Loading...
112414 PacketPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA November 24, 2014 7:00 p.m. Introductory Proceedings Roll Call Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of October 27, 2014. Opportunity for Citizens to Address the Commission on items not on the Agenda Public Hearing ITEM #1 PC Letter#14 Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance. The proposed ordinance would revise regulations related to drive-up service windows in the Mixed Use Districts. New Business Old Business ITEM #2 PC Letter#15 Continued consideration of amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance. The proposed ordinance would amend the way in which the City administers odor control requirements for commercial kitchens. This item was previously discussed by the Commission on October 27, 2014. 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: December 8, 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 October 27, 2014 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Rick Jabs and Commissioners Dan Kitzberger, Gordon Vizecky, Alison Groebner, Charles Standfuss, Tom Rublein and Susan Rosenberg MEMBERS ABSENT:None STAFF PRESENT: Melissa Poehlman, City Planner Matt Brillhart, Planning Technician OTHERS PRESENT: Jason Nelson, Diamond Lake Jehovah's Witnesses Steve Vopatek, 6620 Stevens Avenue Derek Nieveen, 6621 1 St Avenue Tracy Satterlund, 6628 Stevens Avenue Linda Shurtleff, 6627 1St Avenue Angie Schaefbauer, Richfield Chamber of Commerce Chairperson Jabs called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Vizecky, S/Rublein to approve the minutes of the September 22, 2014 regular meeting. Motion carried: 7-0 OPEN FORUM No members of the public spoke. PUBLIC HEARING(S) ITEM #1 14-ACUP-03, 14-VAR-05 — Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to allow expansion of an existing sober-housing facility (Progress Valley) at 308 78th Street East. City Planner Melissa Poehlman presented the staff report. October 27, 2014 M/Rublein, S/Vizecky to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 7-0 M/Rublein, S/Rosenberg to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Variance. Motion carried: 7-0 ITEM #2 14-CUP-03, 14-CP-01 — Consideration of a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit to allow a religious institution at 6601 and 6605 1st Avenue, and 6600 and 6608 Stevens Avenue. Planning Technician Matt Brillhart presented the staff report. Steve Vopatek (6620 Stevens Ave) stated concerns about traffic on Stevens Ave. Brillhart stated there would be no vehicular access on Stevens. Derek Nieveen (6621 1St Ave) inquired about vehicular access via 66th Street. In response to a question from Commissioner Standfuss, Brillhart stated that the 44 parking spaces on site met zoning code requirements. Tracy Satterlund (6628 Stevens Ave) stated concerns regarding placement of parking where the two houses stand today and future parking lot maintenance. Linda Shurtleff (6627 1St Ave) stated concerns regarding increased traffic on 1St Ave. Jason Nelson, the applicant, described the size of the congregation and stated that the number of parking spaces provided would more than accommodate their needs. In response to a question from Commissioner Kitzberger, Nelson stated that services would mainly be held on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. Smaller groups may meet at other times, but not the full congregation. In response to a question from Chair Jabs, Brillhart stated that the proposed driveway location on 1St Avenue complied with the zoning code. Linda Shurtleff asked about parking lot lighting. Brillhart stated that the applicant would be required to submit a photometric lighting plan in compliance with the zoning code. Nelson stated they would work with the neighborhood on lighting issues. M/Rublein, S/Rosenberg to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 7-0 2 October 27, 2014 M/Rublein, S/Rosenberg to recommend approval of amending the Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried: 7-0 M/Rublein, S/Standfuss to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Motion carried: 7-0 ITEM #3 PC Letter No. 11 — Consideration of an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance to more clearly define when an odor control system is required for new and expanding restaurants. Poehlman presented the staff report. In response to a question from Commissioner Rosenberg, Poehlman stated that staff would make the determination if odor control equipment is required. In response to a question from Chair Jabs, Poehlman stated that "intensification" referred to adding cooking equipment that would require a Type 1 ventilation hood. Commissioner Standfuss suggested replacing "intensifying" with "augmenting". In response to a question from Commissioner Rublein, Poehlman stated that staff was comfortable with the ordinance as written. Chair Jabs asked if longer hours or an expansion of seating could be grounds for requiring odor control and stated that the proposed ordinance needed a second look. Commissioner Rublein stated that it was not possible to cover everything by ordinance, and that the complaint process was always there for residents. He stated the proposed ordinance contained enough flexibility for staff. M/Vizecky, S/Standfuss to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment, changing intensifying" to "augmenting." Chair Jabs noted that the public hearing was still open and discussion was still ongoing. Commissioners Vizecky and Standfuss retracted the motion and second, respectively. Angie Schaefbauer (Richfield Chamber of Commerce) stated that Richfield would be one of the few communities in the metro with this ordinance. She stated that odor control systems are costly and could prevent small, independent businesses from opening. M/Rosenberg, S/Rublein to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 7-0 3 October 27, 2014 Commissioner Rosenberg stated that neighborhood residents needed this protection. In response to a question from Commissioner Rublein, Poehlman stated that city staff did not prescribe specific types of odor control equipment. Applicants would be advised to hire a professional to determine what level of equipment would mitigate the odor. Commissioner Vizecky stated that the best time to determine if odor control would be necessary was at the time of application. Chair Jabs stated that staff should meet with businesses and determine if this is necessary. He proposed tabling consideration of the ordinance amendment. Commissioner Vizecky stated that tabling the ordinance amendment wouldn't actually fix anything. In response to a question from Commissioner Vizecky, Poehlman stated that there were no pending applications at this time. Commissioner Rublein noted that the City Council could still choose to vote on the ordinance amendment without a recommendation from the Planning Commission. M/Jabs to table [continue] consideration of the ordinance amendment. Motion carried: 5-2 (Vizecky and Rublein dissenting) ITEM #4 PC Letter No. 12 — Consideration of an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance to add `municipal parking lots' to the list of permitted uses in the Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District. Poehlman presented the staff report. In response to a question from Commissioner Groebner, Poehlman stated that the Penn Avenue Corridor was generally defined as Penn Avenue between Highway 62 and 67th Street. M/Vizecky, S/Rosenberg to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 7-0 M/Rublein, S/Standfuss to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment. Motion carried: 7-0 NEW BUSINESS 4 October 27, 2014 ITEM #5 PC Letter No. 13 — Consideration of a motion rescheduling the regular December Planning Commission meeting from December 22, 2014 to December 8, 2014. Poehlman presented the staff report. M/Rublein, S/Vizecky to reschedule the December meeting date. Motion carried: 7-0 OLD BUSINESS None. LIAISON REPORTS Community Services Advisory Commission: Commissioner Rublein City Council: No report HRA: Commissioner Groebner Richfield School Board: No report Transportation Commission: Commissioner Rosenberg Chamber of Commerce: Commissioner Vizecky Other: None CITY PLANNER'S REPORT Poehlman noted that Phase 2 of Lyndale Station was under construction. A joint work session with the City Council will be held on November 10th to discuss how to regulate possible medical marijuana dispensaries, per the new state law. ADJOURNMENT M/Rublein, S/Groebner to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried: 7-0 The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:40 p.m. Tom Rublein Secretary 5 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM# 1 REPORT# 14 CASE# PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PC MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 24, 2014 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Public hearing to consider an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment will clarify and enhance regulations related to uses with drive-up window or teller service in the Mixed Use Districts I.RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Recommend approval of the attached ordinance amending Subsection 537.05, Subdivision 5 and Subsection 541.21, Subdivision 3of the Richfield City Code related to uses with drive-up window or teller service in the Mixed Use Districts. II. BACKGROUND City staff continually monitors and notes areas of the Zoning Code that may require revision. Proposed amendments may be the result of changes in State Law or its interpretation, changes in social norms and community desires, new technology or direct experience with a particular regulation. Staff has noted, and discussed with the Commission in the past, some seemingly contradictory language in the regulations related to uses with drive-throughs in the Mixed Use Districts. The proposed ordinance cleans up that language and proposes additional standards related to new uses with drive-up or teller service. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The proposed Ordinance includes the following changes that are intended to help implement the pedestrian-friendly goals of the Comprehensive Plan: A minimum distance (500 feet) will be required between substantially- similar uses with drive-up or teller service in order to prevent a proliferation of any one type of use in a particular area. Non-similar uses with drive-up service may not locate on property adjacent to an existing facility with drive-up service unless the applicant can demonstrate that the use will not be detrimental to pedestrian, bicycle or vehicle movements. The maximum number of queuing lanes shall be reduced from two to one and limitations on the size, location and design of order facilities have been added. Language allowing the City to consider an additional service lane for ATMs and similar facilities. Current regulations allowed drive-up service for stand-alone buildings so long as the facilities were designed to minimize impacts to the pedestrian environment and adequately address circulation. This has been amended to require that all drive-up service providers address these issues, not just those in single-tenant buildings. Language has been added that encourages drive-up service providers to allow bicyclists to utilize these facilities. Ongoing review and periodic updating of the Code is necessary to ensure that regulations are serving their intended purposes. B. CRITICAL ISSUES There are five existing businesses in the Mixed Use Districts that offer drive- up service of some kind (Arby's, Taco Bell, Richfield-Bloomington Credit Union, CVS, and Bank of the Lakes). Richfield-Bloomington Credit Union and Arby's are currently legally non-conforming (number of queuing lanes, number of service windows, circulation). Both CVS and Taco Bell received variances related to one or more items that do not meet current requirements. CVS would be made legally nonconforming in regard to the number of service lanes if this ordinance were to be adopted. The drive-up service window for The Bank of the Lakes is and will remain in compliance with proposed regulations. Legally non-conforming uses can remain in place indefinitely. The proposed regulations are intended to balance the desire for convenience- service with the desire for safe and walkable mixed use areas. C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL Notice of this public hearing was published in the Sun Current in accordance with State and Local requirements. Other Actions: Council: The recommendation of the Planning Commission will go to the City Council for two readings. If approved by the Council, the ordinance will take effect following publication in the Sun Current. Iv. ALTERNATIVE PECOMMENDATION(S) Recommend approval of the proposed ordinance with additional changes. Recommend denial of the proposed ordinance. V. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance V1. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE SUBSECTION 537.05, SUBDIVISION 5 AND SUBSECTION 541.21, SUBDIVISION 3 RELATED TO USES WITH DRIVE-UP WINDOW OR TELLER SERVICE IN THE MIXED USE DISTRICTS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1 Subsection 537.05, Subdivision 5 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. 5. Restaurant Class III or Drive-Up Window or Teller Service. Uses with drive- up window or teller service provided the following conditions are met: a) A minimum distance of 500 feet must be maintained between substantially similar uses with drive-up window or teller service (as measured from property line to property line b) Uses with drive-up window or teller service may not be located adjacent to a property with an existing drive-up window or teller service unless an applicant can demonstrate that the use will not be detrimental to pedestrian, bicycle or vehicle movements; ac) No drive-up window or lane shall be adjacent to a public street; bd) Drive-up uses shall be limited to one (1) service window which is part of a primary structure and ne mere than twe r)'a single queuing lanes unless ennreyed along with fene seating, raised peedestr+a etG=,and order board/station; i) The content portion of order boards is limited to 40 square feet; ii) Order board content may not extend above 8 feet in height on the supporting structure; iii) Order boards/stations must be located within 60 feet of the business which they serve. e) The City may consider one additional service lane for Automated Teller Machines ATMs) or similar facilities; must he port of a multi enon mixed use dey amen+ Frees dinryDrive-up „,T t-t Tt,a ek„T ta-g buildings shall net have drove-up facilities unless they aremust be designed to minimize impacts to the pedestrian environment and adequately address circulation issues and potential noise or light pollution; g) Drive-through canopies and other structures, where present, shall be constructed from the same materials as the primary building and with a similar level of architectural quality and detailing; dh) There shall be no curb cuts on public streets exclusively for the use of drive-up queuing or exit lanes. Drive-up traffic shall enter and exit from internal circulation drives; ei) Queuing space for at least 4 cars (70 feet) shall be provided per drove-„r lane as measured from, but not including, the first drive-up service window or teller station. Such queuing space shall not interfere with parking spaces or traffic circulation; fi) Any drive-up service window, teller or order station, or exterior loudspeaker shall be located at least 150 feet from any parcel with residential uses on the first floor; gk) The applicant shall demonstrate that such use will not significantly lower the existing level of service on streets and intersections; 1) The City shall encourage operators to permit bicyclist use of sales and service windows; m) Alcoholic beverages shall not be served; and n) Exterior speakers shall comply with the noise control limits set by Subsection 930 of the City Code. Sec. 2 Subsection 541.21, Subdivision 3 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. 3. Applicable regulations. The regulations of the underlying Mixed-Use Community (MU-C) District shall apply with the following additions and exceptions: a) Uses. All permitted, accessory, conditional and interim uses allowed in the MU-C District are allowed in the PAC District with the following additions, qualifications and/or exceptions: Table 1 Uses in the Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District Note — The following abbreviations are used within the use table: P = Permitted use A = Accessory use C = Conditionally permitted N = Not permitted Use PAC Regional retail services P Auto mechanical or body repair shops N Auto detailing N Dwelling, townhouse (min. density 6 du/acre)P Dwelling, multifamily min. density 6 du/acre P Live-work units min. density 6 du/acre P Transit facilities or municipal parking lots P b) Uses not listed. Any land use not listed as Permitted, Accessory or Conditional in this subsection or other referenced subsections is prohibited in the Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District unless the use is found to be substantially similar to a use listed, as determined by the City in accordance with Subsection 509.23 of this Code. c) Conditional uses. All oond+tions applicablet in the M District, as found in SubseE409H 537.05 of this E;ede, apply OR qualifiGatienc angler evrentienc• staurant Class III er Drove_I In WiRdew Teller Seniine. I n addition r tA the Rum dostaRGe ef 150 feet must be maiRtained between GWGh faGnIntmes in the PAC District (as measured from prepert y lino to prepert y liRe dc) Bulk and dimensional standards. All bulk and dimensional standards applicable in the MU-C District, as found in Subsection 537.07 of this code, shall apply in the PAC District with the following additions, qualifications and/or exceptions: i) The minimum two-story building requirement prescribed in Table 2 of Subsection 537.07 does not apply within the PAC District. ii) The maximum number of building stories in the PAC District shall be eight 8) stories. iii) A mix of uses, as prescribed by Subsection 537.07, Subd. 2(b) is not required within the PAC District. ed) Other Performance Standards. All additional performance standards applicable in the MU-C District, as found in Subsection 537.11 of this code, shall apply in the PAC District with the following additions, qualifications and/or exceptions: i) The above-ground parking ramps orientation requirement described by Subsection 537.11, Subd. 6(d) does not apply in the PAC District. ii) The open space requirement described by Subsection 537.11, Subd. 8 does not apply in the PAC District. Sec. 3 This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of January, 2015 Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: OLD BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM# 2 REPORT# 15 CASE# PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PC MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 24, 2014 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Continued consideration of amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance. The proposed ordinance would amend the way in which the City administers odor control requirements for commercial kitchens. This item was previously discussed by the Commission on October 27, 2014. I.RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Recommend approval of the attached ordinance amending Subsection 544.27 related to commercial kitchen odor control. II. BACKGROUND This item was previously discussed by the Commission in October. After closing the public hearing, the Commission voted (5-2) to continue discussion to a later unspecified) date and directed staff to discuss the proposed changes with restaurant owners and operators. City staff requested feedback regarding the new and proposed regulations from nine property owners, developers and/or restaurant operators that have proposed, opened or significantly remodeled a restaurant in the City over the last two years. Initially only one response was received, so staff followed up with a second request to a couple of survey recipients. Additionally, staff spoke with a restaurant developer and representatives of a fast-food franchise. Comment summary (full text is attached): Automatically requiring the odor control system for any property in any location in Richfield doesn't make sense; in my opinion." I feel the language needs to be changed to encourage the Planning Commission and City Council to take a greater level of risk, allowing the City [to] go after a business if odors become a problem." If one resident complains of cooking smells every time the wind blows from the east[,] is that enough cause to force a business to spend $40,000 plus dollars or is that part of living in an urban area?" I believe all the businesses wanting to locate in Richfield want to be good neighbors. However, if they decide not to come to the City the tax base is reduced and Richfield is a less vibrant City. Vibrant areas all have problems with parking, too much traffic, constant enforcement, waste management and other issues. However, Richfield would probably love to have a destination area similar to Uptown, Grand Avenue, or 501h and France, even with the problems. Those areas all had or have less restrictive ordinances on trash, odor control, and parking—but now that the economic engine is in place, additional enforcement is economically feasible." The proposal sounds fair and plausible to me." regulation to limit an annoyance of obtrusive smells is justified for residential areas." I agree that there should be conditions on the new rules, specifically if existing restaurants are adding fries, etc." I do not agree that all new restaurants will create odors, thus I believe there should be some criteria on this. Having all new restaurants install a system may be a[n] undue burden on these businesses." Based on past experiences in administering odor control requirements; past and current reaction from businesses, residents and developers; and recent discussions with the City Council, staff is suggesting that odor control be addressed in the Zoning Ordinance as follows. (With the exception of the word changes suggested by the Commission at the previous meeting, this proposal has not changed.) Commercial Kitchen Odor Control: All properties that contain cooking apparatus which necessitates the installation of a Type I Ventilation Hood (as required by State Building Code) and which abut (or are located within 150 feet even if not abutting) existing and/or future residential property shall mitigate or otherwise address the impact of odors as follows: New Restaurant Sites abutting or adjacent to existing residential properties shall install professionally designed odor control remedies; New Restaurant Sites abutting or adjacent to future residential development (either as a result of the Comprehensive Plan or an approved development plan), or Pre-Existing Restaurant Sites which are augmenting cooking equipment and/or intensifying odor emissions, abutting or adjacent to existing residential and/or residentially zoned property shall: Provide plans for a professionally designed odor control remedy and a statement by a structural engineer that the building design could accommodate the planned odor control and screening in the future. Subsequent complaints of odor impacts may result in the requirement that the planned odor control device be installed. Administrative Exemptions: The Community Development Director shall have the authority to exempt uses from meeting the Odor Control requirements with a written finding that the proposed commercial kitchen is for an institutional (or similar) use that will have limited hours of operation and/or minimal usage; III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY City Staff, the City Council and the Business Community (as represented by the Chamber of Commerce) all agree that the existing language in the Zoning Ordinance regarding odor control is inadequate and imprecise. There have been two appeals related to odor control submitted to the City Council since May. One of the primary goals of the zoning code is to foster harmonious and workable relationships among land uses. City staff received formal and informal feedback from five individuals representing restaurants and/or developers. B. CRITICAL ISSUES In response to an Appeal of the Odor Control requirements for 6736 Penn Avenue (Fireside Pizza), the City Council made allowances that would conform to the suggested Ordinance Revision. C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL The City Attorney has been involved in drafting the proposed Ordinance Revision. A public hearing related to these changes was held and closed on October 27, 2014. Other Actions: Council: The recommendation of the Planning Commission will go to the City Council for two readings. If the City Council adopts the recommended changes, they will take effect the day following publication in the Sun Current newspaper. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) Recommend approval of the proposed ordinance with additional changes. Recommend denial of the proposed ordinance. V. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance Comments received VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE RELATED TO ZONING AMENDING SUBSECTION 544.27 RELATED TO COMMERCIAL KITCHEN ODOR CONTROL THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1 Subsection 544.27 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 544.27. Environmental Effects. No activity or operation shall be established or maintained that by reason of its nature or manner of operation will cause the emission of noise, odor, toxic or noxious fumes, smoke, dust or particulate matter in such concentrations as to be detrimental to or endanger the public health, welfare, comfort or safety, or cause injury to property or business. Subd. 1. Commercial Kitchen Odor Control. All properties that contain cooking apparatus which necessitates the installation of a Type 1 Ventilation Hood (as required by State Building Code) and which abut (or are located within 150 feet even if not abutting) existing and/or future residential property shall mitigate or otherwise address the impact of odors as follows: a) Adjacent to Existing Residential. New restaurant sites abutting or adjacent to existing residential properties shall install professionally-designed odor control remedies; b) Adjacent to Future Residential. New restaurant sites abutting or adjacent to future residential development (either as a result of the Comprehensive Plan or an approved development plan) shall provide plans for a professionally- designed odor control remedy and a statement by a structural engineer that the building design could accommodate the planned odor control and associated screening in the future. Subsequent complaints of odor impacts may result in the requirement that the planned odor control device be installed. c) Pre-existing Restaurant Sites. Pre-existing restaurant sites abutting or adjacent to either existing or future residential development, which are augmenting cooking equipment and/or intensifying odor emissions, shall follow the requirements of clause b above. d) Administrative Exemptions: The Community Development Director shall have the authority to exempt uses from meeting the requirements of this Subdivision with a written finding that the proposed commercial kitchen is for an institutional (or similar) use that will have limited hours of operation and/or minimal usage. Section 2 This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of November, 2014. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk Written comments received regarding existing and proposed odor control regulation Automatically requiring the odor control system for any property in any location in Richfield doesn't make sense; in my opinion. Yes, this makes enforcement easier (for City employees/enforcement departments) by having a blanket statement, but it does pose an economic burden on any business coming into Richfield and makes Richfield less competitive against most other municipalities. It is my understanding only Bloomington and Woodbury currently have a blanket control requirement similar to Richfield's. Minneapolis, Edina, Egan, Apple Valley and Saint Paul do not have these requirements to the best of my knowledge. A big part of the ordinance issue, (I believe.) deals with the ordinance language. As I understand the language, if Planning Commission or City Council overrides the recommendations of Planning Department, nothing can be done in the future to push a business to install an odor control system. This forces the Planning Commission and Council into taking the path of lowest risk, which then forces a business to either accept the restriction and related costs or pushes them over the City limits to another municipality. I feel the language needs to be changed to encourage the Planning Commission and City Council to take a greater level of risk, allowing the City go after a business if odors become a problem. From further discussions with Rick Regnier, the ordinance is not specific to the type of odor control system—this is helpful. Depending on the volume and type of cooking, a business will not need to expend as much capital if a full 'scrubber' system is not required. However, at minimum,the cost will double no matter what system is installed—and in most cases will increase the cost of installing an exhaust system by a factor of four or more times depending on the level of odor control. The most difficult question with odor issues is intensity and frequency. This also relates to distance. If one resident complains of cooking smells every time the wind blows from the east is that enough cause to force a business to spend $40,000 plus dollars or is that part of living in an urban area? I realize this is the toughest question to answer, but flexible boundaries need to be set—this is not a case of one size fits all. Finally, I believe all the businesses wanting to locate in Richfield want to be good neighbors. However, if they decide not to come to the City the tax base is reduced and Richfield is a less vibrant City. Vibrant areas all have problems with parking, too much traffic, constant enforcement, waste management and other issues. However, Richfield would probably love to have a destination area similar to Uptown, Grand Avenue, or 50`" and France, even with the problems. Those areas all had or have less restrictive ordinances on trash, odor control, and parking—but now that the economic engine is in place, additional enforcement is economically feasible. I would say that regulation to limit and annoyance of obtrusive smell is justified for residential areas. (that's why hog farms are in rural areas ;-)) I agree there should be conditions on the new rules, specifically if existing restaurants are adding fries, etc. I do not agree that all new restaurants will create odors, thus I believe there should be some criteria on this. Having all new restaurants install a system may be a undue burden on these business's. The proposal sounds fair and plausible to me.