07-08-85 agenda ~i~-/
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 262
Agenda July 8, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City cf Richfield
Subject: Appointments to Advisory Commission
Council Members:
There are presently three vacancies on the Human Rights
Commission, and one vacancy on the Sister Cities International
Commission. On Monday, July 1, 1985, council members
interviewed applicants for these commissions.
Attached are copies of the applications of Leanne Ervasti
and Bill Svejpa for the Human Rights Commission, and an
application from Todd Steenson, who has expressed an interest in
serving on the Sister City International Commission.
Council consideration of appointments to these commissions
has been scheduled fcr the July 8, 1985, city council meeting.
Res tfully subm'tted,
e 'ch
Acing City onager
SD/eja
DATE _ ~ ;
CITY OF RICHFIELD COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION FORM ~l
NAME ~ l/~ ~i ~ - J ~ Th` _
Last ~ First Middle
HOME ADDRESS ~3.,j ~ , ' ~ S / ~~G .
PHONE Home l~~ Business
APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE:
Advisory Board of Health Human Rights Corranission
Civil Service Commmission Planning Commission
Cc~anunity Services Coir~nission Senior Citizens/Handicapped
Energy Awareness Commission Commission
Fourth of July Committee Sister City International
Other
Briefly list aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this
adv//is//ory commission and why you are interested in serving:
iii/.r~~?ti' ~ i~~-,~ T-~ ~f~ ~ ~9~ ~~~c/ 5 .c~~ ~ ,~c~ .ST~c=~C~---
/ -
~
C%G/hf~7Gl/~/~~ O~ ~=%G'~~~ ~F~G c~
CHIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES: ~
~i~ /~~~SJ l'~i T ~ ~ S / ~ ~ - T~ /?'/G'l/SZ ~ .S~ /y~C.G~f~ ./T-
REFERENCES (OPTIONAL)
~
- ~ ~
OCCUPATION : ~lJ /~7~ Q - ~",4/~ i
- i?~~ ~i~~~,~c ~i~'
Return to City Manager's Office, 6700 Portland Ave., Richfield, MN 55423
Complete in Black Ink or Typewriter
•
n .
DATE ~L i'V-C~ , I ~7 , I `~`~i'~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION FORM
J v ~
LT _ ~
~
NAME 7 V~ ~.:T O Ci.., Q ! C~ ~ o A9`<::^~ ~;.i~~,a:i.J
Last First t~idd~e
HOME ADDRESS 3 3 Q,i,q;,~'p ~~i A~Vz J
PHONE Home _~~~..I Business 6v I-/,~t~-~
APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE:
Advisory Board of Health Human Rights Commission
Civil Service Commission Planning Commission
C~„yuanity Services Commission Senior Citizens/Handicapped
Energy Awareness Commission Commission
Fourth of July Committee Other
Briefly List aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this
advisory commission and why you are interested in serving:
~
_ u..t-~.,-SI ?.l~rn .~L c~lc~...~ ,~i~ ~~R. ~?,il~~~G~-1 t~ .n~-IL
^
' B p tLe'rta-D 's
CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES: 3~~3
c~fi 5 ~ b 6
4
REFERENCES (OPTIONAL)
OCCUPATION : ,~21 F ~ nn P~ c-1-e.~. ~ 11,'!`n Q~
Return to City Manager's Office, 6700 Portland Ave., Richfield, MN 55u23
Complete in Black Ink or Typewriter
1
85
CITY OF RICHFIELD COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION FORM I! -
. NAME STEENSON ~ TODD DAVID
Last First Middle
HOME ADDRESS 7020 lath Avenue South, Richfield, i~~N 5523 ,
PHONE Home 866-1641 Business 861-714~4~
APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE:
Advisory Board of Health Human Rights Commission
Civil Service Commission Planning Corrm~ission
Coamlunity Services Commission Senior Citizens/Handicapped
Energy Awareness Commission Commission
Fourth of July Cammittee Sister City International X
Other
Briefly list aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this
advisory co~anission and why you are interested in serving:
Although I am young, I have several qualities which will help this
Commission. I am Interested in world and civic affairs and well read
on the subject. I received the Rose Rees Award for outstanding
achievement in world affairs, and am interested in becoming more
involved in my community and learning more about how government works.
CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES:
Boy Scouts, Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs Distinguished
Lecture Series, Church Confirmation Study Commission and Youth Group.
REFERENCES (OPTIONAL) '
d Mr. Leo E. Foehling, 9500 Dakota Road, Bloomington, NiN
OCCUPATION: cull time student.
Return to City Manager's Office, 6700 Portland Ave., Richfield, MN 5523
Corriplete in Black Ink or Typewriter
•
' ~D
~1~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 261
Agenda July 8, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Computer Study/Computer Purchase Status
PROJECT STATUS
Since November of 198, the City Staff, with the assistance
of DSM Information Services Inc., our computer consultant, has
been in the process of assessing the City's current and future
computer needs and resources. In April, 1985, the City Manager
reported to the City Council that several recommendations had
been formulated as a result of the completion of the first phase
of the study. Those recommendations included that the City take
the following actions:
1. Purchase the existing system to reduce overall costs.
According to the Consultant, an analysis of the
City's current lease agreement with Four-Phase for
the IV/95 system revealed that $160,x+00 could be
made if the system were purchased outright~as soon as
possible and kept until the end of 1989.
2. Begin to acquire and install new equipment and software
during FY 1986, transferring all applications to the
new system.
3. Phase out the existing computer (IV/95) and software
by late 1986.
The study also indicated that the current Four-Phase IV/95
system and accompanying lease arrangement represented several
significant shortcomings. For example, the lease arrangement
for the IV/95 requires the City to keep an extremely expensive
maintenance agreement with the Four-Phase Company (approximately
~0% of current monthly lease payments of $7,500). The
maintenance agreement cannot be discontinued unless the lease
agreement is terminated. Further, each time the City purchased
an additional piece of hardware to add to the system, the lease
was automatically renewed for the full five year term. The
original lease entered into in 1978 now extends into 1989 due to
subsequent hardware purchases.
f0
-2-
• In addition to the unfavorable lease agreement, the IV/95
system has a very limited capacity. Current staff utilization
of the system a.nd software packages now require the system to
operate at approximately 90% of memory capacity. This leaves
little, if any, room for expansion of the system without
additional hardware purchases which would further extend the
lease. The IV/95 system, however, is no longer in production
and is outdated both in terms of present generation computers
and City needs. Thus the study concluded that the City should
take steps to buy out the expensive, restrictive lease
agreement and begin the process of converting to a newer system.
OVERVIEW OF OPTIONS
Upon receiving the recommendations of the Computer Study
Task Force, City staff began to examine viable options. It was
'determined that the City had four options to explore:
A) Continue the current lease arrangement at a five year
cost projected by the consultant to be $81,400 if
continued through 1989.
B) Continue the current lease arrangement through December
31, 1986, at a cost of $140,000, at which time the City
-could assert that, according to Minnesota Statutes, a
• political subdivision may unilaterally walk away from
any lease purchase agreement at the end of any fiscal
year. This option may also include additional costs for
legal fees and a possible settlement. There is an
element of risk associated with this option, in that the
outcome of potential litigation cannot be predicted.
C) Purchase the computer system immediately for a lump sum
purchase price of $223,795, plus time and materials
maintenance.
D) Purchase the computer system immediately with an
Installment Sales Agreement for a 5-year total cost for
principle and interest of $275,536, plus time and
materials maintenance.
Option A - Continuation of Current Lease
The current lease/purchase agreement was entered into in
1978 with the IV-Phase Company. Since that time, the City has
modified the system by adding additional hardware on three
occasions. The most recent addition took place in February,
1984, and, due to the automatic renewal provision in the
agreement, extended the lease to 1989.
Under the current lease, the City makes monthly payments of
approximately $7,500, of which roughly 40~ ($3,000) represents
maintenance charges. The computer consultant, DSM Incorporated,
~C.~
-3-
S estimates the following costs for the City under the current
lease through 1989 assuming a 10% increase per year for
maintenance:
1985 $ 90,600
1986 $ 93,200
1987 $ 96,000
1988 $ 97,100
1989 $102,500
$481,400
The current lease also allows the IV-Phase Company to extend
the lease for hardware additions to the system. This is an
unacceptable position for the City to be in.
Option B - Continue Lease with Unilateral Cancellation in
becember, 1986
A second option related to continuation of the current lease
involves a possible early termination of the lease. The City
Attorney reviewed the current lease and reported to City staff
that, according to Minnesota Statute 465.71 (amended in 1982), a
municipality may walk away from a lease/purchase agreement at
the end of any of it's fiscal years. However, the City Attorney
• added that such an approach was not without risk. Current
federal and state law provide that a legislature cannot impair
a parties rights under contract. Thus, since the contract was
in place before the statute, the vendor, IV-Phase, may use such
an argument. In any event there would be no guarantee that the
City would be sucessful in such an attempt to cancel the
existing lease agreement early.
If the City were successful, this option would be the least
expensive in that lease payments from now until December 1,
1986, would total approximately $140,000.
However, to its' disadvantage, this option, even if
successful in terminating the lease early, would require a new
computer system to be in place no later than January 1, 1986,
so that necesary conversions to the new system could be made
before the December 31, 1986, deadline. Previously, the computer
task force indicated that an 18 month conversion period would
be desirable. Shortening the conversion period to one year
(1986) would require every aspect of the purchase and
installation of a new system to proceed in a timely manner and
without delay. That process would also have to begin within the
next few weeks.
Finally, if the City were unsuccessful in terminating the
lease early, the City would face certain legal fees in addition
to either: a) a compromise settlement; b) scheduled buy out of
the lease/purchase agreement; or, c) continuation of the lease.
-4-
Option C - Lump-Sum Purchase of the IV-95 System ,
Pursuant to City Council authorization, City staff
approached IV-Phase for a quote on the outright purchase of the
current IV-95 system. IV-Phase responded with a quote of
$223,795 for the purchase of the system. It was earlier
estimated by the consultant and computer task force that the buy-
out price would be approximately $244,000.
The outright purchase of the system would allow the City to
save approximately $160,000 over the life of the lease. In
addition, it would allow the City to choose any maintenance
option available, as well as to add any equipment necessary
without extending a contractual relationship with IV-Phase.
The $223,795 necessary to purchase the system would be
gained through utilizing approximately $100,000 (45~) of general
fund "fund balance", The remaining funds necessary to purchase
the system would be proportioned as follows: Liquor - $65,000
(29%), Water - $24,600 (11~), Sewer - 23,500 (10.50 , while th.e
Central Garage, Data Processing, Self-Insurance and Golf Course
funds would be assessed - $11,750 (5.250 . In addition to the
initial outlay, the City would have to enter into a time and
materials maintenance contract with a service provider.
For rough estimation purposes, the time and materials
• maintenance costs could be calculated at $400-$500 per month.
Unfortunately, the City has also experienced an unexpected
expense of some $270,000 for insurance premiums. The
combination of $223,795 for a lump-sum computer purchase in
addition to the $270,000 additional 1985 insurance premiums
represents a significant drain on all City funds for 1985.
Option D - Installment Purchase of the IV-95 System
Another option available until July 31, 1985, for the
purchase of the IV-95 system is an installment sales agreement
financed by IV-Phase at 8 1/2~ interest for a period of up to
60 months.
Under this arrangement, the City would purchase the IV-Phase
system with an installment sales agreement of 60 equal monthly
payments of $4,591.00. In conjunction, the City could carry a
time and materials maintenance agreement with IV-Phase and pay
only for actual servicing incurred.
The total cost of this package would be $223,795 for the
purchase price of the equipment and an additional $51,741 in
interest costs for a total cost of $275,536. As in the lump-
sum purchase option, the City would also incur an estimated $400-
• $500 per month for time and materials maintenance under the
installment purchase plan.
iG
-5-
To it's disadvantage the installment sales plan requires the
City to incur $51,741 of interest charges and requires the City
to pay a 3~ penalty (based on unpaid principle) at the time of
any prepayment of the agreement. Further, it does require the
City to keep a maintenance contract with IV-Phase while the
agreement is in effect.
Offsetting advantages of the Installment Sales Agreement
include releasing the City from an unfavorable lease agreement
without incurring a lump-sum cost in 1985. The 8.5% interest
rate is a fairly good rate which is exceeded by the City's
current investment portfolio rate (approximately 9 3/~4% - 10%).
IV-Phase informed the City that as of July 1, 1985, the firm
would no longer offer a time and materials maintenance
contract. Only time and materials contracts in effect on or
before that date would be honored. Without a time and materials
maintenance agreement the City would be forced to accept a
standard IV-Phase maintenance agreement which would cost $2,100
per month. Such steep monthly maintenance payments would negate
much of the advantages of an Installment Sales Agreement over
the current lease.
Thus, to protect this option, the City Manager has
tentatively entered into a time and materials contract as well
as an Installment Sales Agreement subject to Council approval.
By entering into this stipulated agreement, the option of
entering into an Installment Sales Agreement with a relatively
inexpensive T & M Agreement is preserved until immediately after
the Council meeting of July 8, 1985.
At the time the City became aware of IV-Phase's intention to
eliminate T & M maintenance agreements, a recommendation to
Council had not been formulated and as such, it was felt that
all options should remain open for Council consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
While it may appear from a cost perspective that Option B -
Early Termination of Lease is the least expensive alternative,
the writer recommends that the city council adopt 0 tion D -
Installment Sales Agreement. Even though an early termination
of the lease/purchase agreement may be possible rendering a
total of $140,000 in lease payments until December 1986 when the
system would be returned to IV Phase, too many risks are
associated with this option. The City may incur sizable legal
costs, a compromise settlement or at worst, be faced with
purchasing the system in December, 1986, or continuing with the
lease. Uncertainty also exists if the City were to be
successful in having the IV-95 system lease terminated on
• December 31, 1986. With the system removed as of that date, all
City system conversions would have to be completed during 1986,
-6-
i leaving little if any margin for delay in any phase of acquiring
.and converting to a new system.
With the information staff has received from IV-Phase to
date, it is the City Managers recommendation that the City
exercise its' option to enter into the Installment Sales
Agreement for a term of 60 months. The I.S.A. would generate
payments of $4,592.00 per month (see Attachment A), some $2,900
per month less than the current $7,500 lease payments. Of the
$2,900 monthly savings, $400 would be allocated for time and
materials maintenance while the remaining $2,500 could be put
aside for a future buy-out of the I.S.A. or a new system in the
future.
Additionally, instead of requiring funds to set aside lump
.sums for a 19$5 buy-out, the funds could remain in the City's
investment portfolio which is currently averaging near 10%
return overall. While the rate of return for City investments
will decrease in the future, it may be several months or perhaps
longer before the overall rate of return settles to 8.5~. Thus,
the City can gain some interest earnings by retaining the funds
it might have used for a lump sum purchase.
Finally, the Installment Sales Agreement allows the City to
control when it may be most advantageous to sell or salvage the
IV-95 system. This would allow for a better planned conversion
from the current system to a new system at any point in the
future.
As of this writing, IV-Phase has been made aware of our
contention that the current lease may be terminated by the City
at the end of any fiscal year. In response, staff attorneys for
the IV-Phase division of Motorola have been in contact with the
City Attorneys office. Further developments in this regard may
take place up until the City Council meeting of July 8, 1985.
However, at this time it is impossible to say exactly what may
develop.
It is the recommendation of the City Manager, that the City
Council authorize the City to enter into an Installment Sales
Agreement with the IV-Phase Division of Motorola for the
purchase of the IV-95 computer system for a total cost of
$275,000, including purchase price and interest.
Future Direction
The writer wishes to emphasize that the action recommended
here authorizes the City to buy-out of an unfavorable lease for
its' current IV-95 computer system. That purchase would not add
to or enhance the capability of the IV-95. The IV-95 system
• remains a basically inadequate system to accomodate the City's
data processing needs for now and the future.
~o-'
-7-
The long range solution to meeting the City's data
processing needs is the acquisition of a new computer system to
replace the IV-95. It is the recommendation of the computer
consultant (DSM Information Services, Inc.), the in-house
computer task force and City staff that such a replacement
system be ready for installation in early 1986. Staff
recommendations regarding the acquisition of a new computer
system will be presented to the City Council at a future
meeting.
Respe lly submitted,
Steven L. Devich
Acting City Manager
SLD/eja
cc: Data Processing Manager
l ~
. ATTACHMENT A
INSTALLMENT SALES AGREEMENT
Schedule of Selected Amortized Monthly Payments
Beginning Balance $223,795
Interest Rate 8 1/2%
Payment Total Balance Buy-Out
Payment Principle Interest Owed Cost
1 $4592.27 $3007.06 $1585.21 $220,787.94
2 4592.27 3028.36 1563.91 217,759.58 224,292.37
3 4592.27 3049.81 1542.46 214,709,78 221,151.07
4 4592,27 3071.41 1520,86 211,638.37 217,987.52
5 4592.27 3093.16 1499.11 208,545.20 214,801.56
6 4592.27 3115.07 1477.20 205,430.13 211,593.03
7 4592.27 3137.14 1455.13 202,293.99 208,362.81
8 4592.27 3159.36 1432.91 199,133.63 205,107.64
9 4592.27 3181.74 1410.53 195,951.89 201,830.45
10 4592.27 3204.28 1387.99 192,747.61 198,530.04
11 4592.27 3226.97 1365.30 189,520.b4 195,206,26
12 4592.27 3249.83 1342.44 186,270.81 191,858.93
18 4592,27 3390.42 1201.85 166,282.65 171,271.13
24 4592.27 3537.09 1055.18 145,429.82 149,792.71
30 4592.27 3690.10 902.17 123,674.90 127,385.15
36 4592.27 3849.73 742.54 100,978.86 104,008.23
42 4592.27 4016.27 576.00 77,301.00 79,620.03
48 4592.27 4190.02 402.25 52,598.84 54,176.81
54 4592.27 4371.27 221.00 26,828.08 27,632.92
60 4592.27 4560.37 31.90 -0- N/A
The above schedule projects the monthly costs associated
with the Installment Sales Agrement and the early buy-out
prices at various stages of the Installment Sales Agreement.
For example, if the City decided to buy-out of the
Installment Sales Agreement after 18 months, the costs would be
as follows:
Buy-out price including 3% penalty $171,271.13
Total monthly payments to date 82,660.86
Total cost incurred $253,931.99
~ 9- /
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 250
Agenda July 8, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Ordinance Revisions to Allow Bay Windows to
Protrude into a Required Yard Space. First
Reading.
Council Members:
In conjunction with a variance request previously reviewed
by the city council at 6810 - 21st Avenue, the planning
commission recommended that the city ordinances be amended to
allow bay windows to protrude into required front and rear
yards. Attached for your review is an ordinance revision tc
• carry out the planning commissions recommendation.
The attached ordinance revision allows windows or window
units to protrude up to 2 1/2 feet into a required front or rear
yard. This would include bay windows, bow windows or other
types of windows. This would be limited to windows themselves
and would not allow the wall or living space tc be extended
beyond the required setback line.
It is recommended that the city council give first reading
approval to the attached ordinance and schedule a public hearing
and second reading of this matter for July 22, 1985.
Res, fully ubmitted,
e en Devich
Acting City Manager
SD/eja
BILL NO:
ORDINANCE N0. - - -
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ALLOWING WINDOWS OR
WINDOW UNITS 'I'0 PROTRUDE IN REQUIRED YARDS.
CITY OF RICI~'IELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter III, Part IV of the Ordinance Code of Richfield is hereby amended
as follows•
1. Section 3.30, Subdivision 5 is amended by adding the following
new paragraph (j):
j) Window or window i,mits may pro,-iect a maximum of 2 1 /2 feet
into a reaui.red front. or rear yard provided the floor area of
the. dwelling is not increased.
2. Section 3.30A, Subdivision 5 is amended by adding the following
new paragraph (f):
(f) Window or window tulits may pro sect a maximum of 2 1 /2 feet
into a required front or rear yard provided the floor area of the
dwelling is not expanded.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,. Minnesota this
day of 1985.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
r~~ f
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 259
Agenda July 19$5
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Ordinance Amendments to Institute a Hearing
Officer Process. First Reading.
Council Members:
Attached for council review is a series of draft ordinance
amendments to implement the hearing officer process to hear
zoning variance requests. Following is a summary of the major
provisions of these ordinance amendments which have been
recommended by the Planning Commission.
1. A new section is added outlining the hearing officer
process. This includes the following:
• A. A committee of hearing examiners is created. The
committee of hearing examiners shall have the power to
review a1I variance requests. Appeals of administrative
decisions will be made to the city council.
B. The committee of hearing examiners shall be a special
committee of the planning commission. Hearing examiners
shall be nominated by the planning commission, appointed
by the city manager, and confirmed by the city council.
C. Hearing examiners shall approve a variance request only
when it is demonstrated that such actions are consistent
with the standards contained in Minnesota State Statutes
applicable to the granting of variances.
D. Before granting a variance the hearing examiner shall
conduct a public hearing at least 15 1/2 working days,
but not longer than 30 working days after a complete
application has been filed. Hearings will be held in
the evenings unless an evening hearing would cause a
serious hardship to the applicant. Mailed notice of the
hearing shall be made to property owners within 350 feet
cf the subject property at least 10 days prior to the
hearing. This notice shall also state that individuals
wishing to appear at the hearing should contact the
Community Development Department prior to the hearing
date.
-2-
Failure to give mailed notice or defects in the notice
shall not invalidate proceedings providing a bonafide
attempt to complete such mailing has been made. The
Planning & Zoning Division shall provide a written
report to the hearing examiner outlining the proposal,
enumerating the various reasons for recommendation to
either approve or deny the variance.
E. The hearing examiner shall, within 30 days of the close
of the hearing, render a written decision supported by
findings related to applicable zoning ordinance
standards and state statutes. The hearing officer's
decision shall be transmitted to all parties of record
and the hearing examiner decisicn shall be final unless
appealed.
F. A party aggrieved by the decision of the hearing
examiner may appeal the decision to the city council.
The appeal must be filed within, l0 days of the date the
written decisicn was mailed. The issue on appeals
shall be limited on the question whether the hearing
examiner has made an error in the interpretation of the
laws applicable to granting variances. If the city
council reverses the decision cf the hearing examiner it
shall accompany such determination with findings as to
how the applicable laws are misconstrued by the hearing
• examiner.
G. An applicant may, within 7 days of the date of the
mailing of the examiner's decision, apply for a
rehearing of a variance request denied.by the hearing
examiner if significant new factual evidence relevant
for the case can be presented.
H. All variances granted by the hearing examiner terminate
if the structure requiring the variance is not completed
within one year of the date it is granted.
I. The committee of hearing examiners s'r.all at least
annually prepare a report for the city council and the.
planning commission outlining the activities of the
hearing examiners and making reccmmendations relative to
possible zoning ordinance amendments which may be
necessary.
J. The hearing examiner process shall expire one year from
its effective date unless the council by resolution
extends it fcr an additional period of time.
2. The section of the city's ordinances outlining the powers of
the board of Adjustments and Appeals is amended to make
provisions for the committee of hearing examiners. This
section is also amended to indicate that if the authority of
-3-
the committee of hearing examiners expires, the variance
review process returns to the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals as it is currently. The three conditions listed in
this section fcr granting variances are removed. The
subdivision indicating that variances shall be reviewed by
the planning agency is also eliminated.
It is recommended that the city council give first reading
ccnsideration to these ordinance revisions and schedule the
public hearing on this matter for July 22, 1985.
Res~',e tfully ubmitted ,
en -~lch
Ac ing City Manager
SD/eja
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III, PART IV
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF Rl~rsr-IEhD DOES ORDAIN
Chapter III, Part IV of the Ordinance Code.. of the City of
Richfield entitled "Zoning Regulation" is hereby amended in the
:following-respectsz
I. Bg adding the following new Section 3.40A:
3.40 A. COMMITTEE OF HEARING EXAMINERS
Subdivision T. Purpose. It is the purpose of
this section to establish the Committee of Hearing
Examinersand`an administrative hearing process to
.expedite the review of certain matters involving
rectuests for variances to the literal provisions
of the city's Zoning regulations.
Subdivision 2. .Committee of Hearing Examiners.
There. is hereby created the Committee of Hearing
Examiners; which shall constitute a special
committee of the Planning Commission
to be
administered by the Department of Community I~
Development. The- Committee of Hearing Examiners
. shad constitute the. Board of Adjustments and ~
Appeals in all matters within its iurisdiction.~ ~
Hearing examiners shall be nominated by the
PlanningCommission and appointed by~ the City
Manager subject to confirmation. b~~ the City
Council and. shall serve at the pleasure of the
City Manager. Hearing examiners may be city,
employees and shall have experience in municipal
administration and procedures of law.
.Subdivision 3. Powers and Duties of .Hearing
- Examiners. .Hearing examiners shall have the power-
to hear and decide rectuests for variances from the
literal provisions of the zoning regulations found
in Chapter III, Part IV of the Ordinance Code
where strict compliance would cause undue hardship
because of circumstances unique to the property
under consideration. The hearing examiners shall
approve variance requests only when it is~
demonstrated that such actions are consistent with-
the standards. contained in Minnesota Statutes,
'Section 462,'357, Subdivision 6 applicable to the
° q~rantina of variances, and the zoning regulations
of ..the city. .The hearing examiners .may not
permit, as a variance, any use which is not
- ~
permitted by the zoning regulations applicable to
the._property under consideration. The hearing, .
examiner may .impose conditions on variances to
ensure compliance and to protect adjacent
properties.
Subdivision 4. Application and .Fees. ..Application
for a variance shall be made to the Department of
Communitv'Development upon forms prepared by the
department for that purpose. All applications for
variances shall be accompanied by payment of a fee
as provided in Appendix D of this Code. No
application shall. be deemed to be filed until it
i5 complete. in all respects. Upon filing, the
department shall refer the application to a
hearing examiner designated by it to hear the
matter:.
Subdivision 5. Hearing. Procedures. The following
rules apply to hearings conducted by hearing
examiners'
(1~ The hearing shall. be conducted at least 15~
working days but not longer than 30 working
days after filing. Except in castes involving
serious hardship to the. applicant, hearings
shall_be conducted only in the evenings.
{2) Notice of the hearing shall be .mailed by
first class mail to the property owners
within '350 feet of the subject property at
least 10 days prior to the hearing. Evidence
of the giving of such notice shall be
provided to the hearing examiner at the
beginning of the hearing. The notice shall
also state that individuals wishing to appear
at the hearing should contac the department
prior to the hearing date. The failure to
.give mailed notice to individua property
owners, or defects in the notice shall not
inva idate the proceedings, provided a .bona
fide attempt to comply with this .paragraph
has been made.
{3) The Planning and Zoning Division shall
provide a written .report. to the hearing
examiner outlining the proposal and
enumerating ..the. barious reasons for a .
recommendation to either approve or deny the
- variance request., The written report shall
be filed with the hearing examiner at least
• 72 hours prior to the date of the hearing.
Copies of the report. shall be made. available
•
to the applicant and. shall be furnished to
others upon request.
(4) .Parties of record shall be:
(a) The applicant and. representative, of the
applicant..
(b) Anv interested person who~has notified
the department of an intent to appear.
(c) City staff.
{d) Planning Commission.
(5~) The hearing examiner. may call witnesses, and
accept evidence and testimony, incTudinq
hearsay,. :relevant to the issues being heard.
Parties of record shall have the right to
cross-examine witnesses and present testimony
and evidence.
(6) For the purpose of avoiding redundency or
irrelevancy, the hearing examiner may impose
limitations on the number of witnesses and on
the nature and.. length of testimony.
(7) A tape recording shall be made of the
hearing. The tape .will be transcribed on
request of the City Council. The tape will
also be transcribed at the recruest of snv
party of record upon the payment of all costs
of transcription, The tape recording shall
be preserved until the time for appeal, as
provided in Subdivision 6, has expired.
(8) The hearing examiner shall,. within 30 days
following the close of the hearing render a
written decision supported by findings
~ecifically related to the applicable •
standards contained in this Code and state
statute. The hearing examiner's decision
shall be transmitted to all parties of
record. The hearing examiner's decision
shall be final unless an appeal is taken
pursuant to Subdivision 6. If the hearing
- examiner shall fail to render its written
decision within such period the applicant may
present its application to the city council
for consideration at its next reqularlY
scheduled meeting not less than 10 days
following the expiration of the time limit
contained above.
Subdivision 6. Appeals. Any. party aggrieved by
the. decision of the hearing examiner may appeal
the decision by delivering to the department a
notice of appeal within 10 days of the date the
decision is mailed out. The appeal.. shall be to
the Ctv Council pursuant to Section 3.40 of this
Code. .The issue on appeal shall be limited to the
question of whether the hearing examiner has made
an error in the. interpretation of the laws.
applicable to the granting of variances. If the
City Council reverses the decision of the hearing
examiner, it shall accompany such determination
with findings as to how the applicable laws were
misconstrued by the hearing examiner.
Subdivision 7. Rehearing. Any applicant may
within 7 days of the date of mailing of the
examiner's decision, apply for a rehearing of a
variance request denied by the hearing examiner if
significant new factual evidence relevant to the
case not available to the applicant in .the.
original hearing can be presented. The request
for a rehearing shall state with particularity the
nature of the new evidence and why it was not
previously available. If an application for
rehearing is timely made, the time to appeal will
be tolled until- the decision on granting or
denying a rehearing is made. If a rehearing is
allowed, the examiner's decision shall. be
withdrawn.
Subdivision 8. Time Limit. All variances granted
pursuant to this section shall, and the decision
of the hearing examiner. will, so state, lapse and
terminate if the structure requiring the variance
is not completed within one year of the date it is
granted.
Subdivision 9. Reports to City .Council and
Planning Commission. The Committee of Hearing
Examiners shall at least annually prepare a report
for the City Council and the Planning Commission
outlining the activities of the hearing examiners
and making recommendations relative to possible
zoning ordinance amendments to expedite the
processing of land use requests currently treated
as variances.
Subdivision 10. Expiration. This section shall
expire one year from its effective date unless the
City Council shall., by resolution, extend it for
an additional period or periods.
II. By amending Section. 3.40 entitled "Board of Adjustment and
Appeals" to read as follows:..
3.40 BOARD OF ADJIISTMENTS AND APPEALS
Subdivision 1. Creation. The board created in
this section is established in conformity with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision
2, and. the provisions to--which it refers.
Subdivision 2. Council Shall Act as Board;
Powers. The council shall serve as the board
created in this section---i+7~~n--t~;e--~~-t9--s~o
aets~gT-~--has-~~-~e~~ero~~ag--per to hear and
decide appeals where it is alleged that there is
an error in any order, requirement, decision or
determination made by an administrative. officer in
the enforcement of this part., of this chapter.
{~~$-~iE}}r'~~~}--0~• S~FE~'~-A~iB-z..~ ~ Di~s~r--f~--~S~-AG£P~~
SIB-~rF.rCf~-S;r'ir~-~,-~f3~FrR~-~9} Hearinq examiners
from the Committee .of Hearinq Examiners created
pursuant. to Section 3.40A of this Code shall hear,
subiect to the right of appeal to the council as
' provided in Section 3.40A, requests for variances
from -the literal. provisions of this part in
instances where. their strict enforcement would
cause undue hardship because of circumstances
unique to the individual property under
consideration, and to grant such variances only
when it is demonstrated that. such actions are
consistent with Minnesota State Statutes, Section
462.354, Subdivision 6 and any amendments thereto
.and will be keeping with the spirit and intent of
this part . rise--ee ~~~--ems--its--agent--ia~a~- ..:f~
perrntt-as-$-~ra~~aaes-nap-use-that-ts-set-pe~nsttsel
etnele~-this-past-~e~-p~epe~tp-~~-tire-~ese-r+here-the.
of ~eeted-pe~sesls-~a~el-ts-~eeatee~---4~~ie-ea~r~e#~-ems
its-agent-a~ey-~pese-eer~~~ttess-ts-tire-g~asti~g-ef
ti8~tal3CCS--ttC- ir,~Lt'2'E.''-~:.;...~1~€.~.~~ --eTrrE~--t~0--pi'eteet
ed~aesat--~e~pe~t3ts- In ~ the event that the
authority of the Committee of Hearing Examiners
shall expire pursuant. to Section 3.40A
Subdivision 10, such expiration shall
automatically vest authority in the council to act
as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals with
respect to the matters ,previously within the
jurisdiction of the Committee of Hearing
Examiners.
Subdivision 3. Application for Ae~~e~strrieat
Appeal-Fee. Application for any ed~e~strnest appeal
. .permissible under provisions of this section shall
be made to the ehse~-~r~.~r city manager by
written application. An application for
~9
ee~~e~state~t appeal shall be accompanied by payment
of a fee as provided in Appendix D of this Code in
addition to the regular building fee, if any.
(Bill 1977-16) 8/8/77
Subdivision 4. Public Hearing on Ae~~testn~est
Appeal. IIpon receipt of any application, the
council may set a time and place for a public
hearing on such application. At least 10 days
before the date of any such. hearing, a notice of
the hearing' shall be published once in the
official newspaper.
Subdivision 5. Requirements for Compliance. In
all cases in which adjustments or variance appeals
aze granted under the provisions of this section
or Section 3.40A, the council shall require such
evidence-and guarantees as it may deem necessary
to insure compliance with the conditions
designated in connection therewith.
Sebd~~r~ster~---5-----Eer~e~tt~e~ss---Hues---S~ast---e~
~4e~~c~s ta~e~st---o-r---bxar~t4:::, B ~ Lo~~e-- 7 ~ ~e~rrt-i-erg--en
ePP~~eat~e~r--fo-r~--et:--ee~~~straest--o~--tram.-~.~..,.~--tire
eee~~e~~-r~~sst-f ~se~-
{~}--~~et-•t~e~•z- a:.:: ~e~e-i-a-~--~~~ ~an~-cs~-er
eead~tiess-sf~eetz~g-tie--Ps~tse~~e~-~e~d,-3~e~~~e~~ng •
es-t~~se-~^~e-f ~:rr-~e-~:rtr~.~tio~r,--rret-eernraea
te-etke~-P~ePeet~es-ems-tuts-e~-st3n3~a~-e~~st~tets-
~~}--~P3~et-tie-e~e~r~i~rg--erg-t~~-a~pp~ eat3-ea-~ s
aeeesses~--~~r--tire- -s~~- j:. - ~ -®f
ae~ste~txs~-Prepe~tp-~~ghts-
{3}--~~et--tl~te--yam ~+~g--~--tote--epp~tcat~err
Wr~~--r~et--rnetest$~~g--esd--se~~eese~y--s£~eet'-the
kea~ti~-es-se~et~-e£-Pe~seas-eest~~ag-e~-ro~e~#~ng-~~
tote-r~e~q~i~~i~eed--~ -tire--r~~r:.~ Ly--~~-tire-epP~sea~t
ese~--vr~~~- ~-tre--~~rte~ta~~~r--e~~ ~t~:: t:,~- 1..: -tire
pe~~te---xe•3.-~$z'~--~r--~~~e~~~er~s---t~e~r---~.~ ~r L~--ems
~Pee~erae:sts-3~--t~r~ r--~-t~~te-~sea~~sg
tide--s~~ea~t--~rt~-3.-3 --giresc;::.l. --a---gtat~e~teat--ead
etr~e~er~ee--3.~-~re-~--~ -ss-t~z--e-i.-t~-~~ ~ ~ :~.rrr~-te
si~eW-ti~ese-beets-
Subdivision ~ 6. Orders. The- council shall
within a. reasonable time made its order deciding
the matter and shall cause a copy of its order to
be served by mail. upon the petitioner. -
.Subdivision 8 7. Record of Proceedings. The
council shall maintain a written record of its
proceedings which shall include minutes or
meetings, its findings in cases before it, and a
record of action taken on each matter before it
including the final order.
6e~~~~~~s€ert--9----Sri-e~--b~--g~ri-~rq-~-.,~~~:,.:~~~ ~---fie
deets~ee-sha~~-L~ ~re~a1~? ~y--t~~e-~r~ -ar.~-~natte~
be€e~e--~.~--i:x~Ls-~--the---~rl~rrrri~.y -~e-irc~--aet#r~g
pt~~se~eat-te-its-a~ttha~}ty-as-set-€e~th-€s-'Past-~~~
e€-t~i~s-~~arrt~^-~:~i3 -~-ins-t--h~~-~ra~-a-~easeaab~.e
eppe~tt~r.€t~; -aet-ttr ...>:.~.-:~-~-~y~-,- -~e~rye~r-e~~
sePe~t-te-t.~i~-~~-~~xr-~~--~ra~t~r~-re€erre~- to
st-bp-the-eet~ne~~-
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this day of 1985.
John N. Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
~ f
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 258
Agenda July 8, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Special Use Permit at 817 East 66th Street
Council Members:
PROPOSAL
Mr. Robert C. Hoffman (APCO dealer) has made an application
for a special use permit to allow a 27 X 36 foot addition to the
existing building at 817 East 66th Street for the operation of a
service station store.
HISTORY
On May 8, 1978, the city council approved a variance request
to allow a free standing canopy at the existing service
station. The city council, at the time of granting the variance
also made the following stipulations:
1. That the south curb cut on Elliot Avenue be clcsed.
2. That one 90 degree curb cut on Elliot Avenue be
constructed in conformance with city ordinance.
Observation of the site indicates that the south curb cut on
Elliot Avenue has not been closed, nor has a 90 degree curb cut
on Elliot Avenue been constructed as stipulated by the city
council. The applicant indicates that the service station has
had a grocery license for the past two years and has operated as
a service station store without securing the required special
use permit.
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
1. Section 3.33, subdivision 2, requires a special use
permit for converting a gasoline service station into
a service station store.
2. Section 3.33, subdivision 3, regulates gasoline
service stations.
-2-
. 3. Section 3.41 governs the issuance of a special use
permits.
STAFF REVIEW
Staff has reviewed the proposal against the standards far
special use permit and has found the following:
1. The site is located in C-2 general commerical district
and abuts multiple-residence districts both to the east
and west.
2. The proposal indicates a 27' x 36' foot addition
to the already existing 20' x 34' masonry
building (680 square feet) to accomodate the service
station store. The operation involves one full-time
employee. There is no significa:~t change in the
operation of the station. There are four parking stalls
on the site which is sufficient for the operation.
3. The existing curb cuts on the site create dangerous
traffic movements in the area. The entrance drives
are laid out in such a manner that traffic enters
and exits the site at a 45 degree angles rather than
at a 90-degree angle. Such angle drives reduce
the field-of vision. The number of curb cuts into
• the site (four) encourages unsafe turning movements
and conflicts with the city's adopted comprehensive
plan. The comprehensive plan indicates that "major
streets will have restricted left-turn movements and
restricted access to adjacent properties, in order
to reduce accidental potential and avoid congestion
caused by slow traffic and turning movements....".
The applicant has been made aware of these concerns by
the city officials at the time when the variance
was granted in 1978.
4. The site conforms to all the city ordinance requirements
for the operation of a gasoline service station except
that the east curb cut on 66tr. Street is located only 30
feet from the 66th Street - Elliot Avenue intersection.
The city ordinances require that no curb cut at the
point it crosses the property line of the site will be
within 40 feet of an intersection.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is staff's recomendation that the city council approve
the special use permit to allow the construction cf a 27 x 36
foot addition to the existing building for the operation of a
gasoline service station store at 817 East 66th Street with the
• following stipulations:
_3
1. That the south curb cut on Elliot Avenue be closed
prior to occupancy of the addition.
2. That one 90-degree curb cut on Elliot Avenue be
constructed in conformance with city ordinance
prior to occupancy of the addition.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The planning commission voted (5-1) (Nay-Hoverson) to
recommend city council approval of a special use permit to allow
the construction of a 27 X 36 foot addition to the existing
building For the operation of a gasoline service station store-
at 817 East 66th Street without the stipulations recommended by
staff.
The commission concurred with the applicant that the curb
cut changes would cause safety problems because gasoline tank
trucks would be forced to back up onto 66th Street after making
deliveries.. Staff agrees that trucks backing out onto 66th
Street is an unsafe condition, but also believes the existing
angled curb cuts and the close proximity of two of the curb cuts
to the 66th Street and Elliot Avenue intersection is unsafe.
Staff would like to see curb cuts eliminated where possible and
90 degree curb cuts constructed in place of the existing angled
curb cuts.
Res a tfu~ly bmitted,
/ '
~
ven 'ch
Ac ing City Manager
SD/eja
• EAST 86th STREET ~ _
~•a _
-
,I
~ , ~
ia..~. ~ ~n o...is ~ , r..r..a ,.r..~.. ~ i iti..s..~~ ` .arr . i Nj ,
j
\ I \ i
i
_ i
-I' ~ ~ MV wj 'i
~•YN i
I
• aj
F ,L•/
i
r r
_
y. S~+~rINq
~ ~ ar.e.
~ .~-.i+•~ ~.r.rs
I ~ f-~ j
. _ ~ cn
~ I PROPOSED A00lT1OiV ExJST1NG BUILDING =
_j ~ ~ +v.n ~ ~ W
Sar'.y
~X J ~~y ~J/1. i ~ ~
J
i ~ J
istirtQ Pd0 Stcre~ I' , ± T ~ W
. 1 ~ ~
•T ~iC.`l.' M .
I ~
~ 'l
.~j .dM.p: 1J'o~ ~ terry
Council Meeting Minutes ~ -2- May 1978
i
I
Richard Krier, planning and redevelopment director, reviewed the request of Mr.
Clifford Hoffman for a variance to the service station canopy design requirements
to allow him to construct a free-standing canopy at his service station located at
817 East 66th Street, as outlined in Council Letter No. 127.
Mr. Krier presented the staff's recommendation for correction of curb cuts on
66th Street and Elliot Avenue.
Joan Helmberger presented the planning commission's recommendation which favored
granting the variance.
Dean Lewis, representing Pump & Meter, 2711 E. Franklin, who will be building
the canopy for Mr. Hoffman, described the proposed construction.
Mr. Clifford Hoffman spoke against changing curb cuts to 90 degrees and indicated
he would be willing to close the Elliot curb cut nearest to 66th Street.
Gordon McKinnon, 7308 Upton, spoke in favor of 90 degree curb cuts. Mr. Edelman,
attorney for Mr. Hoffman, spoke in favor of this variance request indicating this is
a relocation and every consideration should be given to the applicant.
Motion by Ludeman, seconded by Luettinger to approve the granting of this variance
with the following stipulations:
1. That the south curb cut on Elliot Avenue be closed.
2. That one 90 degree curb cut on Elliot Avenue be constructed in conformance
with city ordinance.
Poll of votes: Ayes - Jacobsen, Ludeman, Luettinger, Law. Vays - Anderson. Carried.
Request for Rezoning, 6629 Harriet avenue
Richard Krier, planning and redevelopment director, reviewed the request of
Mr. Cari McBride of Richfield State Agency, 6625 Lyndale Avenue, for a zoning district
change from Residence (R) to General Commercial (C-2) for the property located at
6629 Harriet, as outlined in Council Letter No. 126. Mr. McBride proposes to use
this property to expand an existing parking lot adjacent to it.
- l
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 257
Agenda July 8, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Variance Request 6810-21st Avenue
Council Members:
PROPOSAL
Mr. Kim Peter and Mrs. Kathleen Wohlford have requested that
the city grant a variance to allow construction of a bay window
to an existing house at 6810-21st Avenue which will reduce
the required 30 feet frontyard set back requirement to 28 feet:
The existing pause is in the "R" (Residence) district and
meets all the set back requirements. According to the city
ordinance, bay windows are considered part of the main structure
and cannot extend into the required front yard setback without
obtaining a variance.
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
1. Section 3.30 Subdivision 5, indicates the setback
requirements in the "R" residence district.
2. Section 3.u0, subdivision 6, lists the three
conditions which must be met for a variance to be
granted .
STAFF REVIEW
Staff has reviewed the proposal against the three conditions
which must be met for a variance to be granted and found the
following:
1. That there are special circumstances ar conditions
affecting this land not common to other properties or
similar districts.
It is staff's opinion that there are no special
circumstances present on this site. The site is similar to
other lots within the neighborhood.
b'
~i'
-2-
• 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights.
It is staff's opinion that denial of the variance request
would not preclude reasonable use of the property. The existing
single family residential use could continue on the site if the
variance is denied.
3. That the granting of the application will not
materially and adversely affect the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood and
will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to improvements in the
neighborhood.
It is staff's opinion that the granting of the variance
request will not adversely affect the health, safety and public
welfare.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff must recommend denial of the variance request since
the three conditions for the variance have not been met. Staff
concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation that the
• ordinance be amended to allow bay windows to extend within the
frontyard and rearyard setback. The proper remedy to this
problem is legislative (to amend the zoning ordinance), not
quasi-judicial (to grant a variance).
First reading of an ordinance amendment to allow windows
to extend within the frontyard and rearyard setback, has been
placed on the July 8, 1985, city council agenda under "Proposed
Ordinances".
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted 5-1 (Nay-Jensen) to recommend
denial of the variance at 6810 21st Avenue. The Planning
Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the council amend
the city ordinance to allow windows within the required
frontyard and rearyard setbacks.
Resp t ully s mitted,
t ven evich .
Acting City Manager
• SD/eja
68 i 0-21ST AVE~ SOUTH '
139.95
cn
N
.1
D
HOUSE W m
rn ! 2 2 c .
o ~ _ m
B,~Y yViNDOW ~
- O
c
N GARAGE ; _
j
~J~
a
-1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter Nc. 256
Agenda July 8, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Variance Request at 626 East 68th Street
Council Members:
PROPOSAL
Mr. Wayne Dahlberg has requested that the city grant a
variance to the rearyard and frontyard setback requirements to
allow a 14 x 24 foot addition to the existing 26 x 2U foot
attached garage. The house is on a corner lot and the property
does not conform to the city's present rearyard and sideyard
setback requirements. The existing rearyard is only 7 feet
• instead of the required 25 feet. The existing front yard
setback is 24 feet instead cf 30 feet. The proposed addition
will not reduce these existing setbacks. The interior sideyard
will be 15 feet if the proposed addition is ecnstructed.
The site has an area cf 7896.6 square feet. The proposed
addition will bring the lot coverage to 2156 square feet
(27.30 which exceeds the maximum lot coverage for residential
use in the "R" (residence) district. A variance for this
standard will also be required.
The site is in the "R" (residence) district and does not
meet the rearyard and front yard setback requirements. The
existing house is thus a non-conforming use ar.d as such cannot
be expanded without first obtaining a variance.
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
1. Section 3.29, subdivision 1, indicates that non-
conforming structures cannot be expanded.
2. Section 3.30, subdivision 4(c), indicates that for
residential uses maximum lot coverage shall be 25~q.
3. Section 3.30, subdivision 5 requires that a single
family dwelling in "R" residence districts have
• 30 feet front yard setback and 25 feet rearyard
setback.
-2-
4. Section 3.40, subdivision 6, lists the three
conditions which must be met for a variance to be
granted.
STAFF REVIE'~1
Staff has reviewed the proposal against the t'r.ree conditions
which must be met for a variance to be granted and found the
following:
1. That there are special circumstances ar conditions
affecting this land not common to other properties cr similar
districts.
It is staff's opinion that there are no special
circumstances present an this site. The site is similar to
otter corner lots in the neighborhood.
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
It is staff's opinion that denial of the variance request
would not be detrimental to reasonable use cf the property. The
existing single family residential use could continue on the
site if the variance is denied.
• 3. That the granting of the application will not
materially and adversely affect the health or safety of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood and will not be
materially detrimental to tre public welfare or injurious to
improvements in the neighborhood.
It is staff's opinion that granting of the variance would
adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the public in
the area because of the let coverage which exceeds the maximum
area allowed by the ordinance and because of the substandard
building setbacks.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of this variance request on the
grounds that the three conditions for granting variances have
net been met.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission unanimously voted (6-0) tc recommend
denial of the variance request for rearyard and frcntyard
setback to allow a 14 x 24 foot addition tc the existing 25 x 34
foot attached garage at 625 East 68th Street.
Re tfull submitted,
von Ilav lcr
A ting City anager
r
. .
I'
'
..~~c~ r -
ip I f i 1~ c b
~ti
i ~1.
c-~~1'
IJ; ~ ~ n ~ ~ to d
t
h . J vl ' .
? 't r~ O
~ i
I - ~ '
ac ~
N 3 { I K) ~ r ~ ~ U _ 1. ~ ' I
~ . ~ ,
Qr X: b
~t 'l \i. I 1 ( 4 . f) R
V rl
c
t A,t„ 1..
v , ! - ,
t:
I ~J s - 1~
?'-•1 i I / ~ ~ ~ ) `1 ~7 .,fir 'r 3 ~ , ~ .-1 l) Rt C ~ ~ i ~ ir' ~ -
r H ~ s 1 ' o ` ~ i - ~ tti-r i CJ? ) i ~j 1
u~ ~ /"mar 81 i I• 5 , I (~r~`t ' ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~1-~ ~i i. ,
1 .ice Ii. ~•'I r O i k1 ,r b ~ t ~ '!ta.:
i ~ •
tt1 U
1
• ~ 1 -t
~ry/J~~' ".11I ~ ~,L a ( i~ ,I V., 1 i ,f f'f) N ~ p, h ~i •
1r r/ ~ V~lilr 1; ~'r',1 ~ t ui rr il' `(.ij ) ~ ~ ~~i A~ ~ i Sf` i1/ r .i I ?4 1'`1 f ,fir tr 1) ~ v 1 1 Lir, ,~+T tf,~ 7- ,
RAM Q) , r:. t 1 ~ . 1 t' ~ ! ~ ~ i .r ~ - 'a- /1 I . [ ~yyy~r)~
~ r ~ p111! S. r ~ ~ ' Y11 I'I C' i( T' '1 r _ ! + ' a. I),f 1 ~ ~f ll Q ' ititl b~b'.
r r , 1
P`,t
'r K'
rl ~ ,
w y ~ '1 --L•,ti,.~ t.~.... r i:.. .~`l:,r -_~5. ~ j ,J i I, dr rf rl'~ ) t 4 ~ , ,
' I. ~ K ~ 1. i.r ~~lr' ' ~i r t 5 I rl- 'S ' i ~ ~ Y , '1 i ~ i IJ ~ C) Ff ~~o;r
i, I ~ r i F"`r f' / ~ 1 I " `l~ ! ~`r~~) 1'~' 1, r .i~ ti ~ f~r~ i' ~ tl~ 1 ..~i' ~ ~'N ~`~~1 ~ ~rtr~ `~•Jil )
. ~ ~ ,
1 I f 1 ' ~ ~ ,I. ~ r ~ i , 1 it 14 11r 5, , , ~ r b ~ ' ,1.~ ~ ~ f ,~j~, _ ~
l.,I ! ?I ` I ~r r, ~~,,.ti +d i' ; ~ ~1 .7 I 1 i ~.,C~fy~Sr.! it .'rr`~ ~4!! - ~
( i% ~ 1~ ~ ~ i1 rr la. - ' 1 i11, ~l M S 1 T_';. E~ 1' 1 ~ ~i •J•~f ~ •t1 ~ ' a ~'-~-~!11 ~Ia. 'I( 1v ,~1'~
r ` t , I ' 1 . 5,,.,t.:i 4„i.r, _ _...t~ _..nl.::.r~ i Vl ~ r r + 1 ~1;ri 5 i; t1 171
~ ~ QJ G R1
C
~ 1 7
t ~i
I I, k+, ..I ~ ~ i f "1 t `v +F Ik ~'r ` f_7 g ~ ) RS. r' (J
1 , 1 r I. t ~ ~ .a. ~ ~ ~I ~rtt i
1i~, tr(•a= ~ ~ i:~} ~ ~~•,r r~NRl+,~ , t . ~',~a~' lam',/ ) , i J ~ ~ ~7 r ' C)~Q, i~ 1~~;~ r,
``1 1 ~ r !fir 1~ ',i i rl? i r , il' ~ /1IAI 1,ll ~ r~4 5 1
,:5,`\,,1.` 11 I ! 1 ~ r ~ i' I, ' ~ ~ f:~ , {1. j1 ,i 4.^+' 1~~ 1 ~ i~ ~ M a 1 i' dl _ ~Isp f•~ i ~RVr'
.1~ fit` ~ R d - 1 d • t t~ , 1 u , f ~ :j ' S .1 1 z~` .lf ~~1 ~l +q''r i'I v.l,tl
t + ~ f
` ~ i. ,
1 f
;i II , .I , 1,1 .,t, j , I 1 i N y { v rte'' .i~ '
i i1 1` 1 j Is ~11~ 1 ~•f Irr }:r,l~ ~ ~//111, t ' j sit(" 1F' ~ r "e'rr' JJjj o\ .ty ; [1 Iv 1~1 '~y~> Ft
1. } lj..._~~r ~i 1. W-~ ~I~ I l' ~ Iii 'j ,5 5' K , 1~~~^J ~
'1 ~ - ~ ~ _i .;,,J i ' ~ ~~1 l ,"I ,r. ~ ,i \ ' 1 f.'. ! ~ . ~,1~, ~ l11 t.+a~ e' '~L . ,
~ , i.,: . ? 1_- - t ` ~ ;~i~~,r~ ~1 :i' '~~~.!t ' f~~,, Vii': i s , . ~ f r.' ~ ;i ~ E~r~~l~kl-,t~ ~i ~
/
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 255
Agenda July 8, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Variance Request at 7645 Emerscn Avenue
Dear Council Members:
Mr. Donald Seeger has requested a variance to allow him to
complete a second story addition which he has partially
constructed on his dwelling at 7645 Emerscn Avenue. Mr. Saeger
began construction of this addition without first obtaining the
necessary variances or building permits to do so. The existing
dwelling is a non-conforming structure and cannot be expanded
without a variance. The dwelling is also in the ILN study area
and subject to the building moratorium currently in place.
Legal notice of a hearing to be held before the city council on
July 8, 1985, was published in the June 26, 1985 Richfield Sun-
current newspaper.
The Planning Commission considered this request on June 25,
1985, and recommended that the council not hear this item and
direct staff tc take action to insure that the property owner
restore the dwelling to its original condition.
Mr. Jerry Probst, an attorney who has been retained by Mr.
and Mrs. Saeger tc represent them, has indicated that re will
not be able tc attend the July 8, 1985, city council hearing on
this matter, and has requested a continuance tc the August 12,
1985, city council meeting. It is therefore recommended that
the city council continue the public hearing on this matter
until August 12, 1985.
Res~~ctfully submit ed,
v ~
e en Device
Acting City Manager
SD/eja
ATTORNEY-AT- lA W
Box 473
OSAKIS, MINNESOTA 56360
612-854-4880
June 27, 1985
Mr. Cartwright
6700 Portland Ave. S.
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Mr. Cartwright:
RE: Saeger/Variance
This is to confirm our conversation of Wed., June 26th. at that
time it was agreed to rescheduled this matter from the July 8th
City Council meeting to the meeting on the 22nd of July.
After reviewing my schedule, I discovered that I am scheduled
for a trial on the 23rd in Alexandria. If it is possible I would
like to change the date to the First Council Meeting in August
which I believe would be the 12th.
. If I do not hear from you by July 8th I will assume this matter
will be on the agenda for the August 12th meeting.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
i
Jerry P. Probst
Attorney at Law
JPP/sh
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 254
Agenda July 8, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Ccuncil
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Continuance of Variance Hearing
For the Property Located at 7133 Lyndale Avenue
Council Members:
On June 25, 1985, the Planning Commissicn considered a
request for a variance at 7133 Lyndale Avenue. A notice for a
public hearing befcre the city council on July 8, 1985, was
published in t'ne June 26, 1985, issue of the Richfield Sun. Mr.
Ralph A. Gale Jr., attorney fcr the applicant, has subsequently
requested a deferral of the public hearing until August 12,
1985.
It is recommended that the council continue the public
hearing on this item until August 12, 1985.
Res c fully ~bmitted,
r
r_
n D
cting City Manager
SD/eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 253
Agenda July 8, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members cf the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Permit for Temporary Sign
Council Members:
Hope Presbyterian Church, 7132 Portland Avenue, has
requested an advertising permit for a temporary sign announcing
their summer school session.
The sign, measuring 8 x ~ feet, would be erected on July 12,
1985, and stay in place for 30 days. The sign is the same as
used in previous years.
City Council approval is required for all temporary signs.
The city staff has reviewed the permit request and finds that
the sign conforms to all pertinent city ordinances. It is
recommended that the city council approve this request for a
temporary sign at Hope Presbyterian Church..
Res tfully submitted,
i
to ~ 'ch
Acting City M nager
SD/eja
i
.:^u'F:.:~V= I f DE'.'Y~ APPRO~'E~ I DE:\Z'I ~~~ti~--~,.i-~'~
- Cit}' Manager insp.ec-or.
t' Date Date
A.°PROVE ~-DEti'Y ~l-C..~ APPROVE I I DE:`;YI
Flannin• Le att enc City C.~uncil
Date ~~z~~> Date
Route to above for special approval per code General Suns
A.°PLICATIO~ FO F. ~LD~'ERTISIi~G PER":IT
City of Richfield, :iinnesoca
Date f - ~.S Zonins Sign Erected - 1es ~o ~ Fee
address of Sign ~~307 ' ~d ~'7'~ 14~U~ S~°roprietor Name ~0,~~ ~ ~Sl.~y DBA ~~•-,ll//~
~~v~
Sign Erector ,~/C.~ Q S~/j/ Address'/~~- /~~T~/~xJl~ s'Q
Tvpe of Sien Design Gieathe- Cover Li~htia_
Wall I~ Single Face ~ Clear Lexon ~ Constant
Projecting Double Face ~ Froste? Lexon Flashing
Ground ~ Multi-Faced I Plastic Covered ~ ~ Revolving
Roof , Aerial/Blimp ~ Shaded ~ Traveling
Pedestal i Searchlight tieon ~ Zip Lite
Changeable ( ~ Banner/Pennants ~ Other ~ Other(E~:plain)
Teaporary ~ Portable Frame: Sign Colors o ~ j~-~
Trailer ~ T ~ A ~ Post D 4~w~ o D
S `Y-St-i SL- f C /{-~`C~ - ~!'~J / x T~~ - Tim
Z lluminated - Yes Aoy Watts
~ i
,.rical Contractor / ~ Address ~ Phone •
Iroperty Owner or his Agent Signatur ~ Phone
Estia•,ated Cost ~S~-'~ Sign Width ~ ~ Height 'y ~ Total Square Feet
Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings. sidewalks,
curbs. roadways, overhead uti'_it}• lines, vehicle mover..ent lines, or public facilities on
drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. *:inor signs as
defined on page
Two blueprints o the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertisir. structure construction. ol~^s:
including specifications, list o: materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure.
Does the sign cove relate solel~• to the business, institution, or activity conducted on .
the premises? YES -
N'ilI Che sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sigct distance under, around, or over
for safe access b;' persons destined for or passinb the subiect premises? /l/~
Agplicanc's SiF.nature and Title ~h Firm
-~O~,S- Date ~ - /
Phone \umber
I~
S/S3 PLE.3SL SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIG:, LCC::TIO'~ Si{ETCH
Sivert Hendrickson/Buildinb Official - 866-5061