052912 PacketPLANNING COMMISSION
RICHFIELD AGENDA
May 29, 2012
7:00 p.m.
Introductory Proceedings
Roll Call
Approval of Minutes: Regular Planning Commission of March 26, 2012 and April 23, 2012 Study
Session.
Opportunity for Citizens to Address the Commission on items not on the Agenda
Public Hearing
ITEM #1 12-FDP-01, 12-CUP- Consideration of a Zoning Ordinance amendment, final
03, 12-PUD-01, 12- development plan and conditional use permit for a planned
RZN-01 unit development that would allow construction of a 70-unit
development that includes 18 townhomes and a 52-unit
apartment building on 7641 Pleasant Avenue (the former
Richfield Public Works Garage property and the former
Gleason Mortuary at 211 W. 76th Street).
New Business
ITEM #2 PC Letter#9 Consideration of a resolution finding that the modification to
the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment
Project Area and establishment of the Pillsbury Commons
Tax Increment Financing District and Tax Increment
Financing Plan are consistent with the Richfield
Comprehensive Plan
ITEM #3 PC Letter#10 Consideration of a resolution finding that the sale of certain
real property conforms to the general plans for the
development and redevelopment of the City
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: Monday, June 25, 2012
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".
fi
Planning Commission
CITY OF
i n utesRICHFIELD11/1
March 26, 2012
immingsm
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: John Stark, Community Development Director
Christine Costello, Community Development Specialist
Lance Bernard, Interim City Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Corrine Heine, City of Richfield legal counsel
Chair Jabs called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MNizecky, S/Root to approve the amended minutes of the Regular Planning
Commission Meeting on January 23, 2012 and the regular meeting of February 27,
2012.
Motion carried: 8-0
OPEN FORUM
No members of the public spoke.
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
ITEM #1
Case No. 12-SP-10 — Site plan approval for 6328 Penn Avenue.
CD Director Stark presented the staff report.
The applicant for 6328 Penn Avenue, David Halsey stated he is open to shared parking
options.
March 26, 2012
M/Root, S/Hall to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 8-0
M/Rublein, S/Root to recommend approval of a resolution granting site approval for
general office and warehouse use at 6328 Penn Avenue.
Motion carried: 8-0
ITEM #2
12-CP-01, 12-FDP-01,
12-CUP-03, 12-PUD-01,
12-RZN-01 — Continue the public hearing regarding consideration of a number of
requests related to a proposed planned unit development that would allow
construction of a 70-unit apartment building at 7641 Pleasant Avenue to April 23,
2012
CD Director Stark stated that there was nothing to add from the staff's perspective
regarding the continuance. Ron Clark would provide an explanation for the
continuance.
Ron Clark presented a brief description of their modifications to their proposal. He
stated that they wanted to address concerns about density and hopefully their revised
proposal would eliminate any fear about future phases. Ron Clark further stated that
they would purchase the HRA owned property and then dedicate that back to the City,
which would bring their density into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He also
stated that they would not purchase the HRA vacant residential lot on Pillsbury Avenue,
and would allow the HRA to develop a single family home on that parcel in the future.
M/Root, S/Rublein to continue the public hearing to April 23, 2012 for consideration of a
number of requests related to the proposed development at 7641 Pleasant Avenue.
Commissioner Rublein inquired whether the 60-day clock is stopped or if original
proposal is restarted or reset.
CD Director Stark stated that the 60-day clock was stopped since the request was from
the applicant.
Commissioner Hall stated his concern that calling the question while there was
continuing discussion was out of order.
Rublein asked questions of how long the Planning Commission could continue this item.
CD Director Stark stated that the Planning Commission has the right to continue an item
if they need additional information in order to make a recommendation to the Council.
M/Root, S/Rublein to continue the public hearing regarding consideration of a number of
requests related to a proposed planned unit development that would allow construction
2
March 26, 2012
of a 70-unit apartment building at 7641 Pleasant Avenue to the next Planning
Commission meeting April 23, 2012
Motion carried: 7-1 (Hall voted against)
Chair Jabs noted that this is not a public hearing but invited public to make brief
comments/questions.
City Attorney Heine stated that if people spoke today they should not speak at the April
23, 2012 hearing and that speaking today without benefit of the application would not be
appropriate.
NEW BUSINESS
Commissioner Rublein requested clarification regarding the CVS Pharmacy being open
24 hours and whether that was allowed.
CD Director Stark stated that staff will review the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to
ensure that CVS is in compliance with their hours of operation.
Commissioner Rublein asked for clarification of a rental housing study that was being
done.
CD Director Stark stated that the Richfield HRA had set a goal to get a better
understanding of the rental housing stock in Richfield and that this study by Stantec was
fulfilling that goal. CD Director Stark further stated that there would be a joint work
session with the Council, HRA, and Planning Commission for April 16th on a
presentation of the findings of the study.
OLD BUSINESS
ITEM #3 PC Ltr#6 —Approval of Planning Commission Bylaws
CD Director Stark presented the staff report.
Commissioner Hall asked whether Section 3 - Special Meeting could be modified to
include a three-day notice instead of just stating "in accordance with the open meeting
law".
CD Director Stark stated that the reason the wording was changed to `in accordance
with the open meeting law" was in case there were any changes to that law the
Planning Commission Bylaws would still be in compliance without having to amend the
Bylaws again.
Commissioner Scaglia stated that she agreed with the proposed changes as stated in
the Planning Commission report.
3
March 26, 2012
Commissioner Hall suggested moving the regular Planning Commission meetings up a
week sooner (to the 3rd Monday of each month) so that the City Council would not have
to consider an item the day after the Planning Commission had discussed it. CD
Director Stark responded that it is staff's policy that any item considered by the Planning
Commission in a given month does not go on to the City Council's agenda until the 2nd
Tuesday of the following month (rather than their meeting on the 4th Tuesday of the
month which usually occurs the day after the Planning Commission meeting) to ensure
that the Council has adequate time to consider the Planning Commission's input.
M/Rublein, S/Root to approve the amendments to the Planning Commission Bylaws.
Motion carried: 8-0
ITEM #4
PC Ltr#7 —Approval of Study Session schedule for 2012-2013
MNizecky S/Root to approve the resolution setting the dates for the 2012-2013 study
sessions.
LIAISON REPORTS
Community Services Advisory Commission: Commissioner Rublein
City Council: Commissioner Hall, City Council minutes have not been posted.
HRA: No report
Richfield School Board: Commissioner Kitzberger
Transportation Commission: Commissioner Scaglia
Chamber of Commerce: Commissioner Vizecky
Other: No report
ADJOURNMENT
M/Rublein, S/Root to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried: 8-0
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:56 p.m.
Dan Kitzberger
Secretary
4
RICCITHFYIEOF
LD Planning Commission Study
Session Minutes
April 23, 2012
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rick Jabs, Commissioners Robert Hall, Josh Root,
Tom Rublein, Gordon Vizecky, Daniel Kitzberger and
Maureen Scaglia, Dennis Schuller
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: John Stark, Community Development Director
Jennifer Grinde, Housing Inspector
OTHERS PRESENT: None
Chairperson Jabs called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ITEM #1 Discussion Regarding the City's Rental Licensing Program
Housing Inspector Jennifer Grinde provided information and answered Commissioner
questions regarding the Rental Housing Licensing Program, including:
History of the program;
Numbers and types of units that are licensed;
Trends in changing rental types;
Common examples of noncompliance, and;
Methods of, and difficulties in, identifying rental properties.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:53 p.m.
Dan Kitzberger
Secretary
AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA ITEM# 1
REPORT#
CASE# 12-FDP-01, 12-CUP-
03, 12-PUD-01, 12-
RZN-01
4111 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD
PC MEETING DATE: MAY 29, 2012
ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing regarding consideration of a Zoning Ordinance amendment, final development
plan and conditional use permit for a planned unit development that would allow construction
of a 70-unit development that includes 18 townhomes and a 52-unit apartment building on
7641 Pleasant Avenue (the former Richfield Public Works Garage property and the former
Gleason Mortuary at 211 W. 76th Street).
I.RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1) Conduct and close a public hearing related to:
a) a Rezoning to designate 7641 Pleasant Avenue and 211 West
76th Street as Planned Multi-Family Residential (PMR); and
b) a final development plan and conditional use permit for a
planned unit development at 7641 Pleasant Avenue and 211
West 76th Street.
2) Engage in Commissioner discussion regarding this item, and;
3) Continue action (voting) on this item until the June 25, 2012
Regular Planning Commission Meeting.
II. BACKGROUND
Ron Clark Construction and Design along with Connelly Development LLC (which is a
wholly-owned entity of Ron Clark) (Developer) originally submitted a land use
application related to a proposal for the 70-unit 'L-shaped' apartment building that was
100% affordable on February 21, 2012.
The Developer then submitted a revision to their initial land use application on March
21, 2012. This revised plan proposed the developer's purchase of the two City-owned
parcels and the HRA-owned parcel along 76th Street for use as open space and a drive
aisle. Concern was expressed to the developer that even with the proposed additional
land, the concentration of the density was unbalanced on the site with the bulk of the
development located on the southernmost portion of the property; leaving the remainder
of the site underdeveloped. Due to this concern the Developer withdrew their initial land
use application on April 3rd.
On April 30th, the developer submitted a new land use application for the construction
of a 70-unit development that includes a 52-unit apartment building and 18 townhomes
to be developed on all of the City-owned parcels and the HRA-owned parcel along 76th
Street. The current application still proposes for all the units to be 100% affordable as
required through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) Tax Credit financing
that the developer secured in 2011. The developer has also requested Tax Increment
Financing (TIF). This request will be considered by the City Council and Richfield
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) under a separate action and is not a part
of the consideration of land use approvals.
The developer has stated that the two existing single-family homes and the HRA-owned
single-family lot at the southwest corner of 76th Street and Pillsbury Avenue are not part
of this application and that they have no plans on developing those properties in the
future.
The Planning Commission was originally scheduled to take a number of actions at the
May 29 meeting related to the Pillsbury Commons proposal. Those actions included:
A Public Hearing to consider rezoning the site to Planned Multi-Family
Residential (PMR) with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP);
A consideration of whether the proposed TIF Plan and related documents are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and;
A consideration of whether the sale of publicly-owned parcels for inclusion in the
development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The item related to the TIF Plan, however, is dependent on the completion of a draft TIF
Plan, including the "but-for" findings (and related documents, including a Modification to
the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and a "But-For" Analysis). As is evidenced
by the attached letter from HRA Attorney Julie Eddington, staff and consultants are still
lacking certain information needed to complete the draft TIF Plan and related
documents. The result is that a completed TIF Plan could not be included in the agenda
packets delivered to the Planning Commission today so that the Planning Commission
could review the TIF Plan before making a determination as to whether the proposed
TIF Plan and related documents are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. At the
May 29 Planning Commission Meeting, staff will be recommending that the Commission
continue the item(s) related to the TIF Plan until their regular June meeting (June 25).
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission hold a Public Hearing on the
rezoning and CUP (as had been advertised and noticed by mail to area residents) and
engage in Commissioner discussion, but continue action (voting) on the item until the
June 25 Regular Planning Commission meeting in order that:
a) all Planning Commission action on this item can occur in concert at
one meeting on this item (as Planning Commissioners have expressed
their desire to not make decisions in a "piecemeal" manner on this
project), and;
b) so staff can prepare proposed findings for inclusion in an ordinance and
resolution to be considered based on Planning Commissioners' collective
input.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan designation of this site is for Medium-High
Density Residential, which allows a range of 12 to 24 units per acre and
no greater than four stories in height. The current proposal before the
Planning Commission meets this requirement at 24 units per acre and
four stories in height, so an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is not
required.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
A change in the zoning designation of the parcels will ultimately be
required regardless of whether or not this project is approved. The
only reason that the zoning was not changed to MR-3 (High-
Density Residential) following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan
is that discussions with Ron Clark had begun and City staff opted
to defer in order to avoid possibly rezoning the property again when
a project proposal came forward. The MR-3 Zoning District is
consistent with the density designations prescribed by the
Comprehensive Plan. The MR-3 Zoning District is intended for
multi-family dwellings with 20 or fewer units. Multi-family dwellings
with more than 20 units are subject to a Conditional Use Permit
CUP). Given the size of this parcel and its Comprehensive Plan
designation, the MR-3 zoning designation would be the appropriate
choice to bring the parcel's zoning designation into agreement with
the Comprehensive Plan.
The developer has applied for a zoning change to Planned Multi-
Family Residential. Planned unit developments (PUDs) are
intended to encourage the efficient use of land and resources and
to encourage innovation in planning and building. PUDs provide
flexibility in the application of guiding district dimensional
requirements, densities and land uses if the proposed development
is well designed and can be successfully integrated into the
neighborhood. The guiding districts for a Planned Multi-Family
Residential development are the MR-2 and MR-3 Districts.
The purposes of the MR-2 and MR-3 District regulations are to
reserve appropriately located areas for multi-family residential
dwellings while preserving as many as possible of the desirable
characteristics of single-family districts; to provide opportunities for
infill housing development, thereby allowing greater intensities and
a wider variety of housing types; to minimize traffic congestion and
avoid the overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of
building of excessive size or density in relation to the surrounding
land, buildings or infrastructure; and to provide multi-family
residential areas that are safe and attractive.
As mentioned above, in order to encourage efficient land use PUDs
provide flexibility in the application of requirements when the
development is well-designed and can be successfully integrated
into the neighborhood. The Developer has submitted a final design
proposal ("Tab 7 — Site & Landscaping Plans") that addresses
neighbor-identified concerns related to traffic, access and parking
along Pillsbury Avenue.
The City's Administrative Review Committee (ARC) is comprised of
staff members from all City departments. ARC reviewed the April
30th plan submitted at its May 14th meeting. The comments from
the ARC meeting are:
Staff comments stated that the proposed development did
not meet the requirement for buildings to be oriented to the
public street and only partially met the requirement for the
exterior appearance of the building to be compatible with the
character of the neighborhood. The six-unit townhome
building along Pillsbury Avenue is approximately 24 feet
from the street and oriented in towards the proposed
development It should be noted that staff prefers having the
townhomes closer to, and oriented to, the street to provide a
more residential setting. To address neighbor-identified
concerns the developer moved the townhomes further away
from the street and oriented them facing inwards.
Bicycle parking is required for parking lots with more than 20
parking spaces, and bicycle racks are required to be
provided at 5% of the required parking spaces. The
developer has proposed seven bicycle racks. All were
initially located in the underground parking area. Staff asked
that some of the bicycle parking be moved to the outside
near the main entrance of the apartment building and the
developer has complied with that request.
Pedestrian lighting is required along 77th Street that
matches the existing pedestrian lighting throughout the
community. The developer has provided the pedestrian
lighting as asked for in the ARC comments.
Zoning Code requirements related to lot size, building coverage,
unit size, lot coverage, trash and recycling, screening of
mechanical equipment, parking, bicycle parking and access,
landscape placement and design, irrigation, window and façade
treatment, and lighting are met.
I. Required Findings
The following findings are necessary for approval of a PUD application (542.09 Subd.
3):
1. Comprehensive Plan policy[5-10]: Promote the development of a balanced
housing stock that is available to a range of income levels; The City's
Comprehensive Plan designates this block as medium-high density residential.
The developer meets the designation through the proposed purchase of
additional City and HRA-owned parcels. The Comprehensive Plan includes
goals to provide a variety of housing types at a variety of prices through
development of safe, walkable and transit-friendly developments that can be
integrated into the surrounding neighborhood.
2. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable
and unified environment within its own boundaries; This requirement is met. The
development will provide an attractive, safe housing option with many amenities
that renters desire.
3. The development is in substantial conformance with the purpose and intent of the
guiding district, and departures from the guiding district regulations are justified
by the design of the development; The development is in substantial compliance
with the intent of the guiding MR-2 and MR-3 District. Deviations from City
regulations have been allowed in order to screen surface parking and provide
more screening to surrounding single-family residences from the proposed
development.
4. The development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets
or other public facilities and utilities that serve or area proposed to serve the
development; The City's Transportation Engineer, Recreation Director and Public
Works Department have reviewed the proposed plans and do not believe that the
development will create an excessive burden on parks, streets or other public
facilities and utilities. The superintendent of Richfield Public Schools has been
informed of the details of this project; but neither he nor the Board has taken a
position on whether the proposed development would have any impact on the
District.
5. The development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring
properties; By-design the Zoning Code includes some requirements/findings that
are subjective. "Undue adverse impacts" can mean different things to different
persons. This is a requirement to be weighed and decided upon by individual
members of the Commission and ultimately the City Council.
6. The terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the plan are
sufficient to protect the public interest; the final development plan, which
establishes the terms and conditions of the development, will be drafted to meet
this requirement. The Planning Commission should decide whether the
proposed development satisfies each of these required findings.
II. All uses are conditional uses in the PMR District. The findings necessary to issue a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) are as follows (Subd. 547.09, Subd. 6):
1. Comprehensive Plan policy(5-10]: Promote the development of a balanced
housing stock that is available to a range of income levels.
2. 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; the purposes of the MR-2 and MR-3 Districts are to reserve appropriately
located areas for multi-family residential dwellings while preserving as many as
possible of the desirable characteristics of single-family districts; to provide
opportunities for infill housing development, thereby allowing greater intensities and
a wider variety of housing types; to minimize traffic congestion and avoid the
overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of building of excessive size or
density in relation to the surrounding land, buildings or infrastructure; and to provide
multi-family residential areas that are safe and attractive. Whether or not the
proposed development meets these stated goals is a decision that must be made by
individual Commission and Council Members.
3. The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans
or urban design guidelines; While there are no officially-adopted redevelopment
plans for this site, the Corridor Housing Initiative recommended low to medium
density housing of 2-3 stories designed to blend in with the neighborhood through
building and site design, to include pedestrian and safety-oriented elements like
sidewalks and porches, and which would be affordable to low to middle income
families and/or seniors.
4. The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards
specified in Section 544 of this code; the proposed development is in substantial
compliance with the performance standards specified. Deviations have been
permitted as part of the PUD process and help to address the development's
relationship to the adjacent single-family neighborhood.
5. The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental
facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements; there are or will
be adequate facilities, utilities, streets and services to support the development.
6. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or
welfare; staff is unaware of any specific threat to the public heath, safety and
welfare.
7. There is a public need for such use at the proposed location; the Comprehensive
Plan guides the proposed parcels as Medium-High Density Residential that allows a
density of 12 to 24 unites per acres and no more than four stories tall.
8. The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code
for the granting of such conditional use permit. The Planning Commission should
decide whether the proposed development satisfies each of these required findings.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
The approval of the rezoning is contingent on the City and HRA
agreement to sell their properties to the developer, and approval of the
final development plan and conditional use permit are contingent on the
rezoning, and approval of the proposed plat.
The Comprehensive Plan Housing Policy: Promote the development of a
balanced housing stock that is available to a range of income levels.
The Comprehensive Plan 2030 Future Land Use Plan (Figure 4.8)
identifies this site as Medium-High Density Residential. Medium-High
Density Residential includes multi-unit and multi-building developments.
The allowed density would range from 12 to 24 units per acre and no
greater than four stories tall.
The proposed development provides new, larger apartments — a unit type
that is currently lacking within the City.
While classified as affordable housing, the proposed development will
have rents that exceed the average rent in the City by $150-$200 per
month for similarly sized units. This is further testament to the age and
declining market appeal of the existing rental stock in the City.
C. FINANCIAL
Required application fee has been paid.
D. LEGAL
Zoning:
Existing: I — Industrial
Proposed: PMR — Planned Multi-Family Residential
Land Use:
Existing: Vacant industrial
Proposed: High-Density Residential District (MR-3)
Comprehensive Plan: Medium-High Density Residential
Notification: Notice of the hearing was mailed to residents and property
owners within 500 feet of the proposed development and published in the Sun
Current Newspaper.
60-Day: Application submitted: 4/30/12. Administrative Review Committee
Meeting: 5/10/12; Plans for Land Use Application Complete: 5/14/12.
Planning Commission Meeting is day 15 of the 60-day clock.
Other Actions:
Council: Scheduled for consideration on June 12, 2012 for the first
reading of the rezoning, and the second reading is
scheduled for consideration on June 26 , 2012.
HRA: Scheduled for public hearing to consider the sale of the HRA
Property to Ron Clark, and consideration of Development
Agreement and TIF plan on June 18, 2012.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
Continue consideration of the matter to a future planning commission meeting, if the
commission determines that additional time is required for consideration of the
requests.
Recommend denial of one or both items with supporting findings.
Recommend approval of one or both items with additional stipulations/conditions.
V. ATTACHMENTS
Pillsbury Commons Three-Ring Binder (provided separately during the week of May
21)
Planning & Zoning maps
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
Representative(s) of Ron Clark Construction and Design
7641 Pleasant Avenue
Current Land Use
RES RES
RES RES- --,—
Z RES RES RES A' RES
PRK D
W
RES 0RESRESRES RES
W J RES F-
RES RES RES i RES RES RES RES
o w
RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES
RES RES RES RES RES RES RES
co
RES RES RES RES RES RES RES
76TH ST
RR
RES RES RES RES RES RES
WW
RESAPT
PUB RES RES RES RES
RES APT RES RES RES RES
RES APT RES RES RES
Z RES APT RES RES RES
PUB
RES APT RES RES RES
0
RES RES APT RES RES RES
77TH ST
COM COM
COM RR PUB COM APT
COM
LEGEND:
N RES- Residential
APT-Apartment
0 50 100 200 300 400 COM -Commercial
Feet PRK- Park
PUB- Public
RR - Railroad
7641 Pleasant Avenue
Current Zoning
R R R R R 5 R
W J.- R
R R R
I-I R R R R
W
R R R
R R R R R
R R R
R R R R R
R R R R R R R R
76TH ST
R R R I R R R
R R MR-2 I I R R R
R R MR-2 I R R R
R R MR-2 R R R
0
R 7 R MR-2 R R R
Q/ I
R
0
R MR-2 R R R
J
R R MR-2 R R R
77TH ST
MU-N
MU-C MU-N MU-N MU-N
MU-N
MU-R
R
MU-N
I
MU-N
MU-R MU-N MU-N MU-N
MU-N
N
LEGEND:
R- Residential
A
MR-2 - Mulit-Family Residential
0 50 100 200 300 400 MU-N - Mixed Use Neighborhood
NE Feet MU-C - Mixed Use Community
7641 Pleasant Avenue
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation
1"-LDR LnR LDR
Z LDR
LDR LDR fY LDR LDR
PRK
V W
LDR 0
LDR LDR
CD
LDR LDR
W I LDR I'
LDR LDR LDR J LDR LDR J LDR
Z
LDR
ri a_ u..1
LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR
LDR LDR
LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR
VJ
LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR
76TH ST
PRK
LDR MHD MHD LDR LDR LDR
W
LDR MHD MHD MHD LDR LDR LDR
LDR MHD MHD LDR LDR LDR
LDR MHD LDR LDR LDR
0
Z LDR MHD LDR LDR LDR
MHD
LDR MHD LDR LDR LDR
0
LDR LDR MHD LDR LDR LDR
77TH ST
RCO HDR
HDR PRK MHD HDR HDR
HDR
N LEGEND:
LDR - Low Density Residential
0 50 100 200 300 400 MHD - Medium High Density Residential
Feet RCO- Regional Commercial/Office
PRK- Park
AGENDA SECTION: NEW BUSINESS
AGENDA ITEM# 2
REPORT# 9
CASE#
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD
PC MEETING DATE: MAY 29, 2012
ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution finding that the modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the
Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and establishment of the Pillsbury Commons Tax
Increment Financing District and Tax Increment Financing Plan are consistent with the
Richfield Comprehensive Plan.
I.RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Continue the Consideration of a resolution finding that the
modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area and establishment of the Pillsbury
Commons Tax Increment Financing District and Tax Increment
Financing Plan are consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan
until the June 25, 2012 Regular Planning Commission Meeting.
II. BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission was scheduled to consider whether the proposed TIF Plan
and related documents for the proposed Pillsbury Commons development are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan a number of actions at the May 29 meeting.
The item related to the TIF Plan, however, is dependent on the completion of a draft TIF
Plan, including the "but-for" findings (and related documents, including a Modification to
the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and a "But-For" Analysis). As is evidenced
by the attached letter from HRA Attorney Julie Eddington, staff and consultants are still
lacking certain information needed to complete the draft TIF Plan and related
documents. The result is that a completed TIF Plan could not be included in the agenda
packets delivered to the Planning Commission today so that the Planning Commission
could review the TIF Plan before making a determination as to whether the proposed
TIF Plan and related documents are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
This item, therefore, should be continued to the June 25, 2012 Regular Planning
Commission Meeting.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, the Planning Commission is required to
review Redevelopment Plans and comment on conformance to the City's
Comprehensive Plan (typically by means of a Resolution).
The modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment
Project Area and establishment of the Pillsbury Commons Tax Increment
Financing District and Tax Increment Financing Plan have not been
completed to date due to insufficient information from the developer.
Without the TIF Plan (and related documents), the Planning Commission has
no basis to take this action.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
The City Council has made a call for a Public Hearing to be held at their June
26, 2012 meeting to consider final approval for the establishment of this TIF
District and modification of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. That
decision may have to be either:
Delayed until after the Planning Commission has been able to make the
required Finding of Consistency, or;
Be made contingent upon a later Finding of Consistency by the Planning
Commission.
C. FINANCIAL
Ehlers Associates, Inc., the HRA's financial consultant, is preparing the tax
increment financing plan for the district, but needs additional information from
the developer in order to complete this draft document.
D. LEGAL
Chapter 469 of the Minnesota State Statutes requires that whenever the City
adopts or modifies a Redevelopment Plan, the Planning Commission must
review the plan for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Minnesota Statutes also require that the Planning Commission consider
whether the sale of a publicly owned parcel would be in conformance with the
community's Comprehensive Plan.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
N/A.
V. ATTACHMENTS
Letter from HRA Attorney Julie Eddington
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
Representative of Ron Clark Construction and Design
Offices in
470 U.S.Bank Plaza
Kennedy 200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis Minneapolis,MN 55402
Saint Paul (
612)337-9300 telephone
raven 612)337-9310 fax
St. Cloud www.kennedy-graven.com
C H A R T E R E D Affirmative Action,Equal Opportunity Employer
JULIE A.EDDINGTON
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial(612)337-9213
Email:jeddington @kennedy-graven.co
May 23,2012
Ron Clark
Ron Clark Construction&Design
7500 West 78th Street
Edina,MN 55439
Re: Tax Increment Plan for 2012-1 Housing Tax Increment Financing District(Pillsbury Commons)
Dear Ron,
As you know, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield is scheduled to review the Modification
to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered Project Area (the "Redevelopment Plan
Modification") and the Tax Increment Plan for 2012-1 Housing Tax Increment Financing District
Pillsbury Commons) (the"TIF Plan")at its meeting on Tuesday,May 29, 2012 to determine whether the
Redevelopment Plan Modification and TIF Plan conform to the general plan for the development or
redevelopment of the City as a whole. The City's financial advisor, Ehlers & Associates, has not yet
received the complete pro forma in order to complete the"but for"test findings set forth in the TIF Plan.
The pro forma has been requested on several occasions and was most recently requested in writing by
Rebecca Kurtz on May 10,2012 and has also been requested by phone.
The Planning Commission agenda packet is scheduled to be sent out today. Because the TIF Plan has not
been completed, City staff has determined to remove the consideration of the Redevelopment Plan
Modification and the TIF Plan from the Planning Commission's agenda for next Tuesday and will be
moved to the Planning Commission's next meeting on June 25,2012, assuming the necessary information
is received in time for that meeting. The public hearing on the development's land use application will
continue as scheduled.
A copy of the TIF Plan must be sent to the County and School District tomorrow for consideration of the
fiscal impacts of the development. Although not complete, the HRA staff has determined it is appropriate
to send the TIF Plan to the County and School District so that we can remain on schedule for a public
hearing in front of the City Council on the TIF Plan on Tuesday,June 26,2012.
Please provide the complete pro forma as soon as possible so that the TIF Plan can be completed and we
can remain on track with the existing schedule. Please contact me with any questions regarding the
foregoing.
Sincerely,
I I,
l gi-1641-11-11X----)'
lie A.Eddington
Attorney for Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
404607v1 JAE RC125-292
AGENDA SECTION: NEW BUSINESS
AGENDA ITEM# 3
REPORT# 10
CASE#
111 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD
PC MEETING DATE: MAY 29, 2012
ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution finding that the sale of certain real property conforms to the
general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Continue the Consideration of a resolution finding that the sale of
certain real property conforms to the general plans for the development and
redevelopment of the City until the June 25, 2012 Regular Planning Commission
Meeting.
II. BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission was originally scheduled to take a number of actions at the
May 29 meeting related to the Pillsbury Commons proposal. Those actions included:
A Public Hearing to consider rezoning the site to Planned Multi-Family Residential
PMR) with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP);
A consideration of whether the proposed TIF Plan and related documents are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and;
A consideration of whether the sale of publicly-owned parcels for inclusion in the
development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The item related to the TIF Plan, however, is dependent on the completion of a draft TIF
Plan, including the "but-for" findings (and related documents, including a Modification to
the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and a "But-For" Analysis). As is evidenced
by the attached letter from HRA Attorney Julie Eddington, staff and consultants are still
lacking certain information needed to complete the draft TIF Plan and related
documents. The result is that a completed TIF Plan could not be included in the
agenda packets delivered to the Planning Commission today so that the Planning
Commission could review the TIF Plan before making a determination as to whether the
proposed TIF Plan and related documents are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
At the May 29 Planning Commission Meeting, staff will be recommending that the
Commission continue the item(s) related to the TIF Plan until their regular June meeting
June 25). Furthermore, as Planning Commissioners have expressed their desire to not
make decisions in a "piecemeal" manner, staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission Continue the consideration of whether the sale of publicly-owned parcels
for inclusion in the development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan until the
June 25 meeting.
For these same reasons, staff is recommending that the Public Hearing and
Commissioner discussion regarding the Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit and Final
Development Plan occur as scheduled (especially since the Public Hearing was
advertised and mailed notices were sent), but that a vote on these items be continued
until the June 25 meeting as well. Legal Counsel have advised staff that a these land-
use items have a bearing on the Finding of Consistency for the land sale. As a result, it
would be improper to take any action on the Finding of Consistency of the sale of
publicly-owned land until the Planning Commission has taken action on the Rezoning
and related items).
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
On June 18, 2012 the HRA will consider a request to enter into a Contract for
Private Development with the Developer for construction of the proposed
100% affordable 70-unit housing development that includes 18 townhomes
and a 52-unit apartment complex, which contemplates certain land sales and
conveyances.
Minnesota Statutes Section 462.356 requires the Planning Commission to
make a finding whether or not land disposition conforms to the
Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Staff is recommending that the Public Hearing and Commissioner discussion
regarding the Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit and Final Development Plan
occur as scheduled but that a vote on these items be continued until the June
25 meeting as well. Legal Counsel have advised staff that these land-use
items have a bearing on the Finding of Consistency for the land sale. As a
result, it would be improper to take any action on the Finding of Consistency
of the sale of publicly-owned land until the Planning Commission has taken
action on the Rezoning (and related items).
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
The City Council will hold the first reading of transitory ordinance for the sale
of the subject property on June 12, 2012 with the public hearing and second
reading of the transitory ordinance and approval of an agreement to sell City
land to the Developer on June 26, 2012.
The HRA is scheduled to conduct a public hearing and consider the
conveyance of the subject property to the Developer on June 18, 2012.
The actions by the City Council and HRA would either need to be: a) delayed
until after the Planning Commission makes the required Finding of
Consistency, or; b) be made contingent upon the Planning Commission's
Finding of Consistency at a later date.
Members of the Planning Commission have, on several occasions, expressed
a desire to not make decisions on this project in a "piecemeal" manner, but
rather that all Planning Commission actions be taken at one meeting in
concert with one another.
C. FINANCIAL
N/A
D. LEGAL
Minnesota Statutes Section 462.356 requires the Planning Commission to make a
finding whether or not land dispositions conform to the Comprehensive Plan of the
City.
Legal Counsel have advised staff that a consideration of the land-use items (which
are recommended to be continued until June 25) have a bearing on the Finding of
Consistency for the land sale. As a result, it would be improper to take any action
on the Finding of Consistency of the sale of publicly-owned land until the Planning
Commission has taken action on the Rezoning (and related items).
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
N/A
V. ATTACHMENTS
Pillsbury Commons Three-Ring Binder (provided to you earlier)
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
Representative of Ron Clark Construction and Design