04-28-1998J
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
April 28, 1998
7:00 p.m.
Roll Call
Approval of Minutes
Regular Planning Commission meeting of March 24, 1998. Planning Commission study
session of April 14, 1998.
Old Business
ITEM #1 PC Letter #23 Approval of 2000 -2004 Capital Improvement Program;
Finding of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan for
1999 Capital Improvement Budget and 2000 -2004
Capital Improvement Program
ITEM #2 PC Letter #24 Airport Mitigation Strategy Update
ITEM #3 PC Letter #25 Amendment to Section 511 of the Zoning Ordinance
relating to the expansion of nonconforming structures
ITEM #4 PC Letter #26 Amendment to Section 521 of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow covered porches as an exception to residential
front yard setback requirements.
Liaison Reports
School Board
Community Services Advisory Commission
H RA
City Council
Adjournment
Planning Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting
March 24, 1998
MEMBERS PRESENT:, Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Terry Ahlstrom,
Brenda Bjorklund, Pamela Dmytrenko, David Gepner, Mitchell
Hadley, Bill Kilian, and Ken Meter.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Roger Gordon
COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor
STAFF PRESENT: John Melin, Community Development Manager
Brian S. Mehl, Community Development Technician
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:01
p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Kilian, S/Bjorklund to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission
meeting of February 24, 1998.
Motion carried: 8 -0
M/Dmytrenko, S/Meter to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission study
session of March 10, 1998.
Motion carried: 8 -0
March 24, 1998
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CASE 98- CUP -4, 10 East 66th Street
ITEM #1 Armstrong Subway
Conditional use permit to allow Subway, a take -out
restaurant, to add seating
Community Development Manager John Melin reviewed the staff report, stating that the
Subway located at 10 East 66th Street, a take out restaurant, was proposing to add two tables and
six chairs to the restaurant. He stated that the addition of the seating makes the restaurant a Type
II restaurant, which requires a conditional use permit. He added that the addition of six seats
would not change the number of parking stalls required.
Commissioner Gepner noted that this was a minor issue and asked whether or not staff
could approve the item without holding a public hearing. Mr. Melin stated that the process
would have to be followed despite the fact that the issue was a minor one.
M/Hadley, S /Dmytrenko to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 8 -0
M/Hadley, S/Kilian to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to allow a six -
seat restaurant at 10 East 66th Street with the stipulation that a resolution approving the
conditional use permit be recorded with the County, pursuant to state statute.
Motion carried: 8 -0
CASE 98- CUP -2, 300 West 78th Street
ITEM #2 Candlewood Hotel Company
Conditional use permit to allow construction of a
134 -unit, extended stay hotel
Community Development Manager John Melin reviewed the staff report, stating that a
developer is proposing to construct a three- story, 66,950 square foot Candlewood Hotel on a
portion of the former Lampert Lumber site. The site also includes property being purchased
from the Soo Line railroad. The development would include 141 parking spaces, which meets
City parking standards. He continued by stating that the developer understands that the access to
78th Street may be eliminated in the future and that access would have to be moved to the 77th
Street entrance. Mr. Melin added that a restaurant may be added on the northern half of the site
March 24, 1998
Page 3
at a later date and that the HRA is seeking a developer for that improvement. Mr. Melin spoke of
issues related to signage on the site and of the replatting that would occur with the purchase of
the Soo Line property and again when a restaurant was developed.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Kilian, Chuck Zernika, Candlewood Hotel
Co., stated that the hotel would not become cheap housing if the market became saturated with
hotel rooms. He further stated that the hotel will be constructed with amenities intended for the
business traveler that would inhibit the development from transforming into any other type of
use. Commissioner Bjorklund stated that if the development receives a conditional use permit
and then the business fails, a new conditional use permit would have to be obtained before the
use of the location could change.
Mr. Melin responded to a question from Commissioner Dmytrenko, stating that if a
restaurant developer is not identified before the construction of the hotel, the northern half of the
parcel of land will stand vacant, although the parking lot would be paved to allow access to the
hotel. He further stated that the parcel could be graded and seeded if it became necessary.
Answering questions from the commission, Mr. Zernika stated that the average length of
stay is from 14 to 35 days and that the hotel does not rent to overnight guests. He further stated
that the hotel does not provide a continental breakfast or daily maid service unless it is requested
by the guests.
M/Hadley, S /Bjorklund to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 8 -0
M/Bjorklund, S /Kilian to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to allow
construction of a 134 -unit, extended stay hotel at 300 West 78th Street with the following
stipulations:
1. That a final landscape plan and landscape escrow be submitted to and approved by
the Community Development Director,
2. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the Public Works Director,
3. That cross access and parking agreements be established with a future owner of the
northern half of the property,
4. That an agreement be signed stating the developer's awareness of the closure of 78th
Street when I -494 is widened and that closure of the access will not be the basis for
a claim of severance damages by the owners of the Candlewood Hotel,
5. That the property be replatted,
6. That final, detailed signage plans be submitted to and approved by the Community
Development Director, and
7. That a resolution approving the conditional use permit be recorded with the County,
pursuant to state statute.
Motion carried: 8 -0
March 24, 1998
Page 4
PC Letter #12, Soo Line Property adjacent to 300 West 78th Street
ITEM #3 Consideration of a resolution finding that acquisition and
disposition is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
Community Development Manager John Melin reviewed the staff report, stating that the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority approved the purchase of a portion of the Soo Line
property located to the east of 300 West 78th Street in December, 1997. He further stated that
staff and the HRA propose to combine and re -split the two parcels to develop a 134 -unit hotel on
the southern half and a restaurant on the northern half. Mr. Melin added that the proposed uses
would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Gepner, Mr. Melin stated that the railroad
would be left with 50' of right of way (25' off of center) and that the proposal is for the purchase
of a strip of land 66' wide.
M /Bjorklund, S/Meter to adopt the resolution finding that the proposed acquisition and
disposition of the Soo Line property is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Motion carried: 8 -0
98- CUP - 3,1100 East 66th Street
ITEM #4 Bernadette Mallawaaratchy, Bernie's Montessori School
Conditional use permit to allow construction of a day care
facility for up to 90 children
Community Development Manager John Melin reviewed the staff report, stating that the
applicant is proposing to construct a 4,160 square foot building to house a day care for up to 90
children. He noted that this was the continuation of a public hearing that had begun during the
regular Planning Commission meeting of February 24, 1998. He added that the applicants had
searched for alternative sites without finding a suitable location. Mr. Melin then reviewed the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the property and the possible conflict between
the two. Confirming that the City's legal counsel had been contacted, Mr. Melin stated that
counsel reviewed the situation and determined that the most defensible position was that the
development was not compatible with the site due to the Comprehensive Plan designation. He
continued by stating that the applicants worked with the architect to redesign the building and
hired a transportation engineer to conduct a study of the site. The engineer determined that the
intersection would not be overburdened by the increased traffic. Mr. Melin further stated that the
County denied any request for a curb cut onto 66th Street. In addition, he stated that the
applicants met with four neighbors (three households) for mediation, and that all parties came to
mutually agreeable conclusions regarding the issues at hand. Continuing, Mr. Melin reviewed
March 24, 1998
Page 5
the landscape plan, fencing, buffering, pedestrian crosswalks, and the possible rezoning of the
property.
Responding to questions from Commissioners Gepner and Kilian, Mr. Melin stated that
the applicants paid for all additional costs for traffic studies and architectural costs that were
requested by the Commission from the regular meeting one month prior. He further stated that if
the day care were to locate there and subsequently close, the site could become any retail
business that is permitted in a C -2 district.
Commissioner Gepner stated that the decision that was now handed forth by the City
attorney's office regarding the incompatibility of the development with the Comprehensive Plan
designation was much more definitive that the response that had been given during the study
session earlier in the month. Mr. Melin replied, stating that the City had requested that the
attorneys give a more definitive answer. Responding to a request from Chairperson Linnihan to
better explain the decision, Corrine Thomson, Kennedy & Graven, stated that the City requested
that the attorneys give an opinion of the most defensible position. She stated that legally, the
most defensible position is to find that the use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion ensued during which the attorney's position was clarified for the Commission.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Ahlstrom, Mr. Melin stated that before the
Comprehensive Plan's most recent revision, the property was designated for mixed -use,
including commercial, residential, and office.
Following a question from Commissioner Bjorklund, the Commission discussed the
possibility that a moratorium be placed upon all properties located within the City in which the
zoning and the Comprehensive Plan designation is in conflict. Ms. Thomson stated that a
decision had to be made on the issue at hand before any action on a moratorium was made due to
a law which requires the City to make a decision on conditional use permits within 60 days. Ms.
Thomson further responded to a question from Commissioner Meter, stating that the
development could be approved based solely upon the zoning. She added that the attorney's are
not attempting to dictate to the Commission which way to decide the issue. Ms. Thomson
reiterated the fact that counsel found only that the most defensible position, legally, is to find that
the use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Melin responded to questions from Chairperson Linnihan and Commissioner Meter,
stating that a daycare that is operated from a house is an accessory use, not the primary use. The
proposed daycare is a primary use for the property and therefore, a conditional use permit would
need to be obtained. He further stated that rezoning the property to MR -2 would remove the
possibility that a billiard hall could be opened on the property.
Mr. Mallawaaratchy stated that he and his wife had operated their business in Richfield
for ten years, but that the church where their business is currently located would like the
Montessori School to vacate by the end of summer. He further stated that he had gone through
mediation which had been requested by the Commission. He added that the landscape, traffic,
and building design issues had been resolved with the neighbors who attended mediation.
March 24, 1998
Page 6
Responding to a question from Chairperson Linnihan, Mr. Mallawaaratchy stated that a search
for alternative sites had been conducted, including several middle schools located in Richfield.
Dawn Knutson, attorney for the applicants, stated that she had reviewed the issue
concerning the apparent inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code.
She stated that in her opinion, Montessori Schools and day cares are permitted uses in the C -2
district. She further stated that the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and
objectives listed in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Knutson reviewed several of those goals,
policies, and objectives, stating that the proposed development met each of them. She further
stated that the primary desire for the location is to be a transition area between commercial and
residential and added that the daycare would be both commercial and residential, providing a
home for children during the daytime hours. Ms. Knutson continued by stating that the RSFH
designation that is listed on a map in the Comprehensive Plan is not defined anywhere in the
Comprehensive Plan, and it therefore cannot be determined that the proposal does not meet the
Comprehensive Plan based solely on that criteria. She closed by stating that the opinion that the
proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is defensible.
Ms. Thomson responded to a question from Chairperson Linnihan, stating that the public
hearing did not need to be reopened since a public hearing had already been conducted.
Responding to a question from Chairperson Linnihan, Mr. Mallawaaratchy stated that the
business would not be able to be operated efficiently with only 60 children. Mrs.
Mallawaaratchy continued by stating that she was licensed with the State to operate a daycare
from kindergarten through elementary -aged children. She added that 10 to 15 percent of the
children in her care are siblings, pointing out that the traffic would be somewhat decreased due to
that fact.
Mr. Melin responded to a question from Commissioner Bjorklund, stating that the
assumptions in the BRW traffic study commissioned by Mr. and Mrs. Mallawaaratchy may need
to be adjusted to reflect fewer siblings than anticipated.
Chairperson Linnihan asked where the four neighbors who attended mediation lived, and
whether or not they were in close proximity to the proposed daycare. Jan Owen, 6535 11th
Avenue, stated that she and her husband had both attended mediation and were directly to the
north of the property in question. She further stated that she was pleased with both the redesign
of the building and the traffic signals that had been proposed around the neighborhood.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Dmytrenko, Ms. Owen stated that she felt that the
bus stops along 11th Avenue would be safer with the proposed stop signs and pedestrian
crossings.
Three pages of signatures requesting that the Commission deny the recommendation for a
conditional use permit were given to Chairperson Linnihan. The three pages were then passed to
each Commissioner.
March 24, 1998
Page 7
Chairperson Linnihan re- opened the public hearing. He stated that topics would be
limited strictly to those issues that had been raised since the previous Planning Commission
meeting.
Donna Zochert, 6501 11th Avenue, stated that she feels that cars will make U -turns in the
driveways of the neighbors rather than driving through the neighborhoods. She further stated
that she thinks that Mr. and Mrs. Owens and have achieved success through mediation with the
Mallawaaratchys only because there are issues between them and the current owners.
Doreen Pederson, 6921 Bloomington Avenue, stated that she has three children that
attend Bernie's Montessori School. She added that parents come at all different times of the day
between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and that there is never any problem with traffic at the current
location.
Jody Johnson, 73rd Street and Pillsbury Avenue, stated that Bernie's Montessori is both
economical and well -run. She added that she is disappointed that the neighborhood opposes this
use when there are so many other negative uses that could be put on the property.
Rosemary LeBlanc, 6821 Clinton Avenue, stated that Bernie's Montessori offers children
an education as well as daycare. She further stated that she feels that her children are better
prepared for school because of their experiences at Bernie's Montessori. She added that when
she picks up and drops off her children, she sees only two or three other parents at the same time.
Anne Carl, 70th Street and Columbus Avenue, stated that one daughter had attended
Bernie's Montessori and that one son is current attending the school. She stated that she only
sees two or three other parents in the morning and only one in the evening.
Randy Curtis, 6821 Humboldt Avenue, stated that his two children attended the school
and that there are no alternatives in Richfield.
Carol Newby, 6400 11 th Avenue, stated that she moved into the neighborhood because it
was stable. She added that she is not questioning the quality of Bernie's Montessori, rather she is
questioning whether or not this is an acceptable location for the daycare.
Greg Opitz, 6500 12th Avenue, requested that a stop sign be located at the intersection of
65th Street and 12th Avenue.
Terry Stadther, 6404 11 th Avenue, stated that he is still concerned with traffic. He added
that the intersection of 11th Avenue and 64th Street will become a major intersection and that
without traffic control, children living in the area will be endangered. He further stated that he
would not have purchased his house if the daycare had already been located there.
Carol Rinder, 6420 11th Avenue, stated that the deer, raccoon, fox, and other animals that
inhabit Veteran's Memorial Park will be endangered if the daycare is allowed to open. She
further stated that parents who are dropping off and picking up their children will leave their
March 24, 1998
Page 8
engines running. She added that the house has historical significance, MAC has already spent
thousands of dollars renovating the property, pedestrians will be endangered by the increased
traffic, other options for daycare exist in Richfield, and that the money spent on architectural
costs hasn't been wasted because the architectural plans can be used for another site.
Ms. Sikes, 6604 5th Avenue, stated that she is the parent of a graduate of Bernie's
Montessori. She stated that she supports the excellent work at Bernie's Montessori School.
Barbara Donaghy, 7229 Oak Grove Boulevard, stated that other daycare centers in
Richfield are at capacity and that the only other options to Bernie's Montessori are located in
Edina and Bloomington.
Betty Peltola, 6421 11th Avenue, stated that the lot is not large enough to place a daycare.
She further stated that the City should underwrite all of the applicant's expenses.
Karen Mullvain, 6409 11th Avenue, stated that a Montessori is not a residence, adding
that the Commission should not approve the daycare out of guilt.
Mr. Mallawaaratchy stated that the house will not be demolished, adding that he has
spoken to two contractors who are both interested in moving the structure to another site.
M/Hadley, S/Bjorklund to close the public hearing.
Motion carried: 8 -0
Mr. Melin responded to a question from Commissioner Hadley, stating that in case a 4 -4
vote were to occur, the item would move forward to City Council with no recommendation.
Responding to a question from Commissioner Ahlstrom, Ms. Thomson stated that if the
Commission found that this use was compatible with the Comprehensive Plan designation, the
Commission would be required to find that any other proposals in which the same set of
circumstances were found was also compatible with the Comprehensive Plan designation.
Commissioner Kilian stated that this is not an issue related to daycare, rather it is an issue
of the zoning ordinance versus the Comprehensive Plan. He further stated that he ran a traffic
simulation and determined that the parking lot would not be sufficient enough to handle the
traffic.
Commissioner Bjorklund stated that many other uses could be located on the property
and that commercial uses line 66th Street. She also added that traffic is a major issue with this
proposal.
Commissioner Meter stated that there could be possibilities for traffic control other than
stop signs. He further stated that he felt that the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
March 24, 1998
Page 9
Commissioner Hadley stated that changing the residence to a commercial property would
be changing the character of the neighborhood. He felt that that is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Gepner stated that he was disappointed with staff's recommendation to
deny the request. He further stated that he sees the Comprehensive Plan as visionary instead of
as a rock solid document. He added that the BRW traffic study allayed his fears regarding traffic
and that he would like to see the study open to the general public.
Commissioner Dmytrenko stated that the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan should be
kept intact and that ambiguities should be addressed. She added that the daycare is preferable to
other uses and that she felt that it meets the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Further discussion involved clarification of the conflict between the zoning ordinance and
the Comprehensive Plan.
M /Meter, S /Gepner to find that the proposed Montessori School and daycare center are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and to recommend approval of the conditional use
permit at 1100 East 66th Street for a day care with 90 children with the following stipulations:
1. That a tree protection plan for those trees remaining be submitted to and approved
by the Community Development Director.
2. That a landscape escrow be submitted to and approved by the Public Works
Director.
3. That a sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the
Public Works Director.
4. That the business maintain the appropriate state, county and city licenses.
5. That a resolution approving the conditional use permit be recorded with the County,
pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462.36, subdivision 1.
6. That the property be rezoned to MR -2.
Motion carried: 6 -2 (Hadley and Kilian opposed)
NEW BUSINESS
PC Letter #13
ITEM #5 Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
to allow institutional uses in multiple family zoning districts
March 24, 1998
Page 10
Community Development Manager John Melin reviewed the staff report, stating that
properties zoned MR -2 did not allow religious institutions as either permitted or conditional uses.
He further stated that the City Council determined that an oversight may have occurred when the
zoning ordinance was drafted. The Council requested that the Planning Commission review the
issue and consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance.
M/Hadley, S/Kilian to recommend that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance to
allow religious institutions, schools, and daycare centers as conditional uses in the MR -1, MR -2,
and MR -3 zoning districts with the condition that such uses be located on a collector or arterial
street or with an access placement such that the applicant can demonstrate that significant traffic
will not be generated on local residential streets.
Motion carried: 8 -0
PC Letter 414
ITEM #6 Ratification of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
relating to stormwater management policies
Community Development Manager John Melin reviewed the staff report, stating that
certain language must be added to the zoning ordinance in order to obtain compliance with the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements. He further stated that the language relates to
stormwater management, drainage, and erosion control as well as other required approvals and
exceptions.
M/Kilian, S /Ahlstrom to ratify the amendment to sections 526.43 and 541.19 of the
Zoning Ordinance relating to stormwater management.
Motion carried: 8 -0
OLD BUSINESS
PC Letter #15
ITEM #7 Amendment to the Bylaws, Section 6, Part I, relating
to voting
Community Development Manager John Melin reviewed the staff report, stating that
during the February 24, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, an amendment relating to voting
was approved. He further stated that clarification of the issue needed to be addressed, adding
that a 4 -4 vote would be a denial for recommendation of any issue.
March 24, 1998
Page 11
M/Hadley S/Bjorklund to approve the amendment to Section 6, Part I of the Planning
Commission by -laws regarding voting to state:
At all meetings of the Planning Commission, each member attending shall be
entitled to cast one vote. Voting shall be by voice. An affirmative vote of a
maiority of members present or four members, whichever is greater, shall be
necessary for the passage of any matter before the Planning Commission, except
as otherwise provided in these Bylaws.
Motion carried: 8 -0
LIAISON REPORTS
School Board: Commissioner Dmytrenko stated that the school board voted to change
from the Classic Lake Conference to the Missota Conference, due to the fact that there had been
a downward trend in athletics. She further stated that the board voted to table the school start
time issue until the following year, adding that a task force will study the issue.
Community Services Advisory Commission: Chairperson Linnihan stated that two
groups had approached the City about replanting the trees that were removed from Veteran's
Memorial Park. He also stated that the commission requested additional public hearings
regarding the second sheet of ice.
HRA: Commissioner Gepner stated that the Council discussed the Meridian Crossings
and Candlewood Hotel developments, as well as the role of the remodeling advisor.
City Council: Mayor Kirsch stated that the Council voted 4 -1 to move forward with the
feasibility study of a second sheet of ice at Veteran's Memorial Park. The Council also approved
the layout of 66th Street at I -35W.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 11:10 p.m.
Mitchell Hadley
Planning Commission Secretary
PLEASE HELP SAVE OUR N.EYGHBORHOOD! ! !
A Day Care /Montessori School is proposed for 1100 E. 66th St. The proposal
would tear down the existing house and remove a number of trees.
There would be a parking lot on 66th St. with a playground and a school building
on the north area of the lot.
The facility is proposed for 90 students. This would mean more traffic in our
neighborhood with children being dropped off and picked up daily.
Eleventh is presently an appealing residential street. A commercial enterprise on
the corner of 11 th and 66th street would lower property values and could endanger people
and wildlife -who reside in the area and who use the park.
1.
110 11 i1u ..a
I )
1 z -
4.
5.
7427 hzw dig 6 qZ 37
3 3 3-
8. 'R 7 CZoj sc)
9.
10.
IZ
11. ,
13.
0
A
We ask that the Commission reject the proposal for building a day care at this location and
we ask for your support.
PLEASE HELP SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD!!!
A Day Care/Montessori School is proposed for l 100 E. 66th St. The proposal
would tear down the existing house and remove a number of trees.
There would be a parking lot on 66th St. with a playground and a school building
on the north area of the lot.
The facility is proposed for 90 students. This would mean more traffic in our
neighborhood with children being dropped off and picked up daily.
Eleventh is presently an appealing residential street. A commercial enterprise on
the corner of 11th and 66th street would lower property values and could endanger people
and wildlife who reside in the area and who use the park.
1.
2.
3.
4.
s.
W._/ 111 /
M
yes'
13.vv.4 v „ il_, 9 -1 I ve, S.5 -194
14.
We ask thai'fhe Commission reject the proposal for building a day care at this location and
we ask for your support.
PLEASE :HELP SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD! !
A Day Care/Montessori School is proposed for 1100 E. 66th St. The proposal
would tear down the existing house and remove a number of trees.
There would be a parking lot on 66th St. with a playground and a school building
on the north area of the lot.
The facility is proposed for 90 students. This would mean more traffic in our
neighborhood with children being dropped off and picked up daily.
Eleventh is presently an appealing residential street. A commercial enterprise on
the corner of 1 lth and 66th street would lower property values and could endanger people
and wildlife who reside in the area and who use the park.
3. 3 a / a71-1 1W "6 e5 S6 7
4 ; / m') 6 W is S.
5.
6.
7.
Ok-
4144-
IV( (In 273
9.
10- Gi73 /QCcJ, — s
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
We ask that the Commission reject the proposal for building a day care at this location and
we ask for your support.
Planning Commission Minutes
Study Session - Joint Session
with the Community Services Commission
April 14, 1998
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairperson Brenda Bjorklund; Commissioners: Terry
Ahlstrom, Pamela Dmytrenko, David Gepner, Roger Gordon, and
Mitchell Hadley.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Daniel Linnihan, Bill Kilian, and Ken Meter.
COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director
Mike Eastling, Public Works Director
Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
Brian S. Mehl, Community Development Technician
The Planning Commission's joint study session with the Community Services
Commission was called to order by CSC Chairperson Loweth at 7:03 p.m.
STUDY SESSION ITEMS
PC Letter #21
ITEM #1 Joint Session with Community Services Commission
on the 1999 CIB and 1999 -2003 CIP
Public Works Director Mike Eastling reviewed the Investment Priorities and Investment
Principles contained in the CIB and CIP, stating that the Planning Commission and the
Community Services Commission should give feedback to staff regarding the reports. Mr.
Eastling further reviewed the right -of -way improvements proposed by the Public Works
Department which included the Lyndale Avenue bridge, 76th Street downsizing, I -494 Integrated
Corridor Traffic Management upgrade, and various other projects. He added that the money that
is available comes from many different sources.
Commissioner Bjorklund stated that she felt that the pedestrian bridge over I -35W at 76th
Street should move up in priority. Commissioner Dmytrenko added that she would like more
information regarding the proposed reconstruction of the intersection at 66th Street and Portland
Avenue. Commissioner Gepner questioned why the amount of funds from state aid was
declining by $5,000 per year. Mr. Eastling responded that each city's allotment was determined
by population. Due to the fact that Richfield's population is stagnant while other cities'
April 14, 1998
Page 2
populations are growing, the amount of MSA funding that Richfield will receive in the future
will probably decline.
Administrative Services Director Steve Devich reviewed other projects, including the
proposed second sheet of ice in Veteran's Memorial Park and the future of the swimming pool.
In addition, Mr. Devich discussed several ways in which the two projects could be funded.
Responding to questions from the Commission, Mr. Devich stated that the City Council has
currently approved the costs for architectural plans for the second ice sheet. Tom Loweth, CSC,
further stated that the progression toward the construction of a new community center has been
slowed because of the discussion surrounding the proposed second sheet of ice. Discussion
ensued regarding the community and the future of Veteran's Memorial Park.
The joint session with the Community Services Commission was adjourned by
unanimous consent at 8:35 p.m.
PC Letter #22
ITEM #2 Consideration of Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Related to Institutional Uses in Multiple Family Districts
Zoning Administrator Urban reviewed the staff report, stating that the Planning
Commission had considered changes to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow churches and
other institutional uses in multiple -family residential districts as conditional uses. The
Commission had also considered allowing day care centers as an allowable conditional use in the
R district. Ms. Urban presented a map showing all MR -1, MR -2 and MR -3 zoning districts
located within the City as well as the arterial and collector streets. She further reviewed the
proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinances, including proposed setback, height, and location
restrictions.
MBjorklund, S/Dmytrenko to recommend that the City Council amend the Zoning
Ordinance to allow religious institutions, schools and day care facilities as conditional uses in the
MR -1, MR -2 and MR -3 zoning districts and allow day care facilities as conditional uses in the R
district.
Motion carried: 6 -0
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:47 p.m.
Mitchell Hadley
Planning Commission Secretary
M Planning Commission Letter
April 28, 1998
Item #: 1
Agenda Section: Old Business
Letter #: 23
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Approve the 2000 -2004 Capital Improvement Program and make a
finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan on the Capital
Improvement Program and the 1999 Capital Improvement Budget.
References: Richfield City Charter, Chapter 7.
Minnesota Statute, Section 462.356, subd. 2
ANALYSIS
Issues: On March 10, 1998, the Planning Commission met with the
Administrative Services Director to discuss the 1999 CIB and the
2000 -2004 CIP. On April 14, 1998, the Planning Commission held
a study session with the Community Services Commission to
continue discussion of the CIB and CIP.
Each year, the City Manager makes a recommendation to the City
Council regarding the CIB for the upcoming year. The Planning
Commission is responsible for reviewing the CIP and making a
recommendation to the City Council. The Commission is also
responsible for finding both the CIB and the CIP consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
1 -1
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommended 1. Recommend approval of the 2000 -2004 Capital Improvement
Action: Program (CIP).
2. Adopt the attached resolution finding that the 1999 Capital
Improvement Budget and 2000 -2004 Capital Improvement
Program are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Basis: 1. The Planning Commission is required by City Charter to prepare
and recommend a Capital Improvement Program for inclusion in.
the Annual Budget Message of the City Council.
2. The Planning Commission is required by state statute to review
all proposed capital improvements within the City and make
written findings to the City Council of consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan.
0?
Citations
RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER
CHAPTER 7
TAXATION AND FINANCES
Budget Message - Capital Program: The City Manager shall also include in the
message, or attach thereto, a capital program of proposed capital projects for the five fiscal
years next succeeding the budget year, prepared by the planning commission, if such there be,
together with the City Manager's comments thereon and any estimates of costs prepared by the
department of public works or other office or department. For the use of the .planning
commission in preparing such capital program, copies of departmental estimates of capital
projects, filed with the City Manager pursuant to Section 7.05 of this article, shall be filed
with the commission. (Amended Bill 1990 -13)
MINNESOTA STATE STATUTES
462.356, Subd. 2. Compliance with plan. After a comprehensive municipal plan or section
thereof has been recommended by the planning agency and a copy filed with the governing
body, no publicly owned interest in real property within the municipality shall be acquired or
disposed of, nor shall any capital improvement be authorized by the municipality or special
district or agency thereof or any other political subdivision having jurisdiction within the
municipality until after the planning agency has reviewed the proposed acquisition, disposal, or
capital improvement and reported in writing to the governing body or other special district or
agency or political subdivision concerned, its findings as to compliance of the proposed
acquisition, disposal or improvement with the comprehensive municipal plan. Failure of the
planning agency to report on the proposal within 45 days after such a reference, or such other
period as may be designated by the governing body shall be deemed to have satisfied the
requirements of this subdivision. The governing body may, by resolution adopted by two -
thirds vote dispense with the requirements of this subdivision when in its judgment it finds that
the proposed acquisition or disposal of real property or capital improvement has no
relationship to the comprehensive municipal plan.
1-3
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING THAT THE 1999 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET AND
2000 -2004 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan
regarding the proposed capital improvements in the 1999 Capital Improvement Budget
and 2000 -2004 Capital Improvement Program.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the proposed capital
improvements would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds
that the proposed capital improvements found in the 1999 Capital Improvement Budget
and 2000 -2004 Capital Improvement Program are in conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Adopted this 28th day of April, 1998 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota.
ATTEST:
Mitchell Hadley, Secretary
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Daniel Linnihan, Chairperson
1-q
p J
CAPITAL- IMPROVEMENT- -BUDGET
2000 -2004
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
City Manager"s_.Final Draft
Issued 4/22/1998
1-5
City Manager's Comment
The following is the final City Manager's draft of the 1999 Capital
Improvement Budget and 2000 -2004 Capital Improvement Program.
The draft anticipates the front end funding of a portion of the Second
Ice Sheet with an inter -fund loan to be repaid through three years of
Special Revenue funding.
Other projects included in the document reflect the input of the
Community Services and Planning Commissions as well as the ranking
of City staff.
Total projects costs for projects that span more than one year
are shown within the parenthesis after the project title.
1999 Capital Improvement Budget
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE
Playfeature Replacement Adams Hill
Park Shelter Rubber Flooring - Taft/Donald /Augs /Roosev
Tennis Court Improvements - Augs /Fair /Memorial
Park Shelter Impr. - Taft/Roosev /Augs /Christian ($180,000)
Asphalt Park Paths - Donaldson & Taft ($105,000)
Ice Arena - 2nd Sheet Repayment ($575,000)
Community Facility ($5,500,000)
Ball Field Replacement ($2,000,000)
Rich Acres Replacement ($4,000,000)
TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
Traffic Calming ($20,000)
69th & Penn Avenue Drainage
Resurface Bituminous Streets
16,000,000)
Traffic Signal @ 64th & Portland
67th & Nicollet - Relocate Signal /roadway modifications
Widening 66th Street @ 35W
2,000,000
Lyndale Ave. Reconstruction - TH 62 to 64th St.
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY IMPR.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Lift Station Renovation Project ($150,000)
Sliplining Wastewater Pipe ($100,000)
Parking Lots (Community Cntr. /Fire St. II /City Hall) ($101,000)
Public Safety Modular Furniture
Public Safety Building Security
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
C) Hennepin County
F) Federal Grant
M) Municipal State Aid
0) Other Funding (such as park replacement funds)
R) Special Revenue
S) State Grant
U) User Fees
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS
PROJECT EXPENDITURE
65,000 R
25,000 R
35,000 R
30,000 R
80,000 R
100,000 R
3,000,000 O
2,000,000 S
2,000,000 O
7,335,000
10,000 R
100,000 U
30,000 M
120,000 O
112,500 M
37,500 C
200,000 M
100,000 M
500,000 F
100,000 C
1,500,000 M
2,810,000
50,000 U
50,000 U
35,000 R
105,000 R
40,000 R
280,000
10,425,000
137,500
500,000
1,942,500
5,120,000
525,000
2,000,000
200,000
10,425,000
t—'to
I-r7
2000 Capital Improvement Program
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE PROJECT EXPENDITURE
Playfeature Replacement - Heridia /Little Bob's 100,000 R
Prairie Trail and Docks 26,000 R
Ice Arena Ceiling /Beams
26,000 U
Swimming Pool Renovation ($1,596,000) 520,000 O
Park Shelter Improvement ($180,000) 30,000 R
Taft, Roosevelt, Augsburg & Christian Parks)
Ice Arena - 2nd Sheet Repayment ($500,000) 150,000 R
Ice Arena Ceiling /Beams 40,000 R
Asphalt Basketball Court Repair 40,000 R
Taft, Donaldson, Augsburg & Christian Parks)
Community Facility ($5,500,000) 2,500,000 O.
Rich Acres Replacement ($4,000,000) 2,000,000 O
TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE 5,432,000
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
Move Traffic Signal -78th & Penn to 77th & Penn 250,000 M
Resurface Bituminous Streets 30,000 M
16,000,000) 120,000 O
Opticom Signal Pre - emption ($190,000) 30,000 M
Widening 66th Street @ 35W 300,000 S
2,000,000) 1,000,000 F
Traffic Calming ($20,000) 10,000 R
Retaining Wall Replacement ($85,000) 40,000 R
70th & Russell Intersection Drainage 150,000 U
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY IMPR. 1,930,000
PUBLIC FACILITIES
City Maintenance Facility 750,000 U
5,600,000) 1,000,000 SI
500,000 P
350,000 G
750,000 CA
2,250,000 L
Public Safety 800 MHz Radio System ($311,000) 131,000 R
Lift Station Renovation Project ($150,000) 50,000 U
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS 13,143,000
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
CA) Capital Fund 750,000
F) Federal Grant 1,000,000
G) Central Garage Fund 350,000
L) Land Sale Proceeds 2,250,000
M) Municipal State Aid 310,000
0) Other (Bonds, Park Replacement Funds, etc.) 5,140,000
P) Pension Reserve Fund 500,000
R) Special Revenue 567,000
S) State Grant 300,000
SI) Self Insurance Fund 1,000,000
U) User Fees 976,000
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS 13,143,000
2001 Capital Improvement Program
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE PROJECT EXPENDITURE
Playfeature Replacement - Richfield Lake 65,000 R
Asphalt Park Paths - Donaldson & Taft ($105,000) 25,000 R
Park Shelter Improvement ($180,000) 30,000 R
Taft, Roosevelt, Augsburg & Christian Parks)
1,196,000
R)
Ice Arena - 2nd Sheet Repayment ($500,000) 325,000 R
Swimming Pool Renovation ($1,596,000) 1,076,000 O
TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE 1,521,000
U)
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
250,250
77th Street - Phase III 3,000,000 MAC
17,552,000) 250,000 M
1,500,000 S
3,250,000 F
Resurface Bituminous Streets 30,000 M
16,000,000) 120,000 O
Opticom Signal Pre -emption ($190,000) 30,000 M
Water Main Interconnect - 77th & 74th Streets on 14th Ave. 150,250 U
Transit Station in Richfield Lake Project Area 100,000 M
100,000 T
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY IMPR. 8,530,250
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Parking Lots -Wood Lake Ntr. Cntr. /Taft Park ($101,000) 66,000 R
Public Safety 800 MHz Radio System ($311,000) 20,000 R
Sliplining Wastewater Pipe 50,000 U
Lift Station Renovation Project ($150,000) 50,000 U
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES 186,000
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS 10,237,250
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
F) Federal Grant 3,250,000
M) Municipal State Aids_ 410,000
MAC) Metropolitan Airports Commission 3,000,000
0) Other (Bonds, etc.) 1,196,000
R) Special Revenue 531,000
S) State Grant 1,500,000
T) Tax Increment Financing 100,000
U) User Fees 250,250
TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE $10,237,250
1-9
l-q
2002 Capital Improvement Program
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE PROJECT EXPENDITURE
Playfeature Development - Fremont Pre - school 25,000 R
Park Shelter Improvement ($180,000) 30,000 R
Community Center Air Conditioning 20,000 R
Renovation of athletic fields 400,000 R
Wood Lake Nature Center Office Renovation 49,200 R
TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE $524,200
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
794,000
F) Federal Grant
77th Street - Phase 111 2,000,000 MAC
17,552,000 250,000 M
120,000
1,010,000 S
S) State Grant
6,292,000 F
77th Street Double Left Turn Lane 794,000 M
8,100,000 794,000 B
470,000 U
470,000 S
1,272,000 F
76th Street Downsizing - East of 1 -35W ($2,200,000) 400,000 M
Resurface Bituminous Streets 30,000 M
16,000,000) 120,000 O
Opticom Signal Pre - emption ($190,000) 30,000 M
76th Street Pedestrian Bridge 250,000 M
450,000 F
Storm Water Pond - 6500 Newton 250,000 U
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY IMPR. 14,882,000
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public Safety 800 MHz Radio System ($311,000) 20,000 R
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES 20,000
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
15,426,200
B) Bloomington 794,000
F) Federal Grant 8,014,000
M) Municipal State Aids 1,754,000
MAC) Metropolitan Airports Commission 2,000,000
0) Other 120,000
R) Special Revenue 544,200
S) State Grant 1,480,000
U) User Fees 720,000
TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE $15,426,200
1— a
2003 Capital Improvement Program
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE PROJECT EXPENDITURE
Wood Lake Meeting Room 309,750 R
Park Shelter Improvement ($180,000) 30,000 R
Renovation of athletic fields 100,000 R
Community Center Furnace 19,000 R
TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
Upgrade Sidewalks Citywide
500,000)
Opticom Signal Pre - emption ($190,000)
Resurface Bituminous Streets
16,000,000)
76th Street Downsizing - East of 1 -35W ($2,200,000)
77th Street Double Left Turn Lane
8,100,000
Augsburg Flooding Project - 73rd & 1st
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY IMPR.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public Safety 800 MHz Radio System ($311,000)
Fire Station #2 Boiler
458,750
20,000 R
80,000 M
30,000 M
30,000 M-
120,000 O
200,000 M
896,000 M
896,000 B
530,000 U
530,000 S
1,448,000 F
750,000 U
5,530,000
20,000 R
32,000 R
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES $52,000
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS $6,040,750
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
B) Bloomington 896,000
F) Federal Grant 1,448,000
M) Municipal State Aids 1,236,000
0) Other 120,000
R) Special Revenue 530,750
S) State Grant 530,000
U) User Fees 1,280,000
TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE $6,040,750
2004 Capital Improvement Program
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE PROJECT EXPENDITURE
Ice Arena Parking Lot $150,000 R
Park Shelter Improvement ($180,000) $30,000 R
TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
Resurface Bituminous Streets
16,000,000)
Retaining Wall Replacement (85,000)
Upgrade Sidewalks Citywide _
500,000)
76th Street Downsizing - East of 1-35W ($2,200,000)
Opticom Signal Pre - emption ($190,000)
Reconstruction of 66th & Portland
3,000,000)
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY IMPR.
180,000
30,000 M
120,000 O
45,000 , R
20,000 R
80,000 M
400,000 M
30,000 M
1,000,000 M
1.000.000 C
2,725,000
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public Safety 800 MHz Radio System $20,000 R
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES $20,000
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS $2,925,000
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
C) County $1,000,000
M) Municipal State Aid $1,540,000
0) Other $120,000
R) Special Revenue $265,000
TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE $2,925,000
Capital Improvement Program- Beyond 2004
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE PROJECT EXPENDITURE
Playfeature Replacement $1,875,000 R
Community Center Roof $29,000 R
TOTAL REC. & OPEN SPACE $1,904,000
RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT
Resurface Bituminous Streets
16,000,000)
Opticom Signal Pre -emption ($190,000)
Upgrade Sidewalks Citywide
500,000)
Reconstruction of 66th & Portland
3,000,000)
76th Street Downsizing - East of 1 -35W ($2,200,000)
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY IMPR.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public Safety 800 MHz Radio System ($311,000)
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS
ESTIMATED REVENUE BY SOURCE
C) County
M) Municipal State Aid
0) Other
R) Special Revenue
TOTAL FUNDING BY SOURCE
3,020,000 M
12,080,000 O
40,000 M
60,000 R
240,000 M
500,000 M
500,000 C
1,200,000 M
17,640,000
100,000 R
100,000
19,644,000
500,000
5,000,000
12,080,000
2,064,000
19,644,000
1-1a
1-(3
Q
H
O
N
w
z
z
J
w
LL
Z
U_
LL.
Qr
F"
U
w
a
z
w
w
O
w
a
2
J
Q
H
a
Q
U
v
O
O
N
O
O
O
N
o
o
N
O. N
U oOT
O m
F- m
OON
MOON
N
OON
OON
OOON
J OQU
o a
U
H
U
w
O
x
CL
r0 N v Q y H Q y .. O O O O v V N V L O O
a s Q Q Q U V U V a w — F- „
T N M N t0 h ao w O T N M st N Q TTTTTTT
00
y w
0 00 0 0
Nhm
r
w
CDN
CL
Q7
T
at
T
Nr
OI
T
dy Val
V O
w w
C
w
C CC CC
llOmj WW3, yy
OO A
OOO
0
O EE EE c
OO
o VV E
CD
O O
c r
0
O
OM
o cc
m m
ONT m
T coT coT
w
c > c
w
ca OO
Q
ZZ J
w w
J
w
Ow V m
w tt iio FF- ' v cc cc cc 55 a
00
0M
a cc-0 a
0
0
T
mm
CD0
0T
WV EE VV mm w
eiCDN m
Q
Co
I
m mm m
co
Q
w
m_ cc
C o m
O i
m oo
m
m : O
m oof YY v 6 Y
w w
r .
w
m '
dd VV •c9 yy 0I YY YY VV UU- yy G
V) m
y OO 07 m
m CC O) mm OO m r
C C
0 0
0 0
O O
N O
N M
a
0
O
G
C F
0
O
N
O NN QQ m D LL C7y
L a
00N
Q
a -
00N
N
N
0
N
N
N
d L
v >
0oN
N
N
w
C C L C F uu a
J JJ EE
m D
J eLUyyxxr
w w
rn tt c
w
0:
E EE EE. mm mm
9
N mm ELE bb OO vai OO Q
O
a m a o
o °0
0 0
vi o
tD M
E E
0
UlN
E EE aa aa c9 a
is v
0
o
vi
N
o
0
0
uD
O
0
0
0
000
NVst
0
so
O
0
c0
tN
v; o
r T T T
V).
w w w
CDO O
O O
CD 0
O M
OO
CD
O
O
N
OOO
ON
OOO
Ov
OOO
40N
OOO
isN
OOO
OOO
N
OOO
O
NN
OOO
NM
N
OOO
DOCb
4OO
tDN
OOO
OON
T
OOO
NMV
N
w
to w w
0 0
0 0
0 0
vi o
coin
CD T
00o
o
00o
vi
00o
o
ON
000
0
ON
000
ofN
000
o
N
000
ofT
000'
o
N
T
00
uina
000
o
V
000
m
N
000
isN
000
o
Oo
000
m
M
N
0oN
0T
0m
ti
0OM
0N
rn
0To
0N
rn
hT7
0Co0
o
hN
0Na,
aiTo
N N N T O
T
N O
w
w w w
r0 N v Q y H Q y .. O O O O v V N V L O O
a s Q Q Q U V U V a w — F- „
T N M N t0 h ao w O T N M st N Q TTTTTTT
e
y w w
CL
V) VV OO OCO
C CC CC
l lOmj WW3, yy
OO AA 00
O EE EE c
o VV EE EcrE cc `° oo cc
m mm c
Q O
ro y c > c
w
ca OO
Q
ZZ JJ Ow V m
w tt iio FF- ' v cc cc cc 55 aa cc-0 aa " mmWVEEVVmmwwUaayymmmmmmmmxxmm_ cc
C o m
O i
m oo
m
m : O
m o of YY v 6 YY a
m . r .
m '
dd VV •c9 yy 0I YY YY VV UU- yy G
V) m
y OO 07 m
m CC O) mm OO m r
C C
a
C L C F a OO NN QQ m D LL C7y
L aa aa - o
O 7 dd L
v > N
C C L C F uu a
J JJ EE
m D
J eLUyyxxrrnrrnttccmEEEEEEEE. mm mm
9
N mm ELE bb OO vai OO Q
a m a oo L EE EE EE EE aa aa c9 a
is v omav; o
v
m
w y N
H G COE
U U
O
m
m
O
ON
N7OON
NOON
OON
OOON
2 O i
OCD0
c07
w
0 0 0
0O
m
01
0O
m
0O
0
M
O O
0O
r
M N
d
w
w
a
0 °0 C
rn
r
J
O V
0
oOO
O117
0OO
O
InN
M Nr M V
w
2"w m N W
O O
CD a
0 0
in M
OCD0
N
OCD0
c07
w
0O
m
01
0O
m
0O
0
M
00
0
M
0O
r
d
w
rn
r
J
O V
oOO
O117
0OO
O
InN
0OO
O
1 r
cj
0OO
O
Wc0
c
0OO
O
mr-
0OO
O
OM
0OO
O
Oo
r
0OO
O
0OO
1(1W
oOO
0W
U.
oOO
0Iff
0OO
O' O. o-
IDr
0OO
0
Ou7
0OO
0
r1If
N
0OO
N70
0,
00O
O
mc0
oOO
O
mc0
r
OOO
OOO
r
oOO
OOO
e-
0OO
O
N
N
0IAN
O
0
oOO
OIAN
00
CtO
M
00C
O
N
r.
00
CtO
M
0o0
00N
0O0
0
tov
0O
Ct0
OO
0O
CL
0m— N
0o
CL0
O
0O
CL
NmN
0O.'
CL
V, m
00o 00O
0
00O
0
Q
00o
N1- N
00C
O
IAN
m CDy
N t0
U
W
w
N
w
y m.`
2 O i
C N m
N U.
J LU
r
O
CO
O
OO OOO
O
OOO OOO OOO OOO
9
N
N
O O
O O
c07 N M
a M
OOO
O
WLN
O
OUf O117N
m`
ON
a
O O
O O
O
M M
to
W.
O o 0 0 o 0 o o O
C O O O O O O O O
0 M N M O O Or 7 U07
N — M O
r•
U
W
O
a
a
w
d
rn
r
J
O V
oOO
O117
0OO
O
InN
0OO
O
1 r
cj
0OO
O
Wc0
c
0OO
O
mr-
0OO
O
OM
0OO
O
Oo
r
0 OO
O
0OO
1(1W
oOO
0W
OOO
0U7N
oOO
0Iff
0OO
O' O. o-
IDr
0OO
0
Ou7
0OO
0
r1If
N
0OO
N70
0,
0 0O
O
mc0
oOO
O
mc0
r
OOO
OOO
r
oOO
O OO
e-
0OO
O
N
N
0IAN
O
0
oOO
O IAN
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
CL
O 0 C INf) O m CDyCO
U
W
w
N
y m.`
W L
r•
U
W
O
a
a
I-iy
0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O
O O O cO V <3NY71(1 N
r
r
w
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0, a 0
O O O O O N
T OO N W t
r N
a
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
CL C 0 0
0 0 0 0
O N W M
N L
N
w
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 N
o co
V
r
w
0u7N
O
MN
co
Q
w
CCC
O < O 1
O J
OM ! m-
Z
w 1
i
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
100OOOCNN
1OOOOO ^ 1
0 0 0 0 0 M
N 117 117 -gr N
N r r N 1
V). !
s
y I
z
1
C
Z 1
LLJ
1
d ° a > ' O
a '
Im C CD ! 1
C 1
ID y
N ^ o Q
1
C p y LL 1
M O C
x
in o Imo O
L N u p1 a 1
n w X Q
F
N M
M M M
Q
r
d o
C O y 0i C C
0
d OC
r 1 O 0 C INf) O m CDyCOWN
y m.`
W L C7 C N m J LU co
M CO 0 O d C 9 Z
W m a M c E° m`
a m
O to
IL , cc a c u
CL co 1II y w y d1 61J u C
o rn E v a 5 t m r 0
Q o c L d a IL 5=
FL .2 ID w E 3 y
a°
c
m u c m
O E c v a'
O C V C 0.6 W N U) Cl Y E ym
07 0 r w i0 n 10
c7 m a C3 to
W m
e- — ON e- 04 CM04 MN N InN CON r- N WN mN O •- M M
I-iy
0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O
O O O cO V <3NY71(1 N
r
r
w
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0, a 0
O O O O O N
T OO N W t
r N
a
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
CL C 0 0
0 0 0 0
O N W M
N L
N
w
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 N
o co
V
r
w
0u7N
O
MN
co
Q
w
CCC
O < O 1
O J
OM ! m-
Z
w 1
i
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
100OOOCNN
1OOOOO ^ 1
0 0 0 0 0 M
N 117 117 -gr N
N r r N 1
V). !
s
y I
z
1
C
Z 1
LLJ
1
d ° a > ' O
a '
Im C CD ! 1
C 1
ID y
N ^ o Q
1
C p y LL 1
M O C
x
in o Imo O
L N u p1 a 1
n w X Q
F
N M
M M M
Q
r
i - Is
CD
m O
O p
H O. 'OOEc
U U Tm
m
leOON
MO
ON
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O O
O O
O
O
T
oft
0 0
O
OO
0
O O
N N
r h
0
N
1LON
m r N r
N N
r r
T
Cl
CO)
O O
r
O
Ok
A
W
OOO
0
O10
r
O
O0O
N
r
co
O0O
OO
4ff
t
O0O
OO
r
q
O0N
P
MN
E
O
t0
mCMS
C9
N
M m
Nr
y? m
tir
w
c y ro y i O 0 lL
p
O
C N C
m O
O O
5
X
O
N
O
O
O
m 2 U.
O O
H
O O
O O O O O
N NClco
N
MI.
ta
O O o OOooO
O ' O O O O O- O O
fm m to O O O O O
N r coWClNN 1I
r T r to
W b9
ppp
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O O
O
O
Npp
T
oft qrrO avIt: O
OO
O
WV
O O
N N
r h
N
mCO
N
1LON
m r N r
N N
r r
T
N CO)
a
M r
Ok
ppp
OO OO OO OO OO O OOw OLn
O O O O O O N N
r
O 1LON CT
v
O
O OlfY Or N Nrr MUY
N CO)
a
M r co
A
W
OOO
0
O10
r
OoO
0O
Lq
r
O0O
N
r
Cl0O
O
0
O
O0O
OO
4ff
ppp
U
OOO
0OO
OOO
0
f'7
O0O
0O
O0O
0Om
O O
O 0
O ' O
O O
N h
r r
O0O
O
mOf
c
r
y
9
0CL OU
w a m
m y
A
J
Q (
n
O
OU
0 a
OOO
0
O10
r
OoO
0O
Lq
r
O0O
N
r
Cl0O
O
0
O
O0O
OO
O0O
tBM
O0O
O
rCO
m
O0O
OO
r
O O
o 0
O N
O O
W O
tD f'1
N N
O0N
P
MN
E
mCMS
C9
O M m y? m
E
E
U
t c
y
9
0CL OU
w T a a m
m y
O
m
00.
O LL m
a c o
O U P - c. m c E
mCMS
C9
O M m y? m O
c y ro y i O 0 lL
C N C
m O
rL U
G O
5
X dL N
LL
JO
m 2 U. V n H 0
a
Ya-
m0O
r y N
G
C
N E r-
0
d
m
IttOON
c9
OON
NOON
OON
OOON
a 0
o a.
U
N
U
W
0
w
CL
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
Q p O O
r r r
0 0 0 0
CD °o c a
0 0 o O
N N N N
w w w w w
a a
CD 0 Q CD
C o 0oa
N O N N N
M N N N' tn
V), w w w w
O O O OOO
O O
CD cz CD CD
N N N N
w w w w w
00 00
0 0 0
0 0 0 o O o
O 0 0 0 0 R. 0 0
m O cotry407WNm
r r rco
w w w w
to a. C7 V J 4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 o C at 0 o O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N M CD
0
47
0
0
0
N
0
O M
0
O
0-
O w
NN OO ON 47M 47h NN M N N r O c0 N
r N 47 N r to
cq w w w
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O
O O O O' O O cc N O O r c" O O O'. O m O O OD
47 O O N to N 47 M 47 O In M to 47. O O O O to
N O 47 M A N r M r n M N- Ln 0 01 r
N ID N r O
w w w w
CDO Y dOaN
in
In °
t
tomOVW N
c n a A F_ c W
v d: c J i c
2 m • - U ti m
U) Cc
W m m CL U
LU LL J 3 > Q LL m 0 m m am
f' V
Cm 0 C O U c m L rn c
LL
V W
7LL 1 a. m m f7 0
N N co a m m Q' 2' d J
Q m p G C m. N O A C LLJcmd
c
t7 EL
N 0 w
U c m CL LO
a b H L) tCCJ CL N U) O QFm
OUa5La. N J
47 f0 N w m O
M M M M M Q
U
ata 0
r
m
L_
C
m
Vmwm
y
N
O
V
Vm
O
CL
T
Cf6
CD
7
VC
O
c
0
y.
N0u
U
c0
O
H
0 0 000000Cl C3
m O p p O O O O O O O
d N
6
O o O O O
CO.
7
y O' COl m ttn O O
O E
U V T
m
m w w w
0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 0000000
p N c0 N
t70D N1 N NQt OO N of
pN N N r N
y. w w
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o 0to
urN oO 4 toOth oC 4O 0O oO toP oO O N
d M m! O N O co 47 Mcc 0N' tOf M co T
aO 7, 0 O O m Cl N O
c6 N
m
tti
LL
w 4 O O O O O O O O O
N
O O O
NVNOONCOOOOOO
m N Q- N O t0 a Q Q O O O ON wN
00 N10 wCCL N NV C" t, t0 O co
n Q
Oy N N OD N N
t)
N w w w
C
t7
0 O- 0 0 0 OO 0O 0O 0O OO OO OO Ot0 O1!Y
COO:. t0N O OON O O O O O O O- N N
y r O ti
O
m N N N
O N M M r r O
r
y w w
w
0 0 0 0 0 0 000 00 00 00 0 000 00 00 00 00
a0 o0 0 000 0o at 4 0 4 o 0 0 0 C o 0
O N- O— M O
n
O Oan Oo O OM O P
C D W
OCDI OQ to., r--,T
pO MQ M10
W 7
t% t- O M N M cc t0 O M
N in, to M N a r r M
r
w w
w
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N 10 t0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 4 0 t0 0 0 0 t0 O
F- t7t N O N 0 C O O O O C C 0 C W O O O N N
J N o_i n rn a 0 0 0' N o 0 0 0 CO O o 0 o co to
Q o M t0 r M O 10 r t0 0 0 O 10 O N O O N r
F u C N c0 to n ti M N N O N' to O O 4 N t
O O' W h M N O t0 m N M M F- L r t0 to
U w w w A
O
N
C.. y
E E
a>i
W t C
m OFm c. y 9° c O
Q U
0 a 0 Q Q LL c N
m m m
Ir c d H c O C C O` N y > C O
v a m E m a o v LL m m m c y Z
O Q ct C7 O m a 0 m m
c CL wp N C y m LL
O ry J E C u m N O v m C C J
LL Q O c p m C a C d N m m Q
F-
v j
c iyo ym 05 O
L
O1
m a
Q1 L m U U- C7 O a -- N H
U
ata 0
r
m
L_
C
m
Vmwm
y
N
O
V
Vm
O
CL
T
Cf6
CD
7
VC
O
c
0
y.
N0u
U
c0
O
H
014
Planning Commission Letter
April 28, 1998
Item #: 2
Agenda Section: Old Business
Letter #: 24
BACKGROUND
Proposal: Vivian Hart will provide a summary of the airport mitigation community
meetings. A draft of a report will be provided at the Planning Commission
meeting. The Commission will be asked to review the report and the
redevelopment concept over the next couple of weeks. Given the comments
received from the public, the Commission will be asked to formally recommend
that the City Council approve the concept and mitigation strategy as it is, with
changes, or to not accept the concept and strategy.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: No formal action is requested at this time. The Commission is being
asked to listen to the information and provide feedback on possible
changes to the report and /or mitigation strategy.
3
wgdM Planning Commission Letter
RICHFIELD April • • 8
Agenda Section: Old Business
Item #: 3
Letter #: 25
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Consider an amendment 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 (see attachment). A nonconforming structure can be
enlarged as long as the expansion meets current building and zoning
requirements. This makes it difficult for some buildings to be expanded because
the addition would be out of line with the existing structure.
For example, 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.
The Planning Commission reviewed these issues at the January study session
and directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment that would allow
nonconforming structures to be expanded under certain conditions.
Proposal: The proposed amendment adds an exception to the nonconforming structures
provision in .Section .511.13, subd. 4.of the. Zoning. Ordinance. The
nonconforming structures provision currently reads, "a nonconforming building
occupied by a conforming use may be enlarged if the expansion meets all
applicable City Code requirements." The amendment would add an exception
to this provision to allow expansions that don't meet setback requirements. The
provision places the following limits on these expansions:
it applies only to single and two family properties
the structure can be expanded up to 100 percent of current size
provided all other requirements are met)
3 -1
the expansion cannot extend any farther into the setback
it applies only to setback infringements of 50 percent or less (e.g. a
garage with a 5 foot setback that is supposed to have a 15 foot setback
would not qualify for this exception)
Issues: 1. 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. These requirements can be onerous in cases where the setback
infringement is minimal or the existing structure does not cause any
problems.
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 where 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.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council amend Section 511 of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow an expansion of nonconforming structures under
certain conditions.
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. Staff from the Inspections Division have reviewed the proposed
changes and support some relaxation in the rules for
nonconforming structures.
Alternative: Recommend that Section 511 of the Zoning Ordinance, relating to the
expansion of nonconforming structures, not be changed at this time.
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX B
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 511.13 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is amended by
adding the following new subdivision:
Subd. 5. Enlargement of building with nonconforming setback. A legally
nonconforming single or two family dwelling or garage which existed on or before June 1,
1995, which is occupied by a conforming use, and which does not meet current setback
requirements can be expanded up to 100 percent of the floor area of the existing structure, as
long as the following conditions are met:
a) the expansion does not extend any farther into the required setback than the
existing structure;
b) the existing structure does not infringe on the setback more than 50 percent of
the required setback distance; and
C) the expansion meets all other applicable City Code requirements.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
31998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
ti
mmod, M_ Planning Commission Letter
April 28, 1998
Agenda Section: Old Business
Item #: 4
Letter #: 26
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Consider an amendment to Section 521 of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow covered porches as an exception to residential front yard setback
requirements.
ANALYSIS
History: Last summer, the Planning Commission considered allowing reductions in the
residential front setback requirement. The Commission suggested that the
reduction be limited to front porches at this time. The Commission
recommended that design criteria be applied to any addition that would
encroach on the front setback.
Proposal: The proposed amendment makes changes to the R, R -1 and MR -1 (two family
residence) zoning districts. The amendment would mean that residential
property owners could add on a front porch closer than 30 feet to the front
property line and not be in violation of the setback requirement.
The amendment includes the following provisions:
porch additions up to 10 feet are permitted as long as the addition is no
closer than 20 feet to the front lot line;
plans must be approved by the Community Development Director.
the porch is limited to one story in height-,
the exterior materials -must be consistent with the front of the dwelling;
the roof must be integrated with the dwelling and have no less than a 3/12
slope;
the base of the porch cannot be open (deck- like);
q_1
at least 65 percent of the facade has to be either open or occupied by
screens /windows /doors of transparent material;
plans that are not prepared by an architect have to be reviewed by the
Design Advisor
An additional provision would allow front porches on homes located on corner
lots that face the street rather than the avenue. These additions would also have
to be at least 20 feet from the streetside lot line.
Issues: 1. Several residents have asked staff to consider allowing front porch
additions. Most houses are constructed with the minimum front setback
requirement of 30 feet so have no excess space to add onto the front of a
house. The only encroachments currently allowed in the front are 6 foot
landings and enclosed vestibules (6 feet by 8 feet).
2. Because the porch encroachment would be allowed in front yards, it is
important that the design of the porches be done well. Staff believes that
allowing property owners extra buildable area warrants specific design
requirements.
3. The variance process would be an inappropriate way to allow front porch
additions. A variance requires a finding of undue hardship that denies a
property owner• reasonable use of property. It would be difficult to argue
that not having a front porch constitutes a hardship.
4. If the City Council approves the amendment, staff plans to market the
concept to home owners. Staff will have sketches prepared showing how a
porch addition onto typical Richfield homes would be possible. A handout
including design suggestions will accompany the sketches.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance to
allow front porch additions as permissible front and street -side setback
reductions in the R, R -I and MR -1 districts.
Basis: 1. Staff have received several requests from residents wanting to build
front porches over the past few years.
2. Porch additions can improve the curb appeal of homes, utilize front
yard space to add on to a home, and provide an opportunity for
sodially- oriented activity in the front of a home.
3. Because the porch encroachments will occur in front yards and
bring dwellings closer to the front property line, it is important to
have criteria requiring well - designed additions.
Alternative: Recommend that the Zoning Ordinance, relating to front porches, not
be changed at this time.
q -a
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX B
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 506.07 of Appendix B of the ordinance code of the City of
Richfield is amended by adding subdivision 63 as follows:
Subd. 63. "Porches" - A sheltered entryway attached to a building and projecting from its
main mass; may be open -sided or partially enclosed.
Section 2. Subsection 506.07 of Appendix B of the ordinance code of the City of
Richfield is amended by renumbering subdivisions 63 through 87 as follows:
Subd. 634. "Public utilities, major" - Public utility buildings with more than 500 square
feet of gross floor area; electric sub - stations; or high voltage transmission lines.
Subd. 645. "Public utilities, minor" - Public utility buildings with 500 square feet or less
of gross floor area; transformer boxes or similar utility features; or low voltage
transmission lines.
Subd. 656. "Restaurant - Class I" - Full Service Restaurant: restaurants where food and
intoxicating beverages are served and consumed by customers while seated at a counter or
table, and which may provide entertainment, either live or prerecorded.
Subd. 667. "Restaurant - Class II" - Traditional Restaurant: restaurants where food and
non - intoxicating beverages are served and consumed while seated at a counter or table;
Cafeteria Restaurant: restaurants where food and non - intoxicating beverages are selected
by customers while passing through a service line and taken to a table for consumption.
Subd. 678. "Restaurant - Class III" - Fast Food or Convenience Restaurant: restaurants
where most customers order and are served their food at a counter or in a motor vehicle in
packages prepared to leave the premises, or able to be taken to a table or counter to be
consumed; Drive -in Restaurant: restaurants where most customers consume their food
on -site in a motor vehicle regardless of how it is served.
Subd. 689. "Restaurant - Class IV" - Take Out Only Restaurant: Establishments where
food is usually ordered by telephone and prepared on the premises for consumption off the
premises, with no seating or other area provided on the premises for consumption. The
establishment may deliver food to the customer, or the customer may pick food up.
Subd. 6970. "Service station" - An establishment where gasoline and other petroleum
products are sold as the principal use of the property. Light maintenance activities such as
engine tune -ups, lubrication, and minor repairs may also be provided if incidental to such
principal use. Service stations do not include premises where retail sales space exceeds 25
percent of the total building area or 500 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is less.
Service stations do not include premises where heavy automobile maintenance activities
such as engine overhauls, automobile painting, and body work are conducted.
Subd: 701. "Service station/convenience store" - An establishment where gasoline and
other petroleum products are sold, and where the retail sales space exceeds 25 percent of
the total building area or 500 square feet of gross floor area. Service station/convenience
stores do not include premises where heavy automobile maintenance activities such as
engine overhauls, automobile painting, and body work are conducted.
Subd. 712. "Set back" - The minimum horizontal distance required between a building
and the related front, side, or rear lot lines.
Subd. 7 -23. "Shopping center" - A grouping of retail businesses, service establishments,
and /or office uses on a single site with common parking facilities.
Subd. 734. "Story" - That portion of a building included between the surface of any floor
and the surface of the next floor above it, or if there is no floor above it, then the space
between such floor and the ceiling above it.
Subd. 745. "Story, half' - That portion of a building under a gable, hip or gambrel roof
the wall plates of which, on at least two opposite exterior walls, are not more than two
feet above the floor of such story.
Subd. 786. "Structure" - Anything erected, the use of which requires more or less
permanent location on the ground or attachment to something having permanent location
on the ground.
Subd. 767. "Structural alteration" - Any change, other than incidental repairs, in the
supporting members of a building such as bearing walls, columns, beams, girders, or
foundation.
Subd. 7 -78. "Use, accessory" - A use associated with, incidental to, and on the same lot
as, a principal use.
Subd. 789. "Use, conditional" - A use, either public or private, which because of its
unique characteristics, cannot be properly classified as a permitted use in a particular
district. After due consideration in each case, of the impact of such use upon neighboring
land, and of public need for the particular use at the particular location, such use may or
may not be approved by the Council.
Subd. 7380. "Use, permitted" - A principal use which may be lawfully established in a
particular district, provided it conforms with all the - requirements, regulations and
performance standards of such district.
Subd. 801. "Use, principal" - The primary purpose for which land or premises or a
building thereon is designed, arranged or intended or for which it is or may be occupied or
maintained.
Subd. 812. "Use, prohibited" - A use which shall not be established or conducted within
a particular district.
q--/
Subd. 823. "Variance" - A modification or variation of the literal provisions of this code
where it is determined that by reason of special or unusual circumstances related to the
individual property under consideration, strict application of the code would cause undue
hardship, and granting of a variance would not interfere with the general purpose and
intent of this code, nor have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.
Subd. 834. "Yard" - A required open space located on the same lot with a building,
U1OCCUP : c al uno bstructed from the ground
up, except for landscaping or other uses as
provided by this code. The minimum depth or
width of a yard shall consist of the horizontal
distance between the lot line and the nearest
wall of the principal building.
Subd. 845. "Yard, front" - An open space on
the same lot with the building extending
across the entire width of the lot and situated
between the front lot line and the nearest line
of the principal building, as projected to the
side lot line(s). (Figure 8)
Rear Lot Line
Side
Side Rear Yard • i' Lot Linei
Lot Line i
i
Buildin RoofSide ! n Side
Yard; a --- - ' Yard
i
Front Yard i
Front Lot Line
Figure 8
Subd. 856. "Yard, rear" - A yard extending across the entire width of the lot and situated
between the rear lot line and the nearest line of the principal building, as projected to the
side lot line(s). (Figure 8, p. 506 -10)
Subd. 867. "Yard, side" - A yard lying between the side lot line and the nearest line of
the building extending between the front yard and the rear yard, or in the absence of either
such front or rear yard, to the front or rear lot lines. (Figure 8, p. 506 -10)
Subd. 878. "Zoning district" - An area or areas of the City for which the regulations
under this code governing use, land, or structure are uniform.
Amended, Bill No. 1996 -22)
Section 3. Subsection 521.11, subdivisions 7 (g) and 7 (h) of Appendix B of the
ordinance code of the City of Richfield are added as follows:
in reauired. residential front yards. covered porches attached to the orincipal buildin
that extend no more than 10 feet, provided that the porch is no closer than 20 feet from
the front lot line and that the design of the porch is approved by the Community
Development Director. The Community Development Director must make the
following findings to approve a porch encroachment up to 10 feet:
i) the proposed porch is no greater than one story in height,
ii) the exterior materials of the proposed porch are consistent or
complementary in color, texture and Quality with those visible at the front
of the dwelling,
q -s
iii) the roof of the proposed porch is properiv proportioned to and integrated
with the roof of the dwelling and has no less than a 3/12 slope,
iv) the base of the porch is not open and its appearance is consistent with the
base of the dwelling;
V) at least 65 percent of the exposed porch facade is open or occupied by
windows, screens, and/or doors of transparent material; the facade
constitutes the area from the floor level of the porch to the porch ceiling;
and
vi) plans are prepared by a registered architect or reviewed by the City's
Design Advisor;
The Director may attach conditions to the approval of the porch encroachment as
needed to make the required findings, and
h) in required residential street side yards, covered porches attached to the front of a
principal building that extend no more than 10 feet, provided that the porch is no closer
than 20 feet from the streetside lot line and that the design of the porch is approved by
the Community Development Director. The Director must make the findings required
by Section 52 1.11, subdivision 7(g)(i) - (vi). The Director may attach conditions to the
approval of the porch encroachment as needed to make the required findings.
Section 4. Subsection 521.27, subdivisions 5 (e) and 5 (f) of Appendix B of the ordinance
code of the City of Richfield are added as follows:
e) in required residential front yards, covered porches attached to the principal building
that extend no more than 10 feet, provided that the porch is no closer than 20 feet from
the front lot line and that the design of the porch is approved by the Community
Development Director, The Community Development Director must make the
following findings to approve a porch encroachment up to 10 feet:
i) the proposed porch is no greater than one story in height,
ii) the exterior materials of the proposed porch are consistent or
complementary in color, texture and quality with those visible at the front
of the dwelling,
iii) the roof of the proposed porch is properly_ proportioned to and inte rgated
with the roof of the dwelling and has no less than a 3/12 slope,
iv) the base of the porch is not open and its appearance is consistent with the
base of the dwelling;
V) at least 65 percent of the exposed porch facade is open or occupied by
windows, screens, and/or doors of transparent material; the facade
constitutes the area from the floor level of the porch to the porch ceiling;
and
Vi) plans are prepared by a registered architect or reviewed by the City's
Design dvisor;
The Director may attach conditions to the approval of the porch encroachment as
needed to make the required findings; and
in required residential street side vards, covered porches attached to the front of a
principal building that extend no more than 10 feet, provided that the porch is no closer
than 20 feet from the streetside lot line and that the design of the porch is approved by
the Community Development Director. The Director must make the findings required
by Section 521.27, subdivision 5(e)(i) - (vi). The Director may attach conditions to the
approval of the porch encroachment as needed to make the required findings.
Section 5. Subsection 521.45, subdivisions 6 (0 and 6 (g) of Appendix B of the ordinance
code of the City of Richfield are added as follows:
e) in required residential front yards, covered porches attached to the principal building
that extend no more than 10 feet, provided that the porch is no closer than 20 feet from
the front lot line and that the design of the porch is approved by the Community
Development Director. The Community Development Director must make the
following findings to approve a porch encroachment up to 10 feet:
i) the proposed porch is no greater than one story in height
ii) the exterior materials of the proposed porch are consistent or
complementary in color, textum and quality with those visible at the front
of the dwelling;
iii) the roof of the proposed porch is properly proportioned to and integrated
with the roof of the dwelling and has no less than a 3/12 slope,
iv) the base of the porch is not open and its appearance is consistent with the
base of the dwelling;
V) at least 65 percent of the exposed porch facade is open or occupied by
windows, screens, and/or doors of transparent material; the facade
constitutes the area from the floor level of the porch to the porch ceiling,
and
vi) plans are prepared by a registered architect or reviewed by the City's
Design Advisor,
The Director may attach conditions to the approval of the porch encroachment as
needed to make the required findings; and
in required residential street side vards. covered porches attached to the front of a
principal building that extend no more than 10 feet, provided that the porch is no closer
than 20 feet from the streetside lot line and that the design of the porch is approved by
the Community Development Director. The Director must make the findings required
by Section 521.47, subdivision 6 (e)(i) - (vi). The Director may attach conditions to the
approval of the porch encroachment as needed to make the required findings.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this_ day of ,
1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk