The URL can be used to link to this page

062512 Packetradii RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA June 25, 2012 6:00 p.m. Location: Bartholomew Room Study Session Items ITEM #1 Overview of Richfield Housing Programs by Housing Specialist Julie Urban Adjournment PLANNING COMMISSION RICHFIELD AGENDA June 25, 2012 7:00 p.m. Introductory Proceedings Roll Call Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of May 29, 2012. Opportunity for Citizens to Address the Commission on items not on the Agenda New Business ITEM #1 PC Letter#11 Consideration of the 2014-2017 Capital Improvement Program and a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan of the Capital Improvement Program and the 2013 Capital Improvement Budget. ITEM #2 PC Letter#12 Approve the rescheduling of the regular August Planning Commission Study Session from August 13th to August 6th starting at 5:30 p.m. Public Hearing ITEM #3 12-PUD-02 Consideration of 1) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment 12-FDP-02 changing the designation of the property from High 12-CUP-04 Density Residential to Community Commercial/Office; 2) 12-RZN-02 rezone the property from Mixed Use — Community (MU- 12-CP-02 C) to Planned Mixed Use (PMU) and 3) final development plan and conditional use permit for an auto body repair shop at 301 West 77th Street. Old Business ITEM #4 12-PUD-03 Continuation from May 28, 2012 - consideration of rezoning 12-FDP-03 and planned unit development at 7641 Pleasant Avenue 12-CUP-05 Pillsbury Commons). 12-RZN-03 ITEM #5 PC Letter#13 Continuation from May 28, 2012— consider a finding of consistency for land sale related to Pillsbury Commons. ITEM #6 PC Letter#14 Continuation from May 28, 2012- consider a finding of consistency for the proposed modifications to the Redevelopment Plan and Pillsbury Commons TIF Plan related to Pillsbury Commons. 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: July 23, 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". Planning Commission CITY OF MinutesRICHFIELD May 29, 2012 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 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/Rublein to approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 26, 2012 and the April 23, 2012 study session. Motion carried: 8-0 OPEN FORUM No members of the public spoke. PUBLIC HEARING(S) ITEM #1 12-FDP-01, 12-CUP-03, 12-PUD-01, 12-RZN-01 — 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 at 7641 Pleasant Avenue (the former Richfield Public Works Garage property and the former Gleason Mortuary at 211 W. 76th Street). CD Director Stark presented the staff report. May 29, 2012 Commissioner Hall asked for clarification on who would be allowed to speak. Chair Jabs stated that the applicant will have 20 minutes to speak and then each Commissioner will have five minutes to respond to the applicant. After that each person who wants to speak will be given five minutes, then the Commissioners will have 30 minutes to address staff with any questions they may have and then the public hearing will be closed. Jim Susag (Susag), Attorney for Ron Clark Construction and Design (dba Connelly Development) presented a PowerPoint presentation. Susag stated that the project fills a much needed gap. The site plan went from 70-units of apartments to 52-units of apartments and 18 townhomes, and that the plan now makes full use of the entire site, and the plan does not include the single-family lots on Pillsbury Avenue. He stated that they feel this blends well into the area. Susag also presented a sidewalk plan that provides the layout of the pedestrian connection throughout the site. He stated that the project is also proposed to have many amenities that renters want available to them. Susag continued by referencing the Stantec Rental Housing Study that was recently completed and how Pillsbury Commons will serve that rental market that is currently lacking in Richfield. He explained that the rents will be higher than what is current in Richfield but that it is due to the age of the rental housing stock in the community. He continued to explain the difference between Section 8 and Section 42 housing and that Section 8 is a Federal voucher program while Section 42 the rents are capped. Susag concluded by dispelling what they believed were myths about the project related to crime, market value, and addressed concerns about another project in the community that Ron Clark had constructed. Susag also presented a list of other comparable affordable housing projects within the Twin Cities as well as a recent project in Rosemount that was constructed next to a large single family home development. Ms. Ghislaine Ball, 7627 Harriet Avenue, addressed the Commission by stating she was making a presentation on behalf of the Richfield Commoners United. Ball began by stating that they (Richfield Commoners United) disagree with the Developer's presentation in regards to the responsibility for any construction flaws related to the previous Ron Clark project in Richfield, the assertion that they (Developer) are paying for the environmental cleanup and demolition costs, as well as the assertion that the Developer has been responsive to neighborhood concerns. Ball presented a PowerPoint presentation on behalf of the Richfield Commoners United. Ms. Ball discussed that they believe the proposal is inconsistent with HUD and MHFA standards and that more than 50 units will have a negative impact on the community. Ball continued by stating that Richfield has plenty of affordable housing and the belief that the Stantec Rental Housing Study indicates that Richfield doesn't need this project. Ball continued by stating that the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies don't specifically support 100% affordable housing. Ball also reviewed the racial demographics of the Richfield High School. Ball reviewed the financial impacts including the appraised value of the project and the proposed timeline for the project 2 May 29, 2012 and the belief that the Developer only responds quickly when it is in their interest and slowly when it does not benefit the Developer. Ball concluded with concern about how the property will be maintained and that overall the residents do not want this project. Ms. Deb Harms, 6326 5th Avenue, addressed the Commission stating that she has been a resident of Richfield for 37 years and feels the Developer has not been upfront with the community. She stated that this is something the residents don't want, and why are people not focused on the image of Richfield. Harms stated that St. Louis Park is a first-ring suburb, has Excelsior and Grand and the West End shops; how come this has not been seen in Richfield. Harms concluded by stating that the City should be focused on higher quality developments that don't require public subsidy. Ms. Rebecca Bowers, 6529 Knox Avenue, addressed the Commission by expressing her support of the project. She stated that she believes this project will provide an economic benefit to the community. Also, the residents of Richfield benefit from newer construction. Bowers continued to state that from her view as to what was presented by staff in the report, the proposal meets quite a few of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. She urged the Commission to vote in support of the project and appreciates the Planning Commission members volunteering and taking on the role of a commissioner. Mr. Patrick Meniboon, 7525 Nicollet Avenue, addressed the Commission by stating that he moved to Richfield due to its great location. Meniboon stated the existing site (as is) is a negative and concerned why there is discussion about population/demographics related to the decision-making process. Meniboon stated he supports the project because it would give people an opportunity to live in a nice community and he hopes the Planning Commission can decide what is good for the City and not politics. Ms. Wendy Holland, 7245 17th Avenue, addressed the Commission stating that she is opposed to the project due to the poor condition/maintenance of affordable housing and the negative impacts on the community. Holland also requested that a copy of the Developer's PowerPoint be made available. (Both presentations are available on the City's web site.) Mr. Barry LeBlanc, 7521 Pillsbury Avenue, addressed the Commission by questioning the MHFA application and the fact that it gave points for Section 8 housing. He also commented on targeting single-head of households and people of color. Mr. Bob Olsen, 7442 Pillsbury Avenue, addressed the Commission stating he was concerned that the proposed development is driven by faulty documents, especially the Metropolitan Councils affordable housing goals. Olsen stated that he understood why affordable housing tenants should live here but feels that the City should first adopt an affordable housing policy. He stated that he felt mixed-income housing would be a better housing policy than developments that are 100% affordable. Ms. Ann Dougherty, 6844 James Avenue, addressed the Commission stating that she supports the project. Dougherty believes that it will house people who work in our schools and hospitals and will provide needed three-bedroom units for families that would eventually become Richfield homeowners. 3 May 29, 2012 Mr. Lou Hanson, 7625 Garfield Avenue, addressed the Commission by stating that he is not opposed to affordable housing, but not at this location. Hanson stated that he thought a better location would be at the northwest corner of Penn Avenue and 75th Street. He stated that the proposed location that is being discussed tonight should have light-rail and a higher quality development. Ms. Mary Beth Garrigan, 7627 Harriet Avenue, addressed the Commission by stating that she believes this proposed development will attract residents from existing developments in Richfield and then those units will decline. Mr. Camillo DeSantos, 6508 Newton Avenue, addressed the Commission by expressing his support of the proposal. DeSantos stated that he feels that the proposal meets the planning and zoning requirements and complies with the Comprehensive Plan as well as meeting the needs identified in the Rental Housing Study. He continued by stating that this should be seen as a positive, that the potential for 70 families would be moving into Richfield. Mr. Joe Hoover, 7627 Harriet Avenue, addressed the Commission by pointing out that the cover letter to the Rental Housing Study states that rental housing is "needed at both ends" of the income spectrum. Hoover stated that Richfield has an abundance of low-income and fears that more will be an unhealthy balance and that renovation of existing apartments should be done to combine one-bedroom units into two and three- bedroom units. Ms. Holly Hanson, 7609 Harriet Avenue, addressed the Commission by stating that 76th Street has been improved and is now a less-intensive for those walking and biking in the area. Ms. Hanson stated that the proposed development is not compatible with the redesign of 76th Street and that the neighborhood is primarily single-family homes and multifamily is inconsistent. Ms. Stephanie Miller, 6804 James Avenue, addressed the Commission by stating that Richfield already had enough affordable housing. That the data provided is subjective and doesn't result in a clear development strategy for Richfield. She also stated that she believes that Ron Clark did not listen to the community. Mr. Collin Kaas, 6718 4th Avenue, addressed the Commission stating that this site is not going to solve or cause larger problems in the area, and that the focus should be on this particular site. Kaas stated that in this case the Comprehensive Plan provides that focus by meeting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and believes this is a good site plan and provides diversity of housing and through that is supportive of the project. M/Root, SNizecky to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 8-0 Commissioner Hall questioned the use of the Developer's term `neighborhood friendly plan' and stated that a majority of the residents are opposed to the development. He continued by stating that he doesn't think the City has attempted to identify another buyer for the site. Also, he stated that he felt the current proposal by Ron Clark was 4 May 29, 2012 inadequate in its parking and questioned lot coverage being 31.9% while 30% is the maximum according to the Zoning Code. Commissioner Hall questioned the accuracy of the Developer's market study and asked whether the author was related to a city employee. CD Director Stark stated that `no' the author of the market study and the city employee are not related. Commissioner Hall stated that he was offended by the language in a letter from Kendra Lindahl, a Developer's representative, noting that in the letter she stated that the area is a distressed community. He continued by quoting a study by MHFA that he believes shows there will be negative impacts on the neighborhood based on that study. Commissioner Hall again made note that the residents are against this proposal. Commissioner Schuller stated that Richfield has less than one percent of its land zoned as industrial and that perhaps an industrial use would be more appropriate since that is what it is currently zoned. Commissioner Vizecky noted that the zoning and Comprehensive Plan are currently incompatible and should be compatible with each other as required. He stated that he felt that most of the testimony is unrelated to whether the property meets the prescribed tests for a planned unit development and a conditional use permit. Commissioner Vizecky continued by stating that he believes the proposal meets the Comprehensive Plan guidelines and would represent an investment in the community, and views this as a positive redevelopment and questions whether there is a market for, for-sale townhomes or single-family homes at this site. Commissioner Scaglia asked for clarification that the City Council approved a resolution on June 14, 2011 that stated the project was 70-units of 100% affordable housing. Attorney Corrine Heine stated that the City Council resolution did state that, but the staff report use the term "an affordable component". Commissioner Scaglia stated that in thinking about the proposal and her previous line of work at the University of Minnesota that many of her employees could and would like to live there as well as potentially her children if needed. Commissioner Rublein discussed the perceived resentment that Ron Clark would be making money on this project, but continued by stating that is the nature of private business. Commissioner Rublein continued by stating that he was not supportive of tax increment financing and felt that there hadn't been enough efforts made to attract higher quality proposals. He continued by expressing that he was not sure how Richfield can meet the housing goals of the Metropolitan Council and feels that we need a larger housing policy before the Planning Commission acts on a proposal. 5 May 29, 2012 Chair Jabs stated that he believes Ron Clark has listened to the neighborhood concerns and made modifications to the plan based on the extent the funding parameters would allow. Jabs continued that he believes the development significantly meets the Comprehensive Plan, and that the design of the buildings should integrate with the community and that currently the site design isolates the development and instead should be more externally focused. He stated that the main comprehensive question left unanswered for him was whether the proposal is compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Root noted that he appreciated the respectful tone of the discussion and that he agreed with Commissioner Vizecky's comments. Commissioner Root continued by stating that he was supportive of a motion to continue the action to the June Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Kitzeberger also commented on the respectful nature of the discussion and continued by stating that the Planning Commission's scope is limited and believes the proposal meets the Comprehensive Plan and an identified need for such housing. He also supported the motion to continue the item. Commissioner Hall asked if members of the public would be allowed to speak again at the June 25th Planning Commission meeting. Attorney Heine suggested that the Developer and anyone else should submit responses in writing and if the commissioners at the meeting on June 25th have follow up to those responses they can ask questions then. CD Director Stark asked that the responses be submitted to staff no later than June 15th to ensure they are included in the agenda packet. M/Root, S/Rublein amended the motion to continue the consideration of the matter to the June 25th Planning Commission meeting and that any written responses be submitted in writing to staff no later than June 15th. Motion carried 8-0. NEW BUSINESS ITEM #2 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 Comprehensive Plan. ITEM #3 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. M/Root S/Rublein to continue requests to the June 25, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. 6 May 29, 2012 Motion carries 8-0. OLD BUSINESS Commissioner Schuller requested that an upcoming Planning Commission study session be held in which the use of tax increment financing and the Comprehensive Plan were discussed. LIAISON REPORTS Community Services Advisory Commission: No report City Council: No report HRA: Commissioner Root Richfield School Board: No report Transportation Commission: No report Chamber of Commerce: Commissioner Vizecky Other: No report ADJOURNMENT M/Vizecky, S/Jabs to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried: 8-0 The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:25 p.m. Dan Kitzberger Secretary AGENDA SECTION: NEW BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM# 1 REPORT# 1 1 CASE# 014111 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD PC MEETING DATE: JUNE 25, 2012 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the 2014-2017 Capital Improvement Program and a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan of the Capital Improvement Program and the 2013 Capital Improvement Budget. I.RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: 1. Recommend approval of the 2014-2017 Capital Improvement Program; and 2. Adopt a resolution finding that the 2013 Capital Improvement Budget and 2014-2017 Capital Improvement Program are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. II. BACKGROUND Each year, the City Manager makes a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) for the upcoming year. The Planning Commission is responsible for reviewing the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and making a recommendation to the City Council. The Commission is also responsible for ensuring that the CIB and the CIP are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finance Manager, Chris Regis will present a summary and answer questions. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The CIB/CIP is the City's immediate budget and five-year plan for making investments in publicly owned facilities and infrastructure. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The Planning Commission is being asked to recommend approval of the CIP and to adopt a resolution finding that the CIB and the CIP are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. FINANCIAL See the CIB/CIP document attached. D. LEGAL The Planning Commission is required by City Charter to prepare and recommend a CIP for inclusion in the annual budget message of the City Council. The Planning Commission is required by State Statute to review all proposed capital improvements within the City and make written findings to the City Council for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) Recommend approval of the CIP with changes. Do not recommend approval of the CIP and determine that the CIB is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. V. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Richfield City Charter, Chapter 7, Sections 7.05 and 7.06, Subd. 2(i)(iii) and Minnesota Statute, Section 462.356, Subd. 2 2013 Capital Improvement Budget and 2014-2017 Capital Improvement Program VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Chris Regis, City Finance Manager RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT THE 2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET AND 2014-2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan regarding the proposed capital improvements in the 2013 Capital Improvement Budget and 2014-2017 Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the proposed capital improvements would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds that the proposed capital improvements found in the 2013 Capital Improvement Budget and the 2014- 2017 Capital Improvement Program are in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Adopted this 25th day of June, 2012 by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Rick Jabs, Chairperson ATTEST: Dan Kitzberger, Secretary CHAPTER 7 RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER TAXATION AND FINANCES Section 7.05. Preparation and Submission of Annual Budget. At a special budget meeting of the Council on or before September 15, the City Manager must submit to the Council a proposed budget and a budget message in the form and containing the information specified in Section 7.06. In preparing the budget and the budget message, the Manager must obtain from City department heads information regarding (i) proposed expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year, and (ii) capital projects and capital expenditures proposed to be undertaken in the ensuing budget year and in the following four fiscal years. The Council must hold one or more informational meetings on the proposed budget at which the public may provide comments and may thereafter revise the proposed expenditures and capital projects contained in the proposed budget document. (Amended Bill 1990-13; Bill No. 2003-23) Section 7.06. Form of Annual Budget. Subdivision 1. The budget must contain a financial plan for the ensuing fiscal year. The financial plan must include: (i) a budget message, (ii) a general summary of the financial plan, (iii) estimates of revenues applicable to proposed expenditures, and, (iv) proposed expenditures. Proposed expenditures may not exceed proposed revenues. Proposed expenditures for the general and special revenue funds must (i) be listed by organization, unit or activity, and (ii) be in parallel columns opposite the major and minor object of the expenditure showing the amount of expenditure for the last fiscal year, the amount estimated for the current fiscal year and the proposed expenditure for the ensuing fiscal year. The revenues attributable to each general and special fund must be presented in a similar manner. The statement of revenues must include the source of and amount of miscellaneous revenues, the amount of surplus of prior fiscal year revenues, and the amount of revenues raised by property taxes in the prior fiscal year and estimated to be raised in the current fiscal year. (Amended Bill 1990-13; Bill No. 2003-23) Subd. 2. The Budget Message. The budget message may be submitted by the Manager as a separate document but it must accompany the budget. The message must contain the following elements: (Amended Bill No. 2003-23) ii) Capital Improvements. The message must contain a description of pending and proposed capital projects together with estimates of the costs of those projects and the sources of funds to be used to pay for them. (Amended Bill 2003-23) iii) Capital Program. The message must contain, or have attached to it, a Capital Project Plan for the four fiscal years following the fiscal year of the budget. The Capital Project Plan is to be prepared by the Manager after consultation with the department heads and any informational meetings conducted under Section 7.05. (Amended Bill 1990-13; Bill No. 2003- 23) 462.356 Procedure for plan effectuation; generally. Minnesota State Statute Subd. 2. Compliance with plan. After a comprehensive municipal plan or section thereof has been recommended by the planning agency and a copy filed with the governing body, no publicly owned interest in real property within the municipality shall be acquired or disposed of, nor shall any capital improvement be authorized by the municipality or special district or agency thereof or any other political subdivision having jurisdiction within the municipality until after the planning agency has reviewed the proposed acquisition, disposal, or capital improvement and reported in writing to the governing body or other special district or agency or political subdivision concerned, its findings as to compliance of the proposed acquisition, disposal or improvement with the comprehensive municipal plan. Failure of the planning agency to report on the proposal within 45 days after such a reference, or such other period as may be designated by the governing body shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of this subdivision. The governing body may, by resolution adopted by two-thirds vote dispense with the requirements of this subdivision when in its judgment it finds that the proposed acquisition or disposal of real property or capital improvement has no relationship to the comprehensive municipal plan. 2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET 2014-2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM City Manager's Draft 6/5/2012 2013 Capital Improvement Budget PROJECT EXPENDITURE RECREATION &OPEN SPACE Outdoor Pool Renovation Loan Repay 103,800 R Park Maintenance 50,000 R Lincoln Field Loan Repay 92,600 R Taft Lake Fishery 30,000 R Arena Rink 1 Bleachers&Railings 65,000 R Arena Skatetile 54,000 R Outdoor Pool Painting 24,600 R Pool Floatable 20,000 R Community Garden Relocation 10,000 R TOTAL REC. &OPEN SPACE 450,000 RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT North Richfield Parkway 480,000 B 250,000 C 320,000 G Taft Lake Improvement/N. Rich Parkway 515,000 M 2,700,000 B Railroad Signal at 70th Street 20,500 M 182,250 F Retaining Wall Replacement 10,000 FF Sealcoating Bituminous Streets 477,000 FF TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT 4,954,750 PUBLIC FACILITIES Replacement Central Garage Equipment 575,000 T Technology Replacement 125,000 T Fire Station 2 Renovation 900,000 I Lift Station 6 Pump Replacement 20,000 U Sanitary Sewer Main Lining 70,000 U Inflow and Infiltration Investigation 50,000 U Soda Ash Equipment 150,000 U 6444 Lyndale Liquor Tuckpointing 100,000 U 7700 Lyndale Liquor Interior Lighting 16,000 U TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES 2,006,000 TOTAL USES OF FUNDS 7,410,750 ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE B) G.O. Improvement Bonds 3,180,000 C) Hennepin County 250,000 F) Federal Funding 182,250 FF) Franchise Fees 487,000 G) TRPD Grant 320,000 I) Internal Funding 900,000 M) Municipal State Aids 535,500 R) Special Revenue 450,000 T) Property Taxes 700,000 U) User Fees 406,000 TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE 7,410,750 2014 Capital Improvement Plan PROJECT EXPENDITURE RECREATION & OPEN SPACE Park Maintenance 50,000 R Lincoln Field Loan Repay 92,600 R Taft Lake Fishery 30,000 R Wood Lake Nature Center Carpet 30,000 R Wood Lake Nature Center Parking Lot 150,000 R Community Center Carpet 20,000 R Community Bandshell 77,400 R TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE 450,000 RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT 66th Street Reconstruction 4,700,000 M 1,900,000 C Lyndale Avenue Diamond Grind 50,000 FF Mill & Overlay Bituminous Streets 1,000,000 FF TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT 7,650,000 PUBLIC FACILITIES Replacement Central Garage Equipment 575,000 TL Technology Replacement 125,000 TL Sanitary Sewer Main Lining 70,000 U Inflow and Infiltration Investigation 50,000 U Interconnect with Neighboring Communities 500,000 U Lime Slaker Replacement 250,000 U Liquor Operations Capital Improvements 50,000 U TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES 1,620,000 TOTAL USES OF FUNDS 9,720,000 ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE C) Hennepin County 1,900,000 FF) Franchise Fees 1,050,000 M) Municipal State Aids 4,700,000 R) Special Revenue 450,000 TL) Tax Levy 700,000 U) User Fees 920,000 TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE 9,720,000 2015 Capital Improvement Plan PROJECT EXPENDITURE RECREATION & OPEN SPACE Park Maintenance 50,000 R Lincoln Field Loan Repay 92,700 R Community Bandshell 57,300 R Outdoor Spray Pool 250,000 R TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE 450,000 RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT 66th Street Reconstruction 7,600,000 B 600,000 C Sealcoating Bituminous Streets 800,000 FF TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT 9,000,000 PUBLIC FACILITIES Replacement Central Garage Equipment 575,000 TL Technology Replacement 125,000 TL Sanitary Sewer Main Lining 70,000 U Inflow and Infiltration Investigation 50,000 U Fire SCBA Replacement 180,000 TL Repaint Penn Water Tower 500,000 U 6600 Cedar Liquor Roof Replacement 60,000 U 7700 Lyndale Liquor Rooftop AC Unit 20,000 U TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES 1,580,000 TOTAL USES OF FUNDS 11,030,000 ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE B) G.O. Improvement Bonds 7,600,000 C) Hennepin County 600,000 FF) Franchise Fees 800,000 R) Special Revenue 450,000 TL) General Tax Levy 880,000 U) User Fees 700,000 TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE 11,030,000 2016 Capital Improvement Plan PROJECT EXPENDITURE RECREATION & OPEN SPACE Park Maintenance 50,000 R Community Bandshell 115,300 R Taft Athletic Field Improvements 50,000 R Veterans Park Parking Lot Expansion 184,700 R Disc Golf Facility 50,000 R TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE 450,000 RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT 66th Street Reconstruction 16,500,000 C Mill &Overlay Bituminous Streets 700,000 FF TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT 17,200,000 PUBLIC FACILITIES Replacement Central Garage Equipment 575,000 TL Technology Replacement 125,000 TL Sanitary Sewer Main Lining 70,000 U Inflow and Infiltration Investigation 50,000 U Liquor Operation Capital Improvements 50,000 U TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES 870,000 TOTAL USES OF FUNDS 18,520,000 ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE C) Hennepin County 16,500,000 FF) Franchise Fees 700,000 R) Special Revenue 450,000 TL) General Tax Levy 700,000 U) User Fees 170,000 TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE 18,520,000 2017 Capital Improvement Plan PROJECT EXPENDITURE RECREATION & OPEN SPACE Park Maintenance 50,000 R Expansion of Roosevelt Park 400,000 R TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE 450,000 RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT 65th Street Reconstruction 4,860,000 B Sealcoating Bituminous Streets 600,000 FF TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT 5,460,000 PUBLIC FACILITIES Replacement Central Garage Equipment 575,000 TL Technology Replacement 125,000 TL Sanitary Sewer Main Lining 70,000 U Inflow and Infiltration Investigation 50,000 U Water main(s) replacement under I-35W 500,000 U Liquor Operation Capital Improvements 50,000 U TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES 1,370,000 TOTAL USES OF FUNDS 7,280,000 ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE B) G.O. Improvement Bonds 4,860,000 FF) Franchise Fees 600,000 R) Special Revenue 450,000 TL) General Tax Levy 700,000 U) User Fees 670,000 TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE 7,280,000 Capital Improvement Plan - Beyond 2017 PROJECT EXPENDITURE RECREATION & OPEN SPACE TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT 69th Street Sidewalk 750,000 M 76th Street West Reconstruction 2,200,000 B 77th Street Underpass of TH 77 1,075,000 M 17,200,000 F 3,225,000 S Humboldt Ave/Lakeshore Drive Reconstruction 3,000,000 B Lyndale Avenue Improvements 460,000 M 1,140,000 F Nicollet Avenue Reconstruction 3,840,000 C 2,160,000 B Penn Avenue Reconstruction 3,840,000 C 2,160,000 B Portland Avenue Reconstruction 3,840,000 C 2,160,000 B TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT 47,050,000 PUBLIC FACILITIES TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES TOTAL USES OF FUNDS 47,050,000 ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE B) G.O. Improvement Bonds 11,680,000 C) Hennepin County 11,520,000 F) Federal Funding 18,340,000 M) Municipal State Aids 2,285,000 S) State Grants 3,225,000 TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE 47,050,000 2014-2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN-CITY OF RICHFIELD,MINNESOTA Recommended and Scheduled for Four Year Period TOTAL* PROJECTS CIP COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 Beyond 2017 RECREATION OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT 1 Park Maintenance 200,000 $ 50,000 R $ 50,000 R $ 50,000 R $ 60,000 R $ 2 Lincoln Field Loan Repay 185,300 92,600 R 92,700 R 3 Taft Lake Fishery 30,000 30,000 R 4 Wood Lake Nature Center Carpet 30,000 30,000 R 5 Wood Lake Nature Center Parking Lot 160,000 150,000 R 6 Community Center Carpet 20,000 20,000 R 7 Community Bandshell 250,000 77,400 R 57,300 R 115,300 R 8 Pool Splash Pade 250,000 250,000 R 9 Taft Athletic Field Improvements 50,000 50,000 R 10 Veterans Park Parking Lot Expansion 184,700 184,700 R 11 Disc Golf Facility 50,000 50,000 R 12 Expansion of Roosevelt Park 400,000 400,000 R TOTAL RECREATION&OPEN SPACE 1,800,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ R) Special Revenue 1,800,000 $ 460,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 460,000 $ TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE 1,800,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ PROJECTS TOTAL• CIP COSTS 2014 2015 2016 2017 Beyond 2017 RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENTS 13 66th Street Reconstruction 12,300,000 $ 4,700,000 M $ 7,600,000 B $ 19,000,000 1,900,000 C 600,000 C 16,500,000 C 14 Lyndale Avenue Diamond Grind 50,000 50,000 FF 15 Mill&Overlay Bituminous Streets 1,700,000 1,000,000 FF FF 700,000 FF 16 Sealcoat Bituminous Streets 1,400,000 800,000 FF 600,000 FF 17 65th Street Reconstruction 4,860,000 4,860,000 B 18 69th St.Sidewalk 750,000 750,000 M 19 76th Street West Reconstruction 2,200,000 2,200,000 B 20 77th Street Underpass of TH 77 1,076,000 1,075,000 M 17,200,000 17,200,000 F 3,225,000 3,225,000 S 21 Humboldt Ave./Lakeshore Drive Recon.3,000,000 3,000,000 B 22 Lyndale Avenue Improvements 460,000 460,000 M 1,140,000 1,140,000 F 23 Nicollet Avenue Reconstruction 2,160,000 2,160,000 B 3,840,000 3,840,000 C 24 Penn Avenue Reconstruction 2,160,000 2,160,000 B 3,840,000 3,840,000 C 25 Portland Avenue Reconstruction 2,160,000 2,160,000 B 3,840,000 3,840,000 C TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENTS 86,360,000 $ 7,650,000 $ 9,000,000 $ 17,200,000 $ 5,460,000 $ 47,050,000 B)G.O.Improvement Bonds 24,140,000 $ 7,600,000 $ 4,860,000 $ 11,680,000 C)Hennepin County 30,520,000 1,900,000 600,000 16,500,000 11,520,000 F) Federal Funding 18,340,000 18,340,000 FF)Franchise Fees 3,150,000 1,050,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 M) Municipal State Aid 6,985,000 4,700,000 2,285,000 S)State Grants 3,225,000 3,225,000 TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE 86,360,000 $ 7,650,000 $ 9,000,000 $ 17,200,000 $ 5,460,000 $ 47,050,000 2014-2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN-CITY OF RICHFIELD,MINNESOTA PROJECTS TOTAL' CIP COSTS 2014 2015 2016 2017 Beyond 2017 PUBLIC FACILITIES 26 Replacement Central Garage Equipment $ 2,300,000 $ 575,000 TL $ 575,000 TL $ 575,000 TL $ 575,000 TL $ 27 Technology Replacement 500,000 125,000 TL 125,000 TL 125,000 TL 125,000 TL 28 Inflow and Infiltration Investigation 200,000 50,000 U 50,000 U 50,000 U 50,000 U 29 Sanitary Sewer Main Lining 280,000 70,000 U 70,000 U 70,000 U 70,000 U 30 Water Interconnect w/Neighboring Comm. $ 500,000 600,000 U U 31 Lime Slaker(s)Replacement 250,000 250,000 U 32 Fire SCBA Replacement 180,000 180,000 TL 33 Repaint Penn Water Tower 500,000 500,000 U 34 Water Main(s)Replacement Under I-35W $ 500,000 500,000 U 35 6600 Cedar Liquor Roof Replacement 60,000 60,000 U 36 7700 Lyndale Rooftop AC Unit 20,000 20,000 U 37 Liquor Operation Capital Improvements $ 150,000 50,000 U 50,000 U 50,000 U TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES 6,440,000 $ 1,620,000 $ 1,580,000 $ 870,000 $ 1,370,000 $ TL)Tax Levy 2,980,000 $ 700,000 $ 880,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ U) User Fees 2,460,000 920,000 700,000 170,000 670,000 TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE 5,440,000 $ 1,620,000 $ 1,580,000 $ 870,000 $ 1,370,000 $ SUMMARY PROJECTS Recreation/Open Space Development 1,800,000 450,000 460,000 450,000 450,000 Right of Way Improvements 86,360,000 7,650,000 9,000,000 17,200,000 5,460,000 47,050,000 Public Facilities 5,440,000 1,620,000 1,580,000 870,000 1,370,000 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 93,600,000 $ 9,720,000 $ 11,030,000 $ 18,520,000 $ 7,280,000 _$ 47,050,000 B)G.O.Improvement Bonds 24,140,000 $ 7,600,000 $ 4,860,000 $ 11,680,000 C)Hennepin County 30,520,000 1,900,000 600,000 16,500,000 11,520,000 F) Federal Funding 18,340,000 18,340,000 FF)Franchise Fees 3,150,000 1,050,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 M) Municipal State Aid 6,985,000 4,700,000 2,285,000 R) Special Revenue 1,800,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 S)State Grants 3,225,000 3,225,000 TL)Tax Levy 2,980,000 700,000 880,000 700,000 700,000 U) User Fees 2,460,000 920,000 700,000 170,000 670,000 TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 93,600,000 $ 9,720,000 $ 11,030,000 $ 18,520,000 $ 7,280,000 $ 47,050,000 Total CIP costs do not Include any project costs reflected in the 2013 CIB. AGENDA SECTION: New Business AGENDA ITEM# 2 PC LETTER# 12 CASE# Aal PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD PC MEETING DATE: JUNE 25, 2012 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a motion rescheduling the regular August Planning Commission Study Session. I.RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the rescheduling of the regular August Planning Commission Study Session from August 13, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. to August 6, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. II. BACKGROUND Because of the primary election, the City Council has rescheduled their August 14th meeting for August 13th. So as to not conflict with the Council meeting, staff proposes that the Planning Commission Study Session be rescheduled to Monday, August 6th. Additionally, this meeting is scheduled to be the Commission's annual biking/walking tour. Staff recommends changing the start time from 7:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION The scheduled study session is on the same night as a Council Meeting. IV. ATTACHMENTS None AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM# 3 REPORT# CASE# 12-PUD-02, 12-FDP- 02, 12-CUP-02, 12- RZN-02, 12-CP-02 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD PC MEETING DATE: JUNE 25, 2012 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Public hearing regarding a planned unit development plan for a new auto-body repair building at 301 77th Street West. Consideration of 1) A Comprehensive Plan Amendment changing the designation of the property from High Density Residential to Community Commercial/Office; 2) Rezone the property from Mixed Use — Community (MU-C) to Planned Mixed Use (PMU) and 3) A final development plan and conditional use permit for an auto body repair shop. I.RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: 1. Recommend approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan re-guiding the property from High-Density Residential to Community Commercial/Office; 2. Recommend approval of the rezoning of the property from Mixed Use — Community (MU-C) to Planned Mixed Use (PMU); and 3. Recommend approval of the final development plan and conditional use permit for a planned unit development at 301 77th Street West. II. BACKGROUND In 1992, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) purchased the property at 301 77th Street West with the intention of marketing the property for a restaurant. There are however some significant impediments to restaurant development at this location and despite marketing efforts, the site has remained vacant. In 2002, staff requested reassurance from the HRA that the desired use of the site was for a restaurant, or in special circumstances, a Richfield business that is being displaced due to redevelopment. The HRA agreed that this was still their intent. In 2009, Accessible Space Inc. (ASI) and Twin City Christian Homes (TCCH) proposed the development of an accessible, affordable 51-unit housing project for low-income seniors at this site. The City Council approved both Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments related to this request; however funding for the project fell through and the project did not move forward. Richfield Bloomington Honda (RBH) is interested in expanding their dealership in Richfield. In order to do so, RBH has proposed to purchase land currently owned by LaMettry Properties LLC (LaMettry) and partially occupied by LaMettry Collision. LaMettry is willing to sell provided that a new location for their business can be found within the immediate area. On June 18th the HRA granted LaMettry permission to submit an application for the redevelopment of the property at 301 77th Street West. The actual sale of the property will be considered in July and this permission does not obligate the HRA to sell the land. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY In 2005 the City of Richfield completed a corridor study for the properties on 1-494 between Cedar Avenue and I-35W. The final 1-494 Plan (Plan) envisioned the area as a complete community that is compact, walkable and transit-friendly. In order to achieve this, the plan recommends areas of higher density residential and commercial development to be interspersed throughout the corridor, allowing for a mutually beneficial relationship. The property at 301 77th Street West was initially designated as Regional Commercial/Office in the Comprehensive Plan, but was re-guided for High-Density Residential use when the ASI residential project was proposed. This site is in a transitional area between an area that is guided for commercial use and one that is guided for residential use. Either a commercial or a residential designation could be appropriate for the site. The more appropriate question is how any particular use will impact adjacent properties. The impact on current users and on potential redevelopment in the area should be taken into consideration. Zoning Code requirements: Planned unit developments 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 dimensional requirements, density and land uses if the proposed development is well designed and can be successfully integrated into the neighborhood. The guiding district for the proposed Planned Mixed Use (PMU) development is the Mixed Use - Community District. Some of the relevant purposes of the Mixed Use Districts are to guide development in ways that adapt to market and transportation changes, to provide appropriate transitions between uses, to promote pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and discourage large surface parking areas, and to encourage high-quality architectural and landscape design. The proposed development deviates from the following guiding-district requirements: Buildings are required to be a minimum of two stories. Auto mechanical/body repair uses are required to be set back 15- 25 from residentially zoned property. While the railroad property is zoned residential, it is guided for future park (trail) use. The railroad property is approximately 45 feet wide and provides the required buffer between this site and the residentially-guided former public works site. A minimum buffer of 15 feet is required to separate auto mechanical/body repair uses from all abutting parcels. This requirement is not met along the southern-most property line. However, the location of the Candlewood Hotel in relation to this area largely addresses the intent of this requirement. Staff does recommend that trees (overstory or evergreen) be required in the landscape area along the privacy fence in order to provide some screening of damaged vehicles for the occupants of the hotel's upper floors. Staff believes that this addition would also more effectively meet the requirement that all vehicles awaiting repair be stored in appropriately screened areas. Developments are required to provide safe pedestrian and bicycle passage. Staff acknowledges that the proposal does not make changes to the existing curb cut, but recommends that redevelopment require an adjustment to make this crossing safer. The proposed lighting plan does not meet requirements. The proposed poles exceed height limitations. A revised photometric plan using poles that meet requirements should be provided for staff review. (Lighting measurements will change when pole heights are reduced.) Darkly tinted windows or any windows that prevent two-way visibility are prohibited as ground floor windows along street facades. The applicant has stated that the windows will be "tinted for sun." It should be clear to everyone that two-way visibility is required. The proposal does not include a "pedestrian spine." The Code calls for a "major pedestrian area of useable open space to be the central organizing element" that links properties within the 1-494 Corridor. Given the proximity of the railroad tracks, this is not realistic for this site. Additional Requirements: Removal of parking in drive aisle. A cross-access agreement between the Candlewood Hotel parcel and the HRA parcel exists. This agreement ensures continued public access to the Hotel and also provides overflow parking (up to 25 spaces) between the parcels. The agreement stipulates that nothing may interfere with the shared drive access. The proposed perpendicular parking along the drive aisle is unsafe and interferes with this access. This parking should be removed as a stipulation of approval. The shared agreement provides more than enough parking for the proposed use. Minimum right-of-way behind curb is 14 feet. The Public Works Department requires a minimum of 14 feet of right-of-way behind the curb. An additional 1.5 — 2 feet of right-of-way must be dedicated to meet this requirement and the building must be shifted slightly south. Replace Ash trees. The proposed plans indicate only "existing tree" and do not identify the species. Any Ash trees within the City right-of-way must be removed and replaced with city-approved variety. Required Findings The following findings are necessary for approval of a PUD application (542.09 Subd. 3): 1. The proposed development conforms to the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and any applicable redevelopment plans; The applicant has applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would change the designation of this property from High-Density Residential to Community Commercial/Office. This site in a transitional area between an area that is guided for regional commercial use and one that is guided for residential use. Either a commercial or a residential designation would be appropriate for the site. 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. 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 MU-C District. Deviations are related to the unique characteristics of the site, particularly the proximity of the railroad and the inability to move the existing drive/entry. Staff does feel that additional trees (overstory or evergreen) in the landscape area along the privacy fence would more effectively meet the intent of buffering and screening requirements and better protect the interests of the adjacent hotel. 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; This requirement is met. 5. The development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring properties; The proposed building and site are attractively designed. With the addition of the landscaping to screen damaged vehicles from view of hotel guests, staff does not believe the proposed development will have undue impacts on neighboring properties. 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, meets this requirement. All uses are conditional uses in the PC-2 District. The findings necessary to issue a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) are as follows (Subd. 547.09, Subd. 6): 1. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; Same as above. 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; Some of the relevant purposes of the Mixed Use Districts are to guide development in ways that adapt to market and transportation changes, to provide appropriate transitions between uses, to promote pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and discourage large surface parking areas, and to encourage high-quality architectural and landscape design. The proposed use is consistent with these purposes. 3. The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines; The 1-494 Corridor Study proposed a mix of land uses that would be established in a pedestrian-friendly development pattern. While the proposed development specifically serves automobiles, surface parking has been reduced in favor of additional greenspace and a pedestrian connection from 77th Street to the Candlewood Hotel created. Staff recommends that the driveway apron be narrowed to improve this pedestrian crossing. With this additional change, staff finds this use to be consistent with the intent of 1-494 Study. 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 are related to the unique characteristics of the site, particularly the proximity of the railroad and the inability to move the existing drive/entry. Staff recommends that additional landscaping be required along the northern privacy fence in order to meet this requirement. The proposed lighting plan does not meet requirements. Staff also recommends that approval be conditioned upon submittal of a revised lighting plan. 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; adequate provisions have been made to protect the public heath, safety and welfare. 7. There is a public need for such use at the proposed location; LaMettry Collision has operated successfully in this area for many years. The proposed location is less than 500 feet from their current location. 8. 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 or will be met. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The Comprehensive Plan calls for a mix of commercial and housing sites throughout the 1-494 Corridor. The property at 301 77th Street West was initially designated as Regional Commercial/Office in the Comprehensive Plan, but was reguided for High- Density Residential use when the ASI residential project was proposed. This site is in a transitional area between an area that is guided for regional commercial use and one that is guided for residential use. Either a commercial or a residential designation could be appropriate for the site. The site is not large enough to accommodate a "Regional Commercial" use (defined at 150,000 square feet or more) therefore "Community Commercial is the option to be considered. The more important question for this site is how any particular use will impact adjacent properties. The impact on current users and on potential redevelopment in the area should be taken into consideration. Approvals remain valid for one year unless substantial work has been completed or an extension is granted by the Council. Staff recommends that approval be conditioned upon the addition of overstory or evergreen trees to further screen damaged vehicles from the upper floors of the neighboring hotel and submittal of a revised lighting plan that substantially conforms to code requirements. C. FINANCIAL Required application fee has been paid. D. LEGAL Zoning: Existing: MU-C (Mixed Use — Community) Proposed: PMU (Planned Mixed Use) Land Use: Existing: Vacant Proposed: Auto body/ mechanical shop Comprehensive Plan: Existing: High-Density Residential Proposed: Community Commercial/Office Notification: Notice of the hearing was mailed to properties within 350 feet of the proposed development and published in the Sun Current Newspaper. Other Actions: HRA: July 16 - Public hearing to consider sale of property. Council: June 26 — Consideration of 1St reading of rezoning (procedural requirement, consent agenda) July 10 — Consideration of Comprehensive Plan amendment, 2nd reading of rezoning, planned unit development. Stipulations of Approval: 1. A recorded copy of the approved resolution must be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. That the developer acquires the required Housing and Redevelopment Authority parcel. 3. That a revised site plan with 1) a reduced driveway apron to improve pedestrian safety, 2) a drive that conforms to City Detail requirements (on file with Public Works), 3) a parking plan that removes perpendicular parking off of the shared drive, and 4) a minimum of 14 feet of dedicated right-of-way must be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Public Works Directors prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. That a revised landscape plan identifying the species of existing trees be submitted. Any Ash trees within the City right-of-way must be removed and replaced with city-approved variety. 5. That a stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. That revised lighting plans in substantial agreement with code requirements be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 7. That windows adjacent to 77th Street allow two-way visibility. 8. That all mechanical and utilitarian items be screened from public areas. 9. That all repair, assembly, disassembly, and maintenance of vehicles take place within the enclosed building. 10.That all plans required by and detailed within the Administrative Review Committee Report dated April 3, 2012 be submitted and approved by the relevant Department. 11.The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that dies. 12.This approval does not include signs. Separate sign permits are required. 13. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall submit a surety equal to 125% of the value of any site improvements (based on two bids including labor cost) not yet complete. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) Recommend approval the proposed planned unit development plan, final development plan, and conditional use permit with additional conditions. Recommend denial of the proposed planned unit development, final development plan, and conditional use permit with a finding that the proposed project does not meet City requirements. V. ATTACHMENTS Resolution — Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance — Rezoning Resolution — Final Development Plan / Conditional Use Permit Proposed plans Planning & Zoning maps VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Representative(s) of LaMettry Properties LLC RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF 301 WEST 77TH STREET TO "COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL/OFFICE" WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan provides a Guide Plan establishing particular planning needs for specific segments of the City; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan designates 301 West 77th Street as "High Density Residential"; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the Guide Plan classification and determined that it would be appropriate to designate 301 West 77th Street as "Community Commercial/Office"; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 25, 2012 concerning modifying the Guide Plan and approved the modifications; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the amendment on July 10, 2012; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the City's Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to designate 301 West 77th Street as "Community Commercial/Office" and is contingent upon the following: 1. The revision is submitted to and approved by the Metropolitan Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of July 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk BILL NO. 2012- AMENDMENT TO SECTION APPENDIX 1 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD LaMettry Collision Planned Unit Development Plan and Rezoning) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact: A. The City's zoning ordinance establishes zoning classifications for individual property. The property located at 301 West 77th Street is zoned MU-C (Mixed Use - Community) [the "subject property"]. B. LaMettry Properties, LLC has submitted an application to the City for a planned unit development plan [the "PUD plan"] in the subject area. The PUD plan proposes to construct an Auto mechanical/body repair shop and 34 parking stalls. C. The City has reviewed the zoning ordinance and determined that it would be appropriate to rezone the subject area as PMU (planned mixed use) and approve the PUD plan to establish the regulations governing the PMU district. D. The Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing concerning the PUD plan and amending the zoning ordinance for the subject property. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD plan and zoning ordinance amendment on June 25, 2012 following a public hearing. The City Council held a first reading of the rezoning on June 26, 2012 and second reading and consideration of the PUD plan on July 10, 2012. E. The City's zoning ordinance provides criteria for approving a PUD plan and rezoning of property to a planned unit development. The City Council finds that the PUD plan and rezoning of the subject property meets the criteria in the following ways: 1) The proposed development conforms with the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Development Plan and any applicable redevelopment plans: a) The City Council approved an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on July 10, 2012 that designates the subject property as "Community Commercial/Office." b) The Comprehensive Plan describes the "Community Commercial/Office" area as accommodating a wide variety of retail and services that are more intense than neighborhood-scale business, but that will attract residents of Richfield and the immediate vicinity rather than customers from the entire metropolitan area. An auto body/mechanical repair shop falls within this category. c) The 1-494 Corridor is described as an area that will feature a range of shops, services and housing in a more dense and walkable "urban village" land use pattern. The proposed PUD plan maximizes greenspace, reduces surface parking and provides an attractive building that is pulled up to the sidewalk. 2) The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries: The stipulations of the approved final development plan which include the removal of perpendicular parking off of the shared driveway and compliance with City driveway and pedestrian crossing requirements will insure that this requirement is met. 3) The development is in substantial conformity with the purpose and intent of the original MU-C zoning district, and departures from the original district regulations are justified by the design of the development: The development is in substantial compliance with the intent of the guiding MU-C District. Deviations are related to the unique characteristics of the site, particularly the proximity of the railroad and the inability to move the existing drive/entry. Additional trees (overstory or evergreen) are required in the landscape area along the privacy fence to more effectively meet the intent of buffering and screening requirements and better protect the interests of the adjacent hotel. Revised lighting that substantially meets code requirements is also required. 4) The development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, or other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the development: This requirement is met. 5) The development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring properties: The proposed building and site are attractively designed. With the addition of overstory and/or evergreen trees to screen damaged vehicles from view of hotel guests, and the removal of parking off of the shared driveway, the proposed development will not have undue impacts on neighboring properties. 6) The terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the plan are sufficient to protect the public interests: This requirement is met. Section 2. Appendix 1 of the zoning ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled Richfield Zoning Code: Boundaries of Zoning Districts" is hereby amended: A. Section 8, new paragraph 2 is added to read as follows: 2) M-16 (301 77th Street West) Lot 1, Block 1, Candlewood Hotel Addition. B. Section 17, paragraph 15 is repealed. Section 3. This amendment constitutes a rezoning of the following property: 301 West 77th Street Section 4. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of July, 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTO BODY / MECHANICAL REPAIR SHOP AT 301 77TH STREET WEST WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of a final development plan and conditional use permit for a planned unit development to allow construction of an auto body / mechanical repair shop at 301 West 77th Street, legally described as: Lot 1, Block 1 , Candlewood Hotel, Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield held a public hearing and recommended approval of the proposed final development plan and conditional use permit on June 25, 2012; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to properties within 350 feet of the subject property on June 11, 2012; and WHEREAS, the requested final development plan and conditional use permit meets those requirements necessary for approving a planned unit development as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 542.09, Subd. 3 and as detailed in City Council Staff Report No. and WHEREAS, the request meets those requirements necessary for approving a conditional use permit as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 547.09, Subd. 6 and as detailed in City Council Staff Report No. and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of a planned unit development, final development plan and 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 adopts as its Findings of Fact the WHEREAS clauses set forth above. 2. A planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit are approved for a commercial development as described in City Council Report No. , on the Subject Property legally described above. 3. The approved planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit are subject to the following conditions: A recorded copy of the approved resolution must be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. That the developer acquires the required Housing and Redevelopment Authority parcel. That a revised site plan with 1) a reduced driveway apron to improve pedestrian safety, 2) a drive that conforms to City Detail requirements (on file with Public Works), 3) a parking plan that removes perpendicular parking off of the shared drive, and 4) a minimum of 14 feet of dedicated right-of-way must be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Public Works Directors prior to issuance of a building permit. That a revised landscape plan identifying the species of existing trees be submitted. Any Ash trees within the City right-of-way must be removed and replaced with city- approved variety. That a stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director prior to issuance of a building permit. That revised lighting plans in substantial agreement with code requirements be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. That windows adjacent to 77th Street allow two-way visibility. That all mechanical and utilitarian items be screened from public areas. That all repair, assembly, disassembly, and maintenance of vehicles take place within the enclosed building. That all plans required by and detailed within the Administrative Review Committee Report dated April 3, 2012 be submitted and approved by the relevant Department. The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that dies. This approval does not include signs. Separate sign permits are required. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall submit a surety equal to 125% of the value of any site improvements (based on two bids including labor cost) not yet complete. 4.The approved planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit shall expire one year from issuance unless the use for which the permit was granted has commenced, substantial work has been completed or upon written request by the developer, the Council extends the expiration date for an additional period of up to one year, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subd. 9. 5.The approved planned unit development, final development plan and 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 Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subd. 10. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of July, 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk PROJECT NUMBER L4METTRY'' .4UTO BODY m R 112016 City of Richfield w V, gas18"POLYPROPYLENE OR 1t( POLYETHYLENE(40 MIL.18"POLYPROPYLENE OR Hennepin County Minnesota y1-1/2"WIDE STRAP TYP.) f POLYETHYLENE(40 MIL. J ibz11I .- 1-1/2"WIDE STRAPii,,, DOUBLE STRAND 14 GA. TYP.) w 1MRE-3'0 120"INTERVAL v DOUBLE STRAND 14 GA.WARE S Sa a - n5 4. a srt a tI w s ( e"' K 1 3'0 120"INTERVAL TP- a s J a ;I w 5•` TYP. e.— t•v -` rt a ° _°- n^n=<_ 5^'f• I+'< T •+f."-„i M1 +- I -- L w Tali _rc } gE I 1 TREE WRAP TO FIRST f — Y——_ ! t t. Q K4 ° n ` s— eft a1 a ° 8° v' TREE WRAP TO FIRST f o _ a g l_BRANCH BRANCH r r' t r n s' 1 9 sy i / '\"_..' is tt• i'. TURNBUCKLE WITH DOUBLE 7 / I' i '<s s .'`_ 5 a e STRAND#14 GAUGE WIRE-3 TURNBUCKLE WITH DOUBLE ? 1 4 fi v —— —__ v j v PER TREE STRAND p14 GAUGE WIRE _ r—, J u 8'STEEL 3 PER TREE 8'STEEL , 4°-6°LAYER OF SHREDDED STAKE 411= — x —— T u s STAKE j HARDWOOD MULCH IN I FINAL GRADE OF PLANT a fi a Y SAUCER-EXTEND PAST STAKE GRADE ORIGINAL As A 5 n 44 FINAL GRADE OF PLANT I a si 4+ s M 4 4"-6"LAYER OF SHREDDED a n a• i• TO EQUAL ORIGINAL E+ 5 S` a GRADE HARDWOOD MULCH IN a •< a 4 <•• 6 2"x2"x3O°STAKES SET 120"APA l SAUCER-EXTEND PAST STAKE a ' S 4 NM rt < 4"< NM a+ E i OUTSIDE THE BALL AT ANGLE- I. _ 2"x2"x30°STAKES SET 120" s < nK'_ •. a a K G<. n eTREE 1 - _ANGLE OUTSIDE PER TREE ALL _ c.-. ..— rsv`` fJ __ s ry A r j BACKFILL PATH E%T. 1% SODj1B" TREE — 2'MIN ] t j 1 PLANTING SOIL 1_` 1_' — 2'MIN MIN MIN J 1 a SOIL SOIL_ p LS D ti38v©ti LLI ie3Y:yL 11 m»i Q ai'Cif3Ell 8E f wW 0 1 rJ grr tYiee iJ r mwSJ ®F ;<.Ijro{n TY DN BMV BSJ PD a eSiLe000a,' GMS /// ..'YO oo1aiLIt7i. JTL 2 A ,ei B 7 2 3 9 4 NOTES: SOD 3 SOD B 3 a e NOTES: TWO ALTERNATE METHODS OF TREE STAKING ARE SHOWN. f 4 OCi 6-'6' TWO ALTERNATE METHODS OF TREE STAKING ARE SHOWN. 7" --- 4 1 4+LY jy KFG 1-%23.1I Q7 IRIm IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S OPTION TO STAKE TREES: HOWEVER.THE CONTRACTOR IS i i Iliti' 1i; IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S OPTION TO STAKE TREES: RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTAINING TREES IN A PLUMB POSITION THROUGHOUT THE GUARANTEE I i SJ O'15AF. GMS 3 co HOWEVER,THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERIOD. I j rys. IV. 3 A w 1+) MAINTAINING TREES IN A PLUMB POSITION THROUGHOUT THE I I /f 2 IJL 3 I. cL N SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING. y SOD r Ids c \ GUARANTEE PERIOD. 1 I 3 G i w OCONIFERTOHAVESHREDDEDHARDWOODMULCHUNLESS D 1 1 1 1 1 1 - t U a SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING. OTHERWISE NOTED. 1 i aa 2 NO MULCH TO BE IN CONTACT WITH TRUNK. f i 15 . I- I C F""" L V I DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL 15 D 3g CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL 4 r a te r'. 1 , 1 i 0000 KFG KFG r ,/ lie WM j I (j 10 '° SRJ EXISTING CC . J =o 1 3 TREE LINE z ia 1 I q T 1 1 ` - - t I1 2 - . i O t V 4"-6"LAYER OF SHREDDED I 1 I ' HARDWOOD MULCH IN II r SAUCER-EXTEND PAST STAKE Ll Y 4 OOOOQJ II SEED DISTURBED Mil t\, FINAL GRADE OF PLANT SSC M 111111 AREAS WITH TALL K i°—wI 2 TO EQUAL ORIGINAL i 5 NATIVE GRASSES GRADE 3 II 9. c ,Hj W o 4 oiPY" ei._..... I I I 7/ ter/ r i 2 a, e o BACKFILL WITH SOD I i r Q W 7 N N b PLANTING SOIL I Y MAINTAIN PEDESTAL I j II )I J E' x' r • .i o ^°a•OF UNDISTURBED 1 L I — _ — JI III S i r , l Atli! b gvN14SALI r r Z s gIgIII II I! r, { m ooro CENTERING OF 14<I III I=Q N W 0_LL SHRUB IN BED TO rT//_ i7T/T//J NOTES: TAKE PRECEDENCE SJ p D AJS KFG 1 ,r y HAND LOOSEN ROOTS OF CONTAINERIZED OVER DIMENSION C a MATERIAL(TIP,). FROM EDGE I..,- ' II III J 62 iI.• SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO y t I ',II I A SOD VIIPLANTING. II i A" CO_OZ IOj:,;°_4°x7-^O\ w 11 i!.>.;: `; : ioo_oio_oo6i _cou,r,. _ ____= 6' TALL I ftio ma SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL f. L_II I''"o; I PRIVACY i 1 L FENCE EaI°.' o..___....—_._— _... _....L.— _--1ett_. .It ii- r..:oI 4Q,r"';JIy; Q°d..70.-_1Do, :i PLANT LIST: Site Plantings PLANTING NOTES: aeete-e"T77.'eeior•°'e ..te 'eYet000i«ioaolo..:'o+f..iooa; -'" M OTT. KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE/ROOT Contractor shall provide one yeor guarantee of oil plant materials.The guarontee begins on the dote of the Londacope Architect's written acceptance of the initial planting. Replacement plont materials shall III w N TREES also have a one year guarantee commencing upon planting. O a commencing upon planting. G,. t l I- 4 NM Acer platonoides Norway Maple 2-l/2" B&B I N Plonk to be installed as per stantlord AAN planting practices and Mtnnesoto grown. t p z M3SSCMalus'Spring Snow' Spring Snow Crabapple 1-1/2" B&B E z 13JTLSyringereticulateJapaneseTreeLilac1-1/2" B&B Uee minimum 12"loom planting soli on trees and 6"on shrubs. w, 0-aa.3 ISL S)ringa reticulate'Ivory Silk'Ivory Silk Japanese Tree Lilac 1-1/2" B&B Contractor shalt verily locations with all utililies prior to instdlatian of plants. BRODSHO CONSULTING em o d'• aSHRUBS All landseoping end sod arson shall be Irrigated with an underground sprinkler. QON 3 4 PD Hydrangea paniculata 'Pink Diamond' Pink Diamound Hydrangea 5 Gal. Pot Staking of trees optional; reposition If not plumb after one year. 1i'm 698 NORTHBRIDGE COURT p= 13 2 DN Physocarpus opulifoltus'Menlo' Diobolo Ninebork 5 Gal. Pot Wrap all smooth-barked trees-foster top and bottom.Remove by April I. EAGAN, MN 55123 Q q o 3 0 14 GLS Rhus aromatico'Gro-Lo' Gro-Lo Fragrant Sumoc 5 Gol. Pot Open top of burlap p potted p p peat pots. PHONE: 651-688-8023 j v=tDppanBBmaterials;remove of on oiled loots; split and break a art 6 GMS Spiraea x bumalda'Goldmound' Goldmound Spires 5 Gal. Pot FAX: 651-456-5748 at or aIPrunePlanteasostensory-per standard nursery practice. 3 BMV Viburnum dentatum'Chrislom' Blue Muffin Arrowwood Viburnum 5 Gal. Pot Owner shall be responsible for mointenonce after acceplonce of the work by the Owner. 5 SJ Juniperus Sabina'Scondio Scandio Juniper 5 Gal. Pot e 9 BSJ Juniperus squomato'Blue Star' Blue Star Juniper 5 Gel. Pot Plants shall be immediately planted upon arrival of site.Properly heel-in materials if necessary. Eiw m 3 SRJ Juniperus virginiano'Sky Rocket' Sky Rocket Juniper 5 Gal. Pot All disturbed areas to be sodded unions otherwise noted. Sod shall be northern grown and hardy. I- a b Any ores disturbed along the railroad will be seeded with MNDoT 350 with straw cover. Seed cover I w w7TYTaxusxmedia 'Tauntonii Taunton Yew 5 Gal. Pot with Oats for spring planting only. I X E ease PRELIMINARYPERENNIALSSc& ORNAMENTAL GRASSES Planting beds for shrubs snail nave(4 oz.min.)weed barrier fabric,3'-4"of 1-1/2° oaAww a1Eam IK9aN kg d $o 36 KFG Calamagrostis acutiflora'Korl Forester' Karl Forester Feather Reed Grass 2 Gal. Pot washed River Rock mulch and 4"vertical(commercial grade)block poly edging The edging shall o m ..n u be placed and staked with smooth curves. Reduce mulch cover and no weed barrier by perennial beds. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONa er`- o`-a`-a 92 D Hemerocallis sp. Mixture of colors and species 1 Got. Pot snEET: 12 Shredded hardwood mulch 4 tleep shall be proWded around all insidled trees. o r°§r°.r'--.."76 AJS Sedum spectabile'Autumn Joy Autumn Joy Sedum 1 Gal. Pot Retoinin ells are not the res y o g 20 0 20 40 60 CHOC^ '""'S B Accent landsca a boulder Stone color match buildin set 1 3 into rode 9'" ponsibBil f the Landscape Architect. Contact the Pro ct En sneer li s s'o 0 o p 9' / 9 for details,locations,materials.and spectf ations far all alo(nin9 walls.U••••—oy.3c IT4 GATE o g xxx Scale 1" = 20' REY. /9/2012 T TINTED INSULATED*LAN 2 BRICK VENEER OVER 174"DEEP SMOOTH RECES I S M W 7NERMALLY IMPROVED PRECAST PANELS ALUMINUM PRAMS T I 7 IM I PMISHED!LOOK7 Q GRADS-en DEMONS INSULATED PRECAST CONCRETE W PLAN WALL PANED•STUCCO lMI&4 O FRONT ELEVA 1 ION R Jcxf r. J a W T D J C OB O ISSUE Y DATES TYPE DATE PRE-IMISNED METAL PLAN-1035 TINTED INSULATED GLASS TINTED INSULATED*LAOS N THERMALLY IMPROVED N THERMALLY IMPROVED PRE-PINIONED METAL ALUMINUM!BANES ALUIWN'7 PRAMS PANELS T.O.WALL I IIT'-6" I I TA.IV W DATE EOM A8 DD. RID Q• CONTRACT MIAOW mPANEL C I M=M___==I ME DRAWN BY RI MEMMM I FINISH REYEM BY JE ED FLOOR INSULATED PRECAST CONCRETE GRADE-SEE GRADING ND.DATE WALL PANELS-STUCCO!INISN PLAN O SIDE ELEVATION T i 2 T A µI M E W'CERIMT TINT THIS PIN;SPECfIG110X, PRE-!MIOHED METAL 1.4100 REPORT WAS PREMED BY I[ORMNWOWEDSUPERMEN,NO IN I NI LASHING A DRAT IL716ED ARCIAIECT LOOM THE INK DF THE STATE OF WIRSOTA PANELS ISNED METAL T DATE I Tn'•eL° I SMATION Nutt IN TA.WAL DO.PANELS JACK O8I002HI REVIEW SET 02/29/2012 MINED PLOOR Op GRADE HEN GRADING INSULATED PRECAST CONCRETE PLAN WALL PANELS•NTLICCO PINION REAR ELEVATION 3 NM•r-' C) C 0 E p lllllllllli I, PRE-FINISHED METAL b4"DEEP SMOOTH RRCiIS PLASHING PANTED INN,LA7 METAL SMUCKLER DOOR AND PRAM ARCHITECTURE INC. 7909 WASHINGTON AVENUE SOUTH EDINA,MINNP5OTA 4139 VOICE(952)8281908 FAX (952)828-6007 BADE-Oil GRADING PLAN INSULATED PRECAST CONCRETE SIDE ELEVATION WALL PANELS-STUCCO!NIGH DP•r • Ete L A PROJECT NUMBER K 2 1_//_L / / Y A i i I L 4ME?T1 1 S .4 UTO BODY ti; 2D,6 II J1 1 2 n il L q 3° F City of Richfie/d o a N 60 I- = I Hennepin County, Minnesota w l 0 A• Use ommu SITE DATA: s c f_, I _ , , ,- -1 1 1 1--1 i I 1 _-- r < Current zoning MU C (Mixed oily) i E I_-_. r _--P L 1 i 1 s-- 4 s Proposed zoning No Change MI 10 M ` I 5s 1=, - '. 4 - a. Y € i SD. FT.•- ACRES - q < 4 - MN . - t t Total Site Area 49,187 1.129 N m f< 1 I 4..< Right-of-Way Area 0 0JT < Net Areo 49,187 1.129 i_ __,- iiT << 'ST` S A ST . f T°`` ST< <(<ST ST 6<4 <( ` ST , `S,T'ST J _ I. T—< Net Impervious Surface 39,325 0.90 80.0Y 01 n Z a y v Or) < 4c> a n I - • _ Total Impervious Surface 39,458)6 o c A. ^. fi_ 5 TT A_" 4 I Sa— z— ' g'` I ^ a- < I< _ : St Encroaching Impervious Surface 132) It o r, Y°_ 1 z ._`< a i f - i ' 4 0—_ f' Proposed Parking Spaces = 34 zrr , .-•4 R I M ..._.._ I rt I Standard Stalls 32)oii III J as C HC Stalls 2) w tom' 8 5= REQUIREMENTS: a o t < ' A`e` t.. w < 4 6TH"°'• SETBACK 4< 5 0 k < -j M.' 4<Setbacks to be determined at the time of plan submission. Val as s O4 t, 0o 444 -<''' c 5 4 I 051St w'rNMR iT2rv1R yU a WK r 3yl M WM, 4_ y5M WM Wlvf Yt WM-Y- riWFt] WM 4 .< W` o Oa.M E, r R< -< r wtana a mo°5 z 305.00 N89°5"-3.297E EXISTING SITSE<fi/A.K 4 o. J 4 ' a4 z 4 4 Wn s s a ,°°o; : I-EXISTING SIDEWALK J c'< i « g u o 0 L Denotes rJ% n ni-- - = w. e F I a a r ! g i p'wnoa,o A 4 Open Space U h' 4 Bic cle C E e Vag5 Ce a Requirement tt\ Denote # y N Bike Rack t of 2,460 sq.ft. Pervious Pavers Denote 2 I e wvau 5 1 Pervious wnm a//W ES 11 Sign- p Pavers T 3` SITE _Oc ce n I One Way \ i i:i w 1., " t. O 223 J I I Y I 1320 F/ 24.0 s aassw W o N. I N TYPO J _II rs•nv 'rz,,s, tO yr- c I x Z`) N T I' Q`Zit?N'n o l I l O + _ ft W.62rtl5[ W82'", s..>.I.Wt.. Velf<il rl`t In 3 Propsed Autobody Shop/ a r t a a I i Car Care Center r' LOCATION MAP W,°Z- m 19,402 Sq. Ft. r °j No Scale 2,n o 9 J r Q I 301 77th VD ._ ; I w INDEX : o RN VD r V ''-- is C-1) COVERSHEET/SITE PLAN a` Ve o i I.—__—.C-2) EXISTING CONDITIONS s.o I Typ.)Sign- J i DEMOLITION PLAN n r r r 1 C-3) UTILITY PLAN II Do Not __Existing 2 r Enter-One a Tree C-3.1) CONSTRUCTION DETAILS ry A a1 JII III Way Only I 2 i:r w I C-4) LANDSCAPE PLAN II - Lin•.. }. i 136.00 Nag 51 sa"w < 1 :, ;0 GRADING AND EROSION 4 M w t s.o ` a CG 1) GRADING PLAN qII- L'— T/7 /T-——.—— —-1< —o c k , 1 CE-1) EROSION CONTROL O 4/ I I .,II lo All KT/ J%. JJ : M/7T/T/ I <<1 0 IJ I ' CIE fl o Gate I 41: 34 o Z I ; "•I m Asphalt o H wM Parking o z ati) I , II a& 11 l ` Area a I I v.,a y ow I I 444zzzEncroaching w Vaz Curb 1 o O tirna oIZ104.00 N89°5154 W lit V 'rn c=i a I F III I v IN o F c I III w a PRELIMINARY.LIT. auxx acaEO DESIGN ill NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONaM d N WET NUMBER iSiO : 1's O N 20 20 40 600 E< IN IM C-1 oi " " Scale 1" = 20' B^'E 3/15/2012 xx,x s/s/zotz6.0. x E x E N O 1 15 N a) co N c 1-,'"- N- Oco in 3f1N3AVA2IflasTlId N 4" 0 0) C C 0 U U co Z z co N N S N 2 g d N." 0 M Ch C a) as Y. U) fY C a) N- EI Cr) - 0 W C N N N I- rp D O 0 a l' w U Ew W - r so o LLI = cc cc cc U) toN U IdLe L r 0 r/ r o V W Oa I 1 N- cc cc cc w 0 m M 1 ry ce r 5 co c c E a) 0a) t 0 E ', 0 U = E o 0 Ua2) oQ a) 3f1N3AV1312 2IVH 0 U I a) 'c 0 E ¢ v0iD - 0 -0c W 2 U; _ -o aa) c C i5 \ , 0 2 Z x E N O N 1 I 0 a) co Lo 0 N- r` 0 co a) 311N3AVAW18S111d o CIS 0 c c 0 U) o) r) O cc co O N a N a ns o U) 1.0 cm co I. 2 M as Q. 4- fn r Y c i aa a) E C o c ^ ca 0 WL.1_ 0 0 0 0 I III o I— E n w CO a 0 E I— c W I a 0 W Et Q 0 0 0 I N-U o h. N- N_0 0 O o CO U a I I- N. w cK cK N.- 0 0 0 0 UO a) M a .a3 Oo000oE' ® a _ J J ry a U a3 a) W tx E a) YEt Nw c3f1N3AV1311?VH U o , J 0 = ° •E SfX r E ai m ' 0 L o O Z Vx E N 0 N 1 CD LL J CO N- E. M a) Df1NDAVA ifl9S111d o CO 4- U rn c E o U) u) U o m O002CO N a LLL a a N a. r o cn M N N coMo A fn LLII ry c E r ON- O CO U) NH.W D a Q a o Y c r J w p E W 0 W w w w I- I N I. X r` W o co I I''' N. U U)N ct 0 U M co co w m _ fn •V (6 • o >,CC a °. oai 8f1N3/`d131b?`dH LL ' UW1LLO UJN ... u) ~ Lu ca zQ AGENDA SECTION: OLD BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM# 4 REPORT# CASE# 12-PUD-03, 12-FDP- 03, 12-CUP-05, 12- RZN-03 41111 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD PC MEETING DATE: JUNE 25, 2012 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: 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). (Continued from the May 29, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting). I.RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Recommend adoption of a resolution denying: 1) Rezoning to designate 7641 Pleasant Avenue and 211 West 76th Street as Planned Multi-Family Residential (PMR); and 2) Final development plan and conditional use permit for a planned unit development at 7641 Pleasant Avenue and 211 West 76th Street. II. BACKGROUND This item is continued from the May 29, 2012 meeting. At that meeting the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and took testimony from the applicant (Ron Clark) and the other members of the community. The public hearing was closed, but the Commission allowed additional written comments to be submitted by June 15th. No comments were received from the applicant or the public. The Planning Commission is not required to allow any additional comment at the June 25th meeting. One reason for continuing this matter was a concern, expressed by some Planning Commission members, that the Developer did not have binding purchase agreements for all of the property in the development. The City Council and Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) have met in the interim and made decisions on the proposed land sales. At the June 12, 2012 City Council meeting, the Council rejected (vote 4 to 1) the Developer's offer to purchase two of the three City-owned parcels upon which the development is proposed to be built. The third City-owned parcel is subject to an Option Agreement that the City entered into on June 2011 with the Developer. At the June 18, 2012 HRA meeting the HRA rejected (vote 5 to 0) the Developer's offer to purchase the HRA property upon which the development is proposed to be built. As a result, the Developer lacks the necessary consent of the property owners (City and HRA) to process a land use application for the proposed development. Staff recommends denying approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendment, final development plan and conditional use permit for a planned unit development since the project is no longer feasible. At its June 18 meeting, HRA members expressed concerns about the City's lack of a policy related to the concentration of affordable housing. The HRA members' comments echoed similar comments that have been made by Planning Commission members and City Council members. The staff concurs that, although the City's Comprehensive Plan identifies the provision of affordable housing as a goal, the Comprehensive Plan does not adequately address the manner in which that goal should be achieved, or the appropriate densities or mix of affordable and market-rate housing within neighborhoods. Although the City's Comprehensive Plan was approved by the Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Council has not addressed the issue of concentration of affordable housing in Richfield as it has in other metropolitan areas such as the City of Minneapolis. The staff proposes to undertake a study and working with the HRA, develop a formal housing policy that addresses those and other issues. Staff anticipates a process that will afford opportunity for input from City officials, the public and interested parties. Upon final adoption of the housing policy, staff will request the Planning Commission's consideration of appropriate amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The Developer must have land owner consent in order to process a land use application. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The proposed planned unit development requires Developer control of all the property to be rezoned. The City and HRA rejected offers from the Developer to purchase their properties. C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL The City Attorney will be at the meeting to answer questions. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) None. V. ATTACHMENTS Pillsbury Commons Three-Ring Binder (provided to you earlier) VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Representative(s) of Ron Clark Construction and Design RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DENYING REQUEST FOR REZONING, FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PILLSBURY COMMONS WHEREAS, Connelly Development ("Developer") has submitted an application for rezoning as a planned unit development, along with applications for final development and conditional use permit approval, to the City of Richfield for the real property located at 7641 Pleasant Avenue and 211 West 76th Street, legally described on the attached Exhibit A and depicted on the map attached as Exhibit B (collectively, "the Property"); and WHEREAS, the application proposes to rezone the Property from "I" Industrial to "PMR" Planned Multi-Residential and proposes the development of the Property with a 100 percent affordable, 70-unit housing development, including 18 townhomes and a 52-unit, four-story apartment building; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed rezoning, request for a final development plan and conditional use permit on May 29, 2011; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to properties within 500 feet of the subject property on May 17, 2012 and; WHEREAS, on June 25, 2012, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the applications by a vote of to and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the applications for rezoning, final development plan and conditional use permit approval on June 26, 2012. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. Findings of Fact. The City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact: A. The City's zoning ordinance establishes zoning classifications for individual property. The properties located at 7641 Pleasant Avenue and 211 West 76th Street are zoned I (Industrial). B. Connelly Development has submitted an application to the City for a planned unit development plan [the "PUD plan"] for 7641 Pleasant Avenue and 211 West 76th Street. The PUD plan proposes to construct a 70 unit development that includes 18 townhomes and a 52-unit apartment building. C. The PUD plan requires the Developer to have control over all of the property in the proposed PUD development. D. The Developer does not control all of the property necessary for the proposed development. 2.On the basis of the foregoing findings, the applications for rezoning, final development plan approval and conditional use permit approval are denied. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of June, 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Properties Parcel C-1 The West 30 feet of Lot 1, Block 4, R.C. Soen's Addition, according to the duly recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota Parcel C-2 The South 32 feet of the North 107 feet of Lot 3, Block 4, R. C. Soens Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota and The West 123.41 feet of that part of said Lot 3 lying south of the North 107 feet thereof, and; The North 31.63 feet of the West 123.41 feet of Lot 4, in said Block 4. Parcel C-3 Lot 3, except the north 75 feet thereof, Lot 4 and Lot 5, except the south 39.00 feet thereof, all in Block 4, R. C. Soens Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota Except the following: The South 32 feet of the North 107 feet of Lot 3, Block 4, R. C. Soens Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota and The West 123.41 feet of that part of said Lot 3 lying south of the North 107 feet thereof, and; The North 31.63 feet of the West 123.41 feet of Lot 4, in said Block 4. EXHIBIT B The Property 1, r 71/1111P t r Ht 0. Hi ti, za , .., 4„,,,,,, t. j'. 5,1 ii 1 it r cri II 1 1 , . Vr- I' 41 l L ' ' r: t• j 1 i 1...' ll AGENDA SECTION: OLD BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM# 5 REPORT# 13 CASE# Al PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD PC MEETING DATE: JUNE 25, 2012 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Consideration of whether the proposed sale of real property by the City and by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City (continued from the May 29, 2012 meeting). I.RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve the attached written report to the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority with respect to the land sale. II. BACKGROUND This item is continued from the May 29, 2012 meeting. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.356 provides that a government body may not dispose of publicly owned land unless the planning agency has reviewed the proposed sale and provided a written report to the governing body regarding the compliance of the proposed sale with the municipal comprehensive plan. Richfield Properties I, Limited Partnership (working with Ron Clark Construction and Design and Connelly Development LLC (which is a wholly-owned entity of Ron Clark)) hereafter "Ron Clark") has proposed to purchase three city-owned parcels, which are identified as C-1, C-2 and C-3 in the attached map. Parcels C-2 and C-3 is actually a single tract of record, but the City entered into an Option Agreement with Ron Clark for the sale of C-3 only. Parcels C-1 and C-2 are not subject to Option Agreement and the City Council rejected the sale of those parcels at its June 12, 2012 meeting. Ron Clark had proposed to also purchase a Housing and Redevelopment Authority HRA)-owned property (shown as H-1 on the attached map). The HRA rejected the sale of that parcel at its meeting on June 18, 2012. With respect to C-1, C-2 and H-1, there is no action for the Planning Commission to take at this time, because the City and HRA are not proposing to sell those lands. The staff has prepared a proposed resolution (attached) with respect to parcel C-3. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The Comprehensive Plan establishes the City's guide for future land development within the City, and it is desirable that all publicly owned property be held, sold, or developed in accordance with that plan. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The only land sale that is currently pending is for Parcel C-3. There are no current development proposals for Parcel C-3 as a stand-alone parcel. The current development proposal cannot be implemented without additional land acquisition by the developer. The proposed sale of C-3 cannot be accomplished within a subdivision, and no application to divide Parcel C-3 from Parcel C-2 has been made. No sales are pending for parcels C-1, C-2 or H-1, and no action is required. C. FINANCIAL The option price for Parcel C-3 is $415,936. D. LEGAL Minnesota Statutes require that the Planning Commission consider whether the sale of a publicly owned parcel would be in conformance with the community's Comprehensive Plan and require that the Planning Commission provide a written report to the governing body of the selling entity. The selling entity is not bound by the Planning Commission's determination and may sell or refuse to sell the property regardless of the determination. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) None. V. ATTACHMENTS Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Representative(s) of Ron Clark Construction and Design RESOLUTION REGARDING PROPOSED SALE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF RICHIFELD TO R.E.C., INC. WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has entered into an Option Agreement for the sale of certain real property to R.E.C., Inc., which land is legally described on the attached Exhibit A to this resolution ("Parcel C-3"); and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.356, subdivision 2, requires that the Planning Commission provide a written report to the City Council regarding whether the proposed sale of Parcel C-3 is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: a. The City of Richfield has entered into an Option Agreement to sell Parcel C-3 to R.E.C., Inc. b. R.E.C., Inc. has proposed to develop Parcel C-3 as part of a larger development that also required Richfield Properties I, Limited Partnership (working with Ron Clark Construction and Design and Connelly Development LLC (which is a wholly-owned entity of Ron Clark) to acquire other lands owned by the City of Richfield (Parcels C-1 and C-2) and the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) (Parcel H-1). c.The City Council has rejected Richfield Properties I, Limited Partnership's offer to purchase Parcels C-1 and C-2, and the HRA has rejected Richfield Properties I, Limited Partnership's offer to purchase Parcel H-1. d. R.E.C., Inc. is unable to develop Parcel C-3 according to his proposed development plan. e. R.E.C., Inc. has not submitted any plans for the development of Parcel C-3 alone. The current proposal for rezoning is for a planned unit development that includes other lands, and the Developer does not control those lands, which makes that development infeasible. f. Parcel C-3 cannot be conveyed without a subdivision approval, and R.E.C., Inc. has not submitted an application to subdivide Parcel C-3 from its larger parcel. The current plat application contemplates the combination of Parcel C-3 with other lands, and that plat application is no longer feasible, because the Developer does not control all of the land in the proposed plat. 2. Without additional information concerning the proposed use of the property, the Planning Commission is unable to determine whether the proposed sale is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. The Planning Commission recommends that it review this proposed sale again, when an application for subdivision of Parcel C-3 is submitted. Adopted this 25th day of June 2012, by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. Rick Jabs, Chairperson ATTEST: Daniel Kitzberger, Secretary AGENDA SECTION: OLD BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM# 6 REPORT# 14 CASE# PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD PC MEETING DATE: JUNE 25, 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 (continued from the May 29, 2012 meeting). I.RECOMMENDED ACTION: No Action Required II. BACKGROUND This item is continued from the May 29, 2012 meeting. The proposed modification of the TIF Plan contemplated a development of three City- owned parcels and one Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)-owned property, all in the block between 76th and 77th Streets, the railroad tracks and Pillsbury Avenue. That development is no longer feasible due to recent actions taken by the City Council and HRA. At its June 12, 2012 meeting, the City Council rejected (vote 4 to 1) the Developer's offer to purchase two of the three City-owned parcels upon which the development was proposed to be built. At its June 18, 2012 meeting, the HRA rejected (vote 5 to 0) the Developer's offer to purchase the HRA property. The HRA also denied the TIF Plan modification and denied approval of the proposed Development Agreement. The TIF Plan modification cannot occur without HRA approval. There is no action for the Planning Commission to take at this time, because the proposed plan modification has been rejected by the HRA. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY N/A B. CRITICAL ISSUES N/A C. FINANCIAL N/A 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. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) N/A V. ATTACHMENTS N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Representative(s) of Ron Clark Construction and Design