Loading...
10-08-90 ageanda~~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 249 Agenda October 8, 1990 Issue Statement• Resolution providing for polling places and designating election judges for the November 6, 1990 General Election. Background: Minnesota Statute 204B.21, Subd. 2 provides that election judges for precincts in a municipality shall be appointed by the governing body of the municipality and that the appointments. be made at least 25 days before the election at which the election judges will serve. Recommended Motions Adopt the attached resolution designating polling places and appointing election judges for the General Election to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 1990. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Compliance with Minnesota Statute 204B.21, Subd. 2. 2. The proposed resolution contains names of those who have indicated a willingness and ability to serve as an election judge for the November 6, 1990 General Election. The names come from a pool of people who have indicated their interest in serving as a election judge to the County Auditor pursuant to the provisions of M.S. 204B.21 subd. 1 and those who have previously served or indicated interest in serving. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could chose to appoint others who are not named in the resolution. 2. If the City Council does not appoint election judges, the conduct of the election would not be valid. Discussion/Decision Mode: The City Council is required by state statute to make election judge appointments at least 25 days prior to the election. Therefore, it is recommended the City Council pass the attached resolution at this meeting. Respectf lly submitted, Jam D. Prosser City Manager JDP:ds 3i-=i- I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR POLLING PLACES AND DESIGNATING JUDGES FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 6, 1990 ~ --- WHEREAS, a General Election will be .held on Tuesday, November 6, 1990. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, that said election shall be held at the polling places as herein appear specified: Precinct No. lA Mt. Calvary Education Building Ward 3 6541 16th Avenue Precinct No. 2A St. Peter's Catholic Church Ward 2 6720 Nicollet Avenue Precinct No. 3A Sheridan Hills School Ward 1 6400 Sheridan Avenue Precinct No. 4A St. Richard's Catholic Church Ward 1 7540 Penn Avenue Precinct No. 5B Richfield Junior High School Ward 1 7461 Oliver Avenue Precinct No. 68 Central School Building Ward 2 7145 Harriet Avenue Precinct No. 7A Hope Presbyterian Education Facility Ward 2 7201 4th Avenue Precinct No: 8A Richfield Intermediate School Ward 3 7020 12th Avenue Precinct No. 9A Centennial School Ward 3 7315 Bloomington Avenue 3~- z ~ ~_ Resolution No. Page 2 and, that the following are hereby appointed as fudges for said election: Shirley Gisselquist (DFL) Ralph Roberts (IR) Lois Kovach (DFL) Mae Farr (IR) Joyce Morrell (IR) Patricia Lindberg (DFL) Bernice Utter (DFL) Edith Nye (IR) Mille Hines (DFL) Myrtle Lindgren (IR) Fern Oreck (DFL) Helen Hillstrom (DFL) Lavella Turek (DFL) Hazel Splettstoeser (IR) Jette Floberg (IR) Dorothy Hanson(IR) Frederick Moore (DFL) Ann Burkhardt (DFL) Jan Andersen (IR) Linda Bloomgren (DFL) .Helen Moritz (DFL) Robert Mack (DFL) Mr. Ted Chao (IR) Lois Ball (DFL) Gertrude Broker (IR) Doris Long (IR) Danette Kamrath (IR) Catherine Alfano (DFL) Sue Wagner (IR) Angela Aylward (IR) Gaynelle Buckland (DFL) Ruth Lundquist (DFL) Arline Thomas (ZR) Linda Boyd (IR) Patricia Medley (DFL) Delores Mirichow (DFL) Phyllis Reinmuth (IR) James Harkness (DFL) Ann Benson(IR) Helen Peterson (DFL) Alvina M~elve (IR) Ilene Holen (IR) Vivian Bennis (IR) Betty Halloran (IR) Muriel Bernstein (DFL) Gladys Hayden (DFL) June King (IR) Bernice Johnson (DFL) Beth Oglesbee (IR) Kathleen Leckner (DFL) Fabiola Sullivan (DFL) Robert Lexvold (DFL) Jean Frenz (IR) Betty Obenchain (DFL) Vernette Carlson (DFL) Alice Dickinson (IR) Emily Day (DFL) Marvis Spencer (DFL) Bernadette Lais (IR) Elizabeth Swanson (DFL) Eloise Friend (IR) Gertrude Herll (DFL) Audrey Winslow (IR) Lucille Gilberstadt (DFL) Ray Johnson (DFL) Rosemary Koelln (IR) Joan Schaefer (IR) Lloyd Johnson (DFL) Stephanie Muenzhuber (DFL) Connie McDonald (DFL) Corrine Cosgrove (DFL) Barb Cook (DFL) Clifford Martinson (IR) Clara Darsow (DFL) Marilyn Beyel (DFL) Ethel Hommes ( IR ) Dorothy Peabody (IR) Sue Lewis (IR) Myrtle Thom (DFL) Elizabeth Bowman (IR) Susan Rosenberg (DFL) Helen Shimanski (IR) Carolyn Ring (IR) Resolution No. Page 3 3H- Alternates• Ruth Pafko (DFL) Michaeline Kvaale (IR) Ward Ring (IR) Jack Winslow (IR) Warren Olson (DFL) Lynn Schoomaker (IR) Joann Schuldt (IR) Joan Pelfrey (DFL) Pat Toney (IR) Marian Weller (DFL). Ray Howe (DFL) Donna Jordahl (DFL) Fern Madland (DFL) Elinor Kuhl (DFL) Paul Muilenberg (IR) Marie Howe (DFL) Ellen Pederson (DFL) .Renee Nelson (IR) Maggie LeFebvre (DFL) Lorraine Maki (DFL) Helen Norman (IR) Helen Volz (IR) Nancy Winslow (IR) Geraldine Stoffel (IR) Estelle Berg (DFL) PASSED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October, 1990. ATTEST: Steven J. Quam Mayor Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 3 C'_ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 250 Agenda October 8, 1990 Issue Statement- Approval of a resolution relating to the benefit structure of the Richfield Police Relief Association and expression of intent to consolidate with Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA). Background: All Police and Firefighters who were hired after June 15, 1980, are covered by the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA). However, Police. and Firefighters hired before that date are covered by locally operated Relief Associations.. There are currently 26 retired and disabled beneficiaries and 22 active members of the Police Relief Association. Recently, City staff and Richfield Police Relief Association have initiated discussions regarding the possibility of merging the Relief Association with PERA. State law permits consolidation if approved by the members of the pension organization and the City. At the same time, the Relief Association has asked for certain changes in benefits. The changes include: • College incentive pay to be included in salary calculations for pension computations. • A reduced retirement based upon earned service credit upon age 50. • Elimination of the two unit reduction for deferred positions. The Police Relief Association Board has requested consolidation with PERA contingent upon changes in the benefits. The basis of this request is that after consolidation, Relief Association members will have the opportunity to choose from either PERA benefits or Police Relief Association benefits. Without the change in benefits .proposed, there may not be enough incentive for some of the members to approve the consolidation. The consolidation would be a long term financial benefit to the City while the enhanced benefits would be advantageous to Police Relief Association members. However, consolidation without benefit enhancements would not be acceptable to Relief Association members, and benefit enhancements without consolidation with PERA would be unacceptable to the City. A further complication exists in that the benefit changes requested must be approved by the State Legislature in addition to the City. Thus, a carefully planned series of actions are necessary to ensure that interests of both the City and Police Relief Association are protected. The first step recommended in this process on behalf of the City is the approval of the attached resolution expressing support for the requested benefit changes. 3C- I Recommended Motion: Approval of a resolution relating to the benefit structure of the Richfield Police Relief Association recommending changes and expressing intent to consolidate with PERA. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Police Relief Association Board has approved a resolution requesting consideration of consolidation. 2. The City Auditor has recommended that the City consider Police and Fire Relief Association consolidate with PERA. 3. The cost of administration .would be significantly reduced if consolidated. 4. The logistics of administration are becoming more difficult as more members of the Relief Association reach retirement age. 5. The State has provided cost estimates for consolidation and benefit increase would appear to be reasonable (attached). Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the resolution supporting benefit changes and consolidation. 2. Modify the resolution by supporting only one or more of the benefit changes requested. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter is under consideration on the October 8, 1990 City Council agenda.. If approved, the following events would need to occur before consolidation could occur: • The State Legislature will need to approve a bill authorizing the .changes in benefits for the Relief Association. • The Governor will need to sign the bill. • The Relief Association members (active and retired) need to vote in favor of consolidation, contingent upon the benefit change. • The City Council will need to approve the change in benefits contingent upon consolidation. y submitted, Jam sV Prosser Cit anaaer 3L-z RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE BENEFIT STRUCTURE OF THE RICHFIELD POLICE .RELIEF ASSOCIATION; RECOMMENDING CHANGES AND EXPRESSING INTENT TO CONSOLIDATE WITH P.E.R.A. WHEREAS, members of the Richfield Police Relief Association (the "Association") are interested in improving the pension benefits to members to have a more equitable, fair and competitive plan; and WHEREAS, the Association has examined the issue of college incentive pay and believes it should be included in the definition of pension benefits; and WHEREAS, the Association would like to improve benefits to members by having age 50 retirement under the current plan and amending the bylaws to allow members to retire on a deferred pension without the current two unit penalty provision; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield (the "City") desires to have the membership of the Association consolidate with the Public Employees Retirement Association (P.E.R.A.); and WHEREAS, the City and Association officials believe that both the goals of the Association membership for improved pensions and the .City's goal of consolidation could be accommodated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City supports legislation for the 1991 Session which would: 1. Codify the interpretation that college incentive pay is included in the definition of salary for the purpose of pension computation effective retroactive to January 1, 1990; 2. Provide for retirement based on earned service credit at age 50; and 3. Elimination of the two unit reduction for deferred pensions; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City and the Association jointly lobby and support the legislation in the 1991 Session of the Minnesota Legislature; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City supports the initiation of a consolidation process into P.E.R.A. in January, 1991 with the intention of having the benefit changes being accomplished in conjunction with the Association consolidating with P.E.R.A.; and 3C,-3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if the Association fails to approve consolidation into P.E.R.A. that the City will not approve the benefit changes proposed herein. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October, 1990. Steven J. Quam Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk f ., 3C-~J RICHFIELD POLICE ~Q~Q~ ~~~~I~;U~(,(,U}{'L 6700 PORTLAND AVE. SO. RICHFIELD, MN. 55423 PHONE l61-9800 September 25. 19y0 James Prosser City Manager Dear Mr. Prosser: The attached Resolutio:~ was approved by the Board of Directors at a Pension meeting held September „ 1990. A copy of the Resolu- tion was given to Public Safety Director Erskine. We have informed the 53 active, retired and deferred Relief Association members by letter of the Board's intent to negotiate chan3es in the pension plan. The Pension Board requests that you work with the City Council for Resolution approval so we can continue the benefit process and to work at getting a Bill together for the next Legislative session. The Pension 3oard would like the Resolution approved by the City Council ~ as well as the Bill passed by early next year. Please keep us informed on your progress Mith the Resolution and the council approval. ~'~0~, M • Hanaon, Secretary Richfield Po11ce Reliet Associatlon 3C- 5 - :TUARIAL SCRVICCS oENSATION •ROGRAwS NINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS tNTERNAT1OMAl SCRVICES QRGAN12A110N SURV CTS THE ~'!~ a~~ COMPANY 1ST -1 FIOOR 8400 NORMANDALE LAKE BOULEVARD MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SSa37 (6121 921 ~ B~00 June 11, 1990 ~~~3~ ~ ~~~I,~rB7~:~t~T1~ Mr. Kenneth Pitcher Treasurer Richfield Police Relief Association 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 EwP~OrCE BCNC~ItS Ew-LOTEC COwMUN~CA'IONS RISM MANAGEw ENT INSURANC[ CONSU.tING NCA LTN CARC CON Su.TING RE: Potential Consolidation of the Richfield Police Relief Association Dear Mr. Pitcher: In response to your request, we have prepared an analysis of the potential consolidation ~tF of the Richfield Police Relief Association (RPRA) into the Public Employees Police and Fire Fund (P&F). Tables 1 and 2, attached, show the results of consolidation using the current plan provisions. The results. in Tables 3 and 4 are based on proposed amendments to the plan provisions, which are described below. Current Plan Provisions -Tables 1 and 2 The consolidation process provides the RPRA members and their beneficiaries an opportunity to change their retirement benefit plan coverage by electing between RPRA end P&F benefits. In order to evaluate the financial aspects of consolidation, the costs in Table 1 have been determined under three possible outcomes -all individuals elect RPRA beneftts (c:olumn 2), ell individuals elect PBEF benefits (column 3) and each individual elects the benefit plan which. has the greater total benefit plan actuarial value (column 4). - Table 1 also compares the consolidation calculations to those found in the actuarial valuation of the RPRA as of December 31, 1969, prepared by Gabriel, Roeder, Smith 8 Company. Since the RPRA benefits are identical for columns 1 and 2, the differences in liabilities and costs are due primarily to the use of different actuarial assumptions as required by statute, end to e lesser extern, to the differences in data. Tabls 2 shows the data and lists the major assumptions. OiFICES IN PRINCIPAL CITIES AROUND ThiE WORLD ~C -~ Mr. Kenneth Pitcher June 11, 1990 Page 2 Whenever a retired member or the retired member's surviving spouse elects P~F benefits, the reserve for that benefit must be transferred to the Minnesota Post Retirement Investment Fund (MPRIF). The amount to be transferred if all benefR recipients who are eligible for MPRIF elect P&F benefRs is $3,304,646, which is less than the current market value of assets.. This amount includes an estimated increase of 4.0096 for those who meet the MPRIF eligibility rules for a January 1, 1991 benefit adjustment. Current benefit recipients who are not eligible for MPRIF will be paid directly by PERA. Their benefits will be escalated by the same percentage that applies to MPRIF annuitants, however no funds are required to be transferred to MPRIF. Although the costs shown in Table 1 represent an appropriate range of estimates available today, the costs are subject to change in future years- following the consolidation. The true cost of any pension plan is not completely determined until the fast benefit payment has been made to the last benefit recipient. Prior to that date, annual budgets are determined by making assumptions regarding future experience. f~~~ Each year in the future following consolidation, municipal costs will be redetermined based on the elections made by members and beneficiaries and will consist of the following components: Regular contributions (line 7) • a variable Cost which will depend on the compensation of members still active. Additional contributions (line 6) - a fixed cost which is an annual amount of $193,999, .the amount required to amortize the initial unfunded consolidation actuarial liability shown in column 4 of Table 1 by the year 2010. Additional contributions (undeterminable at this time) - a variable cost which will depend on actual experience. Any actuarial gains (for example, investment results in excess of 8.596) will reduce future contributions and actuarial tosses (for example, salary increases in excess of 6.596) will increase future contributions. Proposed Benefit Provisions - Tablss 3 and 4 Tables 3 and 4 are identical to Tables 1 and 2 in the type of information that is presented. However, the results shown in these tables also incorporate the following Changes: Definition of Salary: The maximum college incentive invxement would be added to base pay for purposes of determining RPRA benefits and TM[ `~/Il/Q6[ COw'~wr J ~- Mr. Kenneth Pitcher June 11, 19'90 Page 3 contributions. This change in definition of salary does not effect the calculation of benefits for active members under the P&F election. Under P&F, benefits and contributions are based on total pay which would include the college incentive pay. However, this Change does increase the liabilities for current inactive members electing PSF benefits as all current retirees and beneficiaries are assumed to get the increased benefit associated with the increase in pay given to active members. The amount to be transferred if all benefit recipients who are eligible for the Minnesota Post Retirement Investment Fund elect PB~F benefits is $3,883,813. This is an increase of $579.,167 over the $3,304,646 that would be transferred if the Current benefit level did not ck~ange. Retirement Eligibility: Age 50 and 20 years of service, rather than age 55 and 20 years of service. This change does not affect the P&F benefits. In order to approximate the change in the age requirement for a retirement benefit, the assumed retirement age for RPRA was lowered to age 58 from age 56. The assumed retirement age for P8-F remains at age 60. Retirement Amount: The current benefit is based on the following formula: For first 20 years of service 36/75 of base pay. For each year in excess of 20, 1 /75 is added to a maximum of 43/75 of base pay for 27 or more years of service. The proposed benefits are based on the following formula: For first 20 years of service, 36 units. - For each year in excess of 20 an additional unit is added to a maximum of 43 units for 27 or more years of service. -- The unit value will be based on eQe st retirement in acxordance with the schedule shown on the following page: THE ~'~i!/QLL COM--Nr 3L-g Mr. Kenneth Pitcher -June 11, 1990 Page 4 50 1/80 51 1/79 52 1/78 53 1/77 54 1/76 55 1/75 The average unit value for determination of benefits for future retirees was assumed to be 1 /77. The effect of the plan changes and the assumption .change is to increase the Total Municipal Contribution (fables 1 and 3, Column 4, Une 8) from $304,331 under the current provisions to $478,449 under the proposed provisions. Please call me if you have any questions regarding this information. Very truly yours, ~~ ~ ~~ Robert E. Perkins Consulting Actuary 9~i- ~7i~ REP/Iv Enclosures . cc: Lawrence A. Martin Steven L Devich, City of Richfield `~ Senator Donald M. Moe Representative Leo J. Reding TM[ ~yQII COM ~AN~ N ~.. 4 i m r Z u m t H N O O ~ ~ > O 'f Y O _ f _ O W • ~ N m ~ C V \ S ~ t q V O _N O ... ~ ~ L ~ M > O N w •+ O OI ~ ~ \ Q! .D N N'I p W ~ eh O w O 7 < .... \ 1 -~ d' O O~ N m i < 6 _O M I r + q p~ f-~ N V GI U O !ND O a I O P I W N ~"~ \ O O N N ~ N ~. c • ~. m m \ t ~- V _ O N ... O ~-+ .r M d O t { O N N Z t O _+ O P'i so .. U ~ m ~ N O r ~.+ ~ ` O ~ r _\ 1n ~ m V _ d q to • O~ N _ ~ y ~' ~ °' g °` ° ~ '" ~ o ~ d W t ~: v M .Q o ~ _ h C q > J .+ ~ q + ~ ~ u ~ s ~ .+ h 4 4 o ~ ~ 3 o ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~~ 11~ T OAi IAD ~ O~ e~+f ~ O A N pO~ N ~ ~ O O m N O O ^~ fh M N .+ O N N M C 7 • • i o ~n M ~ o o N N O~ f0 1f1 f0 ~ f+f C w ~ ~ O ~ ~ C N ... ~ V L V d LCu S A • • If1 O~ Of • 1Pl • N t0 N iD H'1 A f7 I!I f7 O h O m O~ • f0 A tD f7 O~ ~+ M {C~ ~ O e~'' pO~ e1Ln ~ O O E ~ m N O O ... f7 ~+ N C N ~..~ m N d O M [ •+ M O L r t1 C L O qu . V _G t ~+ • • q V • • ~+ N M ~ m ^ OI N e7 10 N m O L {H Z Z O w O N n7 y A • v ~ ~ ~ m ~ m .-. n o v .+ ~ o 0 ~ ~ v " c ~.. go_ „~ _€ ~ N V L ~ A M ~+ h C O q ~ s v N ~ ~, ^F~ ~ ., 8 N ~ ~ _~ ~ M ~- ~ " _ .. ~ a, o M • ` t ~ S 8 ~ ~ ~~ ~ A ~ -+ `~ ` ~ ` ~ ~ L O v _ ~ e w ~ r r ~ .. q M « V ~ ~ ` ; 3 L _u a ~ a ~ 2 ££ v ~ q ~ ~ ~ > ~ y C e f ~ M ~ r lI N g- ~~~ oW . . N ~.; ~ vi ~o .: o s a I O u 1 Z N H 4 W i W m r v . W « _ ~[ O t0 1ff ~~tt O 10 N ~ ~ 1N ~ ~1 < t f~f ~ p p ~ 11,~..+~ {J ~ N N f7 N Ri. f7 s ! \ p .... m • H'S ^ ~ M m ~ ID ~ ~ L + C W ` w., e; ~ o; o W o G d ^ OC N C W Q D M M L o W _ .J m M A t r O u ~o u c 0 :.+ A c o « A 4 N _ d {~ ~t V1 K C 10 N ~~ ~ Y~Y ~ ~ O d C O p W N ~"~ N v r~ N N O ~O O P'i ~P~ ~ N'7 M ~ N e r', O m {D f0 ~D N \ L..7 ` N m ~ OC O ~ ~ d d ~ ... ~ M M d K i O Q N N N i c o ~. ~ c c o ~ = ~ W v + A ~ ~ t d A W A _ _ J Q L Q N O ~ G O ` D Q L d J O W S _V OC w d d ~ « L d xx O ~ xx ~ O ~ ~ ~ O o: 6 C rf f t0 ~ N N O ~ i i i /~ N P9 e' ~ r'f \ ~ o ° Q a ~ ~ v T ~ ~ w U N V N N OC rL L N V ' ~ _V h lryy n ~ L « ~ C y C C o T i ~ ELUL4E ~ L O~ ~~ V ~ > L 'L^ V~ V t~ OC ~ ~ C VC ` ' « ~ {I d v ~c C O O 4 o N ~ C L ~ O V V ~ ~ M v ~ V ~ 4 « V V O r mCC CC O O e o Il ~ «[ O V V « ~ v ~ ° ~- « ~~ ~ N L V ~ M ~' (~ C L 4 H M ~ r ~~ ~ • ~ ~ _V t~ •~ ~ ~ V~ « Y G r ~ Q g M ~ ~ p~ T t L l~ O 3 ~-r ~~ S r ?~-11 ~ ~ ~ A ~ pl ~ pO1 p A N ~+ f~f • O W ~7 ~1 > C ID O 10 f0 01 • 1D Y7 A A • O ~ O i ~ \ O O 10 O p w'f O A A ^ p ~. p W m W L V _ • .~ O {p A ~p `A N N {O A N A Q1 O Qpff O • p {O P . A C \ f ~ • :~ M O _O i 4 L O In ~ f7 ~. p 17 N ~+ M M j r p 6 ~ ~ ` O ~+ _ O ~ • I C ~ j E ~ ~ f7 V O 0 N A A O N M Y1 O O N N J i U W ~ 0+ f•f O+ {O ~ t0 N'i Af ~ ~ ~ ~ f • O m O r L W f'f O ~ ~ ~ ..~ \ o ao o m ~ ~ ~ ~ o ° M M -. t t N U ~ L r ~_ 10 L Z u ~ c ~ ~ c v, m , ~ O C O ~ e ~ a. A C V • • C ~A O ~+ A If1 p • ~ O ~ N Ml • O A 1/9 u .• d ~ u o A e to o p> so A ~o p~ o, p • A ~c N v, A M A • • N p. .. r- W N t H O t0 A tC ~ N N {D A N A O> O O~ O {D A ~ ~ Q _\ ^ te O m p ~ ~ e7 ... • .. ~ N C d O CI O M .~+ . r M E ~ ~ ~ ~ V1 L _ W O L c ~ ~ o ~ C Q U N « _ ~ ~++ A N O ~ • • Y 6 ~ s ~ • • • • u L r+ J ~ O ~ C O • A N V1 O Y1 ~1 qq ~7 N J U W J •+ Ip O C~ OD ^ Q = f0 N O ~ t i t Z i Z {D O t0 1l1 A Of A • ~, ~+ L V d 1 0 N N O W ~ .... \ N • ~~ CI y 61 yy O~ .~. ~ p ~ ~.+ N O d ...i L C[ N y ~ A GO C O N OI O ~ ` ~ V A p L O d _ ( I V ~ C 4 V p u O p ..~ Li " 10 N C 4 N p~ ~ M ~ ~+ N ~'+ C d A i L w ~ N d N L 4 ~ Q U N y N ~.+ L _ C ~ d r, _ L ~ H O p ~ ~ s ~ ~ O ~ t ++ ~ N .^ ~ O > ~ ~+ ~ ° s° a g C ~ N n M 9 ~ ^ ~ v w N ~ Il ~ n f ~ ~ L U _ N p « s ~ o ~ y ~ [ O ~ ..~ r .. ... ~ ~ J M Yj {..> ~ A EEE ~+ ~+ L ~ ~ i ~ L ~ ~ L' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~. ~ - h c a •°+ « v ~ ~ u 3 ~ ~ > W LL v ~• s~ ~ ~, ° _ t r ° o '~ ~ ~ s =+ ~ v N o o r. O v a ~ p .d t ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; _ ~ a ` ~~~r~ W A V p ~ r ~ v ~ L u ~ e s > ~ _ ~ o~ ~ ~ G I M _ M « ~ C ` N ~ N M L ` e Yi v, A Ip 4 !~ 1+~ C ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ r1 O O L L ~ V ` V L M p " M (~ W p t O W ~ 1E~ ~ ~ d a ~ ~ C ~ L a .°. • • ~+ ~+ N ` Ir • t • • Q ~ O t t i N M • 11'1 iG A p • • s 2 I O u ~~ S N H 4 W i W m O NpW 6 W J m t ~~p N N ~ M~f V1 ~O( fO+f f+I N ~ N = ! \ ~ ~ ~+ G W ~ A • ~ .Nr • try ~ NY {O Q ~ivv t ~ v ?~ A Os O G L d M ... ~ t M ~ O M •+ O U (~ ~ ~ K ~ 4 O O N • A • M ~ • • N ~ l1 I O r, M ~ N N m N m Pj N r+ A t N .... A ~ O N A A ... m~ {~ {0 {~ \ b L CC L O _ N ri eV o ~n ~.+ n w N A N ~+ ~ d V Oi Of ~..~ C M M L d 8 0 h' N N O 4 H C d C J ~ _ N C C W N 4 Q N ^ w V L ~ 4 W = ~ 4 ~ .~. `.. Q ~ < t ~ o a L a ~ n W S V 0: ~ _ d 0: ` V C + d ~~(( it ~ it K O ~ _ _ _ N N O {D • O ~ t t~ iff Y7 N O C m m A N"i V ~ O M (( 77 t O u ~ r oc a A V L V W 4 h L 4 ~ C O V ~ N V M M ~0 4 C C c c ~ A O P M ~+ ~ t r ~ + C ~ ~ + ~ w e e 7 ~ ~ V ~ r M~ ~- h 4~ wVr ~ ~ « .~ ~ _~ V V ~ ~ ~ h ~ L ~ V ~i ~ t 3~ l~- t I O u ^~ ~• z _~ U City of Richfield, Minnesota Council Letter No. 251 Agenda October 8, 1990 Issue Statement• Request for an amendment of the existing offstreet parking permit at 7529 Lyndale Avenue. Backcround• Applicant Patrick Teel operates The Gun Shop & Pawnbroker at 408 W. 65th Street. The applicant is seeking to relocate to 7529 Lyndale Avenue. This requires an amendment to the offstreet parking permit. Adequate space is available for the required eleven parking spaces with proper restriping. This property is zoned C-2, general commercial. Retail sales businesses are a permitted use in a C-2 district. Recommended Motion: Approve the request for an amendment of the existing offstreet parking permit with the following stipulations: 1. That the one way entry and exit drive system be reestablished by removal of the gate across the south exit drive and the installation of proper signage. Reconstruct the south exit drive. and remove existing bollard as shown on the proposed site plan. 2. That the building be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system. 3. That on site storage be limited to 20,000 rounds of ammunition and 20 pounds of smokeless powder (no black powder) in magazine storage. 4. That the stockade fence on the east property line be replaced with a chain link fence, moved in off the property line and landscaping added consisting of a mixture of 70$ evergreens (minimum-three feet high) and 30$ vines or other deciduous material. 5. That the parking lot be restriped as per the attached site plan. One handicap space is required with proper signage as required by code. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has provided for the necessary parking. 2. Retail sales buildings in excess of 2000 sq. ft. must be protected with an automatic sprinkler system. 3. Issuance of this amendment should not adversely impact the surrounding properties. J U-~ 4. The existing fence on the east property line is rotted, and the existing landscaping in this same area is not appropriate. 5. Applicant has agreed to the required changes end improvements. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council may deny the offstreet parking permit amendment if a finding of fact determines that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties. Discussion/Decision Mode: Consideration of this item is scheduled at 7:00 P.M. on October 8, 1990. The meeting will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the property. Respect ully submitted, Jam D. Prosser . Cit Manager JDP:ds rD' I Z ZD Z ~ I N T ~ m Zr ~~ Z n O r rn N i r m ~~ Z~ r n a -~ O z V N N G ~I S V w Y • Y M LC~ ~ S O S • V S S S Y N~ Rs i -f f f f = Z J ~ f 1 ; j ; 1 ; I ~ j yO~ I •+S H j~ Y ~ y w .~1 i r ~ ~ ti ~ y M 1 N N N N N N y 1 ~I N[Rk[f AVC 1t[RICES AVE ~AANiyRN w4SNAyRM VIMC[NT yRTON I VIMCE NT U-TON rNOrAs TMOYAS fMER10AN Ayii[ll SNERIDAN Russtu wttM OyEEN KMM AV[. -ENN 1VE OIIV[R OUVER M[wTON NEM'TOh rORGAM YORGIN IOGAN LOGAN RNOIf AN07( ~AYtf ,11YE5 IRVIM6 IRVING MUY~OIDT HUYlOLDT DIRARo FtlrONT GUARO [Y[RSON t~IT EYERSOM w-ONT ouooNT COLFAX COLFAz ~RTAMT ARTANT ALDRICN AL DRICM LTNDALE AVE. LTNDALE AVE. 6ARi1[LO GMFIELD HARRIET HARRIET ORAMD GRAND -LEA3ANT -LEASANT MILtwRT RILLSwRr t[NTwO~TN WEMTWORTM ~LAIfDELI ~UISDELL NICOII[T AVE. NICOLLET AVE. I AI w fT[VENS STEVENS 2M 2e~ f.. ~.. CLINTON CLINTON AIR •fA s/. Srll -ORTUMO AV4 DORTL,AMD AVE OARLANO OAKLAND FrRR MRR eoLUrws cowrws CMICA00 CNICA00 10T [ T L1 ELLIO 10 tN 10 iR u Iw u u 12111 121A If /A IS t11 IA IA IA,~ 1! IR wbY1MGTON IS IR tOOYINGTON 1• I~ li IA 17 r~ 11 t11 IA IA IA IA CEDAR AVt CEDAR AVE LOMGFELL01/ LONGFELIOMI I! 1 ~ 201n 21 ~1 22.. 5TINDISH 2lrA r- ti `w ~ v i w w 's ~ ~ i ~ i I.y Y s ~ G . ~ i y r ~ IJ- -, ~~.~~ ._-~ W. 7S I i 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I ' i 1 1 W. 76 TH S . ' .-~ .:• Ul H V! ~ ~ L Q Q ~•.•:: L J = t•: r:• W. 77 TH ST. .~ SITE CONTEXT Zoning CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING & ZONING 7529 LYND~ALE AVEMJE SOUTH KEY ® I NDUSTRIAL ~`~`~ C- ~ NEIGFIBOR1gOp BUSINESS . (~-2 GENERAL COMMERgAL ® C-3 HIGfI nENSITV CObM~RCIAL ~7MMENTS: MR MULTI-FAMILY RESDENCE ® MR-3 ovER ,7 UwT RES~ENCE Q ~ R SNGLE FAIRY RESDENCE N ~~~~~~~ 0 200 400 600 800 1000 SCALE FEET i __ _ I vi vi W F~ 2 1 m I I I 1 ~, r~ H W t W J 2 J SITE CONTEXT Land Use CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING & ZONING 7529 LY E A E SOUtH KEY OOMIIERCiAL ®OtlAS~~I~LJC ~ ~ Q ~ ~x ~ ~c ~ s~E FAY aES~cE N ~ v~rr 7MMENTS: ~~~~~~ 0 200 400 600 800 1000 SCALE FEET SITE CONTEXT Comprehensive Development Plan CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING & ZONING 7529 LY E AY'~t~JE SOUTH - FFB:EWAY STRp Q SNGL.E FA~.Y RESD~ICE IIIDCED LAND USE ~ NAL MEDIUM DENSITY BUFFER Q ~ AAF~ ~ OPEN ~lAOE ® MULTPLE RESDENC~ N KEY ~MMENTS: ~~~~~~ o Zoo aoo 60o soo ~ooo SCALE FEET N ~O rn z ~ o cn ~ ~ m z f~cn ,_ ~' rn z m r ~ ~ oz s ,~ N 0 Z~ _ LYNDALE AVENUE _ _ ?~~_~r ~-~ _ LYNDALE AVENUE _ _ 3=~" gyp' :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~~x -~ o ~ Z '0 v o ~ t~ r rn m rn v ~~ ~ „I -. ~ N ~ X < - rn -~ z rn C '~ rn r ~~. cn ~ - , ~' -= O r~ C -I ~ ~;, , , Y m i N O Z~ ~e ~. CONCRETE S~EWALK CONCRETE CuRe ll ~~ ~~~.~ II1 SG'- 8" I I I x -~--x - x PROPERTY LME :... 75 F-r _> ~~~~3w r ~~- N ~; l P W W ~~ -- O F-- ~ v i ~~ ~~ ~~ i~ ~_ ,~ ~~ N ~_ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 252 Agenda October 8, 1990 Issue Statement: City Council approval of a payment for a liability claim and legal expenses for Knudson/Walters. Background• The claimant, Knudson/Walters, is a Minnesota corporation. Paul Knudson is a shareholder, director and officer of Knudson/Walters. Mr. Knudson was the owner of an alleged lease- hold interest in the commercial space at the former Viking Center. This shopping center was located between 77th and 78th Streets on Morgan Avenue in Richfield. In the Fall of 1984, Mr. Knudson applied to the City Council for a special use permit on behalf of Knudson/Walters and himself to operate a restaurant in the Viking Center. City Council considered the special use permit application in 1985 and 1986 and ultimately denied it. Subsequent to the denial, Mr. Knudson, on behalf of Knudson/Walters, filed a claim against the City for damages in excess of $50,000. After a protracted period of time, the lawsuit has been concluded through settlement negotiations. The settlement agreed upon included a $5,000 payment to Knudson/Walters. In addition, the City incurred 54,699.10 in legal defense costs. The City's administrator, GAB Business Services, has made these payments on behalf of the City and must now be reimbursed, inasmuch as the amounts fall within the City's $50,000 deductible level. Recommended Motion: Ratify the settlement in the payment of 55,000 to Knudson/Walters and $4,699.10 payment for legal fees and authorize reimbursement to GAS Business Services. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The lawsuit against the City in this matter has been in process for over three years and the settlement described in this letter concludes this matter. 2. The settlement and legal costs appear to be a reasonable conclusion to this matter. 3. Settlement was fashioned by representatives from the City Attorney's office. 4. The settlement has been paid by GAB Business Services and the amounts must now be reimbursed. J ~_. 1 Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could deny ratification of the settlement and/or legal fees. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is under consideration on the October 8, 1990 City Council agenda because payments by GAH Business Services have been made on behalf of the City and reimbursements are now due. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP:cak J~ CONFIDENTIAL CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. Agenda October 8, 1990 Issue Statement• Consideration of approval of workers' compensation settlement. Background: A Richfield Community Services Worker claimed to be temporarily totally disabled as a result of injuries sustained to the left shoulder, neck and wrist in January, 1985. At the time of the alleged injury, the employee was driving a snowplow for the City and apparently, hit a curb causing him to lurch forward and sustain injuries while trying to cushion the blow.. During the next several months, the employee. worked intermittently, became medically unable to perform the duties of a Community Services Worker in 1987, and terminated employment. The City paid temporary total disability benefits to the employee to October, 1988. At that time, the employee was able to find another job. In May, 1989, the employee quit the subsequent employment .after the neck injury became exacerbated. For the past several weeks, the City, through its legal counsel, Robert Alsop of Holmes and Graven, has sought to reach an agreement with the former employee for a full and final settlement of this workers' compensation claim. As a result of those negotiations, a tentative settlement agreement has been reached. The settlement amount is $60,000 (lump payment), $2,735.04 (medical expenses) and $120.00 (legal fees) for a total of $62,855.04. The second employer has agreed to contribute $25,000 of that settlement as well as assume liability for 50$ of all .future medical treatment for the neck. Thus, the City's total out of pocket cost is $37,855.04. A stipulation for settlement will be executed by and between the former employee and the City upon City Council approval of this tentative settlement. Recommended Motion: Approve the settlement as described and authorize the City Manager to execute the stipulation for settlement. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The settlement package under consideration is a full, final and complete settlement except for future medical treatment of admitted injuries. 2. City staff and Attorney consider this settlement to be reasonable and recommend acceptance of the offer. 3~- I 3. The settlement would eliminate potential rehabilitation and retraining expenses for the claimant. 4. Without the stipulation for settlement, if the claimant did not find gainful employment, a finding of permanent total disability would be likely. Such a finding could be extremely costly to the City. 5. The second employer is willing to contribute a sizeable amount to the settlement at this time. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the settlement. 2. Authorize settlement, but for a lesser figure. However, it is highly unlikely that a reduced amount would be accepted at this time by the claimant. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been scheduled for October 8, 1990 so that the City Attorney's office has time to execute a signed stipulation with the claimant .prior to City Council review. Action on this item is .suggested for October 8 in order to take advantage of all essential elements of constructing the settlement agreement. ly submitted, Ci . Prosser JDP:cak ~~ CONFIDENTIAL CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 253 Agenda October 8, 1990 (Intentionally left blank) y City of Richfield, Minnesota Council Letter No. 254 Agenda October 8, 1990 Issue Statement: Public Hearing and second reading consideration of an amendment to Zoning Ordinance Subsection 545.15, setting a two year term for Hearing Examiner appointments. Background• The "sunset" provision relating to the hearing examiner process was deleted by final Council action on September 10, 1990. As a result, it is necessary to establish a term of appointment for the hearing examiners. Recommended Motion: Approve second reading of this proposed amendment to Subsection 545.15, setting a two year term for Hearing Examiners. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment on August 28, 1990 and unanimously recommended approval. 2. The City Council approved first reading on September 10, 1990, with certain language changes which have been incorporated herein. 3. Two years is an appropriate term of appointment for a Hearing Examiner. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could modify the amendment, setting a different term for Hearing Examiners. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing and second reading is scheduled at 7:OO P.M. on Monday, October 8, 1990. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of hearing was published in the Sun-Current. Respectf y Submitted, Jame Prosser City Manager JDP/dh ~/-/ BILL NO. 1990- AMENDMENT TO SECTION 545 OF APPENDIX B TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 545 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled: Zoning: adjustment: appeals: administration. Is hereby amended by amending Subsection 545.15 thereof to read as follows: 545.15 Committee of hearing examiners. There is hereby created and continued the committee of hearing examiners. The committee is a special committee of the board of adjustments and appeals to be administered by the director of community development. The committee shall assist the board in all matters within the jurisdiction of the board.. The committee of at least two examiners is appointed by the manager for a term of two years subject to confirmation by the council_ aid During the term of appointment members serve at the pleasure of the manager. Hea~g-e~Eam~~~ay-be-ei~~emp~-eyees and--s~a~~~a ~n-munie~~a~ adm}ni~Ta-teen and--g~eoed~res~f l~~ Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1990. Steven J. Quam Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 5 City of Richfield, Minnesota Council Letter No. 255 Agenda October 8, 1990 Issue Statement• Public hearing of a request for a conditional use permit and off- street parking permit at 1200 East 78th Street. This item is continued from the September 24, 1990 City Council meeting. Background• Systems Control, Inc. has requested a conditional use permit to allow a vehicle emission testing facility at 1200 East 78th Street. This would be one of 11 such facilities throughout the metro. area. The facilities are needed as a result of a new state law, effective July 1, 1991, which requires cars to be tested before reregistration. The facility is designed to serve drivers within a five mile radius and has a peak capacity of 139 vehicles per hour. The property is zoned C-2 commercial and a use of the proposed type requires a conditional use permit. Recommended Motion: Deny the request for conditional use permit and off-street parking permit. Basis of Recommendation: 1. On August 28, 1990, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend denial of .the conditional use permit. See attached appendix for background materials. 2. Substantial traffic impacts over the next several years are outlined as follows: a) Closure of 12th Avenue ramp on 494. b) Closure of 78th Street frontage road on widening of I494. c) Upgrade of 77th Street with center barrier before closure of 78th Street. (This would entail the closure of 77th Street during construction as well as any access to 77th Street.) d) This development would further impact the existing congested traffic scene because of the construction and semaphore .operation which has been previously discussed by the council after a neighbor's complaint several weeks ago. e) Increased traffic on 12th Avenue which is only a residential collector street. There will be substantial traffic between city hall and the site which will gravitate to some degree onto 12th Avenue. f) Traffic exiting onto 77th Street from the site will, in many .cases, turn right and then left through the residential area as a path of least resistance to get to 76th Street and out of the area. g) After 77th Street is upgraded, only a right turn will be allowed from north side of site. J-I h) The city has made a conscious effort to prevent commercial traffic from utilizing residential streets by excluding access to and from 77th Street. 3. Although zoned for commercial use, there are apartment buildings both east and west of the site and .single family to the north which would be impacted by the traffic, noise and degradation in air quality. 4. Adequate parking is provided but the overall site plan is not well designed for ingress/egress to the property. Alternative Recommendation: Approve the request for conditional use permit and off-street parking permit with the following stipulations: 1. An in-depth traffic impact study be performed and approved by the City Council. 2. Approval of a noise study. 3. Correction of site related issues. 4. A landscape plan be approved by staff. 5. Garbage dumpsters be screened on all sides. 6. Parking stalls for the physically handicapped be provided per code requirement. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. 1990 in the City Council Chambers of Richf Portland Avenue. Notice of public hearing published in the Sun-Current and mailed to 350 feet of the property. Property owners continuance by mail. on Monday, October 8, field City Hall, 6700 was previously property owners within were notified of the Respec ully submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP : e~ a City of Richfield, Minnesota Council Letter No. 256 Agenda October 8, 1990 Issue Statements Public Hearing on consideration of an offsite directional sign permit at 6537 Cedar Avenue. Background: Adams Outdoor Advertising has submitted an application for an offsite directional sign permit, at 6537 Cedar Avenue. The offsite directional sign is for Motel Six at 7640 Cedar Avenue. The City Code allows offsite directional signage provided specific locational, sign and impact conditions are met. Recommended Motion: Approve the offsite directional sign permit at 6537 Cedar Avenue. Basis of Recommendation: 1. This proposal meets the requirements for issuance of an offsite directional sign permit. 2. The State of Minnesota has reviewed and approved this. proposal. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could deny this request with a finding that the proposal does not meet the requirements set forth for issuance of the permit, and that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 P.M. on Monday, October 8, 1990. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of public hearing was mailed to property owners within 350 feet and published in the Sun-Current. Respectf ly submitted, Jame Prosser City Manager JDP:as tM+.~oT ~v »19~•oa i~•e~i PLEASE PgINT -PRESS HARD LEA A OLANK ETwEEN wOROS A NAME LIME t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 p ~~ ~ U, S~ ;~ NAME L E 2 L i 1 1 t I I I I 1 1 I-, 1 1 1 t I I _ _ NAME LINE I _ ~ C STREE AD'OMRE,SS/ n ,, CITY STAtE ZtP T ~~; /al-tyt7t6t-(JtE,~ I ~ }-~TELEPH/O~NE )L 1l'. , I, I ttPl~~ ,~olvl lIP1.3 ~ , _1 ~ 1 t A N D O w N E A 9. SIGN MESSAGE t0 LANDMARKS 11. nDVERTISING AREA (Include border 6 trim): ' 9r~ N ~GHT tDTH SOUARE iEET 12. Illuminating Device Yes ^ No 13. Distance tr center of highway to nearest corner of device ~-1~ Ft. 13A. Right o1 way at sign site ~1'A ~- ~- e ~ Ft. ¢ Ia. Approx. Date deviC will wty erected ,~t~t- v 75. Type Device D FACE E ^ SIDE aY ^ ~~v" TYPE ~ BACK TO BACK Submit legal description of property N reouirsd. 16. Landownsr,rLeaase olt Agent must submit letter pronting use of property or sign Item below. Yes, Letter Attached t7. t, We, the'd-dersipnsd, hereby declare that •11 statements heroin aro true and complete, with the same force end effect as thou -given under b~aath, hsrowith accept the terms and corMltions of the regulations of the Commiaslonet o1 Transportation and fully agree to o,Dalply therewith to the satisfaction o1 the Minnesota Department of Transportation. with check 16. LOCATION SKETCH SPACE: (Submit sketch Ot property showing proposed device location, land ties, etc.) N to StaO • °o~ ~ ~3Q ADVERTISING DEVICE rERMfT ~ f Permission is hereby granted for the construction of the device ss described in the above application, acid device to be in 3 C act:ardance with the regulations ss set forth in the Commissioner of TrsnspoKation's regulationt and the laws of the State of _ L fVl~. ,:ota. Subject to Local Ordinace. ~ ~ SF' ,L REDUIREMENTS: Device must be erected within 120 days or permit will be voided. Permit number must be affixed to . .ce together with permitee name. It is expressediy understood that this permit is conditioned upon maintenance of the f" device in its original or to a satisfactory condition. ~ This permit expires on June 30, 19 a- tT . DATE pISTRIGt ENGINEER ~~ FOR DISTRIaUTK)N OF COTES. ~ ' ~~ '~~ ~ ~ ~ `" " w ~ `' ' ~ `' ~"~~ SEE REVERSE SIDE. ~~ STATE OF MINNESOTA (~, ~~~ OEPAATMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ADVERTItING DEVICE PERMIT APPLICATION o~ u~oNU- ~ ~~Z~iZ~ fsl ~~~' ~,~~ • .tom -~s~ +. C a l.~~Pr~/ ~T~P,~,~~ PROPERTY LOCfR10N: .e, P P 7 IGMWAY a COON Y aA. MUNICtPAt.ITY (~, - ~~-~Rs SIAVE `MrG 8 A~.F P~ ANN~Nu u.4 :~f 4 ~Al. E Mw "s 6F W V4 A i '1 Q h W v •v 9 t ~ I `I•• E~ Certificate of Survey ro.: ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERT/S/NG rn0 nn - ?C . - i ts.r.. !C ~wc DESCR/PT/ON Of PROPERTY L of /O , B/JCk i, NEW TORO TOWN , Mehnep~~ Ca,-nfy , M~nnes.; fo Excec• fh0/ pOif token /Or hiphwoy o Denotes iron fnor,~menf ~O h ~!rc~ -~~ . ~ ~J Y• Asreby certify tt+•t tt+i• 1• • tree •n0 correct r•pre•ent•tion or • •urvy of ~• f.euad•rle• of tn• 1•nd OeecriD•0 •DOVe •n0 of t~• loc•tlen of •11 Dulldinq• -~ereon, •e0 •11 •1.1-1• •ncrM eAeent e, It •ny, tree er en ••1d 1•nd, tA•t tt+ie t~~1 w. -r•atet! Er r of er+Aer •y !!reef •~oerrlelon •nd tA•t 1 •• • duly ~let•re0 L•n/ wr~•yr ~wder tM 1••e of tM fzt•te of Iti~ne•ot•. A• •crveye0 ~y r~ 0•te o .Avs +~,f~. ~Y L t/inn••ot• ~egi•tntlon we. y~t~3 Job No I2 ~.QOr Boor ~~ Po9e t2 Sec t•S ~ t6 R ~ I ~ - ,,, "" ,, 1 - h 3 ,y ~~' . Gi i 1~1. i NoQlN fA[E ~s~~~ :~;~~~ it ' _!.'!~' ~1~ ~__~_I ' ~ ~~'~®._ ~ 111 I ..i ~ I~~ _ ~ \~ ~.~/! 'L'it $Atk oN CEDAR At 1- y9y SOu7N FAcF 6' . , ~~~~. a~ ~ ~~,,..: T C ~~ r' / Si 4r ~O ~e b~~i ;Ctr~ i/1S'~ t1pc~~ ~''`~ IiCPnSrc'G C~ n~ft~c~~ ~ City of Richfield, Minnesota Council Letter No. 257 Agenda October 8, 1990 Issue Statement• First reading of an amendment to the zoning ordinance to raise the number of children permitted at licensed group family day care facilities from 12 to 14. Backcround• State statute provides that licensed day care facilities shall be treated as residential uses under local zoning ordinances. Depending on size, it is either a single or multiple family use. The statutory definition of "group family day care" has been amended to increase the allowable number of children from 12 to 14. The differentiation now made between family day care and group family day care is based on the age of the children, number of supervisors and other applicable regulations. The proposed amendment brings the zoning ordinance into conformity with State statute.' Recommended Motion: Approve first reading of this amendment, and set public hearing and second reading for the November 26, 1990 meeting. Basis of Recommendation: ~ - 1. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the amendment on September 25, 1990. 2. This amendment would bring the zoning ordinance into consistency with State statute. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could decide not to adopt the amendment; however, this would be inconsistent with State law. Discussion/Decision Mode: First reading is scheduled for October 8, 1990. If approved, a public hearing and second reading will be held on November 26, 1990. The ordinance would be effective 30 days after publication in the official newspaper. Respectf lly submitted, J s D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP:ds BILL N0. 1990 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 515 OF APPENDIX 8 TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 515 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled: "Zoning: residential districts" is hereby amended in the following respects: A. Subsection 515.05 is amended by amending Subdivision 7 thereof to read as follows: ~-1 Subd. 7 Family afld @ €am~y day care homes licensed by the appropriate governmental authorities for 12 or fewer persons, group family day care facilities licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 serving 14 or fewer persons or as otherwise permitted by law. B. Subsection 515.07 is amended by amending Subdivision 2 thereof to read as follows: Subd. 2 Day care centers for more than 12 persons licensed by the appropriate governmental authority, group family day care facilities licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 serving more than 14 persons or as otherwise permitted by law. C. Subsection 515.23 is amended by amending Subdivision 4 thereof to read as follow: Subd. 4. Day care facility for more than 12 person, group family day care facilities licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 serving more than 14 persons or as otherwise permitted by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1990. CITY OF RICHFIELD Hy Steven J. Quam - Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 258 Agenda October 8, 1990 Issue Statement: Adoption of .resolution authorizing the submittal of preliminary RALF loan application for the purchase of property at 7645 Oakland Avenue. Background• The City Council has approved the official map which calls for the upgrading of 77th Street between 135W and TH77. The upgrading will necessitate the purchase of property. At the present, the timing of the construction of these improvements is uncertain; however, people who own and reside in these homes. must continue to make decisions about their lives. In some instances, these people must sell their home; but the pending project makes it impossible to sell. Buyers do not want to purchase uncertainty. To meet this need, the Metropolitan Council has established the Right-Of-Way Acquisition. Loan Fund (RALF). The fund is designed to permit cities to purchase owner- occupied dwellings when continued ownership of the property would be a hardship for the owner. The loan bears no interest. A loan would be equal to the value of the real estate, plus relocation benefits minus-the salvage value of the houses. The city would pay back the loan when funding for the 77th Street project became available. The process for securing a loan is generally as follows. After the owner of a property has listed it for sale for a period of at least 90 days, a preliminary application is submitted to the Metropolitan Council. The attached resolution is part of the preliminary application. The Metropolitan Council then reviews the preliminary application. If the preliminary application is approved, negotiations for the purchase of the property may commence and a loan agreement with Metropolitan Council must be drafted. Staff has been working with the owner of the property at 7645 Oakland Avenue which appears to qualify for RALF. The property has been listed with a realtor. The 90 day listing period has ended. Potential purchasers looked at the property but when told of the pending street project lost interest. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution which authorizes staff to proceed with the filing of a preliminary RALF application. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City Council has approved the official map for upgrading 77th Street. 2. The upgrading will require the purchase of the property. ~~ 3. The city has no funds currently available to purchase this property. 4. The Metropolitan Council operates RALF and has previously approved the purchase of two properties under the program. 5. The owner of the subject property appears to have an eligible hardship and has been unable to sell the home during the 90 day listing period. 6. The City Council, during deliberations on the 77th Street project, indicated they would assist property owners in minimizing the difficulties this project imposed on them. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Refuse to authorize the application. 2. Delay action until a future date. Discussion/Decision Mode: While the RALF program provides assistance, it does not provide immediate relief. Staff has been working with this owner since May. It will likely require an additional two to three months to complete the process. Action to adopt the resolution on October 8 would facilitate the processing. Respectf ly submitted, Jame Prosser City nager JDP:ds D-~ RESOLUTION N0. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LOAN APPLICATION FOR ACQUISITION OF 77TH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY; 7645 OAKLAND AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has adopted an official map for improvements to 77th Street; WHEREAS, the improvements to 77th Street necessitate the purchase of real estate including the property at 7645 Oakland Avenue south; WHEREAS, city funds are presently not available for purchase of real estate; WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council under Minnesota Statute 473.167, Subd. 2 a. .administers the Right-Of-Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF) to acquire properties so situated with owners who are experiencing a hardship; WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has indicated that RALF monies would be made available for the purchase of "hardship properties" along 77th Street; WHEREAS, the owner of this property may qualify for purchase under the hardship provisions of RALF. NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED by the City council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the City Manager submit an application to the Metropolitan Council under the RALF program for purposes of initiating the process which may result in the acquisition of the property at 7645 Oakland Avenue South. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October, 1990. Steven J. Quam, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 259 Agenda October 8, 1990 Issue Statement• Consideration of an application for a residential kennel license for Margaret LeFebvre, 7325 Girard Avenue in Richfield. Background• On July 3,•1990, Ms. LeFebvre submitted an application for a residential kennel license as she owns four dogs. Ms. LeFebvre noted on her application that her neighbors had declined to sign the section of the application which shows approval of contiguous property owners. On July 22, 1990, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service Officer. The inspection did not indicate any problems at the time of inspection; however, the Community Service Officer did note that none of the abutting property owners wished to sign the petition for various reasons. The Community Service Officer checked with neighbors personally and found that their concerns related to barking, odor problems and too many dogs. Staff has also received letters from the following neighbors expressing their opposition to the granting of the kennel ~.:., license. Letter were received from: William Nordquist - 7321 Girard Avenue Neil & Lois Haugerud - 7320 Girard Avenue Ronald & Doris Sender - 7313 Girard Avenue Again, their concerns focused on barking and odors from the property. Ms. LeFebvre did apply for a residential kennel license in 1989 and was granted the license. She owned four dogs in 1989 also. Staff received a complaint in August of 1990 concerning a build- up of animal feces on the property. An inspection was conducted by a CSO on August 22,.1990 and found that the complaint was not valid. There is no record of any complaints received regarding barking. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the application for a residential kennel license be denied as a result of correspondence received by staff from three residents that relate to barking and odor problems. Basis for Recommendation: 1. A residential kennel license is a privilege to have and it must be proven that the issuance of a residential kennel license will not have an adverse effect on the animal owner's neighbors. ~- I 2. The barking has had an adverse effect on Ms. LeFebvre's neighbors, proving to be disturbing to them.. 3. Odor problems continue to be a concern. 4. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping of more than two dogs or two cats does not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Ms. LeFebvre has been unable to do this. 5. Neighbors have contacted staff with complaints relating to feces and barking. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to approve Ms. LeFebvre's residential kennel license. This would mean that she could continue to have more than two dogs on the property. Discussionl'Decision Mode: Recommendation to deny the application for a residential kennel license for Margaret LeFebvre, 7325 Girard Avenue. is presented for Council consideration at this time. y Submitted, Jam s~ Prosser Cit anager JDP:bac ~ _. -~ f~ -~~ 7320 Girard Avenue South ,,,, / _/ Richfield, MN 55423 ` September 22, 1990 ~ __-_- ,e Richfield City Council 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 -~ It has been brought to our attention that our neighbor, Maggie LeFebvre, is petitioning for a waiver to the restriction on the number of dogs she may keep at her residence, 7325 Girard Avenue South. We would appreciate your denying this request for the following reasons: 1. Keeping more than one or two dogs in that small house and yard is comparable to child abuse. How can a dog lover justify this existence for her pets? 2. We have heard a lot of barking coming from her prop- erty. When we slept with windows open we could hear this early in the morning, and we have also heard it when they are not home. This must be intolerable .for her closer neighbors. 3. The foul odor from her yard is sickening for her close neighbors, expecially when it is warm 4. The permission to have a kennel would lower our property value. Certainly houses adjacent to Maggie's would be devalued which would reflect in the rest of the area as well. Anyone who strongly desires to have a kennel license should locate in an isolated area where her pets have the freedom they need, where they can be kept clean and odorless, where it is not offensive to neighbors. Sincerely, d L i augerud // ?~. ~ . ~i- 3 September 26, 1990 Richfield City Council Richfield City Hall Richfield, MN 55423 It is our understanding that a neighbor of ours, Margaret Lefebvre at 7325 Girard Ave. S., has requested a variance to the kennel ordinance in order that she might keep several dogs at her residence. We are opposed to the granting of this variance. Like the neighbors directly on either side of Ms. Lefebvre's home, we have been disturbed at various times by the barking of some of her dogs. In addition, it is uncomfortable to us to have several dogs so close to our home. We feel that a residential neighborhood such as ours, with small lots, and houses that are built fairly close together, is not the place for a kennel where several dogs will be kept in significantly close confinement. That is a recipe for excessive noise, smell, and potential danger if the dogs get free and roam the neighborhood. Last, but by no means least, is the issue of property values. Granting of the proposed variance could lower property values in this neighborhood. With the current depressed housing market, we don't need another issue to further lower the value of our homes. Again, we are opposed to the granting of the requested variance. Thank you, Ronald L. Bender G "L ~""'v Doris M. Bender 7313 Girard Ave. S. Richfield', MN 55423 ~ ~ L:~~ L ;, -- .7 '~ ~ / ~ ,r ?` •~ tom( (~l~,;L , ~l'~ `' . ~~~ ~j~~~l 4 ~; t-~-~ ~'! ]~,t~ y-•,'--c'. rl.'.~ 73.~j -~.~~ ~G~ Gam: ~~ ~-' ,~ ~~"~ / G ~1 / ` ,.~ ~~. ~ C,,~t {.Z-k_ ~" ft ~l~::C ~"t .~~C./lv;-c~ ,,GG~"~!'2~~ ~L i1~ C'(L,.(il~tcik `,~ ~i ,C.-~c ~lu~- ~.,~ a •.~~-~ ~'Z- 7 c'Z`t~ (,Qf ~u~; -i1.a_ (,c',.£ ~-[ Ct, zc i. Ct ~ ~ ~~ ~~i .~ ~1~,~-~i-t- ./~'Z~2 _~ ~- ~~ , ~~ J~ ,~~,~ ;~~,'7~~~ ~u.~ /~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 260 Agenda October 8, 1990 Issue Statement• Consideration of an application for a residential kennel license for Louise Decker who lives at 3005 West 70 1/2 Street in Richfield. Backcround• On June 4 , 1990, Louise Decker submitted an application for a residential kennel license for two dogs and seven cats. All contiguous property owners signed the application with the exception of the resident living next door at 3009 West 70 1/2 Street. On July 17, 1990, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service Officer. The inspection did not indicate any problems at the time of inspection. However, the Community Service Officer did note that one of the abutting property owners had not signed the petition. The Community Service Officer personally checked with the resident and found that his concerns related to Mrs. Decker using her compost pile to dump animal feces, loose animals and the large number of animals being kept on the property which continue to reproduce. Staff has been previously notified by the neighbor, Bob Smith, of 3009 West 70 1/2 Street of his intention not to sign the petition. Staff received a call on May 16, 1990 from an anonymous source who stated that there were approximately 25 sick cats on the property. An inspection was conducted and it was determined that there were six kittens on the property at that time and the complaint was unfounded. A second call was received by staff on May 22, 1990 concerning unlicensed cats. An inspection was conducted and it was noted that while all cats on the property were individually licensed, Mrs. Decker had not obtained a residential kennel license. Recommended Motion: The application for a residential kennel license be denied. Basis for Recommendation: 1. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping of more than two dogs or cats does not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Mrs. Decker has been unable to do this. 2. Complaints have been received by staff from one contiguous property owner that relates to animals at large, odor from placing animal feces in the compost pile and too many animals for a residential neighborhood. ICl-1 3. A residential kennel license is a privilege to have and it must be proven that the issuance of a residential kennel license will not have an adverse effect on the animal owner's neighbors. This has had an adverse effect on at least one of Mrs. Decker's neighbors, Mr. Bob Smith. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to approve Mrs. Decker's residential. kennel license. This would mean that she could continue to have more than two cats on the property. Discussion/Decision Mode: Recommendation to deny the application for a residential kennel license for Louise Decker, 3005 West 70 1/2 Street is presented for Council consideration at this time. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser Cit anaaer JDP:bac CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA IO-2 Inter-Office Memorandum DATE ~- / - TO ~ 1 1--~ I~ , ~ / FROM M i K(' rT~ 1rC'e~ # 3~ ,~/ nn e SUBJECT 30ds W ~O ~`Z 5-~. lLti'N N tJC ~ CC rlvS~ q.~~tCc.~-dc P ~,.~ f ~ 3 DD9 (~ ~ 7 D `lz S-Frc~". ~~ ~A-S resZcQ ~J,~,~ CON C~ I-JS o~.. ~ ~ ~,~ I ~ ~~ rs~- ~~ r S Comic-e ~' ~~ ~~ -~-~ ~ ~ ~ ` C~.tJ ~ lM ~ S Ct N C~ lj.P c cN. ~~~ as -4~~ ~ ~ ~ ~s v.~ ~ ~ ~ ~©~ ~~ ;~~ ~~o~ -c ~e cis 1 `~' ~ti f ~ ~ rs ~o,v c~e ~~~ ~~ ~ c~ ~ Doti ~ .~rti ~ 1 '~~ ~ ~ Y C,~. ..-- 10-3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Memorandum DATE: June 5,.1990 T0: Betsy Christensen, Health Adminis for FROM: James D. Prosser, City Manager SUBJECT: Commercial Kennel License Appli ation Hob Smith .(3009 West 70th 1/2 Street, TX-(work)934-4242, recently contacted me. Mr. Smith said that a neighbor, Lou Decker (3005 West 70th Street, is circulating a petition for a commercial kennel license. Mr. Decker maintains two dogs and.at least seven cats, although at times the. numbers may differ. Apparently someone recently complained about Mr. Decker and enforcement action was taken. As a result Mr. Decker is seeking a kennel license. Mr. Smith indicates that he and neighbors object to Mr. Decker obtaining a license. At least one neighbor has signed a petition out of fear that Mr. Decker's family would retaliate if they did not sign a petition. I advised Mr. Smith to do the following: -Do not sign the petition -Send letters to the city objecting to the granting of a kennel license with specific reason, i.e, sanitation or animal control. I advised Mr. Smith that we would copy the letters and make the letter part of the record to the Council. I also advised Mr. Smith that we would contact him when the item would be placed on the agenda. My read of the ordinance appears to indicate that a license would be required only in those cases where more than two dogs over six ~ ~ ~ months of age are kept in one place. The ordinance does not ~P ~~ appear to reference cats. How is this currently interpreted. ! `1~~, I advised Mr. Smith to contact you should he have further ~~ questions on the status of the application. JDP:eja ., City of Richfield, Minnesota Council Letter No. 261 Agenda October 8, 1990 Issue Statement• Public hearing on a subdivision waiver for 6315 Dupont Avenue. Background: The Richfield HRA Expanded New Home Program is requesting a subdivision waiver in order to reconfigure the three existing lots at 6315 Dupont Avenue into two buildable lots for single family dwellings. The three existing lots are substandard in lot area and lot width. The two proposed lots would meet City standards for lot area and lot width. These lots would be utilized for the Expanded New Home Program. The property is zoned R-residence district. Single family homes are permitted. The existing substandard home and detached garage would be demolished to allow construction of two new homes valued at approximately $120,000 each. A sideyard setback variance request for proposed Parcel A has been granted by the Hearing Examiner. Recommended Motfon: Approve the subdivision waiver with the following stipulations: 1. That any transfers of the property be consistent with the proposal as submitted and that the original lots no longer be considered buildable lots. 2. That the existing structures be demolished pursuant to City Code. 3. That the abandoned well be capped and sealed pursuant to State law. 4. It be demonstrated that real estate taxes due and payable in 1990 and prior years have been fully paid. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Minimum lot area, width, and depth requirement would be met for both proposed parcels. 2. The single family development proposed is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the zoning map, and the neighborhood. 3. At an informal meeting as well as at the public hearing on the variance, concerns were raised regarding drainage and the fire hydrant location, but there were no objections. 4. Approval of the subdivision waiver will not interfere with the purposes of the platting regulations of Section 500.05. 5. A variance to allow a 15 foot street side sideyard setback for Parcel A was granted by the Hearing Examiner. The street sideyard setback requirement is normally 30 feet. Alternative Recommendation:.. The City Council may deny the subdivision waiver if a finding of fact determines that this proposal would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Monday, October 8, 1990. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of hearing was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the property. Respe submitted, James Prosser City a ager JDP:ds RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBDIVISION WAIVER r r-z WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has been requested to approve a subdivision waiver for the division of certain parcels of land generally located at 6315 Dupont Avenue South, legally described on Attachment One, attached hereto and hereby. made a pert hereof (hereafter the subject property); and WHEREAS, the proposed division of land for which the subdivision waiver is sought is as legally described on Attachment Two, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request .for approval of the subdivision waiver; 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 property legally described on Attachment One is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: a. All future transfer of any of the property described in Attachment One shall be by parcel or parcels described in Attachment Two. b. The platted lots included in the description set forth in Attachment One shall no longer be considered buildable lots. c. The existing structures on the subject property shall be demolished pursuant to City Code and the abandoned well capped and sealed pursuant to state law. d. The applicant shall demonstrate that real estate taxes for the subject property which are due and payable in 1990 and prior years has 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 request of this resolution. ~-3 Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October, 1990. Steven J. Quam, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk I ~-~ ATTACHMENT ONE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Block 4, Lots 8, 9, and 10, "Ray's Lynnhurst 2nd Addition !f- ~ ATTACHMENT TWO PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PARCEL A: That part of Lots 9 and 10, Block 4, RAY'S LYNNHURST 2ND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying west of the following described line: Beginning at the intersection of -the south line of said Lot 9 and a line drawn parallel with and distant 56.00 feet east of the west line of said Lot 10; thence northerly and parallel with said west line a distance of 75.00 feet; thence northwesterly 61.87 feet to a point on the north line of said Lot 10 distant 28.00 feet east of the northwest corner thereof. PARCEL B: Lot 8 and that part of Lots 9 and 10, Block 4, RAY'S LYNNHURST 2ND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota,- lying east of the following described line: Beginning at the intersection of the south line of said Lot 9 and a line drawn parallel with and, distant 56.00 feet east of the west line of said Lot 10; thence northerly and parallel with said west line a distance of 75.00 feet; thence northwesterly 61.87 feet to a point on the north line of said Lot 10 distant 28.00 feet east of the northwest corner thereof. NOTE: Parcel designations are for convenience only and do not constitute an integral part of the parcels described. c ! r W ~O ~ l~ ID Y` ~f Y' Y' r ~ NSIONtli -_- - - -.. ' V N N N N N Y N YI Oi - - ._ s _ t s s • A101131ONOl '_.1... ... s'~'_.t._.--~ ~ ~~-__ ~ ..... M0~1aI0101 !' iAt rt03~ :-- -_ _ _'_~ L. -. _ -,- - - - ~ -- - .~ - +~ -.y ~.~.~ ~- _~ ~:,: iAt IIt.07a Yl fl .__-_-. ~___-- - _ _-- -. --- -. y Y101 Y121 ~~-~~ _~ __ _ -_'_.f __- ._ _- ~ Y1 L1 MOlONIw001f ~^ 1 -_ _~ -.-~~~:-~~-- 1 MOIONIwOp~ YI it ~~- ~~~p 1 - Y/ it Y1 Y1~= ~ A00 ~~„~' ~~'I YI•I Y1 CI _ __-.J``~~'.---//:~~~~~~ /~~1 , 111 CI =_ =J-:--~- I_ YI II ^~~- ~^ YI II Y/ OI ~ - - ^-~~_ YI OI W ==~- lOn~3 i ~ ~ --J-~ 1! lOl1l7 ~1 - -~^~ -~. I OOtaIMa fMw MOB '. .L ~-~~'~ "~~ tMwnlOa ^Yttl i rr1O ONt1N10 ~~• I -~ ~_- ~'•~~ ,~ ONt ~rr0 3M OMtIlYOY -~---~ I''° YIS ~ ~J~-J L Ylf ~1 ~;t• 11 tlf ~I YI• i NO1N110 ~ - -~~~ MOl N11a -1^i ._._ i ~- tY2 -~_-^,~~~- W= ~f -J I `- I fN3A31i Lr _ =J-J~~'- fM3A31i qAt 17110a1A ~~ ~ ~~~-~~'-~~~'~ 'Ut 1>110a1M nnaoutnY i ~~ ,•J~^~~~~~ raontw M1r01A1N7M I I~-~--J--'I =~ ~Y M1~O/11M)M AYMf1~l! i ; ~ ~~. ` ~- ~~1',1~ 4YMf1111 iNtit7lO ,a--+--r•• c c~c r_I _ _ _- •~~~~...~~ - _-' 1Mtft3'1/ 1 ;:Y ~~ ~ M 171YYtN ovllrra I I ~i ~~ U\ ~~~~CJ_~~ ~~ cullrro 3M 71tONl~ ~ ~~;{:: ~:: •'••. ~, \ ~ 1 ')At 71rON11 Nalron• .tri •, ~/~.~.~~J~~rU~~~~~- G walroir 1Nrarf '~ ~~7 ~U~~~~ I ~~I~ ~ ,,~ ~~~ I LMfAYY x.l,Ca __ ~~'~ ~!~~OC~~ ! x.noa ~: ~ wOfr7w3 r Y ,, -+' NOfr)tq P ~.-,-- ~ ortrro lo~orwnw I -J_~-- i~ =J~ ~-' -:- ---- - - _ - --- -- -=~ -' ~ lowrwnw ^~(--'~ I: i~- iOMx Nt001 'I._ i~~~ ~ r _I_~_ JL~.'~J~ ~-~~ ~' 1 M1001 NrOrOw ~~ ~~~~~~~~ •~__~~~ .~~^~. MtfrOw ~.~ '~_J ~' ~ _ J ~` '~ I ~.~' M MO1 w7N aAt MM)O ~i~ ~` ;^I~ L '~.-~~_.~-- i~-.~I ~~ .aAt MM7I O .'~ 1 ~~ MIOIY)MS -.. .. {' .~ - _.__~ _ -_ ~ Mt01Y71K ftwONl - --- _ ~- ~~ _ . _ _ - ~ ~t~....y' ..~ .,. _ _ 11 Ir -~~ -1-~~--~JI iN7aNIA NYMNftM ~~ ~_ '~1 J_- _--_ _ ` { _-_-_ 1' ~ -~_ ~--_- T- ~ "`Ilrr! ~~: .. -~- -j ~i~l'~,+ ... MYMMtr1l _. ~ .rt.::_:=•r_:~+~..-ISM 7At f7kY)x O I~ Z~ N M N h N M M' M M N N N YI M II h M N w I~1 : 2 f - E ~ a L$: ? t t ` f II-~ r ,A W S_J C N r W J U oN V Z ~z W O ~N V °~ ~ZV O Q ~_ Va CROSSTOWN / I-35W ~ ~ _ -~ w,c sr. .. .. ... ... ... ..... .. ~~ ...... ~, ..... ...... ..... .. ~ .~. :.~ ~ ::: :. RICHFIELD LAKE .. ... .... .... .... .... ... .. ono SITE CONTEXT Zoning CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING & ZONING 6315 DUPONT AVEI~JE SOUTH KEY ® C-2 GENEERAL COMMERCIAL ~ R SNGLE FAIRY RESDENCE .•. :• MR-~ TWO FANI~Y,RESOENICE ® PC-Z FLAMED GENERAL COMMERCIAL °o MR-2 THREE 70 17 UNIT RESDENCE ~ ® pMR FLAMED MA,TI•FAI~v RESDENCE • • MR-$ ovER t; uWIT RES~EMCE N COMMENTS: ~~~~~~ 0 200 400 600 800 1000 SCALE FEET SITE CONTEXT Land Use CITY Of RICHFIELD PLANNING & ZONING 6315 DllPONT ~1/Et~JE SQl1TH KEY oo~RaA~ • • MrxE~ ~~-r~ usE APARTMENT ''4MMENTS: •:•: ~ DI~L.EX Q ~ Q SNGLE FAA~Y RESDENCE PAF~IC N 0 200 400 600 800 tooo SCALE FEET CROSSTOWN / h35W ~ ~_ c~ sr. °° ,~ ,° O ° o,° °o° o ~ ~o° °° p°°,° 0 00 ° o0 0°o e ~ O s ° °° 'r • °o°O oe°O ° p° °° ,c°o pco o •~, 00 00 h ^ 1 0p00 Op000 w 9 0 0 0 000 "~'!' ~, 00 O 00 00 00 0 00 00c ~ O O O O O O~ ~~yy-~). q~^~ O O O O O O O ~ ^•A.~ ~ 7^ ~• w ~ ~~' , ~ ~ ' ^~ ~ O O O O O 0000 ~ 3 O O R1°'• ~~ ~• ^^w~~? °0 00 00 LA ~-~; ~~ ; ^ ~ •~;,• ~•~:"7~ ~~ .. 0 00 00 000° o°o° ' w~ , w ,; 000 N RI~~ ~.~ ~'w ^~• 0 000000 0000 ,"~_f .• ~ ~~ : ti ~ . w 000000 0000 ~ j ~ .•..• "J ~'~ a 1 O TTT ~w + rK n n n nOn ~~.+(~rw• 1:i~~~w SITE CONTEXT Comprehensive Development Plan CITY Of RICHFIELD PLANNING & ZONING 6315 DUPOHT AVEI~JE SOUTH ~.~ cENTRAI eus~ss asT~acr ~ acs a o~Er, s~acE °°° Y ® ~T~E ~s~oENCE Q ~ sr~a.E Fau~Y RESOENCE N ''OMMENTS: ~~~~~~~~ 0 200 400 600 800 1000 SCALE FEET i 3s' ~ Ex ~sr,rv~ ~ ~-lC~ NOME. ~--- -- - ~_ - /~ w 0~ n - V vi 2 a 0 a ~ ExisTi~~ ~ ~o~f 1 ~---~--- r, ~~ o ,o EXISTING SITE PLAN N 6315 DUPONT AVENUE SOUTH ~' CONCRETE ALLEY ~ ~,-~ i 35' I FX l~'T'!NG ~I O M E L-- --- ~ - - - - ~ .CONCRETE ALLEY -- ,~B-o~- -- I 76/6 ~ Sp ~~ `~ `~~ \ ~ ~OT ~~ ~ 1 1 s . . ~~ 7~0' ,~OT ~~ ~ ~~~i 6T68~`Sv~T b O :?Z' Z, 1 ~~ , ~~~ j i ,~ 1 ~ •~ r ~Q } ,~ ~ ~,, ~• ~.~~ ~,..; , v ~Z9 ~ ~ fX/ST/N4 I ~0•+/E 1---- --- ,~. __ o ~ ~ .~ b`" PROPOSED SITE PLAN N 6315 DIJPONT AVENUE SOUTH I ~-~~ ^a~^ ^^^~i ^^r~n ~ ~ ^ni i-i a ^^^^ W ^^C^ W ^r~ci^ ~ ^n^^ 0 J 1I m oooll Z 0 ac a e //-/ 3 Z O Q W J W Z J m H Z ^oo^ ^~oo ^CJDCI ^DOC~ ^I~^CI OUCICI aar~^ ^L~LI^ ^~~ a ~r c~ ~~ {~Dn e~ e m oWC