05-14-84 agendaCITY F RICHFIELD, M SOTA /
I Y O MINNESOTA
E
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 187
Agenda May 14, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Consideration of Additional Alley Paving Petition
Council Members:
The city staff has received one additional alley petition
requesting concrete paving in 1984 for the following alley:
Alley Between
Sheridan and Russell Avenue
From
67th St.
To
68th St.
This petition represents more than 50% of the abutting
property owners. Although the contract for the 1984 alley
paving project has already been awarded, it is still feasible to
include this alley in this year's project by means of a change
order, if the council orders the paving of the alley. The
contractor has indicated he would accept constructing the alley
at the contract unit prices if the council does add this alley.
Therefore, it is recommended that the city council take the
following actions:
1. Adopt the attached resolution ordering the preliminary
report for the proposed paving of the alley, and
2. Adopt the attached resolution receiving the preliminary
report and calling a public hearing to be held on June
11, 1984.
pectfunly bmitted ,
y y� �,v ✓may, ,L
ohn G Car wright
City Manager
JGC /eja
4
PETITION FOR PERMANENT ALLEY IMPROVEMENT
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
V0,
9wr
L
SIGNATURE OF OWNERS
Date Received.
�0: The City Council of
the City of Richfield,
Minnesota
We, the undersigned, owners
of more than 50 percent
in frontage of the
real property abutting
on the alley between
(,--.'7+"4-, and
('� $*"� Streets
and 12u.s //
and
Avenues hereby petition
that such public alley
be improved by
permanent paving of its
surface. We are aware
that the costs of such a
project will be
wholly or in part paid
for through special assessments
to the abutting
property owners.
V0,
9wr
L
Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the required number of
gners of property affected by the making of the improvement petitioned for.
Percent
00 f /hG�c1Cr�i�, City Clerk
Note: Additional forms available from the Engineering Division, 869 -7521, Ext. 520
SIGNATURE OF OWNERS
ADDRESS .
2.
( 7 3�
3 •
J � c� ? � � �ci ✓mac--
✓
�.•7',
5.
6.
>�
8.
10.
✓
i
,;.
13.
14.
irn. ��
��C�-
L
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the required number of
gners of property affected by the making of the improvement petitioned for.
Percent
00 f /hG�c1Cr�i�, City Clerk
Note: Additional forms available from the Engineering Division, 869 -7521, Ext. 520
F- -1
L_ J
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING PRELIMINARY
REPORT ON PROPOSED ADDITIONAL ALLEY PAVING, CP 793B
WHEREAS, a petition requesting the permanent paving of the
following alley has been received:
Alley between
Sheridan and Russell Avenue
From
To
67th Street 68th Street
And the petition has been signed by the required percentage of
owners of abutting property necessary to proceed under Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 429;
BE IT NOW RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City Council finds it appears necessary and desirable that
the city make the assessable public improvements of concrete
surfacing of the above - mentioned alley, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 429;
2. A preliminary engineering report on such proposed assessable
public improvement is required by law in the event that said
improvement or any part thereof is specially assessed against
the benefited property within the city. The city engineer is,
therefore, authorized and directed to prepare a preliminary
report of such proposed improvement and to submit the same to
the City Council at the earliest convenient time;
3. Such report shall indicate the estimated cost of such proposed
improvement, shall indicate whether such proposed improvement
is feasible and whether it should best be made as proposed or
in connection with some other improvement;
4. Such proposed improvement shall hereafter be known and designated
as City Project No. 793B.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th
day of May, 1984.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
10
it Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
r
PRELIMINARY REPORT AND
ESTIMATE OF COST
ALLEY PAVING & APPURTENANT WORK
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT NO. 793B
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
I. TYPE OF WORK
Concrete alley paving improvements in the City of Richfield.
II. REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT
The alley identified as Number 1 in Item No. IV was requested by
petition representing greater than 50 percent of the abutting footage.
This alley is proposed as a paving program for the City of Richfield
to provide concrete alley surfacing to benefit abutting properties.
III. DATE OF PRELIMINARY REPORT
May 14, 1984
IV. LOCATION
Alley between From To
1. Sheridan and Russell Avenue 67th Street 68th Street
V. FEASIBILITY
The alley paving project is feasible and can best be accomplished as
proposed and not in conjunction with any other project.
VI. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED
All that property abutting the alley previously described in Item No. IV.
VII. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
11' Wide Concrete Alle
Estimated Construction Cost
Administration, Legal, Engineering,
and Insurance (25 %)
Estimated Project Cost
Cost of Alley No. 1
$19,276.00
$24,095.00
-2-
VIII. ESTIMATED PROJECT ASSESSMENT
Property abutting alleys will be assessed for alley construction
according to the assessment policy established in City Council
Resolution No. 6345.
Total Assessable Alley Frontage
Total Project Cost
Less City Cost
Assessable Cost
$23,542.00 : 1,192 = $19.75 /assessable foot
Typical Assessment for 50, lot = $987.50
Typical Assessment for 75' lot = $1,481.25
11
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly Registered
Professional Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
zf��� <7 ��
Mich a East1ing
Date: May 14, 1984
Registration No. 15066
Alley No. 1
1,192
$24,095.00
- 553.00
$23,542.00
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELIMINARY REPORT AND
CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ADDITIONAL ALLEY PAVING
CITY PROJECT NO. 7933
WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the City Council adopted
May 14, 1984 with reference to the improvement of the following
alley by concrete paving:
Alley between From To
Sheridan Avenue and Russell Avenue 67th Street 68th Street
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The preliminary report on the proposed City Project No. 793B,
dated the 14th day of May, 1984, prepared by the city engineer, is
hereby received and ordered to be placed on file.
2. A public hearing on said proposed improvement is hereby
called to be held on June 11, 1984, commencing at 7 p.m. in the
council chambers of City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield,
Minnesota, at which time the council will consider the improvement
of this alley in accordance with the report and assessment of abutting
property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, at an estimated cost of the
improvement of $24,095.00.
3. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
give published and mailed notice of such hearing in the manner
required by law.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th
day of May, 1984.
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
•
John Hamilton, Mayor
z
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 186
Agenda May 14, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Consideration of Status Report by John Nelson
Concerning the Possible Establishment of a
Suburban Community Action Agency (CAA)
Council Members:
Mr. John Nelson, Richfield's liaison to the South Henenpin
Human Services Council (SHHSC), will attend the May 14, 1984
city council meeting to make a status report on the possible
creation of a suburban CAA by the Hennepin County Board.
A Hennepin County staff report is provided in your backup
material which explains: (1) what federal and state funds are
available to CAA (2) the process to designate a CAA and, (3)
• the choice of a public or private CAA organization.
The issues are:
(a) should the county establish a suburban CAA, and
(b) if a CAA is established, should the organization
(1) be governed by the county (public)
(2) or, private, non - profit agency (such as SHHSC)?
Res ec tfy-Il.� submitted,
s
1
John G. Cartwgght
City Manager
JGC /eja
NOTE: Provided in your backup are city council communications
from 1979 and 1980 concerning the possible establishment of a
CAA.
1�
•
UPDATE ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
SUBURBAN COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY
BACKGROUND
f
For the past several years, Hennepin County has had the opportunity to secure
additional public funds to serve low income suburban residents. In order to
access these funds it will be necessary to establish a community action =
agency (CAA) to serve suburban Hennepin County. Levels of state and federal
funds available for a suburban CAA have been variable and at times uncertain
in recent years. This update was prepared in response to Board resolution
84 -3 -206 requesting a current assessment of the needs, opportunities and
requirements for establishing a suburban community action agency.
POVERTY IN HENNEPIN COUNTY
There are 68,573 persons at or below poverty level in all of Hennepin County,
48,029 of whom live in Minneapolis. There are 20,544 persons at or below
poverty level in the suburban portion of Hennepin County, or 5.4 percent of
all persons at or below the poverty level in the state. The poverty rate in
Hennepin county is 7.4 percent. Poverty is defined by federal income
guidelines which are adjusted each year. However, the number of poor persons
in a geographical area is determined by the census, and stays the same until
the next census.
FUNDS AVAILABLE TO COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES
A. Funds Available only to Community Action Agencies
1. Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)
The United States Congress began this program in federal fiscal year
(FFY) 1982 and it is authorized through FFY 1985. Congress appro-
priates for it annually and the FFY 1985 appropriation is currently
pending, thus the amount of funding which will be available to the
states is not known at this time. Without knowing what Minnesota
will get, the amount which would be available to a suburban Hennepin
County CAA cannot be calculated. Areas that are not served by CAAs
at the beginning of the federal fiscal year do not qualify for
funding during that year. For the fiscal year in progress, FFY 1984,
the formula used to calculate allocations to CAAs yielded $10.32 per
low income person. A suburban Hennepin County CAA would have
received about $212,014 from the State's CSBG fund.
Since suburban Hennepin County did not have a CAA, however, these
funds were allocated to areas that were represented by designated sr
CAAs. In order to receive funds for FFY 1985, a CAA covering
suburban Hennepin County would have to be developed prior to Octo-
ber 1, 1984. The amount that will be available in FFY 1985 for a
suburban Hennepin County CAA will not be known until the federal CSBG
appropriation has been established. The FFY 1985 appropriation will
probably approximate the FFY 1984 funding level. If this is the
case, a suburban Hennepin County CAA could expect to receive
$200,000 - $225,000.
2. Minnesota Economic Opportunity Grant (MEOG)
This is a state appropriation which has existed for eight years and
is about $1 million annually. It is available to all CAAs, the
Minnesota Migrant Council and Indian Reservations. A suburban share
would be 5.4 percent or about $54,000. In order to receive these
funds Hennepin County would have to develop a CAA covering suburban
Hennepin County.
B. Funds available to Community Action Agencies and other entities at State
Discretion
1. Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA)
The federal jobs bill contained a line item which appropriated one
hundred million dollars nationwide for emergency needs to FEMA. The
one hundred million dollars was divided into private and public
sector parts of fifty million dollars each. Hennepin County's
2
unemployment rate was too low to receive any of the private sector
funds. Although some of the public sector funds were retained by the
state for administrative and statewide uses, most of Minnesota's
allocation was passed through to local units of government. The
funds which came to the state allowed state discretion in allocation
formulas, which Minnesota used to target funds to areas with a high
concentration of persons with emergency needs. This resulted in an
allocation of $307,000 to Hennepin County. The state's decision
concerning the allocation of these funds was a direct result of an
z
agreement reached between the Mayor of Minneapolis and the Chairman
of the County Board. If this agreement had not been reached_ the
state could have allocated these funds to the Minneapolis CAA or some
other administrative entity. While not having a suburban CAA did not
adversely affect Hennepin County's allocation in this particular
instance, it could have if the Mayor and Chairman had been unable to
reach agreement on how the funds were to be allocated.
S2. Transfers
•
There were several transfers of funds to the state CSBG program from
other federal programs in 1983. When a transfer occurs, the funds
may be affected by some federal guidelines, but more importantly,
the CSBG appropriation line is not required. Therefore, the state, at
its discretion, can allocate these transfer funds directly to non -CAA
entities if they wish.
Examples of transfers which occurred in 1983 are:
a. Energy Assistance funds were transferred to the CSBG program and
sent directly from the state Energy Assistance Department to the
Human Services Councils.
3
b. Low Income Home Energy Assistance Proaram (LIHEAP)
from LIHEAP to CSBG by the
One
million dollars was transferred a
state in January of 1983. The state allocated these funds in a
discretionary appropriation, rather than pass ineedtfrom . one alevelrof
ation line (the way in which funds are pa
government to another). Under an agreement between the Mayor's X00
Office and the County Board, Hennepin County received $192,000
directly from the state.
c. Energy Crisis Intervention
Funds were transferred from the Energy Block Grant to CSBG in the
fall of 1982. Funds went to the Scott- Carver CAA with the
understanding that they would service suburban Hennepin County
with these funds.
In June of 1983 a $4 million transfer resulted in a $633,000
grant to the Minneapolis CAA. The Minneapolis CAA, with City
Council authorization, all $250,000 of this grant to the
i
County.
PROCESS FOR DESIGNATION OF A NEW CAA
The statutes and regulations which govern the creation of a new CAA are
primarily those of the state of Minnesota. The only federal regulations
ith CSBG funding formulas.
which apply have to do w
The process for designation of a new CAA involves the following steps:
A. A letter of intent to designate a CAA is sent to the Commissioner of
Economic Security by the County Board.
B. The department of Economic Security,
Office of Economic Opportunity, then
assigns a staff person to work with Hennepin County on the
oother steps
necessary to achieve recognition of the agency by the
•
4
C. Public hearing(s) are held. The hearings must be accessible to low
income persons and prior notification of the hearings be given. In
determining if the hearing process is adequate, the state will take into
consideration what the customary procedures are for the jurisdiction.
D. The County Board must pass a resolution designating the CAA.
E. File a notice and intent to designate and eligibility documents with the
state Office of Economic Opportunity for final review and authorization
of a new agency. Eligibility documents have to do with hiring proce-
dures, civil rights and affirmative action.
STRUCTURAL OPTIONS FOR ESTABLISHING A CAA
A. Public CAA
1. The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners could designate the County
Board as the CAA for suburban Hennepin County. This would be a
public CAA and the County Board would be the governing board. The
statute requires that there also be a three - part administrative
board. The relationship between the governing and administrative
boards would be spelled out in written agreements concerning the
separation of powers which must be completed before the designation
of the agency takes place.
There are some items which require a concensus of the two boards,
such as work plans for fund expenditures. This means either board
can veto. If an impasse develops, it must be worked out at the local
level within the framework of the agency bylaws. The state will not
begin to process a workplan that has been submitted until both boards
approve it. There are other things, such as the hiring of a director
for the agency, which could be the exclusive authority of the
governing board or the administrative board or could be a shared
authority.
0
The establishment of a public CAA does not require that CAA services
be directly provided by public employees. The governing board would
make the policy determinations regarding which programs and services
will be provided and through what means (public delivery, contracts
with nonprofit or for profit community organizations or some combina-
tion thereof).
The three -part administrative board would be comprised as follows:
a. One -third would be County Commissioners or their representa-
a
tives.
b. One -third would be organizational representatives appointed by
the County Board to represent selected interest areas, such as
labor, business, the.United Way, religious organizations, welfare
organizations, etc.
c. One -third would be representatives of the poor, democratically
elected. This could mean an actual' election in which low income
persons voted for their representatives or having organizations
representing low income persons select members for slots in a
democratic fashion.
The administrative board should be geographically balanced.
2. Contingent on state approval, another option for a public CAA is a
Countywide CAA with a governing board comprised of Hennepin County
Commissioners, elected officials from Minneapolis, and possibly
suburban elected officials. This structure could be developed
through a joint powers agreement among the participating political
subdivisions.
•
N
0 B. Private, Nonprofit CAA
The state law regarding CAAs provides for a private, nonprofit corpora-
tion as an option for the establishment of a CAA. The statute (268.53)
says that "a private nonprofit agency which has the authority under its
applicable charter or laws to receive funds under section 268.52 to
support community action programs as described in section 268.54 and
which was . . . recognized as a community action agency by the governor"
is a CAA. To obtain recognition by the governor, a community action
agency must be designated by a political subdivision having jurisdiction
over the entire area to be served by the agency. Thus, the Hennepin
County Board could designate a nonprofit corporation which met the
requirements of the statute as to powers and structure as the suburban
Hennepin County CAA. The County Board could participate in the CAA by
designating Commissioners to serve on the CAA board. If a private,
nonprofit CAA were designated by the County Board, however, the Board
would not have the amount, of power and authority that would otherwise
occur if a public CAA were established.
It should be noted that regardless of the option chosen, the type,
structure, and powers of a CAA are a matter for negotiation with the
state Office of Economic Opportunity and, ultimately, the Governor.
C. Single, Countywide CAA
Resolution 84 -3 -206 directed that this update include "discussion with
the city of Minneapolis to determine whether one agency may be able to
serve both the city and the county together." In response to this
directive, informal contacts were made with city officials to assess
possible interest in a joint study of the feasibility of establishing a
single CAA to serve all of Hennepin County. The city expressed interest
in exploring the possibility of establishing a single, countywide CAA in
recognition of the advantages of better service coordination and more
efficient administration that would be possible through a single agency.
The city also expressed concern that necessary resources and flexibility
that are now available to Minneapolis could be lost. It was also pointed
7
out that significant structural changes have been made in the MCAA in
recent years and that the reemergence of basic organizational questions
could be disruptive. Finally, city officials advised that if the county
were to initiate a joint feasibility study it would be necessary to
include representatives of the Mayor's Office, City Council and MCAA
Board in the planning process.
COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAMS
The CAA may directly operate programs, subcontract programs or have a mix.
The state legislation (168.54) outlines the program requirements, as follows:
"A community action program is a community based and operated
program which includes or is designed to include a sufficient
number of projects or components to provide, in sum, a range of
services and activities having a measurable and potentially major
impact on causes of poverty in the community or those areas of the
community where poverty is a particularly acute problem. . . . The
components of a community action program shall be designed to
assist participants, including the elderly poor to achieve
increased self- sufficiency and.greater participation.in the affairs
of the community by providing services. and programs not suffi-
ciently provided in the community by any governmental unit, any
public institution, or any other publicly funded agency or corpora-
tion. Community action agencies, governmental units, public
institutions or other publicly funded agencies or corporations
shall consult on whether or not a program or service is suffi-
ciently provided in the community."
No other regulations or policies, such as the percentage of funds used for
administration or the specific programs that should be offered, have been
established for CAAs by legislative action. This is also a matter of
negotiation with the state, using an annual workplan submission as the basis
for negotiation.
H.
•
0 CONCLUSION
•
If the County Board were to initiate planning for a suburban CAA soon, in the
next month, for example, and the state felt substantial progress toward
designation were taking place, it is quite possible that CSBG funds (begin-
ning October 1, 1984) and state MEOG funds (beginning July 1, 1984) may be
reserved for the designated CAA.
The main issues for Board consideration are whether to establish a suburban
CAA or not, and, if one is established, whether it should be a private r
non- profit or public agency. The main advantage of a public CAA is that the
County Board would have more control over the program. The main advantage of
a private non- profit model is that the requirements for direct involvement
and expenditure of time by the County Board would probably be less than with
a public model.
tf
4/20/84
9
/.5"
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 49
Agenda January 28, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Community Action Agency
Council Member Ludeman has requested that an item be
listed on the January 28, 1980 city council agenda which
would provide for a resolution rescinding Resolution No.
6117, which supported the development of a CAA for Suburban
and Rural Hennepin County.
On August 27, 1979 Mr. Russ Stricker, Executive Director
of the South Hennepin South Services Council was present at
the city council meeting regarding formation of a Community
Action Agency to serve suburban Hennepin County. Previous
to that time, on June 5, 1979, the Hennepin County Board had
adopted a resolution approving in concept the establishment
of a CAA and directing the suburban human service councils to
develop a model for the.CAA which was to be presented to the
county board for their approval. It was felt that the forma-
tion of a Community Action Agency would provide for consoli-
dation of many programs now delivered by diverse agencies to
suburban Henenpin County residents. The CAA would also
qualify the suburban Hennepin County area for some additional
federal funding to deliver services to the poor and near poor
persons residing in the suburban area of the county. The CAA
would be primarily a contracting agency for the services.
At a meeting between the Hennepin County Commissioners
(Commissioner Kramer and Commissioner Johnson) and city
officials on January 16, 1980, some concern was expressed by
the county commissioners about the formation of a Community
Action Agency. Council Member Ludeman served on the South
Hennepin Human Services Council board, and seconded the con-
cerns expressed by the commissioners. Council Member Ludeman
is probably in the best position to address.his concerns to
the city council. A copy of the resolution rescinding the
council's previous resolution No. 6117, can be passed by the
city council at the conclusion of discussion if so desired.
• Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 6117
WHICH SUPPORTED THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CAA
FOR SUBURBAN AND RURAL HENNEPIN COUNTY
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6117, Resolution Supporting the
Development of a CAA for Suburban and Rural Hennepin County,
was adopted by the Richfield City Council on August 27, 1979,
and
WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council is of the opinion
that a Community Action Agency would not be in the best
interests of the City of Richfield.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield that Resolution No. 6117, dated August 27,
1979, be rescinded and that support for this program by the
City of Richfield be withdrawn.
Done at the City of Richfield this 28th day of January,
1980.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. 6117
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CAA
FOR SUBURBAN AND RURAL HENNEPIN COUNTY
WHEREAS, the question of whether there is a need for a CAA
to serve suburban and rural Hennepin County, and what organiza-
tional form is most appropriate if a CAA should be established,
has been under study for the past year, and
WHEREAS, this review has indicated that the County's lower
income citizens will benefit from the establishment of a CAA that
can build on and complement the activities of the existing Human
Services Councils, and
WHEREAS, a Task Force representing the three Human Service
Councils has developed an organizational model designated the
"Linkage Model ", which will enable a CAA to be organized while re-
taining the Human Services Councils and making the fullest use of
their existing planning, management and service capabilities,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Richfield does hereby urge the Hennepin County Board of
' Commissioners to accept the recommendations of the Task Force
and establish a CAA for suburban and rural Hennepin County based
on the "Linkage Model" and to designate the present Task Force as
the interim board to: write the by -laws, apply for funding,
organize the new board.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
27th day of August, 1979.
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh, Acting City Clerk
•
Loren L. Law Mayor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 185
Agenda May 14, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
HRA Commissioners
City of Richfield
Dear Council Members and HRA Commissioners:
Subject: Consideration of a Proposal by Market Plaza
Corporation to Enter Into a Developer's
Agreement for a Mixed Use Development Project
in the L /H /N Redevelopment Area (Godfather Block)
Introduction
On May 4, 1984, city administration met with Messrs.
Derrick, Krier and Sellergren to hear a request by Market Plaza
Corporation to substitute a new co- developer (Arkell Development
Corp.) for Knutson Construction Company.
Market Plaza officials said they had not resolved the
differences with Knutson Construction Company. The unresolved
issues included:
1. Adequate up front financial committment to guarantee
performance at time of closing on the sale of property
from the city;
2. The possibility of future price changes on the
condominium construction costs; and
3. Some condominium design issues.
City staff had advised Market Plaza officials prior to the
May 4, 1984 meeting that the provision in the Developer's
Agreement dated March 26, 1984, requiring all listed co-
developers to execute the document within 30 days was not
complied with. Also, the substitution of a new co- developer had
not been submitted in time for city consideration. City staff,
therefore, had advised Market Plaza officials that the
Developer's Agreement was defective and not a valid agreement.
At the May 4, 1984 meeting, it was agreed to:
1. Receive a staff presentation on the project as
proposed by Arkell Development Corporation on May 10,
1984;
-2-
• 2. Have Market Plaza Corp and Arkell Development Corp.
make a project presentation to the City Council and
HRA at their 5:30 p.m. joint meeting of May 14, 1984.
The decision whether to approve the Arkell Development
Corporation as a co- developer is at the sole
discretion of the City Council and the HRA.
3. If the new co- developer is not approved, Market Plaza
Corporation shall have until May 21, 1984 to present
Knutson Construction Company as the co- developer.
4. If a Developer's Agreement is not approved by May 21,
1984, the City may proceed to entertain proposals from
any and all potential developers including developers
under under consideration.
City Council /HRA Considerations
The members of the City Council and the HRA will be presented
with these policy issues:
1. Do you approve of the concept plan for the condominium
project. (You will be presented with the changes and
you will need to ask if the changes meet with your
approval).
• 2. Do you approve of Arkell Development Corporation as a
co- developer?
Staff Review and Recommendations
Between Thursday, May 10, 1984, and Monday, May 14, 1984,
city staff will undertake the following reviews so that a
recommendation can be made at the May 14 meeting:
1. What changes are required in the draft Developer's
Agreement?
2. Contact cities where Arkell Development Corporation
has worked
3. Contact Arkell Development Corporation financial
references
4. Conduct a staff review of the design concept drawings
submitted on May 10, 1984.
Supporting Documentation
The Arkell Development team consists of the following
• organizations:
-3-
• 1. Arkell Development Corporation of St. Paul
2. The Health Central System
a. marketing of condominium units
b. management agent for the condominium
NOTE: this company is the management agent
for the Lake Shore Drive Condominium
3. Krause Anderson of St. Paul
4. Saunders - Thalden & Associates, Inc. of
Minneapolis (architects)
5. Northland Mortgage Company of Bloomington
Attachments
1. Development Summary prepared by Saunders - Thalden
and Associates (two pages)
a. unit mix
b. building square footage breakdown
c. total building square feet
d. building construction
e. project team managers
2. List of Arkell Development Corp projects in Minnesota
and South Dakota and the Texas projects of the Texas
Corporation owned by John Arkell (Artex Development
Corp).
0 3. Drawings of the condominium project
4. Information on the Kenzington of St. Anthony project
being developed by Arkell Development Corporation.
Phase I is 134 unit elderly high rise condominium
project. The market value given was $9.2 million
dollars. The price range for units will range mostly
in the $53,000 to $$0,000 bracket with some penthouse
units priced above $100,000.
5. Information furnished by Arkell on the history of
Arkell Development Corporation.
JGC /eja
Respectfully submitted,
Jt � `
hn G. Ca wr' t
City Manager
is
•
•
Saunders - Tholden & Associates, Inc.
6440 Flying Cloud Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55344, 612 - 944 -7279
d Iw,
...�� I&L
cil L9
�P
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
UNIT MiX
1 Bedroom
1 Bedroom Plus Den
2 Bedroom
2 Bedroom Loft
2 Bedroom Plus Den Loft
3 Bedroom Loft
Total Units
May 10, 1984
(600
& 790
Sq.
Ft.) -
67
(750
& 900
Sq.
Ft.) -
38
(900
& 850
Sq.
Ft.) -
28
(900 &
1,100
Sq.
Ft.) -
7
(1,100 &
1,350
Sq.
Ft.) -
4
(1,350 &
1,650
Sq.
Ft.) -
3
Sq.
Ft.
Hallways & Circulation
20,921
147
BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE BREAKDOWN
Total number of floors
Two levels of parking
Eleven floors of housing with one loft, floor
Enclosed parking spaces 127
Exterior Spaces 8
Total Parking area square feet - 48,000 sq. ft.
TOTAL CONDOMINIUM BUILDING SQUARE FEET --150.516
Community Room
900
Sq.
Ft.
Manager's Office
250
Sq.
Ft.
Kitchen
480
Sq.
Ft.
Card /Dining Room
900
Sq.
Ft.
Library
265
Sq.
Ft.
Whirlpool /Exercise Room
790
Sq.
Ft.
Hobby /Work Room
790
Sq.
Ft.
(2) Guest Bedrooms
900
Sq.
Ft.
Hallways & Circulation
20,921
Sq.
Ft.
Living Units
124,320
Sq.
Ft.
Building Efficiency Ratio
= 86.1%
U� Z) 0,Cc:10 40f77-
•
Id Oa
..01 ITE
'WZ
Development Summary
Page Two of Two
Building Construction - Precast concrete with a face brick exterior.
Building is served by two elevators and shall be equipped with a central
fire alarm and security system with a direct link to Fire and Police
Departments. All units and public spaces shall have emergency pull
chains with direct link to on site full time security guard.
Sloped roof shall be a metal standing seam exterior with a teflon
coating to mininize snow build up.
Roof top plaza shall include a landscape buffer, shuffleboard courts,
seating area and tables.
PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS:
Derrick Land Company
Joint Venture Developer
Roger Derrick
Richard Krier
The Arkell Development Corporation
Joint Venture Developer
John Arkell
Pat Brinkman
Saunders - Thalden & Associates, Inc.
Architects, Landscape Architects, Planners
Gary Tushie
Wilson Montgomery
Kraus- Anderson Construction Company
Building Construction
Bill Jaeger
Jack Schletty
Robert Fox
Health Central
Marketing and Building Management
Susan Taylor
Northland Mortgage
Building Financing
Tony Navarro
3Q >
m
ri
o FF'
�y `6
D
� z `Z
$�S
z
a
R' S
s
Sg
S
I
f
I�
1
T Tr
s
h --
4
`4
1
i
•
•
0
E
0
>
;K3 r m
r
M
< 6 >
m
0 r, C)
>
ZZO
C)
...< c_
0
m 0
cn
O
O
Ln
st
r I
>
Fl
rn
ma �
I -
0 0 >
0
0
0 ro
0io
K
Z
Cl)
E
is
im
O
77
L,
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
a �Q
r� D
z
O
d
z
g
_m
A
Ci
IFn
�Z
Z
d; J
Yj-
m�
,3
•
•
•
DISTRICT. CITYSIDE WILL COMBINE THE UTILITARIAN FUNCTIONS
OF OFFICE, HOTEL, RECREATION, RETAIL, DINING AND PARKING
INTO ONE DEVELOPMENT.
CONCEPTUALLY, CITYSIDE WILL BRING A SUBURBAN OFFICE PARK
TO THE HEART OF DOWNTOWN DALLAS.
LOCATED LESS THAN ONE MILE FROM DOWNTOWN DALLAS, CITYSIDE
r
IS CLOSE TO THE DALLAS CONVENTION CENTER, REUNION ARENA,
THE DALLAS COUNTY COURTHOUSE, METHODIST HOSPITAL AND
OTHER KEY POINTS IN THE CITY. ADDITIONALLY, THE SITE
FOR CITYSIDE IS ONLY ONE -HALF MILE FROM THE CITY'S SOUTHWEST
NETWORK OF FREEWAYS, AFFORDING CONVENIENT ACCESSIBILITY
TO ALL AREAS OF THE DALLAS /FORT WORTH METROPLEX.
ARTEX AND PAWNEE ARE ALSO WORKING ON THE DEVELOPMENT
OF A CHAIN OF ATRIUM HOTELS IN THE SOUTHERN STATES.
OPTIMUM LOCATIONS FOR THE HOTELS WILL BE IN GROWING CITIES
NEAR AN INDUSTRIAL OR OFFICE AREA WITH MAJOR HIGHWAY
ACCESS. SEVERAL CITIES IN THE SOUTH HAVE SHOWN A GLARING
NEED FOR THIS TYPE OF HOTEL. SITES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED
IN JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, BIRMINGHAM AND HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA.
ARTEX IS DEVELOPING ARLINGTON DOWNS PARK, A 43 ACRE MULTI-
USE SITE IN SUBURBAN DALLAS. THE PROJECT WILL COMBINE
SIX OFFICE BUILDINGS, A BANK, SIX RESTRAURANT FACILITIES,
A CONVENIENCE CENTER AND A LARGE RETAIL SHOPPING MALL.
IT IS ONE OF THE LAST LARGE PRIME PARCELS IN THE MID - CITIES
AND THE ONLY SELF CONTAINED DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA.
AT THE PRESENT TIME ARTEX IS INVOLVED IN FIVE SHOPPING
CENTER DEVELOPMENTS WITH MORE UNDER NEGOTIATION. THE
CURRENT PROJECTS ARE BOBTOWN, SOUTHLAKE, DAVIS, LUPOT,
AND BUSHMAN. THE PROJECTS WILL BE CLASSIC NEIGHBORHOOD
SHOPPING CENTERS WITH LARGE SUPERMARKET CHAINS AS THEIR
ANCHOR TENANTS. EACH WILL BE 100,00 TO 150,000 SQUARE
FEET IN SIZE, LOCATED IN AN UPWARDLY MOBILE TRADE AREA,
AND HAVE STRONG DEMOGRAPHIC SUPPORT. ALL HAVE PRIME
LOCATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL "BOOM AREAS ". THIS DEVELOPMENT
IS A JOINT VENTURE WITH ELLIS & PITTMAN, INC. OF DALLAS,
TEXAS.
ANOTHER' PROJECT BEING JOINT VENTURED BY ARTEX AND ELLIS
& PITTMAN IS THE BLUFFS. THIS PROJECT IS A 130 UNIT: TOWN-
HOUSE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED LESS THAN 5 MINUTES FROM DOWNTOWN
DALLAS. THE' HOMES WILL OFFER SPECTACULAR PANORAMIC VIEWS
OF NORTHERN AND DOWNTOWN DALLAS FROM ABOVE 60 FOOT BLUFFS.
BOTH ARKELL AND ARTEX ARE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES
WITH A WEALTH OF EXPERIENCE AND A TOTAL COMMITMENT TO
QUALITY, BACKED UP BY EXPERTISE, VISION AND PLAIN HARD
WORK. THROUGHOUT THE PAST DECADE THE COMPANY HAS SHARED
A COMMITMENT TO QUALITY. WITH OFFICES IN ST. PAUL AND
DALLAS WE CAN BRING A COMPLETE RANGE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
TO PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. FROM CONCEPTION
TO COMPLETION, WE KEEP THE ONE CRITERION FIRMLY IN MIND
WHICH, IN THE END, MAKES ANY DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL. THAT
CRITERION IS QUALITY, AND IT IS MET ONLY THROUGH PAINSTAKING
ATTENTION TO DETAIL. WHETHER DEVELOPING A SHOPPING CENTER,
-5-
OF THE METRO SQUARE OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED IN DOWNTOWN
ST. PAUL. METRO HAS 448,370 GROSS SQUARE FEET WITH 368,210
SQUARE FEET OF NET RENTABLE AREA AND INCLUDES 534 PARKING
STALLS LOCATED ON PRIME DOWNTOWN LAND.
ARKELL DEVELOPMENT AND METRO SQUARE PARTNERSHIP ARE CURRENT-
LY WORKING ON TWO DOWNTOWN ST. PAUL DEVELOPMENTS ON PARKING
LOT SITES ACQUIRED WITH THE PURCHASE OF THE METRO SQUARE
OFFICE BUILDING: SEVENTH PLACE AND EIGHTH PLACE.
r
SEVENTH PLACE IS A MULTI -USE 20 LEVEL STRUCTURE. IT
WILL FEATURE MEDICAL OFFICES AND RETAIL STORES ON THE
GROUND LEVEL WITH 8 LEVELS OF PARKING RAMPS. LEVELS
10 THROUGH 17 WILL BE ELDERLY HOUSING, AND LEVELS 18 -20
WILL BE MARKET RATE CONDOMINIUMS.
EIGHTH PLACE IS A MULTI -USE 16 STORY STRUCTURE WITH TWO
LEVELS OF RETAIL STORES AND AN AUTO SERVICING CENTER .
LEVELS 3 -8 WILL COMBINE OFFICE SPACE AND PARKING. LEVELS
9 -15 WILL CONSIST OF EXECUTIVE CONDOMINIUMS WITH A CENTER
ATRIUM. THE 17TH LEVEL WILL FEATURE A 7,000 SQUARE FOOT
RESTAURANT.
BOTH PROJECTS WILL BE CONNECTED TO THE DOWNTOWN SKYWAY
SYSTEM.
ARKELL DEVELOPMENT IS ALSO PARTAKING IN THE OAK GLEN
0 COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN
STILLWATER, MN., ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING SUBURBS IN
-2-
THE TWIN CITIES. THE DEVELOPMENT OFFERS A CHAMPIONSHIP
18 —HOLE GOLF COURSE, A 9 —HOLE EXECUTIVE COURSE, CLUB
HOUSE AND FULL AMENITY PACKAGE. AVAILABLE ARE 378 HOME
SITES, A DISTINCTIVE AREA FOR 108. TOWNHOUSE ALL IN A
COUNTRY CLUB SETTING ENCOMPASSING 465 ACRES.
UNIQUE TO ARKELL IS ITS INVOLVEMENT IN CRESTMARK AVIATION
LTD., AN EXECUTIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TAILORED SPECIFICAL-
LY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. AT
THE PRESENT TIME THE COMPANY OFFERS CHARTERS FROM THE
MINNEAPOLIS —ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, AND FROM
OSKALOOSA, IOWA. CUSTOMERS ARE SERVICED BY CESSNA 421
GOLDEN EAGLES. FUTURE PLANS INCLUDE THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF JET SERVICE.
•
ALSO IN 1983 ARKELL DEVELOPMENT EXPANDED ITS OPEARTION
TO THE STATE OF TEXAS AND RECENTLY OPENED OFFICES IN
DALLAS UNDER THE CORPORATE NAME OF THE ARTEX CORPORATION.
a
ARKELL DEVELOPMENT IS THE SOLE OWNER OF ARTEX.
THE LARGEST UNDERTAKING THAT ARKELL /ARTEX IS INVOLVED
WITH IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF CITYSIDE. THIS PROJECT IS
A JOINT VENTURE OF ARTEX AND THE PAWNEE CORPORATION OF
DALLAS UNDER THE NAME OF URBAN REDEVELOPMENT.
CITYSIDE IS MULTI —USE
DEVELOPMENT
COVERING 16.74 ACRES
IN NORTHWEST OAK CLIFF.
LOCATED
ON ONE OF THE LAST KEY
PARCELS OF LAND IN CLOSE
PROXIMITY
TO THE CENTRAL BUSINESS
-3-
•
KFNZINGTON OF ST. ANTHONY
KENZINGTON OF ST. ANTHONY IS A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY, A MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA. SUBURB. THIS
10 ACRE SITE IS CURRENTLY A STRIP SHOPPING CENTER IN THE HEART
OF THE COMMUNITY. IT WAS DETERMINED BY THE CITY THAT A-NEED
FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSINCZ IN THE FORM. OF A_ HIGH DENSITY COMPLEX
WAS NEEDED TO RETAIN AND STIMULATE THE AREAS' RESIDENTS. THIS
PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO INCLUDE A 134 UNIT ELDERLY HIGH RISE
AND 361 MARKET RATE CONDOMINIUMS. ARKELL DEVELOPMENT AND KRAUS-
ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF ST., PAUL WERE AWARDED THE BID
ON A JOINT VENTURE BASIS. ACQUISITION OF THE SITE WILL TAKE
PLACE DURING THE SUMMER OF 1983, WITH GROUND BREAKING IN EARLY
SPRING, OF 1984. THE PROJECT WILL BE DONE IN THREE PHASES, THE
ELDERLY BUILDING BEING PHASE I.
VALUE: MARKET VALUE
DEVELOPMENT COST
EQUITY
$35,000,000
28,000,000
7,000,000
ARKELL DEVELOPMENT AND KRAUS ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION HAVE
BEEN SELECTED TO DEVELOP AND BUILD 495 CONDOMINIUM UNITS
FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER IN THE
VILLAGE OF ST. ANTHONY, A NORTHEAST MINNEAPOLIS, MN.
SUBURB. THE DEVELOPMENT FEATURES ELDERLY HOUSING, A
202 PROJECT AND MARKET RATE-CONDOMINIUMS. •
IN 1983, THE ARKELL CORPORATION AND METRO SQUARE PARTNERSHIP
ENTERED INTO A NEW PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT WITH THE PURCHASE
THE ARKELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
PRIOR TO 1983 THE ARKELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WAS
PRIMARILY KNOWN AS A CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPER ENGAGED IN
THE CONSTRUCTION AND CONVERSION OF LUXURY, MULTI - FAMILY
DWELLING UNITS. OUR EXPERIENCE FOR THOSE EIGHT YEARS
HAD BEEN EITHER AS OWNER DEVELOPER OR AS EXCLUSIVE MARKETER
OF EXISTING COMPLEXES. RECENTLY, THE COMPANY HAS GAINED
STRENGTH IN THE' NEW CONSTRUCTION FIELD BY THE ADDITION
OF KEY PERSONNEL EXPERIENCED IN REAL ESTATE MARKETING
AND DEVELOPMENT. ARKELL DEVELOPMENT IS A WHOLLY OWNED
COMPANY LOCATED IN DOWNTOWN ST. PAUL, MN. THE FOUNDATION
OF THE COMPANY WAS SET IN 1974 WHEN JOHN ARKELL PUT TOGETHER
A GROUP OF INVESTORS TO PURCHASE THE REMAINING UNITS
OF THE 512 RIVER TOWERS CONVERSION IN DOWNTOWN MINNEA-
.UNIT
POLIS, MN. SINCE THAT TIME THE STRENGTH AND CAPABILITY
OF THE COMPANY HAS COME FROM A STEADY PROGRESSION OF
SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS REPRESENTING OVER 1,300 DWELLING
UNITS IN THE MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL METROPOLITAN AREA AND
SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA.
ARKELL DEVELOPMENT AND KRAUS ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION HAVE
BEEN SELECTED TO DEVELOP AND BUILD 495 CONDOMINIUM UNITS
FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER IN THE
VILLAGE OF ST. ANTHONY, A NORTHEAST MINNEAPOLIS, MN.
SUBURB. THE DEVELOPMENT FEATURES ELDERLY HOUSING, A
202 PROJECT AND MARKET RATE-CONDOMINIUMS. •
IN 1983, THE ARKELL CORPORATION AND METRO SQUARE PARTNERSHIP
ENTERED INTO A NEW PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT WITH THE PURCHASE
THE ARKELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS
three Fountains Condominium
4 neapolis, Minnesota
ridgewood Hills Condominium
*:inneapolis, Minnesota
Towers Condominium
rSinneapolis, Minnesota
Greenbrier Condominium
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Greenbrier Ponds Condominium
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Pe'vz G'r
Country Club Estates Condominium
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Fcview Estates Condominium
Roseville, Minnesota
Bridgewalk Condominium
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Kenzington of St. Anthony
St. Anthony Village, Minnesota
Metro Square Office Building
St. Paul, Minnesota
Oak Glen Development
Stillwater, Minnesota
Crestm ark Aviation Ltd.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
7OPlace
St. Paul, Minnesota
DESCRIPTION
36 units
23 units
RELATIONSHIP
Developer /Marketing
John Arkell
Thomas Arkell
Developer /Marketing
John Arkell
Thomas Arkell
512 units John Arkell
Director of Marketing
Stephen J. Yurick
Director of Administratic
and Finance
462 units Stephen J. Yurick
Director of Marketing
and Finance
130 units Stephen J. Yurick
Director of Marketing
and Finance
125 units Owner /Developer
John Arkell
Thomas Arkell
96 units Owner /Developer
Arkell Development
Corporation
92 units - Owner /Developer
Arkell Development
Corporation
495 units Owner /Developer
Arkell Development
Kraus - Anderson
448,371 Gross Partnership /Managing
Square Feet Partner
368,210 Square Metro Square Partnership
Feet Rentable Arkell Development
465 acres
Golf Course
Housing
Air
transportation
20 Story
Multi -use
Structure
Partnership
Oak Glen Development
Arkell Development
Crestmark /Arkell
Owner /Developer
Arkell /Metro Square
Partnership
CONDOMINIUM, HOTELS OR A LARGE SCALE MIXED USE PROJECT,
ARKELL AND ARTEX HAVE THE CAPABILITIES TO MAKE IT HAPPEN
AND THE DEDICATION TO SEE THAT QUALITY IS ENSURED. THESE
ARE THE ELEMENTS OF OUR SUCCESS.
-6-
r
CITY OF RICHFIELD, 1�TNNESOTA
Office of City Manager
® Council Letter No. 13
Agenda ;gay 14, 1904
The Honorable Mayor
and
.Ie.mbers of U, ,,e City Coun:'.il
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for an Off-street Parking Permit at 695.3
Cedar Avenue South
r
Council Members:
Mr. Bruce Schmitt, representing the property ownt_rs at 5 ^53
Cedar Avenue has requested that the city approve an offstreet
parkin;; permit. The property owners wish to demolish the
existing structure on the site and construct a new building and
offstreet parking area on the site. The new buildin,7 will be
used as a transmission shop.
City staff has reviewed the proposed parking lot against
city standards and guidelines and.has found:
S1. Th,- number of offstreet parkin;; spaces provided on the
site does not meet city guidelines for this type of use. City
guidelines indicate tlza.t 24 spaces shoul:: be provided (? spaces
for each service bay and 1 space for each employee). The site
plan indicates 24 spaces will be provided, but 2 of t;Iese spaces
should not be considered because they are tandem spaces which
cannot be accessed at all t1imes. There is a p- ;rlii.n; problsi(1 at
the transmission shop's current location at ' ?214 Cedar avenue
South. The new site will provide twice as :nany parking spaces
as the current site, however.
2. A portion of the north edge of the parking area does
not include perimeter curbing.
Y The site plan in ti7at 5 compact car spaces will.
be provided. The plan does not indicate that "compact car only"
signs will b-- provided as rcquireJ by -,i` -y guidelin;.�s.
4. The site plan slows that tlere will be decorativ
pl :n ;in;s placed on the city ri at-- of. -:.ay. The property own, -,r
should enter into a hold harmless agreement with the city for
this to be allowed.
5. Th n�indicap stall shown is only 10 fc. t wide rather
• than 12 feet wide. A handicap curb ramp should be provided .
adjacent to the door to allow handicap a.:cess to the building.
Council Letter No. 183 -2-
• 5. The parking lot design will not result in undue traffic
congestion on adjacent streets. The proposed design will
eliminate the two curb cuts closest to tie intersection which
will result in safer conditions than currently exist on the
sits.
•
•
It is recommended that the -� City Council approve the layout
with the following stipulations:
1. That perimeter curbing be provided along the nortiz edge
of the parking lot.
2. ThaL "compact cj�r only" signs b•° provided for ali
compact car spaces. r
3. Tizat the property owner enter into a hold harmless
agreement with the city covering the proposed plant,-
inJs on the city right -of -way.
4. That the width of the handicap parking stall be 12 feet
and that a handicap curb raimp be provided adjacent to
the entrance to the structure to provide proper
handicap accessibility.
A resolution to make this approval is attached for your
consideration.
spectfefl y sv b:nitted ,
John G C rtwrioti
City t,,ana -er %
JGC /eja
RESOLUTION NO
• RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT FOR
OFF- STREET PARKING WITH TRANSMISSION SHOP INC.
NAME: TRANSMISSION SHOP INC
6958 CEDAR AVENUE SOUTH
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423
LOCATION: 6958 CEDAR AVENUE SOUTH
USE: PUBLIC GARAGE (TRANSMISSION SHOP)
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as
follows:
1. That the proposed geometric layout of the off - street parking is hereby
approved subject to and upon completion of performance of the contract for such
off - street parking as hereinafter authorized.
2. That the proposed off - street parking contract for the improvement of
said off - street parking, be placed on file and that the city manager be
authorized to sign said contract and the city clerk be authorized to seal the
name for and on behalf of this city subject to the following provisions:
A. That the perimeter curbing be provided along the north edge of the
parking lot.
B. That "compact car only" signs be provided for all compact car spaces.
C. That the property owner enter into a hold harmless agreement with the
city covering the proposed plantings on the city right -of -way.
D. That the width of the handicap parking stall be 12 feet and that a
handicap curb ramp be provided adjacent to the entrance to the
structure to provide proper handicap accessibility.
3. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of off -
street parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the off - street parking
lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code 4.05.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 23rd day of April,
1984.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
0 Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
•
•
BRUCE W 6SCKMITT 0
12450 WAYZATA bOULEVARD
MINNETONKA, MINNE (SOTA 55343
(612) 545 -0405
Mr. Rick Jopke
Zoning Department
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
(560CIATUS - IDA.
CHITECT6
Friday; April 27, 1981
Re: The proposed Transmission Shop Inc. at 6958 Cedar Ave.
Dear Mr. Jopke;
Steve Jensen, the owner of the Transmission Shop Inc., is
planning on demolishing the existing building at 6958 Cedar
Avenue and erecting a new automotive service building on
the site. We plan on eliminating two curb cuts and modifying
two. Most of the existing pine trees will remain along the
east and north property line. The new structure will be a
six -bay transmission repair and rebuilding shop with office,
waiting area, storage, etc., as recuired for that use.
We have adjusted the plans under your recommendations, and
I have talked to Sivert Hendrickson about construction par-
ticulars. The only remaining question as I understand it
is that we have two parking spaces in tandem. Although
these spaces would be unnacceptable for some businesses,
I feel they are acceptable for this type of use and are
actually an advantage to the owner in some aspects.
3WS:bjl
cc: Mr. Steve Jensen
Mr. John Engberg
Sincerely,
ruce Schmitt
I
J
i
iI
1
i
/ I
l
� ° ' � t� .,ter. •
Pu
Lei
Mal
IL
*Naive Vadu&-L
y Y , . � llI �i�f, -� •_N i, � �J: lei ;t
ice, t "^'•'!T`i' „X�«f'��'i,1', }.i-t. �S�♦ `t. 't..
• r �^��- it t`y Y'- Mme..
�+.1 � jj111� �1 R � •.. � .a'•1
rte_
if• ' u.. : �_ %ice i/ p �
•
•
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Approval of Plans
Authorization to
Community Center
Council Members:
� f
Council Letter No. 182
Agenda May 14, 1984
and Specifications and
Advertise for Bids -
An earlier Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
allocated $45,000 for improvements at the Community Center.
The following work was completed: remodeling office space
for transportation services; remodeling congregate dining
staff work area; and renovation of the lower level
kitchen to provide handicapped accessibility. The uncompleted
work projects were placed on hold while consideration was given
to the purchase or lease of a school facility at West Inter-
mediate School or Lincoln Hills Elementary School. It was
determined this year that the city would not move services
from the Community Center to a school site. At about the same
time, the CDBG funds earmarked for Lincoln Hills School
acquisition were reallocated.
This action provided $100,000 in additional funding for
Community Center projects. The $100,000 plus the approximately
$20,000 remaining from the $45,000 allocation were placed in
the Year IX funding period. This work must be
completed by 1985. At recent hearings on Year X of
the CDBG program, an additional $25,000 for the Community Center
was included in the application. When this funding is received,
the work must be completed by 1986. Staff, consultants and the
Senior Citizen /Handicapped Advisory Commission have developed
plans for using the Community Center allocation of $145,000
($120,000 + $25,000). Most of the work needs to be completed by
1985.
The proposed improvements are:
1. Improvement of the kitchen and the arts and crafts room
on the upper floor. Est. $15,000
2. Improvement of the reception /information area in the
lounge. Est. $17,000
3. Provision of an outdoor patio area for greater
programming flexibility. Est. $15,000
•
1�
Council Letter No. 182
-2-
4. Provision of room dividers on the upper and lower
floors for greater programming flexibility.
Est. $20,000
5. Provision of a "bus turn around" on 70th Street for
improved access related to the new vehicle to be
received through a MnDot grant program. Est. $11,000
6. Expanded storage space on the upper and lower floors
including space for outdoor maintenance equipment.
Est. $52,000
All the improvements have been designed with the understand-
ing that there is a good possiblity for future expansion of the
building. The Senior Citizen Advisory Commission and the
Community Services Commission have both reviewed the plans
and recommend approval by the city council. Andre LaTondresse
of the Schwarz /Weber architectural firm, consultants on the
Community Center original design and subsequent projects, will
be at the May 14, 1984, City Council meeting to explain the
plans in further detail and to answer any questions of the
council.
It is recommended the city council approve the plans and
specifications and authorize the advertisement for bids.
JGC /eja
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
$130,000 improvement Items 1 -6
10,000 architects fee
5,000 landscaping & signs
$145,000 Total Project Cost
Respectfu omitted,
John G. Ca twright.
City Manager
jo
MOTION PASSED. THIS CHANGE IN MEETING TIME WILL ALLOW FOR
MEMBERS TO ATTEND THE ENTIRE MEETING AS WELL,
V. REMODELING OF CENTER
DAVE SKRI:EN GAVE A BRIEF BACKGROUND ON HOW WE ARRIVED AT THE
PRESENT REMODELING PROPOSAL. OVER THE PAST YEAR THE CITY WAS
INVESTIGATING THE PURCHASE OF A SCHOOL WHICH COULD HAVE IN-
CORPORATED THE COMMUNITY CENTER INTO IT. AS YOU ARE ALL AWARE,
THE CITY DID NOT PURCHASE A SCHOOL,
OF THE $500,000 C.D.B.G, ALLOCATED, $100,000 WAS GIVEN TO THE
CENTER TO DO REMODELING IN THE EXISTING BUILDING, AN ADDI-
TIONAL $25 000 WAS APPLIED FOR TO BUILD STORAGE .AREA, THE
TOTAL OF $1.25,000 WILL BE COMBINED WITH THE $18,000 WHICH IS
REMAINING FROM EXISTING REMODELING PROJECTS WHICH HAVE BEEN
PLACED ON HOLD AT THE CENTER. THE COMBINING OF THESE-FUNDS
RESULTS IN A $143,000 BUILDING PROJECT FOR THE CENTER, DUE TO
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS, THIS MONEY MUST BE SPENT BY JUNE
OF 1984, THIS PLACES THE -CITY ON -A VERY TIGHT TIMELINE. THE
ARCHITECTURAL FIRM OF SCHWARTZ-WEBER HAS BEEN HIRED TO DRAW
UP PLANS FOR THE REMODELING, ANDRE HAS BROUGHT THESE DRAWINGS
FOR YOUR REVIEW. THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY STAFF IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE ARCHITECT. THE REMODELING WOULD INCLUDE
THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED PROJECTS/AREAS:
KITCHEN -- UPPER FLOOR
ARTS AND CRAFTS ROOM,
RECEPTIONIST/INFORMATION AREA IN LOUNGE
PATIO
ROOM DIVIDERS - UPPER AND LOWER FLOORS
BUS TURN - AROUND
VOLUNTEER INFORMATION CENTER/MEDIA WORK AREA
WITH THESE DESIGNS, IT IS INTENDED THAT ALL PLANS KEEP IN MIND
THE POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE EXPANSION OF THE BUILDING. THE COM-
MISSION FELT VERY POSITIVE ABOUT THIS PROJECT AND APPROVED THE
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CENTER.
VI, VOTING
MYRNA REPORTED THAT FLANDERS, GRAVES AND HIPP MET WITH SYLVIA
BERGH AND DON RANKEN ON VOTING FOR DISABLED VOTERS, IT WAS
DETERMINED THAT THE POLLING SITES WERE DOING AS WELL AS THEY
COULD , MYRNA EXPLAINED THAT IT IS STATE LAW THAT YOU CAN
HAVE ONLY ONE TYPE OF VOTING AT A SITE. THEREFORE, VOTING
BOOTHS ARE THE ONLY OPTION. ABSENTEE BALLOTS CAN BE PROMOTED
AHEAD OF TIME IN ORDER TO ASSIST PEOPLE IN NOT HAVING TO GO
TO THE POLLS, LONG LINES DO EXIST AND THERE IS NO WAY TO GET
AROUND THEM. CHAIRS ARE PUT OUT WHERE FIRE CODES -ALLOW IT.
EACH POLLING SITE DOES HAVE A SITE COORDINATOR WHO ATTEMPS TO
AID PEOPLE IN LINE. HOWEVER, THEIR JOB IS A FULL ONE, AS A
RESULT OF THIS MEETING, THE FOLLOWING ALTERNATIVES ARE GOING
TO BE LOOKED AT IN ORDER TO ASSIST IN THE VOTING PROCESS,
C�
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager .0 ?
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Consideration of
Sidewalk on 77th
Thomas Avenues
Council Members:
Introduction
Council Letter No. 181
Agenda May 14, 1984
a Proposal to Construct a Public
Street Between Sheridan and
Former City Manager Karl Nollenberger asked Century Court
Apartment owner Wolfensen to install a public sidewalk on 77th
Street between Sheridan and Thomas Avenues.
This proposal would install the missing sidewalk link
between existing sidewalks. There is a section of sidewalk on
Thomas Avenue between 78th and 77th Streets on the Century Court
Apartment complex side of the street. Also, there is existing
sidewalk on Sheridan Avenue between 77th and 76th Streets.
Analysis
1.
The Department of
Community Services would not realize
any significant increase
in sidewalk snow removal
efforts and has no
objection to the proposed project;
2.
The City Engineer
reports Mr. Wolfensen questions the
need for such a sidewalk,
but would not "stand in the
way" if the city
desires to order the project to
proceed.
3.
The project would
connect two sections of existing
walks; and
4.
The Century Court
complex has many dwelling units
concentrated in a
single block.
Unresolved Issues
The Department of Community Services advises that the city
right -of -way line is at the back of the curb on the south side
of 77th Street. It is my understanding the issue of right -of-
way has not been discussed with Mr. Wolfensen.
Council Letter No. 181 -2-
Recommendation
rThe City Manager recommends the project be approved if right -
of -way issues can be resolved and the project be financed by
special assessment in accordance with established city policy.
JGC /eja
•
�5.!pspectJful,1'7 submitted ,
John G. Cartwright
City Manager
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Inter- Offir:e Mem(,randurn
SATE April 24, 1984
TO Don Fondrick
FROM Mike Eastling
SUBJECT Sidewalk Construction - 77th Street, Sheridan to Thomas
Avenue Adjacent to Century Court Apartments
Attached you will find an April 12, 1983 letter from Karl
Nollenberger to Century Court Apartments. In the letter, Karl
asks Century Courts to install sidewalk to connect the Sheridan
and Thomas Avenue sidewalks. According to Eileen, no written
response to this letter was received. Apparently Karl did talk
to someone at Century Courts, however. This conversation
resulted in Council Memorandum No. 76 which is attached. An
April 10, 1984 letter from me to Mr. Wolfenson at Century Court
apartments explains a January phone call between myself and
Mr. Wolfenson. On April 18, 1984, I received a phone call from
Mr. Wolfenson in which he explained his present position. He
said that he has never had a tenant express a desire for sidewalk
in this area and questions the need for a sidewalk. He said
that if the city sees a need for the sidewalk, however, he would
not stand in the way.
A considerable amount of time and effort was put in four years
ago to come up with a sidewalk policy which identified which
sidewalks should be constructed in the city. After three
construction seasons, we have either constructed the sidewalks
that were identified to be constructed in the policy or changed
the policy. On the other hand, the sidewalk would connect two
dead -end sidewalks.
Please let me know within the next couple of weeks if you want me
to proceed with the construction of the sidewalk. We will need
to follow the special assessment process. We would assess 100%
of the cost because 77th Street is not on our state aid system.
MJE /vp
Attachments
0
April 12, 1983
Century Court A=artments
West Office
7620 Penn Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Sir.
The Richfield City Council initiated a sidewalk im-
provement policy three years ago which provides for
sidewalks to be constructed on arterial and collector
streets and other areas in the city to provide for
safe pedestrian walkways.
During consideration of the 1983 sidewalk im =rovement
project, the city council also discussed the pedestrian
walkways adjacent to the Century Court A_cartment comvlex
on Penn Avenue. and 76th Street.
The City Counnil has asked me to contact vour office
for the purpose of requesting that Century Court in-
stall sidewalks on two locations adjacent to this
complex. Attached to this letter is a sketch which
denotes the sidewalks already in place, and the two
suggested locations for new sidewalks. (These locations
are marked with X's). The city council is hcceful that
Century Court would agree to construct sidewalk_ at
these locations to complete the sidewalk network
around Century Court. Construction of sidewalks at
these two locations would enhance the pedestrian
safety of tenants at the apartment ccmplex also.
Please feel free to contact me if you have c_uestions
regarding this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Karl Nollenberger
City IManager
KN /eja
telephone: 869 -7521 (612;
an equal cppertunity ernplu•ye:
L
O
Q
(D
0
April 12, 1983
Century Court A=artments
West Office
7620 Penn Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Sir.
The Richfield City Council initiated a sidewalk im-
provement policy three years ago which provides for
sidewalks to be constructed on arterial and collector
streets and other areas in the city to provide for
safe pedestrian walkways.
During consideration of the 1983 sidewalk im =rovement
project, the city council also discussed the pedestrian
walkways adjacent to the Century Court A_cartment comvlex
on Penn Avenue. and 76th Street.
The City Counnil has asked me to contact vour office
for the purpose of requesting that Century Court in-
stall sidewalks on two locations adjacent to this
complex. Attached to this letter is a sketch which
denotes the sidewalks already in place, and the two
suggested locations for new sidewalks. (These locations
are marked with X's). The city council is hcceful that
Century Court would agree to construct sidewalk_ at
these locations to complete the sidewalk network
around Century Court. Construction of sidewalks at
these two locations would enhance the pedestrian
safety of tenants at the apartment ccmplex also.
Please feel free to contact me if you have c_uestions
regarding this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Karl Nollenberger
City IManager
KN /eja
telephone: 869 -7521 (612;
an equal cppertunity ernplu•ye:
•
•
•
,n
ul
ro
m
7
cD
G
z
G
�s
rt
laaaTS uT9L
i-10*
is
0
R'
U)
U1
4-0
0
{n
.s.
CU
_cc
L
0
0.
0
Cfl
April 10, 1984
Century Court Apartments
West Office
ATTN Mr. Wolfenson
7620 Penn Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423 _
Dear Mr. Wolfenson:
Last January I called you about the construction of
the sidewalk adjacent to your apartment complex. I told
you at that time that it was my understanding that the
previous city manager had made some contacts with
Century Court Apartments and that he had received some
tentative approval to the construction of some sidewalks.
Attached to this letter you will find the letter from
the then city manager, Karl Nollenberger, which refers
to the sidewalk construction.. Mr. Nollenberger received
a reply from someone at Century Court which lead 'him
to believe that the owners of the apartment wanted some
or all of the work done.
Since last April, some additional planning has been
done for an improvement to Penn Avenue over 494. Some
of the alternatives include altering the frontage
roads. It would appear to be wise to delay any side-
walk construction in that area until these plans are
finalized. `
However, the sidewalk on 77th Street from Sheridan to
Thomas Avenue would connect two existing sidewalks.
The city could construct a sidewalk with other concrete
work that it is going to be sending out for bids in
1984. The cost of this sidewalk would be specially
assessed against the apartment complex property. I
estimate that the cost of the sidewalk will be about
$13 a foot or $4,300 for this sidewalk on 77th Street
between Sheridan and Thomas Avenues. A sidewalk
easement will be required so the city can construct
the sidewalk and retain access to the sidewalk for
snowplowing purposes.
telephone: 869 -7521 (612)
an equal opportunity employer
Letter to Mr. Wolfenson
April 9, 1984
Page 2
The Engineering Division is now in the process of preparing the plans
and specifications for the 1984 concrete project. If you are
interested in this proposal, please let me know by April 20 so that
the sidewalk could be included in the plans.
Sincerely,
r
Michael J. Eastling, P.E.
City Engineer
MJE /vp
Enclosures
cc Donald Fondrick, Director of Community Services
•
:o_ ids
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 180A
Agenda May 14, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Installation of Traffic Signal on 66th Street
at Vacated Pillsbury Avenue
Council Members:
As part of the negotiations with Kentucky Fried Chicken on
the relocation of their Lyndale Avenue restaurant to the old
Clark Oil site, the city agreed to allow the installation of a
traffic signal on 66th Street at vacated Pillsbury Avenue (now a
commercial entrance) when appropriate traffic volumes were met.
The agreement states that the full cost of the traffic signal
system (estimated cost $60,000), other than that portion, if
any, borne by Hennepin County, will be paid for by Kentucky
Fried Chicken. The signal system would belong to Hennepin
County and the county would be responsible for the cost of
maintaning, repairing or replacing the traffic signal system
after it is installed.
Hennepin County has recently completed a traffic study of
this intersection. The statistics show that the minimum
warrants for a traffic signal are now met. In addition,
accident statistics for the last three years reveal that 10 of
the 13 accidents occurring at this intersection were of the
right angle type. Traffic signals normally will significantly
reduce this type of accident. Additional increases in traffic
can be expected when the Nautilus facility opens in the expanded
Hauser - Snyder building.
Therefore, staff recommends that the City council pass the
attached resolution requesting that Hennepin County Department
of Transportation install this traffic control system. If
approved, it is expected the signal would be installed in 1985,
due to the length of time necessary to obtain all signal
components.
Relspectfu r mitted,
• , ohn G.-Car wrigh�
City Manager
JGC /eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD,
i;I;lPdESOTA
Office of City
ilanag-r
Council Letter No. 130
Agenda May 14, 193*
The Honorable Mayor
and
'members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subj�Ct: Traffic Control Signal Iain - 'trance Agreement
Council (Members:
Th,2 city of Richfield has- a number of new, co�,ipute -rized
traffic control signals for which parts are not stocked nor is
the expertise for :maintenance available on the city 5c,aff.
Currently there ar -1, six signal installations in the city
located at
75tn
73rd
7 0 tri
57th
• 0th th
7
70
Streot
Street
Street
Street
Str ;�t
Street
and
and
and
and
and
and
Lyndale Avenue;
Lyndale Avenue;
Lyndale Avenue;
Lyndale Avenue;
Lynd�.le Avenue; and
12th Avenue.
There .nay be audiLionai co.nputerized traffic control signals
installed in the future. Hennepin County does have the parts
and the expertise for maintenance of these signals which are
compatible with the County signal system. Several communities
hive enr,ercd into maintenance a-- r-aements with the county and the tD
City of Richfield is desirous of also entering into such a
maintenance agreement with the County.
The proposed agreement provides that malfunctions be
screened by tae city and that all excavation, cleaning,
relamping, painting and provision of electric power be provided
by the city. The County would provide ail engineering services,
parts, labor and equipment for maintenance to assure continuing
operation of th_ Lraffic control signals.
Actual costs incurred by the County for such maintenance
services shall be paid by tae city. Tiis would include direct,
labor, and supervision costs, including fringe benefits, for the
performance of the work and services required und;.?r tiie
contract; indirect labor costs for supportive stuff; indirect
costs such as overhead and data processing; equiprn:!nt us.--d in
performance of the work or services and materials or couimodities
used or incorporated into the wore: or services. The County Mill
• keep detailed records and accounts for tae statements claiming
reimbursement from the city which will be submitted quarterly.
r
Council Letter No. 130 -2-
lrTiill it is nom known �x ctly wlh at Ln cost to the ci-,;y will be
. related to this proposed maintenance agreement, it is expected
to be subst.ini:ially less than t:ie cost incurred -o tr&in
personnel and to secure and stock the necessary equipment
and :materials. Th::�r` would be the additional advantage and
indirect cost savings of freeing city manpower, equipment
and storage space for other services. Ctiler communities
indicate a satisfactory working and economic relationship
with t'tl�-, county for these,' services.
It is recommended the city council authorize execution of
t:zL
agreement and approve the attached resolution.
:s ,oc'cf witted ,
Join G. Car`wri;7ht
City 1r1, Li nager
JGC /eja
•
F-1
L J
•
RESOLUTICIN NC.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECTUION OF AGREEMENT '110. PW 12 -19 -34
BET* EEII THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND HE�1,1E?Irl COUNTY
FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC COIITROL SIGNALS
WHEREAS, Agr;;eruent for the maintenance of traffic control
signal systems on municipal street systems within the limits of
the city by the county and reimbursern?nL for such services by
the city, Agreement No. PW 12 -19 -34 has bean prepared and
presented to the city.
t
PdObJ, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: That said Agreement be in
all things approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That t1he Mayor- and ivlanager are
authorized to sign Agreement No. Prd 12- 19 -84.
Dat:.,d this 14th day of May, 1934.
CERTIFICATION
State of Minnesota
County of Hennepin
City of Richfield
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and
correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the
CiLy Council of Richfield aL a meetin thereof field in the City
of Richfield, Minnesota on the 14th day of Islay, 1984, as
disclosed by the records of said City in my possession.
( SEAL)
• Sylvia Lergh, City Clark
•
L.J
•
T 4 1=
CITY OF RICHr IELD, MIN ESCTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter ado. 179
Agenda May 14, 1934
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for per;nit for Temporary Ground Sign.
Bridgeman's, 300 W. 66th Street
A temporary sign permit has been requested by Bridgeman's
located at 300 West 66th Street, Richfield.
The sign is 4' X 3' and will be located at t*ie bas, of the
current Bridgeman's permanent siin structure.
Sign is to be used May 16, 1934 throuoiz June 15th, 1984.
City of Richfield Ordinance Code 3.49, Subdivision 16 I5)
provides that City Council approval is required for temporary
°round signs. A copy of that section ,is attached.
Staff Review:
The proposed sign conforms to city ordinance provisions, and
the city staff recommends approval of a permit for a 30 -day
t= crnporary ground sign.
pe tfuIly b:nitted ,
John G. Car wright
City Manager
JGC /eja
r
GROUND SIGN PEDESTAL SIGN PROJECTING SIGN
�' WIDTH ,1 WIDTH —�"} IDTH —�
LEGEND i T
WALL SIGN
WIDTH - ---- --
LEGEND
ROOF SIGN
WIDTH
LEGEND
GROUND ROOF
V 5 ",
a
LEGEND
Indicate Distance
From The Building
Indicate legend on the
the reverse side in
the
d
r
d
C?'
LEGEND
Place location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign is from property lines.
Locate any traffic lights within 300 feet.
DEFINITION: Minor Signs -- Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft.
. on a common board
IND TIC AT
'r
i
Planning Depar,.menc
Route to above for special approval per code General Sims
APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT
City of Richfield,, Minnesota
Date 5 - a - S'q Zoning Sign Erected - Yes
No X Fee
Address of Sign $p0 Wa_,,+ (,own S4-• Proprietor :Fame JD rt =rn- r%S DBA
Sign Erector r;�� rr.e�r.s Address cj� `�. tc(,.�,� &
e of Sin Design heather Cover Lighting r
If Illuminate Ye No Watts m
Electrical Contractor 'iJ �. Address Phone
Property Owner or his Agent Signature W�A Phone &3+-��
Estimated Cost Sign Wick_ � —H ght Total quare Feet _
* x / _ 2'
Position of the advertisement structure in re ationship tote adjacent buildings, sidewalks,
curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on
drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as
defined on page 2.
Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans:
including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure.
Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on
the premises?
Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises?
Applican •' ignature and Title- ith Firm /
Date =S -°;2 -
Phone '"umber
lkt
8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATTO:i SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061
Wall
Projecting
Ground
Roof
Pedestal
Changeable
Temporary
Trailer
Single Face
Double Face
Multi -Faced
Aerial /Blimp
Searchlight —
Banner /Pennants
Portable Frame:
T ❑ AM Post
Clear Lexon. Constant
Frosted Lexon Flashing
Plastic Covered Revolving
Shaded Traveling
Neon Zip Lite
Other Other(Explain)
Sign Colors yel(nw;. _
If Illuminate Ye No Watts m
Electrical Contractor 'iJ �. Address Phone
Property Owner or his Agent Signature W�A Phone &3+-��
Estimated Cost Sign Wick_ � —H ght Total quare Feet _
* x / _ 2'
Position of the advertisement structure in re ationship tote adjacent buildings, sidewalks,
curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on
drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as
defined on page 2.
Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans:
including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure.
Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on
the premises?
Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises?
Applican •' ignature and Title- ith Firm /
Date =S -°;2 -
Phone '"umber
lkt
8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATTO:i SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061
•
A
t�
s
'rL.e h_iildiro or structure from which and- such cio-n prom - -c -Ind :3Zi
attachments or fastenings :rust be so constructed as to safely resist the dead
load and the wind load added by the attached sign.
(5) All such signs shall be of non- combustible materials, or of not less
than one hour fire resistive construction.
Subd. 14. Roof Signs: Construction and Design. The following standards shall
be maintained for all roof signs:
(1) No roof sign shall be located nearer than five feet from the outside
wall toward which it faces, nor exceed 25 feet in height above the roof level
of the building unless constructed integral with the building or structure,
nor shall it project beyond the edge of said roof in any direction. For the
purposes of this subdivision, lights attached to the sign structure and lights
attached to the building and beamed toward the sign structure shall be con-
sidered part of the sign structure.
(2) Every such sign shall be either metal, metal clad, incombustible, open
wire or open metal sign, except that such sign may have letters, figures,
characters, or borders of wood if such borders do not exceed four inches in
width, and such wooden letters, figures or characters do not cover more than
25 % of the area of such sign, provided that in place of sheet metal, sub-
stitution may be made of the following materials; tempered pressed wood or
other similar materials approved by the chief inspector, having equal proper-
ties as to strength, fire and moisture resistance.
(3) No such sign shall be so placed as to prevent free passage of persons
from one part of the roof to another.
(4) The building or structure upon which such sign is placed, and all
attachments or fastenings must be so constructed as to safely resist the dead
load and the wind load added by the attached sign, and in such a manner as not
to cause damage to the building or structure on which such sign is placed.
(5) No roof sign shall be more than 65 feet in length nor shall it extend
more than 25 feet above the surface of the roof of the building on which it
is located. No roof sign shall extend more than 45 feet above the average
ground level of that part of the street toward which it faces.
Subd. 15. Wall Signs; Construction and Design. The following standards shall
be maintained for all wall signs:
(1) No wall sign shall have a projection over a private sidewalk or an
established building line of more than 12 inches.
(2) The materials, construction and attachment of any such sign shall meet
the same standards and requirements as roof signs.
Subd. 16. Banners and Temporary Signs. The following standards shall be
maintained for all banners and temporary signs:
(1) Temporary signs and banners attached to any building and constructed
of canvas, plastic material, cloth or other combustible material with or with-
out framework; shall be strongly constructed and shall be securely attached
to their supports. They shall be removed (including all framework and
supports) as soon as damaged or torn and in no case later than 60 days after
erection.
(2) Temporary signs of combustible material shall not be larger than 120
square feet in area for each twenty feet of building frontage. There shall
not be more than one temporary sign on any building frontage.
ORDINANCE CODE
4/8/68
91 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
r
__b12 -- mal l pro •e t over
public property or right -of -way, but may extend a maximum of 6 inches from
the face of the building.
(4) Temporary signs of combustible construction shall not be hung so as to
cover either partially or completely any door, window, or opening required for
ventilation.
(5) No roof sign shall be more than combustible material, and no tem-
porary ground sign shall be located on any multiple- residence, commercial or
industrial property in the city without first obtaining a special permit
therefor from the council. If the council determines to grant an application
for a special permit for any such temporary sign or bannering, or any such
temporary ground sign, it may impose conditions upon the granting thereof, and
it shall be unlawful to locate or maintain any such sign or bannering for a
longer period or in a different manner than that specified in the special
permit. No such special permit shall be for a period of more than 60 days.
No such special permit shall be granted, however, where such temporary signs
or banners are prohibited by other provisions of this code.
Subd. 17. Application of Other Provisions of this Part. Temporary ground
signs as defined in Section 3.41, Subdivision 1, of this part, shall comply
with the provisions of Subdivision 16.
Subd. 18. Approval of Sign Permit Applications. Upon presentation of ap-
plication, permit fee, plans and specifications and other required information,
the sign construction permit shall be issued by the manager, or his represent-
ative, except as provided in Subdivision 19 of this section.
Subd. 19. Special Approval from Council. In the case of an application for
a sign requiring a special permit, or which will be illuminated, or moving,
or of unusual height, size, design, or location, the manager shall refer such
sign to the council for approval. No permit for any such sign, so .referred,
shall be issued without first obtaining the approval of the council.
Subd. 20. Variance from Terms of Approval Prohibited. No sign shall be
erected, used or maintained in a manner at variance from the provisions of
this code or different from that approved by the council. No building or
electrical permit for a sign shall be granted until the sign permit has been
approved.
Subd. 21. Future Permits. A permit shall not be issued for any new bill-
board or advertising sign located off the premises where the advertised
product is sold, if such billboard or sign would be within 300 feet of any
other such billboard or sign already in existence in the interior of the
same city block or its equivalent area. Permits may be issued for directional
or identification signs. Any billboard removed under the provisions of Sub-
division 22 of this section shall not be reissued. Any billboard destroyed
by storms or acts of God may be rebuilt within 90 days, if complying with this
part.
ORDINANCE CODE
4/8/68
92 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNES07A
CITY OF RICHFIELD, 141INNESOTA
Office of City Manager
is Council Letter `To. 173
Agenda Play 14, 1934
The Honorable mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Permit for Illuminated Signs, Walser
Buick, 2100 'hest 73th Street
r
Council members:
Tw0 sign permits are requested by Nordquist Sign Company for
illuminated signs for Walser Buick, 2100 West 78th Street as
follows:
1. Wall sign 2' x 911 x 15' x 9 +" over garage service doors
to replace existing sign; and
2. A 5,
The City
"Illuminated
required for
section is a
STAFF REVIEW
x 213' roof sign on the used car sales office.
Ordinance Code Section ;.,49, subdivision 19,
Sins", provides t
g hat city council approval is
illuminated signs. A copy of that ordinance
ttac'ned .
The replacement service garage door sign is conformance with
city ordinance.
The roof sign on the used car sales office is permitted
under city ordinance. However, because the used car sales
offic. --a was constructed under a special use permit, the council
may deny the application or apply certain stipulations on any
rooftop sign that is approved.
It is the opinion of the city planner ;;hat a roof top sign
is not aesthetically pleasing, in that it results in a
cluttered appearance and is obtrusive to the landscape. It is
recommended that if the city council approves this roof sign,
that a stipulation be .Wade that a sign support system that will
resist wind loads and support increased snow loads be
constructed and approved by the chief building; inspector.
Evidence of compliance with building code requirements must be
received prior to issuance of a building per:ait for the support
• structure.
Council Letter Teo. 134 -2-
• The city :nanay;;r concurs with the city planner that the
proposed roof sign will add to the cluttered appearance. What
exists in this location is a serious case of sign pollution.
This used car sales office is about the only space left that is
free of a sign or bann=er. There are no signs on this particular
used car office building to identify its purpose. However, a
much smaller sign, attached to the front wail of the building,
could provide the proper identification to used car customers.
The city staff recommends approval of the wall sign permit,
and Jenial of the rooftop sign permit.
JGC /eja
•
t
pec t fuT Y /abin i t', -j (9 ,
John G/. CQrtwrig.
City Manager
I
r
Data
ri
-
Yr•"'t1.- .r+:
:'ate
APPROVE E DEvY�
Wail
Projecting
Ground
Roof
Pedestal
Changeable
Temporary
Trailer
,_��`�r,y�C�
APPROVE
DENYIi7
'City
Clear Lexon < Constant
Frosted Lexon Flashing
Plastic Covered Revolving
Shaded Traveling
Neon _ Zip Lite
Other/'!-�-```u r4' Other(Explain)
Sign Colors ^�
Planning Department
Council
Date
Date
a�lr�,'RCvtril cv'•''"� -�' SIU r�j �w
L`�Zoute`-to above for special approval Der code
General Siens
APPLICATION FOR
ADVERTISING PEP -MIT
City of Richfield,, Minnesota
i
Date `� %? f! Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No X Fee
/.
Address of Sign �� `C �' ' s '-T-Proprietor Name
Sign Erectorl, G �'� r, �i� i C 1. / Address 7 ' �� c �x� -S7-,
Type of Sin
Design
Weather Cover Lishtina _
f Illuminated( =�,' No Watts _
Electrical Contractor Address ?/ Z ��" �'y"'� Phone
Prop,erty Owner or his Agent Signature - --/ � -/� iw �� Yr = Phone l
Estimated Cost `�''cc • Sign Width ? ,Y 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. 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? �/ ✓J
Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
for /safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises?
Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm
Date '
Phone Number -
is
lkt
8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061
/`
Wail
Projecting
Ground
Roof
Pedestal
Changeable
Temporary
Trailer
Single Face
Double Face
Multi -Faced
Aerial /Blimp
Searchlight
Banner /Pennants
Portable Frame:
T ❑ A 0 Post
Clear Lexon < Constant
Frosted Lexon Flashing
Plastic Covered Revolving
Shaded Traveling
Neon _ Zip Lite
Other/'!-�-```u r4' Other(Explain)
Sign Colors ^�
x-
f Illuminated( =�,' No Watts _
Electrical Contractor Address ?/ Z ��" �'y"'� Phone
Prop,erty Owner or his Agent Signature - --/ � -/� iw �� Yr = Phone l
Estimated Cost `�''cc • Sign Width ? ,Y 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. 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? �/ ✓J
Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
for /safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises?
Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm
Date '
Phone Number -
is
lkt
8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061
/`
•
16ZL £Z8 ZI9 '�I I' h awls
80t'SS NW 'sipdeauwW anti] IVAkXJWV lawaasnD a1�O V
)aa;s a�V'l IsaM ZI£ uovacNlsaa n4tD
a
tt S
"IN111ooi:i'ia �� (guro �4 �� Jawoasna t +
JO All tdOld ayl si EwnneJp slyl suolsinaa �' /I al�x ,
�Q
t
I
i=
f
i
ci
i
kit
77i
ctr�
I�� -;
r
r 1l.1 Y
1.aLe
^� r-7
APPROVE .:'� DEN,,' �= - _��r %� APPROVE
�—' Plannin Deplartment
Date
Date r.—
City Council
Date
Roue to above for special approval per code General Signs
APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT
City of Richfield, .:Minnesota
Date Zoning ^ice C_" L� Sign Erected - Yes No Fee
Address of Sign �i %C' t t� '-- 7a ''" �� Proprietor Name / ✓�� =���' ' " "- DBA }�
Sign Erector f ✓L /C -2f 'i S — �� � � � _ Address >%? C ✓cam � L, -xc `�i.
Tvna of Cian . -4OG'___- 7 _%`,,7 7 Weather Cover Lighting
if Illuminated - Yes X No Watts /%`
Electrical Contractor Cc, Address 2
Property Owner or his Agent Signature , _,� (� ti� P�� �cc', �- Phone 3 " ` %,'
` Estimated Cost ' �- -,Sign Width / "(- `Height 2- `z 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
s drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. :Minor signs as
defined on page ?.
Tao blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plants:
including specifications, list of materials, and e- xplicit anchoring or fastening details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure.
Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on
the premises?
Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises'. ,r/
Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm
Date
Phone Number
- _ 7
lift
8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061
X
Wall
Projecting
Ground
Roof
Pedestal
Changeable
Temporary
Trailer
Single Face
Double Face
:Multi -Faced
Aerial /Blimp
Searchlight
Banner /Pennants
Portable Frame:
T 7 A [7 Post 7
Clear Lexon Constant
Frosted Lexon Flashing
Plastic Covered Revolving
Shaded Traveling
Neon _ _ Zip Lite
Other Other(Explaih -i)
Sign Colors--/--;,
X
if Illuminated - Yes X No Watts /%`
Electrical Contractor Cc, Address 2
Property Owner or his Agent Signature , _,� (� ti� P�� �cc', �- Phone 3 " ` %,'
` Estimated Cost ' �- -,Sign Width / "(- `Height 2- `z 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
s drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. :Minor signs as
defined on page ?.
Tao blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plants:
including specifications, list of materials, and e- xplicit anchoring or fastening details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure.
Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on
the premises?
Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises'. ,r/
Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm
Date
Phone Number
- _ 7
lift
8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061
•
u
i
i
YSc r .
Z
W
Z
j1 1
J
Jam+
J
aIY15
IGZL £Z8 ZI9
80VSS N W 'S!I -J—U!W
aJti] IY^
wo
hd + N
ISIS -IYI ISaM ZI£
uos+xlsale5
i > .� <
J\111.) N911%,
M
'41
ssa,pw
, N1116413l1\
o AJadoJd ay7 SI FU1MpJp Sltj
SUOKIM7�j alp$
1� 1hM JawoisnD
'• > -.
i
i
YSc r .
Z
W
Z
j1 1
J
Jam+
J
•
__ = Om}"1St;h'1e _ _._.__ Cr
public pTOpert': Or r'_ ht-of-way, but may, extend a -maxirmue1 or 5 '_nC1eS rrC
the face of the building.
(4) Temporary signs of combustible construction shall not be hung so as to
cover either partially or completely any door, window, or opening required for
ventilation.
(5) No roof sign shall be more than combustible material, and no tem-
porary ground sign shall be located on any multiple- residence, commercial or
industrial property in the city without first obtaining a special permit
therefor from the council. If the council determines to grant an application
for a special permit for any such temporary sign or bannering, or any such
temporary ground sign, it may impose conditions upon the granting thereof, and
it shall be unlawful to locate or maintain any such sign or bannering for a
longer period or in a different manner than that specified in the special
permit. No such special permit shall be for a period of more than 60 days.
No such special permit shall be granted, however, where such temporary signs
or banners are prohibited by other provisions of this code.
Subd. 17. Application of Other Provisions of this Part. Temporary ground
signs as defined in Section 3.41, Subdivision 1, of this part, shall comply
with the provisions of Subdivision 16.
Subd. 18. approval of Sinn Permit Applications. Upon presentation of ap-
plication, permit fee, plans and specifications and other required information,
the sign construction permit shall be issued by the manager, or his represent-
ative, except as provided in Subdivision 19 of this section.
Subd. 19. Special Approval from Council. In the case of an application for
a sign requiring a special permit, or which will be illuminated, or moving,
or of unusual height, size, design, or location, the manager shall refer such
sign to the council for approval. No permit for any such sign, so referred,
shall be issued without first obtaining the approval of the council.
Subd. 20. Variance from Terms of Approval Prohibited. No sign shall be
erected, used or maintained in a manner at variance from the provisions of
this code or different from that approved by the council. No building or
electrical permit for a sign shall be granted until the sign permit has been
approved.
Subd. 21. Future Permits. A permit shall not be issued for any new bill-
board or advertising sign located off the premises where the advertised
product is sold, if such billboard or sign would be within 300 feet of any
other such billboard or sign already in existence in the interior of the
same city block or its equivalent area. Permits may be issued for directional
or identification signs. Any billboard removed under the provisions of Sub-
division 22 of this section shall not be reissued. Any billboard destroyed
by storms or acts of God may be rebuilt within 90 days, if complying with this
part.
ORDINANCE CODE
4/8163
92 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNES,�)'A
i
I _
•
FrA
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 178
Agenda May 14, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
'Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Rearyard Setback and Fence Height Variances at 6409 Cedar Avanue z
South
Council Members:
Mr. Jerry Holman wishes to construct a new commercial building with a
rearyard setack of two feet. The city ordinance requires a 10 foot
Therefore, an 8 foot variance is being requested. In addition,
the existing 6 foot high chain link fence is proposed to be :moved further
forward of the existing office building on the site. Since any fence forward
of the front building line permits only a 4 foot height, a 2 foot height
variance is being requested.
. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
1. Section 3.;4, subdivision 5 and Section 3.39, subdivision 2, paragraph
5 establish the rearyard setback on this industrial district at 10
f,et.
2. Section 3.29, subdivision 15, paragraph 2, providess that no fence more
than four feet in height shall be permitted forward of the front line of the
building.
3. Section 3.40, subdivision 5 lists three conditions which must be
satisfied before a variance may be granted.
STAFF REVIEW
Upon reviewing the proposal with the three variance conditions, staff
finds the following:
1. That there are special circumstances affecting ttiis land not common
to other properties or similar district.
An easement exists over the northwestern
seen as creating a unique condition. if the
to allow for a 10 foot rearyard setback, the
would restrict vehicle maneuverability to 38
• difficult for a truck and trailer to enter o
on the northern half of the building.
section of the site. This may be
new building were to be located
fence running along the easement
feet. This would make it
exit through tha overhead doors
Council Letter No. 178 -2-
• The small rearyard setbacks of buildings in this industrial district may
also be construed as a special circumstance. Of the three blocks on Cedar,
norm of oath Street, at least 10 buildings hav:i rearyard setbacks of 5 feet or
less. That represents the majority of buildings in -each of the 3 blocks.
However, there would appear to be no unique situation inherent in the land
to justify a fence height variance.
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
The second condition applicable to variance applications is the substantial
denial of property rights. In this instance, such is not the case. The
proposal attempts to create 43 feet for vehicle maneuv- e-rability. If the
variance is not granted to build within two feet of thy: rear property line, 43
feet could still be provided. This could be accomplished simply by relocating
the new building close to the south property line instead of the north line.
Since there is no easement over the property frontage on the southern portion
of the site, the new building could be moved closer to Cedar Avenue. This
would provide 43 feet for vehicle maneuverability and at least 10 feet of
setback from the rear property line.
There is an existing building on the southern portion of the site which
houses the applicants office. The requested variance would not necessitate
demolition of the present office structure until after the new office space was
•
completed. If the above suggested alternate location was used, temporary
office space would have co be found.
Another alternative would be to locate the building on the northern part of
the site, reverse the layout of the building, set it 8 feet closer to Cedar
Avenue.
3. That the granting of the application will not ;materially and adversely
affect the ;Health or safety of person residing or working in the neighborhoo
and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
improvements in the neighborhood.
Neither variance request would be detrimental to the health, welfare or
safety of the community.
STAFF RECOYMENDATICN
Since neither variance request meets all three conditions, staff recommends
denial of both.
PLANNIING M',VISSICiI RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission on a 5 -2 vote recommends denial of the setback
variance. The commission found that there are no unique circumstances relating
to this parcel which would require a variance and that there are other options
. in placement and design of the new building that ;could not require a reduced
setback; that denial of the variance would not prevent use of 'ch.- property for
this business; and that granting the setback variance could be detrimental to
the neighborhood due to snow storage and public safety problems.
r
Council Letter No. 178 -3-
is The fence variance request received a recounendation for denial on a 4 -3
vote. The Commission found that the three conditions for granting a variance
were not satisfied. Concern was, however, exprssed that t;ie 4 foot height
restriction for a front yard fence in industrial zones is ineffective for
security purposes. (However, if this is a problem, the proper remedy is to
amend the ordinance, not issue a variance). The Planning Commission directed
the planning staff to consider changes to the industrial zoning district fence
requirements and submit recommendations at a future meeting.
pectfu y bT ted,
ohn Cartwrigh /
City Manager r
•
•
•
•
•
0
z
LU
Q
LU
J
J
Q
N
W
H
U
F-
0
W
y
O
CL
O
Q
CL
z
O
a
U
O
W
U
z
W
W
H
z
W
W
fL
CL \1
V
F-
z
W
W
U
6
W
L!J
z
LLJ
Q
Q
0
LLJ
U
_
f
_
f
'
f
f
F-
z
W
W
U
6
W
L!J
z
LLJ
Q
Q
0
LLJ
U
r -1
�J
is
REARYARD SETBACKS FOR THE
6300 - 6500 BLOCKS OF CEDAR AVENUE
ADDRESS SETBACK
6301
0 feet
6311
0 feet
6315
NA
6325
0.1 feet
6328
NA
6333
NA
6335
5.0 feet
6337
NA
6341
- 45
2.5 feet
6405
4.0 feet
6417
30.0 feet
6421
NA
6425
26.0 feet
6441 -
45
1.6 feet
6501
- 07
3.0 feet
6509
NA
6511 -
13
67.0 feet
6521
30.0 feet
6525
5.0 feet
6529
2.0 feet
6533
NA
6537 -
39
NA
JJE=-MRY'S
LANDSCAPE
0 W
'AINTENANCES INC.
•
r �
1CCE 'VVEST 62NO STREET
MINNEAPOL.S, MN. 55419
City of Richfield
Planning Division
6700 Portland Ave. South
Richfield, MI- 55423
Gentlemen:
TELEPHONE 3E1-5CD47
March 1.4, 1984
RE: Variance request 6409 Cedar Ave. South
New Ford Town, Block 8, Lots 3 -4 -5
In seeking your approval of the attached variance request, I address your three
special condition requirements as follows.
1. As you will note from the attached site plan, there is a legal easement on
these lots for the benefit of the adjoining property to the north which
severly limits the use of the property, and if the proposed building cannot
be set back to within two feet of the alley as requested, would make it an
impossibility to drive in and out of the overhead doors on the north half
of the building with our truck /trailer combinations. In relation to the
fence variance, we again are only requesting the change from a four foot
limit to the six foot height to match existing, and secure our materials
and equipment which will be on the premises.
2. I believe that the above statement covers this section also, as we would
be restricted on about 31% of our usable footage if this variance is not
granted.
3. The variance requested could not in any way affect the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood, and we are asking only for
what all of our neighbors already have, that is, most all of the commercial
buildings between 63rd Street and 66th. Street are on or almost on the rear
property line (alley) and many have fences extending out as far as we are
requesting.
Thank you for your attention to the above matter. If I could make any of the
above more clear, I would be haapy to come in or write further at any time.
Sincerely,
l -
Jerry E. Holman
President
�n -- March 1L- 198
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN 1 - PLANNING DIVISION
CITY OF RICHFIELD, RICHFIELD, iiINNESOTA
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH
869 -7521, Ex-i. 512
APPLICATION is HEREBY MADE FOR:
A Change in Zoning ® Variance
C Special Use Pe'_":ili t Ot:�er
3v: Gerald E. and Ruth B. Holman Owner /�pplicarbt
1006 West 62nd. Street Address
Minneapolis, MN 55419 City 866 -5306 Business Phone
?or the Property Located at:
Address: 61109 Cedar Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55123
Subdivision: New Ford Town Block 8 Lot 3,1a25
:14stinc use of Lind: Commercial /Industrial
laxisting zoni_:c : Industrial
3xistinq buildir_gs? = Yes No
I X 1
Pr =-osed building /additions? Yes No
Procosed changes in use:— None
Prop csed c:,,an ges in zoning: None
Scec_al '-,se permit requested: None
'fariar_ce requested: Change rear set back on proposed building frnm ten faa+ to t feAt
shown on site plan S -1, and extend existing six foot chain link fence to within ten feet of
the front west property line as shown on Game_
:_t_acz all necessary drawings, ma=s, and site cevelocment ours.
-718 c� Received 3v ? Rece_pt 1 39-1 Cat
e ,�
STEPS FOR OBTAINING A VARI.:4"VCE
The variance aCDi: cation will 'e reviewed by the City's staff
against he three conditions listed below; t e appllcat].on must
meet all �h"e° conditions in order for the staff to recommend
approval. -1-1?ase read these conditions CarefullV and you wish,
you may address these conditions in a letter to the City of
Rich field as a part of vcur application.
1. That there are special circ =stances or conditions affecting
tae particular land, building, or use referrad to in the appli-
cation, not common to other properties in this or similar dis-
tricts.
2. That the granting of the appl icaticr. s necessary Z nece ry " r
o r he pre-
servation and enjoyment of substantial property rights..
3. That the granting of the application will rot materially and
adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant
and will not he materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to property or imiorovements in the neighborhood.
At the hearing the applicant shall present a statement and
evidence in such Lorin as the city may require to show these
facts.
STEP 1
Application for a variance is made to tie City Planner along with
an application fee.
STEP 2
The Planning Division sends the application to all City De =ar =eats
for their review and recommendation.
STEP 3
The application then goes to the Planning Ccmmi.ssion for their review
and recommendation to the City Council.
STEP ;Y
P,abiic hearing is held at which time tale City Council :Hakes their
decision for granting of the application.
ST?P
The applicant rust attend all public hearings regarding his; her
application. Failure to do so will result in delay e, action on
the proposal.
•
0
RECCEST FOR VAR INL CM OF Gerald F. Holman, 6109 Cedar Ave. South
Constructing a new building on or near the rear property line (alley)
FOR PURPOSE OF and extendins the existing fence to within 10 feet f west 1 i na
=
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 177
Agenda May 14, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Consideration of Cablecasting City Council
Meetings and Authorizing the City Manager
to Contract for Part Time Video Production r
Services
Council Members:
Council Member Don Priebe requested that the question of
starting the cablecasting of city council meetings at this time
(June, 1984) be placed on the city council agenda of May 14th.
The city manager recommends the cablecasting of city council
meetings starting with the first meeting in June.
Although the city has limited equipment, we can start with
the one camera. Rogers Cablesystems is advising city staff on
additional equipment needs.
The second matter is the proposal from Mary Remole to .
contract with the city to provide cable tv programming services
on a part time basis. Her May 2, 1984 proposal is attached.
Mary Remole has submitted her resignation to Rogers Cablesystems
to take a part time cable tv assignment with the Hennepin County
prosecutors office.
The city manager recommends we contract with Mary Remole on
a part time basis for cable tv programming. The estimated 1984
cost for seven months is $6,300 based upon an estimated 90 hours
per month. Additional programming could be negotiated for at a
rate of $10 per hour.
Council Letter No. 177 -2-
0
JGC /eja
r�
FISCAL YEAR 1984 BUDGET
(ESTIMATED)
Respectful -ly submitted, g
John G. Cartwrd, ht
City Manager
BUDGET
FUNDS AVAILABLE 1/1/84
$44,693
FRANCHISE FEES
$87,500
INTEREST EARNED
$ 2,500
TOTAL RESOURCES
$134,693
EXPENDITURES
$70,000
Respectful -ly submitted, g
John G. Cartwrd, ht
City Manager
To s John Cart% :Fright, Richfield city manager
From% 1ary Remole
Date : 2 :,Iay 1984
Re: CATV contracting, city of Richfield
John, I would like to submit a proposal to .yourself and the
council whereby I would contract with the city to do cable TV
programming for the following city events and current ongoing
programs:
- Ask Your City iv'Lanager
- Richfield Report (mayor's show)
- A Look at Youth Athletics (Frank White's program about
youth sports and coaching in Richfield)
- Two (2) city council meetings /month
A breakdown for each show and my responsibilities therein
follows --
Ask Your City 'rIana,er i hour show
Plan each monthly hour -long show with the city manager, shoot
tape insert cutaways for council wrap -up and special feature, edit
raw cutaway footage into a usable format for tape inserts, review
finalized tape inserts and format with city manager prior to rehearsal,
recruit and organize crew personnel, prepare set design and lighting,
obtain set props and graphics as needed, studio rehearsal for crew
and talent, provide a break tape on a city department to promote
department and provide a natural break point in the show, prepare
introduction and credit tares with continuity music, direct call -in
studio show for live cablecast, edit taped show for rebroadcast, help
publicize show to local media, schedule program with Rogers Cable -
systems, provide a written critique of show to John Cartwright, Ron
Rankin and crew for review and changes, if necessary.
Estimated time spent producing Ask Your City 1.1anager 1 hr. show: 40 hrs.
Richfield Report hhour mayor's show
Plan monthly show format with John Hmailton, shoot tape inserts
if needed, edit tape inserts into a useable format for studio show,
work up an introduction and credit tape with continuity music, recruit
and organzie crew personnel, design set placement, camera angles and
lighting for each studio shoot, direct live call -in studio show, edit
show for rebroadcast, help publicize show to local media, schedule
program with Rogers Cablesystems.
Estimated time spent producing Richfield Report hr. show: 20 hrs.
A Look At Youth Athletics 2 hour show
Conceptualize overall show direction and scope with Frank White,
plan each monthly half -hour show with Frank, shoot tape inserts as
needed, edit tape inserts into a useable format for studio shoot, design
and prepare intmduction and credit tapes with continuty music, recruit
and organize crew personnel, design set placement, camera angles
and lighting for each studio show, direct studio taping, edit
finished tape for cablecast, help publicize show to local media,
ischedule program with Rogers Cablesystems.
r
Estimated time spent producin` A Look At Youth Athletics 12 hr. show: 20 '.-n
City Council reetin,5�s
Oversee live cablecasting of Richfield city council meetings,
run camera for council meetings as necessary, ensure that technical
feedback to Rogers Cablesystems is adequate, oversee set -up and take-
down of equipment.
Estimated time spent to live cablecast city council meetings: 10 hrs*
* Assumes two 2 Monday evenings of 5 hrs. each to include set -up,
take -down, and equipment testing time. r
Salary
Ask Your City Manager
40
hours
$10 /hr
X400.
Richfield Report
20
hours
3010 /hr
.200.
Youth Athletics
20
hours
@ 310 /hr
X200.
Two council meetings
10
hours
@ ,�10 /hr
X100.
Respectfully submitted,
;Mary K Remole
0-16�
CITY OF RICHFIELD, ',-IT
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 176
Agenda May 14, 1934
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Permit for Illuminated Signs
6417 Penn Avenue
Council Members:
Two sign permits are requested by Attracta Sign Company for
Design Framing Company located at 6417 Penn Avenue. One is a
wail sign three feet by twelve feet; and the other sign is a
partial replacement of a doublefaced pedestal sign in the front
yard of the buildinj.
City of Richfield ordinance code 3.49, subdivision 19,
• 'Illuminated Signs', provides that city council approval is
required for illuminated signs. A copy of that ordinance
section is attached.
STAFF REVIEW
Both suns conform to the city ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Stiff recommends approval of the sign permits as requested.
JGC /eja
•
pectf)d1lJ1,- Yubmitted
V
John G. Ca twright
City M�naa er
l
•
i�
O
� I
•
•
.I-
r
-rove a ^env ! - - - -'
Approve ( _1 Deny L'
City �Iana�,cr
date _ --
Planning Dept.
Date
J,
nrrove iz< ncr.v
Prate
Approve Deny
City Counci 1
Pate
Route to above for special
C
approval per code General Signs -- - _ —
APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT (2 parts)
City of Richfield, !Minnesota °
pole & cabinet part of American Ballet sig
Date 4/17/84 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes XX No Fee 17.00
Address of Sign 6610 Penn Ave. S. proprietor Name Todd Wiessner PRpesign Framing
b?
Sign Erector Attracta Sign Address 6417 Penn Ave. S. w
e of Sign
Wall
Projecting
x Ground.
Roof
Pedestal
Changeable
_ Temporary
Trailer
If'Illuminated - Yes
Electrical Contractor
Desipn
Single face
Double face
Multi -faced
Aerial /Blimp
Searchlight
Banner /Pennants
Portable Frame -
T.�: A.0 Vast 6
Weather Cover
Lightin
X
i
Clear Lexon _.?- Constant
Frosted Lexon Flashing
Plastic Covered I _ P.evolvinv. .
Shaded ___ Traveling
Neon Zip -lite
Other Other (F-xnl . )
Sign Colors ivory & dark 12rown-
XX.�l) watts
Property Owner or his Agent Signature
Address
Phone
Phone
Estimated Cost 100.00 Sign Width 8' 1 Height_ _.2 ` Total Sq.
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 to solely the business, institution, or activity conducted on
the premises.? XX
Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
for saf a ess by per s desti ed for or passing the subject premises? no _
Appl' nt�s Signature and Title with Firm
Date 4/17/84
L
P one Number 86 -3047
ITS 101
10/1/79
•
A 7 r r o v e Deny
Chi t Mlana ti, er - - -- ins �, ` -nor - - - - - --
Pate mate i
_i
An ove Deny -_�?� =�--�� Approve Deny _
•Planning Dept: City CoimciI
Date Pate
I
;Route to above for special
approval per code General Signs -_
APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PMMIT (2 parts)
i
City of Richfield, Minnesota
Date 4/ 17/84 Zoning
I Address of Sign 661.0 Penn Ave. S.
i Sign Erector Attracta Sign
of Sign
Desip,
Sign Erected - Yes No XX Fee 17.00 _^
Proprietor Name Todd Lviessner
PRA Design Framing
Address 6 417 Penn Ave. S. _
Weather Cover
Lightin
X' wall LZ
Projecting
Ground
..••) Roof i
Pedestal
Changeable
Temnorary
railer
Single face
Double face
Multi -faced
Aerial /Blimp
Searchlight
Banner /Pennants
Portable Frame:
T.0 A.0 Post
Clear Lexon X Constant
Frosted Lexon f __. Flashing
Plastic Covered t_ Revolving-
`Shaded '--. Traveling
Neon i— Zip -lite
Other �. Other (Fxnl.l
Sign Colors ivory 1, dark brown _•
If Illuminated - Yes XX No Watts
Electrical Contractor Address Phone_
Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone_
OU.OU gn 12' Height 3� Total Sq, Ft. 36'
Estimated Cost Si Width
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 to solely the business, institution, or activity conducted on
the premises? yes
Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
for saf access by p ons destined for or passing the subject premises? no —
.r. _ -
cant's Signature an
hone Number 866 -3047
1. BPS 101
.10/1/79
tle wit
""� h F irm
� ` Date April 17 , 1984
i
b '1Sti b 1 _2nvrr_._r'o- s..s l �r•o e n-er
public property or ri- ht- of -wav, but may extend a maximum of 6 inches from
the face of the building.
�+) Temporary signs of combustible construction shall not be hung so as to
cover either partially or completely any door, window, or opening required for
ventilation.
(S) No roof sign shall be more than combustible material, and no tem-
porary ground sign shall be located on any multiple- residence, commercial or
industrial property in the city without first obtaining a special permit
therefor from the council. If the council determines to grant an application
for a special permit for any such temporary sign or bannering, or any such
temporary ground sign, it may impose conditions upon the granting thereof, and
it shall-be unlawful to locate or maintain any such sign or bannering for a
longer period or in a different manner than that specified in the special
permit. No such special permit shall be for a period of more than 60 days.
No such special permit shall be granted, however, where such temporary signs
or banners are prohibited by other provisions of this code.
Subd. 17. Application of Other Provisions of this Part. Temporary ground
signs as defined in Section 3.41, Subdivision 1, of this part, shall comply
with the provisions of Subdivision 16.
Subd. 18. Approval of Sign Permit Applications. Upon presentation of ap-
plication, permit fee, plans and specifications and other required information,
the sign construction permit shall be issued by the manager, or his represent-
ative, except as provided in Subdivision 19 of this section.
Subd. 19. Special Approval from Council. In the case of an application for
a sign requiring a special permit, or which will be illuminated, or moving,
or of unusual height, size, design, or location, the manager shall refer such
sign to the council for approval. No permit for any such sign, so referred,
shall be issued without first obtaining the approval of the council.
Subd. 20. Variance from Terms of Approval Prohibited. No sign shall be
erected, used or maintained in a manner at variance from the provisions of
this code or different from that approved by the council. No building or
electrical permit for a sign shall be granted until the sign permit has been
approved.
Subd. 21. Future Permits. A permit shall not be issued for any new bill-
board or advertising sign located off the premises where the advertised
product is sold, if such billboard or sign would be' within 300 feet of any
other such billboard or sign already in existence in the interior of the
same city block or its equivalent area. Permits may be issued for directional
or identification signs. Any billboard removed under the provisions of Sub-
division 22 of this section shall not be reissued. Any billboard destroyed
by storms or acts of God may be rebuilt within 90 days, if complying with this
part.
ORDINANCE CODE
4/8/68
92 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
41- / E
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MI14NESOTA
• Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 175
Agenda May 14, 1984
Tile Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: RESOLUTIO14 SUPPORTING AN INDEPENDENT
MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE METROPOLITAN
WASTE CONTROL COM'iMISSION (:MWCC)
Council Members:
The city :Manager recommends favorable city council
consideration of the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) Resolution
Supporting an Independent Management Study of iMWCC for the
reasons set forth in the SRA April 24, 1984 communication and
attachments.
The SRA supports an independent mana.5ament study of the M"W'CC
as recommended by the Boland Commission. This recommendation is
supported by tae SRA, the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities and the i,;etropolitan Area Manager's Association.
The legislation to require the independent study of MWvCC
was not introduced because of a decision made by the Governor's
office. Richfield and other concerned cities are being asked by
the SRA to support this independent study, which may identify
opportunities for improvement at the 'IWCC and perhaps have a
positive effect on future rates.
JGC /eja
•
R�Pjpactf 1 �b,Mitted ,
vv
L1���
John G: Car Wright:
City Manager /
April 24, 1984
TO: SRA Communities
FROM: SRA Attorneys
At the meeting of the SRA board last week, there was extended
discussion about the progress, or lack of progress, in
implementing the recommendations of the Boland Commission z
concerning the operations of the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission. The Boland Commission, as you recall, was appointed
by Governor Perpich to study the MWCC because there seemed to be
so much concern about the efficiency and cost effectiveness of
its operations. The Commission, after some weeks of study, made
a series of recommendations. Extracts from the Commission
report, including their fourteen major recommendations, are
attached hereto.
After the Boland Commission report was released it was discussed
by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, the
Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Area Managers Association,
the SRA and others. A consensus developed that there should be
legislation which would change the manner in which MWCC
commissioners are selected as well as certain other things
related to the MWCC and the Metropolitan Council. It was also
agreed that some of the recommendations of the Boland Commission
could be dealt with through an independent management study which
would not, itself, require legislation.
It now appears that the legislation was not introduced because of
a decision made within the Governor's office. The question
remains as to whether the independent management study will go
forward. There is some indication that there is resistance to
raving a study which is independent. It is feared, by those who
have been advocating an independent study, that if any study is
undertaken at all, it will be done under the control of the MWCC
itself.
With this in mind, the board of directors of the SRA directed us
to prepare a resolution for consideration by the councils of SRA
members. The resolution seeks to emphasize the importance of the
management study and of making certain that it is an independent
studv.
The resolution is being submitted to you upon'the recommendation
of the SRA board. If it is adopted by your community, the SRA
suggests that copies of it be transmitted to the parties listed
in the concluding paragraph of the resolution.
•
GOVERNOR'S CITIZENS COMMISSION TO REVIEW MWCC
SUITE 451
245 EAST 6TH STREET
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
r
December 29, 1983
Governor Rudy Perpich
State of Minnesota
Office of the Governor
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Dear Governor Perpich:
We are presenting you with this report to complete our charge
to investigate, in the broadest fashion possible, the Metro-
politan waste Control Commission. Our recommendations cover
those areas needing immediate attention, help control and
contain costs in the future, and deserve attention for their
new approaches to solving the probelms of how best to treat
waste in the next 20 years.
Specific recommendations focus on involving the public through
changes in structure, and on reducing cost increases through
management improvements and by bringing compensation and con-
tracting into compliance with state policies, procedures and
programs.
with the growing importance of water and waste treatment, we
suggest investigating the possible creation of a new industry
in this state. Alternative methods for processing wastes could
improve Minnesota's business climate and focus attention on
Minnesota's professional resources - the Freshwater Biological
Institute and its proposed Waste Management Institute, the
University of Minnesota's College of Biological Sciences and
Humphrey Institute - that are in place and already effectively
wor:cing with private industry to look at waste - processing 40
December 29, 1983
Governor Rudy Perpich
Page Two
alternatives and alternatives to management in the public
sector so that public- funded operations can operate more
efficiently. These assets, as pointed out in our report, could
promote Minnesota as a better place to live and as a state with
a strong interest in maintaining the high quality of its most
important natural resources, water and air.
Some of our specific recommendations involve opening up the
decision- making process and encouraging more public input. We
conclude that the newspaper articles encouraged us, given your
broad charge, to recommend changes within the MWCC and with
respect to its relationships with other governmental agencies,
and especially with the public.
The most important area of concern we considered is the
compelling, never - ending need to make the MWCC responsive to
its users. We ask you to request legislative action and to
implement changes through your office to change this situation
as quickly as possible. The damage to the public confidence in
this agency has been compounded by rapidly increasing costs and
the possibility of a substantial subsidy to meet rising sewer
charges to lower- income homeowners in the future. As industry
continues its withdrawal from the system and the population in
this area drops or changes from families to single and retired
persons, the burden of sewer costs on individual taxpayers will
continually become heavier.
We believe our recommendations set out ways you and other
public officials can reverse this situation. The best way to
start may well be by assembling a new team dedicated to
involving and serving the public.
We appreciate the help and assistance received from your office
and MWCC staff and commissioners, past and present. The
and public officials assisted us - Public
in preparing many of the reports we have included insour.
and
Appendices.
Finally, we appreciate the opportunity to review this importan-
agency whose operations affect the health of everyone or us.
We believe our recommendations will ensure the MWCC becomes
•
r
December 29, 1983
Governor Rudy Perpich
Page Three
more responsive to the public and more efficient in using
scarce public monies to perform a vital service to our
communities.
Sincerely,
C"e �'-
Joh,p E. Bo Land, Chair
Thor G. Bank,./P.E.
C::aries K. Dayton
Bonnie A. Kennedy
ttaicoi:n `14. MdDonaid
Karen L. Dingle, Star
J
•
0 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1) The position of Chair chould be full -time.
2) Sixteen commissioners should be selected by thF
Metropolitan Council.
3) An ombudsperson function should be established by the
Legislature. The person or persons hired should report to
the Governor.
4) Public rate hearings should be held yearly by MWCC to
determine the rates to suDport the proposed budget.
r
5) An appeals process for rates and other measurement methods
decisions impacting communities must be put in place.
6) An independent management study should be performed to
develop a streamlined model for management to be used by
the MWCC.
7)
A Code of Ethics should be adopted immediately.
8)
Hiring policies should be revised to ban nepotism,
preclude hiring
persons with conflicts of interest, and
verify education /employment experience
prior to hiring.
9)
an internal auditor position should be created and must be
accountable to the Governor.
10)
Parts of operations, such as electrical maintenance,
research, sampling and
measurement of functions should be
contracted out, after the labor
agreements have been
changed to remove the sub - contracting clause.
11)
MWCC Labor Agreements must be brought into conformance
with State
agreements.
12) Procedures for awarding and amending contracts must be
conformed with procedures used by State agencies.
13) An actuarial review should be done to determine present
and future unfunded liability for retirement benefits and
other fringe benefits and should estimate the yearly
amount to be added to operating costs for funding these
benefits.
14) A Waste Resource Task Force should be formed to study
alternatives and propose long -range plans for dealing with
all the State's wastes.
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING
INDEPENDENT MANAGEMENT STUDY OF
METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION
WHEREAS, many municipal officials, businessmen and other persons
throughout the metropolitan area have expressed grave concern
about the operations of the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission, and
WHEREAS, in recognition of such concerns, Governor Rudy Perpich
commendably appointed an able and representative Governor's
Citizens Commission to review the MWCC, and
WHEREAS, such commission conducted an extensive investigation of
the operations of the MWCC and of public perceptions of it, and
WHEREAS, such commission, on December 29, 1983, reported its
findings and recommendations to the Governor of the State of
Minnesota, and
WHEREAS, such recommendations included a recommendation for the
conduct of an independent management study of MWCC, and
WHEREAS, the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, the
Association of Metropolitan Area Managers, the Suburban Rate
Authority, and others concurred in the recommendation that such
an independent management study be conducted, and
WHEREAS, it appears that the state planning office has undertaken
initial steps towards obtaining such an independent study, and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid organizations have expressed their
interest in providing representation on a committee which would
help to formulate the work program for such study, to monitor
its progress and to evaluate its conclusions, and
WHEREAS, it is critical to the credibility and acceptability of
any such management study that it be an independent study, rather
than a study done under the supervision and control of the MWCC,
and
WHEREAS, such commission recommended a number of measures
requiring legislative action, but it now appears that the
Governor's office has chosen not to support any such legislative
action at this time, and
WHEREAS, the compromising or abandoning of the concept of an
independent management study, especially when coupled with a lack
of legislative action, would constitute a severely damaging blow
to the hopes and expectations of those who have been working in
good faith to establish a higher level of confidence in the MWCC,
•
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
, as follows:
1. This council strongly endorses and urges the conduct of
an independent management study of the MWCC as recommended by the
Governor's Citizens Commission to review the MWCC.
2. This council believes that such study will have maximum
value only if it is an independent study formulated and conducted
through the use of an advisory committee broadly representative
of the municipalities in the metropolitan area.
3. This council urges the Governor of the State of
Minnesota and other appropriate officials to take whatever
actions may be necessary to initiate such an independent study at
the earliest possible date.
4. Let a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the
Governor of the State of Minnesota, the chairman and members of
the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, the chairman and
members of the Metropolitan Council and the members of the
Minnesota State Legislature representing this city.
-2-
CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA IE47
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 174
Agenda May 14, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Reconsideration of Offstreet Parking
Permit Stipulation by St. Richard's Church, 7540
Penn Avenue
Council Members:
On April 23, 1984 the Council approved an offstreet parking
permit for expansion at the St. Richard's Church parking lot
with the stipulations that perimeter curbing be provided on the
entire parking area and that a parking lot drainage plan be
approved by City Engineer. However, at the city council meeting
which church representatives did not attend, it was not clear if
the church officials were informed of the staff recommendations
to require curbs on all four sides of the parking lot. Also, it
was questioned why curbing was needed on the west side adjacent
to the playground. Staff was instructed to discuss these
concerns with church officials before the May 14, 1984 city
council meeting. St. Richard's Church has requested that the
Council reconsider the stipulation concerning perimeter curbing.
City staff has met the representatives of the church and
their architect to discuss the stipulations. In discussing the
parking lot drainage, city staff concluded that perimeter
curbing would impede drainage on the site. The new and existing
parking areas drain from east to west into the open field play
area, west of the parking area. Staff has, therefore, concluded
that perimeter curbing should not be provided on the east and
west sides of the parking area. Perimeter curbing should be
provided on the north side of the lot to keep drainage within
the property and to protect the trees and grass in the area.
In reviewing the parking lot design further with the Public
Safety Department, concern was expressed about whether a proper
fire lane can be maintained adjacent to the building. To insure
that the proper fire lane is maintained, staff recommends that
concrete end islands and fire lane signs be provided on the
south end of the parking bays instead of the painted end
islands. This is especially important on the three easterly end
islands where the parking bays are not perpendicular with the
• building.
r
Council Letter No. 174 -2-
Representatives of the church have indicated a concern about
the cost of providing perimeter curbing and concrete end
islands. Staff has discussed alternative curb and end island
designs which could cost about one third of the cost of standard
curbing. Provided in your backup is a May 8, 1984 letter from
the church which seeks a variance on the northern edge of the
parking lot.
It is recommended that the council amend the stipulation so
that the city only requires perimeter curbing on the north side
of the parking area and to provide concrete end islands and fire
lane signs on the south end of the parking bays.
JGC /eja
•
40
Respectfully submitted,
John G. Cartwright
City Manager
r
U
—\- _ —
LLJ
T jj
rm
13 Cy
' =,-„� `., i ��� €I �i I I ! I• � I f i �; 1. �'� o� � • '� ` �Z ": +; \ ,1 r
I
,fir...
10 �I
Mys
� T � �'� LET _ _ +• ! � I I ; w I i
G_ i i � 1: • ��0.
C/7 �
u �
May 8, 1984
CHURCH OF ST. RICHARD
in Avenue South
I, Minnesota 55423 (612) 869 -2426
Mr. John Cartwright, Manager
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Dear Mr. Cartwright,
At their meeting on April 23, 1984, the Richfield City Council granted permission
to St. Richard's for expansion of our parking lot in conjunction with a new
building project.
• The Council further stipulated that Mr. Jopke and Mr. Eastling meet with repre-
sentatives of our church to discuss recommendation's for curbing of the lot. At
an April 27 meeting with them the following agreements were reached:
1. No curbing would be required on the east or west edges of the parking area.
2. Curbed islands with standards and signs along the building to clearly
define a fire lane and to designate rows for parking.
No agreement, however, was reached concerning curbing along the northern edge of
the lot. Given that the north entrances and exits are defined clearly and that
"bumper curbs" are placed along the property line shared with the school district,
we feel that additional curbing there is unnecessary. We therefore, respectfully
request a variance from the city ordinance that requires curbing along the
northern edge of our expanded parking lot.
Mr. David Wagner, our architect, and a representative of our parish will attend
the May 14, 1984 City Council Meeting to speak to the issue if so desired.
Sincerely,
Fr. Roger Pierre
Pastor
cc: John Hamilton
Howard Bunce
Ivan Ludeman
Don Priebe
Martin Kirsch
•
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 17?
Agenda Xlay 14, 1934
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject:: AWARD OF BID - 1500 GPM FIRE PUMPER WITH 50' TELESCOPING
WATER TOWER WITH LADDER
Council Members:
On Wednesday, April 25, 1934, at 11:00 a.m., bids were received and opened
for the above noted firefighting vehicle. Three bids were received and the bid
tabulation sheet is attached 'hereto.
The bids received have been analyzed by the Public Safety staff for
compliance with the specifications established for this piece of equipment.
Through this analysis it was determined that there was a _najor difference in
financing requirements /options offered by the two firms submitting the lowest
bids.
From the quotations recorded at the bid opening, the apparent low bidder
was Mid- Central Fire Equipment. However, after reviewing the bid documents, we
found that the Ilid- Central bid contained a provision for an additional $3,000
to be added to the bid price if we did not pre -pay the sum of $114,000 when the
chassis and tower are delivered to the body manufacturer. The next apparent
low bidder, General Safety, had a provision for pre - payment of :$53,000,
but with a deduction of $3,090 from the quoted price if such pre - payment is
made at the time the chassis is delivered to the manufacturer. Therefore, the
actual bids submitted, on an equal comparison basis, are:
Base Bid
Non Pre - payment Penalty
TOTAL NET BID
(At Delivery)
MID - CENTRAL GENERAL SAFETY
:210,991 $213,527
3,000 -0-
$213,991 $213,527
Thus, General Safety is actually the low bidder, being 5464 less than Mid-
Central's comparable bid price for payment upon delivery.
Additionally, assuming a 10.510 return to the city on invcstino the money
before payment is due, and assuming that we would have to make the pre - payment
six months after the bid is awarded, with a 12 month delivery time (both
bidders stated that this would be the case), our loss of the $114,000 for six
months would cost $5,935 in interest earnings to the city. Our payment of the
$58,000 pre - payment would result in lost income of only $?,045. Thus, on the
pre - payment option it would cost us $2,940 less for the General Safety bid than
tide Mid- Central bid.
FQ
Council Letter No. 173 -2-
• Finally, our analysis of the bids indicates that General Safety ,nets our
specifications in all respects. The Mid- Central bid did not nzeet our
specifications in one important area. We specified an electrically operated
pump shift and front suction valve. The pump bid by Mid- Central has an air -
actuated shift and valve, both of which have been a reliability and maintenance
problem for us on one of our existing pumpers. We specified the electrically
operated equipment to eliminate the problems with air pressure leaks and
moisture blockage in cold weather. The electrically operated equipment we now
have has not been a problem. Based upon our specifications and the reasons for
them, we do not feel that the air - actuated shift and valve are equal
alternatives.
rye also have some concern about the validity of the warranty statement
provided by Mid - Central. It is signed by Mid - Central Fire Inc., which is the
dealer for the water tower manufacturer. No warranty is supplied by either the
tower manufacturer or the body manufacturer. 'While we have no questions about
the willingness of Mid- Central to stand behind what they sell, they ,night not
be able to fulfill their obligations expressed in the warranty if the tower
manufacturer ceases to do business with Mid- Central. The body :manufacturer
does not use Mid - Central as a dealer at this time, but is working through a sub -
contractual arrangement with the tower manufacturer. So our warranty concerns,
therefore, apply to both the pumper and the tower. A similar warranty problem
does not exist with the bid received from General Safety.
The council has been provided with information in Council Memorandum No 59
• (dated 4- 5 -84), with regard to the justification for the purchase of this
particular type of firefighting vehicle. Therefore, based on the actual
net cost of the bids received, and the compliance of the bids received
with the specifications established, it is the recommendation of the
Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that this bid be awarded to
General Safety Equipment Corporation in an amount of $213,527. Funding for
this purchase is currently available in the Central Garage Revolving Fund and
the Fire Vehicle Reserve Fund.
The city staff will re- examine the chassis pre - payment option when it
becomes available and decide at that time which payment plan is in the best
financial interest of the city.
cc: Public Safety Director
C7
Respectfu y tted,
$oh G. art w ight
Ianager
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD
BID OPENING
APRIL 25, 1984
One 1500 GPM Fire Pumper Truck
with 50' Telescoping Water Tower,
With Ladder, Bid No. 84 -5
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative
Staff was called by Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of
the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for One 1500 GPM Fire
Pumper Truck with 50' Telescoping Water Tower, with Ladder, as advertised in the
official newspaper on March 28, and April 4, 1984.
Present: Tom Morgan, Public Safety Director
Ron Rankin, Administrative Services Direct:oz
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR
BID BOND
TOTAL BID COST
Clarey's Safety Equipment,
Rochester, ',',IN
5%
$232,500
Custom Fire Apparatus, Inc.
Osceloa, Wis.
•
No Bid
Mid - Central Fire (Ready- Tower)
Edina, MN
5%
$210,991
Mack Trucks, Inc.
St. Paul, MN
No Bid
General Safety
North Branch, MN
5%
$213,527
American LaFrance
Elmira, New York
No Bid
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered
at the May 14, 1984 city council meeting.
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
0 April 6, 1984
Council Memorandum No. 59
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: SPECIFICATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT PUMPER
Council Members:
At the March 12, 1984, city council meeting, Council Member Ludeman
requested information concerning the type of fire vehicle for which the Public
Safety Department is currently advertising for bids. Hopefully, the
information provided in this memorandum will address the issues of interest to
the city council regarding this matter.
The pumper that we are proposing for purchase is a standard pumper with a
50' water tower which also acts as a ladder. It will be used as the first
responding vehicle from Station 1, and thus will give us both pumping ability
and ladder ability for the on -duty crew. The addition of the water tower/
ladder with the pumper will also solve the problem of having to wait for mutual
aid or off -duty firefighters to bring an aerial firefighting vehicle to the
scene of a fire.
In reaching a decision on the replacement for E -87 (a 1963 1000 GPM
pumper) the Fire Division members met countless times for over a year to select
the overall best piece of equipment to meet the needs of the city in the
forseeable future. While the list of possible factors discussed is exhaustive,
a prominent item was the question of the need for an aerial device. We studied
the merits of every type, size and style of ladder truck. We compared them
with the type of buildings we now have and expect to have in Richfield, and
with the manpower needed to get the vehicle to the scene and in operation. We
reduced the field of possible vehicles to four:
1'. A pumper with no aerial ladder.
2. A pumper with a water tower /ladder.
3. A 100' ladder truck.
4. A 100' ladder tower (a ladder with a bucket on end.)
;Regarding the two latter choices, a 100' ladder truck or a 100' ladder
tower (a 100' ladder with a bucket platform at the end of the ladder), we
agreed that our high rise buildings would not need exterior firefighting or
ladder rescue, since they are protected with sprinkler systems and enclosed
stairs. Also, the existing and proposed buildings are-too high for the 100'
ladders or ladder towers to reach the roof, making t.".e -' marginally useful for
those buildings. Finally, our on -duty manning level would not let us
man the truck all the time, because most fire calls require a pumper apparatus.
This would mean that a very expensive 100' ladder or tower truck would be a
reserve apparatus and could not be used until off -duty firefighters brought it
to the scene. While both ladder trucks and ladder towers are available in less
Council Memorandum No. 59 -2- April o, 1984
than the standard 100' size, the foregoing considerations would still apply.
• Therefore, it would not seem that either of these two types of firefighting
vehicles would provide a cost benefit for the city which would justify their
purchase at this particular time.
•
•
Another consideration in our study was the ability to supply aerial water.
Our highrises are adequately protected, but we lack the ability to protect our
one and two story buildings with aerial water streams. This requires the
ability to raise the nozzle to a height greater than the building in order to
shoot a stream over it when a neighboring building is on fire. Additionally,
this provides the ability to direct a water stream downward into a fire at that
point in a fire when a roof collapses, or through the window openings of a two
or three story building. The truck we are proposing would have been ideal for
use in the recent Geddy Restaurant fire and this is a very typical example of
the need we have for this piece of equipment in our particular community.
The second choice (a pumper with a water tower /ladder) proved to be
the best when we considered our rescue and water supply needs. Since it is a
standard pumper it can be used as such for all fires. This is an extremely
important advantage because the or. -duty firefighters will be using it, and can
use the ladder•4— r-- ediately on the many one, two, and three story buildings we
have. :nose buildings do not have sprinkler systems and quite often have
open stairways which can block escape. The pumper can also get a water
stream high in the air with the 50' tower.Included is a picture of one
example of this type pamper. It will be equipped the sane as our other pumper,
and thus will be fully utilized during its lifetime without creating "a manpower
need to keep it in service.
Our specifications for this replacement firefighting vehicle have been sent
to 14 potential vendors. Additionally, we are currently advertising for other
interested vendors to submit bids for this piece of equipment. The bid opening
is scheduled for Wednesday, April 25, 1984. We hope to make a recommendation
to the city council at the regularly scheduled council meeting on May 14, 1984,
with regard to the purchase of this replacement firefighting vehicle.
ReS.aectfulTy'submitted,
f"
L -'
John G. Cartwright
City Manager
JGC /sb
Attac '-L en,,. 'M`anufacturer's Tr "Qr7,a' J on on Tole Squirt 50 Water owe. r
i
erial Ladder
•
40
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 172
Agenda May 14, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Approval of Final Year X Community Development
Block Grant Program Application
Council Members:
On April 10, 1984 the City Council approved a preliminary
Year X application for $209,450 of Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds. The following projects were approved:
1.
Housing Rehabilitation:
$76,156
2.
Scattered Site Acquisition:
$19,054
3.
Interest Write -down:
$30,240
4.
Public Services
$29,000
a. H.O.M.E. Program:
$ 7,200
b. Daycare Assistance:
$17,800
C. South Hennepin Human
Services Council (SHHSC)
Miscellaneous Programs:
$ 4,000
5.
Recycling:
$10,000
6.
General Administration:
$20,000
7.
Senior Center Improvements:
$25,000
Staff presented the preliminary application to Hennepin
County and the Hennepin County Planning Area Citizen Advisory
Committee ( PACAC). A letter from the Chairman of the PACAC is
attached outlining the committee's comments concerning
Richfield's proposed use of Year X CDBG funds. The committee
approved the housing rehabilitation, scattered site acquisition,
H.O.M.E. program, daycare assistance, recycling and senior
center projects, as we presented them.
The committee recommended that the funds allocated to the
general administration be eliminated because
of the amount of unexpended general administrative funds
($15,876) which we have from previous years. The committee
indicated we should charge administrative costs to individual
projects.
•
Council Letter No. 172 -2-
Two projects were found to be ineligible. The $4,000
allocated to the South Hennepin Human Services for the
administration of various programs would not directly benefit
low and moderate income persons. The $30,240 interest write-
down project was ruled ineligible because it would provide
income maintenance which is prohibited by federal regulations.
The committee indicates that we must reallocate the $49,240
allocated to these three projects to other eligible projects or
they will be placed in the planning area contingency account for
which other communities will compete.
The City Council must now reallocate the $49,240 discussed
above and approve a final Year X CDBG application for submittal
to Hennepin County.
Staff recommends reallocating the $49,420 as follows:
1. Reallocate $30,240 from the interest write -down project
to the scattered site acquisition project.
2. Reallocate $20,000 from the general administration
project to the housing rehabilitation program. It is
projected that the $15,786 in unexpended administrative
funds will be expended by December 31, 1984. It is
anticipated that an additional $5,000 will be needed to
cover general administrative costs incurred in the
first six months of 1985. Staff will monitor the
expenditures proejected, staff will prepare a program
amendment for council consideration.
3. As recommended by the PACAC, the $4,000 of public
service project funds allocated to the South Hennepin
Human Services Council for various programs should be
eliminated and $3,100 of this used to cover city staff
costs in administering the other public service
projects. The remaining $900 should be reallocated to
the housing rehabilitation project.
The following table outlines the list of projects as
recommended by staff and compares them with the approved
preliminary application:
•
•
•
Council Letter No. 172 -3-
APPROVED ; RECOMMENDED
PRELIMINARY; FINAL
PROJECT APPLICATION; APPLICATION ;DIFFERENCE
1.
Housing Rehabilitation
76,156 ;
97,056
1 +20,900
2.
Scattered Site
$369,988
Public Services
$24,171
Acquisition
19,054 ;
49,294
; +30,240
3.
Interest Write -down
30,240 ;
0
; - 30,240
4.
Public Services
$ 3,100
$ 3.100)
Recycling
NEW
a. H.O.M.E. Program
7,200 ;
7,200
i 0
0
b. Day -care Assistance
17,800 ;
17,800
; + 0
$144,895
c. South Hennepin Human
$161,243
$ 0
$161,243
Services Council
4,000 ;
0
; - 4,000
d. Administration
0 ;
3,100
; + 3,100
5.
Recycling
10,000 ;
10,000
; 0
6.
General Administration
20,000 ;
0
i - 20,000
7.
Senior Center
Improvements
25,000 ;
25,000
; 0
209 50 ;
209 50
; 0
CDBG FINANCIAL SUMMARY
BALANCE
REVISED
FROM
YEAR X
GRAND
PROJECT
PREV.YRS.
REQUEST
TOTAL
Hsng. Rehab. Loans
$ 97,234
$ 97,056
$194,290
Scattered Site Acq.
$320,694
$ 49,294
$369,988
Public Services
$24,171
$49,171)
Home Program)
$ 7,200
Day Care Assist.)
$ 0
$17,800
$17,800)
Administration)
$ 3,100
$ 3.100)
Recycling
NEW
$10,000
$ 10,000
Gen. Admin.
$ 15,876
0
$ 15,876
Comm. Ctr. Improve.
$119,895
$ 25,000
$144,895
Economic Develop
$161,243
$ 0
$161,243
It is recommended that the council approve the attached
resolution approving a final Year X CDBG application.
Respectfully submitted,
j,
John Cartwright
City Manager
•
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED PROGRAM FOR
YEAR X URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMITTAL
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota has executed a Joint Cooperation
Agreement with Hennepin County establishing participation in the Urban Hennepin
County Community Development Block Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the City has developed a proposal for the use of Urban Hennepin
County CDBG funds made available to it; and
WHEREAS, the proposed use of Community Development Block Grant funds by the
City has been developed consistent with the Urban Hennpin County Statement of
Objectives and the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed use of Community Development Block Grant funds was
developed in cooperation with local citizens and the appropriate Urban Hennepin
County Planning Area Citizen Advisory Committee;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota approves the following proposed program for use of Year X Urban
Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds by the City and
authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for consideration for
inclusion in the Year X Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant
Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds.
1.
Housing Rehabilitation:
$97,056
2.
Scattered Site Acquisition:
$49,294
3.
Public Services
a. H.O.M.E. Program:
$ 7,200
b. Daycare Assistance:
$117,800
C. Administration:
$ 3,100
4.
Recycling:
$10,000
5.
Conan. Ctr. . Improvements
$25,000
TOTAL
$209,450
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
John Hamilton, Mayor
Lg /c
CITY OF. RICHFIELD, IN :,ESOTA
Office of City r,anaer
• Council Lett:,,- :do. i71
Agenda
Tile Honorable ;Mayor
ana
Me.mbers of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject:, Approval of 111inut;s, T.bulatlon
of Contract for Joint Cleaning
716th Street, Lyndale Avenue to
Council Members:
May 14, 1jS4
of Bids, and =.word
and Resealing of
Portland Avenue t
On April 25, 19 4, bids were opennad for joint cla ^ning and
resealing of the concrete surface of 76th Street, Lyndale Avenue
to Portland Avenue. Five bids were received for this work. The
bid minutes and tabulations are attached for council review. An
appropriation for.this project is in the 1954 Street Division
operating budget.
Cleaning debris from the joints ro�movos inflcxiole material
that can cause the joint to erupt during times of expansion.
after cleoninD, the joints are r.sealed with _aatcrial that
expan;]s and contracts with "-.he pavement surface. This also will
reduce water intrusion into the pavement b :s., which weakens .he
street surface.
Tea low bid was sub,iitted by P,,lda and Sons, Inc., of Sc.
Paul, Minnesota. The low bid amount is .vithin the 19"4 budget
appropriation for this work. It is recom:nendz-ld thGc t ne c ,y
council take the following action:
1. Accept the bid minutes;
2. Pass the atta --Lied resolution to aw;-rd the contracr, to
Palda and Sons, Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota in the
:nouns of 54,250.40.
Respec t f u ub;,; it ti:d ,
o,in G. Cart4 ight
City ;(snU r
• JGC /vp
CITY OF RICHFIELD
BID OPENING
APRIL 26, 1984
Joint Cleaning and Resealing of
Nonreinforced Concerete Pavement
Bid No. 84 -6
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative
Staff was called by Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of
the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Joint Cleaning and
Resealing of Nonreinforced Concrete Pavement, as advertised in the official
newspaper on the week of April 9, 1984.
Present: Ron Rankin, Administrative Services Director
Don Fondrick, Community Services Director
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR & BID SECURITY AMOUNT
Action Courts, Inc., Eagan
B.B. 5% $ 97,472.00
Arcon Construction, Mora
B.B. 5% $109,053.10
D. H. Blattner & Sons, St. Paul
B.B. 5% $ 90,433.00
Highway Services, Inc., Minneapolis
B.B. 5% $ 78,315.20
Palda & Sons, Inc., St. Paul
B.B. 5% $ 54,259.40
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered
at the May 14, 1984 city council meeting.
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
•
RESOLUTI0111! 111C.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTTNG BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT
FOR JOINT CLEAPJING AND RESEALING, 13ID 140. 34 -6
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for joint
cleaning and resealing of non - reinforced concrete pavement on
75Lh Street between Lyndale Avenue and Portland avenue, bids
were received, opened and tabulated according to law;
AND WHEREAS, it appears that Palda and Sons, Inc. of St.
Paul, 11inni.2sota is the lowest responsible bidder;
"10W, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
Richfield, Minnesota:
1. That the bid of P41da and Sons', Inc. of St. Paul,
Minnesota for construction of the above - mentioned project with
estimated construction cost of X54,259.40 is : iereby accepted;
2. That the mayor and clerk are hereby authorized z;o enter
into a contract wit;l Palda and Sons, Inc. of S-,.. Paul, ;-- iinnesota
in the name of the City of Richfield for such i,:provement
according to the plans and specifications;
3. The city clerk is hereby auuthorized
r::�urn forthwith to all 'bidders the deposits
bids, except that the deposits of tile succes
next lowest bidder shall be retained until a
signed.
and direct`d to
made with -.i,,eir
sful bidder and the
contract has been
PLsSZ-d by Lii City Council of Liie City of Ri:;iifield this
14th ;Jay of May, 1934.
John IJamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
r
#114
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter :•io. 170
Agenda May 14, 19Q4
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subjsct: award of Contract - Mlemoriai Park
Council Members:
r
On Flay 1, 1934, bids tire: e opened in accordance with legal
requirements for three contracts related to the ,- iemorial Park
redevelopment project. A representative of tiie city manager,
the city clerk, the director of community services, tide
recreation supervisor /designer, the site architect, the building
architect and representatives of several of the bidders were in
attendance. A copy of the bid minutes Lind tabulations is
attached for council review.
The first contract (A) was for site construction. D ree
• proposals were received. In addition to the base bid, several
alternates were included. It would be tole reconmendi�ition of
staff that alternates A -1 for Topsoil and A -2 for Bitu:ilinous
Paving be accepted. A -3 for Tennis Court Resurfacing and ienco
Re- Painting and A -4 for Irrigation can be done at a later time
by force labor or contract and it is anticipated such work could
be done for less that the prices quoted in the proposals.
The second contract (B) was for building construction.
Three proposals were received. In addition to the base bid, two
alternates were incluued . Tt is the recommendation of
staff that alternate B -1 for particular roof work be accepted
while B -2 for skate tile be delayed to a lacer date as
there is no winter playground skating program at this park at
this ticae.
The third contract (C) was for planting. proposals
were received. In addition to the base bid, two alternates were
included as wC:ii ris the option to reduce the bFS.' bid by 20 -.
It would be the recommendation of staff the base bid be reduced
by twenty percent (20:x) and that alternates C -1 and C -2 both be
accepted as deducts for eight Pin Oak and seven Austrian Pine.
T'i,c 1934 Capital Eud;et includ::s - 200,0'00 in special revenue:
funding for tale Memorial Park proje,et. It is recommended the
city council take the fol.lowin actions r'clated to contract
• awards in the total amount of $151,583 for the 'Memorial Park
red �_velopment pro j::ct :
Council Letter No. 170 -2-
• 1. Award a contract for Site Construction to Asphalt
Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $66,507.00 with the
understanding alternate A -1 for topsoil at an add unit price of
$1.20 and alternate A -2 for bituminous paving at an add or
deduct unit price of $3.245 is also accepted.
2. Award a contract for Building Construction to Nordling
Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of $75,996.00 including the
base bid of $75,100 and alternate B -1 for the roof in the amount
of $896.
3. Award a contract for Planting to Hoffman and McNamara
Company in the amount of $9,180.00,a reduction of the base bid
($11,230) by $2,050, including acceptance of Alternate C -1 for
deduction of $1,280 for eight Pin Oak at $160 each, and
acceptance of Alternate C -2 for a deduction of $770 for seven
pine trees at $110 each.
4. Authorize the entering into agreement with the above
contractors as outlined above and according to the plans and
specifications.
5. Authorize the return of bid securities to all bidders
with the exception of the successful bider and the next lowest
bidder whose bid securities shall be returned upon execution of
the contract.
•RespectfLilly submitted,
John G. Ca`rtwoght
City Manager
JGC /eja
•
A
K
r O
Q 2 *1
r
C
?
�
, �
?
�
a
O
? A
:!�
3'
Q <
•� h i
ri
Q S
Rf -On
p �
p fJ
�Q !D
A y
Q�
C7
Q 7
Q
A
-�Q fi
Q'7
p .t
� Z
T
(: n '•f 3
'S
^7 9
O r+•
Qn
Z
—
S
t9
...
J)
�
n
F
a
m
'so
�
R
n
m O
n
v
n
y
-
r•• 7 _ �
�
�
�
a
o
n
�
I �•<
-
rt
F
:�
.
F•r
11
G
b
R
•�
-
b
O
17
rn
.—.
R
7
n
n
S n a
'b
n
n b
r
n
R
2+
n^
A
n
G
b
Q
n m
£
n
v 0
r•
a
•O a
3° A
A R
O
to
-4 7
n
17
00 O J
R
b a b
CA iA
b r
7
r
�
r
r
N
H
.'nA m
n n O
N
— "
-
G
F-
A
tD
m va
I>
A 2
y
CL
a
W
a
r o
—
S
f. tin
v+
fJ
�
�
�
G
> Z
r
n ID
'�
N
In
�'_
r••
y
v
O
O
>
y p
n
�•
v
p
n
o
r
o
o
R a
^t
y
G n
~
O
N
co
O
H H
b O CA
v
r
r
'S J1 v y y
-
A
I
a
O
C ?
cn y
R
N
� � `< 'n S
In
V+
„~^•,
•
zn
w
m
- n n
:n �
m n
� p
n R
7
y
v
O
O
NJ
•
Z -
7 F
o
c
c
o
y
I
(
N
y
_-
A
K
r O
Q 2 *1
r
C
•
•
•
NORDL1NG CONSTRUCTION CO. INC.
2576 EAST SEVENTH AVE. - NO. ST. PAUL. MINK. 55109
May 7, 1984
Mr. Don Fondrick
Community Service Director
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
PHONE 777 -6956
777 -3958
City Of Ruchiieli
RE: Richfield Memorial Park Bid
Dear Mr. Fondrick:
There was a typographical error which caused the two alternate
prices to be switched around.
The correct alternate figures should be:
Metal Roof
Skate Tile
Thank you.
ADD $ 896.00
ADD $5,999.00
Respectfully,
NORDLING CONSTRUCTION CO. INC.
Ernest F. Nordling, President
EFN:ps
/VD(6::;
774 oj3 rn
CITY OF RICHFIELD,
MINNESOTA
Office of City
Manager
Council Letter No. 169
Agenda May 14, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Ordinance Amendment To Permit Mobile Vending
Vehicles in Residential Neighborhoods. Second
Reading.
Council Members:
Blue Bell Ice Cream, Inc. has submitted
mobile ice cream and concession business in
representative of Blue Bell appeared before
its meeting of April 9, 1984, and agreed to
city restrictions if a license to operate t
vehicle would be approved. The agreed upon
a request to operate a
Richfield. A
the city council at
comply with several
he mobile ice cream
restrictions are:
1. The vehicle would not be operated on July 4;
2. The vehicle will not sell products on arterial streets;
and
3. The operator of the vehicle will not compete with
concession stands operated in the city parks.
At the April 23, 1984 city council meeting, the city council
approved on first reading, an amendment to Chapter VI, Section
6.14 of the Code of Ordinances entitled "Sound Trucks" as follows:
1. An amendment to subdivision 1 expands upon the defini-
tion of a broadcast vehicle by including vehicles that
have "any unamplified projection of sound for the pur-
pose of attracting attention to a commercial enterprise
whether or not conducted in or on such vehicle." The
amendment permits the Blue Bell Ice Cream truck to be
included under the broadcasting type vehicle which is
permitted in Richfield; and,
2. The second amendment amends subdivision 6 by providing
that a broadcasting vehicle may operate in residential
areas of the city if granted special permission by the
city council with the added proviso that the council
if it wishes to grant special permission may place certain
conditions and restrictions on the activity concerning the
mobile ice cream vehicle.
r
-2-
• The ordinance amendment has been laced on the May Y 14, 1934
city council agenda for second reading by the city council.
The city manager recommends to the city council approval of
the proposed amendments to Chapter VI, section 5.14 of the
Municipal Code of Ordinances so that Blue Bell Ice Cream Inc. may
be granted the appropriate licenses for operation subject to the
restrictions outlined above.
JGC /eja
r�
•
pe 0 tfu y �s ea7mitted
/John G. Carts
City Manager
r
0
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER VI,
SECTION 6.14 OF THE ORDINANCE
CODE ENTITLED "SOUND TRUCKS"
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Chapter VI, Section 6.14 of the Ordinance Code of the
City of Richfield entitled "Sound Trucks" is hereby amended
in the following respects:
I. By amending Subdivision 1 thereof to read as follows:
Subdivision 1. Definitions. "Broadcasting
vehicle" is any vehicle, motor propelled or
otherwise, on which is attached:
(1) any device for amplifying and broadcasting
through one or more loud speakers speech or
music, whether produced from records, radio
reception or vocally through microphone, and
which projects sound from such vehicle with a
total speaker volume of more than one watt; or
(2) any unamplified projection of sound for the
purpose of attracting attention to a commercial
enterprise whether or not conducted in or on such
vehicle.
II. By amending paragraphs 3 and 4 of Subdivision 6 thereof
to read as follows:
43 } shall - net- bi- eadeast
6ahlle -eR- the - streets - and- alleys- la- i-e9ldentlal
areas -et- the -elty-
44 }(3) No broadcasting vehicle shall be operated
on Sundays, election days, holidays nor any other
day between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.,
nor on streets and alleys in residential areas of
the city, except by special permission of the
council. In granting such permission, the council
may place conditions and restrictions on the
activity which relates to the time, location and
manner of broadcasting.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this day of , 1984.
0 ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
John N. Hamilton, Mayor
e •
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
•
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 163
u
Agenda May 14, 1934
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: ORDi 4,11NCE AMEND' °LENT RELAT t1G TO 114CREAtiING THE
NUMBER OF LICENSED TAXICABS IN THE CITY FROM
115 TO 130
Council Members:
The ordin:�nce code regulating tiie licensing of taxicabs in
the city establishes the maximum number of licenses at 115.
This number was established some years ago as the number
necessary to provide adequate, reliable, and viable service to
the residents of Richfield.
T':ia city recently received a request to license taxicabs for
a new taxicab company in Richfield, and was unable to do so
because all of the 115 licenses had been issued.
At the April 23, 1934 city council meeting, the city council
approved, on first reading, an ordinance amendment to incre.is�a
the number of taxicabs from 115 to 130. A public hearing
and second reading of the ordinance amendment is scheduled for
the May 14, 1934 city council meeting.
The number of taxicab licenses issued by other units of
government are:
Mpls. -St. Paul Inttl. Airport 600+
Bloomington 95
Edina (no limit, number based on need) 197
Minneapolis 247
St. Louis Park 40
If additional licenses are granted, it appears that service
for Richfield residents and persons who wisli to visit Richfield
may be improved. On the other hand, the city has not been asked
by the public to expand the number of cabs.
r
Council Latter No. 168 -2-
Pursuant to requests from some council members, both the
City Attorney and the Director of Public Safety have been re-
searchin the issues relat =ed to the ordinance provision setting
a maximum limit on the number of taxicab licenses whih the city
is authorized to issue. Both the City Attorney and the Director
of Public Safety will be prepared to comment on this matter when
t'rie Coun -,il considers second reading, of the proposed ordinance
amendment related to this issue. At that time, and following
the appropriate discussion, the Council can establish the
final language and requirements they may wish to include in
their action with regard to this pending ordinance amendment
request.
CTTY MANAGER RECOMME14DATIO J
An arnend:nent to the Municipal Code of Ordinances which
increases the number of licenses form 115 to 130 is attached to
this council letter and is placed on the May 14, 19311 city
council agenda for second reading consideration. The City
Manager recommends the city follow the lead of Edina and not
place a limit on the number of taxicabs. The reasons are:
1) The artificial limit of 115 or 13.0 taxicabs could be
challenged as a violation of antitrust laws. Provided
• in the backup material is an ar,cicle dated May 9, 1984,
from the Minneapolis Star and Tribune which reports the
federal government is expected to "accuse Ninneapolis
..... of violating antirrust laws because it limits the
number of taxis...."
2) The removal of a cap would probably find Richfield
issuing no more licenses than Edina does.
?) An artificial cap leads to the private sale of licenses
at inflated prices.
4) The private market place is the best basis for deter-
mining how many cabs there should be; and
5) If there is to be limits on the number of taxis, it is
best regulated on a metropolitan wide basis.
p;�ci,fly� c� itced ,
ohn G. C /arty. right
City Panager
• JGC /e,ja
r
AXIENDMENT TO CHAPTER V!, S`IC T IOIN 6.20
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF ORDINANCES
OF THE C TI. TY OF RICILIFIELD
ENTITLED "TAXICABS"
BY INCREASING TIE PIUMtBER OF
LICENSED TAXICABS TO 130
City of Richfield does ordain:
Chapter VI, Section 6.20 of the Ordinance Code of tnc City
of Richfield entitled "taxicabs" is hereby amended by amending
Subdivision 12 thereof to read as follows:
"Subd. 12. Maximum number of Licenses Granted.
The maximum number of tr.xic:3b licenses to be granted
pursuant to this section until next amended shall be
_�s5. 1310 .It
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 14th day of May, 1934.
•
ATTEST :
Sylvia K. Bergh~ City Clerk
John Hamilton ;Mayor
•
0
complaint 7= agm gas
explClUT'so-d to T.,19,
against city restrictions on cab
The federal government is expected
to accuse Minneapolis Thursday of
violating antitrust laws because it
limits the number of taxis allowed to
operate in the city.
The city, which has been licensing
cabs for about 50 years, was told two
months ago that its control over taxis
was under review by the staff of the
Federal Trade Commission.
that it is going to approve the com-
plaint. it has arranged for a press
conference, also tomorrow morning,
in Minneapolis.
Alfton said the agency has two basic
complaints about the city ordinance
controlling taxi companies.
"First, they say we don't have open
entry, which means we limit the
The agency's second objection is that
the city sets the fare rates.
"We do have some flexibility on
rates in the ordinance that was
passed last summer." said Alfton.
"Some discounts are allowed, but I
don't think any of the companies are
using that provision (of the ordi-
nance)."
number•of taxis. The licensing of taxis has long been (`(
"They said that-they were making a controversial. Suburban taxi Zompa- i ;t
nationwide study and that we "That's true," Alfton added. Only 247 vies have complained about being
weren't the only city involved." said cabs are allowed to operate within frozen out of the market, and indi-
City Attorney Bob Alfton. "The rea- the city. In addition, suburban taxis viduals wanting one of the licenses
son for this action seems to be the that bring riders into the city can not claim they have had to pay as much III
push (within the Reagan administra- pick up new customers wanting to go as $20,000 to the company holding a
tion) to deregulate government con- outside the city. license.
trots on business
"Apparently they think that if there
are more cabs, service will be better
and fares will be lower."
The commission's staff has recom-
mended that a complaint be filed
against Minneapolis, and the com-
mission is scheduled to rule on that
recommendation at its meeting to-
morrow morning in Washington, D.C.
But the agency has already indicated
CITY OF RICHFIELD,' MINNESOTA
Inter— Offir,e IAerr.orondurr,
SATE April 3,1984
To John Cartwright, City Mananger
FROM Elaine McGuire, License Department Ext. 245
SUBJECT Cab Companies Licensed in 1984
1. Robert-; I. Zimmerman dba Airport & Airline Taxi Cab company
and Airport &Airline Taxi cab corporation. 19 Cabs
2.Blue & White Cab Company 2812 University Avenue South
Contact Person Mary Ann Parks 19 Cabs.
3. Suburban Green & White Cab Company 6 Cabs
4. Town Taxi 7570 Highway 65 North, Fridley, 21 Cabs
5. Yellow Cab Company 50 Cabs.
K]
Total Cabs Licensed in 1984
115
•
r
C �1
L_J
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, i1INNESOTA
Office of City Manager
�y
Council Letter No. 157
Agenda of May 14, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Special Use Permit Request at '529 Nicollet Avenue South to Allow
for the Operation of a Carry -out Restaurant
Council Members:
Mr. Gregory DeWeese, president of Little Caesar Pizza, Inc., has applied
for a special use permit to operate a carry -out restaurant within the
Richfield Shoppes North facility.
The proposed restaurant, Little Caesar Pizza, would operate as a carry -out
establishment only. There will be no seating provided. Peak periods will be
on Friday and Saturday evenings, generally during times the other businesses in
the center will be closed. Hours of operation are to be 11:00 a.m. to 11:00
p.m. daily.
ORDII4ANCE REQUIREMENTS
Section 3.33, subdivision 2 indicates that restaurants are only
permitted in a C -2 zoning district if a special use permit is obtained.
Section 3.331 subdivision 4 enumerates standards with which proposed
restaurants must be in substantial compliance in order to be granted a special
use permit.
Section 3.41, subdivision 5 and 5A require that it be determined that a
special use permit proposal is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan
and parking guidelines.
STAFF REVIEW
Upon review of the proposal, staff finds the following:
1. The proposed restaurant is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The site is located within the LHN, designated as central business district
and includes such allowable land usage as eating establishments.
Council Letter No. 157 -2-
2. Offstreet parkin; guidelines adopted by the city indicate a need for
272 parking spaces at Richfield Shoppes North. A total of 183 stalls are
actually provided. The potential exists for additional parking spaces upon the
completion of an approved construction proposal on the south end of the site.
This construction would net 25 more parking spaces.
3. Peak periods for the restaurant will be Friday and Saturday
evenings, during which time 35% - 40,-,") of the week's 700 - 0.00 transactions will
occur. Experience drawn from over 400 restaurants in the Little Caesar chain
shows an average maximum of 3 - 4 customers at any one time during the peak
hours.
Only of the 11 present businesses have hours of operation which would
coincide with the restaurant's peak hours. Therefore, the proposed use would r
have a minimal impact on the parking situation during its busiest hours.
During the lunch period, when demand for available parking space at the
shopping center is high, only 15!, - 201 of Little Caesar's business would
occur. In addition, since most orders are phoned in in advance, parking
turnover would be approximately 5 minutes.
4. The proposed restaurant would meet all the ordinance standards for
restaurants found in Section 3.33, subdivision 4 of the city ordinances.
STAFF RECOM11ENDATION
• Staff recommends that the special use permit be granted.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission on a 7 -0 vote recorranended approval of the special
use permit.
JGC /eja
•
glw2ra3
(ohn G. Cartw%ight
City ;Manager \ j
0
1I 11
u
O
z
Cl)
W
CL
CL
2
co
W
T
i
U
V-
04
N
r
1Sb3 1�3a1S yiS9
�o
L
EV
N
T
I
r
N
I
O
0)
to
2
iJJ
a
F'
w
J
J
O
U
►lo
Y,
a
a
W
v
W
J
H
J
•
•
•
1) Fashion Gal
2) Sherwin Williams Paints
3) Renta -Color Video Center
4) The Cotton Shoppe
5) Richfield Haircare Studio
6) Pier 1
7) Vacant
Richfield Doctors Building (offices)
8) The Hair Tenders
Business Hours
M -F 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Sat. 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Sun. 11 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Mon. 7:30 a.m. to 9 p.m.
T.W. Thur, 7 :30 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Fri. 7:30 a.m. to 9 p.m.
M-F 8:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Sat. 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
M -Thurs 8:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Sat. 8:30 a.m. to 5 :00 p.m.
M,T,W,F, 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Thurs 9:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Sat. 8:00 a.m. to 4 :30 P.M.
M -Sat. 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Sun. 12 noon to 5:00 p.m.
M -F 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Occasional Saturdays
9) Community Credit M-F 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
10) Instant Prints M -F 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
11) Vacant - Proposed Little Caesar's Pizza 14-Sun. 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 P.M.
12) Warner Hardware
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Office of City Manager
Council Litter ?do. 166
Agenda May 14, 1934
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: Variance Request at 6215 12th Avenue South
Dear Council Members:
PROPOSAL
Mr. Perfecto
Yangco,
owner of
the property at 6215 12th Avenue South
has requested a
variance to reduce the minimum front lot width
from 50
feet to 34 feet
and a variance to
reduce the required side street,
side yard
requirement on a
corner
lot from
15 feet to 5 feet. These variances are
necessary to allow hii:r to
build a new house on the vacant lot, which
he owns,
adjacent to his
property
at 6215
12th Avenue South. Mr. Yangco
is also
requesting that
the city
drop the
deed restriction, which the city
placed on
the property, and which prohibits buildings other than accessory buildings
on the lot.
HISTORY
During the latter part of 1977, Hennepin County initiated the sale
of three properties adjacent to the Crosstown Highway. One of these
properties was the property currently owned by Mr. Yangco for which he is
requesting the variances. When bids for these properties were requested, the
county discovered that the City of Richfield, in fact, owned them. The city
had purchased the lots in the early 1960's to permit the installation of water
and sewer lines. To complete the sale process, the county off.r.�d to
repurchase the property from the city. This request prompted the city to
reevaluate the future of this land.
In February of 1973, the City Council considered the county's request to
repurchase the property and referred the matter to the Plannin' Cointaission for
review and recommendation. The Planning Corrynission reviewed tire matter and
recommended that the parcels be maintained as vacant land to serve as a buffer
between the residential area and the Crosstown 9ighway. The commission felt
that the vacant parcels served a public purpose when considering factors such
as noise control, house: spacing, public h,salth, visual aesthetics and some
future undesignated public use. The City Council then directed staff to
negotiate with adjacent property owners to sell these vacant lands to them.
•
Council Lc:"'tar :;o.
C_ .y 5 ta f f v. IC 0t
iiLri .ne owner o1C
iiie property at. ''21;
121'11
'.v•cnu. and
subsequ2ntly so'_ the
parcel to him for
a500.'�0. Because of
the
- '-ova :nanL-*onad conc- rns, .i r=-stri•�ion was placed
on t:is dee by
..:.,-y ,
indicating
that no buildincr could
be erected on '. ie
site for any purpose
o : er
t l::in as a
ouilvin accessory .-o
t;l_ Sin;:le f.:.liily
ct• siuenG -�
6215
12th avenue
-ouch. There is also
a water :Hain running
through the proper —r
nd
a 15 foot
:;jsanlent among tlzo south an3 east proper -i. line Yri.lCn .ras
:also
maintained.
yard
setback of 15 feet on a corner loL.
-4-* S "1C;;5.
` "' e t:':' :7 ',
'�;r. Yangco sucs�qu_n,,ly alas par ,.as•_d prop ray at .,_1 12�a .:�.nu -_
South, along wi::l t'.i; rewnnont lot. !"Ir. Yangco woul-i ii"I -o to construct a new
s'Ln le Ca:nily d'.- yelling on tie r.- -mnant lot c:ld ;Ias appll..:d for tiles previously
described variances and has requested removal of t:la Jo--d restriction.
LOT D" TAILS
The ramnanL- lot in qu,astion is approximately ' ,013 square fe:�t in ar::a
which meets the city's minimum lot area Standards. Tale lot has a front
'.vi t l of 31 feet :_rtlich does not meet the city's :ainirruia st::ndar of
50 feet. The width of the lot at the rear proper�'I-y ling is 71 feet. There
is water ,Hain whiQn runs throtlg:l tilt' grope:: ^Ly yritY i3 loc�tcv 10 f �t fr0:� L lc'
south property line and 11 feat from the east property line. as indicated, a
15 foot ed&a enr, has be- n Maintained for tLniS 'wa Ai r liric.
mr. Yongco wishes to construct a two
dw,:ilin� would be 7' X 110 wits, a 21 x
story Swelling
22 '.ci.l. �ii5
on
;ara�e
the site.
ir, frDn1 of
The
L"he
strucLure. The proposed dwelling would meet all setback requirements axc;
-pt
a t'er.� -1 requirement
t:l s r ., side, side yard of
e !t
15 feet'. :�
t'r -e
sue: _ �
ids �-a
s���, a siCu:
yard
of 5 feet is proposed.
.
ras proposal
REQUIRE`-IE';TS
ttciic:c must
i�Staff
ba
meL for a variance to be granted and
found
i . SeoLi on ?�, subdivision 4 r quiff �5
.rlln� lli1:; lot
'.vldth Of
5U
2. Section ;.3U, subdivision 5 requires
a mini: um
street
sine, side
yard
setback of 15 feet on a corner loL.
-4-* S "1C;;5.
;.
Section 5.40, subdivision 6 lists
three
conditions rilli•JL. must be present
for a variance to be granLod.
.
ras proposal
ttciic:c must
i�Staff
ba
meL for a variance to be granted and
found
the following:
1.
Th; v :' -r ar sp c181 .^_ircu,ist:.ac
s or
zJn-IiLions II °�tlilj ilS a7
nor- v' £ton 'Go ottl�r prO��r ,1eS - 5i:�ii'_::r
-4-* S "1C;;5.
r
r
Council Letter No. 165
It is staff's opinion .hat there are Unique ::ircuirisrances on this
particular lot. The lot is of an unusual shape. The lot meets the minimum lot
art requirement, but because of its Unusual sli?ipe, does not meet cne front lot
width requirement. The width at the rear property line exceeds our standard
and the avaragc width of tile lot excels the G1 foot SL3ndard. Th ere is also a
water main on the lot which is a unique circumstance. if that water ;Hain were
not pros: -nt, the proposed dwelling could be constructed on tr-,e site and the
street side, side yard variance would not be necessary.
2. That t:le granting of the application is necessary for tin, preservatio
anti zn;;oy;i,_nt of subsranLial propt :r .y r:�nts.
It is staff's belief tl1at the variance is not ne��ssary to protect
substantial property rights. While the denial of the variance would limit the
owner to only constructing an accessory structure on that particular lot, it
was clear when the property was purchased that davalopment of anything other
titan an acc.:ssory structure would not ba allowed because of
restrictions that were placed on that particular lot. Because of the deer
rest; ic'U`Lon, it should have been clear to the owner what tine possibilities of
using that site were and what the restrictions were. The lot was sold by the
City to '.ne adjacent lot owner aL a v• -ry low price b'ecau. =- i;ii•`: lA, was CIOL
d'�velopable. Because of this, it is staff's opinion that c'ac hardship test of
State Statutes cannot be demonstrated in this particular case.
• ?. Thal tine s-ranting of the application will no _!lcterlaliy and adversely
affect t,:o haalti, or f._:cy of persons residing or 4orking in tna
n::iohborhood and will not be materially jetrimental to Lh e oubl c tJ2i1 ore
or in jurious co i _nprov` men is in t'.
^.e nei�fhbor rood .
It is staff's opinion that the structure proposed to be developed on tine
sites could potentially be detrimental to the public welfare. The proposed
dwelling would be witi1in 5 feet of the water ;Hain and the possibility exists
`:,hat that water ;a:lin could be damaged during construction, or future use of the
Site. The Street Side, side yard S2 bc. :ri :would not be consistant wit-In other
dwellings on corner lots in t'.1e area and the occupants of the dwelling would be
exposed to the d etriizent :31 effects of tiia Crosstown Highw y.
STyrF RECOI�^INENDATION
Eecauss tie three conditions ?resent for gr�nt-ng a 'jariance ''lave not be ='n
;rot, staff recommends file variance regU?st be denied nd that t1?
existing deed restrictions be maintained.
.7
•
•
C7
Council Letter No. 166 -4-
PLANTING CO'MRISSION RECO1,41 iENDATION
The Planning Commission unanimously reco,mnends that these variance: requests
be denied and that the deed restriction be maintained. The commission feels
that the three conditions were not tilet and that it was clear that the lot was
not developable when the present owner bought the land because of the deed
restrictions.
s e tXly i ttedohn Car
City Manager
r
•
April 9, 1984
City of Richfield
City Nail
6700 Portland Ave.
Richfield, MN 55423
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to request from the city a resolution to allow
a single family home to be built on the property described as follows
That part of Lot 2, Block 1, Oonnay First Additions, lying
Southerly of a curve concave to the North and having a radius of 1370
feet, and said curve being drawn from a point on the East line of
said lot distant 71.22 feet North of the Southeast corner of said lot
. to a point on the West line of said lot distant 34.03 feet North of
the Southwest corner of said lot.
Thank you for your consideration.
Perf Yan
r
. REQUEST OF jW LhCJtJG AVAIII`lU -1 r(ZOA)T W1,079 FK00-1 310'
To 3 +' AND 4Eavice SIOEYAKO s/oCsT .C- !S .os'' .
OR ?C'-IvOSZ Or BVILDING A S /NGLr= PA9161IL y E4oA-1 _
omega: Oescri;t�.on: 13 i.0ut' 1 , a���Ay F�rtsT gD13(7iaN
i e, the undersigned, being owners o= mediate ad;oinia:g land as
above described, do aerebv concur with the variance as reLuested.
Signature c46 Owners* Address
may not ce :e --cved crc_ the ?et_t on is signed and
_e , —,-med to the ?lz*ini. g Division .
z
•
•
S:r :a�:res
� � • 1, ... �r��- "--tom
�� ����'\.
I
I
_
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
may not ce :e --cved crc_ the ?et_t on is signed and
_e , —,-med to the ?lz*ini. g Division .
z
•
•
S:r :a�:res
gut=' mUsIUM"m
alZA96
IF
SITE
Z.
621 5
"44 za i Viol 3A
"AN
!7
SIGNATURES
ON PETITION
uj
L
A
P- w; z1hol
Alf
52.
F.
.t-o` 14
4
w
4
4Q
N
41%3
17
�
Z �`�
CM'
lo�`g _
Ti
1.7
9
AJ377
Y)js
lu
4,.,
tn.
I
,41
asi
LU
52.
F.
.t-o` 14
4
4
4Q
N
41%3
17
�
Z �`�
CM'
lo�`g _
Ti
1.7
9
a
asi
LU
(n
22
%kd
E.63rd
52.
F.
.t-o` 14
4
4
4Q
17
< 7 1
CM'
-3
Ti
1.7
9
(n
22
%kd
E.63rd
4
--- I J"r — `:7 -4
A71? E.6
52.
—717 n
.t-o` 14
!,Asa
4
4Q
17
< 7 1
CM'
-3
4
--- I J"r — `:7 -4
A71? E.6
q A;
52.
3J
4
4Q
17
< 7 1
CM'
-3
Ti
1.7
9
.1 T
Cc. 9
0
a
r3
sry
L
rr 17
UJ
I
q A;
1.
tq: �I` •`r'
3J
4
4Q
17
LU
>
to �sY
Ti
1.7
9
1.
tq: �I` •`r'
L
Ln-L.: --el
17
LU
>
to �sY
L
Ln-L.: --el
•.�
P.
. � f.. w. C.r_wwuwwrrTl• OECD. C. a�
- ; f
•- j � v
That part of Lot 2, *Block 1, Donnay First Addition,' lying'Sautherly
of a curve concave to the North and having
y a radius of 1310 feet, •
r and said curve being drawn trom•a point on the East line•of.said
.
,
lot distant 71.22 feet North. Of the Sautheast.Corner of -said lot.
'
�. to a point on the west line of said lot distant 34,03 feet North
1
No ddingmt tues and tram[er es : Crstaaa
s?:•C2 S 9' i 1' : ' S OOS.GO j
-
`
C?
� I
of Real is.ate value ( ) MM ('- )not
Cerda"te or Rea! Estate Value No
n
t�1ct is cower
**ad assenmaats and iasn"t oween; Additional exceptions set. forth
an back..... '
(•?
Kim MCZR: PC Cil
. -
.. - �••Ita?�''''yor
•
�
the
• Ia Cwty Man
STATE OF UDINFSOTA
COUNTY OF Rt+.TR "TR
1112OCT28 FM12 :48
The roteloing was aekeowiedpaf before see ft ,25 t!! �! Odtober
' by .tnh,• Rami 1 ten •� '.
and xhrl Nolletsbezeter
the
-AINfitor
ter. 47499 7
s
�
Q
_
• . ' I terA&I" RAW Oa Ga" IOa O'laia Tr6.a e; tamp
• ``22
Deut
tawraTeaa or r TAabro Actor
i
d
SLATE DEED TAX DUE H£RFAN: f _ nee
*
rA
82
_
�'-
�
.19
•-
(reeer..d rot r�cotdaat dtmi)
.; �
•
V
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the City of
irhfieId a municipal Corporation'
- •
14
, ac
��ztt•atw. of MiRn�•nr� v under thelsweof
. Grantor• hereby conveys and warrants to Dennis Thazaldson
j
Ptopem is t+•*+ *•nin
County. Mitttteo ta, emebed d . Graatae(e►.
to &low&-
�i
- ; f
•- j � v
That part of Lot 2, *Block 1, Donnay First Addition,' lying'Sautherly
of a curve concave to the North and having
y a radius of 1310 feet, •
r and said curve being drawn trom•a point on the East line•of.said
.
,
lot distant 71.22 feet North. Of the Sautheast.Corner of -said lot.
'
�. to a point on the west line of said lot distant 34,03 feet North
of the Southwest Coiner of said lot.
.tether with an herrditamena aed appuvemoees belonging theeto, aubjeet to the fonoeE+t c=Wdmc the
Lim of au unpaid
t
**ad assenmaats and iasn"t oween; Additional exceptions set. forth
an back..... '
Adis Drrd lye Starbp Here
. -
.. - �••Ita?�''''yor
•
• Ia Cwty Man
STATE OF UDINFSOTA
COUNTY OF Rt+.TR "TR
The roteloing was aekeowiedpaf before see ft ,25 t!! �! Odtober
' by .tnh,• Rami 1 ten •� '.
and xhrl Nolletsbezeter
the
and —S1ty Manager
• of *►•• r•ir� of R {�►,fi�ia
s
a Municieal�corooraty'on�
ttndettAelawaoS*t+•�r�„r+ e£ inn �nra •cerneration
_ . on behait d the
_
• . ' I terA&I" RAW Oa Ga" IOa O'laia Tr6.a e; tamp
J/
•
� MAiGA ttsil
tawraTeaa or r TAabro Actor
i
e±�Sy rorAar wwnu •+r..aos. .
`�e0�r oeaw. eerrwr
5..r•.�..., r u. -d ....a• 4 :::.. r wr ftww
'=W oM'.r ...r.rr..uo�..M
I
e.Oka Am as was �
h
' _ wew1�•OSsP ' , �
'0
s
•
•
•
•
' !•'1 � ' • � , • � jai
�' `►
subject-to the right of access, being the right o: ingress and •' =s
T egress from the Northerly-side!of the tract herein conveyed to i
VCounty Stets Aid Highway 62 by the County of Hennepin. bob.
Subject to the reservation of•all'miner'al rights in.said land
by the County of Hennepin.
• '�••; �' ' Subject to the restriction that no building shall be erected on
: the tract herein conveyed for.any purpose other than as a building ,
• incident and accessory to the single family residence located ow �.
T• =; Lot 3, Block 1. Donnary First Addition. `�• C i
This.restrictioa in•each and every particular shall ru:i.vith the-
hand. 7 `
' Subject to i perpetual easement for watermiin puiposes. lying over:
:under, across and through the South*ily 15 feet of. the above-
..1 : described parcel.*-.
.. ,•wit• /�,j •. `•,• .. .. • .. • i:. r
r.
X.
4.
YV
:► :.tt. -�. �} ��` � � �-, rug,
i
r
•
•
•
Ltd
x
= x
1i
•
•
I •K
T
•
LJ
•
. � L
i
&tO �z
51
/t✓li ;' � �% oc:.� o. a ,. � � N .,� --!,,
. r
Eta.
•
. � L
i
&tO �z
51
/t✓li ;' � �% oc:.� o. a ,. � � N .,� --!,,
I , -.,/
in, C,
C'4
ISO r -
fir
lie
(.y.
15
2
11501
1k)
1134SGN4
3
32 48
/34 9d
—141
1 4
34
34 7+
5
–;z"'J
.,j,
Site
Z'S
"o"22:
4
6
ItU.37
0
G/ U.77
-;140
ic C
3 33
14
lo�
C)
i53
cn
!33o7
6
t
1
4
LA
in, C,
C.4
C'4
ISO r -
fir
lie
(.y.
15
2
11501
1k)
1134SGN4
3
32 48
/34 9d
—141
1 4
34
34 7+
5
–;z"'J
.,j,
_Z] 8.28
;o
Z'S
"o"22:
4
6
ItU.37
0
G/ U.77
-;140
34 a
i 4
C.4
II
v.
tu
ro
C'4
ISO r -
fir
/5's 97
1 3so7
15
2
11501
131 57
3
1134SGN4
3
32 48
/34 9d
es
4
1 4
34 7+
5
–;z"'J
.,j,
Z. jo
134.68N
"o"22:
4
6
tLi
S/3+IoZ
-;140
34 a
i 4
34 „4
II
v.
tu
ro
C'4
ISO r -
fir
/5's 97
1 3so7
15
2
11501
13531
A 14
f
\7ku)
\i3d-r-
Ic
4;AJ
ug
5
"o"22:
4
10
"Ifol
-;140
34 a
E.63rd
ir&d 110e.'
2
10
'A
—p- a- In ;I
10
4.0-111
No
E-64 th
30%. M
'j'.'
741 101iA
et
ijA 36 2
Y' 3
AWL �4
SIGNATURES ON PETITION
!o, .4
,31432
cc-4 cr,
ISO r -
fir
/5's 97
1 3so7
15
2
11501
4 'T
A 14
f
\7ku)
\i3d-r-
4;AJ
ug
5
"o"22:
4
/0
"Ifol
-;140
34 a
34 „4
i53
10
4.0-111
No
E-64 th
30%. M
'j'.'
741 101iA
et
ijA 36 2
Y' 3
AWL �4
SIGNATURES ON PETITION
!o, .4
,31432
2
7
34 ro
i3<5
34 !4
11%
4 'T
-3 a 1!
33
\i3d-r-
2
5
E. 65th
i3<5
13417
4 'T
-3 a 1!
33
\i3d-r-
.3, ?1'
/0
"Ifol
14*
E. 65th
4 'T
-3 a 1!
33
\i3d-r-
.3, ?1'
2�
-33-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 155
Agenda •lay 14, 193'
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Rearyard Setback Variance at 6215
Oliver Avenue in Order to Allow for Construction
of an Addition
Council Members:
pPnpncAT
A raquest has been made by the Richfield Baptist Church to
grant a 15 foot reduction in the required 25 foot rearyard
setback. This variance would allow the construction of an
addition which would extend 15 feet into the required rearyard.
This addition would be constructed over an existing
• basement.
ZOPdIIJG REQUIREMENTS
Section 3.30, subdivision 5, paragraph J, requires churches
in residential zoning districts to maintain a 25 foot rearyard
setback.
Section 3.40, subdivision o, states three conditions which
must be met in order to grant a variance.
STAFF REVIEW
In reviewing the application against the three variance
conditions, staff finds the following:
1. The single special circumstance affecting this building;
which does not affect other buildings in the "R" zone, is its
existing basement. A portion of the basement at the rear of the
church is without an overstory. This, however, was a condition
created by the applianL at an earlier date.
When the original building per-nit was issued in 1955, it
included th ;a construction of a basement and future overstory
set back 10 feet from the rear lot line. There is a remote
40 possibility that at the time the permit was issued, 62nd Street
r
Council Letter No. 165 -2-
was considered the front yard. This would put the church in
• compliance with the zoning ordinance. nevertheless, the permit
was issued for an Oliver address. 62nd Street does not
currently exist, and, therefore, Oliver Avenue must be
considered as the front yard and a variance is necessary.
2. Denial of the variance request would not constitute a
substantial denial of property rights as the building may still
be used as a church.
3. Granting the variance would not create a
detriment to the surrounding neighborhood, or th
a whole. If the addition were constructed, there
about a 65 foot separation between the church and
to the rear, however, the east wall of the church
be within ten feet of the residential property to
significant
e community as
would still be
the residence
building would
the east. r
The Public Safety Department has informed the applicant of
several code violations in the structure, including
nonconformance with the fire cods. If a variance were to be
granted, a stipulation should be made that all building code
concerns should be addressed to the satisfaction of the Public
Safety Department.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.ciinCe the variance request does no' meet all three of the
above conditions, the staff must recommend denial.
PLANnING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Tie Planning Commission recommended on a 5 -2 vote to approve
the variance request, with the stipulation that the entire
building be sprinkled for fire protection. Recommendation for
approval was based on a commission finding that, while rights to
finishing the building under the original permit had expired,
the completion of the addition over the basement should be
allowed. This being the case since the original permit was
improperly issued for a structure :which did not meet zoning
requirements. Furthermore, ;ranting the variance would not
likely create a significant detriment to the neighborhood.
JGC /eja
�J
s ectfu 1 s ' mitted,
XA ohn G. Car-wright
City Manager
i
r
L
CROSSTOWN
al
07
i 17,
X34, -2 .!%M627T
om-�lll
z
Lu
QQ
N
O
z
>w
3:
..6.
O
Q
-X
%
CL X.M.5 5
s 7 �17�: 23
22-
z
L4 2-1 A -711
o r 1,
_9 — — ZONING MAP
0, 7
ui
ic M JA
Lu 14
LLJ
> Lu
"I AiL;- 13\4
-T -T
LIZ2
lw
4
F fitt
ir/1 �
V4ll 3
-
NV
Za 1,
*)19
Ali)
14
lw
4
F fitt
ir/1 �
V4ll 3
-
D+7
2:
2C 77
17
14
" MULTIPLE RESIDENCE
RESIDENTIAL
INDUSTRIAL
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
Za 1,
19
Ali)
D+7
2:
2C 77
17
14
" MULTIPLE RESIDENCE
RESIDENTIAL
INDUSTRIAL
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
DAME April 4, 1984
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT — PLANNING DIVISION
�1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, RICHFIELD. MINNESOTA
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH
i Z-� t c*';-4-869 -7521. EXT. 512
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE FOR: i
A Chance in Zoning Variance
Special Use Permit I Other
3v: clCHFTaQ BAPTIST CHURCH Owner /Applicant
6219 Oliver Avenue South Address
Richfield City 869 -5821 Business Phone
_or the Property Located at:
Address: 6215 Oliver Avenue South
Subdivision: Unplatted 28 - 028 - 24
That part of j,1&3 W 3 8 8
Existing use of Land: _ Church
Wistina zoning: 0
Existing buildings? 747 Yes Q Vo
Proposed building /additions? Yes r+ -,To
Proposed changes in use:
Proposed changes in zoning:
Special use per nit requested:
Lot
Variance -requested: Fifteen ( 15) foot reduction i n set-back from rear property line
teach
all necessary drawings, mans, and site development plans.
FK;nlicants Sianature
ST. ;C-e- I- -4� S-rc-'
?ee Received 3v y Receipt 1 �:�ate
STEPS FOR OBTAINING A VARIANCE
The variance application will be reviewed by the City's staff
'-against the three conditions Listed below; the application must
meet all three Conditions in order for it-he staf f to -recommend
approval. Please read these conditions carefully and if you *,wish,
you may address these conditions in a letter to the City of
Richfield as a p art of your application.
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting
the particular land, building, or use referred to in the appli-
cation, not common to other properties in this or similar dis-
tricts.
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the pre-
servation and enjoyment of substantial property rights..
3. That the granting of the application will not materially and
adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant
and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.
At the hearing the applicant shall present a statement and
evidence in such form as the city may require to show these
facts.
Application for a variance is made to the City Planner along with
an application fee.
STEP 2
The Planning Division sends the application to all City Depart-nents
IC their review and recommendation.
STEP 3
The application then goes to the Planning Commission for their review
and recommendation to the City Council.
STEP 4
Public nearing is held at which time the City Council makes, their
decision for granting of the application.
STEP 5
The applicant must attend all public hearings regarding his /her
aDDllcation. Failure to do so will result in delay of action on
the nramcsal.
REQUEST F OR V. {..PVC_ OF a �i fteen (1 5) foot reduction in set -back from
FOR PL ct�OSL OF property line
adrii ng n addition on on ton of existing flat roof
-Legal Descri�tior_
we, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as
above described, do hereby concur with the variance as recuested.
Signature of Owners*
address
* Signatures may not be removed
OAC° the petition 7.S signed a::d
=et,, -ned to the Planning Division.
r r-
U
IJ WA
'Y
�,G,• �., ��'l..J' %'1; ,i�t� `�
• ^,; ✓. �./,,
ice? .-}' �`j
l � '
l
* Signatures may not be removed
OAC° the petition 7.S signed a::d
=et,, -ned to the Planning Division.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNES.Q)TA
Office of City Manager
=• Council Letter No. 164
Agenda May 14, 1934
The Honorable Mayor
. and.
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Proclamation Honoring American Field Service
Student, Sylvia Maria Reyes
Council Members:
Sylvia :Maria Reyes of San Jose, Costa Rica, has spent IIhe
last school year term with the family of Helen Lindgren as an.
American Field Service Student.
Many persons in the City of Richfield are active in this
program which brings students from foreign lands to live with
a family in Richfield while attending term
. is school ter. it is a
program promoting international friendship and understanding.
The AFS president, Gary Schreiner,, has requested a
proclamation in support of AFS and honoring Sylvia (Maria Reyes..
The proclamation will be presented, at the Mlay 14; 1934 . city
council meeting. ,Mr. Schreiner will be present at this meeting
as well as °Ms. Helen Lindgren,' host mother; Loren Wilkens, 'host
sister, 1,Irs. Teddy Coenen, AFS vice- president; and Ms. Kathy
Krake. After the presentation to .Ms: Reyes, i13r. Schreiner
would also like to make a special presentation to Mr. and.
Mrs. Bill Kirchner for their involvement in AFS.
A copy of the proclamation is atta, -ied.
JCG /eja
X ohn G. �Ca
ity 'Hlanage