11-14-88 agenda?�r /--)
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 281
Agenda November 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Authorization for the City Manager to prepare retainer agreements
for the provision of legal services for the City for 1989.
Background:
At the November 7, 1988 council study session, council members
reviewed the procedures and staff recommendations for provision
of legal services beginning in 1989.
The staff is recommending that the LeFevere, Lefler firm be
retained for corporate legal services, and that the firm of
Peterson, Bell and Converse be retained for prosecution services.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the City Manager to prepare and execute retainer
agreements with John Dean of the LeFevere, Lefler firm for
general corporate legal services, and with Martin Costello of the
Peterson, Bell, Converse firm for the provision of prosecution
services.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Proposals for both corporate and prosecution have been
received and reviewed.
2. It is the opinion of the city staff that the two firms
recommended are the most qualified to provide legal services
to the city.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Not authorize preparation of these documents.
Decision Mode
This item has been placed on the November 14, 1988 City Council
agenda for action so that retainer agreements may be in place
beginning in January, 1989.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja e D. Prosser
Ci Manager
JDP /eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 280
November 14, 1988 Agenda
Issue Statement:
1_,�4/�1
Off- street parking permit at 6511 Cedar Avenue South.
Background-
Mr. Ron Ryan of R. J. Ryan Construction, Inc. has requested an
off - street parking permit for 6511 Cedar Avenue South. Ryan
recently purchased the building which was previously used for a
retail business. The existing 1380 sq. ft. building would be
remodeled for five employee office. The basement of the building
would be used for storage.
The front yard setback is 25 feet instead of the required 40
feet. Therefore, the building is legally nonconforming. All
other setbacks meet city requirements.
The property is zoned C -2 general commercial district. The
proposed office use is permitted in a C -2 district.
Ordinance Requirement:
1. Section 800 of the Richfield City Code indicates the
regulations for parking areas.
2. Section 520.13, subdivision 3, indicates the setback
requirements in a C -2 district.
Recommendation:
Approve the off- street parking permit at 6511 Cedar Avenue south
with the following stipulations:
1. The three parking spaces in front of the building be
designated for customer parking only and such spaces be
installed and maintained for 30 degree angle parking.
2. If additional parking becomes necessary, the rear yard should
be utilized but only if improved to City standards.
3. A cash escrow should be provided in an amount sufficient to
cover the cost of the incomplete parking lot improvements,
including landscaping, and such amount should be held for one
year to ensure the viability of the landscaping. Such escrow
should be submitted before an occupancy permit is granted.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The building has been used for retail and fewer parking
spaces would be required for office use. The required eight
parking spaces would be met by providing three angular spaces
in front of the building and five along the driveway located
adjacent to the south property line. Should additional
parking become necessary in the future, the rear yard is open
and available for parking lot development. .
2. The existing traffic circulation in front of the building
appears unsafe due to the fact that a car would have to back
straight out into Cedar Avenue. The driving isle width in
front of the building is inadequate. However, reducing the
number of parking spaces from five with straight in parking
to three with angular parking would improve the situation.
3. The existing blacktop area does not have perimeter curbing
but the changes on the site are minimal. Perimeter curbing
for the parking area should be required when the parking area
is extended into the rear yard.
4. The existing curb cut in front of the building is almost
45 feet which is required by the front yard parking layout.
No change is proposed.
5. The applicant proposes to provide two 6 foot spruce trees
and twelve 24 inch junipers in front of the building. The
proposed landscaping would enhance the aesthetic appearance
of the building. To ensure planting and maintenance of the
landscaping, a cash escrow consistent with present City
policy regarding on site improvements, is necessary.
6. The applicant has submitted a drainage plan which is
acceptable to the city.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the off - street parking permit. The denial would be based on
the following:
1. The proposed parking in front of the building does not meet
the City guidelines for driving isle width and creates an
unsafe condition. However, staff does not have any evidence
of traffic accidents on the site.
2. The parking area, without perimeter curbing, is contrary to
City requirements for new parking areas.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item is placed on the agenda for council action at 7 P.M.,
Monday, November 14, 1988. No public hearing is required.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City anager
JDP:dkh
r
CEDAR AVE. S.
N
N
W A_
C C
m Z
ALLEY
ED
m
x
z
00
Z
0
c
ZO
G)
Cif
n
rn
v
D
�v
n
rn
t/1
rn
-v
r
8
z
P�
IER %ES AVE =- _ i•- - = - -_ . -_ IER%ES AVE
WASHBURN `+��•~ _ -� -_ �� _ _ __ WASNBURN
VINCENT VINCENT
UPTON VVION
THOMAS '�� �- _ -_ �' THOMAS
SHERIDAM
SNERIOAN
RUSSELL it C -_ — - 11 RUSSELL
OuEEN
OUEEN
PENN AVE. _��r1 OEMN AVE.
N
NEWTO Iir �. .� �1. NEWTON
III
MORG AN k[ .� F, -J� MORGAN
LOG AN -�I -. -- -_ `a•��l -�I LOGAN
KNOI I�� - ., -. +II KNO%
_ - -,
DAMES JAMES
IRVING - ..-,I�
„II IRVING
HUMBOLDT �� �- __ -- _ '- —_ HUMBOLDT
GIRARD %A1� GIRARD
..,I,
EMERSON
I11E1tONT EMS ENSON
DUPONT �1� I, I -- 1R„ c _ Ii \ \y�1! OUPOMT
II ^ ��. , �., COLFAX
RRt ANT '1i i6,� \ _� %.�` \• � P �11�1, 1� BRTANT
AL ....... P/
/r .eN'!• ;;
11 ' ? �'ae ICJ t III ALDRICH
LTNDALE AVE. •,� � ii \t•• ���C LTMOALE AVE.
GARFIELD N,II GARFIELD
-4�; Imo`_ ✓.
NIRRIE � -.� �� -. — C:, �;, NAaR1ET
ORA a =1 ice_ 1 -�
I I I GRAND
PLEAS PLEASANT
PILLS 7j PILLSBURY
WENT CEDAR AVE. S. wENTWORTN
I
II It)! II_ I1 I
BLAI = 1
11= iIII , I 1 BLAISDEL.L
:I I. 'I tI BBr
NICOLL£T i __ �� NICOLLET AVE. O
1.
IPI
ST I 1' 1 -•� ' 1 STEVENS
I II 21,t/
3
0.1NT0 � I � \T. �� CLINTON
411, 1 411,
ail
PORTLAND
OAKLAND III I•
PARK
1111 I•
cot.ureus t{III fll �•
CHICAGO
ELLIOT 'I in I 1 II - - - •L•; ;;;,;; ;,;;; ;; •y:;; ;•.-•.• -•_J;; II
tO to �f iP I; I jl• .. ?J:Y',�••':�r':� 7,'C,�.�r;, ., »: •. •. lt; • .I
t1 r1, bIII I. •�� �:•R�.� ��l+
1211, C�'7�'�,/ /_/� -.: I, •w� J.'•-`•+e•+•••. .
it
/4 ,1, t� 11 L
19 r1, C1,. 'I (I t •�•�'; �{�:�):•�:�': :i
9600MINGTOM �FF� q iI! li II _J ^ -11 •,lt:,
1 to 1 I���� I • •••,
tT to I��� �-i:_I �CC�; �� •• ?�,•'
U t1,
CEDAR AlE- "- I. __ _,- +�_r�__.� II•� ,aI
LONGFELLOR
- II I IQ
2 G
m
z � =
c
O Tf c
C � O
22 T
Y r �•
Z
ZO
r •.
f C
� O
I
PORTLAND AVE
OAKLAND
PARK
' COLUMBUS
I CHICAGO
! ELLIOT
II 10 to
l
I 11 IN
12 IN
15 t1,
L
1411,
Is t1,
BLOOMINGTON
'G IN
1711,
11 u
CEDAR AVE.
LONGFELLOW
loth
loth
2151
22 R.
STANDISH
23'd
_ P N P w w w
/)
01
1
0
m
V
C
rn
ch
■
C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL
I INDUSTRIAL
20
m
m
F - -I
lam
SATE
LAND
USf
D COMMERCIAL
El
® APARTMENT
F - -I
lam
SATE
r, / 7-
R)Ryan Construction, Inc.
Commercial Design and Construction
630 International Plaza • 7900 International Drive • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55425 • (612) 854 -2110
November 2, 1988
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Attention: Mike Eastling,
City Engineer
Reference: 6511 Cedar Avenue South
Dear Mike:
At your request we will install a sump pump for the existing drywell and discharge
it at grade south of the truck well.
The present site drainage is sheet flow in front to the street, and sheet flow at
the rear to the alley east of the building.
If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
R. J. RYAN CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Ron Ryan
RR:ch
�/y
RJ Ryan Construction, Inc. '
Commercial Design and Construction
630 International Plaza • 7900 International Drive • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55425 • (612) 854 -2110
October 26, 1988
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Attention: Mr. Towhid Kazi
Reference: 6511 Cedar Avenue
Dear Mr. Kazi:
In response to your question, R. J. Ryan Construction, Inc., is a commercial/
industrial designer and builder presently having four office employees. We
intend to relocate to the above remodeled building and possibly add one additi-
tional person in the office.
Our office hours are 8 to 5 Monday through Friday with very little weekend work:
Duringthe course of our work day we will have a few visitors, clients or sub-
contractors but rarely have more than two or three visitors at any one time.
We intend to use the lower level of the facility for storage.
Thank you for your cooperation during our recent discussions. If you have any
further questions, please call.
Sincerely,
R. J. RYAN CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Ron Ryan
RR:ch
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
City Council Letter No. 279
Agenda, November 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Establishing November 28, 1988 as the date of public hearing on
the proposed 70th Street and Penn Avenue Redevelopment Project.
Background:
On October 17th, 1988, the HRA adopted a resolution approving the
establishment of the 70th and Penn project. The resolution also
requested the City Council to schedule a public hearing on the
proposed project and to consider approving its establishment.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution establishing the public hearing for
November 28, 1988.
Basis of Recommendation:
Establishing the redevelopment project will facilitate the
construction by Dr. Johnson of his proposed office building.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not adopt the resolution.
Decision /Discussion Mode:
By setting the hearing for the 28th, the processing schedule will
be maintained.
Respectfully submitted
James Prosser
City anager
JDP:sae
RESOLUTION NO.
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
70TH STREET AND PENN AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AND RESPECTIVE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the City of Richfield, Minnesota (HRA) adopted a resolution on
October 17, 1988 for the undertaking of the 70th Street and Penn
Avenue Redevelopment Project (Redevelopment Project) within the
City of Richfield, Minnesota (City) and approved a Redevelopment
Plan (Redevelopment Plan) relating thereto, pursuant to Minn.
Stat., Sec. 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan must be presented to the
City Council of the City for consideration and adoption prior to
undertaking any publicly financed redevelopment work within the
area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
Richfield as follows:
1. That a public hearing be held before the City Council at
City Hall on the 28th day of November, 1988, at 7:00 p.m.,
or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard.
2. That the City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause to
be published a notice of said public hearing in the official
newspaper of the City at least ten days in advance of the
meeting.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
14th day of November, 1988.
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 278
Agenda November 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a resolution to extend the time for filing
documents of the proposed cablesystems sale to March 1, 1989.
Background:
In June, 1988 the City Council approved the transfer of the cable
franchise from Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited
Partnership to Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc.
( RCTSI). RCTSI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rogers
Cablesystems of America, Inc. (RCA). This transfer was a name
change only, and was necessary to facilitate the sale of the
cablesystem.
The approval of the transfer was conditioned on the filing by
Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. of necessary documents
in conformance with the requirements in Article XIV, Section 2,
of the franchise ordinance.
Because of matters arising from the sale of RCA Cablesystems
Holding Co., there is a need to extend the time for execution and
filing of the documents required.
All of the five SWSCC member cities have been requested to
consider this resolution.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the resolution extending the time for cable documents to
be filed to March 1, 1989.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Matters arising from the sale of RCA Cablesystems Holding Co.
have indicated a need for this extension.
2. The Southwest Suburban Cable Operating Committee has
recommended this extension.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Not approve the resolution. However, this may delay the sale
of the cablesystem.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the November 14 City Council agenda
for Council action.
fully submitted,
Ames D. Prosser
ity Manager
JDP /eja
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR THE EXECUTION OF TRANSFER DOCUMENTS
WHEREAS the City ichfield
y of , Minnesota ( "City ") has
granted a cable television franchise (the "Franchise ") to Rogers
Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Partnership ( "RCMLP") pursuant
to the City's cable communications ordinance (the "Franchise
Ordinance "); and
WHEREAS, Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc.
( "RCTSI ") is the sole general partner of RCMLP and is a wholly -
owned subsidiary of Rogers U.S. Cablesystems, Inc. ("RUSCI "),
which is a wholly -owned subsidiary of Rogers Cablesystems of
America, Inca ( "RCA") (collectively hereinafter referred to as
"Rogers Companies "); and
WHEREAS, on or about June 13. 1988 , the City, pursuant
to Resolution No. 7420. , approved the transfer of the
franchise from RCMLP to RCTSI; and
WHEREAS, the approval of the transfer considered in
Resolution No. 742 00 is conditioned on the filing by RCTSI
of necessary documents in conformance with the requirements in
Article XIV, Section 2, of the Franchise Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, due to matters arising from the sale of RCA
Cablesystems Holding Co., there is a need to extend the time for
execution and filing of the documents required by Resolution No.
7420 ; and
WHEREAS, RCTSI acknowledges that the Stipulation of
Settlement and Release approved by the SWSCC and submitted for
approval to its Member Cities shall be binding on RCMLP;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
The City hereby consents to the extension of time for filing
documents required by Section A of Resolution No. 7420 as
follows:
That the Acceptance Agreement containing the
requirements set forth in Article XIV,
Section 2 of the Franchise Ordinance will be
executed and filed with the City on or before
March 1, 1989.
Passed and adopted this
the City of Richfield
DATED:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
day of
City of
Richfield
By
Its mayor
, 1988, by
RESOLAPP /SW2
1---//
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.277
Agenda, November 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a resolution setting hearing before the
Southwest Suburban Cable Commission for November 30, 1988.
Background:
Rogers Cablesystems is in the process of being sold. The
Southwest Suburban Cable Commissions ( "SWSCC ") through its
Operating Committee at a meeting on October 19, 1988, recommended
that a joint public hearing on the proposed transfer of ownership
from Rogers to KBL Cable, Inc., be held before the SWSCC on
behalf of the Member Cities. As set forth in the enclosed
proposed Resolution, Minnesota law provides for a public hearing
on proposed transfers of ownership. Minnesota law and your
Franchise provide that such a public hearing may be delegated to
the SWSCC. This public hearing is proposed to be held November
30, 1988.
In the event the SWSCC recommends approval of the transfer of
ownership, there will be subsequent proceedings before each City
to consider and approve the transfer of ownership as required by
the Franchise. The purpose of the joint public hearing is to
identify any issues which should be considered and resolved prior
to the SWSCC making a recommendation to the Member Cities. It
should facilitate the transfer of ownership while reserving final
action by each City as required under the Franchise.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the resolution setting a hearing before the Southwest
Suburban Cable Commission Operating Committee on the proposed
transfer of ownership of Rogers Cablesystems for November 30,
1988 at the Edina City Hall.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Minnesota law and the Cable Franchise provide that such a
public hearing be delegated to the SWSCC.
2. The purpose of the hearing is to facilitate the transfer of
ownership while reserving final action by each City as
required under the Franchise.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not pass the resolution. However, this could delay the
timely transfer of ownership.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the November 14, 1988 City Council
agenda to allow ample time for publication of legal notices.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP:sae
T11- i
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION
ON A PROPOSED TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP
RELATING TO THE CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE
FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield
( "City ") is the official governing body of the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City, in association with the Cities of
Edina Eden Prairie, Hopkins _` and Minnetonka
( "Member Cities ") formed the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission
("SWSCC"), a joint powers commission; and,
WHEREAS, the City, in association with the other Member
Cities, granted a Cable Communications Franchise ( "Franchise ") to
Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. ( "Rogers "); and,
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 238.081, Subdivision 5,
authorizes the City to delegate authority vested in it to grant,
administer, and enforce the Franchise; and,
WHEREAS, Article XIII, Section 3, of the Franchise
authorizes the City to delegate from time to time certain rights
or obligations under the Franchise to the SWSCC; and,
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 238.083 provides that a
public hearing may be held in the event of a proposed transfer of
ownership of the Franchise; and,
WHEREAS, Rogers has proposed a transfer of ownership to KBL
Cable, Inc. of the Grantee of the Franchise through the transfer
of the controlling stock interest in an indirect parent
corporation of the Grantee; and,
WHEREAS, the City, in cooperation with the other Member
Cities, wishes to hold a joint public hearing to consider the
proposed transfer of ownership pertaining to the Franchise; and,
WHEREAS, the SWSCC through its Operating Committee has
recommended to the City and the Member Cities that a joint public
hearing relating to this proposed transfer of ownership be held
on behalf of all Member Cities on November 30, 1988, before the
SWSCC at the Edina City Hall beginning at 7:00 p.m.; and,
WHEREAS, legal public notice of said public hearing shall be
published inviting any interested person to discuss the legal,
technical and financial qualifications and character of the
proposed transferee; and,
WHEREAS, this public hearing and legal notice shall be in
satisfaction of all state and local public hearing requirements
related to the proposed transfer of ownership.
NOW, THEREFORE, in a regular meeting assembled of the City
Council of the City of Richfield the following was
resolved:
1. The SWSCC is requested on behalf of the City, in
cooperation with the other Member Cities, to hold a joint public
hearing on the proposed transfer of ownership of the Franchise on
November 30, 1988.
2. Legal notice of this hearing will be published by the
SWSCC pursuant to the requirements of state and local law.
3. All interested persons in the City who wish to attend
or participate in the public hearing on the proposed transfer of
- 2 -
ownership of the Franchise are asked to attend the joint public
hearing on November 30, 1988.
4. The foregoing notice of public hearing and public
hearing shall satisfy all state and local requirements pertaining
to this proposed transfer of ownership of the Franchise.
This Resolution is passed and adopted the day of
, 1988.
SW2
11/4/88
CITY OF Richfield
The Mayor
- 3 -
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 276
Agenda November 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a resolution determining results of the City
General Election held on Tuesday, November 8, 1988.
Background:
The General Election was conducted on Tuesday, November 8, 1988
for the election to the positions of Ward 1 Council Member, Ward
2 Council Member, and Ward 3 Council Member_ (all Four Year
Terms). Richfield City Charter Section 4.07 states that: "The
Council shall meet and canvass the election returns at the next
regular or special council meeting immediately following any
regular, primary or special election but in no event later than
the Monday next following, and shall make full declaration of the
results as soon as possible, and file a statement thereof with
the City Clerk."
Recommendation:
Approve the resolution determing the results of the General
Election held on Tuesday, November 8, 1988.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The election judges have certified the returns of the
election.
2. The city charter provides that the city council declare the
results of the election.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This matter has been scheduled for consideration on November 14,
1988.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame . Prosser
Execu ive Director
SLD:njs
/ v
* *FINAL PJ �TS ** CITY OF Ricwum GommAL EGFCTION REs(JLTS PAGE 1
NOVEMBM 8, 1988
`NEGORY: CITY OFFICES - WARD 1
Total Percent ---------- - - - - -- Precincts ----------- - - - - -- Fort
Name Votes of Totl lA 2A 3A 4A 5B 6B 7A 8A 9A Snel
---------------- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - --
OFFICE: CITY OF RIC RPMD
MM 1 COUNCIL MEM
Martin J. Kirsch
4,533
99.10% - -- -
-- 1486
1604
1443 - -- - -- - -- - -- - --
Anyone Else
1
0.02%
1
Ivan Ludeman
4
0.09%
2
1
1
Wozniac
1
0.02%
1
Howard Bunce
10
0.22%
1
3
6
Edwina Garcia
1
0.02%
1
James T. Ericson
1
0.02%
1
Don Hassenstab
1
0.02%
1
Don Hill
1
0.02%
1
Arlene Schroeder
1
0.02%
1
G. D. Fox
1
0.02%
1
Mark Bailey
2
0.04%
2
Sachs
1
0.02%
1
Bruce Watson
1
0.02%
1
Mike Eastling
1
0.02%
1
Elvis Presley
1
0.02%
1
Marjorie Fox
1
0.02%
1
William C. McCool, Jr.
1
0.02%
1
Woznicka
1
0.02%
1
Maureen Scaglia
1
0.02%
1
Jay Scott
1
0.02%
1
Scott Schnobrick
1
0.02%
1
George Karnas
1
0.02%
1
John Belk
1
0.02%
1
GMiERAL ELECTION RESULTS November 8, 1988
PAGE 2
CATEGORY: CI`T'Y OFFICES - WARD 1 (Cmtinued)
Total Percent ---------- - - - - -- Precincts ----------- - - - - -- Fort
Name
---------------- - - - - --
Votes
- - - - --
of Totl lA 2A
- - - - - -- - - -- - - -- -
3A
- -- -
4A 5B 6B
- -- - - -- - - --
7A 8A 9A Snel
- - -- - - -- - - -- - - --
OFFICE : CITY OF RICH'IM D
WARD 1 COUNCIL NIHEM
Ray Brett
1
0.02%
1
Anthony Patridge
1
0.02%
1
Mike Larish
1
0.02%
1
Wes Weber
1
0.02%
1
Douglas Butzier
1
0.02%
1
OFFICE: CITY OF RICHFIEED
MM 2
COUNCIL NEMBM
Ivan Ludenan
3,702
55.380 - -- 1332
- --
- -- - -- 1125
1245 - -- - -- - --
L.R. Wozniczka
2,975
44.50% -- 1123
- --
- -- - -- 729
1123 - -- - -- - --
Kevin R. Deterson
1
0.01%
1
Annette Marchiafana
1
0.01%
1
Steven Rush
1
0.01% 1
Paul Hintermeyer
1
0.01%
1
Paul Wasko
1
0.010
1
Bob Lewis
1
0.01%
1
Bob Jensen
1
0.01%
1
Ricky 0. Lee
1
0.01%
1
GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS November 8, 1988 PAGE 3
CATDGORy: cITY OFFICES - Ti M 3
Name
Total Percent
Votes of Totl
-------- - - - - -- Precincts ---------- - - - - -- Fort
lA 2A 3A 4A 5B 6B 7A 8A 9A Snel
-- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - --
OFFICE: CITY OF RICHFffiD
WM 3
III,
MEMBER
Edwina Garcia
4,534
98.95%
1620 - -- - -- - --
- -- - -- - -- 1533 1381 - --
Tjornholm
1
0.02%
1
John Smith
1
0.02%
1
Ivan Ludeman
4
0.09%
2
2
Matt Stokes
1
0.02%
1
Greg Johnson
1
0.02%
1
Dan Thurber
1
0.02%
1
Richard Starleane
1
0.02%
1
William J. Stixrud
1
0.02%
1
Martin J. Kirsh
1
0.02%
1
Richard Holt
1
0.02%
1
Frank Zappa
1
0.02%
1
Bob Parsons
1
0.02%
1
Anyone Else
2
0.04%
1 1
Michael Bane
1
0.02%
1
Howard W. Swanson
1
0.02%
1
Roland E. Nelson
1
0.02%
1
Dale Lyddon
2
0.04%
2
Steven H. Sachs
1
0.02%
1
Mickey Mouse
1
0.02%
1
Bernard Hurley
1
0.02%
1
Donald Duck
1
0.02%
1
Selden Saunders
1
0.02%
1
Paul E. Nelson
1
0.02%
1
M\JERAL ELECTION RESULTS
November 8, 1988
PAGE 4
cATBGORY: ciw OFFICES - mm 3
(Cmunued)
Total
Percent
---------- - - - - -- Precincts ---------
- - - - -- -Fort
Name
---------------- - - - - --
Votes
- - - - --
of Totl
- - - - - --
lA 2A 3A 4A 5B 6B
- - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - --
7A 8A 9A Snel
- - -- - - -- - - -- - - --
OFFICE : CITY OF RICHFM D
WM
3 00UNC 1L
MEM
Lawrence Woznicka
1
0.02%
1
Roger Spencer
1
0.02%
1
Darrell Kass
1
0.02%
1
Dean F. Maxwell
1
0.02%
1
Jack Dalton
1
0.02%
1
Dan Jennings
2
0.04%
2
Wazanski
1
0.02%
1
Bruce Eric Johnson
1
0.02%
1
John Hamilton
1
0.02%
1
Michael S. Gallagher
1
0.02%
1
Norm Hauer
1
0.02%
1
Sumnicht
1
0.02%
1
Lowell J. Schauer
1
0.02%
1
Margaret Hansen
1
0.02%
1
Ted K. Asnas
1
0.02%
1
David Ophoven
1
0.02%
1
Janet Krulich
1
0.02%
1
Terrence Loden
1
0.02%
1
R.A. "Gil" Gilbertsen
1
0.02%
1
GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS
CATEGORY: T TATS
November 8, 1988
PAGE 5
Total Percent ---------- - - - - -- Precincts ---------- - - - - -- Fort
Name Votes of Totl IA 2A 3A 4A 5B 6B 7A 8A 9A Snel
---------------- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - --
OFFICE: EL,F7MON TURNOUT STATISTICS
Registered at 7:00 AM 24,791
New Registrants 2,895
TOTAL RHGIS`TERED VOTERS 27,686
Absentee Ballots 1,505
Total Voters 20,543
V07M TOMMM PERCENT 74.20%
2728 3376 2622 2643 2698 2523 3052 2709 2414 26
313 386 260 317 410 315 300 285 305 4
3041 3762 2882 2960 3108 2838 3352 2994 2719 30
191 238 214 173 97 122 191 175 104 0
2287 2846 2136 2337 2020 2073 2632 2201 1999 12
75% 76% 74% 79% 650 73% 79% 74% 74% 40%
Only Write -In Votes for City Offices are noted above.
Judges tabulation including write -in votes for other offices may be obtained at the City Clerks
fice, Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Ave. So.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DETERMINING RESULTS OF GENERAL ELECTION
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1988
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the
council, having received and considered the tally of votes by the judges of
the General Election held November 8, 1988, the results are determined to
be as follows:
Total number of ballots cast:
Total number of spoiled ballots:
Votes cast for Council Member - WARDJ :
Martin J. Kirsch 4,533
Votes cast for Council Member - WARD 2:
Ivan Ludeman 3,702
L. R. Wozniczka 2,975
Votes cast for Council Member - WARD 3:
Edwina Garcia 4,534
20,543
717
Attached Appendix A is complete tabulation of results.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following list of judges were those
certifying returns of said election:
Shirley Gisselquist (D)
Ralph Roberts (R)
Bernice Utter (D)
Martha Grace (D)
Edith Nye (R)
Michaeline Kvaale (R)
Olga Kelash (D),
Joyce Morrell (R)
Ruth Pansch (D)
Millie Hines (D)
Ruth Lundquist (D)
Mildred Cochran (R)
Monica Patton (D)
Mae Hermansen (R)
Dorothy Peabody (R)
Elaine Gilhousen (R)
Fern Oreck (D)
Margaret Fleming (D)
Jette Floberg (R)
Frederick Moore (D)
Thomas Muilenberg (R)
Ione Waller (D)
Anne Burkhardt (D)
Lorraine Watson (R)
.Marguerite Welke (D)
Lavella Turek (D)
Margery Murphy (R)
June Lindstrom (R)
Jean Lofstrom (D)
Harriet Ring (D)
June Sveum (R)
Ruth Cotterman (R)
Florence Habager (R)
June Hoffman (R)
Jan Andersen (R)
Linda Bloomgren (D)
Alvina Mjelve (R)
John Belk (D)
Bob Mack (D)
Meredith Anderson (R)
Mary Wood (R)
Helen Moritz (D)
JoAnn Holt (R)
Ted Chad (R)
Andrew Holey (D)
Jill Horozitz (D)
Ward Ring (R)
Claire Todd (D)
Resolution No.
Page 2
Jaclyn Schwab (D)
')ave Arnold ( R )
Aarilyn Wagner (R)
Carolyn Walker (D)
Loraine DeMay (D)
Kurt Johnson (R)
Ethel Hommes (R)
Garnette Kirchner (R)
Kathy Barta (D)
Iva Harper (D)
Pam Hlady (R)
Mary Lou Janco (D)
Shell Meehl (D)
Alice Neuberger (D)
Esther Anderson (R)
Beth Oglesbee (R)
Donna Vidas (R)
Betty Obenchain (D)
Vernette Carlson (D)
Ray Johnson (D)
James Jungels (D)
Emily Day (D)
Marvis Spencer (D)
Betty Funk (R)
Fay Sullivan (D)
>allie Northrup (R)
Bernadette Lais (R)
Eloise Friend (R)
Myrtle Lindgren (R)
Doris Lung (R)
Phyllis Reinmuth (R)
Lois Karnas (R)
Beverly Clark (D)
Angela Aylward (R)
Donna Jordahl (D)
Robert Lexvold (D)
Mary Ann Schindler (D)
Joan Pelfrey (D)
Nancy Hanks (D)
James Harkness (D)
Ann Benson (R)
Carolyn Ring (R)
Teresa Daws (D)
Alice Bjerva (R)
Gertrude Herll (D)
Audrey Winslow (R)
Marron Horning (D)
Ilene Holen (R)
John Gera (D)
Dee Wilcox (R)
Muriel Findell (D)
Carol Josephs (R)
Arville Beckman (D)
Marilyn Nienkerk (D)
Robert Benson (R)
Phyllis Wolf (R)
Nancy Eckstein (D)
Helen Norman (R)
Shirley Comstock (R)
Ann Kiehne (D)
ItIl,'
Vivian Bennis (R)
Betty Halloran (R)
Liz Bowman (R)
Muriel Bernstein (D)
Gladys Hayden (D)
Ellen Pederson (D)
Jan Quick (D)
Warren Olson (D)
Mae Farr (R)
Le Sveum (R)
Helen Peterson (D)
Mary Jacobson (R)
Helen Hillstrom (D)
June King (R)
Corrine Cosgrove (D)
Barb Cook (D)
Janet Benson (R)
Marion Anderson (R)
Rosemary Koelln (R)
Sue Lewis (R)
Clifford Martinson (R)
Joan Schaefer (R)
Elinor Kuhl (D)
Janet Halbur (D)-
Lois Ball (D)
Imagene Mabone (D)
Darrell Koss (R)
Helen Beck (D)
Irene Anderson (R)
Pat Toney (R)
Clara Darsow (D)„
Pat Bunting (D)
Lem Cotterman (R)
Beulah Johnson (R)
Ray Howe (D)
Gertrude Ulrich (D)
Mary Morton (R)
Else Johansen (D)
Gertrude Broker (R)
Mary Ellen Tunby (R)
Della Shuck (D)
Lois Kovach (D)
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of
November, 1988.
Steven J. Quam
ATTEST:
Steven L. Devich Acting City C er
Mayor
iv p
"FINAL RESULTS" CITY OF RIB GENERAL EGE EON RESULTS PAGE 1
NNEMiR 8, 1988
CATEGORY: FEDERAL OFFICES
Total Percent ---------- - - - - -- Precincts ---------- - - - - -- Fort
Name Votes of Totl IA 2A 3A 4A 5B 6B 7A 8A 9A Snel
---------------- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - --
Bush and Quayle
9,175
45.00%
1013
1280
1021
1066
923
932
1149
919
865 7
Dukakis and Bentsen
11,057
54.23%
1229
1517
1086
1225
1069
1114
1444
1256
1112 5
Warren and Mickells
10
0.05%
1
1
3
2
3
Fulani and Moore
16
0.08%
2
7
1
1
1
3
1
LaRouche and Freeman
7
0.03%
2
1
2
1
1
Herer and Beal
12
0.06%
1
4
1
2
2
1
1
Paul and Marrou
39
0.19%
5
5
3
4
4
3
3
7
5
Winn and Porster
2
0.01%
1
1
Dennis and Jeppson
2
0.01%
1
1
Duke and Parker
12
0.06%
1
1
2
3
1
2
2
McCarthy and Snaby
58
0.28%
10
7
11
3
5
3
12
3
4
OFFICE: UNITED STATES SENATOR
Dave Durenberger
11,909
58.57%
1284
1637
1289
1408
1221
1219
1519
1197
1127 8
Hubert H. Humphrey,III
7,876
38.74%
924
1091
771
842
711
777
1003
931
822 4
Derrick P. Grimmer
61
0.30%
4
5
5
8
10
7
7
8
7
Wendy Lyons
23
0.11%
5
2
3
4
3
5
1
Arlen Overvig
28
0.14%
1
10
2
2
5
4
3
1
Polly Mann
436
2.14%
40
71
51
45
44
45
67
47
26
OFFICE: UNITED STATES RFPRP_Gi
f'ATTVR
DISTRICT 5
Raymond C. Gilbertson
6,736
34.73%
712
959
770
766
708
700
817
683
618 3
Martin Olav Sabo
12,404
63.94%
1405
1688
1227
1369
1175
1243
1650
1383
1255 9
T. Christopher Wright
258
1.33%
28
45
26
35
26
25
32
20
21
GENERAL Er=ION RESULTS
CATEGORY: STATE OFFICES
Total Percent
Name Votes of Totl
OFFICE: STATE REPR
David A. Stmmicht
Chris Tjornhcan
OFFICE: STATE REPR
Joyce Henry
Phillip Riveness
arATrVE DISTRICT 40A
6,956 43.63%
8,986 56.37%
f?SRNi'ATTVE DISTRICT 40B
1,977 50.18%
1,963 49.82%
November 8, 1988
lA 2A 3A
-- Precincts -
4A 5B 6B
PAGE 2
------ - - - - -- Fort
7A 8A 9A Snel
938 1179 872 958 - -- - -- 1125 1009 870 5
1257 1571 1219 1302 - -- - -- 1430 1127 1074 6
- -- - -- - -- - -- 952 1025 - -- - -- - -- - --
-- -- - -- -- 985 978 -- - -- - -- - --
Total
Percent
--------
-- Precincts ----------
Fort
- -
- - --
-
- - -
Name
----------------
Votes
- - - - -- - - - - --
of Totl
- - - - - --
lA
- - --
2A
- - --
3A
- - --
4A
- - --
5B
- - --
6B
- --
7A
- - --
8A
- - --
9A
- - --
Snel
- --
DICE: ENVIRONMENTAL
TRUST FUND:
TO ESTABLISH
Yes
17,024
82.91%
1925
2319
1781
1938
1710
1713
2170
1810
1649
9
No
2,486
12.11%
239
359
253
269
236
256
341
277
253
3
Not Voting
1,023
4.98%
123
168
101
130
70
104
120
112
95
OFFICE: JU I S:
TO ALUN LESS TEAN TMWE NEMBER.S
Yes
12,043
58.65%
1301
1651
1305
1404
1137
1198
1581
1284
1176
6
No
7,326
35.68%
842
1018
722
793
798
766
898
766
717
6
Not Voting
1,165
5.67%
144
177
108
140
81
109
153
149
104
OFFICE: STATE
IDT ERY: TO PERNIIT T SLA-TURE TO
AUTEURIZE
-
Yes
11,598
56.48%
1359
1454
1167
1303
1190
1190
1425
1309
1194
7
No
8,400
40.91%
863
1306
912
968
794
831
1147
819
755
5
Not Voting
536
2.61%
65
86
56
66
32
52
60
71
48
GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS
CATEGORY: COUNTY OFFICES
Total Percent
Name Votes of Totl
---------------- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - --
'ejuaft •W j k 0 •• 1 •' la+• h• i
Novenber 8, 1988 PAGE 3
---------- - - - - -- Precincts ----------- - - - - -- Fort
IA 2A 3A 4A 5B 6B 7A 8A 9A Snel
Randy Johnson
8,688
48.52%
873
1370
901
1027
860
897
1130
894
736 - --
James C. Swanson
9,219
51.48%
1147
1105
937
952
802
901
1224
1085
1066 - --
OFFICE: SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION SUPERVISOR
DMMICP 1
1728 1339 1391 1275 1289 1577 1367 1266
10
OFFICE: JUDGE 4TH DISTRICT COURT
(C'AREY SEAT)
William M. Abene
4,548
34.45%
568
554
475
445
498
466
534
488
515 5
Harold H. Burrows
8,654
65.550
926
1255
855
982
834
871
1118
976
832 5
OFFICE: SOIL AMID WATER CONSERVATION
SUPERVISOR DISTRICT 3
David Anderson
12,868
100.00%
1467
1734
1345
1431
1282
1297
1597
1406
1299 10
CATEGORY: JUDICIAL OFFICES
Total Percent --------- - - - - -- Precincts ----------- - - - - -- Fort
Name Votes of Totl IA 2A 3A 4A 5B 6B 7A 8A 9A Snel
John E. Simonett 13,366
100.00% 1503
1856 1408 1469 1324 1360 1656 1446 1334
10
OFFICE: JUDGE COMT OF APPEAL
(M MM SEAT)
Fred C. Norton 13,075
100.00% 1474
1802 1377 1441 1303 1316 1624 1428 1300
10
OFFICE: JUDGE 4TH DISTRICT COURT
(ADZICK SEAT)
George R. Adzick 12,631
100.00% 1425
1739 1326 1385 1265 1290 1574 1352 1265
10
OFFICE: JUDGE 4TH DISTRICT COURT
(BEIDIS SEAT)
Patricia L. Belois 12,658
100.00% 1416
1728 1339 1391 1275 1289 1577 1367 1266
10
OFFICE: JUDGE 4TH DISTRICT COURT
(C'AREY SEAT)
Thcmas H. Carey 12,575
100.00% 1412
1712 1325 1387 1262 1280 1568 1360 1259
10
OFFICE: JUDGE 4TH DISTRICT COURT
(DUFFY SEAT)
David M. Duffy 12,606
100.00% 1412
1728 1316 1394 1269 1286 1577 1362 1252
10
^T,'FICE: JUDGE 47H DISMCT COURT
(FI7ZGQiATD SEAT)
Patrick W. Fitzgerald 12,402
100.00% 1439
1674 1284 1356 1273 1294 1553 1347 1172
10
GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS November 8, 1988 PAGE 4
CATDGORY: JUDICIAL OFFICES
Name
Total Percent ---------- - - - - -- Precincts - - - - --
Votes of Totl lA 2A 3A 4A 5B 6B 7A
- - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - --
- - - - - -- Fort
8A 9A Snel
Myron S. Greenberg 11,646
100.00% 1339
1561
1198 1291 1201 1228 1466 1259 1093 10
OFFICE: JUDGE 478 DISTRICT COURT
(HART SEAT)
Daniel R. Hart 11,675
100.00% 1354
1571
1200 1283 1205 1218 1473 1266 1095 10
OFFICE: JUDGE 478 DISTRICT COURT
(HEDLUND SPAT)
Deborah Hedlund 11,711
100.00% 1346
1575
1220 1286 1202 1230 1466 1264 1112 10
OFFICE: JUDGE 425 DISTRICT COURT
(S. I,ANGE SEAT)
Steven Z. Lange 11,525
100.000 1335
1547
1185 1261 1186 1204 1459 1251 1087 10
OFFICE: JUDGE 4TH DISTRICT COURT
(ISBEDlOFF SFAT)
Jonathan Lebedoff 11,608
100.00% 1330
1572
1195 1267 1199 1216 1457 1264 1098 10
OFFICE: JUDGE 4TH DISTRICT COURT
(WM E SEAT)
Cara Lee T. Neville 11,519
100.00% 1329
1561
1186 1266 1183 1207 1446 1251 1080 10
OFFICE: JUDGE 475 DISTRICT COURT
(OrEISU SPAT)
Allen Oleisky 11,716
100.00% 1347
1588
1211 1264 1193 1239 1489 1269 1106 10
OFFICE: JUDGE 478 DISTRICT COURT
(OBEY SEAT)
Dolores C. Orey 11,478
100.00% 1321
1542
1178 1256 1194 1204 1445 1246 1082 10
OFFICE: JUDGE 478 DISTRICT COURT
(RICE SEAT)
Sean Jerome Rice 11,413
100.00% 1316
1544
1183 1244 1181 1193 1438 1225 1079 10
OFFICE: JUDGE 478 DISTRICT COURT
(WII?18R SEAT)
Mary Davidson Winter 11,533
100.00% 1322
1557
1190 1258 1194 1204 1447 1249 1102 10
GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS November 8, 1988 PAGE 5
CARRY: CITY OFFICES - MM 1
Total
Percent ----------
- - - - --
Precincts ----------- - - - - -- Fort
Name
---------------- - - - - --
Votes
- - - --
of Totl lA
- - - - - -- - - -- -
2A 3A
- -- - - --
4A
- - --
5B 6B 7A 8A 9A Snel
-- - - -- - - -- - — - - - -- - - --
OFFICE: CITY OF RICEff?IE D
MM
1 CIOUN II. MNBER
Martin J. Kirsch
4,533
99.10% - --
- -- 1486
1604
1443 -- - -- - -- - -- - --
Anyone Else
1
0.02%
1
Ivan Ludeman
4
0.09%
2
1
1
Wozniac
1
0.02%
1
Howard Bunce
10
0.22%
1
3
6
Edwina Garcia
1
0.02%
1
Jams T. Ericson
1
0.02%
1
Don Hassenstab
1
0.02%
1
Don Hill
1
0.02%
1
Arlene Schroeder
1
0.02%
1
G. D. Fox
1
0.02%
1
Mark Bailey
2
0.04%
2
Sachs
1
0.02%
1
Bruce Watson
1
0.02%
1
Mike Eastling
1
0.02%
1
Elvis Presley r
1
0.02%
1
Marjorie Fox
1
0.02%
1
William C. McCool, Jr.
1
0.02%
1
Woznicka
1
0.02%
1
Maureen Scaglia
1
0.02%
1
Jay Scott
1
0.02%
1
Scott Schnobrick
1
0.02%
1
George Karnas
1
0.02%
1
John Belk
1
0.02%
1
GQ�IEEtAL ELECTION RESULTS
CATEGORY: CITY OFFICES - WARD 1 ( Continued )
Total Percent
Name Votes of Totl
i
November 8, 1988 PAGE 6
---------- - - - - -- Precincts ----------- - - - - -- Fort
lA 2A 3A 4A 5B 6B 7A 8A 9A Snel
Maim NO I Dip 11m�M011j7-*-4Fm; 15" 1.15M
Ray Brett
1
0.02%
1
Anthony Patridge
1
0.02%
1
Mike Larish
1
0.02%
1
Wes Weber
1
0.02%
1
Douglas Butzier
1
0.02%
1
OFFICE: CITY OF RICM=
WARD 2
C7OUNCIL MOM
Ivan Ludeman
3,702
55.38%
-- 1332 - -- - --
- -- 1125
1245 - -- - -- - --
L.R. Wozniczka
2,975
44.50%
- -- 1123 - -- --
- -- 729
1123 - -- - -- - --
Kevin R. Deterson
1
0.01%
1
Annette Marchiafana
1
0.01%
1
Steven Rush
1
0.01%
1
Paul Hintermeyer
1
0.01%
1
Paul Wasko
1
0.01%
1
Bob Lewis
1
0.01%
1
Bob Jensen
1
0.01%
1
Ricky 0. Lee
1
0.01%
1
GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS November 8, 1988
CATEGORY: CICTY OFFICES - MRD 3
Total Percent ---------- - - - - -- Precincts —
Name Votes of Totl lA 2A 3A 4A 5B 6B
---------------- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - --
PAGE 7
------ - - - - -- Fort
7A 8A 9A Snel
OFFICE: CITY OF RICIR?IELD
WARD 3
COUNCIL
Edwina Garcia
4,534
98.95%
1620 - -- - -- - --
- -- - -- - -- 1533 1381 ---
Tjornholm
1
0.02%
1
John Smith
1
0.02%
1
Ivan Ludeman
4
0.09%
2
2
Matt Stokes
1
0.02%
1
Greg Johnson
1
0.02%
1
Dan Thurber
1
0.02%
1
Richard Starleane
1
0.02%
1
William J. Stixrud
1
0.02%
1
Martin J. Kirsh
1
0.02%
1
Richard Holt
1
0.02%
1
Frank Zappa
1
0.02%
1
Bob Parsons
1
0.02%
1
Anyone Else
2
0.04%
1 1
Michael Bane
1
0.02%
1
Howard W. Swanson,.
1
0.02%
1
Roland E. Nelson
1
0.02%
1
Dale Lyddon
2
0.04%
2
Steven H. Sachs
1
0.02%
1
Mickey Mouse
1
0.02%
1
Bernard Hurley
1
0.02%
1
Donald Duck
1
0.02%
1
Selden Saunders
1
0.02%
1
Paul E. Nelson
1
0.02%
1
GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS
November 8, 1988
PAGE 8
CATEGORY: CITY OFFICES - MM 3
( Continued )
Total
Percent
---------- - - - - -- Precincts ----------
- - - - -- Fort
Name
---------------- - - - - --
Votes
- - - - --
of Totl
- - - - - --
lA 2A 3A 4A 5B 6B
- - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- -
7A 8A 9A Snel
- -- - - -- - - -- - - --
OFFICE: CITY OF RICEFIEGD
VOM
3 COUNCIL
MEMBER
Lawrence Woznicka
1
0.02%
1
Roger Spencer
1
0.02%
1
Darrell Kass
1
0.02%
1
Dean F. Maxwell
1
0.02%
1
Jack Dalton
1
0.02%
1
Dan Jennings
2
0.04%
2
Wazanski
1
0.02%
1
Bruce Eric Johnson
1
0.02%
1
John Hamilton
1
0.02%
1
Michael S. Gallagher
1
0.02%
_l
Norm Hauer
1
0.02%
1
Sumnicht
1
0.02%
1
Lowell J. Schauer
1
0.02%
1
Margaret Hansen
1
0.02%
1
Ted K. Asnas
1
0.02%
1
David Ophoven
1
0.02%
1
Janet Krulich
1
0.02%
1
Terrence Loden
1
0.02%
1
R.A. "Gil" Gilbertsen
l
0.02%
1
GENERAL MECTION RESULTS
CATE]GORY: BLS
Total Percent
Name Votes of Totl
---------------- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - --
OFFICE: E MON TURNOUT STATISTICS
Registered at 7:00 AM 24,791
New Registrants 2,895
TOTAL Rp7;I:5j% m VOTERS 27,686
Absentee Ballots 1,505
Total Voters 20,543
VOTER TZIMM PENT 74.20%
November 8, 1988 PAGE 9
---------- - - - - -- Precincts ----------- - - - - -- Fort
lA 2A 3A 4A 5B 6B 7A 8A 9A Snel
- - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - --
2728 3376 2622 2643 2698 2523 3052 2709 2414 26
313 386 260 317 410 315 300 285 305 4
3041 3762 2882 2960 3108 2838 3352 2994 2719 30
191 238 214 173 97 122 191 175 104 0
2287 2846 2136 2337 2020 2073 2632 2201 1999 12
75% 76% 74% 79% 65% 73% 79% 74% 74% 40%
Only Write -In Votes for City Offices are noted above.
Judges tabulation of write -in votes for other offices may be obtained at the City Clerks office,
Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Ave. So.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 275
Agenda November 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
First reading of an ordinance to amend the City code to prohibit
the parking of utility trailers in front and side yards.
Background:
The Public Safety Department has received complaints of one or
two instances where utility trailers have been parked for long
periods of time (months) in the front of a home or in side yards
which has disturbed neighbors. The issues are:
- Trailers of this nature can be unsightly.
- City ordinances do not specifically address the issue.
The ordinance regulates trailers, but is preceded by a
discussion on trucks and tractor trailers.
The City Attorney is hesitant to interpret the current
ordinance to include trailers of this nature. (Ref:
City ord. 1320.03 attached).
- City ordinance 1305.27, Subd. 5 Prohibits parking of
motor vehicles in front yards except in driveways. Motor
vehicles are defined as self propelled which excludes
utility trailers.
- City ordinance 1325 deals with recreational vehicles and
they are restricted to parking in:
a. Rear or side yard.
b. Not closer than three (3) feet of a building.
C. On an established driveway and not closer than
twelve (12) feet of the curb line.
d. Can be stored anywhere on a lot for not more than
48 hours.
At the November 7 Council Workshop the Council discussed certain
alternatives to this problem. The Council directed staff to
include utility trailers in the definition section of the
recreational vehicle ordinance (Sect. 1325.03). By doing this,
utility trailers would have to comply with parking requirements
identical to recreational vehicles.
- May park on any rear or side yard except the side yard of
a corner lot.
- Not closer than three feet to any building or structure,
including fence.
- In an established driveway, but not closer than three
feet to any structure and not closer than twelve (12)
feet to the curb line.
Must not be in a state of disrepair.
Slip on campers can be stored in the same manner as
recreational vehicles.
In a further review of the ordinance, it was discovered that
RV's could be stored on property without having a current
license. Section 1325.11 was added to the proposed ordinance
amendment to cover this issue.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of an amendment to the City code to
prohibit the parking of utility trailers in front and side yards.
Alternative Recommendations:
1. The Council could elect not to do anything which would leave
the situation as is, no specific regulations as to where
these vehicles can or cannot park.
2. The Council could direct staff to prepare an ordinance which
prohibits utility trailers anywhere in a residential
neighborhood. This would be an extreme and highly
controversial.
3. Council could direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment
that would prohibit utility trailers from parking on any
front yards except established driveways. This approach
probably would not accomplish anything.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the November 14 City Council agenda
for first reading, and scheduling of the public hearing and
second reading.
Respectfully submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:sae
Richfield City Code
Section 1320. Parking: outside storage.
1320.01
1320.01. Declaration of nuisance. The outside parking or outside storage, on
or near residence district properties, or vehicles, materials, supplies or
equipment not customarily used or needed for use in connection with the occupan-
cy of residential property for residence purposes, is found to create a nuisance
and detrimental influence upon the public health, safety, prosperity, good order
and general welfare in such district, including obstruction of view on streets
and on private properties, bringing unhealthful and noisome odors and materials -
into residential neighborhoods, creating a cluttered and otherwise unsightly
areas, preventing the full use of residential streets for residential parking,
introducing commercial advertising signs into areas where commercial advertising
signs are otherwise prohibited, and otherwise adversely affecting residential
property values and neighborhood patterns.
1320.03. Unlawful parking. It is unlawful for any person owning; driving or in
charge of a vehicle of any of the types hereinafter specified to cause or permit
such vehicle to be parked or to stand continuously for more than two hours on
any residence property or on any public street in the city. This prohibition
applies to the following vehicles and other similar vehicles.
(a) any bus designed to carry more than nine persons.
(b) any motor truck or pickup truck having a capacity of one ton or more.
(c) any tractor, truck - tractor, truck - trailer or any type of trailer.
1320.05. Exceptions. This section does not apply to the following vehicles:
(a) a motor truck, pickup truck or similar vehicle being used by a public
utility, moving company, or similar company, which is actually being used to
service a residence not belonging to or occupied by the operator of the vehicle;
(b) a vehicle which is actually making a pickup or delivery at the loca-
tion where it is parked. Parking for any period of time beyond the period of
time reasonably necessary to make such pickup or delivery and in excess of the
two hour limit shall be unlawful; or
(c) Recreational vehicles and equipment.
1320.07. Unlawful storage: special permit. It is unlawful for a person
owning, keeping, driving or in charge of any house trailer, mobile home, air-
plane, construction or home - occupation machinery, equipment or supplies, or
other machinery, equipment, supplies or materials not customarily used or needed
in connection with the occupancy of residential property for residence purposes,
to cause or permit the same to be stored outside of a building on any residen-
tial zoning district property for a total of more than 30 days during any
calendar year without first obtaining a permit to do so in accordance with this
section.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 274
Agenda November 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
First reading of an ordinance amending CATV Relief Ordinance
1985 -12; consideration of a resolution Approving a Settlement
with the Grantee under the City's Cable Communications Franchise,
the Stipulation of Settlement and Release, and the Amendment to
the Performance Agreement.
Background:
Rogers Communications, Inc. has agreed to sell all interests and
holdings in its U.S. cable systems to KBL Cable, Inc., a Texas
corporation. The transfer from Rogers to KBL Cable shall be
effectuated through the transfer of the controlling stock
interest in the RCA Cablesystems Holding Co., the parent
corporation of the Grantee.
The City previously granted relief to Rogers under the CATV
Relief Ordinance 1985 -12. Rogers has requested that this relief
be extended to the new owners.
A Stipulation of Settlement with Rogers and Grantee, Exhibit A
( "Stipulation ") and a Resolution of Approval of Settlement,
Exhibit B ( "Resolution "), are attached. The Stipulation and
Resolution provide a description of requirements and conditions
and are made part of this ordinance by reference. The ordinance
will be effective only if the Stipulation and Resolution are
satisfied and the Proposed Transferee agrees to be bound by the
terms of this ordinance as part of its acceptance of the transfer
of the ownership.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the resolution approving a settlement with the grantee
under the city's cable communications franchise, the Stipulation
of settlement and release, and the Amendment to the Performance
Agreement; approve first reading of an ordinance amending CATV
Relief Ordinance 1985 -12, and schedule the public hearing and
second reading consideration for November 28, 1988.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The Southwest Suburban Cable Commission has reviewed this
request and has recommended extending certain portions of the
CATV Relief Ordinance to the new owner.
2. Approval of the Settlement Resolution, Stipulation of
Settlement and Release, and the Amendment to the Performance
Agreement is necessary to effectuate the ordinance.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Not approve the documents. However, the SWSCC has
recommended their approval, and no action may result in a
delay in the sale of the cable company.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for Council action at the November 14,
1988 City Council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
James Yager rosser
City
JDP /eja
T i( -/
?-f . or.,-<.
STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE
This Stipulation of Settlement and Release ( "Stipulation ")
is entered into this day of , 1988 by and
between, the City of Richfield , a Minnesota municipal
corporation ( "City "), and one of the Member Cities of the
Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (the "SWSCC "), Rogers
Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc., a Minnesota corporation,
( "Grantee ") Grantee under the Franchise which was granted to it
by City, Rogers Communications, Inc., ( "Rogers "), a Canadian
corporation, Rogers Cablesystems of America, a Delaware
corporation, and Rogers U.S. Cablesystems, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, guarantors of Grantee (herein together called
"Rogers Subsidiaries ").
WHEREAS, Rogers has agreed to sell all interests and
holdings in its U.S. cable systems; and
WHEREAS, Rogers and the City agree that KBL Cable, Inc., a
Texas corporation ( "Proposed Transferee ") should assume all
Rogers' responsibilities and liabilities related to the Franchise
on and after the close of transfer ( "Closing "); and
WHEREAS, the transfer from Rogers to Transferee shall be
effectuated through the transfer of the controlling stock
interest in RCA Cablesystems Holding Co., the parent corporation
of Grantee; and
WHEREAS, while the Grantee of the Franchise shall remain the
same, Proposed Transferee shall on and after closing of the
transfer of ownership from Rogers to Proposed Transferee,
guarantee all responsibilities and liabilities relating to
Rogers and the Grantee and Rogers shall be released and
discharged from all responsibilities and liabilities for its
actions and the actions of the Grantee occurring on or after such
Closing; and
WHEREAS, the City understands that Grantee and Rogers agree
that the terms of this Stipulation shall not be effective unless
the Proposed Transferee enters into a guarantee agreement on or
before the time of Closing guaranteeing Grantee's performance of
the Franchise as amended, this Stipulation, the CATV Relief
Ordinance as amended, the Performance Agreement as amended, and
compliance with the acceptance terms of the Franchise; and
WHEREAS, Rogers has requested that the City extend the
terms of the CATV Relief Ordinance as amended by Exhibit CC
approved by City and other Member Cities of the SWSCC to Proposed
Transferee after the Closing; and
01
WHEREAS, in consideration of the extension of the CATV
Relief Ordinance, Rogers has made an offer, included in a letter
dated August 18, 1988, and attached hereto as Exhibit AA; and
WHEREAS, it is intended by the acceptance of Exhibit AA by
City that continuation of the relief provided for under the terms
of the CATV Relief Ordinance as amended by Exhibit CC will
continue after the Closing based upon the following Exhibits
being complied with by Grantee, Rogers and Proposed Transferee:
Exhibit BB - Proposed Resolution
Exhibit CC - Proposed CATV Relief Ordinance Amendment
Exhibit DD - Proposed Amendment to Performance Agreement;
WHEREAS, in of payment to the SWSCC in the sum
of $3.5 Million (U.S.), City, along with other Member Cities of
the SWSCC, agree to the approval of Exhibits BB, CC and DD, and
agree that the waiver or deferral of certain Franchise
requirements shall be approved and that Rogers and the Grantee
shall be relieved of any further liability or responsibility for
completion thereof; and
WHEREAS, upon compliance by Grantee of all of the terms and
conditions of this Stipulation and the attached Exhibits, the
payment of $3.5 Million (U.S.) by Rogers to SWSCC, and, upon
execution between the parties of this Stipulation and Exhibit DD,
the relief provided for by City to Grantee in the CATV Relief
Ordinance as amended by Exhibit CC and Exhibit DD will be
continued after the Closing; and
WHEREAS, Rogers seeks a release from liability under the
Franchise by City, effective upon the date of transfer to
Proposed Transferee.
WHEREAS, the City and Grantee make the following
acknowledgements:
1. By City: As of the date of this Stipulation and except
for the waivers and deferrals provided for in this Stipulation,
City has found, that to the best of its knowledge, Grantee is
not in violation of the Franchise;
2. By City and Grantee: As set forth in Article XII,
Section 5, and Article XIV, Section 2B, of the Franchise, any
previous, current or future deferral or failure of the City to
enforce prompt compliance with all provisions in the Franchise
does not constitute a waiver of the City's rights or obligations
to enforce compliance in the future; further this provision does
not relieve the Grantee and the Proposed Transferee of any
obligations they have to comply with all provisions of the
Franchise, except as such obligations are amended, waived, or
extended by this Stipulation and the CATV Relief Ordinance as
2
id, . -T
amended. Upon transfer of ownership and control of Grantee by
the stock purchase to the Proposed Transferee, the City shall
again be entitled to enforce prompt compliance of any obligation
and any deferral or failure to enforce the then existing
obligations by the City shall not constitute a waiver of the
City's rights or remedies; and
3. By Grantee: That Grantee is not, to the best of its
knowledge and except for the waivers and deferrals provided for
in this Stipulation, in violation of any of the terms or
conditions of the Franchise and all requirements of the Franchise
are being complied with except as identified by this Stipulation.
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the foregoing mutual agreement and
negotiated settlement between the Grantee, Rogers and City and
upon compliance by Grantee and Rogers of all of the terms and
conditions of this Stipulation, it is hereby mutually agreed
that:
1. In consideration of the Proposed Transferee's
guarantee of Grantee's performance which includes the execution
and delivery of the agreement pursuant to paragraph 5 of the
Stipulation of the CATV Relief Ordinance as amended by Exhibit CC
and Exhibit DD and in consideration of payment by Rogers of $3.5
Million (U.S.) in immediately available U.S. funds, wired to the
SWSCC account, First Bank Minneapolis, Account No. 602 - 3377 -564,
for the benefit of its Member Cities, at the Closing between
Rogers and its Proposed Transferee, City agrees to the following:
a. Continue after the Closing in accordance with the
terms of the CATV Relief Ordinance as amended,
evidenced by Exhibit CC and the Performance Agreement
as amended as exhibited by Exhibit DD, to the Proposed
Transferee of Grantee;
b. The "Waiver of completion of the minor Franchise
offerings" as set forth in Exhibit EE hereto;
C. Deferral for negotiation with the Proposed
Transferee regarding Compliance with liability
insurance requirements of the Franchise;
d. Waiver of its right to review for purchase by City
and right to purchase the cable system prior to
transfer of control of Grantee of Franchise to Proposed
Transferee; and,
e. Waiver of reimbursement for costs in connection
with the Stipulation in excess of the amount paid to
the SWSCC by Grantee and Rogers.
2. Rogers and Grantee shall complete enhancement of the
. -/ D ./ ,
Residential Network as described in the report of the Southwest
Institutional Network Group ( "SWING "). The cost in implementing
the SWING recommendation is approximately $34,000.00, of which
up to $17,660.50 shall be paid by all Member Cities. Rogers
shall pay the $34,000.00 total cost initially, and the City's
portion of the cost shall be repaid to Rogers at the time of the
payment of the $3.5 Million (U.S.) on condition Grantee complete
this work prior to the Closing with Proposed Transferee. If
this work is not completed at the time of Closing, the estimated
cost shall be held in escrow by SWSCC at the Closing and
distributed when Grantee completes the work.
3. This Stipulation shall be effective only if the City
and all Member Cities of the SWSCC have approved it and its
Exhibits, and each are accepted by Grantee and Rogers. The terms
of this Stipulation shall be effective for six (6) months from
the final date of passage by all five Member Cities of a
resolution approving settlement, and may be extended by either
Grantee or SWSCC for an additional six (6) months without further
consideration. Upon payment by Rogers of the $3.5 million (U.S.)
described in paragraph l of this Stipulation and as a condition
of approval of the transfer of ownership and control of Grantee
to Proposed Transferee, Grantee and Proposed Transferee shall
hold harmless City, SWSCC, and Member Cities on and after
Closing of the transfer from any liability or responsibility
with respect to the sale or transfer of ownership of the cable
communications system and the Franchise of the City to Proposed
Transferee. On and after the transfer from Rogers to Proposed
Transferee, Proposed Transferee shall guarantee and Grantee shall
assume any and all then existing responsibilities and liabilities
related to the Franchise, the CATV Relief Ordinance, the CATV
Relief Ordinance Amendment, the Performance Agreement, as
amended, the Contract for Local Programming Activities between
SWSCC and Grantee, including Rogers' responsibilities and
liabilities, and the City, SWSCC and Member Cities shall release
and discharge Rogers and Grantee from any and all
responsibilities, liabilities, claims and disputes, known and
unknown, related to the Franchise and Grantee.
4. If the conditions of this Stipulation are not satisfied
because of actions by Rogers, Grantee or Proposed Transferee,
Grantee and Rogers agree to reimburse the City and SWSCC for all
expenses over and above amounts previously paid by Rogers and /or
Grantee in connection with this Stipulation and also agree to be
continuously bound by the terms of the existing Franchise, the
CATV Relief Ordinance, the Performance Agreement, the Contract
for Local Programming Activities, the Acceptance Agreement and
Agreement of Joint and Several Liability both given in connection
with the transfer of the Franchise to Grantee.
5. This Stipulation and all of its Exhibits shall be null
and void and shall not be effective, unless Proposed Transferee
4
-J-&
enters into a guarantee agreement on or before the time of
Closing of transfer of ownership from Rogers to Proposed
Transferee agreeing to guarantee Grantee's performance of the
Franchise as amended, this Stipulation, the CATV Relief Ordinance
as amended, and the Performance Agreement as amended, and unless
the Proposed Transferee complies with the terms of Article XIV of
the Franchise.
The foregoing was agreed to and entered into between the
Grantee, Rogers, and City on the day of , 1988.
SW3 /STIPUL2.SW - 11/7/88
City of Richfield
Mayor
City Manager
ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF THE
SOUTHWEST, INC., a Minnesota
corpora n
By
Its
ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a
Canadi rporat' n
By ok )
Its
ROGERS U^ CABLESYST , INC., a
Delaware co rporati n
By
Its
ROGERS C YSTEMS Wo IC A,
INC., a el r co rat'on
By 1JJ4
Its
5
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before
me this day of 19_, by op
the Mayor of the CITY OF , a Minnesota
municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before
me this day of , 19_, by
the City Manager of the CITY OF , a Minnesota
municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before
me this day of Afi.-,.' ( 19 by - I
the /of ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHWEST,
INC., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
X
LEEANN K. PETERSON
NOTARY pjl:jn S 0 TA
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
M H Y C0fl1r-M;SS,:o,-, Expuas Feb. 7, 1989
ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument.was subscribed and sworn to before
me this day of 19 '-1. ' b
-L�L Y
the ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. a'Canadian
corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
X, H
Notary Public
4A
LEEANN K. PETERSON
KI 0 T AIPY P D
, r ;:vt1 '7SDTA
6
My C
Exrircs Feb: 7, 1C"9
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before
me this '-�i'l day of 19 by
the /; o, of ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF AMERICA, INC., a
Delaware corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
NotAry Public
e AAAAAAAAA"A*, AARAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAX
LEEANN K. PETERSON y
My CCMI"; 5c01) Er.;;i:as Feb. 71 1069
? �+ �rn�rirr��y `rr'nr��vGrrv�vvwvv °�i�v�=SxC
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before
me this -7 / / day of I i.. ; �� 19 ` -' , by ; "�i -? °).
the I I, r �; 2 Y,' r of ROGERS U.S. CABLESYSTEMS, INC., , a
Delaware corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
XAAAAAA,AA"AM AAA 4AAnn A A&AtC A6a.eaGkUA"
LEEANN K. PETE—�SCN
S' ^,
NOTi, .Y PU"1! i;.., _TA a
w `•c!' f EPvNtPiivC` -Jh�iY
My Commission Exrres Feb. 7, 1CS9
iZ
XtlC e7ls"GV vGCrGGV tiC'GG� �I'G �Y�'CrG'GGC^!i't7? k
SW3 /STIPUL.SW - 10/20/88
�/ L•�:11 D 1 �. rra
C4))PI Ccblc- TV
4, w
i_. adriA:: Fa,!:,t
r_.'.3.a : & T::L?, z:�.
91-10 h•� rthl anA. pla :z
3OVO WGSt ie. 8,Zaet
d
L4r.'r 1►d ian:
This lattar is in rsz, c;nse to a c= ter c!fa. rada by tra c; eritiry
cG =i.ta$ C: tiZ:3 trCL't�:ir5t $L1�t2��Jt. C3�'�� C; {93ZC:1.2 Cf:Y:
icllosra f_c= ca,:r 3zitiei prcr�sal e' i�ay $C, 19SS, and asDcaer.t
di���ss_c:;a inc?u�i ~g thc3Q ea July 5 a.nd Jul 68 ISM rivon t.':eae
c,--= analysis cf the Rel -laf �C::�'rt and 'fie C Qrat?nc
itt3e'a Ccu;tsr p.cp�sa� , vs rcw p::�sent V�Q f.iicw nq cf=ar based
trZ:; et;_ Und ir.,C c_' vha' -' iz to y:c =: `ly ccrclt:do f::s53
rsxo,t�tic:;s,
T' is cf sr
is
effecttva
urc:; final airrova by all
ar,:- cr:fata
autcr itisb
...
era
t''s fl- al
c? cs ;: c' �Ls �raprsa3 acuity
=as •
rax uyer.
T.h.z
derails Cf
cur p ,-Sal a=s as f-wi cvs:
aj f rarchisa fee pi 'wants W =,? ircr3ssa f ^c: n to n c: 5 --c :3
ravar...es an tha Aa? iaf Asrza_ie^ -;_-- 'be sa a_e.*.ded.
b) 1' -*y¢r will 8334:O t.";a an,.tal cbli ;atiC.-a fQ: accall t::d L.C.
.�. 1 C 1 C gross ''Sva;'.:88 n -i :.a i i r.. :....
f •. ., and the CJ . as s....__ t...t,.....!
1--. c: c,:cys r�v�<:LZS *' °t -'� as c:: = =a: -1v i-. th3
c} Rc•_ar= will pro.a_ $31 x00, 0cc a, 3i4:: C_ all ct'ar accsss, L.C.
a".1 w ^t 9 1 }1� Jr7il: r� v.►. ". . thzc. ;}. y +...2 r ti... r. 1 +4a 4..
►..a_vw�.. `:�i2�..�i�r. t�..� .►.�.�.� � ..
rall �.::C;d8a.�31 cl3i.: iti�wit::.rj -, ccs,62 cf the
tr;La ^s: _r an a -1 ether e— sputaa a::e_ cli'__s a;a1 Rcgs_s 'by t�s
citiez.
T:
-ant 1a1 1533
�• �_ J rye 1' • ti1 ^_ T/a
H� . '.! � -1 � L''�..II ►.. _ li _ � $.. t.. C.. @ � l" J Fries: Cif
�) :: a ZL; ar Wculd ct.'.s {ss acca. t t:;4 fc�.`:c::!aa xai isk a: A Cities
will a�,; da t, tho ;; ccQda= es and f 1::d;n cs fc. : _v; ax as saz *r_
lax. Eu er will i::zm ch •
V-.2 .9 Ta�,;� ray'
tac r, cal end financial qua,liticaticns,
IiC ap;r2c a_a yct; and t!t* Cp*rz -;!,n C:�dit ays G'ft2 :�a tC
era =cL�2y ccrcluda t:�is ratty =. r,.,,�..
1iV {r, t•
{ � �.� �•iC' i `• :i ,��,:� i,Z J 38G' tO =z as 3t:1.Q t7 t�� C� Gr?.�� 7
tt,a. ka f- * --t'sr t;:Me_sta, d i�.� �`' {3 oirew Will �,..
h.0 t. .'. •.• Tiv way
..�. sC. �i►i �X
i
T! i d �.
t.. { � �aCt CC3Y:- +tt.
.
t.ara°ar 3.c rc- C?CS3C'. i;4 Shall
x.. v �7C4►. . $S� CASE •
You
vi
VA/ V.--
83 2
vV ..�.
EXHIBIT BB
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SETTLEMENT WITH THE
GRANTEE UNDER THE CITY'S CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
FRANCHISE ORDINANCE REGARDING THE EXTENSION
OF THE TERM OF THE CATV RELIEF ORDINANCE,
BASED UPON CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS THEREOF, TO
A PROPOSED TRANSFEREE OF THE FRANCHISE FOR
THE CITY'S CABLE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield ("City")
is the official governing body of City; and
WHEREAS, City, in association with other cities, granted a
Cable Communications Franchise to Rogers Cablesystems of the
Southwest, Inc. ( "Grantee "); and
WHEREAS, the City adopted the CATV Relief Ordinance No.
1985_12 in 1985 ("CATV Relief Ordinance "), providing for
modifications of the requirements of the City's Cable
Communications Franchise Ordinance ( "Franchise "); and
WHEREAS, in approximately August 1988, Rogers
Communications, Inc. ( "Rogers "), notified City and the Southwest
Suburban Cable Commission ( "SWSCC"), a joint powgrs commission
comprised of this City and the cities of Eden - Prairie . Edina
Hopkins , and Minnetonka ( "Member Cities ") , of the fact that
Rogers intended to sell all interest and holdings in its U.S.
cable systems to KBL Cable, Inc., a Texas corporation ( "Proposed
Transferee "); and
WHEREAS, as part of Rogers' proposed sale of its U.S. cable
systems, Rogers requested that the City extend the term of the
CATV Relief Ordinance after the Closings and
WHEREAS, on behalf of this City and other Member Cities of
the SWSCC, the SWSCC undertook an evaluation and study of the
request of Rogers; and
WHEREAS, after considerable study and negotiation, the SWSCC
made a recommendation based upon the final offer of Rogers, which
is included as Exhibit 1 to this Resolution as a Stipulation of
Settlement and Release ( "Stipulation "); and
WHEREAS, at a Commission meeting of the SWSCC on
September 7, 1988, the SWSCC recommended that the City approve
and accept the conditions under which an extension of the terms
of the CATV Relief Ordinance would be made; and
1
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the recommendation of the
SWSCC and the Stipulation and has determined that an extension of
the CATV Relief Ordinance as amended, in accordance with the
requirements set forth in the Stipulation, is reasonable and
acceptable to the City; and
WHEREAS, the City understands that Grantee and Rogers agree
that the terms of the Stipulation shall not be effective unless
the Proposed Transferee enters into a Guarantee Agreement on or
before the time of Closing agreeing to guarantee Grantee's
performance of the Franchise as amended, the Stipulation, the
CATV Relief Ordinance as amended, the Performance Agreement as
amended, and compliance with the acceptance terms of the
Franchise; and
WHEREAS, the City acknowledges that the SWSCC has incurred
substantial expense in evaluating this proposed settlement, as
set forth in the Stipulation. The City also has incurred expense
in this process. Both the SWSCC and City must be paid for the
expenses incurred. The City acknowledges that as part of the
process undertaken by the SWSCC, the Grantee has paid monies
towards such expenses incurred by SWSCC. The balance of such
expenses of SWSCC and also the City will be paid from the funds
paid pursuant to paragraph 7 below; and
WHEREAS, the SWSCC has recommended that Rogers pay to it
directly the proceeds of the settlement pursuant to.the
Stipulation and such monies be held by the SWSCC until the SWSCC
is able to recommend the best use and distribution for and on
behalf of each of the Member Cities; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the Stipulation with
its attached Exhibits and Resolution, shall not be effective
until the sale and transfer by Rogers to the Proposed Transferee
is completed. The terms of this Resolution shall not be
effective-until Grantee and Rogers have complied in full with the
Resolution and satisfied all of the requirements of this
Resolution, the Stipulation, the acceptance of modifications to
the Performance Agreement, and the amendment to the CATV Relief
Ordinance, as well as having closed with the Proposed Transferee.
NOW, THEREFORE, in ag]�ar meeting assembled of the City
Council of the City of Ric ie , the following was resolved;
1) That the Stipulation with its exhibits, which is
attached hereto as Exhibit 1, is hereby approved and the
Mayor and City Manager are authorized to sign the same on
behalf of City.
E
/ef -��
2) That the terms of this Resolution are contingent upon
approval and adoption of the CATV Relief Ordinance Amendment
and Amendment to Performance Agreement, which are attached
to the Stipulation, by the City, other Member Cities of the
SWSCC and the SWSCC.
3) That the terms of this Resolution shall be null and
void if a similar Resolution is not approved by other
Member Cities of the SWSCC within 45 days from the date of
this Resolution.
4) That the terms of this Resolution shall be null and
void unless Grantee and Rogers shall have signed the
Stipulation and the Proposed Transferee guarantees the
performance of the Grantee and satisfies the transfer
requirements of the Franchise.
5) This Stipulation and all of its Exhibits shall be null
and void and shall not be effective, unless Proposed
Transferee enters into a guarantee agreement on or before
the time of Closing of transfer of -ownership from Rogers to
Proposed Transferee agreeing to guarantee Grantee's
performance of the Franchise as amended, this Stipulation,
the CATV Relief Ordinance as amended, and the Performance
Agreement as amended, and unless the Proposed Transferee
complies with the terms of Article XIV of the Franchise; and
6) That if a Closing of the transfer by and between
Rogers and Proposed Transferee does not occur within six (6)
months, the terms of this Resolution shall be null and void.
The 6 -month period commences when the last of the five
Member Cities has given final approval to a similar
resolution. The 6 -month period may be extended by either
Grantee or SWSCC for an additional six (6) months without
further consideration. Notice of such extension must be
done in writing and mailed to the last known address of each
of the parties identified herein. The Closing shall also
provide that the Proposed Transferee of the Franchise shall
agree to be bound by the terms in this Resolution and shall
guarantee Grantee's performance of the Franchise, the CATV
Relief Ordinance and Amendment to the CATV Relief Ordinance,
the Stipulation and such other requirements as may be set
forth in the resolution by the City approving the transfer
to the Proposed Transferee.
7) The SWSCC is hereby authorized to collect the sum of
$3.5 Million (U.S.) in immediately available U.S. funds
wired by Rogers to the SWSCC account, First Bank
Minneapolis, Account No. 602 - 3377 -564 at the time of the
Closing between Rogers and its Proposed Transferee. The
sum so collected by the SWSCC may be deposited in the
K7
account of the SWSCC and invested in accordance with
requirements applicable to municipalities. Within thirty
(30) days after the $3.5 Million (U.S.) payment is deposited
in the SWSCC account, the SWSCC shall accomplish the
following:
(a) The SWSCC is authorized to reimburse itself
for its costs and expenses in connection with the
Stipulation and not previously paid for by the Grantee
and Rogers.
(b) The SWSCC will reimburse to each of the
Member Cities an advance payment made by the Member
Cities to the SWSCC for expenses of the SWSCC in
connection with this Stipulation.
(c) The SWSCC will pay to Rogers or place the
sums in escrow pursuant to Section 2 of the
Stipulation, if required, the Cities' portion of.costs
for the enhancement of the subscriber network as
identified in the Stipulation.
(d) The balance of the $3.5 Million (U.S.)
together with accrued interest will be disbursed by the
SWSCC in accordance with paragraph 8 below.
8) Unless otherwise specifically authorized by resolution
of all the Member Cities, the SWSCC shall distribute the
balance of the proceeds to the Member Cities in accordance
with the following distribution formula and City shall be
responsible for its own costs and expenses in connection
with this Stipulation out of its portion of the
distribution:
PROPORTIONAL DISTRIBUTION*
Eden Prairie
Edina
Hopkins
Minnetonka
Richfield
TOTAL
*Based on an
total subscriber
Relief Agreement
provides an equal
of the SWSCC.
Percent
20.0%
$ 700,000
25.0
875,000
10.0
350,000
24.5
857,500
20.5
717,500
100.0% $3,500,000
average of each city's proportion of the
revenues for the 7 -year period of the
adjusted to reflect the fact that each city
contribution for a portion of the funding
4
The SWSCC shall review cable- related needs of the Member
Cities and shall make its recommendations on the uses of
the $3.5 Million (U.S.) proceeds prior to the Closing
between Grantee and the Proposed Transferee. 'The Member
Cities shall have the opportunity for consideration and
approval. Consideration of such recommendations shall not
delay distribution of such balance to the Member Cities.
This Resolution is passed and adopted the day of ,
1988.
SW3 /RESOL2.SW - 11/7/88
5
CITY OF Richfield
Mayor
EXHIBIT CC
ORDINANCE NO.
An Ordinance Amending CATV Relief Ordinance,
Ordinance No. 1985 -12, Providing Modifications
in Contemplation of a Transfer of Ownership of
the City's Cable Communications Franchise and
Permitting Continuance of Relief to the
Transferee of the Franchise in Accordance with
this Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Richfield ordains as
follows:
Section 1. Short Title.
This Ordinance shall be known as the "CATV Relief Ordinance
Amendment."
Section 2. Background and Purpose.
Rogers Communications, Inc. ( "Rogers ") has agreed to sell
all interests and holding in its U.S. cable systems to KBL Cable,
Inc., a Texas corporation ( "Proposed Transferee "). The transfer
from Rogers to the Proposed Transferee shall be effectuated
through the transfer of the controlling stock interest in RCA
Cablesystems Holding Co., the parent corporation of the Grantee.
The City previously granted relief to the Grantee under the
Franchise by Ordinance known as the CATV Relief Ordinance.
Rogers has requested relief from the Franchise to be extended
after the Closing, irrespective of the requirement in the CATV
Relief Ordinance that the CATV Relief Ordinance terminates upon
transfer,of ownership and control of Grantee of the Franchise to
a new owner.
The Southwest Suburban Cable Commission ("SWSCC ") has
reviewed the request of Rogers and recommended extending certain
portions of the CATV Relief Ordinance to a proposed new owner.
This recommendation is based upon compliance with certain
conditions by the Grantee and acceptance of requirements
including this Ordinance, by the Proposed Transferee of the
Franchise. A Stipulation of Settlement with Rogers and Grantee,
Exhibit A ( "Stipulation ") and a Resolution of Approval of
Settlement, Exhibit B ( "Resolution "), are attached. The
Stipulation and Resolution provide a description of requirements
and conditions and are made part of this Ordinance by reference.
This Ordinance will be effective only if the Stipulation and
Resolution are satisfied and Proposed Transferee agrees to be
1
bound by the terms of this Ordinance as part of its acceptance of
the transfer of the ownership of Grantee.
Section 3. That Section 4 of the Relief Ordinance is hereby
amended to read as follows:
SECTION 4. DEFINITIONS.
Subdivision 1. The definitions in the
Franchise also apply to this ordinance.
Subdivision 2. In addition, the following
words and phrases shall have the meanings given
them:
[(1) "Existing indebtedness" means an
$18,000,000 loan made to Grantee to Toronto
Dominion Bank of Toronto, Canada under loan
documents dated April 1, 1982.]
ill [(2)] "Franchise" means the Cable
Communications Ordinance as now or hereafter
amended.
(2) [(3)] "Local Programming Obligations"
means, for the purpose of this ordinance, Grantee's
obligations under the Franchise and the Offering
for cablecast access, community access and local
origination programming.
_(_3 )_ [ (4) ] "Performance Agreement" means a
contractual agreement between Grantee, City and
SWSCC providing a means for monitoring Grantee's
financial condition, assuring an adequate level of
local programming, and providing for certain other
matters related to Grantee's requested relief[.],,
as amended.
Section 4. That Section 5 of the CATV Relief Ordinance is
amended to read as follows:
SECTION 5. RELIEF GRANTED.
While this Ordinance is in effect the obligations
of Grantee are modified to the extent provided in
this section.
Subdivision 1. Franchise Fees - Percentage.
Until the effective date of this Ordinance, the
annual franchise fee shall be 3% of gross revenues.
Commencing with [Grantee's fiscal year 1985] the
effective date of this ordinance the annual
2
franchise fee is [reduced from] 5% of Gross
Revenues [to 3 %]. Such annual fees shall be paid
to City in equal quarterly payments on or before
the first day of each of the months of November,
February, May and August next following the end of
Grantee's fiscal year.
[If this ordinance terminates during any of
Grantee's fiscal years, the franchise fee shall be
restored to the rate of 5% of Gross Revenues at the
end of the calendar month in which termination
occurs. The restored rate of 5% and the reduced
rate of 3% shall be applied respectively to the
Gross Revenues collected only in the months during
which each rate was in effect. The fees accruing
at the restored rate shall be paid in accordance
with the terms of the Franchise. The fees accruing
at the reduced rate shall be paid in equal
quarterly installments in accordance with the
terms of this ordinance.]
[Subd. 2. Past Due Franchise Fees. The 1984
franchise fee in the amount of $57,253 payable on
or before November 1, 1984 shall be deemed fully
discharged and paid if, but only if, Grantee pays
the sum of $34,352 to the City, in four equal
payments on or before June 1, June 15, August 15
and October 15, 1985.]
Subd. [3.] 2 Letters of Credit. The City
Council may by resolution reduce the required
amount of the Letter of Credit below $50,000 if in
its sole discretion it determines that a lesser
amount is reasonable and adequate to protect the
public. It may thereafter, by resolution, require
the amount of the Letter of Credit to be increased
or fully restored to the amount of $50,000.
Grantee shall comply with this requirement within
sixty days after written notice has been given by
the City. ,
Subd. [4.] 3 Performance Bond. The Grantee
may dispense with the $300,000 performance bond
required by the Franchise. The City Council may
thereafter by resolution require that such bond, or
a similar bond in a lesser amount, be provided by
Grantee. Grantee shall comply with this
requirement within sixty days after written notice
has been given by the City.
Subd. [5.] 4 Local Programming Obligations.
Grantee shall expend at least 1% of its annual
3
,;- j - -//
Gross Revenues each fiscal year in fulfilling its
Local Programming Obligations under the Franchise
for public, governmental, and educational access,
but it shall not be obligated to expend more than
that amount for such access. That amount shall not
include any costs of operation, capital for access
Performance Agreement which shows the equipment to
be maintained and replaced, or administration not
directly related to the provision of local
programming. This expenditure shall be in complete
satisfaction of Grantee's total Local Programming
Obligations during the period of this ordinance.
Section 5. That Section 6 of the Relief Ordinance is hereby
amended to read as follows:
SECTION 6. AUTOMATIC TERMINATION OF RELIEF
ORDINANCE PROVISIONS.
The provisions of this ordinance, and the relief
herein granted, shall cease to be effective,
automatically, upon the occurrence of the earliest
of any of the following events:
[Subdivision 1. Failure of the Grantee to
complete refinancing its Existing indebtedness by
December 31, 1987 in accordance with Article II,
Section 4 of the Franchise.]
[Subd. 2. The end of the next month after
Grantee has collected cumulative Gross Revenues in
the amount of one hundred million dollars as
measured from September 1, 1984. The
determination of cumulative Gross Revenues shall be
based upon audited financial statements for periods
for which they are available and upon Grantee's
operating reports for period for which audited
statements are not then available. Grantee shall
provide City with its financial statements and
financial operating reports promptly after they are
prepared.]
[Subd. 3.] Subdivision 1. March 1, 1992.
[Subd. 4. Payment, discharge, or
satisfaction of the Existing Indebtedness, except
through refinancing as provided in Article II,
Section 4 of the Franchise.]
4
[Subd. 5. Payment, discharge, or
satisfaction of the indebtedness arising from the
refinancing provided in Article II, Section 4-of
the Franchise.]
[Subd. 6.] Subdivision 2. Failure of the
Grantee to restore or replace the full required
amount of the Letter of Credit as provided in
Article VIII, Section 4, paragraph H of the
Franchise.
[Subd. 7. Failure of the Grantee to pay the
fees as required in Section 5, Subd. 2 of this
ordinance.]
[Subd. 8.] Subdivision 3. Failure of the
Grantee to restore, replace or increase either a
Letter of Credit or bond within sixty days of
written notice by the City, as provided in Section
5, Subdivisions [3 and 4] 2 and 3 of this
ordinance.
[Subd. 9.] Subdivision 4. A holding or
determination by any court or agency that any
term, condition or provision of this Relief
Ordinance is invalid or unenforceable, as a result
of any action taken by Grantee or anyone acting on
Grantee's behalf seeking such determination.
[Subd. 10. Sale or transfer of all or
substantially all of the System to a person or
entity other than a parent, subsidiary, related
corporation, affiliated corporation, partner or
joint venturer of Grantee or any parent of
Grantee.]
[Subd. 11.] Subdivision 5. Termination of
the Franchise.
Section 6. That Section 7 of toe Relief Ordinance is amended to
read as follows:
SECTION 7. OTHER TERMINATIONS.
This ordinance may also be terminated for cause,
under the same procedures for termination as are
contained in the Franchise, for the following
reasons:
Subdivision 1. All grounds for termination
provided in the Franchise, including the Relief
Ordinance as amended, except to the extent that
5
,T11 s`/
Grantee's performance obligations are modified in
this Ordinance.
[Subd. 2. The purchase by Grantee, its
general partner, or any parent, subsidiary,
affiliate or other related corporation of Grantee
or its general partner, of a cable communications
system or any part thereof or interest therein,
located within the seven - county metropolitan area
as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.121,
Subd. 2. For this purpose the definition of a
cable communications system shall be as that term
is currently defined by the Board.
Such a purchase shall not be grounds for
termination of this ordinance, however, if the
Grantee demonstrates to the reasonable
satisfaction of the City that the purchase (1)
will not impair the operating cash flow or
financial position of Grantee and (2) will involve
independent financing of the purchase without
resort to the assets of the System.]
[Subd. 3.] Subdivision 2. Failure of the
Grantee to comply with any of the provisions of the
Performance Agreement.
Section 7. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and adoption
-by City and upon satisfaction of all of the following conditions:
(1) Publication of this Ordinance;
(2) Passage and adoption by each of the Member Cities of
the SWSCC of an Ordinance similar to this Ordinance
within 45 days of the adoption of this Ordinance;
(3) Conformance by Grantee with all the terms and
conditions of the Resolution, Exhibit B and of the
Stipulation, Exhibit A, and of the Amendment to the
Performance Agreement, Exhibit DD to the Stipulation,
Exhibit A;
(4) Acceptance by Grantee in conformance with Section 8 of
this Ordinance;
(5) Closing of the transfer of ownership from Rogers to
Proposed Transferee within one (1) year from the date
hereof and notice thereof to the Member Cities of
SWSCC.
6
r' /"«_
(6) Execution and delivery by Proposed Transferee of a
guarantee agreement as required by Paragraph 5 of the
Stipulation.
Section 8. Acceptance of the Relief Ordinance as amended;
Providing of Guarantees.
Except as otherwise provided herein, this Ordinance shall be
effective in accordance with the provisions of Article XIV of the
Franchise including delivery to the City of the acceptance,
opinion of legal counsel, guarantees and other documents as
required by said Article XIV.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield
Minnesota this day of
Action on above ordinance:
Date of first reading:
Date of second reading:
Motion for Adoption:
Seconded by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Abstained:
Absent:
Ordinance adopted.
Date of publication:
SW2 /ORD2
11/7/88
7
City Mayor
EXHIBIT DD
AMENDMENT TO PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT dated the day of , 1988, by and
between ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHWEST, INC., ( "Grantee "),
a Minnesota corporation, its successors or assigns, ROGERS U.S.
CABLESYSTEMS, INC. ( "Parent "), a Delaware corporation, its
successors or assigns, the CITY OF Richfield , MINNESOTA ( "City ") ,
a municipal corporation, and the SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE
COMMISSION ("SWSCC"), a joint powers organization created by the
Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and
Richfield, Minnesota ( "Member Cities ") to amend a Performance
Agreement entered into by them (hereinafter "Performance
Agreement ") to be consistent with Ordinance No. 1.985 -12
(hereinafter "CATV Relief Ordinance ") as amended by Ordinance No.
hereby agree as follows:
WHEREAS, City has adopted a Resolution, approving this
Agreement;
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Resolution and the terms and
conditions therein, certain modifications in relief previously
provided in the CATV Relief Ordinance are required; and
WHEREAS, acceptance of this Agreement and of the changes
provided for herein are required in order to satisfy the
conditions of the Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the consideration of each of the
parties herein and the mutual understandings of them, the
following changes to the Performance Agreement are hereby
mutually agreed to:
1. Section 2 is amended to read as follows:
Section 2. Definitions.
The words and phrases used in this Agreement shall have
the meanings given to them in the Franchise and CATV
Relief Ordinance. "CATV Relief Ordinance" as used
herein, in the Contract for Local Programming
Facilities, the Contract for Public, Educational, and
Government Access Services, and all agreements related
thereto, shall mean the CATV Relief Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 1985 -12) as amended by Ordinance No.
1
2. Section 4.04 is amended to read as follows:
4.04. The City agrees to pay, to assist in providing
local programming, up to, but not in excess of one -
fifth (1/5) of the five percent (5%) annual franchise
fee actually received by the City pursuant to the CATV
Relief Ordinance, as amended, on the following terms
and conditions:
(Paragraphs A through Bare unchanged)
C. Grantee shall deduct up to one -fifth (1/5) of the
quarterly franchise fee payment made to City. The
actual amount to be deducted shall be based upon
the access budget "prepared by Grantee and approved
by the SWSCC each year. The amount deducted in
accordance with the access budget shall be
identified by Grantee with each payment of the
franchise fee. If Grantee's required payment
for local programming of one percent (1 %) of gross
revenues is not fully expended in the performance
of the Facilities Contract, then the remaining
amounts will be expended by Grantee for local
programming or used to reduce the amount payable
under this paragraph pro rate among the Member
Cities on the basis of the contribution of each,
in the discretion of SWSCC.
(Paragraphs D through H are unchanged)
3. Section 5 is amended by adding a new Section 5.07 as
follows:
5.07. Pursuant to the report and recommendations
issued under Section 5.04 above, development of an
institutional network shall be deferred for the longer
of: 1) five (5) years from the date of this Agreement,
or 2) until the SWSCC reconvenes and /or reappoints
SWING and SWING determines pursuant to this agreement
that the institutionai network is economically viable
and that the construction of the network would not have
an adverse impact on the financial condition of Grantee
and residential subscriber rates.
Pz
-6��
4. This Agreement shall be effective only upon Ordinance
No. becoming effective and four parallel
ordinances for all Member Cities becoming effective and
upon completion of the purchase of the common stock of
RCA Cablesystems Holding Co. by KBL Cable, Inc., a
Texas corporation, and compliance by KBL Cable, Inc.,
with all of the requirements of Closing including
signing and delivering a guarantee agreement required
by paragraph 5 of the Stipulation of Settlement and
Release between the City, Grantee, Rogers
Communications, Inc., and Rogers Cablesystems of
America, Inc.
5. Except as specifically modified herein, all other
requirements of the Performance Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect.
SW3 /AMEND2.SW
11/7/88
CITY OF Richfield
By
Its
SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION
By
Its
ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHWEST,
INC., a Min esota corporation
By
Its
ROGERSU.S. CABLESYSTEMS, INC.
its succes or ass' ns
By
Its
01
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before
me this day of , 19_, by
the of the CITY OF , a Minnesota
municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was
me this day of
the of the SOUTHWEST
behalf of said corporation.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
Notary Public
subscribed and sworn to before
19—, by
SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION, on
Notary Public
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and swornto before
me this day of 19 by j)/illy-) Lj i'v'l
the --)j
iFoGERs CABLESYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHWEST, INC.,
a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of said corporati.
7-7
90tiary Public
X A""AA""A&/,\A4 X
3>
STATE OF MINNESOTA) LSE A NN K.
''z -COTA
ss
H[\ E: P i "'i CCi -!. N Ty
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) my Commission Expires Feb. 71 1 c" S 9
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to efore
me this day of by dollli) C--)
the of ROGERS U.S. CABLESYSTEMS, INC., its successors
or assigns, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
LEE,-^,NN K PEI EITFON
NOTA!-1-Y F`j-'LIC - `,; R'a'--SDTA
SW3/AMEND.SW 10/19/88
MY Commies Dn '1XPi'XS Fab. 7. 1N9
4
EXHIBIT EE
1. The cable company provided for inter -city connection via
ultra high performance bi- directional trunks utilizing feed -
forward amplifiers and three- quarter or one -inch size low
loss cable. The 270 MHz Mid -Split Channel Capacity would
provide 17 forward and 17 reverse channels. (Form I, p. 22)
Such waiver does not extend to the Proposed Transferee.
2. The cable company provided that 55 miles of PVC conduit
would be installed in areas of underground construction
undertaken during the initial construction period. The use
of the conduit would provide for future expansion of the
system to a dual cable network should the need for
additional channel capacity arise. (Form I, p. la) In
constructing the system, Rogers found that over 200 miles of
underground plant were required. Rogers built the system
using conduit under all streets and highways but not for
other construction. It is the intent of the parties to this
Stipulation that this policy would be continued by the
Proposed Transferee.
3. Cable company was to provide 20 modulators at 20 locations
throughout the joint system in addition to those provided to
educational institutions. (Article IV, Sec. l C5) The
policy of the cable company has been to provide modulators
on an "as needed" basis. It is the intent of the parties to
this Stipulation that this policy would be continued by the
Proposed Transferee.
AM2
10/19/88
"-r /
CITY OF RICHFIELD,MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 273
Agenda, November 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Second Reading Public Hearing of an ordinance amending the City
code relating to the parking of truck- tractors, semi - trailers,
truck - tractors /semi - trailer combinations and trucks.
Background:
At the October 10, 1988, Council meeting first reading of an
ordinance which would restrict the parking of certain types of
trucks was approved by the City Council and forwarded to the
Planning Commission prior to second reading.
The Ordinance Amendment:
- Provides a definition of truck - tractor, semi - trailer,
truck - tractor /semi- trailer combination and trucks. These
definitions are similar to those found in State statutes.
- Restricts the parking of these vehicles in virtually all
zoning districts with some exceptions: they may park
during construction; they may park up to 12 hours for
loading and unloading; may be parked while for sale or
lease by a motor vehicle dealer; may park during paper
recycling or similar activities by non - profit
organizations; and by businesses operated in Richfield
that use vehicles of this nature in connection with their
business. PUD districts have been excluded from the
proposed amendment not because the restrictions are
inappropriate within such districts, but because the City
Attorney believes there is sufficient reference in the
PUD ordinance which incorporates these restrictions into
it.
- Does not allow these vehicles to: park in a right -of-
way; obstruct visibility; interfere with emergency
vehicles or; park within 150 feet of residential
property.
Section 515.67 of the ordinance deals both with areas of
the City which are zoned residential, but not used for
residential purposes, and with situations where the
property is used for such purposes.
At the October 25 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission
recommended enactment of this ordinance. They did suggest that
vehicles of this nature be permitted to park in commercial and
industrial districts, provided they are used in connection with
the business.
Recommended Motion:
Approve second reading of an ordinance restricting the parking of
truck- tractors, semi - trailers, truck- tractor /semi - trailer
combinations and trucks within all zoning districts of the City.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Staff and Council have received several complaints on this
issue. Allowed to continue unchecked, these problems would
not be resolved and more truck parking might occur.
2. With the deregulation of the trucking industry, truck farms
have gone out of business and many independent truckers
have surfaced.
3. With trucks parked all over the City, our community could
become unsightly.
4. Parking of trucks in commercial areas can be a nuisance.
If the number of truck parking in these areas increases
developing an ordinance may become more difficult in the
future.
Alternative Recommendation:
- Do nothing, allow current ordinances to deal with the
issue. This would only apply to residential neighborhoods
and C -1 districts.
- Redraft the ordinance restricting the parking on City and
School properties. This would allow trucks to park on
commercially owned property with no restrictions.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The public hearing to consider the ordinance is scheduled for
November 14, 1988. Notice of the public hearing was published in
the Richfield Sun newspaper.
Respectf lly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City nager
JDP:sae
?I- % °<�_.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX B TO
THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
The City of Richfield does ordain:
Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning"
containing the land use regulations of the City of Richfield is
hereby amended in the following respects:
I. By adding to Subsection 505.07 the following new
Subdivisions:
Subd. 45. The term "truck- tractor" means a motor vehicle
designed and used primarily for drawing other vehicles and
not constructed to carry a load other than a part of the
weight of the vehicle and load drawn.
Subd. 46. The term "semi- trailer" means a vehicle of the
trailer type so designed and used in conjunction with a
truck - tractor that a considerable part of its load rests
upon and is carried by the truck - tractor and includes a
trailer drawn by a truck - tractor and semi - trailer
combination.
Subd. 47. The term "truck" means, for this Appendix B
only, a motor vehicle which is self - propelled and has a
gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds or more, used for the
transportation of property, and does not include a
recreational vehicle as defined in the City Code, or a
school bus as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section
169.01, Subd. 6.
II. By adding to Section 515 entitled: "Zoning - residential
districts" the following new Subsection:
515.67. Prohibited Uses. Subdivision 1. The following
uses shall not be considered as permitted uses or accessory
uses in residential district.
Subd. 2. The parking of truck - tractors, semi - trailers or
trucks for more than two hours on property not actually
used for residential purposes, except:
(a) Where such parking is necessary for construction
activity which is actually occurring on the
property pursuant to a valid and current building
permit;
(b) For a period not to exceed twelve hours, or such
longer time as permitted by the Director of Public
Safety, where such parking is necessary for the
loading or unloading of material, supplies or
inventory, to be used on the property; and
(c) Where such parking is necessary in connection with
paper recycling or other similar activity
conducted by a non - profit organization.
Subd. 3. The parking of truck - tractors, semi - trailers or
trucks on residentially used property except as permitted
pursuant to Section 1320 of this Code.
III. By adding to Section 520 entitled "Zoning: commercial
districts" the following new Subsection:
521.53. Prohibited Uses. Subdivision 1. The following
uses shall not be considered as permitted uses or accessory
uses in commercial districts.
Subd. 2. The parking of any truck- tractor, semi - trailer,
truck - tractor and semi - trailer combination, or truck on
commercially zoned property, except:
(a) Where such parking is necessary in connection with
construction activity which is actually occurring
on the property pursuant to a valid and current
building permit;
(b) For up to twelve hours, or such longer time as
permitted by the Director of Public Safety, where
such parking is for the purpose of unloading
materials, supplies or inventory to be used in
connection with the business activity occurring on
the property; but not for the purpose of storage
of such materials, supplies or inventory pending
sale;
(c) Where such vehicles are actually being offered for
sale or lease by the business located on the
property, but only if such sale or lease activity
is permitted by this Code; and
(d) Where such parking is in connection with paper
recycling or other similar activity conducted by
non- profit organizations.
(e) A vehicle customarily used in connection with a
business where the vehicle is parked.
n J 7
Nothing in this Subdivision shall be deemed to permit the parking
of such vehicle at a location on the property which:
(a) Is within any public right -of -way, or
(b) Would obstruct the visibility of vehicle traffic
or pedestrian movement, or
(c) Would interfere with access by emergency vehicles
or equipment, or
(d) Is within 150 feet of any residentially zoned
property, or
(e) Is otherwise in violation with any ordinance,
rule or regulation of the City.
IV. By repealing Subsection 520.07 entitled: "Off- street
parking."
V. By adding to Section 525 entitled: "Zoning - industrial
districts" the following new Subsection:
525.06 Prohibited Uses. Subdivision 1. The following
uses shall not be considered as permitted uses or accessory
uses in industrial districts.
Subd. 2. The parking of any truck - tractor, semi - trailer,
truck - tractor and semi - trailer combination or truck on
industrially zoned property, except:
(a) Where such parking is necessary in connection with
construction activity which is actually occurring
on the property pursuant to a valid and current
building permit;
(b) For up to twelve hours, or such longer time as
permitted by the Director of Public Safety, where
such parking is for the purpose of unloading
materials, supplies or inventory to be used in
connection with the business activity occurring on
the property; but not for the purpose of storage
of such materials, supplies or inventory pending
sale;
(c) Where such vehicles are actually being offered for
sale or lease by the business located on the
property, but only if such sale or lease activity
is permitted by this Code; and
(d) Where such parking is in connection with paper
recycling or other similar activity conducted by
non - profit organizations.
(e) A vehicle customarily used in connection with a
business where the vehicle is parked.
Nothing in this subdivision shall be deemed to permit the parking
of such vehicle at a location on the property which:
(a) Is within any public right -of -way, or
(b) Would obstruct the visibility of vehicle traffic
or pedestrian movement, or
(c) Would interfere with access by emergency vehicles
or equipment, or
(d) Is within 150 feet of any residentially zoned
property, or
(e) Is otherwise in violation with any ordinance,
rule or regulation of the City.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
day of , 1988.
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
00550D15.E14
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 272
November 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on the Hearing Examiner's denial of the variance
request at 7501 Fremont Avenue South.
Background-
Mr. Peter Strot has requested a rear yard setback variance at
7501 Fremont Avenue South. The granting of the variance would
allow the construction of a 30 foot x 16 foot deck to the
existing attached garage.
There is a single family dwelling with an attached garage. The
existing rear yard setback is only 23 feet which is less than the
required 25 foot setback. The construction of the deck would
further reduce the setback to 7 feet. All other setbacks meet
the city requirements.
On October 11, 1988, the Hearing Examiner denied the variance
request.
The property is zoned single family 'R' residence district. The
existing single family structure is nonconforming.
Ordinance Requirement:
1. Section 515.11, subdivision 1(a), indicates that the rear yard
setback in 'R' district be 25 feet.
2. Section 510.05, subdivision 4, indicates that a nonconforming
structure may be expanded if the expansion meets all
applicable city ordinance requirements.
3. Section 545.01 thru 545.07 outlines the process of granting
variances.
Recommendation:
Deny the rear yard setback variance request at 7501 Fremont
Avenue South.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Reasonable use of the property could be continued without the
variance. The variance is not necessary for the preservation
of substantial property rights.
2. No unique circumstances exist on the site. Although the site
is irregular in shape, it is larger than most single family
lots in the neighborhood.
It is staff's opinion that the applicant has failed to provide
conclusive evidence meeting all the conditions for granting of a
variance.
Alternative Recbmmendation:
Approve the variance request. The site is irregular in shape
with the rear lot line being some 41 feet wider than the front
lot line. It is also a corner lot with the 75th Street side
classified as a streetside side yard. The long axis of the house
and garage is parallel to 75th Street. The granting of the
variance would not have any substantial negative impact on the
welfare of the residents or character of the neighborhood.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November
14, 1988. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers
of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue.
Written notice was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of
the site. Legal notice was also published.
Respectful submitted,
James U Prosser
City Manager
JDP:sae
FREMONT "E. S.
93.25
tT�
Z
1p
V
m
O
V
O
N
m
0
ID
m
n
X
D
°v
z
ZO
Cif M
00 MOL
� O
rnrn
Q
O�
Z
�rn
< -v
rn r
U) Z
0
• v
SCONES SV[ •.ter -•�. ++.� +r• —_a -• - ...��_a a[a[s avt
VlrClQUEEN
rt . � - -�� _ •�.� _ -- �- �_ - -�- - -� v�r Ct Ni
.1 . -- �L.�. i - -•.1� •Yif LLI
I(M• AVC — ►("r AVE
OLIvtR �t� r,� - - -• —u OLw(O
it
NORGar ��_ - -I —�� =JD
LOG aw �— i —� -� r„y —� =,I LOG..
Rr Of ICON
•Arts - c— - - -- —_.I
`�_ • �T� IRVING
"UNSOLD' -_ "[_-_ _"�= �0•�.t --- - -_ - -•
1.— t - - -_ - - -I sumac:v
GIRaAC 1• �j1 - -— - - --1. WRaRD
powwcw-
o crc +so«
/ '
Is
_ it � �����5 :':':�- •- :':':�:'� :. %:::.v.. �...�z��J'
.. .. -ter - ^ —� r LTNOALC AVC
GARFIELD
GRAND
PLEASANT ii - . -. -.�- - 4' .ifilAt." . -. -.- ti PLEASANT
4 OUR,
WENT YO•TN 1 —_ 2..::::
'..[>7[l:C....C: '^` :;i :Y :.•... ...... - ICED =' WCNT1rORTY
: .E•�.. IC —� {LAISDC-
...eMM�MNiliiwiw' : :•» .
"ICOLLET AVE. :; ;: -�— ' MICO LL n • C
STEVENS
ST( VC " S
1n I � ,R S.•
0.1rT0« 1
.
an �—
^� { r.
{.•
�� � .1 FREMONT AVE. S. 1' fr•
PORTLAND AvL T - - -' u� PORTLAND AVE.
1 Il I' ` oARLAND
flr•N �, PARR
COWN COLUr {uf
C ELLIOT ^ CHICAGO
ELLIDT Uri. _ ' ELLIOT
EMERSON AVE. S.
n r• r,` r—u
I u u
kj
q r• �ryF � 1 q n
11!'_
a It I
la -� u r •
eLODNrINGTOw I.i ZQ KdDY1MGTD11
1{
06
•I II ✓�— I��L�r��r ^� 17 r•
I '� I�I II J —• —�1
also {v[
- - - 'li, -i - -- ----=art aMNi.cw.
x I
� s s` i s z •: i s s° �
z = = = = = = = = =
ct= �_ :r sl AI
:
= C _
EEE� MISSION
.• T 23 .0
• •� • t • • •
v
ZO i i i ti i i j
4,-5
y
CA
O
MA
mn r
m p
m0
C
O!
z
mall Z
m
a
0
EMMEESM
L041) US pVE• S.
750 FRE�IIONT
CC}mm FtC%AL
a QUASI- PUBLIC
pARK
VAC ANT
N
f
NI
LLi
Q
now-
A
m�
-f
0
E3 MULTIPLE RESIDENCE
0 1�1��'.-'ll
P'
mesas
�a� �a�
�.ii
� s
MEN==
mom
mom
��
�_�
�a�i
i
�� i
��
tiir■�ili
=a
a�
woos=
�� i
iM_i.
S�
somas=
gem
*mom
mmam
mom
City of Richfield • 6700 Portland Avenue • Minnesota 55423
City Manager Mayor Council
James D. Prosser Steve Quam Edwina Garcia Ivan Ludeman
Martin Kirsch Michael Sandahl
Variance Request
CASE NO. 88- V- 8 -CM -6
APPLICANT: Mr. Peter Strot
PROPERTY LOCATION: 7501 Fremont Avenue South
HEARING EXAMINER: Connie Murray
HEARING DATE: October 6, 1988
APPEARANCES: Mr. & Mrs. Peter Strot, 7501 Fremont Avenue South,
Richfield, MN 55423
Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the undersigned
makes the following findings of fact, conclusions and decisions.
A. FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Notice of public hearing was proper. Notice was mailed to
property owners within 350 feet of the site in question as
required by city ordinances. The ten day notice requirement
was also met.
2. The street address and legal descriptions of the property in
question are as follows:
Lot 26, Block 20, Irwin Shores
Street Address: 7501 Fremont Avenue South
3. The zoning of the site in question is single family 'R'
residence district.
4. The variance requested is to reduce the existing rear yard
setback from 23 feet to 7 feet. The required rear yard
setback is 25 feet.
5. The reason for the request is to allow the construction of a
of a 16 foot x 30 foot deck attached to the garage.
Telephone 869 -7521 (612)
An Equal Opportunity Employer
7501 Fremont Avenue South 14
B. CONCLUSIONS
Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, subdivision 6
provides for the granting of variance to the literal
provisions of the zoning regulations in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause undue
hardship to the owners of the property under
consideration. In determining whether to grant or
deny the requested variance, I specifically make the
following conclusions:
1. Is the granting of the variance necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights?
I conclude: Granting of the variance is not necessary
for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights. The current use as a sinqle- faQnily residence can
be continued without the addition of a deck.
2. Are there special circumstances or conditions
affecting the particular land or building
referred -to in the application, not caused by
the property owner, which are not common to
other properties in this or similar districts?
I conclude: There are some special conditions af_fectinq
the property, in that the house officially fronts on
Fremont Avenue, but is actually oriented as though 75th Street
were the front street. In either case, the house would be
nonconforming, since neither the east nor the south setback
is adequate for the required 25' rearyard setback.
3. Will the granting of the variance alter the
essential character of the neighborhood or
locality?
I c o n c l u d e: Granting of the variance would not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood.
4. Are there any conditions which must be attached
to the granting of the variance to ensure
compliance and to protect adjacent properties?
I conclude
C. DECISION
Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned
determines that the request be denied
DATED:
Hearing Examiner
City of Richfiel
City of Richfield - 6700 Portland Avenue - Minnesota 55423
City Manager Mayor Council
James D. Prosser Steve Quam Edwina Garcia Ivan Ludeman
Martin Kirsch Michael Sandahl
TO:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION OF
PROPERTY:
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
HEARING EXAMINER
To property owners within 350 feet of
7501 Fremont Avenue South
Peter Strot
Lot 26, Block 20, Irwin Shores
PURPOSE: To hear reasons for or against the granting
of a variance to reduce the existing rear
yard setback from 23 feet to 7 feet. The
variance would allow the construction of a
16 foot x 30 foot deck attached to the
garage. The required rear yard setback is
25 feet.
TIME'OF HEARING: 7:00 PM, Thursday, October 6, 1988
PLACE OF HEARING: Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall,
6700 Portland Avenue
HOW TO PARTICIPATE: 1. To attend the hearing and give
testimony for or against the
proposal.
2. Submit a letter to the Hearing
Examiner expressing your views.
3. Copy of the staff report will be
available for your review at City Hall
on Tuesday afternoon, October 4, 1988.
ANY QUESTIONS:
Towhid Kazi
Assistant City Planner
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
869 -7521, Ext. 512
MAILING DATE:
Telephone 869 -7521 (612)
An Equal Opportunity Employer
September 20, 1988
Q
�I
JLD 19J CIT, OF RICHFIELE
____t^Z SESS ROSTER
7501jt -eo;vn
OWNERS
PACE t
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY, STATE,
zip
FIN
DELSERT GLESSINC
7432 DUPONT
RICHFIELD,
t.'
5542'
V
33- 02224- dZ-'JOOE - - --
E r!r
GL Nip . I;R%„JL
ZL
74JD
I I..
DLFO�„
RI D,
RICHFIELD,
M!�
554:-
313-02524-42-0009
JOSEPHINE BERNARD
JOSEPHINE 1 IL li,✓
7440
DUPONT V V� AV S
RICHFIELD,
LL
MN
;5423
„3-028'4-4' -0010
L L
PETER ', LAPP
7444
D'JPON7
RICHFIELD,
MN
554 2 ✓
33-0282�-d2 -v •.
TODD Y AHD ✓L ,IN"
J "' �� BEM
74 45
EMERSON
JJ AVE L
rRI�,,, .L� ✓,
RICHFIELD,
MN
:542
24
YJ -C;2 ;2-0.0.2
ROSALIE JJOLLT'
7437
EMERSON AV
P,ICHEIEL
, M„
55423
33-02324- 42-001'
fl!M A TNOMOSON
•
7435
J
iMERSON SO
L,IL V� AVE L J
RICHFIELD,
DL
MN
54423
♦
74-"2824 - 42-0 ^14
3 v Vl
BRADLEY T NELSON
1O'33
DARDEN RD
3
SA,•+ DIEC",
Cii
92125
33 -0'524 -42-0 '
SHELLE`" J BETTER
7421
L�iL „V N1;
EMERSON
RICHF'
:✓,,, 182"4
M N
55 23
4
33 -� '2 2 -00.1v
323 4-42 ✓„
r.NA-:t' f APlDEPSC,
O8n!
1.IOTON C 1 R
ELOOMINSTON MM 4541
3Z- 0282 4- 4 2 -CC25
DEXTE F FROCMAN
7420
EMERSON „r
RICHFIELD,
MN
554 23
3'- 22•4- 4L -Ju'c
LILL E KiLANDEf
7424
EMERSC
RICHFIELD,
M ?•,-
55423
33-2224 -42 -0027
✓.,, = 1 CH. F1ELD
•
3700
?ORTLAND AVE SO
RICHFIELD
MN
55423
355423
33 -2824- 42-0028
DOH': W, PEAR.
7415
FREMONT
RICHFIELD,
MN
3312224421023
lV
BERNICE A NELSEN
7416
EREMO'•IT
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
33- 028'4 -42 -0036
L
SCOTT E r;CHMr.:,
� �
7424
L,
FREMONT
RICHFIELD,
L
MN
55423
v
7.z- 02824- 42-004'
Vv VLVL, ..•
✓ARO,'LE 3 SCHOLL
7428
FREMONT
RICHFIELD,
MN
54423
300224421633E
E EJORLUNNT DHEIN
7432
FREMONT
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
3302224- d2 -003c
KURT t SHUSURE
7436
fREMONT AV S
RICIIEL D,
MN
55423
33-OH24 -42 -0040
DONALD D BLAB'•'
7440
FREMONT nil J
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
3312824-42 -0041
KEVIN E Y DIANA M HILL
7445
CIRARD AV S
RICHFIELD,
MN
54423
33- 02824 -42 -0042
HELEN 3OHNSON
7441
GIRARD
RICHFIELD,
MN
554”
33- 02824 - 42-044
E ✓ EDLiFEEN
7437
G ARD
R1CHr1ELr,
MN
55423
3J- u^2B24-42 -"D44
TH' RSTO;: D MCHE,,,•.
Jit �! �, Y
74'3
Vv
GIRAR.
� ♦LL
RICH =• C,
MIN
55423
33- 02824 -4?- 043
VLVL, VV
MART1N LONG
7425
CIRARD
RICHFIELD,
MN
554 23
33- 02824 -42 -0046
DONALD WILSON
7421
GIRARD
RICHFIELD.•,
MN
5542.,
33- 02824 -42 -0047
JAMES A POWELL
7500
FREMONT
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
3302824-C-0061
1"AURICF ,,ANDEN °1Rl
15 6
fREMONT AV
RICHFIELD,
M";
55413
34- 022'4- 42 -CD °^
KENNETH t SOWER
Y SUZANNE JV D1
75 °S
JVV
V,
FREMONT
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
33- 1;2224- 42 -OOE3
JAMES CHRISTENS3,
7512
FREMONT A'•. 3
RICHFIELD.
uL✓,
MN
44423
uJ
3
33 -02K " -3 ✓3,
Vlu•, -dr
- -tARRY C`t'ELLfP,
X516
fREMONT AVE SO
- RICHFIELD
i„ .LL✓,
MN
.. L
55423
33-0.28,24-42--,085
DEAN S VICKI GROTH
7520
FREMONT
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
33- 02224- 42 -003c
MAYFHANH KEOBOUNPHENG
7524
FREMONT
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
33- 02224 -42 -0027
D'3 - QUEENAN
75208
FREMONT
RICNFIE D
M";
55423
33-022224-42-0008!
JANE JOHNSON
3801
S 84TH
LINCOLN, NE
68506
33- 02324 -42 -0094
GERALD CLEAP,ENCE
7521
GIRARD
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
33- 02324 -42 -0095
7- 11ERNON tARPENTER
- 7519
GiRARD
-- RICHFIELD,-MN
55423
33 -2824- 42-0096
RANDAL E JANET Y,P,OYER
1515
GIRARD
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
33- 02824 -42 -0097
CYNTHIA HINES
1505
GIRARD
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
33- 02824-42 -0098
-- f,'3?T - ttDERS'JN -
_1501
- Grpr,ar.
-- RN'HFIELD,-
-MN
-55423
- 33- 02 0.24 -42 -9000 -
" F Lr HOFF
ELsi� ,;NG„
; 5w
00
EMERSON
EML �
„
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
33- 02824 -42 -0100
LILLIAN V NIELSEN
7506
EMERSON
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
33-02824 -42 -0101
-- -i�'ftYNNE -LfYf RENT I -- -
-x08
ftIERSON - -----
itlCttfIfLD,-ffN
-55423
-33- fl2824- 4Y - ^i0� - - --
LAWRENCE DE WEES
7510
EMERSON
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
33- 02824 -42 -0103
ROST E ANDERSON
7512
EMERSON
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
33- 02824-42 -0104
1-E -MAKE -- --
-- 518
EMERSON -A'1 ? ----
RICHFIELD,
tfN
- 55423
-�3- 212824- 4� -fl1fl5 --
MELVIN LOVAASEN
7520
EMERSON
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
33- 022:4 -42 -0106
BEREA LOTH CHURCH
7538
EMERSON AVE
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
33- 02824 -42 -0107
- -Atitf A-?TROM - -
i5Y9
fREMDNT -- --
RICHFIELD; --MN
--55423
33-t=24-421-01 11 _ . - -- -
JOEL G HOFBAUER
7521
FREMONT
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
33- 02824 -42 -0112
JOHN J HALLORAN
7513
FREMONT
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
33- 02824-42 -0113
- RENNEN t- VEV".,
fREMONT ift -1N4
55493 -
33=9:82; 4: -fl114 — - --
JAN BAILEY
7505
FREMONT AVE SO
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
33- 02824 -42 -0115
7�7� ii
r
c cam, 16 14oS ;c. r-
�1 J,.y r l4.VJ
RM
CITY Or RCHFIE
C I
V
r.
.�
PAGE 1
— ASSESS ROSTER
DOERS
NAME
NDv R E
C1T;. STA1,E.
.:P
F1N
THUPLOii WULER
?503
FREMONT
rICHFIELD,
MN
55423
33-02824 -42 -0116
PETER J STROT
7501
FREMONT
RICHFIELD.
MN
55423
3342K402-0117
A C PUNCH
7500
DUPONT
"r,IChrIELD,
MN
55423
33-02824 - 42-0118
ZiAxi E� M G "n;;C7
_ -?504
DUPON7
RICHFIELD,
MN
55623
33-0282;- d: -Ci.•
FRANK & 0 FRsUR
WE
DUPONT
"r,ICHFIELD,
MN
55423
33-C.02d-42- ..0
O:.iE 4ARRiS
7512
D'UPUT i;'•i S
RICHFIELD.
M'i
554:..
3Z-02J24- 42-01.1
D- c• F xn nEEN
c ,.., iOP,,,Lc„
r5�5
r S
EMERSON %i
rChFIE ^
RIO,,. LV,
+
MN
J4...
5' 7Z
4
33-0252 -42 -0i3`
MRS EDNA L JOHNSON
7521
EMERSON
RICHFIELD,
M!'
55423
J
33- 02524-42 -0136
Li;RRY . CEONIN
.,i.0
EM 8' 'r
�iNR iND �l�
M °LS M N 554J�
35
?x -0 ^8^ -ClZ7
J0 . .4-;2 � ..
G:EN; , THOM?SCi;
75.0
E'IERSO'; A,E SC
RIC`=I D,
MN
55423
JJ-O2824-42 -013
tD.D MAK LYh ^„iT L
7509
EMERSON AV J
RICHL,
MN
55423
3312E24 -013"
MTHY REE S
7511
0 „
EMERSON
0,,, :.
55423
WON24- 42-014',
r••Zlf. •r^ c M3' RE rr
.,J. hrl,1C L „v„L wrI,YD
.cr•
rJVa
carn:n�;
uiu vv.
..., ...c; r,
,i LH'.L.v,
MN
m
c:4 ^i
JJ .v
zz_nZc24 4^ - ^141
w vLJL a va
CN! OF RICHFIRL
6700
PORTLAND AVE 0
RICHFIELD
MN'
55422
33-02824-42 -„143
r
City of Richfield - 6700 Portland Avenue - Minnesota 55423
City Manager Mayor Council
James D. Prosser Steve Quam Edwina Garcia Ivan Ludeman
Martin Kirsch Michael Sandahl
TO:
APPLICANT:
LYVH T ION 01'
PROPERTY:
PURPOSE:
TIME OF HEARING:
PLACE OF HEARING:
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY COUNCIL
To property owners within 350 feet of
7501 Fremont Avenue South
Peter Strot
Lot 26, Block 20, Irwin Silures
To hear reasons for or against the granting
of a variance to reduce the existing rear
yard setback from 23 feet to 7 feet. The
variance would allow the construction of a
16 foot x 30 foot deck attached to the
garage. The required rear yard setback is
25 feet.
7:00 PM, November 14, 1988
Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall,
6700 Portland Avenue
HOW TO PARTICIPATE: 1. To attend the hearing and give
testimony for or against the
proposal.
2. Submit a letter t o the C i t y Council
expressing your views.
3. Copy of the staff report will be
available for your review at City Hall
on late Thursday afternoon, November
10, 1988.
ANY QUESTIONS: Towhid Kati
Assistant City Planner
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
869 -7521, Ext. 512
MAILING DATE: October 21 988-
e ne 521—(611���
Equal Opportunity Employer �� _
511�7' , -/7
11/7/88
PLANNING & ZONING
November 1, 1988 Hearing Examiner Meeting
6601 Penn Avenue South
November 14, 1988 - City Council Meeting
7501 Fremont Ave. S. - Variance Appeal (send notices, legal)
811 East 66th Street - Variance Appeal (send notices, legal)
6511 Cedar Avenue South - Offstreet Parking Permit
November 22, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting
6405 Cedar Avenue South - Conditional Use Permit
Walser Update
November 28, 1988 City Council Meeting
6529 Penn Avenue South
December 12, 1988 City Council Meeting
December 13, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting
6645 Penn Avenue South - Car -X - Conditional Use Permit
January 10, 1988 City Council Meeting
6645 Penn Avenue South - Car -X - Conditional Use Permit
P L A
N
N
I N G
C
O
M M
I
S
S I
O N
C I
T
Y
O F
R
I
C H
F
I
E L
D
N O
V
E
M B E
R
2
2,
1
9
8 8
7: 3
0
P.
M.
A G
E
N
D A
R 0 L L C A L L
A P P R O V A L O F M I N U T E S
Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 25, 1988.
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
Item #1 Case #88- CUP -20
N E W B U S I N E S S
Item #2 Information Letter #35
Item #3 Information Letter #36
Item #4 Information Letter #37
0 L D B U S I N E S S
L I A I S O N R E P O R T S
School Board
Community Services Advisory Commission
HRA
City Council
AdHoc I35W/I494 Traffic Committee
A D J O U R N M E N T
Conditional Use Permit
6405 Cedar Avenue South
Ugly Duckling Rent -A -Car
Walser Status
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No-271
November 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on the Hearing Examiner's denial of the variance
request at 811 East 66th Street.
Background:
Richfield Floral and Nursery Inc. has requested a setback
variance to allow the construction of a solarium to the existing
building at 811 East 66th Street.
The 28 foot x 10 foot solarium would reduce the existing setback
from 20.16 feet to 10.16 feet on Chicago Avenue. The existing
structure does not meet the setback requirements from Chicago
Avenue, so is therefore nonconforming. The existing curb cuts do
not meet the city's minimum requirement of 26 feet. The
applicant does not propose to make any changes in the parking
area.
On October 11, 1988 the Hearing Examiner denied the variance
request. Attached is the Hearing Examiner's decision for your
information.
The property is zoned C -2, general commercial district. Retail
commercial use is permitted in a C -2 district.
Ordinance Requirement:
1. Section 510.05, subdivision 4, indicates that a nonconforming
structure may be expanded if the expansion meets all
applicable city ordinance requirements.
2. Section 520.13 and Section 520.25 indicates that the front
yard setback in a C -2 district shall be 40 feet.
3. Section 545.01 thru 545.07 outlines the process of granting
variances.
Recommendation:
Deny the setback variance request at 811 East 66th Street.
Basis of Recommendation:
Review of the proposal indicates that the request does not meet
the city and state standards for granting of the variance. The
discussion of the proposal against the city ordinance is outlined
in the following:
1. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the
preservation of substantial property rights. The operation
of the floral shop in the existing facility could continue
without the variance.
2. There are no unique circumstances on the site. The site is
large enough when compared to other commercial sites in the
surrounding neighborhood.
The solarium could be built facing 66th Street without the
variance. However, construction of a solarium facing 66th
Street would not be aesthetically pleasing and would also
eliminate a number of parking spaces.
3. The granting of the variance would change the character of
the neighborhood to the extent that it would further reduce
the landscaped area on the site.
Alternative Recommendation:
Approve the variance request.
established that the denial of
hardship to the property owner.
Findings of fact must be
the variance would cause undue
Discussion /Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November
14, 1988. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers
of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue.
Notice of the hearing was mailed to property owners within 350
feet of the property. Legal notice was also published in the
newspaper.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City fanager
JDP:sae
C Nip 0C >U OUr. SO.
D r
2 D
vo
T N
r n
* T
M M
N o
A
V
rn
m
r
a
z
O
-Ij
Z
m
m
Z
0
C
0
m
Po
0--
Z
L
� r
• : •
+
y C
• - •
♦ .
v
• • t
eteitf av(
- � - - •
[Letts AVE
UPTON �_ -��-� :'�•
-- ��+`..`� `': �.��1I Ya1wlUeN
-_—
lftDOAS
Ouctw
*two
" —'t� IV { {CLL -
lip • gaift —
CaN���fl
row t� —...�� �^• __ _� --�.. OLIVE
LOO
aw
Yf.r TO•
•arCf
_ rOROaw
LOGaw
IRVfMC 1.1 _
"Im{ffT`
aarCS
•YtroN•
tr[RfOa
� -a
CO. fat
�-
r p tr(•sow
11---
'
1111 t.`
� �\.� L � /��
-. D♦ � [ av -� �
,I' `
I�.
��i � r� � G♦RrIL -7
hLlS1U w♦ li 1-
u`��
OYawO
PUASArT
�IL:S /uw•
/IaISOCI.
STEVENS
..: Wip, aV
�.�
�� I
:' �: �: .�
_ :....::•'1'4rfw�' S::::� :::::.............I ter. "����
:::::::::::::�:::::i:i:. ?::i:
QIM TON
:_ "i STEVENS
r....:.,..,.^�" .. .. ..... :::::::: ...
........
Zoo
lL�-
lim I R
! u
MIRTL �� -'� _-
!: s '::.::-
«D ev
_ .� �,� ,.LL::...... _— ,_'/"c +�r•..�7
"Ol
C«ICaGO
O.a: aNO
4ue1
It
101•
11 to
'
Is 1. _
Iola
If la
= _:
Eli
111•
16 to
111• �� � w_�I I� �.__,
� ^"����r\ - �..�1��. -��11 _��II� Il le
✓
f �� I / -�-.��
11 f. I�. -
\
✓ ^- ����.�JL..�.I'��
\ jj ...� Ii 1•
��
LOIGI[LLO► =-
11
---- _ - w�..�a+rer:l -- �+ -.�:' 1— ,�.�� /Ore
�
i z _ s s" _ �
i ? o ��L��� i�`J�•,.""j+ �.cuw
col.
R.YOISH
>r
r I c! .e
z
M Y s i to
•
a,
sr�
LAND USE
811 66TH ST. E.
El COMMERCIAL El APARTMENT 0 PARK
El QUASI- PUBLIC El DUPLEX
67TH ST. E
I-ri `
1 1 1
1 ,
1 r - - -- 1
sAi M - -- . - --- -1 - -
1 1 -•- T •-
,
1
1
1
mm
°'
rrr
mm
•
•
.
rr
rr
■r
r
�r rr
rrr
�
rr
•
r r
r
.rr
rr'rr
I-ri `
1 1 1
1 ,
1 r - - -- 1
sAi M - -- . - --- -1 - -
1 1 -•- T •-
,
1
1
1
COMPREHENSIVE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
811 66TH ST. E.
ED MIXED LAND USE r PARK
El INSTITUTIONAL El MEDIUM DENSITY/BUFFER
IM Ml
m IMMI
MM�
IMM M�
wwr
67TH ST. E.
=
mm
•
W
on MIM
llmmmmm�
O
W
I, 4L,
- - - -
Fi
it
I
P
ut
i
i
--- - ------
-----
-Z"
......
....
c
......
A
... .
-----
- - -----
66TH
S. E.
......
.......
.....
.....
, .
....... ......
...... .....
F4:1
wwr
67TH ST. E.
=
mm
•
W
on MIM
llmmmmm�
O
W
- - - -
Fi
I
P
i
i
--- - ------
-----
c
-40FHto
-----
wwr
67TH ST. E.
=
mm
•
mm
on MIM
llmmmmm�
O
- - - -
Fi
=
mm
on MIM
O
- - - -
Fi
I
P
»- -1. - --
- - -
- - - -
Fi
I
P
i
i
--- - ------
-----
-----
- - -----
City of Richfield • 6700 Portland Avenue • Minnesota 55423
City Manager Mayor Council
James D. Prosser Steve Ouam Edwina Garcia Ivan Ludeman
Martin Kirsch Michael Sandahl
Variance Request
CASE NO. 88- V- 8 -CM -5
APPLICANT: Mr. Roy Wikstrom, Richfield Floral and Nursery, Inc.
PROPERTY LOCATION: 811 East 66th Street
HEARING EXAMINER: Connie Murray
HEARING DATE: October 6, 1988
APPEARANCES: Mr. & Mrs. Wikstrom, Richfield Floral & Nursery, Inc.
Patti Haris, Richfield Floral & Nursery, Inc.
Nancy Griemann, Richfield Floral & Nursery, Inc.
Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the undersigned
makes the following findings of fact, conclusions and decisions.
A. FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Notice of public hearing was proper. Notice was mailed to
property owners within 350 feet of the site in question as
required by city ordinances. The ten day notice requirement
was also met.
2. The street address and legal descriptions of the property in
question are as follows:
Lot 1 and that part of W 1/2 of lot 2 lying W of the E 10 ft
thereof also that part of the E 10 ft of the W 1/2 of lot 2
lying S of the N 10 ft thereof, Block 3, Terrace Gardens
Addition
Street Address: 811 East 66th Street
3. The zoning of the site in question is C -2 general commercial
district.
4. The variance requested would reduce the existing setback from
20 feet to 10 feet. The required building setback is 40
feet.
5. The reason for the request is to allow the construction of a
a solarium on the west side of the existing building.
Telephone 869 -7521 (612)
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Richfield Floral & ''•rsery, 811 E. 66th Street
B. CONCLUSIONS
Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, subdivision 6
provides for the granting of variance to the literal
provisions of the zoning regulations in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause undue
hardship to the owners of the property under
consideration. In determining whether to grant or
deny the requested variance, I specifically make the
following conclusions:
1.. Is the granting of the variance necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights?
I conclude: Granting of the variance is not necessary
for preservation of substantial property rights.
Although the requested solarium might imrove and expand
the business, the business could continue to operate as
it is now.
2. Are there special circumstances or conditions
affecting the particular land or building
ref-erred-to in the application, not caused by
the property owner, which are not common to
other properties in this or similar districts?
I conclude: There are no special circumstances not
comrnn to other commercial properties. All ccarmercial
buildings are affected by the ordinance definition of
both street frontages as•a front yard. The property is
of adequate size and of basically regular dimensions.
3. Will the granting of the variance alter the
essential character of the neighborhood or
locality?
I conclude: Granting of the variance would not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood.
4. Are there any conditions which must be attached
to the granting of the variance to ensure
compliance and to protect adjacent properties?
I conclude
MW
C. DECISION
Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned
determines that the request be denied .
DATED:
Hearing Examiner
City of Richfiel
City of Richfield - 6700 Portland Avenue - Minnesota 55423
City Manager Mayor Council
James D. Prosser Steve Ouam Edwina Garcia Ivan Ludeman
Martin Kirsch Michael Sandahl
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
HEARING EXAMINER
TO: To property owners within 350 feet of
811 East 66th Street
APPLICANT: Richfield Floral and Nursery Inc.
LOCATION OF Lot 1 and that part of W 1/2 of lot 2
PROPERTY: lying W of the E 10 ft thereof also that
part of the E 10 ft of the W 1/2 of lot 2
lying S of the N 10 ft thereof, Block 3,
Terrace Gardens Addition
PURPOSE: To hear reasons for or against the granting
of a setback variance to allow the
construction of a solarium on.the west side
of the existing building. The variance
would reduce the existing setback from 20
feet to 10 feet. The required building
setback is 40 feet.
TIME OF HEARING: 7:00 PM, Thursday, October 6, 1988
PLACE OF HEARING: Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall,
6700 Portland. Avenue
HOW TO PARTICIPATE: 1. To attend the hearing and give
testimony for or against the
proposal.
2. Submit a letter to the Hearing
Examiner expressing your views.
3. Copy of the staff report will be
available for your review at City Hall
on Tuesday afternoon, October 4, 1988.
ANY QUESTIONS: Towhid Kazi
Assistant City Planner
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
869 -7521, Ext. 512
MAILING DATE: September 20, 1988
Telephone 869 -7521 (612)
An Equal Opportunity Employer
:5 k
Richfield Floral & Nursery, Inc.
Chicago Avenue at 66th Street • Richfield. Minnesota 55423 • Phone (612) 869 -0666
"The Best in Flowers & Personal Service"
September 8,1988
To whom it may concern:
I
We are constructing this Solarium, to make a
better facility and growing envirement for our
green and flowering plants.
We are trying to upgrade our business
structure and use of land to make it more feasable,
to remain in business at our present location in
Richfield.
We also feel that the City of Richfield needs
to encourage business' to upgrade and that would
stimulate new business in Richfield.
Sincerely,
Roy A. Wikstrom
ASSESS FGS ?E'
ROBES? V. PUILPANC - --- --t609 COLVt"U'S AY S -_- -_-R1C?F1E1LD,-MN -55423
DUANE MACPHERSON 6601 COLUMBUS RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-32-0053
All.
PMF,71
RT, n
A Ill.
W KtA'�
.11,
-r S 4-21-001
26 02— " VA.
P': "'n p
N CR1CT P. T I
MN
S' z-7
26-02824-31-0030
Dt",A", AKINS
541.
k 7CTw
5 5 4
11 1A 1
2 V - 0 2 E -A-1 I . t
14
1-uT;-.' A"'T
V T%JF T Z 1
MN
55423
V 1. 1
RIC�. All.
1-
" 4 ";
IV VIVI V
E""',ENNY
6 - 6 2 6
, C T 1'1 ,E S 0
R AT C " H F A I . ELD
M'
5 5 4 23
2 vn 2 S 2 3 1 .V
6 A
EluTV,
FTV 'X, r I11 r
4
iV _0IiV-, i4_7V A ! _r
V, 1.I l E-RTVh'
ELLIO?
MN
55423
VA C4 m mn_! n",
6�37
V
116 1 -; T
11
"1 Z'
1 1
2 4 -02 En 4 Or- f
IV I v v
6.1-7
1 TnT
p Y P ur Tr! n
m!"
t 4 13
11 P.• M !A L -11
-17 2 1- 3
f" n:! T A-.! cc C
T.- �j.-
All., A61V
M
4
41 IV
A v" I A vv I
n
c: 107
Ill, .
F, T PH .
IV Ill.
MN
-5 5 4 2 3
11 1
2 - n I BE 2, 4 V0- 4 34
1. V, A.
v T
n
554:
4 1 4
N:J R S Cc R Y
D S" 'A I
Cc 6 '. T, H'. S_
F, • C E L D
MN
554:3
V A.— V
pp7 r wrxcmn.'�
'.Vl. I . .11111
4V " Z 'z
.
. I v
QUEEN 'VE Sn
-:S_ MN'
MP—
5542'
IV
101824-3"004-'
1. 1 1 1 v V
xzin
.1! ; TnT T
F aVU, AlD l
MN
55 4 23
-7 1 V Vv 2, E 2 4
T P W r
AV All,
E r ntr C' 7 A
" V I C
;'E Cyy
FiEtr'.
MIN'
55423
I2 V vD- 2 4 1 - n 4 c
j'fNN':7-.;
663
—
E: An-
ll 1,
I CXF 7 E: Ir:
F, , I I
M-'
"
55 r, 4 1 3
1
1 n
26-92824-3.-905.
I . l v N'
66 4 4
v
Et I 107
l'A .
2 ! r wr ! : 1 r�
.' .1 A111
M'1.
1.
� -. 4 11
11 1
`28- 14 3 1 -00 55 1
IV V V, I
lV IV
T T
IV I All.
r .
IV
IV I 1 .1
C L r.ORCAN
V I
:6!c
r V I I A I ft n
. V
n
MN
c t 41 T
i. - n v- v24"V."vV - n-:- -
MAVTL:
.
.—u—
M",
5 5 4 2
11 1-
14 -0222 4 -3 1
1. 1
N r",
6 4 1 -7
VA. I
r �_' T !".. r n c
V111.11—
C 7 f"-' C P.
.11 .... .
MN
A, i V7
1
2".024-21-005-5
1. — I
1. — .1
JEANNE pnz"AVl
6gii
V-A
CH!f'A�'n A', t
A v— 11 V
PIN-F-E! 11),
I v... All
M N'
554:V
2 6 - 0 2 cc 2 4 - 3 0 1 5
I A
FiCHFHLID FLORA,,, I.,
�- i I
VIA
r -4-w. -7
V.
RICHFIELD,
MIN
5 4 ') 3
A.
2 A - 0 2 82 4 - 3
1. VVVI
KRESES PROPEPTIES
pn BO..
242 cz
EDINi
�/
IMMEDIATE 1!►IEI�S'
d< , ... I w
.
REQUEST FOR VARIAN 'E OF '�'
Si "a 0
FOR PURPOSE OF n �t�C` ICS-
Legal Descripti n: Can P )XV /6)
� ,-�- .
J( : Vic 3
We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land its
above described, do hereby concur With the variange * *;n
f
Signature of Owners* Address
* Signatures may not be removed once the petition is signed and-.
returned to the Planning Division.
7
y
2 Eli,�
f i
t
_..
y
s
&� a
a C
�- 04
I
FG�l��
S�
* Signatures may not be removed once the petition is signed and-.
returned to the Planning Division.
/ dig I
w I.IRS
IN
MUM
all
VMS
ap
Mail
-�
iii,- / •
�..�
r / • � • �� t �w w/► t
/ I
,_j / �
"Olt
'
CUSTOME RS cx
444 v rc
ec
1
Ml A
4t Xe
&FIELD 55<P3
1-7'rh 14.4j e -C>,P
> Mpj��,.�3
:Z55a— lf,,e
-Ts,3 & C /, � Y.0 p S"
4,0'17 r .16.
(ago/ Q '� '
L+ '6 EAsr 7,1n c1 Sj • J,, Ck
alvo
.6-,q zo
7C;? C)/
Cif w( 0 c.
1- 1 L -kZ %Ck.C* Q 0
4� CwcS
It
7,
u
/,5/- lath 2�
44,
r2�� � �� -
� .�
��''''"
,� � � j
,w-� ,
6��.�E; �a�,
l.G
{
1 'r
c�
Io
Ll-
i
S cx� 7z
P
Richfield City Code (Zoning) 510.05
510.05. Nonconforming uses. Subdivision 1. Continuance. A use, building, or
structure lawfully existing as of the date which it was rendered nonconforming
by this code or any previous zoning ordinance of the city or its corporate
predecessor may be continued even though such use, building or structure does
not conform with the provisions of this code for the district in which it is
located, with the exceptions and restrictions provided in this subsection.
Subd. 2. Enlargement. Unless required by law, an existing building or
premises devoted to a use not permitted by this code in the district in which
the building or premises is located may not be enlarged, extended, reconstruct -
ed, substituted or structurally altered unless the use thereof is changed to a
use permitted in the zoning district in which it is located.
Subd. 3. Extended. A nonconforming use may not be extended to occupy a
greater area of land or moved to another part of the parcel on which it is
located.
Subd. 4. Expansion. A nonconforming structure may be expanded if the
expansion meets all applicable city ordinance requirements.
Subd. 5. Existing structure. A nonconforming use may be extended through-
out an existing building if no structural alterations in the building are made.
Subd. 6. Abandonment. If a nonconforming use ceases for a period of two
years, any subsequent use of the land or building, or either of them as the case
may be shall be in conformance with this code.
Subd. 7. Abandonment: land. If a nonconforming use of land on which
there is no substantial building is discontinued for any period of time, any
subsequent use of land shall be in conformity with this code.
Subd. 8. Damage or destruction. If at any time a nonconforming building
or structure is damaged by fire, earthquake, wind, water, explosion, riot, war
or an act of God to the extent of more than 507 of its then market value at the
time of the damage, then without further action by he council, the building and
the land on which the building was located shall from and after the date of the
damage conform to all regulations of this code except that any lawful noncon-
forming single family residential use which existed on May 9, 1968 may be
reconstructed if it is damage or destroyed by fire, explosion, or an act of God,
provided that the degree of nonconformity is not increased. The determination
of the extent of the damage and the fair market value of the building or struc-
ture shall be made by the city council.
Subd. 9. Junk yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, a
junk yard existing as a nonconforming use in a residential or commercial zoning
district may not be continued unless in a commercial zoning district, the junk
yard is completely enclosed within a building or within a continuous solid fence
not less than eight feet in height and of such additional height as to screen
completely all the operations of the junk yard. The plans of the building or
fence must be approved by the building official.
Richfield City Code (Zoning)
545.01 (Rev. 1988)
Section 545 - Zoning: adjustment: appeals: administration.
545.01. Board of adjustment and appeals created. The board of adjustments
and appeals is established and continued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section
462.354.
545.03. Council as board. The city council is the board of adjustments and
appeals.
545.05. Powers. Subdivision 1. Appeals. The board may hear and decide
appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement,
decision or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement
of this code.
Subd. 2. Variances. The, board may hear requests -for - variances from >'t -he
literal, provis.Qns..af.,thi code, in cases where their strict enforcement would
cause:;. undue. hardship-. because of_.cixcumstances- unique to the individual property
under, consideration, and to grant variances only. when it is „demonstra -ted th&-.t
such actions will be ,in keeping with the spirit .and intent of this code. The
board may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this code
for property in the zone where the affected land is located. The board may
impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to
protect adjacent property. (Amended, Bill No. 1988 -7)
Subd. 3. Application: fees. Application for an appeal are made to the
city manager. The fee for an appeal is set by appendix D.
Subd. 4. Hearing examiners. The committee of hearing examiners estab-
lished by subsection 545.15 shall hear requests for variances pursuant to
sections 545.15 to 545.31. If the committee's authority expires the board shall
hear requests for variances.
545.07. Adjustments. Subdivision 1. Application. Application for an adjust-
ment or variance is made to the director by written application. The applica-
tion shall be accompanied by payment of a fee as provided in appendix D of the
city code in addition to the required building fee, if any.
Subd. 2. Public hearing. Upon receipt of the application, the board may
set a time and place for a public hearing on the application. At least ten days
before the date of any such hearing, a notice of the hearing shall be published
once in the official newspaper.
Subd. 3. Compliance. In all cases in which adjustments or variances are
granted under the provisions of this subsection, the board may require such
evidence and guarantees as it deems necessary to insure compliance with the
conditions designated in connection therewith.
Richfield City Code (Zoning) 545.07, Subd. 4
(Rev. 1988)
Subd. 4. Orders. The board shall within a reasonable time.make its order
deciding the matter and shall cause a copy of its order to be served by mail
upon the applicant.
Subd. 5. Record. The board shall maintain a written record of its pro-
ceedings which shall include minutes of meetings, its findings in cases before
it, and a record of action taken on each matter before it including the final
order.
545.09. Conditional use permits. Subdivision 1. Issuance. Conditional use
permits may be issued for any of the following:
(a) any of the uses of purposes of which a conditional permit is required
or permitted by this code;
(b) public utility or public service uses or public building when found to
be necessary for the public health, safety, convenience or welfare;
(c) commercial excavating or natural materials used for building or
construction purposes;
(d) to classify as a conforming use any institutional use existing in any
district at the time of the establishment of such district;
(e) to permit the location of any of the following uses in a district from
which they are excluded by the provisions of this code: airport, library,
community center, church, hospital and institutional of an educational, philan-
thropic or charitable nature, cemetery, crematory, mausoleum or any other place
for the disposal of human dead; and
M. for use determined pursuant to subsection 505.11.
Subd. 2. Limitation. A conditional use permit may not be issued for (i)
the purpose of granting an adjustment or appeal, (ii) for any use not authorized
for the zoning district for which the permit is sought, (iii) nor for prohibited
use.
Subd. 3. Application. Application for the issuance of a conditional use
permit is made to the director. Proceedings to classify certain uses as con-
forming uses may be initiated either by an applicant or by the council.
(Amended, Bill No. 1988 -7)
Subd. 4. Public hearing. The council may hold such hearings on the
proposal to issue a conditional use permit as it may consider necessary; but at
least one public hearing shall be held by the board or by a committee of
commission to be designated by the board in any application for a conditional
use permit for the establishments of any use listed in subdivision 1, paragraphs
e and f. (Amended, Bill No. 1988 -7)
Subd. 5. Conditions. The council may not grant a conditional use permit
unless it finds that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use for
which the conditional use permit is sought will not under the circumstances of
the particular case be detrimental, (i) to the health, safety, morals, comfort,
convenience or welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of
the use, or (ii) to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements
in the neighborhood. (Amended, Bill No. 1988 -7)
Richfield City Code (Zoning) 545.09, Subd. 6
(Rev. 1988)
Subd. 6. Other conditions. The council may not grant a conditional use
permit unless it finds that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the
use for which the conditional use permit is sought is in compliance with the (i)
comprehensive municipal plan, (ii) an officially adopted redevelopment plans and
urban design guidelines, and (iii) applicable parking regulations and landscape
guidelines. (Amended, Bill No. 1988 -7)
Subd. 7. Compliance. The council may impose conditions and require
guarantees in the granting of conditional use permits. Any use permitted under
the terms of any conditional use permit shall be established and conducted in
conformity to the terms of the permit and of any conditions imposed. If any
person violates a term of the permit or any condition imposed by the council in
connection with the grant or issuance of a conditional use permit, the council
may revoke such permit and all rights attributable to such permit. In
considering the revocation of a conditional use permit, the city shall proceed
as follows:
(a) Complaint. The director shall review any complaints received by the
city involving property which is subject to a conditional use permit, and shall
determine whether, in the director's judgment a violation of the terms or
conditions of any conditional `use permit appears to have occurred.
(b) Notice of apparent violation. If the director determines that an
apparent violation of such terms and conditions exists, the director shall cause
a notice of violation to be mailed to the owner of the property or owner's agent
and to any other person known to the city to be conducting the use for which the
conditional use permit was granted. The notice shall:
(1) be in writing;
(2) particularize the violation or violations found to apparently
exist and particularize the remedial actions which must be taken to achieve
compliance.with the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit;
(3) provide a reasonable time, but not less than ten days, for the
recipient to remedy the violation or violations particularized in the
notice; and
(4) inform the recipient that if the particularized violations are
not remedied within the stated time period, the director will request the
council to consider revocation of the conditional use permit.
(c) Failure to comply. When notice has been given in accordance with
clause (b) above and the recipient has failed to correct the violations
particularized in the notice within the time allowed, the director shall refer
the matter to the city manager with a recommendation that a hearing be held by
the council to consider the revocation of the conditional use permit. A copy of
the director's recommendation shall be mailed to the same persons who previously
were mailed the notice of violation.
(d) Scheduling of hearing. If the city manager concurs in the
recommendation of the director, the manager shall schedule a hearing before the
council to consider revocation of the conditional use permit. The -date of the
hearing shall be as soon as is reasonably convenient.
Richfield City Code (Zoning) 545.09, Subd. 7(e)
(Rev. 1988)
(e) Upon the scheduling of the hearing, the director shall furnish mailed
notice of such to the same persons who were mailed notice of the violation. The
notice shall:
(1) state the time, date and location of the hearing;
(2) describe with particularity the violations or violation which
will form the basis of the director's recommendation to the council;
(3) describe the recommendation which the director intends to make to
the council with respect to revocation; and
(4) inform the recipient of its opportunity to be present at the
hearing, to be represented by legal counsel during the hearing, to present
testimony and evidence and to cross - examine witnesses.
The director shall also provide a notice containing the information described in
subparagraphs (1) , (2) and (3) of this paragraph to all other persons who would
have been entitled to notice had the hearing been to consider the granting of
the conditional use permit.
(f) Determination. At the conclusion of the hearing, or as soon
thereafter as is reasonably possible, the council shall render its written
decision. The decision shall state the terms and conditions of the conditional
use permit found to have been violated; and shall state the determination of the
council with regard to revocation of the conditional use permit. The council
may, in lieu of revocation, permit the conditional use permit to continue
subject to such further or additional terms and conditions as in its judgment
are necessary to insure compliance with the conditional use permit. The
council's written findings and determination shall be mailed to the persons who
were mailed the director's notice of violation. If a conditional use permit is
revoked, all uses and activities which are permitted only by such conditional
use permit shall immediately cease. And all other licenses and permits issued
by the city which require, as a condition of their issuance, the existence of
the conditional use, shall be subject to termination in the manner set forth in
this code or other applicable law. (Added (a) -(f), Bill No. 1988 -7)
Subd. 8. Time limitations. A conditional use permit expires one year
after it has been issued unless (i) the' use for which the permit has been
granted has commenced within one year or (ii) upon written application of the
owner of the affected land the board extends the expiration date of such permit
for an additional period not to exceed one year.
Subd. 9. Fee. The fee for a conditional use permit is set by appendix D.
Subd. 10. Other remedies. In addition to the procedure set forth in
subdivision 7, the city may exercise, with or separately from such procedure,
all and any other remedies and actions available to the city including, but not
limited to those contained in sections 320 and 115 of this code. (Added, Bill
No. 1988 -7)
Richfield City Code (Zoning)
T' 'j
545.11 (Rev. 1988)
545.11. Amendment procedure. Subdivision 1. Public hearings. No amendment to
this code shall be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by the
council.
Subd. 2. Notice of hearing. A notice of the time, place and purpose of
the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper at least ten days prior
to the day of the hearing.
Subd. 3. Mailing of notice. When an amendment involved changes in dis-
trict boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notice shall
be mailed at least ten days before the day of the hearing to each owner of
affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the
property to which the amendment relates. For the purpose of giving mailed
notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use any appropriate
records to determine he names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice and
a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attest-
ed to by he responsible person an shall be made a part of the records of the
proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners,
or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona
fide attempt to comply with this subdivision has been made.
Subd. 4. Initiation. An amendment to this code may be initiated by the
council, planning commission, or by the petition of the owners of not less than
fifty percent of the land proposed to be rezoned and by the owners of at least
fifty percent of the land within three hundred feet of the land proposed to be
rezoned. Properties owned by federal, state, municipal entities or other
political subdivisions shall be excluded from any computation of the percentage'
of landowners necessary for rezoning petitions initiated by landowners.
Richfield City Code (Zoning)
545.11, Subd. 5
Subd. 5. Issuance of building permit. No building permit for any building
or structure may be issued while proceedings for rezoning of the land wherein
the structure is located or to be located are pending, unless the permit would
be permitted under both the existing zoning classification and the proposed
zoning classification for such area, or unless council approval is first ob-
tained.
Subd. 6. Limitation: Time. Not more than one petition for the rezoning
of any particular lot, piece or parcel of land shall be made within any twelve-
month period.
Subd. 7. Amendment: fee. The fee for a petition to rezone land is set by
appendix D.
545.13. Hearing examiners: purpose. It is the purpose of subsections 545.13
to 545.31 to establish the committee of hearing examiners and an administrative
hearing process to expedite the review of certain matters involving requests for
variances.
Committee of hearing examiners. There is hereby created and continued
tVi committee of hearing examiners. The committee is a special committee of the
board of adjustments and appeals to be administered by the director of community
development. The committee shall assist the board in all matters within the
jurisdiction of the board. The committee is appointed by the manager subject to
confirmation by the council and members. serve at the pleasure of the manager.
Hearing examiners may be city employees and shall have experience- in municipal
administration and procedures of law.
545.17. Powers and duties. Hearing examiners may hear and decide requests for
variances from the literal provisions of this code. The hearing examiners shall
approve variance requests only when it is demonstrated that such actions are
consistent with the standards of this code and Minnesota Statutes, section
462.357, subdivision 6, which is incorporated herein by reference. A hearing
examiner may not permit, as a variance, any use which is not permitted by the
zoning regulations applicable to the property under consideration. A hearing
examiner may impose conditions on variances to ensure compliance and to protect
adjacent properties.
545.19. Application and fees. Application for a variance shall be made to the
director. Applications for variances shall be accompanied by the fee set by
appendix D of the city code. No application shall be deemed to be filed until
it is complete in all respects. Upon filing, the director shall refer the
application to a hearing examiner designated by the director to hear the matter.
545.21. Hearing procedures. Subdivision 1. Time limits. The hearing shall be
conducted at least I5 -1/2 working days but not longer than 30 working days after
filing. Except in cases involving serious hardship to the applicant, hearings
shall be conducted only in the evenings.
�o
Richfield City Code (Zoning) 545.21, Subd. 2
Subd. 2. Notice. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed by first class
mail to the property owners within 350 feet of the subject property at least ten
days prior to the hearing. Evidence of the giving of such notice shall be
provided to the hearing examiner at the beginning of the hearing. The notice
shall also state that individuals wishing to appear at the hearing should
contact the department prior to the hearing date. The failure to give mailed
notice to individual property owners, or defects in the notice shall not inval-
idate the proceedings, provided a good faith attempt to comply with this subdi-
vision has been made.
Subd. 3. Report. The director shall provide a written report to the
hearing examiner outlining the proposal and enumerating the various reasons for
a recommendation to either approve or deny the variance request. The written
report shall be filed with the hearing examiner at least 72 hours prior to the
date of the hearing. Copies of the report shall be made available to the
applicant and shall be furnished to others upon request.
Subd. 4. Parties. Parties of record shall be:
(a) the applicant and representative of the applicant;
(b)' any interested person who has notified the department of an intent to
appear;
(c) city staff; and
(d) the planning commission.
Subd. 5. Testimony. A hearing examiner may call witnesses, and accept any
evidence and testimony, which in the judgment of the examiner is relevant to the
issues being heard. Parties of record shall have the right to cross - examine
witnesses and present testimony and evidence. The hearing examiner may impose .
limitations on the number of witnesses and on the nature and length of testimo-
ny.
Subd. 6. Record. A tape recording shall be made of the hearing. The tape
will be transcribed on request of the council. The tape will also be tran-
scribed at the request of any party of record upon the payment of all costs of
transcription. The tape recording shall be preserved until the time for appeal
has expired.
Subd. 7. Determination. The hearing examiner shall, within 30 days
following the close of the hearing render a written decision supported by
findings specifically related to the applicable standards contained in this code
and law. The hearing examiner's decision shall be transmitted to all parties of
record and filed with the city clerk. The hearing examiner's decision shall be
final, subject to appeal. If the hearing examiner fails to render a written
decision within such period the applicant may present its application to the
city council for 'consideration at its next regularly scheduled meeting not less
than ten days after filing of a decision.
Richfield City Code (Zoning) 545.23
545.23. Appeals. A party aggrieved by the decision of the hearing examiner may
appeal the decision by delivering to the director a notice of appeal within ten
days of the date the decision is filed. The appeal shall be to the board of
adjustments and appeals.
545.25. Rehearing. Any applicant may within seven days of the date of filing
of the examiner's decision, apply for a rehearing of a variance request denied
by the hearing examiner if significant new factual evidence relevant to the case
not available to the applicant in the original hearing can be presented. The
request for a rehearing shall state with particularity the nature of the new
evidence and why it was not previously available. If an application for rehear-
ing is timely made,. the time to appeal will be tolled until the decision on
granting or denying a rehearing is made. If a rehearing is allowed, the exam-
iner's decision shall be withdrawn.
545.27. Time limit. Variances granted pursuant to subsections 545.13 to 545.31
shall lapse and terminate if the structure requiring the variance is not com-
pleted within one year of the date the variance is granted.
545.29. Reports. The committee shall annually prepare a report for the council
and the planning commission outlining the activities of the hearing examiners
and making recommendations as to possible amendments to this code to expedite
the processing of land use requests currently treated as variances.
545.31. Sunset. Subsections 545.13 to 545.31 shall expire on September 1, 1986
unless the council shall, by resolution, extend its effect for an additional
period or periods. (Extended, Resolution No. 7205, August 11, 1986; Extended,
Resolution No. 7340, September 14, 1987; Extended, Resolution No. 7450,
September 12, 1988.)
77 7, v
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 270
Agenda November 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Approval of the continuation of the agreement with the City of
Bloomington for the provision of animal kennel services for the
City of Richfield for the year 1989.
Background:
The City of Bloomington has provided animal kennel services for
the City of Richfield since 1982. This service has been very
satisfactory. The fee structure of the Bloomington kennel is
competitive with other alternative kennel facilities in the area.
We have also found that the proximity of the kennel to our city
is conveniently located for residents who are picking up animals.
The kennels' location reduces travel time and costs for our
Community Services Officers compared to other alternatives.
There is a fee increase in the 1989 contract. The impound fees
have increased from $7.50 to $8.00, and the fee for disposal of
animals from $7.50 to $15.00. This is the first fee increase
since the 1985 agreement. The fee increase was necessary as
Bloomington has had veterinary costs increase also.
During a 12 month period, approximately 500 animals are impounded
and 20 are disposed of. Therefore, animal kennel services will
increase approximately $400 in 1989.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the agreement with the City of Bloomington for the
provision of animal kennel services for the year 1989.
Basis of Recommendation:
The City of Bloomington has sufficient resources to provide a
professional level of kennel services to Richfield staff and
residents. Based upon the proximity, past relationship, and
conscientious kennel administration, it is recommended that the
City of Richfield continue to contract with the City of
Bloomington for animal control services at the new rate.
Alternative Recommendation:
The council could decide to have Richfield provide its own kennel
services. The costs involved in hiring staff to provide the same
level of services and administrative support to operate a kennel
efficiently and effectively would require a budget increase.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The renewal of the agreement between Richfield and the City of
Bloomington for the provision of animal kennel services is being
presented for council approval.
Resp lly submitted,
�iT anagt -,r
JDP:sae
a
— — — — "r TM
This Agreement executed on the day of ,
1988, by and between the City of Bloomington, a municipal
corporation, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter called
"Bloomington "), and the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal
corporation (hereinafter called "Richfield ");
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Bloomington has facilities for the impoundment of
animals available for the use of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, Richfield is desirous of using Bloomington's
facilities for the impoundment and storage of animals which are
impounded pursuant to the ordinances of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, the parties.have agreed on the type of use and
manner of use by Richfield of Bloomington' impoundment
facilities;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. That Richfield may deliver animals to Bloomington's
impoundment facilities, and Bloomington will board said animals
for the sum of Eight Dollars ($8.00) per day, per animal, to be
paid by Richfield.
2. That Bloomington shall assume the responsibility for
releasing animals, delivered to Bloomington by Richfield Animal
Control personnel, to those owners wishing to redeem said
animals.
V_ —_I
3. That in the event that an impounded animal must be
disposed of pursuant to Minnesota Statutes or City Ordinances,
Bloomington will do so at a charge of Fifteen Dollars ($15.00)
per animal, to be paid by Richfield.
4. That Richfield will indemnify and hold harmless
Bloomington, its officers, agents, officials and employees from
claims, suits, actions, damages, and costs arising out of the
impoundment, medical treatment, or destruction of animals
delivered to Bloomington by Richfield.
5. That Richfield shall comply with all Kennel operating
procedures established by Bloomington.
agreed that Bloomington shall, if nece
to arrange for veterinary care of sick
impounded at the Bloomington kennel by
costs of such veterinary services will
Richfield.
6. This Agreement shall be for a
It is understood and
ssary, have the authority
or injured animals
Richfield and that the
be the responsibility of
period of one year,
beginning January 1, 1989, and shall be automatically renewed
from year -to -year on the last day of December unless either party
has given thirty days' prior written notice that it intends to
terminate the Agreement.
7. In addition to termination pursuant to paragraph 6
(above) either party may terminate, without cause, at any time
upon thirty day's written notice of immediately for breach of the
Agreement.
8. The boarding and disposal fees referred to in paragraphs
1 and 3 (above) may be administratively adjusted from time -to-
time without a formal amendment of this Agreement. Such
adjustment shall be made in accordance with the following
procedure:
a) Fee adjustments may be made when Bloomington has,
by council action, adjusted its boarding or disposal
fees for its own residents.
b) The adjusted fees shall not exceed the amounts set
by Bloomington for its own residents.
c) Initiation of a fee adjustment shall be made by
thirty day's written notice thereof to Richfield.
d) The adjusted fees shall become effective unless,
within 30 days receipt of the notice of adjustment,
Richfield terminates this Agreement.
9. The prior fee agreement between the parties, dated
December 9, 1985, is hereby terminated, effective December 31,
1988, and this present Agreement shall be effective January 1,
Reviewed and Approved by the
City Attorney.
City Attorney
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
By:
Its Mayor
By:
Its Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By:
Its Mayor
By:
Its Manager
/ V
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA.
Council Letter No. 26
Agenda November 14, 19889
Issue Statement:
Approval of the continuation of the agreement with the City of
Bloomington for the provision of inspectional services for
Richfield for the year 1989.
Background:
The City of Bloomington has provided inspectional and enforcement
services in the areas of plumbing, heating and air conditioning,
food service, forestry and plan check for food services for
several years.
In evaluating our current services as well as our future needs,
it became apparent that several additions needed to be made in
our agreement with the City of Bloomington. They are as follows:
- Public outdoor swimming pool inspections (apartment
buildings, municipal pools, lodging facilities)
- Indoor swimming pool inspections (schools, health clubs)
- Lodging facility inspections (motel /hotel)
It is important to note that Bloomington personnel have responded
to complaints received in the past on any public pool (indoor or
outdoor) and resolved any problems that may have existed. This
service, however, has not been reflected in the contract amount
for 1988.
Bloomington personnel already routinely inspect lodging
facilities for food services, but not the individual lodging
units. Richfield's fire division has conducted lodging unit
inspections and enforced code violations that were noted. It is
the State Health Department's recommendation that these
inspections be conducted by a registered environmental health
sanitarian who has a more technical background, rather than a
member of the City's fire division.
The contract amount will increase from $62,750 in 1988 to $70,674
in 1989. This reflects a 4% inflation cost as well as an
increased level of services.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the agreement in the amount of $70,674 with the City of
Bloomington for the provision of inspectional and enforcement
services for the year 1989.
Basis of Recommendation:
The City of Bloomington has sufficient resources to provide a
professional level of inspectional services to Richfield
residents. Annual evaluations of their services has shown that
they are providing effective services in a very cost - efficient
manner.
Alternative Recommendation:
The Council could decide to have Richfield provide its own
plumbing, heating and air conditioning, food inspection and
forestry services. The cost of hiring the staff necessary to
provide the same level of services and administrative support
would be more than our current expenditures, and would require a
budget increase.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The renewal of the agreement between Richfield and the City of
Bloomington for the provision of inspectional services is being
presented for Council approval.
Resp t lly submitted
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:sae
A G R E E M E N T
This Agreement is made this day of , 1988,
by and between the City of Richfield (hereinafter "Richfield ")
and the City of Bloomington ( "Bloomington ").
WHEREAS, Richfield is authorized and empowered to provide
for various types of inspections and code enforcement to ensure
the public health, welfare and safety; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties and the purpose of
this agreement that certain of such services be performed by
Bloomington on behalf of Richfield;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants
and conditions set forth below, the above parties hereto agree as
follows:
1. The period of this agreement shall be from November 1,
1988, through October 31, 1989, unless terminiation occurs.
2. For the period of this agreement, Bloomington shall
provide Richfield with the following services, in an on behalf of
Richfield:
a. Plumbing inspections and code enforcement as
necessary.
b. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
inspections and code enforcement as necessary.
C. Food service inspections and code enforcement as
necessary (a minimum of two inspections will be
done of all restaurants and at least one inspection
will be done of all grocery stores).
d. Tree inspections and code enforcement as necessary.
/ - L/ "
e. Plan Check for food services.
f. Public swimming pool inspections as necessary.
g. Lodging inspection as necessary.
3. Bloomington shall have control over the manner in which
the inspections and code enforcement activities are conducted and
over the determination of what enforcement action is appropriate.
4. Bloomington shall assume the expense of performing the
inspections and code enforcement.
5. Richfield shall pay Bloomington the sum of $70,674 for
services provided pursuant to this agreement. One -half of this
amount shall be due on May 1, 1989, and the remainder shall be
due on October 31, 1989.
6. This agreement shall terminate as follows:
a. Upon the expiration of 30 days after service of
written notice upon the other party; or
b. At any time, upon agreement of the parties; or
C. In any event on October 31, 1989.
7. In the event of a termination prior to October 31, 1989,
a pro -rata reduction of the compensation owed by Richfield to
Bloomington shall occur which reflects the period remaining on
the agreement at the time of termination.
8. Bloomington agrees to defend, indemnify and hold
harmless Richfield, its officers, agents and employees from all
actions, liability and damages for property damage, personal
injury or death resulting from the acts, omissions or neglect of
Bloomington's employees relating to the performance of its
obligations hereunder.
2
9. Any employee assigned by Bloomington to perform its
obligations hereunder shall remain the exclusive employee of
Bloomington for all purposes including, but not limited to, wages
salary and employee benefits.
10. In addition to the services metioned in Paragraph 2
above, Bloomington shall, upon request, also provide electrical
inspection and code enforcement services for and on behalf of
Richfield. However, such services shall be paid for by Richfield
on an hourly basis at the rate of $22.00 per hour, and said
hourly rate shall be separate from, and in addition to, the
payment provided for by Paragraph 5 of this Agreement. All
other provisions of this Agreement shall remain applicable with
respect to the electrical inspection services being provided.
Upon proper execution, this
Agreement shall be a legal
and binding obligation upon
the City of Bloomington
City Attorney
3
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
By:
Its Mayor
By:
Its City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By:
Its Mayor
By:
Its City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 268
Agenda November 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Purchase of office furniture and partitions for Administrative
Services and Executive Departments.
Background:
For the past several months City staff has been working with
Facility Systems, Inc. for the redesign of office partitions and
furniture for the Finance, Assessing, Administrative Services
Administration, Personnel and City Manager Division work areas.
Facility Systems, Inc. is a vendor working through the State of
Minnesota Purchasing Contract providing contractual office
equipment and design services to the State and political
subdivisions. Under that contract, the price for office
furniture is discounted 72% off of list price. Thus, several
municipalities are taking advantage of this excellent opportunity
before the contract expires on December 31, 1988.
The Divisions in question are working either without work area
partitions or have partitions that do not adequately serve the
purpose intended. Similarly, the office furniture in these
Divisions dates back to 1970 and is not suited to fit the modular
office partitions now being considered.
The lack of functional partitions and work surfaces prevent staff
from working at the most efficient level possible. In some
cases, there is simply not adequate work area for each employee
to have their own work space; thus, requiring that some areas be
shared by employees.
Similarly, the offices in the City Manager and Administrative
Services area are inadequate to provide convenient storage and
access of files and conference areas for some meetings.
The Revised 1988 Budget provides
cover the costs of the necessary
The costs are spread through the
Funds.
for approximately $42,000 to
office partitions and furniture.
General and affected Enterprise
Recommended Motion:
Approve the purchase of $42,234 of office partitions and
furniture from Facility Systems, Inc. through the State
Purchasing Contract.
Basis of Recommendations:
1. The current office furniture and partitions are not
adequate to facilitate the most efficient flow of work from
the support positions included in the Administrative Services
and Executive Divisions.
" 7'ri -/
2. The current furniture and existing partitions do not provide
adequate work area and space for staff.
3. Adequate funding for the purchase has been provided for and
approved as part of the 1988 Revised Budget.
4. The current State Purchasing Contract for office furniture
provides a significant discount until December 31, 1988.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council could withhold approval of this purchase.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item should be considered at the November 14 City Council
meeting to ensure timely purchase and delivery before the end of
1988.
Res ec lly submitted,
Jame Prosser
Cit anager
JDP:eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.
267
Agenda November 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Recognition of Don Hassenstab for service to the City of
Richfield's Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Background:
Don Hassenstab served on the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment
Authority from 1982 to October, 1988. During that time the HRA
was involved in many redevelopment, housing, and energy projects.
Recommended Motion:
Present a plaque to Don Hassenstab, expressing the appreciation
of the City of Richfield for his past service.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Mr. Hassenstab has served the City well as an HRA
Commissioner.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Delay the presentation to another council meeting.
2. Express the Council's appreciation in some other manner.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the presentation section of the
November 14, 1988 City Council agenda. Mr. Hassenstab will be
present at that time to accept this plaque.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP /eja
I/
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 266
Agenda November 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Meeting of the City Council and Attorney Martin Costello of the
Peterson, Bell, Converse legal firm.
Background:
At the November 7, 1988 council study session, council members
reviewed the city staff recommendations for the city's legal
representation.
The staff is recommending the firm of Peterson, Bell and Converse
to handle its prosecution services. The staff had suggested it
would be appropriate for the City Council to meet briefly with
Mr. Costello of that firm. Therefore, a special meeting at 6:00
p.m. has been scheduled to give Council Members an opportunity to
meet Mr. Costello.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP /eja