The URL can be used to link to this page

07-25-06 Regular CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JULY 25, 2006 ******************************************************************************************************* SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION RICHFIELD CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 5:30 P.M. Call to order Roll call 5:30 p.m. - 5:50 ~.m. 1. Discussion regar: ing street maintenance program and funding (Council Memo No. 119) 5:50 p.m. - 6:00 ~.m. 2. Discussion regar: ing Rain Gardens (Council Memo No. 120) 6:00 p.m. - 6:10 ~.m. 3. Discussion regar ing scheduling Special City Council Worksession with certain realtors to discuss residential home sales on eastside of Richfield 6:10 p.m. - 6:20 p.m. 4. Demonstration of AutoMARK voting equipment by Richfield City Clerk Nancy Gibbs Adiournment ***~*************************************************************************************************** REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 6:30 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of Regular City Council Meeting June 27, 2006 PRESENTATION 1. Presentation of Landscaping Good Neighbor Awards (Council Memo No. 121) COUNCIL DISCUSSION 2. Council discussion . Hats Off To Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 3. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 4. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of rescheduling Regular City Council meeting of September 12,2006 to Thursday, September 14,2006 at 6:30 p.m. S.R. No. 151 B. Consideration of approval of resolution calling public hearing on September 26, 2006 regarding modification to redevelopment plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, establishing Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District and referring modified plan to Planning Commission S.R. No. 152 C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing purchase of single family home at 1614 East 66th Street; new 17th Avenue roundabout roadway S.R. No. 153 D. Consideration of approval of resolution approving Metropolitan Airports Commission deed restrictions for properties located in Cedar Point project area and purchased through funding provided by Metropolitan Airports Commission S.R. No. 154 E. Consideration of approval of purchase and installation of carpet in Public Safety area of City Hall from Commercial Flooring Services in estimated amount of $25,429 S.R. No. 155 Notes: 5. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Public hearing regarding resolution authorizing conditional use permit for existing Centennial Elementary School and temporary accessory building for teacher workspace at 7315 Bloomington Avenue Staff Report No. 156 Notes: 7. Public hearing regarding resolution authorizing conditional use permit to allow Augsburg Park Montessori SchoofUd. to operate as accessory use at 7121 Bloomington Avenue (Bethany Covenant Church) Staff Report No. 157 Notes: 8. Public hearing regarding resolution denying appeal from decision of Hearing Examiner and affirming Hearing Examiner decision to deny variance for sidewalk, steps, shed and fence at 6425 Oliver Avenue Staff Report No. 158 Notes: 9. Public hearing and second reading of transitory ordinance authorizing sale of real property to Ryan Companies US, Inc. in accordance with Option and First Right of Refusal Agreement Staff Report No. 159 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 10. Consideration of resolution authorizing eminent domain proceedings to acquire certain real properties for bus pullouts associated with new 17th Avenue and 66th Street intersection Staff Report No. 160 Notes: 11. Consideration of resolution authorizing amendment to escrow agreement with Ryan Companies US, Inc. Staff Report No. 161 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 12. Consideration of authorizing staff to solicit Requests for Proposals for professional architectural services for preliminary design and cost estimates for new City Hall, Police, Fire and Licensing building for City of Richfield Staff Report No. 162 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 13. City Manager's report Notes: 14. Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the CIty Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: 15. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. A:) AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4A REpORT # 151 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 25, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: NANCY GIBBS, CITY CLERK NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ri ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of rescheduling the Regular City Council meeting on Tuesday, September 12, 2006. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Reschedule the September 12, 2006 Regular City Council meeting to Thursday, September 14, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. I II. BACKGROUND I The City Council regularly meets the second and fourth Tuesday evening of each month. The first City Council meeting in September is scheduled for Tuesday, September 12 which is the primary election. The City Council is prohibited by State Statute to meet between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. on the day an election is held within the boundaries of the special taxing district, school district, county, city or town. Therefore, staff suggests thaUhe Regular Council Meeting be rescheduled to Thursday, September 14, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. In addition, conducting the City Council meeting on September 14 will fulfill State Statute and Richfield City Charter requirements of canvassing the primary election. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 0725reschedule I A. POLICY I · Richfield City Code Section 205.01 establishes that regular City Council meetings are held on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month. · State Statute 204C.03, Subd. 1 establishes that no special taxing district governing body, school board, county board of commissioners, city council, or town board of supervisors shall conduct a meeting between 6 p.m. and 80 p.m. on the day that an election is held within the boundaries of the special taxing district, school district, county, city, or town. · Richfield City Charter Section 4.07 establishes that the Council shall meet and canvass the election returns at the next regular or special Council meeting immediately following any regular, primary or special election but in no event later than the Monday next following. · State Statute 205.065, Subd. 5 establishes that within two days after the State primary, the governing body of the municipality shall canvass the returns. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I · The City Council is prohibited by State Statute to meet on an election day. · Canvassing of primary election results must be conducted not later than September 14, 2006, as required by State Statute and Richfield City Charter. · This item has been placed on the July 25 City Council agenda so proper notification can be made. I C. LEGAL I · City Charter and State Statute provide that the City Council declare the results of the election. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I · Cancel the first regular monthly Council meeting in September and schedule a Special City Council meeting to canvass the primary election. Iv. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # CONSENT 4B 152 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 25, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: PAT SMITH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 11ANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ;J. REVIEWED BY CITY 11ANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of calling a public hearing on the modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the establishment of the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District and referral of the Modified Plan to the Plannina Commission. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached Resolution taking certain actions with respect to the modification of a Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. I II. BACKGROUND I Now is the appropriate time to initiate the establishment of the Cedar Corridor Tax Increment Finance District (TIF District). The TIF District will coincide with the "low frequency noise" area associated with the new "north-south" runway with the tax abatement area excepted. (See attached map.) The TIF District is located within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (Project). The current Project Plan is in need of revision to incorporate the TIF District into the Project Plan. It is appropriate for the City Council to call for a public hearing on the modification of the Project Plan and refer the matter to the Planning Commission for consideration. 072506 Call PH for Cedar TIF I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The process prescribed by Minnesota Statutes is being followed. . On June 28, 2005 the City Council approved the Special Legislation which made the establishment of the TIF District possible. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The modified Project Plan needs to be in place before Ryan Companies US, Inc. applies for building permits for buildings on the west side of 17th Avenue. . A public hearing by the City Council is proposed for September 26, 2006. . Project information is scheduled to be submitted to the County Board for their review on August 11, 2006. I C. FINANCIAL I . The portion of Cedar Point west of 17th Avenue is outside the abatement area thus the need for TIF. I D. LEGAL I . Legal counsel has opined that now is the appropriate time to undertake this process. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Do not call a public hearing at this time. However, the schedule for development on the west side of 17th Avenue will be negatively impacted and the Cedar Point project jeopardized. I V. ATTACHMENTS . Resolution . Map I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . N/A 78-/ RESOLUTION NO. 06-_ RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CEDAR AVENUE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) THEREIN, AND THE ADOPTION OF A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Public HearinQ. This Council shall meet on September 26, 2006, at approximately 6:30 P.M., to hold a public hearing on the proposed adoption of a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, the proposed establishment of the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District, (a redevelopment district), and the proposed adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor, all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.1799, inclusive, as amended, in an effort to encourage the development and redevelopment of certain designated areas within the City; and Section 2. Notice of Public Hearina. Filina of Plans. City staff is authorized and directed to work with Ehlers & Associates, Inc., to prepare a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District and to forward documents to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions including Hennepin County and Independent School District No. 280. The Community Development Director is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing, together with an appropriate map as required by law, to be published at least once in the official newspaper of the City not later than 10, nor more than 30, days prior to September 26, 2006 and to place a copy of the Plans on file in the Community Development Director's office at City Hall and to make such copy available for inspection by the public. Adopted by the City Council of Richfield this 25th day of July 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk . 11('0 w.- o:~ U) II( .- ....0 om w.5 ..,(,) OC o:as a...5 ....LL z- Wc .~ ...1(,) w.E >>< ~t! WI.. o:.g C .i: ...II.. WO -0 LLI.. :J:as 0" -CD 0:0 NO.LtlNIVII0018 OE>VOIHO snSV\lnlOO ONVl>lVO ONVll\::lOd N01NI1:J SN3A31S 131100lN 1130SIVl8 H.L\::IOMlN3M A\::In8S111d INVSV31d .L3U::I\::1\fH 0131::1\::1\1'9 31VONA' HOltlO1V IN\fAl:I8 X'V.:llOO .LNOdna NOS\::I3V\13 lNOV\l3H::l Ql:I\t1:llE> .L0108V\1nH ~NI^~, S3VfvT NVElOl N\f€)\::IOVII NOIM3N H3A110 N33no 113SSm:l NVQIl:l3HS SVV\lOHl NOldn lN30NI^ Nl:InSHS'IM S3X1::l3X ." N W ." C ~ ." ~ ~ :i ~ ~ ili " ;::: ~ if! ill ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~. ~ it \::IV030 41B~ nI!IiEilffiIJTIiJ\JiIIiTIj~ ffi!HHIB ImiffiHl ffi\HlHE ffiHHHI mmm~_ffi!HHIB ffi!HHlB8IIffiB HIlll\lllllllImII\!j EHHBIIIIIIIlJIIIIIIIlJIIIIIIIlJ :'m1S:<l!lIIHUHIIIIIIIlJ ~ ffiIIIIIi\lIJH1lJfNIIIIlE[JffiIJmLw~ffi!HHlBHHI!ffib~mmHHHBR HIffiIIIlIlHlllffiHHlHIIIHHB__ fffilNlJHIDffiJtrr1>~mHHHB Ed mmtlHI!EQIIE1IIJHHHH!EffillIHEJH1lJmm_~&JffiJmHHHBn \9IB33mnn[J]\ffi]EHHHJmB31HlBlffi!HHlBmmffilffiffiHHHHEmmHHHBtf [[[]]llflTITTTTllll' \""""""' I ITTIIIIIl mOJTTTTTlJIillIIllJ [J ITIIIIJ mm mm omm ~ ITIllIJm I 1111111 J IIIII DIIIJII m ITITIIIIIllllJIIIIIIl UIlJI]mm Wll.I]]] m ITIIIII] B3ffiBmHlEHHBffiIIEEJ HffiBmmmmHHHB B3ffiBmffilHlHIJHtHHE ffiHEmmmmHHHB B3ffiBmnnnnmmmmmmD fITHHBnnffi\.HtBHmI1E8Btffill6!rlllJmmmm_~ ffiHHJnnflHltmJmm~mmmm_ fEffiB3f1HH1H88EHIEJm_EEEHEmHffiHllmm_ EmlIIIJ~HHHlIi9mffilffiEffiHEllffilHBmffiffii'iillHEffiEem:a liIU,'I',',HUdllllll'IlI,I,',11 YBI!lIim[J'llll!llllEmm_1 ~~~IlEEHIJD fa !111111111111111~_6mdmm_ _lHNIHEm ~ 11111111111111111 Wlmllllllmmmmm____ IdlllllllllllllEEffiB dJ€3lffil1H11llmmm ffilffiEmRilillffiHlIIil!!HiJffiIIlHBffiHBE l'IIII'nlll'nlllll_-~m~m~_ffiffiHJmmHHHB BEI~EliI=!===== B33mffi@~ rnlffiHHll!B3I@ B3ffiEBffiHHEm_EIHEE Ff\ ffiBmtmE ffiHffilm m___HHHB LLd ffi1Jmm ffiHHEBHmlJ mmmmm @d ffitmEtJ tffi9B . . m Effi55IB EEl EEl EE1EE1ffiEIBHmHE [9 B3IJ ffiHI!ElffiffiE ~ ~nllllli\\\%illllllBJ m I I HIi\lIIlIIB HIMHE LffiIlEffiB bJ __m f!ffililIIIlfililllffiJ HHHB IDl;~~~.D==== ~ti Ct@ ~~_~~DI lffi ~mIIilIIIE ffiH ~ m t19 ~. m EIttEIiIIlllllllllIHllilllllffi1B HHHB lffi I!; ~tJ 8iffiIIIIIJ H!IIffiIIIJ HIIIMIIll m illl ~ ~HI!ImIl9ll11111l1111lH1Wm ~!IIIIIIIIlJ IIIIIIIIIIIl RIliIlIIl ~ElIlE5Jib \Jl?: r1IIJJ IIIllIIlIIllJ IIIIIIIIIJ ITDID ~ ~ II8lrIIIilm tdH!J ffiIIiIIB IIIHIffiJ IiillHEJ 1tIB9Ji\9 ttl:I:tfllj ~ EHHtI ~ 8iBilIB [2ffilP C7 BffiEmEffi!HHlBffimlIHHfg___rnmmITlJJIIJllw HffiBRBIHffiHHJ~~ffiml\BHRnIHBflE2mJffiIfIJffi D !li1ffiHE_~~~!lIlffiIIIdIB!!ImIffiH!ll BiJffi!HHIB~H!Il~ffiIIIiHB3ffi1i\1lillffi'lffiIlJffi'lffiIlJm -mErnHIHIl~@ttI!IliJI~~ffiIIIlIIli\Jmmm _ _fIliIiIIB-8HIHlIlH!ll8I1Iffiffii\]!IIIIi1IiillJmmm ~ ~ME6HHlH8_f!HHElj=ffiII!Iii1J~mmm D 5[]mll h+rf1~ ~mfillllffiEJ~HiffiHEm~6EHEBmffiR[J I~D~IlIEElltTIEilm = 11,'/11111111111111111 rn~flIIIIIIlIIIJ!IH!lIIIllll8!!i!lllllB mm8ffiHB5ffiHBm U 1111 111111111111_ EHEIlIIIlc=:JffillHllllIHllffillllllllffi3. mmffiHHEffiHHE ffiHHE I11111111111 IIIIII!tiillffi!l ~f!lII11ilIllHm._m mHIHffiJ LffiHIEm m \ 1IIII1 II 1II11111 ffiffi'ffi ElIHllfBH~Effillffi flIIIIIIlIIIJ ffiIIlIIl5llIlIl m fiEffiIE m lI~L~ l/19~ lns~ lUtl 4"" 4"" lIHl 410' 101113 )U:IVd 4" 41' pJ, pu. '" ONVl::IO XON~ NN3d v ." 12 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0> ill Ii! ~ " ~ ." ~ ~ ~ ~ v N m ili Iii m ~ ;::: ~ if! it :e w ie w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~jg-~ co <:{z ~ t::: o 0061 I:IV030 1ii oQ) 0"- '" oi 008~ l/18~ OOH lULl 0091 1I191 11'C:51 NOIONIV'l0018 oma lma OOV~ 1I1tl 00B1 lUE:l OOZ'l 1Ik:'~ o o 0> cD 0011 4Ul 0001 llUH 006 101113 ooe OE>\fOIHa OU SnSV\lnlOO OOL )t!:lVd 0"" aNV1~\'O 0 0 <D 009 ON'VllJ:IOd .f 009 4lS 00. 41' ..., NO.1NI10 OOS pJ, OOZ puz .z< SN3A31S 0 0 '" 00< IS, C\i 000 131100lN 09 113081'118 0 HH:IOMlN3M "' 00' 00<: Al:lnaS'1Id oos 1NVS\f31d 001> ONVl:l9 0 009 131~~\IH 009 0131:1l::1V9 OOL 31VONAl ooe HOll::lOlV 006 J.NVAl::IS 000< XV:ll00 OOH J.NOdnO - 0 OO~~ NOSl::I3V113 .;:: - II) 00"' J.NOVll3l:1:1 (5 00" ol:lvl:Im C> oos~ J.01OSVllnH s::: 009< ~NI^~' '0 s::: S3VWr ctl 00<< s::: OOBl XON>t u: ctl - Q) 006~ N\f901 .... s::: <( ctl Q) Q) OOO~ NVE>l:IOVII E - .... s::: <( 00 ~~ NOJ.M3N Q) Q) .... E - 0 0 OOG<:: l:I3AI10 s::: Q) Q) ooe~ NN3d - '0' x .0 .... OO'V~ N33no ~ <( a.. x - oos~ 113SSnl:l .... ~ s::: 0 Q) 009~ NVOll::13HS "C - E ';:: s::: a. OOL~ SVVIIOHl .... '0 0 0 OOB~. NO.ldn 0 a.. Q) 006~ .lN30NIA .... .... > ctl ctl Q) OODe Nl:InSHSVM "C "C "C Q) Q) Q) 00'" S3Xl::I3X 0 0 a: D~ I AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # r.ONSF.N'J' 4r. 1')1 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 25, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: KA TIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of Purchase of the single family home at 1614 East 66th Street (new 17th Avenue roundabout roadwa . 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the Resolution approving Purchase of 1614 East 66th Street new 17th Avenue roundabout roadwa I II. BACKGROUND , · On June 27, 2006 the City Council (City) approved just compensation and acquisition for 1614 East 66th Street along with three other properties required for the new 17th Avenue roundabout roadway. · Subsequently, the City made an offer to the property owners (Owners) on June 30, 2006 in the amount of $211 ,000, based upon an appraisal from BCl Appraisals, Inc. · While the Owners decided not to obtain their own appraisal they did make a counteroffer to the City in the amount of $220,000 or $9,000 over the initial offer which equates to 4.27% more. This is well within the acceptable value variance range for a property. 072506 PurAgmC 161466thSt · The City's initial offer would have resulted in the Owners receiving a replacement housing allowance pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Act. This allowance is to assist the Owners in purchasing a replacement home. · If the Owners' counteroffer is accepted by the City, the increased compensation for the Subject Property would eliminate the Owners' entitlement to a replacement housing allowance. [ III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I · On October 25, 2005 the City approved a two-lane roundabout design for the new intersection at 66th Street and 17th avenue and a financing plan concept for proposed improvements. · The City has previously approved just compensation and authorization to purchase the subject property. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I · The Owners have signed a Purchase Agreement with the City and would close on the sale of the property during the morning of July 26, 2006. · Approving the Purchase Agreement would eliminate the City's need to commence eminent domain proceedings to acquire this property if the closing takes place before filing of eminent domain. If the closing happens as scheduled eminent domain won't be needed. I C. FINANCIAL I · Permanent financing for this project is a Special Assessment 429 Bond. · The Capital Improvement Reserve Fund is the interim funding source. I D. LEGAL I · Legal counsel and relocation consultant have reviewed the Purchase Agreement, counteroffer by the Owners and relocation benefit implications and have recommended that the City accept the counteroffer and enter into a Purchase Agreement with the Owners. · Approving the Purchase Agreement would eliminate the time and cost of eminent domain proceedings. · Legal counsel prepared the attached Resolution. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I · Delay approval of the Purchase Agreement. · Commence eminent domain proceedings. I V. ATTACHMENTS · Resolution I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . N/A 1C-1 RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FOR STREET RECONSTRUCTION AND OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield ("City") is the official governing body of the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, acting by and through its City Council, is authorized by law to acquire real estate which is needed for public use or purpose; and WHEREAS, on October 25,2005, the CiW Council approved a two-lane roundabout design for the new intersection at 66t Street and 1 yth Avenue and a financing plan concept for proposed improvements ("Project"); and WHEREAS, implementation of the plans and specifications for the Project requires that the real estate described in Exhibit A attached hereto ("Subject Property") be acquired; and WHEREAS, interim funds are available from the Capital Improvement Reserve Funds for the purchase of the Subject Property and related expenses; and WHEREAS, funds from a Special Assessment Bond will be available to the City for reimbursement of acquisition and relocation costs and related expenses; and WHEREAS, the City desires to facilitate completion of the street reconstruction and other activities which are contemplated by the plans and specifications for the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is reasonably necessary, proper, and convenient, and in the interest of the public health, convenience, and general welfare of the citizens of the City that title to and possession of the Subject Property be acquired for the furtherance of the Project; and . WHEREAS, the City obtained an appraisal of the value of the Subject Property from BCl Appraisals, Inc. in the amount of $211 ,000; and WHEREAS, based on the appraisal, on June 27, 2006, the City Council determined that just compensation for the Subject Property is $211,000 and directed the City's consultant, SRF Consultants, Inc. ("SRF") to submit an offer on behalf of the City to purchase the Subject Property for $211,000 (subject to the duty to also provide the owner with relocation assistance as provided in applicable regulations); and WHEREAS, SRF is also the relocation counselor to the City and displacees from the Subject Property; and . WHEREAS, the owner of the Subject Property rejected the City's offer to purchase the Subject Property for $211 ,000 and, instead, offered to sell the Subject Property to the City for a purchase price of $220,000 (an increase of 4.27% over the City's offer); and Error! Unknown document property name. 1C- J... WHEREAS, the amount by which the owner's counteroffer exceeds the City's offer is not substantial; and WHEREAS, payment of a purchase price of $220,000 to the owner will eliminate the need for the City to pay the owner a replacement housing allowance; and WHEREAS, the City advised the owner that he may obtain an independent real estate appraisal of the Subject Property and that the City will reimburse up to $1500 of the costs incurred by the owner in obtaining this appraisal, but the owner elected not to do so; and WHEREAS, if the City does not accept the owner's proposal it will be necessary to acquire the Subject Property in eminent domain proceedings in order to proceed with the Project; and WHEREAS, counsel for the City has advised the City that the City would likely incur $5500 to $7800 in legal, appraisal and commissioner fees and other costs and disbursements to acquire the Subject Property in eminent domain proceedings which would not be incurred by the City if the City accepts the owner's proposal and that it is reasonably probable that the award of damages for the Subject Property which would be issued by court appointed commissioners in eminent domain proceedings could very well be substantially similar in amount to the owner's proposed price of $220,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD IN REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, that it is the considered judgment of the City Council that the Subject Property be acquired for the stated public purposes for a purchase price of $220,000 in accordance with the proposed purchase agreement between the City and David Vogel and Elaine Vogel which is on file with the Community Development Department. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to acquire the Subject Property in accordance with said agreement. Adopted by the City Council this 25th day of July 2006. Martin Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Error! Unknown document property name. Exhibit A Leqal Description of Subject Property Lot 2, Block 5, Iverson's 3rd Addition According to the plat thereof on file in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. Located at 1614 E. 66th Street Property Identification No. '26-028-24-14-0123 Error! Unknown document property name. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # CONSENT 4D 154 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 25, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: PAT SMITH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approving the Metropolitan Airport Commission's deed restrictions for properties located in the Cedar Point project area and purchased through funding provided by the Metro olitan Air orts Commission. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached Resolution approving the Metropolitan Airport Commission's deed restrictions for properties located in the Cedar Point project area and purchased through fundin rovided b the Metro olitan Air orts Commission. I II. BACKGROUND I On March 20, 2002 the City Council and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) entered into an Agreement (Agreement) in which MAC gave the City a grant for $10 million to purchase 7 apartment buildings and 22 single family residences that are located in the Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Area. Six of these properties are located in the Cedar Point development area (see attached map). A condition of the Agreement is that any parcels sold to a third party be subject to a restriction, to be approved by MAC, contained in the deed of conveyance, providing that they will be developed in conformity with Richfield's Comprehensive Plan, and 072506 MAC deed restrictions will adhere to any MAC, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), or Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) limitations relating to height, noise, use compatibility, light or electronic interference. On July 17, 2006 the MAC Board approved in principle the deed restrictions for the properties within the Cedar Point redevelopment. The MAC Board delegated their attorneys to draft the final language of the deed restrictions. On July 20, 2006 Ryan, City and MAC representatives met and agreed on the proposed language of the deed restrictions. The attached deed restrictions with minor modifications is the document that all three parties agreed to. The final document will be handed out at the City Council meeting. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I · On March 20, 2002 the City Council and MAC entered into an Agreement in which MAC gave the City a grant for $10 million to purchase properties located in the Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Area. · The Agreement states that any parcels sold to a third party be subject to a restriction, to be approved by MAC, contained in the deed of conveyance, providing that they will be developed in conformity with Richfield's Comprehensive Plan, and will adhere to any MAC, FAA, or MnDOT limitations relating to height, noise, use compatibility, light or electronic interference. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I · The proposed deed restrictions will be place on property that will be owned by Target and Ryan, not the City. · Under the First Amendment to the Development Contract, Ryan has the right to terminate the Contract if Ryan is not satisfied with the deed restrictions approved by MAC. · Ryan, MAC and City legal counsel are satisfied with the proposed deed restrictions. · The proposed deed restrictions place no obligations on the City of Richfield. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL I · City and HRA counsel have been intricately involved in the negotiation and drafting of the proposed deed restrictions. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I · Do not approve the proposed deed restrictions. I V. ATTACHMENTS . Resolution · Draft MAC deed restrictions · Map showing the six properties purchased with MAC funds (colored green) I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . N/A 1~~1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING METROPOLITAN AIRPORT COMMISSION DEED RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN CEDAR POINT WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "Authority") is undertaking a redevelopment project called Cedar Point, hereinafter called the "Project"; and WHEREAS, The Authority Ryan Companies US, Inc ("Ryan") entered into that certain Contract for Private Development dated July 27, 2005, as amended by the First Amendment to Contract for Private Development dated June 26, 2006 (the "Development Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the City Council and the Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC) entered into an Agreement (the "Agreement") whereby MAC granted the City $10 million to purchase properties located in the Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Area; and WHEREAS, six of these properties are located in the Cedar Point development area and are proposed to be sold to Ryan Companies US, Inc., developer of Cedar Point; and WHEREAS, the Agreement requires that any parc~1 sold to a third party be subject to a restriction, to be approved by MAC, contained in the deed of conveyance, providing that they will be developed in conformity with Richfield's Comprehensive Plan, and will adhere to any MAC, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), or Minnesota Department of Transportation, (MnDOT) limitations relating to height, noise, use compatibility, light or electronic interference; and WHEREAS, under the Development Agreement, Ryan has the right to terminate the Contract if Ryan is unsatisfied with the deed restrictions approved by MAC; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the terms of the MAC deed restrictions (the "Deed Restrictions"), and has received the recommendation of City staff regarding the terms of the Deed Restrictions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The Deed Restrictions are approved in substantially the form presented. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the Deed Restrictions on behalf of the Council and to take all actions and do all things that are reasonable necessary to the fulfillment of the City's obligations under the Deed Restrictions. Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 25th day of July 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 1b-~ Draft 7/19/06 AGREEMENT REGARDING RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS This Agreement Regarding Restrictive Covenants is made as of , 2006 by CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Grantor") and the METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION, a Minnesota public corporation (the "MAC"). RECITALS A. The MAC owns and operates the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (the "Airport"), which is legally described on the attached Exhibit A and depicted in the drawing attached as Exhibit B. B. Grantor owns properties that are proximate to the Airport and are legally described on the attached Exhibit C (the "Burdened Properties") and depicted in the drawing attached as Exhibit D. Grantor acquired the Burdened Properties through the financial assistance of MAC and subject to a requirement that certain restrictions be placed upon the Burdened Properties. C. Grantor desires to subject the Burdened Properties to the restrictions as contained in this Agreement, for the benefit of the MAC and the Airport. ARTICLE 1. CONSIDERATION AND AGREEMENT In consideration of One Dollar And No Cents ($1.00) paid to Grantor by MAC, the mutual agreements contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, the Grantor and the MAC agree as set forth in this Agreement. 293398v6 CAH RC145-549 1D-3 ARTICLE 2. DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION 2.1 Definitions. The following terms shall have the meanings set forth below. 2.1.1 Agreement. This Agreement Regarding Restrictive Covenants, including the following exhibits attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof: Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Legal Description Of The Airport Drawing Of The Airport Legal Description Of The Burdened Properties Drawing Of The Burdened Properties Legal Description Of The Height Limits Drawing Of The Height Limits 2.1.2 Air Emissions. A release or discharge into the outdoor atmosphere of any dust, fume, gas, mist, odor, particulate, smoke, vapor or other gaseous fluid or particulate substance or any combination thereof, differing in composition from or exceeding in concentration the natural composition of the atmosphere and deposits therefrom. 2.1.3 Aircraft. Any and all types of contrivances or vehicles that fly through, navigate or transport persons or property in or through the air or are capable of so flying, navigating or transporting, whether now in existence or hereafter developed, including fixed wing aircraft, rotary wing aircraft (e.g., helicopters), aircraft using a combination of fixed and rotary wings, aircraft using other than fixed or rotary wings or no wings, jet powered aircraft, propeller driven aircraft, aircraft using a combination of propulsion sources, aircraft using propulsion sources other than jet or propeller propulsion, aircraft using no propulsion sources (e.g., gliders), commercial aircraft, general aviation aircraft, military aircraft, foreign aircraft and domestic aircraft. 2.1.4 Aircraft Impacts. Any effect emanating from, incident to or resulting from Aircraft or Aircraft Operations above, over, across, and in the vicinity of the Burdened Properties, including but not limited to Air emissions, Aircraft Interference, Aircraft Noise, Airflight Response, and Vibration. 2.1.5 Aircraft Interference. Any electrical, electronic or other interference caused by Aircraft and Aircraft Operations with electrical, electronic or other devices or machines, including cell phones, computers, lasers, radars, radios, satellites, telephones, televisions and other such devices or machinery which may employ or rely on such devices or machines. 293398v6 CAH RC145-549 2 4D-~ 2.1.6 Aircraft Noise. Any sound not occurring in or not occurring at the same levels in, the natural environment created, produced or augmented by Aircraft or Aircraft Operations, including air stream noise, engine mechanical noise, engine exhaust noise, fan whine, fuselage noise, jet noise, propeller noise, turbo-prop noise and low frequency noise. 2.1. 7 Aircraft Operations. Aircraft approaching, landing upon, taking off from, departing, maneuvering or operating in the air about, across, over or in the vicinity of the Airport, moving or operating on the ground at the Airport or being maintained or tested at the Airport. 2.1.8 Airflight Response. Any subjective perception of risk or danger by the Grantor or any user of the Burdened Properties, including agents, employees, invitees, occupants, tenants and visitors, caused by Aircraft and Aircraft Operations. 2.1.9 Airport. Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, on land legally described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B, as the same may be expanded from time to time. 2.1.10 Article. An article of this Agreement. 2.1.11 Burdened Properties. That certain real property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described in Exhibit C and depicted in Exhibit D, which is owned by Grantor. 2.1.12 Claims. Any and all actions, causes of action, claims, costs, damages, demands, debts, demands, executions, expenses (including reasonable attorneys fees and expert and other fees and expenses), fines, judgments, liens, obligations, penalties or suits. 2.1.13 FAA. The Federal Aviation Administration or, ifthe Federal Aviation Administration shall no longer exist or perform or serve its present functions, such successor federal entity or entities as shall either singularly or collectively perform or serve such functions. 2.1.14 Flora. All plants, including bushes, crops, shrubs and trees, whether living or not. 2.1.15 Indemnified Parties. As defined in Section 4.1. 293398v6 CAH RC145-549 3 / 1D-5 2.1.16 MNDOT. The Minnesota Department of Transportation or, if the Minnesota Department of Transportation shall no longer exist or perform or serve its present functions, such successor State entity or entities as shall either singularly or collectively perform or serve such functions. 2.1.17 Permit. To either passively or actively allow, approve, authorize, consent, leave, let, permit, sanction or suffer any violation of Article 3 of this Agreement. 2.1.18 Section. A section of this Agreement. 2.1.19 State. The State of Minnesota. 2.1.20 Structure. Anything anchored, built, constructed, erected, floated, gathered, located or piled on the ground or in or over a body of water, whether temporary or permanent, moveable or immovable, including antennae, buildings, canopies, cranes, decks, derricks, docks, edifices, equipment, fences, patios, piers, piles, poles, posts, signs, towers, utility poles, wires or any object or thing attached to the ground or any of the foregoing either temporarily or permanently. 2.1.21 Vibration. A periodic motion of the particles of an elastic or rigid body or medium in alternately opposite directions from the position of equilibrium when that equilibrium has been disturbed, including chatters, jars, oscillations, quivers, resonances, rumbles, shakes, shimmies, shocks, sways, swings, trembles and tremors, and any other effects induced by such motion. 2.2 Rules Of Construction. In interpreting this Agreement, the following rules of construction shall be used. 2.2.1 Captions, Gender, Number And Language Of Inclusion. The Article and Section headings in this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and shall not define, limit, or prescribe the scope or intent of any term of this Agreement. As used in this Agreement, the singular shall include the plural and vice versa, and the masculine, feminine and neuter adjectives shall include one another. 2.2.2 Construction. The rule of strict construction shall not apply to this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be interpreted in favor of or against either 293398v6 CAH RC145-549 4 L/D/lP the Grantor or the MAC merely because of their respective efforts in preparing it, modifying it, notwithstanding the MAC's effort in originating this Agreement. 2.2.3 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed under and governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 2.2.4 Words And Phrases. The following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: (i) "applicable law" shall mean "all applicable federal, State, county, municipal, local or other laws, statutes, codes, ordinances, rules and regulations"; (ii) "include" shall mean "include without limitation"; (iii) "including" shall mean "including but not limited to"; (iv) "incurred by" shall mean "incurred, imposed upon, suffered, paid by or asserted against"; (v) "parties" shall mean "the Grantor and the MAC"; (vi) "party" shall mean "either the Grantor or the MAC or both as the context of the Agreement indicates"; and (vii) "terms" shall mean "agreements, conditions, duties, indemnities, provisions, releases, representations, rights, terms and warranties". ARTICLE 3. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS The Grantor agrees to subject the Burdened Properties to the covenants and restrictions set forth below, for the exclusive benefit of the MAC and the Airport: 3.1 Electronic Interference. Grantor shall not engage in or permit any activity upon, in, above or under the Burdened Properties which creates electrical, electronic or other interference with microwave, radar, radio, satellite or any other means of communication or navigation necessary to the Airport, Aircraft, Aircraft Operations or the FAA, including communication between the Airport and Aircraft, between Aircraft, between FAA flight controllers and Aircraft, between FAA facilities, between Aircraft and their ground bases and between military Aircraft and their command centers. Grantor shall not be deemed to have permitted any violation of this Section 3.1 caused by Grantor's licensees, tenants or subtenants, provided Grantor shall promulgate, impose and use reasonable due diligence to enforce rules and regulations for the Burdened Properties reasonably acceptable to the MAC imposing upon such licensees, tenants and subtenants the provisions of this Section 3.1. 3.2 Visual Interference. Grantor shall not engage in or permit any activity upon, in, above or under the Burdened Properties which: (a) makes it difficult for Aircraft operators to distinguish or recognize air navigation lights or other visual aids installed at or around the Airport; (b) causes glare in the eyes of Aircraft operators which interferes with their visual perception or otherwise interferes with their visual perception; (c) impairs visibility by Aircraft operators in the vicinity of the Airport; or (d) otherwise 293398v6 CAB RC145-549 5 UD;l endangers or interferes with Aircraft or Aircraft Operations, including balloons, kites, fireworks, searchlights and other aerial or visual displays. 3.3 Height. Grantor shall not construct or plant, cause or permit to be constructed or planted or permit to remain upon, in, above or under the Burdened Properties any Flora, Structure or any other obstruction of any kind or nature whatsoever, whether temporary or permanent, which extends into the airspace above the elevations on the Burdened Properties legally described in Exhibit E and depicted in Exhibit F. 3.4 Land Use. The Grantor shall not construct, cause or permit to be constructed, or otherwise permit upon, in, above or under the Burdened Properties: (a) any facility, feature, operation or use which might attract or tend to attract large numbers of birds or other flying creatures, either temporarily or permanently, including crops, lakes or ponds; (b) any nesting, roosting or other presence of large numbers of birds or other flying creatures; (c) any facility, feature, operation or use which generates Air Emissions that may interfere with Aircraft and Aircraft Operations; (d) any facility, feature, operation or use which violates applicable zoning or land use controls adopted by the FAA, the MAC, a joint zoning board convened under Minnesota Statutes chapter 360, or the MnDOT and in effect on June 30, 2006; (e) any facility, feature, operation or use which violates zoning or land use controls adopted after June 30, 2006 by the FAA, the MAC, a joint zoning board convened under Minnesota Statutes chapter 360, or the MnDOT which and to the extent such controls impose restrictions set forth in applicable State or federal statutes and regulations in effect on June 30, 2006; or (f) any residential use. The provisions of clauses (d) and (e) will not be deemed to require the Grantor to remove, alter or discontinue any facility, feature, operation or use that was lawful at the time such facility, feature, operation or use was constructed or commenced ("Pre- existing Use") or be deemed as a release of any claim Grantor may have to seek compensation for any required removal, alteration, or discontinuation of such a Pre- existing Use. 3.5 Right To Enforce. Upon the occurrence of a violation of this Article 3, the MAC shall give Grantor written notice of any violation of this Article 3 and Grantor shall have forty-five days (or such longer period as shall be reasonably necessary to abate, correct, remediate and remove such violation, provided Grantor promptly commences such actions and diligently pursues the same to completion) to abate, correct, remediate and remove the violation. If Grantor fails to cure the violation within the specified period, MAC may undertake appropriate legal action to enforce compliance with this Agreement and shall be entitled to recover from the Grantor all attorneys' fees and costs of enforcement, whether or not a legal action is started. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that the MAC or the FAA, in either's sole discretion, determines that a violation of this Article 3 constitutes an immediate hazard 293398v6 CAH RC145-549 6 40/~ to Aircraft or Aircraft Operations, then only such notice or corrective period as is reasonable shall be necessary. 3.6 Exception. Grantor shall not be deemed to have permitted any violation of Article 3 caused by Grantor's business invitees or trespassers (as opposed to Grantor's agents, contractors, employees, licensees, officers, partners, representatives, tenants or subtenants) provided Grantor shall promulgate, impose and use reasonable due diligence to enforce rules and regulations for the Burdened Properties reasonably acceptable to the MAC imposing upon such business invitees the provisions of Article 3. ARTICLE 4. INDEMNITY AND RELEASE 4.1 Indemnity. Grantor shall defend (by counsel selected by Grantor and reasonably acceptable to the MAC), indemnify, and hold harmless the MAC and its agents, contractors, employees, officials and representatives (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties") from and against all Claims to the extent arising out of or resulting from Grantor's failure to comply with or violation of this Agreement after (a) Grantor's receipt of notice from MAC of such failure or violation and (b) expiration of the applicable cure period provided for Grantor to cure such failure or violation pursuant to Section 3.5 above. 4.2 Release. Except as provided in Section 3.4 and Section 4.3 of this Agreement, Grantor hereby expressly releases and forever discharges the Indemnified Parties from any and all liability whatsoever, including any and all Claims, vested or contingent, known or unknown, whether for injuries to persons, damages to property or taking of property, whether in tort, contract or otherwise, which the Grantor, as owner of the Burdened Properties, may now own or hold or has at any time heretofore owned or held or may at any other time own or hold, to the extent arising out of, relating to or resulting from: (a) any Aircraft Impacts; or (b) the violation by Grantor of agreements in Article 3. 4.3 Exceptions. The indemnity and release contained in this Article shall not apply to: (a) Claims to the extent arising out of, relating to or resulting from, the failure of the Indemnified Party(ies) to operate the Airport in compliance with State or FAA regulations or mandatory standards or other federal regulations and applicable laws governing the Aircraft Operations or other Aircraft Impacts; (b) Claims to the extent arising out of, relating to, or resulting from, the reckless, wanton or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Party(ies) with respect to Aircraft Operations or other Aircaft Impacts; or (c) Claims which Grantor may have against any person or entity (including the FAA, the MNDOT, any operators, owners and users of Aircraft, any pilot or other Airport user or other party engaging in any Aircraft Operations, any Aircraft manufacturers or any party or entity for whom any of the foregoing are legally 293398v6 CAH RC145-549 7 LJD/q responsible) other than any of the Indemnified Parties. Claims which are expressly permitted pursuant to this Section 4.3 are specifically reserved and not waived by Grantor. ARTICLE 5 TERMINATION 5.1 Termination If Airport Ceases Operation. In the event the MAC shall cease all airport operations and all Aircraft Operations at the entire Airport for a period in excess of one (1) year, the MAC shall execute and deliver promptly after the expiration of such one (1) year period a recordable release of this Agreement and the terms contained herein with respect to matters occurring or accruing from and after the execution and delivery of such release by the MAC. During such one (1) year period of non-operation, the restrictions in this Agreement shall be deemed to be in abeyance and not enforceable; provided that if the MAC resumes airport operations or Aircraft Operations prior to the expiration of the one (1) year period, the Grantor promptly must bring the Burdened Properties into compliance with this Agreement at Grantor's sole cost and expense. 5.2 No Termination Otherwise; Restrictions Appurtenant. The terms of this Agreement shall touch, concern and be appurtenant to and for the benefit of the Airport and any additions thereto or expansions thereof and shall touch, concern, run with and burden the Burdened Properties, subject only to termination as provided in Section 5.1 of this Agreement. ARTICLE 6. MISCELLANEOUS 6.1 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in separate counterparts and the counterparts, taken together, shall constitute a single agreement. 6.2 Entire AgreemenU Amendment. This Agreement embodies the entire agreement and understanding of the parties regarding the subject matter of this Agreement and all prior agreements, representations, statements, and understandings, oral and written, are hereby merged herein. This Agreement may not be altered, amended, modified or supplemented except in a writing executed by the owner(s) of the Burdened Properties and the owner(s) of the Airport. No term of this Agreement shall be waived unless done so in writing by the party against which such waiver is asserted. 6.3 Notices. All notices, demands, and communications required or provided to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be sufficiently given and shall 293398v6 CAH RC145-549 8 ~D/ID be deemed given when delivered personally or when mailed by first class, certified United States mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: If to Grantor: City of Richfield 6700 Portland A venue So. Richfield, MN 55423 Attn: City Manager with copies to: Target Corporation Property Development Attn: Real Estate - Existing Stores 1000 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55403 Ryan Companies US, Inc. Attn.: Bill McHale 50 South Tenth Street, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55403-2012 Home Depot, Inc. If to MAC: Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th A venue South Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 Attn: Thomas W. Anderson, Esq. General Counsel or to such other party at such other address as such party, by notice given as herein provided, shall designate, provided that no party may require notice to be sent to more than five (5) addresses. 6.4 No Exemption From Applicable Law. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to exempt Grantor from, or limit Grantor's compliance with, applicable law, including applicable law adopted, issued, promulgated or otherwise put in force by the MAC and the FAA. 6.5 No Merger. This Agreement shall not merge, terminate or be affected in any manner by reason of any common ownership of the Airport, the Burdened Properties or any portion of either thereof. 293398v6 CAH RC145-549 9 LiD/II 6.6 No Waiver Of Rights. Grantor agrees that the MAC's rights under this Agreement shall in no way be impaired, reduced or restricted by reason of the MAC's delay or omission in enforcing any term of this Agreement. MAC agrees that the Grantor's rights under this Agreement shall in no way be impaired, reduced or restricted by reason of the Grantor's delay or omission in enforcing any term of this Agreement. 6.7 No Waiver Of Immunities Or Liability Limitations. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed in any manner to be a waiver by the MAC (or, to the extent pursuant to Section 5.1 the Grantor is defending the MAC against a Claim, the Grantor) of the MAC's sovereign immunity or any other immunity or of any limitations on the MAC's liability pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 or otherwise. 6.8 Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement or any application thereof shall be invalid and unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall continue to be effective and to be complied with to the full extent permitted by law. 6.9 Successors And Assigns. This Agreement and all terms hereof shall be perpetual, shall be deemed to be agreements running with the land, and shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the Grantor and the MAC and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. As used herein, the term "MAC" shall mean the MAC for so long as it shall own the Airport and thereafter shall mean the successor(s) in title to the MAC from time to time with respect thereto for so long as such successor(s) shall own the Airport. As used herein, the term "Grantor" shall mean Grantor for so long as it shall own the Burdened Properties and thereafter shall mean the successor(s) in title to the Burdened Properties for so long as such successor(s) shall own the Burdened Properties. In the event portions of the Airport or the Burdened Properties are conveyed to or owned by multiple parties, each such multiple party shall be deemed to be a successor in title to the Airport or the Burdened Properties, as the case may be, and shall be entitled and subject to the terms of this Agreement relating to the portion owned by such successor. 6.10 No Third Party Beneficiaries. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement, no rights, privileges or immunities of either MAC or Grantor under this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of any third-party, nor shall any third-party be deemed to be a beneficiary of any of the provisions contained in this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. 293398v6 CAH RC145-549 10 tf D--J J END OF ARTICLES 293398v6 CAH RC145-549 11 LiD/13 GRANTOR'S SIGNA TURE PAGE CITY OF RICHFIELD By: By: Martin J. Kirsch Its: Mayor Steven L. Devich Its: City Manager 293398v6 CAH RC145-549 12 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 2006, by Martin J. Kirsch and Steven L. Devich, the mayor and city manager, respectively, of the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public 293398v6 CAH RC145-549 13 1D,ld MAC'S SIGNATURE PAGE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2006, by , the of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, a Minnesota public corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 470 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 293398v6 CAH RC145-549 14 /' 4D~/~ 1D /I~ Exhibit A Legal Description Of The Airport The following described properties located in Hennepin County, Minnesota: That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 28, Range 24, lying northerly of Interstate Highway No. 494 and easterly of State Trunk Highway No. 77; That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 28, Range 24, lying easterly of State Trunk Highway No. 77; That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 25, Township 28, Range 24, lying easterly of State Trunk Highway No. 77, except that part platted as "Rich Acres Hennepin County Minn.", according to the recorded plat thereof; That part of "Rich Acres Hennepin County Minn.", according to the recorded plat thereof, lying easterly of State Trunk Highway No. 77; That Part of NEW FORD TOWN, according to the recorded plat thereof, lying easterly of State Trunk Highway No. 77; That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 25, Township 28, Range 24, lying northerly of NEW FORD TOWN, according to the recorded plat thereof, and lying easterly of State Trunk Highway No. 77; That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 28, Range 24, lying easterly of State Trunk Highway No. 77 and southerly of State Trunk Highway No. 62; That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 28, Range 24, lying southerly of State Trunk Highway No. 62, except that part platted as SKALLERUD ADDITION and except Lots 17 through 20, inclusive, Block 4 and Lots 25 through 29, inclusive, Block 5, MORRIS PARK FOURTH ADDITION, according to the recorded plats thereof. That described portion of said Southeast Quarter contains lands platted as MINNEHAHA HEIGHTS, KRIETZ ADDITION, BRAGGS REARRANGEMENT, BLOCK 17, MINNEHAHA HEIGHTS and other unplatted lands; The Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 28, Range 24; The Southeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 28, Range 24; 293398v6 CAH RC145-549 A-I 1b/jl The Northeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 28, Range 24; That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 28, Range 24, lying northerly of Interstate Highway No. 494; That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 31, Township 28, Range 23, lying northerly of Interstate Highway No. 494; The Northwest Quarter ofthe Southwest Quarter of Section 31, Township 28, Range 23; The Southwest Quarter ofthe Northwest Quarter of Section 31, Township 28, Range 23; The Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 31, Township 28, Range 23; The Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 28, Range 23; The Northwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 28, Range 23; That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 19, Township 28, Range 23, lying southerly of State Trunk Highway No. 62. Said part of the Southwest Quarter contains lands platted CUMMINGS HOMESITES, CUMMINGS MANOR and portions of lands platted as CUMMINGS NOKOMIS HOMES and GUY CUMMINGS NOKOMIS PARK, all according to the recorded plats thereof and other unplatted lands; That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 19, Township 28, Range 23, lying southerly of State Trunk Highway No. 62, westerly of 42nd Avenue South and southerly of East 59th Street. Said part of the Southeast Quarter contains lands platted as FORD PARK MANOR and portions of lands platted and MINNEHAHA FALLS FOURTH ADDITION and HIGHVIEW PARK, all according to the recorded plats thereof and other unplatted lands; The Northeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 28, Range 23; The Southeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 28, Range 23; That part of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 31, Township 28 North, Range 23 West, and the West Half of Section 32, Township 28 North, Range 23 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying north of the north right of way line of Interstate Highway No. 494 as conveyed to the State of Minnesota and described in Document No. 3326435, and lying westerly of the westerly right of way line of State Trunk 293398v6 CAH RC145-549 A-2 4 D~/~ Highway No.5, and lying northerly and easterly of the following described Lines A and B: Line A: Commencing at the northwest comer of said Section 32, Township 28 North, Range 23 West; thence South 89 degrees 18 minutes 30 seconds West, assumed bearing, and the north line of Section 31 in said Township 28 North, Range 23 West, a distance of 423.30 feet; thence South 37 degrees 55 minutes 19 seconds West, 776.8 feet, more or less, to the southerly Minneapolis- St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) property line; thence South 59 degrees 08 minutes 20 seconds East along said southerly property line 1515.76 feet; thence South 9 degrees 05 minutes 10 seconds West 139.00 feet; thence South 23 degrees 28 minutes 30 seconds East 991.83 feet; thence South 77 degrees 59 minutes 10 seconds West 700.05 feet; thence South 2 degrees 06 minutes 30 seconds East 574.13 feet; thence North 59 degrees 23 minutes 20 seconds East 346.62 feet; thence North 79 degrees 45 minutes 50 seconds East 256.88 feet; thence South 38 degrees 58 minutes 20 seconds East 257.26 feet; thence North 28 degrees 09 minutes 30 seconds East 235.65 feet; thence South 68 degrees 20 minutes 10 seconds East 289.01 feet; thence South 46 degrees 58 minutes 20 seconds East 274 feet, more or less, to the northwesterly right-of-way line of Minnesota Trunk Highway No.5 and said line there terminating. Line B: Commencing at the northeast comer of said Section 31; thence on an assumed bearing of South 80 degrees 18 minutes 30 seconds West, along the north line of said Northeast Quarter of Section 31, a distance of 1904.30 feet; thence South 59 degrees 08 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 2556.29 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 30 degrees 51 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 106.33 feet; thence North 59 degrees 19 minutes 49 seconds West, a distance 2043.28 feet; thence a distance of 473.17 feet along a tangential curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of 1125.90 feet and a central angle of 24 degrees 04 minutes 45 seconds; thence North 59 degrees 08 minutes 20 seconds West a distance of 53.99 feet and said line there terminating.; The Southwest Quarter of Section 29, Township 28, Range 23; That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 29, Township 28, Range 23, lying southerly of the lands owned by the United States Government and southwesterly of Fort Snelling State Park; 293398v6 CAH RC145-549 A-3 That part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 29, Township 28, Range 23, lying southwesterly of Fort Snelling State Park; That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 29, Township 28, Range 23, lying southwesterly of Fort Snelling State Park and westerly and northwesterly of the northwesterly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No.5; That part of the East Half of Section 32, Township 28, Range 23, lying westerly of the westerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No.5. 293398v6 CAH RC145-549 A-4 ~D/lq 1 D-)v Exhibit B Drawing Of The Airport 293398v6 CAH RC145-549 B-1 Exhibit C Legal Description Of The Burdened Properties Lot 4 and the South 71 feet of Lot 5, Block 1; Lots 1,2,3,4,5, and 6, Block 2; and Lots 1,2 and 3, Block 3; all in IVERSON'S THIRD ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota 293398v6 CAH RC145-549 C-l 4'0;)/ 293398v6 CAH RC145-549 q O/J} Exhibit D Drawing Of The Burdened Properties D-l 1,} D' J3 Exhibit E Legal Description Of The Height Limits NEED TO UPDATE THESE DESCRIPTIONS FOR THESE PROPERTIES HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA LEGAL DESCRIPTION All those parts of the Burdened Properties as described on Exhibit C which lie above a plane having an elevation of feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 1929 Adjustment. TRANSITIONAL SURFACE AREA LEGAL DESCRIPTION All those parts of the Burdened Properties which lie of LINE A as described below and which lie of LINE B as described below and its extensions: Said LINE A being described as follows: [insert legal] Said LINE B being described as follows: [insert legal] And which lie above an inclined plane that slopes down with a slope of _ to 1 (one foot of elevation for each feet of horizontal distance). Said inclined plane begins at said LINE A at an elevation feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 1929 Adjustment, and slopes down in an direction to an intersection with a vertical plane drawn through said LINE B and its extensions and said inclined plane there terminates. 293398v6 CAH RC145-549 E-l 4P)~ Exhibit F Drawing Of The Height Limits 293398v6 CAH RC145-549 F-l . 63rd Street . . Cedar Point Project Area I 6401 6409 Q) " 6415 :::l " Q) c I :::l Q) I-- c 6421 6420 ~ Q) ~ 6427 ..... 6426 co . ..c "C +-' 6433 Q) " 6432 () T"" 6439 6438 6445 6444 I 6500 6500 6501 6508 6509 6508 6514 6515 6514 6521 6520 6520 6526 6527 6526 , --, Legend - -I " I Corridor Out me -- MN DEED Grant ~. FAA / MAC Grant MAC Grant .. (Property needed to accomodate TH 77/66th 81. project) .- I . I 66th Street I .. .. Hennepin County Grant (MJP Funds) .. City of Richfield Funding (for roundabout intersection) c::::J Purchased Properties r--1 Property to be purchased L-..J by Ryan Companies N A Created: Febru'ary 9, 2006 - o 55 110 220 Lj J:)- ;) c; 330 440 Feet AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # CONSENT 4E 155 ....... STAFF REpORT RICPlFIEtD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 25, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: BARRY FRITZ, POLICE CAPTAIN NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the purchase and installation of carpet in the Public Safety area of City Hall. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the purchase and installation of carpet in the Public Safet area of Cit Hall b Commercial Floorin Services. I II. BACKGROUND I The carpet in the Public Safety area of City Hall is past its useful life expectancy. It is soiled beyond cleaning, is very worn with obvious tears and has had sections replaced several times since its original installation in 1996. Over the past years, the carpet has been soaked with water due to the leaking roof that has a tendency to create an environment for mold. Therefore, it is generally an accepted practice to replace carpet that has been flooded. However, until the roof repairs were made in 2005, replacement was postponed. 0725 Carpet Purchase Approval for Public Safety I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I The carpet is in dire need of replacement and' may be unhealthy in its current state. The roof repairs have been made, and there are funds available for the replacement. I A. POLICY I · The City Council makes the determination of whether the funds should be spent to replace carpet since a new City Hall is proposed to be constructed in the future. lB. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The carpet is long overdue now, and due to having been soaked on several occasions, may be a health issue because of mold. It may be three to four years before a new City Hall is completed. I C. FINANCIAL I · Two estimates were obtained for the work. Mars Carpet Sales submitted an estimate of $28,201.45, and Commercial Flooring Services submitted an estimate of $25,429.00. . The carpet will be paid for with money in the Building Maintenance Fund. I D. LEGAL . None I IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Council could direct staff to obtain additional estimates. . Council may chose to take no action at this time. I V. ATTACHMENTS I . Estimates from Mars Carpet Sales and Commercial Flooring Services. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None \ uo/~o/~vvo LU;~L rftA " ?11~ ~OUI/OU~ , ,/ I 'r: - '/ CARPET SALES 9201 Penn Avenue South, Suite 28 ' Bloomington. MN 55431 Phone (952) 884-0058 Fax (952) 884-"1665 Bid Number: 17029 Original Bid Date: 06/2712006 Revision Numoor: N/A RevIsion Bid Date: Billing Information: Billing Name: Richfield, City of Address: 6700 Portland ,o.ver,ue South Richfield, MN 55423- Contact: Dave Conrads Phone: (612)861-9180 Pager: Page i of2 GENERAL ESTIMATE Job Site Information: Job Site Name: Richfield, City of Address: 6700 Portland Avenue SOuth Richfield, MN 55423- Contact: Dave Conrads Phone: (612) B61.9180 Pager: Fax: (612) 861-9181 Cell: (612) 221-6157 Unit Quantity Type Description PUBLIC SAFETY RECEPTION AREA, CORRIDOR IN PUBLIC SAFETY, CORRIDOR AND INSPECTIONS AREA SASE BID CARPET AREA WITH FURNITURE BEING LIFTED TO ACCOMMODATE THE CAPRET INSTALLATION Carpet tile Shaw style Connect color to be selected Cui and lift paste direct installation around existing furniture systems Furnish and instal/4" vinyl base Transition and/or seam to existing carpet Floor preparation Take up old carpet and/or pad Haul away old. disposal and/or recycle Removalllnd diaposal of existing base Olf hours or overtime labor Jack and lift customers furniture and/or modular stations and provide boxes with labels. Customer must box up and label each workstation andlor office, Cusldmer must also disconnect and reconnect all computers. 440 Sq. Yd(s) 440 Sq, Yd(s) 740 Lin, Ft 440 Sq, Vd(s) 440 Sq, Yd(s} 740 Lin. Ft. 44C 440 740 440 440 740 Sq. Yd(s) Sq. Yd(s) Un, Ft. Unit Price Fax: (612) 861.9181 Cell: (612) 221-6157 Extension Total Material Total Labor 22,25 9790.00 9790,00 8.50 3740.00 3;4000 1.75 1295.00 1295,00 90,00 90.00 90.00 325,00 325.00 325.00 3.85 1694.00 1694.00 1.45 638.00 638.00 0.40 296.00 296.00 2675,00 2675,00 2675.00 6150.00 6150.00 6150.00 22,25 5.75 1.75 90.00 225,00 2.85 1.20 0.40 2075,00 9750.00 Al TERNATE #2 FOR PRIVATE OFFICE Alternate # 1 Total: Base Price Total; $26,693,00 .. .........-..~,.........~ ... .. ...... h..- ...".......... .......... ... ....-...... . . . ... .".,.... ...'...... .., ::::.~':.~~~:~.:~'~:,~'~:.::.~~:~~ .::..'.~::.:.:.~:::;:~.::~.~~;.~:=::::..:;~=~':.:~:~:::~:'~,~~~:~~~:'~~~~~~~~~;~~:~:~..~::.::.;=::~:::~~~.~:~:~:;~:::;::~~~::.:::~:~~.:,:.:.~~::..:;:~~~'~~~.:~.:~ ~~::;:~;~;:.:..::;:'~:.:~.:.~::::.::.~;:;,;.:::1.'.~.:\:::.:::.:.:.~~::;",. _,.~ .""M.' ..:\:.:::,::'~; :'~";:' '-.'.:,'"M.:.:::'.;';.;::'.::~':' '~':"\~"~":: "\".'\:~-~'::' :;:;.: "~;": ::.: ALTERNATE #t SID CARPET AREA WITH --.,.'" '" ,.""". FUNiTURE TEARDOWN Sq. Yd(s) Carpet tile Shaw style Connect color to be selected Sq, Yd(s) Paste direct Insrallatlon Lln. Ft. Furnish and in51a114" vinyl base Transition and/or seam to existing carpet Floor preparation Take up old carpet anj/or pad Haul away old, di5posaland/or recycle Removal and disposal of existing bese Off hours or overtime labor Move cLlstomer's furniture and/or modular stations and provide boxes with labels. Customer must box up and label each workstation and/or office, Customer must also disconnect and reconnect ail voice and data connections to accommodate move. ,-1/ /) (). /~?O /. 00 rt./ . Ie 1..1 ~ r 9790,00 2530.00 1295.00 90.00 225.00 1254,00 528.00 296,00 2075.00 9750.00 9790,00 2530,00 1295,00 90,00 225,00 12S4.0Q 528,00 296,00 2075,00 9750,00 " $27,833,00 VOl 1:0/ i::UVtl J.U: 41. .I'M . 27 Sq. Yd{s) 27 Sq. Yd(s) 54 Lin. Ft. 27 Sq. YO(s) 27 Sq. Yo(s) 54 Un. FI. Carpet tile Shaw style Connect color to be selected Paste direct installation Furnish and install 4" vinyl base Transition and/or seam to existing carpet Floor preparation Take up old carpet and/or pad Haul away old, disposal and/or recycle Removal and disposal of existing base Move customer's furniture and/or modular slations and provide box&$ with labels. Customer must box up and label each workstation andlor office. Customer must also disconnect and reconnect all voice and data connections to accommodate move. Off hours or overtime labor ~UUi:lUUZ t6'.-~ 22.25 600.75 600.75 5.75 155.25 155.25 1.75 94.50 94.50 12.00 12.00 12.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 2.85 76.95 76.95 1.20 32.40 32.40 0.40 21.60 21.60 295.00 295.00 295.00 175.00 175.00 17500 ... n.............. _..._~--_._.- Alternate # 2 Total: The above figures reprasent blue print measurements, and the parties recognize that an inspection of the premises where installation is to be made is desirable to customer and to MARS CARPET SALES. Therefore, customer agrees to let a representative of MARS CARPET SALES remeasure premises, prior to fimn commitment of materia.1. $1,508.45 --- .,'....:... '''':.' .':;,"''''' 'I...":'.~'\~ :..~:.~~:..: :\-:\'.t,.w..;:.~",..;~....:'::.:::"""::': :;;..:::....~..:t::::".t:..:,..':...~"'.~..: ~:t.::..:::..\~.~t:.. ..~..:::\:.;::..w.'.r:;.......:::r;.....~"...,,.,..~..::.-...-.:.:;:,.,..t .;.\..\...,;.:.....;:'.\.,..".....~.t..,....,..,,:,...:'.-:..;-.\':..~:-":;.,:,r.'" ':':::;:;',': .....;;.. .:..:..~...."': t.. _ ;1'., ....'."",. _. ."....".:":".....\......,..,'" \':,.... n' ....' . ......., ~.. ., .,.,.... .... _'..1....... ...._,_.".........,..~.___..~,_..,.. ~,~..",.....:.'. ..........H._._._ _,._A_.'..'._ "'_'~"'_"." 'M'...'. ...._~.."..,.._._.,..., .........., ._'_" .~,,,,,,,"'_'n""'h"_ ,'_.' ....._......'n.... .._1._'..,__,. ................. .,...._ ............... _.. , ..."..,..... ..,._,.., _. ,. .. VO/Vi/t;.',JVO I;J.':>>" rM:^ OOIOQlloJQ;J vUmMCn~!~~ ~~UUn!NU ~C~V <CfS> Commercial FloorinE Servloes 940 Apollo Road Suite 110 Eagan, MN 55121 Tel. (651) 681-8100 Fax (651) 681.1385 TO: Dan Coaradll DATE: June 1, 2001 COMPANY: City of Richfield "'(8(,/9/ 8J . OF PAaE8: 1 FROM: BrJaa. Kyllonen (651.256-4)210) PROJECT: Replace carpet ill varioUJ Pollee Departmeat Area8 SECTlON(S): Carpet 09680 and Rcsilie.t 09650 BASE BID: Ofllces and Jail Hallway A.....: $S,108.00 ALT 1: Sel'leaDts' 0IJ'Iee: $833.00 ALT 2: R8ctption Ana; $1,713.00 ALT 3: Detectiv.' and Admin Areas: $17,17$.00 INCLUDED: ManoiDgtoD Artworks Carpet Tn.e. ...d Johnl!lOoite VUlyt Rue. hrniture lift ad move iI iIIduded ia tile Detective and Admin areas. Minor floor preparatioa II included. Ute tax is lac:laded. EXCLUDED; )&jor floor preparation, fJoatiD2, levelinl or repair are not ineIDded. Cu.tomer will move fD:miture in ReceptioJl au. Sergeants' oftke anas. NOI'ES: Customer will pmvide Ioeation to lIt8ge and store mBteriak. Work wiJI he performed durlnl evealDa houn. ESTIMATOR SIGNATUREr -mP1 L- ,1 ~5 '-121.00 / ~VVi/Vl)1 1t-j ;. AGENDA SECTION: PURT,Tr. HF.ARTNG~ AGENDA ITEM # 6 REpORT # 1')6 STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 25, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: MELISSA POEHLMAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: E( REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: GY ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing regarding a request for a conditional use permit for the existing Centennial Elementa School and a tem ora accesso buildin for teacher workspace. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve the resolution authorizing the conditional use permit for the existing Centennial Elementary School and a temporary accessory building for teacher works ace at 7315 Bloomin ton Avenue. I II. BACKGROUND I Centennial Elementary School was originally constructed in 1958. At that time, the City Code required schools to obtain a special use permit (SUP) to operate in residential districts. The SUP was the predecessor to today's conditional use permit (CUP). Despite this requirement, it appears that many ofthe City's schools were built without an SUP. Normally, the District would be applying for an amendment to a CUP to request a temporary structure; however, there is no conditional or special use permit in place to amend. Instead, the school is applying for a CUP to continue operations that 072506 - CUP 7315 Bloomington (Centennial Elementary) have been ongoing since 1958 and to install a temporary building for one school year. Centennial Elementary is facing the possibility of over-crowding for the 2006-2007 school year. For subsequent years, school boundaries have been redrawn and some students will be shifted to Sheridan. For this school year, the School Board gave parents the option of sending their child to either facility. School registration remains open until mid-August, and in anticipation of potential over-crowding at Centennial, the School District is asking permission to temporarily install a portable building for teacher workspace. This building would only be installed if enrollment exceeds school capacity. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I Public elementary schools are a conditional use in the R District. The findings necessary to issue a CUP (546.05, subd.6) are as follows: a) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This requirement is met. The property is designated as "Quasi-Public", which is consistent with a school facility. b) The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans orurban design guidelines. This requirement does not apply. There are no official redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines applicable to this site. c) The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code. This requirement is met. At the time of building construction, no specific parking standards for schools existed. Today's standards require 1 parking stall per employee (on peak shift) plus 8 stalls for visitors. The maximum number of employees on site at one time is 50. The site has 64 parking stalls, and the City has no record of complaints regarding parking in the area. d) The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements. This requirement is met. e) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare. This requirement is met. f) There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. This requirement is met. g) The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. See below. Public elementary schools are a conditional use in the R District, as specified in section 521.07, Subdivision 11 of the zoning code. This section of the zoning code specifies four requirements for a CUP to be issued for a public elementary school, as follows: a) Pick-up and drop-off area shall be desiQned to enhance vehicular and pedestrian safety. This requirement is met. Signed pick-up and drop-off areas are located on both the north and west sides of the building. Loading activities also occur along the south side of the building. The accessory building will be located so as to not interfere with these activities. b) Outdoor recreation facilities desiqned for qroup activities shall be set back at least 40 feet from any lot line. This requirement is not met. The baseball field is located approximately 20 feet from the property line and the playground approximately 25 feet. These facilities are existing and their locations are not proposed to change. c) Bufferino shall be provided to mitiqate noise and adverse visual impacts on adjacent properties. This requirement is not met. While the ball field is separated from the adjacent properties by existing mature landscaping, the playground area is not. As mentioned above, these facilities are existing and no changes are proposed for this area. d) Liohted playino fields shall be permitted only upon demonstration that off-site impacts can be substantially mitiqated. This requirement does not apply. The ball fields do not have lights. While the school does not meet all of the current criteria, none of these conditions were in place in 1958 when the school was constructed. Accessory buildings are allowed in the R District; however, this type of accessory structure is not described by the Code. The largest type of accessory structure allowed in the R District is a carport, which can be up to 1,200 square feet in floor area. The proposed temporary accessory building is 1,152 square feet in floor area, approximately 50 square feet under the maximum. Section 521.05 Subd. 19 of the Code states that "other uses customarily associated with, but incidental to the principal use," are allowed with the permission of the Council. An elevation drawing or photo of this structure has not been provided as of this writing. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I · The site has been used as a school for nearly 50 years . The City is not aware of any complaints from the neighborhood regarding the school. · The portable accessory building requested would be located along the south side of the building and will be as far away from neighboring residential properties as possible. · The location of the portable building is compatible with pick-up and drop-off locations of students. · The building will be located on a portion of the blacktop area currently used for playground space. · The portable accessory building will look like a modular home, with vinyl siding and windows. · The portable building will only be in place during the 2006-2007 school year. I C. FINANCIAL I.. The required fee for a CUP has been paid. I D. LEGAL I · 60-DA Y RULE: 60 day clock 'started' when complete application was received on July 13, 2006. A decision must be given to the applicant by September 11, 2006, OR the Council must notify the applicant that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120 days total) for issuing a decision. · Notice of this public hearing was provided in accordance with City and State regulations. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Approve the conditional use permit with revisions. · Deny approval of the conditional use permit. I V. ATTACHMENTS . Resolution . Aerial with proposed structure · Area zoning & land use maps I VI. PRlNCIP AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Russ George, Richfield Public Schools RESOLUTION NO. jp/I RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE EXISTING CENTENNIAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND A TEMPORARY ACCESSORY BUILDING FOR TEACHER WORKSPACE AT 7315 BLOOMINGTON AVENUE WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests a conditional use permit for an existing public school and a temporary accessory building on land generally located at 7315 Bloomington Avenue, legally described as: The East 2/3 of the West % of the Southwest ~ of the Southeast ~ of the Northeast ~ and that part of the West ~ of the Southwest ~ of the Southeast ~ of the Northeast ~ lying North of the South 270.00 feet thereof, Section 35, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield has recommended approval of this requested conditional use permit at 7315 Bloomington Avenue at its July 24,2006 meeting; and WHEREAS, this requested conditional use permit at 7315 Bloomington Avenue meets those requirements necessary for issuing a conditional use permit as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, section 546.05, subd.6; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the conditional use permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A conditional use permit is issued for the existing school and a temporary accessory building for teacher workspace, as described in Staff Report No. , on the Subject Property legally described above. 2. This conditional use permit at 7315 Bloomington Avenue is subject to the following conditions: · That the recipient of this conditional use permit record this resolution with the County, pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462.36, Subdivision 1 and Richfield Zoning Code 546.05, Subdivision 7. · That the portable accessory building only be installed if necessary based on student enrollment. · That the portable accessory building be removed within 30 days of the close of the 2007 school year. . 3. The conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 546.05, Subd. 9. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of July, 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City'Clerk ~-) Centennial Elementary School 7315 Bloomington Avenue S 2004 Aerial with Proposed Structures o 70 140 280 420 560 - - Feet ~-3 CUP REQUEST FOR 7315 BLOOMINGTON AVENUE SOUTH - 2006 LAND USES OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET / u.i . > ~ R~ ~ RES RES W RES RES- RE~ VRES Z ~ ........ ~ES 0 RES RES RES RES J: .-\u1 IRES t- J: t- RES\ RES C) RES RES l- RES RES ,.... ~ Z CD .... IRES i - RE~ . RES RES RES RES RES RES . J: 0 .. RES '?,~ a ~RES ..... RES RES 0 RES RES RES ~ \ RES &I) ..J ...., RES RES m 73RD ST. ~ RES RES . RES RES RES . ~ RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES 7315 CENTENNIAL RES RES ELEMENTARY RES RES RES RES RES SCHOOL RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES \ RES RES RES RES RES \RES RES RES RES RES RES '\ 74TH ST. I . : RES RES RES RES RES RES . RES RES . . ~ES RES RES RES RES RES/ -- RES RES RES RES REo/ . RE~ . ~ES . RES RES RES RES V .......... . RES ~S RES RES RE.s-- --- LAND USE SYMBOLS RES = SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 100 0 1""'0.0.....- 100 200 300 400 500 600 Feet , Ugis/com dev/stafflbill/projectsI7315 bloom 350'r.apr u.i ~ J: t- CIO .... ~ N 7-17-06 &--1 CUP REQUEST FOR 7315 BLOOMINGTON AVENUE SOUTH - 2006 ZONING OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET / u.i . > ~ ~ "'""'" R R W R R- R/ /R Z ~ ......... "'R ~ R R R R :x: ~ /R J: I- ~ R C> R R I- R R ..... Z (0 "I"" /R "I"" . <( R :IE ~ . R R R R R . :x: 0 .. . I- R R 0 R'5 (5l I)l"'R 1\ . 10 ..J R R R ~ R . "1""" R R to 73RD ST. ~ . R R R R R . . . R R R R ~ R R R R R R . ~ R R R R C R R R 7315 R R R R R R R R R R R R R R ~ R R R R R R 1\ R R R R R \R R R R R R '\ 74TH ST. I . I R R R R R . : R R R . . .. \R R R R R R/ -..-.. R R R R 0/ . ~ . . /R . R R R R . "- __R R B-- ~ . . R R - c-m- ZONING SYMBOLS R = SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet 1""0......- , ilgis/com dev/stafflbill/projects17315 bloom 350'r.apr u.i ~ :x: I- CO "I"" ~ N 7-17-06 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 157 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 25, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: MELISSA POEHLMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ .~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing regarding a request for a conditional use permit to allow Augsburg Park Montessori School Ltd. to operate as an accessory use at 7121 Bloomington Avenue (Bethany Covenant Church . I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the resolution authorizing a conditional use permit to allow a Montessori school to operate as an accesso use at 7121 Bloomin ton Avenue. I II. BACKGROUND I The Augsburg Park Montessori School has operated out of a personal residence at 209 West 72nd Street for the past two years. Licensed day care facilities serving 12 or fewer persons are permitted as accessory uses in the Single-Family Residential District. The school is looking to expand the number of children it serves to 25, and is proposing to operate as an accessory use within Bethany Covenant Church (also zoned Single-Family Residential), located at 7121 Bloomington Avenue. On April 2, 2006 the congregation of Bethany Covenant Church approved a motion to allow Augsburg Park Montessori School to operate within the Church. The school will utilize the existing Sunday school classroom for Monday - Friday classes 072506 - 7121 Bloomington CUP during the school year. The hours of operation will be between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. No changes are proposed for the design of the property. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I Day care facilities serving more than 12 persons are a conditional use in the R District. The findings necessary to issue a conditional use permit (CUP) (546.05, subd.6) are as follows: a) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This requirement is met. The property is designated as "Quasi-Public", which is consistent with a church and school facility. b) Theproposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines. This requirement does not apply, as there are no official redevelopment plans for this site. c) The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code. This requirement is met. The site is already in compliance with the performance standards section of the code. d) The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements. This requirement is met. e) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare. This requirement is met. f) There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. This requirement is met. The Augsburg Park Montessori School currently operates successfully in the City. g) The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. This requirement is met, as explained below. Day care facilities serving more than 12 persons are conditional uses in the R District, as specified in Section 521.07, Subdivision 2 of the zoning code. This section of the zoning code specifies four requirements for a conditional use permit (CUP) to be issued for a day care facility serv_ing more than 12 persons, as follows: a) The day care shall abut a collector or arterial street if it is NOT an accessory use. This requirement does not apply. The proposal is an accessory use. b) ParkinQ lot and screeninQ requirements shall be met. This requirement is met. c) DesiQnated pick-up and drop-off areas shall be located on the site. This requirement is met. Pick-up and drop-off shall take place at the northeast entrance. d) Outdoor play areas shall be set back at least 15 feet from any lot line which abuts a residential parcel. This requirement does not apply. No outdoor play area is proposed. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I · The site has been in use as a church for nearly 50 years. · The Council approved a building addition and new off-street parking permit in 1964. · Montessori schools are licensed as child care facilities. · As in the past, the requirements applied in this case are those related to day care facilities. · Augsburg Park Montessori School Ltd. has been operating in compliance with all City requirements for over two years. · Peak parking demands for the church and school will not overlap. The day care center requires only five parking stalls. The City has no record of parking complaints regarding the church. I C. FINANCIAL I · The required CUP application fee has been paid. I D. LEGAL Zoning: Land Use: Comprehensive Plan: Notification: Other Actions: Planning Commission: HRA: Hearing Examiner: I R - Single-family Residential Current: Church Proposed: Church with accessory day care Quasi-public Neighbors and property-owners within 350 feet Scheduled for review July 24, 2006. N/A N/A. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I · Deny the proposed conditional use permit to allow operation of a Montessori school within Bethany Covenant Church, located at 7121 Bloomington Avenue South. I V. ATTACHMENTS . Resolution . Site plan · Area zoning & land use maps I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I · Ms. Sinead Carolan, Augsburg Park Montessori School 1/1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A MONTESSORI SCHOOL TO OPERATE AS AN ACCESSORY USE AT 7121 BLOOMINGTON AVENUE WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests a conditional use permit for the operation of an accessory Montessori school on land generally located at 7121 Bloomington Avenue, legally described as: Lots 4-7, Block 8, Engberg-Walden 2nd Addition and Lot 1, Block 4, John Engberg's 2nd Addition. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield has recommended approval of this requested conditional use permit at 7121 Bloomington Avenue at its July 24,2006 meeting, and WHEREAS, this requested conditional use permit at 7121 Bloomington Avenue meets those requirements necessary for issuing a conditional use permit as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, section 546.05, subd.6; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the conditional use permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A conditional use permit is issued for an accessory Montessori school for up to 25 children, as described in Staff Report No. , on the Subject Property legally described above. 2. This conditional use permit at 7121 Bloomington Avenue is subject to the following conditions in addition to those specified in Section 521.07 Subdivision 2 of the City's Zoning Ordinance: · That the recipient of this conditional use permit record this resolution with the County, pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462.36, Subdivision 1 and Richfield Zoning Code 546.05, Subdivision 7. 3. The conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 546.05, Subd. 9. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of July, 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk . z o f- '" Z - ~ o o ~ en . r-~" L 9 r-' d (f) i I. I' #.1 ' I I Ii 20..... 2 5 ..i:"gq ! i, 1.:. ,/ / ~V / .~ /' ~O ",.~~ . / ". )t, i . lJ.i > <( i 'j' I. 't j ~ ~-1 -, r- !-' f ;. ., ~':;,.':"~~~.,_...:'4:~";'~_ ! 1 Q:l * [' ; , I. II I- I 1'1 t'J , il ! 11 ! ,I 'j H '~ \Jj / 28 / SCALE ,I': 50' "$ARR i!~ '~tJ~ B / :/ ." ,.~ :/ / //~/ APPUCA T ION FUR OO~Cj!.l 8U H.O I NG PER un <~'-,- OiNE;R A~ AQoAE$St f.lrTHANV C.vrNi.N1i,.fI l(t1'.!,.a~.8I:RI~t~()tH LOu 4,~? 6& '7~~~f~ E~4~n~~1-~E" , 2t~O~Ilj)lt'~A!'tll~~rf Ii' BLOCK 4. <l9HN ~NQ~~~f~ 2~o ~Qil.tj~ti~ 71tH ~Ol>,.i~9f'8 ^ Vf!NUE . ' . '.", " > ':ir' OA t~Of:' ~PPl,.'C" TIQ" . 00 U~ ...tet ibM. NO. PARKING S~GESi, ~ft;')If;4 ~ NO rEa 0 III G tNAt. On'-STtl(tt PI,RK I {'4Q AP~QVEO $V v Il.lA ~%~~j" a/ttJ/56 NEVER CA~ETED. 7.0 7121 BLOOMINGTON AVENUE - 2006 CUP ZONING OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET 70TH ST. z f2 CI R Z :e R 0 R 0 ....I R R m R 71 ST ST. R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R III R R R ;c R :E: t: R .... R R R ZONING SYMBOLS R = SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MR-1 = TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL D. N n..JLJ o 75 150 I 300 I I Feet 450 600 6-29-06 i/gis/com dev/stafflbill/projects17121 bloomington 350'r.mxd 7- 7121 BLOOMINGTON AVENUE - 2006 CUP LAND USES OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET 70TH ST. ~ RES LAND USE SYMBOLS RES = SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DDLX = TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IlJL.J o 70 140 I 280 I I Feet 420 560 6-29-06 i1gis/com dev/staff/bill/projects/7121 bloomington 350'r.mxd ~ N AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARING ~ D~ ........ STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 25,2006 REpORT PREPARED By: VANESSA HAIGHT, CD ASSISTANT COORDINATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: IEr REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and consideration of an appeal to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals regarding the denial of a variance to allow: a one-foot setback requirement to zero feet for concrete sidewalk and steps, reduction of the three-foot setback requirement to one foot for an existing shed, and an increase in the allowable height of a fence on a residential property from six feet to nine and one-half feet. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Adopt a resolution denying the appeal from the decision of the Hearing Examiner and affirming the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny a variance for the sidewalk, steps, shed, and fence at 6425 Oliver Avenue. I II. BACKGROUND I After receiving multiple citizen complaints regarding zoning code violations at this property, the City filed a complaint against Kristin Ann Brown at 6425 Oliver Avenue on August 26th, 2005. The complaint states that the defendant allowed a sidewalk and an accessory building to be constructed on her property with inadequate 072506 VarianceAppeaL 64250liver setbacks, and allowed a fence to be built to a height prohibited by Richfield Zoning Code. Building Official Rick Regnier inspected the property and observed the zoning code violations. Letters requesting compliance were sent to Ms. Brown and/or her attorney on October 26, 2004; June 23,2005; July 19,2005; and August 26, 2005. The applicant submitted four surveys with the variance application. Staff referred to the most recent survey completed for Ms. Brown's attorney by Harry S. Johnson & Co. and certified on March 2, 2006 (see attached). The survey shows the sidewalk and steps encroaching on the side interior property line by approximately one-half foot and a shed located one foot from the side interior property line. On May 26, 2006, Building Official Rick Regnier, Zoning Administrator Melissa Poehlman, and Community Development Assistant Coordinator Vanessa Haight visited the property to again confirm the height of the fence. At its tallest, the fence measured 9 feet 6' inches tall on both the south and north sides of the fence (see attached photos). Per Zoning Code, the entire fence must be no more than six feet tall. ' Ms. Brown applied for a variance in April 2006. The Hearing Examiner heard the case on June 20, 2006 (see attached Minutes). Mr. Daniel Rasmus of Christensen, Laue & Rasmus, P.A. represents the applicant. The two adjacent neighbors presented written statements at the hearing (see attached). The Hearing Examiner denied the request for the variance because it did not meet the City and State statues for granting a variance. The applicant was notified that she could petition the Board of Adjustment and Appeals (City Council) to have the decision reheard by the Board if she did not agree with the decision. Mr. Rasmus sent a letter requesting an appeal on behalf of the applicant. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDA nON I I A. POLICY I . Section 546.03, Subdivision 4 of City Code states that "The Board (of Adjustment and Appeals) shall have the following powers: o a) to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the Director in the interpretation or enforcement of this code; o b) to hear and decide variances...; o c) to hear and decide appeals of any decision made final by the Planning Commission or by a Hearing Examiner." . The current Zoning Code regulates setback requirements and the height of fences. Within the R District, sidewalks must be set back no less than one foot from any lot line abutting another parcel, unless it is a requirement for a shared access agreement or upon finding of a necessity and public convenience (Section 521.05, Subd.2). Storage sheds must be set back three feet from the side interior property line (Section 521.11, Subd. 9). Fences must be no more than six feet tall in the R District (Section 511.23, Subd. 3). I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The Community Development and Public Safety Departments are concerned that if the variance is approved, a precedent will be set for the City to allow setbacks to be determined based on an assumed property line rather than a certified survey. . There are four requirements by State Statue 462.357 that an applicant must meet in order for the variance to be approved. The applicant must meet all four of the following criteria: o Undue hardship, which denies the applicant reasonable use of their property. o A unique circumstance related to the property. o No adverse impacts on the neighborhood. o The request is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the undue hardship. . Staff believes the application does not meet the four criteria for granting a variance. . Documentation indicates the position neighbors have taken on this matter. There may be additional neighbor input at the City Council meeting. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL I . City Code Section 546.03 regulates how the Board of Adjustments and Appeals hears and considers appeals. Subdivision 7 states, "The Board shall make a decision regarding any matter before it by adopting findings within 60 days of submission of a written appeal, unless written notice of an extension is provided to the applicant." . The written appeal was submitted on July 3, 2006. A decision must be made no later than September 1, 2006. . Public Notice for this hearing was published in the Sun Current on July 13, 2006 in compliance with the requirements of Section 546.03, Subdivision 3. . The city attorney will be available at the Council meeting. . The attached resolution, if adopted by the Board (City Council), would deny the appeal of the applicant and require the sidewalk, steps, shed and fence be brought into conformance with City regulations. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Reject the motion and find that the sidewalk, steps, shed and fence meet City requirements. I V. ATTACHMENTS I . Board of Adjustments and Appeals Resolution . Photo of fence . Copy of staff report for Hearing Examiner (including surveys submitted) . Copy of decision letter from Hearing Examiner . Map showing neighboring households and their indicated position . Statements presented at 6/20/06 Hearing Examiner meeting . Minutes from 6/20/06 Hearing Examiner meeting . City Code Sections: o 521.05 Subd. 11 - Setback requirement for sidewalks o 521.11 Subd.9 - Setback requirements for residential accessory buildings in the R district o 511.23 Subd. 2 - Height requirement for fences I VI. PRINCIPALPARTIEsExPECTEDATMEETING I . Ms. Kristin Ann Brown, applicant . Mr. Daniel Rasmus, applicant's attorney 5*') RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER AND AFFIRMING THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE FOR THE STEPS, SIDEWALKS, SHED AND FENCE AT 6425 OLIVER AVENUE Be it resolved by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: I. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals hereby makes the following findings of fact: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The City of Richfield (the "City") regulates, by ordinance, the setback requirements of sidewalks, steps, storage sheds, and the height requirement of fences. 2. The primary source of such regulations is contained in Appendix B of the Richfield City Code, which is also known as the Richfield Zoning Code. 3. On or about April 26th, 2006 the City received an application from Daniel Rasmus, attorney for Kristin Ann Brown (the "Applicant"), 6425 Oliver Avenue, requesting a variance to allow reduction of the one-foot setback requirement to zero feet for concrete sidewalk and steps, reduction of the three-foot setback requirement to one foot for an existing shed, and an increase in the allowable height of a fence on ~ residential property from six feet to nine and one-half feet. 4. The property at 6425 Oliver Avenue is located in the Single Family Residential (R) zoning district. 5. Subsection 521.05, Subdivision 2 of the Richfield Zoning Code requires sidewalks to be set back no less than one foot from any lot line abutting another parcel. 6. Subsection 521.11, Subdivision 9 of the Richfield Zoning Code requires storage sheds to be set back at least three feet from the side interior property line. 7. Subsection 521.23, Subdivision 2 of the Richfield Zoning Code requires fences to be no more than six feet tall in the R District. 8. On June 20, 2006 the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the variance request. 9. On or about June 22, 2006, the Hearing Examiner published a written decision denying the variance request. 10. On or about July 3, 2006, the City received a written request (the "Appeal") to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals (the "Board") to consider an appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner. 11. The appeal came before the Board for review and action on July 25, 2006. The Board conducted a public hearing, at which the Applicant was provided the opportunity to testify. II. The Board hereby makes the following conclusions: CONCLUSIONS 1. The Applicant has not shown that compliance with the provisions of Zoning Code Subsection 521.05, Subdivision 2; Subsection 521.11, Subdivision 9; or Subsection J' -' :}- 521.23, Subdivision 2 will result in an undue hardship that denies the Applicant the reasonable use of the property. Privacy and economic considerations do not qualify as an undue hardship. Steps, sidewalks, sheds and fences are permitted accessory uses. The applicant's property can be put to reasonable use and can include all these components while meeting City requirements. 2. The Applicant has not demonstrated that any unusual or unique circumstances apply to the property that does not apply to other properties generally. 3. The variance, if granted, would alter the character of the neighborhood and would have adverse impacts on the neighborhood. Multiple citizen complaints have been made regarding the violations on the property, indicating an adverse impact to the surrounding properties. Approval of this variance may set a precedent for the City to allow setbacks based on an assumed property line rather than a certified survey, which could detrimentally impact the neighborhood and the City as a whole. 4. The variance is not the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the undue hardship, since no undue hardship exists. III. Based upon the foregoing, the Board hereby makes the following decision: DECISION The appeal of the decision by the Hearing Examiner to allow: a one-foot setback requirement to zero feet for concrete sidewalk and steps, reduction of the three-foot setback requirement to one foot for an existing shed, and an increase in the allowable height of a fence on a residential property from six feet to nine and one-half feet at 6425 Oliver Avenue is hereby in all respects DENIED. The decision of the Hearing Examiner is affirmed, and the variance is denied. The Applicant is ordered to bring the sidewalk, steps, shed and fence at 6425 Oliver Avenue into compliance with the provisions of the Richfield Zoning Code within 30 days and to pay all required permit fees and penalties. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of July, 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ...... . Hearing Examiner Letter June 20, 2006 Richfield City Hall, Council Chambers 5 :30 p.m. Agenda Section: Item #: Case #: Public Hearing 1 06-V AR-Ol GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Request: Variance to allow: reduction of the one-foot setback requirement to zero feet for concrete sidewalk and steps, reduction of the three-foot setback requirement to one foot for an: existing shed, and an increase in the allowable height of a fence on a residential property from six feet to nine and one-half feet. Petitioner: Kristin Ann Brown Location: 6425 Oliver Avenue South Zoning: R - Single Family Residential Current Land Use: Residential Como. Plan: Single Family Residential- High Density Surrounding: See map attachments for surrounding zoning and land uses References: See attached Citations section for excerpts Zoning Code: Section 521.05 Subd. 11. (setback requirement for sidewalks) Section 521.11 Subd. 9. (setback requirements for residential accessory buildings in the R district), Section 511.23 Subd. 2. (height requirement for fences) State Statute: Chapter 462.357 Subd. 6 Public Notice: Notice of the Hearing Examiner's consideration and public hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to all property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the subject property. ANALYSIS - 1 - Proposal: The applicant seeks a variance to allow: 1. A reduction of the one-foot setback requirement to zero feet for concrete sidewalk and steps. The existing steps and sidewalks have a zero-foot setback, with a portion of the steps encroaching on the lot to the north by approximately six inches. 2. A reduction of the three-foot setb~ck requirement to one foot for an existing shed. 3. An increase in the allowable height of a fence on a residential property from six feet to nine and one-half feet. History: After the receiving multiple citizen complaints regarding zoning code violations at this property, the City filed a complaint against Kristin Ann Brown at 6425 Oliver Ave S on August 26th, 2005. The complaint states that the defendant allowed a sidewalk and an accessory building to be constructed on her property with inadequate setbacks, and allowed a fence to be built to a height prohibited by Richfield Zoning Code. Within the R District, sidewalks must be set back no less than one foot from any lot line abutting another parcel, unless it is a requirement for a shared access agreement or upon finding of a necessity and public convenience, as stated in Section 521.05, Subd.2. No shared access agreement exists nor does a fmding of necessity and public convenience exist. Storage sheds must be set back three feet from the side interior property line, as stated in Section 521.11, Subd. 9. The existing shed is located one. foot from the side interior property line. Finally, fences must be less than six feet tall in the R District, as stated in Section 511.23, Subd. 3. A portion of the existing fence is nine and one-half feet tall. Building Official Rick Regnier inspected the property and observed these conditions. Letters requesting compliance were sent to Ms. Brown and/or her attorney on October 26, 2004; June 23,2005; July 19,2005; and August 26,2005. . On May 26, 2006, Building Office Rick Regnier, Zoning Administrator Melissa Poehlman, and Community Development Assistant Coordinator Vanessa Haight visited the property to again confirm the height of the fence. The fence was measured to be 9 feet 6 inches tall on both the south and north sides of the fence (see attached photos). As of the time of preparation of this staff report, the violations have not -2- Issues: been corrected. The applicant submitted four surveys with this variance application. Staff will refer to the most recent survey completed for Ms. Brown's attorney by Harry S. Johnson & Co. and certified on March 2, 2006. The applicant states that she and the owners of Lot 16 (6421 Oliver) had agreed, until last summer, that the fence line was the actual property line. After obtaining a survey (see 2004 W. Brown Survey), the owner of 6421 Oliver moved the fence to reflect the actual property line. The applicant argues that because the previous location of the fence was agreed to be the property line, the sidewalk, steps, and shed should remain where they are because they meet setback requirements based on an assumed property line. Ms. Brown has the option of bringing a civil legal action to have the boundaries of her property determined, if she believes that the boundaries are different from those shown in the survey. ACTION TO BE TAKEN Recommendation: Deny the request for a variance to allow: reduction of the one-foot setback requirement to zero feet for concrete sidewalk and steps, reduction of the three-foot setback requirement to one foot for an existing shed, and an increase in the allowable height of a fence on a residential property from six feet to nine and one-half feet. Basis: The requested variance does not meet both City and State requirements for granting a variance. The following conditions needed to grant a variance are not present for the proposed accessory uses: 1. There is an undue hardship which denies the applicant reasonable use of the property. Undue hardship means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed 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. The applicant argues the undue hardship to be the difficulty in moving the sidewalk and shed and the lack of privacy that will exist if the fence is to meet the six-foot height requirement. Privacy and econOmIC considerations do not qualify as an undue hardship. Steps, sidewalks, sheds and fences are permitted uses. The applicant's property can be put to reasonable use and can include all these components while meeting City requirements. 2. There are unique circumstances related to the property. The applicant states that the unique circumstance in this case is that the positioning of the sidewalk, steps, and shed is based upon a - 3 - property line that was agreed to by neighboring property owners years ago. However, it is a property owner's responsibility to ensure that prior to construction, accurate property boundaries are identified and that setback requirements are met. The City evaluates setback requirements based on a certified survey. The City cannot evaluate setbacks based on a supposed agreement between property owners. 3. There would be no adverse impacts on the neighborhood. Multiple citizen complaints have been made regarding the violations on the property, indicating an adverse impact on the surrounding properties. Approving this variance would set a precedent for the City to allow setbacks based on an assumed property line rather than a certified survey, which could detrimentally impact the neighborhood and the City as a whole. 4. The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the undue hardship. The variance requested would rectify the zoning violations, but is not necessary for reasonable use of the property. Alternative: Deny the request for the requested variances with a finding of fact that the request does not meet the State and City tests for a variance. -4- 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 ofthe 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. - 5 - JOSEPH J. CHRISTENSENt* ROBERT P. LAUE R. DANIEL RASMUS GREGORY D. LUCE MICHAEL W. PLAMBECK .CHRISTENSEN, LAUE & RASMUS"P.A. ATTORNEYS M LAW SUITE 400 5101 VERNON AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55436 WALTERC. GUSTAFSON OF COUNSEL ( 1981 . 2004 ) TELEPHONE (952) 927.8855 FACSIMILE (952) 927-5427 tREAL PROPERTY LAw SPECIALIST CERTIFIED BY MINNESOTA STATE BAR AsSOCIATION * ALso ADMl'ITED IN WISCONSIN April 21, 2006 Mr. Richard Regnier Building Official City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599 -=~ r,:::;:.. "" Iii! \\'\/7 '. I I ~-- J' ,I \'t)? / '\~\~,,-..,./I . r";:..:.e/ ) i/ ~~. LJ U Re: Request for Variance at 6425 Oliver Avenue South Dear Mr. Regnier: Enclosed please find a Variance Application, along with the fee of $250.00 for the above-named property. Attached to the Application are: 1. Three copies of recent survey oithe property; 2. Three copies of the Certificate of Title for the property; 3. Three copies of documents indicating property taxes, assessments, etc. are all current. As I believe you are aware, the City of Richfield is currently prosecuting my client, Kristin Ann ~rown, for alleged violations of the Richfield Zoning Code. For your convenience, I have attached a copy of the Complaint in this matter (attached as Exhibit A). The prosecutor and I recently agreed to continue the trial in this matter until Tuesday, June 20 at 1:30 p.m. We agreed that seeking a variance would be a helpful way to try to resolve the issues raised in the Complaint. As you can see from the Complaint, and as I am sure you know, the alleged zoning violations involve a (1) concrete sidewalk and steps adjacent to the north end of my client's garage, (2) a shed located in the northeast comer of the property, and (3) a portion of a fence located on the south boundary of my client's property. Specifically, the City has alleged that (1) the concrete sidewalk and steps encroach into the setback area between my client's property and the property to the north, (2) the shed encroaches into the setback area between my client's property and the property to the north, and (3) a six-foot portion of the fence is higher than the six foot maximum allowed under Richfield City Code. As I believe you are also aware, my client has contested the fact that any of these three items constitute a violation of Richfield City Ordinance. Accordingly, Ms. Brown requests variances for each of the three listed items. In what follows, I outline the reasons we believe Ms. Brown should receive a variance. First, concerning the steps, sidewalk and shed, there is good reason for the city to grant a variance. As the 1957 survey ofM.J. Berscheid indicates (attached as Exhibit B) the building that Mr. Richard Regnier April 21, 2006 Page 2 was constructed on Ms. Brown's property met the five-foot setback requirement - i.e., the north end of the garage was five feet from the property that Lot 15 shares with Lot 16. As subsequent surveys indicate (See Exhibits C, D and E), the building where constructed does not appear to meet the setback requirements for the property line as determined by monuments. However, it appears that the parties established an "occupational" property line - i.e., the fence that separated Lots 15 and 16 (See Exhibits C and D). It seems.clear that when the building was constructed on Lot 15, the City and the parties at the time assumed that the lot line was defmed by the fence line as the fence line appears in Exhibits C and D. Indeed, the parties that have owned Lots 15 and 16 have, until last summer, assumed that the fence line was the property line (the owner of Lot 16 moved the fence based on the W. Brown survey - Exhibit D). Because neither the sidewalk/steps nor the shed violate the City setback requirements if the occupation line, as determined by the prior fence, is accepted as the lot line, the City should conclude that Ms. Brown's sidewalk/steps and shed can remain where they are. Similarly, with respect to the fence on the south boundary line, Ms. Brown and her husband constructed portions of the fence to prevent their neighbor to the south from peering and staring at them when they were relaxing in their hot tub. At the tim~ the fence was constructed, the height of the fence was six feet, as measured from the ground on both sides of the fence. However, Ms. Brown's neighbor to the south has been constructing a garage that comes very close to Ms. Brown's property line. During the construction process, Ms. Brown's neighbor removed soil and dramatically changed the grade of the property along the fence. By removing the soil and changing the grade, the fence is now in places over six feet high. However, before the grade was changed, the fence conformed to City code. Because the actions of Ms. Brown's neighbor now make it. appear that the fence is non-conforming, when it was constructed in a matter that was conforming, the city should issue a variance and allow the fence to remain as it is. Hopefully, this letter, along with the application, makes clear the request made by Ms. Brown for a zoning variance. Please contact me if any part of the application is incomplete. Otherwise, I look forward to having this matter placed on for a hearing. Please inform me concerning the hearing date, as I will appear for my clients on this matter. Again, thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, CHRISTENSEN, LAUE & RASMUS, P.A. ;(. f)t1IU_L~ l2adJlZi//) Fl. Daniel Flasmus Attorney at Law FlD~ Enclosure cc: Ms. Kristin Brown ~t8~4 ~ ~1ir PLANNING. ZONING Community Development Department Zoning Applicati~n . Street Address of Subject Property: 6425 Oliver Avenl1~ ~Ollt:h Legal Description of Subject Property: Lot 15, Block 7, Fairwood Park First Addition Applicant/Con~act (t~Q Date 4-20-06 Applicant Signature E-mail Address: rdr@edinalaw.com Address (if different) 5101 Vernon Avenue S., #400 Rasmus, P.A. Zip MN Phone QS2-Q27-RFlSS Fax #: 952-927-5427 Company Christensen, Laue & City Edina Application For: Conditional Activity Permit Conditional Use Permit Final Development Plan/Conditional Use Permit (PUD) Nonconforming Use Permit Off-Street Parking Permit Ordinance Amendment Planned Unit Development Plan Plat (preliminary/Final) Rezoning Subdivision Waiver Transitional Activity Permit Variance x Amended Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan Amended Conditional Use Permit Amended Off Street Parking Permit Brief Description ofReauest: Homeowner requests variance from setback requirements and city code - steps 0 north side of hom~~ shed in northeas~ corner of lot and fence on south side of lot were conformin before was re-surve ed and nei hbors chan ed rade. . City of Richfield . 6700 Portland Avenue South . Page 2 . 861-9760 . ru~~4 ~~~ PLANNING ZONING Residential Variance Application Checklist Community Cevelopment Cepertment All required items must be complete before an application can be placed on the Hearing agenda. Required Complete Incomplete 1. Completed Zoning Application (attached) 3 2. Three copies of proposed site plan (see Section B for . plan requirements) 3 3. Accurate certificate of survey 3 4. Three copies of building elevations 5. Evidence of ownership or letter of concurrence from property owner if applicant is not the owner 3 6. Evidence that there are no delinquent property taxes, special assessments, penalties, interest and/or municipal utility fees due on the property (City staff to verify) 3 7. Petition of adjacent property owners (form attached) 8. Application fee 3 All plan submittals must meet the following format requirements: o A Title Block stating the name & address is required. o A North Arrow is required. o Site plan should show property lines, location of all structures, setbacks and lot dimensions. o Elevations should show building dimensions and height. o Plans must be able to be photocopied. (the applicant is responsible for reproducing any color plans) o The Scale must be appropriate for the size of the project. (1 inch = 10 feet or 1 inch = 20 feet is preferred in most cases) + The City reserves the right to require additional plans or information as necessary. + Submittal of an application grants the City permission to inspect and photograph the property. City of Richfield e 6700 Portland Avenue South e Page 1______e -- 861-9760 Zoning Application II [fN~~AH~ PLANNING ZONING Community Devllapmlnt Dlpartmlnt ~ Provide the Following Information on the Requested Variance: 1. What is the variance being requested? Describe why the proposal requires a variance. Applicant requests variance from setback requirements for concrete steps and shed that are currently deemed too close to the property line shared with neighbor to the north. Applicant,7;also requests a variance to allow a fence higher than six feet for a portion 'of the boundary shared with the neighbor to the south. 2. Answer the following questions as they apply to your request: a) Is there an undue hardship present which denies reasonable use of the property? (explain) It would be difficult to move the sidewalk and shed, especially given the health of one of the occupants of the property. The higher fence is necessary to protect the privacy of the Applicant'..'. Otherwise, the neighbor to the south=.is able to stare while she relaxes in her hot tub. b) Are there any unusual or unique circumstances relating to the property or building which are beyond your control? (explain) The property line agreed to by the Applicant and neighbor to the north was one foot north of the line drawn by recent surveys. 1he house was built based on the previously agreed-to property'line. Applicant contends she should not need to move her sidewalk/steps or shed because the house was constructed based on the old boundary. c) Will the variance, if granted, result in an adverse impact on surrounding properties or alter the character of the building or neighborhood? (explain) The sidewalk/ steps do not adversely impact the~'neighbor' s property. Nor does the shed~ These structures are not visible from the road and do not affect the neighborhood. Similarly, the small portion of fence that is purportedly over six feet high does not bother anyone. d) Is the variance being requested the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the undue hardship? (explain) Yes. The sidewalk/steps and shed have been in place for many years with no complaints.from neighbors. Presently, these structures encroach into the setback area by less than one foot. The portion of the fence that is allegedly too high is only six feet wide and simply protects the Applicant's privacy. City of Richfield . 6700 Portland Avenue South . 861-9760 Variance Petition Applicant: )({:s (I. AI P (<eJ cJ~ , btj 2S;-/)),'vGY A-u. 5, I Address: I am Requesting a Variance to Allow: .s /id; STepS ~ I AM IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE: D1A~4H~ PLANNING ZONING Community Develapment De..rtment . ~' 00\&~J::l ~~ * Signatures may not be removed after tlte petition is submitted to tlte City. City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South . . 861-9760 . m~W4H~. PLANNING ZONING Communlly _fopmenl Doparlm8nt Variance Petition III Applicant:' ~ <f..77' ,uE5/d c::..-''' Address: & y Z- -S-O /, \ /~ I-u~ S; r~~~, t~ '1 I am Requesting a Variance to Allow: .)~e4J/ -f~1 St--r...5 I AM IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE: ie:nature (property owners only) Address (please print clearly) (fhA. frnx- /1' .~Lj~/ ~7'/~ 6~tlbt.;d[tJ~ V ! *8' * Signatures may not be removed after the petition is submitted to the City. City of Richfield . 6700 Portland Avenue South . 861-9760 ,-EP-26-2005 ,- = I, 08: 19 AM K.BROWN 612 243 1916 P.01 Summon. . X DISTRICT COURT. Warrartt COMPLAINT-SUMMONS Order of DetentIon FOR MISDEMEANOR a.lend.r date OR peTTY MlSOEMEANqR Ity of RichfIeld, PlaintIff, CIty of Vlol.Uon Rlohfreld ISTfN ANN BROWN ,Defendant. Court.Flle No. DE1.:)tolLL""} 5 OLIVER A V SO L1o. Plate No., '{P'" HFIELD MN 55423 Drivers Uc No. D B: 5/14/1952 - COMPLAINT Control Number Th~ Complai~ant being duly sworn"makes ~omplajnt to the abo'ie-named Court and states that there is probable cause ,to be va that the above.nam~d Defendant commlted the offense described l:ielow, The Complainant states that the fonowing fa s that establish PROBABLE CAUSE 8(e from reports by " . , R k Regnier On 8/26/2005. 12:00 p.rn at 6425 Olfver' Avenue South Richfield . T defendant allowed a fence Gn her property with a height prohibited by RIchfield Zoning Code; also, the d sndaot allowed a sidewalk and an accessory buildIng on her property with an inadequate setback under -A' .e~ing Oode-guideffneSTin response-ro-mtrftiple citizen '~ra.h Ifb hiyarding'-zonfng-coda'vlolattons' th above property, Richfield Buifding Official Alchard Regnier inspected the property, and observed that the 'pr erty contained a fence over six feet tan, in vlolatron of the Richfield Zoning Code; in additiQn, the, property . co talned a storage shed located less than three feet from the property line, and, a sIdewalk less than one foot : fro the property line, both In violation 0; the Richfield ZonIng Code requirements for setback. The defendant i 'th registered owner ot this pr6perty, whIch is located In an R District as designated by the' Richfield Zoning , C e. Letters were sent to the defendant and/or her attorney on October 26, 2004; June 23, 2~~5i July 19, 20 5; and August 1, 2005., -Deadlines for correctIon of these vfolatioO$ were extended seve~1 tJmea;:ultirnately to ugust 26, 2005. As of that date, the violations had..not been corrected; ~~ i ;;; -:-! ..... ,I ,.." >~; -". 11 o ::? I I"\) _ :r::- I 1'\)-- 2ft".;r I, i Vi ~.jJ ~ Pl ii;iJ :% o. >-, ~ -ior;:- .. Q)"""M '~ ~ ;g c:> abovl!l facts constitute the ComplaInant's basIs for beUevlng, that tJ;I~ above-named Defen~ pn the ':: ...26 th day of AUgust . d ,~05. dat 6,~2~ Ohver Avenue South. Rrchfleld LIIe ab,ove.named County, committe the ,oHowrng escr",,~ ou FENCE~ Suilt, allowed to be built, or poss~~f~JJ~~nce, wall or hedge on the defendanfs property which 1 was not' in conformance wfth the guidelines of the Richfield Zoning Code. OFFeNS~: Nonconforming Fence. VIOLATION: Richfield CIty Zoning Cod~ ~511.23; i 1'15.01. PENAL TV: 90 days & $1,000. , , ATE OF MINNESOTA UNTY OF Hennepin urth Judfclal Distrfot, SETBK1: Built,ailowed to be built, or poss~ssed a.n accessQry building on the defendant's property In the 2 R district which violated the setback 'requirements Qf the Richfield Zoning Code. OFFENSE: Accessory Building Setback Violation. VIOLATION: RIchfield City Zoning Code ~521,11, subd. 9; ~ 115,~1. PENALTY: 90 'days & $1,000. ' SETBK3: BuUt, allowed to be buUt,or possessed a driveway, parkIng area, tumaround area, or sidewalk 3 on the defendant's property.which violated the setback requirements of the Richfield Zoning Code. OFFENSE: Accessway Setback VIolation. VIOLATION: Richfield Ci~ Zoning Code ~521.05, subd. 11 (a'); ~115,01. PENALTY: 90 days &.$1,000. ' .' oaE, OomplaInant requ~t$ that sald Del(!ndaru. subject to ~aIJ or condlUon$ of reles$$ where applIcable: (1) lie arrested or that other laWful steps D9 taken to obtaIn Defendants appearance In court; or (2) be detaIned. if already in custody, pending further proceedIngs; " and that the Defendant otherwise be de I . Complainant scrib.ed/swom before mE!...- Sea &. . TODD JEFFREY sANDELL' , ~(/ day >~~ /r; $ - NatAEl\'PUBLlc.MINNESOTA ~ ____ .. MY~CXPIrES1"'-2010 . .---- ture , . , .. AAAA ./ l;:: 9n.."'r ..rnpl~l,)""~,, ,. gelng ci!& autliorlzecfto prosecute the offense charged. I hereby ~pprov~ this Complaint. ' artfnJ.costeIJOA~.~~9'.'~O:19~O~ '.' ':. ", 'iJ'ALl.~'-'-"'-- , ~ r-rosecutlng Attorney H ghes & Costello 1230 Landn:ark Towers-StPau/. MN'55102 ,." .' (651) 227-8427 FaX (651) 227.8428 P secuting Attorney Name Address Telephone Number ' EXHIBIT A BUILDING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS .:. ESTABLISI-\ED 192.6 CITY LOT SURVEYING PLArrlNG FARM SURVEYING J I !.-~ "4) -: ... M. J. BERSCHEID/--:~}:},~,'~Ll!~,., . ,<1.ddkct aioL g~ t/ RHU4(O '-6\ PHONE PARKWAY 4-4593 r.':~ I JUL:31 1%"7 ~. i 3644 TWENTY-SECOND AVENUE SOUTH '~ft.'t811C wOF.l<~ . ~ MINNEAPOL.IS 7. ~N. OErARfI..;{Nl ~~'\ RIWfl'JJ> ~ '<~~-. 800 -57 bel ~ I t~6461 I I ._c I r>J -J...o. 30.5 J .. ,~~ .::f 1.3 +.9 ) a , rront I if) ron ,I \ d fl ::.1 III c: ~ '- -d \~ > ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ \.. {j , I , <r \0 o - {() Q...:2 (f) "} o - '- :J ~ Q.,;d) ~ ~ L Ire d :>- - 6 r7 II . " _, t . . " I 'lier.eby certi:.t"'y tl1.nt the above :Ls a ~.ru.e 2J.110. .~ot'r:'ect pInt of' t\ s'il.Pvey. of Lot 15, Block 7, F'airwoo('l. Pr.1.!'Je Firs t i\d.dllii. on in th~ vi 11tl~:e o:f Id.cbfiel<l, i,,finneso t.ar: s !:~nr-']G~rr~d by l:ie til.e 23rd any of July, 1957. ~s..""'u.ttM~ ~..t . . Ud..IInct1u.,.. . 'In.. trail ~tft.,.. 1. ..... - :... ill _taw .nI.~_ ., te ~zapll.d ;fitS. ~ . ... '--t;=bt-f7f?:J~-- -- '-~'-'~':''''. " .', 'ulld." // 0..8 "~,.: , i/. , /J ,/3 l' ':' ..:f: . . '1l-'~ 1',,- . EXHIBIT 6 , ~. ," ~ ... ,.,.r ~ . . . Bersc..!leid. 0/'1./ i/ ..t. f.,t .. J Ji' J . - - - - - - (..'1"/- . - ;....1J.:L~~'3yo~ . r ., I /' r ' ,.J y ~G) ~ rrlm ~z ::I: rrlm )> ~~ :D :D !'VI =< !D ~ raa Z C-. ::rJJ ~ 0 ::a 01 - 0 :J: <::> ~ Z ...:m m \J Ch ntl en () r-..;:l t::) 0 Z ,C;) . . en () 0 :;z () ." _0 ::oc oz zo I .J .......... 134.87 (p) . . . . . . . . . '1'-' . . . '''':'1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 1:-" :-"1 CDrrl ex r=Vi 0-1 /1 ZZ ("' v G) G) _) ;I>- !J1 . . .. . . . . ~,,(o. . .. 'lbll.:'. .... , . ..... .. ... .. . . ........, I' . I 134.88 (p) I ;06 Oc Zz o .... ....-" !'V!D OtO -oj>. \J .'-"'~ CDrrl eX r=Ui 0:::1 ZZ G)G) /, r ' ,.J y 01 o , 'O'J - \J '-'" o co:! o ::l ::l C ,.... a. a. (J !1! (1) ., :;: "!: g: ~.g (1) _~ oo~ :lE 3 c III C 00..... .... - 0.- g:E.~ (1)'<( Ul ::0 - 0-2 ~ c; en. , ,....~ \\ ~,~: ~'" ~~~ ::l 0 , ::l ::l : (1) a. c f'1 ~ ~Ul~ c c . . ~q (1)1: ~ ~! .,. CD 9J . . . . . . . .:-J . r . . . .,.l"! .1.~~..~~ . (~~ . . . . ;/'"1 01 ." _0 ::oe oz zo I ) ./" !J1 01 . ... . ... . "rlb'" .. . I' 50 ." _0 :;oe oz zo I J .......... POL -, ?l o .... ;/'" ........ 0 '1 I ."-.,, _0:;00 :;oeoe ozzz zo 0 .,. ) ." _0 :;oe oz zo I ) ",'" ?l ." _0 :;oe oz zo I ~.J 01 CDfTl ex r=Vi 0:::1 ZZ G)G) CDrrl ex r=Ui 0::1 zZ G)G) 01 oj>. ;/'" 01 CDrrl eX r=Vi 0::1 ZZ G)G) 01 o !J1 oj>. CDrrl ex r=Ui 0-1 ZZ 'G)F / ;I>- to CDrrl e~ r=Ul 0-1 zZ G)G) /' (' , ,.J y '01 :0 r~'J "1J !J1 ~ '\J ~ !D' '(34:96' (pj' ,... . .. ~ o '" . , ,0 y ..... \ 'J ~" o o Z :01 f> '0 _6 ~::o '\J ::0 e )> rrl :--'oz !=~ zo 1 I ') J ", ", " y, ../ 01134.90 (p) ro134.39 M) :I"- o '" . , ,Q y ,1\ \ '" . , ,C> y r '-? 134.91 (p 137.75 M "D o r )( o~ ~'Y 01 ~. \ U1 .....,\ .'" r ..... ,.J y -- ~\J '-"''-'" 01 :-" 01 ." -...JO 0 -...J........ ;oc \J OZ ~'-'" 20 I ......J ..... ~ :6; Oc z. ~ p1 .... ", .- Q ( , I Y ."Z- 00:;0 e-lO Z Z o \ ~o' .'" r ' ,.J y "T1 3:"0 "0 ClI~- 0 :J 0 5' 014.... ClI c'o .... ' ., -. ~ 1114 ,.... 00 c: , _.:J , ~o :J ! 0 II :J 0 '"' II 2 :J a. 3: g c 3 , )." 'J " 01 134.92 (p) :.... 135.30 (M) !'J1 o .... ..""..".."...."."""""" ...."......""" ....... -"....... !D!'V !'V 0 01........ \J ~'-'" ", .- .- ( I -." ::00 -''J 0 e I~,/ Z Z 01 134.92 (p) 0 '" . , ,U y .'" r ' ,.J y ." _0 :;oe oz zo 1 ) .// c~) 134.92 (p) t 0 I:O~-O ~~~-g~ 0 ::l::l0::T ;P- ~ ........ s::: ::T ~ ~G) I - o.o.CJl(1)m og8{lz ~tI)~. !1! CD ... -I ~ ~ > (1) -I ;1m ... --0 CD ~3a.Qo ::T ...... O::T ) s:g-iil~:D - iilCTCDOo iii' (1) ~::ICD ~'Z ) of>. ...." fTl. --0 -I ::Ioo.::::c lJl m -. 0- r (1) _00 CJl 0 aoiil,~ - -::100::: c ... of>. 0-0 III m O( _O...::ICD ... CD I nO 0 0 . <: < 0 ... ~30.S;" ~~co~ CD 00::1:::: ~' ~ s:::( '< -, - CJl CT'<- (1) ::1- :5 z~ g z ) 00'< - 0 ~Qn;g~ ~ ?' ~ -10 ~: ).~ -0.3::T> Q CD 8 iii' CD 0 >...0 ].. S:S(1)~ CJl 0 -0 n CD - . ?'~a.CJl~ (Xl ;0-1 _ :I: , CD'<o-~ 3 (() o c>-8 ~ (1) Z CD : CTCDCO 0 3 ::I. VI;o'" :!o_ m" a. < ~ a. CJl ;0 0-0 ::I: a~cCIIO o III (1) (1) .D -1-001: [~ CD( ,'f ,... -0 :J . en -o~ ~ c o ~~.~ ~,( lll~o.CZ -~ -51 0 0 ::I \ o III ~ :< ::I ... > ;0 3 III CD .... (1) o 3~_ o ... (ij'm n' -Ill 3'< 88 - - z VI-'Q 0' s:::o.,<;" ... CD 0 C ::T (1) -<-ICDO c: CD::I-'" CD en ~, Ui a. :!. CD fTl~05 0 ;:): -', -0 ,... CJl ,... . ::100.- _, CD CII 10 ~ fTl~ a. CJl 8 8 ~. ::I ::I _,0 OOCII::T ... II C ~o.iil::l 0 ,) :J;:)01ll C > 0' c 3 s:::: ~VI~Q a. ~, a. ::I P <z-o:::: CD -.1 ) C -0 ::I. o C -0 ,...- P- >fTlC~ P- ';:) . -,UJ~ 0 -.0 (Xl -I ;0 -. o ... CD' < C CD ;:) ? m o nVlCD CII' CD-o-o ,... z >cCII 01 ~~Q .... ::T 0 , '>CJl _I III III 0 0' ...<- 0 .... rz::T iii' CD CD > -I~ ::::c o' '6' !II ::I - -I -I ;:) 0 r\1 1\ 'iLL .lL\ LCt\J.LIC- ~-rl I - -VL_I V LI \, "V LI ~UL _\JU 1--r1 VI o ..., ~ ~ ~:mj:j?V zo I L_ -- \ -, I 1 I 1 I 1m 1- 1-1 0Jlc Ol~ Cnlz ,0 IC ,VI , I I " ~ <~~~ Z ,. ~~~ <, J ~5 q L. >-. """ Z <.N ,. '''-'c>--'' '7 ". "7' " VI o ". / I ..., _0 ~"""". ::0 C \!:!!11:;~6 I _J -- - I , I \ I , I I I I , 011 01 (01 , 1 1 1 ~ -I C s::: Z o C VI ;QUI OfT! Z-i ~lSl )r I -.... E ;00 I Oc I Zz 0 I . I . (/)"00""0 o-~ ..., II g~!:Jg o ~ ~ :J :r.... e ~ID oQ ~ ? ~ :J 0" ID 0. ~"o .... .... ::0 0 " 00. ID ~-g a ~ii"1!I 0 .;+ 'a :J ID e 3- ::r 0 a- z'< Q. s: O~ '< . 0 0 ,.,,:J ~ ~e g ,,3 e ,,!J 3 -.... ID :J .... I I , 1 , I 101 I~ I' ,of>. I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I 011 !'JI lJl -0 , > Z -I fT1 ;0 , L_ ~ -I C s::: Z o C VI --" .- < '0>-. ,. <o~ o )'6" fT1 '7 /6" ~ ~. ~ ;:;j a t.J t5. ~ t:) ~ ~ ~ E:: ~ f,j .s fj Lo ta\:1 I> 't1 r.,~ :J lI) ~. ~ c~ .41 ow 5 S ..., J.. 1Il U ~i j'f:i~ ~ ~! Q. cr~ ; oS - j:e sj! $j'S ~ ~~jiA ~ ""J-;....5 ~ !~:iI 2i . ;i g.o ~ ~~. EJi~' :J 3~~s'i .... ii i~~~:r .ll ~ ami i~ ~;~ i ~~~ "S!.sOJ-4J:.'; al laJ ;... _I -l:I :!;~1Ji- t~ ~ a tS c! .s ~ i ~i bOi.::t1l. YS Ji:t~~] I!! ".~ Q _ i ..:1~~~5 I l..~ ~ a OO'09=.~ld _ _ _ _. S'O'09="SD9" X-ll-, -x ~)- il ~~ "0 .! j i ~ i i i' E e ~ 1i 1~ j. ~~ i s:'O ~ ~t.' r: 8~ 3~ ~r rr)~ ~ . 1l~8 I N i 9.d t~~ ~ ~" ff j! m '7.) . ~ f] is i- m .>. .!!- =~.". ~ tI g lL ~J::~ :5es'Q €:;~ i ,~:S a 8-0 Vi i1f) 11 r: . g~ - .. 111 :5 ~~"2 - a..... __::i8 . 1=1 c'i c: .... i ~! ~E:i . h- -"0 a ~:- ~5~ a ,,- .! ~ ;; .toUIJ ~ ~: 1l"Q 0 ..... ::"'1 II o 'It] 1 i'1II ...; _ ~:S t l!-9fHX:l Ii ~ .: oS ! j j a. a. Q ~~ t Ir~1 ~ f ~ ~j !~ 1m I ~ J I ~ "1..0 o~~~ I 1 0 ~~)N9~ x ........ ffi ~ -I ~ ~i~~ &~ ~r--+----, bi"'~c~;; #'. C/ I ~U nil i ~ I f.{) \ a.~"/1 r-J : h' ,-J ~ J \ .' ~ ~ 1- f~"". ~,:;:;. ::i I B k~"",,~~ . ..~ '..-: ,~...~. . ...."" . .. . '0 '\ !O :; ~~:: 0':'" "n~~ ~ 5 JI ~~.: f:.~ 'OS ~^V JIMIIO sZt'g ~3 ..J ~~ ~i~' t~.~ QEmOH fiU/1S!)(3 ~ .,,,~ y ,~~~~~~~~~ ".~.~~.I~.; .:.1 "., 1~ I " ,__ ."' . I '1_" ... ..:3 --........... I "7+- 8S'SS- 'SD9V'l OO'09=lDJd ED c: II: r. JI: w GJ 0 ...lUet ..t "T'2 C ic ID --*Dii'*~ ~ l"C'l-li3 ~...a.J.. ~:~...*- $ N t;J~~lW .,........_.(1 ~...... .~.~:.:.\~i.ri~:-....~ ..'''-D ~:'~..~~ ~ :.~ ~.~~ ." '"~fII- ....~ 1.. l: r'& ..<<~~ ii ~ ,.-.):.... ~.,.~ H 0 . : . -. "", " · IAl ~ ...-:-.. "'f .l~ . !1'.1.4''''1':..~ ,',:':}' ..,~ .. , ., ....... \<", :.~ -.......,;:.':,.~ ~ ~ .;.--: ~~..-.: .;:!':.- .',:': :-., ~.....~~ ..--=.: CoIl)- ~~ ~R! -Q CI:l -- , LJ , "'/1 r , I.L.I 'v':;: ~fi^ '",, L,j \ I ...:JI " V,.;j, I v CI3, ~/70 . . . . L.0'd --- .j~----- ~6C:0 99~ C:'J:9 ---..-.. 'J:~:s'J: S00C:-0~-lnr ~. , Al3~~S ~Il8nd al3I~H~I~ If " r ~ J Ii ! t t ... J;l ---W.~~--BRaWN~-LAND---SUR VEYING, INC. 8030 Cedar Avenue South Suite 228' WOODROW A. BROWN, R.LS. Bloomington, tAN 55425 ' Surve y For.' President Phone (952) 854-4055 Fax (952) 854-:-4268 Menidel Hanson NORTH r;S-d. I (I Denotes Iron Monument Found r Denotes Iron Monument Set o 30 0 en I . (1) ill ......0 oeo > CiE <( 0<0 o or- L . . 00 ill co <0 > 0 30 oft v~.." Scale: 1 "=30J I (\1 1-7 LV I 1/ .>-6.9 134.90 plat 134.31 meas. 1 M d x ~ 1.1 ,LOT 1 6 . en ......0 011) CiE ON d gg 1.7 I " x 134.91 plat 134.82 meas. L() ...: l( I I rYT 1 ::: L_ v I I.....) NOTE: No Search Was Made For Any Easements. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION . Lot 16 Block 7 Farrwood Park 1 st Addition I hereby certify that this survey. plan 'Or rep'Ort was prepared by me 'Or under my direct supervision and that ! am a duly Registered Land Survey'Or under the laws 'Of the State of Minnesota. W. BROWN LA~D SURVEYING. INC. " ~#--" ~~/-oa~e::5~4d#/5.~C;: Waadrow A. Br'O~~<15230EX' ".- , ;Hmrr n 1 ~. 1 3-04 /17 . VARIANCE DECISION CASE NO.: APPLICANT: PROPERTY LOCATION: HEARING EXAMINER: APPEARANCES: 06-VAR-01 Kristin Ann Brown 6425 Oliver Ave Connie Murray Kristin.Ann Brown, applicant Scott Haney, 6425 Oliver Ave S Daniel Rasmus, Christensen, Laue & Rasmus, P.A. Susan Glover & David Anderson, 6429 Oliver Ave S Meridel Hanson & Jerry Bovy, 6421 OliverAve S AI & Arlene Schroeder, 6521 Oliver C. JohnSon, 6439 Oliver Ave S Corrine Thompson, City Attorney Melissa Poehlman, Zoning Administrator Vanessa Haight, CD Assistant Coordinator Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the undersigned makes the following findings of fact, determinations, and decision: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Notice of public hearing was proper. Notice was published in the Sun- Current and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the site as required by City Ordinance. The ten day notice requirement was also met. 2. The street address and legal description of the property in question are as follows: 6425 Oliver Ave South, Lot 15, Block 7, Fairwood Park First Addition, Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 3. The zoning of the site in question is 'R' Single Family Residential. 4. The variance requested is to Section 521.05 Subd. 11, Section 521.11 Subd. 9, and Section 511.23 Subd. 2 of the 1999 Zoning Code. The variance would allow: reduction of the one-foot setback requirement to zero feet for concrete sidewalk and steps, reduction of the three-foot setback requirement to one foot for an existing shed, and an increase in the allowable height of a fence on a residential property from six to nine and one-half feet. 5. The reason for the request is to bring the existing sidewalk, steps, shed, and fence into compliance with Zoning Code. V ari~ce Decision 6425 Oliver Ave S Page 2 6. A decision is being made within 90 days of the submission of a complete application. The applicant submitted a complete application on April 26, 2006, requiring a decision by July 26, 2006 given the 30-day extension. DETERMINATIONS Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6, provides for the granting of variances to the literal provisions of the zoning regulations in instances where their enforcement would cause undue hardship to the owners of the property under consideration. In determining whether to grant or deny the requested variance, I specifically make the following conclusions: 1. Would strict enforcement of the literal provisions of the ordinance cause undue hardship, because the property could not reasonably be used under the conditions of the official controls? I conclude: Strict enforcement of Richfield Zoning Code Section 521.27 Subdivision 2 would not cause undue hardship because the property could be reasonably used. The property can be put to reasonable use and can include sidewalk/steps, shed and fence while meeting City requirements. 2. Are there unique circumstances or unusual conditions affecting the property or building which were not created by the land owner? I conclude: Unique circumstances affecting the property and which were not created by the land owner do not exist. 3. Will the granting of the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood or locality? I conclude: Granting the variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Multiple citizen complaints have been made regarding the violations on the property, indicating an adverse impact to the surrounding properties. Approval of this variance would set a precedent for the City to allow setbacks based on an assumed property line rather than a certified survey, which could detrimentally impact the neighborhood and the City as a whole. Variance-Decision . 6425 Oliver Ave S Page 3 4. Is the variance being requested the minimum variance necessary to alleviate . the undue hardship? I conclude: The variance requested is not the minimum necessary to alleviate the undue hardship because a hardship which denies reasonable use of the property is not present. . 5. Are there any stipulations which must be attached to the granting of the variance to ensure compliance and to protect adjacent properties? (If yes, specify stipulations under "DECISION" below). I conclude: (circle one) Yes W DECISION Based upon the determinations, the request is DENIED. STIPULATIONS: NONE NOTE: THIS VARIANCE WILL EXPIRE ONE YEAR AFTER THE DA TE ISSUED UNLESS THE CONSTRUCTION WORK REQUIRING THE VARIANCE HAS BEEN COMPLETED. APPEALS Any party not in agreement with the decision of the Hearing Examiner may appeal the decision by delivering a notice of appeal within ten days of the date the decision is filed. The appeal shall be to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals c/o Community Development Director, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423 ~~ HEARING EXAMINER .~ CITY OF RICHFIELD DATE: ~ 01::<( .;2=-0 Copy: Melissa Poehlman, Zoning Administrator Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Rick Regnier, Building Official STATEMENT Subject: Hearing Examiner David Andersen and Susan Glover Request for Variance by Kristin Ann Brown (06-V AR-Ol) To: From: My name is Susan Glover. My husband's name is David Andersen. We are the owners and residents of our home located at 6429 Oliver Avenue South in Richfield. We have lived in this home approximately 13 years. Our next door neighbors to the North are Kristin Ann Brown and Scott Haney, her husband. They live next door at 6425 Oliver Avenue. We are giving this statement in response to Ms. Brown's application to the City for certain variances, One of the variance requests directly affects our property. This is the request for increases in the allowable height of an existing wood fence from 6 feet to 9 1/2 feet. This wood fence extends along a portion of our northerly lot line. We have carefully reviewed the information provided by the City with respect to our neighbor's application for variance. We understand that the City recommends that the request regarding the allowable height of the fence/be denied. We respectfully agree with the City's recommendation and oppose those requests. Ms. Brown gives two reasons in support of her variance request regarding the fence. Her main reason is her claim that, when we constructed our garage in 2004 and 2005, we removed the soil along the fence line and substantially changed the grade. She claims we removed so much soil that we altered the fence from conforming to non-conforming. This claim is set forth in the letter from Ms. Brown's attorney, R. Daniel Rasmus, that is attached to the variance application. This claim is absolutely false. We did not change the grade in any respect. The present grade of our lot along the fence line is exactly the same grade as before construction. I have attached two photographs to this Statement that demonstrate that the grade was not changed. In addition, our lot was inspected before, during, and after the garage construction by the Richfield building inspector. There have also been inspections by the housing inspector and other City officials in connection with this variance application. It is interesting to note that the height of the fence is the same on both our side of the fence and on Ms. Brown's side of the fence. Ifwe changed the grade as Ms. Brown claims, the fence on our side would measure much higher. Mr. Rasmus also claims in his letter that the fence was constructed to keep us from "staring" at Ms. Brown and her husband when they are in their hottub. This claim is wrong and insulting. For the record, neither of us stare at our neighbors and we have no desire or intention to do so. If the fence were lowered to 6 feet to comply with the City ordinance, we still would be unable to view the hottub from our property. There is one additional matter the City should be aware of regarding the fence between our and Ms. Brown's property. After the wooden fence was constructed, Ms. Brown and her husband erected a chain link fence along the same boundary line. The wood fence and the chain link fence run parallel to each other and are approximately 2 to 6 inches apart. The chain link fence is either directly on the property line or in some places encroaches upon our property. This is in violation of Richfield's City ordinances and existing law regarding encroachment. Three of the photos attached to the application for variance show the location and condition of this chain link fence. The placement of this chain link fence on our side of the wooden fence serves absolutely no purpose or benefit to our neighbors. The existence of this partially constructed chain link fence and the high wooden fence in violation of the Richfield codes are an eyesore to us. Again, we respectfully request that the application for variance regarding the fence between the two properties be denied by the City. Thank you. SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION OF REQUESTED VARIANCE AT 6425 OLIVER AVE S Q) ~ ~ Q) .~ o 65th Street to"~~~~j;i;1 ~ ~ Applicant Support Oppose Q) ~ c: o +oJ ~ Q) z 6 N '07/19/06 , _---,.__.~..--~.u. : ..' i .... V~r!I'2l~~~jll!rClkp5alis .,-,*5;f",)~" elkyl A..J:<,~ "/LJiJ,dp,q. hCl121 tyi "W,itf.r 'c ~~haolk' . . . . , , , . . . , _ J: ' lr tj~j ..I~~,'l/e r' ,.'.....rCfJ . . . . . . . . . . . . T ~.". . I; 1 --l~ll W ' tJm."'l, H. 1 : ;~JI'L?kd~.., . _.. ...; n. _ . ._... ~. ... .... .~,.-....."... -. -..<>....-. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,- ..... ..~_.._.-.--... 1Dt/-t I hdj/~ po~e,41 pA-f ak/~' ;be; pip s~ IH?edU.J:~ ~f ~)}..e: ~:~~;~Lh~knj~J&w.i 4#:~ft;t1;~;fxjt7w~Jkk-1 tiH":~ .........'..' .... I... ...... . ~... .... .... ...... .. [.... .. I... .1.. ' 4-a ~~ .'1+<'k el-i ',}~ ~sJ,-d..iJ:h.,. iL J'L k si L,' i . Jv 4' ~ · Pfcyp4tO:o/O!dn rejmttvellY YI..tJ tht?r (/b 3 ~at51 ' ( /"e)v~-R;;J r.e,vep,Pt'~i-S) ',.freun Ji?1y pf'P P Il.r-ty i((I\'5't;'Zft} An n I!3I'()w,v h '2S t!. ();U-I::.I'~I\tl4J/Y h '<2rr2.f,!'pJ J11 e. () AI i:-h.'5 VJ12-c-i::el' .~ ". ; ; ! , , . ; !! . , .' . , " . . . , . . , i ; i , m.l.......!...m..,...........j , , ~' ,), . . '~ '. ' " , . .. . ! 1 ,,! .' . '-"""'1'" (.....'........ .......-...,........-.......1 . ..- .-~.. -- -.. . . . . . . . . . . . , . i . . . . , , . . . . . , ; , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , . . . ----. .~. ,...~.. ..~..... "'_... ".. . . . . . . . . . , ' . . . . , '~' . . . . . . . .. . . . . , , . . . . . . . . ...mJC~.. ml . , . . . . . . . , , . . . . . .. .-..-. _.~. .. . ~i; ... (43Je! 4)1 .....L.. . . . , ...., , ';" . . : ,:" j j 1 :] j i f mmm~e . . , i , : ' . , , ' , ...... ................;. .qke... 1 ""hi' ~~~ :' ~ ~x ary, (h~\Vj'C !M'''', &4dl ;1f.t-1 I I ~ ~'~ lfo 2))1 (/+Fi'(!ejr ~n ~{1&. i,.f/~V;~/~ ~/~e /Jf1~?rtrm(Afi 1. . h' ""/";6' , /; . PI . :i.e' II. . VV ~' """,' ' , ".,., r.v1'Ei.I~f;t+~rI(e~mit?4 . ~ml(l/hYTer ~ ........$c:P " :~4:(f)lJ A!OW;?() ml' ;Or'~fe;(t y fi;;/(;e J / r('J'5:i-;'~ A~i7 iiJ/r/ JfAl 7 he j " .' J.J/.~ 1 .. tf? ' L/ J... 1 ' ".'.'?-' ". '. . , p T'Waf~nTy'~ef1rNPl/e'f ....l7e;(1at./5"~-t1J trsu r'JI~Y Wc1J ;#d~tl./,r.;de:~lJ;lIJpcii prl)p~Y /)1 l!er~".{.'I'eL!i. -t'It'J1U/il>" ;JIV ol.rl:'I",'rhi.. J/Et- Py 1((',':11,'/1/ ,4r.7/1 /3rrJWA/ betJ:7tise ~ ___i , ' , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .' ; ; ~ . ~ .. ." ; ...~~.~..- ..- ._-t : : ... ." L._ .......' .i........ i I i ~h~ I<rew ,i-hcrf }f/~t culyl o-we $'t.lrvex W~S t!er.j,/4\/ee~i1) , -i-!-biLiHif !51::r.:cYt:f1o+f'- . -3.5 # Y'veyf" Ht;V12:re.: Oer ~ I ':.pi iee1 ~ , 5lle, ; .. ._.~ ...... .....d.nt ; .._ f ,l)(dj, "1 r /(, 'd .J,. J/ d VbV/~ ~ i tJi .f:+'/d tel:~ f/ /rut- -i J;r Ii1 ~ P" , " .. .. I . .. . . ; ; - : ~ i - i i i ! j : ; j ; i(;~i?~-BY ; ~. ._, . n_ ._, . ..._-,-.... .,. .' . . - . : , '~! " "'i i ~. ..~ . : . - .. . A. < . n.. .. ""1 ~ . ..."". j .- ,j...... ''': .dO _ ;. ...,. i ! i :'; : , : : : i : i ::: : i i(!;,Jr,d5..[jr ,~5 ,~h ~ tre i~ ,te5 ~ ' ' .,' ". "; .,-.."......--. 'H' H'i7.4/J s/;iJ W'dJ V 11 ly . J?'P ~ r--lp '/ It! ~);'R ,J 'J 5 t:- )It'zT/1: , , r N 1 -1 1./ ',' /1 1'7"/1'/,', . ,ff /(J vt,I AI: i~ Ji;b) 2,' J1;;;1 -+ 101 5,Q., 1(ft?,"HJre, 1/" 5~ 1/" rr . .,' ;~of s~o!.t1:),;/'.il./'ly,' )o~r,,: llpi,' the 5 '/1e~) "'!I1Rl ~JluJ) , , ' "',.... ';J I ,) (1 ~c1 i h2v.e c!I1M5~/ :Jetlth# ,I?JfchiJr'erji CI ~y d() e} , ;;flQ'ti do, wh:;Jt.. ej)'ei plez15'8.cl ~be/VJ. ~. " ' .... i .... . ~ ~ ~ -... '-'.-- ...,. ..-., .. - -- - .-.._.~" ... . ,1A<' l;1~+1 +el"~91 fS! ~/~f~ ,~S I!'r- I:r~ ~V' , . m:j2-fC:j7eri7Lq,?t7S'(!?SLL"2jL;]N' 'L/#!'S.~'e. . $; .e/.l"6/:-'J(t~'q; , ' ' , , ' , ' ' , , ' , , : , , ' , , , ~.- ;....-.. ..- --.;...- .._...~ ..' .......~ L... , : j 1 .;........ .. ; ; , ; ;.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ., ;( ~i7P ei /;0 C! tl-df'l ~ , , ' , , ' i-a :/= b-e ,..- ".".. n;;}} a. :M~<>J /5 i:'pc~Jp~)f'~-eiH'd' ~f~ i/U~1i'1<"( ~ ,'+ 'f Cl,:d €.- , 5':2 I'd } ie); h ~J tpe e it" -}:J; i.p J...e q.,!" ~~ l j i i f 1 j. ! ,;m T(f~i~f 141) . . . . . . . . , , ' . . . . , , '~' . . . . , , ' , , ' !. .........,.. .......t-....... mj_~~ L-O .,....-;-....; : -...; : , . . . . , : . . . . , : . . . . . . . . ., : . . : . ': : , : : , i; i ; : i : . ._...."*, _. ~.~~..._..;.._...! i j..__.. ........ .L.... .1 ..... "'_ ! [ :. .;.. ....,............. ..... .........- ... ...., ...-.... ......- ... .._;. -....-..--.--.......... ..--.......... ---.-......-...... . . ~ \J.2 t' I-gpe ~;) , rbe.. MI2Jtjh, PP'n, tel, /l'7;)f AId/ern' wpu / d W~Ail:-:iHi , . , 1l : V1J r/;JPd;~ :6~ W4V~ .,A,p- ! 5~ej'; c!ks(?r r-d z-,h~ I~~ 41~eL ... ................ .-........,...............; ........; 2 Ii . ., (i:Ji ' 'f' 'f' 41 \ Y, f(tel/' d" I'd' '/3 '/I/Y:- : . .. ..?~i:~;fi~,%t'~~v;i~~r14 -i54~ ~~~1~}f~f~11. , ; i i ; i : : (r4f ~i5lJ, C~[)'" : ' : , i' : : : ; i i ~ : 1 i ; , : i ! !,:;!. i ! :! ~ [ i ! j ( : ! ' : . . ... ." '~.. "t " ~.. , j'" .. 't ,--- -- ..--~ '/ $! ~M~, ~ t;;ije ' t'tp yily kY,vtf6~ t-~i;;I{~/ r.~t? c/elf'4,(,1dIClI(4 ' '51 .It t. t tAl A. ' ~. W"AI' M' , '. ,M.,p' , I' ' , . ~f.J~1~~~/~ ~r~~,';r;~iro~ il:v:;::~,c::lmr~,~~~e~ 'N1,1:;h; .i7;a*.Jft!',(/.J~:d.;ri-~p-l+~/r.f/!&'$. &r ~dk[i ~I t(-t'..f '. '*he SdMe :(}.Pf'~Aise.$, it=1ff ,2ne. be/~qi ~dcl"e.ssed: ~-f .phIs ?4blt!J.h~8t'I/ N~' ",,' , , . "" .~ ,); ~ j , : : . . . . . i i i i - r,.'/?,'2i"iO ~,,'+(,l 1 i i j, I (I 7 ~ ~ : i: l : ~t;~~~A:t;m .lt~~i!~J:I;1i~~:1:~s~+jr ; ~);i!Jt -i-h.e i Ul")( Ir r /D/I Jet-.Jfhr I.:rQ,v~ zpJ ZOt7? !~, --- - -; L(3f.f~ h as lJ,~e&l t?e~/ii&l",/~d -(;on A-.:L/'ftlS-Z /;> ~l/tJ c" . , ~-.LJ. }'/~: P'Ll ~ \ ,1/ U-JJ,Lj r J.-J_ 4-' ..Lj~ I :;, mW ---.mml--aiJ;:'l,..:1-'f-- J"'[,' - /.01.1 ,md~e$ ~Olc ,-r~/.JI::~n ~ /, H?~, 7;;[U:J ,iml ' .-..--.--.........-....... ............. n_ .i... , , ,h , ~ . m d,* ,re n , . , " , ; '. , . ",' i._.. ._j... . -. .~.....-.. . ~ .n . ..~ . . . . . . . . ,...1. ~tt~1~bf4~lJ~ttl;~i~J~t1;k'?I ! ...... . 1...... .t . . , . '. . ! ! j I i I [ : : ! : ! :: i : , ltv' ; : i:' i ;. <'" Ii, Ii t ! .) 1"4/ ~5)?~t!;m.lV;ey 1 .)41 P in L'F,.. e,Cm' . . . :' . -: . . . ., '. . : . . , . . - : . . . :. . . : : : ,: : : , : : :: : . . . . . . . .: : . . '. , . .. . : . . . : . "~"'.,~' , . . '. '. . . '. . ". '. j : j.. : : : '.,'-m"""" .. "'." ..... , '. ". : .: . : . : :. : : . ; '::' i : ,. ,.' : : : . . . . . . . .. "'~.'" . . - :. : . : : ! : : i i i : . - . : '.' . . '.: . :. : . : . . ,: - : ; : . . : .. , . : '. ' - . . , , - . - , - . i .. NJen lei e / ./I~;oSC7~ : : "'4 ~ ~. 1':':- ~ N- - ~ ~ ~ z ~ ...........;... ~..... ~ .... .\'N. '"\ - '1 : ." Y It .5 J PKJ/tld; . . .\.< 6',AN J'fi2 e.i: .i1If~l j~ 6J/JlI (J J;lJer Ave 5'0. N ~ ..** o -*--CD 'U.ic ~* :;,- * ~.IDD.. ti ,..:; 2* ~ CD m b CD m ~ ::! :II :;, ca U1 o ~ ........ CD 1XI G '0 5- IQ lot III ~ o ! I~ i H Q II ... I: 3 G a.. l\) o [[ a;t m , ':c; ; ~ n CD !'1 N o UI U) UI ... . ~ ~ ;B ~ i tI! - ~ '" i ~ '" z 51 0 ~ .. .. ... ... ... z ~ i ~ '" VI 1'"'11 II ":'f:) VL.IVL-I\ ~~ A I IrA 1/ /r II v L:' Yl.IL: ("'1'"'1/ ITI I ..) Vl.I J n Plot=60.00 Meas.=59.88 ~ :~.~~.\~':~~:;~. ~:~.~. " [ll c- <!1e ~~ -(c VI / ! I I I ! [ll ~~ ;;;~ ~~ -<c VI z l!: ... [ll c- <312 ;;;~ ~~ -<c VI :;:~ G 1Il ::s- ir -g ~ :E~tT II 0.'< '"+- ~~g a ;:3.:1- CD 11 ~ en 0 () -.>. Er' ;- 5 ~ -+>.. oo..~ -~ 53~ ~ '< ! l:o.o ~~ g p!l::j o",d:- ~ii ~ 11 CD ::J 0. ~ l!! 9=!!!.3 _ 0 ::J enp"'i~ 00' g; ~ ::J Q Q 1Il rl-::J R- -'< Q.sg: ~ ;:j g. -0 0 0 (5 ..... 0. ;: Z 50 it m '<lot if'~ II 1Il ~~ !1!. b"g ~~ lJ)' ~~~ P'l; ~ N':E oco 0::J'" .,..0. . 1Il ., r- o ~:2 I~~ I I ~:::::.J )( "'~'.:' I '::'; t( i,i' 0+ 5" IQ ~ ::J n 11 t( ... .... 5" ID ~ ::J n ~ .... 11 ~ ... 0+ 5" IQ :0 1Il Q :;- 5" IQ ~ x a 2 1:1 ~ (., l- e ';2', !): C'l I :c: el!!lSl o>~~ C'l<"U :C::Z:)::1Tl d [;lS;:1Tl r- [ll :c: O-<lD!6 -i 00 ~H-el> en ~~ ~ M ~ '" :c: -i ~ ,..to ......... t11 x Meas.=60.05 Plat=60.00 ~;;! ~;I I ~~ ~b ::J a.. III o o "tJ. Q g a o o ~ 3 .. :> ..- r-~1Il"'~"" 3'!?~::lQ' _oCl"'Ci C:-~2:Q~ o..)o.?p::l1Q "Ufl:1IlU)~9.. Q' f}1Q1IlI:I g."tJ _ I ~ GO ..' GO N:r'" iil-8o~~!l ~~ .........- 1Il'tl -ti"..oo-_!t , 0.... 01-0 o I ~::I ~381ltg ~~~5"Q" =..,co G II ..... '-I ::12 ?:,Sll ~ ~ ~ ~~S:O!! n- 0" Q":8g3lt ()QCl.3", J4_ ~5 g~ .... 2: o M 10 g3'S~b a..r+Go..... 0';3:i~ ... 00- ::t: O~ ?:- 1XI !~q:!!g ::J "U 0 ~ .g0Q"::r 3'..... 0+ j[:-J oSs:~~ oll.. ~ c:o~;c::;o ~lllo5'::E ~~.....~g ;c:c;-g~1:I 5,0 ....'1:1 ::I"3.!P)O. J:~lta::O o on'" S-=l"g-:!I . l:!: 0 .... ::0 J:...e,lJ) .,::1-1 3'~1Q 0- ...0 Cl. o cq ll> ::r o lE ::. o ::l gr-> 1:0 ;:t.~ ~s: ...1/) ~ffi wf;; III 1:3" ~a ~ 3 1Il ::I - ~ lE .. ~ 0- n Q a:- Cl. r-- C") (l) ""l C"f- .... C! () OJ C"f- lb ~ 0 I:: ...... ~ tfJ 1::. > ""l ~ ~ ~"<l ~ fI) b' ~ ~ e 0) ~~ CJl~ 8(1) ~'1-3 "1 ):..> ~~ ~~ ~?3 fi~ tJ-~ ~ ~ l::tj ~ (jj ~ ~ ~ ~ CJ o ~ ~ ~ ""<: '"+- ,~ (tJ ~ >- r- t:I Gl !d '6 :::l o ~ ------ - ..-'- - -. -.1 -- -------.-- ~-- -- .... - ... . ..... . .........- ~ , , ....... ... ;. !' ~ ,,~. ...s:... , ~ , ~'-- - -- !', ...... '^t\-... [;0.-... n.. ,. - "'.. ...- ~ '.. .... .. ..- ......., ..... .-. .... ..... .-.-.... ....-.... ...... ; . ..... -. .-- .... ..-. .... , . .... ,..- ..-' i , , ,.. .. .... ..-...., ..... ; . ..... ......-.... ...--..-........ ,.......--...- .'-"" .... . -..... ... .-... .... , .. ......... '-'" ....... ..... ........ ..... ..... .-.. . ..-.. -.... . ....... .. .... ." I.~ ~ h 'b'~'" : . ...... :. -.. ............ I"'" t,...... :2 qll ~rc :" - )(,..;... ;.;<---, , ...... ..... ..... .... ... .. .... ..... . .... ...... .. .... .. .. . .. ...... -.+..-........ I.. ".', .-.... .. .... .....- ....' ! - ,... ,.... .. ,. . ........ . ... ... ... .... ; . ........ L ..... ... <:;: "- -.r - .,SJ - . .... . ...... .. .. ... ; . ..,...... .... .. . .....!.. . , : . ... .... .. .. . ....,..... . . .. , , . , . .' ..... ! p}('/(>Q r 4::'1 l.,' ,tJ'f ,1/ '~~, !k(---; 2~ I(~' "~ ~~ X...,..)<~ )( Yi' x -+- )I- -f- )<' r +-1"lr~Wq, /1' .~)C; .~ r -:J. 2/" . -)(~ . I 11:7':[ ..~, " '" ~'fl/, 1 i \\ i :A,:i-. .,. ~ ;. ~ <PVl' Y . h ~j/.tJ ~ \ ~.. ...;~f'td ;;,- ",.. _ "- J. 'l::t'\ rv/"c,r:--j ~ ... .." .. .... , .... . , . , .... .. '. ... .. ~...... ,.. ......~.+..... "-r-- ',' ........... - ...... .... '-.. ......... '" '\ .. ..... ..... ... ...; ...... , \~ .'1 ~ I~... 5~~ 7/'/ / ~. j 2.-.. ~_............ c '? l:- . ...... ;.. .. .... .. ..,... . .' .. ... .. . .... .. ,. . ..... ....... ... ..... ... ;......... ... '... ... .' .. .......: ....... .. ... .. ... .... .... ,.............. !...-... ! .. ~ . HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES June 20, 2006 HEARING EXAMINER: STAFF PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: Connie Murray Vanessa Haight, CD Assistant Coordinator Kristin Ann Brown, applicant Scott Haney, 6425 Oliver Ave S Daniel Rasmus, Christensen, Laue & Rasmus, P .A. Susan Glover & David Anderson, 6429 Oliver Ave S Meridel Hanson & Jerry Bovy, 6421 Oliver Ave S Al & Arlene Schroeder, 6521 Oliver Ave S C. Johnson, 6438 Oliver Ave S Corrine Thompson, City Attorney Melissa PoeWman, Zoning Administrator Vanessa Haight, CD Assistant Coordinator The meeting was called to order by Hearing Examiner Murray at 5:30 p.m. Hearing Examiner Murray described the hearing examiner process stating that the decision is not made at the public hearing. She also stated that interested parties will be notified in writing of the decision within 90 days after the applicant submitted a complete application. ITEM #1 CASE 06-V AR-Ol, 6425 Oliver Ave S Kristin Ann Brown, applicant Variance to allow: reduction of the one-foot setback requirement to zero feet for concrete sidewalk and steps; reduction of the three-foot setback requirement to one foot for an existing shed; and an increase in the allowable height of a fence on a residential property from six feet to nine and one-half feet. . CD Assistant Coordinator Haight reviewed the staff report, stating that the applicant is requesting a variance to allow: reduction of the one-foot setback requirement to zero feet for concrete sidewalk and steps; reduction of the three-foot setback requirement to one foot for an existing shed; and an increase in the allowable height of a fence on residential property from six to nine and one-half feet. CD Assistant Coordinator Haight presented the staff report, recommending denial of the variance because not all criteria for granting a hardship are met. The applicant's attorney, Mr. Rasmus, asked for the names of those making complaints and the content of the complaints against the applicant. ZA Poehlman stated that the complaints are confidential. City Attorney Corrine Thompson stated that under the Data Practices Act, the complaints are kept confidential and that the complaints can be addressed during the County proceeding. Additionally, Ms. Thompson stated that the complaints are not relevant to this variance. Mr. Rasmus pointed out the property line as shown in the 1957 survey and asked the Hearing Examiner to accept the lot line as one foot north of the location shown in the most recent surveys. Mr. Rasmus presented photos of the fence and the hot tub and stated that the fence is needed due to an immediate privacy issue. This immediate privacy issue should qualify as undue hardship, Mr. Rasmus suggested. Mr. Rasmus stated that Kristin Ann Brown located the property line before installing the steps. Ms. Brown contacted Hennepin County for assistance and gauged the location by looking at the distance between the garages. Mr. Rasmus stated that three feet of the fence is out of compliance but the remainder meets code. A signed petition in support of the variance was presented. Hearing Examiner Murray asked if anyone from the audience would like to speak. David Anderson and Susan Glover of 6429 Oliver Ave S presented a written statement (see attached). Jerry Bovy presented a written statement by Meridel Hanson of 6421 Oliver Ave S (see attached). Hearing Examiner Murray closed the public hearing. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. ~ Richfield City Code (Zoning) -R District----------u-- 521.05, Subd. 3 .- .----- (Rev. 2005) Subd. 3. Greenhouses which do not exceed 175 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, and further" provided that no sale of products is conducted on the lot. Subd. 4. Storage buildings which do not exceed 175 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. Subd. 5. Utility buildings and structures accessory to telecommunications towers and antennas which do not exceed 350 square feet in gross floor area and which comply with the setback requirements for a non-residential accessory structure in the R district. (Added, Bill No. 1996-21) Subd. 6. Gazebos which do not exceed 175 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. Subd.7. Carports 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. Subd. 8. Private swimming pools as defined in Section 420 of the City Code, provided that such swimming pools and related equipment be located (i) at least ten feet from any rear lot line, (ii) at least ten feet from any interior side lot line, (iii) at least 15 feet from any streets ide side lot line, and (iv) at least six feet from the principal building and any non-pool related accessory structure. Subd. 9. Licensed day care facilities serving 12 or fewer persons, or group family day care facilities licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 serving 14 or fewer persons, or as otherwise permitted by law. Subd. 10. Licensed foster family homes serving six or fewer children, or as otherwise permitted bylaw. Subd. 11. Private driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas, and sidewalks for residential uses, provided the following conditions are met: (Amended, Bill No. 2005-8) a) all such driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas, and sidewalks shall be set back no less than one foot from any lot line abutting another parcel, except that upon written request from the landowner, the Director may reduce or rescind this setback requirement for shared access agreements or with a finding of necessity and public convenience; (Amended, Bill No. 2005-8) b) all such driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas, and sidewalks shall be constructed with concrete, asphalt, concrete pavers, brick set in compacted sand, or other material approved by the Director; (Amended, Bill No. 2005-8) Richfield City Code (Zoning) R-District 521.05, Subd. 11 (c) -~-----~----~--(Rev .-2005) c) no parking area shall be permitted in the front yard area; (Amended, Bill No. 2005-8) d) within the front yard area, vehicles shall only be parked on the driveway area; (Amended, Bill No. 2005-8) e) driveways, where located within the boulevard or the front yard area, are subject to the following requirements: (i) they shall not exceed 22 feet in width up to a maximum of 35% of the front yard area (curb cut radii excluded); (ii) curb cut radii (five feet minimum) shall not encroach upon the boulevard of abutting properties; (iii) on comer lots, driveways shall be set back at least 30 feet from an intersection, as measured from the point where the extended curb lines of the streets intersect; (iv) only one curb cut shall be permitted from a public street to an interior lot. A comer lot may have one curb cut from each public street, provided the driveway setback requirement in item (iii) above is met; and (v) upon written request from the landowner, items (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) above may be varied by the Director' with a finding of necessity and public convenience. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-8) f) any expansion or installation of a driveway, parking area, turnaround area, or sidewalk on a lot shall be subject to a City permit. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-8) g) Any expansion, installation or replacement of a curb cut from a public street to a lot shall be subject to a City permit and any curb cut abandoned with the installation of a new cut shall be extinguished and replaced with curb and gutter according to specifications determined by the Director of Public Works, except as provided in (e) (iv), provided the curb cut meets all requirements of (e) and is in service for driveway or parking purposes. (Added, Bill No. 1999-3; Amended, Bill No. 2005-8) h) A turnaround area maybe located within a front yard subject to the requirements of this paragraph. The turnaround area is limited to the front yard of arterial and collector streets only. The turnaround area can not exceed 150 square feet. The turnaround area must be contiguous to the driveway. (Added, Bill No. 2005-8) Richfield City Code (Zoning) RDistrict ------ 521.09, Subd. 3 {Rev:-2002) Subd. 3. Special grandfather clause for certain R lots. A lot that was a lot of record on or before June 1, 1995 located in the R District which does not meet the minimum requirements set forth in this code as to area and dimensions, may be used for single family (detached) development provided that the width of such lot is not less than 40 feet and such lot contains at least 5,000 square feet in area. When computing lot width and area, the area which is unencumbered with street, alley, or highway easements shall be used. Subd. 4. Maximum lot coverage: Lots of 7,000 S . Ft. or less: 35% Lots of over 7,000 S . Ft.: The eater of35% or 2,500 S . Ft. Cluster home develo ments: 35% Non-residential uses: 50% (Amended Bill No. 1996-22; Bill No. 1999-3) 521.11. Reauired buildine setback and maximum heieht. Subdivision 1. Standards. The standards set out in this subsection apply in the R District. Subd. 2. Required setback and maximum height: 30 Ft. 30 Ft. 50 feet from centerline 25 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 25 Ft. of originally latted street 30 Ft. 25 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 25 Ft. 30 Ft. 3 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 14 Ft. 30 Ft. 3 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 12 Ft. 40 Ft. 30 Ft. 30 Ft. 42Ft. 40 Ft. 10Ft. 30 Ft. 15 Ft. (Amended Bill No. 1996-22; Bill No. 1999-3; Bill No. 2002-11) Subd. 3. Height measurement. For the purpose of non-garage accessory structures, height is measured from the ground level to the highest point of the roof. (Added, Bill No. 1999-3) Subd. 4. Additional setback requirement: vehicle access door facing a side or rear lot line. Whenever any building (principal or accessory) is located in such a manner that a vehicle access door faces a side or rear lot line, such side or rear setback requirement shall be not less than 20 feet, except under the following conditions: a) if a vehicle access door faces a "streets ide" side lot line which abuts a non-arterial or non-collector street, such "streets ide" side setback requirement shall be not less than 15 feet; or b) if a vehicle access door faces a rear lot line which abuts an alley, such rear setback requirement shall be not less than 15 feet; or c) if a vehicle access door faces an "interior" side lot line on a lot that is less than 45 feet in width, such "interior" side setback requirement shall be not less than, 15 feet. Richfield City Code (Zoning) R-IJistrict \ 521.11, Subd. 9 (Rev:-2002) Subd. 9. Setback reductions for residential accessory buildings. The following setback reductions apply in the R District: a) the interior side setback requirement. for accessory buildings located entirely five or more feet beyond the rear building line of the principal building may be reduced to three feet. (Figure 11) b) on lots which provide alley access to the rear, a detached garage may be located no less than two feet from the rear lot line, provided that the setback requirement of Section 521.11, Subd. 4 of this code and all building codes are met. : ,_ ,C~=~~ ~~~_~~~ I ' . I I i I ' " rear I 3'-?>i b building i .'Lit.l~L . line~! 5', I l.r........~House . t Interior i ! S'd ' I I e I i Lot Line i i Ii' '---tj ! , I I ' _._-,-,~,_._._._._._,-,~,- "-- Front Lot Line Figure 11 Subd. 10. Maximum height increase for cluster housing developments. The maximum height for primary buildings in a cluster housing developments may be increased one foot for every foot the primary building is located from the 25 foot rear set-back, up to a maximum of 35 feet, if the increased height is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood and if the increased height does not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood in terms of a decrease in privacy, noise, overcrowding, or other similar impacts. (Added, Bill No. 1996-22; Amended, Bill No. 2002-11) 521.13. Additional rules for accessory buildin!!s and uses. Subdivision 1. The additional rules set out in this subsection apply to accessory buildings and uses in the R District. Subd. 2. Accessory buildings shall be located not less than five feet from any other building (dwelling included) on the lot. The Building Code requires fire protected walls for buildings located less than six feet apart. The eave overhang from adjacent structures on the same lot shall be no less than four feet apart. Subd.3. The roof overhang (eave projection) for accessory buildings shall not be located closer than two feet from any lot line. Subd. 4. No accessory building on any lot, except through lots, shall be situated forward of the front line of the principal building. Subd.5. In the case of a through lot, no accessory building shall be located within 30 feet of the lot lines abutting either street. Subd. 6. No accessory building shall be constructed on any residential parcel prior to the time of construction of the principal building on the lot, unless specifically approved by the City Council. Subd. 7. No more than one detached garage, no more than one greenhouse, no more than one storage building, and no more than one gazebo shall be located on a residential parcel. Subd. 8. No accessory building shall be more than one story in height, greater in lot coverage than the principal building, or greater in height than the principal building. Richfield City Code (Zoning) General Provisions 511.21, Subd. 12 (Rev. 2001) Subd. 12. Performance standards. A home occupation may not adversely impact the residential character of the dwelling or its neighborhood because of the emission of noise, odor, water, smoke, dust, gases, heat, glare, vibration, electrical interference, or parking or traffic resulting from the conduct of the home occupation. Subd. 13. Non-resident emplovee. One person in addition to the person or persons who occupy the dwelling may be employed at the residence if a conditional use permit is issued in accordance with Subsection 546.05 of this code. Subd.14. Hours of operation. The hours of operation for any home occupation shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Subd. 15. Use of eauipment. No mechanical or electrical equipment requiring in excess of 220 volts single phase shall be permitted in the conduct of a home occupation, and no electric motor shall exceed three horse power. 511.23. Fences. walls. and hedaes. Subdivision 1. General rule. A fence, wall, or hedge may occupy a lot as provided in this subsection, Subd. 2. Definitions: a) "Hedge" - a row of shrubbery which forms or is intended to form a barrier. b) "Wall" - this term includes retaining walls, freestanding walls, and decorative or privacy walls. Subd. 3. Heiaht: a) no fence, wall, or hedge more than four feet in height shall be constructed or permitted to grow forward of the front line of the principal building extended to the side lot lines; b) no fence or wall more than six feet in height shall be constructed elsewhere on the lot, except that in "C-2" and "I" districts, the maximum height shall be eight feet. A building permit shall be required for fences and walls over six feet in height; and c) whenever a fence or wall is used in combination, or placed upon a berm, the combined height shall not exceed the permitted heights outlined in paragraphs a) and b) above. Subd. 4. Corner lots. Fences, walls, and hedges located on any corner lot are subject to the traffic visibility requirements described in subsection 511.15. Subd. 5. Setback reauirement. Fences, walls, and hedges located along a right-of-way which contains a public sidewalk, or located along a street or alley, shall be set back not less than three feet from the nearest edge of such sidewalk, street, or alley. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARING 9 159 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 25, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: KA TIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading regarding a Transitory Ordinance authorizing the sale of real property to Ryan Companies US, Inc. in accordance with the Option and First Right of Refusal Aareement. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve the attached Transitory Ordinance authorizing and providing for the sale, transfer or other disposition and conveyance of certain real property located in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to Ryan Companies US, Inc. in accordance with the Option and First Right of Refusal Agreement. I II. BACKGROUND I . On June 27, 2006, the City Council (City) undertook the first reading of a Transitory Ordinance authorizing the sale of excess real property for the new 17th Avenue roadway to Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Developer) in accordance with the Option and First Right of Refusal Agreement (Option Agreement) (as approved originally by the City on June 13, 2006 and subsequently revised and approved on June 27, 2006), contingent upon the 072506 PHTransOrdLand CP City's ability to acquire fee title and possession to this property (Option Properties). . The Option Agreement identifies 6600,6601,6609,6615,6621,6627 and 6633 17th Avenue, 6601 16th Avenue, 1614 and 1620 East 66th Street as excess land parcels. . The excess land portion of the properties located at 1614 and 1620 East 66th Street will be sold by the City to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), contingent upon the City's ability to obtain fee title and possession of the properties in accordance with a Purchase Agreement between the City and HRA approved by the City on June 27,2006 and June 26, 2006, respectively. At this writing, purchase offers have already been made to these property owners. . The properties at 6601,6609,6615,6621,6627 and 6633 17th Avenue are already owned by the City. . The properties at 6600 17th Avenue and 6601 16th Avenue remain in private ownership with no Purchase Agreements yet. Acquisition negotiations are underway. . It is now appropriate for the City to authorize the sale of real property to Ryan Companies US, Inc. in accordance with the Option Agreement. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The Option Agreement provides the Developer first option to purchase the excess land parcels from the City. . The sale of real property by Transitory Ordinance is being undertaken in accordance with the City Ordinance. lB. CRITICAL ISSUES I . On June 13, 2006 the City approved the Option Agreement with the Developer and subsequently on June 27,2006, approved an amended agreement. . On June 27,2006 the City undertook the first reading of the subject Transitory Ordinance for the land conveyances to the Developer. . At the appropriate time, the land sale to the Developer will be reviewed by the Planning Commission to determine the consistency of the re-use of the land in relation to the Comprehensive Plan of the City. I C. FINANCIAL I . The sale of land will be made to the Developer in accordance with the Option Agreement. I D. LEGAL I . On July 13, 2006 the legal notice of public hearing for the Transitory Ordinance was published in the Sun Current newspaper. . The Transitory Ordinance will be effective on September 2, 2006. I IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Continue public hearing and second reading of the Transitory Ordinance. . Do not proceed with the Transitory Ordinance processing at this time. . Both actions would impact the HRA's ability to convey land to Developer and perform on schedule, in accordance with the Developer's Agreement. (This does not apply to the land that is to be conveyed to MnDOT.) I V. ATTACHMENTS . Transitory Ordinance . Map I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . N/A 1~1 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE, TRANSFER OR OTHER DISPOSITION AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA The City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1. Those portions of the real properties described in Exhibit A in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, that are not required for road right of way, are hereby authorized to be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of and conveyed by the City as herein provided to Ryan Companies US, Inc., in accordance with the Option and Right of First Refusal Agreement dated June 30, 2006. Section 2 The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to take all action as is required to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of and convey the real property described in the foregoing Sections 1 and 2, including, by way of illustration and not limitation, the execution of all documents, purchase agreements, deeds of conveyance, and other instruments connected with such sale, transfer or disposition and conveyance. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of July 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk q,~ EXHIBIT A 6601 16th Avenue S Lot 16, Block 1, Cedar Sunrise Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, an all easements gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto 6600 17th Avenue S Lot 1, Block 1, Cedar Sunrise Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, an all easements gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto 6601 17th Avenue S Lot 16, Block 2, Wexler's Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, an all easements gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto 6609 17th Avenue S Lot 15, Block 2, Wexler's Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, an all easements gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto 6615 17th Avenue S Lot 14, Block 2, Wexler's Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, an all easements gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto 6621 17th Avenue S Lot 13, Block 2, Wexler's Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, an all easements gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto 6627 17th Avenue S Lot 12, Block 2, Wexler's Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, an all easements gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto 6633 17th Avenue S Lot 11, Block 2, Wexler's Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, an all easements gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto . . . 7-3 Option and First Right of R fusal Agr ement ~ I L 65th Street c-- - - - - f-- I--- I--- . .t:'-- ..... 1614 1620 :J 0 en Q) :J 66th Street c Q) l:~';!.;0i~jW~01'~~lfB~~{ii ~ ... ctl "0 Q) () i I .t: .t: .t: ..... ..... ..... :J :J :J 0 0 0 en en en Q) Q) Q) :J :J :J C C C Q) Q) Q) ~ ~ ~ .t: .t: .t: ~ ..... ..... ex:> <0 T- T- T- 6645 67th Street 1\ Legend Option Properties (City Conveyance to Developer) ~ N Option Properties (City Conveyance to HRA) o 100 200 400 600 800 Feet July 25, 2006 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # RESOLUTION 10 160 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 25, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: PAT SMITH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 11ANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ;cO.- REVIEWED BY CITY 11ANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of authorizing eminent domain proceedings to acquire certain real properties for bus ullouts associated with the new 17th Avenue and 66th Street intersection. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached Resolution, which authorizes eminent domain proceedings to acquire certain real properties for bus pullouts associated with the new 17th Avenue and 66th Street intersection. I II. BACKGROUND I On October 25, 2005 the City Council approved a two-lane roundabout design for the new intersection at 66th Street and 17th Avenue and a financing plan concept for the proposed improvements. The project design included two bus pullouts on the north and south side of 66th Street, west of the new intersection. Four residential properties need to be acquired to accommodate the bus pullouts: 072506 66th St Condemnation 6600 17th Avenue 6601 16th Avenue 1614 East 66th Street 1620 East 66th Street 1614 and 1620 East 66th Street are also needed to accommodate the portion of Cedar Point Commons west of 17th Avenue. On June 27, 2006 the City Council approved Just Compensation to purchase the four subject properties. The City's relocation consultant, SRF Consulting, made offers to all four property owners on June 28, 2006. The City has signed a Purchase Agreement with Lorie Pottebaum, owner of 1620 East 66th Street, which is scheduled to close on July 24, 2006. The City also has a signed Purchase Agreement with David Vogel, owner of 1614 East 66th Street, which is scheduled to close on July 26,2006. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . On October 25, 2005 the City Council approved a two-lane roundabout design for the new intersection at 66th Street and 17th Avenue and a financing plan concept for the proposed improvements. . On June 27, 2006 the City Council approved Just Compensation to purchase the four subject properties. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The Escrow Agreement between he City, HRA, Ryan Companies US, Inc., and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, Inc., dated June 30, 2006, obligates the City to file eminent domain proceedings and serve quick take notices by August 1, 2006 to acquire the subject properties. . The four properties need to be acquired to accommodate two bus pullouts and a portion of Cedar Point Commons (1614 and 1620 East 66th Street). . Negotiations on the two parcels without Purchase Agreements will continue but it is necessary to simultaneously proceed with eminent domain so that title can be obtained by the date required for the project. . Properties which have "closed" before filing eminent domain will be deleted from that action. I C. FINANCIAL I The acquisition and relocation expenses associated with these properties will be funded using the 429 Special Assessment Bonds. 072506 66th St Condemnation . Interim funds are available from the Capital Improvement Reserve Funds for the purchase of the four subject properties. I D. LEGAL I . HRA legal counsel drafted the attached Resolution and has been involved in discussions related to efforts to acquire the properties. . A public hearing is not required because the condemnation is for road purposes and is not subject to recent changes in the condemnation statute. . The subject property owners have been notified of this proposed action. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Do not approve the use of condemnation at this time and instruct the City's consultants to continue negotiations on the remaining properties. Iv. ATTACHMENTS I . Resolution authorizing eminent domain proceedings . Map - Subject properties . Map - Roundabout I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . N/A 072506 66th St Condemnation /D/( RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR STREET RECONSTRUCTION AND OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield ("City") is the official governing body of the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, acting by and through its City Council, is authorized by law to acquire real estate which is needed for public use or purpose; and WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005, the City Council approved a two-lane roundabout design for the new intersection at 66th Street and 1 ih Avenue and a financing plan concept for proposed improvements ("Project"); and WHEREAS, implementation of the plans and designs for the Project requires that the real estate described in Exhibit A attached hereto ("Subject Property") be acquired; and WHEREAS, interim funds are available from the Capital Improvement Reserve Funds for the purchase of the Subject Property and related expenses; and WHEREAS, funds from a Special Assessment Bond will be available to the City for reimbursement of acquisition and relocation costs and related expenses; and WHEREAS, the City desires to facilitate completion of the street reconstruction and other activities which are contemplated by the plans and specifications for the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is reasonably necessary, proper, and convenient, and in the interest of the public health, convenience, and general welfare of the citizens of the City that title to and possession of the Subject Property be acquired for the furtherance of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the construction schedule for the Project makes it necessary to acquire title to and possession of the Subject Property prior to the filing of the final report of the condemnation commissioners to be appointed by the district court. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD IN REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, that it is the considered 072506 66th St Condemnation jD/';} judgment of the City Council that the Subject Property be acquired for the stated public purposes and, if necessary, through the exercise of the power of eminent domain. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager and the City Attorney are authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to acquire the Subject Property by filing an action in eminent domain, negotiation of early entry authorization, and the use of the quick-take procedure. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is authorized to determine the amount of the City's approved appraisal of value for the Subject Property pursuant to Minn. Stat. 3117.042, the quick-take statute. Adopted by the City Council this 25th day of July 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 072506 66th St Condemnation EXHIBIT A 100 Leoal Description of Real Estate to be Acquired Property Address Leoal Description 6600 - 17th Avenue Lot 1, Block 1, Cedar Sunrise Addition, Hennepin County Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto 6601 - 16th Avenue Lot 16, Block 1, Cedar Sunrise Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto 1614 East 66th Lot 2, Block 5, Iverson's Third Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Street Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto 1620 East 66th Lot 1, Block 5, Iverson's Third Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Street Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto 66th st condemnation CEDAR POINT AREA 10;1 ~ L___, ~J__J ~ - 63RD ST - - - ~ - - f---- f---- ~ f---- ~ L-- ~.4TI-I ~T ,---- - -- - - - ..... - ..... - w w - ~ ~ ~ - 3: - 0:: - :I: - E f---- <( ~ C :I: - .... w - ~ 0 - '--- - z - - => 0:: -- - I- - - - 65TH ST - - -- - - - - - w - f---- ~ - - f---- :I: - - l- f---- ..... f---- - .... 8 f----- I I T~ ~Io .,... N co co '":: T""" L-- 66TH ST 1m LtJ ~l D Properties needed for bus pullouts D 0 120 240 480 720 960 N ~-- . Feet 07/18/06 I /-;. ~ffi ~ , ZooFT Lea:lI!md Construe/Ion ~. Others Proposed Roadwoy PrO{:XJSed Concrefe Pr(JfXJSed Slda'/olf PropoSfJd Bridge Proposed Landscaping PropilSed Path Nfl'.r TraffIc Slgnnl Revised Traffic SlgfI(J! Palm/oJ R/W k'QU1SItlDll Local/l&cess Issues roW R/JSult In 4cqulsltlon ~1I66th Street & 17th Avenue Improvements (Stage 1) _ City of Richfield, Minnesota ...~~ WSB I!rm:;;:;.:.~; ~fll<-'~::::;;'~~.~;;':;{:;:';':~ AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # RESOLUTION 11 101 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 25, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: PAT SMITH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 11ANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ri REVIEWED BY CITY 11ANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of an amendment to Escrow Agreement with Ryan Companies US, Inc. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached Resolution, which approves an amendment to the Escrow A reement with R an Com anies US, Inc. I II. BACKGROUND I The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Ryan) are pursuing redevelopment of the Cedar Point area. The HRA's obligation under the Contract is to execute and deliver to Ryan a Taxable Limited Revenue Note, which is the means whereby Ryan receives the benefit of the tax abatement of $2,068,700. On April 12, 2005 the City Council approved property tax abatement of the City's portion of real estate taxes for 15 y~ars for Cedar Point. On June 30, 2006 the City Council, HRA and Ryan entered into an Escrow Agreement. Ryan is requesting the Escrow Agreement to be amended to include delivering the Note into escrow. 072506 Amended Escrow Agreement Ryan The Escrow Agreement is also proposed to be amended to eliminate the required date (August 31st) in which the HRA needs to possess 6500 Cedar Avenue, Magnuson Sod. The HRA has reached a settlement with the property owner, Mr. Haag, in which the business may occupy the property until September 30, 2006. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . On June 30, 2006 the HRA and City Council entered into an Escrow Agreement with Ryan to help facilitate the closing on real estate. . The closing would be further facilitated by having the Note part of the Escrow. . On July 17, 2006 the HRA approved the amendment to the Escrow Agreement. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . Because the City Council is a party to the Escrow Agreement, Council approval of the amendment to the Escrow Agreement is also required. Ic. FrnANC~L I . The Taxable Limited Revenue Note is part of the inducement for Ryan to undertake Cedar Point. I D. LEGAL I . HRA legal counsel drafted the proposed Resolution. . The amendment document will be presented subsequently to the Mayor for signature. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Approve the proposed amendment with added provisions or modifications. . Do not approve the proposed amendment. . Delay consideration. I V. ATTACHMENTS . Resolution I VI. PRINCIP AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETrnG . N/A /1/ I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO ESCROW AGREEMENT WHEREAS, on or about July 27,2005, the Housing Authority in and for the City of Richfield (the "Authority") and Ryan Companies US, Inc. ("Ryan") entered into a Contract for Private Development (the "Contract") calling for the redevelopment of certain tracts of land all as fully described in the Contract; and WHEREAS, the Contract was amended by First Amendment to Contract for Private Development dated June 30, 2006, (the Contract and First Amendment being referred to as the "Amended Contract"; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the terms of the Amended Contract, the HRA is required to execute and deliver to Ryan its Taxable Limited Revenue Note (the "Note"); and WHEREAS, on or about June 30, 2006, the HRA, Ryan and the City of Richfield did enter into an escrow agreement (the "Escrow Agreement") providing for the delivery into escrow of certain instruments and documents to be held in escrow and thereafter delivered all in accordance with the terms of the Escrow Agreement; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2006 the HRA approved the amendment to the Escrow Agreement; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council that the Escrow Agreement be amended to include the Note, and to be further amended as provided below. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed on behalf of the City Council, after consultation with legal counsel, to execute such amendments to the Escrow Agreement as are necessary to: (i) permit the delivery of the Note thereto, and for the disposition of the Note; and (ii) delete from Section 4(a) the following provision: . "8/31/06 the HRA shall have acquired title and possession to the Haag Parcel which is the subject of an HRA condemnation action." Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 25th day of July, 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # OTHER BUSINESS 12 162 ..... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 25, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: RANDy HUGHES, OPERATIONS SUPERINTENDENT NAME, TInE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~/ ri REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: . ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration to authorize staff to solicit Request for Proposals (RFP's) for professional architectural services to provide two preliminary design and cost estimates for a City Hall, Police, Fire and Licensin build in 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize staff to solicit Requests for Proposals (RFP's) for professional architectural services for preliminary design and cost estimates for a new City Hall, Police.. Fire and Licensing building for the Cit of Richfield. I II. BACKGROUND I Richfield's Municipal Building at 6700 Portland Avenue South was constructed in 1963. It houses City Hall, the Police Department, Fire Station I and a Licensing Department, which services the public. The existing building is about53,000 sq. ft. Over the years, the building has been remodeled numerous times to accommodate increased staffing and programs. The various remodels have made it very difficult for the HVAC equipment to provide adequate heating and cooling and the building is poorly laid out for efficiency and security. The building does not meet many of today's codes and 072506CityHa1lRFP's moisture problems have damaged some areas and caused some employee concerns about health. On November 25,2003, a City Hall Advisory Task Force (CHAT-I) was appointed by the City Council to investigate the feasibility of major remodeling of the building versus construction of a new building to meet today's needs. Their recommendation on April 26, 2005 was to build a new building. On July 26,2005 a second City Hall Advisory Task Force (CHAT-II) was formed to look at locations for a new facility. Their recommendation was to use the existing site. They will continue to work with the company chosen in this process on design of the facility. The City of Richfield is now considering how to integrate the future needs of City Hall, Police, Fire and Licensing into a new facility on the existing site. The following two scenarios are being looked at: . A new structure occupying the present space utilized by the existing facility plus the square footage equivalent of the three single-family lots along the 6700 block of Portland Avenue. . Allow the City Hall Public Safety complex to encroach on the Heredia Park land and possibly mitigate the encroachment with improvements to the park. Staff would like to solicit RFPs from qualified architectural firms to provide these services. Public Works staff will be available to explain the procedure which is anticipated to be used in seeking architectural services. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . Soliciting RFPs is usually authorized by the City Council. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . In order to gather preliminary design and cost estimates for the eventual public hearing which would allow the process to proceed beyond City Charter expenditure limits, the project is at a point where professional architectural advice is needed. I C. FINANCIAL I . The City is limited by City Charter to a maximum of $75,000 before a public hearing and ordinance are required to proceed with a project. . Accumulated franchise fee funding is available for this architectural service. I D. LEGAL I . The use of the RFP process is a legal process for choosing architectural services. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Use a different process other than the solicitation of RFPs for the architectural firm selection. I V. ATTACHMENTS . RFP draft I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None IJ/I REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND COST ESTIMATES FOR A NEW CITY HALL, POLICE, FIRE AND LICENSING BUILDING FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD REQUESTED SERVICE The City seeks to obtain the services of a qualified architectural firm with extensive experience in the design of multiple use public facilities to provide schematic designs of a new City Hall, Police, Fire and Licensing Building for the existing site at 6700 Portland Avenue South. This work will include two scenarios. One design on the existing site with no encroachment into the adjacent park and one design allowing encroachment into the park. Parking, landscaping, cost estimates and effects of the construction on the operation of the existing complex would also need to be addressed. BACKGROUND Richfield's Municipal Building at 6700 Portland Avenue South was constructed in 1963. It houses City Hall, the Police Department, Fire Station I and a Licensing Department, which services the public. The existing building is about 53,000 sq. ft. Over the years, the building has been remodeled numerous times to accommodate increased staffing and programs. The various remodels have made it very difficult for the HVAC equipmentto provide adequate heating and cooling and the building is poorly laid out for efficiency and security. The building does not meet many of today's codes and moisture problems have damaged some areas and caused some employee concerns about health. On November 25,2003, a City Hall Advisory Task Force (CHAT-I) was appointed by the City Council to investigate the feasibility of major remodeling of the building versus construction of a new building to meet today's needs. Their recommendation on April 26, 2005 was to build a new building. On July 26,2005 a second City Hall Advisory Task Force (CHAT-II) was formed to look at locations for a new facility. Their recommendation was to use the existing site. They will continue to work with the company chosen in this process on design of the facility. The City of Richfield is now considering how to integrate the future needs of City Hall, Police, Fire and Licensing into a new facility on the existing site. Appropriate considerations to the surrounding land uses, the adjacent park and neighbors and will need to be addressed for both the building and parking. BUDGET The City is limited by City Charter to a maximum expenditure of $75,000 for this phase of the project. The materials developed in this phase will be used at a public hearing required by City Charter. After the hearing, the Council may select a design track and authorize expenditures to finalize specifications and design, bid and construct the building. -1- ()-') PROCEDURES The following information is provided to assist you in preparing your proposal: 1. Number of copies needed: 2. Due date and time: 3. Page limitation: 4. Proposed Schedule: (dates) Proposals reviewed Interviews held on selected proposals: Contract awarded by Council: 5. Mail or deliver proposals to: 6. If there are questions about the preparation of your proposal or to arrange a tour of the site and facilities, please contact: All contacts made with the City of Richfield regarding this proposal should be made solely through The City intends to select three to five firms for consideration. QUALIFICATIONS The City seeks to employ a firm that exhibits the following characteristics: 1. Strong design and construction experience with recent examples of similar new or renovation projects involving public safety and city hall facilities, in a setting similar to Richfield. 2. A demonstrated ability to achieve value, attractiveness and quality in design, and remain within project budget limitations. 3. A demonstrated ability to integrate the concepts of sustainability into the project. This includes energy efficiency, use of environmentally sound building materials and construction methods, construction waste management and prevention, and creating a healthy indoor environment. 4. A willingness to participate as part of a project team that will include key City staff, other community representatives and possibly an owner's representative/construction manager -2- });3 5. The architectural firm must be willing to work with elected officials as a partner in the design and planning of the facility. CONTENTS OF PROPOSAL Interested firms should submit a proposal that contains the following information, organized in this manner: 1. Firm Background a. Describe the qualifications of your firm. Include the size of firm, number of employees by job category, the areas of specialization for which your firm is recognized, and any key features that might set your firm apart. b. Please describe your experience in working with an independent owner's representative on a project. 2. Experience and References List at least three similar public safety/city hall facilities completed by your firm in the last 10 years. a. For each of these projects, list the date of completion, the total square footage, total project cost, the construction time frame, the project designer, and project manager. State whether or not the persons responsible for each project are still employed by your firm. b. For each of these projects, list a reference that we may contact. Include contact person, title, telephone number, and identify their role in the process. c. List any design awards won by your firm. Identify the project and date of award. 3. Approach to Project a. Describe how your firm will approach the design of the facility in terms of involvement by the owner. b. Describe how your firm will approach internal facility design relative to functionality, economy, durability, sustainability and aesthetic/architectural appeal and how these values will support the delivery of high quality services to the public. c. Describe how your firm will approach external facility design project design on a campus with limited space, and considering the adjacent uses, landscaping, and parking. 4. Project Team a. Specify the project team that will be committed for the duration of this project, and describe any other personnel who will be involved in the project. If the proposer is selected for an interview, the project team committed to the project must be available for the interview. b. Identify any consultants who will be a part 0 this team and identify their firm, experience and areas of expertise. c. Discuss how you will perform engineering services. Identify the key staff that will be committed to the project, their qualifications, experience and specific areas of expertise. d. Discuss your firm's role in site management and supervision; specify any personnel who would be committed and how you would propose to work with the owner's representative/construction manager or general contractor. -3- IJ/1 5. Additional Required Information a. Does your firm carry insurance to protect clients from errors and omissions? In what amount? Does your firm carry professional liability insurance? Provide evidence in your proposal. b. Has your firm been the subject of litigation, mediation, or arbitration during the last five years? If so, give details of the issues and its resolution. Provide names of clients involved and contact names and telephone numbers. Involvement in litigation will not necessarily disqualify a proposer, however failure to provide accurate information will render the submittal as disqualified from further consideration. c. Has your firm ever been requested by a client to retire from a project? If so, explain details. d. Each proposal must be signed by an authorized representative of your firm who can be held accountable for all representations. 6. Fees a. Describe your method of fee calculation. What services are included? Identify which fees are based on cost percentage of the job, flat rate, or pass-through. b. Does your fee assume a certain number of meetings with staff and a certain number of public meetings with the City Council and/or Planning Commission? -4-