The URL can be used to link to this page

10-14-85 agenda ~ao~ f CITY OF RLCHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ' Council Letter No. 396. Agenda October 14, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council C ty of: Richfield Subject: Selection of Auditor for Auditing Services for a Five-Year Period Commencing with the Fiscal Year ' Ending December 31, 1985. Gouncil`Members: In the. Fall of 1984, the City Manager indicated to Council Members that the City .staff would solicit proposals for auditing services for the City, HRA and Police Relief Association for a .five-year period commencing with the fiscal. year ending December 31 , 1985 • In Juiy, 1985, City staff distributed Requests For Proposals (RFP's) to approximately sixteen auditing firms. After distrbutfcn of the RFP's, the City. provided a period of time for interested auditing firms. to make personal appointments to meet with .the Finance Manager to review the City's financial systems and provide additional information on City .operations. Proposals were then accepted until 4:30 P.M., August 16, 1985• After receiving proposals from eleven interested firms, the. candidates were screened by the Administrative Services Director and Finance Manager by the following criteria established in the RFP: 1. Technical expertise and time commitment. . 2. Demonstrated understanding of the City of Richfield's needs and methodology for meeting them. 3. Recent Minnesota municipal audit experience. 4. Experience or expertise in upgrading, computerized financial operations. 5. Price 6. Government. Finance Officers Certificates of Achievement by Clents- • ~D-~ Following the screening process,- five. firms were invited to • take part in an•oral interview:. •Deloitte, Haskins and.. Sells Boeckermann, Heinen and Mayer George M. Hansen Company Cummings, Keegan and Company Peat Marwick Mitche_11 and Com an ~ ~ p Y The interviews were conducted b Councilmembers Priebe and y Sandahl, F nance Manager.-Jean Mitchell, Administrative Services Director Steve Devich, and City Manager John Cartwright. The interviews concentrated on each firm's municipal auditing expertise, governmental experience,. approach to the Richfield audit, othe"r~related services that each. firm would be able to ' provide to the City, and price for the audit engagement. The pr ce of the five-year audit engagement as submitted by the five firms selected for interviews are as follows: Hours Devoted Firm Price Quote To Audit Deloitte, Haskins & Sells $106,650 650 Boeckermann, Heinen and Mayer ..$102,500 383 George M.. Hansen Company $104,700 550 Cummins Kee an and Com an 12 0 $ 5 0 0 47 > 5 g P Y g • Peat Marwick Mitchell.& Co. 1 $ 07,700 565 The price quotes from all eleven firms ranged -from a low of $102,500 to a high of $127,600. One firm did. not quote a firm five-year price. The interview panel recommends that Deloitte, Haskins and Sells be selected fora five-year audit engagement commencing with the fiscal year ending December 31, 1985. It is understood that if for some reason either party wishes to terminate the relationship in less than five years,. either party may do so. Deloitte,-Haskins and Sells is an international public . accounting ..firm included in a group the industry refers to as the "Big Eight." Within. the United States, the firm employs 800 - partner , 900 managers, and 4,100 staff accountants and consultants. -Deloitte, Haskins. and Sells. has ,extensive experience in serving city governments in Minnesota. They currently service the metropolitan cities of Bloomington, Brooklyn Park, Eagan, Minnetonka and Ramsey. In the past, they have performed annual audits for Anoka, Burnsville, Coon Rapids and Robbinsdale. Each~of these cities, with the exception of Burnsville, have received the GFOA Certificate of Conformance.. Additionally, the firm has performed audits for several school districts,.. including Bloomington .and Columbia Heights. It is recommended that the City Council award the auditing engagement for the fiscal years 1985-1989 to Deloitte, Haskins. p~U and Sells;, and that the City Manager be authorized to prepare and execute. an Agreement for Auditing Services as recommended herein. Re ectfu y fitted, hn Cartwri h o G g City Manager . Note.. if council members would like to review the proposals, please contact. the City Manager's office where copies are .available. JGC/eja • f9 CITY OF RLCHFIELD, MINNESOTA. .Office of-City Manager I Council Letter No. 395 Agenda October 14, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ~ City of Richfield Subject: Recommendation to Amend the Zoning Ordinance ~to Reduce the Number of.Minor. Variance Requests Council. Members: The October 14, 1985, City Council agenda-has. five variance requests. In three cases, the staff recommended against granting. the variance because the variance request did not meet the-three 't8 s which must be met for a variance to be granted-' even though the variance request is clearly, a situation in which the variance should be approved.. In each of the three .cases the Planning .Commission overruled the-staff finding. The City. Manager. concurs with the Planning Commission findings. The'_conelusion drawn by the City Manager is that our zoning ordinance should be amended to resolve some of these minor issues which staff, Planning Commission and the City Council agree should be permitted by the zoning ordinance. The City Manager recommends that .the City Council refer to the Planning Commission the following zoning issues for possible amendment to the zoning ordinance: 1. Variange Request at 7627 Second Avenue The sole reason that- the applicant had to seek a variance to makean addition. to the house is because the house is a non-conforming use. -The house is non- conforming because the front .yard. setback is 29.2 feet instead of 30 feet. The proposed. addition does not affect any setback requirements. The zoning ordinance. could be amended to provide that a non-conforming use where the required setback is not extended would permit a building addition if it met all other zoning requirements. / / 2. Var;ianee Request at 674- Sixteenth_Avenue • This case involves a request to construct a bow (bay) window into a sideyard. The window, if constructed, would project 30 inches into the required ten foot sideyard setback. Recently, the city council approved the projection of bay windows into required front and rear yards, but. not-into sideyards. This was probably an oversight. Thee zoning ordinance should be amended to permit bow {bay) windows to proj-eat 30 inches into a required sideyard. 3. Variance Request at:6621 Logan Avenue The variance request: in this case is nebessary because, the house does not meet the front yard setback requirement of 30 feet. The house has a 29 foot setback. The proposed addition is to the rear-of the house and, if built,. would not violate the rear yard setback requirement. This situation is similar to the case described for • 7627 Second Avenue (No. 1 above). A~ain,.the zoning ordinance should be amended to permit- ahouse to be expanded if the expansion does not create a greater setback violation and the proposed. addition meets all other zoning ordinance provisions. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council refer this memorandum to the Planning Commission for study and a report back on what actions, if .any., the Planning Commission proposes on variance issues that do not increase the degree of non- conformity. Re pectf bmitted, (John G . Car r i~ht City Manager JGC/eja • . 1 ~1~~) CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 394 Agenda October,1~F, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and: Members of the Gty Council City of Richfield Subject: Request By Bloomington Honda For A Revised Offstreet Parking Permit and To Expand'A Building Within The ILN Building Moratorium Area Dear Council. Members: At the time the city. was considering the ordinance creating the building permit moratorium in the ILN study area,~the council-granted Bloomington ..Honda a special use permit to redevelop the former Astleford Equipment site at 7$th Street and Harriet`Avenue into a new and used car sales and service • facility. Subsequent to this approval, Bloomington Honda discovered that the structure on their site, which. was. to be renovated, is located.19 feet further. south than was originally thought. Bloomington Honda is now requesting city approval of a revised. plan for the area and to be exempted from the provisions of the .moratorium to allow them to add an 18 x 100 foot addition on the north end of the. building in question. The new addition would be used'for a car wa h bay and a buff-and-shine bay... The existingstructurewould be used for a used automobile showroom. There would be a total of nine parking stalls lost as of the proposal (6 used car spaces and 3 employee spaces). _There would. be a gain of 6 used car spaces in the building so .the net loss. would be 3 parking spaces. The expanded building wouldmee city setback standards. It is staff's conclusion that the city's approval of the exemption from the provisions of the moratorium is limited to the November, 1984, original plan. Any changes to the approved... plans are therefore :subject to the provisions of the moratorium. The moratorium would. prohibit the proposed addition to the building.. The applicant has requested exemption from the moratorium. In staff's opinion, the council has three options in this matter, hey. are as: follows: 1. The council could'oonclude that the proposal is subject • to the moratorium. and begin action to remove the subject property from the moratorium. area. This would involve passing an ordinance which redefines the boundaries of the area subject to .thee moratorium. This procedure would .take approximately two to three months. 2. The council could cone ude thatt.he proposal is subject to'°the moratorium and take no action to remove the - subject property 'from the moratorium area.--The building addition would be delayed until after the moratorium is lifted or expires. I It is staff's recommendation that Option 2 above be followed. As•previously indicated, staff has concluded that than es in a roved lans are. sub c to-the moratorium. While e t g FP P J it could be argued that the impact of the. change-on the proposed development, and the ILN 'area planning is minimal, the integrity of the ILN. planning process sr~ould be .protected and completed before ex ansions to existin. buildin s are allowed. The cit P g g Y has denied past requests to allow building expansions and the city. should continue to deal with these requests equally and consistently and allow the ILN planning process to be. completed. In the. meantime, the existing building can be used for its originally intended purpose. _ Respectfu.ll.y submitted, • John G. Cartwr ht • City Manager JGC/eja • _ Y., V E p P~ A N ~v / _ _ ~ _ - s+a sx • µ ~a~s7a ~ I 5 _ 5Q y` `mow 2X2 PA~~ ;r DRtVEB ~ ST.~? V' GREEN . ~ 3a,6gs so Tt p~Kl~t~ R~GAP. - ~Ew cAR StORA~E ~r_ EMPLOYEE `47 USED GAR SAt-ES ..gZ`- . SERVICE/EMPLOYEE Sp._ CUSTOMER SAGES ~ 8 SERVICE wR[TE~P . 27p; 70TAL CAR PARKS ` - _ - i M ~~~-~~K~` ~ APPROVED PLANS ~ -y ,~a "r ~1` "moo X ~ ` - i '.7t~ Yy,. ..K'rn.1.. s. - t F ; r t.+, ~ r1 . '~1~ ~ ~ 1~' ~ ~ 'r,, ~ NEW CAR,ST©RAGE'- 1 , j ~ - ~ t ~ [ t.. ~ ~ ;f . ~ - 8 t Et1VtTSr. s., S , ~ E' EME~LQ1fEE' PARKiNQ ~ ~,v• , r _ r i t ~ - ~ j GI~IS~N~i-BV~ii{Ltii:.. ~ ~ ~ ~ - i - ~ . , _ t , _ ~ , . f. ~tiSED 'CAR.. a z , . ; Vlr; ~ Y I t' SALES NflW. GAR- STOI~A6E"( _ _ j. x . T'i f E ~ - j~, 5. } 1 ~ , ti ~ ~ _ ~ t. USED-GAR" $1~LES ~ ~ { . _ - . ~ I[y - ' .5, , 5 PE~f~PbSEI3 BUtLDfNG ~1 ~ t' . '--r ~F. '~t4 - -----s _ r- ~ 1~;~ ' PAR7~s' ~ a x F F ct..~ F:- _ - t r 1 ;w. 'Ka.';k~"_' :Z`~ ~s. .i ~Iti ~ 4~ _ . - - r°1~ _ ~Zt-71 `1'Z'~ j j - ~ ~ ~_o- i 1__..-._._ - } ! ~ _ j. ~ ~ ! f . `.SF~lVlC81EMFL~YEF i ~ i CiJBTOMER SALES" ~ WRITE-ttP' ` 8T iJ~-- j 3Q t?N13S _ j t S UAtEC3 f r 4 :f : t ~ QAvcft 'wtlg.C.4 'ter - .:ms's, ~ -.'"s mil- ~~_"`~i"- ~t , ~,a. k. - t gtr~.a k'.Ry-s~'r,,~ruv~", ;,yf~ ~'r°~~;.' S ,~--3 fir ~ f _ ~~~~~.A~i"A= - ~y r< p~4POSED PLA(~ p ar.:< ,f,c .25 ~ 4w RAa.~.~.w~.~L.DRIYES ~"'~"`"Y t t ~ v f s ~ ~ _ , ~ i s a ~ e, rk" t c't n , e.l~ - _ '~IGOr - _ T? _ nt . - tl. r ~~f ry.J Y ~ 1 K i # , ~ _ _ - ~k~ f v:~ M _ ~,Yr - _ ~ - 5 T'+. s s F ~ s .e ~ ~Y ="i. v,. K ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ . ~ a _ ; . PARKdN~ RECAP 5 ~ = NEW CAR' STORAQE: S* R E1i~[:OYEE USED CAR SALES' , 4~~ t._ . SERYiCElEi~iPi.CYE~., _ BT,~ CUSTOMER SAL£S 30 ~ SERVICE WRITE-UP . TOTAL GAR -PA.BK$: -21rt~ . } • ;r - ~ _ ~:4... ice. _ - ~ .t- .a ~ yr, . err , : s=, prC ~ . .tj r . i. Ameba " ~Tt~1NE.~ < K~AICf~' . t N s ! ~ ~ ~ ~ i s .a I - . . ,y u ~ > ~ o o 'r ~ ~ ~ m I s w - y W 't ~ r yr ~C,si ~ mill` ~ ~ ~ 'J i ~ ~ F i.~ ~~j ~ o ~ ~t!` i? , ~ •~A~' ( ~ - ,I....ti, ~..+s~... 1.a.,«...v. . ,,,s. ;..p ~ 0 ~ 'G7. , mo't'! i, + ~ ~ t~; ~ T - ~ , 1 ~ r j /f!"Y 1 4TH :r ny, 1~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ T i .~'v, :.t r F ~ [ ..~:..sa.+7FS_:....-zara-.=:~ wyi ~ ' h ~ ~ Q. ~ ~ .ht .r ~ ~.r i..~r...4~..iai.~ . ~ - 0 r a t...y > d t ' i. ~ , !'ifyt~ .y r ' ~ ~ ( , s~ . ~ ~ . _ M ~ ~ ~ u.. ~ , ~,-qr-y+-:.~ -,mne~.•:.~-n--'1 (~.1~, nr , ~r ?4., ,A° „ ~i ~ ~ ` ~ ! C - ~ 1 r r ~ .+r M ~+r..+.cw. ;q~,.yl'Wls~+,-.........,... - S S ( ..,r,.... ~ ' s ( ti` : ~x v{,,j, "ice" t r I j° Q y ~ i j ? ~ ! ~ ~ ~ i f I p..tt?XWtti1G i _ { 4 s inY e t - ~ " ~ 111 ° 1 ` i ~ '"tT ~ ~ rv~~ ~ L,t4 tiRi~ ~ y ~1 ~ ,1.~ i 9 ` ~ y F ~~Mr + Y F*... i - O ~Ki a ',t if`i t z. ,M.. :1, # r , x ~ r , ~ vF { y, s. i Ai r + ~ r x r. ~ , .j;; ~ t' 'f"~ Jt ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ t .,.~y. -y±r, ~ {t ,r, .stay;p:' ti xx ii ( .F ~ f'~r ..<h4 f 6* -S ~ , ~ .Q ~ 1~ i ,Y .t.. r7 ( `.i t .~r ~-+.~i.... 14 i.i... ~.~~~d~ 'lt rs~ , . >i,.. svr•lr.rMH.z,j... Ft..i..:.+. M x.AM,4.~Y/.?fV.a..Yet. wv,s..u, . w,~,..,.-.. -.u . -V~u.C I _ . ~,s ~ ~ 1 n ~f v 3SS EAST KELLOOO BLVD. 'J--1..11 V ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 65'101: ARCHITECTS S12 - 29'1- 0208 October 4, 1985. Mr. Rick Jvpke City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Mr. Jopke: As the Architect for Richfield/Bloomington Honda currently under construction at Harriet Ave. and 78th Street in your . City, I am asking for your consideration and approval of a .proposed change to our previously approved site plan. It is my understanding that the approval must ultimately come from the Richfield City Council and I hereby request placement on their .next scheduled agenda. - We are asking for the modification to allow us to take best advantage of a site situation which was unknown to us at the time of our original requests and submission. (For reference our original submissions were dated November 13, 1984 with a subsequent modification dated March 7, 1985. I have enclosed copies of the.-later for your use.) This information or missinformation came to us in the form of a certificate of survey furnished my client by the seller which incorrectly placed the existing building which was to remain, nineteen feet further South than it in-fact is. It is our desire to revise our site plan by filling this void between the existing building and the employee parking to its North. It would be our intent to relocate the car wash bay and buff-and-shine bay from the newly constructed service area to this area and enclose it with an 18 x 100 foot area of new construction as indicated on the enclosed site drawing. This area, consistant with our original thoughts would not be for public use, -only for use of the sale of new and used automobiles and the service department. Further, ,we would like to utilize all of the space within the existing building for used automobile showroom as opposed to our original plan for about 1/3 used car showroom and 2/3 new car storage. A point in favor of this is that it would allow us to regain the 6 used car stalls lost to the location error by putting them within enclosed space. October 4, 1985 Mr. Rick Jopke page 2 The enclosed revised site plan indicates that we can accomplish our goals while loosing only three designated parking spaces. As we have already discussed, I am sure that this will be of no adverse impact as we already have provided for more than adequate on-site parking. Please keep in mind that all of our site planning has also been done without taking any advantage of the compact car size requirements which the Honda automobile certainly would fall under. Thank you in advance for your attention to this .matter and please advise me as to the direction in which we should proceed S' ct , Richard V. Krumm A.I.A. enclosures: APPENDIX A. TRANaliuRY ORDIlVANCES. - ~ " TRAN~i~ivl~Y ORDINANCE NO. 1?•18. AN IlYr~rtIM ZONING ORDINANCE AUOP'IED FhR THE ~ OF PR02E~lu~iG THE. PLAtVNING~ PROCESS IN A trrt~.AIN AREA OF THE CITY, REGULATING, RESTRICTING AND PROHIBITING CERTAIN USE'S, DEVIIAPI~NTS AND SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN SUt~I AREA. . CITY OF RIChr-ir~D DOES-ORDAIN:. Section 1. - A. The-City is concerned with. the proper and more economic use., de•~elopment.andpossible redevelopment. of that area of the City generally referred to as "Intzrstate-Lyndaie Area", hereinafter referred to as the ''F,rea", the boutularies of which Area are more specifically described as follows: All of the- ~f,erty between Interstate No. 3~W and file Minneapolis N~rth- field Southern Railroad tracks and south of 77th Street with the following ad- ditians:_ (a) the area west of Emerson Avenue, east of Interstate No.:35W, between 76th and 77th Streets; {b) in the area between Emerson and Aldrich Avenues, the first. parcel abutting the north side of 77th Street;, {c} the entire block between Aldri~ and Lyndale Avenues south of 76th Street; (d) the ea.~t one-half block of the block between 75fih and 76th Streets; (e} the west ore-half of the block between Lyndale and Garfield .Avenues,. south of Century Court apar•L~:.:.ts and north of 76th Street; (f) the entire black. between Lyndale and Garfield Avenues between 76th. and 77th Streets; and {g} between Garfield and Pl~t~aant Avenues, the first parcel abutting the north side of-77th Street. B. There are a number of planning and Land use issues arising in the Area which require w~rehensive planning, among which are the following: 1. 'The City is deficient in commercial. and industrial tax base. Very little undeveloped land remains within the City. The location of the Area is such-that with. proper planning it has the potential to provide a location for some of the most valuable. and. desirable commercial and/or indu.,l~ lal develop- ment within the City. 2. The Area presently contains tracts of undeveloped or underdeveloped land which cannot be developed to the optimum without improving access and im- proving traffic patterns. 3. The Area may best be developed pursuant to a unified plan and/or in large segments rather than ~ a piecemeal basis,. . The Area contains a number of buildings which are aging and appear to be in a detrariarating condition. Some parts of the Area present a poor visual appearance b?cause of such. factors as lads of uniform setbacks, unrelated f~.odes, inadequate or inappropriate loading and unloading areas, insufficient- parking,. excessive land coverage, conflicting traffic mo~~~..ts and other . functional inadequacies. 2/ 11185 OROiNA~~tCc C^vOS A. 7G. CITY JF R1CHFi'cLO, :ViiNN~S~ • 5.. •Present streets serving the Area do not appear to provide the best acxess front main thoroughfares to some parcels at the east and west edges of the Area. ' 6. The Area includes and is bounded by single-family residence districts which are jeopardized or adversely affected by non-residential traffic. There appears to be a Head to relocate and redesign streets and other trat'fic control facilities in and around the Area so as to safeguard such residential areas and . so as to minimize existing land use conflicts. . 7. Several of the streets in the Area are of substandard design. It . appears necessary and desirable to i~.,~late a long-range master plan for control and movement of traffic within nd around the Area.. 8. It appears ne^~agary and desirable to avoid further piecemeal develop- meet and redevelopment of the Area so as to reverse the undesirable developa~ent patterns which have existed and which now exist within the Area.i.ncluding fragmented land ownership and under-utilization of the land. 9. It'`appears that there are or may be substandard building conditions and'~I~ rotates used or intended to be used for industrial or other purposes within the Area. 10. It appeare that by reason of sociological and technological changes, as well as by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence and the faulty arrangement or design of buildings and improvements in the Area, there is a need for c~mpre- pensive planning arid. devel~~.~.~~rtt of the Area. 11. It .appears that there is or may be a lack of suitable public facilities, excessive land coverage in some parts of the Area, deleterious land use, and obsolete layout of land tracts and developments, requiring Planning and redevelopment. 12. The foregoing factors and other factors are found to be injurious to the health,-safety, morals-and welfare of the citizens and property owners of the City and persons a^~+~pying Property or working and being in and around the Area. 13. The presence of such conditions has caused art impairment of the value o2'private nve~t...:artts, has threatened sources of public revenues, has deprived the .ty and its residents of better facilities and fob opportunities, and .has otherwise adversely affected the public welfare. C. There is a need for the f~..~alation of a new comprehensive plan and program for !the development and/or redevelopment of the Area. Such plan and . program will require intensive study over a rn~cber of months. There is a need for an interim ordinance applicable to the Area for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health,-safety and we~~'~re of the citizens of the City and to insure-that the City and its citizens retain the benefits of the new c..~.Y.rehensive plan and development-cedevel~r~t program for the Area. There is a farther Head to regulate, restrict or prohibit uses, developments or subdivisions of land within the Area during the planning process, so as to avoid the occurrence of events which will be inimical to the orderly develop- . meet and redevelopment of the Area in future years. 2!11/85 ^RCIIV;,,VC= CCCE A. 75 C:TY O~ ~lCHFiE~. ~~i~~UNcS~'= _ . /~=1fi 5~...Llcn 2. wring t~e period t'^at. this interim- ordiciancs is in e~°.set, no procertp witi~t tie area still be ~deveioped, or redeveloped yor smell any - . Licenses- or permits, ~ ~..,,»angs, pLattirtgs or Iand di~~isions pursuant to ~ichfie.Ld: Cade of Ordinances, CIS, LLr II2, Ports. L, IV and VZ, be issued bq t~.e Ci.tp for any suc.~t dswl~„~:,.,L or redevelopment 3xcept as provided in Section 3 Yrer_of. motion 3. Subdivision 1.. Yotaittzstartding tte limitations, rbstr ictiarts, • and prcisiaiticns .,.r.~~ned in t'^re forss~oing Section 2, tre city council may . .~.~,.,L permita for c~velaoment or redevelopment wit'L~t t'~ie ~lrsa, but only i'~ it . finds tat 'mss development or r~velcpment involved ,til1....~.~ly wit~i t.`'.~e fol,los~riztg criteria: A. ~ permit gill. rot • i~tvo lve t'~.e const uc~cn ci a :zew '.~flding or tt~.e eitlara_ment of an sxis-cing building. 3. ~e const~iscticn~ •~ri1.1 nflt matzriaS2p ckan$e ~2e fu~ire use, development or redeveicpmezt of t".e property involved or arty ad~ac~nt properties.. . C.. 2rs ccnst: ur~„icn will not incr~a se t:le fair ~r'.~.et ra lue at ttre proper involved ty more ttlan trn percent. 0. 2': a •co~n:+L. sat~.crt of ~2e iaa~rovement .rill not L.l~ns,ffy " traffic or carising prob? a^g an t~ sub~eet prcpe~ ly , adja.~~.,L properties, or adjacent hi.~ra*ys and s-br sets.- E. Z'be proposed Dro~e~et will not sxacerbate or Lztzr~.si~~ . cz~licts ce~eea residential and nan-r_sid=ntial t~~fic rrit~in tie Ar~~, F.- Grzrtt3ng of tom: permit will not ~e a matzri.31 di~er_rca i~z. or C"'~..3ta a serious impediment to ~.e development ar r~evelLy~nt of t~^.e proper ~~tvolved uCCri q®letion of plarrsing pL'O~,~oer,, _ T:~ permit will. involve t'^.e re^~+~, ~+*+tzr~r_cz or >z e- gua~rdin3 of existing ~ sctsr~s or - tfe ~ lotion of i:uildi.~s i.K;rior improvemenv w#Zic.~ ~ necessary ~.o ~.s proper , t`L~ed uti? ; »ticn of tre proper ly pond{ ns w.s planner„.g process. Sued. 2. 'I±-.e provisicas of tri3 or~.yr~~ st~.l rot prsve.~t 'd^.e City ,rcmy,~ .^~~MCC'f11? j,~~r~~152s, •"ier~t3, L'°~7.~tLU2$S, ~23t`'jwr"23"g« yr Yc.''Id.L+~~7f5f.~215 Lip '.i~ ~'ee ^.cizc Off, Ql~ rot L~+.cyudirtg, ~.eir aC'^~..ial ~•-uar:~ L.. ~.s pro„e~t or gra~eCta iZIVQl7el~ x.11 ....W..ly u~itd ~ following criy~zri3. A. The project will be on a single tract of land having an area of at least 80,000 squaz~e feet and will involve development or redevelopment within- the Area which will have an estimated market value in excess of $2,000,000 per acre.. Hi11~No. 1985.18 (8/3!85) 8.. The. project involved- is cansistent with-and compiementary~to the development or redevelopment of other adjacent properties within the Area. 8/3/85 OAOtNANC~ CDDE A' 76 C2TY OP RIC~tPiELD, MINNESOTA ~I - /U C. '1~ r.~~raosed pro~eCt will, is the opinion o= the Council, ~..L.lbute ~ to and accelerate the develcr~.~st or redevelopment of the balance of the Area . Subd: 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the foregoing Subdivision 2, no license, permit, .~..aning,~platting or land division shall be issued for any project described in that subdivision unless the site for the project is ` remawed ~.....~the provisions of this ordinance by amendment to Section 1-A hereof: Section 4. This ordinance shall remain in effect for a period of one year rroaa .its eff~., tJ.ve date, provided that in ~ the event the planning process has. not been c~.r,leted within the ,one year period, its e~'.ectiveness may be extended for such additional periods as the City Council may by cesalution detarmi~ne to be ap~~praaopriate, note a total additional period of i ei$~1t+t3el,"1 (18) ri r:.o 4iLl. Bill 1985-1 (2/ 11 85) • _ r 2/11/8 t CQOtN.:NC_ C: OE a•77 CITY OF ~tCefFicLD. !AtNNcSt~ t X17-~ - CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • -Office of City: Manager Council Letter No. 393 Agenda October 14, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City .Council. City of Ridhfield Subject: Resolution Providing for the Issuan~:e and Sale of. $1,940,000 General Obligation Improvements Bonds of 1985. Council Members: Attached is a resolution providing for the issuance and sale of $1,9.40,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1985. City staff has worked with Evenson-Dodge, the City's financial consultant, and the City Attorney's office to make arrangements for this bond sale. Also,, the City is cooperating with Richfield School District officials by including the costs for certain fire protection facilities in school district • buildings. The bond issue also provides for permanent financing for 1984 and 1985 alley paving and RSA storm sewer improvement projects. The storm sewer construction project will be assessed 100 to the Richfield State Agency and Market Plaza. Purpose of the Sale 1984 Alleys ~ $ 293,216.72 RSA Storm Sewer 149,744.57 1985 Al1eYs 86,970.25 Richfield Schools Sprinkler Systems 1,208,726.00 $1 ,738,657.54 Contingencies 11,342.46 $1,750,000.00 Capitalized Interest Discount and issuance costs 130,000.00 Project costs 60,000.00 .Total $1,840,000.00 The resolution rovides for the issuance an p d sale of $1,940,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds of 1985. Council will award the sale of the bonds on or about November 6, 1985• A copy of the presale analysis has been provided under separate cover. . - 1~- ' The bond sale has been scheduled for early November to take advantage of current interest rates and avoid the end of the year rush when heavy municipal bond offerings are anticipated. The anticipated net interest rate on this issue ranges from 8.50 to 9.00. It is recommended that the Council adopt-the attached • resolution. Re ectf 1 witted, J hn G. Cart igh~ ity Manager JGC/eja • c Extract of Minutes of Meeting. of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County,: Minnesota Pursuant to due. call and noticethereofa regular-meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at the City. Hall in said Ci y on-.October-14, 1985, commencing at 7:00 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: and the following were absent:. The following resolution was presented by Councilmember who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 85- RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $1,940,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1985 BE IT RESOLVED By the City .Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County., Minnesota (City) as follows: 1. It is hereby determined: (a) That the following assessable public improvements (the "Improvements") have been made, duly ordered or con- tracts let for. the construction thereof,. by the City pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429: ~ Project Designation ~ Description Total Project Cost 1983 Alleys $ 293,000* Richfield State Agency Storm Sewer 150,000* 19.85 Alleys 87,000* Richfield Schools Fire Protection Systems 1,220,000* .Capitalized Interest, Discount and Issuance 130,000* Interim Interest and Bond Issuance Costs on the Foregoing 93,000* * These are exemptive of interim interest and bond issuance costs (b) That it is necessary and expedient to the sound finan- cial management- of the affairs of the City to issue $1,940,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1985. (Bonds) to provide financing for the Improvements. 2. In order to provide financing for the Improvements, the City shall therefore issue and sell Bonds in the amount of $1,903,000. In order to provide in part the additional interest required to market the Bonds at this time, additional Bonds shall be issued in the amount of $37,000: Any excess of the purchase price of the Bonds over the sum of $1.,903,000 shall,be credited to the debt service fund for the Bonds for the purpose of paying interest first coming due on such additional+Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued and sold in accordance with the terms of .the fallowing Official Notice of Sale; OFFICIAL NOTIEE OF SALE. .:$1,940,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds. of 1985 City of Richfield $ennepin County, Minnesota. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the Citq of Richfield, Minnes©ta, will consider sealed bids for the purchase of $1;940,000 General Obligation Improvement.. Bonds of the City at a= spec al Council meeting on Wednesday, November 6, 1985, at 12:00 o'clock p.m., C.T. on the following terms: Purpose and Security The purpose of the bonds is to provide funds for the fnan- cing ofvarious assessable public improvements in the City. The bonds. will be general obligations of the issuer, forwhich its full, faith, credit and taxing powers are pledged. Date and Maturities The bonds will be issued in fully registered. form, will be dated December l,. 1985,. will be in integral multiples of $5,000 each and will mature without option of prior payment on February l in the following years and amounts: Year Amount Year Amount 1987 $ 25,000 1997. $165,000 1988. 170,000 1998 25,000 1989. 170,000 1999 25,000 1990 170,000 2000. 25,000. 1991 170, 000 2001 25, 000 1992 170,000 2002 25,000 1993 170,000 2003 25,000 1994 170,000 2004.' 25,000 1995 170,000 2005 25,000 1996 165,000 2006 25,000 Redemption Feature Bonds of this issue maturing after February 1, 1995 will be subject to redemption and prepayment in whole or in part at the option of the City on that date and on any interest payment date thereafter at a price of par plus accrued interest to date of redemption. Interest Interest on the bonds will be payable on August 1, 198b, and semiannually .thereafter on each February 1 and August 1. All bonds maturing on the same date .must bear interest from date of issue until paid at a single, uniform rate, not exceeding the rate specified for bonds of any subsequent maturity. Each rate must be in an irate- . gral multiple of 5/100 of 1~, and no rate of interest nor the net effective average rate of the issue may. exceed the maximum rate of interest permitted by law on the day of sale. Paying Agent The City will name the Registrar which shall be subject to applicable :SEC regulations. Principal will be payable at the grin- cipal office of the Registrar and interest will be payable by check or draft of the Registrar mailed to the registered holder of a bond. The City will pay the reasonable and customary charges for the services of the Registrar. CUS2P Numbers The City will assume no obligation for the assignment or printing of CUSIP numbers on the bonds or for the correctness of any numbexs printed thereon, but will. permit such numbers to be assigned and printed at the expense of the. purchaser, if the purchaser waives any extension of the Lime of delivery caused thereby. Delivery Within 40 days after sale, the City will furnish and deliver to the office of the purchaser or, at its option, will deposit with a bank in the United States selected by it and approved by the City as its agent to .permit examination by and to deliver to the purchaser, the printed and executed bonds., the unqualified opinion thereon of bond counsel, and a certificate stating that no litigation in any manner. questioning their validity is then threatened or pending. The charge of the delivery agent must be paid by the purchaser, but all other costs will be paid by the City. .The purchase price must be paid upon delivery of the bonds in funds available for expenditure by the City on the!. day of payment. Legal Opinion An unqualified legal opinion on the bonds will be furnished by LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz, a Professional Associa- tion of Minneapolis, Minnesota.. The legal opinion will be printed on the bonds. at the request of the purchaser. The legal opinion will state that the bonds are valid and. binding general obligations of the City, payable primarily from special assessments against benefited property, and that the City is obligated and required to levy taxes for the principal and interest thereon as the same become due without liatit as to rate or amount. ' 7 Type of-Bid - Amount Sealed bids must be mailed or delivered to the undersigned and must be received prior to the time of said meeting. Each bid must be unconditional and must be accompanied by a cashier's or certified check or bank draft in the amount of $38,800, payable to the City Clerk, to be retained by the City as liquidated damages if the bid is accepted and the bidder fails to comply therewith. The bid authorizing the lowest net interest cost. (total. interest from date of bonds to stated maturities, less any cash premium or plus any amount less than X1,940,000 bid for principal) will be deemed the most favorable. No oral bid and no bid of less than X1,903,000 for princi- pal plus accrued interest on all of the bonds will be considered, and the Cit reserves the ri ht to re ect an an i Y g ~ y d all bids and to wave any informality in any bid. ~ BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk Dated:October 14, 1985. /7~ 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to advertise the Bonds for sale in accordance with the foregoing Official Notiee of Sale and to cause the abbreviated notice of sale attached hereto as Exhibit A, to be published is the manner required by law. The City Council shall meet on Wednesday, November 6, 1985, at 12:00 o'clock p.m. for the. purpose of considering sealed bids on the Bonds and taking any other appropriate action. The motion for .the adoption of the foregoing .resolution was duly seconded by, Councilmember and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor of the motion: and the following voted against: whereupon staid resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF BOND SALE $1,940,000 G~iv~icAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1985 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY These bonds will be offered for sale on sealed bids on Wednesday, NOVEMBER 6, 1985 Buds will be opened. and tabulated for consideration and award by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Council at 12:00 P.M. on that date. The Bonds will be dated December 1, 1985, will bear interest payable. .semiannually on each February 1 and August 1 to maturity, commencing August 1, 1986, and.. will mature without option of prior payment on February 1 in the amounts and years as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 1987 $ 25,000 1997 $165,000 1988 170,000 1998 25,000 1989 170,000 1999 25,000 1990 170,000 2000 25,000 1991 170,000 2001 25,000 1992 170,000 2002 25,000 1993 170,000 2003 25,000 1994 174,000 2004 25,000 1995 170,000 2005 25,000 1996 165,000 2006 25,000 No rate of interest nor the net effective rate of the issue may exceed the maximum rate permitted by law. Bidders must specify a price of not less than $1,903,000 plus accrued interest. A legal opinion on the Bonds will be furnished by LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien ~ Drawn, a Professional Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The proceeds of the Bonds will be used to finance a portion of the costs of various improvement pro3ects in and for the City. Bidders should be aware that the Official Statement to be published for the Bonds may contain additional bidding terms and information relative to the Bonds. In the event of a variance between statements in this Notice of Bond Sale and said Official Statement, the provi- sions of the latter shall be those to be complied with. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COIINCIL /s/ Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk Dated: October 14, 1985. i /7,1v STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF RICHFIELD ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of a regular meeting of the City .Council of said City held. on Monday, II, October 14, 1985, with the original thereof on file in my office and ICI "the same is a full, true and correct copy thereof, insofar as the same relates to the issuance and sale ~of $1,940,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1985, of the City. WITNESS. My hand as such City .Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this day of , 1985. City Clerk City of Richfield, Minnesota (SEAL) . .CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 392 Agenda October 14, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Ordering Certain Fire Protection Facilities to be Constructed on Independent School District No. 280 Property, Approving the Plans and Cost Estimates and Authorizing Consruction bythe District. .Council Members:. Attached. to this council letter are: a school district resolution petitioning for the installation and financing for certain fire protection facilities in school district buildings; A Memorandum of Agreement between the. City of • Richfield and Independent School District No. 280 for the installation of such fire protection facilities; and, a resolution ordering certain fire protection facilities to be constructed on Independent School District No. 280 property, approving the plans, cost. estimates, and,authorizing construction by the District. The City has worked with Independent School District No. 280 in bringing certain school facilities up to current fire code standards. In that process, fire suppression equipment has been identified for several school facilities. In an effort to facilitate the installation of this fire protection equipment, - the School District, in conjunction with the City,. has availed itself of the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, particularly Section 429.031, subdivision 3, to secure the ..construction and installation of the fire protection facilities in school buildings. The Statute cited authorizes the inclusion of permanent funding for these improvements in conjunction with the City~s General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1985. Agenda Item 17 provides for the City Council authorization of such bonds. The petition submitted by the School District cites the following schools as facilities which will receive enhanced fire protection equipment: Lincoln Hills; Sheridan Hills; Centennial School; Central School; Elliot School.; Richfield Intermediate School; and, Richfield Junior High School. The total cost of the project is estimated by the School District to be • $1,208,725. The repayment of the amount bonded would take plane over..a ten year period. ~~-a Also included is a draft copy of the Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Richfield and Independent School District No. 280. The Agreement provides for procedures to be implemented for the planning, construction and payment of costs related to the improvements. In addition, the Agreement provides for the District to indemnify and hold the City harmless thro-ugh any claims or actions resulting from the construction of these improvements. A final copy of the Agreement will be given to council members Monday evening. The .final Agreement, at the request of the School District, needs to add a provision which would state that the fire suppression. installation being proposed at this time. for the sited facilities would be deemed bringing the said facilities into compliance with current fire codes. The City has no objection to this provision. The resolution-which is before the City Council for approval provides for accepting the School District petition, executing the Memorandum of Agreement and to include this improvement project in the General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1985 to ,be sold in November of this year. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution. Respectfualy submitted, • John G. Car wr' ht 'i City Manager JGC/eja • RESOLUTION ORDERING CERTAIN FIRE /V/ PROTECTION FACILITIES TO BE CON- STRUCTED ON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT N0. 280 PROPERTY, APPROVING THE PLANS AND COST ESTIMATES AND AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION BY THE DISTRICT WHEREAS, a petition from Independent School District No. 280 has been presented to the city, requesting the construction., financing and assessment for certain fire protection facilities on school district properties, and WHEREAS, it has been determined to be in the public interest for the city.to cooperate and assist in the construction and financing of such facilities. NOW, TIiEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the -city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. It is found and determined that such petition was signed by all owners of real property upon. which the proposed improvements are to be located, there. being only-one, such owner, the petitioner school district. 2. The petition is hereby granted and the petitioned improvements .are ordered to be made with the entire cost to be assessed against the affected school properties. 3. It is determined that the petitioned fire protection _ facilities shall be privately owned, i. e., they shall be . owned by the school district rather than by the city. 4. Plans and specifications for the proposed fire protection facilities improvement, and the estimated cost thereof have been presented to the city. Such plans and specifications prepared by Hammel, .Green-and Abrahamson, Inc., dated September 23, 1985, and entitled "Richfield Public Schools Sprinklering, Richfield, Minnesota. Commission number 849.006.," and the accompanying cost estimate are hereby approved. 5. Petitioner is authorized and directed to contract for the construction of the petitioned improvements. Such contracting shall be done after advertising for bids and in the manner required by law for the awarding of school district contracts. Such contracting shall also be done in conformance wit-> :==.^rlesota Statutes, Section 429.041, Subd. 2. Proof of compliance with applicable bidding and contracting procedures shall be required by the city prior to the disbursing of city funds to pay any of the costs of the petitioned improvements. The city manager is authorized to execute a memorandum agreement between the city .and the district providing for .the disburseme;~c.s of city funds to pay for costs of the petitioned improvements as they are incurred. Such memo- randum agreement shall provide for certification by the district or its designated agent or representative that the particular costs for which disbursement is to be made have been duly and properly incurred and that payment is then due from the district to the payee. 6. The mayor, manager and other officers, agents and employees of the city are hereby authorized and directed to enter into such agreements and execute such instruments as may be necessary to give effect to, accomplish and facili- tate the. objectives and purposes of this resolution. • Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of October, 1985. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk " / v/ ~ a } MEMORANDUM AGREEMENT Effective Date THIS AGREEMENT is dated as of , 1985.. Parties .The parties to this agreement are: CITY OF RICHFIELD ("City"), a Minnesota municipal corporation, and INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT N0. 280 ("District"), a Minnesota governmental subdivision. Context The District has petitioned that the City provide. for the installation of certain fire protection facilities ("the improvements") on school district properties, all in accor- dance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 42.9, and particularly Section 429.031, Subd. 3 thereof. The City has granted the District's petition and-has authorized the District to contract for the construction of the improvements on the District's properties. The City will be paying for the costs of the improvements and it is deemed necessary and advisable that the City and the District agree upon the general procedure to be followed by the parties in disbursing City funds in payment of the costs of the improvements. Agreements The City and the District, therefore, contract and agree as follows: 1. Whenever the District seeks to be reimbursed for costs it~has incurred and paid in connection with the making of the improvements, it shall certify to the city manager of the. City the amount of such costs together with such itemiza- tion and documentation thereof as the city manager reasonably may require. Such certification shall be made in writing by the superintendent or the director of business affairs of the District. 2. .Similarly, whenever the District desires to have the City pay a third party, in behalf of the District, for costs of the improvements, such costs shall be itemized and documented as the city manager reasonably may require. Such certification shall be made in writing and shall be signed by the registered architect or engineer designated by the District to supervise the installation of the improvements. 3. Upon receipt of any such certification and upon determination of its adequacy, the city manager shall authorize payment of the certified costs of the improvements either to the District. or to a third party, as the case may be. 4. It is understood and agreed that the sums to be disbursed by the City shall include the construction costs of the improvement, architectural and/or .engineering costs, costs of advertising for bids., and other District costs necessary and incidental, to the making of the improvements. In any event, the total costs of the improvements to be paid for by the City, shall not exceed the estimated cost of the petitioned improvements, i. e., the sum of $ 5. It is further understood and agreed that the District shall have full responsibility and authority for the proper. planning and construction of the petitioned improvements and that disbursements made by the City pursuant to the provisions of this agreement. shall fully discharge the City's responsibility with reference to such improvements, as between; the parties hereto. The District hereby releases, indemnifies and agrees to save the City, its officers, agents and employees, harmless from any claim, action, cause of action, or any costs and expenses of defending the same, arising out of or by reason of .the construction, maintenance or operation of the improvements. 6. The District waives any challenge to the validity or the amount of any assessments levied by the City on any District properties, or against the District, for the making of the petitioned improvements, up to the amount of City financing thereof plus any costs of providing such financing, and interest thereon. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Memorandum Agreement as of the date first above written. CITY OF RICHFIELD BY Its City Manager INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 280 By Its Superintendent 1~,- ? 'gR,ESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PETITION FOR 2NSTALLATION AND FINANCING OF CERTAIN FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES iN SCHOOL DISTRICT BUILDINGS BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Education of Independent School District No. 280 as follows: 1. It is hereby determined that the school district should avail itself of the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429,-and particularly Section 429.031, Subd. 3 thereof, to secure the construction and installation of certain fire protection facilities in school district buildings. To that end the district superintendent, acting in behalf of the district, is authorized and directed to execute .and deliver to the City of Richfield a petition, substantially in the form set out in Paragraph 3 of this resolution, requesting the installation, financing and assessment for fire protection facilities in those school district buildings designated in the petition,. 2. The board chairman, clerk and treasurer, the district's superintendent and the other officers and agents of the district are authorized to take such other and further actions and to execute such documents and instruments as may be necessary to give effect to, accomplish and facilitate the objectives and purposes of the petition. 3. The form of the petition shall be substantially as follows: City Council City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Gentlemen: 1. Independent School District No. 280 herewith petitions the City of Richfield to construct, operate, maintain and promote fire protection systems in existing ..school district buildings, as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and .particularly Section 429.031, Subd. 3 thereof. 2. The school buildings to which this petition relates, all of which are owned solely by petit.~c~ne:~ schoo:~ rlis~~r~ict, are as follows; - Lincoln Hi11s School 7440 Penn Avenue South Sheridan Hills School 6400 Sheridan Ave. So. Centennial School 7315 Bloomington Ave. So. Central School 7145 Harriet Ave. So. Elliot School 7001 Elliot Ave. So. (Richfield Community Ed. Center) Richfield Intermediate School 7020 i2th Ave. So. Richfield Junior High .School 7461 Oliver Ave. So. /C.J-~ 3`. The fire protection facilities to which this peti- tion relates are described in certain plans and specifications prepared 'by , dated and entitled a copy of which is attached hereto. and made a part hereof. It is further petitioned that the city assess the entire cost of such improvements against the affected district properties. 4. Petitioner undertakes and agrees to provide the city with any necessary property interest in the buildings affected to permit the city to enter upon the properties and the buildings to construct, maintain and operate such fire protection facilities, whether through the use of its own personnel`or through designated agents or contractors. 5. Petitioner requests that the city determine that the fire protection facilities will be privately owned, in that they will be owned by the petitioner. rather than by the city.: The estimated cost of the petitioned improvements is $ ~ 1 f SOB ~ 7.2~ - 6. `The district will contract for the construction of the requested fire protection facilities after the city has reviewed and approved the plans, specifications and cost estimates; contained in or referred to in this petition. 7. .Petitioner agrees that the construction cost financed by the city under Minnesota Statutes §429.091 shall not exceed the amount of the cost estimate contained in the petition.. 8. Petitioner reserves the right to request abandon- ment of the improvements at any time after they have been ordered by the city council but prior to the time that contracts. have been awarded for the construction of such improvements. In the .event such request to abandon the improvements is received by the council, the petitioner will reimburse the city for expenses incurred by city in connection with the improvement, as required by law. 9. In the event that this petition is granted and construction of the fire protection facilities is undertaken, the petitioner will furnish the city with a written agreement releasing, indemnifying and saving the city, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any claim, action, cause of action or any costs and expenses of defending the same arising out of or by reason of the construction, maintenance or operation of the petitioned fire protection facilities. /~-9 10. Upon granting of the petition, the district super- intendent is further authorized to advertise for bids for the construction of the petitioned improvements in accordance -with legal bidding requirements applicable to the school district .and in accordance-with Minnesota Statutes §429.041, Subd. 2. The superintendent is further authorized to execute a memorandum agreement between the District and the City providing for the di bursement of city funds to pay. for the costs of making the pet Toned improvements as such costs are incurred by the .district. 11. The officers of the district are authorized and. directed to prepare and furnish certified copies of proceedings and records of the district relating to the authorizing and making of the petitioned improvements and such other certificates, affidavits and transcripts as may be required to show facts within their knowledge or as shown by the books and records in their custody and under their control relating to the. authorizing and making of the improvements, and such instruments shall be deemed representations as to the facts stated therein. 12. In the event that the petitioned improvements. are constructed by petitioner and financed by the city as herein petitioned, petitioner will also waive. any challenge to the validity or amount of any special assessments .for the making of the petitioned improvements, up to the amount of any financing provided and the costs thereof including interest and expenses thereon. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 280, Petitioner By Its Superintendent Examined, checked and determined to be in proper form and signed by all. of the owners of property on which the proposed improvements are petitioned to be made. City Clerk ~ - CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 391 Agenda October 14, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of`Richfield Subject: .Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Dredging-Bid - Legion Lake Countil.Members: The city council approved. the: Master Plan for Legion Lake Park and authorized preparation of plans and specifications for dredging, the first construction phase of the project on August. 26, 1985. The staff was asked to provide the city council with information related to phasing and an estimated budget for the entire project when the plans and specifications were .presented for dredging. • PHASING The Legion Lake Park project consists of six. phases to coincide with. the priority determinations of the City Council, Community Services Commission and the residents. The time duration of the phases may vary from a season to more than a year. The first two phases are essentially foundation or preparatory work. Project costs in addition to the work outlined in the phases include consultants, which have already been approved by the city council; soil borings and soil boring. report recommendations, estimated to cost between $9,000 and $14,000; construction staking; and, miscellaneous costs such as permit fees, copying charges, and interdepartmental labor. At the present time, cost estimates for Phases I-V are $3,837,055 and the cost estimate for Phase VI is $3,000,000. Phase I Phase I calls for• the muck excavation to provide the open water areas, the base work for some of the path construction, clearing and grubbing and a minimum amount of seeding and mulching to hold certain areas for future development. The work included in this phase is scheduled to begin this winter season (1985-1986). Certain aspects of the storm sewer work being done at Legion Lake in conjunction with the Norby Pond and Wilson • Pond projects will be under construction simultaneously with the park` work called for in Phase I as outlined above. The estimated cost for Phase I construction of Legion Lake Park is $348,3fl0. Phrase II Site preparaticn work. continues in thi phase with. an • emphasis. on the amphitheatre area: Evaluations are continuing with a foundation analysis now. in progress. The city is seeking to obtain granular fll'material at no cost to the project. Due to`the ~~rrent uncertainty of the evaluations, recommendations to be coming and the ability o obtain fill;materia.l, it is estimated the cost for-Phase LI construction-maybe $481.,360. However:,. aTl or part of the cost for Phase. LI may not be - necessary, but. is included in total at this time for discussion purposes. Phase IiI The major portion of Phase III is the Plaza Esplanade, d tails of which are subject to desig at a later date. Other. components of Phase III include surfacing parking, roadway and path areas, refinement cf picnic areas, prevision for path bridges, a'sma1T play area, a concession building, and some landscaping including seed and p antings. The estimated cost- •for Phase IIi is $1,2fi6,210. _ Phase "IV In addition to the amphitheater and a -floating performance center, which haveoptional design solutions at this,t-ime, components of Phase IV include continued work on paving the • parking areas and roadways, additional. seeding: and tables for the picnic areas and. picnic shelters,. a large play area and additional landscaping. The cost estimate for. Phase IV is $1,005,560. Prase V Phase V concentrates on the enhancement of the swimming pool area with a possible sand beach and shower, water slide and bumper boats, concession building, new fence and paving and additional landscaping. At the present time, all designs are considered .optional and are subjecttc final decisions at the t-.ime: Phase V is begun. The estimated-cost for Phase V is $735,625. Phase VI Phase VI is the construction of a new Community Center. Because the time of construction is so far in the future, .possibly the. mid-1990's, and the foundation analysis and has not been completed, detailed planning has not been under- taken. The cost estimate is $3,;000,000. • ~~-3 FUNDING Through. 1985, the Legion Lake Park project -received $260,800. Allocations to date have funded studies, preliminary design work including preparation of the Master Plan,purchase of property,. and base map information.. Expenditures and obligations through August, 1.985 are about half of the allocation to .date leaving a balance of approximately $130,000.. The 1986 Capital Budget includes an .allocation of $225,000 from the Special Revenue fund and anticipates receipt of a state grunt for $200,000. If a grant is awarded, it would be late in 1986 before approval wou d be received. Special Revenue appropriations recommended in the 1.987/91 .Capital, Improvement Program total $1,193,.000 in a five year period of time: In addition, the Capital Improvement Program seeks an additional $1,.2.00,000 in grants or from other funding sources such as foundations or donations in the same five year period. Funding beyond 1991 will. be under stud y. in the near .future. PHASING/FUNDING SUMMARY It will take many years to fund and construct Legion Lake Park.. Cost projections and anticipated funding are preliminary estimates., both in time and money. It will take the effort and commitment of .the entire community to make Legion Lake Park a reality. ~ While anticipated funding. is $3,078,800,. certain obligations have already been made. A summary of phasing and funding can be found on the attached sheets. As plans and specifications for design are refined, cost estimates for construction of the first five phases may very well be reduced substantially. If the city is successful in obtaining out-side sources of funding, the estimated revenues for the project should be fairly accurate. Given this scenerio, the cost of the work and the anticipated funding should be about equal. However, Phase VI, the community center, has not. been included in these projections as it could well be the mid-1990's before consideration for construction could be given. Due to the uncertainty of when phases of construction will take .place and the details of some amenities, it is virtually impossible to predict, at this time, the cost for maintenance. It should be noted that a certain amount of maintenance already takes place at Legion Lake. This includes grass mowing, parking lot and sidewalk snow removal, inlet/outlet cleaning for storm sewer purposes, care of the archery range and work on exterior utilities such as parking lot lighting. Some of the improvements will be revenue producers. These might include the swimming pool enhancements, amphitheatre, concessions and group picnic area. Revenues generated will help to offset costs of operation including maintenance. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS- Construction of.Phase I is scheduled to begin in early • 1986. The majority of the. work: in Phase I is muck excavation for creation of open water areas. While not in one location,. the total open water is anticipated to be about 12-13 acres. Base work for appoximately 2,800 lineal feet of path is also included in the plans and. specifications for this phase of the work. In addition, it will be necessary to do a certain amount of clearing and grubbing. The city has been attempting to locate granular fill to be brought onto the site at no Bost to the project. The f ill material will be used to create separations of ponds. and a a base for the path system. Wood chips are being stored .on the site in anticipation of being used as base material fora: the path system. It will be necessary to store excavated material on the. site for: future use. To keep base material in place and to prevent erosion in certain travel lanes,it will be necessary to do a certain amount of seeding and' mulching. The total estimated cost for the work included in the plans and specifications under consideration is $49$,050. Of this "amount, .$348,300 would be charged to the Legion Lake par k• project and $149,750 would be charged as storm sewer improvement II in connection with the storm water-relief projects for Norby's and Wilson Ponds. The Community Services Director and the City Manager will be present to discuss questions the city council may have about the phasing, funding or the plans and specifications.. • RECOMMENDATION It is recommendedthe city council approve the plans and- specifications for muck excavation, path construction and appurtenant work at Legion Lake Park and authorize the advertisement for bids. It is anticipated the city council will be asked to consider the bids submitted and to award a contract at the council meeting of November 25, 1985, so that work may begin as soon thereafter as weather permits. Respectf y submitted, . ! John G. Cartwr ht City Manager JGC/eja LEGION LAKE PARK - RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA COST ESTIMATES BY PHASE October 14,1985 PHASE I QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST Muck Excavation 88% 12-13 ac. $355,000 $312,500 Path Construction 2800 L.F. $6,00/L.F. $ 16,800 Clear and .Grub Lump Sum $3,000 $ 3,000 Seed and Mulch 16 acres $1,000/acre $ 16,000 TOTAL COST - PHASE I . $348 , 300 PHASE II QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST Site Preparation - Amphitheater (Needs to be further. evaluated based on Foundation Analysis) Muck (On-Site Deposit) 51,626 C.Y. $2.50/C.Y. $129,065 Borrow 96,369 C•Y• $3.50/C.Y. $337,291 Landscaping, Seeding $ 15,000 TOTAL COST - PHASE II . $481 ,356 PHASE III QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST Parking Surface/Roadway 12,322 S.Y. $8.90/S.Y. $ 109,667 Curb and Gutter 5,880 L.F. $5.00/L.F. $ 29,400 Utility Extension Plaza Concession $40.00/Foot $ 23,200 Picnic Areas (Seed) 3.8 acres $1,000/Acre $ 3,800 Picnic Areas (Tables) 20 Tables $800/Table $ 16,000 Play Area 1 Small $ 30,000 Concession Buildings 1 - Plaza $ 40,000 Walkways Ped/Bike Asphalt-8' 15,950 L.F. $5.00/L.F. $ 79,750 Boardwalk-42" Wide 13,125 S.F. $8.50/S.F. $ 111,562 Bridges 2 $20,000/Each $ 40,000 Landscaping - Seed $ 5,000 Landscaping - Planting $ 100,000 Plaza Esplanade (Subject to Design Detail) $ 677,835 TOTAL COST - PHASE I I I . $1 , 266 , 214 PHASE IV QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST Parking Surface/Roadway 14,288 S.Y. $8.90/S.Y. $ 127,170 Picnic Areas (Seed) 8.6 acres $1,000/Acre $ 8,600 Picnic Areas (Tables) 14 Tables $815/Table $ 11,400 Picnic Shelter 1 $ 30,000 Picnic Shelter W/Restrooms 1 $ 75,000 Play Area 1 Large $ 100,000 Landscaping - Seed $ 5,000 Landscaping - Planting $ 80,000 Amphitheater (Option Design Solutions) $ 498,390 Floating Performance Stage (Optional Designs) $ 70,000 TOTAL COST - PHA5E IV . $1 ,005,560 PHASE V QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST l~-- Improved Pool Area (Sand Beach & Shower) $ 37,250 Water Slide & Bumper Boats $238,785 Utility Extension - Pool Area $ 1,000 Concession Building $120,000 New Fence &'Paving $233,000 Landcaping (Seed) $ 5,590 Landscaping (Planting) $100,000 TOTAL COST - PHASE V . $735 , 625 PHASE VI QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST Community Center 1 $3,000,000 .TOTAL COST - PHASE V I . $3 , 000 , 000 Phase I $ .348,300 Phase. I I $ 481 , 356 Phase III $1,266,214 Phase iV $1,005,560 Phase V $ 735,625 Sub-Total $3,837,055 Phase VI $3,000,000 LEGION LAKE PARK - RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FUNDING PROJECTIONS October 14, 1985 YEAR Special Revenue .Grants, Etc. Total To Date $ 260,800 $ 260,800 1986 $ 225,000 $ 200,000 $ 425,000 1987 $ 250,500 $ 200,000 $ 450,500 1988 $ 220,500 $ 300,.000 $ 520,500 1989 $ 225,000 $ 300,000 $ 525,000 1990 $ 270,000 $ 300,000 $ 570,000 1991 $ 227,000 $ 100,000 $ 327,000 $1,678,30.0 $1,400,000 $3,078,800 ~j~_ ..CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council .Letter No. 390 Agenda October 14, 1985 The..Honorab_le Mayor and. Members of the City Council City of Richfield , Subject: .An Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Ordinance to Reduce the Minimum .Lot Size for Sin le Famil g Y Dwellings from .6 ,750 Square Feet to 6,500 Square n Feet for Lots of Record as of Ja uar 1 1 8 5 9 Y ~ .Council Members: A legislative remedy is recommended to`resolve variance re uests similar to the Richfield Housin and Author it and q g Y George E. Branton. Construction Company request that the city _grant them a variance to allow the construction of a three bedroom home at 7508 Colfax Avenue. The platted lot of record has a s uare foot area of 6 00 s uare feet which is 2 0 feet q ,5 q ~ 5 • below the minimum lot size. required by Section 3.30, subd. ~4 of the zoning ordinance. The lot meets the 50 foot minimum lot width .requirement. The substandard house on the lot will be removed. The house which is proposed to be constructed on this site is a front to back split level three bedroom home with an attached double garage. The structure would meet all city setback re uirements. q Staff Review The lot in question is not unique in shape or size when compared to other lots on that block or in the neighborhood. It -is recommended that. the zoning ordinance be amended by lowering .the minimum sin le Tamil dwellin lot size from 6 750 s uare g Y g ~ q .feet to 6,500 square feet for lots of record as of January 1, 19.85, because there are many lots of 6,500 square feet that have been developed in the neighborhood.. This proposed amendment would. make it unnecessary for the property owner to obtain a variance in order to develop. the property. similar to other lots in the neighborhood. It would also eliminate the cost of two variance hearings. - • ~L~~ If the proposed ordinance is enacted, the opportunity for either new home or for enlargement of existing. homes is greater and. the result should be improvement to the character of-the neighborhood. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the city council expeditiously amend the city zoning ordinance to allow-development to occur on substandard platted lots under certain circumstances. City.Manager~s Recommendation In those instances where the variance request does not meet the three conditions contained in the zoning ordinance, which. must be met for the granting of a variance, the city manager typically agrees with the staff's recommendation for denial. However, in those instances where: the Planning Commission agrees with the intent of the requested action, the city manager views the subject somewhhat differently. In the past, when ordinance amendmen s were proposed to allow the requested action, the city manager.-has recommended approval of the variance. • There are many lots in Richfield of similar dimensions (50' x 130') and area (6,500 square feet). It is, therefore, desirable for the city council to initiate a legislative remedy to those situations ra her than compelling owners of these types of lots to go through the variance .process with the added burden • of paying for two public hearings. Therefore, the city manager recommends the council give first reading approval town ordinance•to change the minimum single family lot size to 6,500 square feet instead of 6,750 square feet, and schedule second reading and the public hearing for the council meeting of October 28, 1985• Respectfuy y ubmitted , i ohn G. Cartwri t City Manager JGC/eja • f~~ BILL N0. ORDINANCE N0. AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III, PART IV OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:. Chapter III., Part IV of the Ordinance Code of Richfield entitled "Zoning Regulation" is hereby amended in the following. respects. 1. Section 3.30, Subdivision 4, Paragraph (a) is amended to read as follows: .(a) Minimum lot area; Single Family dwellings: 6,750 square feet i, except, as provided in paragraph (e) of i this subdivision.) I Two Family dwellings: 9,000 square feet Other Uses: X3,560 square feet 2. The following new paragraph (e) is added to Section 3.30, subdivision (e) A lot of record as of January 1, 1985 shall be deemed to meet the minimum lot area requirements provided that it has a minimum l.ot area of 6,000 square feet, a minimum lot width of 50 feet and a minimum lot depth of j 100 feet. When computing lot area, lot width and lot coverage the area which is unencumbered with street, alley or highway easements shall be used. Passed by the City Council of Richfield this day of , 1985. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: I I Thomas P Ferber, City Clerk I CITY OF. RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Leiter. No. 389 Agenda October 14, 1985 The Honorable. Mayor and. Members of the-City Council City of Richfield - Subject: Planned Unit Development Plan,. Rezoning and Special- Use Permit Request for the Site Located at the Northwest Corner of 66th. Street and Rae Drive. Council Members: .PROPOSAL The Gecrge E. Branton Construction Company and the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority are requesting that the city approve a planned unit development on the HRA owned site at 66th Street and Rae Drive. The proposed development would involve i the clearance of the existing dwellings .at 901.-903 Rae Drive and 91O West 66th .Street. (The dwelling at 1016 West 66th Street • has been removed from the site.) The newly constructed two family dwelling at 920-9.24 West 6.6th Street would remain on the site. A. total of 8 new dwelling units in 4 two family dwelling structures will be built on the site. Two of the two. family dwellings would be constructed west of 920-924 West 66th Street and the other two two family dwellings would be constructed east and north of 920-924 West 66th Street. The existing two family dwelling and the two double family dwellings west of it would be serviced from a common-entrance drive with a single entrance on the west edge of the site. The remaining two double family dwellings would each have their own individual driveways with curb cuts from Rae Drive: A small: tot lot would be constructed north and east of the existing two family dwelling. Landscaping and screening would be provided adjacent to the single family dwellings north of the site. There would be a variety of dwelling unit designs provided for the 8 new units. The units would be two or three bedrooms with one or two levels plus basement. There would be an attached .single or double garage and each unit would have an attached deck. The site is currently zoned "R" single family residence. It is requested that the site be rezoned to PMR-1, planned two family residential. • Z N i~-a 0 LNG ORDINANCE .REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.31A, sets standards for two family residential . developments. • 2. Section 3.34A, sets standards for lanned unit. p ' development districts. 3. Section 3.40, lists three conditions which must be met for a variance to be granted. 4. Section 3.41;.establishes criteria for issuing special use permits. OTHER ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. 'Section 3.54, sets standards for planned subdivision and sets platting procedures. 2. Section 4.05, sets standards for off-street parking standards. STAFF REVIEW I. "Relationship to Ordinances and Plans The PUD ordinance requires that a Planned Unit Development Project be compared with the zoning ordinance requirements o herwse applicable to this type of development. The • attached table compares the proposed development with the PUD ordinance requirements and-the two family residential district requirements. As can be seen from the table the proposed development meets or exceeds all standards with the exception of the PUD requirement for recreational space and the MR-1 rearyard setback of certain decks. The proposed project would provide 660 square feet of recreational space (the tot lot) while the PUD ordinance would require 4;420 square feet. It is stafffs opinion that the reduced amount of recreational .space would not be detrimental to the project and may in fact be a benefit to the residents of the project. The site is relatively small and the use of the common areas for recreational space may be undesirable from the standpoint that it will impact the units which are adjacent to it because of noise and other potential. problems. .Recreational space for this type of project., in staffs opinion, is less important then it would be in a dense multi-story, multi family project where there is limited opportunity for residents to have space for .recreational activity. In this type of project all units have access to outdoor space behind their units .and they function similar to single family dwellings. A variance is required however, because the recreational space requirement is an ordinance standard . • 3 9 A_varianee would not be required: for the rearyard setback of the deck because developments in PUD.districts are not subject to normal setback requirements. ~ The city should review setbacks to insure. they~are proper. It is staff's opinion that the setbacks of the decks will not adversely effect either the development or the adjacent properties. There will be sufficient separation betweeen the decks and adjacent structures. Screening will be provided at the property line and-the new dwelling ,structures will maintain setbacks over the normally required 25 -feet. Only 3 decks will: have setbacks less than. 25 feet, and one deck Wlli have a setback of 15 feet.. The-proposal is consistent with the cityts Comprehensive -Plan: The Comprehensive Plan-indicates that-the. site should be developed as a medium density buffer which includes two .family dwelling .units. The site is not within the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet redevelopment are a. and therefore is not subject to the special requirements of the redevelopment area. The proposed two family dwelling use would be a complimentary transitional land use between the.. more intensely used areas of the redevelopment project and the single family dwellings adjacent to the site to the north. The city has previously approved an initial subdivision of the property. A final subdivision of the property will • occur in the future to create a common element subdivision so that each of the units can be sold to owner occupants. The proposed plan would meet city off street parking standards. II. Availability of Public Services The site is adequately served by utilities including gas, water, electricity and sanitary sewer. There is sufficient capacity in the utility systems to handle the proposed project without adversely affecting the existing systems.. III. Traffic Circulation and Control The project has been designed to minimize the number of ' curb cuts, especially onto 66th Street. There will be only one curb cut to the site from 66th Street which will .align with Lynnwood Blvd. so that full turning movements in and out of the site .are possible. The amount of traffic generated by the development will be minimal and should not exceed 100 trips per day. There is adequate capacity on surrounding streets to handle this minimal increase.. The proposal should not result in increased traffic adjacent to the single family residences in the • area. I f~_ All interior access drives are of sufficient width and design to adequately handierthe on site traffic in a sufficient manner. • -IV. Light Exposure .and Air Circulation The setback provided and the separation between the buildings will-allow for adequate amounts of light exposure and air circulation for all the housing units and the adjacent single family residences. V. Nature and. Extent of Open Spare The project will provide an appropriate amount of landscap$d green areas and open space for this type of development. As previously indicated, the amount of recreational space does not meet the standards but should be sufficient. The .site is also in close proximity of the natural amenities.of Richfield Lake and the Wood Lake Nature Center. VI. Impact of the Project on the Neighborhood It is stafffs opimion that. the .project is in scale .with the adjacent neighborhood and will enhance and stablize the neighborhood. The scale-and height of the structures sre those of single family dwellings and are therefore compatible with .the neighborhood.. The :density of the development is also compatible with the neighborhood. • The number of dwelling units provided on ,the site is only two units more than could be developed on the site if it was subdivided into single family lots. The adjacent single family neighbors have expressed concerns about the potential of the site being developed for high density apartment type dwellings or commercial uses. The proposed project and the planned unit development zoning will assure that the development on the site will be limited to the two family dwelling development proposed. Higher. densities could not be achieved without the city conducting public hearings and approving a revised plan. A neighbor has also expressed concerns about the grading of the site to insure that site drainage will not drain onto adjacent residential properties. The sites will be graded so that they drain toward 66th Street. VII. Fire Protection Issues The proposal has been reviewed by the public safety department.. The public safety department raised concerns about being able to access the westerly three structures because of fire vehicles inablity to make the turn into the entrance drive. An eight foot bituminous walkway will be maintained from 66th Street to the existing two • family dwelling. This.wal;kway will be plowed and maintained year round-. Anew fire-hydrant will be instal ed adjacent`to this walkway.- This will. allow fire: • vehicles to park on 66th Stree , connect to the hydrant` and allow firefighters to pull hoses up the walkway and have access to all the unit in question. With this addition the public safety department i satisfied with t e proposal. VIII. Variance Review Staff has:reviewed:;the variance request to reduce the recreational space requirement against the three condition which must be met for granting a variance and found thaw the proposal would meet two of the three condition . Lt stafffs opinion that the proposal is unique in the .sense that there. are. no other projects in the city ,similar to this particular project"and that the ordinance requirement is'excessve as it would app y to this particular type of project::. It is staff's opinion that the proposed reduction would not be detrimental to the general welfare in the community or persons living in . the project. However, denial of the variance `would not preclude reasonable use of the property. The project could be developed with a sufficient amount of recreational space to meet the ordinance requirement. STAFF RECOMMENDATSON T. Preliminary .PUD Plan,. Rezoning and Special: Use Permit Lt i staffs opinion that the development is a good project which is in character with the surrounding neighborhood and would help to improve and stablize it. The proposal would be in compliance with the comprehensive plan and would not adversely affect. the neighborhood or the. community as a whole. Therefore,. it is recommended that the City. Council approve the preliminary PUD planand rezoning with the stipulation that a-common element residential subdivision plan be developed and submit ed for city approval.... To accomplish this, it is recommended that the council give first reading to the attached ordinance and schedule second reading and the public hearing on the rezoning for October 28,1985. II. Variance It is staffs opinion that the proposal.-provides sufficient amount of recreational space for the development of its type:. and size. However, because the variance request does not meet the three .conditions for granting a variance staff must recommend denial of the • variance. ~3- PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commmssion~'unanimously recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development Plan. and rezoning~subjert to the stipu3ation recommended by staff. The commission further recommends that the variance to the-recreational spare requirements be granted (7-.1 vote). Respectfu y ubmitted, 'v~, oh~i G . Car wr ' ht City Manager JGC/eja BILL NO. J ORDINANCE N0. AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota defining the boundaries of the various zoning districts of the city enumerated in Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.28, Subdivision 2 of such code is hereby amended. in the following respects: Appendix C is amended by adding the following new Section ~ 8A. Section $A, Planned Two Family Residential (PMR-1) 1. I,ot_1 Rae Addition according to the plat thereof located in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota Ali, that part of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24 in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, described as follows, to wit: .Beginning at apoint marked "Judicial Landmark" on the east and west quarter section line of said section distance 410 feet west measured along said .line from the east quarter corner of said section 28, thence south at right angles to said east and west qcarter section line 74.6 feet to a point on the original Military Reservation line, which point is 83.5 feet SEly measured along said reservation line from its intersection with the east and west quarter section line of said section said point being marked by a monument marked "Judicial Landmark" thence South 79 degrees .38 feet W 140.14 feet to point .marked "Judicial Landmark" thence South 7 degrees 10 feet west 115.44 feet to a point in the traveled road; thence north 71 degrees 32 feet west 405.09 feet to point of beginning of the tract hereby to be described;, thence continuing North 71 degrees 32 feet= west a distance of 1.40.53 feet; thence north 13 degrees east a distance of 165.9 feet; thence south 83 degrees 50 feet east 140.9 feet; thence south 13, degrees west a distance of 196.11 feet to point of beginning. Lot 6 and 7 Rae Addition .according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Hennepin County. Lot _8 Rae Addition according to the plat thereof on file or of .record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and .for Hennepin County (also known as Lots 1, 2, .and 3 Rae Second Addition). 1~3-~ Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1985. ohn n J Hamilto , Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ~3-9 . ; MR-1 Requirements ; PMR-1 Requirements. ; Proposed. ' ' Maximum ; 10 dwelling units/acre ; 10 dwelling units/acre X7:92 dwelling units/acre; Density MirumLm ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .Setbacks: ~ ~ ~ ~ Front ; 30 feet ; Not Applicable ; 30 feet Rear- ; 25 feet. ; Not Applicable ; Structure: 25 feet Deck:. 15 feet • .Side ; 10 feet ~ ; Not Applicable ; 10 feet ~ ~ ~ ~ Streetsde; 15 ,feet. ; Not Appliable ; 15 feet i ' Floor Area Not Applicable ~ 31,389 sq. ft. ~ 11,493 sq. ft. Minimum ~ Open Space Not Applicable ~ 65,844. sq. ft. ~ 80,474 sq. ft. ~ ~ ~ ~ Minimum ~ i i t Livability; Not Applicable i 40,589 sQ. ft• i 45,283 sQ• ft. Space Mini Recreation Not Applicable ~ 4,420 sq. ft. ; 660 sq. ft. Space ~ i Minimum ~ off-street; Total: 20 ; Occupant: 11 ; Occupant: 16 P~'~ng i i Total: 13 ; Total: 35 ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ 1Vjaxi rmnn ~ ~ ~ ~ Lot ; 25~ ; Not Applicable ; 17~ ' Coverage ; ~ Minimum ~ , , • Outdoor ~ 60,.000 sq. ft. ; Not Applicable ; 80,474 sq. ft. Open Space ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ Maximum ~ ~ Height ; 25 feet ; Not Applicable ; ~ 22:5 feet % ~ t i . - . - - : - - - - - ~ .lit-1 Requirements - - - - i . _PNgt-1 Requirements ' : _ _ -Proposed - - - ~ - - _ - - _ -i ~ Minimum ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ i Floor Area., , ~ ~ ~ 2.bdrm. ~ 800 sq. ft ~ Not Applicable ~ -906 sq. ft. ~ i i ~ 3 bdrm. ~ 950 sq. ft. ~ Not Appliable ~ ~ 1,246 sq. ft. ~ ~ Minim~un ~ Building ~ 22.5 ft. ~ Not Applicable ; 36 feet Separation; ; ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ i i ~ ~ i i • o..... ~t7~' .ai.1"'~"L~AI~d'~ w~ ~da4aN dr+a1 ~a..~.µw~ ,.t«r.,y VSdi~ . Nay F"W ~ 3~ . - - C9 1.»b~Mi N'~iYi ~ ~ • ~ pJ ~101,7tq.~?p, i~w11'+v~+~ ayh?7d~ • s~v~b4ii ~ ~ " w t-~v"~ N~~s{~•~wi~ 311 1.iw~nw~,~n~~i x~x~ ~ . _ N ~a - ~ - ~ ~ _.~9arl~C~j.-° ~ `yc_ ptrl°~--~ - -~-..148r ~ _ - Y.._ +a ~ ~ ~ M • ~ W~d1N~ ; h.vdu~~.al ~••~l N[iJIAM* • ) ~ ` 4k~4---~,Y ~ ' , ~h~~,~ - ~ 4 . M' + ~ 7L " ' rl x»+N'^V - '7NhvMQ ;BLS ~ ~ ,,dr p ~ ~ { aim s k' -t. .,~l+~.g,~ .e. qN ; . iKM•".7'f• W?N~~wbf"I 'a.~ya4~r~~ 1)I"'N • • ¦ ' :~t~- ~r/A~l ~O~Nl'VIN I~YNYYi ~'7.N~~N ,O'9 / 7?.IYN/el - 7y 3 -"""'"1 ~ < ~ ~ Jam.-~ a "b a ~9 ~ .b,,~ ~I}ate ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' vs ~ t T . ~d lC7`~ - ~ ~ • . ~ ~ ~ N ~ • ~'3' ~r x ~ ~ ~ r ~,t~~; 4 ~r> ~ a ~ C ~ ! s ; • ~~t ?f i•, , r ~~=j '~,^+4r~, iti • a ~H~..9 l~~ji~ , {J ~ I Li~~ff ! 1 ~ ~ t Nib a 3 ~ IN { / . i L w _ ~fi 3:3 .../r? ! ,r. ~ ; lei i/~.'~~ , =t fi ~ ' ~ ~ , "r ~ V .au~ / !t ~ t",~''' 'fit v ~ * 3 ~ ,,y ~ r , ~ ,r! ~ { ~ ' ~ ` 0 ~ ~ ^iM~ ~ tom" M ~ ` • I = . . ~ i' at ( f~: .Q J s ~ ~ • v ~ t j 1 ~ ~ r . Nt~+W ~cX'a~31+~'~! g~ E---- ~"M " ~ ~-r~ _ _ _1 _ ir. .~',:r,7X"~1 tl M~~"' +Yt ' ' ~ apt, r ~ ~ \ r sat N,..+ np _ ~ e1N~ 'ti h Z ~ ~ . ~ . '1 ~'1~~1 ,,M,~ t+" .illy 'fit ~ . ' X: + ~ ` . '~Ai~ - . ~ j . . ~ . " ~ :.,A . - r~ - - _ ~ f, pith ~ ' _ - ~ •r AA ry..... , - - ~t . # w~n 1.. ~ . ~ ~ ~ tw~aN''V+1~'~ - ~ p'".'.°s.'ss+ " . ~3.~'! . - _ ..r - _ r.. - _ _ ..r • r+~-' ~ i•V r•' ' _ e i•a is• ~~~L ~ rs.N t1 o I 4 ~ 1'4' 'v~4' 0'•4' 6'-p' 's „?u, • y . m ~ ~ ~ ! ~-NIII[+1 ~ ~ fV•:WA tr~Okt1N ' ' L1-.~ l _ ye1w+r~ 4 K },~~7 • Y r . ...r.. • rte L, ~ N ' ~ (LP. ii.. ~...9 ~ ~ - MAN 11 r, 1; RlDwlt r ~ ~-elf' a sYw 1r fu» M~ ~ Fww,~ ,•--„--i t •b' ~b~ .4'•Y t ~ 7tY~-. 1•~ _ ` a'~~ d , f- t40. t 0 fJ•nf~l .16 - l+PIJtd3 ~ 1 ~ i ~ 1 _ 3 1' 1~ 3 3~IT l+ac~ncrn-t ~1^ 4 - - a~e_ y~ ~ ` ~ ( '1~.'1~ij'u'Y c. I 1 [ `w~~Nst M tywr t 1 row. ,r.t •I Y p'b' 1>-c• V•4' ~ I.icualil _ ~eii+ :what Ias.w.~ L sbp t.Wtf f~lcs:1' flax CtM1 lY.IIT'b' f`IR~,~' fl•c~ ~a I.luli '~'~r•~~~r-w Ft.~ I't-au G1 La~liu~••1'd ('Iota) k/ta.~'•Pn(rN•:+ +:wnlc•1y.~ro' (b~W) ' V LC~f•~'LTf;! ' • i - fµfre. • ~ • PI(Hi 1 ...yy QQ 1'" ~ w1orW !i ~ I ~ - I \ .r _ 1 ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ r_"'~ 1 . • - I [t:~.Mn'rt .lam , ~..lY )N f~,rwtt a ~ 1 4,• w•4. 1 I i__. _ L•~ I ~ 4'Y• ~ Nii . ~~•I.I K. •wwL.t.b •r It• I t2t,Mr r / •~tr. t. 1 I I N~~i I •-•rAN4 ~ i ~ . •r-r•t ~ '-+r,Y•.~ py ~.w.!N _ r 1 { 1 , I r - C.r.-..1i•tM}. ~ ~ w~rxs k1TrNG•t VrtMrly - ~E 1 ~ ( - - 1•K . 1 1 ~ ( tb•~ i~ti N:y a-•_' ~ 1: ~y.s. - ~ ,}[y-~ f.w'.r•a. _ t• COcI•~v:+lt ~ f I ~1 1 1 Z J, t ^-~•;.tE:.fi,{. (j r/M M'Mi : f • Y.YM'~.•1 1t~~~t L L I t •-t}~ ~ I urr.irr tfi - - - -~_l ~ ~ ~~k?•~ !'~-1C : ci.. ar.rrw•rr.. ~-y.r, 1 V w t _ f.. 1 31 Y 1 ( ~J?lW ( ~ytbt~}~ 1 nr - ~t t ~ , n+ ~'a I ~ i E I / ~ . y ' 's•rwr w.~. wa. N+ ttl ~ww N .t,+pw1 ~ rMb iM, a NL..' WU• • w0 It :~N6,, - \ •x•. t • WJI['•1 ~'-~'~•~~~(.E=~WC~ 1 Ft~•M•~''~ E~'ff~ 1 /asww.~ • V•4 . • ••°.es,~6 ~ N?b• /IS.. • 1~-0..~ a •t~•.l9 +t•~tn•' ef? ° •~,.^e ~ Wit!°~1' 1l ~1 .r _ .,c.u: ~ .r.: - - • 1~'c ~~._.~r._... 'x!. ~ ~ " -~t~+,• _ A~t~~~t~y 1 " `+-~3 , ' s• ' 4 ; ~ ~ y , ~ !C t t~ ~ ~ ;ALL t ti ~ ' t. 11~.t',, '°.i'! ~ t` [4'y~i t~' Ott t ~ y t ~ ` C Sti` ~ ! if ,i i ' ~ .SIR I',•s., li t j~~,~~ti.s is t` r ~t ; r 1 1 ~ _ ~ _ r 3t' ' t:e. p ` ' s H h i i t L~ a } ` } : ; ~'1 \ M ~,'i; S 1~ F HOB ~ ~ _ .f ~ Y y / y ijS < ...i Y . ' t ,l. 3i ~'.1 ~ s~ t ~ t .r ;~'~1 ,C.i.. ~ ~ ~ f'.~ t 1 F' ` . I . I ,..i+ _ _ ~ ~ Y, ~ . ~ t{ l., ~ _ } ~e 4•* `?.a~ ' _ CITY OF-RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA. - Office of Ci y Manager Council Letter No. 388 Agenda October.14, 1985 -The Honorable Mayor and Members of the. City Council City of Richfield Subject: Planned Unit Development, Rezoning, Special Use Permit 'and Variance Request for the CDR Project at 35W and ~+9~+ . Council Members: PROPOSAL _ CDR Associates/Minnesota Inc. has requested that the city council approve a planned unit development plan, rezoning and variance for an office/hotel .project to be developed on the site currently occupied by the Clover Leaf Motel at 35W and 4g4. The project involves the construction of a 26 story, 500,000 square foot office tower, a 400 room, 15 story hotel which would- ion-twin a Z00 seat restaurant, a 150 seat cocktail lounge, a 200 seat coffee shop and a 600 person meeting room and banquet facility. There would also be a 5 level, 1,600 parking ramp and 300 ongrade parking spaces.. Access to the .site would be via an extension of Girard Avenue on the west and south edges of the site and from the access to the new 77th Street commercial arterial roadway to be developed by the city as part of .the ILN redevelopment project: The site has an area of approximately 10.66 acres and is bounded on the south by the I-49~ right-of-way, on the east and west by Emerson and Girard. Avenues respectively and to the north by a property line 2~9 feet south of 76th Street. CDR own s..approxmately 3 acres north. of the property, but does not propose development on that 3 acres at this time. The existing residence would be removed. The existing trees on the north and east. portions on the site would be preserved to the maximum extent. Emerson Avenue would be cul-de-sated to maintain access to the Emerson Avenue Congregational Church and the apartment complex east of the development site. Representatives of CDR are working closely with the church. to resolve any concerns ,which the church may have. CDR has indicated a willingness to provide access to the church through the CDR property, allow the church to use CDR parking and to develop additional parking on the. vacated right-of-way of Emerson Avenue for joint use. CDR ~a has also attempted to meet with the owner of the apartment complex, but-no meeting has occurred as of the~date of this • council letter.. The development will occur in two phases. .The office-tower and parking `will be completed first, and the hotel will be completed approximately six months after the office building and ramp are completed. .The site.:-is proposed to be rezoned from C-2 General Commercial to Planned.Genesal Commercial (PC-2) ZONING -0RDINANCE.REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.33, sets standards for office, hotel and restaurant developments. 2. Section 3.34A, sets standards for Planned Unit Development. Districts. 3. Section 3.~O, sets conditions for. granting variances. 4. Section 3.41, establishes criteria for"issuing special use permits. OTHER ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.54,.sets standards for land-subdivision and • sets: platting procedures.. 2. .Section 4.05, sets standards for. off-street parking areas. STAFF REVIEW- I. Relationship to Ordinances and Plans The PUD ordinance requires that a 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 (C-2) commercial zoning standards and what would be required by the planned unit development ordinance. ~a -3 PUD Ordinance ; C-2 Zoning ; Requirements ; District Requirements ; Proposed i , i i ~ i i i i 1. Minimum ; Setbacks. ; ~ ~ `Front.: South ; Not Applicable ; 40 feet ; 95 feet ~ ~ ~ East ; Not Applicable ; 40 feet ; 70 feet Side: West ; Not Applicable ; 0 feet ; 60 feet ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Rear: North ; Not 9pglicable ; 10 feet ; 5 feet ~ ~ 2. Maximum. ; .Not Applicable ; 3 stories. ; 26 stories Height ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :3. Minimum ; Not Applicable ; 2,825 cars ; 1,900 cars Parking ; ~ ~ , 4. Maximum ; 247,253 s/f ;Not applicable ;749,000 s/f Floor area ; ; ~ ~ ~ li As can. be seen, the proposal varies substantially from ordinance requirements and/or standards in three areas.. First. is that there is substantially more floor area proposed than would be allowed by the PUD ordinance. Because of this, the variance is necessary. It is staffs ..opinion that the additional floor area is justified for a number of reasons. First of all the site is at an intersecton of two roadways (35W and 494) which have some of the highest traffic volumes of any roadways in the State. Secondly, the parcel is the largest remaining vacant or underutilized parcel in the city and it provides a last opportunity to provide. a substantial increase to the tax base of the city. Thirdly, the site is an important part of the ILN redevelopment district which i sbeing studied at the present time. Intense development of the site can help generate. substantial tax increment which can be used to finance the major roadway and other public improvements necessary in the ILN area. Finally, the cit;y~s Comprehensive Pian indicates that this area should be developed- as high intensity freeway strip uses. The second area where the proposal differs from city guidelines is the number of off-street parking spaces provided on the site. A careful analysis of the peak month and peak hour parking needs of the uses planned on the site indicates that the proposed 1,900 off.-street parking spaces should be sufficient for the use. Amore detailed discussion of this issue will be found later- on in this report and in the attached parking analysis. A variance would ,not be required because the parking guidelines are not part of the zoning ordinance. The third" area is the height. ofthe building. The proposed 15 story hotel and 26 story office building. are .considerably taller than-the maximum three story height of buildings allowed in C-2 general commercial districts. It is staff's feeling that the extra height is .justified by the sites' location adjacent to .494 and 35W, its separation from residential areas, and the mature oak tree buffer area being maintained on the northern part of the site. The extra height also allows the building to be less massive horizontally.. so than a wall is not created. The extra height also allows for more open spaoe and buffer areas to be maintained on'the site. The Northwestern Financial Center at 4g4 and Xerxes is an - example of a building of similar height (24 stories). The development proposed is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan a The city's Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site should be developed as high density freeway strip type use, which could include offices, hotels, restaurants and the related uses proposed in this particular development. The site is also within the ILN Redevelopment study area. . .The plans proposed have been closely coordinated with the planning being conducted by BRW, the city's consultant for the ILN area.. This site is an extremely important element of the Redevelopment area.. The planning that has been done has taken into account a development of this magnitude and scale occurring on this site. Roadway improvements are being proposed as part of the ILN project which will adequately handle the development proposed on this site, as well as potential development of other areas of the ILN. II. Availability of Public Services The site is adequately served by utilities including gas, water, electricity and sanitary sewer. Representatives of CDR are working closely with the city engineer and the city's engineering consultant to design the on site storm sewer system to handle the projected run off from the site and to not adversely affect the city's storm sewer system. '~'~_,;e is some question about the capacity of the existing sani~ary sewer lift station which would serve the site. CDR is working with city staff so that necessary lift station improvements can be designed and developed to adequately handle the development on this site, as well as the remainder of .the .ILN area. • ~a-.~ III. Traffic Circulation and Control. Access is provided from the extension of Girard Avenue and • from the major access road and from a new 77th Street commercial arterial roadway being planned as part of the ILN project. The traffic. study done by representatives of .CDR indicates that the project will generate 7,800 trips per day. They-indicate that 35~ of these-trips would be coming `from the. north on 35W and from the west on 76th Street ,:50~ would be_,coming to the-site via 494 and Lyndale Avenue and the remaining 15°6 would. be coming from the-east and north via local streets. The traffic improvements being planned for the ILN area which widening of Lyndale Avenue and its bridge over 494 to provide additional .lanes, median and left turn lanes. A new commercial. arterial four lane roadway with medians and turning lanes will be constructed along the-77th Street right-of-way. These improvements will adequately handle the traffic-generated by the project. The parking ramp has been designed to have entrances and exits on three levels to disburse traffic in an efficient manner. The planned 77th Street arterial and the looping of .north/south residentia streets north of 77th Street will help control the..commercial traffic and greatly, reduce. commercial traffic intrusion in residential areas. The development anticipates that the privateroadway along.. the west side of the property, which is an extension of • Girard Avenue, and. the private roadway along the south edge of the property, would become public. streets.. The final design of these roadways should be reviewed by the city engineering staff to insure that they are developed to city standards so that the city can accept them as public streets. .The project plan also indicates that a portion of Emerson Avenue would be vacated, and a culdesac installed on the north end of the remaining portion of Emerson Avenue. This cul-de-sac should be designed to city standards to insure that it can be properly maintained and used by snow plows and fire vehicles with minimal inconvenience. The applicant should continue to work with the church and the apartment complex to insure that adequate access is maintained to those properties. IV. Parking. As previously indicated, the number of parking stalls provided on this site falls considerably below what city off-street parking guidelines suggest. Parking for 1,900 cars is proposed, while city guidelines indicate that 2,825 should be provided. However, review of studies and. recommendations by national experts on the subject indicate that the city~s guidelines may suggest an excessive amount of parking for this type of development. The attached parking analysis shows the recommended parking space requirements for the uses proposed on the ~a-~ site. The attached parking analysis then applies these rates to the peak parking demands to determine what the maximum number of parking spaces will be for this develop- • menu. This analysis concludes that-the 1,900 parking spaces on the site should"be~sufficient. There are other factors which can. reduce these peak demands further which have not been included: in this analysis. This includes such things as the fact that these uses do not always operate independently on the site. That is, a , certain amount of the users of the restuarant and banquet facilities are also gue is in the hotel or that ..some of the users of the restaurantfaclities are also those people employed in the office building. Experts indicate that a 10 to a 12 percent reduction in parking need can result from shared parking in mixed-use developments such as•the one herein proposed. Another factor which .could reduce the parking .demand is use of transit and.ride share opportunities for persons who are employed on the .site.... It is staff's opinion that the methodology of the parking analysis is reasonable, and .that the 1,900 spaces should be adequate. However, it is staff's belief that the parking demand should be closely monitored to find out if the analysis is accurate for this particular site and that the parking ramp be structured to allow expansion in the future if additional parking is necessary. If there is a parking shortage the property owner should be required to • expand the parking ramp to meet the shortage. V. Light Exposure and Air Circulation The proposed development has been sited and oriented on the site to make the best advantage of the typography of - the site, to minimize the impact on the surrounding. neighborhood anal to maintain the mature wooded areas on the site to act as a buffer between the site and the surrounding neighborhood. There is sufficient separation between the structures on the site and adjacent neighborhoods. to insure adequate air circulation and. light exposure. The structures will have some shadow effect on surrounding property. The developer presented a shadow analysis at the September 24, 1.985, Planning Commission meeting. The effects of the shadow will be mitigated some what by the amount of separation between the structures and the near structures to the north. The orientation. of the buildings on the site also help to mitigate the shadow effects. VI. Nature and Extent of Open Space The project does provide a considerable amount of open space on the site relative. to the size of the site and the • amount of development on the site. Its use of tall structures versus lower and. more massive structures allows them to provide a Tot of open. space.on the site. It also a lows them to maintain a significant number of mature oak • trees which is a unique resource of the site and helps buffer the development on the site from the adjacent residential neighborhood. VII. Impact of the Project on the Neighborhood The project is a significant, intensive and tall . development. However, because of the sitesf relationship to I-35W and I-49~ it is an appropriate location for this type of development. The structures have been located close to 35W and 49~ and .natural buffer areas are maintained on the north and-.east edges to minimize the impact of development on the neighborhood. The buffer area on the north is a separate site owned by CDR but not .included in the planned: unit development currently being proposed. This site could be developed in the future. There-will be increased traffic in the area. However, as previously indicated the improvements planned as part of -the ILN redevelopment project will minimize the impact•of this traffic on the residential areas. There will be some shadow effect. Shadow studies completed by the applicant indicated that the worst ca a shadow. line would only go as far north as 76th Street. Some late. afternoon shadow effect on the residential area east of Rmerson Avenue and south of 76th Street can be expected. An environmental assessment process is also being i • completed which will determine the environmental impact of the project on the area. The office tower will ~i be up to 26 stories in height and will have a visual ' impact on the neighborhood. The architect of the project has completed sight studies to .determine the visual• j impact on surrounding neighborhoods. The sight studies show that the office and hotel towers will be visibile I, from residential property. The impact of this is, however, minimized by the distance of the towers from the residential property and the orientation of-the buildings. It is staffts feel~.ng that the project will have some impact on the surrounding neighborhood. However, this impact is being mitigated by the design, location and orientation of the structures on the site and by the public: improvements being planned as part of the ILN redevelopment area. VIII. Street Vacations and Dedications As previously indicated the final design of streets needs to be carefully reviewed to insure compliance. with all city. standards. It is also important that easements for utilities are maintained where needed when stree s are .vacated. Proper access to existing uses adjacent to vacated. streets also needs to be reviewed and maintained. • ~a IX. Plat The existing property is described. by a metes and bounds description. Theprcperty should be platted to provide simpler legal description. X. Variance Review It is staffs opinion that the. type of development being propo ed is apprcpriate and of benefit-to the c y. The property is unique because of its location adjacent to 3`5W and 4g4. Denial of the variance could preclude `reasanableuse of the property. Because of :the land., a development on the property to he intensity allowed by 'the-zoning ordinance appears to be economically unfeasible, and could be con trued to be a deprivation of substantial property rights. It is staff's opinion that he development (subject to the completion of the environmental review-process) is notdetrimentaT to the general public-welfare. It is, therefore, staff~~s con~l'usien that the variance request essential y meets the two_of the three conditions necessary for'granaing a variance. STAFF"RECOMMENDATION I. Preliminary PUD Plan., Rezoning and Special Use Permit. • It is st ff*s opinion that the type of development .and its..desgn is appropriate to the site and would be of " considerable benefit to the city as a whole as well as the°redevelopment efforts being. proposed in the ILN ;area. Therefore, staff recommends approval. of the preliminary PUD plan, rezoning and special use permit. with .the. following stipulations: A. That the parking .ramp. be designed to allow future ' expansion if parking demand requires additional parking on the site. The parking demand should. be close y monitored. to determine if there will be a parking shortage on the site. If a parking shortage develops, the parking ramp should be expanded to meet the parking need. B. Than the. on site storm sewer system be designed to control site drainage so that the cityts existing storm sewer system is not adversely affected. The developer. should work closely with the city engineer to insure that the system. is preperly designed. C. That .the developer-be responsible for improvements to II the sanitary sewer system which is necessary to handle-the. sanitary sewer needs of the proposed • development. ~a D. That the property be platted and that proper preliminary andfinal. plats be filed. for city . approval. ~ . • II. Variance The staff is of the opinion that the development is appropriate and would be to the benefit of the city,. and li that the three conditions for granting the variance have been met. Therefore, the staff recommends than the variances be granted.. III. Street Vacations and. Dedication s It is recommended that the City Council approve the proposed street vacations and dedications subject to the following; A. That the. design of the streets to be dedicated be reviewed and approved by the city engineer to insure thatthey meet city standards. B. That the proposed dedication of the extension of Girard Avenue be approved by the owners of Corporate Travel Center Office Building adjacent to the west. C. That proper access be maintained to the apartment • complex and Emerson Avenue Congregational Church after the portion of Emerson Avenue is vacated. D. That the cul-de-sac be designed to adequately allow the turn- around of snow glows and emergency vehicles. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission on a 7-0-1 vote recommended approval of the preliminary PUD plan, rezoning and special use permit, with the four stipulations recommended by staff, with the additional stipulation that the applicant agree in writing that it will add additional parking to the proposed. ramp if the city determines that additional parking is necessary. The Planning Commission recommended on a 6-1-1 vote to grant the variances to allow additional floor area and height. The commission voted 7-0-1 to recommend approval to the street vacations and dedications subject to = four stipulations recommended by staff with the addition of the words "if necessary" after. "cul-de-sac" in stipulation D. The commission also recommends that staff review. the shadow issues and report to the council. The council is urged to further review this issue before approval. ~a-~~ Commissioner Jensen abstained on all votes on this mat-ter because he owns property in the ILN awea. - COUNCIL ACTIONS NECESSARY ON OCTOBER 14 It is recommended that the city council give first reading to the attached ordinance rezoning the property to PC-2. The informatign-contained in this letter on the PtJD plan, and variance requests is being provided to the City Council at this time for purposes of presenting a comprehensive overview of the, entire development proposal. Second reading of the ordinance amendment shou d be scheduled for October 28, 1985. On Qatober 28, 1985,. the City Council will also be requested to consider the PUD plan .with the aforementioned stipulations and the requested variances. It is recommended that the nouncil take no action. on the proposed stree vacations and dedications at this time. These. actions can take place in conjunction with the council's approva of the final development plan in the future. Respectf ly submitted, John G. Ca tw 'ght City Manager • JGC/eja / 1 AMENDMENT TO APPENDLX C OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF .RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield enti- tled: "Boundaries of Zoning Districts" is hereby amended in the following. respects: I. Paragraph (9) of Section 3 thereof is amended to read as .follows: (9) That area lying .between the center lines of 77th and 78th Streets. and between the. center lines. of Garfield .Avenue and Interstate Highway 35W except that part of such area zoned as PC-2 and described in Section 7 of this Appendix C. I II. Section 7 of Appendix C is amended by adding paragraph (5) thereto to read as follows: (5) The following four parcels, collectively PARCEL 1: The West ~ of the East, ~ of the Northwest 4 of the Southwest ~ of the Southeast ~ of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24. PARCEL 2: The East ~ of the East ~ of the Northwest. of the Southwest ~ of the Southeast ~ of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 AND The West ~ of the West ~ of the Northeast ~ of the. Southwest ~ of the Southeast. a of Sec- tion 33, Township 28, Range 24. PARCEL 3: The East ~ of the Southwest ~ of the South- west 4 of the Southeast ~ of Section 33, Township 28, .Range 24 AND The West ? of the Southeast ~ of the Southwest ~ of the South- east a of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24,~ except that part taken for road and being described as that part of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter which lies Southwesterly of a line running Parallel with a distance of 75 feet Northeasterly of the /~-l following described line: From the Southwest corner of said Section 33, running Easterly on a line which would pass through the .South quarter corner of said Section 33, for 4069.1 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence .running Westerly along the last above described course for 321.17 feet; thence deflecting to the right at an angle of 90 degrees OO minutes for 1.5 feet; thence deflecting to the left at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes for 100 feet; thence deflecting to the right on a 10 degree 00 minutes curve, delta angle, 38 degrees 57 minutes for 389.5 feet; thence deflecting to the right on a 1 degree 00 minutes curve, delta angle 6 decjrees 32 minutes 18 seconds for 600 feet and there terminating. PARCEL 4: All that part of the East ~ of the West ~ of the Northeast ~ of the Southwest ~ of the Southeast 4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, lying South of the North 315 feet thereof, except the east 30 feet thereof. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1985. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Tom Ferber, City Clerk _ i 1~-/~ • EXHI.BLT A ~z ' LILTS OF TEST. CASES 1 2 3' 4 5 6 7 Percent of Percent Esti...~ ~ ~ Estimated Overestimation Savirt~s Singledlse 'Typical Shared Observed Shared' dross .Gross Zoning Parkng Actual Gross Parking Peak Peak Code' Peak Peak Peak Peak to Accumulation Requirement ACCUmulation ACCUmulation to to ~ Shared It~xed:Lfse Protect Zyoe (spaces! (saaaest (spaces) (soacesf Actual Actual Peak t. OfficelRetaif 5,749 5,858' ' 5,229 5,570 3°Je 6% 9% Z Qtttce/Retail 2.938 3.744 2.788 ~''S? 25 19 6 . ~ 3 Offfee/Retaii •772 900 8t7 633 22 - 3 25 4: Office/Aetaii 2,814 3,048.. 2,291 - 2,592 9 -12 2t . i pEffcelRetaii 162 196 154 154 5 0 5 B. Office/Entertainment 1,d58 1,879' 1,326 1,:163 25 f4 tt 7. OfffcetEntertainment 812 1,Ot6 714 464 75 54 21 S. OfflCe/Entertainment 1,M4 2,112 1,509 614 18t 144 37 Officeltiotel 1,145 1,399- 1,006 882 30 14 16 to OfftcslHoteilEntertainmes+i 1,627 1,933 1,323 725 124 82 a2 • - ~fticetliotel/Entertainment 1,238 t,452. 990 525 135 89 46 t2 QtffceltioteftEniertaintnent T84 882 659 809 - 3 - -19 OfficelRetaillHotel/Enter. 8,396 9,610 4,242 2,287 264 85 179 ta:OttlcelRetail/Entertainment 869 1,094 754 H00 45 26 t9 tS:OfttcslRetail/Entsrtainsnent 5,099 S,i57 3,755 2.889 78 3t 47 tB.OttieelHotellEntertairtment 2,588 3,188 2,183 1,498: 73 46 27 tt. Office/Hotel 1,125 1,346 743 -594 89 25 64 t=or this Calculation, the fopowing code standards were used: Office = 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GLA; retail = 4.0 or 5.0 spaces per ts:''• 1,000 square feet of GLA (function of site; restaurant _ 25A spaces pet 1,000 square feat of Gi.A; residential = 1.0 spaces per dweiting unit; hotel = 1.0 spaces per room. with conference rooms at 05 spaces per seat and convention space at 30.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet. :Using results from Column 3. ~,I: ~f- _ , ` \ ~ • EXHlBiT B . _ Table 8 REPRESI:NTATiVE PEAK PARKING OEMANO FACTORS Land-rise Unit Weekday Saturday Office Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA 3.00 0.50 Retail { 400,000 sq. ft.) Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. G1A 3.80 4.00 Retail { 600,000 sq. ft.) Parking spaces per 1,000~sq. ft. GI.A 3.80 5.00 . Restaurant- Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA 20.00 20.00 Cinema Parking spaces per seat 0.25 0.30 Residential Parking spaces per dwelling unit' 1.00 1.00 Hotel. Component Guest Room Parking spaces per room 1.252 1.252 RestaurantlLaunge : Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA 10.00 10.00 . - Conferenc8 Rooms ~ Parking spaces per seat' 0.50 0.50 Convention Area Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. fit. GLA' 30.00 30.00 ' Per one auto owned per dwelling unit. _ Factored up to 100 percent auto use from the 80 percent auto use value indicated by Table 4. 'Used by non-guests; the given rates thus are upper bounds, which are very rarely achieved. } pend3x). in using aspecifiic source for the factors, it is essential to know what season or time of year and mode of travel are represented by the factor value. This should be de- . scribed in terms of mvntfi of year (by land-use) and approximate percent of non-auto use {i:e., perceM of person-trips made by modes other than auto). - Seasons! Adjustment For demand analyses, ail parking #actors need to reflect- the same "design condition." Typically, the 34th highest hour has been used for highway projects. Simi- lariy, for development analyses, the. appropriate design period must be selected, i.e., the peak season for each land-use must be determined, based on developer data, other source, or study results (see Table 9). However, because the design month frequently is different for each land-use in a multi-use development, atrial-and-~~ ~ „r type calculation may be required to determine which month produces the maximum aggregate parking demand. The intent is to rec• agnite the "aggregate e#fects" of seasonality. This is the same concept as used to de- termine the impact of o#fset peaks on a daily basis. Using the quantity of each land-use, tes# calculations (parking demand factor multi- plied by floor space) are made to .identify the controlling land-use. On this basis, a de- sign month is selected. Each parking factor is then adjusted to the same month. For ex ample, if December were selected as the design month for amixed-use project, the re tail factor would be the normal peak, but the hotel factor would be factored to a value less than its seasonal peak. " 53 . ~ _ _ _ r Tame 9 tEPRESENTATIVE MONTHLY VARIATIONS AS PERCENT OF PEAK MONTH Hotel Hotel Rooms Rooms Hotel Hotel Month Olllce Retail Restaurant Cinema Rasldenllal Weekday Saturday Conlerenca Convenllon January 10096 6596 80% 80% 100% 8096 85'K 10090 2076 fobruary 100 85 75 70 100 90 TO 100 40 March 100 , 70 90 50 100 95 80 100 80 Aprll 100 ~ 70 90 70 100 ~ ~ 100 ~ May 100 ~ 70 95 70 100 95 B5 100 100 June 100 75 100 100 100 i00 80 ~ 100 100 July 100 75 100 10D 100 100 100 100 ~ 50 Aupusi 100 75 85 70 100 100 100 100 50 Seplempe~ 100 75 ~ BO 80 100 05 90 100 70 October 100 75 80 TO 100 ~ 85 90 100 70 Novomber 100 80 BO 50 100 85 t10 100 40 ` December 100 100 80 50 100 85 85 100 20 Tabte 10 REPRESENTATIVE HOURLY ACCUMULATION 8Y PERCENT Of PEAK HOUR hotel Component Oiilce _ Retail Restaurant Cinema ResMentlaf 1nonC80f Residenllaf K%80? G+,esl Room ReslaurantltAwtAe Conterenco Room Carvenllon Aroli Hour of Oay Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Salurdav Dally Weekday Saturday Daily Weekday Saturday Weokday Saturday OaI1Y QaOy 6•AO A.M. 3% - - - - - - iW% 100% 100% 100% 90% 20°~ 209'° - 7:00 A.M. 20 20% 8% 3°k 2% 2% - 87 95 95 85 70 20 20 - . 8:00 A.M. 63 60 19 10 5 3 - 79 BO 90 85 60 ZO 20 50% 5096 9:00 A.M. 93 80 42 30 10 8 - 73 81 87 55 50 20 20 100 1p0 10:00 A.M. 100 80 89 45 20 8 - 6B ~ 74 B5 46 40 ZO 20 100 100 11:00 A.M. l00 100 87 73 30 10 - 59 71 85 35 35 30 30 _ 100 100 12:00 Noon 90 100 97 B5 50 30 30~° 60 71 ll5 30 30 50 30 100. 100 1:00 P.M. 90 80 100 95 70 45 70 59 70 85 30 30 TO 45 100 100 2:00 P.M. 97 60 07 100 BO 45 70 BO 71 85 35 35 60 45 100 100 3:00 P.M. 93 40 85 100 BO 45 70 61 73 85 35 40 55 45 100 100 C 4:00 P.M. 7T 40 87 90 50 45 70 68 TS ti7 45 50 50 45 100 100 ~ % 5:00 PM. 47 ZO 79 75 70 80 TO 77 81 00 80 60 70 80 100 100 I 6:00 P.M. 23 20 82 85 90 90 80 85 85 02 70 70 80 80 100 100 ~ 7:00 P.M. 7 20 89 60 100 95 90 94 87 81 75 80 100 95 100 100 I ~ 8:00 P.M. 7 20 6? 55 100 /OD 100 98 92 9B 80 90 100 100 100 100 1 i 8:00 P.M. 3 - 8i 40 100 100 100 98 85 98 95 95 100 100 100 100 j 10:00 P.M. 3 - 32 38 80 95 100 99 90 08 100 100 90 95 50 50 tJ • 11:00 RM. - - 13 13 70 85 80 100 88 100 100 100 ~ 70 85 - - 12:00 Midi - - - - 50 70 70 100 1 100. 100 tOD 5Q 70 - i ~ ~ ~ 1 l ~ J SNp~p PARKTI~ NEQUIRE'~Z pARKIN4 p~ NOtIR AOC FACi`OR ~ . PKG 12A`I'E . . . UNITS PARKING RATE {11:00) 1.0 3.0/1 aq• 1•~ 1.0 3/1 s9• ~t. Q60,000 sq. ft. Office (Assuming 9?~ Occupancy) 176 0.35 o.q4/room , 1.0 1.25/room qpO rooms Note1 0.30 3.0/1'000 sq• ~ 1.0 10.0/1,000 sq. ft. Lounge/ 8,5~ sq, f t Rest./ Coffee Shop 0.5 ~ 1.0 1.0 i 0.5/seat . &~?9ue tlMtg Rms. 600 slats 1,882 TOTAL 4- . ~ { lu I Fa--t ~A "1 1 1 Ip i ( )..,..1 i , Q I A - ~ A ~ t 1 ~ I ~ 1 Q I - p l I p 1 . p ~ ..1 ~[t I ~ p • Q, - : . { _ ( { I 1 0 -1 1° 1! A- .i t -Q-{ R p I -p 1 ~ p I 1 I .0 1 , i~ ~ { I { { U 1O...Q I I. i ~i 1'•. 1 1t7 i_pi ([1 1 ! .p.~ 1 1~..1.~1 1t] ? t ~ Q ~ a ( I 1 I ` I 1.. 1 1 1 ~ i ~ t. ~ GI i._.I__ ~ - , - •1_~_ ~ 1 1 f~ - i t I •--~.t _ ' ~ ~ ~~4 t./ ~ _ _ _a_ . ~ 1i~•-~` 7 ~Y/~ - _ T_1.. :p' o ' b+ p'•:p ~ Q ~Q a-' b-{ { p• :~ol 1 a _ t T ` ~ 1 rv - _ {..p ..1- { o I __Q t , ~ . ..p..l i ~ p..i i 1 . .1 , p ..1... { , Q I _...1 4 .a. ~ - - _ - ( p ~ ~ - -1 ! 1 1. - q 1 ..1. ~ ..t-l. ~ ~ ~ :p i 1- ~ ! ~ D .1.. p { , -"j_ . _.r t.. 9. - = 1. ) ; 1 - I ~ _ D, p 1 { , 1 p. . i l# ~ 1... ~1. ~ ~ ~ I ! I t~ l ..1 Q - 1 ! q - {:...q~ p ( b ~ _ I~ p:~;i"q 1 ~t ~ O._._~1~ i U' ~ ~ ( I ^ ~ ~ C1- { p I p I,,1 -p-1--p~l,) p.i..g~,1 t, _1--a Isra 10 1;F 1 0 _ - { `i '"1' -tf I ~ 1'p` -T- -/y~) -t~-~ { 7. i O.i + .~p ~ _N~ }}N 1~. j.~ _ ' I ~ -1- ! - ~'f~r - --.1 --1 _ ._1 ..,1. Q^ II. _D I_. ~_Q .1 ..Q. - - _-Oj•Ia _;--.t]. ( I~; p p-ij` ~ 1- Q1'I d .c~R7``Lj ~~i_.~ -~.1~i_~. - I•_[.. Q.(`q _a.{i~Q L..Q!~~o _{..Q.. p--{ _ - 1 o ~'\~~~p1 ~p .--b ~ 1 ( 1-~ -t- Q-i i-~ ) - ( _ 1 i..~ a--~I 1..~ ~ ~ p.it ~ _ :L _ _ ° .~.b.~. _ -1° I t- p- -i - d-t ? ~ a - ~ 1 _tl_ ~ a'l a ! i [ - a ~ _ { j ° j i ° n - , 1 - I a_ . - d i , . p ....ta .-i p -1- 1 F- q - q--1 p - • ~ _ p ~ •-p ! ~ q J. Q 1 1_Q_.l_ U 1,....... • 1 ~cu• s~. _ I ~ _ ~ r_ _ ..r "T i_ T ~ T p ~ t O _ o 1.~ _p. ~ i o -r _ o _ i.. { to .n.. Ui ~ p ..l Q~I f a f -a l I D I-. .4-~ (o ~ - Q-f Q -I cl-I Ip-.+ ~o• Fa ~c~ { It - ! - { i .q -Q.1 I Q . I- ,p 1 i p . _ al-{ {"q i]-t ~o. _ fa - ci . . a-{ i o- -4.. i ~ -.jQ : . s q r - - ~ ti p a +.r~_-_..w.. - 1~ a O-- a q p q 0 0 ~ I { a { I t 1 t? i { ~ ~ - p--1 (~.p~-{.~pa I_~°.-I. Q_I ~0~--•q! {Q~ ° ._p. n_ _.~~-IQ..-tom. , { ~ t-_ . - p 1 { q ~ p 1 I q~ ~ Q { {+q p1 i L.p p,_~ {-Cl •Cl 1 ~ p , ` 1 ~ ,..r,' ~.~,r .,,,,,I,..yy ."T ' 1~ ~ 1 U ,l - •IJ 6SI _ ~ _L - IL t, ' ~ 1 i..J ` _ Ca ~ ~ ~ ~~~x,~a~ It ~ ~ ~}Y~5 n_~1-~-- 00 ~ ti~4wr- p 1 { { a...~.r..r..... ..ice - ......r....r...,... ~ .r...wrr..w~..r.rr~.rw~...~.rrr.....r...w....n.+..rrrr.r.r.~..rr..rr.rr....~.w.~ - ~ t 1' T'I'-` P~C~SPi ( Peveapment Proorem ~ ~y~ Mwbp.~ri wr• PubUc Improvements v"'~ a flD~'~~~ ~~~~v~i~~~m~i,~~ 1'1orlh figusa ~"'Y! am ~ floaOw.F in, ~ Int• tand.c~p.d BufIK/Yaw/ ~j1-' ~•.•R,..11 ~iird~ g~Wp~ INIOMina Foul Ar~• Mnpor•nNtd• 'V ~?~ro~rement Pla?n~~'` .~~e~~rQp~~ _ ~ ¦ ) N.M wan.l in.l.IbUoA NNrN~ YMMOr.R7W.h~M QIi7~.lIW1 • \~J '1Pu1iMw td r~.7e'^~ry ShsN.c. . r il~~~~,~~ - l 1m,, , nr. apcoY..uee.m.a.•~i.a City of Richfield. N~innesole ~ ~ • ~ ~ , 'J . - - - ~ . . k _ • t } ~ ~ ~ 1, r ~ • _ , ~ ~ i> _ ~ ~ .......::............:.......r:.~: yr F.• r. n...x•::.:..• : .............:nr:n.... ........::.:.........v ':ryn`:•:•-:..:r:.•i.•:yv. i•.}•.}•. r.:::;.:4?~•.?::r ff4:-:,r.•v".' ......:.................n:::::::: }••::n;::::; :.}:}:.:ice'.}:::. n . ..,f.: .....r :v: hn}: .:..::n•:.v:. ~ . n v:.:v: ;w.vr; • nv. ..r.•r}'?.}}}:4:'n}:{44}}:{{Ji}k{:.}}::::!?.}i}•::::.~:.n:.v:v:::::nv:::~:.:::::.. >v.r:•::v: ~::::::::5v::i.:.ti:. 4 • { }::{v.,•?}nvn.:n}}}2:i•:,,'-}:ti•}:?•:•:-}:{•x{?.}:•}rti?y?i::i:::::i$:::';:r:-'•ii•:.}i:•}:•i;-}}:•;ri}:~i: ~iii:ti ~i::ti}::i?ii:::•{}'.}y:.ki:-:`:: xn. r... nv n.,r..•. •:F:::; vv:.:nw::: nv•.v::::: n::w:{?v}:}}}v:n::n:nv •::.v.•.:v:x• is ~ ~ n., x. :}..::.:Y i:. .:.vnv:.:::::::::::: ' n}}}is}'v c•F, •.:v n}}I??Yi::?}:}{: r n?.•: : n•.• :.::::::.v: n: v.v.w:: n• J:v,v:...; h....,:wa::::: iy.}v-: . nv:::•.L.::.: F.: n..: }}:so:•}::•:}'.}}•-'{:.w:::.•.~: ; v:-}}:6:•:-•}}v:. x:::: nv:::::nv::::.:: v. v.: , nVx....n•..n?•}i}Yiv r.}}: }:,•..x.}.v r}•.v:: v}+C tv.:.:.:'•:3:'Y:.......v........ e.......::. n•.v:: .........::..:...::.v:.:::.:: .n : Y....::...r m•:::-• r ...vv. n++•.;•: F:::::.v{?v }:v:.}}Y4}.v:. n...... : n.:K::Y::•:: k::j::•: n. n...-:n ..v...{ . ....:n .h..... :.:1.-: x..v:}. ..........--v.......... .?.::y.:..........t•::?vw::: n n n.................... .vfvn•: n:.._:.:: n ~::?i•:r v.; ~ .nv. ::::::.:...........}}::::.v.{•%?{:ice}:'.v}:v}}^:i::.:r; r.::: :...::.r....... .....n.... n..h.:... }:,a... ......n r. n.....::....•r..., r. . n{S r. e . nv : r. i.x .n.n... .}..,...t:::.:... r::n.,.nn... ..?v.}:nY.\.^.......n.....:.x, .x ::..v::: ~::•....::v ;{...w... .........n . n.. v....... w :.vx{•}::.:..{v...vv.:v::::: x4::.vn .Y ..{v.........n :...............}...........v. ......v........... v.7' i{. .............J.:...vnu;?.::: v:.......... x.....:.+.v.v:; •8qw{`,:::: }i:v::: .v}....... x.:v.v::: n:•.•:.vw:..••:.••rn:n-. .nv:. ..:x... •.v.: n:......., :i,. r,v.: .v n......... .vi....v. ~::v'i Kv::Fkti{f:::::i n..:::::: v: n.. .{.}:•::YS. n r..1..vr.vx.. -..t \ ? .r$n.......{,v n.h.n.n..n..r r. F. ...+,r .....,v4v.....:..nn. .n n...• .v:v•:::•}~......:.vrn•:-xvF•n•:::.:;::•:.v:n}•.}.:..:•: x:n:nn::.v}::-~.::::::}::{•::{v r .,h:n :..fJ:.xi'{I' - .,S<: r:•kv}:{?- .;CgVr. vn f...t..n ::.::v v: •.:~:-:.v..Y ......r.. .x ?:^.v ..:t, . ...4n: nW r. h.:: -.•.{.n. Gih•:. r. n...,•l.:...f •o:}:}}:::.... •::w: v: n.'t..,:.,.:.}.rFr•{•`;} : ...r. . sny'•.c•s: n.; ..ter:: .:..r:......... v:. kh . { ::t x:}v.. .:.h r 4.... v.. {?...v:{: nfi{:. r :v:4 •::f:}.v; h••. ...?::.v:::: }}:::::{,v:: }:•.::i}}:}ii}:n•v:y.f..:n ::ri:-: xiv: ,Y•:::: •{.?,+9::: n•::v.. ..Y.+', •,§"•:x .>{{:Y,.r{. .N.: ::r::} : }nvn•: r:ii .F. f:::.v.{{, ..h ais.. hw.l.,.: n:: :ns ..r:.: ,•r.~n,i!.n„c ...t,.. n•.,..,, ax ...tr .a.. .t .c....?..........•S.•.; s"?.:. {.n:+f..: : .:n ..F •:F.::.: F•: .}r::._:... x. r..st ..n .?Fh.kt x, t fF. Y } ...........n. ,........::n,•}. .a. ....t .x:.:.:.:::. }}•;.;,~{s:•:}r`:}::{:a:. 4v'C:9~`.:5~}r:. ^-.j•'q{v}. v •.WC '~h h•..:}. 4 . l-. f...' •.v .•n• FFn. nFi.' Y?•ti•... ~ .n. .~C..xiiv:}}••y•ii7Kkt:-:ri••v.}}}{4:::{Cknk?:::::ir:}:.::vvo:t%},y4 <:`~:2;s:{; { s. fs: v} { •}...:.n - Fa:, • ac•}••: '.F{: F?..:..; .:}r.•••.an•:.}}:•:.:x`s,;:.: F 't ;5 nc~...:~~-r `~•+•J' £{rr. .,•yk.. ; .<s:{s ::.?.}:}r;.?~nF$+c,....}:.n,,: . :.}!!4...n s. sh• ..:2-};. ..;c'... .:.::x n.t}.:} „ vnn: F•_ :4f 3:.: { FX:. yn•. ..:..:..:-•.:.:.+.,y..: Kt: r,k:4{•:-•: , -..vn :h•- ,n.:; F--.........,>r:: nrn•v:%:::.vv: . FB..}•Q'i'::;~::{J}:J. 44 vv .v. 4..x:v}nn s r.:.. s .'fF..,v.. n. yr /.•.v{..f•}. L.w• •xrx ..:::::r ...:....V}..:: .:?..~.•.i:ir•:i?{:n v...... : ..nin.~.x?} ..AwC... f. . n: }t,`vt{•.i.W,... }n . F h nNY. X nh.. .vv n.; ,},hr{•:: n.... hn r.. n.. }:v::-'.{:: r[.w iv'r: ,::,..:~n,•::}:•>: s• Y- r<h;..~"-.....t•:..} S. nS•.~` i+r .•M. fsk`LC n•.: .o•::, .rh:.{•• ,:.c:.,.::: }::fis:F .}t., n....-.: {{{as.. t-:c••}r.•-+~.•.., F. :,......:,...rn.... 3~;.~.. :n.....a:., }.n,n.::. u.. .a... .n Snr •t ^s.:••::•.?2R . ...t}.n,••. t......:a:•:{V.n n,•. .,v:~{`{y ,w.... K k .h::,::: n:.?,s.. a. s.• ` ...,•::.F;.;?x:::;:4;>e:;::.`{;}:;`.:`::5.'-:2 { :h?:.:. n•,.....•. ,.n•:r.:.£cvi. } t,1: F :?an,a,:'t• f.t^}- ~ :.x{.S;>{: t:.}x:)?7c}.:ch ..-}{.q :~:s'r.::::~ii'ti- ry .::?,:;Y.k'.:•._.. :.:n.}::.,.::.....;. `Y{„ .......,c -fc...... •r::.: 7 t.....v _ rkrr•2 r::}. ~}a.2..?:"fii:,}.....::•:. :fin~~yp{~..+. •.n f;.3 n #•`•{.•s>: r.{::n• ....°t,},. > ...s::n •.~r..: k{...:s , , .:x:::}:.. W. .Lr{ . r •:,•{::.:.r., X. K.}? na•?, •nk,.,.r.••.v,.. }nt.,} M-:•:{o::::.:.:.?.. ~_.,{.:•va'••::.. n `i .:.<,;•}::•}:'t~x.::•:..:n,•:r:.}..: .?,-.•:f sn.:,.,:.: ~.;,v{h ~.N.n.+c{f :::v .a{. ~?.r., •x.,.x } r..S{ ? •n..F wrn..{;.:::{t?.,n:.:n{.•::: x::: '2 .s :.ts..t~.: ~:?{h}:},}E:F.'~x.},{:;:}: •.?:;s•}:,{,,. % t..:.,. >F.} ,}yf.n ::Pt Y. ,.:<;•,y4~C;v', n..}, r'c ~`}h••,?4,?rr 3., n.,..,{-,.; }v,{nvn.::.: r:•:: x}.t: n}}v{::n: a.}.F . .I~ ~J$ n rx: T. •?•nw•. :h?: },•ti': • ~ v: nn.{.{{n. }W}..?•,'}v, S, :4 \ : •\v: vv .4 ?:f.F.v}f.:. ::.:4r: 'v i .:v :p v :n.v .}}ca~~sU6tlEtY~-~if~.....:..~i~~~aW~~~•tti:.rt~"rs39Q0L3Ab'~V""~'?S'as?1.. Sir~;;,~ i...::'i ~,ai~aa6s?'.ic:.; a..a}iX`'?•5'!~} ~ ?~kc'ire""a`'41d:%„2~::::odcs>vixaedaa,::o-kFSWrvoo3fCta2,`.«+to%~# - SUlLDiNG SE~?~~N THROUGH S~ 1 • CDR 1NVESTME~ITS RICt~F1Ei.D. MiNNESaTA KCHSUNSKY KRANK EI~ICKSL~N ARCHITECTS iNC. ja:~~, . _ -,r ~ } ~ ~ bth ST'S . f- - . - ^ ~ 4~ i ! 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ . ~ ~ PARKING R.IMf 1 _ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ , t E- ~ ~ f~1CE BUiLDiN~ ~ .i?: ~ ~ d li c ' r ' F~ ~ ~ i .cam ~ i 1 ..ti t I _i....._ - ~ ~ I • \1 ~ _ w . ' . 1 `M1 ~ I. • \ • I • , / ~ t-494 _ _ _ t ~ ~ va0o c,~s . SNRF~ 300 CJ1AS HOTF3. 400 IIOOw~ 24f1.000 Sf . ~ ~ OFFICE 23 STORfE'~ S -.AOC - ~ 500.000 SF •i~r;:ic~::~F}1}1f35i?:~;*ft;trC;: ti?E t~'•~'lti5i:~~a.. yryt~; r••:;5 r y~~F/+~'•}Fi:••. •r~' rtiJr~ ~ '~:iki%~'Y`4r -Y' •A'~~1~• . YCrr,}.' v.C~• ;M~] y r rsG~• ~Xti:;:;•^~,v,~'{ .T ~ ~ SY.::~ F l ~ ~ v:;:r.... r ~ • 1_ r }s •k2~r'~''nS`{'{~;}: r~r:{}~:;.•. ~.•,rRr••.~?ti i ~ `}iY, 'tiffs ~7;. hh•,•'v}o • •r },LF{?:;:} • ' / v c e : r Frr.{y n }i.,• i }:1~ i.•{~}} 1 j.y:::f. t {;if:S;: :~Tf s71}:+~i. f : ~~:~:••v • y~ 1• :vX~:{ ~~4 :i$:i ~ i o ~ 11PART7~tT BtJ~.~a v ~ . ~ ` ~ • St ~ t PLAH . C~R l~~s~~s KpR~,~+i; KY K;RAAK EF~CS~CSN ARCH + c~T31NG Po~-,cx.0, MiN~E~T11 tai _ ~ 1 ~ .r..-°ss°` ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~k s~?'~ ' ~ 1 n, ~ ~ r i J~~..,.i ' r.- ~a:+ay'~ y .~.E~T~ tNC- D~CA~'~ P soca aRCr~ !.~?N LcK KO~SUNSx~ K~A~K N~ ~,,f A m ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ \ ~ ~ _ ~ ' ~ ~ • t ~ ~ t i! `y / v ~ ~ l ~ ~ , 1 ~ DNS ~~a~H 1 N ~ _ ~ . ~ , I _ a,ry} 2 1 1 - . ~ _ _ , - ~a~~ _ l 5~~~ P~~+ t ~ r~f 1,• S O r O' t Y A w • O M f Y? r• A S M O~~~M•A M A S O Y O t M A y 1 A ~ M~ ,~..r ~ ~ ~ i ! ~ ( ~ 1 I` yi f!at7iCT ~ . GRID ` T L }~ny~itOTl~t Calf, ~ _ l~MtT ~'SK9~ O[M ~ . J ~ PI~AiAttLtM CtF rms~as ots+0~ ctvSCtio~t ~ "T asar k .costs ~ + - r _ ~~„i-= ~ RfyAfAffOK d ~ ~.r . ~ ~ oOC~ i ~ - , ~^:r~.-- •el----'s_,'^_~ _ . - ~ ~ ' , ~iiE is L: STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAt.TSC~, INC. CaNSULTING ENGINEERS ~TlUN8POATATION t CIVIL s BTAUCTURAL ENCINarns ~ LAND SUBVEYOR4 z File No. 0850633 MEMORANDUM S'Os Ron Erickson Korsunsky, Krank,: Erickson Architects, Inc. FROM: Ferrol Robinson.~~ . DA?E: August 21, 1985 ~ ~ . SUBJECT: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR I-35W/I-~9~ DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. This memorandum summarizes the traffic analysis required for sub- mission of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The proposed dewel.opment, located in the northe~at quadrant of the I-35W/I-~9~ iaLerchange, consists of the folloxing uses: Office 500,000 square feet of GFA Hotel X00 rooms . ?he hotel contains the folloxing facilities: 200 - seat restaurant 150 -.seat cocktail Zounge 200 - seat coffee shop ~ ' 600 - person meeting roams and banquet facilities She proposed development is contained within a redevelopment area ` that is currently being studied by the City of Richfield. To in- sure c'o~nsisteancy betxeen the txo studies, xe met. xith. the consult- ant on the redevelopment proposal. (BRW) and discussed general assumptions cad proposed roadxay configuration for the area. On the basis of our oxn analysis and of the discussion xith the above. consultant ~ xe developed direction of approach of traffic and E trips generated by the proposed site. and assigned the trips to the proposed roadyay system. The results are shorn in Figure 1 - Direction of~ Approach and Fig- ure 2 - Existing and Site Traffic. 630 T ~ ~ Oaks Center, 15x00 Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata 1~IN 55391 (612) 475.4010 ; 1~ X10 . - . J Bon Eric3caoa - 2 - August 21, 185 The folloxing table shows. the assumptions used to determine daily vehicle trips to the site; z~ SITE TRIP GENERATION Land Use Ua3t Daily Trip Rate (3) Trips Office 500 sq. ft. GFA 10.9 per 1,000 GLA ~,g05 ji (~i50 sq. ft.. GLA) t 9 ) Hotel X00 rooms T0.5 per room 3.780 (3S0 occupied. rooms)C2) Total Trips - 8,685 Correction for Multiple Trips (10x) 7,800 L~~Ct} Assumes gross leasable area tGLA) is 90 percent of gross floor area (~Sa, sq. ft. GLA) . C~} Assumes a 90 percent occupancy (360 rooms).. f3} Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual ' As xe discussed earlier today, xe xill be meeting xith you,- City of Richfield staff and the consultants for the City to discuss the ' Zatest assumptions and conceptual plans for the. site as xell as the redevelopment area. It may be necessary to revise the results pre- _sented here to conform xith current pions.. s • S _FR/,~ al ~ ; Attachments ~ I~it~i1e11lII~ ~~~'sll`I`igl"ti Ail®! . o }~"~Ya~.~ rtp ~.L~ Ertl t h l~ . - •e?~I /~s `,.lJJvsw~91?~ck~sad4~d 'b6"~-~ rA~a?~'~ ~ ~ l„~I . • • •s ~ ~ ~ 11. ~ 11 ~ ~ ~ 111 1 I ~ 1• ' ' ~ 11~ 111 t. ! i { 1 r i - MI~O ~ i ~ ~M~ ~ - ~ "'''x}` u.M? •1•I+Np ~ IN~IMiI 1 _ { ~ ~ ~ i . e,~r~ p11 0 ~ ~ i 1 1 1 ~ 1 • i 11 1 ' 1 ~ i~ . ~ ~ r . i ' ~ . •urnal h•ne yux 1••M 1 . wwaao~'~~ ~1wwi1°~'I~aslwl ~il~ll,r,r, wl~li t~N~..9~~ ry.~~ . ~ i 1 io.,~M"~ j 1 1M•p1• - P'•~?d" goo•1' ~ I u•RI• 1 a•1 ~ 1.1 ' .1u i u~ ~ 1'1 1 1i. _irl 1 ui~~Itl i u, I~e 1 il~ . i i~S:s, . r' 1 ~ 11 i 11 II . 11 ~ iI , 11 1 11 , 1 11 1 h ~ ~ ~ I1 it . •S 11 .U. ~ 1 I 1 i ~ ' II ti ; it 'il ' 1 " 11 1/ ~I,~ ! + I 1 1 !1 i~ !11• 11 i it ~ ~ li 11 ~ i it i 11 I1 1 11 ~ ~ II 11 ~ 11 1 it '•i 1 _ .1 e 1 •I 111 I ~ I1 Ii ~ 11 II 11 11 11 ~ •1 11, tt 11~ U 11 it 11 , 1 e tl~ i ' I i 1 ! 11 e ~ I 1 1 1'1 .j 11 i l ' i 1 11 11 11 ~ !i •ViN u 1 11 t1;i' 11 , 11, i+ 11 i1~=i'i ~e - ,trru1 :•11 ~~i 1 ' 1 i li it i1 f ~ • I~MI~~ - 1 it •W 111 s ~?As~ • ~ • I ~ ~ ~i ,l ~11i 41 t,`= i~•~1 •i ,i i l . ~ ~ 1 11 li • it ~ ~ i U i 11 • ~ 1t ~ ~ ; • ~ 1 ~ . e ~ 1 11 ii le ! H e !11 ' t, ~ ~ , n it • lt' II , ~ 111 t • i l !f i • 1 1 11 11 1 i 1' I, ` 1! . ,11 1. ti 1 !11 ' i1 ~ ' h 1 11 1 ' it I.i i { ! 'i1 1 1 1 i1 , `'i ; 11 It + ~1 1 , 11 • .1.. ! 1f _ 1 i 1 I 1 1, ! Il 11 ;il il~ a~ it 1,,.11 1 it /1 11 ' 1~ 11 q tl~ .di 11~~~ir ~..~1 1 11~. ,.t ; 11 ~I~ i it pi,~ 1~~{~11 !11 11 ; 11 '!1 11 ~I ' 11 { ~ 11 ~ ~ 1 1 1 :11 , 1• el ~ 11 it 11 ~ 11 t 1 s ,1~ . ~ ~ • - 1 !1 1 1 ~t 1 ail e i IN i ~ f~ 1 11 11 U 11 11 1i ~ ii ,...r+tl ,11 ~ ~1t'..111 11 .,11 ~ 11 11 11 11 11 i_ li 11 11 1 t _ 11 I l i-~, 1 ~ ~ i l Ii i / . + 1,1 Ft 11 ~ 11 ' : 11 { t. ~ 1 1 i _ 11 11 , 1.1 e~ , i 1 1 I I. ,11'.11 1.1, a ;ii' 11~;~11 ii ~ 11~i il~ ~13 , ~ ~ ' ~e ii ; ~ i1 11 i1, ~1 11 111 11 11 1. tl 11 11 i 1 ' - 1 1' ~ II 1 • 1 11 11e:~ 11 1 11 ~ 11 ~ . , 11 1 111. { ( 11 1 i~ it . . 1 11 11 •111 1 11 ~ !1 e II 1 it . 1 1 i 1 it 11 f 1 tl ~ - .Y tiliwl ~'1w1 ~.13~1D5io81i11~ Ii1:~111':H}~- A1:.1 _ ` . . '1A'i '~~'s p q.~ Tt~~b•~„a.'31.Ir VN'd'"INLL~ IyI~• ~71~ .~i•e b1~71 ~ Y V • ,.Ltv'1w~/1~4.~So~lo~d.•~~ G-b-~ MS?~ ~ ~ [ i j Y V s 1' it { ! I. r ~ 11{ I I I 1 ~ ~ UI • ~ 1. hl+~t10 Mput~w~o k~~11- r ~O~ ~ 1 J I ~ f1~1~itI01g9~t ~ uha 11'~IIh { { ~ Y ~ I 1~ 1 1~ ~ + I~ti~~c 1. 1 I 1: 1 1 r t 11 .II i1 1 i Q ' ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ J 1 ~ ~ 111 r.~.. I _L..I 1 1 I ..I l f ~ ~ 11 ~ ( ~ I~ ~ t ~ 1 1 { ~ 1... t ~ •u m 1 oa I[ N~ I •1 ~ ~!!Alll~dltllL~~l1 tti'#tit~~tttlAl~ 1~~>~~ ~ 11lllll/tllr ~ I lu.waw!~.~ - •I It1 ~ ~ t 1 ~ (~;~i~"."_'{~oo u- I i., li o.pp 1 11 _ 1 I ~ ~ ~ 11•',u.. 11~ au I u~ rl ~ ,1 I I I 1 1 ~II ~ i IBS I • ~~i;i n I ii ~ , 11 . ti II tl ~ ~ i~~. ~11~~ I) ~ 11 ~ fl ~ ~ - I 1 11 (1 I {i 11 i . 11{ ~ 11 Ii 11 I !I ' 1 1. 11 1/ 11,! . it , 11 M 1 ~ I 1 { r, i ~1 11 ~"i~~ 1 1.1 11, 11 it{; ,.U 11~r 111, it I U,~, II r III X111 ail ,il 11~~ , i 1. li 11 11 • , u i 11 . 11 it it ! I) 1.1 H it _ . { 11 r' i ~ . ~ • t 1 U~~1 i 1• ' 1 ' it ' 1 1 I jl ~ 11 I'1 ~ , 11 11,! . U , 1.11 1 1 iI I . ~ ~ 11 t 1 i t 11 • ~ Ij hgloa 1 I~wl'I/+WI • I ~ 1~~ t ~ ,~1 ~ ~1 ~ I ll ~ .1 i l '1 •1 • ~1B 1 11 ~ 1 'r 1 ~ ! tt 1 1 I 1 , 1 1 . ~ , ~ .1 I 11 ~ ~ 1 { v 11 ~ ~ ~ n N . 1I • { ~ ~ 1(11- 111111 1 f an,.~,~11 i i 1 1~ nn { ~ • f~~ 11~ tl I N' .l n 1 •i ' 11 t.i 1 ~ 1 ~ •'11 1 cl i ~;y['i '.1 tI ~ ~I Y~~~~~ !~1'"' I;,1 11 ( ~1 y r1 { U I I I I~ 1 11 ~ : ~1 11 ~ 11 ~ I I /1; I f'i I.11 III 11 I 11 ~ 1 ! 11 11 ~ ~ N I~ 1~ , ~~tl 1 11~. I 11 , 11 1 11 1r 11 ~ 11,i-.r 11 111 11 11 ,.,'1 11 1 ~ 11 r { 1 1 i- ~ 11 i.~~~ 111 11« , ~ , I ii . 11 1 , 1~ I 1! it - 1 1 r~ it . ~.i• I 1111 1 1 ,'f•~~ 1~ 1' ii 11 tl 11 ii 1' ~ 11111 1 11 ~ 1 11 •Ii ' ~ t11 11 1 ~ It II li 11 11 1 ~ I-~ { '1 OV~~1~ 11 ~ '11 r 11 i jl II ' 11 • 11 11 11 l i ~ it f i II ~ 11 . 1 1 _ ; ~ ~,..,,r t, H 11 { t l , i (t n { 11 ~ 11 ~ 11 I f ~ ~ ~ i i ~ I t t l I) a : _ 1 I ~ t1 11 11 " 1./ I1 11 ; 11 ;;i i l • 1 1 r 1 1 y 11 ' tl I; I1 ~ I1 r ' 1 11 11 11 ~ It t1 II { 11 ~ ~ ~ ,tl , 1.1~; ~ , 11, 11 .'ll~' 11 a ~~.11 11 I r i ~ ~ ~ 11 11 11 11 , ' 11 11 it 11 11 11 11 ~ r ~ ~ it ; r 1 fl ~ 1 ~ 11. 1 11 11 1~'' li ~ 11 It I ' ~ 1 11 ~ it 1 ti 1 ii' s . tt~ 1?ti { ~ ~ I • ~7"~ttl~ i l • 11 r ~ , 1 ~ + • ~ii~tlt ~1/- I i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA. Office of Cit Mana er Y g Council Letter No. 387 .Agenda October 14, 1885_ The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject; An Ordinance Permitting Temporary'Offstreet Parking in Front Yards During a Snow Emergeni~y - Second Reading.. Council_Members: On September 23, 1985, the Richfield City Council approved the first reading of an amendment to the municipal code of ordinances permitting vehicle parking in the front yard-during a posted snow emergency. Members of the City Council have received numerous calls from residents that they do. not have space for one. or more cars on their drivewa or in .the arc a so that when. the cit Y g g Y declares a snow emergency they receive citations.-for leaving their cars on the street. The municipal code of ordinates provides that following periods of .heavy snowfall., vehicles must be removed from public streets to facilitate snow plowing. The proposed amendment to Section 9.03, Specific Regulations,. Illegal Parking and. Stopping would permit vehicles to park in trie frontyard areas of residential districts of the city during a snow: emergency. The parking is subject to the following conditions: , 1. Cars must be parked as close as possible to the driveway. if 2. The car owner must have the property ownerfs permission, 3. The parked car must be eight feet behind. the curb and five feet behind the sidewalk. 4. The car must not be parked off an established driveway in the 50' corner sight triangle. 'phis condition has been slightly revised since the first reading of the ordinance amendment to further clarify that cars are allowed to park on established driveways within the 50' • corner sight triangle. ~~a 5. Cars mu-st access the street at driveways and not over the curb.. Once the snow. emergency declaration is lifted by the city, • the vehicle(s)-must be moved from the temporary front yard location. It is recommended that the council approve the second reading of the amendment permitting vehicle parking during a posted snow emergency. The ordinance. will be published on October 23,.1985 and become effective November 22, 1985. Respectf y ubmitted, / ~ ohn G . Cartwr i~ght ' City Manager JGC/eja ~ AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER IX SECTION 9.03 OF THE RICHFIELD ORDINANCE CODE City of Richfield Does Ordain: Chapter IX, Section 9.03 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield entitled:...."Specific Regulations, Illegal Parking and Stopping" is hereby. amended by adding thereto the following new Subdivision: Subdivision 3. Snow Emergency Parking. (1) Findings and Determination: The city council finds that following periods of heavy snowfall when vehicles must be removed from public streets to facilitate snow plowing, there is a lack of areas in the residential districts of the city for temporary interim parking which do not violate the parking restrictions of the city. The coundil further finds that it is necessary and appropriate to provide for special rules which .govern parking of vehicles during such periods. (2) Definitions: When used in this subdivision, the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them: 1. "Permitted period" shall mean .the period of time when on-street parking is prohibited in a specific location pursuant to Section 9.02, subd. 11 of this Code. 2. "Covered vehicle" shall mean all motor vehicles except those vehicles which are subject to the provisions of Section 3.38, subdivisions 2, 4 and 8; and Section 3.38A of this Code. (3) Permitted Snow Emergency Parking: Notwithstanding any provisions of this Code to the contrary, it is lawful, during the permitted period, for covered vehicles to park _ in the frontyard areas of residential districts of the city subject to the following conditions: 1. The vehicle must be parked as close as possible to the established driveway area serving the property on which, or in front of which, it is parked. 2. Permission of the property owner must be obtained. 3. The vehicle must be parked at least eight feet back from the curb line; and five feet back from any public sidewalk. . it-~ 4. The vehicle may not be parked off of an established driveway within the area bounded by the street curb lines abutting said corner lot and a line connecting points on the abutting curb lines 50 feet from the point of intersection of the extensions of the curb lines. 5. Movement to~,and from the parking area must be over the established driveway area rather than over the curb. (4) Repair of Damage to Boulevard: The owner of the property shall repair any damage to the adjacent boulevard area by reason of such parking. If such owner fails, upon 30 days written notice from the city to make such repairs, the city may make the repairs and charge the owner of all costs, including administrative costs. gassed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of October, 1985. . John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Triomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ,CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager J Council" Letter No. 386 Agenda October 1~, 1885 The Honorable Mayor n " a d Members of the City Counci3 City of Richfield Subject: Ordinance Prohibiting Unnecessary .Acceleration - Second Reading Council Members.: Over the past several months, Richfield police officers have been ,attempting to deal with a traffic problem related to unnecessary acceleration (hot-sodding) byoertairi drivers on ..city streets. Additionally, the Rublic Safety Department .has received an increased .number of public complaints regarding this driving behavior. While such driving behavior presents some serious safety problems, it frequently-does not meet all of the elements to charge the driver involved with reckless driving. At the September 25, 1985, Richfield City Council meeting, • the City Council gave first reading to an ordinance amendment adding a new subdivision (Subd. 6) to Chapter IX, Section 5, which would make it illegal to start or accelerate. any motor vehicle with an unnecessary exhibition of speed on any public or private way. within the city limits, and scheduled second reading. and the public hearing for the October 1~, 1985, city council meeting. This ordinance is similar to an ordinance which has been used effectively in the City of Bloomington for several years. It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the city council hold the public hearing and give second reading consideration to this ordinance amendment at the October. l4, 1985, city council meeting. Respectf y submitted, John. G. Cartes 'ght City Manager JGC/eja • _ l0~ ANiENDr1ENT TO CHAPTER IX, SECTION 9.05 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter IX, X9.05 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to miscellaneous traffic and .motor vehicle regulations is hereby amended in the following respects: By amending §9...05, by adding a new subdivison providing as follows: "Subd. 6. Starting and Acceleration. No person shall start ar accelerate any motor vehicle with an unnecessary exhibition of speed on any public or private way within the city limits. Prima facie evidence of such unnecessary exhibition of seed shall be unreasonable squealing or screeching sounds emitted bv_ the tixes or the throwing of sand or gravel by the tires of said vehicle or both." Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1985. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk ~ Subd, 6. Application of State Law. Nothing contained in this section shall he construed so as to limit or abrogate the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 169.974.. CROSS-REFERENCE: See Chap. VI, Sec. 6.08, for regulations relating to the motor bicycle rental business and Chap. V, Part IV, Sec. 5.34 for regulations relating to bicycles. 9.05. MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS. Subdivision 1. School Safety Patrolmen. The chief of police may appoint school safety patrolmen, designated as such, who serve without compensation. Such patrolmen shall be appointed from the student bodies of public and private schools within the municipality. The chief of police shall also designate the streets upon which school safety patrolmen have the power to regulate traffic. Such patrolmen shall be subordinate to and .shall obey all the orders of any regular .municipal peace officer. No school safety patrolman shall function un- less he is equipped with the proper "School Stop" hand signal. Such patrolmen are authorized to regulate traffic of ali kinds on designated streets when they are properly equipped and act within. the terms of their appointments. Subd. 2. Unauthorized Use of Public Proaerty. No person shall wash, grease, or repair such vehicle upon a street. or highway, nor on any public property such as parks, playgrounds and school grounds, except when such repairs are necessary .because of an emergency. No person shall operate a motor vehicle.or other simi- Iar motorized recreational vehicle or equipment on any public property such as parks, playgrounds and school grounds except on areas thereon improved and marked for use as public off-street parking areas, nor shall any person operate a snow- mobile, go-cart or other similar vehicle on any publicly owned land, including schools, park property, playgrounds, recreation areas, drainage basins or park reserve areas. (1970-18) 5/25/70 Subd. 3. Speed Control in Alleys. No person shall drive a motor vehicle on any public alley in the city at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, and in no event at a speed greater than 10 miles per hour. Subd. 4. "U" Turns. No vehicle shall be turned around by making a"U" turn upon any street or highway in the city unless such vehicle shall first proceed to an intersecting street. Provided, however, that a "U" turn at any intersection on .any street or highway in the city .where a police officer is stationed, or where any official-traffic control device is located is hereby prohibited. Subd. 5. No person in control of any vehicle shall back said vehicle without ample warning and in no case shall any vehicle be backed around a corner at an intersection or into an intersection of streets or highways. (1968-14) 10/14/68 9.06. TRAFFIC ~~TnT,ATIONS BUREAU. Subdivision 1. Creation, The court having jurisdiction over traffic regulations within the city is hereby authorized pursuant to this .section, to establish a traffic violations bureau to assist the court in disposing of violations of traffic laws or ordinances. This section is enacted pursuant to. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 492. 5/25/70 ORDINANCE CODE 252 GITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO fA CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Co nc' r o u it Lette N 385 Agenda October 14, 1985 The: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield ,Subject: Variance.Request at 7508 Colfax Avenue Council Members: PROPOSAL The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority and George E. Branton .construction Company have requested. that the city grant them a variance to allow. the construction of a three bedroom home at 7508 Colfax Avenue. The lot in question is a platted lot of record which has an area below the minimum lot size required by city ordinances of 6,750 square feet. The lot • is 50 X 130 and has an area of 6,500 square feet. The lot meets the 50 foot minimum lot- width requirement, but is 250 feet short of the minimum lot area requirement. The substandard house on the lot will be removed. The house which is proposed to be constructed on this site is a front to .back split level three bedroom home with an attached double garage. The structure would meet all city setback requirements.. The site is zoned "R" single family residential. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.30. subdivision 4, Indicates that the minimum lot area for a single family dwelling in the "R" residence district is 6,750 square feet. 2. Section 3.~0, subdivision 6, lists the three conditions which must be met for a variance to be granted. STAFF REVIEW Staff has reviewed the proposal against the three conditions which must be met for a variance to be granted and found the following: • 1. That there are special•circumstandes or conditions affecting this land not common to other properties or similar districts. • The lot in uestion is not uni ue in sha a or size when q q P compared'to other lots on that block or in theneighborhood. It .can be argued that there is a special cirdums ante inthis case because the lot is a-platted lot of record and similar in size to other lots that have. been allowed to be developed in the neighborhood. Denial of the variance would prevent the property owners from developing the property in a manner similar to other lots in the neighborhood. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. It is staff's opinion that denial of the variance would not preclude use of the property. There is a dwelling on the property which could. continue to be used. However, the existing dwelling. has major building code violations and' does not fit the character of the neighborhood. If the structure was removed a new dwelling could not be constructed on the lot without first obtaining a variance. If the. variance is denied, no development could occur on the lot except open space and, therefore, no reasonable. use of the property would be available to the property owner. 3. That ,the granting of the application will not materially and adversely .affect the health or safety of .persons residing or working in the neighborhood and will not be materially detrimental to-the public welfare or injurious to improvements in ,the neighborhood. It is staff's opinion that the proposed structure will not materially. or adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the public. .The proposed dwelling would remove a substandard dwelling and provide anew dwelling on the site which would be in better character With the neighborhood. The proposal would be an improvement to the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the variance request be denied since the three conditions for granting a variance have not been met. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission on a 5-3 vote recommended that the variance be denied. While the commission felt that the project was worthwhile and should go forward, they felt that there. were no special circumstances present to justify the variance. The commission further recommended (unanimously) that the city council expeditiously amend the city. zoning ordinance to allow development to occur on substandard platted lots under certain • circumstances. Staff has attached a draft ordinancefor your consideration. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION • In those instances where the variant r e equest does no t. meet the three conditions:.contained in the zoning ordinance, which must be met for the granting of a variance, the city manager typically agrees with the staffs recommendaton for denial. However, in those instances where the Planning.. Commission agrees with the intent of the requested action, the city manager views the subject somewr~at differently. In the past, when - ordinance amendments-are proposed to allow the requested action, the. city manager has. recommended approval of the variance. Therefore', the city manager recommends approval of the requested variance and also recommends that the city council give first reading approval to an ordinance to change the minimum-single family lot size to 6500 square feet instead of 6750 square feet. This proposed ordinance appears on the agenda under the-section 'Ordinances-First Reading'. There are many to s in Richfield of similar dimensions (50' x 130') and' area (6,500 square feet).. It is, therefore, desirable for the city council to initiate a legislative remedy to those-situations rather than .compelling owners of these types of lots to go through the variance process with. the added burden of paying for two public hearings. It is particularly important that positive action be taken on-the subject property, in that a delay in the-construction of the new house at 7508 Colfax Avenue could result in additional construction costs of $1,500 to $2,000 for a mid-winter construction start. A delay in the construction could also jeopardize the mortgage commitment for the property as well as the ability to sell the new house to a moderate income family. Respectf y submitted, John G. Cartw 'ght City Manager JGC/eja • '75 ~ 8 C~ ~ ~~X 1.~~~..s b v t rl' ~ ~ o: ~ -i"Illi) T' G ' ~ ~ pwE~uN~ Na:~ ',11 j a i a ~ r; i =5vf~ouHD11JG,~ I ~ 3A' ~ I 1 I ~ ~ ~ I I I Q I ` I i ~ + ~ a~va~vkx _ ~ ~ I I I ~ ~ t I i t SO~~« ~ i . N'r• T Ir N'•1. ~ i+ _ t. li r rw ~ sole i 1 II H rh. 1 ~ _ • ~ Y ~ - - 1 ~ ,.,a"jv.1lA ~-sfll..uw ~ i i i ' 1 iJll Ir l + • ~ ~Ir!) i4 ~ 1'1/•S fl'a. ( I ~ . { { II, , I j .aaf ; r 2.L:LIiC'Lt~ ~ ~71114Y tVt ~ „ k.BUtl!t1 • f t 1 -fi ~ ~ 0 -,_:.....:<::L• 1: 1 , - - I 1. ~ - ..a•a _ ~ F w• I~IL.IW II.t ~ . .a i- q ~ a ~1 I ~ _ .1 1~ ~,1~.,,~'(~ ~ r UI ~ _ $ , .~~/«r - I q ~j L~In.:GY1 f - • ~ 1 ~ _ i - - L LILI?wi~7 1{'w. I ~ _._.r 1~ I ~ ~•y' ~ L:L• vyr ! 1 ydd (d J - , , ~ b 1.' J 1 aL• 'IS4 1 _ _ _..n''!'~.------I'.~~ ~i~ t I ~ 11.0• Tad + 1 'r - a _ - _ i ~ ~ f~: i f w1 :w.n _ . 1. - - - - i:.b' L ~ 1 i L~ rL-._r' ai ~-11 J •~dswu Y ----ti-'!f 1 I- _ - I' f 4 + 1 M A I l•N ~ ~:~f I 1 a 1 y'y, Q- a h-.M ~ 1 I ; < 11 r ~f. Rt 91 y ~'t 1. ~1~•..'y-r , aa.•;t~ M. ~l` ~ 91; ~ I 4 4'k.µf.~A J , I LbY:><••/~Art:V 1 C it -"1 P r.~ r• ~ 7 i v7 1 ~ I r 1I 1~ 'LN1, Lr1.W1 1 1 l* _ 11''1 11 ~JO••C• / _ ..._._r--- - ' fltlst•y;l rt . f•'i'1•fi l••fi ! I~lt4k./{V't ~ ~'I-/f~ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ 1 1 ' ~ _ - - - - - - _ - F - - _ _ - _ -^-a r.- -i I 1 ~ uuu UJIY.aa , iw.,.ttUU1. Llll1J 1~ 1.1. , ~ la:iiK ~ ~,:I ~ i K l~ M .:1. r r__p 1 - _ ~ ~ ~ ~ .c e• 1 •Krrr ra:L: ! K. 1 • ILT rbrv Lt%.•t. f~!' _ - , ~ - I-'! .i ~ 1 ~ • ~ e•.• ~ ~ i j rn~ .t1./ i :,,n.N.~. 1"jlLl,`.'''I1 C.WK~11 ~ r•u..su»~a - ~ ~>'61+l- a.j. we.., ~ ~ly.1r Mw Lj _ _ I•o~r•.t ~ ~ I_.ll f.1.7 ...a. t to f1 c_•r fro a w7r• . e 'nasa4L1. ~4'dNd;. nr~Lt• i k.! L}.~rl'1 Ui1L~1T - _ c.uv.~r.•.1•.~• . f.Y.• tar. ~ ~-,.Il,tc. _ L - - a4'.Ytn. 1-f 1 .ar..r'?cr - - - !11 .fv'''~ • .,~.It,.a. L6•f. r~ ~ ~,,.,..r..... l'•a " 4 ~i1tJ111!. ' t ~1.p•. ]L_ f'r• • j L.u t.r.a. L", lfYC A91;• ~••i' . f~t~, _eµ,l..N • e l•• bswlafl. ~ 9.l.a~r~-r.t.,w1`T'1~1r'i"- _f_._t ft"~! ~ 1•...Ir..n. Y t' CAVjiitR•a+. ~ ' u'i li f~ ,7 ~~~al ~r'~'~ !'~t~~h.~ ~:a~ t•;•~!•.~~IQ ~,y~~.~~ 4~.~,. ~ a. y3 ~ - :I La ~J _ T_.~.~.. _tJ.~~ rte Yx rr Ic a•Y c, c•i . 3. r,+ r.y - _ Kt>GNE+T r.r rkYt~h F pn ~•IuTr ~.pl~~ cr.tl%~RL~~? . 1 1 ~1 i I ~ ' ~ i~ ~ wsG O~/ ..,,~f/L!J i~~~ ~ ~'i~ lyy~y-v~w~ r~ ~ y~~ . , ,S - `i i ~ ,+t ,i~ ~ r^ . ~~~1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 384 Agenda October 14, 4985_ The> Honorable .Mayor .and Members `of the'City Council City of Richfield Subjects Variance Request at '7620 Penn Avenue Council Members:, PROPOSAL Mr Ernie Wolfenson of Northwest Unit Investment Co. has ~reQuested that the city grant a variance for the distance between buildings: on a multiple family residen ial site to allow an addition to the existing Rental Office/Recreation Building, located at 7620 Penn.AVenue. The. proposed addition will .house a model apartment to be used by the rental office personnel as 'a display unit for potential tenants. Thee: proposed addition to the office building is to be located betweenthe Richfield Racquet Club and the existing rental office building. The height of the Racquet Club varies from 2D.5' at the west to 24.0 at the east along Penn Avenue. The distance between these two buildings will be reduced to approximately 20 feet by the construction of the proposed addition. The two structures are currently connected by a second story skyway: It could be interpreted that because of this skyway that there is one building and not two. In that case the separation requirement would not apply. The existing Richfield Racquet Club building does not meet the city's current. minimum frontyard setback requirement of 40 .feet, however. Lf it is considered to be one. building, a variane:e would still need to be obtained. to allow the expansion of a non-conforming .structure. The proposed site is in a MR-3 (multiple-residential) zoning district,.and. a minimum separation of 2~' would be required between the existing building and the proposed addition. The existing separation,. is 50 feet. ~ • i, ZONING QRDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.31A, subdivision 9, indicates that the minimum separation between the principal buildings of a multi-family residential project shall be equa to the height of the taller of the two adjacemt stru~aures. 2. Seddon ;3.~0, subdivision 6, ist the. three conditions which must be met for a variance to be granted. STAFF REVIEW -Staff has reviewed the proposal.against the three ~ondtions which must be met for a variance to be granted: and found the following: 1. It is ,staff's opinion that there are no special circumstances present on, the site: :The site is no different in shape or size to other stes'in MR-3 districts. A special circumstance may be the fact that neither of the buildings are residential structures, but are adces ory structures. 2. t`i"s staff's opinion that deni l of the variance would not preclude reasonable use of the property. The existing multifamily use has been there for quite sometime and can. continue i'f the variance is denied. 3. It is staffts opinion that granting of this variance would no adversely affect the health or .safety: and welfare of the persons in .the neighborhood. The .proposed addition is an improvement on the site. .The only negative aspect of the proposal. is that it will also reduce the number of trees in that area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION .Staff. recommends denial of this: variance on the grounds that the three-conditions have: not-been met. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission on a 5 to 3 vote recommends approval of a variance for anon-habitable, umplumbed addition. The variance should apply wh$ther the non-conformity arises because of inadequate setbacks from Penn Avenue (if the tennis. building is considered part of the same building because of the skyway. connection.).. or because of inadequate minimum separation from the tennis. building. Respeetf ly submit ed, • John G. Cartes ght City Manager JGC/eja . ARCH 1~'~C~'S, L7D, 612•x44-8368- 6311 Wayzata Boulevard, :Suite 240 St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416. • ~u Ust i'3C~. 9 r I G~rdrr,L~rlity I3~vel+aprnarlt ~epaYtriT~rl~ - ~'larlrlirly ~1vi~.i+.+rT ~7,+~,. F+:,Y t i arld Avanu~ .S+_+u•~ ti ~l+_tlfi:IJr ?"litlYtr8+~td • I l4+JY t tl was ~ lJtl 1 ~ : fil `Y rS :lil~rl w t,.': i , vaYlctrl+:$ YL'•t~i.ICST'. T+.Y trefil'CLtYy F.r'+.+LiY •vtiC~t' =:{::Jc:f :iiiCi'lC:~ II ~:«sfiT~ezl ~ffl.+_C•At~C(Itl4rT ' ~~aY t='Iacl;lirTCj Staft: z~li~ ~rtt~Y suppl~rr~~filt~ trli: appli+,ati+~rl subrr~itte,~ by i~+}rtflw~st LirTit Inv~strr~efilt Co. ~:i~tLJUIC7 •regLtcStifil+y a vaYiarl+.r be a1low+~d witi•l "+?SN$+~~", t+•i ~il~ Y~QLtlY~Cf dl~tarlC~ b~Tw_:~fil ~~-iLE1. ~ tylFlt~S itl ttlC i"i}`•:-."-r .~+~fiTlt'tt3 D1.5tY2+.u. i~'T18 Y~t~UCSt lS a 'r ~SLtI'C C:i` ~c i:iCSif+. iJ1' 'a~+ji11(: v+=+ . C+_+rTS%YLtLt arl EtirClltl+~r1 t4 t!'le =-'l.iStl'rl+.y {~:r_i^.iet~ lsl`~;.+_~ % ,'~c:e'_Y~e1f.i+:+rl ' ~L111t~1fiTy +J+=3i$Ct at !`i-~•~C;+ F'erlfil ftV'C. j+~+. ii•ll~ {7i1ii'iltlt~. f?Y£-S~filtij B~YV2+_r5 ttlr l:.efiltLlY.~I t;.+1LlYt yve~t r,RaYtrnerlt +,+:+ritpl~3'~i v1' ti1~ se'trr~>: at~~Y@5S. f tlr pY+.ap+J3Ct~ afjf,71 G l+=+fil '.Il l i tl+JLtS$ a rri+JU£'i apaY ~:rt$fil v : u+ L1S@Ct Jjr •Ci'l~ Yi:filta: +~T''i+~C ~@Y5Gfi1Ci a5 a 17i~7iccl' '.:rli •i+.+Y - p+.+t@fil w''i ai t :filafilt Tla i=:~rltai urfiLe buii~irlg is sitad betw~erT :_filti: +,+f Ctl~ apaYtrric»ri•~ Lt 1 1 v 1 fil t~ S t: ! ^'r_ fiT rl F~ V' $ . ? afil ~ ~ ti F:1 tl ` : ~ iJ ice: a+~ L; : t i LiJ . ir'rl ':a+=t:~i.teCt L.l:.ib 1S +1+4JilCG' u~ I~iWi,.1?ir ar1G 5CY`iCS ci.il~ a~aY;riTCriY f_~+riip:C%: a5 w$ii a5 {7~1fi1C3 +7rlC +~T til~$ tCFI +_iLll7S :.rl =.J{'li+:rT tti«= i`d+_+Yiiiciri+al^~- iCtl'r?::~ i,lt,:u5 lrl+~. i+ICf17bCYSfllp CrT,~4y5 Y $+=1N1'+=++.i%.~. _ i Li_t '+~iLi"J 7f1~ 5:.+=ai i jr i irTk:d t+.+ t{'l6 i;3=3't•r~t1 i.~t i 1+.~ bLlii VifiTy arl+~ i 3 ^C =+=+rTt't'+=t~li~~ b`f t1'lt+ TCfilrll3 G+wS~•i arl~ i~'Y +;+'-:•i'1+.:~p'7. ~+:~+=al;Ct~ '+11~Gi1:,''l .~T~ - ~~rTtal O~fi+_a .~Liliulrl~. i;'lr Ji'+_+F;~~et1 cc~dl~i+arl ttl? i~. iIL_ u'tti,s~l'rly l~ i.+=+_at~G ;:l '+GI~-~'rl `L fl*_"r'•:a+_f~U~'t: .r•i_iJ arl+~ ~~t ' `~~t~ l.l~r ~ ~ ' rL iC r•:=?films i.7LiiiCirly. ~l_ CiSi.arl+l~ iJCrr,+1+?C'1'l ttl$~C %'vf!? i~Li3.i~irlt3~ +.vili dC ap~'Y=.:i:'itavCf f.:.^?~. i'l0 tl@1tjFTt t4l••_ E:aLQLi~t C+LIb V~Y1?5 tYQiii av`.rl. +V C'St t4 dL'r'':+" cit t~lB East ai+~tl ty {~",i rirl AY'~r1 Li t: yLi, .iT atit~Y~S~ifiliyT :tl$ ;'tlY~r +~Qfil4l':i:~filS r+=+Y a~j.iY'~Vai i~~%rwl.~it'^., 1+'C:'o ttlau. ii i f1C•Y e'!Y*= 5{::+:+Cl~a +=.~Y+__iritSiarl+^:~ ai 'F $+~`Liilly ti"ii iC,iL[CS`4. i'~_. 'vWQ bull+~S.lt~'' aGil~'+;Itlty ~a+_~l +at~ie•Y e1Y$ b+.+i. Fl +=+i ctYi a::+:~~~:%i"~•i FTct~L•tY~ ~:l '~iiC ~i".-•.~'~ ~+~filltlC~ :~l~tYl::~ 8.r1~ ai'B i';Cll', ilaili':':'t~ vi=+ ~{•l~ St=t1'li'_` ~ .~t$+yY=`±- a5 atT a~'3ctYt~i'iCfilC i`Ttiil:t~fill].. Itl•:- ~ T+='+=~. +iI'..;_.~tl+~~ ue'w+:'$fl ttl'rSC tw+=+ ~~YL:C~i.iY:S i'? i it .,~1 ~ :r". pLib: _:3 vl+- bc:.fil+j. tl•. +~i'.~i.::tfil+~.. _~iilF.. '~r3 ~(i ~Tct'C i • . _ Y.+~Li:.1 qtr ri J' L'c•T~ tJ l'il 1 L+ir iii Lt lt.il lll~ Lr+~t~: L'a III l I 1 _ _ ~~c H ~~r~c-~s, ~..T~. 612w44-8368' r 6311 Wayzata Boui®vard, Suite 240 St. Louis Paric, Minnesa#a 58416 1~ ~G{U14r faC15 that tit15 c~Qdltl+.+rt ',J7.11 ftide:t~" art 1Gi}yt"+l+V~iii»rtt in ti7£` sdidGllity of tit@r•e pr-+7du+=y: pr+=++Ildlrt+~ a ?3cC--.f arty iiu=+r'» +~~:ntif»rli~nt did+_.. +Jf Mi+I+Y i•~: 7`+.+Y to=-i.i' ;f~i~7X4yt~+=~ ctrid ~ilC j~l:i: Zl;. is '.vl l1 ~ y+:t ~3rlt"J'tilCt y~i:+p ~i,+l+Wc1YG'S ~~~~.:f lr"tiy s.ilH +1+=+fi1~:11 i ~Y' '!".~'iC~'~E' r»siding tii»r» pr•~•s»ntly dnd in tite il.ttLtl r. •it~ Titd C~Ydrl~:ing +t~7 tills dppl+ld~l.+l+rt wlil rt+~'t .fttdu'eY'IE12iy L+1" ;3dvBY'Stily df f»•.t tite n»altit +_r• _ ~a ~ y»y +.+f p»rs+~ns Y»sidir~g +.+r w~~,rk:irtg in ttte n»lgit~+~rit+~+_+d and ~~+lli in fa+_t de ar7 in;pr-+~v».iar7L f+~•t tit+~S» vitYi•::ir'i+^y in tits Y+3rttdi Ot-tilt~irlg c3r'.C i'C!Y' tilde j~4:+i''.i_~ri :~f -t~l=+ puuii+= 5»+=t+.,Y t`rlclt fitly +~_~rlt»fitp}.dt+~ 117+1'Jiniy in1".+~ til<~ e:~nipl»:~+ ].'sl tit~?~". 1t :~yii1 it»~.»d5» tit»fii fr+lflt ilcl'•lirl'g 'atilt;; a+.Y'G5~ pc'c:'°~•~:Ztlg ar»a~ dnd int+~ an dd,}d+_»rlt 3~i3Y'tfft»nt i~uild.rtg vi»w tii~» pr»s»rlt ~ 1 5{71 ct1% url 1 t . Til 1 5 d C+l C+f4»S ~"~.rt I tl+: ~:rrl t11. Cn+=£` dr1~ Krl drlrl+_+yetrl+='=` dt - nigilt and during inCiirf~at» waath»'r'. ~iil+_+5» tertart~s r»sidir~c~ r-?»::t t+.+ tired dl+~ng tPl~ way t+~ til» di~pl;~y ~,~+~~tld »rl,j+_+f a r»du~_tivr3 iri - tYaffil+: +~+:+Url~ dnd n+]15C.du+r t+l+ titrsc SPI+_+SJlrlgs. F'+~r t'rlc5r rLas~:,ns, Nort'rlw»si Unit Irlve~tfrt»rlt C~~. r.-~~»+_t fully r~equ»St5 tite F'i+~ilfi3»ld Niantting ~tdffr Flarlrling ~_~fftfiilS5i4rt elrld City C+:.url..ii t+~ gr~rlt tili5 ~JdYidn+_» ~==qua-s~• V»~'f trtEi;~,; yc~ur~, ' t G`/' • r~ ~tC. _ v' . - f nl arl i~::i fttp»1! , f ~w i~:M T: :'rY+=ill t':`L'+~, :s i~ti" _iil'".*:'+_tS i _~ir i'aG tilW~C'3t Unl w lrl`•i~~.;,~rl . .r;+. ~ . r , sy„~,.. v~~ d-44 / a9`"`y w"'d ~"n''}h ~a ~qH)~~'~ yc,r~ ~ y ~ "'s~ ~ 0~ ` 1 . ro r~ uKr~ ' -------"'v- { , ref . t 1 1 -~r O ; ~ ~ ~ r_- . ~ - ~Q G` I 7 , .fie a++M ~~~~1 1`a11' 1 ~ ~ ~,ti, ~ h~ ' X ~ ~ ~ P- . t ' ' 1' ~ t 1 > r ' is ` ~ ` -'"1__ -'a,~,rna~x~r^ ~ ~ 1 J , t . a as , G 1 1 ' t` X C`~ ' i ~ r+ ~ _ ate....` rya AAa'M , ~1 ~ ' s Z ~ w~-~w vlrM~ - N~ C ov,~~,.. Z.ti ~ ' r_ P ac A i•o 0~ 4 r. .y .,.-=r ~ ~ ` 04- o, ? c~ ~ S~,'a".` _ 111 1 ~ . ~xk3Y' -y.~+ro' n S _ i„hJ pain . a .s . _ yt,.o ~ r ` e t.F~1cR~ tdr. ! ~ . ' ~ ~ ryU11A~tJG1 WAU6 ~ j ~ .I , 1. ~ 9 i °p"a! taros) A ~ , ~ CP'K b rr a _ _ _ ~i I 1 ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ i ~ 1 top y~~v%pnst~*+4 eu,iv?r+~ unus~ ~ ~ ~ h .4 ~ . 1 ' ' . ~ - ~ .t ~ i.tk l ~A ~ 1 r.M .e ear ?w~ a ~e,~s) . A¢~' O Y ~ z ~'wKCw. u ~ . y-'-~ - ~3 of S ' _ _ 1 a .an ~~--'"''..r - ~ , - - ~ ~ .t .~..-----T~--. s _ , ~ yf ~t ' ~ - - _ X01 ' ,:r--" ~ P ~ a j 1 ' i ~ v:»:';: ~ ~ ,ri, f.~ - , ~ ~ - w4~' _ ~ ~ _N__,._.- r ~1 ~ ~ ti ' ~ F n - p ~ i • ~ ~ / d,e ~ S x i i s ~ ~ T ~ L Z L- ~ _ ~ ! _ n II ~ ~ . o ~ ~ ~ ~ o= ~ f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~......:.fy ~ # s ~ ~ y t:;..r ' ,i ~ ~ ~ ZLcC M0. Fa yP0 wa ' ~ ~ as _ ~ i . ~ t'~t'~I•:f~t,l~ l~J11 'L1?~_~.{:; .i: .jfs3:,t a•1 a! ~ svt-a'svw~s r~ iruaf s.s:.d ~1 wcars'.~.~russ~. , - ~ ~ ~ ~ F' ~ ~ ~p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~I,, ~ i ; A; ~ ~ r .T 1. I ~d ~ 4'.aMro Ira ~Ge' ~ --.~=a wa i-L _ , ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~u"ti1 y r ' . p i E ~~nn ~ ot~, ~ ~ I _ a I • ~ _ ° ARCHITECTS. LTD.. , ~ o o emu- ` (LIGHFIUD; ~~ef!i~l •I lgf'~_ .m... w~..r... ~ f ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ,may ,r? ' ` 1. ~ - ~ d~ ~ ~ ~1Nt'~~~~ ~ ` ~ ~ • ~dar'~ ~ ` ~ . ~ ~ :1N ~t;'~t1 i ~ V' ~ t` y , ~7 CITY O.F RICHFIELD; MINNESOTA- Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 383 Agenda October 1 ~4`, 1985 Thee Honorable Mayor . and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Variance Request at 6621-Logan Avenue Council Members: -PROPOSAL Mr. and Mrs. Ohm have requested that the city grant a variance for the required frontyard setback. The property is in the "R" (Residence) district and meets the side and rearyard setback requirements. The existing house has 29.0 foot frontyard setback instead of the required 30 foot setback. The-applicant proposes to build. a new addition at the east (back) side of the house. The existing structure is nonconforming and hence cannot be expanded without first obtaining a variance. ZONLNG ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.29, subdivision 1, indicates that nonconforming structures cannot be expanded without first obtaining a variance. 2., Section 3.30, subidivision 5, requires that a single family dwelling in "R" (residence). districts have_a 30 foot frontyard setback. 3. Section 3.~0, subdivision 6, lists the three conditions. which must be met .fora variance to be granted. STAFF REVLEW Staff has reviewed the proposal against the three conditions whichmust be met. for a variance to be granted and-found the following: • 1. It is staff'sopinionthatthere are no special circumstances present on the site. The site is imlaw in shape and size to other lots in the neighborhood. 2. It is staff s opinion that denial of the variance would not- prevent reasonable use of the° ro ert . The sin le famil A p Y g Y re dent aT use could continue if the variance is denied. >3. It is staff's opinion that the proposed addition will. not adversely affect the health, safety :and welfare of the public, and would.. not increase the degree of nonconformity of th,e existing structure. STAFF 'RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the variance since the three conditions for grantinga variance have not been met. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION _The.Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance -on a 5- vote. 3 CITY MANAGER RECOMENDATION The city manager concurs with the Planning Commission and recommends approval of the variance. Also,, the city manager has placed a recommendation concerning a legislative remedy to this type of variance request on the agenda under. Administrative • Reports. The intent is to seek Planning Commission review and, ho eful a ro oral to amend the zonin ordinance to erm' P Y, p F g P it variances when the variance request does not increase the degree of non-c n o fortuity. Respectfu submitted, ohn G. Car wr' t City Manager JGC/eja • _ . , ....a,... _ ~ ~ ~ ~ . - ~ e - ~ Q ~ ~ _ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ = y! ~1 . ~ ; :3 n yu ~ ~ A P s • ~t~ • - G ~ _ . 1 a ~ . • _ f„a,~,o .1 ~ ~ , n I i ~ ~ ' ' . 7 • ~ i _ i I 0 ~ i 1 i 1 N Dui .s• _ i y t~* Q _ • 1~ i t 1 \ ' ~ . _ + ' 4th ~ ~ . g~ a N~'u~ '~~J f i ~ ~,,,t,,,.,..,..... ~':4 ~ . . , , ' ~ r fib) . . " 4 ~ ~ . ~ ~ J ~y n~~ N ~ _ r t 11.1 t~,~.,~ ~ 1 Mme, r~ 1 . v y,,,,.,..._._-- ~ ~ , ~~v . ~ Hobert da Itary Ohm - ~ 6621 Logan Avenue South - ~ ~ Riohtield, MN 55423 a69-3458 August-28,.1985. . Rick Jopke . .City Pla~nnar ' City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avsnua South Richfield, : ~t 55423 • Dear Kr. Jopkss , •This lettar is written as a request for variance and to answer the conditi.ona mentioned in the "Steps For Obtaining a Variance" outline (see attached). The apeoial condition affecting-our house is the aet•back requirement. .Our house has a amt-back of 29'-0" and the required set-back is 30'-0". It is our undarstanding that-if home-imr~,.~ament is ?Lo be made a variance ~muat ba obtained for homes not meeting the required ae't-back. Our r~,.~~.aed home-i,~~„r_..~ement would provide the "prey,.. ~..tion and en~oymen#" of our family by providing the following: Presently our children --•daughter, 7 years old and son, 3~ yeaxa old share a aingl~ ~.,om on the main tloor.whils we bhare the adjacent room.. Tha proposed dorn~er would ersats a msater bedroom in the expansion apace and allow each child ezs individual room on the main floor. Tht proposed home-imr~..~ ament is residential construction in the rear of the-house and would not affect the: residents or neighborhood. It does not add height to the peak of the house nor eztand peat either I~'~, aide of the house. See attached drawings. Your consideration of our request for varianes.ia arr~.aciatad. It you ' have quaationa or need additional information please contact us. Ve truly yours, . J . &obert $ 'ldary Ohm Attachments- i ~a ~Ys~ w _ ~ ~,~~`~~~a~ ~~y rum~sp ~6~- ,8 • ~ 111 CITY OF RICHFLELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 82 3 Agenda October 14,.1885 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City-Council -City of Richfield Subject: Variance Request at>76:2.7.- Second Avenue Council Members; Mr. Eugene Mayerhofer has requested. that the city .grant. a varianoe to the required frontyard and sideyard setbacks to. "allow an addition to the existing structure on this property. The• house is in the "R"' (residence) district and does not meet the front and sideyard setback requirements. Th"e existing house has a frontyard setback of 2g .2 feet instead of the .required 30 feet and a sideyard setback on the south. side of 4 feet instead of the required 5 feet. There is a (9' x-10') breezeway connecting the house with. the garage. The applican is proposing to replace the breezeway by a g' x 26' addition. The existing house is nonconforming and thus a variance ..would be necessary. before the construction can go forward.. The .proposed. construction would not increase the nonconformity of the structure. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.29, subdivision 1, indicates that nonconforming structures cannot be expanded without first obtaining a variance. 2. Section 3.30, subdivision 5, requires that a single family dwelling in "R" (residence) districts have a 30 foot frontyard and 5 foot sideyard setback. 3. Section 3.40, subidivision b, lists the three conditions which must be met for a variance to be granted. STAFF REVIEW Staff has reviewed the proposal against the three Condit-ions which must. be met for a variance to be granted and found the • fo lowing: ' C.(J 1. It is staffts opinion that there are no special circumstances present. on this site. Thee site is quite similar in shape or size to other lots in the neighborhood.- • 2. 'It s,staff~s opinion that denial, of the variance would- not be determental to reasonable use of, the property.. The. existing single family residential use could continue on .the site if the variance request `is denied. .It is staff s o in'on 3. i that the: ro osed addition will P P P not'materiall or adversel a f c h f e t t a health safet and Y Y ~ Y welfare of the public. The'proposed'addtion would not increase " the ,degree of nonconfor-mitt' of t e existing structure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the variance re uest since the q three conditions for granting a variance have .not been met. PLANNING-COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Tree Planning Commi lion on a 5 to 3vote-recommended that. .the variance request be approved. CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION The city manager concurs with the Planning Commission and recommends approval of the variance. Also, the city manager has placed on this. council agenda a recommendation concerning a legislative remedy to this type of -variance request under Administrative Reports. The intent is to seek Planning Commission review and, hopefully, a proposal to amend the zoning ordinance to permit the city staff to issue building permits without a variance hearing or the need to obtain a variance when the request to add to the house does not increase the degree of non-conformity. Res ectf submitted p 9ji y~ John G. Cartes ght City Manager JGC/eja • . 7827~2Np 'ENUE N4flT T . 26 `O^^ v, w HOUSE o ~ 2 9.2 `t z w a ~ . ~ ; t•. N ~ Z ~ 10± O ,iii~irtiiiii' i'i'i~~. ~ Q ~ i~ a GARAGE r 22 . r 134.22 i~f~si;~,~sa~~i ~ _ NEW A D D I T I O N r"` y ~ - t ~ da ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P ~ ~ ~ ~ } ~C ~a` ~ ~ Y ~ s~ ~ ,c 1 Q,r ~j~ A ~ ~ t _ - - - ----1 ~ i ~l. . _ ~ ~.a L-~ u e 4 ~ ^^tt ~V ~ • A ~ ~ ~ fit, ~b r . l 4 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ti~~~y ~ ~1~ J~ c, ~ ~ .fin ~~~b 1~ V ~ i ~ . 5 ~ . ~_._~i r-~..~ ~ ` 1' o' ~ o ~ ~ ~ ? . 4~ ~ ~ b as ~a~ a. ~r f ti. ~b ~ L ~ 05~ ,two` _ u~ _ ~ ~ SEP I9. 1985 ~ - - ' ~ Gty of Richfiels~ Z i ~ (~:r~ ~ t"~~ mac: i•%/ ~ ~f•~ " ~ i . S', •-c_ is ~ ~ " ~ . ' i1~ -z« ~ ~i~' ~ ' y.._ " II f CLTY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 3.81 Agenda October 14, 1985. The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf-field .Subject: Variance-Request at 6744 - 1$th Avenue South Council Membersr PROPOSAL Mr. and Mrs. Dockendorf have requested that. the city grant a variance for streetside sideyard setback requirement. The' applicant proposes to install a 10 foot wide bow window on :the southside of the kitchen. The proposed installation of the bow window would extend 1.17 feet into the established setback, but would not increase the floor area of the house. The City Council recently amended the zoning ordinance to allow bow windows to be extended 30 inches within the required front and rearyard setback area, but not into sideyards. The existing house is in the "R" (Residence) zoning district and meets the required frontyard and rearyard setbacks. - Installation of the bow window within the established setback would require a variance. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.29, subdivision 1, indicates that nonconforming structures cannot be expanded without first obtaining a variance. 2. Section 3.30, subdivision 5, requires that a single family dwelling on a corner lot in an "R" residence district have a streetside sideyard of 15 feet or the established sideyard setback whichever is less. • 3. See ion 3.40,. subdivision 6, lists .the three conditions which. must be-met. for a variance to be granted. STAFF REVIEW Staff has reviewed the proposal against the three conditions which must be met for a variance to be granted and found the following: 1. St is staffs opinion that there are no special circumstances present on the site. The site is similar in shape. and size to other corner lots in the neighborhood. 2. It, is staff's opinion tha denial of the variance would_ not be detrimental to reasonable use of the property. Installation of bow window may enhance the enjoyment of the property by the property. owner, but does not constitute deprivation of substantial property rights. The existing single family residential. use could continue on the site if the variance request is denied. 3. It sstaff~s opinion thatthe proposed addition would 'not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the ° persons residing in the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION I Staff recommends denial of-the variance request at 6744 - 16th Avenue since the-three conditions for granting a variance have not been met. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission on a 5 to 3 vote recommended that the variance be approved. CITY MANAGER .RECOMMENDATION The city manager concurs with the Planning Commission and recommends approval of the variance. Also, the City Manager has placed on this council agenda a recommendation concerning a legislative remedy to this type of variance request under Administrative Reports. The intent is to seek Planning Commission review and, hopefully, a proposal to amend the zoning ordinance to permit the city staff to issue building permits without a variance when the request-to add to the house does not increase the degree of non-conformity. Respectfu submitted, y2.c..~ • ohn G. Car wr' t City Manager JGC/eja ~~.NQR~~' 6744"'~6~~'~V~' - ~ 33.22 • ~ `n ~ . 1 24.3 N - w ' ~ 1 ~ z . w a HOUSE ~ M s ~ _ ,d, cn QARAGE': N - 10 - c~ ~ 10.3 ~ 40 EAST 68TH. STREET f- J . C ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ Q~~~~~ O~L~~ ..2 ~4 ~ ~ i ~4. i 33.~a f.~ y'~ L g . i r--- y- e k~ _ ~ _ _ 4. A` . ~ . J ~j: r t c;,~ V I ~ ~ ~ # o it~f. ~ac•? h,AE A ~ ~ ~ } I 4~.: ! J ~ N ~ 1 • ~ Y E ~ . J c~a~- . ~ RE VEST FOR VAxIANCE OF R~c~~iZfcQ l'v~l~ 3.3•d ,,SI,c%. 4 c i.~. Pk'~ f/~?~ r~/n ecs:s wrZ`I(, cw iJ~ t~.~'~t` FOR. PURPOSE OF R~, ` c, ~ ~a «o~cc++ , V ~ Legal Description : r~rs ,e ~ 1 fat ~ l E31'd~ We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby coacur with the variance as requested. Signature of Owners* Address n I ~ ~ GT v .S"~ ti , ~ $O t - ~ j ~ T~ ~~5~ tt!~ l~ . U ~ X73 9 - i~ ~ ~-a • . - * Signatures may not be removed once the petition is signed .and returned to the PZar^~ng Division. 1 / CITY OF .RICHFIELD:, MINNESOTA I~ Office of C y Manager' Council Letter No. 380 • Agenda October 14, 1985 Thee Honorable Mayor; and Members of: the City Council City of Richfield Subject.: Storm Sewer Improvements at Wilson and Norby Ponds Council Members:: The new storm sewer utility fund became effective. in June, 1985.. Thin=riew fund is'desgned to support dray to day operation of the storm sewer system and to fund'eaptal improvements to the system. Two of the priority projects are Wilson Pond and Norby Pond. Wilson-Pond. is located within the: new Richfield/ Bloomington. water management district. Improvements to Wilson Pond include rerouting. storm water from the Christian Parka neighborhood (87 acres) to Legion Lake.: Other aspects. of thee-propo ed: improvement include dredging of the pond and increasing pipe capacity (but .within the capacity allowed by the Richfield/Bloomington agreement) for the storm water moving • from Wilson. Pond to 'Smith Pond in Bloomington. The improvements are in conformance with the requirements of the watershed districts. Norby Pond is part of the Minnehaha Watershed District. S orm water from Norby Pond moves through a piping system to Mi ner Pond and then. into Legion.Lake. The proposal for Norby Pond provides for dredging and increasing pipe capacity.. The cost of improvements at Wilson and Norby Ponds, not including engineering costs, is estimated to be $2,085,000. A City bond issue would raise-the revenue to fund the improvements. Debt service would be .retired by the quarterly storm utility user fees. Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates, Inc. is the consulting engineer for the projects. Once bid prices are known,: consultant and City staff will finalize a financial plan for the projects.. It is recommended the city council approve .the plans anal specifications and authorize .the .advertisement for bids. ~ Res ectfu~ submitted, I ~J. • John G. Cartwreght City Manager JGC/eja !il I • ~i' CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City'Manager - Council Letter No. 379 Agenda-.October 14, 1885 The Honorable Mayor and .Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Property at 70th Street anal Penn Avenue Dear Council Members: Last summer, the HRA investigated the. possibility of acquiring tax-delinquent land at the northeast corner of -70th Street and Penn Avenue. The HRA determined that the price. which the HRA would have. to pay the %ounty for the land was too high. The City Manager wrote to the county advising them that the city was. not interested in acquiringthe sits and. that they could proceed. with the public s-ale. Hennepin .County requests a council resolution stating that .the city is no longer interested in acquiring this parcel. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution advising Hennepin County that the County can proceed with the public sale of the subject property at 6945 Penn Avenue. Respectf /submitted, I ohn G. Cartwr ht City Manager JGC/eja • RESOLUTION NO . ~f ~~-~j RESOLUTION CONCERNING TAX DELINQUENT PROPERTY AT 6945 PENN AVE. S0. WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has reviewed the possible acquisition of the tax delinquent property described as follows: Lot 13, Block 10, Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills Second Addition and Lot 10, Block 10, Woodlake Highlands Addition. and ; .WHEREAS,, the city has determined that there would be no public purpose served by the acquisition of the property by the city. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the City of Richfield will not acquire the above described property and. that Hennepin County can proceed with the public sale of the property. Passed this 14th day of October, 1985 by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTESTS Thomas Ferber, City-Clerk - - . 3 - September 11; 1985 . Dale G. Folstad Director of Property Tax and Public Record ~ Department of Property Tax and Public Record A6p7 -Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487-0066. M Subject: 6941-45 Penn Avenue South N PIN #28-028-24-33-0159 ~ ~ Dear Mr. Folstad: - On December 18, 1884, the City of Richfield was notified of the tax forfeiture status of the property at 6941-45 Penn Avenue ~ ~ Q South. Cn March 15, 1.985, the Richfield Housing and . Redevelopment Authority (HRA) requested .your office~to hold the ~ property from public auction as the f~A was exploring the potential of developing multi-unit housing on the. property. As ~ you may recall, our interest to acquire was in pert. based on a minimal, "no fee" cost to acquire. Since that time, your office has notified. the F~2A that a "no v ~ fee" acquisition as originally suggested is not the correct County policy and the HRA would be required to Fay a fair market ~ ~ ~ value for the property. A value of $24,000 was determined by ~ the County. This acquisition cost would substantially increase = the sale prices of the proposed Il~ousing units and prevent the HR.A from achieving its public purpose of producing affordable housing targeted to moderate-income purchasers. ~ Therefore, the~Rchfield HRA is relinquishing any interest in ~ the property at 6941-45 Penn Avenue South. This property can be = auctioned or conveyed in any manner determined appropriate by ~ the County. If you have any questions please feel free to contact Marcia hale of the Richfield FAA at 869-7521. 0 Q ~ cerely, ~ ¦ io ~ ~ ~ ohn G. r right (p City Manager cc: Dennis Morris Delinquent Tax and Forfeiture Land Section Supervisor telephone: 869-7531(.67 2~ an equal opportunitg employer ~ CITY OF RhCHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 378 Agenda October 14, 1985 The Honorable. Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request For Amended Offstreet Parking Permit For .Lyndale Hardware 6616 Lyndale Ave. So. Dear Council Members: Representatives of Lyndale.Hardware have requested. that the City Council approve a revised off-street parking permit for the property at 6616 Lyndale Avenue. The amendedoff-street parking permit would provide four less parking stalls.. Lyndale Hardware is proposing to construct a 2356 square foot addition onto the southwest corner. This addition would result in the loss of four parking stalls. Exterior building materials of the new addition will be cedar and stucco to match the existing structure. The new .addition would be used for storage of inventory including lawnmowers and snowblowers currently stored outside in the area of the new addition. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the addition will be an improvement to the site. The structure will allow interior rather than exterior storage of lawnmowers and other equipment and material. (The addition will tie into the existing structure well, also.) This will be an aesthe-tic improvement to the site. The proposed addition will close a portion of the driving aisle immediately west of the building. In order to maintain proper access to all parking spaces, four parking stalls have been eliminated and a new driving aisle created. The new addition will not generate additional parking needs because it will be used for, storage only. The loss of four parking stalls should not adversly affect parking in the area. The area is used for storage now and generally not' available for. parking. Sufficient parking is available elsewhere on the site. It is recommended that the council approve. the revised ~G offstreet parking permit. ' Respectfu ubmitted, ll__ vL . J hn G. Cartwri t City Manager JGC/eja • • I it l Ij { ~ ~ 1 {-C i(~'I. lt. I l \i'~ 191 e~ 'v ~ ~ # •H t 11 ~ 1 n WST f .s _ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ u ~ ~ ' h ' r ~ ! ~ S ti r /o ~ ~'--r-+...,r,,,, ~'~0! ~4 ~ ~ try ~ ,1t ~ f h, tr ~ ~ N Z ~ ~ ( s ;Js X"~~ P ~ rF ~ {':1't3.~ r~ d ~ 11 1~ I< ~ J ~ ~ 7 ~}4. a 7 ~"~ta r„ . ` k ,t~,~, 1 c pJ} 1 't ~ ~ ~ ~ J - ~1/ 7' ~ "1 - Ir 1 ~ I Y~ s' ~~~r RYfA~t.~ . a , ~ t i) III _ i / ~ < dl 1/~ ~~uik { P k'~I. 4 z (l ~•1 1 ~ V ~ fi 71r , a{ F rMi2a C ~ ~ r ~ r 111 / ~ 4 ~r ! 1-. ~ ti d, r,' 1~1 '..r„ . I , R ~Iv. ~ ~ ~ ~ U.1 ~ , r i~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ I ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ a r , III I v x 4 i x S ~ ( 4 .e. ~,f , J ~ t~.~ 11 i ~ i~'ld ~ , a 1.. n FS -""--v. W ~ / • ~ t ~ ~ r~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ r s J, 1 q' ~ t'~, , ~ ~ ~ { . _ ~ I ~ t \l. , 6', ?Zy'". `IQ 1,11`\~,~ q,` \ ~ , Ika 1 ` t ~ 1 ~ 1 , ` I ~ ~l 7 11 ~t ll.? ~ ~ t. ~1'i\1 I fey v t ~ ' c~ c„ 1' , , ~ 1 ~ ` .Il ~ 1 ' °I v s. ~ III 5 1 7 i_ ~ ret 1 1 r o G: t~ ; ~ i1. I A r, u 1~ t a.,, 1 n A ~,1 k~ ~4c ~ •i ~ •jf t .1 I obit„~``, •,K~; ~a _ n) I . _ . I , c0.e s F t R,.~~'+'~ as ~ i ~ -.ti r~ i ~ f' ~ a', ' } ~ < ni p~ ~ If' ~ t `r~( ~.F ~I ~ ' ~ V ~t}t~ r~ j + ~ t ~ ~ ` 1. qty, f' -i! ~~rf t ~.i i i tY ` ~ d ~ ~ ' . ~ ~ 11 r , tU ' t'~,''t s .31 ~ ~ 5 , r a; _ c ~ p 1) W 1 y It ~•r 7C 3}: 3 N , r,,, ~ 1[ 1!' t, ~jj ~ - 1 n :r ~ ~ ' I ' r ; , N q._ ~ ~ > j ~ t ~ 1 ' bad, •.j : j t' ~ ~ y - G # _ ! ~ ~ i ~ yr ~ ~ . , -j'~ ~ ,/1~~ w fir.' ~ ,1 +j' '~tl,~~' .,,n Qso ~J f ~ 9.~.y J oA~ 7 1C & ,,~~v ~ ' / l '1~ . G , ~ • '~A~;, 4 :y 5 ' ~ ~ ~ r ~ ` ~ @Y~ r ~ i' ~ r _J ~ ~ per.. ~ a f.,. r ~ Y u.. tai ' -.7 x5. ~ ~ wv~]r. - ~ ; QQ ~ ~y 111. ~ n~ l ~t~tS~~vGYt~3p~titt~~i.~.:,} ~ ~ ~ _ ~~t111 ~[T ~ ~ ~~j r~> MI"115.' ~ k ~ ~ E ~ / ~t ~ rL . a >M[ ~y _ 1 _ _ C TY'S COPY ~ x, . ~ so-8 • Application i:o. _ Con tract ido , 23 27 OFF-ST,EET PARKIiiG PEF.iiIT AGREEI~NT T~{IS r::~:L:i, made this 3 day of September ~ 19 80 by and between tine Lisa e F • : •i•~ ! ~ _nra~ in County , z:irnesata, a iiunicipai Corporation hereina` ter called the -'City'' aci•'. Lyndale Hardware Company 6&16. Lyndale. Avenue South,. Richfield, MN 55423 hereinafter called the "dperator`', •~.dITi3LS S;:TH In tti;: exercise of its governmental powers, the City for itself, its successors and assigns, and in recogreitiva and.o3servance of such governmental powers, the Operator,-far aimself, his i~eirs, executors, administrators and assigns, each in consideration of the covenants and agree^:ents of the other hereinafter set forth, covenant and agrees as follows: L. PROPEc.TY LyVOL4LD: The following described property in the City of £.ichfield,. Caun~. hennepin, and. State of iinsesota, shall t•,ave developed on it an off-street parking area, b~ the Operator in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, to wit:. Block ~i Lot Nos.. 1,2,3,4,11,I2,13,14.15,16.,17,18,19.,subject to easements for public right of way granted to City and to be hereinafter recorded. - II. DL'T'I:•iIiIO::S . ''Subject Proper; ~aali r.~2an zn~s: pt~r cy cescribed in the precedi para- graph and ":dorti`' shall incluCe a31 Labor, materials, equipment, enUineering or other services the doing of all acts required of the Operator pursuant t0 this agreement. 421-35 Page 1 III. E.YPEYSE OF tJO.Ri:: All work provided far i:~ this contract is~ to ba undertaken at Yie e.Ypense of the Operator and no such work shall be chargeable to or paid by the City urles specifically ordered by the City Council to be done at City expense. The Operator shall r~a~ee no •clai.m against tiie City,. its officers, agents or anployees for any *.~rork not specifically ordered by the City Council as above provided and shall save the City, its officers, agents or esgloyees harmless against any claims or expenses fob any work not specifically ordered .bp the City to be done at its expense. IV. iiA~iNER OF DOING tJOFK: All work provided in this Agreement shall be dons in accordan with the plans and specifications which are herzto attached•and made a part of this~Agreemznt and in accordance with, such plans as are hereafter submitted and approved by the City. vo wor< shall be done the plans for which have not been so approved. Such wor'~ shall be done in the best workmanlike manner and shall be subject to inspection and approval by the proper City Officials. All work rejected or unsuitable shall be removed and/or reglaced satisfactoril at the expense. of the Operator. ' V. • PUBLIC LIABILITY I~IStI~:CE: T'ne Operator hereby agrees to carry public liability insurance for the protection of guests, invitees or peraitees or any of the genzral public properly on the premises of the Operator, both during the construction war'-: and at all tires thereafter while the subject property. is being used as an off-street parking area. VI. OBSERVAIJCE OF LAt•:S: The Operator shall comply with all laws, ordinances and regula- tions of the City affecting persons engaged in the work provided for herein or affecting materials or equipment used in connection therecaith. . VZI . ' . FI'r1AL CLEAR UP: when the layout and construction work required hereunder is comp late the Oaerator shall re~:ove from the subject property and any adjacent property upon which his operations have been conducted, all surplus and discarded materials, equipment, rubbish and temporary structures and shah restore in an acceptable manner all property, public or pri~, which has been damaged during the performance of the work and shall leave all premises in a nee and presentatable condition. Page 2 • ' • :VIII..... .l P _ E~tGI~EEAIi~G SEF+~'ICES: The Operator. shall furnish .all engineering. services. required. .by thin.Agreec:ent far planning, supervising and constructing all *aoric if any, i_quired here- er ;ahich is naw or'shall hereafter become a public street... Such plans as arz zequir8d to be prepared by the Operator herein shall be prepared in a manner satisfactory to the City Authorities and in accardan~e with good engineering practice. All such caork shall be subject to inspection by authorized City personnel at any time that the same is in progress.. IX. DEVIATIOd A,~D • C:3.~:~:GES : 4ny substantial charges in the specifications provided herein gust be agreed upon by both parties and such changes•must be executed in writing by said parties before b eeoming effective.: All construction of the aria to be uszd as an off- street parking area shah cosrply with the rules, regulations and ordinances of the C_ty of Richfield, and such area. shall. at all times be so operated and used. X. DRAINAGE: In carrying. out the work provided herein, the operator shall not interfere or change the course of natural:: drainage as row existing unless in so doing such chaages o e and to the extent such than es shall .are approved by the owners of any afrected pr p rty g affect property by the City. XZ . BOISE ABATE~sEi3T: In dairig the work herein specified, the Operator shall. eliminate noise to every extent possible and any gasoline motor or other power equipment shall. be pro- vided with mufflers. ' XII. OPEF.ATOR'S RESPO`iSIBILITY FOR DAMAGES: The Operator shall save hartsless or restore at his own expense any structures on public property which he may disturb or otherwise affect. XIII. OPERATOR'S P.ESFO;YSIBILITF FOR CO::STiliCTIO;;: The Operator's responsibility under this agreement shall continue for as long as the subject property shall be used by the OperaLOr a Off-Street Parking, area. As to construction work required to be done, by~the Operator, PaSe 3 ° J pursuant to this Agreement, the Operator's respon;aibility under thiJ Agreement shall cantinas until final acceptance•thereby by the. City, and such acceptance shall be given promptly after satisfactory prooz of completion of work has been presented by the Operator. XIV. LAYOUT•OF OFF-STREET PARKIPIG AREA:. The Operator shall construct one off-street parking area on the subject groperty in accordance with the layout plan which is attached to this Agreement and is hereby made a part hereof. XV. C02:STRUCTIOY tJORK r11D SPECIFICATIOiVS: Construction work on the su3ject~ groperty shall include the items of work which are listed on the attached sheet which is hereby rands a part hereof as thflugh fully set forth herein and such work shall be performed in accordance with the specifications for such work as set forth on said attached sheet. XVI. . DRAI~tAGE FACILITIES: Storm sewer construction on the subject property shall be desiorted and constructed subject to City approval. Any connection leading fran the subject property into the City story sewer system shall be constructed .at the Operator's e:cpense {as shall all such work on the subject property), subject to City inspection and approval and nay right-of-way or aasement needed as a location for such connection shall be obtained by the operator at his own expense. XVIi. TIiiE SCIiEDULE: No deadline for commencing work hereunder is specified but if actual _onstruction work on the .site is cammenced it shall be completed on ar•before . G L9 O ~ No part of the subjectproperty sha.Ll be occupied or used as an off-street parking area until after the on-si.te and off-site mprovzments have been completed in the area sv occupied, and until all screening and fencing as shocm on approved plans have been completed. XVIII. INGRESS 6~'iD EGRESS: Ingress and egress to and from the subject property, for motor •ahicles, shall be as shown en approved plans. • ~L • • OPER.~TOR'S R£SPO~SIilILITY: Neither the City nor its Council, nor any of its ficers agents or employees shall be liable-or responsibile in any manner to the Operator or any of his contractors, subcontractors, matarialmea, 13borers, or any other person.or persons urhomsoever, for any claim or demand of any kind arising out of or by reason of the doing of work, and the operator agrees to sale the City+and aLl of its said personnel harm- Less from any such claim, demand, daBages, actions,. causes of action,. or any. costs, disburse- Bents, or expenses of defzndin~~the same. Upon the execution of rhis agreat:ent, the operator shalt furnish the City with a Corparata Surety Bond in the amount of $ not required... conditioned upon the faithful.. performance of all work._ Said bond.,.. however, shall run only unti3. the actual cans ruction work is completed and approved. YX. ~IAIhTAIYZ~IG ACCESS. TO UTILITIES: On all work the Operator snail provide and maintain _free-access to gas. valves,-manholes and similar facilities, and shall provide fox tha flow of water courses, sewers or storm strains,_and shall keep all gutters and waterways open or make other provisions for the free renoval of storm water. X:CI . C0;IDITIO~JS TO OFF-STREET; P AiG PERi•IIT: The City here•.~ith grants to the Operator a permit for an off-street parking area on the subject property pursuant to the zoning regain-~ Lions of the City of Richfield, conditioned upon the continuous and complste observance of the foregoing provisions of this agreement.,. .Failure of Operator, his heirs, administrators, successors or assigns to observe the provisions. of this agreement .shall result in the terming- Lion of such permit. . The Operate:; `-~s heirs, administrators, successors. or assigns s..__;, ~3intain the. subject premises in a neat and clean condition at all times, free of waste. materials and debris of whatever kind or nature, and otherwise comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 4.OS of .City. Page 5 _ _ _ _ _ _ XXIZ. This Agreement shall be subject to and conditioned-upon (i) fina3. approval by City of industrial revenue development bond financing for the project described in that certain."Agreement for Private Develop- ment" between City and S & M Company dated , t~l~'(J and (ii) the issuance and sale, and closing and delivery of the tax exempt instruments in connection with such financing. In the event the foregoing is not accomplished by December 3l, 1980, this Agreement shall be null and void. This contrast shall be binding upon and-inure to the benefit of - the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. LYNDALE HARDWARE COMPANY, Operator Y ~ Its v ~/2t-.t~,.~ WITNESSED BY: THE CI Y OF RICHFIELD its Manager - -b- t. . CITY OF ,RICiiFIELD ~L' PUBLIC.WORhS DEPARTMENT ENGI~IEEitZ~IG DIVISION- Date SPECIFICATIONS OFF-STREET ..PARKING .AREAS TYPE QF WORK. This work shall. consist of the construction of off-street parking hts. Construction shall include the installation of barrier curb and sidewalk, stabilized base and sur- facing, painting_lines,.lighting,.signs.,.and waste and. screening areas. a. Concrete Barrier Curb and Side*aalk, 1. Concrete Barrier Curb.. - Concrete barrier-curb shall be constructed on all property lines which front on 'a.pubiic street.. Curb shall. be 6 inches wide and 18 inches in depth. The- barrier curb shall extend-8 inchesabov~. the ground and shall extend 10.anches below the ground. ,Concreteused shall have a minia:um design strength of 4000 lbs. per square inch. Driveways shall be constructed as shown on the plans and the curb shall extend to the street if there is curb and gutter along the street. if curb and butter is not along the street, the barrier curb on driveways shall be constructed as directed by the Engineer or as stated in the special previsions. 2. Sidewalk. Sidewalk shall be, constructed as per attached plan and shall be a3equate for pedestrian traffic.. Sidewalk shall bs concrete. and the same design s rength as curb.. b. Stabilized Base and Surfacing... 1. Stabilized Base.. The driveways and parking. areas shall. be stabilized with a layer of clean gravel which will pass through a 3 inch mesh. Stabilized base shall have a minimua depth of 4 inches. 2. ~ Surfacing. The driveways and parking areas shall be surfaced with. a high type flexible or rigid pavement to a minimum depth of l~ inches.. c. Lines. Each individual parking space shall. be distinctly marked with a durable heavy duty traffic yellow paint. Lines shall be at least 4. inches in width and shall be a solid continuous line.. Driveways shall be similarly marked with a broken line which shall indicate driving lanes . _ d. Signs. Signs which shall direct traffic withim the parking area and traffic entering or leaving. the area shall be erected as indicated on the plans. Signs shall be msde of metal with dark letters and a light background and shall be mounted on steel posts. e. Screenins~ urea and Waste Soace. 1• Screening Area. A side yard-per. attached plan shall be established between commercial property and multiple residence or residential property. The screen which may be a fence, wall, compact hedge,.or a combination of all of the e, must be erected lS feet from the property line.. This area must be landscaped:.`. and kept 'free of dust,.. mud, and ref~~~e at X11 tz~ :es -1- _cizica',io; s - Of~-Street Yarkino, aa~iaued~ 1 L. e. Screening Area and tdaste Snace. (Continued} a. ~rje'1StC $gaCC'. Areas not uszd for building, sidewalks, driveways, or parking, shall. be landsca and kept free of dust, mud, and refuse. Concrete farrier curb nust be construct on the peromater of all such areas. f. • Li~titin~. ~ • Parking areas shall have sufficoent outside lights to properly light the par~:ing area. Flood Zigh"ts which are used shall be so located so as not to shine upon adjoining aroas e::cept oze the~cas? where two or more property owners have joined in one application to establosh a parlors area. ~ ~ ' g. Car StOpS . Car stops, which shall be made of concrete or other effective material, shall'be installed adjacent to property lines only. Gar stops shall be located three feet inside of the front of the parking space, which makes allowance for the overhang of the car. . h. Places. The owner or builder shall furnish a complete-set of plans for off-strest garkirg whicct shall.includ~ location of entrances and exits, parking stalls, flow of traffic, locati®n ' and direction of lights, location of barrier curb, sidewalks and car. stops. The elevation of the parking area, driveways and building shall be shown. The drainage - .shall. be shown, which would iacludz the•location and elevation of drainage structures Plans for off-st=est_parking shall be submitted on paper•which is approximately 2 f~ by 3 feet in size. ~ • i. Lazdscavirr;. - - ~ i .Any:landseaging that is required shall have•a guarantee of one, year: j. Wherever the. foregoing specifications are inconsistent with the attached plan, the attached plan shall govern. _2_ CITY OF RICHFIELD,..MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. '377 Agenda October 14, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Purchase in Excess of $5,000 for Rock Salt Council Members: The city. council polidy resolution. on purchasing provides that when the purdhase of merchandise, materials, equipment or ,construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, the authority to purchase shall be submitted to the city council for consder- ation. There is one such item on the October 14th agenda. Rock. Salt Under the Hennepin County Group Purchasing agreement, • counties and municipalities join together to bid on rock salt for deicing. Year Unit Price Delivery Total 82/83 18.34/ton 1.91/ton 20.25/ton 83/84 16.69/ton 2.00/ton 18.69/ton 84/85 21.41/ton 3.15/ton 24.56/ton 85/86 23.47/ton Included 23.47/ton Under the joint purchasing agreement, the City of Richfield has an obligation to purchase from the low bidder. it is, therefore, recommended that the city council authorize a master purchase order for. an estimated 700 tons of rock salt for the 1985/86 winter season from the Morton Salt Company at an estimated purchase price of $16,429.00.. Respectfu ubmitted, John G. Cartwri t City Manager JGC/eja .~L~ CITY'OF RLCHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 376 Agenda October 14,.1985 Thee Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Certifying Deferral of Special Assessments for-Certain Eligible Homeowners Councit Members: It is the policy of the City of Richfield to approve requests for the deferment of special assessments upon homestead properties awned by persons 65 years of age or older or by persons of permanent total disability for whom it would be a hardship to. pay such special assessments. A resolution certifying the deferral of special assessments :for two owner occupied homestead properties has been prepared for city council consideration. Two applications for deferral of payment of .special assessments according to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 435.193 0 435.195 have been received. Staff has determined that the applicants .are eligible according to the provisions contained- in Resolution No. 6586, which was adopted by the City Council on March 1982, to establish procedures for deferment of special assessments. ' The first request is for the. 1984 alley paving. assessment. The second application is .for the combination of a 1977 street .paving and 1983 alley paving assessments. It is recommended that the City Council adopt this resolution approving the .two eligible special assessment deferments. Respectful submitted, ohn G. Car wri t City Manager JGC/eja / " RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING ELIGIBLE DEFERRAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS: AGAINST. OWNER OCCUPIED HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES OF PERSONS PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6586 was passed by the City Council on March 8, 1982, establishing procedures for deferment of special assessments against owner occupied homestead properties of persons 65 years of age or older and persons permanently and totally disabled; and, WHEREAS, application for deferral of payment of special assessments have been made on forms prescribed by the county auditor and the homeowner has furnished the city the necessary information for determining eligibility in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 435.193 to 435.195. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the' City Council of the .City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the following owner-occupied properties be approved for deferral of special assessments as listed below: PROPERTY ID ~ ADDITION N0. AMOUNT 34-028-24-23-0036 45590 $1,068.45 29-028-24-44-0119 46793 903.50 1. Such deferral of payment of special assessments shall terminate and all amounts accumulated, plus applicable interest, shall become due upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) death of the owner, provided.that the surviving spouse is not eligible for the benefits hereunder; (b) the sale, transfer or subdivision of the property or any part thereof; (c) if the property should for any reason lose its home- . stead status; or, (d) if for any reason the taxing authority deferring the payments shall determine that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized to certify a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. ~~-3 Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of October, 1985• John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk) RESOLUTION N0. 6586 ~ ~J RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AGAINST OWNER- OCCUPIED HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES OF PERSONS PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that Resolutions No. 6519 and 6552 are amended as follows: 1. It is the policy of the city to consider requests for the deferment of special assessments upon homestead properties owned by persons 65 years of age or older or by persons retired by virtue of a permanent total disability for whom it would~be a hardship to make payments of such special assessments./ Permanent .and total disability for the purpose of this section means a condition which is permanent by nature w kin at an oc- and totally incapacitates the person. from or g cupation which brings him an income. In the adoption of such .policy and the procedures established by this resolution the city is acting pursuant to authority granted by Minnesota. Statutes, Section 435.193 to 435.195. 2. A ualif in hardshi shall be deemed to exist if the Z Y ~ P owner o~f the homestead property and other occupants of the homestead, taken together (a) had a gross income of less than .$11,000 in the previous calendar year and (b) will have an estimated income for the current calendar year and subsequent years which will not exceed said sum. 3. Application for deferral of payment of special assessments shall be made on forms prescribed by the county auditor. The home owner shall furnish the cit wish such information as Y ' e ire at the time of the on final a Iication and at it ma r g PP Y ~ any time thereafter while the special assessment remains unpaid, which will permit the city to establish, verify or continue the deferral of special assessments or to determine whether elig- ibility for such deferral has ended. e unti 4. Interest on deferred special assessments shall accru 1 the special assessment is paid, at the rate established by the city at the time of levying the special assessment. 5. The city manager or~designee shall examine all applications for determination o~ hisjher eligibility for deferral of payment of special assessments (a) incompliance with said statute and (b) in accordance with the standards and guidelines for determining hardships contained in this resolution or any subsequent amendment thereof. ~ E . No deferment ~of-payment of a special assessment shall Abe made unless the ownerfurnishes the city with an application and such supplementary documentation and verification as may be required to establish the following: . ~ ~J S 1. The legal description, plat and parcel number of the property; 2. The street address of the property; 3. Its status as homestead property; 4. The description or designation of the local improve t; 5. The name of the homestead owner-occupant;. 6. That said owner-occupant is over 65 years or age or permanently and totally disabled; 7. That payment of the special .assessment on the ordinanry time basis would be hardship as defined herein. 7. Within 30 days after the filing of said application for deferment of special assessments, the city manager shall review the application for consistency with and conformance to, the "council prescribed standards and guidelines; and then .either . grant or deny the application. In the event of the .existence cif exceptional or unusual circumstances not covered by the standard and guidelines, the city manager shall make a full report to the city council within 30 days of the filing of said application along with a -recorimeiid'ation as to whether said application shoulc be grante3'or~~i~eriieT~'"~In bhe event of~ the denial of the applica- tion by the city manager, any applicant shall have the right ~o have the application considered by the city council. In those instances where the city council considers an application, it shall, by resolution, either grant or deny the application; anal the decision of the city council shall be final. The city man~gE shall report to the city council on a quarterly basis on deferral granted by him/her. 8. The option to defer the payment of special assessments shall terminate and all amounts accumulated, plus applicable interest, shall become due upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) death of the owner, provided that the surviving spouse is not- eligible for the benefits hereunder; (b) the sale, transfer or subdivision of the property or any part thereof; (c) if the property should for any reasons lose its homestead status; or (d} if for any reason the taxing .authority deferring the payments shall determine that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment. Special assessments for current services cannot be deferred. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 8th day of March, 1982. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: .Sylvia Bergh City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off-ice of Cit Mana er O~ Y g Council Letter No. 375 • Agenda October 1~4, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of .thee. City..Couneil City'of Richfield i Subject: Recognition of Building Superintendent John Heddle = "Ice Arena Maintenance Man of the Year" Council Members: At the annual fall conference of. the Minnesota Lce Arena Managers Association held in September, 1985, John Huddle was 'recognized as the "Maintenance Man of the Year". The award is given to an individual who demonstrates the know edge,. pride and skills-needed to maintain and improve an ice arena. The individual is selected by a nominating committee. ~I John has made many suggestions for improvements..during the past year: installation of ceiling fans over the ice surface; an energy management system; and, a system to unload i • the compressors automatically. In addition to making these cost. saving ideas, John was involved. in the implementation of these ideas. Although John is not. assigned permanently to the ice arena, he continues to monitor the operation, assist with mechanical problems and train the arena staff in the areas of preventative maintenance and repairs. The city council. will recall that- John has previously won I~' awards for his work with the city, primarily in the. area of energy improvements. In his role as Building Superintendent, John is closely involved with the operation. and maintenance of all city buildings and facilities. He has a boilers license and a maintenance electrician license. John now performs many duties for the city which previously required the services of an independent electrician. His ability and concern, coupled with constant monitoring and suggestions for improvement, has helped the city achieve big savings during his 11 years of employment with Richfield. The city is .proud to have. John. Heddle as employee. It would be appropriate for the city council to take this opportunity to congratulate John Heddle for his selection as Maintenance:Person of the Year by his peers and to express the community's appreciation for his outstanding cost saving contributions to the City of Richfield. Re ~ectf y ubmitted, John G. Cartwr ght City.. Manager RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION JOHN HEDDLE• WHEREAS, John Heddle, Building Superintendent for the City of Richfield, has been selected by the Minnesota Ice Arena Managers Association as the 'Maintenance Man of the Year', and, WHEREAS, John Heddle received this award for his knowledge, pride and skills in maintaining and improving.. the Richfield Ice Arena, and, WHEREAS, during the course of his employment with the 'City of Richfield, John Heddle has made many energy saving improvements at all city facilities for the benefit of the .City of Richfield. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield does hereby congratulate John Heddle .upon his selection as 'Maintenance Man of the Year' and does hereby extend to him their appreciation for his outstanding efforts in energy conservation and preventative maintenance. DONE at the City of Richfield, MN this 14th day of October, 1985. John Hamilton Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager . Council Letter No. 374 I Agenda October 14, 18.85 The Honorable Mayor.• and Members of the.City Council City of Richfield Subject: -Recognition of Robert Collison Council Members: At the end of the 1984/85 school year,.-Mr. Robert Collison ..retired from his position as Athletic Director for the-Richfield School District ~~280. During his. years with the school district, Mr. Collison worked closely with-the city staff. This cooperation and coordination included scheduling of city and • school facilities such as ballfields, gymnasiums, the Ice Arena and the school swimming pools. For many years, Mr. Collison represented the school district as an ex-officio member of the. • Community Services Commission. Mr. Collison~s contributions to the city, the school district and the Richfield community has been outstanding. It would be appropriate at-this time, as Mr. Collison enters re- tirement from the school system, for the City Council to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to Mr. Robert Collison for his contributions to the Richfield community in the field of parks and recreation. Re~ectfu , s fitted , J hn G. Cart fight ity Manager JGC/eja •