02-11-85 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 53
Agenda February 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: General Revenue Sharing Legislation
Council Members:
President Reagan has accepted the recommen
U.S. Office of Management and Budget directing
of general revenue sharing by the end of 1985.
of e eral revenue sharing would either reduce
provement program or result in higher property
the Capital Improvement Program.
elation of the
the elimination
The elimination
our capital im-
taxes to fund
A past history of the use of general revenue funds in the
41 city is as follows:
Year Entitlement Use
1980 $151,891 $ 45,000 - Public Safety Patrol
$ 45,000 - Wood Lake Ntr. Ctr.
$ 61,891 - Improvements to upper
and lower levels of
city hall
1981 $253,109 $ 22,500 - Public Safety Patrol
$ 22,500 - Wood Lake Ntr. Ctr.
$208,109 - Public Safety Addition
1982 $220,000 $ 22,500 - Public Safety Patrol
$ 22,500 - Wood Lake Ntr. Ctr.
$130,000 - Public Safety Addition
$ 45,000 - Fairwood Monroe Park
1983 $189,000 $189,000
- Public Safety Addition
1984 $160,000 $
30,000
- Public Safety Commun-
ication Reserve
$
20,000
- Fire vehicle reserve
$
4,500 -
City Hall Improvemts.
$
62,500 -
Public Safety Addition
$
109000
- Infrastructure Study
$
33,000 -
Park land acquisition
-2-
is 1985 $162,000 $ 25,000
$ 36,400
$ 25,000
$ 45,000
$ 30,000
0
•
Forestry
Park land acquisition
City Hall Improvemts.
Fire vehicle reserve
Public Safety Communica-
tion reserve
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor
and City Manager to contact Senators Durenberger and Boschwitz
as well as Representative Sabo to request their assistance in
passing legislation that would reauthorize general revenue
sharing.
JGC /eja
R pectf y) bmitted ,
John G �'/Ca right
City Manager /
league
minnesota cities
ACTION--ALERT
CITIES MUST CONTACT THEIR MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND U.S. SENATORS DURENBERGER
AND BOSCHWITZ TO INSIST THAT THE CONTINUATION OF GENERAL REVENUE SHARING
THROUGH 1986, AND BEYOND, IS ESSENTIAL.
President Reagan has apparently accepted the recommendation of the U.S. Office of Management and
Budget directing the ELIMINATION OF GENERAL REVENUE SHARING BY THE END OF 1985. LMC
vigorously opposes the elimination of GRS. Members of the Minnesota Congressional Delegation must
immediately hear from city officials to urge them to oppose these actions and any efforts aimed at ending
the program.
Congress will be in recess from February 8 - 18, and city officials should take adv,- ntage of oppor-
tunities to meet directly with members of Congress to express strong reaction against the OMB actions that
would cut off GRS as early as October, 1985. It is important to stress the impact such a loss would have in
your city, especially since many cities rely on GRS revenues to fund significant portions of local services.
Any withdrawal of those funds from current budgets would cause immediate hardship and most necessarily
result in higher local property taxes in 1986 as well as the withdrawal of needed local programs.
The federal government perceives the current fiscal condition of cities as healthy, particularly com-
pared with the federal deficit. Therefore, it is necessary for city officials to make members of the Minnesota
Congressional Delegation aware of local needs that would be left unmet if GRS funds were withdrawn.
LEGISLATION EXTENDING THE GENERAL REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM AT CURRENT
LEVELS THROUGH FY 1991 HAS BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE U.S. SENATE. URGE SENATORS
BOSCHWITZ AND DURENBERGER TO JOIN AS CO- SPONSORS OF THIS IMPORTANT PROPOSAL
FOR CITIES (S. 318). ACTION ON SIMILAR LEGISLATION IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTA-
TIVES IS ANTICIPATED. URGE YOUR CONGRESSMAN TO CO- SPONSOR SIMILAR LEGISLATION
TO BE INTRODUCED THERE (TO BE AUTHORED BY CONGRESSMEN FRANK HORTON (R -NY)
AND ROBERT WALKER (R -PA) CALLING FOR THE REAUTHORIZATION OF GENERAL REVENUE
SHARING WHEN IT EXPIRES AT THE END OF 1986).
1 83 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 551 01 [81 2] 227 -5800
•
•
commentary
t bAttle Oudg`
for
_ Ilbeto
u .w� gh
ts
jocal governmen.
KA
By Neal R. Peirce
r. Washington
State and local- government lobbyists
are aghast at how rapidly the tide
seems to be turning against them in
the Budget Battle of '85.
The Reagan budget for fiscal 1986
eliminates or dismembers programs
favored by governors, mayors and
county officials — general revenue
sharing, urban development action
- -grants and the Small Business Ad-
ministration. The budget scenarios
being discussed by Senate and House
leaders also would eliminate those
programs.
De facto freezes are what the states
and localities have been living
since the start of the Reagan
four years, federal funds flowing to
states, cities and counties have de-
clined 20 percent in "real" dollar
terms. It's been a difficult but bear-
able transition.
Now the so- called "moderate" Sen-
ate Republicans, led by Majority
Leader Bob Dole, R -Kan., and Bud -
get Committee Chairman Pete
evDo-
menici, R -N•M., are saying t
it defense and Social Security spend-
ing are frozen — a politically hard
task in itself — it will still be neces-
sary to cut $16 billion more in do-
mestic programs.
Even more ominous, House Speaker
Tip O'Nelli, D -Mass„ says. ,.It's time
to abolish some federal aid pro-
grants
for state and local govern-
ments, including revenue sharing. It
is silliness for Washington to send .
money to state and local govern -'
ments when it is drowning in red ink.
It is time for many of these cities,
with their surpluses, and the states,
with their surpluses, to pick up" the
tab for such programs.
The problem with this reasoning is
that states and localities have ab-
sorbed the lion's share of budget e Cuts
during the Reagan years
while Social. Security and defense
spending ballooned.
"States and cities are beingns penal-
ized for being fiscally responsible,"
says Cleveland Mayor George Voino-
vich, president of the National
League of Cities. "In 1981 -82, we
raised taxes and user fees. We cut
services. We laid off employees. We
balanced our budgets during a time
of severe recession." Those hard
measures, says Voinovich, have en-
abled state and local government
the recovery, "to meet the gr owing
needs of the homeless, unemployed,
hungry, untrained and undereducat-
ed "
Today, however, the Washington talk
is advancing from talk of "deficit
sharing" to an even grimmer pre-
scription: "whiplash federalism."
illustration by Craig Mac,+ntosh
The Dole- Domenici proposals in-
clude a potential death knell for fed-
eral aid to public transit, wastewa-
ter- treatment grants, rural housing
and sewer subsidies, the Job Corps
and the Economic Development Ad-
ministration. The community would
devel-
cpment block gran program
be reduced; urban housing programs
would be cut to the bone.
Local officials shudder most at the
idea of terminating the $4.6 billion -a-
year general revenue sharing pro -
Uan — the cornerstone of "New
Federalism" when it was Richard
Nixon's program, not Ronald Rea -
gan's. The program is one that coun-
ties will "tight and the for," says
Chester County, Pa., Commission
Chairman Earl Baker. "They're the
dollars that let you make up for
categorical program cuts." The Na-
tional Association of Counties, for
Minneapoilz Star and Tribune
•
0
Wed., Feb. 6, 1985
g2 percent of coon- Most distressed cities are thanks nn
example, claims to help the economic revival todaynotes Robert
ties use revenue sharing part to federal aid, Secretary
needy. Embry, assistant housing
A ' nistration.
Could states, many now enjoying sur-
Fluses. pick up the slack for lost
Programs? Theoretically, yes — they
have strong tax - raising powers. But
they'd invite a virulent; otried a And
taxrevolt fever if they for business
there's the fierce 1 fear that sharp
between states —
increases would shatter their com-
petitive positions.
There are serious equity problems.
;he federal programs help make up
for the wide inequalities in state
wit, -- ranging from a still-impov-
erished Mississippi to a booming Cal-
ifornia. And within states, big cities,
particularly those with large minor -
qtv populations, could suffer severe
ly.
•
during the Carter a m
g have large
ut all of them, he adds, for
poverty populations, are strapped
funds and have scant tax leeway.
Will states come to their aid?
Not a chance, says Embry. Such cit-
ies as Baltimore, New Orleans
Detroit, he notes, are poorer than
then
their states, less populous
used to be, a
ite sta islands
wheimingly hewide elector-
ates.
Most states have proved themselves
more socially progressive than the
skeptics believed when Reagan's
New Federalism made its debut in
1981. still, it's hard to imagine, With
federal programs abolished, the
J...sr
t
Legislature coming to Atldn-
ta's r is saving New-
ark rescue, New Jersey out a
ark or even California e bailing
strapped Los Ang
Voinovich, a Republican mayor,
leaves a disturbing reminder for the
Washington budget- axers:
"There's a mass of people in need
out there, living and breathing hu-
man beings. We can't close our eyes,
because this should be a raring and
compassionate country.'
And even if compassion is out of
vogue, he adds, the economic costs
of beleaguered cities and their shat-
tered families "could eventually cost
us the system. ' , , 1.
i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 52
Agenda February 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Amendment of Commercial and Industrial Driveway
Apron Standards.
Council Members:
The current city code indicates that "no driveway from
private property entering a public street may exceed 20 feet in
width. Upon a showing of necessity and public convenience, the
council may authorize a greater width." This 20 foot standard
is obsolete and inadequate for commercial, multi - family and
industrial driveway standards. In order to remedy these
deficiencies the following recommendations are transmitted to
• the council for consideration:
1. Retain the maximum width for single family and duplex
residential driveway apron widths at 20 feet;
2. Establish a minimum driveway width of 26 feet for
commercial, multi - family and industrial driveway aprons
and establish a maximum width of 32 feet; and,
3. Shift the responsibility for the approval or denial of
driveway width deviations from the established standards
from the city Council to the city manager.
If these amended standards are adopted by the city council
they will maintain the uniform standards which were used
throughout the street paving program for residential properties,
and will also establish a more reasonable set of standards (both
minimum and maximum) for commercial, multi - family and industrial
driveways as well as provide administrative flexibility and
promptness in the determination of the advisibility of
deviations.
These recommended standards were reviewed by the city's
engineering and planning staffs.
40
-2-
. It is recommended that the city council direct the city
managerl�5ubmit these amendments in ordinance form at a future
council meeting for consideration.
JGC /eja
•
•
Respectfu y s bmitted,
John G. Ca igh
City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 51
Agenda February 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Resolution Establishing the Number of
Terms for Members of Advisory Boards and
Commissions
Council Member:
The city council has established several boards and
commissions to serve in an advisory capacity to the city
council. Usually, there are more volunteers applying for
appointment to these boards and commissions than there are
vacancies to fill.
In order to encourage change of membership on boards and
commissions from time to time, Council Member Priebe has
requested that a resolution limiting the number of terms a
person may serve on an advisory board or commission be prepared
for consideration by the city council.
A copy of a resolution which would limit the number of
consecutive terms a person could serve to three terms (usually
nine years) is attached to this council letter and has been
placed on the February 25, 1985 city council agenda for council
consideration.
JGC /eja
•
R ectTa�wr7i' bmitted,
Aoh G. t
City Manager
/0 -/
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE NUMBER OF
TERMS FOR MEMBERS OF ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council has established from time to
time Boards and Commissions to serve in an advisory capacity to
the City Council, and
WHEREAS, annually there are usually more volunteers to serve
on advisory Boards and Commissions then there are openings to
fill, and
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City Council to seek and
involve citizens as a way of adding citizen input in the policy
process, and
WHEREAS, advisory Boards and Commissions are established
with a portion of the membership terms to expire each year to
afford an opportunity for citizens who have not previously
served or may have some break in the continuity of service to be
considered for appointment, and
WHEREAS, it is desirable to have some
membership from time to time to encourage
facilitate broad community representation
• considerations, ethnic minorities, women,
professional, business and technical peop
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the
City of Richfield as follows:
•
change in the
volunteerism and to
including geographic
youth, and
le.
City Council of the
THAT it shall be the policy of the city council except
as otherwise provided by state statutes and city
ordinances to limit the term of any Advisory Board
or Commission member to three consecutive terms on
the same advisory board or commission unless there are
fewer applicants than positions open. If the city
council appoints a citizen who has had a break in
continuous service on the same advisory board or
commission, it shall be treated as a first term
appointment.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
11th day of February, 1985.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Steven Devich Acting City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 5n
Agenda February 11 , 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Citv of Richfield
Subject: Repeal Of Water Standby Service Charge
For Fire Protection Systems
Council Members:
For many years the city has maintained a water standby
charge assessed against properties with fire protection
sprinkler system installations. By ordinance, this annual
charge ranges from $30 to $100. When the charge was originally
established, it appears that the basis for the charge was that
the water supply for fire protection systems was of some
measurable value to the property involved. However, in the
event of fire, the amount of water required for fire fighting
purposes by the Public Safety Department is many times greater
than the amount of water needed to control a fire in a property
protected by a fire sprinkler system. Therefore, our current
standby charge policy would seem counter productive to the
efforts of the city to encourage the installation of sprinkler
systems.
If we compare two hypothetical fires, the validity of
abolishing the annual sprinkler system charge becomes more
evident.
If the fire division uses 50,000 gallons of water to
extinguish a fire in a commercial building, the owner pays
nothing for the water pumped from fire hydrants, since no one
is charged for water used to fight fires. This gallonage is
easily reached when we are pumping over 1,000 gallons per minute
with our fire apparatus, and we do so in buildings with no
sprinkler systems.
Sprinklered buildings, on the other hand, might use 20
gallons per minute for 30 minutes, using a total of only 600
gallons of free water. In addition, our manpower and equipment
expenses are extremely high for unsprinklered buildings relative
to sprinklered ones.
Thus, while the sprinklered buildings save the city a
deal of money (manpower and equipment), the owner of the
sprinklered building is being charged anywhere from $30 to
annually for having the built -in safety system, while the
of the unsprinklered _building pays nothing for a building
out sprinklers.
great
$100
owner
with
-2-
This type of situation defeats our objective to encourage
building owners to convert their buildings to a sprinkler
system.
The amount collected from the annual fee was $4,730 in 1982,
$5,060 in 1983 and $5,393 in 1984. This revenue is not an
important revenue source yet it does serve as a cost that
discourages building owners from protecting their buildings with
a sprinkler system.
The cost to the city's water system is a minor cost. A
meter reader reads the detector meter on the sprinkler system
once a quarter. Water division personnel also exercise (turn on
and off) the valves on the service once per year.
The Public Safety Department staff believes a substantial
public interest can be served by the installation of private
fire protection systems in properties throughout the community.
The cost to the city of providing fire protection for buildings
without automatic sprinkler systems is substantially higher than
fire protection costs for buildings with such systems. In
future years the expansion of private fire protection systems in
the city will directly impact upon the level of public fire
protection required to address the potential fire hazard
problems in our community. Therefore, any effort by the city to
aggressively encourage the installation of private fire
protection sprinkler systems would have a very positive long
term benefit to all taxpayers.
A copy of the ordinance amendment is attached to this
council letter. It is recommended that the city council hold
the public hearing and approve this ordinance amendment at the
February 11, 1985 city council meeting.
JGC /eja
40
Respe<&wrigh� bmitted ,
John City g
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER VIII,
PART IV OF THE ORDINANCE
CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Chapter VIII, Part IV, Section 8.23 of the Ordinance
Code of the City of Richfield entitled "Water Rates" is
amended by repealing Subdivision 5 thereof, which provides
for an annual fee for standby service for connections to
automatic sprinkler systems, and is entitled "Standby
Service" and by renumbering the remaining subdivisions of
said Section 8.23 accordingly.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this day of , 1985.
0 ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
•
John N. Hamilton, Mayor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 49
Agenda February 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Ordinance Amendment to the Municipal Code
Relating to Investigation Enforcement
Penalties of the Human Rights Commission,
Second Reading.
Council Members:
When the Human Rights Commission was established in 1969,
the Commission was given the authority to investigate
discrimination complaints. The commission could also request
the assistance of public safety personnel and the city attorney.
A few years ago, the Minnesota State Human Rights Depart-
ment, established the "No Fault Grievance Procedure" to be
utilized by local commissions in dealing with discrimination
complaints. The City Council authorized the Richfield Human
Rights Commission to use this procedure. The No Fault
Grievance Procedure is a process in which the local commission
acts as a neutral party in handling complaints. If the local
commission is unable to resolve the problem between the
complaintant and the respondent, the person initiating the claim
in advised by the commission to either file the claim with the
State of Minnesota Human Rights Department or to file with a
private attorney. Under the No Fault Grievance Process, the
local commission does not have the authority to compel both
parties to participate in the process, nor does it have the
authority to enforce a settlement.
The ordinance amendment was recommended to bring the ordin-
ance establishing the Human Rights Commission into compliance
with the practice that is now utilized.
At the January 14, 1985, city council meeting, the city
council gave first reading to this proposed ordinance, and
scheduled the public hearing for February 11, 1985. It is
recommended that the city council hold the public hearing
and approve this ordinance amendment. A copy of the ordin-
ance is attached to this council letter.
e; pect u.k submitted ,
ohn G: C rtwrig. t
City Manager /
0 �f -/
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XII
SECTION 12.23, SUBDIVISION 6 (A)
TO THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter XII, Section 12.23, subdivison 6 (a) of the
Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield entitled "Investigation
Enforcement Penalties" is amended by amending subdivision 6 (a)
thereof to read as follows:
(a) In addition to the responsibilities conferred upon it
by Subdivision 5, paragraph (6) of this section, the Commission
may receive and investigate complaints of alleged violations of
this section. The process to be used by the Commission in
investigating alleged violations shall be the No vault Grievance
Process formulated by the Minnesota State Department of Human
Rights. �e- te�x- iseae- tai- ee�aesti -zee- �z�- 1aaoee -tea -aee;
a�fJ�6 f3f e3 e— �e��A3??3e� —e 4 __a 3 _j??— sf?e- °exi�tie a -e3 r` -3 i
a1�e�ed- �139Y2� -}9±? �- zfi2- ??�?;,+e5i� b�•`tt3i°- '.�e-i e��x3�es- �i'3�z- ��eee- ?i9�'f -fie
�° a�e�- }e- eeeee-- �e- �e��e�e- z?�e =- saes- e- ya- 13�iee- �3s- aeeae�e� ; -tea
? Reif- �° e�?'.°- 19' ��- �. y.! v�. ��q��_. i�a _��.i ±'}'`!'�- 'td- '�9e- C•��;1_ _:i #�sJro�q�.7r_.ar31°
�re�- z�ea- $e- �i�e-- eet!�r,13ss ;ee-
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
day of , 1985.
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. 3ergh City Clerk
•
Joun name ton -Iayor
C7
•
CHAPTER XII
PART III. COMMISSIONS.
12.23 ESTABLISHMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CaMMISSION.
Subdivision 1. Scope of Section. It is hereby declared that it is the public
policy of this city to fulfill its responsibilities as a partner of the State
Department of Human Rights in securing for all citizens equal opportunity in
housing, employment, public accommodations, public services and education, and
to fully implement those goals set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 363.12,
Subdivision 1, the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
Subd. 2. Establishment of Commission. There is hereby established within the
City a Hunan Rights Commission.
Subd. 3. F4,rpose of Commission. The purpose of the commission is to secure,
for all citizens equal opportunity in employment, housing, public accommodations,
public services and education and full participation in the affairs of this
community and to take appropriate action consistent with the Minnesota Hunan
Rights Act. The commission shall also advise the city council on long range
programs to improve human relations in the City.
Subd. 4. Composition of the Commission. The commission shall consist of 10
members to be appointed by the council. Members of the commission shall be
appointed for terms of three (3) years, except that._(1) any person appointed
to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his
predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only for the remainder of such
and (2) any person appointed as a "youth" member of the commission who is
a high school student shall be appointed only for the remainder of any un-
expired term for which he was appointed, or until he is graduated from high
school, whichever occurs first. Upon the expiration of his term of office a
member shall continue to serve until his successor is appointed and shall have
qualified. The members of the commission shall serve without compensation and
may be removed from office at any time by the council, after a public hearing
if a hearing is requested by the member whose removal is being considered.
(Bill 1977 -9) 4/11/77
Subd. S. Commission's Responsibilities. In fulfillment of its purpose the
commission's duties and responsibilities shall be to:
(1) Adopt bylaws and rules for the conduct to its affairs including the
election, assumption of duties and definition of responsibilities of officers
and committees.
(2) Engage in discussions with the State Department of Human Rights for
the purpose of delineating cooperative regulatory and enforcement procedures.
(3) Enlist the cooperation of agencies, organizations and individuals in
the community in an active program directed to create equal opportunity and
eliminate discrimination and inequalities.
(4) Formulate a human relations program for the city to provide increased
effectiveness and direction to the work of all individuals and agencies ad-
dressing themselves to planning, policy making and educational prograrT ing in
the area of civil and human rights.
ORDINANCE CODE
4/11/77
283 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO (A
•
8-3
(5) Advise the city council and other agencies of the government on
human relations and civil rights problems and act in an advisory capacity with
respect to planning or operation of any city department on issues of civil and
human rights and recommend the adoption of such specific policies or actions
as are needed to provide for ful-1 equal opportunity in the community.
(6) Study, investigate and assist in eliminating alleged violation of
Chapter 363 by conference, conciliation and persuasion, and when necessary,
cooperate with the State Department of Human Rights in enforcing the provisions
of the State Act.
(7) Develop such programs of formal and information education as will assist
in the implementation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and foster the commis-
sion's assumption of leadership in recognizing and resolving potential areas in
the community.
Subd. 6. Investigations; Enforcement: Penalties.
(a) In addition to the responsibilities conferred upon it by Subdivision
5, paragraph (6) of this section, the Commission may receive and investigate
complaints of alleged violations of this section. I-ire Cession ma_y-- regtr- -st
the City Manager to direct appropriate personnel of the city to assist in the
conduct of an investigation. If, upon completion of the investigation of an
alleged violation, the investigator determines that there may be probable cause
to believe that such a violation has occurred, he may refer his findings in
writing to the City Attorney for appropriate action. Copies of investigation
reports shall be provided to the Commission.
(b) Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 363 is adopted by reference and :Wade a
part of this section as is fully set forth herein.
(c) Violas ion of this section is a misdemeanor. (Bill 1974 -22) 11,'12/74
CROSS REFERENCE: See Minn. Stats. Chap. 363 for
the "Minnesota State Act Against Discrimination:.
12.24 JOINT POLICE AND FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
Subdivision 1. Single Commission Created. The police civil service commission
and the fire civil service commission of the city are combined to form a single
commission.
Subd. 2. Duties. Such single commission shall serve as both police civil
service commission and firemen's civil service commission for the city.
Subd. 3. Membership. The joint commission shall consist of three members
appointed in the same manner, for the same terms, and with the same qualifi-
cations as a police civil service commission under Minnesota Statutes, Section
419.01 to 419.18. To accomplish a transition, however, all members of the two
former commissions who terms have not expired are members of the joint com-
mission and shall continue to serve as members of the joint commission for the
remainder of the terms for which they were originally appointed. Terms of
commissioners shall be for three years co =encing on February 1 of the year
of appointment. One term shall commence in 1974 and one in each year there-
after." The commission shall have four members until February 1, 1974 and
three members thereafter. (Bill 1973 -8) 4/23/73
ORDINANCE CODE
4/23/73
284 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
:;�-7
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 48
Agenda February 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Interim Zoning Ordinance Providing for the
Preparation of a Plan for the ILN Commercial Study
Area and the Imposition of a Temporary Building
Permit Moratorium.
Council Members:
At the December 17, 1984, regular city council meeting,
first reading was given to an interim zoning ordinance which
would provide for the protection of the planning process in the
ILN study area while imposing a temporary building permit
moratorium within the area. This ordinance would, however,
allow for the issuance of permits for certain types of
improvements which would not involve new building construction
or expansion, or increase the fair market value of structures by
more than 10 %, or intensify traffic or parking problems in the
area during the effective period of the ordinance. A public
hearing on this ordinance and consideration of second reading
is scheduled for the February 11, 1985, meeting.
As a part of the process, the establishment of a citizen's
committee, composed of area business people and residents as
well as other persons representing area wide community
interests, is proposed. Contact has been made with area
business persons, residents and the Chamber of Commerce relative
to recruiting members to serve on this committee. 900 plus
letters have been mailed to property owners most affected by the
study area. This letter included an invitation to submit their
name if interested in serving on the study area committee. If
the city council approves the interim zoning ordinance, the
staff will present the council with a recommended list of
committee members at the February 25, 1985 city council meeting.
As indicated previously to the council, events of the last
few months suggest that the future physical and financial
welfare of the area could be impaired if some action is not
now taken. "Piecemeal development" has taken place in the area
and additional development is potentially being contemplated for
a number of vacant or underutilized parcels within the study
-2-
area. It is the opinion of the staff that if some of these
• developments proceed the problems of blight and incompatible
land use will be exacerbated. Positive action at this time
represents a unique opportunity for the city council to provide
for the rational planned redevelopment of the south central part
of Richfield.
If this ordinance is enacted, the city staff and consultants
would undertake a comprehensive study of the area. The study
would address various studies including traffic problems,
parking problems, present and future land use patterns, building
conditions and financial and economic elements.
The boundaries of the study area are the same as those
considered by the city council on December 17, 1984.
The attached interim ordinance has been amended since the
city council gave its first reading approval. Subdivision 2,
section 3, which is found in the middle of page 5 of the
attached ordinance has been amended. This proposed amendment
would permit the city to process licenses, permits,
rezonings, platting or land divisions up to the point of, but
not including, their actual issuance, if the project or projects
would comply with the following criteria:
A. The project would involve development or redevelopment
in the area which would have an estimated market value
in excess of $20,000,000.
B. The project involved would be consistent with and
complimentary to the development or redevelopment of
other adjacent properties within the area.
C. The proposed project in the opinion of the city council,
would contribute to and accelerate the development or
redevelopment of the balance of the area.
This amendment would also permit the issuance of any
license, permit, rezoning, platting or land division for any
project within the study area if the city council removes the
project site from the provisions of this ordinance by
amendment. (Section 1A of the ordinance which specifically
delineates the geographic extent of the study area would have to
be amended.)
The purpose of this additional provision to the interim
ordinance is to provide the opportunity for the city council and
staff to consider proposed development plans for the study area,
and in particular, the Lyons property, if a significant
development plan is proposed that would meet the city's
objectives and plans. The provision provides for a process to
remove a parcel of land from the study area by city council
action of amending this ordinance.
-3-
• Recommendation
The city manager, city attorney and city staff recommend
that the city council hold a public hearing on this ordinance
and give it second reading and adoption.
If affirmative action is taken, the ordinance will become
effective 30 days after the date of publication. During the
interim period, the resolution relating to the issuance
of permits in the ILN area, which was also adopted by the city
council on December 17, 1984, will remain in effect until the
ordinance becomes effective or April 17, 1985, whichever occurs
first.
JGC /eja
•
40
Respectful bmitted,
ohn G. bar ig Tt
City Manager
•
r
O ry
ry
O
2
•
•
:o=
—INTERSTATE_.
00
HIGHWAY NO. 35W
Ave < $o.
pft Omy AWE so.
3
rrl
gn;
Am .4.
oLwow AM
YO.
>
is
AM &o.
%
w"Aw AWL
7-
A
z z
AWL
Z
LYNDALE AV �OUTH
13,
Z.k
T;.
KAApwr AWL
ITT
A�l AM
z
rn
NICOLLET AVENUE SOUTH
tows CITY OF RICHFIELD
w am
cl)
M
W
C.
co
M
co
�y
CD
AWL
A
AVE so.
4h
po
AWL
z
rn
NICOLLET AVENUE SOUTH
tows CITY OF RICHFIELD
w am
cl)
M
W
C.
co
M
co
�y
CD
C�
BILL NO.
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE
PLANNING PROCESS IN A CERTAIN AREA
OF THE CITY, REGULATING, RESTRICTING
AND PROHIBITING CERTAIN USES,
DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS
WITHIN SUCH AREA.
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
-)--5
Section 1. The city council of the City of Richfield finds
as follows:
A. The city is concerned with the proper and more
economic use, development and possible redevelop-
ment of that area of the city generally referred
to as the "Interstate - Lyndale Area ", hereinafter
referred to as the "Area ", the boundaries of
which Area are more specifically described
as follows:
All of the property between Interstate
• No. 35W and the Minneapolis Northfield
Southern Railroad tracks and south of
77th Street with the following ad-
ditions: (a) the area west of Emerson
Avenue, east of Interstate No. 35w, bet-
ween 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 Aldrich and Lyndale Avenues
south of 76th Street; (d) the east one -
half block of the block between Aldrich
and Lyndale Avenues and between 75th
and 76th Streets; (e) the west one-
half of the block between Lvndale and
Garfield Avenues, south of Century Court
apartments and north of 76th Street; (f)
the entire block between Lyndale and
Garfield Avenues between 76th and 77th
Streets; and (g) between Garfield and
Pleasant Avenues, the first parcel abut-
ting the north side of 77th Street.
B. There are a number of planning and land use
issues arising in the Area which require
comprehensive planning, among which are the
following:
1. The city is deficient in commercial and
industrial tax base. Very little un-
•
•
•
7- (11�)
developed 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 industrial development within the
city.
2. The Area presently contains tracts of
undeveloped or underdeveloped land which
cannot be developed to the optimum with-
out improving access and improving
traffic patterns.
3. The Area may best be developed pursuant
to a unified plan and /or in large segments
rather than on a piecemeal basis.
4. The Area contains a number of buildings
which are aging and appear to be in a
deteriorating condition. Some parts of
the Area present a poor visual appearance
because of such factors as lack of
uniform setbacks, unrelated facades,
inadequate or inappropriate loading and
unloading areas, insufficient parking,
excessive land coverage, conflicting
traffic movements and other functional
inadequacies.
5. Present streets serving the Area do not
appear to provide the best access from
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 need to relocate
and redesign streets and other traffic
control facilities in and around the
Area so as to safeguard such residen-
tial 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 formulate
a long -range master plan for control
and movement of traffic within and
around the Area.
-2-
•
•
7-7
8. It appears necessary and desirable to
avoid further piecemeal development and
redevelopment of the Area so as to re-
verse the undesirable development
patterns which have existed and which
now exist within the Area including
fragmented land ownership and under -
utilization of the land.
9. It appears that there are or may be sub-
standard building conditions and unsafe
and unsanitary buildings and structures
used or intended to be used for indus-
trial or other purposes within the Area.
10. It appears that by reason of socio-
logical and technological changes, as
well as by reason of dilapidation, ob-
solescence and the faulty arrangement
or design of buildings and improvements
in the Area, there is a need for compre-
hensive planning and development 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 lay-
out 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 citi-
zens and property owners of the city and
persons occupying property or working and
being in and around the Area.
13. The presence of such conditions has
caused an impairment of the value of
private investments, has threatened
sources of public revenues, has
deprived the community and its resi-
dents of better facilities and job
opportunities, and has otherwise ad-
versely affected the public welfare.
C. There is a need for the formulation of a
new comprehensive plan and program for the
development and /or redevelopment of the Area.
Such plan and program will require intensive
0 study over a number 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
MC
•
•
•
7J
and welfare of the citizens of the
city and to insure that the city and
its citizens retain the benefits of
the new comprehensive plan and development -
redevelopment program for the Area. There
is a further need to regulate, restrict
or prohibit uses, developments or sub
divisions of land within the Area during
the planning process, so as to avoid the
occurrence of events which will be inimical
to the orderly development and redevelopment
of the Area in future years.
Section 2. During the period that this interim ordinance
is in effect, no property within the area
shall be developed or redeveloped nor shall
any licenses or permits, rezoninas, plattings
or land divisions pursuant to Richfield Code
of Ordinances, Chapter III, Parts I, IV and VI,
be issued by the city for any such development
or redevelopment except as provided in Section
3 hereof.
Section 3. Subdivision 1. Notwithstanding the
limitations, restrictions, and prohibi-
tions contained in the foregoing Section
2, the city council may grant permits for
development or redevelopment within the
Area, but only if it finds that the develop-
ment or redevelopment involved will comply
with the following criteria:
A. The permit will not involve the
construction of a new building or
the enlargement of an existing building.
B. The construction will not materially
change the future use, development or
redevelopment of the property involved
or any adjacent properties.
C.
The construction
fair market value
volved by more th
will not
of the
an ten p
increase
property
ercent.
the
in-
D. The construction of the improvement
will not intensify traffic or parking
problems on the subject property,
adjacent properties, or adjacent
highways and streets.
E. The proposed project
or intensify conflic
and non - residential
Area.
-4-
will not exacerbate
is between residential
traffic within the
F. Granting of the permit will not
make a material difference in or
create a serious impediment to the
development or redevelopment of the
property involved upon completion of
the planning process.
G. The permit will involve the repair,
maintenance or safeguarding of
existing structures or the completion
of building interior improvements
which are necessary to the proper
continued utilization of the property
pending the planning process.
Subd. 2. The provisions of this ordinance
shall not prevent the city from processing
licenses, permits, rezonings, plattinas or
land divisions up to the point of, but not
including, their actual issuance if the
project or projects involved will comply
with the following criteria:
A. The project will involve development or
redevelopment within the Area which
will have an estimated market value in
excess of 20,000,000.
B. The project involved is consistent with
and complementary to the development or
redevelopment of other adjacent proper-
ties within the Area.
C. The proposed project will, in the
opinion of the council, contribute to
and accelerate the development or
redevelopment of the balance of the
Area.
Subd. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions
of the foregoing Subdivision 2, no license,
permit, rezoning, platting or land division
shall be issued for any project described
in that subdivision unless the site for
the project is removed from the provisions <
this ordinance by amendment to Section
Section 4. This ordinance shall remain in effect for a
period of one year from its effective date,
• provided that in the event the planning
process has not been completed within
the one year period, its effectiveness
may be extended for such additional periods
as the city council may by resolution
-5-
__)-1
-�- / C�)
determine to be appropriate, not exceeding
a total additional period of eighteen (18)
months.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
this day of , 1985.
ATTEST:
•
•
City Clerk
Mayor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 47
Agenda February 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Subdivision Request at 920 - 924 West 66th Street.
Council Members:
HISTORY
In November, 1983, the city council approved a special use
permit to allow the construction of a two family dwelling at 920
- 924 West 66th Street. This two family dwelling was
constructed by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
in conjunction with the Hennepin Technical Center. The HRA is
now requesting that the city approve a common element
residential subdivision of this site.
PROPOSAL
The total area of the site is 11,822 square feet. There is
a street easement for 66th Street which takes up approximately
1,900 square feet of this total area. The net area of the site
therefore is approximately 9,922 square feet. The proposed
common element residential subdivision would create three lots.
There would be a lot under each of the dwelling units and then
the remainder of the lot would be the third lot which would be
commonly owned. One lot would have an area of 1,378 square
feet. The second lot would have an area of 1,280 square feet
and the third lot would have an area of 7,264 square feet.
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
The city subdivision ordinance in Section 3.55A, allows two
family dwellings to be subdivided as proposed if certain
conditions are met. A copy of the ordinance is attached for
your information.
STAFF REVIEW
Staff has reviewed the proposed common element residential
subdivision provisions against the requirements in the city's
subdivision ordinance and found the following:
-2-
1. The proposed site is located in a R single family
• residential zoning district and the proposed two family dwelling
is permitted in that zoning district if a special use permit is
obtained. As indicated earlier a special use permit has been
approved for the proposed use on the site;
•
•
2. The total site exceeds minimum city standards for lot
area and lot width. The structure on the site meets zoning
ordinance requirements for setback lot coverage access and off -
street parking;
3. All information required by the subdivision ordinance
has been provided except for information on utility easements;
and,
4. The proposed common element residential subdivision is
consistent with all subdivision requirements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the proposed common element
subdivision be approved subject to the following stipulations:
1. That all utility easements be shown;
2. No owner may remove or alter an intervening common wall
separating two units for the purpose of joining such units
without amending the plat to permit such joinder.
3. Except to adjust for settling or laterial movement of
structures the boundaries between adjoining units may not be
relocated without amending the plat;
4. Units may not be subdivided without amending the plat;
5. Common areas or facilities may not be subdivided without
amending the plat;
6. In the event that any unit is damaged or destroyed it
must be rebuilt to the boundaries of that unit as discribed in
the subdivision plan; and,
7. Common areas may not be used for any purpose other than
the purposes discribed in the subdivision plan and contained in
the plat.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission on a 7 -0 -1 (Commissioner McDermott
abstaining) voted to recommend approval of the subdivision.
pectftX11- �iubmitted ,
ohn G. Ca twright
City Manage
Subd. 2. Grades, Utilities, etc. As a condition precedent to the approval of
the plat of lands located within the city limits, the council may prescribe
requirements of the extent to which and the manner in which streets shall be
granted and improved, utilities installed, and any other matters reasonably
related to the manner in which the area being subdivided or platted shall be
developed.
Subd. 3. Dedication of Park Land. In appropriate plats or subdivisions to be
developed for residential uses, the council may also require that a portion of
such land of sufficient size and character be set aside and dedicated to the
public for public use as parks and playgrounds. The subdivider may, however,
at his option contribute an equivalent amount in cash and all such payments re-
ceived by the city shall be placed in a special fund and used only for the
acquisition of land for parks and playgrounds.
Subd. 4. Contract and Bond. In lieu of the completion of work required as a
condition precedent to approval of a subdivision or plat, the council may give
approval upon the execution of a contract and bond in form and amount satis-
factory to the council, providing for and securing to the city the actual
construction and installation of such improvements, utilities and other develop-
ments within the period specified in said contract and bond, not exceeding two
years.
Subd. 5. Public Improvements - Limitation. Except as other -wise provided in
this part, no electric or gas distribution lines and piping, roadways, walks,
curbs and other similar improvements shall be constructed on any street until
the street has been approved by being designated upon a plat or subdivision
duly approved and accepted by the council or previously accepted as a public
street by the council.
Subd. 6. Issuance of Building Permits - Condition. No permit for the erection
of any building shall be issued unless it shall be located upon a street or
highway giving access thereto which has been duly approved and made a part of
the street plan of this city and unless such building conforms to the building
line established upon the street or proposed street where it is to be located.
No permit for the erection of any building shall be issued unless the building
is to be located upon a full width, improved street or highway, and at such an
elevation that such building can be served by the municipal sanitary sewer
system by gravity flow, unless the permission of the council is first obtained.
This provision is applicable to building permits to be issued for any parcel of
land whether heretofore or hereafter platted or subdivided.
Subd. 7. 3uildinz ?ermits -- Viclaticn of this ?art No building permit shall
be issued for the ccnstruction of any building on a parcel conveyed in violation
of the provisions of this part.
CROSS- REFERENCE: See Chap. III, Par*_ I, Sec. 3.06, for general
provisions relating to Building and Construction
permits.
3.55A. COMMON EL =NT RESIDENTIAL SUBD 1777SIONS
Subdivision 1. Common element residential subdivisions are permitted in the R,
`-R -2, ma-3, PR or P -Mt districts of the Cit . (3il'_ 1982 -12)
5/10/82
5/10/82
ORDINANCE CODE 94.1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Subd. 2. Additional Submissions. Any applicant requesting a common element
residential subdivision shall submit a subdivision plan showing the following:
(1) The number and location of each living unit assigning an identifying
number to each;
(2) The dimensions and - locations of all existing structural improvements
and roadways;
(3) The intended location and dimensions of all common areas and facilities
to be constructed labeled either MUST BE BUILT or ;TEED NOT BE BUILT;
(4) The extent of any encroachment by or upon the buildings;
(5) The location and dimensions of all recorded easements within the sub-
division serving or burdening any portion of the subdivision;
(6) The location and dimensions of any limited common areas or facilities;
(7) The location and dimensions of the vertical boundaries of each unit and
that unit's identifying number;
(8) The location and dimensions of the horizontal unit boundaries with
reference to assumed datum and each unit's identifying number.
The subidivision plan shall become part of the plat and shall contain a certi-
fication by a registered professional engineer, surveyor, or architect that
the subdivision plan accurately depicts all information required by this
subdivision.
Subd. 3. Common Element Subdivisions. Special Regulations. All common element
subdivisions as permitted by this section shall comply with the following re-
quirements:
(1) All necessary special use permits and apartment use permits have been
or will be obtained prior to the filing of the plat.
(2) The proposed development shall meet all requirements established as
part of the zoning regulations found in Part IV of city ordinances for the
zoning district which the subdivision is to be located in.
Subd. 4. Conditions Governing Approval. In approving common element subdivisions
the city council shall find that such approval would not adversely affect the
public health, safety or general welfare and that the intent and spirit of these
regulations would be preserved. In approving common element subdivisions, the
council may require that conditions including the following be placed upon the
plat, together with conditions which are contained else•.lhere in this part:
(1) No owner may remove or alter any intervening common wall separating two
units for the purpose of joining such units without amending the plat to permit
such joinder;
(2) Except to adjust for settling or lateral movement of structures, the
boundaries between adjoining units may not be relocated without amending the
plat;
(2) Units may not be subdivided without amending the plat;
(4) Common areas or facilities may not be subdivided without amending the
plat;
(5) In the event that any unit is damaged or destroyed, it must be rebuilt
to the boundaries of that unit as described in the subdivision plan;
(6) Common areas may not be used for any purpose other than the purposes
described in the subdivision plan and contained in the plat. (Bill 1982 -12)
5/10/82
5/10/82
ORDINANCE CODE 94.2 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
o�
Z'
V
0
I
f 1
0.
z
a
memo
z
N
r
i`
�+ 7
1t i
gi
� w
m
'� 4.
s� Q`
Y �
milk. 46&
J
os ,
} r
i
L
i
- L €
C!
i
�E
LI
�I
y JI
Fn
r.
x
o
r 8
o+
`
_:
I
iii
�
•s��
r
M
r
-Z
.t
�_'
!-
F•
�
I .t
�:
'_
Sri
lip z3 - '
a
-
:_
I
,...
2z
.1
JIZ
� w
m
'� 4.
s� Q`
Y �
milk. 46&
J
os ,
} r
i
L
i
- L €
C!
i
�E
LI
�I
y JI
Fn
r.
x
o
r 8
$0
9
o+
$0
9
.7
•
•
PRELIMINARY
RAE 2ND
PLAT OF
ADDITION
� �...� -vim � � �� '� ` 3 �}..o •� � ,"i"fx�
Ile
1
I
r
%k
�• o�oo� ° 9� °oaf °'° °� °ate
0
o oh •,i ^\
e °000 o
°
',o,
f ♦1
fj
c r
c
m
tL
•o LL—
`
o
mm a
f
1 '
,Y j
a0c
a
o U 2
� r
N
N L
1 r
-o ca
) ; • r
a 3
r•1
i a
q,
0
o ;
° �,,,y Igo
r
►a■ ■ ■ ■■■iti'/HM:.
■N ■ ■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■N■■� �?fa..
ram C"Nowwww"Em"MC-mr
IN ■ ■CtlN■■■mU%j ■s■■wwZc
� ■ ■R7f ■ssY■Lf� ti ■ ■■ ■N ■�
■ ■■\'S 1■N■ ►■"1■■ ■ ■ ■ ■NY w
q��iaN.�rss■ ■�� ■ ■s�M �bs i
���rs■s ■N■sss■■■s ■ ■sss •
H■ ■■s■►■■■■■■■■ ■N■ ■s
■im"dm ■■■■NS■■■■ m
i%
,■■mr,sav
a■ OWN
■s►
lW�►"
:L,
v �
t � l
J
y a
"r
i
CO
.0� m
\ J
r —
< 4 J
c r
c
m
tL
•o LL—
`
o
mm a
,Y j
a0c
a
o U 2
\ J
r —
< 4 J
r
F,AT,°
tj
My pQiiQ_�sf�.°nwj
',a Mepo � � . � •
O ' 0
I '
1
-
h
�3 f.
w
4u 9L
���:�'Lr .� fit!: �SF.rei,��t � _ r.. eJ ,+�.�� ^3►�1'r:. S+�
ZMA
1p
iq
'>'°,o'�o °e, °0o °e'°,' °. � �i 81i •,� � "fir � y a .. `j1
;, °o°,, �o�o ao�o °off ter. F i v� .� �f7
41,
°° °�0o °OO °' - _ �°°+a°a= '�e°+'°6; ; o °,e000,a a;o -_ °o ° °0odo ° >�`b .- .j' • V
? °, °,e _-,�O ,000° ac � °e, ° °�ca'Oa° Q,0 'a;d'e °a °o°,�'° a °e • l - r �:yc �.
'`ir aq�eo °�' ",off' o ° - o ,�o''d'oa "'� o`�' • �i 1.� �1 >i
,o,c'�'o
i � "�N v o e° o°a°o,a o�e°° °o °oo °o a °o°a . � • 3.�
LAS 000 o°a� 3 o °e o 0 °o°'0e' • • d j �
/ °000'O°e°c >°�gSo°,°Oaeoo'�Mb c°° o°_�y ,a',o,o o a' " • O I r `.
,a�oeo °eoo��oo
ac`o �°�°� o °°e�?°eo e7,'e°o�°a°a° = a"°'c °a°oa0000° °a a,,a •
1 °a >O0 as i° o o° • �_ —�
> °o c o o, o ° o o°o' a°c o v'o o ^.•y I
,0 .ate
° 0000 oa000 0 000000 "0 °00 °0 �
° ° o °e °, _ o v °e �°o„1O"aea° °ooa °°°o °° °°° ° °°v°2d' ° °ae°° °° °D °,q,°,e TO °,° •
j
'?oeoo ° ° aoo'°o,a °o 0 00o,°ooe o 0 ° °0 °0 0 0° 0 ° ° ° °0°c° °o°oea,00�coPoe°�oo • � � �,��
��p L 4 op �,.�yco°ooa j ° >°o'°a°o -° ° °° �°oo • s' M
= °o °17'S°0000 a°°o ,e�°,e, °oO'6c °,°a°o°°°o o?ee °' �°'� °o°o°aoD �V o °edl�eeao • Ej
i� ♦ ° °o � ao° 0000° 'o°u °o °v °o °0pc$��,• °y�Oa�o,,.�a° °�0y °O�qQ� �+,�op >� • .� �a'� `k ••! i
° o��aoo oo°'o° 000,°eoo° � a, L f�' II •� ��
L4,,LH74�ala(4
�t
0 0„ o, . •
t1 .
�11�
7i
T
T
Jo
E
L
E m
�
J
_ E
�t 4PS1
d
� aJ
^�N{
-s
Council Letter No. 46
Agenda of February 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Approval of an Amended Planned Unit
Development Plan, Final Development Plan, and
Special Use Permit - Richfield State Agency.
Council Members:
The Planning Commission at its January 22, 1985, meeting
tabled the consideration of the special use permit until a
traffic study has been provided by the applicant at the
Commission's next meeting. However, notice of the city council
public hearing on the proposal originally scheduled for February
11, 1985, was published in the January 30, 1985, Richfield Sun.
It is recommended that council continue the public hearing
on this matter until March 11, 1985.
JGC /eja
•
Respectful s omitted,
ohn G. ar right
City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD,
MINNESOTA
Office of City
Manager
Council Letter No. 46
Agenda of February 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Approval of an Amended Planned Unit
Development Plan, Final Development Plan, and
Special Use Permit - Richfield State Agency.
Council Members:
The Planning Commission at its January 22, 1985, meeting
tabled the consideration of the special use permit until a
traffic study has been provided by the applicant at the
Commission's next meeting. However, notice of the city council
public hearing on the proposal originally scheduled for February
11, 1985, was published in the January 30, 1985, Richfield Sun.
It is recommended that council continue the public hearing
on this matter until March 11, 1985.
JGC /eja
•
Respectful s omitted,
ohn G. ar right
City Manager
C I T Y O F R I C H F I E L D M I N N E S 0 T A
C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T
Item #3
85 -SUP -3
Agenda of January 22, 1985
Planning Commission
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Approval of an Amended Planned Unit
Development Plan, Final Development Plan, and Special
Use Permit- Richfield State Agency
Dear Commissioners:
HISTORY
In September, 1981, the city council approved a planned unit
development plan, rezoning, preliminary plat and street vacation
for a development on the site bounded by 66th Street, 67th
Street, Lyndale Avenue, and Grand Avenue, subject to the
stipulation that building materials and all site lighting,
landscaping, signing and "buffering conform to city standards.
The proposed development by-Richfield State Agency was to
ultimately result in 138,000 square feet of bank, office, and
commercial space. Of this, 82,000 square feet was to be new
construction and 56,000 square feet was to be remodeled space
within the existing building.
The construction was contemplated to occur in two phases.
In the first phase, the existing building was to be expanded and
remodeled to bring its gross floor area to 110,485 square feet.
The Richfield Bank and Trust was to occupy 70,000 square feet of
this space, and 47,378 square feet of the 70,000 square feet
being new, earth sheltered construction with new drive -up
tellers, parking, and landscaping located on the roof. There
was to be 5,000 square feet of new at -grade construction and
17,600 square feet of remodeled space in the existing building.
Phase I was to also include 29,650 square feet of leasable
office or commercial space. The existing medical building at
the northeast corner of the site was to remain as well as four
of the existing houses on the southeastern part of the site.
Additional surface parking was to be provided on the north and
east part of the site. Phase II construction was to remove the
four remaining houses, add parking, and add three additional
floors of leasable office space to the top of the north half of
the existing two -story bank building. A specific date for
implementation of Phase II was not specified.
In October of 1982 the city approved an amended PUD, Final
Development plan and special use permit for the site.
The following is a summary of how the amended plan differed
from the previous plan.
1. Construction of the earth - sheltered structure to the
south of the existing structure and the relocation of the
'2- Z
drive -up teller facility would no longer occur in Phase I.
The existing teller drive'-up facilities would be remodeled
and new equipment installed. A 12 x 48 foot manufactured
building would be placed on the east end of the existing
drive -up facility and would be occupied by bank tellers.
The building would have an 8 foot setback from 67th Street
right -of -way line. The building would be brick -faced and be
on a concrete slab and be connected to utilities (sewer,
water, electricity). Its appearance would be similar to the
remote banking facility at the'southeast corner of 66th
Street and Harriet Avenue. An additional lane would be
added to handle campers, vans, and other taller vehicles.
2. Three additional stories would be constructed on the
north half of the existing building. This was to occur in
Phase II in the previously approved plan. _
3. The house on the northeast corner of 67th Street and
Harriet Avenue would be converted from a residence to an
office.
4. The second house north of 67th Street on the west side
of Grand Avenue is to be removed instead of remaining until
Phase II. This house would be acquired, moved, and
renovated by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment
Authority as part of the Vo -Tech housing rehabilitation
program. 0
on._ the----west side-of--the building _
.wouldnot be constructed in Phase I.
6. A large area on the eastern edge of the site south of
the existing medical offices will not be developed as
parking in the first phase as shown in the approved plan.
Less parking is required because less floor area would be
constructed in Phase I. Less existing parking is also being
removed. This area will be maintained as a grass area until
Phase II. A landscaped berm would be constructed along
Grand Avenue to screen adjacent residential properties.
The following stipulations were approved as part of the
city's approval of the amended plan:
1. That all permanent parking lot improvements constructed
meet city specifications.
2. That all building materials, site lighting, landscaping
and sign plans should be submitted to the city staff for
review and approval.
3. That the commercial building located at 6637_Lyndale
Avenue be removed in Phase I.
4. That the residential structure located at 6645 Harriet
Avenue (northeast corner of 67th Street and the previously
vacated Harriet Avenue) remain as a residential structure
and not be converted to an office structure.
513
5. That all perimeter traffic control and landscaping
improvements shown on the Phase I site plan be constructed
immediately with the _exception of the traffic- channeling
improvements proposed to be constructed at the intersection
of 66th and Grand.
6. That all Phase .I improvements including the drive -up
facility renovation and the construction of three additional
stories on the existing building occur in sequential steps
acceptable to both the city staff and the developer.
7. That Richfield Bank & Trust direct their engineering
consultant to conduct a traffic study of 67th Street traffic
and report back to the council as soon as possible. This
study is to specifically address a means of preventing
automobile traffic from traveling eastward on 67th Street
after departing the drive -in bank facility.
Richfield State Agency has subsequently requested that the
city approve a revised PUD Plan, Final Development Plan and
special use permit to allow a number of changes to be made to
the development. The following are the changes anticipated in
the development.
1. The previous plan indicated that the area north of the
existing bank building would be excavated exposing the
basement level of the north side of the building.
Commercial store fronts would then be constructed on the
north side of the bank building and a parking lot
constructed. The proposed plan indicates that a McDonalds
restaurant would be occupying the lower level and a 12 foot
solarium addition constructed along the north side of the
building. Commercial tenants would then be given space on
the north end of the first floor level rather than in the
basement.
2. A drive -thru service window would be constructed on the
northease corner of the space occupied by McDonalds
restaurant.
3. The parking layout north of the bank building would be
revised. The existing curb out to 66th Street from the
former Harriet Avenue and the median break on 66th Street
would be closed and a new entrance and median break
constructed further east just west of the medical office
building.
4. A two story addition on the southeast corner of the bank
building would be constructed. The previous plan
anticipated a single story addition being constructed in the
second phase of the development.
5. Additional parking has been constructed adjacent to
Grand Avenue South of the medical office building. The
previous plan anticipated this to occur during the second
phase of development.
6. The parking layout on the site formerly occupied by KFC
has been altered.
7. A small elevator addition constructed on the southwest
corner of the medical office building.
8. The overall parking ratio for the development as a whole
changes from 4.01 spaces per thousand square feet of gross
floor area to 4.15 spaces per thousand square feet of gross
floor area.
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
1. Section 3.32 and Section 3.33 sets standards for
commercial developments within the city.
2. Section 3.34A sets standards for planned unit
development districts.
a) Section 3.34A, subdivision 7 indicates that the
development of a planned unit development district shall be in
substantial compliance with the approved PUD plan, final
development plan and any conditions imposed by the council.
Compliance shall not be considered substantial if there is (a)
more than 10% change in the floor area in any one structure (b)
more than 10% change in original approved separation of
buildings (c) any change in the orginal approved setbacks from
property - -line- s- - -(d -) more than-5% change in the ground area
covered by the building or (e) any change in the ratio of off -
street parking and loading space to gross floor area in the
_building.
The proposal indicates that the setback of the building from
the north property line would be reduced by 12 feet because of
the addition of the McDonalds solarium and the ratio of off -
street parking and loading space to gross floor area in the
building also changes. Therefore the PUD plan amendment is
necessary.
b. Section 3.34A, subdivisionl5 indicates that a special
use permit is issued by the city for the uses shown in the
plan. The development anticipated the development of a
restaurant within a bank building however it did not anticipate
the development of a restaurant with a drive -up service window
such as being proposed. Therefore in accordance with the city's
practice of requiring restuarants to obtain new special use
permits when drive -up service windows are added a new special
use permit is required.
3. Section 4.05, sets standards for off - street parking
areas. 0
STAFF REVIEW
1. The proposed changes do not constitute a major change in
the development anticipated in theprevious planned unit
development plan. The development after the completion of all
of Phase two improvements would be substantially the same as
indicated in the previous PUD plan.
2. The reduced setback and changed off - street parking ratio
would not pose any problems. The setback of the building would
still be greater than the minimum requirement in a commercial
area and the parking ratio has been increased.
3. The addition of the drive -up window would not result in
undo traffic congestion or traffic flow problems either on the
site or on adjacent streets. There is sufficient internal
stacking space to handle the anticipated traffic. The drive -up
service lane is separated from the parking area and would not
adversely affect the ability of vehicles to access the parking
area.
4. The proposed change in the curb cut location and median
break on 66th Street should result in safer conditions. The
change provides a greater separation between the median break
and curb cut and Lyndale Avenue which should result in safer
conditions. Sufficient stacking space in a protected left - turn
lane for both the proposed new curb cut and for Lyndale Avenue
would be maintained. The proposed change has been reviewed with
Hennepin County staff and preliminary approval has been given by
the county staff.
The layout of the parking lot and the design and location of
driveways will channel traffic to and from 66th Street and would
not encourage traffic to go through surrounding residential
neighborhoods.
5. There will be sufficient parking provided on the site.
As indicated previously the parking ratio has been increased
over what was approved as part of the previous plan. While the
_ addition of a McDonalds restuarant as part of the development
would increase the need for parking over other kinds of
restuarants, there is sufficient parking located adjacent to
McDonalds to handle to proposed usage. The addition of the
drive -up service window also would reduce the parking need for
the McDonalds restuarant. The uses are separated on the site
and sufficient parking located adjcent to the different uses to
handle the parking needs.
6. In reviewing the proposed plan staff has identified a
potential problem area adjacent to the west side of the bank
building. The use of the area is shown as angled parking for 13
vehicles facing the building with a narrow driving aisle
servicing these parking stall. In reviewing the plan staff is
concerned about sufficient pedestrian ways along Lyndale
Avenue. As currently constructed there is a very narrow 5 foot
wide sidewalk immediately adjacent to Lyndale Avenue and the
Richfield Bank parking area. This sidewalk is to narrow to
provide safe pedestrian passage and also to provide sufficient
snow storage space in the winter time. The redevelopment plan
originally anticipated that the pedestrian way would use the
existing sidewalks adjacent to the bank building rather than the
pedestrian way abutting Lyndale Avenue. 'However, at the banks
request it was decided not to provide the public pedestrian way
adjacent to their building. Therefore a sidewalk was
constructed within the limited amount of space available at the
time. The phase two development in the area anticipates removal
of the parking and a drive -thru lane for commercial customers
would be maintained. There would be sufficient pedestrian
ways maintained in phase two. However, because of the
uncertain timing of the phase two improvements, staff has
discussed various alternatives with the applicant to provide
better and safer pedestrian ways within the area in question.
The alternative which seems to have the most potential is to
increase the angle of the parking stalls. This would allow for
a narrower driving aisle and make it possible for' the city to
construct an 8 foot sidewalk through that area which should be
sufficient. The increased angle however, would result in the
loss of parking stalls in the area. The proposed plan also
shows a parking stall within the right -of -way area which should
also be removed. It is staff's feeling that a revised parking
plan for this area of the site should. be developed and submitted
for staff approval.
6. The stipulations placed on the councils previous
approval of the plans have or will be met. The plans shows that
the commercial building at 6637 Lyndale Avenue remains in phase
one. However, discussions with the applicant indicate that this
building will be removed at the end of phase one, when the
building improvements are completed and tenants can be
relocated into the new facilities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the planning commission approve an
amended Planned Unit Development plan and final development plan
and special use permit to allow the development shown on the
attached plans to occur with the following stipulations.
1. That the parking area immediately to the west of the
existng bank building be redesigned by increasing the angle
of parking stalls and by eliminating the parking stall on
the public right -of -way. A revised design for the area
should be developed and submitted for staff approval.
2. That the commercial structure at 6637 Lyndale Avenue be
removed at the end of phase one.
DATE OF COUNCIL HEARING
February 11, 1985
Respectfully submitted,
Rick Jopke
City Planner
RJ /jle
e �
i `,ik
�. Ie
iy � r -w...•'
s -- -szsar
_._.,�►�
.�.. �-
s MAMN� AYIIYtE -90{ _ . •
----------------- _ e
== �.- ,• a
i cni►eo ��nu�soun+ - - - - - -
a R a ^T_._• _ t
JKe
�I I
•
•
•
•
i Vf/ •
17[
P.U.D. UPDATE AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT EXISTING
RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY CONDITIONS
.. �, . RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA SEPTEMIBER, t 984
a �: X41% ,
-_I• •� / _mot_ .O _� _A
. e
SEE
:r
h° * mok
I
.'1 .. ......
I •! I! (r • I .I I I h, ir•T+II I (, 1 1 I
�lV. �� �Y� I I ' ( I I I I � i � - h.i.�- -�. f -.I I. ! I• Y � I S' II � -
HIM �� - • a
1111111!II 1;11111 I• _ �•
'j
t � DRANO AVVIUESOUTH
I
free
so z
�,� > > erYi �O � �� � $'• i==i��f sib .
• � Q •>QR� 19 •w.a Sp y n• o�C wa,�ww�
g i O C r:r �• �r�"
• e • "le • � rw p
DIY• YM f
HUH.a. � YY rw•
• • :�w •wl• se,zn ^ n � ww wwwww
s • tolo::::!!
'. :
P U.0 UPDATE AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT
RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY PHASE 1 MASTER
... �„ ., RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA PARKING PLAN
Z ••
7•a � I y I is
Z
F- A
1 ti s HMMW.AYEMIE f01iT14 y I n
a, I W ow We -.4 .-V
I
1 •I
rl n Ci~ � ti• :z�l
� .. .,... n i� €i• 4 , i I i q.
".._ . _ .......
'A
It —GRA AVVOWSOUT14 —��' - -" . - .. --�
•
N
p!
•
s' ® •
P.U.D. UPDATE AND SPEdAL USE PEFlAMT
CA) • wa RICHREIM STATE AGENCY DIMENSION PLAN
...�... RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
a
' / s _ •` - � Pei � AeCfi� �F
: ai
�\ fat J .;
p'33a I a t 1 _
i � w *• _
OQO 'F
of
IT
P
g: ij
Y 1
S�i _ .yF. .e♦ e , 4
_ _ I
--
't
MARmasr Aveiluesoura `e
fit 1 i
_
4 ° �I
w�
4 f GNAm AvewiLsom" .
- � S
pr lle r+ —
Ae A r s p T
• !gil'l ���; gee �
way;
ewn°e�
• e eeniSFi s.w
O 3�•A
w
O •
O
a
i e -•
T P.U.D. UPDATE AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT GRADING &
RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY
w
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA DRAINAGE PLAN
`d10S3NNI1N 'aTa:iH3W "�` •�•
Nnd 3dvosoNvl ADN30Y 31b1S Q13WHO1>;! .. .
110111tl3d 3sn Ttr)aa ow uvodn 'o•n'd
_ y� �y� �`rEg >> •
>
-'tom CY 1Wi!1
J
1 1 Z
J: J
W � �O W.� W V KO <�� � ��•�� It! ;N21M HIS
i
of : � i � f.•' �;,1 .
O
t ,
' M
•'� 1I if
�` T. ; ..K•... i
•
•
•I
I•
t/lOS3M1YV 'QT3�•{Jld +. •.»»» ...» �+..+.. ».�.. •..».»
1s6ul V )INYS o13WHOla W
'e
ml� AIR
IL
rI -
I;
I I s
.L: I
cw - —�---
I
i I �
I i
.I
wl
a
D
uV
�Z
Nv'Id
asviaoold
xavN m
_
I•
t/lOS3M1YV 'QT3�•{Jld +. •.»»» ...» �+..+.. ».�.. •..».»
1s6ul V )INYS o13WHOla W
'e
ml� AIR
IL
rI -
I;
I I s
.L: I
cw - —�---
I
i I �
I i
.I
wl
a
D
uV
�Z
I�-
,�
;�
i��
•
7
f dlOONNW 'al3bl�M
sNOe239 am AON30Y 31VJLS al31-JHOia iff"RE. .. �
lwAsa 3Sf11V5aZoNV 3Lvcwn cwd
g
i u a i w
w
a
Q
Z
V
W
N
tv
co
AZ
A
V
z
.j
aI
ii
CO
M L
>
W
e6
4c 5-0
lz
ad
fifills-,
WOS en Bid PLMAD
ul!-111
IA
/ij1.1h
J 0 * ,1
tt
C`
16
•
0 i
cn
AN,
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA :At 4
Office of City Manager
r Council Letter No. 45
Agenda February 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Variance and Special Use Permit at 1900 West 78th
Street
Council Members:
McCarthy Enterprises has requested a special use permit and
variance to allow the expansion of an existing automobile
cleaning and preparation structure on the premises occupied by
Wally McCarthy Lindahl Oldsmobile at 1900 West 78th Street. The
applicant proposes to add a 40' x 58' - 5 bay garage addition
onto the existing free standing structure located on the north
end of the property occupied by Wally McCarthy Lindahl
Oldsmobile. The building is used to clean, polish and service
vehicles. The proposed structure would be within 4 1/2 feet of
the Logan Avenue right -of -way which deadends at the north end of
the site in question.
HISTORY
The structure proposed for expansion is located on a
separate parcel of record. The city approved a building permit
for an office storage building on the site in 1962. The site at
that time fronted on Logan Avenue and had an address of 7708
Logan Avenue South. City records do not indicate when the
conversion of the office storage building to a car cleanup
facility occurred. Staff has also been unable to obtain from
city records the history of the dedication and /or vacation of
Logan Avenue adjacent to this site.
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
1. Section 3.33, subdivision 2, requires that car sales
facilities obtain a special use permit prior to locating within
a C -2 general commercial zoning district.
2. Section 3.33, subdivision 3, lists conditions which must
be met before a special use permit should be granted to a car
sales facility.
0
-2-
3. Section 3.33, subdivision 6 and Section 3.32,
subdivision 4, lists the setback requirements for structures in
C -2 general commercial zoning districts. The setback
requirements require that a structure maintain a setback of 40
feet from streets. Because the structure was originally
approved having frontage on Logan Avenue staff will continue to
apply the ordinance based on that fact. If, however, the
structure is considered as a accessory building on the Lindahl
Olds site the existing and proposed structure would violate
setback requirements for accessory buildings on commercial
property. These standards are found in Section 3.39,
subdivision 3, paragraph 3 and 6. Because the existing
structure would not meet these requirements, it would be
considered a non- conforming use and according to city ordinance
could not be expanded without first obtaining a variance.
4. Section 3.40, subdivision 6, lists the conditions for
granting a variance.
5. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, lists the conditions for
granting a special use permit.
STAFF VARIANCE REVIEW
Staff has reviewed the proposal against the three conditions
which must be met for a variance to be granted and found the
following:
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions
affecting this land not common to other properties or similar
districts.
It is staff's opinion that there are unique circumstances
present on this site. The fact that the site originally faced
Logan Avenue and the fact that the street has been vacated are
unique cases which would not be found in other areas of the city
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 reasonable use of the property. The existing car sales
facility and car cleanup facility can continue to be used if the
variance is denied.
3. That the granting of the application will not
materially__ana adversely a_ ect the health or sa ety 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.
-3-
It is staff's opinion that the proposed expansion would not
be detrimental to the public welfare. The proposed expansion
• would be used to better service existing inventory and would not
generate any growth in the business. The proposal would also
not generate additional staff need to operate the facility and
would not require additional off - street parking for either
service customers or employees.
The reduced setback from Logan Avenue would not be
detrimental. Logan Avenue deadends on the north end of the
property and therefore maintenance of the existing setback line
would not be critical. The proposed addition would match the
setback from the north property line of the existing structure.
The area where the proposed expansion would be is blacktopped
now and used to store customer service and inventoried
vehicles. The vehicles now parked in this area can be
accomodated within the expanded garage area.
STAFF SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW
Staff has reviewed the proposal and found that it would not
be detrimental to the public welfare. The proposed structure
would meet the requirements for issuing special use permits to
car sales lot. There are some building code questions which
need to be resolved because of the fact that this structure is
on a separate parcel of record and has minimal setbacks. These
questions relate to restrictions on such things as doors and
other openings in the building.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the variance be denied because the
three conditions for granting variances have not been met. How-
ever, if the variance is approved it is then recommended that
the special use permit be granted subject to the building code
issues being resolved.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission made two separate motions on this
matter. The Planning Commission is unable to apply ordinance
section 3.39 to this situation because of the unique location
of the property and the remainder of Logan Avenue, and therefore
cannot determine what the proper requirements would be to
recommend granting a variance. However, the Planning Commission
unanimously recommends that the City Council consider vacating
Logan Avenue South of 77th Street upon proper application by the
applicant either jointly with the owners of the Archery Center
abutting Logan Avenue or with notice to them. Such a vacation
would eliminate the need for a variance and permit the granting
of the special use permit. Subsequent to the Planning
Commission meeting the applicant has indicated that they do not
• want to pursue the street vacation because McCarthy Enterprises
no longer owns the property on the west side of the portion of
-4-
Logan Avenue proposed to be vacated, they need to continue
with the variance process. Staff has sent the owners of the
Archery Center a letter indicating that the city may be
considering vacating the portion of Logan Avenue which abuts
their property.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended granting of
the special use permit.
City Manager Comments
The best solution or ideal solution would have been to
vacate Logan Avenue south of 77th Street. McCarthy Enterprises
has sold on a contract for deed, the adjacent parcel to the
north to an attorney. Therefore, if the street were vacated at
this time, the vacated street would block an access route from
77th Street to the McCarthy Enterprises.
From a city staff and planning commission perspective, the
proposal by McCarthy Enterprises meets with the spirit of the
desired end result. However, it is the specific provisions of
the ordinance that cause the problem. Because the variance
request does not meet the three conditions listed for
recommending a variance, the planning staff has recommended
against the variance.
The city manager recommends to the city council that the
best solution to the problem since the vacation of Logan Avenue
would not help, is to apprve the variance as requested.
Approval of the variance would then allow the approval of
the special use permit to proceed.
JGC /eja
Respectful submitted,
John G. Kr-tc&ight
City Manager
�,�
<<
S,
�. t.� �i.i.� �
�.�_
� -� i . , .
S
• , _ uj
q 77th ST. • �;
• 182• Q
_ � 9 Wt.
JAACLS•
c!) Ctrs.
CAR CLm— ARCHf:RY
{
COMM'LB BL.DC:
BLAQ .
CAU 3a roc
. srxss
smt+t mAP%—
syst smex CARS CAM
Q 1 BODY 1
�f cusz � SHOP
sm�c 1 is0 sne ssNi 1
1 !
C �Q vs® CARS QrQ
1 1
- r•
Masi: SERVICE DEFr..
UNDAHL OLDS.
OFFICE s SHOWROOM
w -1$TIf .
t
i
so "
szstu.
Service Road
El Proposed Additfan
p
45 31
0
iu
0
-4 Cr) w
4 38 34125
i hi I
1 CD!
2A Iz ?I
4 Zj 20 14 I m:
OLIVER
7443
as
33 27
co
z
o
m
x
iii
r
m
>
Lill
11
z
CA) 0
c
Cl)
Q
m
z
m
>
r
>
r
0
Ox
x
m
m
0
T644
35
p
45 31
0
iu
0
-4 Cr) w
4 38 34125
i hi I
1 CD!
2A Iz ?I
4 Zj 20 14 I m:
OLIVER
7443
as
33 27
21 !15
1 09
La
W
11
AD
ADD,
P 1
TION
08
T644
35
26
x0 14
NEWTON m
-
4
4
.33
29 23 1- c
0 1. 1 Ir-n
1,
g
11
AD
ii "'AINDIN i-
_1?A
'I����y
2S 2-4 20 1 14
95
z
11
ip.
'I����y
"w�i
li'll
NW
Subd. 4. Lot Area and Yard Requirements. The following minimum quit ents
apply to all buildings hereafter, erected or structurally altered in a "C•I"
district, subject to modifications and exceptions provided in Section 3.39
of this chapter.
(i) All single family dwellings shall confora to the requirements of an
"R" district as set forth in S4ection 3.30 of this chapter and all multiple
family dwellings shall conform to the requirements set forth in Section 3.31
of this chapter. (Bill 1982 -3) 218/82
(2) Front Yard: Each building shall have a front yard of not less than
40 feet, and shall have a greater front yard where required under the pro-
visions of Section 3.39-,. Subdivisions 2, Paragraph (2). If the building lot
abuts upon more than one street the area between the building and each of
such streets shall be regarded as front yard. (Bill 1971 -1) 1/25/71
(3) Side Yard: No side yards shall be required except as follows:
(a) On a corner lot adjacent to a key lot in a residential district
there shall be a sideyard adjacent to the street of a width equal to not less
than one -half the depth required for front yards on the lots to the rear of
such corner lots.
(b) Along that side of every lot in a commercial district bordering
upon property in the "R" or "R -I" district, there shall be a sideyard of not
less than 15 feet. (Bill 1982 -5) 2/8/82
(4) Rea_ r_Yard-: There shall be a rear yard in every lot in a "C -1"
district equal to 20% of the depth of the lot to a maximum required depth.of
25 feet for such lot, provided that such rear yard may be reduced one foot
for each one foot of front yard provided in excess of the minimum requirements
for front yard set forth in this code for a "C -1" district and provided that
said rear yard must be at least ten feet. No rear yard bordering upon an
"R" or "R -1" district shall be used for storage, loading, unloading or
similar activities. (Bill 1982 -5) 2/8/82
3".33:... USE REGULATIONS FOR "C -2 "- GEMMAI� CO,%MMCTAL DISTRICT'.
Subdivision 1. Permitted Uses. In a General Commercial district, unless
otherwise provided in this dhapter, the following uses are permitted:
(1) Any use permitted in an "R", "MR", "R -1 ", " -1 ", I"
(1) or an
"fit -3" district upon compliance with the procedural requirements for such
district provided that no one - family, two- famil or multiple- family dwelling
shall be constructed in this district without first obtaining a special use
permit therefor in accordance with provisions of Section 3.41.
(Bill 1982 -3) 2/8/82
(2) Any commercial use permitted in a "C -1" district, subject to the
procedural requirements contained in this section.
(3) Retail stores and shops, including soda fountains.
(4) Financial institutions, telephone and telegraph offices, messenger
offices and professional offices.
(5) Carpenter, furniture repairing and upholstery shops, book binding
shops, dress making shops, shoe repairing or dyeing shops, newspaper and job
printing establishments, electrical,-tinsmithing, plumbing, decorating shops,
self service laundries and outdoor advertising signs.
(6) Tree trimming services provided that such services do not include
storage accumulation or keeping of wood or tree trimmings on the premises.
(7) Accessory uses and structures incidental to any permitted use, but
not including the open storage of equipment or materials.
2/8/82
ORDINANCE CODE 67 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Subd. 2. Uses b -- Scecial Use Per =ic. ,he following uses shall be 'emitted
0 ^1;• •per _ne -- o^u.a =en: i o :r t .,
, _ � a spec al use , e .i� pursuant �o Section 3. -..:
-) people are sar-ed _a a;.;:owobiLas
.Ut=b le c=ps and cou''rL5
(w) ?locals, vocals, restaurants, cafes, gasoline ser*±ice stations,
service station stores, public garages, car sales Lots and theaters. No
service station may be converted into a station store without a special
use permit for such use issued in accordance with Section 3.41 of this code.
(Bill 1973 -21) Z/11/74
(3) Other business uses which are determined by the Council to be of the
same general character as the uses enumerated in this section and which will
not be obnoxious or decrimental to the area in which they, would be.Located.
Subd. 3. Regulations Relating to Gasoline Service Stations_. Public Garages
and Car Sales Lots. A special use permit for a gasoline service station, a
Public garage or a car sales lot shall not be granted unless the council finds
that the proposed use will be -in substantial compliance with the following
standards:
(a) The use site will not abut a lot which is in an "R" or "R -L"
district. For the purposes of this paragraph, a lot which merely adjoins the
use site at one corner will not be deemed to abut the site. (Bill 1582 -3)
2/818Z
(b) The use will not create undue traffic hazards or craffic con-
gestion by reason of the turning movements which vehicles would hake in
entering or leaving the site.
` (c) No driveway, at the point it crosses the property line of the
site will be within 40 feet of an intersection. An "intersection" as used
_.
__ia a this paragraph_ mesas the.- paint. of inters.eation of the extended, curb lines
if the curbs on the near side of the site, and measurement shall be along
such extended curb lines.
(d) The station or garage will not display any banners, noisy
ribbons or similar attention - distracting or visibility- obscuring devices
r. the area in front of building setback lines.
(e) iae ni..iaua frontage on any street will be 120 =eet and the
aixi --m = area of the site will be 12,000 square feet for a station with four
pumps or Less; and stations with more pumps will have sufficient additional
frontage area to provide equivalent and sufficient space for servicing
vehicles, for off - street parking, for safe vehicular approaches into the
station, and for good visibility for pedestrians and drivers.
(f) 'No driveway will be flared outward on the boulevard in such a
way as to encroach upon the boulevard of adjacent property.
(g) The station or garage will comply with the off - street parking,
sign construction and other regulations of the city.
(h) Any required buffer or screening area will be so constructed as
to obstract headlight beams of automobiles on the station property from
beaming onto adjacent residential property.
(Q Pump islands will not be so close to street or adjacent.property
lines as to create the Likelihood o.f encroachment by vehicles upon street
r _ht- of -wav, sidewalk areas or adjacent propert;.
On! %- one peraarent detache -. ground displa-� s tn, pedestal v-pe
na.- be ereczad on the street fron -cage at or :ear the prooer'. - 1i: a adjacent #
:o c.he street, except that _i the frontage on t a street s in eaxcass of
2 /s /s2
ORDINANCE CODE 58 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
o_..ar arpl =cania si. n raguiacions. (3.L7 1070 -10) 3/ 3/70
_'P!Y7
I_.c) sl_ a.�ctaror I__::__z_ -,i11 be so dess::ec, ?Laces a..c operated
as no: to be a ::__sance _o ad;acant pr-perz:es.
(-) station or - araae :s -.J be Located _n a sC,oppLnc- center
or other - :za_ raced da alo=e tt, iL will b n a.c.1%iceccural •nar�ony • :Ltn
the rest of t:.e center or development.
(m) The station or garage will not provide for the outdoor operation
of lubrication equipment, hydraulic Lifts or service pits, or the outdoor
display of merchandise; but the outside underground storage of gasoline and
other petroleum products between pumps, or the temporary display of merchan-
dise within 4 feet of the station building is permitted.
(a) If the station or garage is not to be located on a county road
or state highway, it shall not be operated between the hours of L1:00 p.m.
and 6 :00 a.m. of the following day.
(o) If the site is at an intersection, provision will be made for
an unobstructed area on the site, adjacent to and within 50 feet of the in-
tersection, free of vehicles, signs (other than a pedestal sign), displays
or other materials which tend to obstruct intersection visibility.
Subd. 4. Regulations Relating to Motels, Motels, Restaurants and Cafes.
A special use permit snail not be granted for a hotel, motel, restaurant or
cafe unless the council finds that the proposed use will be in substantial
compliance with the following standards:
I. (a) The use will not create undue traffic hazards or traffic con -
gestion either on the public streets adjacent to the site or on the parkins
areas on or adjacent to the site or on streets adjacent to the site unto
which traffic to or from the site is channeled.
(b) Adequate provision will be made, through the use of building
setbacks, buffer areas, screening, and exterior treatment or placement of
the building on the site to avoid noise, glare,.fumes, dust, and any other
-- sources° cf= nuisance or- an" oyance to adjacent properties.
(c) Adequate provision will bg made through the use.of building
setbacks, screening, landscaping, exterior design and placement of the
building on the site to avoid noise, glare, fumes, dust and any other sources
of nuisance or annoyance to users, or patrons of the facility.
1,. (d) adequate off- street parking space is available for patrons and
employees.
(e) If liquor is to be sold on the premises (1) of the property abuts
upon a main thoroughfare of the city, (2) access to all off- street parking
space is from internal driveway systems and is not directly from public
streets, and (3) provision is made for well- designed vehicular stacking space
allowing for an efficient and orderly flow of traffic from the site onto
adjacent main thoroughfares of the city. "Main thoroughfares of the city",
as used in this paragraph, means a street designated as a state trunk highway
or a service drive adjacent to the state trunk highway, a state aid highway, a
county aid highway, a county highway, or a street which is so located as to
serve, primarily, commercial development. (Bill 1976 -10) 4/26/76
(f) The proposed facility will provide an aesthetic appearance which
will not detract from or conflict with the existing or proposed architectural
fora of buildings in the same area.
(g) The use will not create an excessive burden on public parks,
public open- space, streets, or utilities requiring public services which
are proposed to serge Che facilit j.
ORDINANCE CODE
/26i7b
63.1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
t
�y
.— :
0�_A
IMW / �....
(h) The proposed development will not conflict with the comprehensive
development plan of the city.
Subd. 3. Height Regulations. In a "C -2" district no buildin shall hereafter
be erected or structurally altered to exceed three stories of 4A feec'*in
height, subject to the modifications and exceptions provided in Section 3.39
of this chapter.
Subd. 6. Lot Areas and Yard Recuirements. (The same requirements shall be
observed for _the "C•2" district as are provided for a "C -1" district in
Section 3.32 of this chapter.)
(1) Excep.t as provided in paragraph (2) of this subdivision the same
minimum'requirements shall be observed for "C -2" district as are provided for
a "C -1" district in Section 3.32.
(2) A gasoline service station may construct a canopy extended into the
building setback-area of the lot on which it is located provided that such
canopy complies with the following regulations:
(a) It must be designed and constructed-to serve as protection for
customers and attendants from inclement weather.
(b) It may extend into the front yard area distance of 10 feet, as
measured from the centerline of the gasoline pump island closest to the street
lot line but in no instance _loser than five feet from this lot Line.
X(c) Only one canopy shall -be permitted at each service station, unless
it is located on a corner lot.
X(d) It shall be designed and constructed as an integral part of the
main service station building and shall extend from such building.
(e) The canopy shall not be constructed to a height exceeding sixteen
feet..
(f) The canopy shall not be designed for use nor shall it be used as
a Location for any business or advertising. sign of a permanent or te.porary
construction.
(g) Lighting located on the canopy shall be designed as an integral
part of the canopy providing that fixtures shall not extend below the bottom"
surface of the canopy structure and shall be beamed downward.
(h) The canopy shall not be. used as the location for lights or
lighting fixtures used to illuminate the service station buildin off- street
parking areas or other areas not directly beneath the canopy. Flashing lights
and rotating lights shall not be located on or attached to the canopy.
(i) No canopy, whether it conforms with the foregoing regulations or
not, shall be constructed in a location or manner which will block or obscure
the vision of automobile traffic on any street adjacent to the service
station or,the vision of an automobile entering or leaving the service station.
(Bill 1972 -6) 3/13/72
Subd. 7. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.40 the council may _grant an
exception or an adjustment to any of the requirements of this section where
the council finds that the project encourages a more creative and efficient
approach to the use of land and to environmental desi -n than is provided under
the strict application of the zoning regulations of the city, provided that
the project is consistent with the ;urposes of such regulations.
(Bill 1972 -6) 3/13/72
3/13/72
ORDINANCE CODE 6S.2 CITY OF RIChFIELD. MINNESOTA
�h�crioN 3.39
(2) In anv co=erc -al or industrial district wr.e_e 23o" or more or .the ots
is an•- ;,lock located in t:.e same district, exclusi•.e o: :!-.e frontage along the
__:e c. a :cr-er lct, :a-e been aerato ore i.provad -c..- bui:..angs of a
=: ar3Ctelr =8r�i == d t 2 �aSCriCt, ::-.a .BCI:: per. .rt. :'d:C to i�r the
istr.Ct 5. ':all be disregarced in t2 bLOC:: and �.n5t�ad t.'e 'r�?'.a -ard required
on each lot in the block shall be of a depth not less c.han the average depth
of the front yards on the lots on which are located such existing buildings,
provided that the minimum front yard otherwise established by this chapter
shall be maintained in any commercial or industrial district facing upon an
"V' or 11-1" district. A "block" as used in this paragraph, is the area,
regardless of size or shape, which faces a street and lies between the nearest
two cross - streets.
(3) On a corner lot adjacent to a key lot, the sideyard on the street side
of such corner lot shall have a width at least equal to the front yard of such
key lot, provided that this regulation shall not reduce the buildable width of
the lot to less than 30 feet.
(4) A church, library, museum, school or other memorial, institutional, or
public building shall have a minimum.side yard of 25 feet on each side adjoining
a dwelling or vacant Land. in an "R" or "R -1" district. (Bill 1982 -5) Z /8/82
(3) In determining the depth of rear yard for any building where the rear
yard opens into an alley, one -half the width of the alley, but not exceeding
ten feet, may, be considered as a portion of the rear yard subject to the
following qualifications:
(a) The depth of any rear yard shall be reduced to less than ten feet
by the application of this exception.
(b) If the door on any building or improvement, except a fence, opens
toward an alley, it shall not be erected or established closer to the center
of the alley than.a distance of 20 feet.
_(6) In commercial and industrial districts front and rear yard areas may
be used _ for parking, provided that side Bards are maintained adjacent to each
use.
Subd.. 3. Accessory Buildings. The following requirements apply to all
accessory buildings as defined in Section 3.27 of this chapter:
(l) Zn case an accessory building is attached to the main building, it
sL.all be =ade structurally a part of the wain building and shall comply in all
respects wit: :ae requirements of this chapter applicable to the main building.
An accessory building, unless attached to and made a part of the main building,
shall not be closer than five feet to the main building, except as otherwise
provided in this section. Detached accessory buildings shall comply with the
following additional requirements:
(a) Every foundation, floor, wall, ceiling and roof shall be reasonably
watertight, weathertight, rodent proof and shall be kept in good repair;
including external appearance.
(b) Every window, exterior door and basement hatchway shall be reasonably
watertight, weathertight and rodent proof and shall be kept in sound working
condition and good repair. (Bill 1981 -14) 8/24/81
(2) A detached accessory building not over one story and not exceeding
twelve feet in height ma•: occupy not to exceed thirty percent of the area of
any rear yard.
3/2-14/181
OROINANCS COOE 78 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
(3) In the case of an interior lot abutting upon two or more street no
detached accessory shall be erected or altered so as to encroach upon the
one - fourth of the lot nearest either street or in any case nearer to the �%i
established building line on either street frontage. Z
(4) In the case of a corner lot abutting upon two streets, no accessory
building shall be erected or structurally altered so as to encroach upon the
front half of the lot nor so that the building will be nearer to the lot line
along the street side of the lot than a distance equal to the width of side -
yard on the streetside of the lot; but on a corner lot adjacent to a key lot,
no detached accessory building shall be located nearer to the street line of
the street upon which the key lot faces than a distance equal to the depth of
front yard required on the key lot. A garage with doors opening toward the
street shall not be closer than 20 feet to the lot line.
(5) In the case of a corner lot abutting on more than two streets, no
detached accessory building shall be erected or altered so as to be nearer to
the lot line along the street side of the lot than a distance equal to the
width of the side yard on the street side of the lot or nearer to any street
line of the lot that a distance equal to one - fourth the depth of the lot.
(6) No detached accessory building shall be within five feet of the side
line of the front half of any adjacent lot except as hereinbefore specifically
permitted.
(7) No garage with doors facing upon the street shall be within 20 feet
of the lot line.
(8) The foregoing rules shall not require:
(a) Any detached accessory building to be more than 73 feet from any
street line bounding the lot..
(b) The street side of any detached accessory building to be nearer
to the lot line opposite the street line than 20 feet.
(c) A- private garage to be separated from the front. and side lines of
the-1ot where= the s o e °of *the -front half of the lot is
g greater than one foot
rise or fall in a distance of seven feet from the established street elevation .
at the property line or where the elevation of the lot at the street line is
five feet or more above or below the established elevation.
Subd. 4. Con_ version of Single Familv Dwellings Prohibited. Notwithstanding
any other provisions of this section, a one - family dwelling structure located
in an '"W', "C -l" or "C -2" or "I" districts shall not be converted into or
used as a two - family or multiple dwelling unless the owner thereof has first
obtained a special permit in accordance with the procedures outlined in
Section 3.41 of this chapter. (Bill 1982 -3) 2/8/82
3.40. BOARD OF ADJUSTKENT AND APPEALS.
Subdivision 1. Creation. The board created in this section is established in
conformity with Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 2, and the
provisions to which it refers.
Subd. 2. Council Shall Act as Board; Powers. The council shall serve as the
board created in this section. When the council is so acting, it has the
following powers:
(1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error
in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative
officer in the enforcement of this part of this chapter.
2/8/82
ORDINANCE CODE 79 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager 3
0 Council Letter No. 44
Agenda February 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Special Use Permit Request for Restaurant Serving
Beer and Wine at 7724 Morgan Avenue
Council Members:
Mr. Paul Knudson of 601 South Ninth Street, Minneapolis
requested a special use permit for a 28 seat deli restaurant and
bar serving beer and wine at the Viking Center. The proposed
restaurant will be located at 7724 Morgan Avenue South which is
in the middle of the existing commercial strip center. Mr.
Knudson has leased both the first floor and basement at that
address. The proposed restaurant would be located on the first
floor and the basement area would be used for dry storage and
potential for future expansion of the restaurant. There would
�- be no kitchen facilities at this restaurant. The food would be
catered in and there would also be a preparation area behind the
bar for cold sandwiches. The restaurant will be open for
breakfast, lunch and dinner and remain open until midnight
or 1:00 AM.
The applicant indicated at the Planning Commission hearing
held on January 22, 1985, that he also expects to apply for
licenses to install a few video games.
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
1. Section 3.33, subdivision 2, lists restaurants as uses
which may be allowed in C -2 districts if they are granted a
special use permit.
2. Section 3.33, subdivision 4, establishes standards which
must be complied with in order to issue a special use permit to
a restaurant. A copy of this ordinance is attached for your
information.
0
-2-
3. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, indicates that a special use
permit shall not be granted unless it is found that the proposal
would not be deterimental to the health, safety, morals,
comfort, convenience or welfare of persons residing or working
in the neighborhood of such use or to the public welfare or
injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood.
STAFF REVIEW
Staff has reviewed the proposal against the standards for
restaurants and has found the following:
1. The proposed site is located in the C -2 general
commercial district which allows restaurants by special use
permit.
2. The proposal is consistent with the city's comprehensive
plan which designates the site within a freeway strip area.
This allows for high density uses specifically including
dining and entertainment.
3. The use will not create undue traffic hazards or traffic
congestion on surrounding streets. Access to the site is by
either the 78th Street frontage road or from Morgan Avenue.
The proposal may result in a slight increase in traffic on
Morgan Avenue through the residential neighborhood north of
• 77th Street. This increase should not be significant.
The off - street parking lot provided for the center is
adequately designed to insure safe traffic circulation on
the site itself.
4. The proposed restaurant will be located within an
existing office /commercial structure. Therefore there
should be no problems with setbacks, screening, glare or
landscaping. Because there are no kitchen facilities
proposed at this time dust and fumes would pose no problem
to surrounding property.
5. Assuming that the use of the shopping center as a whole
remains predominately office uses rather than commercial
uses, and that the number of seats in the restaurant does
not exceed 28, the proposal would meet the city's minimum
off - street parking guidelines. The center with the proposed
restaurant would require 91 parking spaces and 92 are
provided.
A number of complaints have been received by the city in the
past concerning on- street parking and traffic congestion in
the area and in the residential blocks north of 77th
Street. Parking shortage is a result of heavy demand
generated by two large car dealerships and a number of other
•
-3-
commercial operations. If the parking demand'at the Viking
Center increases due to changes in uses at the center, the
center may not provide sufficient parking. Any overflow
parking created by a shortage at the Viking Center would
exacerbate the problems in the surrounding area.
6. In order to serve wine on the premises, a restaurant
must be located on a main thoroughfare of the city. In this
particular case, while a portion of the Viking Plaza
Center abuts on the 78th street service road to 494, the
space to be occupied by the restaurant abuts Morgan Avenue
which would not meet the city's definition of a main
thoroughfare.
7. Access to the off - street parking for the center and the
proposed restaurant is from an internal driveway system and
not directly from public streets. Provision is also made
for sufficient stacking space which allows for an efficient
and orderly flow of traffic from the site onto adjacent
streets.
8. The public safety department has indicated that there
are some potential building code related problems
that would have to be resolved prior to the issuance of
permits to remodel the space into a restaurant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
• It is staff's recommendation that the special use permit be
approved with the following stipulations:
1. That wine not be offered on the premises because it does
not abut a major thoroughfare.
2. That the special use permit be limited to the first
floor area of the restaurant.
3. That seating for no more than 28 persons be provided.
4. That all building code problems be resolved to the
satisfaction of the public safety department.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the
special use permit be granted as requested with the four
stipulations set forth in the staff recommendation.
Re ectful omitted,
ohn G./Ca twrig
• City Manag r
150 feet, two such signs may be allowed by the council on such frontage,
subject.to any other applicable sign regulations. (Bill 1970 -10) 3/23/70
(k) All exterior lighting will be so designed, placed and operated
as not to be a nuisance to adjacent properties.
(1) If the station or garage is to be located in a shopping center
or other integrated development, it will be in architectural harmony with
the rest of the center or development.
(m) The station or garage will not provide for the outdoor operation
of lubrication equipment, hydraulic lifts or service pits, or the outdoor
display of merchandise; but the outside underground storage of gasoline and
other petroleum products between pumps, or the temporary display of merchan-
dise within 4 feet of the station building is permitted.
(n) If the station or garage is not to be located on a county road
or state highway, it shall not be operated between the hours of 11:00 p.m.
and 6 :00 a.m. of the following day.
(o) If the site is at an intersection, provision will be made for
an unobstructed area on the site, adjacent to and within 50 feet of the in-
tersection, free of vehicles, signs (other than a pedestal sign), displays
or other materials which tend to obstruct intersection visibility.
Subd. 4. Regulations Relating to Hotels, Motels, Restaurants and Cafes.
A special use permit shall not be granted for a hotel, motel, restaurant or
cafe unless the council finds that the proposed use will be in substantial
compliance with the following standards:
(a) The use will not create undue traffic hazards or traffic con-
gestion either on the public streets adjacent to the site or on the parking
areas on or adjacent to the site or on streets adjacent to the site unto
which traffic to or from the site is channeled.
(b) Adequate provision will be made, through the use of building
setbacks, buffer areas, screening, and exterior treatment or placement of
the building on the site to avoid noise, glare, fumes, dust, and any other
sources of nuisance or annoyance to adjacent properties.
(c) Adequate provision will be made through the use of building
setbacks, screening, landscaping,-exterior design and placement of the
building on the site to avoid noise, glare, fumes, dust.and any other sources
of nuisance or annoyance to- users, or patrons of the facility.
(d) Adequate off - street parking space is available for patrons and
employees.
(e) If liquor is to be sold on the premises (1) of the property abuts
upon a main thoroughfare of the city, (2) access to all off - street parking
space is from internal driveway systems and is not directly from public
streets, and (3) provision is made for well- designed vehicular stacking space
allowing for an efficient and orderly flow of traffic from the site onto
adjacent main thoroughfares of the city. "Main thoroughfares of the city ",
as used in this paragraph, means a street designated as a state trunk highway
or a service drive adjacent to the state trunk highway, a state aid highway, a
county aid highway, a county highway, or a street which is so located as to
serve, primarily, commercial development. (Bill 1976 -10) 4/26/76
(f) The proposed facility will provide an aesthetic appearance which
will not detract from or conflict with the existing or proposed architectural
form of buildings in the same area.
(g) The use will not create an excessive burden on public parks,
public open- space, streets, or utilities requiring public services which
are proposed to serve the facility.
- 4/26/76
ORDINANCE CODE 68.1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
r
4
i
(h) The proposed development will not conflict with the comprehensive
development plan of the city.
Subd. 5'. Height Regulations. In a "C -2" district no building shall hereafte
be erected or structurally altered to exceed three stories of 40 feet in
height, subject to the modifications and exceptions provided in Section 3.39
of this chapter.
Subd. 6. Lot Areas and Yard Requirements. (The same requirements shall be
observed for the "C -2" district as are provided for a "C-1" district in
Section 3.32 of this chapter.) of this subdivision the same
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2)
minimum' requirements shall be observed-for "C -2" district as are provided for
a "C -1" district in Section 3.32.
(2) A gasoline service station may construct a canopy extended into the
building setback area of the lot on which it is located provided that such
canopy complies with the following regulations:
(a) It must be designed and constructed-to serve as protection for
customers and attendants from inclement weather.
(b) It may extend into the front yard area distance of 10 feet, as
measured from the centerline of the gasoline pump island closest to the street
lot line but in no instance closer than five feet from this lot line.
(c) Only one canopy shall be permitted at each service station, unless
it is located on a corner lot.
(d) It shall be designed and constructed as an integral part of the
main service station building and shall extend -from such building.
(e) The canopy shall not be constructed to a height exceeding sixteen
feet.
(f) The canopy shall not be designed for use nor shall it be used as
a location for any business or advertising sign of a permanent or temporary
construction.
(g) Lighting located on the canopy shall be designed as an integral
part of the canopy providing that fixtures shall not extend below the bottom
surface of the canopy structure and shall be beamed downward.
(h). The canopy shall not be used as the location for lights or
lighting fixtures used to illuminate the service station building, off-street
parking areas or other areas not directly beneath the canopy. Flashing lights
and rotating lights shall not be located on or attached to the canopy.
(i) No canopy, whether it conforms with the foregoing regulations or
not, shall be constructed in a location or manner which will block or obscure
the vision of automobile traffic on any street adjacent to the service
station or the vision of an automobile entering or leaving the service station.
(Bill 1972 -6) 3/13/77'
Subd. 7. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.40 the council may grant an
exception or an adjustment to any,of the requirements of this section where
the council finds that the project encourages a more creative and efficient
approach to the use of land and to environmental design than is provided under
the strict application of the zoning regulations of the city, provided that
the project is consistent with the purposes of such regulations.
(Bill 1972 -6) 3/13/72
nROINANCE CODE
r
3/13/72
68.2 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
•
•
C I T Y O F
C O M M U N I T Y
Planning Commission
City of Richfield .
R I C H F I E L D
D E V E L O P M E N T
Item #1
85 -SUP -2
Agenda of
3-5
M I N N E S O T A
D E P A R T M EN T
January 22,1985
Subject: Special use permit request for restaurant serving beer
and wine at 7724 Morgan Avenue South.
Dear Commissioners:
HISTORY
In. August of 1984 Mr. Paul Knudson requested a special use
permit to allow the operation of a deli restaurant serving beer
and wine. The restaurant was to be located at the southwest
corner of the Viking Center at 7746 Morgan Avenue South. At
that time. Mr. Knudson proposed a restaurant and bar which would
seat 98 people. The planning commmission considered his request
and recommended city council denial of the request because it
would exacerbate an existing parking problem and increase
traffic on residential streets in the area. The city council
subsequently denied the special use permit request because of
parking, traffic and other neighborhood concerns. Copies of the
planning commission and city council minutes are attached for
your information.
PROPOSAL
Mr. Knudson has now requested a special use permit for a 28
seat deli restaurant; and bar serving beer and wine at a
different space wihtin the Viking Center. The proposed
restaurant will be located at 7724 Morgan Avenue South which is
in the middle of the existing strip center. Mr. Knudson has
leased both the first floor and basement at that address. The
proposed restaurant would be located on the first floor and the
basement area would be used for dry storage and potential for
future expansion of the restaurant. There would be no kitchen
facilities at this restaurant. The food would be catered in and
there would also be a preparation area behind the bar for cold
sandwiches.
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
1. Section 3.33, subdivision 2 lists restaurants as uses
which may be allowed in C -2 districts if they are granted a
special use permit.
-2-
3 -G
2: Section 3.33, subdivision 4, establishes standards which
must be complied with in order to issue a special use permit to
a restaurant. Copy of this ordinance is attached for your
information.
3. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, indicates that a special use
permit shall not be granted unless it is found that the proposal
would not be deterimental to the health, safety, morals,
comfort, convenience or welfare of persons residing or working
in the neighborhood of such use or to the public welfare or
injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood.
STAFF REVIEW
Staff has reviewed the proposal against the standards for
restaurants and has found the following:
1. The proposed site is located in the C -2 general
commercial district which allows restaurants by special use
permit.
2. The proposal is consistent with the city's comprehensive
plan which designates the site within a freeway strip area.
This allows for high density uses specifically including
dining and entertainment.
3. The use will not create undo traffic hazards or traffic 0
congestion on surrounding streets. Access to a site is by
" — e -ither -` the -8th Street frontage- road or- from Morgan Avenue.
The proposal may result in a slight increase in traffic on
Morgan Avenue through the residential neighborhood north of
77th Street. This increase should not be significant.
The off- street parking lot provided for the center is
adequately designed to insure safe traffic circulation on
the site itself.
4. The proposed restaurant will
existing office /commercial structure
be no problems with setbacks,
landscaping. Because there are
proposed at this time dust and fume
to surrounding property.
be located within an
therefore there should
screening, glare or
no kitchen facilities
s would pose no problem
5. Assuming that the use of the shopping center as a whole
remains prodominately office uses rather than commercial
uses and that the number of seats in the restaurant does not
exceed 28 the proposal would meet the city's minium off -
street parking guidelines. The center with the proposed
restaurant would require 91 parking spaces and 92 are
provided.
A number of complaints have been received by the city in the
past concerning on- street parking and traffic congestion in
the area and in the residential blocks north of 77th
Street. Parking shortage is a result of heavy demand
generated by two large car dealerships and a number of other
commercial operations. If the parking demand at the Viking
-3- 3-7
Center changes due to changes in uses in the center the
center may not provide sufficient, parking. Any overflow
parking created by a shortage at the Viking Center would
exacerbate the problems in the surrounding area.
69 In order to serve wine on the premise a restaurant must
be located on a main thoroughfare of the city. In this.
particular case, while a portion of the Viking Plaza
Center abuts on the 78th street service road to 494 the
space to be occupied by the restaurant abuts Morgan Avenue
which would not meet the city's definition of a main
thoroughfare.
7 Access to the off - street parking for the center and the
proposed restaurant is from an internal driveway system and
not directly from public streets. Provision is also made
for sufficient stacking space which allows for an efficient
and orderly flow of traffic from the site onto adjacent
streets.
8. The public safety department has indicated that there
are some potential building code related problems
that would have to be resolved prior to the issuance of
permits to remodel the space into a restaurant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is staff's recommendation that the special use permit be
approved with the.following stipulations:
1. That wine not be offered on the premises because it does
not abut a major thoroughfare.
2. That the special use permit be limited to the first
.floor area of the restaurant.
3. That seating for no more than 28 persons be provided.
4. That all building code problems 'be resolved to the
satisfaction of the public safety department.
DATE OF COUNCIL HEARING
February 11, 1985
Respectfully submitted,
RJ /jle
•
Rick
Jopke
City
Planner
RJ /jle
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 24'1 1484
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ahlquist, Commissioners
Anderson, Luettinger, Kauth, Jensen,
McDermott, Quam, Kritzman
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Hoverson,
Council Liaison Ludeman
STAFF PRESENT: City Planner, Rick Jopke; Planning
Intern, Bill Turnblad
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Krit"wn, VAnderson, to approve the corrected minutes of the June 26th
Planning Commission.meetina.
ITEM #1, CASE, 84-V-8, VARIANCE, 2813 WMT 66TH STREET
Planning Intern, Bill Turnblad, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Jensen asked.if Burger King was responsible for maintaining fences
for the neighboring properties, and was told that the company was responsible.
Commissioner McDermott said it was an extremely poor practice to grant a
special use permit to an establishment such as this, when that special use
permit forces the neighbors to get variances on their properties.
The applicant -did not appear.
M/Luettinger, S /Kauth to defer on this item until the applicant arrived, or
until the August meeting.
Motion carried: 8-0
ITEM #2 CASE 4- SUP -10, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, 7746 MORGAN AVENUE SOUTH
Planning Intern Bill Turnblad presented the staff report.
Commissioner Quam asked if restaurant expansion would cause the site to not
meet parking requirements. He was told that any expansion would cause the site
to have less than the required number of spaces.
Paul Knudson, applicant, appeared to speak for his proposal. He said that the
restaurant would serve the neighborhood and businesses, providing a lunch -hour
and peak hour eating establishment.
•
-2-
Thomas Lee; 7634 Morgan Avenue South; appeared to oppose the special use
Permit. He said the area already has a parking problem, as indicated by the
customers who use the Canine College in the area, and park on residential
streets. The site would also increase traffic on Morgan Avenue, which is a
residential street.
Elmer Sivert, 7641 Newton Avenue South, also appeared to oppose the special use
permit.
Ernie Lindstrom, representing Henry Rigett, owner of the Diplomat Apartments at
77th and Oliver, appeared to say that the tenants in those 48 units are opposed
to the issuance of a special use permit for a restaurant.
M/Luettinger, S/Jensen to close the hearing.
Motion carried: 8-0
Commissioner Luettinger said that this area already has a parking problem, and
that the issuance of this permit would exaggerate traffic and parking problems
in this area.
M/Luettinger, S/Kauth to recommend
would exacerbate an ex s� tin'— rki;
residential streets in the area. o
Motion carried: 8-0
•
Planning Intern Bill Turnblad presented the staff report.
it
Dianna Krogstad, representative of the Day Activity Center, 2730 East 313t
Street, appeared to speak for her request. She said they are- willing to comply`
with fire and safety codes, and would like to move from their present site on
70th and Lyndale Avenue South.
Commissioner Quam asked Krogstad why the organization was moving, and was told
that the Central site is accessible to handicapped, and that the cost of
expansion at Oak Grove Lutheran would be cost- prohibitive.
Commissioner McDermott asked how many vehicles per day would be using the site,
and was told that four vans transport the adults at the beginning and end of
the day.
M/Kauth, S/Kritzman to close the hearing.
Motion carried: 8-0
M/Jensen, S /Anderson to recommend approval of the special use permit with the
stipulation that the maximum number of clients be limited to 50.
•
112 G1
CITY
COUNCIL
MINUTES 3 -/6
AUGUST 27, 1 984
item #5 COUNCIL CORSTMA71ON-07 E 1 A c A AM
AVENUE BETWEEN 65TH AND 66TH STREET. (SECOND READING)
C.L. 298
City Manager Cartwright stated that the street vacation
would enhance the site and add open space to the area. He also
mentioned that the street vacation will make the area safer
because vehicles and pedestrians will enter intersections
controlled by traffic signals, whereas the Graham Avenue
intersection with 66th Street does not have a traffic signal.
Mr. Dick Krier, representing Market Plaza Corporation, spoke
and presented site plans of Market Plaza, which included the
proposed vacation of Graham. Avenue. Mr. Krier addressed the
traffic flow in the area and stated that the commercial mall
parking lot will be designated semi- public.
Mayor Hamilton mentioned that he serves on the Board of
Directors at Lake Shore Drive Condominiums-and that the Board
Members are- unanimous in_ support of the vacation_ of Graham
Avenue.
Mr. Larry Wczniczka,_ 6744 Wentworth Ave. So., asked why is
the vacation being requested now? Mayor Hamilton and Ivan
Ludeman responded that Market Plaza needs the improvement for
marketing their project. Mr. Wozaiczka was also concerned
about proper maintenance of the-new-areal landscaping, and
public access through private property, especially in winter.
Mr. Krier responded that it would be the responsibility of the
Homeowner's Association at Woodlake Point, not the City of
Richfield, to follow through on_ snowplowing of their sidewalks.
Mr. Wozniczka also discussed the tax increment equity of this
particular project.
M /Ludeman, S /Bunce to close the hearing.
Motion carried 5 -0.
M /Ludeman, S /Bunce to approve the vacation. of Graham. Avenue
on Second Reading.
Motion. carried 5 -0.
Item #6 COUNCIL TO OPERATE AoRESTAURANTU U
SERVING WINE AND BEER AT
PERMIT T
7746 MORGAN AVENUE C.L. 297
Mayor John. Hamilton introduced this item and referred it to
the City Manager. Manager Cartwright indicated that the city's
chief concern centers around the parking issue. The parking
shortage is a result of 'heavy demand generated by two large car
dealerships and a number of other commercial operations In the
area.
•
•
..
-4- 3-/1
The applicant, Mr. Paul Knudson, spoke to the council on
behalf of his Special Use Permit request. Mr. Knudson. stated
that neighborhood businesses are overwhelainsly supportive of
his restaurant proposal, especially their employees. Mr.
Knudson also stated that opening his restaurant would create
,fobs within. Richfield and that 50p of the users of his service
could walk to the restaurant. He further stated that he wished
to operate a neighborhood tavern serving low to medium priced
food. `
Mayor Hamilton then stated that his concern centers around
provision of Liquor sale near a residential neighborhood.
Council-Member Martin. Kirsch expressed concern.. for traffic
levels and off - street parking, stating that employeez ofthe
dealership are presently forced to park on 78th Street or on
side streets. Residents on Morgan Avenue that Council Member
Kirsch spoke with are not supportive of this proposed
restaurant. Council Member Bunce stated that we don't wart
to discourage businesses. Council. Member Priebe said that the
site is C -2, which is a general commercial district and that
this type.of business will generate-traffic. Council Member
Priebe went on to say that restaurants don't generate nearly as
much traffic as do some other business. types. Mr. Knudson
offered to reduce the•31ze of his restaurant by 500". Council
Member Ludeman stated that the council does not have specific
enough information upon which to act.on the revised proposal
this evening. Mr. Ludemar. advised Mr. Knudson to submit his
revised. proposal to the Planning Commission and to the City
Council. At Mayor Hamilton's request, Thomas A. Morgan., Jr.,
Director of Public Safety, spoke regarding the proposal_ Mr.
Morgan expressed his- concerns about-the- inadequacy of parking
and went an to say that live entertainment and liquor service
are being proposed for the
future. City Planner Rick Jopke - further added that any
restaurant needs a. Special Use Permit in order to operate in the
City of Richfield. Mr.. Jim Bergen, 7627 Oliver Ave. S., spoke
in opposition to Mr. Knudson's restaurant proposal.
M /Bunce, S /Kirsch to close the 'hearing.
Motion. carried 5 -0.
M /Kirsch, S /Ludeman to deny the Special Use Permit
request.
Motion to deny carried 5 -0.
Item #7 COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OP A REQUEST TO RECONSIDER D NZAL
OF A PERMIT TO LOCATE A BILLBOARD AT 7609 -13 LYNDALE
AVENUE. C.L. 304•
A request by Naegel.e to remove a roof sign and erect a
ground sign at the City Council meeting on August 14, 1934, was
denied. The Naegele Advertising Company has requested the City
Council to reconsider this item.
ea suca = roncage,
subject cc any other applicable sign regulations. (B-611 1970 -10) 3/23/70
(k All exterior li_htin; %611 be _o essigne_, ?laced an r •aa �
d ope_a_ --
as nc_ to ba a n::isanc_ to ail avant o_ope_:.as. '
(l _f c a sca : :oa or _ara_e _s .o -ba located a szopptna cancer
Or Other i:Zt3_raC2d revel0pment, I: will be in arC �teCt::ral ^ar^...ony with
the rest of the center or development.
(m) The station or garage will not provide for the outdoor operation.
of lubrication equipment, hydraulic.lifts or service pits, or the outdoor
display of merchandise; but the outside underground storage of gasoline and
other petroleum products between pumps, or the temporary display of merchan-
dise within 4 feet of the station building is permitted.
(n) If the station or garage is not to be Located on a county road
or state highway, it shall not be operated between the hours of 11:00 p.m.
and 6 :00 a.=. of the following day.
(o) If the site is at an intersection, provision will be made for
an unobstructed area on the site, adjacent to and within 30 feet of the in-
tersection, free of vehicles, signs (other than a pedestal sign), displays
or other materials which tend to obstruct intersection visibility.
Subd. 4. Regulations Relating to Hotels, `ictels, Restaurants and Cafes.
A special use permit shall not be granted for a hotel, motel, restaurant or
cafe unless the council finds that the proposed use will be in substantial
compliance with the following standards:
.7. (a) The use will not create undue traffic hazards or traffic con -
gestion either on the public streets adjacent to the site or on the parking
areas on or adjacent to the site or on streets adjacent to the site unto
which traffic to or from the site is channeled.
(b) Adequate provision will be made, through the use of building .
setbacks, buffer areas, screening, and exterior treatment or placement of
the.- building on the site to _avoid noise, glare, fumes.., dust, and any other
sources of nuisance or annoyance to adjacent properties.
(c) Adequate provision will -be made through the use of building
setbacks, screening, landscaping, exterior design and placement of the
building on the site to avoid noise, glare, fumes, dust and any other sources
of nuisance or annoyance to users, or patrons of the facility.
s. (d) Adequate off - street parking space is available for patrons and i
e.'*p loyees .
(a) If liquor is to be sold on the premises (1) of the property abuts
upon a main thoroughfare of the city, (2) access to all off- street parking
space is from internal driveway systems and is not directly from public
streets, and (3) provision is made for well- designed vehicular stacking space
allowing for an efficient and orderly flow of traffic from the site onto
adjacent main thoroughfares of the city. "Main thoroughfares of the city ",
as used in this paragraph, means a street designated as a statd trunk highway
or a service drive adjacent to the state trunk highway, a state aid highway, a
county aid highway, a county highway, or a street which is so located as to
serve, primarily, commercial development. (Bill 1976 -10) 4/26/76
(f) The proposed facility will provide an aesthetic appearance which
will not detract from or conflict with the existing or proposed architectural
form of buildings in the same area.
(g) The use will not create an excessive burden on public parks,
public open- space, streets, or utilities requiring public services which
are proposed cc serve the facility. .
ORDINANCE CODE
1/26/76
6a,1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
(h) The proposed development will not conflict with the comprehensive
A development plan of the city.
I
Subd. 5. eight- Regulations. In a "C -2" district no buildin, shall herea_ ter
be erected or structurally altered to exceed three stories of Meet in
height, subject to the modifications and exceptions provided in Section 3.39
of this chapter.
Subd. 6. Lot Areas and Yard Requirements. (The same requirements shall be
observed for the "C -2" district as are provided for a "C -1" district in
Section 3.32•of this chapter.)
(1) Except as provided in 'paragraph (2) of this subdivision the same
minimum'requir.ements shall be observed for "C -2" district as are provided for
a "C -1 " district in Section 3.32.
(2) A. gasoline service station may construct a canopy extended into the
building setback-area of the lot on which it is located provided that such
canopy complies with the following regulations:
(a) It must be designed and constructed to serve as protection for
customers and attendants from inclement weather.
(b) It may extend into the front yard area distance of 10 feet, as
measured from the centerline of the gasoline pump island closest to the street
lot line but in no instance Moser than five feet from this lot Line.
-Ac) Only one canopy shall be permitted at each service station, unless
it is located on a corner lot.
X(d) It shall be designed and constructed as an integral part of the
main service station building and shall extend from such building.
feet.-
(e) The canopy shall not be constructed-to a height exceeding sixteen
(f) The canopy shall not be designed for use nor shall it be used as
a location for any business or advertising sign of a permanent or ter - porary
construction.
(g) Lightin€ located on the canopy shall be designed as an integral
part of the canopy providing that fixtures shall not extend below the bottom
surface of the canopy structure and shall be beamed downward.
(h) The canopy shall not be used as the location for lights or
lighting fixtures used to illuminate the service station building. off - street
parking areas or other areas not directly beneath the canopy. Flashing lights
and rotating lights shall not be located on or attached to the canopy.
(i) No canopy, whether it conforms with the foregoing regulations or
not, shall be constructed in a location or manner which will block or obscure
the vision of automobile traffic on any street adjacent to the service
station or the vision of an automobile entering or leaving the service station.
(Bill 1972 -6) 3/13/72
Subd. 7. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.40 the council may grant an
exception or an adjustment to any of the requirements of this section where
the council finds that the project encourages a more creative and efficient
approach to the use of land and to environmental design than is provide4 under
the strict application of the zoning regulations of the city, provided that
she project is consistent with the ;urposes of such regulations.
(Bill 1972 -6) 3/13/72 `
3113/72.
ORDINANCE COOP 6S.2 CITY OF RI*4FiELD. MINNESOTA
SITE PLAN •
7724 MORCaAN AVENU
w
w 3!l —_ I
m
ir
LLI
co
- - -- ;
O
fir•:::;::
[MA „
f
S
�
FRONTAGE ROAD
. '� ! .
1 ; R �� �
t. .�. -- - - - -._ ._ . _ _ _ � �.
,. (�
))��
t
�.
r.
��
,..
c.
�;
� .
� i
�•
..
'��
��''
�,�
i �
�I
_. S _
i
_^�.�1
��
� r ��
— — - x .��i
t ..... ,,�.:.
���
`./, -Y
�.�.�� __
_�::
• `.�..r
1
j co
z
O O
C r
m
M >
X x
F
w v o
c m
CA z
I m
a >
n
O
m
v
n
a
r
Py
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 43
Agenda February 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Illuminated Sign Permit, 7645 Nicollet
Council Members:
DeMars Sign Company has requested two advertising permits
for signs to be located at Video Update, 7645 Nicollet Avenue.
One sign will be a 10' x 6' illuminated wall sign and the other
sign will be a 10, x 2' illuminated wall sign, both with
constant illumination.
City of Richfield ordinance code 3.49, subdivision 19,
Illuminated Signs, provides that city council approval is
required for illuminated signs.
The signs conform to all ordinance provisions pertaining to
signs of this nature and it is recommended that the permits be
approved.
JGC /eja
it
Respectfulj)s4mitted,
Gd.2
onn G. Car wright
City Manager ;�
Y.e
�J y
X•
CA`y
r
ni Sri ,y1
"'i3� 4
�W
,v
r
•
a
ti
I
I -�) - // I a2-,,,,
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 42
Agenda February 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Establishment of Parking Regulations for 66th
Street from Newton Avenue to Xerxes Avenue and
Penn Avenue from 65th Street to 67th Street
Council Members:
Hennepin County has requested that the City Council pass a
resolution declaring the parking regulations to govern the 66th
Street and Penn Avenue reconstruction project areas will be
implemented once the projects are completed. Previous city
council action has established that parking be allowed on the
west side of Penn Avenue from 66th Street to 67th Street in a
separate parking bay. The attached resolution would establish
"No Parking Anytime" regulations on both sides of 66th Street
from Newton Avenue to Xerxes Avenue and both sides of Penn
Avenue from 65th Street to 67th Street except on the west side
of Penn Avenue from 66th Street to 67th Street, where the
parking bay will permit parking.
This project is scheduled for construction in 1986. Staff
from the Department of Community Services have presented this
parking restriction plan to property owners during public
informational meetings held during the last several years.
The staff recommends that the city council pass the attached
resolution to establish these parking regulations.
JGC /eja
11
Respectfu' :rigaghtl
bmitted,
1
John G. Car
City Manager
,qg -/
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARKING REGULATIONS
FOR 66TH STREET BETWEEN NEWTON AVENUE AND XERXES AVENUE
AND PENN AVENUE BETWEEN 65TH STREET AND 67TH STREET
WHEREAS, design layouts have been approved for the
reconstruction of 66th Street between Newton Avenue and Xerxes
Avenue and Penn Avenue between 65th Street and 67th Street (City
Projects 792 and 780, Hennepin County Projects 8056 and 8027);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota:
1. That "No Parking Anytime" regulations will govern both
sides of 66th Street between Newton Avenue and Xerxes Avenue.
2. That "No Parking Anytime" regulations will govern both
sides of Penn Avenue between 65th Street and 67th Street
except on the west side of Penn Avenue between 66th Street and
7th Street where a separate parking bay will be provided.
3. That these regulations will be effective when the
reconstruction projects are completed.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 11th day of February, 1985.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 41
Agenda February 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Consideration of Appointment to Sister City
International Committee
Council Members:
There are still two vacancies on the Sister City
International Committee. These vacancies are for three -year
terms which will expire January 31, 1988.
Attached to this council letter is a copy of an application
which was received from Paul Meehl who has expressed an interest
in being appointed to this committee. This appointment has been
scheduled for city council consideration at the February 11,
1985 city council meeting.
JGC /eja
•
pectfu 'y abmitted,
n Gr Ca twrigh
6'oh
ity Manage /
•
•
DATE
CITY OF RICHFIELD COMMISSION /COMMITTEE A?PLICATICN FORM
NAME -L
Last First Middle
HOME ADDRESS
PHONE Home Business
APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE:
Advisory Board of Health
Civil Service Commission
Community Services Commission
Energy Awareness Commission
Fourth of July Ccmittee
Human Rights Commission
Planning Commission
Senior Citizens/Handicapped
Commission
Sister City international
Other
Briefly list aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this
advisory commission and why you are interested in serving:
-4 'T
�7
CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY
ACTIVITIES:
1, J."
7
/"7, , J--
REFERENCES (OPTIONAL)
5;' f, r' 4:--
L 3
i?
OCCUPATION:
Return to City Manager's Office, 6700 Portland Ave., Richfield, MN 55423
Complete in Black Ink or Type,.,orriter
r. f
V
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 40
Agenda February 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Planning Commission Support for the Interim
Zoning Ordinance (Moratorium) for the ILN
Study Area
Council Members:
After the planning commission's special meeting with the
City Council on February 4, 1985, the commission met to consider
making an official recommendation on the subject of an interim
zoning ordinance for the Interstate /Lyndale /Nicollet (ILN) study
area. The following recommendation was made subsequent to the
holding of a public hearing on the subject by the Planning
Commission on January 22, 1985• The motion was as follows:
The Planning Commission would like to indicate to the
city council that it favors the preparation of a compre-
hensive study for the ILN area and is of the opinion that
a moratorium on the issuance of building permits during
the conduct of the study would be in the best interest of
the area, and the commission would further like to
encourage the input of area residents and business persons
during the study preparation process.
M /McDermott, S /Jensen and approved by a 9 -0 vote.
This motion has been placed on the February 11, 1985 city
council agenda for council acknowledgement and acceptance.
JGC /eja
•
Respe<Catwr bmitted,
114, If
John City
•
11
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
'�Z)
Council Letter No. 39
Agenda February 11, 1985
Subject: Council Acceptance of HRA ILN Position Statement
Council Members:
At the January 21, 1985, Housing and Redevelopment Authority
meeting, the HRA adopted a Position Statement which: endorsed
the concept of placing restrictions on the issuance of building
permits to provide an opportunity for the formulation of a long -
range plan for the ILN study area; endorsed the implementation
of a comprehensive plan for this area; endorsed the concept of a
committee to work with the city staff during the planning
period; and, agreed to designate a board member to be the
official liaison to the citizen, committee.
A copy of this Position Statement is attached to this
council letter. This matter is placed on the February 11, 1985
city council agenda for council acceptance of the Position
Statement.
JGC /eja
Respectful,l -y s bmitted ,
Bohn G. Car wright
City Manager /
,-,W, _/
ILN
POSITICPJ STATEMENT
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
January 21, 1985
1. The HRA endorses the concept of placing restrictions on
the issuance of building permits to provide an opportunity
for the formulation of a long range plan for the ILN study
area.
The plan is necessary to deal with the problems existing in
the area and to allow for the realization of future
opportunities. Problems presently existing in the area in-
clude undeveloped and underdeveloped parcels which can only
be developed to their optimum with improved access and
traffic patterns. Buildings in the area are aging and
appear to be deteriorating and present a poor visual image.
Loading and unloading areas are poorly located. Parking is
insufficient. Conflicts exist between the residential area
and the commercial area.
2. The HRA is prepared to pursue the implementation of a
comprehensive plan and is prepared to cooperate with
the City council and Planning Commission in the preparation
of the plan.
3. The HRA endorses the concept of a committee of residents,
business and property owners appointed by the City
Council from within and without the planning area to
work with staff during the planning period. .
u. The HRA will designate a board member to be the official
liaison to the citizens' committee.
The Executive Director is requested to make the position of the HRA known
to the Planning commission and the City Council as they discuss the need to
I
ormulate a long range plan for the area.
l__.-,
, �
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 38
Agenda February 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Resolution to Set the Date for the Assessment
Hearing for City Project No. 793, 1984 Alley Paving
Council Members:
On January 14, 1985, the Richfield City Council passed a
resolution declaring the cost to be assessed and ordering the
preparation of the proposed assessment roll for C.P. 793, 1984
Alley Paving. The proposed assessment roll has been prepared by
the city staff and filed for public inspection. The cost for a
residential property is $18.07 per assessable foot, for a total
assessment of $903.50 for a typical fifty foot lot. The
original estimate was $19.75 /foot.
It is recommended that the city council pass the attached
resolution which sets the date for the public hearing on the
proposed assessment for the March 11, 1985, city council
meeting and ordering the publication and mailing of the
appropriate legal notices.
JGC /eja
spectfu'Ely( ubmitted ,
John G. 5a a twrigh
City Manager
,--,? (Z - /
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
FOR CITY PROJECT NO. 793 - 1984 ALLEY PAVING
WHEREAS, by resolution passed by the council on January 14,
1985, the city clerk and city engineer were directed to prepare
a proposed assessment of the cost for the reconstruction and the
concrete paving of the following alleys:
Alley Between
Clinton and FourEE Avenue
Xerxes and Washburn Avenue
Xerxes and Washburn Avenue
Washburn and Vincent Avenue
Augsburg and Garfield Avenue
Blaisdell and Nicollet Avenue
Grand and Pleasant Avenue
Sheridan and Thomas Avenue
Bryant and Aldrich Avenue
Sheridan and Russell Avenue
Sheridan and Russell Avenue
Harriet and Garfield Avenue
Sheridan and Russell Avenue
From
6 th Street
69th Street
67th Street
66th Street
71st Street
72nd Street
68th Street
67th Street
63rd Street
69th Street
66th Street
71st Street
67th Street
To
67th Street
70th Street
68th Street
67th Street
72nd Street
73rd Street
69th Street
68th Street
Mildred Dr.
70th Street
67th Street
72nd Street
68th Street
AND, WHEREAS, the city clerk and city engineer have notified
• the council that such proposed assessment has been completed,
and filed for public inspection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota:
•
1. A hearing shall be held on the 11th day of March,
1985 in the council chambers of city hall at 7 p.m. to pass upon
such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons
owning property affected by such improvement will be given an
opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment.
2. The city clerk and city engineer are hereby directed to
cause notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be
published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks
prior to the hearing, and shall state in the notice the total
cost of the improvement. The city clerk and city engineer
shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each
parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks
prior to the hearings.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 11th day of February, 1985.
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
John Hamilton, Mayor
l F_i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 37
Agenda February 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Purchases in Excess of $5,000
Council Members:
The city council policy resolution on purchasing provides
that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or
construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, the authority to
purchase shall be submitted to the city council for
consideration. There are three such items on the February 11
agenda.
LIGHTING STANDARDS
The city keeps in supply lighting standards and bases used
with the city's street lighting system for those times when
replacement is necessitated. The supplier is Millerbernd
Manufacturing Company and the city buys directly from the
factory which allows for the lowest possible purchase price.
It is recommended the city council authorize the purchase of
twelve stainless steel octa tube lighting standards at a 25'
mounting height and 24 stainless steel bases. The total
purchase price from Millerbernd Manufacturing Company is
$9,000. Funds for this purchase are provided in the 1985
street maintenance division budget.
BRUSH CHIPPER
Bids were opened January 31, 1985, to replace a 1969 Wayne
brush chipper which was fully depreciated in 1979. A copy of
the bid minutes and tabulations is attached for council review.
Four bids were received:
Vendor Base Bid Trade -In Net Purchase
R.M.S. $10,301 $2,000 $ 8,301
LaHass $10,587 $2,700 $ 7,887
-2-
LaHass(Alternate) $107377 $2,700 $ 7,677
R.M.S. (Alternate) $ 9,692 - -- $10,192
plus paint $ 500
The specifications called for an air cooled engine. The LaHass
alternate bid is for a water cooled engine which does not meet
specifications.
It is recommended the city council authorize a brush chipper
from LaHass in the amount of $10,587 less a trade in of $2,700
for a net purchase price of $7,887. Funds for this purchase are
provided in the Central Garage 1985 budget.
NORBY POND DREDGING
The adopted 1985 budget includes funding for the dredging of
Norby Pond, vicinity of 70th Street and Second Avenue. The work
will be continuing north from the dredging completed in 1984.
Three vendors were contacted. W. Riebien indicated they did not
have the time available nor did they have a site for disposal of
the silt. Dependable Excavating quoted $7.00 per cubic yard and
Turner Excavating quoted $4.27 per cubic yard.
It is recommended the city council authorize Turner
40 Excavating Company to do dredging work at Norby Pond at a rate
of $4.27 /cubic yard for an estimated total of 1,000 cubic
yards.
JGC /eja
11
Respectfu y submitted,
-L v
tz2ti
John G. C twrig t
City Manager /
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
BID OPENING
JANUARY 31, 1985
Brush Chipper
Bid No. 85 -1
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative
Staff was called by Don Fondrick, Acting City Clerk, who announced that the
purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for the Brush
Chipper, as advertised in the official newspaper on the week of January 16, 1985.
Present: Eileen Anderson, City Manager's Designee
Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director
Don Fondrick, Acting City Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR & BID SECURITY
BASE BID LESS TRADE AMOUNT
R.M.S. Supply Co., Bloomington
B.B. 5 °0 $10,301 $2,000 $ 8,301
LaHass Mfg. & Sales, Inc., St. Paul
B.B. 5% (Air cooled) $10,587 52,700 $ 7,887
LaHass Mfg. & Sales, Inc., St. Paul
(Alternate -gas cooled) $10,377 $2,700 $ 7,677
R.M.S. Supply Co., Bloomington
(Alternate) $ 9,692 $10,192
Plus paint $500
The Acting City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at
the February 11, 1985 city council meeting.
Don Fondrick, Acting City Clerk
as
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 36
Agenda February 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Award of Contract - Industrial Type Tractor Loader
Council Members:
On January 31, 1985, bids for an industrial type tractor
loader were opened in accordance with legal requirements. A
copy of the bid minutes and tabulations is attached for council
review.
The adopted 1985 budget includes $25,000 for the replacement
of a 1965 Moline tractor which was fully depreciated in 1970.
The manufacturer of the existing equipment is no longer in
business and parts are becoming impossible to obtain. This
tractor is used at the central garage for loading salt, black
dirt and other miscellaneous jobs.
Two bids were received for the industrial type tractor
loader:
Vendor Base Bid Trade -In Net Purchase
Long Lake Ford $24,074 $ 900 $23,174
Carlson Tractor $34,216 $12,340 $21,876
Units being traded include the 1965 Moline tractor,
originally purchased for $6,370.92, and an Arps 70 Snowblower,
originally purchased for $1,575.00, which does not fit existing
city equipment. It is recommended the city council authorize
the purchase of an industrial type tractor loader, as specified,
at $34,216 less a $12,340 trade -in for the tractor and the
snowblower for a net purchase price of $21,876.
R spectf submitted,
John G. C twri ht
is City Manager
JGC /eja
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
BID OPENING
JANUARY 31, 1985
Industrial Type Tractor Loader
Bid No. 85 -2
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative
Staff was called by Don Fondrick, Acting City Clerk, who announced that the
purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for the Industrial
Type Tractor Loader, as advertised in the official newspaper on the week of
January 16, 1985.
Present: Eileen Anderson, City Manager's Designee
Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director
Don Fondrick, Acting City Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR & BID SECURITY
BASE BID LESS TRADE AMOUNT
Carlson Tractor & Equipment Co.
Rosemount
B.B. 500 $34,216 $12,340 $21,876
Long Lake Ford Tractor
Long Lake
Check - $1,220 $24,074 $ 900 $23,174
The Acting City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered
at the February 11, 1985 city council meeting.
0 Don Fondrick, Acting City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 35
Agenda February 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Drainage Utility
Council Members:
On February 11, 1985, the Richfield City Council will
hold a study session on staff's proposal to establish a
municipal stormwater drainage utility. At the close of the
session, the staff will ask for direction on: (1) level of
service /funding for the drainage utility, (2) a public in-
formation and education process; and, (3) a timetable to
implement the recommendations.
At the October 22, 1984, city council study session, the
council directed staff to prepare financial data on a proposed
storm drainage utility. The attachments to this council letter
provides this additional financial data.
Attachment I is a draft leaflet which describes the
storm water utility fee program. This leaflet would be
sent to residents prior to any public meetings or hearings.
Attachment II identifies the Capital Improvement
projects. The fee schedule identified in the leaflet assumes a
level of service which includes all of the capital projects
except Norby's and Wilson Ponds. These capital improvements
were described at the October 22, 1984 study session. The
drainage problem at 69th Street and Xerxes Avenue, which was
also discussed at the October 22 meeting, had no feasible
solution.
Attachment III shows the three levels of service. Service
Level B was used in the leaflet. Service Level A represents
the current level of services for operations and maintenance.
Level B increases 0 & M activities and generates about $60,000
annually for construction improvements. The C plan retains the
expanded level of services from the B plan, but generates
$200,000 annually for improvements.
Attachment IV compares by level of service (A current
level; B expanded 0 & M plus $60,000 for improvements; and, C
expanded 0 & M plus $200,000 for improvements annually) what
each category of land use (single family, multiple family,
commercial, etc.) will pay for a city wide storm sewer program.
-2-
This exhibit also compares how much each land user would pay
• with a storm sewer utility fee or with a property tax levy. It
also compares the impact of the utility versus the same
expenditure in property tax. Note the decreased burden on
single family property and increase in commercial. Also note
that tax exempt property now pays the city for the disposal of
the drainage from the property. The savings column represents
reductions in the property tax and sanitary sewer when the
expenses are moved to the drainage utility.
Attachment V makes a graphic comparison of Commercial,
Multiple f'a`mily, and Single Family property taxes and utility
fees. The impact of both property tax and utility fee on a
typical $76,400 house is also shown.
Attachment VI shows examples of utility fee - property tax
comparisons on individual properties.
Attachment VII - A method of adjusting the rate on a
specific parcel of land is provided for. A parcel of property
will be assigned a drainage fee based on its area and use. If
the owner of the property believes that he is being unfairly
treated, an appeal procedure for adjustment is setforth in the
ordinance.
Attachment VIII gives a sample adjustment calculation.
. The staff recommends that a public hearing be scheduled for
March 11, 1985 to initiate a storm drainage utility. A copy of
the leaflet depicted in Attachment I will be mailed to all the
property owners in Richfield prior to the hearing. The City of
Roseville implemented a drainage utility a year ago and mailed a
similar notice prior to the hearing. The City of Fridley held a
hearing on January 21, 1985 without a mailed notice. Fridley
did publicize the utility in the newspaper and a city
newsletter. No mailed notice is legally required; only
published notice.
Recommendations:
1. City staff recommends the establishment of a storm
sewer drainage utility fund to be financed by a storm
sewer drainage utility fee;
2. City staff recommends that the storm sewer utility
fund be established by fiscal year 1986 or sooner;
3. City staff recommends that the level of service be
determined by the City Council
A level of service - operations and maintenance
$124,000
• B level of service - $250,000
C level of service - $390,000
-3-
4. City staff recommends that the city council determine
if the capital improvements are to be financed on a
pay -as- you -go plan or by bonding;
5. City staff recommends that if the city council elects
to proceed on a pay -as- you -go basis, that the Orr -
Schelen- Mayeron & Associates October 16, 1984, list of
projects be identified as to priority; and,
6. City staff recommends that the authorization to begin
preparing engineering plans for capital improvements
be given for the construction program selected by the
city council.
JGC /eja
•
Re pectf�"1l ,bmitted ,
L✓ �/G Zt /�
John G: Ca twrighti
City Manager I
Attachment I.
Z
O
v ae s. u s r
�• 4 r g w r o-0 Y
�? r'o r = ='Or'•'u�i-0O s
UGt rLWC•w0 i0@
LL
® \ + J Y r e W r • a C
�\ + rL j O • uwL ajr C
\ d v v r r O •+ y Y°
• v 7 Y C Y 1i �+
Y w Y C O> • j r v
.�• O
LU
JJ Y> w
Y Y
•• Y Y w= 8 S .°• m OrO m
YeYryY�alw ww
a.oIC. .C•..�.00a i 0w
-
LLI , �' �O+ L Yc sC • Y w 6 .a 9O J C2 W Y a � CY a1 y ° r e J r°. jw 0 1. C Ca ,r J t W i r
City of
"ichfield
VOD partland a"wn "a* - oo*n*oola $5423 -2598
•
•
w
•
r
8
,.• Y
•
Y
�
C +w+
t
y
r°•:+ agar
O. J r J 1
° J
r
L
,.• Y
•
Y
1
r • O
B=6
�•
r°•:+ agar
O. J r J 1
—, j..-M Y r :: q
V 00L Y
O r
C
a CCpp
6
M Y V
J
O
u .i ,•1 >• W r
w
O~
r C
C i
a •+ 4
Y•
Y e +.
q,r
C
^Q
a w
Y• O Y
rr
O
.w •
u
rY
err
Cr $
e9
j
o
n O e u47
10 r
C-0
ea
O•+
.+ Y i+0
6Y Y
eww e
Qw•
�
YW
e� r
Y Y
Y w a,
L• $ r I
N Y
•
O
6
e9
00 *.a Y
C A
C C
C
• O" j
F•1 Y O
=:r~
J °
v p
r .1 J Y
° r °
0.2 Y
r„t
L Y
u e J J
+ Y w W
x O
Y r
•°+ V> r+
Y Y r
v x w j
to
Y O
w
i
j
V
awi O r
q r $
a e N
y .Yi A
Qd
r
ai Y .. a
J r Y
Y O
Y L .+ .+ e
• -
Y +O• ••$• O
:.. a
-. e
r
u
u j-0 m e
m e
a x J
.as-•
.+e •r Y -+
e►1
w ae m
ava►
•ms
•
C r 6 J
a Y
• e u
YIN.
Y C H
Y r
-y u 0
L Y
a D Y O
Y J
ar O Y
t v
a rw
a
w r
s Y p
•rot
•
C
Oe
e
• J r i.n
B=6
�•
r°•:+ agar
O. J r J 1
—, j..-M Y r :: q
CGGQ77
a
6. .1 a
O lw. C
•�
i+L r 7 r >A r
r
u .i ,•1 >• W r
E
y -0 ao -06 o c cs
7 a u•+ e
Y aV = .+ r e •
e
w
q,r
C
^Q
r 'rev Y U
Z =E' m ••• 9.0 a
r p U Y
CQQ
J Y d Cm
r O C
JAS
n O e u47
VA OA +.DSe��r .Of
C
pA af s or 0
C
aO = ?o
33 O r S r 3
3 .! O fPP O D�
a< T
w
'! r J G
C PP
A G �+ a s to ° •+
0
• A
RbrHdJa
a�.T.� ''A a so
�� • ¢.s.g+�
d►o
S r
� t•►
�
1
A A'7 •7
rr •
rs .q P:
^
r•.:
w
A r J A
w O
°
.T
-4
V r 3 a • S O e= �• A
3 N n • 7 SO
�.
�
• °
V
•Rj
A .^.� 0 A
w
r
w
w
w
w
A
=
a
•• • r A T 1 W
• • p a H
f� lay. • - • A
= �1
:! a •1 • O 3 r• w r► 1 •
r..
3.it aa°
.. firo... •
•1 r d A O-
N
7 ? S
• • r O • • •
O.
!
T el -a GA 1
i w . •. r
V
O
r
A A J JJ r� a W S V 3
0. to
w ! Z
~
ai!
A 7
•/ v V O 4r r
R 7 n ■!
A Q
W
'7
W
O
O
77�
O
A O• r 3 A
° C 7 n 0.
�•
• • • • • •
O a 1 n W O a
9 V A a r
O I+ a •t J
y y p.y
a? M.. f+. 4►lp
3 soso
Ge
>
3
a
-4
•i
�Rwwan
jy
to
.1- �:srevs :�i
• 3
,!
(p
A
ola.•A
c0
=w
z
a
�°
M
nl
A
- r . s
A
A A • A w
A re • • r....
•' O 3^ n- 9 f! �• A R r J
�._
e
•�+•o =a. ^o
rWr
a
y
o c a o r1
s
0 lb
n i S!
O
A
�
� .• •w A
.G• r0•
r
p p'
D.
w r q r
+ 1 2.0 S 1• A•• R A
S 1 •�.•••a 0• .. r w R•
�►
p r
A 9 r• r
^I n 0 7
A
Pl
C
C
O
O
M�
Y
a
3
1
r
•
S
2
>�
1
J • 3.
�M
e•+ C 7 a
>
2
7W0
m
�
O m_ O
r•i .r.
0 0 a° S •► A �{ •7 I. r
a
A
O "/ A R
7S
.r
.0
CS
Ln
�T
$4
f r A O
.r•
r1�
r• r W v r. C' • r..
3 ! • w � r • � r • • K r.
'
' ••Z o 7 �w 1 i 6 °VV
�
r. r r.. •
?• J •'
a>
w
:..wA n S
e
to
S1
0. +w r V 7 "1 r• C O .T •
a•
10, 11
�!
C
W
A• A
A 96 a
O
R! •1 i V J .T+ a 0 A? 7 !f •
• V P• • O V O •'/• A f �'/
rl
Is O 7
•
CS
y
W
r r a • J
s
r;
�
rQ
r • R
J w 3 7°
G 1• "� OD v r
A
'A
• w•
�
�
Q
! e. •s v r
a
9
pA af s or 0
C
1 C r A n
G
T• r r
33 O r S r 3
3 .! O fPP O D�
a< T
w
'! r J G
C PP
A G �+ a s to ° •+
0
• A
to
a�.T.� ''A a so
�� • ¢.s.g+�
� o �
� t•►
�
p r p
7 SI 3 a 3 a R
A A'7 •7
rr •
rs .q P:
^
r•.:
w
A r J A
w O
A M r R
j
.T
-4
y rw A �M
x�f
♦ R ra •. • n V
• °
V
•Rj
r ?Sr r
a w• A< a
• rr.O •
'O d
4G.
•1 • r
•• V r r •• sSS2
..
A C
•
A Goa
a
•• • r A T 1 W
• • p a H
f� lay. • - • A
a r
1
3.it aa°
.. firo... •
.�A
N
7 ? S
• • r O • • •
O.
!
T el -a GA 1
• • J r• • •
V
O
r
7
O•
r
A 7
7.1 ;
•• e
A r J C r p
.. 4 •• •7
cr w.
p 0
.r+ 3 W -pi a p i
r•
• $ 1 r r
• • • • • •
A •
9 V A a r
O I+ a •t J
y y p.y
a? M.. f+. 4►lp
r
R r
C
p V e ° v
.o .+ .� o •.+
. J
�•.
e
to
• b �A
o_
4A O? 0v
'•1 �
A
• J :
�.� ��� a
R o
a
O '7
A r•f A R A r
N
A
A A • A w
r
�._
e
to p
CL
O
CD
r w! a M. yE Q A a .• 0 a b A a,
m 1 r O .; rO "� ..G
% a r Q. ; a O H O- ,9 O
A7 —r .91M 1 RW 7 W ! V ^'1
• A .. A 1 n N • •• r .. ; A
•1 J r R A V 1
1 O. 7 R r. J
r. 0 O O r► r W A a y
r= J .I..qr s {P%r*w.PIP rR A
.. rw r. • R AC. .3. 9 M A O v
f O p. f J
A •• r i- A A .- r• 9
C A r O b• S v A D r+ O .w V
a O• A S f a .. •r 7 •1
C V A = 0 ..
A n a < ! O A .. W 3 rr•
A v• e A •w r.3 S• J r
r? 3 r O r r 9
7 A •aw a 1 3 � S�� a r�� � R!
r.O.S� AW
2-0 n 0 a of 0 e� �
w A a W a° r A • O O. % O
O- 0 0 •1 1 - r T 9 A! •4
a 7 V D r•1 1 s
f a R O • T '�
r A 7 7
� T R
m
Ip
^ e yy
Ow LIZ I s
pA af s or 0
C
C6 w '99
�►
w
w
w
1
rA 1.. ..SA
• r• .. R •4 9 r • W V
• r s r A• P• .
.•<O 1f
QJ O� •! R R 7 4 S W
p r p
7 SI 3 a 3 a R
A A'7 •7
s ss
R S
a�
+•.9 A.7
.a•
r A A 6 D S A o
S O W ILI M O e b
! eHHHe e+ .W.
.wW • J O r
p r.
a. eD
O Z
A" n a
•Rj
1
P► •G1 S O V A! .•.
C O .J'. !Jl S A .rT
4G.
R s
—2 i m A 1 r
A Goa
' O L a
a,
..
r O
rr.
r �'• 7
r s :
• m s i t es
�.
... W r A77
O.
O
A A
GW 8~
r
7
.4 J
r
A 7
S
i7 a r a* r r ./
A r J C r p
s
cr w.
p 0
.r+ 3 W -pi a p i
r•
'1
9
9
G J
A
a f M H
s °
9 f
r•W G+f A i l ew r
8%4 O.
r9 ! V OA
�•.
e
to
.r
of fo
a
•p
rJ+n
pn 00 A
A
n•
r
10.00 a
r 0
rWr
a
s
s i
n i S!
O
A
�
� .• •w A
.G• r0•
r
p p'
w r q r
�►
p r
ref
P
0' 4 •
9
a
3
1
r
•
S
>�
1
to p
CL
O
CD
r w! a M. yE Q A a .• 0 a b A a,
m 1 r O .; rO "� ..G
% a r Q. ; a O H O- ,9 O
A7 —r .91M 1 RW 7 W ! V ^'1
• A .. A 1 n N • •• r .. ; A
•1 J r R A V 1
1 O. 7 R r. J
r. 0 O O r► r W A a y
r= J .I..qr s {P%r*w.PIP rR A
.. rw r. • R AC. .3. 9 M A O v
f O p. f J
A •• r i- A A .- r• 9
C A r O b• S v A D r+ O .w V
a O• A S f a .. •r 7 •1
C V A = 0 ..
A n a < ! O A .. W 3 rr•
A v• e A •w r.3 S• J r
r? 3 r O r r 9
7 A •aw a 1 3 � S�� a r�� � R!
r.O.S� AW
2-0 n 0 a of 0 e� �
w A a W a° r A • O O. % O
O- 0 0 •1 1 - r T 9 A! •4
a 7 V D r•1 1 s
f a R O • T '�
r A 7 7
� T R
m
Ip
^ e yy
Ow LIZ I s
pA af s or 0
C
• s
C6
o .0 A r A
G
..rra TO 7 RSA 7 b
rA 1.. ..SA
• r• .. R •4 9 r • W V
• r s r A• P• .
O. — -1 p A pp
A O J J
QJ O� •! R R 7 4 S W
p r p
7 SI 3 a 3 a R
r A : 6 "NJ 7 7 A y 7
> > a
'r•
.a•
r A A 6 D S A o
S O W ILI M O e b
! eHHHe e+ .W.
.wW • J O r
p r.
1
P► •G1 S O V A! .•.
C O .J'. !Jl S A .rT
J• A r A J "C m .T
—2 i m A 1 r
A^ S O A O
O •w » N A
p no
•�
r �'• 7
r s :
• m s i t es
�.
... W r A77
A C b it •• O• 1•
N r R A 9
�•
A a V e 0 1
a
r r
S
i7 a r a* r r ./
A r J C r p
s
O a
V G O A O S a-0 R
p 0
.r+ 3 W -pi a p i
a .• • g v A o..4 A 'C
• J 1 .. �
r 7 A• .► r A T i
7 1• r A :!
9 f
r•W G+f A i l ew r
8%4 O.
r9 ! V OA
�•.
w •v °� •w
to
.r
w ^ a
to p
CL
O
CD
r w! a M. yE Q A a .• 0 a b A a,
m 1 r O .; rO "� ..G
% a r Q. ; a O H O- ,9 O
A7 —r .91M 1 RW 7 W ! V ^'1
• A .. A 1 n N • •• r .. ; A
•1 J r R A V 1
1 O. 7 R r. J
r. 0 O O r► r W A a y
r= J .I..qr s {P%r*w.PIP rR A
.. rw r. • R AC. .3. 9 M A O v
f O p. f J
A •• r i- A A .- r• 9
C A r O b• S v A D r+ O .w V
a O• A S f a .. •r 7 •1
C V A = 0 ..
A n a < ! O A .. W 3 rr•
A v• e A •w r.3 S• J r
r? 3 r O r r 9
7 A •aw a 1 3 � S�� a r�� � R!
r.O.S� AW
2-0 n 0 a of 0 e� �
w A a W a° r A • O O. % O
O- 0 0 •1 1 - r T 9 A! •4
a 7 V D r•1 1 s
f a R O • T '�
r A 7 7
� T R
m
Ip
N
1-4
Cl)
V
W
O
r�
�a
J F—
F- Z
W
2
' ^ L`LB
V I
Q O
_Z AQom'
Q (L
Cr
J
Q
_F—
Q
U
•
iN £z
11410"•15
ff4 zz
Il 13
4f Oz
Vf $i
M0113d0NOl
'3AV NV030
of 91
rill
r f 9f
10019111110016
4121
41 •1
4121
41 al
44 11
14601
101113
o0V0111n
snenmoo
"YVd
1.,XVo
3AV ONV11NOd
4{s
• V1f
N01N113
ON5
wz
MAUS
111
'3AV 131103110
1130s1V16
111YOM1d3M
AYn6s"Id
L1ViV3ld
ONVYO
131YYVN
01314YV9
'3AV 31VONAI
112INOIV
1NVAY6
XVdl07
11004610
NOSN3N13
LN0113Y!
ONVWO
141011101014
ONIANI
S3NVP
XONN
"Wool
NV9YON
NOlA13N
HUM
3AV NN3d
103311
113SSMV
NVOIN3Ns
5.100101
NOldn
1N33NIA
NNn6NSYM
'3AV S3XV3X
N ill
2
< p
C b b
N
N
O
u
N N N N N
VI' N N N N N N N N Ul
41 V N m< r ? C
4/
Attachment II
C�
v. Gfi z
}wo
t = Z
vV=
w
W
rye a
z
W
S
Mo113d0N01
3AV NV03Z
4491
4111
4391
N010NINOOW
41 £1
41, 41
41 £1
4121
4111
4101
101113
snommoo
xNVe
ONVIXVO
'3AV ONV11NOd
442
%III
NO1NI13
01£
Paz
SN3A31S
AI
•3AV 1311001N
113OSIVIO
111NOM1N3M
ANn6Sllld
LNV5V31d
ONVN9
131NYVIf
0131dYV0
•3AV 31VONAl
14011101•
1NVAN6
xVdIOO
114041110
NOSV3N3
IMMMU
OYVN10
10106fN111
9NIAY1
53NVI`
XONX
NVOOI
NVOYON
1,110.1,163111
N3AI10
IAV NN3d
143311
113SSnN
NVOIN3N5
4VNON1
NOldn
1N33NIA
NYn6NsVM
3AV S3XV3X
N N p
P
A
A �
1/30/85
III.
STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY BUDGET
•
•
A
B
C
OPERATIONS
Clean lines, manholes, outf al.ls
$15,000
$20,000
$20,000
Spring /Fall- Sweeping
701000
70,000
703,000
Power for Lift Stations
39000
3,000
3,000
Testing, monitoring, engineering,
6,000
9,000
99000
administration, miscellaneous
(including Watershed District contracts)
Summer Sweeping
16,000
16,000
SUBTOTAL
$94,000
$118,000
$118,�W
MAINTENANCE
Repair rings on catch basins
18,000
40,000
40,000
Dredging
10,000
229000
22,000
Repair pipes and outfalls
2,000
10,000
10,000
SUBTOTAL
$30,000
$72,000
$72,000
CAPITAL
Additions to the system or
60,000
200,000
major rehabilitation
Estimate 10 -12% of capital
expenditure for debt retirement
of bond. $2,000,000 investment
yield app. $220,000 bond payment
SUBTOTAL
0
$60,000
$200,000
TOTAL
1124,000
$250,000
$390,000
A
B
C
•
•
�6- �
C1 m
>
H
c9
w
z
r.
C]
y
0
2
to
1 1-
I
�
?
re
ar
r
•I
O
_
n
C
7
K
y
y
m
on
m
m
m p
k
`e
�
'a
O
7
m n
r
O
G
.
.I
�!
m
N
N
-co
N
N
N
N
N
alN
m
O
fai p,+
��
n w
O
O
00
F
O
•+ r
A
A
A
A
A
n W
a�
f0
A W
iD .O
9 %O
s
9 to
M W
m Oo
f0 to
00
R
I
O.
F
F
F
F
to
O.
00
_
O
N
V1
N
N
F
IO
S
.myr
'
00
00
00
F
F
0*
O
O
N
A
ID
N
i*
Vl
N
►'
a W
a 0
m 0
N
m
i�
Fes+
F
r'!
A
A
F
A
A
A•
A
A.
A
O.
m
a
M 41
•1
"f A
K F
•f V
} l�
^I O�
"t v
R V
R C
..
f0 O
;!' F
(0 F
m O
m d\
A O
m
O
A
9
l a+ r
N
N
N
N
N
H
I-'
•<
0
0
+o
o
m
r
nwi
coo
r0»
�H
m
' R
G
•
O
t.11
O
N
to
w
O
N
lJl
O
O
t.if
O
N
to
W
O
N
W
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
K
a to
a s
a s
a v
m t�i�
a v
m aOO
m vii
F
A
A
W
A
�.I
A•
A•
A•
A•
A
I�
!0
'O
.A. F
"I
N
Y H
•'I N
`1 N
•'! V
^} N
.^Or W
A
fC F
n r
f0
VI
r0 �D
A to
(0 to
to
Ap
r
r+
h+
I~.
to
0~0
O
O
co
W
w
N
W
N
O
N
co
O%
F
W
O
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
A
7
�
O
'
O
w
O
O
w
w
ONO
w
vim+
. t
O
N
V
N
N
pf
F
t,JI
O
W
R
n
m
y
O
FIIO
I O
O
O
O
,%
I
N
F
O
F
N
r
N
N
N
co
F
N
r
la
41
Qq
10
o
o
uN+
co
0
0
o
N
N
N
N
N
F�
N
N
N
N
W
N
•
�
V
4\
N
In
OD
O
O
O
QD
O
O
O
N
O
O
N
N
N
iA
N
as
rA
O
C
O
O of
N
N
N
N
N
N
tii
N
cq Z
N
W
F
W
J CA
A
co
F
9
w
N
O
I
O
til
�O
v
Os
O
O
m
E
tr+1
[+1
r
[+7
C
N
A
3
"0
9
w
O
y
t
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
A
E
Utility Fee
Property Tax
UTILITY FEES VS PROPERTY TAXES
FEES VS TAXES
FEES TAXES
ANNUAL COST FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
WITH A SELLING PRICE OF $76,400
A B C
$5.52 $11.12 $17.40
$7.18 $14.49 $22.60
V
11
•
•
1/30/85
VI
•
COMPARISON
OF DRAINAGE FEE VS. PROPERTY TAX ON
EXAMPLES
BASED ON LEVEL OF SERVICE B
DRAINAGE FEE AMOUNT
PROPERTY
COMMERCIAL
PER YEAR
TAX INCREASE
Car Dealer
$1,366.28
$ 338.52
Office
35.91
26.18
Office
57.18
49.21
Shopping Center X
31244.48
11883.83
Shopping Center Y
2,116.38
1,286.05
MULTIPLE FAMILY
Apartments
61.38
93.56
Apartments
178.56
374.25
Apartment Complex
3,679.93
4,586.42
SINGLE FAMILY
House ($64,300 value)
11.12
10.88
House ($81,300 value)
11..12
15.22
House ($122,600 value)
11.12
26.92
CHURCHES
Church "F"
190.45
0
Church "G"
1,771.48
0
SCHOOLS
School 'IH"
391.94
0
School 'IJ'I
521.52
0
•
VII
RICHFIELD CITY POLICY /d
TITLE
Credits and /or adjustments of municipal storm water drainage fees.
BACKGROUND STATEMENT
The municipal storm water drainage utility utilizes a fee structure based on the
anticipated relative contribution of storm drainage runoff volumes to the storm
water drainage system. A parcels contribution is determined by that parcel's
size and its land use, under the principal that more intensively developed land
uses typically have a larger percentage of impervious surface and contribute a
much greater volume of water and /or sediment /nutrient loadings to the system.
It is recognized that some parcels, due either to their unique topographic,
vegetative, geologic and other characteristics, or the .existence and maintenance
of onsite storm drainage control, detention, or retention facilities have a
hydrologic and sediment /nutrient loading response substantially different from that
of similarly sized parcels of the same land use.
To provide for an equitable assessment of storm drainage fees, based on reasonably
expected contribution of flows and sediment /nutrients, provisions need to be
made to permit adjustments or credits to the storm drainage fees for those parcels
with unique or unusual characteristics.
POLICY STATEMENT
The basis of the City of Richfield's storm water drainage fees is the anticipated
relative contribution of storm water volumes and sediment /nutrient loadings to the
storm drainage system from a given parcel. Where unique or unusual conditions
exist where the actual contributions of water volume and sediment /nutrient loadings
from a given parcel are substantially different from those anticipated by the
storm drainage fee structure, the Community Services Director or his designate
may adjust or credit the storm drainage fee for said parcel to an appropriate
level in accordance with the guidelines specified herein.
PROCEDURE STATEMENT
(1) Property Owner to Provide Detailed Information
It is the responsibility of the property owner or his agent to present to
the Community Services Director or his designate, sufficient information concerning
a parcel's hydrologic characteristics to permit an accurate assessment of the
conditions that exist. This information may include, but is not limited to:
A. Site plan showing locations of all buildings and other
development relative to lot lines.
B. The total lot area and area of impervious surfaces.
-2-
VII, Cont.
C. Site topography or contours of sufficient detail to ascertain —/
flow directions, rates and volumes.
D. Size, details and /or volumetric characteristics of any
drainage control facilities.
E. Hydraulic calculations specifying outflow volumes and rates
for various rainfall events.
(2) Adjustments Where Parcel Runoff Is Significantly Different From
Land Use Standard
Where the unit runoff generated by a parcel differs from the assigned
amount for that land use category by more than 20 %, the Community Services
Director may adjust the parcel's storm water drainage fee in accordance with
the following procedure:
a. Calculation of unit runoff for the parcel shall be determined
by the methods outlined in the Soil Conservation Service
Technical Release No. 55, utilizing a 2" total rainfall amount
and antecedent moisture condition II.
b. If calculated unit runoff is shown to differ from the assigned
amount for that land use category by 20% or more, the number
of assigned Residential Equivalency Units (REU) for that parcel
shall be adjusted by multiplying by the ratio of the calculated unit runoff
to the standard unit runoff.
c. A parcel's storm water drainage fee stall be subject to increases
as well as decreases by this procedure.
d. Because single family and duplex fees are not based upon actual
parcel acreage, no adjustments for unit runoff differences will
be made for those land uses.
(3) Procedure for Calculation of Credits for Wet Ponds
A parcel may be credited for up to fifty percent (50 %) of the storm water
drainage fee for onsite measures which are owned and maintained by the applicant
which effectively reduce the outflow of sediment /nutrients from the site. Credit
percentage shall be based on one -half of the actual percentage of sediment
removal efficiency, as determined by the following procedure, rounded to the
nearest 5 %; except that no credit will be given for sediment removal efficiencies
of less than 20 %.
A. Calculation of Credits for Wet Ponds
a. Determine total site acreage and percent of site that has
an improved or impervious surface.
b. Calculate the annual depth of runoff from the following equation:
Dr = P(. 75 Im +.15) -5.234 (.25 -.1875 Im) .597
Where Dr = annual depth of runoff in inches.
c�
2
W
v
0
W
z
W
O
W
H
VII, Cont.
I = percent of site impervious area, expressed as a decimal.
P - annual depth of precipitation = 29 inches.
c.' Calculate annual volume of runoff in acre -feet:
Vannual = site acreage x Dr/ 12
d. Determine pond capacity below outlet elevation in acre -feet.
e. Calculate capacity inflow ratio (CIR) where:
CIR = ponding capacity / Vannual
f. Read sediment removal efficiency from following graph:
100
so
eo
.
i
so
so
so
_
20
CAPACITY INFLOW
RATIO
, acre- ft /xre
-ft /yr
io
0
I I T
I , fill
I f I
I I ItI
0.001 0.002 0.0as 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.t 0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 8.0 10
SRUNE'S TRAP EFFICIENCY CURVE
g. Credit = % sediment removal efficiency /2 x storm drainage fee.
(4) Credits for Storm Water Detention:
A parcel may be credited for up to 25% of the storm water drainage fee for
onsite measures which limit storm water outflow rates from the site in accordance
with the following procedure:
a. 10% credit for parcels which limit peak outflow rates during a five -
year rainfall event to predevelopment rates.
b. Additional 15% credit for parcels which limit peak outflow rates
during a 100 -year rainfall event to predevelopment rates.
(Based on the rational method of runoff analysis. Predevelopment
condition shall be considered to have a rational "C" value of 0.2.
Time of concentration shall be no shorter than 30 min.)
-4-
VII, Cont.
c. No detention credits will be given for parcels which do not limit
5 -year event outflow rates to predevelopment levels.
(5) Credits Shown in (3) and (4) Above May Be Cumulative.
(6) Periodic Inspection and Credit Adjustments.
The Community Services Director reserves the right to inspect periodically
all storm drainage control facilities to ascertain that they are operating properly.
If such a system, due to improper maintenance or other reason, fails to detain
or cleanse storm water runoff in an effective manner, the Director may eliminate
or reduce water quality or detention credits to an appropriate level. Any such
facility shall not be eligible to apply for storm drainage fee adjustments for a
period of twelve months following any credit adjustment. Credit adjustments
shall not be made retroactively.
The issuance of any building permit or other action which changes or intensifies
an existing land use shall be cause for an adjustment of storm water drainage fees
to an appropriate level.
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR CREDIT OF STORM SEWER UTILITY FEE
This sample calculation is for a multiple family property. All other land
classifications are calculated in the same manner with different standard.
Landowner would supply areas of land that is grass and area of land that is
hard surface. In the sample, owner shows that:
Grass area 841454 S.F.
Hard Surface area = 891146 S.F.
Total Land area = 1731600 S.F.
Area Curve # Product
Grass 841,454 61 5,151,694
Hard Surface 89,146 98 8,736,308
TOTAL 1739600 1398889002
131,888,002 + 173,600 - 80
1/30/85
VIII
'6-1
This gives the curve YA80 as the chart that would give runoff for this property. .
Referring to curve #80 for a 21, rain, the runoff would be .56". With the standard
of .721, for multiple family (.56 + .72 = .78), this indicates the runoff is 22%
less than the standard so the residential equivalency would be reduced by 22%.
The residential equivalency for sample was 60.721. This would then be a
reduction of 13.579 residential equivalency and at proposed rate of $17.40,
this would amount to a $236.27 savings for owner from his original quarterly
fee of $1,056.55.
•
,6-/-5
't
Cor sui&,-lg Engineers
Land Sun-e curs
October 16, 1984
ORR •SCRf LE - MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Mr. Mike Eastling
City Engineer
City of Richfield -.
6900 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: Stormwater System
Priorities & Recommendations
Dear Mr. Eastling:
At the last City Council Workshop regarding stormwater, we were directed to
review the identified flood prone locations and recommend improvement priorities
based on occurence of structure damage on a somewhat frequent basis. The intent
of the priority system to be developed was to focus attention on persistent
property damage areas and to put into secondary categories those flood areas
where damage has only occurred once or twice in recorded history. We re- examined
the data assembled on flood prone areas and have met and discussed flood
frequency and severity with City field personnel who have the most frequent
contact with observed problems.
The following-'is a recommended list of projects directed at flood prone locations
and areas where in our opinion improvements can best provide protection against
frequent structure flooding.
1. WOOD LAKE CONDUIT SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION
Construct manholes and access points to the four drainage lines in west
69th Street between Wood Lake and Knox Avenue. The construction will
allow cleaning of settled solids for the lines. This trunk drainage
outlet services the area west of Wood Lake to include the 68th and Oliver
area, the 67th and Penn area, and the 70th and Penn :venue areas. The
estimated cost for construction of new vaults with access to all lines is
$100,000.
15-16
Page Two
Mr. Mike Eastling
October 15, 1984
2, WILSON POND IMPROVEMENTS
Past and current studies have identified Wilson Pond as not having design
storage volume. High water in Wilson Pond affects a great number of
houses in the area between 72nd Street and 75th Street, Bloomington to
18th Avenue. Pond improvement will reduce the frequency of street and
property damage and allow the existing drainage system to function
better. The cost estimate for Wilson Pond work ranges from $450,000 to
$750,000 dependent on actual facility design. The lower cost is for
excavation and pumping within the existing pond area. The higher cost
would involve enlarging the pond area as well as depth. The higher cost
alternative would, in our opinion be more acceptable aesthetically.
3. NORBY'S POND IMPROVEMENTS'
Past and current studies have identified Norby's Pond as the other Rich-
field storage location not sized for 100 year volume. High pond levels
threaten abutting properties and affect the flooding at 68th and Stevens
Streets, at 69th and Columbus, and at 73rd Street and 1st Avenue. Pond
improvement to lower the high water level will provide area -wide benefit
and allow the existing drainage system to function better. The cost
estimates for Norby's Pond work range from $600,000 to $1,500,000 depend -
ing on the alternative solution selected. Lower costs are for pond
excavation and pumping with higher costs for the conveyance alternative.
The appearance and aesthetics of the pond will impact the alternative
selection.
4. 66TH STREET & XERXES AVENUE
The intersection floods "very frequently" with damage to one commercial
property, residential property, and the garages for residential proper-
ties including one tuck -under garage. The area is being reviewed for
improvement in conjunction with Hennepin County work in 66th Street. The
cost estimate for the required drainage system is $200,000.
The next recommendations are placed a level down in priority because of less
overall area impact. They are as follows:
5. 69TH STREET & XERXES AVENUE
The area floods frequently with damage primarily in the alley area to
garages. Some remedial work in Xerxes -has been accomplished. Some
drainage improvemient will occur with work planned in Edina. No total
solution has been identified so no firm cost estimate is available.
•
•
,6-17
Page Three
Mr. Mike Eastling
October 16, 1984
6. 76TH STREET AND WASHBURN AVENUE
This intersection floods frequently. The primary concern is for 76th
Street being a major thoroughfare with a secondary concern for the poten-
tial for property damage. A supplemental conveyance line has been iden-
tified. The cost estimate is $250,000.
The recommendations of this letter are that the City initially address the four
items listed as 1, 2, 3, and 4. These improvements can provide immediate benefit
by allowing the existing drainage system to function more efficiently. The
improvements have area -wide benefit to a large number of flood prone locations.
Where structures have flooded.
For budget discussion purposes, a total estimated expenditure of between
$1,400,000 and $2,500,000 is involved. Actual costs are likely to be somewhere
between dependent or design alternative evaluations.
Sincerely,
ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
ohn A. Harwood, P.E.
Project Engineer
JAH : nl b
•
i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 34
Agenda February 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Recommendation for a Frontage Road Improvement
and Financing Policy
Council Members:
Background
At a November, 1984, city council study session, the
question of establishing a frontage road improvement and
financing policy was discussed.
At the November study session, city staff advised the city
council that the position of MNDOT on the turnback of frontage
roads to cities was:
1. Upgrade the entire steet surface and load bearing
capacity to Richfield's standards; and,
2. Install curb and gutter on the freeway side of the
frontage road.
William Crawford, MNDOT District Engineer, has provided us
with a written policy that changes one important factor. MNDOT
says they will pay for only 112 of the street width to be
improved. Apparently there are some $12 million worth of road
turnbacks to accomplish and MNDOT can only allocate about $2
million a year to this type of road work. Hence, the MNDOT
position that they cannot pay for improving the entire street
width.
MNDOT, however, has made an exception for Longfellow Avenue
between 68th and 69th Streets. In this particular case, MNDOT
will pay for everything except the curb and gutter on the east
(residential) side of the street.
Issue
At the November, 1984, council meeting the city council set
the maximum special assessment for Longfellow frontage road
improvements at $4.00 per running foot.
-2-
City staff requests reconsideration of this action based
upon the revised position of MNDOT on what part of the street
improvement cost they will share in on a frontage road turnback
situation.
Richfield has many miles of frontage roads. The 1985 fund
balance as of ecember 31, 1985 was projected to be $469,161.
Richfield anticipates receiving $370,500 in 1985 from gas tax
apportionments.
The city council is asked to provide direction to the staff
on these questions:
1. Should the Longfellow assessment of $4.00 per
running foot stand as approved in November, 1984?
2. Should the overall frontage road financing policy
be revised to take into account the fact that
Richfield and its residents will be responsible
for paying the cost for improving 1/2 of the street
plus curb and gutter on the city side of the
frontage road?
Staff will plan to discuss this agenda item in greater
detail at the 5:30 P.M. study session on February 11, 1985.
0
JGC /eja
0
Re pectf ITy bmitted ,
John G.' Car wrigI
City Manager
•
•
•
i1 -j
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 399
Agenda November 13, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Recommendation for a Frontage Road Improvement and
Financing Policy
Council Members:
Several sections of frontage roads in Richfield have
deteriorated to a condition where major repairs are now needed.
One such road, the frontage road on. the east side of Highway 77
between 66th and 69th Street known as Longfellow Avenue was
the subject of attention at several 1984 City Council meetings.
Residents on Longfellow Avenue have expressed concerns about
large trucks and buses damaging Longfellow Avenue. Excessive
speed was another concern. MNDot has offered to improve the
street if Richfield city government will assume all future
responsibility for maintenance of Longfellow Avenue.
Before proceeding with a project to upgrade this section of
roadway, the staff is asking that the city council consider a
policy on the construction standards for the roads and how the
improvements will be financed. This letter presents two options
for a frontage road policy to finance the curb and gutter
improvements and recommends a particular policy to the City
Council for approval.
OPTIONS FOR FINANCING CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS ON
FRONTAGE ROAD9
No Policy. If the council chooses not to have a policy, each
frontage road can be considered on a case by case basis as
staff, council or citizens choose to bring them to the council.
State City Funding. In meetings with the MNDot District
Engineer William Crawford and city staff (Mike Eastling and
John Cartwright), an agreement was reached on how improvements
to frontage roads built by the state should be improved and paid
for. The agreement is one used by MNDot with our suburbs.
MNDot agrees to pay for:
1. Upgrading street surface and load bearing capacity
to Richfield's standards; and
-2-
4-1
2. Install curb and gutter on the freeway side of the
frontage road.
Richfield government will be responsible for financing the
curb and gutter improvements on the city side of the frontage
road by one'of the following alternatives:
1. Richfield MSA gas tax;
2. Special assessments against benefitting properties; or,
3. A combination of 1 and 2.
In discussions with the District Engineer, there was some
question of the status of the frontage road on the east side of
35W from Wood Lake to 76th Street. City staff will pursue this
issue with MnDOT to verify that this road does qualify under the
policy.
FRONTAGE ROAD CONDITIONS
The attached map (Exhibit A) identifies frontage roads which
are not currently built to city standards and some that are
already built to city standard, particularly those along the
Crosstown. If the frontage road has curb and gutter on both
sides of the street, it was determined to meet the city
standard. Where curb and gutter is in place on both sides of
the frontage road, the street surface has been found to be in
good condition.
Without a good concrete gutter section to carry away the
water, water is allowed to pool in the street at the edge of
the blacktop and the deterioration of the blacktop is
accelerated. This deterioration is evident on the Longfellow
Avenue frontage roads adjacent to Highway 77. The frontage
road on the east side of 35W from 76th to 72nd Street (Humboldt
Avenue) is also showing distress. Something needs to be done in
the near future to both the Longfellow Avenue frontage road and
the east 35W (Humboldt Avenue) frontage road.
In discussions with MNDot District Engineer, it was
uncertain to all concerned whether Humboldt Avenue (east side of
35W) is a frontage road or a city street. It is agreed that
this section of Humboldt Avenue is under the jurisdiction of
MNDot. Humboldt Avenue differs from other frontage roads
because:
1. It was built by the state;
2. The frontage road, if it can be called a frontage
road, does not receive or deliver traffic to the
35W freeway;
3. The state may not have expended any funds on the
street for maintenance;
•
•
aJ
-3-
14--5
4. The street may have become a part of MNDot
jurisdiction because it fell within the construction
zone for building 35W.
City and MNDot staff will continue to explore this issue and
advise the City Council on our findings at a future city council
meeting.
For the time being, Humboldt Avenue east of 35W is not
considered a part of the frontage road system governed by the
recommended policy set out in this city council letter and the
attached resolution.
The 494 frontage road from Xerxes Avenue to Portland Avenue
has no curb and gutter except for the section between Harriet
Avenue and Pillsbury Avenue on the south side adjacent to the
freeway retaining wall. The condition of the roadway varies,
but is generally in better condition than the aforementioned
frontage roads (Longfellow Avenue and East 35W frontage road).
The 494 frontage road from Xerxes to Knox Avenue will be
affected by the anticipated improvements associated with the
Penn -494 bridge and road improvements. The timing of any
improvements to these frontage roads should be scheduled with
the Penn -494 improvements. The 494 frontage road from Portland
to Cedar Avenue has curb and gutter on the city side of the
street. This curb was installed during the street paving
program and was specially assessed.
The west side 35W frontage road from 69th Street to 76th
Street has curb without gutter on both sides of the street.
A gutter section was included from 74th to 75 1/2 Street.
This former frontage road was turned over to the city some years
ago after the street was resurfaced.
All of the frontage roads discussed above were under State
jurisdiction up until three years ago. At that time, three
sections were in particularly bad shape and MnDOT expressed
interest in turning the roads back to the city. These three
sections are the east side of the 35W frontage road from 69th to
76th Street, the 494 frontage road from 12th Avenue to Portland
Avenue and the 494 frontage road from Morgan to Penn Avenue.
The State Highway Department was in a position of scheduling
no new construction and doing limited maintenance due to a
shortage of funds. The gas tax increase was not contemplated at
that time. The city agreed to accept jurisdiction of the
roadways in return for a two and one -half inch overlay on the
roadbed. Since that time, the State has agreed to fund total
reconstruction of Longfellow Avenue from 66th to 69th Street
except for the curb and gutter on the city side of the street.
By this action, it appears that MNDot recognizes its
obligation to finance the major portion of improvements to city
standard prior to turning back a frontage road to the city. In
addition, the city has had a policy that the property owners
adjacent to an improved street will pay for at least a portion
-4-
of the improved street (see the attached street paving policy
item 2). Some deviation from this policy has occurred on
arterial streets. It also seems appropriate that if the city
must share in the cost of reconstructing the frontage road,
Richfield should be allowed to use its State Aid gas tax money.
COMPARISON OF CURB COSTS FOR STREET PAVING PROGRAM OF 1970'S
M
At one of the city council meetings with the Longfellow
Avenue neighborhood, there was a question raised on the
comparison between today's curb and gutter construction
costs and the curb and gutter costs from the 1970's street
paving program. In the street paving program established in
1972, half of the cost of a street was $12 per front foot. The
assessment was established at $8 (2/3 of construction
cost) per front foot. The curb cost was estimated at $14 per
front foot or one -half of the assessment.
Now in 19814 it costs $27 to construct one -half of a street.
If two - thirds of this cost was assessed as in the previous
program, the assessment would be $18 per front foot. One half
of this assessment is $9. This could be designated as today's
maximum assessment that a frontage road property owner would pay
for curb and gutter. The estimated cost of curb today is $7 per
foot, which is less than the suggested maximum.
RECOMMENDATION 0
1. The frontage roads should be brought up to the standards
established for the street paving program in the 1970's.
This would include curb and gutter on both sides of the
street with a nine ton design asphalt surface.
2. The council should approve the attached resolution which
establishes a frontage road improvement and financing
policy. Under this policy, MNDot is responsible to
pay for the paved surface and the curb and gutter on the
freeway side of the street. The city is responsible for
the curb and gutter and driveway aprons on the city side
of the street. The property abutting the frontage roads
would be assessed for curb and gutter improvements
adjacent to their property. The method used to calculate
abutting footage would be consistent with the street
paving program of the 1970's.
3. The council approves a formula as forth in this report
for the special assessment financing plan.
•
-5-
,q-
4. Once a policy is approved, the staff will approach MNDot
1 officials on financing and scheduling isssues. A
public hearing will also be scheduled with residents of
Longfellow Avenue from 68th to 69th Street to consider
special assessments for curb and gutter improvements to
the street.
JGC /eja
EA
•
•
0 0 IV 0
0
0 1 a I
ell fD 111
rat 11 r-
I ro r- ell
0
a 0 a
pq :c "I
0 cr O (7
Cr 1: ca
to c 0 (a
tY
M ID
eD I
r* C6
0
0
rA
CA P.-
I.- CL
0. ID
o.D
(a 0
0
0
0
rD
rD
0 0
IV
mi 0 0
0
V 11
eD
0
(30 00
?D
XERXES AVE.
WASHBURN
VINCENT
-
UPTON
THOMAS
SHERIDAN
RUSSELL
QUEEN
PENN
7
0
LIZ
NEWT
MORGA
:
LO.A
KNOX
JAMES
IRVING
HUMBOLDT
' ^
/ I JS
GIRARD JL
FREMONT
EMERSON
DUPONT
BRYANT
ALDRICH 'I ®B�r
LYNOALE AVE.
GARFIELD
IT
HARRIET
GRANO
PLEASANT
PILLSBURY
WENTWORTH
BLAISDELL
NICOLLCT AVE.
STEVENS
20d
are
CLINTON
4111
S:t:h
PORTLAND AVE. U=i
OAKLAND
PARK
COLUMBUS
CHICAGO
ELLIOT 1:;:
10 IN
II th
12th
14 th I r — - ------ n,
13 th L
BLOOMINGTON
16
ft. d A
lath
CEDAR AVE.
LONGFELLOW
4 r,
z 74
M —
in n
'0
0 4
0
4
Z
Z
O
i XERXES AVE.
WASHBURN
VINCENT
UPTON
THOMAS
L
SHERIDAN
RUSSELL
QUEEN
PENN AVE.
OLIVER
MORGAN
7-4
4 LOGAN
KNOX
JAMES
IRVING
HUMBOLDT
FREMONT
"J. EMERSON
x DUPONT
COLFAX
x
7
BRYANT
ALDRICH
LYNOALE AVE.
GARFIELD
F"! HARRIET
GRAND
PLEASANT
PILLSBURY
W ENTWORTH
1, BLAISDELL
NICOLLET AVE.
STEVENS
3r4
C INTON
4:"
5 If
PORTLAND AVE.
71 OAKLAND
PARK
r. COLUMBUS
CHICAGO
ELLIOT
10th
11 th
12 th
=771-7-7- ;:j - 13 th
141h
15 th
BLOOMINGTON
16,h
17 ft,
18th
CEDAR AVE.
LONGFELLOW
� 19th
T
20th
Z2 d
STANDISH
23 rd
-0.- T-7 :04 0 0 0 0
0
low
_/7_"S
.,.. RESOLUTION NO. 4382
RESOLUTION ON POLICY FOR PERMANENT
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the city council has determined the initiation,of a permanent street
improvement program to be desirable for the general health, safety, and welfare of the
community, and
WHEREAS, the city council has determined to initiate permanent street improvements
on all non- permanent streets within the general guidelines of the City's comprehensive
plan and in accordance with a predetermined long range schedule of priorities, and
WHEREAS, all future permanent street improvements whether initiated by petition
or city council action, shall include construction of permanent street surfaces with.
curb and gutter and necessary appurtances and where determined to be advisable, the
construction of sidewalk and the installation of additional street lighting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that
the City adopt the following general policies for permanent street improvements:
6
1. That the total cost of this improvement include material, manpower,
equipment, financing, and administrative overhead required for the
special assessment procedure and performance of this work.
2. That each property owner has an obligation to finance the estimated
full cost of one -half of the normal thirty -six foot residential street
in front of-his property as well as a portion of a side street: That in
those instances where the street is to be an arterial street requiring
extra pavement thickness, or any other special construction, the property
owner would still pay the cost of one half of a residential street with
other revenue sources to be used for the balance. Streets with insuffi-
cient right of way or special condition making a 36 -foot street difficult
or impossible would be considered on an exception basis.
3. That the current assessment for
shall be a maximum $10 a front
one -half of a normal thirty -six
over a twenty -year period with
those property owners electing
maximum cost per front foot may
reflect the actual cost of the
the permanent street improvement program
foot which is the estimated full cost of '* ',<
foot residential street to be spread
an 8 percent per annum interest rate for
to pay over the twenty -year period. The
.be revised periodically to more adequately
permanent street construction.
4. That the term front footage shall mean the number of feet an the front
or short side of the lot, (whichever is less), with the following excep-
tions:
a. That in the case of irregularly shaped lots, front footage
will be determined by the same formula used for the sanitary
sewer lateral assessment policy.
b, That in the case of tax exempt property, front too tage shall
include all abutting footage on improved right of :gays.
5. That all cornor lots, including ots +
9 Currently e tl y Troilt7ng on Permanently
improved streets, with a permanent street improvement adjacent to the'
•
side lot line will be assessed s maximum S10 per foot for their side
lot footage with the cost to be. divided equally among all or6oerties
to a midpoint in the block.
6. That the residential street surfacing shall be composed of seven ton
asphaltic concrete with Portland cement curb and gutter. That arterial
streets be constructed -using nine ton asphaltic concrete with Portland
cement curb and gutter.
7. That where the city council determines that sidewalk construction is
desirable the cost shall be assessed 50 percent against the abutting
property owner spread over a five -year period.
8. That residential driveway aprons will be constructed as part of the
overall construction program and will be assessed 100 percent against
the abutting property owner.and be included with the street assess
ment to be spread over the twenty -year period.
9. That all known and required utility installations be completed before
a permanent street project is initiated.
10. That the cost of the permanent street improvement program which exceeds
the total assessment as defined by this policy small be financed by
general city revenue.
11. That the policies contained in this resolution small be subect to
modification if necessary in individual cases as the city council
determines that the assessment or assessments resulting from the
application of the policies will exceed the benefits received.
Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this Sth day of June, 1970
ATTEST:
Thomas J. Moran, City Cleric
Stanley R. 0 ,on, ;;ayor
9
10
SF-00006-03
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATTON
ROOM 807
0 TO: District Engineers
STATE OF MINNESOTA A- J
/ i
Office M emorandum /
! Gt 8 1±984
DATE:" ' � 3, 1984
FROM Bruce L. Warzala �t` �%� PHONE: 296=f478
Director -
Highway Programming Section
SUBJECT: F.Y. 85 Special Agreements Program
Attached please find a copy of the F.Y.-85 Special Agreements
Program. Historically, this Program was an assembly of projects
that were.to be let "by others" and in which we usually have a
financial obligation. We were also able to honor most requests at
a Program-level of about $2 -3 million /year. Criteria for project
inclusion in this category were subjective in order to maximize
flexibility and meet Mn /DOT's responsibility.
We received about $12 million .in requests for F.Y. 85
consideration. and the fact
that a number of these projects appear to be of a type that should
be co m eting for funding in other categories we
1) The project must be primarily -for the benefit of the local
public works system and trunk highway work /improvements are
secondary.
a. Mn /DOT's share of the cost should be less than
half of the total improvement cost or
b. Mn /DOT's share of the cost should be less then
$200,000.
2) The project does not meet other existing categorical
definitions and there are compelling reasons to have the job
"let by others" (other than human resources).
Projects not meeting these criteria must compete in the process for
programming in the appropriate category.
The attached Program consists primarily of projects that have had
approvals for inclusion in prior years. Some of these projects may
not have met the new test required however, in most cases
commitments had been made that should be honored. The remainder of
the Program consists of newly approved projects subjected to the
• above screening.
District Engineers
August 3, 1984
Page 2
We are including a compilation of the disposition of candidate
projects (in dollars) together with a list of those projects that
did not make the program and the reasons. In most cases the .
projects are improperly classified and should be resubmitted to
compete in the selection process for the appropriate category.
This response is not intended to discourage city and county
participation in State highway improvement project
development /implementation. It is an action required to preserve
the integrity of our established statewide project prioritization
and selection process. `
If for reasons of lacking human resources we are able to negotiate
a deal with local units of government to design and /or let a
highway construction project, the project should be categorized and
submitted for programming based on the character of work. Coding
in PMSS will be altered to indicate that_work to be done "by
others ".
Kindly review and comment on our project evaluation and assumptions
and respond by August 15, 1984.
cc: HPCC
District State Aid Engineers
G.M. Fay
1
•
r�
AVAILABLE FOR APPROPRIATION
PRIOR YEAR'S FUND BALANCE
Sources:
Gas tax approtionments
Interest
Subtotal
Uses:
Capital improvements
BUDGET SU114ARY
MUNICIPAL STAI"E -AID STREET FJM
1982
1983
19984
31153,000
1985
Actual
Actual
Budget
Revised
Budget
$1,003,466
$ 455,698
$602,502
$492,083
$641,661
$ 287,747
$ 321,233
$327,074
$371,578
$370,500
34,147
28,036
10,C00
10,000
12,000
321,892r
$ 349, ' 9
$337,074
$ , 578
382 5C,
$ 869,662
$
312,884
31153,000
$232,000
$555,000
$ 455,698
$
492,083
$786,576
$641,661
$469,161
Fund Objective
The Municipal State Aid (MSA) street fund is financed by state - collected gasoline
taxes which are apportioned to municipalities. These monies are used for street
construction and related purposes in accordance with state law.
Fund Activities
The 1984 revised budget shows $232,000 of Municipal State Aid monies being used for
capital improvements. This allocation icludes funding for sidewalk improvements.
The traffic study at 76th Street and Penn Avenue, traffic signal installation at
69th Street and Penn Avenue, and continued planning of improvements at 66th Street
and Penn Avenue, and the western blocks of 66th Street.
The $555,OCO proposed for capital improvement use in 1965 . is in accordance with the
scheduling of specific projects detailed in the 1985 capital improvement budget.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
SF -2 ANNUAL BUDGET
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA '
Office of City Manager
EXTRA ITEM
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Amendment to Final Development Plan and Planned
Unit Development Plan - Market Plaza Development
Council Members:
In reviewing the construction plans for the Woodlake Point
Condominium, the Public Safety Department determined that an
additional stand pipe is necessary on each floor of the parking
garage to meet the city's fire code. These stand pipes must
be in fire rated enclosures, such as stairways. The addition
of these stand pipes and rated stairways would eliminate two
parking stalls in the parking garage. The development will also
lose one exterior parking stall in order to obtain the required
curb -cut permit from Hennepin County. The total parking stalls
provided would decrease from 1241 to 138 stalls.
The city's PUD ordinance requires that the development
constructed must be in substantial compliance with the approved
final development plan and planned unit development plan. The
ordinance also indicates that a development would not be in
substantial compliance if there is any change in the ratio of
off - street parking and loading space to gross floor area of the
building. Because a reduction of this ratio would occur, the
plans need to be amended to be in substantial compliance.
It is recommended that the city council approve an amended
final development plan, and planned unit development plan with
138 parking stalls provided for the Woodlake Point Condominium.
While staff continues to have some concern about less than one
stall being provided for each dwelling unit, this is out - weighed
by the need for proper fire protection and by the lack of
alternatives for providing additional parking on the site. If
needed, additional spaces for condo owners could be rented from
the Lake Shore Drive condominium across the street.
pectf rt�11.' bmitted,
John G. Car Wright
City Manager
•
Council
Letter No.
514
Agenda
February 11,
1985
EXTRA ITEM
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Amendment to Final Development Plan and Planned
Unit Development Plan - Market Plaza Development
Council Members:
In reviewing the construction plans for the Woodlake Point
Condominium, the Public Safety Department determined that an
additional stand pipe is necessary on each floor of the parking
garage to meet the city's fire code. These stand pipes must
be in fire rated enclosures, such as stairways. The addition
of these stand pipes and rated stairways would eliminate two
parking stalls in the parking garage. The development will also
lose one exterior parking stall in order to obtain the required
curb -cut permit from Hennepin County. The total parking stalls
provided would decrease from 1241 to 138 stalls.
The city's PUD ordinance requires that the development
constructed must be in substantial compliance with the approved
final development plan and planned unit development plan. The
ordinance also indicates that a development would not be in
substantial compliance if there is any change in the ratio of
off - street parking and loading space to gross floor area of the
building. Because a reduction of this ratio would occur, the
plans need to be amended to be in substantial compliance.
It is recommended that the city council approve an amended
final development plan, and planned unit development plan with
138 parking stalls provided for the Woodlake Point Condominium.
While staff continues to have some concern about less than one
stall being provided for each dwelling unit, this is out - weighed
by the need for proper fire protection and by the lack of
alternatives for providing additional parking on the site. If
needed, additional spaces for condo owners could be rented from
the Lake Shore Drive condominium across the street.
pectf rt�11.' bmitted,
John G. Car Wright
City Manager
•