Loading...
09-24-90 agenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 233 Agenda September 24, 1990 Issue Statement• Presentation Regarding 4th of July Children's Poetry Contest Background• Each year the Fourth of July Committee sponsors a poetry contest for elementary students in grades three through six. Mr. David Hook has requested an opportunity to present .information about the contest to the city council. He also hopes to have some of the contest winners present at the meeting. Recommendation• Accept Mr. Hook's presentation and recognize the children who are present. Basis for Recommendation: 1. This is an important and meaningful part of the 4th of July celebration. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Schedule the presentation for some other council meeting. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been scheduled under the Presentation Section of the September 24, 1990 council agenda. Respectfully submitted, ;. I i~ James;' D. Prosser City Manager JDP/e~ a yc CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 234 Agenda September 24, 1990 Issue Statement• Request for variance to the retaining wall setback provisions. Background• Dwight Exstrom, 7544 Elliot, wishes to construct a retaining wall on the sideyard of his property. This is a corner lot, and the sideyard abuts 76th Street. The wall will vary in height from 15" to 18", and will be constructed of interlocking cement blocks. Mr. Exstrom wishes to construct the wall on public property immediately adjacent to the sidewalk so that it will not affect a tree. The attached 'Ordinance 510.25 Subd. 4 states that walls must be set back three feet .from the property line or, with a city manager exemption, three feet from a city sidewalk. In this case the sidewalk is 2.33' from the property line. Subd. 8 allows fences, walls and hedges that were in place on March 20, 1982 to be "grandfathered in." The purpose of this ordinance is to allow sufficient snow storage and space for the sidewalk plows. ~" Recommended Motion: Approve the construction of.a the sidewalk in the sideyard Exstrom signs.a right-of-way attorney. ~~ cement retaining wall one foot from of 7544 Elliot Avenue providing Mr. use agreement drafted by the city Basis of Recommendation: 1. To allow for saving his tree; placing the wall further back would necessitate the removal of a tree from his yard. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not grant the request, because the wall will be placed on public land for private use, thus establishing a precedent. The council could allow the construction of the wall on private property and reduce the setback from 3 to 2.3 feet. Mr. Exstrom believes that this will jeopardize his tree and driveway. 2. The council could allow the wall to be constructed adjacent to the sidewalk. This would cause severe difficulty and increased cost in plowing the walk, as well as a high potential for damage to the wall. yC-/ Discussion/Decision Mode: Mr. Exstrom would like to complete this project as soon as possible. The item is placed on the Consent Calendar for council consideration on September 24, 1990. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser City Manager JDP:ds pro CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 235 Agenda September 24, 1990 Issue Statement• Council authorization to extend Contract No. A09689 with Hennepin County to allow continued access to property information, system. Backcrround Since September 19, 1978, Hennepin County and .the City have had a contractual agreement which provides the City with access to the County's real estate tax information. From 1978 through October, 1989, the City had access to the County's real estate data via a leased Hennepin County .data terminal and printer. In November, 1990, City Council approved the purchase of the Hennepin County data terminal, software and printer when the County announced that it was getting out of the leasing business. After purchase of that equipment, the City entered into Contract No. A09689 with Hennepin County to provide continued access to the County data with the City's owned equipment. That contract has provided the City with a very economical way to access Hennepin County real estate data. The contract is not automatically renewable and-must be renewed each year by the City and County. The City has now received information from Hennepin County announcing the fees for the contract year 1991 and is asking if the City is interested in renewing. The Council action here would be to take advantage of that renewal. Recommended Motion: Authorize the City Manager to extend Contract No. A09689 with Hennepin County for access to the property information system for the period beginning January 1, 1991 and ending December 31, 1991. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The current contract with Hennepin County expires as of December 31, 1990. 2. The contract is a necessary part of the City of Richfield's ability to deliver property data to the public through the on-line connection to Hennepin County records. 3. The County has announced that enquiry fees will be charged at the rate of 5.0221 per transaction, which is a reduction from $.0283 charged in 1990. The network support charge will be at 548.00 per month for the one workstation, which is an increase of $1.00 per month from the previous year, and the telephone line charge will remain at $74.60 per month. 4. The contract with Hennepin County is a very economical way for the City to provide this data to the public. ~-1~~-i Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City could elect not to renew this contract with Hennepin County. However, if this contract is not renewed, the City would lose its on-line access to County property tax records, leaving the City's Assessing Division a very ineffective function. Discussion/Decision Mode: Action on this item needs to be taken sometime prior to the end of 1990. However, since City staff finds no problem with the arrangement proposed by Hennepin County, it is preferred that the agreement be signed and returned to Hennepin County as soon as possible. Res a fully Submitted, Ja a D. Prosser Ci Manager JDP:tlm RECEIVED ",JG 3 1 199D ~~-z INFORMATION SERVICES ADMINISTI?ATION HENNEPIN A-015 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 0005 August 29, 1990 City of Richfield Steve. Devich, City Manager 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Devich: Hennepin County intends to extend Contract No. A09689 through the year 1991. Attached is an updated Exhibit A which includes rates for 1991. The changes to Exhibit A include the file inquiry fee which will be charged at $.0221 per transaction from $.0283. The connection charge, now referred to as the network support charge, in section III will remain at $48.00 per workstation and the phone line charge will be $74.60 but will be adjusted accordingly to new rate increases/decreases, section IV. These rates will go into effect as of January 1, 1991 and remain in effect through December 31, 1991. Please call my office at 348-3234 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Robert L. Hanson Director, Information Services Department Q~ Please indicate below your intention to extend or not to extend this contract through the year 1991 and return this document to us. It is © is not ^ our intention to extend this contract through the year 1991. Signature Date cc: jean Myers Chuck Krueger HENNEPIN COUNTY an.¢quol opportunity ¢mploy¢r 40-3 EXHIBIT A TO CONTRACT NO. A09689 City of Richfield 1991 I. COUNTY will provide inquiry-only access to the following information systems: Property Information System: Access to this system will permit viewing of current real estate tax information, including legal descriptions, valuations, special assessments and other public data retained in the Property Information Systems. II. Usage Charge A File Inquiry fee of $.0221 per transaction will be charged monthly for each inquiry to the system. III. Network Support Charge The USER will be charged $48.00 monthly for one workstation connected to Hennepin County's teleprocessing network. The USER will be charged an additional $48.00 monthly for each additional workstation connected to Hennepin County's teleprocessing network. I V . Telephone Line Charge The USER will be charged the monthly cost of the telephone line. The current charge is $74.60 but, will be adjusted accordingly to new rate increases/decreases. Charges relating to~ the de-installation of telephone lines may be included in a monthly billing or included in a separate billing. August 29,1990 4E CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 236 Agenda September 24, 1990 Issue Statement• Renewal of a contract for computer hardware maintenance with Financial Products Corporation for 1991. Backcrround The City contracts with outside vendors for the maintenance of its computer system hardware. During the fall of 1987 the City requested bids from several vendors for this service. Based on the proposals submitted, the Council awarded the 1988 contract to Financial Products Corporation (FPC), the low bidder. The Council subsequently authorized renewal of the contract for the calendar years 1989 .and 1990. From time to time the City has modified the contract by adding and deleting pieces of equipment. The computer system has grown significantly since 1988. Therefore, the cost of the contract has risen from $20,000 in 1988 to $33,000 in 1989 and to $39,000 at the present time. All changes to the dollar value of the contract ure due to equipment modifications made by the City. In their 1987 bid, FPC promised to hold to their bid prices for three years through the end of 1990. We have received written notification that they will extend this price .guarantee for an additional year. -The City has received outstanding service from FPC and staff recommends that their contract be renewed. Staff consulted with the City Attorney's office regarding whether it would be proper to renew this contract for an additional year without opening it to public bidding. Their response was that there is sufficient authority to renew the contract for 1991. They. further recommend that the contract be bid for fiscal year 1992. Staff has reviewed the computer equipment that is covered by the maintenance contract. By February of 1991, a portion of it will be five years old and fully depreciated. In the quickly changing world of computer technology,. this equipment is old and its trade-in value is less than the annual cost to maintain it. We will therefore be eliminating this equipment from the maintenance contract. This will drop the cost of the maintenance contract to approximately $33,500. When this old equipment breaks down we will replace it with new equipment rather than have it repaired. The new equipment will then be added to the maintenance agreement. This plan has been incorporated into the proposed 1991 budget for the Data Processing division. Recommended Motion: That the City Manager be authorized to renew the City's contract with Financial Products Corporation for computer hardware maintenance for the period from January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1991. yE-J Basis for Recommendation: 1. .FPC has provided very competent and prompt service to the City during the past three years. This high level of service is critical because of the dependence of staff on their computer equipment. 2. FPC provides related services to the City which are not specifically provided for in the maintenance contract. These are provided at no charge and save the City staff time and consulting fees. For example, earlier this year we experienced some problems related to our computer cabling. FPC provided several hours of assistance to staff in resolving the problems, even though cabling is not covered in the maintenance contract. 3. FPC rates continue to be very competitive. In 1988 and in 1989 we requested bids for equipment purchases from equipment vendors. Maintenance for the equipment was included on the. bids both years. FPC's maintenance costs for this new equipment was below what the bidders proposed. 4. The proposed 1991 Data Processing budget has $40,000 set aside for this equipment maintenance contract. The contract will be renewed at $33,500 and .will increase as old equipment is replaced. Alternative Recommendations: The Council could .direct staff to request bids for the maintenance contract this year. Discussion/Decision Mode: Council action to renew the FPC maintenance contract is requested at the September 24 meeting. ly submitted, Jam D. Prosser City anager JDP:ds ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 237 Agenda September 24, 1990 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of 55,000 for-trees at the Rich Acres Golf Course. 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. Staff proposes that the Rich Acres Golf Course purchase 33 trees for placement on the golf course. The trees will consist of 20 (5"-6" diameter) shade trees and 15 (14'-18' height) evergreens to be installed, guaranteed, and staked. They will be used to replace drought-stricken trees, and to enhance the playability and aesthetics of the Rich Acres Golf Course. The following quotes were submitted: Bachmans - Shade: ash - 5"D - $705 Evergreen: red pine - 14'H - 5412.50 spruce - 14'H - $587.50 Wilson Nursery - Shade: ash - 5"D - 5425 Evergreen: norway pine - 14'H - $425 spruce - 12'H - 5495 Noble Nursery - Shade: maple 5"D - 5396 ash 5"D - 5405 Evergreen: norway - pine 15'H - 5245 spruce - 15'H - 5378 Noble Nursery has the best price per tree. Staff recommends purchasing 10 maples, 10 ash, 5 norway and 10 spruce from them for a total purchase price of $14,240. Recommendation• Approve the purchase of trees and evergreens from Noble Nursery in the amount of 514,240. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Landscaping would enhance the Rich Acres Golf Course. 2. Noble Nursery had the best price on trees. 3. There are sufficient funds available in the golf course enterprise fund to cover this purchase. 4 F-1 Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could choose to continue with the present conditions at Rich Acres. 2. The Council could select another supplier, although they are more expensive. 3. The Council could direct staff to look for alternatives although staff has spent considerable time and feels that this is the best price available. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the September 24, 1990 regular City Council meeting. Staff is asking for approval at this time in order to make a timely purchase so that trees can be planted in October. Respe lly submitted, Jame Prosser Cit naaer JDP/sdr ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 238 Agenda September 24, 1990 Issue Statement• Authorization to execute 1990 (Year XVI) Urban Hennepin County Community Block Grant (CDBG) Third Party Agreements. Background: HUD policy requires specific third party agreements between subgrantees and grantees. The Third Party Agreements spell out. the procedures to be followed when expending the CDBG funds which formalize on paper the procedures which have been followed during the last several years by staff. The Third Party Agreements have been prepared by Hennepin County and must be executed before Hennepin County will disperse any Year XVI CDBG funds. The Third Party Agreements. to be executed are: 1. Agreement between the City and HRA for: a. The Deferred Rehabilitation Loan Program b. The Scattered Site Housing (New Home) Program 2. Agreement between the City and South Hennepin Human Services Council for the G.M.D.C.A. (Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association) Program 3. Agreement between the City and the Senior Community Services for the H.O.M.E. Program Recommended Motion: Authorize execution of all Year XVI Urban Hennepin County CDBG Third Party Agreements for: • Deferred Rehabilitation Loan Program • Scattered Site Housing Program • Greater Minneapolis Day Care Program • H.O.M.E. Program Basfs of Recommendation: The Year XVI CDBG Program has previously been approved by the City Council.. The HRA, South Hennepin Human Services and Senior Community Service have executed the agreements. The Third Party. Agreements would allow Hennepin County to disperse the funds. Alternative Recommendation: Refuse to authorize the Agreements. ~-{ Cs-1 Discussion/Decision Mode: The Agreements must be acted upon at the September 24, 1990 meeting to meet Hennepin County processing deadlines. Respe ly submitted, Jame Prosser City nager JDP:ds yN City of Richfield, Minnesota Council Letter No. 239 Agenda September 24, 1990 Issue Statement• Request for an amendment of the existing offstreet parking permit at 6521 Cedar Avenue. Backaround• Applicant Dr. Luanne M. Wendland with Animal Care Clinic has requested an amendment of the existing offstreet. parking .permit. The Clinic has outgrown the existing building and needs a second floor addition to accommodate the clinic's business. This addition requires the clinic to increase the number of offstreet parking spaces from 8 to 16, which will be provided as indicated on the attached site plan. This property is zoned C-2, general commercial. Animal care facilities 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 a handicap ramp be constructed adjacent to the building's south wall to provide access for the handicapped. 2. That City engineering requirements for drainage be met. 3. That Cedar Avenue curb cut be increased to 26 feet and $-618 curbing be added to the perimeter of the property as needed. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has provided for the necessary parking. 2. Issuance of this amendment should not adversely impact the surrounding properties. 3. Curbing is necessary to contain and direct stormwater. 4. Concern over stormwater control in all parking lots. 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. y H-1 Discussion./Decision Mode: Consideration of this item is scheduled at 7:00 P.M. on September. 24, 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. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City Manager JDP:ds --~, ... ::.u• r ~ -~ Z~ Z (~ Z~ n T N rn ~ r Z~ ^Z L J N C D r m ` ^ N rn ~ -.a Z~ r n a 0 N rn v m rn 0 C Z ~ .wi y ~ 0 XERX[S avE s.._ .-_-j -_ _ s w•SNSURN ~o~ti,'`~' ~ -- -- ~ _ ~•---+~-•~~y•~ _ _. ""[' XERxES avE VINCENT I~~..~•-~L-~` /I' ~_ _.~~ ~ _ _ - ~ ~~_r -_.I wa5N5uRN LIPTON 'L-__:-_'I__.rL~t 1~ ~ L-~„~`~~~'1~~_ __. - c~ VINCENT I~~ _ J - uPTON TNOYaS RU SSEII (~ i ~i ~_`-_ _ L_ '_-_ _ ~~F-~~r ^~,`J~ - --- ~~ SNE RIDRN I ~ l ~~- [ RUSSELL OVEEN I. ~ ~I ,L.T .:1 ~.` ^ ~_ ~_ ~~~~n ~~,Ir~i-----_-. -ENM avE. ""~'____`._=1~ '_~~_ _ __~.__~C-`^`^'~;_J~ ~I !~: OUEEN -~ C PENN aVE 1'. -^~` rte. _~~'_--_~.-___L; _ _-:~~. OUVER NEM TON L/ ` ~ ._, r` -_ _ ._ J~ -^~~~ ~`!1 YORGaM .~.~~I.~J ~ __- ~`r"--- r-=;--. ~I '~ r'-^,^r--^, I'_'., NEwTOM LOGaN it !- ;~~~ ~L_~^`_ _~-_;__L-.rF/~.~"J_L_~i YORG•N JaYES •~~ I~ t-^ ~~-~I ~'~- ~r II =^~~~I ~'' RMOX I'. C~ .:-_~ •r~ -~' !if--1•- ~^J^- JAMES (RUING n L\. II •Y-~.. _-_._.:__-~_~L-~`_rJ~~~Jt__~ _.~.1 _~ `_ j~ "-- ~ r- -- IRVING NUM50lDT ,=j-- -_3S1f____ '~-_~_~-~'L_.,y.w[ -_ ~~_~`_,`~^ `_•~ U 50L0T r7[ENOMT I 1~__;I`~'`^/~~; ~a ~s~~~~~yy~, WRa RD EYERSOM `~_._ IUr-,~~~\.~~ YL~'~.~L~ _-~t~_'=~ a'1: iAENWT ouPO«t ~ •-~~~~._.~~ ~. ~ c ~ a-`w \~ !~ EMERSON CoLrax ''~- -^-=^~~--Ij~n ~~ '" 0 ~ `s~ ~ ~~~" CuoowT +q ^: ~RraMT II! 1~'~J~ -__~i_v •~~ ~\~p.S ~ ~ T- toLfax aIORICN I~-,i~^-~^-~^I~~_ ~~~.•/// '~ ^ e = , SRraNT GaI1ilELD I~[/,~ I_~-•~ ~ •,\ ~^~[ LrNO•LE avE NaRRIET ,~`, =~ r 18TH AVE. ~ ~`,-,, I GaRrIELo GRaNO ~I~~ ppfl ~^jr----^'~1:` NaRRIET r- = ~ ~ _~_`_~„I 6RaND PIEaSaNT Olr._.3^=': I„~= -_ -~~ _ ~ ~~t PIEaSaNT hlLSSURr ~'I^_~~ ~ ' _ ~,= III PILL55URr MENTO'ORTN ~-=~ 1 I ''I~ RaISOEIL ~I\ ~~ =~~ I I ~ •ENTWORTN \~_ CEDAR AVE. ~ ~ , I ~LaISDEIL NICOILET avE. k -- "' ~~~- ~~' '~ NICOIIET avE Itl ~ ~ I ,~ Itl fTEYENS ~, .'~1 II' STEVENS :.• I._.~ ~I :R. I -'` T.H. 77 '''~ a.. '--J _.~^-.. CLINTON •._. ~ W V ••~ '•• ~`_.~ '~ CLINTON .[. r- 51R -~': Srll PORTLaMO avE. ~"--~~t~-•--~~ _ jJ Oal[I AND ''r-~~ul~_- .': •:::•: ~ ~ PORTLAND aVE -aRX ~~;! JLJ~~~ .: • ~ JUL. ; '; wKLaNo "',' L_1~OL__ 19TH AVE. ...•. ~; 3' L. ~~ PARK CNICaGO 1, ~I ~:.-_I~i~L~.__ ~••' •.... ...;{.::}:~~.•~..•~.:.'1 r n 1 COIVMWS •.~~.~:':.•::: :• I::::::: ELl10T 1I [N I~~ ~CC~~-=~); - ,~ ,::::: ~ --, ;I to [. J _.~~~I:~ It [K 15 [e ~ IOC-::=_CI. ''"''"?•_ ~~ SLOOYINGTON 1 -- ~~^~,~~-~'.^ ud :•::::,: -fir-~M NINGTON y'' _ ~I ~ I ..~ - I [a 1. 999 ~: ~ ~~_ _~~ ~_~~ I~.~ - L1~ CEOaR avE ~•`-~-~~ ^^ _~_+-~~- -_-.` IL-%`-~~ ~u~_ ~ ,~ CEDAR avE LOMGFELIOw '- -_'_'_An_-----•- -___-`:.- _~ ~ -'_Ty -- - - - - _ _ _ _ ___ -' LOMGiEIIOw . ` it i _ s c - i - - ~~~' - tol. I„= 1 cr :. t1.1 ' ~~-- STa NDISN ~ r ~~'- 2S rP _.r _ _ . w ~ w w °' V i N s s ~ ~ i .. ~ 1"' '~. 7 l.._.1._J W L_1 ~1~.~1J t_.m.~Y~tl t~l ~ W Q o ~.i 1 a ~ O ui > ti w > z > Q ti 3 W > ~ NEW ~ a a ¢ a --- a a FORD p ~ ^ ~ o = 9 s --- ? ~i TOWN ~ tD o U F.. ~i ~ o SARK 65TH ST. ~ ~ a J ---- --~ ~> } ~ ^ c. 66TH ST. .,~ , ....... •... ., ~ h ~ r . ~~. ~ •~ 67 HST. 67TH ST. 1 r'f°7 f"'"T"'1 T .. SITE CONTEXT Zoning CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING & ZONING 6521 CEDAR AVENUE SOUTH KEY ~ trDl1STRIAI °o°o°o° MR-Z THREE TO 17 UI~UT RESDENCE C-2 GENERAL COI~AMERCIAL ~ R SINGLE FAMILY RESDENCE MR MULT{-FAMILY RESDENCE Q ® PC-2 PLANNED GENERAL COMMERGAL •:::• MR-1 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE N rOMMENTS: ~t ~ ~^~ ~~ ~~~~ 0 20o aoo 600 800 ~ooo SCALE FEET ~~m N y • W yj > > Q Q P ~~~ C N ____ ~LU Q - 'Z - (y"'~d Z W. 66TH ST. SITE CONTEXT Land Use CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING & ZONING 6521 CEDAR AVENUE SOUTH KEY ® COMMERCIAL APARTMENT DUPLEX "'~7MMENTS: UN-y eaT v; W Q y y N H .. w < W Q W "~ Q ~ Q D U C W 65TH ST. Q SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ® QUASI-PUBLIC Q VACANT N 0 20o aoo soo Sao tooo SCALE FEET ~ ~ ~ L_..L_J W .•. .. ~ C~ 64TH ST. • .• •. • .• Q ••' • • Z ^ • • ^ • u.i ~ • • Q > ~ j i tit T tL , ; N r '~ • • O • • ~ i}7 Via,' 65TH ST. U .•. • -- --- • ^ .^ ^. .. ~ .. Q .. • ; •• •• O •• ° o 66TH ST. ~ ~Y^~Y •' ~ mil' ~ ~ ,oooo °o~c~ °o°o° o o°0 0 0 0 °o°o° t •,.`, c r y ~ :`: o e o c • L• • • •. C`.= C:1"•~. r-1^r c.. rt~~!•1~ t{ t`'`~('d . ••••^•••• r• fir, if...~!} ~~I~C'.'i.rr{~'. f•.ril~~.~ • • • • n.rr~• .4. /'q.- ~ rn ~--T-~ 67TH ST •••••i ^• !'r''(+~Cr iYi_. r^r'1,:: •.•l. t+{f *:;e~.rf•" ~ ~~ SITE CONTEXT Comprehensive Development Plan CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING & ZONING 6521 CEDAR AVENUE SOUTH KEY ••• MIXED LAND USE o °°°° MEDIUM DENSITY BUFFER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE COMMENTS: INSTITUTION PARKS & OPEN SPACE Q N 0 200 400 600 800 1000 SCALE FEET (~ v , N ~ ..i ~ n Q rn~ vo n~ ~rn ~v J rn- Z ~ c r" m -,o ~r o~ ~z O o o v m x D f~ m G Z N 6- 0 0 N O T C N v "' Z a ~ m-, a . 0 0 <- N '. ~,,~ C ~ A O =J1'i '1 Z~ CEDAR AVENUE - --~- PROPERTY LNE CURB ~ CHAIN LMNC FENCE T.H. 77 N rn O rn ~ v ~ m ~ z ~ v ~ rn _.. m o z N m --~ m ~ O ~ C ~ o ~ -,~ r O 1 ~ ~ m N D ~~ 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ s b m n m~ I N ~ ~ m~ . v ,, ~~ O C 1.. ~: ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 T ~"~ ~ ~ CEDAR AVENUE ~-{ N -7 - - - ~-- eo~ - ~ ~ 26'-0` 25.0' ~_ ~ A PROPE Y LM+IE ~ ~ 1 ROCK MIN.CH ~ ~ n i CONCRETE CUFiH I ~ ~- ~ ' ~ ~ m m ~ m ~~ N n D T N j \~ x ; • ~.~, ~ ~a ~w ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ N I, is ,~ ~~ I~ '~ t ~~I N~I T ~ Di ~ ~I II i ~-- 'I ALLEY axis a CHAN LNC FENCE T.H. 77 ~ PROPERTY LNE ~ - - - - I PROPOSED Ct~iB c ~~ oox N Z=Z ~ m~ :~ N D ~ ~; o°~ ~ ~ ~ +'. mZ0 D -1~ ~~_ ~. ~ mm '° -~ :`j •t m v z s' mD r ~~ -~ n pD -a mm ZA ~? S~ r , F~*~ ,~.~ ~ ~_ _, _ .~ n v ~' rn ~ D ~ rn O C 0 rn ~ C O ~DX m ~ in ~ZZ ~~~ o °~ mn~ pmtZi~ CD= =Z~ mom -~ pmt ~ m ~m C ~ t" N m z~ -~'i ~ _ y H-8 O ' .,i~ ' A~ O= } S Z ~1 .. , ' ~ Q f ~ .~ •" ~ , 1 ~ T m - ~ ~ ~ _ :.: ~ C , ~ . `; ~, - ~ v ~~ t' + '•f . o~ +~~~'~ _ ~~ ~%,t`r ~~;: ~ z "•j~~s O D ~ ,. ~~ ~' _ . ~ it ~ N -~ - , 5~~.: ~~' ~ y. ~ f - f . ~ ~ f -y~ L.. ~, .~'- • ~ -~ ._ ,:, S r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 240 Agenda September 24, 1990 Issue Statement• Public hearing regarding the issuance of multifamily housing revenue refunding bonds for the Market Plaza Housing Development. Bachround Market Plaza .and its related apartments are significant developments in the LHN redevelopment project. As a part of the development contract involving the HRA and City, a multifamily housing revenue bond was provided to the developer, Market Plaza Housing Limited Partnership in 1985. The bonds amounted to $8,250,000. This financing permitted the construction of the 162 apartment units at 6501 Woodlake Drive (66th Street and Lyndale Avenue). The bonds were structured with a mandatory remarketing and refunding feature for 1990. The developer desires to complete the refunding with tax exempt bonds due to the lower interest rate in comparison with market rates. However, at this time, the developer is still negotiating the transaction which in size will approximate the original issue amount. Once the transaction is negotiated, it will be important to close the financing as quickly as possible. Federal tax law requires a ~ 14 day notice of public hearing. The city's bond counsel has expressed the desire to hold the public hearing at the September 24th Council meeting. The public will then be aware of the refunding and will have been afforded an opportunity to make any comments they wish regarding the apartments and the financing. It is important to note that at a future Council meeting, a resolution will be presented for consideration and adoption. The tax exempt financing cannot be provided without the adoption of an appropriate resolution. For purposes of the public hearing, it is necessary only for the Council to open the hearing, receive comments from the public for the record and close the hearing. Recommended Action: Convene the public hearing regarding the issuance of multifamily refunding bonds for the Market Plaza housing development, take testimony from the public and close the hearing. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The notice of public hearing was published in the Sun-Current on September 5, 1990. 2. The testimony will become part of the record and may be considered by the Council at the time they are requested to adopt a resolution providing the tax-exempt financing. 3. Continued availability of tax exempt financing will be advantageous for the development. ~~ Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not hold a public hearing and deny use of tax exempt financing. 2. Delay the public hearing until a future date. Discussion/Decision Mode: Once the developer negotiates the .financing, less time will be needed before the closing can be scheduled because the hearing. will have been completed. Respe~tf~fl~.y Submitted, Jame D Prosser City pager JDP 6 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 241 Agenda September 24, 1990 Issue Statement• Public hearing and adoption of resolution related to the issuance of Commercial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds for The S & M Company (Lyndale Hardware Company). BackQround• The S & M Company owns Lyndale Hardware. In 1980, the City and HRA entered into a contract with the S & M Company. The contract called for an extensive upgrading of Lyndale Hardware and the sale of property to increase the amount of offstreet parking. As part of the agreement, a commercial revenue bond was provided to S & M to help finance the project (prior to tax law restrictions beginning in 1986, tax exempt revenue bond financing was used extensively in Richfield especially as a tool to encourage redevelopment). Bonds in the amount of $1.5 million were provided. Tax exempt bonds provided funds at a below market interest rate. However, 1980 was a time of relatively high interest rates. The bonds were sold at a rate above 11$. A refunding issuance is advantageous for two reasons; the structure of the 1980 bond sale, and, the current lower rates of interest. A rate of approximately 9$ is anticipated on a reissue amount of $1,115,000. Recommended Action: Hold the public hearing and consider the adoption of the attached resolution which authorizes the refunding bond issue in the amount of $1,115,000. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The bonds do not constitute a debt or liability to the city. 2. The applicant has paid the $2,500 non-refundable fee required by existing policy. 3. The reissue will reduce debt costs for Lyndale Hardware. 4. The notice of public hearing was published in the Sun-Current on September 5, 1990. 5. Lyndale Hardware carried out all of their obligations under the Contract for upgrading as a Certificate of Completion was issued in July, 1982. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay adoption of the resolution. 2. Refuse to adopt the resolution. 6-i Discussion/Decision Mode: The transaction is scheduled to close on September 28, 1990. Respectfully submitted, i J James' Prosser City Manager JDP:ds 6-2 RESOLUTION of the CITY OF KICNFIELD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T"HE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA (THE "ISSUER") AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF THE LSSUER'S COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (THE S ~C M COMPANY PROJECT - LYNDALE HARDk'ARD CO., LESSEE) SERIES 1990 (THE "BONDS"), WHICH BONDS AND THE INTEREST AND ANY PREMIUM THEREON SHALL BE PAYABLE SOLELY FROM REVENUES PLEDGED THERETO; APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OP A TRUST INDENTURE, A LOAN AGREEMENT, AND A BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT; APPROVING THE USE OF AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT; APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE SECURITY, RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF THE OWNERS OP SAID BONDS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "Issuer") is a home rule City duty organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, particularly Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.1831, as amended (the "Act"), the Issuer is authorized to carry out the public purposes described therein and contemplated thereby by issuing its revenue bonds to finance the ooat of the acquisition, renovation, construction, fmprovinQ and equipping of certain revenue producing facilities to be located within its corporate boundaries, and is authorized to enter into revenue .agreements made in connection therewith and pledge hose agreements as security for the payment of the principal of and interest on any such revenue bonds; and • WHEREAS, the Issuer has previously issued its;1,300,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (The S ac M Company Projeot - Lyndale Hardware Co., Lessee) Series 1980 (thc "Prior Bonds"); and WHEREAS, the Issuer loaned the proceeds of the Prior Bonds to The 6 do M Company, a Minnesota corporation (the "Company") for the propose of acquiring, improving and expanding a commercial facility within the corporate boundaries of the Issuer (th! "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Company has requested the Issuer to issue lta Commeroial Development Revenue AefundinQ Bonds (The S do M Company Projeei - Lyndale Hardware Co., Lessee) Series 1990 in an agKregate principal amount of not to exceed ;1,115,000 (the "Bonds^) to provide for the funding of a loan (the *Loan") to the Company for the purpose of refunding and redeeming the Prior Bonds] and 1 ~'3 w'HF.REAS, the Loan will be made pursuant to the terms of a Loan Agreement dated e~ of September 15, 1890 (the "Loan Agreement") between the Ls~uer and the Company; and k*HEREAS, the Issuer proposes to finance. the refunding and redemption of the. Prior Bond, under the Aet by the issuance of the Bonds of the Lssuer under this resolution; and H'HEREAS, the Bonds will be i3sued under a Trust Indenture dated as of September 15, 1990 (the 'Indenture") between the Issuer end National City Bank of T~4inneapolis (the "Trustee"), end are to be secured by a pledge and assignment of certain revenues, all in accordance with the terms of the Indenture, and said Bondi and the interest on said Bonds shall be payable solely from the revenues pledged therefor and the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the Issuer within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation or constitute or give rise to a pecuniary liability of the Issuer or a charge against. its general credit or taxing powers. and shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the Issuer other than the Lssuer's interest in the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, $E IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Issuer acknowledges, finds, determines, and Qeclareb that the refunding and redemption of the Prior Bonds, the proceeds of which were used to acquire, improve and expand the Project, furthers Lhc purposes of the Aei, including the promotion of industry and commerce through governmental action for the purpose of preventing the emergence of blighted and marginal lands. 2. For the purposes set forth above, there is hereby authorized the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds in a principal amount of not to exceed 51,115,000. The Bonds shall be numbered, shall be dated, shall bear interest, shall maturs, shall be . subject to redemption prior to maturity, shall be in such form, and shall have ouch other details and provisions ss arc prescribed in the Indenture in the form now on file with the Issuer.. S. The Bonds atoll be special obligations of the Issuer payable solely from the revenues provided pursuant to the Loan Agreement, and other funds pledged pursuant to the Indenture. The City Council of the Issuer hereby authorizes and directc the 1rlayor and the City Manager of the Issuer (together, the "OifieiaLs") to execute and deliver the Indenture by and between the Issuer and the Trustee, and to deliver to said Trustee the Indenture, and hereby authorizes and directs the execution of the Bonds in a~cordanee with the Indenture, and hereby provides that the Indenture shall provide the ternla and conditions, covenants, rights, obligations, duties and agreements of the bondowners, the Issuer and the Trustee as set forth therein. All of the provisions of the Indenture, when executed as authorized herein, shall be in full force and effect fro;n the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Indenture shall be substantially in the form on file with the Lssuer, with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the City Manager, in his QLcretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the City Manager shall be oonclusive .tvidence of such determination. 2 hr~ - q, The Officiels are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Loan Agreement and the Bond Purchase Agreement by and among Sohn d. Kinnard be Company, Inc. (the "Underwriter"), the Company and the Issuer (the "Bond Purchase Agreement"). All of the provisions of the Loan Agreement and the Bond Purchase Agreement, when executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Loan Agreement and the Bond Purchase Agreement shall be substantially in the forms on file with the issuer, with such omissions and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the City Manager, in his discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the City ;Manager shall be conclusive evidence of euch detecmination. 5. The Bonds shall be revenue obligationsnd t e Loan tAgreementg and the shat] be disbursed pursuant to the Indenture a principal, premium end interest on the Bonds shall be payable solely from the proceeds of the Bonds, the Loan Agreement and other sources of revenue specifically pledged therefor. 6. The Trustee is hereby appointed ab Paying Agent and Bond Registrar for the Bonds. 7. The Officials are hereby authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the Issuer, such other documents as are necessary or appropriate in aonneetian with the issuance, sale, and delivery of the Bonds, including an arbitrage certificate, and all other documents and certificates as shall be necessary and appropriate in connection with the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds. 8. The LYauer has not participated in the preparation of the Official Statement relating to the Bonds (the "Official Statement") and has made no independent investigation with re3pect to the information contained therein, including any appendices thereto, and the Issuer assumes no responsibility for the sufficiency, accuracy or completeness of such information. Subject to the foregoing, the Issuer . hereby eonsent~ ~to the distribution of the Official Statement by the Underwriter in connection with the sale of the Bonds. 9. The Lssuer approves the form of the Combination Mortgage, Assignment of Leases and Rents and 3eeurity Agreement, dated as of September 15, 1990, from the Company to the Trustee. 10. All covenants, stipulations, obligations and agreements of the Issuer contained in this resolution and the aforementioned documents shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, obligations and agreements of the Issuer to the full extent authorized or permitted by Iaw, and all weh covenants, stipulations, obligations and agreements shall be binding upon the Dauer. Except as otherwise provided in this resolution, all rights, powers and privlleges oonferred and duties and liabilities imposed upon the Issuer by the provisions of this resolution or the aforementioned documentsi shell be exercised or performed by cueh officers, board, body or agsncy thereof as may be required or authorized by Iaw to exercise such powers and to perlorm such duties. No covanant, stipulation, obligation or agreement herein Qontainsd or Qontaintd in the aforementioned documents shall be deemed to be a covenant, stipulation, obligation or agreement of any member of the City Council of the Issuer, or any officer, agent or tmployee of the Iasucr in that person's individual capacity, and 3 ~p- neither the City Council of the USUBonda orybe f subject et plany epecsonaln liab liBynor shall be liable personally on the accountability by reason of the issuance thereof. No provision, covenant or agreement contained in the aforementioned locum entx, the Bonds or in any other suermorn the brae h the eofd shell eonst tute 1 or therein or herein imposed upon the Ls cha e u on its general credit give rise to any pecuniary liability eements,~provisions, covenant and representations or taxing powers.. In making the agr g or remit any act forth in such documents, the Lssuer has not obli ated itself to pay funds or revenues, other than funds and revenue3 derived from the Loan Agreement which are to be applied to the paymtnt of the Bonds, as provided therein and in the Indenture. il. Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this resolution or in the aforementioned documents expressedo~ coimpt8tion other than the Issuer or construed to confer upon any person or f 1rm ~ any owner of the Bonds issued under the provisions of thi3 resolution, any right, remedy or claim, legal or equitable, under and by reason of this resolution or any provision hereof, this resolution, the aforementioned documents end all of their provisions being intended. iot bye od tome of the Bondi issuedeunder the eprovluions of L3suer and any owners from this resolution. 12. In case any one or more of the provisions of this resolution, or of the aforementioned documents, or of the Bonds issued hereunder shall for any reason be held to be illegal or invalid, such allege etmentionedldocuments,nor of the Bonds,tbut . provision of this resolution, or of the afor Lhis resolution, the aforementioned documents, and the Gonda shall be concaved and endorsed as if such illegal or invalid provision had not been contained therein. , 13. The Bonds, when executed and delivered, shall contain a recital that they are issued pursuant to the Act, and such recital chaA be conclusive evidence of the ; validity of the Bonds and the regularity of the issuance thereof, and that all acts, conditions and things required by the laws of the State of Minnesota relating to the , adoption of this resolution, to the issuance of the B rformed trecedent totand in the aforementioned documents to happen, exist and be pe p enactment of this resolutiomentionedcdocurnsnt3 have happene~ txistnand ~veenbeen the execution of the tfore , performed as so t~quired by law. lt. The officers of the b snuihorized to doeall sates and thingsrre9uii'ed of employees of the Issuer are here y them by or in connection with thin resolution, the aforementioned documents, and the Bonds for the full, punctual and e~ the agoeement ones dx meats and~this resolutions agreements contained in the Bon , In the event that for any reason the Mayor of the Issuer is unable to carry out the execution of .any of the documents or oauttto~cied t vact in hisicapacity and undertake the City Council of the L~suer shall be such execution or acts on b daelnd bindie on the Issuer.. Iff for any reasoncthe C ty exeeution~ or acts shall be vat ~ Manager of the Issuer is unable to execute and deliver the documents referred to in a (p~ io this Resolution, such documents may be executed by a member of the City Council 4r the City Clerk with the same force and effect a~ if ouch documents were executed and delivered by the City Manager of the Issuer. 15. The Issuer hereby makes the election provided by $ectfon 103(b)(6)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of .1954, as amended {relating to 510,000,000 small issue limitation) with respect to the Bonds. Adopted: September 24, 1990 eyor Attest: City Clerk S 7 City of Richfield, Minnesota Council Letter No. 242 Agenda September 24, 1990 Issue Statement• Continuance of a public hearing on a request for a conditional use permit and offstreet parking permit at 1200 East 78th Street. Background• Systems Control, Inc. has requested a conditional use permit to construct a vehicle emission testing facility at 1200 East 78th Street. The Planning Commission recommended denial by a 6-1 vote on August 28, 1990 primarily on environmental, including traffic, issues. Petitioner has requested a continuance. Recommended Motion: Continue the hearing on the request for conditional use permit and offstreet parking permit until the October 8, 1990 meeting of the City Council. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Petitioner has requested, by letter of September 20, 1990, a continuance to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. 2. A continuance will not prejudice the City's review or alternatives available. Alternative .Recommendation: ~` A public hearing notice has been published for this date and the Council may listen to comments from members of the public present for the. hearing. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 24, 1990 in the City Council Chamber of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of public hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the property. A continuance to a time and place specified will preclude the necessity of republication in the newspaper. Anew notice will be mailed to property owners. Respectfully submitted, Jam Prosser Cit anager JDP:ds Systems Control 755 N. Mary Avenue, Sunnyvale, Celitornia 94086 Tel (408) 738-7400 Telecopier (408) 733.9255 5275 Edina Industrial Boulevard, Suite 208, Edina, Minnesota 55439 Tel (612) 897-t 232 Fax (612) 831.0652 September 20, 1990 Mr. Byron J. Wallace Community Development Director City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 re: Conditional Use Permit, 1200 E. 78th St. Dear Mr. Wallace: -~~r-~ ~zl-vrcc,,~ S~ -. Systems Control requests a postponement of our City County hearing on the above matter from September 24th to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. Thank you. Sincerely, ' ~~~~~ Deruiis C. Palmer General Manager O City of Richfield., Minnesota Council Letter No. 243 Agenda September 24, 1990 Issue Statement: Public hearing on the final plat of Oksness 2nd Addition for 7201 Penn Avenue. Backgrounds - Applicant John Oksness is requesting final plat approval for 7201 Penn Avenue. The subdivision of this property would allow the applicant to construct an attached twin home with each unit on an individual lot. A lot area variance and zero lot line setback variance was granted by the City Council for this property along with preliminary plat approval. This property is zoned R-residence district. Recommended Motion: Approve the final plat of Oksness 2nd Addition for 7201 Penn Avenue and direct the Mayor. and City Manager to execute the plat and deliver such to applicant for recording within thirty days subject to the following stipulations: 1. That the structure be a one story rambler style dwelling that is compatible with the character of the neighborhood.. 2. That the utilities be placed underground. 3. That applicant must comply with the approved drainage plan and supply an as-built drainage plan upon completion which shows compliance with the approved drainage plan. 4. That a cash escrow be submitted to ensure the completion of the required landscaping and drainage work and an agreement. be entered into granting access to the property if such is needed. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Staff has reviewed the final plat and determined that it meets city requirements. 2. On August 13, 1990, the City Council approved the preliminary plat with certain contingencies. 3. An acceptable drainage plan has been submitted and approved by the City Engineering Department as noted in the attached memo. 4. The other contingencies are met or as referred to above. Alternative Recommendation: ~' Deny final plat approval if a finding of fact determines that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties. 8-1 Discussion~Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 24, 1990 in the City Council Chamber of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of public hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the property. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City a ger JDP:ds s-2_ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Memorandum DATE: August 7, 1990 T0: Byron Wallace, Community Development Director FROM: Mike Eastling, City Engineer ~, ~% SUBJECT: Drainage Plan for 7201 Penn Avenue I have reviewed the revised drainage plan for the above address and find the following: o This .drainage plan will adequately provide drainage on this site. The berm and swale system is designed to carry storm waters from the south portion of the lot eastward to the east property line, and then northward onto 72nd Street. o This drainage plan will not have an adverse impact on neighboring properties. This drainage plan will not solve all of the drainage problems on the block, however, it will provide some relief to the adjacent properties which currently experience drainage problems. o This is an acceptable drainage plan for the subject property. cc: George Atkinson, Engineering Supervisor Address File MJE:rb P90-2-0117 /~wJ 7 I W Z z o i~~ ~``_ ~ Q Q U O W a T N ti _._ g-3 M w N r N N r _ ~ W ' -'. ~! C2 c- ' ~ ~ G tom' ~ MCIONtlL = • ' I T ~ V a 112 -~: .. _ ~ N N Y Nz Y Y M M N J. YI OZ Ir ~. - , T c 11 w N ~_ = ~ ~ W rl ~I ._~" '; _. ~~ .~ .. .. ~ .. - ~. ~ ~w .- ~ i '7Ar Y~03~~"~--- ~ ~ -_ -. ~_"_ ____ __ -~ -- _ _ .~?C___-_ r011s39N01 i~. 3Ae na3~ -----~=~r _. n 1 I ~~ I -~~ I ~ I l I II fl ! , 1111 I. `~ -- __ - I~ i~~' ~1 I^ I ~~ - I =~J I--._ I;~ 11111 _ ._ _ r 1 / I L-~.-'-~ ` i N _ _ ~^~I I ~ ~~ i .~r`v i J ~~ ` _ _ ~ . _ ~- I I ~, 1'~ 11111 - f 11 ! f 1 - OlON1w001i ~'1~"'^ Y-1 I1 I, Y. 1 I r1 ~ .. ~ --- ~"- i-~^,~~--.i ~ ~ _L ~ ~^ ,_.-___ ~. -~ , ,j _I _I' . NO10N1w00'1Y CI ~~_ i l 'c\- t 1 ` I ~~~` I I: I_Jr~ Y1 ZI rl 11 IIr..J .. r{OI 1 . ~ -_ .r ~~~= _ "~ ~"~ ~~ 1 I lr ~ I -- 'I ,1 I,~II •111 I ~~~I II: il' ~ ~ r! OI 10111] ' 1 .. _. I^1-,-__ ___ ~ ~_~:-J._!i I;'I• l lOnl] F - - I OOt01N0 sMwnl ~ I w ~ i j I'~i I ~-••~-Ii ~-~ ~ ' J_ J 'l ii 1^ I ~i~IJ OOIOIMO ~' I_~. ' i oO xrre r ,~ I~ ~_ ~_ __ __ I_ . ,i . I Lu ONr1Nt0 ~ I ~r~ r-1 I I ---- I~ ~ r' ~I~' I;~;I xrre i' r 7Ar ONr11YDr ; I 1 III ~.i ONr 1xr0 .~~ i`~I~ ~,. -~~ 7Ar ONrll«Or r C ~I rli [h I I ~ ~ ! I I I I i___li ~ MOl Nt10 .rZ,c: sN]A]LS ~~pp~ I 1n t~,i 7Ar 1711001N Ij}'S I 1170Cn1Y I I I N1YOr1M7M ICI AYnYS111r 111 it iNrstTe -s. ONr YO (11 171YYtN J ~'~ 0171JYt0 !1 11 7Ar jlrON-1 ~C M01Y01! ~~I 1Nr1«/ I~~~ xrrl0~ 111 1NOrn0 II MOCY7w3 d 1/10w7Y/ Or.N10 ~~ J 101DSwnN i- tt~I ONtAYI ~ ~ t7wr~ ~I~ xoN>. ~i~- «ram Nrarow 1- MO1M7M Y7A110 7Ar «w7r ~ L N]7n0 ~ 11]itnr ; .. Mt01N7Nf r srwoNl ~ i MOlrn 1N70NIA r N~IMNfrM 7Ar s]xN7x ~~~~ _. aC 1 I L.==1 rrZ I- ,i II sN7A71s I I I I i==,~~ ,.I ~; '7Ar 1711001N ---~' ~!; T70CIrli -1--. `Iw 1111 .~«nYillld I 1 --~.ul I ~ I,; OMr NO II _._._-~._~~; 171YYrM ~i „ I; /I]I ~- r/ I' 01711Yr0 II ~./~ i '7Ar 71rGN/1 :::: Iw~~ F Ij -s.-.~ II I~^~~~~~ iNtA11i ~:~*si• I I"~"~I tt 1MWn0 J ~ -, ,l~ 101WMN t'c.. ~ ( 11 ~~~ s7wr~ I~_ ~~~~ ~ I Jam. - , xONx ~ Mr0«Ow ~;. ,~ ~ C~ ,I. 1-~ .....I I.-~.~I Mol r)M r~~L=-:Ili~Jl~p, N7Ano ~~~. '7Ar MMid 1 ~~I 1p'• M77f10 ~~ I ; 1I 117ssnr '' IIr OIY7ML ~I li ~'~ r. r. -~~ jam„ .^~ ~"`~ 1M70MIA Ll /) ~ I 1 _ I~JI I F N M M M •1 N » M M M M M M M M N M M Nw N • Y Y r rl Y i G F ~ ~ Y. r r w+.. ~ r. M ' Y O ~ J a wW ~~ z. W t~ ~~ ~ Z tJ~ zp wa ap r ~ o tL N ti - 3fit~l3/1V 2l3At10 - ~ 3t`g11S3M n - d1 i ~ i - - - - 3NIl lOl - - / /1 f- W W H N ~~ N In W 3 ,~~ 11 ~ ~ ~' 3Nil lOl ~ ~- ~ ~~~ ~ z~~ i ~ H1f10S 3f1N3Ad NN3d sy o .- N «~ W J Q U ~ ~ r~ i i I ~. _~ cn r' IW 1 ? J ~ J 0 ~~ I 1 i sz ' ~ i ~ ~ 1 ~ ~1~ - - ~ `~ __..-. _. ,_ ~ rA --- I'I\ ~~ 1= r ~o `~ LL ~ ~N ~ ~ '7 City of Richfield, Minnesota Council Letter No. 244 Agenda September 24, 1990 Issue Statement: Public hearing on the final plat of Oksness Addition for 7001 Portland Avenue. Background Applicant John Oksness is requesting final plat approval for the Oksness Addition at 7001 Portland Avenue. This was previously reviewed in 1989 and a conditional use permit was issued to allow construction of two units. Variances were also granted for lot area and yard size. This final plat is consistent with the plans and approvals previously given to allow applicant to sell each of the two units individually on its own lot. This property is zoned R-residence district. Recommended Motion: Approve the final plat of Oksness Addition for 7001 Portland Avenue and direct the Mayor and City Manager to execute the plat and deliver such to applicant for recording within thirty days. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Staff has reviewed the final plat and determined that it meets city requirements. 2. The City Council previously reviewed and approved the construction of two residential units and siting on two individual lots. They have been constructed consistent with approvals and variances granted. Alternative Recommendation: Deny final plat approval if a finding of fact determines that the subdivision would have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 24, 1990 in the City Council Chamber of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of public hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the property. Respec lly submitted, Jame Prosser City ager JDP:ds -~ •• I • W Q ~A j J ~ p~ U O O a -~ r O 0 N H M ~ M / Y N ~ - ~ - _ _ ` H • M •I' M Ipr •p - -~ ~~. 4-1 =_ G~ ~ ~ t•~a O ~_ Nti0N t11 -~-~~L~-~~~-I - > L'.V W Z z I I •-+-+ I ~~ Z !` l~ ~ `u~ r ~ r r r r `w n C' 2 I~ 11 .I f~ ~ .~ 'r _ ~~ =- ~ 7A-. w03~ .~_ ..-~I L_ .__ - L _ _ , G~ I`_I1r_I'-_ '- _. ._~! iL _._~I !,`~ •111 «0l0Nlw0pif __ ~--y ~. '~---1' i1 I:~1J~_.!~.~ -Z"T -'~ ~_^,is I{ ~'I N0IaNIw00'If r1 -1 ---- r1 PI rl Q-^~I n ~I 1 _!I _r_.-_ ^i =1=1! 0i rl it ~-_ .-~, ~_ - _ _ __ __ ~~ ~- -. r 1 21 x111 f'L~-~~ 1-~rl_--~^ ='_ s' _-__`_ =1'---'1~ y~.~ rl n rl pl !i`.. ~..._.~ Lail II __ - ___ ~_~:-~r-~) 1'~ IJI ~1~_I ~ ~___=-_. ', x101 101117 _ ~~ -___-I i~_I Ali ~. 1 e C~ ~--: ,-- -- -- - - ~ . ~ 10111] 00101M0 I!I u rt ~~ ---- .~~-~-~1 x.11 N~ 00-01M0 ~~ inYwn~00 C,-`- .~_1 1i III "II YY•Y I I ~ __ ___-___.__ _. 1i YY•~ 7A• 0N•11YW 1 ~~~~ ~~ N, ~I 0M•11I•p -~ ~^--- I 1~ 11 ~ '3M 0N•'11Y0Y ., G lit ' ~ CI C -. 11 . - i .__. ~-'~ .1. i ~~•''-_~_' _'^_l ICS r1f _ II w• -1( U 1i-fir=~ '~~ •Ff..,""v _~~~~`~~ f~( fM7A71f I'Y I~ ~_-! ~.-1 --ir-~= =~~1 ~I fN3Alaf I-1 ~~ ~~~~1 ~ ••.."ir...•.. ~• ~ Wit.-~1~~1 I (1~ •7A• a3T001N ~_ .__ •...:::...•~-+if~~-.+r~,,.• _i1 'I ~`~aMl .7A. 13tioolN n 1• :i 1~: 1 I T70f1.1~ I { (~.~~1 I! c ...• • ... • ::::::::::~:w'~.... _~ 1170f1.1f M1Y0r1«7* 11 ~~ II •,•~"' „"`J~•,••••~ ~~:::• :: •. •:'••:• =1 '-~__~- N1t0a1N7Y, 1111 li ~•:.... ~ ~11!- aYnfL•11/1 I11 `•~ ^-`~ 1I ~~ ~ ~•••~~• I :`~~ lYn.flllr iN•f•T~ •ic-.~-~~++•a_ _ _. _._._ ~:: •.... ti,T•••••r~ ::;•• 'vd -~_ s_~.~w...- - '1~ LN.f•3 • ~-1 ~ y1 ON•YO ~1.1~•1 ~. '! ICI ••'~~~` t:: 7Y',; ••:: 7..,,~+.•• 1 ~ ry`7 ~ 1111 11 ~-J~_~ \ ~ +k:: ~ .r] a71YY•M If ~(( -7A• 71.0NA1 M01 Y01•'ll ~~ ~ -" '~~~'F• II M01Y01• a«•AYf 11 ~~~ ~ o 1~~~ ! Ili, ~L. I1«..Y. .•,rnoo •t' c~ A lidd I 11 I~ ~ + ~ ~ u , tIJ~ a«o~no II ~ o !)_I ~~ w0f Y7w7 1 \ A II 1«0/H0 `. ~ -~- M0fY7w7 1110--TU ~ - _ _ . t "---- - - - ~ I i~~ illl0w7Y1 OY•Ylp M r-~ II - r ~ CY.Y19 to~otwn« '3A0' 0 _'• ~Q(-~~_~~J - IO~Ofwnw ONIAYI II ' !~ i /~'. ~ II~J~ ~~J ~ y `~~... OMIAYI qw•t ~~~~ f7w•- ioMY I Q~ .^ -~ :oNY w•D01 L I~1 M•DOl w•prow ~~~ •S •3Atr ONt/lltlOd `~ «raYOw w01r7« ~•-~ w0ar7N Y7At10 ~^~+~ y ` ~O ,~ ~~ Y7A110 M77f1o 1 I~ ~~, ~n ~i1 (~ •7A• wM7~ •~I I i~ M77n0 r L ` 1113ffnY M•olY)M! ~_ ~IJ ~~,_~^~ ^_, ~ M•01Y7Mf MOUn .---• __ ~ ~~~ - -- - - -_ _ 1 1 ~I.-~ ~~~~. •.~~r i~--~ ~I MOlYn MYMMf•A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ _i_ . ~` i1 '7AI f7fY7t ..•v.~...~~-.~r.~Vw.l-e:-•rer-...i.w-.. _ ..rr~.r:~.~.~~~P~-r. .~V~ 3A• f7iY3f w M M M M M M N M M N M M ~ M M N~ i~ I ! ! +!t E t t w p~ = Z ~ t V r • r Y YI Y r ~ G ~ w ~ - • 111 r ~ r ~ M M g V aZ V! z Q W .J > a Q o ~ z~ aJ a --~ o ~ W O v~ a O a. 00 o ~ ~ a uw m ~~ x 0 ~m ~o ¢~ ~_ 0 U ~o ean~ 'S '3/~t~ oNd~laOd /O CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 245 Agenda September 24, 1990 Issue Statement• Resolution modifying payment schedule for special assessment for nuisance abatement and authorization to execute agreement with Steffanie L. Foster. Background: In January, 1989, Steffanie L. Foster purchased the property located at 6345 Irving Avenue. Prior to the purchase, in 1988 while the property was owned by another individual, the home was the subject of an environmental health enforcement action. In mid-1988 the home was vacated and,. subsequently, the City paid for the removal of a large amount of decaying garbage and was involved in general clean-up of the property. Total cost incurred by the City for that operation amounted to $5,.547.09. That amount was later certified by City Council action as a nuisance abatement and a special assessment on the property tax to become payable in 1989 in a one year payment. After purchasing the property in 1989, Ms. Foster rehabilitated the property and brought it up to appropriate standards. The rehabilition cost more than she had estimated. When she became aware of the special assessment, she had overspent her available funds. As a result, she wrote to the City of Richfield and indicated that she .was unable to make the total special `- assessment payment due, which is now $6,422.13 including principal ($5,547.09), penalties ($554.71) and interest ($320.33), and asked if the City could recertify the assessment, spreading it over a period of seven years. City staff, in conjunction with the City Attorney's office, reviewed the matter and found that the City could make such modifications and respread the entire amount, including accrued penalties and interest, over a seven year period to allow Ms. Foster to repay the special assessments in a more manageable fashion. Attached to this Council Letter are two documents, a resolution modifying the payment schedule for special assessments which establishes a seven year payback period at the standard eight percent (8$) interest rate. Also attached is an agreement between Steffanie Foster and the City of Richfield which guarantees the City of Richfield that if the property is sold prior to the total payment of the special assessment covered by this agreement, all such amounts would become unpaid principal and accrued interest would immediately become due and payable. If such payment was not made to the City, the City could, without notice or without hearing, adopt a resolution of reassessment again, making the principal balance and accrued interest payable in a one year period. lD-1 Ms. Foster has executed the agreement and understands the conditions contained therein. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution modifying the payment schedule for special assessments of nuisance abatement at 6345 Irving Avenue and authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Steffanie L. Foster concerning the disposition of the assessment. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The property owner has requested that the City review this matter because of a financial hardship and respread the one year assessment over a period of seven years. 2. The City would receive all principal, penalties and interest which have been incurred to date and would receive the standard eight percent (8$) interest rate for subsequent payment years. 3. The City really has no such precedent in the matter. Typically, nuisance abatements are spread over a one year period. However, this particular nuisance abatement is a relatively large. one and, as such, may be viewed as appropriate to spread over a longer period of time. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could elect not to modify the current special assessment on record with Hennepin County. The total amount of the principal, interest and penalties are all due and payable and, in fact, are overdue. The original nuisance assessment procedure was completely in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes and the City is under no obligation to modify it. Discussion/Decision Mode: If City Council chooses to modify this special assessment, it must be done at the September 24 meeting to allow City staff time to process the documents in order to have them forwarded to Hennepin County by October 10, 1990, the cutoff point. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser City Manager JDP:ff ~ o-z r RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION MODIFYING PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The assessment adopted. in Resolution No. 7449 against the property at 6345 Irving Avenue, Property L.D. No. 28-028-24-21-0004, is hereby reassessed by making the assessment, together with accrued interest and penalties, in the total amount of $6.,422.13, payable over a period of seven. years, beginning in payable year 1991, with interest accruing at the annual rate of eight percent from October 1,1990. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of September, 1990. Steven J. Quam Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk i~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 246 Agenda September 24, 1990 Issue Statement: Consideration of an application for a residential kennel license for Janet Morrison, 6337 21st Avenue. Back round: On February 12, 1990, Mrs. Morrison's residential kennel license was revoked by the City Council as a result of concerns neighbors had that were heard at a public hearing on that date. The complaints were regarding dog(s) at large, feces in the yard and barking. Mrs. Morrison was given a period of 30 days to reduce the number of dogs she had to two. A follow-up inspection conducted by public safety staff found that she only had two dogs on her property. On July 3, 1990, Mrs. Morrison submitted an application for a residential kennel license. Since February of 1990, Mrs. Morrison has made the following changes to her property: • The yard has been seeded and groomed. • A privacy fence has been installed on the south side of the yard. Additionally, the Morrison's have hired someone to pick up animal droppings every other day and a pine cleaner is being used to remove any odor. City staff has contacted the original complainants who had testified at the public hearing in February and found that neither of them had any objections to the issuance of a residential kennel license for the Morrisons. A letter has been sent to all neighbors who were previously notified explaining that this will be before the City Council again on Monday, September 24, 1990. At the present time, Mrs. Morrison has two adult dogs and one puppy. Mrs. Morrison has told staff that the puppy will be sold shortly and that she plans to obtain one additional adult dog if the residential kennel license is approved. Staff has received two complaints since the license was revoked in February. They are as follows: • On May 2, 1990, environmental health staff received a complaint regarding feces on the property and was told there may be more than two adult dogs present. An inspection was conducted and verified that there were feces on the property.. A follow-up inspection conducted five days later found. that the feces had been cleaned up. It was determined that there were. two adult dogs living on the property at that time. • On August 29, 1990, animal control staff received a complaint about a barking dog. Staff responded to the property, verified the complaint and issued Mrs.. Morrison a warning tag. Recommended Motion: - Approve the application for a residential kennel license with the following stipulations: 1. That there be no more than three adults dogs (over six months of age) on the property at any time in the next year. 2. That monthly residential kennel inspections be conducted by public safety staff to insure that no problems exist. Basis for Recommendation: 1. 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. Along with the improvements that. Mrs. Morrison has .made to the property and the stipulations listed, staff will monitor the situation on a monthly basis to be assured that violations do not reoccur. ~ Alternative Recommendation: 1. The council could decide to deny Mrs. Morrison's request for a residential kennel license. This would mean that Mrs. Morrison could not have more than two adult animals on the property. Discussion/Decision Mode: An application for a residential kennel license for Janet Morrison, 6337 21st Avenue is presented for council consideration at this time. Respec fully submitted, James D. Prosser City Manager JDP:bac ~ i-z ~1IMAL CQAiTRCL (`CNTACT~S.~OA~ANET~'iORRISDrL_~i337 21ST AVENUE 7/7/87 Warning for no license and dogs at large 9/14/87 Impounded animal and issued tag for no license and at large 9/20/88 Impounded animal and issued tag for dog at large 12/21/88 Tagged for no individual dog license and issued warning for no residential kennel license 2/18/89 Impounded dog and issued warning for dog at large and no individual license 6/12/89 Tagged for dog at large 8/29/90 Complaint received regarding barking- CSO responded and issued a warning to Mrs. Morrison ~-~ 6/14/89 Complaint received regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - letter sent to owner advising to clean up 9/22/89 Complaint received regarding feces on property - compiaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 10/18/89 Complaint received regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 1/5/90 Complaint received regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - letter sent to owner advising to clean up 1/19/90 Property inspected and found to have approximately one months accumulation of feces on the property - photographs taken SEE NEXT PAGE 11-3 Envir~nmental~iealfh_CorLtacts_since~'~vnoatian ; n Febr_uar~r_ 5/2/90 Staff received a property and the on property. 1n 2 adult dogs and was feces pn the conducted 5 days cleaned up. complaint regarding feces on possibility of three adult dogs spection conducted on 5/3/90 found 8 - 6 week old puppies. There property. A follow-up inspection later found that the feces had been 02 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 247 .Agenda September 24, 1990 Issue Statement: Award of Contract for Tennis Court Repair. Background: In the spring of 1988, city staff initiated a program to repair and replace tennis courts throughout the city with the priority of repairs based on the condition. of the courts. Tennis courts at Augsburg, Jefferson, Sheridan and Christian Parks were repaired in 1988; and courts at Donaldson, Fairwood and Memorial Parks were repaired in 1989. Major repair and resurfacing is scheduled for the six tennis courts at Augsburg Park this summer. A formal bid opening for this work was held on Friday, July 20, 1990 with the following results: Tennis West Ltd. $38,683 Bituminous Consulting & Contracting Co. 38,695 C a At the August 13,_1990 meeting, the Council considered award of contract for this tennis court work and decided to refer the matter to the Community Services Commission. The Commission discussed the matter on August 14, 1990. On September 10, 1990 the Council and Commission met jointly. At this meeting the. Commission indicated a strong desire to have the work at the Augsburg Park tennis courts completed. The Council did not take action at the September l0 meeting. On September 11, 1990 the Commission .held its regular meeting and unanimously recommended the City Council proceed by awarding a contract and releasing the funds to do the Augsburg Park tennis courts as soon as possible. City staff has checked with Tennis West Ltd., the low bidder for the work. The vendor has previously indicated a willingness to hold firm the bid amount for the remainder of the 1990 seasonand into the spring of 1991 if the work cannot be completed this fall. _ Recommended Motion: Award a contract for tennis court repair and resurfacing to Tennis West Ltd. in the. amount of $38,683. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Tennis West, Ltd. submitted the low bid for this work, and they are a reputable tennis court contractor. This contractor performed the work for last year's repair, and were more than satisfactory. 2. The 1990 Revised Park Maintenance budget contains S36,000 for this work. Funds will be available in the 1990 Park Maintenance budget to cover the additional $2,683. is-~ 3. The Augsburg Park tennis courts are .scheduled for repair and resurfacing work. If this work is not performed in a timely fashion, it may be necessary to close the courts. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not make any repairs at Augsburg Park tennis courts at this time. However, the work done in 1988 was done with the full realization that additional work would be needed in the near future. 2. Council could choose to reject all bids .and instruct staff to rebid the project; however, delays caused by rebidding could lead to the work being delayed another year, and would be more expensive at a later date. Discussion/Decision Mode: The Commission is asking for approval at this time in order to facilitate the repair work on these tennis courts. If action is not taken to award a contract at this .meeting, weather conditions will be such that the contractor will not have time to accomplish any of the work this season. If the contract is not awarded at this time, it will also be necessary to rebid for the work to be done in 1991. There are no funds currently budgeted for tennis court repairs in 1991. Respe~ly submitted, James~D/. Prosser City Hager JDP/sdr i3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 248 Agenda September 24, 1990 Issue Statement: Consideration to accept a letter of memorandum of agreement between the City of Richfield and Walser Automotive to resolve the signage issue. Back round• The City Council issued a conditional use permit on July 14, 1986 to Walser Automotive. One of the stipulations in that conditional use permit was that the billboard .signs be removed within a one year period. The signs were not removed. The City initiated action to enforce the conditional use permit. Walser Automotive has responded that under a state law the City would be required to compensate Walser for the removal of these signs, even in the case of a stipulation for a conditional use permit. The City Council has authorized staff to discuss alternative ways to achieve the results of the sign removal with Walser. The result of this effort has been development of a memorandum of agreement (attached). for Council review. This item was listed on the August 27, 1990 city council agenda. The council requested that the item be continued to the September 10, 1990 council meeting in order to notify residents that the item was under consideration. The Community Development Department has notified the surrounding property owners that this item is on the September 24 agenda. Five comments have been received to date - two in favor of leaving signs as they are, two opposed to any chages from the original stipulation and one in support of this agreement. Recommended Motion: Approve the memorandum of agreement. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Under the proposed agreement the signs. would be reduced in height from fourteen feet to seven feet and the back of the signs would be covered, providing a more aesthetically pleasing appearance. 2. The signs would be treated in the same manner as other signs at the end of the amortization period under the current sign ordinance. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the agreement. The City could initiate action to enforce the conditional use permit. That action would take the form of a declaratory judgement determining whether or not the signs would fall into the state regulation regarding these types of signs. If the law applies, the City would be required to compensate the owner for .the value of the signs if they are removed. Recent decisions would 13-1 indicate that the City might receive favorable response from the courts. (See attached memo) 2. Delay action on this item until there is an opportunity for a workshop session to review it. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for consideration at the meeting of September 24. Resp c lly submitted, Jame Prosser Cit anager JDP:ds 4 }_ HOLMES & GRAVEN l3-z. cHARr1:RF:n •tlornt)a al LtM tFRT A. ALSOP .~-I. D. BAFRTSt'NI Ro\ALU H. BArTI MAR1 J. BRF\nl'\ STf:rHl:\ J. Bl 8l'1. :Rutl.pt C. CAkI c0\ ('NRI\TI\1. fit. CHAI.F JO11\ B. D/ a\ ROBERT J. D{:IAi: MAR) C.. Dottl\~ DAI tU l.. GR+, t\ .COkRI\F A. H{.1\t. JAat. S. Ha +)t.. Jnll\ R. LAR~o\ NF1.1.1\l'.Tll\ H. LAN 170 Pi1laEur~ feeler. Minenpelia, Minneaou tt102 (6I2133T•9300 F~taimile (r,121337.9310 N'RITF.R'ti DIRECT DIA1. 337-9207 JI~I.IF A. LANi.t:p (~HAkL{.\ L. LEFt:,'F.RF. Jf)11• M. LFFF\'R{:, JR. Rut{ RT J. 1.1\pAl.i. LAYkA K. WIMOLLt:T DA\I1.1. R. vFl.\o\ BAktAk.l l.. POkTNgOu MARL F'Rn\( ).\ tikA1.A JANFS M. STk<NIN{.• tiTFV{\ M.TALLL• JAMF~ J. TNON\O\,JR. LARRI M. N1,NTNLla1 BO\\I{ 1.. NILKI\1 July 26, 1990 Mr. Byron Wallace, Director Community Development Department City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave., S. Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Non-conforming Signs Dear Byron: You have recently asked what effect the Minnesota Outdoor Advertising Control Act (OACA) Minn. Stat. SS 173.12 - 173.27 has upon the 10 year amortization provision of your slg regulations. Of chief concern is the provision that no lawfully erected advertising .display located adjacent to a highway covered by OA CA may be removed "unless all rights in the property, personal or real, have been acquired by gift, purchase or eminent domain. Minn. Stat. S 173.17(4). Any effort to describe, in detail, the scope of the application of OACA would be far too extensive for the purposes of this letter. However, in general terms, OACA applies to any sign designed to be seen by motorists who are traveling on (a) an interstate highway, (b) a highway which is or was part of the federal aid primary system, or (c) a state trunk highway. Mike Eastling can probably identify each of those classes of roads; however., I believe that the list will include I-35W, 1-494 and trunk highway 77 (Cedar). Consequently, all manner of signs located along those routes which are intended primary to be viewed by motorists on those roads would come within the scope of OACA. Once it is determined that a sign is adjacent to a covered highway, OA CA would appear to require that compensation be paid for its removal. However, in two recent Minnesota cases the court of appeals has held that only acquisitions which are undertaken for the purpose of highway beautification are subject to the requirements of S 173.17(4). One case involved the condemnation of .` - +~~ Mr. Byron Wallace July 26, 1990 Pave 2 land on which several billboards were located. The court determined that since the acquisition was for development purposes rather than for highway beautification, the OACA compensation requirement did not apply. If the OA CA compensation requirement does not apply, then amortizing regulations such as Richfield's would continue to be judged in accordance with the established standard of reasonableness; and if reasonable, no compensation would be required. I believe that a court would likely conclude that the amortization period contained in your sign regulations is reasonable. Because the courts have only recently begun to place this restrictive interpretation on OACA, it is perhaps too early to know whether. your sign regulations (especially. the amortization provision) would be viewed as relating to highway beautification. To the extent that other justifications for the regulations relating to such matters as safety or aesthetics (but not highway related) can be articulated, your case for the non-applicability of OA CA will be strengthened. For the present, however, I believe that the City should continue to assume that it will have the ability to enforce its amortization without being required to pay compensation under OACA. Respectfully y urs, ;~ ~ J B. Dean JBD:rsr i3-3 RC1fi0-005