10-11-93 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1993
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 27, 1993; (2) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER
27 1993; (3) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION OF OCTOBER 4,
1993; AND (4) CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION OF OCTOBER 4, 1993
PRESENTATIONS
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT
LISTED ON THE AGENDA
2'. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE IN RECOGNITION OF FORMER COUNCIL
MEMBER KERMIT RANDALL'S SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF RICHFIELD
• 3. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 1993
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
4. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 1993
NATIONAL BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
AGENDA APPROVAL
5. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTE: 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.
6A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR
ROCK SALT TO BE USED IN ICE CONTROL DURING 1993 /94 WINTER
SEASON FROM NORTH AMERICAN SALT IN AMOUNT OF $12,830 C.L.
283
• B. ESTIMATE #3 PAYMENT FOR WATER TREATMENT PLANT MODIFICATIONS;
BOR -SON CONSTRUCTION; $160,840.00
C. ESTIMATE #1 PAYMENT FOR ELECTRICAL MODIFICATIONS AT WATER
TREATMENT PLANT; PAGE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING, INC.;
$6,650.00
D. ESTIMATE #5 PAYMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SHELTER BUILDING AT
NICOLLET PARK CP889; EBERT CONSTRUCTION; $45,173.44
E. ESTIMATE #3 PAYMENT FOR NICOLLET PARK SITE IMPROVEMENT;
HOFFMAN & MCNAMARA, CO.; $83,348.36
F. ESTIMATE #7 PAYMENT FOR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AT JEFFERSON
PARK; C.O. FIELD COMPANY; $8,307.10
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
REZONE THE FOLLOWING MULTIPLE RESIDENCE PROPERTIES: 1) 7001
AND 7005 FIFTH AVENUE AND 7000 PORTLAND AVENUE TO SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; 2) 6919 -21 CHICAGO AVENUE TO TWO FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL; 3) 7608, 7614, 7620, 7626, 7632 AND 7638
PLEASANT AVENUE TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; AND 4) 7701
PORTLAND AVENUE TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND 631 EAST 77TH
STREET TO HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 284
8. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
CLASSIFY PAWN OPERATIONS, SECONDHAND GOODS OPERATIONS WHICH
REQUIRE A LICENSE.UNDER SECTION 1186 OF CITY CODE, CURRENCY
EXCHANGES, AUCTION HOUSES AND CONSIGNMENT AUCTION HOUSES AS
CONDITIONAL USES IN GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICTS
• COUNCIL LETTER NO. 285
9. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND OFF - STREET PARKING PERMIT TO ALLOW DAYCARE CENTER AT
6341 PENN AVENUE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 286
RESOLUTION
10. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION OPPOSING UNFUNDED FEDERAL AND
STATE MANDATES
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 287
PROPOSED ORDINANCES
11. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
REZONE 6438 AND 6444 FIRST AVENUE FROM RESIDENCE TO GENERAL
COMMERCIAL AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION DIRECTING
PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH RESPECT TO USE OF BUFFER AREAS AND
THEIR CONTROL
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 288
• 12. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
REZONE THE FOLLOWING MULTIPLE RESIDENCE PROPERTIES: 1) 7132
BLOOMINGTON AVENUE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE; 2 ) 7107
•
CHICAGO AVENUE AND 7106 ELLIOT AVENUE TO MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL;. 3) WEST PORTION (PARKING LOT) OF 7000 CEDAR
AVENUE TO HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL; AND 4) 7500
CEDAR AVENUE TO HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 289
13. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION
416 OF CITY CODE BY ADDING SPECIFIC LANGUAGE TO ADDRESS
SIGNAGE IN 77TH STREET CORRIDOR
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 290
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS
14. CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION FOR BOARD AND LODGING
ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE AT 6808 THIRD AVENUE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 291
15. CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENTS RELATED TO PROPERTY AT 7629 -33
AND 7645 LYNDALE AVENUE; 77TH STREET PROJECT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 292
16. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE IN PHASE II HIGH
SPEED BUS PLANNING STUDY
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 293
AIRPORT BUSINESS
17. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
77TH STREET PROJECT
18. 77TH STREET PROJECT STATUS REPORT
19. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
COUNCIL CHOICE
20. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
21. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
ADJOURNMENT
• Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available
upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance
to the Administrative Services Director at 861 -9702.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 293
Agenda October 11, 1993
. Issue Statement:
Consideration of request to participate in Phase II High Speed Bus
Planning Study.
Background:
The City of Richfield and Dakota County have cooperated in Phase I of
the High Speed Bus Planning Study. The purpose of the first phase of
the study was to develop a general framework for the high speed bus
concept and to communicate the concept to other cities and agencies.
That work has now been substantially completed. Several cities have
indicated their desire to participate in planning for Phase II of the
study.
Phase II will include the development of actual service plans, a project
budget and presentation of the plan to transportation agencies and the
Legislature for possible funding. The cities who have agreed to
participate in Phase II include Burnsville, Bloomington, Lakeville,
Savage, Apple Valley, Rosemount, Prior Lake and Eagan. The cities of
Minnetonka, Edina and Eden Prairie are currently considering
participation but have not yet committed. Dakota County will also
continue with the project.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize $7,500 to continue planning for high speed bus system.
• Basis for Recommendation:
1. High speed bus is an effective mass transit alternative that can be
implemented prior to implementation of light rail transit.
2. High speed bus can be implemented at a lower cost than other transit
alternatives.
3. Implementing a mass transit alternative prior to reconstruction of
I -35W may help reduce traffic on local streets.
4. Other transit agencies are encouraging this continued effort.
5. A number of other cities have indicated their support and also
agreed to fund $7,500 each to continue this planning effort.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City of Richfield could decide not to continue with the planning
effort and to let transit agencies implement this project on their
own.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented at the Council meeting of October 11,
1993.
R lly submitted,
•
JWsProsser
Cger
JDP:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 292
Agenda October 11, 1993
Issue Statement:
Approval of agreements related to property at 7629 -33 and 7645
Lyndale Avenue; 77th Street Project.
Background:
The City purchased 7645 Lyndale Avenue (former Total Petroleum
site) to provide for installation of 77th Street improvements.
Mr. Fred Ryan owns the commercial building adjacent to 7645 at
7629 -33 Lyndale Avenue. To properly install the intersection
improvements at 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue, the Ryan property
would be impacted in two ways: 1) the curb cut on Lyndale Avenue,
which provides ingress and egress for his property must be
closed, and 2) a portion of existing City right -of -way behind the
existing curb must be utilized for a Lyndale Avenue traffic lane.
Mr. Ryan would lose both direct access to his property and some
off street parking space as a result. Some off - street parking
spaces were on the existing City,right -of -way behind the curb.
Additional loss would occur because the perpendicular parking in
front of his building must become angled parking (see Exhibit F).
Following discussions with legal counsel and real estate
appraisers, it was determined that the City had two choices in
• approaching Ryan; 1) propose to purchase his entire property, or
2) work out an agreement acceptable to Ryan that would permit him
to continue to operate a viable commercial property and the City
to install the improvements. A second concern was to protect the
redevelopment potential of City owned property at a future date.
Purchase of the Ryan property was determined to be undesirable as
funds were not available. Thus the attached agreements were
negotiated; a parking lease agreement and driveway easement
agreement.
The parking lease agreement leases to Ryan seven parking spaces
on the site formerly occupied by Total Petroleum (see Exhibit F)
at a cost of $10 /month /space or $840. The 77th Street project
would provide the revenues to install the parking area. The
lease also provides that should the Total Petroleum site be
redeveloped the spaces could be moved. The lease rate was set to
avoid a burden on Ryan and to clearly establish that the City
owns the property.
The driveway easement provides for a curb cut on the north end of
the City owned property which would provide access to the seven
parking spaces and an egress point for traffic from Ryan's
property as well as the stores to the north.
Recommended Motion:
• Approve the agreements and authorize execution by the Mayor and
City Manager.
r
/6-/
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The contemplated improvements must be installed to meet 77th
Street project standards.
2. The agreements provide the most cost effective approach for
effectuating the improvements.
3. The agreements have been negotiated with Mr. Ryan and he has
agreed to sign them.
4. The agreements provide a solution which minimizes negative
impacts to the commercial area.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Purchase the Ryan property (there is no readily identifiable
source of funds and Mr. Ryan is not eager to sell).
2. Direct staff to pursue other alternative proposals.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The agreements need to be approved before intersection
improvements can be constructed.
E
JDP:ds
0
Resp t lly submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City Manager
L�
PARKING LEASE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 1993, by and
between CITY OF RICHFIELD, a municipal corporation under the laws
of the State of Minnesota, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield,
MN 55423, hereinafter called Lessor, and FRED S. RYAN, 345 North
Arm Drive, Orono, Minnesota 554_, hereinafter called Lessee.
I. RECITALS
1.01. Lessor is the owner of the real estate which is legally
described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and which is depicted in
Exhibit B attached hereto ( "City Property ").
1.02. Lessee is the owner of the real estate which is legally
described in Exhibit C attached hereto, and which is depicted in
Exhibit D attached hereto ( "Ryan Property ").
• 1.03. The portion of the City Property which is legally
described in Exhibit E and depicted in Exhibit F is referred to
herein as the "Parking Parcel ".
1.04. The parties hereto desire to enter into a month to
month lease for the use of City Property for parking purposes by
owners and users of the Ryan Property for an indefinite period of
time subject to this agreement.
II. AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and $1.00 and
other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereto hereby
agree as follows:
2.01. Lessor hereby leases the Parking Parcel to Ryan for his
exclusive use for an indefinite term on a month to month basis in
accordance with the provisions of this Lease Agreement.
2.02. This Agreement shall be terminable by Lessee upon sixty
days written notice to Lessor. This Agreement shall be terminable
by Lessor upon sixty days notice to Lessee in the event that the
City intends to erect a building upon the Parking Parcel or to sell
the Parking Parcel to a party .which has agreed to or intends to
construct a structure on the Parking Parcel, provided that no such
termination by Lessor shall be effective until this Agreement is
replaced by another agreement which provides for the continued
availability of parking for seven automobiles for the Ryan
Property.
2.03. Lessor shall pay all real estate taxes, if any, levied
with respect to the Parking Parcel.
0 2.04. Lessor has installed pavement, curb and striping on the
Parking Parcel in a manner which is acceptable to Lessee. Lessee
Rn49548
RC145 -189 1
/53
accepts the Parking Parcel in "as is condition" and shall have the
duty to maintain the Parking Parcel as it sees fit to accommodate
its use of the Parking Parcel from time to time, provided that no
physical improvements shall be made without written approval of the
City Manager.
2.05. This Agreement shall run with the Land and be binding
upon and inure to the benefit of Lessor and Lessee and their
successors and assigns as owners of the Parking Parcel and the Ryan
Property.
2.06. The rights of Lessee shall not take effect and Lessee's
'duty to pay rent to Lessor shall not commence until five days after
written notice by Lessor to Lessee at the address stated above.
2.07. Lessee shall pay Lessor the sum of $70 per
month on the first day of each month from the date. of Lessor's
notice to Lessee described in Section 2.06 through the first day of
December, 1996. Commencing on the first day of January, 1997 and
continuing on the first day of each month in 1997, the amount of
annual rent which Lessee shall -pay Lessor with respect to the
Parking Parcel shall increase by a percentage which is equal to the
percentage increase in the ad valorem taxes payable in 1996 with
respect to the Ryan Property as compared with the ad valorem taxes
payable in 1995 with respect to the Ryan Parcel. Each year
thereafter the amount of rent to be paid by Lessee to Lessor shall
be increased in the same manner. The amount payable each month
• shall be 1 /12th of the annual rent as so adjusted. Lessee shall
mail or deliver such payments to Lessor at the following address:
0
City of Richfield
Attn: Housing and Redevelopment Coordinator
City Hall
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
LESSOR
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Rn49548
RC145 -189 2
LESSEE
FRED S. RYAN
1�5-q
DRIVEWAY EASEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT IS MADE THIS day of ,
1993, between the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a municipal corporation under
Minnesota law, whose address is 6700 Portland Avenue South,
Richfield, Minnesota 55423,Grantor (hereinafter referred to as
"City ", whether one or more), and FRED S. RYAN, 345 North Arm
Drive, Orono, Minnesota 55 Grantee (hereinafter referred to as
"Ryan ").
1. Ownership of City Property. The City covenants that it
is the owner in fee simple of the real estate which is legally
described in Exhibit A attached hereto and which is depicted in
Exhibit B attached hereto (hereinafter referred to as "City
Property ").
2. Ownership 'of Ryan Property. Ryan covenants and
represents that he is the owner in fee simple of the real estate
which is legally described in Exhibit C attached hereto and which
is depicted in Exhibit D attached hereto (hereinafter referred to
as "Ryan Property ").
3. 77th Street Project. The City is preparing to begin
is construction activity to widen Seventy- Seventh Street, which is
adjacent to the City Property on the south and, in connection with
that project, desires to eliminate as many driveway. accesses to
Lyndale Avenue within one -half block of 77th Street as possible.
4. Ryan Access. As of the date hereof there is a driveway
access directly serving the Ryan Property from Lyndale Avenue South
( "Ryan Access "). The City desires to close the Ryan Access.
5. Purpose of this Easement. The City is willing to grant
a permanent access easement serving the Ryan Property over and
across the City Property in consideration for Ryan's waiver of any
claim for damages due to the closing of the Ryan Access. Ryan
hereby consents to closing of the Ryan Access and waives any claim
for compensation to which it may otherwise be entitled due to
taking of the Ryan Access. City does not hereby acknowledge that
it has any duty to pay Ryan compensation for the Closing of the
Ryan Access.
6. Consideration and Description. In consideration of the
sum of $1.00 and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of
which is acknowledged, City hereby grants, sells, and conveys to
Ryan, its successors and assigns, a permanent non - exclusive
easement for driveway purposes in and over the Easement Tract.
This easement shall benefit and be appurtenant to the Ryan Property
is and shall burden the City Property. The Easement Tract is legally
Rn49547
RC145 -189 1
/6-6
described on Exhibit E and depicted on Exhibit F, both of which are
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
7. Term of Easements. The Easement shall take effect on
January 1, 1994 or such earlier date as City shall give written
notice to Ryan that the City's construction activity described
above is complete. The Easement shall be perpetual.
8. Rights of City. The City and its employees, agents,
invitees and successors and assigns as owner of the City Property
reserve the right of ingress and egress to and from the City
Property over and across the Easement Tract for the purpose of
using, constructing, operating, inspecting, maintaining, repairing,
and replacing a driveway and related facilities and improvements.
Said easements shall also include: (a) the right 'to clear the
surface of herbage and improvements; and (b) the right to
permanently change the elevation of the Easement Tract to match the
City's adjacent street improvements; and (c) the right to store
equipment and materials from time to time within the Easement
Tract.
9. General Provisions. Ryan acknowledges that City has
improved the Easement Tract with bituminous pavement, curb and
striping in a manner acceptable to Ryan and Ryan accepts the
Easement Tract in "as is" condition. The City shall have the duty
to repair and reconstruct the driveway easement from time to time
• so as to maintain it in suitable condition. Ryan shall, at its
cost, remove snow from the Easement Tract promptly, when necessary.
10. Effect Upon Subsequent Parties. This Easement Agreement
shall be binding upon and accrue to the benefit of the heirs, legal
representatives, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto.
The rights of Ryan under this Agreement shall be assignable only to
the owners and Mortgagees of the Ryan Property, and shall be usable
by only those parties and their tenants, employees and invitees.
OWNER CITY OF RICHFIELD
By By
Fred S. Ryan
By
Barbara Ryan
Spouse of Fred S. Ryan
Rn49547
RC145 -189 2
By
Its
Its .
l5 -l0
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
0 ) ss.
COUNTY OF )
On the day of , 1993, ,
the of the City of Richfield, a municipal
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and
, the of said City of
Richfield, appeared before me and they did say that they did
execute the foregoing Driveway Easement Agreement on behalf of the
City of Richfield and in accordance with authority granted to them
by the City Council of the City of Richfield.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF )
On the day of , 1993, It
the of the City of Richfield, a municipal
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and
• , the of said City of
Richfield, appeared before me and they did say that they did
execute the foregoing Driveway Easement Agreement on behalf of the
City of Richfield and in accordance with authority granted to them
by the City Council of the City of Richfield.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF )
On the day of , 1993, Fred S. Ryan appeared
before me and he did say that he is the person named in the
foregoing instrument, and that he executed said instrument as his
free act and deed.
Notary Public
RJL49547
RC145 -189 3
•
ID
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF )
On the day of , 1993, Barbara Ryan appeared
before me and she did say that she is the wife of Fred S. Ryan, the
person who is named, in the foregoing instrument, and that she
executed said instrument as her free act and deed.
The foregoing instrument was drafted by:
Holmes & Graven, Chartered (RJL)
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337 -9300
RC145 -189
PZL49547
RC145 -189 4
Notary Public
r
L-j
0
0
Legal Description of City Property
Lots 9 and 10, Block 7, Sunset Terrace, according to the plat
thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of
Titles in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Registered Property, as evidenced by Certificate of Title No.
412066.
Rn49547
RC145 -189 A-1
Exhibit B -
City Property
.pLAT.XAp
, -- -- -- . Is) sl • 4
- — -- — -- — --
nil
It'O
IYI
Irl
Im
ml
I
I 'all
sl
IPI
1711
IYI
IYI
Ibl
MI
•.
.. ......
•
lag
s -,u N
S I'T
T-" A A C E
im
In)
to
TY(I R
A E
5
fill
■
I
is "'
I
3
Ovi
in
.,
, -- -- -- . Is) sl • 4
- — -- — -- — --
nil
It'O
IYI
Irl
Im
ml
I
I 'all
sl
IPI
1711
IYI
IYI
Ibl
MI
•.
.. ......
Is u
Iql
S I T
111
IYI
1.11
ml
I
I 'all
sl
I")
1711
IYI
4ft
1.•11
1A1
1.i1
IAI
1_1
3
Isl
141
1A1
0
6
•
13- f
Irl
•
lag
T-" A A C E
im
In)
0
6
•
13- f
Irl
...........
/" -/0
Exhibit C
Legal Description of Ryan Property
Lot 11, Block 7, except the north six inches thereof, Sunset
Terrace, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the
Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County.
Being Registered Land pursuant to Certificate of Title No. 766028.
RJL49547
RC145 -189 C -1
11
0
/5.//`
•
Ryan Property
�PLAT MAP
S7 it S l'T
IM, 1711 i 5 IM
9b 9
I .
.......... . ....... IW) Ila, I I :" -
IV,
T E, R
E
.. ii—TH
Wl 4.11
IS ' . I F
4
. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . ..
r6l H 77
Is u
IuI
S I T
101
ml
liu
Im
CIL
COL
fin
1;j
IMI
111
Ifl
In
T
Ml
Pq
6La-
Is u
IuI
S I T
101
ml
liu
Z)
CIL
COL
'all
1;j
IMI
111
Ifl
In
11)
rw si
.7 ------
N
IF nil, a Iml
I
I
t 10) a
M I
ml
liu
Z)
CIL
1.31
101
3
IAl
111
.ZI
D-1
Exhibit D
"0. 11
Im
-----------
6
It
It
2
IN)
r
ten
IMl
"0. 11
Im
-----------
6
•
/5-/aL
Exhibit E
Legal Description of Parking Parcel
Lot 10, Block 7, Sunset Terrace, according to the plat thereof on
file or of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and
for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
E -1
IS- /�)
Park Par(
►
10
i
�I
Tl 0 N
(45)
46)_
-8
CB
I-
V1 ( 2 )o
Xhibi
.e
:......::: Parking Area
x-
i
S..0 N E T TE
Co
fD
11
0
' r
10 8380 SQ.FT.
ca
N I I
0
o ) MHO
F -1
0
/ 4
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 291
Agenda October 11, 1993
Issue Statement:
Application for board and lodging establishment license for
Lavonne Seemann, 6808 Third Avenue.
Background:
On July 26, 1993, Lavonne Seemann submitted an application for a
board and lodging establishment license. The license fee was
received by City staff at that time.
The applicant is proposing to care for up to four senior citizens
in her home who are no longer able to live alone by themselves,
yet are not in need of placement in a nursing home.
Ms. Seemann is a registered nurse and is currently the Director
of Nursing Services at the Castle Ridge Care Center in Eden
Prairie. She has been in that position since 1988. Her son and
daughter will be providing assistance to her with the senior
residents. Her son is a registered nursing assistant and a home
health aide and her daughter is a registered nurse.
. The senior residents will be individuals who may need some help
with dressing, grooming, bathing, etc. They may need some help
with meal preparation and they may need a reminder to take their
medications. She will closely monitor the residents and when the
need arises for skilled care services, she will contact the
family and they will be referred to alternative services.
She will instruct senior residents on a monthly basis on
emergency situations (fire, tornado, power outage, etc.) and will
transport them by car for rides and recreational outings.
Ms. Seemann's home has been inspected by the Building Official
and several windows that needed replacement have been installed.
Fire requirements were also addressed by the Building Official.
Nursing staff from Bloomington Public Health division will
conduct an inspection of the home as soon as the senior residents
occupy the home. Ms. Seemann said that she will not currently be
using the lower level of the home for sleeping purposes and .
realizes that if she should do so in the future, it will require
additional code updating.
The Minnesota Department of Health requires that board and
lodging facilities be registered with the State. That paperwork
has been completed and has been forwarded to the State for their
information and review. The Minnesota Department of Health is
• currently in the process of developing more specific rules on
this type of facility but that process is not yet complete.
W-1
• City staff has contacted twelve of Ms. Seemann's neighbors (three
on each side, three behind and three directly across the street)
to make them aware of her license request and to determine if any
of them has any objections. Nine stated they have no objections
and several said that they admire Ms. Seemann's efforts. The
remaining three residents couldn't be reached by telephone and
did not respond to a letter sent by the City.
A criminal history background of Ms. Seemann, her son and her
daughter has been completed finding no known criminal record for
any of them.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the Council approve the license "request for
a board and lodging establishment license for Ms., Lavonne
Seemann, 6808 Third Avenue.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with the State's requirements and
City code pertaining board and lodging establishments.
2. The applicant has completed the required application forms
and paid the necessary fees.
3. The applicant has made the necessary corrections to any code
violations present in the home.
• 4. The neighbors are not opposed to this type of activity and
have no objections.
Alternatives:
1. The Council could decide to deny the request for a board and
lodging facility license. This would mean that Ms. Seemann
would be unable to provide lodging and supportive care for
up to four senior citizens in her home located at 6808 Third
Avenue.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The request for a board and lodging facility license for Ms.
Lavonne Seemann, 6808 Third Avenue, is presented for Council's
consideration at this time.
Re lly submitted,
Jam s Prosser
JDP:ds
I*
/3
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 290
Agenda October 11, 1993
Issue Statement:
First reading consideration of ordinance amending Section 416 of
the City Code by adding specific language to address signage in
the 77th Street Corridor.
Background:
The reconstruction of 77th Street will result in new signage as
businesses start to reconfigure operations to take advantage of
the new traffic generated. Creation of a good business climate
through tasteful and visible signage is important as is the
protection of area residents. This results in an opportunity to
set standards and create an image for the 77th Street Corridor
through new sign regulations applicable only to the corridor.
The proposed ordinance will provide additional controls for
signage on the 77th Street Corridor. The provisions apply to the
area bounded by 77th Street on the north, Cedar Avenue on the
east, I -494 on the south, and I -35W on the west. Unless
otherwise stated within the section, all other sign requirements
within Section 416 shall apply. In the case of conflict between
the new controls and other Section 416 provisions, the provisions
of the proposed ordinance apply.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of an amendment to Section 416 of the City
Code, and set second reading and public hearing for November 8,
1993.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Off site directional signs are needed to guide potential
customers to businesses along 78th Street that have no direct
access to 77th Street.
2. There is an intent to foster monument style signs rather than
pedestal signs in the corridor. This reduces the height and
therefore, impact on the residents to the north. At the same
time, lower signs are more appropriate and more visible to
the potential customer because the trees along the boulevard
will impair visibility of pedestal signs.
3. Promotional display devices such as banners or balloons would
not be allowed along 77th Street.
4. Landscaping or site treatment is required for most signs.
Light or glare impact on residents north of 77th Street is
not permitted.
5. The proposed amendment is being site tested and the City
Attorney is continuing his review.
/3-1
Alternative Recommendation:
. 1. Deny the ordinance amendment at first reading.
2. Refer the proposed ordinance back to staff for further study
and clarification.
3. Direct staff as to other appropriate action to take with the
proposed ordinance.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
First reading consideration will be held on October 11, 1993. If
approved a public hearing and second reading will be held on
November 8, 1993.
JDP:cak
•
submitted,
Jame DJ[ Prosser
City M pager
/2r0—
• BILL NO. 1993
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 416 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE;
REGULATING SIGNAGE IN THE 77TH STREET CORRIDOR
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Subsection 416 of the City Code is amended by adding the
following:
77th Street Corridor. The followina special Drovisions
shall apply to signs proposed for the area bounded by the north
right of way of 77th Street, Cedar Avenue /T.H. 77 to the East, I-
35W to the west and I -494 to the south. These provisions apply
to all property immediately adjacent to and abutting 77th Street.
Unless otherwise stated within this section all other sian
requirements within section 416 shall apply.
(1.) Off -Site Directional Signs - In addition to the signs
permitted by the preceding provisions, certain businesses located
south of the improved four lane 77th Street (between I -35W and
Cedar Avenue) may utilize off -site directional signage if the
Council grants a permit therefore. The application for such
permit shall be made to the Buildings Official. Upon receiving an
application, the Building Official shall involve the Planning and
Transportation Divisions in a review of the application. No such
permit shall be issued without first obtaining the approval of
the Council. The Council shall not approve such a permit unless
it determines that all the following conditions are or would be
met.
(i) The sign shall serve a business located on property
abutting on I -494, but which does not abut on 77th Street, 77 -1/2
Street, I -35W, Lyndale Avenue, Nicollet Avenue, Portland Avenue
12th Avenue or Cedar Avenue.
ii) The sian shall be Dlaced at least 14 feet south of the
south curb line of the 77th Street roadway; and at least six feet
from any other public roadway, as measured from the back of the
curb. Signs may be located on private property upon a showing
that the applicant has permission from the property owner.
(iii) The sign shall not be placed within 250 feet of
Lyndale, Nicollet, Portland, or 12th Avenues.
(iv) In order to ensure that the sign does not create
traffic hazards, the location of the sign shall be approved by
staff prior to consideration by the Council.
v)- Eliaible businesses shall not have more than one sian
face addressing each direction of 77th Street The sign may be
double- faced, or upon a showing of need, two separate single -
faced signs may be utilized to address each direction of 77th
Street Sign faces shall be positioned at approximately right
angles to the 77th Street roadway.
l3r3
vi) The business owner shall demonstrate that he or she
• has contacted other eligible businesses in the vicinity to
determine whether they are interested in going together on one
sib
(vii) In no instance shall morethan three businesses be
represented on one sign face. Such signage shall comply with the
following size requirements:
a) one business represented -24 inches wide by 18 inches high
b) two businesses represented -24 inches wide by 24 inches high
c) three businesses represented -24 inches wide by 30 inches high
(viii) The business owner(s) being served by such signage
shall be responsible for the purchase and installation of the
si n.
(ix) The sign shall contain the name of the business (or
businesses) and an arrow indicating which direction to turn. In
special circumstances it may be necessary to use text in lieu of
an arrow to indicate the appropriate direction (i.e., next left).
In any case, the use of text shall be kept to a minimum.
(x) The sign shall not contain advertising messages.
(xi) The sign shall be mounted at a height of seven feet
as measured from the bottom of the sign to the ground level at.
the top of the abutting street curb.
(xii) The sign shall have a medium blue background. All
lettering and arrows shall be white. All lettering shall be
upper -case helvetica style, four inches in height.
(xiii) The corners of the sign face shall be rounded. The
sign face shall have a white border just inside the edge. Such
border shall be three - quarters of an inch in width. The corners
of the sign border shall be rounded to fit the sign face.
(xiv) The sign face shall be metal or other material, as
approved by staff.
(xv) The sign shall be mounted on a single iron post of
sufficient gauge to safely secure the sign face. The business
(or businesses) being served by such signage shall be responsible
for contacting the utility companies before installing the post.
xvi) The business (or businesses) being served by off -site
directional signage shall keep such signage in proper position
clean, and legible at all times. Damaged signs shall be replaced
by the business within 20 days of written notice to repair such
damaged sign by the City. Failure to repair damaged signs within
the 20 days will result in revocation of the permit and removal
. of the sign by the City.
13-Y
• (xvii) In instances where the 77th Street off -site signage
does not lead traffic directly to the business via the
north /south avenues, the business may install one off -site
directional sign at the end of the avenue. This sign shall be
mounted at least five feet south of, and approximately parallel
to, the 78th Street roadway. This sign shall be installed and
designed similar to the 77th Street off -site sign, however, the
sign face shall be no more than six inches in height by 24 inches
in length. In unique circumstances (i.e., business with
unusually long name) the Council may approve a sign face that is
more than 24 inches in length.
(2) Ground /Monument Signs. Ground signs will be permitted
only for purposes of identification. The sign may identify only
the building address and the names of the businesses located in
the building or the business designation. Ground signs may not
exceed 10' in height and must be located within a landscaped area
at least equivalent to the sign's area. Ground signs may be
located outside of a landscaped area if.such a sign meets the
following design criteria:
a) it is located on a base of stone, or brick that is at
least three feet in height and 150% of the width of the sign
face.
b) the stone or brick base contains a planter which occupies
• at least 100% of the total surface area parallel to the ground
plane of the base and is planted with annual or perennial
flowers.
Ground signs may be illuminated so long as light and glare
from such signs is not visible from residential property north of
77th Street.
(3) Pedestal Signs. Pedestal signs will be permitted only
under the following conditions:
a) The sign is located no further than 50 feet from the I-
494 frontage road right of way or the I -494 right of way
whichever applies.
b) The base of the pedestal sign must be set back a minimum
of 10 feet from the property line and must be located within a
landscaped area.
c) The landscaped area located at the base of the pedestal
sign must be equal in surface area to that of the sign face and
contain at least 30% of plantings which will achieve a mature
height equal to one third of the pedestal height
d) The site is considered and platted as a through lot
extending from the south right of way of 77th Street to the north
right of way of I -494 or its frontage road.
/3-
(4) Wall Sign. Multiple family residential land uses - one
wall sign is permitted per building not exceeding six square feet
in sign area when such sign is used strictly for purposes of
identifying the multiple family residential building. For
multiple building complexes one additional sign may be placed on
the building housing the complex office or building closest to
the street for purposes of identification.
General Commercial and Industrial uses - Wall signs will be
permitted only on buildings which have a primary entry and
orientation to 77th Street and such signs may only contain
information identifying the occupant /s or the building. Wall
signs will not be permitted on walls which serve as a side or
rear wall. The total sign area for wall signs will not exceed 15
percent of the total wall area of the portion of the wall of the
building to which they are attached. In the cases of multiple
occupancy, the total area of wall, window, canopy or marquee
signs which each occupant may erect will not exceed 15 percent of
the exterior wall area of the portion of the building occupied by
that occupancy and to which the sign is affixed.
(5) On -Site Directional Signs. Such signs may not exceed
three square feet in sign area and if freestanding may not be
more than four feet in height.
(6) Window Signs. Such signs will not be permitted in or
• on any windows facing 77th Street. Window signs will be
permitted in or on windows facing streets other than 77th Street.
Such signs must meet the requirements of the applicable primary
zoning district.
(7) Projecting Signs. Such signs will not be permitted.
8) Banners, wind devices. Dromotional disDlav devices and
fixed temporary ground signs will not be permitted along any
frontage facing 77th Street nor will such signs be permitted on
any other portion of a property located within the corridor if
such signs or portions of such signs are wholly or partially
visible from any residential property north of 77th Street.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this day of , 1993.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
U
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
/;L
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 289
Agenda October 11, 1993
Issue Statement:
First reading consideration of an ordinance amendment to rezone
the following MR (multiple residence) properties: 1) rezone 7132
Bloomington Avenue to R (single family residence); 2) rezone 7107
Chicago Avenue and 7106 Elliot Avenue to MR -2; 3) rezone west
portion (parking lot) of 7000 Cedar Avenue to MR -3; and 4) rezone
7500 Cedar Avenue to MR -3.
Background
Staff is reviewing the zoning ordinance for revision and update.
Initial analysis indicates that the MR district is not effective
because its provisions are incomplete, outdated and ambiguous.
The MR district has no density limitation and incorporates the
single family uses of the R district as well as the two family,
multi - family and group housing developments.
The MR district was the original and only multi - family district
when Richfield's growth occurred. Later, the MR -1 (two family),
MR -2 (multi - family), and MR -3 (high density multi - family)
districts were created to provide more precise controls for the
expanding variety of multi - family housing. When the MR -1, MR -2
and MR -3 districts were added, most MR zoned land was rezoned to
• fit into that classification system. The intention was for all
MR zoned land to be rezoned by approximately 65 parcels of land
in about 18 areas of the City are still zoned MR. These parcels
are being evaluated and presented for reclassification to the
most appropriate land use zone.
The proposed zoning designation for the subject parcels are
consistent with existing land use and, therefore, will remain
conforming uses.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of an amendment rezoning 7132 Bloomington
Avenue from MR to R,. rezoning 7107 Chicago Avenue and 7106 Elliot
Avenue from MR to MR -2, rezoning 7000 Cedar Avenue (west portion)
from MR to MR -3, and rezoning 7500 Cedar Avenue from MR to MR -3;
and set a second reading and public hearing for November 8, 1993.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. This rezoning will help to bring the zoning map up to date
with current land use practices and the comprehensive plan.
None of the uses will become nonconforming as a result of the
rezoning.
2. An MR zone is no longer an appropriate zoning district in the
City and an update to a more appropriate district is called
for whether or not the text of the zoning ordinance is
changed.
Ia -1
3. If the text of the zoning ordinance is updated later this
year eliminating the MR district, then it would be
w appropriate to have rezoned such designated areas before the
text change.
4. The proposed R zoning is most appropriate for the existing
single family use at 7132 Bloomington Avenue, while offering
proper regulatory control for present and future land uses.
5. The proposed MR -2 zoning is most appropriate for the existing
fourplex uses at 7107 Chicago Avenue and 7106 Elliot Avenue,
and would ensure that higher density development (as allowed
under the MR provisions) does not occur.
6. The proposed MR -3 zoning is
parking lot for the 25 unit
Avenue, while offering props
and future land uses. This
adjacent apartment building
that requirement.
most appropriate for the existing
apartment use at 7000 Cedar
ar regulatory control for present
parking lot is required for the
and the rezoning would not change
7. The proposed MR -3 zoning is most appropriate for the existing
19 unit apartment use at 7500 Cedar Avenue, while offering
proper regulatory control for present and future land uses.
8. This rezoning will help to eliminate areas of inconsistent
spot zoning.
9. On September 28, 1993, the Planning Commission voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny this rezoning at first reading.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
First reading is set for October 11, 1993. If approved, a public
hearing and second reading will be held on November 8, 1993.
JDP:ds
Respectfully submitted,
J
C
sser
la -C�-
Bill No. 1993 -
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX I
OF THE CITY ZONING CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
The City of Richfield does ordain:
Appendix I which describes the boundaries of the various
zoning districts of the City is hereby amended in the following
respect:
Section 5, Paragraph (7) is amended to read as follows:
(7)
that part thereof lying within 173 feet -ef t-he- eent,,r line o f
fear Avenue.[Repealed]
Section 5, Paragraph (14) is amended to read as follows:
(14 ) Lot 8, Bleek 2, Petit Fourth- Addition. [Repealed] .
Section 5, Paragraph (21) is amended to read as follows:
( 21) That art of the east quarter of the north half o €fie
south half of the nertheast quarter of the southeast quarter of
Section 35, Township 28, Range 24, lying -east - ef Zubert's Seth
View Gardens, Fourth Additien. [Repealed] .
Section 5, Paragraph (23) is amended to read as follows:
( 23 ) That area lying between Elliott Avenue and Gh Ea
Avenue, and between Zubert's
aline parallel with and 70 feet north from the north line of
Zubert's -Elliott Avenue - Addition. [Repealed] .
Section 12, Paragraph (33) is amended to read as follows:
(33) That area lying between Elliot Avenue and Chicago
Avenue and between Zubert's Elliot Avenue Addition and south of
a line parallel with and 70 feet north from the north line of
Zubert's Elliot Avenue Addition.
Section 13, Paragraph (11) is amended to read as follows:
(11) Lot 1, Block 3, Engberg Walden Second Addition except
that part thereof lying within 173 feet of the center line of
Cedar Avenue.
Section 13, Paragraph (12) is amended to read as follows:
• (12) That part of the east quarter of the north half of the
south half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of
Section 35, Township 28, Range 24, lying east of Zubert's South
View Gardens, Fourth Addition.
/001--3
This amendment constitutes a rezoning of the following
properties: l) rezone 7132 Bloomington Avenue from MR to R; 2)
rezone 7107 Chicago Avenue and 7106 Elliot Avenue from MR to MR-
2; 3) rezone 7000 Cedar Avenue (west portion) from MR to MR -3;
and 4) rezone 7500 Cedar Avenue from MR to MR -3.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this day of , 1993
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
REZONING
PLAN
EXISTING ZONING
PROPOSED ZONING
71ST ST.
71ST ST.
-f
ui
Q
W
Q
Z
O
Z
O
ui z
a
a
z
O
E'
O
r m
r
m
N
M
N
M
r
ti
r
n
�QefJO.
O O
O
72ND ST.
72ND ST.
LAND USE: ALL SINGLE FAMILY
1 7132 Bloomington Ave.
MR
D R NJ)
Q�.
`P�pJO.
0
DUPLEX
j4-PLEX PLEX
4 -FLEX
REZONING
PLAN
DUPLEX
Z
EXISTING LAND USE
EXISTING ZONING.
PROPOSED ZONING
71ST ST.
J
Q
71 ST ST.
a
71ST ST.
a
U.
000000000
0000000000
w
z
�
J
r
,_^
r
v
c
o
0
0
0
c
0000000 0
000000000
000000000 °00000000
r
000000000
r
r
r
r
000000000
ui
�
a
>
a
u.i
a
�
a
a
Q
a
o
a
a
U
J
U
V
w
w
U
w
U
U
72ND ST.
72ND ST.
72ND ST.
DUPLEX
j4-PLEX PLEX
4 -FLEX
�
DUPLEX
Z
DUPLEX
Co Z
F.
J
Q
a
a
a
U.
000000000
0000000000
w
z
�
J
r
,_^
r
v
7107 Chicago Ave.
7106 Elliot Ave.
MR°o C -1 lT ::<: .�::
° ° ° ° °° •. PLANNING
MR -1 0 R ZONING
MR -2 Comimnft o�,re+oprtreM copurtrn.M
o °o0 0000000 0 000
000000000
000000000
0000000000
000000000
0000000 0
000000000
000000000 °00000000
000000000
000000000 °O °00000°
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
000000000
000000000
7107 Chicago Ave.
7106 Elliot Ave.
MR°o C -1 lT ::<: .�::
° ° ° ° °° •. PLANNING
MR -1 0 R ZONING
MR -2 Comimnft o�,re+oprtreM copurtrn.M
o °o0 0000000 0 000
000000000
0000000 0
000000000
000000000 °00000000
000000000 °O °00000°
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7107 Chicago Ave.
7106 Elliot Ave.
MR°o C -1 lT ::<: .�::
° ° ° ° °° •. PLANNING
MR -1 0 R ZONING
MR -2 Comimnft o�,re+oprtreM copurtrn.M
REZONING PLAN
EXISTING LAND USE EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING
BLVD. G BLVD. G BLVD.
ONp�- rjP J )JJJ ONP J JJJJJJJJ
CPC'' �' �P � ���'' o �P ..• •: �;JJJJJJJJJJJ
O PARK'C zt=� o O ,JJJ ,J JJJ ° O •::::: ;tJ,JJ,JJ,JJ°°
LOT a� ° ' o J JJ J;J,JJ o
� Q J n �,J JJ, � JJ � ;; '�';'
N m ,)'JJJ', JJJJ •�rJJJ J'JJ�
J J
;J J,JJ;,j,JJ
COMM' 'JJJ'J'JJJ'J
),JJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJ J
JJJJJJJ JJJJJ JJJ JJJJJ
JJJJJ JJJJJ
,J,J,J,J,J,, )'JJJJJJJJ J
APTS. " ' ' ' " '
JJJJJJJJJJJJ
)JJJJJ
Q J,JJJ,JJJ,J I I I j J
J J J J J) JJJJJ
ui w UPLE LLi ui J,',JJ'JJ,'J w LLI '�JJ'J'J,J >
J J J J J)
a UPLE a a J J J J,,,J JJJJJJJ Q
Z JJJJJJJJ, JJ Q ')'JJJJJJJ' cc
U�/) T
V/ Q Z J,J,J,J,J,J, Q =� J,JJJJJ'JJJ Q
co r JJJJJJJJJJ Q
W co JJJJJJJJJJJJ W � JJJJJJJJJJ' w
*.. W T J J J J J J
�/� U JJJJJJJ JJJJ J J J J JJJ
N 'JJJ JJJJJ "JJJJJJJJJJ
JJJJJ JJJJ JJJ ')'JJJJJ')'
JJJJ J J JJJ JJ
W ,JJ,JJJ'J' JJJJJJ,J,JJ
JJJJ,
J J
JJJJJ)
N ry� JJJ JJ J J J J'j'
{i J12222" J J JJJ,J,J,J,J
oa. J JJJ , J
JJJ,J,J,J,, ;JJJ;
Q J J J ,JJJJ
J JJJJj,J' J J
JJJJ JJJJ
0-1-1-j JJJJJJJ, , J JJ ,,,J J ,;, J J
JJJJJJJJ JJJJ
3. FAM I'J'J'1 J�JIJJ'JJJJ
J,j,.J. JJJJJJJ
72ND ST. 72ND ST. 72ND ST.
7000 Cedar Ave.
F7jMR ='r' ;: MR -3 R
MR -1 J;J,J,JJJ C -2 � N MMNING
��
ZONING
IoM
I� REZONING PLAN
EXISTING LAND USE EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING
75TH ST. 75TH ST. 75TH ST.
ul
Q
H
0
r
76TH ST.
n
ui
Q
Q
0
w
U
u.i
Q
i-
m
r
7500
F—
f- w z
®
MR ::•:•:•: MR -3
i�i�i�i�
MR-1
dam
0)
Q
W
X
W
CL
0
�-- W Z
CC
c'9Q�
N d m
Q
76TH ST.
n
ui
Q
Q
0
w
U
u.i
Q
i-
m
r
7500
Cedar Ave.
®
MR ::•:•:•: MR -3
i�i�i�i�
MR-1
C -2
76TH ST.
o
o
L
i�i�i�i�
DOMINION
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 288
Agenda October 11, 1993
Issue Statement:
First reading consideration of an ordinance ai
6438 and 6444 First Avenue from R (residence)
commercial) and consideration of a resolution
Planning Commission to review and consider an
Comprehensive Plan with respect to the use of
their control.
nendment rezoning
to C -2 (general
directing the
amendment to the
buffer areas and
Background:
Norwest Bank, 6445 Nicollet, is proposing a plan which would
allow them to redesign and expand their parking lot and drive -up
teller facility by utilizing the two parcels directly east of the
bank site at 6438 and 6444 First Avenue.
The two parcels in question are currently zoned R- residential.
Bank parking lots and drive -up tellers are not permitted uses in
the R district, therefore, Norwest is requesting a rezoning of
the two lots from residential to commercial.
Norwest Bank owns the vacant lot at 6438 First Avenue and the
single family home at 6444 First Avenue.
The proposal consists of clearing the existing house and all the
site features east of the bank building on the bank site. The
drive -up teller would be redesigned and relocated onto the west
portion of the two lots, freeing up space for additional parking
on the existing bank site. The goal of the project is to
increase parking capacity and improve traffic flow through the
site. The bank currently experiences parking and congestion
problems because of inadequate stacking space for the existing
drive -up facility.
In formulating the plans, bank officials met with the neighbors
to devise a plan that would address neighborhood concerns and
reduce the negative impacts. The meetings resulted in the
following plan modifications:
♦ Increased traffic generation on local streets was a major
concern of area residents. For this reason the plan utilizes
a one -way traffic flow, with the entrance on Nicollet Avenue
and the exit on 65th Street. The exit on 65th Street would be
skewed toward Nicollet Avenue and would be signed for "no left
turn ". This should help to direct most of the traffic back to
Nicollet Avenue, rather than short - cutting through the
neighborhood.
♦ Visual impact of the expansion area and bank was also a
. concern of area residents. For this reason the plan was
modified to widen the buffer yard along First Avenue.
Extensive landscape screening and berming would be
incorporated in the 47 foot buffer yard to shield the bank
operations from the residents. The large boulevard trees
along the west side of First Avenue would remain. In
addition, a wooden screen fence would be installed five feet
from the north line of the expansion area to separate the use
from the home and garage at 6426 First Avenue. The fence
would match the existing screen fence on the site. Plantings
would be installed in the five foot setback area north of the
fence to provide additional buffering.
The plan includes several improvements to manage the quality and
quantity of storm water run -off. The drainage and grading plan
includes a grassy swale in the buffer yard just east of the
drive -up teller facility. This swale will slow down the flow
rate and cleanse the run -off before it enters the storm sewer.
Future land use of these parcels, if the bank were to cease
operations, was raised at the Planning Commission. The
Comprehensive Plan does not specifically cover uses ancillary to
a principal use on buffer lands. Mere rezoning without control
or conditions may allow future use contrary to the best interests
of the neighborhood and the City. Consideration should be given
to replatting to a single lot of record, limiting the use to only
those that are accessory to the principal use and the consistency
of the zoning of the principal and accessory uses. The
resolution refers these issues to the Planning Commission for
their recommendation as to inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan.
An amended off - street parking permit is also required for this
project. The Council will consider that request at second
reading if first reading is approved. The landscape escrow would
be tied to that request.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of an amendment rezoning 6438 and 6444
First Avenue from R to C -2 in accordance with the proposed site
plans, and set a second reading and public hearing for November
8, 1993; and adopt the attached resolution directing the Planning
Commission to review and consider an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan with respect to the use of buffer areas and
their control.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject lots as medium
density buffer. The Comprehensive Plan gives inadequate
direction for accessory use properties adjacent to C -2
principal uses. The Comprehensive Plan may need to be
amended to include uses, zoning districts and controls
necessary to protect the immediate neighborhood.
2. The improvements would alleviate the parking and circulation
• conflict now present on the site.
3. The site layout and buffer yard would minimize the impact of
the bank operations, while improving the overall appearance
of the site and neighborhood.
4. The proposed site improvements would comply with City
engineering and landscape requirements.
5. Approval of the request would not constitute a spot zone,
because properties to the west and south are zoned C -2.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the request at first reading.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
First reading is set for October 11, 1993. If approved, a public
hearing and second reading will be held on November 8, 1993.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP:cak
0
RESOLUTION NO
A RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND
REFERRING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
THE RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the Richfield Comprehensive Plan is currently in
the process of up -date and revision; and
WHEREAS, such up -date and revision will result in a complete
redefinition of many of the existing land use designations; and
WHEREAS, in the interim, certain existing land use
designations which are unclear and no longer appropriate with
existing conditions may require review and redefinition; and
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that such review and
redefinition of the land use designations will complement and
facilitate the successful up -date and revision of the Richfield
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Norwest Bank, 6445 Nicollet Avenue, has proposed
expanding ancillary bank facilities onto lots immediately
adjacent to and east of its existing facility, onto properties
designated medium density buffer and requiring a zoning
designation of C -2; and
WHEREAS, the Richfield Comprehensive Plan is unclear in
defining the designation of medium density buffer and the
specific uses that should be allowed in areas designated by the
Richfield Comprehensive Plan as medium density buffer; and
WHEREAS, the Richfield Comprehensive Plan is unclear in
defining the designation and boundaries of the central business
district; and
WHEREAS, the meaningful and appropriate definition of these
designations are critical to the economic and social well -being
of the City of Richfield.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD:
1. The Planning Commission is directed to review and
consider an amendment to the Richfield Comprehensive Plan that
would achieve the following:
a. Identify clear definitions for medium density buffer and
central business district land use designations that are
appropriate and complement the policy direction of the
Richfield Comprehensive Plan.
/ I-q
b. Outline policies for a development framework and
guidelines that will ensure orderly and appropriate
change for land located within the medium density buffer
adjacent to central business district land use
designations that will not permit the introduction of
new principle uses on the buffer land without specific
review, and will protect the welfare of the residents in
areas adjacent to such land use designations.
2. That with respect to the buffer area uses, consideration
be given to the following:
a. The replatting of property into a single lot of record.
b. Limiting buffer area property only to uses incidental or
accessory to the adjacent principle use.
c. Zoning be consistent with the adjacent principle use.
3. The Planning Commission is requested to conduct a public
hearing upon the proposed amendment to the Richfield
Comprehensive Plan, upon such notice as required by law, and
report its recommendation to the City Council within 60 days from
the date of the resolution.
• Adopted this 11th day of October, 1993.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
---� C�Np1T10NS
EXISTING'
rlri � ,fro
Kr,r rl
C14 u
Irl t'tC lum•np�s Rood.,oj �COMC A�`D^ 7ro�'c 52: r ,.r
7 52) ,.r,�
NiCOLL (T 120. �° �„ r(oiTS 6,9npf .iMIry I O "7dron ;I
+,• rs SIX .,n•I /
+� ,•�'� DnC �7i • NpR Z , ��� �•J 1'� � M Q -'l+. -"!` �!1 t �
;i0 ,r/ I X • k `' / III �' y ! O
sr
� #I• -WO I I , ♦oa N �' 4 f� ' 1
� • �� •�C ` C pfi ^gyp '� J � '� � / 1� � ?' ' �� NI
o-
e `` s L �� n: i is ✓
co
n !� u�
i — rs N
a . , i.• U,tk �
a
or
A
to / • ..'' J °� s
X• fir•-. ,. 4 � J // 4 0 /_ 3 c � 7X�
i s N t
All j i•
AF
n c c
e +
- � � P }• ��s.i aya _— -. .. O�tf}pn9� .�JfC \J+ •.►.....
�^ Q" O � •� iJI J Plon {+.� �/. Ewa -ya,� � -^- -`� /'•7�,
Co
C "rb S° O •ct
3�b
A Oorc pp
f drerftio^%IrF
r• i +II pishmrsr „Nf 0' vc ; r• N84f �3 P8
(� a CDMrr,��I ('one • rb _ .► = ' 3'S
WA
two
Aw
.,ir,a'r _ emirs �.«....� �w��ti' •: t i
t s
j
r •may .r• �r :s ,yl�e
AW
i t2i f rsv' iN.rr, ac ,►+iw 0
'� Y .- qtr♦
r
;"r,f MV
,IJ Ir
�0
n
U
,rywN
AVCNuF
NICOLL 'r RD NO 521
r•
f*� - f i lJ 1 i ,r i t o 7CS
Ott
r C 1 t
rl
t °=
. e.'i c� r'Z n �inY�
•'h� • .� �� O� wYt � G� a p � • t
d 14'
I ji,
P
j e
s_
N
e
�
z
,rywN
AVCNuF
NICOLL 'r RD NO 521
r•
f*� - f i lJ 1 i ,r i t o 7CS
Ott
r C 1 t
rl
t °=
. e.'i c� r'Z n �inY�
•'h� • .� �� O� wYt � G� a p � • t
d 14'
I ji,
P
j e
NICOLL tco NO 62)
'• � _ -fir r�.r_ ^ �,�" -'1Qq i= r+�:.. '
•..,,ice � 'r' 9 �l � ti s -�- V 't
lxo
Ilk
fn
to 7 -lit
• t ! t 1-4 �,,,� . «,fir i • .
IN t s
hi' ivE
l]r
t
Y�
A
•i
l]r
t
Y�
c
it t � 3tt
b
all Affin
I -• �r
jI r,
1
• ~ tt AVCNLIC '
Z NICOLLET RD. NO`; 52) ,c.. r" r• rr<sya ,
(CO 1
1 •j� �5 G e�; .tip 4 �_-• �;,..,rnti..r....... y i
it t 9' s s r,4. .ow.r+••v � • • ,, � � ' a' i�y� b
!y '•� 7 .. r � .tip• i _ .� t�
'«,i 4.4
_ iM • � ^C •'C .� f 1 t ' Vii? , `t
e• 1 d • • 1 �� •,mss
P
)
ills
t1 iti' tr
'tlli
leti�ii
i•
i
1w
�'• �i {�4' `ijii
`' �,il�jt It►:
E�
—#
a i •i! � :. t . i.:� yr' � ,y �:`ys -`•_ A
s ,.
•
0
i
r i
! 1
� a
r� I
+ I
r.
v
r
D
z
H
n
S
m
b
c
r
m
Ojai ` N P i �p
�P�IZii��!IIr ! !!�'tl1111' Ag$r !i!l�i�if
P,
pill
rill ±; f,� ' f; If �� { ►► ii f8 ! i i f :i t
_I9 R
N1COLL 'T AVfNUE
O RD NO 52) r s I
�i.l 1
ol
to r�s � � - ► i � i :� \�, S =� .. ��f(i) �t +�' r i
G
ti,
a
b
`w. ,•,4 111 g
� E�I iii i
Pt
3 � midi �t
-
bsl
SCI,
slislajC
sia�a.s••k'LC..C. Pl
v
r
D
z
H
n
S
m
b
c
r
m
Ojai ` N P i �p
�P�IZii��!IIr ! !!�'tl1111' Ag$r !i!l�i�if
P,
pill
rill ±; f,� ' f; If �� { ►► ii f8 ! i i f :i t
_I9 R
N1COLL 'T AVfNUE
O RD NO 52) r s I
�i.l 1
ol
to r�s � � - ► i � i :� \�, S =� .. ��f(i) �t +�' r i
G
ti,
a
b
`w. ,•,4 111 g
� E�I iii i
Pt
3 � midi �t
i
•
of-
Bill No. 1993-
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX I
OF THE CITY ZONING CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
The City of Richfield does ordain:
Appendix I which describes the various zoning districts of
the City is hereby amended in the following respect:
Section 3, Paragraph (32) is amended to read as follows:
(32) Lots 1 -3, Block 1, First Federal Richfield Addition.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this day of , 1993.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ra
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 287
Agenda October 11, 1993
Issue Statement:
Resolution opposing unfunded federal and state mandates.
Background:
The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) is collaborating with the
National League of Cities and other associations representing
local government in a public education campaign designed to
explain the impact of unfunded mandates on cities. The effort
will begin on.Wednesday, October 27, "Unfunded Mandates Day" in
cities throughout the United States.
The LMC has asked cities
resolution concerning un
action to the LMC before
has also asked that each
congressional delegation
federal mandates.
in Minnesota to adopt the attached
funded mandates and to send a copy of the
October 27, 1993. In addition, the LMC
city draft a letter to their respective
asking for a reduction of unfunded
Unfunded federal and state mandates have greatly increased in
recent years and have placed a significant financial burden on
cities. These mandates require compliance regardless of local
• needs and priorities and are often in inflexible "one- size -fits-
all" format with unrealistic time frames and inflexible
procedures.
Also attached to this Council Letter is a copy of an information
sheet regarding unfunded mandates prepared by the National League
of Cities. This information piece addresses the problems caused
by unfunded mandates and their costs to cities.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution opposing unfunded mandates and
authorize the Mayor to send the attached letter regarding the
City's opposition to unfunded mandates to Richfield's
congressional delegation.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The LMC and the National League of Cities have asked cities
to join together to seek a reduction in unfunded mandates.
2. The LMC and the National League of Cities have launched a
public education program designed to inform the public about
the costs and implications of unfunded mandates to cities.
3. The City of Richfield has been impacted by a number of
federal and state unfunded mandates over the past several
years. While these mandates have been costly, Richfield had
little or no input with respect to these issues.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City could decide not to participate in this public
education process.
2. The City could pass a different resolution and /or draft
another letter supporting this process.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The LMC would like to have cities take action on this item before
October 27, 1993 so they may be included in this public
information process.
JDP:ds
n
U
•
Respe ly submitted,
James Tanager rosser
City
/D
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION ON UNFUNDED NANDATES
WHEREAS, unfunded mandates on local government have increased
significantly in recent years; and
WHEREAS, federal and state mandates do not consider local
circumstances, costs or capacity, and subject cities to civil or
criminal penalties for noncompliance; and
WHEREAS, federal and state mandates require compliance
regardless of other pressing local needs and priorities affecting the
health, welfare and safety of citizens; and
WHEREAS, federal and state burdens on local governments force
cities to impose a combination of higher local taxes and fees on
local taxpayers and /or reduce local services to citizens; and
WHEREAS, federal and state mandates are often inflexible, "one -
size- fits -all" requirements with unrealistic time frames and overly
specific and inflexible procedures where less costly alternative may
be just as effective; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative impact of these laws and rules directly
affect the citizens of our cities; and
•WHEREAS, the League of Minnesota Cities, in collaboration with
the National League of Cities, seeks to help citizens understand and
then help encourage lawmakers to reduce the burden and inflexibility
of unfunded mandates, beginning with a National Unfunded Mandates Day
on October 27, 1993.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield
endorses the League's efforts and those'of the National League of
Cites and will fully inform our citizens about the impact of federal
and state mandates on our local spending and taxes;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Richfield endorses this
year of mandate awareness, beginning on October 27 by informing and
working with members of our Congressional delegation and our state
legislators to educate them about the impact of federal and state
mandates and the actions necessary to reduce these burdens on our
citizens.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 11th day of October, 1993.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
0 ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
/0--5
Model Mandates Fax Letter
October 27, 1993
The Honorable
U.S. Senate/House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20510/20515
Dear Senator/Representative:
We are writing on behalf of the citizenland payf of (CITY NAME) asking your help in reduc-
ing the burden of unfunded federal may€�iates We &e your action to force a change in the way the
federal government considers-future ma
Today we are beginning a public education campai4"d in our city about what federal mandates are
and what they mean to citizens. We intend to maQV lear the real costs that are passed on to our city.
Federal mandates directly affect the ci our cities and towns. Legislative and regulatory
.g:
requirements to perform duties without-ij... ration of local priorities, costs, or possible alterna-
tives put an unfair burden on taxpayer,*' * By 1' oring other pressing local needs or priorities, federal
mandates take decision making powe e hands of local officials.
..............
Too often, federal rules and regulationkp ',--w ig -.J.. 1�, impose unrealistic time frames, and specify
Qq .q
ht be just as effective. It is time for that to
ti.
procedures or facilities where less cos n. MR.
change.
We want you to take a leadership role f
federal mandates adopted by our city council.
reduce stormwater and drinking water mandal
report that no future law or regulation
and without the federal government pic . . . . . . . . . . . "K
Please join our campaign to end
partnership to serve our citizens.
Sincerely,
the tide. Enclosed is a copy of a resolution on
uld like to report that Congress will act to
a this session adjourns. We would like to
I without close consultation with local leaders,
share of any costs.
and to reintroduce government as a
CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION ADDRESSES ARE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE
U.S. Senators
Senator
Senator
Dave Durenberger (IR)
Paul Wellstone (DFL)
154 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
702 Senate Hart Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224 -3244
Washington, D.C. 2051110
(202) 224 -5641
1020 Plymouth Bldg.
Court International Bldg.
12 S. 6th St.
2550 University Ave.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Room 100 N.
(612) 2370 -3382
St. Paul, MN 55114
1 (800) 752 -4226
(612) 645 -0323
1 (800) 642 -6041
U.S. Representatives
First District
Fifth District
Timothy J. Penny (DFL)
Martin Olav Sabo (DFL)
436 Cannon House Office Bldg.
2336 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225 -2472
(202) 225 -4755
P.O. Box 368
462 Federal Courts Bldg.
108 W. Park Square
110 S. 4th St.
Owatonna, MN 55060
Minneapolis, MN 55401
1 (800) 862 -8632
(612) 348 -1649
Second District
Sixth District
David Minge (DFL)
Rod Grams (IR)
1508 Longworth House Office Bldg.
1713 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225 -2331
(202) 225 -2271
1 (612) 269 -8863
2013 2nd Avenue North
542 First St. S.
Anoka, MN 55303
Montevideo, MN 56265
(612) 427 -5921
(612) 269 -9311
Seventh District
108 E. Third St.
Collin Peterson (DFL)
Chaska, MN 55318
1133 Longworth House Office Bldg.
(612) 448 -6567
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225 -2165
938 Fourth Ave.
Windom, MN 56101
714 Lake Ave.
(507) 831 -0115
Suite 107
Detroit Lakes, MN 56501
Third District
(218) 847 -5056
Jun Ramstad (IIt)
322 Cannon House Office Bldg.
2603 Wheat Drive
Washington, D.C. 20515
Red Lake Fails, MN 56750
(202) 225 -2871
(218) 253 -4356
8120 Penn Ave. S.
3333 W. Division
Suite 152
St. Cloud, MN 56301
Bloomington, MN 55431
(612) 259 -0559
(612) 881 -4600
Eighth District
Fourth District
James L. Oberstar (DFL)
Bruce F. Vento (DFL)
2366 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
2304 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225 -6211
(202) 225 -6631
231 Federal Bldg.
727 Galtier Plaza
Duluth, MN 55802
175 E. 5th St.
(218) 727 -7474
Box 100
St. Paul, MN 55101
Brainerd City Hall
(612) 224 -4503
501 Laurel St.
Brainerd, MN 56401
(218) 828 -4400
Chisholm City Hall
316 Lake St.
Chisholm, MN 55719
(218) 254 -5761
STATE AND FEDERAL( *) MANDATES
PERSONNEL /EMPLOYEE RELATIONS PUBLIC SAFETY
Unemployment compensation Peace officer standards & training
Workers compensation Temporary detention facilities/
Public pensions - Basic and Coordinated plans detoxification centers
Continuation of health and life insurance coverage 911 - emergency phone service
Prevailing wages paid on public contracts (both) Confined space entry
Veterans preference Animal control
Employee right -to -know "First responder" & firefighting
Parental leave /Family leave* by city employees on state hwys.
Fair Labor Standards Act*
Americans with Disabilities Act*
ENVIRONMENT .
Wastewater treatment standards (both)
PLANNING
Land use planning
Drinking water standards (both)
State zoning standards
Surface water management
Uniform building code
Waste disposal criteria/facilities*
Flood plain management
Hazardous substance transportation
Flood insurance
Recycling
Shoreland development
Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act
Lead -based paint testing and removal*
TRANSPORTATION
Leaking underground storage tanks (both)
Municipal state aid roads
Superfund (both)
Computer requirements
REVENUE CONSTRAINTS
GENERAL GOV'T /RECORDS
Tax- exempt property
Conducting elections
Limitations on local special assessments
Record retention schedule
Limitations on maximum penalties and fines
Data Practices Act
Truth in Taxation
Open Meeting Law
Sales tax and MVET on city purchases
Competitive bidding
Minimum levy contribution to regional libaries
Publication of summary budget
Municipal liquor store reporting
Street lighting
Tax- exempt bond reporting*
*indicates a federal mandate
f4
"At
f�hn, F.t 4�h'�k S,;i
k.Q4n iyo,
WTI-
�-�
1 4t
i
t
lip, lily!
G
1 � f T � � i ��' �� � '.i � { r J IJ ��+ 1 } ,.: i t Yw �Il �41 IJ t 1 ti••r (+ rel -t r ` '� �� f,i'+ Scat ,y1a f �' i4r Et t,i
11 e S
:,f4 { .5- � � J u 'u t >�''� � tyj s•,. e s ° ,�y3T"r 3� . " ,�t•s r it p , }t».6 { � ( -ti
{ Y
•,: 1 �� rY !'0 _. '�o ,t =d e:s�� S � -. t ,4w } �' - t:�� I '* �e hyit`�r t`t i� •F ®�7r PF C p s �
,,
h ®rt" ;> F f °x:r Y 'tii�t4l�a
rt ¢3 k 8 is q �xfs
Iff
tQ.,t+•">, 1) t'r a''S.y , !"` �. raJ + t�f 11,�r�6" r;y•= ¢,4j. r'��m ,��,�'«,Zi�3x ° 1::�'K�'k Y.t*4 �, ,.
- fir
�
7 t Jr:. r� trr v 4t "li a,o•�n...rw.N" #'�.v' n,t ?4`ryx
i °d ' �} i ) 4 , v'a tI t� J� s 3t 1,}�tq a -� q° � t' i�k b i t t S :� x rw�"fr'r� � �,'� l •aj�.�'=h'i�t i,a ' �� �� �d7 .i` ,. � a.m , . e � �2 :� N + � n r t 1 �i i St i . +� ; ttt+ 't i .;.'r ws � y F �� d..; y,'3��4,,,,s „�� rrr "� d?at s. .! r N
W-N .,a,p t4r� t > � ° %;,7. �; �4 t��^°'rfE.; .✓.y �-d3 - t �W-,tj .,tt� ".'1tC • +" . c t ,t�C . r.,-i I
1 J
•
�
1 t %•r { y...ry s > `5`` 't 3 : S G� ?i”' o„:,yY .I r {' `3E r -{r..
®i:
t d� � � � ?7'S` ">�• ?YR � a s-+ _�� �� ):DDS 9 � \ .: ®F`. x to `�� t.. � �1
1 'tR' 9� "'?. "'„t ;{ � .i A + '_.�5+-i �"i �3 _, ".yam J :t.=ir 1'snts,�..r -•n 7 1'��'',�� e �. „y ,:n '� -
s
! r�;t 4 t9� ^�' ^.t. '1 `� .:'� r r C x�` rs�(.St-. '�� S ,� �•a �Y }E
1` y
Ir
1 J + [ t P� 5 6, � � �"F.'S ✓. � v3^ !.r ,-�, � t ,e tT =7 M
# xa T N
il4+ } ':�— t9� ,Jf{, {'Y }u` rY�;T" '3'• ". '`�° 6'r't ie'".� tr n �.yazi m�z?,F;•s "ti '{ .th y t�� ilrE ,, }y..
o'er` yf� a? °r': c. `ice, . -i �-"1`' : _. - 4�( w, try• t th.lr r t. t. ® s..+Jt f' t s t "
dnrs f 1 �..: 3 4 tr�'� +t.t R,t _"'tra `ra=.�;.a> .r + -c'S" 33 }s8`e�tl ii '- ,�w�`•„ tt ti ,rp m t,)•y; e nA?`.�1!'r ���
�,'
,:t b 1�.
'ice r r
� t tJ;
s
! ' .w+ °f ' "xS�x..- t'a+ar1rra �' p.p�...; tt .erg �y - 3+:,C""�`�t> a•.rt. u. [.
3 R - t , '[. •n'.w -2t1 att t
''q-a -%tea. } :.{ Fu..�tt1 tts'; yr(iyJ -:r srn L "Y i�- •�- y.r,jj rJ `� -
r
h✓a IN,i� *� �ti;_ ..i, y;f t 2 °' };8m'.i T't '�L a + ;: • u p>� L k .£.o- ;�r ,' ci fES, . t1 Jp•' 'e :'i.^ "':a.
'fix y � � ;.�1qti ` 1 m t b k �.; , r 1 � J t Je+ r 3 �t , .t t iF'. ` ° a � `�ff�k " t ' - :. _� } } � ® mo �c r k t .y. �" +� f ' �tm 3�' fyr r '{ � ' �`r 'p pa " . ;�� �z, ° ' y` s,, r � . a l � y ( ! `t °� S�t?u a" • * s { r•S ai e .a, ': +:s. �a t. , �fi.�.� '' r " �"�,.A" ' ,; ~ti�;' f' 7�^C�,m u^ °� a �, + . � Y- ��33hl,,r� � e�- � r ^ . �}t'+� >rti< ' y w -"- •. t 1 ax r ) t r � 'k j fit ' t r t' i J r 1 r P } �� r• r t ti t i �:, - ® - : � ° �ba' s * s L4.+p � k JW h{t � + : � �; w' `cm "i^ � ' i'• � ,'�t"'',Z - � s `s >ayiati � <"s ' t. .t r &�f � 'v� ' it 3 t J ±*._-°w� ^ y n ,'a,� S�kol'-' W f}e . ' t t omJ>.,', ,-,.s $.n� - ; ; , }' � r t1 ra
e
<
t
. . pug,
s s } g 5ing
4
_
t ,,,-f [t afi ( b'r "*4 -i�? I-� .t�•e ,F'� tx y' : 3 t o� t ' v
x5 +
WXY
sr 1-
t � �� oY+ �l a: rim'�rs --p y�r iaaa x r '� -'t � JT"'� q � �' Rt,•, � r a a r
� 1� t , %'+. y .x t 'r'*1 �iJ �s s [��t'� d � v7 r r"S s � � t .. • SV�' F ';3� rt �t y,a (�.e .
eP.`# [.:� "'��"y�`�11Tt"3�ir"����'"t E�!�, �,.�� _" `T .; ��...f��,.., : t } Sn"j y^�"1. k{ f� =w � t•1 P I � ai I � �f,
�,w �' tix. �.t. •, �. }.�.. �. � ..,is'E.. �'i''.is_�_.i- �+a�'"a�!o e „�r�-."..,�'�'ly:��{ .t�...,,.t'= Fr^.h't°,",r .. .: :.... .. ..7.,ri{�Y u.4 :.J.:: e, } ,. v. r�. � ,.�` t L c��t
12 MMWTN
{
?.,M? i'r`"� t''cl t.— of n y� tr _ r 7
F rY trk b "F^�y qy���E. ttt t t 1 ><J h1'J l t}..• 7' a-. 7 t _ '` I [a, t
It'i ,�, tI ��' ,`,plr+� i t-� i ;"-'• E. ,'°" r my ..x. i ,ry t +t y { t: - a,{ [ C' s= �8
4 t 1 a a r rOS+ rl i'iT• 1 i �e,��h �tbi.:id ' t t '.1 '= n ft y� -°to.� �i > to
r p -{4
�. 1 s�.� + t ti• r, „�.'`? �t�E� �4i Ji .l x 6"r
�
3 t r ,its Eu 1 h 4s °i 'r ®! t� n
}:'r t .� n 3Ey to sg' �'� c }: t 1 r : 11 4�.�7yt�>t 3' {�Yjt 'i ..a t t + '..r t'' st •' j txi .¢
t� � � � >, �'��{ J t � -, � � { ,� ! •sue � F
Y.' xy'>t-t,t
gb' ry 5 D s yt.LL'y��,D }'s 1 S.•` �jb„ {v, !yrt ..'' 1 °t ,. r r-
- 3: �.ar`ri !,.+ .. ,� >', �- 1 + Stt " ^�mvx`t r ig 1 }� � ,� � t"r '�r^t �•: tt s J �.. r r
� j.
T
nf'' tY
,pry, + -. ,�o�tu r F r :t +r {rt ` 3S 'K". . ✓! t..�.' s a t y.-. t t 1 t .s` t r :,,}i.'f �(' t .. t ry
fy �' ,, -� a' r+. r o ®'y t[lY..r r� r _, r� '1 t. t t ! �r�..:R 3d .�- � +^�t K",�t t�• �i: p }- 1,'"�'. o
'el .�) :Yr �i !W, y��' 11,, � }i 1y' ,!) J �, � µ'.i ,�-' a'.' ..�q 1' r �• i
+ �t .w m• : n r S 1 ' r,r
+' ,�{'
,d' t� F. �-! >o t 1 } , "y, 1 y e.r..i...• g „....;, i tt;y
.eik't t g z dP y
!�O, 3 l } ,,t•, ra'•r, '. t 1 , q t -
�r,_ y {: 3 �d+ � � � �a u�� 1 � f to ' w.c. � ,.,r* t,}: �`-n t,� � • t 1 . � � 1 t ' t 4
y t i' -ltt,l Orr r - it Y
e
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 286
Agenda October 11, 1993
Issue Statement:
Request for a conditional use permit and off- street parking
permit to allow a daycare center at 6341 Penn Avenue.
Background:
Mother Duck Learning Center is proposing to operate a daycare
center for up to 40 children in the existing 1,500 square foot
office building at 6341 Penn Avenue. The site would be leased to
Mother Duck contingent upon City approval.
The applicant anticipates starting out with about 18 children,
and increasing enrollment steadily over a few years, until they
reach 30 -40 children. One to three additional employees would be
hired as needed to meet the proper adult -to -child ratio.
The daycare center would be operated from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
however, hours may be extended in the future to meet needs of the
clientele. Meals would be catered in, however, they would have
refrigeration and a microwave for storing and heating certain
food items.
Physical changes proposed for the site include the following:
♦ New landscaping along Penn and Oliver Avenues.
♦ New fencing to tie into the existing fencing.
♦ Installation of a sand play area.
♦ Restriping of the parking lot.
♦ Provision for one handicapped parking space.
♦ Repainting of building.
In addition, several interior changes would be made in order to
meet City building codes and State daycare licensing
requirements.
The property is zoned I- industrial, where daycare centers with
more than 12 children are permitted with a conditional use
permit.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the conditional use permit and off - street parking permit
in accordance with the attached site plan, allowing a daycare
center for up to 40 children at 6341 Penn Avenue with the
following stipulations:
1. That a cash escrow agreement for required landscaping and
parking lot striping be submitted before the permits become
effective.
2. That the new paint colors comply with the PASSS Design
Guidelines.
3. That the screen fence be properly maintained.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Adequate on -site parking is available for the use.
2. Adequate play area is available on the site.
3. The drop -off and pick -up area would be located on -site, at
the front of the building. Parents would use Penn Avenue for
ingress /egress and the use of Oliver Avenue would be
discouraged.
4. The City Planner has approved the landscape plan.
5. The City Engineer has approved the drainage plan.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the request with a finding that the proposal would have an
adverse impact on surrounding properties or the City as a whole.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, October 11,
1993. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of
Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of hearing was
published in the Sun - Current and mailed to property owners within
350 feet of the subject property.
Respectfully submitted,
JDP:dkh
t
Ci
sVD. Prosser
PROPOSED SITE'PLAN FOR DAY CARE CENTER
ELEVEN SHRUB ROSE
THREE GOLDEN MOCKORANGE FOUR SHRUB ROSE
ONE SPIREA VAN HOUTTE 2 FT. WIDE X 2. FT. DEEP
l' DRAINAGE TRENCH
SAND PLAY AREA
265.85' PROPERTY LINE
O Lu j z DRAINAGE f SOD FENCE"
�� ROCK H.C. SIGN -+ LL
I
Q STORAGE SHED
uj
EXISTING Z
a FA
TE I Q BUILDING
PROPERTY LINE 266.3 1
J
ACCESS Q
EASEMENT
in i
NEW 6 FT. HIGH FENCE
TIE INTO EXISTING FENCE
I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 285
Agenda October 11, 1993
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment to
classify pawn operations, secondhand goods operations which require
a license under Section 1186 of the City Code, currency exchanges,
auction houses and consignment auction houses as conditional uses
in the C -2 (general commercial) and I (industrial) districts.
Background:
The zoning ordinance does not adequately address the classification
of pawn shops, secondhand goods dealers, currency exchanges and
auction houses. As a result, the City Council adopted an interim
ordinance, imposing a one year moratorium on the development of
such uses within the City. The moratorium will expire on November
26, 1993 or an earlier date as further adopted by ordinance. In
addition, the moratorium may be extended beyond the one year period
as necessary, to complete the review and adopt any necessary
amendments to the zoning ordinance.
The moratorium was imposed to protect the planning process; to
protect the health, safety, and welfare of City residents; and to
allow adequate time to develop regulations for pawn shops,
secondhand goods dealers, currency exchanges and auction houses.
Over the past several months, the Planning Commission and staff
have been reviewing relevant planning and land use issues, which
include the following:
♦ The particular zoning districts in which such uses shall be
allowed as either a permitted or a conditional use.
♦ The concentration and density of such uses in the City and its
neighborhoods.
♦ The effect of such uses on other uses in the area, and ways to
minimize any adverse impacts.
♦ The possible need for modifications to the licensing
regulations.
The Planning Commission and staff review found that such uses
should be restricted to the C -2 and I districts to prevent
inharmonious land uses. Such uses should be reviewed individually
through the conditional use permit process. The proposed ordinance
regulates the density of such uses by setting minimum spacing
requirements between such uses and residentially zoned property,
schools, churches, daycare centers and public institutions. The
ordinance has provisions to minimize adverse impacts by addressing
parking, screening, noise concerns and traffic safety. The
ordinance also grandfathers in such uses which are legally
existing, but which may not meet the specific conditions set by the
ordinance.
9 -I
The City Licensing Division is not recommending any changes to
the licensing regulations for such uses at the present time.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached ordinance approving an amendment which
classifies pawn operations, secondhand goods operations which
require a license under Section 1186 of the City Code, currency
exchanges, auction houses and consignment auction houses as
conditional uses in the C -2 and I districts.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposed ordinance amendment would classify such uses,
allowing them in the C -2 and I districts with a conditional
use permit.
2. Currency exchanges have been delineated as a similar use
which should be subjected to the same regulations.
3. Conditions for the granting of a conditional use permit have
been established to protect and promote the public health,
safety, comfort, aesthetics,, economic viability and general
welfare of the City and its residents.
4. On August 24, 1993, the Planning Commission voted unanimously
to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Refer the amendment back to the Planning Commission for
further study.
2. The City Council could modify the amendment deleting any of
the enumerated uses.
3. The City Council could decide not to adopt the amendment.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
A public hearing and second reading is scheduled at 7 p.m. on
Monday, October 11, 1993. The hearing will be held in the City
Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue.
Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun - Current.
JDP:ds
0
Res ec ully submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City nager
1
Bill No. 1993-
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX B
OF THE CITY CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
The City of Richfield does ordain:
Section 520 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled
"Zoning: commercial districts" is hereby amended by amending
subsection 520.17 and adding subsection 520.22 to read as
follows:
Section 520.17.
(e) pawn operations, secondhand goods operations which
require a license under Section 1186 of the City Code, currency
exchanges, auction houses and consignment auction houses.
(fe) other business uses which are determined by the
Council to be of the same general character as the uses
enumerated in this section and which will not be obnoxious or
detrimental to the area in which they would be located.
Section 520.22.
is 520.22. Pawn operations, secondhand goods operations
which require a license under Section 1186 of the City Code
currency exchanges, auction houses and consignment auction
houses. Subdivision 1. General Rule A conditional use permit
shall not be granted for any pawn operation, secondhand goods
operation which requires a license under Section 1186 of the City
Code, currency exchange, auction house or consignment auction
house, unless the Council finds that the proposed use will comply
with the standards set forth in this subsection.
Subd. 2. Such uses shall not be permitted within 1,000
feet of any school, church, daycare center or public institution.
Subd. 3. Such uses shall not be permitted within 1,000
feet of any other pawn operation, secondhand goods operation
which requires a license under Section 1186 of the City Code
currency exchange, auction house or consignment auction house.
Subd. 4. Such uses shall not be permitted within 250 feet
of any residentially zoned property.
Subd. 5. Such uses shall be screened, as approved by the
City.
Subd. 6. The business operator shall secure all
applicable licenses and approvals from the city, county, state
or other applicable jurisdictions before this permit becomes
effective.
Subd. 7. Off - street parking standards:
(a) pawn operations and second hand goods operations which
require a license under Section 1186 of the City Code, and
currency exchanges - five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross
floor area or ten spaces, whichever is greater.
(b) auction houses and consignment auction houses - 35
spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or 70 spaces,
whichever is greater.
Subd. 8. The operation shall be contained within a
completely enclosed building and no outside storage, display, or
sale of merchandise shall be permitted.
Subd. 9. There shall be no exterior loudspeaker, and any
public address system shall not be audible from any residential
parcel.
Subd. 10. Auction houses and consignment auction houses
shall have designated on -site loading and drop -off areas which
are designed to avoid interfering with traffic and pedestrian
movements.
Subd. 11. For the purposes of this subsection, currency
exchanges shall be defined as a business or person, except a
bank, trust company, savings bank, savings and loan association,
credit union, or industrial loan and thrift company, engaged in
the business of cashing checks, drafts, money orders or
traveler's checks for a fee. Currency exchange does not include
businesses or persons who provide such service incidental to
their primary business if the charge for cashing a check or draft
does not exceed one dollar or one percent of the check or draft
whichever is greater.
Subd. 12. For the purposes of this subsection. all
measurements shall be taken from lot line to lot line unless
such use is to be located within a multi- tenant building with
over 5,000 square feet in area. In such case, measurements shall
be taken from the_buildina space of such use to the lot lines of
other properties.
Subd. 13. Such pawn operations, secondhand goods
operations which require a license under Section 1186 of the City
Code, currency exchanges, auction houses and consignment auction
houses which were legally established prior to November 20, 1993
shall be classified as legal nonconforming uses subject to the
provisions of Section 510.05 of this code.
Section 525 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled
"Zoning: industrial districts" is hereby amended by adding
subsection 525.03 (c) to read as follows:
525.03.
(c) those uses listed in Section 520.22, subject to the
same conditions set forth in Section 520.22.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 11th day of October, 1993.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
r
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
34
. CITY OF RICHFIELD
REFERENCE FOR ATTACHED MAPS
go
ff
School, church, daycare center, or public institution
Areas within 1,000 feet of a school, church, daycare center, or public
institution
Allowable areas for pawns shops, secondhand goods dealers which
require a license under Section 1186 of the City Code, currency
exchanges, auction. houses and consignment auction houses.
Existing pawn shops and currency exchanges
0
i
■
-
SHEET A
j SHEET B
■
■
r
1!!
1.
j
SHEET C
SHEET D
go
ff
School, church, daycare center, or public institution
Areas within 1,000 feet of a school, church, daycare center, or public
institution
Allowable areas for pawns shops, secondhand goods dealers which
require a license under Section 1186 of the City Code, currency
exchanges, auction. houses and consignment auction houses.
Existing pawn shops and currency exchanges
0
i
0
Ll
a
i
0
u� Z
Q
Lu Q
Z Q
L40
in
•
a
m
0
C7
In
i .i
r 7
L-A
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 284
• Agenda October 11, 1993
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment to
rezone the following MR (multiple residence) properties: 1)
rezone 7001 and 7005 Fifth Avenue and 7000 Portland Avenue to R
(single family residential); 2) rezone 6919 -21 Chicago Avenue to
MR -1 (two family residential); 3) rezone 7608, 7614, 7620, 7626,
7632 and 7638 Pleasant Avenue to MR -2 (multiple family
residential); and 4) rezone 7701 Portland Avenue to C -2 (general
commercial) and 631 East 77th Street to MR -3 (high density
multiple residential).
Background:
Staff is reviewing the zoning ordinance for revision and update.
Initial analysis indicates that the MR district is not effective
because its provisions are incomplete, outdated and ambiguous.
The MR district has no density limitation and incorporates the
single family uses of the R district as well as the two family,
multi - family and group housing developments.
The MR district was the original and only multi - family district
when Richfield's growth occurred. Later, the MR -1, MR -2 and MR -3
districts were created to provide more precise controls for the
expanding variety of multi- family housing. When the MR -1, MR -2
and MR -3 districts were added, most MR zoned land was rezoned to
fit into that classification system. The intention was for all
MR zoned land to be rezoned but approximately 65 parcels of land
in about 18 areas of the City are still zoned MR. These parcels
are being evaluated and presented for reclassification to the
most appropriate land use zone.
The proposed zoning designation for the subject parcels are
consistent with existing land use and, therefore, will remain
conforming uses.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached ordinance amendment approving the rezoning of
7001 and 7005 Fifth Avenue and 7000 Portland Avenue from MR to R;
rezoning 6919 -21 Chicago Avenue from MR to MR -1; rezoning 7608,
7614, 7620, 7626, 7632 and 7638 Pleasant Avenue from MR to MR -2;
rezoning 7701 Portland Avenue from MR to C -2; and rezoning 631
East 77th Street from MR to MR -3.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. This rezoning will help to bring the zoning map up to date
with current land use practices and the comprehensive plan.
None of the uses will become nonconforming as a result of the
rezoning.
2. An MR zone is no longer an appropriate zoning district in the
City and an update to a more appropriate district is called
for whether or not the text of the zoning ordinance is
changed.
LJ
� -I
3. If the text of the zoning ordinance is updated later this
year eliminating the MR district, then it would be
appropriate to have rezoned such designated areas before the
text change.
4. The proposed R zoning is most appropriate for the existing
single family uses at 7001 and 7005 Fifth Avenue and 7000
Portland Avenue, and would eliminate an inconsistent spot
zone of MR.
5 The proposed MR -1 zoning is most appropriate for the existing
duplex use at 6919 -21 Chicago Avenue, and would ensure that
higher density development (as allowed under the MR
provisions). does not occur.
6. The proposed MR -2 zoning is most appropriate for the existing
fourplex uses at 7608, 7614, 7620, 7626, 7632 and 7638
Pleasant Avenue, and would ensure that higher density
development (as allowed under the MR provisions) does not
occur. The MR -2 classification allows 3 -17 units on a lot,
based on the size of the lot. The MR -2 designation provides
appropriate controls through setback, height, parking, open
space and other regulations. If a redevelopment would occur
in this area, the number of units per lot could not exceed
four under the MR -2 classification.
7. The proposed C -2 zoning is most appropriate for the existing
commercial use at 7701 Portland Avenue, while offering proper
regulatory control for future land uses.
8. The proposed MR -3 zoning is most appropriate for the existing
21 unit apartment use at 631 East 77th Street, while offering
proper regulatory control for future land uses.
9. On August 24, 1993, the Planning Commission voted unanimously
to recommend approval of the rezonings.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council could deny this rezoning with a finding that
such rezoning would have an adverse impact on the subject
parcels, adjacent properties or the City as a whole.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
A public hearing and second reading is scheduled at 7 p.m. on
Monday, October 11, 1993. The hearing will be held in the City
Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue.
Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun - Current and mailed
to property owners within 350 feet of the subject properties.
JDP:ds
Respectfully submitted,
J e D. Prosser
Ci Manager
7 -C,)--
Bill No. 1993 -_
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX 1
OF THE CITY ZONING CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
The City of Richfield does ordain:
Appendix 1 which describes the boundaries of the various
zoning districts of the City is hereby amended in the following
respect:
Section 5, Paragraph (22) is amended to read as follows:
(22 ) The north ' 23 feet of the west 1600 feet of the east
zzxc -: :vx c:: xzv
320 €eet -ef Seetien- 34, Tewnsh*p -24 Range -28. [Repealed].
Section 5, Paragraph (26) is amended to read as follows:
(26 ) The - west -1/2 of the north 1/2 of Lot 33, Baumgartner's
Est Addition. [Repealed].
Section 5, Paragraph (11) is amended to read as follows:
(11) That area lying between the centerline of Block 211
Sunset Terrac e n �d3Northfield, �en and the --ana
Southern Railway right of way and between the center line of 77
Street and the- new - line -ef f,et 2, Block 2, of said addition;
and -also - the -east 1/2 of lots 2, 3, 4 ,5, and 6 of said b1eok and
addition, — except - the -east 30 fee'- eree (Rene led] .
Section 5, Paragraph (20) is amended to read as follows:
(20 ) The north 132.5 - feet of the southwest 1/4 of the
southwest 1f4 of the southwest Seet-len-35, Townsh-ip 028,
Range 24, exeeptthe west218. 99 - feet ereof and except the
north 30 feet thereof. [Repealed].
Section 11, Paragraph (80.) is amended to read as follows:
(80) The west 1/2 of the north 1/2 of Lot 33, Baumgartner's
First Addition.
Section 12, Paragraph (32) is amended to read as follows:
(32) The east 1/2 of lots 2 through 7, Block 2, Sunset
Terrace Addition.
Section 3, Paragraph (48) is amended to read as follows:
(48) That area lying between the center lines of 78th and
77th Streets and between the east line of Ranft's Addition and
the center line of Chicago Avenue except the area described as
' -3
follows: The north 132.5 feet of the southwest 1/4 of the
southwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 28,
Range 24, except the west 251.97 feet thereof.
Section 13, Paragraph (10) is amended to read as follows:
(10) The north 132.5 feet of the southwest 1/4 of the
southwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 28,
Range 24, except the west 251.97 feet thereof and except roads.
This amendment constitutes a rezoning of the following
properties: 1) rezone 7001 and 7005 Fifth Avenue and 7000
Portland Avenue from MR to R (single family residential); 2)
rezone 6919 -21 Chicago Avenue from MR to MR -1 (two family
residential; 3) rezone 7608, 7614, 7620, 7626, 7632, and 7638
Pleasant Avenue from MR to MR -2 (multiple family residential); 4)
rezone 7701 Portland Avenue from MR to C -2 (general commercial)
and 631 East 77th Street from MR to MR -3 (high density multiple
residential).
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 11th day of October, 1993.
. ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ui
Q
Z
H
REZONING PLAN -�
EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING
70TH ST.
71ST ST.
�i
Q
Z
Q
J
Y
1
ui
Q
H
N
n
LAND USE: ALL SINGLE FAMILY
7001 & 7005 Fifth Ave.
7000 Portland Ave.
70TH ST.
71ST ST.
Li
Q
Z
Q
J
r
L
LL!
Q
O
Q
U_
S
U
p—
;V
A
Os
co
]REZONING PLAN
EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING
69TH ST.
W
Q
O
J
J
W
70TH ST.
V.
Cl.
uj
Qm
O t0
C7
Q
U_'
S
U
69TH ST.
70TH ST.
LAND USE: SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DUPLEX,
REMAINDER OF BLOCK IS SINGLE FAMILY.
uj
Q
O
J
J
W
6919-21 Chicago Ave.
MR-
,'••••' CITI' OF MMNING
ZONING
��
W °
a�
0
z
a
J
f-
m
O
CL
u.i
a
0
z
a
J
H
O
a
uj
0
Q^
a
z
a
J
H
O
a
REZONING PLAN
EXISTING LAND USE
77TH ST.
631
P.D.a STORE APARTMENTS
21 UNITS)
NURSING HOME APARTMOT
GAS CAR II COMPLEX
STA. RENTAL I
7701 Portland Ave.
631 East 77th St.
MR
MR -3
JJJJJ'JJJ C -2
J JJJ
J•
J J
78TH ST.
EXISTING ZONING
77TH ST.
78TH ST.
PROPOSED ZONING
77TH ST.
78TH ST.
i 'I%- IN
CITY OF
KICHFIELD
uw
O
C7
a
U_
S
U
u.i
a
O
c�
a
U_
2
U
ui
a
O
c�
a
U_
U
N
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 283
Agenda October 11, 1993
Issue Statement:
Purchase in excess of $5,000 for salt to be used in ice control
during the 1993/94 winter season.
Background:
The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that
when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or
construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase
shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration.
Each year, the City purchases approximately 1,000 ton of rock
salt, which is usually mixed with sand, to control ice on road
surfaces during the winter season. A recent history of prices
for this product is:
Year
Unit Price
Delivery
Total
83/84
16.69/ton
2.00 /ton
18.69 /ton
84/85
21.41 /ton
3.15 /ton
24.56/ton
85/86
23.47/ton
Included
23.47/ton
86/87
20.05 /ton
1.95 /ton
22.00 /ton
87/88
18.96 /ton
1.80 /ton
20.76 /ton
• 88/89
24.96/ton
1.43 /ton
26.39/ton
89/90
26.48/ton
1.85 /ton
28.33/ton
90/91
26.27/ton
1.50 /ton
27.77/ton
91/92
26.27/ton
1.50 /ton
27.77/ton
92/93
25.66/ton
Included
25.66/ton (500 ton)
92/93
36.92/ton
Included
36.92/ton (500 ton)
Funding for this purchase is included in the 1993 and 1994
operating budgets for street maintenance.
In past years, the City has participated in a joint purchasing
agreement with Hennepin County. In 1992, the County decided to
become part of the State of Minnesota joint purchasing for rock
salt. Again this year, Richfield was supposed to be listed under
the Hennepin County group; however, there was a mix -up with the
paperwork necessary to be a part of the bidding group, and
Richfield (along with three other communities) did not get listed
with the Hennepin County group. Staff contacted the State of
Minnesota, who contacted North American Salt, the low bidder for
this area, and they agreed to sell the City 500 ton of winter
salt on the state contract. The price is $25.66 /ton delivered.
Staff attempted to obtain quotes from other bidders on the state
contract, and received the following:
Cargill Incorporated -Salt Division $28.40 /ton
Morton Salt No quotation submitted
North American Salt (State Contract Bid) $25.66/ton
6)q - I
Recommended Motion:
IS Approve the purchase of 500 ton of rock salt from North American
Salt at $25.66 /ton delivered for a total purchase price of
$12,830.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The paperwork necessary for the City of Richfield to be a
part of a joint purchase agreement with Hennepin County
through the State of Minnesota was lost after leaving
Richfield. At this point, the City does not have time to go
through the formal bid process.
2. North American Salt offered 500 ton at the state contract
price of $25.66 /delivered.
3. North American Salt is a responsible, reliable company with
whom the City has conducted business satisfactorily in the
past.
4. The rock salt is needed for the upcoming winter season.
5. When more salt is needed, the City will have to go through
this process again.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council could direct staff to obtain prices for the rock salt
• from other distributors; however, time is running short if the
City wants to have salt available for the immediate future.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Approval is being sought at the October 11, 1993 Council meeting.
Council should be aware that any delay in approving this purchase
could put Richfield at a dangerous disadvantage should an early
snowfall arrive.
JDP:ds
Res lly submitted,
Ja a D. Prosser
Cit anager