06-22-87 agenda
_ i
~j~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 198
Agenda, June 22, 1987
Issue Statement:
Resolution supporting preferential government procurement program
for recycled products.
Background:
After months of study and discussion of the local and national
recycling market situation, the Energy Awareness Advisory
Commission has found .that, historically, federal governmental
policies have favored the development of natural resources over
scrap and recyclable materials. According to Minnesota State Law
and the Hennepin County Solid Waste Master Plan, new and diverse
solid waste systems will be put into place over the next five
years, including the recycling of materials. Increasing the
supply of recyclables without increasing the demand for those
materials has already caused an oversupply of waste materials;
and in 1986 the oversupply drove prices down on newspaper to be
recycled.
The Energy Awareness Advisory Commission has adopted their
Resolution No. 22, a copy of which is attached, which suggests
the City of Richfield use fifteen percent or more of recycled
products. In the past, the City of Richfield has purchased
recycled paper, but found it unsatisfactory for use in I,
photocopying or printing and not cost effective. Currently,
Richfield uses retread tires on some of the city vehicles and
uses 5~ of city-generated waste paper to make scratch pads. Like
the Energy Awareness Advisory Commission, staff agrees there is a
need to support the recycled products market, but questions the
cost and quality of recycled products.
The resolution attached to this council letter requests Hennepin
County to solicit bids for recycled products as part of their
regular purchasing process and to encourage other members of the
County Buying Cooperative to use recycled products. The
resolution further provides that if the price for recycled
products is the same or lower than products made from virgin
material, and the quality comparable, the City of Richfield will
consider the recycled product. The resolution also provides that
if few recycled products pass this test, the city's position may
have to be reevaluated.
Rec,.~~~.endation :
Adopt the attached resolution requesting Hennepin County to
solicit bids for recycled products as part of their regular
purchasing process.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. It is hoped that this course of action will result in more
use of recycled goods without costing more money. .
2. The resolution recognizes the importance of supporting the
recycled goods market.
3. Richfield alone cannot make a large impact on changing
establishment buying patterns; however, we can set an example
and encourage further use of recycled goods through the
County cooperative buying group.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Richfield should fill 15~ of our need for a product with the
recycled form if the product is available in that form. This
is the Energy Awareness Advisory Commission's recommendation
and it would encourage the use of recycled goods. It could
prove to be costly. and the quality of the recycled goods may
not be acceptable. This resolution can send a signal to the
County and State cooperative buying groups in which they
participate; local and State governments can make an impact
by purchasing recyclable products and increasing the
availability of recycled products.
2. Use a recycled product if the cost is within 5~ of the non-
recycled product and the quality is acceptable. This would
limit the negative allowable cost and quality impacts and
would support recycling.
3. Buy a small amount of various recycled products and test
measure the cost and quality impacts before proceeding
further.
4. Do not adopt any resolution supporting recycling efforts.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Hennepin County will begin accepting bids for paper products and
other goods in July. A decision at the June 22, 1987 City
Council meeting should allow staff sufficient time to prepare an
order for County Contract.
Res a fu ly submitted,
J es D. rosser
C'ty Manager
JDP/se
~/~-.Z
RESOLUTION NO.
PREFERENTIAL GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
WHEREAS, increasing the supply of recyclables without
increasing the demand for those recycled products may glut the
markets and discredit recycling, and
WHEREAS, local, County and State governments can make a
positive impact by purchasing recycled products through their
cooperative buying groups, and
WHEREAS, Richfield can encourage the use of recycled
products by requesting Hennepin County to solicit bids for
recycled products in their cooperative buying group, increasing
the availability of the recycled products and lowering the cost,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Richfield,
Minnesota,
1. That Hennepin County solicit bids for recycled products
as part of their regular purchasing process and encourage other
members of the County Buying Cooperative to use recycled
products, and
2. If the price for recycled products is the same or lower
than products made from virgin material and the quality is
comparable, the City of Richfield will consider the recycled
product.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, this 22 day of June, 1987.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
- ~tj~-3 '
RESOLUTION N0 . 22 . , ,
ENERGY AWARENESS COMMISSION
PREFERENTIAL GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT ~ -
PROGRAMS FOR RECYCLED PRODUCTS
WHEREAS, historically, governmental policies have favored
the development of natural resources over scrap and 'recyclables~.~
and
WHEREAS, increasing the supply of recyclables without
simultaneously increasing tk~e demand for those materials will
quickly discredit recycl}ng~ and -
WHEREAS; local and state governments-can make a large impact
• by purchasing recyclable products, and increasing the
availability of recycled products. - -
BE IT RESOLVED, THEREFORE, by this Energy Awareness ,
Commission of Richfield, Minnesota, that the following actions be
taken:
1.. We suggest that the City of Richfield use recycled
products, at least as fifteen (15x6) percent or more of each
recycled product, and
• 2. That the City of Richfield encourage cooperative buying
groups in which it participates to purchase recycled materials,-
Passed by the. Energy Awareness Commission of the City of
Richfield this 16th day of December, 1986. - ~ •
~G~C.~-
Sidn y M. ~8'anfo~ ; 'C-hairman
Haul G. Peabody, Secretary
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 197
Agenda June 22, 1987
Issue Statement:
A resolution amending procedure for deferment of special
assessments against owner-occupied homestead properties of
persons over 65 years of age or person permanently and totally
disabled.
Background:
Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes 435.193 to 435.195 on
October 12, 1981,.;the City Council passed Resolution No. 6519.
This resolution established a policy of the City to consider
requests for the deferment of special assessments upon homestead.
properties owned by persons 65 years of age or older, or by
persons retired by virtue of a total permanent disability for
whom it would be a hardship to make payments on such special
assessments. Permanent and total disability for the purposes of
that resolution was defined as a condition which is permanent by
nature and totally incapacitates the person from working at an
occupation which. brings him or her an income.
A qualifying hardship was defined as being deemed to exist if the
owner of the homestead property and other occupants of the
homestead taken together (a) had a gross income of less than
$11,000 in the previous calendar year and (b) will have an
estimated income for the current calendar year and subsequent
calendar year which will not exceed set sum. In addition, the
resolution set up a procedure for individuals applying for the
deferred assessment.
During the course of the past five years, the deferred assessment
option has been used in a number of occasions, though
infrequently.
NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS
GRANTED DEFERRED
YEAR ASSESSMENTS
1982 5
1983 6
1984 0
1985 2
1986 1
The $11,000 which was used as a basis for qualifying hardship
gross income was a figure established from Federal guidelines for
low income eligibility for a variety of Federal programs. The
resolution makes no provision for automatically raising that
gross income level with each year's inflation. Thus, it was felt
that it would be appropriate to review this figure now in 1987,
six years after the figure was established, to take into account
inflationary increases built into the Federal guideline and bring
our resolution into conformance with that figure.
i
i Additionally, there were questions as to how other municipalities
administer this type of program.. In a survey done of seven
neighboring metropolitan municipalities, it was found that in
each of these cities the deferred assessment option is not often
used. In addition, some of those municipalities had a minimum
dollar amount of a special assessment before it could qualify
under the deferred assessment process.- For example, some cities
set up a requirement where the total special assessment must
exceed 20 of the homeowner's gross annual income to qualify for
deferment. The 2~ threshold for deferred assessments provides
that the deferred assessment in question be of a fairly
significant cost before it would. become subject to the deferred
assessment process.
In terms of administration for a municipality such as the City of
Richfield, the deferred. assessment process means that additional
accounting for deferred assessments must be undertaken by the
Finance Division, and that the Bond Account would typically
remain open until the assessments are paid or amounts are
transferred from another debt service account to close a
" particular assessment. Thus, there is a cost to the City of
administering deferred assessments.
Rec~~~~u..endation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
resolution which increases the qualifying hardship gross income
from $11,000 to $13,500 and which places a 2~ threshold .limit on
any special assessment to be applicable to the deferred
assessment process.
Basis of Rec..~...~~.endation:
1. The Federal Very Low Income guidelines for 1987 have
increased to $13,500 for single person family from the
$11,000 that was used in 1981.
2. The above-stated Federal income standard is a good basis
to use in determining gross annual income for individuals
who may qualify for assistance programs.
3. The 2~ threshold value for a special assessment to qualify
for this program would be helpful to the City in ensuring
that minor special assessment deferrals do not occur,
while at the same time providing a reasonable standard for
deferred assessment assistance where necessary.
4. All other procedures and practices contained in the original
1981 resolution would remain in place.
5. The modifications in the resolution proposed here are in
keeping with the practices of neighboring municipalities.
Alternative Rec„...~..;.endation:
1. The resolution as adapted in 1981 could be left as it is.
- 2. The resolution could be passed with a different gross
income amount or eliminating the 2~ threshold provision to
qualify for a deferred assessment.
~~~°2 ~
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The resolution should be acted upon at a council meeting in June
or early July, so that the resolution would be in place well in
.advance of this year's special assessment process which will take
place in August..
Respectf lly submitted,
j
es D. Prosser
ty Manager
JDP/sae
II
~,I
•
3
Total # Of
i Deferred $ or ~
Assessments Comments Limits
Bloomington 0 No One to of
Ever Annual
.Applied Income
Brooklyn Center Less For New 2~ of
Than Assessments House-
10 Only hold
Income
Brooklyn Park 12 None
Burnsville 1 None
Edina 6-8 For New 2~ of
Assessments Gross
• Only Income
Minnetonka 40-50 None
St. Louis Park 1-2 Last 1$
Few Years
9
III
_ i
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL:
ASSESSMENTS AGAINST OWNER-OCCUPIED HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES OF
PERSONS OVER SIXTY-FIVE YEARS OF AGE OR PERSONS PERMANENTLY AND
TOTALLY DISABLED
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1. It is the policy of the city to consider requests for
the deferment of special assessments upon homestead properties
owned by persons 65 years of age or older or by persons retired
by virtue of a permanent total disability for whom it would be a
hardship to make payments of such special assessments. Permanent
and total disability for the purpose of this section means a
condition which is permanent by nature and totally incapacitates.
the person from working at an occupation which .brings him an
income. In the adoption of-such policy and the procedures
established by this resolution, the city is acting pursuant to
authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 435.193 to
435.195.
2. A qualifying hardship shall be deemed to exist if the
owner of the homestead property and other occupants of the
homestead, taken together (a) had a gross income of less than
$13,500 in the previous calendar year and (b) will have an
estimated income for the current calendar year and subsequent
years which will not exceed said sum and (c) the total amount of
the assessment exceeds 2~ of the gross annual income of the owner
for the previous calendar year.
3. Application for deferral of payment of special
assessments shall be made on forms prescribed by the county
auditor. The home owner shall furnish the city with such
information as it may require at the time of the original
application and at any time thereafter while the special
assessment remains unpaid, which will permit the city to
establish, verify or continue the deferral of special assessments
or to determine whether eligibility for such deferral has ended.
4. Interest on deferred special assessments shall accrue
until the special assessment is paid, at the rate established by
the city at the time of levying the special assessment.
5. The city manager or his designee shall examine all
applications for determination of his/her eligibility for
deferral of payment of special assessments (a) in compliance with
said statute and (b) in accordance with the standards and
guidelines for determining hardships contained in this resolution
or any subsequent amendment thereof.
6. No deferment of payment of a special assessment shall
be made unless the owner furnishes the city with an application
and such supplementary documentation and verification as may be~
required to establish the following:
1. The legal description, plat and parcel number of the
property;
2. The street address of the property;
-
3. Its status as homestead property;
4. The description or designation of the local
improvement;
5. The name of the homestead owner-occupant;
6. That said owner-occupant is over 65 years of age or
permanently and totally disabled;
7. That payment of the special assessment on the
ordinary time basis would be hardship as defined
herein.
7. Within 30 days after the filing of said application for
deferment of special assessments, the city manager shall .review
the application for consistency with and conformance to, the
council prescribed standards and guidelines; and then either
grant or deny the application. In the event of the existence of
exceptional or unusual circumstances not covered by the standards
and guidelines, the city manager shall make a full report to the,
city council within 30 days of the filing of said application
along with a recommendation as to whether said application should
be granted or denied. In the event of the denial of the
application by the city manager, any applicant-shall have the
right to have the application considered by the city council. In
those instances where the city council considers an application,
it shall, by resolution, either grant or deny the application;
" and the decision of the city council shall be final. The city
manager shall report to the city council on a quarterly basis on
deferrals granted by him/her.
8. The option to defer the payment of special assessments
shall terminate and all amounts accumulated, plus applicable
interest, shall become due upon the occurrence of any of the
following events: (a) the death of the owner, provided that the
surviving spouse is not eligible for the benefits hereunder; (b)
the sale, transfer or subdivision of the property or any part
thereof; (c) if the property should for any reason lose its
homestead status; or (d) if for any reason the taxing authority
deferring the payments shall determine that there would be no
hardship to require immediate or partial payment.
Passed by the City. Council of the City of Richfield this 22
day of June, 1987.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 196
Agenda June 22, 1987
Issue Statement:
First reading consideration of an ordinance amendment to control
defacement of public or private property.
Background:
Recently the police division has had occasion to investigate
complaints regarding the placement of graffiti on private
buildings. The present city ordinance does not provide for the
prompt cleanup of what. clearly should be a public concern, The
police division has proposed that .the ordinances regulating the
posting of notices be revised in'order for the city to work with
businesses and residents to keep the city free of .unwanted
graffiti.
The suggested changes to Section 4.01, Subd. 16 would add written
symbols or markings as prohibited items in this section. Also,
it would extend coverage of this subdivision to private property
if the owner does not consent to such postings or writings.
Amendment of Section 4.01, Subdivision 18 , would provide that
the owner or person in control of any private property be
required to maintain the property from any condition which
constitutes a public nuisance. Section 10.01, Subd. 4 would add
. number 18 to this ordinance in order to make the improper posting
of notices, written symbols or markings a public nuisance.
The presence of graffiti in any form gives an impression of
neighborhood indifference and decay. It is in the best interest
of the city to require citizens and business establishments to
care for their properties so that this impression is avoided.
Rec~.~LL..endation
It is recommended that the city council give first reading
consideration to amendments to Chapter IV, Section 4.01 and
Chapter X, Section 10.01 to allow for a timely resolution of
problems that might be caused by the indiscriminate defacement of
public or private property with graffiti.
It is further recommended that the public hearing and second
reading of the ordinance amendments be scheduled for the July 13,
1987 council meeting.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The ordinance amendments would provide a tool to allow the
city to effectively combat the unsightly defacement of
property within the city by making the posting of written
symbols or markings upon private or public structures a
public nuisance.
~/a_~
Alternative Recommendations:
1. Leave the ordinance unchanged and request the responsible
persons that any graffiti be removed as soon as possible.
2. Handle problems created by graffiti on a case by case basis.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
First reading of these ordinance amendments has been placed on
the June 22, 1987 city council agenda.
Respectfully submitted,
J '~}rosser
'ty Manager
JDP/eja
I
~j~~
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTION 401 OF CHAPTER IV
OF THE CODE OF CITY ORDINANCES
The City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Section 401 of the Code of City Ordinance is hereby amended by
changing Subdivision 16 and 18;
- -
Subd. 16. Postin No~i
g t ces Prohibited: No erson shall
P
os r
p t o affa.x any nota.ce, poster, written
~mbols or markings or other paper or device,
calculated to attract the attention of the
public, to any lamppost, public utility pole
or shade tree,: or upon any public or private
structure or building, without the prior
written consent of the owner, except as may be
authorized or required by law.
Subd. 18. Owner to Maintain Premises Free of Litter
or Notices.
~i~ne owner or person in control of any private
property, whether occupied or vacant, shall
maintain the premises free of litter or any
condition which constitutes a public nuisance
as described in Sec.10.01, Subd. 4 (18) of this
code. This section does not prohibit the
storage of litter in authorized private
receptacles for collection.
Passed by the City Council of the Cit of Richfield Minnesota
Y ,
this day of lgg~,
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
~/a-3
M ORDINANCE NO. '
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTION 10.01 OF CHAPTER R
OF THE CODE OF CITY ORDINANCES
The City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Section 10.01 of the Code of City Ordinance is hereby amended by
adding Subdivision 4 (18);
Subd. 4 - (18) The posting or affixing of any notice';
Qoster, written symbols or markings or
other paper or device, calculated to
attract the attention of the public, to
any lamppost, public utility pole or
shade tree, or upon any public or priv-
ate structure or building, without the
prior written consent of the owner. It
is presumed that symbols or markings
not related to the business activity,
appearing on the property, were placed
there without the owners consent. Upon
anv trial of a charge arising out of a
' violation of this section the owner may
present proof rebutting such presume-
tion;
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of 1987.
John Hamilton, Mayor,
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
- ~1-
~e
Subd. 14. Distributing Commercial and Non-Commercial Handbills at Inhabited
Private Premises. No person shall throw, deposit or distribute any commercial
or non-commercial handbill in or upon private premises which are inhabited,
except by handling or transmitting any such handbill directly to the owner,
occupant, or other person then present in or upon such private premises. Pro-
vided, however, that in case of inhabited private premises which are not posted,
as provided in this section, such person, unless requested by anyone upop such
premises not to do so, may place or deposit any such handbill in or upon such
inhabited private premises, if such handbill is so placed or deposited as to
secure or prevent such handbill from being blown about such premises or side-
walks, streets or other public places; and except that mailboxes may not be so
used when so prohibited by federal postal law or regulations. The provisions
of this section do not apply to the distribution of mail by the United States,
nor to newspapers as defined in this section. Newspapers shall be placed on
private property in such a manner as to prevent their being carried or deposited
by the elements upon any street, sidewalk or other public place or upon private
proerty.
• Subd. 15. Dropping Litter From Aircraft. No person in an aircraft shall throw
out, drop or deposit within the city any litter, handbill, or any other object.
Subd. 16. Posting Notices Prohibited. No person shall post or affix any notice,
poster or other paper or device, calculated to attract the. attention of the
public, to any lamp post, public uti~y pole or shade trees or upon any public
structure or building, except as may be authorized or required by law.
Subd. 17. Litter on Occupied Private Property. No person shall throw or
deposit litter on any occupied private property within the city, whether owned
by such person or not. The owner or person in control of private property may
maintain thereon private receptacles for collection in such a manner that
litter will be prevented from being carried or deposited by the elements upon '
any street, sidewalk or other public place or upon any private property.
' ~d. 18. Owner to Maintain Premises Free of Litter. 'i'he owner or person in
control of any private property, whether occupied or vacant, shall maintain •
the premises free of litter. This section does not prohibit the storage of
litter in authorized private receptacles for collection.
Subd. 19. Litter of Vacant Lots. No person shall throw or deposit litter on
any open or vacant private property within the city whether owned by such
person or not.
Subd. 20. Liability of Merchant. Any merchant who advertises his goods,
wares or merchandise by causing advertising material to be thrown or deposited
in violation of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of violating
this section along with the person so throwing or depositing the material.
Subd. 21. Prohibited Acts Constitute Nuisances. Each of the acts prohibited
in this section are hereby declared to be nuisances, and the proper city
office5s and employees are authorized to proceed to abate such nuisances in
accordance with the procedures provided in Section 10.08 of Chapter X of this
code.
4/8/68
ORDINANCE CODE 107 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
_ ~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council ,Letter No. 195
Agenda June 22, 1987
Issue Statement:
First Reading Consideration of an Ordinance Proposing an
Amendment to the City Charter regarding Purchases and Contracts.
.Background:
Sections 6.05 and 6.06 of the City Charter address the subject of
purchases and contracts. Under the current provisions of 6.05,
Purchases and Contracts, the City Manager may make or let a
contract for .the purchase of merchandise, materials and equipment
or any kind of construction work, when the amount of such
contract does not exceed $10,000. If such contract exceeds
$10,000, but is less than $15,000, it may be let by the City
Manager after first obtaining approval of the City Council.
Section 6.05 goes on to say that all other purchases shall be
made and all other contracts shall be let by the Council.
Section 6.06 entitled Contracts: How Let, indicates that every
' contract for the sale or purchase of merchandise, materials or
equipment or the rental thereof, or for construction, alteration,
repair, maintenance of real or personal property where the amount
involved is more than $15,000, shall be let only by the City
Council, upon recommendation of the City Manager to the lowest
• responsible bidder, unless the Council shall otherwise provide by
Resolution, adopted by a majority of the council and published
once in the official legal newspaper of the City.
There are several important considerations which are not now
covered in Sections 6.05 and 6.06 which need to be addressed in
the immediate future. First, Section 6.05 of the City Charter
does not reference rental or lease agreements, purchase of
service agreements, or the sale of City material, equipment or
supplies. Additionally, the final statement in Section 6.05
makes it confusing as to what kind of routine purchases can be
approved administratively by the City Manager, and which must be
approved by the City Council. Under Minnesota Statute 471.345,
the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law, rental or lease of
merchandise, materials or equipment, or the sales thereof, is
covered, thus it would be helpful to have the City Charter
language conform to the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law
Statute. In addition, while the State Uniform Municipal
Contracting Law does not address purchase of services, it is
recommended that within the City Charter, contracts for purchase
of services be specifically included, so as to clarify exactly
where the authority for executing such contracts would lie.
Along with the City Charter language, the City also has in place
Resolution No. 6847, which directs the City Manager to inform the
City Council of purchases in excess of $5,000, even though the
Charter allows the City Manager to make purchases or contracts up
to $10,000, without Council approval. The latter Resolution is
#
the reason why purchases in excess of $5,000 are now included
under the Consent Calendar in the City Council Agenda. If the.
City Council wishes to continue that practice, the Resolution
should also be modified to conform with the new Charter language.
The attached language drafted by the City Attorney's Office
attempts to clarify within Section 6.05 the entire scope of
purchases and services authority of the City Manager and City
Council and includes rental or .lease agreements, repair work,
urchase of services and sale of Cit assets an ui m
P y d eq p ent.
I
Section 6.06, entitled Contracts: How Let, would be deleted
insofar as all appropriate language would be covered in Section;
6.05.
Under the proposed Charter language, the authority of the City
Manager to let contracts. is basically unchanged, in that the City
Manager retains the authorit to make urchases under 10 000 and
Y P $
purchases between $10,000 and $15,000 may be let by the City
Manager after first obtaining approval of the City Council. The
real change in the .new language of 6.05 is that it clarifies that
purchases for personal services, rentals and leases, sale of City
property, is all s ecificall included within the dollar limits
P Y
established b Charter Provision 6.05.
Y
Authority under Section 6.05 has been unclear in the past, making
it difficult for City Administration to be absolutely sure we are
operating under the intent of the City Charter. With the
modifications proposed here, the City Charter provisions would
conform to the State Uniform Bidding Law, and in fact, be more
specific, in that purchases and services would also be covered by
the Charter.
On May 28, 1987, the Charter Commission considered the proposed
ordinance amendment and have forwarded a Transmittal Order to the
City Council for consideration.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve first reading of
the attached Charter Amendment changing Charter Section 6.05 and
deleting Section 6.06. Both Charter Sections pertain to
purchases and contracts.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The current Provision 6.05 and 6.06 of the City Charter
concerning purchases and contracts do not totally conform
with the Minnesota Uniform Municipal Contracting Law.
2. The City Charter Section 6.05 and 6.06 are unclear with
respect to treatment of certain kinds of purchases and
contracts, such as rental, personal services, and sale of
City assets.
- 3. It would be advantageous to both the Administration and City
Council for there to be a clear understanding by City staff
as to the staff's authority in making purchases under the
City Charter.
4. The Charter Commission has recommended that the City Council
approve this Charter Amendment.
Alternative Rec„.~,.~:.endation:
1. The City Council could decide not to amend the Charter.
2. The City Council could propose alternative provisions for
City Charter Section 6.05 and 6.06.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter has been scheduled for consideration on June 22,
1987. Action is requested to allow time for publication and
second reading consideration at the July 6, 1987 City Council
meeting. _
' Respect ully submitted,
lam"'"
J s D. Prosser ~
C y Manager
JDP:sb
II
~9~
t
CHARTER AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CHARTER
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
The City Charter of the City of Richfield is hereby amended
in the following respect:
Section 6.05 thereof, entitled "Purchases and Contracts," is
hereby amended to read;
Section 6.05. Purchases and Contracts. The City Manager may
make or let contracts for the purchase or sale of supplies,
materials, equipment, or the rental thereof, or any kind of
construction or repair work involving real or personal property,
or for the purchase of personal-services, when the amount of such
contract does not exceed $10,000. If such contract exceeds the
last stated amount but is ~~.,s not more than $15,000, same may be
made or let by the City Manager after first obtaining approval of
the City Council. X311 ~tl3ar ~;3r.~h~w~~-3h~11 La ~~ar ~.:~3 X11
ct~~i ~or~~~..~~ s:~all ~.o lc~ E;y ~hc ~G~r.~il-. If such contract is
for the purchase of personal services and exceeds $15,000, same
shall be made or let by the City Manager after first obtaining
approval of the City Council. Every contract for the sale or
purchase of merchandise, materials or ecTUipment, or the
alteration thereof, or. for the construction, alteration, repair
or maintenance of real or personal property, where the amount
involved is more than $15,000 shall be let only by the City
Council upon the recommendation of the City Manager to the lowest
responsible bidder, unless the Council shall otherwise provide by
resolution adopted by a majority of the Council and published
once in the official legal newspaper of the City. The Council
may, however, reject any and all bids. Sub-iect to the provisions
of the Charter, the Council may by ordinance adopt further
regulations for making of bids and letting of contracts. All
other contracts shill be let by the Council.
Section 6.06 entitled Contracts: How Let is repealed.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 194
Agenda June 22, 1987
Issue Statement:
Continuation of first reading consideration of an ordinance
vacating portion of an alley and rezoning the northerly portion _
of 6528 16th Avenue from 'R' single family residence to 'C-2'
general commercial. ~i
Background:
Hines and Sons, Inc. and Mt. Calvary Church have petitioned the
city. to vacate the easterly half of a 12 foot alley between
Bloomington Avenue and 16th Avenue and to rezone the northerly 20
feet of the lot addressed as 6528 16th Avenue from single family.
residence R district to C-2 general commercial. The lot
proposed to be rezoned is vacant at the present time. The
applicant wishes to construct a three story 15 unit apartment
building for the elderly. The vacation of the requested portion
of the alley would allow the church buildin to be structurall
g Y
connected with the proposed apartment building thus providing
convenient accessibilit for t
he elderl residents to arti
Y y p cipate
in church activities. The vacation of the easterly portion of
the alley would provide each of the abutting property owners with
an additional 800 square feet of land.
The properties within 250 feet north of the centerline of West
66th Street are zoned -2
C general commercial all the way from
11th Avenue to Cedar Avenue. The zoning district boundaries in
most cases do not conform with property lines in this area. This
results in there being many properties where a portion of a lot
is zoned C-2 and the remainder of the lot is zoned 'R' single
family residence. The subject property is such a case. The
rezoning being requested would result in the total lot being
zoned C-2 general commercial.
The properties abutting the north side of the alley are single
family residential uses. Two single family dwellings, the church
and a commercial structure, are located south of the alley.
Two single family lots (6528 and 6532 16th Avenue) north of the
alley along 16th Avenue are owned by the applicants. South of
.the alley the abutting single family dwelling west of the church
is owned by a group of people associated with the church. The
existing uses would remain the same exce t for the two ro erties
P P P
at 6528 and 6532 16th A
venue. The single family residential uses
on the properties abutting the alley are nonconformin .
g
A special use permit would be required for the apartment use in a
C-2 general commercial district. The applicant intends to apply
for a special use permit if the council approves the vacation of
the alley and the proposed rezoning.
I
Zoning Ordinance Requirement:
1. Section 3.42, outlines the procedural requirements for
rezoning of a property.
2. Section 12.04 (city ordinance), outlines the regulations for
vacation of an alley.
Staf f Rec....~t.endation
1. Deny the vacation of the easterly portion of the 12 foot alley
located between Bloomington Avenue and 16th Avenue South
2. Approve the rezoning of the northerly 20 feet of the lot
addressed as 6528 16th Avenue South from single family
residence 'R' district. to general commercial 'C-2` district.
If the City Council wishes to proceed with these matters, it is
recommended that the council give-first reading approval to the
attached ordinances and pass the attached resolution setting July
27, 1987 as the date for the public hearing and second reading.
Basis of Rec~.~~.G.endation:
Denial of Allev Vacation:
1. The proposed vacation would create a dead end alley.
This would make snowplowing and other maintenance
activities extremely difficult because trucks would have
to backup approximately 130 feet. This is not
acceptable to city maintenance staff, and the Community
Services Department has objected strenuously to the
• vacation of part of this alley.
2. The existing alley provides access to the single family
dwellings and the commercial property abutting the
westerly half of the alley. The vacation of part of an
alley would create maintenance problems and hinder
smooth access to the two garages abutting the alley.
3. Utilities present within the alley are a 4 inch
waterline and two power lines. Utility easements would
have to be provided if the vacation is approved.
4. The Planning Commission motion to recommend approval of
the vacation of the easterly half of the alley failed
(8-2).
Rezoning:
1. The proposed rezoning would allow the property owner to
have a single zoning district classification, i.e. C-2
general commercial, for the said property.
2. The proposed rezoning would riot be "spot zoning". The
area to be rezoned C-2 general commercial is contiguous
to an existing C-2 general commercial zoning district.
3. An apartment use of low/medium density would create a
buffer between single family residences to the north and
west and the more intensive uses along 66th Street.
4. The comprehensive development plan designates the site
- to be developed as single family residential uses. C-2
general commercial zoning is therefore inconsistent.
I, ~ 5. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
~i, approval of the rezoning of the northern 20 feet of the
~i
lot addressed as 6528 16th Avenue from single family
residence 'R' district to general commercial 'C-2'
district.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council may choose to recommend approval of the
vacation of the whole alley between Bloomington Avenue and
16th Avenue. Such an approval would have to be contingent
upon proper access-and maintenance agreements being
provided. The City would also require utility easements.
2. The City Council may deny the rezoning of the portion of the
subject property because it is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.' However, such an action would maintain
the existing condition where a single parcel of land has two
zoning designations.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
First reading of ordinance vacating the easterly half of an alley
located between Bloomington Avenue and 16th Avenue; and the
rezoning of-the northerly 20 feet of the lot addressed as 6528-
16th Avenue from single family residence "R" district has been
continued to June 22, 1987. While the staff and Planning
Commission recommendation is to deny the alley vacation, it is
necessary for the council to vote on the ordinance granting the
vacation. No mailed or published notice is required for first
reading consideration. Published notice will be provided for the
public hearing and second reading. Second reading and public
hearing on the above request could be scheduled for July 27,
1987.
Res ct ul y submitted,
I'i
J es D. Prosser i
City Manager
JDP/sae II
~I
I
I
PROPERTIES ABUTTING THE ALLEY
~ 4 SINGLE .FAMILY - - -
CHURCI;
COMMERCIAL
ACCESSORY - N
STRUCTURE
PROPOSED
VACATION ~ . ,
r -
O ~ -
o
Z - ~ _
S
O
Z _ r~
is
< ~ -
i 1
1 I
r i
i 1
i
i
1
1
1
1
t
I
r ! I
i
r~
i 1
k 1
jl 1 1
E 3 1
i
F ~
~ ~I 1 I ~
~ I
~ r 1 ~s~'`I C
< t- 1 •
m I I I
I
r
1
r
1
~r 1
. . + I
i I - I
I I I 1
r
. ~
66TH ST.
PETITION - - . " {
CO'+CERNING THE ALLEY SETr1EEN
SLOOMINGTO:i AYE S 16TH AVE
S 66th ST 6 65TH ST
RICHFIELD, MN
We are trying to obtain City approval for 6 completion of the
vacating of the east half of the 12 foot alley located between
Bloomington Avenue 6 16th Avenue, and running across the northerly
portions of Lots 10 hrough 15 of Block 12, Noly•nis Gardens
Rearrangement of 81~ ks 7,11 b 12, Girard Parkt ev Addition
to the City of Richfield. We are proposing to change the above
described alley so that ve can build an appartment building for
the elderly. The new building would be attached to and constructed
with brick to match the existing ctsurch. ~ _
f` ~~~iN67"`~xJ ASE
PR~Nr
~ SXoP • .
-AttEY
•
r
1 2
i ~ ~Ko~sEi p~~Xin~G
CNURC H Pfd'a P,o~c,v
~ ~ / PA.
l~"' AvE
Na~'H ~
I approve the above propoanl to change the above mentioned elley
so that the above mentioned construction may proceed:
ignature Addreea Date
4./L`~.'.~,/V "~•~.,.c(t..~ 'I/-.~ \~C.C. (.''d~t1 ~1l!~:..~il~ . 1~'T /V l~ /
J . ~ ~
S• cerely C
_ F- _
Q
' t-
~ _
~ ~ ~ ~ 64TH 5T E _ _ " _
~ ~ ~ ~
PETITION MAP _ ~ -
~ ~ cn cn
~ - _
~ ~ ~ PROPOSED SITE - ~ ~ -
Q Q
a > ~ _
_ Q LOPS IN FAVOR = N = -
_
v OF REZONING ~ ~ -
~r-,
w
_ - - a
65TH ST E
. ~ - _ -
~ ~
. Q v
O ~r'1
III ~
' µ:$i1{:}::~:
1;l:~: J::f:(:.
~y~ J:•:•1
•:1:::::1
•~•:ti
~ ~{•}1i
W •:•.z
}14:}:4
QTY ROAD N0. 53) 66~H ST E
Q
' t!7
64TH ST E _ ~
ZONING MAP
v' ~ ~ ~
,~\}.+p
a-~- GENERAL COMMERCIAL > ~ >
w ~ Q+:4\ h
Q ~ .
~tv~:
~~~:;i~
~ _ ¢ ~ GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ~ N =
_ ~ `PROPOSED SITE - ~ ~ ~ h~~.
4
w
_ . ~ ~
65TH ST E
- - _ ~ ~ .
_ 4
. w - °
w
. ¢ ~ _ v
z ~
_ _ ~ °
~ Z ~ ~ M
o ~ ~
- . I o ~ ~ _
~
_
Y ROAD N0. 53) , 66iH .ST F
- M ~ ~ - ~
- - ~ a ~ _ _
-J1 1--<11 11 I I I I ! ~o~I I { ~ I i f ~ ~
- _ ` 14TH AVE S ,
~ ~
o ~
z
o
_ ~ W _ . ~ - 15TH AVE S -
~
-
-
n
~t~~~~~
B1.00M I NGT ON AVE S ,
i t I t I I I I
- - -
f ~ t~tit~
Cn - ~ ~ ~t~t'tI r" -
y ~ n n n z
CHURCH ~ O D ~ ~ C i
" t O ~ ~ ~ ~
" CHURCH SCHOOL ~ I m c n m. ~ _ - !
3 ,n„,~ i ~ ~ D -I ~ ~ _
~ n r ~
- m rn ~
I I I I r
- ~ - 17TH AVE S
- I
- I
- Z ~ I
i
+
-
18TH AVE S -
h, ~ -
- _
- ~
E r r• ~ ' ~ ~ +t+ttii~l1l~+~t~1~1~1~1if~t~l~l~i~l I~l~l~l~l~l~l~l~ltltltltltltttl~ltl
.1 I I't'I'1°t'1'I'I'I '1'I`1'I't' I i t l l
tltllttlili'Itttltltltt ttltititittlttttitttltl~ ittllllllititttitlltllt ittlittitll tIIItItItI1~111111illIIIII111111111
t ,ittltitlllt~iiltlllllll II11{Illllt Illlllittii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f 1 1 1 1 1 t i t l t
11111~11111111f111`I11111 ItIt1111t?I ttltt tit++Itttttittttt
`1 I l l i l l l l t l I I i l t t i n t ttlitttttttllttitlttiti Ititllitltl Itltitltlt111lllilltlttlltitititlti
'llttttllt{tdlltllllllt ItItlltltlt4tltltltitlt I l t i t l l t i t i i I t 1 1 1 I I t l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I,I I t 1 1 1 1
:...I.t.t.t.t.t,t.t.t~t.ut,t,t,t,t.t,t,t,?,t•i,~ i't't't,',~,t.t.t,t.t.l.t.t,t,t,t, ,t.t.t.~.t.+ + t t+ t t +
- `CEDAR AVE 5 (S i ATE
-
t -
_ ~4J I
•
~ COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PROPOSED SITE
~
MEDIUM DENSITY/.BUFFER ~ - ~::r:~::
~ l N S T I T U T 10 N A L ~ _
- .s.,,~ Q
- -
MIXED LAND USE - ~
• - ¢
_ 1
• 1••
i•1 _
i
1.
- r
. i,~r.' _
i y:•.aj
' I ,.v.w
_
w~~w
_ r. N~ •v1:i' yy u,,,• .v.u yu-~w a _'•1~.'.'.'.'.•.'.'.'.I
. 5.~ F
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RECEIVING ALLEY
VACATION PETITION AND CALLING
FOR PIIBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the City requesting
the vacation of an alley easement described as follows:
All that portion of the alley in Block 12, Nokomis Gardens
Rearrangement of Blocks 7, 1'1 and 12, Girard Parkview
Addition 1 '
yang between the. .southerly extension of the
easterly and westerly property lines of Lot 9, Block 12,
Nokomis Gardens Rearrangement of Blocks 7, 11 and 12, Girard
Parkview Addition.
WHEREAS, said petition complies in all respects with the.
requirements of Richfield Ordinance Code 12.04, Subdivision 2.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COONCIL OF ~tt~ CITY
OF RICHFIELD AS FOLLOWS:
1. The petition for vacation of that portion of the alley
described above is received.
2. A public hearing on the alley vacation in said petition
shall be held on July 27, 1987.
3. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such
hearing in the official newspaper of the city and post notice of
said hearing in the manner provided by Richfield Ordinance Code
Section 12.04, Subdivision 3.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
day of , 1987
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas ,Ferber, Cit Clerk
Y
~~i~
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE N0.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR
THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF AN ALLEY
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The following described portion. of an alley is
hereby vacated:
All that portion of the alley in Block 12, Nokomis Gardens
Rearrangement of Blocks 7, 11 and 12, Girard Parkview
Addition, lying between the southerly extension of the
easterly and westerly property lines of Lot 9, Block 12,
Nokomis Gardens Rearrangement of Blocks 7, 11 and 12, Girard
Parkview Addition.
Section 2. This alley vacation shall not affect, destroy or
interfere with the right of any person, corporation, or
municipality owning or having control of any electric, gas,
telephone, cable television, sewer., water or other utility
to construct, reconstruct, operate, maintain, repair and
remove any public utility facilities upon or within the
vacated right-of-way.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
this day of , 1987.
•
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
•
BILL N0.
ORDINANCE N0.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C
OF THE. ORDINANCE CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield
entitled"Boundaries of Zoning Districts" is hereby amended in
the following respect:
Section 3, Paragraph (52) is amended to read as follows:
(52) That area between-the west line of 11th Avenue and the
east line of Cedar Avenue between the centerline of 66th
Street and a line 250 feet northerly from and parallel to
the centerline of 66th Street, and the north 20 feet of Lot
8, Block 12, Nokomis Gardens Rearrangement of Blocks 7, 11
and 12, .Girard Parkview except Lot 8, Block 5, Nokomis
Gardens Rearrangement of Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Girard
Parkview.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of , 1987.
John N. Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 193
Agenda June 22, 1987
Issue Statement:
Public Hearing and Second Reading of an Ordinance enacting the
Richfield City Code of 1987.
Background:
For the past year, the city has been working to recodify city
ordinances. Recodification is necessary approximately every five
to ten years in order to make sure that the code is as up to date
and easily readable as possible: The .last time the city
ordinance was recodified was in 1968. The city attorney's office
has undertaken a thorough analysis of the code, reorganized
portions of the code, and updated the language.. Staff .has
reviewed the recodification and provided additional
recommendations for changes which have been accomplished.
The city council has been provided with copies of the recodified
ordinance and reviewed it at the May 4, 1987 `.council study
session.
It should be noted that the recodification process is merely a
means to update the .code and does not include any substantiative
changes in the city ordinances. Any substantiative changes must
be made by separate motion.
At the June 8, 1987 city council meeting, the city council gave
first reading to the codification ordinance and scheduled second
reading and the public hearing for the meeting of June 22, 1987.
Recon~nendation
Hold the public hearing and approve second reading of an
dinance enactin the Richfield Cit Code of 1987.
or g Y
Basis for Rec.,...W...endation:
1. A need to update the code and remove archaic and/or
conflicting language.
2. A need to provide format and more easily readable code form.
Alternative Rec..~a~.~w.endation:
1. The city could not adopt the code, or adopt the code in a
revised format. However, it is the opinion of the staff that
the format suggested by the city attorney is very good.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The public hearing and second reading have been scheduled for the
June 22, 1987 city council meeting. The codification will take
effect 30 days after publication of the enactment ordinance.
Resp ctfully submitted,
J s D. sser
. C y Manager
JDP/eja
s_
ORDINANCE N0.
AN ORDINANCE ENACTING
THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE OF 1987
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Code Adopted. Pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 415.02 and 415.021 and the City Charter, the City Council
hereby enacts the Richfield City Code of 1987 (the "Code") prepared at .the Coun-
cil's direction and dated January 1, 1987.. The Code is a revision,. rearrange-
ment, recodification and reenactment of all existing effective ordinances of the
City except as otherwise provided in this ordinance.
Sec. 2. Copies Available. A substantial quantity of the Code shall be
printed for general distribution and availability to the public in such reason-
able quantities and at such reasonable charges as may be fixed by the City
Clerk, and copies .shall be kept available for public inspection in the offices
of the Clerk.
Sec. 3. Notice of Publication. The City Clerk shall forthwith publish
notice of the availability of the Code for two successive weeks.
Sec. 4. Ordinances Not Affected. Ordinances of the City not included in
the Code as they existed on the day prior to the effective date of this ordi-
nance are not affected, repealed, amended or altered by the adoption of the ~
Code.
Sec. 5. Existing Rights and Liabilities. The disposition by repeal of
heretofore existing ordinances and the rearrangement and recodification of
existing and new ordinances accomplished by the Code has been accomplished in
accordance with the provisions of state law and the City Charter. The proce-
dures followed in this recodification are not be be construed so as to alter,
diminish, increase or otherwise modify any rights, duties or liabilities of the
City or any person existing on the effective date of the Code. The provisions
of the Code insofar as they are the same in substance as those of previous
ordinances of the City of Richfield are essentially, but not actually, continua-
tions of such previous ordinances. Every act done, offense committed or right
accruing or accrued, or liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred or
assessed prior to the effective date of the Code is not affected by its enact-
ment.
Sec. 6. Inclusion in Code Appendix. This ordinance shall be included in
an appropriate appendix to the Code.
Sec. 7. Custody: Distribution. The City. Clerk is the custodian of all
copies of the Code. The Clerk may distribute copies of the Code to such city
offices and employees in such quantities as may be authorized by the City
- Council.
Sec. 8. Prima Facie Evidence. The Code is prima facie evidence of the law
of the City of Richfield.
r
Sec. 9. Effective Date. This ordinance is effective in accordance with
Section 3.09 of the City Charter. The Richfield City Code of 1987 is effective
on August 1, 1987.
Adopted this day of , 1987.
Approved this day of 1987.
John Hamilton
Mayor
Attest:
Thomas Ferber
City Clerk
Published: '
• (Affidavit of Publication attached)
I
I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 192
Agenda June 22, 1987
Issue Statement: 'I
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment to
establish the boundaries of the new C-3 High Density Commercial
Zonin Dis
g tract
Background:
On the previous item on this agenda the City Council considered
the creation of an ordinance amendment to create a new C-3 high
density commercial zoning district and related requirements. The
City Council should now consider what land should be included in
the C-3 zoning district boundaries. .
Rec~~?uuendation
It is recommended that the City Council conduct the public
hearing and approve the attached ordinance to rezone the property
in the area generally bounded by 77th Street, Pleasant Avenue,
494 and 35W from C-2 General Commercial and I industrial to C-3
High Density Commercial.
Basis of Rec,.,..:....endation:
The rezoning of this property to C-3 high density commercial is
critical to the successful management of the ILN area. The goals
of broadening the tax base, providing for economic growth and
employment opportunities, fostering a favorable environment for
appropriate businesses and the elimination of the conflicts
between residential and commercial areas can best be achieved
this way.
The rezoning is also consistent with the city's comprehensive
plan which indicates the area should be developed as high density ~I
freeway strip type uses. The rezoning of this property will help
bring about the type of development anticipated in the
comprehensive plan.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the
C-3 zoning district boundaries as described in the attached
ordinance.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Reject the designation~of the area south of 77th Street as
C-3.
2. Modify the area proposed to be rezoned.
Decision Mode:
1. In accordance with the strategy outlined by the city for the
ILN area, it is necessary to have the rezoning effective
prior to September. 22, 1987 when the building permit
moratorium expires,
2. Mailed and published notice has been provided for the public
hearing and second reading of the ordinance.
. Resp~tfully submitted,
J m s D. ~er
Ci y Manager
- - LN• •
~
~ STU AREA.
SEC. 33, T. 28, R. 24 SEC. 34, T. 28, R. 24
• 42 11 32 31
~ M w[~r ~ ' •n/- ~rrc t wur t r~rM _ _ ~r11rcT
y. ~ . m . n. d • vi ~ ,In r!n nl I/n riN Ttl r1Tr
- ,l,r rNl _ N-,1
_ I + ar nr uN an ru I m rw
'Va .II• ,Y rNl 'J4 Ibl ~ I!1 111 Ur rNl ~ ~rA rYJ (/1 l rfJl I IN I !rY I4t1~ (M I m I M I W I nl I Y I nl I r! I N' QI I el Yll YV rr ~ -
! "lr ~ 'NI INI (11 yY rkr 64 Wl ~ /AY 4Y 1 L In WI I!N rrl lel ~ pl Z M
.I
r~ /NI Ntl /NI %1 %1 On µll UJI NN lNI 171 = Itl rNl /W - ~ m /ld /r/! dJ W ~ 1N1
./Ir ,IN ~Ml INJ rl/I rfl I%/r iMr itN iM/ /J{r l111 ~ - nN ~ . 01/ . _ Q -
r. •r 1!a' rM Iwr _ on m ru r>r w m nr NI t71 Nv
ul ~ W Nn Iu nv Nil !f r uu o'n m ~
0 lur nY wl >A rm rnr .u TNl ~ w iili Tai ~ N ._._-b, S aalpm w 11 Mi tlJl 13uN Q m 3rn r«1
Z Y rr „ Ivl INI ~ Mr - r/I ~ Inl WI ~ ~ Nll ~ 11 rNl W NI I INI aY OY NY rlV Un nl/ /N! lIl Nn
"
v •1n „ N•/ .NN•~ ~ Illr Ir INI YY (!ll UII nl - N11
_ \ r /1r1 MI 6Y W1 IW pa (/V O! Id In wy
aM f °u .Lr 1 nri" rd Inl na r.wl Tin -m' al -
- J ,•1i _ „ r~rl _ rul_ _ 001:- t
„i-:. _ ~fv nq l ~L_ rNl ~ OP 6n~ nvl Nn 011 Pu Ir !N Nrl
wear - ~ • rirll ~iec•i tlY rnl w[~ nn/ arttr
2 Iwr 'ul r.,r rnYl an r;u au /u Tai . rnl ~ ~ wN ' rK ~ ~ " ^ na YN -r n b ~ rAU ~ nn m
' rrrm rron _ 1 -
tNw f m pu IMl nyl Nro ravel 1 0
Q ~ :W an rrNJ ran !nu nin r,u all im b'I nw rul 1 WI •L Mr mr nn uY na WI .
( Mr r..r ^'I NI raNl INN um rm aa! N,rf iNU r''I' Inrl It w - -
1 rl/r a/n Idl rill N!!1 A.rl rN/I /rill H1) nn aN r,Y On Na rlu nlu NY W
/ ~ ~ /AN ~ rwr rM~ Illlr NlY aJ/I _ . NU rrt/! _ Ul! Nw Ml IW llNl ~ .
Nf'
/ ~ rrl fffl .wl Irrl1.. Wl - ~ rNl1 INN 1 1~ -!!N _ - QI 411 Wl r111 1 - -
~\,MZ9r, .wi2.9n/ ~ rrN[7 ~ •I~4~~~~N ~ lrn~s,~.rJr ~ nluT~rrrl ~ Nf2^'1..M1 ~ a.• rrlV 1V7._ S~ ._118'- ~ -1S' ~ -1 I-. W ~ti~
/ h i/V nV G r rMl - nwl ~ ~ - m _N" Nn Nrr Nu UU -rrl_-IIY_! M/ Wr- YtN nM' r=U_ rWr ~ AI
I i~ rA/r GIN Nlll IaM aAY arL PIL a,V t . - _
ram r(11 a!Y (NI MI ~ - (ar (Mfl ryf.l bL \ aNr ~ WI YV ~ rtl n1f ~ Oll Ull (Al IV AY aY Iru /w/ Ct/1 rMl fry
M.'I Nn _ r„1 IqY NIU - INII Nlll bIl b111 I aV ~~l - i Y~ 1 B._ _ - 1~~ ~
` IIN IHI /p11 Ipll b(J INN 1111 MI I/NI nil an 1 rft' 1W n/1 1 • rlJl Id rill !W !Mr UVI low /a11 Irl
/1/ 1 ` rrlll N/Y Ifl nY hr/I brll NIII /lyl bN , yp _ _ _ _ _ -
/ ` J ~ 1 ) l /rlMl _ !/Wl 1x111 Iq/ !Ml /afr - _ IMO Nfa /rlvr `A¦ 1 011 ~ NY MV UII nn nn Or nn IM Il(I On aW - Mll MV NrU nll
_ ~ NNI
- ~ r _ 787 1 - s - - STR - _ WES-' - - 7871 - _ STREET - - -
1 ~ r ' - _ , Nq ' 111 m M 1 1 !11 nA YL 1 ON OY M y~ w WI UY In r ~ avl rn WI rNl - b= rUr r!1 OI
~ rri
L ' - W !n rm m rJ! nu w. au nn nn rrl rr m wn rlu ~ or as ~ (en Yu w n11 m Nn y su
I- Nll ' - . .
LQ INI ' rJl rill /!71 rN/ M nl !Ip ~ m IJI ~ n,l . I ,/n ' all UI! ` OV QN qY M - aw . Ny ?p _ (r~
-
iNl II ILII /!Il !NI ~ Nl m IY/ 04 nY ~ ffu IW 1 tlrl nl! NL ~~rlu n)1 !1 ml y
31^ -32-- u --23- ~ --3V'- ~-2 inn ---9i8° -3T- ~ 9 - -31D- -41-- -42- a+'4Rn1
1 ` nl cw eY ly WI wl ~ ur ' ~ ml - _ j mr va m nn- < Wl /s ml a.l 40 ~ NY _ uu nn m i- . ,Wj ru Q
rM w ~ 'n' /ru INI ro ~ Iul cw rd rYl a Ila rAa nn nu Nv au ~ rfu... WI wN vn u. ~ rol ~ rl ~ w J
'7~- 2 rm I1N a n~~ J1n AI rrl OY av ND 1O' m U
! ~ \ 30 aN .~i~%rr.~ > ml / ~.i~+~ rr~?~ ~ ou - = a' - li- 3 3
rn• uN nn r~l rN ,WI .u nn wn nn nn rw Nn INN /ru oll A,r m - IM ryl m ~
/ Z wnr nn/ ~nui. ~ ~ ~ wur »n/ rrwrrr U
_ R
1
::1::
wl
1- _
:~~~~j
T
'w
T -
-
N
y 0 WI W
S
•
r
~M~
. .
y::
%k r?i
m ~
i -
/ r::,x to:. ::;<a , .....1!1/!..:::..::.x..... fs~skf:•2~rS:::S: c Si: ~:~:5•::~:5 o-::. „ i~s{i;!ii O
~ ~ r:::::... r
_
.
- €
~ nY
r
V
rl -
`Vf:~:~i
$i
'
.1.. .
- U
'ri%`~iii: iii+~:~i4.'.r........ .:~i:'•i~i~i:i~:>i~i::::'•::;•: ~1!~i`.: ; TM ~itf[if
l
is h.
-
/
.
1
.
. ~ _ . • .r. _ ~ 4 4 _
.
~ as HIG ~tIVAY 44 ~I ~ NO: 33 . ~ v
a ~ 1LS(41:
I II N.+dawPrw.tMVJ,."if •I.frw lwr/./„a/vw./>Amw./'/N1
I MvnMr rn AV J.n"w Wr.Nr (l.r./N mr•wn•r
!1 O /1 ar.,/„ n~. Nalnryll / \.•rM.n Rriv.rl
I /MI„/F~/N /I"•~/fyn/..l nary '
LEQEND
ILN BOUNDARY
AREA TO BE REZONED TO C-3 •
• \
1 - -
•
~ C
BILL N0.
ORDINANCE N0.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES .ORDAIN: -
Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield
entitled "boundaries of Zoning Districts" is hereby amended in
the following respects:
I. Paragraph (9) of Section 3 thereof is repealed.
II. The following new Section 13 is added
Section 13 Hioh Density Commercial District (C-3)
1. That area lvinq between I-494, I-35WT the Minneapolis
Northfield Southern 2ailroad, and 77th Street and its
extension to the easterly right-of-way line of I-35W. - - -
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of , 1987.
John N. Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
1 ~ ~ -
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MI~~~~r.SOTA
Council Letter No. 191
Agenda June 22, 1987
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment to
create a new C-3 high density commercial. zoning district and
related requirements.
Background:
On March 2, 1987 the HRA and Planning Commission met with the
City Council to discuss a strategy for managing that portion of
the ILN south of 77th Street. The primary management tool
discussed was a new zoning district 'identified as C-3 High
Density Commercial..
The development opportunity which the city has in the ILN area is
unique and must be properly managed to realize its potential and
the established goals. In general the goals include: creating a
favorable environment to foster the growth of appropriate
businesses; minimizing or eliminating the conflicts between the
residential and commercial areas; broadening the tax base; and
providing for economic growth and employment opportunities.
It will probably take 10 to 15 years to accomplish these goals in
the area south of 77th Street. This conclusion is based on the
market conditions and the LHN ex erienc
p e. In the LHN area, the
redevelopment plan was approved in 1975. Construction on the
first redevelopment parcel was initiated three years later in
1978. Nine ears followin in
y g, 1987, the last redevelopment
project may be initiated on the Graham Avenue site. Most of this
development took place in a very growth orientated market.
The city is ready for redevelopment in the ILN, but the market
for appropriate development is "soft". The market is not growth
orientated. .The challenge then is to protect the redevelopment
potential of the area until the market is ready.
On May 26, 1987 the council gave first reading approval to an
ordinance to create a new C-3 high density commercial zoning
district and related requirements. The council also set June 22,
1987 as the date for the public hearing.
The ordinance would require that new development meet
minimum standards in terms of lot size and area and floor area
ratios. Height restrictions to prevent shadows on single-
family:and two family dwellings would also be included.
Four critical elements of the ordinance warrant comment:
Subdivision 3, Subdivision 6, Subdivision 9 and Subdivision 11.
Subdivision 3 addresses nonconforming uses. Almost all of the
existing buildings within the district would become
nonconforming. Under this proposed ordinance such buildings
could be expanded by no more than ten percent within any two
consecutive calendar years. The existing zoning ordinance in
Section 3.29, Subdivision 2, addresses nonconforming uses. There
are two significant restrictions in the existing ordinance which
would affect these structures. First, if a structure was damaged
to the extent that it lost more than 50g of its value, it could
not be rebuilt. Secondly, existing uses which are not permitted
under the proposed ordinance would also become nonconforming.
The nonconforming uses created would be those which rely on
outdoor storage. Under the :provisions of Section 3.29,
nonconforming uses could not be expanded to occupy a greater land
area.
Subdivision 6 regulates floor area ratio. The FAR, or floor area
ratio, establishes a relationship between the number of square
feet of building and the square feet of lot area. This ordinance
proposes an FAR of at least 0.75. Thus, a lot of 100,000 square A
feet would require a building of at least 75,000 square feet. To
accommodate development with this FAR, multistory buildings and
parking structures would be necessary. This minimum FAR
requirement is key to achieving the aforementioned goals for the
area.
The .following is a listing of the floor area .ratios of a number
of existing or proposed projects in Richfield:
Project FAR
1. Lake Shore Drive Condominium 1.30
• 2. Richfield Towers 1.03
3. Richfield State Agency .33
4. Market Plaza/Market Towers 1.35
5. Woodlake Point Condominium 2.70
6. CDR Proposal 1.07
7. Landmark Centre Proposal 1.73
A model to help degict this concept will be used at the City
Council meeting.
Subdivision 9 prohibits buildings of a height which would cast a
shadow on land occupied by single-family and two-family dwellings
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. An exception could
be made to this restriction, however, if a developer proposed a
mitigating measure. An example of such a measure would be the
purchase by the developer of a solar access easement from the
.impacted property owner.-
The parking standards contained in Subdivision 11 in this
ordinance vary from the present requirements of the city..
Restaurant parking requirements are slightly less than the
existing ordinance. For the office space the proposal requires
slightly more spaces than existing requirements for small office
buildings and less for larger office buildings. The lower
requirements are justified because the type of development
required by this proposed ordinance through the FAR and other
minimum standards would result in development with shared
parking. Parking provided on a shared bases is utilized more
efficiently and thus the number of spaces required is less.
The parking standards in this proposed ordinance are based on the
experience of the consulting firm of BRW and the Institute of
Transportation Engineers.
The following is ~.a summary of the changes made in the C-3 zoning
ordinance since the first reading on May 26, 1987:
1. Subd. 1 (Purpose) has been expanded to note the city's lack
of non-residential tax base and the absence. of land for new
development.
2. Subd. 3(2)(g) has been added to require submission of an
easement from the developer to allow the city to complete
landscaping if necessary.
3. Subd. 5 has been modified to make the criteria for site plan j
review less subjective. A requirement that proposed
developments be designed to minimize adverse .environmental.
effects on adjacent .properties has been added so that such
impacts as noise and air quality are considered.
4. Throughout the ordinance, care has been taken to use the
terms "lot" and "site" in appropriate contexts. There was
some confusion in the earlier version.
5. Subd. 12. The obligations of property owners to maintain the
landscaping has been clarified.'
6. Subd. 14. Language regarding the period of time for which an
approved site plan remains valid has been clarified.
Rec~~~~...endation:
It is recommended that the City Council conduct the public
hearing and give second reading approval to the attached
ordinance creating a C-3 zoning district and related
requirements. III
Basis of Recommendation:
The new zoning district ordinance and the rezoning of this ~
property to the C-3 designation are critical to the successful
management of the ILN area. The goals of broadening the tax
base, providing for economic growth and employment opportunities,.
fostering a favorable environment for appropriate businesses and
eliminating the conflicts between the residential and commercial
areas, can best be achieved this way.
The creation of this new zoning district is also consistent with
the goals and policies of the city's Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan indicates that the area along I-494 should be
developed as high density freeway strip type uses. The
Comprehensive Plan also indicates that the freeway strip policy
will be "To establish a design plan to coordinate development of
the I-494 strip which encourages high density mixed land use."
The proposed ordinance revision will help bring this about.
The Planning Commission on an 8-0 vote with one abstention,
recommended that the City Council approve the C-3 zoning district
regulations subject to a change to require proof of compliance
with the solar access regulations. The attached ordinance
contains the change recommended by the Planning Commission.
Alternative Rec ,,:,~..~..endations
1. Reject the proposed zoning ordinance revision.
2. Modif ortions of the
ro osed zonin ordinanc
Y P P P g e revision.
~~~3
.Decision Mode:
1. If a new zoning district is to be utilized as a management
tool fora portion of the ILN, it must be in effect prior to
September 22, 1987 when the building permit moratorium
expires..
2. Two informational meetings have been held. On April 21,
a meeting was held-for business people from the area. '
A meeting was also held that day for residents of the area.
A total of 32 people attended these meetings.
3. Staff has met with some
of the existing property and/or
business owners in this area who have indicated an interest
in redevelopment in this area to review the future direction
of the city in this ortion of the ILN.
P
4. Mailed and published notice has been provided for the public
hearing and second reading of-.the ordinance.
Res ectfull submitted
P Y ,
J s D. Prosser
C' y Manager
• BILL N0.
i
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 the City of Richfield regarding
zoning is amended by adding anew section, Section 3.33A, to-Y•ead:
3.33A. USE REGULATIONS FOR "C-3" HIGH-DENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
Subd. 1. Purpose. The city council recognizes that the city lacks a substan-
tial non-residential tax base and, as a largely developed community, has little
land available for new commercial development. However, there exist areas of
the city wh ich have high visibility and accessibility due to their proximity to
major arterials but where previous development patterns have precluded realiza-
• tion of full development potential. It is the intent of the city in
establishing this district to encourage redevelopment of such areas in a manner
which is consistent with the comprehensive plan and any redevelopment plan,
increases employment opportunities, provides a fuller range of goods and ser-
vices to residents of the city, and promotes development of a scale and inten-
sity sufficient to maximize the potential of the area. II
Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. In the "C-3" high-density commercial district, unless
otherwise provided in this chapter, the following uses are permitted:
(1) retail or service businesses, but not including businesses which involve
outdoor storage or sale of goods or materials unless the goods or materials are
stored in an area which is covered by a building or a parking structure;
(2) office buildings;
(3) hotels/motels;
(4) residential buildings;
(5) parking structures; and
(6) other businesses which are determined by the council to be of the
general character as the uses listed in this section and which would not be
obnoxious or detrimental to the area in which they would be located.
Subd. 3. Nonconforming Uses. All provisions of section 3.29 shall apply to
this district except that a nonconforming structure located on a single lot or
contiguous lots under a single ownership may be expanded within any consecutive
two calendar-year period by no more than ten percent (10%) of its gross floor
area, provided the expansion meets all other applicable city ordinance require-
ments.
1
Subd. 4. Procedures. All proposals shall. be reviewed under the site plan
approval process as set forth below:
(1) Approval Required. Without first obtaining site plan approval, it shall
be unlawful to do any of the following within the "C-3" district::
(a) construct a building;
(b) move a building to any lot;
(c) expand or change the use of a building or lot or modify a building,
accessory structure, or site or land feature in any manner which results in a
different intensity of use, including the requirement for additional parking;
(d) grade or take other actions to prepare a lot for development,
except in conformance with a permit or an approved plan; ow
(e) remove earth, soils, gravel, or other natural material from or
place the same on a lot, except in conformance with a permit or an approved
plan.
Notwithstanding the above, site plan approval shall not be required for enlarge-
ment of a building by 10 percent or less of its gross floor area or changes in
the leasable space of a multi-tenant building, provided no variances are
required and the modifications do not significantly intensify use of the site.
(2) Application. Application for a site plan review shall be made to the
city on torms provided by the city and shall be accompanied by the following:
(a) a plat or map of the property;
(b) evidence of ownership or an interest in the property;
(c) the fee specified in Appendix D of the city ordinance code;
(d) information regarding project phasing and timing;
(e) complete development plans as specified under subdivision 5, signed
by a registered architect, civil engineer, landscape architect or other
appropriate design professional;
(f) proof of compliance with the solar access requirements as specified
under subdivision 9;
(g) conveyance of a temporary easement to the city to permit completion
of screening, landscaping or other improvements required by the city as a con-
dition of site plan approval; and
(h) such other information as may be required by the city.
2
(3) Public Hearing. Upon receipt of a completed application, a date shall
be set for a public hearing before the planning commission. The hearing will be
held no less than ten (10) days after mailed notice is sent to the owners of
properties located wholly or partially within 350 feet of the site. Within 45
days after the close of the public hearing, the planning commission shall submit
its recommendations to the city council. Following appropriate review, the city
council shall make a decision regarding the application.
Subd. 5. General Criteria and Standards.
(1) General Standards. In evaluating a site plan, the planning commission
and city council shall consider its compliance with the following:
(a) consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's develop-
ment guides, including the comprehensive plan and any redevelopment plans
established for the area;
(b) consistency with this ordinance;
(c) preservation of the property in its natur-al state to the extent.
practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal;
(d) creation of a design for structures and site features which pro-
motes the following:
(i) an internal sense of order-among the buildings and uses;
(ii) the adequacy of vehicular and pedestrian circulation,
including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number
of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access
points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular
traffic and arrangement and amount of parking;
(iii) energy conservation through the design of structures and the
use of landscape materials and site grading; and _
(iv) the minimization of adverse environmental effects on persons
using the development and adjacent properties.
(2) Architectural Standards.
(a) Architectural plans shall be prepared by an architect or other
qualified person and shall show the following:
(i) elevations of all sides of the building;
(ii) type and color of exterior building materials;.
(iii) typical floor plans;
(iv) dimensions of all structures;
3
(v) the location of trash containers and of exterior electrical,
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment; and
(vi) utility plans including water, sanitary sewer, and .storm
sewer.
(b) Unadorned prestressed concrete panels, concrete block and un-
finished metal, except naturally weathering metals such as copper, shall not be
permitted as exterior materials for buildings. This restriction shall apply to
all principal structures and to all accessory buildings except those accessory
buildings not visible from any exterior property line.
(c) Underground utilities shall be provided for all new structures and
those which are renovated if renovation..-costs exceed 50 percent of the value of
the structure.
(3) Landscape Plan Requirements. Landscape plans shall be prepared by a
landscape architect or other qualified person drawn to a-scale of not less than
one inch equaling 50 feet and showing the following:
(a) boundary lines of the property with accurate dimensions;
(b) locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking lots, roads,
and other improvements;
(c) proposed grading and drainage plan with no greater than two-foot
contour intervals;
(d) location, approximate size, and common name of existing trees and
shrubs;
(e) a planting schedule containing symbols, quantities, common and
botanical names, size of plant materials, root condition and special planting
instructions;
(f) planting details illustrating proposed locations of all new plant
material;
(g) locations and details of other landscape features, including berms,
fences, and planter boxes;
(h) details of restoration of disturbed areas, including areas to be
sodded or seeded;
(i) location and details of irrigation systems; and
(j) details and cross sections of all required screening.
(4) Minimum Landscaping Requirements.
(a) All open areas of a lot which are not used or improved for required
parking areas, drives or storage shall be landscaped with a combination of
overstory trees, understory trees, shrubs, flowers and ground cover materials.
4
e
All landscaped areas shall be irrigated by an underground mechanical irrigation
system. The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery,
trees, sculpture, foundations, decorative walks, or other similar site design
features or materials in a quantity having a minimum value in conformance with
the following table:
MINIMUM LANDSCAPING VALUES
Minimum Landscape Value (All
Project Value construction costs including
(Including building construction, plant .material and installation
site preparation, and site except design fees and. other
improvements) ~ administrative costs)
Below $1,000,000 = 2%
$1,000,001 - $2,000,000 = $20,000 + 1% of Project
Value in excess of $1,000,000
$2,000,0001 - $3,000,000 = $30,000 + 0.75% of
Project Value in excess of
$2,000,000
$3,000,001 - $4,000,000 = $37,500 + 0.25% of
Project Value in excess of
$3,000,000
Over $4,000,000 = 1%
In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable species exist on a lot
prior to its development, the application of the standards in this subdivision
may be adjusted by the city to allow credit for such material, provided that
such adjustment is consistent with the intent of this ordinance.
(b) A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many existing
trees as is practicable and to incorporate them into the site plan.
(c) All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlapped or moved from
the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper of
2-1/2 inches. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of six feet in height.
Ornamental trees shall have a minimum caliper of 1-1/2 inches.
(d) All lot areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots,
driveways, patios, or similar hard-surface materials shall be covered with sod
or an equivalent ground cover approved by the city.
(e) Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees shall be
composed of one species. No required tree shall be any of the following:
(i) a species of the genus Ulmus (elm), except those elms .bred to
be immune to Dutch Elm disease;
5
(ii) box elder;
(iii) female ginko; or
(iv) a species of the genus Populus.
(5) - Screening.
(a) The following shall be screened in accordance with the requirements
of this subdivision:
(i) Off-street parking facilities containing six or more spaces
shall be screened from public rights-of-way adjoining the property.
(ii) Loading docks shall be screened from all lot lines and public
rights-of-way.
(iii) Trash storage facilities shall be screened from all lot lines
and public rights-of-way.
• (iv) Goods or materials stored in an area which is covered by a
building or parking structure shall be screened from all public rights-of-way.
(v) All rooftop or ground-mounted mechanical equipment and
exterior trash storage areas shall be enclosed with materials compatible with
the principal structure.
(b) Required screening may be achieved with fences, walls, earth berms,
hedges, or other landscape materials. All walls and fences shall be architec-
aurally harmonious with the principal building. Earth berms shall not exceed a
slope of 3:1. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which provide an
effective visual barrier during all seasons.
(c) All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot
occupied by the use, building, facility ,or structure to be screened. No
screening shall be located on any public right of way or within eight feet of
the traveled portion of any street or highway.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provisions in this ordinance to the
contrary, screening required by this section shall be of a height needed to
accomplish the goals of this section.
Subd. 6. Minimum Floor-Area Ratio. The minimum floor-area ratio (FAR) for any
lot shall be 0.75. For the purposes of this section "floor-area ratio" shall
mean the sum total of the gross floor area of all the floors of all the
buildings on the lot divided by the total lot area. Gross floor area shall
include halls, lobbies, stairways, elevator shafts, enclosed porches and balco-
Hies and below-grade enclosed floor areas used for business or habitation. Not
included as gross floor areas are open terraces, patios, atriums or balconies,
_ parking structures, carports, garages, and breezeways. Total lot area shall
mean the total area of the lot, excluding any public right-of-way.
Subd. 7. Minimum Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be 150 feet.
6
4
Subd. 8. Minimum Lot Area. The minimum lot area shall be 1.5 acres.
Subd. 9. Height Regulations. No building shall be so tall that a shadow is
cast onto a single-family or two-family lot between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. on any day of the year. The city council may make exceptions to this
requirement if the applicant can prove to the council's satisfaction that
measures have been taken to mitigate this solar access requirement.
Subd. 10. Setback Requirements. The following minimum requirements apply to all
improvements erected or structurally altered in a "C-3" district, subject to
modifications and exceptions provided in section 3.39 of this code.
(1) Buildings and Parking-Structures..--
(a) Building and parking structure setbacks along public streets shall
be at least 40 feet.
(b) A building or parking structure may extend to an interior lot line
if that structure. and the adjacent structure are designed with such placement in
mind and a compatible relationship of uses, including circulation drives, open
space, .parking areas, and glazed facades, results. Otherwise, the setback from
the interior lot line must be at least 10 feet or equal to at least one-quarter
the height of the building, up to a maximum of 20 feet of setback.
(2) Surface Parking Areas:
(a) Surface parking areas shall be set back from any public street
right-of-way at least 10 feet, or a distance sufficient to allow the placement
of a landscaped screen or berm with an average height of three feet between the
street right-of-way and the edge of the parking area.
(b) Surface parking areas shall be set back from any building at least
10 feet, or a distance sufficient to allow the placement of landscaping
designed to soften the appearance of the building if such building is visible
from any public right-of-way.
(3) Vehicular Circulation Aisles: Internal driveways shall be set back
from interior lot lines or structures at least 10 feet or a distance sufficient
to allow the placement of landscaping intended to soften the appearance of the
driveway from a public right-of-way or an adjacent building or parking ramp.
Subd. 11. Parking Requirements. The following minimum off-street parking
requirements shall be observed.
(1) Retail businesses: One space for every 200 square feet of gross floor
area.
R st r nt
(2) a au a sand taverns: Without a li uor or wine license one s ace
q
P
for every three seats plus one for every employee on the maximum shift; with a
_ liquor or wine license, one space for every two-and-one-half seats plus one for
every employee on the maximum shift.
7
(3) Office Buildings:
Gross Leasable
Square Feet Required Number~of Spaces per 1,000
of Floor Area Square Feet of Floor Area
to 50,000 5.0/1,000 S.F.
50,001 to 100,000 250 spaces + 4.5 spaces/1,000 S.F, over 50,000 S.F.
100,001 to 150,000 475 spaces + 4.0 spaces/1,000 S.F. over 100,000 S.F.
over 150,001 675 spaces + 3.5 spaces/1,000 S.F. over 150,000 S.F.
(4) Residential Buildings: One and one-half spaces per housing unit plus
shared parking for visitors at the rate. of one-half space per housing unit.
(5) Hotels:. One space per sleeping room-plus one space for every employee
on the maximum shift.
The city council'rnay reduce these parking requirements if the applicant can
prove to the council's satisfaction that fewer spaces are needed by benefit of
shared utilization of such parking among two or more uses or other special
characteristics of the particular activity.
Subd. 12. Maintenance of Landscaping. The property owner shall be responsible
for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat
and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. All landscape material
and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and
which have died shall be replaced within three months of notification by the
city. However, the time for compliance may be extended up to nine months by the
city in order to allow for seasonal or weather conditions.
Subd. 13. Security Deposit Required. When screening, landscaping or other
similar improvements to property are required by this ordinance a security depo-
sit acceptable to the city shall be supplied by the owner in an amount equal to
at least one and one-half times the value of such screening, landscaping, or
other improvements. The security deposit shall be for the purpose of reim-
bursing the city for all expenses incurred by it in connection with making or
completing such improvements. The security deposit shall be provided prior to
the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time
equal to one full growing season after the date of installation of the
landscaping. In the event construction of the project is not completed within
the time prescribed by building permits and other approvals, the city may, at
its option, complete the work required at the expense. of the owner and the
surety.
The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all landscaping
if the delay is due to conditions which are reasonably beyond the control of the
developer. Extensions may be granted due to seasonal or weather conditions.
When an extension is granted, the. city shall require such additional security as
it deems appropriate.
Upon completion of the improvements and final inspection and approval by the
city, the security deposit shall be released.
8
~~-~Z
Subd. 14. Terms of Approval.
(1) A building permit shall be obtained and construction of the project
shall begin no later than. one year .following the date on .which site plan appro-
val is granted, unless a different time period is approved by the city council
in granting site plan approval or in a developer's agreement with the city.
After the expiration of such. period, site plan approval shall lapse unless the
city council grants an extension of time or a building permit has been issued
and substantial work performed on the project. Upon request by the applicant,
the city council may grant an extension of time for commencement of a project
having site plan approval.
(2) The city council. may impose conditions in granting approval to site
plans to promote the intent of this section or to protect adjacent properties..
(3) Site plans shall be valid only for the project for which approval is
granted. Construction of all site elements shall,be in substantial compliance
with the plans and specifications approved by the city council. .Compliance
.shall` not be considered substantial if there is:
(a) more than a ten percent change in floor. area in any one structure;
(b) more than a ten percent change in the original approved separation
of buildings;
(c) more than a ten percent change in the original approved setbacks
from property lines;
(d) more than a 5 percent change in the ground area covered by the
building;
(e) any decrease in the ratio of off-street parking and loading space
to gross floor area in the building; or
(f) any increase in the height of any structure.
If the project is not in substantial compliance with the approved plans, the
project shall be subject to review as specified in subdivision 4 of this sec-
tion. ~ "
9
,a
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this day of
1987.
John .Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
10
_ ~
-
a
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
- ~ Council Letter No. 190
Agenda June 22, 1987
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision
regarding a request for a setback variance at 2028 West 68th
Street.
Background:
Scott W. and Barbara Sharpe, property owners at 2028 West 68th
Street, have requested a variance to .permit the construction of a
22 foot x 26 foot attached garage with a-sideyard setback of •:5
feet instead of the required 10 feet. The existing garage, which
contains the basement access stairs, would be converted into
livingroom space..
The petitioners have lived at this location since 1981. This 108
by 135 feet lot, along with others in the Fairwood Park
Subdivision, Oak. Grove Boulevard, Lynnwood Boulevard and Apple
Lane were rezoned from R-single family residence to R-1 single
family residence district in June,-1982. Most of the properties
in these areas have lots that are larger than the typical
Richfield lot, and the purpose of the rezoning was to maintain
this lot size. The R-1 zoning district has more stringent
requirements than does the R-single family district. A five foot
. sideyard setback is permitted in the R-single family residence
zoning district, but not in the R-1 district.
Petitioners were previously granted a variance on November 14,
1983 to permit the construction of an overhang extending two feet
into the front yard setback.
On May 18, 1987, the Richfield Hearing Examiner conducted a
public hearing, found that the required conditions were not met,
and .denied the variance. The findings and decision of the
Hearing Examiner are attached. The petitioners are appealing
this decision to the City Council.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements:
1. Section 3.30A, subdivision 5(a~, indicates that the interior
sideyard setback in an "R-1" district must be 10 feet.
2. Section 3.40 and 3.40A, outlines the process of granting
variances.
State Statutes Requirements:
Minnesota State Statutes 462.357, subdivision 6, outlines the
conditions which must be met for granting a variance.
Staff Recommendation:
- Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the
Hearing Examiner regarding the variance request to reduce the
• interior sideyard setback to 5 feet for a single family residence
in an "R-l" district at 2028 West 68th Street.
-
Basis of Rec~..u,,endation:
Recommendation for denial of the variance is based on the staff
review and conclusion that the request does not meet the city and
state standards for granting of the variance.. A review of the
proposal against the city and state legal requirements is
outlined in the following:
1. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights..
The single family use of the property .has been in existence
for a lengthy time period and could be continued without the
variance.
A detached garage could be built meeting the city ordinance
requirements.. An alternative design for the addition is also
possible without requiring a variance. Therefore, it is
staff's opinion that the denial of the variance would not
preclude reasonable use of the property.
2. It is staff's opinion that there are no unique circumstances
present on the site. The rectangular shape and size of the
lot is quite similar to other lots in the neighborhood and
substantially larger than typical lots in the community.
3. The granting of .the variance would not impact the safety of
the residents since there would be sufficient separation
between the buildings.
4. The reduction of the 10 foot setback requirement would impact
the welfare of neighboring residents as well as change the
character of the surrounding neighborhood. The apparent
intent of the ordinance requiring a 10 foot setback in "R-1"
district was to preserve the character of the neighborhood
and this variance would clearly be contrary to that
.legislative intent. Further, it is also staff's opinion that
the accommodation by the zoning ordinance ofthe existing
legal nonconforming structures is not an issue and not a
justifiable rationale for granting a variance to increase the
number of structures with less than 10 feet interior sideyard
setbacks.
Alternative Rec,...,::~.endation:
The City Council may wish to overturn the Hearing Examiner's
decision and grant the variance request. If such a decision is
made the council must establish findings of fact which would
indicate that the denial would cause undue hardship to the land
owner. State law clearly states that economic hardship alone
cannot justify granting of the variance.
Decision Mode:
A ublic hearin is scheduled before th
P g e City Council at 7:00 PM,
Monday, June 22, 1987. Property owners within 350 feet of the
proposed project were notified bf the hearing by mail and legal
~
notice of the hearing was published in the Richfield Sun
Newspaper on June 10, 1987.
Respectfully submitted,
J s D. Prosser
C y Manager
I
i
I
III
I'
I
i
II
III
I
_ _ i
. - ~(C0. R0. N0.32) PENN AVE. S. /"3
~ - ~ .
OL IVER AVE. S.
-
<;
i
NEWTON AVE,
' N NEWTON AVE. S.
C13 -p ~ rn ~
a ~o
~ ~
~n ~ ~
o _
m
-G ~ o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - MORGAN AVE. S.
~ _ ~ ~ 'I
r -
~ ~vv ~ -
= R~qN
D~
Z
LOGAN AVE. S.
` 0 R
gKLANO
{
(
KNOX AVE. S.
- ,
/
j ~ ~ ~ - ,1 ~I~Fc S A
i l l l l I
~t
PETITION MAP ~ -
. ~ SITE LOCATION MAP
'~t\ w
z ~
a a
o
z z
o a x
W O Z
Z ~ Y
N ,
t!')
W ti.f
~ ~ 'a ~ 67TH ST. W.
~z \
z
w
a. ~
0
- f
F~
FOREST OR. c; , • "
9
g
G
i `1
F
r ,c........._. Q
68TH ST W ~ .
S
W ER
O N
RTY
PE
O
PR
IN FAVOR OF
2028 68th ST. W. VARIANCE
'
r _
To: Richfield City Council ~ May 28, 1987
`-~e-gsrding: Variance Request
From: Scott and Barb Sharpe
2028 W. 68th. St. - -
Richfield, Mn. 55423.
~1e the undersigned, wish to appeal the decision by the hearing examiner
concerning our request for a building variance. Please schedule us for the
next council meeting so that our concern may be heard. ~n+ould you also in-
form us of when we will be on the council's agenda.
II Thankyou,
-
cc~ r
c ;c-~-~
J
2®198
i
~y ~
- c
J
3
~ Variance Request
i CASE N0. 87-V-5-CM-2
APPLICANT: Scott and Barbara Sharpe
~ PROPERTY LOCATION: 2028 West 68th Street.
HEARING EXAMINER: Connie Murray
M
N HEARING DATE: May 18, 1987
d''
>s~ Lf) APPEARANCES: Scott and Barbara Sharpe 2028 West
I,n 68th Street, Richfield, MN 55423
~ David Aas, 2034 W. Forest Drive,
Richfield, MN 55423
¦ ~s ~
~ Margaret Esala, 6731 Newton Ave. S.
~ Richfield, MN 55423-
• ~ Bob Wagner, 2009 W. Forest Drive,
Richfield, MN 55423
Joan Olinger, 2020 W. 68th Street,
U ¦ Richfield, MN 55423
~ ~ Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing,
~ the undersigned makes the following findings of
~ fact, conclusions and decisions.
~ A. FINDINGS OF FACT:
~ 1. Notice of public hearing was proper. Notice
O 'a was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of~
= the site in question as required by city
~ ordinances. The ten day notice requirement was
also met.
L 2. The street address and legal descriptions of the
O property in question are as follows:
Block 9, Lot 7, Fairwood Park. Street Address
¦ s O is 2028 West 68th Street.
O •
~ 3. The zoning of the site in question is 'R-1'
~ single family residence district.
• 4. The variance request is to reduce the sideyard
setback from the required 10 feet to 5 feet.
" ~ 5. The reason for the request is to allow the
construction of a 22 foot x 26 foot attached
garage.
telepfione:869-7521 (612)
. an equal opportunity employer
_ #y
~
B. CONCLUSIONS
Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, subdivision 6
provides for the. granting of variance to the literal
provisions of the zoning regulations in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause undue
hardship to the owners of the property under
consideration. In determining whether to grant or
deny the requested variance, I specifically make the
following conclusions:
1. Is the granting of the variance necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
. property rights?
I conclude •
. The granting of a 5-foot sideyard setback variance is not
necessary for preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights. Both r~~blems - insufficient garage staace '
and in~.,~enient basement access, could be alleviated while
rP*~~n~ng within the 10-foot R-1 setback recruirement.
Alternate solutions might be i~ui2 expensive, but variance
. findings are not dependent on financial hardship.
The use of the property as a single-family residence can
be continued as it is now without the granting of a setback
variance.
2. Are there special circumstances or conditions
affecting the particular land or building
referred to in the. application, not caused by~
the property owner,_which are not common to
other properties in this or similar districts?
_ I conclude=
There are no unique circtunstances which require construction
of the garage addition within the 10-foot setback. The lot
is similar in size and shape to others in the area, and
' placement of the house does not preclude alternate solutions.
3. Will the granting of the variance alter the
• - essential character of the neighborhood or
locality? _
I conclude=
Granting of the variance would not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood. .
. . _ _
~y~
c c`
4. Are there any conditions which must be attached
to the granting of the variance to ensure
compliance and to protect adjacent properties?
I conclude
• N/A
C. DECISION
Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned
determines that .the :request be denied.
DATED: 0~ ~0. / ~ ~7
Hearing Examiner
City of Richfield
_ y~ ~
. , _ ~ g
Planning Division City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave. So.
Richfield, Mn. 55423
Staff and Hearing Examiner,
It came as quite a surprise when. I went to pick up my plans at the
building inspections dea8rtment and pay my permit fee. Not only did I find
~uLthat I now live in a R-1 Zoned district, but that the time I had reserved
to build my garage would be used pursuing a variance. And that $200.00
that could ga towards material must be gambled on this procedure.
I am a remodeling contractor by trade and it is very hard to be stopped
on a project tP~at will increase the value, livability, and appearance of my
home. Yee can afford to live elsewhere, but chose to stay here because of
the community, schools, and our neighbors. My wife and I grew up in
Richfield and upon moving here in '61 were pleased to find a home with a big
lot that needed what I do best, remodel. .
Prior to purchasing, i pursued the option of building a garage in the .
location that i have drawn. At that time it was within building regulations
to build 5 feet from the lotline. I do not recall being informed of our zoning
change, and if we were, there was nothing which stated the side setback
would now be 10 feet. This is an item I would not have overlooked in-
tentionally because it so greatly affects our plans for this house.
Before we bought this home it had been on the market for a long time.
This due to the tact that the only way to get dawn into the basement was .
through the garage. The home was originally built this way, why, I don't
know, but as a remodeler it makes the garage a large future living room, and
the existing living room a great dining room. It should be noted that the
interior or parking space of the garage is 15 feet by 18 feet deep. This
makes getting down to the basement a real hassle trying to get around the
car in the winter vrith a load of wash.
The ironic fact of this whole-thing is that it would be possible to build a
detached garage 2 feet from the side and rear lot line. This may seem like a
' reosflnoble solution ,but, if you could see our bock yard with its plantings
end functional space you would think it impractical to put a garage there.
The side I propose to build on is dead space, it has the least impact on our
yard, the neighbors, and more important, is logical. And {certainly hope that
the people who decide on this issue are just that ,logical.
. ~ ~ i3 s..\~aq~.f . ~ ~
~~~a
L. ~
Proposal-
To obtain a variance for the construction of an attached garage to the
east side of our home.
Ratio?~ale-
1-The access to our basement is in our garage. This is the original
design of our home and not an alteration.
2-Our existing garage interior is 18'x18' which is insufficient for our
needs. .
3-The proposed design would improve the appearance of our home.
4-Then the existing garage beomes living space .and the basement steps
within that space, the function and enjoyment of our home will be
enhanced.
5-The value and marketabilty of the house is greatly increased.
6-All neighbors who either face or who's property abuts ours have given
their approval by signing the petition.
7-The space on our property which would be used does not affect the
backyard of which we have invested much time and effort.
8-By not granting this variance the value of our home is greatly
decreased..,
9-'To build the garage in another spot on our property is poor management •
of our space and design.
10-That over 25ro at ,the homes in this R- t zone are non-contorminy
in regards to the l0 foot side lot setback.
' 11-Of $11 the homes in this zone ,we believe we are the only family that
must wade through the winter car slush to get down to the laundry.
12-~e have recently remodeled our basement and Y.now our children
would be safer and use the basement more often if the stairs go
directly from our living area.
13. 1~e're tired of the inconvenience and hassle this basement access
creates and feel this proposal is the most rsttional way to re~Dlve the
S1tUat10n.
ti
t ~
y_//
Drop by and talk with us, see what our area is like and how it would
improve our house. Talk with our neighbors and see that we are caring in the
maintenance of our home and how we treat the people we live beside. also,
~.e.ck what contractor has been doing the most work within 2 bl ocks of here.
There are at least 14 permits taken out by my company. Check out some of
the work we've done, then you'll have en answer for "impact on the area", I'm
one of the people who's keeping this area "unique". Do you believe a
contractor who's busines is by referral, who works half the year within 2
blocks of his home is going to sdd anything to his house that would not fit
the character or aesthetic value of his home?
There are always exceptions to particular rules or laws. This should be
one of them Drop by, we're proud of our home and what it could be.
Sincerely,
Scott Y,~. Sharpe
2028 w. 68th. St.
Richfield. Mn.
869-8801
•
-
SITE PL ~
• AN~
'
~ ~ ~ ~
S7' 0"
~ N ~
S. W. Sharpe
• 2028 .W. 68 th. St.
• ~ ~ Richfield, f~1r~.
'4' 0"
:~,+,.f:•,, f; S. U:. 135' 0"
'..~•f':'•..'~':r' s 29. 0.. A
,~8. 0 f . ~ 'PROPOSED
' •,•~•':r~ ' ';f'•~`~•'' GARAGE 26' U°
:EXISTING HOUSE •
~ 53' u°
Lat square feet
~:a;~.;: ~ 13,500
• 30 0
.
108' U" r"'~, ?
68 TH :~T. _
-
• •e
;T
~ 24' 0° .
A ~
•
2~' 0" ~
5. 0.. .
.
221 01,
s- '
~
1
t 1
Iq /
1
pp .
1
J, 1~/"
1
1
1
•
/
basement stairs \
1.1..11.1 •
1~ ~ .
26• o~~ .
.
.
•
. .
EXISTING H~IJSE EX.I ST I NG .GARAGE ~
~~'~Y/.YY ....J~.. . 1•TM.. I ~ •
•
•
• ~ . . ~ ' •
~ ~ ' ~ •
1 11 / /1 ~
~ ~rJ n
Y
~.1• _ ' ~ 6 ~ 161 0ll .5.0»;; : r,
.
~ .,a
1'
.l~
•3
/
. '
Scott Y,f. Sharpe 869-8801
2028 68th St.
Richfield, Mn.
r~eighbor, _
Sorry to bother you again about another project, but the city requires -
that !inform you and seek your opinion in obtaining a permit. The area -
that I live in is zoned R-1. This requires that side lot clearance from a
house or an attached garage be 10'. This zone is located between 67th St.
and 68th St. from 1~est side of Oliver Ave. to the East side of Lakeview -
Ave. From my count there ere 48 lots in this area. Of these lots there are
14non-conforming homes that are 5 feet or less to the adjacent lot. I
have indicated these homes on the survey map.
would be seeking a variance to build a garage with a 5' sidelot clear-
ance. Our garage would became living room and the existing living room
would become dining room. -
Y~'hen we purchased this home in 1981, we bought with the intent of re-
modeling.This due to the unusual design of our house, Y,rith our basement
stairs in the existing garage. I pursued this with the city and found that .
it was legal to build within 5 feet of the lot line. This was legal until
1982 when our area was rezoned as R-1. -
I would appreciate it if you would take a look at my plan. !t gets cold
in the winter running around the car to get downstairs and empty the
dryer. And it makes even better sense to make that space into living
room. If you agree vrith this proposal phase sign the form.
- 1
Thani;s for your time, ~ w
Scott Sharpe .
tt you would like to discuss this Luther please cell. 869-8801
- t..
~ ~ y
The following persons have signed a petition approving the
reduction of sidelot from lOfeet to 5 feet. Lot 7, Block 9
Fairwood Park
John & Joan Olinger, 2020 W. 68th Street
Kathy & Stee Krantz, 6737 Newton Avenue
Hugh & Deanna Tunstead, 6801 Newton. Avenue
Margaret & Oscar Ecala, 6731 Newton Avenue
L. E. & Jane Hendrickson, 2015 W. Forest Drive
Ronald & Cecilia Graham, 6745 Newton Avenue
Sue & Robert Wagner, 2009 W. Forest Drive
Rick Steains, 6800 Morgan Avenue
terrain and A. Ceaoni, 6801 Morgan Avenue
rY 1~ ~ ~ 7 ~ a IY ~ I h I II!;: ~I4h "'r..
-.r,\.i'.~.~+.- R~l\q'!~ ` 1~~ f~11~1 ~ r~ ~t~" f":i I ~ ~ ~I ,fir ,
- -r~n r
6616 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH • (612} 8.69-7555
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423
May 14, 1987
Hearing Examiner
c/o Community Development Dept.
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
To Whom It May Concern:
I am sending this correspondence to express my view on granting
the variance for Scott and Barbara Sharpe on Block 9, Lot 7,
Fairwood Park.
Scott and Barbara Sharpe have been good friends now for 8(eight)
years. Together they run the S.W. Sharpe Construction Company.
Scott personally has done numerous home improvement jobs at my
last house and currently is adding a room to my new residence at
2034 West Forest Drive. The quality of their companies' work is
outstanding. I will absolutely guarantee that the addition to
his residence will be in good taste. They are both wonderful
neighbors and two of the finest people I know.
I wholeheartedly support granting the variance to Scott and Barbara
Sharpe. We all must take time to remember that it is thanks to
fine citizens like the Sharpes that Richfield remains strong and.
viable.
Sin~~ e y Yours
GL~
% D d C. ~
reasurer
Lyndale Hardware Company
`AN OLD-FASHIONED HARDWARE STORE"
t
June 17, 1887
Richfield City Council
Richfield .City Hall
6700 Portland Ave.
Richfield, Minn.
~--..~,~~'"';;Dear• Sirs
Re: j-;-Public `Hearing for Scott and Barbara Sharpe
on Monday, June 22, 1987. -
We believe the Sharpes should be granted the variance
to build their garage attached to their house. Fit
present the basement entrance is most undesirable and
the garage is not a full double. We think the new
construction would be an asset to the property and
that the five foot sideyard would be adequate.
We value these people as neighbors.
Oscar W. Esala
~~~~~r~.~ .-1,. 1J . ~z~~/
Marg~et D. Esala
6731 Newton Ave. So.
Richfield, Minn. 5523
•
~3
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 189
Agenda June 22, 1987
Issue Statement:
Sign permit requests for Smith Fisher, 732 West 66th Street and
Hampton Inn, 7745 Lyndale Avenue.
Background: "
City ordinance provides that the city council must approve
all permits for illuminated and temporary signs.
Smith Fisher requests a permit to erect a 17'6" X 12" illuminated
single faced wall sign.
Hampton Inn requests a permit to erect a temporary, non-
illuminated, 20' X 12' double faced ground sign. The sign would
be used for a maximum of 60 days from date of issuance.
Rec <<~~.endation
It is recommended that the city council approve the permits for
these signs.
Basis for Rea..~.,.~t~,,.endation:
• 1. The Inspection Division and the Planning Division have
approved the signs.
2. The signs conform to all applicable city ordinances.
Alternative Rec„~.~....,endation:
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 placed on the consent calendar portion of the
June 22, 1987 council agenda for consideration. The businesses
are requesting action to complete their sign placements. ~
Respectfully submitted,
Ja s D( P er
City Manager
- f ' ~3/
APPROVE• I ~ DE,JY~ ~ : APPROVE ~X~ DE~IY~
City aanager Inspec ~ r~ 7
Date _ Date
APPROVE ~ yL k ~ENY~ ~ ~_TL`~P~-~ APPROVE ~ DENY
Plannin Department City Council
Date_-~~~ - _ ...Date
Route to above for special approval per code General Sisms - .
APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PER*2IT _ ::,y_. ~ ~ .rr::
- City of Richfield, .Minnesota ° _ _
Date ~ ~ /u'~ Zoning Sigri Erected -Yes - - ~No X Fee G ~
Pro rietor Name ~-i-r~~P Sn+.~2. DBA ~~y,si2, ~'',~~~i
Address of Sign '7c~ 1+Vrct ~t -+2. S-+'- P
Sign Erector -~-r,...,~, Address ~ntG~, ('v~.-~'r~•! A;,-r . t~l r~
~ y
Type of Sign.. Design. Weather Cover Li kiting
Wall ~ Single Face Clear Lexon ~ Constant
_ Projecting _ Double Face Frosted Lexoa ~ Flashing
Ground _ Multi-Faced Plastic Covered _ Revolving
Roof _ AerialiBlimp Shaded Traveling
Pedestal _ Searchlight ~ Neon _ Zip Lite
Changeable Banner/Pennants _ Other ~ Other (Explain)
Temporary _ Portable Frame : Sign Colors (~,~.,1 i~; ~ • ? ?
Trailer T ~ A ~ Post ~ -
Illuminated -Yes X No Watts
lectrical Contractor Address Phone
Property Owner or his Agert Signature ~ o _ ~ ~ Phone ~ r 5^r
Estimated Cost ~ d3~~, ^ Sign Width I~Y: ~ Height iZ " Total Square Feet i f
Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks,
curbs, roadways, overhead utiility lines', vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on
drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as
defines 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 ~cpy 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? Ya;
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?~ 1~/„
Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm _ -
- Phone Number ,??mot -<t 1 ~ ~
,4 ~
~ ~
, r
• •i ~ 'v,
985 PLEASE SEE 8c.vc.icSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION ~~ic.a ~Lti ~ i ~i ~
~J L ~
i ~ ~ r ~
Sivert Heads ^YSOa/Building Off icial - 866-5061 ~ ' ~ ~ i v
2 ~ L
-
- -
_ -
CAII ~AY - 224-4117
.~N a -
SA1 Grand Avenue _
St. Paul, MN 55105
. ~ - - r
i ~I i ~
- j~~. - ,~y.,~~
5~111TH•FIS
e drum
NQ1~lcfi~~ M ~,i'11,
/ I
r.~l2nne~ ~,.t l~ I
ss ~'.t a 2 ~ .sue ~ ~ / ~ , , ,
f (f~ ~ ~ _ 1 ~ ~ =,~b~'% S~i~~Alti 3ik'.~ ~=~~y~~"+`'+''G~^F?~!"t~+y~G ~ r
i S 1 ~ - y.r~
,i
i I,
6
_ Y
' v
/ i
A.~OROVE ( ~ DEVY~ h.°P:tQVE ~ L.~ DE:TY~ +~L~~-~~--`~-~
City aanager Inspectoz~~/~
Date Date 7
APPROVE ~ DENYI ( : ~ APPROVE DE:tY
Plannin Depa tment City Council
Date-Ja~ • ..Date
~ute to above for special approval per code General Signs-
~ APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERt1IT
- - - - City of Richfield, .Minnesota ~ - -y'~.i:~=:.-..: - : ~ .
_ _
Date June 1, 19$7 Zoning FC-2 Sign Erected - Yes ~ ± - ' No ~ - Fee -
Richfield Hotel
Address of Sign SE Corner I-494/Lyndale S. proprietor Name Associates DBA Hampton Inn.
Sign Erector Witcher Construction Co. Address 3601 Minn. Dr., #650, Mpls., MN 55435
Type of Sign Design ~ Weather Cover Zighting
Wall Single Face _ Clear Lexon ~ Constant
Projecting XX Double Face _ Frosted LeYOn _ Flashing
Ground ~ Multi-Faced _ Plastic Covered Revolving
Roof Aerial/Blimp _ Shaded Traveling
_ Pedestal Searchlight - ) Neon Zip Lite
Changeable Banner/Pennants I { Other ~ Other(E:tplain)
XX Temporary I I Portable Frame: {XX~ Sign Colors Red, White, & Blue
Trailer ~ I T Q A ~ Post ~ -
If Illuminated - Yes No Watts
~ctrical Contractor Address/] j' / Phone
~JI
Lropsrty Owner or his Agent Signature Bill Brusman Phone 854-8800
Estimated Cost $2,500 Sign Width 2D' ~3eight 12' Total Square Feet 240 SF
Position o= the ad•Jertiseme:~t str-cctura in relationship to t::e adjacent buildings, sidewalks,
curbs, roadways, overhead uuility lines, vehicle movement lines,-or public facilities on
drawing with significant dimensicns and attached hereto of majoz signs. :?nor signs as
deiine~ on page 2.
T=,ao blueprints of the sign, billboard, ~or outdoor advertising structure construction plans:
including specif icaticns, List of materials, and esalicit anchoring or fastening details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color-of sign structure.
Does the sign cony relate solely to the business, iast:.tution, or activ-yty conducted on
t a ore~ises? Yes
Will tae sign, structuze,.or billboard restrict any sight distancs under, around, or over
for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? No
t
Applicant's Signature and Title Fira June 1, 1987
854-8800 Date
.Phone Nuaber
1985 PLE.~SE Slw Rrv~.~cSE SIDE FOR SIGY LOCATIO:i a11.:1C:'~
Sivert Headric~saniBuildiag Official - 866-5061
_ ...._.--P- ~ ~~i. j, .
~ ~ -
,r• P
_ t
V ~ i~ i
4 .
a _ ___r___-_.--t
~ q l ; . - .
_ ~ t~~
- - ~
~ r
~ ~ ~
.
~j . ~ -
i { nr
~ i~
~*a7 r a~ rte.
c ~ 1 c
r
~ RED, (PMS 207) ~
j BLUE (PMS 2tl0) ~ ~
REO (PMS 20T) p
i~ ~
~E ~ °o
y r Q
6 ~J• ~
h ~U
- J ~ J
~ i r ~ -
~ ~ ~I ~ Lr~
i . '
i~ .Y W ULtI
3 S Z L) W
fi ~ I I V LY
V~ ~ 0 ~
~ FRONT ELEV/aTION NOTES. ~ ~ ~ ~
F d.kl3+.
~ I. CARTOUCH AND LETTERS SHALL BE PAUVTEO WHITE. , ` r ~Tf .t
NOT TO SCALE ,
2. ALL OUTLINE UPlS SHALL 8E PAINTED WHITE. ~ y ~ `'~'~e"~"}~ ISSUE Da
• s t i h t~*.:
3. BASE COLORS SHALL BE AS INDICATED ABOVE. 1~, r'x? ~ OCT. 198
~ a.,
; DR<1WING
~ NUMBER=
' ~
• ~ •
. a
' ~C. R. DOC. N0. t
• MAMPTON RICHFIELD
' • „
GL£til'5 ,;GC I m ~ ::JkSI'T :Eki;;a::c r; I SJii.cT TF.it~i:.::'e: N
17 .S
' PX[EPT/ON o
n (Nid6/er./SW~s/Swf rfsW~..°r ta~c Jl, rii .f i{ ^ t
~ -r- ~E.1! -,it~'•• ~ ~E-i~.5' P 7%7tI TI'/ O N~]~ _ q7' •
Q•rl -I i:rrr,. (.a:;:: `II -EXCEPTION-c~
•runx
I` i sn•„r•' ~W .v..77TH ~ 57. ~g •1 -
W ~ e I ~F
•A
to I ~ Sic'~Ip ~"•J ~o H °o ~ a
1 ~ I ~ ? `o~ lid v r
- - - v ~ ~slruvrw LOT I " •
I Q 15 tik I ` w* W .
x • r'
' N :7 vi s. g ~ a °i~ ~~*~.BLOCK I ;i li ~ ;
- 7 s
Si k:ai,•c / • fl j ' ` ~ scECa IN ruT
~ c~ ~'40UTLOT A
I :1 C
X ~P'~,j
c N;~
fr • PE NO TES IRON MONUMENT -
.S
•y. ~6 ~ O c •r ••r t, 3 ELARINGS SHOWN ERE E33LLYED
H• N
-1 • ~ . / ~ l ~•V -
l 1 4,
, • ( •t•, ' Z,R I : , b,4q• u1 nllllr uw•uu o• um •4n
` ire
~ 'V
1 y ~...1
:Il'fCkS'iA•iE Hr;1;:NA'f kC :~•i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
-
la~sr 7uTl: S'i ; I
5 : ~ -!w aw c,• /rc sw , ~ , r,,.t a ruc L .,u..N rNl.l, Mr rc.,,•
• j...•L=_~_a•-„4. ~1.tel. ~~r."c..:• I rba i. .uu ..r ."iNaq ilaa u...
wFn /mar sw~ :'ter ~ se: ; ~ r. sy q. a~ ;
SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS
•
I