092214 PacketPLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
September 22, 2014
7:00 p.m.
Introductory Proceedings
Roll Call
Approval of Minutes: Regular Planning Commission meeting of August 11, 2014.
Opportunity for Citizens to Address the Commission on items not on the Agenda
Public Hearing
ITEM #1 14-CUP-02, Consider request for a Conditional Use Permit and
14-VAR-04 Variance for a building addition and reduced parking
setback at 7514 Lyndale Avenue — Broadway Pizza
New Business
ITEM #2 PC Letter#10 Consideration of a resolution finding that the sale of
remnant properties along Richfield Parkway to adjacent
landowners is consistent with the Richfield
Comprehensive Plan
Old Business
Liaison Reports
Community Services Advisory Commission
City Council
Housing and Redevelopment Authority(HRA)
Richfield School Board
Transportation Commission
Chamber of Commerce
Other
City Planner's Report
Next Meeting Date: October 27, 2014
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
Minutes
August 11 , 2014
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Rick Jabs and Commissioners Dan Kitzberger,
Gordon Vizecky, Alison Groebner, Tom Rublein and Susan
Rosenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT:Commissioner Charles Standfuss
STAFF PRESENT: Melissa Poehlman, City Planner
Matt Brillhart, Planning Technician
OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Kusnierek & Michael Cowles (District 287)
Rich Thompson, Ed Noonan, Bayard Engelhardt (Fireside)
David Bergstrom & Jeff Wurst (Lyndale Station)
Pat Elliot, 6720 Oliver Avenue
Brian Lematta, 6600 Lyndale Avenue
Elaine Olson, 6600 Pleasant Avenue
Chairperson Jabs called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Rublein, S/Vizecky to approve the minutes of the June 23, 2014 regular meeting.
Motion carried: 6-0
OPEN FORUM
No members of the public spoke.
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
ITEM #1
14-ACUP-01, 14-VAR-03 — Consideration of an amendment to the Conditional Use
Permit and Variance for the South Education Center at 7450 Penn Avenue.
Planning Technician Matt Brillhart presented the staff report.
August 11, 2014
Chairperson Jabs expressed concern with a four foot fence along Penn Avenue and
suggested a six foot fence along that perimeter as well.
In response to a question from Commissioner Rublein, Michael Cowles of District 287
described the need and proposed use of the field. Mark Kusnierek described that the
field would be built to "U11" specifications, intended for younger players, and shared
with the City's Parks and Recreation Department. He also stated that there would be
trees and landscaping in addition to the fence along Penn Avenue.
City Planner Melissa Poehlman stated that the proposal was reviewed by the City's
Administrative Review Committee, including the Public Works Department. She stated
that the resolution could be written to allow a six foot fence along Penn Avenue if
needed in the future.
In response to a question from Commissioner Kitzberger, Brillhart stated that the fence
was 27.5 feet from the street and the total distance from the edge of the field to the
roadway was over 57 feet.
Commission Vizecky stated that he was comfortable with staff's review of the proposal
and that the applicant was willing to put up a taller fence along Penn if necessary.
M/Rosenberg, S/Vizecky to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 6-0
M/ Vizecky, S/Rosenberg to recommend approval of an amendment to the Conditional
Use Permit and Variance, modifying the recommendation to include the provision that
temporary netting could be used and that the fence height along Penn Avenue could be
raised to six feet if deemed necessary.
Motion carried: 5-1 (Jabs dissenting)
ITEM #2
14-ACUP-02, 14-VAR-02, 14-SR-02 — Consideration of an amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit, Variances and an Appeal for Fireside Pizza at 6736 Penn
Avenue.
City Planner Melissa Poehlman presented the staff report.
In response to a question from Commissioner Rublein, Poehlman stated she was not
aware of any complaints regarding odor.
In response to a question from Chair Jabs, Poehlman described how capacity was
calculated by the building code, rather than number of seats.
In response to a question from Commissioner Rublein, Ed Noonan described the
outdoor seating, landscaping enhancements, and bringing the building up to ADA code.
2
August 11, 2014
In response to a question from Commissioner Rosenberg, Poehlman stated that the
property had a previous variance on record for parking, but the details were spotty.
Poehlman described the options available for solving the parking issue, including
sharing parking with neighboring properties and a possible ordinance change in the
future to lower parking requirements.
Noonan stated that many employees and customers live nearby and walk or take the
bus to work. Poehlman stated that a parking reduction for transit proximity was already
calculated into the requirements. Poehlman stated that the applicant was still six parking
spaces short of the requirement.
In response to a question from Commissioner Rublein, Rich Thompson of Fireside
Pizza stated that he had not contacted any additional property owners regarding shared
parking besides Penn Auto Care and the gas station. Commissioner Rublein stated that
parking was an issue along the Penn corridor due to the age and layout of the
properties.
In response to questions from Chair Jabs, Noonan stated that shared parking
agreements are difficult as they require covenants on both properties. Regarding odor
control, Noonan stated that the menu would expand to keep the business viable. Pat
Elliot stated that he lived in the notification area and odors were not an issue.
M/Rublein, S/Vizecky to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 6-0
Commissioner Vizecky proposed that the Commission take up the three action items
separately.
M/Vizecky, S/Rublein to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit and
building setback variance to count on street parking toward the parking requirement.
Motion (action #1) carried: 6-0
Commissioner Vizecky stated that parking needs had been an ongoing discussion.
Poehlman stated that if the Planning Commission and City Council directed staff to
further reduce parking requirements along commercial corridors, they would propose
those reductions. Vizecky stated that community attitudes about parking were the issue.
Poehlman stated that staff's recommendation was that they direct the applicant to
secure shared parking agreements for six parking spaces and direct staff to study lower
parking requirements.
Commissioner Rublein stated that these parking requirements were not realistic for
Penn Avenue.
M/Vizecky, S/Rublein to recommend that the applicant secure shared parking
agreements for 6 additional spaces on a 12-18 month lease, and that the City Council
3
August 11, 2014
examine lowering parking requirements in economic development areas, particularly on
Penn Avenue.
Poehlman clarified that staff would accept written shared parking agreements and not
require recording on the title in the interim.
Motion (substitute motion for action #2) carried: 6-0
In response to a question from Chair Jabs, Poehlman stated that numerous businesses
have been required to add odor control, including El Tejaban, which replaced a previous
business that did not have odor control.
In response to a question from Commissioner Rublein, Poehlman stated that by finding
that odor is not a nuisance, the City would not be able to later require it at this location,
regardless of a change in ownership or menu. Poehlman stated that she was not aware
of a "middle" solution.
Chairperson Jabs stated that they had to consider the possibility of setting a precedent
for other restaurants that were adjacent to residential.
In response to a question from Commissioner Rublein, Poehlman stated that staff had
received no comments in response to this application.
Commissioner Vizecky stated that the permanence of overturning staff's decision to
require odor control was a concern. Poehlman stated that a study session regarding
odor control requirements was forthcoming.
In response to questions from Chair Jabs, Poehlman stated that the applicant was
looking to build now and the design of the building had to take an odor control system
into account. Poehlman stated that Bloomington and Woodbury administer their odor
control requirements in a similar manner.
Noonan stated that it was a large expense and concurred that the building design has to
take odor control into account from the beginning.
M/Rublein, S/Kitzberger to recommend granting an appeal of the Community
Development Department Director's decision to require installation of an odor control
system.
Commissioner Rosenberg stated concern for the neighborhood and the permanence of
their decision.
In response to a question from Commissioner Groebner, Poehlman stated that it was
not possible to attach conditions to their decision.
Motion failed: 2-4 (Rosenberg, Jabs, Groebner, Vizecky dissenting)
4
August 11, 2014
M/Rosenberg, S/Rublein to recommend denial of an appeal of the Community
Development Department Director's decision to require installation of an odor control
system.
Commission Vizecky stated his preference would be for this action to come forward as
part of a Conditional Use Permit so that conditions could be attached.
Motion (action #3) carried: 4-2 (Rublein, Kitzberger dissenting)
Poehlman noted that the Planning Commission had not yet actually voted to deny the
requested variance to allow a reduction in required parking.
M/Vizecky, S/Rublein to recommend denial of a variance to allow a reduction in required
parking.
Motion carried: 6-0
ITEM #3
14-APUD-03 — Consideration of a major amendment to the Planned Unit
Development Plan for the Lyndale Station Development at
66th Street and Lyndale
Avenue.
Poehlman presented the staff report.
In response to questions from Chair Jabs and Commissioner Rosenberg, David
Bergstrom of Lyndale Station LLC and Jeff Wurst of Caribou described the internal
vehicle circulation in the parking lot.
Elaine Olson (6600 Pleasant Ave) stated concerns regarding odors.
In response to a question from Commissioner Kitzberger, Wurst stated that the former
Caribou location in City Bella closed due to parking that was difficult to access and a
lack of adjacent retail tenants to draw in customers.
In response to a question from Commissioner Rublein, Poehlman stated that the menu
board speaker was more than the required distance from residential.
Brian Lematta (6600 Lyndale Ave) stated concerns with noise from music and patrons.
Bergstrom stated that the other potential tenants could be a dental office, hair salon,
and electronics retailer.
M/Vizecky, S/Rublein to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 6-0
M/Vizecky, S/Groebner to recommend approval of the amendment to the PUD.
Motion carried: 6-0
5
August 11, 2014
ITEM #4
PC Letter No. 9 — Consideration an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance
that will eliminate the City's appointed Hearing Examiner positions and appoint
the Planning Commission as the deciding body for variance applications
beginning in 2015.
Poehlman presented the staff report.
M/ Vizecky, S/Rublein to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 6-0
M/ Vizecky, S/Rublein to recommend approval of the amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance.
Motion carried: 5-0
NEW BUSINESS
None.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
LIAISON REPORTS
Community Services Advisory Commission: Commissioner Rublein
City Council: No report
HRA: Commissioner Groebner
Richfield School Board: Commissioner Kitzberger
Transportation Commission: No report
Chamber of Commerce: Commissioner Vizecky
Other: Open Streets at Penn Fest 9/21 & Primary Election 8/12.
CITY PLANNER'S REPORT
The August 25 regular meeting is cancelled. Bike/walk tour is also cancelled this year.
Next meeting is September 22 with a possible study session coming up as well.
6
August 11, 2014
ADJOURNMENT
M/Root, S/Vizecky to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried: 6-0
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:25 p.m.
Tom Rublein
Secretary
AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA ITEM# 1
REPORT#
CASE# 14-CUP-02, 14-
VAR-04
J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PC MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 2014
ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing to consider requests for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance at 7514 Lyndale
Avenue (Broadway Pizza). The proposal contemplates an interior remodel and expansion of
the restaurant space and construction of a new ADA compliant building entry and waiting area.
I.RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Recommend
approval of the attached resolution granting a Conditional Use Permit
for a building addition and a Variance for a reduced parking setback
at 7514 Lyndale Avenue.
II. BACKGROUND
The building at 7514 Lyndale Avenue is home to two businesses — Broadway Pizza and
Dunn & Semington Printing & Design. Patti Sterbuck, building owner and operator of
Broadway Pizza, is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that would
allow her to reapportion the interior building space in order to expand the restaurant.
This expansion would repurpose approximately 475 square feet of current tenant space
as expanded dining area (additional 32 seats) and a small office. The proposal also
includes construction of a new ADA-compliant entryway and expanded waiting/pick-up
area. The total proposed increase in overall building square footage is 88 square feet.
No changes to the kitchen, kitchen equipment, or existing dining areas are proposed.
In order to accommodate the proposed remodel, the applicant is required to provide an
additional four parking spaces and attempt to improve other nonconforming site
characteristics (e.g. landscaping, screening, impervious surface, etc.). The proposal
includes the addition of five parking stalls. Three of the five parking stalls are along the
edge of the alley and require a variance to reduce the required setback. Staff believes
that the proposed site plan meets the requirements of the Zoning Code for the CUP and
variance.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
Traditional restaurants require a CUP in the C-2 (General Business) District.
The existing restaurant was approved prior to this requirement, so no CUP
has been issued. Hence, this request is for a CUP, rather than an
amendment.
In evaluating a request for a CUP, the Planning Commission and Council
must consider its compliance with the eight criteria outlined in Subsection
547.09 of the City Code and further articulated in the attached document.
With the exception of a requested parking setback variance, all criteria
necessary to issue the CUP have been met.
In evaluating a request for a variance, the Planning Commission and Council
must consider its compliance with six criteria outlined in Subsection 547.11 of
the City Code and further articulated in the attached document.
Staff supports the requested variance based on review of these criteria.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
The Zoning Code incorporates a number of measures to help existing nonconforming
businesses and structures to improve and expand.
Where building modifications result in an increase of less than 50% of the
original square footage, additional parking is required only for the new or
modified part of the development. In this case, the requested changes
require the addition of four parking spaces. This requirement can be met
with a variance for the parking lot setback along the alley.
Alternative landscaping and/or screening plans may be approved, where,
due to existing structure placement, lot dimensions, parking requirements,
etc., it is not possible to provide the landscaping or screening required by
the ordinance. The applicant's site is currently 100% impervious and the
existing parking lot extends to the property lines on all sides. There is no
room to reduce drive aisles to provide additional space along Lyndale
Avenue and therefore no opportunity to add screening. The applicant has
proposed to landscape an area at the southeast corner in order to reduce
the overall impervious surface. Staff believes that this is effort by the
applicant complies with the purpose and intent of the ordinance to the
best degree possible. A landscape plan is required prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
Bicycle parking will be added and refuse collection shall be handled
entirely inside the building.
New parking lots are required to locate a minimum of eight feet from the right-of-way. In
the case of modifications to existing lots, this setback may be reduced to three feet if the
setback is not possible due to site constraints and if the applicant is able to meet
landscape requirements without it.
The applicant is requesting a variance that would allow a reduction of this
setback to zero. In this case, the actual paved area of the parking lot
extends four feet beyond the property line. It is only here that the traveled
portion of the public alley begins. The applicant is proposing to utilize the
portion of the parking lot that is on her property, but not that which
extends into the public right-of-way. The striped parking stall will be four
feet from the traveled right-of-way, which is clearly indicated by a change
from asphalt to concrete pavement. Strict enforcement of this provision
would result in the loss of three parking stalls in an area where additional
landscaping would be impractical.
The proposed variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood.
The striping of these stalls will likely reduce the temptation for drivers to
park illegally behind the building and leave cars overhanging the alley.
A three-foot variance is required to allow these three code-compliant
stalls. A variance of two feet would allow for two of the three parking
stalls; however, as mentioned previously, additional landscaping at the
rear of the lot would seem to provide little benefit whereas an additional
parking stall would likely be utilized frequently. The additional one-foot
reduction seems justified in this instance.
C. FINANCIAL
The required processing fee has been paid.
D. LEGAL
Zoning: General Business (C-2)
Land Use: Current: Restaurant & Print Business
Proposed: Larger restaurant, smaller print business
Comprehensive Plan: Community Commercial
Notification: Properties within 350-feet
Other Actions:
City Council consideration October 14, 2014
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
Recommend approval of the proposal with modifications.
Recommend denial with a finding that the proposal does not meet requirements.
V. ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Code requirements document
Proposed plans
Planning & zoning maps
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
Scott Foss, S&P Construction/Applicant on behalf of owner
Patti Sterbuck, Property Owner
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND VARIANCE
FOR A TRADITIONAL (CLASS II) RESTAURANT
AT 7514 LYNDALE AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests
approval of a conditional use permit to allow the expansion of a Traditional (Class II)
Restaurant at property commonly known as 7514 Lyndale Avenue and legally described as:
Lots 4-6, Block 25, Irwin Shores Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield held a public hearing and
recommended approval of the requested amendment and variance at its September 22, 2014
meeting; 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 September 9, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the requested conditional use permit meets the requirements necessary for
issuing a conditional use permit as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Subsection 547.09
and as detailed in City Council Staff Report No.and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Code states existing parking lots must maintain a three-foot
setback from the right-of-way, Subsection 534.11, Subd. 6; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6, provides for the
granting of variances to the literal provisions of the zoning regulations in instances where their
enforcement would cause "practical difficulty" to the owners of the property under
consideration; and
WHEREAS, based on the findings below, the Richfield City Council approves the
requested variance from Richfield Zoning Code Subsection 534.11, Subd. 6; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the conditional use
permit;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City Council makes the following general findings:
a. The Property is zoned General Business (C-2).
b. The Zoning Code states that parking lots must be set back a minimum of three feet
from the right-of-way. The proposed setback is zero feet. A variance from
Subsection 534.11, Subd.6 is required.
2. With respect to the application for a variance from the above-listed requirement, the City
Council makes the following findings:
a. Strict enforcement of Richfield Zoning Code Subsection 534.11, Subd. 6 would
cause a practical difficulty. The actual paved area of parking for this lot already
extends four feet beyond the property line in the area in question. It is only at this
point (four feet from the property line), that the traveled portion of the public alley
begins. The inability to use this area would force the property owner to secure off-
site parking. Further, the strict enforcement of this provision would allow for
landscaping/screening in an area that would not be practical or helpful.
b. Unique circumstances affect the Property that were not created by the applicant.
The extension of the paved area that functions and appears to be parking lot is a
condition that extends along this entire block and is not a condition that was created
by the applicant.
c. Granting the requested variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood.
This is largely an existing condition and will not alter the character of the
neighborhood. In fact, the striping of these stalls will likely reduce the temptation for
drivers to park illegally such that vehicles hang over into the traveled portion of the
alley.
d. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty.
A three foot variance is required to allow these three code-compliant stalls.
e. The proposed variance does not conflict with the purpose or intent of the Ordinance
or Comprehensive Plan.
3. Based on the above findings, a variance is hereby approved to permit a zero foot
parking setback on the west side of the Subject Property.
4. A conditional use permit is issued to allow expansion of a Traditional (Class II)
Restaurant, as described in City Council Letter No. on the Subject Property
legally described above.
5. This conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions in addition to those
specified in Section 547.09 of the City's Zoning Ordinance:
A recorded copy of the approved resolution must be submitted to the City
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The applicant must make minor modifications to parking lot design in order to
meet City stall size minimums; and
Final approval of a landscape plan that meets as many requirements of the
City Code as possible by the Community Development Department is
required; and
The applicant shall be responsible for continued maintenance of landscaping
in keeping with the approved plan; and
Separate sign permits are required.
All new utility service must be underground.
All new utilities, including roof-top equipment, must be screened in
accordance with City Code requirements;
Required parking must be available year-round and cannot be used for snow
or other storage, etc.; and
The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits, compliance
with all requirements detailed in the City's Administrative Review Committee
Report dated September 4, 2014, and compliance with all other City and
State regulations;
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit the developer must submit a
surety equal to 125% of the value of any improvements and/or requirements
not yet complete. This surety shall be provided in the manner specific by the
Zoning Code.
6. This conditional use permit and variance shall expire one year after issuance unless 1)
the use for which the permit was granted has commenced; or 2) Building permits have
been issued and substantial work performed; or 3) Upon written request of the
applicant, the Council extends the expiration date for an additional period not to exceed
one year. Expiration is governed by the City Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.09,
Subdivision 9.
7. This conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it
are observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use
has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the City's Zoning
Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subd. 10.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of October
2014.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Code Requirements / Required Findings
Part 1 — Class I (full service) restaurant in General Business (C-2) District:
Full service restaurants are conditionally permitted in the District.
Part 2 — Conditional Use Permit: The findings necessary to issue a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) are as follows (547.09, Subd. 6):
1. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the
City's Comprehensive Plan. This property is guided for Community Commercial
use which accommodates a wide variety of retail and service uses that cater to
residents of Richfield and adjacent communities. The Lyndale Gateway Plan,
adopted by reference, envisioned reinvestment in properties to the north
following redevelopment of the 7600 block. This proposal is consistent with
these goals and objectives.
2. The proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the
purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the
proposed use. The purpose of the Zoning Code is to protect and promote the
public health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare
of the City. The purpose of the General Business (C-2) District is to allow a wide
variety of commercial businesses that are attractive and compatible with nearby
residential properties. The proposal is consistent with these purposes.
3. The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment
plans or urban design guidelines. The proposed use is consistent with the
Lyndale Gateway Plan.
4. The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards
specified in Section 544 of this code. The proposed development either
maintains the status quo or improves on all performance standards requirements
with the exception of the setback for one parking stall proposed at the southwest
corner of the site (discussed in Part 3 below). A landscaped area will be added
to the southeast corner of the lot to improve aesthetics and decrease impervious
surface. All refuse shall be stored inside the building and/or the screened as
required by Code. The parking lot will be improved by restriping all stalls so that
they are a consistent, Code-compliant width and drive aisles shall be maintained
as existing. The number of stalls proposed complies with the City's requirements
for non-conforming parking (Subd. 509.25, Subd. 7). Bicycle parking will be
added.
5. The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental
facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements. The City's
Public Works and Engineering Departments have reviewed the proposal and do
not anticipate any issues.
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 health,
safety and welfare.
7. There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. Investment in
existing local businesses is necessary to maintain a healthy community.
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 met.
Part 3 -Variances: The findings necessary to approve a variance are as follows
Subd. 547.11):
1. There are "practical difficulties"that prevent the property owner from using the
property in a reasonable manner.
2. There are usual or unique circumstances that apply to the property which
were not created by the applicant and do not apply generally to other
properties in the same zone or vicinity.
3. The variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood or the locality.
4. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty.
5. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
ordinance and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant has requested a variance to reduce the rear parking lot setback to
zero feet. New parking lots are required to locate a minimum of eight feet from
the right-of-way. In the case of modifications to existing lots, this setback may be
reduced to three feet if the setback is not possible due to site constraints and if
the applicant is able to meet landscape requirements without the setback.
Criteria 1: The parking lot is existing and therefore the reduced three-foot
setback applies. In this case, the actual paved area of the parking lot extends
four feet beyond the property line; it is only here that the traveled portion of the
public alley begins. The applicant is proposing to utilize the portion of the parking
lot that is on her property, but not that which extends into the public right-of-way.
The striped parking stall will be four feet from the traveled right-of-way, which is
clearly indicated by a change from asphalt to concrete pavement. Strict
enforcement of this provision would result in the loss of three parking stalls. The
addition of landscaping along the rear of the building and parking lot is
impractical and not the intent of this requirement. It is reasonable to provide
required parking in an area that has been paved as parking lot for many years
and that will not adversely impact the adjacent right-of-way.
Criteria 2: The extension of the paved area that functions and appears to be
parking lot is a condition that extends along the entire length of the block and is
not a condition that was created by the applicant. Further, the setback
requirement is intended to provide area for screening and landscaping around
parking lots in order to improve aesthetics and reduce glare from headlights. In
this case, the proposed additional stalls that would be made possible by this
variance do not face any areas in which this glare-reduction would be helpful. It
would be impractical to landscape most of this area and would be of little to no
benefit.
Criteria 3: A variance of three feet will not alter the character of the
neighborhood. As mentioned previously, the traveled portion of the adjacent
alley is four feet from the closest proposed parking stall. In fact, the striping of
these stalls will likely reduce the temptation for drivers to park illegally and hang
over into the alley.
Criteria 4: A three-foot variance is required to allow these code-compliant
parking stalls. A variance of two feet would allow for two of the three parking
stalls; however, as mentioned previously, additional landscaping at the rear of
the lot would seem to provide little benefit and an additional space would likely be
utilized frequently. The additional one-foot reduction seems justified in this
instance.
Criteria 5: The proposed reduction does not conflict with the purpose and/or
intent of the Comprehensive Plan or the Ordinance.
M 09 b5 6 bLOZM6
pa;eolpul sy aleoS
am}eubs SZb59 elossuM`pla&gaN
q;nog'any alepuA-1 b lSL
woou.ueld jot aLdZ ZZ aweN WPd Pla!;4oRi e=!d l'eanpeme
Hg)4 Aq paloa4(
e;osauw W;o @jqS aq;;o sanel sq;iapun;oallgaiy bIOZ lsn ny ale(
F-JR718,18d
0 0 • 0 . pasuaolq nlnp a we I yeq;pun uoislniadns xx£ jegwnN;aafad
aye( uol;duosa(-Suo!s!nab ;oanp ew japun jo aw nq paiediad Sean podai
IS 10 UDIIJHJISHUJ VS io uolyeol;l93ds'ue1a sly;;ey;ylUao ngaJay I lapowab Joua;ul veld joolg uopanj;suo(nnaN
m LL
r y N Co)
O
LL
U M
O Y
C
G
a
Lj N
x Ll Ll
FE
L11 "
0
a
V
a
3
a cn
c Z
o
7/7mi--O°
n
Lum o oa
U a-L uoryenal3 d LL
U N N j L
i
ZLOL-.6 SILZ-.LL
HIE 0-.9b
LLmK¢
NUR
N
c
C
H
3_
Z o
b II
Il- LL a
H/E 9
s-
e-Z uo4-1A O o
aMa o a
c
Y
sN
w
a L uo Lenaq
w
z
3
m
N
8/5 6-.9Z SIE 9-.6
a
LL OD
3 IID_N N
8
wv es ae s a az sis
asuaoiq ale( __
0-.L=„b/L aleoS
re sdo
amleu6lg SZb59 elossuM`plaggaN
gnoS'any alepuA-1 b LSL
u.veld jot aL,Z ZZ aweN WPd Plal;yogi e=!d l'eanpeme
H9)4 Aq paloay(
elosauww;o alelS ayl;o sanel ayl iapun loallgoiy bIOZ lsn ny ale(
FR!I
0 0 • 0 . pasuaolq nlnp a we I legl pun uoislaiadns xx£ jegwnN laafad
q l
ale(/uoilduosa(-Suolslnab loanp ew japun jo aw nq paiediad Sean podai
ill 10 llUIIOnJISHUJ iVs uolleol;laaos ue1a slyl leyl yiUaa nga ay apowab oualul suollenal3 ioualx3
a
cm_N I°
w
m
a
LL
w
Z
MEE
N
to
E
3.E
i
P
y
f5
Lu
E o,
o
U 3
i
19®
Zh
7 W
m
4 m
a 3'
EJ1 @
N @ II
N V
Z .L
wv es:as:s WZM6
asuaoiq la;e( __
oleos
re sdo
lam}eu6is SZb59 elossuM`pIPggaN
q;noS'any alepuA-1 b lSL
ass, n dxs
woo .. Id jot aL,Z ZZ aweN WPd Plal;yoib e=!d Aeanpeme
HS)4 Aq paloa4(
e;osauww;o ale S aq;;o saner sq;iapun;oajigaiy bIOZ lsn ny 94e(
FR!I
0 0 • 0 . pasuaoiq nInp a we yeq;pun uoisiaiadns xx£ jegwnN;aafad
q
aye(/uoi;duosa(-Suoisinab ;oanp ew japun jo aw nq paiediad Sean podai
is 10 llUIIOnJISHUJ iVs uoiyeoi;loads sly;;ey;yiUaa nga ay apowab oua;u sa npayas JOADO
mEmz
a
a w a
o a
m LL U
v w m
N w o o L
U U Nw
i
Z Z Z W W W U
Z
Q Ln-
z
f
a
aJ
N
CJ
N
9
D
o
3 E_
O 00000
5 55555 N3° E55
z v Oz z z Oz Oz D v z z 3
E
5 71
Uiy s5 5
v m
0 o
v n n
S
m
2 3 3 m
3
v L
LL
a nay cn n o
2 0 0 0 0
O
a
o a¢¢o
w
0
I,m o 3 3
oza
o
s
w
O
mv`o is"
a
ma iomm 7 gEEET
0 0 s $-
w
C)
3
m:-cn
a c y o L)
U
m
m s°'m and E
@ Z,
W a
a
c° x 1
m'm o 3 N
m m 9 m m
m e am-mW 3 3 v o`r
U
w2—¢ZZOO>mOU Z
6n 5 5 5
xxE
z aU
LL
F 7
o
qqT 3
r
C 3AV(1131=INVE) 7
d7
J
W
U U V
U U U
3AV 3IVaNAl
VL
cm
E
a
U I\Ml U U U U U
U U U U U U U @UU
O
U
w
a WW a
o
H p
lCl U U
C 3AV H31NGIV os w o
m,
LU U
y N O
F
d d a U
Q rc N E E p
L F UU y
lo T y N
I E
C E y @
r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 E
LO U
U U=p
UU:2
ax
u- 7 n
o L
Ile
o T
3
r
3AV(1131=INVE) 7
N Q
a
a
rr
N N N M
U U U N
t
N 3AV 3IVaNAl
V
U U U U U
cn m
a WW a
W L 2 a"i o
R! Ln
vJ 3AVH31NGIV os )
LU
w
Ile
E
t6
p N m
LLL a
LO M
N
U
AGENDA SECTION: NEw BUSINESS
AGENDA ITEM# 2
REPORT# 10
CASE#
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PC MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 2014
ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution finding that the sale of remnant properties along Richfield
Parkway to adjacent landowners is consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan.
I.RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Approve the attached resolution finding that the sale of
remnant properties along the Richfield Parkway connection project to
adjacent landowners is consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive
Plan.
II. BACKGROUND
The establishment of Richfield Parkway as a vehicular and greenway corridor extending
from the City's northern border is an identified goal of the Comprehensive Plan. The
area has been identified as a future greenway since the adoption of the Cedar Avenue
Corridor Master Plan in 2004. The construction of the Richfield Parkway connection in
2013 between Bloomington Avenue and 17th Avenue (now completely Richfield
Parkway) contributed to that goal.
The City purchased 6245 Bloomington Avenue, 6301 Bloomington Avenue, and 6300
16th Avenue for right-of-way as part of the project. The alignment of the new roadway
created remnants of 6245 and 6301 Bloomington Avenue that are larger than what the
City has determined is necessary for long-term right-of-way needs. The property
owners adjacent to these remnant parcels, at 6239 Bloomington Avenue and 6305
Bloomington Avenue, approached the City with an interest in purchasing a portion of
these remnants.
Property owners at both 6239 and 6305 Bloomington Avenue have signed purchase
agreements for the desired remnant parcels.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statutes requires that whenever any
public agency buys or sells property within the City, the Planning Commission
must review the proposed use of the site for consistency with the Richfield
Comprehensive Plan.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
N/A
C. FINANCIAL
Purchase prices have been approved by the City Manager.
D. LEGAL
Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statutes requires that whenever any
public agency buys or sells property within the City, the Planning Commission
must review the proposed use of the site for consistency with the Richfield
Comprehensive Plan.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
None
V. ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Parcel Sketches
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
N/A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING THAT THE SALE OF REMNANT PARCELS
RELATED TO THE RICHFIELD PARKWAY CONNECTION PROJECT
ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan regarding
the construction of Richfield Parkway;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the sale of subdivided portions of
the following single family properties to the adjacent landowners as noted would be consistent
with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan:
Lot 14, Block 9, Girard Parkview
6245 Bloomington Avenue, Sale to 6239 Bloomington Avenue)
Lot 20, Block 10, Girard Parkview
6301 Bloomington Avenue, Sale to 6305 Bloomington Avenue)
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds that the
sale of the above described properties by the City to adjacent landowners is in conformance
with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan.
Adopted this 22nd day of September, 2014 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota.
Rick Jabs, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Thomas Rublein, Secretary
i
EXHIBIT C
Parcel Sketch Depicting Portion of the Property To Be Conveyed To Adjacent Owner
f
n
m
A
co
a
i
lJfJ
1 f
Al
LD
r
t1-
2
cli
C-1
447480v2 RJL RC145-681
c
i
EXHIBIT C
Parcel Sketch Depicting Portion of Property To Be Conveyed to Adjacent Owner
N
r-
v
c
Ir
hil
C'j co
1jff
at5 0^
c
u.r-
A cr 1
0
LO
H if
al
PH4
rs
w Hinos mmv laummw i H
v
Y
C-1
447528v2 RJL RCI45-682