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PC MEETING DATE: JANUARY 239 2012 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Public hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a full -service restaurant Pizza Luce at 800-66th Street West. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a full -service restaurant at 800-66th Street West. II. BACKGROUND The City has received an application requesting a conditional use permit for a full - service (food and intoxicating beverage service) Pizza Luce restaurant at 800-66th Street West, the former location of Bridgeman's Restaurant. The proposal will involve a complete remodel of the interior space, an 840 square foot addition, significant building exterior improvements, construction of an outdoor seating area and reconstruction and modification of the parking lot. The applicant has worked hard to meet all of the requirements of the Code. Additionally, the applicant has addressed staff -suggestions that were not specifically required. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY Full -service restaurants with alcohol service are conditionally permitted in the General Commercial (C-2) District so long as the lot abuts an arterial or collector street. This requirement is met (lot abuts 66th Street). In order to grant a conditional use permit, the Council must find that all of the following conditions will be met: a) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This requirement is met. The 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue area is designated as "Mixed Use" in the Comprehensive Plan. The stated intent of this designation is "to focus on creating a city center in Richfield that would serve as a `downtown."' This is to be achieved through providing additional commercial opportunities in the area. Additionally the Comprehensive Plan calls for "expanded business opportunities" and "targeted redevelopment;" two goals that are met by this proposal. 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. The General Commercial (C-2) District is intended to provide space for a wide variety of retail and service businesses. The "City expects [these businesses] to have an attractive appearance from all sides, to be compatible with nearby residential properties, to minimize adverse effects on surface waters, and to not significantly degrade the level of service or safety on nearby roads." c) The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines. This requirement is met. The Mission of the Lakes at Lyndale Plan is to make this area "Richfield's thriving urban center" through "upgrade[s to] commercial properties..." This property is specifically identified as a "redevelopment opportunity." d) The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 544 of this Code. This requirement is met. In general all requirements are met. Staff recommends approval be conditioned upon final approval of 1) a landscape plan that addresses plantings in proposed parking lot islands; 2) a final lighting plan that includes fixture details; and 3) a final layout addressing pedestrian connections from existing sidewalks to the doors, as significant pedestrian traffic is anticipated. e) The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on government facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements. This requirement is met. The submitted plans have been reviewed by the Public Works Department and no undue adverse impacts are anticipated. 0 The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety or welfare. This requirement is met. The submitted plans have been reviewed by the Public Works Department and Hennepin County and no undue adverse impacts are anticipated. g) There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. This requirement is met. The rehabilitation/re-use of vacant buildings is an integral part of enhancing Richfield's "downtown." 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 is met. In addition to the requirement for this use to be along an arterial or collector street, the proposal meets applicable impervious surface (max. permitted: 85%; proposed 78%), parking setback, and building setback requirements. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • All requirements necessary for the issuance of a conditional use permit are met. • Minor site design issues (parking lot island landscaping, light fixture specifications and pedestrian connections) can be addressed as part of the Building Permit process. C. FINANCIAL • The required processing fee has been paid. D. LEGAL Zoning: C-2 (General Commercial) Land Use: Current: Vacant former restaurant Proposed: Full -service restaurant Comprehensive Plan: Mixed Use Notification: Properties within 350-feet Other Actions: Council: City Council consideration February 14, 2012 H RA: N/A Hearing Examiner: N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Recommend denial with a finding that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties or the City as a whole. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Proposed plans • Planning & zoning maps VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • JJ Haywood, Pizza Luce CEO • Nathaniel Shea, Tanek architects RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FULL -SERVICE RESTAURANT AT 800-66TH STREET WEST WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests a conditional use permit to a full -service restaurant with a gross floor area of 7,849 square feet at property commonly known as 800-66th Street West, property legally described as: Tracts A, B and D, Registered Land Survey No. 642, Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield recommended approval of this requested conditional use permit at its January 23, 2012 meeting; and WHEREAS, this requested conditional use permit meets the requirements necessary for issuing a conditional use permit as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 547.09; and WHEREAS, this requested conditional use permit meets the requirements necessary for issuing a conditional use permit for a full -service restaurant with intoxicating beverage service as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 534.07, Subdivision 6; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the conditional use permit; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A conditional use permit is issued to allow a full -service restaurant with a gross floor area of 7,849 square feet, as described in City Council Letter No. , on the Subject Property legally described above. 2. This conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions in addition to those specified in Section 547.09 of the City's Zoning Ordinance: • Final landscaping plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director; • Final lighting plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director; • Final site plans addressing pedestrian connections be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director; • Sign permits must be applied for separately. This approval does not constitute approval of any signs; • Final grading and drainage, erosion control/SWPPP, demolition, and utility plans must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director; • That the recipient of this conditional use permit record this Resolution with the County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, Subd. 1 and the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 546.05, Subd. 7. • Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the developer shall: a) Submit a copy of the recorded conditional use permit; and b) Submit a surety equal to 125% of the value of any landscaping improvements not yet complete. 3. This conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subd. 9. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of February 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 65TH r,0 STREET l f/ DEMOLITION NOTES Q — Remove bituminous pavement. C — Remove concrete curb & gutter. Q — Remove concrete sidewalk/pavement. ®— Remove concrete well. Q — Remove/salvage light poles (coordinate with lighting designer). ©— Remove curb cut/entrance. Remove wood fence. ®— Remove retaining wall. Qs — See landscape plan for removal of trees/shrubs. SURVEY LEGEND SM."'P.NN:i is ;i - rit T{i±�'.S:::UI.i: 'F:I:-w•';; I; I-: rye-.�_F f�:. ill. _-.. _.;z"._......._.r.r___- ..:•r=iii:..1' :� h.. I r ... eVL_%r,• N 0 to 20 40 so Scale in Feet z 5 o CL —i Z LLJ L O U = W N O oa lam /� U v/ C■ NEW CURB & GUTTER MATCHING EXTSTIN 65'7 H7 //�•'�� O CONSTRUCT DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE PER STREL� T CITY STANDARD PLATE NO. 4058 \ - 'STOP" SIGN • �. PER 2 r X MANUAL' / 24.00./ COMRACT COMPACr / ICOMPACT Cou, j i ♦ t f8.00'-ter I / l pNATE O REMOVAL j PS WITH POST - OFFICE VERIFY THEY _�. MEET CITY CODE ` ` - O O �, 000 FENGE / Ix MECHANICAL / ARCHITECTURAL FOR / TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAILS ' • r` $ s R\ \ _ BICYCLE RACKS •1•- o�, / (SEE ARCHITECTURAL FOR -_.. BICYCLE RACK GETA LS) / \ l' r 1 r \ ems`. PER MNUTCD MANUAL 1 SIGN i 014- .g SLIDE SIGN BOX BACK ON EXISTING PYLON \ TO MEET 5' SETBACK REQUIREMENT JJ PILO, f PER MMNCDMAf1UgISIO"f rr "DO Nor ENTER" SIGN PER M -1fCO I X 2e / J� N We (POOL. Note: Curb type e612 sham: --tar for other curb types- 2- Nate: Where contour indleate, Ignore 0.75"/ft elope In ' ted above and roalah adjoining pavement sbpe to prevent gutter from-Pording". - BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE, TYPE LV 4 (LWIE450308) TACK COAT. 3151 Y - BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE, TYPE LV 3 (LVNWWOWE1) Fr 5" - CIA55 5, 100x CRUSHED LIMESTONE I rAPPRovEo su6GRnBE NOTE VERIFY ADEQUACY OF PAVEMENT SECTION WITH ENGINEER AFTER SUBGRADE SOILS ARE EXPOSED AND BEFORE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT IS PLACED. 8612 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER 2 CURB & GUTTER BEAVERTAIL 3 PAVEMENT SECTION C2 NO SCALE C2 NO SCALE C2 NO SCALE - uwiearra - m'-tt '� e.a. o>mwa w.:o a w w+n F- nCpP'00.weu �eMiea,r ,., ua`•., � �.ee�e,na .b.�,,,eNa. � 41 '� ouxa eeeeve T'�a ew/: �.� wraw.r, _ `. o+rs wo: avca.oww.� vM1�'T•;. Iua arA STANDARD DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE c---IcmreLo r fHfile:WNOpNleian SITE .DATA SITE AREA = 51,996 SOFT Z j EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA = 42;839 SOFT ` POST CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS AREA = 40,688 SOFT 78 r' PARKING STALLS REQUIRED S0. Fr. STALLS MAIN BUILDING 7,849 TOTAL 7,849 X 10 STALLS/1,000 SO. Fr. = 78 10% REDUCTION OF PARKING REQUIREMENT BASED ON TRANSIT AVAILABILITY: 78 STALLS X 10% - 7.8 STALLS (7 STALL REDUCTION) TOTAL PARKING STALLS REQUIRED = 78 - 7 = 71 STALLS ALLOWABLE COMPACT STALLS = 71 STALLS X 20% = 14 STALLS REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING = 71 STALLS X 5% = 4 BICYCLE STALLS PARKING STALLS PROVIDED STANDARD STALLS COMPACT STALLS ACCESSIBLE STALLS TOTAL 68 4 4 76 - Q�-" (�( - ce,1xT �wre Im swecc o SITE NOTES Qt - All dimensions between curbing and to radius points are to face of curb. 0 - All dimensions abutting curbs are to back of curb. Q - All curb and gutter on private property shall be type B-612 as,per Detail 1/C2 unless otherwise noted. Q4 - All sidewalk shall be as per Detail 5/C2 unless otherwise noted. 05 - All parking stall striping width is 9.00' unless otherwise noted. ©- All stall striping on parking lot curves is radial and 9.00' wide at inside of radius unless noted otherwise. 07 - Remove curb cut/entrance and restore curb & gutter/street per City requirements. CIVIL LEGEND • — BOUNDARY/ROW/BLOCK LINE ----- EASEMENT ED PROPOSED CONCRETE _j PROPOSED STD. DUTY BITUMINOUS SURVEY LEGEND FINISHED GRADE TOOLED CONTROL JOINT UNLESS NOTED APPROVED JOINT SEALANr- CONCREfE--/7 1 3/4' CHAMFER / - JLV 4" - SAND BASE / COMPACTED SUBGRADE I/2• PRE -FORMED EXPANSION JOINT 30' OC MAXIMUM OR AS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON MANS ALSO INSTALL WHERE WALK ABUTS FIXED OBJECTS. 4 CONCRETE SIDEWALK PATIO C2 NO SCALE N 0 10 20 40 60 Scale in Feet C2 trash enclosure ao80 IM111-w s screen fence a0a0 114'=1'-0' ----------------------- }-------------------( oeann ewale�ee+1 Mpppit � ' la.1m . � �ooriwmoo meenNm �� u'�r� lEe111514 eMiNOdNpCYHf6I.Cle nuaxexauNle:.11�ry gnawpeMx // �e �moomnroene BCE MQEel MINI _ _ 2y_a . INII(4M IICAt®KJWN 1 '� +'i' OG IMx a4 4 NCL 1N' .YO .m iDre�N°eeep�s 1� � e�iue�Nm nec�oalc taro-er aNee 2 bicycle rack soap 1M. a Iw' SYMBOL KEY DECIDUOUS TIME - TO BE DETER"42P CCN FERCUS TREE - TO BE DEMMINED FCS - FLOUERNS CHOICE SPIREA R M - %ffALO .IINIF'ER + KFG - KARL FOERSTER REED GRASS RV N i�PIN PIN � " site and landscape plan e060 1:20�1'A' 65TH 66f � i W (PUB1 STREET t n k 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tonek.com Pizza Luce 800 WEST 66TH STREET RICHFIELD, MN PL Management 119N. Forth Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612)334-9576 ",w.9k— BKBM Engineers 6930 Brooklyn Blvd Mpis., MN 55429 (763)843.0420 Premier Restaurant Equipment CO. 7120 Northland Terrace Minneapolis, MN 55428 (763)544.8800 Rehderand Associates 3440 Federal Drive, Suite 110 Eagan, MN 55122 (651)452.5051 IherebyowsyM d4sp{w. 'pareMu.w rho—mpod a pmpmd buuu em a dutyrwnwd w"h under 0M bws sM Wmkroe ' kenneM e. piper 12.27.2011 nano date 023542 rcepsenember s191wMre scale 1:20" = 1'-0" name rdhinws/kep planning revision 01.09.11 permit set 12.27.11 pricing, planning revw 12.22.11 site plan NORTH a06O wpAMT—k2011 GENERAL NOTES: L PROVIDE DUPLEX OUTLETS CENTERED ABOVE ALL YRIDOUIS. 2. PROVIDE BLACK SUXTCIZ5 AND PLATE COVERS M BAR AND DW45 AREAS. i VERFY NEIOMB OF OUTLETS WITH KITC}iN CONSULTANT AND OUNER A KITCHEN CONSULTANT TO PROVIDE LOCATIONS OF OUTLETS R?WIRED FOR KITCHEN AND BAR EOWPPENT. 5. COORDMATE MILLWORK OUTLET LOCATIONS WITH MILLWOR'. CONTRACTOR. e. REFER TO KITCHEN CONSULTANT ORAMNGS FOR CON-RENDOWE RFOF411AVO L T. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY POUER IS SUPPLIED TO PYLON 84K PROVIDE TPER AND LK+HT SENSOR B. REFER TO REFLECTED CEILW. PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREI'ENT& ELECTRICAL KEY 0 DUPLEX ELEC. OUTLET i WAD MAQ OUTLET ® FLUSH MOUNT QUAD ELEC. FLOOR OUTLET C DEDICATED EEC. LOUTLET 1ILPM40 E 4 DATA 4 DATA/ TELEPHONE $ su6TCH PROVIDE FUJRVATA FOR EXTERIOR SEAR CAMERA furniture/electrical plan - main level (5,008 g.s.f. a140 311611'-0• = 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879.8152 www.tanek.com Pizza Luce 800 WEST 66TH STREET RICHFIELD, MN PL Management 119 N. Forth Street Minneapolis, MN 65401 (612)334.9576 sbueb,rel angllwer BKBM Engineers 5930 Brooklyn Blvd Mpls., MN 55429 (763)843.0420 kitchen e0ut —' Premier Restaurant Equipment CO. 7120 Northland Terrace Minneapolis, MN 55428 (763)544-8800 Rehder and Associates 3440 Federal Drive, Suite 110 Eagan, MN 55122 (651)452.5051 I h—by ce1Ud tllM this pl n spo on or,epoM1wm PmPmd bY,ne ae undef rW dk.. pGAb aM 0mt1 emaduiy 2oeflsatl aGYleG unEef Ule bws Wtlw slab o, n4nnesofa. kenne3l e: piper 12272011 name dale 023542 Ac-1—b. si9naNrs scale 3/16" = V-0" name rdh/nws/kep planning revision 01.09.11 permit set 12.27.11 pricing, planning revw 12.22.11 fumitureleleo-main level NORTH a 140 m"IW Te 2011 GENERAL ELECTRICAL NOTES: L PROVIDE BLACK SUXTCHEe AND PLATE COVERS N BANOET AREA 2. VERIFY REMITS OF OUTLETS WITH KITCHEN CONSULTANT AND OUTER 3. KnCREN CONSULTANT TO PROVIDE LOCATIONS OF OUTLETS REQUIRED FOR KITCHEN AND STORAGE ROOMS. 4, cooRDNATE MILLUIORK OUTLET LOCATIONS WITH MILLWORK CONTRACTOR S. SEE ELEVATOR ECIIIFME IT ORAU"W FOR REQUIREMENTS WITHIN MACkIHE ROOM AND ELEVATOR PIT. 6. REFER TO pL1 IRA FD(TURE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL POWR WITHIN RIISTROO A, ELECTRICAL KEY 9 DUPLEX E.EG OUTLET QUAD ELEO. OUTLET E FLUSH MOUNT QUAD ELEC. BOOR OUTLET 00EDICATED ELEC. OUTLET 4 TELEPHONE 4 DATA 4 DATA/ TELEI-40NE $ s1WrcH furniture/electrical plan -lower level 4,553 g.s.less storage = 2,841 g.s.f. forParking) B141 3n6�1'-0' t n k 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 12:612-679-8225 F:612.879-8162 www.tansk.00m Pizza Luce 800 WEST 66TH STREET RICHFIELD, MN PL Management 119 N. Forth Street Minneapolis, MN 65401 (612)334.9576 atrucWdengh— BKBM Engineers 5930 Brooklyn Blvd Mpls., MN 55429 (763)843.0420 imchen puiprtanl Premier Restaurant Equipment CO. 7120 Northland Terrace Minneapolis, MN 55428 (763) 644-8800 Rehderand Associates 3440 Federal Drive, Suite 110 Eagan, MN 55122 (651)452-5051 I haeby-* Oat Mis 0.. sp"dgraron w repod preps dbyM auMwmydadan*rAsf naid Mafi ana duy raba"d ad*l undo Me km ormae dlmre w. ko—tha pips 12.272011 so dale 1rn542 Bkeasoaan- uB scale 3116" =1'-0" name rdh/nws/kep planning revision 01.09.11 permit set12,27.11 pricing, planning revw 12.22.11 fumiture/electdc-lower level a141 copydgNTaaNc2011 A SAND, REPAIR REPLACE AND PW EXTERIOR WOOD U11ERE REOTIIRED B. SALVAGE EXTERIOR BROC FOR REUSE C. CARE IS TO BE TAKEN NOT TO DISTURB THE EXISTING STRUOTURE, ITS CONNECTIONS ,MID / OR WALLS THAT ARE TO REMAIN D. AFTER EXISTING SHINGLES HAVE SEEM REMOVED, INSPECT EXISTING SHEATHING FOR DAMAGE OR ROT. I- 'ROOF SHINGLES AND INTERIOR TRUSS MriILATION BATTS TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH R36 PO.YISO AND STANDING SEMI METAL ROOF SYSTEM WITH MINIM B YEAR WARRANTY. APPLY ICE 4 WATER SHIELD TO RIDGES, VALLEYS, AND AT EAVES TO 24' M OE EXMRIOR WALLS. 115E HIGH -TEMP, COIA WEATHER PRODUCT 40 MIL THIOfNESS MIL F. .EXTERIOR WALL INSULATION TO BE A MIL R-B GATT INSULATION. ENSURE VAPOR BARRIER IS SEALED VAPOR TIGHT AT ALL LOCATIONS, NEW MIDI'* ADDITION AND SHED ROOF AT 2.12 PITCH MINN'AM - MP .YISO CORRUGATED METAL SDNG I �� "AS F ANWINDOW WITH LO-_ FRICK WAINSCOT , DOOR A ND NTEOBREAIK ND. ALUM. WN9WS- - - - -yIBSW ROOF --'- -I�III H I1. --I NM,W.GLASSMIPERED GLASS - - I' NLGLA-S, I I ------tII --------- ------- WHERE - -- - --- }----------------L----1-� MECHANICAL EQUIP. WELL ------------- _ -- — uWm� i - - - - _ - - l= _- - - _ -- --- _ =`___. „_: '.__.__ ---- __• _ = __ - - = __• r ==_ _�l.�___ - _ —_ V ■■'■ ■■ Ile■.■■..ii ■ ■■' L■it�� _ = = - - — — — -- -- ------ --------y--4 _____________________. �._IIII,iIiIIIIIILLIIIiIIJIIIIIIIiIIIJIIIIIL—IIIIIIII((IIIIIIIIIIIIIII(IIIIIIflull(IIIIL��-________I�Il�illl.______________.ummiimiiWiiomuuNiiiliml.____„mmioomiluuuoiWi,iiimu—===--______: NEW WM. DOORIAND -/I I NEW HM. DOOR AND � I I � I I � lEW ADDmIFO ONR I � BRICK. WAMOOT FRANE I --, I I FANS I f -_ -_ I 1 = _ I ELEVATOR AIQ STAIR L C_4 1 I [ 7 ` I I --- I J I I I I I I I I 6 WEST ELEVATION m0 Ire• . r-m• OEM FOR NEW ELM ANO STAR LAYOUT. 4 SOUTH EXI5TING ELEVATION re•Grm• DEMO OPENNGS FOR NEW CLERESTORY - WINDOW MONITORS, DEMO ALL ROOFING SHINGLES FOR NEW BUILT-UP INSULATION. DEMO CARPORT AND BAT WINDOW DEMO NEW RO. FOR EXIT DOOR AND FRAME �� ♦`- SALVAGE BRIOC DEMO EXISTING ��-,OEM - - - - - - - - - - ---�, CCRF.ATE NBU ROU H OPENINGS BALYAGE BR« FCR RI]18E. : WEST EXISTING ELEVATION Ire• • F-0• 13JIitM QI-M z J�J I I 1II ----I11 11 NEW InER OSIMAK J�---� tEW CORRUGAT D FEL4L DING 'WNDOW3WriH LOW.E --- N IEI� GLASS. TEMPERED REOb IyL 5 EAST ELEVATION Acme Ire' G r.m• DEMO EXISTING On VESTIBME, CMNOPT AID MASONRY PLANTERS. 3 NORTH EXISTING ELEVATION me Ire• . r-0• DEMO OPENINGS FOR NEW CLERESTORY ��_-� -•1 WIDOW MONITORS. 1 EAST EXISTING ELEVATION 00 Val. r-0• DEMO ALL ROOFING SHNGLES FOR NEW BUILT-UP INSULATION. Mw EXISTING FINISH SH OPENINGS. SIDING BELOW. FOR REIM AND WEI•t Pizza Luce 800 WEST 66TH STREET RICHFIELD, MN PL Management 119 N. Forth Street Minneapolis, MN 65401 (612)334.9576 suuau �.GgS.G. BKBM Engineers 5930 Brooklyn Blvd Mpis., MN 55429 (763)843.0420 M4chen equlpinent Premier Restaurant Equipment CO. 7120 Northland Terrace Minneapolis, MN 55428 (763)644-8800 Rehder and Associates 3440 Federal Drive, Suite 110 Eagan, MN 66122 (661)452.5051 I hereby owdfy tlut lMG plan. .wdS.".—pml was Mpe b/rrte w,Mxmy $ed 9upeNbbn antl NM I mn a tluh' r.enretl a NWAantlerMIs- ofWea ef"d—M. k.e e. piper 12272011 rem. dab #23542 I —number ellreb,m scale 3116" = V-0" name rdh/nws/kep planning revision 01.09.11 permit set 12.27.11 pricing, planning revw 12.22.11 exterior elevations a200 copyrllM Tanek 2011 600 66th St W - Conditional Use Permit 1 /2012 Surrounding Zoning R MR-2 / MR-2 RICHFIELD LAKE O� Oe 65th St W P3R �ae C-1 C-2 800 66th St W MR-1 R 0 R-1 C-2 66th St W PMR PMR PC-2 PMR MR-3 PMR PC-2 LEGEND �1 C-1 - Community Commercial C-2 - General Commercial PC-2 - Planned General Commercial R - Single -Family Residential R-1 - Low Density Single -Family Residential MR-2 - Multi -Family Residential N MR-3 - High Density Multi -Family Residential PMR - Planned Multi -Family Residential W E 0 62.5 125 250 375 500 S Feet 800 66th St W - Conditional Use Permit 1 /2012 Comprehensive Plan Designations HDR HDR PRK RICHFIELD LAKE O� O� 65th St W HDR V MIXED L D MIXED R 800 66th St W MIXED 66th St W LDR R MIXED PRK MIXED MIXED MIXED MIXED LEGEND PRK - Park LDR - Low Density Residential HDR - High Density Residential MIXED - Mixed Use 0 62.5 125 250 375 500 Feet MIXED MIXED MIXED N W + E S AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CASE # PUBLIC HEARING I 1-SP-01, 11-VAR- 01 J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PC MEETING DATE: JANUARY 239 2012 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Public hearing regarding a request for site plan approval to allow construction of new retail auto parts store (O'Reilly Auto Parts) at 1120-66th Street East. Consider a request for variances to allow the proposed development to exceed the maximum front setback requirement, reduce interior side and rear setbacks along the western and northern property lines, reduce the required sidewalk width, reduce the required parking stall width, and to reduce irriqation requirements. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Recommend approval of a site plan and variances for construction of a retail store at 1120-66th Street East. II. BACKGROUND O'Reilly Automotive Stores (O'Reilly) has applied for approval of the attached site plan to allow for the construction of a 6,872 square foot retail store and related improvements at 1120-66th Street East. This site is currently vacant; the previous structure having been demolished in December 2009. O'Reilly initially contacted the City staff in early 2010 to discuss the possibility of a retail store at this site. Staff provided initial comments on their rough sketch and continued discussions with O'Reilly representatives through the spring. In June 2010, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in the City of Minnetonka v. Krummenacher case and made variances essentially impossible for cities to grant. O'Reilly decided that this site was not workable for them without variances and no application was submitted. In the fall/winter of 2010/2011, the City conducted a series of public meetings with residents and business owners along 66th Street between Cedar Avenue and Portland Avenue to discuss the future of this corridor. This effort culminated in the acceptance of the City Council's acceptance of the 66th Street Corridor Plan and later in the adoption of zoning ordinance amendments that would help to implement this plan, specifically reduced building setbacks that would encourage developers to locate their buildings closer to the street, but also increase the overall buildable area of individual properties. In October of this year, O'Reilly submitted an application for requesting consideration of their site plan and a number of variances. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • In evaluating a site plan, the Planning Commission and City Council shall consider its compliance with the following: a) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the City's development guides, including the Comprehensive Plan and any redevelopment plans established for the area; • The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Community Commercial. This designation accommodates a wide variety of retail goods and services that are intended to serve residents of Richfield and the immediate vicinity around Richfield. • The 66th Street Corridor Revitalization Plan ("Plan") suggests buildings be constructed near 66th Street with parking to the rear or side of the building to provide for an enhanced pedestrian experience along the corridor. A market study completed as part of the Plan also notes that the area is currently served by a number of auto -oriented businesses and suggests a greater mix of under -represented businesses such as restaurants and neighborhood retail be incorporated into the corridor. b) Consistency with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; • The proposal meets impervious surface, landscaping/screening, and architectural requirements. The proposal requests variances from maximum front setback, minimum side and rear setbacks, minimum sidewalk width, minimum parking stall dimensions and minimum irrigation requirements. These requests are discussed below. • City Code requires 31 parking stalls (1/200 sf — 10% = 30.9). Per Code, an applicant may request a modification of the minimum required number of parking spaces by submitting a study of anticipated demand that has been prepared by a professional engineer with expertise in traffic and parking analysis. • An independent parking study was conducted by Anderson Engineering, Inc. and supports a reduced requirement based on a peak demand plus employee count of 12. The applicant's proposal for 25 parking spaces is more than double the anticipated need. City Transportation Engineer Jeff Pearson concurs with the study results and a reduction is supported by staff. c) Creation of a design for structures and site features which promote the following: i. An internal sense of order among the buildings and uses; 9 The site has a single building. ii. The adequacy of vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking; • A walkway is provided to facilitate pedestrian movement from the sidewalk along 66th Street to the door; however, this sidewalk does not meet the minimum width requirement of 6 feet. • Parking stalls do not meet minimum width requirements and the parking aisle exceeds requirements. iii. Energy conservation through the design of structures and the use of landscape materials and site grading; • The proposal meets impervious surface and landscaping requirements. iv. The minimization of adverse environmental effects on persons using the development and adjacent properties. • A Stormwater Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department. In addition to the general site plan criteria that must be considered, findings must be made related to each requested variance. A variance from Code requirements may be granted only when all conditions (a-f) are found to exist. Requested variances are as follows: 1. Permission to exceed maximum front setback of 60 feet. Proposal is for a front building setback of 79 feet. 2. Permission to reduce the interior side setback adjacent to a residential property from 15 feet to 5 feet. 3. Permission to reduce parking lot setback adjacent to a residential property from 15 feet to 12.5 feet. 4. Permission to reduce pedestrian walkway width from 6 feet to 5 feet. 5. Permission to reduce minimum stall width from 9 feet to 8.5 feet. 6. Permission to reduce irrigation requirements and leave area north of privacy fence un-irrigated. a) The applicant establishes that there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the official control. "Practical difficulties" is taken to mean that the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by official controls. Economic considerations along do not constitute practical difficulties; 1-6. The applicant states that compliance with official controls prohibits use of the site for a retail auto parts store as the site is not large enough to accommodate the size of their prototypical building and provide adequate parking and access. 1-6. Staff agrees that use of the site for a retail store is reasonable and that access and parking are reasonable concerns that must be addressed. b) There are unusual or unique circumstances that apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and such circumstances were not created by any persons presently having an interest in the property; c) a 1-6. The applicant states that the increased setbacks adjacent to residential properties along the north and west sides constitute unusual circumstances. 1-6. Staff agrees that proximity of residential increases setbacks; however, that is the case with all properties along 66th Street. Staff does believe that other unique circumstances exist. The requirement (by Hennepin County) to remove direct access to 66th Street complicates site design, specifically related to delivery of products. Additionally, the existing fence and long-standing relationship with the adjacent residential neighbor to the north (fence is located approximately 10 feet south of property line) is unusual and does not apply to any other sites that staff is aware of. The requested variances would not alter the character of the neighborhood by impairing light/air supply to adjacent properties, substantially increasing congestion, increasing the danger of fire or endangering public safety, substantially diminish property values or have a detrimental or injurious impact on surrounding properties; 1-6. The applicant states that the requested variances will allow redevelopment of the site and not negatively impact the neighborhood. 1-3, & 6. Staff does not believe that the setback or irrigation variances would be detrimental in any of the ways listed. 4. & 5. Staff believes that reduced parking stall widths and a reduced pedestrian walkway will unnecessarily increase the possibility of property and/or personal injury. The variance requested is the minimum to alleviate the practical difficulty; 1-6. The applicant states that the requested variances are the minimum necessary to construct their building. 1-3. Staff believes that the building can be brought into closer compliance with all setback requirements, even eliminating the rear parking setback variance requirement, through minor parking lot adjustments. Staff recommends that the 7 parking stalls immediately south of the entry be reduced to the standard 19-foot length dimension and that the drive aisle be reduced to standard 24-foot width. The applicant has stated that they believe a wider drive aisle reduces parking lot conflicts. City staff has found 24-foot drive aisles to be adequate throughout the City, in both large and small lots for retailers ranging from restaurants to home improvement centers. This reduction will allow for the building to be moved an additional 3 feet to the south, eliminating the need for a parking lot setback variance at the northern lot Fine and increasing the degree of compliance with both the residential setback at the northwest corner and the front building setback. 4. & 5. Staff believes that the applicant can comply with both walkway and parking stall width requirements without detriment to .the proposal. The parking study supplied by the applicant indicates that the peak parking demand for this business is 12 stalls. The proposed plan provides more than double this need. Parking stall and walkway widths can be adjusted with minimal parking loss and the application will remain in excess of peak demand requirements. 6. Staff believes that the long-standing relationship between this property and the property to the north establishes a reason for leaving this portion of the site (north of the privacy fence) without irrigation. The applicant acknowledges ultimate responsibility for the maintenance of this area. e) The variance will not essential alter the essential character of the locality; and 1-6. The applicant states that the proposal will enhance the existing character of the neighborhood. 1-6. Staff does not believe that the requested variances will alter the essential character of the locality. f) The variance requested is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 1-6. The applicant believes that the proposal is consistent with the general purpose and intent of all plans and regulations. 1-6. Staff believes that additional minor changes can be made to the proposal to bring it closer to the intent of City Ordinances. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Staff recommends approval of the following requested variances: #6. Irrigation limit to end at location of existing privacy fence to the north. • Staff recommends modifications of the following requested variances: #1. Approve a front setback not to exceed 76 feet (to be achieved through minor parking stall and aisle modifications. #2. Approve a side setback reduction to 5 feet for no more than 24.5 feet at the northwest corner of the building. • Staff recommends denial of the following variances: #3. Deny a parking lot setback variance as this can be eliminated through minor parking stall and aisle modifications. #4. Deny a variance for a 5-foot pedestrian walkway as this can be addressed through minor parking adjustments. #5. Deny a variance for reduced parking stall widths as the applicant's parking study has indicated that parking exceeds peak demands. • Staff recommends approval of the proposed site plan with the above -listed modifications related to variance requests. C. FINANCIAL • The required application fee has been paid. D. LEGAL • Notification: Notification of this hearing was published in the Sun Current Newspaper in accordance with State and Local requirements. Mailed notice was sent to owners and residents within 350 feet of the subject property. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Recommend approval of the proposed site plan and variances with modifications. • Recommend denial of the proposed site plan and/or variances. V. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed plans • Parking study memorandum • Area zoning and land use maps VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Mark Wold, O'Reilly Automotive Stores I C 0 Hdmon6524 1Aw DOSIINO 80mG I( 1 R'KhBdd, N 5423 2 STORY-WMRANE-BSNT 1 1 i Doc Na 3979MI FTE=846.5, 111=19.8 6524 127H AVE S I LOT 7 I I eEONsroEoivc I m 15' an a PARKING ei SETBACK LINE Yman JAHN som S89 47'14 E 1 77. 45 � 6535 nth A. S _ I -one ^5 t - 17 a RMI.,id, NN 55123 I ri 28.87' 14AC 8.00' ...... I 0ac N. 6OW359 ) .6 - — [OT 17 m 11-'..11/CPI1D .. 23 T g ZONING: R 12 i RESIDENCE .. - • 15 21 TRASH�NCDOSUR WTI 12 .:: } ': is?::.3. I 17Lr ( w x O'ReillyAuta Parts L. ;: CJ i — — — — — — — — — — — - 1410 SW..'CF.EOAYGSNEE)S738E 10 OOR .. } bE.•.:-.'� j 17 tMF-�•L.��Tj ( M 19Tl1RY�-"R#' • N4 JfCBSMT I �i O `^I t N q cz r_� FPE=837.0 TH ST 2 ...... :::,ol:..�12452:. e.w -Z) ""''�L�ej ii00 E Ri ST 71.33' •::-19.00.. .. -� �O W (p U io is 6 i ':i '.:•: v:. ':::c . .:. '.:.: '.: r .::? 4"1 LOT 9 16 .............. ... 9i } 4 5P-14.•" _ Bank's lkntessari Sd+oc4 Ilse•- 1100 rAlk St E Rich . NN 5423 ... :. '::•:::::::: vr..:. �:::.....:}rr:c::•:-•-i�r:r: "::, . . Doc N 6889176 i•::.o :::::: :...:.... ........ 1t.::i•ir :•r:•i. rlr:':•c: �:'::: ...............1 s WOOL M _ a5 ea 3 ZON1 G C-2 3 ::..:..:..... ........ _ _ s....' }. 5'DRAINAGE a . '35PACE5�8:50'• UTILITY PER REASON i .=25.SD''::: ". ':. •: :':' ':.�::.�:':.::•::.: ':............. 4th ADDITION $• 3'..... 'r.'...... }:.: n q ZU LI � RETA N89 47'14"W ARKACK ) t 127.55 4 c 17 POINT OF BEGINNING FOR SITE I [ DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT PARALLEL AND PERPENDICULAR TO EAST (BITUMINOUS—HENNEPIN COUNTY-35 ,N P.H.—MINOR ARTERIAL] i PROPERTY LINE (S OWWW E) 66TH STREET EAST A.K.A. CTY RD 53 9 N 1 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 22 WALB: V . 27 20 D 20 k0 60 6RAPI1If. 5GA E — FEE: ZONING: C-2 9 �P sr sTF REFER TO LANDSCAPE r, �� PLANS TOR PLANTINGS N� rrss qU 1 SYMBOLS LEGEND RBm TO SUNYEY PON EXISTING OONOITION SYMBOLS LEGEND NEW BUMMING CONSTReCT10N ARRA OF CONCIREN AREA OF PAYING NBW POLE SIGN LOCATION NKW CONCREM PAYING BLOCK T NEW LIGHT POLE LOCATION NEW FENCE CONSTRUCTION 'e-�-o-'- Tm PRORCTION FMCE (SEE BBTAR.2JLil GENEFUL NOTES: g g A REFER TO PROJECT MANUAL FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. B. ALL SITE DIMENSIONS TO THE GUTTER LINE OF CURB, CONCRETE OR PROPERTY LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS BY DETAILED INSPECTION PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID AND STARTING CONSTRUCTION C. COORDINATE WORK NTH OTHER SITE RELATED DEVELOPMENT 5 3 DRAWINGS. 6 D. REFER TO STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SIDEWALKS ¢ ADJACENT TO FOUNDATIONS KEY NOTES: �- OCONCRETE PAVING: REFER TO DETAIL 1/C3. m d n r+a ALTERNATE d. a ASPHALT PAVING REFER TO DETAil2/C3. peg REFER TO PROJECTMANUAL 4 OZ CONCRETE PAVING: met REFER TO DETAIL i/C•3. O CONCRETE CURB: 0.EFER TO DETAIL 3103- [� �4 CONCRETE SIDEWALK: W MR REFER TO DETAIL 47C3. O CONCRETE DOOR LANDING. `a. t: 4 m REFER TO DETAIL 4103 AND STRUCTURAL DETAILS. RAMP PAVING 6/2 AS INDICATED. LANDING CAN BE POURED MONOLITHIC IFLANDING Gi CONCRETE PAVING IS USED Nei "Ill © STEEBOLLARD: e d' REFERRTO DETAIL 61C3. PROVIDE (2)AT TRASH PAD AND Qv m m OVERHEAD DOOR, PROVIDE(9) AT SIDEWALK REFER TO mm ;e dig STRUCTURAL PLAN FOR LOCATION. e C5 45 HANDICAP PARKING SIGN: �i „ REFER TOOETAR 71C3. c � OB CONCRETE HANDICAP RAMP: - REFS? TO DETAN- 9IC3 2 Og HANDICAP PARKING SYMBOL as 2 REFER TO DETAIL 6/C3. K 10 HANDICAP ACCESS UNLOADING ZONE.• SLOPE2% MAX. EACH WAY (ADA COMPUANT) AND STRIPE AS SHOWN. F� G W RE 71 W-V' TALL BIXJRY ENCLOSURE (METAL CAP W T B GENERND AL CONTRACTOR. REFER FLASHING TO BE PROVIDED BY GENEFGtL CONTRACTOR. REFER V TO CAP FLASHING IN DETAIL 7/A3- COLOR TO BE GREEN): REFER TO DETAIL IVC3 AND STRUCTURAL 12 SCREEN FENCE: a Lu cn L%. REFER TO DETAIL 12JC3. U 13 CONCRETE BUMPER BLCCK: 8'wx 5%x BA" LONG CONCRETE. ANCHOR TO PAVING WITH ( 2 ) T6' LONG 94 REBAR (TO SIT LEVEL NTH PAVING). 14 PARKING LOT LIGHTING. REFER TO SITE UTILITIES PLAN FOR LOCATION AND TYPE. 15 UMTTSOFNEWPAVING: Typl MATCH EXISTING PER CITY AND OR STATE STANDARDS. 18 BICYCLE PARKING' G INVERTED LV2 BICYCLE RACKS BY CYCLE -SAFE MODEL 1270OG OR APPROVED EQUAL p O CONCRETECURB: NEW CONCRETE CURB TO MATCH EXISTING ADJACENT CURB. � '�•V ��••••++JJII 18 STRIPING. jpl�Y� PROVIDE VWIDE PARKING LOT STRIPING AS SHOWN. USE HIGHWAY MARKING PAINT -YELLOW (2 COATS) 19 CURB CUT O 36' CURB OPENING. REFER TO SHEET Cl. 20 SIGN LOCATION. SIGN FURNISHED AND INSTALLED BY OWNER. REFER TO SITE UTIUTIES PLAN FOR DETAILS. z 21 CONCRETE DRIVE APRON: TOBE INSTALLED Phi CITY AND OR STATE DESIGN STANDARDS IF O NO STANDARDS PROVIDE CONCRETE PAVING CONSTRUCTION AS SHOWN ON DETAIL 11C3.CONCRETE O SIDEWALK TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY AND OR STATE STANDARDS (TO MATCH EXISTING SIDEWALK). 23 RETAINING CURB: [� 1: z It O z REFER TO SHEET 01 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 1✓ N Z 24 5'-0'YVIDE PEDESTRIAN PATH: PROVIDE PARKING LOT STRIPING AS -SHOWN. USE HIGHWAY Z N ¢ d MARKING PAINT -YELLO`N(2 COATS) n w x u. min © NU3v � COT1M # z DATE: 10.19.11 FU REVISION DATE: 12.2•I1 1-1042 NOi FOR CON R ClION 1 1 i I I jSS 0 H Im Ave S mnNG No -me RTU15d6. IN w 2 STORY-NMID AME-Bw 6 Doe Na 397989E F241A .1, VEILS 524 21H AVEIS I LOT 7 I ZONING. R I RESIDENCE 1 16' BSL 6 PARKING ACK UNm I / SETBE 1 7A15935 HBO, A. s m I aS89'47'14 E 1 7 45' 17 'Q RWlfod, MN 55423 1 8:67' t4A0' B.00' . Ilse Na 608M 1 LOT 17 .... ........ ::. .. . 23 ;•iT?::.::•:... _ :..•! :�..: Q-5•:. _ ZONING. R 2 •:.:1': RESIDENCE I S :: �.... � � � � : � -�•: 21 �� .• • IRO F 9CwE .::.:}..m :�.:•::._ .. •.M all 17 TRASH ENC O§UR � •. .. Pam....'-` 14 O'Rei1(yAufo Paris x �1yy ......... 1 FT. 6B72 m FLIMEI.E W fow0910.0P .F.E ON ..'.•i-T m:.. • :• •. I r 0 $UCCfEtfRYI'9HEETST68E f00� •:':: ..14 � :• .'�i:•'.•.... I STOR�YGkIl EC95MT N FFE=B37.0, HT 24.2 .3 '• 441•;'m 1100 E TH ST i W 71.33' •.r}19.06' ..f' ,® 24.25' :. 8_00° I Ir LOT 9 B^.RR4 Mont-m SchA ILK I100 666E St E Bidd, MN S5423 0a 6689175 S HOOL ZO141 C C-2 5' DRAINAGE & UTILITY ESLMT PER BJASDN 1 4m ADDITION 8AP = lu,uP1. �.................. 4 ...... 1 O P •� �•:�::•{}{:i•:i:•iii:�'::LiP � 1 )'...::i{ti::�:•:::18: i•f::•ti.::��i:' 14 0'::•: PACES L$8.00'=45.00'''..:.: - -3050' '" ' • '•^ 'a:.::..-.. ............. .. .. S::.�. '::::.73PACE3�8.60'- B:SV �:: ::•.:. •1::• ":. .. .. ��sm �®� t 1 (BIRA1INOUS—HENNE.PIN COUNTY-35 M.P.H.—MINOR ARTERIAL) 66TH STREET EAST A.K.A. CITY RD 53 c�I 1 4 POINT OF BEGINNING FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT PARALLEL AND PERPENDICULAR TO EAST PROPERTY LINE (S OVW30' E) ZONING. • C-2 N of cat 1 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN its Sala � SST REFER 70 LANDSCAPE C2 BCALET r ?O O 20 40 60 / r F? PLANS FOR PLANTINGS ORA,PFIIG ZALE - FEET OJ vgwl as ky oc a t44 e7�aa- vV.- V.Wq'WWk SYMBOLS LEGEND Rom TO SURVEY POR KIDS LNG CONDITION SYMBOLS LEGEND ® NEW BNTLBING CONSTRICTION AMA OF CONCHWM AREA OF PAVING NEW POLE SIGN LOCATION NEW CONCRIFIR PAYING BLOCK fC� NEW LIGHT POLE LOCATION NEW PENCE CONSTRUCTION b---o-- TONS PROTECTION FENCE (SEE ORTAIL 21161) GENERAL NOTF-w5v A REFER TO PROJECT MANUAL FORADOMONALREQUIREMENTS, B. ALL SITE DIMENSIONS TO THE GUTTER LINE OF CURB. CONCRETE OR PROPERTY LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS BY DETAILED INSPECTION PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID AND STARTING CONSTRUCTION. C. COORDINATE WORK WITH OTHER SITE RELATED DEVELOPMENT DRAWINGS. D. REPER TO STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SIDEWALKS ADJACENT TO FOUNDATIONS. KEY NOTES: -%-%ti PiOR C N" R CVTION a C2 of 3 I I I C 0 rlchncr. Jr. EWTNG BUMS 6624121h Ate S 2 STCRY-WOONFAM-BUT Rio. W. 3 9798654T FFF=546.5. HT=19.8 O91 652412TH AW S I LOOT 7 RESIDENCE 4 1w5 a SETBACK -ARK LINE 4 _ 4_ 4 4t WNwm 8: !ohnclta Onen ¢ e --'— Ssp• 7 1 "E . ¢ 6S35 Itth Ave S Yq _ Rldlfidd HN 55423 T-..') on K. 6C809 I ,_ _.�_. LOT 17 '[) .. ' 2 _ '` 'f1CPAD.; ): PAD:.....':.:'.:i •f _:i•: •g ZONING A RESIDENCE I " ... )., ..... 1:. :. ... - x 0"RR,effl Auto P//arff/s --------------"I 6B �OOR�dx7�iBD'F FL Qc AIfOAAI!(0. (.F 4 1 D SUCCEEDINGSHEETS70BE 400.00') ...}.. . 'tlS1R7G LGNG " I �' / m.: v. I STORY i50CN1E-884T FFE=aTLo HT=24.z V1; .. 1100E TH Sr " u . :. .I L7 - .$ :... d LOT 9 .. • '�;.. . ,. .. ... ` .. I+ ........ .. Remie 9 Nantemwi S:h..L In• :.': ' .. ... ... ......: :-::}': ': r: r::: '. `•• 1100 88th St E :. 3 :'...... �... �.:..:...'.:'::'::.... '... � : ':.:............:::'...:... ::• :•: •. Kid•Ge . HN 55423 .. ....:::::......._ ... ::.1...: -': }:: r.:., •....., '., Doc N . 6898176 ............... ....... •......... :... a:....' ^ ....1 j ... .. .... . . . S..00i. :............. . . ........ .. - ..r ...., t..... ZONI'G C-2 1 _ — — .r.35;..a........:::.... S' BRA & .:::.. UTILITY ESHNT PER ELIASON _ y 4tF. AOD:TON •t "" "� � RETAMMvO .N89 47 "W ARKMG- Z 127.55 SMACK' 081TUMINOUS-HENNEPIN COUNT -J5 M.P.H.-MINOR ARTERIAL) 66TH STREET EAST A.K.A. CTY RD 53 4 LANDSCAPE PLAN /1►, 0 1111111111� �� -IT ZONING: C-2 It S.(P Srsj. REFER O TLANDSCAPE r�q, F• PLANS FOR PLANTINGS N CGS' 4I' �Cq� aEFOR�� POSTS ARE TO BE 2A WOODEN POST OR LARGER, OR Z" O.D. STEEL PIPE, AT 4'-0' O.C. 1"STAPLES OR TIE WIRE ORANGE PLASTIC PROTECTION FENCING two WOODEN STRINGER TREE PROTECTION FENCE DETAIL = 1'4r 1 L $ CAL6P 3 4' 7 PLANTING SCHEDULE REFER TO PROJECT MANUAL FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, ALL PLANTINGS MAYBE SUBSTITUTED DUE TO REGION OR LOCAL REQUIREMENTS IF NECESSARY SYMBOL COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME QUANTITY SIZE Q PLANTING DETAIL AMERICAN LINDEN TILIA AMERICANA 1 2" CALIP€R 3A 2 PURPLE LEAF PLUM PRUNUS CERASiFERA 10 1 iZ CALIPER MIN. 5112 ALPINE CURRANT RIBES'GREEN MOUND' 51 5 GALLON MIX 412 GENERAL NOTES: A. REFER TO PROJECT MANUAL FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. B. SITE CONDITIONS BASED UPON SURVEY PROVIDED BY OWNER. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS BY DETAILED INSPECTION PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID AND BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. C. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. D. ALL PLANTING TYPES SHALL COMPLY WITH LOCAL GOVERNING CODES AND REGULATIONS CONFORM TO REQUIREMENTS OF�� PLANT UST AND TO THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN .AMERICAN 5 5 STANDARD OF NURSERY STOCK"AND-HORTICULTURAL STANDARDS" AS TO SPECIES, AGE, SIZE, AND PLANTING RECOMMENDATIONS. I- NO MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT THE ARCHITECT'S PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL ALTERNATE MIATERUs1S aaN. OF SIMILAR SIZE AND CHARACTER MAY BE CONSIDERED IF SPECIFIED PLANT MATERIALS CANNOT BE OBTAINED. d F. PLANT LOCATIONSARE APPROXIMATE. ADJUSTAS NECESSARY TO AVOID CONFLICTS. G: d G. QUANTITIES OF MATERIALS SHOWN ON LANDSCA-ING PLAN TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER QUANTITIES SHOWN ON PLANTING SCHEDULE. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FORVERIFYWGAI.L QUANTITIES ON LANDSCAPING PLAN. H. PROVIDE 4'TOPSOIL AT ALL 'OD, SEED AND PLANTINGAREAS. II�M {Tif GRADE SHALL READJUSTED FOR SOD THICKNESS. REFERTOCIVIL ei SITE GRADING PLAN FOR SLOPE REQUIREMENTS. P/J �e I. WHEN CLAY SOIL IS ENCOUNTERED IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE � LAWN OR THE INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIAL ITSHALL BE IMPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD TRADE PRACTICE w m J. REESTABLISH TURF IN AREAS 0;STURBED BY GRADING OR UTILITY TRENCHING IN THE RIGI IT -OF -WAY. r`a K. COORDINATE WORK`NIttH OTHER SITE RELATED DEVELOPMENT « �„ DRAWINGS. c KEY NOTES: ®_ a HYDRO MULCH 13EED AND STRAW: ti UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE' ALL AREAS DISTURBED Y ( ROED O In CONSTRUCTION ARF FIRST FIN E NE GRADED AND THEN � z '4 FOLLOWED BY HYDRO MULCH OR SEED AND STRAW OVER MINA' TOPSOIL STOCKPILED FROM SITE OR HAULED IN AS REQUIRED. F•. w O AREA OF • REFER TO DEZWLIIL2 DE 3 SHREDDED CYPRESS MULCH: m s� REFER TO DETAIL 272. >~ � O EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN: m PROTECT AS REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SYMBOLS LEGEND REFER TO SURVEY FOR EXISTING CONDITION SYMBOLS L£G£NO NEW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION L� AREA OF CONCRETE AREAOFPAV.YG I AREA OF EA CYPRESS COLOR T B MULCH {COLOR T09EAPPROVED BY i '''.'`-.'' '` ••"'-•' O'REILLY REPRESENTATIVE) p�-+-•-�--•'-7 AREA 800 ' ]j LA4NJ AREA 41411CH EXCEEDS 25% 8E'ZOF 9LOFETO BE PROVIDED WITH SOD. Or0 REFER TO GRADING PLAN 0 o IREEPROTECTIONPENCE (SEE DETAIL 21L1) E NEW CCKCRETE PAYING BLOCK �O NEW LIGHT POLE LOCATION NEWFENCE CONSTRUCTION AREAPL NTING EE REFER ro PLANTING SCHEDULE SC FOR SIZE AND TYPE AREA OFNEWSPRL'B I REFER TO PLANTING SCHEDULE e x� N NE WWI` Al a z O U N IIIII� o •III CN W z N N ? [—' C(ffitN A oRLMSJON AA.7C: 10-t9-1t 1 MIT.: 12.2-11 I-70.12, F'+"1 �TT F•'t W �Ir a L1 of 3 EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISH TWO TIERED PRE-ENGINEERED METAL CAP IF -SYSTEM (E.I.F.S.)-COLOR TO BE FLASHING- COLOR TO BE FIELD PAINTED PROJECTION I ••O'REILLY RED' STEM RED"TO MATCH E.I.F.S COLOR TOP OF MASONRY EL 118'-0" 70P OF STOREFRONT EL. 111'fi' TWO TIERED PRE-ENGINEERED METAL CAP FLASHING -COLOR TO BE FIELD TO MATCH FIELD COLOR ACCENT COLOR SPLIT FACE C.M U SOLDIER COURSE -ACCENT COLOR SPLIT FACE C.M.U. TO BE FIELD PAINED SHERWIN WILLIAMS "LATTE" SAB108 - -SPLIT FACE C.M.U. TO -STOREFRONT SYSTEM � .� "IVW' BOLLARDS TO BE FIELD PAINTED GREEN 4 PROJECTED BE FIELD PAINTED EQUAL TO EFCO WITH SHERWIN WILLIAMS CLEAR TRANSPARENT GLASS TO MATCH STOREFRONT COLOR PILASTER (NP.) "SOFTER TAN" SVG141 NOTE: SOUTH ELEVATION ALL SIGNAGE SHOWN IS FOR REFERENCE ALL SIGNAGE WILL BE SUBMITTED AS A CEi scALct 1/a• = 1' 0 DEFERRED SUBMITTAL FOR APPROVAL TOP OF STUD EXTERIOR INSULATION TWO TIERED METAL CAP FLASHING TWO TIERED PRE-ENGINEERED METAL ACCENT COLOR SPLIT EL 121'-4" FINISH SYSTEM (E.I.F.S.)- COLOR TO BE FIELD PAINTED COLOR TO BE "OREILLY RED' "O'REILLY RED" TO MATCH EI.F S CAP FLASHING -COLOR TO BE FIELD FACE C.M U SOLDIER TOP OF MASONRY TO MATCH FIELD COLOR COURSE COLOR BELOW IGHT (TYP ) EL 118'-4" r -1�1-.-.-.-T-=. i ice• TOP OF MASONRI' -ACCENT COLOR SPLIT FACE - C.M U TO BE FIELD PAINTED WINDOW MULLION BE FIELD PAINTED SHERWIN WILUAMS"LATTE" AND OPAQUE GLASS SHERWINWLUAMS SVW108 "SOFTERTAN' SM141 EAST ELEVATION ?!I_J SCALEt 1/8" = i'•0" TVA TIERED PRE-ENGINEERED METAL CAP FLASHING - COLOR TO BE FIELD TO MATCH FIELD COLOR ikTOP OF MASONRY T EL 118' 4" TOP OF MASONRY EL 116'•0" FINISH FLGOR p ' EL tO0'-0' SPLIT FACE C.M.0 ENCLOSURE TO BE FIELD PAINTED SHERWIN WILLIAMS "SOFTER TAN' SN8141 � I NORTH ELEVATION �,LEIJ SCALE, 1/S" - r r TVVO TIERED PRE-ENGINEERED METAL CAP FLASHING - COLOR TO BE FIELD Fr,71 DOORS TO BE `BOLLARDS TO BE FIELD PAINTED GREEN PRE -FINISHED TO MATCH TO MATCH STOREFRONT COLOR BLOCK COLOR SPLIT FACE C.M U. HVAC SPLIT FACE C.M.0 TO ENCLOSURE TO BE FIELD BE FIELD PAINTED PAINTED SHERVAN WiLLIAMS SHERWIN WILUAMS "SOFTER TAN'3VS141 "SOFTER TAN" SWS141 TWO TIERED PRE-ENGINEERED METAL CAP �\ FLASHING - COLOR TO BE FIELD PAINTED • ��rr�iwrY�r��0�� 0� r��d111�Y�11WY•�(�Vm1•��Ivi��•• INSULATI- INA NIt•� `— �� f0 ��_ - �� L +�_-�� _ o�� m 'ice � _ z" � ��• _ • • =-r J� _._?rr .. .':i• :—---�� ME -SPLIT -SPLIT FACE C.M.U. TO BE FIELD PAINTED SHERWIN VALLIAMS "SOFTER TAM SVW141 - � E / It 1 .G PAIN mr, IERN? LT, IIA. - 90F E-TAIr SVWIA: COLOR. TO BE INATU'RAL V FINISH IFS)- BE ZED' )LARDS TO BE FEI D JNTED GREEN TO ATCH STOREFRONI )IAR aREAA: I F- -1 AREA II - -- - r r �- RE;«M. 3' I 12'-6., 121-8'1 12'-61 r I REST RM. I 1o3 I rm I I I I I I I I I I I I J 3 PARTS AREA °C• J m 105 I°rriell § 1o8 1 m r J--------,- ___ - -- n -I FT_I �I U I I 1 ii • 32.2" — L II -- I 17.83/8" 4 --L=J--TLJL -1 I L_-L_L-��I III PARTSAEAW i4 I L -L-LL_�.-�I -II rH� LL I rl �J-_-�-__�_�_�-4 I N - �• L -L-L _1 II ` f II � - � I I IiD lia L_LI � rllf !---.�-�-- - - I I� I IE'L _ L 4'-E II 'I I L_L_L_- - I G N n't ri I T-8 r I I 5I 2'-6_ `T HH 1 III U VESTIBULE i00A - - m - - - - 5 FLOOR PLAN CE1 SCAM t/a":11W NOUOP r0N7p,,,jC ION DATE: 1I.6-I 1 RFVI ICS�6 1-10-12 WEST ELEVATION �4 SCALE. 1/8" = 1W CE1 of 9 Page 1 of 1 Melissa Poehlman From: Sent: To: Cc: Paul Engel, PE [pengel@aeincmo.com] Monday, October 31, 2011 3:15 PM Melissa Poehlman cigreen@oreillyauto.com; tfetters@oreillyauto.com; SPeterie@oreillyauto.com; Thom@esterlyschneider.com Subject: RE: O'Reilly Auto Parts; Engineering Parking Space Reduction Request Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red - Attachments: OReillyAuto-RichfieldMN-ParkingReductionJustification(10-30-11).pdf Melissa, Good afternoon. As discussed last week, attached is our Engineering Justification to allow 25 parking spaces instead of the 34 required by City Code. Please let me know if there is anything else we can help with. Thanks. Paul J. Engel, PE Vice-President/Project Manager ENGINEERING, WC $ M P !, Q Y 9 e 0 YW H E Q A CML k'NORMERING d tANO SUR1f£YINR COMPMf 2045 W Woodland, Springfield MO 65807 417-866-2741 Office 417-840-2517 Cell to eb cthink bermes+ you point iF��*IIf Anderson Engineering, Inc. does not assume any liabilities for unauthorized alterations to the information contained herein, and grants a temporary license to the recipient of this email for the use of material contained in any attached files for development of recipient's work. Anderson Engineering, Inc. does not warrant the accuracy of any information contained in these emailed files, but Anderson Engineering, Inc. retains all rights to the use of the emailed material. The information contained in this email, including any attachments, is privileged, confidential and intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. It is the responsibility of the addressee to scan for any computer viruses or other defects. The sender does not accept liability for any loss or damage of any nature which may result from this email or any attached file. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, distribution or copying of the message is strictly prohibited and may subject you to criminal or civil penalties. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email then delete any printed or electronic copies. 1/4/2012 Ms. Melissa Poehlman, City Planner City of Richfield, MN 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423 P: 612-861-9766, E: mpoehlman@cityofrichfield.org RE: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED PROPOSED O'REILL.Y AUTO PARTS; 12T" AVE & 66T" STREET EAST Ms. Poehlman, As per your request, this letter shall serve as the Engineering Justification for the Reduction of Required Off -Street Parking Spaces for the proposed O'Reilly Auto Parts at 12`t' Ave & 661h Street East. As a Civil Engineer with experience in Traffic & Parking Analysis we offer the following justifications for providing 25 Off -Street Parking Spaces instead of the 34 spaces required by City Code. Per Richfield City Code, 544.13, Subd. 6, Number of Off -Street Spaces Required: Retail (other than shopping center) where Required= 5 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor more than 25 percent of the gross floor area is area customer area O'Reilly Auto Parts; 6,872 square feet Required= 5 * 6872/1000) = 34.36 = 34 spaces The proposed O'Reilly Auto Parts project is proposing to provide 25 spaces for the following reasons: 1. The total lot area is only 25,501.64 square feet in area. The lot cannot be developed to provide the required 34 spaces due to limited area and still meet the other required City Development Code requirements including the 8' Parking Setback Lines along 12th Avenue & 66th Street East. 2, Per the 8th Edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Code 843 (New Auto Parts Sales), the O'Reilly Auto Parts site is only expected to generate a PM hourly peak of 8 trips entering and 9 trips leaving. The proposed 25 parking spaces will provide at least double the necessary hourly peak traffic including employees. 9 customers + 4 employees = 12 parking 3. Providing additional parking beyond 25 will interfere with safe and efficient internal traffic circulation by reducing the two way internal traffic paths to less than 24' feet wide. The Justifications listed above prove that the 25 spaces provided is maximL afflj�f .r,W i goject. We appreciate ur assistance and please contact us with questions. l hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my Sin c r ly, direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesm Print Name:_;/,;rzt L Paul ngel,PE --- Vice President/Project Engineer signature: I lJ 2045 W. wOODLA`dD SPRINGFIELD, PAO 65807 PH. 417 866 274'. F , 417.606.27?E i`; AE�tiCtI��1EE�t1��1�y../J� 4q�w ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS ° LABORATORIES • DRILLING 1120 66th St E - Site Plan Approval 1 /2012 Zoning Designations R VETERANS PARK R R R R R N R R R R R R R W R R Q R R Q R H ti r R R r R R R C-2 C-2 C-2 350 ft 66TH ST E MR-2 MR-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 MR-2 R C-2 C-2 -2 R R R LEGEND R - Single Family Residential MR-2 - Multi -Family Residential C-2 - General Commercial N W E 0 55 110 220 330 440 S Feet 1120 66th St E - Site Plan Approval 1 /2012 Comprehensive Plan Designations LDR VETERANS PARK LLDR LDR DR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR W � LDR PRK Q LDR LDR Q LDR H H LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR CC CC CC 3SO ft 66TH ST E MDR MDR cc cc cc MHD LDR CC CC C LDR LDR R LEGEND LDR - Low Density Residential MDR - Medium Density Residential MHD - Medium -High Density Residential CC - Community Commercial PRK - Park N W E 0 55 110 220 330 440 S Feet AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CASE # PUBLIC HEARING 3 12-CUP-01, 12- VAR-01 ..mM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PC MEETING DATE: JANUARY 239 2012 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Public hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Variances to allow an animal kennel with an outdoor relief area surrounded by a 6-8 foot fence in the front yard of the property located at 6315 Penn Avenue. Ill. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 11 Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Variances for an animal kennel with an outdoor relief area at 6315 Penn Avenue. II. BACKGROUND In September, the Council approved an ordinance change to conditionally permit animal kennels and outdoor relief areas in the Mixed Use — Community (MU-C) District. Don and Lori Swetala have applied for a conditional use permit to operate a dog daycare business in the Penn Avenue Corridor, at 6315 Penn Avenue. Additionally, they are requesting two variances to allow for the construction of an outdoor relief area in the front yard area. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY Animal kennels are conditionally permitted in the MU-C District so long as soundproofing is installed on all shared walls when located within a multi -tenant building. This requirement does not apply, as the building in question is not a multi -tenant building. Outdoor relief areas are conditionally permitted in the MU-C District so long as the following conditions are met: a) The outdoor relief area shall not be located in the front yard. The applicants have requested a variance from this requirement to allow the relief area in the front yard. The following findings must be made in order to grant a variance: 1) The applicant establishes that there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the official control. "Practical difficulties" is taken to mean that the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by official controls. Economic considerations along do not constitute practical difficulties; It is reasonable to provide a small area for outdoor relief in a commercial district; however the location of the existing building, the already -limited on -site parking, and the proximity of the outdoor children's play area to the north make placement behind the building problematic. 2) There are unusual or unique circumstances that apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and such circumstances were not created by any persons presently having an interest in the property; The existing building is set back 40.7 feet from Penn Avenue, but only 13.5 feet from the rear property line. An outdoor relief area must be a minimum of 5 feet from all property lines, leaving a very narrow strip of land available for use behind the building and potentially reducing parking on an already constrained site. The size of the building with the limited available parking makes finding an appropriate use for the building difficult. This is neither the fault of the owner, nor applicant. 3) The requested variances would not alter the character of the neighborhood by impairing light/air supply to adjacent properties, substantially increasing congestion, increasing the danger of fire or endangering public safety, substantially diminish property values or have a detrimental or injurious impact on surrounding properties; The requested variance will potentially enhance the character of the neighborhood through an enhanced street presence and additional landscaping that will address the Penn Avenue Corridor Design Guidelines. Further, it will eliminate the potential conflict between the day care to the north and the residential properties to the east. 4) The variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. There front of the building is the only alternative location for an outdoor relief area. 5) The variance requested is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the regulations related to outdoor relief areas is to minimize potential adverse impacts on adjacent properties. The proposed variance moves the outdoor relief area to a location that will not conflict with adjacent uses. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Penn Avenue Corridor Design Guidelines is to create a more inviting and vibrant streetscape. The proposal will provide additional landscaping and a more interesting frontage along Penn Avenue. b) The outdoor relief area must meet setback requirements. The applicant has requested a variance from this requirement to allow the fence to be installed two feet from the southern property line. The following findings must be made in order to grant a variance: 1) The applicant establishes that there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the official control. "Practical difficulties" is taken to mean that the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by official controls. Economic considerations along do not constitute practical difficulties; A five-foot setback significantly limits the area available for an outdoor relief area. 2) There are unusual or unique circumstances that apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and such circumstances were not created by any persons presently having an interest in the property; The limited parking prevents the applicants from moving the outdoor relief area to the north, so any setback will reduce the area available for the dogs. 3) The requested variances would not alter the character of the neighborhood by impairing light/air supply to adjacent properties, substantially increasing congestion, increasing the danger of fire or endangering public safety, substantially diminish property values or have a detrimental or injurious impact on surrounding properties; The applicants initially requested a zero -foot setback, as exists between their building and the building to the south. Given the location of the parking lot to the south, staff recommended that the fence/wall be set back a minimum of two feet to 1) ensure that customers of 6319 Penn Avenue are able to park and open their vehicle doors and 2) that at least a minimal buffer is provided between customers and the screened, but possibly barking, dogs. 4) The variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. A two -foot setback will balance the needs of the applicant with needs of the property to the south. 5) The variance requested is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The intent of the setback ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan is to protect neighboring properties from adverse impacts and to create a workable relationship between properties. c) The outdoor relief area shall be screened from view of neighboring properties as approved by the City. Final fencing design must be approved by the Assistant Community Development Director to ensure compliance with Penn Avenue Corridor Design Guidelines, but the applicant has indicated that a brick or composite fence shall be used to achieve the required screening. The applicant has requested a variance to allow a six to eight foot fence in the front yard. Regulations allow four -foot fences in front yards. The following findings must be made in order to grant a variance: 1) The applicant establishes that there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the official control. "Practical difficulties" is taken to mean that the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by official controls. Economic considerations along do not constitute practical difficulties; A taller fence is necessary for both screening and containment of dogs. Staff recommends approval of a six foot fence. 2) There are unusual or unique circumstances that apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and such circumstances were not created by any persons presently having an interest in the property; The unusual/unique circumstances related to the property were discussed above in the initial request to permit a dog relief area in the front yard. If a relief area is to be allowed in the front yard based on these circumstances, then a taller fence must be approved to prevent the animals from jumping over the fence. 3) The requested variances would not alter the character of the neighborhood by impairing light/air supply to adjacent properties, substantially increasing congestion, increasing the danger of fire or endangering public safety, substantially diminish property values or have a detrimental or injurious impact on surrounding properties; The proposed fence will not impair light/air to adjacent properties, nor will it have any impact on congestion or fire danger. No change in property value or detrimental impact is anticipated due to the construction of a taller fence. 4) The variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. Six feet is the minimum fence height to ensure containment. 5) The variance requested is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The requested variance will have the effect of bringing the building closer to the street, a goal of the Penn Avenue Corridor Design Guidelines and the Mixed Use District regulations. d) The outdoor relief area shall be for the use of dogs only. The facility will be for dogs only. e) No dogs shall remain unattended in the outdoor relief area. The applicant is aware of this requirement. f) The outdoor relief area shall not be used as an outdoor kennel, animal run, animal play area or any other use not specifically identified in the conditional use permit. The applicant is aware of this requirement. g) The outdoor relief area shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times. The applicant intends for the relief area to be filled with pea gravel for urine/water evaporation and for the area to be frequently disinfected with eco- friendly cleanser. Solid dog waste will be removed immediately and disposed of in garbage. h) Solid waste material shall be removed a minimum of once per day and disposed of in a sanitary manner. Solid dog waste will be removed immediately and disposed of in garbage. i) If required by the Public Works Department, a filtration bed shall be constructed to ensure that liquid waste will not enter into the ground or the City's storm water system. The Public Works Department has not requested this treatment. In order to grant a conditional use permit, the Council must find that all of the following conditions will be met: a) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This requirement is met. The Penn Avenue Corridor is intended to be a traditional, vibrant, pedestrian -oriented district. Attractive design and additional landscaping could significantly enhance the street presence of this property. 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. The Mixed Use - Community District and Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District are intended to provide space for a wide variety of retail and service businesses. c) The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines. This requirement is/will be met. Final plans for landscaping and fencing require the approval of the Assistant Community Development Director to ensure compliance with the Penn Avenue Design Guidelines. d) The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 544 of this Code. This requirement is met. The required parking (10 spaces) for this use is provided. Additionally, the applicants have an agreement with the owners of Lariat Lanes to provide additional employee parking if needed. Subsection 509.25 governs site improvements for nonconforming sites. In instances where the requirements of Section 544 cannot be met, alternative landscaping and screening plans can be approved. Staff if confident that the applicants can come to an agreement with Assistant Director Barton regarding final plans to enhance the property. e) The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on government facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements. This requirement is met. The submitted plans have been reviewed by the Public Works Department and no undue adverse impacts are anticipated. 0 The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety or welfare. This requirement is met. The submitted plans have been reviewed by the Public Works and Environmental Health Departments and believe that potential adverse impacts can be managed through compliance with the requirements of the conditional use permit for the outdoor relief area. g) There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. This requirement is met. The rehabilitation/re-use of vacant buildings is an integral part of enhancing the Penn Avenue Corridor. 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 is met. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The applicants are requesting variances related to the outdoor relief area only, not the general animal kennel requirements. The single condition for an animal kennel in the Mixed Use — Community District (that soundproofing be provided in multi -tenant buildings) is met. C. FINANCIAL • The required processing fee has been paid. D. LEGAL Zoning: Mixed Use — Community with Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay Land Use: Current: Vacant (former furniture store) Proposed: Animal Kennel with outdoor relief area Comprehensive Plan: Mixed Use Notification: Properties within 350-feet Other Actions: Council: City Council consideration February 14, 2012 H RA: N/A Hearing Examiner: N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Recommend approval of the proposal with modifications. • Recommend denial with a finding that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties or the City as a whole. V. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Proposed plans Planning & zoning maps VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING 0 Don & Lori Swetala, applicants RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES AT 6315 PENN AVENUE WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of conditional use permit for an animal kennel serving up to 50 dogs with an outdoor relief area on the parcel of land located at 6315 Penn Avenue (the "Property"), legally described as: Lots 20 and 21, Block 12, Ray's Lynnhurst, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the proposed conditional use permit includes an outdoor relief area with a two -foot setback in the front yard rather than with a five-foot setback in the back yard, and a fence that is six feet tall rather than the permitted four feet tall surrounding the outdoor relief area; WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6, provides for the granting of variances to the literal provisions of the zoning regulations in instances where their enforcement would cause "practical difficulty" to the owners of the property under consideration; and WHEREAS, based on the findings below, the Richfield City Council approves the requested variances from Richfield Zoning Code Subsections 509.15 and 534.07, Subd. 24; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the conditional use permit; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Council makes the following general findings: a. The Property is zoned Mixed Use — Community and is within the Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District. b. The existing building extends from the northern property line to the southern property line and covers over 55 percent of the site. There is limited parking and a rear setback of only a 14-foot setback from the rear property line. C. The proposed use is required to provide 10 parking stalls, which are available on site. d. The proposed site plan utilizes an unneeded loading dock area as an outdoor relief area so as to maintain all existing parking stalls. This loading dock is located in front of the existing building. Code states that outdoor relief areas shall not be located in the front yard. A variance from Subsection 534.07, Subdivision 24 is required. e. The proposed site plan shows that the outdoor relief area will encroach three feet into the required five-foot sideyard setback from the south property line. The existing building is located on the south property line. In order to comply with the five-foot sideyard setback the applicants would have to reduce the outdoor relief area by 120 square feet as there is no possibility to extend to the north. A two- foot sideyard setback allows for modest separation from the adjacent parking lot and provides room for patrons of the business to the south to open their vehicle doors (extending over the property line). A variance from the provisions of Richfield City Code Subsection 534.07, Subdivision 24 is required. f. The proposed plan includes a six foot fence or wall to provide screening and containment of animals within the outdoor relief area. Richfield Zoning Code permits four -foot fences in front yards. A variance from Richfield City Code Subsection 509.15 is required. 2. With respect to the application for variance from the outdoor relief area and fence/wall requirements, the City Council makes the following findings: a. Strict enforcement of Richfield Zoning Code Subsections 509.15 and 534.07, Subdivision 24 would cause a practical difficulty. The provision of a small outdoor relief area is a reasonable use that cannot be reasonably accomplished with strict enforcement of those subsections. It is reasonable to utilize an otherwise unproductive area of the site as opposed to further reducing parking on a difficult site. b. Unique circumstances affect the Property that were not created by the land owner. The existing building covers over 55 percent of the existing lot, but provides limited space for parking or other accessory needs of modern businesses. Neither the land owner, nor the applicant created these circumstances. C. Granting the requested variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The requested variances will eliminate potential conflicts between the neighboring daycare and its playground and keep the outdoor relief area as far from adjacent residential properties as possible. The requested variances will maintain the character of the neighborhood, while strict enforcement of the Code could be detrimental. d. The variances requested are the minimum necessary to alleviate the undue hardship. The proposed plans protect adjacent uses while providing a small outdoor relief area to accompany the applicant's business. 3. With respect to the proposed conditional use permit, the City Council makes the following findings: a. The proposed site plan is consistent with the elements and objectives of the City's development guides, including the Comprehensive Plan and any redevelopment plans established for the area. b. The proposed use of the site for an animal kennel with an outdoor relief area is consistent with the purposes of the Code, which allows for a wide variety of retail and service businesses. C. The proposed use will be in compliance with Code guidelines related to nonconforming site improvements and performance standards. d. The proposed use requires 10 parking stalls and 10 parking stalls are provided on -site. Undue adverse impacts to government services are not anticipated. e. The proposed use and variances serve to avoid potential adverse impacts. 4. Based upon the above findings, a variance is hereby approved to reduce permit an outdoor relief area in the front yard. 5. Based upon the above findings, a variance is hereby approved to reduce the sideyard setback from the south property line from five feet to two feet. 6. Based upon the above findings, a variance is hereby approved to allow a six-foot fence in place of a four -foot fence in the front yard. 7. Based upon the above findings and variances, the proposed conditional use permit is hereby approved according to the terms of Richfield City Code Subsection 547.09, Subdivision 6, with the following additional stipulations: a) That final plan for design of the outdoor relief area and surrounding landscaping be approved by the Assistant Community Development Director prior to the issuance of any permits; b) That the property owner is responsible for replacing any landscaping/plant materials that die; c) That all 10 parking stalls be maintained and free of snow year round; d) That approval of this conditional use permit does not include approval of any signs. Sign permits must be applied for separately; e) That the recipient of this conditional use permit record this Resolution with the County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, Subd. 1 and the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 546,05, Subd. 7; and f) Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall: a) Submit a copy of the recorded conditional use permit; b) Submit a surety equal to 125% of the value of any landscaping improvements (based on two bids including labor cost) not yet complete. 8. This conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subd. 9. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of February 2012 Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 225 05M WWW.ADVSULCOM SURVEY FOR: CM & COMPANY SURVEYED: January, 2012 DRAFTED: immy 10, 2012 LEGAL DESCRIMON: Lots 20 and 21,Block l Ws Lynninust, EWum4k County, Nffiumsft SCOPE OF WORK & LEMATIONS: he of our services does t.- Showing the le and &i-c� ofboundary linesof the above legal des�riptiscope not include detmmining what you own, whichis a legalmatter. Please check ft legal description with your records or ji-mult with cmpetent legal counsel, if necessary, to make am that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been, shown. 2. Showing the location of existing impsavementa wedeemdmint. 3. Setting now monuments or verifying old monunments to made the COMM Of the property. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: "0" Denotes IM ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set unless otherwise noted. CERTMCATION. 1-hareby smmW was prepared by me or under my direct m4mvision and than am a Professional and a Profmsil�� do Laws of tie State oftlinnewta. Irdnma TL Pariter P.E. & P.S. No. 9235 GRAPHIC SCALE I it blricK --v- kv- CA 4A, I F- i. W -rf,v"� 14i A, 1 0 ji Is ppain. M U�CC,p CFJ4--jQ_r-AL— 14 14 IoNrog. NO. 11?0008 k Op I --'Wow, i - MOM FARM AM t'L not zoo ..-__.:.... _._ _ _.. ram,. "r. � ;_ __.- .: 4 OM . -u+� _-sip.- ..�.- _ _•... ':... - .. .. _ ... , .......,.» .. .- .-... � :'� - _ _ - _ _ .._ �"• .___-• -.:. - ..x. .vim'-_. x��,_-. - .:.. � _ _ - _VAN _ bre(;LK k-l-'cdWt% 0UPPER FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/5" = V-V" MAY 3, 2010 W 1- Vj,mc 5v;kes CQV4,&tu) r,,.' *yy Tra 11 1 Ga YeAr 0 L r-or . a Sp c 2 LON'FLOOR PLAN SCALE V6" E"=� VR —011 MAY 3, 2010 iE CA fif j U04f Kt ei qose jl, 6315 Penn Ave Conditional Use Perm it/Variances 1/2012 Surrounding Zoning R 60 MU-C/PAC MU-C/PAr- i I --- -- - --- 63RD ST R - ------ MU-C/PAC R R �)- MU-C/PAC II R R R MU-C/PAC R R R MU-C/PAC U.J >< R LLJ R R Z Mul C/PAC I ( ((Y- R z-------------- Lu w I R MU-C/PAC R R MU-CIPAC R R MU-C/PAC R R MU-C/PAC mu-UIFAU R z MU-CIPAC MU-C/PAC i R R MU-C/PAC MU-C/PAC LEGEND MU-C I PAC - Mixed Use Community & Penn Ave Overlay ,;R - Single, Famijy Residential 0 45 90 180 270 360 i Feet IAGIS\Community Development\StaffiMelissa\Projects\Zoning Cases\6315 Penn - Zoning.mxd 6315 Penn Ave Conditional Use Perm it/Variances 1/2012 Comprehensive Plan Designations LDR 0110 MIXED MIXED LDR LDR 63RD ST MIXED LDR LDR MIXED IVIIAtu LDR LDR MIXED L ! MIXED LDR j I LDR MIXED Lu MIXED i Lu Z LDR LDR z MIXED rK LDR z Lu LIJ LDR Ld MIXED MIXED L R LDR D 0 MIXED MIXED D LDR L R MIXED MIXED LID L D MIXED IXED MIXED MIXED L LDR MIXED LDR L MIXED MIXED N LEGEND MIXED - Mixed Use LDR - Low -Density Residential 0 45 90 180 270 360 Feet IAGIS\Community Develop ment\Staff\Mel issa\P rojects\Zon ing CasesW15 Penn - CP.mxd AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CASE # NEW BUSINESS .40 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PC MEETING DATE: JANUARY 239 2012 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution finding that the acquisition and disposition of 6420 17th Avenue and 6315 16th Avenue by the City for removal and future redevelopment as multi -family residential is consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 11 By motion: Approve the attached resolution finding that the acquisition and disposition of 6420 17th Avenue and 6315 16th Avenue by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for removal and eventual redevelopment as multi -family residential is consistent with the Richfield Comarehensive Plan. II. BACKGROUND The property located at 6420 17th Avenue is a vacant, foreclosed property owned by Fannie Mae. The property at 6315 16th Avenue is a vacant, foreclosed property owned by Financial Freedom. Both properties are located in the Cedar Point redevelopment area and are zoned MR-3, high density residential. The City has had a purchase offer accepted for 6420 17th Avenue. The City plans to purchase the property, demolish or move the existing building and hold the property until a future date when redevelopment of the area to high density multiple family housing occurs. The City has also made an offer on 6315 16th Avenue; however, is waiting to hear from the lender. If the lender accepts the City's offer, the City plans to purchase the property, demolish or move the existing building and hold the property until a future date when redevelopment of the area to high density multiple family housing occurs. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • 6420 17th Avenue and 6315 16th Avenue are currently zoned MR-3 (High density residential). • In 2004 the City completed a redevelopment master plan for the Cedar Avenue Corridor calling for a mixture of multi -family, housing, office and retail development. 012312 6420 17th and 6315 16th consistency.doc The Comprehensive Plan incorporates the master plan and 6420 17th Avenue and 6315 16th Avenue are both located within the Plan area. • The 2008-2018 Comprehensive Plan identifies the parcels as high -density residential. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The houses have been foreclosed upon and are currently vacant. • The City Council approved the purchase of 6420 17th Avenue on January 10, and the City's purchase offer has been accepted. • The City Council will consider the purchase of 6315 16th Avenue on January 24, 2012. • The City's purchases require a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan by the Planning Commission. The purchase of these properties is consistent with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. • The construction of a high density multi -family residential will be consistent with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. • The properties are located within the area impacted by noise generated from the new north/south runway built at the adjacent airport. The master plan and the Comprehensive Plan seek to mitigate the impact of the runway through the redevelopment of single family housing to land uses that are less impacted by the runway. C. FINANCIAL • The City has airport -related funds that provide sufficient funding to purchase 6420 17th Avenue. The funds must be used to mitigate the impacts of the north/south runway. Additional HRA funds are available to complete the purchase of 6315 16th Avenue. 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 Richfield Comprehensive Plan. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Make a finding that the acquisition and disposition of 6420 17th Avenue is not consistent with the 2008 Richfield Comprehensive Plan. • Make a finding that the acquisition and disposition of 6315 16th Avenue is not consistent with the 2008 Richfield Comprehensive Plan. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Map showing the Comprehensive Plan designation for 6420 17th Avenue, 6315 16th Avenue, and surrounding area. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING 0 N/A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT THE ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY FOR FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT AS MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 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 6420 17th Avenue and 6315 16th Avenue and legally described as follows: 6420 17th: Lot 13, Block 2, Iversons 2nd Addition 6315 16th: Lot 3, Block 1, Iversons 2nd Addition WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the acquisition and disposition of the property for future redevelopment as high density, multi -family residential purposes would be consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds that the acquisition and disposition of the above described property, for high density, multi -family residential use, is in conformance with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan. Adopted this 23rd day of January 2012, by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. Rick Jabs, Chairperson ATTEST: Robert Hall, Secretary 6420 17th Ave and 6315 16th Ave - Finding of Consistency 1/12 Comprehensive Plan Designations ViN r � a iWi UAI ®® M �® FEM IBM Inn ®® IsmIsm NEW • �- �- tires -- -•- ■� � 0 100 200 400 600 800 LEGEND Feet LDR - Low Density Residential HDR - High Density Residential RC - Regional Commercial N AI:\GIS\Community Development\Stafl\Melissa\Projects\FOC maps\6420 17th and 6315 16th - CP.mxd