06-23-86 agenda• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 252
Agenda June 23, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members Of The City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Amendment To Subordination Agreement Twin City
Federal Savings &Loan
City Council Members:
In February, 1985, the HRA and City entered into a
Subordination Agreement in favor of Twin City Federal Savings &
Loan Association (TCF) which provided the financing for the
Woodlake Point Condominium. This letter requests the City
Council to amend that agreement. The HRA amended the agreement
at their meeting of June 16, 1986.
Background
The HRA and City entered into a developer's agreement for
the Woodlake Point /Market Plaza projects in May, 1984. This was
prior to the time the developers obtained project financing. The
developer's agreement gave the HRA and City the first right to
take over the project if the developers were unable to complete
it. When financing was obtained by Derrick & Arkell for Woodlake
Point, TCF required that as the mortgage lender they, (TCF),
would have a position superior to the HRA and City. Thus, the
HRA and City approved a Subordination Agreement. The
Subordination Agreement was part of the Second Amendment to the
Developer's Agreement. The Second Amendment provided a process
for the mortgage holder and the HRA /City to select an alternative
developer if Arkell & Derrick were unable to complete the
project. The assessment agreement was also protected by the
Second Amendment.
The sale of Woodlake Point units is behind schedule.
Currently 70 units have been closed, an additional 24 units have
a nonbinding purchase agreement and eleven units are reserved and
yet to be converted to purchase agreements. Originally, the
developer had projected that 150 units would be closed or subject
to a purchase agreement by June 1. By August, 1986, all units
were to be closed or subject to a purchase agreement.
Because of the sales lag, the developers must obtain a
second mortgage from TCF in the amount of $440,000. This second
mortgage must be made subject to the Subordination Agreement.
0
However, the amendment releases those condominium units which
have been completed and sold from the mortgage lien. At the same
time, the buyer accepts responsibility for the assessment
agreement for his /her unit. Those units would be listed on
Exhibit C.
Attached to this letter is the original and amended
Subordination Agreements.
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a motion
approving the Amendment to the Subordination Agreement.
SD /eja
•
C7
Resp �tfully s mitt d,
in 'ch
Acting City Manager
Exhibit B to Second Amendment
i
SliBORDINATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made as of this
day of February,
1985, by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, a Minnesota public body corporate and
Politic ( "HRA"), and the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a
Minnesota municipal corporation ( "City "), in favor of Twin City
Federal Savings and Loan Association, a United States of America
ccrporation ( "TCF")
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the City and the HRA have heretofore entered
into a Contract for the Sale of Land for Private Development
dated May 14, 1984 (the ��
r Agreement ), as amended by First Amend-
ment to Developer's Agreement dated December 27, 1984 (the "First
Amena.-nent ") as further amended b Second cond Amendment to Developer's
Argument dated February _, 1985 (the "Second Amendment "; the
Amendment, First Amendment, and Second Amendment are hereinafter
collectively referred to as the "HRA Agreement "), with Market
Plaza Corp., a Minnesota corporation; The Arkell Development
Corporation, a Minnesota corporation; and E.J. Plesko and
Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation, with respect to the
development of the Project Area as therein defined pursuant to
plans and specifications prepared by
and dated (the "Plans and
Specifications"); and
WHEREAS, Richfield Lake Limited Partnership, a
Minnesota limited partnership ( "Mortgagor ") has executed and
delivered to TCF a certain mortgage (the "Mortgage ") in the
original principal amount of $9,000,000, dated the day of
February, 1985, and recorded on the day of
1985, in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin
County, Minnesota, as Document No. , conveying and
mortgaging the property situated in the County of Hennepin and
State of Minnesota and described on Exhibit A attached hereto
(the "Property "); and
WHEREAS, the HRA Agreement affects the rights of the
parties thereto in and to the Property; and
WHEREAS, it is the mutual desire and intention of the
City, the HRA, and TCF and the purpose of this Agreement to make
the Mortgage in all respects prior and superior to tehe HRA Agree-
ment except as expressly hereinafter provided; and
WHEREAS, TCF requires, as a condition precedent to
advancing funds on the Mortgage, that the City and HRA make
certain representations with respect to the HRA Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of One Dollar ($1) and
other good and valuable consideration, and in order to induce TCF
to advance funds upon the Mortgage, the HRA and the City do
hereby represent to TCF and agree as follows:
1. The City and the HRA have reviewed and approved the
• Plans and Specifications P ursuant to Section 4.6 of the HRA
Agreement.
-2-
•
2. The HRA Agreement is currently. in full force and
effect, and there exists no default or Event of Default
thereunder.
3 The City and the HRA consent to the encumbrance of the
Property by the Mortgage, and acknowledge that the Mortgage is
given for the purpose of obtaining funds to the extent necessary
for making the Improvements,'within the meaning of Section 8.1 of
the ERA Agreement.
4. The City and the HRA acknowledge that TCF is a Holder
within the meaning of Section 8.2 of the HRA Agreement, with an
address of 801 Marquette Avenue South, Minneapolis,
0 Minnesota 55402.
5. Any provision contained in the ERA Agreement to the
contrary notwithstanding, the City and the HPA do hereby agree
with TCF that the Mortgage shall, except as provided in the
Second Amendment, be in all respects prior and superior to the
HRA Agreement, notwithstanding the fact that the ERA Agreement
was executed prior to the execution and recordation of the
Mortgage, and that all right, title, and interest acquired by TCF
either by foreclosure proceedings, deed in lieu of foreclosure,
or otherwise, shall be prior and superior to any and all right,
title, and interest heretofore or hereafter acquired by the ERA
or the City pursuant to the ERA Agreement or otherwise, and the
City and the ERA further agree that TCF and its successors and
assigns shall not, except as provided in the Second Amendment, be
bound by any provision of the ERA Agreement if TCF shall acquire
-3-
I•
I•
0
/3
title to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure,
deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise.
6. This Subordination Agreement will inure to the benefit
of and bind the parties hereto, their heirs, personal representa-
tives, successors, and assigns.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed
this instrument as of the day and year first above written.
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA,
a Minnesota public body
corporate and politic
By
Its
By
Its
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA,
a Minnesota municipal
corporation
By.
Its
By
Its
-4-
r
It
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
} ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this day of , 1985, by
and , the
and of The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of
the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a Minnesota public body,
corporate and politic, on behalf of the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority of the City of Richfield, Minnesota.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
} ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this day of 1985, by
and , the
and of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota.
-5-
Notary Public
EXHIBIT A
(legal description)
That part of Government Lot 2, Section 28,
Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, lying easterly of the center line
of Graham Avenue as described in'Book 2052 of
Deeds, page 639, southerly of the southerly
line of West 65th Street as described in
Book 2053 of Deeds, page 131, Hennepin County
records, northerly of the center line of West
66th Street and westerly and southwesterly of
the following described line.
Beginning at the southwest corner of Govern-
ment Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28,
Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence
north along the west line of said Government
Lot 1 a distance of 33.00 feet; thence north-
westerly deflecting to the left 14 degrees
15 minutes 38 seconds a distance of 224.64
feet to the south line of said West 65th
Street and said line there terminating.
•
I•
•
MAY
AMENDMENT TO
SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made as of this day of
1986, by the Housing and Redevelopr►i:ant Authority of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, a Minnesota public body corporate and
Politic ("ERA"), and the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a
Minnesota municipal corporation ( "City "), in favor of Twin City
Federal Savings and Loan Association, a United States of America
corporation ( "TCF");
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the City and the BRA have heretofore entered
into a Contract for the Sale of Land for Private Development
dated May 14, 1984 (the "Agreement "), as amended by First
Amendment to Developer's Agreement dated December 27, 1984 (the
"First Amendment "), as further amended by Second Amendment to
Developer's Agreement dated February 5, 1985 (the "Second
Amendment "; the Agreement, First Amendment, and Second Amendment
are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "ERA Agreement "),
with Market Plaza Corp., a Minnesota corporation; The Arkell
Development Corporation, a Minnesota corporation; and E.J. Plesko
-and Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation, with respect to the
development of the Project Area as therein defined pursuant to
plans and specifications prepared by Tushie Montgomery
Associates, Inc., and dated November 16, 1984 (the "Plans and
Specifications ");
WHEREAS, Richfield Lake Limited Partnership, a
Minnesota limited partnership ( "Mortgagor ") has executed and
-1-
— �11 --
'It 12 �
delivered to TCF a certain mortgage (the "Mortgage ") in the
original principal amount of $9,000,000, dated the 5th day of
February, 1985, and recorded on the day of ,
1985, in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin
County, Minnesota, as Document No. conveying and
mortgaging the property situated in the County of Hennepin and
State of Minnesota and described on Exhibit A attached hereto,
(the "Property "); and
WHEREAS, a condominium has been formed on the Property,
which is described as shown in Exhibit B hereto, and certain
units of said condominium have been released from the lien of the
Mortgage, which units are shown on Exhibit C hereto; and
WHEREAS, the ERA Agreement affects the rights of the
. parties thereto in and to the Property; and
WHEREAS, the ERA and the City entered into a certain
Subordination Agreement in favor of TCF, made as of February 5,
1986, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D (the
"Subordination Agreement "); and
WHEREAS, Mortgagor has requested that TCF execute and
deliver to it an Agreement Amending Note, Mortgage and
Construction Loan Agreement dated as of , 1986 (the
"Amendment ") pursuant to which the Mortgage and certain other
documents will be amended in certain respects;
WHEREAS, Mortgagor has requested that TCF advance to it
additional funds in the amount of $440,000, which additional
funds are to be secured by a second mortgage on the Property (the
0 "Second Mortgage "); and
-2-
r�
WHEREAS, TCF has required, as a condition precedent to
executing the Amendment or advancing funds on the Second
Mortgage, that the City and the ERA agree that the provisions of
the Subordination'Agreement be made applicable to the Mortgage,
as amended by th` Amendment, and to the Second Mortgage; and
WHEREAS, it is the mutual desire and intention of the
City, the HRA, and TCF and the purpose of this Agreement to make
the Mortgage, as amended by the Amendment, and the Second
Mortgage in all respects prior and superior to the ERA Agreement,
except as expressly provided in the Subordination Agreement; and
NOW, - THEREFORE, in consideration of One Dollar ($1) and
other good and valuable consideration, and in order to induce TCF
to execute the Amendment and to advanced funds upon the Second
Mortgage, the HRA and the City do hereby and agree as follows:
1. Wherever reference is made in the Subordination
Agreement to the Mortgage, each such reference shall be deemed to
refer, collectively, to the (i) Mortgage as amended by the
Amendment, and (ii) the Second Mortgage.
2. This Amendment to Subordination Agreement will inure to
the benefit of and bind the parties hereto, their heirs, personal
representatives, successors, and assigns.
-3-
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed
this instrument as of the day and year first above written.
•
•
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, a
Minnesota public body
corporate and politic
By '
Its
And
By
Its
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA,
a Minnesota municipal
corporation
By
Its
And
By
Its
-4-
0
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
, 0 ) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
•
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this day of , 198_, by and
the and
of The Housing and Redevelopment Authority
of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a Minnesota public body,
corporate and politic, on behalf of The Housing and Redevelopment
Authority of the City of Richfield, Minnesota.
Notary Public
STATE. OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this day of , 198_, by and
the and
of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota.
Notary Public
-5-
EXHIBIT A
(legal description)
That part of Government Lot 2, Section 28,
Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, lying easterly of the center line
of Graham Avenue as described in Book 2052 of
Deeds, page 639, southerly of the southerly
line of West 65th Street as described in
Book 2053 of Deeds, page 131, Hennepin County
records, northerly of the center line of West
66th Street and westerly and southwesterly of
the following described line:
Beginning at the southwest corner of
Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28,
Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence
north along the west line of said Government
Lot 1 a distance of 33.00 feet; thence
northwesterly deflecting to the left 14
degrees 15 minutes 38 seconds a distance of
224.64 feet to*the south line of said West
65th Street and said line there terminating.
EXHIBIT B
Condominium No. 533, Woodlake Point, a Condominium.
is
M
s
EXHIBIT C
(Schedule of released units)
C�
J
- #jam' -
•
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 251
Agenda June 23, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Use of Bicycle Motocross (BMX) Track
Council Members:
Background:
In the late 1970's, at the request of a group of local
residents, the city staff designed and constructed a bicycle
motocross (BMX) facility at Taft Park. However, the group of
local residents felt they did not have the expertise to organize,
promote and conduct races and used a "for profit" race promoter
at the track the first year. Upon learning of this arrangement,
the city indicated the local special interest group organization
would need to conduct the activities. The local club still felt
they were unable to do the work themselves and requested that the
city permit a "nonprofit" race promoter to use the track and
instruct the local group how to promote and conduct races.
This was approved by the city, but the promoters had
problems obtaining insurance coverage and the city was unable to
gain access to the promoter's financial records. Over the next
two or three years, the participants in the local organization
changed and decreased in numbers. The policy for use of the
track changed in terms of responsibility for maintenance of the
track and payment for expenses incurred by the city. The local
organization continued to use an outside promoter to conduct the
races.
Finally, the city and the Community Services Commission
indicated the track would continue to be available on an informal
basis, but would not be available for formal races until a local
organization stepped forward to promote and conduct the races
without the use of an outside promoter. This policy was in
effect through 1985 and into 1986 during which time no formal
races were conducted.
1986 Proposal:
In the early months of 1986, a Minneapolis resident
contacted city staff to inquire about the possibility of again
opening the BMX track at Taft Park for races. This individual,
in addition to a local bike shop owner who was an officer with
the former local club, and a track operator from Shakopee
brought their proposal'to city staff.
At the June 10, 1986 Community Services Commission meeting,
the Minneapolis resident and the Shakopee track operator, along
with five other people, some of whom were Richfield residents,
appeared before the Commission to present a request for use of
the Richfield BMX track in Taft Park. After considerable
discussion, the Commission indicated a willingness to let a local
organization use the Shakopee promoter for 1986 provided:
1. A local organization with a minimum of seven residents
would learn to conduct the activities of the track for
1987 and beyond;
2. That insurance coverage, purported to cover the track,
city, promoter, riders, etc. 24 hours a day for 365 days
a year, would be produced and could be verified;
3. That the financial records of the promoter would be open
and available for city inspection;
4. That outstanding debts due to the city be paid in full;
0 5. That all other requirements of the city were met.
As a result of meetings between the city staff and the
parties interested in the Richfield BMX track, the attached
proposed memorandum agreement has been produced.
It appears the majority of requirements, as outlined by the
Community Services Commission and the city staff, are being met.
The exception is that insurance coverage is still a question.
Both the city staff and the special interest group are hoping the
insurance question will be resolved by city council meeting of
June 23, 1986.
Insurance Considerations
On Thursday, June 19, representatives from the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust were out to the City of
Richfield to conduct a routine inspection of city facilities.
Pursuant to inquiries regarding the insurability of the BMX
track, LMCIT inspectors visited the BMX track. In response to
that review, LMCIT strongly recommended that the city put an
eight foot chain link fence entirely around the BMX track. LMCIT
felt the fence was necessary whether or not the track would be
used for organized races. In addition, they recommended that the
track be brought up to proper operating condition. The LMCIT
. inspectors did not feel the track was currently in a good, safe
usable condition. They stated that at such time as the track was
fenced off and upgraded, LMCIT would either re -quote our
liability insurance based on having the track, or if they chose
not to insure the city, advise the city to purchase speciality
coverage for the track. In addition, LMCIT said that the city
should immediately sign the BMX track warning youth not to use
it. A candid observation made by LMCIT inspectors to Personnel
Manager, Howard Rowland, was that the city may want to consider
simply leveling the BMX track and eliminating the city's
liability exposure.
The insurance certificates submitted to the city by Dave
Fisher the Shakopee promoter, names the city as an additional
insured covering BMX racing events. However, the insurance
company which backs up the certificate, Pacific International
Insurance Company, is not licensed to conduct business in the
State of Minnesota. This was verified by a telephone call to the
Minnesota Insurance Commissioners office. In addition, the
insurance company does not have an AM Best Rating (AM Best is a
company which weighs the financial strength and incurred losses
of particular insurance companies doing business). Based on this
information and discussion with the LMCIT, it would not be in the
city's interests to accept the insurance coverage submitted.
The City of Eden Prairie (see attached article) was
presented with a similar opportunity to conduct BMX sanctioned
events on a track in Eden Prairie by the same promoter. However,
the City of Eden Prairie was also not satisfied with the
insurance presented to the City. Ultimately the City of Eden
Prairie elected not to have BMX events, and is faced with
insurance coverage for their BMX track or destroying the track.
As you can see from the attached article, their track has been
fenced off and posted for 'No Trespassing. Eden Prairie also has
insurance with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust.
It is the writers opinion that the City of Richfield is in
an especially precarious position with the BMX track because of
the large amount of self- insurance the City of Richfield assumes.
The first dollar costs on losses would be paid directly from the
City of Richfield's self- insurance funds.
Staff Recommendation
Based upon the most recent information from the League of
Minnesota Insurance Trust and the information gathered on the
insurance certificate presented by the proposed promoter of the
BMX events, it is the recommendation of city staff that:
A. No organized BMX activity be allowed on the BMX track,
and
•
B. That the city demolish the BMX track and eliminate the
potential liability. In addition, the city would save
the cost required to completely fence off the area
(which might be somewhere in the $12,000 - $15,000
range), and would save incurring additional insurance
premiums.
SD /eja
•
•
Resp
ft
fully submitted,
even L. Devic 14
Acting City Manager
t ;
I�
•
JACK A. DONAHEY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
3110 FIRST AVENUE NORTH, SUITE 2 -H
P.O. BOX 12632
ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA 33733
PHONE (813) 323 -4366 TELEX 752000
COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE
$500,000 or $1,000,000 CSL Limit of Liability Covered $choose C.S.L.
Type of Policy: Comprehensive General Liability with Broad Form Endorsement, including
OL&T and General Liability. Coverage designed to protect you, your spouse and your employees
automatically. Protection for corporate members, members of partnerships or individuals.
* Spectator (Public) Liability - Racing (Bodily Injury and Property Damage)
* Participants Injury Liability
* Non - Racing Liability - O1 &T (at your premises 365 days a year)
* Mobile Equipment Liability
* Completed Operations
* Products Liability
* Food and Beverage Liability
* Contractural Liability
* Personal Injury Liability
* Advertising Liability
* Premises Medical Payments
* Host Liquor Liability
* Fire Legal Liability
* Property Damage - Extended (Pit and Paddock)
* Incidental Medical Malpractice Liability
* World Wide Scope
* Extended Bodily Injury (Assualt and Battery)
* Newly Acquired Operations
* Defense Costs (Investigative and Legal)
* Unauthorized Persons Liability (Pit and Track)
ALL THE ABOVE COVERAGES ARE INCLUDED IN EVERY BMX RACING INSURANCE POLICY
ISSUED BY JACK A. DONAHEY AND ASSOCIATES, INC. WHEN CHOOSING YOUR RACING
INSURANCE. COVERAGE, BE SURE THAT YOU ARE GETTING WHAT YOU ARE PAYING
FOR. LESS COVERAGE FOR LESS MONEY IS NEVER A BARGIN.
Service Through 1
Ki
AND ADDRESS OF AGENCY
Jack A. Donahey and Associates, Inc.
Service Through Insurance
3110 First Avenue North, Suite 2 -H
P. O. Box 12632
St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
Phone (813) 323 -4366 Telex 752000
Binder No.
6 -111
COMPANY
Pacific International Insurance Com any
Effective am May 1, 19
Expires r:K] 12:01 am ❑ Noon May 1 19 87
[:]This binder is issued to extend coverage in the above named
company per expiring policy #
texceot as notes oeiowi
NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS OF INSURED
Description of Operation I Vehicles/ Property
American Bicycle Association, Inc.
_ Mr. Benard Anderson
Bicycle Motocross and Racing Events
1040 Blanco Road
San Antonio, Texas 78212
Type and Location of Property
Coverage /Perils /Forms
Amt of Insurance
Ded.
o:,"`'
P
R
.,
O
P
E
R
T
Y
Type of Insurance
Coverage /Forms
Limits of Liability
Each Occurrence
Aggregate
L
❑ Scheduled Form ® Comprehensive Form
Bodily Injury
$
$ a,
0 Premises /Operations
CGL - BF
z
L
Products /Completed Operations
FILL
Property Damage
$
$
Bodily Injury &
® Contractual
OL &T
T
Y']
Other (specify below)
Property Damage
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,000,000
Med. Pay. $ 5000 Per $ 5000 Per
Combined
Person Accident
Personal Injury
A B C
❑ ❑ ❑
rsona Pel
Injury
$ in c.
Limits of Liability
A
U
❑ Liability ❑ Non -owned ❑ Hired
Bodily Injury (Each Person) $
T
❑ Comprehensive- Deductible $
Bodily Injury (Each Accident) $
O
❑ Collision - Deductible $
Property Damage $
M
El Medical Payments $
B
I
❑ Uninsured Motorist. $
L
E
❑ No Fault (specify):
Bodily Injury & Property Damage
❑ Other (specify):
Combined $
❑ WORKERS' COMPENSATION — Statutory Limits (specify states below) ❑ EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY — Limit - $
SPECIAL CONDITIONS /OTHER COVERAGES Administrative Office: ABA
$3,000. Accidental Death & Dismemberment (per schedule) Mr. Clayton John, Ares.
$3,000. Hospital and r4edical Excess 6501 Vest Frye Road
$200. Deductible P.O. Box 718
ABA member & license only - as reported Chandler, A7.. 85244
NAME AND ADDRESS OF ❑ MORTGAGEE D LOSS PAYEE ❑ ADD'L INSURED
LOAN NUMBER
f* l �SrfgrAtture of Authorized Representative
ACORD 75 (11177 -c)
16yG -14(`!
PRODUCER
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS
J Jack A. Donahey and Associates, Inc.
Service Through Insurance
3110 First Avenue North, Suite 2 -H
P. O. Box 12632
NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND,
EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POUCIEP BEL
COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGL
St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
Phone (813j 323 -4366 Tellee x 752000
COMPANY A Pacific International Insurance Company
LETTER P Y
COMPAN
LETTER Y B
INSURED
LETTER COMPANY C
American Bicycle Association, Inc.
COMPANY p
LETTER
COMPANY E
LETTER
,COVERAGES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUEDTO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED.
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY
BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS, AND CONDI-
TIONS OF SUCH POLICIES.
CO
LTR
TYPE OF INSURANCE
POLICY NUMBER
POLICY EFFECTIVE
DATE (MWDDIYY)
POLICY EXPIRATION
DATE (MMWIYY)
LIABILITY LIMITS IN THOUSANDS
EACH
OCCURRENCE
A'C'C"0TE
GENERAL
LIABILITY
COMPREHENSIVE FORM
BODILY
INJURY
$
$
PROPERTY
DAMAGE
$
PREMISESIOPERATIONS
EXPLOSION & COLLAPSE HAZARD
$
PRODUCTSICOMPLETED OPERATIONS
CONTRACTUAL
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
6 - 111 - 57
5/1/86
5/1/87
81 & P ED
COMB
$ 1000
$ 1000
BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE
PERSONAL INJURY
Partici ant Legal L
ability
PERSONAL INJURY
$ Inc.
AUTOMOBILE
LIABILITY
ANY AUTO
BppEy
VJJRY
PERSON)
$
ALL OWNED AUTOS (PRIV. PASS.)
ALL OWNED AUTOS PRIV T)
"
BORLY
kkft (PER ACCIDENT)
$
HIRED AUTOS
NON -OWNED AUTOS
PROPERTY
DAMAGE
$
GARAGE LIABILITY
BI a PD
COMBINED
$
EXCESS LIABILITY
UMBRELLA FORM
BI & PD COMBINED
$
$
OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
STATUTORY
$ (EACH ACCIDENT)
AND
$ (DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT)
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
$ (DISEASE -EACH EMPLOYEE)
oTffembers ip on�yense
Participant Accident
Coverage
6 - 111 - .,7
5/1/86
5/1/87
3,000. Med. Excess
200. Deductible
91PTJON OF OPE TI ATIONSIVEHICLESISPECIAL
�racine
ITEMS
is is a master
insurance coverage issued to the ABA Mr Cla t J h P
sanctio.
.tracks
1'iehfield BMX
c/o Dave Fisher
15 Valley Haven Park
Shakopee, MN 55379
Citv of Richfield
. y on o n, res.
X racing events, licensed membership, P.O. Box 718
ng owners, riders, promoters, landowners 6501 Frve Road
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICM BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EX-
PIRATION3DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO
MAIL DAYS WRITTEN N CE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE
LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE N�TION OR LIABILITY
OF AN IND UP HE C PAN , ITS AGENTS OR REP NTATIVES.
—�=
y
777 y �",,., �?!;�;f'.- '"`.+$•)
7a t •+�Sh �1�7M i
G3
z �s
t9 Z
z_
G R
C �
G
C Y.
4 V Z
� W
m ec
t C C
.+ L: Oa
V `
_
W_
J a
e�dr
L3
r v Y C
-
v� _
L T
C ^
r y v
av °=
•s �
t
C a �
C
ad�� =sue
v CHO•• -`za cooE�E
L C •W+ • .O R G s .".. G >• L ._ R N
X
oN=$ oc odc'c
_ 5Rd oc�E_dc c,
'> .� Gd
> _ u E
E e
F$ °N- t E o c 3 'o
viV yW- TL7 vi v'.�.�EC' VV �O'C 'O aUi >d
�de >.dRy• ^N RyLLOdd V
W C.3 d UX N R'09 N�.L+ Il. 14 O r d N`y N A a: z.
d y G
�'uooe�oo°p3aR.iyr�`�c�� HEM <o'u >��
cZs c
i W, M, W u 5 z2 &
= o u•> �.O F.T.
'L•' W L N v y L 'O
7 O OC
L L d O
R t4
d
cc o d V C V E L
` O N O N d u d
,,0-
- c Y
t
' G.y_ E 'oc GQ :S :S ZS
O R r C V ^ C N Y U O= e c C
•ufl V V V G
rGi y^ r U y t v V d
O�L •O C V O c0 v' ° V O N .L.+'°.' ` r V V
e `"`_ c odccmcEdoc oaf
3X � � d y V. ° U Y•^ L
.2.m d W` O d d
R 'O •V L d E C O W d G. C
S°c%:.`:
C o•da
E.E.2
oLde $ «S 6; sEdx Sc nuc oc °E°`' o
d 'O f6 R V v
U C
C V O 'O 7 . EC W C 0
LWNNVd
y
Aux z= do E� _ uzca;cac E y•E vi
° uae zu '3sY.°. $ G e 4d'c •�' `c Nz 3 5 E
=�ry Crdu c¢ =e' - E�c E ��yG�G=
i .>,•L.,�$j=y "4 > =@ zocc W <ecc 3 c aul tt ~"L oN Up
W
O L =�La T 7 `� V Ci - y RL C Y aN. v CL. C
L6 d W C._. GC^.C� C d y V •O�
y� c eu., ° u � ._ J u z •'� y u d :o •>
oa5uuc �n�Xa,o4= Lh��ac0.
U$'u 3�y - $`o v.. N 3da 3�'p •`°� `�,5�E
^ Z:• E d C L �• CC `^ L V •O >. >. d T d L L d y
y v ai •� R 4: > o •o C a, sr `� R a. o[ W >
•Q « ^. C V 1 O E CL W .. G 12 ... .LRi E> L a.
N aWj E d o u Z V.L.+ y tU
z O V U L r N V v C r
d u^ d> v _c- RE _ R^ G=
u o c "« 'v c L) G- u
> d T `.+ V •- R V ^ O d '^ R d. L E m y OC �• Y
C W V iL G V S
CL R... c O C[ v V •^•c.rY G�
o '`.' � R N= V d °zz
r
:Ei C' V
t✓L �'L rry C. CaW. L...VOCCO Ly'`CCC�•5 �'V �,L
E V
V CL u G.. R V v fyS ` L
N g
U V R r L N OC C C L = C
R _
I , /
June 23, 1986 DRAFT
MEMORANDUM AGREEMENT
This Memorandum Agreement outlines the terms and conditions under
which Hawk BMX will be conducting bicycle motocross (BMX) races
in the City of Richfield at the Taft Park track.
1. Evidence of insurance, satisfactory to the City, must be
provided by Hawk BMX.
2. All Richfield youth will race free at any single point race
scheduled at the Richfield track. Richfield youth will pay
one -half the fee for double point and /or triple point races.
3. Hawk BMX will pay the City of Richfield $.50 per paid rider
after each race.
4. Hawk BMX will award trophies or plaques to racers from first
through eighth place who qualify for the main event.
• 5. The Richfield track will be an American Bicycle Association
(ABA) sanctioned track and will operate only ABA sanctioned
races.
•
6. All race dates and times will be agreed upon in advance by
the Richfield Community Services Director.
7. Hawk BMX will promote, register, conduct and clean up the BMX
track after a scheduled race.
8. Spectator vehicles will be parked in the proper designated
areas and proper crowd control will be provided by Hawk BMX.
9. A "Make A Wish Of Minnesota" race will be dedicated at one of
the Richfield races for a free bicycle and free race to a boy
40 or girl designated by Make A Wish Of Minnesota.
-10. A certified emergency technician will be provided by Hawk BMX
and be in attendance at each race.
11. No individual will be permitted to use the track on race day
unless they have and wear safety equipment including helmet,
bike pads, long pants, elbow pads and a long sleeved shirt.
12. No sale, possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages
will be allowed in the park, including the track property.
13. Hawk BMX books and financial statements will be open to city
staff upon request.
•
14. The maintenance of the track, including mowing around the
track vicinity, will be the responsibility of Hawk BMX.
15. The selling of concessions will be the privilege and
responsibility of the local Richfield BMX Association who
must obtain the appropriate vendor licenses.
This agreement is for 1986 only. It is understood that Hawk BMX
or any other outside operator will not be allowed to continue in
1987. In order for the Richfield BMX track to run in 1987, it
must be operated and sanctioned through the local Richfield BMX
Association.'
CITY OF RICHFIELD
HAWK BMX
Its
Date:
Its
0 Date:
:7
RICHFIELD BMX ASSOCIATION
Its
Date:
June 23, 1986
DAY
Saturday
Friday
•
Friday
RICHFIELD TAFT PARK BMX TRACK 1986 RACE DATES
DATE REGISTRATION TIME
July 19 9:00 AM - 11:00 AM
August 1 4:30 PM - 6:00 PM
August 15 4:30 PM - 6:00 PM
RACE TIME
12:00 Noon
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
Friday August 29 4:30 PM - 6:00 PM 7:OO PM
Plus six races being considered for September and October
lu
C�
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members Of The City Council
City of Richfield
Council Letter No. 250
Agenda June 23, 1986
Subject: Consideration of Council Actions Relating to the
Non- Conforming Structure /Variance Action at
7645 Emerson Avenue
Council Members:
Background:
Members of the council may recall that at the city council
meeting of August 12, 1985, the council heard a request from Mr.
Donald Saeger for a variance to reduce the rearyard setback for
• his home at 7645 Emerson Avenue from 25 feet to three feet.
Briefly, the issue involved is the fact that Mr. Saeger's home
was built before the existing zoning code requirements had been
adopted for our community. The home was built on the very rear
portion of the lot with a rearyard setback of approximately three
feet, rather than the current required setback of 25 feet. For
years, the home had simply been considered a proper nonconforming
use of the property. However, under these circumstances no
improvements in such a structure can occur without either
bringing the structure into compliance with the current zoning
code or obtaining a variance which would properly allow the
structure to continue to exist in a manner which is in conflict
to the current zoning code.
The action related to this matter resulted from the fact
that in early 1985 Mr. Saeger started to construct a dormer
on his home. He did this without obtaining proper building
permits even though he knew a building permit was required, and
without attempting to seek the required variance. In May of
1985, the Inspection Division of the Public Safety Department
issued a "stop work order" on the Saeger project. To compound
the problem, the Saeger home is within the ILN redevelopment
district. At the time of construction on the dormer to the home,
a building moratorium had been established within the ILN area
(in which the Saeger home is located) by the city council.
is Therefore, had Mr. Saeger properly applied for the required
variance and building permit, such requests would have been
denied. In Mr. Saeger's letter to the city council on May 30,
1985, he stated that he was aware of all of these issues, but
nevertheless chose to proceed with his construction project.
The Hearing Process:
Following the issuance of the "stop work order" on May 6,
1985, Mr. Saeger attempted to obtain a variance to complete his
construction of the dormer. At this point construction was
nearly complete, but exterior siding and trim had not been
installed. The incomplete dormer is, therefore, somewhat
unsightly, and this has resulted in complaints from some of the
neighboring residents.
On June 25, 1985, the Planning Commission voted
unanimously not to hear the variance request based upon the ILN
building moratorium. The variance request was then appealed to
the city council on August 12, 1985. Following proper hearing on
the matter the council voted unanimously to deny the variance to
the rearyard setback and stipulated that the building be brought
into compliance within 120 days.
This stipulation could be accomplished in only one of two
ways: removal of the illegally constructed dormer, or moving the
entire home forward on the property to conform with the rearyard
setback requirements of the city zoning code. Attached to this
council letter is a copy of the materials furnished to the
council during this hearing process.
Issues Related to Enforcement of Council Action:
As noted above, to bring the structure into compliance with
the zoning code would require that Mr. Saeger either remove the
improperly constructed dormer or move the home on the lot to
conform with the zoning code requirements. Following the
council denial of the variance request on August 12, 1985, Mr.
Saeger contacted the Chief Building Official on August 13, 1985
to discuss obtaining a building permit for a new foundation so
that he could relocate the house and thereby bring it into
compliance with the rearyard setback requirements of the zoning
code. However, because of the building moratorium the Public
Safety Department could not issue the required building permits
to either remove the dormer which had been constructed
improperly, or move the home. Therefore, there has been no
progress to date to enforce compliance with the council action of
August 12, 1985.
Current Status of Issue:
On March 17, 1986 the council gave second reading approval
to an amendment to the ILN moratorium allowing for construction
projects of $25,000 or less. The amendment became effective on
April 24, 1986. It would appear that a building permit could
now be issued to remove the dormer. It is uncertain whether a
building permit could be issued to move the house since no price
estimates of this option have been received. While th -e city can
• now enforce the action taken by the city council on August 12,
1985, a concern has developed with regard to allowing the
property owner to make any significant new investment in the
property since this property may be acquired by the city in
connection with the ILN project. The additional investment would
increase the cost to the city of this acquisition.
At the hearing before the city council on August 12, 1985
Mr. Saeger's attorney, Jerry Probst, stated that Mr. Saeger would
forego any added value of the addition if the variances were
granted and the house was acquired for ILN redevelopment.
However, the city has no formal agreement with regard to this
commitment.
An examination of the proposal by Mr. Probst, however,
indicates there may be one additional option the city council
might consider. Because of the potential additional acquisition
costs to the city should this property be acquired for the ILN
project, the city attorney's office has reviewed the potential
for the issuance of a temporary variance. This is not a process
which had been used in the past, but the potential cost
implications to the city in this particular situation may make
this an appropriate alternative for consideration. This option
would permit the city to issue the building permit necessary to
complete the exterior of the dormer and resolve the present
. appearance problem. The city attorney has prepared the attached
resolution which the council might consider if there is any
interest in this alternative.
Under the terms of the proposed temporary variance,
completion of the dormer would be required within 30 days of such
issuance. Additionally, the property owner would be offered the
opportunity to enter into an agreement with the city and the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority to base any potential
acquisition cost on the fair market value of the property less
any cost related to bringing the property into compliance with
the zoning code. The matter would be reviewed again by the city
council after a period of 180 days. Failure of the owner to
complete the construction project within 30 days, or enter into
the proposed agreement with the city within 30 days, would be
cause for cancellation of any temporary variance authorized by
the council. The temporary variance would also be terminated
upon the voluntary or involuntary conveyance of the property to a
third party.
There are two basic options the council may wish to consider
with regard to this matter. These options would include:
1. The council may wish to simply reaffirm their
action of August 12, 1985, denying a variance to the
property and ordering that the dwelling be brought
into compliance with the existing zoning code. The
city could now issue the required building permits to
melll___3
either move the structure into conformance on-the
property or remove the dormer. Additionally, the city
would take any required enforcement action necessary to
accomplish this objective.
2. An alternative option for council consideration would
involve the granting of a temporary variance for this
property, as outlined in the foregoing letter.
Because of the unusual complexity of this issue, and the
time delay on the original council consideration of this matter
due to issues related to the moratorium, city staff thought it
would be proper for the council to review this matter again at
this time.
The circumstances involved in this issue are unique.
Enforcement action with regard to the zoning and building code
violations could result in a substantial increase in property
value to bring the home into compliance. The result to the city
in this value added to the property would result in a significant
increase in acquisition costs should the property be acquired as
a part of the ILN project.
Based upon all of these considerations it would seem to be
in the public interest to utilize the temporary variances option
now available for council consideration for this rather unique
situation. While the temporary variance would not provide final
resolution of the problem, it would provide a temporary solution
until the city had finalized plans with regard to the ILN
redevelopment district.
Recommendation:
It is, therefore, the recommendation of the Director of
Public Safety, in which I concur, that council adopt the attached
resolution granting a temporary variance for the property at 7645
Emerson Avenue.
SD /eja
•
Resp fully b. mt ed, Devi
Acting City Manager
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GRANTING
TEMPORARY VARIANCE
7645 EMERSON
WHEREAS, during the summer of 1985 City staff members became
aware of certain construction activities occurring at 7645
Emerson Avenue South; and
WHEREAS,,. the construction involved the building of a dormer
on the second floor of the single family residence located on the
site; and
WHEREAS, a review of City records disclosed:
a) The single family residential structure located on the
property was a lawful non - conforming use, having been
originally built under an ordinance which permitted it
to be located near the rear lot line of the property;
b) The recent new construction to the property extin-
guished the legal non - conforming use condition of the
property;
0 c) The construction was undertaken by the owner without
obtaining a building permit;
d) In order to permit the issuance of a building permit,
it would have been necessary for the owner to obtain a
variance from the provisions of the City's zoning
regulations to permit the building to be located within
the rear yard setback area applicable to buildings in
the residential districts;
e) Prior to the commencement of construction, no applica-
,tion was made by the property owner for any such
variances; and
f) On May 6, 1985, the Inspection Division of the Depart-
ment of Public Safety issued a "stop work" order to
prevent the property owner from continuing construction
until such proper variance was obtained; and
WHEREAS, the owner of the property appeared before the City
Planning Commission on June 25, 1985 and requested the issuance
of such variances; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission refused to hear the
request for variance based upon an action of the City Council
. effective in March of 1985 to place a moratorium on the granting
of variances or allowing of construction in the ILN area, in
which said property is located; and
r
• WHEREAS, the owner of the property appeared before the City
Council on August 12, 1985 and requested the issuance of such
variances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council voting to deny such variances
stipulated that the building be brought into compliance within
120 days; and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned moratorium prevented the owner
from either removing the dormer which had been constructed
without proper variance and permits, or moving the entire struc-
ture forward- -on the lot so as to bring the building into confor-
mity with existing zoning regulations; and
WHEREAS, there is a pending need to resolve this matter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has amended the aforementioned
moratorium to permit certain construction of less than $25,000,
provided such construction is permitted under existing zoning
regulations; and
WHEREAS, prior to the owner's appearance before the City
Council, the City and the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment
Authority have adopted the ILN Redevelopment Plan which created a
redevelopment district including 7645 Emerson Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, the plan gives rise to the possibility that certain`
lands within the district, including 7645 Emerson, may be
acquired for purposes in furtherance of the redevelopment plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield as follows:
1. The construction of a dormer on the second floor of the
residence located at 7645 Emerson Avenue South constitutes
an expansion and extension of a non - conforming use in
violation of Section 3.29 of the Richfield Ordinance Code.
2. The construction of a dormer on the second floor of the
residence located at 7645 Emerson Avenue South without a
building permit constitutes a violation of Section 3.03 of
the Richfield Ordinance Code.
3. The removal of the residential structure to a location on
the lot outside of the rear yard setback area would remove
the existing violation of Section 3.29 and permit the
property owner to apply for and receive the necessary
building permits.
4. Such removal would, however, create the potential for
0 increased acquisition costs should the HRA subsequently
determine to acquire the property in connection with the
Project.
@I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
- Council Letter No. 296
Agenda August 12, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for a Variance to the Rearyard
Setback Requirements to Allow Construction
Of a Second Story Addition to the Dwelling
at 7645 Emerson Avenue
Council Members:
PROPOSAL
Mr. Donald Saeger has requested a variance to allow him to
complete a second story addition which he has partially'
constructed on his dwelling at 7645 Emerson Avenue. Mr. Saeger
began construction of this addition without first obtaining.the
necessary variances or building permits to do so. The building.
inspector discovered the construction and issued a stop work
order.
The existing dwelling is a nonconforming structure which
does not meet the city's rearyard setback requirements. The
structure has a rearyard of approximately 3 feet instead of the
required 25 foot setback. The staff can find no record of
variances being granted for the dwelling. The second story
addition would not increase the setbacks of the dwelling.
However, city ordinance prohibits the expansion of nonconform-
ing structures. Therefore, to allow the construction to go
ahead, the city would have to grant a variance to the rearyard
setback requirements in an "R" residential district.
The dwelling is also in the ILN study area and subject to
the building moratorium currently in place.
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
1. Section 3.29, subdivision 11 indicates that
nonconforming.stuctures can not be expanded.
2. Section 3.30, subdivision 5, requires that a single
family dwelling in an R residence district must ahave a
25 foot rearyard setback.
-2-
3. Section 3.40, subdivision 6, lists the three conditions
which must be met for a variance to be granted.
STAFF REVIEW
Staff has reviewed the proposal against the three conditions
which must be met for a variance to be granted and found the
following:
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions
affecting this land not common to other properties or
similar districts.
It is staff's opinion that there are no special
circumstances present on this site. The site has an area
greater than the minimum area required for a residential lot, it
is similar to other lots in the arne a and is of regular shape.
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment or substantial property
rights.
It is staff's opinion that denial of the variance request
would not preclude reasonable use of the property. The - existing
single family residential use could continue on the site if the
variance is denied.
3. That the granting of the application will not
materially and adversely affect the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood and
will not be materially etrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to improvements in the
neighborhood. '
It is staff's opinion that the granting of the variance
could adversely effect the general public welfare. While the
addition does not increase the nonconformity of the structure,
it would set a bad precedent. The property owner chose to
ignore city codes and ordinances in constructing this dwelling
which-, if allowed to stand, would set a bad precedent for
ordinance enforcement in the city. The structure is also in the
area covered by the ILN building moratorium, and the
construction activity violates the ILN moratorium provisions as
well as the city building code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of this variance request because the
three• "conditions for granting a variance have not been met.
10
-3-
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At their regular meeting on June 25; 1985, the planning -
.ccmmission•voted unanimously (6 -0) to recommend that the City
Council refuse to hear the variance request since the city's ILN
moratorium states that no variances or substantial construction
will occur in that area and that the City Council direct the
staff to instruct the applicant to restore the structure to its
original state.
Res a tfully bmitted,
e en evic -
Acting City Manager
SLD /eja
4
1
F
r
r
0
3/!b NOS83Y43
m
Li
3/!b NOS83Y43
VI
S
•
O '
H '
D
0
a
If
•
•
11111111111II
IIIt11I�I1111�1�I�I11�i
Ittl ►ti lltllttitllllitl
I� ► ►I�I�Itiftlilt ►i�l�t
ItIt111�1�1�1�►�'�Ilt�l
IIIII ►Ittlltlt►t�tlllll
�I�IiI�I11�1�I11�1�i�1
Ill�l�lllllll�itf�il {�
,I,I,I,I11,I,I,ilt,t,l
I�IIIIIItltlilllilltl�
I, I, III,I,1,t,t,111,I,I,i,1,1,1,1,1
I, I, I,III,1,1,111,11111,I,I,I,I,f,l
I, t, ltl,l,illil'I,t,t,11111,11t,1,t
111, 111,I,t,i,{1111,1111t,111,1,1,1
1, I, I,��1,�,I,t,Il1t111111�1t,�,�11
I, f, t,l,I,t111til,ill,titlt,l,l,i,i
IIItItitlilltlllll
IIIItfllittitllt {�I�I�I�I�I�t�tll�l ..
I,,, 1111111, {,1it,11t11,111i1,i, 1,1 _..
tiltt111111trII111111tI1i11tilltlll
Itt1111111i1 {III {IIlf�lititfllfiill
I�IIIt1 11111tllttllllllt11111�1�111
, t, 1 ,i11,t1t,11t,iil,l,l,l,l,litlt,
• III111I�I�If11111 111i1111�tlitlilil
• 111fiti�lltlllill�llitilltl�lllliil
IIItI� {II�tI111t1tlfllttit1�1111111
III IIII�I�IIIIIIItl�ltltt tltl�I111i
11{ It11tl1ttt1tlt111lllitll�ltl�l�l '
IIf�IIt1 111�i111tlllllit1�1�1111111
I�IIIII II�Iftfllllt It �t�t�llll,l,t
1111111 1111�1t11111�illtllflllf�
, 1,1,111,1,1,111,11111,1,1,1,1,1
tit {1�{1,1,111,t {t, 1,1,1,1,1,1
rI,1,I,IrIrIrl,Itlrl,l,l�ir1,
111111
., 111111,1,1 I
I I 1 1't
I,t {111,111 I
{,11{1,111, I
1,111111111
illltlltill I
11111111111 I 1
111111
Z 1'tir'illl� �
p 1;1;1;11;1
111111
111111
t (� 11111111111
Q 1�1�1�1�1�1
Ijlj ►jljljl I � I
1,1�1�1,1�1
NOiltaQd ► -
W
Z
J
fi
O
O
c
cc
O
W
lz
4 II
1
I
0
L,
Copied from original handwritten letter
May 30, 1985
Planning Division
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave. S.
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Commission Members:
The reason for this letter is to explain my need for a
variance. My home is not large enough to house-my family, a
wife and two boys, adequately so I needed to add an additional
room to serve as my sons bedroom. The square footage of my
house is only 821 with the addition.
My wife and I explored the possibilities of moving into a
larger home, but because of my self - employed status and lack of
steady work, we were not able to qualify financially. Our
second son was born July 16, 1984, which forced us to add a
large enough bedroom for both boys. The two bedrooms existing
before the addition were only 10 X 12 and 5 X 9 without closet
space. Since we really enjoy the area we live in now, with our
oldesti sons school close by and our church across the street,
combined with our financial difficulties, moving seemed
impossible.
• _A
I'm in the construction field and was able to-add the
bedroom with.the help of my family and friends for very little
cost. All that remains to be finished is the siding and
exterior trim. I was aware at the time that I built the bedroom
that I was going against the City ordinance. I felt my personal
circumstances forced me to do this. Nine years ago when .I
purchased this house it was vacant and condemned. Over the
years I have strived to improve, this house to serve as a home
for my family.
At this point in time, I am extremely sorry for breaking the
Richfield City laws by not obtaining the variance and permit
required. I am also very sorry for the time and trouble, and
any inconveniences I have caused Sivert Hendrickson, Building
Official.
•
Sincerely,
Council Meeting Minutes -6- August 12, 1985
. Council Member Ludeman questioned the need to invoke the
code since the building was a school prior to its current uses.
Council Member Priebe asked if the school district used the
building as a school again, would the same requirements apply.
Sivert Hendrickson replied that since the use had changed,
the new code must be applied. If it were reused as a school,
the new Fire Code requirements would not apply.
Frank Riley, 6915 Portland Avenue, spoke in support of .
granting the special use permit.
Bob Jensen, 7328 Freemont Avenue, Planning Commission
Member, stated that the intention of the commission stipulation
to bring the building to code was to send a message to the
School District to take action. He said that nothing had been
done to bring Elliot School up to code in two years since
another group had been allowed to occupy a portion of that
building with the stipulation that the code violations be
corrected.
M /Bunce, S /Ludeman to close the public hearing .
• Motion carried 5 -0 .
M /Ludeman, S /Bunce to grant a Special Use Permit to operate
a day care center at 7001 Elliot Avenue to the Richfield
Latch Key Child Care enter with the following stipu ation
1. That fire code violations in the building be
corrected to the satisfaction of the Public Safety
Department within 24 months.
Motion carried 5 -0.
Item #7 COUNCIL CONSIDERATION-OF A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE 0
THE REARYARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
OF A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO THE DWELLING AT 7645
EMERSON AVENUE C.L. 296
Community Development Director Kraft reviewed Council Letter
296 recommending denial of a request for a variance to the
rearyard setback requirements to allow construction of.a second
story addition to the dwelling at 7645 Emerson Avenue.
Don Saeger, 7645 Emerson Avenue, stated he knowingly built
the addition without the required permits or variance because of
• his personal and financial situation.
In response to questions from Council Members, Assistant
City Attorney Dean stated that the council should take action to.
deny or approve the variance.
�///0 -
Council Meeting Minutes -7- August 129 1985
Jerry Probst, Attorney for Mr. Saeger, stated that Mr.
Saeger would forego any added value of the addition if the
variance were granted and the house was acquired for the I.L.N.
Redevelopment.
Mayor Hamilton stated that there was no certainty at this
time that the house would be. acquired.
Mr. Probst indicated Mr. Saeger would be willing to move the
house to the center of the lot to make it a conforming
structure.
M /Ludeman, S /Priebe to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 5 -0.
M /Priebe, S /Bunce to deny a variance to the rear and setback
requirements to allow construction o a second stor
4merson enue aaddition o the dwelling at 7 n
to
sti u ate.t at the building be brought into COMP1 ance ,
within 120 days.
Motion carried 5 -0.
�l
M
N
d'
■� 0
U)
MC
�i
E
■
i
0 i
cc
•
June 17, 1986
Mr. Donald Saeger
7645 Emerson Avenue South
Richfield,.Minnesota 55423
Dear Mr. Saeger:
I would like to confirm our telephone conversation of
yesterday. As I mentioned at that time, the city council
has rescheduled the review of your variance request for
their June 23rd meeting. The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m.,
in the council chambers at city hall.
At the council consideration of your variance request, the
city staff is recommending that the council issue a
temporary variance which would allow you to finish the
exterior work on your dormer. I have enclosed a copy of
the temporary variance resolution that the council will
be considering for your review prior to the meeting.
The conditions related to your appearance before the
council, is specified in my letter of May 7, 1986, will
apply to the rescheduling of this matter on June 23rd.
As required, your immediate neighbors are being informed
of council consideration on this matter.
If you have any questions with which I may be of assistance
prior to the hearing, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sirn,-c-erely,,j
Thomas A. Morgan,
Director of Public Safety
TAM /lje
cc: Acting City Manager
Chief Building Official
telephone: 869 -7521 (612)
an equal opportunity employer
Nf-+
>1
LM
O
CL
■�
O
O
•
June 17, 1986
Mr. Donald Saeger
7645 Emerson Avenue South
Richfield,.Minnesota 55423
Dear Mr. Saeger:
I would like to confirm our telephone conversation of
yesterday. As I mentioned at that time, the city council
has rescheduled the review of your variance request for
their June 23rd meeting. The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m.,
in the council chambers at city hall.
At the council consideration of your variance request, the
city staff is recommending that the council issue a
temporary variance which would allow you to finish the
exterior work on your dormer. I have enclosed a copy of
the temporary variance resolution that the council will
be considering for your review prior to the meeting.
The conditions related to your appearance before the
council, is specified in my letter of May 7, 1986, will
apply to the rescheduling of this matter on June 23rd.
As required, your immediate neighbors are being informed
of council consideration on this matter.
If you have any questions with which I may be of assistance
prior to the hearing, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sirn,-c-erely,,j
Thomas A. Morgan,
Director of Public Safety
TAM /lje
cc: Acting City Manager
Chief Building Official
telephone: 869 -7521 (612)
an equal opportunity employer
•
CITY•OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 249
Agenda June 23, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members Of The City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Related to Taxicab
Driver Licensing Deleting the Requirement
That Drivers Must be U.S. Citizens
Council Members:
Recent modifications to state law and court decisions have
indicated that restricting taxicab licensing to only U. S.
citizens is invalid. Chapter VI, Section 6.21, Subdivision 4 (2)
of the city ordinance relating to licensing of taxicab drivers,
includes the provision that "He must be a United States Citizen ".
Therefore, it is necesary to modify our ordinance code relating
to taxicab licensing to delete this qualification.
The City Attorney's office has prepared the attached
ordinance amendment to deal with this housekeeping matter. The
proposed ordinance amendment provides that while taxicab drivers
need not be U. S. citizens in order to be licensed, it is proper
for the licensing authority to inquire as to the status of aliens
(i.e., the city can determine if the aliens are in the country
legally and that they have the necessary authorization to work
while they are in the United States).
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council give first reading
to the proposed ordinance and schedule the public hearing and
second reading for the July 14, 1986 city council meeting.
Res ct ully s mitte ,
e c
Acti g City Manager
SD /e 'a
J
LeFe ere
Lef ler
10 henned }-
(YBrien !�
1)ra„ r.
.% 1,1411v�,%iunal
a.WK iariuu
100 First Bank Place West May 5, 1986
nneapohs
;nnesota 55402
-it-phone (612) 333 -0543
- iecopier (612) 333 -0540
Lieutenant Barry Fritz
;yton L. LeFevere
Richfield Department of
.aroert P. Lefler
Public Safety
Dennis O'Brien
,nn E. Drawz
6700 Portland Avenue-S.
will J. Kennedy
Richfield, MN 55423
•nn B. Dean
-�ni � E. Purdue
;hard J. Schieffer
Dear Barry:
:3rles L. LeFevere
.rbert P. Lefler III
Ames J. Thomson, Jr.
Enclosed for your review is a memorandum prepared by one
Tomas R.-Galt
or our law clerks on the subject of requiring U.S.
,;le Nolan
citizenship to obtain a Richfield cab driver's license.
.or. F. Rice
,nn G. Kressel
waine S. Clugg
As you will note, the memorandum suggests that such a
Strommen
requirement is most likely invalid. Consequently, we
Batty
would suggest the following:
P Jordan
15an Drckel Mrnsherg
x! J. Erickson
1. That you not deny licenses on that basis even though
,llram R. Skallerud
dney D. Anderson
the ordinance suggests that you should.
,r r me A. Heine
grin R. McDonald, Jr.
2. That an amendment be proposed to the ordinance which
:,,.in D. Beaudoin
removes the citizenship requirement.
Although we should not be requiring U.S. citizenship as a
requirement for licensure, we do believe that it is
proper to inquire as to the status of aliens. To that
end, you should determine that aliens are in the country
legally and further that they have the necessary au-
thorization to work while here.
We will shortly be preparing an amendment to the ordi-
nance code and submitting it to you for review.
Respectfull yours,
J n B. Dean
0 5LTO1.E14
19 Enc.
MEMORANDUM
0
TO: John Dean
FROM: Andrew Parker
DATE: May 2, 1986
RE: Validity of citizenship requirement for taxicab
licensure.
This memorandum responds to your question of whether a
city ordinance requiring U.S.. citizenship to obtain a taxi-
cab license is valid.
The Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment
applies to aliens. Heins v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941).
Laws denying aliens the right to get licenses to pursue
ordinary callings are invalidated by the constitutional
guarantee of equality. Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 60 L.
Ed. 131, 36 S. Ct. 7 (1915). If a calling is one which is
subject to abuse and likely to become injurious to the
community, the state, through its police powers, may deny
access due to alienage. Wright v. May, 127 Minn. 150, 149
N.W. 9 (1914) .
The question of whether a mere privilege or a right is
being restricted by licensing is sometimes used as the
criterion to determine the validity of such requirements. 39
A.L.R. 346 (1925). If the licensing restriction is applied
to a privileged activity, the city may require citizenship.
If the ordinance, however, is restricting a public right,
C7
the city may not discriminate.
Minnesota courts have not ruled on whether an ordinance
denying issuance of taxicab licenses due to alienage is
valid. However, operation of motor buses on public streets
for transportation of passengers for hire has been ruled a
public right. City of St. Paul v. Twin City Motor Bus Co.,
245 N.W. 33, 187 Minn. 212 (1932). This suggests that
restricting taxicab licenses to U.S. citizens is invalid.
Such a ruling was explicitly made by the New York Court of
Appeals in Sundram v. Niagra Falls, 77 Mich.2d 1002, 357
N.Y.S.2d 943 aff'd 414 app.div.2d 906, 356 N.Y.S.2d 1023.
Examples of businesses which may restricted to U.S.
citizens under a state's police power include auctioneering,
selling intoxicating liquors, and operating pool rooms.
Wright, 127 Minn. 150, 149 N.W. 9; George v. Portland, 114
Or. 418, 235 P. 681, 39 A.L.R. 341; Clarke v. Deckebach, 274
U.S. 392, 71 L. ed. 1115, 47 S.Ct. 630 (1927)(where the
court held a pool room was a place with "harmful and vicious
tendencies" and therefore alienage restrictions were not
prohibited). Alienage laws regulating peddlers and hawkers
have been ruled invalid. Luria v. Wegener, 69 Minn. 206, 72
N.W. 67 (1897); Mudeking v. Parr, 109 Minn. 141, 123 N.W.
408 (1909).
AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VI, SECTION 6.21, SUBDIVISION
4 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD.
Subdivision 4 of Section 6.21 in Article VI of the ordinance
code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, relating to the license
application requirements for taxicab drivers, is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Subd. 4. License Application - Requirements. Any person
desiring a taxicab driver's license shall make application
to the clerk. Each applicant shall meet the following
requirements in making such application:
(1) He must possess the required class of license from
the State of Minnesota.
(2 ) He must be a- �T3tee1- .L �i }, over 18 years
old, a resident of Hennepin County or any county contiguous
thereto and able to read and write the English language.
(3) If not a United States citizen, the applicant
shall furnish information necessary to establish that he is
legally in the United States and has the right to obtain
f3} (4) He shall furnish a statement on the form
provided by the city attesting that he is in good physical
condition, has good eyesight and is not subject to any
disease or infirmity of body or mind which might render him
unfit to operate a taxicab. In addition to such statement,
the applicant shall furnish, if required to do so by the
city, additional information concerning his physical
condition, eyesight or health including a physician's
certificate.
-f4} (5) He must be clean in dress and person and not
addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors or drugs.
{5} (6) He shall provide testimonials to his good
character from two reputable city citizens who have known
him personally and observed his conduct during the year
preceding the date of his application.
-f 6} (7) He, when requested to do so, shall
demonstrate his knowledge of city and state traffic
regulations and his skill and ability in driving an
automobile.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of , 1986.
John N. Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
0055ODO1M14
�y
0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 248
Agenda June 23, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Appeal of the Denial of a Variance Request By
Walser Corporation Concerning the Property at
7700 to 7750 Morgan Avenue, 7701 Newton Avenue,
and 2002 -2026 West 78th Street.
Council Members:
In March of this year the Richfield Hearing Examiner denied
a variance request by Walser Corporation to allow them to remove
the existing Viking Plaza structure at 7700 to 7750 Morgan Avenue
and construct a new automobile sales and services building within
5 feet of the Morgan Avenue right -of -way instead of the minimum
40 foot setback. Walser Corporation appealed that decision to
the Richfield City Council. At the council meeting on April 14,
1986 the Walser Corporation requested that consideration of the
appeal be deferred until June. The City Council granted the
request for a deferral. This matter is scheduled to come before
the council again on June 23, 1986.
Background
Attached for your review is the previous council letter
relating to this matter. Also attached is a revised site plan
which was recently submitted by Walser Corporation, which not
only shows an altered building configuration, but also shows the
relationship of this site to the overall Walser Corporation site.
The building configuration on the site has been changed to
move the building further away from the adjacent apartment
buildings. Additionally, the previous plan indicated that the
building would be approximately 5 feet away from the west
property line adjacent to the apartments. In the revised
proposal shows that the nearest point of the building would be
approximately 52 feet from the west property line adjacent to the
apartments. Also, the proposed building would be setback
approximately 12 feet further from the 78th Street right -of -way
than was indicated in the previous proposal also. However, the
building remains within 5 feet of the Morgan Avenue right -of -way.
Finally, the overall size of the building has also been reduced
• in the revised proposal.
•
-?�4y-
Staff Review
While the proposal has been improved in terms of smaller
building size and increased setbacks from the adjacent
apartments, it is the staff's opinion that the proposal still
does not meet the conditions for granting a variance. It is also
staff's opinion that the proposed building on the site in
question needs to be considered as part of the overall Walser
site and not just as a separate proposal. There is a history of
problems in the area including congestion on 78th Street, on
street parking in the adjacent single family residential
neighborhoods, congestion on Penn Avenue, use of public right -of-
way for display of vehicles, excessive traffic in adjacent
residential areas and congestion on Morgan Avenue. A proposed
new auto dealership on the site in question will have a major
impact on the area and can potentially add to the existing
problems. Therefore, it is important that the city consider the
overall development and closely review matters such as on site
parking to insure that there is sufficient parking on the site
for customers, inventory and employees and that adjacent streets
are not used to meet parking requirements.
Another matter that warrants careful consideration is the
use of public right -of -way for display of vehicles. The overall
plan shows approximately 95 spaces which are all or partially in
the 78th Street right -of -way. This results in a negative
aesthetic appearance in the area and also poses problems in terms
of cars overhanging onto the traveled roadway and the reduction
of snow storage space. This matter will become even more serious
in the future as the studies are completed concerning the
possible widening of I -494. It is possible that the 78th Street
right -of -way will be required for expansion of 494. If this
happens it would eliminate Walser's use of the right -of -way.
This will have a critical affect on the auto dealership. All of
these considerations make the issue of on -site parking even more
critical and casts some doubt about the appropriateness of.a new
auto dealership on the site.
To properly evaluate the parking needs of the site staff
needs additional information concerning such things as number 'of
employees and a specific area breakdown of all of the different
parts of the proposed operation to be able to properly determine
what the on site parking needs of the use will be. This
information was received late Wednesday afternoon and did not
leave sufficient time prior to the preparation of this council
letter to completely review the_ additional information.
Additional Information
Council Members will also find a letter attached from Wally
McCarthy's Oldsmobile to Rick Jopke, City Planner, concerning
0
Walser Buick's variance request. Mr. McCarthy feels that if the
council would grant the requested variance for Walser Buick, that
(McCarthy's) would immediately petition for the same variance to
add to their body shop and add to their covered areas.
Staff Recommendation
It is staff's recommendation that the City Council defer
final action on the variance appeal until July 14th to allow
staff to obtain the information necessary to further evaluate the
parking issue.
Resp fully submitted,
i
J'en . Devic
Acting City Manager
SLD /eja
t... rt ;altfi fry !YJ. + 5 .. 'Y ?y:% 'CMii..tr 5 r f�• a c+i•
t F S
t 1900 West 78th Street: �;,� J f �' r
�(�� �� MINNEAPOLIS,. MN 55423' ,
Ixi L
ti� , C
C. 4
1 a (612) 869 -1414
r _,
X 1
t�t, t:4 r t ,d,..i� r 1 ... P� 1 1 ., z >' _ I y - ; '.t f
t
}, ,� Y .1 ft I.
l3 .1.G t' - .. 3� i f
3 r t Y. � 5t. 3 �) { ,
a r r � rc .i' .� � ��,1; a ^ )': � x S : Nor 1.
4 J '} } _ $ f Iyp y�Y ! J
f i{ t -:CV's 54�.#'Ti,./J (� -
t+ _. m� 4) tiF.°Md= n rk ,q.: _; r ` _ i t � ` i c T 5
T i { 1 1 0 E:. t '1 a t3, _t. ..., '! 1 _. ..i l ��' 'Z. , .F^
f : ��
E 1
k Y:' b T 3: 11* i
i ;7 r ,
3 _ ,
OIDSMOBILE 11
f *
J
1 L 3 , .
t
t.l
r; ji�
4 Y
i 3 s5
b
_, y4 YA aS iL^ r A_ A
€��.+fix} E`J{.i /4C.F LA/v I7Qfl S _b r.'l, s - -5�13Y^ ?.: F ... tF:v =t¢ C�Ae -t Ott -: `l.}y..n�'y"'�`�°. z'. ..:- _
tl..t S ( ;i!EI£ {i :y 1 15'x3 .. .
_ -, x} .xi ra _ z- _ .. _ .. -. t. �:. 0,41-1. .•c - _. _ ¢.: FAY_rte`_ *I,, +I x.
6 �_ " ,
I - �s
t Rick 77�opfie �� t j . , f,M 1.
i l.� Peannen .." ' s4 r r , -o- 7 _ c . _-_ .
x J:.. ..' ,a}xY v� 1 r F # -i�- ::_t '4 s'"R: '' �'�ia h a+ J
�. I¢ t = C�.ty. �oj. R.ich��.e.2d J t }" � }:f. S 1 f �� x <, ,_ Y 1 ,_rt_ f� "����r ; 1 1.
Fix 6700 .PontQand. Avenue ~� Y ti , ^�y. 1. ,��:�, Rceh��e�.d� Mtinne4ata 55423 15,5,;,:,,. o-'g'34_
L y
$" j
T , J 1i- ._ `, ; ?54 7 T 1E ,}t , 3... . , . F` 4 `�j iii L/:i� 3 °' .
he; Apptccat�on Fos Wat+aen Conpanatcon ion vancance i. i S *(� s /7(7YT7750'Mongan Ave• ;.$o fSFY:.$3i� S tit �: ��yj j�`t
5 t �, ._�t y t _ ; - 1 ' !i a 1 _'L [ F-�v " ,r * E a ji z
i ' p" ..r. l' 4'l 3: 2S. .y.t ,; + [b 1
Dean Mn . Jophe . _ �j 14 . c rt J
. - - ._ _ _ r.. _ -
Attae Attached p �ea!se ind oun copy o owc tetten to you dated , r , ,_ , { v � _ , ) � � . ,
SYi.w , Febnua,ty 25t� ,1986 neganding #� van�.a.nee Owc po .6ttcon ;�� _ -- ''1 .
nema.:in,4. the same,. .Shoutd:cowsidenation be �in oxden pen Y,� „ s. .
Wa.�en: neque�st I'm' awce use: wau.ed �mmed�ateey petit <on - ion 1' ' 5 <•
i E ;�, , - the -same van,ia.nce:.to add ,t ^o�./o� 4 Body Shop and etc. to add � "
1. ._."t'. T ;.t0 oun pan�t4'autah r.over(. ahea.• - �.1_, ', 3i J�` i- . 1. ed F ,
tr :: 1 r , 1. x r .+
F
V /� jl. D y
J *.� ! Qw(�.l �:•VI.u.C.y� , - �f 4 - _.. — f� :j II i t'. 5'a z - �` -
(� (:' -1 .
}
r �'' ` r 1 fn' '1l r RJ 1
sj }r�' •F.e - } ,d .s 's l,�' r �'Q `r ,.e -.� ;r9 1 °,ai�,3 'tyy`I --p' t-,s,- Irt .'
L.a:.,�:' ; i 'T - -.s a• y. ��' y zI ,;N., k �j '�'C - • i , . s i
S
i.' - .. ti 1.
l l vb
pw' 1 is 4` t i # �' __- t ' t - s-; `� �.- F ;. t
( r t
4
a- -. ."f
% l 5
Y. [" r ..
r (a i
t 1 M1 ) �. '1 .r.. � 1 'f+ Y t �-
t
:11,111_ le } t ? h`
',1 1 t4i t - - -o rr F -
s y L '. r a _ t
pw 7 -.r K v. _ _ _
r
�.. i' -'i _ - -1 - 1- i -.i 11 _.
: tY. r -' - - — _ +• i , x _-1 .,fir a.,
o .:. ..
. .
. - ,:_y:
K`
1 gx x
c ..S'
g t.'.t. t
}1
y
0.
LL di-� r - r - K
be W. J. McCarthy
February 25, 1986
Rick JJpK(=
City Plainer
city ui Ricl,ficlu
6700 Portland Avenue
uiclaielu, m14 �54L.i
re: Application of Wulser,Corporation for variance
7700 -7750 ilorgan Ave. S.
Dear Mr. Jopke:
This letter is on behalf of Wally McCarthy's Oldsmobile, Inc., 1900
'Test 78th Street, Richfield, in uppusitiun to the application by
Walser Cbrporatiun for a variance to allow construction of a
building at 7700 -7750 Morgan Avenue South within five feet of the
street right -of -way instead of the 40 feet required by the regula-
tions.
The 40 foot set back requirement imposed by the city is to address
public health, safety ana general welfare concerns, and to provide
for orderly development in light of those concerns. A view of the
subject property does not demonstrate that enforcement of the
regulation will "cause legal undue hardship because of circum-
stances unique to the property. The subject property can be put to
reasonable use without the granting of the variance. This is par -
ticularly true since the proposal is to construct a new building,
not to use an existing building which is in noncompliance. It
would appear that any claimed undue hardship would be that created
by the landowner and noc caused by a unique circumstance of the
subject property.
When Wally mccarthy's 016sniobil
Inc.) several years ago desired
quired to maintain the required
Since the subject property does
(other than landowner created),
ment militates against granting
e, Inc. (then Lindahl Oldsmobile,
to build a body shop, it was re-
set back from Morgan Ave. So.
not present unique circumstances
it would appear that equal enforce -
the variance.
We would appreciate consideration given to this letter, and request
that it be made part of the hearing record.
Yours truly,
is Roger C. Miller
RCM:lac
ID:0093M
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 152
Agenda April 14, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Appeal by Walser Corporation of Hearing
Examiner's Denial of Variance Request
Council Members:
On February 27, 1986 the Hearing Examiner held a hearing on
a variance request by the Walser Corporation to reduce the
required setback from a street in a C -2 General Commercial zoning
district from 40 feet to .5 feet. The variance request was
subsequently denied by the Hearing Officer, and Walser
Corporation has appealed the ruling to the City' Council as the
. Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
Proposal:
Walser Corporation has obtained options to purchase an
isolated single family dwelling at 7701 Newton Avenue, the Viking
Center property at 7700 -7750 Morgan Avenue, and the commercial
structure located at 2002 -2026 West 78th Street. Walser
Corporation wishes to remove the existing structures on the sites
and replace them with a new sales, service and parts facility.
The variance requested is to reduce the required setback from the
Morgan Avenue right -of -way from 40 feet to 5 feet.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements:
The property is located in a C -2 General Commercial
District. Section 3.33, subdivision 6, and Section 3.32,
subdivision 4, require that a frontyard setback of 40 feet be
maintained on all street frontages in C -2 General Commercial
Zoning Districts.
Section 3.40 Subdivision 2 governs the issuance of
variances. Minnesota State Statutes 462.357 subdivision 6
outlines conditions which must be met for variances to be
granted.
40
-;e7/ �7-ff-
Staff Review:
Staff has reviewed the request for a variance against the
city and state requirements and found the following:
1. There are no unique circumstances present on the
site in question. The narrowest depth of the site
along Morgan Avenue is approximately 135 feet.
This is a typical lot depth in this area and other
commercial areas of the city.
While the total site
staff's opinion that
negate the irregular
is the result of the
parcels. There are
topography or poor s
is irregular in shape, it is
the site is large enough to
shape. The irregular shape
combination of the multiple
no other unique aspects such as
oils present.
2. In staff's opinion there are no undue hardships
.present. Denial of the variance would not prevent
the property owner from putting the property to a
reasonable use. While the existing Viking Center
structure does not conform to the present setback
requirements (setbacks on north - 8 feet; east- 24 feet;
and south -31 feet instead of the required 40 feet),
the existing use could be continued. The
existing structure could also be removed and a new
sales and service facility or other permitted use
could be constructed on the site which would meet
the city's setback requirements.
3. The proposal could alter the essential character
of the area. The granting of the variance would
result in the reduction of open space, and result
in additional visual and vehicular congestion in
the area. The area already has problems with
vehicular congestion, and with aesthetics because
normal setbacks have not been maintained and
because of the number of automobiles parked in the area.
Staff Findings and Recommendation:
Staff found that the required standards for granting a
variance have not been met, and recommended that the variance be
denied.
Hearing Officer Findings:
A hearing on the variance request was conducted on February
27, 1986. At that time, the hearing officer denied the request
for a variance based on the following:
1�
•
�10
1. That the granting of the variance was not
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of substantial property rights;
2. That there are no special or unique circumstances
present on the site.
3. That the granting of the variance would not
alter the character of the area, but could
contribute to existing visual and vehicular
congestion problems in the area.
It is recommended that the city council, functioning as the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals, conduct the public hearing and
determine if the Hearing Examiner's decision on the matter
should stand or be overturned.
A written notice of the council appeal hearing was sent to
all property owners of record on the area bounded by 76th Street,
I -35W, I -494 and Penn Avenue. The notice of the hearing officer
was sent to all property owners within 350' as required by
ordinance.
Res ec fully submitted,
,i
ev n L. evich
Acting City Manager
i
co
PENN- AVFNHF
1 t ,
C X
r D
o � �
-+
Z m z
m
RENTAL
EQUIPMENT SINGLE
FAMIL�'
VIKING CENTER
v
CD
m
OLIVER AVENUE
NEWTON AVENUE
MORGAN AVENUE
LOGAN AVENUE
KNOX AVENUE
3
CD
m
m
i
i
ca
A
>
<
>
m
1 m
m
>
Z
ao
G
c
z
O
>
<
%
co
r-
co
m
p
0
�
A
m
m
0
c
M
y
•
r
co
46
_C
r r c
v CD
Z m z
RENTAL
EQUIPMENT
SINGLE
FAMILY
VIKING CENTER
I�
!C0
m
�m
' co A
>
—1 t4
I m m
m �
p w
c o
1 0 -cl
-c
m >
> _
r A
u) m
m
m
n D
O c
x m
v to
ULIVER AVENUE
NEWTON AVENUE
M ORGAN AVENUE
LO GAN AVENUE
KNOX AVENUE
II
1
I
f
V
CD
m
;
m
1
1
!
!
TO
AFFILICANT
J
� V
1 � ,
PUBLIC HEARING NOTI C
�
CITY OF RICHFIELD -
HEARING EXAMINER
lo property owners within 350 feet of 7700 -7750 Morgan
�v Avenue South, and 2016, 2020, 2022 and 2026 W. 78th Street.
Walser Corporation
LCCA—, ICN 7700--7750 Morgan Avenue South
OF PROPERTY Commencing on South line of Southwest 4 of Southwest
point 820' East from Southwest corner therof then Northat a
656.28' then East 163.8' then South 656.28' then West 164'
to beginning except road. S 33, T 28,-R 24.
2016 - Tract G, Registered Land Survey (RLS) #{800, 2020 -
Tract E, RLS Wool 2022 - Tract'E, RLTs #800, •2026 - That
Of - ac +. D 1i_ ^.e East of :Jest 30' of RI S X800. .
PURPOSE Walser Corporation wishes to remove the existing Viking
Center structure at 7700 -7750 Morgan Ave. S. and construct
a new auto=obile sales and service structure. They have
applied for a variance to allow the new. structure to be
within 5 feet of Morgan Avenue right -of -way line instead of
the required 40 feet. A hearin& examiner is conducting a
Public hearing,on this matter to decide whether or not the
variance should be approved. The hearing examiner will
issue a written decision within 30 days of the close of _
the :nearing. Copies of the written decision will be
available upon request.
�"il Cr `'`;`I' 7:30 PM, Thursday, February 27, 1986
PL.•:.c CF Hf-EARINC Council Chambers, Richfield City hall
Portland Avenue
PCW To ;:Aril T 1C:PA c 72Submi- nd the hearing nd
g give testimony for or against the
sal. Those persons wishing to testify should notify
ity staff person listed below prior to the hearing.
a letter to the Hearing Examiner expressing your
:NY C:: ;.TICNS Ric, Jcpxe
City,Planner
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, 1.21 55423
869 -7521, Ext. 511
MAILING G,^.,T_ February 14, 1986
33-023-24- :3 -10LC6
7705 LOuAlN
33-023- 24- 33-CC;;7:
C 7700 50 MORGAN i
t
_ .33-023-x4- 33-O�uo -�
2015 4 77TH
`33-J23-24-33-0309
`7731 ticwTON
Zlvl TO 21 w 77TH
33- 026-24 -3-5-0011 --
_� 2100 WEST 7bTH STR
MCCARTmY ENT ;:RPR _'SES
1930 IV 7oTrl
THE VIKING CENTER
7726 MCSRGAN AVE S
MPLS MN 5:423
RICHFIELD MN 55423
3 RICKEY /X iY =TES & BOUNDS
b625 LYNDALE AVE SC 4620 ;c:CHFI =-LDi MN 55423
WILLIAM A kOSS
THE DIPLvMATS
SCHMEL2 ENTERPRISES
5525 VILLAGE DR ED:.,A MN 55435
33-J26-24- 33-0,013 CC; MELL - ENTERPRI.. =S
�C 7700 77/78 PENN :525 VILLASE DR EDINA MN 55435
33-;;2d-Z- ►- 33-OC17
C -7825 23 LOU-AN SO
:33-024 - =4- 3-0013 --
-'7532 34 - --;AN AV S
- 33- j23-24- 33-0019 .
7o3o LOGA`: AVE SC Y
33-7,26 -t4 -33 -10320
( 7044 LOGA%
33-J23-Z4- 3:-u04i
7oZ4 MORSA:,
-• 33-::2- -?� -' _ --
7o2o M -3 GA V
33-v2S-24-3 3-CJ44 --
7634 MORGAN AV S
7a3b 'IV's ,]A
-33-0046
IL
7042 44 MORGAN
0
JON STRAUB
"ART:.'i E SCHROEFIFER
ROGER .. SOa:%SEN
,4 JCHN50N
12300 MEADOW LN .�
MARY =LL-zN MATHIEU
k3GE'Z V rIC -a T A-D
TH'-MAS r. LEE
PAUL J LA63E -1 .•,EI E?
3225 N 1,;--Tii ;T
LOREN . -Aii
72220 YORK AVE S #604
vTd NNETONKA. MN 55343
iYPLS MN 55431
EDINA MN 55435
is
'w=
i_C.j CITY o�0,1 -"T.
x �, - �111Ir�"ct =��T�
'�
;P.I.N. / L Co' CATICN
04NER'd
NAME / ADDRESS CIF
DIFFERENT THAN L0
` 33- `25-2•.- 33 -00C4
-- — C,E3ASE N
;:ENivNT
17645-7547 "ORGAN;
33-023-24- 33-000:5:
- - --
^iCCARTHY
EI'vTERPRI5"c S IN C
C
7700 LOSAN _
1903 0+ 7bTn
zT
RICHFIELD MN 55463
33-023-24- :3 -10LC6
7705 LOuAlN
33-023- 24- 33-CC;;7:
C 7700 50 MORGAN i
t
_ .33-023-x4- 33-O�uo -�
2015 4 77TH
`33-J23-24-33-0309
`7731 ticwTON
Zlvl TO 21 w 77TH
33- 026-24 -3-5-0011 --
_� 2100 WEST 7bTH STR
MCCARTmY ENT ;:RPR _'SES
1930 IV 7oTrl
THE VIKING CENTER
7726 MCSRGAN AVE S
MPLS MN 5:423
RICHFIELD MN 55423
3 RICKEY /X iY =TES & BOUNDS
b625 LYNDALE AVE SC 4620 ;c:CHFI =-LDi MN 55423
WILLIAM A kOSS
THE DIPLvMATS
SCHMEL2 ENTERPRISES
5525 VILLAGE DR ED:.,A MN 55435
33-J26-24- 33-0,013 CC; MELL - ENTERPRI.. =S
�C 7700 77/78 PENN :525 VILLASE DR EDINA MN 55435
33-;;2d-Z- ►- 33-OC17
C -7825 23 LOU-AN SO
:33-024 - =4- 3-0013 --
-'7532 34 - --;AN AV S
- 33- j23-24- 33-0019 .
7o3o LOGA`: AVE SC Y
33-7,26 -t4 -33 -10320
( 7044 LOGA%
33-J23-Z4- 3:-u04i
7oZ4 MORSA:,
-• 33-::2- -?� -' _ --
7o2o M -3 GA V
33-v2S-24-3 3-CJ44 --
7634 MORGAN AV S
7a3b 'IV's ,]A
-33-0046
IL
7042 44 MORGAN
0
JON STRAUB
"ART:.'i E SCHROEFIFER
ROGER .. SOa:%SEN
,4 JCHN50N
12300 MEADOW LN .�
MARY =LL-zN MATHIEU
k3GE'Z V rIC -a T A-D
TH'-MAS r. LEE
PAUL J LA63E -1 .•,EI E?
3225 N 1,;--Tii ;T
LOREN . -Aii
72220 YORK AVE S #604
vTd NNETONKA. MN 55343
iYPLS MN 55431
EDINA MN 55435
is
q =i1
CITY JF F'c_? ASSES SAzNiT <C'L_ FCK C'TY r-:ZCJ; :CT- X242 - 'd HLS'cR aU:CK
--
y:
P.I.N. / LCCAT ::;` OviEV � ;44 iE / 'ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT THAN LOCATION)
• 33-0_8-24- 33-�.. -+ -
f
1-7025 MORGAN AY 5
..;:- u28-24- 33-C:__. _
t 7o29 sMORGAN
°•33- 023-24 -33- :1- —
7o3y -41 MORGA: AVE S
.133-u28-24-33-:'� 5r, —
C •7626 NEWTON S
vA'v. C K
WALT _'i A :iDERJvw
ALdi`� ;: CITiAi 'N
LAdu': L TINKER
7344 ";6IVER �;0
RICHFIELD MN 55423
':•33-023-24 -33-:: r;7
J:^.mN 4 SANDRA ROAN
(
7632 NEWTON AV S
� 33- 020-24- 33-L, -,53
JOAN ;l = t:LLER
.--.7633 NEWTON' AV S
-�- -J23-24- _
L;;IS A L)V ✓AL
C
-• :7644 NEwTO': AV _
33-025-24
GLENN i? SM:Tri
C
•7545 OLIVE- AV S
0 33-020-2~ -3_ X01
FLL�R.'.:.E S1 I T H
- •1039 OLIVER
!,33-028 -z4 -33 -0065
wALSER CORP
[
-7703 77/78 .Z.iTCN
7360 FRANCE AVE
MPLS.i MN
55435
.33-u23-2 +- 33-C:.�o
WALSER C::RP
[
=,7700 77/78 NE6TOt%
73;;0 FKANC: AVE
MPLS.i MN
55435
;,, 3-' - - .0-:Jo7-
WALSER CORP
[
'1 -ZU26 W 7STH ST
7380 FRANCE AVE
MPLS.f MN
55435
.- ;33-023-24- ?3-J�c3
wALS:R CJ RP
-. =322 w 7STri ST
7330 FR;Nc-c AVE
MPLSo MN
55435
:•33-025-24- I3 -C3E9
-ALSER C::RP
C
'4-232u » 78TH ST
73:;;: FRANC: AVE
MPLS.., Mid
55435 `-
••33-12c-c »-33—Z 7
wrLoc . CvRr+
L
-816TH ST
Zu10 K
7�_0 F rtA :.� A'f E
MPLS♦ MN
55433
33-026-24-33---3771
04DV-RTISI� :S
1924 w 73TH ST
1 ? :.'u w 7.6TH ST
RICHFIELD
MN 55423
SvUT i.D :.GE!.CY I,:C
,,P.7725 "ORu,iN`SJ
19uC :. 7;;Tri QT
RICHFIELD
'1N 55423
33-028-24-33 -0073
$vJTHTC;JN ADVERTISING
3
.•1922 W 78TH ST
1900 W 76TH ST
RICHFIELD
MN 55423
L
r>
33- x28-24- 33-0G77�
MARY L WhITTING
i
-7713 MORGAN
5221 KELLOGG AVE
MPLS .MN 55424
'33-328 -�4- 33-0062
?C6T '!=Y_R
(
-7o23 %-WTON
�;ITY OF CHFIE! D
3_cc3�^_ ?4T R;:L, FOR
CITY PRCJECT• X242 -
NALSER 3UICK
-33- 028-24 - 33-0083=
TON: H ECKSTEIN
(
-7629 NEWTON
;'{P• = -N. / LOCATZOM-
C�iNER'S NAME /
ADDRESS CIF
DIFFERENT
THAN LOCAT�
i
':33- 028- 24- 33- C;,'G4
ALLEN u wi- LDi:VG
33-023 -GJ74
- -- S0JTHT,;4.'t ADVERTISING
.'192J WEST 73TH ST
.;
19vC w 7oTm JT
=LEER R SEA3ERG
RICHFI =-LD
MN :5423
(
:- 7039-41 NEWTON S `!
- 33- 028- 24- 33-OJ75. -
-- SGUTHT.:WN ADVERT SING
<= tiNETn N = 6LiND
-
1916 W 76TH ST
1930 W 7oTH ST
2401 OVERLOCK DR
RICHFIELD
MN 5:423
'33- J28-24 -34 -0013
3URTJN J LINDAHL
;;1900 NEST 78TH ST
33- 028 -24 -33 -0375
LEAS -BACK ;;RCP
"SAGE CORD
(
7701 MORGAN
5490 EXCELSiOF.
BLVD
ST LCUIS P< MN 55426
r>
33- x28-24- 33-0G77�
MARY L WhITTING
i
-7713 MORGAN
5221 KELLOGG AVE
MPLS .MN 55424
'33-328 -�4- 33-0062
?C6T '!=Y_R
(
-7o23 %-WTON
-33- 028-24 - 33-0083=
TON: H ECKSTEIN
(
-7629 NEWTON
':33- 028- 24- 33- C;,'G4
ALLEN u wi- LDi:VG
(
:� 7633 N -WTC.N
33- 020- 24- 33 -CGE5
=LEER R SEA3ERG
(
:- 7039-41 NEWTON S `!
33-32=- Zo- :3—C�;O
<= tiNETn N = 6LiND
-
(
17643 .S NEWTON
2401 OVERLOCK DR
BLOOMINGTON MN
'33- J28-24 -34 -0013
3URTJN J LINDAHL
;;1900 NEST 78TH ST
SOX 32
WAYZATA MN 55391
t
ALLEN i MULLER
7701 �;
LJva
,424 �rt =_= �cVIcw LN
N
�Di�; H 55435
W ILL/AJA M4-WALf-
l9Gv YE12�F5, 5U(Tr n3
TOTAL ASSESSMENT IS:
.>
�� rtvbZc►J
s7
r>
cQ- 4*- .D4 —UUI4
W 78TH ST
33- 028- 24- 33-OJC1
1915 W 76TH ST
33- 025 -24- 33-0002
7608-10 LOGAN
33- 028 -24 -33 -0015
7614 -10 LOGAN AV S
33- 028 -24 -33 -0016
7620 22 LOGAN AV S
33-023- 24- 33 -G047
7615 MORGAN
33- 023-24 -33 -0348
7621 MORGAN
33- 028 -24 -33 -0087
'527 OLIVER
33- 028-24 -33 -0088
7¢OLIVER
NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADV INC
NEWS BLDG /725 BROAD ST AUGUSTAi GA 30901
THOMAS K SETRE
JAMES A TACK
9102 BLAISDELL AVE SO
JOHN D ALT
550o WILRYAN AVE
DELAINE RUD
STAN SCHREYER
MAURICE ENGE,N JR
JAMES E BERGIN
ARNCLD P LARSEN
33- U28 -24 -33 -0089 KENNETH C ASTELL
'615 OLIVER
6LOOMINGTCN. MN 5:420
EDINA MN 55423
s
S
ti
S
It
S
kT R,.i cn� Tv_P30�J_�[T_ x24 - a - ...
iALSER-0 ' P r XT :r
*-023-24-34-0001 •N• / L ^v CATION
OWNER'S NAME / ADDRESS CIF
DIFFERENT THAN LOCATION)
CEDAR PROPERTIES
7601 11 21 KNOX
5290 VILLA WAY
MPLS MN 55436
33-28 -24 -34 -0002
DALL FCODS INC
7600 KNOX
33- 028 -24 -34 -0003
SHARI PROPERTIES
7603 KNOX
770C LUGA,N AVE SO
RICHFIELD, MN 55423
`33-028 -24 -34 -0004
LEASEBACK PROP % SAAGE CORP
;7029 45 LOGAN
0490 EXCELSIOR BLVD
ST LOUIS PK MN 55426
'33- 028-24 -34 -0005
CENTURY LODGE NO 338
7615 LOGAN
33-028-24 - 34-0006
7601
JOSEPH KLOS CONT PURCHSR
LOGAN
4521 HI61SCUS AVE S
EDINA MN 35435
33-023-24 -34 -0009
LEASEBACK PROP %SAGE CORP
7626 7544 KNOX
6490 EXCELSIOR BLVD
ST LOUIS PK MN 55426
33-028-24 -34 -0710
CITY OF RICHFIELD
7700 KNOX
cQ- 4*- .D4 —UUI4
W 78TH ST
33- 028- 24- 33-OJC1
1915 W 76TH ST
33- 025 -24- 33-0002
7608-10 LOGAN
33- 028 -24 -33 -0015
7614 -10 LOGAN AV S
33- 028 -24 -33 -0016
7620 22 LOGAN AV S
33-023- 24- 33 -G047
7615 MORGAN
33- 023-24 -33 -0348
7621 MORGAN
33- 028 -24 -33 -0087
'527 OLIVER
33- 028-24 -33 -0088
7¢OLIVER
NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADV INC
NEWS BLDG /725 BROAD ST AUGUSTAi GA 30901
THOMAS K SETRE
JAMES A TACK
9102 BLAISDELL AVE SO
JOHN D ALT
550o WILRYAN AVE
DELAINE RUD
STAN SCHREYER
MAURICE ENGE,N JR
JAMES E BERGIN
ARNCLD P LARSEN
33- U28 -24 -33 -0089 KENNETH C ASTELL
'615 OLIVER
6LOOMINGTCN. MN 5:420
EDINA MN 55423
s
S
ti
S
It
S
5
LOCATION OWNER'S NAME / ADDRESS CIF DIFFERENT THAN LOCATION:.
33-028-24 - 33-0090 MARY C WAGNER
7601 MORGAN AV S
33-028-24- 33-0091
VICKY L NELSON
7009 MORGAN AV S
,
33- 028-24-33-0038
is KRYPEL € R KLUKAS
7600 MORGAN
33-023-24- 33-0039
EUGENE ABELSON
7638 MORGAN
33-028-24 -33 -0040
BRUCE € D WETTERNACH
7014 MORGAN
33- 023 -24- 33-0041
THOMAS R MEAD
NO MORGAN AVE SO
33-028 -24- 33-0378
FRIEDA LEINSNGER
7601 NEWTON
4226 VALLEY VIEW RD EDINA MN 55424
33-028-24 - 33-0079
RICHARD 8EUNING
7605 NEWTON
33-026 -24- 33-0030
ROGER R GLIDDEN
7611 NEWTON AV S
33-028- 24- 33—CJ31 C KITTY LEFFELAAR
7617 NEWTON
33-028-24- 33-0052 CAROL HENSLEY
7600 NEWTON
33-028 -24- 33-0053
LEONARD A HARDIE JR
7608 NEWTON AVE SO
,
33-023-24- 33-0054
REUBEN 8 CAROL TULIKANGAS
7014 NEKTON AVE
33- 023-24- 33-CC55
LEVINA EISCN_N
7620 NEWTON AV S
33- 023 -24- 33-0062
BRAD S € JULIE M JOHNSON
7933 OLIVER AV S
33- 028 -24- 33-063
A F GRESBRINK
7609 OLIVER
33- 028-24-33-004
JEANNE A SEC;;FF
7601 OLIVER AV S
4601 CONCORD TERRACE EDINA. MN 55424
33- 028-24 -33 -0021 S STOTESSERY
7603 OLIVER
CITY OF RiSNFiFLO ASSESSlE,kr�iLLL FOxLC�LY_P31)JFCT� x74! - �IQLS�R �R�p FXT =yp;
LOCATION OWNER'S NAME / ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT THAN LOCATION) AS
33-028-0- 33-0022
704 OLIVER
33- 028 -24- 33-0023
7610 OLIVER
33-026 -Z4- 33-0024
7614 OLIVER
33- 028 -24- 33-0025
7620 OLIVER
33-028-24 - 33-0026
7024 OLIVER AVE SO
33-023 -24 -33 -0027
7628 OLIVER AVE SO
33- 026 -24- 33-0028
7034 OLIVER
33-028 -24- 33-0029
7638 OLIVER AVE SO
3-24- 33-0030
7 OLIVER
J W CRETZMEYiR
ANDREi KRAMER
ANN L STRUd
GUY ASTELL
PAUL F RAGATZ
RANDY 6 LORIE 3ILBEE
ROBERT E GUTHE
GERARD D FOX
RONALD E LEVITON
s
S
5
5
c
33- 028 -24 -33 -0031
BARBARA KROHN
7639 PENN
e
33- 026 -24- 33-0032
ELLWYN E NYMAN
033 PENN AVE SO
i
33- a28 -24 -33 -0033
ELMER G AHO
7627 PENN AVE SO
3
33- 028-24 -33 -0034
JOE T JENScN
'6Z1 PENN
i
S3-026-Z4 -33 -0035
'615 PENN
; 3-028 -24- 33-0036
'609 PENN
3-028-24 -33 -0037
601 PENN
3-028 -24 -33 -0012
A c ENN _
3- 02S -24- 33-0014
745 PENN
MOHAMAD SHARIEF
ST RICHARDS CHURCH
7601 PENN AVE S
ST RICHARDS CHURCH
EUNICE T DAVIS
RICHFIELD, MN 55423
WALSER IMPORTS INC
S
TOTAL ASSESSMENT IS: c
(440
April 2, 1986
Dear Property Owner,
The Richfield Hearing Examiner recently
denied the variance request by Walser
Corporation to reduce the required setback
from a street from 40 feet to 5 feet for
their proposed new Buick Sales and Service
facility on the site which includes 7700 -7750
Morgan Avenue South, 7701 Newton Avenue and
2002 -2026 West 78th Street.
Walser Buick is appealing that decision to
the Richfield City Council. The City
Council, acting as the Board of Appeals, will
be conducting a public hearing concerning
this appeal at 7:00 PM on Monday, April 14,
1986. The hearing will be held in the
Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall at
6700 Portland Avenue.
I invite you to attend this hearing and make
your feelings known on the matter.
If you have any questions, please feel free
to contact me at 869 -7521.
Sincerely,
� q � �=
Rick Jopke
City Planner
RJ /jle
�11i .k►.e�, y- 2 _v.
telephone: 869 -7521 (612)
an equal opportunity employer
N
d'
....
ui
tt)
O
Ma
L
o
(440
April 2, 1986
Dear Property Owner,
The Richfield Hearing Examiner recently
denied the variance request by Walser
Corporation to reduce the required setback
from a street from 40 feet to 5 feet for
their proposed new Buick Sales and Service
facility on the site which includes 7700 -7750
Morgan Avenue South, 7701 Newton Avenue and
2002 -2026 West 78th Street.
Walser Buick is appealing that decision to
the Richfield City Council. The City
Council, acting as the Board of Appeals, will
be conducting a public hearing concerning
this appeal at 7:00 PM on Monday, April 14,
1986. The hearing will be held in the
Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall at
6700 Portland Avenue.
I invite you to attend this hearing and make
your feelings known on the matter.
If you have any questions, please feel free
to contact me at 869 -7521.
Sincerely,
� q � �=
Rick Jopke
City Planner
RJ /jle
�11i .k►.e�, y- 2 _v.
telephone: 869 -7521 (612)
an equal opportunity employer
■
i
O
Ma
L
o
�
■�
O
O
�O
(440
April 2, 1986
Dear Property Owner,
The Richfield Hearing Examiner recently
denied the variance request by Walser
Corporation to reduce the required setback
from a street from 40 feet to 5 feet for
their proposed new Buick Sales and Service
facility on the site which includes 7700 -7750
Morgan Avenue South, 7701 Newton Avenue and
2002 -2026 West 78th Street.
Walser Buick is appealing that decision to
the Richfield City Council. The City
Council, acting as the Board of Appeals, will
be conducting a public hearing concerning
this appeal at 7:00 PM on Monday, April 14,
1986. The hearing will be held in the
Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall at
6700 Portland Avenue.
I invite you to attend this hearing and make
your feelings known on the matter.
If you have any questions, please feel free
to contact me at 869 -7521.
Sincerely,
� q � �=
Rick Jopke
City Planner
RJ /jle
�11i .k►.e�, y- 2 _v.
telephone: 869 -7521 (612)
an equal opportunity employer
•
Owners - Managers
• APARTMENTS
• SHOPPING CENTERS
• COMMERCIAL - INDUSTRIAL
• HEALTH CARE FACILITIES
March 31, 1986
The Honorable John Hamilton &
City Council Members
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Gentlemen:
SAGE COMPANY
6490 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD — MEADOWBROOK BUILDING
PHONE (612) 920 -9131 — MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55426
Re: Variance Request by Walser
Corporation
It is our understanding that on April 14, 1986, the City Council of Richfield
will be considering an appeal of a denial of a variance requested by Walser
Corporation to reduce the required setback on Morgan Avenue from 40 feet to 5
feet for their proposed new Buick Sales and Service facility.
As property owners of 7701 and 7705 Morgan Avenue, we would like to express our
support for the denial of Walser's request. As adjacent property owners, we
feel that the observance of established setback requirements is essential in
maintaining existing character of the neighborhood and is the only sure way to
prevent both visual and traffic congestion.
Thank you for your consideration.
tional information.
Yours truly,
LEASEBACK PROPERTIES
ohn Goodman, CPM
Managing Partner
JBG:ngd
cc: Abbe S. Epstein
Commercial Property Manager
Please advise if we can provide any addi-
The Meadowbrook Building is located on the Campus of Methodist Hospital
C
e
llll!0
N
le
Q
■�
u'i
O
�F+
i �
c
a�
CU
c�
Variance Request
CASE NO. 86- V1 -CH1
APPLICANT WALSER CORPORATION
PROPERTY LOCATION 7701 Newton, 7700 -7750 Morgan Avenue
2016 -2026 West 78th Street
HEARING EXAMINER Connie.Hoverson
HEARING DATE 2/27/86
APPEARANCES 1. Rick Jopke, City Planner
2. Dick Sjoquist, Representing Walser Corp.
3. Jan Soucy, Representing Southtown Apartments
Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the
undersigned makes the following findings of fact, conclusions
and decisions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Notice of public hearing was proper. Notice was mailed to
property owners within 350 feet of the site in question as
required by city ordinances. The ten day notice
requirement was also met.
2. The street addresses and legal descriptions of the property
in question are as follows:
1. 2016 West 78th Street: Tract G, RLS No. 800
2. 2020 West 78th Street: Tract F, RLS No. 800
3. 2022 West 78th Street: Tract E, RLS No. 800
4. 2024 West 78tn Street: That part of Tracts A and E,
RLS No. 800 lying East of the West 30 feet thereof.
5. 2026 West 78th Street: That part of Trtact D, RLS No.
800 lying East of the West 30 feet thereof.
6. 7700 -7750 Mon -gan Avenue South: Commencing on the South
line of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter
of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 at a point 320 feet
east from the southwest corner thereof, thence north
656.28 feet; thence East 163.8 feet, thence South 656.28
feet; thence West 164 feet to beginning except roads.
7. 7701 Newton Avenue South: The East 59 feet of the
Nortn 166 feet of that part of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 lying south of Robert
Webers First Addition and West of the Soutrerly
extension of the East line thereof except roads.
3. The zoning of the site in question is C -2 General
('nmmcr�i �1
telephone: 869 -7521 (612)
an equal opportunity employer
L
O
Q
■�
O
O
Variance Request
CASE NO. 86- V1 -CH1
APPLICANT WALSER CORPORATION
PROPERTY LOCATION 7701 Newton, 7700 -7750 Morgan Avenue
2016 -2026 West 78th Street
HEARING EXAMINER Connie.Hoverson
HEARING DATE 2/27/86
APPEARANCES 1. Rick Jopke, City Planner
2. Dick Sjoquist, Representing Walser Corp.
3. Jan Soucy, Representing Southtown Apartments
Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the
undersigned makes the following findings of fact, conclusions
and decisions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Notice of public hearing was proper. Notice was mailed to
property owners within 350 feet of the site in question as
required by city ordinances. The ten day notice
requirement was also met.
2. The street addresses and legal descriptions of the property
in question are as follows:
1. 2016 West 78th Street: Tract G, RLS No. 800
2. 2020 West 78th Street: Tract F, RLS No. 800
3. 2022 West 78th Street: Tract E, RLS No. 800
4. 2024 West 78tn Street: That part of Tracts A and E,
RLS No. 800 lying East of the West 30 feet thereof.
5. 2026 West 78th Street: That part of Trtact D, RLS No.
800 lying East of the West 30 feet thereof.
6. 7700 -7750 Mon -gan Avenue South: Commencing on the South
line of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter
of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 at a point 320 feet
east from the southwest corner thereof, thence north
656.28 feet; thence East 163.8 feet, thence South 656.28
feet; thence West 164 feet to beginning except roads.
7. 7701 Newton Avenue South: The East 59 feet of the
Nortn 166 feet of that part of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 lying south of Robert
Webers First Addition and West of the Soutrerly
extension of the East line thereof except roads.
3. The zoning of the site in question is C -2 General
('nmmcr�i �1
telephone: 869 -7521 (612)
an equal opportunity employer
•
-2-
4. The variance requested is to reduce7`the reauired build
setback from Morgan Avenue from 40 zeet to 5 feet.
5. The reasons for the request are that the depth of the lot
less setback areas is not sufficient to allow the size of
buildine necessary ibr the proposed automobile sales and
service use.
c�
MNCLUSIONS
Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, subdivision 6 provides fore
the granting of variance to the literal provisions of the zoning
regulations in instances where their strict enforcement would
cause unduA hardship to the owners of the property under
consideration. In determining whether to grant or deny the
requested variance, I specifically make the following
conclusions:
1. Is the erantinD of the variance necessary for the
preservation ana enjovment of substantial property rights?
I conclude that the granting of the variance is not
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights. Denial of the variance would not preclude
reasonable use of the property. The existing commercial use
of the property could be continued. The existing structure
could also be removed and a new automobile sales and service
facility or other permitted use could be constructed on the
site within the setback limitations of the ordinance.
2. Are there special circumstances or conditions affecting the
particular land or buildine referred to in tre application
not caused by the property owner, wnicn are not common to
other orooerties in this or similar aistricts?
I conclude that there are not special or unique
circumstances present. The site is sufficiently large to
allow reasonable development. The size of the site also is
similar to other commercial sites in the area and the
community as a whole. There are no unusual topographic or
soils conditions present on the site. The shape of the site
is irregular but was created by the applicant.
3. Will the erantins of the variance alter the essential
character of the nei anoornooa or locality?
I conclude that the granting of the variance will not alter
the character of the area but could contribute to existing
visual and vehicular congestion problems in the area.
• e
•
•
� 0
-3-
4. Are there any conditions which must be attached to the
grrantine of the variance to ensure compliance and to protect
adjacent properties?
I conclude N/A
C. DECISION
Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned determines that
the request be denied
DATED: /a , 1 9 AO .
Hearing Examiner
City of Richfield
0
.
:rE
LLJ
(Y
.\ 1
EXISTING VIKING C
ER 77th
l
C
J
C13
SCALE
1 "= 60'
w
. U
W
Cn
IZ
O
cr
a
20
SERVICE
,
f
C,
uy
:.
20«-36 ---20
URB 8
— - — -
GUTTER TO BE -
--, - —
PUT I N
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
_
TO BE PUT IN
APPLICATION FOR OFF- STREET PARKING
NO. 61-2 _ ......- .
- - -
-- --
�:
OOIFRI _ IIILLIAIAN- LAYBIN, INC, .- ....,.;...,r, •"
738 WEST 6QTH STREET
(
w
_ -'
- - - -
>
• " _
M1SV+ �(
-- --
LEGAL DESCRIPTION& THAT PART OF THE Sfk OF 'THE of
SEC. 33, T. 28, R. 24, /. of THE 4TH`
- -
I•
PRINCIPAL WIERIDIAN DESCRIBED AS FOLLis
'COMMENCING AT A POINT DISTANT 820 FEET
EAST OF-THE S.W. CORNER OF SAID SEC, 33,
THENCE N. A DISTANCE of 656.28
- THENCE E. A DISTANCE OF 163FEET, THENCE�S.
A DISTANCE OF 656.28, THENCE to A DISTANC
OF 164 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
7700 -77.40 WRGAN AVENUE _ =,y•. , _ - _ -.:
,`;•
-- --
"� -
usr: :- RETAIL SALES & SERVICES
-- --
;10. PARY,It:O SPACESt g¢ �'`: -_•
DATE CF APFL I CA T 101:1• FEBRUARY 1, 1961
-- - -
Q
COL24I L ACT 10111 FEBRUARY 13, 1961
N. 1!.
90
24
2/6/61
f
.134--
j..
I.
•
BARRIER
CURB `;
(3) In the case of an interior lot abutting upon two or more streets, no
detached accessory shall be erected or altered so as to encroach upon the
one - fourth of the lot nearest either street or in any case nearer to the
established building line on either street frontage.
(4) In the case of a corner lot abutting upon two streets, no accessory
building shall be erected or structurally altered so as to encroach upon the
front-half of the-lor nor so -that the building will be nearer to the lot line"
along the street side of the lot than a distance equal to the width of side -
yard on the streetside of the lot; but on a corner lot adjacent to a key lot,
no detached accessory building shall be located nearer to the street line of
the street upon which the key lot faces than a distance equal to the depth of
front yard required on the key lot. A garage with doors opening toward the
street shall not be closer than 20. feet to the lot line.
(5) In the case of a corner lot abutting on more than*two streets, no
detached accessory building shall be erected or altered so as to be nearer to
the lot line along the street side of the lot than a distance equal to the
width of the side yard on the street side or the lot or nearer to any street
line of the lot than a distance equal to one - fourth the depth of the lot.
(b). No detached accessory building shall be within five feet of the side
line of the front half of any adjacent lot except as hereinbefore specifically
permitted.
(7) No garage with doors facing upon the street shall be within 20 feet
of the lot line.
(8) The foregoing rules shall not require:
(a) Any detached accessory building to be more than 75 feet from any
street line bounding the lot.
(b) The street side of any detached accessory building to be nearer
to the lot line opposite the street line than 20 feet.
(c) A private garage to be separated from the front and side lines of
the lot where the slope of the front half of the lot is greater than one foot
rise or fall-in a distance of seven feet from the established street elevation
at the property line or where the elevation of the lot at the street line is
five feet or more above or below the established elevation.
Subd. 4. Conversion of Single Family Dwellines Prohibited. Notwithstanding
any other provisions or this section, a one - family dwelling structure located
in an "*� ", Is _11' or "C -2" or "I" districts shall not be converted into or
used as a two - family or multiple dwelling unless the owner thereof has first
obtained a special permit in accordance with the procedures outlined in
Section 3.41 of this chapter. (Bill 1982 -5) 2/8/82
3.40. BOARD OF ADJUMENT AND APPMLS.
Subdivision 1. Creation. The board created in this section is established in
conformity with Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 2, and the
Provisions to which it refers.
(0
OROINANCE COOE
2/8/82
79 CITY OF RICHFIELD. MINNESOTA
Subd. 2. Council Shall Act as Board; Powers. The council shall serve as the
board-to hear and ecide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in C
any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative
officer in the enforcement of this part of this chapter. Hearing examiners from
the Committee of Hearing Examiners created pursuant to Section 3.40A of this
Code shall hear, subject to the right of appeal to the council as provided in
Section 3.40A, requests for variances from the literal provisions of this part
in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because
of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to
grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions are consistent
with Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.354 , Subdivision 6 and any amendments
thereto and will be keeping with the spirit and intent of-this part. In the
event that the authority of the Committee of Hearing Examiners shall expire
pursuant to Section 3.40A, Subdivision 10, such expiration shall automatically
vest authority in the council to act as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals with
respect to the matters previously within the jurisdiction of the Committee of
Hearing Examiners.
Subd. 3. Application for Appeal -Fee. Application for any appeal permissible
under provisions of this section shall be made to the city manager.by writtem
application. An application for appeal shall be accompanied by payment of a
fee as provided in Appendix D of this Code in addition to the regular building
fee, if any. (Bill 1977 -16) 8/8/77
Subd. 4. Public Hearing on Appeal. Upon receipt of any application, the council
may set a time and place for a public hearing on such application. At least 10
days before the date of any such hearing, a notice of the hearing shall be
published once in the official newspaper.
Subd. 5. Requirements for Compliance. In all cases in which adjustments of
variance appeals are granted under the provisions of this section or Section
3.40A, the council shall require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem
necessary to insure compliance with the conditions designated in connection
therewith.
Subd. 6. Orders. The council shall within a reasonable time made its order
deciding the matter and shall cause a copy of its order to be served by mail
upon the petitioner.
Subd. 7. Record of Proceedin s. The council shall maintain a written record
of its proceedings which shall include minutes or meetings, its findings in cases
before it, and a record of action taken on each matter before it including the
final order.
(Bill 1985 -21) 8/31/85
OROINANCE COO
1
8/31/85
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
8406 11 8407
HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENT, PLANNING, ZONING 461.357
the existing ordinance would take effect when adopted, and shall have considered
whether the number of descriptions of real estate affected by such changes and
alterations renders the obtaining of such written consent impractical, and such
planning commission or planning board shall report in writing as to whether in its
opinion the proposals of the governing body in any case are reasonably related to the
overall needs of the community, to existing land use, or to a plan for future land use,
and shall have conducted a public hearing on such proposed ordinance, changes or
s, alterations, of which hearing published notice shall have been given in a daily
newspaper of general circulation at least once each week for three successive weeks
prior to such hearing, which notice shall state the time, place and purpose of such
hearing, and shall have reported to the governing body of the city its findings and
recommendations in writing.
Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and
adjustments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any
y. reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and
adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance :
(1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any
a order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in
the enforcement of the zoning ordinance.
(2) To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in
i„ instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of
circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant
such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with
the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with
the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a
reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of
the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the
�. landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
-y locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if
reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Undue
hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for
y± solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as
defined in section 116J.06, subdivision 2, when in harmony with the ordinance. The
board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not
:.� permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property
in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing
body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family
dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be
may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to
protect adjacent properties.
�K Subd. 6a. It is the policy of this state that handicapped persons and children
-.� should not be excluded by municipal zoning ordinances or other land use regulations
from the benefits of normal residential surroundings. For purposes of subdivisions
':.i 6a through 9, "person" has the meaning given in section 245.782, subdivision 2.
Subd. 7. Permitted single family use. A state licensed residential facility
5A"
serving six or fewer persons or a licensed day care facility serving 12 or fewer
persons shall be considered a permitted single family residential use of property for
the purposes of zoning.
Subd. 8.' Permitted multifamily use. Unless otherwise provided in any town,
municipal or county zoning regulation as authorized by this subdivision, a state
licensed residential facility serving from 7 through 16
;.:..� g persons or a licensed day care
4.gh' facility serving from 13 through 16 persons shall be considered a permitted
multifamily residential use of property for purposes of zoning. A township,
Td'-' ��M'r3 -.t � _ -_ • pia+: f� + � -• . •,.••.... -..� ..- � ..s._...... .. .. -_ ..... -.. :. _ -.. _- .. -..... .-,��J� -%' /�'. / ��a
- PROPOSAL
- c:t�::t�.e�- �_' =s� ,, �:. t � • .
"�-°-!.•' • -�'�i 0, -•.4~: c- { r�:.i _ . a ° • te•• 'tee«.
- . :_�� -•G��� ^ �'.::_y v. -t _ , _ ,' _ �l' � , ' ! _ _ � _ -� :� ice::;;= -�r- - - -::. �'�y
- ! .t:•_ -+ ', v -s'i5 .-, ate'' _:'mil �'
Fri..- _ �• I. J .�:_.. - _.. t•�:S wliGaar 'eta =s -y, -
• _ �1:ay- _, ]]! ...- r!'.J' %" __" - - -- Qtr+• _ �i t1 T--_ �• - __ - `;•!��-V''�.+:c s'� 'v _
.sue �i- .��4- �''��� - r.__{_T�_- `_:l��c4� - �• T J" - - _ � �T'„ _ =_r""c..- � �d•-� ���s'ty"�� ?�sx - "�'� i
-+ .:.: - - - --~=- Y _�_ �'� +`�'r - _ "'� 'S•.�4 _ _►.• - '•� i� . ..• �. ��isC.• �.SS.•:a�'',?ir:.rr'`si•s.".+•: r± - a"_f''�.
.r
_ ti�v5� _TY.v.!.. - - s.: -'- - •j' ~ - :..ti � - - -_ � •�_ `iY.; _ �_- ��.<�•i.0 % �`ri � : �l.r _.:.I►
Ll
nA
a. a•" �• r." �- ��r 'O!.^%i�.�.�'4- •- ��_••r.rZ� :. �i:SA.: `� - _ -- �i�'_' •� -__ .Jt.i -o- Z -t: "i_ +!l_� -• -t`1 :�i _�1
r : i •.►
-r ' . -�. Frj�. Y� . -l. _ _ - � `�.� �r%->Y.t�+• i3= .S- ••y�'�4w{!•Cl '...�� _r1�+.
41-17-F
{cs ^. :<- _ >•. =�_''�
lu
• ': - .Q
to
CL
ve
n 757
':�'a.•_•f�ri�_Y- ��''`w'�'_ _- - -w _ �•I` N I Q t3. -�•7 _'.1::3�:vz*���:. _S �� -_ .-�.t
-.__ '" La � � - �� -- .► ►• - t ' I � m 0 v��` 5 -S 'ti �: - l LTA
_ �! 4 _ ••� .T ^ .� Q _ �����c _ •, Wit' _ CY.
^' t - `r'_; �- - _ - r.. -.�"_= � _ �-I ^...yam•.- -_ �\ � _-\� �- � �_�f �� �u�' �� t•+
_ .3 i- _ter' -% : __�- i .. � �� _._ :�1,.`i -.7= :.:' � � i - i'���- `-- `;►`� -' ���i- :t?'� °.:.-
. (IOOC I �' •� 6 J [^3f1 � �i v \_° -'_ski � yam' /'� '+
_ • -_ = _ _ _: _ _ � 's.•�r�. .. ..: —a � - 5''^
_.
at-- _
•
_
r
r-,
r
1
� flr,nr >•Y,n nn.•.(.ys»•en,NJr.dT � �,
. , os y.-r..w +«le e„ec..s,an nt Are rewr� • � ._ � .
' • e::r ! 1sNa �
PENN_.... �,
E AVE. - -so:- ,—COUNTY. '
4ACOBSEN j�...�.�, fond :OUIST- •T�__' I I .- .,
,� o t +THIRD ADDITION'S
T•� w M _}
' } OLIVER AVE.
- = � -ter.:• >,.�.: s ` � - - _'` y s
:. NEWTOW r r
r ` •aa ^�y _ = AVE -_
y..:. _ r •►
�. rte.•' � ':;fi•:;:•. :_< = , � g�• �IRST r
r
� a =
_ '
-:8Y; .E./ R w 8 i _ J ' 1
AND,.
_
_
_.e
"J•
� C+
3
w
J
J H
� _
0 ..
N
EN' +�
-,K r11a _ •
• =.r a •1/ - f MORGAN vAVE.•'S u• ..
" z _ :r. 1 yF i=�% N - s •. . MEL JOHNSON• �_' ?. �• r'
IRS
pd� J V:•J ; d"N.TACK~..
S \ «rn.. cn •.a. LOGAN i - • M J ... _ C'� - r_
J r•Y
AVE. S.
Is
rn
X2 •,
a Ji
------ - - - - -- 1J 7 - -_ - -- �• - - - -- _- C �_--- • - - •• e•'lI� a
i�• `, ,(AI•'n IG'Oro •rf ri Syr. � ♦.c ��
/rw:.e %js HIGHWAY— �� - - - -'
_ `.INTERSTATE-
• fi . .� i:.St -F
iet ��.i1 1 i�as
"';ppd !� \c'•d6 SOB_ '" - - -; Y r �: t
. � ,�� t• r S�\�
Q y.__- .• °. .. - «...i:,e��. • so�o %, !�d ccr» ,F . .<ss� • X g ar s tt
i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 247
Agenda June 23, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Rezone Property
at 66th and Sheridan From R Residence to PMR
Planned Multiple Residential and Approval of a
Planned Unit Development Plan for the Fraser
Community Services Apartment Project
Council Members:
At the June 9th, 1986 city council meeting the council gave
first reading approval to an ordinance to rezone the property at
the northeast corner of 66th Street and Sheridan Avenue from 'R'
single family residential to 'PMR' planned multiple residential.
Second reading of the ordinance and the public hearing on this
matter was scheduled for June 23, 1986. This rezoning is
necessary to allow Louise Whitbeck Fraser Community Services to
remove the existing two single family dwellings on this site and
construct a 3 story, 30 unit apartment building for
developmentally delayed adults who are capable of independent
living.
In addition to the second reading of the rezoning ordinance,
the city council should also consider approval of a Planned Unit
Development Plan for the Fraser Community Services Apartment
project. A Planned Unit Development is a type of zoning which
allows the developer and the city more flexibility in developing
and reviewing projects. Planned Unit Developments are not
subject to strict building setbacks, building height, parking,
unit size, and other standards that are required in standard
zoning districts. The council reviews plans and determines if
the use and its design is appropriate for the site and the
community. As discussed in the attached staff report, the
proposed project is located closer to 66th Street, has more
dwelling units, has fewer parking stalls, and has a smaller unit
size than would be allowed if the site was in a standard multiple
family residential district.
Another important aspect of a Planned Unit Development
rezoning is that the rezoning is subject to a specific plan. The
project must be built and maintained in substantial compliance
with the approved plan. In a standard multiple family zoning
district, additional units could be added, the type of tenants
could change, or other changes made without city review as long
as zoning ordinance standards are met. In the case of the Louise
Whitbeck Fraser Community Services apartment project, additional
units, or a change to non - developmentally delayed tenants would
require city review.
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public
hearing on this matter and give second reading approval to the
attached ordinance rezoning the site. It is further recommended
that the City Council approve a planned unit development plan for
this site subject to the following stipulations:
1. That the applicant submit additional design detail
of the north boundary of this site to demonstrate that a
sufficient screen and buffer is provided between the
site and the adjacent single family residential
properties.
2. That a final drainage plan be submitted to the city
engineer for approval.
3. That the applicant provide additional parking on the
site as indicated if the city determines that additional
parking is needed in the future.
4. That the applicant complete a shadow analysis to confirm
that there will be no significant effect on adjacent
properties.
Finally, it is recommended that the City Council authorize
submittal of a amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to the
Metropolitan Council to show the site as high density
residential. The Comprehensive Plan Map designation of the site
would then be consistent with the zoning of this site.
A copy of the previous staff report providing more detailed
information on this matter is attached in the backup to this
letter for council information.
SLD /eja
•
Res.e tfully 't d,
e n L. 'ch
Acting City Manager
.CITY OF RICHFIELD
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 229
Agenda June 9, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Rezoning, and Planned Unit Development Plan and
Request by Louise Whitbeck Fraser Community Services
for a Site at 66th Street and Sheridan Avenue.
Council Members,
Louise Whitbeck Fraser Community Services has requested that
the city rezone a site which includes 2500 and 2516 West 66th
Street. The applicants are requesting that the site be rezoned
from R single family residential to PMR Planned Multiple
Residential to allow them to remove the existing two single
family dwellings on the site and replace them with a 30 unit
apartment for developmentally disabled adults who are capable of
independent living. The city also needs to approve a Planned
Unit Development Plan for the site. The proposed apartment would
be a 3 story structure with a gabled roof. The exterior building
materials would be brick and horizontal lap siding. Parking for
31 cars would be constructed on the west side of the site with
access to the parking area from Sheridan Avenue. A dropoff and
turn around area would be located north of the proposed
structure. Existing mature trees would be saved where possible
especially along the west and north sides of the property.
Additional landscaping will be planted around the parking areas
to provide a buffer from adjacent residential properties.
Zoning Ordinance Reauirements
1. Section 3.31A sets standards for multiple family
residential developments.
2. Section 3.34A sets standards for planned unit
development districts.
3. Section 3.41 establishes criteria for issuing special
use permits.
0
•
—'"
Other Ordinance
Requirements
1. Section 3.54
sets standards for land subdivisions
and
platting
procedures.
2. Section 4.05
sets standards for offstreet
parking areas.
Staff Review
I. Relationship to Ordinances and Plans
The PUD
Ordinance requires that a PUD
project be compared
with the
zoning ordinance requirements
otherwise
applicable
to this type of development.
Shown below is a
comparison
of what would be required for this type of
development
by the normal multiple family
residential
zoning standards
and that which would
be required by the
planned
unit development ordinance.
MR -3 PUD
PROPOSED
Min Lot Area
- - -- 43,560 sq. ft.
Net Land Area:
56,787
Gross Land Area:
73,780 sf
Setbacks
Front
35 - - --
Porch: 19
Main Building: 20
Rear
35 - - --
56
Streetside
Height of - - --
81
Building
or 35 ft
Interior
Height of - - --
65
Building
or 35 ft
Maximum Height
50 - - --
38
Parking
45 39
31 + 8 future
spaces if
necessary
•
•
•
•
MR -3 PUD PROPOSED
Max Floor Area - - -- 25,625.52 sf 24,310 sf
Min Open Space - - -- 53,859.57 sf 61,760 sf
Min Livability - - -- 33,204.10 sf 40,718 sf
Space
Min Recreation - - -- 3,615.23 sf 5,850 sf
Space
Min Unit Size 650 sf - - -- 576 sf
As can be seen the proposal varies from ordinance
requirements in three areas. The first area is the
setback of the structure from west 66th Street. The MR -3
district regulations require a frontyard setback of 35
feet. The proposed building would have a setback of only
20 feet and the porch would be setback only 19 feet. The
proposed site plan shows a setback of 37 feet from west
66th Street, however, this site plan does not take into
account the 17 feet which was acquired by the county for
the 66th Street improvement project. Therefore the
actual setback would be 20 feet. It is staff's opinion
that the reduced setback would not be detrimental. By
locating the dwelling closer to 66th Street, additional
separation is provided between the proposed apartment and
the adjacent single family residences. Also the setback
standard would have been exceeded had it not been for the
acquisition of additional right -of -way by Hennepin County
for the street project. The west half of the building
also steps back from 66th Street and would have a setback
greater than the required 35 feet. The proposal exceeds
all other setback requirements.
The second area where zoning ordinance standards are not
met is parking. The developer indicates that they will
provide 31 parking stalls at this time and an additional
8 in the future if they are necessary. The PUD ordinance
requires that 39 parking stalls be provided and the
parking standards for the MR -3 zone would require 45
parking stalls to be provided for this type of use. It
is staff's opinion that because of the unique nature of
the occupancy in this structure that the 31 parking
stalls should be sufficient. The only tenant which would
drive a car would be the caretaker. The other 29 units
would be occupied by individuals who do not drive and who
rely on the buses for transportation. If at some future
date the tenants in the building change to those who
would be driving automobiles, 8 additional stalls could
be constructed to meet the PUD ordinance requirements.
The third area where the proposal differs from the zoning
ordinance requirements would be in the minimum dwelling
unit size. The multiple family residential regulations
indicate that the minimum dwelling unit size for a 1
bedroom unit would be 650 square feet. The proposal
indicates that the typical unit size would be 576 square
feet. It is staff's opinion that the units are well
designed and would be sufficiently large. This is
especially true when considering that there typically
will be just one person living in each of these units.
The city's comprehensive plan indicates that the proposed
site should be developed as a medium density buffer.
Principal uses in this designation would be multi family
duplexes, single family residential and existing
convenience commercial. The proposed 30 unit apartment
would not be consistent with this particular designation.
The proposed use would be more appropriate in a high
density multiple residential or mixed ise cesignated
area. The proposal would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan policy to allow higher density
residential development along arterial roadways, however.
The proposal would meet all requirements in terms of
design of the offstreet parking area with the exception
of two items. The proposed driveway into the property is
only 23 feet instead of the required 26 foot minimum for
multiple residential property. Because of the unique
nature of this proposal and the fact that it generates a
relatively small amount of traffic it is staff's opinion
that the 23 foot width should be sufficient. The second
area where it varies from offstreet parking standards is
that a 15 foot buffer area would not be provided between
the parking area and adjacent residential property on the
north. The proposed plan indicates that there would only
be a 5 foot setback which would be landscaped to screen
the parking area from the adjacent residents. Staff has
some concern that the proposed buffer area would not
sufficiently screen the parking area from the adjacent
residents. Additional design detail of that area is
necessary.
The subject property is platted property and therefore
staff sees no necessity for requiring a resubdivision of
the property. The applicant may want to resubdivide and
combine the property into a single lot. If the applicant
chooses to do that then the normal subdivision process
and city approvals would have to be followed.
II. Availability of Public Service
The site is adequately served by utilities including gas,
water, electricity and sanitary sewer. The city engineer
has reviewed the drainage plan and determined that storm
sewer lines are not available
distance. Therefore it would
catch basins on the site to h
city engineer needs to review
insure that storm drainage is
III. Traffic Circulation and Control
within a reasonable
be difficult to install
andle storm drainage. The
the final drainage plan to
handled properly.
-////- 4.; /,1
Institute of Transportation Engineers studies indicate that a
30 unit apartment building would generate approximately 6.1
average daily trips per unit. This would result in a 183
additional vehicles trips per day on surrounding streets.
There will be sufficient capacity on adjacent streets to
handle this small increase of traffic with the planned
improvements on West 66th Street. The actual number of trips
generated by this particular use would also be considerably
less than the project 183 trips. The tenants in the building,
with the exception of the caretaker, do not drive, therefore
trips to and from the site would be limited to visitors and
Fraser Community Service support - persons. In all likelihood
the traffic generated by the proposed use may not be
significantly higher than the existing single family
residences on the site. Access to the site as indicated
previously would be via a single curb cut off Sheridan Avenue.
This would allow cars coming to and from the site to enter or
leave 66th Street at a controlled intersection rather than
through a driveway directly onto 66th Street. This reduces
the likelihood that the traffic would cause any congestion on
66th Street.
IV. Light Exposure and Air Circulation
It is staff's opinion that the proposal would allow sufficient
light exposure and air circulation both on the site and on
adjacent properties. The building has been located to provide
maximum separation between the building and the residential
area to the north. Preliminary shadow analysis by staff
indicates during the worst case situation which would occur on
December 21st the proposed building would cast shadow early
and late in the day on adjacent properties. The existing
trees and existing dwellings on the site would also cast
shadows on the neighboring properties. Therefore the proposed
dwelling would not increase the shadow affects already
existing on the site. A full shadow analysis should be done
to confirm this.
V. Nature and Extent of Open Space
The project provides a sufficient amount of open space on the
site to both provide adequate space for the tenants and also
to separate the use from adjacent properties. Several mature
trees would be maintained on the site which would also enhance
its appearance.
VI. Impact of the Proiect on the Neiahborhood
The project involves the replacement of two single family
dwellings with a more intensive multi- family use on the site.
However from a land use standpoint single family residential
use of the site would not seem to be the best use of the
property. The site abuts an arterial roadway with high
traffic volumes which has adverse impact on single family
residential use. The use of a multi - family development on the
site to provide a transitional use between the high volume
roadway and adjacent single family residential uses would seem
appropriate. The unique nature of this particular proposal
would also seem a good transitional use because of its low
traffic volume generation. The adjacent site is zoned "MR"
multiple residence.
The design of the building also helps to reduce its impact on
the surrounding single family neighborhood. The way the
building steps back from 66th Street to avoid the appearance
of a long wall, the use of exterior materials similar to that
of single family dwellings (brick and horizontal lap siding)
and the use of gable roofs and dormers reduces the scale and
mass of the buildings and helps them blend into the
neighborhood.
Considerable neighborhood opposition has been voiced against
allowing additional apartments or commercial in the area by
surrounding residential property owners at hearings held by
the Planning Commission. Attached are two lists of property
owners who signed petitions against the development of
apartment on the site in question. List A contains signatures
from 78 properties and was presented to the Planning
Commission on January, 1986. List B contains signatures from
83 properties and was presented to the Planning Commission on
May 28, 1986.
Impact Upon Surrounding Property Values
At the public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission
concern was raised by area residents that the proposed project
would significantly decrease their property values. As the
attached letter from Larry Miller of the Hennepin County
Assessors office indicates, it is believed that the proposed
development would have no appreciable impact upon surrounding
property values.
Project Size
The proposed project size of 30 units was chosen because
that was the amount approved by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD). If the project size were to be
changed, it would have to be approved by HUD.
Property Tax Status
The proposed development would be on the property tax roles.
The assessed value of the building would be 20 percent of its
market value, and the land would be assessed at 34 percent of
market value.
Potential Future Conversion of the Building to Apartments
A question raised at the Planning Commission meeting on May
28th related to the concern that in a few years after
construction the building could be converted to a market rate
apartment building. The Department of Housing and Urban
Development will hold a 35 years mortgage on the property. The
only way the building could be converted into market rate
apartments would be for the mortgage to be paid off early. If
this were to happen then the Section 8 rent subsidy would be
lost. This would be totally contrary to the mission of the
Fraser organization.
Height of Building
The Fraser organization architect attempted to receive
approval for a two story building, however, the lower level of
subsidy received from HUD for a building of this size would
render the project financially infeasible.
Additional Zoning Considerations
The zoning pattern along the north side of 66th Street from
Penn Avenue westward to Xerxes Avenue contains general
commercial, multiple residential, two - family residential and
single family residential zoning classifications. At the present
time approximately 600 feet of the above - mentioned 2,600 foot
frontage (or 23 percent) is zoned single family residential. One
thousand five hundred feet (or 58 percent) of the frontage is
zoned general commercial and 150 feet (or 6 percent) is zoned
two - family residential. The remaining 350 feet (13 percent) is
zoned multiple family residential (MR).
The property located immediately east of and contiguous to
subject property is zoned MR multiple family residential. It
would be legally permissible to construct 15 multiple - family
dwelling units on this property at a height of three stories. IF
the subject property were to be rezoned MR, it would be
permissible to develop 26 dwelling units on the proeprty. The MR
zoning classification affords less site control than does the PMR
zoning classification being sought by the Fraser organization.
•
7Z,7y 9
Human Services Commission Recommendation
Attached to this council letter is a copy of a letter from
Myrna Hammer, Chairperson of the Human Services Commission. Ms.
Hammer indicates in this letter that the Human Services Commission
supports the Fraser proposal, and recommends that it be approved
by the City Council.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission on a 7 -2 vote (Herrboldt and
Erlander voting against) recommended approval of the PUD plan and
rezoning with the following stipulations:
A. That the applicant submit additional design detail
of the north boundary of the site to demonstrate that a
sufficient screen and buffer is provided between the
site and the adjacent single family residential
properties.
B. That a final drainage plan be submitted to the city
engineer for approval.
C. That the applicant be allowed to provide as few as 15
offstreet parking spaces on the site to provide
additional green area and additional buffer area along
the north boundary of the site. The applicant shall
provide additional parking on the site if the city
determines that additional parking is needed in the
future.
D. That the applicant complete a shadow analysis to confirm
that there will be no significant effect on adjacent
properties.
Staff Recommendation
It is staff's opinion that the type of development
proposed would be a good transitional use between the high
volume arterial street and adjacent single family
neighborhood. The proposal is well designed to fit into the
character of the surrounding residential neighborhood and
would be consistent with the Comprehensive plan policy to
allow higher density multi - residential use along arterial
roadways. The proposed development would not generate any
significant amount of additional traffic in the area.
Therefore it is recommended that the City Council approve the
PUD plan, rezoning with the following stipulations.
•
�y o
A. That the applicant submit additional design detail of
the north boundary of the site to demonstrate that a
sufficient screen and buffer is provided between the
site and the adjacent single family residential
properties.
B. That a final drainage plan be submitted to the city
engineer for approval.
C. That the applicant provide additional parking on the
site as indicated if the city determines that additional
parking is needed in the future.
D. That the applicant complete a shadow analysis to confirm
that there will be no significant effect on adjacent
properties.
To accomplish this the council should give first reading to
the attached ordinance rezoninq the site from sin a aml
rest ence o planned multiple rest ence. Second reading of
e ordinance an e official council public hearing onthe
ink a shout a scheduled or June 23 1986. RPprova of tie
FUD plan can a one ei t er a the June 9th or June 23rd meeting.
`ft is staff's opinion , that it would a more appropriate to
approve the plan after the official public hearing on June 23rd.
If the City Council approves the rezoning of the site the
comprehensive plan should tie amended to show the site as high
density residen -tial so that th ce omprehensive plan will be
consistent with the zoning of .the site.
Respectfully submitted,
?tle� v n vi ting Cit Ma ager
i
c
U �E
d
L 3
c
d
ea
c
ca
M
N
0
��
Ln
■�
LA
M
ti
0
■ .■.
i
c
U �E
d
L 3
c
d
ea
c
ca
6
May 30, 1986
Recommendation to City Council
It is our understanding that on June 9 the
City Council will review a proposal from Fraser
Community Services for a Semi Independent Liv-
ing (S.I.L.S.) apartment facility which they
would manage.
The Richfield Human Services Commission serv-
ing Seniors and Disabled, supports this pro-
posal.
S.I.L.S. programs provide a training oppor-
tunity for individuals who are developmentally
disabled to become responsible employed members
of their community. Fraser is well known and
respected for the services it provides. The
Human Services Commission views this S.I.L.S.
apartment facility as an asset to the com-
munity. We sincerely hope the Council will
approve this proposal.
Myrna Hammer
Chairperson
Human Services Commission
Serving Seniors & Disabled
telephone: 869 -7521 (612)
an equal opportunity employer
M
L
0
C.
■�
O
O
ti
O
6
May 30, 1986
Recommendation to City Council
It is our understanding that on June 9 the
City Council will review a proposal from Fraser
Community Services for a Semi Independent Liv-
ing (S.I.L.S.) apartment facility which they
would manage.
The Richfield Human Services Commission serv-
ing Seniors and Disabled, supports this pro-
posal.
S.I.L.S. programs provide a training oppor-
tunity for individuals who are developmentally
disabled to become responsible employed members
of their community. Fraser is well known and
respected for the services it provides. The
Human Services Commission views this S.I.L.S.
apartment facility as an asset to the com-
munity. We sincerely hope the Council will
approve this proposal.
Myrna Hammer
Chairperson
Human Services Commission
Serving Seniors & Disabled
telephone: 869 -7521 (612)
an equal opportunity employer
i
L
0
ZONI G
WEST 641h STREET
It YT
4 1 io) of's
i
4L
to
.Olt
F;'j ui •rc 1
4XI
r
I I -,A)
'WEST
%
2
z
WEST 66TH STREET
r:
0 ------
INDUSTRIAL
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
MR (MULTIPLE RESIDENCE)
STREET
MR-2 (3-17 DWELLING UNITS)
MR-1 (TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE)
SPL_ USE PERMIT
■ VARIANCE
*REZONING
S;P;--
EETt-�
ni'p J, .:� •Fls .y: 1 ?'�;za. .. c} ° '�
i .%#1 67 -
r
0
T
1
14
lit
LAND USE
WEST' • BUS; V* -.4 —STREET
WEST
uj
0
cr
0
VOOMP
'AID
oc
-10
it)
..... . ......
z
IJ
.2
irt4
BEET
Aw-w!EL;;
in
WEST
uj
0
cr
0
VOOMP
oc
WEST
COMMERCIAL
APARTMENTS
DUPLEX'
SCHOOL
arc Jy
3 'p w
job
CQ=
1•
WEST 66TH ST
Ab
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
I• �I
uj
0
cr
0
it)
..... . ......
IJ
.2
BEET
Aw-w!EL;;
2"7
on
STREET
A2
ta
z 2i
z
Imo
7-
uj
.
.6 -A
d
Z.
I• �I
•
;-1 Z,1141
j � � �. : !7!a's �•r•e•,7 d. L .. ,•a°,I.o �.�,c v a�.. �_` � 8 . _
liz; �� ` p, 1 -�� —�� ~ N + a ¢ :t Tr
00
J6
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
. . . . . . . . . . .
*EST STWEET
z
(oil
--47
W
LAO < j zz.
43,
C3 -7w-r
. . . . . ......
i. ixS77-7 23
13
Lu
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
T� z�
X
7
La 71
• y' ; i' f �s) s �l i!►�. y ,�.SQp�rY •' ' Y�,r.Yy 'm
cc
z
"VeST
N
WEST 66TH STREET
Wzll
I -- -
47. g 4A us
........ ....
V
.3cFF-.
STR • MEDIUM TO HIGH MIXED LAND USE a
MEDIUM DENSITY BUFFER
, ZVEINSTITUTIONAL cl
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE-- 7 n-1 Tv 7i
31,
, 7a, t7�
-M T-
r.",H •
13 a — (
.1p z
5CA _U4,
m �
♦ � s s s � s z s: �_
RfRIES AVE i� -s rs:casa- xva+} -•- "- •- .�, - —_ —_ �.
*AS" UPON —��-; %� C -�'•` � --.�.- .....�......."�r.. �i013'`f �H
..
VIN ENT 1-'�. ,��! —Ji T '_-"+. •`_.` -__�` MAMOGUwN
UPTON ,,'i ,YI�iWT
+�= _ -�i� —� �`- ., i ` —� = -
THOMAS 280 TN0•rg
SNER101M �.
t
RUSSELL miM
OUEEN it' morass,,,
i 6,
PENN AVE. i I. :! rt• QU
OLIVER ��� _ ^^ .... I I_ Ii .. ice_ . — rK.
MERTON L• IL ��' f1 ��L .I•• r i :: I 01aMR9t
• MORGAN 1�1� �:�.'• e...: i I I� r I, 1,
LOGAM `i I; t� '�L_.L�. � b4comm"RM
' KNOK = If a_J i� :I, ��• t/ �1Fl V•
JAMES . i I' YF^-
IRVING
NUY60LDT � =t - - -- w 1' I-
GIRARD �.�I I�it•� -�` I y•IN1Y1@L7T
EMERSON
`�` ' = -��� �•►
T �' B R
UT:DM
■ DUPONT ti ��+ _ s[ -O , 2 '�1'h�
0 ♦ ;' 1
COLFAX OIIDMIM
— BRTANT O
I.r il_�`J� 1 \�`- -'r S`, I7f+UOI mmmaT
LYNDALE AvE �_�, '/ � �/� C,. 'l sI aU0R1 Dlt
• WRFIELD I ��.� -'- (� ���- �I •\�1'i— � OKR►f7jo) ..
^ NaRR1ET lir=e L=�
GRAND t� �i N4RR1ifT
aRaMu
O PLEASANT' �':_�..�..e.�.�- ____I_1'7� '�'"j.!___ _ j �_��'. -'•
PILLSBURY AEfflT! •.' it :.i CJi - r•�:�— � I 1 ' 1 ✓1 SST V
C
WENTWORTM
I �•.�. j. i:�_ =J11` `VEwwO)tTNI
" 11��'' i�JI II �r II 'wc �[ •�/{P tt f \`
Z BLa13DELL��,� �.�., B
MICOLLET AVE. -- 1 ' is '1.
S7EVEN3 ��JL_J�J� I�.��..ri II �I ;�jt —I �� --�. �4 1•f.
CDklzWt
CUNTON In•��1 =.r ,. Ij 1; .I.� ■V.�ZJ �J} 31!!
•ta I=XTONI ..
Poll TLAND avE_
co OAKLAND � •MPT'LARND tNQ
M MRR I: + ch ' OaRlyRlm
COLUMBUS L G V. a Gi: i, F�►i111i
CHICAGO ; ��- t I' I; r n• �: yl OmLauum
- ELLIOT
IOtAIC
11 tR
12 t► L• r I. I. is 1, I: 9 h_ —r, l; I '.�, thaw.
13th
1111 I i�J .�J� 1 ' : �i..T� f•�.��tr l0a\`
1 I.
I raNn
Ip th r Ei
KODYINGTON +.'1lr1� —' J� — �•�••�� -�_ 11 Ail I .f 151tIP
Ii 1• 'f. �j �•'•,`_ ^l� - Jil I >ft- (j:�� __ .I t is (,��I - -iLll taLmotMIQm11
Gtw
Oslo, _
CEDAR AVE �_ ^ ______ `.
LONGFELLOW ____- emu_ -____ _ _ sle�elsx____ .C=mF MME.
m ♦� s : t i I r_JI� 1lhM
•. r Ll
rq
H 7�I at
• z A w I Effiatt
C) 1 r t
,` $TIR�maN
( i tL Y yn MCI
M iTT -,
11:
Korsunakm Knaik Inc.
300 First Axemuw NoAh
Suite 500
Minneape&_ IM-45ADI
612/339-VOR)
May 9 . L
Mr. Demprts %,neiftt
Director 01 Ummuntty iRevelopment
City of wew� lam b
6700 ftrtlard, Avenue aadtt
Richfield. IM11 15J%13E
Dear ffr. raraftz
SUBJECT: Erdssr irragmenbmt Living
Q=.. I. ;E54 '1 -0153 -01
Enclased fis The --rev)ia-ad tfl.U.D. Submittal for the Fraser Ibdb ndent UJIVAng
,a
proyect. Otte ne�ri-siro-ns to the site plan and the submil,';AT uf'a) per.S:PPr1H;Ve,
drawinq we-re trerques:te, ihy Rick* Jd-oke. These are not myfi%tnns, tm tfta C-DRUElpi
of the ,M. o,6ffc,t, !ba zre !rather enhancements of the matL-i,:a:fi
subiwf it' Tats.
In add t�,,an, it ipha.ve baen ' 'in contact with Mike Easling in, re-u !T,' "-a-,
drainage gaff ithe Jitt
_P tuniiar consideration. Mr. Easling i,z_ studby,,- .,. tile; qj-
locatlzm for fWwre tanr sewer lines. For the present;,, we,. 1hrayn-, jqp%ml t.-D)
drain tftve itiaimi ;parking area to Sheridan Avenue pa- a4ing) (O'Saamen Q)F
add-ittco.sW5 to drainage. y, ,
The vvMiver ,df ;uhitlls -desnr*,ibed on the P.U.D. applicatior fanw ha& beeni nlviiil3e)
to 30. d:
Enclasve, 11,(:s is dhadk ',for tlR amount of $161 for the app3tZat.iiant f4p?_
KOR ly f W.,Z HITEM-, INC.
Bill
mer
Enclaswres
I 3;e
0
C1
korsunsh% Krank Ericke*n Architects. Inca #
300 first Avenue North
.Suite )00
Vinneapobs..%i� 55401
6,12/339 -4200
May 2, 1986
Mr. Dennis Kraft
Director of Community Development
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55432
Dear Mr. Kraft:
We hereby submit for your review and approval a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
for the Fraser Independent Living Project. It is located on a one -acre site .
at the intersection of West 66th Street and Sheridan Avenue South. The
proposal consists_ three -story residential building containing 31 one- bedroom
living units.
The following is a summary of information and issues relating to the P.U.D.
proposal.
OWNERSHIP
The property owner is the Louise Whitbeck Fraser School, Inc., 2400 West 64th
Street, Richfield, MN 55423.
EXISTING SITE CONDITIOMS
The site consists of one -plus acre. and As bounded on the south by West 66th
Street, on the west by Sheridan Avenue South, and at the northeast corner by
Russell Avenue. Topographically, the site is relatively flat with slight
slope..toward West 66th Street and Russell Avenue.
There are two extant one -story residential structures on the site. A number
of mature trees are located on the site, primarily on the north and east
property lines.
r
I I
I�
M -
Page 2
Mr. Dennis Kraft
May 2, 1986
E
Vice President
me r
•
SURROUNDING LAND USES
The proposed development is located in an area of single family zoning. The
long range plan calls for multi- family zoning on the properties to the north of
66th Street between Russell and Penn Avenue.
DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
The proposed site for the independent living project represents a transition
between single family neighborhoods and the multi - family and commerical areas
proposed in the long range plan. As such, the site provides opportunities for
the integration of this moderate scale independent living project. The shape
of the building is designed such that the scale of each element will reflect
that of the surrounding single family housing. Likewise, the materials and
details clearly express the residential character of the building.
The building is oriented in such a way as to conceal parking from West 66th
Street. Berms and landscape screens - restrict the view of the parking area from
the adjacent residences.
In addition, a primary goal in the design is to save the majority of the
prominent mature trees which provide a woodland character to the neighborhood.
We appreciate your consideration of the proposed planned unit development. We
look forward to continuing our work with you and your staff in responding to
the questions and comments you may have regarding this proposal.
Sincerely,
KOR KRANK ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC.
E
Vice President
me r
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD? i
_{ 6
Application for
PLK;NED UNIT (PUD) DISTRICT REZONING
To: Richfield Planning Director
i Application is hereby made for PUD Distri
ct Rezoning.
Applicant Name: Louise Whitbeck Fraser School, Inc. Telephone # 861 -1688
I�
Address: 2400 West 64th Street, Richfield, Mfi.55423
Legal Description of proposed PUD District:
Lot 7, Jacobsen's Subdivision of West 1/2 of Lot 14,
Gardens, and Lot 1, Richfield Gardens Pree Manor, - Hennepin County, Minnesota
Attach copy of petition if this amendment is to be initiated by petition .
as provided in Sec. 3.42 Subd. S.
A Planned Unit Development Plan is attached in accordance with Chapter III,
Part IV, Section 3.34A, Subd. 3(2) of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield.
Brief description of the general character of the proposed PUD
See attached cover letter.
Proposed zoning: PMR
r
Existing zoning: R -1
Ownership of puD (including an explanation of the way in which the require-
ments of Section 3.34A Subd. 2(l) are met) : Sane as applicant above
i
L
Amount of land area and floor space devoted to each different use. FILL
! ALL BLANKS; IF NOT APPLICABLE, PDT N /A..
N/A Single Family Residential
(number of units) N/A Neighborhood Commercial
- --
Multi- Family Residential N/A General Commercial
30 (number of units)
69,980 Gross land area of PUD as defined in Sec. 3.34A, Subd.1 - (2) (a)
24,310 Total floor area as defined in Sec. 3.34A, Subd.10 (2) (b) .
(061,760 Amount of open space as defined in Sec. 3.34A, Subd.10 (2) '
40,718 8 Amount of livability space a
s defined in Sec. 3.34A, Subd.:0(2:
5,850
Amount of recreations ace as defined in Sec.
p
3.34A ..
5ubn.30
14,591
Amount of land area designated for parking space, streets,
drives and loading areas.
If residential:
Number-of occupant car
spaces as
0
Subd. 10
defined
Sec. 3.34A,
(2) (f) parking
space for resident's
Number of total car spaces as defined in Sec. .3 A,
Subd. 10 (2) (f)
31
If commercial
or industrial: Neer of
parking spaces
N/A
h/A
Amount of space for truck
loading facilities.
one (See Plan)
Number of vehicular entrances
and 'exits and their general
location.
Average daily traffic from
entrances and exits
and their
peak hours volume.
See Plan
Distance to nearest_ public
street intersection
from each
entrance and exit.
_
48
Applicable Land Use Intensity Rating from Sec.
3-
.34A, Subd.9.
APPLICABLE
RATIO
MULTIPLIER
STANDARD
ACTUAL
. 4
(Floor Areal
x E o p
Gross Lana Area
a
Maximum Area
24 310
Propose
_
.73
Wen Space
x 69,980
51,086
61,760
ross Land--
an Area
K2nimuza Azea
Propose )
.45 x 69, -980
(Livability Space) Gross Land Area
:. 31,491
Minimum Area
40,718
Propose
L
.049 x 69,980
Recreation Space Gross Land Area
_ 3,429
iiinimum Area
5,850
Proposed
1.1
_ in
(Living Units)
34
(Minimum NO
31
(Proposed)
Occupant Car
of Spaces)
+ 8 Future
Stalls
-
1.3
(Total Car
x 3n
(Living Units)
39
= Mlna.mum No.
(Proposed)
of Spaces)
_
* g Future S
Describe any changes to the Concept Proposal: gone
Stalls
Describe development schedule as rem
quired by Sec. 3.34A, Subd, 3(4)=
We will proceed with construction after approving by City and final approval of
b
fundino
v HUD.
=
t is understood that if PUD District Rezoning is granted, the a
Shall submit a final development plan along with an application PPlicant
special use permit in accordance with the ordinance afectingsamerand .
that applicant may be ems:- ed s �-
be required by the P a. ^.nI.n � D' e .
ub- it uch further information as may
Applicant Signature
Date 5 -1 -86
Fee in the amount of $ .
received.
Receipt #
Concept statement to Planning Depa- t=ent - Date:
Director approval of PUD concept statement
Referred PIID to Planning Department - Date: Date:
Referred for comment _
Referred PDD to planningaC�1ssion or •
Puo_ic earing recommendation -
Referred PL-D to City Council for public heariDate:
g & ap p -ova - •
Final plan referred to Planning Department Date:
! Date:
16Referred final plan to City Council f or •
FFECTIVE DATE: approval
0-0! : , 1
j
i
3r*GAV NVaD W
0
I
! Jf321
s � �
e +
Y O _
s{P'
F
1 j
�f 1
C]
i
J v._
f�
(k
A
1.
y
ii:3�
�
FI
I i� I ❑ i�
EI
[LE3L
Cb orill , f o
I
�
m
t
t a
l
f t/
�d
s•
O-
�d
Y
�r
f
I �
BM3AV XvaVJB"
i
W
<
Z l_ • s
8
0
W
N
0
C_
0
CC
a-
G
- _
W
Z
`o
gW
Z
2
9
Fil
�e
1
1
t l
toil
0
m
-C
19-1
f
1•
�i
!�i f
Ir r
1 !: It*
0
g'
x�
•
LIST A
As a resident-of property as noted below, I am opposed to a rezoning of
property at 66th Street and Sheridan Avenue from its current residential
classification to a higher density or to a commercial zone.
Resident
Address
Date Telephone
List of people. who are opposed to Fraser School development on a
site at the northeast corner of 66th Street and Sheridan Avenue.
Name ADDRESS 0i'
1.
Dawn Jones
7229
Aldrich Avenue South
2.
Salma Khan
6539
Queen Avenue South
3.
Sigrid Cookos
6533
Queen Avenue South
4.
Mr. and Mrs. Neui
6617
Russell Avenue South
5.
Mr. and Mrs. Tosel
6632
Russell Avenue South
6.
Ruth Kelman
6628
Russell Avenue South
7.
Kay Fleming
6616
Russell Avenue South
Jeffery Fleming
8.
Mr. and MRrs. Warner
6612
Russell Avenue South
9.
Mr. and Mrs. Mast
6640
Russell Avenue South
10.
Laurel Fredrickson
6700
Russell Avenue South
Steve Rasmussen
11.
Kenneth J. Kounger
6637
Russell Avenue South
.12.
Stanford K. Lund
:6701
Russell Avenue South
13.
Darlene Menke
6625
Sheridan Avenue South
14.
Mr. and Mrs. Malmstedt
_ 6617
Sheridan Avenue South..
15.
Donald D. "Haukoos - -
6613
Sheridan Avenue South -
16.
Barbara J. Gause
6612
Sheridan Avenue South
17.
Milton R. Fretty
6620
Sheridan Avenue South
18.
Mr. and Mrs. R.W. George
6624
Sheridan Avenue South
19.
Mr. and Mrs. Baker
6640
Sheridan Avenue South
20.
Mr. Richard A. Cash
6636
Sheridan Avenue South
21.
Mr. and Mrs. Rossow
6632
Sheridan Avenue South
22.
Mr. and Mrs. Swanson
6628
Sheridan Avenue South
23.
J. A. Scharden
6641
Sheridan Avenue South
24.
Mr. and Mrs. Doyle
6644
Sheridan Avenue South
25.
Betty Morton
6645
Sheridan Avenue South
26.
Mr. and Mrs. Wm. Hammond
6701
Sheridan Avenue South
Mrs. Ruth M. Solem
27.
Mr. and Mrs. Cooper
6704
Sheridan Avenue South
28.
Eida Shenk =
6624
Thomas Avenue South
29.
Walter Fix
6616
_
Thomas Avenue South
30.
Mr. and Mrs. Jackson
6612
Thomas Avenue South
31.
Mr. and Mrs. Hemld.-
6640
Thomas_ Avenue South
32.
Leslie Perso
6629
Thomas Avenue South
33.
Mr. and Mrs. Chapman
6637
Thomas Avenue South
34.
Mr. and Mr. Rosenberg
6633
Thomas Avenue.South
(not signed)
35.
Laurie Burk
6641
Thomas Avenue South
36.
S.E. Ray
2701
West 66th Street
37.
Mrs. Rebecca Strom
2617
West 66th Street
38.
Mr. and Mrs. Spinner
2609
West 66th Street
Pete Ruthwirsch
Alan A. White
39.
Barbara Floody
2605
West 66th Street
40.
Mr. and Mrs. Hanson
2601
West 66th Street
41.
Mr. and MRs. Koski
2517
West 66th Street
42.
Madelyn Sypnieski
2509
West 66th Street
Martha Annis
43.
Kathleen G. Amand
2501
West 66th Street
44.
Mr. and Mrs. McAloon
6533
Sheridan Avenue South
45.
Mr. and Mrs. Mattila
6527
Sheridan Avenue South
•
•
K
•
i
46. Mrs. Norm Staner
47. Mr. and Mrs. Larish
48. Mr. and Mrs. Carroll
49. Mr. and Mrs. Rice
50. Gina Lund
Curtis A. Killett
Keith Gorean
Kelley A. Kovensky
51. Mr. and Mrs. L.S. Johnson
52. Mary J. Markkula
53. Judy Black
Paul R. Black
54. Mr. and Mrs. Radley
55. Mr. and MRrs. Bangerter
56. Bruce G. Davis
Diane D. Davis
57. Mr. and Ms. Cross
58. Lloyd D. Grindle
Hannah Grindle
59. Ruth Gustafson
60. Mr. and Mrs. Walter
61. Mr. and Mrs. Anderson
62. Mr. and Mrs. Baker
63. Mr. and Mrs. Jahn
64. Dorothy M. Addis
65. Mr. and Mrs. Duke
66. Audrey F. Teeple
67. Harry A. Johnson
68. Donna Jaeger
69. Mr. and Mrs. Haw
70. Daniel Peterson
71. Mr. and Mrs. Gibson
72. Mr. and Mrs. Weber
73• Mr. and Mrs. Jackowicz_
74. Mr. and Mrs. Bye _
75. James Ryan
76. Mr. and firs. Lloyd
77.. Mr. and Mrs. Peterson
78. Mrs. D.C. McKenjie
-2- ;
6538 Sheridan Avenue South'
6532 Sheridan Avenue South
6526 Sheridan Avenue South
6526 Thomas Avenue South
0527 Thomas Avenue South
6532 Thomas Avenue South
6533 Thomas Avenue South
6538 Thomas Avenue South
6539 Thomas Avenue South
6545 Thomas Avenue South
6521 Sheridan Avenue South
6520 Sheridan Avenue South
6515 Sheridan Avenue South
6509 Sheridan Avenue South
6503 Sheridan Avenue South
0501 Sheridan Avenue -South
6500 Sheridan Avenue South
6528 Russell Avenue South
6520 Russell Avenue South
6514 Russell Avenue South
2414 West 65 1/2 Street
2409 West 65 1/2 Street
2408 West 65 1/2 Street
2401 West 65 1/2 Street
2400 West 65 1/2 Street
2525 West 65th Street
2501 West 65th Street
2415 West 65th Street
2420 West 65th Street
2415 West 65th Street
2421 West 65th Street
2409 West-65th Street
2401 West 65th Street
TERRACE).-
`
TEz
Al
s
4r�.4
I Cv
7' :r
Lq it �x
SO.
SOL
so.
0)
am
YJ
RGAG.1 1,44�
Fr
P W4
T
-,:PENt4i-,. 'SEAL.
S E 60 ry
D 10) 1 T 10 N
Av
-7 -L 'IT
-
--- - '•f - . - WCFNT -
. - - -;,-, - v
SO.
:S+4EfftDAN;:z.. AVE
A011M
rl
4-
rr
SO.
;e! :n
.i ti IY
;Z2 t 2. S89• a
5
PENN AV
q-.
- -- * --
to -'sl
fAVE
REARRAN6EMENT OF LOT 67:�-
7Z�
UPTON
AVE
M
dv
110181MM6191
RGAG.1 1,44�
Fr
P W4
T
-,:PENt4i-,. 'SEAL.
S E 60 ry
D 10) 1 T 10 N
Av
-7 -L 'IT
-
--- - '•f - . - WCFNT -
. - - -;,-, - v
SO.
:S+4EfftDAN;:z.. AVE
A011M
rl
4-
rr
SO.
;e! :n
.i ti IY
;Z2 t 2. S89• a
5
PENN AV
q-.
- -- * --
to -'sl
fAVE
REARRAN6EMENT OF LOT 67:�-
7Z�
UPTON
AVE
N
0
z
:17p,
SHER
M
mingwr
ago
110181MM6191
j
lz_z!!
Alt 2 2 M 1_2
2 MM
1!
11 -
R! I
N
0
z
:17p,
SHER
4
f
6
0
LST �B`��
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
PLANNING COMMISSION
TO
To Property Owners within 350 feet of. the proposed site at
66th Street and Sheridan Avenue
APPLICANT
Louise Whitbeck Fraser Community Services
LOCATION
Lot 7. Jacobsen's Subdivision of the West half of Lot 14,
OF PROPERTY
Richfield Gardens Addition. (2516 West 66th Street)
Lot 1. Richfield Gardens Pres Manor Addition
(2500 West 66th Street)
PURPOSE
To hear reasons for or against the approval of a rezoning
of the site from "R" Single Family Residential to "Plot"
Planned Multiple Residence, approval of a Planned Unit
Development Plan and an amendment of the city's Ccmpre-
hensive Plan. The applicant is proposing to construct
a three atory apartment structure for developmentally
Independent living.
TIME OF HEARING
7:30 PM, Wednesday, May 28. 1986
PLACE OF HEARING
Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall
ortland Avenue South
HOW 70 PARTICIPATE
1. Attend the hearing and give testimony for or against
the proposal.
2. Submit a letter to the Planning Commission expressing
your views.
ANY QUESTIONS
Rick Jopke
City Planner
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield. MM 55423
869 -7521. Ext. 511
MAIUNG DATE - 5 -17 -86
I, the undersigned resident of Richfield, ±OSED>r IN FAVOR of the
above proposed action.
r /
Name
Address
i G" - I
Date
o
1 0
d3HS
b3AI-10--r — =
7— I—r L
col
•
uj hili7 AWWF
14
4
p 1,
t.
AV
151 any
.1Pr 11
ril:
EU;7Z k
•
'OS
os
zt
J�-
ern -S iii 6s
C41:1
ottT e,- a t,
p 1,
t.
cr
.1Pr 11
ril:
EU;7Z k
'OS
os
zt
J�-
ern -S iii 6s
C41:1
ottT e,- a t,
BILL N0.
ORDINANCE NO.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota defining the boundaries of the various zoning districts
of the city enumerated in Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.28,
subdivision 1 of such code is hereby amended in the following
respect:
Appendix C, Section 8 is amended by adding the following
new paragraph 4:
4. Lot 7, Jacobsen's subdivision of the west half of Lot
14, Richfield Gardens Addition (2516 West 66th Street)
and Lot 1 Richfield Gardens Pree Manor Addition (2500
West 66th Street)
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
0 day of � , 1986.
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
0
John Hamilton, Mayor
1.
Mary Mathiason
6531
Queen Avenue
2.
Mrs. Siqrid Cookos
6533
Queen Avenue
3.
Signature Unreadable
6539
Queen Avenue
4.
John Deike
6514
Russell
Avenue
5.
Lloyd Grinde
6515
Russell
Avenue
6.
Dorothy Addiss
6520
Russell
Avenue
7.
Russell Jahn
6528
Russell
Avenue
S.
Mark and Peggy Warner
6612
Russell
Avenue
9.
Alice Nelson
6613
Russell
Avenue
10.'
Al and Florence De Neui
6617
Russell
Avenue
11.
Lorilee Clough
6620
Russell
Avenue
12.
Tim Lowe
6629
Russell
Avenue
13.
Leo Tosel
6632
Russell
Avenue
14.
Beverly Hansen
6633
Russell
Avenue
15.
Patrick O'Keefe
6636
Russell
Avenue
16.
Signature Unreadable
6637
Russell
Avenue
17.
Richard Mast
6640
Russell
Avenue
18.
Mrs. Frank McCaw
6644
Russell
Avenue
19.
Dave Saxrud
6645
Russell
Avenue
20.
Helen Baker
6500
Sheridan
Avenue
21.
Carl Anderson
6501
Sheridan
Avenue
22.
Linda Walters
6508
Sheridan
Avenue
23.
Ruth Gustafson
6509
Sheridan
Avenue
24.
John Cross
6520
Sheridan
Avenue
25.
Bruce and Diane Davis
6521
Sheridan
Avenue
26.
Mr. and Mrs. Steve Carroll
6526
Sheridan
Avenue
27.
Emil and Alice Mattila
6527
Sheridan
Avenue
28.
Kimberly Parish
6532
Sheridan
Avenue
29.
James and Christine McAloon
6533
Sheridan
Avenue
30.
Mrs. Norma Staver
6538
Sheridan
Avenue
31.
B.J. Gause
6612
Sheridan
Avenue
32.
Barry Haukoop
6613
Sheridan
Avenue
33.
Dennis Fox
6616
Sheridan
Avenue
34.
Walter Malmstedt
6617
Sheridan
Avenue
35.
Milton and Bernice Gritty
6620
Sheridan
Avenue
36.
Mary Franson
6621
Sheridan
Avenue
37.
Mr. and Mrs. R.W. George
6624
Sheridan
Avenue
38.
Darlene Watkins
6625
Sheridan
Avenue
39.
Mrs. R.E. Swanson
6628
Sheridan
Avenue
40.
Evalyn Stirrat
6629
Sheridan
Avenue
41.
Mr. and Mrs. Elemer Rossow
6632
Sheridan
Avenue
42.
Marian Baker
6640
Sheridan
Avenue
43.
I.A. Schardin
6641
Sheridan
Avenue
44.
Jeffrey Doyle
6644
Sheridan
Avenue
45.
Elizabeth Morton
6645
Sheridan
Avenue
46.
LeRoy Rice
6526
Thomas Avenue
47.
Heidi Hagford
6527
Thomas Avenue
48.
Hilger Hix
6528
Thomas Avenue
49.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson
6532
Thomas Avenue
50.
Denise Schuyler
6533
Thomas Avenue
51.
Mr. and Mrs. Delbert Radley
6539
Thomas Avenue
52.
James Jackson
6612
Thomas Avenue
53.
Walter Fix
6616
Thomas Avenue
54.
Joe Wokasch
6620
Thomas Avenue
zl�
7-� �--
•
•
0
/i
55.
Elda Schenk
6624
Thomas Avenue
56.
Susan Rosenberg
6633
Thomas Avenue
57.
Michael Chapman
6637
Thomas Avenue
58.
Sondra Hembd
6640
Thomas Avenue
59.
Tracy Brock
6641
Thomas Avenue
60.
Mary and Einar Larson
6644
Thomas Avenue
61.
Jerry Motz
6310
Washburn Avenue
62.
Mrs. McKenzie
2401
West
65th Street
63.
Mr. and Mrs. Ray Earls
2409
West
65th Street
64.
S. Jackowitz
2415
West
65th Street
65.
Mary Lloyd and Harold Steven
2421
West
65th Street
66.
Wesley and Colleen Webber
2501
West
65th Street
67.
Dennis and Sondra Gibson
2525
West
65th Street
68.
Daniel and Helen Peterson
2400
West
65 1/2 Street
69.
John Haw
2401
West
65 1/2 Street
70.
Donna Jaeger
2408
West
65 1/2 Street
71.
Harry Johnson
2409
West
65 1/2 Street
72.
Audrey Teeple
2414
West
65 1/2 Street
73.
James Ryan
2415
West
65 1/2 Street
74.
Robert Bye
2420
West
65 1/2 Street
75.
Kathleen Amand
2501
West
66th Street
76.
Madelyn Sypnieski
2509
West
66th Street
77.
Raymond Koski
2517
West
66th Street
78.
Mr. and Mrs. Curtis Hanson
2601
West
66th Street
79.
Barbara Floody
2605
West
66th Street
80.
Todd Spinner
2609
West
66th Street
81.
Richard Lally
2615
West
66th Street
82.
Becky Strom
2617
West
66th Street
83.
Siquird Ray
2701
West
66th Street
0
f
•
r1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 246
Agenda June 23, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Alley Vacation on the Block Bounded by 73rd Street
74th Street, Grand Avenue and Harriet Avenue.
Council Members:
At the June 9th, 1986 council meeting the City Council
considered an ordinance to vacate the south half of the alley
lying in the block bounded by 73rd Street, 74th Street, Grand
Avenue, Harriet Avenue. At that meeting, the council denied the
petition for vacating the alley.
Because of publishing deadlines for legal notices in the
city's official newspaper, a notice setting a public hearing and
second reading of the ordinance for June 23, 1986 was published
in the official newspaper.
It is recommended that the city council acknowledge the
public notice for the hearing and take no further action on this
matter.
SD /eja
Acting City Manager
ed,
N,
•
LJ
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Office of City Manager
'Council Letter No. 230
A9enda June 9, 1986 _
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Vacation of the Southern one -half of the alleyway
between west of Grand Avenue, east of Harriet
Avenue, between West 73rd Street and West 74th
Street
Council Members:
Property owners abutting the southern one -half of the
alleyway between Grand Avenue, Harriet Avenue, West 73rd Street
and West 74th Street have made a request that the city vacate the
alleyway described above.
Ordinance Requirement
1. City Ordinance, Section 12:04 outlines the regulations
for vacation of an alleyway.
Staff Review
Staff has reviewed the proposal and found the following.
1. That the underlying fee to the alleyway is owned in
part by the State of Minnesota and in part by the
property owners along Grand Avenue. The city currently
uses and maintains the alley. Therefore, the alley is
dedicated in favor of the city.
2. The Engineering Division feels that the alley should be
kept open and is needed as part of the City's system of
roads. It is not appropriate to vacate one -half of an
alley since it would create a deadend alley which would
be inconvenient for maintenance purposes such as snow
Plowing, utilities maintenance, etc. Furthermore
vacation of one -half of an alley would not reduce the
maintenance cost substantially either.
3. The city has a storm sewer easement in the area and
would like to maintain the easement along with all other
utility easements.
Neighborhood Concerns
Attached is a letter to the Mayor and Council from Scott and
Marian Miller, residents of the block at issue in this alley
vacation request. The Millers are strongly opposed to the
proposed vacation. Additionally, attached is a letter and
petition signed by 10 of the 18 residentts abutting the alley who
are in opposition to the vacation and are requesting the permanent
paving of the entire alley.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend-that
the City Council deny of the request to vacate the southern one -
half of the alleyway of the 7300 block between Grand Avenue and
Harriet Avenue, since its continued existence is necessary for
the city's system of roads.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the request for the vacation of
the southern one -half of the alleyway of the 7300 block between
Grand Avenue and Harriet Avenue since its continued existence is
necessary for the city's system of roads.
If the council decides to approve the vacation of the
southern one -half of the alleyway of the 7300 block between Grand
Avenue and Harriet Avenue staff recommends passing the attached
resolution acknowledging receipt of petition, hold a public
hearing on June 23, 1986 and give first reading to the attached
transitory ordinance providing for the vacation of that portion
of the alleyway lying between the north line of 74th Street and
south line of Block 7, Irwindale Addition.
4Acti c fully s bmi ed,
L. evich
g City Manager
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RECEIVING ALLEYWAY VACATION
AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the city requesting
vacation of an alleyway easement described as follows:
That Portion of the alleyway lying between the north
line of 74th.Street and south line of Block 7, Irwindale
Addition
WHEREAS, said petition complies in all respects with t-he
requirements of Richfield Ordinance Code 12.04, subdivision 2.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield as follows:
1. The petition for the vacation of that portion of the
alleyway lying between the north line of 74th Street and
south line of Block 7, Irwindale Addition is received.
2. A public hearing on the alleyway vacation in said
petition shall be held on June 23, 1986.
3. The city clerk is directed to publish notice of such
hearing in the official newspaper of the city and post
notice of said hearing in the manner provided by
Richfield Ordinance Code Section 12.04, Subdivision 3.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
9th day of June, 1986.
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
John Hamilton, Mayor
f
E]
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. _
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE
VACATION OF THE ALLEYWAY IN
BLOCK 7, IRWINDALE ADDITION
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. The following described alleyway is hereby
vacated:
That portion of the alleyway lying between the north
line of 74th Street and south line of Block 7, Irwindale
Addition.
SECTION 2. This alleyway vacation shall not affect,
destroy or interfere with the right -of -way person, corporation or
municipality owning or having control of any electric, gas,
telephone, sewer, water or other utility to construct,
reconstruct, operate, maintain, repair and remove any public
utility facilities upon or within the vacated right -of -way.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, this day of , 1986.
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
John Hamilton, Mayor
•
11
•
A/'��-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 245
Agenda June 23, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Second Reading Of An Alley Vacation Between 65th
and 66th Streets and 19th and 20th Avenues.
Council Members:
At the June 9, 1986 city council meeting, the council gave
first reading to an ordinance to vacate an alley located between
65th and 66th Streets and 19th and 20th Avenues. At this council
meeting, the applicants requesting the vacation indicated that
they still had some problems to workout with the business
located adjacent to the south side of the subject alley and
requested that the City Council continue the hearing to July 14,
1986. The City Council honored this request. City staff is
working with the applicants and Northstar Bumper to resolve a
fire exit issue connected with this vacation process.
The notice setting the hearing for June 23, was sent to the
official newspaper for publication prior to the June 9 City
Council meeting. Therefore, it is appropriate that the City
Council acknowledge the publication of the public hearing and
continue the hearing to July 14, 1986.
SD /eja
Acting City Manager
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 244
Agenda June' 23, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Agreement with the City of Minneapolis for
Participation in Urban Corps Intern Program
Council Members:
For a number of years, the City of Richfield has cooperated
with the Urban Corps to place area college students in internship
positions with the City. This arrangement has been quite
beneficial because it has enabled the City to hire additional
part -time employees, at very little cost, to either undertake
short -term studies or projects, or to supplement our full -time
work force in performing some of the City's ongoing services.
Under the program, undergraduates are paid $5.75 per hour
and graduate students are paid $6.75 per hour. However, the cost
to Richfield is $2.39 per hour and $2.80 per hour. In 1985,
Richfield spent approximately $360 for one intern who worked at
the Nature Center during the summer.
The Urban Corps Program is administered by the City of
Minneapolis. In order for Richfield to continue participating in
this program., it is necessary to execute an agreement with the
City of Minneapolis, a copy of which is attached. This agreement
does not commit the City of Richfield to hire Urban Corps
Interns, but it does provide the City with the option to hire
interns through the Urban Corps Program if we choose.
It is recommended that the city council authorize execution
of the attached agreement with the City of Minneapolis.
SLD /eja
Acting City
submitted,
'ch
Manager
DATE: May, 1986
Twin City Area
Urban Corps
Room 1076, City Hall, Minneapolis, MN 55415, (612) 348 -6967
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Program Directors
I
FROM: Fran Hormeci-
a
RE: 1986 - 87 Intern Agreement
Enclosed are two copies of the Agreement regarding joint participation of
your agency and the Urban Corps in the internship program.
You will note two changes in the Agreements for the coming fiscal year.
One change is the addition of a clause relevant to new Federal legislation
mandating Medicare coverage for public employees. This contribution must
be made for all interns receiving an hourly wage and who. started interning
after March 31, 1986. The Agency contribution is currently set at 1.5%
of gross wages.
The second change is in intern salaries. Due to a salary ordinance passed
by the Minneapolis City Council, the hourly pay rates set for undergraduates
will be $5.75 per hour and the pay rate for graduate students will be $6.75
per hour effective July 1, 1986.
Please obtain authorized signatures on both copies of the Agreement and
return both copies to the above address. The agreements will be processed
and one will be returned to you for your files. By completing the enclosed
contract card, you can be assured that your Agreement will be returned to
the correct person.
If you have any questions, please call me at 348 -6967. Thank you for
your cooperation and participation in the Urban Corps program.
FH /ns
enc.
Twin City Area Urban Corps —a creative experience in service learning
An equal opportunity, affirmative action employer
•
STIPEND
TWIN CITY AREA URBAN CORPS
107B CITY HALL, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 (612)348 -6967
AGENCY PAYMENT SCHEDULE
Effective July 1, 1986
Agency pays:
Student receives:
$30 $20
Interns not eligible for work -study usually receive the stipend. -The number of
hours a student works is determined by the agency or department supervisor and
the intern. Urban Corps recommends at least 10 hours per week.
WORK -STUDY
"The percentage of the intern's gross compensation that is billed to the
agency depends on which school the intern attends.
UNIVERSITY of MINNESOTA, COLLEGE of ST. THOMAS
For work -study interns who attend these schools, the agency pays 41.5% of the
intern's gross compensation, or:
Agency pays:
for undergraduates $2.39/hr
for graduate students $2.80 /hr
HAMLINE UNIVERSITY
Student receives:
$5.75/hr
$6.75/hr
For work -study interns who attend Hamlin, the agency pays 51.57. of the
intern's gross compensation, or:
Agency pays:
for undergraduates $2.96/hr
for graduate students $3.48/hr
OTHER SCHOOLS
Student receives:
$5.75/hr
$6.75/hr
For work -study interns who attend most other schools, the agency pays 31.5% of
the intern's gross compensation, or:
Agency pays: Student receives:
for undergraduates $1.81 /hr $5.75/hr
for graduate students $2.13 /hr $6.75/hr
FULL HOURLY SALARY
When agency desires to pay the full hourly salary for an-intern, the cost is
as follows:
for undergraduates
for graduate students
5/19/86
Agency pays: Student receives:
$6.41 /hr $5.75/hr
$7.53/hr $6.75/hr
2���—Lf —z-71Z
1986 - 1987
0 AGREEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN URBAN ODRPS PROGRAM
BETWEEN CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AND
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 19 ,
by and between the City of Minneapolis (herein called "Urban Corps ")
and (herein called
"Agency ").
WHEREAS, the above named Agency, a public organization or private
non - profit tax- exempt organization, desires to participate in the Twin City
Area Urban Corps and in consideration for the assignment of Urban Corps student
interns to the Agency, we do hereby agree to the following terms and
conditions:
1. The Urban Corps shall have the right to approve or reject requests for
student interns submitted by this Agency upon forms provided for that
purpose by the Urban Corps.
2. The Agency will accept a student as an intern by completing and signing the
Assignment section of the student's Urban Corps application form.
3. The Agency shall utilize such students as may be assigned to it in
accordance with the specifications set forth in its written request to the
Urban Corps, and shall immediately notify the Urban Corps of any change in
nature of assignment,.duties, supervisor or work location.
4. The Agency shall provide such students as may be assigned to it with a safe
place to work and with responsible supervision.
5. The Urban Corps shall have the right to inspect the work being performed by
such students as may be assigned to the Agency, and shall have the right to
interview such students and their supervisors.
6. The Urban Corps shall have the right to require such students as may be
assigned to the Agency to attend such general or special meetings, or to
appear at the Urban Corps office, individually or as a group, as shall be
necessary for the proper functions of the program.
7. In accordance with the requirements of Federal and State law, work
performed by such students as may be assigned to the Agency shall:
a. Be in the public interest;
b. Not result in the displacement of employed workers or impair existing
contracts for services;
C. Not involve the construction, operation or maintenance of so much of
any facility as is used, or is to be used, for sectarian instruction or
as a place of religious worship; and
d. Not involve any partisan or nonpartisan political activity associated
with a candidate, or contending faction or group, in an election for
public or party office.
8. The Agency shall require such students as may be assigned to it to submit
time reports and follow such other procedures as may be established by the
Urban Corps.
9. The Urban Corps shall have the right to remove any student assigned to the
Agency from said assignment and from the Agency at any time for any reason
without prior notice, and the Urban Corps shall not be obligated to replace
said student.
10. The Agency shall have the right to remove any student assigned to said
Agency at any time with prior notice given to the student and the Urban
Corps.
11. The Agency warrants that it is in compliance with the provisions of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88 -352, 78 Stat. 252), and Minnesota
Statutes Section 181.59 and Minneapolis Code of Ordinance, Chapter 139 and
141, where applicable.
12. The Agency shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless the Urban Corps from
all claims, causes or actions which may result from the assignments of
students to the Agency.
13. The Agency shall obtain at its own expense Worker's Compensation insurance
(or shall be self - insured under State Law) for such students as may be
assigned to it,under this Agreement.
14. To comply with P.L. 99 -272, the agency shall pay to the Urban Corps, for
students receiving an hourly salary according to the rates specified in
Section 15(a) and 15(b), Section 17(a) and 17(b), an additional 1.5% or
other percentage figure as agreed upon by identifying the percentage figure
on the student's Urban Corps application form of the gross compensation
earned by such students assigned to and accepted by the agency after April
1, 1986.
15. The Agency shall pay to the Urban Corps 40% or other percentage figure as
agreed upon by identifying the percentage figure on the student's Urban
Corps application form of the gross compensation earned by such students
assigned and accepted by the Agency under a Federal or State program. The
Urban Corps will bill the Agency, in accordance with bi- weekly payroll
periods, for its proper share of the compensation of such students as may
have been assigned to the Agency and performed work during said period.
Student hourly rates are set forth in Section 15(a) and 15(b) of this
Agreement.
a. Hourly compensation for students will be set at minimum rates of $5.75
per hour for entering freshmen through receipt of a Bachelor's degree,
and $6.75 per hour for graduate students; other agreed upon hourly
compensation rates not to be below the specified rates in 15(a); or
other rates for Urban Corps student interns as established by the City
of Minneapolis, through a salary ordinance replacing current minimum
rates.
0 b. A graduate student is defined for purposes of this Agreement as one who
has received a B.A., B.S., or equivalent degree or is enrolled in the
fifth year of a five year program.
16. At the election of the Agency, the Urban Corps shall place students to
intern under a Stipend program. This option will be specified in the
Assignment Form which the intern's Agency supervisor must sign before
commencement of the internship. The Stipend rate which the Agency shall
pay the Urban Corps is $30.00 per week for each week the student works.
17. At the election of the Agency, the Urban Corps shall place interns for whom
the Agency will pay the intern's total compensation plus an` additional ten
percent (10%) for administrative costs. This option will be specified in
the Assignment Form which the intern's Agency supervisor must sign before
commencement of the internship. Agency rates for said option are set forth
in Section 17(a) and 17(b) of this Agreement.
a. Agency rates for students will be set at minimum rates of $6.33 per
hour for entering freshmen through receipt of a Bachelor's Degree, and
$7.43 per hour for graduate students; other agreed upon hourly
compensation rates not to be below specified rates in 17(a); or other
rates for Urban Corps student interns as established by the City of
Minneapolis through a salary ordinance replacing current minimum rates.
b. A graduate student is defined for purposes of this Agreement as one who
has received a B.A.J. B.S., or equivalent degree or is enrolled in the
fifth year of a five year program.
18. Performance under this contract shall commence on July 1, 1986 and
terminate on June 30, 1987 unless amended in writing as mutually agreed
upon by both the Agency and the Institution; however, either party may
terminate upon sixty (60) days written notice.
Based upon the statements and affirmations made by the Agency through the
above document, the Urban Corps hereby agrees to the assignment of students to
said Agency, in accordance with said document and the applicable laws and
regulations.
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
AGENCY
By
Mayor Name
ATTEST:
City Clerk Address
COUNTERSIGN® City State Zip Code
City Finance Officer Title
Approved as to Legality: By
Title
Attest:
Assistant City of Minneapolis Attorney
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 243
Agenda June 23, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
V ZY
Subject: Special Assessment Agreement with Lake Shore
Drive Condominium Association
Council Members:
The City of Richfield has levied, and in the future will
levy, special assessments for public improvements benefiting
properties of members of the Lake Shore Drive Condominium
Association. Examples of such levies are the storm sewer utility
billing and alley maintenance. The assessment of each of the
individual property interests of members of the Association
causes administrative expense and inconvenience to both the city
. and the Association.
In order to relieve both parties of this inconvenience and
expense, the City Attorney has drafted the attached agreement to
substitute a simplified billing procedure for Richfield's
customary process of levying and collecting special assessments
against benefited property. The new billing procedure would
provide that a single billing for the amount of the special
assessment be sent to the Association instead of individual
billings to each member. The Association will then act as agent
to collect the assessment from all unit owners of the Lake Shore
Drive Condominium and forward the payment to the city. The
agreement will apply to any assessments due and payable in the
year 1986 and prior years.
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the city council approve the attached
agreement and authorize the Mayor and Acting City Manager to
execute the agreement.
Resp c fully s mitted,
L. ich /
Acti g City Mana er
SD /eja
•
� -1
MEMORANDUM AGREEMENT
Parties
The parties to this agreement are: ,
CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota mui
having its offices at 6700 Portland
Minnesota ( "City ") and LAKE SHORE
ASSOCIATION, an association of owners
property located at 6615 Lake Shore
Minnesota ("Association ").
Background
Ucipal corporation,
Avenue, Richfield,
DRIVE CONDOMINIUM
of the condominium
Drive, Richfield,
City has levied and in the future will levy special
assessments for public improvements benefiting properties of
members of the Association. The assessment of each of the
individual unit property interests of members of the
Association causes administrative expenses and inconvenience
to both City and members of the Association. It is the
purpose of this agreement to substitute a simplified billing
procedure for, the City's customary process of levying and
collecting special assessments against benefited properties.
Agreements
1. Whenever the City desires to levy a special
assessment for public improvements against the Lake Shore
Drive Condominium properties, it shall render a single
billing to the Association for the amount of the special
assessments which would otherwise be levied against the
individual condominium units of the members of the
Association. Such a billing will be rendered to the
Association each year by the City.
2. Upon receipt of such billing the Association will
act as an agent to collect the assessment from all unit
owners of the Lake Shore Drive Condominium and shall forward
payment to the City.. Such payment will be made within 60
days after receipt of the City's annual billing.
3. This agreement shall apply to any assessments due
and payable in the year 1986 and prior years.
4. This agreement shall remain in effect from year to
year after 1986 unless either party gives 90 days' notice of
termination in writing to the other party.
I
•
•
•
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this
agreement as of the day of , 1986.
0055AAO1L04.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By
` Its Mayor
By
Its City Manager
LAKE SHORE DRIVE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
By
Its
By
Its
2
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 242
Agenda June 23, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Permit for Temporary Signs
Union 76 Station, 601 East 66th Street
Council Members:
The Union 76 Self Serve Mart has requested advertising
permits'to erect two temporary signs on their site at 601 East
66th Street.
One sign is to be a 7' X 4' banner reading "Back By Popular
Demand, 100% Gasoline.- No Ethanol." The other sign is to be a
non- illuminated portable sign measuring 4' X 3' reading "We Sell
Pure Gasoline - Not Ethanol."
City ordinance provides that the city council must approve
all temporary sign permits. The inspection division has reviewed
this application and finds that the signs conform to all
applicable city ordinances.
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the city council approve the
temporary banners at the Union 76 Self -Serve Mart at 601 East
66th Street for a period of 30 days.
SD /eja
Respe 0.c ted,
r
Acting City Manager
0 %5
Cii � L��/ VL f , L Li.Y L C]a � �lV V it � , x � L/rr.V 1 � • �� (i � (� r
•City Manager %� Inspecto
Date Date
PROVE VENY�: APPROVE DENY : F Planning Depar ent City Council
Date -Date
cute to above for'.special approval per code General Sims
APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT
City of Richfield,, Minnesota
Date l L� Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee i' r
_ l Its (i�
Address of Sign i -'*'ate ` Proprietor Name! /'!?' !� DBA
Sign
Erector
(%,,%i
Single Face
Double Face
Multi -Faced
Aerial /Blimp
Searchlight
Banners
Portable Frame:
T M A r Post M
Address �01 )T_crr
Clear -Lexon Constant
Frosted Lexon Flashing
Plastic Covered Revolving
Shaded Traveling
Neon Zip Lite
Other Other(Explain)
Sign Colors *-
Type
of Sign
Design
Weather Cover
Lighting
If Illuminated - Yes 'IVo Watts
ectrical Contractor Address Phone
7
Property Owner or his Agent Signature �.�� Phone
Estimated Cost /j Q UD Sigvi Width Height Total Square Feet
Position of the advertisement structure in r ationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks,
curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on
drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as
defined on page 2.
Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans:
including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure.
Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on
the premises?
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? +'
A Ui ant's Signature and Title with Firm ,li
Date
Phone Number
0 kt
1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061
Wall
Projecting
Ground
Roof
Pedestal
Changeable
Temporary
Trailer
Single Face
Double Face
Multi -Faced
Aerial /Blimp
Searchlight
Banners
Portable Frame:
T M A r Post M
Clear -Lexon Constant
Frosted Lexon Flashing
Plastic Covered Revolving
Shaded Traveling
Neon Zip Lite
Other Other(Explain)
Sign Colors *-
✓
If Illuminated - Yes 'IVo Watts
ectrical Contractor Address Phone
7
Property Owner or his Agent Signature �.�� Phone
Estimated Cost /j Q UD Sigvi Width Height Total Square Feet
Position of the advertisement structure in r ationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks,
curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on
drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as
defined on page 2.
Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans:
including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure.
Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on
the premises?
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? +'
A Ui ant's Signature and Title with Firm ,li
Date
Phone Number
0 kt
1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061
•
•
•
a- /
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 241
Agenda June 23, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Presentation of Award for Distinguished Budget
Presentation from Government Finance Officers
Association (GFOA)
Council Members:
Richfield was recently notified that the City has again
earned an Award for Distinguished Budget Presentation from the
GFOA. This award is the highest form of recognition in
governmental budgeting and was awarded for the first time in
1985. Its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by
the management and elected officials of Richfield.
To receive the award, governments submit their budget
document for a review by a panel of independent budget experts.
Reviewers evaluate the effectiveness of the budget as:
- A policy document
- An operations guide
- A financial plan
- A communications document
Only 78 organizations have received the Award for
Distinguished Budget Presentation on a national basis in 1985.
Winning entries represent truly pioneering efforts to improve the
quality of budgeting and provide excellent examples for other
governments and nonprofit organizations throughout North America.
Thus, Richfield continues to be a leader in the field of
municipal government, with the City's budget document nationally
recognized for its excellence.
Additionally, Richfield has earned the GFOA Certificate of
Conformance in financial reporting for 1976, 1978, 1981, 1982 and
1984. This certificate is awarded for meeting all GFOA
conformance standards in Richfield's comprehensive annual
financial report.
Awards by the GFOA for the Certificate of Conformance and
Distinguished Budget Presentation are earned by relatively few
cities. Richfield was the first Minnesota City to earn the Award
a -d..
for Distinguished Budget Presentation and remains one of only a
handful of Minnesota cities to have earned the award.
It is recommended that this presentation be made to the
Acting City Manager at the June 23, 1986, City Council meeting
for this Citywide accomplishment. It should be noted that many
staff members, as well as the elected officials, contributed to
the production of the annual budget. Additionally, recognition
should be given to the Department Heads with the excellent
financial assistance of Jean Mitchell, Finance Manager, for
attaining this award.
SLD /eja
•
•
Resp c fully submitted,
i
ev n L. Devich
Acting City Manager
•
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 240
Agenda June 23, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Presentation to 1986 Miss Richfield Candidates
Council Members:
The eight candidates for the title of Miss Richfield 1986
will be present at the June 23, 1986 city council meeting to
receive Certificates of Appreciation for their participation in
the 1986 Fourth of July Celebration.
The candidates are Sarah Birch, Betty Covington, Susan
Froemming, Nancy Oksness, Tammy Peare, Julie Swenson, Jennifer
Thompson and Jennifer Tolrud.
SD /eja
Res ct ully su mit ed,
L. evich
Acting City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 239
Agenda June 23, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: 5:30 PM Study Session - Solid Waste
Council Members:
Introduction
Ours is a throwaway society. Today a man may shave in the
morning and throw away the blade, handle, shaver and all once the
job is complete. The disposal of material is cheap and
convenient; out of sight, out of mind. Our culture, economy and
even tax structure is dependent on this throwaway mindset. In
the last decade, however, metropolitan areas throughout the
nation have had to rethink their solid waste policy. A recent
article in the Star and Tribune wrote of the imminent closure of
the Flying Cloud landfill (Attachment A). Many of the
metropolitan landfills have contaminated nearby groundwater. The
combination of lack of space for landfills and concern for
groundwater contamination drove the State legislature to ban
landfill of unprocessed waste in the metropolitan area by 1990.
This decision has far - reaching consequences.
The Metropolitan Council was given the task to coordinate
this effort to abandon landfills in the metropolitan area. The
Metropolitan Council has set up guidelines to accomplish the task
and charged the counties with implementing the policies. One of
the policies developed by Met Council is to recycle 16% of the
solid waste by 1990. The county has looked to the municipalities
to develop recycling programs. Richfield has responded with its
volunteer paper recycling efforts and with a pilot curbside
pickup in Richfield west of 35W.
This study session will be used to investigate solid waste
issues and try to determine available alternatives and the
direction that Richfield solid waste recycling efforts should
take. The city council will be making final decisions on
recycling in the budget process. The staff does not have a
• recommendation at this time. A recommendation will be included
in the proposed budget.
•
•
June 23, 1986 - Study
Page 2
Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives
A good solid waste policy should
1.. environmentally safe.
2. economically sound.
3. equitable and acceptable
1. Environmentally Safe
be:
to the Richfield resident.
No community can remain healthy and desirable without
regular collection and adequate disposal of solid wastes. Health
concerns are paramount. In addition, sight and odor nuisances
cannot be tolerated. The collection system must minimize these
health and nuisance problems.
2. Economically Sound
Although the City is responsible for regulating the
collection of solid waste, Richfield city property.taxes pay
little (less than $5,000 for recycling in 1986) for solid waste
control and the annual spring cleanup costs. Refuse hauling
trucks are licensed annually by the City with license fees
covering licensing costs. However, private haulers collect
approximately $8 -$10 per homeowner per month or over $1,000,000
per year from single family homes alone. The State mandated
closure of landfills will dramatically increase this cost.
According to the attached letter (Attachment B) from a local
solid waste hauler, rates may increase fivefold in the next two -
three years. Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County officials
are making similar predictions. This changing economic picture
must be considered when comparing alternatives.
The Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County have taken
steps to commit funds for municipal recycling programs. Hennepin
County provides a sliding scale of County funding participation
ranging from 50 percent County funding for programs recycling up
to five percent of the City's solid waste to 80 percent County
funding for programs recovering 16% or more of waste. The
Metropolitan Council currently offers three grant programs for
landfill abatement activities:
1. $.50 per Household Landfill Abatement Grant,
2. $4.00 per ton Tonnage Rebate Assistance and
3. Incentive Grants.
The budget impact of a curbside recycling program expanded
citywide is shown on Attachment C.
f
June 23, 1986 - Study
Page 3
3. Equitable and acceptable to the Richfield Resident
Richfield residents are accustomed to private haulers
providing garbage service. Any recycling effort or� effort to
organize the collection must take into account the impact on the
resident. A recycling effort which is more cumbersome or
difficult will meet resistance. The recycling efforts to date
indicate a willingness on the part of some people to put time and
effort into more efficient use, reuse or disposal of waste. The
reasons for these efforts vary with the values of the
participants. Some are frugal, some are motivated by
environmental concerns and some see a chance to help volunteer
groups.
Curbside recycling of all recyclables has been
available to the Richfield residents west of 35W only. This
service can no longer be termed a pilot project. Subsequent
programs should treat residents equally regardless of location.
Alternatives
Richfield volunteers collect newspapers curbside every
month. In addition, a private contractor collects glass and
aluminum west of 35W. A dropsite is open on recycling day at the
Cedar Avenue Liquor Store. The impending development of the
Cedar Liquor Store site means that the dropsite will be closed in
the near future.
The staff has identified seven options as follows:
A. No change.
B. Newspapers only - drop the collection of glass and aluminum.
C. Move curbside glass and aluminum collection to a different
section of the City.
D. Expand curbside glass and aluminum collection city -wide.
E. Find a new drop -off site.
F. Cease all city- sponsored recycling.
G. Stimulate the demand for recycled products through
preferential procurement.
The attached chart identifies the advantages and disadvantages of
each alternative.
•
•
June 23, 1986
EVALUATION OF SOLID WASTE ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVES
A. No Change
B. Newspapers Only -
Drop the Collection
of Glass and Aluminum
ADVANTAGES( +) & DISADVANTAGES( -)
+ No additional cost to the City.
- Unfair to east side residents.
- OK for now, but Hennepin County
policy calls for curbside pickup
in the future.
+ Less cost to the City.
- Inconsistent with State /County
policy (a step backward).
- Participation drops.
C. Move Curbside Glass and + Serves a new pilot area.
Aluminum Collection to
Different Section of City - Recycling habit encouraged on
(East side) West side is broken.
D. Expand Curbside Glass &
Aluminum Collection
City -Wide
• Greater participation.
• All sections of the City treated
equally.
• Consistent with State and County
policy.
- More cost to the City.
C
•
June 23, 1986
Evaluation of Solid Waste Alternatives
Page 2
E. Find New Drop -Off Site
• Consistent with State and County
policy.
• Cheaper than curbside.
- Much less participation than with
curbside.
- Unable to find suitable location.
- Problem with cleanup after hours.
- Start -Up costs.
F. Cease Al1,City- Sponsored + Less City cost.
Recycling
0
G. Stimulate the Demand for
Recycled Products through
Preferential Procurement
+ Clear message sent to State, Met
Council and County that cities
will not absorb recycling /solid
waste costs.
• Stimulates use of recyclable
products and so increases
wholesale prices.
• Lowers direct recycling subsidy.
- Increases cost of paper, tires,
etc. within the city budget.
- Poorer product generally
- Needs state or county support
to be significant
At the 5:30 p.m. study session the staff will discuss budget
alternatives as contained herein.
SD /eja
Re4e4fully
♦ x.11 V V ♦ iV1 t
Acting City Manager
U
91
•
Nip
I
m
L
L
Co.
,N
O
rIL
(Cl"
4)
C.
d"
(D G
4
0
C
LL -2 z.
M.
E
E".'
0
U
vg
y C > �+ O
U, .0 1 M 1. �, W�jN�� » �O �� •�
�� as Q � i 0 c
ms
"C
CO
o co�co� >s. ; a'v,v
.'E 00 .o , 411v,= o Co
Oa� w� o�,�•�� 41EOOE1=0
.,-� oN9 'E;O,A —a_ aw OO,Q,. �,Q..O�
o °.r p1. m GiH= aQ°�a�uE
cc r.
tAa �00• Q41 Rl�M .. dN 0.04)"P 017'', -.
va -$ $who u�Cadl�waaSi ,.
O °'.
VO
_ ._o_« 4) Q_...
Q It E o : .
Oo.r 03 E=ayppc70
E vs
V
►.�w v 5 a�`�va1'a�i £vmoo$
�a o �c;^ y a`"iv Q+a 3
a8IH oewoa`i�"' o���a cry =
.�■ =a aw =� ;tea ub s ...acv:.
no
C.
0
V
m
c
LL
COa�CC.
000. ..
� go °
wa.aSav
oQ�'V z
$ «9zzaq?
vv`1a1w
.Q o
MI! =6
4u ,
E
ob�b d to
8. vv °°+1a'y3E
a1� �~ a~d O E eO O� �+�- O
uO -r ..CC
•� O W O
C wQ0'>aCi�C a
ca 0 ��� may'•!. Q G -;,..
=aM $a 00a a �d
'�3va1�Eoo oo°° vE''.
.jam
ad a$
vp QCViov v v
a SAJvvss°e°a -coo :s Ir..
p
00 —1 'd vl C C w
C C C1 .. r C A C O 0y41.b ..... i.
Q I y«. ca
43 - � �gmCois
aQ�iCO '~OVJ�A'i1CyCQ a
Or
y
a�+ 6� C d E a�
.QOvypEO C.
a. v�o$o• 5c v �h° $
062i3b. C2
a --
v o voQ'!p °" °
aim s «€� a�z coo; aP,,
a
abEQ„o
i, $
> >u4�
Q�«�ppO
. a.� °V
by O .... O U
y =,M- �
o�
L. yyo A
ai �, -
ate
SA ~ E y ¢
i► •cam» 6.
4 � >
,«oa:
'w eo
0
ono
a9a
aaQ
v
a
Q H
u �
oJc
eel. ° o a�i d_ •� � �-+ � o �, ��t
a. 5030 s
v
Attachment B
F 1 0 - i e IN
RUBBISH SERVICE 15120 CHIPPENDALE AVE., ROSEMOUNT, MN 55068 (612)423- 229-1
EVER WONDER WHY YOUR WASTE SERVICE CASTS ARE RISING?'
INCREASES IN 7'ESE AREAS ARE THE MAIN CAUSE;
0 WORKERS' COMPENSATION
• UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
• VEHICLE LIABILITY INSURANCE
• EQUIPMENT COSTS
• EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION
BUT., ONE OF THE GREATEST CAUSES IS
ESCALATING DISPOSAL COSTS
In days past, we hauled our wastes to an "open dump" and, in most cases, the
refuse was.burned and sometimes buried. Today, we use a more sophisticated
disposal method -- the sanitary landfill.
Modern sanitary landfills bear no resemblance to the "dumps" of the past.
Today's landfill.managers operate under strict rules and regulations that
are designed to protect us and our environment. The wastes we deliver to
the landfill are compacted with special machines to maximize available land
space. Each day, a layer of earth is spread over the fill area to create
a sealed cell of refuse. While disposal costs are high, we can anticipate
that they will increase even faster in the future as disposal..facilities
comply with the new technology and regulations.
The state of Minnesota has concluded that there are better methods of refuse
disposal than the sanitary landfill and have ruled that no unprocessed waste
will be landfilled in the seven - county metropolitan area after 1990. The
state intends to have all refuse processed at large plants; some materials
will be burned in incinerators. Even though these incinerators Produce
electricity and heat for buildin s, the additional cost of this type of
disposa wi be an est mate five to six times more than our current
disposal costs.
As your refuse collector, we have no control over these rising costs.
Landfill operators have little control as they are also finding it necessary
to raise rates to meet the increasing cost of complying with changing rules
and regulations. Like you, refuse haulers and disposal contractors are
concerned about our environment; our industry has abandoned "stone age"
practices for modern, high technology waste management methods that will
ensure a cleaner, safer environment for all of us.
We value you as a customer and felt it necessary
as to why disposal costs are increasing. I inviteoyouvtoacalleforxmoreadetails.