07-23-1996OITY OF RIOFIFIELD
I'Lnmm OOtY1miss1O11
AGEnDE1
July 23, 1996
1 • Jul
ROLL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Special Planning Commission meeting on June 24, 1996 and regular Planning Commission on
June 25, 1996.
PUBLIC HEARING....
ITEM #1 96 -CUP -7 7108 Chicago Avenue - United Nursing & Health
Care - conditional use permit to allow daycare for
sick children.
ITEM #2 96 -CUP -8 305 East 77th Street - Church of the Assumption -
conditional use permit for expansion of existing
cemetery.
ITEM #3 96- APUD -2 6625 Lyndale Avenue - Richfield Bank & Trust -
amend planned unit development for addition of a
maintenance building. '
ITEM #4 96 -RZ -3 7645 Nicollet Avenue - City of Richfield - rezoning
from C -1 (neighborhood commercial) to MR -1
two- family residential).
NEW> BUSINESS
ITEM #5
OLD 'BUSINESS
ITEM #6
Richfield Lake Area Planning Analysis
Tom Martinson
Update on Townhome /Clusterhome
Ordinance Amendment
LIAISONREP.ORTS
School Board
Community Services Advisory Commission
HRA
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 MINUTES
ITV (1G Special
June 24, 1996
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Darnel Linnihan; Commissioners: Timothy Erlander,
Kristal Stokes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Pamela Dmytrenko, David Gepner, Mitchell Hadley, Kevin Hansen,
Dawn Postudensek, and Paul Wasko
STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Nordquist, Acting Community Development Director
Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 9:40
p.m. No quorum was present.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Commissioner Stokes presented the Comprehensive Plan update to the City Council for
review and conditional approval.
Council Member Susag clarified that "protecting the residential character" did not
preclude changes in land use, in some cases from residential to commercial. He pointed out that
it's good that the Plan provides a classification for quasi - public and institutional uses.
Council Member Priebe commended the Plan overall but stated that he objects to the
portion that would develop Washington Park and replace park land at Wilson Pond.
Council Member Sandahl pointed out that the Plan is just a vision and doesn't mean things
will happen tomorrow. Mayor Kirsch emphasized that this portion of the plan doesn't propose to
take people's homes and that many things would have to happen before the vision became reality.
Larry Wozniczka, 6744 Wentworth Avenue, stated his concern that there hadn't been a
reasonable length of time to review the plan and make comments. Zoning Administrator Urban
stated that there would be an official public comment period once the Metropolitan Council had
reviewed the plan.
Council Member Priebe moved to conditionally approve the plan omitting the changes
suggested for Washington Park and Wilson Pond. The motion failed for a lack of a second.
June 24, 1996
Page 2
Council Member Susag moved and Council Member Sandahl seconded to conditionally
approve the Plan, subject to review by the Metropolitan Council and holding a public comment
period and public hearing.
The motion passed 4 -1 (Priebe opposed).
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was-adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Timothy Erlander
Planning Commission Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Oda
Regular Meeting
June 25;1996
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
Robert Robson, Planning Staff Assistant
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:00
p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Dmytrenko asked staff to correct the minutes for the regular meeting of
May 28, 1996 and change the word "Linden" to "Lincoln" in the last paragraph of page 6.
M/Erlander, S/Postudensek to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission
meeting of May 28. 1996, as corrected.
M/Erlander, S /Stokes to approve the minutes of the special Planning Commission
meeting of June 11. 1996.
June 25, 1996
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CASE 96- CUP -5, 6409 Cedar Avenue
ITEM #1 Smith & Nielsen Automotive Service
Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of existing
auto repair building
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.
Chairperson Linnihan asked if the neighboring property's easement would be blocked by
the garage expansion to which Ms. Urban responded no.
Commissioner Wasko asked if the letter that was received from the owner of the adjacent
property expressing concern regarding the easement would change staff's decision supporting the
conditional use permit. Ms. Urban responded no.
Jerry Holman, Property Owner and Manager of Smith & Nielsen, stated that they are
proposing no changes to the neighbor's entrance or easement. He said that he has in the past
offered to pay the neighbor for the easement and to pay for the construction of a driveway for the
neighbor's property. Mr. Holman added that he does not think that parking is a big issue and that
when parking mistakes do occur they are quickly corrected.
Chairperson Linnihan stated that the easement issue could be solved by painting striping
on the easement area and using signs to direct people to the proper parking places.
Commissioner Wasko inquired as to why reducing the building size would not mitigate
the parking problems. Mr. Holman responded that a smaller building would just result in more
cars being parked outside. Commissioner Stokes asked if cars are currently put inside at night
and Mr. Holman answered yes.
Commissioner Stokes stated that striping and putting up signs directing people to parking
spots would alleviate the easement concerns. Mr. Holman responded that they would be willing
to do both.
Chairperson Linnihan opened the floor to public discussion.
M/Erland6r, S/Hadley to close the public hearing.
fy
June 25, 1996
Page 3
CASE 96- ACUP -2, 7444 Lyndale Avenue
ITEM #2 Richfield Transmission
Amend conditional Use Permit to allow construction of
a six - service bay auto repair building.
Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of the
amended conditional use permit request with the stipulations that are detailed in the staff report.
Commissioner Stokes asked if there would be a berm between the fence and parking lot
and Ms. Urban answered that the area would be flat. Commissioner Gepner wanted to know if
this project would be consistent with the Lyndale Avenue Plan to which Ms. Urban answered
yes.
Chuck Lowinske, Owner of Richfield Transmission, responded to a question from
Commissioner Wasko by stating that most of the neighbors want the proposed fence. He added
that he also wants the fence because it will help keep people off his property.
Commissioner Gepner asked if there was going to be two entrances into the building.
Mr. Lowinske responded that there would be one door leading into the parking lot and another
door leading on to Lyndale
Chairperson Linnihan opened the floor to public discussion.
Tom Borth, 7445 Aldrich, and Kate Meyer, 7441 Aldrich, both stated that they wanted to
be certain that a fence is indeed going to be built between the business and the homes on Aldrich.
Evelyn Skoog, 7421 Aldrich, expressed concern over the parking of damaged cars on the
property. Mr. Lowinske responded that yes it does sometimes happen that cars are left on the
property for a few. days because their owners do not come to pick them up after they have been
repaired. Mr. Lowinske added that he will do what he can to clean things up and that he will put
the less attractive cars out of sight.
Commissioner Hansen asked if the zoning ordinance had language that prohibited the
storage of operable vehicles. Ms. Urban responded no but that the City would respond to
complaints.
In response to a question from Commissioner Postudensek, Mr. Lowinske stated that the
trash area opens away from the neighbors and that its location was chosen for its ease of access.
M/Erlander, S /Stokes to close the public hearing.
June 25, 1996
Page 4
M/Erlander, S/Postudensek to recommend approval of the amended conditional use
permit with the stipulations as stated in the staff report.
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM #3 Community Services Commission - Update on Veterans
Park.
Elaine Gilhousen and Arnie Auchstetter of the Community Services Commission asked
for input from the Planning Commission on how to solicit citizen opinions on plans for the future
of Veterans Memorial Park. The Planning Commission suggested that surveys could be
distributed during public events such as Cattail Days, or at the Farmers Market, or at the Water
Slide. It was also suggested that the Community Services Commission get a voice mail box
where people could phone in their opinions on the park. The local cable television channel could
be used to publicize the phone number. Finally, it was suggested that kids be used in the process.
In response to Gilhousen's request Commissioners Stokes and Erlander volunteered to be
members of a Veterans Memorial Park steering committee.
OLD BUSINESS
ITEM #4 PC Letter #9 Townhome /Clusterhome Ordinance Update
Zoning Administrator Urban presented a proposed ordinance amendment which
incorporates provisions for cluster home development and modifies regulations for townhomes.
Chairperson Linnihan stated that the landscaping provisions should be flexible and be
designed more as guidelines than requirements. Commissioner Stokes added that there should
also be flexibility shown in regards to setbacks.
Commissioner Hadley expressed concern with the tradeoff of open space for balconies
and porches listed in 521.69, subd. 7. He stated that the tradeoff was not equitable. Chairperson
Linnihan added that it should be a 1 for 1 tradeoff.
June 25, 1996
Page 5
Commissioner Stokes suggested that developers be given an opportunity to review a draft
of these proposed regulations and provide input.
Mayor Kirsch agreed that the Planning Commission and the City Council should have a
joint study session to discuss the proposed zoning changes.
It was decided that Ms. Urban would make the changes that were suggested during this
meeting. Amended copies of the proposed zoning ordinance are then to be sent to the Planning
Commission and to selected developers for review.
LIAISON REPORTS
School Board: - Commissioner Dmytrenko reviewed the results of the basic skills test. She
added that the School Board adopted a budget for next year that tries to maintain as many
programs as possible despite the budget being tight.
Community Services Advisory Commission: Commissioner Stokes stated that she
updated the Commission on the Lyndale Avenue Gateway plan.
HRA: Ms. Urban said that the HRA approved the .purchase of the Tip Top Car Wash site.
City Council: Commissioner Erlander stated that the City Council approved the Holy
Angels Dome and the Comprehensive Plan. He added that the PetsMart Vet Clinic also passed
and a charitable gambling public hearing is scheduled for July 22, 1996.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:30 p.m.
Timothy Erlander
Planning Commission Secretary
Item: #1 Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Case: #96 -CUP -7 Date: July 23, 1996
GENERAL INFORMATION
Petitioner: United Corporations of America
Location: 7108 Chicago Avenue South
Type of Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow change in use from a medical office to a
day care for sick children.
Zoning: C -1 (neighborhood commercial)
Land Use: Commercial
Comp. Plan: Medium density buffer
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: 526.07, Subd. 7
ACTION
Proposed Change: Approval of the conditional use permit would allow the applicant to change
the use of the building to a day care facility for sick children.
Staff
Recommendation: Approve the conditional use permit request with one stipulation.
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 July 23, 1996.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of
August 12, 1996.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: The applicant proposes to operate a day care facility for sick children in the
former doctors' office at 7108 Chicago Avenue. The day care will serve a
maximum number of 12 children. The facility will be open from 6:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m.
IssUeS: 1. Five parking spaces will be provided on site, one of which will be
handicapped and one of which will be designated and signed as a pick -up
and drop -off space. City guidelines require one space for every five
children. An appropriate pick -up and drop -off area is also a condition
required by City ordinance.
2. The front boulevard area will be sodded to alleviate a drainage problem
that currently exists on the site.
3. Because the facility will serve sick children only, no outdoor play area is
required.
4. The number of children to be served, 12 children, is also the maximum
number permitted as an accessory use in a residential district. This
number is appropriate in a C -1, neighborhood commercial, district which
is located adjacent to single and multi - family residential areas.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a conditional use
permit for a day care facility for sick children with the following
stipulation:
1. That the applicant obtain all applicable state, county and city licenses.
Basis: 1. The proposed day care is an appropriate use of the currently vacant
property.
2. Adequate parking is provided on site.
3. The proposed day care, serving a maximum of 12 children, will have
minimal impact on the adjacent neighborhood.
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
526.07. 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. 7. Licensed day care facilities, provided the following conditions are met:
a) pick -up and drop -off areas shall be located on the site, and shall be designed to
avoid interfering with traffic and pedestrian movements;
b) outdoor recreational areas shall be located and designed in a manner which
mitigates visual and noise impacts on any abutting residential parcels; and
c) such facilities shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses.
I)
NORTH
SCALE: 1" = 25' DATE: 7 -11 -96
SITE PLAN
7108 CHICAGO AVENUE
DAY CARE CENTER
J w
w
U - -
131 _
PROPERTY LINE
D
COMMON `Z
z
DRI uj
QU.
Jca
IBC 0
IN
BUILDING a U. U. Q
0 ao U V O VCL
t'9 U
1 a z M
tan Q _
1 N L) U
w
cc — —
10' 60' 6' 55'
I)
NORTH
SCALE: 1" = 25' DATE: 7 -11 -96
SITE PLAN
CITY CF R10HRELD
PLnnninG oommission
Action RQquort
Item: #2 Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Case: x/96 -CUP -8 Date: July 23, 1996
GENERAL INFORMATION
Petitioner: Church of the Assumption
Location: 305 East 77th Street
Type of Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow an expansion of the existing cemetery.
Zoning: C -2 (general commercial)
Land Use: Quasi- public
Comp. Plan: Institutional
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: 521.07, Subd. 10; 526.27, Subd. 23
ACTION
Proposed Change: Approval of the conditional use permit would enable the applicant to expand
the existing cemetery.
Staff
Recommendation: Approve the conditional use permit request with one stipulation.
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 July 23, 1996.
Hearing Examiner: The Hearing Examiner will conduct a public hearing on August 20, 1996.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of
August 12, 1996.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: Church of the Assumption is proposing to expand their existing cemetery to
the south of its current location on land formerly occupied by the original
church and rectory. The existing service road would be rerouted to circle
around the cemetery.
Issues: 1. The revised zoning ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 5 acres for
cemeteries. The size of the existing cemetery is approximately 1.6 acres.
With the proposed 0.35 acre addition, the cemetery would be
approximately 2 acres in size. Although the existing cemetery is legally
nonconforming, any expansion requires that it be brought into
conformance with all current ordinance.regulations. The Hearing
Examiner will consider a variance request on August 20, 1996.
2. Evergreen trees will be planted along the eastern property line to provide
some buffering of the proposed use from the adjacent apartment
buildings.
3. The proposed expansion takes into account the current freeway expansion
plans. Once a more definite decision has been made regarding the
expansion of I-494, the church might request further expansion of the
cemetery to the south.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a conditional use
permit with the following stipulation:
1. That the permit be subject to a favorable determination by the Hearing
Examiner.
Basis: 1. The proposed cemetery expansion would improve the appearance of that
area of the property.
2. The proposed expansion does not interfere with the current expansion
plans for I494.
3. Landscaping will be planted along the east property line to provide some
buffering from the adjacent multi - family residential 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.
ZONING CODE:
CITATIONS
SECTION 521 - ZONING: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
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. 10. Cemeteries (may include mausoleums and crematories), provided the following
conditions are met:
a) the lot area shall be not less than five acres;
b) direct views from all abutting residential property shall be buffered in accordance
with the Richfield Landscape Requirements, on file with the Office of Community
Development;
c) the use shall abut an arterial or collector street and access shall be achieved without
conducting significant traffic on local residential streets; and
d) any crematory shall be set back not less than 600 feet from any lot line.
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. 23. Cemeteries (may include mausoleums and crematories) that comply with the R
District provisions and requirements, as set out in Section 521.07, Subd. 10 of this code.
305 EAST 77TH STREET
ASSUMPTION CATHOLIC CHURCH
77TH STREET
I
I
CHURCH
I
J
W O
Z 2
W U
al
z
I I
I I
PROPERTY LINE
78TH STREET
PROPERTY LINE
i
I
E BLDG.
1
I
NEW ROAD
i
ROAD TO BE REMOVED
SITE PLAN
CEMETERY EXPANSION
NORTH
SCALE: 1" = 100't DATE: 7 -14 -96
Item: #3 Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Case: #96- APUD -2 Date: July 23, 1996
GENERAL INFORMATION
Petitioner: Richfield Bank & Trust
Location: 6625 Lyndale Avenue South
Type of Request: Amended Planned Unit Development Plan to allow construction of a
maintenance and vehicle storage building.
Zoning: PC -2 (planned general commercial)
Land Use: Commercial
Comp. Plan: Central Business District
References: see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: Section 536.01, Subds. 5-6; Section 536.17, Subd. 4
ACTION
Proposed Change: Approval of the amended planned unit development plan would enable the
applicant to construct a 2,120 square foot maintenance and vehicle storage
building.
Staff
Recommendation: Approve the amended planned unit development plan 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 July 23, 1996.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of
August 12, 1996.
FA I';` W &J K
Proposal: The applicant, Richfield Bank & Trust, proposes to construct a 2,120 square
foot accessory building at the west end of the existing drive -up teller
facility. The building would be used for vehicle storage and maintenance
work for the bank site. Vehicles would be able to drive in and out to 67th
Street and to the bank property.
A portion of the garage would be constructed under the existing canopy,
eliminating two drive -up service bays. The existing Automated Teller
Machine (ATM) would be moved two bays to the east. The exterior of the
building would be brick, matching the exterior of the existing buildings.
Issues: 1. Part of the existing landscaping would be removed for construction of
the building. Additional plantings would be installed to the west of the
building.
2. The proposed accessory building meets all requirements for an
accessory building in the underlying C -2 (general commercial) district.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the request for an amended
planned unit development plan with the following stipulation:
1. That plantings be installed per the attached landscape plan before October
31, 1996 or an escrow be submitted for the cost of the landscaping.
Basis: 1. The proposed accessory building will allow for indoor storage of vehicles
currently stored outside.
2. The proposed building will allow for central storage of equipment and
supplies.
3. The proposed building meets all requirements for an accessory building in
the underlying C -2 (general commercial) district.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request with a fording of fact
that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding
properties or the City as a whole.
CITATIONS
ZONING CODE:
SECTION 536 - ZONING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
536.01. Planned Unit Developments. Subdivision 1, This Section 536 applies to planned unit
development zoning districts.
Subd. 5. Purposes. The purposes of this section are to:
a) provide for the establishment of PUD zoning districts where appropriate;
b) provide a means of flexibility to the strict application of the land use regulations in
this code, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety,
comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City and its
residents;
c) promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at
the same time, encouraging superior design and construction materials;
d) allow greater intensities and wider varieties in the types of environment available to
City residents;
e) preserve and enhance natural features and open space;
f) improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; and
g) provide transitions in land use in keeping with the character of adjacent land uses.
Subd. 6. Departure from original district regulations. The various zoning regulations and
requirements (e.g., use, building setback, height) which apply to the original district should be
considered as guidelines and may be departed from in the approval of any PUD to accomplish
the purposes described in Subd. 5 of this Subsection.
536.17. Review of PUD application. Subdivision 1. Procedure. Upon receipt of a completed PUD
application and the fee set by Appendix D of the City Code, the following review procedure set out in
this subsection shall commence.
Subd. 4. Required findings. The findings necessary for approval of a PUD application shall
be as follows:
a) the proposed development conforms with the goals and objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Development Plan and any applicable redevelopment plans;
b) the proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and
unified environment within its own boundaries;
c) the development is in substantial conformity with the purpose and intent of the
original district, and departures from the original district regulations are justified by
the design of the development;
d) the development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, or
other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the
development;
e) the development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring properties;
and
f) the terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the plan are sufficient
to protect the public interests.
I
J4v
a
o
6625 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH
MAINTENANCE BUILDING
EXISTING BANK BUILDING
T7 I
NEW BUILDING
18 VEHICLES
0 0 0 0 0 0 'D
i lei III III il. Ill. 11.11 11
EXISTING DRIVE -UP BUILDING
67TH STREET
DATE: 7 -14 -96
SITE PLAN
6625 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH
MAINTENANCE BUILDING
NORWAY MAPLE
COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE
Q O
t \ t
oQtI
MANEY JUNIPER (0) / I R. •
I
I
O Q I
0 j '
0
I 1_
1181 0.
It
1
1
MANEY JUNIPER
ri 5..
7
I
00000 Do
oam>rr.1 1
1 --G1
1
I
500 U(C/
J)
11010
Q / tunl 2
re a -coo
wrx w1d w Sou sm nµM° n.s ..n.
1r ure
mlcwj" Mft4 mm
nn rluw 10 llrurt 10SSB{I To N ow10wr
FLOOR AND LANDSCAPE PLAN
4-
lv
NORTH
SCALE: V DATE: 7 -14 -96
Item: #4 Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Case: #96 -RZ -3 Date: July 23, 1996
GENERAL INFORMATION
Petitioner: City of Richfield
Location: 7645 Nicollet Avenue South
Type of Request: Rezone from C -1 (neighborhood commercial) to MR -1 (two - family
residential).
Zoning: C -1 (neighborhood commercial)
Land Use: Commercial (abandoned)
Comp. Plan: Medium density buffer
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: 521.45, Subd. 2
ACTION
Proposed Change: Approval of the rezoning would allow future residential development of the
property.
Staff
Recommendation: Approve the rezoning request.
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 July 23, 1996.
Hearing Examiner: Not applicable.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council first reading date of
August 12, 1996.
ANALYSIS
Background: The property at 7645 Nicollet was most recently a video store. The
property was purchased as part of the 77th Street improvement project. A
portion of the property was used for the street, the remainder is available for
development.
Proposal: The City is proposing to rezone the parcel from C -1 to MR -1 and sell it to
the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for residential development
through the Richfield Rediscovered program. The parcel is 10,292 square
feet (83 feet by 124 feet), which meets the requirements of the zoning
ordinance for a single family or two family lot in the MR -1 district. The
existing building will be demolished and a new single family or two family
home constructed.
Issues: 1. The noise wall installed as part of the 77th Street improvements
separates the subject property from the commercial area south of 77th
Street and groups it with the residential neighborhood.
2. The parcel is located at the intersection of two arterial streets, making it
an appropriate location for higher density housing.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the request to rezone 7645
Nicollet Avenue from C -1 (neighborhood commercial) to MR -1 (two family
residential).
Basis: ' 1. One of the purposes of the noise wall is to create a separation between
commercial and residential areas; the subject parcel is located to the
north of the noise wall adjacent to residentially -zoned parcels.
2. The rezoning will enable the City to sell the parcel to the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority and reimburse the City's transportation fund.
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 521 - ZONING: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
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. 2. Minimum lot area, width, and depth:
m, 1........ T -i !D -H Wb
7 Sq Ft. 6 oo 50 Ft. 100 Ft.
flu"Y'V": 10.000 Sq. Ft. 75 Ft. 100 Ft.
W
D
Z
W
Q
W
J
J
O
U
ko
7645 NICOLLET AVENUE
REZONING: C -1 TO MR -1
PROPERTY LINE
124.26' -
I
I
coo
LOT #10
IW
a
10
i ORIGINAL LOT LINE
LEC RIC
a
NORTH 8 FT. OF LOT #9
CURB
NOISE WALL
77TH STREET
NORTH
SCALE: 1"= 25' DATE: 7 -11 -96
SITE PLAN,
EXISTING
W
IW
a
10
i ORIGINAL LOT LINE
LEC RIC
a
NORTH 8 FT. OF LOT #9
CURB
NOISE WALL
77TH STREET
NORTH
SCALE: 1"= 25' DATE: 7 -11 -96
SITE PLAN,
EXISTING
Richfield Lake
Area Planning Analysis
Tom Martinson
City Planning & Economic Development
Gary Lampman
Landscape Architect
June, 1996
Richfield Lake
Area Planning Analysis
SCOPE OF DISCOVERY
This analysis is precipitated by upcoming MNDot improvements to I -35W and
Crosstown Highway 62. These improvements were programmed by MNDot to effectively
require the removal of up to 90 apartment units and three single - family houses.
The City of Richfield has concluded that the apartments can be preserved if stormwater
retention is accommodated in Richfield Lake. Doing so would simplify this project
element for MNDot, by eliminating expensive and time - consuming acquisition of the
apartments and relocation of their tenants. However, both this specific [stormwater-
retention] element and the overall highway operations impact the adjacent community.
This study reflects the needs to determine relevant impacts and to devise comprehensive
responses that are supportive of municipal goals.
It should be stressed that this study is conceptual. The intents here are to [a] identify
important issues; [b] establish a general planning context; and [c] identify promising
approaches to solutions. The goal is simply to spark the imaginations of people.
ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
1. Community and Neighborhood Issues
ArPopulation Depletion
ArDemographics and Market changes
Freeway Impacts
rPrivate Disinvestment
ArLack of Discernible Transit Center
ArEutrophication of Lakes
ArPost Office
9A
Lack of Discernible Transit Center —The City's LHN corridor along 66' Street appears
to be attracting increased numbers of bus riders. These patronize the Minneapolis -
downtown routes which run along Nicollet. Some of these routes loop over to Lyndale
and return to Nicollet along 66°i Street. As metropolitan development patterns continue to
evolve, these particular bus routes may be superseded in importance by other local and
regional routes. It is in Richfield's interest to encourage transit ridership to any and all
destinations. While the Richfield Lake study area is on the periphery of this route, present
and possible future transit routes may be accommodated in future changes. Doing so may
render the overall area more cohesive, in symbol and in fact.
Eutrophication ofLakes —Small lakes like Richfield Lake are especially subject to
evolution into seasonal swamplands. This is the consequence of a too -rich composition of
nutrients and a resulting reduction in dissolved oxygen; eventually wildlife and the lake
itself disappear. Eutrophication is well - underway at Richfield Lake. This process can be
reversed through a mix of actions, including water treatment and aeration.
Post Office —The Richfield Post Office site has problems with parking and traffic
patterns. Expanding the site (or relocating the facility to another site) would provide a
more functional, long -term solution to the current congestion.
2. Opportunities
Downtown "— Create a Sense of Place
Visually Tie the Area Together
aRecover Biological Quality of Lake
ArAugment Recreational Diversity
wEnhance Mix of Housing Stock
NIncrease Population
WFW
A number of opportunities for improvement also exist. Among the most important to
consider are the seven listed above.
Downtown "— Create a Sense of Place —The area around 66' and Lyndale is developing
a sense of place, but is not yet quite there. As in any built area, the ultimate goal is to
3
single - family dwellings that attract families with children will increase the per -unit
population ratio.
VFW —The VFW property overlooking Wood Lake may become available for new
development at some time in the foreseeable future. Especially if combined with adjacent
parcels, this could be an excellent site for new housing
EXISTING CONDITIONS
3. Features
Richfield Lake
ArAn Emerging "Downtown"
The Highways
ArLyndale Entry
Post Office Corner
Several prominent "features" characterize the study area. Some of these are positive
resources; others are negative elements that need to be overcome.
Richfield Lake —This feature is already enjoyed by many, and has great additional
recreational and visual potential. Only a part of the lake — mostly the northwest one -
quarter of its periphery—can be experienced by the public without actually walking the
trail. Much of the rest of the lakeshore is faced by single - family housing and apartments.
However, about one - quarter of the frontage is faced by surface parking and commercial
growing ranges.
An Emerging "Downtown " —The intersection of 66' and Lyndale is emerging as a
community focus, as "downtown." As noted in the preceding section, a very full range of
commercial goods and services is already available within a block or two of this corner.
What primarily remains to be achieved is the elusive "sense of place."
5
The Highways —Three
negative elements of the
adjacent highways are
especially prominent
features. First, the
appearance and
performance of the sound
wall: this is frankly
unattractive, and pierced by
openings which allow
highway noise directly into
residential neighborhoods.
Second, the design quality
1
Visual Conditions —As noted earlier, this area has not quite yet developed a perceptible
sense of place. On a larger scale, as one approaches along Lyndale from the north, there is
little sense that Richfield is a distinct place, different from adjacent communities. At a
small scale, the area could benefit from a greater feeling of "interconnectedness," perhaps
literally through an expanded pedestrian/pathway system.
Physical Conditions —Most structures in the study area appear to be in good condition or
better. South of 66'h Street, a large majority of the structures appear to be in above -
average or excellent physical condition. Probably less than a dozen single family houses
might be expected to require eventual removal —over the next decade — because of
physical condition.
Functional Conditions —Like any community, Richfield is a product of its history. The
city experienced explosive growth immediately after World War II, and today large parts
of the city are primarily composed of 40 to
50 year -old houses. A second major wave "`•'i" ` "
of development, in the late 1950s through
early 1970s, resulted in dozens of the f'
ubiquitous "plain vanilla" walkup*}':
apartments like the one on the right. The
vast majority of all of these structures
remain in remarkably good states of
maintenance. Still, these unavoidably
become functionally- obsolescent as
demographics and market preferences
change over the years. Within the study area, these two forms of potential functional
obsolescence are apparent: in small, post -war single - family houses, for example, along
Emerson Avenue north of 66' Street; and in walkup apartments, six of which directly
enfront the lake. Any plan for the area will need to accommodate a transition of some or
all of these buildings over the course of the next decade.
Environmental Conditions —On a general basis environmental conditions are excellent:
overwhelmingly, both private and municipal properties are well - maintained. In terms of
horticulture, the residential areas are generally better planted than in the commercial
center, which is comparatively sparsely landscaped. Boulevard trees are complete (or
almost so) along most residential blocks. Some residential blocks and some non-
residential locations would benefit from infill street tree plantings, or from a new planting
scheme.
Economic Conditions —The area's economic strength has been demonstrated by
numerous major private investments over the past two decades. The City should be able
to continue successfully leveraging private investment through an enhancement program
focused on Richfield Lake. Over the next decade, the City will probably need to
redevelop some single - family properties, and participate in the replacement of some or all
of the walkup apartments enfronting Richfield Lake.
7
skill; not always does it require more money. Many enhancements can be imagined
around Richfield Lake: here just one superior enhancement will have an impact, far
surpassing that of several less - thoughtful enhancements.
3 Eve rythin is Designed —It is an understandable fallacy, but a fallacy nonetheless, that
only some aspects of our environments are designed objects. Yet everything visible has
an impact: not to design is also to design. This becomes a truism when one thinks, for
example, of beautiful landscaping that is visually- compromised by power poles or some
other "utilitarian" structures. Within the study area, the seemingly randomly- placed
control boxes at freeway exits /entries are more prominent than the landscaping itself,
especially in winter. This notion that everything is designed is both "positive" and
negative." On one hand, it is an essential principle to understand if a city is to prevent
the compromise of enhancements by utilitarian elements. But on the other hand, a
utilitarian element, thoughtfully considered, may very well become an enhancement in an
of itself.
4. The Power of Landscape —In many cities, an enhancements program is focused on
the introduction of street furniture and constructed settings like walls and pavers. These
urban design" programs are rarely very successful in and of themselves. First of all, such
approaches are all too easy to apply, superficially, to the cityscape without dealing
comprehensively with the
overall environment. Also,
even district -wide
improvements are typically
commissioned of a single
firm, or even a single
designer. Since successful
urban environments are built
up incrementally over time by
many contributors, this urban
design approach is more likely
to come off as artificial than
authentic. And for reasons of
sheer scale, the cost of street
furniture and hard settings like
plazas is very high. In
contrast, enhancements
programs focused on
landscape improvements, like
this bike path under a bridge, can be comparatively effective. First of all, the landscape
designer must deal with the overall environment, and thus is more likely to achieve a
visually- consistent solution. Second, a variety of plant materials will soften the sense of
one - designer -at- one -time. And even mature landscape specimens are comparatively
inexpensive. So the most effective approach is one emphasizing landscape with the
supplemental employment of urban design elements.
I
Conversely, many designers, perhaps unconsciously, tend to focus primarily on specific
aspects. For example, an architect might design an elaborate rooftop while devoting very
little thought to ground floor pedestrian spaces. A design which heavily emphasizes some
aspects at the expense of others is not likely to be successful: it will be incomplete.
Enhancements to the area around Richfield Lake will need to address four aspects.
These can be thought of as Levels of Attention or as Layers. These four are (1) Concept;
2) Environments; (3) Events; and (4) Texture. If improvements in this area are to be
successful, if a sense of place is to be achieved, then each of these layers must be
addressed, and the emphasis on each must be roughly in balance with the emphasis
placed on the others.
1. Concept —An overall planning /design concept is necessary to define and direct a plan.
What is the big idea, the governing concept? Is the lake to become a true focus? If so, are
the views to be mostly hidden, as now, or more open? Will the uses remain limited, as at
present, or become more diverse? What will be the visual and functional relationships
among Richfield Lake, the various residential areas, "Downtown" and Wood Lake? It is
essential to have clarity about this, so that all other aspects— levels —have a sense of
consistency, in reference to the concept. An example of this is a reservoir at Pampulha
Park in Belo Horizonte, Brazil [see partial plan on map, below]: Here an existing stream
was dammed, to make a lake. Since it was a small lake, the concept was to twist the
shoreline so that at no one place could an observer see all of the lake —thus the lake
became perceptually much larger than it actually was.
Y
i...
i
i
to •
v. rfV7i r Y:l.... • .. ` .
Y• .' c ' . r
NN
W.
Mr,"
A' ( ,
A
rf' ilk R aF i - l- t- !••,:,
t_
2. Environments— Within the context of the overall concept, subtle but distinct physical
environments should be developed. These will provide a basis for the visual diversity that
is critical to establishing a sense of place. To continue the example with the lake above,
the "twisted" shoreline was further contoured into points and bays. Each of these
environments has its own physical character and potential, adding visual richness and
11
A RANGE OF CHOICES
Several planning approaches to the Richfield Lake study area are plausible. These range
from simply accommodating new freeway construction —and nothing more —to
undertaking a broad physical transformation of the area. Many significant changes can be
made surprisingly easily: as noted on p. 4, this is an area with most of the pieces already
in place. What remains to be done is
largely a matter of orchestrating the
existing context into a distinct visual
environment. As an example, the current
path [photo at right] along the south
shoreline can be just slightly upgraded
from its present wild state. By selective
pruning, the introduction of a few specimen
trees and construction of a small shelter
drawing, below), a visual transformation
is achieved.
13
present. This scenario deals with structural housing issues such as function, market and
development economics. Anticipated transitions of several parcels would be specifically
guided and possibly leveraged in this scenario, and functional problems at 65' Street and
Rae Drive would be diminished. This scenario would add substantially to the area's
housing inventory, both in raw units and in the mix of housing types. Also, landscaping
and urban enhancements would be employed systematically throughout the area: this
would provide an underlying and distinct visual framework for the area. On the plus side,
this scenario deals with the important planning issues and opportunities facing the study
area, including achieving a sense of place. On the minus side this is a more ambitious
undertaking than the baseline improvements. However, these improvements are
interrelated but still independent of each other. So an inability to do some elements of this
scenario would not foreclose the possibility of accomplishing all others.
4. Sweeping Transformation —This scenario differs from the comprehensive infill in two
respects. First, it contemplates addressing every possible area issue and opportunity, not
just the most prominent ones. This would imply, for example, housing redevelopment
undertaken not just on the bases of functionality and condition but also on esthetics.
Second, it would require overriding markets in some instances to accomplish everything
in a single phase, rather than relying on market forces to accomplish the programs over
several years. On the plus side accomplishing such a transformation would be a truly
striking achievement, with a likely spillover influence not just within the study area but
throughout Richfield. On the minus side, it would cause general disruption and be
extremely costly: almost certainly uneconomic absent a currently- unidentified and very
large source of auxiliary funding.
After consideration, the first and fourth scenarios were dropped as unrealistic. The
second and third scenarios have each been developed to a conceptual level to provide
comparisons. However, scenario three, Comprehensive Infill, appears to be the better
technical choice. Thus this analysis recommends Comprehensive Infill as the most
promising approach for detailed planning.
WORK PROGRAMS
Conceptual recommendations are organized within a framework of 15 sub - districts.
These planning areas encompass the work programs of both scenarios. The sub - districts
comprise about two- thirds of the overall study area; the remaining one - third, chiefly
south of 66' Street, is in an excellent state.
The actual elements of each work program are organized in the following table. These
are simply listings, and intended to (a) identify the elements, and (b) to provide a
comparison between the two scenarios.
The sub - districts are identified and located on the map, following page:
15
COMPARATIVE ENHANCEMENTS
Sub - District Baseline Improvements Comprehensive Infll
E. Lyndale Gateway
Improve water quality aImprove water quality
A. Richfield Lake Park Sandy beach 4Sandy beach
New landscape design
m7hree environments: Natural,
Crosstown On -Off Ramps Maintenance plan
Meadow and Picturesque
Sound Wall landscaping
aRest pavilion
F. North Residential Mildred S.F. residential
gBridge to island
sGrotto /aeration)
Aldrich - Dupont below Hwy 62
rFountain/aerationj
Net area or greater of existing
Sound Wall landscaping
wDistrict -wide pathway system
Richfield Lake parcel
Complete park edge
Play area landscaping
Single- family lots Single family lots
B. Prime Development a Mildred Dr. extension to ArMildred Dr. boulevard
Site
Lyndale Avenue extension to Lyndale Avenue
Emerson Ave. north of 66th St.
Parking lot Parking
New apartments ArNew apartments
H. Sound Walls Traditional design formulas
ffFood component
Integral landscaping
Ar"Boardwalk"
Lyndale Gardens site
Imaginative design w1maginative design
Expected to face decreased ASecond phase of prime she
C. Transition Site economic return, competition apartment redevelopment,
for tenants; problematic integrated design
private redevelopment
Walkup apartments
No activity wLandscaping
D. Lyndale Approach
Both sides of street 62nd-64th
17
Candy -paint semaphores ACandy paint semaphores
E. Lyndale Gateway Relocate control boxes Relocate control boxes
New fencing /scheme ArNew fencing /scheme
New landscape design ArNew landscape design
Crosstown On -Off Ramps Maintenance plan Affaintenance plan
Sound Wall landscaping Sound Wall landscaping
F. North Residential Mildred S.F. residential Mildred S.F. residential
F. residential in,Jill
Aldrich - Dupont below Hwy 62
NBoulevard inflil planting
Sound Wall landscaping Sound Wall landscaping
G. West Residential Complete park edge mComplete park edge
Spot renewal, south block wHousing redevelopment, south
2 for 3" S.F. north block block
A6 F. redevelopment, north
Emerson Ave. north of 66th St.
block
rWest Emerson Ave. alignment
Poured concrete Poured concrete
H. Sound Walls Traditional design formulas ArTraditional design formulas
Integral landscaping sIntegral landscaping
66th Street to Lyndale Avenue
Imaginative design w1maginative design
Creative use of color ACreative use of color
17
r
These would be served by an extension of Mildred Drive from Bryant to Lyndale. Surface
parking would be provided immediately south of this road to serve the adjacent sandy beach.
New apartments would be constructed on the remainder of the site.
C. Transition Site
No improvements /enhancements activity is contemplated on this site under this scheme. Like
other, similar buildings of this era, these apartments are expected to experience decreased
economic return. It is unclear whether these can realistically be expected to be redeveloped
privately.
D. Lyndale Approach
No enhancements activity is contemplated under this scheme
E. Lyndale Gateway
Reconstruction of the Crosstown Highway provides an opportunity for a much - needed visual
upgrading of this important entrance into Richfield. Initially, the currently- rusted semaphores
can be repainted in a candy finish. This is a subtle but effective "symbolic" enhancement. All
control boxes should be relocated away from prime landscape areas, either out of sight or at least
thoughtfully located. The existing (collapsing) chain -link fencing should be replaced by fencing
that is integrally- coordinated with the new landscape plan. Such a plan should follow an actual
landscape design, rather than merely a planting scheme.
F. North Residential
The neighborhood side of the sound wall should be continuously landscaped: the sound wall
landscape plan should be coordinated with existing/planned landscaping in the adjacent
neighborhood. Existing residential properties facing Richfield Lake Park (along Mildred) should
be upgraded wherever possible. New single- family housing can be developed immediately north
of the Mildred Avenue extension as part of the prime development site improvements.
G. West Residential
The neighborhood side of the sound wall should be continuously landscaped: the sound wall
landscaping plan should be coordinated with existing/planned landscaping in the adjacent
neighborhood. The western park edge can be completed by acquiring the remaining single -
family house just north of Wood Lake Village. The south block of Emerson Avenue may be
stabilized, at least in the mid -term, through a spot renewal program focusing upon extremely
small and/or functionally- obsolescent houses. On the north block, new single - family housing can
be developed on larger lots by creating two new parcels from every three (consecutive) existing
lots. This will leverage the City's investment in park improvements, increase the mix and choice
of available housing market types, and provide both the symbol and reality of private
reinvestment.
H. Sound Walls
Rebuilt highway sound walls should follow this study's separate recommendations on sound
walls. These are based upon both technical observations of existing metro -area highway
retaining and sound walls, and traditional design approaches to building visible walls. Generally,
the recommendations observe that sound walls are the largest "buildings" in the community.
Their visual impacts are so great that they must be recognized as designed objects —these
constructions cannot be merely considered to be "utilitarian" and thus not subject to review of
their visual impacts.
19
could be accomplished with the least visual impact by increasing the surface area — slightly
extending the shoreline outward. As part of this work, a sandy beach can be created on the east
side of the -lake:
Conceptually, the park is comprised of three areas, which establish the underlying visual
context The first of these is "Natural" in its landscape imagery. This section is located along the
south side of the lake. The wildness of the existing vegetation in this area can be pruned and
groomed to visually- differentiate this lake from Wood Lake and Legion Lake. The second area
can be thought of as a Meadow. This is the section adjacent to the west and north residential
areas, and is characterized by broad open spaces affording views onto the lake. The third area is
Picturesque" in character, more openly "designed" than the other two areas; it extends along the
eastern edge of the lake and is focused on the prime development site.
Environments are established throughout the park. These are graphically illustrated on the area
map. Most prominent of these is a newly- accessible island formed of existing hammocks. This
defines a swimming bay adjacent to the beach. The lakeshore is subtly contoured into several
environments consistent with the surrounding areas. Each of the three areas is also shaped into
environments through various landscape devices.
Events are set within the environments. A Rest Pavilion (illustrated in a previous section) is
located in the Natural area along the south lakeshore. A Grotto is developed just off the west
park entry, in the Meadow area. This is an existing sloped, rocky glade: a bubbler introduces the
sound of cascading water, which is recycled through the lake as part of an aeration process. In
the Picturesque area, a bridge to the island provides one of two major events: this would be most
visually- memorable as a highly - stylized design, such as a Moon -Gate. The other major event is a
lakefront fountain, with powerful jets and continuously- variable night lighting.
Texture is called for, though not detailed at this conceptual stage. Texture can be (1)
introduced as part of an event, such as the existing play area; (2) free - standing, such as the floral
plantings indicated on the southeast corner of the park; or (3) established along a pathway system
that extends out into the community.
B. Prime Development Site
The Lyndale Gardens property would be acquired for redevelopment. New single - family
homes are constructed on the extreme north end of this site, between Bryant and Lyndale. These
are served by a boulevard extension of Mildred Drive from Bryant to Lyndale. Parking would be
provided immediately south of this road to serve the adjacent sandy beach and the Boardwalk,
which connects east -of- Lyndale neighborhoods to the lake. Integral with the Boardwalk is a food
component, which will overlook the park. New apartments are constructed on the remainder of
the site.
C. Transition Site
Like others of this era, these apartments can be expected to reach functional- economic
obsolescence in the foreseeable future. The recommended long -term reuse of this site is as a
second phase of apartments, with designs and site development integrated —or at least
coordinated —with the prime development site apartments.
D. Lyndale Approach
This two -block section is effectively the formal entry into Richfield. Currently, it is visually
bleak, except for the Century Court landscaping on the east side of Lyndale south of 63rd Street.
At this early planning stage, the recommendation is indicative rather than prescriptive; however
some form of enhancement, connecting the Lyndale Gateway and Prime Development Site, is
highly desirable along this corridor.
21
V
are identified with metropolitan highways; or even the 66th and Lyndale intersection, since
Lyndale is also an important street in other metropolitan cities and is a regional arterial. This
crossroads- links Richfield Lake with Wood Lake: it is a purely community crossroads. Thus its
potential value is to provide community civic identity.
This can occur in several forms. At present, one can drive through the intersection without
being aware of either lake —each only a block away. If the SW corner parcel were acquired, both
that and the SE corner could be landscaped to provide a highly- visible visual transition onto
Wood Lake. This visibility is important to establish the true physical character of Richfield —
which has several lakes and many parks, most of which are as a practical matter invisible to
passers -by.
Some form of signage would also be helpful to call attention to the parks —the presence of
lake -parks in both directions. It would be most effective if the signs were designed to recall the
visual imagery of either park. Additionally, pathway enhancements could be extended from park
to park. The two parks could then be more easily offered as a system, with many combined
choices for passive and active recreation.
K. Post Office
This is a key sub - district, especially under the Comprehensive Infill scheme. In this approach,
both the Bridgeman's and Post Office sites are acquired. Bridgeman's could relocate to a prime
lakeside location on the Boardwalk; while the Post Office could move to a more functional site,
probably outside of the LDN district; a postal service center could be provided in nearby retail
space. New residential would then be constructed on this site, similar in scale to the adjacent
Wood Lake Point. Redevelopment of this site would also allow reconstruction of the sharp, right -
angle turn of 65th Street into a more graceful, curving configuration. Finally, the 900 -928 Rae
parcel could eventually be redeveloped into townhousing.
L. 65th Street
The current "wild" vegetation screening the view onto Richfield Lake would be opened up,
and the frontage landscaped in a "natural" landscape imagery. This would provide a more
attractive pedestrian entry into the park, and also afford passing motorists a view of the lake.
New landscaping along the north sidewalk would extend eastward to tie into existing boulevard
landscaping south of the municipal liquor store. Some form of enhancement could visually -
soften the mostly blank building walls along the south side of 65th Street.
M. Intersection
The intersection of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue serves a singular role in the district. If the
freeway interchanges are seen as gateways into the community, and the Crossroads understood in
the context of community identity, then this intersection is the focus, the symbolic center, of
what is effectively Downtown Richfield. In a traditional urban downtown, such an intersection
would be tightly - defined by the largest buildings; in this setting, the opposite has occurred: the
large buildings are set well back from the intersection.
The planning response is to "balance" the four corners, providing enough "visual mass" to
define the intersection as a place. The starting point for this is the NE corner, which is-
comparatively- elaborately landscaped. The existing plant materials here can be reinforced with
additional materials that will add (1) visual mass; (2) seasonal color; and (3) four - seasons
presence,
The other three intersections should be planted with similar goals. Conceptually, the planting
should be a little stronger on the north corners than the south. This is in part because they are
frontally illuminated by the sun, and also because the larger buildings are to the north.
23
z
IMAGES
Orchestration of a sense of place is more a matter of art than science. Still, if there are
not hard- and -fast rules, there are basic guidelines upon which we can rely.
A sense of place is fundamentally based upon human activity. This requires a
choreography of two elements. First, the activity itself must be showcased. Second, people
must be attracted —and able —to watch. While this sounds obvious, tens of millions of
dollars have been spent at urban `placemaking" in our metropolitan area alone while
ignoring this basic truth Architecture and landscape architecture are the contexts, the sets,
which are animated and energized by people.
Throughout the Richfield Lake area, activity of all kinds can be easily showcased. This
may require such actions as encouraging transparency in windows -- discouraging dark and
reflective glass (or no windows at all!), trimming underbrush in key locations to provide
views to pedestrians and motorists alike, and carefully siting activity- generators lice
restaurants and trails to achieve a continuous interchange between viewers and "actors."
Tone
People are attracted by a sense of fim and excitement. One way in which to establish this
visually is to introduce a "bright" tone through the use of cheerful colors. Vibrant colors
are employed world -wide, from Asia
temple gateway at right) to Scandinavia
see waterfront scene, below] to evoke an
emotional response from viewers.
For a number of reasons, the architectural
use of color has traditionally been limited in
our region. Where color is utilized, locally,
it has typically been muted.
Vibrant color can be used in the district
around Richfield Lake with great effect.
This can be most effectively accomplished by concentrating the most vibrant architectural
use of color in the area immediately around the lake, with colors becoming more subdued
with distance from the lake.
Features
Even world cities like Paris and Rome have comparatively few features. [The term is
used here-in the sense of an extraordinary urban design element.] Great cities are usually
characterized by having many remedial improvements for every feature they contain. Thus
the feature is not so much important in creating a sense of place as it is in symbolizing that
place.
What makes something a feature? Sometimes it is a matter of pure scale: the Pyramids
of Giza come immediately to mind. Another common attribute is purity of design and
beauty, a description of the Golden Gate Bridge. A third characteristic is extraordinary
siting, such as that of the Parthenon, which can be seen far out to sea, as well as
throughout Athens.
Perhaps the rarest form of feature are those which can be described as unexpected
transformations. This category includes such features as the famous Chinese tower in
Kew Gardens near London; sham ruins in Tower. Grove Park, St. Louis; and the
Spoonbridge" in the Walker Art Center sculpture garden. In this group is the proposed
fountain for Richfield Lake [below] which is partly traditional, partly `natural" and wholly
for fun!
s
This fountain would be located at the end of the visual axis set up by the Boardwalk. It
would function not only as a visual feature, but also as a destination for swimmers. The
site would be imaginatively lit at night, and could be seasonally decorated during winter
months.
COMPREHENSIVE INFILL SCENARIO
Illustrative Area Plan
4
lL
LK:K--
Jkl*
I
All.
sit, , 7,-
i
Item: #6 Agenda Section: Old Business
PC Letter: #10 Date: July 23, 1996
GENERAL INFORMATION
Subject: Consideration of an ordinance amendment to incorporate provisions for cluster
home development.
References: See attachments.
ANALYSIS
Background: The Planning Commission held a study session on March 12, 1996 to discuss the
concept of infill cluster home 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. On
July 25, the Commission reviewed specific ordinance language for cluster
homes.
Proposal: The Commission requested that some changes be made, that a study session be
scheduled with the City Council and that staff ask developers to respond to the
proposed ordinance.
The attached sections of the ordinance amendment reflect the revisions that have
been made since the June meeting. A letter was sent to the developers who met
with the Commission in May, requesting their feedback.
A proposed schedule for meeting with the Council and completing an ordinance
amendment is as follows:
Tuesday, July 23 Planning Commission review revisions to the
amendment
Monday, August 5 Joint study session with the City Council to discuss
concept of infill cluster home development
Tuesday, August 27 Planning Commission finalize ordinance amendment,
make recommendation to the City Council
Monday, September 9 City Council first reading
Monday, October 14 City Council second reading
RECOMMENDATION
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Discuss and review the attached ordinance amendment, recommend changes to
the amendment and /or proposed schedule.
Richfield City Code (Zoning)
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.
Subd. 2. Purposes. The purposes of the R District are to:
a) protect and preserve the single family residential character of R District
properties that are in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and this
code;
b) reserve appropriately located areas for new and replacement single family
dwellings at densities which are consistent with sound standards of public
health;
0 provide opportunities for infill cluster housing development and allow wider
varieties in the types of housing available to City residents provided it is
consistent with the single family residential character of the R district;
d) provide opportunities for cluster housing to serve as transitions in land use
in keeping with the character of adiacent land uses at densities slightly
hijzher than single family housing but less dense than multi - family housing:
ee)ensure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling;
dD minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities by
preventing the construction of buildings of excessive size (or density) in
relation to the surrounding land, buildings, or infrastructure; and
eg)protect residential properties from noise, illumination, unsightliness, odors,
dust, dirt, smoke, fire, vibration, heat, glare, and other objectionable or
hazardous influences.
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. 2. Licensed residential care facilities or community based residential care
facilities serving seven or more persons, or such facilities which are located within 1/4
mile of another such facility. Care facilities located within the R District shall be
subject to the same zoning regulations as single family dwellings in the R District.
Subd. 3. Accessory day care facilities serving more than 12 persons licensed by the
appropriate governmental authorities, or accessory group family day care facilities
licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 serving more than 14
1
C
2
persons, or as otherwise permitted by law, provided such facilities are located in non-
residential buildings (e.g., schools or churches) and the following conditions are met:
a) parking lot setback and screening shall comply with the Richfield Landscape
Requirements, on file with the Office of Community Development;
b) designated pick -up and drop -off areas shall be located on the site; and
c) outdoor play areas shall be set back at least 15 feet from any lot line which
abuts a residential parcel.
Subd. 4. Accessory foster family homes licensed by the appropriate governmental
authorities serving more than six children, or as otherwise permitted by law.
Subd. 5. Private non - commercial recreational facilities as a principal use.
Subd. 6. Two family dwellings, provided the following conditions are met:
a) the lot shall abut an arterial or collector street;
b) the lot area, width, and depth shall comply with Section 521.09, Subd. 2 of
this code;
c) two off-street parking spaces, one of which must be enclosed in a garage,
shall be provided for each dwelling unit;
d) driveway access to the property from public streets shall be allowed in
accordance with Section 521.05, Subd. 10, paragraph e), item (iv);
e) for new construction each dwelling unit shall contain at least 750 square
feet of interior floor space, and for conversion of a single family dwelling
to a two family dwelling each unit shall contain at least 500 square feet of
interior floor space. For the purpose of this subsection, interior floor space
shall include the total horizontal area of the dwelling unit as measured from
the interior walls of the unit; and
f) the structure shall meet all setback requirements for two - family dwellings as
indicated under Section 52 1.11, except that a single family dwelling which
does not meet the required two family interior side setback may be
converted into a two - family dwelling if the dwelling is not expanded or if
the expansion meets all applicable two family dwelling requirements.
Subd. 7. Cluster home developments with three to nine units, provided the following
conditions are met:
a) the design of the development shall be compatible with the surrounding
nei hgborhoodintermsofbuildingmaterials, design, scale and
mass of the structure, or other similar urban design characteristics:
Richfield City Code (Zoning)
bZ landscaping shall be provided in accordance with the Richfield Landscape
Requirements, on file with the Office of Community Development:
c) two off- street parking spaces, one of which must be enclosed in a garage,
shall be provided for each dwelling unit:
d) there shall be a minimum of 600 square feet of outdoor open space provided
on the lot per dwelling unit:
e) the number and location of driveways and curbcuts shall minimize conflict
with vehicular traffic and should not adversely impact adiacent land uses:
fl the density of the development shall not exceed the density recommended in
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Subd. .7$. Bed and breakfast inns, provided the following conditions are met:
a) no more than two rental rooms shall be provided;
b) at least two off - street parking spaces (may include garage stalls) shall be
provided for the residence, and at least one off - street parking space shall be
provided on the lot for each rental room;
c) the use shall be contained within a single family detached dwelling;
d) outdoor parking areas shall be screened with landscape materials; and
e) the operator shall secure all applicable licenses and approvals from the city,
county, state, or other applicable jurisdictions before the conditional use
permit will become effective.
Subd. -89. Accessory roof - mounted antennas which extend higher than ten feet above
the highest point of the roof.
Subd. 910. Public or private elementary and high schools, and other similar learning
institutions, provided the following conditions are met:
a) pick -up and drop -off areas shall be designed to enhance vehicular and
pedestrian safety;
b) outdoor recreational facilities designed for group activities shall be set back
at least 40 feet from any lot line;
c) buffering shall be provided to mitigate noise and adverse visual impacts on
adjacent properties; and
0
0
b) if a vehicle access door faces a rear lot line which abuts an alley, such rear
setback requirement shall be not less than 15 feet; or
c) if a vehicle access door faces an "interior" side lot line on a lot that is less
than 45 feet in width, such "interior" side setback requirement shall be not
less than 15 feet.
Subd. 4. Additional setback requirement: all
structures located on a corner lot which abuts a
key lo . On a corner lot which abuts a key lot,
the streetside side setback requirement of such
corner lot shall be equal to the front setback of
any existing principal building on the key lot or
30 feet, whichever is less, however, in no case
shall such streetside side setback requirement
be less than 12 feet. (Figure 10)
Figure 10
Subd. 5. Additional height for non - residential buildings. The following height
exceptions apply to non - residential buildings in the R District:
Subd, 6. Setbacks for cluster home developments. Setbacks for cluster home
developments shall apply to the perimeter of the development. Setbacks between
attached and detached units within a cluster home development must comply with
applicable building and fire codes.
Subd. 67. Setback reductions for principal buildings. The following setback
reductions apply in the R District:
a) on a corner lot, the streetside side setback requirement shall be the lesser of
12 feet or the established streetside side setback of the existing principal
building on the same lot for single family-and, two family and cluster home
development structures. In any case the provisions of paragraphs d) and e)
of this subdivision shall be applicable;
b) the front setback requirement for a new single family dwelling, two family
dwelling or cluster home development on a lot may be reduced to not less
than the average existing front setback of the welling(s)
which front on the same street and abut such lot, to a minimum setback of
20 feet;
c) with respect to single family homes existing on or before June 1, 1995, the
interior side setback requirement may be reduced to not less than three feet
for the purpose of constructing an attached garage, provided the following
conditions are met:
Corner lot
streetside"
side lot line
o—
we required
setback
existing
Key lot setback
front
lot line —r
curb
Figure 10
Subd. 5. Additional height for non - residential buildings. The following height
exceptions apply to non - residential buildings in the R District:
Subd, 6. Setbacks for cluster home developments. Setbacks for cluster home
developments shall apply to the perimeter of the development. Setbacks between
attached and detached units within a cluster home development must comply with
applicable building and fire codes.
Subd. 67. Setback reductions for principal buildings. The following setback
reductions apply in the R District:
a) on a corner lot, the streetside side setback requirement shall be the lesser of
12 feet or the established streetside side setback of the existing principal
building on the same lot for single family-and, two family and cluster home
development structures. In any case the provisions of paragraphs d) and e)
of this subdivision shall be applicable;
b) the front setback requirement for a new single family dwelling, two family
dwelling or cluster home development on a lot may be reduced to not less
than the average existing front setback of the welling(s)
which front on the same street and abut such lot, to a minimum setback of
20 feet;
c) with respect to single family homes existing on or before June 1, 1995, the
interior side setback requirement may be reduced to not less than three feet
for the purpose of constructing an attached garage, provided the following
conditions are met:
Richfield City Code (Zoning)
i) a letter of consent signed by the owner of the property which
abuts the interior lot line shall be submitted to the City;
ii) the garage shall be located a distance of not less than eight feet
from any building on an abutting lot;
iii) the width of the garage shall not exceed 20 feet, and the length
shall not exceed 26 feet;
iv) the garage wall most parallel and adjacent to the interior lot line
shall have no more than a one foot roof overhang (eave
projection);
vi) a drainage plan shall be approved by the City Engineer's office
prior to issuance of building permits.
d) windows or window units may project a maximum of 24 inches into a
required front yard, streetside side yard, or rear yard of a dwelling,
provided that the floor area is not increased by more than ten square feet,
however, in no case shall they be closer than six feet from any lot line; and
e) those items classified as "not encroachments" in Section 511.11.
f) the setback requirements for cluster home developments may be reduced to
25 feet in the front and 15 feet in the rear if the following criteria are met:
i) the applicant can demonstrate that a superior design is achieved
through the reduced setback. Evidence of a superior design
may include but is not limited to the preservation of a natural
feature, creation of an amenity, creation of public open space,
or incorporation of special features to meet the needs of the
target population;
ii) the reduced setback does not adversely affect the surrounding
neighborhood in terms of a decrease in privacy, noise,
overcrowding, or other similar impacts:
iii) the impact of the reduced setback is minimized through the
presence of features such as landscaping or other means of
buffering, a limited number of building openings in the portion
of the structure that infringes upon the setback, building
orientation, or other similar features.
Insert picture)
7.
0
Richfield City Code (Zoning)
MR -2 District
521.59. Multi- Family Residential District (MR -2). Subdivision 1. Subsections 521.59 to
521.77 apply to the MR -2 District.
Subd. 2. Purposes. The purposes of the MR -2 District are to:
a) reserve appropriately located areas for multi - family dwellings;
b) preserve as many as possible of the desirable characteristics of the single
family district while permitting higher population densities;
c) provide opportunities for infill cluster housing development and allow
greater intensities and wider varieties in the types of housing available to
5 City residents:
ed) ensure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling unit;
de) minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities by
preventing the construction of buildings of excessive size (or density) in
relation to the surrounding land, buildings, or infrastructure;
eD provide adequate space for off - street parking and loading; and
g) protect residential properties from noise, illumination, unsightliness,
odors, dust, dirt, smoke, fire, vibration, heat, glare, and other objectionable
or hazardous influences.
521.61. Permitted uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are permitted uses
in the MR -2 District.
Subd. 2. Multi- family dwellings (excluding townhousescluster home developments)
with eight or fewer units.
Subd. 43. Licensed residential care facilities or community based residential care
facilities serving six or fewer persons provided they are not located within 1/4 mile of
another such facility, except as provided for in Section 521.65, Subd. 3 of this code.
Care facilities located in the MR -2 District shall be subject to the same zoning
regulations as multi - family dwellings in the MR -2 District.
Subd. 54. Minor public utilities.
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.
15