10-14-96 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1996
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
E
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 AND (2) CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MEETING OF
OCTOBER 7, 1996
PRESENTATIONS
PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 1996
DOMESTIC/FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION MONTH IN CITY OF RICHFIELD
2. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 1996
BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH IN CITY OF RICHFIELD
3. PRESENTATION OF VIDEO REGARDING EXTREME SUMMER ACTIVITIES
4. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT
ON THE AGENDA
AGENDA APPROVAL
5. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE
ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE
CONSENT CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER
COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER
MAY REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL
DISCUSSION AND ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION APPOINTING HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENT TRAINEE ELECTION JUDGES FOR NOVEMBER 5,
1996 GENERAL ELECTION C.L. 308
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
SECTIONS 506,521 AND 541 OF APPENDIX B OF ZONING ORDINANCE
REGARDING CLUSTER HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS AND CONSIDERATION
OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF SUMMARY OF
AMENDMENT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 309
8. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING RECOMMENDATION TO REVOKE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT ALLOWS MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR AT
7608 KNOX AVENUE
0 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 310
9. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
REZONING LAND AT 7645 NICOLLET AVENUE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL TO TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (TABLED FROM SEPTEMBER
9, 1996 COUNCIL MEETING)
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 311
10. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING REQUEST FOR AMENDED PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CSM CORPORATION TO ALLOW UP TO 2,530
SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE/SERVICE USE IN PHASE II OF SHOPS AT
LYNDALE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 312
11. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING REQUEST FOR AMENDED PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW DECREASE IN NUMBER OF STORIES AND
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED AMERICINN HOTEL, 1200 EAST 78TH
STREET
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 313
12. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF AMENDMENT TO HUMAN
RESOURCES ORDINANCE SECTION 310.13, APPOINTMENT AND
PLACEMENT OF RELATIVES
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 314
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
13. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY VACATION PETITION AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC
HEARING; AND FIRST READING CONSIDERATION OF TRANSITORY
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO VACATE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENT AT 6334-11TH AVENUE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 315
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
14. CONSIDERATION OF NOVEMBER CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE
CHANGES AND ADDITIONS
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 316
AIRPORT BUSINESS
15. CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDING FOR REVIEW OF
NORTH/SOUTH RUNWAY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 317
16. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
17. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
18. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
19. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
20. ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative
Services Director at 861-9702.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 317
Agenda October 14, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of authorization of funding for review of north/south runway
Environmental Impact Statement.
Background:
The Metropolitan Airports Commission is proposing to construct a north/south runway
which would be located roughly parallel to Cedar Avenue. The runway construction
would place airport operations closer to residential property than any existing runway
configuration. A previous review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
dual track whico included the north/south runway revealed that there were a number of
unresolved issues regarding the potential environmental, economic and social impacts
on Richfield residents.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission has announced it is their intention that the final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the north/south runway would be issued at
the end of 1996. The City of Richfield will have approximately two months to respond
to the EIS.
The cost of this review is significant. The estimated cost components to the review
include the following:
• Overall legal review $60,000
• Traffic review 7,500
• Sound impact review 7,500
• Airport operations 7,500
• Planning review 7,500
• Alternative mitigation 10,000
Recommended Motion:
Authorize $100,000 to fund review of the north/south Environmental Impact Statement.
Basis of Recommendation:
The north/south runway will have significant impact upon the City of Richfield. It is
appropriate for the City to determine whether the environmental impact document
adequately provides for a description of the impacts and provides appropriate
mitigation.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City could rely upon review by staff without additional assistance.
2. The City could rely upon review by the Metropolitan Council
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented for action at the Council meeting of October 14, 1996.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
city nager
JDP:ds
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 316
Agenda October 14, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of November City Council meeting schedule changes and additions.
Background:
The City Council regularly conducts a Study Session on the first Monday of each
month. The first Monday in November is the evening prior to the General Election. The
Study Session could be rescheduled or canceled. Any business can be carried over to
the December 2 Study Session.
A Special City Council meeting is required to canvass the General Election results.
This meeting should be scheduled for Thursday, November 7 at 5:30 p.m.
The City Council regularly conducts meetings on the second and fourth Mondays of
each month. The second Monday of November is the Veterans' Day holiday. The
meeting could be rescheduled to Tuesday, November 12.
The City Council has requested that a Special City Council meeting be conducted on
Wednesday, November 13 to seek resident input regarding the 1996 Revised/1997
Proposed budget.
Recommended Motion:
Make the following changes and additions to the November City Council meeting
schedule:
1. Cancel the City Council Study Session regularly scheduled for November 4, do
not reschedule the meeting and carry any business over to the December 2 Study
Session.
2. Schedule a Special City Council meeting for November 7 at 5:30 p.m. to canvass
the results of the General Election.
3. Reschedule the November 11 regular City Council meeting to November 12 at 7
p.m.
4. Schedule a Special City Council meeting for November 13 at 7 p.m. to seek
resident input regarding the 1996 Revised/1997 Proposed budget.
Basis of Recommendation:
• 1. November 4 is the evening prior to the General Election. The Study Session
could be canceled or rescheduled but any business can be carried over to the
December 2 Study Session.
14--l
. 2. A Special City Council meeting is required to canvass the General Election
results. It is recommended this meeting be scheduled for November 7.
3. November 11 is the Veterans' Day holiday. The regular City Council meeting can
be rescheduled to November 12.
4. The City Council has requested that a Special City Council meeting be scheduled
for November 13.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Conduct the November 4 Study Session.
2. Reschedule the Study Session to another date.
3. Do not schedule the Special City Council meeting to canvass election results.
4. Do not reschedule the November 11 regular City Council meeting and carry any
business over to the November 25 regular City Council meeting.
5. Do not schedule the Special City Council meeting on November 13.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
• This item is placed on the October 14, 1996 City Council agenda to allow time for
scheduling, publication and notification.
Respe tfully submitted,
Jam Prosser
City gager
JDP:cak
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 315
Agenda October 14, 1996
Issue Statement:
First reading of an ordinance amendment to vacate a drainage and utility easement at
6334 11th Avenue.
Background:
The property at 6334 11th Avenue has recently been sold. The buyer's mortgage
lender has requested that the utility easement be vacated. The former owner and
potential buyer are requesting that the City vacate a ten foot drainage and utility
easement located along the northwestern and western property lines. There are no
utilities in this area, and an easement is not needed for drainage purposes.
A garage was constructed over the easement. The buyer's mortgage lender is
requesting that the easement be vacated before the sale is finalized.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt a resolution acknowledging receipt of petition to vacate; approve first reading of
an ordinance vacating a drainage and utility easement at 6334 11th Avenue; and set a
public hearing and second reading for November 12, 1996.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. There are no utilities located in the easement area.
• 2. By vacating the easement, the garage can remain, and the sale of the property
can be completed.
3. The property abuts Veterans Park; if there is a need to place utilities in this area in
the future, park land could be used.
4. The relevant utility companies were contacted and approved the vacation.
5. The Engineering Division supports the vacation.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Deny the vacation at first reading.
2. Refer the petition to the Planning Commission for review.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
First reading is set for October 14, 1996. If approved, a public hearing and second
reading will be scheduled on November 12, 1996.
Respec ully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
13-1
9 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RECEIPT OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY VACATION
PETITION AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the City Clerk requesting the vacation
of a drainage and utility easement described as follows:
The northerly and westerly 10 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Christian's Second Addition,
according to the map or plat on file or of record in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, said petition complies in all respects with the requirements of
Richfield Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. The petition for vacation of the drainage and utility easement in Lot 1, Block
2, Christian's Second Addition is received.
2. A public hearing on the drainage and utility easement in said petition shall
be held on November 12, 1996.
3. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing in the official
newspaper of the City and post notice of said hearing in the manner
provided by Richfield Ordinance.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
October, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
% 3-).
•
ORDINANCE NO.
A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE VACATING AN ALLEY EASEMENT
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The following described land is subject to a drainage and utility
easement for public purposes:
The northerly and westerly 10 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Christian's Second
Addition, according to the map or plat on file or of record in and for Hennepin County,
Minnesota
Section 2. The Council finds that there is no longer a public need for a drainage
and utility easement over that portion of land as described in Section 1.
Section 3. The drainage and utility easement over that portion of land, as
described in Section 1 of this ordinance, is hereby vacated.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
. 11996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
9
I3-
6334 11 TH AVENUE
EASEMENT VACATION
VETERANS
MEMORIAL
PARK
/
/
/
moo. /
i ,c /
/
i / OR
/
r
Ni I
- 0. 10' k-
I
-PROPERTY LINE
- - 135'
'0000A \
a'
/
-o
IN
r
I
I
I
I
I
D
W
Q
T
T
SITE PLAN
DATE: 10-2-96
?P /
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 314
Agenda October 14, 1996
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of amendment to. Human Resources ordinance
Section 310.13 Appointment and placement of relatives.
Background:
City Code Section 310.13 Appointment and placement of relatives, attempts to maintain
a balance between the City's anti-nepotism policy and an individual's rights to compete
for City employment. The City strives to maintain that balance and compliance with
state human rights laws.
Recent Minnesota Department of Human Rights guidance indicates the City ordinance
should be clarified as it relates to spouses being employed by the City. The
Department of Human Rights would accept a violation charge if the City were to deny a
spouse employment simply because the other spouse would supervise him or her. The
City's current ordinance permits that denial of spousal-supervisor employment, and
therefore, may potentially violate the state's Human Rights Act under certain
circumstances.
The proposed clarifying language is meant to remedy any potential violations of the
state act, by prohibiting spousal-supervision only in cases where it would be detrimental
to a bona fide occupational qualification. Those situations would be determined by the
City Manager on a case-by-case basis.
While the City has not faced a supervisor-spouse relationship problem, it would be
prudent to clarify the language before such a situation emerges.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct the public hearing and second reading of the proposed ordinance amendment
to Section 310.13 regarding spousal-supervisor employment relationships.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. As the ordinance stands, the City could be in violation of the Minnesota Human
Rights Act under certain circumstances.
2. The amendment preserves the City's long standing policy of balancing anti-nepotism
and encouraging the public to apply for City employment.
3. It is better to clarify the language before a supervisor-spouse relationship situation
• arises.
/)-I
4. The City Council gave first reading approval of the ordinance change on September
23, 1996. A legal notice of the public hearing has been published.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not amend the ordinance and potentially face a state human rights claim.
2. Delete the ordinance provision and eliminate the City's anti-nepotism policy.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Conduct a public hearing and approve second reading of an ordinance amending
Section 310.13 clarifying spousal-supervisor employment relationships.
Respectfully submitted,
r?
LJ
Jame . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
•
C7
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 310.13
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 310.13 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled
"Appointment and placement of relatives" is hereby amended:
310.13. Appointment and placement of relatives. Relatives closer than
second cousins by blood or by marriage will not be employed in the same
work group. Spouses may be employed in the same work group, so long
as no employee will be placed in a work group in which a spouse will
exercise supervision over the employee where such supervision would be
seen as detrimental to a bona fide occupational qualification. All
decisions on the specific determination of what may constitute a work
group or supervisor-spouse relationship shall be made by the manager
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
October, 1997.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 313
Agenda October 14, 1996
Issue Statement:
Public hearing regarding a request for an amended planned unit development plan to
allow a decrease in the number of stories and square footage of the proposed
Americlnn Hotel, 1200 East 78th Street.
Background:
Northern Hospitality has requested approval to redesign the Americlnn Hotel at 1200
East 78th Street. The proposed building would be three stories, 30,933 square feet
with 58 rooms. The original plan was for a five story building with 39,812 square feet
and 60 rooms. The change in square footage is greater than ten percent, requiring an
amendment to the planned unit development plan.
Sixty parking spaces would still be provided on the site. The building orientation and
site coverage would remain essentially the same as the approved plan.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing and approve the planned unit development plan, final
4 development plan and conditional use permit to allow a reduction in square footage
from 39,812 to 30,933 square feet for the Americlnn Hotel, 1200 East 78th Street.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposed height of the building would have less of an impact on adjacent land
uses.
2. The parking ratio improves slightly with the proposed plan.
3. The proposed changes do not impact site access or circulation.
4. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property
owners within 350 feet of the subject property.
5. On September 24, 1996 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the amended planned unit development plan.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the request with a finding that the proposal would have an adverse impact on
adjacent properties or the City as a whole.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Plan amendment applications require a two-thirds majority vote of the City Council for
approval.
t ?-I
•
A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Monday, October 14, 1996. The hearing
will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue.
A decision must be rendered by November 2, 1996 or a notice of an extension must be
provided to the applicant.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City Hager
JDP:ds
0
•
1200 EAST 78TH STREET
is
77 T-4 STREET
516N
cA
in
w
w
Q
Z
I-
N
•
I
SITE PLAN
/ / -a...
PROPERTY
LINE
I I LINE
I
JE?3 I
I
CONC.
WALK
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
30,933>
TPREE STORIES
56 PARKING SPACES
4 PANDICAPPED SPACES
60 TOTAL SPACES 78 T4 STREET
SITE PLAN
m
SPA-wic BGALE
L
0 20 80 IZ0
V` ORAMANG DAZE SHEET NO
TRUMAN
LOCATION 10/14/96
HOWELL 9NRICHFIELD SITE PLAN
ARCHITECTS =s IIC7Mastxm MINNESOTA SCALE ?{J
& ASSOC.,INC. ?f
1200 EAST 78TH STREET
•
•
0
11 3
WEST ELEVATION
uur??? A viriia
¦ R
W r :
O
,li
G G
10/14/96
•
8' Parking Lot Setback (not to scale)
f f t
S6 PARKING STALLS
4 PC STALLS
t=
•
I
I
I
I
I
LOT AREA
48,426.2 s.=,.
APPROVED SITE PLAN
/- 4?
6-10-96
e ?d
A RIGINN SITE S T UDr
\6+ cfe)
-?IG4-4FIELD
G2ARI410 SCALD
• 0 20 so 120
TRUI" IAN HOWELL ARG?41 TEG T S ? ASSOG I ATLS, I NC.
13202 i" fINNETON<A E3LVD, XA'*rZATA, I"IN. 5-D3g1
F?1-40NE: 612-44G-8303 FAX: 612-44c-i-0552 -
1-5
APPROVED ELEVATION
6-10-96
I-
non ,?
pn
1
lT
fn
uu
z
C+)
0
cr)
01
1
d'
n
N
T -
CD
v
r
U ?
C co
to
to
CU
A
?U
O
Q
U
t m
U
Q _2
C
3 m
O?
sQ
c N
0 N
..
h- 00
!o
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 312
Agenda October 14, 1996
Issue Statement:
Public hearing regarding a request for an amended planned unit development plan for
CSM Corporation to allow up to 2,530 square feet of office/service use in Phase II of
the Shops at Lyndale.
Background:
CSM Corporation is requesting that the planned unit development plan allow the
potential of up to 2,530 square feet of Phase II (20% of the in-line shops space) to be
used for office/service uses. The amendment would provide them greater flexibility in
leasing space in the center while preserving the center's primary function as a retail
shopping area.
Currently, CSM is negotiating with a temporary employment office, Western Temporary
Services, that would occupy 1,350 square feet of floor area within the in-line shops
space.
i Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing and approve the planned unit development plan, final
development plan and conditional use permit for Phase II of the Shops at Lyndale to
allow up to 2,530 square feet of office/service use in the center.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposed office use is a permitted use in the C-2 (general commercial)
district, which serves as a guide to allowable uses in the PC-2 district. .
2. The amendment will allow a greater variety of tenants while still preserving the
center's primary function as a retail shopping area.
3. The existing parking would accommodate the proposed office use.
4. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property
owners within 350 feet of the subject property.
5. On September 24, 1996 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the amended planned unit development plan.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the request with a finding that the proposal would have an adverse impact on
adjacent properties or the City as a whole.
I?-I
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Plan amendment applications require a two-thirds majority vote of the City Council for
approval.
A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Monday, October 14, 1996. The hearing
will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue.
A decision must be rendered by November 2, 1996 or a notice of an extension must be
provided to the applicant.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
•
EJ
H1ROS '3AV - 7YONn
r-
T
:dG?CECW1IIDl0
PHASE II SHOPS AT LYNDALE
/ SITE PLAN
b ?Eou
Z 2 i w a$ ?? ;'o ?.
p G E, ? ? •? a:'
c:
Q
Q
N ? 4..
?.
N ? Yy?N
Q ? Vl N b O .' ??: V.
W n.
Q
a GuruN??:„:o ?:
00 O W 3 3 : a •n: ?:
xxxx i?? '-N' ?• p;?
u u u u -+ w of • _:?;^;
3t '<??23rca :-
ONN
W
Q O:
N ?T•?. ^
.V w ........... ....... ....,..
YI
C
z ? o
W
o ?
U
N
Cr)
T
Z
v p
2 a
0
L '
Z
W
g
? a.
w
Cl)
a o
10/14/96
9
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 311
Agenda October 14, 1996
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment rezoning land at 7645
Nicollet Avenue from C-1 (neighborhood commercial) to MR-1 (two family residential),
tabled from September 9, 1996 Council meeting.
Background:
The City purchased the former video store at 7645 Nicollet Avenue for the 77th Street
improvement project. A portion of the property was used for the street, the remainder is
available for development. Staff is proposing to rezone the parcel from C-1
(neighborhood commercial) to MR-1 (two family residential). The property could then
be sold to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for residential development.
The existing building would be demolished and a new home constructed. A single
family or two-family home would be developed on the property. The parcel is 10,292
square feet (83 feet by 124 feet), which meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance
for a single family or two family lot in the MR-1 district.
At the request of the Council, staff contacted two commercial developers to determine
whether or not the property was marketable for commercial use.
A.G. Bogen Co. and Security Development Co. were contacted. They both develop
small commercial facilities. Each was requested to evaluate the commercial potential of
the site. Each had a staff member view the site; both had similar responses. A
commercial use could be'located on the site. However, it is not desirable because of its
small size, its isolation from other commercial uses and its diminished visibility due to
the screenwall. Housing would be a more appropriate use.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing and approve second reading of the ordinance amendment
rezoning the property at 7645 Nicollet Avenue from C-1 (neighborhood commercial) to
MR-1 (two family residential).
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The parcel is located to the north of the 77th Street screen wall, adjacent to
residential properties making it an appropriate location for a residential use.
2. The parcel is located at the intersection of two arterial streets making it an
appropriate location for housing at a slightly higher density than single family
housing.
3. The parcel meets the zoning ordinance requirements for a lot in an MR-1 district.
q-/
4. On July 23, 1996 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the rezoning.
5. The City Council held first reading on August 12, 1996 and set the public hearing
and second reading for September 9, 1996. The City Council tabled the motion
until the October 14, 1996 City Council meeting.
6. Two commercial developers indicated a residential use would be more appropriate
than a commercial use.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the rezoning.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A property rezoning requires a two-thirds majority vote of the City Council for approval.
Respec fully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
1]
9-?
Bill No. 1996-
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX I
OF THE CITY CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
(7645 Nicollet Avenue South)
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix I which describes the boundaries of the various zoning districts of the City is
hereby amended in the following respect:
A. Section 2, Paragraph (6) is amended to read as follows:
(6) N4 16 QNI
R e
m
er
770h
ind
a-
-
-H
f.
W
Ni
.i-lo+ n.
k n A
dW
G r^"
'
Nie
l t A
A d b
dditi
t
e
efine an
ee
.
. any
s
e e
venue on, an
e
wee
f 77th St
t
d th
t
th
t
li f L
t 10
Ble
h li ek 4
of said additio
fee
an
e aef
e een
er-
ne o o
ne o
, , .
B. Section 11, Paragraph (81) is amended to read as follows:
(81) M-16 (NE corner, 77th and Nicollet) The northerly 8 feet of Lot 9 and all of Lot 10
in Block 4, A.G. Bogen Company's Nicollet Avenue Addition.
This amendment constitutes a rezoning of 7645 Nicollet Avenue South from C-1 to
MR-1.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
October, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
E
7645 NICOLLET AVENUE
W
n
z
W
Q
W
J
0
0
ki
REZONING: C-1 TO MR-1
124.26'
PROPERTY LINE
co
` LOT #10
Z
, J
IW
' G.
cccc
- -i • ORIGINAL LOT LINE rL
LEC File ` NORTH S FT. OF LOT #9
1 x -
.A ? II
? NOISF WALL
CURB
77TH STREET
. MANNING ?,V
ZONING NORTH
CommunltyDe+leiopnentDopartrrwnl SCALE: 1" = 25' DATE: 7-11-96
SITE PLAN,
EXISTING
8
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 310
Agenda October 14, 1996
Issue Statement:
Public hearing regarding a recommendation to revoke a conditional use permit that
allows motor vehicle repair at 7608 Knox Avenue.
Background:
The City Council issued a conditional use permit to Minnesota Taxi on November 13,
1995 to conduct automotive repairs for the company's taxis at 7608 Knox Avenue.
Since that time, the business has repeatedly violated the terms of the conditional use
permit.
Staff have sent three letters to the owner of Minnesota Taxi, Gholam Shahrokhi,
notifying him that he is required to comply with this conditional use permit. The items at
issue are as follows:
• multiple cars parked in the lot where two regular parking spaces and one
handicapped space exist (up to 12 cars observed);
• taxis regularly parked along Knox Avenue;
• cars parked in the boulevard; and
• the trash dumpster left outside.
Staff have not observed cars parked on the boulevard or the trash dumpster left outside
since June; however, the business has continued to park several taxis on the street and
to over-park on the lot. The conditional use permit also requires that the property
owner resurface, curb and stripe the parking lot and install a handicapped parking sign.
He has been unable to do so because of the number of cars stored on the lot.
Mr. Shahrokhi has once again promised to comply with the conditional use permit. He
informed staff that he has arranged to store his taxis at a separate location. Mr.
Shahrokhi has promised to comply several times in the past and not done so.
Mr. Shahrokhi received an off-street parking permit on October 9, 1995 to allow him to
begin the dispatch portion of his business, which is a permitted use. He could continue
to operate this portion of the business if he limits the number of cars using the lot to
those dispatch employees. This portion of the business is a lower traffic generator.
The City Council could revoke the off-street parking permit if adequate parking does not
exist for the dispatch business.
Recommended Motion:
• Revoke the conditional use permit that allows use of 7608 Knox Avenue for automotive
repairs.
$-I
• Basis of Recommendation:
1. Minnesota Taxi has not complied with the terms of the conditional use permit.
2. In response to three notices of non-compliance, Minnesota Taxi would correct the
items identified for a short period of time but would be out of compliance again
after a couple of weeks.
3. The parking demand for the repair portion of the business exceeds the parking
that is available on the property.
4. Notice of the hearing was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject
property.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not revoke the conditional use permit at this time.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Monday, October 14, 1996. The hearing
will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue.
Respectfully submitted,
•
Ja . Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
0
3f1N3Ad XONH
r-u -1
I U 0
CL
IA
N w
Q
Q
33VdS
d=CINVH
Z
N
Y
Q
a
v
0
i
0
J
_
5
m
X300 1
OTIS -.woo
W
Z
W
W
P?PGE o
sal ? s Vds ?
3N11 A HUO ld
FIG
U > I
r•J
tl C.F
v v;
z
J
a
W
0
W
U)
0
IL
0
m
a
6
N
0
Cl)
W
n
z
W
X
0
z
Y
00
0
co
L
r
W
J
Q
V
N
0z
E
z
? Z
S NO
V ?
?z
W
OZ
?g
ud
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 309
Agenda October 14, 1996
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment to Sections 506, 521,
and 541 of the zoning ordinance regarding cluster housing developments; and
consideration of resolution authorizing publication of a summary of the amendment.
Background:
The Planning Commission spent several months developing an ordinance amendment
for cluster housing developments in response to the need to encourage a greater
variety of housing types in the City.
The ordinance permits small, single family-like projects in the R (single family
residential), MR-1 (two family residential) and MR-2 (medium density residential)
districts in the City as conditional uses. Conditions are placed on this type of housing to
ensure that projects are developed in harmony with the existing neighborhoods. Lot
size, setback and lot coverage requirements similar to those of each zoning district are
applied to cluster housing developments. Flexibility in these requirements is granted to
projects that demonstrate that a higher quality project can be developed with this
flexibility and that the flexibility does not have a negative impact on the neighborhood.
In the R (single family residential) district, the size and density of this type of project is
limited by the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan suggests a number of
areas in the City that would be appropriate for cluster housing.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing and approve second reading of an ordinance amending
Sections 506, 521 and 541 of Appendix B to the City Code providing for cluster housing
developments and approve resolution authorizing publication of a summary of the
amendment.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The variety of housing types available in the City is limited; cluster housing is one
type of housing the City lacks. As the number of empty nester households grows,
the demand for attached forms of housing is likely to increase.
2. Under the Livable Communities Act, the City has developed several housing
principles, one of which is to support a variety of housing types for people in all
stages of the life cycle.
3. The update of the City's Comprehensive Plan, estimated to be in place by the end
of 1996, encourages the life cycle housing concept and identifies several locations
for low density, attached forms of housing.
q,
4. The current Zoning Ordinance limits cluster housing development to attached
townhome units in the medium density multiple housing district and planned unit
developments. The ordinance does not recognize smaller, more single-family like
cluster developments.
5. The Planning Commission has reviewed ordinances from other cities and received
feedback from developers and City housing staff in developing the attached
ordinance amendment.
6. On August 27, 1996 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the ordinance amendment.
7. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current.
8. First reading was held on September 9, 1996.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Deny the amendment.
2. Request further study of the ordinance by the Planning Commission.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing and second reading is scheduled on October 14, 1996.
Respec ully submitted,
-1 1
Jam s . Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
0
I- a
Bill No. 1996-
Amendment to the City Code
of the City of Richfield
The City of Richfield Does Ordain:
A. Section 506 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: Purpose
and Definitions" is amended by amending Section 506.07, subd. 13 to read as follows:
Subd. 13. "Cluster home development" - A development of 3 or more detached one
family dwellings or a row. group or cluster of attached one family dwellings Dwelling
units may be located on individual lots or on a lot in common.
B. Section 521 of Appendix B of the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: Residential
Districts" is hereby amended in the following way:
follows:
I. Subsection 521.01, subd. 2 (c) and (d), is hereby amended to read as
Subd. 2. Purposes. The purposes of the R District are to:
c) provide opportunities for infill cluster housing development and allow
greater intensities and wider varieties in the types of housing available to
City residents provided it is in harmony with the single family residential
character of the R district:
d) provide opportunities for cluster housing to serve as transitions in land use
in keeping with the character of adjacent land uses at densities slightly
higher than single family housing but less dense than multi-family housing;
II. Subsection 521.07, subd. 7, is hereby amended to read as follows:
521.07. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional
uses in the R District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in
Section 546.05 of this code.
Subd. 7. Cluster home developments with three to ten units, provided the following
conditions are met:
a) the design of the development shall be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood in terms of building materials, architectural design. scale an
mass of the structure, or other similar urban design characteristics:
b) landscaping shall be provided in accordance with the Richfield Landscape
Requirements, on file with the Office of Community Development;
c) two off-street parking spaces, one of which must be enclosed in a garage_
shall be provided for each dwelling unit;
?-3
d,) there shall be a minimum of 500 square feet of outdoor open space provided
on the lot per dwelling unit;
e) the number and location of driveways and curbcuts shall minimize conflict
with vehicular traffic and should not adversely impact adjacent land uses;
fl the density of the development shall not exceed the density recommended in
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
III. Subsection 521.09, subds. 2 and 4, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Subd: 2. Minimum lot area, width, and depth:
Subd. 4. Maximum lot coverage:
Lots of 7,000 Sq. Ft. or less: 35%
Lots of over 7,000 Sq. Ft.: The greater of 25 % or 2,500 Sq. Ft.
Cluster home developments: 25-1
Non-residential uses: 50%
IV. Subsection 521.11, subds. 2, 6, 7 (a), 7(b), 7(f) and 8, is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Required setback and maximum height:
Subd. 6. Setbacks for cluster home developments. Setbacks for cluster home
• developments shall aWly to the perimeter of the development. Setbacks between
attached and detached units within a cluster home development must comply with
applicable building and fire codes.
-7-4
Subd. Q. Setback reductions for principal buildings. The following setback
reductions apply in the R District:
a) on a corner lot, the streetside side setback requirement shall be the lesser of
12 feet or the established streetside side setback of the existing principal
building on the same lot for single family-and, two family and cluster home
development structures. In any case the provisions of paragraphs d) and e)
of this subdivision shall be applicable;
b) the front setback requirement for a new single family dwelling, two family
dwelling or cluster home development on a lot may be reduced to not less
than the average existing front setback of the single family dwelling(s)
which front on the same street and abut such lot, to a minimum setback of
20 feet;
?f) the setback requirements for cluster home developments may be reduced IQ
25 feet in the front and 12 feet in the rear if the following criteria are met:
i) the project can demonstrate that a superior design is achieved
through the reduced setback. Evidence of a superior design
my include but is not limited to the preservation of a natural
feature, creation of an amenity. creation of public open space,
or incorporation of special features to meet the needs of the
target population:
ii the reduced setback does not adversely affect the surrounding
neighborhood in terms of a decrease in privacy. noise,
overcrowding, or other similar impacts;
iiil the impact of the reduced setback is minimized through the
presence -Q-f- features such as landscaping or other means of
buffering, a limited number of building openings in the portion
of the structure that infringes upon the setback building
orientation, minimized garage door dominance, or other similar
features.
Subd. 8. Maximum height inc rease for clust er housing developments. The maximum
height for cluster housing deve lopments may be increas ed to M feet if the increased
height is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhoo d and if the reduced setback
does not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhoo d in terms of a decrease in
privacy, noise, overcrowding, o r other similar impacts.
V. Subsection 521.16, subds. 2 and 5, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Dimensions and floor area. DSingle family and two family dwellings
• constructed after June 1, 1995 shall be a minimum of 22 feet in length and width for at
least 50 percent of each distance as measured from outside wall surfaces, and shall
contain a minimum of 960 square feet of gross floor area. Dwellings in cluster home
developments shall be a minimum of 16 feet in width for attached units.
Subd. 5. Performance standards of Section 541. Developments other than single
family or two family dwellings or cluster home developments with 1 or fewer units
shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable performance
standards set out in Section 541 of this code.
VI. Subsection 521.37, subd. 2 (c) and (d), is hereby amended to read as
follows:
521.37 Two Family Residential District (MR-1). Subdivision 1. Subsections 521.37 to
521.57 apply to the MR-1 District.
Subd. 2. Purposes. The purposes of the MR-1 District are to:
c) provide opportunities for infill cluster housing_ development and allow
greater intensities and wider varieties in the tykes of housing available to
(City residents provided it is in harmony with the residential character of the
MR-1 district:
d) provide opportunities for cluster housing to serve as transitions in land use
in keeping with the character of adjacent land uses at densities slightly
higher than single family housing but less dense than multi-family housing:
VII. Subsection 521.43, subd. 6, is hereby amended to read as follows:
521.43. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional
uses in the MR-1 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in
Section 546.05 of this code.
Subd. 6. Cluster home developments with three to ten units, provided the following
conditions are met:
a) the design of the development shall be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood in terms of building materials, architectural design scale and
mass of the structure, or other similar urban design characteristics:
b) landscaping shall be provided in accordance with the Richfield Landscape
Requirements, on file with the Office of Community Development:
c) there shall be a minimum of 500 square feet of outdoor open space provided
on the lot per dwelling unit:
d) the number and location of driveways and curb cuts shall minimize conflict
with vehicular traffic and should not adversely impact adjacent land uses:
• e) the density of the development shall not exceed the density recommended in
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
7-Oo
.7
0
Subd. 5. Setbacks for cluster home developments. Setbacks for cluster home
developments shall apply to the perimeter of the development. Setbacks between
attached and detached units within a cluster home develol2ment must com}2ly with
applicable building and fire codes.
Subd. 5¢. Setback reductions for principal buildings. The following setback
reductions apply in the MR-1 District:
a) on a corner lot, the streetside side setback requirement shall be the lesser of
15 feet or the established streetside side setback of the existing principal
building on the same lot for single family-ate, two family and cluster home
development structures;
follows:
VIII. Subsection 521.45, subds. 2, 4 and 5 are hereby amended to read as
Subd. 2. Minimum lot area, width, and depth:
::.::::
:
:. .. .
< >:
«<
700
6
Sq. Ft.
50 Ft.
100 Ft.
10,000 q. Ft.
S 75 Ft. 100 Ft.
HA><»»> 4,000 S q. Ft.
60 F
100 Ft.
>QtFE'S':'TTF>' Per ni
Subd. 4. The maximum lot coverage for single family and two family dwellings in the
MR-1 District shall be 30 percent.
Subd. 5. The maximum lot coverage for cluster home developments in the MR-1
District shall be 35 percent.
IX. Subsection 521.47, subds. 2, 5, 6(a), 6(d), 6(e) and 7, are hereby
amended to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Required building setback and maximum height:
:.; ..;:...........;;.
..................................................
................................................. 30 Ft.
. 25 Ft. 10 Ft. 15 Ft. 25 Ft.
.::.....:.........................................
:<``'>>>>>
.................................................
..................................................
30 Ft.
.
25 Ft.
10 Ft.
15 Ft.
25 Ft.
30 Ft. 25 Ft.. 10 Ft. 15 Ft. 2ft.
"tj3j'>>>>>> 30 Ft. 3 Ft. 10 Ft. 15 Ft. 14 Ft.
(d) the front setback requirement for a new single family dwelling, two family
dwelling or cluster home on a lot may be reduced to not less than the
1-1
average existing front setback of the dwelling(s) which front on the same
street and abut such lot, to a minimum setback of 20 feet:
,,e) the setback requirements for cluster home developments may be reduced to
25 feet in the front and 12 feet in the rear if the following criteria are met:
i) the applicant can demonstrate that a superior design is achieved
through the reduced setback. Evidence of a superior design
my include but is not limited to he preservation of a natural
feature, creation of an amenity, creation of public open space.
or incorporation of special features to meet the needs of the
target population:
ii) the reduced setback does not adversely affect the surrounding
neighborhood in terms of a decrease in privacx, noise.
overcrowding, or other similar impacts;
iii) the impact of the reduced setback is minimized through the
presence of features such as landscaping or other means of
buffering, a limited number of building openings in the portion
of the structure that infrin g es upon the setback building
orientation, minimized garage door dominance or other similar
features.
Subd 7 Maximum height increase for cluster housing developments The maximum
height for cluster housing developments may be increased to 30 feet if the increased
height is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood and if the reduced setback
does not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood in terms of a decrease in
pr. - I noise, overcrowding, or other similar impacts.
X. Subsection 521.55 is hereby amended to read asIollows:
521.55. Parking requirement. For two family, twin home dwellings and cluster home
developments, there shall be provided on the site at least two parking spaces per dwelling unit,
of which at least one space per dwelling shall be enclosed in a garage.
XI. Subsection 521.57, subds. 2 and 5, is hereby amended to read as follows:
521.57. Performance standards. Subdivision 1. Standards. Developments shall be
constructed and maintained in accordance with the standards set out in this subsection.
Subd. 2. Dimensions and floor area. -Singes family and two family dwellings
constructed after June 1, 1995 shall be a minimum of 24 feet in length and width for at
least 50 percent of each distance as measured from outside wall surfaces, and shall
contain a minimum of 960 square feet of gross floor area per unit. Dwellings in cluster
housing developments shall be a minimum of 16 feet in width for attached units.
i Subd. 5. Performance standards of Section 541. Developments other than single
family, two family, or-twin home dwellings, or cluster homes with 1 or fewer units
.-7--
shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable performance
standards set out in Section 541 of this code.
XII. Subsection 521.59, subd. 2(c), is hereby amended to read as follows:
521.59. Multi-Family Residential District (MR-2). Subdivision 1. Subsections 521.59 to
521.77 apply to the MR-2 District.
Subd. 2. Purposes. The purposes of the MR-2 District are to:
c) provide opportunities for infill cluster housing development and allow
greater intensities and wider varieties in the Wes of housing available to
City residents:
XIII. Subsection 521.61, subds. 2 and 3, is hereby amended to read as follows:
521.61. Permitted uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are permitted uses
in the MR-2 District.
Subd. 2. Multi-family dwellings (excluding townhausescr h ml m n)
with eight or fewer units.
c bd 3. Townhouses, subjeet to the additional requirements outlined in Seetio„
521.69 of this .
follows:
XIV. Subsection 521.65, subd. 3(a), (b) and (d), is hereby amended to read as
521.65. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional
uses in the MR-2 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in
Section 546.05 of this code.
Subd. 3. Cluster home developments. provided that the following conditions are met:
a) the design of the development shall be in harmony with the surrounding
neighborhood in terms of building materials, architectural design. scale and
mass of the structure, or other similar urban design characteristics;
b) the number and location of driveways and curb cuts shall minimize conflict
with vehicular traffic and should not adversely impact adjacent land uses;
d) the density of the development shall not exceed the density recommended in
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
XV. Subsection 521.67 is hereby amended to read as follows:
521.67. Minimum lot area, floor area, and parldng requirements for multi-family
dwellings (excluding tovmhouses-cluster home developments. Subdivision 1. Standards.
The standards set out in this subsection apply to apartments and condominiums in the MR-2
District.
XVI. Subsection 521.69, subds. 1, 2, 4-11, are hereby amended to read as
follows:
521.69. f'^^„ M ea. and ^„k=„- -Requirements for uses cluster
home developments. Subdivision 1. Standards. The standards set out in this subsection apply
to tewnhausesg 1 h v 1 n and other- attae a dwelling units ^f^ similar nature
in the MR-2 District.
Subd. 2. Minimum lot area:
a) Three unit structure: 4-,OW 3.500 square feet per unit.
b) Four unit structure: X500 3,000 square feet per unit.
c) Five or sii more unit structure: AAA 2,500 square feet per unit.
Subd. 4. Maximum building height: 35 feet.
Subd. 5. Minimum lot width: 60 feet.
9 Suhd 6 Maximum lot coverage (principal structure): 35 percent
Subd. 7. Outdoor open space requirements:
a) Two or fewer bedrooms: 325 square feet minimum per dwelling unit,
b) Three or more bedrooms: 425 square feet minimum per dwelling unit.
0 Balconies- porches and decks with at least 70 square feet in area and six feet
in width which are directly accessible by individual dwelling units may be
counted as contributing 70 square feet to the outdoor open space
requirements listed above.
Subd. 8. Setback requirements:
a) Front: 30 feet.
(i) interior - 10 feet.
(ii) streets de - 15 feet.
0 c,) Rear: 25 feet.
-7- / 0
Subd. 9. Setback reductions: the setback requirements for cluster home developments
may be reduced to 25 feet in the front, 5 feet for the side interior and 12 feet in the rear
if the following criteria are met:
a, the applicant can demonstrate that a superior design is achieved through the
reduced setback. Evidence of a superior design may include but is not
limited to the preservation of a natural feature creation of an amenity.
creation of public open space, or incorporation of special features to meet
the needs of the target population;
b) the reduced setback does not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood
in terms of a decrease in privacy, noise, overcrowding, or other similar
impacts;
c) the impact of the reduced setback is minimized through the presence Q
features such as landscaping or other means of buffering, a limited number
of building openings in the portion of the structure that infringes upon the
setback. building orientation. minimized garage door dominance. or other
imilar fe
Subd. 10. Landscaping req uirements: Landscaping shall b e accomplished in
accordance with the Richfield Landscape Requirements, on file with the Office of
Community Development.
Subd. 11. Minimum parking: Two off-street parking spaces, at least one of which
shall be in a garage, shall be provided for each dwelling unit. The Council, at its
discretion, may reduce the min imum required parking to not le ss than 1.5 parking
spaces per u nit after consideratio n of factors including but not limi ted to the present or
future avail ability of transit s ervices, shared parking, pedestri an orientation, and
occupancy c haracteristics. In a ddition, the Council may further reduce the parking
requirement for pr! jects designe d to serve seniors.
XVII. Subsection 521.71, subd. 1, is hereby amended to read as follows:
521.71. Requirements for all multi-family structures in the MR-2 District. Subdivision 1.
Standards. The standards set out in this subsection apply to all- multi-family structures
(' excluding cluster home developments).
XVIII. Subsection 521.77, subd. 3, is hereby amended to read as follows:
521.77. Performance standards. Subdivision 1. Developments shall be constructed and
maintained in accordance with the standards set out in this subsection.
Subd. 3. Developments other than cluster home developments with 10 or fewer units
shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable performance
standards set out in Section 541 of this code.
C. Section 541 of Appendix B of the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning:
Performance Standards" is amended by amending Section 541.01 to read as follows:
541.01. Purpose and alication. The purpose of these performance standards is to establish
specific requirements and quantifiable limitations, and to ensure high standards of development.
The performance standards outlined in this Section 541 shall apply to all new developments,
except single family-and., two family, and cluster housing developments. These standards shall
also apply to existing developments when physical changes are made, or when otherwise stated.
D. The remaining subsections of section 521 are renumbered accordingly.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
October, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
0
741
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO
APPENDIX B OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendment to the
Richfield City Code; and
WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the
expense of publication of the complete text is not justified.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication:
SUMMARY PUBLICATION
BILL NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 606,521 AND 541 OF APPENDIX B TO
THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE RELATING TO CLUSTER HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
The above referenced sections have been taken pursuant to the authority of
Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357. This summary of the amendment is published
pursuant to section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter.
The purpose of the ordinance is to provide opportunities for infill cluster housing
development and allow wider varieties in the types of housing available to City
residents, provided it is in harmony with the single family residential character of the
residential district. Cluster housing is defined as three or more detached one family
dwellings or a row, group or cluster of attached one family dwellings.
The ordinance allows cluster housing developments in the R, MR-1 and MR-2
zoning districts as conditional uses. The conditions applied to the developments would
include a design compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, landscaping, adequate
parking, open space and a density consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Flexibility
in setbacks could be applied to developments that demonstrate a superior design.
Copies of the amendment are available for public inspection in the Community
Development Department during normal business hours.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
October, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
0 Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
CLUSTER HOME DEVELOPMENTS SUMMARY 7_0
•
•
•
Purpose:
To provide opportunities for infill cluster housing development and allow wider
varieties in the types of housing available to City residents, provided it is in harmony
with the single family residential character of the residential district.
To provide opportunities for cluster housing to serve as transitions in land use in
keeping with the character of adjacent land uses at densities slightly higher than single
family housing but less dense than multi-family housing.
Zoning Districts:
A cluster home development could be appropriate in a single family, two family or
multiple residence district if the development is designed to be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood. The ordinance is written to direct this type of development
to the appropriate areas.
Conditional Uses: Cluster home developments would be conditional uses in the R,
MR-1 and MR-2 districts. The conditions would include the following items:
• design compatible with the surrounding neighborhood (items such as
architectural design, scale and mass of the structure)
• landscaping
• parking (2 spaces/unit)
• open space
• minimized number of driveways and curb cuts
Comprehensive Plan: The density of the development would follow the density
identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan contains a
classification called high density single family attached housing (RSF-H). This
classification is used in many commercial to residential transition areas, along arterial
streets and in areas close to shopping and services. This classification permits a density
between 5 and 12 units per acre. Single family residential neighborhoods not identified
as RSF-H have a density of 5 units per acre or less. The following table compares the
densities of various types of housing in Richfield.
Single family block (> 10,000 sq. ft. lots) 217,800 16 3.2
Single family block (6,000 - 10,000 sq. ft. lots) 217,800 22 4.4
609 West 74th Street (to be built) 25,410 4 6.8
Coach Homes 312,376 92 12.8
7400-7500 Penn Avenue (walk-up apartments) 217,800 112 22.4
Lake Shore Drive Condominiums 180,074 178 42.9
*Note: calculation includes streets
ordinance\research\thsummar.doc
I I CLUSTER HOME DEVELOPMENTS SUMMARY
0 Definition:
"Cluster home development" - A development of 3 or more detached one family
dwellings or a row, group or cluster of attached one family dwellings. Dwelling units
may be located on individual lots or on a lot in common.
The maximum number of units in the R or MR-1 district would be 10 units. In the
MR-2 district, the maximum number would be 15 units. Once a development reaches
this size, it is more appropriate as a planned unit development.
Setbacks and Flexibility:
The setbacks of the zoning district would apply to the cluster housing development.
The ordinance amendment provides some flexibility in the setbacks if certain criteria
are met.
Example: In the R District, the setbacks may be reduced to 25 feet in the front and 12
feet in the rear (reduced from 30 feet in the front and 25 feet in the rear) if certain
criteria are met. The criteria include the following:
• demonstrating that a superior design is achieved,
• not creating any adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood, and
• minimizing the impact of the reduced setback by the use of features such as
landscaping, limited number of building openings, building orientation or similar
features.
Example: The Choice Wood development at 609 West 74th Street has smaller
setbacks. It also contains several elements of a "superior design".
• Natural amenity: The units cluster around an interior courtyard.
• Garage door dominance minimized: Only two of the four double garages are
visible from the street. The presence of the two visible garages is also minimized.
• Neighborhood compatibility: The roof line and windows suggest the "Richfield
character".
• Minimized impact: Fencing and landscaping minimize the impact on adjacent
uses.
Lot Size:
The lot size would be similar to the current requirement for duplexes. Projects would
need a minimum of 4,000 square feet per unit in the R and MR-1 districts (which
would be at a density of approximately 8 units per acre, unless a lower density is
required by the Comprehensive Plan). The size per unit in the MR-2 district would be
slightly smaller and would vary depending on the size of the development.
ordinance\research\thsummar.doc
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 308
01 Agenda October 14, 1996
Issue Statement:
Resolution appointing high school student trainee election judges for the November 5,
1996 General Election.
Background:
Minnesota Statute 204B.19, Subd. 6 provides that a student enrolled in a high school in
Minnesota who has attained the age of 16 is eligible to be appointed as a without party
affiliation trainee election judge in the municipality in which the student resides. The
student must meet qualifications for trainee election judges specified in rules of the
Secretary of State. A student appointed as a trainee election judge may be excused
from school attendance during the hours that the student is serving as a trainee election
judge if the student submits a written request signed and approved by the student's
parent or guardian to be absent from school and a certificate from the appointing
authority stating the hours during which the student will serve as a trainee election
judge to the principal of the school at least ten days prior to the election. The principal
of the school may approve a request to be absent from school conditioned on
acceptable academic performance and the requirement that the student must have
completed or be enrolled in a course of study in government at the time of service as a
trainee election judge.
The City utilized high school student trainee election judges in the 1992 and 1994
elections. The City Clerk's office again has worked with Richfield High School and the
Academy of Holy Angels to facilitate student participation in the high school student
trainee election judge program for the November 5, 1996 General Election.
The City Clerk's office has received a list of students who are eligible and able to serve
as student trainee election judges for the Tuesday, November 5, 1996 General
Election.
Recommendation:
Adopt the attached resolution appointing high school student trainee election judges for
the General Election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 1996.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. High School student trainee election judges are authorized by Minnesota State
Statute 204B.19, Subd. 6.
2. The proposed resolution contains the names of students who have indicated a
willingness and ability to serve as a high school trainee election judge for the
November 5, 1996 General Election.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could chose not to appoint the students who are named in the
resolution.
(19/4-i
Discussion/Decision Mode:
It is recommended the City Council pass the attached resolution at this meeting so that
certificates can be issued to the students, training can be scheduled, and assignment to
precincts be accomplished for the November 5 General Election.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
ar
City Manager
JDP:cak
E
0
?
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPOINTING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT TRAINEE
ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE
GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 5, 1996
WHEREAS, a General Election will be held on Tuesday, November 5, 1996.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, that the following are hereby appointed as high school student trainee
election judges for said election:
Laura Danek Kate Thomas
Bessy Rodriquez Brook Schlosser
Chrissy Garcia Matt Jacob
Kelly McShane Amynda Riley
Sonja Amberson Jill Dougherty
Julie Anderson Nate Janes
Dave Nguyen Jason Stroth
Mike Schwalen Michelle Stroth
Jennifer Velasquez Cad Stevens
Adam Johnson Tim Butler
Mitch Tate Kari Johnson
Pat Marso Amanda Gay
Dave Schlieffer Kim Stoffel
Jenny Ritter Cara Urabe
Ellie Riggs Jerad Morey
Eric Jensen Beth Montgomery
Brenda Schultz Courtney Jackson
Jason Hoffman Kathy Blandin
PASSED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of October,
1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0