09-24-1996CITY OF RIOWFIELD
PLRRnIIIG oomm1SS10n
nawfl
September 24, 1996
7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Planning Commission meeting of August 27, 1996, and Special Planning Commission meeting
September 17, 1996.
ITEM #1
ITEM #2
ITEM #3
ITEM #4
OLD BUSINESS
96- APUD -3 CSM Corporation - Shops at Lyndale amend planned
unit development plan to incorporate a 1,300 square
foot office use.
96- CUP -12 American Portable Telecomm - Christian Park -
conditional use permit to allow construction of a 100
foot telecommunications tower.
96- APUD -4 Americlnn - 1200 East 78th Street - amend planned
unit development plan to reduce height of building
from five to three stories.
PC Ltr 14 Visual Imagery Workshop - Richfield Lake Planning
Area
LIAISON REPORTS
School Board
Community Services Advisory Commission
HRA
City Council
UR N N ... ...
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 MINUTF
a .
maw Special Meeting
September 17, 1996
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela
Dmytrenko, Timothy Erlander, David Gepner, Dawn Weitzel,
Mitchell Hadley, Paul Wasko and Kristal Stokes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Hansen
COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor
STAFF PRESENT: Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
John Melin, Community Development Manager
Cynthia Kirchoff, Planning Assistant
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:00
p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM #1 96- CUP -10
1700 West 78th Street, Galyan's Conditional Use Permit
Community Development Manager Melin presented the staff report stating that the
Galyan's Trading Company is proposing to demolish the existing building at 1700 West 78th
Street and construct a two -story, 100,000 square feet retail store on the site. The building will be
situated on the site in the same fashion as the Naegele building, with the main entrance facing
southeast toward the 35W/I -494 interchange. Mr. Melin explained that the proposed parking,
traffic and vehicular access, ponding and landscaping meet or exceed requirements.
In response to a traffic concern by Commissioner Erlander, Mark Jepson, representing
SEH, explained the traffic analysis completed for this project. Mr. Jepson explained that this
proposal would increase traffic by four times in the immediate area during the peak p.m. period.
Commissioner Erlander stated that it is important to look at traffic calming for the whole area.
Commissioner Dmytrenko questioned the idea of the second phase of the project. Mark.
Damante, representing Galyan's Real Estate Division, stated that the second phase will not be
developed for 2 to 3 years and the company would have no objections to "traffic calming."
September 17, 1996
Page 2
Commissioner Stokes questioned the rationale behind stipulation 10. Zoning
Administrator Urban stated that the conditional use permit is only valid for one year and the
project would not be completed within that time frame so the conditional use permit will not be
issued until they apply for a building permit.
Dave Labus, Design Manager for Galyan's, presented the exterior of the proposal. Mr.
Labus stated that the proposal would be similar to the store in Minnetonka. Gary Tushie, project
architect, presented the proposed exterior and landscaping. In response to a question by
Commissioner Weitzel, Mr. Tushie explained how the parking and landscaping buffer the
commercial use from the adjacent residential property and the freeway.
Commissioner Gepner questioned the continued existence of the billboards located near
the property. Ms. Urban indicated that the amortization period on the non - conforming billboards
expires in 1997.
Chairperson Linnihan questioned the number of employees at this store. Greg Walman,
Manager of Galyan's, Minnetonka, stated that there would be 140 full -time and 80 part-time
employees
Jim Bergen, 7626 Oliver Avenue South, presented his concerns regarding traffic and the
neighborhood children's safety. He stated that the City should consider redeveloping the
residential neighborhood or looping the streets. Chairperson Linnihan suggested that Galyan's
try coordinating with McCarthy's to help alleviate the parking problem. Commissioner
Dmytrenko questioned why the car dealers' employees park on the streets instead of a lot. Ms.
Urban indicated that they are required to provide parking for all employees on site.
Terry Ahlstrom, 7600 Morgan Avenue South, expressed concern with traffic and the
benefits of the proposal. Commissioner Stokes and Chairperson Linnihan explained the benefits
of the project and the use of tax increment financing.
Duane Culles, 7421 Xerxes Avenue South, expressed concern with the possibility of the
store closing in the future and whether or not City taxpayers would be liable.
Sue Miller, representing Fountainhead Apartments, expressed concern with the traffic and
ponding /storage of water.
John Glennon, 2000 West 76th Street, stated that he is attempting to have 76th Street
declared a school safety zone. This would allow children to cross the street safely.
M/Erlander, S /Stokes to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 8 -0.
September 17, 1996
Page 3
M/Erlander, S /Stokes to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to allow
Galva 's to construct a 100-000 square foot retail store and have the option to construct an
additional 20,000 square feet of retail space in the future with the stipulations listed in the staff
report. amending number 1 to include Oliver. Newton, Morgan and Logan Avenues,
Commissioner Wasko requested that the neighborhood be involved prior to the approval
of the traffic plan by the Community Development Director. Commissioner Erlander amended
his motion with the following stipulations:
1. That a plan for limiting traffic on 77th Street, Oliver. Newton, Morgan. and Logan Avenues
be developed in conjunction with the City and approved by the Community Development
Director in coordination with the neighborhood.
2. That parking for bicycles be provided for on the site.
3. That a sidewalk be installed along Knox Avenue connecting the site to the existing sidewalk.
4. That a sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
5. That a storm water management plan be approved by the City Engineer.
6. That the final landscape plan be approved by the Community Development Director.
7. That landscaping along the freeway portion of the site by coordinated with the Community
Development Director and the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
8. That a lighting plan be approved by the Community Development Director.
9. That a signage plan be approved by the Community Development Director.
10. That the conditional use permit not be issued unit a building permit is applied for.
11. That a study be made of providing_ parking at the Galyan's site for Wally McCarthy s and
Walser's Buick.
Motion carried: 8 -0
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM #2 PC Letter #13
Modification to the TIF Plan for the Interchange District
Community Development Manager Melin presented the staff report stating that the HRA
is proposing to modify the City's Redevelopment Plan and adopt a TIF Plan for a newly
established Interchange TIF district.
Commissioner Weitzel questioned whether the business would locate in this area without
TIF.
M /Erlander, S/Hadley to adopt the attached resolution which makes a finding that the
modified Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Tax
Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange Tax Increment Financing District is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan
September 17, 1996
Page 4
Motion carried: 8 -0
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:52 p.m.
Timothy Erlander
Planning Commission Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
COUNCIL LIAISON
STAFF PRESENT
p.m.
Regular Meeting
August 27, 1996
Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela Dmytrenko,
Timothy Erlander, David Gepner, Kevin Hansen, and Kristal Stokes
Dawn Postudensek, Mitchell Hadley, and Paul Wasko
Martin Kirsch, Mayor
Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:00
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Erlander, S /Stokes to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting
of July 23, 1996.
Motion carried: 6 -0
M/Erlander, S /Stokes to approve the minutes of the joint Study Session with the City
Council on Au must 5, 1996.
Motion carried: 6 -0
M/Erlander, S/Dmytrenko to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission study
session on August 13, 1996.
Motion carried: 6 -0
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM #1 CABA Tax Increment Financing Plan Modification
Zoning Administrator Urban presented the staff report stating that the HRA is requesting
a modification in the tax increment financing plan for the Cedar Avenue Business Area (CABA)
August 27, 1996
Page 2
to enable them to purchase property in the 7200 block of Cedar Avenue. Ms. Urban explained
that state statute requires the Planning Commission to make a finding of consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan.
In response to a question from Commissioner Erlander, Ms. Urban explained what
currently occupies the block. She explained that the CABA district encompasses the CDP
building and that excess funds could be used for the purchase of these properties.
ITEM #2 Telecommunication Towers and Antennas
Ms. Urban presented the staff report explaining the proposed provisions in the ordinance
regarding commercial wireless telecommunication services towers and antennas. She stated that
she had met with some representatives from the industry, and explained what their primary
comments were regarding the ordinance. She requested Planning Commission feedback on those
issues after the industry presented their perspective.
Commissioner Stokes questioned what would happen with the lease in the case of the
property being sold and in cases of redevelopment by the City. A discussion followed regarding
the issue of leases between the telecommunications company and property owners.
Commissioner Dmytrenko asked whether or not the collocation provisions in the
ordinance were acceptable to the industry. Representatives from the industry explained how the
Richfield provisions were acceptable.
Peter Beck, representing ATT Wireless Services, stated his recommendations for changes
in the ordinance. Mr. Beck stated that he would encourage an antenna height up to 15 feet rather
than 10 feet. He encouraged the Commission to consider measuring the setback from a
residential structure rather than a residential use. Discussion followed concerning the distance
and coverage needs of the industry.
Mr. Beck gave an explanation of the different technologies and how the need for antennas
in certain locations is determined.
Chairperson Linnihan stated that he was not inclined to change the setback requirement.
Mr. Beck pointed out that the ordinance requirement to study potential antenna locations
within a one mile radius did not relate to industry technology and urged the Commission to
consider a half or quarter mile radius.
John Barstow, representing American Portable Telecomm, asked the Commission to
consider permitting towers in side yards in commercial and industrial districts. He continued by
describing his reactions to the ordinance. He pointed out that all the companies are just trying to
provide service to the residents in the City. He explained that if a tower had more than two users,
a company may need to use an open frame structure rather than a monopole. Mr. Barstow
discussed the issues relating to the height and color of antennas.
August 27, 1996
Page 3
Mr. Barstow stated that the requirement regarding participation in an Emergency Alert
System was foreign to him. He stated that he wasn't sure the technology would allow for
participation it at this time.
Ms. Urban suggested that the Commission direct staff to continue working with the
industry on this issue and on the issue of providing a copy of the lease with the property owner
for tax purposes.
Mr. Barstow stated that his company would be opposed to providing a copy of the lease
provisions. He reiterated the point that the one mile search requirement is arbitrarily chosen and
would support a smaller search area.
Ms. Urban reviewed the following potential changes:
increasing the maximum height of antennas from 10 feet to 15 feet;
changing the search radius requirement from one mile to one half mile and to consider
only those buildings over 75 feet;
permit a tower in a commercial or industrial interior side yard if the side yard is
adjacent to another commercial or industrial property;
apply accessory structure setbacks in the R district rather than principal structure
setbacks; and
staff continuing discussions with the industry regarding participation in the Emergency
Alert System and the requirement to submit a copy of the lease with the property
owner.
The Planning Commissioners expressed its support for all the issues except changing the
requirement to measure to the residential property line. They requested that staff re -look at the
issue of setbacks in the R district and make its recommendation to the Council. Commissioner
Gepner stated that he would support changing the measurement to be to the residential structure.
M/Erlander, S /Stokes to recommend approval of the attached ordinance with the changes
specified by staff.
Commissioner Erlander explained the role of the Commission to try and balance the needs
of businesses and residents.
Motion carried: 6 -0
OLD BUSINESS
ITEM #3 Cluster Housing Ordinance
Zoning Administrator Urban handed out the comments received from two of the
developers who met with the Commission last May. She summarized their comments regarding
August 27, 1996
Page 4
the ordinance and described the changes she had made to the ordinance based on those comments.
She stated that the Commission may also want to consider increasing the maximum height and lot
coverage allowed.
Commissioner Stokes stated that she would like to omit the reference to reducing a front
setback because of the presence of a porch. She stated that the Commission should consider
doing it on a city -wide basis first before allowing it for these types of projects.
Commissioner Stokes suggested that any increase in height not be allowed for all projects
but that a provision be put into the flexibility section so projects could be judged on a case by case
basis.
Chairperson Linnihan stated that he thinks the maximum lot coverage should remain at 3 5
percent to remain consistent with the standards of the residential neighborhoods. He stated his
desire to encourage owner - occupied rather than rental projects.
M/Erlander, S /Stokes to recommend approval of the attached ordinance amendment with
the changes detailed by staff and sug esgtedbytheCommissioners.
Motion carried: 6 -0.
Ms. Urban stated that they had received a request for a special meeting on September 17.
She recommended canceling the meeting on September 10 because it's the day of the primary and
the meeting would have to start after 8:00 p.m. and holding a special meeting on September 17
instead. She stated that staff would contact the members to determine whether or not they would
have a quorum on the 17th. In response to a question from the Commission, Ms. Urban stated
that Galyan's sporting goods store is negotiating the purchase of the Naegele site and would be
requesting a conditional use permit to construct a store on the site.
LIAISON REPORTS
School Board: Commissioner Dmytrenko reported that the School Board has been
preparing for the upcoming budget shortfall. The Board is going to hold several public hearings
this Fall on the potential cuts.
Community Services Advisory Commission: Commissioner Stokes reported that the
group working on the plan for Veterans Park is suspending any major action until after the
election.
HRA: Commissioner Hansen pointed out that the Tip Top car wash buildings have been
demolished. Mayor Kirsch stated that the HRA approved the purchase of the APCO station on
East 66th Street.
City Council: Commissioner Erlander reported on the dilemma the Council faced
regarding the motorcycle shop at 6722 Penn Avenue.
August 27, 1996
Page 5
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:50 p.m.
Timothy Erlakder
Planning Commission Secretary
Item: #1 Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Case: #96- APUD -3 Date: September 24, 1996
GENERAL INFORMATION
Petitioner: CSM Corporation
Location: Shops at Lyndale, 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue
Type of Request: Amended planned unit development plan, final development plan and
conditional use permit to allow incorporation of limited office /service use in
part of the shopping center.
Zoning: PC -2
Land Use: Commercial
Comp. Plan: Freeway Strip
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: 536.11; 536.21
ACTION
Proposed Change: Approval of the amended planned unit development plan, final development
plan and conditional use permit would allow up to 2,530 square feet of
office /service use in the existing retail shopping center.
Staff
Recommendation: Approve the amended planned unit development plan.
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 September 24,
1996.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of
October 14, 1996.
ANALYSIS
Backer0und: In 1994, the Planning Commission and City Council approved a planned
unit development plan for the Shops at Lyndale, a two -phase retail shopping
center. In 1995, a conditional use permit and final development plan were
approved for the second phase to include 4 retail anchor tenants and 12,648
square feet of space for in -line shops at the east end of the center.
Proposal: CSM Corporation is proposing to incorporate an office use into Phase II of
the shopping center. A temporary employment office would occupy 1,350
10%) square feet of floor area within the in -line space.
Issues: 1. The approved planned unit development plan is for a retail shopping
center. A change in the type of uses in a planned unit development
from those specified in the final development and conditional use permit
requires an amendment.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve an amendment to the planned
unit development plan, final development plan and conditional use permit
for Phase II of the Shops at Lyndale to allow office /service use in up to 20
percent, or 2,530 square feet of the in -line shops.
Basis: 1. The proposed office use is a permitted use in the C -2 (general
commercial) district, which serves as a guide to allowable uses in the
PC -2 district.
2. The amendment will allow a greater variety of tenants while still
preserving the center's primary function as a retail shopping area.
3. The existing parking would accommodate the proposed office use.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request with a finding of fact
that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding
properties or the City as a whole.
CITATIONS
ZONING CODE:
SECTION 536 - ZONING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
536.11. PUD districts and allowable uses. Subdivision 1. Establishment of PUD districts. The
following table denotes the six types of PUD districts, the abbreviations for such PUD districts, and
the allowable uses within each PUD district:
Planned Residential PR R & R -1
Planned Two Family Residential PMR -1 MR -1
Planned Multi-Family Residential PMR MR -1 MR -2 & MR -3
Planned Neighborhood Commercial PC -1 C -1
Planned General Commercial PC -2 C -2 & C -3
Planned Industrial PI I
Subd. 2. PMR -1 density limitation. In the PMR -1 District, the density of two family
dwellings shall not exceed ten dwelling units per acre.
Subd. 3. Mixed land uses. Uses other than the allowable uses listed in Subd. 1 above, are
permitted in a PUD district, provided that:
a) the use is one which is authorized in one of the six types of PUD districts;
b) such additional use shall not occupy more than 33 percent of the gross floor area
within the planned unit development; and
c) not withstanding the foregoing, an adult establishment as defined and regulated in
Section 1196 of the City Code is not permitted in any PUD district other than a PC-
2 district.
536.21. Compliance with the PUD plan and fnal development plan. Subdivision 1. Changes.
The development of a PUD district shall be in substantial compliance with the approved PUD plan,
final development plan, and conditional use permit. Compliance shall not be considered substantial if
there is:
a) more than ten percent change in floor area in any one structure;
b) more than a ten percent change in the approved separation of buildings;
c) any change in the original approved setbacks from property lines;
d) more than five percent change in the ground area covered by the building;
or
e) any change in the ratio of off - street parking and loading space to gross floor
area.
Subd. 2. Building permits. A building permit may not be issued for a structure within the
PUD district until the Director certifies that the structure conforms to the provisions and
conditions of the PUD plan, final development plan, and conditional use permit. Upon
approval by the Director, the building permit application, along with the appropriate
information required for building permits shall be submitted to the Building Official who shall
process the building permit in conformance with the Building Code.
6- InWat
oaccaaa;y
HJJ705 '3AV 37VONA7
a
illlllllllllllllllll
J
LZO
Ot ry
E
ad
b
G
e
U
fn
i
1
1
I 1
I
1
y, I1
I
CA 1
1 1
I I
I
1 1
1
1 1
I I
I I
1 I
I I
I I
1 1
1
I 1
1 I
I
1 I
1
I1 1
1 1
I 1
1 1
I I
1 I
I 1
I 1
I 1
1 I
I 1
I I
I 1
1 I
I I
1 1
I 1
1 I
1 i
1 1
I 1
I 1
W
1 a"
1 I
I WV
I 0.
1 all
e.
a•
i
O -
u:
M:Yi: S•
CNN
cam- ovi :e:
W
g : »
N::
W .
CL:. Y
w :o bl
WO 1 :
gam A
0
z o
W
o
N
T
Ol Z
p
i d
0
w
Q
Z
czaw
w
Q
a a
Ot ry
E o.
ad
e.
a•
i
O -
u:
M:Yi: S•
CNN
cam- ovi :e:
W
g : »
N::
W .
CL:. Y
w :o bl
WO 1 :
gam A
0
z o
W
o
N
T
Ol Z
p
i d
0
w
Q
Z
czaw
w
Q
a a
CITY OF R10HRELD
PLRnninG oommission
Action Roquort
Item: #2 Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Case: #96- CUP -12 Date: September 24, 1996
GENERAL INFORMATION
Petitioner: American Portable Telecom
Location: Christian Park — Bloomington Avenue, between 68th and 70th Streets
Type of Request: Conditional use permit to allow construction of a 100 -foot
telecommunications tower.
Zoning: R (single family residential)
Land Use: Park
Comp. Plan: Parks and Open Space
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: 521.07, Subd. 10 (proposed amendment, to be effective November 1, 1996)
City Code: 426 (proposed amendment, to be effective November 1, 1996)
ACTION
Proposed Change: Approval of the conditional use permit would allow construction of a 100 -
foot telecommunications tower.
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 September 24,
1996.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of
October 14, 1996.
ANALYSIS
Background: In June of 1996, the City Council established a moratorium on the
development of telecommunications towers and antennas and directed staff
to undertake a study of the issues relating to towers and antennas. In
August, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposed ordinance
amendment and made a recommendation on the ordinance to the City
Council. On September 9, 1996, the Council held first reading of the
ordinance amendment. On September 23, 1996, the Council held a public
hearing and second reading of the amendment.
American Portable Telecom (APT) submitted an application for a tower to
the City prior to the moratorium. Staff explained to APT that the zoning
ordinance did not address telecommunication towers and would have to be
amended to accommodate their request. Because of the delay, staff agreed
to re -start the processing of APT's application once first reading of the
ordinance amendment was completed, with the understanding that they
wouldn't be able to begin constructing a tower until the ordinance became
effective.
Proposal: APT is proposing to construct a 100 -foot telecommunications tower in the
northern half of Christian Park. The tower is of a monopole design and
would replace an existing 80 -foot tall light pole that services the play field.
The play field lights would then be placed on the new monopole.
The tower material will match the rust - colored material of the existing light
poles. A six -foot tall fence will surround the tower and related equipment.
The fence material will match the existing cedar wood used in the park
building. Evergreen trees will be planted on the east side of the structure.
The tower would be approximately 290 feet from the residential property to
the west and approximately 180 feet from the residential property to the
east.
Issues: 1. Neighbors have expressed concern with potential interference by the
tower with their own television and radio communications.
Telecommunication companies are prohibited by the Federal
Communications Commission from interfering with these
transmissions.
2. The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 places limits over a
municipality's ability to regulate telecommunication towers and
antennas. Cities are bound by the following limitations:
cities may not "unreasonably" discriminate among providers;
cities may not restrict wireless communications on the basis of
environmental effects; and
the use of zoning power to restrict antennas must be reasonable
and not have the effect of either prohibiting service or
unreasonably enhancing the "market value" of City facilities.
Cities do have the ability to establish reasonable standards and
regulations for towers and antennas to protect the public health, safety
and welfare.
4. The ordinance amendment will not be effective until November 1,
1996. Permits for the tower should not be issued until after the
ordinance is effective.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the request with the following
stipulations:
1. That final fencing and landscaping plans be approved.by the Leisure
Services Coordinator.
2. That the applicant submit technical information demonstrating that the
tower can accommodate a second user.
3. That a lighting plan be approved by the Leisure Services Coordinator.
4. That the conditional use permit not be effective until and a building
permit not be issued before November 1, 1996.
Basis: 1. The proposed tower would exceed the setback requirement from
adjacent residential uses.
2. The proposed tower would provide a service to the park in addition to
providing telecommunications services.
3. The tower, fencing and landscaping are designed to coordinate with the
existing park features.
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. CWTS towers-and related features, provided that they conform to Section 426 of
the City Code and that they are located in the following residentially zoned locations; church, park,
government, schools, utility and institutional sites.
Section 426 - Public Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services Antennas and Towers
426.01. Purpose. Subdivision 1. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the safe installation and usage
of public commercial wireless telecommunication services (CWTS) towers and antennas. The provisions of this
section are intended to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community, while providing for well
designed and efficient telecommunications systems. The provisions are intended to minimize the adverse visual
effects of towers through careful design and siting standards, to avoid potential damage to adjacent properties
from tower failure through structural standards and setback requirements, and to maximize the use of existing
towers and buildings to accommodate antennas and reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community.
426.03. Definitions. Subdivision 1. For the purposes of this section and the zoning code of the city, the terms
defined in this subsection have the meanings given them.
Subd. 2. "Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services" means any licensed telecommunication
services including cellular, personal communication services (PCS), specialized mobilized radio (SMR), enhanced
specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging, and similar services that are marketed to the public.
Subd. 3. "CWTS Antenna" means any structure or device which transmits and receives electromagnetic
waves, including but not limited to directional antennas such as panels, microwave dishes, satellite dishes, and
omni- directional antennas.
Subd. 4. "CWTS Tower" means any pole, spire, structure, or combination thereof, including supporting
lines, cables, wires, braces, and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna or similar
apparatus above grade, for the purpose of provide CWTS to the public..
426.05. Location. Subdivision 1. The requirements in this subsection apply to CWTS towers and antennas
erected, constructed, placed, re- erected or replaced in the City.
Subd. 2. CWTS towers and related equipment shall be allowed in the following zoning districts with a
conditional use permit:
a) C -2, C -3, MR -3 and I districts;
b) R district on church, park, government, school, utility and institutional sites; and
c) Planned unit development districts as approved in the final development plan.
Subd. 3. CWTS towers and related equipment in the C -2 C -3, MR -3 and I districts shall be allowed in
the rear yard and in an interior side yard provided that the side yard property line abuts another commercially or
industrially zoned property.
Subd. 4. CWTS towers and related equipment in the R district, as conditionally permitted in Subd. 2
b), shall be allowed only in the rear yards.
Subd. 5. CWTS antennas shall be allowed as an accessory use in the following zoning districts:
a) MR -3, C -1, C -2, C -3 and I districts;
b) R district on church, park, government, school, utility and institutional sites; and
c) Planned unit development districts with administrative approval by the Community
Development Director.
426.07. CWTS Tower Performance Standards. Subdivision 1. These performance standards apply to any CWTS
tower that is erected, constructed, placed, re -erected or replaced in any zoning district in the city.
Subd. 2. Minimum setback requirements:
a) Towers in the C -2, C -3, MR -3 and I districts shall meet the setback requirements for an
accessory structure for the underlying district.
b) Towers in the R district shall meet the setback requirements for a non - residential accessory
structure for the underlying district.
c) In addition to the setback requirements in Section 426.07, Subd. 2 (a) and (b), towers in the
C -2, C -3, I and R districts shall have a setback from residential uses a distance equal to 1.5
times the height of the tower.
d) In addition to the setback requirements in Section 426.07, Subd. 2 (a), towers in the MR -3
district shall have a setback from residential uses a distance equal to 1.5 times the height of
the tower. The setback from any residential use that exists on the property in the MR -3
district on which the tower is located shall be measured from the tower to the residential
structure.
e) The City Council, at its discretion, may reduce the required setback to allow the integration
of a tower into an existing or proposed structure or feature such as a church steeple, light
standard, power line support device, sports stadium or similar structure or feature.
Subd. 3. Height. The maximum height of a tower, including all antennas and other attachments, shall
not exceed 150 feet.
Subd. 4. Signage. No signage is permitted on a tower except applicable warning and equipment
information signage required by the manufacture or by federal, state or local authorities.
Subd. 5. Lighting. Towers and related antennas shall not be artificially lighted unless it is required by
the Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state authority. When incorporated into the approved
design of the towers, light fixtures used to illuminate ball fields, parking lots, or similar areas may be attached to
the tower.
Subd. 6. Design Requirements. Proposed or modified towers shall meet the following design
requirements:
a) Towers shall be of a neutral color and designed to minimize visibility and blend into the
surrounding environment except in cases where color is dictated by the Federal Aviation
Administration or other federal or state authority.
b) Towers shall be of a monopole design unless the City Council, at its discretion, approves an
alternative design.
Subd. 7. Co- location. All towers shall comply with the following requirements:
a) If a tower exceeds 75 feet in height, the tower shall be designed to structurally accommodate
the owner's antennas and at least one additional user unless the additional height required for
an additional user is prohibited by the Federal Aviation Administration. The conditional use
permit application should include technical information demonstrating that the tower can
accommodate a second user;
b) Shared use of existing towers or structures shall be preferred to the construction of a new
tower. A proposal for a new telecommunications tower shall not be approved unless the City
Council finds that the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot
be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or on a building over 75 feet in height
within a one -half mile search radius. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed
antennas cannot be accommodated on an existing tower or structure due to one or more of the
following reasons:
i) the unwillingness of the owner of the existing structure or tower to co- locate an
additional antenna;
ii) the planned antenna would exceed the structural capacity of existing and approved
towers and facilities;
iii) the planned antenna would cause radio frequency interference with other existing or
planned equipment, which cannot reasonably be prevented;
iv) other reasons affecting technical performance, system coverage, and system capacity
make it impractical to place the equipment proposed on existing structures or towers;
and /or
v) other unforeseen reasons that make it unfeasible to locate the planned equipment on an
existing or approved tower or building.
426.09. CWTS Antenna Performance Standards. Subdivision 1. These performance standards apply all CWTS
antennas that are erected, constructed, placed, re -erected or replaced in any zoning district in the city.
Subd. 2. Height. The maximum height of an antenna is 15 feet without a conditional use permit.
Subd. 3. Signage. No advertising message shall be on the antenna structure.
Subd. 4. Screening. Such structures shall be screened from adjacent residential uses and street rights -of
way. Screening shall include materials compatible with those utilized on the exterior of the building for roof
mounted antenna structures. Screening plans shall be approved by the Community Development Director.
Subd. 5. Lighting. Towers and antennas shall not be artificially lighted unless it is required by the
Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state authority.
426.11. Accessory Buildings and Equipment. All buildings and structures accessory to a tower shall be
architecturally designed to blend in with the surrounding environment and shall meet the minimum setback
requirements of the applicable zoning district. Ground mounted equipment shall be screened from view by
vegetation or other means of screening as approved by the Community Development Director.
426.13. Abandonment. All obsolete or unused towers and related antennas and equipment shall be removed
within twelve months of the cessation of operations, unless a time extension is approved by the City Council. If a
time extension is not approved and the tower is not removed within twelve months, the tower may be deemed a
nuisance pursuant to Section 925 of the City Code. In the event a tower is determined to be a nuisance, the tower
and associated facilities may be removed by the City and the costs of removal assessed against the property.
426.15. Interference. All new or existing telecommunications service shall comply with all relevant Federal
Communication Commission standards and shall not interfere with public safety and other city
telecommunications. At the discretion of the Director of Public Safety, the owner of a telecommunications
service may be required to submit an inter- modulation study which provides a technical evaluation of existing and
proposed transmissions and indicates all potential interference problems.
426.17. Health- Related Standards. Antennas placed upon a tower shall be subject to state and federal regulations
pertaining to nonionizing radiation and other health hazards related to such facilities. If new, more restrictive
standards are adopted, the antennas shall be made to comply or continued operations may be restricted by the City
Council.
Section 426.19. Support of Public Warning Systems. Telecommunications operators that utilize towers that are
erected after the effective date of this ordinance shall participate in the Emergency Alert System (EAS), as defined
by FCC Rules and Regulations, Part 11, by broadcasting warnings of severe weather and other life threatening
emergencies to users of personal communications equipment served by the tower. Telecommunications operators
may be exempt from the requirements of this subdivision under the following circumstances:
a) The telecommunications operator demonstrates that participation in EAS is not technologically
feasible;
b) The telecommunications operator is unable to acquire any FCC waivers or exemption from
licensing or other regulations that would prohibit participation in EAS; or
c) The state or regional EAS planning committees determine that participation in EAS by the
telecommunications operator is not necessary.
426.21. Permits. Subdivision 1. Required. Except as provided in subdivision 3, no person may erect,
construct, place, re -erect, reconstruct or replace an antenna or tower in the city without first making application
for and obtaining a permit therefor from the building official.
Subd. 2. Information. The applicant for the permit shall provide at the time of application sufficient
information to indicate that the erection, construction, placement, re -erection, reconstruction or replacement of an
antenna or tower will not create a safety hazard or damage to the property of other persons. In addition, the
applicant shall submit a copy of the lease agreement between the applicant and the property owner to the City
Assessor.
Subd. 3. Certification. Towers shall be certified by a qualified and licensed professional engineer to
conform to the latest structural standards of the Uniform Building Code and the Electronics Industry Association.
Subd. 4. Exceptions. Permits are not required for the adjustment, repair or replacement of elements of
the antenna or tower, provided such adjustment repair or replacement does not reduce the safety factor.
426.23. Construction. Subdivision 1. Wind. Towers with antennas shall be designed to withstand applicable
wind load requirements as prescribed in the state building code.
Subd. 2. Treatment. Towers shall be constructed of, or treated with, corrosive resistant material.
Subd. 3. Climbing. A tower affixed to the ground shall be protected to discourage climbing of the
tower by unauthorized persons.
Subd. 4. Appurtenant structures. No antenna or tower shall have affixed or attached to it, in any way,
any catwalk, crow's nest or like structure, except during periods of construction or repair.
426.25. Non - conforming installations. Subdivision 1. General rule. Antenna and towers in existence on
November 1, 1996 which do not conform to or comply with this section may continue to exist for the purpose
now used but may not be replaced or structurally altered except as provided in subdivision 2 without complying
with this section.
Subd. 2. Replacement. If a non - conforming tower or antenna is damaged or destroyed the tower or
antenna may be repaired and restored to its former use, location and physical dimensions upon obtaining a
building permit therefor, but without otherwise complying with these regulations, provided, however, that the
cost of repairing the tower to its former use, size or location does not exceed 50 percent of the cost,of a new tower
of like kind or quality.
426.27. Variances. The council may grant variances to the literal provisions of this section, except for Section
426.05, in the same manner and subject to the same requirements that apply to variances granted under section
546 of the zoning code.
W
x
in
m
S 3AV H1St
WN
J
00
Z
X W J
S 3AV H1L l
S 3AV Hl9t
F W W
N W W
W l=
3AV NOlONIN10018
S 3AV H14t
S 3AV Hit, t
W
m
t
YU
O p
Zo
IL
N
z
zw
W
r
Z tn
III
d
W J
U
N ^
p
w Y cru
Ca a azz0
S 3AV H14t
S 3AV Hit, t
W
m
t
YU
O p
Zo
IL
N
z
zw
W
r
Z tn
III
d
W J
U
N ^
vl c
i
a
o —,ea
o —,o€
0
I
III
d
wJaUN
C7 U w
W J W UZ
z N w W
w
J WOW
OO
Y U
0a. <0 L,
b
mL)
a 3 i
O w
o
W
o
0 z o
o
QW c wW JW a i
U 3
go a4 0Wa
ou
14 z z
a z Z N co
CL LL
O
wQ
z-
rS W
Nm= OY
uiap
oZ tz x0= w ~3 O
WZ
V) o
NoJ v t9
zo 7d
a w
O
m a pn CL o 0
z- 0Z w 0 x OQ
aaa. a z
o- v a W
Mo cz
CO cn
o —,ea
o —,o€
0
I
III
d
w
J
a
U
N
S -,B6
n
H
Q
W
J
W
H
N
W
3
0
N
n
Z
0
Q
W
J
W
a0 0o
V) a a °9 Z
0 S z
Z m
z z z v) a, wWC3, WO
7 Z Z 2
zF
O W U
0 Q Q Q W W M li
NIL F- H f- (/ F- Z
wo
Z
I w
Q
coababaz d 00 3
3
NJ
a
N
0 C.D
NN
00
n ~ZU'
00
N x N N
a aZ a2
aZWQJ
d a('Z a
00 06 0 0C o oz z o
M cr Q as aao aww
as a(.. L a(. z a o CL L, m a
n
H
Q
W
J
W
H
N
W
3
0
N
n
Z
0
Q
W
J
W
5 -,86
J
zw
z
a
O o2z0
0 Q U W m
U O m O
zui
O
z z
W W
w w
F H
a z a
Oz O
Q Q
CLaoab
a
w wN wNO
oa ou
IL CL CL
a Z Z U Z U
as a a
K-
z oa}}
H U v
Q W W
Q Z
z
w
En
Oza i:i
U
aauz
o
o z
zw
z
a
O o2z0
0 Q U W m
U O m O
zui Z U
V)
C7
CL w
a o
D o a
m O 3
Oow w w
N 3 N N
0 o Owaza
Oz O0
b+ CL
aw w a
a U- m a
Z
O
H
a
w
J
W
2
F—
RN'
CITY OF R10HRELD
PLnnninG oommission
Action Rcqucit
Item: #3 Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Case: #96- APUD -4 Date: September 24, 1996
GENERAL INFORMATION
Petitioner: Northern Hospitality, Inc.
Location: 1200 East 78th Street
Type of Request: Amended planned unit development plan, final development plan and
conditional use permit to allow a, reduction in height from 5 stories to 3
stories.
Zoning: PC -2 (planned general commercial)
Land Use: vacant
Comp. Plan: Freeway Strip
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: 536.17; 536.21
ACTION
Proposed Change: Approval of an amended planned unit development plan, final development
plan and conditional use permit would allow the applicant to construct a
three -story, 58 -unit limited service hotel.
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 September 24,
1996.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of
October 14, 1996.
ANALYSIS
Background: In June of 1996, the City Council approved a planned unit development
plan, final development plan and conditional use permit for a limited service
AmericInn hotel at 1200 East 78th Street. The approved plan called for a
five story, 39,812 square foot building with 60 units.
Proposal; Northern Hospitality is proposing to redesign the building. The proposed
building would be 3 stories, 30,933 square feet with 58 rooms. Sixty
parking spaces would still be provided on the site. The building orientation
and site coverage would remain essentially the same as the approved plan.
Issues: 1. The zoning ordinance requires that an amendment be approved for a
change in floor area that is greater than 10 percent.
2. The only concern raised by the public with the plan that was approved
in June was the impact of the building's height on the adjacent
apartments. The height of the proposed building will have less of an
impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the request with the following
stipulations:
1. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the
Engineering Division.
2. That a stormwater management plan be approved by the Engineering
Division.
3. That the applicant apply for an amended planned unit development plan,
final development plan and conditional use permit at such time that I-
494 is upgraded and the main access to the site is changed from 78th
Street to 12th Avenue.
4. That the developer obtain a permit from MNDOT for work done in the
78th Street right -of -way.
5. That the final signage plan be approved by the Community
Development Director.
BaSiS: 1. The proposed height of the building will have less of an impact on
adjacent land uses.
2. - The parking ratio improves slightly with the proposed plan.
3. The proposed changes do not impact site access or circulation.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the request with a finding of fact
that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding
properties or the City as a whole.
CITATIONS
ZONING CODE:
SECTION 536 - ZONING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
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. 2. Planning Commission review. The Planning Commission shall conduct a public
hearing on the PUD application and serve mailed notice of such hearing to the applicant and all
property owners situated wholly or partially within 350 feet of the proposed PUD district. The
Planning Commission shall submit its recommendation to the Council. The Planning
Commission may recommend approval with or without modifications, or may recommend
denial of the PUD application.
Subd. 3. Council consideration. Following action by the Planning Commission, the Council
shall hold a public hearing and consider rezoning the area described in the plan. If the PUD
plan is approved, the area shall be rezoned as one of the six types of PUD districts.
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.
536.21. Compliance with the PUD plan and final development plan. Subdivision 1. Changes.
The development of a PUD district shall be in substantial compliance with the approved PUD plan,
final development plan, and conditional use permit. Compliance shall not be considered substantial if
there is:
a) more than ten percent change in floor area in any one structure;
b) more than a ten percent change in the approved separation of buildings;
c) any change in the original approved setbacks from property lines;
d) more than five percent change in the ground area covered by the building;
or
e) any change in the ratio of off - street parking and loading space to gross floor
area.
Subd. 2. Building permits. A building permit may not be issued for a structure within the
PUD district until the Director certifies that the structure conforms to the provisions and
conditions of the PUD plan, final development plan, and conditional use permit. Upon
approval by the Director, the building permit application, along with the appropriate
information required for building permits shall be submitted to the Building Official who shall
process the building permit in conformance with the Building Code.
W
W
Q
Z
F-
A
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
30,9330
THREE STORIES
77 TN STREET
56 PARKING SPACES
4 PANDICAPPED SPACES
60 TOTAL SPACES -
78 TN STREET
SITE FLAN
c0
m
S
S
i
DIRECTIONAL
SIGN
PROPERTY
LINE
I
S
LINE
wh4ce
GRAPHIC SCALE
020 s0 120
TRUMAN? DRAINNC DATE SHEET 110
LOCATION
p
9/17/96
HOWELL RICHFlELD
SITE PLAN
SCALE ClAim/!
ARCHITECTS MINNESOTA
ASSOC-INC. m
w ..
ao
F+x !i:
Q
n
a
n
n
n
CITY Of R10HAELD
Rnnnm oommission
Letter
Item: # 4 Agenda Section: New Business
PC Letter: #14 Date: September 24, 1996
GENERAL INFORMATION
Subject: Visual Imagery Workshop - Richfield Lake Planning Area
Type of Request:
References: See attachments.
BACKGROUND
Issues: Earlier this year, Tom Martinson prepared a detailed planning
analysis of the Richfield Lake area. This analyses was done in
response to the proposed highway improvements along 35W and
cross -town. The study included four possible redevelopment
paths. The four were as follows:
1. Do nothing.
2. Baseline improvements.
3. Comprehensive infill.
4. Sweeping transformation.
Of these four; numbers one and four were seen by the author as
unrealistic. The recommended approach was number three,
comprehensive infill. The next step in the planning process is a
Visual Imagery Workshop.
MnDOT plans to go out for bid on the above mentioned highway
improvement in the spring of 1997. To do so they will need input
from the effected communities by the end of the year. In addition
to providing an overall visual approach to the Richfield Lake
Planning area, the information that comes out of the visual
imagery workshop can serve as Richfield's input to MnDOT
regarding the highway improvements. The workshop format is a
good way to gather a great deal of information and to advance the
process as quickly as possible in response to MnDOT's schedule.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Review the attached material, give it some thought and be
prepared to participate and have fun.
Basis:
Alternative:
H: P &Z: pcltr:0924LAKE]
Notes about the
Visual Imagery Workshop
September, 24, 1996
These materials form the basis for the workshop scheduled to be held as part of the
September 24`h Planning Commission meeting. As a participant, you'll be asked to make
observations and recommendations with respect to a number of topics and issues.
There are no right or wrong answers. The goal is simply to discover if there is (or
whether there is not) a consensus with respect to a number of municipal issues related to
community appearance. The results can be used generally by the City as background, and
can also form the basis for the design provisions of any highway - construction agreement
between the City and MnDot.
City Eras
This one -page chart illustrates a progression common among U.S. cities. While this is
neither irrevocable nor absolute, many cities do indeed seem to follow this sequence,
which leads to decline by stage IV. Those cities which do manage to escape this "main
sequence" are either those with unique situations, like Santa Barbara, or which have been
aggressive (and even daring) in dealing with issues at hand. Over the past decade and
more, Richfield has been in this latter class.
Has it been worth it? Look at the bottom of the page to learn the likely wages of delay.
The Illustrative Scale of Housing Reinvestment indicates relative order -of- magnitude
cost increases if a city is not diligent in continuously self - revitalizing. In relative terms,
doing code enforcement programs may cost $1000 /unit if problems are dealt with at an
early stage. If housing conditions are left until they become more serious, loans and even
grants may be necessary to effect needed rehabilitation. At the same fiscal scale, the cost
may be an order -of- magnitude greater. And an additional order greater would be required
if a city waits until housing becomes truly dilapidated, requiring clearance programs.
This may or may not imply that the Richfield Lake area must be revitalized. But funds
spent now in maintaining and even revitalizing the community bring in big dividends in
the future.
Visual Imagery Workshop Polling Sheets
This six -page section should be self - explanatory. It contains four sections. First among
these is the determination of community expectations just how distinctively, how
creatively, do we go about our daily business?
The second and third sections focus upon community self - images and issues. These are
followed by a fourth section, on design. During the actual workshop, background will be
provided through slide comparisons.
City Eras
With growth and age,
cities tend to fall into distinct patterns
I. Developing City Maple Grove / post -war Dallas / 1920s Minneapolis
emphasis: Broadly -based private construction
investment: Infrastructure and public facilities
condition: "Holes" but little blight
reinvestment: Few or no remedial programs
leadership: Intuitive, visionary civic decisions and/or small power group
II. Transitional Phoenix / mid -1980s Bloomington / late 1960s Minneapolis
emphasis: Build -out, infill construction
investment: Special projects, cultural or sports, designed housing
condition: Some physical and /or social decline in older areas
reinvestment: Experimental and scattered remedial programs
leadership: Extensive policy planning; often exhaustive public hearings, task forces
III. Mature City Status Berkeley / mid -1980s Minneapolis / mid -1960s St. Louis
emphasis: Economic development
investment: Protection of /fall back to emphasis on a commercial core
condition: Layers of physical and social decline except fringes and amenity areas
reinvestment: Directed remedial programs
leadership: Slow consensus - building
IV. Permanent Urban Status Hialeah / 1980s New Orleans / late -1960s Detroit
emphasis: No emphasis, reactive to private proposals
investment: Cope with decay
condition: Wide- spread decline, though can be domain of rich and poor
reinvestment: De facto triage /continuous fallow cycles
leadership: Erratic, conflicting decisions, isolated project plans
Illustrative Scale of Housing Reinvestment
Code Enforcement: $1,000 /unit
Loans and Grants: $10,000 /unit
Clearance and write- downs: $100,000 /unit
Richfield Lake Planning Area
Visual Imagery Workshop
Purpose
The purpose of this workshop is to identify an overall visual approach for the Richfield Lake
planning area. As was the case for the planning analysis itself, the stimulus for this workshop is
the programmed highway improvements: MnDot planners will be more successful in responding
to this visual environment if they understand the city's community- design intentions.
A Choice of Approaches
There are several possible approaches. At the outset, is the overall goal to achieve a sense of
physical harmony or is it to affect a vibrant visual environment? If a mix of the two, in what
proportion? From a tactical perspective, the overall goal might be defined by style, imagery or
character. And the prime tools can be architecture, landscape, or public works— though usually a
combination of the three.
The direction gained from this workshop will be used to develop a design brief. This brief will
provide a basis for highway- related visual/imagery decisions, and can also serve as a resource for
public and private improvements around Richfield Lake.
Part I— Expectations
The notion of expectations is basic to city planning. This refers to the application of creativity
in the daily operation of a city. For example, every city builds roads, maintains parks and zones
land uses. But how creatively are such activities carried out? To some cities, a road is just a road,
while to others, a road is also a symbolic entrance, or even an environmental experience.
The creative expectations of cities can generally be understood in the context of four categories
of expectations. As illustrated on the following chart, these range from cities which focus on
function and efficiency, to those expectations whose expectations are primarily experiential.
Category: Functional City Systematic City Innovative City Visionary City
Typical self- Market- driven" City that Works" National City" World City"
description
donation" space system biome network
Examples Seoul Singapore Vancouver Paris
skyline
Anchorage Minneapolis Portland San Francisco
Basic orientation Infrastructure Architecture Landscape Experience
Naturally, each of these kinds of cities approaches a given situation differently. As illustration,
the following chart compares a typical municipal position with respect to open space and skyline
among these four categories of expectations:
Approach to public PUD park land Critical open space Integrated Expand and
open space developer set - asides metropolitan open protect native
donation" space system biome network
Approach to Sees tall buildings Sees tall buildings Tall buildings Values mature,
skyline as desirable private as symbols of civic should be closely -knit
investments progress restricted to central physical fabric,
core of city pedestrian scale
It is important to note that no category of expectations is inherently more "right" or "wrong"
than any of the others. There is a most appropriate category for every city, however. This will
always be based upon the city's own self image, and thus underlying political support.
The critical matter is to be honest and — especially - consistent in the context of expectations.
A city which understands its expectations and applies them consistently in its activities is going
to be visually - successful.
1. Richfield now 2. Richfield in future 3. Richfield Lake
With respect to the jour With respect to the jour With respect to the jour
categories of expectations, which categories, which one could/ categories, which expectation
one best describes Richfield now? should Richfield be? should be applied to this area?
1 - -- Functional 1 - -- Functional 1 - -- Functional
2= - -- Systematic 2= - -- Systematic 2= - -- Systematic
3 - -- Innovative 3--- Innovative 3 - -- Innovative
4= - -- Visionary 44 =-- Visionary 4= - -- Visionary
Part II— Community Self -Image
4. Ideal Image of Richfield
What, exactly, is an "urban hometown ?" More precisely, what are the attributes of Richfield as
an urban hometown? Please separately rate each one of these potential descriptions on a scale of
1 -5. If you agree totally, or see a given description as being extremely important, rank it a "5." If
you disagree totally, or consider an attribute totally unimportant, rate it a "1." Scores of 2 -4
would indicate gradations of agreement/importance.
Metropolitan: Undifferentiated part of a large urban area
Suburban: Outlying but distinct metropolitan residential district
Exurban: Separate and village -like
Regional: Part of a "confederation" of distinct suburban/exurban communities
Garden Community: Characterized by trees, plants and gardens
5. Most Prized Qualities
How important are the following attributes throughout the community? Again, please rate these
separately on a 1 -5 scale.
Accessibility: Able to get around the metro area easily
Detachment: Through traffic is discouraged even if this limits accessibility
Anonymity: No one outside of Richfield need be aware of what the city is like
Prominence: Richfield should receive a great deal of metropolitan -wide attention
Communal: Public spaces affording human interchange are important in the neighborhoods
Private: A sense of personal separation is important for each residential property
Informality: Improvements should have a "natural" look, city-wide
Formality: Improvements should have an "organized" look, city-wide:
Cohesiveness: A strong sense of visual harmony is important to Richfield
Vibrancy: It is important that the community be visually interesting and distinctive
N
Part III — Community Issues
6. Concerns
What do you feel are the most important concerns, city-wide? Please separately rate the
following typical planning issues, again on a scale of 1 -5, with 1 identifying an issue which is
generally trivial in Richfield; and 5 identifying an issue of highest significance. Note that the
question is not how well a given issue is being handled, but simply whether it is seen as an
important community issue.
Traffic: Is too -heavy traffic a general problem in Richfield?
Adjacent Impacts: Does Richfield suffer from negative impacts from adjacent cities?
Community Standards: Are community standards too low or too high?
Codes: Do current codes sufficiently protect and also shape the community?
Size: Are some buildings or structures too big or too high?
Redevelopment: Is municipally- assisted redevelopment an issue?
7. Desirable Changes
The following is a listing of typical design changes often proposed in communities similar to
Richfield. Please indicate whether you think these would be generally seen in the community as
desirable or not. A rating of 1 would mean a change that would be poorly received, while a 5
would indicate a change that would be enthusiastically received.
Pedestrian Ways: Extended pathway systems through neighborhoods
Edge Developments: Visual /physical differentiation from adjacent communities
Landscaping: Significant landscaping requirements for non - residential construction.
Design Guidelines: Mandatory design standards for non - residential construction.
S. Mechanisms
How do civic improvements best come about in Richfield? Communities may rely upon a wide
range of mechanisms for instituting change. In the list below, please rate the effectiveness for
Richfield of each of these illustrative mechanisms for change. A rating of 1 would be a
mechanism you feel would be totally ineffective in bringing about significant change in
Richfield. A 5 rating would mean an approach which is virtually certain to be effective.
Laissez faire: Leave improvements up to the individual motivations of property owners
Community Sentiment: Social pressure or interest is effective in promoting change
Personal Dealing: Talking directly to individuals is a good way of achieving improvement
Ordinances: A city ordinance will ensure public improvement goals will be met
Municipal Action: Public re /development will ensure needed changes in the city
Part IV— Design Choices
Cities need to deal with the notion of design at three levels. First, to what extent is the physical
or visual nature of a community really important to its citizens? Second, in what way is that
importance best manifested? And third, what specific visual attributes (design vocabularies) of
that best manifestation are appropriate to the community?
The following questions are taken from a sampling of design topics. These are not exhaustive!
But they are sufficient to establish a likely approach to community design issues.
A. IMPORTANCE
Almost everyone reacts to the visual environment. But the range of what is important to any
given individual varies widely within any community. For example, one person might be totally
satisfied as long as their neighbors' cars weren't up on blocks, while another strongly favors
mandatory design controls on all new buildings. The rest of the community is somewhere in
between. The next two questions are intended to gauge where on this spectrum Richfield lies.
9. Overall Status
Compared to other — representative — municipal issues, how important do you think the city's
visual environment is to the citizens of Richfield? This question is intended to gauge just the
overall status of this issue, so think of this as a general question about the community's
appearance; don't be concerned (until the next question) about a specific place on a possible
spectrum of preferences. Note again that this is a comparative ranking, so for this question,
please rank what topic /issue you think is most important of these nine as 9, and the topic that is
least important 1, with the others ranked in between in order of comparative importance.
Airport
Community Appearance
Education
Fairness
Jobs
Property Taxes
Recreation
Safety
Shopping Convenience
10. Spectrum
No matter where Community Appearance ended up in the previous ranking, this question seeks
to determine which of the following identifies what you feel are the most appropriate levels of
municipal attention with respect to Community Appearance? Entries in this group are ranked
individually: on any given position, please rank as 5 any position which you feel is extremely
appropriate to Richfield and also would be highly supported by citizens. Alternately, a 1 ranking
would identify approaches you feel would not be appropriate and/or would be widely unpopular
in the community. Please rank each of these entries whether or not you feel it is a useful position.
Note that not all of these are necessarily self - exclusive: several of these could be adopted
together as- part of an overall approach to Community Appearance.
The appearance of my property is none of the City's business
Prohibiting wrecks and un -mowed lawns is all the appearance controls Richfield needs
Boulevard planting is important to Richfield's appearance
The City should review the appearance of all new commercial buildings
The design of buildings within special districts should be approved by the City
The City should have significant architectural and landscape standards in its codes
Landscape planting should be improved in important public locations
Richfield would benefit from a "signature" building
It is important that some part of Richfield have a "sense of place" for the community
People would appreciate something that is visually - unique to Richfield
We need a famous work of art as a civic symbol and object of pride
B. BEST APPROACHES
In broad terms, cities have four major "tools" for manifesting their physical individuality.
Following the order of the previous expectations section, these four are Infrastructure,
Architecture, Landscape and Experience. Of course, many cities apply a mix of these
approaches, though a given city is most successful if it emphasizes one of these.
Approaches emphasizing Infrastructure can be as straightforward as Apple Valley's red light
poles or as exotic as the system of bridges in Venice. Many cities have used Architecture as a
tool: as examples, the preservation of historic imagery in Williamsburg; the creation of a fantasy
theme imagery in Santa Barbara; or the employment of "indigenous" imagery in developments
such as Fairbanks Ranch, in San Diego County.
Approaches emphasizing Landscape can vary widely: these range from Sunfish Lake's policy
of preserving the natural landforms and views, to highly- organized designed environments such
as the community of Riverside, adjacent to Chicago; and the Minneapolis Grand Rounds.
The notion of Experiences is more subtle and complex. This does not refer to a mix of
approaches as much as to the integration of setting, public works, architecture, landscape and the
civic activities and celebrations of people. Thus the streetscape [Infrastructure) of Paris's
Champs Elysees is visually anchored at either end by the Louvre and Arc de Triomphe
Architecture], augmented by its lushly - planted boulevard and connected Tuileries Gardens
Landscape], and energized by continuous pedestrian traffic and periodic grand parades. The
integration of all of these — naturally and effortlessly, it seems —leads to an overall environment
of Experience.
11. Emphases
How useful do you think these four major tools would be in establishing a sense of place in
Richfield? Please separately assess the utility for Richfield of each. Use any perspective you feel
is realistic. For example, if you think Architecture would be a really effective tool, but have
doubts that others would agree, you would be fully justified in assessing a lower score. However
if you think Architecture is the answer, even if popular support might be lukewarm, feel fully
justified in giving Architecture a high score. Each of these is assessed separately. A 5 would
mean this is the approach to emphasize in Richfield; a 1 would identify an approach you feel has
little value as a tool for Richfield. Scores in between, as elsewhere in this poll, indicate a
gradation in between these extremes.
Infrastructure
Architecture
Landscape
Experience
C. VOCABULARIES
Cities are comprised of dozens of visual attributes. These include literally everything you see.
In every city, some of these attributes are emphasized, their visual values capitalized upon. When
this occurs, these particular attributes become Design Vocabularies in that situation.
As an example, every city has signs. But in Las Vegas, many signs are not only extraordinary
as individual designed objects, but they actually define entire environments, as along the Strip.
So this ubiquitous attribute has become a design vocabulary, effectively defining the very visual
character of the city. Vocabularies may be utilized in any of the four categories (Q. 11).
5
The following list of attributes /vocabularies is also intended as a sampling. The purpose here is
two -fold. First, to illustrate some examples of attributes which can be utilized as vocabularies.
Second, to gauge where along a range of conventional -to- daring the city's preferences are likely
to be strongest. Of course, there is no absolute right or wrong answer. And once again, this
listing is far from exhaustive!
12. Potential Vocabularies
Below are several typical attributes [listed alphabetically] which may potentially prove
valuable to Richfield as design vocabularies. Please rate each one separately. A 5 would mean
that you see real potential for this attribute to help in establishing a sense of place somewhere in
Richfield. A 1 rating would mean that you see this as a pretty useless approach, or feel that it
would not be widely- appreciated by the community.
Art: Murals, sculpture, festivals
Color: Wide use of a similar color- material throughout the community
Humor: "Programmatic" objects, gentle irony, landscape follies
Lighting: Highlight structures and features; patterns in light
Markers: Gateways
Signs: As designed objects, created environments, agents of change
Street Furniture: Exceptionally- creative expressions of benches, receptacles, etc.
Thank you for your direction. The results will be compiled into an analysis and design brief
that can be used generally as background, and also specifically to inform the design choices
surrounding the proposed highway changes.
R