The URL can be used to link to this page

08-10-87 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA City Council Letter No. 250 Agenda, August 10, 1987 Issue Statement: City Council adoption of a Resolution declaring the existence of a state of emergency and authorizing certain expenditures. Background: On the night of July 23, 1987 and early morning of July 24, 19870 the City of Richfield was struck with a major rainstorm which significantly exceeded the amount of rainfall ever recorded for a comparable period of time. During the course of that extraordinary rainstorm, City Hall and other building facilities sustained significant amounts of water damage. In addition, the City's storm water holding ponds swelled to flood level and a number of homes in Richfield sustained extensive water damage due to the heavy rainfall. As a result of the damages sustained by the City and the immediate need for action which would alleviate the water level of city storm holding ponds, especially Richfield Lake, a number of prompt purchases had to be made. These purchases were necesseary to prevent the City from sustaining further damage, and to enable the City to quickly resume the daily transactions of the day to day business of the community. Some of the immediate purchases which made included carpeting in City Hall, pumps to drain water out of Richfield Lake, several hundred feet of piping, and all of the activities which would be included in bringing the City back to the position of being in operation and providing for the welfare and safety of Richfield citizens. Certain of the purchases which were made during the period of July 23, and in the next several days were purchases which exceeded the $5,000 level which require council approval and the $15,000 level which require competitive bidding under Minnesota State Statutes. In order for the city to establish the record and to comply with Minnesota State Statutes, a Declaration of Emergency would be appropriate, which would give authority for certain emergency expenditures which were made without city council pre - approval or competitive bidding as described in Minnesota Statutes 471.345. Recommended Motion: It Is recommended that the city council adopt the attached Resolution declaring the existence of an emergency and authorizing certain expenditures. Basis of Recommendation: 1. A State of Emergency existed in the City of Richfield as a result of the heavy rainstorm of July 23, 1987 and July 24, 1987. This emergency posed a real and immediate threat to public health, safety and welfare. 2. As a result of this emergency, it was necessary in order to protect the public and assure the provision of municipal services that certain items be purchased and placed in service immediately. 3. Based on the City Charter, Minnesota State Statute and the City's Resolution on purchasing, it is necessary now for the City to ratify or approve the purchases made during this emergency period. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could not approve the purchases which were made during the emergency of July 23, 1987 and July 24, 1987. However, all such purchases contained herein were those that the city staff felt were immediately necessary to continue municipal service and to protect the health, welfare and safety of Richfield citizens. Discussion /-Decision Mode: It is recommended that the city council adopt this Resolution at the August 10, 1987 city council meeting so that requisitions and purchase orders for this equipment and materials purchased can be processed in due course of the city's business, so that the vendors can be paid. • JDP /sae 0) Respectfully submitted, Jame D. Prosser City anager • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING EXISTENCE OF EMERGENCY AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN EXPENDITURES WHEREAS, on the night of July 23 and the early morning of July 24, 1987, the City of Richfield was struck by a major rainstorm which significantly exceeded the amount of rainfall ever recorded during a comparable period; and WHEREAS, such rainfall resulted in extensive flooding throughout the City and the attendant damage to public and private property and the interruption of municipal services; and WHEREAS, in order to limit and reduce the flooding and damage and to preserve the public health, safety and general welfare, it was necessary for the City to take prompt and extraordinary action which included the purchase of those items listed and described the the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, due to the exigent circumstances confronting the City, the delay which would have resulted from conforming to the provisions of the Minnesota Uniform Public Contracting Law (Minn. Stat. 471.345), or even scheduling and holding a City Council meeting to pre - approve the purchases described in Exhibit A, would have resulted in further damage to property and increased risk to the public health and safety: • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. A state of extreme emergency existed in the City of Richfield as a result of the rainstorm of July 23 -24 which posed a real and immediate threat to public health, safety and welfare. 2. As a result of the emergency, it was necessary, in order to to protect the public and assure the provision of municipal services, that the items described in Exhibit A be purchased and placed in service immediately. 3. The action of the City staff in purchasing the items described in Exhibit A is hereby approved and ratified. Dated: John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk I• EXHIBIT A Item Estimate Pump to move water out of Richfield Lake $ 59000 Pump for lift station #2 $ 5,000 Sand and gravel $ 71000 Gasoline $ 6,000 Carpet for Public Safety $ 59000 Trash hauling $14,000 • Items which will be in excess of $15,000, which under normal circumstances would be formally bid, include: Item Estimate 8" and 12" piping $43,000 Carpet and floor tile for City Hall $25,000 Ceiling tile for City Hall $60,000 0 4� /.3 . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No-249 Agenda August 10, 1987 Issue Statement: Setting Dates for Budget Hearing Process Background: The City staff is now working to prepare the 1987 Revised and 1988 Proposed Budgets. It is anticipated that the budget documents will be printed and distributed on or about September 8. Once budgets have been distributed, it will be necessary for the City staff to present the budget to City Council members prior to adoption of the final budget. In order for council members and staff to arrange their schedules, the following dates and times are suggested for the Council's budget review sessions. Wednesday,,September 9, 1987 7:00 p.m. Overall Budget Presentation Legislative /Executive General Fund Sewer Fund Water Fund Golf Course Fund Community Services • Wednesday, September 16, 1987 7:00 p.m. Public Safety Liquor Fund Community Development Debt Service Fund Administrative Services Internal Service Funds Wednesday, September 23, 1987 7:00 p.m. Special Revenue Fund, Capital Budget, Budget Adoption Wednesday, September 30, 1987 7:00 p.m. Reserve date, if necessary Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the budget hearing schedule contained herein and direct the City Clerk to give proper notice of those hearings. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The City must have its budget completed and forwarded to Hennepin County on or before October 10, 1987. This schedule allows adequate time to fulfill that requirement. 2. Budget hearings are a required and valuable part of the budget adoption process. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could select other ates for budget hearings, so long as adequate time exists to complete the budget well in advance of the October 10 deadline. Discussion /Decision Mode: The City Council should act on this matter at the August 10 City Council meeting to allow time for proper public notice of the Budget Hearings. JDP:sb • • Respectfully submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 248 August 10, 1987 • Issue Statement: Approval of a resolution ending the building permit moratorium in the ILN Redevelopment area. 0 Background: In March of 1987 the City.Council extended the end date of the building permit moratorium in place in the ILN Redevelopment area to September 22, 1987. This extension was the last extension possible of the moratorium which was instituted in February of 1985. The extension was approved to allow time to place new land use controls in the area to insure that proper development occurs in the area. In June of 1987 the City Council gave second reading to an ordinance creating a new C -3 high density commercial zoning district and related regulations. The council also gave second reading to an ordinance establishing the boundaries of the C -3 district as the area lying between 77th Street, I -494, I -35W and the railroad tracks. These ordinances were effective on August It 1987. Attached for your review and consideration is a resolution which would end the building permit moratorium in the ILN Redevelopment area. The resolution repeals the resolution which the council passed in March which extended the moratorium to September 22, 1987. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the council pass the attached resolution ending the building permit moratorium in the ILN Redevelopment area. Basis of Recommendation: The building permit moratorium is no longer necessary. -_ With the new C -3 zoning district regulations and boundaries in place, the city has adequate protection to insure that proper development occurs in the ILN area. Alternative Recommendation: The alternative recommendation would be to not pass the attached resolution and let the moratorium expire on September 22,. 1987. Discussion /Decision Mode: A public hearing is not required and has not been scheduled on this matter. No notice has been provided. Respec fully submitted, Jam D. Prosser JDP /sae City Manager �/ / • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TERMINATING TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 17.18 WHEREAS, the City did on February 11, 1985 adopt, and thereafter amend Transitory Ordinance No. 17.18 which ordinance limited development and redevelopment of certain lands for a period of time during which the City was considering the establishment of land use controls which would be applicable to the area covered by said Transitory Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on June 22, 1987, the City Council gave second reading to and did adopt official controls for such area; and WHEREAS, the official controls were effective on August 1, 1987; and WHEREAS, the City Council did, on March 9, 19872 by Resolution No. 7287 and in the manner permitted by law, extend the term of Transitory Ordinance No. 17.18 to September 22, 1987; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the extension of the term beyond the effective date of the Official Controls would serve no legitimate public purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that Resolution No. 7287 is hereby repealed effective August 10, 1987. • Dated: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 14�j/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 247 Agenda August 10, 1987 Issue Statement: Resolution providing for the issuance and sale of $1,080,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1987. Background: The City of Richfield periodically issues General Obligation Improvement Bonds (Special Assessment Bonds) to pay for various improvement projects which have been ordered within the City of Richfield. Within the Improvement Bonds of 1985, provision was made for financing for the Richfield school system fire sprinkler system. The General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1987 includes a similar provision for $610,000 to finance a fire sprinkler suppression system at the Academy of the Holy Angels. Also included in the 1987 General Obligation Improvement Bonds are the costs of the 1986 and 1987 alley improvement projects. Temporary financing for the latter two projects has been provided through the City's Permanent Improvement Revolving (PIR) Fund. Thus, the bond sale proceeds relating to these alley improvement projects will be used to reimburse the PIR Fund for those projects. $610,000 will be forwarded to the Academy of Holy Angels to commence the fire protection improvements. It is anticipated that the City Council will award sale of the bonds on August 24, 1987. The bond sale has been scheduled for that date to take advantage of current bond interest rates and to allow the City to be aware of the net interest rate of the bonds prior to certifying special assessments which will take place on August 24. It is anticipated that the net interest rate on this bond issue will range between 7.0 and 7.5. A copy of the presale analysis will be provided under separate cover. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of $1,080,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1987. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City has completed work on the 1986 and will soon finish 1987 alley improvement projects authorized by the City Council. Temporary funding from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund has been utilized to fund the projects thus far, and it is necessary to reimburse that fund. 2. The City has worked for a number years with the Holy Angels facility in bringing that facility up to fire codes. Utilization of the State Statute provision for Special • Assessment Bonds for use in these situations make it possible for the fire suppression improvements to be made as quickly as possible. Alternative Recommendation: • City Council could decide not to.authorize issuance and.sale of General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1987. However., the reimbursement of the PIR Fund is necessary to enable the City to do future projects and the Holy Angels project would more than likely be delayed for a period of time if these bonds were not utilized. Decision /Discussion Made: In order to proceed with an August 21 bond sale, it is.necessary for the City Council to take action on this item during the Council meeting of August 10.. JDP /eja is C RespqzV,%lly submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager i • Extract of Minutes of Meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at the City Hall in said City on Monday, August 10, 1987, commencing at 7:00 o'clock P.M. The following members of the Council were present: and the following were absent: The following written resolution was presented by Councilmember who moved its adoption, the reading of which had been dis- pensed with by unanimous consent: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $1,080,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1987 BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota (City) as follows: 1. It is hereby determined that: (a) The following assessable public improvements (the Improvements) have been made, duly ordered or contracts let for the construction thereof, by the City pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 (Act) : • Project Designation & Description: Project Cost 1986 Alley Construction $ 1987 Alley Construction Academy of Holy Angels Fire Suppression Capitalized Interest Legal and Administrative Costs of Issuance Subtotal $1,061,100 Discount 18,900 Total $1,080,000 (b) It is necessary and expedient to the sound financial management of the affairs of the City to issue $1,080,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1987 (Bonds) pursuant to the Act to provide financing for the Improvements. 2. In order to provide financing for the Improvements, the City will therefore issue and sell Bonds in the amount of $1,061,100. In • order to provide in part the additional interest required to market the Bonds at this time, additional Bonds shall be issued in the amount of $18,900. Any excess of the purchase price of the Bonds over the sum of $1,061,100 shall be credited to the debt service fund for the Bonds for the purpose of paying interest first coming due on the additional Bonds. The Bonds will be issued, sold and delivered in accordance with the terms of the following Official Notice of Sale: OFFICIAL NOTICE OF SALE $1,080,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1987 City of Richfield Hennepin County, Minnesota NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids for the above bonds will be received until 2:00 o'clock p.m., C.T. on Monday, August 24, 1987, in the offices of the City Manager of the City of Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue, for opening and consideration by the City Council at a meeting at 7:00 o'clock p.m. on the same day. The bonds are offered on the following terms: Puruose and Securit The purpose of the bonds is to provide funds for the finan- cing of assessable public improvements in the City. The bonds will be • general obligations of the City, for which its full faith, credit and taxing powers are pledged together with special assessments against benefitted properties. Date and Maturities The bonds will be issued in fully registered form, will be dated September 1, 1987, will be in integral multiples of $5,000 each and will mature without option of prior payment on February 1, in the years and amounts as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 1989 $80,000 1999 $50,000 1990 75,000 2000 50,000 1991 75,000 2001 50,000 1992 75,000 2002 50,000 1993 50,000 2003 50,000 1994 50,000 2004 50,000 1995 50,000 2005 50,000 1996 50,000 2006 50,000 1997 50,000 2007 50,000 1998 50,000 2008 50,000 Redemption The City may elect on February 1, 1997 or on any interest payment date thereafter to redeem and prepay bonds of this issue maturing on or after February 1, 1998 at a price of par plus accrued interest to date of redemption. Prepayment may be in whole or in part and will be • in inverse order of maturities and by lot within maturities. Interest Interest on the bonds will be payable on February 1, 1988, and semiannually thereafter on each February 1 and August 1. All bonds maturing on the same date must bear interest from date of issue until paid at a single, uniform rate, not exceeding the rate specified for bonds of any subsequent maturity. Each rate must be in an inte- gral multiple of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1 %, and no rate of interest nor the net effective average interest rate of the issue may exceed the maximum rate of interest permitted by law on the day of sale. Bond Registrar The City will name the Registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. Principal will be payable at the prin- cipal office of the Registrar and interest will be payable by check or draft of the Registrar mailed to the registered holder of a bond. The City will pay the reasonable and customary charges for the services of the Registrar. CUSIP Numbers The City will assume no obligation for the assignment or • printing of CUSIP numbers on the bonds or for the correctness of any numbers printed thereon, but will permit such numbers to be assigned • • and printed at the expense of the any extension of the time of delive purchaser, if the purchaser waives ry caused thereby. Delivery Within 40 days after sale, the City will furnish and deliver to the office of the purchaser or, at its option, will deposit with a bank in the United States selected by it and approved by the City as its agent to permit examination by and to deliver to the purchaser, the printed and executed bonds, the unqualified opinion thereon of bond counsel, and a certificate stating that no litigation in any manner questioning their validity is then threatened or pending. The charge of the delivery agent must be paid by the purchaser but all other costs will be paid by the City. The purchase price must be paid upon delivery of the bonds in funds available for expenditure by the City on the day of payment. Legal Opinion An unqualified legal opinion on the bonds will be furnished by LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz, a Professional Associa- tion, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The legal opinion will be printed on the bonds at the request of the purchaser. The legal opinion will state that the bonds are valid and binding general obligations of the City payable primarily from special assessments against benefitted properties and that the City is required by law to levy taxes for the principal and interest thereon as the same become due without limit as to rate or amount. Type of Bid - Amount Sealed bids must be mailed or delivered to the undersigned and must be received prior to the time of the meeting. A bid must be unconditional and must be accompanied by a cashier's or certified check or bank draft in the amount of $21,600, payable to the City Finance Coordinator, to be retained by the City as liquidated damages if the bid is accepted and the bidder fails to comply therewith. The bid authorizing the lowest net interest cost (total interest from date of bonds to stated maturities, less any cash premium or plus any amount less than $1,080,000 bid for principal) will be deemed the most favorable. No oral bid and no bid of less than $1,061,100 for princi- pal plus accrued interest on all of the bonds will be considered. The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive an informality in a bid. Dated: August 10, 1987. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 6 • 3. The Clerk is authorized and directed to advertise the Bonds for sale in accordance with the foregoing Official Notice of Sale and to cause the abbreviated notice of sale attached hereto as Exhibit A to be published in the manner required by law. The City Council will meet at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 24, 1987, to consider bids on the Bonds and take other appropriate action with respect to the bonds. • • The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon the following members voted in favor of the motion: and the following voted against: whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. EXHIBIT A r NOTICE OF BOND SALE $1,080,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1987 CITY OF RICHFIELD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids for the above bonds will be received until 2:00 o'clock p.m., C.T. on Monday, August 24, 1987, in the offices of the City Manager of the City of Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue, for opening and consideration by the City Council at a meeting at 7:00 o'clock p.m. on the same day. The bonds are offered on the following terms. The Bonds will be dated September 1, 1987, will bear interest payable semiannually on each February 1 and August 1, commencing February 1, 1988, and will mature on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 1989 $80,000 1999 $50,000 1990 75,000 2000 50,000 1991 75,000 2001 50,000 1992 75,000 2002 50,000 1993 50,000 2003 50,000 1994 50,000 2004 50,000 1995 50,000 2005 50,000 1996 50,000 2006 50,000 . 1997 50,000 2007 50,000 1998 50,000 2008 50,000 The City may elect on February 1, 1997 or on any interest payment date thereafter to redeem and prepay Bonds of this issue in whole or in part, in inverse order of maturities and by lot within maturities, maturing on or after February 1, 1998 at a price of par plus accrued interest to date of redemption. No rate of interest nor the net effective interest rate of the issue may exceed the maximum rate permitted by law on the day of sale. Bidders must specify a price of not less than $1,061,100 plus accrued interest. A legal opinion on the Bonds will be furnished by LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz, a Professional Association, Minneap- olis, Minnesota. The proceeds of the bonds will be used to finance a portion of the costs of various assessable public improvements in the City. Bidders should be aware that the Official Statement to be distributed for the Bonds may contain additional bidding terms and information relative to the .Bonds. In the event of a variance between statements in this Notice of Bond Sale and the Official Statement bidders must comply with the terms of the latter. Dated: August 10, 1987. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk t STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF RICHFIELD ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held on Monday, August 10, 1987, with the original minutes on file in my office and the extract is a full, true and correct copy of the minutes, insofar as they relate to the issuance and sale of $1,080,000 General Obliga- tion Improvement Bonds of 1987 of the City. WITNESS My hand as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of 0 the City this day of (SEAL) R3:00550887.RAU , 1987. City Clerk City of Richfield, Minnesota -r s r 7-!51X / -f Extract of Minutes of Meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at the City Hall in said City on Monday, August 10, 1987, commencing at 7:00 o'clock P.M. The following members of the Council were present: and the following were absent: The following written resolution was presented by Councilmember who moved its adoption, the reading of which had been dis- pensed with by unanimous consent: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $1,080,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1987 BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota (City) as follows: 1. It is hereby determined that: (a) The following assessable public improvements (the Improvements) have been made, duly ordered or contracts let for the construction thereof, by the City pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 (Act): ;0 //dl • Project Designation & Description: Project Cost 1986 Alley Construction $ 1987 Alley Construction Academy of Holy Angels Fire Suppression Capitalized Interest Legal and Administrative Costs of Issuance Subtotal $1,061,100 Discount 18,900 Total $1,080,000 (b) It is necessary and expedient to the sound financial management of the affairs of the City to issue $1,080,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1987 (Bonds) pursuant to the Act to provide financing for the Improvements. 2. In order to provide financing for the Improvements, the City will therefore issue and sell Bonds in the amount of $1,061,100. In • order to provide in part the additional interest required to market the Bonds at this time, additional Bonds shall be issued in the amount of $18,900. Any excess of the purchase price of the Bonds over the sum of $1,061,100 shall be credited to the debt service fund for the Bonds for the purpose of paying interest first coming due on the additional Bonds. The Bonds will be issued, sold and delivered in accordance with the terms of the following Official Notice of Sale: OFFICIAL NOTICE OF SALE $1,080,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1987 City of Richfield Hennepin County, Minnesota NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids for the above bonds will be received until 2:00 o'clock p.m., C.T. on Monday, August 24, 1987, in the offices of the City Manager of the City of Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue, for opening and consideration by the City Council at a meeting at 7:00 o'clock p.m. on the same day. The bonds are offered on the following terms: Purpose and Securit The purpose of the bonds is to provide funds for the finan- cing of assessable public improvements in the City. The bonds will be general obligations of the City, for which its full faith, credit and taxing powers are pledged together with special assessments against benefitted properties. • Date and Maturities The bonds will be issued in fully registered form, will be dated September 1, 1987, will be in integral multiples of $5,000 each and will mature without option of prior payment on February 1, in the years and amounts as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 1989 $80,000 1999 $50,000 1990 75,000 2000 50,000 1991 75,000 2001 50,000 1992 3;*99-5011 "-P 2002 50,000 1993 50,000 2003 50,000 1994 50,000 2004 50,000 1995 50,000 2005 50,000 1996 50,000 2006 50,000 1997 50,000 2007 50,000 1998 50,000 2008 50,000 Redemption The City may elect on February 1, 1997 or on any interest payment date thereafter to redeem and prepay bonds of this issue maturing on or after February 1, 1998 at a price of par plus accrued interest to date of redemption. Prepayment may be in whole or in part and will be in inverse order of maturities and by lot within maturities. Interest Interest on the bonds will be payable on February 1, 1988, and semiannually thereafter on each February 1 and August 1. All bonds maturing on the same date must bear interest from date of issue until paid at a single, uniform rate, not exceeding the rate specified for bonds of any subsequent maturity. Each rate must be in an inte- gral multiple of 5 /100 or 1/8 of 17, and no rate of interest nor the net effective average interest rate of the issue may exceed the maximum rate of interest permitted by law on the day of sale. Bond Registrar The City will name the Registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. Principal will be payable at the prin- cipal office of the Registrar and interest will be payable by check or draft of the Registrar mailed to the registered holder of a bond. The City will pay the reasonable and customary charges for the services of the Registrar. CUSIP Numbers The City will assume no obligation for the assignment or printing of CUSIP numbers on the bonds or for the correctness of any numbers printed thereon, but will permit such numbers to be assigned and printed at the expense of the purchaser, if the purchaser waives any extension of the time of delivery caused thereby. Delivery Within 40 days after sale, the City will furnish and deliver to the office of the purchaser or, at its option, will deposit with a bank in the United States selected by it and approved by the City as its agent to permit examination by and to deliver to the purchaser, the printed and executed bonds, the unqualified opinion thereon of bond counsel, and a certificate stating that no litigation in any manner questioning their validity is then threatened or pending. The charge of the delivery agent must be paid by the purchaser but all other costs will be paid by the City. The purchase price must be paid upon delivery of the bonds in funds available for expenditure by the City on the day of payment. Legal Opinion An unqualified legal opinion on the bonds will be furnished by LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz, a Professional Associa- tion, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The legal opinion will be printed on the bonds at the request of the purchaser. The legal opinion will state that the bonds are valid and binding general obligations of the City payable primarily from special assessments against benefitted properties and that the City is required by law to levy taxes for the principal and interest thereon as the same become due without limit as to rate or amount. Type of Bid - Amount Sealed bids must be mailed or delivered to the undersigned and must be received prior to the time of the meeting. A bid must be unconditional and must be accompanied by a cashier's or certified check or bank draft in the amount of $21,600, payable to the City Finance Coordinator, to be retained by the City as liquidated damages if the bid is accepted and the bidder fails to comply therewith. The bid authorizing the lowest net interest cost (total interest from date of bonds to stated maturities, less any cash premium or plus any amount less than $1,080,000 bid for principal) will be deemed the most favorable. No oral bid and no bid of less than $1,061,100 for princi- pal plus accrued interest on all of the bonds will be considered. The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive an informality in a bid. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk Dated: August 10, 1987. • 3. The Clerk is authorized and directed to advertise the Bonds for sale in accordance with the foregoing Official Notice of Sale and to cause the abbreviated notice of sale attached hereto as Exhibit A to be published in the manner required by law. The City Council will meet at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 24, 1987, to consider bids on the Bonds and take other appropriate action with respect to the bonds. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon the following members voted in favor of the motion: and the following voted against: whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.. is • EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF BOND SALE • $1,080,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1987 CITY OF RICHFIELD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids for the above bonds will be received until 2:00 o'clock p.m., C.T. on Monday, August 24, 1987, in the offices of the City Manager of the City of Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue, for opening and consideration by the City Council at a meeting at 7:00 o'clock p.m. on the same day. The bonds are offered on the following terms. The Bonds will be dated September 1, 1987, will bear interest payable semiannually on each February 1 and August 1, commencing February 1, 1988, and will mature on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 1989 $80,000 1999 $50,000 1990 75,000 2000 50,000 1991 75,000 2001 50,000 1992 W5000.rD�bt V- 2002 50,000 1993 50,000 2003 50,000 1994 50,000 2004 50,000 1995 50,000 2005 50,000 1996 50,000 2006 50,000 . 1997 50,000 2007 50,000 1998 50,000 2008 50,000 The City may elect on February 1, 1997 or on any interest payment date thereafter to redeem and prepay Bonds of this issue in whole or in part, in inverse order of maturities and by lot within maturities, maturing on or after February 1, 1998 at a price of par plus accrued interest to date of redemption. No rate of interest nor the net effective interest rate of the issue may exceed the maximum rate permitted by law on the day of sale. Bidders must specify a price of not less than $1,061,100 plus accrued interest. A legal opinion on the Bonds will be furnished by LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz, a Professional Association, Minneap- olis, Minnesota. The proceeds of the bonds will be used to finance a portion of the costs of various assessable public improvements in the City. Bidders should be aware that the Official Statement to be distributed for the Bonds may contain additional bidding terms and information relative to the Bonds. In the event of a variance between statements in this Notice of Bond Sale and the Official Statement bidders must comply with the terms of the latter. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL • /s/ Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk Dated: August 10, 1987. • • * / /,,J- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF RICHFIELD ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held on Monday, August 10, 1987, with the original minutes on file in my office and the extract is a full, true and correct copy of the minutes, insofar as they relate to the issuance and sale of $1,080,000 General Obliga- tion Improvement Bonds of 1987 of the City. WITNESS My hand as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this day of (SEAL) R3:00550887.RAU , 1987. City Clerk City of Richfield, Minnesota • Extract of Minutes of Meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota • Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at the City Hall in said City on Monday, August 10, 1987, commencing at 7:00 o'clock P.M. The following members of the Council were present: M and the following were absent: The following written resolution was presented by Councilmember who moved its adoption, the reading of which had been dis- pensed with by unanimous consent: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $1,080,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1987 BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota (City) as follows: 1. It is hereby determined that: (a) The following assessable public improvements (the Improvements) have been made, duly ordered or contracts let for the construction thereof, by the City pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 • (Act): Project Designation & Description: Project Cost 1986 Alley Construction 1987 Alley Construction Academy of Holy Angels Fire Suppression Capitalized Interest Legal and Administrative Costs of Issuance Subtotal Discount Total $1,061,100 18,900 $1,080,000 O /�_11-7 (b) It is necessary and expedient to the sound financial management of the affairs of the City to issue $1,080,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1987 (Bonds) pursuant to the Act to provide financing for the Improvements. 2. In order to provide financing for the Improvements, the City will therefore issue and sell Bonds in the amount of $1,061,100. In . order to provide in part the additional interest required to market the Bonds at this time, additional Bonds shall be issued in the amount of $18,900. Any excess of the purchase price of the Bonds over the sum of $1,061,100 shall be credited to the debt service fund for the Bonds for the purpose of paying interest first coming due on the additional Bonds. The Bonds will be issued, sold and delivered in accordance with the terms of the following Official Notice of Sale: OFFICIAL NOTICE OF SALE $1,080,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1987 City of Richfield Hennepin County, Minnesota NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids for the above bonds will be received until 2:00 o'clock p.m., C.T. on Monday, August 24, 1987, in the offices of the City Manager of the City of Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue, for opening and consideration by the City Council at a meeting at 7:00 o'clock p.m. on the same day. The bonds are offered on the following terms: Purpose and Securit The purpose of the bonds is to provide funds for the finan- cing of assessable public improvements in the City. The bonds will be • general obligations of the City, for which its full faith, credit and taxing powers are pledged together with special assessments against benefitted properties. • Date and Maturities The bonds will be issued in fully registered form, will be dated September 1, 1987, will be in integral multiples of $5,000 each and will mature without option of prior payment on February 1, in the years and amounts as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 1989 $80,000 1999 $50,000 1990 75,000 2000 50,000 1991 75,000 2001 50,000 1992 75,000 2002 50,000 1993 50,000 2003 50,000 1994 50,000 2004 50,000 1995 50,000 2005 50,000 1996 50,000 2006 50,000 1997 50,000 2007 50,000 1998 50,000 2008 50,000 Redemption The City may elect on February 1, 1997 or on any interest payment date thereafter to redeem and prepay bonds of this issue maturing on or after February 1, 1998 at a price of par plus accrued interest to date of redemption. Prepayment may be in whole or in part and will be • in inverse order of maturities and by lot within maturities. Interest Interest on the bonds will be payable on February 1, 1988, and semiannually thereafter on each February 1 and August 1. All bonds maturing on the same date must bear interest from date of issue until paid at a single, uniform rate, not exceeding the rate specified for bonds of any subsequent maturity. Each rate must be in an inte- gral multiple of 5/100 or 1/8 of 17, and no rate of interest nor the net effective average interest rate of the issue may exceed the maximum rate of interest permitted by law on the day of sale. Bond Registrar The City will name the Registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. Principal will be payable at the prin- cipal office of the Registrar and interest will be payable by check or draft of the Registrar mailed to the registered holder of a bond. The City will pay the reasonable and customary charges for the services of the Registrar. CUSIP Numbers The City will assume no obligation for the assignment or • printing of CUSIP numbers on the bonds or for the correctness of any numbers printed thereon, but will permit such numbers to be assigned • and printed at the expense of the purchaser, if the purchaser waives any extension of the time of delivery caused thereby. Delivery Within 40 days after sale, the City will furnish and deliver to the office of the purchaser or, at its option, will deposit with a bank in the United States selected by it and approved by the City as its agent to permit examination by and to deliver to the purchaser, the printed and executed bonds, the unqualified opinion thereon of bond counsel, and a certificate stating that no litigation in any manner questioning their validity is then threatened or pending. The charge of the delivery agent must be paid by the purchaser but all other costs will be paid by the City. The purchase price must be paid upon delivery of the bonds in funds available for expenditure by the City on the day of payment. Legal Opinion An unqualified legal opinion on the bonds will be furnished by LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz, a Professional Associa- tion, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The legal opinion will be printed on the bonds at the request of the purchaser. The legal opinion will state that the bonds are valid and binding general obligations of the City payable primarily from special assessments against benefitted properties and that the City is required by law to levy taxes for the principal and interest thereon as the same become due without limit as to rate or amount. Type of Bid - Amount Sealed bids must be mailed or delivered to the undersigned and must be received prior to the time of the meeting. A bid must be unconditional and must be accompanied by a cashier's or certified check or bank draft in the amount of $21,600, payable to the City Finance Coordinator, to be retained by the City as liquidated damages if the bid is accepted and the bidder fails to comply therewith. The bid authorizing the lowest net interest cost (total interest from date of bonds to stated maturities, less any cash premium or plus any amount less than $1,080,000 bid for principal) will be deemed the most favorable. No oral bid and no bid of less than $1,061,100 for princi- pal plus accrued interest on all of the bonds will be considered. The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive an informality in a bid. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk • Dated: August 10, 1987. • 3. The Clerk is authorized and directed to advertise the Bonds for sale in accordance with the foregoing Official Notice of Sale and to cause the abbreviated notice of sale attached hereto as Exhibit A to be published in the manner required by law. The City Council will meet at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 24, 1987, to consider bids on the Bonds and take other appropriate action with respect to the bonds. r1 n �J The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon the following members voted in favor of the motion: and the following voted against: whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. EXHIBIT A NOTICE NOTICE OF BOND SALE • $1,080,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1987 CITY OF RICHFIELD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids for the above bonds will be received until 2:00 o'clock p.m., C.T. on Monday, August 24, 1987, in the offices of the City Manager of the City of Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue, for opening and consideration by the City Council at a meeting at 7:00 o'clock p.m. on the same day. The bonds are offered on the following terms. The Bonds will be dated September 1, 1987, will bear interest payable semiannually on each February 1 and August 1, commencing February 1, 1988, and will mature on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 1989 $80,000 1999 $50,000 1990 75,000 2000 50,000 1991 75,000 2001 50,000 1992 75,000 2002 50,000 1993 50,000 2003 50,000 1994 50,000 2004 50,000 1995 50,000 2005 50,000 1996 50,000 2006 50,000 1997 50,000 2007 50,000 1998 50,000 2008 50,000 The City may elect on February 1, 1997 or on any interest payment date thereafter to redeem and prepay Bonds of this issue in whole or in part, in inverse order of maturities and by lot within maturities, maturing on or after February 1, 1998 at a price of par plus accrued interest to date of redemption. No rate of interest nor the net effective interest rate of the issue may exceed the maximum rate permitted by law on the day of sale. Bidders must specify a price of not less than $1,061,100 plus accrued interest. A legal opinion on the Bonds will be furnished by LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz, a Professional Association, Minneap- olis, Minnesota. The proceeds of the bonds will be used to finance a portion of the costs of various assessable public improvements in the City. Bidders should be aware that the Official Statement to be distributed for the Bonds may contain additional bidding terms and information relative to the Bonds. In the event of a variance between statements in this Notice of Bond Sale and the Official Statement bidders must comply with the terms of the latter. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk Dated: August 10, 1987. _z/7 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF RICHFIELD ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held on Monday, August 10, 1987, with the original minutes on file in my office and the extract is a full, true and correct copy of the minutes, insofar I as they relate to the issuance and sale of $1,080,000 General Obliga- tion Improvement Bonds of 1987 of the City. WITNESS My hand as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of • the City this day of (SEAL) R3:00550887.RAU , 1987. City Clerk City of Richfield, Minnesota �j� City of Richfield, Minnesota Council Letter No. 246 August 10, 1987 Agenda Issue Statement: Amendment to Final Development Plan and Plan Unit Development For The Market Plaza Development at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. .Background: The city has previously_ approved a planned unit development plan .and a final development plan for the Market Plaza Development at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue South. The city's PUD ordinance requires that the development be constructed in substantial compliance with the approved final development plan, planned unit development plan and any stipulations placed on dt by the.city. The property owners have requested that the city consider three amendments to the approved plans and /or stipulations placed on previous city approvals. The following are the changes that are being proposed. 1. The property owner wishes to convert 4 of the apartment garage parking spaces into office and storage space relating to the Market Towers apartments. 2. They wish the city to reconsider a stipulation requiring a brick wall between the Market Plaza site and the Wendy's restaurant. The applicant wishes to substitute a wood wall and a metal railing for the brick wall. A wood retaining wall currently exists. 3. The applicant wishes to increase the sign band on the building to allow larger signs. They also wish to.provide. signage on the east end of the building. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the conversion of the 4 apartment garage spaces into office and storage space and to deny the proposed changes to the retaining wall and the signage. Recommended. notion: It is recommended that the City Council approve the conversion of the 4 apartment garage parking spaces into office and storage space and deny the proposed changes to the retaining,wall and the increased sign band. Staff would recommend approval of the illumination of the current sign. Basis of Recommendation: The basis of the staff's recommendation is the following: 1. The applicant has indicated that there are 12 unrented apartments and 62 garage parking spaces unrented. Allocating one parking space for each of the remaining apartments, there would be 50 unused parking spaces in the garage. The proposed loss of 4 spaces, would therefore not adversely affect the project. The applicant.is exploring alternatives for utilizing excess garage spaces to help alleviate,commercial parking shortages on the site. 2. It is staff's opinion that the wood retaining wall does not tie in visually with the materials in the immediate area which utilizes brick and stucco. • Staff also has concerns about the design of the railing. A metal railing would require more maintenance than a brick wall. Also the design of the railing with horizontal members gives the appearance of a ladder and could attract children to climb it and be a safety problem. It is staff's opinion that a brick wall as originally stipulated should be constructed. 3. it is staff's opinion that the signage being proposed would detract from the visual appearance of the building. The urban design elements. of the Lyndale Hub Nicollet area indicate that signs should be designed as an intergral part of the building, be in design proportion with the building, and should be placed so that they relate well with other signs on the building. The plans.approved for the project indicated that signage would be within a uniform sign band or on awnings on the 66th Street side of the building. As the structure has developed, some of the uniformity of signage has been lost and in staff's opinion detracts from the appearance and the goals of the LHN area.. The proposed changes would further detract from the appearance of the building. Alternative Recommendation: The alternative recommendation would be to recommend approval of the proposed changes. . Decision Mode: The council public hearing on this matter is scheduled for August 10, 1987. Mailed and published notice of this hearing has been provided.. Respe ully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP /dkh • J. PLESKO & ASSOCIATES, INC. July 13, 1987 Mr. Sievert Hendrickson City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Sievert: RE: Landlord's Approval of Sign Criteria for Blockbuster Video Our tenant at Market Plaza, Blockbuster Video and its subcontractor for exterior signage, have our approval to construct a sign with Blockbuster's name in letters the size of the Drug Emporium sign. I am enclosing a copy of our lease with Blockbuster Video which lists the sign criteria under Exhibit D, Tenant's Work. It will be the responsibility of Blockbuster Video's general contactor to improve the sign ban to accommodate the agreed upon size letters. • Blockbuster Video also has our permission to display a sign to the rear of their store on the 65th Street side as shown in their plan. If you have any further questions on granting their sign permit, please let me know. Sincerely, E. J. PLESKO & ASSOCIATES, INC. i x V Betty L. Cornelius Property Manager blc enclosure cc: Mike Gould Blockbuster Video Tom Weber Management Office 5300 Powerline Road Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 305- 771 -3334 E. J. Plesko & Associates, Inc. 340 Parkdale Plaza, 1660 So. Hwy. 100 Minneapolis, MN 55416 612 -541 -0151 Real Estate Developers • Consultants • Management 11518 N. Port Washington Rd., Suite 101 Mequon, WI 53092 414 - 241 -9060 E. J. PLESKO & ASSOCIATES, INC. July 2, 1987 Mr. Rick Joepke City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Rick: I would like to submit a formal request to petition the Council for a recision to the requirement of July 22, 1985, which stipulates a 3' brick wall must be built between Wendy's property and our property at Market Plaza, 700 West 66th Street, Richfield, MN. The architect on this project, Miller Hanson, Westerbeck, Bell, has drawn a guardrail plan which would meet code of providing a 42" high rail where the elevation is 30" or more. This railing will be mounted into the existing side- walk at Market Plaza. It will be built of 1 -1/2" pipe rail and will not allow a 6" spear to pass between the spokes. In talking with Perry Carnes of Wendy's today, he is at the stage in his property improvement to put in his landscaping. If necessary, I would like City Council action on this as soon as possible so we may begin fabrication and installation of the guardrail on our property. Please advise when this will be on the council agenda. I would prefer it to be heard on July 13 along with our council approval for elimination of 4 parking spaces in the apartment garage. Thank you, Rick. Sincerely, E. J. PLESKO & ASSOCI��ATES, INC. qa Betty e ty L. Cornelius Property Manager blc encl. cc: Mike Gould E. J. Plesko E. J. Plesko & Associates, Inc. Management Office 340 Parkdale Plaza, 1660 So. Hwy. 100 11518 N. Port Washington Rd., Suite 101 5300 Powerline Road Minneapolis, MN 55416 Mequon, WI 53092 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 612 - 541 -0151 414 - 241 -9060 305- 771 -3334 Real Estate Developers • Consultants • Management - - C. r0 _ I EXISTING W E N D Y'S E ST i .:� 1/• �.�.�GGiri'i?1Cr;5 i,Ld(��P11JE 13 G?c� °; .,. �- .. ( . II �eyo�r .77 CiY19fc,ilg1 ":_c,, =�Z - Fl5r —� J, GcX2 �` W EMDyS INTO SlDC— Wsat.v— MILLER PROJECT: NEW RAIL ! ;- (--j - _ • HANSON - � .._�.__.._... ' WESTERBECK�� BELL �C= ��E.Ld /NN • . _ ARCHITECT_ S INC FILE NO. DATE �f DRAWN COMM. NO. SHEET NO. ONE MAIN AT RIVERR.ACE t MAIN STREET SE SUITE 400 ✓-1f -6 / MINNRAPIN K• NINNfSATA -SIN - 17.A7i M +. E. J. PLESKO & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mr. Rick Jopke City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota Dear Mr. Jopke: 55423 June 24, 1987 I would like to submit a formal request for a plan amendment to use four garage park- ing spaces at Market Towers Apartments, 6501 Woodlake Drive, Richfield to build an office and shop for our maintenance staff to be used in the operation of the retail and apartment segments of Market Plaza /Market Towers. The loss of these four parking spaces will occur in spaces marked 200, 201, 202, and 203 on the attached underground garage plan for Market Towers Apartments. These spaces are directly to the left of the entrance to the apartments. This would be the best use of space for us for an office and maintenance shop. At the present time we only have one office for the entire building; retail and apartments. This office is located as you come into the lobby of the apartment building. As soon as initial lease -up is complete in the apartment building, this office will be our only management office on site. It's size can only accommodate one desk! We presently have 12 apartments to rent. We have 62 underground parking spaces left to rent. It is on this basis, that we have an ample supply of parking spaces for the apartments, that we request a variance to use four spaces for office and shop use by our maintenance department. Please let me know when this will be on the council agenda. Thank you. Sincerely, E. J. PLESKO & ASSOCIATES, INC. `. �" Betty 1:. Cornelius Property Manager BLC /cmw encl. cc: Mike Gould E. J. Plesko E. J. Plesko & Associates, Inc. Management Office 340 Parkdale Plaza, 1660 So. Hwy. 100 11518 N. Port Washington Rd., Suite 101 5300 Powerline Road Minneapolis, MN 55416 Mequon, WI 53092 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 612 -541 -0151 414- 241 -9060 305 -771 -3334 Real Estate Developers • Consultants • Management Illy roe qr i YY '�: •, - '•t' .fi i "140! ,,,0 CA �mA ; zAt, 24!2a 4q :.ia.i h6d.r1 I . I Ay) � R��JGrb yo Alu�n�num as ess i ii6m M.A. '(ra4o7FdtnCC - -- - PARTIAL EAST ELEVATIGN M T.s !/b l�- LETTER SPECIEICATACUS II'1/IiVh.pJ,al� M.+►i�G�r�aN plt.,�►.ninakcsp AIW�#►r�Jrn I�Lii'G(b. - ��,i+� {ro bG �ZI's'►' �acl+ tP!c,c iad �+ . Ir+u� Try m Abjvn► Wynn PiG�;rrftp Alp tpc►v, oiwr �i� Ppl rGtNdle- Fmi7n tp O•*r-p% A ZI" PfcO. A# Le-*erP> I� Gr,W'g Moum e. 41, Ww tl - �iGI� 'Q.�p aep G�tai I Isar rParG -r emc-i Pie— I n r^v ✓mct +ivy 38� 61 �EQ STOREFRONT ! 4 TION — . J. PLESKO & ASSOCIATES, INC. August 6, 1987 TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND STAFF FROM: Mike Gould, Vice President RE: Brick Wall between Wendy's and Market Plaza Parking Lot 1. The original plans and detail of the blueprints from the architect of the Market Plaza project did not show the type of wall to be built between Wendy's -and Market Plaza. 2. On June 4, 1986, Landshapes (the architectural landscaper) indicates a verbal approval was received from the City based on drawings sent to the City to build a timber wall. 3. On July 17, 1986, Bor -Son Construction, Miller Hanson Westerbeck & Bell Architects, Landshapes and Wendy's representative met at the site to discuss . the type of wall that was proposed to be built. The timber wall was built. 4. In April of 1987, Sivert Hendrickson sent E. J. Plesko & Associates a copy of an inter - office memo from Lidy Flom indicating a brick wall was to have been built between Wendy's and Market Plaza. This request for the brick wall to be built was based on a July 22, 1985 council agenda letter. 5. This notification from city staff, 10 months after the wall was constructed, was our first indication there was a problem with the present built timber wall. 6. After meeting with all of the involved parties, on June 1, 1987, we wrote a letter to Sivert Hendrickson to begin the process for a plan amendment under the Development Agreement to waive the requirement for a 3 foot brick wail. 7. The cost we have received for building a brick wall is $20,000 to $24,000. We have already spent $5,500 for the timber retaining wall. 8. Wendy's management is satisfied and will support the present timber wall. 9. We will install the required railing or other barrier to meet the 42" height requirement of code for this wall. Management Office 5300 Powerline Road Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 305 -771 -3334 E. J. P16sko & Associates, Inc. 340 Parkdale Plaza, 1660 So. Hwy. 100 Minneapolis, MN 55416 612 -541 -0151 Real Estate Develo Consultants • Management 11518 N. Port Washington Rd., Suite 101 Mequon, WI 53092 414 - 241 -9060. CJ Landscape arcndeclure Recreation and site planning Landscape contracting Commercial landscape maintenance Estate landscape maintenance LMMMAPM Landsnapes trc 8016 Pteasant Ave So Bloomington MN 55420 621.888 -3771 June 17,1986 Attention: Al Moe REs Market Plaza Dear Al, Enclosed plea a find copies of the sketch approved by the city of Richfield on 6/4/86 for the timber -walls at Market Plaza. Also enclosed is our proposal of 5/21/86, which was estimated prior to our sketch. And finally the change order of 6/12/86 approved by Gene Batson and confirmed by phone with Gordy at MHWB. The wall will be constructed, as per Gene's request, and will be invoiced on a square foot basis of timbers insLal.led. As you see this "new" wall extension will increase the wall by about 2 -1 times our original proposal. We will complete the wall to the blacktop edge as requested by,Gene, and complete it this fall to the sidewalk on tha east. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Thank You. Sincerly, Paul H. Barton 9 : NN L�l V� T C o -� v O _ z.3 cry , 114- f l 2 � I: N i o it L :� ' C w Z 3 � 1 � L f 1 t- `(NrAA.E i Ave %A- co y _ b rl D S OD OD m 0) Cb J 900 m w h OL ,ZDn amid (o G 3 d d �+ 7 3 W _ z.3 cry , 114- f l 2 � I: N i o it L :� ' C w Z 3 � 1 � L f 1 t- `(NrAA.E i Ave %A- 15*x 6L T (A) N G PINS a -L-0 0-G. HONJ�. MAX. CA*�b 0 g hxx 70 "N.nt4c, BILL, u 06-(o T viln DTWN k%LAZ - 41-0 MILLER HANSON WESTERDECK BELL ARCHITECTS INC 004MMATMMMMLACE I MAIN STMUN UMM4W PQVM JR4 0 8 -0 0.(,.- bp4'K 5-0 610 jtAl U- v I -S I 0r4 PROJECT: MARKET PLAZA FILE 140. DATE DRAWN I COMM. NO. SHEET NO. I A 30003 - Landscape architecture Recreation and site planning Landscape contracting Commercial landscape maintenance Estate landscape maintenance LMMMAPES Landshapes Irc 8016 Pleasant Ave So Bloomington. MN 55420 621.888 -3771 E.J. Plesko & Assoc., Inc. August 4, 1987 Market Towers 6501 Woodlake Drive Richfield, MN 55423 . Attn: Betty Cornelius Dear Betty, Please find enclosed the following items: letter to Al Moo of 6/17/86 and two sketches of retaining wall details and locations for Market Plaza, Richfield. The sketches were submitted to the City of Richfield in May of 1986 and approved on 6/4/86 by Randy Hughes and Mike E'astling by telephone. -rhis was done to expediate the construction of • the retaining wall. Throughout the project, including the design P ro es--;., I dial not see any drawings detailing any type of wall, except for the timber wells on the enclosed sketches. The cost of the existing timber retaining wall built by Landshapes for Bor- Son was $5550.00. This wall was built of CCA treated pine timbers (.40) retention. Wheeler Lumber supplied the timbers and warranties t.rtt tirluers for 40 years from decay. It is our opinion that timber retaining walls, when constructed properly, will withstand extreme weather conditions as demonstraLed In the: past few weeks. Concrete block retaining walls must have a frost footing and be secured with iron rod deadmen set in concrete footings. This is scldufo done since this Landscape architecture Recreation and site planning Landscape contracting Commercial landscape maintenance • Estate landscape maintenance LMDSHAM Landshapes Irc 8016 Pleasant Ave So Bloomington. MN 55420 621- 888 -3771 would cost three or four times the cost of a timber retaining wall. In.the past ten-.days we have estimated the replacertlent of numerous concrete' block retaining walls, because of storm damage. TilRbsr W.jllt are built with deadmen and allow water to pass thru the seams, whereas collcrete block walls . prevent water from escaping unless they have weep holes. Datllaged concrete block walls are being replaced with timber walls, in most cases because of structural stability, aesthics and cost. Thank you. Sin. er y, Paul H. Barto August 5, 1987 Mr. Rick Joepke City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. South Richfield, Minn. 55423 RE: Fence between Wendy's and Market Plaza Dear Mr. Joepke, It is our understanding from talking with Betty Cornelius with E.J. Plesko and Associates, Inc. that the City of Richfield is requiring a brick wall /fence be constructed on the property line between Wendy's and Market Plaza. The fence at present is constructed of timbers. It is Wendy's opinion that we would prefer the wall to remain as is, if at all possible. We think that the present design does create an open feeling for the area, whereas a brick wall would create an isolation effect between Wendy's and Market Plaza. I think it would deter from the overall physical characteristics of the area. We also have discussed with Betty and E.J. Plesko about the possibility of constructing a set of steps from Market Plaza onto Wendy's property as indicated on the enclosed 2 drawings. We would like to have this approved along. with the guard railing that E.J. Plesko has proposed. We also prefer that the landscaping that, we have in progress as'well as current landscaping from the shopping center be exposed rather than screened by a brick wall. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, tive Officer PC /bb cc: Betty Cornelius Enclosure WENCO OF MINNESOTA /6517 Cecilia Circle /Edina, Minnesota 55435/612 -944 -5003 JA City of Richfield, Minnesota Council Letter No. 245 Agenda of August 10, 1987 Issue Statement: Public hearing and council consideration of the special use permit request to allow the removal of existing structures at 6507 Portland Avenue for use as an expanded parking lot, and request for amended off street parking permit. Background: Mr. Morris A. Nilsen, property owner at 6507 Portland Avenue South, made a request that the city grant a special use permit to allow removal of the existing structures from 6507 Portland Avenue south. The site would be used to expand the Morris Nilsen Funeral Chapel parking area. The existing garage for funeral vehicles would be removed and a new larger garage constructed at the northeast corner of the lot. A variance to the setback requirements for the garage was granted by the hearing examiner on July 20, 1987. The removal of the existing structures would increase the number of parking spaces for the funeral chapel from fifty nine to eight five. The C -2 general commercial district requires a special use permit for a funeral chapel. The city has approved a special use permit for the existing funeral chapel at 6527 Portland Avenue but staff could not find any record of a special use permit for the property at 6507 Portland Avenue. The existing chapel building meets all setback requirements. The applicant has obtained support of the abutting property owners for the new improvements. Letters from propety owners favoring the proposed improvements are attached for your information. Zoning Ordinance Requirements: 1. Section 3.33, subdivision 6, indicates the setback requirement in C -2 general commercial district. 2. Section 3.41, outlines the requirements for granting of a special use permit. Recommended Motion: Approval of the special use permit as requested for the property at 6507 Portland Avenue South with the stipulation subject to engineers approval of final drainage plan and approval of an amended off street parking permit. Basis of Staff Recommendation: Recommendation for approval of the special use permit is based on the staff review and conclusions which are outlined in the following: • 1. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the special use permit request and off street parking • permit. 2. The overall site for the funeral chapel would not change significantly. The easterly portion of the lot (6507 Portland Avenue) is currently used for parking. The remaining westerly portion of the subject lot would now be used for expanding the existing parking lot. 3. The existing capacity of 180 seats in the chapel would requires 60 parking spaces. Currently the funeral chapel site has 59 parkking spaces. The proposed improvement would provide 26 additional parking spaces. The existing curb cuts on 66th Street and Portland Avenue will remain the same except that an additional curb cut to Portland Avenue would be constructed on the northwesterly corner of the site. The curb cut from 66th Street and the new curb cut from Portland Avenue would meet the city minimum width requirements. Two existing curb cuts from Portland Avenue do not meet the 26 foot minimum curb cut width requirements. One of these curb cuts is 12 feet wide and the other is 16 feet wide. These curb cuts are existing and serve one way driving aisles and are sufficient to handle the traffic using those driving aisles. The proposed layout of the parking area would improve the traffic flow. 4. The removal of the structures for expansion of the parking lot would involve the loss of four trees. A significant amount of landscaping with additional trees will be provided • along the northern property line. It is staff's opinion that the site would be adequately screened and therefore, would not cause any adverse impact on the surrounding properties. 5. The Comprehensive Development Plan indicates that the site should be developed as mixed land use. The commercial use of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Development Plan. 6. The city engineer has requested some modification to the drainage plan. A final drainage plan must be submitted for city engineer's approval. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may deny the special use permit if findings of fact determine that the proposed improvement would have an adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the surrounding community. • Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled 1987. Notice of the hearing within 350 feet of the site. the Richfield Sun JDP /dkh newspapers. at 7:00 PM on Monday, August 10, was provided to the property owners Legal notice was also published in Respect lly submitted, Ja Prosser City M ager S u L 0 O r N r u s j y y N H y ti XERXES AVE WASHBURI VINCEN' UPT01 THOMA; SHERIDAI RUSSELI OUEEI PENN AVE OLIVE# NEWTO1 MORGAA LOGAA KNOX JAMES IRVING HUMBOLDT GIRARD FREMONT EMERSON DUPONT COLFAX BRYANT ALDRICH LYNDALE AVE. GARFIELD HARRIET GRAND PLEASANT PILLSBURY WENTWOATH BLAISDELL NICOLLET AVE. lit STEVENS 2nd 3,4 CLINTON 4th S th PORTLAND AVE. OAKLAND PARK COLUMBUS CHICAGO ELLIOT 10 to It th 12 th 13 to 14 #h IS 111 BLOOMINGTON 16th 17th IB th CEDAR AVE. LONGFELLOW 1^ 2 n f1 A Z � c 0 -4 m - <r Xv O O w ri` S y ti N N y y N N H Nq 0 0 N 0 a t XERXES AVE. WASHBURN VINCENT 14 i ', -I LIPTON _L O: r, THOMAS SHERIDAN nslll -�^ -i / RUSSELL Ir QUEEN PENN AVE. —��^ n OLIVER NEWTON �C�C�LJ MORGAN L OGA N !{ JAMES oo�a� IRVING HUMBOLDT GIRARD FREMONT /'41 EMERSON IwV' V' li DUPONT i II O I COLFAX BRYANT -4 ii ALDRICN T V LYNOALE AVE. O Q iil GARFIELD ❑� 1 HARRIET GRAND r PLEASANT D PILLSBURY 7 I II WENTWORTH BLAISDELL v O ^ NICOLLET AVE. D let < STEVENS m �O 2Ad Z 3rd C CLINTON m 4th �. sew PORTLAND AVE O ,J IJI1L i OAKLAND C PARK r I COLUMBUS r to I CHICAGO " ° III _ 1 ELLIOT 10 th 11 th 12 th 13 t11 �LOJ� 14111 �OO IS th BLOOMINGTON �^ 1611, `J Isth CEDAR AVE. LONGFELLOW )�r 77rCr ' 1J 21 of ��...r� 22RQ STANDISH 23 rd O D O Z T� V �A0` is I r. a I• i 1 •� L 1 t t N a 133HIS H199 LAW IvwIPI6-MQ9Qwff Am MA&318ka oi s3un.LonuiLs N • I O Z M v � a — < z Ll � c m CO O S 'd' �u LLJ a 7w w Q a z Q J 0 CL 66TH STREET 0 Zoning Map ® GEN.j OMMERCIAL i i MULTI - FAMILY (MR72 TWO FAMILY CMR -1; i i � I t • .. X. : :;�:: 0 z Q J Y Q 0 67TH w Q ST. i. i I C j i i Land Use Map es =I- u- PARK u- V) Lu o < COMMERCIAL C:> APARTMENT --------------- __ _____ QUASI PUBLIC ■ z - z uj diLl- O 67TH LLJ ST. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAT o ................. 66TH STREET MIXED LAND USE MEDIUM DENSITY/ BUFFER - - INSTITUTIONAL f7j-q.- PARKS AND OPEN SPACEZN"'�. r r ST. 0 • • TO: APPLICANT: 4 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION To property owners within 350 feet of 6507 Portland Avenue Morris Nilsen Chapel LOCATION OF West 280.3 feet of North 75.0 feet of PROPERTY: South 434.12 feet of Government Lot 6 except road Section 26, Township 28, Range 24 PURPOSE: To hear reasons for or against the granting of a special use permit to allow the existing funeral chapel to remove the dwelling on the site, expand the parking on the site, and to construct a new garage for funeral vehicles. TIME OF HEARING: PLACE OF HEARING: HOW TO PARTICIPATE: ANY QUESTIONS: 7:30 PM, Tuesday, July 28, 1987 Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue 1. To attend the hearing and give testimony for or against the proposal. 2. Submit a letter to the Planning Commission expressing your views. Towhid Kazi Assistant Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 869 -7521, Ext. 512 MAILING DATE: JULY 10, 1987 } r t / • TO: APPLICANT: PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION To property owners within 350 feet of 6507 Portland Avenue Morris Nilsen Chapel LOCATION OF West 280.3 feet of North 75.0 feet of PROPERTY: South 434.12 feet of Government Lot 6 except road Section 26, Township 28, Range 24 PURPOSE: To hear reasons for or against the granting of a special use permit to allow the existing funeral chapel to remove the dwelling on the site, expand the parking on the site, and to construct a new garage for funeral vehicles. TIME OF HEARING: 7:30 PM, Tuesday, July 28, 1987 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 Planning Commission expressing your views. ANY QUESTIONS: Towhid Kazi Assistant Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 869 -7521, Ext. 512 MAILING DATE: JULY 10, 1987 I 0 E M P� 14 fi C3 to ,4 011, bSS t3' W 'q;�- /a • DAWN E. NILSEN 65015 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 -1689 ( 612 ) 866 -6149 JULY 20, 1987 I TO: HEARING OFFICER, CITY OF RICHFIELD DEAR SIR: AS PROPERTY OWNER OF 6505 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH, I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GARAGE AT MORRIS NILSEN FUNERAL CHAPEL, 6527 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH. IF YOU DESIRE, I COULD BE PRESENT AT HEARING THIS EVENING. I MAY BE REACHED AT 866- 6149. S #ERELY, DAWN E. NILSEN CAROLE W. SUDDERRY MARY PUBLIC-WWfiS01A DAKOTA COUNTY Mr Commission Expires December 14, 1992 MINNEAPOLIS- RICHFIELD AMERICAN LEGION POST 435 6509 PORTLAND AVENUE SO. * RICHFIELD, MINN. 55423 * Telephone 866 -3647 July 20, 1987 To Whom it May Concern; Our organization has no objection to the building of a garage for the Morris Nielsen Mortuary. Da. Mu 1 o Commander • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 244 August 10, 1987 Issue Statement: Public hearing on the special use permit request for the expansion of the existing Davanni's Pizza at 2312, 2314 West 66th Street. Background: Mr. Mick Stenson, President, Davanni's Pizza has made a request to the city to grant a special use permit for the expansion of their restaurant with wine license at 2312 West 66th Street. The public hearing on the request is scheduled for August 10, 1987. The applicant has requested the city that the public hearing be continued.until Monday, August 24, 1987., Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council continue the public hearing until August 24, 1987. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Legal notice of the council hearing on August 10, 1987 was published in the Richfield Sun. Written notice of the August 24, 1987 hearing will be sent to the property owners within 350 feet of the site. T 2. The applicant has requested continuation of the hearing until August 24, 1987. 3. The applicant is unable to attend the public hearing on August 10, 1987. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may wish to take action on the special use permit request by Davanni's on August 10, 1987. This action would deny the applicant the opportunity to appear before the City Council. Decision Mode: The City Council must take action on the matter because a public hearing notice has been published. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP /eja • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 243 Agenda August 10, 1987 .Issue Statement: Public hearing on the special use permit request for the expansion of Richfield Fun Club at 7001 Elliot Ave. South Back round: The Richfield Latch Key Child Care Center (Fun Club), has made a request to the city for a special use permit to allow the expansion of the day care center at the old Elliot Elementary School site. On August 12, 1985, the City Council granted a special use permit to Richfield Fun Club to provide day care services to 60 children in 3 rooms at this site. Now the applicant intends to rent an additional room to expand their program to 80 children. (Kindergarten to 6th grade). The applicant has indicated that the school district has approved the use of the space. The Southdale YMCA is also operating a day care program at Elliot Elementary school which provides services to 66 children (infants, toddlers and preschoolers). The total number of children served by both day care programs at the school site will increase from 126 to 146. Zoning Ordinance Requirements: -� 1. Section 3.30, subdivision 3, requires that a day care center for more than 10 children requires a special use permit. 2. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, outlines the conditions for granting a special use permit. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council approve the special use permit to allow the expansion of the Richfield Latch Key Child Care Center program at the Elliot Elementary School site to accommodate 80 children. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the special use permit request. 2. The proposed day care center expansion should not have any adverse impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood. Parking lots are located within close proximity of the center. Adequate parking and drop off space exists on the site to handle the proposed increase in use. 3. The proposed expansion of the program would serve the needs of the community and is consistent with the Comprehensive Development Plan. • Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may deny the special use permit to allow expansion of the Richfield Latch Key Day Care Center program at Elliot Elementary School site. Adequate findings of fact must determine that the approval of the special use permit would have an adverse impact on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Discussion /Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled before the City Council on Monday, August 10, 1987. The hearing will be held in the Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall. Written notice of the hearing was provided to the property owners within 350 feet. Legal notice of the hearing was also published in the Richfield Sun newspapers. Respectfully submitted, JDP /dkh 0 r1 U Jame D. Prosser City Manager i i • n 0 Nf 2 • N - 1 N N y y y H ti H 1 HNr y r4 1 t XERXES AVE -= ---,�P xERxES AVE. �_J-- ''r --��`� - -- -1 WASNBURN WASNBURN e 'ss _...LL Ir— !�.E -- =�F�cI ._�i- i VINCENT VINCENT (1 -- _ -��. �i- ;L✓L.JIJ iJ i-. _ -_ __._�I UPTON UPTON THOMAS `_ =_'.�` _L -CLs r-... THOMAS SHERIDAN SHERIOAN RUSSELL �� - ��[Jn�'�? - - -') RUSSELL QUEEN ... I I��'G`�r 'I QUEEN 1 _eai „ `+ PENN AVE PENN AVE. ;'�__---- ------ '�..; �-�. �— ^r� -_�; 1_, OLIVER '-- _��._i�� rte OLIVER NEWTON I� --- j��j NEWTON �--_.� -.. L— �L_JC��L��rpp�' {��L-- ��` --J` MORGAN MORGAN LOGAN LOGAN I .. �� ^ter- n1j�_�� _ r� L—J I J —�LJ I KNOX xNOx = ice=' ��--^I JAMES �♦ II 'Ifi IRVING IRVING .E HUMBOLDT - - - -- r--n I HUMBOLDT GIRARD - ,Y li GIRAAO •-� p _ __ FREMONT EMERSON •/ �L'-IU III'1 EMERSON DUPOMT DUPONT COLFAX �IL�I{_J�� =i_J Q� s w J'll _ COLFAX BRYANT BRYANT ALDRICH AL DR J�r�� y u '�i I LYNOALE AVE. LY or y AYE HARRIET J� // I HARRIET Ltill GRANO PLEASANT PILLSBURY AYE. L..�J S L��j ll � WENTWORTN BLAISDELL boo ' NICOIIET AVE. lot -- - I y ((�� f , STEVENS 10 o�O� Zed ICI 3141 cDi i m I f CLINTON 4tH sib I '' :�'�''• I PORTLAND AVE. Li OAKLAND ti+�+•,::•: " �- `PARK .•:::: ....::. ::. .::. :: ��C�O r I' COLUMBUS —ol COL I,I 14 CHICAGO CHICAGO ,I; •.':.:: ::'.::.: :::: :. :.:.: J�� = II ELLIOT ELLIOT j;i �C ! "`•,~,`•.''�, loth loth I IN tl; 10 I I+I _ ' i2 th N1 CJl Is,n 14 tl, �II� —)�O✓� -J JL- 1l_JL- JL- 1J�0��j �J , 15th BLOOMINGTON BLOOMINGTON ii ��-- '-�f- i L�J 161% 16 IN 17 it. - ,/�/�� le Ih loth CEDAR AVE. CEDAR AVE. - -- - - - - - -- LONGFELLOW - _________IIi __ - ___ -_____ LONGFELLOW \ ____ -------- 7 19 IN S •� i s s s s - a LL��,L.. 20th z 21 of Z rn _ xx �e 2 = \ STANDI S % C ^ O I— I 23rd U i t � v 1 a >p ea l, ay Z 0 0 m r d m O D O Z a -o V Y • 0 0 m m --1 m a m -v m }c M x_ �0o to � Z m i n '3Ad 101113 0 0 m r r O .a m z C m rfp m r r r r VJ i rrrr AVE. O n a 9 _ O O -c m CD v v C � COLUMBUS rrrrrr ^.r. �^ ^rrr Z3 rrrrrrr r r r rrrrrr r r r r r r r r r- r r rrrr i r r r r r r r rr r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r rrrr. r r r r rrrrrr r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r ^ r r r r r r r r r r r i rI'r'r r r r rr r r r rr rrrr rrrrrrr r r r r r r r rr rr r ^rrrrrrr rrr r r r rr r r r r r r r r r rrrrr r r r r r r rrrr rrrrr r r r _,_r- r r rrrrrrrr ^rrrrrrr r r r r r rrrr rr r r r r r r r r rrrrr rrrrrrrr - r rr ^r rrrrrrrr rrrrr rrrrr ,�J{ rr'IrrI ^rrrrrr rrr -L r r r r VJ i rrrr z En 0 O O n a 9 _ O O -c m CD v v C � rrrrrr rrrrrr ^.r. �^ ^rrr Z3 rrrrrrr r r r rrrrrr r r r r r r r r r- r r rrrr i r r r r r r r rr r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r rrrr. r r r r rrrrrr r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r ^ r r r r r r r r r r r i r L jrrr- z En 0 O O n a 9 _ O O -c m CD v v C � v m Z Z n z C C m Z3 j CD m so. m m AVE. AVE, nlO+ Z! r m�; v 0 D` OI Z; n Z. m' f i CHICAGO v �! CO i m ELL 10-1 10I" of N 0 Jf m Z3 1 1'" n i M 1 12TH 13TH AV r i t r" C i-- �. =-- -- m .j 1 CD JI �II m m -4 r, n AVE. rn AVE. AVE. t- L.� - - - i � a .o -' � 0 m 101t� r _ 0z i >m m < m m -v I r {L►n I -:;Z�- "7 • PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION TO: To property owners within 350 feet of 70 =1 Elliot Avenue South APPLICANT: Richfield Latch Key Child Care Center LOCATION OF That part of the North 5 acres of Northeast PROPERTY: 1/ of Northwest 1/4 lying East of the West 35: 3110 feet thereof. i 5 PURPOSE: Tc hear reasons for or against the granting of a special use permit to allow the expansion of the child care facilities for t`e Fun Club from 3 rooms to 4 rooms. The . number of children served would also increase from 60 children to 80 children. TIME OF HEARING: 7:30 PM, Tuesday, July 28, 1987 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 Planning Commission expressing your views. ANY QUESTIONS: Towhid Kazi Assistant Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 869 -7521, Ext. 512 MAILING DATE: JULY 10, 1987 AW ji CLARA W. RATCLIFF ' 6944 13TH AVE. S. ANWRICHFIELD, UK 55423 0 F U4 ftLU i • 866 -6400 I? L-1�l- 59-7- 4 f � � �,1�1��t t'<ctiltil:�lq CC r,`t�`tSSic•i1 C: ty f�r�i t �ictt #� id I fi-�N 55 t4 RICHFIELD LATCH KEY 7145 HARRIET AVENUE SOUTH RICHFIELD, MN 55423 i4\-E l �c\�� 1� l� t c4� kE.f Ct�i l Cc-c E c- cod- -n- Cr-vlF1 -f TD �� fCz�tl Li � kc -'C" -4 UtSC Y\ r c C Ct. `-E ►1�,1- ,t'' +- f QC�,,,ti.. zc —�� L cv S( ks . tV�. Ct C Y ^G`( \',C1 k c �� f cLC.� �� e� C nab ce bl� J� SCi��ct- age c�u td cet�� EAs c r-e w �� l7- r e � >e s f--f c1c� +i� us -e ci W-\ rN' f-LA { c: c. cll t`c Cc CEttic, +l i �cci C(t i- I�1J -e ��'• C L) C r 'c- 6- c -I--' 06 i f\g C r� n 4-i r� 3 I-cc rn i v'\ -tt1e mss+ LA—) ng c -�� -(I tj s t t , \- L,j.-- s- xj)ay15ies C'� ct -w1 . `C�Z�s i s Shy ��R i 11 ('ec1 r ►�� 11C_� U `:�t� e� t C :q e ee_ nr� . �1 �e p CLVX Sr c r\ kJ at \c�w �'�s ': ccL-c- 9c clz� td c� , fah r tfl rA �e schco 1 C s+c i c= E "as • FU LUR RICHFIELD LATCH KEY 714S HARRIET AVENUE SOUTH 866-6400 RICHFIELD, MN SS423 -\a � - <fz� rid �f'\ -C_ Cfl r c I' 1'\q I)-C d r - C.�.t� C tit1 \� c' tf\ E 4) � zlC' V1 Ct cE +� i r\ � i c r/ ruc Vic" t o C� r -LLO 1 J vU sZ 1 "vo `hc% PC S S E 5 c n 0 i t; C�. c� d f—r' c ►� c° --Z- ;2� City of Richfield, Minnesota Council Letter No. 242 Agenda of August 10,.1987 Issue Statement: Approval of a revised special use permit and offstreet parking permit for the property located at 7700 -7750 Morgan Avenue, 7701 Newton Avenue and 2016 -2026 West 78th Street, Background: On October 13, 1986 the City Council approved a special use permit and an offstreet parking permit request from Walser Corporation. This approval and this request for an amendment to that approval concern only the proposed Mazda site and not to the Buick site. The special use permit request was to allow Walser Corporation to remove the existing Viking Center and construct a new Mazda automobile sales and service facility on the site. The approval was subject to eleven stipulations. The following is a list of those stipulations and their current status. 1. That a drainage plan be submitted for staff approval which includes onsite catch basins if deemed necessary by the city engineer. A drainage plan with catch basins has been submitted and approved by the city engineer. 2. That the row of display car spaces along the south property line be removed and a landscaped area be provided in its place. A limited number of car display pads and a pylon sign could be constructed in this area outside the corner visibility area. Design of this area should be included in �I the landscape plan. A landscape plan showing the design of this area has been submitted. 3. That there should be no testing or servicing of vehicles on adjacent residential streets. Walser Corporation has instituted a policy which indicates that there should be no testing or servicing of vehicles on adjacent residential streets. 4. That there should be a minimum of ninety nine onsite parking spaces designated and maintained for customers, employees, and service vehicles. Ninety nine on site parking spaces have been designated and will be maintained for customers, employees and service vehicles. 5. That.there be no display of banners, noisy ribbons or similar attention distracting or visibility obscuring device in front of building setback lines. The applicant has verbally indicated they will abide by this stipulation. 6. That all exterior lighting be so designed, placed and operated as not be a nuisance to adjacent properties. The applicant is working with alighting contractor to develop a lighting plan which meets this stipulation. Plans have not been submitted for staff review. 7. All signs must be designed to meet the city's sign ordinance. The signage has not been designed at this point. the applicant has indicated that they will comply with the city's sign ordinance. 8. That Walser Corporation escrow $5,000 with the city for use for the construction of barriers, cul -de -sacs, diverters or other traffic control improvements on 77th Street and Morgan Avenue if deemed necessary by the city. The city will haveinitially. made Morgan Avenue a one way southbound south of 77th Street and will monitor the impact on traffic in residential areas north of 77th Street, especially on Morgan Avenue. The city will also explore other options such as barriers, cul-de-sacs and diverters. The escrow will be provided. _9. A fence shall be installed on the north side of the subject property. The fence shall be constructed of materials sufficient to reduce noise and glare. Landscaping, including shrubs and trees shall also be provided. Final plans which include fence and landscaping shall be approved by city staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.. A revised landscape plan will be submitted showing the fence. 10 A complete landscaping plan showing areas of landscaping, landscaping material by species_, size and.exact location shall be approved by the city prior to the issuance of a building permit. A complete landscape plan has been submitted showing the required information. .11. A lease agreement providing for the lease of city right -of- way used by Walser shall be executed within 60 days. The lease agreement has been executed. Subsequent to that approval Walser Corporation has attempted to obtain financing, close on the property, relocate the tenants and begin construction. They have however been unable to come to terms with two existing tenants in the Viking Center Plaza. Because of this Walser Corporation is now requesting an amendment to their special use permit to allow them to construct a phase development. In the first phase of development they would maintain the northerly portion of the.Viking Center structure for these existing two tenants. The leases have. different.terms but the longest of these would run until July, 1989. Upon termination of.these leases Walser would remove the building and complete the improvements as were. ,originally approved by the city. In the interim Walser would not be able to complete a portion of the landscape improvements along 77th Street. Access to 77th Street from the site would be maintained for parking for. the existing two tenants. A_.portion of the proposed parking lot for service vehicles and employee vehicles would not be constructed until the building is removed. Walser Corporation would designate the required total 99 parking spaces for service vehicles.,.employee vehicles,, parts customers and other customers. This would result in the reduction of display parking spaces. To guarantee that the plan would.be completed as originally approved Walser Corporation has agreed to.provide the city with a $50,000 cash escrow as security to insure completion. Staff has also received a complaint from .a property owner at 7713 Morgan Avenue South concerning the parking and traffic situation on Morgan Avenue, south of 77th Street. The property owner objects to the fact that the city has designated Morgan Avenue a one way south, south of 77Th Street and to the parking situation on Morgan Avenue. It was indicated that this makes it difficult • for her to lease space in the building because it makes access to her building more difficult_. She has indicated that she would like to see the one way designation removed and that parking restrictions be put on Morgan Avenue. This matter has been referred to the.traffic control committee for further study and recommendations. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the amended special use permit with the previous-11 stipulations and the 2 additional stipulations outlined in the staff recommendation. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council approve the amended special use permit and offstreet parking permit with the previous 11 stipulations and with.the following two additional stipulations: 1. That Walser Corporation post a $50,000 cash security with the city to ensure completion of..the.project as previously approved by the city. 2. That the curb cut to 77th Street be closed in the first phase to prevent access to 77th Street by Walser Mazda customers and employees. Basis of Recommendation: The basis for the recommendation is the following: • 1. The final completion of the project will be consistent with the previously approved plan. The only change is to the timing of the project and the date when it is ultimately completed.. 2. Impact of the interim plan will be minimal. The screening and buffering adjacent to the apartments will be completed in the first phase. The portion of the Viking Center structure which remains will buffer the residential property north of 77th Street from the automobile dealership until such time as it is removed and replaced with the landscaping and fence buffer in the second phase of the development. The uses remaining in the structure currently exist in the Viking Center.and should have minimal impact on the residential neighborhood north of 77th Street. The one potential impact on the neighborhood results from the curb cut remaining onto 77th Street. This would allow customers or employees from the Mazda dealership to leave the site on 77th Street and potentially add to traffic in the area. After completion of the second phase all traffic has to leave via 78th Street or Morgan Avenue and because Morgan Avenue is a one way going south.this traffic would have to use 78th Street either to Penn Avenue or to Knox Avenue to leave the site and not through the residential area to the north. It is staff's opinion that either the curb cut should be closed.in phase .one or access to the curb cut from the Mazda facility be • eliminated to minimize the impact on the adjacent neighborhood. • 3. There would be sufficient parking spaces on the site.to handle customer, employee, and.service vehicles. Walser Corporation would continue to maintain the required 99 designated parking spaces on the site. The only loss of parking would be display parking in the first phase. 4. With the $50,000 escrow there would be sufficient.security to guarantee the completion of the plan as previously approved. Alternative Recommendation.: 1. The alternative recommendation would be to deny the special use permit and offstreet parking permit and require that the project be constructed in a single phase as was.previously approved. The city would have to make findings of fact showing that the revision being proposed would have adverse impact on the area. 2. An alternate to closing of curb cut to 77th Street from the Viking Center in order to limit Walser traffic on 77th could be implemented. One possibiliey would be to elimiate access to the area "retail area" of the Viking Center from the Walser area to the South. _Discussiop /Decision Mode: A hearing on this matter is scheduled before the City Council on August 10, 1987. A notice of this hearing was mailed to property owners in the area lying between Penn Avenue and 35W and between 76th Street and 494. Published notice was also provided. • Respectfully submitted, Ja' D. Prosser Ci Manager JDP /dkh 3 • K 0 MORGAN D 0 OV1 A U1 j e• V V V A A A A A A A A f N O O b v V A ti' • V N= 71 7 ! ! f O O - a• f f !i f > f O O • 1 .�0 WINES AVE. Asa - =3- _ ^� :'a- ate''„_•° '-'- ""'t:• ^-'::_s - �-"�'_'.'.:_""' •- r.."-- ----vr XERXES AVE. WASNOURN . —= _ f =� -- ^�. -.�' 1j .. `-�•yl WASNEURN VINCENT VINCENT UPTON it `�� — ^ - ^J = r--- ��-'1� 1 - - -i UPTON TMOYAS THOMAS SNERIOAN C- ^ ^ �^1— �� ~? -- -- --;1 SHERIDAN RU SSELI II �7 ��C—- i�- •iI_ ^a�^^ :J� RUSSELL QUEEN t .i r= .I OuEEN PENN AVE. -= _ .0 PENN AVE. OLIVER i,,p OLIVER 1 -•. ' �^• 1 NEWTON NEWTON I » k= '�_- -• J 1.� _� + —JC ti %t = wORGAM MORGAN LOG A it K ox .!AYES E ::., IRVING - --�" _ L_IL�(L�__J' +p•I HUMSOLOT •::. .y;pt: ^1 ij Af �L_�l_. ;� ^r,.7.1 GIRARD i L ::��; •• . Lj�� -�� r t ---- �� \ � EMERSON �,��: �•� .:• � o ��II DUPONT • •: .::• .. f 1 ^mac \� /. �� i�' COLFAX cc BRYANT •%•niS1L'�� J.1 i t••• ° -.•r` 1 �•,\ j C LVNOALE AVE. .., GARFIELD r • I ��. i I I . �'--- -'^l 1-- ❑ l_ -III HARRANIET VU '`�.�.- ,+.�'•.+b• PLEASANT nLLSSURr WENTWORTH Q'--1 II SLAISDEu �I NICOLLET AVE. ISO I II STEVENS I . �I �Q]�Cl -�: zP. _ I r •••AVE•. •••S. —�L^J L— �hL ^ ^�_�I' �L-- 'J CLINTON ,I SIN L_�• -- +� �--I � PORTLAND AVE —�; J.••—-- �r��.1.— �L�1�� -�t —. u�11..'� ' ,• OAKLAND L,I PARK COLUMBUS CHICAGO ELL10T 1218. 4- r- %•��1— =;—. �QCC,C�n 13 1% 14 IN IN II .trt L� IS IIi.r�•�- ' 1BLOOMINGTON 16 ON 9LOpY1NGTON II'•�IIr-- ��.•��^T= ^'\, ( ^ -� ^I QQQ — 1 17tH I I 1.111 I '�— '�^) �L_� �^ �• - - -: �'i \�,'- ^•�= ��'� ' CEDAR AVE. CEDAR AVE. - - ----------- ___-+- �1 - -.1 x_)71; �,�____ �____/•� -y� � IONGFEIIOW -___ -___ \ --- LONGFELIOw _ ru^- 1 , `� —� 191N rn I i rn � ZA - �� 22M STANDISH c-m 27N = rn '1 <r s� z: z 1 ' o v v 0 0 O. a Z C Z c M. 0 2 r C, C z Z Rit 1 7 I. 114 P. / • P14�s s C _ _ 'ti •� N00 Y303 � a • N PNpO� a O O a ONPP o s` N �� mNiD m m 1 ' o 4H i m -c A4Q- l If 111= t. ;I�t lllllli�I ,r��; EF-11 D si x� s �w�wj wj wj wjwl Mj wj wj wlw w! i t ' � wl iiwi ii wjriw Waro� •uac•a AV E• 5 g s a� D % V S S m H 2 m � 8888��x _..ePw.YUU.Pn••m I;Y.Y itt I! Y��jt � iol' ti 4 a R 13 liijtit;i 1 N m ..i N �� mNiD m m 4H a� D % V S S m H 2 m � 8888��x _..ePw.YUU.Pn••m I;Y.Y itt I! Y��jt � iol' ti 4 a R 13 liijtit;i 1 N m ..i A 86 91' lip. p E -.90. A v N N, ITI JL A . I 7 r 0 jo. SERVICE PARKIN101 CUSTOMER PARKING . . . . . . J, A A V E s Qa o us M 0 R G A N mmove ExIsr'"Ilk culm OUT -0 � or M 1 N ?i {r 1 J c m m Z X N oil 'I w ,t b I li fn ZI V� F( Cu m T M rG Z C W r • s 4y 1L U . t � ilILR� ` 3A 25 { A4 3 9 1 1 S• ---r - -. _ v .. _2�_7 MARY LEE (Marly) WHITING, Director • *CANINE COLLEGE 5221 KELLOGG AVENUE • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55424 • (612) 922 -5015 (612) 922 -6485 July 22, 1987 TO: Richfield Planning Commission RE: 7700 -7750 Morgan Avenue South As the ot,�ner of the property at 7713 °organ Avenue South and further as the operator of Canine College which has been in business at that address nearly twenty -five years I strongly object to the management of the block of 7700 -7750 tMorgan Avenue South. There was no hearing on maRzi.ng it a one -way street. One -way signs suddenly appeared with no warning and almost immediately my clients were being tagged for parking the wrong way - and all this was happening while the Worth bound stop sign was still intact'. 1-1y property has been depreciated by making this one block one -way. There is no access to 7713 Morgan Avenue South from the frontage road. In addition street parking is nearly non - existent during daytime hours due to employee parking. These two situations have contributed to our difficulty the last year in leasing this property. i suggest the Planning Commission remove the one -way restriction on this block and 1 ii I? street parking to two hours during daytime hours so that all property owners have access to the street parking. �Maree :a "niGti�n/g copy: Rice_ Jopke 17-41- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 241 Agenda August 10, 1987 Issue Statement: Public hearing on the request for a preliminary plat approval creating two new single family residential lots at 7234 -14th Avenue South. Background: Mr. Tim Gleason, property owner at 7234 14th Avenue South, has requested that the city approve a preliminary plat. The Planning Commission has previously recommended approval of this preliminary plat which was denied by the City Council. Subsequently,. Mr. Gleason asked the City Council to reconsider their action and submitted a lega -1 memo on the issue. The City Council did not reconsider the matter; however, the preliminary plat has been resubmitted and the Planning Commission has again recommended City Council approval. The latest proposal is substantially the same as the earlier proposal which would subdivide an existing single family residential lot into two new lots that would also meet the requirements of the existing single family residential ('R') zoning district. The newly created lot one would have an area of 9,141.988 square feet. As depicted on the plat, this would accommodate the existing dwelling and relocated garage and meet the locational requirements for both. The newly created lot two would have an area of 6,813.988 square feet. This includes some 2,368 square feet of buildable area with maximum permitted lot coverage of 1,703.5 square feet which would be adequate to build a house and garage. Exact location and size of dwelling is not required to be submitted at this time. Both lots meet the minimum lot area and width requirements and other locational requirements could be met by proper placement of improvements. The building on the proposed lot one fronts 14th Avenue and the other-lot fronts Diagonal Boulevard. All utilities are available within close proximity. Considerable neighborhood opposition was expressed at the previous Planning Commission and City Council hearings. The opponents felt that the lots would be too small, that the houses would be too close together, that the proposal would not be in character with the surrounding neighborhood, `and that there could be parking and traffic problems in the neighborhood. The applicant has also collected signatures of a number of property owners supporting the subdivision. A petition map is attached for your review. Mr. Blair Campbell, property owner at 7239 -14th Avenue south raised the issue of enforcing a restrictive covenant regarding the development of Fallden's Fourth Addition. At the request of the Planning Commission, legal counsel for the City of Richfield advised that the city does not have the authority to enforce the covenant or to consider the covenant in connection with this subdivision request. The written opinion from the city attorney's office is attached for your information. Zoning Ordinance Requirement: 1. Section 3.30, subdivision 4, indicates that the minimum lot area, lot width and setback requirements in 'R' district. 2. Section 3.59, outlines the requirements for approval of the preliminary plat. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat as shown for the property located at 7234 -14th Avenue South with the stipulation that the single family dwelling on lot 2 and the driveway from Diagonal Boulevard meet all city requirements. Basis of Recommendation: The basis for the staf7 recommendation is the following: 1. Staff has reviewed the preliminary plat against the requirements indicated in the subdivision and zoning ordinances and find that the requirements for the subdivision approval have been met. 2. The Planning Commission voted 8 -0 to, recommend approval of the subdivision. Alternative Recommendation: The alternative recommendation would be'to deny the subdivision request. The City Council would have to make findings to justify the denial. Discussion /Decision-Mode: A public hearing has been scheduled before the City Council at 7:00 PM, Monday August 10, 1987. Written notice of the council hearing was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the property. Legal notice of the hearing was also published in the Richfield Sun newspaper. Respectfully submitted, James . Prosser . City M nager JDP /dkh For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the City has neither standing to enforce nor the authority to consider the restrictive covenant in connection with the subdivision application. I. Standinq to Enforce. In the real estate context, restrictive covenants are, generally, restrictions placed upon the use of land. They are ordinarily contained in a deed of conveyance or other similar instrument. For example, A sells Blackacre to B. The deed from A to B conveys Blackacre to B but restricts B's use of Blackacre by containing a provision that no tar paper shacks may be erected on Blackacre. • This provision is a restrictive covenant and prohibits B, or B's successors in interest, from erecting tar paper shacks on Blackacre. As a general rule, the restrictive f LeFevere Lef ler • Kennedc '& O'Brien Drava a Professional Association 2000 Frst Bank Place West July 6, 1987 Minneepous Minnesota 55402 Telephone 1612) 333-0543 Telecooier (612) 333-0540 James Prosser Clayton L. LeFevere City Manager Heroert P. Lever City of Richfield J. John E. Craw rawz John E. z 6700 Portland Ave., S. David J. Kennedy Richfield, MN 55423 Joseon E. Hamilton G�eG;enn E. Purdue nB.Oean Re: Impact on Restrictive Covenants on Subdivision :Richard J. Schieffer Approval. Chanes L. LeFevere ,4eroert P. Lefler III Dear Jim .tames J. Thomson, Jr. -homas R. Galt Davie Nolan We have been informed that the Planning Commission Brian John G. Kressel recently delayed action on a subdivision application Y Y ar•- sM.Strommen pending a legal opinion from this office on the effect of H. Batty a restrictive covenant on that action. V P. Jordan <urt J. Erickson Vlliam R. Skailerud The issues upon which we have been asked to render an ?ccnev D. Ancerson opinion were well stated in a recent letter from Byron Ccmne A. Heine Wallace David D. Beaudoin -'aul E. Rasmussen Steven M.Tallen [W]hether or not the City has standing to Mary F. Skala Chnstcoher J. Hamsthal enforce such restrictive covenant or to Timothy J. Pawlenry consider such in the pending subdivision Roif A. Sponneim matter. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the City has neither standing to enforce nor the authority to consider the restrictive covenant in connection with the subdivision application. I. Standinq to Enforce. In the real estate context, restrictive covenants are, generally, restrictions placed upon the use of land. They are ordinarily contained in a deed of conveyance or other similar instrument. For example, A sells Blackacre to B. The deed from A to B conveys Blackacre to B but restricts B's use of Blackacre by containing a provision that no tar paper shacks may be erected on Blackacre. • This provision is a restrictive covenant and prohibits B, or B's successors in interest, from erecting tar paper shacks on Blackacre. As a general rule, the restrictive • James Prosser July 6, 1987 Page 2 covenant may be enforced by anyone for whose benefit the restriction was created. Normally, this group includes the person who created the restriction together with any subsequent owners of land purchased from such person and located adjacent to the parcel subject to the restric- tion. A well drawn restrictive covenant will actually designate who may enforce it. In the case pending before the Planning Commission, the instrument creating the restrictive covenants, also contains the following language: If the parties hereto or any of them or their heirs or assigns shall violate or attempt to violate any of the covenants herein, it shall be lawful for any other person or persons owning any real property situate in said development of subdivision ( Fallden's Fourth Addition] to prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity versus the person or persons violating or attempting to violate any such covenant .... • Consequently, the direct right to enforce the restrictive covenants applicable to Fallden's Fourth Addition rest entirely and exclusively with the other owners of land in that subdivision. The City is not an owner and consequently does not have a direct right of enforcement.- II. Consideration of Restrictive Covenant in Subdivision Action. Although the City has no standing to directly enforce the restrictive covenant, can it properly consider the restrictive. covenant when it considers the resubdivision of a lot in the subdivision. The key restrictive covenant provides that no single family residence may be constructed on a lot which contains less than 7,900 square feet. The proposed new subdivision creates two lots of approximately 9,142 and 6,814 square feet. Both lots are within the City's minimum lot size for the zoning district (6,750 square feet). One of the lots is less than the minimum lot size for the construc- tion of a single family dwelling as established in the restrictive covenant. We conclude that the City may not consider the minimum lot size contained in the restrictive covenant in • connection with its subdivision review for two reasons: i • LJ James Prosser July 6, 1987 Page 3 1. The restrictive covenant does not relate specific- ally to lot size, but rather addresses the size of lot upon which a single family residence may be built. Therefore, the restrictive covenant by its terms would have no direct application to the subdivision, but rather (if at all) to the owner's efforts to build a house on the newly subdivided lot. 2. The Minnesota Supreme Court has made it quite clear that, in considering subdivisions, a City may only be guided by the provisions of its subdivision and zoning ordinances. If the proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the subdivision regula- tions and meets the lot area, the lot dimension provisions of the zoning ordinance, a request may not be denied because of the existence of a restric- tive covenant which contains stricter requirements. In the case of Odell v. City of Eagan (copy attached), the Court made the following cryptic statement: The restrictive covenants are private matters to be resolved by the parties to the covenant, and not the City. Consequently, it is our opinion that not use the restrictive covenant to im standard upon the proposed plat than thos the subdivision and zoning ordinances of tr This is not to suggest- that owners within the Faliden's Fourth Addition plat claim against the subdivider. However, independent of the inquiry which the City by law, to make. Respectfull yours, )Jhn B. Dean JBD:rsr Enclosure the City may nose a higher r contained in e City. of other land do not have a such claim is is permitted, C I T Y O F R I C H F I E L D, M I N N E S O T A C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T Item #1 Case #87 -SD -3 Agenda of June 23, 1987 Planning Commission City of Richfield Issue Statement: Public hearing on the request for a preliminary plat approval creating two new single family residential lots at 7234 -14th Avenue South. Backaround: Mr. Tim Gleason, property owner at 7234 14th Avenue South has requested that the city approve a preliminary plat. The Planning Commission has previously recommended approval of this preliminary plat which was denied by the City Council upon reconsideration. Subsequently, Mr. Gleason asked the City Council to reconsider their action and submitted a legal memo on is the issue. The proposal remains the same. The existing single family residential lot would be subdivided into two new single family residential lots. The existing single family dwelling with a detached garage on the site. Mr. Gleason now wishes to subdivide the property. The site is in single family residential ('R') zoning district. The newly created lot 1, would have an area of 9,141.988 square feet and accommodate the existing dwelling with a garage. The existing garage would be relocated to the east and meet the requirements for accessory structure in the single family residence district. The plat now shows the new location of the garage. The existing dwelling would continue to meet minimum setback requirements. The newly created lot 2, would have an area of 6,813.988 square feet and would accommodate a new single family dwelling. A single family dwelling could be constructed on lot 2 which would meet minimum setback requirements. The exact size and location of the dwelling is not known at this time. Both the newly created lot 1 and lot 2 would meet the minimum lot area and lot width requirements. There is a concrete driveway . which provides access to the existing garage from Diagonal Boulevard. The existing driveway would be relocated but the future location is not yet determined. • The dwelling on the proposed lot 1 fronts 14th Avenue and the proposed dwelling on lot 2 would front Diagonal Boulevard. All utilities are available within close proximity of the site. Considerable neighborhood opposition was expressed at the previous Planning Commission and City Council hearings. The opponents felt that the lots would be too small, that the houses would be too close together, that the proposal would not be in character with the surrounding neighborhood, and that there could be parking and traffic problems in the neighborhood. The applicant has also collected signatures of a number of property owners supporting the subdivision. A petition map is attached for your review. Zoning Ordinance Requirement: 1. Section 3.30, subdivision 4, indicates that the minimum lot area, lot width and setback requirements in 'R' district. 2. Section 3.59, outlines the requirements for approval of the preliminary plat. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat as shown for the property located at • 7234 -14th Avenue South with the stipulation that the single family dwelling on lot 2 and the driveway from Diagonal Boulevard meet all city requirements. Basis of Recommendation: The basis for the staff recommendation is the following: Staff has reviewed the preliminary plat against the requirements indicated in the subdivision and zoning ordinances and find that the requirements for the subdivision approval have been met. Alternative Recommendation: The alternative recommendation would be to deny the subdivision request. The Planning Commission would have to make findings to justify the denial. Staff is of the opinion that the information provided on the preliminary plat is adequate for approval of the request and the proposal meets the city's minimum standards for lot area and width. Therefore, there may not be sufficient basis for denial of the preliminary plat. Decision Mode: A public hearing has been scheduled before the Planning Commission at 7:30 PM, Tuesday, June 23, 1987. The council should consider this matter at their July 13, 1987 meeting. Respectfully submitted, - CY�lc� _r Towhid Kazi Assistant Planner is N N L b Y1 Z 2 Y _ o g. r ti' J t 2 - N N N N L F f IL - r - - -r+• 3nr yr033 �,�•, ••_ =,--_ _ �✓'� via 140L9NSwoc're VV ZZ v363 5J any >,ya3O �--` �..J'._. -- V113 L N019Niw00t8 1�� 1 ui SS L. --•�� 432+ i 1031't3 ' i � s OrO1NO + j aNylLtlad {,/ '3nr 43S s. ys.=- � 'j"li�- -�..- `- -,��- •^"...� =�_�_ f�- NO1N11O Cl- ant 13'3100 1 .�- -' �' � �- �' ^.._ —' . -•• � -j-y" --- Z Sr16 11 1 G 11305 ' l' ✓ �, \• ',. '^ •- �� 1, ,rte-- - `/ al31dyr9 MIaON'1438 ,11 J- �•,�� _- •�.�.�•,,,, �... �� G�•IJ n'/ 3,y0x}1 13 dar9 3 0'� J '311r 31rONA NOS N:,V yf0 1Nr Atl8'''� '�� Y J �' ;r��•amr.- -1� O '[ .- -•- '�,A J ` Otl108 N 1•; xr�,00 ` tit "'Sol i as li ��;�"'�..; —��r^" -�'- - _-•��! r,.- ,.�'��5 NVON on M'314 S XOx %� ,'. -• ! �,•-� �,', rf r-^' /'-• -- ��,r— _ "'_� -• •_ -'•r �-. .30 NN3d Nr01��Ii �� %�'.---- '��- �..�� "� -, ' ••`� 113ssna Nr9tlaw �'r...�� --- �— _.•_.- �� ° -- 3 Nvotv3Ns 3hr NN3d i - ..%4'•` _ = •� �. ____.�� -�S �••- "•r'i', xIJ+ x33 _ .�--- r•-" �..�` +. neNSy „3ssny 1' -, ±'., •- ^�� --•i�, ��^� - y:�_� '1. xtl1143% NSA ^i►- nr Shr 53Xa3 " F O N `R O 6 U • O;ol* 02 � o � v c m � m ° m v O � r r z rrr.rPrr vrr.rrrrr <o \�T:l La of ' sp cr O • 'V N w .�' tp woo WOO G � m lea L PV St�l U) 0 yon IV 0 HTH AVENUE so. CD > 0 c m 3: _0 7% 0 r X 12 TH AVENUE 13TH BLOOMINGTON AVENUE i� 15TH z 0 3:1 16TH AVE. S. 1 - . F. BLOOMINGTON AVENUE i� 15TH z 0 3:1 16TH AVE. S. 1 - 11TH AVENUE S0. 12TH i16 r, O -q C0 O --°v v • 13TH immom immoml O 1 CD zi a i V � z BLOOMINGTON O v m : �w N v O CD m *1* *\�', AVENUE AVENUE p i V � z m v � N O z m � 15TH a c` -0 16TH EVE. S. 41 REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION /PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PURPOSE OF �p� ��ld�•11-��4c. %j� Legal Oescription: We, the undersigned, teing owners of immediate adjoining land as Move descrited, do herety concur with the sutdivision /preliminary plat requested. Signature of Owners* Address I I I i l I 1 i { I I ! I ( I i I I I f I ! I I I { ! I I _ I f j ! ! I i I I I i ! ! I I I I I I I I i � I I ! I i ! I ! I I I *Signatures may not to removed once the petition is signed and returned to the Planning Division. T0: Mayor John Hamilton and Council Members= City of Richfield, Minnesota Reauest for Subdivision/Preliminary Plat at 7234 -14th Avenue So. for the purpose of- creating Two single Family Residential Lots: c • We, the undersigned, being dame owners in the immedate neighborhood of the request for subdivision/ preliminary plat at 7234 -14th Avenue So. Do hereby concur with the request... Signature of rs: /j Address Ii OWN 04— 1 FIRT, CC. I • • k TO: Mayor John Hamilton and Council members City of Richfield, Minnesota We, the undersigned, being Home owners in the neighborhood of the request for subdivision / prelimimar•/ plat at 72'14 -24th Avenue So. Did Yet see a drawing of the proposed new lot With the garage moved. We here by concur With the subdivision preliminary plat request. Signature of Owners Address vC • TO: mayor ,Zahn Hamilton and Council Members; City of Richfield, Minnesota °eauest for Subdivision/Preliminary Plat at 7234 -14th Avenue So. for the purpose of- creating Two single Family Residential Lots: We, the undersigned, being home owners in the immedate neighborhood of the request for subdivision/ preliminary plat at 7234 -14th Avenue So. Do hereby concur with the request... Signature of Owners: Address I') / t • 1 �-1 C c ^he reas -ns we ob ;Act is that this area is a beauti''ul area .)f Richfield and h -s been so for over 30 years. It would spoil the asymmetrical lock of the area and give it a squeezed in and crowded look. Due to the contour of the location of said new dwelling it will cause congestion in the movement of traffic both on 14th Ave. and DiaFOnal Blvd. By adding another new dwelling you are also adding a new garage whose only access will be on Diagonal Blvd. Also as you ca.n see 14th Ave. makes a dog leg at Diagonal Blvd. which further complicates the traffic problem. Also if this petition is approved it is very possible it will set a precedent and others will follow-suit, thus causing ov-r crowding and traffic rroblems. r • 0 • REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION /PRELIMINARY PLAT Block 4, Lot 7 (7234 -14 Ave.S, hearing reasons against creating two new FOR PURPOSE OF sin-ale-family residential lots. - Legal Description: We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby object to the subdivision /preliminary plat requested. Signature of Owners* Address ire . I i 73aS' . 73o g /3• s I I I <1 I I I I � , 'G I 173 /3rz-� Ae S- I Si atures may not(L-e/Iremoved once the petition is signed and returned to the Plan-King Division. • REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION /PRELIMINARY PLAT at 7234 14th Ave. So, FOR PURPOSE OF cre -tins two new single family residential lots Legal Description: We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby c1, -C-t fb subdivision /preliminary plat requested. Signature of Owners* Address I ' I � I I { I z _ Ar 1 7 '?� = /s- Ave-, 'S� t t 0 l5 N14-- s I of 1 "73 I I 1 a _ — . { I I I i I { . I { i { *Signatures may not be removed once the petition is signed and returned to the Planning Division. • MAHONEY, DOUGHERTY AND MAHONEY PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS 801 PARK AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55404 -1189 Timothy J. Gleason 7234 14th Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Gleason: (612) 339 -5863 May 8, 1987 In re Subdivision of Present Lot into 2 New Single Family Residential Lots OF COUNSEL VERNON J. SCHWEIGER G. P. MAHONEY (1890.1962) G. J. MAHONEY (1923.1969) You informed our office that you had made a request to • the City of Richfield for a preliminary plat approval creating two new single family residential lots out of the one lot now at 7234 14th Avenue South and that the City Council had denied the request at a council hearing held on April 13, 1987. QUESTION You had asked whether the city council's decision was proper, and, if not, could that decision be reversed? CONCLUSION In our opinion, the decision of the City Council on April 13, 1987 was arbitrary as a matter of law and, by lawsuit for declaratory judgment in the Hennepin County District Court, the decision could be reversed. A less expensive and speedier remedy would be to obtain a reconsideration by the Richfield City Council. DISCUSSION Our conclusion above is based upon the facts and the law set out in this discussion. Attached is a copy of Council Letter #113 which sets out the basic facts of the description of your existing lot and the resulting lots 1 and 2, including their total area stated in square feet. The minimum zoning ordinance requirments are set out in Sections 3.30, Subd. 4 _which describes t the minimum lot area, lot width and se back requirements in your P. MAHONEY •RICHARD THOMAS E. DOUGHERTY JAMES M. MAHONEY KENNETH GLEASON DALE B. LINDMAN GARY C. REITER RANDEE S. HELD PATRICK J. SAUTER KEITH A. OUNDER SANDRA J. SKLUZAC£K PATRICK E. MAHONEY DAWN R. GUSTAFSON THOMAS E. MARSHALL JAMES M. LEHMAN DAVID E. KUNTZ SHEILA A. ENGELMEIER MAHONEY, DOUGHERTY AND MAHONEY PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS 801 PARK AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55404 -1189 Timothy J. Gleason 7234 14th Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Gleason: (612) 339 -5863 May 8, 1987 In re Subdivision of Present Lot into 2 New Single Family Residential Lots OF COUNSEL VERNON J. SCHWEIGER G. P. MAHONEY (1890.1962) G. J. MAHONEY (1923.1969) You informed our office that you had made a request to • the City of Richfield for a preliminary plat approval creating two new single family residential lots out of the one lot now at 7234 14th Avenue South and that the City Council had denied the request at a council hearing held on April 13, 1987. QUESTION You had asked whether the city council's decision was proper, and, if not, could that decision be reversed? CONCLUSION In our opinion, the decision of the City Council on April 13, 1987 was arbitrary as a matter of law and, by lawsuit for declaratory judgment in the Hennepin County District Court, the decision could be reversed. A less expensive and speedier remedy would be to obtain a reconsideration by the Richfield City Council. DISCUSSION Our conclusion above is based upon the facts and the law set out in this discussion. Attached is a copy of Council Letter #113 which sets out the basic facts of the description of your existing lot and the resulting lots 1 and 2, including their total area stated in square feet. The minimum zoning ordinance requirments are set out in Sections 3.30, Subd. 4 _which describes t the minimum lot area, lot width and se back requirements in your MAHONEY. DOUGHERTY AND MAHONEY� • Timothy J. Gleason May 8, 1987 Page 2 zoning district and Section 3.59 which outlines the requirements for approval of the preliminary plat. The Planning Commission for the City.of Richfield concluded that all minimum subdivision'and zoning ordinance requirements have been met. A copy of the minutes of a regular meeting of the Richfield City Council of April 13, 1987 are attached.. Your request is Item 8 on that agenda beginning on page 4 of the minutes. On page 5 of the minutes the reasons stated by councilmembers for their eventual denial were that the lot would "not be compatible in the neighborhood due to the configuration of the lot," and "the proposal was not appropriate for the lot." These reasons in our view are not legally sufficient and further review of the area indicates that they are not accurate. The part of the lot which is called Number 2 in Council Letter 113 would face a Diagonal Boulevard. A review of the plat of the area shows that on the Diagonal Boulevard which runs from 13th Avenue to Cedar Avenue that there are 36 lots touching • Diagonal Boulevard and 30 of them are irregular shapes like lot Number 2 and only 6 are rectangular- shaped. A number of other facts regarding the shape and appropriateness of the proposed Lot Number 2 are notable by reviewing the plat of property between 72nd and 74th Street on 13th Avenue, 14th Avenue, and 15th Avenue. In that area there are 89 single family residences and two double bungalows or duplexes. The new lot ( #2) would have an 86 -foot frontage at the property line and over 90 feet frontage at the curb line on Diagonal Boulevard. In comparison to the 89 other lots in the area identified, the proposed new lot would be wider at the front property line than 78% of those lots and measured at the curb line it would be wider than 92 %. One of the two duplexes has only 45 feet on Diagonal Boulevard. Thus it is our opinion that, contrary to the comments made about the lot it is in fact compatible with the neighborhood, the configuration of the lot is consistent with the neighborhood, and, since the narrow point of the lot is at the rear, the impression from the street should be of a lot much larger than the average lot in the neighborhood. This discussion is important to the potential reconsideration by the Richfield City Council. The essential legal point is that the lot meets all requirements of Richfield ordinances and in such cases, the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Odell v. City.of Egan, 348 N.W. 2d 792, 796 (Minn. App. 1984), has recently quoted the Minnesota Supreme Court stating: MAHONEY, DOUGHERTY AND MAHONEY\ Timothy J. Gleason May 8,1987 Page 3 A&--I '19 "When a 'subdivision ordinance specifies standards to which a proposed plat must conform, it is arbitrary as a matter of law to deny approval of a plat which complies in all respects with the subdivision ordinance.' National Capital Corporation v. Village of Inver Grove Heights, 301 Minn. 335, 337, 222 N.W. 2d 550, 552 (1974), (quoting Hay v. Township of Grow, 294 Minn. 1, 5, 206 N.W. 2d, 19, 22 (1973)." Finally, we reitterate our previous conclusion that if the city council of the City of Richfield is not willing to reverse itself, then we are confident that the District Court of Hennepin County will order the city to allow the subdivision. • JL:dmg Enclosures w Very truly yours, MAHONEY, DOUGHERTY AND MAHONEY James M. Lehman �� i r� CITY OF RICHFLELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 240 Agenda, August 10, 1987 Issue Statement: Request for permit for illuminated sign at 704 West 66th Street, Market Plaza, for Block Buster Video. Background: City ordinance provides that the city council must approve all permits for illuminated signs. Signcrafters request a permit to erect a 19' X 2' single faced illuminated sign. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that city council approve the permit for the illuminated sign. Basis For Recommendation: 1.. The Inspection Division and the Planning Division have approved the sign. 2. The sign conforms to all applicable city ordinances. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not approve the permit."''However, the city has no alternative design criteria to suggest for substitutes for this sign. • Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the consent calendar portion of the August 10, 1987 council agenda for consideration. The business is requesting action to complete their sign placement of this new business establishment. Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci Manager JDP /sae Jr E. J. PLESKO & ASSOCIATES, INC. August 6, 1987 TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND STAFF FROM: Mike Gould, Vice President RE: Blockbuster Video Signage at MARKET PLAZA, 600 West 66th Street, Richfield. 1. As the managing general partner for Market Plaza, we have negotiated and executed a lease for BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO which allows them to have "letters the size of the Drug Emporium sign ". A clause in their lease gives them the right to the lease within 25 days if they do not get approval for their desired signage. 2. In our approving these 40" letters, we have also agreed that the sign band on the front of the building can be increased in size. This was required for the Drug Emporium sign. 3. BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO is a national company. As a major tenant at Market Plaza, utilizing 7,600 square feet on the east end.of the building, they have their own sign criteria. We have agreed upon their sign criteria in our lease with them. BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO,.as a national company, is responsible to stockholders and in- vestors for the new stores it opens and for the amount of business they draw into these stores. The signs on a building attract the majority of their business. Most of their traffic is drive by traffic. The research done by BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO indicates they need this size sign to achieve the amount of business they have projected. 4. Our own particular sign criteria for the center specifies color, spacing and the type of sign. We feel these guidelines are strict and this is our way of control- ling sign unity on the building. It was not our intent to control specifically the size of letters. It is typical within the industry that strip shopping centers allow major anchor tenants to utilize letter size different from other tennants. The HUB shopping Center in Richfield is an example of this as well as other recently built shoppirU centers in the suburbs. 5. As the managing general partner, we negotiated this lease with BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO in good faith based upon past experience of the Drug Emporium sign. The Drug Em- porium sign had been passed by Planning and Council approval with staff support. The Drug Emporium sign has been up over 6 months. We did not know until the plan- ning meeting of two weeks ago, that this sign criteria presented any problem to the city. • Management Office 5300 Powerline Road Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 305 -771 -3334 E. J. Plesko & Associates, Inc. 340 Parkdale Plaza, 1660 So. Hwy. 100 Minneapolis, MN 55416 612 - 541 -0151 11518 N. Port Washington Rd., Suite 101 Mequon, WI 53092 414 - 241 -9060 DENY s 04 APPROVE DENY •_ _ r Cito Man. a nspec Date Date i ,n �pENYY ar APPRQVEl D Planning D tment j i !l19R17A�ellY e �wln }rgl lm City Council -Date 11 ' r Date taute:ao above for special approval per code _ General'Sirens r 7 77 '.., mA'PLICATION FOR ADVERTISING ,PERMIT City of RiChf ield, , Minnesota r ►erte ..-, Zoning, Si ed - FY, e0 • ga Erect Yes No e dregs Ab/,; P!vprietor Name . .. 40n Er. : 4Ardress ? ?` Design Weather Cover of Sin Li htin .�...„....__ Wall Single Face Clear Lexoa = Constant Projecting Double Face Frosted Lexoa Flashing Ground Multi- Faced'.. Plastic Covered Revolving' Roof Aerial /Blimp Shaded Traveling; Pedestal Searchlight Neon Zip Lite' 09hangeable Banner /Pennants Other Other(Explain) Temporary Portable Frame: Sign Color$``{ " t'? Trailer T C] A ❑ Post f Illuminated -Yes o Watts ectrical Contractor Address Phone roperty Owner or his Agent Signatur Phone stimated Cost Sign Width t- Q Height IL ' UTotal Square Feet ., osition of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, urbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on rawing with significant-dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as efined on page 2. wo blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: ncluding specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details nd a copy of the stress sheets,, calculations, color of sign structure. oes.the sign relate solely to the business, institution,. or activity conducted on he premises ? %Z9 ill the sign, gn, structure, or bilAboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over ors acces by pfso s des t ed for or passing the subject premises? •pplicant's Si uatu a and Tille rm Date �..• I—IF 7 'hone Number v — c .985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH yivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 W� �� 3 GROUND SIGN PEDESTAL SIGN PROJECTING SIGN WIDTH- •- ---- -- WIDTH- -WIDTH----�- LEGEND LEGEND Indic e,Distance - � F i From The , Hui1d g n GROUND / Indicate le end on the WA�L�IGN ROOF SIGN , , $ WIDTH WIDTH ""'- """''`I the reverse side in ` the space below LEGEND LEGEND LEGEND �j GROUND ROOF Place location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign i "fott- property liiie�_' Locate any traffic lights within 300.feet. DEFINITION Minor Signs Single or double faced sign less than131,sq. fto on a common board INDICATE NORTH 18/83 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 239 August 10, 1987 Issue Statement: Request or it uminated signs at Lieberman Interiors, 6427 Penn Avenue South. Background: City ordinance provides that the city council must approve all permits for illuminated signs. Lieberman Interiors wish to erect a 26' X 3' wall sign and a 10' X 61, double -faced pedestal sign. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the city council approve the permits for these illuminated signs. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The Inspection Division and the Planning Division have approved the signs. 2. The signs conform to all applicable city ordinances. Alternative Recommendation-: �. 1. Not approve the permits. However, the city has no alternative design criteria to suggest for substitutes for these signs. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been p aced on the consent calendar portion of the e August 10, 1987 council agenda for consideration. The businesses are requesting action to complete their-sign placement of these new business establishments. JDP /eja • Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci Manager T MOVE APPROVE DENY •City Manager Date T)ENY❑ : q, Pla,nning qepartment Date APPROVE APPROVE F-1 r DENY Inspdcto �L,. ; Date DENY[]: City Council Date 16oute to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, , Minnesota Date 7 -21 -87 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No x Fee Address of Sign _6427 Penn Ave. Proprietor Name Tan & Richard DBALieberman Lieberman Interiors Sign Erector Attracta Sign Inc. Address 6417 Penn Ave.So. Ty e of Sin wall sign DHS2Qn Wanthar rnear T.io}itino x Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer x Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants c� Portable Frame: T [] A n Post Clear Lexon x `Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon _ Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors ! i If Illuminated - Yes x No Watts it -� ectrical Contractor mn unn Electric Address 7045 Oliver Ave. So.Phone 866 -3902 Property Owner or his Agent Signature' ; % ._:_ _ Phone Estimated Cost �_•.� =,, Sign Width 252 Height 3' Total Square Feet 117' Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? ms's Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? no Applicant's Signature and " Title with Firm ',/ Date July 21., 1987 Phone Number 866 -3047 t X985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 • :_ City Manager Inspectol' /J1 Date Date APPROVE ® VENYO : APPROVE ❑ DENY FI : Planning Dep rtment City Council Date Date � � C Ah oute to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, , Minnesota i Date 7 -21 -87 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No x Fee Address of Sign 6427 Penn Ave. Proprietor Name Tan and Richard DBA Lieberman Lieberman Interiors Sign Erector Attracta Sian Inc. Address 6417 Penn Ave. So. of Sign Design Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: x Trailer L�J T [] A [3 Post Weather Cover Clear Lexon x Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors If Illuminated - Yes x No Watts /900 - -Electrical Contractor Don Von Electric Address 7045 Oliver Ave. So.Phone 866 -3902 *roperty Owner or his Agent Signature Phone f _ Estimated Cost Sign Width 10' Height 6' Total Square Feet 60' Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? yes Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? no :applicant's Signature ancr Title with Firm Date July N, 1987 Phone ;lumber 866 -3047 kt 85 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 �i `_ie��rrnaw� '� Zn {erlors ��i V�5COUN-v �' �pp,FER j' I, \JAL rot A 1 �1 0 'I'II c .II -1 1 x ,�. i. rTl CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 238 Agenda August 10, 1987 Issue Statement: Approval of Resolutions Declaring Costs to be Assessed for Removal of Diseased Trees from Private Property for the Period August 1, 1986 to July 31, 1987, and Setting Date of Hearing. Background: In order to limit the spread of Dutch elm disease, the city requires prompt removal of diseased trees. Once a diseased elm is identified, the property owner of a diseased tree has four options available: 1. Remove the tree themselves, 2. Hire and pay their own contractor, 3. Use the city's contractor and pay for the removal within 30 day, or 4. Use the city's contractor and request that the cost of the tree removal be assessed against their property taxes. • In the period from August 1, 1986 to July 31, 1987, 38 property owners chose the fourth option at a cost of $15,126.45. The original source of funding to have the work performed is through the city's Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund. The property owner may prepay the special assessment, but if it is certified on or before,October 10, 1987, for the 1988 taxes, the interest rate is 8% with payment spread over three years. L� Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment roll, and the resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for September, 14, 1987. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The work has been performed with prior approval from the affected residents. 2. Minnesota State Statute requires the County to be notified of all special assessments. Alternative Recommendation: Council may revise the special assessment roll as deemed necessary following the public hearing. Discussion /Decision Mode: With the exception of one listed property owner, all work was performed with prior approval from homeowners. Council may delay decision until August 24, 1987, keeping in mind the October 10, 1987 deadline for city certification. JDP /eja 0 Respectfully submitted, Ja es D. Prosser City Manager RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND • ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 1, 1986 TO JULY 31, 1987 WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the removal of diseased trees from the following private properties in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such work during the period of August 1, 1986 through July 31, 1987 amount to $15,126.45. PROPERTY ADDRESS P.I.N. 7400 1st Avenue South 34- 028 -24 -42 -0049 6500 Oliver Avenue South 28- 028 -24 -23 -0010 6344 20th Avenue South 25- 028 -24 -22 -0035 7209 Elliot Avenue South 35- 028. -24 -24 -0079 7312 Lyndale Avenue South 33- 028 -24 -14 -0002 7635 Oakland Avenue South 35- 028 -24 -33 -0029 7220 Penn Avenue South 32- 028 -24 -14 -0009 7344 Nicollet Avenue South 34- 028 -24 -24 -0112 6809 Penn Avenue South 28- 0.28 -24 -33 -0048 6829 Portland Avenue South 26- 028 -24 -33 -0110 6833 Portland Avenue South 26- 028 -24 -33 -0111 6821 Portland Avenue South 26- 028 -24 -33 -0108 220 East 66th Street 27- 028 -24 -24 -0058 6708 10th Avenue South 26- 028 -24 -14 -0026 6501 17th Avenue South 26- 028 -24 -14 -0026 6909 Newton Avenue South 28- 028 -24 -33 -0102 2916 West 71 1/2 Street 32- 028 -24 -12 -0072 7245 12th Avenue South 35- 028 -24 -13 -0001 711.5 13th Avenue South 35- 028 -24 -12 -0062 6516 16th Avenue South 26- 028 -24 -14 -0101 6338 Stevens Avenue South 27- 028 -24 -12 -0034 7438 Clinton Avenue South 34- 028 -24 -41 -0081 6329 14th Avenue South 26- 028 -24 -12 -0091 .7519 Girard Avenue South 33- 028 -24 -42 -0096 6445 14th Avenue South 26- 028 -24 -13 -0063 809 East 70th Street 35- 028 -24 -21 -0003 7214 Newton Avenue South 33- 028 -24 -33 -0049 7200 Upton Avenue South 35- 028 -24 -13 -0019 6229 Garfield Avenue South 27- 028 -24 -22 -0067 7614 1st Avenue( South 34- 028 -24 -43 -0056 100 East 66th Street 27- 028 -24 -13 -0075 7324 Emerson Avenue South 33- 028 -24 -13 -0065 7519 Girard Avenue South 33- 028 -24 -42 -0096 7536 Aldrich Avenue South 33- 028 -24 -41 -0137 7413 Emerson Avenue South 33- 028 -24 -42 -0018 7303 Nicollet Avenue South 34- 028 -24 -13 -0016 6825 11th Avenue 26- 028 -24 -34 -0010 6.821 Portland Avenue 26- 028 -24 -33 -0108 6821 Portland Avenue 26- 028 -24 -33 -0108 7433 Stevens Avenue 34- 028 -24 -42 -0027 WHEREAS, the city clerk has notified the City Council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 14th day of September, 1987 in the city hall council chambers at 7:.00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as it may be reached on the agenda, to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said diseased tree removal assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the diseased tree removal. He shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. John Hamilton, Mayor 01 ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • 0 Ll RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY: AUGUST 1, 1986 TO JULY 319 1987 WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield on August 10, 1987, the city clerk was directed to prepare assessment of the cost of removing diseased trees from the following private properties in the City of Richfield for the period of August 1, 1986 through July 31, 1987. PROPERTY ADDRESS 7400 1st Avenue South 6500 Oliver Avenue South 6344 20th Avenue South 7209 Elliot Avenue South 7312 Lyndale Avenue South 7635 Oakland Avenue South 7220 Penn Avenue South 7344 Nicollet Avenue South 6809 Penn Avenue South 6829 Portland Avenue South 6833 Portland Avenue South 6821 Portland Avenue South 220 East 66th Street 6708 10th Avenue South 6501 17th Avenue South 6909 Newton Avenue South 2916 West 71 1/2 Street 7245 12th Avenue South 7115 13th Avenue South 6516 16th Avenue South 6338 Stevens Avenue South 7438 Clinton Avenue South 7519 Girard Avenue South 6445 14th Avenue South 809 East 70th Street 7214 Newton Avenue South 7200 Upton Avenue South 6229 Garfield Avenue South 7614 lst Avenue South 100 East 66th Street 7324 Emerson Avenue South 7519 Girard Avenue South 7536 Aldrich Avenue South 7413 Emerson Avenue South 7303 Nicollet Avenue South 6825 11th Avenue 6821 Portland Avenue 6821 Portland Avenue 7433 Stevens Avenue P.I.N. 34- 028 -24 -42 -0049 28- 028 -24 -23 -0010 25- 028 -24 -22 -0035 35- 028 -24 -24 =0079 33- 028- 24 -14- 0002 35- 028 -24 -33 -0029 32- 028 -24 -14 -0009 34- 028 -24 -24 -0112 28- 028 -24 -33 -0048 26- 028 -24 -33 -0110 26- 028 -24 -33 -0111 26- 028 -24 -33 -0108 27- 028 -24 -24 -0058 26- 028 -24 -14 -0026 26- 028 -24 -14 -0026 28- 028 -24 -33 -0102 32- 028 -24 -12 -0072 35- 028 -24 -13 -0001 35- 028 -24 -12 -0062 26- 028 -24 -14 -0101 27- 028 -24 -12 -0034 34- 028 -24 -41 -0081 33- 028 -24 -42 -0096 26- 028 -24 -13 -0063 35- 028 -24 -21 -0003 33- 028 -24 -33 -0049 35- 028 -24 -13 -0019 27- 028 -24 -22 -0067 34- 028 -24 -43 -0056 27- 028 -24 -13 -0075 33- 028 -24 -13 -0065 33- 028 -24 -42 -0096 33- 028 -24 -41 -0137 33- 028 -24 -42 -0018 34- 028 -24 -13 -0016 26- 028 -24 -34 -0010 26- 028 -24 -33 -0108 26- 028 -24 -33 -0108 34- 028 -24 -42 -0027 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $15,126.45. 2. The city clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such diseased tree removal against every assessable lot, piece or parcel • of land affected, without regard to cash valuation as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 3. The clerk shall, upon completion of such proposed assessment, notify the city council thereof. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk I* John Hamilton, Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter 237 Agenda August 10, 1987 Issue Statement: Preparation of Assessment Rolls and Setting Hearing Date for City Project No. 821, 1986'LHN Maintenance. Background: City staff has determined costs to be assessed for the maintenance of the Lyndale /HUB /Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Area, City Project No. 821, the 1986 LHN Maintenance Project. The actual total cost for 1986 LHN maintenance is $40,110.12, compared with the estimated 1986 cost of $52,900. The cost of LHN specially assessed maintenance in 1985 was $35,726.30. Attached is a resolution declaring the costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment rolls. Also attached is a resolution setting the hearing date for the proposed assessment. Recommended Motion: It is recommended the city council pass the resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the proposed assessment roll for 1986 LHN maintenance in the total amount of $40,110.12 and the resolution setting the date of hearing on the • proposed assessment for Monday, September 14, 1987. Basis of Recommendation: Council ordered the work and the work is completed. Alternative Recommendation: Council may make any changes to the assessment roll as deemed necessary after the public hearing. Discussion /Decision Mode: Hennepin County requires assessments to be certified to them by October 10, 1987. Adopting the attached resolutions at this time will allow staff to complete all the legal requirements in order to meet this deadline. JDP /eja lei Respectfully submitted, Ja s .Prosser City Hager t5X--y- J-/ • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO THE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR LHN MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 1986 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1986 CITY PROJECT NO. 821 WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the maintenance of the Lyndale /HUB /Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Area which is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such maintenance amount to $40,110.12 for the period of January 1 through December 31, 1986. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $40,110.12. 2. The city clerk, with the assistance of the city engineer and the facilities /projects coordinator, shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such maint enance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected and shall file a copy of such • proposed assessment in his office for inspection. 3. The city clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the city council thereof. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 10th day of August, 1987. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0, John Hamilton, Mayor 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR LHN MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 1986 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1986 CITY PROJECT NO. 821 WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the city council of the City of Richfield on August 10, 1987, the city clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost of maintaining the Lyndale /HUB1Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Area which is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield, Minnesota for the period of January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1986, and WHEREAS, the city clerk has notified the city council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection, NOW,-THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 14th day of September, 1987 in the council chambers of city hall at 7:00 PM to pass upon • such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said maintenance assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing. He shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenance. The city clerk shall also cause mailed notice to the given owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 10th day of August, 1987. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: W Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk R CITY OF RICHFIELq, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 236 Agenda August 10, 1987 Issue Statement Reso utions Declaring Costs to be Assessed for Alley Maintenance and Snowplowing for the Period January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1986 and Setting the Hearing Date for September 14, 1987 for City Project No. 820. Background : The cost incurred for alley maintenance and snowplowing for the period of January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1986 have been determined to be $11,834.29. Property owners on permanently paved concrete alleys are assessed for snowplowing only, while property owners on all other alleys are assessed actual maintenance costs for their individual alley and snowplowing costs. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution declaring the costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment roll; and the resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for September 14, 1987. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Council ordered this work to be done. 2. State statute require assessments to be certified to the County by October 10, 1987; and adoption of the resolution at this time will allow staff sufficient time to complete necessary requirements in order to meet this deadline. Alternative Recommendation: Council may revise the special assessment roll after the public hearing as deemed necessary. Discussion /De.cision Mode: CounciT may choose to delay action on the attached resolutions, however, Minnesota State law requires specific notices and public meetings, and scheduling problems may occur beyond a two week delay. Respectfully submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager JDP /eja RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION AND OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR ALLEY SNOWPLOWING CITY PROJECT NO. MAINTENANCE 820 - WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the maintenance and snowplowing of the following alleys in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such maintenance and snowplowing for the period of January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1986 amount to be $11,834.29. Number Surrounding Avenues Surrounding Streets 1001 Xerxes - Washburn 66th -67th 1002 Xerxes - Washburn 67th -68th 1003 Xerxes - Washburn 68th -69th 1004 Xerxes - Washburn 69th -70th 100.5 Washburn - Vincent 66th -67th 1006 Washburn - Vincent 67th -68th 1007 Washburn - Vincent 68th -69th 1008 Washbrun — Vincent 69th -70th 1009 Vincent - Upton 66th -67th 1010 Vincent - Upton 67th -68th 1011 Vincent - Upton 68th -69th 1012 Vincent - Upton 69th -70th 1013 Upton - Thomas 66th -67th 1014 Upton - Thomas 68th -69th 1015 Upton - Thomas 69th -70th 1016 Thomas - Sheridan 66th -67th 1017 Thomas - SHeridan 67th -68th • 1018 Thomas - Sheridan 68th -69th 1019 Thomas - Sheridan 69th -70th 1020 Sheridan - Russell 66th -67th 1021 Sheridan - Russell 67th -68th 1022 Sheridan - Russell 68th -69th 1023 Sheridan - Russell 69th -70th 1024 Russell - Queen 66th -67th 1025 Russell - Queen 67th -68th 1026 Russell - Queen 68th -69th 1027 Russell - Queen 69th -70th 1028 Queen - Penn 66th -67th 1029 Queen —Penn 67th -68th 1030 Queen - Penn 68th -69th 1031 Queen - Penn 69th -70th 2001 Penn - Oliver 63rd -64th 2002 Oliver - Newton 63rd -64th 2004 Morgan - Logan 63rd -64th 2005 Logan - Knox 63rd -64th 2007 James - Irving 63rd -64th 2008 Irving - Humboldt 63rd -64th 2009 Humboldt - Girard 63rd -64th 2010 Girard - Fremont (35W) 63rd -64th 2001 Girard - Fremont (35W) 64th -65th 2012 Girard - Fremont (35W) 65th -66th 2013 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 64th -65th • 2014 Fremont (35W) - Emersonn 65th -66th 2015 Dupont - Colfax 63rd- Mildred Or 2016 Colfax - Bryant 63rd- Mildred Or 2017 Bryant - ALdrich 63rd - Mildred Or 2019 Graham - Lyndale 66th -Lk Shr Dry • • 0 2020 Aldrich - Lyndale 75th -76th 2021 Aldrich - Lyndale 76th -77th 3002 Lyndale - Garfield 68th -69th 3003 Augusburg - Garfield 70th -71st 3004 Augusburg - Garfield 71st-72nd 3005 Lyndale - Garfield 72nd -73rd 3006 Lyndale - Garfield 73rd -74th 3007 Garfield - Harriet 71st -72nd 3008 Garfield - Harriet 72nd -73rd 3009 Garfield — Harriet 73rd -74th 3011 Harriet - Grand 67th -68th 3012 Harriet - Grand 68th -69th 3013 Harriet - Grand 72nd -73rd 3014 Harriet - Grand 73rd -74th 3015 Grand - Pleasant 68th -69th 3016 Grand - Pleasant 72nd -73rd 3018 Wentworth - Blaisdell 67th -68th 3020 Blaisdell - Nicollet 72nd -73rd 3021 Blaisdell - Nicollet 73rd -74th 3022 Blaisdell - Nicollet 74th -75th 3023 Blaisdell - Nicollet 75th -76th 3024 Nicollet- 2nd Avenue 68th -69th 3025 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 70th -71st 3026 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 71st -72nd 3027 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 72nd -73rd 3028 1st - Stevens 71st -72nd 3029 1st - Stevens 72nd -73rd 3030 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 71st -72nd 3031 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 72nd -73rd 3032 2nd - 3rd Avenue 66th -67th 3033 2nd - 3rd Avenue 71st -72nd 3034 2nd - 3rd Avenue 72nd -73rd 3035 3rd - Clinton 66th -67th 3036 3rd - Clinton 73rd -74th 3037 Clinton - 4th Avenue 66th -67th 3038 Clinton - 4th Avenue 73rd -74th 3039 4th - 5th Avenue 66th -67th 3040 4th - 5th Avenue 73rd -74th 4001 13th - 14th Avenue 65th -66th 4402 14th - 15th Avenue 62nd -63rd 4004 15th - Bloomington 62nd -63rd 4005 15th - Bloomington 65th -66th 4006 Bloomington - 16th Avenue 65th -66th 4007 Cedar - Longfellow 63rd -64th 4008 Cedar - Longfellow 64th -65th 4009 Cedar - Longfellow 65th -66th 4010 19th - 20th Avenue 65th -66th 4012 22nd - Standish 65th -66th 4013 13th - 14th Avenue 66th -67th NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $11,834.29. 2. The city clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land affected, without regard to cash valuation as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. . 3. The clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th day of August, 1987. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk John Hamilton, Mayor n lJ • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ALLEY MAINTENANCE - C.P. 820 WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield on August 10, 1987, the city clerk was directed to prepare assessment of the cost of maintaining the following alleys in the City of Richfield for the period of January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1986: Number 0001- 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 2001 2002 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2001 2012 2013 Surroundinq Avenues Xerxes - Washburn Xerxes - Washburn Xerxes - Washburn Xerxes - Washburn Washburn - Vincent Washburn - Vincent Washburn - Vincent Washbrun - Vincent Vincent - Upton Vincent - Upton Vincent - Upton Vincent - Upton Upton - Thomas Upton'- Thomas Upton - Thomas Thomas - Sheridan Thomas - SHeridan Thomas - Sheridan Thomas - Sheridan Sheridan - Russell Sheridan - Russell Sheridan - Russell Sheridan - Russell Russell - Queen Russell - Queen Russell - Queen Russell - Queen Queen - Penn Queen - Penn Queen - Penn Queen - Penn Penn - Oliver Oliver - Newton Morgan - Logan Logan - Knox James - Irving Irving - Humboldt Humboldt - Girard Girard - Fremont (35W) Girard - Fremont (35W) Girard - Fremont (35W) Fremont (35W) - Emerson Surrounding Streets 66th -67t 67th -68th 68th -69th 69th -70th 66th -67th -.67th -68th 68th -69th 69th -70th 66th -67th 67th -68th 68th -69th 69th -70th 66Th -67th 68th -69th 69th -70th 66th -67th 67th -68th 68th -69th 69th -70th 66th -67th 67th -68th 68th -69th 69th -70th 66th -67th 67th -68th 68th -69th 69th -70th 66th -67th 67th -68th 68th -69th 69th -70th 63rd -64th 63rd -64th 63rd -64th 63rd -64th 63rd -64th 63rd -64th 63rd -64th 63rd -64th 64th -65th 65th -66th 64th -65th 2014 Fremont (35W) - Emersonn 65th -66th 2015 . Dupont - Colfax 63rd- Mildred Dr 2016 Colfax - Bryant 63rd- Mildred Dr 2017 Bryant - Aldrich 63rd- Mildred Dr 2019 Graham - Lyndale 66th -Lk Shr Dry 2020 Aldrich - Lyndale 75th -76th 2021 Aldrich - Lyndale 76th -77th 3002 Lyndale - Garfield 68th -69th 3003 Augusburg - Garfield. 70th -71st 3004 Augusburg - Garfield 71st -72nd 3005 Lyndale - Garfield 72nd -73rd 3006 Lyndale - Garfield 73rd -74th 3007 Garfield - Harriet 71st -72nd 3008 Garfield - Harriet 72nd -73rd 3009 Garfield - Harriet 73rd -74th 3011 Harriet- Grand 67th -68th 3012 Harriet - Grand 68th -69th 3013 Harriet - Grand 72nd- 73rd. 3014 Harriet - Grand 73rd -74th 3015 Grand - Pleasant 68th -69th 3016 Grand - Pleasant 72nd -73rd 3018 Wentworth - Blaisdell 67th -68th 3020 Blaisdell - Nicollet 72nd -73rd 3021 Blaisdell - Nicollet 73rd -74th 3022 Blaisdell - Nicollet 74th -75th 3023 Blaisdell - Nicollet 75th -76th 3024 Nicollet - 2nd Avenue 68th -69th 3025 Nicollet - lst Avenue 70th -71st 3026 Nicollet - lst Avenue 71st -72nd 3027 Nicollet - lst Avenue 72nd -73rd 3028 lst - Stevens 71st -72nd 3029 lst - Stevens 72nd -73rd 3030 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 71st -72nd 3031 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 72nd -73rd 3032 2nd - 3rd Avenue 66th -67th 3033 2nd - 3rd Avenue 71st -72nd 3034 2nd - 3rd Avenue 72nd -73rd 3035 3rd - Clinton 66th -67th 3036 3rd - Clinton 73rd -74th 3037 Clinton - 4th Avenue 66th -67th 3038 Clinton - 4th Avenue 73rd -74th 3039 4th - 5th Avenue 66th -67th 3040 4th - 5th Avenue 73rd -74th 4001 13th - 14th Avenue 65th -66th 4402 14th - 15th Avenue 62nd -63rd 4004 15th - Bloomington 62nd -63rd 4005 15th - Bloomington 65th -66th 4006 Bloomington - 16th Avenue 65th -66th 4007 Cedar - Longfellow 63rd -64th 4008 Cedar - Longfellow 64th -65th 4009 Cedar - Longfellow 65th -66th 4010 19th - 20th Avenue 65th -66th 4012 - 22nd - Standish 65th -66th 4013 13th - 14th Avenue 66th -67th r WHEREAS, the city clerk has notified the City Council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 14th day of September, 1987, in the council chambers of city hall at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and, at such time and place, all persons owning property affected by said maintenance assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenence. He shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of August, 1987. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk John Hamilton, Mayor 7�'�I- e-Z #y� CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 235 Agenda August 10, 1987 Issue Statement: Resolutions Ordering Preparation of Assessment Rolls and Setting Hearing Date for City Project No. 8222 1986 Alley Paving. Background: Minnesota State law requires specific resolutions, notices and meetings to allow the sale of bonds for special assessment improvements. City staff has determined the costs to be assessed for City Project No. 822, 1986 Alley Paving. This proposed assessment roll has been prepared by staff members and filed for public inspection. The cost for a residential property is $18.36 per assessable foot, for a total assessment of $918.00 for a typical 50 foot lot. The original estimate was $22.50 /foot. Recommended Motion: Pass the resolution declaring cost to be assessed and ordering preparation of proposed assessment for City Project No. 822 and the resolution for hearing on proposed assessment for City Project No. 822, 1986 Alley Paving to set the date of the hearing on the proposed assessment for the September 14, 1987 city council meeting. is Basis of Recommendation: 1. The work has been completed as ordered. 2. The costs are less than the original engineer's estimate. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to delay approval of the attached resolutions, however, the assessments need to be certified to the county by October 10, 1987. A two week delay can be accommodated, but additional delay will cause scheduling problems. Discussion /Decision Mode: Council may make any necessary changes after the public hearing on September 14, 1987. Respectfully submitted, James . Prosser City Manager JDP /eja RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR CITY PROJECT NO. 822, 1986 ALLEY PAVING WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the improvement of the following alleys by reconstruction and concrete paving: Alley Between From To Nicollet & First Avenue 71st Street 357 feet north of 71st Street Second & Third Avenue 66th Street 67th Street And the contract price for such improvement is $24,369.23, and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvement amount to $10,917.63 so that the total cost of the improvements will be $35,286.86. NOW, THEREFORE,- BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The portion of by the city is portion of the • property owner is declared to 0 the cost of such improvement to be paid hereby declared to be $495.95 and the cost to be assessed against benefited s is at least 20% of the total cost and be $34,790.91, 2. That said assessment shall run for a period of twenty (20) years. 3. The city clerk and the city engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and he shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 4. The clerk shall upon the completion of such proposed assessment notify the council thereof. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of August, 1987. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk John Hamilton, Mayor 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR CITY PROJECT NO. 822, 1986 ALLEY PAVING WHEREAS, by resolution passed by the council on August 10, 1987 the city clerk and city engineer were directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost for the reconstruction and the concrete paving of the following alleys: Alley Between From To Nicollet & First Avenue 71st Street 357 feet north of 71st Street Second & Third Avenue 66th Street 67th Street AND, WHEREAS, the city clerk and city engineer have notified the council that such proposed assessment has been completed, and filed for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 14th day of September, 1987, in the council chambers of city hall at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and, at such time and place, all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause notice to the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing and shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. The city clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearings. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of August, 1987. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 John Hamilton, Mayor W/_4_X_ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOT Council Letter No. 234 Agenda August 10, 1987 Issue Statement: Resolution relating to 1988 maintenance special assessments in the Lyndale /HUB /Nicollet (LHN) redevelopment area, city project No. 840. Background: On January 26, 1981 the city council adopted Resolution No. 6372 which established a policy that the actual cost of performing current maintenance services in the LHN area, approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue, would be specially assessed. The special assessment to commercial property would be made on the basis of area with each square foot of assessable commercial property within the district being assessed an equal amount. All single family_, two family and multiple residential property within this area was eliminated from the special assessment levy. In 1982, agreements were reached with owners in the LHN area related to maintenance of property. For the most part, each owner was to be responsible for property to the curb while the city was to be responsible for common areas such as street islands. Although the city does perform some maintenance work • for individual property owners, these costs are directly assessed to the appropriate owner and maintenance of common areas continues to be assessed to the entire district. Current maintenance services for the district include, but are not necessarily limited to, one or more of the following: 1. Landscaping, including tree trimming; 2. Sidewalk sweeping in Summer; 3. Snow removal in Winter; 4. Sidewalk deicing; 5. Painting and repair of wood furniture; 6. Trash removal; 7. General maintenance, including repair and replacement; 8. Irrigation maintenance. These items are extra services provided directly to the LHN and do not include services provided to the entire city. For example, all city streets are swept twice a year and.for this service there would be no charge to the LHN maintenance assessment. However, any additional street sweeping in the LHN would be an assessable item. Recommended Motion: It is recommended the city council adopt the attached Resolution proposing to specially assess for the costs of current services • provided within the LHN area for the period of January 1, 1988 through December 31, 1988 at an estimated cost of $53,000 and to set the public hearing date for September 14, 1987. • Basis of Recormendation: 1. Resolution No. 6372, adopted in 1981, established a policy for assessing the costs. 2. This policy allows staff to continue to provide excellent service to the LHN. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to establish a set rate and limit the maintenance performed to that dollar amount; however, staff believes the LHN area would suffer if limited maintenance was performed. Discussion /Decision Mode: Continued maintenance service for this commercial area is recommended by staff in order to sustain the current standards for landscaping and maintenance which have been successful over the past years. This item is scheduled for the August 10 city council meeting to allow sufficient time to publicize and notify those parties benefited of the September 14 public hearing. September 14 is recommended as the public hearing date to allow sufficient time to hear all parties, hold appropriate discussion and take action prior to recording pending special assessments. Respectf ly submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP /eja cc: Community Services Director Facilities /Projects Coordinator 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIAL ASSESS FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE LYNDALE /HUB /NICOLLET REDEVELOPMENT AREA FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1988 THROUGH DECEMBER 31., 1988 CITY PROJECT NO. 840 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. There is hereby established a special assessment district, the boundaries of which are conterminous with the Lyndale /HUB /Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area, for the purposes of assessing for current services provided by the city. 2. The following current services of the city are hereby proposed to be undertaken by the city in the district, with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against benefited property within the district: Snow, ice or rubbish removal Weed elimination; Elimination or removal of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding any • structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 to 463.26; Installation or repair of water service lines; Street sprinkling or other dust treatment of streets; Trimming and care of trees and removal of unsound trees; Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks and other pedestrian walkways; Operation of street lighting system; Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right -of -way; Snow removal and other maintenance of streets.; Painting and repair of wood furniture; General maintenance including repairs and replacement. 3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such current services consists of every assessable lot and parcel of land within the district. It is proposed that special assessments on commercial property be made on the basis of the area which each square foot of assessable commercial property within the district being assessed an equal amount for maintenance of common area. Exempt from the special assessment levy shall be all single family, two family and multiple family, residential property within the LHN redevelopment district. Special maintenance of individual commercial properties shall be assessed directly for costs incurred in performing said maintenance to said property. 4. The city clerk is authorized and directed to give public notice of a hearing by this council at which the council will consider undertaking such current services and levying of special assessments to bear the costs thereof. The city clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing as required by law. Such hearing shall be held on Monday, September 14, 1987 commencing at 7:00 PM or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda. 5. It is hereby proposed the project consist of the costs of the aforementioned services for the period of January 1, 1988 through December 31, 1988. The estimated cost of providing all of the aforementioned current services during that period is $53,000. Passed.by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of August, 1987. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: . Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter Mo.233 Agenda August 10, 1987 Issue - Statement: is Resolution relating to 1988 alley maintenance special assessment, city project No. 841. Background: The alley policy adopted by the city council in 1980 provides that "all. costs involved in maintaining an alley will be assessed against the property abutting the alley ". In 1981 the maintenance functions in unpaved alleys included sweeping, cleaning of potholes and cold patching. _In 1982 and years since, the maintenance functions covered by this assessment included not only repair work to unpaved alleys but also an assessment to all alleys, paved or unpaved, for snow plowing services. Actual 1986 maintenance costs for all alleys totaled $11,834.29. For 1987 the estimated cost for alley maintenance is $7,000. Community Services Department personnel estimate the 1988 alley maintenance cost for the period January l - December 31 to be $7,000. Alley paving was almost completed in 1987 which means there are only 12 remaining unpaved alleys in the city which will require patching. The majority of the assessed amounts in 1988, as. in 1987, would be for snow plowing and sweeping services. Recommended Motion: It is recommended the city council adopt the attached.resolution which proposes to specially assess the costs of 1988 alley services for alley maintenance in an estimated amount of $7,000 and sets the public hearing on this special assessment project for Monday, September 14, 1987. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Previously adopted policy mandates the special assessments. 2. The project is feasible. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to establish a set rate for snow plowing and /or sweeping; however, the remaining unpaved alleys in the city will still require yearly patching maintenance. Discussion /Decision Mode: Council may choose to delay adoption of this resolution until the August 24, 1987 meeting. However, any further delay would cause scheduling problems with legal notices required by Minnesota State Statute. Respec ully submitted, Jam Prosser Cit anager JDP /eja cc: Community Services Director Facilities /Projects Coordinator RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED FOR ALLEY MAINTENANCE IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD JANUARY 1, 1988 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1988 CITY PROJECT NO. 841 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That area which includes property which abuts improved alleys in Richfield (the "District ") is hereby established as a special assessment district for the purpose of assessing for current services provided by the city; 2. The following current services of the city are hereby proposed to be undertaken by the city in the District with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against benefited property within the District: the maintenance, sweeping and snow plowing of alleys; 3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such current services consists of every assessable lot and parcel. of land within the District. It is proposed that special assessments on property be made on the basis of prorated share of assessable abutting footage as defined in the alley improvement policy, Resolution No. 6345; 4.. The city clerk is authorized and directed to publish notice of a public hearing by this council at which the council will consider the undertaking of such current services and the levying of special assessments to bear the costs thereof. Such notice shall be published in the official newspaper at least once and at least two weeks prior to the hearing date . Such hearing shall be held on Monday, September 14, 1987 commencing at 7:00 PM or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda. 5. It is hereby proposed that the project.consists of the costs of the aforementioned services for the period of January 1, 1988 through December 31, 1988. The estimated cost of providing all of the aforementioned current services during that.period, using day labor, is $7,000. 6. The project is feasible. Passed by the City Council of _the.City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of August, 1987. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • City Council Letter No. 232 August 10, 1987 Agenda Issue Statement: Consideration of a Resolution regarding the setting of fees for copies of the Municipal Ordinance Code. Background: Section 2 of the ordinance to enact the recodified city ordinance code states: "Copies Available. A substantial quantity of the Code shall be printed for general distribution and availability to the public for general distribution and availability to the public in such reasonable quantities and at such reasonable charges as may be fixed by the City." Section 3.11 of the City Charter states: "Codification and Publication of Ordinances. The city shall codify and publish an ordinance code in books, pamphlets or continuous reference loose leaf form. Copies shall be made available for general distribution to the public free or at a reasonable charge." it is desirable to have a written policy to define what "reasonable charge" should be used when interested parties request copies of the code. Currently copies are provided at a fee of .250 per page. Attached is a survey of several • metropolitan communities showing the fees charged for copies of the code. City staff proposes that there be no charge for the first ten pages, a fee of .250 per page for in excess of 10 pages, and a fee of $50.00 for a complete code book. Recommended Motion: To approve the resolution to set fees for copies of the Municipal Ordinance Code. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City Charter and enacting ordinance provides that copies of the City's ordinance code be available at a reasonable charge. 2. It is desirable to provide a written policy to set the fees. 3. Other communities have similar policies. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The city council could decide to provide copies free of charge. 2. The city council could set an alternative fee schedule. Discussion /Decision Mode: This matter has been scheduled for consideration on August 10, 1987. Requests for copies of the code have increased because of the recodification.and it is desirable to enact a policy at this time. JDP /eja 1] Respectfully submitted, Ja s D. Prosser City Manager • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION SETTING FEES FOR COPIES OF THE MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE CODE WHEREAS, the ordinance enacting the Richfield City Code of 1987 and the City Charter provides that the code shall be printed for general distribution and availability to the public: in such reasonable quantities and at _such reasonable charges as may be fixed by the city; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. BY;VHE CITY __COUNCIL ._OF.THE CITY. OF RICHFIELD AS, FOLLOWS:.. That the fees for copies of the Municipal Ordinance Code are as follows: 1. No charge per page for the first ten copies. 2. .2.5¢ per page for copies in excess of ten pages. 3. $50.00 for a complete copy of the ordinance,code. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of August, 1987. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk John Hamilton Mayor x•: ' t: NJS /njs 0 June 17, 1987 Ordinance Code Book Copy Policies of other Cities BLOOMINGTON $32.00 per book without binder .15¢ per page BROOKLYN PARK $60.00 per book .25¢ per page for business, lawyer .1 or 2 pages free to public EDEN PRAIRIE No set rate per book .50¢ per page for xeroxing EDINA $46.00 per book .35¢ per page MINNETONKA $75.00 per book No charge first 10 pages .25¢ per page over 10 pages ST. LOUIS PARK $ 7.50 Zoning Portion Planning Dept. .10 per page business, lawyer Mostly free to public CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.231: Agenda August 10, 1987 Issue Statement: Presentation of the City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 1986 Background: The City's auditing firm of Deloitte, Haskins & Sells completed the audit of the City's fiscal year ending December 31, 1986, late in June. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report was subsequently submitted to the State of Minnesota as required and to the Government Finance Officers Association for compliance review. At the City Council Study Session of August 4, 1987, representatives from Deloitte, Haskins & Sells made a detailed presentation of the financial report to the City Council and answered any questions concerning the report. The action to be taken at-the August 10, 1987 meeting is the official receipt of the CAFR by the City Council. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council accept the Comprehensive ,. Annual Financial Report of the City for the year ending December 31, 1986. .Basis for Recommendation: 1. The City's Auditor has performed an audit of the City's financial records for the year ending December 31, 1986 and is making a report to the City Council concerning legal compliance and internal control. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could ask the auditors for further explanation of their findings. Discussion /Decision Mode: Action on this item is requested at the August 10, 1987 City Council meeting. The Report has been previously submitted to the State of Minnesota, pursuant to State law. Respectfully submitted, . Prosser Cit an ager r JDP:sb • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA City Council Letter No. 230 July 27, 1987 Agenda Issue Statement: First Reading consideration of an ordinance amendment to set a minimum lot depth requirement of 100 feet for a subdivided lot. Background: During the hearings and discussions which have been held concerning the subdivision request at the site at 7234 14th Avenue, concerns were expressed by the Planning Commission that the city should have minimum lot depth requirements as well as minimum lot width and minimum lot area requirements. As a response to those concerns, staff drafted the attached ordinance which would set minimum lot depth requirements for properties which are being subdivided. The ordinance amendment provides: "The subdivision of a lot of record as of the effective date of this ordinance shall be deemed to met the minimum lot size requirements provided that all existing and new lots created have a minimum lot area of 6750 square feet, a minimum lot depth of 100 feet and a minimum lot width of 50 feet." The Planning Commission reviewed this ordinance and unanimously recommended its approval. Recommended Motion: 1. Approve first reading of an amendment to Chapter III, Part IV of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield providing for minimum lot size requirements for subdivided lots. 2. Schedule second reading and the public hearing for the August 24, 1987 city council meeting. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The attached ordinance would set minimum standards for lot depth, lot width and lot area for lots that are being subdivided. These standards would not apply to existing lots, only to those lots being subdivided. 2. The ordinance is an attempt to answer the concern that the lots that are created by subdividing are too small and not in character with other lots in the city. By setting a minimum lot depth requirement of 100 feet, it would be consistent with the existing lot depth provision concerning building on existing lots of record which is found in Section 3.30, subdivision 4, paragraph E. 3. The minimum lot area requirement of 6750 square feet and the minimum lot width requirement of 50 feet are consistent with existing standards in the "R" Residence District. This new provision would apply only to the "R" single family residence district and not to other zoning districts in the city, including the "R -1" single family residential district. • Alternative Recommendation: The alternative recommendation would be to not approve the ordinance change at this time and rely on the existing minimum lot width and lot area requirements or to set a minimum lot depth requirement different from what is proposed in the attached ordinance. Decision Mode: First reading consideration is scheduled for July 27, 1987. No public hearing is required and no notice has been provided. Published notice of the August 24, 1987 public hearing and second reading will be provided. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City, anager JDP /dkh • • BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III, PART IV OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, Part IV of the Ordinance Code of Richfield entitled "Zoning Regulation" is hereby amended in the following respects. The following new paragraph (f) is added to Section 3.30, Subdivision 4: (f) The subdivision of a lot of record as of the effective date of this ordinance, shall be deemed to meet the minimum lot size requirements provided that all existing and new lots created have a minimum lot area of 6750 square feet, a minimum lot depth of 100 feet and a minimum lot width of 50 feet. When computing lot area, lot width and lot depth the area which is unencumbered with area which with street alley or highway highway easements shall be used. Passed by the City Council of Richfield this day of , 1987 ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk John Hamilton, Mayor