06-09-86 agenda 1 s-/
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 237
Agenda June 9, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members Of The City Council
City of Richfield _
Subject: Resolution Establishing A Public Hearing To
Consider Use Of IDRB Financing For Hampton Inn
Council Members:
PALSCO, Inc., the developer of the proposed Hampton
Inn at 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue, has requested that the
,city authorize use of IDRB financing. in an amount not to exceed
$6 million.
In late 1985, a similar request was made. However, at
the time the public hearing was to have taken place on December
9, Mr. Tom LaSalle of PALSCO, Inc. withdrew the request. Thus,
the hearing was not held.
New rules are now operative for the allocation of
IDRB's within the state of Minnesota. In the past, Richfield was
an entitlement community with a specific dollar amount available
for our use. However, in 1986, all development proposals from
Richfield must be funded from the competitive statewide pool.
Attached to this letter is a resolution and notice of
public hearing. It is recommended that the City Council adopt
the attached resolution authorizing the publication of the
hearing notice and setting the date of hearing to consider use of
IDRB financing in an amount not to exceed $6 million for the
Hampton Inn Project for July 14th, 1986 at 7:00 p.m.
Res ec fully s~ mitt d,
ev n L. Devich
Acting City Manager
SD/eja
' \ ~
15
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING
ON A PROPOSED PROJECT UNDER THE
MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT ACT
WHEREAS, Palsco, a Minnesota general partnership (Company),
has proposed that the City undertake and finance a project under
the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 474 (Act); and -
WHEREAS, the Act and federal regulations require that a
public hearing on the proposed project be conducted by the
Council before any action may be taken by it relative to the
proposed project:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield:
1. The Council shall meet at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, July
14, 1986 to conduct a public hearing on the proposed
project requested by the Company and to take whatever
action in relation thereto as it deems appropriate.
2. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to publish
notice of the hearing in the form attached hereto as
Exhibit A once in the official newspaper and once in
the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, a newspaper of general
' circulation in the City, no less than 15 days prior
to July 14, 1986.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th
day of June, 1986.
I
John Hamil-ton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
-3
Exhibit A '
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
NOTICE IS $EREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Rich-
field, Minnesota,. will meet in the Council chambers in the City Hall in the
City of Richfield at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, Julq 14, 1986, to conduct a
public hearing on a proposal that the City undertake and finance a~project
under the Municipal Indudtria~. Aevalopment Act, Minnesota Statutee~ Chapter
474.
. -
The project is proposed by Palsco, a Minnesota partnership (Company)
and consists of the acquisition of land and the construction and equipping
thereon of an approximatelq 149 room, five story hotel and related site
improvements. The project. will be located at the northeast corner of the
intersection of Interstate Highway 494 and Lyndale Avenue South in the.
City. The principal amount of bonds or other obligations proposed to be
.issued by the City to finance the project is estimated to be not in excess
of X6,000,000.
A draft copy of a proposed application to the Minnesota Department of
P~ergy, Planning and Development, together with ali attachments and exhib-
it~ thereto. is available for public inspection at the office of the City
Clark in the City Hall, City of Richfield, Minnesota during regular City
business hours (8x00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. daily, except S~turdaya, Bundaya and
holidays).
Any person wishing to express a view with respect to the proposal to
undertake and finance the Project will be held at the public hearing.
' BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
By Thomas P. Ferber
City Clerk
Dated: June 9, .1986. '
•
I
I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 236
Agenda June 9, 1986 i
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Resolution Adopting the ILN Residential Advisory..
Committee
Council Members:
At the City Council meeting of April 14, 1986, the City
Council took action to extend the existence of the ILN Advisory
Committee, and also to direct the Acting City Manager to solicit
membership for an ILN Residential Advisory Committee which also
was authorized.
Subsequent to that authorization, letters were sent to all
residents in an area bounded by I35W on the west, 73rd Street on
the north, Pleasant Avenue (railroad tracks) on the east, and
1494 on the south. The letters to residents explained that the
City Council had directed the Acting City Manager to establish an
ILN Residential Advisory Committee, and invited residents to
apply for membership on that Committee.
Concurrent with that letter, the Acting City Manager also
worked with Mark Johnson, of the Richfield Sun, to place an
article in the paper concerning the creation of the Residential
Advisory Committee and also provided an application blank in each
newspaper for residents living within the boundary described
above to indicate their interest in serving on the ILN
Residential Advisory Committee. The Acting City Manager received
applications for membership on the committee until Friday, May 9.
In addition, a letter was sent to the ILN Advisory Committee
members, indicating that the committee had been extended for one
year, and that any residential representative of the ILN Advisory
Committee could elect to continue to serve on that committee, or
transfer their membership to the proposed ILN Residential
Advisory Committee. One residential member of the ILN Advisory
Committee indicated a desire to do so. Once all membership
applications had been received by the City, the applicants were
listed and the addresses were plotted on a map of the area (see
attachment). After the addresses were plotted on a map of the
area, the map was divided into eleven grids or areas of
representation. Of the eleven grids, two contained one applicant
~y-~ .
(address) only; those two grids are the closest to the ILN
project area, and the proposed CDR project specifically. One
grid contains five applicants (addresses). That particular grid
is one of the furthest away from the project area. The other
grids contain either two or three resident applicants.
From the grid map, the staff selected from amongst the
residents to fill a twelve-member ILN Residential Advisory
Committee. The committee would consist of the one-member
transferring from,the ILN Advisory Committee, and eleven other
resident members. One resident recommended for inclusion in the
ILN Residential Advisory Committee had also been a liaison
representative from the Planning Commission to the ILN Advisory
Committee. The members recommended for inclusion in the ILN
Residential Advisory Committee have been divided between male and
female representatives, and individuals who have expressed a
strong interest in the ILN project area - both pro and con.
The Residential Advisory Committee recommended by the City
staff is as follows:
Cindi Kendall, 7645 Garfield Ave.
Marv Kaiser, 7608 Bryant Ave.
Fred Miller, Jr., 7633 Emerson Ave.
Maggi McDermott, 7524 Bryant Ave.
Ruth Erickson, 7517 Dupont Ave.
Diane Olson, 7532 Fremont Ave. II
Elmer C. Edlefson, 7437 Girard Ave.
Jeanne Lindstrom, 7406 Fremont Ave. ~
Dawn Stovall, 7409 Dupont Ave.
Earl B. Norwood, 7412 Lyndale Ave.
Merilyn Jensen, 7328 Fremont Ave.
Robert Warner, 7645 Harriet Ave.
Mr. Warner was the ILN Advisory Committee member who
indicated a desire to be on the ILN Residential Advisory
Committee.
In addit-ion, the attached resolution establishing an ILN
Residential Advisory Committee sets up the proposed guidelines
for the operation of the committee. No Chairperson has been
recommended, in that it was felt that the Committee may wish to
s-elect a Chairperson from among the membership once the
committee has been formed. The committee has been structured to
run concurrently with the ILN Advisory Committee, and would
dissolve after March 31, 1987, unless the council determines that
it should be extended.
Finally, a resolution formally continuing the ILN Advisory
Committee is also attached for council consideration. While the
council extended the ILN Advisory Committee on April 14, 1986,
the resolution attached is a formal statement of that action, and
redescribes the purpose and operating charge of the committee
recommendation.
i ~i-.~
Staff Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
resolutions formally establishing the ILN Residential Advisory
Committee, and extending the ILN Advisory Committee.
Respectfully submitted,
l~
c h
Act ng City Manager
SLD/eja/
< F ~w'. w
• h ,'}lf` ~ y" 11 ! • ` 1 t_"t ` • 1 y ~ ::1 ~ ,n~ ~ . r W , f ~ o ' ~ t t
' j"~ -..,,,,Is vt~"'y { ,u , f ~ , t i - r 9i ~ J~.1 ~+t e~E . t jz ,+s' !
' .:`Le .vtt,! ~ ! ~ -T.i' T ~ !:4 y.! l~ 1" ! ~ C-tli,U_ ~f a. t~! IK ..t t 1 „1',0 ~•t ( t rl ` 7
t'J°A 4 r ,ra'A ~t~> ~ A ys 1 t .I t~ f; 4w :.w ~ A ~ r~.( :[•n~ - ~ ~6 ( I~I~.r.7 t' I~ ~.°t~8 ~
y. 4 , I s t1 1~ _ ~ !0 -7 :a J, t ~'"l-(.1 > ~ -1 ~ s , ! • 1 1 r ,
~.'J 7• ~ I, ~~7 j ,l~ . CI s/•rt ° ~ ~i,iC~R Cf3 T ~ _i 1 J ~ , "~'1 Il,'i~ a wi'`tY
1111, YM Y sw- ~ .
t~+~ u~ ~ y q~l ,y iry i~ J7~ a'~ n17 ~M, A a~',, I° n6r. J'4°'
~ ' t 1 ~ A~~lo~'1 I r`7...j ` f ,,,,~(J ~ r1~ aJ AN ,W ` ~ ~ d
K ~ ~ O ~ 11A I,~N: d ` ~ ~ ~v 11 !,.1~ f1 4 t U_ K~W^ ~)4 _W?°'3iz >t 1p• ePY',y .'.~o r • ~s'etL •
w.. i
rn i;ha ~ ° ~ ~ 1 ~f. ~ S 4 st7 ~~N < N/Y''~li'•'i0 C An! yNw'. t ~ ~ O tl ~
,,,,,,///111'''~' ( 1 )QW r.N'~: ; 1Y?•~ i'S5q J O L.,..S' p •CG'`. Ct .J:~ ,~ltvQo„~ 44
j ~ ~i Yr ,1 ~s~ ~yJ ~.~I+a'J."^'a Y sy e w y~ .,Y .,r ll 10 w,:h .h:n ~ d;ad ~ltr%,; ~ 11' 'ili 2 li J ~ tY~~e
jd 7##., o~.~~ ~'i4.~i~ ll ar.*+1a".v ."~W 1~. R'., ~",.I.:~ Ora 6',p J~~ J?1lr :i ~m t .~:el~lll~~ i„ :~I~~'.~~ > ~ ice, :Ir ! 5
j I M s. • - _ T TM _ hc' .,w j lrai 1 . q I I 1 I ~~I 1 I I ~ -
.
h i. ' ' .,t C I _ _ ~ rl19 ~ IIJJ 9' I rb :l) d' 1 I '31 ~ t .;!i ~ 9, ! .b ~ f" I X: (N, i !1 ~ ,i,
; . t _ ~ ~ 1 ; _ - ~ ~ 1 ts.. a~ 1,, i :ra, i z~ rs• ' . _ --j
" - _ - - RI I I
r j vvEST - _ ts'ra srntaer •
1
I , ~...ef f ~ F ~ \f ~ ? °4' 1 dJ , 1'J, : id. I ,
,~c~ 1 i I ! 2I
- .-1 1
Q ~'B. ~ - ~ - 5y Y. _ .,Jd. ' i1$ .i6e ust ~ p: ~
/ _1 ~ 1 - q j 1 i °U r9 ' i t si. .7 /.'L i ~ _I,.
3 t7r 111, ~y--~~~-~ b RE) .St 2' s6, 3~ I.C1 ~6~~. < Z ~ 1
T~-- i ~ - n ¢ !J'r_ { ` t--' ~;4 ~ ` ` 1 ,d9,~ ` i ~ i.: ~ ` - ,yi.~ i~ ; 11e: ' .1G' j ' A.'; j j _ .+G I ve j .
i ~\~~Ef.~/ _ 1- -i- e. a Ia IhE JI, ' J3 - , IG, i (J'11 'M. - -t'OJ r/.k`: ~ = 1 , 1
/ a. f-_._ a+9~~ ~ um NJ i atsl I n~:, .•rsc' asJws,, a,-5_1~_0~' ra., ~ rr ;•I
~ ~N ,V.' ~ I r ~ ~ k ~ 1 f.Y' ~ !w', ` J. i .17 - `~~~1 N.. 'I'~~ 99.• (!6 ~a a..
~ _ _ _
~ 1 iiXi~~ y ~ f- i .-~~I A''. - c.~_ r:, r;.!i '/4/) I //.i8/ , (/COJ (JSa: I'---- I r.... ' 1 ~S: ! I~i
I
• - - WEST . ' - - R ET 4 NfE
_ 76TH - - T '
. _ _ . - - - I
°s~.': . ~ . ' y ~ i .i ` ~ ~ I r6J. ~ (161 ~ ;16: Soa' E iLS: VVs~t .N• ~ Or. .4P'~ i 'JI ~ ~ i 6'
r.i'~~' I _ - ~ f M. :ru i ~no.' :SJ; I b• ` W' n7. ~ 4?. ~ 134i ~ < ~ ; ;!6~ t
Q ; - r. i~ ~J.: ~I ~ rs'1 Itl ay i x ~1 :i•' r: I ~ ~ I 31• f .w
7 Va, 1 1
I ~ i J I '1 s. l 4 ~ 1 I , J.1 i . ~ ,SJ. 1. 7e. id' wl.t 41' ~ ".w I -~li-_--~~~ $ i
~ ~ lr9i j i .;s, G- . _ i I < '~11#'. , ~ • ~ j----~ ~ ~ F-1:. (9 I ~ L~sz: > ciy, W ;,v"I" .y r; ° 'sa, { ~ ao: °'i la's ! I G= j1a $
, W 1 . (J5I ~ O ~ 10 ~ ~o I
1~ ~ . Y I 1 ate. Z r.' 'Sr' 1 .S9' j
1 90 %1, 1 ! !n i 6,4` ; s+ I I I c. I um~ 1~. ! ' 1 ?t1
r~i 11 ~ \ 1 ; ' 7 1 ~ j (d) ~ (e<Y ~ 111, I rr, ~ 1 I`4~ 1 -i --•1 ~1 ~ T' .fe. <I ~ tW, ( ,
j;J I UL J ~ Z 1
~ , \ f ` V • 1 ti f 1MEST j . 1 rT~ ` j.. I i 'c ' ~ l i
I ~ I >s; i ~ ~;~a;I~ ~ f° ~IIe I>e xl~l 3~ ;t. .al ~ IS
? ' ' {
I j ~ .Ja: j L ~ 1~-'1' war 'ntn tt~ ~ i,' <
I ~ .i ~ I ; \ 6' ;111 ~ 1 i
_ ~ J. I $ ~ b 1. ~ ~ 4 I I lioi
: ;
• r _
: _
i, ~ ~ ~ WEST-~-__._-- 1~IN i c.~ ~ I' \ ` ~
- 3 ~ =HtG~H~1?AY J~ , s
L£G£A/D ~ ~ ~i I it
j fsJl • Hanbe~
r<n tes Phgorty toknt/Itotp> Numdv (P.lNI
31 -~Numbs.• crcNd wrpr-Otwrter numiWr
'+"f'rrt' DInOIM +t10~. lilts f Savt/Mrrt ROirrgM
~
ILN RESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AREA MEMBER APPLICANTS BY AREA
1 Cindi Kendall -
Mrs. Roland Larson
2 Marv Kaisers
3 Mr. Fred Mi11er,J.*
Susan C. Miller*
4 John Barnes -
Maggi McDermott
Allan C. Douglass*
5. Ruth Erickson
Glenn Thompson
6. Diane Olson
Will Olson
Dale Schwie*
O'Neal Hampton
7. Mr. and Mrs. E.C. Edlefson~
Roy Lindsedt~
8. Jeanne Lindstrom
Brenda Ann Bjorklund
Dexter Krogman
9. Sandra L. Barnes*
Dawn Stovall
Roy Underhill
10. Earl Norwood
Dave Sarajeant
V.A. Duvlea (Woody)
11. Anita Harmon
Lorraine Gerber
Grant Christenson
Lois Haugerud~
Merilyn Jensen
-2 additional applications were received from individuals living
outside of the area boundaries
-1 application from an area resident was received three and one-
. half weeks after the May 9th deadline..
*Signed November petition
~y-,~
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION N0. 7010
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN
ILN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield has found
that the formation of a new land use plan and program for the
development and redevelopment of that area of the city referred
to as the "Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet Area" is necessary to
promote the public health, safety and general welfare of
Richfield s citizens; and,
hould involve
WHEREAS, the formation of a plan and program s
input from residents and business people; and,
WHEREAS, in put is best provided by an organized structure,
hereinafter referred to as the "Committee".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Committee shall be advisory to the City Council to
provide input to plans, proposals and concepts referred to it by
the City Council and staff.
2. Meetings shall be held at the call of the chairperson or
if not available, the vice-chairperson.
3. Robert's Rules of Order shall be utilized in the conduct
of all meetings.
4. A quorum shall be required to conduct business and shall
constitute one member more than fifty percent of the total voting
membership.
5. Recommendation, if any, may be made by the Committee on
the basis of a majority vote.
6. Minutes of the meetings shall be circulated to the
Planning Commission, HRA and the City Council.
7. Members are to be dili ent in attending meetings.
9
8. The School District Plannin Commission, HRA and City
9
Council may each appoint a nonvoting liaison .member.
9. After March 31, 1987 the Committee shall dissolve unless
prior to that time the City Council has determined by resolution
that it should continue.
10. Members on the Committee shall be those persons listed
on Attachment A, Section I and II.
11. Gertrude Ulrich is appointed Chairperson and the
position of Vice-Chairperson is to be determined by the
Committee.
f~_
12. The Department of Community Development shall provide
staff support to the Committee and be in attendance at all
meetings.
13. The City Manager is directed to take the appropriate
steps to effectuate this resolution.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 9th day of June, 1986.
John Hamilton Mayo-r
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
/
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN
ILN RESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield has found
that the formation of a new land use plan and program for the
development and redevelopment of that area of the city referred
to as the "Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet Area" is necessary to
promote the public health, safety and general welfare of
Richfield's citizens; and,
WHEREAS, the formation of a plan and program should involve
input from residents and business people; and,
WHEREAS, in put is best provided by an organized structure,
hereinafter referred to as the "Committee".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. .The Committee shall be advisory to the City Council to
provide input to plans, proposals and concepts referred to it by
the City Council and staff.
2. Meetings shall be held at the call of the chairperson or
if not available, the vice-chairperson.
3. Robert's Rules of Order shall be utilized in the conduct
of all meetings.
4. A quorum shall be required to conduct business and shall
constitute one member more than fifty percent of the total voting
membership.
5. Recommendation, if any, may be made by the Committee on
the basis of a majority vote.
6. Minutes of the meetings shall be circulated to the
Planning Commission, HRA and the City Council.
7. Members are to be diligent in attending meetings.
8. After March 31, 1987 the Committee shall dissolve unless
prior to that time the City Council has determined by resolution
that it should continue.
9. Members on the Committee shall be those persons listed
on Attachment A.
10. The Department of Community Development shall provide
staff support to the Committee and be in attendance at all
meetings.
11. The City Manager is directed to take the appropriate.
steps to effectuate this resolution.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 9th day of June, 1986.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST: _
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
l
ILN RESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Name Address Phone
John Barnes 7544 Bryant Avenue 869-6325
Sandra L. .Barnes 7441 Dupont Avenue 869-1549
Brenda Ann Bjorklund 7432 Fremont Avenue (h) 866-7530
(w) 342-4976
Grant R. Christenson 1201 W. 73rd Street (h) 861-1523
(w) 370=4308
Allan C. Douglass 7516 Bryant Avenue (h) 861-2624
(w) 681-6713
V.A. Duvlea (Woody) 7345 Lyndale Avenue 866-3495
Mr./Mrs. E.C. Edlefson 7437 Girard Avenue 869-7605
Ruth Erickson 7517 Dupont Avenue (h) 869-2765
(w) 869-8953
Louise Gerber 7301 Dupont Avenue (h) 869-4383
(w) 349-3046
O'Neal Hampton 7501 Humboldt Avenue 869-7327
Aita K. Harmon 7301 Humboldt Avenue 869-9583
Lois Haugerud 7320 Girard Avenue 869-8563
Merilyn B. Jensen 7328 Fremont Avenue (h) 869-9317 ~
(w) 869-0505
Marv Kaiser 7608 Bryant Avenue (h) 861-2403 ~
(w) 559-5200
Cindi Kendall 7645 Garfield Avenue 869-9238
i
Dexter Krogman. 7420 Emerson Avenue 861-6375
Mrs. Roland Larson 7638 Harriet Avenue 869-3054
Roy Lindstedt 7445 Humboldt Avenue 869-7903 I',I
Jeanne Lindstrom 7406 Fremont Avenue 866-4895 I,
Maggi McDermott 7524 Bryant Avenue (h) 861-6767
(w) 372-3904
Fred Miller, Jr. 7633. Emerson Avenue 869-8278 i
I
i
s
~ -
Susan C. Miller 7633 Emerson Avenue .86.9-8278
Earl B. Norwood 7412 Lyndale Avenue 866-3025
Diane Olson 7532 Fremont Avenue 866-9320
Will Olson 7532 Fremont Avenue 866-9320
Dave Sarajeant 7316 Aldrich Avenue 861-6586
Dale Schwie 7514 Girard Avenue 866-2644
Dawn. Stovall 7409 Dupont Avenue 869-7119
Glenn F. Thompson 7513 Emerson Avenue 861-5783
Roy Underhill 7429 Dupont Avenue (h) 866-4306
(w) 342-9210
Robert Werner 7645 Harriet Avenue (h) 866-7553
(Transfer from ILN Committee)
9- /
CITY OF RICHFIELD', MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 235
Agenda June 9, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members Of The City Council
City of Richfield,
Subject: Public Hearing on the LHN Land Use Plan Amendment
~~5 For Property at 64th Street and Lyndale Avenue
Council Members:
A public hearing on the above item has been scheduled
for Monday, June 9th at 7:00 p.m. Notice of the hearing was
published in the Sun-Current May 27th and approximately 1,100
letters were mailed to people within and adjacent to the LHN
informing them of the hearing.
The Council acted on a related item at their last
meeting on May 27th. The LHN Land Use Plan is reflected in the
Development Plan of the Comprehensive Plan. To maintain this
consistent relationship, a change in the LHN Plan should result
in a change in the Comprehensive Plan. Thus, the proposed change
in the Comprehensive Plan was forwarded to the Metropolitan
Council for comment. A response has not yet been received.
Amendment ~~5 is a "housekeeping" item. That is, the
LHN Land Use Plan is a policy statement regarding the apprdpriate
land uses within the LHN project area. In the 1975 plan and the
1979 amendments, the land use for the area east of Lyndale Avenue
and south of 64th Street was indicated to be multifamily. II
However, the dimensions of the property simply were not
sufficient for a desirable apartment development. The
modification amends the land use plan from multifamily to
commercial-(See attached map).
The area to be designated commercial .is the location
of two successful renovation projects. Mr. Oreck recently
purchased the property adjacent to 64th Street and is completing
the rehabilitation of the commercial building. The Council
provided support for use of IDRB's to help pay for the cost of
the renovation. Mr. Ahlquist several years ago, completed the
renovation of his commercial building which abuts that of Mr.
Oreck on the south. These two properties have addresses from
6401 to 6453 Lyndale Avenue.
Both the HRA and Planning Commission have acted on
this amendment. The HR
A referred it to the P1 nn
a in Commission
I 9
for their opinion on March 17th. On April 22, following a public
hearing, the Planning Commission voted 9-0 in support of
modifying the LHN Land Use Plan at this location. The HRA held a
public hearing on this modification on May 19 and approved it.
The approval was~in the form of a resolution wherein the Council
was requested to schedule a hearing and approve the amendment. A
copy of the HRA resolution is attached.
It is recommended that the City Council hold the
public hearing and note opinions expressed. However, formal
action on the proposed amendment would not be taken until
comments are received from the Metropolitan Council.
Resp t ully s mitted,
e L. Devich
Acti g City Manager
SD/eja
9-
_ w ~ Q, o
RESOLUTION N0. Z F1
RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA -
APPROVING MODIFICATION N0. 5
IN THE LYNDALE HUB NICOLLET COMMERCIAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of
Richfield, Minnesota (HRA) did on October 15, 1975, approve a
redevelopment plan for the Lyndale Hub Nicollet "Commercial
Improvement program" (the "Plan"); and _
WHEREAS, the City .Council. of .Richfield, Minnesota did
on November 24, 1975, approve the Plan; and.
WHEREAS, the Plan has subsequently been amended
including those amendments adopted in 1979; and
WHEREAS, the Plan designated certain land uses for
particular properties; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the land use plan
for a certain property should be changed to more appropriately
reflect current conditions; and
WHEREAS, Modification No. 5 is described in the
attached Exhibit A and shown on the attached map-Exhbit B; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 462.356 requires the
Planning Commission's finding as to the conformance of the
proposed land use modification with the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Richfield.
Housing and Redevelopment Authority that:
1. The receipt of the findings of the Planning
Commission with regards to the conformance of
Modification No.S to the Comprehensive Plan is
hereby acknowledged.
2. Modification No.S is. hereby adopted .and the Plan
is changed to conform with said modification.
3. That the Acting Executive Director be, and hereby
is authorized, as an agent of the Richfield
Housing and Redevelopment Authority, to present
the modification to the City Council for their
consideration at a public hearing along with a
request for its approval.
Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of
the City of Richfield this 19th day of May, 1986.
Tha~mas E, Harms, Chairman
Joan Helmberger, Secretary
. ~ 9-
EXHIBIT A
MODIFICATION N0. 5
THE LYNDALE-HUB-NICOLLET COMMERCIAL
• IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
"Amendments to the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet Commercial
Improvement Project", approved March 12, 1979 by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority, and, the City Council on March 26, 1979,
is hereby modified as follows. The Land Use Map, page 31 is
hereby modified for the following:
The property lying between 64th and 65th Streets
adjacent to the east side of Lyndale Avenue except
Block 2, J. N. Houser's Second Addition, from multi-
Family to Commercial.
/1~
~ - ~ .1 _ _ v oc
i 'r` t n~ ~llrM~ COMMtRC t '•i!.r t ~ ~ ~
" ~ I.
AN IOIt -
M j ~ ~ ~w BOUfDARY „
i
! I J 1~ f MUt ~~L~ j COf~RC1A1. - _ - oL.1 1.^^`
t . _ ~ • j - _ LA N~ u SE 'MAP
~ ~ . t~xE ~ - - Moo~FtcA
_ ptlDµ
NODIFIC
Pi.pµ _
pR~p PROPOSED f OR ~ - ~ ~ _
i•:
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 234
Agenda June 9, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the•City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Subdivision Request At 6228 Pleasant Avenue To
Create Two Lots
Council Members:
Proposal:
• Ms. Mildred Norling, property owner at 6228 Pleasant Avenue
has requested subdivision of her property. The existing property
at 6228 Pleasant Avenue has 12,964.5 square feet (.112.5 feet x
115.33 feet). This includes 30 feet along 62nd Street which she
purchased from the state. However, documentation of such a
purchase has not been provided to the city. Currently, there is
a single family dwelling on the east side of the property. The
applicant proposes to subdivide the property into two lots with
the intention of selling the vacant lot. The proposed lots would
be 6,487.87 square feet instead of 6,750 square feet as required
by the city zoning ordinance. By subdividing this property, the
existing structure would have a rearyard setback of only seven
feet, thus creating a nonconforming structure.
The applicant has also requested a variance to redLCe the
minimum lot area requirement and the rear yard setback
requirement for the easterl lot. The ro ert is a corner lot
Y
P P Y
located in a "R" single family residence district.
Zoninq Ordinance Requirement:
1. Section 3.30, subdivision 4, indicates that the minimum lot
area for a single family dwelling shall be 6,750 square
feet.
2. Section 3.30, subdivision 5, indicates that the minimum rear.
yard building setback shall be 25 feet.
3. Section 3.59, outlines the process. for approval of
subdivision.
Staff Review
Staff has reviewed the proposal and found the following:
l3-Z
1. The proposed subdivision will create lots which do not meet
the minimum lot area requirement.
2. The proposed westerly lot would be a buildable lot only if a
variance is granted. A new structure could be built on the
lot which could meet city setback requirements.
3. Subdivision of the lot will create a nonconforming structure
on the easterly lot because it would have a rearyard setback
of only 7 feet instead of the required 25 feet. The
structure is currently in conformance with all zoning
requirements.
Planninq Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission. voted unanimously to recommend City
Council denial of the subdivision on the grounds that the new
subdivision would create two substandard lots with a
nonconforming structure on the easterly lot.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the city council deny the subdivision
request, since the proposed lots would be smaller than the
required lot size, the proposed easterly lot would have only a 7
foot building setback at the .rear. In essence the proposed
subdivision would create two substandard lots with a
nonconforming structure on the easterly lot.
The applicant cannot be granted the subdivision without
first obtaining the two variances from the Hearing Examiner.
Therefore, if the council should decide to approve this
subdivision request, the approval should be with the stipulation
that the applicant obtains necess ry variances first.
R ~e fully s bm' ted,
ev L. vic
Acting City Manager
I
! ~
PLOT MAP
6228 Pleasant Av. S., Richfield, MN 55423
Kendale Addition, Block 001, Lot 5 and
S 30 ft of Lot 4
3J
~~5
L
4 v°,
~a~.
_
-
-
SJ, _
M
tq----------- - - - - - u
~ Y
' ~
` ~ ~ ~
r t..l
R ~
Q' `
\
~ 6zyS /~/eater n r i~o~ts~
~R
~y
v~
BA.~. Parking ~~o _
Street--Pleasant Av. South
J-~.
'i3 cI/~/. 7`/`~L GAG S -
• ~
• `
~ .1 ~
' dZegiste~ed suwe~o~s
1219 GOOGRICM ALENUQ 7i0 MIDLAND HANK BUILDING
MINNEAPCLIS 16. MINN. WALNUT 8934 `MINNEAPOLIS 2. MINN.
. V 1 ~ '
`7 ~
~ `
2^y : _ s...
.
' =1.,
. '~a . a
~
v\ .
• ~ J
- J
i .F Ik
~ - •
;n
~ - =r
~ - ,
r.,.
4 ~ } .
I
~ ~ I ,
1. 1~ i
w. v. G~y ~
~ r' 1...1
i ~ t . CL ~
T
. , ~ - r
h
~ I~
~ -
. ~
E~.
_~rr~t~t •
'+t*j~
•
L 1 7~ C~Od~~ ~ ~
~'1i
r
t" ~ . 3~
it ; t ,
l~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of Cit Mana er
Y 9
Council Letter No. 233
Agenda June 9, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members Of The City Council
City of Richfield -
Subject: Special Use Permit at 6445 Penn Avenue South
City Council Members:
Proposal•
Mr. Austin Smith has made an application for a special use
permit to allow a four bay automobile service center at 6445 Penn
Avenue South. The automobile services include tune ups, brake
and muffler installation, oil and lubrication, transmission and
other general automobile repairs.
The site has an area of 15,070 square feet. Currently the
site is occupied by a two bay gasoline service station, which is
not in operation. The site is in the general industrial (I)
zoning district, and automobile service stations are allowed in
this district with a special use permit. The applicant has
applied for a 3 foot variance to the frontyard requirement which
is being decided by the Hearing Examiner. The proposal meets all
other setback requirements.
Zoninq Ordinance Requirements:
1. Section 3.34, subdivision 1 (1) indicates that
automobile service centers are permitted with a special use
permit (ref: Section 3.33, subdivision 2).
2. Section 3.34, subdivision 5, outline the setback
requirements in the I district.
3. Section 3.33, subdivision 3, indicate that regulations
relating to public garages.
4. Section 3.41, subdivision 5 governs the issuance of
special use permits.
• _
Staff Review:
Staff has reviewed the proposal and found the following:
1. The addition of two 15 feet bays, one to the north and
the other to the south of the existing structure will increase
the floor area from 1,363 square feet to 2,233 square feet. In
addition, the present structure will be rehabilitated. The
existing underground gasoline tanks and pump equipment will be
removed.
2. There are presently four curb cuts on the site. The
proposal indicates that there will be two curb cuts, one orr Penn
Avenue and one on 65th street. Closing of the two curb cuts
would eliminate the potential hazard of having cars enter or exit
the property near the intersection of 65th Street and Penn
Avenue.
3. The applicant indicated that there will be five
.employees involved in this operation. A four bay auto service
station with five employees would require 17 parking spaces
according to the City Parking Guidelines. The proposal provides
for 20 on site parking spaces, three spaces more than required.
4. The property abuts residential property to the east.
Existing fence and shrubbery are not sufficient to screen the
commercial property from the residential property. The proposal
provides for adequate buffer from the residential property.
5. The Inspection Division indicated that the applicant
must provide parapet wall on the north side of the building,
since the structure would be only 2 feet from the north property
line.
Planninq Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend City
Council approval of a special use permit for a four bay
automobile service center at 6445 Penn Avenue South provided the
improvements meet all the necessary building and fire code and
that the setback variance be obtained or that all setback
requirements are met.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a special use
permit for a four bay automobile service center at 6445 Penn
Avenue South with the following stipulations:
1. The improvements meet all the necessary building
and fire code.
~ -3
2. The setback variance be obtained or that all setback.
requirements are met.
3. Screening of the site from the residential property.
to the east must be approved by city staff.
s e tfully bm ted,
~t i !L I
Acting City Manager
I
i
' ~ 1
puwnN u
A 9UMb[ARY armrN . ; . (a
scx~~~ tt 5
g 1.1MiNAtt rua*tee at'w' na w trot spetrN ,
, µw prNSeettN N .`i5
y1tOT l0~ CONBtaUC~ON ptt w tpaeM mtn»
u e
ta.M w atrrlrt a + - x
M~pYM 'ta~ltf6 re 'ti H ~
s
aN In ~ W
x~x
t ~ w `r7
r es ^ ~
.nee _ x
rree~ Mi~~ ~ ~ ,
i ! ~ ~
~.Nr... twrr tt+,tatt a'' I
PAST ~turtrr wrr. rwe
~ ~ I
sterrtrrorr?nrr t . !
• .
.ea .
rttr*tr rore.i '
~ I i~ C ; 1~ K
1
r y .
~ i ~ i o our
~ ewa* wa r i . ~1 ~ ~ sse.__ .
r . t .a ! I ~ m ' covet.
to ~ y
e= w~
„ ut • ' i ~ evsw s °°oa h
~ • `
, ,a.a• stee ~ ~
, I rttrn Nra
t.e u'-e' tt% ' uNt*a fry! ~ ~ y
` • strc trtr y 1
I p u aaw t 'C
! ' ; rr h r~MUr
SI ' ~L ~t ~is_tw ' I ~ ~
~ ~ ~~j
' 1 a' Nr tt~teat h i
uo IutuN aiF~T
rrr era ,
NtN ? OMrr '
Fy~AT10Na ~ .-.t-«
altN.a
pENti AVEtitlB SOUTB ~ ,
t1q•'e• ~rerir s-
SITE pLAN
• 4 ,
t. ,
- ~ M. AUSTIN SMITH ` l ~ r..
° ATTORNEY AT LAW
~ ~
FF~ 3 - 4 ,
O CE' 3 S E4 4 THE IVY TOWER
'CAR PHONE: 7ZO-2894 1115 2ND AVE. SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403
April 22, 1986
Community Development Apartment-Planning Division
City of Richfield -
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Re: Special Use Permit and Varience-for 6445 Penn Ave. South
To whom it may concern:
This letter is submitted along with an application for a special use
permit and varience for the property commonly known as 6445 Penn Ave.
.South. ~ It is my intention to remodel the existing Gasoline Service
Station and construct two additional service bays. This construction wild
also entail removing the existing underground gasoline tanks and pump.
quipment. The purpose of this property shall be to service automobiles.
is service shall inculde tune-ups, brake and muffler installation, oil
and lubrication, transmissions and general automotive service.
My request for a varience for reducing the setback requirements from
feet to 37 feet on 65th Street is based on my intention to improve the
property. ,This improvement shall be to construct a landscaping barrier to____
the rear of the property to act as~a buffer between the residential area
along with the renovation of the existing facility and new construction of
two service bays. It is my contention that the above improvements will
improve the overall appearance of the property and~have an impact on the
health, safety and welfare of the people in the City of Richfield.
It should also be known that I am proposing to eliminate two curb cuts on
the property which I feel disrupt the traffic flow on Penn Avenue and 65th
Street. This closing of the curb cuts eliminates the potential hazard of
having cars enter or exit the property near the intersection of 65th
Street and Penn Avenue. It is my belief that this improvement to the
property also has a positive impact on the health, safety and welfare of
the people of Richfield.
Respectfully submitted,
'Austin Smith
/
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 232
Agenda June 9, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members Of The City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Special Use Permit Request at 1120 East
78th Street.
Council Members:
Proposal:
Mr. James D. Filippi, President, North Star Engineering
Consultants, Inc. has made an application for a special use
permit to allow a gasoline service station/convenience store at
1120 East 78th Street.
The proposal indicates removal of the existing facility
including repair station bay and attached car wash and build a
new facility which will include adding a convenience store,
rebuilding the car wash as a separate building, relocating the
fuel tanks and constructing a freestanding 18 foot high canopy.
The site is currently zoned C-2 general commercial. The
proposal meets all the setback requirements. It has an area of
24,975 square feet. The applicant has applied for a variance to
increase the height of the canopy to 18 feet from 16 feet.
Zoninq Ordinance Requirements:
1. Section 3.33, subdivision 3, list the regulations for
gasoline service stations and public garages.
2. Section 3.32, subdivision 4, list the setback
requirements for C-2 general commercial district.
3. Section 3.33, subdivision 6, outline the regulations for
canopies.
4. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, outline the conditions
governing the special use permit.
Staff Review:
Staff has reviewed the proposal and found the following:
l1•~
1. .The site has a building area of 1,359 square feet and
requires 7 parking spaces on the site. The proposal indicates
that there will be 7 parking spaces available on the site.
2. The site plan indicates that the building setback would
be 40 feet on 12th Avenue, 40 feet on 78th Street and 15 feet
along the residential property to the north as required by the
zoning ordinance. However, the impact of 494 corridor study on
the property is not known at this time.
3. The property abuts residential property to the north.
The proposal does not provide adequate screening to separate
commercial property from residential properties to the north.
4. The existing curb cut on 78th Street is proposed to be
moved further west to improve the traffic circulation. However,
existing curb cuts on 12th Avenue will remain the same.
5. The proposal indicates that there will be a R.V. Dump
constructed near 78th Street which is a potential public health
concern for not only the immediate neighborhood but also for the
community. ,
- Planning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend City
Council approval of the special use permit to allow construction
of a gasoline service station/convenience store at 1120 East 78th
Street with the following stipulations:
1. That the southerly curb cut on 12th Avenue be 40 feet
from the intersection.
2. That adequate screening be provided to separate the site
from the residential properties to the north.
3. That the construction of the R.V. Dump on the site is
subject to the approval of the Health and Sewer Division staff.
4. That a variance be obtained to allow the canopy to be 18
feet high instead of 16 feet or the canopy be redesigned not to
exceed 16 feet in height.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the special I'
use permit to allow the construction of gasoline service
station/convenience store at 1120 E. 78th Street with the
following stipulations.
1. That adequate screening. be provided to separate the
site from the residential properties to the north, and
is subject to the approval of the city staff.
i
/I-3
2. That the construction of the R. V. Dump on the site
is subject to the approval of the Health and Sewer
Division staff.
3. That a variance be obtained to allow the canopy to
be 18 feet high instead of 16 feet or the canopy be
redesigned not to exceed 16 feet high.
Resp fully s it ,
,P"''~
L. Devich
Acti g City Manager
SD/eja
ni s .
E c WORTH STAR EIYGII~IEERInG COI`ISULTAI`~TS, Il`IC.
V .
1261 O 58TH AVENUE NORTH. PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55442
TELEPHONE 5612) 559-3542
May 2, 1986
Mr. .Rick Jopke
City of Richfield
-6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, riN 55423
-Dear Mr. Jopke: -
Phillips 66 Company presently owns and operates a gasoline service and
repair station at 1120 South 78th Street in Richfield, Minnesota.
Phillips is proposing to remove-the existing facility, including repair
station bays-and attached carwash. Plans fora new facility will include
adding a convenience store, rebuilding the carwash as a separate building,
. . _ .
relocating the fuel tanks, and constructing a new canopy.
: _
The City of Richfield's zoning code presently limits the height of canopies
to 16 feet. however, transport trucks at the proposed site would be unable
to fill fuel tanks without passing under the canopy. Therefore, Phillips
66 requzsts a variance to-allow construction of an 18 foot canopy with 14
feet of clearance to allow filling fuel tanks.
Sincerely. _ _ _
III North Star Engineering Consultants, Inc.
~
i
James D. Filippi, PE
President -
w' r• ~•1 ;.r. 't•',;~'J,dr":
P~~,.:?t,':ir\N'~~. 71/'M„'[ ' T,ow t
`i; ~ „p,.:. ~+•~tr%` +~JS?;/74 C'"_'~/W~~/~'I~,~~L,Y.rt .I~~.~li'1~1.;.$~J•~.i, ~ ~!t li'..~' ..•ytr..' Jar .r• • ~kjSf'RR'tOYtM~M ,
,i't. ~t y . ~ ~ •fI . L~` ' ` .;.,y kl;ab t t!• r ' f}~'r~ R>t' , • y •I . t . H'1 A!17'~1 ~ • ' ! i a~ 1 +f t 1 ~ 1{G7~i
~jc~'~t~~ ~IrC m 1. ij : ppAp~f • • , 1 1.
"X:
,~,ti . n• ~
„•..,,K . t ~k' n v t ~ 1 ~,11~.tl~a`~'f
~X~~'1M ~ "t ~ ~ a~++ ' , ''{'t~.r~ 12,n+ /~Vl : : • ~ pl- f f u/,It+'. ~ ~ Q}"'_
vv!_. _1
fit'"' - FENCE ~....1i IIR.11,~r.r~.l ~1 "~.'z'' a anon , ~a ~ ~ r 1 t ~ .
y~~,~.~ ~ ~ . ~N . a. .T :.a J r:. raI `•'~•a 1U ' r 1~ r , ~ - I
, F .a-~~~ _.~~~~q._~-^ M,? ,Mr~it~~r f CtiNt!!~ I •~..~~"•Y'I.~~i~il;Ft~SM~~!~ .I~' .'r p'. "._~y o
r tar I Y •
i?~, ) ~ " ,.1nrFi ulltr•~':rtrl•.,•1„ F~a ' , :'A~: CAR IN A S'•N F~V• r~waAlr`AI { I
• ,i' - ~r"~'•r ~ u II E-1~ ~A"'' trDr,,r,.r~ ~ t• t,
w~ s!n ~ . t' J ,r c n 1 ` . ~+r: r. y .-r.-r=t- .1 • i I atN tr t
-~i~ f, i ~ ` ` r vllr_~•tJ~+.~i.A;~t'I Z,1.. .i~ ~ ~ r.>,. r;P~?c"•' ~ 1 I N~~ 't- ~ ;
tY ~ { ~ 5'Y-F'P15t:F4V^ iN~.•.•' ••w , - I~it) W!
tA(~, ~ ib°rIi•.r.R ',7 (r~i YU.'+1 1. ~ L' ,,e~y ~•~'l -a-~y~ w ~ ~N (..:.M„ f~ i M
- ~ `tll i' ..~o le~s* t'y ~ _ i4, I. ~ I^~'; ~~rl'Ca 'i'1•.7'""•~'4.r~ 7 1S ~ ~
, r :i ~u: ~ ~ ~~I~`~ n' ~IV t~/y ~rr. .il .1. ~t t. .L. 1 Gy,(~tKl l)f 1.1 "t 1.'r { 3
• 2~ t ~jlil.. r r r `:i~'P'F.s%V.171t~ T.t•. t i' 1 'I ~'`:E~~i I ll
t t ~ inr.~ 1 t ~•i~• 4 ~ . ,.t t»w. •r~? tort N~ 11 ~1I ~ .
yy. , , t. c AiV •7:Q ft.G f. o.Il~ 55~~~~ ~•`~11 . - ` . ~ 1 I I t
I r.N zor•. • os..,w .w .s::,~ ~ r :I..~-....-. ,,••:.:......J, I t""{i7ii~'ta r N rN .f
r ~ 1
t 4E'lT„fOV.• yP' r 6 :;,1 q !y 'r II ! ' l••' ' L^` It_._ L t { (~;i.;•~~,'
r+, •cowl lcac 1 ~ fl Iki , f ' F i- I• ~.,1:•:•+ 1.~'t ;I ' t•_~"~ r r>a~ ,-t~r r I
,w M«F I '^,.;~r•t r:.~ ~t.:Y. / s• ,hv~, i~I t: i ? tjl.}t~~hd~~t(7~.~!•'.•' ~ ti~i h
•.•atNrt.'. te•rI to run~~~ ~ , I•.. 4 e5
•1~.` . • • ' ~ `:.`•#i'.; \ n'~ KI v I Pole . IN P 11 ~ • r~_ •
l`-. ti 1%i'~:yf...g19. IM'ICRG/JM G'?.K ~ AF 1'rl yy { N 1'II ~ ~ J
r ~ a '•,Ilceo 2 1_..[.3; CANOPY I ii 8) a ~
,a 1, p/ .,1~1• I ~ 7
~ V':::. u•:-~•~'., -I 1. L1 1 aJcp~+y~ ^ . It It ' ~ w
/ Q) ~ ~ ^I rN.. ~I,:v.. ~ c. K,~. 'J - I• ~•..Y,ji•7~ { S I ~ 1 rc r
~ I ~ 1 t S T O R E {,.I%: ~ ~~.+tti,"; 1.11 { ~ ~ 14 - , \ I
~ ,S T t / I.;,a;. ,IA,1rt?tstP• - r - i• ~ 1~ ~ ~Y ~ ~ e • r 1' ~ I f ~ ~ I
44444477fLLL... s, . 'A•-tfwlf. - IL L~iM11t~A c _ 1 _ J' ~`i i
F••' ~ ~2 ~l~i.u ~ I 7 .,•.,;r_'rr:~„, `1l ,RF1wCF. ~r{y" 1 ~---tr„~,~ ;-..-rs t,.- '1 fr+„r`•YY 1
M1 ~ I... F 1• ~ ) ~ .'cifrrt.G3 _ ~ ~f.• ~ v ! ~ QI _ r .-I'I.Ii?,. tp1M. l1 V)
.~i.l 1. 7 - ~l,`F.d C\.~~ T t){, F K ~Tf~ 1: P.l~~(~' ^ ~ ~1~
• ` I 1' ~ ~ ~ - ti, t ~ '~y _ _ ..._r j {'R~" • 1••p • ~ 1•~ b..l'l'~•~r . ~ ,u, .ti~ ii 1' i - •
,w ~ { , I,S 1 I,'t:. ~ 51 ~ ~~_-.._;,~11_.. . A..~ :a•.. rrvr}: TL^~ •w//l'?1 I l ; 'gY,.I,a j~ I' I I t F-
vrl~,u r• z~' 1. M ,•r ~ ~,f' /
~A .i, • ~ I ,?,PO ~i
_ 11 - ~ -.1 g%if. inn ~r`rz U M P ~ 1 . \ Ra1~IM• qy4• i O
tJf"1•, I' ?~t_ ~3 ~~:"I~. 1 , 1 K ~m. ~'~.ly ~.~~hrrl
r~. ~'y ,I - ~ 1 ~ 't t vrrreR. tOe* v.eyfle • /
• 11 t4f ~ y i , ,,,1.. ~ Q, w~~,MA • ysQ~ ,~.•~'~d- `r f Y'v>EN' ~F.i~ 9
tl Tr3,% dl~l~' ~13,r~v'I,11••.r 1 ~ _~•~~1.'. ~ yr~YA7~~~~ `~~---T =--~~iRrs.~~~ Lci:'=~ ~ f'
~I t 1 i~! ~ fir.. Vtti .r. R 1 Kar t•1 e ~p
•1 ~ • { ' • IISSt?,Ur_ 1JQ•~ ,10' N'?~:'~` >J" j . ti : `1V
. 6~I '\~I,..,. ~ ,i ~ r ' PRnP SED SiT FLAN
_ t
f[~ l ~ H•
~I. f4.x7'~t:"" i •yc LX~:RV "'t::ti?!~'~!$! r~ :4+:~j5 ti;;rt~rn. t'a^ara+c~-fir.
~r^~c.+-~. !j*";'•t rl
Y ,,•Tt'+•l!'ira .*a+~•'. .r+w-.~•t. .r... ~c~`.1~. •''.~t~... •,~d•.,,~f~ }r•.<...r.-~t,.~3c~?rl.~tl~t!?~..,;,+4ti+'~r~'!:~'•Ml~i'w~s r.'y!
J 7`:~ ~.^~~p~'' i'71r ~'l.%~~r •!'ry `s~~'~ 6~v~... ii,~~''j•r..t•, r: r, ah, :1}~w}!;~ .4 y(1~~\ .t l~i• ~ :r1-':YI t.r e. r:,.^'M."! ,.~I11. ~i{i .r ~a{, w~ ~(.•1 y
rrrY ).?l~J''~'.t~" :z' '~•jf~b,i,tY a f . ~ yr~,..eRT.', Y. .1'r . t r y1` l~ i ~ t.~:1i •til~ ~ ~ w ,j'~ri Y r~IIC`1f~Jw 1
i 1 f F a)!'~si l~t, ~ i •1 "r.•~ r r .lir: rJr rT Y! SS•j. ~I., - \r ~l t it
••.r A"'J ~t• tr~.~~a~.•x, ~r •j~ Yis'!•~. ~ i~'y~•' r'tw~~.
~t • .Y • 333AAAAIA~TN•irT••rri.:',, a i k`c 1.•. l " A d. ~.r. •~Y..~ ~ ) ^~lir• ~(I, ri. fi
•i ~r.r4 t r•+ ,t.•yr r r a Yt 1~ ; ! ~ ,v t.,~~"i..;•r t ~ Gt ;r ~ i
.~Y. \T~y I.~r h L 't t. r ~ +r. >T ~ i, . i•n w. a,rj Ira••.~ y
aP n'• _K '3f { r•• rt' '•11 ~ ~ r •u: • ? . ' l::.S:i ~ t'1 .,c ~.1,'.hM { 7 ~A ~.3•~. X 't} ~r~' ~jY ~i1
.i.it+4~
`~Pra~ it ty. ri"t t i P J, 1 •r ter. r P ` ,1 . '}'Yr~ r r r '.•k,3.t~ti• ~ •L•r ~ . , ~~~k~c~l ? !y ~F
,1 n `~~."~~si f< i•.}Y t r t p. .'t`• f•::•,').. ..~.'1 ~ ^ 1 C l'. :'.Irl i!•y~
~1'~ia~~.,}.R'~,;: .•~~~.:ti, C'~.t~ '
r'. _~,~'~;'~~`~R~,.y•~~~ ;a~iSar ~.Il h ~ . •x ` 'j ~~•.i-1:: •~.>j ~!?~•i'. i:;f ~f~', r:±',h:~tt'1:
"~,~,yi',it•
9~Y~,y~; ":~~s+. k'. ` + i r ~ t ! •Y pr. . Ldr rQt h1 ?i• ~ '
~.~vy~ ~ r r ~ y ~ i r , r.,w Zt t a~~°. Ik r
- r* •t r~ . H QOr N' ~•r l11.f~ ~ , ~ i•~.w . i w~~' f ..~~1. . • t ~ f't ~ r
, t ~Z '1 0. r - ~ . t4w ~r ~ ~ ...r. «,.w .i .y__~~` • X ..Qd. ^4M1 ~.x l~'_~.` y~a.
l t , ` 1 ~ ~ ~ 0 ! . - -rat!"'. (i . •'~i i•.f~ til rir'I+ ~
.r rl ~ ppp ~ +k
~4. rLY ry, T ~ - ~ r~ kr •`r ,V 11 r~ L•~~t~rt~
R- a 1.1 ~ ~ ! •1?•~~~ ' .~A ~:~5 _I •
T 's- ....-.r
• ~..K,:
r ` t. ~ 1 ~ t~~ ~ .x ~ srldrlw l t?~.w~~1~ ~ t ~ \ i s sX `4~~jt • v
14. ~ y t .\'•.o~ ~•:t. ..1?wr.w...!4r._ _~~[rJ ~rr. t 5
.r • ( T ~~:A•4 n.~w ] 4 ;r....•t~...a...r..
r%•i'r~r!1,:'; •A!1 y L+`~ ~`'~i%?' ~,r
t r ~ K % Y A.t .y 2~ r L C. '1
: ~ gw•ao'OO"W px1.Ao 1L,u.M w~w. ; ti',=..y.~
; ~ _ ~ .AVENUE r..~~: ,t
~r ~ r r ~ ' 1 ftM~tlrR1/tp. luRr'go? ~ ' t • , ~ ~
r~ •{j W ~ ~ 1
tt • q
i
/l~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 231
Agenda June 9, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members Of The City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Vacation of the Alley Located East of 19th Avenue
and West of 20th Avenue, Abutting Properties at
6532-20th Avenue and 6533-19th Avenue.
Dear Council Members:
Property owners at 6532-20th Avenue and 6533-19th Avenue
.have requested that the city vacate the alley abutting their
property to the south. The proposed alley to be vacated is 14
feet wide and is a public right-of-way. There are two electric
utility poles located on the alley right-of-way. There are no
other utilities located on this alley.
Ordinance Requirement:
1. City Ordinance, Section 12:04 outlines the regulations
for vacation of an alley.
Staff Review:
Staff has reviewed the proposal and found the following:
1. Access to the garages for both the property at 6532-20th
Avenue and 6533-19th Avenue is through the alley proposed to be
vacated. The proposed vacated alley would be used as private
driveway for the two garages of the abutting property. Because
the southern half of the alley will be dedicated to the North
Star Bumper commercial property, agreements for access and the
maintenance of the proposed driveway maybe required between the
parties involved..
2. The Easement must be granted to the Northern States
power Company for the purpose of maintaining the utility poles on
the alley.
3. According to the Public Safety Department, the exit in
North Wall of the North Star Bumper building might not comply
with building and fire codes if the Northstar Bumper decides to
sell their portion of the vacated alley to the property owners
/
north of the alley and. that the proposed vacated alley becomes a
private driveway. A minimum of five feet is necessary between a
fire exit and the property line..
Planning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of
the vacation of the subject alley with the following.
stipulations.
1. Maintenance of the vacated alley be the responsibility
of the ro ert owners abuttin the alle
P P Y 9 Y
I
2. Utility easements be provided to NSP for the maintenance
of the electric poles located on the alley.-
3. If the vacated alley becomes a private driveway the
North Star buildin must com 1 with all the building and fire
~ P Y
.codes.
Staff Recommendation:.
Staff recommends that the City Council pass the attached
resolution acknowledging receipt of petition, hold a public
hearin on June 23, 1986 and give first reading to the attached
9
transitory ordinance providing for the .vacation of the alley.
Res ectfully submitted,
I~
Steven L.! D vich
Acting City Manager ~
SD/eja
I
I
I
I
- /D-3
RESOLUTION NO
RESOLUTION RECEIVING ALLEYWAY
VACATION PETITION AND CALLING
FOR PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the city requesting.
vacation of an alleyway easement described as follows:
The alley in Block 3, New Ford Town Addition, lying
between the east line of 19th Avenue extended, and
the west line of 20th Avenue extended.
WHEREAS, said petition complies in all respects with the
requirements of Richfield Ordinance Code 12.04, Subdivision 2.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City
of Richfield as follows:
1. The petition for vacation of that portion of
~ Block 3 of New Ford Town Addition described
above is received.
2. A public hearing on the alley 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.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
/h-
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE
VACATION OF THE ALLEYWAY IN
BLOCK 3, NEW FORD TOWN ADDITION
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN 'I
"Section 1. The following described alleyway is hereby
vacated:
The alleyway in Block 3, New Ford Town Addition lying ~I
between the east line of 19th Avenue extended, and the west line
of 20th Avenue extended. '
Section 2. This all~eway vacation shall not affect, destroy
or interfere with .the right of any person, corporation or
municipality owning or having control of any electric, gas,
telephone, 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.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
i
I
_ V \~rJ. w~l''~ !Q .y'~' ~ .4w, /..Ip1h'1,, r~ ' ti ,;v "Y^^,'V~lllli, .ryfi,~t T. ~,~y~~~sa,,~;~.` ~6~~6~' 4 '~~~J9;' 1
' _ - p,~' .r.4 ~ .4, `VU ~~j~`` S n ' i'~{~ ~ ~C•Mr •f~`•M,.~~,~~~Y l~~.,~r •i{.
t, p~ b~l~~ '1'~~V~' ' •rt•• ~ 'C~~'~.10!~T' ..la/,~g~.' '`i:p',~:'t~r~~~1 r°1, ~!`.!j'
i { Il V~ N : 14C1,0~ ~ 11 '14 ~i) ~ ~ lM~ 11 t`• 14~Sz) , (~l" ,I 1 ~~14~~, • ~F~ + `1,1~~ITt~~1 ~gy~l'~~,o:~; ~ R.
~ p I n Ij ~18~ ,n I~q
~1'~ai~ +111' K? 1[1 f~5~~~vi f n V S 'n ~I~S C'"~~+ ~ ~1~~• t~S~; ~+~"1 •~15 LY ~ ~`S'~ R'`~~RRY '1~ `Z,1'~5 f:
EAST ' ~ ~ nth .1 r ~ .,.,-i '
r IZ • ~ ~ v 135 .ri 135.4 ~ . ~ 35 r 135. rt 165 ; 155• ~ ~ a ..,IS I , ~ wt ~ +I a 1vti
~ ~ ~4) ~ ~ I {1ti~ ~ 2a,1~~~ ~ ~tA~l ~ 24~1t~~ w, ~ (~~~~I z~tA) ~ I~Sb) ~ 24 11~ 1_ ; ~ • • 2a 96 ~ ~!~9~)
2 ~ 2(~~ ~ 23tgti~,, ~ ,°ot+tb)2 ~'.23C\S~ ~:,j ,°„~1ti12;';. ~ :23(>~y I~t1~1 ~V'11°r. ~'f3)2+ 23(~~ o :ti~ ~~~z(~1)
` 3 _ 3 q 22:.,.~1~~ ~~,30 :22 \\y~; r't~ 221,~~ '~'~;3 ~ +.~'r~ ,t„' „ 22~i,~j~•,
4 ~ 4 . 21 ' , • •4= , , '21 l\~) ' ' t~1A, , ~ ~ 21 Cl3l~ ~ v J ~ ';~,t ~4 (`I~ + E• 21 l{I,, / '
~ ' 4 ~ + , 21 ~11 ` ' ~i~ ' ,•`~'~;•'lQ4
»
ti ` ~ 1 1. - ~ ° •
sew) r 5 ~ 20 .,~b~~ . 5 • 20`~~i ~ ,~~,r 't\'~, s , ~r';20 , 5`~'~ '20 f, s ' . ~ ~ ` ' ~ `
6 N~ . _ , ~ 6 . .19~~ = lq~~ 6' , ' 19• h1~ ' + 6 , x:19 6 (1 ~la ~ 1 ' ' Y h3; '~io~ dj~ v
'V ~7 « ~jG
7 1 i r 7 18 q1~' 7 ~ ~ 18 ,~0~ , 1y7~ 7 1e~3~).' 7. 16 ~ , ,C~.aw7: 10~i~ .:~~f '~~~1,~~~
j 6 . 8 IT, ~ ,~0~~ 8 • (7+~1a1~' ~ ~L~ 8 , ~ lT ~L g~~l'~~ ,~7J•1.I'•, , • ~•.'r , ~i~1~~ ~ ~°J 17":r!~w~ +~~;~p"• (Iri'}`
91~~ 91,~~ 165) °(I~~g ,.~16•fiMl•~~~ ,i~ti5~9~ 16 r •'s t'~'16 af~"~,~ .~j 9 t;, ~16tt+ r 4'~ ~4~1~~`
RCN, ---4•- pr~ ~ IS~~+ : (n~~ 10 . r..
y-{y__.. , C~1,1~~ 10,;. IS (j0'~ j- •~0',~~'.'rls `~*1 + Ip ' ~6~ I'S ~ .C~•1~;
11(•le~' ~ U`<.~ .14`x}), '~L4~11•;~ , Y14~~1~ `\ti'~11*' 14~~{>~ ~ ' ~~~tlr, ~~.1+{titi'•~ A;a~~ +`'a.ll. V~~14•~'~ ~~f `~I~?Jt1~Y may.
- .ter '
o,"?(r} ~ n 12tti) ° 13( ~~o o(, 12 0 ' 13~~~c ,.rA: ,o(~~ 12 0. ..1~~~1°r ~11~~ 12Y',:~ 0•'13{L~~ ~ ~~~'12 Q 1~,•`'c ~ji~ Q~y~2S
` ~ , ~ 135 1 '0 1~5 0~ ~\~~0. 'n. 1~5 u1 1~5'` I~~ r. 1~5 ~ ,f><S 1~ nY It4 ~Y i~S ~ ~ '11 ~ •
EAST , ~ :r • ° ' . ,
1 . t r+ . , 1~5 :.13y . I ~ ti ~ ISb ~ J.•7xyk
;35 133. a ISS In 135 a S> .
1 ~ .n 1 lq) I,n 23 tr~ - ,'n (Z1~ I ,ii 23~43~ :{'I ui ~~~.1 23 ~Ir3~~ ~ ~ „ ~ . ~ 1 r ~i ~ Z~ i • . ' ~ 1 ~ ~ i•~' ~ • ~ ~~l
' ~ 2 (Il ~ i.. 2 (i~) ,°n 22`'t1> J°?~~2 ~ 22~4~ <'c.; ~ .2 A o; 22 ~L)v q. ~.,2 V~ ~22`4)r y ~11~~ 2 ~ •22~,~ ~~~;:2.~ ,
_ a `
' 3L~ _ .1.... ,\3 `u> ~ 21 titi 3 ' . 2i~ .'y C~~ 3. ~ + . 2t '{~~•3 r. . '21113) ' ~ <I~~ 3 ~21 ~f `'..~{~?0.~
r , ~ Vl _ ~ 4/4~ 1+ 20 F--~~~\ , `~1~ 4 20~3~' + C(~~ 4 ~ ~ 20 C{/~ ` 4 I, 20 `y, , h1 ~ , ~ 20~~~ ~ti 4
~ ---.5--- - r~s l 19 t) `•1 5' ,.r~ ; Ig 19'~~ l~~al S ~,19`Ij1' s N ,'.3~iHl~
6 H ~k~ 6 le 6 `"r 18 _ 6 ~ , 18 l53) ~`tio 6 t•. : If~N) ' C ~ 18 L1 / Z _ , ~ llt'1~.
~ _ 21.5"' ~ ^ ,~5 (16) JI ii7GL~v°i Q1 13g~ 7 t7 ~'1 N ~hjO~ T , ' ' ~ " 17 (S~~ cell 1~U1_7 r) I'`~' N ~'V~) 7 ~j t~ ~ ~x C4~J.
..'c . _ f
ell ~ ~ ~ (3y) a Is l4°) l4?~ a •16(St), a I, •16 a <z~~ a ~11s ~ , • ;
- r...
~ . ' 0(3{, 9 0 IS 3~ o I •~9 ' 1's~s~c o ~1 9 to 19 ('~0 ,~jr13~ 9 g~1)13 o ~9 1~9~<
1 lg ~ )I;S ,n ,R 6 IBS 1. Awe ~ ~~ti 13g ~ ins G v' ` 1~5 vl 1~5L ~1 u
~ ~q~ 10 ' ~ 6C 5c bo o o `o`• boy b0 G0.6 bo 50 So GO.G ~0 50 5o f.0 G 1~'~ o
-R 10 ll 13 14~ ~p fl X12 I~ ~ t4~ ,~~110~ II 12 (3 ~ 4N~ ~10 It 12+ 13 14K 10~ 11 ~ (Y 13 • 14~± 1. I
33 .e~. ~ / ~ bo L I Go (3~ 6 ~ C~. `l Go (~A~ Lo
_ G,r. 5n 5n ~D.~ fn ~n Sh L,n L, Gn n 5n b 4. Go 5n Sn Gn G n 15n 5n G L Gn 4~
~ i.~.'
~ ~ -
rITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT ~ ~ •
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~a_ Q~
Date Received 6
T0: The City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota '
se, the undersigned, owners of not less than 51 percent in frontage of the real property.
abutting on
/rGLE 7 Between ~S3a-~o~~ - ~ .5~.~.3 i~ ~
dnd ~n~n~ S T~ HEREBY PETITION THAT SUCH STREET BE IMPROVED BY
SIGNATURE OF OWNERS ADDRESS.
y// ~
4.
5.
6.
7.
9.
I0.
11.
12.
13 .
I4.
L5.
I6.
17.
i8. I
19.
20. ,
~amined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the required number
of owners of property affected by the making of the improvement petitioned for.
r;~~~~~ •
Percent
City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 230
Agenda June 9, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and i,
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 re ulations
9
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 II!
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.
I
O
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
e ition si ned b 10 of the 18 residentts abutting the alley who
P t 9 Y
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.
Res c fully s bmi ed,
.
~l
L. Devich
Acti g City Manager
'i
. -
~-3
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION RECEIVING ALLEYWAY VACATION
ANO 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.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
8-/
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE N0. _
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.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
115"- ~~"1 ~ ~p~+~p pa t` ¦ IG(~t ` `7 ` ~
, e o ~ t ~ ~ l'~S'f- . ~ 110 ~ + b'~~q_~~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~(~17 ~ - ~ " t~1~ .1~~,. `J' 15~~ Z ~ 4
~n~ ~ '.tom--- 4~ ~ Z._'-~R ° ~ ~q3(o , (A~,,, - : { .l . Q
a ~ ~t y ~1~ 2 r =....?3tP~~ ~ ' ' u(~. .3{~~ = N (S'~~ ~3~.CS~I~ µ_..~~~1 ~,(,~4~ 3 ;
2T C~' Z• a~~ I~~ _ _ _ _ -0~3~ ,15tz3~ o ?3~kS~ a
~ ~ 21~i° ~ 4 ~ "t - gaol y Z _ ,e ~t ~ ; _
N . y (~o-i _ zo C$` 15 9
~ ~ ~ 6 > a~~ i' 1 z W. s 72 Ii2 ~ 12~~13(~~7 5
~O A t T ~ o a 1 w~
`ao ~ 2.,, ~ a ig~a ~ ' ~A ~ ~ ~ Ig~~~ ~ ~ n(3s~ ,y~ D ~ ~ 3 2 i ~ (k3~~~~~~, F~ 6' ~
. '•T
~O 18 " 7 . ' bq N ~R ~~~5'{7 --g.~._~.n~ ,~1 '1~' , rJ~1 l'•
,7(io~` (q3~ 8 ~l(1b~ , ~ 16(~~ ~9 ~ _ `K~'~, ~Z$~' I (5 ~ c t` ~'~~A~ 7~
(j i6i~~~ q4~ 9 15C1~,~ tl~ 10 . t5{5`~ a ti --=--4 (Za-j i~ N_ ~ a 5 ~ ~i'~~.,9 G'~~..~~~6
15` (~,1 ~a 14 ty1 11 i ~ (5q~ ~3+.,, ,r? ,;4,~+r .
~ ~ ~ I la(15~ (~21 N _ {3 3~ LIZ ~ ,,,'~3n 91'? J , c, , ::.113se
' l a - O
~ s a ~ o ,:a (,z9~ `i~l'i i ,g i2(~^~ ~ ~ a z ~ 6ti~ ~1 8 X41 2
W ,tP 2 2 h
.
ao~ 3 OC (~z1~lo `z~ 3 aC ~ ~ ti4 4 ` ' c. : 4 S ~
<t ~ 6 ~`2'~q,.. Z 7 - 4.__.... tJ 14~1~ - ~~~5~ ° ' ~ ~ t~°S~ ~ ~ ~Q'S r`~C'4 s+
~tS~ ~ a (iNl 5 518 . ~ y ~~Al ~ ~ , J~ ~ s W 73 I~ , ST. 12 (~!1(^~~ S tC
~ r~
'~~ue ~ aIN- c,s ,~s ,u ~t~ } ~ f-g~~t~~ ~ ~ 5~~,,1' 1 3 ~ z 3 2 t ~ (8'' ~`lb ~i ~
3}. rl. 9Q~~ a./~ r ' shy r' h SS ' ` . Z~ Q '1 ~ (I
.n _
~ i~N W `lii~ Z . B~Sb~- I" ~~~~~JZf,O.~ x ~ ~'6Q 1 (21 1111 ~ ~ • i ~ ~ IO~g~I ~ W
w L 13glbO a A -~`Q- 61 ~ ~i ~'..j4 I. ' 1(,62 ~ •NOSt ~ `4,'11f
.114 ~i~ ~L~ ,r ; ~j I f° CL A ~1> 11`~~ a . ~ 3
~I Ns... 3 ~t~R ~ i. X961 = ~ N
~ ~ a
.r1 ~;"-r,~si~i ~ •R i.o ZG3G.OSR~S... .
R.L.S. .
Na19S ~ ~
t
. a,. ALLEY
-s~~., 23 : .
I TO BE VACgT'E3
~~M~M,~
- LeFe~•ere
• , , Lefler
Kenned~• - . ~ .
O'Brien
Dra«z
Pm(essional
Association
2000 First Bank Place West March 13 , 1986 .
Minneapous
Minnesota 55402
i
- Telephone 1612) 333-0543
Telecopier 16121 3330540 Mr. Towhid Kazi
Clayton><LeFevere ASS1Stant Planner
Herbert P. Lefler City of .Richfield
J.oenruso•9den 6700 Portland Avenue S.
John E. Drawn Richfield, MN 55423
David J. Kennedy _
John 8. Dean
Glenn E. Purdue g,E; Alley Vacation - -
Richard J. Schieffer , - _ _
Charles L LeFevere - ~
Herbert P. Lefler IU Dear Mr. Towhid: _ -
Jeffrey J. Strand
John G. Kressel
Dayle Nolan In regard to your letter dated March 10 , 1986 the follow- -
BrianF.Rice ing are my responses: (Note: I believe that the peti-
Lorraines. c1~99 tion relates .only to the south one-half of the 7300 block
James J. Thomson. Jr.
s M. strommen between Grand and Harriet.)
'd H. Batty -
,m P. Jordan 1. Determination in regards to the ownership of the
n Oickel Minsberg
Kurt J. Erickson subject alleyway . _ _ _ .
Will'iem R. Skallerud ~
Ttwmas R. Galt We are unable to find a deed for easement running in
Rodney D. Anderson
Gary R. aryant-Wolf favor of the City. However, pursuant to Minnesota
Corrine A. Heine Statutes §160.05, if the City has used and kept in
John R. McDonald, Jr. repair the alley continuously _ for at least six - - .
- ~ - years, when an alley is deemed to be dedicated in
favor of the City. It is our further understanding,
based upon conversations with City staff, that the,
- underlying fee to the alley is owned in part by the
State of Minnesota and in part by the owners along
Grand. However, the decision as to•what action to
take with respect to the petition should not be
affected by the question of underlying title.
2. Rationale for or against the vacation of alleyway bar -
the City.
Richfield Ordinance Section 12.04 provides that an
alley may not be vacated "unless it appears in the
interest of the public to do so". Stated different- .
ly, an alley should not be vacated if its continued
existence serves a legitimate public purpose.
Whether or not there is a continued public need is a
question for the City Council. My understanding is
that the engineering department believes that the
7
• ~ _
bir. Towhid Kazi
Page 2 .
March 13, 1986
- alley should be kept open and is needed as part of
the City's system of roads. If the Council agrees,
- then it could properly conclude not to vacate the
alley..
3. What process must the City take?
The City should proceed in accordance with the
provisions of Section 12.04. In that connection,
the City should. ascertain prior to publication of
the notice exactly how much of the alley-is proposed
- to be vacated.
Please advise if you have any further questions.
- Respectfullycyours, - - - - -
- ~ - X - _
• -
Joh B. Dean
i -
-
i
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~2,, cl _ gs
Date Received
T0: The~City Council of the~City of Richfield, Minnesota
fie, the undersigned, owners of not less than 51 percent in frontage of the real property
abutting on'
west side of CGrand Avenue, east side of Between West 73rd Street
And Westal4th~Stre to HEREBY PETITION THAT ~~~~X~~~~TXffi~X~¢~,~~~X~X
the southern one-half {approximately) of alleyway be vacated.
SIGNATURE OF 04+T1ERS ~ ADDRESS
_ ~ ,
S. ;!yam-yr~/t ~I__~~'' .l`~/„L~-~st ~ 1`Vg11 t;~' .~.o ~rT
9'
i 10. ~ ,
11.
12.
13 .
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
K:
19.
20. .
~amined, checked, .and foutui to be is proper force and to be signed by the required number
of owners of property. affected by the making of the improvement petitioned for.
Percent
' City Clerk
Y
' O f~
. _
May 15. 1986
Planning Commission
City of Richfield
b700 Portland Avenue _
- Richfield. Minnesota 55423
We. the residents of Grand and Harriet Avenues abutting the alley
between 73rd and 74th streets, .are against the proposal for vacating
the alley in question.
We have the following concerns.
1) A sewer drain tthe only one in the alley) is located in the _
southern half of the alley. What would be done about possible - ~ -
drainage problems in the northern half resulting from this closure?
2) This proposal would force residents, snow plows, garbage trucks,
and any other vehicles using the alley to either back in, back out,
or maneuvar a u-turn to get in or out of the alley. Sacking in or
out would seem to be more hazardous than driving straight in and
out, as is done now. Also consider the fact that the only entry/
exit would be 73rd street, which is a relatively busy street.
3) Would the part of the alley to be vacated be left as is or sodded
over? Will the city or the residents of the southern half of the
_ alley be required to make improvements to the vacated area? If so, _
- will there be-an expiration date for these improvements? Most-of--
the property owners abutting the proposed vacation area have
fenced back yards. We are concerned about the vacated alley area
hot being mainta=fined; and- eventually becoming--an eyesore.- -
4) Would a fence be put up in the middle of the alley to close it off?
Would the city be responsible for maintaining this fence?
5) With a dead-end alley, will there be adequate room for the pile of
snow at the dead end that will result from snow plowing? There
could be possible drainage problems when it melts.
- _
. ~
-
~
Page 2
6) We-are concerned about possible obstructions of right-of-ways
and/or easements with permanent buildings. All utility poles
(electric, phone, cable tv) run-through the alley. Alley access
would be deleted in the southern half of the alley. All access
" would be through residents yards.
If this proposal succeeds, and the southern half of the alley is to be
- -vacated. it-is our opinion that all costs associated with this-
closure should be absorbed by the property owners abutting the
= southern half of the alley.• - - -
Also, at that time. we feel that plans for permanently paving the ,
northern half of the alley should be finalized.
A group of us also plan to attend the hearing at City Hall on MaY 28.
- 1986 at ?s30 P.M. and will be available to respond to any concerns or
questions pertaining to this letter. •
-
`
Page 3
We are in agreement with the attached letter against the propsal for
vacating the southern half of the alley between Grand and Harriet
Avenues and 73rd and 74th Streets:
SIGNATtlRE NAME ADDRESS PHONE
SCarr- 73~~ G.~eANO 8~b-3S~ ~
G,~~°~~'~ (~oec- 27- F ~vUD(3=~G 73~-) ~~~2/ET ~~q .$z`f C
Sch~,yn, X3)7 . _ Bb g-b l6g
ry ~<i- ~s~
-p _ J / 7 3 O J H o.,t-r i e~" C. 5 . 4 (Q ~ - 335=
0
3 i
~ri~~w•~' `t t r t `
~liG~~~ 41 U
June. 02, 1986
Mayor and City Council
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Regarding the proposed closure of the alley between Grand and Narriet
Avenues and 73rd and 74th Streets scheduled for first reading on June
9 and second reading on June 23s
We attended the Planning Commission hearing on May 28. 1986 and spoke
against the proposal. We also formally heard for the first time the
reasons behind the proposal. We would like to take this opportunity
to respond to some of those reasons.
it The applicant indicated that there has been undue stress on their
driveway on the south end of the alley because of people turning
too sharply and driving .over their driveway. They also said that
the railroad ties between their driveway and the alley have been
mo 'n t
ved i he ast.
P
We have seen garbage trucks cut this corner and in the process move
their railroad ties. If the alley were to be closed, this undue
stress would be relocated to four driveways in the alley that would
be commonly used for making a u-turn. Also, residents are going to
park in their driveways from time to time. During these times,
there would be no possible u-turn and no alternative to backing out
on to 73rd street.
2) The applicants do not use the alley; therefore they do not Want
to pay to maintain it.
First. they indirectly use the alley. Their garbage is picked up,
any utility trucks servicing them. use the alley. etc.
Second, we all pay some kind of tax or assessment for which We
do not get any direct benefit (i.e. people with no school age
children still support public schools, working people pay
unemployment and social security taxes from which they may never
get any direct benefit, etc.)
~-i3
Page 2
Third. the alley should have been obvious to the applicant when
they purchased their house. When we purchased our house, we II
assumed that alley would remain there in its entirety. Some of our
neighbors have lived here 30+ years with full use of the alley.
3) The alley is too dark and therefore not safe.
The northern half of the alley had the sane problem. We had a light
installed. The cost is split among seven of the homeowners.
4) There have been liquor bottles and beer cans littered in the alley.
One occassionally finds these items littered in the alley. These
items are just as abundant in city streets and parking lots.
5) They claim their vehicles have been vandalized a number of times.
We fail to see how an alley contributes to this vandalization. it
b) High school students may be using the alley as an escape route from
school.
Shutting off an alley will do little to discourage students from
skipping school.
7) Snowplowing the alley produces a large amount of snow on the
applicants driveway.
Snow removal is a common complaint of most Minnesota residents.
Again. this is something that should have been considered before
buying the property or constructing fences that hinder snow
removal.
i
In addition to concerns outlined in an attached letter. consider that
there are five young children who live in houses abutting the northern
half of the alley. We are concerned that if the alley would be closed,
that the constant u-turns and driving in reverse would present a
hazard to these young children.
Page 3
I
Attached to this letter is the following:
i. A copy of a letter of concerns sent to the planning commission
against the proposal, and signed by 10 of the 18 homeowners
abutting the alley.
2. A copy of a petition for permanently paving the entire alley.
signed by the same 10 homeowners.
~
Scott and Marian Miller
7316 Grand Avenue South
866-3568
May 15, 1986
Planning Commission
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
We. the residents of brand and Harriet. Avenues abutting the alley
between 73rd and 74th streets, are against the proposal for vacating
the alley in question.
We have the following concerns.
1) A sewer drain (the only one in the alley) is located in the
southern half of the alley. What would be done about possible
drainage problems in the northern half resulting from this closure?
2) This proposal would force residents, snow plows, garbage trucks.
and any other vehicles using the alley to either back in, back out.
or maneuvar a U-turn to get in or out of the alley. Backing in or
out would seem to be more hazardous than driving straight in and
out, as is done now. Also consider the fact that the only entry/
exit would be 73rd street. which is a relatively busy street.
3) Would the part of the alley to be vacated be left as is or sodded
over? Will the city or the residents of the southern half of the
alley be required to make improvements to the vacated area?.lf so,
will there be an expiration date for these improvements? Most of
the property owners abutting the proposed vacation area have
fenced back yards. We are concerned about the vacated alley area
not being maintained, and eventually becoming an eyesore.
4) Would a fence be put up in the middle of the alley to close it off?
Would the city be responsible for maintaining this fence?
5) With a dead-end alley, will there be adequate room for the pile of
snow at the dead end that will result from snow plowing? There
could be passible drainage problems when it melts.
8-i~
Page 2
6) We are concerned about possible obstructions of right-of-ways
and/or easements ~uith permanent buildings. .All utility poles
(electric, phone, cable tv) run through the alley. Alley access
would be deleted in the southern half of the alley. All access
would be through residents yards.
If this proposal succeeds. and the southern half of the alley is to be
j vacated. it is our opinion that all costs associated with this
closure should be absorbed by the property goners abutting the
southern half of the alley.
Also, at that tree, oe feel that plans for permanently paving the
northern half of the alley should be finalized.
j A group of us also plan to attend the hearing at City Hall on May 28,
1986 at 7c30 P.M. and will be available to respond to any concerns or
questions pertaining to this letter.
~
Page 3
We are in agreement with the attached letter against the propsal for
vacating the southern half of the alley between Grand and Harriet
Avenues and 73rd and 74th Streets.
SIGNATURE NAME ADDRESS PHONE
Sc~-r M,~ ~3r~ ~RAti~ 8~G-35~ ~
V~'~.1-~-~ ~ ~~~-~~~c-~.t- F~ G e ~ 2 7 F C v o (3 = R C_ 7 3 i f-{ ~e .e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~ 2 ~f G'
~Gv ,L,' ~ ~ j 71~ ~ ~ S ~S/ =-c_`7,
t CcJc.~ r J" 6~ ~ - `!ci'
C~ ~~,c,~,~ 7 3 G i H car r-; e3C- ~c . S .
~ ~ V ~ ~ - 335
~ i-
A
~
J
~ ~t t< r~
r~ - _ - -
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 Requirements
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.
Other Ordinance Re uirements
Q
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.
~3
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 use designated
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 resubdi-vision 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 within a reasonable
distance. Therefore it would be difficult to install
catch basins on the site to handle storm drainage.. The
city engineer needs to review the final drainage plan to
insure that storm drainage is handled properly.
III. Traffic Circulation and Control
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 lanned
P
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.
7-~
VI. .Impact of the Pro.iect on the Neighborhood
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 !i
83 properties and was presented to the Planning Commission on it
May 28, 1986.
Impact Upon Surrounding Property Values II
.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.
Pro.iect 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 Cgnversion 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.
~r
Human Services Commission Recommendation
A ched to this council letter is a co of a letter from
tta py
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. I,
Planninq 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 'i
PUD plan, 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 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 rezoning the site from "R" single family
residence to "PMR" planned multiple residence. Second reading of
the ordinance and the official council public hearing on the
matter should be scheduled for June 23, 1986. Approval of the
PUD plan can be done either at the June 9th or June 23rd meeting.
It is staff's opinion that it would be 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 be amended to show the site as high
density residential so that the comprehensive plan will be
consistent with the zoning of the site.
Respectfully submitted,
ev n vi
Acting Cit Manager
-:f' - .
' ~V
~ ~
i
i
A
May 30, 1986 .
M
. ~ CV
d'
~
Recommendation to City Council
f
(n It is our understanding that on June 9 the
~ City Council will review a proposal from Fraser
= Community Services for a Semi Independent Liv-
e. _ 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.
O ~ apartment facility as an asset to the com-
~ munity. We sincerely hope the Council will
~ approve this proposal.
5~~~~
L ~ Myrna ammer
Chairperson
Q Human Services Commission
Serving Seniors $ Disabled
0
O
V
telephone: 869-7521 (612)
• an equal .opportunity employer
v
i
i-; ~ ;F - ! . w ~ ,s,+pr r- .a = P° Via, . . -•Q 'y \ (v W _
~ :a;,~~ •~~n~'~'\~ - - ~:~-i.~~ z _ ,rte
s! ~ i J •Y r • : ~P• ' _ r- Q j ~sJi •.~µl o O~~,c~ ,e+\ . .,~4 ~ '~J , 1
Q'-':' ! r rti ~ n,~ W j,d4 ~ ~ ao~T~ ,.pl.. ~ x. ~ .mil ~ ~ - \r
3 ~ r
= . - - < d,,,.' ~ . - < ' . Z O N 1 N G N . j ~ r ~
_ _ ~ - ~hEST' 64th ~ : ._ia: • - Sir7cET _ ^
~ t W
_ ¦ ~ ~ .hl:r r. x air t . r i
_ `W 2- ~.:~ii 'h'am t-- - '-<~•JJ•";':`~ ;l ~ t r
~ t ?1 Z~ 1 ,w' r 1• 1 H ~3 ~'r r~r Yi?IJI~~~~
• ~ .mil l H 1 r
i ~7: .~__^y~T.~. a •~'--a r(~rt 1~t'4rrrttrT
s?r ~'.S. -W s •:`i_o-~ I ,P's~ wr..~ ~,s)~ _y6.,•~ iV'<~
r ` 7~ '~•V Q 1 z-T¢lY - .n .fy~ ,yj < o _ ~ r ti 2
it ~i •~s .,1~, LL .p) `4"';,~'~,.,~ (5!~__-~:s~91 ~ s ~y ~~{~r r:i i
~ - X ,s ~ s •~~`O r ~ Sys)-'F;sl~i•s ) ¢c¢ s'~ds ~~,~o~ ~r~ ~ J~,t : A//'
OZ Z .~-J :~11 .Q _W'__ H 4t :O__ _Y= _ 1. R f~
X ~ -W .sZ .-U ~ - ITl'= ¢ y°_~ 6 gp) e`?~1 . J ~YS ~ _ Lift r 'I'7t;~~ O
4 , ,ri :mil w - x1~t z e•rirr
- - I • W , r7f - - _ ~«=o w s+s 1 H • Q
r~. ( - r r . t ~ O
',S%.. ,li\r 3 I ~ T~~t~°~ ~ ~ 1 ~ x~il~• ~ a•if ('~~l
li~(({r...'T r!
- _ j :r' WEST _ ~ 6SIN r :;i ~ !m.ccr
• ~ cW~ ,1 ~ ~ _____e1 a ~ ~ . ~~Y : i c - ?Y~F.. .KBE c
= ~ ~ raa•^a ~~t.. ~ _ ~ 9,6 s~~l. '~S-r- 2 -i.. SL9:M~Si h y\, - _
~ L
~ 1
....burs- ~ _ '1 2 ~ ~ ?~37.`
_
• - ~ WEST 66TH STREET k~ -
E'er .T) ~~1. s•• i) iy') yn :~T :.yi .yi , r ~ . r• ll •
i -•t~.•-y,1a ~~~=l~M:`.3~• _I)U''_.:'L4 37
~1_~~°.'rl' =~.aM'r I ~y,__.__-.~
_ ~:7~ _ yj.. .iIR ~~-Ii ltir N~=,~M lS ~Nf ~ N~% ~ -y-T
. 1 ~ • ~
• -tip i INDUSTRIAL
= r_ii ~ ~ = GEKERAL COMMERCIAL -
- k- i =L w. .s r..
• _
i~ . - ~~-~i , MR (MULTIPLE RESIDENCE) ' srstEE~-
-f .y _ ...o. - -MR-2 (3-1 T SWELLING UNITS) - --~ds•' ~ .;'.pt
~ - ~~„9~- MR-1 (TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE) _ A~"/Jr~~'" s
„a•~)i ~ SPL.USE PERMIT
• y.i _
rr7 ` ~ 4(T~ d'~ r ilY' `I~'i Y1ST
~ JI d s --,~aS yi.._' ~ VARIANC I Wyl e~`e '(,P~ ~ z
• _ . • I ~ .REZONING ~ sus--~
- I' his ;s. sa..a I - - - . -n~~ : • tla. :•'•.I~.
- - ~ • <"Tin. "a'date- =i ! I I ~I;v ~ ~ 7=:~ ~ ~ ~ I .B W
^ ' • ..1, ~ .yy~ ~y~ r w~ ' ""11 ~ • . • ~ ` ` Y~ .~+a a • tdd ~•^t S F ~ ~~'Ij,~ c'
t' ` • + `1.96 ' s ~
` ~ rrsl do:/J l ~ • w•r +~~•j ~ t.i a f Y~. J ~ iIi ~j
I ~ ~ i R. L 9 I NO. 4 32 ~ ~ a ~ 7S ! i.f ' S • y 1 lr~~~,f af, f,
I rJ ~ • - ur'rY tt ai rJM r.'C i~~' u'7 I nn I, yj.
.,:°,a-'K ,I~: ~•.4 ~ i'U ~:'.4~aY1.f l~ ••5.,t XERXES .YI~VEN4Nr:, .4, ~}0~1TI
I ~ YO~iK a ~ ~ ~ / " E R ~E w-~ r ~ • Y~ to `R± . ~ ' ~ ~ ff
1 I ~ n, m wl~ ar•
. ~ , srr . ` n.•r!?~e~~fr~ ~ fall JlRtl
1 IL ) t .6F "Or 11[ 1M, • ~ , r'r . I.VR~ ,'lIw . • ~ ^ . CIIr u
' 1 M U ~ Y s M Y' • 5' - ) at 1 • a. `I )f hf
h
,.f n• a- N i a o ,f •I ~ EN~1'3•,; ~~`,REb~1~Ytig k~ `
T.~riJi !~1 f, ~ ,irk C ;L ~ ~~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ..Y.~ ~ ~ ~C 'r J'~~'~1 ~ f ~ . t 'i r ~ •f • c ^r.'.,'/ ~r~ C
• i to 1, d Y +1. "t' 3 ' ~ IA ~ w ~ M l .:~A ~.~b~ 11
g ~iSEC01~lQ ~1D ITI~ N~ I
° +Y. :;'1.1.1'1:
' ~ r •7y;' ~ Iir ~1^y 1111 I J ~fN 1 • I le I .
'r. I 'ffi~,i~.r~1 ,ltt;31' :ili~iliil SO,rtt tl,~ »,".~13-~..~ +,w.., `.WAS11Bl1RN'f,~~!~,.•:.f is f AVENUE
-d i' Z 4r'1' ~ • yi 1il ^ - r r~ I ~ ~ 1
I.i.~~~~ 1 ry~~ F a•~~'I'~ ~ ~ ~ Q~ ymf j ^e ~ I ,y ~ j. ~ i ~ S i5 (i ~~i r~~ :a -
D ~ 1' a ~ ~r -L ~ I ~ I L I J I ? 1 J 1. i rte' t•
f. ~ ~?+~1.1 '~n!!„ ~:ili'il t••• 1. HI .~YL 'a ~~f s - 1~~~L1-IT'-4'-ti--~-YS /'fli• 1~ ~,I ~
.n I3: .Yi~O. .:I.I.I.f • 1`w.~:. ~ ~ j/ YJJ `wi ~ t ~.1. I i j' I al Y , + . ~ II
~ ~ .D , =•Iv'~ i^ sl'"l '~,l -+I~I jI~I~IEI~i;~?IC It
D C) C 'O Q V~t,SO. r 1 , • ..u VINCENT q•., u'° `r :AVENUE
_ ~ r, Z•0
f 'wV T I D 1 1 7) ,A 4~ j I ~',4r~! M as-. r•
~ COL r.. ~ ~ ~'~.la +a t''p~'~y~^.J ~ ~ S" r~%f4f E K~~r'Y ~ F~ "g'!`$~ Z /
F-°' to i 3 ` .'1 vv -1.5 i r aj n i~ f .~n~S1f a ( 1 G t a:' ~ ~ r~ . w r R
Nq r/.!?~~5 ~ O Rl ~ i ~ ! Ily ~'I ~#t~ r . -"I I M~r ~I~ri '!`~(jl ~ l{Zpp~ LAT 6'~ p• v
iii a~ ~ ( D r ~ a i `5i Si n` ~ nc "c(' 't• _ Rll '~Ct ~•GA~cf CEIJ: t~: ~L ~ . ~ 4
1 C Z ~ ~ ~i ~i-'i: dfr•I..~,;;,~~/'"~rl !~`~~t~,~'~C~~ ~f v ~ ~a i • F~-i ',cam ~ .af• ,e
0 fA f _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; . , "~3 ~ 7. c UPTON f t e * . - t~ AVENI~
r' ea. a °e
1 C •,~,r^~•' y
~„A~~ai I'+j I ~.i I~? :r l ~ • - I c ~
' m l - -•g. _ • ^ ~Cf r~l ?Irsllr o~tol a~ ~
1 ~l sbl~'4`~t I z r~ S y.- x. rf~iy.' ,f ,.!,}~il~^C•!~ ~ 1 i 1 ~ ~ r
u r-.. ~1 r" Y - - { li R ter. r F , u,j1 ~ - - t
- JI HI d ~ ~Fy:--. f, 9 jam,, r ~ ~ :S •j, t `
..J, I (n R+ .i 9 1 111 ~ L it ~ t! 1 ,pRR/ 8F O~IF{RrS. FIRSI ~ ~ f J ~I
• ~ r w~= r• a. o. r . ~ IiYY. C hl l a :v F • 'AF f ~q`~ f'M1tj~ .e~ a •$.r s `~J
~ ~ r:'1~`• D ~ .a ~I l:~l~ ~4'ii ~'.f S~ ,f
t ~1r"4`Cfbr i•~•,r~'Ja-,r' 100 IIOh r;~` a~, u. Z~r •'~'l
' r. 50. t. Rl :THOMAS `'i' a ~ L•~ AVENUE
~ J'^.1, y... i r~~ ~
..V' 1 ^J. "i: • F-••r ~ e~i (.4~. AY6^;~~5 Yr w 4~~1 IJJII
~ ~Y , a i~t ~ n lYj 1• ~i ' :r'w • I. I':..~ [~i ~ 2 e,r' ~ ~ -f~f/ s~}~~'Pe~'~y~n* 1 ~'Yc
~ ~WJ k h`t tCt ~ ;
1 ~ rCt' r y. T ~ E bha SF?r. - ~ ~ ' ts' ~ 1 r' ~ L'r~.rLC:•,fr~tlN : 4~1~ ! 'l~v",".
ankF' ~~~~~t1~~} 1 ~ ~ 1 C? I
• w ~ u d .w • LL " -'I ~ i~ w L u ' w I' 1 ~ Y rR'k ~~tj,A^~ f~,VP^~'I . r~ V/ YG: 1
_ ~<!Q• '~l'w~ • Y r O! : G r?. ~ i ~ I ~ n +r 'L^,~i~j,pf5"' ~~y., ,,y"f , eia~-,~~
..I IV • i ~ • Si i~YS f'~f • , 1.0.E tJ O, a~'~J.~~~~i~T C~'G~i.~;C'~1~~~11,~} , L .
Y: 1 i y N` ~SNERIpAN AVE SO ~ r r L,i+~{'.~kr~~'~"`ft "fd k maoAA
$O. :15.1 G ~L' ~ ~1v~. 'fT
1 ?f' ' ~o aSElit 51au'wnlc~l~E r st ~ ~ C
_ ~ ~1 ~ rc, r <~+~~r11'^~if1Lt ~r,~ 5~^
{rav~~l~~a ~h r. ~E
I ~ -f1 +5 wo l' w~j^~ j '1 t 1 ~ .p. I~
~ ~ l.N a r 4'~ t'd t D ~ ~'4,~ ~ >3 i~~~b~ ,
S 1 ~ Of J ,Ifl t4L OiN s I ~ 4N ~ s 7,
~~il~r S' I ~ ~ S VIN ssr~ ~'r~- m i ~r 1 J- "1 ~ 1 I~¢ . ~Ir it ilr !G iA^L~~,'L'~~ R~jzra'ri2.~' ~y"~ ~ V ,
C ~ {ti N I ~ 7; ~~i S fi ~'I RIGIFIELO „ i~.sA 11. ^~yj''6"{' ,~c.~Sp r T~tf v¢ • ff ir.
~ 1, ~ o; ~ •J a^ L-~0y1,f I~ !i~>~~^~'i~ Mf '7`~+Ue~' ~~t~Z~rI.~ a + I
I, r~J: f ~ 1 L,f,:r8i~~'e~ ~Z'•`~`!!FFr a' IEFi
° ~ u . Y PREE MANfSP n. a . h •a ti?k :n~ fiL: r. ~l
• c CAVE. ~ 50• c ~ 'A,,.,.. t ;`RUSSELL °r : f: AVp
• - Iv rr ,r ~ 7`~_~~Y . I ~,.1~ a h~ ~ Iv r~°~ I'• S' S H/R a J4 NfR 1 f. ,~f .i.f p _ _
. ti' J r7L ~L
- ~ ~ ' ~ ~ l~ 2 K IFIE D' 'AA N: r u c
Y re Y ~ f ! ) 1
'2.1 ~ 1I ~ aJ ~ ~ -^a v ; fJ Icr ( ( Ij ~ IIUi! ~r,~dilkM a. '~y 4 yN .:~.J Z' ~ .f.r~'I I ~ r
I~~1~`~I. ~ I ~I + C ~ ~a1(~.~. ~ _~_~J_ Y;V ^ frl 111 11f V1~' T ;.I I _
, J .s •T12/ ti ~I'Ir III "4. 1 ,1' ~ • s
r'. t: r. AVE. SO. s `'t a ~ ! I 1 U ~ C i ,
- aE•~,~~. t ~ I+_,~ wl ~ ~ ! ~ ~ l ~ L ~ ~ ~P~ t z E w : r o pIl ~1 W~I~ 4 4 I ~ 1
Z ?A>~1~T ~;l~Fs •9 :~.1.~ .>G -3ti•~~~ m ~ ~a __..w~l 'z tAL i, ~L *1 F:.`E N , k ~ I
_ w ..t.7 I r~ ~ ~ 11 ad' 1 x. • - f"i3' ~ e4Nl. ~ . sr ~ ,A ` . > I, } ~ ?
• ~
Y ~ '1 ~ t~~ • ~ 1 1,1 y '1",• 1,Y ,z o - ~.j ~ i Y
u • ~ + 1a a ~ 3 . r1 ~ . ae ~ „ , r w ! ' fIk'• ~ 1'. ' ~ ~ I f
u(
vC.j'f~ ~ z ~a
~ I ` , `•'L '
IENN AVt:. NO. NO. 32 _ + ~ COUNTY ROAD PENN AvE+NtlE 'S
- ir::5 H Resr ~ ( ~ ~ ...:,301' R
'I 1
1 r V. ' V' y' . ~
1 , -~JI f e: rJ I ~ J :=1.-~• ~.(}C~ ~ V r.~/•iC. .t V.
d'~ ~ ' w.rn 1.: ±r~• MN V~~k:V .1. t: I " i, l -r.•
I ~ ~ ~ S R. L. S. INO.n • 432 T i A ~~'1~ i 4 •1 • ~ _._j.
• ~ j ~ i10 1 k 7 ~ . ~ i •r ~ _ J ~ XERXES AVENUE'. 'I}UDITI
• 1 r ~ I 1~~Y~~K 1 kl„elf: ~E R ~E ~ ,.1 ~~'•J , 7~''• '
' . i vnk.ar • •.or .¢"r[k~~ SAl1NT A0A6- "::'~EHqr?C=
- ! >ljtt} N °I I I I I~ s`'.!+,'wl ~ I I Iv k rry,lllf 1r'k r , 11 , r.~ {I, ~
,o r P f. ~I i N'I O• ~ yr I i i ~,I"-' .may .j~,G~r~',. ~ . ~•a ~ IVI ~~I II~~ Irll I, +~~~1 j.,jS.~v.
' ~t~:rC1.1, ^ ~ .~c-1 C ~ 6A °II '.rl'~' u 1 ~~1, t;, t.~ I~ !l f.~~,' 'r,~"Ik- ~''J ~ S ~ ~ ( -~rf' va "~k 7J-
' • , 1 a . I Y i`. (1 '%SECOND•' ' ADDITIQN • „1 ~4• , .
y ' ~ •Z
I + ~IK'.S'. I I 2 3 SQ N! YIM ~ Mfr ~ `K 1 . J.. .
s', ~11 ~,lP`i. ~ ~ { s ~ ~ t WASHNUItN 1 AVlNUE
aJ~~ 1 A~'~ 1i I `ry'1 ~ .r?'Y3 ~ tD ~ `'c to I I 1 I 1• m
7 t`.C~ . 'x~~~, r~i•lo'Ir- ~ ~ 'sk.,~vr`~`~. ~ 1: I •t. e, I ~ 1 ~',i ' It ~ 1 •
• ~ ~ ~r xz ' 'D • , ! Ri ~ C'c' . • , ~ 1 1 I J 1 1 •t il.. S.
D YIY. ~'M ~I ~ ~Y•JI 'r~ i~f ~7/~•-1..`~ 1 II TT11~';~ 4 6~y~ Ki'0^~t ~ ~ ~t ~,1 _L. ~ 1 I 1 1' ~ 4 r
, I 1~1,)~r~ `'.F ~.~.~i i ~ ~'1.. A's? .E 4~ .tr ~ -t. _ 1 _ 1.. 1 r'
"'~*•~4,~.t
j, OYf]O 'E`.,`.;'%4 I~• ~jy • p SC iC.i 2 3T ~ 1 4 `
I ` I?i ~ .ra s ka Ymi .fit, ,j. 1 t• I 1 L
- 'lk.~; a .~•11~e ~t ~ f`.~,I A •'l o~o •~s ' p j ~ ~S }%{i'b"9uY ~+'iII~~~, --0'~ i ~ i ~~I d i G.I ` ; C~I~ ~Y ..l
' ~ D 1~ m m ~ ~~SO. c I t "VCINCENT ~ ;t'~i 'AVENUE .
~ ~ _d C_ ~ a ~n~': 1 ~ r~~fl ~ ~Ig '~AY~~y~',*~~ '•'~~^?~~~~"j ~r i I.
^''~ll-Z'' ~tr.'~~ I ~ -I C C ' ~T i ~ o'~ i x ' 1~~• !r~•~,~i . ~R ~ARF~AN~,EIk~ENT OF LOT 6~ O y ~ ~ '
'al C ~ ~ try ' I'~ 1r '"~'~I 1 r ~r , ~ t 1 g e ~ 2 I '1 ~
rr!'..'s.J ~ • s. I D ~•I p` c _ f I t kl ~ 'R ; ~yo ~~~L+.`S.. , y't Rlali~•ECa 'GAR[~EIJ~ ^ y - ~ 6 a
:..L.:.I-tl.:~[~' j O ~ RI O ' 0~°y~ ~ ~ ° ' 1 >r~'~ '~~a , i~~y'~•~ ~"t•%y, . r . ~ v li 1. ~ ~ 11 » Il . • r, t
z r l Z 2 S0. s. ~ y *ai~7~ti••~ ` r Uf+TON ~ ~ ,o.' ~ ~uE ' ~
• • , i ~ '0 I... ' ~ o ;
~ _ ~ a,, w1 I T x s~~ niy~:xllE 4 Q ^ .t~~ r' t ~y l l~ •I~ ~ ~c ~ ~
I.C. •}~e.~ iI ^"I ~ w x . Pi, C' q" ~ aaAry fi£i AQn.~it~ ~l• ~1 ~ I r~ol, Yr ,01 e'A a 1
4 ~I.YI Y~~ I I Z 1' 1 ~F~F ~ ~ .k i ~ ~ ~ s _ 5 Y 't ~,.:aryyk'N~`: •'N~1• I 1 ~ 1 1 ~ • • •~I ~.I•' '
~'`IN: ~y I N W ~ r R 6 : Fr ,ri 8~J ~ ~ ~ r Ira' a,n1r7 Y.~• 7. ~1 itliq BiiO`f~ ,IiS FIH5111`' ~
~,r C}I X ~ '~FM - I+ ti•I :1•.f C Ji 'i.'.a .'l}, ~,'~~,.1~ ~-i:.."~`~~'r0i 1'1(~,71k1' `r~ n ':A -
~ w ~ LI_
,c ~ 'n t» SO. 1. ~ ~ THOMAS- r~~ -I „ AVENUE Z
n r AgpY 4 ~a ~'st .
~ ~ j 1 D s, ~ Yk ft ! «T I I t _ ;?iy'r 7f~. ~ n"~,.r~i{• ~ Y'>•i:n~tf 14 'h ,lh IF~,~" S C/ '
C, I Z . •si' ~ r-; I ~ 1.~. ~ "!i~ ~al~,i'~le~~~.ytrN,~f~~;t41k,~,,/4~`r~M•'d N
! ry I ~ t: ~ .71! w• I ( ~ .J '3 ~;r'.+' ~7 y,{i t~~A+p7L~'F~I,~`~, 2~{!~•%. • I X1'7 rx`HA'
i~ ~ • ~ ~,..1.. ~ 1 1~,~, T~~~ir~~~~.k~.4'~.:I°~''« 7k" f1,FtJl^~, i , 1 i 'tsl
4 C v ; (n • yHERIDAN , AVE SO ~ F'Sr+ '~Y`'~ '~9 ° rtl .v Y•< Yo Nr I ~
1 I 47+ f1'1 t?~' ""4 . I . ' - ~..~I ~ I, ~ ~.Imrr'y •f!';r~? t r~Z~~l~t~rkl~rt'~w~~'Tfv~k~'"yr~v~~ ~MOIyITt
t+ Ft' X '~y~ J~. '~~U\F/ Z' k f111 b• -ia. .y:l kC> ~ M,Pr.,~i i} CL' S'"~Y ~ r ~ .
• E•3 "1~ ~ I x Z' ,.'1 4 "1 \ ~ ~ l,li lL~t4~ r~j~yi. ~ x ~7 KrX,t] j~t ~rl,`~~{7 ,~t.p~ ` ~.f ~ 5 ~
C }K Y Ii"` I III+ ~ r- i• z ~d~'t~'f,~f(;jtiRr}.3'~yF tt',~3r~,+ I r-
~ k?. ;
9 ~ ~ ~S ~ a 1r NS• .•ol ~ ~ r~~1 4 pQ((,, l ~s r,~•t', a , srVs g
~ w•f - q if~ I ~ ~~k// ~~+t~Jik'h~i i't L'~'13~i~n~~'~~~ai* /•Z' .J`L~ ,
{yam {F+p tl ~d J a 1gI J1Y ~ f
~ . ~ . ~ I ~ MAN " a r'Lk4t1• J;u 51~' ~l '#rv m4.x'..
,c rAVE. s ~ S0. k II + YRUSSELL AVEI
741 Ir Imo"'' M apt-.~1=• , t ~'C~ pi~Ii I77 Id~rn}I'~+. •1 !i ~ ~±j~ H/tR~ J KN J~(N ~/,UN,f~ • ~ ~ ~ 1
LI,f•,.*Yin~ .•t ~'G ~ xYt ~•~L~ y Yi ]ry,W~ ~T 1"' iil 7h ~1-~ ~r, ,~,7~~t-~w Fj
~ • I~1; ~ 3N ~J 'r 2 CRIL~1hYf.~AAYE _~i tt•?~.,•iu t
I ~ yi A~~ r al V ~ r ~ N k. *.1~~ r ,o,ir~„_'~,4
v ~ ~'r •'T~S.N
' - J Z
' ~ ~ I j•~u ~ ~ ob•/ ~ - I 1 •~'i J I. Y~ i~ IW l t~,t' t ~ V,t t~
, r. r ~iVE. SQ !..k~ so V
' t 3 ~l,l s 1 U~ ~ s ~v i' ~,.~V 1
„ - 1 i - I . rw ~'i••. ' r` s ! k~ s`~ S s,~^t x m x a ~ (0 i s
e ~ iil~ I ~ I!I I p~ 1f ie • y M• 3 e _ nn~s~~b~ x''~c~'I,,F ~~8~~~` ~y try •l r~ ~ t 3 i
Z J Ms!~w. { (rl ~*1. 1 I I- !!I i~. ~f , f Irl ~ •ji}.. ~ u5`;n.-~ ~~wf ~ ~r~~ ?1 -1 ~nt,~S ,«.Iv . w n ,t, I .r ~
' r "T!' oT . ~~15~p~£
5 ~ ary r : ! ~ ~ ""'s I _ L
1r La ~J ~ - ~ ~ ~ j~ i y x t rC ~ rk
,-~-u-~J~ M «..q M '+k• ~~".1• N ~~jkXy •ww~ ~ n1 ~~f~ 6s rnr ~f 1 ~ }3..~ I
. '"'i~ ~ " 1 ~ ~ f. T is '%t I:! `>!.'H_.~1~`:/~i5'~5~.,~f Y,. t tl
'ENN = AVf. x NI). NO. 32 ' + COUNTY RGAO .PENN AVENUE I s '
Za5 N Rlo , - - -
' 1
'3 .1 ; I •
`1 ~ '
1 ~ `
~ ~ - ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ;I ~ ~
(yy®p~ ~q' a ~ ~ ~oaa any 7~C~I
- ~ ~ ~ O EI O T ~ ~ ~ S a (0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A f ' Y ~ - _ _ b ~ ~ ~ RI ~ q
$3in >?f: I j ~ - :1 _ .F ~ f~~~~ ~t J~. ~3~ ~ ~k-~L - ^ ~ _ ~ f -i._ y 1 `f"
it ~3t1) ~F
i I
~
_ .
~ E I
b41R 4F - - ~ 1 = - - - _ , _ f3 e ~ ~'=*.J ~e - 1 ~3~ I ~j _ - - _ - - ~ - _ ~c.= _ = 6~ 91 i•
~j _
~ t~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
_ c' _
eilA §t ~ ~ ; - - - - -
- - - _
II IIy. _ '
_ _ ~
iwlP 4P: ~ ~ ~ -t 3H _ - ~ - e~ ~ ~ ' k 1~-1~~ - ~ ~t~~ ~ _ - - - _ = _ - _ - i SIP
-
GRIP gi. ~ . _ - ~
~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ , _ - - - = - _ - - ~ ®~ti ,~rt~,
~ I - , - T I I-
-
'..:,fit _l i 1 ~ a, , it
6 i - H r ' ~I , _ v~~ ~ 1 ~ u
- - ! _ - ~ ` ~ i i i'
_J _ J _~F . I ~ ` l -l 1~ ~ w1 [I1. ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ' i 73 A 67
,Jug _
_
74th ST °r.. _ - _ - i - _ - - - - - 7Qh ST.
- - `
_ _
1 1 - - ° -
7Sth St _ r.:~ ~ - - - - - - - .
761h ST ! s' r___ _J .J.._~~-.~~ ~
~ J ~ _ _JL_1L. 1 ~iJ ~1 _ .J -J _J _J ....1 = = - - = ~ _ _ -~~r p 76th ST.
1
~ l _ ~ _..._~l' ~?'1, 7 ~ ~ 11:_[_ _ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ .L---~ ~ ~ > > 1 ~ - - ~ 77th St.
1
771h Si. 7~ b Lu~l-st~ IF
79th ST ~ Jt _
~~~~~~-=r"i•. ~.s...96'"~..~L 6r-~~.13~-~.~_i _~..__Ilv_
~
~1.~ ~ - - =~Y_Il - i 1 1-4 4th SL
1-494 _ ti
Z 2 O < { W ~ W O { < O W Z O O S { Z Y ~ ~ Z C ~ O O
< 7 W H I O W W { > F y~ O 2 1 ~ C < N F W { C { ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ Z N M f 111 < { P < ~ ~ ~ . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ -
o J O N A ~ ~ f V r O { J
I Z ~ S Z N O O W O J Y -<j 4: m~~ W. s~~ J. W~ 4. V y1 O J~ 7 U W ~ O_ J CITY OF
W : s ~ _ ; _ _ _ ~ SS W ~ m . J GJ y ~ _ ~ o~ ~ o~ RICHFIELD
~ 3 n = _ _ ~ $ ~ Y ~ u ~ HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINN.
W -
K ~ j
Z
t b wu w~
TRAFFIC COUNTS: 1984 r
1
S ' :•N ~ a~.
r' c
l~. ' ~'r
s w.l.
II
li •r
y~~/y~~
y~y~1 ~ , ~W. ~I
F~.s~ r ' ~
f.'lT. ~Y{'.• i tj~ t r~ 3' A• W'1 ~ rN ` In. 'Y..~ )
f 6`..
- /
W r'r
kkpp , ~ ,
'f
"4
~A
Irt r ~ L•
r
N
AA'' '-f• . .1. a
,F' ,
n s,.
.n
1 •i~ P. r ~ • O' Y i , d ' s
y.
1 F
1
/ to , • ~ . •
i ,
1 ~
:nn z
4
fr * 0.~ R ~ t ~C~ ~ r ~ ,1 1- r ~?I~ •~'Ii~~~fV ` ° .K.
~',y1,' -~~4 r ~ ;ter`. ; ~A- Y• ~R~F 'L ~ ~~i
~s t O, ~1f1 s l~ Ihl~~r~Y+„~Y; •~1~ Y ~ J,1~1j3gJ.
4 UV. y~ r ~ ~ wf n. ~ ~iu~ ~ ~1"f~ A~® i ® '~~*j ~ 1 •f V~
'y 11 ice. 'Y+. N i 1 Y '•Z• '1 w. ~l ~ ~ ; ~ t• S~~ •?.r-`f
r ; ,y r t ~ 1 ~at f ~ !t•L""i'p Y:. 4 f ~i,3f j` 5
Y. f. Vd 71 is W. w. ~j1 v..+ Fvisj ~
• V .F ^'y ' ~ 1 rC ~'1,~~ ~ +3~~ s r • w~~' y ~ "Sri"{
f , ~ ~ ~ ~ a.a ~ 0 ^ t` •;~~t ~ b.1.i.. ! r '•.r ~~~I:M'~'~N` j .%~K;~`?~~ ;9. f n : li
+M~1 ; r ~ y n~Q'1 r ~ w . 1 ? • s ,F w..n r.~i r ~ • yrae,;~`^~ f;~;y K
1 ~ w• tit ,N rN r ,/"n '1~~ ,r; ~n ~ y~_ '1 9°~1k4.~a .1' .ark}ii'`~J9 ,~+?,~yk, ~y,.;'., r•
.r..y ` ~1 , ~ ' °'!Q,' • s.y ~y' , ~ ya ' N 'IR s Q . p' ~(r,..tw~Y1,9,,,,{ ~ , , 1?..tp°(,~r ~~.;~r~.'.i'jt rt / . ,
.r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~`Q~. ~ ~ ~ J M .~!~R~ .'J~;pt •r ' fi yt r ; r' j' li LSS;R'pC ' ,ki ~..'L*~r•,~ 1 ~c~+~
~g$' (!ll w Q r
111••• • ~1 ~ N ~ 1• f: ' 1 M(J.~ •Sx" M Na
J' k ~tn7~ ~ d
'~Vroi~r •1 ~ . t,. f ?N StiSX
'4
~'n..~
•
ter.. •
..i. ,
.1.;
1?orsunsk~• 1?rank Erickson Architects. Inc.
_ _ -
300 First A~•enue \orth
Suite 500 - -
_ '.1linneapolis. X11 53401
6l'2/339-4200 . - -
May 9, 1986 -
Mr. Dennis Kraft
Director of Community Development
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55432
- -
Dear Mr. Kraft:
SUBJECT: .Fraser Independent Living
Comm. No. 85-01-0153-01
Enclosed is the revised P.U.D. Submittal for the Fraser I~d~sndh~*~t; liiivr~i~~
project. ~-The revisions to the site plan .and the submif:.;a;T: uf' a3 p~arr~~~r,~.iiv,~ - .
drawing were requested by Rick- Jopke. These are not r~~iisi:~~s> b~; t'~~r~ a:~~x,,~~,1;
of the project, .but are rather enhancements of the mateR-i~a~i i~•~U'iia~flT1.Y~ - -
submitted.
In addition, I have been i n contact with Mike Eas 1 i ng ~a nexr~x:~ doe pn~o~~~x+tl
drainage of the site under consideration. Mr. Easling s~~dt~]k:~rr~~ lea ~x~?s;~d
locations for future storm sewer lines. For the preser~r„ wee ~ax,~: ac,~rl
drain the hard surface parking area to Sheridan Avenue p~gn:atr~r5g~ c~,h~-~~~~,e~~y~
- additional information relative to drainage.
` The number of units described on the P.U.D. applicatioc forum Hai. b$~~ ~~~m~xd
to 30.
t
_ Enclosed is a check for .the amount of X161 for .the app~li:3a~i~?~~ ~ _
Sincerely, _
KORSU KY ANK CKSON RCt1ITECTS, INC. - - -
7
_ Bi11 Correll
mer
Enclosures .
f
_ _ -
Korsunsic~ Krank Eric><wn Architecu. Ine.
_1
300 Fit A.Yaue ,o~
s~~t~ soo
Minneapolis. ~i\ 5401
6J?l339-4200
Kay 2, 1986
Mr. Dennis Kraft
Director of Community Development -
- City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55432 -
Oear Kr. 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 .Lhe 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.
Ort1ERSNIP
The property owner is the Louise Whitbeck Fraser School, Inc., 2400 Nest 64th
Street, Richfield, KN 55423.
EXISTING SITE COt~1DITI0l1S
The site consists of one-plus acre- and -is 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.
f
i - -
s
f
-
Page 2
Mr. Dennis Kraft
May 2, 1986 - -
SURROUMDIN6~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.
David A. Frank A ~ -
Yice President
me r
i
t
r
i
- ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD •
A lication for ~ ~
PP
Yi.AiTNED UNZi DE~TELOP2U~T (PUD) DISTRICT REZONING
To: Richfield Planning Director _
_ Application is hereby made for PUD District Rezoning. -
Applicant Nacre: Louise Whitbeck Fraser School , Inc. Telephone ~ 8E1-1688 - -
Address:. 2400 West 64th Street, Richfield, h1~~.55423
Legal Description of proposed PITD District:
Lot 7, Jacobsen's Subdivision of West 1/2 of Lot 14,-ni~~i~irlu
Gardens, and Lot 1, Richfield Gardens Pree Manor,-Hennepin County, Minnesota
Attach copy of petition if this amenaaent is to be initiate3 by petition .
as provided in Sec. 3.42 S:ibd. 5.
- A Pla.-uied Unit Development Plan is attached in accordance with Chapter III,
Part IV, Section 3.34A, Suad..._3(2).of the .Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfiela. ~ ~ -
Brief description of the general charac~er of the pzoposed PIID
See attached cover letter.
Proposed zoning: PMR
` Existiag zoning: R-1
O~rnership of PilD (including an explanation of the way in which the require-
- meats of Section 3.34A Subd-. 2 (1) are met) Sane as applicant above_ _ -
Amount of land area and floor space -devoted to each different use. FIL%
r 1~1LI. ~lLANF••S; ZF BOT APPLICABLE, rui N/b.
~ - _
N/A Single Family Residential N/A Neighborhood Commercial
. {number of units)
- riulti-Family Residential ~i/A General Commezcial
30 (number of units) -
_ 69,980 Gross land area of PLD as defined in Sec. 3.34A, Subd.10 (2) (a)
24,310 Tatal floor-area as defined in Sec. 3.34A, Subd.10(2)(b).
61,760 Amount of open space as defined in Sec. 3.34A, Si:bd.10 (2) (c) .
40,718 Amount of livabili*_1 space. as' defined in Sec. 3_. 34A, Subd.10 (2;
_ 2 ~ f
5,850 Amount of~ recreation space as defined in Sec. 3.34A, x.10(
14,591 Amount of land area designated for parking space, streets,
drives and loading areas.
If residential: Huaber• of occu ant cars aces as defined in Sec.
. _ P P 3.34A,
Subd. 10 (Z) (f) pa-king apace for residents 31
Number of total car spaces as defined in Sec. 3.34A,
Subd. 10 (2) (f) _ 31.
If commercial or industrial: Number of parkiag spaces N/A
- N/A Amount of space for truck loading facilities.
one (See Plan) Number of vehicular entrances and 'exits and their. general
locatioa. -
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 hand IIse Intensity Rating from Sec. 3:34A, Subd.9.
APPLICABLE MULTIPLIER STANDARD ACTQAL
RATIO ,
348 g E9.980 - _ X4.353 24,310_
(Floor Area) (Gross La.~d Area) (Maximum Area) (Proposed)
_ ~ .73 - x 69,980 51,086 61,760
(Open Space) _ (Gross Laad Area) (Minimum Area) .(Proposed)
.45 z 69,-980 - ~ _ 31,491 _ 40,71& -
(Livability Space) (Gross Land Area) ,(Minimum Area). (Proposed)
.049 _z 69,980 - 3,429 - 5,850
• (Recreats.on Space) (Gross Land Area) (Plinimum Area) (Proposed)
1.1 s ~n 34 31
(Occupant Car) (Living Units) (Minimum No. (Proposed)
of Spaces) _ ~ g Future
Stalls
- 1.3 _ 30 39 31
(Total Car) (Living Oaits) _ (Hinimum No. (Proposed)
° of Spaces) * g Future S
Describe any changes to the Concept. Proposal: done Stalls
-3-
• '
Describe development schedule as required by Sec. 3.3#A, Subd. 3
We will proceed with construction after approving by City and final approval of
funding by HUD.
It is understood that if PUD District Rezoning is granted, the applicant -
shall submit a final development plan along with an application for a
special use permit in accordance with the ordinance affecting same and
that applicant may be ea_ui`s~ed submit Fnch further information as may
be required by the P anning~D' e
i
Applicant Signature ~ ~ l /f Date 5-1-86
-Fee in the amount of $ received. Receipt #
Concept statement to Planning Department -Date: _ - .
Director approval of PIID concept statement -Date: .
Referred POD to Planning Depart-meat -Date:
Referred for c-~••••••ent -Date:. - ~
Referzed•PIID to Planning Commissioa Yor public hearing recommendation -
- Date:
Referred PDT to City Council for public hearing t approval -
Date:
Final plan referred to Planning Department -Date:
- ~ Referred final plan to City Council for approval -Date: .
~FFECTIVE DATE: .
tt - - -
t_ _
~ .
•
_ . -
_ _ ~ _ ~
ill llrawo ~ ~rr~ wr ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ r M~ ~ ~ n ` ~
173(Ubd JIVINI lr~'IaN3d~C]M _ ~ a~saneuoM
r~
u~w
141pM M
wuu 3
wwa r~rN s~.r.rt` u_r,Jy/} ~~-+.w~ ~ ~ Mw. ~l
J _ I ~
.
t
1
wuwrw~u.o~k--____-~-~- .
~ A/ / t.11 ~
wwi
..r
M ww+rwrf
I I I i I 1......,....~ I,......wr I~""""'"' .w.w.w a rwwr ~ , ~ , rw~rw~ MMrw1 1
~il ~ f~LL(~ 111
1 ~ .
V
. N
,
_
iaonm,Neur Kwnc anaceoH ~ ~ INDEPENDENT LIVING PROTECT _
~.w ~ ww RI~IFlEID, MINNESOU _
- ~ ~
' ~ ~ ,
~ t
• - _ _
_ •
~
I~~ ~ ~ ,
i ~ ~-~®I ~
~ e
,
~
m ~I
~{~,..lj o
.fit ~ ~ ~ ~~.'~~-~~i~..;'w',t' "~'1
` ~ tt• t' ='i~th..'r'~ fir; J
: ~ 1
~ ~ - ~ ; - ~ ~ . • .,ri ' • - to y ~
• • •rc~:. f
G: r~l ~ .:i~ l: if~: y ;ter ~r « s
. t9 a: j. ~ _ 4 r:. ~
'/tom - ~.'t '~.i`~ J . t• ~
•111 I d:`;+•~ TAX` t~ 1` " ~i. ° ~ fr I
i l ' rt 1_~f.:? t ~,,F ~1r~ 1r, ~1~.=•1:1:. ~ ~ r
. +~Zi
'
1
` 1
_
~ ~
~.1~ ` '
~i ~
N,orota tunow~
~ ttt.f •M
~ ~ ..I....._+ J
1
~ •
j'~r NAGS PLAN
wurT M.~* URA1
PROPOSED ~AptNG ANA ~ ~
n..~ N
' . to _ w,,,,,•'..,
. win
"'r- r
r-
*%a~~~wl/tw(~y WpEPD~D~
oWtNG pROlEC1'
~•I(plt&UMSKY 1(MMK qiC. ~ r" " w J-- .
~.u•."r.
1
~ f""\
•
~ ~U .
M
[ ~ YCINe 4NC Y
_ ~Y
l~
A
t 1
'
~/W
aax+o nodt RAN ~ ,C,,,, v»•.r•
fCAl1 NN'•f•r
~
,r„cx ur
34C0?O AND MRO noo~• fuu v~.rr FLOQR ftfv`~-i
- f8w v»•.rr
Mr war u~? w
........a . ..zr. .a,
w,~
i.
' ' LMNG PROJECT •
' ~oo~u+ercr KnA?ac u~acaoN r, ~ 'L~ INDEPEM~Nf
ww+w Erna r~.~w.•++ M
•
¦
. ~
~ p'~ ~
~ Lf ST 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..
...7
.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
1. Dawn Jones 7228 Aldrich Avenue South
2. Salina 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 0616 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 iKrs. 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 b620 Sheridan Avenue South
18. Mr. and Mrs. R.W. George 6624 Sheridan Avenue South
1g. Mr. and Mrs. Baker 0640 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 6541 Sheridan Avenue South
24. Mr. and :~Irs. 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 2508 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
-
~
-2-
46: Mrs. Norm Staner 6538 Sheridan Avenue South
47: Mr. and Mrs. Larisn 6532 Sheridan Avenue South
48. Mr. .and Mrs. Carroll 652o Sheridan Avenue South _
49. Mr. and Mrs. Rice 6524 Thomas Avenue South
50. Gina Lund '0527 Thomas Avenue South
Curtis A. Killett
Keith Gorean
Kelley A. Kovensky
51. Mr. and hits. L.S. Johnson 6532 Thomas Avenue South
52. Mary J. Markkula 6533 Thomas Avenue South
53. Judy Black 6538 Thomas Avenue South
- Paul R. Black
54. Mr. and Mrs. Radley 6539 Thomas Avenue Sou"th e
55. Mr. and Mgrs. Bangerter 6545 Thomas Avenue South
56. Bruce G. Davis 6521 Sheridan Avenue. South
Diane D. Davis
57. Mr. and Ms. Cross 6520 Sheridan Avenue South
58. Lloyd D. Grindle 6515 Sheridan Avenue South -
Hannah Grindle
59. Ruth Gustafson 6509 Sheridan Avenue South -
-60. Mr. and Mrs. Walter 6508 Sheridan Avenue South
61. Mr. and Mrs. Anderson 6501 Sheridan Avenue~South
62. Mr. and Mrs. Baker 650.0. Sheridan Avenue South
63. hit. and Mrs. Jahn 6528 Russell Avenue South
' 64. Dorothy M. Addis 6520 Russell Avenue South
65. Mr. and Mrs. Duke 6514 Russell Avenue South
66. Audrey F. Teeple 2414 West 65 1/2 Street
67. Harry A. Johnson 2409 West 65 1/2 Street
68. Donna Jaeger 2408 West 65 1/2 Street
69. Mr. and Mrs. Haw 2401 West 65 1/2 Street
70. Daniel Peterson 2400 West 65 1/2 Street
71. Mr. and Mrs. Gibson 2525 West 65th Street
72. Mr. and Mrs. Weber 2501 West 65th Street
73. Mr. and Mrs. Jackowicz 2415 West 65th Street
74. Mr. and Mrs. Bye. - 2420 West 65th Street _
_ 75. James Ryan ~ - - 2415 West 65th Street
76. Mr. and dirs. Lloyd 2421 West 65th Street .
77 Mr. and tits. Peterson 2409 West-65th Street
78. Mrs. D.C. McKenjie ~ 2401 West 65th Street
. - ~ _w;.w-
u :'t ~ ~ q ./oj~ .••ie~~. Q ~~~~'(Sl a 4~ O N ~.t N ,s'~4.R; ~'t;.~' •~•=~~b~• lyl~
, ' I ~ . t. • • ' •Y0(.i , STREET ~_..A
.J ~ ~ 64th ~ s ~ 1•> > ?~1~~rw_ i ~ !
' WEST ti ~ 1 i~ ~s;~``•~~~, . _ , - , +-•T, z.. ~.r-r-- i+ .l4~zo
. ~ .1 W~' ~ .t.• ~rl ' •i• owt.t •'~Z ~'~5~ lT, " 1+` _ 1~1~ 49 j'~
1• °(~,'1/ ie '.'k,L"I~' 'l• . _ _ - - t ~ _ e tll~~"' ' Lt / f~~~ 1 ' ~jl~ ~ : li' _ I !i'1 ~ ~
~ ~ L'
~12w ~i ~~r „~51, Z ~~>_t-(W_, 4~1.,c~' t... u,l _ z(~),. 4!j ~ ~"r F~ x!•1.3°u
~ ,:i~1~~1' Q (14.1 I ig9~6 O la (9~ _ 113 ~ w ~ + .s ~"t±'':zi.'. f ~R1~42 •Iil,i
• Q Q ~~S•1 I ~G~~` ~yt~t., O r wi•.s (SS ' _ b~g0•~~i 1( ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ITvr :,•~r d~
',t(~t'~ `1 Q Zipt1W ~ 4;t47y~1• i~ ~A~ •f~L' y Q r~i r`~ ~ i ~~i15~ n OGti, IR i1t
(q\\~~ • ~~~q I, y~tal ' y ~ e ~ A 1.,~~.~ ~T.,:i+ (~lo d i~l i ° z ~ U , s 1 = 1. n
11 Z' '~'f ' 6 ~ f Q W ,3N F- _ b . '.t; ,nr ~ f~l [ - 1 .fl': »14
~ 1 Z t~i~`~~ O• ~ („~l I - - ~a~~t lbi~ ~ (4~r -:j .1 w 'a(~t~", , ~F 41 1~,:
_ ,
~ r -Ll ~ e u, ~ , ~ . arc; ~ t a = i~~l: ~ ~ '(Q u
~ (il}~~;I i . ( u 9.~,iy ..,t.As`f%r.',. ..~C 1 1 f''~ 65tH I srr .,,..•.~i'+~.~ ,.•:;e STREET •'i~. - -Mp.2.29 ~ 1t s~•
n f: •
ol': WEST 't ~i t
. ~ ~ (52.1 ' AA. ~ - '.c~iitl ..na..~+:
- ~ - ~ > n z (tip. :~(~la?f(>fi ~ ~~e
= ~ ontit •c tot ,t / ~ , •i, r. _T~ ~i.!~.
:rcr:--~ c:,~~ , 1 to ~(2`I s ~ ^
~3 to ~-'('T't"2'1~ p ~ (tql `G. t w .W • ~ •Yt ~
~
_
•r W ~t;
'F ~ ~ Y-' 1 31Y1~1 W Z ~ t' ~ o _
.~,.,'1 .e::~"~~,~- 1/• ::ice .l_ t t t.''~,.7:,,., (b~7 hs ~ t' :G.~SC ~ W ; 17 ~z i
Jf S''', .T. a' { .`4,...,. , 1 t. N•1 '+'e ~ As_'rsYz.. .
' - .t . W ST 66TH STREET _ Q_•..~.,,.
- ; _ ~ ,~,?r'~rr=~.. 3~ w-:t: mow;: `y~' ~ i
!e9' va. ~ sa ~ c% >i' i . ~ I " 14 I tt ~J.r
_1rs^°~ ~r~k~ ~ ` Z ~ '~s
u v .G.= ~ Z c
y $ ,,~~~~~~,~~t~ 3~.''t~~i w., ~ 3~~ S_ ,y • !1 Ll 1,~~ '•S •Fq 13) Z^ '~I " ~ ^ ~-~t~...1 ~,:i ~!~,M l ~•1_-a
' •3?r~5 48: ~ ~ 7.~
~,y:::~~ f' ,~r~.~ ~~,.~~,~.',rr (Z'' C. is?~~ (ilg I(~,y ! I' _ lh
'awl J1 =Ji1
D,t.,~.r 't'-""'T ~'I 11Y~'V' { t , ~ ..y' X~r~ i ,Z+~ }~•'~}',~=o.-.rr`-~_'_y~ it a ----'e-l 'y~ ~
eZ4 ~ 2d'I~R • n` .'~~As 1i4~5' y, t7`iiL~~.,y~.~t" • '?~(~~a' '')zi(tdl~}. N N `j,•~Y' - y~ =.$K'-'"-•-~~.~~.• .t7', -
1 Vi' 22 y~
`t~ ~ ~ HS11 ~ia~e I ~ ~1 :~~u1~/~»4,b/:"a{.i'I'! tt~ BJ - ~~v'i1 r ~ 20'4' ~Fv ? ~ "~u_~ ,r~ ~
tat I +d, -~e~, it 'A~'/', / 1! / / ~ ~•z° ,~fL°~ ' ~i9Es1 ""h~v:1t-~ '
• ~'ll. l r. I ~ 4N\n, ~ ~•s('~11 ,U~111 tn(1 ,e (iLl -av '~tX._ -
=r
.'4~~~ - q~ .Z
•Q ~ ~ ~ ~l eel ~ A ' ,e(~ ~ ' _ _ a
t~l
1 f ~ ie(1L~~.hln . to ,cl n ~°(tP u ~ t° \ , t u - _
i r 1 i ~ ~ ( ( .i2(A~.. ~=_(II`~. «._'-~.~ld:.. `~Ott?~' ~~T~_. • ail
41 ~?(1' 1 tJ~ 7 (5 { •,3~,5~- r ~ 7; v :r c ~,,~1 « 4~..,:+-;'
t J kW.. ,r '(..t a ~ ~ i., (f>>~• - ~ .tt(?11. , ~1tT,6 . q : ' ~S`-~j:~:• ~ ~ 1st~!~.R*,t`•`':~i 1(~.< ~l
• j
fff ~ . 41~1a ' , lfF 5~ ' I :fir t~,~~"? X11. ty~~Sl.l i:~~~ ~+tr' ~ 1 . t STREET .'t Sc~,2°` wEs
m•. t` ~ \ ~ 67th ~r-~•~' ~ i 2 ~tls, y istr~c ,J.
3T.;
ML= .1 n L'it ti\C'.\ • ~ Lt ' •`a
",1 "1f a~• 1 1 ~ • ' 7I ' ~1i1 ' ':Y' . ,~r : c 4j
~s • to2q .~,L,~ , i~. i'. ( ~ • r / t'(?1 {gtli. ~ 2.~ ~t(I. ~ ~r..~. a r ? lp°
ly,. ..M1 • . (~?,~t C1,hi (sA+R' s • . ~ >(t~~l. . e ~ i t!l~ vv tlfi (~1+ „Q~~ ~pel~ • ; l 1!(1 ~^~~•N ~ .?w"~
_ PETtTiON SIGNERS
. ~ LIS ~ B
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE _ - - -
ClTY OF RICHFIELD ~
PLANNING COMMISSION ~ v
•
TO To Property Owners within 35D feet of. the proposed site at
66th Street and Sheridm Avenue
AppL~,pNT ~ Louise Whitbeck Fraser Community Services
LOCATION Lot 7, Jacobaen's Subdivision of the West half of Lot l4,
OF PROPERTY Richfield Gardens Addition. (2516 West 66th Street)
Lot 1, Aichfield Gardens Prea Mmor Addition
(2500 west 66th Street)
PURPO$E To hear reasons for or egainet the approval of a rexoning
of the site from "R" Single Family Residential to "PMR°
Planned Multiple Residence, approval of a Planned Unit
Development Plan and an amendment of the city's Campre-
pensive Plan. The applicant !s proposing to construct
0 three atorv annrtment structure for developmentally
dtsarled adults cannble of indenendeet livin¢.
T1ME OF HEARING ~ 7:30 PM, Wednesday, May 28, 1986
PLACE OF HEARING ~ Council Chambers, Richfield CSty Hsll
Fi7flf1 Portland Avenue South
HOW TO PARTICIPATE 1. Attend the hearing sad give testimony for or against
the proposal.
• 2. Submit a letter to the Planni~ Commission expressing
your rieva.
i
ANY OUE$TION$ Rick Jopke
City Planner
City of Richfield
6700 Portlmd Avenue
. Aichfield. MN SSI+23
869-7521, Ext. 511
MAILING DATE 5-17-86
I, the undersigned resident of Richfield, ~POS
pr IN FAVOR of the
above proposed action.
i~ •
Name v
/ 4
ddress ~1.~. ~b
" zc
• ~ u 19 le Q ~I°~e". 5e (SIl ,e a 1 V - p
~ i; ca. ir, I. N. +LG•~ ~+a`!~, i~z{ram 3030 ~ ~~~i~j7
• - WEST ~ 64th ' i a ; a ~iayl ^(i~) » M ~ •
Tye.., •17"=' „ `°'s: __w3,,.°"_~~>_- ° ~ . 1.>I STREET ~ ~ _ ~ .
S r 18'%°\ 1 a. a •...•,1B G r. •7 1 ~ 32~. 45 JO i{1`»~ ~'1
~'2~ lV ` ~ ~ . elp TTf ` 1) ~~CS~`~ :LL I175~• .r : jr < ~ =~j' { ~ _f4 y" ~i
~ (~p,~~ Z ° (rpl I (aa)" j t91~ ~ ~ N.:1~ 17 Y~r ~ D~T+~_~,(~
j ~\1a'T J I~~` `~3 E-» (~a~ gals J t Marc. sN~ W r ~ _Y Io
t e X~ S"1 ~ - (^51 I ~G11 (4~IS 0 ~'~'W.s.zti (gS~o ~1',O r r r t r"+~°~ ,i~..!!
`1Sl ~7 . W Is ;(a p _ _
'a~- Y' fy'li _Q - Z..`S~ s :~81ap" ~ . SnJp _ -
0 V> V. ~ ~"l+ , ~ s(1bl .r (~bl I -101 - (`~Wa'ia Ql4: cs~ (5+10 - m",a ~ ' v~ 7t~1 + ~Z. I °Z-.l~l
X -----I • ~`a1.,~3.W ,1 r (yl° Q ~ i:. 3 sue. i
~ a al (\1~ I (1~-- ~ 6 -a - K 61~, ~ ~6= 110
~ \\1 s: ~ '3 6. (fP~ r- ~ql,~• s O t, iS ° Z ~ j = z h lsi4
~ ~ , Z I~L~IB~ Z a - - - (~2l 1 Q~ ~ W ,:c_a_ F- - (y--- '^t' xlpol~ = o {~411?
~ ~ ; ' W : I'l , ; O, ~ (~1~ I - _ (q~l I, ~ . t~ 6 ~ (Sgt - 'b~ a ~ ~ ~9~,r. ~ .!-'I-' ~ ' .
~ ` pI ,k+9P LJ N --o--i (1''1_ ~at~}lo W 3?~ z W 'a(~B~QJ y ~~l a _ fC C1r(~'.l++t.,i!
i a rd t 5 ~i,i i~ Ssl h., 3 ~10"~ (~q~ 9 ~ . I. t., I ~ . Q_ a . - - -
-
- ..,Wj J~
P: ~ ~ o `
b2v o~ WEST a a ;:^-c~.:=», - .I s'va fh ~ s:5. r:~u+in ~ < e• va r.
3--- I ;a ! ° 65 .;1 a;v_ vf.•:Se iSTREET ` - ~ e
~ a 'Y N _ _
W lii.l ~w ~ i 1)17
_ ~ Pn4T ^f I.OT II • IJ. 2 1 O ~I~`,4' ~rli
J ' _ ~ 6
] ` 9r'r
1 ~I 1
~3') ~ ~ r I I N y O > ~ :w...: :r
_~r • ri e~,y12 e.
~ / 7:.,.++~.-..:.~: r. O lC (11 ~n .nC I W 1+.rY W - x~~-'
t~T 5 :~..'C"''~A _ 'r 7 •r K'~ ~ . = v ~ CIA-~S 9
4 ~ r a gl[Y~lc., r~ -
r
' u.._......... 1 a
.~,cs » to 0 L7~~' 2 ~
Cam' ..T ~ r. t: S ;q'p ij
Xo.- sY ars...._..~'W
1 + JIGS' . ' -
- _ ~~I
a ^6~ ses,~~ ~ W - -
~ST 66TH STREET > _•~'''.L~_____
1JZ ctti~~ } vi u. i,,ni c. I ,1 C, i. ' 1 f' 2 ,
r r v x~' Ei ~ -ri ~~A I~ - -'^'s~r Q .._.14 .a , ; '
.1 ~:`S~ ~ = t'~ ~ ` ~q~- ;s~° ql 31 i~ ~o s .N+ al 2 ~ .o ee .-i :~=ys e~ ~ ~ Z L .
2~ .i r,zo ~ : ~ ~ '(3•~ . (y' ~ (y5 ~(Z~ ~i 51 1 ~ o ~ I
i, bZ9 '1 2J(~.,'~.~~~~~ ~~..~.fJ"'~r1.a~5° O ,.,'?l~4y'(~f..:~`~-~• ~ ~~"3(1Y~~r O ...,27~W~ O .I' O 1Cr_1^~: O ` ;W ~
~ e~y~,
2z(~ I {W~i•' N ''22~'" (µ1i N Z," ~I ~ (y1Y22a ^f 2a- ~4. N ~z cn ~ vl°°" ~ ~a. , 1 ,
.ar W ~ h ( - - - - ! E. 1 21 ~ 2'(~~' ~ ~I~ _ 1~A; ~-,~Ai-~•j -
2 2014):.1 %U'117 ' ~2n~i(II~P'IAII 9,~ I ~M.'M I~ ~ ~1, ~'i1. _ L,,(~~~ - 1l7 ~`~,B
~ re(1'S~ Ir,(~l r. +y'(aH~ln - I~(`/~~/L~ •10(911 I~(1 ~ a .j _ ~ _
1~~+~ 18(1L1~V4)J Iflr ` i (1°~ II 19 ('SA~ II(ytl ~ •le(I~~ x(111 II 18 - .1 SIC o l~
0' r 1 ~~~~~~prr~~;; iii:-' .
(1~oWL, Iv(1~~~(ryl'z 1,,(~ (5i7~z ~~(ti>>, 1~(S>> i~(111 _ I~(A,~~ 11°4 . --_~T.:~ _~_d'? 1 ~ - "
.I S r IfI'IO~i' ~ r.4 (fin (•j~ r, I' I.s (tii•l. IQ .IS (Ml.. 1m, 16 •r_, ~
f:. n lip w~~~T•.__. ~I ~ a .l~l
S, /~1, •V ';(~41 i ~ is4'/~~I I , •IS~1 {Wi._.~ .P~ar_~ C~ s1 1„ __a ,
7 ~ \ N + r i ri 1 f ~I~~l: i~~I. J ''•I L*s_1.r:~ i3~~~~ ~
4 ~ Sr Y. 1 t~i.:L'~r' rr: (j~rc .1C
I ST7"4~= 'r. , ° 67th ~q'~ ~ ~ $TR[ET
(j61, ~~i0121e -r.~-~: '~;If5,11 Y. ~/,tL;~ ,IY..gl,a4++ I{' ~1Lat`~ 2,`:i~.I{.;I.i 'r`^'7'~"yUq~1o~1 '~r,'s' '~~,~sl~~'1i,' ~ ~?r •C??xs~~ 1'.~ WES7.
' , ;,(I~ I; : ~b+. •(IA~S " z(1b~). . ~ Jtl III ~t ~ ~aC~ 'r, =,~II . .a t~~ A , t(IId), ~ ~~i ~:'~~x ` ~ >
(,~lz~ ,p,<iI f ~ ~ >~(1A~ ~ •+6~~ ~Il~ . :~(71)~ ~~(II~ (~W1~' r,~sA(p'0~ r t~n~I {'J~~~ ";ic • t4~:; a ~
,117 ,h ,'1 a ~ ~ h' .1 .fi ..b ' P'.~IY"J ~ r~.., e
t?/~r
PETI~N SIGNERS
~-3i
BILL N0. .
ORDINANCE N0.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: it
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
day of , 1986.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk '
i
7 - 33
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
8. 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
T2. 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
7- 3
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
i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 228
Agenda June 9, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield -
Subject: Proposed Extension of Runway 4/22
Council Members:
On April 30, 1986, the Metropolitan Airports Commission
(MAC) submitted to Governor Perpich a Noise Abatement Program for
the Minnea li - P
o s St. aul International Air ort. It wa th
P s e
P
responsibility of the Metropolitan Airports Commission to submit
i
such a ro ram to the G v
p g o ernor by May 1, 1986. The Noise
Abatement Pro ram was a culmination of effort b the Metro oli
9 y p tan
Airports Commission, and a noise implementation working group
established by the Commission.
In the Noise Abatement Program (attachment A), the program
is divided into short-term and lon -term measure whi h
g s, c address
the noise concerns.
The short-term measures developed within the Noise Abatement
Program, include the following:
1. Measures Aimed at Noise Sensitivity and Cooperation.
This includes requests for noise sensitivity sessions by all FAA
Air Traffic Controllers and Pilots, as well as communications ~
' with CEO's of airlines serving the Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport describing the noise problems at the
airport.
2. Measures Dealing with Nighttime "Quiet hours". This
includes meeting with .charter, corporate, air express and air
cargo operators regarding nighttime flight hours, and to
negotiate with these operators to reduce operations during
nighttime hours. These negotiations would also include the
voluntary extension of the weekend/nighttime quiet hours from the
current 11:00 P.M. - 6:00 A.M., to 11:00 P.M. to 8:00 A.M. on
Saturday and Sunday. Such an extension would be targeted for
phase-in during 1986 or 1988.
3. Operational and Other Measures. This measure includes a
host of operational change modifications and additional studies
which would be targeted toward overall noise abatement for the
Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport.
The long-term measures included in the Noise Abatement
Program include the following:
1. Reduce Stage 1 and State 2 Aircraft Use at the
Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport. The reduction features working
toward supporting existing cutoff dates for Stage 1 and Stage 2
aircraft operation at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport, and also
supporting a regulation to ban operation Stage 2 aircraft after
1995. These measures would be aimed at increasing the use of the
quieter Stage 3 aircraft at the airport.
2. Increased Use of Preferential Runway Svstem. As part of
the airports preferential runway system, the Metropolitan
Airports Commission is recommending the southwesterly extension
of Runway 4/22, which would displace the 4/22 takeoff threshold
to the southwest of Runway 11L/29R. The above referenced
extension of Runway 4/22 would place the 4/22 Runway
approximately one-half mile closer to the southeast corner of
Richfield, and would increase the number of takeoffs from the
4/22 Runway. It is estimated that it would place the aircraft
150 feet lower as they cross Cedar Avenue. Another aspect of this
long-term measure would be to evaluate a parallel runway 4/22 as
part of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport master plan update.
Finally, the plan would also include completion of the St. Paul
(Holman Field), to encourage corporate and general aviation to
transfer activity from this Minneapolis-St. Paul to St. Paul
Downtown Airport, and to accelerate the development of Anoka and
Airlake reliever airports to encourage general aviation users to
transfer activities to those airports.
3. Flight Track and Other Measures. This measure includes
the. implementation of an automated off airport, 24-hour a day,
year round noise monitoring program and aircraft operations
monitoring as technology becomes available. Additionally,
contained in the plan is a request by the Metropolitan Airports
Commission that the Metropolitan Council require municipalities
affected by their land use guidelines to conform to their
comprehensive plans and adopt appropriate zoning ordinances.
Finally, the plan also provides for pursuit of the early
installation by the FAA of a Microwave Landing System at
Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport.
The issue which appears to have the greatest impact upon
Richfield residents is the proposed extension of Runway 4/22.
That extension would bring Runway 4/22 approximately one-half
mile closer to the City of Richfield, and would increase the
number of takeoffs from that runway. The Metropolitan Airports
Commission would seek that the City of Richfield endorse the
b-3
concept of the 4/22 extension by official action by the City
Council. However, east Richfield residents, and other residents
from throughout the community have voiced considerable opposition
to any council endorsement of the southwesterly extension of
Runway 4/22, which residents feel would create a greater noise
problem for Richfield residents.
A second issue, which is similar to the 4/22 proposal, is
the inclusion of a parallel 4/22 runway, in the master plan for
the airport. While the most immediate change in the current
airport configuration would appear to be the southwesterly
extension of 4/22, the inclusion of a parallel 4/22 runway may
also have future impact upon the City of Richfield, and would
warrant closer examination by Richfield representatives in the
future.
Recommendation From MASAC Representatives
The City of Richfield, as council members are aware, has two
representatives on Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council.
Those representatives are Council Member Edwina Garcia, and
former Council Member Don Priebe. Both Council Member Garcia and
Mr. Priebe have indicated strong opposition to City Council
endorsement of the southwesterly extension of Runway 4/22.
Mr. Priebe has indicated that if MAC wants to achieve
significant noise aspersion by extending 4/22, that it should
consider extending 4/22 to the northeast. Mr. Priebe contends
that this solution was offered for study by Minneapolis-St. Paul
Airport staff in 1982. Under that plan, takeoffs on 4/22 would
be moved up the runway to open up the west parallel runway for
concurrent landings and takeoffs. This proposal is similar to
the plan proposed by MAC to extend 4/22 in the southwesterly
direction, which would open up concurrent takeoffs and landings
on the east parallel runway. Mr. Priebe has indicated that a
northeasterly extension to 4/22 would distribute more aircraft
noise toward St. Paul, which currently gets only 15-20 minutes
per day of aircraft activity, and would be a more fair way to
distribute aircraft noise. Thus, Mr. Priebe is adamantly opposed
to the southwesterly extension of Runway 4/22. Council Member
Garcia has voiced similar concerns and feels that it is important
for Council Members to strongly support Richfield residents in
their opposition to greater aircraft noise.
Summary
At the council meeting of May 2.7, 1986,. Council Member
Garcia asked that the City Council consider this matter for
official action at the June 9, 1986, meeting. Council Member
Garcia stated that this would be an appropriate time to .consider
this item for official action, especially in light of a joint
Richfield-Bloomington airport noise meeting, which has been
scheduled for June 11, 1986. It was her feeling that it would. be
IV ~
y
advantageous for Richfield residents to be aware of an official
position by the Richfield City Council prior to that meeting.
Council Members concurred in placing this item on the June 9,
1986 council. agenda. If the City Council chooses to formally
oppose the proposed extension of Runway 4/22, a resolution
concerning such action is attached for City. Council
consideration.
Resp c fully submitted,
t
ev n L. Devich
Acting City Manager
SLD/eja
cc: Don Priebe-MASAC Representative
I
. RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE SOUTHWESTERLY
EXTENSION OF RUNWAY 4/22 AT THE
MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield is the
official governing body of the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is located immediately
adjacent to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Airports Commission is currently
considering the southwesterly extension of Runway 4/22 bringing
said runway one-half mile closer to the boundaries of the City of
Richfield; and
WHEREAS, Richfield's representatives to the Metropolitan
Aircraft Sound Abatement Council have recommended that the City
of Richfield oppose such extension.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Richfield opposes said southwesterly extension of Runway
4/22 and would urge the Metropolitan Airports Commission to seek
alternative measures to reduce aircraft noise.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 9th day of June, 1986.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
II
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
I
i
~ S~uu~
f'
t~.::. ~
MAC ~ ~,~a
OFFICE OF EXECIITlVE DIRECTOR • PHONE (612) 726-1892
April 30, 1986
Honorable Rudy Perpich
Governor of Minnesota
130 State Capital
St. Paul, MN 55155 -
RE: MAC Noise Abatement Program
Dear Governor P~erpich:
In re.~~.se to your request that the Metropolitan Airports Catmission submit to
your office a Noise Abat~..:.~.t Program for Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport by May 1, 1986, find enclosed the Noise Abatement Program adopted by the
Commission at a 5~;.~.ial Meeting on April 24, 1986.
This r~~y,.~, is the culmination of a significant effort by both the Met~~~,litan
Airports Car<mission and by a Noise Implementation Wbrkinq Group established by
the C......~ission. The we believe, balances MAC's dual re~~.,sibilities
to p~~~?.~le the public's need for air transportation with the re to be a y~
urban neighbor. This ~~~ach is in a...,.,rd with the MAC Law which ~~~aires that
MAC pr~,.~~~te air tran~~~rtation and air ~,......~rce in Minnesota locally, nationally.
and internationally while assuring the residents of the Minneapolis-St. Paul
met~~~litan area the "mininaun envira..~~ntal impact" from air transportation.
You are to be ~,.,.....:,nded for insuring that a unified noise abateaecit pr"y~am for
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport was devel~rt3. There have been a
rnumber of on-going att~~;:s to deal with this issue; your courageous action to
refer the noise abat;~:.:~,t issue to the Met~~~litan Airports Camnission has led
to a synthesis of these prior studies. As a result, the Noise Abat`.,:nt P~,ryLa...
income ,rates the best and most effective measures f ~ Aa~.h of the individual
studies, while avoiding many of the negative aar~.:..s of each. The Noise
Abatement Pr..y~a... submitted to you by this letter is a good ~?a..~le of the
interactive process involving representatives of state agencies, industry, and
residents in a concerted effort to deal with the aircraft noise issue.
MAC has long, ~ ~~.~y..ized as a national leader. in pioneering noise abatement
techniques. The at~-~~-bed p~~,.~ram represents a continuation of this action, and
repraa~?><ts the flexibility of the Metropolitan Ai.~~rts C~.....ission in developing
new ~rroaches and pry - ~ ;sres to address ~.~.....anity concerns in the changing
aeronautical envir~.~.~,;:a.t. With the increased activity being generated as a
result of airline deregulation, aircraft noise is perceived as a greater problea
than ever before. It is, therefore, imperative that the MAC develop a c~..~re-
. hensive and agressive ~~,roach in attempting to control aircraft noise impacts.
a ;
• This prog~~.. must be mould-faceted, and must involve (1) efforts to deal with
aircraft noise at the source by working toward congressional and Federal
Aviation Administration action, (2) implementation of additional operational
techniques which may reduce the area of noise exposure,. and (3) land use
pr~y~Qais in areas where operational changes cannot ~~:cace noise levels. We
believe the attached ~~y..a.?? achi~~„r:s each of these goals, and has significant
.potential for reducing the impacts from aircraft noise.
V y yours,
Raymo Glucnack Jeffrey W. Ha<ni.el
Chas ~ec-utive Director
•
S /
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 226
Agenda June 9, 1986 III
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield -
Subject:- Request for Permit for Illuminated Signs.
Council Members:
Universal Sign Company has requested advertising permits to
erect two illuminated wall signs reading "Food Mart" with a size
of 14' X 1'4" and two illuminated wall signs reading "Pharmacy"
each with a size of 12' X 1'4". One of each sign would be
located on both the south and east walls at Walgreen's Drug
located at 12 West 66th Street. City ordinance provides that the
city council must approve all permits for illuminated signs.
. The inspection division has reviewed the sign permit and
finds that the signs conform to all applicable city ordinances.
It is recommended that the city council approve the permit for
all four illuminated signs at Walgreens, 12 West 66th Street. ~I
Re ct ully mit d,
ve .~~evic
Acting City Man ger
SD/eja
~rt':~cVvc. t ~ u~.:tii~. r~~:kUb'~: ~ 11r..~z) ...-yW..~_~.-~-c~~
City Manager Inspector ,
Date Date
APPROVE ~TJENY t~ APPROVE DENY
~•Plannin Depgrtment ~ ~ ~ I•City Council
Date V ~ Date
~ute to above for 'special approval per code General Sins
APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT
City of Richfield, ,Minnesota
Date J
/L
j
~~G^ Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No ~ Fee
Address of Sign l~~• bri Proprietor Name ;~/f'~-~y/_%~~
/J~ DBA
Sign Erector / ~-',.i'-~,: ;~_%/N ~ Address .''1 3 ^."S >
Type of Sign Design ~ Weather. Cover Lighting
~~'Wall Single Face _ Clear Lexon ~ Constant
_ Projecting ~ Double Face Frosted Lexon _ Flashing
_ Ground Multi-Faced ~ Plastic Covered Revolving
_ Roof Aerial/Blimp _ Shaded Traveling ~
_ Pedestal Searchlight Neon Zip Lite j
_ Changeable Banner/Pennants _ Other Other (Explain)
_ Temporary Portable Frame: Sign Colors !~1~~~'i
s Trailer T ~ A ~ Post
If Illuminated - Yes No Watts vim/ ~
ectrical Contractor 5~- J !
~
~C' Address Phone
Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone
Estimated Cost, ~ % v Sign Width Height ' = Total Square Feet ~ 5
Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks,
curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on
drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as
defined on page 2.
Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans:
including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure.
Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on
the premises? ,ii~,J-!
Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
for safe access Aersons destined for or passing the subject premises?
Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm
Date S~ ~ 3/~S
Phone Number ~y ci ~ '
~kt '
1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061
4 City Manager ,Inspector -
Date Date ~ ~ ~ sE
APPROVE ~ ~ENY~ ~ : ~i~L APPROVE I ~ ~ DENY I
Planning Depa~ City Council
Date-J(~~~~~ - Date
~ute to above for 'special approval per code General Si ns
g
APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT
City of Richfield,. Minnesota
Date j : Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No jl Fee .
-
Address of Sign ~ ~i Proprietor Name L>-~~i DBA
Sign Erector ~?s-~~~° ~ ~ <,u ~ Address S 3 7~>~-~,:'.r > ~ /%'-~C~ -
Type of Sign Design Weather Cover Lighting
Wall ~ •Single Face Clear Lexon ~ Constant
Projecting Double Face _ Frosted Lexon _ Flashing
Ground _ Multi-Faced ~ Plastic Covered Revolving
Roof. Aerial/Blimp _ Shaded _ Traveling
Pedestal Searchlight Neon ~ Zip Lite
Changeable Banner/Pennants Other ~ Other (Explain}
Temporary Portable Frame: Sign Colors ~
,Trailer T ~ A ~ Post
If Illuminated Yes; No Watts `
;i v'
~ectrical Contractor Address Phone
Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone
Estimated Cost _ Sign Width's=,Height " Total Square Feet : = 'f
Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks,
curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on
drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as
defined on page 2 .
Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure .construction plans:
including specif ications, 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? ~i~--~
Wi11 the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
for safe acces ~~ersons destined for or passing the subject premises?
Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm r.
~ _ Date
Phone Number L' ~'a-f
~t
1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061
i
L-_-.x~STiyG cj,w~: 'o Re ^-u:•v~5ocd `4 1 tJ~, •
t1 J r---
i
~ i6~ !g~
(~r'.'~~><< ~ f, f~_?_r~>~<~~?~~ ~~-~G~bl^~f~G~lsJ(~~ GOOD ~a~c~~
. ,
, . , ~ ~ P
~ _
i _ _
:r.---- .
I I, - _
t _
. .
I ~ I II ^ 1 ['R. S T.
c, nay
F`;' ~ `~^"``S' " ~ SOUTHEAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION
BRnN2F P.'
.125 AI IM•
_ ~ ~ FpR FI f.f1
'~4.u /'~c~- _ fALfl SILT.
/ i ~ ~ i
- - ,
~UUGJU~UUU P:1~ U ~=y
4_.. ~
.
• _ ~
/ _
_ i /
~ _
'
I ` ~ _ _ J _ . _ . f ~ I RED l¦27i
• _
_
y..... x:v..~_...:~......._:.
i
l
I
>f'~
' .....J".ri'pf.~>u.;Y~YWxNMMMIY•tl/11MS~NNP.MMN.A.1N~x~I.arYnYMY~x+14.YINNMNRWiMx!•N.1Y.rNMn.Iw~~Nlvwa.n. ~.•IY.•.rr'1.•~~r.. ,~xu~ i. .i
S F" ~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager ~
i
Council Letter No. 225
Agenda June 9, 1986 I,
I
The Honorable Mayor
and I
Members of the City Council - i,
City of Richfield
I
Subject: Request for Permit for Illuminated Sign
2401 West 66th Street 'i
Council Members:
Attracta Sign Incorporated has requested an advertising
permit to erect one 6' x 10' double-faced illuminated sign at
2401 West 66th Street. Four existing individual signs will be ~I
removed and the new sign erected on the existing sign poles.
Four pair of faces will then be inserted in the new sign can.
City ordinance provides that the City Council must approve all
permits for illuminated signs. it
The inspection division staff has reviewed the permit
application and finds that the sign conforms to all applicable
city ordinances. It is recommended that the permit for a 6' x
10' illuminated sign at 2401 West 66th Street be approved.
Res t ully s itte ,
~ I
teve L. evi
Acti g City Manag r
SD/eja
- -
I /
APPROVE DENY APPROVE ~ DEA'Y ~_<<_-.~_-
City Manager ~ I ~ Inspector
Date Date 5/z L~s G
APPROVE I~ ~ DENY! ~ : _ APPROVE ~ I DENYI
. Plannin$ De rtment City Council
Date 66/2a Date
Route to above for special approval per code General Signs
APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PEFL*1IT
City of Richfield, Minnesota
Date 5-20-86 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes. X No Fee 29.50
Address of Sign 2401 W. 66th St. Proprietor NameNancy Dunivin DBA Van Dusen
Properties
Sign ErectorAttracta Sign , Inc. Address 6417 Penn Ave. So. Richfield, NPi1
Type of SxRr. Desi;~n Weather Cover Li~htin~
Wall Single Face _ Clear Lexon X Constant
Projecting Double Face _ Frosted Lexon _ Flashing
. Ground Multi-Faced Plastic Covered Revolving
Roof _ Aerial/Blimp _ Shaded ~ Traveling
Pedestal ~ - i Searchlight _ Neon _ Zip Lite
Changeable _ Banner/Pennants Other Other(Explain)
Temporary Portable Frame: Sign Colors Blue, While` & Black
Trailer T ~ A ~ Post
Illuminated - YesX No Watts
Electrical Contractor Address Phone
Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone
Estimated Cost 2,000. Sign Width 10' Height 6' Total Square Feet 60
Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks,
curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on
drawing .with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as
defined on page 2.
Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans:
including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure.
Does the sign .copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on
the premises? Yes
Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? No ,
We.wi~ll remove existing 4 individual signs and replace them with one
_~J; , 6' x 10' Double faced sign to be mounted
Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm on existing sign poles. 4 pair of faces
will b~ to 5-20-86
Phone Number 866-3047 inserte~
in new sign can.
lkt
8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061
v
GROUND SIC:1 PEDESTAL SIGN PROJECTING SIGN
WIDTI? ~ ~ 'IIIDTH ~"e WIDT~i ~
_ ~ ~ • ~ ~
;t~ ' `LEGEND ~ , ~ LEGEND ~ 1 LEGEND
-i~
i
; I~ .J
1-~ ~ ~ ~ i~ L~ ~f
~,1
Zndicate_Distance
From The Building I
WALL SIGN ROOF SIGN Indicate legend on the
f C 'IIDTH ~ WIDTH ~ the reverse side in
- the space below
LEGEND LEGEND LEGEND
/1
GROUND V ~ ROOF
Place location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign is from property lines.
Locate any traffic lights within 300 feet.
DEFINITION: Minor Signs Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft.
on a common board
~ .
C'C , C ~ 1 ~ ~ i ~ j .C/ ~ ~ C(~ i ~ INDICATE
NORTH
LhT/8/83
~ ~
E SPAC
861•~20R
F ~
r_
"'::`u
I
-
~I
~ •
{
.
i
' '
? 1..._....I_...~._.. I I I i i i ~ .
..r . .r_
. ; r
~ I ~ . _ _ - _ _
i _ ..r_ ~ _f
i i l ~ i ...I ~
~ I
~ i I I I i ~ ; ' ~ ' ~ t
J ~ ~ ~ ~
} I ~ _ . I _ . j ~ ~ _ _ _ _ - _ _
ii~~ l
i .I ....I__..._ 1 i ~ I
I i I L .I ~ ~
~ f ~ i
, , I
_
. ,
i
•
1. l ~ i ~ .
.
t
i _ i ~ ~ . _ .
I
. i
I ~ ~ , ~ i I I _
~ y,
i
' ~ I ~ G
v •
t__~- . ~
i
. ;
I ~ 1 ~ i ~ ! _ _ - -
I ~ ~
Y
~ ~ .
. _ I
+ i i
~ ,
~ \
I ~ I r ~ _ _ ..I . _ . _ ~ -
I
. .
SPECIFICATIONS: CONDITIONS OF SALE: [ n
Size (approx.) _ This is an original design submitted to the Manufacturer: y`
Mounting 6417PENN AIVE.~SO. t~,~
Lighting MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55423 v`
.Locate Elec. Outlet with your approval for fabrication and manufacturing instructions. For
best results the manufacturer reserves the right to make minor changes
Single/Double Faced in copy, color and layout.
Cabinet Color FIRM NAME _
COPY TO BE DRAWN IN COLORS & LETTER STYLE PREFERRED. ADDRESS _
`~iscellaneous
Approved By Title
s~-~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager.
Council Letter No. 224
Agenda June 9, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Authorization to Submit Grant Application to the
Emma B. Howe Memorial Foundation
Council Members:
The city recently learned that the Minneapolis Foundation
has established the Emma B. Howe Memorial Foundation. Through
this Foundation, grants are now available to provide funds for
programs that will develop and promote the integration of
individuals with disabilities into community based activities.
The recent Needs Assessment Study identified outreach and support
groups as a need of the disabled. It is proposed that the City
of Richfield submit an application for funds to develop such a
program.
Background:
For the past 12 years, the Richfield/Bloomington Adaptive
Recreation program has provided recreational opportunities for
individuals of all ages who have disabilities. The program is a
stepping stone for individuals to become confident with leisure
opportunities and with the goal of being able to pursue these
interests independently. The Adaptive Program is at a point
where training and education of participants, their parents
ma 'or service rovi
J p ders and the general public is essential for
integration to become a realit Should a rant be awarded the
Y 9
funds would be utilized to:
1. P
rovide educatio
n and training to participants, parents,
social workers, teachers, the city recreation staff of
Richfield and Bloomin ton and rou home staff
9 9 P ,
2. Establish a lending program to allow individuals and/or
community based programs to borrow equipment, and
3. Develop training materials (manuals and videos) for
ongoing .training and education.
The city staff is very careful and discerning between grant
applications which act as seed money for a continuing program
i.e., use of grant funds to establish a program that must then be
5~~
funded out of the general-fund to continue the activity, and a
grant such as this which will not require future city funds to
continue the activity.
.Any grant received would be made on a one year basis and
provide needed training of staff. The total one year program is
estimated to cost $45,000 of which Richfield and Bloomington
would each be responsible. for approximately $3,300. Por
Richfield, approximately $2,500 would be in-kind services or
staff and materials already available and being provided.
Richfield's actual additional expense would be an estimated $800.
Proposed funding through the grant would amount to approximately
$38,.400. The deadline for submission of the application is- July
1, 1986.
It is recommended that the city council authorize
submission of the grant application as outlined above.
Res c ully s fitted
~teve L. Devich
Acting City Manager
SD/eja
i
s.~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 223
Agenda June 9, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members Of The City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Approval of Contract for Hotel/Motel Fire.
Inspection
Council Members:
For a number of years the State Fire Inspector's
office has contracted with the City of Richfield to have fire
inspections of hotel and motel facilities conducted by members. of
the Richfield Fire Division. In turn, the State Fire Marshal's
office has provided training programs related to the Uniform Fire
Code for members of the Richfield Fire Division.
This system has worked well in the past. It has
provided for the consistency in the inspection standards used for
hotel and motel establishments, since our own Fire Division
personnel are able to utilize and apply the standard criteria
applied to other Richfield commercial business establishments.
It is recommended that the council authorize the Mayor
and the Acting City Manager to enter into this Agreement with the
State of Minnesota, a copy of which is attached to this council
letter. No charges or payments are involved in this agreement.
Res c ully s mitt d,
L. uevich
Acting City Manager
SD/eja
~ ~ CONTRACTUAL^(non-state employee) SERVICES
5 a-
Trn. No. FY Account LD• Dspt./Olv. SeQuenea No. Sufflx Obieet Vendor Type Amount
Purchew Tsrme Atwt No.
0.CD. t C.CD. 2 C.CD, 3 Co,t Code 4 Cwt ode 6
C
Date Number Entered By
Type of Trenwetlon ~ A 40 ~ A 41
A 44 Q A 46 ? A qg Oets Number Entered By
NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR: You are required by Minnesota Statutes, 1987 Supplement, Section 270.66 to provide your social security
number or Minnesota tax identification number if you do business with the State of Minnesota. This information may be used in the
enforcement of federal and state tax laws. Supplying these numbers could result in action to require you to file state tax returns and
pay delinquent state tax liabilities. This contract will not be approved unless these numbers are provided. These numbers will be available
to federal and state tax authorities and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations.
THIS CONTRACT, which shall be interpreted pursuant to the laws of the State of Minnesota, between the State of Minnesota, acting
~ through its Department of Public Safety
(hereinafter STATE) and City of Richfield
address
' Soc. Sec. or MN Tax LD. No. Federal Employer LD. No. (if applicable)
.(hereinafter CONTRACTORI, witnesseth that:
WHEREAS, the STATE, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 1978. Spcti nn 299F.45, suk7riivi lion 2
is empowered to enter into an agreement with anv county, 2 or more continuous counties ar
city or other municioality
WHEREAS, under which agreement the countv(ies1. city or municioality may agree to perform
all or Dart of the inspection duties set forth in M. S. 299F.46. subdivision 1 (1978 ,and
WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR represents that it is duly qualified and willing to perform the services set forth herein,
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed:
1. CONTRACTOR'S DUTIES (Attach additional page if necessary). CONTRACTOR, who is not a state employee, shall:
1. Triannually inspect every hotel within its jurisdiction and enforce the provisions of
the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code as it applies to those facilities at no cost to the State.
2. Furnish to the State Fire Marshal, for processing and service, a copy of the inspection
report, orders issued and exit interview.
3. Require all inspectors employed for the purposes of this contract to successfully com-
plete the State Fire Marshal's 120 hour, and/or refresher course, on the enforcement
inspection training program to be provided to the municipality at no cost.
4. Adopt ordinances establishing fire safety standards at least equivalent to the minimum
standards establ7shed by M.S. 299F.011 and the rules promulgated thereunder, as such stat-
utes and rules are amended from time to time. The consultant may enact ordinances with
more stringent requirements.
5. Attach to the contract a certified copy of the municipality's fire ordinance and
Council resolution to enter into an agreement.
II. CONSIDERATION AND TERMS OF PAYMENT.
A. Consideration for all services performed and goods or materials supplied by CONTRACTOR pursuant to this contract shall be
paid by the STATE as follows:
1. Compensation N/A
2. Reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses actually and necessarily incurred by CONTRACTOR performance of
this contract in an amount not to exceed~[I/A .dollars
N/A I; provided, that CONTRACTOR shall be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses
in the same manner and in no greater amount than provided in the current "Commissioner's Plan" promulgated by the
Commissioner of Employee Relations. CONTRACTOR shall not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred
outside the State of Minnesota unless it has received prior written approval for such out of state travel from the STATE.
The total obligation of the STATE for all compensation and reimbursements to CONTRACTOR shall not exceed
NSA dollars N/A
B. Terms of Payment I~
1. Payments shall be made by the STATE promptly after CONTRACTOR'S presentation of invoices for services performed
and acceptance of such services by the STATE'S authorized agent pursuant to Clause VI. Invoices shall be submitted in a
form prescribed by the STATE and according to the following schedule:
2. (When applicable) Payments are to be made from federal funds obtained by the STATE through Title ~~f the
Act of
(Public law and amendments thereto). It at any time such -
funds become unavailable, this contract shall be terminated immediately upon written notice of such fact by the STATE
to CONTRACTOR. In the event of such termination, CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to payment, determined on a pro
rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed.
CD•00032.0316/86)
(ADMIN. 1067) -
. x.,.....,..._._.....,..-... _ . _ -
t
• ~ isftfCtiofl'Sf the STATE, as determined in the sole discretion of its authorized agent, and in accord with elf applicab~ed~ef~state'~
~ and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. CONTRACTOR shall not receive payment for work found by the STATE to be I l~
unsatisfactory, or performed in violation of federal, state or local taw, ordinance, rule or regulation. 5
IV. TERM OF CONTRACT. This contract shall be effective on July ~ 19_2, or upon such
date as it is executed as to encumbrance by tph~~e Commissioner of Finance, whichever occurs later, and shall remain in effect until
,T1111P ~0 19-sue, or until all obligations set forth in this contract have been satisfactorilyfulfl0ed,
whichever occurs first.
V. CANCELLATION. This contract may be cancelled by the STATE or CONTRACTOR at any time, with or without cause, upon
thirty (301 days' written notice to the other party. to the event of such a cancellation CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to
payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for work or services satisfactorily performed.
VI. STATE'S AUTHORIZED AGENT. The STATE'S authorized agent for the purposes of administration of this contract is
Such agent shall have final authority for acceptance of CONTRACTOR'S services and if such services are accepted as satisfactory,
shall so certify on each invoice submitted pursuant to Clause II, paragraph 8.
VII. ASSIGNMENT. CONTRACTOR shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this contract without the prior
written consent of the STATE.
VIII. AMENDMENTS. Any amendments to this contract shall be in writing, and shall be executed by the same parties who executed
the original contract, or their successors in office.
IX. LIABILITY. CONTRACTOR agrees to indemnify and save and hold the STATE, its agents and employees harmless from any and
all claims or causes of action arising from the performance of this contract by CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR'S agents or
employees. This clause shall .not be construed to bar any legal remedies CONTRACTOR may have for the STATE'S failure to
fulfill its obligations pursuant to this contract.
X. STATE AUDITS. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the CONTRACTOR relevant to
this contract shall be subject to examination by the contracting department and the legislative auditor.
XI. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. Any reports, studies, photographs, negatives, or other documents prepared by CONTRACTOR
in the performance of its obligations under this contract. shall be the exclusive property of the STATE and all such materials shall
be remitted to the STATE by CONTRACTOR upon completion, termination or cancellation of this contract. CONTRACTOR shall
not use, willingly allow or cause to have such materials used for any purpose other than performance of CONTRACTOR'S obli•
gallons under this contract without the prior written consent of the STATE.
XI1. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. (When applicable) CONTRACTOR certifies that it has received a certificate of compliance from the
Commissioner of Human Rights pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 1981 Supplement, Section 363.073.
XI11. WORKERS' COMPENSATION. In accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, 1981 Supplement, Section 176.182, the
STATE affirms that CONTRACTOR has provided acceptable evidence of compliance with the workers' compensation insurance
wverage requirement of Minnesota Statutes, 1981 Supplement, Section 176.181, Subdivision 2.
X1V. ANTITRUST. CONTRACTOR hereby assigns to the State of Minnesota any and all claims for overcharges as to goods and/or
services provided in connection with this contract resulting from antitrust violations which arise under the antitrust laws of the
United States aril the antitrust laws of the State of Minnesota.
XV. OTHER PROVISIONS. iAttach additional-page if necessary):
See attached
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this contract to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby.
APPROVED: NOTE: Rsmore L s before obtaining signatures.
As to form and execution by the
Q CONTRACTOR: Q ATTORNEY GENERAL:
(If s corporation, two corporate officers must execute.)
ev ev
TItN Dete
Date
® COMM1SS10NER OF ADMINISTRATION:
BY 9Y (authorized dpnetwe)
Title Dete
DeN
Q STATE AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT: Q5 COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE:
BY (authorized denature) . 9Y (EneumbrMee linter authorized elaneturel
Title Oata
Data
White -Finance Department Blua -Agency Axounting Unit
Canary -Contractor Salmon -Administration lkpartment
. Pink -Agency Suspense Copy Green -Agency Work Copy
i _
1. The State will discontinue inspection and enforcement actions in those facilities ~ n
covered by the Agreement. The State will provide, without cost to the Contractor, ~f/
training and consultation on problems. The State will provide, without cost to the
Contractor, consultation and advice on rules promulgated by the State which are enforced
by the Contractor.
2. The State will tri-annually review the Contractor's program to determine its continued
compliance with the Agreement. Tri-annual review criteria includes code interpretation,
enforcement procedures, inspection results and frequency, records completeness and staff
training.
3. The Agreement shall continue to be effective until terminated by either party in
accordance with Section V. If the Contractor's program is found by the State to be deft-
cient, but under conditions that do not endanger the fire safety of the community, the
State may continue the Agreement on a provisional status for a specific time period.
4. The Agreement may be amended. with the mutual consent of both parties.
5. No Agreement shall be effective to transfer any tort liability attributable to arry
inspection or lack of inspection from the State to the local unit contracting to perform
the inspection.
w
~c-1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 222
Agenda June 9, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members Of The City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Ageement with Hennepin County for Receipt of
Community Health Services Funding
Council Members:
As council members are aware, Richfield receives -state
subsidy funding which, in part, supports our Community Health
Service Programs. These health programs are provided to
Richfield residents by the City of Bloomington through an
agreement with the City of Richfield. Such state subsidy funding
is provided to Richfield through the Hennepin County Health
Department.. The actual grant award has been delayed pending
revisions to this program based .upon state funding decisions.
We have now received a commitment from the state to
provide basic subsidy funding in an amount not to exceed $77,101
for the current year and $77,100 for 1987. Additionally,
Richfield has been awarded a special subsidy to provide expanded
services in the Maternal and Child Health Program. This money is
passed through Richfield directly to Bloomington, which
provides this service under our contract with them for a wide
variety of personal and environmental health services for
Richfield. The maximum amount of this award for the current year
is $22,027 and a maximum of $22,907 for the year 1987. The amount
actually received for this special project will only pay for the
specific costs incurred by Bloomington and may not exceed the
actual grant award.
Attached is a contract to enable Richfield to receive
the health subsidy funding from Hennepin County. It is
recommended that the council authorize the Mayor and the City
Manager to enter into this Agreement with Hennepin County.
R fully mit ed,
t~ . L . c h '~/G
Acti~ig City Mana er
SD/eja
5 /
i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 221
Agenda June 9 , 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and -
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject:- Award of Contract for City Project 822, 1986
Alley Paving Project
Council Members:
On Wednesday, May 28, 1986 bids were opened for the 1986
alley paving project, city project No. 822. The bid minutes and
tabulations are attached for council review.
Two alleys are scheduled for concrete paving this summer.
The engineer's cost estimate for this work was $43,200, with an
estimated cost to homeowners of $22.50 per assessable foot. Five
bids were received on May 28. Gunderson Brothers Cement
Contractors of Minneapolis was the low bidder with a bid of
$24,957.50. Based upon this bid, plus the added costs for
administration, engineering and legal services, the revised cost
estimate to homeowner would be $17.55 per assessable foot. The
alley assessment in 1985 was $16.90 per foot. -The $17.55 is an
acceptable figure, since only two alleys are being paved.
It is recommended that the city council approve the bid
minutes and tabulations and the attached resolution awarding a
contract in the amount of $24,957.50 to Gunderson Brothers Cement
Contractors of Minneapolis.
Res fully ~ ubmi ted,
lG
ev vi
Act ng City Manager
SD/eja
5~-~-
CITY OF RICHFIELD
BID OPENING
June 2, 1986
1986 Alley Paving
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk,
who announced that the ur ose of the meetin was to receive,
P P 9
open and read aloud, bids for 1985 Alley Paving, as advertised in
the official newspaper on May 7, 1986
Present: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
Eileen Anderson, City Manager
Representative
Donald Fondrick, Community Services
Director
The following bids were. submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR BID TOTAL STATEMENT AFFIDAVIT
SECURITY BID OF INTENT OF NON-
TO COMPLY COLLUSION
i
4rcon Construction
Hora, MN. 5~ bond $38,595.30 Yes Yes
Standard Sidewalk 5% bond $26,912.80 Yes .Yes
Npls, MN.
Gunderson Bros.
Cement Contractors 5~ bond $24,957.50 Yes Yes
Mpls, MN.
Concrete Curb Co. 5~ bond $26,812.00 Yes Yes
Burnsville, MN.
Independent Curb
Contractors 5~ bond $43,643.00 Yes Yes
Eagan, MN.
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the June 9, 1986 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
513- 3
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
ALLEY PAVING AND APPURTENANT WORK
CITY PROJECT N0. 822
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the I~
improvement of the following alleys by concrete paving:
Alley between From To
Nicollet and First Avenue 71st Street 357' north
Second and Third Avenue 66th Street 67th Street
Bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law;
and
WHEREAS, it appears that Gunderson Brothers Cement
Contractors of Minneapolis, Minnesota is the lowest responsible
bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota:
1. That the total base bid of Gunderson Brothers Cement
Contractors of Minneapolis for construction of the above-
mentioned project at a cost of $24,957.50 is hereby accepted;
2. That the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized
and directed to enter into a contract for City Project No. 822
s,~ -~,r
with Gunderson Brothers Cement Contractors of Minneapolis,
.Minnesota in the name of the City of Richfield for such
improvement according to plans and specifications therefore
approved by the city council.;
i
3. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their
.bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the
next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been
signed.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 9th day of June, 1886.
I
John Hamilton, Mayor
I
~I
ATTEST:
~I
i
I
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 220 II
Agenda June 9, 1986
i
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Purchase in Excess of $5,000
Council Members:
The city council policy resolution on purchasing provides ~I
that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or
construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase
shall be submitted to the city council for consideration. There
is one such item on the agenda for June 9, 1986.
Fourth of July Fireworks.
I
There are two firms in the metropolitan area that sell
fireworks and provide the staff to do the display. One of the
firms, Americana Fireworks Display Company, provides a better
show in the opinion of the city staff and the Fourth of July
Committee. This firm has been used for the Richfield Fourth of
July Celebration fireworks for the past four years. Americana
has submitted a contract in the amount of $5,970 to provide
fireworks for the Celebration in 1986. In 1984 and 1985, the
cost was $5,400. In 1982 and 1983, the cost was $5,000.
It is recommended that the city council authorize the city
manager to execute a contract with Americana Fireworks Display
Company in the amount of $5,970 to provide the fireworks for the
Fourth of July Celebration in 1986.
Res e tfully bmi ted,
l
'Ste n Devi
Acting City Manager
SD/eja
~
CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 219
Agenda June 9, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Certificate of Commendation to Mayor Hamilton
Council Members:
Earlier this spring, members of the Richfield City Council
nominated Mayor Hamilton for the C.C. Ludwig Award, which is
presented annually at the League of Minnesota Cities Conference.
This award is presented to a Minnesota municipal official who in
the opinion of the Judges, has made outstanding contributions to
municipal and regional government.
The League has advised the City that although Mayor Hamilton
.was not selected for the C.C. Ludwig Award this year, the League
would like to honor Mayor Hamilton for the outstanding quality of
public service he has provided to the City of .Richfield.
At the June 9, 1986 city council meeting, Acting City
Manager Steven Devich will present Mayor Hamilton with a
Certificate of Commendation for his distinguished municipal
service.
Resp~c fully submit ed,
i
rev n L. evich
Acting City Manager
SD/eja
II~h ~I11
~1~1
_ g
lea ue of minnesota cities
May 8, 1986
Mr. Thomas Ferber
City Clerk
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423 j
Dear Mr. Ferber: i
The nomination of John Hamilton was given careful consideration by the C.C.
Ludwig Award Selection Panel. In view of the high regard and. record of
accomplishments accorded to John, members of the Selection Panel wish to commend
you for the nomination you have submitted and encourage you to present to John
the enclosed certificate of recognition.
It is an honor for the League. to present official appreciation to such an
outstanding city official. Nomination for the C.C. Ludwig Award in itself is a
significant achievement. It is our hope that although John was not selected to ~
receive the award itself, he will be officially recognized for the outstanding
quality of public service he has provided to the city.
Please accept my personal thanks for the nomination you have made on behalf of
John. Original nomination materials are enclosed so that you may present those
along with this certificate to John.
On behalf of Minnesota city officials I wish to express my appreciation for the
major contributions John has made to the high standards of performance and
service to which city officials continue to aspire.
S" erely,
Donald A. Slater
Executive Director
Enclosure
DAS:AH:lw
1 83 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55'1 01 (6'1.2) 227-5600
~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 218
Agenda June 9, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Certificate of Appreciation for James Swanson
Council Members:
Mayor Hamilton has requested that a Certificate of
Appreciation be presented to James Swanson for his past service
to the residents of Richfield. Mr. Swanson has been a Richfield
resident for the past 28 years, and served in the Minnesota House
of Representatives from 1968 to 1984.
Mr. Swanson will be present at the June 9, 1986 city council
meeting to receive this commendation.
Res fully submitted,
~vr
v n L. is
Acting City Manager
SD/eja
•
_ _
.v.
..i.. }h.• :2. •tM Ik s t. •1
•'~f•:• .5 . r....::: t : i~~
..r,:
t
1:•
7a:• :n:,
a . .
:v
.
`:M1~~ ' ~
i 1
1~ 1 i 1 pp,
~ ~ ?
'yi• ? ' .1`•l•I~i1Jj: Y` ~ 1 1 1 \ 11 t '~1~~~• Y
¦ ? h h t
It. 'f , . • ~ ~ .r.. ~ il' :phi'.: ~l :fig;
•~~:v
' t ti ,
. ~ ~ V
' w~j-Y-Q~atl ~:.=.'sr . £';tF~t- .ls%sr ar" q~rFa ~ j HY r i
' ~.511~ .1• ".x if lll` M ilf ~.'1~ ~I11 ~•f' J ~ :{Z I~ \ r~ ~ .L w• (CR~i
~r0- i•i 1111 ..~\~.IIU •~~9~i. .cj; \'.N4 s%?st. V::?~\'.r llil l!•,/~'t,f i.'~:~c
ptV.~~rl1'.'?-1.'.x 141 gsY.' ¢~\trrrrlh ._~'o %::.-`?:~•.x. r~lrli' _ Ill lr ~ 111,' ~CY::~ ~i ~K...`
:i :N y 1,., LL. ~ _ ( .<g• 1 1. ,2.. ( 1 11111, ? 11111. _ Ib ? .111: ? L.S_~ LI/II. ! , .
.:r s _
.
~ • k
~
,
- - ,
~ ~ L f . t.
a ~~1 ' ' ~ ~ r
~ !c ~ 6 s t r w: <<•
RESOLUTION HONORING rll~ "~c
my ~
1 JAMES SWANSON 1
1 r• rf
= WHEREAS James Swanson has been a resident of Richfield ~ `
f«~%~~ r~ ;~,'~~r, for the past X28 ears and Burin that time has been an r' ~ 4~
~y''~' active and involved citizen se9vin on the Richfield School
'~''i'., Board, on various city commissions,gand as Richfield's ~
4 Representative to the State Legislature from 1968 to 1984, " do-:
,~4-~~' and ~
f~~
r,H._ w; ~ ~ WHEREAS, as a Representative, James Swanson was ~ s~~
responsible for numerous pieces of legislation including sic
Mt bonding for the Richfield Acres Golf. Course, improved '
~ ~,,,.~I facilities at Normandale College, creation of HMO's and the ~r~~ s~. ~ •
~p/,;,~ Catastrophic Health Bill.
Eys)~ i } 1 ~t
~ .
~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, John Hamilton, `,ul~ ~~Y'•
s Y~~ ~ Mayor of the City of Richfield, and the Richfield City ; ~
~y~ ~~,1 Council do hereby extend the .thanks and appreciation of the "
~1~.lJ citizens of Richfield to James Swanson for his past service
to the community . , ~l ~M ~F
ti~ z DONE this 9th day of June, 1986. ~
L ti
John Hamilton Mayor ~ ~
n r..r~ a
L t
` c:>
..yl , Y[,l . l...,.~ y I, 1 Nw {
' .~I ssK.~ ~..Il l~r~. `xS± ''ll •1 -':1 'i$Y r 1 11. ` 1 11. L $X• ll'S'. 1 11. ;r. 'i'' 'ri•'l l' ~y ` x~' rl' i 1.. 1 . I
i~'•.y.... ?IiT~4. 1.1111111• .x1 Jti{~si 111 X11,11 <••rf:• 11111. t4•., p•c lllllll• Rl}:,,tp~/'ll 1/11 .!~%'i111111 •.•~tT:: 7.~~-~.i X1115 ~•~~3f11 / /fE%•/Ill lri, .11'1 €F% Ifl/lll 'F` . t.'~. i~l,l/l~i+ ~'N' G
1 `T, 1 / 4' ` 1 ~l l l.. IF _ A,II•"ll'1;~~ -0~_
Y .,1, 1 r ,p ~ _ . {III / 1 l l ` ii' ~ .1, 11 _ V{i . _ 11 ~.i_ .ts. 1 l l ~ ?f. 3/ 1 If 1
~'sI). r. I'
~I~ f '~l'~ n• ~x.•~/ :r„ ,I•:~' '+t4.;: ~;yr>? S.'.::~ •,r,rr;. t1`~,J p.•~ f.'
t "~.~~f,~.:l~. ,d:(!.d~E~pc~s~J ;i~i';3sj1t6~:",.. •,1>a1fA `fit, ~lL'+,',~•s'~'/' tr Ek +cw?•r.! S s,J•• 1
`l ~ s.; ~ .di,,: ~ .?n; fl 'r,.' „'C•:~ ,.r•. {,l'6~` E ~?~Sie
.
.~.i .YM1.1?lt .1 .1- A . A 'A ~ \ ~ A A .::\;i A '71'' A ;:':,1.
7. "'n 1 ~ H . ~ n ..,YI;I,,~ v h
fie. ~ ~ ~`il.n Frr•%. •q..• i` l: w- `i
n~,i ~ I~'f,^s. R.oi 'II. a. 1-i: 7,;r. Iw.,~e },i.%;<%str?1~"•;i:, +,'::`,;r;}sn.'';
1'p•
•d% rig 5:1' 'A. i•NIyM '.ji';~.~~~':`~, 'A r; 4• iA: 1.. v~i17:1;;c :'1;
~i r'', 1 f ..A '.r 11. L• sA, 11..:i.'V:1~~ 'R. .r1v1.,11: :iA
dl:j1•' ~d1l:M" t •Ide:t1~• ;f A. .l •:::,1!}' •w:::!h:'•' C :1.1h'd5+ I ~ i14.1hh1;A ~F;i;h'1j r
• 1 ,
. :%ii:Y.' ~9 ';iFx1~ " :ii•+' ~ i : '•lu ee .
~ ..t:>,:. aN :
iii. • r K,.,;. 1. .:~f ~:SI
A ..:;;:;.;;;1
,•~Q''' ~ 't?.. •(l: •.i~ .•~~1 `~i.• lt', i,!f+: .a.•' ~ ''if~.• ls,,. ii1. ~ [
tt vii. y.I...NA• t;., ,rir`• 'iv , . t . ••"C .'v+L~t~••6ti' .vi i.•.•:;•`• - iri}.. .a5•. >
• b. ,;y,,~r.. U' y ,.iii+'~`"•tN' ~"9:;y ~.A?Y.x•'•' •~.poti... ..tr:;:fx• t •~•~'t}: r: ~T .n h r ''t s s..s • `
~t;• ,.ti i~.., 't:.~., „~8,1t•• :.;,s, n t 4 ,fir n