06-25-1996OITY OF RIOFIFIELD
RGEWR
June 25, 1996
ROLL CALF:::: >` > « <' <> < < »` >`'
xxx
Planning Commission meeting on May 28, 1996 and Study Session on June 11, 1996.
PU LIC HEARING,:::::' B XI
ITEM #1 96 -CUP -5 6409 Cedar Avenue - Smith & Nielsen Automotive
Service - Conditional Use Permit to allow
expansion of existing auto repair building.
ITEM #2 96- ACUP -2 7444 Lyndale Avenue - Richfield Transmission
Amend Conditional Use Permit to allow
construction of a six - service bay auto repair
building.
NEW BUSINESS :......: ..
ITEM #3 Community Services Commission - Update on
Veterans Park
ITEM PC Letter #9 Townhome /Clusterhome Ordinance
Amendment
LIAISON REPORTS..:.
School Board
Community Services Advisory Commission
H RA
City Council
ADJOURNMENT;
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made
at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Service's Director at 861- 9702."
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE
MrAWWATA Regular Meeting
May 28, 1996
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela
Dmytrenko, Timothy Erlander, Mitchell Hadley, Dawn
Postudensek, Kristal Stokes, and Paul Wasko
Kevin Hansen arrived at 7:15 p.m.
MEMBERS ABSENT: David Gepner
STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Palmborg, Community Development Director
Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
Robert Robson, Planning Staff Assistant
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:00
p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
11-19 N S.
Commissioner Erlander asked staff to change the minutes for the regular meeting of April
23, 1996 to show that in the two motions on page 5 it was Gepner who seconded the first motion
and it was Stokes who seconded the second motion.
Commissioner Stokes asked staff to change the minutes for the regular meeting of April
23, 1996 to show that in paragraph 3 of page 2 the person speaking was Jo Romer.
Commissioner Dmytrenko asked staff to change the minutes for the regular meeting of
April 23, 1996 to show that in paragraph 2 of page 7 it was Commissioner Dmytrenko who asked
the question. She also asked that the last paragraph on page 8 be changed to show that it was
Commissioner Dmytrenko who gave the School Board Liaison Report and that the second
sentence in this paragraph be changed to "She also discussed the results of a survey which shows
that Richfield's students are very similar to the rest of the Nation's students with respect to drug
and alcohol use."
May 28, 1996
Page 2
M/Erlander, S/Postudensek to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commissio
meetiniz of April 23- 1996. as corrected,
M/Erlander, S/Stokes to approyr, the minutes of the special Planning Co
wi." ..t' o..u_. 1 ' • •
PUBLIC HEARINGS
96- ACUP -1, 6600 Nicollet Avenue South
ITEM #1 The Academy of Holy Angels
Amend conditional use permit to allow construction of a seasonal
sports dome.
Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of the
conditional use permit with the stipulations that are detailed in the staff report.
Commissioner Wasko asked if the concerns expressed by the Hearing Examiner
regarding the replacement of trees are addressed with the landscape escrow that is mentioned in
stipulation seven. Ms. Urban responded that the escrow deals with the 17 evergreens that will be
planted along the western edge of the property. She added that the Hearing Examiner may want
more trees replaced on the property and that Holy Angels has expressed a willingness to plant
more trees.
Dr. Jill Riley, Principal of Holy Angels, made a brief statement and then introduced Holy
Angels board member Annette Margarite. Ms. Margarite talked about how long Holy Angels has
been a valued member of the community and how the school wants to continue to work with the
City of Richfield. She added that physical education is now an important part of a student's
educational experience. She stated that the current athletic facilities are not adequate for meeting
the school's physical education obligations. She added that the school wants the dome to be a
positive addition to the City that will provide athletic facilities for students and the community.
Gary Tushie, Tushie Montgomery, presented the various alternatives for the location of
the dome. He stated that the original plan which located the dome over the existing practice field
May 28, 1996
Page 3
was the best option because it removes the fewest trees, provides the best screening for the
neighbors, and leaves the most land for future development.
Sister Margaret Kvasnicka, Sisters of St. Joseph's of Carondelet, commented that the
dome would be a symbol that Holy Angels is here to stay. She added that the school would like
to see student involvement in co- recreational activities increase and the dome would facilitate
such an increase.
Ms. Riley then stated that Holy Angels would prefer the location specified in the original
but that they would be willing to work with the second option which places the dome closer to
the school buildings. Ms. Riley responded to a question from Commissioner Stokes by stating
that they do not anticipate additional noise from inside the dome.
Commissioner Wasko asked whether Holy Angels would be willing to submit a plan to
the Community Development Director regarding the replacement of trees. Ms. Riley answered
that the school would be open to working with City staff.
Chairperson Linnihan opened the floor to the public for discussion.
Kristin Olson, 7445 Third Avenue, a student at Holy Angels discussed the importance of
athletics and how the dome would expand the opportunities for students to be involved in
athletics.
James Vargo, 6630 Pleasant, a member of Save A Valued Environment in Richfield,
expressed concern that the dome goes against the residential character of the community which
the Comprehensive Plan stresses as being important to the City. He stated that several neighbors
would express their concerns with noise, lighting, traffic, drainage, and parking. In response to
questions from Commissioners Postudensek and Dmytrenko, Mr. Vargo stated that the neighbors
felt that if a dome is really needed the City could construct one in a more appropriate location.
He added that a permanent stadium like the one at Richfield High School would be acceptable
for the Holy Angels location.
Sharon Miller, 6712 Pleasant, stated that the proposed dome is too big for the
surrounding residential area and that the City should build a dome in a non - residential area. Ms.
Miller compared the size of the dome to other domed facilities in the Twin Cities with the
conclusion that none of them are as big as the proposed dome.
Jan Anderson, 68th & Pleasant, said that the reason Holy Angels does not want to put the
dome in their front yard is because of aesthetics which is the same reason the neighbors do not
want it sitting right across the street from their homes. She stated that she did not object to the
stadium but to the visual impact of the dome. Commissioner Hadley clarified that issues like
noise, lighting and parking would be created with a stadium. He concluded that the issue
therefore is the visual impact of the dome, not the ancillary issues that have been raised.
May 28, 1996
Page 4
Lynn Pickhart, 66th & Pleasant, stated that the dome would cause a devaluation in
property values because of the visual pollution that it would create. She relayed information she
had received from realtors. She expressed concern that notices should have been sent to people
outside the 350 foot range. In response to questions from several Commissioners, Ms. Pickhart
said that she had not had appraisals done so she had no numbers to back up her argument, but she
added that no other City has allowed such a structure to be built in a residential neighborhood. In
response to Commissioner Postudensek, Ms. Pickhart said that she knew of no city that had
actually denied the construction of a dome. Commissioner Postudensek stated that she had
contacted several cities about the issue.
Chairperson Linnihan stated that with a 30 foot tree in front of the school you can not see
Holy Angels from Pleasant Avenue. He added that the view of the dome would also be blocked
by the wall of evergreens that will be planted.
Jeff Meecham, 64th & Upton, spoke in support of the dome and offered the thought that
an empty school would be more of an eyesore than any dome would be.
Alice Obermeyer, 14762 Excelsior Lane in Apple Valley, a consultant for the neighbors
who oppose the dome, stated that the denial of the variance for height would not cause undue
hardship to Holy Angels. She added that economic considerations are not a legitimate hardship
so the height variance should be denied.
Jim Young, 2034 Forest Drive, spoke as the president of the local soccer association and
stated that the dome is needed to meet the demand for youth soccer facilities.
Larry Wozniczka, 6744 Wentworth, said that while he has been a long time supporter of
Holy Angels, he does not believe a dome should be built. He stated that the dome would cause
parking, traffic, and drainage problems, and that such a project would go against teaching
students to have a respect for the environment. He described the flooding problem at 68th and
Wentworth and said that the dome and parking lots will add to the problem. He stated that the
off -street parking contract should be reviewed. He said that the added traffic will create safety
problems.
Paul Racky, 6614 Pleasant, stated that he has been trying to sell his house and that
potential buyers have expressed concern about having the dome constructed right across the
street from the house. He added that such reactions from potential buyers should be considered
as proof that the dome will have a negative effect on property values.
Mike Flersh, a teacher at Holy Angles and a soccer coach, questioned why a permanent
building would be any less objectionable than a dome.
Bert Miller, 6712 Pleasant, voiced concerns regarding the effects on property values, the
hours of operation, and the shadows that the dome would cast on the neighboring houses during
the winter. He said that City staff had pushed the project and he added that the City should
reimburse homeowners for the cost of appraisals.
May 28, 1996
Page 5
Pauline, 321 West 69th, spoke in support of the dome and she said that the railroad tracks
have more of an effect on property values than the dome would have.
Mike Cuniff, Chairman of the Holy Angels School Board, said that kids need to have
organized after school activities to keep them out of trouble and that the dome would be a perfect
place for such activities.
M/Erlander, S/Hadley to close the public hearing.
Ms. Urban clarified that in the Comprehensive Plan the area by Holy Angels is
designated as institutional and that the 6600 block of Pleasant is designated as commercial.
In response to questions, Mr. Tushie stated that the length and width of the dome makes
the 65 foot height necessary. He added that the shadow cast by the dome would be less than the
shadow that is cast by the school, and that the shadow would not even reach the surrounding
trees. He stated that they could do a shadow plan for the Council meeting.
Commissioner Dmytrenko, expressed concern that the proposed uses for the dome not get
away from education and athletics, and she asked how the school came up with the other uses
that are proposed. Ms. Riley responded that most of the uses are school related functions and
that conversations with City staff had generated other uses.
Chairperson Linnihan then stated that he had a problem with allowing the dome to stay
open until 12 p.m. and asked whether the school could work with an 11 p.m. time limit. Ms.
Riley responded that the school could handle the 11 p.m. limit if special events that continued
past 11 p.m. were allowed.
ii;b 1111
FIT
1.- 1• 1 !_• _ • !! • • . .1.1. e k1T W FT-MM .!F'_ •. FF. I. •" •
Commissioner Erlander stated that the facility will be good for the City and for Holy
Angels. He said that great care has been taken to protect neighboring properties and that staff
has worked hard to limit the effects that lighting and sound will have on the neighborhood. He
added that people do not have an unlimited right to veto what others do.
Chairperson Linnihan said that the conditional use permit will be valid as long as- the
terms are enforced. He added that the dome will be an asset because it will give children
something to do. He stated that there was no factual evidence presented to support the claim of a
devaluation of property.
May 28, 1996
Page 6
Commissioner Wasko proposed that stipulation 5 be amended to state that the advisory
committee will be formed 60 days after formal City Council action, and that stipulation 7 include
provisions for the replacement of deciduous trees.
Commissioner Hadley expressed his appreciation for the public input. He stated that this
is a private development on private land and that the city does not have a compelling reason to
block this private development. Commissioner Postudensek added that the Planning
Commission does not have the facts to base a denial on and that the Commission is making a
very informed decision.
Commissioner Erlander withdrew his original motion.
1I.PILAA . ! _' .••- -•le.
96 -RZ-2, 7700 Lyndale Avenue South
ITEM #2 City of Richfield
Rezone from C -3 to C -2 to construct a fourth municipal liquor store.
Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of the
rezoning of 7700 Lyndale from C -3 to C -2..
Gary Tushie, Tushie Montgomery, described some of the features of the building.
M/Hadley, S/Erlander to close the public hearing.
M/Erlander, S/Dmytrenko to approve the rezoning request,
LIAISON REPORTS
School Board: Commissioner Dmytrenko stated that phase two remodeling of Central
and Lincoln schools is proceeding. She added that a review of the 1996 -97 budget showed a
unappropriated fund balance of over one million dollars.
May 28, 1996
Page 7
Community Services Advisory Commission: Commissioner Stokes stated that
Community Services has requested an update on the Lyndale Avenue plan.
City Council/HRA: Commissioner Erlander reported that the Lyndale Avenue plan was
presented and approved at the joint May 20, 1996 meeting. Community Development Director
Bruce Palmborg added that the HRA had hired Maxfield Research to put together an elderly
housing strategy.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:00 p.m.
Timothy Erlander
Planning Commission Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE
WPPPP-
1
Special Meeting
June 11, 1996
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela
Dmytrenko, Timothy Erlander, Mitchell Hadley, and Paul Wasko
Kristal Stokes (arrived at 7:15 p.m.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners: David Gepner, Kevin Hansen, and Dawn
Postudensek
COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor
STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Palmborg, Community Development Director
Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:05
p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Comprehensive Plan - Approval of Plan and
ITEM #1 Recommendation to the City Council
Zoning Administrator Urban presented the staff report and recommended approval of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Bonnie Alomar, 307 West 66th Street, questioned where her home is on the maps and
what it means. Chairperson Linnihan responded that it's marked commercial and office so it
could eventually become commercial. Ms. Urban explained that Alomar's home was also
labeled commercial in the 1982 Comprehensive Plan.
Bob Nelson, 7410 Girard, representing the Richfield School Board, explained the School
Board's position regarding the Plan. He expressed their support for the ideas of maintaining the
school population and electronic pathways. He reiterated the concern that the Plan not connect
Sheridan Park and School. Chairperson Linnihan responded with the assurance that the
connection would be removed from the Plan and explained that it was an oversight that the
connection was still in the plan. Chairperson Linnihan also mentioned an upcoming Planning
June 11, 1996
Page 2
Commission Study Session regarding telecommunications and extended an invitation to the
School Board.
In response to a resident's question, Don Brauer, The Brauer Group, explained the
proposal for the Washington Park and Wilson Pond area.
Ms. Alomar asked if the Plan is about providing townhomes and is that what people
really want. Chairperson Linnihan responded that the Plan is trying to provide for a balance of
housing types.
Chairperson Linnihan explained that the City can choose to do nothing in the Plan, but
that would mean accepting higher taxes because costs would increase without an increase in the
tax base. He reiterated that the City has not, historically, taken homes for parks. He explained
the process that would have to happen for Wilson Park to be developed.
LeRoy Dalager, 6801 18th Avenue South, asked who was notified about the meeting.
Commissioner Stokes answered that people who had attended one of the previous meetings were
notified and that a meeting notice was published in the paper.
Mr. Dalager inquired about what would be happening in his area of the city. Mr. Brauer
responded by explaining the Plan for that area of town. A discussion then took place regarding
the benefits of developing along Cedar Avenue.
Chairperson Linnihan briefly explained how the Comprehensive Plan serves as a tool for
responding to development proposals.
Commissioner Erlander then explained that there are financial benefits to having one's
home purchased by the City. Chairperson Linnihan added that there are federal and state rules
that have to be followed.
Chairperson Linnihan stated that some of the Cedar Avenue plan would not happen until
changes occurred at the airport. He added that the Plan helps the City be prepared for any future
changes.
Ms. Alomar asked how long the Plan is good for. Chairperson Linnihan answered 10
years. Commissioner Stokes added that the Planning Commission hopes to review the Plan on
an annual basis.
Ms. Alomar asked if the City sends the Plan out to developers or does the City wait for
developers to come to them. Chairperson Linnihan answered that in some areas the City would
be more proactive and in other areas the City would wait for developers to come forward.
Larry Wozniczka, 6744 Wentworth, asked if anything regarding transportation had been
added to the draft, espcially regarding traffic on residential streets. Chairperson Linnihan
explained the concept of traffic calming.
Date
Page 3
Garnet Christian, 6830 Newton, objected to the idea of blocking off streets around
Fairwood Park. Commissioner Erlander responded that the streets would only be blocked off in
response to a demand for it. Commissioner Wasko added that the neighborhood would be
involved in any such decision.
Community Development Director Bruce Palmborg responded to a resident's question by
explaining that it could be 2 years before funds are available to complete 77th Street. He added
that changes on the federal level led to the funds drying up.
John Evans, 6621 Grand, asked, until the project is ready to go, what will happen to
houses the City buys. Commissioner Stokes answered that it will vary on a case by case basis.
Ms. Alomar stated that she did not agree with the Edinborough concept for Washington
Park because she views it as a waste of money. Commissioner Stokes responded that a
developer would have to show that the project would be viable before they would be allowed to
build it.
M/Erlander, S/Dmytrenko to close the public hearing.
M/Stokes, S/Erlander to approve the Comprehensive_ Plan and recommend it to the City
Council with the stipulation that the statement on page 26 regarding Sheridan Park and Schools
be deleted.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:00 p.m.
Timothy Erlander
Planning Commission Secretary
CITY OF RIOFIFIELD
Knnrom Qommission
flction Requer!
Item: #1 Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Case: #96 -CUP -6 Date: June 25, 1996
GENERAL INFORMATION
Petitioner: Smith & Nielsen Automotive Service
Location: 6409 Cedar Avenue South
Type of Request: Conditional use permit to allow expansion of the existing automotive repair
building.
Zoning: I (industrial)
Land Use: Commercial
Comp. Plan: Mixed Land Use - District B
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: 531.07, Subd. 3; 526.27, Subd. 16
ACTION
Proposed Change: Approval of a conditional use permit will enable the applicant to expand the
existing building and continue using the property for auto repair.
Staff
Recommendation: Approve the conditional use permit request with stipulations.
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.
Public Hearing: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on June 25, 1996.
Hearing Examiner: The Hearing Examiner will consider a rear setback variance on July 16,
1996.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of
July 8, 1996.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow an expansion
of the existing auto repair building. A 2,450 square foot addition would be
added to the building, expanding the number of service bays from four to
seven. The design and materials used for the addition will match the
existing building.
Issues: 1. Seventeen parking spaces will be provided on site. This number is one
short of the requirement for two spaces per bay and four spaces for
employees. Staff originally recommended that the applicant add two
service bays instead of three to reduce the required amount of parking.
The applicant believes that one less service bay will result in more
outdoor storage rather than a decrease in parking demand. The
applicant is proposing the expansion so that vehicles that currently sit
outside can be stored inside the building.
2. An easement exists on the north portion of the property to provide
access to the neighboring property. The need to maintain this access
makes it more difficult to configure the parking lot and to provide a
parking lot setback.
3. Landscaping is being added across the front of the property in
compliance with parking lot screening requirements.
4. The hours of operation are from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The zoning
ordinance prohibits operation between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the request with the following
stipulations:
1. That a landscape escrow be submitted.
2. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the
Engineering Division.
3. That the Hearing Examiner grant a rear setback variance for the project.
Basis: 1. The proposed addition will improve the appearance of the site and
provide indoor storage space for vehicles currently sitting outside on the
site.
2. The expansion plan is a workable proposal given the location of the
existing building.
3. The current use and the proposed expansion is compatible with the
adjacent commercial land uses.
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.
ZONING CODE:
CITATIONS
SECTION 531 - ZONING: INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
531.07. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in
the I District, and are subject to the provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code.
Subd. 3. Those uses outlined in Section 526.27, Subdivisions 4 through 29 of this code,
subject to the same conditions.
SECTION 526 - ZONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
526.27. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in
the C -2 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of
this code.
Subd. 16. Public- mechanical garages, provided the following conditions are met:
a) if the use site abuts a lot which is in the R or R -1, a buffer yard of not less than 25
feet in width and 75 percent all- season opacity from the ground to a height of 6 feet
shall be provided to separate all aspects of such use from abutting residential
parcels. The Council may reduce this requirement to not less than 15 feet if
significant additional landscaping and fencing, with 100 percent all- season opacity,
is provided to screen the public - mechanical garage use;
b) the use site shall not be located within 300 feet of the grounds of a school, church,
or hospital;
c) a buffer yard of not less than ten feet in width shall be provided to separate all
aspects of such use from any abutting parcel;
d) vehicles which are inoperable shall not be stored on the premises, except in
appropriately designed and screened areas as approved by the City;
e) parking of vehicles on public right -of -way shall be prohibited;
f) if the use is not located on a county road or state highway, it shall not be operated
between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following day; and
g) all repair, assembly, disassembly, and maintenance of vehicles shall occur within an
enclosed building, except minor maintenance such as tire inflation or adding
windshield wiper fluid.
6409 CEDAR AVENUE
SITE PLAN
50.3
97
5 ER JI
D
z-
c-
m
7M-
4.
41
midJ:
F
NORTH
i
eA3s e
IO-W
m
6-25-96
N
0
I
I
I
I
II
II
6409 CEDAR AVENUE
ELEVATIONS
m ?j
10 )Ptr
jr,z 4z
II o
FA
cl
M
A
z
6-25-96
CITY OF R10HRELD
Knnron6 commission
Rction Requai!
Item: #2 Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Case: #96- ACUP -2 Date: June 25, 1996
GENERAL INFORMATION
Petitioner: Richfield Transmission
Location: 7444 Lyndale Avenue South
Type of Request: Amended conditional use permit to allow construction of an auto repair
building.
Zoning: C -2 (general commercial)
Land Use: Commercial
Comp. Plan: Mixed Land Use
References: see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: 526.27, Subd. 16
Other: The Lyndale Gateway: A Redevelopment Plan and Strategy," Sections 7
and 8
ACTION
Proposed Change: Approval of the amended conditional use permit would allow the applicant
to construct a six - service bay automotive repair building.
Staff
Recommendation: Approve the amended conditional use permit request with stipulations.
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.
Public Hearing: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on June 25, 1996.
Hearing Examiner: The Hearing Examiner will hear a request for setback variances on July 16,
1996.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of
July 8, 1996.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: The property is currently occupied by a 3- service bay auto repair business.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 3,000 square foot building
and construct a new 4,032 square foot building with 6 automotive service
bays.
Sixteen parking spaces will be provided to meet the City's standard of two
spaces per bay and four spaces for employee parking. The hours of
operation are 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (The conditions for a conditional use
permit limit the hours from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.)
ISSUPS: 1. The recently completed Lyndale Strategic Development Plan establishes
a concept for development in this area. The concept plan calls for the
creation of a gateway into the community. Although official zoning
controls and design guidelines have not yet been established to direct
development, the applicant has submitted a project consistent with the
gateway concept.
2. The plan was reviewed by Hoisington Koegler Group, the consultant to
the planning process for Lyndale Avenue. Hoisington Koegler Group
recommended the following items that have been incorporated into the
project:
The building is set at the southeast comer of the property to help
establish a gateway effect and to focus attention on the building
instead of the parking.
The design of the building includes a lot of windows to give the
building the look of a commercial storefront and to liven the
appearance.
A sidewalk connects the building entrance to the public sidewalk.
The Lyndale Avenue plan also recommends that the City establish
standards for lighting, signage, fencing and a landscape buffer adjacent
to the residential area. Hoisington Koegler Group is in the process of
developing these specifications. The applicant has agreed to develop a
lighting plan and to modify the signage, fencing and landscaping
according to the specifications that are being developed.
Preliminary recommendations are to require a fence similar in design to
the 77th Street sound wall and to provide vines on the residential side to
soften the appearance. An apartment building is adjacent to Richfield
Transmission so a shorter version of the fence along with overstory
trees would be installed along the north side of the property to provide
some separation from that residential use.
The specifications will be consistent with the goals of the Lyndale
Avenue plan to create a separation between residential and commercial
areas. They will then be applied to future development to help create
consistency in the corridor. Staff anticipates having the specifications
in place by the beginning of July.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the request with the following
stipulations:
1. That the landscape plan, including fencing, be revised to meet
specifications provided by the City and be approved by the Community
Development Director.
2. That a landscape escrow be submitted to the Community Development
Department.
3. That a lighting plan be submitted according to specifications provided
by the City and approved by the Community Development Director.
4. That the location and specifications for the trash enclosure be approved
by the Community Development Director.
5. That a signage plan be approved by the Community Development
Director.
6. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the
Engineering Division.
7. That a stormwater management plan be approved by the Engineering
Division.
Basis: 1. The design of the project is consistent with the concept plan developed
for Lyndale Avenue and detailed in the report, "The Lyndale Gateway:
A Redevelopment Plan and Strategy ".
2. The number of parking spaces meets the City's parking requirements.
3. A separation will be provided between the subject property and the
adjacent residential uses.
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.
ZONING CODE:
CITATIONS
SECTION 526 - ZONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
526.27. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in
the C -2 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of
this code.
Subd. 16. Public - mechanical garages, provided the following conditions are met-
a) if the use site abuts a lot which is in the R or R -1, a buffer yard of not less than 25
feet in width and 75 percent all -season opacity from the ground to a height of 6 feet
shall be provided to separate all aspects of such use from abutting residential
parcels. The Council may reduce this requirement to not less than 15 feet if
significant additional landscaping and fencing, with 100 percent all -season opacity,
is provided to screen the public- mechanical garage use;
b) the use site shall not be located within 300 feet of the grounds of a school, church,
or hospital;
c) a buffer yard of not less than ten feet in width shall be provided to separate all
aspects of such use from any abutting parcel;
d) vehicles which are inoperable shall not be stored on the premises, except in
appropriately designed and screened areas as approved by the City;
e) parking of vehicles on public right -of -way shall be prohibited;
f) if the use is not located on a county road or state highway, it shall not be operated
between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following day; and
g) all repair, assembly, disassembly, and maintenance of vehicles shall occur within an
enclosed building, except minor maintenance such as tire inflation or adding
windshield wiper fluid.
THE LYN DALE GATEWAY
City of Richfield, Minnesota
A Redevelopment Plan and Strategy
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
May 13, 1996
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
In many ways, this district is seen as one of the
important gateways to the Richfield community. As
an introduction to the community, it seems it should
reveal something of the character of the community,
showing Richfield as a place of neighborhoods and
commerce in a "hometown" atmosphere. As the
area redevelops, it makes sense to try to instill some
of the qualities and character of the community into
this district.
The Concept Plan strives to create a gateway district,
building from a framework of design guidelines based
on neighborhood and business community input,
research on development feasibility, and the ability of
the City to shape development. The plan that is
shown in this report can only be a guide for
redevelopment; it provides the framework within
which redevelopment can occur that supports the
community- derived guiding principles and the
opportunities and constraints presented by what
exists. This plan will be used by the City to market
the area, helping potential developers understand the
direction created through the process of working
with the community. And, as development proposals
are brought to the City, the Concept Plan and
associated design guidelines will be used to evaluate
the proposals. While the built result may not match
the plan exactly, its underlying character must be
maintained in order to match the community's vision.
In the plan, the entire redevelopment area is
recognized as the gateway, so a strong identity must
be established. Two factors are critical: boundaries
and continuity. The boundaries have been defined
to signal the point at which you enter the district, and
also set the limits of commercial development. It is
equally important to create continuity through the
district; while buildings will be different in size and
7.0
The Concept Plan
use, there must be elements that they have in
common, and the public space of the district must be
developed in a uniform manner. With boundaries
established and elements defined that establish
continuity, the district gains cohesiveness and a sense
that it is whole.
Development in the district should be oriented to a
mix of retail /commercial and office uses, with
opportunities for some higher density residential uses
in combination with retail or office. The district will
support businesses that serve the neighborhood, as
well as those that orient to the more regional market
with specialty stores and services. Within this mix of
uses, the opportunity for joint use of parking is
created, allowing a customer to move from store to
store without relying on their car.
Residential development is an important element of
the plan. While residents represent a market for
nearby businesses, many people actually prefer to live
in mixed use areas that offer convenient shopping,
working and entertainment opportunities. The
southeast comer of 74th Street and Lyndale Avenue
is intended to satisfy this need. The Audio Perfection
and Woodlawn Terrace sites offer unique
opportunities for a variety of urban housing types.
Whatever the. use, it is intended that buildings be the
focus of development, not parking lots. This allows
the built form of the district to help set its identity,
and provides for convenient movement for
pedestrians as they do not have to cross parking lots
to reach sidewalks or storefronts. Buildings that are
close to the street are critical to this concept, which
dictates parking that is located behind or beside
buildings.
1,yndale Avenue Corridor • Planning Commission Recommendation • Page 16
The intersection of 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue
becomes important, as 76th Street provides the most
direct connection to the adjacent neighborhoods.
Buildings surrounding this intersection should be the
two or three stories, reinforcing its place as the heart
of the redevelopment district. Taller buildings should
extend south of 76th Street as a transition to the
larger commercial uses along 77th Street and
Interstate 494. The scale of the buildings decreases
north of development at 76th Street and Lyndale
Avenue, creating a transition to the residential areas
at the edges of the district.
The neighborhoods surrounding the district are
critical to its success. Although they must be strongly
connected to it, they must be sheltered from any
negative influences of commercial activities. In the
plan, physical separation and visual buffering is shown
at the common boundaries between the
redevelopment area and the neighborhood.
To respect the place of the commercial area in the
community, this district should not exist in isolation
from the neighborhoods that support it. Therefore,
the plan shows development of a pedestrian system
that reaches beyond Lyndale Avenue along 76th
Street and 74th Street to link to the neighborhoods.
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Planning Commission Recommendation • Page 17
01
ca
i a
L
ts
ca
c32
C m¢
U
111
log
In order to achieve the intent of the Concept Plan
and generate development that supports the guiding
principles the Planning Commission recommends the
following design guidelines. While development may
not exactly follow the patterns shown in the Concept
Plan, plans must be consistent with the design
guidelines. Guidelines have been developed for
public spaces, sites and buildings.
Pu lic Spaces Develop a consistent streetscape
through the redevelopment area to define its limits,
to establish a signiTcant sense of district, and to
create a more active street environment for
pedestrians and cars
Use pedestrian scale streetlights at a regular
interval at all streets within the redevelopment
area
Provide pedestrian amenities (benches and trash
receptacles) at logical locations along Lyndale Ave
Require ornamental fences and plantings to
screen parking areas from street views
Plant street trees at a regular interval at all streets
within the redevelopment area
Plant other plantings to create highlights at
pedestrian oriented spaces, building entries and
other focal areas
Establish a method of maintaining streetscape
improvements that is common for all properties
in the district
Mark the entries to the redevelopment area to
reinforce its identity as a district
Establish markers on both sides of Lyndale
Avenue at 76th Street and 74th Street
Establish markers on 76th Street at the southeast
comer of 76th Street and Aldrich Avenue, and at
the northwest comer of 76th Street and Garfield
Avenue
8.0
Design Guidelines
Create spaces that are not buildings or parking
areas to create interest in the patterns of
development and to pro vide places for pedestrians
a way from busy streets
Create small "pocket plazas" between or beside
buildings that could be used for outdoor
restaurants, eating areas or gathering spaces, and
to create links between parking areas and the
street; develop these spaces to make them feel
like an extension of the street (similar paving,
lights, benches)
Encourage the development of a farmers market
that could use portions of larger parking areas at
off -peak parking times
Establish sidewalks continuously through the
district to provide for uninterrupted pedestrian
circulation
Provide sidewalks exclusively for pedestrian use
along Lyndale Avenue
Extend walks from Lyndale Avenue along 76th
Street and 74th Street to the limits of the district
Extend walks south of 77th Street to the main
entries of the Shops at Lyndale and the Hampton .
Inn
Close 75th Street between Lyndale Avenue and
Aldrich Avenue to eliminate the potential for "short
cuts "through the neighborhood
Reroute the alley to reach Aldrich Avenue
Use the right -of -way to allow for more intense
development or to create additional parking
SAm ConTgure and locate parking to insure that
buildings remain as the focus of the district
Discourage parking in front of buildings, except
where that parking might occur on the street
Place parking behind or beside buildings
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Planning Commission Recommendation • Page 18
Prohibit parking areas at street intersections
Make access to parking areas prominent and
visible from the street
Create a buffer between the redevelopment area
and adjacent homes to mitigate any negative
influences of commercial activities in the district
Provide a 40 foot wide bermed and landscaped
buffer strip with a five foot high fence (colored
chain link) at the area south of 76th Street and at
the northeast corner of 76th Street and Lyndale
Avenue
Require a 15 foot wide landscaped buffer strip
with a similar fence at all other areas
Establish a method of maintaining the integrity of
the buffer that is common for all properties in
the district
Create parking areas to accommodate expected
demand
Encourage the development of uses that
creatively share parking by time of day amongst
a variety of uses in order to reduce the total
amount of land dedicated to parking
Maximize density in the district by discouraging
the development of excess parking
Combine access points from Lyndale Avenue in
order to reduce potential conflicts
Allow a single access at Lyndale Avenue between
77th Street and 76th Street
Require 150 feet between access points at
Lyndale Avenue and all other redevelopment
parcels
Prevent access to parking areas from alleys;
restructure alley access to serve only residential
uses
Develop continuity from site to site which will a/ /ow
the buildings to be the focus of the district
Establish a common palette of materials for use
at all sites within the district (planting, lighting,
paving)
Establish standards for site development that
assure consistency through the district
Limit the use of free - standing signs and pylon
signs; encourage signs that are an integral part of
the buildings
Buildings Develop a unified character for the built
environment to reinforce the sense of a complete
distr/ct, emphasizing a character of a commercial
village rather than a shopping center
Establish compatibility between buildings through
similar massing, scale, bulk, and detail
Allow for individual expression from building to
building, to reflect a character of a district of
individual shops and businesses rather than a
strip center
Require developers to demonstrate how a
proposed building will be created that considers
neighboring buildings
Establish a character that is more about buildings
and the street than parking area
Place buildings at the street frontage at all
locations within the district
Create buildings that address the street, with
front doors to the public space at the street as
well as access from parking areas
Use elements that are pedestrian in scale, as
opposed to those that are meant to relate to
automobiles and highways
Avoid "formula "architecture in order to achieve a
design that better reflects the community
Prohibit corporate colors, franchise patterns and
buildings that are designed as signs; encourage
creative design that relies on "found" character
rather than introduced character
Require detail that is integral to the building, not
elements that are applied to a standard building
shell (such as clock, towers or "plastic" awnings)
Develop buildings that re/ate to the district and
people on all sides, not just the public sides;
eliminate a "back door" appearance of other
commercial areas
Avoid large, blank wall. surfaces; encourage
windows, doors or other means of articulating
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Planning Commission Recommendation • Page 19
large facades
Make building entries the highlight of the
structure so it becomes obvious that the
development is related to pedestrians
Integrate mechanical systems into the design of
the building
Provide trash storage areas that are completely
enclosed and incorporated as a part of the
building
Require that signs be incorporated into the
building facade, windows or awnings; do not
allow signs that extend more than 12" beyond
the plane of the building facade or signs that
extend beyond the roof line
Develop taller buildings at some areas within the
district to emphasize its role as a gateway and to
provide locus at the center of the district
Allow two or three story buildings at the
intersection of 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue
and in areas south of 76th Street
Require the use of high quality building materials
and methods to create a stock of buildings that is
enduring
Utilize materials that are durable, easily
maintained and attractive at close distances (from
the sidewalk, for example); and materials that
have an attractive pattern, texture and quality
detailing
Encourage the use of brick, stone or high quality
precast concrete; metals that are matte finish and
neutral in color, with visible comer trim when
used for exterior walls
Require the use of transparent glass at the
majority of street level windows; prohibit the use
of mirrored glass at street level
Encourage canvas awnings; prohibit awnings of
nylon or other synthetic materials, as well as
those awning structures meant to be illuminated
from within
Lyndale Avenue Corridor • Planning Commission Recommendation • Page 20
s6 /9Z/9
3nN3AV 3-1VGNA1
A ~
CE
I
V N
I If
VL
R
Tk '
3
W
@o r-
NVId 311S 3nm3" 31damm vvvL
7444 LYNDALE AVENUE
ELEVATIONS
416-
3z xy
a A I a W
Eli
I
1< I
Ll
n.
W gfrp -r 9 1- F_VA-r1GW
6/26/96
It
416-
3z xy
a A I a W
Eli
I
1< I
Ll
n.
W gfrp -r 9 1- F_VA-r1GW
6/26/96
Item: #4 Agenda Section: New Business
PC Letter: #9 Date: June 25, 1996
GENERAL INFORMATION
Subject: Consideration of an ordinance amendment to incorporate provisions for cluster
home development and modify regulations for townhomes.
References: See attachments.
ANALYSIS
Background: There is a limited variety of housing types available in the city of Richfield.
Attached housing, such as townhomes, is one type of housing that the City
noticeably lacks. As the number of empty nester households grows, the demand
for attached forms of housing is likely to increase.
The City's zoning ordinance places requirements on townhome developments
that are similar to the requirements for apartment buildings. In a fully
developed community like Richfield, there is no vacant land available for
townhome development. Townhome projects are only likely to occur through
redevelopment or on a small scale as infill projects.
Smaller townhome projects, called cluster homes, have been developed in other
communities in a manner similar to single family housing. These communities
have allowed cluster homes in non - multiple family districts when the design and
location is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
The Planning Commission held a study session on March 12, 1996 to discuss the
concept of cluster home and infill townhome development. On May 14, 1996
the Planning Commission met with several townhome developers to identify the
barriers to this type of development in fully - developed communities like
Richfield.
Proposal: Based on discussions with City housing staff and direction provided at the study
sessions, staff has developed ordinance language designed to remove some of the
barriers to townhome and cluster home development while ensuring that the
residential character of Richfield neighborhoods is preserved. Attachment One
summarizes the components of the ordinance changes. A sample ordinance
amendment is also attached.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Discuss and review the issues; recommend that the City Council approve an
ordinance amendment to add provisions for cluster home developments and
modify current townhome regulations. A sample ordinance is provided,
however, the Planning Commission may suggest changes it feels are appropriate.
Basis: 1. The current zoning ordinance limits townhouse development to the medium
density multiple housing district and planned unit developments. The
ordinance does not recognize smaller, more single - family like cluster
developments.
2. The variety of housing types available in the City is limited. Over the past
several years, the City and HRA have worked towards diversifying the
City's housing stock.
3. Under the Livable Communities Act, the City has developed several
housing principles one of which is to support for a variety of housing types
for people in all stages of the life cycle (see attached Housing Goals and
Housing Action Plan).
4. The update of the City's Comprehensive Plan, estimated to be in place by
the end of 1996, encourages the life cycle housing concept and identifies
several locations for low density, attached forms of housing.
Alternative: 1. Conduct further study and discussion of the issues.
2. Recommend that the City Council not adopt an ordinance amendment
regarding cluster homes and townhouse development.
ATTACHMENT ONE
TOWNHOME ORDINANCE CHANGES
Density Comp Plan (to be in effect end of 1996)
Single family detached /attached housing: < 5 units /acre
High density single family attached housing: 4 to 12
units /acre
Multiple family medium: up to 24 units /acre
Multiple family high: over 24 units /acre
Note: includes streets in density calculation)
Density is established in the Comp Plan:
The Plan identifies several transition areas to be at a higher
density (4 to 12 units /acre). If a development were proposed
in the middle of a single family residential district, the
density requirements in the Comp Plan would ensure that the
development be at a low density (less than 5 units /acre),
consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
Minimum Lot Size/ R 4500 sq. ft/unit
Size Per Unit MR -1 4500 sq. ft/unit
MR -2 3 units - -4,000 sq. ft
4 units - -3,500 sq. ft
5 + - -3,000 sq. ft
MR -3 Same as MR -2
C -1 Same as MR -1
C -2 Same as MR -2
Setbacks R 30; 5; 12; 25 (front, side interior, street side, rear)
Can be reduced to 25; 5; 12; 15 if these three requirements
are met:
1. a superior design is achieved
2. the reduced setback does not negatively impact the
surrounding neighborhood
3. A landscaped buffer is provided in the rear
MR -1 Same as R
MR -2 Same as R
MR -3 30; 20; 25; 25
Can be reduced to 25; 10; 15; 15 if the three requirements
are met
C -1 Same as R
C -2 Same as MR -2
Open Space R, MR -1 600 sq. ft. /unit; + 100 sq. ft. for > 2 bedrooms
MR -2, MR -3 2 or fewer bedrooms- -325 sq. ft /u
3 or more bedrooms- -425 sq. ft /u
Restrictive Covenants Don't require -- required by state statute
Design Standards Architectural compatibility with the neighborhood
ATTACHMENT ONE
TOWNHOME ORDINANCE CHANGES
ITEM: DISTRICT , .:: CHANGE
Parking 2 spaces per unit; 1 covered
R uire off - street parking permit if more than 10 units
Lot Coverage 35 perc ent
Landscaping Meet landscape guidelines on file in Community
Development Department
The guidelines will be modified to refer specifically to
this type of development and establish a standard
requirement
Conditional vs. Permitted R -1 Not permitted
R Conditional
MR -1 Conditional
MR -2 Permitted
MR -3 Permitted
C -1 Conditional
C -2 Conditional
I Not permitted
Definition /Number of Units Minimum of 3 units
attached or detached or combination of both
Richfield City Code (Zoning)
Purpose and Definitions 506.07, Subd.84
SECTION 506 - ZONING; PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS
506.01. Title. Sections 506 to 546 contain the Zoning Code (or Zoning Ordinance) of the
City of Richfield. In Sections 506 to 546, the Zoning Code is referred to as "this code ". The
City Code of ordinances is referred to as "the City Code".
506.07. Definitions. Subdivision 1. For the purpose of this code, the following words and
terms shall have the meanings stated:
Subd. — "Cluster home development" - A development of 3 or more detached
dwellings or a row, group or cluster of attached one family dwellings. Dwelling units
may be located on individual lots or on a lot in common.
SECTION 521 - ZONING: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
521.01. Single Family Residential District (R). Subdivision 1. Subsections 521.01 to
521.16 apply to the R District.
521.07. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional
uses in the R District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in
Section 546.05 of this code.
Subd. 15. Cluster home developments, provided the following conditions are met:
as the architectural design of the project shall be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood:
b) landscaping shall be provided in accordance with the Richfield Landscape
Reguirements, on file with the Office of Community Development:
c) two off - street parking spaces, one of which must be enclosed in a garage,
shall be provided for each dwelling unit:
d) there shall be a minimum of 600 square feet of outdoor open space provided
on the lot per dwelling unit. This requirement shall be increased by 100
square feet for each bedroom in excess of two per dwelling unit.
521.09. Lot area, width, depth, and coverage. Subdivision 1. Standards. The standards
set out in this subsection apply in the R District.
Subd. 2. Minimum lot area, width, and depth:
Subd. 4. Maximum lot coverage:
Lots of 7,000 S . Ft. or less: 35%
Lots of over 7,000 S . Ft.: The greater of 25% or 2,500 S . Ft.
Non - residential uses:
700 S . Ft. 50 Ft. 100 Ft.
EP}. 9,000 S . Ft. 60 Ft. 100 Ft.
M: —M, L:fiII)E I T z « ««< 40,000 S . Ft. 150 Ft. 100 Ft.
Subd. 4. Maximum lot coverage:
Lots of 7,000 S . Ft. or less: 35%
Lots of over 7,000 S . Ft.: The greater of 25% or 2,500 S . Ft.
Non - residential uses: 50%
Subd. 5. Lot area, width, depth and coverage for Cluster Home Developments:
a) Minimum lot area: 4,500 square feet per unit.
b) Minimum lot width: 75 feet.
C) Minimum lot depth: 100 feet
d) Maximum lot coverage (principal structure): 35 percent.
521.11. Required building setback and maximum height. Subdivision 1. Standards. The
standards set out in this subsection apply in the R District.
Subd. 2. Required setback and maximum height:
Subd. 6. Setback reductions for principal buildings. The following setback reductions
apply in the R District:
a) on a corner lot, the streetside side setback requirement shall be the lesser of
12 feet or the established streetside side setback of the existing principal
building on the same lot for single family -eftd, two family and cluster home
structures. In any case the provisions of paragraphs d) and e) of this
subdivision shall be applicable;
b) the front setback requirement for a new single family dwelling, two family
dwelling or cluster home on a lot may be reduced to not less than the
average existing front setback of the welling(s) which front
on the same street and abut such lot, to a minimum setback of 20 feet;
f) The setback requirements for cluster homes may be reduced to 25 feet in the
front and 15 feet in the rear if the following_ criteria are met:
i) a superior design is achieved through the reduced setback:
ii) the reduced setback does not negatively impact the surrounding
neighborhood:
iii) a landscaped buffer is provided in the rear to reduce the impact
of the smaller setback on the adjacent property:
A
XN R < E....... T s.T S.%D . 1Si"l i
30 Ft. 25 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 25 Ft.
1< €: 30 Ft. 25 Ft. 10 Ft. 12 Ft. 25 Ft.
G ' >Elf«< << €HOiVIE; 30 Ft. 25 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 25 Ft.
bRY: > < >«<'< <`: ? <: 30 Ft. 3 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 14 Ft.
lSA uiY`XA<: 40 Ft. 30 Ft. 30 Ft. 30 Ft. 42 Ft.
AG55Ut'I' < ?? 40 Ft. 10 Ft. 10 Ft. 30 Ft. 1 15 Ft.
Subd. 6. Setback reductions for principal buildings. The following setback reductions
apply in the R District:
a) on a corner lot, the streetside side setback requirement shall be the lesser of
12 feet or the established streetside side setback of the existing principal
building on the same lot for single family -eftd, two family and cluster home
structures. In any case the provisions of paragraphs d) and e) of this
subdivision shall be applicable;
b) the front setback requirement for a new single family dwelling, two family
dwelling or cluster home on a lot may be reduced to not less than the
average existing front setback of the welling(s) which front
on the same street and abut such lot, to a minimum setback of 20 feet;
f) The setback requirements for cluster homes may be reduced to 25 feet in the
front and 15 feet in the rear if the following_ criteria are met:
i) a superior design is achieved through the reduced setback:
ii) the reduced setback does not negatively impact the surrounding
neighborhood:
iii) a landscaped buffer is provided in the rear to reduce the impact
of the smaller setback on the adjacent property:
iv) open space is provided in accordance with Section 521.07,
Subd. 15 (d).
Subd. 5. Performance standards of Section 541. Developments other than single
family or two family dwellings and cluster home developments with fewer than 10
units shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable
performance standards set out in Section 541 of this code.
521.37 Two Family Residential District (MR -1). Subdivision 1. Subsections 521.37 to
521.57 apply to the MR -1 District.
521.43. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional
uses in the MR -1 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in
Section 546.05 of this code.
Subd. 9. Cluster home developments, provided the following conditions are met:
a) the architectural design of the project shall be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood:
b) landscaping shall be provided in accordance with the Richfield Landscape
Requirements, on file with the Office of Community Development:
521.45. Lot area, width, depth, and coverage. Subdivision 1. Standards. The standards
set out in this subsection apply in the MR -1 District.
Subd. 4. The maximum lot coverage in the MR ' Distfiet for single family and two
family dwellings shall be 30 percent.
Subd. 5. Lot area, width, depth and coverage for Cluster Home Developments:
a) Minimum lot area: 4,500 square feet per unit.
b) Minimum lot width: 75 feet.
C) Minimum lot depth: 100 feet
d) Maximum lot coverage: 35 percent.
521.47. Required building setback and maximum height. Subdivision 1. Standards. The
standards set out in this subsection apply in the MR -1 District.
Subd. 2. Required building setback and maximum height:
Subd. 5. Setback reductions for principal buildings. The following setback reductions
apply in the MR -1 District:
a) on a corner lot, the streetside side setback requirement shall be the lesser of
15 feet or the established streetside side setback of the existing principal
building on the same lot for single family -and, two family and cluster home
structures;
d)the front setback requirement for a new single family dwelling, two family
dwelling or cluster home on a lot may be reduced to not less than the
average existing front setback of the dwelling(s) which front on the same
street and abut such lot, to a minimum setback of 20 feet:
e) the setback requirements for cluster homes may be reduced to 25 feet in the
front and 15 feet in the rear if the following criteria are met:
i) a superior design is achieved through the reduced setback:
ii) the reduced setback does not negatively impact the surrounding
neighborhood:
iii) a landscaped buffer is provided in the rear to reduce the impact
of the smaller setback on the adjacent property;
iv) open space is provided in accordance with Section 521.07,
Subd. 15 (d).
521.53. Outdoor open space requirement. There shall be a minimum of 600 square feet of
outdoor open space provided on the lot per dwelling unit in the MR -1 District. This
requirement shall be increased by 100 square feet for each bedroom in excess of two per
dwelling unit.
521.55. Parking requirement. For two family, —twin home dwellings and cluster home
developments, there shall be provided on the site at least two parking spaces per dwelling unit,
of which at least one space per dwelling shall be enclosed in a garage.
i1
XaiETX12'......
SIl(xY!'At!' €i` 30 Ft. 25 Ft. 10 Ft. 15 Ft. 25 Ft.
30 Ft. 25 Ft. 10 Ft. 15 Ft. 25 Ft.
f':u5TE1EY€ f1IlM)E 30 FT. 25 Ft. 10 Ft. 15 Ft. 25 ft.
FSS4Yt'Y<<<^ 30 Ft. 3 Ft. 10 Ft. 15 Ft. 14 Ft.
Subd. 5. Setback reductions for principal buildings. The following setback reductions
apply in the MR -1 District:
a) on a corner lot, the streetside side setback requirement shall be the lesser of
15 feet or the established streetside side setback of the existing principal
building on the same lot for single family -and, two family and cluster home
structures;
d)the front setback requirement for a new single family dwelling, two family
dwelling or cluster home on a lot may be reduced to not less than the
average existing front setback of the dwelling(s) which front on the same
street and abut such lot, to a minimum setback of 20 feet:
e) the setback requirements for cluster homes may be reduced to 25 feet in the
front and 15 feet in the rear if the following criteria are met:
i) a superior design is achieved through the reduced setback:
ii) the reduced setback does not negatively impact the surrounding
neighborhood:
iii) a landscaped buffer is provided in the rear to reduce the impact
of the smaller setback on the adjacent property;
iv) open space is provided in accordance with Section 521.07,
Subd. 15 (d).
521.53. Outdoor open space requirement. There shall be a minimum of 600 square feet of
outdoor open space provided on the lot per dwelling unit in the MR -1 District. This
requirement shall be increased by 100 square feet for each bedroom in excess of two per
dwelling unit.
521.55. Parking requirement. For two family, —twin home dwellings and cluster home
developments, there shall be provided on the site at least two parking spaces per dwelling unit,
of which at least one space per dwelling shall be enclosed in a garage.
521.57. Performance standards. Subdivision 1. Standards. Developments shall be
constructed and maintained in accordance with the standards set out in this subsection.
Subd. 5. Performance standards of Section 541. Developments other than single
family, two family, er -twin home dwellings, or cluster homes with fewer than 10 units
shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable performance
standards set out in Section 541 of this code.
521.59. -Multi - Family Residential District (MR -2). Subdivision 1. Subsections 521.59 to
521.77 apply to the MR -2 District.
521.65. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional
uses in the MR -2 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in
Section 546.05 of this code.
Subd. 6. Cluster home developments, provided the architectural design of the project
is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
521.67. Minimum lot area, floor area, and parking requirements for multi - family
dwellings (excluding townhouses and cluster home developments). Subdivision 1.
Standards. The standards set out in this subsection apply to apartments and condominiums in
the MR -2 District.
521.69. Minimum W arett. Floor nrett. nad mirkine PRequirements for townhouses and
cluster home developments. Subdivision 1. Standards. The standards set out in this
subsection apply to townhouses. cluster home developments and other attached dwelling units
of a similar nature in the MR -2 District.
Subd. 2. Minimum lot area:
a) Three unit structure: 4,000 square feet per unit.
b) Four unit structure: 3,500 square feet per unit.
c) Five or six unit structure: 3,000 square feet per unit.
Subd. 3. Minimum floor areas:
a) One - bedroom - 650 square feet per unit.
b) Two - bedroom - 850 square feet per unit.
c) Three or more bedrooms - 1,000 square feet per unit.
Subd. 4. Maximum building height: 35 feet.
Subd. 5. Minimum lot width: 75 feet.
Subd. 6. Maximum lot coverage (principal structure): 35 percent.
Subd. 7. Outdoor open space requirements:
a) Two or fewer bedrooms: 325 square feet minimum per dwelling unit.
b) Three or more bedrooms: 425 square feet minimum per dwelling unit.
c) Balconies and porches with at least 70 square feet and seven feet in width
which are directly accessible by individual dwelling units may be counted as
contributin 175 square feet to the outdoor open space requirements listed
above.
Subd. 8. Setback requirements:
a) Front: 30 feet.
b Side:
G) interior - 10 feet.
ii) streetside - 15 feet.
c) Rear: 25 feet.
Subd. 9. Setback reductions: the setback requirements for cluster homes may be
reduced to 25 feet in the front 5 feet for the side interior and 15 feet in the rear if the
following_ criteria are met:
a) a superior design is achieved through the reduced setback:
b) the reduced setback does not negatively impact the surrounding
neighborhood:
c) a landscaped buffer is provided between the development and the ad.i cent
property to reduce the impact of the smaller setback on the adjacent
property:
Subd. 10. Landscapintz requirements: Landscaping shall be accomplished in
accordance with the Richfield Landscape Requirements, on file with the Office
Community Development.
Subd. 11. Minimum parking: Two off- street parking spaces, at least one of which
shall be in a garage, shall be provided for each dwelling unit. Projects with 10 units
or more must obtain an off-street parking permit and parking areas shall meet the
standards set in the Richfield Parking Requirements, on file with the Office of
Community Development.
521.71. Requirements for atH multi - family structures in the MR -2 District. Subdivision 1.
Standards. The standards set out in this subsection apply to afi— multi - family structures
ifieluding fewAeuses excluding townhomes and cluster home developments).
521.77. Performance standards. Subdivision 1. Developments shall be constructed and
maintained in accordance with the standards set out in this subsection.
Subd. 2. No more than 20 percent of the dwelling units in any one building shall be
efficiency dwelling units.
Subd. 3. Developments other than cluster home developments with fewer than 10
units shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable
performance standards set out in Section 541 of this code.
Subd. 4. All property located within a design district or corridor overlay district shall
be subject to such district's additional requirements and /or modifications.
521.79. High Density Multi - Family Residential District (MR -3). Subdivision 1.
Subsections 521.79 to 521.95 apply to the MR -3 District.
521.85. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional
uses in the MR -3 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in
Section 546.05 of this code.
Subd. 5. Cluster home developments, provided the architectural design of the project
is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
521.87. Minimum lot area, floor area, and parking requirements for multi - family
dwellings. Subdivision 1. Standards. The standards set out in this subsection apply to all
multi - family dwellings in the MR -3 District (excluding townhome and clusterhome
developments).
521.90. Minimum lot area, floor area, and parking requirements for townhouses and
cluster home developments. Subdivision 1. Standards— The standards set out in this
subsection apply to townhouses, cluster home developments and other attached dwelling nits
of a similar nature in the MR -3 District.
Subd. 2. Minimum lot area:
a) Three unit structure: 4,000 square feet per unit.
b) Four unit structure: 3,500 square feet per unit.
c) Five or six unit structure: 3,000 square feet per unit.
Subd. 3. Minimum floor areas:
a) One - bedroom - 650 square feet per unit.
b) Two - bedroom - 850 square feet per unit.
c) Three or more bedrooms - 1,000 square feet per unit.
Subd. 4. Maximum building height: 35 feet.
Subd. 5. Minimum lot width: 75 feet.
Subd. 6. Maximum lot coverage (principal structure): 35 percent.
Subd. 7. Outdoor open space requirements:
a) Two or fewer bedrooms: 325 square feet minimum per dwelling unit.
b) Three or more bedrooms: 425 square feet minimum per dwelling unit.
c) Balconies and Qorches with at least 70 square feet and seven feet in width
which are directly accessible by individual dwelling units may be counted as
contributing 175 square feet to the outdoor open space requirements listed
above.
Subd. S. Setback requirements:
a) Front: 30 feet
b Side:
i) interior - 20 feet.
ii) streetside - 25 feet.
c) Rear: 25 feet.
Subd. 9. Setback reductions: the setback requirements for cluster homes may be
reduced to 25 feet in the front 10 feet for the side interior, 15 feet for the side
streetside and 15 feet in the rear if the following criteria are met:
a) a superior design is achieved through the reduced_ setback:
b) the reduced setback does not negatively impact the surrounding
neighborhood:
c) a landscaped buffer is provided between the development and the adjacent
property to reduce the impact of the smaller setback on the adjacent
property:
d) open space is provided in accordance with Section 521.07, Subd. 15 (d).
Subd. 10. Landscaping requirements: Landscaping shall be accomplished in
accordance with the Richfield Landscape Requirements. on file with the Office
Community Development.
Subd. 11. Minimum parking,: Two off - street parking spaces, at least one of which
shall be in a garage, shall be provided for each dwelling unit. Projects with 10 units
or more must obtain an off- street parking permit and parking areas shall meet the
standards set in the Richfield Parking Requirements, on -file with the Office of
Community Development.
521.91, Requirements for accessory buildings and uses. Subdivision 1. The requirements
set out in this subsection apply to accessory buildings and uses in the MR -3 District.
521.95. Performance standards. Subdivision 1. Developments shall be constructed and
maintained in accordance with the standards set out in this subsection.
Subd. 3. Developments other than cluster home developments with fewer than 10
units shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable
performance standards set out in Section 541 of this code.
Richfield City Code (Zoning)
C -3 District 526.63, Subd. 6 (c)
SECTION 526 - ZONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
526.01. Neighborhood Business District (C -1). Subdivision 1. Subsections 526.01 to
526.19 apply to the C -1 District.
526.07. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional
uses in the C -1 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in
Section 546.05 of this code.
Subd. 12. Multi-family_ dwellings. townhouses and cluster home developments that
comply with the R District provisions and requirements, as set out in Section 521.37 of
this code.
526.21. General Commercial District (C -2). Subdivision 1. Subsections 526.21 to 526.37
apply to the C -2 District.
526.27. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional
uses in the C -2 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in
Section 546.05 of this code.
Subd. 20. Single family dwellings that comply with the R -1 District provisions and
requirements, as set out in Section 521.17 of this code.
Subd. 21. Two - family dwellings that comply with the MR -1 provisions and
requirements, as set out in Section 521.37 of this code; and
Subd. 22. Multi - family dwellings, townhouses and cluster home developments that
comply with the MR -2 District provisions and requirements, as set out in Section
521.59 of this code.
Richfield Housing Goals
and
Housing Action Plan
1996 to 2010
in response to the
Metropolitan Livable Communities Act
Presented by
THE RICHFIELD HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
and
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
June1996
ICHFT LD
VD
Richfield Housing Action Plan
Contents
Executive Summary of the Plan.
Housing Goals Agreement.
Housing Program and Marketplace Framework.
Single Family Program Summary, 1996 to 2001.
Multifamily Program Summary, 1996 to 2001.
Process Statement for Achieving Richfield Housing
Goals, 1996 to 2010.
The Draft Comprehensive Plan; scheduled
completion in 1996.
Richfield Housing Action Plan
Executive Summary
In 1995, The Minnesota State Legislature created the Livable Communities Act and
directed the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area to oversee the
development of Housing Action Plans. The Plan for the City of Richfield reflects unique
market challenges. To summarize:
Richfield is found to be a very affordable place to live and is committed to
maintaining a supply of affordable housing choices.
Richfield needs a more diverse housing stock. Richfield should encourage single
family market rate new construction and remodeling which will increase home
values. Richfield should also promote the construction of attached and detached
townhomes which provide greater life -cycle housing choices.
Richfield needs a greater variety of apartment choices.
The "Housing Goals Agreement" presents the goals (index) and a fifteen year proposed
change in the index (the benchmark) which were developed by the Metropolitan Council.
The City Council and Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority responded with
goals, in five year increments given best efforts, market conditions, and resource
availability. Richfield's goals are further supported with materials in the plan, including the
following:
Housing Program and Marketplace Framework and Program Summary;
describing local program responses at various marketplace value segments.
The Process Statement for Achieving Richfield Housing Goals; explaining the
strategy for creating life cycle housing and increasing housing choices and housing
density.
The 1996 Draft Comprehensive Plan; outlining proposed changes in land use
and density over the long term.
Housing Goals Agreement
Metropolitan Livable Communities Act
PRINCIPLES
The City ofRichfield supports:
A balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels.
O The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing
within the community.
G) A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life - cycle.
A community of well - maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing.
Housing development that respects the natural environment ofthe community while striving to
accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs.
The availability ofa full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access
to and linkage between housing and employment.
GOALS
To carry out the above housing principles, the City ofRichfield agrees to:
Use benchmark indicators for communities of similar location and stage of development as affordable
and life -cycle housing goals for the specified periods.
Make its best efforts, given market conditions and resource availability, to remain within or make
progress toward these benchmarks.
These goals will be reviewed by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (MA) in 2001
and 2006.
CITY INDEX BENCHMARK RICHFIELD GOAL
FOR RICHFIELD (1996 to 200 1) (1996 to 2001)
Affordability
Ownership 97% 64 -77% 92%
Rental 64% 3245% 59%
Life -Cycle
Type (Non - single
family detached)
36% 3841% 3641%
Owner/RenterMix 65/35% 64 -70 / 30 -35% 65 -70 / 30 -35%
Density
Single -Family
Detached
3.6 /acre 2.3 -2.9 /acre " 2:9 -3.6 /acre
Multifamily 21 /acre 11 -15 /acre 15 -21 /acre
To achieve the above goals, the City ofRichfield elects to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities
Act Local Housing Incentives Program, and will prepare and submit a plan to the Metropolitan Council by June
30, 1996, indicating the actions it will take to carry out the above goals.
CERTIFICATION
A • January 15, 19961? 1 MAOM a -
Mayor Date
O
O
I O
lC
U O
O
O. n
O
O N_
3
F Oa o
O
a.
o
o
O
Q c
r
0
O
O
b O
C O
cw
L
M
O
O
a H
t
Ot
q
4
N
W
O
W
0
V
0
cn
cn
Q
E~
C 7
Q
00 ,
rn
o
w
c
c .a
P
I
4
o
o
C G
40
o b
x
w
Cd
T
y4
E E fl A
i 4
O
o
o
n
c
O
An
y 0 O
p w
U
C a
Q
z as
C7
V
cn
F"
Q o
Gx7 W o ao
0 z zv x
a 0 0
t
Ot
q
4
N
W
O
W
0
V
0
cn
cn
Q
E~
C 7
Q
00 ,
rn
o
b
c
c .a
I
4
o
y
C G
40
E
x
w
i
T
t
Ot
q
4
N
W
O
W
0
V
0
cn
cn
Q
E~
C 7
Q
V
OMMMA
og::!k
00 ,
rn
o
b
c
c .a
I 4
o
y
C G
40
E
x
w
i
a
y4
E E fl A
i 4
V
OMMMA
og::!k
n
00
J
U
a
w
0
U
b
U
0
c
0
yV
U
o
0
U
00 ,
rn
o
b
c
c .a
o
C G
E
x
w
G a
E - aEEfl A
c w
o
o
An U jo x
n
00
J
U
a
w
0
U
b
U
0
c
0
yV
U
o
0
U
b
G
C G
E
w
G a
E - aEEfl A
ua as
o
n
00
J
U
a
w
0
U
b
U
0
c
0
yV
U
o
0
U
I
O
O
N
N
D
O
0
O
ONO
w
Cif
o ono
y
y '
y Q CD
C) O
s cc y
C O
C
O C pq 0
O D
N
O
G1q bD
W
co
W g
0 C
aa+
C C
1soc>
y
O O
O
0 O O 0
a H
DO
c
0 0
y
0 0
cn C C ..
c s c H
CD
Cd
E U vm
b
Cdc x;
xw
N
o^•
y O6. OQ
U
E
F
o
Q ca .
o o mow
a = . _ a «. c
o c`!
w
0
aoiri-v
CE
r
C p
o
O
00
O
0
O
0
O
OQpN
y
RS 0 L-
V
CO O rrMM V
c0 r
L) 0 CLSy d V •'d
a G5 O o- Z oa o
V C O H 00 ao OaE•
C p 4 o D s
O .d co
O b4 E O w fa "
yH,.., w o ° c3 a 3 as
O w E o
y
y a O x O C W y C
Q W Q, a a y Crt
a
H s Cd r _
V
o f 0. •
o a W E p 0 CA WW
a
Q{ O
y o ?
t4r •++ Qr
E o
a y M.y fyA C
m Q cdE `o ° e
0
o b
CD o
o ° •z W)
o ^
O h
cc ¢. N
b y + O 3 o
L a
b O
y
W .ON O ed O Lam.
z s
y
cc
I y Cd C
y
W N
ai =
L U V O
a `'
U U O
C"
d aC V td
sL) .0
m-0,005 a o
a
o
o Er V
E .a . co H cas
c
N F- 3
O
O
N
o
C"J
a
w
a
z
O U
10 0
a 0 N O O
V+
a A .
0 &.
y 'q
to
M 0
Lo
w x xcm x
in
b b
L
a
0
a w
at c7 q_ 0 0
a
d
a
V
sa
w
o
6
o
te
c
o
A 00
a
ffx Halo
rA
W N o W o w
on
o
on 0
r- N x o w
0
c4
V] LCy
y
Fr
rA
W
v U -0 CD Cc:
bA of y 0 O O A' y to O
rc
W
A o
z
to 62
E y W .°0 o
a 4.) >, w o •b k O
Cd
7
cd (DW¢
x wF
o a
ti
on co rA
i O h • Cd GU'
0
D
O
O
I
O
0.
a
r
n
V
Cw 0 °oo•C
C b C a) Ch
D
co O
a aHco.$ o- O c o C
a) v, C y O" (U C x y
Gvo
o 0
d
cs• • a
d 0:2 od0oi Cd
wyU
w cs3 c
0 r ay0
o.0 0 U
baO•
s y D U ri C
y U H . C7 ed OCUOU
asH w
No
m
o
I C
NU =
d
y 'C
o = y
fy +
E
0 e v ca .
aN+
v -
0 Gn
CJ
o a
wo a
o
Q
w
0
co E
C C
y C-0 'fl H
V o
Cd
o
C CD w7 a
Do
C>
p
C :a
o.o
td
0
tn
C
C
b
p
y 0 a = O
O >
U p wL. cd
0 a3o
y0
G.cd
s K
H (L)
o m o. >
s 64 cc m
t+ aCC
G
3
o
d 00
a 5
30
N
F'-•
0
LZ G
o
O '= a
a
W wWW/
o, ao
cu
a
zCd
y
z a
oo
H
zU
E Q 0. W H cd
OHO
O
H
a dye
odaa.,.
d w2..
H
y
Zp_ zz'U d
e O4-4
y O O
a.2 g
z CL)
y
w o Wua (' Hvxwv U
Process statement for achieving
Richfield housing goals
1996 -2010
In response to the City ofRichfield Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, the City ofRichfield and
Metropolitan Council have entered into a 15 year housing goal strategy based on "City Index" and 'Benchmark"
standards developed by the Metropolitan Council. The City ofRichfield is challenged to accomplish the
following four objectives:
4 Increase the ownership ratio of market rate homes to affordable homes.
To make progress toward a 15 year goal by 2001, 500 more homes over $115,000 should
be provided by public and private initiatives. These goals, performance, and resources would be
reviewed in 2001 and 2006.
Increase the ratio of higher rent units to affordable rent units.
To make progress toward a 15 year goal by 2001, 250 units should have higher market
values. These goals, performance, and resources should be reviewed in 2001 and 2006.
Increase the ratio and variety of ownership choices if possible.
Increase housing density from the present "City Index" if possible.
O
op
v
The 62 page "Draft Richfield Comprehensive Plan,
1996," is a required reference document to include
when the Housing Action Plan is submitted to the
Metropolitan Council. However, only the cover
page has been included here to minimize paper
and printing of multiple copies. The complete
copy is available in the Community Development
Department.
U.ZS
Os
w IZ Y
o
LOOOn
A
C
d
IE:::
0
v
SO
a
J
Q.
no..
w
Z
0
w
5;
0
i {
DIY. -. ""• • ` -r1...`. `
1 =61
1a'
C
C
Cn
U
x
w