04-24-89 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 102
Agenda April 24, 1989
Issue Statement:
Consideration of City Attorney appointment.
Background:
John B. Dean has announced that he will be leaving the firm of
LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien and Drawz effective May 1,
1989. John, along with Charlie LeFevere and Ron Batty, has
joined the firm of Holmes and Graven effective May 20, 1989.
The city's agreement with LeFevere, Lefler is in essence a
package agreement. The agreement specifically states "The city
appoints the firm as City Attorney with John B. Dean as primary
legal counsel." The information regarding John B. Dean's
departure was provided to the council in a memo dated April 14,
1989. That memo included a recommendation that city staff
conduct interviews with LeFevere, Lefler and the Holmes and
Graven firm to provide a recommendation for appointment to be
made by the City Council at the April 24, 1989 City Council
meeting.
City staff has reviewed the RFP's and conducted interviews with
both firms.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the firm of Holmes and Graven be retained
for general corporate representation with John B. Dean as
principal attorney.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Staff has reviewed the qualifications of LeFevere, Lefler and
their designated attorneys and Holmes and Graven and their
designated attorneys. The review indicated that both firms
had excellent municipal background and experience.
The significant difference between the firms included the
experience of key personnel designated to provide services to
Richfield. John Dean has been the assistant to the attorney
for 16 years, and has served as city attorney officially
since August, 1988. During that time he has provided
excellent representation for the city. The firm of Holmes
and Graven has the capability of providing good general
backup support for John Dean. The addition of John Dean,
Charlie LeFevere, and Ron Batty further enhances this firm's
capabilities.
2. The LeFevere Lefler firm designated David Kennedy to provide
legal services for the city. David Kennedy is a fine
municipal attorney. The recommendation to appoint John Dean
and Holmes and Graven is not a reflection on Mr. Kennedy's
/
capabilities, but rather the previous experience with John
Dean.
3. The fee structure for both firms is virtually identical.
Holmes and Graven has committed to maintaining the fee
structure established in the LeFevere Lefler retainer
agreement for the balance of 1989.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could decide to reject this appointment and
request additional study for other alternatives. Staff has
completed a review of other legal service alternatives in
August, 1988. That information was again reviewed prior to
providing this recommendation. It would not appear that any
other firm would be able to provide the level of service and
experience that John B. Dean and Holmes and Graven would
provide.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented at the council meeting of April 24,
1989. If the council concurs with this recommendation a new
retainer agreement will be developed. John Dean and Holmes and
Graven have agreed to maintain the same agreement including fees
as provided by LeFevere, Lefler.
ResAsD. ec fully submitted,
Ja Pr osser
City Manager
JDP /eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
City Council Letter No. 101
April 24, 1989
Issue Statement:
Request for an offstreet parking permit for Hope Presbyterian
Church at 7132 Portland Avenue.
Background:
Hope Presbyterian Church has requested an offstreet parking
permit for the property located at 7132 Portland Avenue. The
applicant is proposing to construct a walkway between the
recently purchased school building and church at 7132 Portland
Avenue. The proposed walkway addition would be constructed at
ground level, and would be approximately 100 feet long by 30 feet
wide.
A summary of uses at the property is found in Attachment A. This
summary specifies activities, space utilized, hours of operation
and the number of staff.
Proposed improvements associated with the application for the
offstreet parking permit are summarized below along with city
requirements.
1. Parking
The applicant is proposing to provide 270 parking spaces.
The basic city guideline for parking would require that 213
spaces be provided. However, on Sundays, when the various
services are scheduled 15 minutes apart, there is a high
volume of overlapping traffic which the parking lot cannot
adequately accommodate. This situation presently exists on
Sundays, with 315 existing spaces provided (See Table A).
2. Circulation
The applicant proposes to revise the existing circulation
such that there will be a new curb cut along Fourth Avenue,
at the south end of the property. This will accommodate
traffic ingress and egress from the main parking lot, which
will no longer be connected to the northwest corner parking
lot.
3. Setbacks
Setbacks proposed and required are summarized and attached in
Table B. Setback requirements have been met.
4. Drainaae
A drainage plan has been submitted and reviewed by the City
Engineer. The plan has not been approved because the plan
does not include a catch basin or drainage plan for the
northwest corner parking lot.
5. Curb Cuts
As indicated previously under the circulation discussion, the
applicant proposes to construct a new curb cut on the
southwest corner of the property onto Fourth Avenue.
Additionally, two curb cuts along the northwest corner
parking lot will be eliminated, and the existing Portland
Avenue curb cut is proposed to be widened to 26 feet. The
applicant proposes to maintain all the remaining curb cuts at
their existing widths of 18 feet in the northwest corner
parking lot, and 26 feet along the existing Fourth Avenue
drive along the school.
The City requirements for curb cut width is 26 feet.
6. Lighting and Signage
Lighting has been incorporated into the proposal to
illuminate parking areas and entry ways. There is no
indication on the plan, however, how the lighting, especially
at the south entry way, will spill over toward adjacent
residents.
No new signage is proposed. The existing signage would
remain, as proposed.
7. Screening & Maintenance (Landscaping, Fencing, Irrigation &
maintenance)
The applicant proposes to install a row of shrubbery along
the southwestern corner of the property adjacent to the
proposed drive. The existing landscaping and perimeter
fencing (mesh) are in marginal condition.
8. Perimeter Curbing
The proposed plan does not clearly identify
curbing is in place
inspection by staff
portions of the lot
curbing.
or will be installed.
of the property, there
which do not presently
where perimeter
In a field
are numerous
have perimeter
At the February 28th Planning Commission meeting, the Planning
Commission reviewed the applicant's request for the granting of a
preliminary plat, at this time adjacent residents expressed
concern over any additional traffic along Fourth Avenue. In
addition, concern was expressed by neighbors that adequate
screening be provided around the perimeter of the Hope
Presbyterian Church property. The Planning Commission requested
that these concerns be relayed to the City Council at the review
of the offstreet parking permit.
Recommended Motion:
To deny the granting of an offstreet parking permit for Hope
Presbyterian Church at 7132 Portland Avenue.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. That the proposed plan would have an adverse impact on the
adjacent properties, due to drainage, circulation, and
aesthetic concerns, detailed below.
a. Parking /Circulation - Adequate provision has not been
made for on -site parking, particularly at peak times
during Sunday services (See Table A). In addition,
numerous residents have contacted city staff requesting
that church buses not park on Fourth Avenue. Staff
recommends that a designated area on the applicant's
parking lot be provided to accommodate church buses.
This would require that additional parking be provided
for both the overlapping traffic volume and the parking
of buses on -site. Staff recommends that the applicant
provide 309 spaces for automobile parking and in
addition, provide designated bus parking areas on -site
which will accommodate church buses (See Table A).
b. Drainaae - Adequate drainage has not been provided in the
northwest corner of the parking lot. The proposal must
include a catch basin and associated drainage plan for
the northwest corner of the parking lot to meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
c. Curb Cuts - All curb cuts as proposed do not meet the
minimum 26 feet requirements. In addition, the two drive
entrances in the northwest corner of the parking lot
which are no longer to be used must be closed off. The
applicant has proposed to keep them open.
d. Lighting & Signage - Illumination must meet city
requirements such that there is no glare onto adjacent
residents. It is unclear from the proposed plans how the
proposed lighting will affect adjacent residents.
Signage should reflect the new changes in circulation,
particularly at the Portland Avenue exit.
e. Perimeter Curbing - Must be installed around the
perimeter of the parking lot. Presently, areas are
proposed to remain without curbing.
f. Screening - Sufficient screening has not been provided by
the applicant's proposed plan. Particularly due to
adjacent resident's concerns raised before the Planning
Commission, staff recommends that a comprehensive
screening plan and maintenance plan be implemented. This
plan would entail a combination of landscaping and
fencing around the perimeter of the property, as well as
along the westerly school entrance drive. Staff
recommends that new fencing (preferably board on board
rather than mesh) be installed around the perimeter of
the school, as the current mesh fence is unsightly and in
disrepair. This would be complemented with additional
/J - A(
landscaping to soften the large bituminous surfaces of
the parking lot. Staff recommends that this also be
accomplished by installing planting islands within the
parking lot which will also serve to designate parking
areas and ease circulation within the parking lot. In
addition, staff recommends that a maintenance program for
the sod, plantings and fence be instituted by the
applicant.
2. Discussions were held mid -day Friday between staff and
representatives of the applicant whereby certain of the above
concerns were tentatively resolved. However, these latest
proposals have not yet been presented to staff in a plan
format that can be specifically reviewed.
These proposals include the following issues:
A. Curb Cuts:
a. The remaining non - conforming curb cut in the northwest
corner lot will be widened from 18' to 26' as per city
requirements.
b. The two curb cuts along the northwest corner parking lot
will be closed, per city requirements.
B. Perimeter Curbing:
a. Perimeter curbing will be added in the northwest
corner parking lot in addition to other areas proposed
on the plan submitted. However the applicant does not
propose to add perimeter curbing along the adjacent
resident's property at the perimeter area fronting along
Portland Avenue. Staff has concern that if perimeter
curbing is not added, the parking lot will more likely
erode in these areas.
C. Parking
a. The applicant has no specific proposal to address
overflow parking concerns at this time.
b. A designated on -site bus parking area will be
indicated on the final plans. It will likely be
located at the south end of the main parking lot
adjacent to the neighboring apartment garages.
D. Drainage - The applicant will install 2 catch basins
in the northwest corner parking lot, which
meet the City Engineer's remaining drainage
concerns.
E. Screening - The applicant has not proposed any additional
screening, beyond a shrub row as indicated on the
submitted plans for the southwest drive.
Representatives of the applicant indicated to staff they
will meet to discuss the possibilities for a more
comprehensive screening program, and present this to the
City Council on Monday, April 24. Staff has recommended
that this program include landscaping, fencing
r,;�- S
(preferably new board on board) and a maintenance
program. If new fencing is not installed, staff would
recommend a much more intensive landscape
material planting plan to buffer the adjacent residents
from Church traffic and headlight glare.
The above issues will be addressed by the applicant before the
City Council on Monday, April 24, 1989.
Alternative Recommendation:
To approve the granting of an offstreet parking permit for Hope
Presbyterian Church at 7132 Portland Avenue South, with the
following stipulations.
1. Full perimeter curbing be installed adjacent to public
right of ways, to adjacent properties, and per staff
approval.
2. Lighting reviewed with staff and meet illumination
requirements with no glaring on adjoining residences.
Signage be modified to reflect new changes in circulation,
particularly at the Portland Avenue exit.
3. A designated area be specified for church bus parking
on the applicant's property, and approved by staff. That
the issue of overflow parking be addressed.
4. Curb cuts be closed which are no longer is use along the
northwest corner parking lot.
5. A catch basin and associated drainage plan be proposed and
approved by the City Engineer.
6. To install screening sufficient to buffer adjacent residents,
particularly from headlight glare, per staff approval.
Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the April 24, 1989 city council
agenda for consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja s D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP /eja
TABLE A
PARKING
EXISTING PARKING - 315
PROPOSED PARKING - 270
*REQUIRED PARKING - 213
by City Ordinance
* *RECOMMEND PARKING - 309
by staff (fo
*Basis of Required Parking
SPACES
SPACES
SPACES
SPACES
r peak time demand)
Sunday: Services = 192 Spaces
Services Scheduled At:
Sunday School = 21 Spaces
213 Spaces
* *Basis of Recommended Parking
192 Spaces for Church parking
96 Spaces for Church overflow parking
21 Spaces for School Parking
309 Spaces
Due to the scheduling of Sunday Services (which create the peak
demand for parking in a given week), there is presently an
overflow problem onto adjacent city streets. Staff recommends
additional parking be provided in addition to the parking
/J-�
specified by city guidelines to accommodate the overflow parking
at peak times.
TABLE B
SETBACKS
REQUIRED
Front: 30 foot minimum
Rear: 25 foot minimum
Sideyards:
Streetside - 15 foot min.
or established setback
of the existing structure,
whichever is less.
Interior - 25 foot minimum
PROPOSED
45 feet 2 inches
67 feet 2 inches
South - 50 feet 7 -3/4
inches
North - 11 feet
8 inches
13 -Y
ATTACHMENT A
USE CHART
Activity Area Used
SUNDAY MORNING
Church Services 5,570 sq.ft.
809 lineal ft. of pews
90 seats
Hours of Number of /3
Operation staff .
8:30am - 9:30am 15 total
9:45am - 10:45am
11:OOam - 12:OOpm
Sunday School 10 classrooms
Youth @ 915 sq.ft. = 9,150 sq.ft.
2 classrooms
@ 1,420 sq.ft. = 2,840 sq.ft.
11,990 sq.ft.
Teens 7 classrooms
@ 915 sq.ft. = 6,419 sq -ft.
8:30am - 9:30am
9:45am - 10:45am
11:OOam - 12:OOpm
Adults 2 classrooms
@ 830 sq.ft. = 1,660 sq.ft.
60 seats
I classroom
@ 400 sq.ft. = 400 sq.ft.
15 seats
WEEKDAYS
Administration 3,800 sq.ft. Monday thru Friday 30 maximum
8:OOam - 4:30pm staff
Nursery Center 3 classrooms Monday thru Friday 7
@ 915 sq.ft. = 2,745 sq.ft. 9:OOam - 11:30am
12:30pm - 3:OOpm
Latch Key 1 classroom Monday thru Friday 2
@ 1,420 sq.ft. 6:30am - 6:OOpm
Clothing Center 1,600 sq.ft.
Wednesday Night Dinner 60 people
Program runs from Bible Study 250 people
September thru May in Sanctuary
Youth Program 40 children
Pioneer Girls & Boys
Brigade 100 children
Choir 45 people
Thursday 4
1:OOpm - 5:OOpm
Saturday
10:00am - 1:OOpm
Wednesday 12
6:OOpm - 8:30pm
0
N
� � f
XERX£S AVE,
WASHBURN
A 1'I VINCENT
XERXES AVE. 1-- 1l
�-�,; _ l � UPTON
WASHBURN THOMAS
VINCENT •, LO.'.' ry'.�i -J SHERIDAN
J
iUPTON I'' STN j A �` 7 RUSSELL
s
THOMAS ;'i QUEEN
I
SHERIDAN ��\ -- � IgIT PENN AVE.
RUSSELL UlI
h� 1 �p OLIVER
QUEEN I° Z
NEWTON
PENN AVE.
1 I,tORG AN
OLtVER
1 — LOGAN
NEWTON liI PORTLAND AVE. S• O -- - I KNOX
MORGAN ��- i! JAMES
LOG All
! IRVING
KNOX 1 \ - N 4' HUMBOLDT
JAMES I .. Z
� ^ � O�f✓Q/ I GIRARO
IRVING �1��v -- { ; • PID E. S• FREMONT
14UMBOLOT \S JJ 1t • �,nr ' : • . . L 4;: ; : � 1 %�;�;: ✓ ,: ; :,. �••' •� •'• � 3 • • • � r F� ��7--;; \�\ I, 1{1
EMERSON
GIRARD DUPONT
FREMONT COL FAX
EMERSON ilj BRYANT
DUPONT II ''�� .:•;,:; �•. ••' tJ lI ALDRICH
COLFAX II {�"�'�• •••� i I LYNOALE AVE.
BRYANT 1 U'S I ••.• %• %' III GARFIELD
1 lJ
ALDRICH '1 , • .;r :.., •• `�l� / 1 III HARRIET
L AVE. ;�1 �.., ., `+,z�•+ -��.% µ' %�• 1 ,'��.� 3��I� J� GRAND
YNDALE Til�c•GARFIELD ��•r,. ; , —I� , I ;11�,. PLEASANT
HARRIET ��� -- { :ir_- �= - -- URY
�- �t { PILLSB GRAND 1-' I_-,_ .1. I- •;SAN.'••'- '`•�.`••� • yL_� -� Ij I1�- �--1'a �I WENTWORTH
PLEASANT ill :''. L�-J 1111 '�- ✓���1 IIY \� BLAISDELL
PILLSBURY 1�1 �{ �r. •1%%';:•} li ;_��1 NtCOLLET AVE.
WENTWORTH •••�. •:;' ;: ;:••..' 0 -`1(, 1st
BLAISDELL ;� ,.;- c•r••. j STEVENS
7 AVE. 2nd
NICOLLE
L� t
Ist 3,0 �
STEVEN
Z E'� CLINTON
3rd` {1-- --"�"' •rte \il �I��
`1
CLINTON PORTLAND AVE.
411, OAKLAND
5tR
1` ij �� J t_. � PARK
PORTLAND AVE. ,p —='. tj } O� COLUMBUS
OAKLAND {� ', � c CHICAGO
PARK Ii` L� �I {� {^� m = ', ELL
IOT
COLUMBUS VIII'lll{i�O E:=—1 1� l0 tR
1t�J
CHICAGO II a �' �s•� -�
ELLIOt 1� �-- •'., --i {I �j�O Il2t Ih
Ip,R F�i�� 1����Ii1 = ^;�;I, ""'j {��J��(���� 13th
u to I;1 �aEl���� --'� lath
12 to I Q �� QO� is to
13 to �{1� �1��� HLpOMINGTON
14 th ���r�l j� ~ 161n
1S Ih 11' _H' ���-I OO 1718
I 1�1 IL��t
BL{X)MINGTON { 11 1 �I--'' , O _ 18th
t6tR C�QO�fl� - CEDAR AVE.
17 th 1 - � I1--j::
- - -- - ---
LONGFELLOW
18th =•� ----- ---- -- ----- - - -- -� -- -- _- - - 19th
CEDAR AVE. Z 13C
2018
LONGFELLOW y ,. -
22nd
m
m N N i '' � � -�J_ STANDISH
z3'4
Z
N �
g ;v
x
0
0
0
I
mm
mm
mm
m
mm
.
si . ��
�
mm
mm
Elm
mm
mm
mm
iii
ii
i�
mmlmmlim
MIN
mom
ii
ii
mm
�=
mimmimmimmimmillimm
mm
Elm
I
mm
mm
m
.
si . ��
�
�i
ii
ii
ii
::;:::::;i
iii
ii
i�
mmlmmlim
MIN
mom
ii
ii
mm
�=
I
mm
mm
m
.
si . ��
�
�i
ii
I
mm
mm
mm
.
si . ��
�
�i
ii
ii
ii
::;:::::;i
gwj�
mm
��
ii
ii
ii
mm
®QUA
t: sct
PA'
W- A.0 I mi
fSPOIN
,
Do- ki
�i
E W
ii
'mss
Vol
1
s�
7132 PORTLAND
COMPREHENSIVE DEVE
MEDIUM DENSITY /BUFFER 01 INSTITU'
g MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL F
mm
0
ii
ii
ii
>•�
!i
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
iii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
im�i
i
ii
0
ii
ii
ii
>•�
>•
i
0
ii
NO
mm
No o! !� ii
'o mi i ii
ii • ii
ii ii
0
v
O
V
ii
is
ii
ii
mm
No o! !� ii
'o mi i ii
ii • ii
ii ii
0
v
O
V
ii
is
ii
ii
z
0
:►;
i
4TH AVE. S.
mum A"m WJm
13'x/
roRtw�o +►+s+�+s �^!
j PORTLAND AVE. S.
i�
2"�
,��„� , nimo.P, .Q.• :, nA�ao+I .o '—'°,C
.co. ,
HOP[ McSayTBR" CHURCH
� Mosr j ✓nor/ �+`°'° o++J s+ra"°rrf� . �"' sour tta�di/ rev w+/ i1i+s� v7� �'�► �p
os+ /'All
I --- *r-
Z
H
CA
�v
O
m
r
z
m �
ul
Z
a
IyI
i
i
v
J( O
r-
v
m oc
x M
dy
0'
O
m
r
z
m
M
m
V
O
U)
m
v
v
v
O
z
m rn
x x
X z
m O
0 O
z r
f
�E
,1
x
Z
v�
0
s
s
A
z
r
Z
X
In
m
n
m
s•
m
r
-I
m
O
m
z
0
O
z
U)
z
ao ,
n.
s
m
m'
z
Z
O
O
n
O
3
M
a
tia o : b
.fill
t
r
n
m
m
z
z
704t, era mwm /%%D nor.o+ /■par w[7pw *c - r"mw= wvm /wc mg7ow K • nOMa O Ma /.a0 T+o•Ao+ /mOlm" MK+ow OM
Ll rr __ ADD(TW - AMU REMODEUM Of
HOPC• I'RESOYTFJtIM1 CHURCH
• >N mar. +aa / wo�rou ow /:� �rar+mrr • �r+ w•c�sr ua�or/ w�rwu o.,/ w.a� �n�+ • >N woaar ,nwar/ r�o�rou vw /:a,� �o� �'� �
�cl)
r'
n
Z
N
- tt► , J
s
�► w
vo
rn
-o
.r
Z
94C 00800
0702 s (.AGE *'a / e
PL�� K'
IBC ���t �M1 � MAD �'��+ ' 1 •
.,�o•� �'"'° T�,"O" r-� � ,um RAN° °� a',M,,,.�'�
114"A -- f -
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.100
Agenda April 24, 1989
Issue Statement:
First reading and consideration of an ordinance amendment which
would prohibit the parking of vehicles within 30 feet of an
intersection without a crosswalk.
Background:
Staff has on a number of occasions received complaints of cars or
trucks parked too close to an intersection which causes sight
problems. Currently, city ordinance and state statutes do
prohibit parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk. However, no
provision is made for parking near intersections without a
crosswalk.
Public Safety and the Traffic Control Committee have reviewed
this problem. Both concur that we lack the authority to address
the problem and that the problem is real.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of an ordinance amending Section 1305.25 of
the city ordinance code prohibiting parking within thirty feet
(30') of intersections without crosswalks, and schedule the
second reading and public hearing for the May 22, 1989 City
Council meeting.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Staff and the Traffic Safety Committee believe this amendment
would address this unsafe practice.
2. It appears the intent of this ordinance was implied, but not
specified when the ordinance prohibiting parking within
twenty feet (201) of a crosswalk at an intersection was
adopted.
3. Vehicles parked too close to an intersection do restrict
sight.
4. An ordinance such as this reduces the need for additional
parking restriction signs.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do nothing, which would allow vehicles to continue parking
right up to an intersection without crosswalks.
2. Direct staff to find another alternative.
3. Direct staff to sign any problem intersections with "no
parking here to corner" signs. This alternative could work,
but would lack uniformity throughout the city.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
First reading of this ordinance has been placed on the April 24,
1989 city council agenda. If the ordinance is approved at the
/64 0160t
second reading on May 22, it would become effective 30 days after
publication in the city's official newspaper. The city would
also develop appropriate publicity to advise residents of this
new ordinance prior to enforcement.
Respectfully submitted,
James D. rosser
City Ma ger
4050
4051 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC REGULATION 169.01
fiction, by
Subd: 34. Laned, highway. "Caned highwa
xture may
which is divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for vehicular traffic.
t gaseous :
Subd. 35. Through highway., "Through highway" means every, highway or
,cts 'or of
portion thereof at the entrances to which vehicular traffic from intersecting highways
is required by law to stop before entering or crossing the same and when stop signs are
which has
erected as ro '
liabtte or
SUM. 36. Intersection. "Intersection" means (a) the area embraced within the
prolongation or connection of the lateral curb lines, or, if none, then the lateral
neans the
boundary lines of the roadways of two highways which join one another, at, or
r referred
approximately at, right angles, or the area within which vehicles traveling upon different
'ough the
highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict.
or more apart, then every
neans the
feared he
e
crossing of each roadway of such divided highway by an intersecting highway shall be
regarded as a separate intersection. In the event such intersecting highway also includes
officers
two roadways 30 feet or more apart, then every crossing of two roadways of such
highways shall be regarded as a intersection.
tnership,
separate
Subd. 37. Crosswalk. Crosswalk means (1) that portion of a roadway
ordinarily included with the prolongation or connection of the lateral lines of sidewalks
ieelchair.
at intersections; (2) any portion of a roadway ' distinctly indicated . for pedestrian
s defined
crossing by lines or other markings on the surface .
vice used
Subd. 38. Safety zone. "Safety zone" means the area or space officially set apart
within a roadway for the exclusive use of pedestrians and which is protected or is so
in ual
marked or indicated by adequate signs as to be plainly visible at all times set apart as
a safety zone.
t vehicle,
Subd. 39. Business district. "Business district" means the territory contiguous
or lease
to and including a highway when 50 percent or more of the frontage thereon for a
;d in the
distance of 300 feet or more is occupied by buildings in use for business.
I vendee
ten such -
Subd. 40. Residence district. "Residence district" means the temtory contiguous
to and including a highway not comprising a business district when the property on
Purpose
such highway for a distance of 300 feet or more is in the main improved with residences
to direct
or residences and buildings in use for business.
N
Subd. 41. Official traffic control devices. "Official traffic control devices" means
.
anicipal, ,.
all signs, signals, markings, and devices not inconsistent. with this chapter placed or
erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction, for the purpose of
as under
as under
dating, warning, or guiding traffic.,, .. „» .
-
iiversrty
Subd. 42. Traffic control signal. " Traffic control signal means any device,
whether manually, electrically or mechanically operated, by' which traffic is alternately
between
directed to stop and permitted to proceed. -
,e of the
Subd. 43. Railroad sign or signal. "Railroad sign or signal' means any sign,
signal, or device erected by authority of a public body or official or by a railroad and
intended to give notice of the presence of railroad tracks or the approach of a railroad
eery way
id those '.
train. ,
ins.
Subd. 44. Traffic. "Traffic" means pedestrians, ridden or herded animals,
vehicles, street cars, and other conveyances, either singly or together, while using any
proved, e
Moulder.
highway for purposes of travel.
oadway"
Subd. 45. Right -of -way. "Right -of -way" means the privilege of the immediate
►adways
use of highway.
Subd. 46. Gross vehicle weight. "Gross vehicle weight' means the unloaded
oael•ay
"
combing-
aright of a vehicle or the unloaded weight of a truck- tractor and semitrailer combing-
�o q
tion, plus the weight of the load.
Subd. 47. Custom - service vehicles. "Custom service vehicles" means all vehicles
he curb
*wd as well - drilling machine, wood- sawing machine, cement mixer, rock crusher, road
I for the
gamer, ditch digger, or elevating grader, and similar service equipment.
Subd. 48. Motor vehicle dealer. "Motor vehicle dealer" means any person
/ r
Richfield City Code 1305.17
1305.17. Manner of parking. Subdivision 1. General rule. The driver of a
vehicle intended to park at the. curb or any street or highway, at a 'place about
to be vacated by another vehicle, shalt stop back of such parking space and wait
until said vehicle has vacated the parking space. The person desiring to park
shall then move his vehicle to a place immediately in front of the parking space
and back into it and the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear
shall yield the right -of -way to that person. In case there is no one in posi-
tion immediately in front of the empty parking space who is, prepared to back'
into it, the driver of an approaching vehicle may head into the parking space
without backing, provided the parking space is large enough to permit such.
maneuver.
Subd. 2. Vehicles backed to the curb: loading and unloading. No vehicle'
shall be backed to the curb in the commercial zones to or unload; except „ by
permit from the director of public safety. Vehicles used for the transportation
of merchandise or materials may back into the curb to take on or discharge loads
when the owner of such vehicle holds a permit granting him-such privilege. Such
permit shall be either in the possession of the driver or on' the vehicle itself
at the time such vehicle is backed against the curb. Violation of any special
terms or conditions contained in the permit a violation of this subsection.
1305.19. Display of vehicles for sale. It is unlawful to park or place any
vehicle on a street or highway or on any private parking'lot in order to display
such vehicle for sale or exchange. A vehicle is deemed to be displayed in
violation of this section when found standing on any street or highway, or
private parking lot, and bearing any sign or notice indicating that it is for
sale or exchange
1305.21. Maintenance and repairs. Except in the case of emergency, no person
shall wash, grease, repair or otherwise perform maintenance work upon any
vehicle when such vehicle is located on any street or highway.
1305.23. Tampering with parked vehicles. No person may tamper with, molest,
damage or set in motion any vehicle standing on any street or highway without
the consent of the owner or driver of such vehicle. If the city manager finds
it necessary, for purposes of facilitating street maintenance operations, to
move any such vehicle, he may do so to the extent necessary to facilitate such
operations.
1305.25. Specific regulations: illegal parking and stopping. No person may
stop, stand or parka vehicle, whether attended or unattended, except when
necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the di-
rections of a police officer or traffic control device in any of the following
places:
(a) on a sidewalk or boulevard between sidewalk and roadway;
(b) in front of a public or private driveway or alley or within five feet
of the intersection of any public or private driveway or alley with any street
or highway;
(c) within an intersection;
Richfield City Code 1305.25, (d)
(d) within ten feet of a fire hydrant; provided that this does not prevent
the parking or taxicabs in taxicab stands established by the council within ten
feet in either direction of a fire hydrant;
�(e) on a crosswalk;
(f) within 20 feet of a crosswalk at any intersection;
(g) within 30 feet upon the approach of any flashing school signal, stop
sign, traffic - control signal or school sign at the side of a roadway;
(h) "between a safety zone and the adjacent curb or within 30 feet of
points on the curb immediately opposite the ends of a safety zone,. unless a
different length is indicated by signs or marking, .
(i) within a designated or marked bus stop;
(j) within 50 feet of the nearest rail of a railroad'crossing;�
(k) within 20 feet of the driveway entrance to any.fire station and on the
side of a street opposite the entrance of any fire station within 75 feet of
said entrance when properly sign posted;
(1) alongside or opposite any street excavation or obstruction when such
stopping, standing or parking would obstruct traffic;
(m) along the curb side of street adjacent to any school property from
8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on days when school is in session;
(n) on the roadway side of any vehicle stopped or parked at the edge or
the curb of a street;
(o) upon any bridge or approach or other elevated structure upon a street
or highway or within a street or highway tunnel, except otherwise provided by
ordinance;
(p) at any place so as to block a fire escape or exit from any building;
(q) at any place where temporary signs prohibit parking as long as such
signs are in place;
(r) on, any public street or highway, at the same location, for more than
48 hours in succession;
(s) on any public property, including parks, playgrounds and school
grounds and including marked and improved parking areas on public property
during ,_times when parking in such parking areas is either prohibited or is
otherwise limited by council resolution and such prohibition or limitation' is
conspicuously posted in the parking area;
(t) upon the improved or traveled portion of any public alley except at
locations where such parking is permitted by official signs or markings;
I
Richfield City Code
1305.25, (u)
(u) on any part of marked and improved parking areas on public property
other than marked or lined parking spaces; and
(v) in any area' designated by the council and posted a a special no
parking zone, provided, however, that this prohibition shall not apply to police -
vehicles, fire vehicles, ambulances and other emergency vehicles, or a vehicle
which displays the certificate or insignia issued by.the Minnesota department of
public safety pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 169.345 or 168.021.
1305.27. Additional prohibitions. Subdivision, 1. Moving parked vehicle. No
person may move a vehicle not owned by such person into any prohibited area or
away from a curb or side of street such distance as is unlawful.
Subd. 2. Camping vehicles..:. No .person may for:- camping purposes. leave. or
park a house trailer on or within the limits of any street or highway or on any
street or .highway right -of -way except where signs are erected designating the
place as a camp site.
Subd. 3. Police order. No person may stop or park a vehicle on a street
or highway when directed or ordered to proceed by any peace officer invested by
law with authority to direct,,control or regulate traffic.
Subd. 4. Handicapped parking. No person may park, obstruct or occupy with
a motor vehicle any parking space, on public or private property, designated and
posted as parking for handicapped persons pursuant to the state building code
unless the vehicle has prominently displayed upon it an insignia or certificate
issued by the division of motor vehicles in the state department of public
safety pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 169.345(3).
Subd. 5. Front yards. No person may park or place any motor vehicle in
the front yard area of any lot within the city, except in established driveway
areas as and parking areas permitted by this code; and locations where the
parking and storage of recreational vehicles and equipment is permitted by this
city zoning code.
1305.29. School safety patrolmen. The director of public safety may appoint
school safety patrolmen, designated as such, who serve without compensation.
Patrolmen shall be appointed from the student bodies of public and private
schools within the city. The director of public safety shall also designate the
streets upon which school safety patrolmen have the power to regulate traffic.
Patrolmen shall be subordinate to and shall obey all the orders of any regular
municipal peace officer. No school safety patrolman shall function unless he is
equipped with the. proper "school stop" hand signal. Such patrolmen are au-
thorized to regulate traffic of all kinds on designated streets when they are
properly-equipped and act within the terms of their appointments.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 99
Agenda April 24, 1989
Issue Statement:
First reading on a request for rezoning of the property at 7312
Lyndale Avenue.
Background:
Mr. and Mrs. Charles W. Smith, have requested the rezoning of
7312 Lyndale Avenue South from 'R', single family residence
district to 'MR -21, multiple residence district. The purpose of
the rezoning is to construct six townhomes in two buildings. The
existing structure on the site is in poor condition.
The applicant is proposing to sell off the jog to the east (as
noted on the attached site plan "area to be removed "), contingent
upon the rezoning of the property. A copy of the purchase
agreement has been attached. This would serve to straighten out
the rear lot line. The proposal has been reviewed based on the
straight lot line.
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal on March 28, 1989
and recommended denial (7 to 1) on the basis of incompatibility
with the neighborhood.
An analysis of the proposal is outlined in Attachment A.
Recommended Motion:
To approve first reading of an amendment to Section 545.11 of the
zoning ordinance rezoning the property at 7312 Lyndale Avenue
from 'R' single family residence to MR -2 multiple family
residence district to allow the construction of six townhomes in
two structures; and schedule; and schedule the public hearing and
second reading for May 22, 1989.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Comprehensive Development Plan designates the property as
medium density buffer, MR -2 (multiple family).
2. The proposed common element subdivision is in conformance
with the city's subdivision regulations, based on the
revised lot line.
3. The proposal meets all city requirement for an MR -2 district.
4. There are 42 mature trees on the site. The applicant
proposes to maintain 7 trees and install 7 new trees. Staff
has reviewed the landscape plan submitted and found it to be
adequate.
5. The abutting properties are zoned 'R' district except one lot
to the west which is zoned (MR -1) two family dwellings. The
site plan indicates a 6 foot privacy fence along the
westerly property line extending 32 feet along the northerly
and southerly property line.
it -2-
Alternative Recommendation:
1. To review the request to construct six townhome units in two
buildings on the basis of a Planned Unit Development (PUD),
limited to six units. The applicant has adequate land
acreage in order to apply for a PUD. If the PUD were
limited to six units, the concerns for a potentially more
intensive development could be alleviated. In addition,
with a PUD, the layout of the townhomes could be reviewed in
terms of relationship to the adjacent residents.
2. To deny the request on the basis that most of the properties
in the neighborhood are single family residential uses, and
therefore the proposal would be incompatible with the
neighborhood.
Decision Mode:
First reading of the zoning amendment is scheduled for April 24,
1989.
Respect submitted,
James D. rosser
City Man er
10 -3
ATTACHMENT A
Required
Proposed
(Based
on MR -2 Zoning)
Minimum
Land Area
17,500 sf
33,033 sf
Minimum
Floor Area /Dwelling Unit
950 sf
2,260 sf
Maximum
Lot Coverage (30 %)
9,910 sf
8,508 sf
Minimum
Open Space
2,400 sf
23,123 sf
(400 sf /dwelling unit)
Minimum
Setbacks:
Front
30 feet
30 feet
Rear
25 feet
27.5 feet
Side
25 feet
25 -32 feet
Maximum
Height
42 feet
25 feet
Minimum
Building Separation
25 feet
65 feet
Minimum
Parking
12 p.s.
28 p.s.
(Two per dwelling unit)
Minimum
Curb Cut Width
26 feet
26 feet
Z�
N w V •
�f f 1 1 s •
1
N � � O O V
2 i C J s f
XERXES AVE e+�++,+�•� +ys_ : s� =- = -r^- -+
-y_.+.�-- - •�
WASHBURN
VINCENT'S ��r
f i 1 3
UPTON
THOMAS
SHERIDAN
RUSSELL ! 1; '! _ -_•
_ G C
QUEEN
PENN AVE,
OLIVER
NEW T014
MORGAN
LOGAN
KNOX
JAMES
IRVING
NUMBOLDT
GIRARO
FREMONT
EMERSON
DUPONT
COLFAX
BRYAN?
ALDRICH
LYNOALE AVE.
GARFIELD
HARRIET
GRAND
PLEASANT
PILLSBURY
WENTWOBTH
BLAISDELL
MICOLLET AVE.
161
STEVENS
284
3..
CLINTON
4111
SM
PORTLAND AVE.
OAKLAND
PARK
COLUMBUS
CHICAGO
ELLIOT
IO to
It IN
12 t11
131%
1416
15 1%
BLOOMINGTON
1{ t11
17 to
IS to
CEDAR AYE.
LONGFELLOW
Z
T
T
=n�
Bi v
2:
S _V
1 �
N
�t
'�"'• •..• °' 1�'�"'��"" �l� XERXES AVE.
�� - -' •� WASNBYRN
_. 1trr1
VINCENT
1 Ip
Y ►TON
=� Lj SHERIDAN
=•� RUSSELL
QUEEN .
PENN AVE.
1 1 OLIVER
•—• Qi NEWTON
1
MORGAN
^ —� LOGAN
J 1 KNOX
��oJl
JAYE3
IRwN6
HUMBOLDT
_ i lL II
.I 61RARD
FrommT
N EMERSON
DUPONT
COLFAX
rv.Ci, • E i 111 !
DRTANT
.\ ��• AIDRICN
•ItpQ 1 I I
LrNDALE AVE.
V
ARIE
HARRIET
HARRRIET
GRAND
t
. —� PLEASANT
—.I'• .1 L -mil -� li .PILLSBURY
WENTWORTH
1 1
!1 III BLAISDELL
NlcouEr AVE.
_
let
STEVENS
2e.
.I
3r4
GLINTON
�I4N
!. SII1
1 POPTLAND AVE,
a
V OAKLAND
W I PARK
0 ' COLUMBUS
1I CHICAGO
N ELLIOT
^II 10111
II 11111
S �12111
131A
1
14 111
0� a It,. Q BLOOMINGTON
lo t%
Ut%
CEDAR AVE.
UT�zz_ IANQFEILOW
L.L����� 20tH
21 of
Ir 22 RA
STANDISH
10 ° •1 w
N
♦
V
N
f i 1 3
= f
•
y;
1��
W
r r'
L O
z
va
r- O
m
m
a
. 73RD ST. W.
N
33 12 23
C6
� R
ti
m
Q
0
M
0
M
tl�
W ip_ 25S 30
W
cm y
M M
W
100
N Q g'D 258 25.5 Q
Z U22 30
L zr
O � �N
M
ZN
r J �
0 M a , �• Ion
!V
'... 24
CO)
37 g
Q 0 0) 22
N
o
CO)
M
I � �
I
. I
I
I
i
i
�i
L
r-�
' - J
1,
1
Y
•
,
TrT-
IL
Ti
i
rI ` I T
;
i
1
•Iii .� li ,'
u
/1- eo
W
1
M
"n z
r0
Oy
Or
�m
rC
>m
Z•
• J
t`
r t i
a c
on
aZ
l 4 ' 0
e * '
N
a
r
rn
n
A
O
O
I!•6
Z[�
m O
O
O(1)
m
v v
M v
� C
z v
z
64.90' o _. C
LYNDALE AVE. S,
V)
-i
m
oftki
W
N
E
z
v
n-
r
m
m
rr�r-
M
r
i
!1�
y �
,
a'vow- i
XV, 0 OX V\.�,
1 ! ,,! • I�'1 + +� � ' 1.11 , ' , i � ,
r 1 j.+
t j,yl r
` �,r 111 j� •1. ; 1 �� ,i
,
1
I
00
r�
ctiL
,
y �
,
a'vow- i
XV, 0 OX V\.�,
1 ! ,,! • I�'1 + +� � ' 1.11 , ' , i � ,
r 1 j.+
t j,yl r
` �,r 111 j� •1. ; 1 �� ,i
,
1
I
00
r�
ctiL
III
+ + ,*Ala
,` � �' ��, �� ' +111 • s 1 i . ,; � `` ', �►\.J
q
C� t
ry V
PA
� i 1
s
` t
,y
;ROVE
W
W
Q
F-
Z
}
m
PL
W
Q
U_
D
Q
73RD ST W
74TH ST W
75TH ST W
F::]
ZONING
T
W
Q
D
J
W
cn
W
Q
H
W
Q
S
;,..,.;
SINGLE FAMILY (R -1)
:•::� �::�
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE (MR -1)
RESIDENCE (R)
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE (MR -3)
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE (MR -2)
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS
(C-1)
73RD ST W
74TH ST W
75TH ST W
F::]
ZONING
T
W
Q
D
J
W
cn
W
Q
H
W
Q
S
M
s' F
6 d
IFF
s �'
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLanl ZWK
N
a
I-
Q
m
N
a
U_
a
MEDIUM DENSITY / BUFFER
__�
` Minn -a MN STANDARD
DONOTCOPY 1.
9ahjMbCopyriRhtlawh PURCHASE AGREEMENT
GREEN - - hers' s.fiapK�
GRF,F.NSelleisCopy I
%
PINK- Buyer's Reoeipt
�" f
i
I Minnesota 1 1119 _
2 RECEIVEDOF _Orvill,. t. Oalagcr- ;in,! 1'7abel T. 1)alagr�r, J0!nL ibeiiants _
3 thesumof Five 1lunclred and no/lno -------------------- Dollars($ 500.00
}
4. by ' ` Cdt90;jV " as earnest money to be deposited the next business day after acceptance in trust account of listing broker
5. (unless otherwise specified in writing) and in part payment for the purchase of the premises legally described as
g E 20 ft of _ Lots lit & 1" , Jc)c), 1, Ir4 in :bores Numb �r 2.
7 RiCht>eld, 1linnesota, llennepin County
8. located at (Street Address)
9.. City of R i c h f 1 c 10 County of P^ n n e p i n State of Minnesota,
10.' including all plants, shrubs and trees, all storm windows and /or inserts, storm doors, screens, awnings, window shades, blinds, curtain-
11. traverse - drapery rods, attached lighting fixtures with bulbs, plumbing fixtures, water heater, heating system, humidifier, central air conditioning,
12 electronic air filter, automatic garage door opener with controls, water softener, table television outlets and cabling, BUILT -INS to include:
13. dishwasher, garbage disposal, trash compactor, oven(s), cooktop stove, microwave oven, hood -fan, intercom, installed carpeting, IF ANY,
14. located on the premises which are the property of Seller and also the following personal property: 14 /A
15.t ..
16.
17. all of which property Seller has this day sold to Bu for the sum f $ 6,000.00
-«
18.
19.
yer o .
Dollars,, S
- t
20. which Buyer agrees to pay in the following manner: Earnest money of $ 500-00
ai
21. s 5 ;500.00 cash on or before
j
22: of s and the lance
r; by financing as follows:
23.
24 -_
25 i
26 S
27.
28.
29.
30.
l.' Attached ore 1 addendums which are made a part of this agreement. i
32 SUBJECT TO performance by Buyer, Seller agrees to execute and deliver a Warranty Dom,
33. to be pined in by spouse, if any, conveying marketable title to the premises subject only to the following exceptions:
34. (1) Building and zoning laws, ordinances, State and Federal regulations. (2) Restrictions relating to use or improvement ofthe premises without)
35 effective forfeiture provision. (3) Reservation of any minerals or mineral rights to the State of Minnesota. (4) Utility and drainage easements
36. which do not interfere with present improvements. (5) Rights of tenants, if any.
37. REAL ESTATE TAXES SV9feJre96,top6y42-A-,/12ths Arid Bu 4,6g'r &o 6 /)2fbs6ftjx6dd'u6Aridp V"A4"S(r
38. y911�6�feF 6g► (air Ll� /L11,� 2irfs er;d �t�v�r egr9i6�4 /1LL�,i�iitt;�'erSMi�l iolslalfrhdnl�f %�e�rli ✓,s�i,�r�ldu�/
r n11. �.r agrees t0 __ihe closing spec pending.
39. l41e i5PIL616 (F>(3 f�af r 9' i� rate of closi all special assessments levied and
-j
40. Buyer it"- -atx! - myabli in the- freer -19 -and any pnpsid - Ilments of special assessments payable therewith
41. and thereafter. Seller warrants that taxes due and payable in the year 19 will be f t�1 ] venT. No's S•...- iv.k': homestead
42. classification. Neither Seller nor Seller's Agent makes any representation co rning the amount of future real estate taxes.
43. WARRANTIES Seller warrants that buildings, if any, are entirely within the boundary lines of the premises. Seller warrants that all
44. appliances, heating and air conditioning, wiring and plumbing used and located on the premises are in proper working order on date of closing.
45. Buyer has right to inspect premises prior to closing. Buyer shall satisfy himself /herself at his /her expense that all appliances, heating and air
46, conditioning, wiring and plumbing are in proper working order before closing. Seller warrants that the premises are connected to: city sewer
47. 0 yes - O no; city water 0 yes - 0 no. If the premises are destroyed or substantially damaged by fire or any other cause before the
4& closing date, this agreement shall become null and void at Buyer's option, and the earnest money shall be refunded to Buyer.
49. POSSESSION Seller agrees to deliver possession not later than closing.
50. All interest, cityvvlt�r s er aha ges electricity and natural gas charges, fuel oil and liquid petroleum gas shall be pro -rated between the
51. parties as of -- s' 1.4 1 1 . Selle aq s to remove all is and all personal property not included herein from the
52. premises before possession date. !' �' ` !' £ 7
_.... . �
53. TITLE b EXAMINATION Seller shall, within a reas able ti6 after Tance of this agreement, furnish an Abstract of Title, or a
54. Registered Property Abstract, certified to date to include proper searches covering bankruptcies, State and Federal judgments and liens. Buyer
55. shall be allowed 10 business days after receipt for examination of title and making any objections, which shall be made in writing or deemed
56. waived. If any objection is so made, Seller shall be allowed 120 days to make title marketable. Pending correction of title, payments hereunder
57. required shall be postponed, but upon correction of title and within 10 days after written notice to Buyer, the parties shall perform this
58. agreement according to its terms. If title is not corrected within 120 days from the date of written objection, this agreement shall be null and
59 void, at option of Buyer, neither parry shall be liable for damages hereunder to the other, and earnest money shall be refunded to Buyer.
60 DEFAULT If title is marketable or is corrected within said time, and Buyer defaults in any of the agreements herein, Seller may terminate this
61. agreement, and on such termination all payments made hereunder shall be retained by Seller and Agent, as their respective interests may appear,
62 as liquidateddamages, time being afthe essence hereof. This provision shall not deprive either party ofthe right of enforcing the specific performance
63. of this agreement, provided this agreement is not terminated and action to enforce specific performance is commenced within six months after
64 such right of action arises. In the event Buyer defaults in his performance of the terms of this Agreement, and Notice of Cancellation is
65. served upon the Buyer pursuant to MSA 559.21, the termination period shall be thirty (30) days as permitted by Subdivision 4of MSA
66. 559.21,
67, ACCEPTANCE Buyer understands and agrees that this sale is subject to acceptance by Seller in writing. Agent is riot liable or responsible
68. on account of this agreement, except to return or account for the earnest money.
69. Atit1:NCYDISGtOStJR6' stipulates he or she is represatt M§-tttE PV ?� Srt lEn'
70. IMhts4ransectkxr:The listing agent or broker stipulates he OT She Is mpram 01 Ig theietier N►�hls trsffs6ci%n.
71. I, the owner of the premises, accept this agreement and
72. the sale her /
made.
73. SELLER
y., 74. SELLER
.75. Delivery of all papers and monies shall be made at the office of:
76. Company .
77. Address _
78. THIS ISA
IF NOT
1 agree to purchase the premises for the price and on the terms and
conditions set forth above. r
:UYER UYER
j• M
Selling Agent
City yp l
STOOD, SEEK COMPETENT ADVICE.
l
ADDENDUM TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, CHARLES SMITH and HARRIET SMITH, Sellers, and
ORVILLE C. DALAGER and MABLE T. ;DALAGER, Buyers, wish to add
additional provisions to the attached Purchase Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE
PARTIES:
1. The Buyers will have no responsibility for any costs
of demolition or removal of debris arising from demolition of any
structure situated on the real property being transferred by this
Purchase Agreement.
2. This Purchase Agreement is contingent upon the
purchase of the real property described in this Purchase Agreement
by the Sellers from the present owners of the property, namely, the
Bergholts on or before MAX 30, 19
3. This Purchase Agreement is contingent upon the Sellers
obtaining from the City of Richfield approval of their request for
the rezoning of Lot 3, Lot 4, Lot 5, Lot 6 and the North 15 feet of
Lot 7, Block 1, Irwin Shores Nipber 2, on or before «�;e
�e-a A Pie i c. av, t 9 ��
4. In the event any contingency of this Purchase
Agreement is not satisfied, the Buyers have the right to immediately
declare this Agreement null and void and the Sellers agree to return
to Buyers all sums exchanged as a result of this transaction.
Dated:-/ /p,�e�BB
i3uYE2 0 Seller
Dated:
Buyer S��c��
March 17, 1989 1
To: Richfield Planning Commission and City Council
Re: 7312 Lyndale Avenue South
once again, Charles and Harriet Smith have applied for rezoning from Single
Family Rl to Multiple Dwelling MR2. The Smiths have adjusted their original
plan in hopes of complying with Council and neighbor's concerns about the
property.
Please find enclosed signed Purchase Agreements from the Longs and Dalagers.
The Smiths are selling the respective 15 feet and 20 feet on the west side of
the property to straighten the lot lines. The purchase will take place as
soon as the rezoning goes into effect. The plans have also been adjusted to
build two buildings - three units each with basically the same floor plan and
square footage as originally planned.
The Smiths are ready to remove the present condemned building and proceed
with the construction of their townhome project which they feel will greatly
improve and enhance the value of the property as well as the neighborhood.
Respectfully,
Charles W. Smith
i Z,t -A .—
Harriet Smith
9 gq 11 1r1./ta
aiA
'oo'7j
t4o,..- A I
7 far
yN,v� -ft-
o7a
11
/ei9'
Stanley J. Dzik
6837 Harriet Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
March 2, 1989
Mayor Quam
Richfield City Council Members
Once again you will have the opportunity to approve the
necessary zoning for the townhouse project at 73rd and
hyndale Avenue.
The city of Richfield needs this project and its positive
impact on the immediate area.
Our choices are very limited and I urge your full support
when you vote on the zoning application.
Cordially,
Stanley J. Dzi
11401-f1ple low ow
REQUEST FOR REZONI. r ROM l: ci ;din fit / / J/ � l RES/ en'% %C7
FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE
STREET ADDRESS: %31,;2 yiidzi /e 4,ve. Sc. /fir A ,,�7r1.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
We, the undersigned, being owners of land within 300 feet of the land
described above, do hereby concur in this Rezoning request.
V
9�zv
v
v
V
l/
v
Signature of Owners*
Address
Legal Description
L
RAJ
owe
II A'
i_La � .I -MMV
wz�
WAV J
I
Nky,%u u W
rk M. M 0 M
WMIMM
� KI WF.
* For purposes of determining if petition contains the proper number
of signatures to initiate the rezoning process signatures may not
be removed once a petition is signed and returned to the Planning
Division.
►QS'o�'-
cn
n
a
m
!I
A
O
O
11
7
LYNDALE AVE, S.
rw
ZN
v.
Cl'
n z o
M r
M m
� rn
z.
10
To El
Z m
x
w w
wrnx
m D V
m m
G)
m v mC)
O m
m
cn
�vm
m
M� c
v
64.90' - N,a
O C CZ
11
7
LYNDALE AVE, S.
rw
ZN
v.
Cl'
n z o
M r
M m
� rn
z.
PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R(SINGLE
RESIDENTIAL) TO MR2(MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL)
STREET ADDRESS: 7312 LYNDALE AVE. S., RICHFIELD, MN
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 3,4,5,6+ IRVIN SHORES #2
We, the undersigned, being owners of land within 300 ft. of the
property described above, do hereby strongly oppose the rezoning
request before the city council or any other rezoning for the
above property, as the requested rezoning is incompatible with
the surrounding neighborhood.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION
i
1 -
hkbi il d 4l'l G
n� *tax, x
C
v 6' S�
1
'
,..s�..4-- C..l'i.� {_i l� ✓1 'AJG`,k -"l�'1
FAr
PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R(SINGLE
RESIDENTIAL) TO
MR2 (MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL)
��
STREET ADDRESS: 7312.LYNDALE AVE. S., RICHFIELD, MN
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 3,4,5,6+ IRVIN SHORES #2
We, the undersigned, being owners of land within 300 ft. of the
property described above, do hereby strongly oppose the rezoning
request before the city council or any other rezoning for the
above property, as the requested rezoning is incompatible with
the surrounding neighborhood.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
41
%9s
�(k,
7.3 l Y / _ Yom' oil L
r
7'24
-7336 At;,-.So .
�46P;;
Y _X
75K7 7 "1-j,
s- So
PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R(SINGLE�`~
RESIDENTIAL) TO MR2(MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL)
STREET ADDRESS: 7312 LYNDALE AVE. S., RICHFIELD, MN
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 3,4,5,6+ IRVIN SHORES #2
We, the undersigned, being owners of land within 300 ft. of the
property described above, do hereby strongly oppose the rezoning
request before the city council or any other rezoning for the
above property, as the requested rezoning is incompatible with
the surrounding neighborhood.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION
QA
,� ° 73'3 Z-L�" r- S:
auzL� Z2,4�2
PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R(SINGLE
RESIDENTIAL) TO MR2(MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL)
STREET ADDRESS: 7312 LYNDALE AVE. S., RICHFIELD, MN
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 3,4,5,6+ IRVIN SHORES #2
We, the undersigned, being concerned homeowners of Richfield near
the property described above, do hereby strongly oppose the
rezoning request before the city council or any other rezoning
for the above property, as the requested rezoning is incompatible
with the surrounding neighborhood.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
41
To the Richfield City Council:
This letter concerns the rezoning proposal for the property
at 7312 Lyndale from single family to MR2 (Multiple Dwelling).
We have several serious concerns regarding this proposal.
Water Runoff
Currently our home is the lowest in the neighborhood. In
spring and during heavy rain it is not uncommon to have 4 -6
inches standing water in the backyard. This affects 3 -4 lots
surrounding ours as well.
Grading, landscaping, and tree removal in developing these
adjoining lots would certainly have a negative effect on what
currently is a growing problem.
Tree Removal
Tree removal is a fact of development. We feel that
removing the majority of trees on the lots would seriously
affect the appearance of our neighborhood. Certainly more of
these trees can be saved.
A Single Family Neighborhood
This is the most serious point of our concern. It is our
understanding that an MR2 rezoning does not establish a
guaranteed number of units that will be constructed on a
property. We have seen and heard a great many different
proposals that supposedly would not affect our neighborhood
negatively.
We cannot believe that a landlord, property management
company, or townhome owner could provide the pride and care to
the property that a single family dwelling would. With current
real estate tactics, who can guarantee this property will be
developed and sold as promised?
As homeowners we must cry out against this rezoning. The
property is bordered on all sides by single family homes. This
would be a slap in the face to all of us who enjoy a peaceful
neighborhood. The parking and traffic problems alone should be
enough grounds to deny this proposal.
We feel any development of this property should improve the
neighborhood both financially and esthetically. We admit our
concerns are selfish, but we see the neighborhood out our
windows everyday.
Thank you for your attention.
"7- - (;� U�r3b�
aye Re her
Paul Hannaman
X32 Ave - �0-
z
d
a��
r
r
H_ �_
`� i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 98
Agenda April 24, 1989
Issue Statement:
Continuance of the public hearing on a request for a preliminary
plat, common element subdivision of the property at 7312 Lyndale
Avenue.
Background:
Mr. and Mrs. Charles W. Smith have requested that the property at
7312 Lyndale Avenue be subdivided into a common element
subdivision to allow the construction of six townhomes in two
buildings. The existing structure on the site is in poor
condition.
The applicant is proposing to sell off the jog to the east (as
noted on the attached site plan "area to be removed "), contingent
upon the rezoning of the property.
An analysis of the proposal is outlined in Attachment A.
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal on March 28, 1989
combined with a request for a rezoning from 'R', single family
residence district to 'MR -21, multiple residence district.
The Planning Commission recommended denial (7 to 1).
Recommended Motion:
To continue the review for the preliminary plat common element
subdivision of the property tentatively scheduled for May 22,
1989.
Basis of Recommendation:
The motion for a rezoning request must go to a second reading,
tentatively scheduled for May 22. It would be appropriate
therefore, to take action at the same time a decision is made for
the rezoning.
Decision Mode:
The public hearing notice has been published in the official
newspaper for Monday, April 24, 1989.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City ager
Z�
XERXES AVE. c�
WASNBURN -yd
VINCENT
UPTON L��"j
THOMAS I_'
C L -
SHERIDAN ' ---
RUSSELL
�I
QUEEN
PENN AVE. r,s,i1n!r —r
OLIVER "A" '�'—�'
NEWTON
MORGAN
LOGAN t1i IL"J �"J
KNOX
JAMES
i
IRVING ---
NUMBOLDT
GIRARD
FREMONT
EMERSON r-
DUPONT I uC
I 0�r -
COLFAX =
i
BRYANT
ALDRICH I �^
LYNDALE AVE.
GARFIELD j u
/Job
HARRIET i GRAND
PLEASANT 7_
PILLSBURY
WENTWORTH �0� --•i,.
BlA15DEll
NICOLLET AVE.
let �^
STEVENS OC(^I
2nd
Sul
3r I C
I
a14TON
4th
stn i ;
PORTLAND AVE. i II�"IILC_J
OAKLAND
PARK �Ij ��!
COLUMBUS;
CHICAGO '1 OC1
III i
ELLIOT fl I
�I
IO th,� OCI
Il In P1111 12,1, 14 th 15 th
BLOOMINGTON
16th Lo 17 to Is 0
CEDAR AVE. _---__�----'
LONGFELLOW "- -- - - --
i
MO •" °'I s e
m
= TT N N N N y
= N N
m ..
=n�
2 T
R1
<r
;v
Z
a
N
o -7 a
� I
/0
0
0
N
N
O
s ! _
O
N ti N N�
ii XERXES AVE.
WASNBURN
VINCENT
_ - r- IG
��- - - -- UPTON
THOMAS
SHERIDAN
c" lI
RUSSELL
�fQUEEN
PENN AVE.
OLIVER
Off' NEWTON
MORGAN
LOGAN
KNOX
JAMES
IRVING
J�
HUMBOLDT
11 GIRARD
I IRARD
FREMONT
EMERSON
DUPONT
n�, II COLFAX
^ 0 Wi BRYANT
I!f ALDRICH
[I LYNDALE AVE.
yyIII GARFIELD
LI $r HARRIET
I' I GRAND
PLEASANT
III PILLSBURY
wENTwORTH
IIII BLAISDELL
' NICOLLET AVE.
let
STEVENS
2nd
3rd
CLINTON
AI sew
' POPTLAND AVE
V OAKLAND
PARK
�i COLUMBUS
I CHICAGO
i ELLIOT
10 to
Q1112,h
R�
IS th
1
141h
IS th
Q� BLOOMINGTON
16th
17th
CEDAR AVE.
-�- LONGFELLOW
�L_ 19th
201h _
z2
STAN OISH
23 re
N J W N
�
r
O
vn
I
rn o
C
rn
W
■
I"
ATTACHMENT A
Required
Proposed
(Based
on MR -2 Zoning)
Minimum
Land Area
17,500 sf
33,033 sf
` Minimum
Floor Area /Dwelling Unit
950 sf
2,260 sf
Maximum
Lot Coverage (30 %)
9,910 sf
8,508 sf
Minimum
Open Space
2,400 sf
23,123 sf
(400 sf /dwelling unit)
Minimum
Setbacks:
Front
30 feet
30 feet
Rear
25 feet
27.5 feet
Side
25 feet
25 -32 feet
Maximum
Height
42 feet
25 feet
Minimum
Building Separation
25 feet
65 feet
Minimum
Parking
12 p.s.
28 p.s.
(Two per dwelling unit)
Minimum
Curb Cut Width
26 feet
26 feet
U)
a
r
rn
A
O
O
10-41
z�
a
m O
n T
O
O m
v v
M ao
� C
m v
z
64.90'
LYNDALE AVE, S.
U)
:4
m
y
W
N
L<
z
v
r
m
m
�A"
U) O
64.90'
rl� no
K17/ W La
m
V
w
m
>
'a
x
w
rn
x
m
m
U
o
V
U)
—
U)
m
0
'a
0
M
C)
0
0
CA
rn
0
m
a
.
w
0
-4
'4
M
fn
W
M
m
M M
M
a
—
m
m
m
r
cn
-4
o
14.,.S
I
LYNDALE AVE, S.
>
Z
a r
C/) ;4
0 Z
m r
rc
z
CA
0
ZONING
LOVE
N
a
Z
N
m
,FL
uj
a
U
0
a
SINGLE FAMILY (R -1)
•; ; : : :: MULTIPLE RESIDENCE (MR -1)
• • • • RESIP- ,NCE(R)
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE (MR -3)
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE (MR -2)
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS
(C-1)
73RD ST W
V)
Lu
a
74TH ST W
75TH ST W
f�I
W
Q
Z
a
T
W
a
c
W
M
a
c�
AD -.
rn
W
a
W
a
M
MEN
9
i A8!% rs
�M� �
r■�
as
�r�
r � � r s �
-------- - - - - --
�.�r
WA
--------- - - - - --
MR--
MINE
MINE
MM
inz =199M MM
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN/ -,f
to
W
a
}
_ m
T
W
Q
U
O
J
Q
MEDIUM DENSITY / BUFFER
-= -= MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
•: : :.:•
MIXED LAND USE
L;'.$✓ ` PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
73RD ST W
74TH ST W
75TH ST W
W
d
J
O
Z
W
LLId
0
Q
0
W
Q
W_
a
S
..
........
.......
................
........
................
.......
........
................
.......
. . . . .
.. . . . .
.............
........
. . . . . . .
.......
.. . . . . . . . .. .. . . .
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
.....
...........
................
................
¢I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 97
Agenda April 24, 1989
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on a conditional use permit for the operation of a
rent -a -car business to be located at 616 East 78th Street.
Background:
Enterprise Leasing Company has requested a conditional use permit
to allow the operation of a rent -a -car business, which they refer
to as a "replacement" vehicle operation. They rent cars to
people who need a "replacement" vehicle while their vehicle is
being repaired due to an accident or mechanical failure.
The facility would be located in an existing vacant structure.
The applicant proposes to remodel the structure to contain
offices, a waiting area, service area, a break room and
bathrooms, for a total of 1,800 square feet.
The applicant is also proposing to add a 625 square foot car prep
area which would be structurally detached from the existing
building, although linked with an enclosed trash area. The trash
area would be accessible by two gates and the car prep area by
two garage doors on the south side and a service door on the west
side. The existing lighting presently on site would be utilized
with no modifications.
The hours of operation would be from 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon on Saturdays.
The business would employ seven to eight employees.
The property is zoned 'C -21, general commercial district. A
rental car facility is a permitted use in a general commercial
district with a conditional use permit.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the conditional use permit with the following
stipulations:
1. That the proposed facility and particularly the car prep
structure meet city building and safety code requirements.
2. That the trash area be relocated or the prep area structure
must be moved eastward 5 feet. The city zoning ordinance
requires accessory buildings be at least 5 feet from the
principal building, and the trash enclosure as designed is
considered to be a part of the principal building.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposal meets the city parking requirements, and with
the adjustment of the trash area or car prep area, will meet
setback requirements.
2. The City Building Inspector has recommended that the prep
building meet building and plumbing code requirements to
catch grease and sand, and that the energy code be met for
heating and ventilation.
f-;14
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council may deny the conditional use permit if a
finding of fact determines that the proposal would have an
adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
2. The City Council may continue the hearing until all
previously referenced stipulations are met.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Notice of the hearing was mailed to property owners within 350
feet of the property. Legal notice was published in the Sun
Current Newspaper.
Respectf)41ly submitted,
James. Prosser
City nager
3• Z 0 0 t 0 b Al
7
XERXES AVE
WASHBURN Tl -
VINCENT
0
floe
10
XERXES AVE
WASHBURN
VINCENT
UPTON
UPTON
THOMAS 7--- THOMAS
S S
HERI 1) AN SHERIDAN
RUSSELL
OUEEN J
PENN AVE
OLIVER
NEWTON
MORGA
LOG 0 AN
JAMES
IRVING
Num
BOLDT
GIRARD
FREMONT Nown
EMERSON
DUPONT
COLFAX
BRYANT
ALDRICH
LYNDALE AVE
GARFIELD
HARRIET co
GRAND
PLEASANT
PILLSBURY
WENTWO1iTH
BLAISDELL
NICOLLET AVE.
Itl
STEVE NS
2no
CLINTON
4111
5th
UZI.
PORTLAND AVE..
OAKLAND
PARK
COLUMBUS
CHICAGO
ELLIOT
10 th
11 ft.
12 th
14 to
15 th r
BLOOMINGTON
I?fk
talk
CEDAR AVE
LONGFELLOW
z
M —
z Mno
71
-1 -1
-K r-
pap-
RUSSELL
QUEEN
PENN AVE
OLIVER
NEWTON
MORGAN
LOGAN
KNOX
JAMES
L--j I RVING
77 =---I 11
'I. HUMBOLDT
GIRARD
• FREMONT
EMERSON
V�
DUPONT
t= � COLFAX
BRYANT
J; ALDRICH
C LYNDALE AVE.
iGARFIELD
HARRIET
t^ GRAND
PLEASANT
PILLSBURY
WENTWORTH
I I BLAISDELL
NICOLLET AVE.
Ift
STEVENS
zne
CLINTON
4111
51h
PORTLAND AVE.
_j 6,U -j OAKLAND
PARK
COLUMBUS
M II CHICAGO
z ELLIOT
101h
11
12 th
13 th
14 111
5 th
BLOOMINGTON
IB th
CEDAR AVE-
LONG , It.
19th
201111
21 of
r ----- I 22rid
STANDISH
23,d
cr)
0M
0.
;-1 00
0 -�
z
U)
w
s
rr s
a� a
sm
um
r
rs
ss
ar
r �r
s ar
r■
rr r�
s s
r
r� s
rr ar
ar
rr r
r a�
s
rr .a
a rr
r
rr
r�
r
s
Ri��MIWMTMArd �� �� "fore
Vol
sm
um
I vw_
gio
01 io
jo
Sol
owl
!-i�
I
r-..-JO.-.o-
V
ft�
0
Maim
GOOMM
IN
mom
7999m&
DIATIziK•
as
as
ass
as a
as
as
ug%MM
X-N,
as
aas
as
as
Maim
GOOMM
IN
mom
7999m&
DIATIziK•
......................
..................................
............ ... ..................
..................................
........................ . ..........
X
ug%MM
X-N,
MM
lossions
......................
..................................
............ ... ..................
..................................
........................ . ..........
X
ug%MM
X-N,
%
E.78TH ST.
Z
4. Q
00 J
ra
u! W
1.-
r rn
WAI
uj
}i► fill
of
NL
� iii
r MM €„ Y11
0 o� I Q �
z
r�
=a
a W
U)
rZ
�Q
Eq�
it'll
lit
'P
z
r�
=a
a W
U)
rZ
�Q
co
r
:i
Eq�
'P
co
r
:i
•
N
C Z
= Q
■0
(0 J
�— LL
t0
ION
WAIF
�ny p III I 1. i
w
LJ
z
3
O
O �1
w
a
a'
a�
e�
z
_ Q
a
_ o
pw
F
a
w
_ v
- z
I
LIM N
a
a
a
a
w
w
a
a
w
a►
o�
UY
gib � • � °_ �� � � '_� •
;. =;.;dig �� � � ■� �vra
i • �� s �4�1'i3� � •.
uj
®cal
f--//
ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY
ADMINISTRATIVE HEADQUARTERS:
255 EAST ROSELAWN, SUITE 49, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA 55117 • 612.488.8818
March 6, 1989
Dear Sirs /Madams:
Enclosed please find all information necessary to complete
our Conditional Use Permit application for the property/
building located at 616 E. 78th Street, Richfield, MN 55423.
The type of business we engage in is referred to as the
"replacement" rent -a -car business. Our business is with
people such as yourself who live /work in the community- -
not the business /vacation traveler. We rent cars to people
who need a "replacement" car while their car is in the
shop due to an accident or mechanical failure. Enterprise
Rent -a -Car has been in this business for 32 years with
locations here in the Twin Cities for the last two years.
Our customers come to us without a car so customer parking
space needs are clearly minimal. We offer free pickup of
the customer or delivery of the vehicle at no charge as
a part of our service. We operate our business from 8 -6:00
Monday through Friday and 9 -12:00 on Saturdays. We are
closed on Sundays and holidays. We anticipate a need for
approximately 7 -8 employees to operate this branch.
Enterprise Rent -a -Car is very anxious to do whatever is
necessary to obtain the Conditional Use Permit. Please
feel free to contact me if any questions arise while
reviewing our application. I can be reached at 488 -8818.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Patricia A. Kleinman
Vice President /General Manager
kdp
Over 250 Offices Coast to Coast
ARIZONA • ARKANSAS • CALIFORNIA • COLORADO • DELAWARE • FLORIDA • GEORGIA • ILLINOIS • INDIANA • KANSAS • LOUISIANA • MARYLAND • MINNESOTA • MISSOURI
NEBRASKA • NEVADA • NEW JERSEY • NEW MEXICO • NORTH CAROLINA • OKLAHOMA • PENNSYLVANIA • SOUTH CAROLINA • TEXAS • VIRGINIA • WASHINGTON D.C.
,b
r
H
I,�QR
1 8
N
Oyy
i�
,r.
�
Y P
gx
pi A
Fy�ry�F ]j�
IjL
N
�F
M�M
l`1
a
D
Z
Y
�w �T
5 �
yy'l
a3aOn`
�• O
b, �+
r
b
r
9
z
lKlEi
V•
r _-
0
r -
b
1 tiR[�
-q ;m
rte,,
�1
-q ;m
=z
b
H
x
r
a
0
z
gSV
ail
i
C
a
J I n
I K *=
� s
LiJ 3 ti Q, �x
H A M•(.
y 3a0
� •M(D m
M
0
s
I K *=
� s
LiJ 3 ti Q, �x
H A M•(.
y 3a0
� •M(D m
M
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 96
Agenda April 24, 1989
Issue Statement:
Request to continue the public hearing for a conditional use
permit at 7645 Lyndale Avenue to the May 8, 1989 City Council
Meeting.
Background:
Total Petroleum, located at 7645 Lyndale Avenue, has requested
the granting of a conditional use permit to allow expanded retail
sales (food and beverage coolers, reach in freezer units, snack
and beverage center); a new detached accessory drive -thru car
wash facility on the northern portion of the property; and a
reduction in the size of the existing building from approximately
2,088 square feet to 1,176 square feet.
The public hearing was scheduled for the April 24, 1989 City
Council meeting. However, the applicant has requested that the
hearing be continued to the May 8, 1989 City Council meeting.
Recommended Motion:
Continue the conditional use permit hearing for 7645 Lyndale
Avenue to the May 8, 1989 City Council meeting.
Basis of Recommendation:
Applicant wishes to collect additional information concerning the
proposal before presenting the case to the City Council.
Decision Mode:
Because the notice of public hearing was published in the
official newspaper, this item has has been placed on the April 24
City Council agenda for continuance.
Respectf lly submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City anager
7fi-1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 95
Agenda April 24, 1989
Issue Statement:
Purchase in excess of $5,000 for Caterpillar 950E Rubber Tired
Wheel Loader.
Background:
In recent months evaluation of the motor pool has indicated that
many of the larger pieces of equipment purchased years ago were
put in the motor pool on a depreciation schedule that was too
long. Our large rubber tired loaders are an example of this
problem. Purchased in.the mid '70's, they are set up on a 20
year depreciation schedule. Most communities keep this kind of
equipment for five to ten years. At this time, we have the
opportunity to join with Hennepin County and several other cities
in a joint purchase for this equipment under the Hennepin County
bid process. This equipment is no longer reliable for its
intended use and requires replacement.
Hennepin County has bid the loaders two ways: New machines with a
guaranteed maintenance warranty and guaranteed five year buy
back; and used machines (less than 500 hours of use) with full
guarantee identical to a new machine.
Ziegler was the only bidder willing to guarantee their machines
as specified by the County. The bids were as follows:
New Used
Caterpillar 950E articulated 4WD loader $111,660 $102,660
Option
#1
- Craig plow and wing
$
23,959
$
23,959
Option
#2
- Grapple fork
$
12,106
$
12,106
Option
#3
- Straight fork lift
$
4,615
$
4,615
Option
#4
- Special paint
$
2,800
$
2,800
Staff looked at one of the used machines presently being leased
by Metropolitan Airport Commission and found it to be in
excellent condition with less than 400 hours of use on it, as
discussed in Council Memo No. 9 dated March 23.
We had planned to budget for this replacement and funds are
available in the garage fund.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the purchase of a used Caterpillar 950E with Option #1,
Craig plow and wing, for $126,619 through Hennepin County
Contract #9648 to replace existing Unit #212, a 1975 Caterpiller
930 with plow, wing and backhoe even though this unit is not
fully depreciated on a 20 year schedule.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Originally our loaders as well as some of our other large
pieces of equipment were put in the motor pool on a
depreciation schedule that is too long to be practical and
this is an excellent opportunity to begin an accelerated
program for replacing them.
2. Unit 212, a 930 loader has always been a little under
powered. A 950 is more suitable for heavy plowing. Unit 212
has a backhoe attachment which has not been used since the
Water Department bought a new backhoe a couple of years ago.
This unit still has the old style Balderson plow and wing
which we have replaced with the more efficient Craig
equipment on our other loaders.
3. This is Hennepin County's first attempt to bid heavy
equipment in conjunction with other municipalities and the
prices, especially on the used equipment, are very good.
Staff feels opportunity to purchase equipment of this quality
and with comparable guarantees will never be better.
4. Ziegler has an excellent reputation for quality of their
machines and their back up service.
Alternative Recommendation:
Reject the bid and go out on our own next year for bids on a
loader replacement.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The advantage of accepting this bid would be the acceleration of
the process to replace our large, older equipment. This process
will take the next several years and the sooner we can start this
program, the better.
Respectfully submitted,
JameInager
Prosser
City
JDP /eja
M-1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 94
Agenda April 24, 1989
Issue Statement:
Purchase of mowers in excess of $5,000.
Background:
The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that
when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or
construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase
shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration.
The approved Central Garage Budget contains $24,000 for mowing
equipment to replace fully depreciated Units #279 and Unit #254.
These units are no longer reliable and require replacement.
Staff obtained quotes on mowing attachments for two of our
sidewalk plowing units, the MT Trackless and the Holder, in an
attempt to make these units more versatile and allow us to use
them year round. Since these attachments are specifically
designed for these units and can only be purchased from the
vendors who sell MT and Holder, we could not get comparable bids.
The quotes were as follows:
MacQueen Equipment - Series V 120" rotary mower
with turf tires to fit
MT Trackless $ 7,797
Triumph, off set, rotary
guard rail mower to fit
MT Trackless $ 5,110
TOTAL $12,907
Less Trade -in of Advance
Sweeper Unit #254 $ 2,500
TOTAL $10,407
Boyum Equipment - 63" offset flail mower with
linkage and 3 pt. hitch to
fit Holder tractor $11,909
Recommended Motion:
Purchase the above mowing attachments from MacQueen Equipment for
$10,407 and Boyum Equipment for $11,909.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The purchase of this equipment would allow us to get year -
round use of these sidewalk tractors.
2. Both vendors are reliable and are the only source for these
particular attachments.
3. Sufficient funding is available.
7A- 2JV
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose to reject the quotations and direct staff to
obtain quotes on standard equipment. However, if we purchase
independent mowing units as replacements we will continue to have
limited use of sidewalk tractors during the summer months. Staff
believes the proposed equipment purchase will, more fully meet our
needs.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the
meeting. Staff is requesting
facilitate timely delivery.
JDP /ej a
April 24, 1989 regular Council
approval at this time in order to
Respectfull submitted,
James D. rosser
City Ma ger
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 93
Agenda April 24, 1989
Issue Statement:
Presentation by Tim Culver, Chair of South Hennepin Human
Services Council.
Background:
Council Members Ludeman and Kirsch, who also represent the city
on the South Hennepin Human Services Council Board of Directors,
have suggested that South Hennepin appear before the City Council
to review some of their programs and policies. Mr. Tim Culver,
Chair of SHHSC, will be present Monday evening to give this
presentation.
Recommended Action:
Call on Mr. Culver for a presentation on SHHSC.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The city's representatives to SHHSC have requested that this
presentation be made.
Alternative Action:
1. Delay the presentation to another council meeting.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the presentation section of the
April 24, 1989 council agenda.
Respectf lly submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP /ej a
3-1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 92
Agenda April 24, 1989
Issue Statement:
Proclamation designating April 28 as Arbor Day and May as Arbor
Month in 1989.
Background:
Richfield traditionally has noted Arbor Day and Arbor Month in an
informal manner. The Forestry and Park Divisions will coordinate
a tree - planting with the schools and Mayor; and the press usually
notes the occasion with a brief article and /or picture. These
observations of Arbor Day and Arbor Month (along with meeting
other requirements) were sufficient to grant Richfield a "Tree
City, USA" status in 1986, 1987 and 1988. However, in 1989, the
National Arbor Day Foundation requires a proclamation for
recertification.
Recommended Action:
Present the proclamation designating April 28, 1989 as Arbor Day
and May, 1989 as Arbor Month in the City of Richfield to Don
Fondrick, Director Community Services.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Richfield has a tradition of acknowledging Arbor Day and
Arbor Month.
2. The proclamation is necessary to retain "Tree City, USA"
status in 1989.
Alternative Action:
None.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for
Community Services Director
accept the proclamation.
JDP /eja
the April 24, 1989 Council meeting.
Donald Fondrick will be present to
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City anager
I LA
L
Fi-` EPA
xvg'm
71,
ITIS
4
'VIP. • 4
) 4J -)
Fo 00
r-1 04 4)
,Soy V4 -H 4-
44 -A 4) 4-)
• 0 4)
C 4J A
m (a 0 0 •-f b $4 A 0 4-)
4) r-4 -P 4J (0
a) il tm m (0
(0 (0 0 Ow
-4 44 102 10, 44 a 0
4
V4 >4 to 0 (044 c! :3 0 >4 4
4) r-i 44 tm
44 $4 $4
4-) Ct r-f >f
-H Z to p
r-4 4) M 0 O 0 0 0
$4 -1
44 0 3 m S
$4 4 4-) 0
PC 10 Oro -H 01
A,
44 O $4
PO Z W W 0 rf
0 4) (d 44 -Y
:3 0) 0 a) 0 3: a
�g,
Nz, E-1 CN w ri) 044 854 A 0
00 A A W 4J C: 4J Q 0 0'0 M M 0
'g
cr, ro Ito (a :3 a
4 0 0 C: 4J 00 44 rO :3 00 (n
44
-H $4 V4 0) 44
0
0 W r
$4
>4 44 P-4
(0 r. to 0 -A
>
04 4J 0 r. 0
a 14
0 b 0 0 -P k > 44 >4
S a) -14 0 0 04 tmz
M 4) 4J 4J IQ -1 P 44
0 V4 a m U) 9 U) 0
44
4) $4 0 0 4-) 19 a) >1
0 M 0 (d tio
(0 0 > '0 E 1% 44
0
44 iA V, r•f to a) Ito p 43 4) PC w
tm (D w rh 0: C 4) r. 0 p
$4 0 4-)
a) .0 (d (n 10
$4 -H
4 4-) 04 0) 0 10$4 0 43 s 0 V (1)
W P W.0 r-i 0 W 0 a
N •ri 0 k 90 E-4 0 -H H H 4J
W d) 04.0 0 k rq :3 •
w (Ij MO :9 044 0
w 0 94 4) -4 4
Haan W
9 $4 04 P 0 1% 4 $4
44 4-) $4 4) r- W 0
(o c: Z >j 44 0 0
3: 4) a) .4 4-) 0 A 0 -H 44
) r-4
(a $4 4-) C 0 (1
F
(0
$4 00 :3
040
Ad
'ILA
Naw,
-t up
M 400
F
All ""o
.04
dt
4- Z I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 91
Agenda April 24, 1989
Issue Statement:
Proclamation supporting "Disability Awareness Week" in Richfield.
Background:
The Governor and other South Hennepin Communities are declaring
April 24 -30, 1989 as Disability Awareness Week. Individuals with
disabilities are living independently in Richfield and
participating in our recreation programs. We, as City officials,
need to make the public aware of the issues and concerns facing
disabled persons. We also need to make the residents of
Richfield aware of the talents and abilities of our disabled
population. The purpose of the proclamation is to promote that
public awareness.
Recommended Action:
Support Disability Awareness Week by proclaiming April 24 -30 as
Disability Awareness Week in Richfield, and presenting this
proclamation to Mark Erspamer, Chair of the Human Services
Commission.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Governor and other South Hennepin Communities are also
declaring Disability Awareness Week.
2. The City Council has supported the disabled through our
adaptive recreation programs.
3. Public Awareness of the limitations and abilities of the
disabled would benefit all our citizens.
Alternative Action:
The alternative is to do nothing.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the presentation section of the
April 24, 1989 City Council meeting agenda.
Respectfully submitted,
4
James . Prosser
City Manager
-e 2- 0---'
PROCLAMATION
DISABILITY AWARENESS WEEK
APRIL 24 -30, 1989
WHEREAS: A significant effort is being made Statewide to eliminate barriers
for disabled persons in the areas of employment, housing,
transportation, education and public acaamiodations; and
WHEREAS: Many individuals with disabilities are living independently in our
cotmunity and participating in comi=ty activities such as
cam unity educatim and recreation; and
WHEREAS: Both city officials and school administrators desire public
awareness as to the issues and concerns facing disabled persons; and
WHEREAS: Residents of our community need to become more aware, not only of
the limitations disabled persons have, but also of their talents and
abilities; and
WHEREAS: The Governor x)f the State of Minnesota, and each of the South
Hennepin can unities, are proclaiming Disability Awareness Week in
recognition of the contributions disabled individuals make within
the State and the communities in which they live;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Steven J. Quam, Mayor of the City of Richfield,
do hereby proclaim the week of April 24 -30, 1989 as
DISABILITY AWAREAiESS WEEK
in Richfield. Further, I urge all residents of our City
to be more open and attentive to the needs and abilities
of persons with disabilities.
Dated this 24th day of April, 1989.
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
s$ -I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 90
Agenda April 27, 1989
Issue Statement:
Preliminary information for 1989 Board of Review.
Background:
On May 1, 1989 at 7:00 p.m., the Richfield Board of Review will
convene to conduct its annual business. The Board of Review will
consist of City Council Members and two resident experts
appointed by the City Council, Mr. Lawrence Emond and Mr. John
Janski.
The April 27, 1989, Study Session will focus on the methods of
property appraisal used by Hennepin County appraisers. In
addition, Hennepin County Principal Property Appraiser, Larry
Miller, will review the types of appeals which may come before
the 1989 Board of Review.
Attached is a brief synopsis of the duties and responsibilities
of Local Boards of Review, some data indicating Richfield home
values, and sample property comparisons which will be explained
at the Study Session.
Recommended Motion:
None
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council could conduct the Board of Review without the
preliminary information.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This Study Session is timely in preparing City Council Members
for the May 1, 1989 meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City anager
JDP : e j a
C
DATE: 8/88
SECTION: 4123
PAGE: 1
SUMMARY
Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.01 provides that the town board of each township and
the governing body of cities shall be the board of review. The board is to review the
assessment and classification of property in their township.
The county assessor sets the dates for boards of review to meet in his county. He
must notify the clerk of the various dates on or before February 15 each year. The
meetings are held between April 1 and May 31.
DUTIES OF LOCAL BOARDS OF REVIEW
1. See that all taxable property in the township is properly assessed, valued and
classified.
2. If any property has been omitted, the board must correct the assessment by
adding it to the list of assessments along with its market value.
3. The assessments of each description of real property consisting of land and
buildings are reviewed by the board.
4. The assessments of personal property are likewise within the board's
jurisdiction. Personal property is now limited to mobile homes, structures on
leased public lands and railroad operating rights -of -way and leased buildings
located on land owned by the occupant and used for purposes of a homestead.
So be sure to note the board may give consideration to both valuation and
classification of real and personal property.
5. The authority of the local board extends over the individual assessments of real
and personal property. The board can't increase or decrease by percentage all
of the assessments in the district of a given class of property. Changes in the
aggregate assessments by classes are made by the county board of equalization.
6. Although the local board of review has the authority to increase or reduce
individual assessments, the total of such adjustments must not. reduce the
aggregate assessment made by the county assessor by more than one percent of
said aggregate assessment. If the total of such adjustments does lower the
aggregate assessment made by the county assessor by more than one percent,
none of the adjustments will be allowed. This limitation doesn't apply, however,
to the correction of clerical errors or to the removal of duplicate assessments.
7. The local board of review doesn't have the authority in any year to reopen
former assessments on which taxes are due and payable. The board considers
only the assessments that are in process in the current year. Occasionally a
taxpayer may appear with a tax statement and protest the taxes or assessment
of the previous year. The board should explain tactfully that it has not
authority to consider such matters. After taxes have been extended,
adjustment can be made only by the process of application for abatement or by
legal action.
SP:100
SS - )
SS-3
DATE: 8/88
SECTION: 4123
PAGE: 2
8. In reviewing the individual assessments, the board may find instances of
undervaluation. Before the board raises the market value of property, it must
notify the owner. The law doesn't prescribe any particular form of notice
except that the person whose property is to be increased in assessment must be
notified of the intent of the board to make the increase. The local board of
review meetings assure a property owner an opportunity to contest the
valuation or classification that has been placed on his property or to contest or
to protest any other matter relating to the taxability of his property. The
board is required to review the matter and make any corrections that it deems
just.
9. When a local board of review convenes, it is necessary that a majority of the
members be in attendance in order that any valid action may be taken. The
local assessor is required by law to be present with his assessment books and
papers. He is required also to take part in the proceedings but has no vote. In
addition to the local assessor, the county assessor or one of his assistants is
required to attend. The board should ask the local assessor and county assessor
to present any tables that have been prepared, making comparisons of the cur-
rent assessments in the district. The county assessor is required to have maps
and tables relating particularly to land values for the guidance of boards of
review. Comparisons should be presented of assessments of types of property
with previous years and with other assessment districts in the same county.
10. It is the primary duty of each board of review to examine the assessment record
to see that all taxable property in the assessment district has been properly
placed upon the list and valued by the assessor. In case any property, either
real or personal, has been omitted, the board has the duty of making the assess -
ment.
11. The complaints and objections of taxpayers who feel aggrieved with any
assessments for the current year should be considered very carefully by the
board. Such assessments must be reviewed in detail and the board has authority
to make corrections it deems to be just. The board may adjourn from day to
day until all cases have been heard. If complaints are received after the
adjournment of the board of review, concerning changes made after the board
of review, these shall be heard and determined by the county board of
equalization.
12. A nonresident may file written objections to his assessment with the county
assessor prior to the meeting of the board of review. Such objections must be
presented to the board for consideration while it is in session.
13. Before adjourning, the board of review should prepare an official list of the
changes. The law requires that the changes be listed on a separate form which
is appended to the assessment book. The assessments of omitted property must
be listed in detail with their market values. All assessments that have been
increased or decreased should be shown as prescribed in the form along with
their market values. After the changes have been completed, the record should
be signed and dated by the members of the board of review. The changes listed
in the proceedings should be entered in the assessment book by the county
assessor.
SP:100
DATE: 8/88 SS-1
SECTION: 4123
PAGE: 3
INFORMATION FOR LOCAL BOARDS OF REVIEW
The board of review, unless a longer period is approved by the Commissioner of
Revenue, must complete its work and adjourn within twenty days from the time of
convening specified in the notice of the clerk. No action taken subsequent to such
date shall be valid.
A request for additional time in order to complete the work of the board of review
must be addressed to the Commissioner of Revenue in writing. The commissioner's
approval is necessary to legalize any procedure subsequent to the expiration of the
twenty day period. The Commissioner of Revenue will not, however, extend the time
for local boards of review to meet past the time county boards of equalization
convene in June.
If a person fails to appear in person, by counsel, or by written communication before
the board after being duly notified by the board's intent to raise the assessment of his
property, or if a person feeling aggrieved by an assessment or classification fails to
apply for a review of the assessment or classification, he may not appear before the
county board of equalization for a review of his assessment or classification, except
when an assessment was made subsequent to the meeting of the board or that he can
establish that he did not receive notice of his market value at least five days before
the local board of review meeting.
All real property subject to taxation shall be listed and at least one - fourth of the
parcels listed shall be appraised each year with reference to their value on January 2
preceding the assessment so that each parcel shall be reappraised at maximum inter-
vals of four years. All real property becoming taxable in any year shall be listed with
reference to its value on January 2 of that year.
LOCAL ASSESSOR - - The duty of the duly appointed local assessor shall be to view
and appraise the value of all property as provided by law, but all the book work shall
be done by the county assessor, or his assistants, and the value of all property subject
to assessment and taxation shall be determined by the county assessor.
COUNTY ASSESSOR - - The county assessor makes all assessments based upon the
appraised values reported to him by the local assessors or his assistants and his own
knowledge of the value of the property assessed. He must personally view and deter-
mine the value of any property which because of its type or character may be
difficult for the local assessor to appraise. The county assessor is to make all
changes ordered by the local boards of review relative to the assessed value of the
property of any individual, firm or corporation after notice has been given and
hearings held as provided by law.
SP:100
5-5-5
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Address
P I D
Story Height One story Baths Full; 3/4
1st Floor Area 1248 sq. ft. Baths
Gross Building Area 1248 sq. ft. Finished Basement 400 sq. ft.
Year Built 1957 Walkout
Condition Good Fireplace Two
1st Floor Rooms Living room; kitchen; Air Conditioning Central
dining room; and three bedrooms Garage 240 sq. ft. -- attached
2nd Floor Rooms Porches /Deck deck -- 256 sq. ft.
Bedrooms Three Lot Size 60 x 135
Comments:
�S- 6
29- Mar -89 RICHFIELD 10/87 -11/88 RESIDENTIAL SALES
13:02:29 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFO. SERVICES IBM 3090 OS MVS/XA
RATIO
COUNT MIDPOINT ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXIMATELY 1.00 OCCURRENCE
0 61.00
0 63.00
0 65.00
0 67.00
0 69.00
0 71.00
2 73.00 :*
0 75.00
1 77.00
4 79.00 * ** ,
11 81.00,
14 83.00
27 85.00
40 87.00
49 89.00 * *;
36 91.00 * * * * * * **
48 93.00 **
38 95.00
36 97.00
32 99.00 * * *;*
15 101.00 **
17 103.00
10 105.00 ** ,
4 107.00
4 109.00 *.
3 111.00 *:
5 113.00 : **
1 115.00
1 117.00
0 119.00
0 •10 20 •30 •40 X50
HISTOGRAM FREQUENCY
MEAN 93.096 MEDIAN 92.636 STD DEV 7.547
VALID CASES 400 MISSING CASES 0
111
IS5! 7
29- Mar -89 1989 RESIDENTIAL HOMESTEAD MARKET FOR RICHFIELD
11:45:07 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFO. SERVICES IBM 3090 OS MVS/XA
MKTRAT
COUNT MIDPOINT ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXIMATELY 20.00 OCCURRENCES
1 31000.00
7 33000.00
5 35000.00
1 37000.00
4 39000.00
6 41000.00
11 43000.00 *
14 45000.00 *
19 47000.00 *
33 49000.00 **
47 51000.00 **
66 53000.00 * **
66 55000.00*
91 57000.00 *** **
170 59000.00 ******
263 61000.00 *** **** * * * ***
368 63000.00 *** *** * ******** ***
484 65000.00
554 67000.00**** * *aca��** * **
695 69000.00 **** * * * ***** *tom***** **** *** * * **
854 71000.00
875 73000.00 ** * *** * *** **** ************** * **
863 75000.00 ******** ** * * * * +***** * * * *** **** * ****** **
752 77000.00
723 79000.00
621 81000.00 **** * * *** **
536 83000.00
479 85000.00
406 87000.00 * *** * **
295 89000.00
245 91000.00* * ********
162 93000.00 ** * *****
135 95000.00 * * * * * **
96 97000.00 * ****
90 99000.00 * * ***
95 101000.00* **
54 103000.00
57 105000.00 ***
40 107000.00 **
41 109000.00 **
23 111000.00
19 113000.00
24 115000.00
21 117000.00
18 119000.00
17 121000.00 * -
14 123000.00
14 125000.00
6 127000.00
18 129000.00
3 131000.00
3 133000.00
3 135000.00
9 137000.00
2 139000.00
2 141000.00
0 143000.00
7 145000.00
0 200 400 600 S00 1000
HISTOGRAM FREQUENCY
MEAN 76503.450 MEDIAN 75000.000
%LID CASES 10579 MISSING CASES 0
:2C)
S
.. ......
1 1 U
ss-
GRID -
COMPARABLE
DATA
,APPLICANT'S NAME:
ADDRESS:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
P.I.D. :•
MUNIC:
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
COMP #1
COMP n2
COMP #3
CAMP 44
TYPE OF BLDG.:
Rambler
Rambler
Rambler
Rambler
Rambler
STORY HEIGHT:
one story
one story
one story
one story
one story
1ST FLOOR.AREA:
1248
1208
1197
1269
1126
GROSS BLDG. AREA:
1248
1208
1197
1269
1126
YR. OF CONST.:
1957
1956
1956
1956
1955
CONDITION:
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
1ST FL. ROOMS:
6
6
5
5
5
2ND FL. ROOMS:
--
--
--
--
_
BEDROOMS:
3
3
2
3
2
BATHS:
1 3/4
1
1
1 3/4
1 3/4
/4LF BATHS:
--
1
1
--
--
FIN. BSMT. SQ.FT.:
400
600
600
635
565
WALKOUT:
No
No
No
Yes
No
FIREPLACE:
2
2
2
2
2
AIR COND:,
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
GARAGE AREA:
240 Att.
294 Att.
252 Att.
440 Det.
240 Att.
PORCH AREA:
Deck 256
--
--
--
LOT SIZE:
60x135
70x135
.70x135
66x135
66x133
COMPS -SALE DATA:
SALE DATE
6/88
2/88
5/88
2/88
SALE PRICE
90,000
88,500
97,500
885,000
SALE /SQ.FT.
74.50
73.93
76.83
78.15
SUBJECT - ASSESSMENT DAT -A:
1989 EMV
85,500
,
ASSESSMENT /SQ.FT.
68.50
REMARKS: