12-15-80 agenda
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 442
Agenda December 15, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: 1981/86 Capital Improvement Program
On Monday, December 8, 1980 the city council received copies
of the 1982/86 Capital Improvement Program recommended by the
Planning Commission. This item has been scheduled for council
consideration at the December 15, 1980 city council meeting.
The Planning Commission has indicated that there should be
sufficient funding available to carry out the projects as sched-
uled, with the exception of the 1986 projects which show special
revenues as the funding source. Projected expenditures for that
year exceed projected special revenues available by approximately
$520,000. The Planning Commission has prioritized the projects
scheduled for 1986, where expenditures exceed revenues, or the
event that the project availability of various funding changes in
the future.
The project priorities established by the Planning Commission
are as follows, with No. 1 being the highest priority and No. 3
being the lowest priority: (a rating of 3 means that the Planning
Commission feels that the project is deferrable).
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3
Park land Acquis. Legion Lake Park Jefferson Park
Forestry Railroad Signals (3 or 2)
Street Lights Water Meters (this
Lime Sludge Drying priority would also
apply to 1984 and 1985)
The following is an outline of the differences between the
1982-86 Capital Improvements Program and the 1980-85 Capital Im-
provements Program approved by the Planning Commission a year ago:
1. MINOR PARK DEVELOPMENT
The 1980-85 CIP indicated that $25,000 would be spent
on improvements every year. The 1982-86 CIP indicates
that $50,000 would be spent every other year. The 1982
-86 CIP also indicates that these funds will be spent on
Council Letter No. 442 -2- December 15, 1980
Little Bobs Park a ?' -rk in 1 985 .
This change was made because it is finanelaliy Giiii10S
impossible to make any significant improvements with
only $25,000 funding.
2. FAIRWOOD-MONROE PARK
The 1980-85 CIP indicated a total project cost of
$410,000 ($50,000 in 1981 and $360,000 in 1982). The
1982-86 CIP indicates that $450,000 will be spent in
1982. The 1981, Capital Improvement Budget allocates
$50,000 for the project. The total project cost is,
therefore, $500,000, a $90,000 increase, over last year's
Capital Improvement B,?:dget,
3. MEMORIAL PARK
The 1980-85 CIP indicated a total project cost of $200,000,
to be spent in 1984. The 1982-86 CIP indicates that
$10,000 will be spent in 1983 for planning and $200,000
in 1984 for construction. This is an increase in iroject
funding of $10,000.
4. JEFFERSON, NICOLLET, MADISON, WASHINGTON AND SHERIDAN PARKS
These are new projects which were not covered in the 1980-
1985 CIP because they are scheduled for 1986 and beyond.
$500,000 is allocated to each project. One park will be
done every other year. These projects are consistent
with the city's "neighborhood park" development goal.
5. LEGION LAKE
The 1980-85 CIP indicated a total project cost of
$1,500,000 ($350,000 in 1985 and $1,150,000 beyond 1985).
The 1982-86 CIP indicates a project cost of $1,690,000
($300,000 in 1985, $450,000 in 1986 and $940,000 beyond
1986). The 1981 Capital Improvement Budget allocates
$10,000 to the project for planning purposes. The total
current project cost is therefore $1,700,000, an increase
of $200,000 over last year's CIB, primarily reflecting
inflationary cost increases and the large scale "regional
park" nature of the project.
6. PARK LAND ACQUISITION
The 1980-85 CIP allocates $25,000 a year to this project,
while file 1982-86 CIP allocates $30,000 a year. This re-
flects, again, the pressures of inflation and the limited
scope of purchases which can be made for $25,000.
7. PERFORMANCE CENTER
The 1982-86 CIP allocates $75,000 to this project. The
project is scheduled for 1986 and beyond and will be
coordinated with the Legion Lake project. No such project
appeared in the 1980-85 CIP.
8. MINOR IIMPROVEMENTS AND FURNITURE
The 1980-85 CIP allocated $5,000 a year to this project.
This project does not appe_?- in the 1982-86 CIP. This
project is rather included in the general operating budqet
of the city.
Council Letter No. 442 -3- December 15, 1980
9. SIDEWALKS
The 1980-85 CIP allocated $20,000
The 1982-86 CIP allocates $100,000
and an additional $460,500 beyond
the council's previously expressed
a city-wide sidewalk construction
a year through 1985.
a year through 1986
1986, consistent with
policy to implement
project.
10. XERXES/66TH STREET STORM SEWER
The 1980-85 CIP scheduled this project for 1982 while
the 1982-86 CIP schedules it in 1983, to coordinate
with other projects in the area.
11. TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT 70TH STREET AND 12TH AVENUE
The 1980-85 CIP allocated $42,500 for upgrading the
traffic signals at 70th Street and 12th Avenue. No
such project appears in the 1982-86 CIP.
12. RAILROAD SIGNALS
The 1980-85 CIP scheduled this project for 1984 and allo-
cated $125,000 for signals on 65th Street and 76th Street,
while the 1982-86 CIP schedules it in 1986 and allocates
$65,000 for signals on 76th Street only.
13. ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS
The 1982-86 CIP allocates $461,670 a year from 1982
through 1984 to th-s project. No such pro ject appears
in the 1980-85 CIP.
14. PENN/66TH STREET INTERSECTION
The 1980-85 CIP allocates $200,000 to this project while
the 1982-86 CIP allocates $500,000 to this project.
15. 66Th S,17 R-1-ET P_E,-,:' TO
The 1982-86 CIP allocates $750,000 to this project in
1983. No such project appears in the 1980 -85 CIP.
16. PENN AVENUE 76TH/494
The 1980-85 CIP scheduled this project in 1985, while the
1982-86 CIP schedules it beyond 1986.
17. PORTLAND/66TH STREET INTERSECTION
The 1980-85 CIP allocates $200,000 while the 1982-86 CIP
allocates $350,000 to the project.
18. LYNDALE AVENUE 67TH/494
The 1980-85 CIP allocates $700,000 in 1981 while the
1982-86 CIP allocates $751,000 to this project in 1982.
19. STREET LIGHTS: LOW PRESSURE SODIUI4
The 1982-86 CIP indicates that $50,000 a year from 1982
through 1986 will be allocated to this project. No such
• project is indicated in the 1980-85 CIP.
Council Letter No. 442 -4- December 15, 1980
• 20. ARTERIAL STREET LIGHTS
The 1980-85 CIP allocates $307,000 to this project
($150,000 in 1983 and $157,000 in 1984). No such project
appears in the 1982-86 CIP. The 1981 Capital Improvement
Budget allocates $180,000 to complete this project in 1981.
21. WATER PLANT ROOF
The 180-85 CIP allocates $70,000 to this project in 1980
while the 1932-86 CIP allocates $75,000 to this project
in 1983.
22. WATER METERS
The 1982-86 CIP allocates $532,800 to this project ($133,200
in 1984-86 and $133,200 beyond 1986). No such project
appears in the 1980-85 CIP.
23. WATER CONTROLS AND FILTERS
The 1980-85 CIP schedules this project in 1981 while the
1982-86 CIP schedules it in 1984.
24. LIB-1 SLUDGE DRYING
The 1980-85 CIP scheduled this project beginning in 1983
and going beyond 1985. In the 1982-36 CIP this project
is scheduled to begin in 1985 and it goes beyond 1986.
25. LIFT STATION RENOVATION
The 1980-85 CIP provides $52,000 for this project while
the 1982-86 CIP provides $60,000 based on actual costs of
earlier phases of this project.
26. FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT
The 1980-85 CIP allocated $125,000 each year from 1982-85
and $287,000 beyond 1985 to this project. The 1982-86
CIP allocates $200,000 to this project in 1983. The 1981
Capital Improvement Budget allocates $1,091,000 to this
project, ref',ctin.g the need for the facilities improvement
to occur sooner to meet severe space shortages.
27. WEST SIDE FIRE STATION
The 1982-86 CIP allocates $100,000 to this project in 1983.
The 1980-85 CIP contained no such project.
28. LIQUOR STORES
The 1980-85 CIP allocated $34,000 to this project in 1982.
No such project appears in the 1982-86 CIP.
29. FIRE VEHICLE RESERVE FUND
The 1980-85 CIP provided $40,000 per year for this project.
This project is now included in the general operating bud-
get of the city and does not appear in the 1982-86 CIP.
Council Letter No. 442 -5- December 15, 1980
30. REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The redevelopment projects which appear in the itiGU-3
CIP do not appear in the 1982-86 CIP. These are HRA
projects so they need not appear in the city Capital
Improvement Program.
These changes have been made to more realistically reflect estim-
ated project costs, to coordinate projects where possible, and to
schedule projects consistent with when potential funding sources are
available.
The 1982-86 Capital Improvement Program recommended by the
Planning Commission is the same as that recommended by the staff with
two exceptions. The Planning Commission recommended elimination of
the traffic signal project at 70th Street and 12th Avenue and the
railroad signal at the 65th Street crossing.
It is recommended that the city council review the 1982-86 Cap-
ital Improvement Program, make any changes necessary, and approve
the document by passing the attached resolution.
0
KN/eja
cc: Program Directors
Finance Coordinator
Res ectf/ully submitted,
Karl Nollenberge'r
City Manager
11
RESOLUTION NO.
i
?__.l
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1982-1986
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Program for the
1982-1986 period has been prepared for review to the Planning
Commission in accordance with charter requirements, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendations and
benefit of review of these proposed documents by the Planning
Commission and has itself reviewed these proposals;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE-IT RESOLVED that the 1982-1986 Capital
Improvement Program is hereby approved and adopted subject to
annual review and revision.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized
and directed to initiate procedures which lead to more formal and
detailed consideration of those projects in accordance with the
aforementioned laws and practices.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
day of , 1980.
Donald J. Priebe
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk
.11`7
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 441
Agenda December 15, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Approval of Loan Agreements with Richfield
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
The HRA is pursuing the purchase of additional properties
on Graham Avenue, to provide the site for the Lake Shore Drive
Cooperative, and the purchase of the property at 721 Graham
Avenue, which adjacent to the cooperative site, and has recently
become available.
As in the past, the HRA is proposing to utilize funds from
• two sources to complete the purchase: the L/H/N Special Revenue
Capital Fund and the PIR fund of the City. To utilize the PIR
funds, the HRA and the city must execute a loan agreement. The
proposed loan would be for three years at five percent per annum.
However, repayment of the loan should take place this summer
following the sale of tax increment redevelopment bonds to support
the HRA's site assembly costs for the cooperative.
The estimated amount of the loans would be approximately
$141,000 with acquisition and relocation costs cf 6605 Graham
Avenue equalling $88,000 and costs for 6611 Graham Avenue equal-
ling $53,000.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached
resolutions, authorizing execution of loan agreements with the
FIRA for acquisition of these two properties.
Res ectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
EN/ eja
cc: Community Development Director
Housing and Redevelopment Specialist
Finance Coordinator
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN
AGREEMENT TO LOAN MONEY TO THE RICHFIELD
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND
PROVIDING FOR THE PERFORMANCE THEREOF BY
ADVANCEMENT FROM THE PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT
REVOLVING FUND
(6608 Graham)
WHEREAS, the HRA desires to borrow money for the purpose
of purchasing certain real prcperty.purs.uant to and in further-
ance of the L/H/N Redevelopment Project heretofore adopted by
the City and the HRA, said real property being described as
follows:
Lot 10, Block 3, Fairwood Shores, and,
WHEREAS, the purchase of said real property is necessary
to accomplish the purposes of said L/H/N Project, and
WHEREAS, the H RA is authorized by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 462.445, to purchase real property and to borrow money
from the City therefore, and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 462.581, to make loans to the HRA in aid of projects.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD:
1. That the Mayor and City Manager be, and hereby are,
authorized to execute, as agents to the City of Richfield, and
agreement with the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Author-
ity, entitled "Loan Agreement", a copy of which is hereby given
Clerk's File No. HRA , and is ordered placed on file.
2. That the City Clerk be, and hereby is directed to ad-
vance monies to the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Author-
ity in such amount and at such time as is provided in the above
agreement, said monies to be taken from the Permanent Improve-
ment Revolving Fund and to return to said fund all payments
made by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority pursuant to said
agreement.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
day of December 1980.
Donald J. Priebe
ATTEST:
•
Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk
Mayor
(6608 Graham)
LOAN AGREEMENT
• T.IIS AGREEMENT, entered into as of this day of ,
1950, by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of
Richfield, :Minnesota, a body public and corporate (hereinafter
the "HRA"), and the City of Richfield, a municipal corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of "linnesota
(hereinafter the "City") .
.HEREAS, the HRA desires to borrow money for the Durcose
of nurc:,-_-in^ certain real prcpert,, pursuant -17o and in further-
ance of the L/H/N Redlevelocment rcj- er??cf aiI=-ed by
the City and the HRA, said real -ro-cert-v being described as
follows: Lot 10, Block 3, Fair7,,7ood Shores, and
WHEREAS, the pu_c._ase of sa_ --ea I IS
to accomplish the purposes of said L; H/'I Project, and
WHERE?--,S , the City des _`r es to ena money so that s a1d r -
chase may be accomplished, and
WHEREAS, the HR.A is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Sec-
tion ^_62.445 to rarchase real property and to borrow money from
the Citv therefore, and
is WHEREAS, the Cits is authorized by 4 nnesota Statutes,
Section 462.581 to make loans to the HRA in al d of prc7ects.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual
tenets and agreements herein, set forth, the HRA and the City
do hereby a`; _e °s __ __.-.
I. The City agrees to advance to the HRA monev in an
amount to be determined by the HRA at such time as a decision
has been made by the HRA to purchase such prcp:?rty, said amount
to be ec:ual to the purchase price of said property, plus any
relocation benefits payable, and
II. T'.e HRA agrees to repay the sum so advanced, plus in-
terest, as follows:
A. Interest shall accrue on unpaid principal at
the rate of 5.0005 per annum from the date of
advancement until repaid.
B. Pavments shall be anplicd ffir_t to rec;uce in-
terest accrued at the date of payment, and the
remainder, if an%,, _l-:all reduce the rrincipal
balance.
C. T`1e ?IRA may make navment or payments in anv_
• amour,{- end at anv time, nro-.rided that the
entire unpaid principal together with accr-_:ca
three years from the date of advancement
of funds to the HR -ilk.
III. This agreement shall be void and of no effect if ad-
vancement f'_•,nds L),-;, the C as ^rovidod herein is riot made
before Jun: 30, 1931.
Datea.
Dated.
B
BV
-`s "-,-- ,_itive Direct
:7Y OF RICHFIELD
Rc
yr
Its flavor •
By
1 •
ti
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN
AGREEMENT TO LOAN MONEY TO THE RICHFIELD
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND
PROVIDING FOR THE PERFORMANCE THEREOF BY
ADVANCEMENT FROM THE PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT
REVOLVING FU14D
(6611 Graham)
WHEREAS, the H RA desires to borrow money for the purpose
of purchasing certain real property pursuant to and in further-
ance of the L/H/N Redevelopment Project heretofore adopted by
the City and the HRA, said real property being described as
follows:
Lot 9, Block 1, Fairwood Shores, and,
WHEREAS, the purchase of said real property is necessary
to accomplish the purposes of said L/H/N Project, and
WHEREAS, the HRA is authorized by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 462.445, to purchase real property and to borrow money
from the City therefore, and
. WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 462.581, to make loans to the HRA in aid of projects.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD:
1. That the Mayor and City Manager be, and hereby are,
authorized to execute, as agents to the City of Richfield, and
agreement with the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
entitled "Loan Agreement", a copy of which is hereby given
Clerk's File No. H RA , and is ordered placed on file.
2. That the City Clerk be, and hereby is directed to ad-
vance monies to the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Author-
ity in such amount and at such time as is provided in the above
agreement, said monies to be taken from the Permanent Improve-
ment Resolving Fund and to return to said fund all payments
made by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority pursuant to
said agreement.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
day of December, 1980.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
is
Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk
(6611 Graham)
LOAN AGREE'iENT
This Agreemo.-.=_, entered into as of this day of of
1980, by and between the'
ine Housinq and Redevelopment Authority of
Richfield, Minnesota, a body public and corporate (hereinafter
the "HRA"), and the Ciof Richfield, a municipal corporation
organized and existinq under the laws of the State of Minnesota
(hereinafter the "City).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the !IRA desires to borrow money for the purpose
of purchasinq certain real property pursuant to and in further-
ance of the L/H;'N Redevelopment Project heretofore adopted by
the Ci end ?..? _:_u,, ti _ 1u rein _ _ 1 ci = _.scribed as
follows: Lot 9, Block 1 Fairwood Shores, and
WHEREAS, ?he purc',u c. c_ said real propert°;' is necessarv
to accomplish the purposes of said L/H/N Pro_ect, ana
WHEREAS, the City desires to lend more-.- so that said pur-
c ase may be accompli shed, and
WHEREAS, tr.,- HRA is _-utnoL i zed :jv Minnesota S t.n Lutes , Sec-
-11-ion 462.445 to purchase real property and to borrow money from
City therefore, and
• WHEREAS, the Cite' is authorizedbv Minnesota Statutes, Se---
on X62 581 to _„af loans to zne ?R? in aid Cf °?ie tS. -2 Z- N011, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual tenets
.,d acreements herein set forth. the :RA anti the Citv do hereby
agree as follc:.rs :
I. The City agrees to ance to the HRA money in an a:i,ount
to be determined by the HRA at such time as a decision has been
made by the HRA to purchase such property, said amount to :De
eC7lla_ J z ,e rc a Se _ Sc.id p?-C ert'', plus any reloca-
tion benefits Davable, and
II. The HRA: ar.,rees to repay the sum so advanced, plus
interest, as follows:
A. interest shall accrue on un-aid rDrincipal
=? o:;h the
date of advancement until repaid.
B. Pavments shall be applied first t reduce
interest accrued at the date of payment, and
the remainder, if any, shall reduce the prin-
ci gal baIanc-- .
C. T':Ze HRA may make payment or payments in any
amount and at any time, nrovided that the
entire unpaid i?-rincipal together with
accrued interest shall be repaid no
later than three : ears from the date
of advancement of funds to t'.-:e HRA.
III. This aGreement shall be :,oid and of no effect if
a'u -. i s i e n t o 1 is °_ rein n<o t
made before June 30, 1981.
OuS D 7-.-E-E'`1T AU1110RITY
By
It -
Date d:
B
Its - t1y? Di c rr
C--7T'-,- OF RICHFT777 D
B,1,
Dated.
B
Its City Manacier
??? %G
s
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City :Manager
Council Letter No. 440
Agenda December 15, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Implementation Plan Section of the Compre-
hensive Plan
Attached for your review is the draft implementation plan
section of the comprehensive plan which was approved by the
planning commission on December 9, 1980. The comprehensive plan
outlines a series of policies, goals and recommendations for
guiding, facilitating and coordinating both private and public
development within the community. Private sector development
will be reviewed and regulated under guidelines, official con-
trols and procedures discussed in the Implementation Section to
• ensure compatibility with the comprehensive plan. Public sector
projects will be reviewed and coordinated through the city's
Capital Improvement Program.
It is recommended that the city council review the draft
and make any changes which may be necessary. The staff will
incorporate any council directions into the final document prior
to sending the document to other communities for their review.
As with the other comprehensive plan elements, no formal adoption
of the plan should occur at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
?-)Rarl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/ e j a
cc: Community Development Director
0
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
0 I . I::TRODLCTION
Richfield adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 1973 and has imple-
mented programs, policies, and plans that touch many areas
included in this revised Comprehensive Plan. This Comprehen-
s-%e Plan recresents no innovated apcroach, no new turn in
planning, but rather mostly a reccgnition of plans already
ex 4st_ng, programs.in oiler tl0n, and poliCieS adopted. Rich-
field residents are generally satisfied with most aspects of
their community and protective of the status quo. This plan's
main theme is the creservation and ennancemen- of the existing
hiah quality environment, while encouraging that development
that is compatible with and non-intrusive upon existing land
uses. Revisions to existing plans and policies are intended
to insure that future development meets or exceeds standards
set by existing land uses. The Richfield Comprehensive Plan
outlines policies, goals, and plans for guiding, facilitating,
and coordinating both private and public development. Pri!ate
sector development will be reviewed and regulated under guide-
lines, official controls, and procedures discussed in this
section to insure compatibility with the Comprehensive Develo,_-
ment Plan, other aspects of the Land Use Plan, and the Compre-
hensive Plan in general. Public project proposals will be
reviewed and coordinated through the Capital Improvements
Program and its procedures. The housing plan necessitates a
blend of public support and private development to achieve the
city's housing goals.
The Implementation Plan discusses how proposals will be reviewed
to insure compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and how the
plan in general will be imp, leirented. !..eluded in this Sec'-ion
are.
1. Description of and proposed revisions to official
controls and regulations, including scnin._:, regula-
Lion s.
-1-
2. Description of the function of review resQonsibilit-Les
Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission,
and the Housing and Redevelopment Authorit-:.
3. A description of the Capital Improvements Program,
its rCC? L'reS = na __ ---,n"7 of the latest Ca .ital Improve-
ments Program including the Capital Budget.
4. A short summary descri b ng hc. eac': element of the
Plan will :be implemented.
II. LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CONTROLS
A. Zoning Or finance
Land use develo^menr- in Richfield has been regulated t:^rcua .
the city's zoning ordinances which were enacted to cromcize
"health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and general
welfare by regulating the location, size, use and height of
buildings, the arrangement of buildings and lots and t':^e
density of coculation %,;ithin the cit,-."
•
Richfield' z zoning regulations and procedures have Cr:i a
in minimizing land use conflicts and encouraging the develop-
ment of a community reflecting quality planning. T?,:e zoning
regulations are not static rules to be enforced, but guidelines
promoting development compatible with existing land uses and
city plans and policies for future land use. As city policies
and implementation of the land use plan evolves, it becomes
necessary to occasionall-v revise t c guidelines to keep them
compatible with current ideas, programs, and policies and to
mare them more comprehensive.
The residential regulations of the zoning ordinance, larcel%
unchanged since 1954, has been under study by the Planning
Commission and cit,,, staff. Revisions are being proposed that
will increase the number of zoning classifications, clarify
accessory building location standards, reduce side yard setbac'?s
for corner lots, relax restrictions on duplex locations, and
reduce the minimum lot size. The additional proposed zoning
classifications include a specla_ _=:: ___' protection district
(RSA) with lot size of 10,000 square feet and minimum frontage
of 75 feet. Less than two percent of single family units will
qualify for inclusion in this district. The existing multi-
family district (`'_R) will 'ue divided into three districts oL
increasing building size and density, while apartment develop-
ment wit'.-, more :^an 17 units will be classi L`ied as a PUD d-s-
trict. Duplexes under proposed revisions will be allowed on
anv lot greater than 10,000 square feet in the s_.c?_',:? family
district (R-1) ith a special use permit. Minimum lot size
for a single family home will be reduced from 8,000 square feet
to 6,000 square fees with a 50 foot frontage. While this
- reduction will bring the zcing ordinance into closer compliance
with existing residential conditions and goals to facilitate
construction of modest cost housing, it will have minimal impact
on future develop:::ent as almost no land remains that can still
be SU.'-d' V?(1,2
•
The zoni_ a `;' str_., 1ndarmap I11 t e re%-_sed tC rE t-e
changes in the residential district regulations outlined and
to correct existing inconsistencies such as multi-family resi-
dential uses in general commercial zoning districts.
The preparation of the amendment to the residential section of
the zoning ordinance and the zoning district map is to be
completed by early 1981. Public hearings and adoption of the
changes are anticipated to be complete in the Spring of 1981.
Another im;)ortant revision necessary in the zoning regulations
to insure compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan is a clause
in the ordinance requiring that all proposals brought before
cit.,, staff, planning commission or city council be reviewed
for compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and officially
adopted redevelopment plans. Currently proposals are reviewed
for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan as a matter of
policy, but on1,,, .ro->osals needing special use permits are
required by ordinance to be reviewed.
-3-
No formal revisions _
sary to insure confor
tamed in the plan
long as proposals are
Comorehensive Flan.
f _ -. _eaulu ?_-. --uld be neces-
nance with the urban design standa-_
and the solar access crotection plan w,
revi e Jed for cc-~:r_atibilit°;' th the
B. Subdivisicn Regulations
T_.e existing subdivision regulations ;ere ado^tedin 1954.
Because l]ttle land is available for subdivLslon few major
changes in these regulations are necessary,' or anticiwated.
Sc:-ri e revisions `:Jill e nec?ssa to is%e CG..S1steTit
revislons to the lot area and other rec;uirements in the res--
dential section of the zoning ordinance. One area not currently
co`. ere,. the current =u dL'.'i S10n regulations which J i Ll DC
explored are special crovisio:s for condominium development.
The City of Richfield should study any -Y _mplementln_g
regulations to monitor condominium conversion.
I
- T- Cr^TGTT,-,^i OF -!P -n ;S ABLE C7TY: GENIC`LS •
The Cit_ of Richfield has had a Coun_-il-Manaaer form of govern-
ment si4 4 nce becc,:ing a Cl-y- 111. 1964. cy :jbVeYnTM'er't
agencies responsible for the impleme_? tat ion of this compre-
hensive plan are:
A. T-ie Cit,_.? Council exercises the legislative power of the city
and determines all matters of police. The cite' manager is
appointed by the council to read the administrative branch of
cit aovernment and is to the council for prover
administration of all affairs relating to the city. All
advisor:' committees report their recommendations to the council
which takes final action on all pro;;osals which rec-uire council
action. T::e city council also acts as the Board of Adjustment
and A-, -1 it ,' P. . '3r -inc 1ng aT:C ea1S .
w
-4-
The cit_., council consists of four council rci- I ers and a mayor.
Currentlv all are elected at large, ID it
the council members will represent equally apportioned districts
and one will be elected at large. Council members will serve
three year terms; the mayor will serve two .ears. The council
meets regularly on the second and -fourth Monday of each mon .
Ail meetlnQS are by law pu' 11C meeL1:: Cd1t 1 minutes and, reccr-s
available to the public for review.
B. The Housing and Rede%,elocme nt 'Author tt (HRti) is an inde-
r?endent commission that administers the commercial redeveloc-
ment, residential reha'--ilitation, and ^onservation programs,
and assist the _%_etrcpclitan Hous 1_~1G C Redevelopment AUtti iltj
in implementing the subsidized housing ;programs. The H P_:? has
t been the lead agency in the redevelopment of the Lyndale/Ht:b/
Nicollet area, much of which has been funded by industrial/"
commercial revenue bonds and tax increment financ-ng.
The HR establishes the goals and facilitates their imple-
mentation through the cit-'s Housing Assistance Plan (HAP)
procedure. The HRA also :as
part of the Community Development Block Grant process.
T'_e HRA consists of five members appointed by the citv council
` including three residents and two members of city council.
Members serve five year terms. The HRA meets regLariv c_.
the third Monday of each month.. Nleeting dates are published
to encourage public attendance.
C. The Planninq Commission is an advisory board to the city
council which reviews all proposed subdivisions, all planned
unit ievelc=eats (PUD's), all proposed amendments to the city
zoninq ordinance, all land development applications requiring
special use permits cr from land development regula-
tions, and other matters relating to planning and development
imposed upon it by Minnesota Statutes 462.351 to '-4U2. JU,.
The planning commission decides reviewed private devel-
opment and public capital proposals are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Public proposals are referred to the
commission for review by staff and the carks and _ecreation
commission as part of the capital improvements progran.
The planning commission acts as a public forum for citize-?
input and the technical examination of development _roposa'_s.
when direct° : b,:, the cis'- counci i, the commission acts as an
advocate of various beneficial Manning projects to stimulate
interest and acceptance of the roposal within the communit°
and to coordinate clanning activities within the ComLnunity b_
work i nc ':vith ou -Iic , a uas i-^ublic , ar-d pr-vase planning group- s.
The ^la?:ning commission co:_sists of nine residents appointed
by the city council to serve staggered three year terms. The
COmm1SSiOP also has four ex-OffiCiC me=ers : the cit_ manager,
the sur:erintendent of schools (District 280), one councilman,
and one other recresentative or the Board of Education. The
comm,-nission meets regularly on the fourth Tuesdav of each month,
and at other times as necessarv to conduct its business. At
these cublic meetings the planning commission hears staff
reports on the various development proposals, asks the developer
or o:,.-er for his cc=ents, and -ol .its putD1;_._ ccmm-nt fro7
concerned neighbors and others. The commission then manes its
non-binding recommendation which is forwarded to the city
council for action, usually at its next meeting.
D. The Parks and Recreation Commission is an advisory board
to the city council on.matters relating to park and recreation
facilities, programs, and finances, including the development
and review of park and recreation proqrams and activities, and
of plans for the acquisition and development of facilities in
accordance ? ith state and local rCCTuirements. As part of the
Capital Improvements Program, the commission reviews r)arl: ar.a
-6-
The projects are ranked by priority and given a tentative
A preliminary report is prepa_ -or the pla:._-. - commission
which provides a tentative priority schedule, a list of all
projects submitted, and evaluation of the projects' conformance
to the city's Comprehensive Plan. At the request of the
Planning Commission, department heads discuss the projects ;;iith
_:"e commission.
The Planning Com:niSS4on reviews the projects and scheduling
based on the following consideration:
1. Tr,e communit- 'S n eed for the proposed project.
?. Priority and scheduling for the proposed prefect.
3. The proposed project's conformance to the Compre-
hensive Plan.
The Capital Improvements Program, as recommended by the Planning
• Commission is transmitted to the City Manacer. The manager
the : eVle.JS the CaTDltal Program and su -mits :-t to
council .,;it- his comments.
The council may delete projects from the program or may chance
the scheduling and priority or allocation of funds. In accord
with state statutes, the city council refers an,:- new projects
the-% ma7 -?d to the Capital Improvements Program to the Plan-
ning Commission for review.
Thy Manager annually presents a Capital Improvement i;udaet
for the current year as part of the budget process. This
capital improvement budget is based on the ca^ital mprcvemen-E
grogram and council policy direction.
-9-
L Lr) )
N
-. I
i
^ I c?
C C O
_
-
^
n
^
n n
..-. ?? -
v
v
N
C O C - L'1 C
n
^
I ^?' ^J I ?. ; I I ^
-'j
_ n
J
I .-? N Lei
?
J
? ? C n N ir' r1
yr
r?;
,
?
l j ^ ^?
J
1J ?. 1. 1 I =.
w l ? C In 1 3
?
:
j f
•--I G: "J
? w ?, r r,
xl
O O ^ C rl O
n `
? ., n «
.. n n
C7 0
\ J :J ^
.T
v
1 J
> 1
s
? J
ul
i. N
ti
I
J}
C ?I
n ?
O^.J '
Cl
? r-l I
s?
I 1 --'
j i
vr{
n
I
30
`t
.^ Ul
i U
?J
:J
U
L rti
? _ rr
.J
7 U
r a
L L
L^
h
:f`I
U n
co ?i C-1 Ul +1 U:.i N O
n ri n (Di In Q n -h ?:j n rr n
(? x n o 't o cn h rr r? r?
cn o o ?' Cn r rr c I? >
G (D (D 1)
C i
_ _. J cn Si1 rr \ 1 C H
CL W O il O '7 o
n x b r rI> m
01
(? G Q n r. rt 0 ?7 L7
. Z
J I-'- 1'•j /? ?-+ rn-? y
4I U
Ft m 7 I y l
0
n rr
I
N N Cl Ul UI Ut Ul Ul N .A
Ul C- O O C O C N Ul Ul U? n Q
Un Ul O O O O O C `. O O C p
O C .?.+ C O O O O O O O
C O C O C O C C C O C C
O O C O C O C O O O O
A W O C J?
C1 O W
C O N C (7
C"
G O Ul O Ul N
O C C O O
I
I I I I
IJ J ? V l ',J
n
^ C O O CO
O O O
I O
I
I O
I Q
CL
7 ?
z v
7
N I
W C
I '
.
O O C C7 ? ?
O
I I I i i
:l1 ? :., I T
a
i... C7 ? II
0
Li O Ul
? O O O <
O O O O O
w
C O O C
O
I C
I
I O
I
?
r
1-U.J Ur1 I c
G O C O O b
I O C C v.
i I I
w U'l
lh -
Ul
U'1
?i U, Q0 O O O O
a
-
Ul O ^? O O O O C
)
O
O
O O O C O O O N
C O C C
O C O O O O O -•
o'
I I I I I 1 I
C? Cn Cl? (n m co
bh%
s
co
C)
¦
{ol
n
0
Y?
l?
n
rt < O rn x M J
1?
n 7
I ?IFI
? rr ? N N• n s?.. I C I C?
lD rJ x
C a 0 n rt ? Q ? 1 _0
?~ \ ID :D, rn ?
?2
?
J C
n G` Ul CJ O
J
?t
H 10
?.,. ? m
U rr rr Cl) C w I U j
O o: rt ^?j rr n
13' ( a rr
co ol H
C
rt
rt
j \
fD
rr ,
E3
V/
c? --
--------- ---------
N J W O J 'v't W rn i..)
V? :.? Ut C V't O W
C O O G .? li lJ? U? O O
to p
C
C C .. C C C C O C
1
.
O C O J G C ?
C C C
i I C C O N
n
f
? I
G?
CP
? ? > N
0
O
N V? N W .A w ? --- O
C^_.
-^_. G
6l
O C C
O ._G
t
c
co 4
O
C O C O J C O C :D l W
C O C C C C G c
I I I I I I I I I n
4: cn
s > >
1 LL
0 I I
? i
v
C D I O L- _ O a
-i m C m N m to c? Ln 3 cn t r r :E: i
-1 -' !D < r- cD c-, (D c 4) D C --! - s a, m n
D 7 (D fD n (D n rt -• 77 D -' - + J ( r
c -• -• rt' (D n C") r G -t
m c C! i1J C) C) `< -• m cn Ln
cn D c? D e C) m (D -z e) (r
J
n T,
- T (D - s > > 1-2 I o
..
-
a < 0) UU 0 rt C/) TI m
-.
O
(D
-S
I
,•
n
-
-• C CD c (D to cn r-r C I 7 -• c - c C v' p
^" m -• C c rt to Q1 Z t rt lD '? t O Z7 O
c -- c J) uo rt o
c -
--u
? I r
] (D C7 N CD '
N CS G I
C 7 'Tl c D r. -• <
Lr) rt -• a, r) 0 < ? i
N ? Ln
71
cl) 3 - r
D cn (? -•
i
LJ I ? J• ? ? ?, ? N
4
\-M N \-n U CO O ? ?-D co O C T N W --,j O o
W C ?n 6? 00 ? ? w O w G
U °
CO G ? C O N 11-1 G O ?J III CO O C O C O x O -
O - C Vl C ---' O O G G O O
C O O O C C O C O O ., G
c O ?. O O O
N , %
N
I
O - w 6? -- ?1 O G?
W G, W C ?l ? N ? W C
CD C?
G N 6, ?l O i ? b
C C v? v C ? C N
C C C C O C 1 C i
I f
?
p
I O
W i W O
N
C W - W a? CO 0? ?O O C v
U" O Vl O O "•i
n G
O C ^ G, G C Q\ O .... O CO Q
SD CD -j CD CD C)
- O O C C O G I C t t
I °
co C) CD
?I f N O C D\ C O -- G
O O O v O O ?l C O C
C O C C O C C O
T I d I
I ?
v N w - iv - -
W V' W W N ...:
.
-
.w C V? W .. W <
p
G O O O y C - O C, C:7 '<
CD G G CD I G - (n
I
i -l ?
p
-
+ ?• N - o
' w Cb '- w G
W W LJ V? Ln v .^ W
....t w O I-n co O 0, W
!? C L G ?-?? G O
O C C O C ?_ O co
O O O O G O O i G t G7
(
1
IV i 1-
I
W N ^? N W
W N N G O -L C W CD C7
C:1 W V1 Vi ?I7 O G I CO O O
I O
N N C O O O O N C '?% :3
C C C O C C C C d -
C C C: C C C O O O I .+ p
o
t i rn
i C C ? co
o
N)
7
WO
0
m
rs?
V. SU%1MARY OF IMPLEMENTATION BY ELEMENT
The main obective of Richfield's Comprehensive Plan is to 49
preserve and enhance the existing high quality of the community
environment. This plan does not represent a departure from
earlier plans and policies, but rather a refinement of what
has alreadv been accomplished and what is in progress. Much
of the plan is already being implemented through existing
programs and policies. The city will continue to implement
other aspects of this plan through active pursuit of the policies
outlined in the _i^us elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
This implementation will nit significantly alter existing
patterns of development. Below is a short description by?
element of how the comprehensive plan is expected t_: be imple-
mented.
Land Use
With Richfield already over 99 percent developed, the land use
plan with its comprehensive development plan is largely a
reflection of existing conditions and is designed to enhance •
existing patterns. The revisions to the 1973 comprehensive
development plan and the proposed revisions to the zoning
ordinance are not expected to significantly alter existing land
use patterns. Development proposals will be reviewed when
appropriate by the planning commission and city council for
compatibility with the zoning ordinances, the comprehensive
plan,--and officially adopted redevelopment plans. Official
controls will be adopted to insure that review for consistency
with.the comprehensive plan is required.
A
Airport Issues
Richfield has no authority to directly influence conditions
at the airport or above the city. Implementation of the airport
iss.les clan will be best accomplished through city participa-
tion in airport related commissions and through utilization of
available politic_I -h -- voice Richfield's concerns
and complaints.
-14-
Housina
Most of the housing plan ?s alrea being __ W l.- --?
the programs administered b-y the Richfield Housing and Rede-
velopment Authoritv (HRA). The HRA promotes conser-;ation
housing bv assisting the replacement of :;light and the construc-
tion of new housing. The TiRA promotes increased housing o gor-
tunities for low and moderate income households through financial
assistance, bui-Lding _ ?cent477eS, 1anC.
me r:nually and com-
piled in the city's housing assistance plan (HAP). Funding
of much. o= the H IRA' s Crourams con; Ii- le n-- on c ilsfactor"
progress in implementing these goals.
:. an' __atea es _cr -m tiny modest oo. t
housing ha-,;e not yet been fully implemented. The city has long
had an uncff-c-ai policv prc.mting cor.straction cf _.:odes _o
housing, but has never made _t an orf4c-al policy requiring
that city land sold for development be used for that purpose.
• Proposed revisions to the zoning ordinance will reduce the
minimum lot size requirement to 6,000 square feet, which i1
also facilitate constructi cn of mc-es ._,..,t hcusing. No prc-
visions have yet been made to implement a program of systematic
code enforcement, although the city is committed tc such a
program and its implementation is under stud,-.
Public Utilities
__ =1 _ in Richfield are essentially
complete. It is the policy of the City of Richfield to encourage
util_`. 1_-?s to be placed underground where economically and
aesthetically feasiLle.
Community Facilities
The park and open space plan is based on the systems approach
to park planninq that has been the basis for -ark and recrea-
tional plannin; in Richfield since the preparation of a master
plan in 1969. The present master park Plan will be reassessed
to analyze the city's progress in implementinq the master plan
--L1 -D-
and to insure that the city's parks and open space system
continues to be consistent with the community's needs. This
comprehensive plan represents no significant alterations in
city policy or programs of park development. Essentially all
potential park and open space have already been acquired. No
major land acc,uisition for future oarzs is anticipated. Imple-
mentation of the parks and open space and the public buildings
plans will continue to be implemented through the capital
improvements program. All park development and improvement
will be implemented through neighborhood or community park
planning meetings.
Transportation
Implementation of the objectives of the transportation plan
reauires a combination of four approaches:
1. Adoption and consistent application of clear transpor-
tation policies and warrants.
2. The city will encourage other gover^men_tal
to continue to allocate resources for the is
of their facilities and services in Richf-'e
and county departments of transportation ne
encouraged to facilitate improvements at se
sections. The MTC needs to be encouraged t
service.
gencies •
provement
d. State
d to be
eral inter-
improve
3. Implementation and coordination of improvements through
the allocation of resources by the capital improvements
program process. Major improvements to city streets,
intersections and alleys, a-l additions to the pedes-
trian and bicycle path systems will be realized through
the capital improvements program.
4. The city will continue to encourage maintenance of
existing facilities and will enforce city ordinances
to reduce safety hazards such as the regulation of
vegetation on street corners.
I
-16-
OF RICHFIELD, LSv?
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 439
Agenda December 15, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Land Use Element Section of the Comprehensive
Plan
Attached for your review is the draft land use element of
the comprehensive plan. The land use element describes the exist-
ing land use patterns in Richfield, discusses potential future
development, and describes land use control and environmental pro-
tection measures which will be necessary to enhance existing land
uses in the community.
It is recommended that the city council review the draft doc-
ument and make any changes which may be necessary. The staff will
incorporate such council direction into the final document prior
to sending it out to other governmental bodies for the review
that is required by law.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenber 6)r?
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
s
LAND USE ELEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
The city of Richfield is a fully developed community with an
established land use pattern. The purpose of this section of
the Comprehensive Plan is to describe the land use pattern which
has developed and indicate how the city will attempt to refine
that pattern to correct or minimize existing problems and to
meet the future needs of the community.
II. EXISTING LAND USE
The purpose of this section of the Land Use Element is to
describe and analyze the existing land use patterns and determine
how changes in the past have made many of Richfield's land uses
obsolete.
A. Physical Constraints
The topography of Richfield was determined thousands of
years ago as the great masses of glacial ice -retreated
• across Minnesota dumping fantastic amounts of debris. Bed
rock is buried by over a hundred feet of sand and gravel.
As a result, Richfield has a flat to gently rolling topog-
raphy lacking defined water courses and with numerous wet-
land depressions. The overall elevation range in the city
an,0 foot
above sea level in the northwest to a low of about 820 in
the northeast part of the city.
The soils associated with the glacial topography of Richfield
are not high quality agricultural soils, but are well-suited
to urba.i development. l uS _ -?r or!7^nic S041S
associated with wetlands might be problems are shown in
figure 1.
Physical constraints on land use are not significant in
Richfield as the city is over 99 percent developed. Most
land with minor constraints on development has been built
up. Terracing has been used on slopes and fill has been
-1-
1 ?
S
(S
? Q
17-7 F
1
lam- _ --
3.? --
§9
rnv s , ? ?? I , ,,
? : I i, I ,? ++ 1?1?r1 ?^?,; I , II;1 I I III I - ? -
i q', I I I I,I I ,.II + ..
? II III 1 1
+-
, I ,I, I`f,I I a11, 111 11?
F `? I I I l2Y I J I I I I I I
3 v .,..w„ 1 I VIII I?? ,L III, I, II ?I -_? _ III
f.. _.-? __ _ : I III?IIIIIIIII I I II,. ?4y ? +:? 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
J
Q
LLI
3. .. y
31 -1-
nr.s ? N
used in some depressions. While some of the vacant land
does have drainage problems and organic soils, the demand
for developable land is enough to ccmpensate for the greater
costs of construction. Most land with severe constraints
on development associa? _` faith ex--c :sive O.- anic- soil , 'l_..s
been set aside as park and open space, and, thus, should
never be developed.
B. 7-xisting Land Use Patterns
Land use development in Richfield has been failry well
organized. The streets have been laid out in a nri` n-ttern.
The successful implementation of a zoning program has
encouraged the development of a segregated land use pattern.
Commercial and industrial uses are concentrated in fairly
well-defined areas surrounded by single family homes.
Nith 99.3 percent of the total area within the city already
developed, land use patterns in the city, shown in Figure 2,
are generally sew.
C. Vacant/Underutilized Land
The most significant change in land use in the past 10 years
has been the reduction in vacant land. This reduction from
about 61 acres in 1969 to about 28.7 acres in 1980 represents
an increase of .6 percent in the developed area.
Richfield has approximately 37.3 acres that are considered
underutilized land. Underutilized land includes over-
sized residential lots and obsolete commercial establishments.
This potentially developable land is dispersed throughout
the city with concentrations near the 1494/35-W intersection
and in New Ford Town. The Lyon's property, at 76th and
Fremont, represents most of the vacant and underutilized
land in the city.
-3-
n
LLI
7 £
~ Q
H F
7X. Xv
Ilk,
r.,
kf fY:tf?t/. l?rN tti i-`k'??f]'..?_• _ y _
_. !'f. ??, M
I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
,F.
C
Y p a
IX -t
3,< ,?sn?w3 Q U F ?
G. an O cr
Z y
U. w s,,. .W.I H W
3. , ?ry -i
zQa
IL ?
3.. , 3. ,° In Q C ,
aQ ?
CC
TABLE 1
LAND USE INVENTORY: 1978
•
\_J
% Change
Land Use Tvpe Acreage Total Area 1969-1978
Residential 2,261.9 49.5 1.0
Single Family 2,055.9 45.1 0.6
Two Family 29.2 0.6 1.4
Multiple Family 176.3 3.9 8.1
Commercial 188.9 4.1 4_5
Industrial 25.7 0.6 2.8
Public & Semi-Public 680.7 14.9 0.2
Parks & Recreation areas 461.0 10.1 1.9
Schools 104.9 2.3 -5.6
Other Public 7.8 0.2 -2.5
Semi-Public 107.0 2.3 -0.6
Rights-of-Way 1,378.8 30.2 -0.3
Roads & Alleys 1,368.3 30.0 -0.3
Railroads 10.5 0.2 -
Total Developed Land 4,536.0 99.3 0.6
Vacant Land 32.2 .7 -47.1
Total Area 4,568.2 100.0
Source: Land Use Survey, 1978; Land Use Survev and Analv._ (1969),
Richfield's Engineer's Office.
-5-
Figure 3 snows the location of land
going development.
D. Single Family Residential
In comparison with other fully developed communities,
Richfield has a higher percentage of its developed area in
residential use (see Table 1). Residential land use accounts
about - le TOi aria and almost 91
percent of all private land.
Single family homes account for the largest single type
of land use, covering 45 perce:.-- the total area of
Richfield. Single family homes are dispersed throughout
the city. Only on the 1494 strip are they almost absent.
The location of oversized and undersized residential lots
are shown in Figure 4. Concentrations of lots which have
an area less than 5,500 square feet are located on the
6300 blocks between Aldrich and Oliver Avenues. Oversized
lots with an area greater than 17,000 square feet are found
more widely throughout the city with concentrations near
Wood Lake and Fairview Park
E. Multiple Residential
Multiple residential land use, including duplexes, accounts
for 4.5 percent of the total area in Richfield. Although
duplexes are fairly dispersed, approximately 95 percent of
all apartment units are located within one block of inter-
sections on six major and one minor street. These seven
streets are 66th, 76th, and 78th Streets and Penn, Lyndale,
Cedar and Pleasant Avenues. Sixty percent of all units
are south of 74th Street, with over 40 percent of all units
concentrated in six complexes in that area. The six
apartment complexes are Century Square (77th and Penn) -
700 units; Century Square (75th and Lyndale) - 306 units;
0
•
-6-
a'
z; cn
=- - r c
• i a
• - d
,. o,...? -. _ • e ? ?' mil- 3. .., .: in
?x
..r. • ?1 1411= •?- 13 -._?- #? • .c.3 ee..
ei
I-li 10
-1.rN nor _ ? a1
W
I _
Q Q
4 \ -- - - ?- -- --------- ---- ?`
=; a
*' J I
{
3 I?
I :JI I iE
?{'
-
1. jF -7F J • * ? I
i
•• * ? J ? iF • iF
3F '?
? -
• JY' i
? iE?IE iFiE
'9fMF-i?? "? iE iF -?"
?, i
W if 1f-
.x.
. ..- ? ?. a?• • -N-3F -1F ? { '?F ?E {E it-7FIb:YiHE3F
AM *)FR*
`
1
n I ?. • *ar1E1t 1F -t<-x-x-x- -?F,,,, i
.
1F
3f iE
• 'k -1k N•• I I
W
1' - • • • _ _ jFr '7EiF
•
a , I
. II
..,a O
^ n, L
\
n
Z
N
o
LLJ LO
N %
.
-?.
?
?,• LO
v' N O
O y
J
N L
u8 In
> • -k
_
1L
.
j ?
TABLE 2
LAND SL CviSP?}ZI O`d
Richfield Robbinsdale wlinneanolis
Residential 49.5 44 39
Commercial 4.1 3 4
Industrial 0.6 - 9
Transportation 0.2 2 8
Streets 30.0 28 25
Public & Open 14.9 18 16
Vacant 0.7 5 -
• 100.0 100 101
Source: Richfield Land Use Survey, 1978; Robbi nsdale Department
of Planning; City of ?Minneanolis, Land Use Profile (1978).
s
-9-
Heritage Central (78th and C:.icago -
Colony at Richfield (76th and Knox) - 212 units;
Square East (78th and Elliot) - 195 units; and Fc
Head '?nth and Knox) - 180 units. Figure 5 shows
distribution of apartments in Richfield.
Multiple family dwellings account for the me
chance in land.use in the last ten years', of
of vacant land. An increase of 8.1 percent
of multiple family units is primarily the r
pro jects: The Wood Lake Apartments, Richfi
and the Coach Homes of Richfield Lake condo;
eritage
ntain
the
st significant
xt to the decline
in the number
sult of three
ld Towers,
iniums.
F. Commercial/industrial
The primary concentration of commercial land use in
Richfield is located in the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (L/HjN)
area. It is presently the focus of a redevelopment project
aimed at revitalizing the commercial atmosphere of Richfield
and reducing land use conflicts. See Figure 6.
The L/H/N evolved as a small nineteenth century rural
service center to a suburban shopping district under the
influence of the post-war housing boom of the 1940's and
1950's. As Richfield developed as a satellite residential
community of Minneapolis, the L/HjN developed as a satellite
commercial center to the central business district of
Minneapolis. The potential regional significance of the
L/H/N was upset by the opening of the Southdale 1.1all in 19505,
which has continued to draw a significant portion of retail
business away from Richfield. I
Concern about the decline of the L/H/N commercial district
began in the late 1960's. Richfield's commitment to protect
and promote the existing business environment developed
into the L/H/N Redevelopment Project which was established
in 1975.
0
0
-10-
yF
? E
- - -
77
-.y ...:,as.,„ ' .: :..: ..:.:::•'•:::'.. • - _ _ -. -.-_ _ .. _. _ - - . ,ne ,.yes,...
O i=\, 1 7 y C
- O O m 9
C O I
+ o
W n e d
r
P
IN,
i
lJ6
U
pW
3
Z 0 a
z
z>
W J CJ W W
Q W U a
C W z a
s W D a
a a z
0 f a o x
u v)
t
• pro
the
and
_..ree mayor
olem areas detrimental to the area's commercial growth:
lack of a major retail attraction, fragmented land use,
inadequate traffic circulation and access.
Fragmented land use evolves when each parcel of land is
developed independently of the adjacent parcel. The
resulting strip development is a mixture of unrelated uses
that functionally do not tie =_get S tr ct_.. _s are
poorly designed for the site, either overcrowding or
underutilizing the site. overcrowded sites usually have
inadequate setbacks and lack sufficient parking space,
while underutilized sites often have low visibility struc-
tures and excessive parking, often related to the duplication
of abundant adjacent parking.
Strip commercial development identified in Figure 6 has
• developed oriented to the automobile as tie prime transpor-
tation mode with pedestrian circulation between parcels
ignored. The lack of walkways and other connections
discourages interaction and make access between the parcels
hazardous and unpleasant. Even though development was
oriented to the automobile, developers failed to anticipate
trends in transportation. Today, automotive use and
traffic are considerably heavier than twenty and thirty
years ago. Disruptions associated with roadside delivery
are not as easily tolerated. Adequate parking for the
1950's has become insufficient. The awkward off-street
parking layouts, the large number of curb cuts, and the
parked vehicles protruding into travelled right-of-ways
aave become hazards that are not as easv to tolerate with
the heavier higher speed traffic. The city has significantly
impacted all three of these problem areas in the L/H/N.
A major department store chain, K-Mart, is now located at
• Lyndale and 66th Street. It is located on a site that was
-13-
previously utilized by a fragmented mixture -r --mercial •
and residential uses. Improvements have been made to
traffic circulation including the construction of turninq
lanes and bus lanes, and a reduction in the number of curb
cuts.
The 1-494 "strip" has emerged as a prominent regional com-
mercial district in the past ten years. It is noted for
its hotels, restaurants, and night clubs, almost exclusively
located in Bloomington ar:u Edina. -1-1r1y development of
these major establishments was discouraged in Richfield by
the restrictions against the sale of liquor by drink.
other trends affecting the commercial environment of
Richfield are changes in service stations and restaurants.
Approximately one out of every three service stations in
Richfield has closed. In the Penn/66th Street areas one
out of every two stations has closed and in the L/H/N, •
eight out of nine stations have closed. Presently in the
L/H/N three stations are vacant and two are being utilized
with alternate uses. Three of these vacant and alternate
use sites are planned for redevelopment. Vacant and
potentially vacant sites of service stations, many of which
are prime corner locations, represent important opportunities
1-7elopment.
The most obvious trend in restaurants in Richfield in recent
years has been the emergence of the franchise and fast
food restaurant and the deciino of the old drive-in and
the corner cafe. A number of restaurants in Richfield are
still not franchise or company name restaurants.
Another trend in restaurants has been the upsurge of rest-
aurants in the Penn/66th Street area, where today one out
of three restaurants in Richfield is located. Applications •
for speci:t- tie permit- i:idicate that this trend is con-
tinuing which could have a detrimental impact if unregulated.
-14-
Richfield has no concentration of industrial land uses.
Industrial establishments use less than one percent of the
L ate -tu ir_dustriai
establishments are scattered in commercial districts around
the city, although almost no users classified as industrial
are located in the LHN commercial area.
The largest industrial land user, a local sign. company,
has its home offices and sign assembly shop adjacent to
the I-35W and I-494 junction.
G. Public Institutional
over 45 percent of the land in Richfield is in public and
semi-public use including streets and alleys, which
constitute over 30 percent of the total ''Land use. Of the
remaining public land uses, two-thirds or 10 percent of the
total is parks and recreation areas. School property and
semi-public (mostly church-related), each use about 2.3
percent of Richfield's land. A small amount of land not
• included in the above categories is used for ponding areas,
public water and various government offices. Figure 7 shows
the distribution of public and semi-public land not including
streets and alleys.
H. Historical Sites
Richfield has few buildings that have survived from the
farming community that existed before the housing boom of
the 1940's and 1950's. Two houses have been recounized as
historically significant by their inclusion on the state
historical inventory. The Bartholomew House, also listed
on the national register, is preserved as a local cultural
institution by the Richfield Historical Society. The
Ahlquist/Pound House, built about 1856 by a riverboat captain,
is a beautifully preserved house from that period. Other
homes built by the first settlers and dating back to the
1860's include the Wilcox House, the Couillard House, the
• McCable House and the Manton House. These homes will continue
-15-
-f:
• _ a
III - _ IIII??III
r
--
I^ I
I
1L
fl
I llllll IIII ? .r_..
f I II I I ill I II
..,n l -- IIII I1 I I - r_
II { l i I{''111 d
-__ ?Il1 IIII IIII: ? - ? r
,,. ? - _-_ IIII
LL
x
J
E
s
s
x? Ir`rI ? ?C? .- ?II 111 ?'111I'I
VIII
I `' 9
I ,
---- a=
- --------- ----- -----
•
a^o ,3, w J
U
? U
ar a a
3... . Q' W W
7 = S !
3 < , ,:. N L?.a ? lam'
,.. Q H U
J ? a
W 6a.
CL F
Co iiJ I O
I 2
Q. a vim, u E
i
• to be preserved because of their suitability as homes rather
than for any historical significance. See Figure 8.
Richfield's most notable landmark is the Holy Angels Academy,
built about 1930. It continues to be used as a school with
no plans that would affect the building's preservation.
III. LAND U.S CONCEPTS
The purpose of this section of the Comprehensive Land Use T1°mcnt
is to describe the basic principles of good land use develop-
ment and the techniques required to reduce land use conflicts.
The utilization of these land use .= -czpts '4i1l continue to
enhance the desirability of Richfield as a strong residential
community.
A. Land Use Compatability
Although land uses in Richfield are fairly well segregated,
• different land uses often conflict when they are adjacent
to each other. Interfaces between some residential and
commercial areas are not only unsightly but are damaging
to residential and commercial land values and detrimental
to the full enjoyment of either use. Residential/industrial
conflicts generate complaints by the residents relating
most commonly to traffic, noise, odors, and eyesores.
The most significant land use conflict in Richfield is
commercial encroachment into residential areas. Commercial
development in a residential area can generate additional
traffic, noise and Other nuisances that can have adverse
effects on the residential character of the neighborhood.
In order to preserve the quality of the residential neighbor-
hoods, Richfield should continue to restrict commercial
development to defined commercial areas.
Another conflict is visual pollution where residential areas
face the neglected backs of commercial areas. Land use
-16-
t; n N n ?? o o ^ C? °?
? a ?• ? ? .? ?`'? , I I ?Av? - ? w -,mot ? ? ?' T. I ?. ? -l7?L,I 1f J _ ,x,
ty i rfr?n?¦'Y?xrt ?? i R' I I ^?. o ',, ,`' ? v ?,4 S -? O 1 yn?r¦ ?' .J
Z 41- y t, ,
%II3fir1..
LLI
*C N ?.. ? ? ? ? t'a?t?.tolii'urtr?;j u7?nj' w ?,?'„? ? ,•; '? H ?
43 ~
W
rO[t pfVYIII`\\ ?zu?z(taJJ x1 1 y1 ?? 6V
y j 5 N rnn-'rz zvo ?Z Q W
?T??? ?„ ?? ®ss Q Q
aINV I<7 s ?`` ??J134/ fit PraXj LAS- r i .i m H _ ® m
1-?'I?,.Lx?ppzuv? j ?, ?!r IOA
`rSL P4a?a ?? 'v ti .X'16902?if/ar?,i
^I ?r jsx? IC ?4i^ r `a'!? oa ?~Ib R, FESE ti O
?Za2?0 ti `J CC
?L AN 1Vffo? -O ? ? .: `
h ¦ ee
?_---
?
gnto?^r? 5 d ? ?7i ?L _ pp \ 1 0
.C r aaj/d? / ??i m ° c
Ilz
y ? ?'?/? / I l ? w? ? [ s ? I? .. ' I, ? \ ? •'???„ Ta ?tolrlUf'; Q? I
ti ° ??ic r j? ?. L 7t Utfr'll r-
?? s ^rr? ?'.a?vu ar a{?f 1. ?, •p? I ¦ ? ?7 ? ? 1l -? i ? ? -5 ,?.. 1? I ¦ ? ? ?
co C _3??v?rsjwny y'nn a- ? ¦? ??--c? .lar n
tz)
?? O 'I¦ ?? ?l v 3_ S_
zz;
'ooJJaIPLi ,v I Ii?IT /czrlk y ? m "? v i/J
? r
• interface conflicts and areas where complex land use mixes
could be problems are shown in Figure 9.
The main regulatory tool available for minimizing land use
conflicts is the zoning regulations. Zoning can inhibit
potential land use conflicts by restricting uses to specific
areas and providing for transitional land uses between areas
of potential conflict. In Richfield zoning has been a
very effective means of separating incompatible land uses
and minimizing conflicts, and should continue to be used
to control land development. The zoning ordinances will
be the main tool for implementing the recommendations of
the Comprehensive Development Plan.
Monitoring development, especially along Richfield's
borders by surrounding communities, will help prevent additional
land use conflicts from developing. It will also help prevent
• too large a demand from being placed on Richfield services
and public facilities caused by surrounding communities'
development.
The Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport is located
east of Richfield and is controlled by the Metropolitan
Airports Commission. The need for open space on runway
approaches assures that MAC lands adjacent to the inter-
sections of Highways 77 and 62 and 77 and I-494 will remain
open space. Open areas south of New Ford Town and along
Highway 77 have been leased by Richfield and developed into
a golf course facility.
West of Richfield in Edina, considerable vacant land that
has been utilized for sand and gravel extraction will be
developed in the next few years. More intense land use in
this area could result in high traffic volumes on Richfield
streets, increased storm water runoff, and higher demands on
parks, police and fire services. Development in the area
has the greatest potential for significantly impacting
-18-
E
a
0
a
a
c
m
^A
s
m
CL
a
E
O
d
O
m
U
a
E
a
_c
N
0
?n
•
a
a v
c cl
'- o l
U Ui
3..1 -11. E m I
y
'
c3,.o?ri^
E c
W x a
N c
O
tn
c ?
i
a
Richfield, and the city should monitor developments in that
area.
The land north of Richfield in Minneapolis is fully
developed and is predominately resit en-__a_, ex::: pt for a
area north of the common section of I-35W and Highway 62
which is mostly industrial. It is unlikely that any
significant change in land use will be proposed by
Minneapolis in this area that could affect Richfield.
The land south of I-494 in Bloomington is predominately
commercial. Several large pieces of vacant and under-
utilized land will probably be developed over the next
few years. Given the value of this land and the policy of
the City of Bloomington to encourage the development of high-
rise offices and restaurants on the strip, a high potential
exists that development affecting Richfield could occur in
this area. A higher intensity of use south of 82nd Street,
between Lyndale and I-35-, could also affect traffic through
Richfield.
B. Buffering
Where conflicting land uses can not be eliminated, buffering
techniques can be effectively used to reduce adverse affects
such as noise, glare, dust, and visual pollution.
Buffering in Richfield is primarily needed to screen multi-
family dwellings from single family dwellings, residential land
uses from commercial land uses, and parking facilities from
adjacent land uses and the street. Figure 10 illustrates
buffering techniques which will be utilized.
Screening conflicting land uses includes the utilization cf
earth mounds, vegetation, walls, and wooden fences. Landscaping
done as a means of buffering should be consistent with the
urban design standards and solar access plan later in this docu-
ment.
-20-
FIGURE 10
mu +1-T611 IL4 rEG?20.Y1clk?l ! r_'?r ?+?lrYS ? al'r,yr, ?
!??S!?:?>7': ?? ? afECl I •?^?.i1V^` i.y.GCi'TTi:%(I
-rTl
p ah warty-i n l r V st a l u r: r';
BUFFERING MULTI FA,-4v]lLY/SINGLE FAMILY
r1?v+,0 (?Gr
of
C,e ?rrri e-_? ,7- arrt o
OY-
??
?' ?,vccG
d
4
n
ayv yY?'ATc l lZl° - +
i
,
?l"'K i
a
LL ??G?I i'-??O ?I?
serv?c.e
,!a'?r1 Yh ea ?: ?, ,
UlA r 10.D1 ??
i
i ¢99,Tj- PA.- 4-1
BUFFERING COMMERCIAL AREAS
-21-
i
rCac;?u.2Ll I, ".,av,?•?lZr-? ?? '?Ja?l?'.. I„in;7Ca?:? ?_ -,t?'4'i? I? r .1r?-!????
w L. ?. ??Y!Li'C? 1, ii vt.
1 I?t?iT'CYX? I D I I i,
• Transitional land uses can also be used as an effective
buffering measure. The placement of multi-family dwellings
or office buildings between single family residential and
commercial land uses can help minimize land use conflicts.
In addition, transitional land uses can buffer single family
homes from heavy traffic areas.
C. Urban Design
The visual quality of a community is a reflection of the
confidence of its citizens and their willingness to invest
in it. Proper maintenance of existing private and community
facilities should be encouraged by city programs, effective
application of public regulations, and the example set by
public developments. Design standards should be established
to guide development so that investments are consistent with
the desired community image. Just as the permanent street
paving program promoted high standards, other projects can
• also tie the city together and promote a positive image of
the community.
The design elements that can be used to promote the desired
images of Richfield include the following:
- Building design: Probably the most significant visual
impact in an urban area is the character of the building
structures. Building heights and setbacks must be regu-
lated to produce the desired images. Sensitivity is
needed in the choice of building materials and facade
treatments to develop or preserve harmonious relation-
ships in an urban environment. Building materials chosen
for new construction should be carried through on all
facades of the building. Loading and storage areas
should be integrated into the building design, utilizing
the same material as the main structure, and screened
from adjacent residential and public areas.
•
- Roads and paths: Concrete and asphalt roads and sidewalks
represent the major visible public facility in the city.
-22-
FIGURE 11
•
.c'
'V
1j
i
I
FIGURE 12
? r-,i IL.G:Y7
- LTY
I.X-
?NV Vl- 1
T
r? `
c
1 I L?
G?iV ?IV?Y?
ST??
?' Q 1 0 J 3
^ 1
I / \I
il",,
•w v i 1 li 'r
LIGHTIMG DES9GM STANDARDS
LJ
F-7
?J
5-FRi T 5iGN5
-24-
Their type, conditions, and dimensions can have a signifi-
cant impact on the perception of the community. The
condition of the road surface, when it does not provide
an adequate riding surface, presents a poor image of the
prosperity of the community and the condition of all
public facilities. Richfield, through.the permanent
street paving program, has succeeded in greatly improving
its image. Street paving in Richfield is essentially
completed and will not require major alteration through
1990, although the continued maintenance of city streets is
a high priority to preserve the positive
improvements have promoted.
- Vegetation: The use of vegetagion is another effective
means of creating an image. Vegetation's ability to
buffer visual and noise pollution makes it an essential
element especially along the boundaries of conflicting
• land uses, and along main arterials. Plants provide shade,
color, scale, and beauty and humanize pedestrian areas.
Important factors in the selection of plant types include
growth characteristics (dimensions, speed of growth, etc.)
hardiness, disease resistance, and maintenance costs.
Lighting: Lighting can also be a tool for building a
particular local image. Different types of lighting are
advisable in different land use areas. Changes in energy
availability and improvements in lighting technology have
supported the replacement of incandescent and florescent
fixtures with high and low pressure sodium lamps and
other lower energy/high luminary lighting. All lighting
not in public right-of-way should be fixed, directed,
designed, and sized so that its light does not produce
excessive glare on adjacent properties. See Figure 11.
- Signage: The city has established standards for commercial
and street signs to encourage the improvement of the visual
environment. Traffic control signs need to conform to
-23-
uniform standards set by the state and, thus, cannot
u? 4-pact the city's image. Street
name signs are of recent vintage and are not
require replacement before 1990. therefore, c.
their style is not recommended, with the exce
major intersections controlled by overhead tr.
should have larger street signs on the signal
IV. LAND USE CONTRC gOAT-S
ikely to
anging
tion that
ffic signals
booms.
The purpose of this section of the Land Use Element is to set up
a guide for development and redevelopment activities. This guide,
The Comprehensive Development Plan (Figure 13) is meant to rein-
force stable existing land use patterns. The plan is a modified
version of the existing Comprehensive Development Plan.
The modifications to this plan are designed to simplify the plan,
to remove ambiguity about permitted land uses, to better reflect Is
existing land uses and land use changes since the adoption of
thl` existi g plan, and to relax the restric for-- on construction
of duplexes and small multi-family units along arterial thorough-
fares, which would buffer adjacent single family residential areas.
A. Single Family Residential
The high quality of Richfield's residential areas is one of
the city's greatest assets. City plans and policies should
be designed to enhance the existing low density residential
environment and encourage the continuing maintenance of
neighborhood character. Construction of duplexes should be
allowed on sites determined to be compatible. No commercial
land use will be allowed except for home occupations permitted
only if the use does not change the residential character
of the building and neighborhood. Land uses should be
strictly limited to residential.
0
-24-
r
0
0
•
f
? i ( I
sue, 3 ,i 7
. t J4
II
., .. ns , I I - Il ?? J•
II ?
Illil sill 111E fill tl
,, ( IIII J !i111111 ?? _ u>;:a .,
?ol??l?? ?? ?1111191 t. -- )3 z
9q
?I111 IIi??Illllil!'IB? ill?i r(it Q
IIiII,IIIIIII Illli? II
f t >r 5»J "? v 3 LU
yT i 1
----------------------------
Mill
ILU
III ..•.•.•:.
1F ? z
? W
w
cc
s
W
,a
- w
i
!
'7
L•1 ?j
1
(ld
'Q 1.-.? -_-? ??? x•.`,.11 ? `? _
yty ?S-~;1 X V :
?H5-' ! K
71?
L I± y
G X W 71-0
77777
? ? ?j? i ?• iii! ':•:•:?;•:?:?: ? ? ? { ?-?,
r• ??ti'' ?'.?.•:•:•;•:•?: •^j rte
?1i ' ?? i•?•??•. a ri.?:;.... ,._.----_• I ?:.,.._._... ???; i'
1
-25-
While multiple residential development is important to
Richfield it must take place with a minimal impact on existing
single family residential neighborhoods. Medium density
housing should be built along freeways, arterial streets, and
collector streets where minimal disruption of single family
residential neighborhoods will take place. Duplexes and
triplexes can pzovide shielding for low density residential
areas from high traffic areas.
The future development of high density housing complexes
will be limited due to limited land availability and will
be developed as a planned unit development (PUD).
It is also important for multiple residential uses to be
located near supportive services and community amenities such
as shopping, banking, mass transit services, and recreational
is areas.
C. Commercial/Industrial
The City of Richfield is committed to promoting commercial
development which is compatible with the existing residential
character of the community.
Future commercial development should be prevented from creating
further strip development along arterial streets and from
encroaching on adja-ent residential areas. Spot zoning should
continue to be prohibited. Future commercial development
should function as inteqrated components of a commercial district
which should be developed according to local design standards
and compatible with surrounding land uses. Additional community
investment projects should be considered relative to the city's
ability to fulfil existing commitments in the L/H/N.
1. Central Business District
The Central Business District is the commercial focus of
-27
the city. Planning emphasis in this district
an environment which encourages businesses wh
protecting nearby residential uses. The prin
use is a combination of retail commercial ser
offices. Dining and entertainment establishm
encouraged where they have direct access to a
thoroughfares. This is a planned high densit
and multi-storied buildings are not prohibite
as adequate off-street parking and buffering
Because the ability to draw people into this
positive attribute, traffic generation is not
a deterrent to acceptance of a development.
should be channelled so development does not
significant increase in traffic on nearby res
streets.
rovides
12,
pal land
ces and
is are
erial
district
as long
ea is a
onsidered
affic
use a
ential local
c_)r.unercial and industrial land uses are not
compatible with the retail/office emphasis in this district.
and should be discouraged. Multi-family development along
the fringes of the area should be encouraged, while single
family and duplex structures within this area should be
discouraged. Most existing land use in this area is
compatible with these land use themes. Primary impact
will be on vacant and underutilized land.
The planned future development in the Lyndale Hub Nicollet
Redevelopment Project Area tL3:_) is shown in Figure 14 and
includes the completion of the second and third major
redevelopment projects being initiated by the city and
HRA. The Lake Shore Drive Elderly Cooperative project
has com...let^' initial phases and construction is
scheduled to begin in October of 1981. Integrated develc.--
ment of multiple family and commercial uses is planned for
the underutilized "Godfather Block" at the northwest
corner of 66th and Lyndale Avenue. Presently, a building
moritorium has been placed on the "Godfather Block" to
-28-
•
0
1
11 ht I
I
? vrux ,uwc<x r=?x?' ? ` F'2 firma' > ?„
13
N
=t ? Y g
i s?q
?4 i --
_? J r )-+ is I?8
?_ ` ?- •? 1
IQ -II 1 OCR _?
? i
z ? .•
... ... Ar O I. i ...`' 'III ?ZU -_ ????\ -•? ??\? ??•? p I _
10
` ? ill ? 1 _ 1 I ? p ? \Q -y? J Sul ? a ?\ 'y _ J I3
?_• ll
? .wt''? ?` YU I
Ga
? ? 1 •I w a2`
111 1 LL
_ ?? JfQ
• fl ti ?.• ? ?? ? 11 i
LLI
t t
W ?y ti trc:sRFt ;??y ?$';?? c". y?['??, 3 '.?;,^i. ? •,E=`?x
., ?i.eMA]r?i cfi l?u.?? 2 _ _ " •??*a. t? x..,t+?.F
allow time for a study to be conducted to i?etermine if
additional land use controls are necessary. The moritor_-1
is essential to ensure integrated development of this land
to carry out the redevelopment plans of the L/H/N project.
In addition to the two major redevelopment projects yet
to be completed, other vital projects are also planned.
The final street improvements for the L/H/N along Lyndale
Avenue from 64th to Lake Shore Drive and 66th Street from
Grand Avenue to I-35W are planned for completion in the
summer of 1981. These improvements will reduce curb
cuts, and or?-- ide left turn l n- and bus turn-outs.
Expansion of the Richfield State Agency property at 66th
Street and Lyndale Avenue, to provide additional office
and retail space has been under study for several years.
Land aquisition is well under way although no date for
construction has been given. Expansion and improvements •
to redevelop the Hub Shopping Center into an enclosed mall
for climate controlled shopping is planned. Redevelopment
will include a restaurant and an addition of approximately
6,900 square feet of retail space. Also planned are
improvements to the Lyndale Garden Center through
building and parking expansion.
I
2.
Freeway Strip
The freeway strip is a high density, mixed land use district
that enjoys high accessibility. Land use should be en-
couraged which is compatible with the "strip" as an enter-
tainment and employment center and makes use of its high
accessibility. The principal land use is a combination
of intensive land uses including hotel/motel, dining
and entertainment establishments, wholesale, retail, and
service businesses, offices, and multi-family development.
Because this is a high density land use district, multi- 0
story buildings, especially for hotels or motels and
moderate or low-income housing for the elderly, should be
-30-
allowed. Hotel/motel or lary? dining/'e -,:-t=i - nt
establishments should be encouraged along the Interstate
Freeways. Traffic generation should not be a major
factor in approval of these uses as long as access is not
via residential local streets. Research and other light
industrial use is acceptable, as long as it is compatible
with surrounding land uses and is not primarily open
yard stozag2. All multiple family development should be
planned unit development (PUD). Single family and duplexes
should be discouraged. Most existing land use i- this
area is compatible with these land use themes. Primary
impact o= this plan will be on vacant and underutilized
land.
This area has the greatest potential for future commercial
development in Richfield. While the economic advantages
support the promotion of high intensity commercial use along-
the I-494 strip, it is important that any develop.ent has
a compatible visual and functional relationship with the
surrounding community. Because of the potential for
significant development and the danger of adverse impacts
on nearby land uses, a design plan is essential to coordinate
development of high intensity mixed land uses along the
I-494 strip.
3. Mixed Land Use
Mixed land use contains medium to high density mixed laz'_different emphasis in different locations.
Principal land uses are retail and wholesale commercial with
significant light industrial, service-businesses, and
apartment development. Lot coverage can be high, but
building heig:t should be limited to be compatible with
surrounding land uses not exceeding three stories.
Development in these areas should be compatible with and
reinforce the existing local land use character.
-31-
Industrial and wholesale commercial uses should be restrict:
to areas where it is In all areas,
office development is a compatible land use. Acceptable
office development should be restricted to sites adjacent
to existing commercial land use or larger multi-family
buildings. Duplexes and three unit multi-family buildi-.,s
should be allowed to be constructed wherever lot sizes are
adecfuate. 'Tedium sized multi-family -buildings are
acceptable land uses, but are restricted to those sites
where they are considered compatible with surrounding
land uses. Single family structures are an acceptable
land use. The neighborhood businesses acceptable in this
land use category are establishments which supply a
limited variety of commodities, primarily to residents in
the immediate neighborhood and minimal impact on adjacent
land uses. These businesses include food stores, drug
store, dry cleaners, Laundromats, and beauty and barber
shops. Much of the existing land use in these areas is
compatible with these land use themes. Impact of this plan
is not expected to significantly impact existing stable
residential uses.
D. Public/Institutional
Acouisition of public park and recreational land is essentially
complete. There should be no expansion beyond L: desnn.-`
areas in the Comprehensive Development Plan, (Figure 13)
Institutional land uses include governmental, school and
church facilities. These should be allowed to expand when
needed, provided expansion is compatible with surrounding
land uses.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN
INTRODUCTION
Because Richfield is a fully developed area, this environmental
protection plan is directed towards the wise management of existing
-32-
natural amenities and resources rather than towards the regula-i
of new development. Most elements promoting environmental pro-
tection in this section have already been implemented by the city
with its past commitments to environmental protection.
A. Natural Areas
Environment-_,11_7 sensitive areas such as wetlands are
protected as public lands in Richfield. All boars or :da?c
are one-quarter acre or greater are protected as integral
parts of Richfield's stormwater system. Many of these bodies
of water are surrounded by parks including two of the three
lakes that are large enough to be considered for the imple-
mentation of shoreland zoning regulations. :?41T-- the extent
of development and approximately 95 percent public ownership
around all three lakes, a shoreline zoning ordi-^-=ce ,ould
have no impact on development and therefore, is not necessary.
See Figure 15.
Several areas are still important as wildlife habitats in
Richfield. Wood Lake is managed as a protected nature center.
Extensive modifications have improved the site as a wildlife
habitat. The center is extensively used by residents of
Richfield and the surrounding communitites. Other habitat
areas around the city include Richfield Lake, Legion Lake
and Mother and Duck lakes. Richfield and Legion lakes are
undeveloped park property. Studies have been made on dredging
these lakes to improve both the habatat, and the recreational
value of the lakes. Legion Lake is likely to be developed as
a community park after 1985, which could involve dredging
the lake. For physical and other reasons, it is unli;_,:i- that
Richfield Lake will be dredged.
Remnants of some of the original woodlands in Richfield can
still be found. Some 20 acres of forest are being preserved
is in the Wood Lake Nature Center, which contains an estimated
13,750 of Richfield's 105,000 trees. (See Table 3). Remnants
of the original uplands oak forests are found in Augsburg
Park, in the Oak Grove area, and north of the Cloverleaf
-33-
7
U)
W ..e
Y a
VY
7 t0
c
J ?
i- z ^7
-
r
- - II
a .
t i4 '; - - dg
7
o3L _ ?1 - ?I
--- _ -
F
i
w
Zo
o ? w
,?.... Z > W
W ? U
,.. ,°.. wx a (n W
c E z
3,..... Q C W
O J
cc
a a
Q W O z
W
C
v...,..,z-s ?Qy V W
W
3.. ,o.. r m D Q
• Motel. Another grove is located along Duck Lake. The most
extensive and valuable of Richfield's forest resources are
already protected from development.
TABLE 3 TREE INVENTORY. 1978
Elm Oak Maple Ash Evergreen Other Total
Wood Lake 561 465 627 310 11,800 13,750
Oak Grove Area 189 616 42 16 181 49 1,090
7600 Fremont Area 178 399 1 7 12 103 700
Augsburg Park 4 240 20 30 52 54 400
All Boulevard 4,927 248 824 3,732 199 3,525 10,816
All Non- 18,909 726 50,643
Boulevard 891 6,014 17,177 94,360
Total 19,157 4,458 54,168
5,818 6,838 17,376 105,176
• Source: Richfield Community Development Department
B. Environmental Quality
1. Air Quality
Air Quality in Richfield is good. Only the automobile
is a significant source of air pollution. The city will
continue to support the state and federal governments in
their efforts to maintain ambient air quality by
enforcing auto emission standards.
Carbon monoxide, the largest single pollutant in the urban
atmosphere is also the most significant pollutant affecting
Richfield's air quality. Carbon monoxide concentrations
are highly localized and directly related to high con-
centration of its most significant single source - the
automobile. Thus, high concentrations of carbon monoxide
=re found in and around traffic congestion on days ;9ith
little or no wind. Automotive pollution dissipates
quickly and, thus, only the immediate areas around heavy
traffic congestion are impacted.
-35-
Although monitoring data is incomplete, Richf:
quality away from congester?. streets and highw,
meet all standards, virtually all the time.
an air quality monitoring station at Humboldt
Street that measures nitrogen dioxide and sul
levels. Neither chemical has been found in 1
exceed air quality standards.
field air
ays, should
Richfield has
and 69th
ohur dioxide
E?vels that
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has declared the
Metropolitan area to he a non-attainment area for Federal
Air Quality standards. Within the Metropolitan Area are
sections where air quality meets both Federal and t`
stringent state standards. Richfield,with its lack of
industry has no major point source polluters. No
factories, power plants, refineries, or chemical plants
degrade the air quality.
2. Water Quality •
The major source of water for Richfield's three lakes
and ten ponds is stormwater runoff, although Wood Lake
and Milner Pond at 4th Avenue and 65th Street also have
wells. Urban stormwater runoff carries vehical emissions
and leakages, deicing salts, sands and sediments, nutrients
from fertilizers, droppings, and decaying vegetations,
and other pollutants. This runoff is a major source of
water pollution in the metropolitan area. According to the
Metropolitan Council, the three subwatersheds that include
most of Richfield are among the twenty subwatersheds that
are estimated to have the heaviest runoff pollutant loading
rates.
The most significant pollutant in the runoff
These reduce the depth of the water bodies ai
water storage capacity and increase their vu.
to deteriorating water quality. Silting has
impacted Norby's Pond at 2nd and 69th Street
Pond at 14th and 74th Street. Wood Lake has
d their storm-
nerability
significantly
and Wilson
catch basins
-36-
• to reduce the rate of sedimentation.
In addition to the problems associated with stormwater
runoff, Legion Lake has been a dump for snow removed
from main streets and freeways in Richfield and Minneapolis.
This snow contains salt used in deicing the roads, which
can be damaging in high concentrations. The effect of
the salt on.Legion Lake has not been'studied. In prepara-
tion of upgrading and restoring Legion Lake and the develop-
ment of a park t1- -__-e, the Richfield Community Services
Department has eliminated this source of degradation.
Minneapolis has stopped hauling its snow there, and
Richfield has received permission from the Metropolitan
Airports Commission to use their land at the end of 66th
Street for snow storage.
The water quality of the lakes and ponds in Richfield
• are monitored by the Community Services Department. Thev
have found that while none of the surface water would be
considered drinkable, it is not a health hazard. During
the hot dry summers the ponds, instead of being an amenity,
can become quite disagreeable. While the lands around
Wood Lake and Milner Pond are more valuable because of
their proximity to the water, the lands around the un-
sightly Adams Pond are assessed as the lowest of any land
west of I-35W. The Community Services Department began
the water quality monitoring program to collect information
that could be used to enhance the va_ue of Richfield's
lakes and ponds by restoring the water quality.
Drinking water in Richfield is obtained from three
subsurface water bearing formations: the Shakopee, Jordan,
and Hinkley-Mt. Simon aquifers. The first is the shallow-
est and the last is the deepest with the well tapping its
• water over 1,000 feet deep. The deeper aquifers are less
susceptible to contamination. Water from the Jordan and
Hindkly formations is free from micro-organisms and is
-37-
considered potable (drinkable without
of the Shakopee formation, which is the uppe
the Prairie-du-Chien formation, have been con
Although water the city uses from that aquif
been contaminated, it is chlorinated and filt
it were unsafe.
Richfield is an aquifer recharge area where
enters the subsurface pool. Under the topso:
100 to 250 feet of glacial drift, debris lef-
the glaciers. As shown in Figure 16, most o:
underlain by valley train outwash deposits 1i
from a nearby glacier. Both types of glacia
are sandy and very poro,--,s, allowing water to
through them. Water from Richfield's lakes
drain mostly into the groundwater, which flo,
the Minnesota River. Ho,.ae,7er, some of the w
to the bedrock aquifers. Figure 16 shows th
of the bedrock aquifers in contact with the
drift. All these aquifers are used as water
Care should be taken to prevent contaminatio
water and shallow groundwater so that the aq
not contaminated. The most important source
contamination is on-sit_- sewage disposal svs
have already been eliminated from the city.
` Dortion?
c layer of
Laminated.
2r has not
=red as if
rface water
there is
behind by
the city is
t by runoff
deposits
low readily
d ponds
south to
er percclat-?
distribution
aciai
ources.
of surface
fers are
f potential
ms which
The city should continue to be concerned about potential
negative impacts from urban run-off and continue to
monitor water vegetation, weeds, and algae growth in
Richfield lakes and ponds to ensure that negative impacts
do not affect adjacent land uses.
3. Noise
During the 1960's noise levels in East Richfield greatly •
increased with the adoption of the jet as the main vehicle
for air transport and the increase in air traffic at
-38-
•
•
0
QD
W
7
C7
W
C Q
?R
?KK
;S
i
M
U w
?
IL UQ
C ? W
mN OQ
C O WF
CL 30
A C = 0
U a
N C?-
w _W
` .. ....
J tHVc?Y
W (7'u
°QO
_
OCg> Lj
70? N~
,...>, OW C ?
yt7:oF0
O
C
LL.
J
J
>nv s a
j
Y N
3na ,- ,s
, ? O
LU
LL c
? o
I& c
cn 44 .2 r
L6
Z
U. o
3.. ....,. ?? W Q
Qa93
CL 0
0 m
, Q lira `1
. „ .
.
j
i
D --
°
I
-
-
C 1
a ?
l
?S
I
i
M;nne;:? Tnternational Airport (W
lain Field). While technological advances an
changes have significantly improved the situa
especially for northeast Richfield, noise lev
Richfield still exceed Minnesota Pollution Co
standards. Noise levels are important becaus
bility.of Federal funding for development can
by unfavorable environmental conditions that
noise problems.
Dld-Chamber-
I operationslo
tion,
:ls in
ntrol Agency
the availa-
be affected
include
Noise levels from automobile and truck traffic -oxceed
Minnesota noise standards along many of the major highways
and roads through Richfield. Noise problems are the most
severe where traffic levels are the highest and the roads
abut residential areas. Along most of 1-35W through
Richfield, a noise barrier has been erected that substan-
tially reduces noise levels. Residents opposite Wood
Lake preferred the high noise levels to the loss of their
view of the lake and so the wall was not constructed
from south of 68th to 73rd Streets. See Figure 17.
Noise complaints have also been generated concerning
several other sources including fans and air conditioners,
industrial equipment and operations, and garbage hauling
from commercial sources. In cases where air conditioning
units have been found to violate noise standards, shielding
around the units has been effective in reducing the noise
and ameliorating the problem. Complaints ;,eve bee:: - -'.
concerning noise relating to industrial operations.
Although actions have been taken to reduce noise levels,
bothersome noise has not been eliminated qround Penn
Avenue and 64th Street, where loading operations, which
are considered necessary for the industry and a valid
operation in an industrial zoned area, have continued to
be a source of friction with adjacent residents. The
hours of operation of garbage hauling from residential
sources is explicitly limited in Richfield's ordinances.
-40-
xp
0
C J
a 3 n?
A
_w
Z C
a
- J -
_ I F111 „
-
„v a. -__ -- -- 1111]111' - -_?_
F-7-77-77 -
-
1',nv„ •a es` a ? _ _ _ --__ ,.. ? _ -1- ?_ -. _ = _
_ z
• 'oc
_.-?-
_ v _ ,3
n
4.
=?C7=
' - ^
.,de
F
3
??
> ,
.
F
a
i Z v
_
? N Q
LL La z
;., ,, .. -. a -? W
LO
IL 1% in
' a
,.a
,.. ` V1 W W
? O `
/
?
Z Z Q
m
3 W
W
w
_
(h
?
O
H
-e
While the collection of garbage at non-residential •
'_cca ions during the night hours does not violate
operational regulations or state noise level standards,
it can constitute a nuisance for adjacent residential
areas. Haulers are generally cooperative in modifying
operations that have been identified as a nuisance.
Richfield has a long history of enforcing noise ordinances
to protect the living environment. The city uses state
noise standards to determine it a noise source about
which it has received a complaint, violates community
standards. The regular monitoring of traffic noise by
the Public Safety Department is now feasible with the
rac`l,t ac.;iuisitinr of -ophisti_=ted equipment. The city
should post signs at major city entrances that a noise
monitoring program has been activated. The city should
also establish requirements that developers demonstrate
that provisions have been made to shield interiors
from noise when the construction site is adjacent to
any arterial thoroughfare or controlled access road or
is in an area with air traffic noise in excess of
L10 70. A noise ordinance is now under study by the
city.
C. Solar Access Protection
Minnesota is highly vulnerable to disruptions of supply
and to the spiraling costs of energy. Because of this, the
state government has been increasingly active in promoting
renewable sources of energy. Of renewable sources, solar
energy has the capability of supplying one-half of
Minnesota's energy requirements for space heating and
cooling, water heating, and low temperature industrial
processes. Either passive or active solar energy systems
can be used.
•
Over 95 percent of the homes in Richfield are on north-south
streets and 95 percent of those homes have roof lines
-42-
parallel with the street. This building orientation results
in many south walls being shaded in the winter which reduces
the opportunities for using solar heating. The roofs of
almost all buildings in Richfield have solar access, but
the extensive mature tree cover partially shades the typical
house. Still there are ways that the city can encourage
use of solar energy including:
1. The city should support the concept of retrofitting
existing buildings with solar units by amending the
zoning ordinance to indicate that nothing contained
in that ordinance should be interpreted to restrict
the construction of solar units as long as they
meet setback requirements. Retrofitting will change
the appearance of buildings and the new unfamiliar
profile can generaEe opposition for aesthetic reasons.
This should not be a consideration for restricting
solar installation. Solar collectors should also
be exempted, if necessary, from height restrictions,
so long as they do not affect solar access of the
adjacent building's roof.
2. Solar energy systems need to have direct sunlight
fall on their collectors to function properly and
affectively for at least six hours surrounding solar
noon. While in Richfield it is not feasible to
protect solar access to the south wall, the
city should protect solar access at least to above
the first story and to roof tops for existing and
future solar collectors.
The city should protect existing solar access by
requiring that builders of units two stories high
or more requiring setback variances, demonstrate
that their proposal is not detrimental to the general
41 welfare in that it will not reduce winter solar access
to the second story or roof of the adjacent building
to the north. While such a policy is consistent
-43-
with existing regulations, not blocking solar access
should be explicitly reviewed in each variance case.
3. The city should protect solar access by encouraging
the appropriate selection and location of vegetation
around buildings. Because of the lot sizes in
Richfield, solar access will depend more on the
landscaping of the property to the immediate south
of a aiven home than on the landscaping of that
property itself. A successful solar access program,
therefore, will depend primarily on the full support
and cooperation of each individual citizen and his
commitment to protecting Cie potenziai Lt solar
energy in his neighborhood.
Vegetative characteristics which encourage energy
conservation include lower mature height of trees,
low density of branches,and a leaf season that closely O
coincides with the need for solar access. Vegetation
with dense foliage, such as evergreens,should be used
around the north and west sides of homes as a wind-
break from the winter winds. Deciduous trees can
also provide an effective passive solar energy
system, protecting against heat gain during the
summer while permitting heat gain during the winter.
Figure 18 illustrates the optimum locations for
vegetation to protect solar access on a typical
60' x 135' level Richfield lot. This is assuming
that rooftop solar collectors, or vertical wall
collectors on the gable, would be installed on the
south end of residences. The solar access protection
plan provides for suture access to a skyspace of
45 degrees to either side of the roof area and a
vertical intrusion of future trees no greater than
30 degrees above the horizontal plane. To protect
this skyspace, trees should be located within the
protected zone no closer to the adjacent building
-44-
L
U
O
r
y aNi E
O
o
L aj ? -O
3 ? C L
>
Em 4)L V
i Lq ??
wa O N
N? O O
(DM
r4).U
M c 3
o
C
LL C
?
M
0 -
v
O
? + s. N
0 ? O
? N N
CL
??
cn
a?
Q
c?
0
Cl)
U L
N CD
O ?
.. y
O (2)
C 4+
00
W
cc
D
U
LL
1
1
t
t
i
r-
t
m ?
? ac
R ??C
L. » W
2
E d O .S W
U
.2 Z C-4 1* (D CO
V i °p) N p N Co co
0TZ LL
N .? y .
d a?at W E.J.
CL CO
/ W L-1
cc 13
- - W V
W N
b -0
i
2= O N M 3
v - ? - ; ' ? 7 n N
• \ O
•'r :::::::::::: ::F O
C
E cs
0 >= 'r
than ten feet less than two times their i
For optimal solar access loVotection a tri
simply be placed two times its mature he.
from the adjacent building. Trees place(
or northeast of a 45 degree line off of :
to the corner of the adjacent north buil?
limited in height. Boulevard trees shou
planted according to this plan. -Tall evi
best locted in the northwest corner of
serve as windbreaks. Trees with short m
heights and evergreen shrubs such as jun
be placed close to the building.
tature
e should
ght away
northwest
orth/south
.ing are not
d be
,rgreens are
:he lot to
Lture
.pers should
While the city's policy will emphasize citizen
education and participation on a voluntary basis, it
is important to recognize that it may become
necessary at some future date to require solar access
protection.
4. The city should require that the developer of planned
unit developments and new subdivision developments
demonstrate how this construction will be designed
to utilize passive solar energy and to accomodate
the installation of active solar devices.
D. Energy Conservation
The recent growth in concern about the depletion of non-
renewable energy resources has promoted strong national and
local support for energy conservation. The City of Richfield
is committed to reducing energy use and promoting the con-
servation of resources. on the municiple level Richfield has
made several commitments:
- A Citizens Energy Awareness Committee has been established
to advise the City Council on all matters relating to
conserving and preserving natural energy resources and
to help inform and educate the public on energy conservation.
-46- ?{
- The city is in the process of preparing an energy audit
of municipal buildings and has coznitted funds for
modification to these buildings to reduce energy use.
Vehicles that have been purchased recently, or will be
purchased by the city should have high mileage per gallon
ratings. The city has put into service ten police cars
in the last year that were significantly more fuel
efficient than the vehicles they replaced.
- Street lighting is being replaced by more energy e -
ficient low pressure sodium lighting.
The city strongly supports the Development Framework
policy of the Metropolitan Council as a tool to control
urban sprawl, maximize the return on the investment
in the urban services infrastructure, and control the
increase of energy consumption relating to commuting.
The city continues to support local employment oppor-
tunities and home occupations as means of reducing
commuting.
- The city has placed and coordinated traffic control
devices to regulate traffic such that energy consumption
is reduced. Traffic speeds are regulated to keep energy
consumption down and vehicle stops at lights and signs
should minimized.
- A solar access plan has b developed to promote solar
energy use and to protect solar access of existing and
future solar collectors.
Richfield has established low and moderate income grants
and promotes low-interest loans for home rehabilitation.
These programs are concerned with repairing major
mechanical systems, correcting code violations, and
improving energy conservation through installation of
-47-
insulation and storm wi rte-)-s. Additional energy conser-
vation efforts should include promoting non-vehicular
transportation by encouraging construction of bicycle
and pedestrian paths and encouraging car and van pooling.
VI. LAND USE POLICIES
Becaaso Ric field is a fully developer. suburb with an established
land use pattern, the policy decisions which the community must
make will be aimed at maintaining and refining the existing land
use pattern rather than at changing t..
community.
A. The General Land Use Policies Will Be:
1. To preserve and enhance the predominately residential
character of the community.
2. To coordinate municipal, special district, county,
metropolitan, and state planning efforts in order to avoid
land use conflicts, duplications, excessive public service,
and facility costs.
3. To review and modify regulatory measures and procedures
in recognition of the needs of contemporary situations;
the development policy will not be rigid and inflexible,
but neither shall it be indiscriminately permissive.
4. To require all public improvement
plications for rezonings, special
or land subdivisions, be approved
accordance with the Comprehensive
adopted redevelopment plans.
programs or private ap-
use permits, variances,
only if shown to be in
Plan or any officially
5. To prohibit development proposals which tend to produce
undesired effects to the public health, safety, convenience,*
and general welfare.
-48-
i
6. To encourage and extend full cooperation to new develop-
ment proposals. However, the welfare of the genera Nw
and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the regulations
of the city will be the primary guide in reviewing
development proposals.
7. To maintain compliance of all development with the intent,
if not the letter, of regulations established by the City
Council to guide and direct the development within the
community.
8. To provide the citizens of the community with comprehen-
sive and timely information on all aspects of the Compre-
hensive Guide Plan, new development proposals, zoning and
other regulatory measures adopted by the City Council.
9. To provide and maintain a complete set of policy statements,.
physical plans and development programs strategies to
serve as a relevant and purposeful reference to guide
private and public development within the community.
10. To conti_.ue to support the Richfield Historical Society
in their function as an active watchdog for historic
buildings.
B. Land Use Concept Policies Will Be:
1. To regulate existing and future development so it will
not adversely affect adjacent land uses.
2. To develop and enforce strong design standards requiring
the use of open space, earthwork, landscaping, and fences
at the interface between residential and non-residential
land use.
3. To improve the rear of commercial properties that nega-
tively impact residential areas.
-49-
4. To encourage the improvement of the visual en
by establishing design standards for building
lighting, signage, and other aspects of resid
non-residential development.
ronment
tructure,
tial and
5. To include as major factors aesthetic considerations
such as architectural style and appearance, site design,
development.of open space and landscaping, in the acceptance
of all development and redevelopment proposals both public
and private.
6. To unify new construction with existing development
through the use of a common palette of materials or design
theme.
7. To renovate existing strong retail commercial establish-
ments within the city.
8. To require commercial development to provide adequate
off-street parking and on-site aesthetic improvements.
C. Land Use Control Policies Will Be:
1. To provide for separate areas within the community for
residential, commercial and industrial land uses, and to
provide for public community facilities, neighborhood
facilities and private institutional facilities.
2. To regulate industrial an-- =_-ents within
the community so that they shall not constitute a "spot
zone", meaning- a sinale location completely surrounded
by a different land use classification.
0
3. To deny rezonings unless the proposal is shown to be in
accordance with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan,
Redevelopment Plans, and the Zoning Ordinance.
4. To regulate land use along the boundaries of the community
-50-
so that they are compatible with bordering land uses and
to work with other jurisdictions to ensure that land uses
along their boundaries will be compatible with existing
land uses in Richfield.
5. To regulate commercial establishments so as to achieve a
high standard of maintenance and repair. The quality of
a building and landscape design, the proper st^r__
trash, and the maintenance'of the yard, the control of
noise, light, and odors, and many other factors will be
considered important to the acceptance of proposed com-
mercial developments.
D. Residential Land Use Policies Will Be:
1. To locate new residential development such that the
environment of existing residential uses is improved.
2. To relate new residential development in the LHN area to
amenities such as Wood Lake and Richfield Lake.
3. To create an improved living environment for the resi-
dents of the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet area.
4. To allow residential land uses of a variety of densities
and intensities to provide a wide range of housing
opportunities.
E. Commercial Land Use Policies Will Be:
1. To promote commercial development that is compatible
with the Comprehensive Plan and with Richfield's
residential community.
2. To encourage and regulate the development and concen-
tration of commercial land uses and higher intensity uses
• of land.
-51-
i
3. To provide for thQ orderly and systematic development of
commercial activities which provide special services to
high intensity residential development areas developed
under a planned unit development ordinance, at an appro-
priate scale and location within such areas.
4. To define commercial area boundaries so as to prevent
in.,i ?..t.jinto ad j acen -_ land uses ; and to require the
landowner to provide proper screening to preserve the
existing aesthetic values of adjacent properties.
5. To provide convenient access to commercial areas for
consumers who prefer not to dirve.
6. To ensure that existing neighborhood shopping areas remain
reasonably compact, and provide service within the scope
of a neighborhood trade area.
F.
7. To permit commercial activities in homes that do not
adversely affect the residential character of the
dwelling or its neighborhood or otherwide impinge on the
property rights of the neighbors.
8. To consider the effect of proposed commercial developments
on the existing and proposed traffic circulation patterns
of the city.
0
to
The Central Business District Policies Are:
1. To create a specialized central business district to
serve as a focal point for a reasonable concentration of
civic, residential, business, cultural and institutional
activities in the community.
2. To strengthen and revitalize the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet area
as a viable commercial center serving the Richfield and •
South Minneapolis trade area.
-52-
3. To promote the strengthening of the strongest existing
retail areas within the Lyndal /Hub/Nicollet area.
4. To increase the intensity of use within the Lyndale/
Hub/Nicollet area.
5. To achieve a balanced variety of commercial business
and services to satisfy a high percentage of the needs
of neighboring residents.
6. To maximize trade area accessibility for new development
with proper arterial and collector street orientation.
7. To encourage new development to be organized in a
planned shopping environment.
8. To facilitate the consolidation of commercial uses
along Lyndale Avenue through the proper location of
new developments.
9. To prohibit any "lengthening" of the Lyndale Avenue,
and Nicollet Avenue and 66th Street commercial strips.
10. To require integrated development of areas to be acquired
by tl:2 '41RA to ensure that the LHN redevelopment plan is
carried out.
G. Freeway Land Use Policies Will Be:
To establish a design plan to coordinate development of the
I-494 strip which encourages high density mixed land use.
H. Industrial Land Use Policies Will Be:
1. To maintain and improve the development of existing
industrial areas.
-53-
I. To promote the development of _`s_arch-oriented industry
that will not adversely affect the community.
To -ilize perfc=ance standards tc 4udge all industrial
proposals, and no industrial development proposal will
be accepted which would result in air or water pollution,
exessive noise, odors, or in any way adversely affect
the local environment.
I. Environmental Land Use Policies Will Be:
1. To protect and enhance the environmental amenities of
Richfield.
2. To reduce the level of noise and air borne pollutants
in the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet area.
3. To establish an ongoing program of noise abatement
including vehicular noise monitoring and noise abatement
signs.
4. To encourage programs which reduce energy consumption
and promote conservation of resources.
-54-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 438
Agenda December 15, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: 1981 Capital Improvement Budget
As I related to you earlier, the city council has a meeting
scheduled on December 15, to handle a number of different matters.
First on the agenda at 6:30 p.m., is a joint meeting with the En-
ergy Commission as part of your continuing effort to meet with boards
and commissions in the city and generate a close working relation-
ship with them. That meeting wili take place in the council chambers
and will immediately precede the HRA meeting scheduled for 7:30 p.m.
The HRA meeting will include a couple of topics which will
probably interest the council members. One is the potential pur-
chase of the property referred to as the Naegele property, which is
40 on the northeast corner of 66th Street and Nicollet Avenue, and the
second is a discussion of the potential purchase of the old Clark
station property, which is located at 66th Street and Pillsbury
Avenue. The city council will reconvene after the adjournment of
the HRA meeting.
Last month the city council began initial review of the Capital
Improvement Budget for 1981. Another copy of that Capital Improve-
ment Budget is enclosed with this council letter. The Planning
Commission has finalized their review of the Capital Improvement
Program and has transmitted it to the city council. The council
des i red ha -ve Tmorove-.-ent Program prior to finishing
the Capital Improvement Budget for 1981. At the December 15 meeting,
it would be appropriate for the city council to discuss the remain-
ing elements of the Capital Imprcv:?r:,ent budget.
It would facilitate matters if the council members could
bring copies of the Capital Improvement Program ,•;"-ich was recently
transmitted to you to this council meeting.
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
Res ectfully submitted,
-0 ?4
C1 ?Lj = o
i U 4.j G a
CZ U -4 O 00
•r•1 p a r+
L7 -a
r^
I L4
C o c o O C c O O O O C) 0 0 O O O C O
C C O C O O O O
C O C O Ln O C ?
O C C^ -- O 11 -+ • +
L'1 G- a^, N V 00 ul '-'1
"T 'n .•-i N cl, In t? ?=
v: O C O C O O 0 0 <n O C
a 005 6 0 0 = O C o O C R C C
1-? c o o C C C O O O G O O O -f O O
^ n
U :J w I N L^. C O O C - ul O U1 G oc
?n
•? 'J r-+ .-+ ? , r`
v O v1
O C ff ^
G=a Q , Ur
N ?
CIO
_ < C C d C J ?? s L
s n ? s n n s cl cn f C U,) U: z n J
tr CO C "-' O O ^ C C C C C ?? ? ^, O
+ I C C O O C O C G O CD O O O O O c G C O O
:-,
=
U
occ c
c0
o,-Dc 0 0 C-1r0O
c?0
_
C> ?i O N N cn
r-i
a 00 C o
"? J\ O O O ? O
:? c1I ? O C -' C
v} 1 1
-n
C? J ^I C C O O ,D c
C
-Lj C \? C C
7
-Z C7 C7 C
e,
U n n n n n
M U1 f ?' lI'1 N
C > - \ - N n
P-4
O
CD
I
v
^
G r?
N
G3 O .--1 C' N
O C O ? C ?
C,C CCl
tf'1
?
I
C 11
CO
N
1 t
I <n-1
cc ?c
:r
x x
? s-
7O C o c o 0 0 C -0 O O
O C O In O C C- C
U :-? O O C O"O N C _ C C r? O O C G? C
r C O O O O C C ?D c C 0 0<? O O 00 C
':1 L7 n n .. n n n n n n n
N O Ll G V N O O C O n ^.
G G G r? N
O C, c c _
O C - co ^ O
N U 7 O -? co CcrD co ? - N
f ? n n n
yr ?
/1 J
!t1 r-+ to (n in J
L c0 ? i-1 :" 1
0 73
C7 ?4
yI C G I G v7 r a I cJ
? -4 C?
I
a v 3 U
J
I
U r
>
? J
IL4
GI
:i, >1 C5 ..1 ?? s •4tn d
"YG > J C 'w U 1 If? J 7 C]
.? a C r\ r, s. 1-4
u
- n a
U
-
1-1 I :-? ` I N •.-d J 1--1 1J C I ^ L •.a .-4 -4 cn n 7: U
J
U c' I G U? •? C c- C - -;l 1.1 la -4 L > >l D -C a C
U
:J cn r-4 ra 'D
J Ci :?
I
? s
l I w I
N
O
L1
n
yr
TOTAL REVENUES ANTICIPATED
TO FUND 1981 CAPITAL BUDGET, BY SOURCE
Special Revenues (SR) $ 605,000
Federal Grants (FG) 394,177
State Monies (MISA) 786,298
Special Assessment Bonds (SA Bonds) 1,677,000
Private (P) C,000
Federal Aid Ur"an (FAU) 519,000
Hennepin Count, (C) 967 ,000
Revenue (RS) 183,109
Pe=anent Improvement Revolving Fund (PI ;) 300,000
Total S -3' X32
40
CITY CF RIC101FIET D, MI INES0TA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 437
Agenda December 15, 1930
The Honorable Mayor
and
members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Sidewalk Construction
At the December 8, 1980 city council meeting, the city council
held a public hearing concerning sidewalk construction on 76th
Street from Cedar Avenue to Xerxes Avenue. After hearing from
number of residents adjoining 76th Street, the city council passed
a resolution which directed the city staff to prepare plans and
specifications for the construction of sidewalks on the north
side of 76th Street from Cedar Avenue to Portland Avenue. This
action effectively deletes the sidewalk construction along 76th
Street on the south side from Cedar Avenue to 135, and Sheridan
Avenue to Xerxes Avenue.
• In light of this action, the city council should discuss the
overall sidewalk policy resolution which was adopted by the city
council in November, 1900. At that time, the council indicated
that sidewalks should be constructed on both sides of arterial
streets in the community, and on one side of the collector streets.
The city council designated 76th Street from Lyndale Avenue west
an arterial street at the December 8, 1930 city council meeting.
Perhaps the city council should give consideration to the assess-
ment policy for sidewalks in the community. At the present time,
the policy indicates that 20 percent of the cost of construction
of the sidewalks will be assessed against adjoining properties,
based u.pcn the smallest of the two dimensions of the property.
The safety implications of s-lewalks on both sides of arterial
streets in my estimation is so important that the city council
should seriously consider eliminating any assessment for sidewalks
adjacent to these streets, and pay for the construction of the
sidewalks from Aiunicipal State Aid funds. One other alternative
is to eliminate the assessment on residential property and to
continue to assess for commercial properties. In the last two
communities that I have served in city management, deaths of teen-
agers have resulted from the lack of sidewalks on both sides of
arterial streets. Teenagers walking along the gutters of the
street after dark became traffic fatalities in both communities
due to inadequate pedestrian space. On both occasions, citizens
appeared enmasse at council meetings criticizing the city coun-
cil for not taking action on matters of this sort until after
it is too late for some individuals. While I am quite reluctant
zo use those types of emotional arguments in a public meeting
Council Letter No. 437 -2- December 15, 1980
such as was held on December 8, 1980, I do feel compelled to relate
• ^--"1•' CO ^Cr i -c you can
discuss them in a less emotionally charged atmosphere on December
15, 1980. I would recommend that the city council give additional
consideration and discussion to sidewalk construction for 1981
either on 76th Street or on other arterial streets in the community
and to reconsider the assessment policy if that is going to severely
hamper public safety.
Respectfully submitted,
a p jj
J ?
hari Plollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: Director Community Development
Director Administrative Services
Director Community Services
0
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 379
Agenda October 27, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Sidewalk Improvement Program Policy
At the October 13, 1980 council meeting, the city council dis-
cussed a program for improving the city's sidewalk network. At that
time, the staff was requested to develop a resolution for future coun-
cil consideration which would outline the sidewalk pciicy discuss-
ions tentatively established by the city council at that meeting.
The attached resolution would establish the following sidewalk
policy:
1. Sidewalks shall be constructed on both sides of all
arterial streets within the city, as indicated in
Exhibit B.
2. Sidewalks shall be constructed on one side of all
collector streets within the city, as indicated in
Exhibit D.
3. The special assessment for sidewalks constructed
adjacent to residential property is set at 20% of the
front foot cost. The special assessment for side-
walks constructed adjacent to commercial property
shall be 50% of the front foot cost.
4. Handicap ramps will be constructed at all inter-
sections where new sidewalk construction occurs.
In addition, handicap ramps will be built on all
existing sidewalk intersections if such have not
previously been built.
Almost all of the sidewalks on arterial and collector streets
are eligible for funding through the Municipal State Aid (M.S.A.)
Fur yas tax revenues). Cost estimates for construction of side-
walks on arterial and collector streets, as described in the policy,
are included in Exhibits A and C. Exhibit E shows future city projects
scheduled to be financed with M.S.A. Funds, according to the proposed
1980-86 Capital Improvement Budget and program. In line with the
council's expressions at the last meeting, I have increased the fund-
ing f sidewalks in order to complete the arterial system in 1981
and 1982 and the collector system in 1983. In that program, $160,000
Council Letter No. 379 -2- October 27, 1980
per year has been set aside for sidewalk construction. The 1981
cost estimates should be fairly accurate, both as to cost and tim-
ing and money.
The project as proposed will be financed with an estimated
$160,000 per year of M.S.A. monies and approximately $25,000 in
special assessment funds. This $185,000 will construct 18,500
feet of sidewalk or approximately 28 long city blocks. This project
size would provide the economy of scale to hold unit prices down.
The staff recommends that the council instigate a sidewalk proj-
ect beginning next year following the schedule depicted below.
1981 18,750 feet 76th Street
1982 12,250 feet All remaining arterial (except Lyndale
between 67th and I-494)
1983 14,700 feet Collector Streets
1982 12,000 feet Lyndale Avenue (67th to I-494)
In conjunction with the street project.
Adoption of the resolution enclosed will initiate this activity.
If this project and others move forward, an analysis of staffing
and/or consulting relationships with engineers will be necessary.
A resolution actually beginning the special assessment process and
calling a public hearing will be available at the October 27 city
council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City f4anager
KN/jf
cc: Community Development Director
Administrative Services Director
City Engineer
RESOLUTION v0,
WHEREAS, the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota desires to
construct a unified pedestrian system in Richfield,
BE IT NOW RESOLVED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota
that a sidewalk policy be adopted, as follows:
1. The arterial street of 66th Street, 76th Street, Penn
Avenue, Lyndale Avenue, Nicollet Avenue, and Portland Avenue shall
have sidewalks on both-sides of the street.
2. The collector streets of 65th Street from Xerxes Avenue to
Penn Avenue and Rae Drive to Nicollet Avenue; 67th Street from Nic-
ollet Avenue to Portland Avenue; 69th Street from Xerxes Avenue to
I-359; 70th Street from Lyndale Avenue to Diagonal Boulevard; 73rd
Street from Lyndale Avenue to Diagonal Boulevard; Lake Shore Drive
from 66th Street to Lyndale Avenue; 12th Avenue from 66th Street to
I-494; Bloomington :venue from 62nd Ste?_17_ to 66t1', Street; Cedar
Avenue from 63rd Street to 77th Street; Standish Avenue from 63rd
Street to 66th Street and Diagonal Boulevard, shall have sidewalk
installed on one side of the street. If no sidewalks exist on east-
west arterial streets, new sidewalks will be installed on the north
side of the street. If part of the street has existing sidewalks,
continuity shall be maintained.
3. Second Avenue from 77th Street to the I-494 pedestrian over-
pass, shall have a sidewalk on one side.
4. All single family and two-family residential property shall
be assessed 20% of the front foot cost for new sidewalk construction.
All other properties shall be assessed 500 of the front foot cost.
5. If a single family or two family lot has new sidewalks cbn-
structea cn t-wo sides of the lot, the total assessment shall be no
more than 20 of the front foot cost times the shorter dimension.
6. All curbs that the sidewalk crosses shall be reconstructed
for a handicap ramp.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 27th
day of October, 1980.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
0
Sylvia R. Bergh, Acting City Clerk
0
•
?.J
YEAR
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
198X
M.S.A. CONSTRUCTION BUDGET
ITEM EXPENDITURE ALLOTMENT
April Balance
Portland and C.S.A. 62
Traffic Signal $ 3,161
CP742 - Lyndale 65th-66th 53,298
TOTAL 1980 Expenditures $ 56,459
December Balance
January Allotment
CP7052 $152,000
CP7053 473,000
Sidewalks 160,000
Corporate Travel
Signals 76th & 494 20,000
TOTAL 1981 Expenditures $805,000
December Balance
January Allotment
Sidewalks $160,000
Lyndale Avenue 67th/494 600,000
TOTAL 1982 Expenditures $760,000
December Balance
January Allotment
Sidewalks $160,000
66th Penn to Xerxes 250,000
66th & Penn 200,000
TOTAL 1983 Expenditures $610,000
December Balance
January Allotment
TOTAL 1984 Expenditures $ - 0'-
December Balance
January Allotment
66th & Portland Inter-
section S150,G^n
TOTAL Expenditures $150,000
December Balance
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$1 ,124,000
$1,067,541
$562,541
$102,541
($207,459)
$ 92,541
$242,541
EXHIBIT A
.? ; a .2 Length of
Arterial Streets Uncompleted Sidewalk
66th Street
76t._ Street
Penn Avenue
Lyndale Avenue
Nicol-let Avenue
Portland Avenue
900
18,750
7,600
14,250
1 ? !1 J
300
Total Length 43,000
43,000 Lin. Ft. @ $10.00/Lin. Ft. = $430,000
0
W
H
3
Q
H
U]
a
lN''
W
W
1
C•:
z
0
c?
E-1
Cf)
r a,. v, ?Y i
r. w.me, J J 1 -
I t 7 • i i t f : c R [ [ [
C
i
EXHIBIT C
Collector Streets
Approximate Length of
Uncompleted Sidewalk
65th Street, Penn, - Xe=es Avenue
69th Street, Humboldt - Xerxes Avenues
73rd Street, 12th, Lyndale, Portland Avenues
Lake Shore Drive, 66th Street - Lyndale Ave.
Diagonal Blvd., 12th Avenue - Cedar :Venues
12th Avenue, 761-11, - 78th Streets
Cedar Avenue, 63rd - 77th Streets
Total Length
14,760 Lin. Ft. @ $10.00/Lin. Ft. = $147,000
1,500
5,100
2,400
1,100
2,900
1,200
500
14,700
go
0
3
W
Q
0
H
U
w
• a
O
U
O
E-I
w
C7
E-4
w
Exhibit D
¦"1 b ice` ? 3
C t C C
J T '.Y it J
T ? V
? . .., .aaw.a
r ; :E
?- - 3
6 ru
G
v
U? 7:l
U
C
x ?4
c