7-22-91 agenda~A
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.~186
Agenda July 22, 1991
Issue Statement•
Award of contract for the demolition of 7600 & 7645 Emerson Avenue.
Background•
5600,000 of Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds are identified in the
1991 Capital Improvement Budget for street improvements to the
Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet (ILN) area. Included in the street
improvements is purchase and disposal of houses north of 77th
Street. The bid award under consideration is for demolition of the
two houses at 7600 and 7645 Emerson. It is not economical to
repair the houses and rent or move them; in fact they are a
nuisance. A special asbestos survey was performed to assure that
any hazards from asbestos in the building are properly addressed.
Prior to demolition, notice will be sent to the neighbors.
Demolition of these houses will be funded from MSA.
A formal bid opening was held on Wednesday, July 10, 1991 with the
following results:
F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. 523,600
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. 24,900
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract in the sum
of $23,600 for the demolition of 7600 and 7645 Emerson to F.F.
Jedlicki, Inc. Award of bid will be subject to MSA approval.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. F.F. Jedlicki submitted the low bid, and they are a
reputable contractor.
2. The engineer's estimate on this project was 525,000, so
Jedlicki is well within the cost range for this project.
3. Staff is in the process of receiving formal MSA approval for
this project.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council could reject the bids and instruct staff to re-bid;
however, staff does not believe we can obtain a better price for
this work.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is asking for approval at the July 22, 1991 Council meeting,
since the bids are only good until August 10, 1991.
Respect lly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
Attachment
~~'
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
July 10, 1991
11:00 A.M.
ROW Clearance at 7600 & 7645 Emerson Avenue South
Project No. 875
Bid No. 91-15
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk,
who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive,
open and read aloud, bids for ROW Clearance at 7600 & 7645
Emerson Avenue South, bid no. 91-15, as advertised in the
official newspaper on June 26, 1991.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
Roxi Braa, Administrative Aide
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR BID
SECURITY TOTAL
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. St. Paul 5$ Bid Bond $ 24,900.00
F.F. Jedlicki Inc. Eden Prairie 5$ Bid Bond $ 23,600.00
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the July 22, 1991 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
38
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. ~g7
Agenda July 22, 1991
Issue Statement•
Purchase of air•compressor in excess of $5,000.
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.
The central garage motor pool has two existing air compressors.
This equipment is used to blow out irrigation lines, for
jackhammering, street crack, repair, sandblasting paint off
hydrants, and other jobs within the maintenance divisions. There
is enough work to keep the two machines in almost constant use.
The newest compressor is approximately nine years old. The
oldest compressor is approximately 30 years old and was scheduled
to be replaced in 1992. The compressor had been rebuilt and the
extended replacement date was set for 1992. However, the
compressor did not last the extended period of time and now blows
oil with the air so is unusable to jobs such as painting and work
on irrigation. Increased emphasis and work on street crack
sealing also necessitates a need for this machine. This work
will continue to increase for the foreseeable future.
As an alternative means of providing for the air compressor needs
during 1991, staff investigated rental prices. Rates were
generally $1,000 per month. Staff estimated a minimum need of
three months rental. Compared to the of purchasing a machine,
the limited rental would mean the machine would not always be
available and the cost for three months would be approximately
one-third the cost of owning a machine which would be available
for many years.
Staff received three quotations for purchase of a new compressor:
Aspen Equipment Company $10,350.00
Ruffridge-Johnson Equipment Co. 10,797.42
Hayden-Murphy Equipment Co. 11,068.00
Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase order to Aspen Equipment Company for the
purchase of a new air compressor in the sum of $10,350.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Aspen Equipment Company submitted the lowest quotation.
2. This piece of equipment is a vital part of many aspects for
the maintenance divisions.
~~- i
3. Adequate funds are available in the central garage fund for
this purchase.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Council could reject the quotations and instruct staff to
obtain new quotations; however, staff does not believe we
could obtain a better price for this piece of equipment.
2. Council could direct staff to rent an air compressor for 1991
uses and retain the 1992 replacement date of the City's
current machine. However, it is the opinion of staff this
option is not economically prudent nor it is efficient in
terms of work projects to be done.
3. Council could direct staff to not replace the air compressor
in 1991 through either purchase or rental. This would mean
that certain work projects related to street maintenance,
hydrants and irrigation systems would not be done in 1991.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the
Staff is requesting approval at
July 22, 1991 Council meeting.
this time.
Respec fu submitted,
James rosser
City M ger
JDP:ds
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 188
Agenda July 22, 1991
Issue Statement:
Purchase in excess of $5,000 for removal, repair and installation
of deep well pump #4.
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.
The current pump in Well #4, which was installed in 1985, has
developed a hole in the column and is pumping approximately 1,200
gallons of water per minute (GPM) of the total 2,000 GPM pumping
capability. The well is located at 6401 Oakland Avenue. The
hole developed as part of the normal wearing process.
Five contractors were contacted and proposals were received for
the replacement of pump #4 as follow:
Keys Well Drilling Company $11,225.00
E.H. Renner and Sons 11,546.65
Layne Minnesota 13,286.00
McCarthy Well Company 13,598.00
Bergerson-Caswell Incorporated 13,771.00
Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase order to Keys Well Drilling Company for
removal, repair and installation of the deep well pump #4 at 6401
Oakland Avenue for an estimated total price of $11,225.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The current pump was installed in 1985 and is in need of
repair. The necessary repairs will allow for better pumping
capacity, approximately 800 gallons more per minute.
2. Keys Well Drilling Company submitted the lowest quotation,
and is a reputable contractor who has performed
satisfactorily on previous projects for the City.
3. If the repair is delayed there is an increased risk of the
pump dropping to the bottom of the well.
4. The 1991 adopted water maintenance budget contains monies for
this repair.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose not to accept any of the quotations and
instruct staff to obtain new quotes; however, staff does not
believe better prices can be obtained at this time.
3~- ~
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the July 22, 1991 City Council
meeting. Staff is requesting approval at this time in order to
facilitate the repair work.
Respectfu ly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
3D
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 189
Agenda July 22, 1991
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a resolution for adoption of a Council policy which
would limit the number of animals to six, over the age of six months,
that may be kept at a property that is licensed as a residential
kennel.
Background•
At the July 1 Council study session, staff was directed by Council to
draft a policy which would limit the number of animals to six, over
the age of six months, that may be kept at a property licensed as a
residential kennel.
A number o£ options were explored by the City Council at their July 1
study session and it was determined to limit the number of animals
that a resident may have at a residential kennel. This action became
necessary as a result of increased neighborhood complaints from
residents concerning properties licensed in their neighborhoods as
residential kennels. In most instances, their complaints related to
the number of animals being kept on the property.
Current records indicate there is only one approved residential
kennel license that has more than six animals. This resident will be
allowed to keep all those animals but may not replace them with new
ones in excess of six as they are sold, lost, given away or expire.
Recommended Motion:
Approve a resolution to be adopted as Council policy that would limit
the number of animals to six, over the age of six months, that may be
kept at a property that is licensed as a residential kennel.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. In a City the size of Richfield, with homes so closely located to
one another, that more than six animals at any one property would
be likely to have an adverse effect on neighboring residents.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not approve .the resolution limiting the number of animals to
six, over the age of six months, at a property licensed as a
residential kennel. This would mean that residents could have an
unlimited number of animals on their property.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The resolution is presented for council consideration at this time.
Re a lly submitted,
Jam Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
~D- i
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ANIMALS
WHICH MAY BE KEPT PURSUANT TO A RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE
WHEREAS, Subsection 905.31 of the Ordinance Code requires that
persons desiring to keep more than two dogs or two cats on
residential property must first obtain a residential kennel license;
and
WHEREAS, while the keeping of such numbers of animals may be
importance to the occupants on the property, the Council believes
that reasonable limitations must be placed upon the maximum number of
animals so as to minimize adverse health and safety considerations,
and to assure that neighbors may receive the full enjoyment of their
property; and
WHEREAS, the Council believes that it is necessary and
appropriate that such a maximum number be established, and has
received the recommendations of City staff with respect to such
number.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City
of Richfield that no residential kennel license will henceforth be
issued or renewed if there are kept on the premises more than six
animals over six months of age which are subject to the residential
kennel license provisions of the Ordinance Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that with respect to any residential
kennel license hereafter issued or renewed, such license shall be
subject to revocation if, during the term of the license, more than
six such animals are kept on the licensed premises.
A copy of this resolution shall be furnished to all applicants
for residential kennel license.
ATTEST:
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 190
Agenda July 22, 1991
Issue Statement•
Consideration of an application for a commercial kennel license
for Animal Care Clinic located at 6521 Cedar Avenue.
Background•
On June 26, 1991 Animal Care Clinic submitted an application for
the renewal of their commercial kennel license.
On July 6, 1991, an inspection of the property was conducted by a
Community Service Officer. The Community Service Officer did not
find any problems. Everything was clean and in order.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the application for a commercial kennel
license be approved.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to
a commercial kennel license.
7. _ ThG ,fit+ST. h~fi tlY'AST'L_/SI1C ~• 7 CCLl9~ ~ 1~X~~c7 ~.1("G.T+9'f~tn ~r~a*r+a7
Care Clinic.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny the request for a commercial
kennel license. However the Public Safety Department has not
found any basis for a denial.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Recommendation to approve the application for a commercial kennel
license for Animal Care Clinic, 6521 Cedar Avenue is presented
for Council consideration at this time.
Respec ly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 191
Agenda July 22, 1991
Issue Statement•
Consideration of an application for a commercial kennel license
for Woodlake Veterinary Hospital located at 6436 Lyndale Avenue.
Background•
On June 24, 1991 Woodlake Veterinary Hospital submitted an
application for the renewal of their commercial kennel license.
On July 6, 1991, an inspection of the property was conducted by a
Community Service Officer. The Community Service Officer did not
find any problems. Everything was clean and in order.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the application for a commercial kennel
license be approved.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to
a commercial kennel license.
2. The City has previously issued a kennel license to Woodlake
Veterinary Hospital.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny the request for a
commmercial kennel license. However the Public Safety
Department has not found any basis for a denial.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Recommendation to approve the application for a commercial kennel
license for Woodlake Veterinary Hospital, 6436 Lyndale Avenue is
presented for Council consideration at this time.
ly submitted,
James D. Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
3~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 192
Agenda July 22, 1991
Issue Statement•
Consideration of an application for a commercial kennel license
for Airport Pet Hospital located at 6301 Cedar Avenue.
Background•
On June 24, 1991 Airport Pet Hospital submitted an application
for the renewal of their commercial kennel license.
On July 6, 1991, an inspection of the property was conducted by a
Community Service Officer. The Community Service Officer did not
find any problems. Everything was clean and in order.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the application for a commercial kennel
license be approved.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to
a commercial kennel license.
2. The City has previously issued a kennel license to Airport
Pet Hospital.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny the request for a commercial
kennel license. However the Public Safety Department has not
found any basis for a denial.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Recommendation to approve the application for a commercial kennel
license for Airport Pet Hospital, 6301 Cedar Avenue is presented
for Council consideration at this time.
Respectf y submitted,
James D Prosser
City a alter
JDP:ds
~r~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 193
Agenda July 22, 1991
Issue Statement•
Consideration of an application for a commercial kennel license
for Cutler Animal Hospital located at 7738 Colfax Avenue.
Background•
On June 24, 1991 Cutler Animal Hospital submitted an application
for the renewal of their commercial kennel license.
On July 12, 1991, an inspection of the property was conducted by
a Community Service Officer. The Community Service Officer did
not find any problems. Everything was clean and in order.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the application for a commercial kennel
license be approved.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to
a commercial kennel license.
2. The City has previously issued a kennel license to Cutler
Animal Hospital.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny the request for a commercial
kennel license. However the Public Safety Department has not
found any basis for a denial.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Recommendation to approve the application for a commercial kennel
license for Cutler Animal Hospital, 7738 Colfax Avenue is
presented for Council consideration at this time.
ly submitted,
James~T~'~ Prosser
City ager
JDP:ds
~~_
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 194
Agenda July 22, 1991
Issue Statement:
Request by Church of the Assumption for an on-sale non-
intoxicating malt liquor license, itinerant place of amusement
license and an itinerant food license for Assumption's 1991 Fun
Fest to be held August 16, 17 and 18, 1991.
Backcrround
On July 3,•1991, Church of the Assumption submitted a request for
a temporary license to serve non-intoxicating malt liquor (3.2
beer), an itinerant place of amusement and an itinerant food
license for August 16, 17 and 18, 1991. They are requesting that
any fee be waived.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the licenses with fees waived for August 16, 17 and 18,
1991 for Assumption's 1991 Fun Fest.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to
these licenses.
2. The applicant has agreed to supply liquor liability insurance
coverage.
3. The City has previously issued these licenses in conjunction
with the Assumption Fun Fest.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny the request. The Public
Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. In
addition, the Council has previously granted these licenses
in conjunction with the Assumption Fun Fest.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The request for these license has been placed on the consent
calendar for July 22, 1991.
Respectf y submitted,
James Prosser
City M ager
JDP:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~~
Council Letter No. 195
Agenda July 22, 1991
Issue Statement•
Request for a public dance license for Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn
Avenue, for the month of August.
Background•
The owner of Lariat Lanes submitted an application on July 15, 1991
for a public dance license. These dances are scheduled for each
Friday, Saturday and Sunday evening in August beginning on August 2.
They are scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m. and end promptly at 12:00
a.m. Dancing to a disc jockey and moonlight bowling will be the only
activities taking place.
Staff has met with the owner of the establishment and reviewed all
requirements with him thoroughly. Although the owner does have a 3.2
non-intoxicating malt liquor license for the establishment, there
will be no beer served to anyone during these dances. The owner
appears to be sensitive to this issue.
City Ordinance 1110.03 requires that an Officer be present at all
public dances with that cost being incurred by the owner.
Arrangements will be made for an Officer to be present for each
evening's activities.
Because Lariat Lanes was not prepared
the month of July, they cancelled all
However, they plan to hold their firs
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends approval of a public
6320 Penn Avenue, for August 2, 3 and
23, 24 and 25; 30 and 31 beginning at
a.m.
to hold the public dances for
dances prior to July 20.
t dance on July 20.
dance license for Lariat Lanes,
4; 9, 10 and 11; 16, 17 and 18;
7:00 p.m. and ending at 12:00
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The owner has submitted the required information and paid the
fees.
2. The owner has met with Public Safety staff and has agreed to all
the requirements of the public dance ordinance.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide not to approve the public dance license
which would mean that no dancing could take place on the
premises.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The request for a public dance license is presented to Council for
their consideration at this time.
Res y submitted,
Jam Prosser
Cit anager
JDP:ds
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 196
Agenda July 22, 1991
Issue Statement:
Enactment of a resolution authorizing execution of the 1991 (Year
XVII) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant
Program Subrecipient Agreement.
Background:
Subrecipient Agreements have been prepared by Hennepin County
which provide the basis for implementing the specific activities
of the 1991 (Year XVII) Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant Program. The agreements are required
pursuant to the Community Development Block Grant Program
Entitlement Grant Regulation. Before Hennepin County may
disperse any Year XVII CDBG funds, the agreement must be signed
between Hennepin County, the recipient, and the City of Richfield
(the subrecipient).
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the proposed resolution authorizing execution of the
Subrecipient Agreements.
Basis of Recommendation:
The Year XVII CDBG Program has previousl
City Council (see Attachment A), and the
enactment of the Subrecipient Agreements
County to disperse the funds.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
y been approved by the
signature authorizing
would allow Hennepin
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The resolution must be acted upon at the July 22, 1991 meeting to
meet Hennepin County processing deadlines.
Respectfu ly submitted,
James Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
~~- i
RESOLUTION N0.
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY
FOR THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, through execution of a Joint
Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is a cooperating unit
in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant
Program; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County is the recipient of an annual grant
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for
purposes of the program and the City is a subrecipient under the
program and receives a share of the grant; and
WHEREAS, program regulations require that the City and
County execute a subrecipient agreement which sets forth the
specific implementation processes for activities to be undertaken
with program funds.
BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota
hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and the City Manager to
execute subrecipient Agreement, County Contract Number A07721, on
behalf of the City.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 22nd day of July, 1991.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
James D. Prosser, City Manager
3~-~
RESOLUTION N0. 7730
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED PROGRAM FOR YEAR XVII
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMITTAL
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield,. through execution of a Joint
Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is a cooperating unit
in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant
Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has developed a proposal for
the use of Urban Hennepin County CDHG funds made available to it,
following a public hearing on March 25 ,1991 to obtain the views
of citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing and
community development needs and the City's following proposed use
of $182,807 from the Year XVII Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Hlock Grant.
1. Housing. Improvement:
a. Housing Rehabilitation $ 75,865
b. Scattered Site $ 72,210
2. Public Service:
a. H.O.M.E. $ 14,622
b. Child Day Care $ X0.110
TOTAL $182,807
BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota
approves the proposed use of Year XVII Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant funds and program related
income and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin
County for review by the Urban Hennepin County Citizens advisory
Committee and for inclusion in the Year XVII Urban Hennepin
County Community Development Block Grant Program Statement of
Objectives and Projected Use of Funds.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 25th day of March, 1991.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
3 ~-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 197
Agenda July 22, 1991
Issue Statement•
Adoption of resolution establishing just compensation and
authorizing the purchase of 7645 Wentworth Avenue and the
submittal of a Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF)
application; 77th Street Project.
Background•
On May 13,.1991, the City Council approved the submittal of a
preliminary RALF application to the Metropolitan Council. The
RALF would provide. a no interest loan to the City for the
purchase of 7645 Wentworth Avenue. The loan would be repaid when
financing for the 77th Street project is provided.
RALF is designed to provide funds to cities to purchase homes
when it can be determined that continued ownership would be a
hardship for the current owner. Recently, the Metropolitan
Council and its System Committee gave preliminary approval for
the use of RALF to purchase this property.
As part of the final application process, the regulations require
MNDOT to review the appraisal report. MNDOT is completing its
review and is expected to authorize purchase at $79,000. It is
anticipated that relocation benefits may approximate $17,000.
The RALF loan may include all costs related to the purchase. In
addition to acquisition and relocation expenses, appraisal report
and staff time may be included. The total amount of the loan for
this property may approximate $100,000.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution which authorizes the following:
1. Sets just compensation and authorizes staff to negotiate and
purchase the property at the value indicated.
2. Directs the City Manager and Mayor to execute a purchase
agreement in the amount of just compensation.
3. The preparation and submittal of a final loan application to
the Metropolitan Council for the use of RALF.
4. Execution of loan related documents by the City Manager and
Mayor.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City Council previously approved submittal of a
preliminary RALF application for this property.
2. The sale would relieve a hardship which qualifies under
the RALF program.
3 L- ~
3. The Metropolitan Council has approved the preliminary
application for RALF.
4. MNDOT is expected to authorize purchase at the amount
indicated in the resolution.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not authorize purchase and submittal of the loan
application.
2. Authorize purchase at a different price.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This process is time consuming and for this property began in
December, 1990. The owners hardship situation recently
intensified. Approval of this resolution would permit
processing to proceed in a timely manner.
Respe t lly submitted,
James Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
3 ~-a
RESOLUTION N0.
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION,
AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY AND
SUBMITTAL OF LOAN APPLICATION FOR
7645 WENTWORTH AVENUE
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to
purchase certain real property pursuant to and in furtherance of
the 77th Street Project (Project) heretofore adopted by the City
of Richfield (City) said real property being described as
follows:
Lot 9, Block 2, R.C. Soens Add.
WHEREAS, the City has adopted an official map for
improvements to 77th Street; and
WHEREAS, the improvements to 77th Street necessitate the
purchase of real estate; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to
acquire real property within it jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, City funds are presently not available for purchase
of real estate; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council administers RALF which is
made available to cities for the purchase of "hardship
properties"; and
WHEREAS, preliminary approval has been given by the City
Council and Metropolitan Council to utilize RALF; and
WHEREAS, continued ownership of the subject property by the
current owner constitutes a hardship as defined by the RALF
program guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City has caused an appraisal of the subject
property to be made by a qualified independent professional real
estate appraiser to determine fair market value; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT)
is now reviewing the appraisal report as to conformity with
appraisal standards.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. That subject to completion of the MNDOT review just
compensation is determined to be $79,000.
~..
2. That the City Manager is authorized and directed to commence
negotiations for the purchase of said real property upon
notification from MNDOT that the appraisal report is in
conformity with appraisal standards.
3. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute
a Purchase Agreement for the amount of just compensation set
forth in this resolution.
4. That the City Manager is hereby directed to notify in writing
the owner of subject property as soon as possible that
the City intends to acquire his/her property and establish
eligibility for relocation benefits.
5. That the City Manager and Mayor are directed to execute
appropriate documents for submittal of an application to
the Metropolitan Council for RALF to effectuate the
purchase of the subject property.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 22nd day of July, 1991.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 198
Agenda July 22, 1991
Issue Statement•
Approval of subdivision waivers for the Hub West/KFC property.
Background•
Bradley Real Estate Investment Trust and Kentucky Fried Chicken
(KFC) are requesting subdivision waivers to meet the requirements
of the title company for the mutual transfer of property between
the parties to facilitate the Hub West and KFC redevelopment.
The project remains the same as previously approved by the
Council.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the subdivision waivers and adopt the attached
resolutions.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The resulting parcel configurations would meet City
requirements.
2. The Hub West and KFC redevelopment proposal has been
reviewed and approved by the City Council and HRA. These
resolutions will not change the redevelopment proposal.
3. The City Council previously approved subdivision waivers
on June 24, 1991.
4. For title insurance purposes, the title company is
requiring the restatement and inclusion of certain legals
noted in the attached resolutions.
5. Approval of the subdivision waivers will not interfere with
the purposes of the platting regulations of Section 500.05.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council may deny the subdivision waivers but the
redevelopment project cannot go forward without such.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
No public hearing is required for this matter. A decision is
necessary at the July 22, 1991 meeting in order to keep the
project on schedule.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam Prosser
Cit anager
JDP:dkh
~ m-1
RESOLUTION NO.
AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 7763
WHEREAS, the City Council passed and adopted Resolution No. 7763
("Resolution") on June 24, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the Resulting Parcels, described in Attachment Two to said
Resolution are incorrectly described; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Resolution and desires to
replace Attachment Two to the Resolution, with Exhibit A attached hereto and
made a part hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Attachment Two, to the Resolution is hereby replaced with the Exhibit
A attached hereto.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of July, 1991.
Martin Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
'~ ~ -~
EXHIBIT A
ATTACHMENT TWO
RESULTING PARCELS
., ..~.. .
Parc~ei_O-"e
All except the south 43.00 feet of the SE 1/4 of the NW I/4 of Section 2?,.
Township 28. Range 24. Hennepin County, lying- easterly of a lire drawn parallel
with and 282.00 feet easterly of, as measured perpendicular ;o, the southerly
extensfon of the westerly line of Lot 3, 81ock 1, RICHFIELD HUB SUPERBLOCK,
as platted and of record in the office of the : ounty Recorder, lying southerly of
the south line of said Lot 3 and lying westerly of tht following described line:
Commencing at the southwest corner cf said SE 1!4 of the NW 1/4; thence
easterly alohg the southerly line of safd 5E I/4 of the N+~ 1/4 a distance of
_' 25.00 feet; thence northerly. parallel with the westerly line of said SE I/4 of
the NW I/4, a dictanee o' 6EO.C0 feet; thence easterly, parallel with the
north lfne of the South 53 1.3 Rods of said SE li 4 of the NW 1/4, s distance
of 303.?0 feet to the point of beginning of the lfne tc be described; thence
southerly to a point on said southerly line, distant 327.9C feet easterly of
the point of commencement and there terminating.
Together with:
All that part of the SE ?/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 2?. Township 28, Flange
24, Hennepin County, described as foilaws: Beginning at the mast easterly
southwest corner of Lot 3. Block 1, RICHFIELD EiUB SUPERBLOCK,
according to the reccrded pier thereof; thence north 89 degrees 59' S2" East
along the southerly line of said ~t ri3 cf,,as measured pe pendicular tdoa he
parallel with and 282.00 feet eas y
southerly extension of the most westerly line oz said Lot 3; thence South 0
degrees 20' 18" West along said at.rnllel line to tr.e ncrth line of the Soul!;
141.56 feet of said SE I/4 of the NW 1/4; thence South 89 degrees 59' S2"
West along said north line of the South I+E1.~6 feet to a point that bears
south 0 degrees 25' 38" East from tre point of Deginning•, :t•~ence to the point
of beginning.
Together with:
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section
27, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection of the centerline of the Minneapolis,
Northfield and Southern Railway and the Southerly line of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence North 89° 59' 52" East, along
said Southerly line a distance of 25.00 feet; thence North 0° 20' 18"
East, parallel with said centerline a distance of 43.00 feet; thence
North 89° 59' 52" East parallel with said Southerly line a distance of
282.00 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described;
thence North 0° 20' 18" East, parallel with said centerline a distance
of 27.00 feet; thence South 89° 59' 52" West, parallel with said
Southerly line a distance of 15.00 feet; thence South 0° 20' 18" West,
parallel with said centerline a distance of 27.00 feet; thence North 89°
59' 52" East, parallel to said Southerly line a distance of 15.00 feet
to the point of beginning.
:gym-~
EXHIBIT A
PAGE 2
Parcel two
'The Souther{y 150 feet of the Easterly 255. fret c° the following described
property: ,
That part of the South 53 i/3 rods of the Southeast i/4 of the Northwest 1/4
of Section Z7, Township 28 Nvrta, Range 24. west of the 4th Principal
~ '4leridian, described as follows: Co*nmencing at a point cn the South line of
the above descr{bed tract, which is :5 feet East of the Sou*.hwest corner
thereof; thence North Carallel with tr.e West line of the above described
tract, 6&0 feet; thence East parallel r~ith tt^,e :wort:; tine of said tract 303.7
feet; ;hence South 6&0 fee*, to a paint ir: the South line of said tract, which
is 302.9 feet East of the point of t;egirnirg; thence West X02.9 feet to the
point of beginning, according to the U^ittc glares Government Survey
thereof and situated in Hennepin County, liinnesota.
except the following:
A11 except the south 43.00 fee: of the SE I/4 of the NW li'4 of Section 27,
Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, lying sasterty of a line drawn
parallel with and 252.00 feet easterly of, as measured perpendicular to, the
souther{y extension of the westerly line of Lot 3. $iocic 1, RICHFIELD HUH
SUPERHLOCK. as platter and of record ir. the .office of the County
Recorder. lying southerly of the loath line of said Lot 3 and lying westerly
of the following described line:
Com meneing at the southwest corner of said SE i/4 of the NW 114;
thence easterly along the southerly line of said SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4
A distance of 25.00 feet; thence northerly, ps-offal with the westerly
line of said SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4. a distance of 660.00 feet: thence
easterly, parallel with the north line o? the South 53 1!3 Rods of said
SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4, s distance of 303.70 feet to the point of
beginning of the tine to be described; thence southerly to a point an
said southerly linr, distant 327.90 feet easterly of the point of
commencement and there terminating.
and except the following:
AlI that part of the SE 1/4 of the NW i/4 of Section 27, Township 28,
Range 24, Hennepin County, described as follows: $eginning at the
most easterly southwest corner of Lot 3, flock 1, RICHFIELD HU8
SUPER$LOCK, according to the recorded plat thereofi thence north
89 degrees S9' v2" East along the southerly line of said Lot 3 to the
'~. intersection with a line drawn parallel with and 282.00 feet easterly
of, as measured Perpendicular to the southerly .extension of the most
westerly line of said Lot 3: thence South 0 degrees 20' 18" Wept along
said earallel line to the north line of the South 14L58 feet of said SE
1/4 of the NW i/4; thence South 89 degrees 59' S2" West alon; said
north line of the South 1+11.58 feet to a paint that bears south 0
3m-~
EXHIBIT A
PAGE 3
degrees 25' 38" £ast from the poi;tt of beginning; thence to the point
of beginning.
and except the following:
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section
27, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, described as follows:
Conmencing at the intersection of the centerline of the Minneapolis,
Northfield and Southern Railway and the Southerly line of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence North 89° 59' 52" East, along
said Southerly line a distance of 25.00 feet; thence North 0° 20' 18"
East, parallel with said centerline a distance of 43.00 feet; thence
North 89° 59' 52" East parallel with said Southerly line a distance of
282.00 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described;
thence North 0° 20' 18" East, parallel with said centerline a distance
of 27.00 feet; thence South 89° 59' 52" West, parallel with said
Southerly line a distance of 15.00 feet; thence South 0° 20' 18" West,
parallel with said centerline a distance of 27.00 feet; thence North 89°
59' 52" East, parallel to said Southerly line a distance of 15.00 feet
to the point of beginning.
Note: Parcel desigflstions are far convenience only and do rot constitute an
integral part of tl~e legal descriptions.
s
~m-~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
SUBDIVISION WAIVER
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has been requested to approve a subdivision
waiver for the division of certain parcels of land in the City of Richfield, County of
Hennepin, Minnesota (hereafter the Subject Property); and
WHEREAS, the proposed division of land for which the subdivision waiver
is sought is legally described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof;
and
WHEREAS, the lots resulting from the proposed division are referred to as
"gap parcels" and are not parcels of record; and
WHEREAS, the request for a subdivision waiver is to provide the County of
Hennepin with the necessary documents to authorize and accept for filing the deeds
which create the resulting parcels; and
WHEREAS, the lots resulting from the proposed division will comply with
the requirements of City Code, Section 515.09; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that compliance with City Code Section 500.05,
Subd. 1, would result in unnecessary hardships and that failure to comply therewith
will not interfere with the purposes of .the platting regulations of Section 500.05.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council. of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. A waiver for the subdivision of the parcels legally described on Exhibit
A is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
a. The gap parcels in all future transfers thereof shall be described
using the legal descriptions set out in Exhibit A.
b. The real estate taxes for the Subject Project which are payable in
1990 and prior years have been fully paid.
2. Upon compliance with such conditions, city staff is authorized and
directed to take any action necessary to effectuate this resolution and to
authorize the recording of conveyances complying with the conditions
of this resolution.
3~(0
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this day of July, 1991.
Martin Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
~t~l
EXHIBIT A
All except_ the South 43.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, lying
Southerly of the South line of Lot 3, Block 1, RICHFIELD HUB SUPERBLOCK, as
platted and of record in the office of the County Recorder, lying Westerly of
the West line of said Lot 2, and its extension Southerly, said Block 1 and
lying Easterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter; thence Easterly along the Southerly line of said
Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 25.00 feet;
thence Northerly, parallel with the Westerly line of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 660.00 feet; thence
Easterly, parallel with the North line of the South 53 1/3 rods of said
Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 303.70 feet to
the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence Southerly to
a point on said Southerly line, distant 327.90 feet Easterly of the
point of commencement and there terminating.
AND:
Beginning at the most Easterly Southwest corner of Lot 3, Block 1,
RICHFIELD HUB SUPERBLOCK, according to the recorded plat thereof; thence
North 89° 59' 52" East along the Southerly line of said Lot 3 to the
intersection with a line drawn parallel with and 282.00 feet Easterly
of, as measured perpendicular to the Southerly extension of the most
Westerly line of said Lot 3; thence South 0° 20' 18" West along said
parallel line to the North line of the Souththence6South 89°s59~ 52"
Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter;
56 feet to its intersection
West along said North line of the South 141.
with a line drawn parallel with and 72.90 feet Easterly of as measured
perpendicular to the Westerly line of said Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter; thence Northerly along said parallel line to its
intersection with the extension Westerly of the Southerly line of said
Lot 3; thence Easterly along the extension Westerly of the said
Southerly line to the point of beginning.
All that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section
27 Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, described as follows:
AND THE WESTERLY 15 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL:
~~rg
EXHIBIT A
PAGE2
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 27,
Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection of the Southerly extension of the
Westerly line of Lot 3, Block 1, RICHFIELD HUB SUPERBLOCK, as platted
and of record in the office of the County Recorder and the Southerly
line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence North 00
degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds East along said Southerly extension, a
distance of 183.00 feet to the most Westerly-Southwest corner of said
Lot 3; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 seconds East along the
Southerly line of said Lot 3, a distance of 37.24 feet to the intersec-
tion with a line drawn parallel with and 72.90 feet Easterly of as
measured perpendicular to the Westerly line of .said Southeast Quarter of
the Northwest Quarter said intersection being the actual point of begin-
ning; thence continue North 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 seconds East, a
distance of 10.89 feet to a Westerly line of said Lot 3; thence South 00
degrees 25 minutes 38 seconds West along said Westerly line 33 feet to
the Southerly line of said Lot 3; thence Westerly along the extension
Westerly of the said Southerly line of Lot 3 to its intersection with
said line drawn parallel with and 72.90 feet Easterly of said Westerly
line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence
Northerly along said parallel line to the point of beginning.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 199
Agenda July 22, 1991
Issue Statement:
Public hearing to1990pAlley MaintenanceeforetherperiodrJanuary 1,
Project No. 852,
1990 through December 31, 1990.
Background:
The City Council has scheduled a public hearing to be held Ju y
22, 1991 on the assessment for the cost of current maintenance
services on alleys for the period January 1 through December 31,
1990. City staff has calculated the Propeceaoruparcel of land
assessed against every assessable lot, p'
specially benefited.
The proposed assessment was properly filed with the City Clerk,
notice was duly published and notices were mailed to the owner of
each parcel described in the assessment roll.
The cost of current maintenance services January 1 througmaterial
December 31, 1990 totaled 517,213.95 and included labor,
and equipment related to alley patching, snow plowing and joint
cleaning. Due to the length of the list, the aofetheeassessment
not included in the Council packet, but a g PY 1990
roll for alley maintenance January 1 throu h December 31,
will be available for reference and review at the July 22, 1991.
City Council public hearing.
The cost of maintenance services in 1989 totaled 517,725.98. The
estimated cost of maintenance services for 1991 is $20,000.
City staff will be available at the hearing to answer questions
about the special assessment that may not have been raised prior
to the hearing. The public hearing provides an opportunity for
all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to
such proposed assessment.
The City ordinance provides that special assessments for current
services may be certified to the County Auditor for collection
along with current taxes. It is recommended that the ments
certification adopted by the City Council provide that pay
be due and payable within the first year, rather than in
installments. The City has the right to charge interest on the
amount assessed in that the City provided the funds initially for
the current services. It is the recommendation of staff that the
the maximum
interest rate be established at eight percent,
permitted by law. A property owner may make Pa~entsbefpayments
November 15, 1991 in order to avoid interest paym
made after that date, up to December 31, 1991 would include the
interest charges.
~ -1
Recommended Motion:
Following the public hearing, adopt the attached resolution
adopting teeforsthemperiodlJanuarytl through December 311e1990.
Maintenanc
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Notice of the assessment has been published in the official
City newspaper as required by State Statute.
2. Each 'affected property owner has been notified as required by
law.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The City Council may make changes as deemed necessary in the
assessment roll as a result of the public hearing by adding the
phrase and has amended such proposed assessment as it deems
just." „The assessment roll must be submitted to Hennepin County
by October 10, 1991 so the Council can defer the decision one
meeting if it deems necessary.
Respectf ly submitted,
James Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
Attachment
ya
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTIRNTHESPERIODNJANUARYTI pRDECEMBER~31521990
ALLEY MAINTENANCE FO
WxEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly
n all given as required by
objections to the
law, the Council has met and passed upo
rrent services related to maintenance
proposed assessment for cu
the City of Richfield:
i
of the f n
ollowing alleys
Surrounding Streets
Number Surrounding Avenues 66th - 67th
1001 Xerxes - Washburn 67th - 68th
1002 Xerxes - Washburn 69th - 69th
1003 Xerxes - Washburn 69th - 70th
1004 Xerxes - Washburn 66th - 67th
1005 Washburn - Vincent 67th - 68th
1006 Washburn - Vincent 69th - 69th
1007 Washburn - Vincent 69th - 70th
1008 Washburn - Vincent 66th - 67th
1009 Vincent - Upton 67th - 68th
1010 Vincent - Upton 69th - 69th
1011 Vincent - Upton 69th - 70th
1012 Vincent - Upton 66th - 67th
1013 Upton - Thomas 68th - 69th
1014 Upton - Thomas 69th - 70th
1015 Upton - Thomas 66th - 67th
1016 Thomas - Sheridan 67th - 68th
1017 Thomas - Sheridan 69th - 69th
1018 Thomas - Sheridan 69th - 70th
1019 Thomas - Sheridan 66th - 67th
1020 Sheridan - Russell 67th - 68th
1021 Sheridan - Russell 69th - 69th
1022 Sheridan - Russell 69th - 70th
1023 Sheridan - Russell 66th - 67th
1024 Russell - Queen 67th - 68th
1025 Russell - Queen 69th - 69th
1026 Russell - Queen 69th - 70th
1027 Russell - Queen 66th - 67th
1028 Queen - Penn 67th - 68th
1029 Queen - Penn 68th - 69th
1030 Queen - Penn 69th - 70th
1031 Queen - Penn 63rd - 64th
2001 Penn - Oliver 63rd - 64th
2002 Oliver - Newton 63rd - 64th
2004 Morgan - Logan 63rd - 64th
2005 Logan - Knox 63rd - 64th
2007 James - Irving 63rd - 64th
2008 Irving - Humboldt 63rd - 64th
2009 Humboldt - Girard
Girard - Fremont (35W) 63rd - 64th
2010
2011
Girard - Fremont (35W) 64th
65th - 65th
- 66th
2012 Girard - Fremont (35W) (4th - 65th
2013 Fremont (35W) - Emerson
65th
- 66th
2014
Fremont (35W) - Emerson
'' ~.J
63rd - Mildred
2015 Dupont - Colfax 63rd - Mildred
2016 Colfax - Bryant 63rd - Mildred
2017 Bryant - Aldrich 66th - Lk Shr Dr
2019 Graham - Lyndale 75th - 76th
2020 Aldrich - Lyndale 76th - 77th
2021 Aldrich - Lyndale
Garfield 68th - 69th
3002 Lyndale -
- Garfield 70th - 71st
3003 Augsburg
Garfield 71st - 72nd
3004 Augsburg -
Garfield 72nd - 73rd
3005 Lyndale -
Lyndale - Garfield 73rd -
t - 74th
72nd
3006
3007 Garfield -.Harriet 71s
72nd - 73rd
3008 Garfield - Harriet 73rd - 74th
3009 Garfield - Harriet 67th - 68th
3011 Harriet - Grand 6gth - 69th
3012 Harriet - Grand 72nd - 73rd
3013 Harriet - Grand 73rd - 74th
3014 Harriet - Grand 68th - 69th
3015 Grand - Pleasant 72nd - 73rd
3016 Grand - Pleasant
tworth - Blaisdell
W 67th - 68th
3018
3020 en
Blaisdell - Nicollet 72nd -
73rd - 73rd
74th
3021 Blaisdell - Nicollet 74th - 75th
3022 Blaisdell - Nicollet 75th - 76th
3023 Blaisdell - Nicollet 68th - 69th
3024 Nicollet - 2nd Avenue 70th - 71st
3025 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 71st - 72nd
3026 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 72nd - 73rd
3027 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 71st - 72nd
3028 1st - Stevens 72nd - 73rd
3029 1st - Stevens 71st - 72nd
3030 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 72nd - 73rd
3031 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 66th - 67th
3032 2nd - 3rd Avenue 71st - 72nd
3033 2nd - 3rd Avenue 72nd - 73rd
3034 2nd - 3rd Avenue 66th - 67th
3035 3rd - Clinton 73rd - 74th
3036 3rd - Clinton 66th - 67th
3037 Clinton - 4th Avenue 73rd - 74th
3038 Clinton - 4th Avenue 66th - 67th
3039 4th - 5th Avenue 73rd - 74th
3040 4th - 5th Avenue 65th - 66th
4001 13th - 14th Avenue 62nd - 63rd
4002 14th - 15th Avenue 62nd - 63rd
4004 15th - Bloomington 65th - 66th
4005 15th - Bloomington 65th - 66th
4006 Bloomington - 16th Avenue 63rd - 64th
4007 Cedar - Longfellow 64th - 65th
4008 Cedar - Longfellow 65th - 66th
4009 Cedar - Longfellow 65th - 66th
4012 22nd - Standish 66th - 67th
4013 13th - 14th Avenue
~-~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota:
1. Such proposed assessment roll, in the total amount of
$17,725.98 is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special
assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of
land thedreurrentlserviceshinethefamountoofethenassessmenttlevied
propose
against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable before or during 1991
and shall bear interest at the rate of eight percent from the
date of adoption of this assessment resolution.
3, The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time
prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor,
pay whole or part of the assessment on such property to the
city's Assessing Division and he may, at any time thereafter, pay
to the City's Assessing Division the entire amount of the
assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31
of the year in which payment is made. Such payment must be made
before November 15 or interest will be charged through December
31 of the succeeding year.
4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified
duplicate of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be
extended on the property tax lists of the cCunty, and such
assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner
as other municipal taxes.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 22nd day of July, 1991.
Martin J. Kirsch rlayox
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 200
Agenda July 22, 1991
Issue Statement:
Public hearing to adopt the special assessment roll for City
Project No. 853, (Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet) L/H/N Maintenance for the
period January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1990.
Background:
The Council has scheduled a public hearing to be held July 22,
1991 on the assessment for the cost of current maintenance
services performed in the L/H/N Redevelopment Area for the period
January 1 through December 31, 1990. City staff has calculated
the proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot,
piece or parcel of land specially benefited. The proposed
assessment was properly filed with the City Clerk, notice was
duly published, and notices were mailed to the owner of each
parcel described in the assessment roll.
The cost of current maintenance services for this period totaled
543,539.10. The 1989 total for this work was $43,151.19.
Estimated 1991 costs for the current maintenance services is
$44,153.00.
The current maintenance services for this period included, but
were not necessarily limited to, one or more of the following,
including labor, equipment and materials:
1. Landscaping, including tree trimming;
2. Sidewalk sweeping in the summer;
3. Snow removal in the winter;
4. Sidewalk deicing;
5. Painting and repair of wood furniture;
6. Trash removal;
7. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement;
8. Irrigation maintenance.
City ordinance provides that special assessments for current
services may be certified to the County Auditor for collection
along with taxes. It is staff recommendation that such payments
be due and payable within the first year rather than in
installments. The adopted assessment roll for January 1 through
December 31, 1990 would be certified with the County Auditor by
October 10, 1991. The City has the right to charge interest on
the amount assessed in that the City provided the funds initially
for the current services. It is the recommendation of City staff
that the interest rate be established at eight percent. Payment
may be made by the assessed owner before November 15, 1991, in
order to avoid interest payments. Payments made after that date
would include the interest payment.
~ ~~
Recommended Motion:
Following close of the public hearing, approve the attached
resolution adopting the assessment on City Project No. 853, L/H/N
Maintenance for the period January 1 through December 31, 1990.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Notice of the assessment has been published in the official
City newspaper as required by state statute.
2. Each affected property owner has been notified as required by
law.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The City Council may make changes as deemed necessary in the
assessment roll as a result of the public hearing by adding the
phrase "and has amended such proposed assessment as it deems
just. The assessment roll must be submitted to Hennepin County
by October 10, 1991 so the Council can defer the decision one
meeting if it deems necessary.
Resp f lly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
Attachment
~~~
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT NO. 853
L/H/N MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1990
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by
law, the council has met and passed upon all objections to the
proposed assessment for current services related to maintenance
of the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Area, which is
approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street
and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. Such proposed assessment roll, in the total amount of
543,539.10, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special
assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of
land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the
proposed current services in the amount of assessment levied
against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable before or during 1991
and shall bear interest at the rate of eight percent from the
date of adoption of this assessment resolution.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time
prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor,
pay the whole of the assessment on such property to the City's
Assessing Division and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the
City's Assessing Division the entire amount of the assessment
remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the
year in which payment is made. Such payment must be made before
November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of
the succeeding year.
4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified
duplicate of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be
extended on the proper tax lists of the county and such
assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as
other municipal taxes.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 22nd day of July, 1991.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 201
Agenda July 22, 1991
Issue Statement:
Public hearing to adopt the special assessment roll for City
Project No. 854, Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet (I/L/N) Maintenance
for the period January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1990.
Background
The Council has scheduled a public hearing to be held July 22,
1991 on the assessment for the cost of current maintenance
services performed in the I/L/N Redevelopment Area for the period
January 1 through December 31, 1990. City staff has calculated
the proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot,
piece or parcel of land specially benefited. The proposed
assessment was properly filed with the City Clerk, notice was
duly published, and notices were mailed to the owner of each
parcel described in the assessment roll.
The cost of current maintenance services for this period totaled
57,762.52.
The current maintenance services for this period included, but
were not necessarily limited to, one or more of the following,
including labor, equipment and materials:
1. Landscape maintenance of common properties, including mowing,
fertilizing, edging;
2. Irrigation maintenance;
3. Trash removal and general maintenance.
The City ordinance provides that special assessments for current
services may be certified to the County Auditor for collection
along with taxes. It is the staff recommendation that such
payments be due and payable within the first year, rather than in
installments. The adopted assessment roll for January 1 through
December 31, 1990 would be certified with the County Auditor by
October 10, 1991. The City has the right to charge interest on
the amount assessed in that the City provided the funds initially
for the current services. It is the recommendation of City staff
that the interest rate be established at eight percent. Payment
may be made by the assessed owner before November 15, 1991, in
order to avoid interest payments. Payments made after that date
would include the interest payment.
Recommended Motion:
Following the close of the public hearing, approve the attached
resolution adopting the assessment on City Project No. 854, I/L/N
Maintenance for the period January 1 through December 31, 1990.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Notice of the assessment has been published in the official
City newspaper as required by State Statute.
~-I
2. Each affected property owner has been notified as required by
law.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The City Council may make changes as deemed necessary in the
assessment roll as a result of the public hearing by adding the
phrase "and has amended such proposed assessment as it deems
just. The assessment roll must be submitted to Hennepin County
by October 10, 1991 so the Council can defer the decision one
meeting if it deems necessary.
Respectfu ly submitted,
James Prosser
City M alter
JDP:ds
Attachment
to-~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT N0. 854
I/L/N MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1990
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by
law, the Council has met and passed upon all objections to the
proposed assessment for current services related to maintenance
of the Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet (ILN) Redevelopment Area,
which is approximately bounded by Lyndale Avenue, 78th Street,
the railroad tracks and 77th Street including that property known
as Hennepin County Property Identification No. 34-028-24-33-0073
in the City of Richfield.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. Such proposed assessment roll in the total amount of
$7,762.52, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special
assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of
land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the
proposed current services in the amount of assessment levied
against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable before or during 1991
and shall bear interest at the rate of eight percent from the
date of adoption of this assessment resolution.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time
prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor,
pay the whole of the assessment on such property to the city's
Assessing Division and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the
city's Assessing Division the entire amount of the assessment
remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the
year in which payment is made. Such payment must be made before
November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of
the succeeding year.
4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified
duplicate of this assessment roll to the county auditor to be
extended on the proper tax lists of the county and such
assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as
other municipal taxes.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 22nd day of July, 1991.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 202
Agenda July 22, 1991
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on adoption of the assessment roll for removal of
diseased trees from private property for the period January 1,
1990 through December 31, 1990.
Background:
The City Council has scheduled a hearing to be held on Monday,
July 22, 1991, for the assessment of the cost for removal of
diseased trees from private property during the period of January
1, 1990 through December 31, 1990. City staff has calculated the
proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece
or parcel of land specially benefited. The proposed assessment
was properly filed with the City Clerk, notice was duly published
and notices were mailed to the owner of each parcel described in
the assessment roll.
The cost of diseased tree removal from private property for this
period totaled $23,123.43. City ordinance provides that special
assessments for current services may be certified to the County
Auditor for collection along with taxes. This certification may
provide that the assessment be completely paid in the first year
or in annual installments. It is the staff recommendation that
such payments be due and payable over a three year period.
The adopted assessment roll for the period January 1, 1990
through December 31, 1990 would be certified with the county
auditor by October 10, 1991. The City has the right to charge
interest on the amount assessed in that the City provided the
funds for the initial expense. It is the staff recommendation
that the interest rate be established at eight percent, the
maximum allowed by State Law. Payment may be made by the
assessed owner before November 15, 1991 in order to avoid
interest payments. Payments made after that date would include
the interest payment.
City staff will be available at the hearing to answer questions
about the special assessment that may not have been raised prior
to the hearing. The public hearing provides an opportunity for
all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to
such proposed assessment.
Recommendation:
Following the public hearing, approve the attached resolution
adopting the assessment for removal of diseased trees from
private property for the period of January 1, 1990 through
December 31, 1990. It is further recommended that such payments
be due and payable over a three-year period.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Each affected property owner has been notified of the
proposed assessment as required by law.
-~- i
2. Notice of the assessment has been published in the official
City newspaper as required by State Statute.
Alternate Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council may make any changes deemed necessary in the assessment
roll as a result of the hearing by adding the phrase, "and has
amended such proposed assessment as it deems just."
Respectf ly submitted,
James D. Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
Attachment
-~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT
ON REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY
FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1990 TO DECEMBER 31, 1990
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by
law, the City Council has met and passes upon all objections to
the proposed assessment for current services related to removal
of diseased trees from the following private property in the City
of Richfield:
Property Address
6748 Grand Avenue
6701 Stevens Avenue
6709 Washburn Avenue
7432 Upton Avenue
6617 Park Avenue
6237 15th Avenue
6236 Bloomington Avenue
6639 Chicago Avenue
7124 Oak Grove Boulevard
6838 14th Avenue
6239 13th Avenue
6921 13th Avenue
1715 West 72nd Street
7324 Blaisdell Avenue
7227 Knox Avenue
7401 Colfax Avenue
6612 Sheridan Avenue
400 West 64th Street
6625 Oakland Avenue
6512 16th Avenue
6516 16th Avenue
6641 Thomas Avenue
6317 21st Avenue
6900 Cedar Avenue
7044 Knox Avenue
7211 Portland Avenue
7439 Washburn Avenue
7413 Emerson Avenue
7304 Fifth Avenue
2204 East 66th Street
6909 Upton Avenue
6305 Bloomington Avenue
6633 Lynwood Boulevard
7011 Fourth Avenue
7544 Stevens Avenue
7045 Penn Avenue
7357 Portland Avenue
6325 22nd Avenue
7626 Nicollet Avenue
6500 James Avenue
6439 13th Avenue
7035 Oak Grove Boulevard
Property Identification Number
27-02824-32-0079
27-02824-42-0132
29-02$24-42-0121
32-02824-42-0038
26-02824-32-0015
26-02824-12-0054
26-02824-12-0049
26-02824-31-0053
33-02824-14-0146
26-02824-43-0033
26-02824-12-0129
26-02824-43-0063
33-02824-24-0060
34-02824-24-0093
33-02824-24-0030
33-02824-41-0060
29-02824-41-0054
27-02824-22-0075
26-02824-32-0028
26-02824-14-0100
26-02824-14-0101
29-02824-41-0063
25-02824-21-0041
26-02824-44-0065
33-02824-21-0067
35-02824-23-0002
32-02824-42-0058
33-02824-42-0018
34-02824-14-0037
25-02824-24-0024
29-02824-43-0187
26-02824-11-0031
28-02824-41-0032
34-02824-11-0103
34-02824-42-0088
33-02824-22-0061
35-02824-23-0007
25-02824-21-0019
34-02824-34-0006
28-02824-24-0096
26-02824-13-0125
33-02824-11-0005
~~
7104 Fifth Avenue
7327 Tenth Avenue
6449 Girard Avenue
121 East 68th Street
7305 Emerson Avenue
7300 Dupont Avenue
6933 18th Avenue
6619 Irving Avenue
6612 Newton Avenue
6407 15th Avenue
7301 Third Avenue
7341 Humboldt Avenue
34-02824-11-0110
35-02824-24-0044
28-02824-13-0011
27-02824-43-0105
33-02824-13-0096
33-02824-13-0077
26-02824-44-0075
28-02824-31-0090
28-02824-32-0037
26-02824-13-0049
34-02824-14-0102
33-02824-13-0107
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows:
1. such proposed assessment roll, in the amount of $23,123.43,
is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment
against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein
included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed current
services in the amount of the assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable in no more than three annual
installments and shall bear interest at the rate of eight percent
from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior
to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the
whole of the assessment on such property to tha CtoYtheACityssng
Division, and he may at any time thereafter, p y
Assessing Division the entire amount of the assessment remaining
unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the succeeding
year.
4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate
of this assessment roll to the county auditor to be extended on
the proper tax lists of the County and such assessments shall be
collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal
taxes.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 22nd day of July, 1991.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
U
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 203
Agenda July 22, 1991
Issue Statement:
Public hearing to consider specially assessing current
maintenance services for City alleys for the period of January 1
through December 31, 1992, City Project No. 872.
Background:
On June 10, 1991, the City Council scheduled a public hearing for
July 22, 1991 concerning the 1992 alley maintenance project.
In order to implement the alley maintenance policies previously
passed by the City Council, it is necessary for the Council to
initiate this specific alley maintenance project. The
maintenance functions to be financed through special assessments
include such work as rough grading, cleaning and sweeping, cold
patching and snow plowing. Because the vast majority of alleys
have now been paved, the primary maintenance function is
anticipated to be snow plowing. Some of the alleys resurfaced in
the early 1980's have also reached the time when concrete joint
sealing needs to be done.
Community Services Department personnel estimate the cost of this
project for the period January 1 through December 31, 1992 to be
$20,000. The amount of special assessment could vary according
to the amount of work necessary on each individual alley. The
costs for the repair of an alley will be charged to the property
owners abutting the alley. 57.50 per average fifty foot lot is
the estimate for sweeping and a normal winter of snow plowing.
$3.25 per average fifty foot lot is an estimate of the costs to
continue a concrete joint sealing maintenance program on a paved
alley as a part of routine maintenance. Estimates of additional
costs on those alleys not of concrete has been about $23 per
average fifty foot lot. Costs have varied depending on the
amount of patching required in a particular alley.
For comparison purposes, the following is provided related to
alley maintenance special assessment for current services:
1985 Actual 515,141.97
1986 Estimated $23,600
1986 Actual $11,834.29
1987 Estimated $ 7,000
1987 Actual $ 9,977.18
1988 Estimated $17,000
1988 Actual $ 8,453.93
1989 Estimated $20,000
1989 Actual $17,725,98
1990 Estimated $20,000
1990 Actual $17,213.95
1991 Estimated $20,000
$~1
Recommended Motion:
Following the close of the public hearing, adopt the attached
resolution ordering City Project No. 872, 1992 Alley Maintenance
project and special assessment of current services.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Notice of the proposed assessment was published in the
official City newspaper.
2. Each property owner within the area proposed to be assessed
was mailed a notice as required by State law.
3. It has been the Council policy for ten years to assess for
alley maintenance.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The current alley maintenance project will lapse at the end of
the year. Anew project should be established by January 1, 1992
so the Council may defer the decision to a future meeting before
the end of the year if desired.
Respe fully submitted,
Ja s D. Prosser
Ci y Manager
JDP:ds
Attachment
~~
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION ORDERING THE UNDERTAKING OF
CURRENT SERVICES PROJECT FOR ALLEY MAINTENANCE
JANUARY 1, 1992 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1992
CITY PROJECT NO. 872
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 10th
day of June, 1991, fixed a date for a public hearing on the
proposed maintenance of the following alleys:
Number Surrounding Avenues Surrounding Streets
1001 Xerxes - Washburn 66th -
67th - 67th
68th
1002 Xerxes - Washburn 68th - 69th
1003 Xerxes - Washburn 69th - 70th
1004 Xerxes - Washburn 66th - 67th
1005 Washburn - Vincent 67th - 68th
1006 Washburn - Vincent 68th - 69th
1007 Washburn - Vincent 69th - 70th
1008 Washburn - Vincent 66th - 67th
1009 Vincent - Upton 67th - 68th
1010 Vincent - Upton 68th - 69th
1011 Vincent - Upton 69th - 70th
1012 Vincent - Upton 66th - 67th
1013 Upton - Thomas 68th - 69th
1014 Upton - Thomas 69th - 70th
1015
1016 Upton - Thomas
Thomas - Sheridan 66th - 67th
1017 Thomas - Sheridan 67th - 68th
1018 Thomas - Sheridan 68th - 69th
1019 Thomas - Sheridan 69th - 70th
1020 Sheridan - Russell 66th - 67th
1021 Sheridan - Russell 67th - 68th
1022 Sheridan - Russell 68th - 69th
1023 Sheridan - Russell 69th - 70th
1024 Russell - Queen 66th -
67th - 67th
68th
1025 Russell - Queen 68th - 69th
1026 Russell - Queen 69th - 70th
1027 Russell - Queen 66th - 67th
1028 Queen - Penn 67th - 68th
1029 Queen - Penn 68th - 69th
1030 Queen - Penn 69th - 70th
1031 Queen - Penn 63rd - 64th
2001 Penn - O liver 63rd - 64th
2002 Oliver - Newton 63rd - 64th
2004 Morgan - Logan 63rd - 64th
2005
2007 Logan -
James - Knox
Irving 63rd - 64th
2008 Irving - Humboldt 63rd - 64th
2009 Humboldt - Girard 63rd - 64th
2010 Girard - Fremont (35W) 63rd - 64th
2011 Girard - Fremont (35W) 64th - 65th
2012 Girard - Fremont (35W) 65th - 66th
~~
2013 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 64th - 65th
2014 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 65th -
63rd - 66th
Mildred
2015 Dupont - Colfax 63rd - Mildred
2016
17 Colfax - Bryant
Bryant - Aldrich 63rd - Mildred
20
2019 Graham - Lyndale 66th - Lk Shr Dr
2020 Aldrich - Lyndale 75th - 76th
2021 Aldrich - Lyndale 76th - 77th
3002 Lyndale - Garfield 68th - 69th
3003 Augsburg - Garfield 70th - 71st
3004 Augsburg - Garfield 71st - 72nd
3005 Lyndale - Garfield 72nd - 73rd
3006 Lyndale - Garfield 73rd - 74th
3007 Garfield - Harriet 71st - 72nd
3008 Garfield - Harriet 72nd - 73rd
3009 Garfield - Harriet 73rd - 74th
3011 Harriet - Grand 67th - 68th
3012 Harriet - Grand 68th - 69th
3013 Harriet - Grand 72nd - 73rd
3014 Harriet - Grand 73rd - 74th
3015 Grand - Pleasant 68th - 69th
3016 Grand - Pleasant 72nd - 73rd
3018 Wentworth - Blaisdell 67th - 68th
3020 Blaisdell - Nicollet 72nd - 73rd
3021 Blaisdell - Nicollet 73rd - 74th
3022 Blaisdell - Nicollet 74th - 75th
3023 Blaisdell - Nicollet 75th - 76th
3024 Nicollet - 2nd Avenue 68th - 69th
3025 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 70th - 71st
3026 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 71st - 72nd
3027 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 72nd - 73rd
3028 1st - Stevens 71st - 72nd
3029 1st - Stevens 72nd - 73rd
3030 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 71st - 72nd
3031 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 72nd - 73rd
3032 2nd - 3rd Avenue 66th - 67th
3033 2nd - 3rd Avenue 71st - 72nd
3034 2nd - 3rd Avenue 72nd - 73rd
3035 3rd - Clinton 66th - 67th
3036 3rd - Clinton 73rd - 74th
3037 Clinton - 4th Avenue 66th - 67th
3038 Clinton - 4th Avenue 73rd - 74th
3039 4th - 5th Avenue 66th - 67th
3040 4th - 5th Avenue 73rd - 74th
4001 13th - 14th Avenue 65th - 66th
4002 14th - 15th Avenue 62nd - 63rd
4004 15th - Bloomington 62nd - 63rd
4005 15th - Bloomington 65th - 66th
4006 Bloomington - 16th Avenue 65th - 66th
4007 Cedar - Longfellow 63rd - 64th
4008 Cedar - Longfellow 64th - 65th
4009 Cedar - Longfellow 65th - 66th
4012 22nd - Standish 65th - 66th
4013 13th - 14th Avenue 66th - 67th
~-~
WHEREAS, the owner of each parcel within the area proposed
to be assessed for the current maintenance services described in
said resolution was mailed a copy of the required notice, and
WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and at least two weeks
advance publication of the required notice was given as required
by law, and
WHEREAS, the public hearing was held on this 22nd day of
July, 1991, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were
given an opportunity to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Such alley maintenance is hereby ordered as proposed by
resolution adopted June 10, 1991.
2. The work to be performed may be by day labor, by City
force, by contract or by any combination thereof.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
this 22nd day of July, 1991.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 204
Agenda July 22, 1991
Issue Statement:
Public hearing to consider specially assessing the
Lyndale/HeBiodcoflJanuary)lathrough Decemberm31nt1992Ce Cityices
for the p
Project No. 873.
Background:
The City Council has scheduled a public hearing for July 22, 1991
to consider the establishment of a special assessment district
for current maintenance service costs in the LHN redevelopment
area. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to all owners of
commercial property in the area and published in the official
newspaper as required by law.
The higher level of maintenance proposed to be provided in the
area includes the trimming and watering of trees and plants,
operation of a special street lighting system, removal of snow
and ice from sidewalks and performance of other specialized
maintenance functions.
The estimated maintenance cost for the period January 1 through
December 31, 1992 is 545,374. All commercial properties would be
assessed on the basis of area, with each square foot of
assessable property to be assessed equally, for the costs
incurred in the maintenance of common areas such as street
islands, the civic plaza and sidewalks. There is an agreement
between the City and the businesses that the business shall
maintain the property behind the curb. In the event the City
must perform this maintenance, the particular business is
assessed for the cost of the special, individual maintenance of
direct benefit to the given property.
For comparison purposes, the following is provided related to the
LHN maintenance special assessments for current services:
1985 Actual $35,726
1986 Estimated 552,900
1986 Actual 540,110
1987 Estimated $49,936
1987 Actual 545,694.16
1988 Estimated $50,142
1988 Actual $44,405.24
1989 Estimated $40,614
1989 Actual $43,151.19
1990 Estimated 544,560
1990 Actual 543,539.10
1991 Estimated $44,153
1992 Estimated $44,576
q~l
Recommended Motion:
Following the close of the public hearing, adopt the resolution
ordering the LHN maintenance work for the period January 1, 1992
through December 31, 1992 (City Project No. 873) to be done and
the costs to be specially assessed.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Notice of proposed assessment has been published in the
official newspaper.
2. Each affected property owner has been notified of the
proposed assessment.
3. Continued maintenance service for this commercial area is
recommended in order to sustain the current standards for
landscaping and maintenance which have been successful over
the past years.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing has been scheduled for the July 22, 1991 City
Council meeting.
Respect ully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
Attachment
I~~
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION ORDERING UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT
LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) MAINTENANCE
JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1992
CITY PROJECT NO. 873
WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinance, the City Council of the City
of Richfield did establish a special assessment district and did
propose that certain current services be undertaken by the City
in the Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Area
approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street
and Emerson Avenue and that the cost of such services be
specially assessed against benefited property, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield did also
by such resolution set the date of public hearing on the
undertaking of such current service project and the levying of
special assessment to bear the cost thereof, and
WHEREAS, following due notice, such public hearing was held
on July 22, 1991 at which time all interested parties desiring to
be heard were given an opportunity to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the following examples of current services of the
City shall be undertaken by the City within the LHN Redevelopment
Project Area, which area constitutes the special assessment
district with the exception of single family, two family and
multifamily residential properties, with the cost of such
services to be specially assessed against the benefited property
within the district:
a. Snow, ice or rubbish removal;
b. Weed elimination;
c. Elimination or removal of public health or safety
hazards from private property, excluding and structure
included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes
Section 463.15 to 463.26;
d. Installation and repair of water service lines;
e. Street sprinkling or other dust treatment of streets;
f. Trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound
trees;
g. Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks and other pedestrian
walkways;
h. Operation of the street lighting system;
i. Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public
amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way;
j. Maintenance of civic plaza;
k. Snow removal and other maintenance of streets;
1.. Painting and repair of wood furniture; and
m. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement.
`~~ ~' /
2. The work to be performed may be by day labor, by City
force, by contract or by any combination thereof.
3. The designated period of the project shall be from
January 1 through December 31, 1992. Costs of the project shall
be collected in the manner provided by Richfield Ordinance Code.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
this 22nd day of July, 1991.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
I~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 205
Agenda July 22, 1991
Issue Statement:
Public hearing to consider specially assessing the
Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet (ILN) area for current maintenance
services for the period of January 1 through December 31, 1992 -
City Project No. 874.
Background:
The City Council has scheduled a public hearing for July 22, 1991
to consider the establishment of a special assessment district
for current maintenance service costs in the ILN redevelopment
area, that area approximately bounded by Lyndale Avenue, the
railroad tracks, 77th Street and 78th Street including that
property known as Hennepin County Property Identification Number
34-028-24-33-0073. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to
all owners of multiple residential and commercial property in the
area and published in the official newspaper as required by law.
The higher level of maintenance proposed to be provided in the
area includes landscape maintenance of common properties through
tree trimming, mowing, fertilizing and edging; irrigation
maintenance; painting and repair of wood furniture; trash removal
and general maintenance through repair and replacement of lights,
sidewalks, curbs, furniture and plantings; and performance of
other specialized maintenance functions. These items are extra
services provided directly to the ILN project area and do not
include services provided to the entire City.
The estimated maintenance cost for the period January 1 through
December 31, 1992 is $7514. All multiple residential and
commercial properties would be assessed on the basis of area,
with each square foot of assessable property to be assessed
equally, for the costs incurred in the maintenance of common
areas.
For comparison purposes, the following is provided related to ILN
maintenance special assessment for current services:
1988 Actual 57,001.47
1989 Estimated $7,254
1989 Actual 56,135.54
1990 Estimated $7,514
1990 Actual $7,762.52
1991 Estimated 57,780
1992 Estimated 58,105
Recommended Motion:
Following the close of public hearing, adopt the resolution
ordering the ILN maintenance work for the period January 1
through December 31, 1992 (City Project No. 874) to be done and
the costs to be specially assessed.
~ ~--1
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Notice of proposed assessment has been published in the
official newspaper.
2. Each affected property owner has been notified of the
proposed assessment.
3. Continued maintenance service for this area is recommended in
order to sustain the current standards for landscaping and
maintenance which have been successful over the past years in
another redevelopment area.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Council may choose to establish a set rate and limit the
maintenance performed to that dollar amount. However, due to
variables such as weather and accidents, staff believes the
redevelopment area could suffer if maintenance were to be
limited.
2. Council may choose to have individual property owners perform
maintenance of the common areas. This may, however, involve
the City to a great extent to work out the details of the
maintenance program. The special assessment as proposed does
provide the coordination which may not be available through
this possible alternative.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing has been scheduled for the July 22, 1991 City
Council meeting.
Respectf ly submitted,
James Prosser
City ager
JDP:ds
Attachment
ic~~~
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION ORDERING THE UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT
FOR INTERSTATE/LYNDALE/NICOLLET (ILN) MAINTENANCE
JANUARY 1, 1992 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1992
CITY PROJECT NO. 874
WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinance,. the City Council of the City
of Richfield did establish a special assessment district and did
propose that certain current services be undertaken by the City
in the Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet (ILN) Redevelopment Area, the
boundaries of which approximate Lyndale Avenue, 78th Street, the
railroad tracks and 77th Street including the property known as
Hennepin County Property Identification Number 34-028-24-33-0073,
and that the cost of such services be specially assessed against
benefited property, and
WHEREAS, the owner of each multiple residential and
commercial property within the area proposed to be assessed for
the service described in said resolution was mailed a copy of the
required notice, and
WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice of the hearing and one
publication of the required notice was given at least two weeks
in advance as required by law, and
WHEREAS, the public hearing was held on July 22, 1991 at
which time all interested parties desiring to be heard were given
an opportunity to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the following examples of current services of the
City shall be undertaken by the City within the ILN district,
which area constitutes the special assessment district, with the
cost of such services to be specially assessed against benefited
multiple residential and commercial property within the district:
Landscape maintenance of common properties; including, but
not limited to, tree trimming, mowing, fertilizing, edging;
Irrigation maintenance;
Painting and repair of wood furniture;
Trash removal and general maintenance; including, but not
limited to, repairs and replacement of lights, sidewalks,
curbs, furniture, plantings.
2. That the work to be performed may be by day labor, by
City force, by contract or by any combination thereof.
3. That the designated period of the project shall be from
January 1 through December 31, 1992. Costs of the project shall
be collected in the manner provided by Richfield Ordinance Code.
~~
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
this 22nd day of July, 1991.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 206
Agenda July 22, 1991
Issue Statement:
Request to reinstate a variance that was granted in 1989 at 6400
Vincent Avenue.
Background
On July 5,•1989, the Richfield Hearing Examiner granted a variance
at 6400 Vincent Avenue to allow construction of a new home with a
lot coverage of 31.7 percent. This 10,508 square foot corner lot
is allowed a maximum lot coverage of up to 25 percent without a
variance.
Richard Ziemer, the applicant, requested the variance in order to
build a home with the majority of floor space on the main level to
accommodate his physically disabled wife.
Mr. Ziemer states that he was not aware of the zoning provision
that a variance expires if the structure requiring the variance is
not completed within one year of the date the variance was granted.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the request to reinstate the variance at 6400 Vincent
Avenue.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The plans have been slightly modified, reducing the total
square footage of the home by completely eliminating the
second story. The basic footprint of the structure remains
the same.
2. The City Council has previously requested that the staff
minimize, to the extent possible, any formality type reviews.
Reinstatement of this previously approved variance would save
the applicant time and money, because he would not have to
apply for a new variance.
3. If reinstated, the variance would expire on July 22, 1992
unless the home is completed by that time.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the reinstatement of the variance if the Council feels that
the applicant should apply for a new variance.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Consideration of this item is scheduled on the consent calendar of
the July 22 , 1991 City Council meeting.
Re a ully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit anager
JDP:ds
July 2, 1991
Richfield City Council
;700 Portland Ave. S.
Richfield, MN 55423
RE: RICHARD & MARLENE ZIEMER
VARIANCE CASE #89-V-2 FOR
6400 VINCENT AVE. S.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council:
I am writing to request the above captioned subject be .placed on the
agenda for the next meeting of the Council for consideration of extension
of the variance that was granted. The variance is simply for more square
foot lot coverage than is standard, but within the regular set-back
requirements.
When the variance was originally granted on 7-5-89, there was no mention
in the written decision or in any other way that there .was a one year
time limit for completion of construction in the code. In fact, a copy
of that part of the code we were- given by the City, which purported to be
all the information we needed, did not contain that piece of information,
because it is in an obscure part of the code completely separated from
the rest of similar provisions. We were under the impression the variance
was permanent.
',s it turned out, our architect was extremely inaccurate regarding the
.:ost of his design, which we only learned after several months seeking
bids and finding costs nearly double. .Since that.-time, it has been very
time-consuming to find a redesign within the proper cost frame.
This was finally accomplished recently and in making preliminary in-
quiries regarding the building permit, we learned of this time limit
problem. In discussing the matter with-.the Planning Dept., it was
determined that the Council has the power to extend that variance,
which is what we are requesting.
Since nothing has changed since the original variance was granted, and
this will be a considerable improvement for the neighborhood and had
a strong recommendation from the hearing examiner and has the backing
of the Planning Dept., we trust you will find the extension in order.
Of course,-the design of the house is different, being now completely
one story, and the total square footage is smaller, but the .lot coverage.
square footage is the same (actually 1 sq.ft. smaller). The cost of-this
house is estimated at .approximately $160,000.
Thank you for your kind consideration of this request.
~ s ._
s ~~~<~~•-~~~~
Richard & Marlene Ziemer(, ~~
6229 Xerxes Ave. S.
Richfield, MN 55423
866-1932
[-~
~' ~' W
C W V
H
n
r
r ~ ~
< W
O O
~g~
`o
J
0
W
Q
J
_~~Z~
dNl
1~9
Z
~ ~
t
g
W
^.. ~
y Z
W
Q
°~ f-
Z
o~
~Z
o>
~o
~~
0
0
r
Obi
3f1N3Ad 1N3~NIA
[--3
Variance Request
CASE NO. #89-V-2
APPLICANT: Mr. Richard Ziemer
PROPERTY LOCATION: 6400 Vincent Avenue South
HEARING EXAMINER: Vern Luettinger
HEARING DATE.: June 28, 1989
APPEARANCES: Mr. & Mrs. Richard Ziemer
Lloyd V. Conley, Architect
Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the undersigned
makes the following findings of fact, conclusions and decisions.
A. FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Notice of public hearing was proper. Notice was mailed to
property owners within 350 feet of the site in question as
required by city ordinances. The ten day notice requirement
was also met.
2. The street. address and legal description of the property in
question are as follows: 6400 Vincent Av enue, N 78 ft of E 1/2 of Lot 7,
Richfield Gardens Addition.
3. The .zoning of the site in question is R-Residential
4. The variance requested is to allow a lot coverage of 31.7 on a lot where
25~ lot coverage is the minimum allowed without a variance.
5. The reason for the request is to allow the applicant to build a home. with
a majority of the floor space on the main level to accommodate his physically
B. CONCLUSIONS: disabled wife..
Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, subdivision six provides
for the granting of variance to the literal provisions of
the zoning regulations in instances where their strict
enforcement would cause undue hardship to the owners. of
the property under consideration. In determining whether
to grant or deny the requested variance, I specifically make
the following conclusions:
1. Is the granting of the variance necessary for .the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights?
I conclude the granting of this variance is not necessary
for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial .property
. ~ - ~~~ y
f
rights for the average family, however, this new home is
being built for a handicap member of the family (spouse).
2. Are there special circumstances or conditions affecting the
particular land or building referred to in the application,
not caused by the property owner, which are not common to
other properties in this or similar districts?
I conclude there are none.
3. Will the granting of the variance alter the essential
character of the neighborhood or locality?
I conclude the granting of this variance will improve the
essential character of this neighborhood and locality. A
new home is replacing a dilapidated house presently on site.
No portion of this dilapidated house will be retained.
Tremendous opportunity to improve this area.
4. Are there any conditions which must be attache dot the
granting of the variance to ensure compliance .and to
protect adjacent properties?
I conclude that all landscaping be completed
in a timely manner.
C. DECISION
Based, upon the foregoing, the undersigned determines that the
request. be granted.
DATED: July 5, 1989
-- --~
Hearing Exam ner
City of Richfield