Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
04-14-86 agenda
/~J / . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 161 Agenda April 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Animal Control Discussion Council Members: Council Member Ludeman contacted the writer during the week of March 31, 1986, indicating that he had received complaints concerning the excessive amount of dog excrement on certain parks and school playgrounds within the City, specifically citing the playground at 70th and 12th Avenue South. It was suggested that this item be placed on the April 14, 1986 Council agenda for - discussion of the problem. . Attached for your information is the specific Richfield ordinance provision dealing with licensing of domestic animals including leash regulations and disposal of dog feces. The Public Safety Director, who is responsible for the enforcement of this ordinance will be available to address this .issue and answer questions. Respe fully submitted, °f i 'Steven L. D vi e ch Acting City Manager SLD/eja cc: Public Safety Director . • - .J c CHAT lrai V 1 PART III. HEALTH, SArn~~C AND GENERAL WELFARE - ~ t .5.27 LICENSING OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS. Subdivision 1. Definitions. The following terms have the meanings ascribed to them in this section: (1) "Owner" means any person owning, keeping, harboring or having custody 'of a dog or cat. (2) "Commercial kennel" means a place where ire than two dogs or two cats over siac months of age are kept, and where the business of selling, boarding, breeding; showing, treating or grooming dogs or cats is conducted. (3) "Residential kennel" mesas a place where more than two dogs or two cats over six months of age are kept on premises which are zoned and occuped for residential purposes, and where the keeping of such dogs or cats is incidental to the occupancy of the premises for residential purposes. (4)~ A dog is "at large" when he is off the property of his. owner and not . under restraint. (5) A dog is "under restraint" if he is controlled by a leash not exceeding six feet is length, or at heel beside a competent person having custody of him and obedient to that person's commands, or-within a vehicle being driven or parked on a public street or within the property limits of his owner's premises. Aa unattended dog on the property of another, without the consent of such prop- erty owner, is "at Large" and not under restraint even though ha is on a leash.' Subd. 2. License Required. No person shall own, harbor, keep or have custody ~of a dog or cat over six months of age within the city; unless a current license for such animal has been obtained as provided in this section.. Licenses shall be issued an an annual basis and shall be made for the whole or unexpired portion of the year ending on the 30th day of 3une next following the first effective day of the license.. = Subd. 3. License Fees. The License fee for each dog license, the license fee for each cat license, and the charge for a duplicate license for either animal . 'i is as provided in Appendix D.of this Code. (Bill 1977-16) 8/8/77 Subd. 4. Late Penalty. If the license for a dog or cat is obtained while the dog or cat is impounded by•the city, or after the required license period has .commenced, there shall be added to the regular license fee a late-license pen- alty as provided in Appendix D of this Code for each animal; provided that any owner who acquires a dog or cat after the start of the license year, or any owner who has-a dog or cat at the time of becoming a resident of the city, shall be allowed thirty days to secure a license, without incurring the late-license penalty provided in this subdivision. (Bill 1977-16) 8/8!7? Subd. 5. Contents of Application. Application fora dog or cat license shall be made to the city clerk or to the pound keeper. It shall include such descriptive .information as is necessary to provide reasonable identification of the. animal and his owner. Applicants shall provide a certificate issued by a doctor of ' veterinary medicine licensed to practice showing that the animal has been vaccinated against rabies and that such vaccination is effective on the date of the application. Bi11 No. 1985-14 (7/20/85) 7/20/85 OROINANC~ CODE 139 CITY OF RtCHFtEL.D, MlNNESO fA 3 Subd.~6. -~~Identification of Licensed Animal. Upon the issuance of a dog or cat license by the city clerk or the city pound keeper, the licensee shall be pro- _ vided with a metallic tag bearingthe license number, the word "Richfield"~ and - the-year when the license period begins or has begun. Except where the dog or cat;for which the license is•issued is indoors on the premises of his owner, the animal shall have a collar or harness on which the license tag is affixed. No person shall counterfeit any such tag of this city or use a counterfeit tag. Subd. 7. License Nontransferable. A license tag is nontransferable to any other animal or to a new owner for a dog or cat for which. it is issued. • Subd. 8. Revlacement of Lost Tai. If any such tag is lost or stolen, the owner • may obtain a new tag by surrendering the receipt for the first tag and by paying the charge for a duplicate license as provided in Appendix D of this Code. (Bill 1977-16) 818/77 Subd. 9. Do~s~ Not to be at Lar$e; Iamediate Disposal of Dog Feces. No owner shall pezmit his dog to be at large in this•city, but shall keep such dog under restraint at all times. Every-dog owner .and every person having custody or. control of any dog shall immediately clean up and. sanitarily dispose of any feces of the animal,-except that this provision shall not apply to blind persons . with respect to their ownership and use of seeing eye dogs. (Bill 1980-26) • 12/8/80 Subd. 10. Confinement When Necessary. The owner•sha11 confine within a building or secure enclosure. any fierce, dangerous or-vicious dog, except when muzzled and in the control of a competent person. Every female dog or cat in heat shall be confined. in a building, secure enclosure, veterinary hospital or boarding kennel, or shall be controlled on a leash while being exercised, provided the animal does • not create•a public nuisance. Subd. 11. Public Nuisances. The keeping of a dog or cat which annoys other persons is a public nuisance and is unlawful. Upon the receipt of a written complaint of such annoyance by the occupants of two or snore neighboring prop- erties, the city shall notify the owner of such dog or cat that the nuisance shall be abated within 48 hours. Failure to obey such notice is a violation of this section. CROS5-R~r~..•cEaCE: See Chapter X, Part I, for general nuisance provisions. Subd. 12. City Pound. The council may provide for a city animal pound, either. within or ouCSide Che limits of the city. Subd. 13. Pound Keeper. If a city pound is established, the manager shall designate the pound keeper and he may appoint and deputize special officers to enforce this section. Such persons shall have police powers to cite owners of dogs~or cats for violations of this section, to impound dogs or cats and to enforce the provisions of this section. 12/8/$0 ORDINANCE CQDE 140 CITY DF RICHFIELD, M4NNESOTA iy-/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 160 Agenda. April 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Rogers Cablesystems Application for Approval of Refinancing Plan Council Members: Approximately one year ago, the City of Richfield along with other members cities of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (hereinafter SWSCC) adopted a relief ordinance which enabled Rogers t~o provide for a refinancing of their unfavorable long term debt. Since that time Rogers Cablesystems has developed a refinancing plan to submit to the five member cities of the SWSCC which includes Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Richfield. Action Taken by the SWSCC On April 2, 1986, a complete application was submitted to the SWSCC requesting the SWSCC to approve the refinancing plan proposed by Rogers Cablesystems. Basically, the refinancing plan had three component parts to be considered: (1) the refinancing plan which provides for alternative financing mechanisms to relieve Rogers of its unfavorable long term debt; (2) included in that refinancing plan is also a request for approval of the sale and transfer of the cable franchise.. Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota would be acquired by Rogers Cablesystems of America, Inc. Thus, the operation would stay within the Rogers Cablesystems family of companies but the long term outstanding debt of the company would be refinanced under the much larger line of credit available to Rogers Cablesystems of America, Inc.; and (3) the final component of the request would be the approval of an extension of the terms of the cities franchises. This would be up to an additional four year term. At its April 2 meeting, SWSCC carefully considered the application by Rogers Cablesystems and unanimously adopted a /L! resolution which provided for a recommendation to the members cities on the following findings: (1) the SWSCC found that the application of Rogers for its refinancing plan is complete subject to the receipt of the buy- sell agreements and related financial information between the transferrer, and the transferee and that the process for evaluation may be started by member cities; (2) that these cities adopt a schedule of proceedings that was prepared by the administrator of the SWSCC (Adrian Herbst) for review and processing of the Rogers application; (3) that the cities notify Rogers within 30 days of the date of this resolution (April 2, 1986) that a public hearing is being scheduled for April 28, 1986, because the proposed action may adversely affect company subscribers; (4) that the public hearings not be closed and all necessary approvals finalized until Rogers has submitted to the cities and the SWSCC its buy and sell agreements and related financial information and the SWSCC has provided its recommendation to the cities;. or alternatively, that the hearing is closed but approvals are not final and ordinances not published until the SWSCC has filed its recommendation with the cities that the buy- sell agreements information related thereto are in conformance with the representation of Rogers public hearings; and, (5) that the city attorneys of the member cities assist and coordinate the commission attorneys in the steps necessary toward the preparation and documentation necessary for each individual city to act upon the request as provided for in the schedule of proceedings. Basically what is occurring in this instance, is that Rogers has developed a financing plan to satisfy the requirements of the relief package provided for by the member cities in the relief ordinances of approximately a year ago. The refinancing plan is intended to alleviate the high cost to Rogers in servicing the debt on a-long term line of credit. It is that issue that has to be dealt with and evaluated to permit the member cities to see whether or not they are satisfied that goals established by them in providing the relief in the first place have been satisfied. Secondly, if that has been satisfied, the extension of the terms of the franchises could also be provided to the cable company. An extension of the term involves adoption of ordinance amendment to permit the extension.. ACTION TO BE TAKEN Under the existing franchise ordinances, as well as state law, a transfer may be accepted by a member city within 30 days after the a lication has been receiv d. pp a .However, a member .city / L~~ may require public hearing and notify the cable company of that requirement if the member city finds .that a public hearing is required because the sale or transfer of franchise may adversely affect the company subscribers. It has been recommended by the SWSCC that each of the five member cities notify the company that a public hearing will be required. According the proposed schedule of proceedings prepared by Adrian Herbst of the SWSCC, the Richfield public hearing should be scheduled for April 28, 1986, at which time Rogers officials would give a formal presentation to the Richfield City Council. At each of the member city public hearings, the following information will be available for city council evaluation: (1) A financial analysis of the refinancing plan by the Touche Ross accounting firm; (2) An evaluation of the refinancing plan and sale and transfer by attorney Adrian Herbst from the SWSCC; (3) The recommendation of the operating committee of the SWSCC; and finally, (4) All ordinances and resolutions that must be completed prior to the approval of the transfer and. extension of the franchise. SUMMARY The request for sale and transfer, refinancing plan of Rogers Cablesystems of America, and the extension of the franchise will involve a great deal of precise timing and coordination, financial analysis and legal counsel. However, the expertise of the Touche Ross firm, the respective city attorneys, Adrian Herbst, attorney for SWSCC, and the SWSCC, will provide the necessary expertise to present the city council with a fair and accurate analysis of the items up for consideration. In terms of process, the actions before the city council are: a a refinancing plan for approval; o transfer and sale of the cable franchise to Rogers Cablesystems of America; and, o the extension of the franchise for an additional period of up to four years. In the public hearing that is recommended by staff for April 28, 1986 the information submitted by Rogers Cablesystems will be presented to the city council as well as all necessary: ~ evaluations and. recommendations. Subsequent to that public hearing, if the council were to extend the franchise an additional public hearing would be necessary to process an ordinance amendment required for the extension of the franchise. In any event, the proposed schedule would call-for the Richfield City Council to inform Rogers of their final decision to approve or deny the transfer on or before May 28, 1986. Attached for your information is a resolution adopted by the SWSCC regarding the process for review of the Rogers application, a schedule of proceedings developed by the SWSCC, a refinancing plan 10 year proforma prepared by Rogers Cablesystems, and a letter from the Chairman of the SWSCC concerning this matter. Recommendation. It is recommended that the city council set a public hearing for April 28, 1986 for approval of the refinancing plan of Rogers Cablesystems and the sale-and transfer of the cable franchise to Rogers Cablesystems of America. It is also recommended that the city council direct the city manager to notify Rogers Cablesystems that the proposed sale or transfer of the franchise may adversely affect the company's subscribers and therefore a public hearing on the transfer has been set. Res~~ fully submitted, .//~i L. uevich Acting City Manager SLD/eja /3--/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 159 Agenda April 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield ~I Subject: Year XII Community Development Block Grant Program ' Council Members: On February 10, 1986 the city council allocated Year XII Community Development Block Grant Program funds to the following projects based on a preliminary planning allocation of $138,582: 1. Housing Rehabilitation $ 44,882 2. Site Acquisition 70,000 3. Energy Grants 5,000 4. Public Service H.O.M.E. 5,300 5. Day Care 13,400 Total $138,582 The city has recently received the final Year XII planning allocation from Hennepin County in the amount of $144j590. The city must now determine how to allocate the additional $6,008 of Year XII CDBG funds. If the council wishes to allocate the additional funds to a project .which was not discussed at the February 10, 1986 .public hearing, a new public hearing would have to be scheduled before the funds could be allocated. If the funds are allocated to one of the approved projects listed above, a new public hearing is not necessary. It is the staff's recommendation that the council allocate the additional funds to existing projects as follows: 1. $900 for public service project administration. The city allocated $2,792 of Year XI funds to cover the city costs of administering the H.O.M.E. and Daycare programs. The council did not allocate funds to cover city costs for administering these programs in Year XII. With this allocation, the amount of funds 1~-~ allocated to public service projects (13%) would remain below the maximum allowed of 15% of the total grant. 2. $5,108 to the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program. This would allow one additional loan to be issued. The following table shows the previously approved XII allocations and the recommended revision: Prev Pro.iect Apprd. Recomm. Change Housing Rehab. $ 44,882 $ 49,990 $+.5,108 Site Acquis. 70,000 70,000 0 Energy Grants 5,000 5,000 0 H.O.M.E. 5,300 5,300 0 Daycare 13,400. 13,400 0 City Admin. 0 900 900 TOTAL $138,582 $144,.590 $+6,008 Res tfully bm'tted, ~ / ~v n L. Devic Acting City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 158 Agenda April 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Cedar Avenue and 66th Street Liquor Store Site Development Council Members: City Council Members received a letter just prior to the March 24, 1986 City Council meeting, from Bob Hall of the Republic Airlines Employees Credit Union (Republic Credit Union), asking that the City Council continue to work with that organization for the development of the Cedar Avenue Liquor Store site. Mr. Hall indicated that final action on a proposal for development would be presented in June, but that Republic Credit Union had firmly committed to proceed with development of the site. The City Council directed staff to review this matter and report back to the council at its April 14, 1986 meeting. On Thursday, April 3, 1986 Dennis Kraft and the writer met with Bob Hall to gain more information concerning the .development contemplated by Republic Credit Union; to outline the city's .concerns; and to determine what type of guarantees the developer would provide to the city concerning the future development of the Cedar Avenue site. Subsequently, city staff met with John Dean of the City Attorney's office to outline the city's position in this matter. As a result of the meetings with Sob Hall and city staff, the writer has identified the following issues concerning the proposed development of the Cedar Avenue Liquor Store site by the Republic Credit Union: 1. No Strip Commercial Development Bob Hall informed city staff the project now contemplated by Republic Credit Union does not include the strip commercial development previously proposed. Council Members may recall that under the previous proposal a development on the 66th and Cedar site included a strip commercial project developed by Bill Henning. Bill Henning has notified the city, in writing, of his withdrawal from the project. 2. Guarantee of $2.3 Million Market Value for a Single Credit Union Building In a letter to the City Council dated March 21, 1986 (attached) and in subsequent meetings with Bob Hall, it is understood that the Republic Credit Union would "guarantee tax revenues that are equal to or greater than those previously proposed (by the Credit Union/strip commercial configuration)." To that end, Mr. Hall has indicated that a credit union building in the 30,000-40,000 square foot range would be pursued by Republic Credit Union, providing that adequate parking and other criteria for the site are met. It appears from preliminary staff analysis that a building of the size indicated above (30,000-40,000 square feet) may be possible. Mr. Hall also indicated that the Republic Credit Union may be interested in "staging" or phasing the construction of the Credit. Union building to achieve the $2.3 million level of construction guaranteed. Of course, from the city staff's perspective, it would seem essential that if a phased development was to be approved, that significant minimum development values be established for the initial stages of development and a definite time limitation be set for future development. Again, such a phased development would be accompanied by certain revenue guarantees to the city. Staff of the City Attorney's office is now researching the potential legal mechanisms which may be employed to solidify such a guarantee of tax revenue or comparable revenue source .guarantee. 3. Developer's Agreement for the Proposed Republic Credit Union Pro,iect A Developer's Agreement would be necessary to establish, in writing, a solidified plan for the future development of the Cedar Avenue Liquor Store site. Two essential issues which must be addressed in the formulation of a Developer's Agreement are a negotiated price for the property and a financial guarantee to the city to protect the city in the event that the Republic Credit Union decided not to proceed sometime in the future with .the development, as agreed. By agreeing to continue to work with Republic Credit Union at this time and keeping the city property off of the market for other development, the city incurs a risk of lost opportunity. To protect the city in this exposure and ensure that development will proceed on the site by Republic Credit Union as indicated to the city, a performance bond or other financial assurance should be made a part of the Developer's Agreement to cover such a contingency. ~3 4. Vacation of 67th Street In the previously proposed projects, as is the case with the current Republic Credit Union plan, there is consideration for the vacation of 67th Street to add area to the development site. This possibility has previously been discussed with potentially affected residents. At the City Council meeting of January 13, 1986 the City Council directed the Planning Commission to review the street vacation and conduct a public hearing on the matter. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter and noted to continue the vacation of 67th Street between 18th Avenue and Cedar Avenue until the developer requests such action and agreement is made between the developer and the property owners abutting that section of 67th Street. In any event, if the developers were to now request the city to vacate 67th Street there may be approximately $15,000 of costs associated with that action. It is staff's position that the developer should be responsible for those costs. 5. Cedar Avenue Municipal Liquor Operation At the January 13, 1986 City Council meeting the City Manager was authorized to negotiate with an architect for the design of the liquor store building and solicit bids for construction. On February 10, 1986 the City Council authorized the demolition of the former service station facility at 1825 East 66th street by Bill Henning and Company. Subsequently, news of the potential merger of Republic and Northwest Airlines caused some uncertainty in the proposed project by Republic Credit Union and action to proceed with development was to be delayed until April 1,1986 at the request of Republic Credit Union. I Under the current information presented by Republic Credit Union, the city's liquor store facility would be relocated to the corner of Cedar and 66th Street. To accomplish this relocation, ~ the service station must be demolished and a new liquor store constructed in its place prior to demolition of the existing Cedar Avenue Liquor Store. Of course, until the demolition of the existing liquor store takes place, construction of any new project on the site cannot begin. It has been the city's position, and continues to be, that the liquor operation at Cedar Avenue not be .put out of business during the redevelopment of this site. This is especially crucial during the months of November and December, which constitute a large portion of the entire years operation's sales. .Additionally, the construction of a new liquor store facility would be subject to formal competitive bid laws. Thus, under the most expedient conditions, the new liquor facility could be ready no sooner than January 1, 1987. (See Attachment). In order to keep the liquor facility in continuous operation, January 1, 1987 would be the earliest date the existing liquor store could be demolished. That. scenario would place the construction of a new .Credit Union facility sometime after the first few weeks of i~- January, 1987 at best. Bob Hall was made aware of this situation, and that he may need to provide for extending the lease of the current Republic Credit Union facility. It has also been the understanding of city staff that proceeds from the sale of the excess property at the Cedar Liquor Store site would be used to pay for a large portion of the costs of constructing a new liquor store facility. Thus, progress on store construction has also been delayed, pending the availability of necessary funds. Summary Information presented to the city staff by Bob Hall of Republic Credit .Union seems to indicate that a Developer's Agreement may be negotiated which could ensure the development of a Credit Union building equal to or greater in value than the original proposed by Republic Credit Union and Bill Henning, or that they would compensate the city if the development was later withdrawn by Republic Credit Union. It is also essential that the liquor operation at Cedar Avenue not be interrupted by any development at the Cedar and 66th Street site. Mr. Hall has acknowledged the city's concerns in this matter. Recommendations It is recommended that the City Council .authorize the Acting City Manager to negotiate a Developer's Agreement with Republic Airlines Employees Credit Union for development of the Cedar Avenue Liquor Store property which provides for financial guarantees as outlined in .this council letter. Respe tfully submitted, Steven L. D vich Acting City Manager SLD/eja -2- Commissioner McDermott wondered how the approved PUD plan and building permits coincide together. Mr. Jopke indicated the building permits would only be issued for the specific approved final plan. M/McDermott, S/Jensen to close the hearing Motion carried: 8-0. M/Lunas, S/Luettinger, to recommend the city council amend Ordinance No. 17.18 as stated. Commissioner Jensen believes the ordinance will help speed up the PUD process and should be recommended to the City Council for approval. Commissioner Quam thinks the ordinance will help people in the area with their plans to expand. Motion carried: 8-0 . ~TEM #3~,/ INFORMATION LETTER #2, STREET VACA'T'ION ON b7TH S'TI~EET BETWEEN 18TH AVENUE AND CEDAR AVENUE. ~ Towhid Kazi, Assistant Planner, .presented the staff report. Mr. Kazi explained the purpose of the street vacation is to provide additional land for the proposed office/retail development. He further stated that this street vacation would 1) eliminate the cost of maintenance to the city; 2) improve traffic flow and allow the traffic to stay away from residential neighborhood; and 4) be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies. Commissioner Jensen inquired about the status of Republic Airlines Credit Union in relation to the merger between Northwest Orient and Republic. Mr. Jopke stated that the Credit Union has set the date of April 1st to decide what their next move will be. He believed the street vacation would still be needed as it would aid any developer, and it is necessary to determine if the street vacation should. be included as part of 'the land area covered by the developer's agreement. Commissioner Luettinger had concern that if the Credit Union was not going to occupy the .site that a bigger developer would be chosen, and the traffic impact on the area would also increase. ( Mr. Jopke responded that a buffer should be maintained between the residential area and this development. The city also has the ability to say what type of development goes on the site and what .type of .density goes on the site. Commissioner Kauth wanted to know who would be responsible for maintenance of the vacated property. _3 _ ~~-~D i~ir. KazT believed the maintenance would be the responsibility of the prc~~verty owners. Commissioner Jensen wondered if the stipulations for the street vacatic~mo would pertain to a specific developer or any developer. Mr. Jo~~ni~~ stated that any developer would have to follow the conditi~t~s which were included in the ordinance passed by the city va:~ting the street. Appear~aauc~es Judy ~~~eccia,' 6703- - 18th Avenue, owners of the duplex south of 67th: ~t:r•e~t appeared. She was .unsure of what was being decided and ~©:mc~~~ed what part of the street they would own. Ms. ~a~~ inquired as to who would be responsible for the dri~ew~.~ air general landscaping of the portion of street she would Wuwr~,cta Also, she felt that there should be sufficient lands:cai~it~ng by the developer to keep noise down? Mr. ~~p~e? stated that the city turns the street over to the owrn~r~s ~ is, but said the city could stipulate that it is the re~p¢~ms;itl~:iility of the. developer .for improvements. Dare ~knuurt~cer, 6720 18th Avenue, encouraged the vacation of 67th ~ St~~et;« :fit would be very beneficial to the neighborhood because it r~fL~ ~~.®w the traffic down. F~°a~ ~r't~~r, American Family Insurance, inquired how vacation wall t.raffic .from flowing as a thr.oughfare. Cor~f~,~i.~3a~r Quam stated that it would be the right of the pr¢xp~~t~ cbt~~er to do as he likes to the added property from the va~~t~~.®im c~~' 67th Street . Edwiimma ~rccia, 6732 18th Avenue, inquired where the street bet.~e~,..mi 11~~'bn Avenue and Cedar Avenue would be closed. Co~r~ass=~co~a~ Kauth, wanted to know what happens if the street is va~a~~ ~~.w.+i: a developer is not chosen for awhile, who takes care of t;Br~ ~,~,w~~~rty when the "weeds" .grow? The ~r~ ~rrvtu~ld maintain the street until the ordinance is pu>;n~.isia ~tmd becomes effective 30 days after it has been puh;l.~s7;~~a The city could delay publication until a developer 1 S c~1tIl®~ ' ' Jucig (~r~coii~, 6703 18th Avenue, stated that the closing of the st~d'~t< si~in:_L~d be aesthetically pleasing and believes the dew~l~p~r' s~~quld be responsible for the cost of making it aes~i~lm~ta~~aly pleasing and the property owners should be / res.~nm~~s;u~~.~ for maintaining it . M/Qua~„ v/%~.uth, to close the hearinF~. Moti®~n ~~r~r:aed: 8-0. Commissioner Quam believes there are two alternatives which are: 1. Recommend approval of street vacation but require developer to close off the street and .the developer be responsible for making it aesthetically pleasing 2. Approve vacation when developer and property owners have come to an agreement, Commissioner Quam feels the city does not need to move this fast. Mr. Jopke stated that the action does not have to be taken at this time, but it is desireable to move ahead on this matter. Commissioner Jensen thought the commission should show that the Planning Commission is in favor of the vacation but without passing a vacation. Commissioner Lunas believed that more consultation with the property owners should be done before the street vacation is passed. Commissioner McDermott stated that the--street vacation is - valuable for traffic flow, but the cost should be part of developers problem. l M/Quam, S/Luettinger to continue the vacation of 67th Street between 18th Avenue and Cedar Avenue until developer wishes ~or ~reement is made between developer and the abutting property owners. Motion carried: 8-0. Staff was informed to notify all residents when street vacation is considered again. ITEM #4~ INFORMATION LETTER #3, HAMPTON INN UPDATE Rick Jopke presented the staff report. Mr. Jopke indicated that hte plans have been revised to account for a reduction in site area because of the states refusal to relinquish the 78th Street frontage road right-of-way. Mr. Jopke indicated that the revised plan was essentially the same as the previous plan but that the reduction in site area and parking results in the development not being in substantial compliance with the previous plan as required by the ordinance. The two areas affected are the change in setback from 77th Street and the change in the ratio of off-street parking to ~ gross floor area. Mr. Jopke indicated the impact of the changes are minimal. Mr. Jopke recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the city council proceed with-the second reading of the ordinance amendment on the new plan.- If the Planning ~0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DATE: April 1, 1986 TO: Steve Devich, Acting City Manager FROM: Don Fondrick, Community Services Director SUBJECT: Tentative Construction Schedule: Cedar Liquor Monday, 'April 7, 1986 Write council letter to authorize consultant agreement, preparation of plans and specs Monday, April 14, 1986 Council approve consultant, etc. Note: Estimated 4-6 weeks for preparation of plans and specs including program discussion with staff Monday, May 19, 1986 Plans submitted for review by city staff (Public Safety, Community Services, Community Development) Tuesday, May 27, 1986 Staff comments due to consultant Monday, June 2, 1986 Write council letter to approve plans and specs, authorize bidding Tuesday, June 3, 1986 Notice of bid submitted on proper form to city clerk (consultant may also place ad in Construction Bulletin or similar publication(s) Wednesday, June 11, 1986 Ad appears in Richfield Sun/Current (minimum 21 days publication for contracts $100,000+) Wednesday, July 2, 1986 Open bids Monday, July 7, 1986 Write council letter to authorize award of contract(s) (consultant letter of recommendation needed) Monday, July 14, 1986 Council award of contract(s) Tuesday, July 15, 1986 Consultant send copy of contract for processing by contractor(s) Monday, July 28, 1986 If all necessary paperwork available, obtain city signatures Tuesday, July 29, 1986 Contractor(s) informed of properly executed contract; may begin work • Note: Estimated 3-5 month construction depending on millwork, customizing Wednesday, December 31, 1986. Work complete; close project _ ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA f"'.{ Office of City Manager ,Council Letter No. 63 Agenda February 10, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Authorization To Demolish The City Owned Service Station Facility at 1825 East 66th Street Dear Council Members: At the Gity Council meeting of January 13, 1986, a decision was made to locate and construct a new liquor store at the southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Cedar Avenue. The site has been owned by the city since 1981 and is occupied by a former service station facility which is vacant. It would be appropriate at this time to demolish the service. _ station structure, remove the five underground storage tanks and the pavement. The visual image of the area would be improved, the cost of removal is less during this time of year, and, its would facilitate the timetable for the construction of the new liquor store in the spring. An additional reason for pursuing demolition now is the need to determine the extent to•which the soil surrounding the underground tanks may be contaminated. Staff has received four proposals for the site clearance work: Herbst & Sons Construction Co. $16,500 Minnesota Lumber & Wrecking Corp. $15,800 Carl Bolander & Sons Co. $13,400 Bill Henning & Company $11,500 Under state law and the city charter, this type of construction work with a cost of less than $15,000 but more than $10,000 may be authorized. by the City Council on the basis of proposals rather than through the formal bidding process. The cost of this activity would be charged to the Cedar Avenue Liquor Store operating fund. Tt is recommended that the City Council authorize the .demolition of the former service station facility at 1825 East 66th Street by Bill Henning and Company. Respectfu s witted, ohn G. Car wrigh 'City Manager JGC/eja _ i Council Meeting Minutes -16- January 13, 1986 • .Item #23 CONSIDERA~luN OF CITY ADMINISTRATION'S RECOMMENDATION TO BUILD A NEW LIQUOR STORE AT EAST 66TH STREET AND CEDAR AVENUE. C.L. 34. City Manager Cartwright reviewed Council Letter No. 34 regarding the city administration's recommendation to build a new liquor store at East 66th Street and Cedar Avenue. Bill Henning, redeveloper of the Cedar Avenue liquor store site, stated that he preferred that the city lease space for the liquor store, but was also ready to proceed if the city wished to own the liquor store building. Council Member Sandahl stated that the lack of control over future lease costs concerned him and he supported city ownership of the building. Council Member Garcia inquired about the affect of vacating 67th Street on access to adjacent properties. - City Manager Cartwright responded that the street vacation would result in access for the adjacent property owners only with no public access. M/Sandahl, SiLudeman to authorize the city. manager to negotiate with an architect for the design of the building and solicit bids for construction of the building; to authorize the city manager to contract for the services of a registered land surveyor so that the land can be surveyed and platted as required for the redevelopment projects= and to direct the Planning Commission to review the street vacation and conduct a public hearing on this sub,lect and then report its findings to the cit council. v Motion carried 5-0. Item #24 COUNCIL tt~r'rcEsra~~rATIOi! AT NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES _ - CONFERENCE IN WASHINGTON D.C., MARCH, 1986. C.L. 35 City Manager Cartwright reviewed Council Letter No. 35 regarding council representation at the National League of Cities Conference in Washington, D.C., March 8-11, 1986. Council Members Sandahl and Garcia advised the City Manager that they planned to attend this conference. Item,#25 COUPICIL DISCUSSION ITEMS None 1~_// F~~~~v~~~ ~~~s~ ~ ~ ~~S ;•Iarch 21, 1980 REPUBJ 1C A/RUNES EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNICiN A7L SFO SEA MSP DTW MEM City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. So. - Richfield, I.11r 55423 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council: At their ;~eetin; last night, the Board of Directors of the Republic Airlines Employees rederal Credit Union asked rye to contact you with regard to our proposed development of the liquor store site at GSth anc Cedar in Richfield. You were kind enough to allow us until April 1 to reassess our position, and we have done so. In recent discussions with John Cartwright and Bruce Palmborg of your staff, we explored the .possibility of having our Credit Union develop the southern 2.v acres of the site and leave the northeast corner for a free-standing liquor store. They were receptive to this possibility, and we would now like to formally proceed in that direction. The Board respectfully requests that we be allo~~ed to appear ~ before the Council not later than June 23, 198, to present a formal proposal for consideration. The plan will call for a single credit union building and guarantee tax revenues that are equal to or greater than those previously proposed. Bill Henning, who has been working with us on this project, is aware of this pending proposal and has not objected. This new schedule allows adequate time to prepare definitive site plans, relocate tze liquor store and construct our building for occupancy before our present lease expires on August 1, 1987. Your favorable consideration of this request will be appreciated. I will be available at the ;•Iarch 24 City Council meeting to answer any questions you may have. Sinc ly, L Robert L. Hall - Vice President I•Iarketing and 13ew Services c.c. Board of Directors, Republic Credit Union S. Devich, Acting City I~fanager, Richfield Bill Ilenning, President, Bill Henning & Co. 6 1 2 8 5 4- 2 1 7 3 ' - T WO APPLETREE SQUARE•5 U ITE 200 R 1 (1 r1 \I 1 \I T r r r T • r • n ~ NA GON ~ PROPERTIES NATIONAL CONSOLIDATED (612) 445-9050 April 8, 1986 ~ 6os~ j ~t' Lm.d ~`~t ~ ~ ~3 F~3~r ~v6:~ Mr Steve Devich City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Mr Devich, This letter is to .inform the City of Richfield that Nacon Properties is not involved in the development of the 66th and Cedar Ave. site. Nacon Properties was contracted by Republic Airlines Employees Federal Credit Union to help locate and secure a site in Richfield for their new facility. Nacon's fees to secure the site will be paid by Republic. I look forward in working with the City of Richfield in the future development of this site with Republic and future sites in your city with other clients. Sincerely, t David Elling, Presid t Nacon Properties DWE : lm CC: Mr Bob Hall 8050A E. HIGHWAY 1 O1 - SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 _ i ~d Bifl Henning & Company 8050A E. Highway 1 O1, Shakopee, Minnesofia 55379 • (612) 445-8621 April 8, 1986 Mr. Bruce Palmborg City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue ' Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Bruce, This letter is in re~M,,,se to our phone ,..~~.aersatian, April 8,1986. Bill Henning and Cce~gaany respectfully requests t~ withdraw from the devel~N,«,t of the site at 66th and Cedar Avenue, in Richfield. We do acknowledge that Republic Airlines Credit Union, is going to continue to work v~rith the City on the Devel~;?«~st of the above site. We wish to thank you and all the City Staff, and Council P~~1.~rs, ` for all their help and consideration throughout the time we have been working on this project. Sincerely; Bill Henning and Company S G , William F. Henning. ~ President I ~ WFH/kh l • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 157 Agenda April 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Appointments to the 1986 Board of Equalization (Board of Review) Council Members: The city charter provides that the Local Board of Equalization shall consist of all the City Council members and two Richfield residents experienced in real estate matters. The purpose of the Board is to hear appeals from property owners concerning their property taxes. Mr. Lawrence Emond and Mr. John Janski served on the Board of Equalization for the first time in 1983. They have both expressed a willingness to serve on the Board in 1986. Mr. Emond, 6325 Russell Avenue, has been an independent property appraiser for over ten years. His primary work involves conducting property appraisals for financial institutions. He is .also experienced in building construction and has held a real estate license. Mr. Emond has been a Richfield resident for over 25 years. Mr. Janski, 6500 2nd Avenue, has been a real estate appraiser for over 40 years and is a past president of the Minnesota Chapter of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. He has been a Richfield resident for over 30 years. It is recommended that the compensation for the resident members be increased from $32.00 per session of the Board, or $13.00 per hour per session of the Board, whichever is greater, to $34.00 per session or $14.00 per hour per session. This represents roughly a maximum possible 7.5~ increase over the previous rate, which was established in 1984. It is anticipated that these rates would remain a t this proposed level for at least a two-year period. It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution confirmin the a ointment of Mr. Emond and Mr. 9 PP Janski to the Board of E ualization at the ro osed lev 1 e of q P P compensation.. The Board of Equalization will meet at 7:00 P.M., Monday, June 2, 1986. Respectfully submitted, `~'~St v e n L . Devich Acting City Manager SLD/eja I • RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ACTING CITY MANAGER'S APPOINTMENT OF TWO RESIDENT MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby approves the Acting City Manager's appointment of Mr. Lawrence Emond and Mr. John Janski as 1986 resident members on the Board of Equalization as provided in Chapter 7 of the City Charter. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that compensation for the two resident members of the Board of Equalization be set at a minimum of $34.00 per session of the Board, or $14.00 per hour per session of the Board, whichever is greater. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 14th day of April, 1986. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: F Cit Clerk Thomas P. erber y i ~jOr I CITY OF RICHFIELD,. MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 156 Agenda April 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: ILN Advisory Committee(s) Council Members: At the city council meeting of March 24, 1986 a resolution was presented to the City Council which would have extended the existence of the ILN Advisory Committee for an additional year. ' The city council tabled the item until April 14 in order to give city staff additional time to contact each member of the ILN Advisory Committee to find out if members were interested in continuing to serve on the committee, and to present alternatives to the previous committee structure. Mailing to ILN Members On March 26, 1986 a letter was mailed to members of the ILN Advisory Committee to ascertain if they were still interested in serving in an advisory capacity on that committee or any other advisory committee that may be initiated. The following committee members indicated an interest in continuing to serve on the ILN Advisory Committee: Commercial and Church Representatives Bob Adelman Richard LeMettry Allan Anderson Tom Price Don Anderson Steve Sawitzke Tom Austin Larry Schneck Tony Doherty Ken Sterbuck Bob Jensen Milt Westlund Judy Kerssen City Wide Commercial Representatives Wendell Treichel Marty Chorzempa Residential Representatives. Jerry Krause Cindy Latham, Leon Lunas ~ Gertrude Ulrich Robert Werner Betty Carr Liaison Representatives (Non-Voting) Maggi.McDermott-Lindstrand Joan Helmberger Vern-Luettinger The following individuals have indicated that they did not wish to continue on the ILN Advisory Committee: .City Wide Committee Representative Mark Ahlquist City Wide Residential Representative J. B. Clarkson City Wide. Residential Representative Jeanne Sumnicht Liaison Representative (Non-Voting) Jim Carlson - school board Thus, as was indicated at the March 24, 1986 city-council meeting, the overwhelming majority desire to continue to serve in this advisorycapacity. ALTERNATIVES ILN Advisory Committee The ILN Advisory Committee, originally appointed by the city council on February 25 ,1985, is composed of both business persons .and .residents in-the area as well as members representing the community at large. As is indicated from the above results, members of the ILN Advisory Committee would like to continue in this. capacity. The ILN Advisory Committee has been a part of the planning process for the ILN project area since the initial stages of the development and could continue to serve as a valuable resource to the city council in this development. It is possible, however, that the committee structure could be modified to include greater residential representation. However, while-such a modification would give a greater balance to residential representation on the committee, it would also add to the total-membership of the committee potentially making it cumbersome. Another modification to the committee might be to separate the residential representation of the committee, retaining the `remaining members as an ILN Commercial. Advisory Committee. The residential representation in such a scenario would have to be reconstructed in the form of an additional advisory vehicle. Residential Advisory Committee The creation of a Residential Advisory Committee could also be a valuable resource in the ILN planning process. Such a .committee .could. be utilized in conjunction witfi the original ILN - Advisory Committee or an ILN Advisory Commercial Committee. Such i a committee could be composed of residents of the immediate neighborhood surrounding the ILN project area exclusively or contain a mix of immediate area residents and city wide residents. The addition of a separate residential committee would give greater input to residents. It could also make the logistics of information flow and continuity much more difficult. In any .event, if a separate residential committee was appointed, staff recommends that its size not exceed 9 - 12 members. .Periodic general neighborhood meetings could also be held for information dissemination purposes. Community Wide Representation Another aspect of information flow and advisory assistance which cannot be ignored is the community at large. There are many possible committee configurations which could be constructed to provide community wide representation, such as ward committees, precinct committees, or other at large advisory .committee structures. However, due to the complexity of .coordinating and establishing several different committees, it is suggested that the city initially approach the city wide aspect of communication an the ILN project area without any further formal committee structures. Instead, a plan for disseminating information about the ILN project could be implemented utilizing a series of city wide information sessions. These sessions could be presented at a variety of locations throughout the community. If, after the information sessions have been presented, or during the process of making such presentations, a group or groups of individuals approach the city requesting to form additional committees the city council could consider the merit of such committees at that time. This, of course, would not preclude any other community wide committees or organizations from contributing input to the process. In a letter from the Planning Commission to the city council dated March 27, 1986, the Planning Commission indicated an interest in serving as a facilitator for the community wide planning and coordinating of the ILN project. Thus, the Planning Commission could serve to conduct neighborhood meetings throughout the community and promote community wide dialogue. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the ILN Advisory Committee continue to serve in an advisory capacity to the city council in either its current or a modified form representing only ILN commercial interests. It is further recommended that there be an increased level of study area residential representation. This could be best accomplished by the appointment of an ILN Area Residential /G~ - ~ Committee. The city council may wish to supplement such a committee with city wide residential representation. Finally, it is recommended that-the city council direct the Acting City Manager to work with the Planning Commission and city staff in the establishment of a series of city wide informational meetings. As the process evolves it may be desirable to incorporate additional city wide organizations/committees to promote additional community wide dialogue. Resp ~tfully submitted, ~O/~• ~vt~'v `Steven L. evich Acting City Manager SLD/eja • _ ~,,n i • March 27, 1986 Dear Mayor Hamilton and City Council Members: The coming year will be an important one for the future of Richfield. The ILN Development moratorium has been extended for:~_, one year, and much effort will be devoted to putting together the_~`=` best. possible plan for the area. The City Charter describes they` General Objectives of the Commission as follows: "The Planning Commission, as a public service, shall endeavor to perform the following functions in behalf of the community: (a) Subject planning decisions to citizens' examination and influence through technical advisory subcommittees which may study and recommend courses of action on specific planning matters. (b) Act as an advocate of various beneficial planning projects, as directed by the city council, to stimulate interest and acceptance of planning with the community. (c) Act as a coordinator of planning activities within the community by working with public, quasi-public and private planning groups to coordinate. the total planning efforts of the community." With this charge in mind, we feel that it~ is imperative that the .Planning Commission be involved iri all facets of planning and coordinating the renewed development negotiations in the ILN. We applaud the efforts of the Council to once again include neighborhood and business interests and, further, to expand involvement in ILN planning to the community as a whole. The Planning Commission is appointed by the Council to represent all citizens of the community and to have a special concern for the long-term future of the city. We would like to meet with the Council and HRA, before negotiations progress any further, concerning our role in the ILN development process. Chairperson, Richfield Planning Commission cc: CDR Ernie Lindstrom Tam Harms CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 155 Agenda April 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: ILN Redevelopment Study Council Members: The City Council authorized a study to be initiated in March, 1985 to determine the redevelopment potential of the Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet (ILN) area which is located in south central Richfield. The Planning Consultant firm of B.R.W. was selected to conduct the study. The various phases of the study included an inventory of existing conditions, an analysis of the findings discussed in the inventory, a market potential analysis, a study of alternatives and a plan for redevelopment. The study also includes an implementation guide for redevelopment activities in the ILN area. Additionally, Phase I of the study addressed the redevelopment of the Clover-leaf Motel and Hampton Inn projects. BRW completed work on the study in November, 1985. However,-the final report was not submitted to the City until after the final Council meeting in March, 1986. Attached is a copy of the final report which encompasses the findings of the study and the recommendations for the redevelopment of the ILN area. Much of the information contained in this report has previously been presented to Council Members and the public at a number of public meetings. Subsequent to the transmittal of this document to the City Council it will be made available for distribution to interested persons. Although the various findings contained in the plan have been discussed with the City Council in the past, another presentation can be provided in the near future if desired by the City Council. Res~c fully submitted, C .~~v L.`'Uevic Acti g City Manager SLD:e'a J / ~ r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No.154 Agenda April 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Selection of Executive Search Firm for City Manager Recruitment Council Members: At the March 10, 1986, City Council meeting, the. City Council directed the Acting City Manager to send Requests for Proposal to several executive search firms, which could assist the City Council in the selection of a City Manager. Proposals were received by the City until March 31, 1986. City Council Members were given copies of all proposals received by the City which included responses from the following firms: Arthur Young Company Korn/Ferry International Austin, Texas Chicago, Illinois Cy Laurant Loren L. Law Associates Bloomington, MN Edina, MN Ralph Anderson & Co. Wolfe & Associates, Inc. Dallas, Texas Altanta, Georgia After reviewing proposals, the City Council is expected to officially take action on April 14, 1986 to select an executive search firm. Mayor Hamilton will coordinate this item. Respectfully submitted, even Devi h Acting City Manager SLD/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 153 Agenda April 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Authorizing Temporary Funding .for City Project 822, 1986 Alley Paving Improvements Council Members: On February 10, 1986, the City Council approved a resolution ordering the paving of alleys, and preparation of•plans in 1986 for City Project 822. The estimated cost of this improvement is $43,200. In order to pay for the costs of this project prior to its special assessment, it is recommended that the City Council authorize the temporary transfer of funds, as necessary, at the end of each month, from the Permanent Improvement Revolving (PIR) Fund at an interest rate of 8~ per annum. This interest rate is comparable to the rate that would be paid if permanent financing were arranged immediately. Once funds are secured permanently I, through a future bond sale, the PIR fund can be reimbursed. The attached resolution authorizes the temporary transfer of funds from the PIR Fund to CP822 to provide interim financing until permanent financing is available. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing the temporary transfer of funds from the .PIR Fund. Resp ctfully submitted, ~ ~ 5 e en Dev ch Acting City Manager SLD/eja (.(1 ~ RESOLUTION N0. E R SOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT REVOLVING FUND TO CP822 ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS TO PROVIDE INTERIM FINANCING OF SAID PROJECT WHEREAS, the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield provides that a Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund to be used for the purpose of financing local improvements; and WHEREAS, the ordinance states that the proceeds of said fund may be used to provide interim financing of capital expenditures for. projects of the city by resolution of the city council; and WHEREAS, it appears desirable to transfer funds to provide interim financing for CP822 Alley Improvements; and WHEREAS, the Permanent- Improvement Revolving Fund has sufficient cash available to transfer necessary funds at the end of each month to CP822 for work completed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by resolution of the city a 8~ per annum interest rate will be charged the project each month based on the accumulative cash transferred at the end of each month, for the purpose of providing interim financing. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 14th day of April, 1986. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk / CITY OF RICHFIELD, .MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter'No. 152 Agenda April 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield .Subject: Appeal by Walser Corporation of Hearing Examiner's Denial of Variance Request Council Members: On February 27, 1986 the. Hearing Examiner held a hearing on a variance request by the Walser Corporation to reduce the required setback from a street in a C-2 General .Commercial zoning district from 40 feet to 5 feet. The variance .request was subsequently denied by the Hearing Officer, and Walser Corporation .has appealed the ruling to the City Council as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Proposal: Walser Corporation has obtained options to purchase an isolated single family dwelling at 7701 Newton Avenue, the Viking ...Center property at 7700-7750 Morgan Avenue, and the commercial structure located at 2002-2026 West 78th Street. Walser Corporation wishes to remove the existing structures on the sites and replace them with a new sales, service and parts facility. The variance requested is to reduce the required setback from the Morgan Avenue right-of-way from 40 feet to 5 feet.. Zoning Ordinance Requirements: The property is located in a C-2 General Commercial District. Section 3.33, subdivision 6, and Section 3.32, subdivision 4, require that a frontyard setback of 40 feet be maintained on all street frontages in C-2 General Commercial Zoning Districts. Section 3.40 Subdivision 2 governs the issuance of variances. Minnesota State Statutes 462.357 subdivision 6 outlines conditions which must be met for variances to be granted. Staff Review: Staff has reviewed the request for a variance against the city and state requirements and found the following: 1. There are no unique circumstances present on the .site in question. The narrowest depth of the site along Morgan Avenue is approximately 135 feet. This is a typical lot depth in this area. and other commercial areas of the city. While the total site is irregular in shape, it is staff's opinion that the site is large enough to negate the irregular shape. The irregular shape is the result of the combination of the multiple parcels. There are no other unique aspects such as topography or poor soils present. 2. In staff's opinion there are no undue hardships present. Denial of the variance would not prevent the property owner from putting the property to a reasonable use. While the existing Viking Center structure does not .conform to-the present setback requirements (setbacks on north - 8 feet; east- 24 feet; and south-31 feet instead of the required 40 feet), the existing use could be continued. The existing structure could also be removed and a new sales and service facility or other permitted use could be constructed on the site which would meet the city's setback requirements. 3. The proposal could alter the essential character of the area. The granting of the variance would result in the reduction of open space, and result Y: in additional visual and vehicular congestion in the area. The area already has problems with vehicular congestion, and with aesthetics because normal setbacks have not been maintained and ...because of the number of automobiles parked in the area. Staff Findings and Recommendation: Staff found that. the required standards for granting a variance have not been met, and recommended that the variance be denied.. Hearing Officer Findings: A hearing on the variance request was conducted on February 27, 1986. At that time, the hearing officer denied the request. for a variance based on the following,: 1. That the granting of the variance was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; 2. That there are no special or unique circumstances present on the site. 3. That the granting of the variance would not alter the character of the area, but could contribute to existing visual and vehicular congestion .problems in the area. It is recommended that the city council, functioning as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, conduct the public hearing and determine if the Hearing Examiner's decision on the matter should stand or be overturned. A written notice of the council appeal hearing was sent to all property owners of record on the area bounded by 76th Street, I-35W, I-494 and Penn Avenue. The notice of the hearing officer was sent to all property owners within 350' as required by I ordinance. Res full submitted Y ~ n ~ ~ ~ ' tev n L. uevich Acting City Manager _ . i 1 V ER AV ENV E ~ p~,.l m G g X ~ N O N ~ Z m G~ ~ . ~ - . - - - UE T ~H AV EN NEw _ RE S?NG` _ EQV ENT F pMIL m ~ CENTER ~ AN AV ENV E VIKING` ~,i~ MORG .r ~ , m E ~ - ~ ~ I-O C" pN pV ENV i f 1 Av ENU E KNOX c n ~ ~ -c ~ ~ ~ y ~ N ~ O w ~ m fl ~ ~ m ~ Z < ~ m 9 -C ~ ~ .:a ~ ~r~l~ . 1 ! AVENUE pt~IVER cn C ~ X .ry" ~ r v m Z a 7D k ~ ON AVENUE _ ~ y---- NEWT _ - REN AL NT Si~ ~ tts EQUIP~IIE ~ Nt?L A m ~ ~i. V?KING CENTER ~ AVENUE ~ ' ~ - iS . co _..J ~ ~ AVENUE ' ~ ~ L O G AN ~ ---ti i i 1 ~ KNOX AVENUE ~ ~ v v r 1 ~ > ' ~ f > m > n S ~ W + ~ ~ ` o ~ ~ ao ~ ~ m z c ~ o v ? o c 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ i PUBLIC HEARING NOTf~~ • CITY OF RICHFIELD HEARING EXAMINER ~ r TO To property owners within 350 feet of 7700-7750 Morgan Avenue South, and 2016, 2020, 2022 and 2026 W, 78th Street. AFPL1CAtYT v7alser Corporation LOCaT1CN 7700-7750 Morgan Avenue South OF PROPE~sTY Commencing on South line of Southwest 4 of Southwest at a point 820` East from Southwest corner therof then North 656.28' then East .163.8'. then South 656.28' then West 164' • to beginning except road. S 33, T 28 R 2~+. 2016 -Tract G, Registered Land Survey (RLS) #800, 2020 - Tract E, RLS `#800; 2022 - Trac~•E, RhS #800,-•2026 - That rant of Tract D line East of West 30' of RLS #800. PURFO S1= Walser Corporation wishes to remove the existing Viking Center structure at 7700-7750 Morgan Ave. .S. and construct a new automobile sales and service structure. They have applied for a variance to allow the new•structure to be within ~5 feet of Morgan Avenue right-of-way line instead of the required ~+0 feet. A hearing examiner is conducting a public hearing on this matter to decide whether or not the . variance should be approved. The hearing examiner will issue a written decision within 30 days of the close of . the hearing. Copies of the written decision will be available upon request. TIt~SE C~ i-:i~1R1tiG 7:30 PM, Thursday, February 27, 1986 . AL..Cc CF ucAR1yG Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall ' • 6~0~ Portland Avenue - - F?CW TO FAFsTiC~t^-A~ c 1. Attend the hearing and give testimony for or against the proposal. Those persons wishing to testify should notify . the city staff person listed below prior to the hearing. 2. Submit a letter to the Hearing Examiner expressing your .r a..~C aNY CCi~ T1CN$ ~ Rick Jopke City Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55k23 .869-7521,. Ext. 511 ,V1AIUNG GAT. February 1~+, 1986 tf ~ ' ---C-I-I X _ :i. F _ 4 T t tom'-F-I~ 1i-- ;1.j ~~~'1i-T ;'c ~ ~Lr-~-~:-.~i--C T T Y o rl _L-~~-T • X J G l - ~-L.::_: R ~ ~,~,j-C-S ' ~ ~ ` 'C `~P.I.N. / LCCAT,IGt~vWNtR~S NAME ! ACDRESS CIF DIFFERENT THAN L~iC ~~i '"33-v25-2~+-?3-001';4 CE:~RSE r+ u~NivNT r - 7045-75.7 MGRGAr; ~33-uZ8-24-33-0005t_ "CCARTHY EPvTcRPRI32S Ih'C iC 7700 L^vuAN `T 190 w 78TH ~T RICHFIELD MN 55423 -33-028-24-:3-00u6 *`+CCARTnY ENT==cPP.IScS 7705 LtJGAN 19Jv +i 7aTH h'PLS ~1N 55423 °33-028-24-33-GG:7~ THE VIKING CE~iT£R l~ s7T00 30 h10RGAN 772b h!GRGAl~ AVE S RICHFIELD MN 5;423 _ '33-G'2.3-24-33-Cuu6 ;"s RICKEY/iG YtTES 3viJtiDS ''[O1~ W 77TH 5b25 LYNDALE A'~li: SC n520 RICHFirLDi MN 5;423 "33-023-24-33-v0u4:= wILL1Aht A r`cG.iS ~ °'7701 NEw70N '`33-~[d-24-33-:u1C 7riE DIr~~~MATS ?1J1 TG 21 w 77TH 33-JZ8-24-33-vu11 SCtf~'iEL% cNTcR?RISES 21O.r1 ;~ES7 78TH STR 5525 VILLAGE DR EDitiA "tN 55435 •'33-J2a-24-33-0:13 ..C'!'~EL~ cNTcicPRI..ES 7700 7i /7b PENti :325 VILLA:iE DR E~:r•!A ~tN 55.435 ""33-:i28-c4-33-0017 JGN STRAJB ~ 1026 23 LGGAN SG °;33-023-2+-33-001? +~!ARTIri B SCFir2vEPFtR C'7632 3~+ LOGAN A~' S ~°~~33-J28-Zw-33-Gv19 ROGEP ~ SOitEtiSEN ,,•7030 LOGAti AvE sC ' _ ~•~33-J2S-Z4-33-0020 ~ JGHNSQfv 7044 LCuA'~ 1 23C0 ~iEADGH L"t "~1?4NETONKAi i4N 55343 33-.:+28-24-33-QJ42 'GARY =LLEP~i ,'~i,THI_U - 7024 i~tOR.iAty --33-02~-2:?-?3-C043 nOScR rZC~STnJ 7523 t~!vRGa;~ •33-J18-Z4-3?-%J44 - THCi+~AS r LE_ ~ 7634 t10RG.~N AV -3~-0cJ 24-:_-;;04~ ?~,LL J ~nvcR;•iEItR +L .'7033. ~iCRGAti 3223 w 1uoTH 3T +'~PLS Mw 5s»31 33'U2~s-2~-33-u~J4b LORE!v ;.A~r ~~'7c42 44 hiCRGArr ~ 7220 YGkK AVE S ~b04 EDI"vA SIN 55.435 L ~_CiTY JF RICHf_:=__.~ ASSS~t~=ttiT <::L~ rGK CITY ~RCJ:CT: X,?42 - °~IALSER BUiCK _ _ Z.N. / LCCATi;;'~ v'rJhER' S ~~iAiic / ADDRESS tIF DIFFERENT THAN LOCATIvN) 33-JZ8-Z4-33-E,...; u.:,~:=L C i~C,C~+ C ;;1025 MORGA~! AV S 3~-uZd-24-33-C'~_C MALT_~i .;ivGcRSG'v :109 ,YORGAN 9 3- +.:~33-Jc5 ~L4-: ::-:-1 - ALdiV a i.IcYLa"a ~ ~ 7039-41 ~tORGM'; AVE S ,~~;33-v.ts-24-33-G_~c LAVu'~~i_ L TI~I~CER C ~~7bZo NcWTON S 7344 GLIVER Sti? RICHFIELD SIN 55423 _ i~ '~=•i33-~Z3-24-33-CJ:7 J:nN ~ Sri`+O;cA Rt~AN ~ ;7032 ~icWTOk i;V S ~sl •:33-025-24->;-C-~58 JvA;v .d Fi;LL.R C :=:7033 NEWTO!~ AV S ~ _ ~~33-J2o-24-__-~~59 LGIS A L~VJAL -;7644 NeWTOti ~V 5 i", 33-628-24-33-CuaQ uLcNN it Sh;:Tri C 7545 OLIVER AV S ='~3.i-X25-Z4-3?-:Co1 FLGR_>:CE S,~tITn ~~-;7639 OLiVER y _ ~>>;33-J28-Z4-33-OJbS ;FALSER CORD - C ~~=i77J3 77/78 ~~E;;TCN 7380 FK~+~CE AVE t~PLS.i MN 55435 i~~~33-u28-Z~-33-GUSo ~t4LSck CGkP ~ ?~s~770D 77/7~s iv'c~rOtu 7330 Frc~+NCY AVE itPLS.. MN 55435 i~ »33-t7z8-24-33-C3~t ~tALScR CGRP = ~ ;~~2u25 W 73TH 5T 7380 FRhi~CE AVE MPLS.i MN 55435 _ .033-~Z8-Z4-33-~Jc~ wALS.R CARP =:~Z02Z w 73TH ST 735G FRAVCE :VE hiPLSi ~?N 55435 ,.~j '.!33-028-Z4-:,3-CG69 +~t1LScR CGRP <•Z:JZJ M 78TH ST 73E0 FKFivCc AUE MPLS.i MN 55435 F 'S~-JZC-Cy-3~-i.J(~; 'kiN.LJt~ CJ~N ~ ~=.'ZJ16 w 7oTH ST 7330 FiiA!vc AU. I'~PLS/ YN 55435 i" _ =33-Ci23-~4-33-~u71 SOuTHTG~iiv i~OVERTISIPdG . ~ - 1924 ~ 73TH ST 19C'u +r 7a3H ST RICHFIELD titV 5:423 =33-;~25-Z4-31-.;7? SOUTHT~w'~ f!J ~3E4YCY I`aC 7725 '~ORuAN SJ 19uC N 7~Tn oT RICiiFSELO MN 55423 =33-tJ28-24-33-CJ73 SuJTHTC~JN ADVERTISING _ ~ ~~1922 W 78TH ST 1900 ~ 7TH ST RICHFIELD M~ 55423 - L ~ _ C ~ ~ . _ - CjTY OF ~ D 4;$_SSMEiJT RO~~.~ rOR CITY PF.vJECT: x242 - ~iALSER 3t}ICK ' IS I' P.Z.N. / LOCAtiODf G«NcR•5 NAi~fE / ADDRESS CIF DIFFERENT THAN LOCA7~ !'~3s-J2~-14-33-G'~74 SJ:JTHTG`rl:^~ N'3VtRTiSING • =i192il i:EST 78TH ST 19uC w 7;iTn 5T RICHES=LD MN 75423 -'33-ti28-C4-33-OJ75~ SOUTHTUin?N RDVc'KTiSIhG _ • T91S w 78TH ST 19J0 w 78TH ST RICHFIELD t~1N 55423 °'33-`J28-24-33-0076 LE,4S~9ACK TROP `roSAGE CORp - . { 7701 r;ORui+N 649u cXCcLSiOF: SLV,^. ST LOUIS P!C MN 55420 33-028-24-33-OG77q~ MARY L WtiZTTINb ( =7713 MORGAN ~ 5221 KcL~OGC AVE MPLS MN 55424 _ s; ~ ;`a"33-02S-Z4-33-OG82: RGBT "!cYR - t '°-`723 YcWTON - - y~33-028-24-33-OC83a TOVI H ECKSTcI+d ~ 7629 NEWTOti _ = 33-uZ8-24-33-COc:w : ALIEN ~ ~ILDi~vG ( '==7633 N:.wTON <=33-02a-Z4-33-OG85~ cL~ER R SEABc"R^v _ ( 7639-41 NEWTON S ~ _ 33-J28-Z4-33-0uk6 KctitiETn id:.SL:1ND ( ~=~7043 4~ NE«TON 2401 OVERLCCK DR t3L00MINGTON !MN :del ~=~33-J28-24-34-0013 BURTON J LINDAFiL p. ( •=1900 W"cST 78TH ST BOX 32 WAYZATA MN 55391 Y 3l~ n 1 "'33-:?28-Lw-34-u0G7 ALLE.`J MULLcR ~ '";77J1 LOGAti $424 Cri~cKVIw LN EJIyA !hN 55435 ( ~ TQTAL ASScSSMENT IS:~~ ~ '19ov y~~~l~s ~c~ 1733 f~~ uv6Z'c?J - ~ _ E ~ • 'a:; ~ ei ~s.i ~ - . ; _1 ~ ~/Q QTY nF R,~C}iFIFLD AC¢~_~;NF[uT ~`L,j _fQK QTY .~.RO.J.-c-~T-' ~C74~ - `JAL.S~.R_P_Rf_lA r_XTG;JD .`.N. / LOCATION Ov~NER'S NAMe'/"ADDRESS (IF RIFF"ERENT THA~J IOCaTIO~i) A '`33-'J28-24-34-0001 C=DAR PROPeRTIES ';760.1. 11 21 KVOX 5296 VILiA WAY MPLS "!N 55436 '33~fl28-24-34-flJfl2 DALt FGOaS INC '7500 KNOX '~33-028-24-34-GOfl3 SHARI PROPERTIES 7b03 K'VOX 7700 LUGr1N AVc S0 RICHFLELD. '~N 55423. ~ "33-028-24-34-G004 IEASE3r~CK PROP ya'AGE CORP '7529 4S LOGAS~ c490 EXCELSIOR BLVD. ST LOUIS PK MN 55426 "33-02824-34-0005 CcNTttRY LODGr NO 33d ".:7615 LOGAN :a. `33-02,8-24-34-O~JOb JOSEPH KL05 CONT PURCHSR =:76~J1 LOGAN 452.1 HI63SCUS AVE S Ei7INA MN .55435 ''33-028-24-34-G009 LEASc3ACK PROP XSAGE CORD '7b26 7544.KNOX E490 EXCELSIOR 9LVD S7 LOUIS PK i~N 55426 '33-Q28-24-34-0010 CITY.OF RICHFIELD ,'7700 KNOX 26-24-34-flfl12 NAEGELE UIITDOOR ADV INC 1T'JO ~1 78TH ST ~1E~S Bi.DG1725 9ROAD ST AUvt1STA~ GA 30901 `33-02$-24-33-OOOi THOMAS K SETr2E -,115 W 7bTH ST '33-fl26-24-33-0002 JAMES A TACK 7b08-10 LOGAN 9102 BLAISDELL AVE SO 6LOOMINGTCN~ MN 5:420 ~~33-X28-24-33-0015 JOHN D ALT ''7b14 ~1o LOGAN AV S 0506• ~IILRYA:V AVE EDINA MN 55423 5 °'33`-28-24-33-0016 DELAINz RUD " 7b20 22 LOGAN AV S i 33-023-24-33-OOk7 'STAN SCHREYER " 7$15 MJr2GAN $ 33-023-24-33-OJ48 MAURIC. rNGE~ti JR 7621 MORGAN S 33-Q28-Z4-33-Ofl87 JAMES E 3ERGIN 7627 OLIVER S 33-020-4-33.-0088 ARNCLD P LARSEN OLIVER ~ 33-028-24-33-0689 KENNETH C ASTELL 7615 OLIVER ~ ~5--l~ C I T Y O F 2 I C H f Se L D_A S S c' S S M ~~_~;iLl~~`i R_ CS_LY a t'~Q~L ~C T: 144 - sJ A L S E R_ t?1~QP F X T= ;y -'P.I.iti. I LQCATIGN OWP~iER'S NAME / ADDRESS CIF DIFFERENT THAN LGCATZON) A, 33-028-24-33-0090. NARY C WAGNER - 7601 MORGAN AV S 33-028-L4-33-0091 VICKY L tiELSON 75fl9 MORGAN AV S 33-028-24-33-OJ38 R KRYPrL € R KIUKAS 7600 MORGAN 33-G28-24-33-0^x39 EUGENE A3€LSON -;7bJ8 MORGAN ` `:33-028-24-33-0040 3RUCc s. D wETTERNACH .:7614 MORGAN 33-028-24-.33-0041 THOMAS R MEAt3 .:.7020 MORGAN AVE SO 33-028-24-33-fl07$ FRIt"DA LEINING"cR 7ti01 -NE+JTON - 4226 VALLEY VIck RD EDINA MN 55424 33-028-24-33-0079 RICHARD BEUNING 7605 N-".WTON 33-0.28-24-33-0080 ROGER R GLIDDEN ` 761'! NEWTON AV S '33-0.28-24-33-0081 C KITTY Lc'FFcLAAR 7617 NcWT01t -33-028-24-33-flu52 CAROL tiENStEY 7600 NcWTCN 33-028-24-33-.0053 LEONARD A HARDIE JR 7608 NEWTON AVE SO . '~33-G28-24-33-x0:4 REU$tN ~ CAROL 7ULIKANGAS 7514 NE~17ON AVE 33-028-24-33-0055 LEVINA EISCHEN 7620 NCWTON AV S - 33-J23-24-33-0062 3RAD S 8 JULIE M JOHNSON 7633 ~IIVER av s 33-0213-24-33-0063 a F GRcSBRINK 7609 OLIVER 33-028~24-33-0Jo4 JEANht A SED;FF .7601 OLIYtR AV S 4601 CONCORD TcRRACE fiDINA~ MN 55424 33-028-24-33-0021. S STOTESBERY 7600 OLIVER _ ~ • ~ l~ _ ~~T Y O F R T f H F T F l ~_A .~~iC:_S_SMEN T R ~_F 0-a ~ ~T v Dom, j ~_T • Y ~/~G. - ;n[~ (.~S E R P R n P R X T ~ 1t D F; ~ N. / LOCATION OWNtR'S NAMc / ADDRESS tIF DIFFERENT THAN LOCATION) AS: 33-JZ5-Z4-33-CJ22 J W CRcTZ~1tYER 7004 OLIVc"R 3 33-628-24-33-0023 ANDREW KRA~~iER 7616 OLIVER S 33-028-24-33-0024 ANN L STRUs3 , 7ti14 OLIVER 3 33-028-24-33-0025 GUY ASTELL 7b20 OLIVER ~ S 33-028-24-33-6026 PAUL F RAGATZ 7624 OLZVErZ AVF SO S 33-628-24-33-6027 RANDY 5 LORIt ~IL9EE 7b28 OLZVER AVE SO S X3-026-24-33-0028 R03ERT c GUTHe 7034 GLIVER S 33-028-24-33-0029 GERARD D FOX 7538 OLZYER AVE SO 5 3'3-24-33-6036 RONALD c LEVI70N 7 OLIVER ~ j 33-028-24-33-0031 BARBARA ~CROHN 7639 PENN $ I' 33-023-24-33-0032 ELLWYN E NYMr',N 7ti33 PENN AVE SC S 33-028-24-33-0033. ELMER ~ aH0 j 7b27 PENN AVc SO ~ i 33-02$-24-3?-GJ34- JOE T JENScN 7621 PENN S 33-028-24-33-6035 MOHA'1AD SiiARIEF %6.15 PENN S 33-028-24-:3-0036 Si RICHARDS CHURCH ?6c79 PENN 7661 PcNN AVE S RZ%HFiELDi MN 55423 $ i3-02$-Z4-33-0037 ST RICHARDS CHURCH ?601 PENN $ ':3-028-24-33-0012. EUNICE T DAVIS J PENN $ 33-028-24-33-0014 WAISER IMPORTS INC. ?745 PcNN ~ • TOTAL ASSESSMENT IS: 5 - i ~ ~ w April 2, 1986 M N ~ Dear Property Owner, ~ ~ ~ The Richfield Hearing Examiner recently ~ denied the variance request by Walser. O Corporation to reduce the required setback ~ ~ from a street from 40 feet to 5 feet for (f~ their proposed new Buick Sales and Service ~ - facility on the site which includes 7700-7750 _ Morgan Avenue South, 7701 Newton Avenue and _ 2002-2026 West 78th Street. Walser Buick is appealing that decision to the Richfield City Council. The City. U ~ Council, acting as the Baard of Appeals, will be conducting a public hearing concerning ~ this appeal at 7:00 PM on Monday, April 14, ~ 1986. The hearing will be held in the ~ Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall at ~ 6700 Portland Avenue.. ~ I invite you to attend this hearing and make . ~ your feelings known on the matter. O ~ If you have any questions, please feel free = to contact me at 869-7521. ~ Sincerely, L w Rick. Jopke ~ ~ ~ City Planner RJ/jle telephone: 869-7521 (612) ~ n - an equal opportunity employer Owners -Managers ! APARTMENTS ~ I ¦ SHOPPING CENTERS y ! COMMERCIAL -INDUSTRIAL ! HEALTH CARE FACILITIES A~I~ SAGE COMPANY 6490 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD - MEADOWBROOK BUILDING PHONE (612) 920-9131 - MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55426 March 31, 1986 The Honorable John Hamilton & City Council Members City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Variance Request by Walser Corporation Gentlemen: It is our understanding that on April 14, 1986, the City Council of Richfield will be considering an appeal of a denial of a variance requested by Walser Corporation to reduce the required setback on Morgan Avenue from 40 feet to 5 feet for their proposed new Buick Sales and Service facility. As property owners of 7701 and 7705 Morgan Avenue, we would like to express our. support for the denial of Walser's request. As adjacent property owners, we feel that the observance of established setback requirements is essential in maintaining existing character of the neighborhood and is the only sure way to prevent both visual and traffic congestion. Thank you for your consideration. Please advise if we can provide any addi- tional information. Yours .truly, LEASEBACK PROPERTIES ohn Goodman, CPM Managing Partner JBG:ngd cc: -Abbe S. Epstein Commercial Property Manager i The Meadowbrook Building is located on the Campus of Methodist Hospital Variance Request CASE N0. 86-V1-CH1 APPLICANT WALSER CORPORATION ~ PROPERTY LOCATION 7701 Newton, 7700-7750 Morgan Avenue 2016-2025 West 78th Street HEARING EXAMINER Connie. Hoverson M HEARING DATE 2/27/86 - _ I' N ~ APPEARANCES 1. Rick Jopke, City Planner ~ ~ 2. Dick Sjoquist, Representing Walser Corp. ~ 3. Jan Soucy, Representing Southtown Apartments O Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the ~ ~ ~ undersigned makes the following findings of fact, conclusions and decisions. _ FINDINGS OF FACT _ 1. Notice of public hearing was groper. Notice was mailed to I~ property owners within 350 feet of the site in question as required by city ordinances. The ten day notice U ~ requirement was also. met. ~ ~ 2. The street addresses and legal descriptions of the property Q in question are as follows: i = 1. 2016 West 78th Street: Tract G, RLS No. 800 2. 2020 West 78th Street: Tract F, RLS No. 800 ~ 3. 2022 West 78th Street: Tract E, RLS No. 800 ~ 4• 2024 West 78th Street: That part of Tracts A and E, 0 ~ RLS No. 800 lying East of tY~ West 30 feet thereof. _ 5. 2026 West 78th Street: That part of Trtact D, RLS No. 8O0 lying East of the West 30 feet thereof. ~ 6. '7700-7750~Mor~an Avenue South:. Commencing on the South line of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter L of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 at a point 820 feet 0 east from the. southwest corner thereof, thence north Q 656.28 feet; thence East 163.8 feet, thence South 656.28 feet; thence jvest 164 feet to beginning except roads. ¦tt~ O 7• 7701 Newton Avenue South: The East 59 feet of the Q North 156 feet of that part of the Southwest Quarter of ~ Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 lying south of Robert Webers First Addition and West of the Southerly extension of the East line thereof except roads. 3. The zoning of the site in question is G2 General Commercial Y telephone: 869-7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer 4. The variance requested is to reduce the required buildine~ setback from Morgan Avenue from 40 feet to 5 feet. . 5. The reasons for the request are that the depth of the lot ~ less setback areas is not sufficient to allow the size of building necessary for the proposed automobile sales and service use. . CONCLUSIONS _ # ~.j.•. _F~ 1 _ Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, subdivision b provides for- the granting of variance to the literal provisions of the zoning regulations in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship to the owners of the property under consideration. In determining whether to grant or deny the requested variance, I specifically make the following conclusions: 1. Is the granting of the variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights? I conclude that the granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Denial of the variance would not preclude reasonable use of the property. The existing commercial use of the property could be continued. The existing structure could also be removed and a new automobile sales and service facility or other permitted use could be constructed on the site within the setback limitations of the ordinance. 2. Are there special circumstances or conditions affecting the particular land or building referred to in the application, not caused by the property owner, which are not common to other properties in this or similar districts? I conclude that there are not special or unique circumstances present. The site is sufficiently large to allow reasonable development. The size of the site also is similar to other commercial sites in the area and the community as a whole. There are no unusual topographic or soils conditions present on the site. The shape of the site is irregular but was created by the applicant. 3. Will the granting of the variance alter the essential .character of the neighborhood or locality? I conclude that the granting of the variance will not alter the character of the area but could contribute to existing visual and vehicular congestion problems in the area. ~~7 .3. y • I 4. Are there any conditions which must be attached to the ~rantin~ of the variance to ensure compliance and to protect adjacent pror~erties? :"z_~. it I conclude N/A ~ i` C. DECISION Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned determines that the request be denied i DATED : //Zu-uk, /a ~ 9 ~~O . i Hearing Examiner City of Richfield E l3-~?-! • ~cXISTING VIKING CE~TER ,J. L .77th , ~90 ~2a- - o rn ~ - t - 8 - - - O ti " - ~ _ _ _ _ -r - - - - ~ _y _ _ • 20 36 --•x--20 _ ~URB & t.-. ~ - - . - GUTTER TO BE , • - - _ , z. - PUT I N t~+ _ . w ~ _ - 5~ CONCRETE SIOEVIALK - ~ ~ - - - - - . TO BE PUT 1 N _ - ~ 1, ~ e~ - _ APPLICATION FOR OFF-STREET R1RKtN6 - - l _ 9 _ - = - - N0. 61-,2 . u` - _ . - _ ..OttNERi . _ I~fiLLIMAH-1AA181N, INC• . ,,...,b< a,, _ _ - - - ~ 738 BEST 6~TM STREET - Q tEQ+1t 1)ESCRIPTtONi ~ THA7 W?RT OF THE Sr# of THE Sf~ OF is SEC. 33, T. 28, R. 24, t. of THE 4TH n - - - - :PRiNCiPAL M~RIOIAN OEBCRIBEO Aa FOll0+r8i ~ _ "COAIMENCINA AT A POINT 018TANT 820 FEET SCALE ~ - EAST OF. THE S•r. CORNER OF lA10 SEC• 33, I":60' _ - THENCE R• A 018TANCE OF 656,28 FEE? - - THEN GE E• A 018TANCE OF 163FEES~ THENCE 5- A DISTANCE OF 656.28~i THENCE A D18TANC: . i` `r. _ OF 164 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING - lJ.l _ - - ~ ~ . 7700-7740 h10ROAN AVENUE -t . Y.:. V - - - i1SEi ` RETA it SALEe b SERVtCEB ' 1 : ~ OIO. PARY.tt,t;SPlRCESi 84 .'~F 3-: • ~ GATE CF APFIICATIOtti•FEBRUARY li 1961 d - ~ ~ Q CO~fICII. ACT IOt~t FEBRUARY 13, t961 • M• 8• :L.: 20 90 •24- 2/6/6! ~ X11. .l\' . 1 ~ - - _ _ ~.Y~~ t • Mf ~ - - • , ~ •134 - • / I\ ~ ~ . ~ ~ f f 4 T sk .SERVICE ~ RD. - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ipf • ~ '.BARRIER CURB ~ ' . - ~ - - N ' h' ~ / ~ ' (3) In the case of an interior lot abutting upon two or more streets, no detached accessory shall be erected or altered so as to encroach upon the one-fourth of the lot nearest either street or in any case nearer to the established building line on either street frontage. (4) In the case of a corner lot abutting upon two streets, no accessory building shall be erected or structurally altered so as to encroach upon the ~ ~.~front~half of the 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 Chan 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 streetside of the lot or nearer to any street line of the lot .than a distance equal to one-fourth the depth of the lot. (b) No detached ac~cessory~building shall be within five feet of the side line of the front half of any adjacent lot except as hereinbefore specifically permitted. (7) No garage with doors facing upon the street shall be within 20 feet of the lot line. . (8) The foregoing rules shall not require: (a) Any detached accessory building to be more than 75 feet from any • street line bounding the lot. (b) The street side of any detached accessory building to be nearer to the lot line opposite the street line than 20 feet. (c) A private garage to be separated from the front and side lines of ' the lot where the slope of the front half of the lot is greater than one foot rise or fall~in a distance of seven feet fzom the established street elevation at the property line or where the elevation of the lot at the street line is five feet or more above or below the established elevation. Subd. 4. Conversion of Sinstle Family Dwellings Prohibited. Notwithstanding .any other provisions of this section, a one-family dwelling structure located in an "M[t", "C-1" or "C-2" or "I" districts shall not be converted into or used as a two-family or multigle dwelling unless the owner thereef has first obtained a special permit in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 3.41 of this chapter. (Bill 1982-5) 2/8/82 3.40. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ADtD APPEAL'S. 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. 2/8/82 OFt01NANCE CODE ~ 7g CITY OF AiCHFfELD,MINNESOTA -~V Subd. 2. Council Sha11 Act as Board; Powers. The council shall serve as the board•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.' Hearing examiners from the Committee of Hearing Examiners created pursuant to Section 3.40A of this Code shall hear, subject to the right of appeal to the council as provided in Section 3.40A, requests for variances from the literal provisions of this part in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions are consistent with Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.35, Subdivision 6 and any amendments thereto and will be keeping with the spirit and intent of•this part. In the event that the authority of the Committee of Hearing Examiners shall expire pursuant to Section 3.40A, Subdivision 10, such expiration shall automatically vest authority in the council to act as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals with respect to the matters previously within the jurisdiction of the Committee of Hearing Examiners. Subd. 3. Application for Appeal-Fee. Application for any appeal permissible under provisions of this section shall be made to the city manager~by writtem application. An application for appeal shall be accompanied by payment of a fee as provided in Appendix D of this Code in addition to the regular building • fee, if any. (Bill 1977-16) 8/8/17 " Subd. 4. Public Hearing on Appeal. Upon receipt of any application, the council may set a time and place for a public hearing on such application. At least 10 days before the date of any such hearing, a notice of the hearing shall be published once in the official newspaper: Subd. 5. .Requirements for Compliance. In all cases in which adjustments of .variance appeals are granted under the provisions of this section or Section 3.40A, the council shall require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary to insure compliance with the conditions designated in connection therewith. Subd. 6. Orders. .The council shall within a reasonable time made its order deciding the matter and shall cause a copy of its order to be served by mail. upon the petitioner. Subd. 7. Record of Proceedings. The council shall maintain a written record of its proceedings which shall include minutes or meetings, its findings in cases before it, and a record of action taken on each matter before it including the final order. (Bill 1985-21) 8/31/85 - 8/31/85 ORDINANCE CODE 80 CITY OF RICH FIELD, MINNESOTA . ~ s 8406 8407 HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENT, PLANNING, ZONING 462.357 , an hall the existing ordinance would take effect when adopted, and shall have considered ti Its ~ whether the number of descriptions of real estate affected by such changes and f i its .alterations renders the obtaining of such written consent impractical, and such e ulations• planning commission or planning board shall report in writing as to whether in its ~ - 8 daries less opinion the proposals of the governing body in any case are reasonably related to the ~ f :s side of a overall needs of the community, to existing land use, or to a plan for future land use, ~ town or and shall have conducted a public hearing on such proposed ordinance, changes or thereafter alterations, of which hearing published notice shall have been given in a daily ~erty were newspaper of general circulation at least once each week for three successive weeks adopts a prior to such hearing, which notice shall state the time, place and purpose of such hearing, and shall have reported to the governing body of the city its findings and ~ land use- r recommendations in writing. g out the z Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments, Appeals to the board of appeals and ~ ordinance` adjustments may be taken by any alI'ected person upon compliance .with any Subject reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and i adopt and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any -eto shall ' order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in ncy or by .the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. shall be - (2) To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in ~ ~ or to the instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of ' >undaries~ + circumstances unique to the individual property under. consideration, and to grant least ten _ such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with property:. + ' the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with endment the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a mailing reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of resses of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the hick the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the - m a locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if of 4~ reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Undue _ pro hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for. n made. solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as s initiat- defined in section 116J.06, subdivision 2, when in harmony with the ordinance. The ' property board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not by the permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property ~r study , in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing ~eceived' - body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family ?ntil 60. dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be port by' ~Y impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. of this Subd. 6a. It is the policy of this state that handicapped persons and children zonin should not be excluded by municipal zoning ordinances or other land use regulations ~ from the benefits of normal residential surroundings. For purposes of subdivisions -e shall ners of 6a through 9, "person" has the meaning given in section 245.782, subdivision 2. ie total - Subd. 7. Permitted single family use. A state licensed residential facility ply serving six or fewer persons or a licensed day care facility serving 12 or fewer st, and .N persons shall be considered a permitted single family residential use of property for of the the purposes of zoning. , . by a Subd. 8. ~ Permitted multifamily use. Unless otherwise provided in any town, Without municipal or county zoning regulation as authorized by .this subdivision, a state f such licensed residential facility serving from 7 through 16 persons or a licensed day care • of less ~ facility serving from 13 through 16 persons shall be considered a permitted ons of ; ~ • ` multifamily residential use of property for purposes of zoning. A township, rx III ; r~;~ '_i: I r. L ;v' ~ l r •1J ) rU'.+, If i. ~ y..l'. A, , :,t.l t f { ' ' ' •:li .1, " ':.'I J eJ? ,Irf ~ ,.,~'f 11;M:'tl•NR' ~ I.r;~ .'~N ~ p i,ti l"": ,4u':1' •.J - `~i P,l ~ I'' rl. err.. 'f !11 R'~' r•F~, 11!•Ir il' 'il S'{I.' j r A 5 ?In r . ,p' ; ~ .J~ .nr ;:rk, AAwt.~ ! 't ~ ft~ •:d, vI ~+I:~:. J.. ,1 1'. 1. ~ 1, 1: J~ r.,"., I. •JIl1 r. ,.•j 'UI ~ 9Y J~,. J?,r Y, '~q ~.~~.i 1. Mi t~l~1'•'fi A, t. t R .1~. Igg •1 K'' ty .:t ~:1.•! ;tiRll. %v ' { ! t ..r ~it.,r i t r 6 "S A 5 !'~Y t: ,fit f~ii , , , .da ~tr.rR...rP'::d Jf n ,1e:7~'1+• t 1',n'it.l, ! 1, r h' • # ;!~1•>'f~~:M~1'7~; , a ~t ,r.S, "Zf ,'•4+J 1j1•Z~' ` v J' ~~p11,,/f$15 '~1J6 r~,' "y' 1; t 'I , ,,t' '1 '1 v.i' 't::)I L.rt.a,Yl L) .i j~' . .~IJ ',!~1 1 5.:~, 'i" J[~•' ('1 V JIIp.' f' + ~ f,~:f: l+ r} ~~'.J7.,1~.1•:'i'~;`~ ~ 9ta~ ^a~~ rpr t{ ~~1'n}L({' t~'~'H~g'~{(,ti ")r :1. r, '.1 jlS• JI ,.;J.1 .irf.~- !:t A. X11 11' . t'.rly. jr. rl.yy~•, ;'7r• ~~.1:~9'!r 'rP, a kr t 1 '~7 ~Jb. .11 S,'f ~r. ~ d.rkl 7'1 'I•w~-• I.1:. .a"n., .'l. /.L .l ~i, •~1'Y. h::.}I~ 1. ~yJ'.1..t.1. r• ~ ,i. ~ l ;1'f~ ,1 t•, ,ra~~, J ,r. 1 'S'. '„p ;r!':}. 'itr. ~I +i:,/'t I.''.:i~ 'tr' •J,". -d rr •}.jy'17.•( .l (l• o..? '1 '1`I~, NA ,+r!'}'7 }r ll~ I+kt'!S:' .J'~ ,.)r~. }i' l1 - , y ly..l r:n .n, lI~•,y:l:i• la ~ 1,r1 ~1•. ,J I+i). a ,~,t• '.TI r,. ,f':~r :wt'1 Pk; 7j~! 'I: :Ir Y' .rri 1 r -.i,IS "!1~•1Y >r"M1L:! yi ~pp ~tl~,``'. h,.k L. °iNl'.' .a '.jA J r ~d. :'°/f' ~W))~('. N ,,t,. ''I 1+ y', :,f~ yv'~LY 1 w ,l ;Vr,i', rf,r J ,T. IN ,T; 1 .,Y.r' 'i.fh,; r1 •I! 'F rrtj,q,. S t . i•.« C;) +,.1'~' rr t t~.il::~ 1 pT. °I ~•.'Dq ;J ,y 'J7. y'f• I;J~ty . rl J(t j ..j, ht'ry,~ ~ryry ,.~h'''?,+:E'•Y I)~ 1,~ Iv." r ; , 1, `Jhlt ~'I' b 1; evAl!. rTr.Y: '11pd. 'r11'+S• .y'r J• ..lt:•l ~,v~; } .Y,J ! n rl?ir`.t.. I.;~y) S•' ~F "!s' , t , i,,. ~ 1' 1 ~1•.'I ~ y"~ .11' ,,t Ctl) , 'f" ~ •.Ii d+r V',JI r }p 1:1 1, ~ .,F+"r1~ 1' X11, ,I~ . J~~ ht,1 t r 1'Y. .)'P!r :~.!Ip. t P! rfS y.. pJn S; 1.; d. tl. ;.1+.1 .1..'1: f •I T.:j. ..4 ~i r',,11}! g1.l~tJ,}~i~ '!1.. n. ii :i 0 r y.n, t .I~U 1 , .tlt a 1< .71+,, r >.',~j :i{1 d ,i .1.. .i .y'. 'r J..J~~:i,~.wir.. ~ Irr ~ r. ,1!'.rr ~:Y, 'A,',~-.IA. ..~~~11-~. ~1i, ~ ,~^.r ~ ;v~+. [ ~s ~,•;l. ~~'1.~•: ..J~ } ~~~'1:' ':71~?~~;t,. 'ins°'• ::I:l ;1•.. i'1 ~ k,. ,•v»r t•fi: d~.+T'. 'y'/j ~:I). 1rY 4, .i JS~N! ~ °}:.r 'I .r4 y,,I "AS 4' it i' 1), I'• +•1•I~'•) .A• t'? .,l• ; J':'~,;.) Y~ V' ar 1.• Is .I, ;I .7,'7~y, 7:. •'I' ',I 'J +F 'r.,:.1..7,r~;di5~'jl. r , I, •i'I't"`'Y.1.~17 'rh. A S1i .I{1.. ),I~I.f,'t: ! :.>;,rYl..l ~~tJ 5,Fi7dvl~,.~ , ~,1. Y .I Y .r~' It,'• .i~ J• aE ,t~iY: .d r l '~.Y~'.~rp; r ,I,fp• 4~ %tjy,',' 11: r r, p 1! I d.,'1 1.9 'I,.f~ 1~; : ' ~ 8; ' ' 'r :~~y' ;r+•,.;i ' t ' • ~ , .J,St etP M1 s?•~ k4 77 I, 1! E. ~ .'j' ;y ,t J 'r~ r 1' at o-.~lr .'l ,N. ~i' ' + r~1Jnl 'r•. Il~,v~~, Ut.i ;.ii .y~~l dJl r i.liY'~~ t•.. It. .s' ~'I ! I.t' lr tf ~ t,: i': fill ~ti ~~'•'f^ r; ~~~,"~1 ~1'• ~JJ m;d. ,.r, ,1 r., 1. .1•N1,14.~,+M ~r Ys., "9'! ! 1~ .',:'?'.'y' Yr , M.} ''rl_y1-,1 tlli ri r i147 'r ,p~a(~~,y({1,,9 r t It ~;~t 5''. t, 7.1 1 'A:A II~Sa ~•y'';" t { *r' l ~ 1 ~I t I YI h- I'.) r, i F r 7` 1 t • l / ry J'y. f: ¢N~'r tN1y'1 ~ '~h v Cr ?t F q t +III • I { ,.1 '/'1A~yr'fr~ ''•vr~4 11• ~ } 'I i~(. N'r,I,ti t4 ~ ~~.~~4~ y Q;. r t ~ ! ~ .rl ',I i'' +JI ~r `I, F', ~ ~n J. ' 1 q 7. ti ! 1;! + t r J ! tl' : r!h" 4~-( 1 . ~ir•d! r 11a1lfl ~t r§'~. rt)~•. ,~FlryF 4,,.,.'! ~ •"Ip yar•'''I ti , 1. 11 J tN' 11' la . t: u , r t,, ! t Ij • • t ~ ',1 1•.jl• , { ttyl', Jlti ;I~;7,fi ' Y, '),bl~'~•~, , ~-L• ~ 1 % t' •jt iJ ~ } 1 ,1 " 1 1 ~ I ,k. p I t i :a _ • ' ~ p { •~•1 i 1 r J;~hr I y~,' J,u i !~,:IN:u3~iY>,,y~. I X14 A r pl~,r.~,~x'•I~' i . Y : • ,,r J Ij '+t q t U,y. ~1j1+.. ~~il-+~~.. DI+ .Ce~Z 1,..,~ t .l,.rdt 1, Slay ~ , \A •(jf~ .1.:' ~.r) h'f ++r lrt}lplr}r~7l,,i ar~,l'~'J4.v i ~ /~r. "f~ •,ti 7r' 1 ,+1% `i}Id,~ ~,}I'IIrl7 SI4f'IEfMYc~' r a# , r r/t't~ 1 1; r ' _ r' ll((~,r; / ,i j f 1 +JQ IGJ, 'JI Y~D•k''~r ~I f'J J{ 4~ al ~ 1 r T~ ,~+,',ly; ~'tt~,r ~1 t, ',1 l , J ~ t, !r1yj 'f+'~,1'%I~ ~1. fly 7 ~lt y,1iJ.~ 1 I .i,llltlhl ,~I ; t r;TC !)rp;J, ~,S r ~ `b I I i t !FF ''f ~11~1~ j~' yr:'r't~t! ~iiJ I f i, ~ 't ' , , ~ 7• 1 , II. si I .L' O , J ' 4r 1 ~ filI1,:r) t i1'1Rf`r , i~ 3 . J 1 '`~,If! ~ - + ' ~•i plt 'qtr?..,,, n`SI"IJt. ! V:~~-~ t' rl ^I1 1 r 1~ ps! I r' / ! w i'! ,~1, 'si.' i IA~• '1" .,rl~.. ~ T'`. ! lT Y r S: I r f r j to ,fif1 +i 4 ) r. Js., rr r. i ~}.Lt 1 ~ r'. 9 -e ,h, , J t~, f 11 J s 1, ~ 1 + y j 3]! y)i 17 r /r' t `9.~:w/~I 1 5',+i tl.i y Jt ,l ~I , Jf ~7 1' 1.~ i r7'tj• 1 ~~p~j~A lm' I ~Ai 'j/ ~ ( s•'j , ~~y ' ~S"lt~ ti. '.1 J., 1~y r~.`Ilah v~l' IIJr ri tp rr,' i t,}, f,~ p- le y~ O •L~ r l{ fi f' 1 3 ,~rC t1 1 ! 1! f ~ ~ f ~ •-^f.1 ~ l' ~...4 .r , r`_, t1J~ I,.J~ .;~i r' ~ r~l .C + ~r , a , l,t~' I tt -a 'p ' N i r ..~..•'<h" . ~ ~Ia ••f{ r ~ ~ 1~ 1~ r1J; ',f '~~~,1• 1 . a 1 • ! ti r' 1T I .II! }t~ h t ,e, ~ r 'r ~ ~)t f~.r7;.~ r I iV 11 S r.y V/ ' r t 1;.. q Y ' ~ , ~ If1 .y I I ~ r T ' . ~1,, f1r K i•., it r.,' 1 +r /Q I ~1 _c io _ _ _ yr~~ f r 1. O ~ i : r- _p ~ 1 ~ I~t• ~ ~ 4'~ \P.fiMr u1JDGf`:. ` s ~ mac-. . • t ~ ~ 1 yip) ~ ~ . 1 yr.,~ ! l rr Xr. r I i ; V M ~ r_ ' ,r _ + I, y I ~r 1'. • , ' e ~ I ~ i I :rt ~ ;1--•.ygrp,.'~•Gb Mo~cpafJ Io.VEt .':I ~ + _ j„,I ~ Z ...w. ~.'.I ~a".pwi1"' "'1~ 'r.r... i' 1'' Y r J ll.'I." !ty 4f11~11 ~ 6` I,~S r C 1 1 ~ 'i r 1 If .1. ' , + 'Pi •'J.; i)1 ! I. ~1,,,,RI~~ ` yi~T!•~;)c.++ v.f- I '.}{r tr V t i 71 ~ , . ~ii Nti , ~ }'•I { q:~!_r r. ,3 { it J JI ~ t +.r 1 l I t d N. ~ ' '!A.f + ;H' I - f 1 M l 5 ) r- _ 1 ~fF~y yr w ' .1 ) 1 I ir/ i r• 1 ,I , -S'. t'J,. v .tr l ~ ~ 1 I ~ Irr~ ( r ) I , 1•, 6 r tti tr- A r' .r ;i r r 4: . , r t ~ r J ~ try 1 i•, t: r > • •r' ' ~ ' ~ NE11J ~ Ot'I OtzAOE ! p 1l~t Y,~'c. ~ t.,$;r .n:,t.f ~ ; F 1 ' + l Mar~° ~r:.~ve~x'PL~PI ~a~;s E 1' C~'• r:~V~, r! 9'^?•I•'+11 I y rv'I ~~;:f I~;v IJ I• ' Y,1''}~ : » ~ NEW C/~fr• ON ~ooF , 1~p, 1, ,•4 . , 1 ~ ~ r l 1 i I k ci : 'I [ r ? ~ ' tt 1: ? J u t ! 4! J t4,7 ( r , . ` - : f w . j r ~i~.-a, ilol 9E~f{-illc6 ' ;t l:, r~; .r1w.1`I~+~/8+~.,.il7l/,~G~C ~.i~r'+t(~I~'r~ t' :'~ItFI ~~'l/ri~..'' .:.i=3, 1, 5~ ~ '~I V ,r) r ~1.. 1 .,:R.ri~e~it :t''•S:.tt: ra..,...,...~(or+1'E}'.Y 1 @~ , `.j• ~:I,.'r,: ? 1 , . t.' ~•;r.' , 7/ ( ~7r1pl.J Gt-~'1d','' • . l~ t 1 y .1.E ~ f { ,f,l}~ • r . I •e. ; t:, 7j ~`r 1 1.1 :1;1~• `f. ~7 it ~'i ..1?': p,~7,,'y ^i.• . .F, .•u! ,t. ,qv,. ! pr .4'b,~ S .1. !l ff`. .?•h~ -JWt~ 1 ; r , r , 1 t', ll: ~ CEK ! ~ r4``,.ya•.~ .'3p . y:lt" >i•'' .~~'~Z , bs%" 'y.l •.e:.ai :'y, ;r 4G.}.,rf~ )6.'' . ~•i , i, 'll I,_ .I„<, .1 vp ,y.; I ~~'1~1 .y '.1 M, ~ ~}yllN n., V' 6 1 r t ~ rf , µ 1 '4 'i.•• -it h. ri.l .r; a.. vY• / ~'I: , ~r C•11,''yy } .A t l ! ^I r ' ;+'rl + }r ~ ~~•y • 're i y / 1, i• K .Yrl r. ~ f,.,• 5'" , y ' t r ' f . v ' ~ ? s: ~.,.W'% ;fl "~1~ f. .1 •J. i v :r ~:jw /~q (O Q TL1l y •Fi~+~li.?i.l. rl ~;i~~'~ 1. !'''17w4~~' ,A~ r,~A; ) J (:yrt..«i. 1Yr 3.pi 'yy~~y.~.« '1'{.1,r~f ~ 3; .li -J(~ :I w friJ a1.- t 9 , l,, it r,. ) t• 1 1 ^ 1ltl."~'.Z7} 1 Q 1 ::,1' .lk. ~i, ~ ; .',i4 w•.)) ~i,.~l h ~rt1 t~ d. ii. ~ tgg,L':!r ~:i'. i , , ;1 r, yl. 1J.L . m k , 5 J ' 'A{ ~i 1~ ll;.v .iJ. ~1'.~, y,:;1~..:)(k.,.. f' h.t? ' 1u. ..r . ~ t. ~ { r Y•r. ' it ' ~.d' ~ .K`2 1 4'~' { "r I .al J:: } } ,.r • ~1~Yr{'+ .;t yt~~~. t,•? r ) .~I r.y ~ t w I v 1 ,i.h ~j f 'I{.1 i } J+, I 4o EM~tAY85rb,:~ON AzDa ~,i1P i, ~11}}~ ,'i"s.J'1}'`~''r.~'l,•,~t1]"I~'r';[~.} :'i ~1(; +(r r~, ~J. ~'~i. ~'~(y! 1~'li7y';T t.J ,t~, i. 'a.~;~~ A1:'1 !'::j ;sy:;~;''1' ~''~•w i f4~ t~1r` t Li•~1~. ~ j: r M i~• ,.Ik~'. "1 :7'^I• .":II,[f ,h:^y~~'t ~.l S!!~'~' 'y, tr. ~~7~ 1~., I.V'~' •~1~ . ,~f,S,ll, 'l.yr :f.~t ,1~. / •t i rr.l :apt; Z .J'~~;,•.>ti, •j1..t.ti .j+.•~~J.~~.a.a'~ ,p1.• {Vt' .9R' 1: '1r~="i i~'41'•J r.rr'. ~~r .~!'::'•,llr,~;; .l'• t; .4 •;1•~. 3~c.''7i>rat.. ,4 ~ A~ •,r~.,y.~ ,~t ~ C: I~ ~ , ~i~ ,..I, .e f ( , r ,.A 'Jri".. ~ ! i] Y~• d J 4{ .p..: A , 1. `1 ~ ) !f{'' -t.~1.J .I.t` w' '~i, 'b'r, ~rl+. v ~i It 1 'rx~. s I r., ~'!^1(w ti.:TlJ' ~r.1~' ,,y r.j,l.'.IA {i,~.C~~$''y;dik.; t e ~1. .l.., r. r•, ;d`; r. 1 •1r'! )f. r 4 5nt ,o y ~ l l n ss J , , ' n. !f {'1 ."4'^ 1= 1 vl. n x ~ " :1' 1': y'• :.1. 1:. ~Ijk • ~•r•AP ,i N'r, 't~"•1.1 w~i~si.~ r .r K.~ r ~1 " .a •t', ...rl. 1~' y '~~'t~;'i~~'n.pJ. t d '~71 1 r ~•'t r :17. •r t. ,'2r ! .r 'j.i~:.i. +1. .T~:. , '•,l' ..tt}}. • ' ,r •4. r,'- I rJ; • y~• i(. Y..., I. M. .1, r. )j 'f•.t 1 : ,T•J} • ~ . b J JY ~>'l' ' . j ~ r., E,. .1, ~j~'"~' .l'~: v""o' t~l a. 'r,. .1; + , f c:! • 'r r ~l . 1~. rf S . '4~ l • I ''.,Y„~:. W!~ ry t C. ~ ~ I~•:," rr +f : i t~ it •.j; • l!' t h ~t~~»..~,, ,,r •'I rf~{; I 1'.: r I! '~1' ! ;l: ri:: 7 , 1v., r ~p~ :r .n ~•r,, , r ' f r.l ,t. rSh ~ ,r~ll, ,1„f :~i 4+ t • A r„ ''1',.:~.'rl' r • ~,l•.r. ~ 1'Ir'~ ~~i' (c .y : 'c' si141'.~. ~I~ialJ, :J . 11' : ' y"i ~ ;{.r ..l•{{{,, !Sk' I #n J,11. A,. A f~ • "I t'~1 ' 1 l'ri . p,, .`•I ~j A.l. y~~ d.) s •t 't•. + •IS' .J:;r! ' r J . •n' t.' . f T .7 I sr ;,r: ..@t;i; ~ f`t` a r!r ei •,r,ld' •u )l. n n 4 . d v 'Ira 1 V~,•1' J ~~i. rl r' t.~' S~ a; .,f{e.' .:f,'1 Y.,... v1:} •i .(~'%if 11'.. .1 i •JJ i'fr/ t,~,.. rt:i "f •w. 4 '7 n a.,l~. .7!, r: '~f i... E•. ,1.. , ~f."~r Yr. pp.~, ,r~, l'• R' ~ 1, A r` .I S _ t f'. rr. K,f •l! :t~'..r nJ rJ•@'I~Y:' 'l' + •1•. .j..,FJ .pl 7<N, '!h :9{:~. 4,t~;ri!~I!' 'Y~~rj 't'. •`v~t. 'r~i.. .~'y•J rX'J~,. t s `•I^ '1. Gca p•IP~rr ''~,•t1 ~~i,4n~.~;Y.,,+,gSl .aT'• i.t.•`' •~r t•J .tau~,~.tiN ,dY. ~1.y.l,rt'( t'+ '/~':r .t: r,r: ! ~f~'b ; xr• .71 Y~ .h ,\1•. '1.. ~Ev~+;. J•' .h1 ,}s- h• »V s~ l.a '•J.'':';' :~r f n ..L, aa{ I a •:.fi y•'~.. ;'i {1.!'~i.' 'tr.~'~;w~. Jy•} :.rl'O.'•i!f(~.J .i{{ 'y.1: 7:"I':f i9:'s. t b0,'r:. ' `'•r, ) a,, •i,• J.,:1. 1 t r`r+r'• ~ .i''t'!. { •S't ''!l:•t`.~i, 1::6 'P• )u~:,,, k,.r.'!~~r •i: "`~r rr" >;y 4 1p`wr••t.•d .Yb. 'f S..t •r11 ~ .,S "1. 7.) .r ,.a:.. ~i•'rll. M14:'S 'F:l,t t..; ryt I ,.y:i Jp ~t' t . t. 1 ~ ~1~~!:~ '+Ji` t!' •a•., :1tp •;1" w~ . pr. rlf',l? ' 4 tyr•.. t;1i y~11 ;r t.fJ l.ls(~ .1, tt n4.1: 1 .l'i',,~ l,- t. r 1.. t ~ •P 1, ,'y. f .G : 1 T.. r. 1 p :•Iyt l,~ 1'• • } ' ~ ( • ~'C. '1 .r 1; I H I, , If p ~ S J r•. 'r'1 , ,1, "~i}r. +:i.e t .•Lt ,r ~'7 . n1. R' J) ^,«C •'1' ~ s•.1....J ..2,~1~ ,~l!.. ,1.~. r r w. ~ a.v~n i~!~'~'-. };'~y 'i ~ ~ 'l+ R •1 :.Y ) ~R,V,~ .(t. S.t' 'V. rr•AJ• , •r• r,„'t7• p'st .J•' •.,.,~';':p~,r".l 1 )r;°L. •I~r.y'+Q~ :4 V•t',7 tr •I •r) `r~ r. kf' rir .'x'171° it. rJ'. ~Jn. ,•J t' J, +rA L. af,} .i'• 11 •1';1. ..'t,l'. 1, Jx~~ `t~~ ~Y'r', l,•n V!, S , '7..-I' ..r' Lit iJrj„~' .A :p yltt i' I.,:.''~I:IG ! 1 'ti!!1 r P!'~., 11 f' ( .i'~d ~jC):fa.~~,i 1' ~iLi 'Lt '~r1("'t'~ {u ,er. ~-~yyf~'~~,,,J(Q~~} tyy*.~, r1a ~ ,f~r. ,'fr' 'irll Q :t{,...~.ti t .J ,g. .{''rat ~"J~'1~'j`•y, +.~iE i.. Jg t~ta~,.' .Y..Q. a ,It'.1 l•'• ",''t ...F.f' ' , '..1. r6: r ~l, I.~v+rM... i•t `1 ~s r+iff ~r;;j' ~ ~~r)}kIaµ7(~ 7y, i A•7 u~.itl~~) t! .:t 1,'(<!'' ',..Y j~.y~l.1S~}J, t~ 7 ~~t` ~yA~'!•,,1 W'I ' p ~ '.4~'~Ji 4).' ~ `t' t i~~~~ ~ •f . ••i • 1. • 1 r r!t.. k; I " (1'~' 4i'' 1• •t'.7:' t'~,.••.• } '(r,'f . p/ky ~ `f "v~~ . .I }~I~~ir• S ~.lf.C. .t • i ' 7• • . v 7 1•• 1 S 11 r) ..1);' I t ~ 1i n•': • ~ '''1~' 1 •i,:t ''~~'~;~y1,~!'/ t t r ,-.1 rl tS~~ r .i ~ 0 . itl R 1 V11? I S ~ r f red r 1 :ru•,• ,r.,.i.:) Yil t.~ / t~{~ A ' t C, ? V , r t, , ,I t J y Y+1 N! 1JYr`,i~~ J I , S r `ry ~ 't(•., I :r;'~;11.~~,. ~ ;fI. RICHFIELD~;`M80TA' };;`pr;~dl%}`i~f`!4~~y~1~~;13i~~'~i`'~.~~ ' ~~u`: ~~r~;}~Il; ' ~`'i1'Jt`a~i ' ~ --•r!•tr '.~~t7-.~ . :tyf,~' ~f~~ ~ , f.: r ~ i}. •If ~~3~1~1~ };1.: ac ~ •a= : 1~ :•~1, Cal 1/a ~ 1 r ; ~ rk7) 1f ~ ~ td • , %1Yi •fra ~ / r~11" ~ ~ f • • Iq1~ i~a, ~ ~~I ` ~ ^•.(wli /4i (Al N r ~U o h1A1ir 7f~b~9i r1 a . P X~ ,+.o a7• - m- hod s • f.: ,Inl 4 •Si ~ ~ Sl ~ oft, .f: +i. • q~l 17;~ ~`,~i"^' Sm''~1~"•'"S ~Liw~ kL`„~? IS7 ~ ~,it~ (1+~.~ 1 ( . ?"tA ~ a.a I--,.en c 1 _ ~ ct:lfry ~i ~e~• ~L~ ft~ ~ ~ ~•1. •11?j~ ' s/1~,~; I`~~sl ~ ..'~7i1y:; ~„fit ~Z7 , ~ • l , ~ f NOSa, • ~ C3 ~ (5'S~t 2 ~ ~ 'f ~ , a~~ 1!,-.r.•Y 'tA ~ : 11 • I ,c s.~ ~,Yl Z 4 lv A'7 10 ' Q • I ~+6PMfI'y. ~ . W} k -g leis ~ ..o ~ -,:I.~~: ~~,'+•1 .•wl~•.,~/ `y, a ^i ry4) ~ J ((f'i j ~iY~. ,pj u+f_.... ~ t. ......'r.......; l ~ (ply ~ it{• 1. +_o• H.w ems. a ,y c t E. If 1 .rf•.~_ • I.._3AC. _•t ^ r~i~• f K1• : i~N / TfES~ ;I•'::. 1 •4 '~1 f'~ Mfl Si31 ~ 1~~;1~'~ 1 ~ • • t b 1 , » f 1. 1, '1f 1. ')•il. •i. ~ n,e q U tyy TTi y Q0l l F.b'yd ~ 1 i : ~ ~ H _ ~ R e ill}''r•' ~ !1t (4iff1 ~ •4rlf•.--I~yt1 : h•f - ~ iL~ 1 u• fff `SYcI 1 ?o,. ~p ,~v f- 1 • •Y v , (~')K ~-'(Zlze•v ~ ~5 ~9~ 1511' ~,p;':t7t(11~. ,Z y.' .J 's r~sis,'t ',~+P lr14_a.. O_ !RS „•4 „fr f~~1" as(aD f r- s;,~,-* T tt,f ..,x;. I i • = O r s v ,3(7S~ , ,w ? (A d. (54~ j W'rp • (Vyn) 1 6f~~i + n' k jt,u o ,G4 • vv a A1~ ~a. . $ ~ 4~ ~ (S~ t v f 3 / ~ ( r C7 a ( . G'P~ 1 7 ~ I la o 1 Q R,M ~W .•%sl~ ~ wa ~ ~ . W ~ ~t tom. 7Q la % ,:r,13'r`i S~iS) ~ i3 ~ ~ r (n • Q • ' O n t:i ^e ~.9 D 4 yti. Qf+r W ~ . gs14Z ~l ti,,.t-.. J ~-I 1 tj7 'y v • d?~ z .~yl~/h ~=a~K S~f1M 2 ~Fj416y~1i ~..j~0 ,r4 ~.S.~l~ryut i A 2)_ '~M 9'L t~~t Su ~ IZ,r 1•T.~2) t ~ ,fG/j'~".' ..J~~]. ~ ~ ,l'~y? a ;r l i ~N 1 g 9O ~ ~i " ~i ~ ~ !;h ~}e1 a Vn/t t~?ff• =W~utA•'W ~A~ ~ ~~S v 4n ~ ' (1 ~ w } ` ~ - - c c ~ ,°t h ttrn ,~O~f~S(S°~~ ~~~a C9~(g51 ~ i,.~N,a1Qe ~ v ••tos ' ~ -,b.~ ,N~ i ,rr •i ~ Dye. •Z. ,u 1 4 ~ 1•f.ff ,lf'+t/ ~ ~ ~y.. g • ~ . r' ano s -y~ . a.. ~ `O T ; (;1)1 ~ :~,e f; ~ (~?tr.'• " (A1 Fyj, n " _ t +e ~ it1 1 ;;1 6, (1~l ~ _ 8 ~ t .x A :;aca•n, .w Lull• , r{,to ? 8 a~ ~T ,I W, Tw.~ 7T1f1 Sl. . `aee , . +IYUMi _ +y~ E •t ~ 1 •F4 (177 1,10 ~!1~ ~ J f41-_ . e ~ ~ r ~y,'j / ~ ~ ? .f - ? =~~,:?':`;~fi,:~ • 1111 ~ ~ ~ a . tf+rr+ .?a~` a% :.,2 ~ °~JJ ~i p ~ fir' ''tq> , eti. t ~+?i i~:i~'i'`•i~:S O. Ll b" ~i ti? ~ • C O ' a I ,W a f 1 ~ ~ +1 ho 1M•+!1 , , Si l' Il ~ . S(.1 Ca_ 21~~.~•`- Ij ~ y,.'" i C.' . • ,J ;:a ::i~ '.•'i ~ ~ q , ~ .Ii b '•~i~-11i'~ 1~3 ~ 1 i Irls ; • : ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~.~+d.nr2accl~~ ~tt~• ? ~ \ „o , t f • •1 .t,, if i ..,1 4•ft •ar• ~ !!v .v. r./o 4 t f • • . `•'•ar~S ~f~i~14~r'titi~1111~#YRcr.+. so• r/ a ~ tar a + ~ 1.+ •1 U. S. • • ~ ...'ltczl.ll c... es ~ ~ HWY. 1 l.~ ; . ~ ' r i ~l CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 151 Agenda April 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Extension. of Lease Agreement, 6315 Portland Avenue Council Members: In June, 1985 the city purchased the property at 6315 Portland Avenue for park purposes. .The former owners, Mr. and Mrs. Donnell Hopson, have leased the property since the time of purchase by the city. According to the lease agreement, the City and the Hopsons may renew the lease agreement by mutual consent. Since the property will not be used for ,park purposes for at least-one more year and the Hopson's have requested to be allowed to remain in the property, staff supports the renewal of the lease for one year. It is recommended that the cit council authorize a one-year Y renewal (June 14, 1986-June 14, 1987) of the lease agreement between the City of Richfield and the Hopsons for the property at 6315 Portland Avenue. Rental revenues will be credited to the parkland acquisition account. Resp~tfully ubmitted, St t~i uevich, ct'ing City Manager / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 150 Agenda April 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Illuminated Sign Permit. LaBelle's, 7701 Nicollet Avenue Council Members: Best Products is requesting permits to erect two illuminated signs at LaBelle's, 7701 Nicollet Avenue. City ordinances provide that all illuminated signs must be approved by the city council. One sign will be a replacement of an existing illuminated pedestal sign located in LaBelle's parking lot. The size of the sign is 23' x 6' (138 square feet). The second sign will be an illuminated wall sign measuring 22' 6" x 9'. This sign will be located on the front of the building facing the parking lot adjacent to Chi Chi's. -Staff Review The inspection division staff has reviewed this permit application and finds that the signs conform to all applicable city ordinances. It is recommended that the two illuminated .signs for LaBelle's be approved. Resp~ fully s mitt d, ev n L. Devich Acting City Manager _ I APPROVE I DENY ~ : APPROL'E'~~ DEA'Y ~~1 - ~ Cit}* Manager Inspecto ~ //g~ Date Date r ~ I • ~ _6i n~ APPROL'E f ~ DEFY APPROV- (DENY ~t.t, Plannin Le rtment City Council .~.a.,K.,..;~-.G~ ~~~~~p ~ Date Date ~i i Route to above for special approval per code General Suns APPLICa.TIO:: FOR ADVERTISIKG PER.*1IT City of Richfield, :Sinnesota Date~''~~., ~~o Zoning Sign Erected - 1es ,l ro Fee Address of Sig ~ ~ ~Q,~"~/c~-~ ~ "~"''~'oprietor Name~~~~~j~i'S~ 1(~. ~1u`~BA~- To ~.e~cr~d .COs ~ Sign Erector.~/CC'~.Se~~iG/>~i7,~T~~f~E,,e/A~dndress Type of Sie~"~Q?~ Desien ~ <~~,~-l,~p - j.'eather Cover LiQhtin~ Gia11 ~ngle Face dear Lexon Y Consta:l~t P jecting Douole Face V Frosted Lexon Flashing - Ground _ Multi-Faced Plastic Covered ~ Revolving Roof aerial/Blimp Shaded Traveling Pedestal Searchlight _ Neon Zip Lite _ Changeable Banner/Pennants Other ~~~(Explain) Temporary Portable Frame: Sign Colors t ~ Trailer T ~ r ~ Post r I Illuminated -Yes No k'atts ~trical Contractor address - Phone ' YropErty Owner or his Agent Signature"'' ~~_i~CO. ~ ~ Phone ii Estiu~ted Costps,~'1~ Si^n k'idth~~, Heisht_ (o / Total Square Feet l~~ Position of the adver ement stru ore in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadkars, averh d utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing Mith significant dimensions and attached. hereto of major signs. ::inor signs as defined on page. 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and e~;plicit anchoring or fastenins details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does. the sign copy late solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? ~ - , _ . 4,'ill the sicn, tr cture, or billboard restrict am sitht distance under, around, or over .for safe access persons destined for or passing the subject premises? C`~ ~ ~ ~ ~Q~, app cant's Si atulRe and Title ~:ith Firm ry~~ Date Phone tiu:aber ~ 2~J V,$/83"*'' ~ - 4''~`- .PLEASE SEE' REVERSE .SIDE FOR .SIGN .LOCATZO:C .SKETCH.. ~ F`` - Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5461 ~ _ ~ - - 'f.;.1:'!a~1.•-Y"+ll~".:~.:.:,rP~~~:'S:%s1\~'L .:~2. ~«::'tetf`v w~ i_i P :a.•~.1.(~::I'~:~tn•i'r..•~:(.<ti,'~ ~ Y rv.~tyly 13;:<e;, .i-'.~,,, 'r. +i~. f:.. <~.._..F~.sss-i-~~a'C:~~s!~'' 'fir - ~Y . :t.'{ ~ to 4 •~r+.M" Y e+ac.. ti. Via. •i:`Y,,. V o. _ ti ,P - - g t i i i ' ~ . " -s - f. ~:i ' I ~ , . . i t i 'i _ ' - ~ _ 3. iJG'~i: x ! vl/G PA~~IAU~/ y . ~ (~ICK6l ~~1~ ~ ~ T -a ' t G C T.e ~ { - 'IS IS AN ORIGINAL LNPUBUSHED ~~1111~r~E ~ ~F~.4Y~uLTS ~ ~ # ~ ~IZK' ~ ~~~5 - CREATED BY BRILlU1NT SIGNS IT t5 - t DFOq YOUR PERSONAL USE. IN CON- ~INOT OOBE USED REPRODUCED. ~~)Ct,I~T nj /J ~'N~CZ _ scx~3~. ~ a E%MIBITEO IN ANY FASHION. ~ ~ ¦ r APPROVE I ~ DENY ~ I : APPROVE ~ DEA'Y ~ ~ : ~ . City Manager Inspector Jo pate Date / vb A?P~ZOVE ~ ~E~TY ~ : K.~l~ ~ APPROVE ~ ~ DE:~'Y ' i Plannin~ partment City Council 1~,/ pate y/~/. Date `7 ~te to above for special approval oer code General SiEns APPLICnTIO:~ FOR ADVERTISIrC PER*SIT City of Richfield, ::innesota Dat~~ iot,b "~b Zoning Sign Erected -Yes ro .Fee Address of Sig \ ~~1,°L49g"'~~;~.~-2 Proprietor I~am BA~.(',•, ~ Sign Erector,[iccns-P~ u~iG/~ JiJ~Ti9~LF~2_ Address Tyne of Sign_~ Desien ~ 5~.1,(~'r7 weather Cover.~..~~J` Lighting v Wall Single Face Clear Lexon ~f Constant Projecting Double Face Frosted Lexon ~ { Flashing Gzound Multi-Faced { Plastic Covered ~ Revolving - Roof AeriallBlimp Faded Traveling • Pedestal Searchlight L Neon Zip Lite Changeable Banner/Pennants Other ^ ~ Other{Explain) _ Temporary Portable Frame: { Sign Colors ~~,CS~, Trailer i T ~ n ~ Post ~ If Illuminated Yes No Watts ~trical Contractor ~ Address Phone Iroparty 0~.>ner or his Agent Signature~~ Phones ~~(r,-~~~ d~ ~ Esti:r~ated Cost Sign t~idtY~-,~,'~ Heicht Total Square Feet ~G~•-S Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. *".inor signs as defined on page Z. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring. or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on -the prer~isesra , ~ ~ . t~'ill the sicn,~ructure, or billboard restrict any siEht distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destines ror or passing the subject premises?ono,,., . A plicant's Sign ~dr~•and Title kith Firm - _ P r ~ Date e~~~~~ Phone Numbere~l.~j-~ ~ ~~lO ' wn".~?~y='~•'''Y~.•~:`~:•~...'=~•~ PLEASE SE£ REVERSE' SIDE FOR .SIGN LOCATION SKETCH': •'r~~~~'~• , - - Sivert Hendrickson/Building Off icial - 866-5061 ~ ~ ~ "~"{`e:~,~'.~'~,J:sb~~.rs.;l•:'~a':rt`VSt'~-}.••.r!y.;.yCsrw.ri:.Ar•-i=.at2':?C='.t~'"+z4V~. »`':F ~'"..:e~sv'.«.~'~i:';'^•~+ ?T-zac;°:" r;`_-,~r••:.::.r"~.:%.ii:~~_~e?l~tct•1'+ILrLK't.^.-.-rsi« ¦ y/~ ~ - - r ~ L I~' ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ , Ir _ f: _ i ~jI 1; I ' -,~_Ii- 1 j: ANT r3U+~I~ji~.>G Et..EilAT~r~1 ~RC.E 1.C. F. t, - ~ NaT~ ~-SCTGF r~l/i+1)IDvP'~ lNTEt• FL~,S~ r~c~~?-.;T~i: TG FAc~•p: r. LL,IT(K~ T'., NAVE 1=r.,rr1F;~ P~~ t NOTE Tlil$ t5 AN OR161NAL UNPU8Li5NED ~~Y ~M1E $A(~r1N . SUBMITTED FFOR YOUA PEAS LONAL USE.IIN CON• ~a E (T ~.p.,, ~ .r NECTION WITH A PROJECT BEING PLANNED POR YOU. IT IS NOT TO 8E USED. REPRODUCED. ~ I~y~ER . COPIES OR EXHIBITED IN ANY fASNION. ~ ~ r.~ ~ r G_ f T ~ !"llfvf,}E S OTH c - _ yJ l / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 149 Agenda .April 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Temporary Over-Sized Trailer Sign, Mr. Donut, 6435 Lyndale Avenue Council Members: Mr. Donut has requested an advertising permit to erect a temporary, double-faced trailer sign measuring 8' x 3' 9" (31.5 square feet) at 6435 Lyndale Avenue. The request is for a period of 30 days beginning April 15, 1986. City ordinances provide that the city council must approve all requests for temporary signs. Staff Review The inspection division staff has reviewed this permit application and finds the following: Richfield city ordinances limit the size of temporary trailer signs to a maximum size of 12 square feet. The proposed sign is 31.5 square feet. Parking at this location is very limited, especially during the construction that is now occurring. Placement of a temporary trailer .sign would take up needed parking spaces. Recommendation It is recommended that this request be denied because the. proposed sign does not meet the requirements of the sign ordinance (maximum 12 square feet); and because parking of a .trailer at this location would severely restrict off-street parking. Res tfully submitted, e en L. Devi h Actin Ci M n t aaer 9 Y 9 ~u'PROVE ~ DE*Il ~ I : APPROVE ~ ~ DE1'Y~ City aanager Inspecto~ `7~~6 Date _ Date / ~ .~pPROVE ( ~ DENY : ~~c~~~~~ APPROVE DE:~C ~ : Plannin • Ler~'artment SicJ SrZf; D City Council Q~flZ ~ Date Date rt.,.~ •,K a c. ~ P/ItC•~ F t S ~te to above for special approvalper code General Signs • APPLICATIO.I FOR ADVERTISIAG PER.`IIT City of Richfield, ainnesota . Date y~/J /'1S CO Zoning Sign Erected - Yes Mo Fee Address of Sign (p~~ S 1tiu~?~/~~~ Proprietor Name ~~Y - •..,~Nu16BA Sign Erector /4 ~ / K~ 7 E SI 9~ Address. ~ ~ ~ a 7"f ~~T / ~ ~ _ 'f'vpe of Sign • /n~ / ~Q r Design Weather Cover LiQhtinr J , ~ d~ Wall Sin€le Faee Clear Lexon Constant Projecting Double Face Frosted Lexon ~ Flashing Ground Multi-Faced ~ Plastic Covered I Revolving Roof ~ AeriallBlimp Shaded ~ Traveling Pedestal. Searchlight tveon Zip Lite Changeable ,Banner/Pennants _ Other ~ ~ Other E.Yplain) X Temporary x -Portable Frame: Sign Colors r/a,~/ ~ / .7~i~ ~ST~= ,Trailer ~ T ~ A ~ Post ~ ` ~--.rr ~iu,// ~ Zf Illuminated Yes No Watts ~ ~ ~`fN~ I / • 66///¢ Address ~ Phone N ...ical Contractor N/ ~ ~ ~ ,~L~ Iroperty Owner or his Agent Signature i~:~r/~- Phone 7jgZ Estimated Cost Sign Width Hei_ht ~ Total Square ~t ~Z Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drac:ino with significant dimensions and attached hereto o: major signs. :4inor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction. plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of siCn structure. Does. the sign copy relate solely to the .business, institution., or activity conducted on the premises? t~~.-d kill-the sign, s~ructure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? ~o i~ ~ ~i'S sly- J~1ntiv~t/ App'licant's(/Signarr{i~'e and Title kith Firm p~/ Date "7" ~ 0 ~o Phone Number l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ l PLE.~SE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIG\ LOVnTIO~ SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061 - - ~O/VV . _ y1=i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 148 Agenda April 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Temporary Advertisement Sign for Multi- Residential Housing at West 66th Street and Rae Drive Council Members: George Branton Construction has requested an advertising permit to erect an 8' x 4' non-illuminated sign advertising the sale of the townhomes on the corner of 66th Street and Rae Drive. The sign is to be located on the construction site for a . period of about six to eight months, or until the project is completed. Staff Review: The inspection division staff has reviewed the sign .application and finds that the sign conforms to all pertinent city ordinances for temporary ground signs. It is recommended that the city council approve .the application for a temporary advertising sign at this location. Res tfully submitted, ~~s~even L. Devic Acting City Manager 1/1= a FOR SALE Rae Drive Townhomes $63,900 - $68,900 - Two and Three Bedroom Homes 9.95% Permanent Financing George E. Branton Construction Co. incooperation with-the- Richfield Housing and Redevelopment. Authority For Information Ca11: 869-7521 APPROVE ~ DENYI APPROVE ~ DEA'YI ~~_,,,L` _ City Manager lnspector Date Date ~/y~~~ APPROVE I\~ DENY ~-w~ ~ APPROVE ~ ~ DESY / T Planni g ~~??~partment .City Council Date ~~~//Y(cn Date ~ i Route to above for special approval per code General Siens APPLICATIO:: FOR ADVERTISIrG PER.'~fIT City of Richfield, *:innesota Date ~ - 3 - ~ ~ Zoning Sign Erected -Yes No Fee ~~~+00 Address of Sign ~/o `~/Z lv~~ ~ Proprietor i~ame~eo. ~ra~ tih CNs~` DBA Sign Erector ~P~•. l~wa~,Tan ( n.-~ S~ Address -~~~?eS fe.- ~ou~-f Lz/t~,.•.'//e. Tyne of Sign Design Weather Cover LiQhtin~ Wall Single Face Clear Lexon ~ Constant Projecting ~ Double Face Frosted Lexon ~ Flashing Ground Multi-Faced ( ~ Plastic Covered ~ Revolving Roof AeriallBlimp I I Shaded ~ Traveling Pedestal ~ Searchlight ~ ~ Neon ~ Zip Lite C ngeable _ Banner/Pennants ~ Other ~ Other(Explain) emporary Portable Frame: i Sign Colors Trailer i T ~ A ~ Post ~ /~~r'i`r~c'~T - ~ ;r~r~7 i ~ Zf Illuminated - Yes No k'atts Electrical Contractor .ih-~~--~~ Address Phone ~1 I~roperty Owner or his Agent .Signature >-.z.r~~ j~~~.~.,lc•-~ Phone ~(r- ~7~3 ~i - - 1~ r Estia•,ated Cost Sirn 4:idth/S~ Height ~ Total Square Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle .movement lines, or public facilities on drawing kith significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. *".inor signs as defined on page 2. Two .blueprints of the sign, .billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? S kill the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for ~aie access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? . ~Applic~fit's Signature and Title with Firm Date J ~ Phone :lumber ~73 3 lkt 8/$3'•.= •--PLEASE 'SEE REi'ERSE SIDE FC1R SIG:v LOCATI01•SKETCH-°= • . • Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061 i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Leiter No. 146 Agenda April 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Temporary Double-faced Trailer Sign, Kayo Oil, 7700 Lyndale Avenue Council Members: Kayo Oil Company has requested an advertising permit for a temporary sign at their station located at 7700 Lyndale Avenue. The proposed sign is an arrow measuring 6' x 4' (24 square feet) and will advertise their specials for the week. City ordinance provides that the maximum size of a temporary trailer sign be no larger than 12 square feet. Kayo Oil is requesting a permit to have the sign up for a period of 30 days. Staff Review and Recommendation The inspection division has reviewed this sign request and recommends this request be denied based on the following: 1. The sign is larger than that permitted by city ordinance. City ordinance limits temporary trailer signs to a maximum of 12 square feet. This sign is 24 square feet. 2. City ordinance limits temporary signs to one 30-day period per location, per year. Kayo Oil was granted a permit to erect a temporary sign at this same.. location in January of this year. Re§,~ ctfull su fitted, / i ven ev 'Ac`ting City Manager APPROVE ( ' DENY ~ : ~ APPROVE ( ~ DEh'Yl~ ~ : ;~~-~~~^'`""'`"L' ~ ~ City Manager Inspector ~ Z ~ v Date Date r J/// APPROVE DENY) ~ ~ : i~-c•C~lv~~ APPROVE DEA'Y! ~ : `7 fT Planning D~tment City Council Date Date ~te to above for special approval per code General Suns APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PER"IIT ~/f,~! City of Richfield, :Sinnesota ~-~p Oc Date Zoning Sign Erected - Tes l To j'/ Fee / ' / ~ 76G L ~ ~ ?~S Pro rietor tame _ I / 4 ~/i~ DBA - I ~ ~ Address of Sign yam,. u P P _ _ Sign Erector l~ G ~ ~ C ri Address i' ~G'G ~ •{,.rjh ~`r ? ~ S Twe of Sie_n Design Weather Cover Lighting l~Wall - Single Face ~ Clear Lexon Constant Projecting ~ Double Face Frosted Lexon Flashing Ground. Multi-Faced X Plastic Covered _ Revolving _ Roof ?,erial/Blimp I ~ Shaded Traveling Pedestal Searchlight ~ Neon Zip Lite Changeable Banner/Pennants I Other ~ Other(Explain) Temporary _ Portable Frame: ! Sign Colors Trailer T ~ A ~ Post ~ ~.ic~ ~ l _ If Illuminated - Yes No Watts ~trical Contractor address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone . ~ . , Estimated Cost Sign 4.'idth ~ Height ~ Total Square Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with. significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. :~.,inor signs as defined an page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the .premises? ~/oS kill the sign,jstzucture, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or aver for:-:safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? Applicant "s Signature and Title with Firm ~ Date Phone Number ~O 3~ $7~ PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061 N.. yrr."r:: `1~ ~ ii- .!~"'s ~ P ~(::;Y~tx~tilS'.r.'.S~i..p 2.1~ .'i . „'1:5~r., .ar y..l;..,.x';?A...::..St,~L•;:~j'.,:~%!_• «3'+.~;.t~;,; .,-u4 :r~`~°%.:... .vc~' '!.:r,:~wi-..~_i : i..:'o:.;•.:•l ~S-. -a~.~%i'L ~j,;~;J%,~'y' ~ v.`~::~- . . - . , GROU\D SIC:. ~ - . , PEDESTAL SICK,' ~ ~ , PBOJL• CTItiG SIG . ~ ..•IDTH - ~ ~ :WIDTH ;.l .:,s,..,t"'E - WIDTIi . ~LEGi..:;D L~Gci:D _ . • Indicate Distance ; From ;.he 3uildi^.e • ~ ~ ~f WALL SICK: R00: SIG:: Indicate legend on the "IDT'ri ~ _Iu..~; ~ c:.e re:•erse side iz ~ ~ t::~ s~::ce celca LEGE:~:D ..~G~::D L~CE_:D U r GROC~D ROOF /v~G' f ~ , j7~1 ~ ( / r - ST _ ll ~ ~C. - l Place location of sisn on this _=ketch with distance the si,n is from property lines. Locate any traffic Ii~hts within ?00 feet. DEFI:IITIO:J: Minor Signs Sinsle or double raced sign Less than 32 sq. ~t. ; on a common board L`:DIC.~TE ::CwTi: LIQ/8/83 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager. Council Letter No. 145 Agenda .April 14,.1986 ~ I The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council 'I City of Richfield it Subject: Request for A Temporary Sign and a Temporary ~i Sales Trailer at the Market Plaza/Market Towers Project Site Council Members: There are two items relating to the Market Plaza/Market Towers project on the April 14, 1986 city council agenda. Temporary Non-Illuminated Sign Nordquist Sign Company has requested an advertising permit to erect a non-illuminated 16' x 8' single-faced ground sign on the corner of the Market Plaza/Market Towers project site. Temporary ground signs are not limited to the maximum 12 square -feet permitted for temporary trailer signs. The purpose of the sign will be to advertise leasing information. They are. requesting permission to leave the sign in place until the project is completed. City ordinance provides that the city council must approve all temporary signs. City ordinance Section 3.49, subdivision 5 ~ limits advertising permits for temporary signs to a maximum of 60 days. Temporary Sales Trailer Gelco Space has requested a building permit to construct a temporary sales trailer on the site of the Market Plaza/Market Towers project. The overall size of the sales trailer would be 24' x 44' and would be in place until February 1, 1987. ~ Both the temporary ground sign and the temporary sales trailer will be located on the northwest corner of 66th Street and L ndale Avenue as shown on the attached sket h. y c a Recommendation: The ins ection staff has reviewed these a lications n p pp a d finds that the proposed trailer .and the proposed temporary sign conform to all applicable city ordinance code provisions. It is recommended that the permit for the sales trailer be approved; and that approval for a temporary sign be granted for a maximum period of 60 days. Res fully submitted, ev n L. Devic Acting City Manager ..r F, ill . tKET ' - ~C ~atA RETAIL SFippg OPENING _ ~ ter ~ uBER .19$6• • k i f ~ ~.~,~s , ~ CONTACT s-x'#~ F. ,.....333'6515 - n~~;= - LL Late 6~ APPBLl3Ll~~j T)ENY~ ~ :~i ; ,~L ~ - APPROVE DEA'Y, , ``fit`=-'' Planning ~e artment City Council L Date '3~3~~Q~ Date '7 Route to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLIC~,TIO\ FOR ADVERTISIrC PERMIT City of Richfield, *finnesota / 'd! ° a Date 3 -3 ~ (o Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee Address of Sign 70~ ~E..~T ~o~T~ ~T. Proprietor name ~/«,co A.~cc. DBA 'Tow~,Q`s Sign Erector~oeolcJUi~T ~J/Gn ~o, Address,,3/v2. ~J .C..4,~E ~T. Tune of Sign Design Weather Cover Li~htinr~ Wall Single Face Clear Lexon Constant rojecting Double Face _ Frosted Lexon Flashing Ground Multi-Faced Plastic Covered _ Revolving Roof ~ Aerial/Blimp ~ Shaded Traveling Pedestal Searcrlight _ Neon _ Zip Lite • Changeable I Banner/Pennants - Other Other(Explain) Temporary Portable Frame: Sign Colors Trailer ~ T D A ~ Post If Illuminated - Yes No~ Watts Electrical Contractor ~ Address Phone Iro rty Qwner or his Agent Signature t.vF Phone E~ated Cost ~SOD• oa Sign ~,'idth ~ Height ~ ~ Total Square Feet /02 ~ Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. *:inor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints, of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on _he premises? , :'ill the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over `or .safe access by ..persons destined-for or passing the subject premises? applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Date 3 31-~~y 'hone Number . / kt /53'~••~-~s•=<`~- • - • • PLEASE• SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH - - • • • ~i~ Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061 ~ ; ~ ~ ' ~f ~ 11 W ~ ~ ~a~~~ E e N " t . ~~~~~~a~ . ' NjnQS 3RM3A Y . ' f 7- ~'?cra ~ °N ~ ~ CHFIELD CITY OF RI • PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT - INSPECTION DIVISION . BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION DATE March 27, 198.6 • 414- OWNER E. J. Plesko & AssociatesADDRESS 11518 N. Port Washington ~to$~E241-9060 st~ee city/zip CONTRACTOR/ 1524 NE Arthur St, Mpls. 781-3178 BUILDER Gelco Space ADDRESS PHONE street- city/zip JOB SITE ADDRESS 700 West 66th Street, Richfield, tZN 55423 71.HPa~/ NATURE OF WORK Sales Trailer for Market Towers, 650 Woodlake Drive, Richfield New Const. Addition x Alteration Remodel Repair Demo Move Overall 5ize~,~ Plans Submitted: Yes No_ Survey Submitted: Yes No Total Square feet of proposed building 1,056 _S .F. Height 13~ Stor Type of Construction Modular ilt Of Wood Exterior Wood Upper Frame and MetaljWood r•lOOr r rame sement: Full Partial Crawl Space Slab Garage Size Detached Attached Reroof: # of Sq. of Material Weight of Shingles Remove old roof ~ (Submit Specifications) Yes/No Reside: # of Sq. of Material Type of Siding (Submit Specifications) SPECIAL NOTE: SEPARATE PERMITS SHALL BE SECURED FOR PLUMBING, ELECTRIC, HEATING, VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING INSTALLATIONS. Valuation of the-job: To include BUILDING PEP.MIT FEE plumbing, electric, ventilating, PLAN CHECK FEE heating and air conditioning costs. STATE SURCHARGE ESTIMATE VALUATION OF THE JOB: S.A.C. $ $13,000.00 SPEC. INV. FEE LLCANT' S SIGNATURE : ~ ~e~a> .S^ ~ TOTAL 612-339-0661 rilxe iuulu -JNE NUMBER E. J. Plesko & Associates PLEASE MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: CITY OF RICHFIELD -Inspections Division:. 866-5$-6-1- r' ~ • Getco Space Proudly .Presents ~ 1 ~ ' v TM V SERIES The New Dimension of Elegance in Mobile Offices ~ _ ~P fw .R. ~ ~ i. i f ~ l j ; ` 1' ~,7 ~ i i ~ j vf,.' j 4~1~4}~'~ ' 1 I'~ Conspicuously handsome. Impeccably engineered. ~I - ~ . L~ .~s. . F . . s ~ ~E.~ ~N • ~ . G ' ~ , ~ • 'A G • t • • ~ , 1, ' 1 1 u ` . E. ~~TM ~y ~ ~ ~.N<< M•"" a N p~~~c BAs:t. ~;c~F~Elo t N„~. ~ ~ ~ ~ss~ Nb ~ Bs+iY~Na y~e.-~;: y = 4{ ~'s` ~`r _ ~ ~ - :~r'~~i4.~ir .E$'i ~~'T~k 'x°t+, Ma K V'e ~.v~ ,q~'° ~ r ~ ~ ~ i.,.kcc 1, s'~+t1M1~3'~.~1~'•.. G'a'.~ Z'-., d~d"~. ~r, ~ t* ~.x3c~ni i s~ s ~ k~z~~r ~`v ~ ~ ~ y, , ~ f x+ x Yd ti~ r ems' a~ erg-~a~+^~ K ~~c,-se. . _ s _ < ~ ~ ~ ` ~ Apri 1 4 , 198 6 - ~ r ~~t~ - ~y~~"Y'r S f ~ i ty a ~ ~ f §'w,t ~~3~.~~'s~'"•Sr s~;2 + ~~~.r~ , t! ~ fi y r ,,..,r-y ~H d..,K ti f. .S 2.. -F.Ci*Yra'V~6~ti~_~"x- ~ y ~3 e~i+ r z~ t- d .c ~ 3 t -r fi 5 ~ ,SQ$r~ s ~-fi~F~ ~ ..e4e ~f-.'21f ~ ~ 'a 1Sy~...,Y 7~.K'~,q~~ ~ 'T ~-~~~~s~~ r d,Sa~~^Za ~-~ca'C-~uE•.~- ~ ~ , ~ #-.i -S''`~`i` - K ~ b~...~~r,~rrL~~ ~.a?~'~ °~'~~e ~ ~ r2r«~ Sievert Hendrickson ';4 ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ City of Richfield s - > r kY°-- ~ ~ ~'.~r.~'s'_`6700' Portland .Avenue=~ r . R~`~~ ~51- ~wd*.k ~ b tiR-?cam A ,4 -rS ^="Yh ra ~ " 7"~•-~,R Richfield, MN 55y4~ 23 rw ~ ~ - - " . C~ ~ "'t~a'~C ~ - `Y 7 r G~ 4'3t` ? I~ ~~a ~a~a LK~r ~R.~ ~yrR y~. ers ~~.Jyf.~ " - a . ~•-3 -Dear 1 Sievert. ~ t ~ - c _ - _ . rt: RE: riarket Plaza, Richfield - :r - - TrTe are enclosing a copy of the site plan for Market ~ Plaza, 66th.. and Lyndale, Richfield, r~ and the location for our sales trailer. - We would also like to state we will be putting in a ~ - " handicapped. ramp as required for the sales trailer. A detail of this ramp will be .forthcoming. _ If there is any further information required for this building permit application before City Council action, please let. us know. Yours truly, E. J. PLESKO & ASSOCIATES, INC. Michael F. Gould Vice President blc enclosure - - • : _ cc: Jeff Green, Gelco Space - - E.J. Plesko b Associates, Inc. - Maaaoenfeat OBiq 11518 N. Port Wasplnoton Rd.. Softe 101 ~ ~ - ~ " 5300 Powarliae Road : , Mequon, W153092 400 E Randolph, Snite 800 ` Fart laaderdals. FL 33309 4U•241.9080 - Chicano, IL 80801 •305.771.9592 312.527 2000 n~ Rssi Estate Developers - Consnitaats - Leasing • Manaoemsnt ~ ~ ~ _y . , - _ _ {~:::r-- _ - , I~ CITY OF`RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 144 Agenda April 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Banners, Pennants, Illuminated Signs and Semi-Trailers for a Period of 30 Days at Four SuperAmerica Stations Council Members: SuperAmerica is requesting council approval to place 5'x3' illuminated signs, in addition to banners, pennants and semi- trailers, at each of four stations for a 30-day period beginning April 20, 1986. The purpose of these signs and banners will be to advertise a Vavoline Oil promotion at each of their four stations. The sale will last for nine days; however, they are requesting permission to have the promotional devices up for a period of 30 days. City ordinance provides that council approval is required for all temporary signs and all illuminated signs. Illuminated Portable Signs The maximum size permitted by city ordinance for temporary portable signs is 12 square feet. The signs proposed by SuperAmerica are 15 square feet. Banners and Pennants The city ordinances permit banners and pennants to be used for a period not to exceed 60 days. Semi-Trailers The cit ordinance does not s ecificall address the arkin Y P Y P 9 of semi-trailers on service station sites. This use is regulated by off-street parking contracts. It is the opinion of the building inspector that to permit the parking of semi-trailers on the service station lots would be equal to a temporary amendment of the off-street parking contract, as the trailers will take up spaces used by customers. • Recommendation It is recommended that the city council take the following actions on the request by SuperAmerica: Dent/ the request for Illuminated Portable Siqns - because the proposed signs are larger than those permitted by city ordinance. Approve the request for Banners and Pennants - City ordinance permits banners and pennants to be up for a period of 6O days. SuperAmerica is requesting permission to have them in place for 30 days. Deny tfie request to park Semi-trailers - because the parking of semi-trailers on the service station lots for a period of 30 days would be in violation of SuperAmerica's off-street parking contract. Resp tfully bmi ted, L. D~ ici Acting City Manager I - ~ Division of Ashland Oil, Inc. 1240 West 98th Street Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 612-887-b100 SUPERAMERICAo March 27, 1986 Lf Mr. Sivert Hendrickson Building Inspector City of Richfield Richfield, MN ' Dear Mr. Hendrickson: SuperAmerica is having their annual Valvoline Oil sale April 27 through May 5th this year and this is a request to the City of Richfield to allow us to have temporary signs, banners, pennants and Semi-Trailers for a 30 day period at our Richfield locations. We are requesting a temporary permit for the above for a 30 day period beginning April 20. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. • Sincerely, . f' ,.ECG G.~;,'~,/:~ Steve Archer Manager SA/lc /~r~~~ I ^ APPROVE I DENYI APPRO~'Y f DENY,: ~~2~" r~~. J ~ City Manager Inspector Date Date 3/ ~ AFFROVE ~j ~ 'DENY: ~L ~ ~ APPROVE ~ ~ DENY ~ : y~ "7 Planning`f -D~~,,`rtment City Council ~Z Date 3 I~ t /X~ Date _ i~~ Route to above for special approval per code General Suns APPLZCATIOti FOR ADCERTISIAG PER,~SIT City of Richfield, 3linnesota Date !rlareh 26,1986 Zoning Sign Erected. - des ho Fee Address of Sign $26 W. 66th Proprietor Name SUPE An~ER_T~'A DBA Sign Erector Address Tv_ n_ a of Sien Design ~ iJeather Cover Liehtinr Wall _ Single Face Clear Lexon Constant Projecting ? Double Face Frosted Lexon Flashing Ground Multi-Faced _ 7 Plastic Covered. ~ Revolving _ Roof Aerial/Blimp ~ Shaded ~ Traveling Pedestal Searchlight Neon ~ Zip i,ite Chan cable. ? BannerlPennants _ Other l Ot'er(Explain) ~ Temporary ~ Portable Frame: Sign Colors (EZeGt~ / G~Jf~ ~~>CcYCc~ Trailer s T ~ A D Post ~ ` Z Illuainated -Yes I3o Watts -`'I r''"°- trical Contractor N~a address N'A Phone u~~ Property Owner or his Agent Signature U~A Phone ~ ~ Estimated Cost Sirn T~'idth ~ Height Total Square Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vekic~e•--movement lures, or pubaic facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and att°dChed hereto of major .signs. *".inor signs as defined on page 2. _ Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of .materials, and e~;plicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. ' ....y w.... Does the-sign co y relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? ~E.S - - ........M1 kill the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for "e access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? I`1U G~ M/!~t/~I~it~ Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm ~i 8L(._ ~~y,~~ _ Date 3~~~~~b. . Phone Somber $ = :y:-•~ PLEASE. SEE RE~'EP.SE -SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION" SKETCH•~' ~ ~ - . " Sivert •Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061 '•i~T+•'r.+'v.;4~+sr+~.. .-'S •"•°.y.wv~.? ~'•J.-t-Yf,.rJ~•~'..7 e~.'.; ji Y.~~i ;.yv«~.i;" .`ir.• . K>,~ . . • Y4` : i:!%'~Si!y^,.rs'•• r' '.K vda'Y' ;1~!.1' ~:;i..:"P14 ?.7•S . . . PE::rEST..L SICK' ' PROJECTI~C•SIG:; . • . ~ ~ TtiIDTH . ..*..::.~r WIDTl1 ~ _:~;:~1'E 'WIDTH ~ ' ~ ' -7... LEGE::D ~ ( L.10.GL•::D - ~ ~ • _ . tEGL~ . - . -.Inriicate Distance from ;.he 3uildirg . - ~ WnLL SIGti ROOF SIC:: Ir.:iicate le,end on the i~ ,:LriT:i ~ .~Iy:4 11 c.e rc:~erse side i^. t::a ~~ace ~eI•~a LEGc::D iiGC::D LECE.:D __!w'_. V_ i~ fROt'SD `f ROOF i . r~ ~ - Place location oz sign on this sketch with distance the sign is =rom property Iines._- , Locate any tratfic li3hts within. 300 feet. • DEFI:IITIO;V: Minor Signs Single or double raced sign Iess than 32 sa. :t. on a common board L::DIC.:TE ..CiAI:: L:CT/8/83 APPROVE ~ ~ .DENY APPROVE ~ DEA'Y ~ : ~ ~••c--.. •Gity Manager Inspector f ~ DatDDe ~A, - Date 3~?~~~ APrROG'.';";~ ~ ~ LENY K-~ c ) APPROVE DE:~'Y! '~~F ~.~e~ Plannin; D partment City Guuncil c~c~"l ~2.~ Date '3.2,i ~ Date 1 to to above for special. approval ner code General Siens APPLIC:~TIO.~ FOR ADVERTISING PER*IIT City of Richfield, *iinnesota Date /t~ifi'~~ aL~`~~oning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee Address of Sign ~`l W• GG ~ Proprietor. name ~i~-~ACL~I~7I2CXI DBA Sign Erector Address Tv_ne of S1En Design ~ Weather Cover Lichtin~ Wall Single Face Clear Lexon " I Constant. Projecting ? Double Face Frosted Lexon Flashing _ Ground ~ Multi-Faced Plastic Covered Revolving _ Roof Aerial/Blimp Shaded Traveling _ Pedestal Searchlight Neon Zip Lite Changeable ~ BannerlPennants. Other ~ Other(Explain) Temporary ? Portable Frame: Sign Colors _,f Trailer T ~ ~ ~ Post If Illuminated - _es : ? No k'atts G~ ~ ~trical Contractor - address Phone hroperty Owner or his Agent Signature Phone ~ Esti:rated Cost Sign 4cidth Hei£ht 3 Total Square Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? ! ~~S • • ~ : . . kill the sign, s~ructure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for sa.~eracces byepersons destineu for or passing the subject premises? r~C) 1 ,G/1~° 1~~ ~9~~~f/rte Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Date " d' 7 ~Q t~ Phone Sumber ~UG~ 7l~d~~ -.'':~==-~•'~•''PLEASE SEE RL~'ERSE SIDE FOK SIGN LOCATION SKETCH. - Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official 866-5061 • ,tRf"°''.L.,....•: ~~w~: :~';\s.•e~•..F. ~.'Z: ,~•Fr .Tar-'s[-+. ic~.^~~•`•o=`:S'i-•".4•..a.rs.+.•:.. . :1 ..+ny~... -••e _ sicia a•. :~,:.y:~:.Y..~ ....e a;~ _v.c s.{..+t•. - _ wiR~C=:;'~.::- d.t~«'; 9wl: v.:)rtp;}.. ..:'~':ii4.4.!~~i'~'~M+'~ Sr:A" `f .'~:ti.~ ~ :,7:, .s.' .p,:;,.~, - ^i''~ x y:. ; ;7•t k~;7. ~ •.i+ `G~:r.7rt. ,:,3r:?~:.^.~yii..N.S~w~a« ~t"'rt..y?':4.w~'' < . f 4. ~ . :.-.......y- ~ • GROUND SIG:S~ ~ PEDEST1.L SICK ; • r' PR0,IECTI~G 5I ;a~'•..... • ~„r- WIDTE? ~ :vIDTH x•:;,;r:.~ - WIDTII - LEGL::D 1 - ~ - , t ~I _ - - - I -.Indicate -Distance ' From the 3uil;:i^; . - t! ~ . V WALL SICti RO^c SI:::: Ircicate legend on the i~C .JIDTci ~ - ~Y-S y t,e rererse side ' . ~ _ ti:a ~r:~ce ~el•ca T . LEGE:~:D ~ ` 'L%C:.::D LECE::D . - `r C'ROL"~D ROOT Sl~vt ~ '~2R s ~Y. ~ t:t Lu ~ ~T'3~'~.a fc KS? s t 0 ~ ~ ~ t,u ~ kGON~ Sr~~ o e p~? ~t ~ a.t,rw~S . St ~til ~ ;y ~ 3 L(. rx st Place location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign is from property lines. Locale any traffic lights within ?00 feet. DEFIVITIO:V: Minor Sims Single or double laced sign less than 32 Sq. ft. on a common board I::DIC.iTE ::ORT:: L:Cr/8/83 _ _ _ //II I E?dY APPROVE DED'Y ~ ~~~~c./ APPROVE ~D ~.Gity Manager Inspector /3~/ ~ Dates pp,~, Date % s APPROVE ~ ~ ~ENY~: P,t.r,~(r f X~~ APPROVE ~ DE1'Y ~~'/!f ,~,~w Plannin Ue ar men[ .City Guuncil C~vt 1 Z 5~•'~ 1 Date ~ Date Route to above for special approval per code General 5i~ns _ APPLICATIO:: FOR aDVEP>TISIhG PER*1IT City of Richfield, ainnesota Date ,~„/,~~f~ ~a'~.. Zoning Sign Erected - les ro Fee address of Sign 7.fi1U LG~N4 ~"'r l~'YE .iJ .Proprietor name ~}U~~/J'x't~jiG/~ DBA Sign Erector. Address • Tvoe of Sien Desicn Weather Cover 1.iehtin~ kall ,Single Face _ Clear Lexon `1 Constant Projecting ~ Double Face Frosted Lexon Flashing Ground ~ Multi-Faced Plastic Covered Revolving Roof Aerial/Blimp Shaded Traveling • Pedestal Searchlight Neon Zip Lite Changeable tX.Banner/Pennants Otner s Other (Explain) Temporary ? Portable Frame: Sign Colors Trailer T ~ A ~ Post D lluminated No. k'atts ~D~ "E.ll~ctrical Contractor address ~ Phone Property Okr?er or his Agent Signature Phone Estia~,ated Cost Sirs hidth ~ Heigh t_ j Total Square Feet t { Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs., roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing ~:ith significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. ":inor signs as defined on page 2. Two bluepzints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business., institution, or activity conducted on the premises ~ - . _ . .'ill t e sign, tructure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for s i acces~by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? . _ ~ •Applicant's SignatCure/ and Title kith Firm r-y 11~.t ~~l~t~~ Date ~"i~3',:;.~ Phone Number , • ~ _$J83•=«~-=~'~-',: - PI:EASE``SEE REt'ERSE SZDE FOR SIGN LOCATZOIJ SRETCH••"::.-''~•~-:".. - - - Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061 slit. :..r-::fe : : R. w :ws. -.:-.c... . ~.L r -i .t i . 6~' _ e+.• t ~f: ~t • S: _ . sG. r.. •.v ~ ...'4-. w-• v; 1+.; s:... . v. r,- ,e"S~^ i.. e.! sue... - • . *i= eiw• •.:..a. ni: is?••. 'thy. :r.a~~r.'<lA~l~:. ?..ice.;::::{{~1j;:. .:';''~.'+,~•-i':~:~.J f.. ~+'at•~ ~`4 .llr.r:"r•.L~•:r.::..'.:•'.~.y~:s~ii.A'.l.~t*.jC ~~•;;2:!:f-!f~.'11~~i?t:kM~.~rne•xrl4jr~/~.yioi • - ~ • ' GROUtiD SIG.. ~ • ~ PED~ST..L~ SIC` - ' ~ . - • ~ - ~ -PROJECTL\G SIG.. . ~.r- ~ WIDTH _ ~ .~,,,`r WIDTH '~.1 •s.;,:;L•,,!"~- alDTfi LEGE::D ? LEGC:;i7 ''1 L:.CLi;D ~ . 1 ~ _ ~i ~ ~ Indicate Distance `f , From she 3uliGi^.Q • W WALL SICS ~ ROOc SI1:: Iraicace ie,end on the j.C ':IDTn ~ r~~: ~i tre reverse site i^. LEGE::D ~ LECL:;D ~ i.ECE.:D it GRQL'~;D ROOF . 7 S ~ ~ 5 ~ i-~ \1 L~N~rriC Place location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign is from property lines. • Locate any. traffic lights within 300 feet.. DEFI:~ZTZO:I: Minor Sihns Single or double :aced si~;r. less than 32 sq. ft. on a common board L:DIC.ITE r ::ORTt: L:Cr/8/83 . w APPROVE ~ ' DENY ~ : APPROVE I ~ DEA'YI ~ ~ : ~ ,~k ~tirL~-- ~ City Manager Inspector3~// ~6 Date Date A~PROV~~ENY~: APPRO.. ~ ~ DE:~'Y ~'T~P~-ems ~F ~~F /D n,~. Planning Department City Cuuncil p,~cv t2 ~ t~' Date 3~'3i~AF, Date ~te to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATiO\ FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT - City of Richfield, *iinnesota Date /~f1~C'~ s~ . ~ Zoninp, Sign Erected - des rTo Fee Address of Sign 7~~~ !t/ICUCL-`+ Proprietor name ~t (~~"~2~"W)~~(~a Sign Erector Address Tv_ne of Sien• Desien _ ~ _ Weather Cover LiEhtint wall Single Face _ Clear Lexon ~ Constant Projecting ? Double Face Frosted Lexon _ Flashing Ground I Multi-Faced ~ Plastic Covered Revolving Roof Aerial/B~imp I Shaded Traveling _ Pedestal Searchlight neon _ Zip Lite . _ Changeable. ? Banner/Pennants Other ~ Other(Explain) Temporary ? Portable Frame: Sign Colors Trailer T ~ A ~ Post If Illuminated -;.Yes- No k'atts ~ ;t~,~ ~trical Contractor Address ~ Phone I~roperty Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost ~ Sirn ti,'idth ~ Height ~ Total Square Feet Z r Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. !:inor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, ar outdoor advertising structure construction plans: .including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign -copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the .premises? a-~~ - - ~ - - . - r t.'ill fhe sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for. .sa=e access by,'persons destined for or passing the subject premises? NU . ~ Applicant's Signature and Title kith Firm Date 3 ' ~ 7 .Phone :lumber - "7~~~ • ~~''•Y' ~ - PLEASE SEE RECERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH"- - - • • - Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 8bb-5061 t..r w . mot. >.P. ~ • t.. r . A.. .J_.. • • c. ~r M7-. -Y w 1~' ~ y "a:.i~ u:'-i•.. i.~.IL'r r;.,:~Y.%5.:.: i''.~~.i~ i. L7jii ~w : ~ ti ! . , rtS' •t.!: -'~Y ;.n'..q ii. ~~.t,.. t`Ll•': .i.-' n%:'• ~.y ni ~L'7'~ 't%.Y' f--~ s ..M`. s.: F:.::'' ..rc:^ K.:' qtr `y Lj:r .ti~;;.,r. i ~r;~ .7. _ ~ _ _ . ~~-fir. . . 'GROUND SIC`. • - - PEDEST~.I: SICK' PRO - . . JECTISC 'SIC:: - .~v~~•.-:'..-~ WIDTH . f.tr ~JLDTIi ~~1 . ,;,r~~'~. ~ ~JIHTH . T - ' - ' LEGc::D LEGE::D I' ..L..G c E~:D ,i . - ~ - - i ~ 'Indicate Distance - From ':he 3uildi L • ~ U - •Wi,LL SIGN ROOF SIG:: Ir.aic:ate Ieend on the I'~ S:IDTfi ~ ~ ..I~_L ~I c,e-ec•erse side in ' • t::e ;.ace celc~ LEGESD ~ LiGL::D LECi::D • . ~ . r~ . GROUND ROOF ~ S • W Ced~1 t AZoAJ~r~~'NG.~ . v ~ '0 i ~ ~ ~ N~c_ ~}~F Place location or sign on this _=ketch with distance the sign is from property lines. Locate any traffic lights within ?00 feet. - - DEFI:JITIO:J: Minor Sihns Single or double faced si5n Iess than 32 Sq. ft. on a common board L::DIC.~TE N tiORTF: _ L:Cr/8/83 y~-~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 143 Agenda April 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Illuminated Signs, 6628 Penn Avenue Council Members: Attracts Sign, Inc. has requested two advertising permits to replace existing signs located at 6628 Penn Avenue. One sign will be a double-faced sign measuring 6' x 2'; and the second sign is a single-faced wall sign measuring 16' 6'. The signs will be illuminated, and will read "Fullerton Construction". City ordinances provide that city council approval is required for all illuminated signs. The city staff has reviewed the permit applications and find that the signs conform to all applicable city ordinances. It is recommended that the city council approve the permit for two illuminated signs at 6628 Penn Avenue. Resp fully submitted, ~ ~ 5tev u. ue~h Acting City Manager _ _ / , - _ _ _ ~t_ ~t_ a r___~ _ ~ j ~ ~ O ~l ' .r l.~v Lam- 1.. - V ~ ~ ; ~ o ~ ~ ~ ; , I J 7 ~ ~ p ~ 1 / i , , ~ ' i ~ ' ' ~ ~-o C`~ i Q j r i~~~esr~~ ~ r ~ ~,~NU~ so X23 Revisions P~NN~S~ MtNN~S~'t'A S~aie NttNN~~ ~g~..3p4? ~ ~~N~" t~2} t© pawn 6Y naval Da Cvatarnor APP galoap©rgon oM~trG sua ©E~,a ~~tiY o~ ~+t'a'~.4 a~~,,KAi. tiilPUa~ N ~~t A ~aE pouceo, cc'~~°S,cr~, u+~• USE tN ~ ~aso~ stcr+. tt+ci n s ~ ~~tiuss ati of nn~ . ~ ~ ~ av And ~,K wm~' ~ i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 142 Agenda April 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield ' Subject: Renewal of On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License for the KINHDO Restaurant 6345 Penn Avenue Council Members: On December 30, 1985 the KINHDO Restaurant submitted an .application to the city for renewal of their on-sale non- intoxicating malt liquor license. In addition, the required license fee of $376 was paid. A delay in forwarding this renewal application to the city council for their approval is due to the applicant not supplying the city with the required certificate of insurance detailing liquor liability coverage. The applicant has now furnished the city with this certificate and it appears that they comply with ordinance code requirements. The Department of Public Safety has conducted their background investigation and finds that Mr. Hung Ngu continues to ' own the restaurant, while Mr. Tonn Bui manages the establishment. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. During the previous twelve months there were only four ' public safety contacts with the restaurant. Of these four contacts, only one was of a criminal nature involving NSF checks. Based upon the information submitted by the applicant and the investigation conducted by the Department of Public Safety, there appears to be no reason to deny this renewal application. i ~I ya-~- Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that council members approve the on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor license for the KINHDO Restaurant. Respectfully submitted, ven L. Devi h Acting City Manager ~i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 141 Agenda April 14, 1986 i II The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Amendment to Inspectional Services Contract Between the City of Richfield and the City of Bloomington Council Members: As members of the council may recall, for a period of years I~~ the City of Richfield has purchased certain inspectional services from the City of Bloomington. These services involve areas related to building inspections, food inspections, and forestry inspections. As we have needed inspectional services beyond those provided in the contract, we have purchased them on an hourly basis. This has generally involved the area of electrical inspections and covers those times when our electrical inspector is on vacation or the demand for electrical inspection activities exceeds the time available from our electrical inspector. The purchase of these services on an hourly basis has not been specifically addressed in our contract with Bloomington. To formalize this practice, and avoid potential insurance problems, the City of Bloomington has asked that we amend the existing Purchase of Service Agreement. Attached to-this letter is the current contract with Bloomington and the proposed amendment to this- contract for council review. The City Attorney and Public Safety Director have reviewed the attached amendment and find it acceptable to the City of Richfield. G~~, It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached contract amendment and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document on behalf of the City of Richfield. Res c fully submitted, ,wI evic Acting City Manager SD/eja b ` A G R E E M E N T This Agreement is made this day of 1985, by .and between the City of Richfield (hereinafter "Richfield") and the City of .Bloomington ("Bloomington"). WHEREAS, Richfield is authorized and empowered to provide for various types of inspections and code enforcement to ensure the public health, welfare and safety; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties and the purpose of this agreement that certain of such services be performed by Bloomington on behalf of Richfield; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth below, the above parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The period of this agreement shall be from November 1, 1985, through -0ctober 31, 1986, unless termination occurs. 2. For the period of this .agreement, Bloomington shall provide Richfield with the following services, in and on behalf of Richfield: a. Plumbing inspections and code enforcement as necessary. b. Heating. ventilation, and air conditioning inspections and code enforcement as necessary. c. Food service inspections and code enforcement as necessary (a minimum of two inspections will be done of all restaurants and at least one inspec- tion will be done of all grocery stores). d. Tree inspections and code enforcement as necessary. 3. Bloomington shall have control over the manner in which the inspections and code enforcement activities are conducted and over the determination of what enforcement action is appropriate. 4. Bloomington shall assume the expense of performing the inspections and'code enforcement. i ~Y' S. Richfield shall pay Bloomington the sum of ~S0,U00 for services ~~1 provided pursuant to this agrement. One-half of this amount shall be due on May 1, 1986, and the remainder shall be due on October 31, 1986. 6. This agreement shall terminate as follows: a. Upon the expiation of 30 days after service of Mrltte^ notice upon the other party; or c. Ai any L:'~e, upor. agreement cf tae aa"Liss; c+r c. In any event on October 31, 1985. I.^. L:~e event of a ~er:~ination prior to October 31. 1985, a Y:-o- rata reduction of the compensation owed by Richfield to Bloomington shall occur W!:1ch reflects the period ren3ining oa Lhe agree:.^.ent at the ~ilS!° of :.°"wi.^.at2^^,. v. B~C::w2no`.C.^. 26re~.~. tC defend, 1:1~e«:!11rj 2.•ld ~2n1Li n2rmioSS Richfield, its officers, agents and employees from all actions, liability aad damages for property da.:,abe, personal injury or death resultinb from the acts,. omissions or neglect of Bloomington's employees relating to the performance of its obligations hereunder. 9. Any employee assigned by Bloomington to perform its obligations hereunder shall remain the exclusive employee of Bloomington for all .purposes i including, but not limited ta, wages, salary and employee benefits. ~ Upon proper execution, this CITY OF BLOOMINGTON Agreemen shall be a legal and bi ~ ing aGiigation ;;pon ~ s the/ f Bloomi to BYE ts._ / Its Mayor ~ ` ~ z ' - f Clt`y Attorney By: ~ ~ r Its y ;;araaer t V ~ CITY OF ICHFI ~ Bye ~ ~ ~ s yor n ~ a -:T City Attorney BY' ~ ~'.?.G1~ C ' is City, Manger ' l -2- r ADDENDUM L~C'-~ This Addendum is entered into this day of April, 1986, by • the City of Richfield and the City of Bloomington. WHEREAS, the cities of Richfield and Bloomington previously entered into an agreement dated October 28,.1985, pursuant to which the City of Bloomington agreed to perform certain inspections and code enforcement for the City of Richfield for the period November 1, 1985, through October 31, 1986; and WHEREAS, there are additional services that the parties wish to make a part of that agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree to amend said previous agreement by adding the following provisions:. "10. In addition to the services mentioned in Paragraph 2, above, Bloomington shall, upon request, also provide electrical inspection and code enforcement services for and on behalf of Richfield. However, such services shall be paid for by Richfield on an hourly basis at the rate of $20.00 per hour, and said hourly rate shall be separate from and in addition to the payment provided for by Paragraph 5 of this Agreement. All other provisions of I ~I this agreement shall remain applicable with respect to the electrical inspection services being provided." Upon proper execution by all CITY OF BLOOMINGTON ~ partie's, this agreement shall be -a 'legal and ~inding:-gbliga- tion o>= the City of'B1oQmington. Its Mayor 1 -T L Ci~y At~o~ri~ Its Manager i CITY OF RICHFIELD Its Mayor Its Manager i / i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 140 Agenda April 14, 1986, The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Supporting Local Outdoor Recreation Funding Council Members: On January 28, 1985 President Reagan established the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors (PCAO) for the purpose of studying the quantity and quality of recreation opportunities in the nation and to determine how the nation will deal with recreation issues in the year 2000. The Commission on Minnesotans Outdoors (COMO) was established by Lt. Governor Marlene Johnson to provide information to PCAO by answering the questions: 1) In 2000, what will Minnesotans want to do outdoors? and 2) How can we be sure they have the appropriate places to do it? - These two commissions focus attention on important recreation issues and invite everyone with an interest in recreation to testify or submit written testimony. Private individuals, local governments and a variety of interest groups have been given an opportunity to affect federal and state recreation policy. As a recipient of Federal Land and Water Conservation (LAWCON) and State Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) local grant dollars, Richfield recognizes the value of federal and state recreation facility financial assistance. -The purpose of the attached resolution is twofold: 1) to promote the concept of COMO and PCAO, emphasizing the role local governments play by providing testimony for the Commissions; and 2 to demonstrate wide-based su ort for local and regional PP recreation grant programs. It is recommended that the attached resolution be adopted by the City Council. Res~c fully omitted, e en Devich Act2ng City Manager. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LOCAL OUTDOOR RECREATION FUNDING `~J~ A resolution supporting the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors (PCAO), the Commission on Minnesotans Outdoors (COMO) and the revitalization of Minnesota's local recreation grant programs. Whereas, PCAO and COMO will study public and private outdoor recreation patterns; and Whereas, PCAO and COMO will prepare findings and recommendations to the President and Congress and the Governor and Legislature; and Whereas, PCAO and COMO are requesting input from traditional recreation providers; and Whereas, the City of Richfield, Minnesota, has a history dedicated to developing parks and open space facilities in the public interest; and Whereas, without. the assistance of the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LAWCON) and the State Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources Fund (LCMR), many of the .existing recreation amenities would not have been possible; and Whereas, there is a continuing need to expand and improve outdoor recreation opportunities in the City of Richfield, Minnesota, and to plan for the recreation opportunities of generations to come; and Whereas, the LAWCON and LCMR grants programs provide additional benefits to local communities by strengthening the statewide tourism market, by creating local jobs, by promoting volunteerism and by conserving our natural heritage, Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, hereby recommends that the recently created President's Commission on Americans Outdoors and the state's Commission on Minnesotans Outdoors strongly consider, in their findings, the present and future need to expand local outdoor recreation opportunities in Minnesota and throughout the Nation. Be It Further Resolved that the City of Richfield, Minnesota, recommends a strengthening and revitalized commitment by the United States and the State of Minnesota to financially assist local governments in their efforts to continue developing the recreation estate by creating a dedicated trust fund for that purpose. - Passed b the Cit Council of th C' y y e ity of Richfield, Minnesota, this 14th day of April, 1986. I John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, .City Clerk I~, I ~y~.~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 139 Agenda April 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Award of Contract for 1986 Removal of Diseased Trees on Private Property Council Members: On March 28, 1986 bids were opened in accordance with legal requirements for the removal of diseased trees on private property for the 1986 season. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulation is, attached for council review. When the city's tree inspector marks a diseased tree on private property for removal, the homeowner has three alternatives: 1) remove the tree himself, 2) hire his own contractor to do the work, or 3) authorize the city to hire a contractor and either pay the removal costs immediately or assess the costs to his property taxes over a three-year period. The city's bidding system for removal of diseased trees on private property was revised and streamlined last year. A single contractor was hired to remove the trees rather than bidding out each tree individually, eliminating the need to work with six or more tree removal companies in a season. As a whole, this procedure worked well. A tremendous amount of paperwork was eliminated, the removal process was accelerated, resulting in a better price for the homeowners. The city initially advertised for formal bids for this year's work in February but did not receive any bids at that time, although 20 companies were sent specifications. In March, specifications were again sent to approximately 12 local tree removal companies. However, only one bid was received by the city. Gorecki and Company of Anoka submitted the lone bid of $52,375. Responses from tree companies .who did not bid indicated that in some cases our insurance requirements were too high and others replied that the paperwork appeared too time-consuming and technical to complete. yA Gorecki and .Company was also the low bidder last year. Gorecki's bid last year ($26,560) was substantially lower than the other bid submitted last year by Tri State Tree Company ($45,000). They removed 156 diseased trees out of a total of 238 tagged. The average removal cost per tree based on last years's bid was $170.25 ($26,560 T by 156 trees removed). This year's average removal cost, using last year`s figure. of 156 trees, would be $335.74 ($52,375 T 156 trees removed). Based on last year's experience, Gorecki bid higher dollar figures this year on the larger-size trees which require more time and effort on the part of the tree removal crew. Even though this year`s cost is a significant increase over last year, the homeowner still has the option of rejecting the City contractor's bid and securing a competitive bid from other tree companies or removing the tree himself. In view of their satisfactory performance last year and the timeliness of securing a tree contractor before trees begin to be marked for removal, staff recommends that Gorecki and Company be awarded the bid in the amount of $52,375 for removal of diseased trees on private property for 1986. Res e fully- bmi ed, v' is ~ Acting. City Man ger i y~-.~ • CITY OF RICHFIELD BID OPENING March 28, 1986 Removal and Disposal of Diseased Trees on Private Property Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administration Staff was called by Thomas Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for removal and disposal of diseased trees on private property.as advertised in the official newspaper on March 12, 1986. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director Eileen Anderson, City Manager. Representative Randy Hughes, Facilities/Project .Coordinator The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR BID SECURITY AMOUNT Gorecki & Company Check 5t $52,375.00 Anoka, MN The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the April 14, 1986 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 138 Agenda April 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Presentation to Retiring Reserve Officer Ronald Clabo Council Members: Effective April 1, 1986 Ronald Clabo retired as a Reserve Officer with the Emergency Services Division of the Richfield Department of Public Safety.. Mr. Clabo has served our community in the capacity of a Reserve Officer for over 21 years. For the past two years he has held the position of Major within the Emergency Services Division. This is the highest ranking volunteer position within this Division. Mr. Clabo has always been apart of the Emergency Communications Unit. He holds an amateur radio license and has used this skill to supplement the city's communication needs in times of emergency. Mr. Clabo has donated several thousand hours of volunteer time to our community over the past 21 years, -and shall be greatly missed. We anticipate the presence of over 20 Reserve Officers in attendance at the council meeting in honor of the formal recognition and presentation to Ronald Clabo for-his tremendous contributions to the public safety effort in our community over the past 21 years. Res tfully submitted, en L. Devic ~r Acting City Manager APPRECIAT i~N CERT lF IpAT~ OF a.oT Ronald TVlc s plvislon M J envy Se Richfield RmeT9 CiabO with a lep °r Your R°naid Councl dogs to MaJ°r. field C1tY tremen om the Rich sa Presented steer time ~nd Public ase a fr aPPreciati of hours of CitYu °f Rich ears °f ser vi ion thous ibd Lions t° ~rh mOre than e2nCyY Services pl contr durin9 Y°. the Emerg effort In rve pff o srUnit• 19gb. Rese cati C°mmuni 4th daY of April Done this l on Mgyv J ho ~ Hamilt _ i ~s/- I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 137 Agenda April 14, 1986 The Honor-able Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield . Subject: Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 1985, Council. Members: The annual financial report for the period ending December 31, 1985, has been completed by the Administrative Services Department. The audited financial report is not available at this time, due to the audit provision which requires Richfield's financial re-ports to be audited by Deloitte, Haskins & Sells subsequent to April 15. As council members-may be aware, the City received a reduced audit fee in turn far approval for the auditors to delay their audit work until after April 15. However, the Richfield City Charter requires the financial report to be submitted to the City Council for fiscal year-end information by April 10 of each year. Therefore, the Acting City Manager prepared a Council Memorandum distributing the 1985 financial statements late in March, 1985. The following report fiighlights the 1985 financial statements: General Fund 1984 Actual 1985 Budget 1985 Actual Revenues $8,459,816 $8,965,880. $9,215,530 Expenditures 8,348,692 9,120,500 8,842,201 Net Transfers 217,088 292,410 303,303 Increase to Fund Balance $ 328,212- $ 137,790 $ 676,632 12/31 Fund Balance. $3,115,656 $3,253,446 $3,792,288 As shown in the chart above, the General Fund of the City at 1985 year-end had a fund balance of $3,792,_000 (all figures rounded off to the. nearest $1.,000 for discussion purposes), compared to $3,116,000 at the end of 1984. The fund balance increase of $539,000 over budget resulted from reduced expenditures in the city's operating departments and increased revenues. Total revenues (including net transfers) for the year came in at $261,000 over budget, while expenditures came in $278,000 under budget. In addition, the 1985 budget provided for a built-in $137,000 additi0n to fund balance which is to be utilized for the computer purchase in 1986. The 198.6 budget .reflects a $125,000 deficit or reduction of-fund balance. c c ~ JJ~~o~ The fund balance is necessary to fund the operating costs of the City until property tax settlements and state aids are received in July of each year. Revenues in the General Fund were $261,000 over budget in 1985, due to significant increases in every category, especially miscellaneous revenues ($84,000), licenses and permits ($41.,000), fines and forfeits ($38,000) and charges for services ($38,000). Cable television franchise fees budgeted at $53,000 in 1985 came in at $80,000. Interest income, which was budgeted in the amount of $100,000, exceeded estimates by $76,000. Expenditures in the General Fund came in under budget by $278,000. The LegislativeJExecutive Department was under budget by $24,000, mainly due to reductions in .expenditures in the Mayor-Council, City Manager and Legal Divisions. The Administrative Services Department came in $12,000 under its budget of $749,000. The Public Safety Department was-under its budget by $108,000, while the Community Development Department was underspent by $7,225. The Community Services Department came in $127,000 under budget with reduced expenditures in virtually every .division. All of the City departments showed a continued commitment to containing the cost of operations. As a result, the City has been able to significantly enhance its fund balance position as of 1985-year end. Water Utility Fund 1984 Actual. 1985 Budget 1985 Actual Revenues $1,453,295 $1,520,000 $1,547,776 .Expenditures 917,.291 1,184,490 1,072,859 Net Transfers (28,678) (29,380) (29,251) Net Income $ 507,326 $ 306,130 $ 445,666 Decrease in Bond Reserve (75,770) (13,D12) Excess-from Revenue Bond 18,529 Net Increase in Retained Earnings $ 431,556 $ 306,130 $ 451-,183 12/31 Retained Earnings $1,490,087 $1.,796,217 $1,941,270 The Water Utility Fund also experienced a positive financial _ position at the end of 1985. Total revenues exceeded the budgeted amount by $28,000, while expenditures for 1985 were $112,000 below budget. The result was an increase in net income. Actual net income for 1985 was .$445,666_, as compared to-the budgeted amount of $306,000. The Water Utility Fund has also significantly improved its year-end cash posit-ion. In 1984, the year-end cash balance was SS/:3 $533,000, while in 1985 the year-end cash balance was $781,0.00, - indicating a $248,000 increase. Retained earnings of the Water Fund increased in 1985 from $1,490,000 to $1,941,000. This is greater than expected. As the City Council is aware, the improved financial performance of the Water Fund has enabled the City to accelerate the Capital Improvement program for water meter replacement and other needed improvements on a pay-as-you- go basis. Sewer Utility Fund 1984 Actual 1985 Budget 1985 Actual Revenues $1,176,446 $1,408,400 $1,412,454 Expenditures 991,494 1,207,.390 1,019,8.07 Net Transfers. (19,17.8) 121,630 (121,600) Net Income $ 165,774 $ 79,380 $ 271,047 Net Increasein Retained Earnings 165,774 79,380 271,047 12/31 Retained Earnings $1,317,002 $1,396,382 $1,588,049 The Sewer Fund showed net income in 1985 of $271,000, significantly higher than the budgeted amount of $79,380. As a result, total retained earnings increased to $1,.588,000. At the end of 1985, the fund had a $85,000 decrease in cash compared to 1984, due to the advance of $370,000 to the Storm Sewer Utility -Fund. This amount will be repaid by bond proceeds. It should also be noted that the Golf Course Fund owes $135,000 to the Sewer Fund. The original loan (1982) was for $230,000. Golf Course Fund 1984 Actual 1985 Budget 1985 Actual Revenues $ 676,667 $ 761,490 $ 741,660 Expenditures 653,049 712,570 721,504 Net Transfers (19,213) (19,740) (19,720) Net Income 4,405 29,180 436 Equipment Transfer $ (6,160) $ (26,600) Net Increase in .Retained Earnings (1,755) 29,180 (26,164) 12/31 Retained Earnings $ (69,685) $ (40,505) $ (95,849) Total revenues increased by 9.6% over 1984 to a 1985 total of $742,000. However, expenditures increased by 10.5% over 1984 to a 1985 total of $722,000. The Golf Course has been affected by tremendous increases in the cost of liability insurance, which .adds to the increase in expenditures normally expected. While net income was only $400, the Golf Fund made a $5,000 repayment of its loan to the Sewer Fund. The Fund Balance deficit of $70,000 at 1984 year-end was increased to $96,000 in 1985. A large portion of the increased deficit is attributable to thee. transfer of a piece of equipment out of the Golf Course Fund. Continued capital improvements were made on the course throughout- 1985, S'S%--L/ Storm Sewer Utility 1984 Actual 1985 Budget 1985 Actual Revenues $ N/A $ 197,100 $ 280,400 Expenditures 2,720 116,170 111,009 Net Transfers N/A - N/A Net Increase $ (2,720) $ 80,930 $ 169,391 12/31 Retained Earnings $ (2,720) $ 78,210 $ 166,671 The newly initiated Storm Sewer Utility .Fund performed well. in 1985. Net income was $169,391 for the year and the retained earnings position of the fund for year-end 1985 was $166,671. The effective date for billing properties for the storm sewer utility was June 1, 1985. LIQUOT Fund. 1984 Actual 1985 Budget 1985 Actual Revenues $5,682,276 $5,686,900 $5,518,752 Expenditures 5,202,405 5,293,680 5,105,945 Net Transfers (457.533 283 770 283 761 ( ) ( ) Net.Income.. $ 22,338 $ 109,450 $ 129,046 12/31 Retained Earnings $1,507,841 $1,617,291 $1,636,887 Year-end revenue totals for 1985 were $5,519,000, as compared to $5,682,000 for 1984. Based on comparisons with other cities which operate major municipal liquor operations, it appears that Richfield had a very successful. sales year. Income before operating transfers for 1985 was $413,000, which is a 14% decrease from the .1984 figure- of $480,000. The decrease in the operations' profitability can be attributed directly to a dramatic increase in the cost of insurance for the City's general liability and-dram shop liability exposures. This financial report is a summary of the overall financial report-for Richfield. A brief presentation highlighting these results will be made at the Study Session prior to the City Council meeting on April 14,.1986. Of course, a more comprehensive review of 1985 financial operations will be-made this summer when the auditor's report is complete. Respe tfully ~,L~mit d, 1 /Ct i ~ ~ L _ D e Acting City Manager SLD:sb cc: Program Directors Finance Manager