07-25-1995CITY Of R10HRELD
PLRnninG commission
nannfl
July 25, 1995
7:00 p.m.
l ll ('gill
Regular Planning Commission meeting of June 27, 1995. Planning Commission study
session of July 11, 1995.
ITEM #1 95 -RZ -1 Rezone 2400 West 64th Street, 6400 -6444 Queen
Avenue, 2401 -21 West 65th Street, 2400 -20 West
65 1/2 Street, 2412 West 66th Street, 2405 -09 West
66th Street, 2204 -28 East 66th Street, 2720 -30 West
66th Street, 2020 East 66th Street
NC"W i UtilI1<'titi
ITEM #2 ILN Update HRA Selection of Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. as
Consultant to the Project
Md
Comprehensive Plan Work Schedule
Community Goals and Objectives
Symbols and Definitions
School Board
Community Services Advisory Commission
HRA
City Council
AdHoc 135/1494 Traffic Committee
i)UI lZl11e"lt
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
June 27, 1995
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela Dmytrenko,
Timothy Erlander, David Gepner, Mitchell Hadley, Kevin Hansen,
Dawn Postudensek, Kristal Stokes, and Paul Wasko
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor
STAFF PRESENT: Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:03
p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioners Stokes and Dmytrenko asked for a change in the minutes regarding the
School Board liaison report. Commissioner Dmytrenko requested an expansion of what
implementation of the GREAT program in the junior high would signify. Chairperson Linnihan
recommended spelling out the GREAT acronym to indicate that it was a Gang Resistance,
Education and Training Program.
M/Stokes, S/Dmytrenko to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission
meeting off May 23, 1995 with the correction to the School Board liaison report.
Motion carried: 9 -0
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM #1 Tax Increment Financing
Mark Ruff and Sid Inman, Publicorp
Sid Inman of Publicorp, the City's financial consultants, began a presentation on tax
increment financing (TIF) stating that they would provide an introduction to what tax increment
financing is, especially in relation to its use in Richfield. Inman explained that a tax increment is
simply the increase in property value on a piece of property after improvements have been made.
There has been some debate over the use of TIF on raw land versus true redevelopment which has
led to a number of changes and some tightening in the regulations over the past several years.
Because Richfield uses TIF for true redevelopment projects, the changes should not greatly affect
its future use in Richfield. Inman reported that Richfield primarily uses the But/For analysis -- but
for TIF, the project would not go forward -- to determine whether or not a project has a valid
need for TIF.
Inman explained that a project area is the general geographic area within which tax
increments can be spent. Districts are created within the project area and are the specific parcels
from which a tax increment will be captured. Pooling is a tool often used where the tax increment
earned from a project can be used throughout the project area. The amount that can be "pooled"
has been restricted to 25 percent of the increment.
There are several different types of districts that can be created. The requirements can
change depending on the type of district and when it was created. Richfield uses Redevelopment
Districts. Other districts include Renovation and Renewal, Soils Condition (was eliminated this
year), Housing, and Economic Development. There is also a Hazardous Substance subdistrict
which can be used to clean up a polluted site but is difficult to establish. The City's Cedar
Avenue Business Area (CABA) is an Economic Development District.
Mark Ruff explained the process that is followed to create a new TIF plan or modify an
old one. The TIF authority must notify the school and the County. They must also bring it to the
Planning Commission for a ruling that the TIF plan is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
The City Council must also approve the plan.
The tax increment can only be spent on public or qualified costs including land acquisition,
site improvements, public and on -site utilities, demolition, relocation and administration. If the
authority owns the project, the increment can be used for virtually all parts of the project.
There are two types of financing used with TIF, bonds and Pay As You Go. The City
generally uses Pay As You Go, which requires the development to secure its own financing. The
authority reimburses the developer from the tax increment as it's collected.
A penalty is now placed on a City's Local Government Aid for districts created after
1990. The penalty is based on the state school aid formula. The Legislature has added several
other restrictions over the years because it has felt that the use of TIF has increased too rapidly.
These restrictions affect Richfield's districts differently depending on when the district was
created. The Lyndale- Hub - Nicollet (LHN) district will be going away in 2001. Interstate -
Lyndale- Nicollet (ILN) was created in 1985, CABA and Penn/66th in the late 1980s, and
Richfield Rediscovered three to four years ago.
Inman further explained the But/For test. This test asks, but for the use of TIF, would this
project go forward? The City requires a pro forma from developers that shows the cost and
return of the project without tax increment. Publicorp reviews the pro forma and determines what
amount the developer is short in terms of making the deal work, or making the necessary return
on equity. Inman explained that the City has never had legislative criticism on how a tax
increment has been calculated.
Inman reported that TIF does not affect the school district because the district makes up
the "loss" of its share of the tax increment through state aid. The state, county and city are the
ones who lose the contribution of the increment to the general tax fund for the life of the tax
increment. Inman stated that there are two documents available for the Commissioners to review.
The TIF plans for each district and the development agreement of each project are on file in
Community Development.
In response to a clarification question from Chairperson Linnihan, Inman explained that
TIF is used to create a level playing field. In redevelopment areas, the TIF helps to make the site
equal to another. Inman further explained that there are projects in a district that receive no TIF
but pay into it. In the case of CSM, it will be a district until 2011. In that area, the tax base was
declining. Without TIF, CSM would not have been developed.
Ruff explained that TIF also gives the City the ability to choose the developer for a site
and to have more control over what happens.
Commissioner Gepner asked if the County is subsidizing us with TIF. Inman explained
that the City is losing its share as well, but it depends on whether or not the City believes the
development wouldn't have happened without TIF. If it wouldn't have happened, there would
have been no increase to lose. Counties use TIF too. In the case of LHN, all of the increment
will be added to the tax base in 3 to 4 years.
Chairperson Linnihan asked how the return on equity is determined. Inman responded
that it's determined by the market -- it's a function of investments.
Commissioner Gepner asked if there are firms like Publicorp representing the developer.
Inman explained that it's not the usual case but most good developers, like CSM, have
knowledgeable staff. Publicorp's fees are actually paid by the developer.
In response to a question from Commissioner Dmytrenko, Inman explained that the
original tax amount gets divided among the same group. The tax increment goes to the HRA (the
City's authority). The HRA agrees to pay CSM back for demolition and other costs. Once the
time period is up, the City, schools, and other groups get their share of the increment. The
important thing is that CSM wouldn't have happened without TIF. The increment is based on an
amount, so there are pre -pay options. In the case of CABA, some of the increment is currently
being given to the schools and the City.
ITEM #2 Request for Proposal for City Hall Open House
Zoning Administrator Urban explained that staff would like the Planning Commission to
be represented at the City Hall Open House on Saturday, October 14. The Open House is being
cosponsored, in part, by the Diversity Connection and is to promote City services as well as how
the City is addressing diversity. Staff would like to see the Planning Commission develop an
event in one of the event categories and respond to the Request for Proposals (RFP).
Chairperson Linnihan responded that the Comprehensive Plan and the ILN redevelopment
planning process are the two main projects the Commission is working on, and the Open House
would provide an opportunity to explain those projects to residents.
Commissioner Postudensek expressed concern that the Planning Commission consider the
recent changes in Met Council requirements for Comp Plans before moving too far forward on its
Plan. It was requested that Commissioner Postudensek send staff information that she has on the
changes and that Zoning Administrator Urban check with the Met Council before the study
session on July 1 l .
Chairperson Linnihan asked the Commissioners to give an Open House proposal some
thought before the next meeting. The Commission will address the issue again on the 1 Ith.
OLD BUSINESS
Commissioner Wasko asked where staff was in implementing a GIS system. Staff
explained that staff has not had the recently time to address this issue. Commissioner Wasko
recommended that Commissioner Postudensek explore the possibility of having St. Louis Park
staff present a demonstration on GIS to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Postudensek asked the status of the study session schedule to give her a
better idea of when to schedule a presentation. Chairperson Linnihan responded that the schedule
needs to be revised to focus on the two main tasks the Planning Commission is working on. The
Commission hopes to have both the Comprehensive Plan and the ILN Redevelopment Plan in
place by the beginning of the year.
Chairperson Linnihan explained the status of the ILN redevelopment planning. Planning
consultants have been invited to present proposals to the City as to how they would approach the
project. Proposals are due on June 30th and interviews will be held on July 5th and 6th. The
HRA will select a consultant at its July meeting. The consultants have been given a "white board"
to develop a plan for the area, taking into consideration the issues important in Richfield such as
the need for buffers, parking, and resident input.
Chairperson Linnihan explained that parking was a primary problem in the area that needs
to be addressed. Also there is an opportunity to create a more distinctive gateway to the City. At
a minimum, the solution could be to paint and fix up the area. At the maximum, the area could be
completely redeveloped. It was stressed that whatever plan is developed, the final solution needs
to be supported by the market.
Commissioner Erlander requested that copies of the old ILN redevelopment plan be
distributed to Commissioners. Chairperson Linnihan explained that the September and October
study sessions would likely address the Comprehensive Plan and the ILN project.
LIAISON REPORTS
School Board: Commissioner Dmytrenko reported that the Board has hired a new
Superintendent, Dr. Barbara Devlin, to a three -year contract. While her contract begins July 1,
she will not start until mid - August. A new high school principal, Paul Reckewey, has also been
hired. The Board adopted the 1995 -99 Capital Improvement Program, which includes an $8 /pupil
technology fee. The Board is planning to increase school security, especially on nights and week-
ends.
Commissioner Dmytrenko explained that the 1995 -96 budget was also adopted. State aid
increased by $81 per pupil, for a 2.2% increase in the general fund, however, the cost of
abatements will lower the effective increase. The district will also receive lower transportation
funding next year, which will likely mean a lowering of services although no specific
programmatic decisions have been made.
The Board approved continuation of the Media Technology Program. The Board held a
discussion of the lower test scores pupils received in some areas of the standardized tests and
directed the District to explore the areas where scores were down. The Board also directed staff
to explore changing the high school system from a trimester to a semester system.
Community Services Advisory Commission: Commissioner Stokes reported that the
Commission did not have a quorum at their last meeting, so they did not hold an official meeting.
HRA: No report given.
City Council: Mayor Kirsch reported that the Council accepted the financial audit which
showed City finances to be in good shape. The Council revisited the issue of the veterinarian at
the Petfood Warehouse in Market Plaza. The application for a license was defeated 3 -2.
Ad Hoc Traffic Committee: No report given.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:43 p.m.
Timothy Erlander
Planning Commission Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Study Session
July 11, 1995
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela Dmytrenko,
Timothy Erlander, David Gepner, Mitchell Hadley, Kevin Hansen,
Dawn Postudensek, Kristal Stokes, and Paul Wasko
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
STEERING COMMITTEE: Bob Killian, Bob Nelson, Gertrude Ulrich, Sue Sandahl
STAFF PRESENT: Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
The Planning Commission study session was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at
7:10 p.m.
Don Brauer, President of The Brauer Group, Inc., gave a presentation on the status of the
Comprehensive Plan. Brauer explained that he had pulled together the work that has already been
done on the Plan and created a Table of Contents and an Executive Summary. The Plan can be
broken down into five parts including the Executive Summary, Background and Analysis, the `95
Plan Elements, the Development Guide Workbook, and Supporting Documentation.
Brauer explained that he has hired Bill Weaver, former Richfield City Planner, to help him
complete the project. Planning Commission members expressed some concern over a potential
conflict of interest. Brauer responded that it seemed most efficient to use Mr. Weaver because of
the work he's already done and because of his computer skills. Community Development
Director Wallace has given his approval for the hiring.
Brauer continued the presentation by looking specifically at one of the sub -areas the
Steering Committee had identified, the I -494 Corridor. Brauer presented an example of how the
Guide Plan could be developed, based on the values and goals that have been identified.
Brauer stated that a Guide Plan uses more general classifications than the Zoning
Ordinance does. He showed one example where an area could be classified as high density
housing based on the goal of maintaining the City's population. Committee member Killian
pointed out that supporting home ownership is also a goal and pointed out that diversifying the
housing stock to increase the number of families was a way to maintain the population.
Commissioner Wasko requested that Mr. Brauer identify for the Committee and Commission
where other values and goals are conflicting.
Mr. Brauer explained the different classifications he used in his sample Guide Plan. The
classifications include low, medium and high density housing; regional and community
commercial; quasi- public; public; and vacant. Chairperson Linnihan suggested that we need to
have criteria or a test for determining how areas of the City should be classified and what the
Guide Plan should look like. The Commission and Committee may also want to bring in outside
people to help them find ways to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Plan. Steering
Committee Member Ulrich suggested Phil Cohen as a possible resource for addressing the issue
of developing replacement housing for seniors and consequently freeing up houses for families
with children.
Discussion followed regarding the future schedule for completing the Plan. The goal is for
the Comprehensive Plan to be completed by January. Future meetings will be held on the 2nd and
4th Tuesdays of the month. At the July 25 Planning Commission, Don Brauer will present a
review of the values and goals and point out where they are conflicting. The presentation will
start at 7:30 following the regular Planning Commission business. Mr. Brauer will send a letter to
the Steering Committee members explaining the status of the Comprehensive Plan, what the
proposed schedule is, and invite them to participate.
Chairperson Linnihan updated the Commission on the status of hiring a consultant to
direct the ILN Redevelopment planning process. Four consultants responded to the City's
request for proposals. Camiros, BRW, RLK, and Hoisington - Koegler submitted proposals. Staff
will recommend Hoisington - Koegler to the HRA on Monday, July 17. Chairperson Linnihan
explained that Hoisington- Koegler's approach was the most appropriate for Richfield. The
Planning Commission will be attending neighborhood meetings and participating in planning
workshops with the Council and HRA, Members may also want to attend door -to -door
interviews with residents and business owners. Commissioners will receive a summary of the
Hoisington- Koegler proposal with their next agenda packet.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:10 p.m.
Timothy Erlan Jer-—___
Planning Commission Secretary
tiyti'`•ti j
ti 4 CITY OF RIOHFIELD
PLnnninG oommission
Motion Request
Item: #1 Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Case: #95 -RZ -1 Date: July 25, 1995
GENERAL INFORMATION
Petitioner: City of Richfield
Location: • 2400 West 64th Street & 6400 -6444 Queen Avenue South
2401 -21 West 65th Street, 2400 -20 West 65 1/2 Street, and 2412 West
66th Street
2405 -09 West 66th Street
2720 -30 West 66th Street
2020 East 66th Street
2204 -28 East 66th Street
Type of Request: Rezoning
Current Zoning: MR (multiple residence)
Land Use: • 2400 West 64th Street is occupied by a private school.
The property at 6400 -6444 Queen Avenue is occupied by two 20 -unit
apartment buildings.
The West 65th and 65 1/2 Street properties are occupied by single family
homes. 2412 West 66th Street is occupied by a single family home.
2405 West 66th Street is occupied by a 7 -unit apartment building. 2409
West 66th Street is occupied by a single family home that is used for
offices.
The property at 2720 and 2730 West 66th Street is occupied by two 23-
unit apartment buildings.
The property at 2020 East 66th Street is a single family home
2200 East 66th Street is a vacant lot. The property at 2216 -2228 East
66th Street is occupied by four 4 -unit apartment buildings. The remaining
East 66th Street properties are occupied by single family homes.
Comp. Plan: • The properties at 2400 West 64th Street, 6400 -6444 Queen Avenue, 2720-
2730 West 66th Street, and 2405 -2409 West 66th Street are classified as
mixed land use.
The property at 2412 West 66th Street and the East 66th Street properties
are classified as medium density buffer.
The West 65th and 65 1/2 Street properties are classified as single family
residential.
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: Section 515.37, of the old zoning code, outlines the requirements of the MR
district.
Section 545.07, of the existing code, outlines the procedure for zoning
amendments.
MN State Statute: Chapter 462 outlines the procedure for zoning amendments
ACTION
Proposed Change: • Rezone 2400 West 64th Street to R (single family residential).
Rezone 6400 -6444 Queen Avenue to MR -3 (high density multi - family
residential).
Rezone 2401 -2421 West 65th Street, 2400 -2420 West 65 1/2 Street, and
2412 West 66th Street to R (single family residential).
Rezone 2405 West 66th Street to MR -2 (medium density multi - family
residential).
Rezone 2409 West 66th Street to C -2 (general commercial).
Rezone 2720 -2730 West 66th Street to MR -3 (high density multi - family
residential).
Rezone 2020 East 66th Street to R (single family residential).
Rezone 2200 -2208 East 66th Street to R (single family residential).
Rezone 2216 -2228 East 66th Street to MR -2 (medium density multi - family
residential).
Staff
Recommendation: Approve the rezonings.
HISTORY
Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing was
mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a first reading of the City Council
for August 14, 1995. The City Council public hearing and second reading
would be tentatively scheduled for September 11, 1995.
ANALYSIS
Background: In the past several years, staff has analyzed the zoning code and districts in
order to bring them up to date with current land use practices and the
comprehensive plan. Planning staff found that the MR (multiple residence)
zone is no longer effective because the provisions are incomplete, too
generalized, outdated, and ambiguous. The MR district has no density
limitation and incorporates the single family uses of the R district as well as
two family, multiple, and group housing developments. As a result, staff
has proposed to eliminate the MR classification by rezoning all such
properties to a classification which is better suited to the existing land use
and which is in compliance with the comprehensive plan.
The MR district was the original and only multi - family district when
Richfield's growth occurred. Later, the MR -1 (two family), MR -2
medium density multi - family), and MR -3 (high density multi - family)
districts were created to provide more precise controls for the expanding
variety of multi - family housing. When the MR -1, MR -2, and MR -3
districts were added, most MR zoned land was rezoned to fit into that
classification system, The intention was for all MR zoned land to be
rezoned. At the time this MR rezoning process was initiated by staff in
1993, approximately 90 parcels of land in about 25 areas of the City were
still zoned MR. At this time, 28 parcels of land in three areas of the City
are zoned MR.
The proposed zoning district designations for the subject properties are
consistent with the existing land use and, therefore, will be conforming
uses. This rezoning will eliminate all but one MR parcel. Rezoning for the
one remaining parcel will be initiated by Lund's, Inc. in the next couple of
months.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the rezoning of the subject
properties from MR to R, MR -2, MR -3, and C -2 (see attached rezoning
plans).
Basis: 1. This rezoning will help to bring the zoning map up to date with current
land use practices and the comprehensive plan. None of the uses will
become nonconforming as a result of the rezoning.
2. The newly revised and adopted zoning code does not include an MR
zone. This rezoning would complete the transition to the revised zoning
code by redesignating these properties.
3. The proposed R zoning is most appropriate for the existing single
family and private school uses and would ensure that higher density
development (as allowed under the MR provisions) does not occur.
4. The proposed MR -2 zoning is most appropriate for the existing 4 -unit
and 7 -unit apartment buildings and would ensure that higher density
development does not occur. The MR -2 classification allows buildings
with eight or fewer units.
5. The proposed MR -3 zoning is most appropriate for the existing 20 -unit
and 23 -unit apartment buildings while offering proper regulatory
control for future land uses. The MR -3 district allows multi - family
dwellings with 20 or fewer units. Dwellings with more than 20 units
are allowed as a conditional use.
6. The proposed C -2 zoning is most appropriate for the existing office use
and is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the parcel
as mixed land use.
Alternative' Recommend that the City Council deny the request with a finding of fact
that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding
properties or the City as a whole.
CITATIONS
ZONING CODE:
515.37. Use regulations for multiple residence (MR) district. Subdivision 1. Permitted uses.
Subsections 515.37 to 515.65 apply to the MR district. In the MR district, unless otherwise specified
in this code, the following uses are permitted:
a) any use permitted in an R district, subject to the same conditions as are applicable to an R
district;
b) two family dwellings and their accessory buildings;
c) multiple family structures when application is made therefor and duly approved by the city
council pursuant to section 535 of this code.
Subd. 2. Height regulations. No building shall be erected or structurally altered in the MR district
to exceed three stories in height, subject to the modifications and exceptions provided in subsection
540 of this code.
Subd. 3. Lot area, frontage, and yard requirements. The following minimum requirements apply
to buildings in the MR district hereafter erected or structurally altered subject to the modifications
provided in section 540 of this code.
a) Lot area. A building designed for the housing of one family shall conform to the area
requirements applicable to an R district. Every building designed for two families shall have a lot in
one ownership having not less than 10,000 square feet. A building designed for more than two
families shall have a lot area as determined under the provisions of section 540 of this code.
b) Yard requirements. Front, side and rear yard requirements shall be the same in an MR district
as in an R district.
546.07. Zoning amendments. Subdivision 1. Initiation of Amendment. An amendment of this code
may be initiated by the Planning Commission, Council, or by petition of the owners of not less than 50
percent of the land proposed to be rezoned and by the owners of at least 50 percent of the land within
300 feet of the land proposed to be rezoned. Properties owned by federal, state, municipal entities, or
other political subdivisions shall be excluded from any computation of the percentage of land necessary
for rezoning petitions initiated by landowners.
Subd. 2. Application. An application for a change in the boundaries of a zoning district made
by the owner of the property shall be submitted to the Director on forms provided by the City.
Subd. 3. Planning Commission review. After receipt of a completed application, a date shall
be set for consideration before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may
offer whatever public notice of its review that it deems necessary. Following this
consideration, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council regarding
the application.
Subd. 4. City Council consideration. After receipt of the recommendation of the Planning
Commission, the Council shall consider the matter at a first reading. The Council may offer
whatever public notice of its first reading review that it deems necessary. If the application is
approved for first reading, the Council shall set a date for a second reading and public hearing.
Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be published once in the official
newspaper. Notice regarding an amendment which involves a change in the boundaries of a
zoning district shall also be sent by mail to the applicant and all the owners of properties
located wholly or partially within 350 feet. The Council shall act upon the amendment within
120 days of submission of a completed application or such longer period not objected to by the
applicant. If the Council fails to make a timely decision, the amendment shall be deemed to
have been denied. The Council may adopt an amendment to this code only upon an affirmative
vote of at least two -thirds of its full membership.
Subd. 5. Issuance of building permit. No building permit for any building or structure may
be issued while proceedings for rezoning of the land wherein the structure is located or to be
located are pending, unless the permit would be permitted under both the existing zoning
classification and the proposed zoning classification for such area, or unless Council approval
is first obtained.
Subd. 6. Time limitation. Not more than one petition for the rezoning of any particular piece
of land shall be made within any twelve month period.
Subd. 7. Fee. The fee for a petition to rezone land is set by Appendix D of the City Code.
Subd. 8. Effective date. Amendments to this code shall be effective in accordance with
Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter.
M .
462357 PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFFECTUATION;,ZONING.
Subdivision I. Authority for zoning. For the purpose of promoting the public
health, safety, morals, and general welfare, a municipality may by ordinance regulate
on the earth's surface, in the air space above the surface, and in subsurface areas, the
location, height, width, bulk, type of foundation, number of stories, size of buildings
and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and
other open spaces, the density and distribution of population, the uses of buildings and
structures for trade, industry, residence, recreation, public activities, or other purposes,
and the uses of land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, agriculture, forestry, soil
conservation, water supply conservation, - conservation of shorelands, as defined in sec-
tions 103F.201 to 103F.221, access.to direct sunlight for solar energy systems as defined
in section 216C.06, flood control or other purposes, and may establish standards and
procedures regulating -such uses. No regulation may prohibit earth sheltered Construc-
tion as defined in section 216C.06, subdivision 2, relocated residential buildings, or
manufactured homes built in conformance with sections 327.31 to 327.35 that comply
with all other zoning ordinances promulgated pursuant to this section. The regulations
may divide the surface, above surface, and subsurface areas of the municipality into
districts or zones of suitable numbers, shape, and area. The regulations shall be uniform
for each class or kind of buildings, structures, or land and for each class or kind of use
throughout such district, but.the regulations in one district may differ from those in
other districts. The ordinance embodying these regulations shall be known as the zon-
ing ordinance and shall consist of text and maps. A city may by ordinance extend the
application of its zoning regulations to unincorporated territory located within two
miles of its limits in any direction, but not in a county or town which has adopted zon-
ing regulations; provided that where two or more noncontiguous municipalities have
boundaries less than four miles apart, each is authorized to control the zoning of land
on its side of a line equidistant between the two noncontiguous municipalities unless
a town or county in the affected area has adopted zoning regulations. Any city may
thereafter enforce such regulations in the area to the same extent as if such property
e were situated within its corporate limits, until the county or town board adopts a com-
prehensive zoning regulation which includes the area.
Subd. 2. General requirements. At any time after the adoption of a land use plan
for the municipality, the planning agency, for the purpose of carrying out the policies
and goals of the land use plan, may prepare a proposed zoning ordinance and submit
it to the governing body with its recommendations for adoption. Subject to the require-
ments of subdivisions 3,4 and 5, the governing body may adopt and amend a zoning
ordinance by a two-thirds vote of all its members. If the comprehensive municipal plan
is in conflict with the zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinance supersedes the plan.
Subd. 3. Public hearings. No zoning ordinance or amendment thereto shall be
adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by the planning agency or by the
governing body. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be pub-
lished in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days prior to the day of
the hearing. When an amendment involves changes in district boundaries affecting an
area of five acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed at least ten days before the
day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or
partly within 350 feet of the property to which the amendment relates. For the purpose
of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use any
appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of owners. A copy of the
notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall. be
attested to by the responsible person and shall be made a part of the records of the pro-
ceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects
in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to com-
ply with this subdivision has been made.
Subd. 4. Amendments. An amendment to a zoning ordinance may be initiated by
the governing body, the planning agency, or by petition of affected'property owners as
defined in the zonina ordinance. An amendment not initiated by the planning agency
shall be referred to the planning agency, if there is one, for study and report and may
not be acted upon by the governing body until it has received the recommendation of
the planning agency on the proposed amendment or until 60 days have elapsed from
the date of reference of the amendment without a report by the planning agency.
4
4
IFREZONING PLAN
EXISTING LAND USE EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING
J_
J
O
LL' O
J
aU LLj: LLj.
ui uj
w a °C > a: > a:
w Qa Z. W a z: W
W Q Z W
J > W > J W: :> J W: ;> Q QWjrWQW: :
U, w jL =
cn a U z p z
N — p z N :z to :z
m W :: W m W
64TH ST.
a 64TH ST.
a cc 64TH ST. a
f,. ....
Z( ....
O U ....
C ....
Nm H . .
Z J ..
CL
CY a .
Q ....
65TH ST. 65TH ST. 65TH ST.
2400 West 64th St.
6400 -44 . Queen Ave.
MR I =mom. PLANNINGNJ) MR -3 R ZONING
Comtnmtty pcvelopment DepartrneM
REZONING PLAN
EXISTING LAND USE EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING
65TH ST. 65TH ST. 65TH ST.
T
JJJ
J
w
NG E
J w J
J.
INGLE F MI 1 _ J
Q
J_
j,
vi 65 1 4V U N 65 1 2 ST. ate'
65 1 /2 ST. a, j
F WILY 2 Ac
S11 IGL O J
J
FAMILY
30 UNIT INGLE
J
APT. BLDG. AMILY ' j J
VAC.
JJJ JJJJJJ JJJ JJJJJJJ
66TH ST. 66TH ST. 66TH ST.
2401 -21 West 65th St.
2400 -20 West 65 1/2 St.
2412 West 66th St.
1•
miiEa imblaMm,
CITY OF
w A
RICHFIELD
1
a
r r r r
Z -O rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr i
IS 4199 ISOM OE-OZLZ
1S H199
B o o m
r r ,,•,rrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrr
i • r r r r. r r
r r r r r r
i rrrrrr ,rrrrr. rr rfrrrrr r
r r r r r r r r r
r rrr r r r r rrr r r r
M j
rrrrrrrrrrrrrr
rr
rrrrrrrrr
r r r r r r r r r r rrr r Z
r r r r rrrrr rrrrrrrr rrrr 0O••• r r r r r r
r r • r r rr rrrr r r rrr rn73
i
rrrrrrr
rrrr rrrr rr r Z
D
i
rrrrrrrrrrrrrr
r rrr r r r
vi i i rrrrr r r r r r r rrrrrrrrrnow •• r r r r r r r r r
rrr r r r
son •
r r r r r r r
rrrrrrrrrr ,
rrrrrrrrrrrr
D rrr
r"
rT,
JNINOZ a3SOdOdd
1S H199
r r r r r r r rrrrrrr
rrrrr r r r r r r r
r r r r r r r r r r r-
r r r r r r r r rrrrrrrrrrrrrr r
r r r r r r r r r
rr rr rrrrrrrr
r rrrrrrr
rrrrrrrrr
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
rrrrrrrr
r r r r r r r r
rr
r
Z
nOrrrrr
rrrrr r r r r rrrrrrrrrrrr rn
rrrrrrrr_ rrrrrrrrrrrrrr Z
D
rrrrrrrrrrrr
rrrrrrrrrrr
Df rr rrrr rr rr rrrr rf
rrrrrrrrr
m
M
JNINOZ ONIlSIX3
1S H199
3ldna
ldlOkl3 WOO
N -SJalB
Z 'ldd z
O nTllNflEZ
a n Ja zmOM1ldt/ N d
llNfl EZ
D n
M ladd m
3sn GNV_l JNIlSIX3
N.Vid ONIN07rdu
W
a
H
O
N
REZONING PLAN
EXISTING ZONING
65TH ST.
66TH ST.
LLI LJ
a a
N H
T- O
N N
PROPOSED ZONING
1111i 111111
i
I
I
i
i
i
I
I
i
11111ititl111
i
I
i
I
i
I IiI
I
11111111i
I
i
i
i
I
iiii
i
I
i
I
iiti
i
i
iit11111
iiiiii
II
i
111111111liltl
i
I
i
i
i
I
i
11111
i
I
i
lil1111i
Iitit
111
1111111
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
111
I
I
1111111
1
1111111
I
I
i
I
I
1 iiI 1i iiiiiiiliiililil liliIiIiiililiiili!
LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY EXCEPT 15 UNIT APT. BLDG. ON MR -2 PARCEL
2020 East 66th St.
w
a
N
r
N
MR f"16"4022uo
F MANNINGCITYO
RICHFIELD
ZONING
REZONING PLAN
EXISTING LAND USE
65TH ST.
x
W
F-A 11.11", Q J O
W VAC. W
Q W
FAM N LL
Q
Z Z Q
r
Z W
N SIN
N ILE Q M
FA ILY to
N
G a
ci S.
F M.
U ITS
a
PIS LL VAC.
Vf
66TH ST.
EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING
2204 -28 East 66th St.
IMIlm
1 4 4
rr rr
lili lil
rr n
I,I,I,Id
r
2204 -28 East 66th St.
H K
g 1
City of RICHFIELD
PROPOSAL
LYNDALE AVENUE
STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
JULY 5, 1995
Identify
What
Exists
Involve and
Communicate
with
Stakeholders
Explore
the
Possibilities
Demonstrate
How the Area
Should Look
Develop a
Strategy to
Get It Done
Seek Agreement
to
Move Forward
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
LYNDALE AVENUE STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Interview Outline - 9:30 a.m. - July 5, 1995
1. Introduction
o Team Qualifications
o Individual Team Members /Personnel
o What we are known for
2. Preliminary Observations /Needs Identification
3. Ammaroach
4. What Hoisington Koegler /Maxfield Will Do
5. Schedule
6. Summary
7. . Questions
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. / Maxfield Research Group Inc.
INTKODUCTION
Team Qualifications
5arne Team a5 Ottumwa and Little Canada
o Hoisington Koegler Group
o Maxfield Research Group
o Ehlers /Publicorp (under contract to Richfield)
0 HoiSington Koegler Group (Planners and Landscape Architects)
o In busine55 Since 1982
o Staff Size 10
o Over 60 years of Principal experience
o Served a5 both Consultants and }Tanning Directors
p 25 years of highly 5ucce55ful experience in "seeking" public involvement
o Excellent experience with Similar projects /client 5ati5faction
o Known for:
5trategic Planning
Inclusive participation
Framework planning and design
No real or perceived conflicts of interest
o Personnel- Fred HoiSington - AICP, Project Manager
Michael Schroeder - Registered Landscape Architect
Tracey 5ecula - Urban Planner
0 Maxfield Research Group (Market Research)
In bu5ine55 Since 1983
0 5taff Size 8
o Highly credible research
o Significant repeat bu5ine55
a Personnel - Mary Bujold - 5enior Market 5pecialist
Thomas Melchior - Director of Research
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. / Maxfield Research Group Inc.
PRELIMINARY O135ERVATION5 /NEED5 IDENTIFICATION
Existing business development does not meet contemporary standards
structures or parking). There io a need for improvement.
End result must be market driven.
Neighborhoods on either Side are in excellent condition but potentially
vulnerable.
Lj Any viable commercial development may require the use of adjacent
residential property.
LJ City prefers not to remove housing to accommodate commercial
development.
Virtually any redevelopment proposal will be controversial, potentially
removing both businesses and residences. This will be further complicated
by the use of TIF.
LLj The public will get involved in the process whether or not invited.
The City wants a plan of action, not just a land use plan.
WHAT IS NEEDED?
A Strategic Development flan that objectively
considers all options and trade -offs, includes broad
stakeholder participation, settles on a course of action
and def ines action steps to get it done.
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. / Maxfield Research Group Inc.
AFFKOACH
Overriding factor io - how can anything at all get done? To ensure that it does,
Hoioington Koegler /Maxfield will employ an approach which includes the following:
5trategic planning
p Linking piano with solutions
p Creating "strategic thinking"
o Def ining action steps
0 Inclusive Participation
0 5eeking, not fearing, public input
o Developing trust relationships
o Listening /responding
Framework Planning and Design
o Drawing on intrinsic character of corridor
o Viewing neighborhoods ao equal partners
warranting equal consideration
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. / Maxfield Research Group Inc.
WHAT HO15INGTON KOEGLER /MAXFIELD WILL DO
1.0 Identify What Exists
o Develop an objective data base
p Formulate an objective and balanced Statement of the problem
o Verify market potential
o Conduct initial public information meetings
2.0 Involve and Communicate with 5takeholdero Early and Frequently
o Individual meetings
o Corridor meetings (group)
o Prepare newsletter
o Conduct Workshop #1 (keep PC /CC /HRA involved)
o Prepare stakeholder derived guiding principles
3.0 Explore the Possibilities
o Develop alternative concept Plano giving equal
consideration to the neighborhoods
o Develop alternative strategies
o Develop evaluation criteria
o Assess feasibility (Ehlers /Publicorp)
o Conduct Corridor Meeting #1
o Conduct Workshop #2
o Prepare newsletter
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. / Maxfield Research Group Inc.
4.0 Demonstrate How the Area Should Look
o Develop design guidelines
o Calculate costo /work with Publicorp
o Illustrate solutions graphically
o Prepare newsletter
5.0 Develop a 5trategy to Get It Done
o Develop strategies /action Otero (f unding, acquisition, land use
controls, etc.)
o Conduct Corridor Meeting #2
o Conduct Workshop #3
6.0 Aaree to Move Forward
o Document plan /strategy
o Get plan approved
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. / Maxfield Research Group Inc.
5UMMARY
Hoisington Koegler /Maxfield are qualified and experienced and will:
Objectively State the problem
EjGenerate Support for rational solutions
LLj "seek" public involvement throughout the proce55
Give "equal" consideration to both neighborhoods and the commercial
district in developing concept alternatives
Target Specific uses
Get and keep decision makers involved in the proceos throughout
Lj Develop action steps to get it done
Ej Get the plan approved
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. / Maxfield Research Group Inc.
memo date: 7/12/95
from the brauer group, inc . .......................... richfield `95 comprehensive plan update
TO: ........... PLANNING TASK GROUP (PTG) ** and CITY STAFF
RE: ........... PROPOSED WORK PLAN AND SCHEDULE
The Planning Commission and Steering Committee ...... other participants listed in the
outline below are.......... staff = Richfield City Staff........ bgrp = The Brtauer Group, Inc.....
cons = City Consultants)
The following is a my own work plan, presented as a proposed, draft outline of the work
tasks that remain to be done, the responsible entity, and the target dates for each task, that
you may want to adopt as the program ........ subject, of course, to revision by the PTG. We
will continue to work under this outline until it is revised by the PTG.
NO. TASK DESCRIPTION WHO WHEN
Basic Planning Data and Graphics
a. Base Maps .................................................... staff /bgrp........................ 8/1
b. Existing Land Use-graphic and statistics ...... staff /bgrp ........................8 15
c. Current Zoning Map and statistics .................... staff ............................ done
d. City Fiscal Analysis ...................................... staff /cons /bgrp ................. 8 /25
CIP .... TIF.... HRA..... LIQ ..... GF)
e. Identify Conflicting Goals and Objectives ........... bgrp .. ..........................7 25
f. Review /Revise /Rank or Prioritize G & O's......... PTG ...........................7 25
g. Revise... Complete Final Draft ............................ bgrp ...................... 7 /26 -8/8
2. Parks and Open Space Plan Element
a. Recommendations For Changes to '89 Plan .......... staff ...........................8 /25
b. Prepare Draft Plan Proposal ................................... bgrp ................... 8 /25 -9/12
c. Review / Comment ................................................... PTG ........................... 9 /12
d. Revise.... Complete Final Draft ............... ................. bgrp................. 9/13 -10/10
3. Infrastructure Plans & Programs Element
a. Acquire Data /Information
Water System .. ............................... staff/ cons /bgrp........................ 8/1
Sewerage System ............................ staff / cons /bgrp ...................... 8 /15
Storm Drainage System .................... staff / cons /bgrp ............. .......... 9 /1
Streets/Al leys/Transit/Bike- Pathways .......... staff /cons /bgrp ........... 9 /15
Public Safety Facilities Plan ............... staff/ cons /bgrp ..................... 10 /1
Franchise Provider Infrastructure Plans ....... staff /cons /bgrp .......... 11 /1
b. Prepare Draft Plan Proposal ............................... bgrp...................... 8/1 -11/14
g. Review / Comment .. ............................... ...............PTG............. 11/14 &.12/10
h. Revise.... Complete Final Draft ............................. bgrp................. 11/15 -12/18
page 1
memo date: 7/12/95
from the brauer group, inc . .......................... richfield `95 comprehensive plan update
NO. TASK DESCRIPTION
4. Economics /Fiscal Plan Element
a. Draft Economics and Capital Plan............
b. Review / Critique/ Comment ........................
c. Revise /Prepare Final Draft .......................
5. Subarea Plans
5.1 LHN
WHO WHEN
bgrp ...................... 10 /1 -11 /14
PTG ...........................11/14
bgrp .....................11/15-11/28
a. Prepare Draft Plans .............................. bgrp ........................ 9 /1 -10/10
b. Review/ Comment .......... ........................ PTG .............................. 10 /10
c. Revise /Prepare Final Draft ..................... bgrp .................... 10 /11 -10/24
5.2 West 66th St Corridor ............... and Nicollet Avemue Corridor
a. Prepare Draft Plans ............................... bgrp ....................... 10 /1 -10/24
b. Review / Critique/ Comment ..................... PTG ............................... 10 /24
c. Revise /Prepare Final Draft ..................... bgrp. ....................10 25 -11/14
5.3 Penn 66th........... and.......... 5.7 Penn Avenue Corridor
a. Prepare Draft Plans ............................... bgrp........................... 9/1 -9/26
c. Review / Critique/ Comment ..................... PTG ................................. 9 /26
d. Revise /Prepare Final Draft .................... bgrp ........................ 9 /27 -10/10
5.4 ILN ........ and ......... 5.9 Interstate 494 Corridor.
a. Prepare Plan ......................................... bgrp........................... 7/1 -7/11
b. Review /Critique/ Comments ................... PTG ................................... 8 /8
c. Revise /Prepare Final Draft ..................... bgrp........................... 8/9 -8/22
5.5 Cedar Avenue Corridor..... and 5.6 Portland Avenue Corridor
a. Prepare Plans ........................................ bgrp........................... 8/1 -8/22
b. Review / Critique/ Comments .................... PTG ................................. 8 /22
c. Revise /Prepare Final Draft ..................... bgrp ......................... 8 /23 -9/12
The topics assigned to each of your meetings were determined on the basis of availability of
data, similar or related subjects or plan areas, some kind of logical sequence, and my own
estimate of how much time each subject area might require. That last one is a real guess,
and the group may have a different idea. We can discuss that on the 25th, and can make
some changes if necessary as well. While not included in the listing below, I expect that you
might want to review any revisions that have been made to the previous meeting plan
proposals at the begining of each meeting. Here then, is how the subjects have been
assigned to your regular meeting dates:
July 25th . ...........................This Work Schedule Itself, and,
Goals and Objectives Ranking /Review
August 8th .........................1 -494 Corridor (all three parts)
August 22nd ......................Cedar and Portland Avenue Corridors
rr-U
p 7
memo date: 7/12/95
from the brauer group, inc . .......................... richfield '95 comprehensive plan update
September 12th .................Parks and Open Space
September 26th ................. Penn /66th and Penn Avenue Corridor
October 10th .....................LHN
October 24th ..................... West 66th Street and Nicollet Ave Corridors
November 14th ... ...............Economics /Fiscal, and
Infrastructure (water, sewerage, drainage)
November 28th . .................Infrastructure (transp, housing, public safety, other)
December 10th .................. "Open House" (Public Hearing ? ?)
This is, I believe, a very ambitious schedule for all of us, but I do understand the need to get
on with the PLAN.
Crystal suggested that the group be divided into subgroups during the review meetings to
permit better discussion. Thats a good idea, and would be most productive if the groups
each have an assigned subject area to deal with first. Each group could take up any point of
view after that. In this way all of the aspects would get some attention, and through
reporting, all of the groups would hear some critique on all aspects of the review. Assuming
that the group will be somewhere between 20 and 25 people, five groups would limit the
numbers to 4 or 5 in each subgroup.
I suggest that the assigned subjects be divided on the basis of the "criteria" you have set
out, that is the PLAN goals and objectives. All of the groups should evaluate and report on
the COMMUNITY WIDE GOALS, G1 through G4. Then the other five would take one of the
remaining goals (as they are or may be, revised) Many overlap, and most groups will likely
cover all of the subjects, but by assignment, none will be left out completely.
Table A Economic Development
Table B Transportation
Table C Community Character
Table D Natural and Built Environment
Table E Infrastructure
Some may have a bias, or some expertise to apply, so that they may want to choose the
group they prefer and stick with it for all sessions. People could be assigned to a group and
then subjects could be drawn by lot (or some other system) at each meeting for variety. I am
open to any idea that the group would like to follow.
I will keep Julie informed of progress or problems on a weekly basis, so she can keep the
group informed. She should also be an appropriate conduit for messages or directions back
to me as well.
See you on the 25th.
Donald G. Brauer, P.E.
Planning Consultant
rage 3
M E M O `95 comprehensive plan update 7/13/95
from the brauer group, inc.
RE: COMMUNITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES REVIEW
Here are some suggestions to help all those of us who were not involved in the original
determination of the GOALS and OBJECTIVES to be better able to utilize them as criteria
for PLAN review. Words or phrases that have been removed or revised are shown (in
parens), and new, relocated, or restated words or phrases are bold italic.
At the same time each OBJECTIVE that seems to be a design criteria rather than a
planning criteria, has been identified. Design criteria would be used to evaluate development
plans, or used as a basis for the application of special use requirements, and will befound in
Volume Four of the PLAN..
2.6 COMMUNITY GOALS....... were developed by the Steering Committee based
on the values and issues developed earlier. The Committee first listed broad
concepts and then grouped them in five categories for presentation. In this
summary, goals are numbered (G1, etc.), and supporting objectives are listed
under each goal (0),
community wide G1 Preserve those elements that contribute to and enhance the small
town character and community identity
O redevelop housing supply to meet diverse needs while
maintaining the integrity of existing neighborhoods.
O encourage community participation in order to reinforce a
sense of community ownership and belonging
O continue municipal investment that enhances community
identity.
O preserve historical, natural, and cultural resources
G2 Maintain and enhance Richfield's image as a distinct and
livable community.
maintain and provide quality amenities and a safe living
environment for all residents.
advocate and support with municipal investment a high
quality visual environment throughout the City (and)
particularly along (within) major transportation corridors.
encourage and support a diversity of compatible non-
residential land uses that are accessible and responsive to
the needs of Richfield and adjacent communities.
G3 Provide an economic climate within Richfield that will (ensure) _
encourage the availability of quality goods, services, and
employment opportunities for (all) some residents.
O encourage business growth
coALS2 PAG E 1
M E M ® `95 comprehensive plan update 7/13/95
from the brauer group, inc.
O encourage and support development of strong commercial
O strengthen coordinated transportation efforts with other
communities /metro area that enhance and reinforce the
locational advantages of Richfield.
O pursue improved system services to increase flexibility
and access.
O address parking and highway use through travel demand
management (TDM) and other means to reduce congestion.
O continue to (consider) support the (role) long -term
operation of the existing airport in the metro area and
Richfield, working with the federal agencies to provide a
GOALS2 PAG E 2
districts that respect the values and standards of the
citizens of Richfield.
O encourage the development of viable -and responsive
neighborhood commercial services.
G4 Encourage and facilitate preservation and development of a
transportation infrastructure that provides a high degree of
accessibility for destinations in and around Richfield.
O encourage development and preservation of transportation
connections with neighboring communities.
O encourage development and use of alternative methods of
transportation
O promote Richfield's locational advantage within the greater
metro area.
O reinforce) develop pedestrian and bike facilities that are
functional, attractive, safe and accessible.
O promote transit (sensitive) accomodating development)
economic G5 To promote diverse development that will broaden the tax base
development while reinforcing the residential character of Richfield.
O promote development that can support itself and broaden
the tax base.
O manage development in a manner that will not harm the
residential character of Richfield.
O create commercial districts that sustain specific types of
development that stabilize the economic base.
O encourage diverse, high quality development that meets
the needs of all residents and neighbors.
transportation G6 To expand the existing transportation system so as to improve
accessibility and the quality of life for all Richfield residents.
O neutralize impact on residential areas by focusing on
accessibility.
O strengthen coordinated transportation efforts with other
communities /metro area that enhance and reinforce the
locational advantages of Richfield.
O pursue improved system services to increase flexibility
and access.
O address parking and highway use through travel demand
management (TDM) and other means to reduce congestion.
O continue to (consider) support the (role) long -term
operation of the existing airport in the metro area and
Richfield, working with the federal agencies to provide a
GOALS2 PAG E 2
M E M O
from the brauer group, inc.
community
environment
design
human
environment
design
desicin
design
natural
environment
design
design
95 comprehensive plan update 7/13/95
quality living environment for those residing near the airport.
O minimize the traffic impacts of parking areas
G7 Emphasize and encourage alternate forms of transportation.
G8 To achieve a standard of land use that is reflective of the
small town character of Richfield.
O consider Richfield's role in the metro area (when developing
policy) as a basis for land use policies.
O develop residential standards for land use that (are)
will support neighborhood (oriented in) character.
O promote the development of housing stock that is available
to all income levels.
O support commercial land use that is diverse and responsive
to its context and the socio /economic needs of Richfield.
O maximize the use of existing structures for community needs
O minimize the impacts of parking
G9 Continue to provide high quality parks and open space that are
available on a neighborhood and community wide basis.
G10 To improve the quality of life in Richfield by addressing
human environmental and visual resources
O promote improvement of environmental elements (water
quality) that can enhance the image of Richfield
O reduce residual noise and air pollution that can harm the
health and safety of Richfield residents.
O (address means to) improve the visual quality throughout the
city, concentrating on design districts and transportation
corridors, (beginning with land use coordination.)
O provide environmental standards that will be consistent
with the needs of the next decade, and reinforce the (city's)
image as a sustainable and environmentally sensitive city.
O minimize the environmental impacts of parking.
G11 Recognize the value of the urban forest to the community by
developing policies that will preserve existing urban forest, and
encourage its continued growth and expansion.
O develop policies that will encourage an urban forestry
approach to energy conservation.
O continue to encourage a diversity of tree species that will
prevent depletion of urban trees from disease.
O develop policies and construction specifications that will
not) minimize damage or (destroy) destruction of the
existing urban forest canopy.
GOALS2 PAGE 3
M E M 0 `95 comprehensive plan update 7/13/95
from the brauer group, inc.
G12 Ensure preservation of a level of high water quality by reducing
the use of pesticides and chemical turf treatments that contribute
to water pollution.
infrastructure G13 To create an infrastructure that responds to the needs of the
next decade.
O promote infrastructure improvements that are responsive to
and appropriate for existing and future needs.
desiqn O promote an infrastructure that is efficient and high quality.
G14 Assure the long term maintenance and eventual replacement of
infrastructure.
O provide adequate annual funding
O select, train, and retain capable maintenance staff
design G15 Promote an infrastructure that ensures environmental
soundness.
design G16 Reduce visual and physical clutter by burring all new and
replacement infrastructure utilities.
1GOALS2 PAG E 4
memo date: 7/15/95
from the brauer group, inc . .......................... richfield '95 comprehensive plan update
TO: CITY STAFF AND PLANNING TASK GROUP
RE: SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS FOR THE '95 PLAN UPDATE
1. LAND USE AND OCCUPANCY ................from the current ('82) Plan should be used
again so that we can compare conditions. City staff have completed a study within the
past few years with slightly different classifications, but useful comparisons are
possible.
LAND USE DESIGNATION 1982 PLAN 1994 STUDY
RESIDENTIAL 49.3%
Single Family
Duplex
Apartment
COMMERCIAL 4.1%
Mixed Land Use
INDUSTRIAL 0.6%
TRANSPORTATION 0.2%
STREETS 30.0%
PUBLIC 14.9%
Quasi Public
School
Park
VACANT 0.7%
Water
2. PLAN land use descriptions and graphic designations should be established at the
outset. They should also be similar to the '82 designations for comparison and
analysis. PLAN designations do not confer "rights" like zoning designations do, but
they have been held to be a considered judgement of what the city considers to be
the most appropriate future use. That makes it very difficult for the city to deny an
application that otherwise meets all of the general criteria for zoning.
We believe that the PLAN graphic is more easily read and understood if the land
use designations are shown by outlining each area and inserting a letter code inside
the. outline..(See Eden Prairie Plan attached as example) rather than using various
shades.erkgraphic,..patterns as:was done in the '82 Richfield plan. With that concept
as a choice, the following letter designations are recommended:
NEMOUSES page 1
memo date: 7/15/95
from the brauer group, inc . .......................... richfield '95 comprehensive plan update
USE DESCRIPTION DENSITY 95 PLAN 82 PLAN
Residential
Single Family up to 8u /ac RL SF
Multiple up to 20u /ac RM MR -1 & 2
Multiple over 20u /qc RH MR -3
Commercial
Regional up to 0.4 FAR C -Reg C -1, 2, MR -2
Community up to 0.2 FAR C -Com C -2, MR -2 & 3
Neighborhood up to 0.15 FAR C -Neb Not Designated
Industrial up to 0.2 FAR
Parks & Open Space NA
Public
Quasi Public
Schools
NA
Not Designated
PK -_ Graphic Only
T =tots, N= neighborhood, -PL= playfield, etc)
PUB -_ Not Designated
PW= public works, W= water, S= sewer, etc.)
use most applicable QP -_ Institutional
CH= church, CL =club, MU= museum, etc)
NA S -_ Institutional
EL =elem, JH= junior high, VO =vo -tech, etc.)
1MEMOUSES page 2