06-08-87 agendaiCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 188
June 8, 1987
6:30 p.m.
Issue Statement:
Reconvening of the 1987 Board of Review.
Background:
The June 1, 1987 Board of Review was continued to 6:30 p.m. June
8, 1987 to allow staff an opportunity to prepare information on
two appeals presented on the evening of June 1.
Larry Miller, Hennepin County Principal Property Appraiser, has
contacted both individuals and will report to the Board on his
findings. As of June 4, it appears as though Kevin Kilian, 7009
5th Avenue, one of the appellants, does not wish to contest the
Market Value established by the Assessor's Office.
Recommendation:
Reconvene the Board of Review at 6:30 p.m. and take action based
upon the information presented.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Reconvening of the Board has been scheduled publicly at the
June 1 meeting to 6:30 p.m. June 8, 1987.
2. Information necessary for the Board to make a decision on
the remaining appeal will be available.
Alternative Recommendation:
None
Discussion /Decision Mode:
It would be desirable to conclude the proceedings of the Board of
Review on June 8, 1987.
JDP:sb
•
Resplectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Ci Manager
OPPLICANT'S NAME:
ADDRESS:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
P.I.D. #:
MUNIC:
TYPE OF BLDG.:
STORY HEIGHT:
1ST FLOOR AREA:
GROSS BLDG. AREA:
YR. OF CONST.:
CONDITION:
1ST FL. ROOMS:
2ND FL. ROOMS:
BEDROOMS:
BATHS:
*ALF BATHS:
FIN. BSMT. SQ.FT.:
WALKOUT:
FIREPLACE:
AIR COND:
GARAGE AREA:'
PORCH AREA:
LOT SIZE:
GRID - COMPARABLE DATA
Carol Ingersoll
7327 Thomas Ave So
Richfield, Mn. 55423
7327 Thomas Ave So
32- 028 -24 -14 -0121
Richfield
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
Rambler
One
1488
1488
1950
Fair -Poor
6
4
2
600
No
338
Deck
376*
75 x 134
COMPS -SALE DATA:
SALE DATE
SALE PRICE
SALE /SQ.FT.
SUBJECT - APPRAISAL DATA:
MKT. VALUE APPR. 74,400
APPRAISAL /SQ.FT. 50.00
7321 Upton
COMP #1
Rambler -
One
1107
1107
1951
Avg
6
3
1
300
No
624
75 x 134
to -85
801000
72.26
7008 Thomas 2821 W 70th
COMP #2 COMP #3
Rambler Rambler
One
One
1044
1102
1044
1102
1950
1950
Avg
Avg
6
5
3
3
1
2
500
600
No
No
Yes --
352 546
67 x 135 75 x 134
7 -86
5 -86
71,000
72,800
68.00
66.06
7420 Vincent
COMP #4
Rambler
One
1296
1296
1949
Avg
5
2
2
400
No
Yes
352
Deck
384
75 x 134
4 -86
85,800
66.20
REMARKS: All comparables are located in West Richfield, close to the subject and are in
• good condition. Subjects condition and needed repairs required large adjustments,
which resulted in a value of $50.00 per square foot.
I recommend value be reduced to $74,400.
Larry A. Miller
*Deck - -No Value
SUBJECT PROPERTY
ADDRESS 7327 Thomas Ave So
P.Z.D. 32- 028 -24 -14 -0121
Gross Bldg. Area
1468
1st Floor Rooms 6
Year Built
1gSQ F 1g75
Area Rating_
Avg
2nd Floor Rooms
Building Condition
Fair -Poor
Number Bedrooms 3
Construction Class
Exterior Finish
Avg
Number Baths 2
Bath Tile: Ceramic 1
Wood
Garages_
Single Detached
Plastic
Porches
Fireplaces
Basement Rooms
Built -in Range -Oven
Basement Walkout
Built -in Dishwasher
Amusement Room
Air Conditioning
CCMIENrS: Sub'ect was constructed as an 884 square foot rambler. Two
additions in 1976 increased the size to 1488 square feet The basement
under the kitchen addition has wet walls. Several water leaks are
evident in the kitchen bathroom', & living room ceilings. Also,
several windows need repair /replacement. The deck is in extremely
poor condition and should be removed
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 187
Agenda June 8, 1987
Issue Statement:
Authorization to enter into contract with the consulting firm of
Bennett- Ringrose - Wolsfeld (BRW) for design of certain public
improvements in the ILN.
Background:
Proceeding with the construction of Phase I Stage 1 public
improvements east of Lyndale Avenue is now possible because
construction on the Hampton Inn has been underway for a few
weeks. On May 18, the HRA authorized staff to .negotiate for the
purchase of 7644 and 7645 Garfield and 7644 Harriet Avenues.
Design detail for the public improvements east of Lyndale Avenue
now needs to be developed. Two firms would be involved in
preparing those plans, Orr - Schelen- Mayeron and Associates (OSM),
and BRW. OSM, under an existing contract with the city, would be
responsible for concept design for utilities, design development,
and final design of roadway, utility and traffic signal work.
Bennett - Ringrose - Wolsfeld would do detail design for the
environmenal barrier, and all public landscaping improvements
except utilities, design development and final design for all
urban design and landscaping elements. (To assure coordination
of these activities, a staff group has been formed which includes
representatives of both OSM and BRW).
The attached contract provides for the work to be done by BRW
throughout the ILN, that is on both sides of Lyndale Avenue,
south of 77th Street and along Lyndale Avenue, north of 77th
Street. At this time, however, BRW would only undertake design
work in the area east of Lyndale Avenue. It is estimated that
the cost of installing the landscape material east of Lyndale
Avenue (grass, shrubs, trees and visual and noise barrier) will
be $160,000. The contract identifies two tasks: design of public
improvements and public information and approval process.
Costs under the contract are not to exceed $20,000. The funds to
pay for the contract and the landscape material would be provided
from,the December, 1985 ILN tax increment bonds.
Recommendation:
Approve the attached contract for design work in the ILN and
authorize the expenditure of not to exceed $20,000 for contract
implementation east of Lyndale Avenue.
Basis of Recommendation:
In July, 1986 at the behest of neighbors, the City Council
approved the installation of these improvements on the east side
of Lyndale Avenue following initiation of construction of the
Hampton Inn. The improvements are consistent with the Phase I
Stage 1 Plan. (see attached maps).
/5- ;L-
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Not approve the contract and expenditure not to exceed
$20,000.
Decision Mode:
A meeting has been scheduled for people east of Lyndale Avenue
for Wednesday, June 10th to begin discussions on the design
details of the landscaping. This activity is part of the
proposed contract.
JDP /eja
•
Respectfully submitted,
(Y
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
; •
C
C-
0
Lw=* Avw" SaArt
- cy
MW— A—ke SWh
vi
'•C
O_
s•
0
N
D
ff
CD
23
cn
T
LU
v
cn w b-M4
CD r-4
CD
O
CD
I
i
�\ r
!Z Lyr=e Avwxx -Cm=
j,
' � I
� e I
e e • 1
r � I
j
a. I
i •-
I
I w
1
I'
I I
I El' 1
j
Gw - S
1
•
•
ft
PLANNING / TRANSPORTATION /'ENGINEERING / ARCHITECTURE.
Agreement For
Professional Services
This AGREEMENT entered into by:
the CLIENT:
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
and the CONSULTANT:
BENNETT - RINGROSE - WOLSFELD- JARVIS '-GARDNER, INC.
Thresher Square
700 Third Street South
Minneapolis, MN 55415
for the following PROJECTS:
ILN Redevelopment Project Implementation
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT did work with the City Council of the City of Richfield,
the HRA, and the ILN Task Force in studying the Interstate /Lyndale /Nicollet
(ILN) commercial area and did prepare a redevelopment plan which formed the
basis for the Redevelopment Project which was ultimately adopted by the City of
Richfield, and
WHEREAS, the CLIENT desires the provision of certain technical assistance and
other services in conjunction with the implementation of the ILN Redevelopment
Porject as heretofore adopted by the City, and
WHEREAS, the CLIENT desires that the CONSULSTANT provide such assistance and
services in order to ensure continuity in this major project, and
WHEREAS, the CLIENT desires to have work for the PROJECT coordinated with the
CLIENT'S engineering consultant, Orr - Schelen - Mayeron and Associates, Inc.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained
herein, the CLIENT and the CONSULTANT agree as follows:*
The CONSULTANT shall provide professional services for the PROJECT in accordance
with the Terms and Conditions as set forth below under Article II entitled
"Services" and
The CLIENT shall compensate the CONSULTANT in accordance with the Terms and
Conditions as set forth below under Article III entitled "Compensation."
1
7
r
G
l
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT
ARTICLE I.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. CHANGE IN SCOPE OF THE PROJECT
Should the CONSULTANT'S scope of services change substantially from that
outlined in this AGREEMENT or if work is suspended or delayed by the CLIENT
for more than three months, then this AGREEMENT may be subject to
re- negotiation.
B. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT may be terminated by either party upon ten days written
notice should the other party fail substantially to perform in accordance
with its terms through no fault of the party initiating the termination. In
the event of termination due to the fault of parties other than the
CONSULTANT, the CONSULTANT shall be paid his compensation for services per-
formed to termination date, including Reimbursable Expenses.
C. TRANSFER OF AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT is not transferable by either party to a non -named party
without the written consent of the other party.
D. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
No member, officer, or employee of the CONSULTANT, or its designees or
agents, no member of the governing body of the locality in which the PROJECT
is situated, and no other public official of such locality or localities,
who exercises any functions or.responsibilities with respect to the PROJECT,
during his /her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest,
direct or indirect, in any contract or subcontract, or the proceeds thereof
for work to be performed in connection with the program assisted under this
AGREEMENT.
E. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
In connection with the execution of this AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT shall not
discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of
race, religion, color,.sex, or national origin. The CONSULTANT shall take
affirmative actions to insure that applicants are employed and that
employees are treated during their employment, without regard to their race,
religion, color, sex, or national origin.
•
t
•
•
Such actions shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment, or recruitment
advertising; layoff, or termination; rates of pay, or other forms of
compensation; and selection for training including apprenticeship.
F. MATERIALS OWNERSHIP
All materials produced under the terms of this AGREEMENT are the property of
the CLIENT. The term "Materials" includes all documents, data, reports,
studies, and maps.
f
3
ARTICLE II
SERVICES
A. SCOPE OF SERVICES
��s
The CONSULTANT'S scope of services shall consist of providing Professional
Services to the CLIENT for the implementation of the ILN Redevelopment
Project. The Services shall include the following work tasks:
TASK 1: DESIGN OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
This task consists of concept design of all public improvements
and design development and final design of all urban design and
landscaping improvements. It is understood that the project may
be executed in stages and that the CONSULTANT shall do work only
on the stages which have been authorized by the CLIENT. The work
subtasks described below shall be the same for all stages. It is
further understood that the CONSULTANT shall do concept design for
all public improvements required, except utility work, and shall
do design development and final design (Contract Documents) for
all urban design and landscaping elements.- -Design development and
final design of roadway, utility, and traffic signal related work
as well as PROJECT implementation shall be the responsibility of
the CLIENT or the CLIENT'S engineering consultant, Orr- Schelen-
Mayeron and Associates, Inc. Also, the CLIENT, or the CLIENT'S
engineering consultant, shall be responsible for providing all the
necessary base map material including existing condition and pro-
perty description and ownership information.
This task consists of four major subtasks-- concept design, design
development, final design, and implementation - -which are described
below.
1.1 CONCEPT DESIGN OF ALL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Objective: To develop an overall concept design for all public
improvements including the proposed roadways,
pedestrian areas, lighting, signing, urban design ele-
ments, and landscaping treatments. (Design of utility
improvements is not included in this task since it is
assumed that utility design will be completed by City
staff or other consultants.)
a. Establish the overall scope and extent of the pro-
posed project.
b. Identify issues and conflict areas which may
affect project development.
c. Prepare concept designs of all the proposed pro-
ject improvements and assist the City in selecting
a recommended concept.
•
t
d. Prepare preliminary public improvement cost esti-
mates based on the concept design and assist the
City in preparing an overall budget for project
implementation.
e. Prepare proposals, and financial analyses for
various programs for assessment of the local area
benefits, and generally assist the City in for-
mulating an assessment program, as required.
f. Update and modify the project schedule in response
to changes that become necessary as the project
planning becomes more detailed.
g. Act as a general assistant and advisor to the
City, and the City's Engineering and Planning
Departments, as required, to facilitate the imple-
mentation of the improvement program and to coor-
dinate the anticipated private developments in the
project area with the public improvement program.
1.2 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT OF URBAN DESIGN AND-LANDSCAPING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS
Objective: To prepare detailed design development plans of the
urban design and landscaping public improvements.
a. Prepare design alternatives for the various urban
design and landscaping public improvements.
b. Prepare detailed cost estimates of the proposed
urban design and landscaping improvements.
c. Review the urban design and landscaping alter-
natives with the City and assist in selecting the
• preferred alternative to be used for the final
design.
d. Prepare design development drawings to be used as
the basis for final design.
1.3 FINAL DESIGN OF URBAN DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS (CONTRACT DOCUMENTS)
Objective: To prepare final plans and specifications (Contract
Documents) for all urban design and landscaping public
improvements.
a. Prepare a program and schedule for the various
contracts which will be awarded for the work,
clearly identifying the nature of the work to be
5
ti
or
included in each contract, its approximate cost,
and a schedule for the start and completion of
each contract.
b. Prepare detailed plans, specifications, special
provisions, bidding documents, and other related
items for all urban design and landscaping public
improvements in conformance with accepted archi-
tectural and engineering standards, and in a form
acceptable to the various public agencies who will
review the project.
c. Secure the approval of the bidding documents from
the required officals.
d. Prepare final estimates of the construction cost
based upon the final designs.
e. Assist in the securing of bids for the work and
make recommendations with regard to the award of
contracts for the construction work.
f. Continue to assist and advise the City and the
City's Engieering and Planning Departments, as
requested, relative to the implementation of the
project. 0
1.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF URBAN DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS
Objective: To assist in the coordination of the various urban
design and landscaping related construction activi-
ties, to inspect the work performed by contractors for
compliance with the contract documents, and to
interpret the plans and specifications.
a. Provide assistance in inspecting urban design and
landscaping related public improvements.
b. Interpret the plans and specifications when
required or when in dispute.
c. Review and approve urban design and landscaping
related payment requests by the contractors.
TASK 2: PUBLIC INFORMATION AND APPROVAL PROCESS
This task will consist of assisting the City in disseminating
information to the public about the upcoming project, par-
ticipating in public informational meetings, and making presen-
tations to public agencies and committees regarding the project.
1
J
1 .
0 2.1 PREPARATION OF S.PEC.IAL PRESENTATION MATERIAL
Objective: To prepare special presentation material, responses to
questions, or displays in order to explain or clarify
the design or intent of the public improvements.
2.2 PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
Objective: To participate in and make presentations about the
project, at the request of the City, at public infor-
mational meetings.
2.3 PRESENTATIONS TO PUBLIC AGENCIES AND COMMITTEES
Objective: To make presentations about the project, at the
request of the City, to public agencies and commit -
tees.
B. PRODUCTS
Products for each task shall be established at the time the CLIENT gives
authorization to proceed.
C. TIME OF PERFORMANCE
The time of performance for each task shall be established at the time the
CLIENT gives authorization to proceed.
D. PROJECT PERSONNEL
The CONSULTANT shall assign Arijs Pakalns as Project Manager and Donald
Ringrose as Principal -In- Charge. The assigned personnel shall be primarily
responsible for the project development and presentations and shall not be
replaced unless a change is approved in writing by the CLIENT.
E. MAINTENANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS
The CONSULTANT shall maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting
records and other evidence pertaining to cost incurred in connection with
work and services performed hereunder. The CONSULTANT shall make such
material available at its office at all reasonable times during the contract
period and for three years from the date of final payment under this
agreement for inspection by the CLIENT and copies thereof shall be furnished
upon request. The CLIENT may also request originals of drawings or the text
material.
rA
ARTICLE III
COMPENSATION
A. COMPENSATION
�5 ,ice
•
The cost of providing professional consultant services as set forth under
ARTICLE II shall be as described below, unless additional amounts are
approved in writing by the CLIENT. It is understood and agreed that the
CLIENT must authorize the CONSULTANT to proceed with each task.
TASK 1: DESIGN OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
1.1 CONCEPT DESIGN OF ALL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Compensation for services provided under Task 1.1 shall be on
an hourly basis with the total amount not to be exceeded to
be established at the time the CLIENT gives authorization to
proceed.
1.2 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT OF URBAN DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS
Compensation for services provided under Task 1.2 shall be
equal to 4.5 percent of the estimated cost of the improve-
ments designed. •
1.3 FINAL DESIGN OF URBAN DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS (CONTRACT DOCUMENTS)
Compensation for services provided under Task 1.3 shall be
equal to 5.5 percent of the construction cost of the improve-
ments. The construction cost of the improvements shall mean
the amount of the construction contract as awarded plus all
add alternates which have not been awarded, If no contracts
are awarded, it shall mean the lowest responsible bid plus
all add alternates. If no bids are taken, it shall be the
amount estimated by the CONSULTANT, including all add alter-
nates, as approved by the CLIENT.
1.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF URBAN DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS
Compensation for services provided under Task 1.4 shall be on
an hourly basis with the total amount not to be exceeded to
be established at the time the CLIENT gives authorization to
proceed.
TASK 2: PUBLIC INFORMATION AND APPROVAL PROCESS
Compensation for services provided under Task 2 shall be on an
hourly basis with the total amount not to be exceeded to be
established at the time the CLIENT gives authorization to proceed.
•
B. TERMS OF COMPENSATION
Compensation for services provided on an hourly basis shall be according to
the current hourly rates by employee classification plus Reimbursable
Expenses. Reimbursable Expenses include photographic, printing, soils and
material testing, and travel expenses and shall be at cost.
Compensation for services provided on a percentage-of- cost -of- the - improve-
ments basis shall be as follows:
1. For Task 1.2, 100% upon satisfactory completion of said work item.
2. For Task 1.3, as follows:
o 90% upon satisfactory completion of said work item.
o 10% upon award of construction contracts or upon a decision by the
CLIENT not to award contracts.
C. INVOICE CERTIFICATION
Each invoice shall contain a certification by an officer of the company
stating that the invoice is correct and that payment has not been received
previously.
D. TERMS OF PAYMENT
The CONSULTANT will bill the CLIENT monthly for work completed the previous
month. The CLIENT agrees to pay all invoices in full within 45 days after
receiving .them.
This AGREEMENT executed this
CLIENT:
By:
By:
CONSULTANT:
By: _
day of
By:
By:
By:
10
r5 �Y
•
•
-4t, /y -/
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 186
June 8, 1987
Issue Statement:
Adoption of a housing maintenance ordinance requiring licensing
of apartment buildings and rented homes, and requiring
certificates of housing code compliance for homes when they are
sold.
Background:
The proposed ordinance is part of the overall review of
Richfield's program to maintain a safe housing environment for
residents and keep the housing stock from deteriorating.
The Public Safety Department has studied the present ordinances
and enforcement methods, and determined that:
1. The current housing code requirements do not need to be
changed.
2. With the current enforcement procedures, we are not aware
of property maintenance problems until a tenant or neighbor
makes a complaint to us. The recently hired animal
control /code enforcement officer is initiating cpmplaints
on outside problems, but we still are not aware of inside
complaints until we hear from a tenant..
The department has found that housing code and property
maintenance violations can exist for a long period, and
become very serious, before citizens initiate a complaint.
The department is therefore recommending the proposed ordinances,
which would change the enforcement method to a proactive approach
instead of the current reactive method. The currently used
housing and property maintenance requirements would not be
changed.
A key feature of the proposed ordinance is that the license fees
are designed to fund sufficient personnel to regularly inspect
apartment units and rented homes. Experience from communities
with similar ordinances shows that the regular inspections will
allow the inspectors to find violations before they become
serious. When such violations are discovered before they become
serious, the problems are less expensive to resolve. Also, better
relations between neighbors and tenant /landlord relations can be
maintained when they can depend upon the city staff discovering
and resolving the complaints.
The Public Safety Department has noted that current staffing
levels in the Fire and Inspection Divisions are not sufficient to
handle the increased inspection activity which would be generated
by the new ordinance.
The number and type of personnel recommended to operate the
program were selected to provide.an extremely cost - effective
housing code enforcement operation, while also increasing the
efficiency of current programs in both divisions. For example,
using a firefighter to conduct the apartment unit inspections
will add one person who can respond to an fire during business
hours, a time when the availability of off -duty personnel is
/,Z/-a.
becoming less than we need for adequate fire protection. This
need will only occur about once per week, which will not affect
the inspector's primary duties. When the firefighter /inspector is
needed at a fire, however, he will serve a critical need. The
Housing Inspector will be experienced in technical code matters,
and will be used to assist or advise firefighters on housing code
violations discovered during fire code inspections.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the council give first reading to this
ordinance and schedule a date for second reading, and the public
hearing.
Basis of Recommendation:
The new ordinance will improve our enforcement process, which in
our present method of operation does not begin until a property
maintenance problem has become quite serious. This will ensure
that our residents have a safer environment, will ensure that
Richfield's housing stock will not deteriorate, and will help
maintain better relations between tenants, landlords and their
neighbors.„
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The council could reject the proposed ordinance and accept the
present enforcement program. This would let the present
conditions continue, which originally created concern from
council members about housing and property maintenance
conditions.
2. The council could direct staff to increase inspection activity
without a license fee. This would require an increase in the
operating budget for the additional personnel. Also, the present
ordinances do not allow inspectors to routinely enter apartment
units and rented homes, and thus we still could not resolve
violations in those units until a tenant or neighbor files a
complaint.
Decision /Discussion Mode:
The new housing maintenance ordinance has been prepared for
council consideration at the June 8, 1987 council meeting.
JDP /eja
•
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
City Manager
If
•
•
•
/yj
DRAFT COPY 6 -4 -87
BILL NO. 1987 -
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III, PART III OF
THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter III, Part III of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield entitled "Housing - Health and Sanitation Regulation"
is hereby amended in the following respect:
I. Section 3.22 of the City Code entitled "Board of Health" is
renumbered as Section 3.24.
The City Code is amended by adding a new section, Section 3.22,
to'read:
3.22. INSPECTION AND LICENSING OF APARTMENT HOUSES AND
RENTAL HOMES.
Subd. 1. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this Section the terms
defined herein have the following meanings.
(1) "Apartment house" means a building containing
three or more dwelling units.
(2) "Apartment ", "apartment unit" or "dwelling unit" means
a room or group of rooms located within a building and
forming a single habitable unit with facilities which
are used or intended to be used for living, sleeping,
cooking and eating.
(3) "Rental Home" means a one or two - family dwelling which
is occupied by persons other than the owner.
(4) "Family" means one or more persons occupying a
dwelling unit and living as a single, nonprofit
housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group
occupying a hotel, club, fraternity or sorority house.
The term "family" does not include a group of
individuals, exceeding three in number, not related
by blood, marriage or adoption. The term "family"
includes necessary employees.
(5) "Housing Code" means Section 3.21 of this Code together
with the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by Section 3.02
of this Code.
(6) All other definitions contained in Section 3.21,
Subdivision 1, are incorporated in this Section by
reference and made a part hereof.
1
1.41- Al
Subd. 2. LICENSE REQUIRED. It is unlawful for any person
who is an owner of an apartment house or an owner of a rental
home to operate such apartment house or rental home without first
having obtained a license under the provisions of this section.
i
Subd. 3. LICENSING PROCEDURE.
(1) Within 90 days after f the
owner of an apartment house or owner of a rental home shall apply
to the building official for the license required by Subdivision
2 of this section. Application shall be made on forms provided
by the city and accompanied by the initial, fee required by
subdivision 7 of this section. The owner of an apartment house
or rental home constructed after the date specified herein shall
submit a license application prior to actual occupancy of any
apartment unit or rental home.
(2) Application: Contents and Inspection. The application
shall contain such information as the building official may
require to assess compliance with the housing code and this
section. After receiving an application and prior to granting a
license the building official is authorized to require such
inspections as are necessary to assure compliance with the
housing code and this section.
3) Issuance of Licenses. If the building official finds
that an apartment house or rental home complies with
requirements of the housing code and this 'section, the building
official shall issue the license. If an apartment house or
rental home is not in compliance with the 'housing code and this
section the building official shall deny the license, specifying
in writing the defects, and shall notify the applicant. The
applicant shall have a 60 day period from 'receipt of such notice
to correct the defects specified, but only if the defects do not
create an imminent hazard. The building official may, in his
discretion, authorize additional time for compliance. If the
license is denied, no occupancy of dwelling units then vacant, or
which become vacant, is permitted until a' license has been
issued. Apartment units within an unlicensed apartment house for
which a license application has been made 'and which units are in
compliance with the housing code may be occupied provided that
non - complying units within the apartment house do not create an
imminent hazard to the health and safety of persons in occupied
units. Such occupancy may continue until ifinal action on the
granting or denial of the license is taken' by the building
official. In any instance where the building official has denied
an application for a license the applicant' may appeal his
decision to the director of public safety.'
•
2
,y_ s
Subd. 4. LICENSE:° RENEWAL: TRANSFER. The term of a
license granted under this section is one year, expiring on
June 30. The license must be renewed annually thereafter. The
license is transferable upon application to the building
official, and payment of the license transfer fee by the
prospective owner, provided that the apartment house or rental
home is in compliance with the housing code. The license shall
terminate if renewal or application for transfer is not made
within 30 days after transfer of ownership of the apartment
house.
Subd. 5. LICENSES: SUSPENSION: REVOCATION. A license
issued or renewed under this section may be suspended upon a
finding of noncompliance with this section by the building
official, and written notice to the licensee. Upon failure of
the licensee to comply with the notice of violation, the license
may be revoked or suspended-in the manner provided by section
5.14 of this code. Reinstatement of a suspended license shall be
accompanied by an amount equal 50% of the license fee. Issuance
of a new license after suspension or revocation shall be made in
the manner provided for obtaining an initial license.
Subd. 6. LICENSES: DISPLAY. Licenses issued under this
section shall be displayed on the premises of the apartment house
or rental home, wherever feasible and produced upon demand of a
prospective tenant, the building official or his authorized
representative. Except as otherwise provided in this section all
provisions of Sections 5.08 to 5.15 of this code are applicable
to licenses issued under this section.
Subd. 7. FEES. The fees for licenses required by this
section are in the amounts established in Appendix D of this
code. A license fee, or license transfer fee which is not paid
on the date due shall be increased by a 10% penalty for each
month or portion thereof during which said fee remains unpaid.
Subd. 8. COMPLIANCE WITH MINNESOTA STATUTES. Nothing in
this section is intended to modify or abrogate the rights of
tenants of apartment units or owners of apartment houses granted
by Minnesota Statutes, sections 566.18 to 566.33. The city
manager may designate, subject to city council approval,
administrators to carry out the duties assigned by the court
pursuant to said statutes.
Subd. 9. REMEDIES. Violation of the provisions of this
section is a misdemeanor. In addition the city may designate,
subject to city council approval, administrators to carry out the
duties assigned by the court pursuant to said statutes.
Subd. 10. This ordinance is effective on
. The initial license fees required by Subd. 3 and 7 shall be
prorated for the period to June 30, 198 .11
3
/Y- 6
III. The city code is amended by adding new Section 3.23 to read:
3.23. CERTIFICATE OF HOUSING MAINTENANCE COMPLIANCE FOR SINGLE
AND TWO- FAMILY HOMES.
Subdivision 1. CERTIFICATE REQUIRED.
(1) After , 198 , whenever the ownership of any
single or two - family structure located within the city changes,
the persons relinquishing ownership, or any agent designated by
the persons relinquishing ownership, shall make application for
the certificate of housing maintenance compliance.
(2) This section shall not apply to,any multiple - dwelling
structure licensed under section 3.22 of this code, and shall
have no effect upon the provisions of law or other ordinances
related to the issuance of building permits.
Subd. 2. APPLICATION AND INSPECTION.
(1) Application for the certificate of housing maintenance
compliance shall be executed upon forms provided by the city and
accompanied by the initial fee established in Appendix D of this
code.
(2) Upon receipt of a properly executed application the
building official shall cause an inspection to be made of the
premises to ensure that the structure is in compliance with the
housing code and this section.
Subd. 3. ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE. If the structure is in
compliance with the requirements of the housing code and this
section, a certificate shall be issued to,the person
relinquishing ownership or the agent thereof, stating that the
structure has been inspected and is in compliance with the
housing maintenance code. During the period of one year
following its issuance, a certificate may be accepted by the city
in satisfaction of the requirements of this section without the
need for a second inspection.
Subd. 4. OCCUPANCY PROHIBITED. The person relinquishing
ownership or their designated agent shall obtain the certificate
from the city prior to transfer of ownership. The prospective
owner shall not occupy the structure prior to issuance of the
certificate, except pursuant to subdivision 5.
4
•
•
0
•
•
•
�y- 7
Subd. 5 OCCUPANCY. A person may be granted permission to
occupy a dwelling prior to issuance of the certificate upon the
approval of the building official. The approval shall be based
upon undue hardship or other extraordinary or exceptional
circumstances, provided that no circumstances shall constitute an
immediate hazard. Approval shall not be given until the
prospective owner or designated agent has filed on forms supplied
by the city, a statement of intent to comply with the correction
orders issued by the building official. Compliance dates in the
statement of intent to comply shall be established by the
building official. Failure to make the required corrections by
the compliance dates shall constitute a violation of this code
and shall render void any approval given pursuant to this
subdivision.
Subd. 6. If following the issuance of a certificate, the
city finds by complaint or otherwise that the structure may be
maintained in a substandard or deferred manner, a new inspection
will be required in order to satisfy the requirements of this
section.
5
U
/�- �P
RESOLUTION NO. 7092
Section 2.
(37) Housing Maintenance 3.22
License Fee
(a) Apartment buildings Four units $50.00
or less
(b) Each additional 7.50
apartment unit
(c) Rental Home $50.00
(38) Certificate of Housing 3.23 $50.00
Maintenance Compliance
i
C:
•
•
•
/C�-/
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.185
Agenda June 8, 1987
Issue Statement:
Consideration 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.
Recommendation:
Give first reading consideration to an ordinance enacting the
Richfield City Code of 1987. It is further recommended that the
public hearing and second reading be scheduled for the June 22,
1987 city council meeting.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. A need to update the code
conflicting language.
2. A 'need to provide format
and remove archaic and /or
and more easily readable code form.
Alternative Recommendation:
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:
This item has been placed on the June 8, 1987 city council
meeting for first reading consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
James . Prosser
City anager
JDP /eja
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.
0 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.
9
13--3
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.
Attest:
Thomas Ferber
City Clerk
Published:
0 (Affidavit of Publication attached)
�_
John Hamilton
Mayor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 184
Agenda June 8, 1987
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment Relating to Council.
Salaries.
Background:
Chapter XII, Section 12.02 of the city ordinance establishes the
salaries of the City Council and provides that these salaries be
reviewed by December of each year. It has been the practice in
past years to place this item on a city council agenda prior to
the time that work begins on the proposed budgets for the next
fiscal year, which will occur during the months of June and July,
1987.
Council salaries were last adjusted for fiscal year 1986, when
the salary of the Mayor was increased from $6,000 to $6,700 per
year and Council Member salaries were increased from $4,500 to
$5,200 per year.
The City Charter stipulates that "No change in salary shall take
effect until after the next succeeding election." This means any
change in salaries would not take effect until after the
November, 1987 election.
Attached is a list of council salaries of ten selected
metropolitan cities, as well as council salaries for all cities
of comparable size in the metropolitan area. Also attached for
council consideration is a proposed ordinance amendment.
Recommendation:
Consider for first reading, an amendment to the ordinance code
relating to council salaries.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The City Charter stipulates that council member salaries must
be reviewed by December of each:
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Council Members may wish
the year.
2. Not approve first reading
to defer this matter until later in
of the ordinance.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the June 8, 1987 city council agenda
for council consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
• James D. P._ osser
City Manager
JDP /eja
/,.-,3-3
Average Salary:
$ 6,756 . $ 5,180
*Plus $50 /meeting other than those requiring attendance, not to
exceed $150 /month.
40
Metropolitan Area
Council Salaries
#Mtgs.
Annual
Salary
City
Month
Pop.
Mayor
Council
Apple Valley
4
26,920
$ 5,400
$ 42800
Brooklyn Park
2
43,330
.92000
62000
Burnsville
2
35,670
62000
4,200
Coon Rapids,
3
35,830
7,600
6,600 /wards
6,900 /a -lge
Edina
2
461070
51800
3,900
Golden Valley*
2
22,780
62820
5,115
Minnetonka
3
38,680
72200
52040
Plymouth
3
31,620
6,600
4,800
Roseville
2
35,820
6,000
4,800
RICHFIELD
3
36,900
61,700
5,200
St. Louis Park
2
42,930
7,200
4,800
Average Salary:
$ 6,756 . $ 5,180
*Plus $50 /meeting other than those requiring attendance, not to
exceed $150 /month.
40
x
x
�C
Oc
Oc
G7
'if
I'7
C=I
C 1
n
0
0
W
w
W
m
w
a
C
(7
m
m
F+-
in
m
0
4
0.
m
1
0
0
0
c
4
4
r
r
v
x
y
0
r
4
0
0
0
m
V
►-�
,.,
0
0
0
O
N-
r
0
t2l
O
X
X
8
0
�D
H
N
0
y
fi
=
0
rp
m
O
xJ
tT
<
r
r
W
rD
'tt
TOm
0
00
�
<
r
m
m
W
W
V
0
<
a
:c
a
e
0
M
,�.
om,
O
m
m
lu
m
0
m
0
m
x
`<
m
�
o
w
4
m
co-
�
o
a
�
c
H
N
O
>
W
W
r
m
V
N
•
w
AA
O
AA
O
N
w
O
O
O
W
W
m
-i
a
O
N
V
W
V
O
w
r
0
,p
O
to
W
(n
tJt
t0
m
t0
n
O
F-1
to O
O
<
P
0
&
0
W
0
r
r
I m
m
,A
&
r
t0
Ln
V
ob
k%
r.
W
O
�P
N
C
tTl x
m
0
0
0
O
o
0
0.10
0
o
O
0
O
O
O
o
o
xx
x
H
t0
N
r
m
o
cn
0
o
0
w
-
x
x
M
c�
Wl
N
N
N
N
N
W
N
N
N
W
N
N
W
N
�A
N
O
0;
x
•-�
-a
o
y
T
m
UI
V
�A
Ot
m
T
UI
�s
V
Qt
a
O
M
0
M
u
m
u
r
x
T
.
.
N
.
N
.
m
.
O
.
m
.
t0
.
m
.
Us
.
O
.
m
.
N
.
N
.
O
.
O
.
.P
.
O
.
UI
.
.4
CD
C
0
N
O
O
O
N
O
u
O
m
O
O
O
O
O
m
O
u
O
m
a
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
r
to
T
01
UI
Q1
�A
Q�
01
T
UI
�A
Q�
lJ1
UI
O
Ol
Q1
Q1
Ui
Ol
N
�
r
T
W
h)
O
m
O
m
z0
m
in
N
.
Ol
.
N
.
N
.
O
.
Ol
.
01
.
O
.
W
.
�A
L0
m
Zoo-
N
N
O
O
O
N
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
0
O
O
UI
K
u
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
'*J
T
&
UI
Ol
as
0.
m
0
N
as
UI
UI
.O
&
0�
T
N
0i
tJl
r
>
b
O
m
N
O
CA
N
T
m`
UI
m
.
�A
.
N
.
N
.
m
.
01
.
.
O
.
O
.
-<
a
O
m
N
O
O
O
0
O
u
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
O
O
O
DP
w
m
O
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
to
M
a
rn
.
m
O
O
W
N
r
O
w
m
W
m
.
w
.
O
.
N
.
O
.
r
.
O
.
m
.
m
w
a
O
V
N
&
O
O
r
N
O
O
u
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
r
O
m
O
O
O
O
u
0
O
O
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
In
a
r
.A
W
iP
CA
Ut
W
W
,la
,ta
.
W
Q1
,p
,p
,p
O
T
.i+
O
N
0
N
r
O
t0
Qt
V
m
.
tTt
.
O
.
N
.
m
.
r
.
O
.
T
.
m
�.
t0
•t
O
Q�
O
O
O
O
a
u
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
In
O
u
0
�P
W
W
A
�i+
W
W
A
W
W
01
W
A
w
�A
�A
n
N
O
O
N
M
O
m
m
W
0
.A
Q�
Q�
O
Ot
m
r
O
&
m
t0
3
O
u
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U1
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
•O
O
,ts
O
O
O
m
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
-�
to
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 183
Agenda June 8, 1987
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment
modifying the definition of the classification of employee
entitled "Project Employee ".
Background:
Late in 1986, the city staff proposed a special classification of
employee, entitled "Project Employee ". This classification was
later adopted by the City Council in early 1987. The
classification made it possible to employ individuals related to
the operation of a specific program or project, and to tie the
compensation and termination of that position directly to the
revenues associated with that.project, or by annual review of the
City Manager.
As stated, the employment of a Project Employee was designed to
terminate upon the termination of the special funding or at the
end of each year, unless it was to be renewed by the City
Manager. The benefit to the Project Employee is that during the
course of the individual's employment with the city, the employee
would be able to participate in the city's group health
insurance, holiday, vacations, personal leave and disability
insurance, just as a permanent employee.
The main thrust of the Project Employee classification was to
enable the city to hire adequate staff to handle peak work load
and special projects without incurring the liability of adding
permanent employees to the city unless it was absolutely
necessary.
Operating under the Project Employee Ordinance thus far in 1987,
some divisions have indicated that it has been difficult to
attract employees to work under a Project Employee status.
Applicants are concerned primarily with the annual renewal
provision and second, about termination at the end of funding.
In addition, the original language developed for Project
Employees did not specifically provide language for the
termination of a Project Employee based on the employee's
performance. The attached ordinance modifies the termination
provision of Project Employees by basically doing three things:
1. It makes it clear that either the exhaustion of funds or
completion of the project constitutes grounds for
termination. In reality, such termination constitutes
the abolition of the position.
2. It removes the annual review provision. By removing the
annual review provision, it was felt that this may give
a prospective employee a better feeling of security in
accepting a Project Employee position with the city.
Removing the language does not diminish the City Manager's
authority to abolish the position on an annual basis, which
could be done through the budget process.
3. It provides for the termination of employees rather than
the abolition of the position, in cases where the employee's
performance is not satisfactory.
While the proposed changes recommended here do not make
significant changes in the concept of Project Employment, the
changes do address concerns that the Project Employee
termination provision, as it now exists, makes such a
tenuous employment relationship that it is difficult to
attract employees to fill such positions.
At the May 26, 1987 city council meeting, the city council gave
first reading approval to this ordinance amendment and scheduled
the public hearing and second reading for the June 8, 1987 city
council meeting.
Recommendation:
Hold the public hearing and approve the ordinance amending
Paragraph 4, Subdivision 2, of Section 2.34, the City Ordinance
Code entitled "Termination of Project Employees ".
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The concept of Project Employment is a very valuable concept
for the city, but in order to make it more attractive to
certain individuals as an employment opportunity, language
modifications are necessary.
2. Those modifications provide the City Manager with an expressed
opportunity for elimination of an employee from the position,
based on poor performance, without abolishing the position
entirely.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could make an amendment to the termination
provision of the Project Employee Ordinance and simply let
the ordinance stand as it now is.
2. The City Council could make further mouifications in the
termination provision or ask the staff to develop further
guidelines for Project Employee termination.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item has been scheduled for a public hearing on June 8,
1987, so that the ultimate ordinance adoption may take place in a
timely manner to facilitate the recruitment of any Project
Employees necessary for summer work activity.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
JDP /sae
City anager
//-9
0 ORDINANCE NO.
AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 2, PART 3 OF THE CITY ORDINANCE CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
The City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Chapter 2, Part 3 of the Ordinance Code of the City, entitled:
Personnel, is amended as follows:
1. By amending Paragraph 4, Subdivision of Section 2.34,
Penalties and Separations, as follows:
(4) Termination of Project Employees - The employment of a
Project Employee shall terminate upon the te fflin;,, len sueh
earlier of i) the conclusion of the project for which such
employee was hired, or ii) th-e exhaustion of the Fund, or portion
thereof, designated as the source of such employee's
compensation. Project Employees may also be terminated at any
time in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.34 of the
Ordinance Code.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 8 day of June, 1987.
•
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City"Clerk
•
John Hamilton, Mayor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter 182
Agenda June 8, 1987
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance revising the
boundaries of the area covered by the ILN Moratorium.
Background:
During previous discussions concerning the extension of the
Building Permit Moratorium Ordinance in the ILN, staff indicated
that the boundaries of the area subject to that moratorium should
be revised. Attached is an ordinance amendment which would
reduce the area covered by the ILN building permit moratorium.
The ordinance amendment removes the area north of the first lot
north of 77th Street from the building permit moratorium area.
The council gave first reading to the attached ordinance on May
11, 1987.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing
and give second reading approval to the attached ordinance.
Basis of Recommendation:
The purpose of extending the Building Permit Moratorium an
additional six months is to allow time to complete the
development and implementation of the C -3 Zoning District
Ordinance and to develop a process to identify a developer or
developers for the area in the ILN south of 77th Street. The
area north of 77th Street would not be subject to either the C -3
Zoning District or to the developer selection process; therefore,
it is not necessary to keep the building permit moratorium in
place for that particular area. The first lot north of 77th
Street continues to be in the moratorium area because it has been
designated for acquisition for the.street improvement project.
It would be to the-city's benefit to keep the restrictions on
that particular area to minimize the city's future costs.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Tevisions to the
ILN moratorium boundaries and unanimously recommended approval of
the boundary changes in the attached ordinance.
Alternative Recommendations:
The alternative recommendations would be as follows:
1. Reject the ordinance amendment and maintain the boundaries of
the moratorium area as they are now until the moratorium
expires in September of 1987.
2. To modify the area covered by the moratorium to include more
or less area.
0
•
•
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Published notice of the public
been provided.
JDP /eja
hearing and second reading has
Respectfully submitted,
Jam `D. Prosser
Cit Manager
_z
BILL N0.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TRANSITORY ORDINANCE
NO. 17.18 ENTITLED "AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE
ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE
PLANNING PROCESS IN A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY,
REGULATING, RESTRICTING AND PROHIBITING CERTAIN
USES, DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN SUCH AREA ".
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Transitory Ordinance No. 17.18 of the ordinance code of the City
of Richfield entitled "An Interim Zoning Ordinance Adopted for
the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process in a Certain Area
of the City, Regulating, Restricting and Prohibiting Certain
Uses, Developments and Subdivisions Within Such Area" is hereby
amended in the following respect:
Section 1, paragraph A thereof is amended to read:
"A. The City is concerned with the proper and more economic
use, development and possible redevelopment that area of the
City generally referred to as "Interstate- Lyndale Area ",
hereinafter referred to as the "Area", the boundaries of
which Area are more specifically described as follows:
All of the property between Interstate No. 35W and the
Minneapolis Northfield Southern Railroad tracks and south of
77th Street with the following additions: (a) the area west
of Emerson Avenue, east of Interstate No. 35W, between 76th
and 77th Streets; and (b) in the area between Emerson and
id,±-ctr Pleasant Avenues, the first parcel abutting the
north side of 77th Street; (e) the eA Fe blee betwee,-r
r :76th Stfeet,
i
betweeA 76th and :77th f
Pleasant Ayennues, the and (f-) betweeA Gerfj&jd
L
8f 77 t h— Street.."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of , 1987.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
I
4 _ F U.S. INTERSTATE I! HIGHWAY N0. 35W
E} =i
II
Im
�:•: ::� •K. b.
1:
V: l itic'y
..... .. ..:.........
...............
AM so.
D D E:nitlElej a =i= —
M I_ ;izlI
AM
�:`•' .::�: :.- �::- : +:•.•.:•:;':'c -: :. 12 I � I I I S i i a. � i ; :e - e e.: - - -' -1 N
:`.3;` :;G:: :t;;:;;::� s a I t i i e i? 4. < •'_ 3. f i f 4 i _ . g. . i.
�:: ':>:y;>' _ - - _ la Q.e _ a is el•: _
: :: C AX N
V:
AM Ila
X.
1-::;;••;_ ;:::;q:•.::.;. ::•:�i-- e.--`. :i' ¢�_: I f i 6 I f I x i m • _s't' e= :..; ; r' a =, I I i 2 i F' i a t c,
., ...... el'i�ie
I: �2�t:: ;:?_;_�t��:_�:S:jeltlzt;:� =1''E Il�.,r:�{ r rr:a i.�2; €•a_: 'g
AM
1::• }- _�.E`:`C•- ;� >::2`TS.C_'4m i l f t `- ; C g i f: — ,1 I° a E Cc.
- _ - LYNDALE SOUTH
AM
is >:'•:� ?: :i: :j:.:'::: >: ?:;) }- �':: :v is � � ��
.. c co
• � � € = is s
,
I.:fiF i=ce
to
AM sa
a:
t i t . e:i.<
• � F 7 i I i �leilelsi�: ='�:E;E �i�lf'f 5 c�i rj~ o._ -
W �•i/�� I�'.s'E in e a .
A W R1R�ortT„ AFL •, b W
1 °.y Sit ii c
AM am
I ?.IQl
a_ a e c
NICOLLET
AVENUE SOUTH
t
,,,•�•� E ILj el € IF19 ei t: �I! ai 3i:; I ±:�i ?; i� }�
I:a I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I �,• 1 i 1 i IA.
CITY OF RICHFIELD 76TH & LYNDALE
O fW'. STUDY
•K -•a.a. ..Atsm. ai.e AREA
1
Z
K
0
D
0
m
C
f►
t-7
q - I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 181
Agenda June 8, 1987
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading consideration of an ordinance
to rezone the property at 6941 -45 Penn Avenue from multiple
residence 'MR -2' district to limited business 'C -1' district.
Background:
Mr. Donald A. Johnson, a dentist, has requested that the city
initiate a rezoning of the property at 6945 Penn Avenue from MR-
2, multiple residence to C -1, limited business. The property is
currently a vacant lot and Mr. Johnson wishes to construct a one
story, 3,800 square foot dental office on the site. He would
occupy the space, with two other dentists. A preliminary site
plan and perspective drawing-of the proposed office building are
attached.
This site was rezoned from single family residential to
multifamily residential in 1977. Prior to 1977 a nonconforming
plant, nursery, and retail sales area was located on the corner.
Since the 1977 rezoning action, the city has reviewed a number of
different plans to develop a multifamily structure on the site
and has approved a number of variances to allow development to
• occur on that site. None of these projects were built. The HRA
considered purchasing the property for a housing project, but
decided not to proceed.
The property subsequently has become tax delinquent and is
currently owned by the State of Minnesota /Hennepin County. The
County is now planning to auction the property off through their
normal tax sale process.
City ordinances indicate that rezoning can be initiated in either
of two ways. First, a rezoning can be initiated if a petition is
submitted which contains the signatures of at least 50% of the
owners of property and at least 50% of the property within 350
feet of the site to be rezoned. The second method provides that
the City Council can initiate a rezoning. In this case Mr.
Johnson does not own the property and it would be difficult to
obtain the signature of the owner because it is owned by the
State of Minnesota /Hennepin County. Mr. Johnson does not want to
proceed with the acquisition of the property unless he knows that
the property can be rezoned to allow him to develop the dental
office on the site. For that reason Mr. Johnson has asked that
the City Council initiate the rezoning process. On March 23,
1987, the City Council initiated the rezoning process and
referred the matter to the Planning Commission for review and
recommendation.
Mr. Johnson has also requested that the city or the HRA purchase
the property from the County. He would then purchase the
property from the City or HRA. The city attorney's office has
indicated that the city could not purchase the property and sell
it to Mr. Johnson, but the HRA could. On March 16th, 1987, the
HRA indicated they are agreeable to purchasing the property if
Mr. Johnson signs an agreement with the HRA in which he agrees to
purchase the property from the HRA at cost. The advantage to Mr.
Johnson in dealing with the HRA is that he does not have to bid
at an auction for the property. According to state statutes, the
HRA will have to create a two parcel redevelopment project to do
this. The HRA will consider this at their June 15, 1987 meeting.
In accordance with state statutes the Planning Commission
reviewed the purchase and disposition of the property by the HRA
for conformance with the city's comprehensive plan.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing
and give second reading approval to the attached ordinance
approving the rezoning of the property at 6941 -45 Penn Avenue
from MR -2, multiple residence to C -1, limited business.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. This property has been vacant for a number of years. The
development of the site, as proposed, will add to
the tax base of the city.
2. A number of proposed multifamily developments have failed for
economic reasons.
3. The site is on Penn Avenue which is a heavily traveled
arterial roadway and also indicates that some
intensification of use might be proper.
4. The proposal would be "spot zoning ". The site is not
contiguous to another commercial zoning district. The site
is currently zoned MR -2 which is also a "spot zone ". The type
of development being proposed would be compatible with the
surrounding single family neighborhood if proper screening and
buffering is provided.
5. The city's comprehensive plan indicates that the site
should be developed as medium density buffer uses. The plan
indicates that the existing MR -2 and the proposed C -1 are
compatible zoning districts in the medium density buffer
areas. The plan also indicates that principle uses should
be single family residential, duplexes, and existing
convenience commercial. Neither the proposed dental office
nor an eight unit multifamily residence allowed under the
existing zoning would be consistent with the principle uses
listed in the plan.
6. Mr. Johnson has obtained signatures of a majority of the
owners of the property within 300 feet of the site to be
rezoned (see attached petition and map).
7. The Planning Commission voted (8 -1) to recommend approval of
an ordinance rezoning the property at 6941 -45 Penn Avenue
from "MR -211, multiple residence district to 11C -1"
limited business district. The Planning Commission also voted
unanimously to pass a resolution finding the acquisition and
disposition of the property by the HRA to be consistent with
the city's comprehensive plan.
•
•
•
Alternative Recommendation:
The alternative recommendation would be to deny
request since it would be a spot zoning and the
properties are zoned single family residential
such a decision is made, the council would have
rezoning of the property to C -1 district would
impact on the health, safety and welfare of the
in the surrounding neighborhood. Determination
made that the proposed rezoning of the property
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
�- 3
the rezoning
surrounding
"R" district. If
to find that the
have an adverse
residents living
would have to be
would be
Decision Mode:
Notice of the public hearing and second reading has been
published in the Richfield Sun. Mailed notice was also provided.
JDP /eja
Respectfully submitted,
Jamefan
Prosser
City ager
yy
• BILL N0.
ORDINANCE NO.
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. Paragraphs 27 and 28 of Section 11 are repealed.
II. The following new paragraphs (21) and (22) are added to
Section 2.
(21) Lot 10 Block 10 Woodlake Highland Addition
22 "Lot 13, Block 10, Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills
2nd Addition
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 8 day of June, 1987.
0 ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
John Hamilton, Mayor
y 3
RESOLUTION NO. 65
RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE ACQUISITION
AND DISPOSITION OF PROPERTIES ARE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the acquisition
and disposition of properties at 6941 -45 Penn Avenue South
described as follows:
1. Block 10, Lot 13, Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills 2nd
Addition (6941 Penn Avenue South)
2. Block 10, Lot 10, Woodlake Highlands Additions (6945
Penn Avenue South)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the
acquisition and disposition of these properties would serve a
public purpose; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the
acquisition and disposition of these properties would be
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission
finds the acquisition and disposition of the above described
properties by the city for professional office use to be in
conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Passed by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield
this 28th day of April, 1987.
ATTEST:
Barbara Kritzman, Secretary
•
Connie Murray, Chairperson
Richfield Planning Commission
O
XERXES AVE.
X ERXES AVE.
YINGENi WAS.eumpf
VINCENT
UPTON
r7-=-
THOMAS Z UPTON
r=== THOMAS
RUSSELL a
S-ERIDA"
OuEEI@
RUSSELL
re"m AVE.
OUEEN
OLIVER PENN AVE
OLIVER
WORGAII I-
EqTOff
LOGAN
WORGAN
anox LOGAN
JAMES 71
I KkOX
IRVING JAW
r ES
HUMBOLDT IRVING
GIRARD C muweqkoT
rp000ky
GIRARD
CMERSOIN
DUPONT
EMERSON
COLFAX DUPONT I II
awyawr
r. 1! COLFAX
ALDRICH A
BRYANT
LYSIOALE AVE. ALDRICH
7-
GARFIELD 1 LTkDALE AVE.
HARRIET GARFIELD
HARRIET
PUASANT
GRAND
PILLSBURY PLEASANT
WMTWOilm PrLLSBURT
ILL $D[ WENTWORTH
NICOLL BLAISDELL
-COLLET AVE
STEVENS
PENN AVE. S. 2.d
TOM
PORTLAND AVE
UVL:j
OAKLAND
PARK
COLUMBUS
CHICAGO
ELLIOT
to th
OLIVER AVE. S. It IS
1. t,I , —_
= —_ •1 :; tl
ISO& _
it
CEDAR AVE
14 th
IS th
LONGFELLOW
- -- -- - - -
- ----
CEDAR AVE.
1616
1. t,I , —_
= —_ •1 :; tl
ISO& _
=mac:
CEDAR AVE
LONGFELLOW
- -- -- - - -
- ----
CEDAR AVE.
1"1
N
0
LONGFELLOW
Isla
z
rn
<
=F
zZed
A DISH
C 0
Z
rd
[-Zoning Mai
9- J
d
69TH ST w
171,
w
a
z
.0
70TH ST_ W
(n
w -
d
z
z
w
V;
Li
a
w
J
O
a
z
O
3
w
z
70 � 12 ST_ W_
- =- MULTIPLE
RESIDENCE MR -2.
Land Use Map
69TH Si . W.
I
W
a
z
w
w
O
70TH
ST. W.
70 112 ST. w_
1
W
>
Q
z
z
w
d
N
W
>
Q
w
J
O
N
W
>
Q
z
O
3
W
Z
-- - = =- MULTIPLE
RESIDENCE MR -2
QUASI PUBLIC
PETITION MAP
69TH ST W.
9-
!.
w
z
0
3
w
z
ED SITE
'AVOR
ZING
(� PENN AVE.
-
C
REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM ry) Z
y.
TO C 1
FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE 'e v) +O_Q
STREET ADDRESS: (�q L� (- L�S �Qylyl Au-Q S.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Loocctjar4 4ielA►1C4 Aa4_1 -r Mt $IDCJA lb Lo 't /D
-K;>18d 13rvs. L�hcolH N ;�lS
�d �d . }31ace /,0 Lot 13
We, the undersigned, being owners of land within 300 feet of the land
described above, do hereby concur in
this Rezoning
request.
__Signature of Owners* `; Address
Legal Description
'% OD 8 •- BA! 1 VeF-
T/ etas. 4LIAXMV hvu.S Jaw AM
8 e oe>< 6
L.OT Z 6LDC-!C S
Ffl s LA w" rrtl,ep
v
L trr 13 8Cbex. t t.
T /u4 b71 E 6Jeas. "'Veocw- M,�ttS
LOT (4 �L.00C 1 D
T!M¢D *e 6e6s. Q VOa,tt'rt,LCS'
i
LD 1'7 51'oCr 16
3
Tluq c� t= 1X. LJAJ6XAA hYLLS
o
LOT 1 �j 61-6 / p
T1( rOALE W65. Cl.vCDw'*43 30M AW
r
Lrrr 5' 6L46ck ,L
. w
T AJflDAts dCOS. L#4JC6WNx43 iw1Apo,
'7
/ ,0 YSD
L e T 6L4DC e_ I L
S DIVLRrF/ tjCt&- TE{RO 12D6! l4f3
/
LOT I Dtecr z
.- ( d �•
�wsc_ .lio
5 ASIA1 LACF MiWsr GArrsv fors
LOT f JBLoet ?
Til DALE IP43. irIAooe4pGv /�N4L3
'
�,
LDT r! �CecKio
. .
•
(O D � :
LDT /e #5t peg /0
�J
Di4LF b pGS.
L 9 d LOCaC /D
FbEF
'% OD 8 •- BA! 1 VeF-
-ST LIwV THieD
r
L.OT Z 6LDC-!C S
Ffl s LA w" rrtl,ep
i
V r
LDr 1 L 6Ledt 1 I
co -
tX6W N,c.ts
CDT 17 l3000K ! I
"f'/jvaDW 6QeS. t
Z �,
-.L o rXdt,v yrcc�
L&T 7 ALAO< /G
7008' &son Ae_
S1;8/UL44E waee,tT Su ton
CDT /
T11UEtPi4iE a+ere Ci{�ot.tJ Mi
iz _
vO •
LdT 1 Bl'o 16
!>-1641AcE
bats. Livcew,4jLt&T.Tj07 .
LDT 17
* For purposes
Of
determining if petition contains the proper number
signatures to initiate the - rezoning process signatures may -not
be removed once a petition is signed and
Division.
returned
to the Planning
�- z u.
REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM TO
FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE �V1�iC� -Q 61U
STREET ADDRESS: %�T q/- yf PQ
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lc>CCd (QtP %�li�� /d%t 8ik 10 Lot /O
-r; n� tiros L-i n('Gl�n !}�i / %S 24,d , 8IX /o [off I✓
We, the undersigned, being owners of land within 300 feet of the land
described above, do hereby concur in this Rezoning request.
-.-Signature of
Owners* Address Legal Description_..)
�`
� �.LtL•Y1 J '
� ,
° %�- ..•G���j
� � z
FD.Q Tl,� 0� tF egg. t�.v[ow /c.c.s
3 16VV .A IT .S L.oT )S 64-o4C)a
i
'i7'V¢�DRGE
. 4tXarvyi�s
_
•
,�lziC.t w / �A TI AAD4CE aaAs. l i l,rYac,l/ "N /tLS'
G{�„u
BLACK lO
iu�c�,c.ti
,/, ,�, beos. uv�scuNrus �•a aac.
� C
O/ urvpi..4zTC9 33- OZ8 -2- S/
, • 7��[raM -E' 6�. t�xxyc.v a/cLS
`
�9va
�y �
LGT 6 D BcetxlL
-VT"OT Oe. 1M+mt� hHt[ S 3 ADo,
lOT ator-4 16
LT /v(�O T 7-o E da'�S. 4t�u�t.v hy�S
/O
We EST LAWV 7)W
el 41,
"T 3 6Loe1C S
•7T/u40,yLCp,. (.itXaL.utfltlS ....
L OT / 8 dLOCrL' / •
T /AJ • —ANDW X1.5 gno 46o.
L6-r 14P 6Lt cg_ 16
T'*CW.6 CWPJ I- JAX -O-V *U$ J,,j 4-.
(
ta•r ` 4.
L-Or 7 6c1ck 6
r1olvlDALB 81'16. t./NCdLJVH /tLs
ta-r I8 6t sex 1.0
t-� S dtctK to
LcT' 1 1iCGC t � 1
a
i ro or HN/�n
NjCOG
* For purposes of determining if petition contains the proper number _
Of signatures to initiate the-rezoning
be removed once
Dlvisinn
process signatures may.not
a petition is signed and returned t-n r-ho
M
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 180
Agenda June 8, 1987
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance to rezone the
property at 6229 -31 Pillsbury Avenue from single - family
residential "R" district to multiple residence "MR -1" district.
Background: .
Mr. and Mrs. Duane Mumm, property owners at 6229 -31 Pillsbury
Avenue have requested that the city approve rezoning of the
property from single family residence (R) district to multifamily
residence (MR -1) district, to make the use of the site legally
conforming.
The site has an area of 13,313.26 square feet. The two family.
dwelling on the site is legally nonconforming. The 22 foot x 45
foot garage located on the northeast corner of the lot meets the
requirements for an accessory structure in MR -1 district.
The council gave first reading consideration to the attached
ordinance on May 11, 1987 and June 8, 1987 was set for the public
hearing and second reading consideration.
Zoning Ordinance Requirement:_
1. Section 3.31A, Subdivision 9 outlines the requirements for
multiple residence (MR -1) district.
2. Section 3.42, outlines the procedural requirements for
rezoning of a property.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the request for the
rezoning of the property at 6229 -31 Pillsbur Avenue from single
family residence (R) district to multiple residence (MR -1)
district.
Basis of Recommendation:
Staff has reviewed the application against the city zoning
ordinance and the following findings are the basis of staff
recommendation:
1. The site meets the lot width, area and lot coverage
requirements for (MR -1) multiple residence districts. The
existing building setbacks are 44 feet in the front, 56.86
feet in the rear, and 10 feet and 26.5 feet in the interior.
The required building setbacks are 30 feet (front), 25 feet
(rear) and 10 feet (interior). The existing structure meets
all the setback requirements for multiple residence (MR -1)
district.
2. The existing two family use is permitted in the MR -1
multiple residence district, therefore the approval of the
10 rezoning request would make the use legally conforming.
The surrounding properties within the block are zoned
single family residence and the existing land uses in the
area are conforming to the zoning district classification.
3.
The Comprehensive Development Plan indicates that
the site should be medium density /buffer. Multifamily
duplexes would be considered a principal use for the site.
MR-1 zoning would be allowed in the area. This designation
is for future development only and should not accommodate any
existing uses on a piecemeal basis. The zoning ordinance
does allow nonconforming uses to continue legally with the
intent that the Comprehensive Plan designation and
zoning classification would be compatible at some point in
the future.
`
The comprehensive plan also suggests that "medium density
housing should be built along freeways, arterial streets,
and collector streets where there would be minimal
disruption of single family residential neighborhood ".
The site in question is near the freeway but Pillsbury Avenue
is considered neither an arterial nor a collector street.
The surrounding properties are single family residential use
and are zoned "R" (single family residence) district. It is
staff's opinion that the proposed rezoning would be contrary
to the comprehensive plan land use policy.
4.
It is staff's opinion that the approval of the rezoning
would be a spot zoning and the city has been reluctant to
pursue spot zoning in the past. Staff recommends against the
rezoning of the property on a piecemeal basis unless the
council finds that such action is necessary to promote health
and welfare of the community. The existing nonconforming
use could continue. The city should uphold the intent of
the zoning ordinance regarding nonconforming use and follow
the comprehensive plan land use policies as closely as
possible.
5.
The Planning Commission voted (8 -1) against the motion
to recommend approval of the rezoning of the property located
at 6229 -31 Pillsbury Avenue South from "R" single family
residence to "MR -1" multifamily residence district.
Alternative Recommendation:
The
City Council may approve the rezoning of the property from
single family residence "R" district to multiple residence MR -1
district for the following reasons:
1.
The existing two family use of the site would not be changed
due to the rezoning.
2.
The status of the existing legally nonconforming use would
be changed to legally conforming use due to the rezoning.
3.
The existing two family use does not seem to have any
adverse impact on the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood which is evidenced by the number of signatures
obtained by the applicant in support of the rezoning.
4.
The existing two family use is consistent with the
Comprehensive Development Plan.
6p-3
Decision Mode:
The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing and give
second reading consideration to an ordinance to rezone the
property at 6229 -31 Pillsbury Avenue on June 8, 1987. Mailed and
published notice of the public hearing and second reading was
provided.
•
•
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City fanager
9-y
BILL N0.
ORDINANCE NO.
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 10 is amended by adding the following new
paragraph 85:
(85) Lot 9, Block 3 and that portion of the now vacated
portion of 63rd Street in the plat of Betchers Addition to
Richfield lying between the southward extension of the
east and west lines of Lot 9, Block 3, Betchers Addition
to Richfield
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 8 day of June, 1987.
0 John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
•
•
•
I�
S�
L
Z
O
U
V
J
N � M
N •� j1 M
J .l.
' 1
L�
Z
,6i2 a
,Vii
4412 L_ Jam._ w
WENTWORTH AV _
E;
IW113lOMOl �+a��:
Ig11330
3AV Yr033 3*
4191
Utl ( ["�.. i I Q.l ll rl ti
4691 �, ' list
I L
`
w019NIw0O1Y NOIOMIwCam
^' 1
��t rt ►1
it S1
t 6 21 111 �L. v6 21
4111
v' ! 1 t6 Il
ttOli� PILLSBURY AVE :�� j( '1601
101113'' -� t��101113
N -= -,t- -1
- -.�.�I �:. snYwmw
MYr� —
n 9rrd
7AV ONV11100d ��`-- 7AV, MW -LLNOO
qjG
'
NO1Mt1* N`i ,r`— •;.'������. ��! I�- iI Y MOM
SMIA31S
fM3A31i
1 1
•�.'I_��
'3" 13110 *IN ��` —� -r '3Ar 131100109
113051x19 lilt L��li `� KjI ^� �• -! - --i��� fad -�I T3asnl09
lYn9Slltd IIT ^ —_ l �11 —!1 ^I- ! �. _,- ,'— •.. -•..t IYnYSTty
1MVSV311 I- ^�.c�_ �1^-- .--- '�- s.r - . �_` s.�....
IXTsvrw
ONrYS Ifl II 'r ��.�11 a •: �I t =--J t'
1C _ i OMVYs
131Yrrw C= =' 13gYrM
O131JYVS -
I'I• � \ �/�`�— II J•. —JI � °i � It 0131JYr9
7Ar 31VOMA1
N *IYO,x
1NVAY9 �II
XVAI0* Ii -•�' o �
_ :Vila* C 1Modn0 2c I Y
1MOdn0
NOSV3w3 `�� ; �'��� =�— • MOSY3w3
LNOPCIbu
1/0K91!
II T^ iii- -mil
10109wnM :I!— - - -- — „_ :
S3wrr
I! -mot yq♦. $3wrr
3110"m 1` -_ t� I Ij I� - OMM
j_.� __ •a �: ; .�_ -� �, 09x901
MrsitOw 1 �_ -_ -/� !
NOI4I394 , =1 -- —"� MV9YOw
V3A110 1 —_ - - - ^— �^ 090109309
]AT NM3d - — _w 11 ' 3A11p
033AO _, 7Ar NM3d
113SSnY S - --i; j'
- 1135SnY
MrOtr3N5
NrOtY
_
1 __- _= == � 3M5
SVNOwI = -- �_ r �^ — =-: -
-_� - - ! �_ -_ - - - -• - - -�• SrwON1
NOldn
mOidn
1093 *NIA �- _ .._:._ ��_ -_ _ _ _ •.
//�� ••-•� JI 1093 *MIA
'3Ar S3xV3x ..-. .. -• .. +ti._:_r_L -- s...�.,._ -.. - .y:.� - =s-r --r s-�.L -,� 7Ar S3tY3lt
it N
N
N
N
M
N
M
M
N N N N N
Z
cd
N
O
Q
N N N N M Np
w A w w N g
w w w
•
�--- 44
6229 -31 PILLSBURY AVENUE
135.1
SITE PLAN
00— 6 t.
5 6,6 6
co
NORTH
4
• .1 \ _!' V
REQUEST FOR REZCvG FROM \ TO •�� / - / ,
t C
FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE E:--4 w�(
J
STREET ADDRESS : as f — J'� �'
LEGAL` DESCRIPTION :�' 9 �,� 3�� �• (,3nc� .�f
We, the undersigned, being owners of land within 300 feet of the land
described above, do herebv concur in this Rezoning request.
•
•
Signature of Owners* Address _ Legal Description
- -- rui�+vaca vi uck�Crtninxng 3.t petition contains the proper number
Of signatures to initiate the rezoning process signatures may not
be removed once a petition is signed and returned to the Planning
Division.
4.4 23
_ t
. ........ ..
C
® PROPERTY OWNERS
IN FAVOR-
PROPOSED
SITE
f
62ND ST w
3SW /CROSSTOWN
in
w
m
UJ
}
Ln
J
J
ri
I
migim
milmilm
63RD ST
N
w
Q
a
i
64TH ST
I �
PETITION MAP
I Ze I
8 9 ,.
NORTH
. ................
w
Q
i
i
i
0
1
J �
J �
W I
0
V)
Q W -
c3j a
ZONING MAP
i Q SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
0
MR-1
'2ND
MR-2
MR-3
35W/CROSSTOWN
7—L T-
CC
N
uj
I I - I
63RD ST
pw
�mm
0
Lu
:> LLJ
.
•
N
I *
64TH ST
c 51,
cr-
LLJ
Zam
�mm
0
Lu
:> LLJ
.
•
N
I *
LAND USE MAP
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
TWO-FAMILY DWELLING
APARTMENT
APARTMENT WITH MORE
62ND ST THAN SEVENTEEN UNITS
35W/CROSSTOWN
H3
w
(n
LLJ
I - I
63RD ST
tl
8
Lo
Lu
cn
W 64TH ST Ln
C=
C=
V) CD LLJ
17,
Alt
PILLSBURY
111111111111111111111 cn
BLAISDELL
AVE
v C)
o-0
°
K
-0 1
— m
U'
A
c
m
m
FIRST AVE. S,
z
�-�
m
z
:0
-
„
o
O
—
=
n D
r—
T
n
C0
m
i i
v
�
Z
v
m
c
m
z
Cl)
cn
cn
1n z
--+
m
l
IvIll
IBM
II'
II;
AVE
v C)
o-0
°
K
-0 1
— m
U'
A
c
m
m
FIRST AVE. S,
z
�-�
m
z
:0
-
„
o
O
—
=
n D
r—
T
n
C0
m
i i
v
�
Z
v
m
c
m
z
Cl)
cn
cn
1n z
--+
m
l
IvIll
II'
II;
v C)
o-0
°
K
-0 1
— m
U'
A
c
m
m
FIRST AVE. S,
z
�-�
m
z
:0
-
„
o
O
—
=
n D
r—
T
n
C0
m
i i
v
�
Z
v
m
c
m
z
Cl)
cn
cn
1n z
--+
m
l
�el 7- /
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 179
Agenda June 8, 1987
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a request for a special use permit and offstreet
parking permit at 7700 Portland Avenue South.
Background:
Mr. Richard and Donald L. Elsen have requested that the city
grant a special use permit for a PDQ convenience store with
gasoline pumps at 7700 Portland Avenue. The Elsens own the
properties addressed at 7.700 and 7730 Portland Avenue. They
intend to sell the northerly portion of the property addressed as
7700 Portland Avenue to PDQ stores.
PDQ proposes to construct a new facility with a building area of
2,642 square feet to accommodate a new PDQ store. There would be
four gasoline pumps with a detached freestanding canopy. There
will be an 8 foot concrete walk around the new building.
The site is zoned C -2 general commercial. The Union gasoline
service facility and a postal mailbox facility currently on the
site will be demolished.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements:
1. Section 3.33, subdivision 2, indicates
that a gasoline
drainage plan
service station store is
permitted in
-
C-2
general commercial
district with a special use
permit.
copy of the
access agreement be provided to the
2.
Section 3.33, subdivision
3, outlines
the
requirements for
That the revised
regulating gasoline service
station stores.
County.
3.
Section 3.32, subdivision
4, indicates
the
setback
to all the stipulations prior to
requirements.
the issuance
of an occupancy
permit.
4.
Section 3.33, subdivision
6 (2), outlines
the requirements
for the construction of canopies.
5.
Section 3.41, subdivision
5, outlines
the
conditions
governing the issuance of
the special
use
permit.
6.
Section 4.05 outlines the
requirements
for
driveways and
parking areas.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the special use
permit and an offstreet parking permit request for a PDQ store
with gasoline service at 7700 Portland Avenue with the following
stipulations:
1.
That a final
drainage plan
be submitted for city engineer's
review and approval.
2.
That a signed
copy of the
access agreement be provided to the
city.
3.
That the revised
property
boundaries be filed with Hennepin
County.
4.
The applicant
must conform
to all the stipulations prior to
the issuance
of an occupancy
permit.
7- a--/
Basis of Recommendation:
1.
The proposed building area on the sites would be 2,642 square
feet and would meet all the building setback requirements of
C -2 district if the existing property boundary is changed as
proposed. If it is not changed, the building would project
20 feet into the adjacent parcel to the south. The survey
showing the revised property line should be filed with
Hennepin County. The proposed building would have to be
sprinklered. The loading /unloading will take place at the
southwest corner. of the building. The applicant has
submitted a copy of the access easement agreement indicating
that PDQ would be allowed to use the carwash site (773 0
Portland Avenue) for loading /unloading purposes only. The
existing shed on the northwest corner would be removed. The
dumpster would be located on the west side of the building
and would be enclosed.
2.
The proposed use would require 14 parking spaces according to
the city parking guidelines at five parking spaces for every
thousand square feet of gross floor area. The site plan
indicates that there will be twelve parking spaces provided
which does not include the pump islands. It is staff's
opinion that the total number of parking spaces shown would
be adequate for the proposed use.
3.
Access to the site would be from both Portland Avenue and
77th Street. A new curb cut will be provided on Portland
Avenue. All the curb cuts would meet city width
requirements.
4.
North of the site across 77th Street is a park, to the west
is a Shakey's Restaurant parking lot, to the east is the
existing PDQ store and a nursing home. The existing
condition of the site is poor. The proposed development
would be an improvement of the site. The existing PDQ store
across the street will continue to operate and may be
renovated to accommodate expansion of their offices at a
later date.
5.
The city's comprehensive development plan indicates that the
site be developed for high density freeway strip uses.
Retail use would be permitted use for the site even though a
convenience store with gasoline service is not considered a
high density use. The zoning of the property is compatible
with the comprehensive development plan.
6.
The existing site is blacktopped all the way Iaround except
for some shrubbery at the northeast corner of the site. The
proposed plan indicates that landscaping with planting of
trees and shrubbery would be provided along Portland Avenue,
77th Street and along the western property line of the site.
The attached site plan was submitted at the Planning
Commission meeting and provides adequate landscaping on the
site.
7.
There is no on -site catch basin to handle storm water
drainage. The city engineering staff indicated that a final
detailed drainage plan should be submitted to the city
engineer for review and approval.
7.-3
8. The Planning Commission, on May 19, 1987, recommended (8 -0)
approval for the special use permit request at 7700 Portland
Avenue for a PDQ store with gasoline service with the
following stipulations:
a. That additional landscaping be provided along 77th Street
and along the westerly and easterly property line of PDQ
store as shown to the Planning Commission on May 19, 1987.
b. That a drainage plan showing on -site catch basins be
submitted for city engineer's review and approval.
c. That the revised property boundaries be filed with
Hennepin County and that an access easement agreement
document be submitted for staff and /or legal counsel's
` review prior to council approval.
d. The applicant must conform to all the stipulations prior to
the issuance of an occupancy permit.
Alternative Recommendation:
The alternative recommendation would be to deny the special use
permit request for a convenience store with gasoline service on
the grounds that the total parking spaces are inadequate.
Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled before the City Council on Monday,
June 8, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. Legal notice of the public hearing has
been published in the Richfield Sun.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP /dh
•
•
•
P-.�
;I
0
r
y �
XERXES AVE.
XERXES AVE.
WASNBURN •'�� r - �,_� -�^ -�_ 'Y,"
VINCENT •I� 1�+ —i 1rr- - I 1I WASNBURN
t`-.-r VINCENT
UPTON UPTON
THOMAS L �= �� L-- �� ,li - -�._J �i�Cr4 I - II THOMAS
SHERIDAN - --' �,-_ �-� ...._. �.: �.��U_�_L� Cr }:I �I
RUSSELL j( SHERIDAN
OUEEN +�'� `�- ^. ^_C -ter? EF-]SELL
., ^7 .=�j �.Cr -11I�I (rr(,,� QUEEN
�J�! _ I J'.
PENN AVE.
OLI --- -� !L___lu�L_: ��I 1 I �1!`_•_ PENN AVE.
OLIVER
N
NEWTO
EWTON
MORGAN MORGAN
LOGAN KN OX I = I �r — 1j1_j�L�._�II J L_� IOGAN
JAMES KNOX
1L
' JAMES
IRVIMG
• Q r
` I u � ��'� _
IRVIMG
NUYBOLOT �'1�I�"J;' '' 1' HUMBOLDT
GIRARD -`��J �'✓ - - -_ ~�f�l
GIRARD
FREMONT
� - - - -- FREL.oNr
EMERSON
DUPONT , L—�Q�° x O EMERSON
`J ��
O DUPONT
COLFAX COLFAX
1TTTI II
ALORICN Y BRTANT
•
LYNDAIE AVE. ALDRICH
� LI�—�.��0� � Ilf
!J � �rti
G1RilELD I L —� ^�1 L�71 UY? I\ �I LYNDALE AVE
GARFIELD O
HARRIET 11 L� u�1 ,'7 !!!
GRAND '1 '�— - -� Ir �� �'�_' � I' HARRIET 0
II i �jr� II GRAND
PLEASANT �It_. - �.�..e . .- ._.1._ _ .__:_ .:.,�.�.,��:e_+•�- '� -.•rl ___�L.�..�'•�.- ..�I��;II PLEASANT
PILLSBURY DILLinl I� `� II
L_i�L_ -ll = I II Il'1 PILLSBURY
WENTWORTH �! �
�p;! WENTWORTH O
BLAISDELI �J - J�I�T'; II BLAISDELL
NICOILET AVE. MICOLLET AVE.
tat
STEVENS �CIU�'� =! I I K
STEVENS
FQ
3rd -0
alNrow - � j ! N
CLINTON
,111 I u��..y �I� ^�.I '� - - ^L -
u '
PORTLAND AVE.
PORTLAND AVE
OAKLAND •'I: ........ rI UUL.
I--- ''-"'��f ---�(� OAKLAND
PARK li �� ��':�:�I�.�� -.'L_1 Li � �I
cowweus ^� PARK
CHICAGO I• : C�Jr�.J� r
ELLIOT 'iiir::::`;.. r i `JL��O _ ;I CHICAGO
101. lei ELLIOT
!
t► 1ii 10IK
11
••:i c: I
111 ,.
1, tw
IS IA 14 0 =0' lath
BLOOMINGTON ,' I !��� 1� IS 1.
161. —`i
rh �� BLOOMINGTON
.i
1T 1• ! - -- 3 L� 18,1
1711
1s 1K e # iA �— I1Bu
CEDAR AVE L�I—
LONGFEILOW - --- � - --- -�� CEDAR AVE.
PORTLAND AVE S 11— LONGFELLOW
2 i� - v Ji —J� 191. -
m a - FE-171 _
Z r lr ter- I zo,.
21 at
f z = i L.1- ���r 22 •I
°I 0 In — STANDISH
cc O r'
z ' 2s.d
<r
s z
7- y H • N- N y N N M
•
uj
r)
Z
co
v
co
0
O
O
ti
ri
in
z
z
Lli
IL
<
L)
cf)
CY
uj
C >-
<
0
a-
Z
T
mo
-j
LUI Z
cf) <
Cc o
O
0 L)
CL
.IF
0
0-
om
(Y)
ti
x
ri
in
z
Lo
co
Mj
IF
132'
78th FRONTAGE ROAD
=-f -
LA
O
z
F-
0-
CL
03 9 F31
M
ZP
LU -i
z
LU
U- LLJ
F-
U
L
z cc
L)
Cf) z
5� (.) 0
Lu
z
Lli
IL
<
L)
cf)
CY
z
C >-
<
a-
_j
T
mo
LUI Z
cf) <
LU
Cl)
0 L)
0
.IF
0-
om
IL
o
cc z
x
Li
CL <
CL
Lo
co
Mj
IF
132'
78th FRONTAGE ROAD
=-f -
LA
O
z
F-
0-
CL
03 9 F31
M
ZP
LU -i
z
LU
U- LLJ
F-
U
L
z cc
L)
Cf) z
5� (.) 0
Lu
1-
I•
!I
•jt
�
=
U
I
'I
"Ti
�
�
H
to
I
-
i
1ti
it'i
"il
o
rIII�I�I�
I
1� 11
r
I I F' ��1ili il,lil'
I
0
U
c
'
'I
"Ti
�
�
H
to
I
cc
o
�'
11, I
Z
•
,I I� ih,
I
,
•
1
i
III jll��i��'I;i
I`
o
'! If
Ilril'I:
I
R
= o
o
69I
y
�
I
z
•; i;...
� 3
r 'c
o
Do
�
r
I
IT o ;,_
.'�.� fp•'�`.�,�
Jam.;
,.a
I
''
.,
-
•I�
, •
i � '
SJ
i
I
i
I
I
F
coo
I,
!
•
I
coo
�it 1
c
`
o
I
I
'I�
a`1.•�•
C
I
,
c
--L1
d
e
I
iI
o.
w
Q
Land Use Map
w
=I ! t I i
r 76th
• 77th ST.
LL)
Q
Z
Q
J
Y
Q
O
ST.
LL,
Q
Y
Q
a.
����- ----�- � �ttt�tt�tt�atttt���ttt�ttt�
••�� - - �tt�ttt�tt�ttt�ttt�ttt���ttt�ttt�
ttt�� ,,,...:,:,:-::;::::::::: �tttottt�ttt�ttt�ttt�ttt�tr�ttt��■
ttt�� ttt�tttt■ttt�ttt�ttt���tt�ttt�
tttt�t.-r- •-- ,�- ..., -. — �tt�tt�ttt�ttt�ttt�ttt���ttt�ttt�
,,,•,, ttt�ttt�tt�ttt�tttt�t��tt�ttt�tttt�
ttt� -� r.-- y ► ,.... ..,...........,.- ....,... -...� tt��tt�ttt��t�utt�ttt��
ttt�t —
ttttt�c
LLI
■
SINGLE FAWLY
COMMERCIAL
RESIDENCE
NURSING HOMEM PARK
DUPLEX
L,]APARTMENT
....�...
QUASI PUBLIC
Ti �
d !�pfj�
a
7
C 0
3AW
L 1f
Lu
i :N ..-O 'J '1 1 ;a .0 -V
J
OLLunog 34"
O LLJ
:S
LU
NOINII: 3AW OIN-13
7-- t
cc
M-- • z n.=,S.H -I V3 jL--
oomk 6S
71
w 7�
ON033S os
MS
3AT W CNO
-Z
SN3A315 .3"
OSNMUS
n z OL
to
Z'i UA
3AT
L
f'Ii
131,1031s.
3AV 125 0% OVOb Aiwnoo)
IF,�
7-
.0 C
bi
113051y1e 3AV
Z F.M."
t
ja
HIUOA%IN39P -3AT
b 0
CD
SAW
V.
'3AV
4,j
UT
r
In P
hw;
� -a
cc tu
LU Q 2
LL < w
LL CL
D V) to
m w
Z cc
V7 Q CL w
Z
o
Wz
LU o
Z
LLJ
12
WW
W M 0 < Z
m
R,
31VOCOOM
sdiv-18. UL-
j
.,aav qtfr
3AV
new r. 7 0D.
OCT MIS
WbVd
Z'.
S.LH913H NOS.LIVA
W) Z-
It-
31vocoom
S NIVIS
U)
NOUTGOV
'OS
3AV
xtive
0
cf)-
21
40
GdE SIHS13H
-P
!'7" 7.m w
ij
2i
anN3AY aNVIlblOd
Ti �
d !�pfj�
a
7
C 0
3AW
L 1f
Lu
i :N ..-O 'J '1 1 ;a .0 -V
J
OLLunog 34"
O LLJ
:S
LU
NOINII: 3AW OIN-13
7-- t
cc
M-- • z n.=,S.H -I V3 jL--
oomk 6S
71
w 7�
ON033S os
MS
3AT W CNO
-Z
SN3A315 .3"
OSNMUS
n z OL
to
Z'i UA
3AT
L
f'Ii
131,1031s.
3AV 125 0% OVOb Aiwnoo)
IF,�
7-
.0 C
bi
113051y1e 3AV
Z F.M."
t
ja
HIUOA%IN39P -3AT
b 0
CD
SAW
V.
'3AV
4,j
UT
r
In P
hw;
� -a
cc tu
LU Q 2
LL < w
LL CL
D V) to
m w
Z cc
V7 Q CL w
Z
o
Wz
LU o
Z
LLJ
12
WW
W M 0 < Z
m
R,
C
April 27, 1987
Community Development Department
Planning Division
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave. So.
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: Conditional Use Permits for:- -
7700 Portland Avenue South and
7730 Portland Avenue South
Gentlemen:
C -�- y to
We are requesting conditional use permits for the above referenced
properties because:
I. We would like to sell the 7700 Portland Avenue property to
P.D.Q. Food Stores for their eventual construction of a
convenience grocery store and gasoline facility.
2. We would like to rent our present building at 7730 Portland
Avenue South to a prospective tenant who would operate a
self -serve and automatic car wash facility.
We have included a site plan of the proposed project.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Donald L. Elsen
Richard P. Elsen
F
7
;�e- 4/2- /
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 178
Agenda June 8, 1987
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a request for a special use permit and offstreet
parking permit at 7730 Portland Avenue.
Background:
Mr. Richard and Donald L. Elsen have requested that the city
grant a special use permit and an offstreet parking permit for a
car wash with self service and automatic car washing facilities
at the property they own at 7730 Portland Avenue.
Mr. Elsen would maintain ownership of the property but would rent
out the property to a car wash operator. The existing gasoline
service station would be renovated into a car wash. The existing
gas tanks and pumps would be-removed. Vehicle access into the
car wash building would be from the north and west sides of the
structure. Exit would be on the east side of the structure. The
south curb cut on Portland Avenue and the curb cut on 78th Street
would be closed. The other curb cuts would remain. The site is
zoned 11C -2" general commercial.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements:
1. Section 3.33, subdivision 2, indicates that a public garage
is permitted in 11C -2" general commercial district with a
special use permit.
2. Section 3.33, subdivision 3, outlines the requirements for
regulating public garages.
3. Section 3.32, subdivision 4 indicates the setback
requirements.
4. Section 6.04, indicates the requirements for automobile
washing establishments.
5. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, outlines the conditions
governing the issuance of the special use permit.
6. Section 4.05 outlines the requirements for driveways and
parking areas.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a special use
permit and an offstreet parking permit for a car wash with self
service and automatic facilities at 7730 Portland Avenue. The
recommendation for approval of the special use permit should
stipulate the following:
1. That the fence on the westerly property line be repaired
and /or replaced according to the revised site plan.
2. That the existing structure be brought into full compliance
with the city building and fire codes.
3. That the existing outdoor advertising displays (billboards)
on the site be removed by September 15, 1987.
4. That a final drainage plan be submitted for city engineer's
review and approval.
5. That the revised property boundaries be filed with Hennepin
County.
6. That the necessary automobile washing establishment license
be obtained.
7. The applicant must conform to all the stipulations except #3
prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The existing structure has a building area of 5,280 square
feet. The existing structure is a nonconforming structure
since it does not meet the front yard setback along the
frontage road and also the rear yard setback. The existing
building setbacks are 42 feet from Portland Avenue, 11 feet
from the frontage road and 10 feet from the rear property
line. There is no sideyard requirement in general commercial
district.
The existing structure would be remodelled. There would be
five service doors available at the building. The existing
service door-from the frontage road would be closed. The
three service doors on the northeastern portion of the
structure would be used for access to one automatic car wash
bay and two coin operated self service bays. The
northwesterly service door would be used for entering a
metered self service facility. The cars would be exiting
through the southern most service door on the east side of
the building. There would be a cashiers booth inside this
service door at the southeasterly corner of the structure to
collect money for the metered self service bays.
Most of the remodelling would be done in the interior of the
building. The city requires that the building be fully
sprinklered and the remodelling be done according to the
building and fire.code. The exterior of the building would
get a minor facelift.
2. The facility would have one employee on duty at any given
time. The site`plan provides for 3 parking spaces along the
western property line. According to the city parking
guidelines the site requires 16 parking spaces. Due to the
self service nature of the car wash and the limited amount of
employees, three parking spaces should be sufficient for the
site.
3. The existing southern curb cut on Portland Avenue would be
closed and the northern curb cut on this site will be
expanded to provide better access. There would be one way
traffic entering and exiting from the structure. The traffic
flow on the site seems to be adequate due to the nature of
the use.
4. North of the site would be a proposed new PDQ store. Across
Portland Avenue is a gasoline service station and a nursing
home. West of the property is the Shakey's Pizza restaurant.
. 5. The city's Comprehensive Development Plan indicates that the
site be developed for high density freeway strip uses. A car
wash facility such as this would be permitted use for the
6-3
site but could not be considered a high density use of the
land. The proposed use would not be substantially different
from the existing automotive repair shop. The zoning is
compatible with the Comprehensive Development Plan.
6.
The site is presently blacktopped all the way around. The
existing fence along the western property line would remain
at the location but needs to be repaired or replaced. The
site plan indicates that the fence would extend 180 feet
north from the southwest corner of the property along the
western property lines and landscaping with shrubberies and
overstory trees would be provided along Portland Avenue. The
11 foot strip of land along the frontage road would be
landscaped also.
7.
The city engineering staff indicated that a final detailed
drainage plan should also be provided by the applicant to
handle storm water drainage from the site.
8.
The proposed PDQ store structure extends 20 feet into this
site. The applicant has completed a boundary survey which
establishes the new property lines. The city's subdivision
ordinance indicates that the sale of small parcels of land
between adjacent land owners is exempt from the city's
platting requirements. The survey should however be filed
with Hennepin County.
9.
The existing outdoor advertising displays (billboards)
detract from the appearance of the site and do not comply
with current city sign ordinance requirements. The
applicants have submitted a copy of the lease agreement
regarding the billboards which indicate that the lease will
expire on August 15, 1987. They have indicated that they
will not renew the lease if the city stipulates that the
billboards should be removed.
10.
Insufficient information has been submitted to determine if
the provisions of the licensing ordinances would be met.
11.
Staff does not have any information regarding the operating
hours of the car wash facility. The possibility of the coin
operated self service bays to remain open without any
employee supervision does exist and Planning Commissioners
have raised concern regarding the youth loitering on the
site.
12.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the special
use permit request at 7730 Portland Avenue for a car wash
with self service and automatic facility with the following
stipulations:
l._ That additional landscaping be provided along the
southern and eastern property line as indicated in the
revised site plan shown to the Planning Commission on May
19, 1987.
2. That the existing fence on the westerly property line be
repaired and /or replaced.
3. That the existing structure be brought into full
compliance with the city building and fire codes.
4. That the existing outdoor advertising displays
(billboards) on the site be removed when the lease with
•
•
40
6- v
Naegele expires or before December 31, 1988 whichever
date comes first.
5. That a drainage.plan which includes on -site catch basins
be submitted for city engineer's review and approval.
6. That the revised property boundaries be filed with
Hennepin.County and that an access easement agreement
document be submitted for staff and /or legal counsels
review prior to City Council approval.
7. That the necessary automobile washing establishment
license be obtained.
8. The applicant must conform to all the stipulations except
stipulation #4 prior to the issuance of an occupancy
permit.
Alternative Recommendation:
The alternative recommendation would be to deny the special use
permit and offstreet parking permit request for a self service
and automatic car wash facility on the grounds that such a use
would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the
surrounding neighborhood. Sufficient findings of fact would have
to be made to support that action.
Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled before the City Council on Monday,
June 8, 1987 at 7:00 PM. Legal notice of the hearing has been
published in the Richfield Sun newspaper.
Respec fully submitted,
— J
Jame . Prosser
City anager
0
0
_ ♦H � '� � y y y N N N y H H � H y N N N7<
XER %ES AVE. - -r- c_:�=-- saa. ►_... _- ^.�.
- _ .• -._._. �• - .I` .T`' �....�._.._,.,,��i xERxES AVE.
WASHBURN •�! __
VINCENT ^���__` ^r "-• II i WASHBURN
VINCENT
_
UPTON
THOMAS ,._, -L_. II _:i�C� t '1 __i UPTON
I
SHERiDAN I`_ •-- _�_�_„ �r��_r ^�"'��. LO:f - �I THOMAS
RUSSELL II I. 0 _ Wit_- �Cj ^-- - - - -.� ERtOAN
i �_�•_�. ^° RUSSELL
QUEEN (yy.
PENN AVE. :'^-� ••---.�_: --a. �r'�.�� jL J _ QUEEN
j_____ -_ .��JJ ._ PENN AVE.
OLIVER OLIVER
NEWTON NEWTON
MORGAN IIIIff IC
LOGAN ({ j�1I 'r ,�J`�I�✓ MORGAN
LOGAN
KNOX
KNOX
JAMES
DAMEJAMS
S
IRVING , �♦L/ 1�1U ^= 1L�JfL��..J �.� I� 1� _sir rl '�.�
NUYBOLOT i= =- =f____ _ _�--- _�nE.�`ti 1 (• —�I = ��.:i IRVING
GIRARD. �� - 11 —�U- +� I +. ✓ - - - -_- I 1�irL•!✓ -.` �'f HUMBOLDT '
FREMOM GIRARp
EMERSON FREMONT ���{
DUPONT o u. •.��� �I ♦ EMERSON
COLFAX k= 1I�1 ti I' _ _ ti \3I = y +i pUPONT .. i
BRTANT s'i��-- l_JLi 4y� n iil� COLFAX
ALORICN I ---�D� Y �� BRVANT ;
I���tI ?'/6 t'
L_J a� ` \.GC �•= ICI AIORICN i
L7NDALE .AVE.
II! •IT1,� ���� � � ^- -r� iL -�����.- -.� ._ t i - �_'�_ _-' _ ���- �_'�� i-,�_.,,y� -- a,r ��.� ��L- �IL-� ' i:'��� J L�l(�.� ..:,�
C 1 HLTANRORAIELT E
AVE. GARFIELD
HARRIET 1!,I GARFIELD
0
GRIND om t
PLEASANT
GRAND
- _ _ ' �-'t' PLEASANT
PILLSBURY
WENTWOYTN
II,CS^ � i�I PILLSBURY �i1BLAISDELL ENTWORT
N O
Bl•tSDELL NICOLLET AVE hiLl .3. ,i —
let
�►r.— ^!r .�— '`J~Y� NICOLLET AVE.
STEVENS
� f STEVENS
310
CUNTON 3's
{tA�L_J��-
St. ��t uUL_J^ L II Jam__ = =�=f: {U
PORTLAND AVE. L�„JC�`P `�!�
iL.
OAKLAND ., •• 1
PORTLAND AVE
U��
uOAKLAND
COLUMBUS �� �%+?� " "`. O[�CI I� j� �) PARK
CHICAGO COLUMBUS
i ''F:; ::= : :i::k�:i�i�::�:.. l_1��U '' ��_J
I
CHICAGO
;� R I I
ELLIOT II it;: �.. n = - t
1016 1; ELUOT
:•:•
.......
10 11,
glob
tr ,
84 th
15 th
BLOOMINGTON '���
BlDOY1N
6T
ON
171.
co
let.
I
F
- - 1
et
CEDAR AVE h ^l
LONGFEILOW •--- -_____ � � -� -��� CEDAR AVE. �
...................
PORTLAND AVE S -- LONGFELLOW
t� t.
m
• 2�i N a N it ter-- J� t0 t•
m .
p �i STANDISN
-
c ... O
Z m �I ' 23 is -
1
<r
tT i i M
lzc
•f� •r •i ter.- ..:�.:[....
Q
--
cc
U
f- Y
p 0 w
CM U Q Z
Z Q Q U
LL
OO :::• :::..::::::::b »:::. Z cl) Q Co
CL LU
O zo o_;''' :'•`.r• } >r;•;';;:'•' :• "•;' + :' :. o• is Z cc x
AL I-
0`.
:o
..........
_ _ °'• a :c:::•.�,y >: >:3� �? .o: _
_ m
_ Mi
IF
w
Q
Z
w >
F—
Z
F Q
CL
F-
O �
tY?
0
ti
CL
y
FRONTAGE ROAD
I
i
o:
� � t
•
i
P
d
i
0
1ILD IFTFII/e I
a � I
�----� i
� IU IOI N i
-
ti n �
a
• �� i0 O N �
as
h�
,
0 O �
V
V�
�N
ti
T
Ir
ii
• r��, i
top w
Survey
r
EAST "'77Tk STREET
d
u si so • +�.
as1 / �soe
BLACK BU -EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
15, as
v o LONG M
M `•' �� e. 31 3 N� s
• \ C
of- _
s = PROPOSED PROPERTY LIN
cc
41 44
1 �
° Prl
'•T - O 3' Qo 4
I 0 }
M I:
I
poi so , Q 0
a a
STATION S I
33
r�
+�� •f eo 0 0
• o �
• -
_
NB!•�- !'47'6•;
/12.00 -
�
V •'
� •
3tf
V
�yS � •
O }
u si so • +�.
as1 / �soe
BLACK BU -EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
15, as
v o LONG M
M `•' �� e. 31 3 N� s
• \ C
of- _
s = PROPOSED PROPERTY LIN
cc
41 44
1 �
° Prl
'•T - O 3' Qo 4
I 0 }
M I:
I
poi so , Q 0
a a
STATION S I
33
r�
+�� •f eo 0 0
• o �
•
i
PREPARED FOR:
RICHARD &DONALD ELSEN
7730 PORTLAND AVE.
RICHFIELD, MN. 55423
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TOTAL PROPERTY
The North 180.10 feet of the South 510.10 feet of the east 165.00
feet of Government Lot 1, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24.
The North 79.90 feet of the South 590:00 Teetiof the east 164.25 feet
of Government Lot 1, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24.
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 665, Files of the Registrar of
Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
PARCEL A
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 66S, Files of the Registrar
of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
The North 79.90 feet of the South 590.00 feet of the east 164.25
feet of Government Lot 1, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24.
The North 20.00 feet of the South 510.10 feet of the east 165.00
feet of Government Lot 1, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24.
PARCEL B
The North 160.10 feet of the South 490.10 feet of the east 165.00
feet of Government Lot 1, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24.
0 20 40 a0
.Scale in tree t
LEGEND
0
IRON MONUMENT
0
WATER VALVE
Q
MANHOLE
POWER POLE
Y
HYDRANT
•
LIGHT
O
SIGN
—�—
SANITARY SEWER
��—
WATER MAIN
�--�
PENCE
�—
CURS OR RETAINING WALL
O
CONCRETE
PREPARED FOR:
RICHARD &DONALD ELSEN
7730 PORTLAND AVE.
RICHFIELD, MN. 55423
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TOTAL PROPERTY
The North 180.10 feet of the South 510.10 feet of the east 165.00
feet of Government Lot 1, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24.
The North 79.90 feet of the South 590:00 Teetiof the east 164.25 feet
of Government Lot 1, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24.
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 665, Files of the Registrar of
Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
PARCEL A
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 66S, Files of the Registrar
of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
The North 79.90 feet of the South 590.00 feet of the east 164.25
feet of Government Lot 1, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24.
The North 20.00 feet of the South 510.10 feet of the east 165.00
feet of Government Lot 1, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24.
PARCEL B
The North 160.10 feet of the South 490.10 feet of the east 165.00
feet of Government Lot 1, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24.
0 20 40 a0
.Scale in tree t
6 -// t.
. .... . ..... ...
... . .....
. ... ...... ... ....
. .. .. ... .
Z.
%
AVE PILLSBURY •
< o
cam,
co
z
pniq F-.11 AVE �!E!TWORTN,-_,Y
i21
r
r
ml 'A
z
AVE.[ 0 IBLAISOELL
T!*9 �m A-
L
im un
p. i Tit. m
L.*s
zW--;vLLET
4
KOUNTY ROAD Nom 52) AVE
NIC;tLET
:j:
L
CL fm-
CIR1 ST I AVE.- FIRST
• :7
;via
to
0
STEVENSy ...Z- AVE STEVENS •
<
3 Z,
cl lly.
SECC
.NO M AV
S ECCX6— — — —
CCF
At ZC-
AVE'.' so. i-7TW"
A.G ?0GE cc-.41,;s 7
-.N
0 ASR Di E W.
CL,3TON --7
AVE.
CLINTON
-Z6
LVO= T S-� 00;- vi—
D L
v-
T I R D
- AVE. I z
. .--- .. !$ � CD
FOURTH
Z A' D- D, I T1. r, o-. w: •i J T KJ
R
-7—
- AVE so FIFTH
--T
T, lFi;
K
&
=A;
L
PORTLAND AVENUE
]L4,
-1 j.L 7-
ii
�
A -T OR
ll"—LUI
Z
O
c
m
-m
>
>
Z 0
z
0 >
m fn
z
Lo
m
a
m
Z.
ca
tD
m
Z
a
>
0
m
-n
m
m
6 -// t.
. .... . ..... ...
... . .....
. ... ...... ... ....
. .. .. ... .
Z.
%
AVE PILLSBURY •
< o
cam,
co
z
pniq F-.11 AVE �!E!TWORTN,-_,Y
i21
r
r
ml 'A
z
AVE.[ 0 IBLAISOELL
T!*9 �m A-
L
im un
p. i Tit. m
L.*s
zW--;vLLET
4
KOUNTY ROAD Nom 52) AVE
NIC;tLET
:j:
L
CL fm-
CIR1 ST I AVE.- FIRST
• :7
;via
to
0
STEVENSy ...Z- AVE STEVENS •
<
3 Z,
cl lly.
SECC
.NO M AV
S ECCX6— — — —
CCF
At ZC-
AVE'.' so. i-7TW"
A.G ?0GE cc-.41,;s 7
-.N
0 ASR Di E W.
CL,3TON --7
AVE.
CLINTON
-Z6
LVO= T S-� 00;- vi—
D L
v-
T I R D
- AVE. I z
. .--- .. !$ � CD
FOURTH
Z A' D- D, I T1. r, o-. w: •i J T KJ
R
-7—
- AVE so FIFTH
--T
T, lFi;
K
&
=A;
L
PORTLAND AVENUE
]L4,
-1 j.L 7-
ii
�
A -T OR
ll"—LUI
-410 A.c i0
._OAKLAND p
-AXE
�40
A
-4
-HEIGHTS 3RD-
- - - - - - :
4,c
i
PARK so.
ADDITION
w
'GLAIR S
WOOODALE
N
to
MATTSON HEIGHTS
_ '< PAR.
z
C6Lu'M8u!a -A, V- E, 56.
AGO.
4. ADD.'
0
J" 'EILAIRS
WOODDALE
w
a
Q
w
a
- to 76th
77th
Ir
w
Q
Z
a
J
Y
Q
Co
ST.
w
>
a
Y
Q
CL
L
mmm
■min �������■��a
-------- - - - - -- ■�����■�■■■��
�wwwlw�ww+w •••' : wrw�ww,wMM,,.�wiwwrwww.
NMI
April 27, 1987
Community Development Department
Planning Division
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave. So.
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: Conditional Use Permits for:
7700 Portland Avenue South and
7730 Portland Avenue South
Gentlemen: -
We are requesting conditional use permits for the above referenced
properties because:
1. We would like to sell the 7700 Portland Avenue property to
P.D.Q. Food Stores for their eventual construction of a
convenience grocery store and gasoline facility.
2. We would like to rent our present building at 7730 Portland
Avenue South to a prospective tenant who would operate a
self -serve and automatic car wash facility.
We have included a site plan of the proposed project.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Dona d +L. Elsen
Richard P. Elsen
•
v
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 177
Agenda June 8, 1987
Issue Statement:
Request for an offstreet parking permit at 7301 Penn Avenue.
Background:
Kit V, and Sumonda V. Arom have applied for an offstreet parking
permit for the site at 7301 Penn Avenue. The applicants have
removed the gasoline service station structure, pumps, and tanks.
that formerly existed on the site. They are constructing a new
structure on the site for an auto detailing business. The
proposed structure will have two bays where auto detailing will
be done. There will be 11 exterior parking spaces and four
interior parking spaces. A six foot wood vertical alternating
board screen fence would be constructed on the south and east
property lines. Landscaping will be provided along Penn Avenue
and 73rd Street.
Staff Recommendation:
It is recommended that the city council pass the attached
resolution approving the offstreet parking permit with the
following stipulations:
1. That there be no more than two auto detailing bays operating
on the site.
2. That the dwarf lilacs along Penn Avenue and 73rd Street
be eliminated.
Basis Of Recommendation:
1. There would be sufficient offstreet parking provided on
the site for a two bay auto detailing establishment. There
is, however, sufficient space in the structure to operate
more than two auto detailing bays. If more than two bays are
operated, the use would not meet the minimum standard
for the required number of offstreet parking spaces found
in the ordinance standards for auto detailing licenses.
2. The proposal meets city offstreet parking and driveway
standards and guidelines except for the requirement that
driveways and parking areas be setback 15 feet from
residential property. The proposed driveways and parking
areas are setback three feet on the south property line and
five feet on the east property line. It is staff's opinion
that this should not be a problem because the proposed fence
will adequately screen and buffer the adjacent residential
uses.
3. Staff has reviewed the landscape plan and find it adequate.
We do, however, question the location of the dwarf lilacs
along Penn Avenue and 73rd Street. While they would be
aesthetically pleasing and provide some headlight screening,
staff does not believe they could survive in such a narrow
planting strip where they are not protected from overhanging
cars.
4. A drainage plan showing an on -site catch basin has been
submitted and approved by the city engineer.
Alternative Recommendation:
The alternative recommendation would be to deny the offstreet
parking permit.
Decision Mode:
This item has been scheduled for council consideration on June
8th, 1987.
Respect lly submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP /dh
P
•
5(- 3
. RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING OFFSTREET PARKING PERMIT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION 87 -7 FOR
7301 PENN AVENUE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the proposed geometric layout of the offstreet parking
as contained in offstreet parking application No. 87 -7 is hereby
approved subject to.the following stipulations:
a) That there be no more than two auto detailing bays
operating on the site
b) That the dwarf lilacs along Penn Avenue and 73rd Street
be eliminated.
2. That the responsibility for proper upkeep and maintenance of
said offstreet parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the
offstreet parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code
4.05.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
8th day of June, 1987.
•
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
John Hamilton Mayor
u
m
0
V
0
0
m
•
W
0
m
Z
Z
m
a
•
a O p
na
XERXES AVE. -' -- ---
WASHBURN
VINCENT
UPTON
THOMAS
SHERIDAN
RUSSELL
OUEEN
PENN AVE.
OLIVER
NEWTON
MORGAN
LOGAN
KNOX
JAMES
IRVING
HUMBOLDT
GIRARD
FREMONT
EMERSON
DUPONT
COLFAX
BRYANT
ALDRICN
LYNDALE AVE.
GARFIELD
HARRIET
GRAND
PLEASANT
PILLSBURY
WENTWO@TH
BLAISDELL
NICOLLET AVE.
let
STEVENS
2nd
3rd
CL14TON
411%
5th
PORTLAND AVE.
OAKLAND
PARK
COLUMBUS
CHICAGO
ELLIOT
to th
11 th
12 th
13 11,
14 th
IS th
BLOOMINGTON
16th
ITth
IB th
CEDAR AVE.
LONGFELLOW
s
m
z ,Z7
Zf7n
0 <
_ :2 0
-4
Z
T A
a a
1
l
m -1
0
5G-
r a u a a vF O
s 'e n e z
N y y y Y=
H y �
— ' =•1�' - r �•-- _....�;� XERXES AVE
—�i WASHBURN
VINCENT
• �i I I _'I UPTON
!�. O: THOMAS
`L =t
SHERIDAN
E: HD RUSSELL
OUEEN
-- PENN AVE
I� �, f—� =�• OLIVER
NEWTON
MORGAN
LOGAN
KNOX
L...•t
71 JAMES
IRVING
DI �_
I; HUMBOLDT
DOCG.
GIRARD
r FREMONT
EMERSON
II DUPONT
COLFAX
BRYANT
a
ALDRICN
LYNDALE AVE.
GARFIELD
AVE Sil HARRIET
I I GRAND
PLEASANT
W PILLSBURY
WENTWORTH
I
1 BLAISDELL
I
'^ NICOLLET AVE.
Is,
y I, STEVENS
G I� 2e4
VI 3rd
I
—� CLINTON
,fh
Sth
PORTLAND AVE.
OAKLAND
PARK
r f COLUMBUS
O ' z it CHICAGO
� a
OR =
O ELL10T
II IO th
OD�^LJ', 11111
1211,
1311,
14th
BLOOMINGTON
O O O BMINGTON
161h
__ ��-���-�- ��-��g;�,,���jjj— CEDAR AVE.
UJL_ -tJ 911, FELLOW
FF �� -iI I 120th
22nd
��-�- STANDISH
l -
r 23rd
� a a
�NI 1 H N
N
U.
r-
0
Z
T�
V
0
-4
CA)
11%
CL
C/)
m
m
-4
•
K3
OL
MUGHO PINE
ASH
IGN
Site Plan
7301 PENN AVE.
SG- 6
-oo-- N
-V
PENN AVE.
WEBBER JUNIPER
0 DWARF LILAC
I* GOLDFLAME SPIREA
M7
Li RC%CK MULCH
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 176
Agenda June 8, 1987
Issue Statement:
Request for an offstreet parking permit at 6433 Penn Avenue
Background:
Omnibus Investments has requested City Council approval of an
offstreet parking permit for the site at 6433 Penn Avenue. The
applicant wishes to upgrade the appearance of the site and
building. They wish to stucco the building and provide
additional windows anal landscaping. The existing gravel parking
area would be upgraded to an asphalt surface, with concrete
perimeter curbing, to accommodate 17 parking spaces. Landscaping
would be provided along the north and west sides of the building
and along the north property line. The wood screen fence along
the east property line would be repaired. Access to the rear of
the property to the north would be maintained in accordance with
existing agreements between the two property owners. A tenant
for the structure has not been identified.
Staff Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council pass the attached
resolution approving the offstreet parking permit with the
following stipulations:
1. That the curb along the north side of the building be at
least two feet from the building to protect the building
from cars.
2. That a seven foot landscaped area which tapers down to 0 feet
on the north end be provided adjacent to the east property
line. This area should be sodded and a minimum of two
overstory trees planted in this area.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposal would result in a definite improvement of
the appearance of the site.
2. Based on the size of the building and on the potential
types of tenants that could be expected to occupy such
a space, there should be a sufficient number of offstreet
parking spaces provided on the site
3. The proposal meets city offstreet parking and driveway
standards and guidelines except for the requirement for a
15 foot setback between commercial driveways and parking
areas and residential properties. The proposed plan
indicates that the curbing along the east property line
would be right up to the property line. There is sufficient
space between the building and the east property line to
allow a seven foot setback. It is staff's opinion that this
setback should be provided and that this seven foot area
should be landscaped to provide additional green area. At
minimum, this area should be sodded and two overstory trees
planted. This area would have to taper down to zero or some
parking stalls would have to be eliminated on the north end
to maintain access to the rear of the property to the north.
4. The city engineer has approved a drainage plan for the site.
Alternative Recommendation:
The alternative recommendation would be to deny the offstreet
parking permit because a specific tenant has not been identified
for the site.
Decision Mode:
This item has been scheduled for council consideration on June 8,
1987.
JP /dh
C7
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City Manager
5F --3
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING OFFSTREET PARKING
PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION 87 -8
6433 PENN AVENUE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the proposed geometric layout of the offstreet parking
as contained in offstreet parking application No. 87 -8 is
hereby approved subject to the following stipulations:
a) That the curb along the north side of the building be at
least two feet from the building to protect the building
from cars.
b) That a seven foot landscaped area which tapers down to 0
feet on the north end be provided adjacent to the east
property line. This area should be sodded and a
minimum of two overstory trees be planted in this area.
2. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of
said offstreet parking lot shall remain the responsibility of
the offstreet parking lot operator in accordance with
Ordinance Code 4.05.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
8th day of June, 1987.
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
is
John Hamilton Mayor
•
0
0
0
0
cf)
m
c0
f)
=i
m
•
0)
4
CA)
CA)
-0
m
z
Z
m
DIY
•
0
r—
O
0
0
Z
TD
0*
z
XERXES AVE.
XERXES AVE.
WASHOUR
WASHBURN
VINCENT
IL--j Jf VINCENT
Ll L'
UPTON
UPTON tIJ
THOMAS
D: THOMAS
SHER AN
'0
SHERIDAN
RUSSELL E
Lc==�
1I.RUSSELL
EEEE3
U1,
QUEEN
QUEEN
�
Li J'Z�
PENN AVE.
, r�2� PENN AVE,
CCU
OLIVER
------ OLIVER
NEWTON IT (
NEWTON
MORGAN
11j
1==:q MORGAN
LOGAN
LF
LOGAN
I
, L_�C L_JCCj / `'M, :v :y.•••y
NO:S
JAMES
?:i•.��
1,:Am
4
IRVING
HUMBOLDT
—CCCC
.............. IRVING
P�__
HUMBOLDT
IRARD
GIRARD
FREMONT
FREMONT
==
EMERSON
4
EMERSON
DUPONT
J�Tj
L
.......
.N.
DUPONT
COLFAX
COLFAX
-Y
B ANT
BRYANT
ED
AL.R .C.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
ALDRICH
LYNDALE AVE.
LYNDALE AVE.
GARFIELD
VE
GARFIELD
HARRIET I
j HARRIET
GRAND
GRAND
PLEASANT
PILLSBURY
. . . . . . . . . . . • . . . .
PLEASANT
II PILLSBURY
WENTWOiTH
WENTWORTH
BLAISDELL
:11
BLAISDELL
NICOLLET AVE.
_
NICOLLET AVE.
tat
PENN AV
lot
STEVENS
STEVENS
2e{
Zad
3rd
3,4
CLINTON
CLINTON
Alth
511%
CD
JI
4 th
5111
PORTLAND AVE.
PORTLAND AVE.
OAKLAND
Lj�L?
OAKLAND
PARK
Q1
PARK
COLUMBUS
il
COLUMBUS
CHICAGO
I
CHICAGO
ELLIOT
OLIVER AVE. S.
ELLIOT
IOTA
=F—,
loth
rll
==E
11
E
th
—71 F---1 7-1 E
2111
13th
==F
L
13th
• 14 th
:54:.
Is th
NUDOMINGTON
BLOOMINGTON
Gib
Gib
17 th
18th
CEDAR AVE.
CEDAR AVE.
LONGFELLOW
- '----
-
-'
LONGFELLOW
x
m
EEAE--�'E- I
--I
201h
z
IF
z
m
9— 1: Ir
21 at
22 ea
STANDISH
0
Z '11
23 Fit
rr,
z
r—
O
0
0
Z
TD
•
0
•
30N33 JNUSIX3
PENN AVE.
.545 -/
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 175
Agenda June 8, 1987
Issue Statement:
Resolution Designating the City Manager and the Director of
Public Safety as the City's Representatives to the Minnesota
Police Recruitment System
Background:
The City of Richfield has been a member of the Minnesota Police
Recruitment System (MPRS) for several years. Recently, it was
brought to our attention that the city's current representatives
on the MPRS are Thomas Morgan, Jr. and Karl Nollenberger. As
these gentlemen are no longer employed by the city, a resolution
providing for replacement representatives has been prepared for
council consideration at the June 8, 1987 city council meeting.
Recommendation:
Approve a resolution designating the City Manager and the
Director of Public Safety as the city's representatives to the
Minnesota Police Recruitment System.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. It is important that the city have representation on this
board.
2. The current representatives are no longer employees of the
city.
3. Designating the position of City Manager and Director of
Public Safety as the city's representatives instead of
actually naming these individuals would insure continuous
representation on this board.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council may wish to designate specific persons as
the city's representatives to this board.
2. The City Council may wish to designate persons other than the
City Manager and Director of Public Safety as the city's
representatives to this board.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This resolution has been placed on the consent calendar portion
of the June 8, 1987 city council agenda.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam s D. Prosser
Cit Manager
5�f- �
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR
AS A DIRECTOR TO THE MINNESOTA POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AND THE CITY MANAGER AS ALTERNATE DIRECTOR
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
The Director of Public Safety is hereby designated to serve
as a director of the Minnesota Police Recruitment System Board of
Directors, and the City Manager is hereby designated to serve as
alternate director of the Minnesota Police Recruitment System
until their successors are appointed.
PASSED this 8 day of June, 1987.
ATTEST:
L`
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
r�
John Hamilton Mayor
Dear Mayor:
I am writing with regard to your City's current representatives
on the MPRS Board of Directors. Following are the persons (or
officials) whom your City Council last appointed to this Board:
Director - Thomas Morgan
Alternate Director - Karl Nollenberger
In some cases persons who no longer are associated with a
community continue to be listed as that community's "official"
representatives to the MPRS. For this reason we recommend
either that representatives be appointed by position (e.g., the
City Manager and the Police Chief) or that they be reviewed on
an annual basis by the City Council.
If your community wishes to change its representation on the
MPRS Board of Directors, a resolution to that effect should be
adopted by your City Council. A certified copy of this resolu-
tion then should be sent to the MPRS offices at the above
address.
We also recommend that the person most likely to attend MPRS
Board meetings be- appointed as each community's Director. While
either the Director or Alternate Director are eligible to vote
at Board meetings, only a community's Director is eligible to
serve on the MPRS Executive Committee.
If you have any questions regarding the above matter, please
feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Larry homp n
Mana ent onsultant
to the MPRS
LT /PP
cc: City Administrator
sue-
• Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the consent calendar of the June 8,
1987 city council agenda for council consideration.
JDP /sae
•
•
rj
Respectfully submitted
Jame . Prosser
City anager
•
•
• •
XERXES AVE.
WASHBURN AV
VINCENT AVE.
UPTON AVE.
THOMAS AVE.
SHERIDAN AVE
RUSSELL AVE
QUEEN AVE.
PENN AVE.
OLIVER AVE.
NEWTON AVE.
MORGAN AVE.
LOGAN AVE.
KNOX AVE.
JAMES AVE.
IRVING AVE.
HUMBOLDT AVE
GIRARD AVE.
:5-0- -3
v
y y �
' CL
4
X
v. Qf
?
y
�
� 74
:5-0- -3
v
y y �
' CL
4
•
XERXES AVE.
WASHBURN AV
wo VINCENT AVE.
UPTON AVE.
T0
V .THOMAS AVE.
0
cn SHERIDAN, AVE
v RUSSELL AVE
QUEEN AVE.
> PENN AVE.
m OLIVER AVE.
NEWTON AVE.
D MORGAN AVE.
Z
LOGAN AVE.
KNOX AVE.
JAMES AVE.
IRVING AVE.
HUMBOLDT AVE
GIRARD AVE.
N
s
N N
W
~ ~ 1
0
N
.0(-5(2 /
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 173
June 8, 1987
Issue Statement:
Request for permits for illuminated sign at The Finishing Line,
816 West 77 1/2 Street and Wendy's located at 6500 Lyndaele Ave.
Background:
City Ordinance provides that the city council must approve all
permits for illuminated signs.
The Finishing Line requests a permit to erect a 16' X 31,
illuminated, wall sign.
Wendy's would like to replace their existing pedestal sign with
a new one. The sign would be a double faced, 6' X 10'
illuminated sign.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the city council approve the permits for
these illuminated signs.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The Inspection Division and the Planning Division have
approved the signs.
2. The signs conform to all applicable city ordinances.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Not approve the permits. However, the city has no
alternative design criteria to suggest for substitutes
for these signs.
Discussidn /Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the consent calendar portion of the
council agenda for consideration. The businesses are requesting
action to complete their sign placement of these new
business establishments.
JDP /sae
•
Respectfully submitted,
James D. Prosser
City ` anager
.�.�
City Manager y - v y ..�. �� Inspector_ /`�
Date Date 'S /? 6w%
,;APPROVE ® DENY APPROVE a DENYD
Planning ,Depa tment City Council
Date Date
?
Qoute to above fo
r special approval per code General Signs
APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT
City of Richfield,, Minnesota
Date 5 -19 -87 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes X No Fee 18.00 .
Address of Sign 816 W. 77� St. Proprietor Name Ray Haverson DBAThe finishinc
Line Motoring Acces.
Sign Erector Attracta Sign. Inc . Address 6417 Penn Ave, So. Richfield, MN
Tyne of Si.n Desi Weather Cover Li htin
If Illuminated - Yes X
0ectrical Contractor
No Watts
Address
Phone
Property Owner
Wall
Projecting
Ground
Roof
Pedestal 4
Changeable
Temporary
Trailer
X
Single Face
Double Face _
Multi -Faced
Aerial /Blimp
Searchlight
Banner /Pennants
Portable Frame:
T M An PostFJ
Clear Lexon X
Frosted Lexon
Plastic Covered
Shaded
Neon
Other
Sign Colors White, Gold
Constant
Flashing
Revolving
Traveling
Zip Lite
Other(Explain)
& Black
Sign Width 16' Height 3
Total Square Feet 48
If Illuminated - Yes X
0ectrical Contractor
No Watts
Address
Phone
Property Owner
or his Agent
Signature
Phone
Estiziated Cost
500.00
Sign Width 16' Height 3
Total Square Feet 48
Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks,
curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on
drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as
defined cn page 2.
Two blueprints of,the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans:
including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure.
Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on
the premises? Yes
Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? No
Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm
Date
Phone Number 866 -3047
Ot
1985
PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061
•
p
•
Cki
Q)
FN.
0
a
5�f
.APPROVE
a DENY:
APPROVE
Projecting
DE.Wa: S
Ground
City Manager
Date
Multi -Faced
Inspector Z, �
y
APPROVE
DENYQ:
_ fZ-1-L APPROVE
a
Date
DE.`TYD:
Planning D par{tment
Date s�?
City Council
Q
Date
Route to
above for special approval per code
General Signs
APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PER%JIT
City of Richfield, . Minnesota
Date Sign Erected Yes No Fee
Address of Sign k"5-0 L, A'b ':5e� . Proprietor Name, Q DBA
r
Sign Erector ��lf? /_t 4 ;t"'K,�/w /-, Address 777 I
J
T•ro a of Sign Design . . Weather Cover Li2htino
Wall
Single Face.-
Projecting
Double Face
Ground
Multi -Faced
Roof
Pedestal
Changeable
Temporary
Aerial /Blimp
Searchlight
Banner /Pennants
Portable Frame:
Trailer L T F7 A 7 Poste
Clear Lexon
Frosted Len-con
Plastic Covered
Shaded
Neon
Other
Sign Colors
Constant
Flashing
Revolving
Traveling
Zip Lite
Other (Explain)
Illi,m;r!ated - �Ye✓ No
Watts
*Iec t=4-cal Contractor �a�t,� -�ti1 > Address-7-7
t �I��.
Property Owner or his Agent Signature ?hone
Est waead Cost Sign Width Height /O � Total Square Feet
Position of the advertisement st=ucture in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks,
curbs, roadways, overhead uLlity lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on
drawing with significant di=ensions and attached'hereto of major signs. Minor signs as
deft_ :e* on page 2.
T-do blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure const=,ction plans:
:clod' :g specifications, 1-st of materials, and exMiicit anchoring or -cons
details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calc.alations, color of sign stricture.
Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, 4"stitution, or ac.ivity conducted on
the pr--4ses?
WZ? the sign, st-_.:cture,.or billboard restrict any
for sari access by persons destined 'or or passing
Applicant's Signat•,ire and Title/with Fir;
Phone Nu=ber
0
sight distance under, around, or over
the subject premises?
Date-),,
ate - ,
Lam:
1985 ?LZASE Sr. 3_V7z__RSz SIDE FCR SIGN LCC=CN S=- ma
Siver: Hendrickscn /Bu U_., -g Off , cla.1 - 866 -5061
�i
U1
I Q1
Ld
I K
j• • ba.2tb— t
LL SCCi1rN _
s _
d
�r
I
..
•O
Q17
Tm W, D.- 91@N��. I
t
I'
f
i
lI
va�:af F)
""Cam'
P.^.vG:..tnorarG v.'r
.,.3 a • Q- c+� -kip t't'tRi
�.. ,Fat 3 • ..ate
lLLu ✓�UL'i0'•1 � w✓ n
w .
,•,,., p �t 1. CC N DTi GT! S.
■ I
Os
Lyt!t A c._-: Ald
4_T;
iL
17
1Z
Ilk
WENDYOS'
.'a^..
i
R M
t OBEL ING - -
'.tats i�
bim 1 YffM1I -MPA $0 fill. o"belft 0. 1wo'r ull,
II
:.\
.r
'
Os
Lyt!t A c._-: Ald
4_T;
iL
17
1Z
Ilk
WENDYOS'
R M
t OBEL ING - -
Il�It 11h
bim 1 YffM1I -MPA $0 fill. o"belft 0. 1wo'r ull,
•
_Ej
Os
Lyt!t A c._-: Ald
4_T;
iL
17
1Z
Ilk
WENDYOS'
R M
t OBEL ING - -
Il�It 11h
bim 1 YffM1I -MPA $0 fill. o"belft 0. 1wo'r ull,
5"8-/
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 172
Agenda of June 8, 1987
Issue Statement:
Authorization to submit a grant request and enter into a grant
agreement to fund energy conservation program activities in
cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Public Service
(MOPS).
Background:
On June 17, 1987, if authorized by the City Council, a grant
application will be submitted to MOPS requesting $45,000 to
support a variety of energy conservation programs over a two year
period. This application is similar to those submitted in 1984
and early 1987. In each instance $15,000 was secured to finance
program administration. The grant cycle being considered is
called "Cycle III ", and covers a two -year period beginning in the
fall of 1987 ($30,000 in late 1987, $15,000 in late 1988).
These MOPS funds are important because they:
- support the additional temporary staff necessary
to assist in coordinating the anticipated 1987 resources
-allow staff to continue with existing program administration
With additional temporary staff, the existing permanent staff can
. plan for the future when:
-MDPS grants, funded by an oil overcharge court settlement
are no longer available
- Utility audit funds are no longer federally mandated after
1989
-State mandates requiring utility support for local programs
ends in 1992.
The Cycle III grant objectives include:
- Continuation of -the housedoctor assistance and one on one
follow -up for lower income households
- Continuation of the home energy check audit.
- Marketing of new energy loans and the multifamily audit
program.
-The use of infrared scanning and video tape to identify
infiltration and heat loss roblems for homeowners.
eowners.
- Evaluation of funding sources to allow the energy
conservation program to continue without increased reliance
on the general fund.
- Evaluation of mandatory versus elective energy audit /energy
improvement activities.
-The addition of temporary staff to utilize the Cycle III
grant funds to ensure that all objectives can be met.
-The development of a data base that assists the evaluation
of implemented conservation activities for effectiveness.
The improved coordination of energy programs with other
home improvement programs offered by the HRA and other
agencies
•
•
SB - Q-,
The attached resolution, is required by MDPS to secure the grant.
If the grant is received, most of the funds will be used to cover
the cost of staff salary and program marketing.
The Energy Awareness Commission discussed the grant request and
the objectives at their May meeting. However, no specific
recommendation was made.
Staff Recommendation:
Adopt the attached resolution which authorizes the City Manager
to submit the grant request and execute a grant agreement if
Richfield's request is successful.
Basis of Recommendation:
The grant funds will finance energy program activities that
would not otherwise take place.
Alternative Recommendation:
Not authorize submission of the application.
Decision Mode:
The resolution must be approved by the Council on June 8th to
permit submission to MDPS by the June 17th deadline.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja s D. Prosser
C' y Manager
59--,3
RESOLUTION NO. _
RESOLUTION RELATED TO ENERGY GRANT
Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1) The City of Richfield shall act as the sponsoring unit
of government for the project titled "Bundle Up Richfield" to be
conducted during the period October, 1987 through November, 1989.
James D. Prosser, City Manager, is hereby authorized to apply to
the Minnesota Department of Public Service for funding of this
project on behalf of the City of Richfield.
2) The City of Richfield shall enter into a grant agreement
with the State of Minnesota for the project named above if the
application is successful. James D. Prosser, City Manager, is
hereby authorized to execute certifications as required and
execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project
named above.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 8th day of June, 1987.
0 ATTEST: John Hamilton, Mayor
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 171
Agenda, June 8, 1987
Issue Statement:
Adoption of a resolution authorizing the disposition of certain
property belonging to the Cedar Avenue Liquor Store.
Background:
The city has recently opened the new Cedar Avenue Liquor Store at
the corner of 66th and Cedar. With the opening of the new
facility, the old liquor store located just south of that
building will soon be demolished as part of the redevelopment
which will take place on that site.
Prior to the demolition of that building, the Liquor Store
Operation would like to sell some of the old fixtures or other
items of personal property which could not be used in the new
facility. For example, there are several feet of older shelving
units which could not be used in the new store (or in any of the
other liquor stores). That shelving would be an item that could
be sold to individuals who might be interested in utilizing that
material for their own personal storage.
The shelving and other odd items are of very nominal resale value
and could not be used by the city either now or in the
foreseeable future.
The quickest and most cost effective way of disposing of those
materials would be to have the City Manager authorized by
resolution to sell or dispose of these nominal value items to
individuals, including city employees, who might be interested in
buying them.
The attached resolution gives authority to the City Manager to
dispose of the movable property in the old Cedar Liquor Store
facility in the manner he determines most appropriate, before the
building is demolished. Any items which could be sold through
the city auction will be.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
resolution authorizing the disposition of certain outdated Cedar
Avenue Liquor Store property.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Iteis left at the old Cedar Liquor Store are items which
cannot be used by the city now or in the foreseeable future.
2. These items are of very nominal value and would not bring
much revenue to the city in any manner of sale. It would
not be worth the effort to put these items into a competitive
bid package or sale at an auction.
3.
It is important that the city get
some return, if possible,
for these items before abandoning
them or having them stored
at some other city facility.
4.
There may be one or two city employees
who have an
interest in buying some of these
old fixtures and if so,
it should be made clear that the
City Manager has the
authority to approve such a sale.
Alternative Recommendation:
1.
The City Council could decide not
to authorize sale of any of
this equipment to city employees.
2.
The City Council could direct the
City Manager to recommend
°
other methods of disposing of this
property.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
It would be beneficial if the City Council would act on this item
at the June 8, 1987 meeting so that the city could take immediate
action to clear the building of any items which may bring some
nominal return and allow the demolition of the building to
proceed at its earliest intended date.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City anager
JDP /sae
►.
I
5- t�9 3
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DISPOSITION
OF CERTAIN PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the City has recently discontinued the operation of
its original Cedar Avenue Municipal Liquor Store; and
WHEREAS, there remains in such store various fixtures and
other items of personal property (Property) which are of nominal
resale value and which are not needed by the City either now or
in the foreseeable future; and
` WHEREAS, rather than abandoning the Property, the City
believes it would be appropriate to attempt to sell or otherwise
dispose of such Property, and thereby realize some return on its
investment in such Property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield that the City Manager is authorized to sell or
otherwise dispose of the Property, including sale to city
employees, upon such terms and conditions as the City Manager
determines appropriate.
•
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
John Hamilton Mayor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 170
Agenda June 8, 1987
Issue Statement
Recognition of a donation of $3200 to Fire Division by Roland E.
Nelson to purchase Pluggie, a remote controlled robot used for
fire safety education.
Background:
The Fire Division conducts regular fire safety presentations for
Richfield residents throughout the year. Different teaching
formats are used depending upon the age group of the audience.
Pluggie is a recent innovation in fire safety education. It is a
remote controlled robot designed to look like a fire hydrant.
The operator /teacher controls its movements by radio signals, and
talks to the audience through a speaker mounted inside the robot.
A tape player in the robot lets the teacher supplement the
presentation with music or voice accompanimant.
Pluggie has received excellent reviews by fire safety educators
for its ability to keep the attention of young children. It also
allows the teacher to present material about fires in a manner
which does not cause anxiety or fear in the children. Fire
safety professionals have concluded that when fire safety
subjects are learned under these conditions children are more
likely to retain the material.
Mr. Nelson saw a demonstration of Pluggie, and offered to
purchase one for the Richfield Fire Division. The robot has been
received and will be demonstrated at the June 8, 1987 council
meeting.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the city council accept the donation by
Mr. Nelson.
Basis of Recommendation:
The Fire Division needs a variety of fire safety education
material to effectively deliver fire safety messages. Since the
majority of fires are caused by people, each success in teaching
fire safe behavior reduces the risk of fires in Richfield. The
robot is an item designed to increase the success rate in
teaching young children how to be fire safe. It will be a
welcome addition to the material presently used in fire safety
classes.
Alternate Recommendation:
The council could decline the donation. Since the robot is not
available for loan or rent, the Fire Division would need to
budget $3200 to purchase the item.
•
r
•
:70a—
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 169
Agenda June 8, 1987
Issue Statement:
Administration of the oath of office to Police Officer Richard
Flaten.
Background:
On Febru.ry 23, 1987, the process whereby all new police officers
would be publicly administered their Oath of Office by the City
Clerk in the presence of the City Council was reinstated.
Officer Richard Flaten was recently promoted from Animal Control
Officer to Police Officer and must now receive the Oath of
Office.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Clerk administer the Oath of
Office to Police Officer Richard Flaten.
Basis of Recommendation:
The public swearing in of new police officers is a necessary and
very important process and affords members of the City Council
the opportunity to meet new officers.
This process will allow for the formal recording and notarizing
procedures required of all new Officers.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Officers could be appointed without formal administration of
the Oath of Office.
2. New officers could report to the City Clerk on the date of
hire to receive their Oath of Office.
Decision /Discussion Mode:
This item has been scheduled
meeting.
JDP /eja
for the June 8, 1987 council
Respe tfully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City anager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 168
Agenda June 1, 1987
Issue Statement:
Convening of the 1987 Board of Review.
Background:
The 1987 Richfield Board of Review is scheduled for Monday, June
1, 1987, at 7:00 p.m., in the council chambers of City Hall. As
provided by City Charter, the Board of Review consists of the
Mayor and Council Members, and two citizens appointed by the City
Manager with confirmation by the City Council. Mr. Lawrence
Emond and Mr. John Janski were recently appointed to serve on the
1987 Board of Review.
The duties and responsibilities of the Board of Review are
established by state law. In general, it is the Board's
responsibility to hear appeals by property owners from the
Estimated Market Values established by the city assessor and to
determine if market values should be adjusted. The appeals
typically concern market values rather than tax rates or other
concerns which property owners may bring up to the Board.
Each parcel of property in Richfield has had an Estimated Market
Value (EMV) set as of January 2, 1987. Overall, residential
• property values increased by approximately 3.6% from 1986 values.
Properties which were physically reappraised received reductions
and increases, but were generally increased. Properties which
were not physically reappraised deceived statistical adjustments
based on the characteristics of the property.
For the sixth year, the Richfield property assessment has been
conducted through a contract with Hennepin County which is
supervised by the Administrative Services Department. Staff
works closely with the Hennepin County property appraisers to
ensure that the local assessment complies with the provisions of
the law. For example, the Administrative Services Director
verifies that the number of on -site properties appraised for 1987
exceeded the standard (25% of total properties in the City)
established by law.
In addition, the median ratio (comparing Estimated Market Value
to sales price) for Richfield's 1987 Assessment is 92 %. The
County Auditor's suggested level of assessment (median ratio) for
all municipalities in Hennepin County is 92.5 %. Thus, the
Richfield local assessment is on target with comparable Hennepin
County communities.
In April, property valuation notices were mailed to all property
owners showing the 1987 Estimated Market Value. The notices
40 advised property owners to contact the city assessor's office
regarding any questions or to schedule an appearance before the
Board of Review if the property owner desired to challenge the
• EMV. About 250 inquiries have been received to date, and some
resulted in adjustments by the city assessing staff.
The city has received three notifications of appeals to the Local
Board of Review. All of these individuals indicated that they
will appear before the local Board.
A list of the three property owners who are appealing their EMV
is attached to this council letter.
Any adjustments made by the Richfield Board of Review will be
recorded on the property assessment rolls. After appearing at
the local Board, property owners may subsequently appeal to the
Hennepin County Board of Review, and then to the State Board of
Review and /or the State Tax Court.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Board of Review convene at 7:00 p.m.
on Monday, June 1, 1987 and conduct the business scheduled for
the Board.
Basis Of Recommendation:
1. State Statute and City Charter mandate a Board of Review
Hearing each year to be conducted before June 30.
2. The City Council has established Monday, June 1, 1987 at
7:00 p.m. as the date and time of the Board of Review
Hearing for 1987.
3. Notice of the hearing has been published (May 20th) and
posted pursuant to law.
Alternative Recommendation:
None
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The hearing is likely to be conducted and completed on June 1,
1987. However, if it becomes necessary, the meeting could be
continued to a future date in June.
JDP /sae
is
Respectfully submitted,
-Q?
J es D. Prosser
C ty Manager
0
1987 Richfield Board of Review
Scheduled Personal Appearances
Sidney Sanford 7000 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Thomas Cundy 6204 Upton Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
David Hanson 6436 Oliver Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
(Apartments)
•
•
GRID - COMPARABLE DATA
*APPLICANT'S NAME: Thomas Cundy
ADDRESS: 6204 Upton Ave So
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 6204 Upton Ave So
P.I.D. #:4 29- 028 -24 -12 -0035
MUNIC: Richfield
TYPE OF BLDG.:
STORY HEIGHT:
1ST FLOOR AREA:
GROSS BLDG. AREA:
YR. OF CONST.:
CONDITION:
1ST FL. ROOMS:
2ND FL. ROOMS:
BEDROOMS:
BATHS:
*ALF BATHS:
FIN. BSMT. SQ.FT.:
WALKOUT:
FIREPLACE:
AIR COND:
GARAGE AREA:
PORCH AREA:
LOT SIZE:
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
Rambler
One
1288
1288
1955
Good
5
3
1
1
400
No
One
No
280
O.P. 56
70 x 135
COMPS -SALE DATA:.
SALE DATE
SALE PRICE
SALE /SQ.FT.
SUBJECT- ASSESSMENT DATA:
1987 ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT /SQ.FT.
�EMARKS:
78,loo
60.63
6211 Russell
6211 Washburn
6211 Vincent
7633 Penn
COMP #1
COMP #2
'COMP 13
COMP 44
Rambler
Rambler
Rambler
Rambler
One
One
One . .
One
1062
1241.
1107
1248
1062
1241
1107
1248
1957
1956
1955
1959
Avg
Avg
Fair
Good
6
5
5
6
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
500
600
300
1000
No
No
No
No
No
Two
Two
No
Yes
No
No
No
484
420
240
440
E.P. 168
- -.
-- O.P.
264
.60 x 135
94 x 135
70 x 135
73 x 123
5 -85
3 -87
4 -85
10 -86
75,000
85,000
76,000
82,500
70.62
68.49
68.65
66.10
On On Second On
Crosstown Crosstown House From Penn
Crosstown Avenue
•
SUBJECT PROPERTY
ADDRESS 6204 Upton Ave So
P.I.D. V 29-028-24-12-0035
Gross Bldg. Area 1288
Year Built 12;1;
Area Rating Good
Building Condition Good
Construction Class Average Above Average
Exterior Finish Wood & Brick
Garages Single attached
Porches Open 56 sq. ft.
Basement Rooms. One
Basement Walkout No
Amusement Room
Air Conditioning No
1st Floor Rooms Five
2nd Floor Rooms
Number Bedrooms 3
Number Baths
Bath Tile: Ceramic
Plastic
Fireplace . s One
Built-in Range-Oven
Built-in Dishwasher
MMENTS: Subject property is located in West Richfield adjacent to
—,Highway 62 Crosstown. Four comparable properties are listed on the
attached sheet.
E.,
SUBJECT PROPERTY
ADDRESS 6204 Upton Ave So
P.I.D. V 29-028-24-12-0035
Gross Bldg. Area 1288
Year Built 12;1;
Area Rating Good
Building Condition Good
Construction Class Average Above Average
Exterior Finish Wood & Brick
Garages Single attached
Porches Open 56 sq. ft.
Basement Rooms. One
Basement Walkout No
Amusement Room
Air Conditioning No
1st Floor Rooms Five
2nd Floor Rooms
Number Bedrooms 3
Number Baths
Bath Tile: Ceramic
Plastic
Fireplace . s One
Built-in Range-Oven
Built-in Dishwasher
MMENTS: Subject property is located in West Richfield adjacent to
—,Highway 62 Crosstown. Four comparable properties are listed on the
attached sheet.
•APPLICANT'S NAME:
ADDRESS: .
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
P.I.D. #:-
MUNIC:
TYPE OF BLDG.:
STORY HEIGHT:
1ST FLOOR AREA:
GROSS BLDG. AREA:
YR. OF CONST.:
CONDITION:
1ST FL. ROOMS:
2ND FL. ROOMS:
BEDROOMS:
BATHS:
*ALF BATHS:
FIN. BSMT. SQ.FT.:
WALKOUT:
FIREPLACE:
AIR COND:
GARAGE AREA:
PORCH AREA:
LOT SIZE:
GRID - COMPARABLE DATA
S. M. Sanford
7000 Portland Ave So
7000 Portland
34- 028 -24 -11 -0071
Richfield
SUBJECT 6617 Park 6821 Clinton 713'9 Clinton 7328 Clinton
PROPERTY COMP #1 COMP #2 COMP #3 COMP #4
14
14
14
14
14
1038
1096
924.
915
848
1285
1334
11.16
1095
1040
1946
1950
1951
1947
1953
Avg
Avg
Avg
Avg
Avg
4
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
4
1
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
415
548
370
275
254
Yes
No
No
No
No
Two
None
One
One
None
No
Yes
No
No
No
572
264
294
352
528
572 E.P.
140 S.P.
430 Deck
216 Deck
121 E.P.
255 S.P.
%
114 x 144
78 x 131
7.5 x 135
75 x 135
50 x 127
COMPS -SALE DATA:.
2 -86
SALE DATE
8 -86
SALE PRICE
80,000
SALE /SQ.FT.
79,000
SUBJECT - ASSESSMENT DATA:
1987 ASSESSMENT
83,000
ASSESSMENT /SQ.FT.
G.F. 80.00
71.70
G.B. 64.60
REMARKS-
G.F.= Ground
Floor Area
G.B. =Gross
Building Area
5 -86
2 -86
8 -86
8 -86
83,900
80,000
79,900
79,000
G.F. 76.55
86.60
87.30
93.15
G.B. 62.90
71.70
7.3.00
76.00
•APPLICANT'S NAME:
ADDRESS: .
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
P.I.D. #:
MUNIC:
TYPE OF BLDG.:
STORY HEIGHT:
1ST FLOOR AREA:
GROSS BLDG. AREA:
YR. OF CONST.:
CONDITION:
1ST FL. ROOMS:
2ND FL. ROOMS:
BEDROOMS:
BATHS:
*ALF BATHS:
FIN. BSMT. SQ.FT.:
WALKOUT:
FIREPLACE:
AIR COND:
GARAGE AREA:
PORCH AREA:
LOT SIZE:
GRID - COMPARABLE DATA
RAMBLERS ON PORTLAND AVENUE
S. M. Sanford
7000 - Portland Ave So
7000 Portland :
34- 028- 24- 11 -oO71
Richfield
SUBJECT
7539 Portland
7609 Portland
6926 Portland
6544 5th Ave
PROPERTY
COMP #1
COMP #2
COMP #3,
COMP 04
1�
1038
1285
1946
Avg
4
1
2'
1
415
Yes
Two
No
572
E.P. 572
S. P. 255
114 x 144
COMPS -SALE DATA:.
SALE DATE
SALE PRICE
SALE /SQ.FT.
SUBJECT - ASSESSMENT DATA:
1987 ASSESSMENT 83,000
ASSESSMENT /SQ.FT. G.F. 80.00
E1•tARKS
G.B. 64.60
�
G F = Ground Floor Ar
. e
G.B. =Gross Euilding Area
1
1106
1106
1952
Avg
5
3
2
553
Two
Yes
336
E.P. 140
S.P. 342 ,
79 x 124
1
1096
10.96
1956
Avg
5
3
1
1
550
Two
Yes
476
E.P. 162
. 8.5 x 124
1
1056
1056
1950
Avg
5
a
2
1
315
One `
Yes
240
75 x 125
1
1091
1091
1956
Avg
5
91
545
Yes
Two
Yes
414
66 x 205
3 -87
5 -86
5 -86
9 -86
91,900
89,900
79,900
90500
83.10 _
82.00
75.70
82.50
k
ME
ILI
SUBJECT PROPERTY
ADDRESS 7000 Portland Ave So
P.I.D. $ 34- 028 -24 -11 -0071
Gross Bldg. Area 128
Year Built 1946
Area Rating Ava.
Building Condition Avg.
•Construction Class Avg,
Exterior Finish Wood & Stone
Garages Double tuck under
Porches 572 aood enclosed
Basement Rooms
Basement Walkout Yes
Amusement Room
Air Conditioning No
1st Floor Rooms Four
2nd Floor Rooms One
Number Bedrooms 2'
Number Baths 1 3/4
Bath Tile: Ceramic
Plastic
Fireplaces Two
Built -in Range -Oven
Built -in Dishwasher
CCbMNTS: Subiect property is a 14 story house.with a first floor livinq area
of 1,038 square feet. Attached to,the rear of the house is a 572 square
foot "enclosed porch" over a basement garage and shop. The "porch "'is
finished and used as a .family room. It has a fireplace but is classified
as a porch because it has no heat ducts. -
Two sheets of comparable sales are attached.
Mr. Sanford would not permit a physical review of this property.
GRID — COMPARABLE DATA
APPLICANT'S NAME: David Hansen _
AD4jSS: 108.Pioneer Try Chaska, Mn 55318
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 6436 Oliver
P.I.D. #: 28- 028 -24 -23 -0005
MUNIC: Richfield
TYPE OF PROPERTY:
1ST FLOOR AREA:
GROSS BLDG. AREA:
YR. OF CONST.:
CONDITION:
# UNITS:
# EFF.:
# 1 BR:
# 2 BR:
# GARAGES:
COOS -SALE DATA:
SALE DATE
SALE PRICE
SALE /SQ. FT.
SALE /UNIT
SUBJECT- ASSESSMENT DATA:
1987 EMV
EMV /SQ. FT.
EMV /UNIT
REMARKS:
1]
468,000
30.60
27,529
-Two buildings
**No carpet or air conditioners
6345
7300 -20
300
6600
SUBJECT
Lyndale
Cedar
W 65th**
10th
PROPERTY
COMP #1
.COMP #2
COMP #3
COMP #4
Apts
Apts
Apts,
Apts
Apts
7647
4423
8898
3096
3060
15294
13629
26694
9288
9180
1961
1961
1965
1961
1961
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
17
22
28
11
12
--
2.2
--
--
1
10
--
16
11
11
7
--
12
--
--
11 -86
11 -85
7 -85
3 -86
49o,000
868,200
300,000
335,000
35.95
32.52
32.30
36.49 ;
22,272
31,007
27,272
27,916
468,000
30.60
27,529
-Two buildings
**No carpet or air conditioners
40
0
A
SUBJECT PROPERTY
ADDRESS 6436 Oliver Ave So
P.L.D. # 2$- 028 -24 -23 -0005
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION MARKET DATA
Number Units 17
Story Height two
1st Floor Area 7647 sq.Ft.
Gross Bldg. Area 15294 Sq.Ft.
Number Baths 17 fW11
Type Construction Masonarg
Exterior Finish Rrirk
Fireplaces Nnna
Bath Tile: Ceramic Yes
Plastic
Year Built 1961 _—
Area Rating Average
Building Condition Average
Construction Class Class D
Garages Nana
Air Conditioning - 1 1.1 11 11 t t
W. (100 %�Occ.) GROSS ANNUAL INCOME $
Sale Amount . . . . . . . $
Sale Date
Sale Terms
Sale Analysis:
Gross Rent Multiplier
Sale. Per Unit $
Sale Per Sq.Ft. G.B.A. $
Sale Per Sq.Ft. N.R.A. $
Building Depreciation %
Capitalization Rate %
Type Units & Rent Schedule:
COMMENTS: