01-13-1998J
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
January 13, 1998
7:00 p.m.
Roll Call
New Business
ITEM #1 Information Letter #1 Update on Airport Mitigation
Plan
ITEM #2
Information Letter #2 Discussion of Variance
Process
Old Business
ITEM #3 Information Letter #3 Discussion of Zoning Regulations for
Accessory Buildings
ITEM #4 Information Letter #4 Discussion of Industrial Zoning Along 1-
494
Adjournment
m
CITY Q1-
Planning Commission Letter
RICHFIELD January 13, 1998
Agenda Section: New Business
Item #: 1
Letter #: 1
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Review and discuss status of airport mitigation plan.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: Don Brauer, consultant, will provide an update on the status of the airport
mitigation plan. Mr. Brauer will provide a comparison of the impacts of the
various mitigation area limits, for example, the current comprehensive plan,
partial mitigation to Bloomington Avenue, and full mitigation.
Mr. Brauer will give an overview of the results of the January 12 presentation
to the Metropolitan Council. He will also forecast the topics to be addressed at
the February study session.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: No action is being requested at this time.
Planning
CI'rl' OF
RICHFIELD January 13, 1998
Agenda Section: New Business
Item #: 2
Letter #: 2
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Discuss the issues relating to the variance process and consider changes
to Section 511 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to the expansion of
nonconforming structures.
ANALYSIS
History: Staff have received several variance requests in the past two years from
property owners wanting to build an addition in line with an existing
nonconforming structure. A nonconforming structure can be enlarged as long
as the expansion meets current building and zoning requirements.
A common example involves detached garages. The side setback requirement
for detached garages used to be two feet. The current setback requirement is
three feet. To expand a garage with a two foot setback (on the side with the
two foot setback) the expansion has to be set back three feet from the property
line or a variance obtained.
Variances are currently heard by a Hearing Examiner, who is appointed by the
City Council. Mailed notices are sent to property owners and occupants within
350 feet of the property and a notice is published in the paper. The Hearing
Examiner holds a public hearing and issues a written decision. The decision is
based on criteria established by state law. The process takes four to six weeks
to complete. Anyone can appeal the decision of the Hearing Examiner to the
City Council.
Proposal: The City may want to consider amending the nonconforming structures
provision in the Zoning Ordinance to make it easier to expand a nonconforming
structure. The nonconforming structures provision (511.13, subd. 4) currently
reads, "a nonconforming building occupied by a conforming use may be
enlarged if the expansion meets all applicable City Code requirements." This
provision could be amended to allow expansions without meeting current
zoning requirements. Limits could be established so that undesirable situations
or conditions are not made worse.
A second option would be to consider administrative variances that would allow
staff to make a determination in cases where the variance requested is minimal.
This process wouldn't have to be limited to expansions of nonconforming
structures. Standards would need to be developed to give guidance to staff in
these situations. These administrative variances would still need to meet the
four tests of a variance (undue hardship, unique circumstances, no impact on the
neighborhood, minimum variance necessary to alleviate the undue hardship).
There would also need to be an appeals process.
A third option would be not to require a public hearing in cases where the
variance request is less than a certain amount. The Hearing Examiner would
still hear the variance but no notification would be sent to the neighborhood or
published in the paper. The four tests of a variance would still need to be met.
The City of Chaska does not require a public hearing in cases in which the
variance requested is less than 30 percent of the required standard.
Issues: I. The variance process, while simpler than it was 12 years ago when the
Planning Commission and City Council heard all variance requests, takes a
minimum of 4 weeks to complete. In addition, a $225 application fee is
charged to help cover costs of staff time, legal notice publication, and mailed
notices.
2. Previous staff did not require a variance when a nonconforming building was
expanded, as long as the nonconformity did not get any worse. The City
Attorney determined, however, that variances are required in these
situations under the current Zoning Ordinance.
3. There may be instances in which the City wouldn't want a nonconforming
structure expanded because an expansion would worsen a bad situation. To
avoid these situations, limits should be placed on the amount of variance
permitted without a public hearing. The nonconforming structure should
also be legally nonconforming (i.e. it met all the code requirements when it
was built). In the case of garage homes (which should not be allowed to be
expanded), they usually received a permit for a garage, not a residence, so
they are not legally nonconforming.
4. Any option chosen for relaxing the regulations for nonconforming structures
should be thoroughly tested on existing situations.
5. The limits applied to garages and principal buildings might be different
because it is more likely that the expansion of a nonconforming principal
building could have a negative impact on the neighborhood.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Discuss the issues and provide feedback to staff on a possible
ordinance amendment.
Basis: 1. There have been several instances in which a property owner has
encountered difficulty expanding an existing nonconforming
structure.
2. It is appropriate to review the Zoning Ordinance when multiple
situations suggest a change may need to be made.
3. A copy of the staff report has been sent to the variance hearing
examiners. Their feedback should be solicited before a final
decision is made.
4. Staff from the Inspections Division have reviewed the proposed
changes and support some relaxation in the rules for
nonconforming structures as long as limits are applied to prevent
bad situations from being made worse.
Alternative: Recommend that Section 511 of the Zoning Ordinance, relating to the
expansion of nonconforming structures, not be changed at this time.
CITATIONS
ZONING CODE:
SECTION 511 - ZONING: GENERAL PROVISIONS
511.13. Nonconforming uses and structures. Subdivision 1. Purposes. This subsection is
intended to limit the number and extent of nonconforming uses by prohibiting their enlargement,
their re- establishment after abandonment, and alteration or restoration after the destruction of the
structures they occupy.
Subd. 2. Continuance of nonconformingL uses and buildings. A nonconforming use or
building lawfully existing upon the effective date of this code or amendments thereto may
be continued at the size and in a manner of operation existing upon such date, subject to
the provisions of this subsection.
Subd. 3. Enlargement of nonconforming use prohibited. There shall be no enlargement,
expansion, intensification, replacement, structural alteration, or relocation of any building
or premises devoted to a nonconforming use except to make it a conforming use. Normal
building maintenance and repair shall be excepted from this subdivision.
Subd. 4. Enlargement of nonconforming building. A nonconforming building occupied by
a conforming use may be enlarged if the expansion meets all applicable City Code
requirements.
Subd. 5. Termination of nonconforming use. A nonconforming use shall not be resumed
if normal operation of the use has been abandoned for a period of 12 or more months.
Time shall be calculated as beginning on the day following the last day in which the use
was in normal operation and shall run continuously thereafter. Following the expiration of
12 months, only uses which conform to this code shall be established. If a nonconforming
use of land on which there is no substantial building is discontinued for a period of 10 or
more days, any subsequent use of the land shall be in conformity with this code.
Subd. 6. Replacement of nonconforming use with conforming use. If a nonconforming
use is superseded or replaced by a conforming use, the nonconforming use status of the
premises and any rights which arise under the provisions of this subsection shall terminate.
Subd. 7. Damage of nonconforming building. If a nonconforming building is damaged by
any means, including fire or water, to the extent that the cost of repairing or restoring such
damaged building would be 50 percent or more of the fair market value at the time of the
damage, then it shall not be reconstructed except in full compliance with this code, except
that any lawful nonconforming single family dwelling which existed on or before May 9,
1968 may be reconstructed if it is unintentionally damaged, provided that the degree of
nonconformity is not increased. If reconstruction of a nonconforming building is not
completed within 12 months after such damage, all subsequent construction and use shall
be in full compliance with this code. The determination of the extent of the damage and
the fair market value of the building or structure shall be made by the Council.
Subd. 8. Junk yards. A junk yard existing as a nonconforming use shall not be continued unless
located in an industrial zoning district. Such junk yard shall be completely enclosed within a
building or within a continuous solid fence not less than eight feet in height and of such additional
height as to screen completely all the operations of the junk yard. The plans of the building or
fence must be approved by the Building Official.
Subd. 9. Safety: Nothing in this subsection shall prevent the repairing of a building to a safe
condition when said building is declared unsafe by the proper authority, provided the necessary
repair shall not constitute 50 percent or more of fair market value of the building as determined by
the Council.
SECTION 546 - ZONING: ADMINISTRATION
546.09. Variances. Subdivision 1. Limitations. The following limitations apply to variances:
a) a variance may be granted from the literal provisions of this code only in instances
where such action would be consistent with the general purpose and intent of this code
and all the following criteria are found to exist:
i) strict enforcement of this code would cause an undue hardship. "Undue
hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the
property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the
conditions alloyed by this code. Economic considerations alone shall not
constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under
the terms of this code. Undue hardship includes, but is not limited to,
inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems;
ii) unusual or unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and such
circumstances were not created by any persons presently having interest in
the property:
iii) the variance, if granted, would not alter the character of the neighborhood.
The completed project would not impair an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent properties, or substantially increase the congestion of public
streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or
substantially diminish property values, or have a detrimental or injurious
impact on surrounding properties; and
iv) the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the
undue hardship.
b) use variances shall not be granted.
Subd. 2. Committee of Hearing Examiners. The Committee of Hearing Examiners is a special
committee of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, and shall be administered by the Director.
The specific duties of this Committee are to hear and decide requests for variances from the literal
provisions of this code. This Committee of at least two Examiners is appointed by the City
Manager for a term of two years subject to confirmation by the Council. During the term of
appointment members serve at the pleasure of the City Manager.
Subd. 3. Application. Application for a variance shall be made to the Director on forms provided
by the City.
Subd. 4. Public hearing. Upon receipt of a completed application, the Director shall assign the
application to one Hearing Examiner and a date shall be set for a public hearing before the Hearing
Examiner. Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be published once in the
official newspaper and sent by mail to all the owners of property located wholly or partially within
350 feet.
Subd. 5. Decision. Not less than 60 days after receipt of a completed application, the Hearing
Examiner shall render a written decision regarding the application unless written notice of an
extension is provided to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and
its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. If the
Hearing Examiner fails to make a timely decision, the variance shall be deemed to have been
approved. The decision shall be supported by findings specifically related to the applicable criteria
contained in this code. The decision shall be mailed to all parties of record and filed with the City
Clerk. The Hearing Examiner's decision shall be final, subject to appeal. The Hearing Examiner
may impose conditions in granting variances to effect the intent of this code and to protect adjacent
properties.
Subd. 6. Staff report. The Director shall provide a written report to the Hearing Examiner
outlining the proposal and enumerating the various reasons for a recommendation to either approve
or deny the variance request. The written report shall be filed with the Hearing Examiner at least
72 hours prior to the date of the hearing. Copies of the report shall be made available to the
applicant, and shall be furnished to others upon request.
Subd. 7. Powers of Hearing Examiner. A Hearing Examiner may call witnesses, subpoena
relevant reports, and accept any evidence and testimony, which in the judgment of the Hearing
Examiner is relevant to the issues being heard. Those in attendance at the public hearing shall have
the right to present testimony and evidence. The Hearing Examiner may impose limitations on the
number of witnesses and on the nature and length of testimony.
Subd. 8. Record keeping. A tape recording shall be made of the hearing. The tape will be
transcribed on request of the Board. The tape will also be transcribed at the request of any person
upon the payment of all costs of transcription. Written minutes shall also be taken at the public
hearing, and shall be kept on permanent file in the Office of Community Development or may be
transferred to State Archives.
Subd. 9. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Hearing Examiner may appeal
such decision if a written notice of appeal is submitted to the Director within ten days of the date of
the decision. The notice of appeal shall be addressed to the attention of the Board of Adjustments
and Appeals.
Subd. 10. Rehearing. Any applicant may within seven days of the date of filing of the Hearing
Examiner's decision, apply for a rehearing of a variance request denied by the Hearing Examiner if
significant new factual evidence relevant to the case not available to the applicant in the original
hearing can be presented. The request for a rehearing shall state the nature of the new evidence
and why it was not previously
available. If an application for rehearing is timely made, the time to appeal will be extended until
the decision on granting or denying a rehearing is made. If a rehearing is allowed, the Hearing
Examiner's decision shall be withdrawn.
Subd. 11. Recording of variance. Upon completion of the project requiring the variance, a
certified copy of the variance shall be filed by the applicant with the Hennepin County Recorder if
the variance applies to abstract property. The variance shall contain the legal description of the
property affected.
Subd. 12. Expiration of variance. Any variance granted shall expire one year after it has been
granted unless:
a) the project for which the variance was granted is completed within the one year period;
or
b) upon written request of the person or corporation holding the variance, the Council
extends the expiration date for an additional period.
Subd. 13. Term of variance. If the project is completed as approved, the variance shall run with
the land and remain in effect for so long as the conditions regulating it are observed.
Subd. 14. Assumed risk. Any applicant who obtains a building permit, starts construction and/or
begins a use prior to the expiration of the appeal period, assumes the risk that the decision may be
reversed upon appeal. When an appeal is received by the City, the applicant will be notified of the
appeal and informed as to the date of the Board meeting where it will be heard.
Subd. 15. Specific project. A variance shall be valid only for the project for which it was granted.
Construction of any project shall be in substantial compliance with the building plans and
specifications reviewed and approved by the Hearing Examiner or Board.
Subd. 16. Violations. Any person who violates, fails to comply with, assists, directs, or permits a
violation of the conditions of a variance shall be subject to the provisions outlined in Sections 115
and 320 of the City Code. Such violation may render the variance null and void.
Subd. 17. Fee. The fee for a variance is set by Appendix D of the City Code.
Subd. 18. Annual Report. The committee of Hearing Examiners shall annually prepare a report
for the Council and Planning Commission outlining the activities of the Hearing Examiners and
making recommendations as to possible amendments to this code to expedite the processing of
variances to the literal provisions of this code.
MINNESOTA STATE STATUTE
462.357
PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFFECTUATION; ZONING
Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and adjustments may be
taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning
ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning
ordinance:
1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement,
decisions, or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance.
2) To hear requests for variance form the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where
their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual
property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such action will
be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the
granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under
conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of
the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the
property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to,
inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for each sheltered
construction as defined in section 116J.06, subdivision 2, when in harmony with the ordinance. the board
of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any
use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located. the board or governing body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a
one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be may
impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties.
Subd. 6a. It is the policy of this state that handicapped persons and children should not be
excluded by municipal zoning ordinances or other land use regulations from the benefits of normal
residential surroundings. For purposes of subdivisions 6a through 9, "person" has the meaning given in
section 245.782, subdivision 2.
U)
W
U
Z
0
O
V
O
Z
Z
a
W
O
H
W
a
lLl
w
O
w 00 LO cD
0 Y Lo
o
NO 000 E N
v Y
O
o
O
LO
O
O
C' >O N
m N
IT
N S
CD
OD
D a>
m M M N;
E
cc)
o O i
co
0 S
O
O
o
o
M LO E M N
N O s 0
m N m cu D a>
m M M N; 7 N O
CN
o
N O s 0 N
c co
L^``
mmV Q]
L^''
W
L^''
W W
E E s E00ocn
cL)
o o o E o o o o
cm
o
c
o
m O: ai
o rn:
c
o
c°
o•-
c
o•-
cc
o•-
70 0 a co v 0 : 0 5
Yr
e.
pd [4NF }I
Planningx Commission • •
CITI' OF
RICHFIELD January 13, 1998
Agenda Section: Old Business
Item #: 3
Letter #: 3
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Review Section 521 (Residential Districts) of the Zoning Ordinance:
consider changes relating to height and size of accessory buildings and
lot coverage.
References: (see attached Citations section for excerpts)
Zoning Code: 521.07, 521.09, 521.11
ANALYSIS
Proposal: Shed Size: A resident raised the issue of allowable shed size at the November
Planning Commission meeting. She has a single car garage and no practical
option for expanding it. Her only option for providing additional storage
space on her property is to build a large shed. The Zoning Ordinance limits
the size of sheds to 175 square feet. Garages, however, can be built up to
1,000 square feet in size. She suggested that property owners with this
situation should be allowed to build a shed as large as the difference between
an existing garage and the 1,000 square foot maximum.
The Commission asked staff to do further research into the definition of a
shed versus a garage, whether or not Building Code requirements were
different for the two structures, whether or not it is common in Richfield to
have only a single car garage and no option for expanding it, and if the City
received a lot of requests to build larger sheds.
The difference between a garage and a shed, according to the Building Code,
is that a garage must have a concrete floor. The Building Official stated that
he would allow someone to build a "shed" larger than 175 square feet if it had
a concrete floor and an overhead door (or some other type of access door
large enough to accommodate a motor vehicle).
The Zoning Ordinance definition (Section 506.07, subd. 33) of a garage is as
follows:
An accessory building or accessory portion of the principal building for the
private use of the owner or occupant of the principal building, primarily for
the storage of motor vehicles, with no facilities for mechanical service or
repair of a commercial or public nature."
The Inspections Division estimates that it receives 5 to 10 requests per year
to build sheds larger than 175 square feet. There are 4,120 residential
properties (out of 10,363) in Richfield that have a one car garage. The
Inspections Division does not think it is uncommon for homes with a one car
garage to have no practical option for expanding the garage, although their
opinion is based on anecdotal evidence only.
At the last meeting, it was suggested that higher standards could be applied to
sheds over a certain size. An example of a standard might be to require that
the roof and siding of the accessory building match the roof of the principal
building. These standards are not currently applied to garages and it may be
difficult to develop reasonable standards that are not cost prohibitive.
Heights: Inspections staff have received complaints about the height of a
couple of sheds that have been constructed. The sheds are built to the
maximum allowable height for accessory structures, and the neighbors feel
this height is excessive and detracts from the appearance of the neighborhood.
Although the Zoning Ordinance does not allow two story sheds, the sheds are
often constructed in such a way that they are just under the legal definition of
two stories.
The height for sheds is currently the same as it is for garages (14 feet). A
separate height could be established for accessory buildings that are not
garages. A maximum height of 12 feet, measured from ground level to the
highest point of the roof, would be appropriate.
A sample ordinance amendment for the R (single family) district is attached.
The proposed changes for lot coverage would also apply to the R -1 (low
density residential) district and the changes for shed heights would apply to
the R -1 and MR -1 (two family residence) districts.
Lot Coverage: In the early 1990s, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to
allow greater lot coverage (35 %) on lots smaller than 7,000 square feet. This
was done in part to assist in the development of small lots through the
Richfield Rediscovered program. The lot coverage for lots over 7,000 square
feet was left at 25 percent or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater.
In the past couple of years (as the City has encouraged people to remodel
their homes), staff have been seeing more instances where people want to
exceed the allowable lot coverage. In staffs view, requiring a smaller
coverage percentage for larger lots is inequitable. In effect, people with
larger lots who likely have sufficient room to expand their homes are
penalized. While some lot coverage limitation is appropriate, the Commission
may want to consider allowing an equal coverage percentage regardless of lot
size.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: 1. Recommend that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance,
Section 506.07, subd. 33, to make the definition of a garage similar
to that provided in the Building Code.
2. Recommend that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance,
Section 521.11, to restrict the height of non - garage accessory
structures to 12 feet.
3. Recommend that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance,
Section 521.09, to allow a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent for
lots over 7,000 square feet.
Basis: 1. The City has received complaints regarding the excessive height of
accessory sheds.
2. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow two story sheds; however,
sheds are being constructed in such a way that they are just under
the legal definition of two stories.
3. The City actively encourages people to remodel their homes;
however, the current maximum lot coverage penalizes people with
large lots wanting to remodel.
4. The lot coverage for smaller lots was increased several years ago. It
would be equitable to allow greater lot coverage for larger lots as
well.
5. It is reasonable for people with a one car garage to want to provide
additional storage space. It is, however, currently possible to build
a larger storage building by placing it on a concrete slab and making
the door large enough to be accessible by a motor vehicle. The
Zoning Ordinance definition of a garage should be amended to
reflect this practice.
Alternative 1. Recommend that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance,
Recommendation: Section 521.05, subd. 4, to allow properties with a single car garage
and no practical option for expanding it to build a larger shed.
2. Recommend that the City Council not amend the Zoning Ordinance,
Section 521.09.
3. Recommend that the City Council not amend the Zoning Ordinance,
Section 521.11.
ZONING CODE:
CITATIONS
SECTION 506 - ZONING: PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS
Subd. 33. "Garage, private" - An accessory building or accessory portion of the principal building for the
private use of the owner or occupant of the principal building, primarily for the storage of motor vehicles,
with no facilities for mechanical service or repair of a commercial or public nature.
SECTION 521 - ZONING: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
521.05. Accessory uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are allowable accessory uses in
the R District.
Subd. 2. Private garages which do not exceed 1,000 square feet in gross floor area and which do
not exceed an aggregate of 1,200 square feet in gross floor area when combined with all other
accessory buildings and attached garages on the lot.
521.09.• Lot area, width, depth; and coverage. Subdivision 1. Standards. The standards set out in this
subsection apply in the R District.
Subd. 4. Maximum lot coverage:
Lots of 7.000 S . Ft. or less: 35%
Lots of over 7,000 S . Ft.: The reater of 25% or 2,500 S . Ft.
Non - residential uses: 50%
521.11. Required building setback and maximum height. Subdivision 1. Standards. The standards set
out in this subsection apply in the R District.
Subd. 2. Required setback and maximum height:
SIDE' S.. M 4XItKUM
USE FRONT REAR
INTERIOR ... STRE.ETSIAE -':.. HSIGH.. `: :.;
SINGLE;.FAMILY 30 Ft. 25 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 25 Ft.
TWO FAMILY (GUF) ;`> 30 Ft. 25 Ft. 10 Ft. 12 Ft. 25 Ft.
ACCESSORY:.:::,; >.:::. ::: :::s: 30 Ft. 3 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 14 Ft.
NON - RESIDENTIAL 40 Ft. 30 Ft. 30 Ft. 30 Ft. 42 Ft.
40 Ft. 10 Ft. 10 Ft. 30 Ft. 15 Ft.
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 521
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
1. Section 506 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Richfield entitled "Zoning:
Purpose and Definitions" is hereby amended by amending Section 506.07, subd. 33 to
read as follows:
Subd. 33. "Garage, private" - An accessory building or accessory portion of the
principal building for the private use of the owner or occupant of the principal building,
primarily for the storage of motor vehicles, with no facilities for mechanical service or
repair of a commercial or public nature. The garage shall have a concrete floor and an
access door of sufficient size to accommodate a motor vehicle.
2. Section 521 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Richfield entitled "Zoning:
Residential Districts" is hereby amended by amending Section 521.09, subd. 4 to read
as follows:
521.09. Lot area, width, depth, and coverage. Subdivision 1. Standards. The
standards set out in this subsection apply in the R District.
Subd. 4. Maximum lot coverage:
3. Section 521 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Richfield entitled "Zoning:
Residential Districts" is hereby amended by amending Section 521.11, subd. 2 to read
as follows:
521.11. Required building setback and maximum height. Subdivision 1.
Standards. The standards set out in this subsection apply in the R District.
Subd. 2. Required setback and maximum height:
Lets of oveF 7-,QGQ-,Sq. Ft 0 Ar
Residential Lots: 35%
Non - residential uses: 50%
3. Section 521 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Richfield entitled "Zoning:
Residential Districts" is hereby amended by amending Section 521.11, subd. 2 to read
as follows:
521.11. Required building setback and maximum height. Subdivision 1.
Standards. The standards set out in this subsection apply in the R District.
Subd. 2. Required setback and maximum height:
ACCESSt7R..... ..'' 30 Ft. 3 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 14 Ft.
CESSAC Y 12. Ft.
STRUC .0 ::: ::...:...
NON 40 Ft. 30 Ft. 30 Ft. 30 Ft. 42 Ft.
RESIQE:NTIAL
ACCES..:SOR. Y .......... 40 Ft. 10 Ft. 10 Ft. 30 Ft. 15 Ft.
Subd. 3. Heiqht Measurement. For the purpose of non - garage accessory
structures, height is measured from the ground level to the highest point
of the roof.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
1997.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
tis#a
clTti F
Planning Commission Letter
RIC H FIEL(7 January 13, 1998
Agenda Section: Old Business
Item #: 4
Letter #: 4
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Discuss the issues and provide direction to staff relating to the
inconsistency between zoning and comprehensive plan designations
along the I -494 corridor.
ANALYSIS
History: A goal of the City's Comprehensive Plan is to encourage more intensely
developed, higher quality regional commercial and office uses along the
City's freeways. Several properties along I -494 are zoned industrial,
meaning that many properties could be developed in a manner inconsistent
with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
On September 22, 1997 the City Council adopted a resolution establishing a
moratorium on development along the corridor from Pleasant Avenue (the
railroad tracks) to Trunk Highway 77. The moratorium will remain in effect
until September 1998. In conjunction with passage of the moratorium, the
Council directed the Planning Commission to undertake a study of all zoning
along the freeway to determine whether or not the zoning currently in place
is such that it promotes the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Proposal: Staff recommends that the properties currently zoned industrial along the I -494
corridor be rezoned to either the general commercial zoning classification or
high density multiple housing district. All properties that have zoning
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan are identified in the attached map.
The second map shows proposed zoning to make all zoning consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The existing uses that would be made nonconforming if
all inconsistent properties were rezoned are also indicated.
Another option would be to create a new commercial zoning district geared
toward regional commercial and office uses. The advantage of creating a new
district would be to create standards geared specifically toward the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan. The disadvantages include having to apply new, un-
proven standards to existing situations, creating nonconforming structures and
uses, and having to change sections throughout the Zoning Ordinance and City
Code to recognize the new district.
The City of Bloomington has both freeway zoning districts along with regional
commercial zoning districts. Bloomington's regional commercial district
permits uses similar to Richfield's general commercial district but has larger lot
size and setback requirements.
The advantage of using the existing C -2 zoning is that standards are already in
place to guide development. No changes would need to be made to the Zoning
Ordinance. The recent increase in allowable height for properties located along
I -494 provides greater flexibility to regional- oriented development to occur. If
an additional C -2 standard is found to be inappropriate for regional commercial
development, the standard could be changed for properties located along I-
494.
Issues: I . There are additional industrially -zoned properties in the City that may be
improperly classified. A future study session will review those properties
and recommend possible changes.
2. The Planning Commission should discuss ways to inform property owners
affected by the proposed zoning changes.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: No action is being recommended at this time. Discuss the issues and
provide direction to staff.
CD
0
ca
D
E Q
E u E01--
C.) .0
cn
C: C
0 n a)
cr CM
0
c
o R
E
II
1
E
E=
Uo m
Q=
C
O
a)
E >-
r-
t:2
E cn
E
0
o ECUc
c5• -may2wcnU75
cn
i5 N C:
CD C)
0
N 111PA
0.1
D
U-
OMMAY y 0
0
O
0
LO
C)
C)
0
CD
LO
t m--
CD
0
anwny C)
F, TT LO
rL
t,4 ca
O
C
U) c
C 0
00
c).5
C: c
ca m
as
CL CL
E E
UU00
cmM
c c
E c
0 0
c
Jai
00
rn
rn
cli
T-
2:1
m
O
W
N
Q
a
a
A W
tWt -
lAl1 .
py
W
M
w^
Q
anwAv
17
Rom,
I 1
i
anwAV 0UWWVJ---
1
I!7 7',
anaaAV Wlpa!ff
m
n
LL
0
0
N
r--
O
O
O
i
O .
i
of
C
O
C
U
C
O
C
N
c9
O
7
O
3
a
c
co
c
c
O
N
y C
N
t x
C W
C _C
O O
N ch c
C\1
w U
0 - -
co
rn
0
cM
fu
C
cu