Loading...
09-10-84 agenda0 I1 U 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 332 Agenda September 10, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing On The Assessment Roll for City Project No. 791, Alley Maintenance for the Period April 1, 1983 through December 31, 1983 Council Members: The city council has scheduled a public hearing to be held September 10, 1984 on the assessment for the cost of current maintenance—services on all e -ys for the__period Apr il_1 through D56cember_31,- -1983. The city staff has calculated the proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece piece or parcel of land specially benefited. The proposed assessment was properly filed with the city clerk, notice was duly published and notices were mailed to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll. The cost of current maintenance services April 1 through December 31, 1983 totaled $18,100 and included labor, material and equipment related to alley patching and snowplowing. Due to the length of the list, the assessment roll is not included in the council packet, but a copy of the assessment roll for alley maintenance April 1 through December 31, 1983, will be available for council reference and review at the September 10, 1984, city council public hearing. The city staff will be available-at the hearing to answer questions about the special assessment that may not have been raised prior to the hearing. The public hearing provides an opportunity for all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed assessment. Council Letter No. 332 -2- • T12-e city ordinance provides that special assessments for current se vices may be certified to the- county auditor for collection along with current taxes. This certification may provide that t e sp _ assessments be completely paid either in the first ten years or in up to ten annual installments. owever, commended that the certification adopted by the cit council prove e �ai �ymen ts be due and payable wi in the irk st year, ra er stallment s. The city has riah o c arge interest on the amount assessed in that the city provided the funds initially for the current services. It is the recommendation_ of staff that the interest rate be established at eight percent, the maximum permitted by law. A property owner may ma e payment before November 15, 1984 in order to avoid interest paymer_ts. ayments made after t-Ifadi- date, up t- o- l�ecemH—er 31 , 1985 would include the interest charges. Following the hearing, it- i- s__r�Fommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution', adopting the assessment of City Project No. 791, Alley Maintenance for the period April 1, 1983 through December 31, 1983. The city council may make changes in the assessment roll as a result of the hearing by adding the phrase "and has amended such proposed assessment as it deems just." Respectf y submitted, John G. Ca tw ght City Manager JGCleja 0 • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT NO. 791 ALLEY MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1983 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for current services related to maintenance of the following alleys in the City of Richfield: Number Surrounding Avenues Surrounding Streets 1001 Xerxes - Washburn 66th -67th Street 1002 Xerxes - Washburn 67th -68th Street 1003 Xerxes - Washburn 68th -69th Street 1004 Xerxes - Washburn 69th -70th Street 1005 Washburn - Vincent 66th -67th Street 1006 Washburn- Vincent 67th -68th Street 1007 Washburn- Vincent 68th -69th Street 1008 Washburn.- Vincent 69th -70th Street 1009 Vincent -Upton 66th -67th Street 1010 Vincent -Upton 67th -68th Street 1011 Vincent -Upton 68th -69th Street 1012 Vincent -Upton 69th -70th Street 1013 Upton- Thomas 66th -67th Street 1014 Upton- Thomas 68th -69th Street 1015 Upton- Thomas 69th -70th Street 1016 Thomas - Sheridan 66th -67th Street 1017 Thomas - Sheridan 67th -68th Street 1018 Thomas - Sheridan 68th -69th Street 1019 Thomas - Sheridan 69th -70th Street 1020 Sheridan - Russell 66th -67th Street 1021 Sheridan- Russell 67th -68th Street 1022 Sheridan.- Russell 68th -69th Street 1023 Sheridan - Russell 69th -70th Street 1024 Russell -Queen 66th -67th Street 1025 Russell -Queen 67th -68th Street 1026 Russell -Queen 68th -69th Street 1027 Russell -Queen 69th -70th Street 1028 Queen -Penn 66th -67th Street 1029 Queen. -Penn 67th -68th Street 1030 Queen. -Penn 68th -69th Street 1031 Queen -Penn 69th -70th Street 2001 Penn- Oliver 63rd -64th Street 2002 Oliver- Newton 63rd -64th Street 2004 Morgan. - Logan. 63rd -64th Street 2005 Logan. -Knox 63rd -64th Street 2007 James- Irving 63rd -64th Street 2008 Irving- Humboldt 63rd -64th Street 2009 2010 Humboldt- Girard Girard - Fremont (35W) 63rd -64th 63rd -64th Street Street 2011 Girard - Fremont (35W) 64th -65th Street 2012 Girard - Fremont (35W) 65th -66th Street 2013 Fremont (35W)- Emerson 64th -65th Street -2- 2014 Fremont (35W)- Emerson 65th -66th Street 2015 Dupont - Colfax 63rd- Mildred Dr. 2016 Colfax - Bryant 63rd - Mildred Dr. 2017 Bryant- Aldrich 63rd - Mildred Dr. 2019 Graham - Lyndale 66th -Lk. Shore Dr. 2020 Aldrich- Lyr_dale 75th -76th Street 2021 Aldrich - Lyndale 76th -77th Street 3002 Lyndale- Garfield 68th -69th Street 3003 Augsburg - Garfield 70th -71st Street 3004 Augsburg- Garfield 71st -72nd Street 3005 Lyndale- Garfield 72nd -73rd Street 3006 Lyndale- Garfield 73rd -74th Street 3007 Garfield- Harriet 71st -72nd Street 3008 Garfield- Harriet 72nd -73rd Street 3009 Garfield- Harriet 73rd -74th Street 3011 Harriet -Grand 67th -68th Street 3012 Harriet -Grand 68th -69th Street 3013 Harriet -Grand 72nd -73rd Street 3014 Harriet -Grand 73rd -74th Street 3015 Grand- Pleasant 68th -69th Street 3016 Grand- Pleasant 72nd -73rd Street 3018 Wentworth- Blaisdell 66th -68th Street 3020 Blaisdell - Nicollet 72nd -73rd Street 3021 Blaisdell - Nicollet 73rd -74th Street 3022 Blaisdell - Nicollet ;! 74th -75th Street 3023 Blaisdell- Nicollet-, / =� 75th -76th Street - 02�— �ticb7l= ' °� 68th -_69th Street P-2 7 Avenue 70th -71st Street 3026 Nicollet -First Avenue 71st -72nd Street 3027 Nicollet -First Avenue 72nd -73rd Street 3028 First - Stevens Avenue 71st -72nd Street 3029 First - Stevens Avenue 72r_d -73rd Street 3030 Stevens- Second Avenue 71st -72nd Street 3031 Stevens - Second Avenue 72nd -73rd Street 3032 Second -Third Avenue 66th -67th Street 3033 Second -Third Avenue 71st -72nd Street 3034 Second -Third Avenue 72nd -73rd Street 3035 Third - Clinton Avenue 66th -67th Street 3036 Third - Clinton Avenue 73rd -74th Street 3037 Clinton - Fourth Avenue 66th -67th Street 3038 Clinton- Fourth Avenue 73rd -74th Street 3039 Fourth -Fifth Avenue 66th -67th Street 3040 Fourth -Fifth Avenue 73rd -74th Street 4001 13th -14th Avenue 65th -66th Street 4002 14th -15th Avenue 62nd -63rd Street 4004 15th- Bloomington 62nd -63rd Street 4005 15th - Bloomington 65th -66th Street 4006 Bloomington -16th 65th -66th Street 4007 Cedar - Longfellow 63rd -64th Street 4008 Cedar - Longfellow 64th -65th Street 4009 Cedar - Longfellow 65th -66th Street 4010 19th -20th Avenue 65th -66th Street 4012 22nd- Standish Avenue 65th -66th Street 4013 13th -14th Avenue 66th -67th Street -3- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Such proposed assessment roll, a copy of which is attached hereto and a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed current services in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable before or during 1985 and shall bear interest at the rate of eight percent from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time Prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay whole of the assessment on such property to the city treasurer and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the city treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. 4. The city clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the county auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th day of September, 1984. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk r� CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 331 Agenda September 10, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Special City Council Meeting to Review Draft of Proposed Community Survey Questionnaire Council Members: A special city council(( dinner meeting has been scheduled for 5:00 p.m. on Monday, September -10, 1984 with Bob Nelson of.the Richfield School District. Mr. Nelson will be present at this meeting to review with council members a draft of the proposed community survey questionnaire. n JGC /eja 9 R pectfu y s mitted, ohn G . ar wr ight:' City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager 10 Council Letter No. 330 Agenda September 10, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation To Century Lodge 338 Council Members: Mayor Hamilton has requested that an item to issue a Certificate of Appreciation_ to Century Lodge 338 for their outstanding community service be placed on the September 10, 1984 city council agenda. A copy of the certificate is attached to this council letter, and this item has been placed on the September 10, 1984 city council agenda. JGC /eja E] Respectfylly� 4.43fnitted , oh;�G . �ar� ity Manager K 310 �t} J / i f .t• . J- Z��.. 'yy";_ .�� `-v -: ,n^• v y '.�' � q jrc � "�.,�' -r�".'ro n�+. •..9� '�h%"��t' �y,4Yxcf /� �r dw' w.Yw7 '°�A- .�.F`•7' ± =y7� ^yi➢' - ti♦ ryA� `�,� �,'��' '�.'`. �,�- >' h. _ ��. •,.3y�.. -.^ ' �L,�'°• .. .�� .....���� --- �`'y'f5's '��:l��ei y 3,.,��•r �3' 1 Yi �:yz. ♦. 1v��li..... ' � ` H"li rks$�� �y13x��•' f /4et✓�15/i �\ .. "�y,�rF )Yr o.. 2 oj .. y��� }�fJ• aR.. �� 1 Uil�r r ii�CC � �,�11i'!• r R-' r i rte` ;Z�irIC✓'iy "3�i F `�'�'s1tiJJ ♦r x•5'(1 }i.���r -.: �'s .�` �i�i+"nw��'?� � ?�,S.a•r � � � :� J,� /""^! v ��' �� i� y; ?'y�nc/�i�9 �H ` M �eik'��t��'v,"x4�j� ✓F"Y `y �, a�,a�1r�i r ra � „�,�- r! �"'�. +pt�l�i ..' __�'"��'y'� /ili /� - �3�+1���', � -- �vr..!', c a3� �i�'Itrs� +`�L�s- _j._ —�.`,� ',/��t� �z ; � _�i +I +Illlt S aest iC• '. t. Ir F 7 qy Ivy w �5 w� ' O (D O�-h O b u1x il+ (D ::r rt, (D rt 1, 1 1,1 Cam: r- (D 1•C f"3 lz� = �l ho 0• i i z "C7 O m rt rt, K a(D �tz7 F-'O K w0 n rt (D n �o 0 O"a +' m (D (D K lTl rt hh t "Ci Sv cn w (D t rt O�MO 0(D CIA co cD rr C t1 (D z �` (D rt K n A7 W (D w O n 4 O s rt O rr 4 O N- _ 4• f{ rat �} � l l -' (D (D H (D rr N• rt i 00 0. 0 O rt (n > r. rl* rr (D N w O K 0 W z rr rt x i-t, p, .. F.1. rt i (n L< O (D M F- N- K (D 0 `� a a o (D rO aF 9D� 3 (D (D �• rt w C r• O "C w w A� �■ wN"C K cw0 fv tv � - -re y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 0 Office of the City Manager Council Letter No. 329 Agenda September 10, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Application for Rezoning at 6605 First Avenue Council Members: Mr. Jose Alvarez has made application for a change in zoning from "R" single family residential to "MR -1" two family residential. The rezoning would make possible the conversion of the existing dwelling to a duplex. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.30, subdivision. 1,•lists the permitted uses in the single family residential district. • Section 3.42, outlines the procedure for rezoning a property. STAFF REVIEW A rezoning may be initiated by petition of owners of no less than 50% of the land within 300 feet of the property proposed to be rezoned. Gross Land Area 408,617 3-f- -134,540 s.f. Public R.O.W. - 10,035 s.f. Site Net Land Area 264,042 s.f. Owner's signatures account for 175,780 square feet, which is 66.6% of the net land area. Since only 50% is needed, the applicant has fulfilled this requirement. In the vicinity of the LHN Redevelopment Area, First Avenue forms a distinct boundary between single family neighborhoods and general commercial areas. Adjacent zoning to the south and east of the site is single family. Abutting to the north is a . vacant parcel under separate ownership and also zoned single family residential. Across First Avenue to the west is a general commercial district, which presently is occupied by Richfield Shoppes South. Council Letter No. 329 -2- • A MR -1 zone at 6605 First Avenue must be considered a spot zone, an intrusion of higher density housing into a purely residential area. As such a precedent is set for further rezonings. Since this area is shown in the Comprehensive Plan as remaining single family, it would be contrary to the City's intentions to begin to allow such a density increase at this location_. It should be mentioned, however, that scattered throughout the city are a number of spot MR -1 zones. Following is a comparison of the applicant's lot against the minimum requirements for a MR -1 lot: MINIMUM PROPOSAL Lot area 9,000 s.f. 10,035 s.f. Lot width 60 ft. 74 ft. Side setback 10 ft. 14 ft.South side, 3.8 North side Front setback 30 ft. 28 ft. Rear setback 25 ft. 66 ft. Lot coverage 25% 23.3% As can be seen, all minimums are met or exceeded except the sideyard setback from the north lot line and the frontyard • setback. The north sideyard setback of 3.8 feet was issued a variance in July of 1969• The frontyard setback is non - conforming. Parking is a concern. A duplex would require two off street parking spaces for each unit, one space being enclosed. The Alvarez property does have a large tuck -under garage, which could house several cars, but no building plans have been submitted, so the exact number of parking spaces cannot be determined with certainty. According to testimony during the Planning Commission meeting, it may be possible to park a total of four cars, but it would be crowded. The drive is short, narrow and sloped, making parking difficult. A second garage exists on the property (north side), but is not accessible. A large addition was added to the home in 1969 which came to within 3' 8" of the north lot line. This very narrow yard prohibits vehicular access to the garage in the back yard. Located, as it is, across the street from a rather busy commercial area, any increase in traffic caused by a district change to allow a duplex would not be significant. The zoning ordinance provides that if the applicant also owned the vacant lot to the north, the applicant could seek a special use permit to change the single family use to a duplex • use because the vacant lot would have frontage on a major arterial street. However,'the vacant lot is said to be priced too high for the Alvarez family to consider for purchase. Council Letter No. 329 -3- STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since the rezoning would be an encroachment into an exclusively single family neighborhood, and it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends denial of the rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On a unanimous vote, the planning commission recommended denial of the rezoning. pectfyXly,� pf mitted , John_ G. Car' City Manage • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • September 5, 1984 Council Memorandum No. 136 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Application for Rezoning, 6605 First Avenue Council Members: On Friday, August 31, 1984, the Assistant Fire Chief Pat Coughlin, Planning Intern Bill Turnblad, and the City Manager made an inspection tour with Janice Ferrall, the realtor handling the sale of the building at 6605 First Avenue. Assistant Fire Chief Pat Coughlin has prepared a memorandum which has been placed in the council letter backup which sets forth the various non- compliance matters dealing with the fire code. The Assistant Fire Chief memo discusses the following issues: 1. Separate cooking facilities for each of the three living unit; 2. Sleeping room in the basement; 3. Use of the basement area for living area. The Assistant Fire Chief concludes in his memorandum that the request for conversion of the home to a duplex be granted for the following reasons: 1. The Department of Public Safety Fire Division will have to pursue the resolution of the fire and building code violations regardless of the outcome of the Alveraz family request for permission to change the home to a duplex and the fire division could bring the building into compliance with building, fire, and electrical codes when it is converted; 2. Since some structural changes are needed to convert the building, compliance items probably would not be an extra expense; 3. If the neighbors are concerned with the number of people presently living in the home, conversion to a duplex would reduce the number of living units from three to two, thereby reducing the number of persons in the home. Council Memorandum No. 136 -2- On the inspection tour of the house at 6605 First Avenue, the City Manager learned of the following uses of the building: I. There are separate front door entrances to each of the three levels of the building and the three living units; 2. The asking price on the house which is now up for sale, was $125,000 and the price has now been dropped to $115,000. The realtor said the Alveraz family originally purchased the home for approximately $75,000 and have another $20,000 invested in changes to the building; 3. When the house was first purchased by the Alvaraz family, Mrs. Alvaraz began a beauty shop operation in the home. A petition from neighbors was presented to the city to remove this business use and when the Alveraz family sought a special use permit to permit the beauty shop operation, it was denied. Apparently Mrs. Alveraz also had employees as well as herself working in the beauty shop. Mrs. Alveraz has now moved her beauty shop operation to a store in Minneapolis; 4. A married son, wife and child moved into the house with Mr. and Mrs. Alveraz about three years ago. The married son and his family moved out in October of 1983 when they purchased a home in Minneapolis; 5. The real estate agent, Janice Ferrall, states that they have not had one agent show the property in the past month which indicates the property may be overpriced; 6. There are three levels to the house, plus the basement with a living area, for a total of 4 levels in the building. On the lower level is a double car garage which may actually hold four.cars. It measures 28' in width and 38' in depth. On this lower basement level there is living quarters adjacent to the garage. This basement living unit contains an amusement room and den which is now being used as a bedroom, and a laundry room. The basement has a toilet stool and a shower. On the next level which I refer to as the first level, there is a livingroom, dining room, a sunroom (used as a bedroom, 14' x 91, a three - quarters bath and a kitchen with a separate entryway to this unit. • • Council Memorandum No. 136 -3- On the second level, you enter a living unit from an 8' x 10' entryway. From this entryway you can either proceed up to the third level, which is another living unit, or you may enter the living unit on the second level. On the second level is a dining room, living room, master bedroom (20' x 13'), three - quarters bathroom, a second bedroom, a kitchen and a full bath. On the third, or top level, is a living unit consisting of a bedroom, (14' x 13'), a nursery area measuring 10' x 7', a full bathroom, a kitchen measuring 10' x 5'. In summarizing this building, there are six bedrooms, two full bathrooms, two three - quarter bathrooms, a toilet and shower in the basement, one amusement room, two living rooms, two dining rooms, two permanent kitchens plus one temporary kitchen on the third level. Realtor Janice Ferrall estimated there are 2200 square feet of living space on the top three levels of the house plus whatever area is in the basement living area. This single family home has obviously been expanded to accomodate up to three families. If this house is to remain a single family house, its best chance of selling would be to a family that would also have elderly parents who would like to have a separate apartment in the same building with their children. The zoning ordinance does provide that if a single family lot is combined with a vacant lot and has accesss to a major arterial street, the owner of the two lots could seek a special permit from the City Council to use the single family home as a two -unit dwelling. Unfortunately, the vacant lot to the north of this single family home may be priced too high for the Alveraz family to purchase the vacant lot and then attempt to sell both the vacant lot and the single family home to one owner. This information has give the City Council as type of structure that is rezoning. Staff will be answer questions that may persons in the audience. JGC /eja been provided to the City Council to much as information as possible on the involved in this request for available at the council meeting to be raised by Council Members or l ectfulxy s mitted, 7 (�� t John G. art right City Manager MEMORANDUM TO: John Cartwright FROM: Pat Coughlin C� SUBJECT: 6605 1st AVENUE During our visit to the above property on August 31st, I noted that the house was not in compliance with the fire code. Specifically, since the house has separate cooking facilities for each of the three living units it must be classified by the Fire Division as an apartment building. None of the apartments have smoke detectors , which are required for all apartments in the City. The sleeping room in the basement does not have a complying escape window, and the room will have to be vacated. In addition, the building may not be in compliance with the building code. The basement sleeping room does not appear to have the required ceiling heighth to be used as a habitable room, and the stairs leading to the room did not appear to comply with the building code. We will need to perform a building inspection in order to determine whether the above items are in fact noncomplying. I would recommend that the request for conversion of the home to a duplex be granted for the following reasons. We will have to pursue the resolution of the fire and building code violations regardless of the outcome of the Alvarez family's request for permission to change the home to a duplex, and we could bring the building into compliance with the building, fire, and electrical codes when it is converted. Since some structural changes are needed to convert the building, the sompliance items probably would not be an extra expense. Second, if the neighbors are concerned with the number of people presently living in the home, conversion to a duplex would reduce the living units from three to two, thereby reducing the number of people in the home. It is my opinion that the conversion would be in the interest of the city, the neighbors, and the Alvarez family. is ,V1 c o / • G�A-Z � -- - - - - - -- -- ---- -- - ... -��.�� --cam i n n Je: the undersignecl nelghbars af, 6600' of 1 st. Ivenue are against the rezon?.n&_ of 0'005 1 s Avenue from. ''I" oiL�? e f- : r dentin to R.�;-1 ,r t7ro f - residential: eLo r / PUBLIC HEAFING NOTICE AFIFUCANT LCCAT7cN C= CF FRCPER� at a pt in the W I-Lne of Lot 7 nis 69 17/100 ft S fr=. the WL Ccr the,-ec:f tt'je S t= S;T,:,=r the'ecf the 'w Ew -135 61/100 ft the LIT, to a liz_, rwaning f:rm beg tai. W tom. beg and that 9EXt Of the W of Lot 8. 1y:Lnq -7 � Lcts 7 and 8. 1st - A venue 'S�) Tt- hear request to rezone the above patc-al. Erna f=dLy- residential- to two fzmi2.y- single resi dential- ANY CLE:S71CNS Bill Tummblad Planning Inte= City Of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South RiCh field, iM 55423 869-752I ext. 512 17, 1984 • PETITION MAP. 1 4 /852 ni 14 serssrL1� NQ69�L '' Li yl �= �' i !a3)8 9 !.S•�. * f EAST i�a� a4 1 In .� . r : .J 15 1 • .� �r q� l �5'J� ry tij I y r 14 • It 4 ,.� . aj �, 10 12 (F1 z ;.. w LLJ 105 • • „-`_—, : ZA r= 8 ^n� 9 r• 65 th 1 4 /852 ni 14 serssrL1� /�(�� * f • „-`_—, : ZA r= 8 ^n� 9 r• 65 th r - r C °� 3 W • 1 4 /852 ni 14 serssrL1� /�(�� i�a� a4 Lk" r - r C °� 3 W • 1 4 serssrL1� /�(�� �+$ r 3 4 UN L� ,�,,A '.5 �- y r `380o�� \b� (3A53i `tii1 '.c� (�tSSC /`G11 � , , ✓.: / i..sd ,� SIGNATURES ON PETITION 'S' Q � f- C1� .01 • N SCALE I "= 20' i I 35 GARAGE c 2' I �o N Ty- Ah u ^J 7 ;c (1oi LAND USE. AND ZONING EAST . 65th ` � , r I�3 lei .t r7 z. 012 i4�� �.I 1 13 (ls to �a z' (1) 9 E N as - V) W W V I aos t!3 lei .t r7 z. 012 i4�� �.I 1 13 (ls to �a z' (1) 9 E N as - V) W W V I aos t!3 A n..fc (96) 211.1 / I- 17 3i a ()4 (,ia) rq� 6 r,o);� f� Z Cana O Lu ZG it nl Tox acd 2 s3— - - -- — ----E. -- — - -- - - - - Q DUPLEX L� SINGLE FAMILY ; � _ ✓a: GENERAL COMMERCIAL ;a. -, 3` �.I 4 (q1 z' 66 !O.GZ +q 6Z 40. i6 A n..fc (96) 211.1 / I- 17 3i a ()4 (,ia) rq� 6 r,o);� f� Z Cana O Lu ZG it nl Tox acd 2 s3— - - -- — ----E. -- — - -- - - - - Q DUPLEX L� SINGLE FAMILY ; � _ ✓a: GENERAL COMMERCIAL G� �� == 6605 lat Avenue South �� = E�: COMV IM3M [RC� TH: 4 BR : 4 RLF: Price: $I15,000 �DD:66O5 1ST RV �O H HCTHX'f 1629 rl ;:4P:42 28 MUM:RICHFIELD ZIP 5542S CTY:HENN TF�yuCPECS 1 8 Lt;kE:N DICT:578 LT�Z:72.6X135.� HIS, FILED: Y -19:�5 DRK:COLDuELL BF4NKER UNPD �PEC$ 624.10 OF PH:926-2761 RPT PH:926 276I PND �PEC $ M (R FLT: 55 R�T:J�M FERRELL HM PH:377 8804 k5Y:CLB C:3.15 T:1 299096 �UPEP LO[F4TIOM-POTEMTIHL FOR HOME WELL MPlr+TF4wED,COMYENIENT TO CHOPPING-,PF4R)'.r' HMD BUC.POTEMTIPL FOP 8OPpDER3 RL'20 LOWER LEYEL44MU�E pM.90FFICE HMD LHUNDRY L C D 1:4 P.RM S Z DlR:1 BLK E 66TH PND wl[ULLET LR:2 N Y 17.9X16 1 O:M HEHT:5Hw MTG $ TYPE:C[IMV DR:2 M Y 15X10.9 EXT:CTUCC �E � � 2.061001732 H�M: lD:1 Y Y 12.3 �9 B2MT:Y uO:N PC: M W:TWIM CITY FED OD: DV: KT:2 + 1 2 FULL DCMT.BTH:Y FPL: N PL $ PIS FM:1 Y Y 15X11 M'--TR.BTH:Y PEFpI5:2 MB�2 Y Y 20y13 �:4TU GDO:Y R�O:1 NEW FlM�wCE p[]��IBILlTIEC BP:3 Y Y 14y13.7 [W: Y DW: N �R�2 Y Y 11.8X10 C�: Y �D: PICH BR � Y Y 10X7 PID:2702824420071 ZONED PI DM 1 Y Y 14k"19 FML/TFF:2200+L ELLEP MU T^[H`7H OUT Cootaot: Jan Ferrell (o) 926-2761 (b) 377-8804 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 327 Agenda September 10, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Temporary Ground Sign. 2816 West 66th Street Eddie Z Car Wash, located at 2816 West 66th Street, has requested a permit for a double -faced trailer temporary ground sign which would measure 8 feet x 5 feet (40 square feet) to be used September 10th through October 10th, 1984. City of Richfield Ordinance code 3.49, subdivision 16 (5) provides that City Council approval is required for temporary • ground signs. Because city ordinance only permits erection of signs . 12 square feet, and this sign is 40 square feet, the staff recommends denial of this sign permit request. JGC /eja 0 y ._ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 325 Agenda September 10,1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council l City of Richfield Subject: Purchase of Property, 6333 Portland Avenue Council Members: Over the years the city has been acquiring property along Legion Lake on Portland Avenue for park purposes. On Ma_y_29,__ 1984 the city council authorized negotiations for purchase of 6333 Portland Avenue for park purposes. The attached s e ch indicates the property under discussion. The ranch style walk -out single family residence built in 1956 has 1,124 square feet of gross living area. !_n n_dependent appx-ai —? P-a i mat-eA t.h_e__market value at $82,000. The Hennepin County Assessor est_im.at _ed__the market value at $77,000. It has been agreed that the city would pad the Barsness'_$76_,000 for 6333 Portland Aven.0 -e. It has further been agreed that the proper y may be rented by t e BarsnessI for a perio_dof -time until construction. ne-home is completed. The Barsness ave waived relo n. The Community Services dv' or Commission has recommended purch_ e_ T e property and the Planning Commission four what acquisition would be in conformance w�t th.h e city's crrehEnsive omp plan and recommended in favor of the acquisition. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council approve the acquisition of property at 6333 Portlar. ue South for park purposes at a total purchase price of ' 76,00 and that monies received from the rental of the propr y e applied to the park land acquisition fund. spect ul submitted, Jo n G. Ca twright City M nag r JGC /eja 1 I ( N WATEF1 PLANT ago 5" L EGIO z � z afl V J I DO �e� is -9� ' ,. - �(o� • " ( — — — — — -- — — -- — — — — Site I (FORMERL Y M ('73.o /962 Aerial oc O • o o (` Ct3i v ro j11,33 y1�il Ll Q£ ^2Q 36 M AMERICAN -LEGION- o v N \ :� J cs Z V Y P CL I� o v N \ :� J 0 V Y P -2t,5 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of the City Manager Council Letter No. 321 Agenda of September 10, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Council Members: Subject: Special Use Permit at 6717 Lyndale Avenue Mr. Norman Gilbertsen has requested a special use permit to allow him to operate a home occupation with up to two non- resident employees. The Richfield Zoning Ordinance permits home occupations as accessory uses. However, in order to employ any persons which are not occupants of the dwelling, a special use permit is required. Proposed is a real estate and insurance office with three agents, two in addition to the applicant. Hours of operation will generally be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 P.M. weekdays. On occasion there may be business conducted during the evenings and on Saturday. There will be no external alterations to the dwelling or accessory structures. In addition, there will be no parking facilities constructed to accomodate the home occupation. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.28, subdivision 14 governs home occupations. Section 3.28, subdivision 14 paragraph (b) (3) allows for non- resident employees only upon the granting of a special use permit. Section 3.41, subdivision 5 governs the conditions for issuance of a special use permit. STAFF REVIEW As required by ordinance, there will be no over - the - counter type retail sales, outside storage or noise problems. No parking facilities will be constructed to accommodate the home occupation., nor will there be any structural changes to the dwelling. Finally, the principal agent in the home business will reside there. Council Letter No. 321 -2- The only aspect of the proposal which may adversely affect the residential character of the dwelling and neighborhood is parking and traffic generated by the clients and the two additional agent / "employees." A two car garage is on the property for the the applicant's car(s). The other two agents would have ample room for parking in the 20 foot by 80 foot driveway. Under normal conditions ample parking would be available for employees and clients. Since the property abuts abuts a busy arterial street and is located across from a general commercal district, the traffic generated by the clients and the two additional agents will have a minimal effect on the neighborhood. Traffic leaving the site could pose a problem as it would be necessary to back out onto an arterial street. This could be a hazard not only for the clients, but for motorists driving by on Lyndale as well. This is especially true since there is a gentle bend in the road just south of the site, which cuts down on visibility somewhat. A possible solution to this problem would be the installation of a drive through to eliminate backing onto the street. A second curb cut already exists on the property 62 feet south of the driveway out and the applicant has agreed to a turn - around if necessary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since the proposal for two additional agents will of itself • not create a negative impact on people or properties in the neighborhood, staff recommends approval of the special use permit. We would stress that the special use permit is to allow for two additional non - resident agents, the home occupation itself must comply with all applicable ordinance requirements with or without those "employees." It is advisable to stipulate that the principal use of the building must remain residential and that the number of outside persons under this permit be limited to two. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the special use permit for two "employees" with the following stipulations: �J' A turn - around must be installed which would meet city satisfaction.. L2,� The special use permit would run with the applicant and not the land. It would lapse if the property were sold or operation of the business were leased. L3, 1. The special use permit would be limited to two outside persons working on the site. • R pectfu ly� itte� , John. G . Cart right City Manager COMPLETE REAL ESTATZ 6ERWC= i Woodlake Realfi� 6717 LYNOALE AVENUE SOUTH I MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA BOAZS s66 -9666 U SPECIAL USE PERMIT 0 6717 LYNDALE • U 80 / LYNDALE -WESTem TR 23 "Y U, 24 W 44 I ZZ. zz 0 co 21 Z BOB 31 PL :TAISAA AlfiY. ;.6 d cn • LAND USE MAP 3 3G.4 3 z (3(.) 1 465) ca 4 67 th 7 Z4 T-4 -tl '*A�' 4t ,xetz 0 3 �01�- �k (tD�z 3 E j = 4 > e I 70 :.���9 - -- 6�31t '� a `�� 6 23 Z.. 133. Tff 4 7 t)o, 9( (,I,\ I z L3 51, 30 In zl cr uj U) i :30 10/00, 4 31.3. 44 3 • LAND USE MAP 3 3G.4 3 z (3(.) 1 465) ca 4 67 th 7 Z4 T-4 -tl '*A�' 4t ,xetz 0 3 �01�- �k (tD�z 3 E j = 4 > e I 70 :.���9 - -- 6�31t '� a `�� 6 23 Z.. 133. Tff 4 7 t)o, 9( (,I,\ I z L3 51, 30 In zl cr uj U) i 51 S T. en w 68 th 30 RESIDENTIAL 414 �8 '3��* 71-W 7k, it 1`7 2 �tj .30 30 LIMITED BUSINESS ;z 3(l 4u* 0 A) GENERAL COMMERCIAL' z 2— . i w i �i� z vi2�) 4 ,�) ry 24 ;, 4 �& I wl a 5(vm� T4 a: V, 25 0) 6V1 UA 3 J (D AI, �' �J, °�� "; _, 3�4°�� ,g`pi' ca �I *�M y.'�x� ^t7�.i � ���i1C A, T t xi A. W. r 73 - ul :30 10/00, 4 51 S T. en w 68 th 30 RESIDENTIAL 414 �8 '3��* 71-W 7k, it 1`7 2 �tj .30 30 LIMITED BUSINESS ;z 3(l 4u* 0 A) GENERAL COMMERCIAL' z 2— . i w i �i� z vi2�) 4 ,�) ry 24 ;, 4 �& I wl a 5(vm� T4 a: V, 25 0) 6V1 UA 3 J (D AI, �' �J, °�� "; _, 3�4°�� ,g`pi' ca �I *�M y.'�x� ^t7�.i � ���i1C A, T t xi A. W. r 73 - ul September 4, 1984 ma 04 Subject: Request for Special Use Permit at 6717 Lyr.dalE 4* ® Ln Dear Resident: Lt's The purpose of this letter is twofold: first to report on the city staff analysis of"the request, and second tc set forth the pertinent sections of the zoning ordinance ■ ® that is applicable to the request by Mr. Norman ai Gilbertson for a special use permit to allow him to operate a home occupation (real estate and insurance = office) with two fellow agents (employees). .� This request was presented to the Planning Commission an a hearing was conducted on August 28, 1984. The U applicant said the hours of operation will generally be ■ limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. weekdays. On occasion there may be business conducted during the evenings and on Saturday. There will be no external alterations to the dwelling or accessory structures to accomodate the home occupation.. The Richfield city planning staff review on the request said: ® "The only aspect of the proposal which may adversely = affect the residential character of the dwelling and CU neighborhood is parking and traffic generated by the two additional employees. A two car garage exists iwhich would facilitate the applicant's car. The 0 other two agents would have ample room for parking Q in. the 20 foot by 80 foot driveway. Under normal conditions ample parking would be available for ■ ® 0 employees and clients. Since the property abuts a 0 busy arterial street and is located across from a U h general commercial district, the traffic generated W by the two additional agents will have a minimal effect on the neighborhood. Traffic leaving the site could pose a problem as it would be necessary to back out onto an arterial street. This could be a hazard not only for the clients, but for :motorists driving by on Lyndale as telephone: 869 -7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer -2- well. This is especially true since there is a gentle bend in the road just south of the site, which cuts down on visibility somewhat. A possible solution to this problem would be the installation of a turn.- around to eliminate backing onto the street. A second curb out already exists on the property 62 feet south of the driveway out and the applicant has agreed to a turn - around if necessary. Staff Recommendation. Since the proposal for two additional agents will of itself not create a negative impact on people or properties in the neighborhood, staff recommends approval of the special use permit. We would stress that the special use permit is to allow for two additional employees, the home occupation_ itself must comply with all applicable ordinance requirements with or without those employees. It is advisable to stipulate that the principal use of the building must remain residential." The Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council that the special use permit be approved to permit the home occupation. • The pertinent zoning ordinance provisions in Chapter III dealing with home occupations are: Section 3.27, subdivision. 3, Definitions, item 21, defines' "home occupation." that "means any activity conducted within a dwelling or building or upon the parcel of land containing the dwelling which is incidental to use of the dwelling for dwelling purposes and does not change tie character thereof. Section. 3.30, subdivision 2, Accessory Uses, item h provides that a permitted use in a single family zoning district includes home occupations as an accessory use. Section. 3.28, subdivision 14, Home Occupations, sets forth the restrictions which apply to home occupations. Subdivision 14 says: "Subdiv.ison 14. Home Occupations: (a) Purpose: The purpose of this subdivision is to protect the residential property owner without hindering the property rights of neighbors or causing self - induced 'harm. (b) Provisions The following restrictions apply to home occupations. -3- (1) Activities The home conducted in such 'a mar_r.er • — with it are not noticeable resitence lots, and except of this subdivision, do no home occupation. occupation_ must be that activities connected from ad,7acent streets or as permitted in clause (2) t draw attention to the (2) Advertising A single nameplate, not exceeding 2 square feet in area, stating the name of the person conducting the home occupation and its general nature may be erected on the premises in accord with the provisions of this code regulating signs. No other advertising sign or device may be used to invite attention to the home occupation.. (3) Employees Any person in addition to the persons occupying the dwelling may be employed by the home occupation on the premises, but only upon the granting of a special use permit therefore where the council finds that the proposed additional employment is consistent with the purposes of Section 3.41 and will comply with this subdivision. (4) Outside Storage and Vehicles No outside storage of products or materials or equipment connected with home occupations is permitted. • This shall not prohibit the outside parking of motor vehicles on the driveway of the premises provided that the parking of such vehicles are not otherwise prohibited by Section 3.38, subdivision 2, paragraph 1 of this code. (5) Retail Sales Continuous retail sales of products fabricated off the premises are prohibited; but occasional sales of products or other articles at retail are permitted where the dwelling serves as an office for a person regular- ly engaged in retail sales outside the dwelling, or where such occasional sales are incidental to and not the primary purpose of the above occupation.. (6) Parking, Structural Charges, Lighting. No parking, structural alteration., lighting or similar facilities which would indicate a use of the dwelling for purposes other than a residential structure are permitted. (7) Performance Characteristics A home occupation may not adversely affect the residential character of the dwelling or i s r.'ei &t rhos ecause of the emission of noise, odor, water, smoke, ust, gases, • heat, glare, vibration., electrical interference, or parking or traffic resulting from the conduct of home occupation. -- • • • -4- From a review of the above cited zoning ordinance provisions, one can conclude that: 1. The council may exercise its discretion in determining whether any employees, in addition to the persons occupying the dwelling, may be employed by the home occupation on the premises; 2. Parking facilities cannot be expanded beyond those normally provided for a single family dwelling; 3. The home occupation must be conducted in such a manner that activities connected with the home occupation are not noticeable from ad- jacent properties except for a two square foot in area nameplate; and, 4. The home occupation_ may not adversely affect the residential character of the neighborhood. This special use permit application will be presented to the City Council at their meeting of September 10, 1984. Because of the neighborhood interest in this issue, this summary has been prepared to help inform those who have an interest or concern about the proposed home occupation. You are welcome to attend the City Council hearing sr, if you prefer, view the live telecast of the City Council meeting on cable television. channel, 12 at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 10, 1984. If I can be of any assistance, please call upon me. Si cerely yo,� oh r. G. Or wright City Manage cc: Mayor and Members of Planning Commission. Director of Community City Planner City Attorney JGC /eja the City Council Development 0 U CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of the City Manager Council Letter No. 320 Agenda September 10, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Variance Request at 2913 West 69th Street Council Members: Mr. Robert Phenix has requested that the ci ant_ a variance to a ow the existing non - conforming single family dwelling at 2913 West-6-9th Street to be expanded. Mr_.__ T_enix wishes to construct a 12' x 25' a 1 ion onto the rear of the existing structure. The existing structure does not conform to the city Is rontyard seitibac irement. e s ruc ure as a n o n y r e -p-pr-a- - -mat e r a e r t a n e require ee . The lot also does not conform to the city's minimum lot area require en -The lot as an area of_6,400 square feet rather t an the required 6,750 square feet. Staff can find no records of a variance ever b nie g granted for this structure. The city assessing and inspection division records indicate that the structure was built in 1928 on a corner lot facing Washburn Avenue. In 1953 the corner lot and the lot to the south were resubdivi e into two lots running nor an south instead —_of east and west (see attached survey). A dwelling was then cons ruc on a new corner o The two lots conformed to t e city's ordinances a he time, so no variances were require a site in question is therefore a legal non- conforming lot. The exis ing dwelling is also a e"gal non- conforming structure because it was cons ructed prior to ccurrent city setback s an ards. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section. 3.30, subdivision. 5, requires that single family ✓ dwellings in "R" residence districts have a 30 foot fror.tyard setback. / 2. Section. 3.30, subdivision 4, requires a minimum lot area of 6,750 square feet. 0 3. Section 3.40, subdivision. 6, lists the three conditions t✓ which must be met before a variance may be granted. Council Letter No. 320 -2- STAFF REVIEW Staff has reviewed the proposal against the three conditions which must be met before a variance may be granted and found the following: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting this land not common to other properties or similar districts. It is staff's opinion that there are no special circum- stances present on this site. While this structure was constructed prior to the zoning ordiance requirements and as such is a legal non- conforming use, this fact is not unique to this particular property in that there are numerous non- conforming lots and structures within the city. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for ` the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. It is staff's opinion that denial of the variance would not preclude reasonable use of the property. The existing single family residential use could continue on the site if the variance is denied. • 3. That the granting of the application will not materially and adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to improvements in the neighborhood. It is staff's opinion that the proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The proposed addition would in no way effect or worsen the no_n-- conforming frontyard set ac _ . The existing frontyard setback is in character with the sib -ack of other dwellings in the area from 69th Street. The o areas -also consistent with the lot areas of the lots in the surrounding area. The property owners immediately to the west appeared at the Planning Commission hearing and objected to the proposal because it would adversely affect their view. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because the three conditions for the variance have not been met, staff must recommend denial o e variance reques If tie request is appproved, variances s ou e gran e -o the lot area and frontyard setback requirements to remove the non- conforming status of the property. Also, it is recommended that the Planning Commission recommendation to study the issue of expanding non-conforming strutures be placed on the 1984 Fall agenda of the joint City Council /Planning Commission meeting in order to discuss the direction and support for such a study. Council Letter No. 320 -3- • PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Commission on a 5 to 4 vote recommends that the variance request be approved. 2. The Commission recommends that the council direct the commission to study the issue of expanding non - conforming st -ruc es and propose ordinance changes if appropriate. R�pectf 1 mitted, John G. ,Car -twrig City Ma .ager i' JGC /eja �wm i4�ec4m �+m erw, -.u,i n..w� -1 ^` PC"J -� x ✓�Mnt"'`"�s 0 U August 13, 1984 Community Development DepartTent - Planning Div. City of Richfield Richfield, MN Re: Property at 2913 W. 69th St. Richfield, MN 55423 I am requesting this variance in order to expand and upgrade the existing dwelling. The expansion will improve the livability and the aesthetics, more in keeping with the well -cared for neighborhood. I understand the property is currently classified as "non - conforming" due to the street offset. The expansion will in no way affect that side, as the proposed expansion is on the rear of the house. Since , 7 i R. A. Phenix • a n d V 0 • 1 Q a W Z 2 x � • � I 4 1 _ - r Q D L-1n V �1 z r o aff � �° z s ��.LX Y N S ;u b i (', =o O D J c an LU r 0 Z • d ` w IrN11d J � Q 'ra ® /^zap OL a' i z , �o • d ` w IrN11d r �N Pul J I C.-I LU 0 Z J � Q ® /^zap OL , , Ix �e r �N Pul J I C.-I LU 0 Z CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY S MAin 7453 MAirr 7454 • METROPOLITAN LAND SURVEYORS & ENG?NEERS 3- 1210 MARQUETTE AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS 3, MINNESOTA ✓ L"'E" 1 l . 1 pf 26 Ij � Q { - � . B!do. n� •O P� b S ' I \ { . ! o E31 h ° �. �. a �c ZA I J V v S � � I Scale: 1" _ lot hercbn crrtifr THAT WE HAVE ON THIS ZsN0 __DAY OF fr It �l , 19.5 MADE A SURVEY OF THE REAL ESTATE DESCRIBED AS r1c5' Z� - "T ?3 is to cg tji that the proposed lo,=dos HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AS SHOWN ON THE ABOVE PLA"" "�`' as shown on __z :3�' to ccr- zg,;,:,.a:i �'-.:_ o=Z:yaaoss:o ix cac,�i:e,a n:�_:. METROPOLITAN LAND SURVEYORS R ENGI,;E'cRS � `i ;y?G2Z QKIl32 -_ — 4/ SURVEY MADE FOR,—' '. hereby certify that this survey, pion, or report Is prepared by me or under my direct supervision _ - AT THE REQUEST OF L� / and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under : the Laws of the State of Minnesota. Job No. �-� A,_/ �" `� `° Reg. No. 3105 Minneapolis License No. 7 8 6C Book No. Sheet No. 1 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of the City Manager Council Letter No. 319 Agenda September 10, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Variance Request at 7034 Cedar Avenue Council Members: Mr. Alvin Hohbein owner of the Shortstop Convenience Grocery Stor& at 7034 Cedar Avenue has applied for a variance o reduce the required rearyard__i n a zoning district from 10 feet to 5 feet. Mr. Hshbein is proposing to construct a 10' x 24' addition unto a portion of the existing struc ure, e addition would be used as a walk -in cooler. The existing building —has a se ac o 1f 15 feet anal the proposed addition would reduce the setback i:&_5 feet. There is an existing five foot wide utility easement across the rear property line which would be maintained. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.33, subdivision 6 and Section. 3.32, subdivision 4, lists setback requirements in C -2 general commercial zoning districts. 2. Section 3.40, subdivision. 6, lists three conditions which must be met before a variance may be granted. STAFF REVIEW The staff has reviewed the proposal against the three conditions which must be met before a variance may be granted and found the following: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting this land not common to other properties or similar districts. It is staff's opinion that there are no special circumstances r con itions present or is site. The site in ques ion is o simi_a_r� size and shape as other commercial lots • wl in e community. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Council Letter No. 319 -2- It is staff's opinion that denial of the variance request would not preclude reasonable use o e proper y. - The existing commericial use could be continue on the si e. It fay be possible to construct the walk -in coo er on the nor or east side of the builidng without a variance. 3. That the granting of the application will not materially and adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to improvements in the neignbornood. It is staff's o that the proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare. _ There is a woo screen fence and mature lilac rees which would screen the addition from -t —e adjacent sing e amily residence. The materia s of the addition would match those of the existing building. A representative of the applicant has indicated that the additional cooler space will expand the storage capacity on the site and will result in delivery trucks being on the site less often. The residential property owners immediately adjacent to the site 'on t e wes a sine awe ition in icatiniz their support. The one area of concern which staff would have would be noise due to compressors or other equipment necessary to operate the walk -in cooler. The anal; cant has indicated that the compressor equipment will be located inside the structure. There ore, ere s ou a no noise problem. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because the variance request does not meet all three conditions necessary to grant the variance and because the walk - in cooler could be built on the north or east side of the building without a variance, staff must recommend that the variance be denied. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission on a 6 to 3 vote recommends that the variance request be denied because the variance conditions have not been met. R pec7Ca omitted, a ohn G City Manager • JGC /eja ATTACHMENT A. • PURPOSE OF VARIANCE. We would like to build an addition onto the west side of the building located at 7034 Cedar Avenue South (Short Stop Market Basket). The addition would be used for a walk -in freezer. This would enable Short Stop to better service the Meat Department and Frozen Foods. Presently there are five self - contained storage freezers, which could then be eliminated and result in a more energy efficient operation. Presently other dwellings in the area are on a five foot set- back, namely the garages belonging to the apartment building to the south of Short Stop Market Basket. The outside of the addition would be finished to compliment the present buidling and the neighborhood. The present building has been kept in good condition and we have spent approximately $20,000. within the past year on improvements and believe that we have the best kept property in the area. By granting this variance it will enable Short Stop to better serve the community. Short Stop is an individually owned business. It is not a large conglomerate who takes the earnings to reinvest in other areas. We are supporters & sponsors of many civic activities in Richfield, such as girls softball, kids hockey, baseball, Richfield Community Days, ice skating actitives, etc.. • • • \,0 J ATTACHMENT B. VI, Q - b a b Q, lzs ,��� r 0 \ W O i .�i 9 lK _w W 3 � h�� '�, r I J �v ATTACHMENT B. 60 3 h�� �X 60 � V• IL h F o � c h�� � M � V• IL h F o � c h�� _ a Q C v � V• IL h F o � • i Pro ert located at ATTACHMENT C. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF 703& CeLr Avenue South FOR PURPOSE OF Adding a 10 x 24 foot addition. Legal Description: -- Lots 2 and 3, Block 3, Engberg Walden Addition We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby concur with the variance as requested. Signature of Owners* Address * Signatures may not be removed once-the petition is signed and returned to the Planning Division. ,o of * Signatures may not be removed once-the petition is signed and returned to the Planning Division. PC\ PROPOSED ADDITION 5 • 10 i i5 ti - gla4wvt loot H SCALE I 30' BARRIER CURB 0 1 c 8 87 LLJ 04 < 68 EXISTING 20 30+ 77' < BUILDING LLJ - gla4wvt loot H SCALE I 30' BARRIER CURB W ou z W T-- n t: c 0 p 6rt ft lL- 6rt 5 ntS PETITION MAP ....... ....... 1) el 1 1 4r - 12 - 7t S2 4 3Y A .0 �,Apartine'nt 1E, ou LLJ > t: c p 6rt ft lL- 6rt 5 ntS oust!' ouse Du D 0 (n HOuse Uple;K- _ ui > 14 q4 ILL SIGNATURES ON PETITION ou p 6rt ft lL- 6rt 5 ntS oust!' ouse Du D 0 (n HOuse Uple;K- _ 14 13 ILL J, ' C3 In ui Ike 3 cn uj 2 j" • L' • 'na Q. �u 70 -11103 / 7 et� -14— r1n1tv, • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for a Installation Elliot Avenue Council Members: .may Council Letter No. 317 Agenda of September 10, 1984 Special Use Permit Allowing o a = i e 15ish Antenna at 7439 South. Mr. Wallace Carty proposes to install a 12 foot diameter black mesh satellite dish antenna at 7439 Elliot Avenue. It would be located in his rear yard slightly in excess of 10 feet from the lot lire. All ground based antennas in Richfield require a special use permit. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.30, Subdivision 4, Paragraph F includes freestanding or ground based antennas among those uses requiring a special use permit in residential districts. Section 3.41, Subdivision 5 enumerates conditions governing issuance of a special use permit. STAFF REVIEW The proposed antenna will not pose a safety problem. Located, as it would be, inra fenced rear yard the structure would be as inaccessible as possible to—adventurous children. With regards to aesthetics, the proposed mounting angle of the dish is 45 °. Since the dish is 12' in diameter with a 4' base, the, overall height would be .__10' . This represents a 4' protrusion. above the applicant's redwood fence. This portion of the antenna will be visible from 75th Street as well as most of the immediate neighbors. Nevertheless, all of the abutting neighbors signed a petition in support of the proposed special use permit. Neighbors to the rear of the applicant will have a full or only partially screened view of the antenna. The full view will • be minimized by planting bushes. The con.struc lor! e ish itself will also reduce ega ive aesthetic impacts. The black mesh construction of the proposed antenna is much less visible than popular light colored solid fiberglass parabolas. • • • Council Letter No. 317 -2- City staff are drafting a proposed ordinance to permit satelite antenna with certain restrictions (i.e. screening, location in rear yard, fencing) without the applicant going through a special permit process. The draft ordinance should be ready for Planning Commission review in September. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The city staff finds the proposed location and the proposed materials or e an enna o e in su s an c is ompliance with special use stipu a ions, an recommends approval. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Commissioners voted 9_ -0 to recommend approval of the special use permit—.---- JGC /eja pectfu John G. Car City Manager )muted _ 3 L- 'ryt n f - / ei �4 tLj `F%�+fYlf u mac.. . �`'.r� s �. a�.•f � L/ � ( � � ` `�'" � '� �r Lam¢ -•C. t _L-�/ r / 1 V v t G� i ' F r• _ y �t`tY -t • 0 �•,,���, �fi2. � / d ,� // G� �� , lei o4— ez j VVVVy�• /••VVVV��������.• r ,U/j/ �y � � GCC/ C..L CGC�f.L �l?dErs oai � ' ,�cCiST� :y3 ;Z A.i 1. �„� % \ L C� .� `C ^.i, ( �.: ,r �• ! i\ ��,��n �/ c �� S°' y I \`' �,�- � �c.t �^', �. 6- t3 �� sit �Y •� j ,r �S`�� � ? j ,� �dta •� �7L t7v ' j ? "n1,a � B �,�bm ij r£Gi� • s r =,v �� i DISH ANTENNA i C " r i I U. F j ; a 7439 ELLIOT �LD711 3v� =^ y •i y ( i . ! f fir-- � • J / 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of the City Manager Council Letter No. 316 Agenda of September 10, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Member of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Variance Request at 7210 Portland Avenue Council Members: Gordon. and Dorothy Miller, owners of the property 7210 Portland Avenue, have requested variances to reduce the required minimum lot width n an-"Ell single family residence zoning is rict from 50 feet to 45-feet and to reduce the minimum of area requirement from et to 5,157 square eet. The property owners wish to resubdivide their existing unplat ed lot to split off a portion of the o for sa a an eve opmen o an additional single family residence. The remaining o would meet 10 area and to wla£fi requirements and the dwelling on the lot would continue to meet all setback requirements. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.30, subdivision 4, lists minimum lot area and width requirements in the "R" residence zoning district. 2. Section. 3.40, subdivison 6, lists three conditions which must be met before a variance may be granted. STAFF REVIEW Staff has reviewed the proposal against the three conditions which must be met before a variance may be granted and found the following: I. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting this lard not common to other properties or similar districts. It is staff's opinion that there are no special circum- stances present on this site. The site is an unplatted lot and t erefore is no a o o recor er - um�b-e-r---of • unplatted residential lots within t e community which similar Ion and lot widths as the total lot in question. • 0 Council Letter No. 316 -2- 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. It is staff's opinion that the denial of this variance would not preclude reasonable use of the ert ro p p y. -- - The existing single family residentia use o e property can be continued on the site if this variance is denied. 3. That the granting of the application will not materially and adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed lot would be the smallest lot in the area and therefore would not be in character witF the surrounding neighborhood. Lots in the area north of 73rd street typically have widths of 72 feet or more with depth around 124 feet. The pro p ose 51 E o wou ave a width ar. area considerabl less than these lots. There is however, a hloek__s treet on the west side of Portland where lots are typically SO' x_117' with a corner lot that actually has a width of only 47 feet. While the proposed 45 foot lot would be similar in size with the lots south of 73rd street it would be situated in a block with consider-a5_1y larger of wi s an area. Building plans have not been submitted for the dwelling which is to be constructed on the proposed lot so staff has not been able to evaluate whether or not a dwelling would meet all other standards on the proposed new lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because the proposal does not meet the requirements necessary for granting variances, staff must recommend denial of the variance request. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMENDATION The Planning Commission unanimously recommends that the variance be denied because i he rr,roA coral ant ing variance have not been met. pectfu yyt itted , C,,-John G. Cartl right • City Manager / JGC /eja (\ w CALVIN H. HEDLUND Land Surveyor Civil Engineer 7,,?16 61,� • 3urve�or•s G'ert�flcate 7726 Morgan Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Phone :866 -2523 J08 NO. SURVEY FOR= Gordcn MU411er DESCR18EO AS: The South 110 feet of that part of the East 1/4 of the North 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast of the Northeast 1/4 lying North of the South 150 feet, Section 34, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal L-leridian- enn-pin county, Minn- esota and reserving easements of record if any. Wei} line o-p IF `/t or N V? are N E t/¢ cif. S E %4 of K16 1/4 o; Section 341 lo' Fence \ \ IN N En r tV . 4. O d- 4 V W y 0 ul 8.5 N h 3 Co. 0 . • a W o Q �H.ousc L ♦ 4' O Zo•t -• W a 0 , 0 v7 0 M 0 De '7otes Let' Cor'ler O CcRT!r-!CATE OF LOCATION OF 9UIVI'w I heri•hy certify that on 4-Z S-8 4. I mad -. a survey of the location of ;nn buii -:i—I on the above described property aild t' t file location of sold building is cc-:o<tly shown on the above plat, Fol. ORT_LANC� /-\V�. fGU 2 3 -.— - - -- -- - - -- — -- e CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY I hereby certify that on 4/25/84 I surveyed the property described above and that the above plot is a correct representation of said survey. / PROPOSED NEW LOT +- � a a� Q \ U , Ju 2 cr- 0 0 N c sb Z O v.. l!1 Ln >> 0 W c� Z a -r S w o a 0 1 U v l � o 2 De '7otes Let' Cor'ler O CcRT!r-!CATE OF LOCATION OF 9UIVI'w I heri•hy certify that on 4-Z S-8 4. I mad -. a survey of the location of ;nn buii -:i—I on the above described property aild t' t file location of sold building is cc-:o<tly shown on the above plat, Fol. ORT_LANC� /-\V�. fGU 2 3 -.— - - -- -- - - -- — -- e CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY I hereby certify that on 4/25/84 I surveyed the property described above and that the above plot is a correct representation of said survey. / PROPOSED NEW LOT "14-14 ; :,4,3- 34.17 I 1.4.85 ST A 0 I 4i-14 —k- ". eg / 21 ,3 4.4 CV I A4.0 7 44 14 44 V/ -44 44 64 , - ,Q R 1* 19 1 .2 . (- (11i, (xc I GO -44 0 kr% (r 10 l cz 10, Go 44 l� 74 34 4 i 54. S4 -4 'R !A Sn old 0 CL: ,% 600 V-4S .M14 i 2W (n; 1;4� iZ �4 - 7�01 A Z3 4. 6 7&. IZ7.A4— W N! —S 44 15131 zt sc, z M w > Ilk 33 I GO -44 0 kr% (r 10 l cz 10, Go 44 l� 74 34 4 3. 010 0 moo lbl" '421 i"Al §LiA A Z4 ( Z7 �oanaa S3 'R A Sn old 0 CL: ,% 600 V-4S .M14 \3) (n; 1;4� iZ �4 - 7�01 3. 010 0 moo lbl" '421 i"Al §LiA A Z4 ( Z7 0144 z. ............ ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 t u. U; i 0019'6 1;c �oanaa S3 'R A z x old A ,% 600 V-4S 27.4-5 \3) 73- _13 �4 424 14Z.4 Z3 4. 6 7&. IZ7.A4— W 7(.5 44 sc, z M 33 41 3 0144 z. ............ ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 t u. U; i 0019'6 1;c z 7#*77 --ST, /AL: I 17 A z x 6n A ,% 600 V-4S 27.4-5 \3) 73- _13 �4 424 Z3 4. 6 to IZ7.A4— W AA 44 sc, r4 41 3 18 0 1 7 A. �tll A. -7 F4 V 33 C) 145- LL ,A 14 U- 12 q7_ z 7#*77 --ST, /AL: I z x 6n A d. \3) 424 .4i 4. 6 :7.4)7� 4 :,; 17: sc, z 7#*77 --ST, /AL: I - PETITION NOT TO PERMIT REDUCTION OF LOT WIDTH AND AREA REQUIREMENTS NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE Subject: "Reduce lot width and area requirements on a parcel to permit the construction of a single family home." - - Whereas, the home to be constructed would be between 7200 Portland and 7210 Portland Avenue South. Whereas, the area between the two homes is but 45.09' from lot line to lot line. Whereas, the area remaining after required setback from lot lines would be narrow and deep, inadequate to construct a building ' which would be in balance with surrounding homes. Whereas, a building would cut off the air and sun to the property just North of the site in question. `r a' "' Whereas, privacy now would be lost. Whereas, the type of building which would have to be constructed -' -' on such .a narrow lot would have an adverse effect on the value of homes nearby. We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Richfield Planning Commission NOT to reduce the lot width and area requirements on a parcel; located at: -_ The South 110 feet of that part of the East 14 of the North 31 of the Northeast �4 of the Southeast 4 of the Northeast � lying North of the South 150 feet, Section =A 34, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal -_- Meridian. Hennepin county, Minnesota and reserving easements of record if any. (7210 Portland Avenue) NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE -; V-/U CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of the City Manager Council Letter No. 315 Agenda September 10, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for a Special Use Permit for a Daycare Facility at Oak Grove Lutheran Church 7101 Lyndale Avenue South Council Members: Kristian Allers Henak, representing Oak Grove Lutheran Church, has applied Olr a special use permit to allow a daycare facility for up to children, including in ants, ada7 ens- -and preschoolers withine existing Oak Grove Lutheran Church facility at 7_101_ Lyndal_e Aver -ue. , No new cons ruction is contemplated. The daycare facility would utilize existing classrooms, gymnasium, kitchen and restroom facilities within the educational wing on the north end of the church facilities. The green open space area on the south end of the church property lying between Lyndale Avenue, Augsburg Avenue and 71st Street will be utilized as an outside play area. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.30, subdivision 3, indicates that daycare centers for more than 10 children are permitted by special use permit in "R" residence zoning district. 2. Section 3.141, subdivision. 5, lists conditions governing the issuance of a special use permit. STAFF REVIEW Staff has reviewed the request for a special use permit and found the following: 1. Suff?�3 -fin - znaru; r,g exists on the site to handle the proposed daycare facility. 2. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses and should not adversely affect the nei -- --hood in terms of traffic 40 or c arac er of the neighbor o d The site is located adjacent — __ - -- to Lyndale Avenue and there is sufficient drop -off and parking space to assure that the adjacent sin_g_le family neighborhood is not adversely affected, - 0 0 Council Letter No. 315 -2- 3. The Public Safety department has indicated that the addition of the proposed day care center in the existing church facility would result in some fire and health code violations. Because more than 30 children are involvedz_the_ existing sprinkler system wou d have to be extended throughout the whole building. The applicant has indicated that they are considering opening initially with 29 children and then expanding in--th-e future as fire code concerns are resolved. 4. Staff has some concern about the safety and control of children using the outside play area because of the small size of the area and the fa- that it is located adjacent to Lyndale Avenue. The applicant has indicated that the area will hA fenced in-as par of their state license requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff has found that the application is in substantial compliance with the conditions governing the issuance of a special use permit. Staff recommends that the City Council recommend approval of the special use permit reqke5t with the stipulation that tfie app icant work with the Dublic safety division to satisfactorily resolve the fire code violation pro ems. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission unanimously recommends that the City Council approve the special use permit to allow the operation of a day care facility of up to 60 children at Oak Grove Lutheran church with the stipulation that the applicant work with the public safety department to resolve the fire code violations. JGC /eja eb Dec tf01- VM`ubmitte Jahn G. C /artwright Gity Manager • • • August 13, 1984 Dear Committee members; Oak Grove Lutheran Church is interested in opening a day care center in its education building. DAC left our building as of July 1 and we feel that there is a need for day care in the community and to use our facility. We will be applying for a license from the Department of Public Welfare for sixty children which would include infants, toddlers and preschoolers. Attached are the building plans for the rooms we would be using and site drawings of the church and tot. Sincerely Kristin Alters Henak • O -4 C/3 m a a • IA • 40 0 LLI U) R, O 0 cr- • • • in ,,LU V! 1' W LLO 1� �:3rra CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of the City Manager Council Letter No. 314 Agenda September 10, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Application for a Special Use Permit at 7608 Knox Avenue South Council Members: Mr. Tom Casey of Shari Properties has made application for a special use permit to allow him to relocate his business which rents, stores ms two m6to-r--h-omes. - The business, presently located at 7700 Logan Avenue, would operate out of an exis cture at 7608 Knox -Av—e- u�e--with- two- bays, a parts -- - - - - -- - -- s orage area and an office. - Initially one person will be employed at the site, but after about a year, hopes are that enough business will be generated to justify two or three employees. The property is zoned general commercial, which would allow for this type of special use. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section. 3.27, subdivision 3, paragraph (19) defines the proposed use as a "public garage ". Section 3.33, subdivision 2, paragraph (4) requires proposed public garages to obtain a special use permit prior to - -_ - -- op a io .. -- Section 3.41, subdivision. 5, enumerates the conditions necessary for issuance of a special use permit. STAFF REVIEW Upon review of the proposal against the above mentioned conditions, staff has made the following findings: Council Letter No. 314 -2 -- 1. The parcel directly to the north—is-Used for a conyenience�rocery store. Across Knox Avenue is a large multiple family complex. To the sou are eevera commercial businesses. Abutting on the west is a multiple fame y -- structure. The low turr_over na ure o e proposed business would pose no computability problems within this setting. 2. Presently a__ well__drilling and plumbing company operates from this Troptrty. The rear yard is used for the storage of equipment and is aesthetically unappealing, especially since the abutting parcel to the rear is residential_ The applicant's proposal calls for t e present e_gUlpment to be removed. 3. T .g are r --pa -nk. spaces in front of the building. These will be sufficient for the proposed business at leas while there are only one or two employees. The two motor homes themselves will be stored inside the building,' Customers that rent the vehicles will not be parking their cars on the s thP- mgtDr-- ho-m_e. At such a time as three employees are needed, or additional motor homes are purchased, there is sufficient space on the lot for additional parking. 4. The business would not negatively impact the residents or employees in the vicinity. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval _ o_f -the special use permit with the sti u ati on that at % ter- time as more -t- fiat-- wo emp oyees are on the site additional parking acceptable o e e provided. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The plan ping commission unanimously recommended approval of special u i ion that at s h t!ze as more than tw Am^p3- ^ -vPPs are on the site additional parking be provided to the gat - .anion of the cites, R pectf bmitted, hn G. Ca wrigh ity Manager j I� U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R WEST, .., - !illl�iiiliil��l�lli�����r -��y SINGLE FAMILY MULTIPLE FAMILY ri GENERAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL ---Amami lmlmlll;� LAND USE LLJ • I 1z) O U-1 7 W ;3d 71 aE eoll I IE& . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R WEST, .., - !illl�iiiliil��l�lli�����r -��y SINGLE FAMILY MULTIPLE FAMILY ri GENERAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL ---Amami lmlmlll;� • L.J KNOX AVENUE Is E s • SHARI PROPERTIES 7700 Logan Avenue So. Richfield, MN 55423 August 10, 1984 City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MiN 55423 Re: Special Use Permit - 7608 Knox Ave. So., Richfield, ..,LN Shari Properties is a licensed motor home rental dealer presently operating at 7700 Logan Avenue South, Richfield. We purchased 7608 Knox Ave. So. (contingent on this approval) to move our motor home business into. The building will be used to office and park the two vehicles inside. They will be washed and maintained on the property also. Thank /you . Sincef j Thpmas J. Casey / r �� -.TJCc gr • i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 313 Agenda Sept. 10, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Specially Assessing L /H /N Area for Current Maintenance Services for the Period of January 1 through December 31, 1985 - City Project No. 809 Council Members: The City Council has scheduled a public hearing for September 10, 1984 to consider the establishment of a special assessment district for current maintenance service costs in the L /H /N redevelopment area. Notice of this public- hearing was mailed to all owners of commercial property in the area and published in the official newspaper as required by law. The higher level of maintenance proposed to be provided in the area includes the trimming and watering of trees and plants, operation of `a special street lighting system, removal -oi' -snow ------ - - - - -- arid ice ropewalks and performance of other specialized maintenance functions -- The estimated maintenance cost for the period January 1 through December 31, 1985 is $42,_840. All commercial properties would be atsessed^ -on the basis of area, with each square foot of assessable property to be assessed equally, for the costs incurred in the maintenance of common areas such as street islands, the civic plaza, sidewalks and so forth. There is an agreement between the city and many of the businesses that the business shall maintain the property behind the curb. In the event the city must do this maintenance, the particular business is assessed for the cost of the special, individual maintenance of direct benefit to the given. property. At the conclusion of the September 10, 1984 public hearing it is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution ordering the L /H /N maintenance work to be done and the costs to be specially assessed. JGC /eja LID pectf l,/A4mittp-d, 'John G./Ca r\twrigh City Manager RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT LHN MAINTENANCE - JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1985 CITY PROJECT NO. 809 WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinance the City Council of the City of Richfield did establish a special assessment district and did propose that certain current services be undertaken by the city in the Lyr_dale /Hub /Nicollet Redevelopment Area approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue and that the cost of such services be specially assessed against benefited property, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield did also by such resolution set the date of public hearing on the undertaking of such current service project and the levying of special assessment to bear the costs thereof, and WHEREAS, following due notice,,such public hearing was held on September 10, 1984 at which time all interested parties desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the following examples of current services of the city shall be undertaken by the city within the Lyn.dale /Hub /Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area, which area constitutes the special assessment district with the exception • of single family, two family and multi - family residential properties, with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against benefited property within the district: a. Snow, ice or rubbish removal from sidewalks; b. Weed elimination from streets and private property; C. Removal and elimination of public health and safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 and 463.26; d. Installation of and repair of water service lines; e. Street sprinkling and other dust treatment of streets; f. Tree trimming and care of trees and removal of unsound trees from any street; g. Treatment and removal of insect infested or diseased trees on private property; h. Repair of sidewalks and alleys; i. Operation_ of street lighting system; j. Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right -of -way; k. Snow removal and other maintenance of streets in the commercial redevelopment area. 2. The work to be performed may be by day labor, by city force, by contract or by any combination. thereof. 3. The designated period of the project shall be from January 1 through December 31, 1985. Costs of the project shall be collected in the manner provided in Richfield Ordinance Code Sections 12.29, 12.30 and 12.31. -2- Passed b the City Council of the City of Richfield this Y Y Y 10th day of September, 1984. John. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk r] • s L-1 is -#-1S CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 312 Agenda September 10, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing On the Adoption of the Assessment Roll for City Project No. 787, L /H /N Maintenance, for the Period January 1, 1983 - December 31, 1983 Council Members: The City Council has scheduled a hearing to be held on September 10, 1984 on the assessment for the cost of current _.maintenance _ services in the L /H /NRedevelopment Area for the periosi_- Jan- uar-_y_1--througb -De ember - 11 -,_ 1983_. The Facilities /Projects Coordinator has calculated the proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of lard specially benefited. The proposed assessment was properly filed with the city clerk, notice was duly published, and notices were mailed to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll. The cost of current maintenance services for this period totaled $33,812.10, and included, but were not necessarily limited to, one or more of the following, including labor, equipment and materials: tur1.' Landscaping including tree trimming, sod replacement f management; 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. and Sidewalk sweeping in summer; Snow removal in winter; Sidewalk de- icing; Painting and repair of wood furniture; Trash removal; General maintenance, including repairs and replacement; Irrigation maintenance. The city ordinance provides that spec -ial as_sessmer.ts for current services _ma v bedce_rtified _ to_- t_he_ county auTi-tor -f-ur col- ectt-r -along with taxes. This certification may_ provide that- tfie s ecia_1 assessments be com letel p ______ ___ _ p y paid either the first Council Letter No. 312 -2-- • ten__ yea -r_s or- _i r_ -_u -p _to- ten annual installments. It has been, and continues to be, - 1<he__sta..f_ recommend- ati_o_n__that_ such payments be due and payable within_ the_ -first _year, rather than in installments. The adopted assessment roll for the period January 1 through December 31, 1983 would be certified with the county auditor by October 10, 1984. The city has the right to charge interest on the amount assessed in that the city provided the funds initially for the current services. It is the recommendation of the city staff that the interest rate be established _at eight p_e=e -nt. Payment may be made by the assessed owner before_ November 15, 1984 in order to interest payments_.__ Payments made after that date would in the - interest payment. Following the public hearing, City Council approve the attached assessment on City Project No. 787 period January 1 through December make changes in the assessment rol by adding the phrase "and has amen as it deems just." • JGC /eja 0 it is recommended that the resolution adopting the , L /H /N maintenance for the 31, 1983. The council may 1 as a result of the hearing ded such proposed assessment pectfWl.l John. G /Carjt City M . age itted, 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT NO. 787 LHN MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31; 1983 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for current services related to maintenance of the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Area, which is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Such proposed assessment roll, a copy of which is attached hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of lard therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed current services in the amount of assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable before or during 1985 and shall bear interest at the rate of eight percent from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property to the city treasurer and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the city treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. 4. The city clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the county auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th day of September, 1984. John_ Hamilton, Mayor 40 ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING UNPAID SEWER AND WATER SERVICE CHARGES TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO BE COLLECTED WITH OTHER TAXES ON SAID PROPERTIES WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 8.23 establishes rules, rates and charges for water service in the City of Richfield, and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 44.075, subd. 3, provides that all delinquent water service charges not paid may be certified to the County Auditor with the taxes against such property, and shall be collected with other taxes on such property, and WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 8.12 establishes rules, rates and charges for sanitary sewer service in the City of Richfield, and WHEREAS, Subd. 12 thereof provides that all sewer service charges not paid within fifteen (15) days after the quarterly due date may be certified to the County Auditor with taxes against such property, and shall be collected with other taxes on such property, and WHEREAS, an assessment roll has been prepared specifying the amount which shall be certified against each particular property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the . City of Richfield, Minnesota, that: 1. There is hereby determined to be a total uncollected amount for water and sanitary sewer service of $60,432.45; and 2. That a $20.00 Certification charge shall be levied against each delinquent account; such charges totalling $10,880.00; and 3. That such amount is hereby certified to the County Auditor for collection with other taxes on said properties; and, 4. That a copy of this Resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin. County Auditor. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th day of September, 1984. John. Hamilton. Mayor ATTEST: • Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 311 Agenda September 10, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Specially Assessing Current Maintenance Services for City Alleys for the Period of January 1 through December 31, 1985 - City Project No. 810 Council Members: On August 13, 1984, the City Council scheduled a public hearing for September 10, 1984, concerning the 1985 alley maintenance project. In order to implement the alley maintenance policies previously passed by the city council, it is necessary for the council to initiate this specific alley maintenance project. The maintenance functions to be financed through special assessments include such work as rough grading, clearing and sweeping, cold patching and snowplowing. Community Services Department personnel estimate the cost of this project for the period January ],—A-9-8-5 through Decamb_er_3-1, 1985 to be Alleys which were resurfaced in 1981, 1982, 1 or 1984 or which are scheduled to be resurfaced in 1985 would not be assessed for patching -type maintenance. Further, the amount of the special assessment could vary according to the amount of work necessary on each individual alley. The costs for the repair Qf_- _ar___a.11ey__will be charged to the property owners abutting the alley. For patching- cleaning- sweep__in_g -type main enance, t is would result in an estimated average --ate men of about $15 2er lot, assuming a fi fty_ foot lot. Another por ion of the total project cost would be for snowplowing of alleys, whether resurfaced or patched. Weather conditions during the proposed assessment period will, of course, have a significant impact on the actual amount assessed. For snowplowing maintenance, this would result in an estimated ave ar ge- assessment of about $7.50 per lot, again assuming a fifty foot lot. 40 Council Letter No. 311 -2- • It is recommended that the City Council hold the public hearing and adopt the attached resolution ordering the 1985 alley maintenance project and special assessment of current services. JGC /eja is 0 ectf 11 mitted, John G. Ca wright City Manager • • • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT FOR ALLEY MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1985 CITY PROJECT NO. 810 WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 13th day of August, 1984, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed maintenance of the following alleys: Number 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 2001 2002 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Surrounding Avenues Xerxes- Washburn Xerxes - Washburn. Xerxes - Washburn Xerxes - Washburn Washburn.- Vincent Washburn- Vincent Washburn.- Vincent Washburn- Vincent Vincent - Upton. Vincent -Upton Vincent- Upton. Vincent -Upton Upton - Thomas Upton- Thomas Upton- Thomas Thomas - Sheridan Thomas - Sheridan Thomas - Sheridan Thomas - Sheridan Sheridan - Russell Sheridan - Russell Sheridan - Russell Sheridan- Russell Russell -Queen Russell -Queen Russell -Queen Russell -Queen Queen -Penn. Queen. -Penn Queer -Penn Queen-Penn Penn- Oliver Oliver - Newton Morgan - Logan. Logan. -Knox James- Irving Irving- Humboldt Humboldt - Girard Girard - Fremont (35W) Girard - Fremont (35W) Girard- Frekmont (35W) Fremont (35W)- Emerson Fremont (35W)- Emerson. Dupont- Colfax Surrounding Streets 66th-67th Street 67th -68th Street 68th -69th Street 69th -70th Street 66th -67th Street 67th -68th Street 68th -69th Street 69th -70th Street 66th -67th Street 67th -68th Street 68th -69th Street 69th -70th Street 66th -67th Street 68th -69th Street 69th -70th Street 66th -67th Street 67th -68th Street 68th -69th Street 69th -70th Street 66th -67th Street 67th -68th Street 68th -69th Street 69th -70th Street 66th -67th Street 67th -68th Street 68th -69th Street 69th -70th Street 66th -67th Street 67th -68th Stret 68th -69th Street 69th -70th Street 63rd -64th Street 63rd -64th Street 63rd -64th Street 63rd -64th Street 63rd -64th Street 63rd -64th Street 63rd -64th Street 63rd -64th Street 64th -65th Street 65th -66th Street 64th -65th Street 65th -66th Street 63rd - Mildred Dr. -2- 2016 Colfax - Bryant 63rd- Mildred Dr. 2017 Bryant- Aldrich 63rd- Mildred Dr. 2019 Graham - Lyndale 66th -Lk. Shore Dr, 2020 Aldrich - Lyndale 75th -76th Street 2021 Aldrich - Lyndale 76th -77th Street 3002 Lyndale- Garfield 68th -69th Street 3003 Augsburg - Garfield 70th -71st Street 3004 Augsburg- Garfield 71st -72nd Street 3005 Lyndale- Garfield 72nd -73rd Street 3006 Lyndale- Garfield 73rd -74th Street 3007 Garfield - Harriet 71st -72nd Street 3008 Garfield- Harriet 72nd -73rd Street 3009 Garfield- Harriet 73rd -74th Street 3011 Harriet -Grand 67th -68th Street 3012 Harriet -Grand 68th -69th Stret 3013 Harriet -Grand 72nd -73rd Street 3014 Harriet -Grand 73rd -74th Street 3015 Grand- Pleasant 68th -69th Street 3016 Grand - Pleasant 72nd -73rd Street 3018 Wentworth - Blaisdell 66th -68th Street 3020 Blaisdell - Nicollet 72nd -73rd Street 3021 Blaisdell - Nicollet 73rd -74th Street 3022 Blaisdell - Nicollet 74th -75th Street 3023 Blaisdell - Nicollet 75th -76th Street - -- 30-25 —__— Nicollet - Second Avenue — - Nicollet- First Avenue 68th -69th 70th -71st Street Street 3026 Nicollet -First Avenue 71st -72nd Street 3027 Nicollet -First Avenue 72nd -73rd Street 3028 First - Stevens Avenue 71st -72nd Street 3029 First - Stevens Avenue 72nd -73rd Street 3030 Stevens- Second Avenue 71st -72nd Street 3031 Stevens- Second Avenue 72nd -73rd Street 3032 Second -Third Avenue 66th -67th Street 3033 Second -Third Avenue 71st -72nd Street 3034 Second -Third Avenue 72nd -73rd Street 3035 Third - Clinton Avenue 66th -67th Street 3036 Third - Clinton Avenue 73rd -74th Street 3037 Clinton- Fourth Avenue 66th -67th Street 3038 Clinton- Fourth Avenue 73rd -74th Street 3039 Fourth -Fifth Avenue 66th -67th Street 3040 Fourth -Fifth Avenue 73rd -74th Street 4001 13th -14th Avenue 65th -66th Street 4002 14th -15th Avenue 62nd -63rd Street 4004 15th- Bloomington 62nd -63rd Street 4005 15th - Bloomington 65th -66th Street 4006 Bloomington. -16th 65th -66th Street 4007 Cedar - Longfellow 63rd -64th Street 4008 Cedar - Longfellow 64th -65th Street 4009 Cedar - Longfellow 65th -66th Street 4010 19th -20th Avenue 65th -66th Street . 4012 22nd- Standish Avenue 65th -66th Street 4013 13th -14th Avenue 66th -67th Street -3- is AND, WHEREAS, the owner of each parcel within the area proposed to be assessed for the improvement described in said resolution was mailed a copy of the required notice, and WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice of the hearing and two weekly publications of the required notice was given as required by law, and the hearing was held thereon on this 10th day of September, 1984, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. Such alley maintenance is hereby ordered as proposed in Council Resolution No. 6917 adopted the 13th day of August, 1984. 2. That the city maintenance divisions be designated to perform these maintenance functions. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of September, 1984. • ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • John Hamilton, Mayor ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11.01, SUED. 2 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD RELATING TO CONSUMPTION OF LIQUOR CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 11.01, Subd. 2 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield relating to consumption of non - intoxicating malt liquors is amended to read: Subd. 2. Limitation on Application. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or restrict the serving of non - intoxicating malt liquor to guests in a private home, except that it shall be unlawful for a person under the age of 19 years to consume any intoxicating or non - intoxicating malt liquor unless in the household of his or her parent or guardian and with the consent of his or her parent or guardian. The council may also permit any non- profit social organization, lodge, labor organization, political party, church or • corporation not included in the definition of a bona fide club to serve non - intoxicating malt liquor without a license, free of charge, for a period not exceeding 12 hours and not more than three times per calendar year. "Political party" as used in this subdivision includes city -wide political party organiza- tion but does not include individual candidates or the campaign committees of individual candidates. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1984. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: 0 Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk :J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 310 Agenda September 10, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing On the Adoption of the Assessment Roll for City Project No. 782, 1983 Sidewalk Construction Council Members: The City Council has scheduled a public hearing to be held September 10, 1984 concerning the adoption of the proposed assessment roll for City Project No. 782, 19,83 Sidewalk Construction. The city staff has calculated the proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land specially benefited by the project. The costs for the 1983 sidewalk project were calculated to be $2.34 per assessable foot for a residential - — -- property and -- - - -- - - - ---- - - $5.8b for =a_ commerci- a1_property. The estimated assessment rates used at the project hearings was $.2.54 per foot and $6.34 per foot. The total cost for a typical 75 f -oot residential- property is $175.50. The total 6- —st for a typica�_150 _foot commercial property is $879. The property owner ma_mak_e pre- p- aym -e-nt in full, make partial prepayment, app _y for deferment if qualified, or have tle- balance spread — -- - -- over a period of five years -- The city staff will be available at the public hearing to answer questions related to the special assessment that may not have been raised prior to the hearing. The public hearing provides an opportunity for all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed assessment. Following the hearing, Ir. ;s recommended that the city council adopt the attache(�S� rut- oar..•, adopting the assessment roll for City Project No. 782, 1983 Sidewalk Construction. If the city council makes charges in the assessment roll as a result of the hearing, it should add the phrase "and has amended such proposed assessment as it deems just." JGC /eja spectf41'/xubmitted John. G. /Carrigh City Manager / RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT NO. 782, 1983 SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the city council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the improvement of the following locations by construction of concrete sidewalk: ON SIDE FROM TO Lyndale Avenue West 74th Street 76th Street 65th Street North Penn Avenue Russell Avenue 65th Street South Upton Avenue Xerxes Avenue Xerxes Avenue East 62nd Street 65th Street Rae Drive West 65th Street 66th Street Vincent Avenue East 65th Street 350' south 78th Street North 12th Avenue 250' west 78th Street North 12th Avenue 13th Avenue 78th Street North 14th Avenue Cedar Avenue Bloomington. Ave. East 75th Street 76th Street 77th Street South Nicollet Avenue 130' west 76th Street South Xerxes Avenue Sheridan Ave. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the city clerk has, with the assistance of the city engineer, calculated the proper amounts to be assessed for City Project No. 782, 1983 Sidewalk Improvements against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel o -f -_land specially benefited thereby in accordance with the provisions of law, and the proposed assessment so made up was filed with the city clerk for more than 15 days prior to the assessment hearing and was open to public inspection during said period. 2. That the city council has heretofore duly established City Project No. 782 and after carefully considering all the facts, the benefits to each lot, piece or parcel of land and fully advising itself in the premises, has found and determined and hereby declares that each'and every lot, piece or parcel of land included in said proposed assessment roll was improved by reason of the construction of said City Project No. 782 and has been and is specially benefited in the amount set out in the attached assessment roll opposite each such lot, piece or parcel of land. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay whole of the assessment on such property to the city • treasurer and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the city treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. 4. Said assessmen and shall be certified of the city clerk, and special assessment for Improvements. -2- t is hereby affirmed, adopted, confirmed, by the city clerk and filed in the office shall thereupon be and constitute a said City Project No. 782 Sidewalk 5. The assessment with accruing interest, shall be a lien upon the property included therein, concurrent with general taxes and shall be payable in equal installments extending over a period of five years unless prepaid or deferred. The first installment shall be payable on the first Monday in January of 1985. All assessments shall bear interest at a rate at ten (10) percent per annum. 6. The city clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the county auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county and such assessments and interest thereon shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th day of September, 1984. • ATTEST: John Hamilton, Mayor Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 309 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing Assessment Roll Alley Paving Councilmembers: Agenda September 10, 1984 On the Adoption of the for City Project No. 786, 1983 The City Council has scheduled a public hearing to be held September 10, 1984 concerning the adoption of the proposed assessment roll for City Project No. 786, the 1983 Alley Paving. The city staff has calculated the proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land specially benefited by the project. The costs for the 1983 alley paving project were calculated to be $15.53 per assessable foot. The estimated assessment rate used at - "the project hearings was $19.75 per foot. The total cost for a typical fifty foot lot is $776.50. The property owner may make prepa yment in full, make partial preps meymey nt, app y or deferment if_ qua_1 —16--d-, _6_r - hav - -e- -thew ace spread over a period of twenty years. -- The city staff will be available at the public hearing to answer questions related to the special assessment that may not have been raised prior to the hearing. The public hearing provides an opportunity for all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed assessment. Following the hearing, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached -resolution, adopting the assessment roll for City Project No. 78 , 1983 Alley Paving. If the City Council makes changes in the assessment roll as a result of the hearing, it should add the phrase "and has amended such proposed assessment as it deems just." spectf John G: Ck • / City Manag JGCleja iihmi i- -QA • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT NO. 786, 1983 ALLEY PAVING WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the city council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the improvement of the following alleys by concrete paving: Alley Between From To Garfield and Lyndale Avenues 68th Street 69th Street Garfield and Lyndale Avenues 72nd Street 73rd Street Grand and Harriet Avenues 68th Street 69th Street Thomas and Upton Avenues 66th Street 67th Street Vincent and Upton Avenues 66th Street 67th Street Vincent and Upton Avenues 69th Street 70th Street Nicollet and First Avenues 72nd Street 73rd Street Upton and Thomas Avenues 69th Street 70th Street 62nd and 63rd Street 15th Avenue Bloomington Ave Sheridan and Thomas Avenues 69th Street 70th Street Nicollet and Blaisdell Avenues 714th Street 75th Street • Thomas and Sheridan Avenues 68th Street 69th Street NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the city clerk has, with the assistance of the city engineer, calculated the proper amounts to be assessed for City Project 786, 1983 Alley Paving, against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land specially benefited thereby in accordance with the provisions of law, and the proposed assessment so made up was filed with the city clerk for more than 15 days prior to the assessment hearing and was open to public inspection during said period. 2. That the city council has heretofore duly established City Project No. 786, and after carefully considering all the facts, the benefits to each lot, piece or parcel of land and fully advising itself in the premises, has found and determined and hereby declares that each and every lot, piece or parcel of land included in said proposed assessment roll was improved by reason of the construction of said City Project No. 786 and has been and is specially benefited in the amount set out in the attached assessment roll opposite each such lot, piece or parcel of land. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay whole of the assessment on such property to the city treasurer and he may, at any time thereafter pay to the city treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, -2- with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which • payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. 4. Said assessment is hereby affirmed, adopted, confirmed, and shall be certified by the city clerk and filed in the office of the city clerk, and shall thereupon be and constitute a special assessment for said City Project No. 786, Alley Paving. 5. The assessment with accruing interest shall be a lien upon the property included therein, concurrent with general taxes and shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of twenty years unless prepaid or deferred. The first installment shall be payable on the first Monday in January of 1985. All assessments shall bear interest at a rate of ten percent per annum. 6. The city clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the county auditor to extend on the proper tax lists of the county and such assessments and interest thereon shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th day of September, 1984. • ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • John. Hamilton, Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 308 Agenda August 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Council Salaries. First Reading. Council Members: Chapter XII, Section 12.02 of the city ordinance establishes the salaries of the city council and provides that the salaries of the Council Members be reviewed by December of each year. Therefore, a discussion of this item has been placed on the August 27, 1984 city council agenda for discussion prior to adoption of the 1985 budget. Council salaries were last adjusted in 1978, when the salary of the Mayor was increased from $5,670 to $6,000 per year; and Council Member salaries were increased from $4,221 to $4,500 per year. The City Charter, as amended in July, 1982, stipulates that "The Mayor and members of the Council shall receive payment as set by ordinance. No change in salary shall take effect until after the next succeeding municipal election." This means any change would not take effect until after the November, 19814 general election. An ordinance amendment relating to Council Member salaries is attached for council consideration, as well as the most recent survey that we have of council salaries in other metropolitan cities. If the City Council gives first reading approval to an ordinance amendment, it is recommended that second reading and the public hearing be scheduled for September 10, 1984. s'pectfufYly,/OjAitted , John G ' Car twright City Manager\ JGC /eja • • • AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XII SECTION 12.02 OF THE RICHFIELD ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO COMPENSATION OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 12.02 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to compensation of the Mayor and Council members is hereby amended to provide as follows: Subdivision 1. Annual Salary The annual salary of the Mayor is ($6,000) $ and the annual salary for each member of the Council is ($4,500) $ to be effective after the next succeeding municipal election. Salaries of such officers shall be reviewed by December of each year. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1984. • %4- 0 { li..� en o.0 0•I F D W C/) Q J Q CJ� C/) J _Q v t 0 W I— U W J I I cd U z cd r-i O O U 4-1 O 0 Ca .H U O 4) 4j a "C CU O U r-i a ti (=7 z C �W a W z a W, U H O G w E•+ U W a WI • O O LO N x w G z z 0 H E-� a a 0 a E-a H r� W H Ei H U L7� a U z U w 0 J� a a G z z N 00 m r-i cl 00 O t-•I IZf+ 00 O'. x O N a0 m r-j w 0 00 C) Q r-I a a z aM � w c7 E- E- O w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It o x o o x co O O lzl+ O O O co X N LO O O O O O N Co rl X LO d" C7 [f+ N tf) Co c+ O RZi+ d'' Co O LO N CJ N ri r{ ri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [r O )c . O O O r i C9 O o d O iE O Co rq x N L) Co O o O O N Co CO LO C9 cd co + N LO Co mot+ m cd v+ 114 Co O U'� VV Q0 N CO Cc _ r-i ri r--i ri z z O o 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 O (o O* o m 0 0 TV 0 co co o U'� co O O o 0 Co co CO Co m TV N n Co m q:l+ m Co N N ' Co N H ri r1 ri H ri N ri 6'} N ri r1 rl ri r-i r-� r-i ri ri rH r-i ri ri N r-1 N r-i N W w G a m co a (n H r1 U z z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X LC) CO ri M d7 m O LO O x rl N ri x Co X LO M N CD U') CO O N O Co O N n t- N t, d' Co d' m b M ri ri Co N r-I V' GO co a f ' r-i rl ri N N r-I r-i G F� a w O � v E� H a Qi a H U H z cd � •ri 0 0 •� � '� C!� U � a) •� c o > 0) o x o U c C, c r� '0 r-+ m o a U) o cd cd C/] cd �4 U cd a +•) (1) +� +� o o a) C) a a r a) Q) a) zs •� a b-n (1) -, �;-q �-q �a ­4 ri x E E E x x .x c � c a C) o 0 o C) o Q) o c c z q CU U U U U G W t7 C7 C7 w z a a a a a a a a 4 : 0 O O o 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a+ x O x O O Co tq O O O w O O N Co N N U"� O O O O N Co I a a O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 0 CO O iE O O c0 � �+ O O O c0 •� O N � CO di N N �n O O O It+ It N Co Co cn L+ N cd m N O N GO to p� Cl) r-i r-1 t,9- 0 0 z z 0 0 0 O O O O O o O O O v+ 0 0 0 0 0 iE O C' O iE CO di O O O CO iE i( N Co O N N O O O O co ' Cl Co di N co Co M m Cv O O Lo w � O �+ ri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It o x o o x co O O lzl+ O O O co X N LO O O O O O N Co rl X LO d" C7 [f+ N tf) Co c+ O RZi+ d'' Co O LO N CJ N ri r{ ri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [r O )c . O O O r i C9 O o d O iE O Co rq x N L) Co O o O O N Co CO LO C9 cd co + N LO Co mot+ m cd v+ 114 Co O U'� VV Q0 N CO Cc _ r-i ri r--i ri z z O o 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 O (o O* o m 0 0 TV 0 co co o U'� co O O o 0 Co co CO Co m TV N n Co m q:l+ m Co N N ' Co N H ri r1 ri H ri N ri 6'} N ri r1 rl ri r-i r-� r-i ri ri rH r-i ri ri N r-1 N r-i N W w G a m co a (n H r1 U z z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X LC) CO ri M d7 m O LO O x rl N ri x Co X LO M N CD U') CO O N O Co O N n t- N t, d' Co d' m b M ri ri Co N r-I V' GO co a f ' r-i rl ri N N r-I r-i G F� a w O � v E� H a Qi a H U H z cd � •ri 0 0 •� � '� C!� U � a) •� c o > 0) o x o U c C, c r� '0 r-+ m o a U) o cd cd C/] cd �4 U cd a +•) (1) +� +� o o a) C) a a r a) Q) a) zs •� a b-n (1) -, �;-q �-q �a ­4 ri x E E E x x .x c � c a C) o 0 o C) o Q) o c c z q CU U U U U G W t7 C7 C7 w z a a a a a a a a 4 : �J t x O N >" 00 d CM Z5 r-1 C � M x 00 d O a r� d a O M z c� z r� c M x E- E- z C O o O .^.. N O O 00 O :2� CJ) C Ln C O U O � z C E-+ U N * N O CW7 O * d d+ * a >4 M * x co Co d rn 00 N N N d r•I N N co r♦ r-i a N 00 d c{ ri M N d' z [f+ i` z �+ d �J t x O N >" 00 d CM Z5 r-1 C � M x 00 d O a r� d a O M z c� z r� c M x E- E- z C O o O O C O O O O O C Ln C O o O C O C O O N * N O di * * 00 d+ * N O N * O * Co 00 Lid 00 N N N ri r•I N N co r♦ r-i C' N 00 C- 00 ri M N d' M [f+ i` to C7 � ri 64 W W C O O O cd 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 cd 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 11' N * O r-1 d+ N w * r-i O O N O N O O r-L N Co 00 N 00 N 00 N N r-i N Cd N ri ri d M C.0 N 00 M N Cd III M v N cc CO ri Gr,� 0 0 0 z z z CD C o O 0 C O C C O C O L O C O o 0 C C 0 0 0 C d+ N * O �" C * * tD n4 N O O C C N to C N 00 N 00 N N ri r I co N co r♦ r-i co M 00 lam- x ri M N d' M CD � to C7 � r; 64 W W 0 o O o C C C c C o N C O C Ln c 0 O x * N O O * * O Co * Co O O * O * 00 'V9 �- O �" * LO ri N r I M M ri r♦ r-i co M a) O ri M 110 00 to C7 � 64 W W C O O O m 0 0 0 d O O C C O C O t 0 0 0 0 0 O O O Co m * O r-I Cfl w [7+ * r I C N CD O C O O r-1 O 00 C Itzil O d" O Ln M r'i m Cd M r•I N t Q0 C` 07 O r-1 CD 00 Cd M -lm Q0 00 Co Co ri rH O O O z z z C C O O O O 0 C C C c C 0 0 0 0 O C O 0 O to 00 * N O C" * * O 00 O O O O C C 00 O1711 O C O LIB M r-i M T� CD O m C rl CD 00 CD :1' 00 00 C9 O rl ri rl GG- O N ri r-•1 ri r-i r. ri r1 r^I r-i ri ri r-i ri I N N r H N 7-1 N ri N N ri r♦ r-i C7 � W W x a 00 a di H ri U z z �D O o O O O C C O C 0 0 O C C x C C C 0 C C c 0 C C 0 0 0 t- x U Lo O N N 00 m C- r1 N N 6) U-7 O t- N M Ln X ZZI, [`^ O C9 M t- N m E-+ W 4 e7+ -l" N r� In M M ry N N M C" Co O 0 M N M M In 00 O Co LC; N :4 04 a ri N r+ ri r r-i ri a E-4 a w o a � >" E4 }-i a U z .,-4 O U U C Cd U� •r•L • O a) O +) -14 m to r L a O U C!1 Cd a hA 0 (n Id rl a Cd r- +- c Cd •rl w �. Cd z 9 m 0 �4 H 4i U- Cd a>) 0 O m r+ = E x O >~ t3 r L >� a cd r i cd 3 ri -d E c Cd 0 $.4 �, •ri zi a n �+ :~ � ;L as •r-I o :~ :~ d (1) ri +J •r-I +J a) cd �-t O Cc -I 0 co O ;.4 Cd ho M rl ;wq 41 i-L m o> (1) 0 2 E-r o 0 4-+ O W Z •ri Cd O F•+ W ri U •rl Q) •r•I 'CJ (A ❑ 3 0 'o x •rl w ,x E +) CU r-I 7� C s4 a = ;-4 Z Z U c ;.4 +J r•+ O (1) M Cd � (1) ,� r, a� a� a� o .,.j Cd o C) 4--1 4-) y a = o a) M o 0 M M —" = M M z z z z a x c- x m 00 cC M Ul r >> 3 3>-4 • • • W W G; E-4 w a O O O O ri O E- 0 0 N O G*� z 0 H H 6 a 0 a 0 a E-� H V) w H E•4 H U cn O Iia 00 00 O N O O O O N O O O O N O CO O O CQ O G7 O 0 0 O � to t` O q W to N N m Cfl a0 d' M O V' CO v1 LO M 00 O 00 U ri r1 r I r i r-I r1 M N N r i ri z U O N >_4 00 � 07 O M y+ 00 a M a O 00, OI Z ri O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p O 0 O O O O Cfl O O O O O M C9 O O O O CO O O O Q' M Q0 O O H w U Lo 00 00 m CD ri O Lo G4 O N to Cfl m d+ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >4 CO CD O O O O O O N O O O O N O zv O O X O 00 O O O O O w 67 l� Lo N O ":v w IT N N O Q0 x e+ O Q0 O O '.tl O -,r to to ":v O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 0 0 0 0 cD 0 0 0 c0 O w r-i r-I 0 N ri N 0 ri 0 ri r••i M N O N O 47 w r-I r I N Q0 r=i M GS. 4 CD m Q" O x O 00 r-i N r-I ri Cl) N M ri r-I N N M M ri co t N r-I M a) E o or- H o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C 0 C 0 O O O O O 00 c0 O O O O O O N O O O O N O CQ O O 00 O 00 O O O O O ri I t- 4 N O I}' C' ri ri N 0) CO 00 t4 O I�q a) N I'll Q0 N N M r'I 0) N z ri Q' E4 N N N rl r-i r-i M N N r-i N N O N >_4 00 � 07 O M y+ 00 a M a O 00, OI Z ri O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p O O O O O O Cfl O O O O O M C9 O O O O CO O O O Q' M Q0 O O H w U Lo 00 00 m CD ri O Lo G4 O N to Cfl m d+ O N 114 00 r1 N r-I ri N N ri C ri ri N N M M ri N to O N rl N ss- C1 O N 00 N N m N O co d' 1, M N N to :14 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 0 0 0 0 cD 0 0 0 c0 O w 0 0 0 0 o co 0 0 0 N r••i CO N O O 47 w N d'' ri Q0 N M N 4 CD m Q" O x O 00 r-i N r-I ri Cl) N M ri r-I N N M M ri N t N r-I M a) E o or- H o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O p O 00 0 0 O O O O O o c9 O m N O n O O Co O O O c' N ri CZ N O CO O 4 00 N d" CD N r-I N N Cfl m m O Lo Co r-I ri I N r-4- ri M M M ri H 1 N N cd a) M M ri N N N M r'I V/ W 0 E-4 E, F, O ri C7 LZ W W x a M 00 a rn H z O O N ri • C C 00 r-i N r-I N N N N N ri N N N N N N r-I N N ri N N N ri Cl N z o O l o O O O o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 o O O N co O d'+ N N to n 00 00 b Co N N N c9 to 0) N Co M Q0 O O H w U Lo 00 00 m CD ri O Lo G4 O Cc O to H .74 a) co 00 Q0 00 Q0 t- n m tl- C to O U C1 O N 00 N N m N O co d' 1, M N N to :14 C' 00 M N N n no N M N a x ar � W O 'A m +- E-4 U7 C to O U 0 C) C m a a� m > t a) E o or- H o r+ cn 0 +, O. +-) C) 0 e C) o v 77 v o >1 i-4 ;, >, a) m C) b 'c S.4 x z M (1) M k ai cd O cad z C O d -H cd a) • • • O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O � O di O O CO O M O O O O O 0 0 0 O O c9 O V 00 W to r-1 x M m O iii Co ri m x U") O N O (3) N ri r-1 rl N co N co N co ri r-i M r-i w O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O co O Iti+ O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O a r-i N r-I ri N M M N M N M ri N M r-i ^ d 64 ZS U1 a) O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O o d �f' 00 00 00 ri c}+ H N O [r m r-I m x H O x O •r1 00 .. .. .. ., .. .. .. .. .. +� z 07 N ri H N co- r-i M N co, N co, ri N co, ri HI Z r+ U O Cl) x C E- z 0 O :E N N co N O N r-i N �I+ N N N N N N N N N r� C7 0� O W W O O co LO 00 a H N z n z �D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 H N O Lo N CO d' N O lz:V M O O N N N Co O lq P:4 LO N di M r-i 00 [` n O O E N CO O CO c7 CO Cfl N 00 LO N 't' Q' Cfl Cfl N M d 0:, a 0 � x w a) ua E� E-+ a) 4-' 0 w a) A H H x M x x +) C a r1 Cd x z .� �n a, +) +) ;-4 ca O r. ca a) uo w H O C) 75 o Z a a d a uA a) d z m +-) z 0 O a) cd t-i ri = O N E� z 0a 3 ;-4 x O U) •ri CO > p ;-4 IZ U F-i O +-> +� M 0:. M cd c3 U z z O O OP-4 04 m CO m to m 7 3 tZ N O O O O N O Cfl N O O O O N O O O O O r-i N Cl ri r-1 ri CO r-1 rl N O U (S+ b4 U C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 V+ O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 d O O O O O N O O N O O O O N O O O O O Cr r-i N CO r-i 61 Cfl 07 r -I r-1 r-1 r-I N N r-i r-1 r-i co rl r-i N rH a e9- d 0 0 0 0 0 0 TT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a O O O O N O N O O O Co O N O O O O O � 00 C0 N U� r-i 00 LO a) �' 00 r-i 00 r-i N 00 r-i N N � zCA r r•1 r- I r- N N ri N r-- M rl H N ri r-i d Eft O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O � O di O O CO O M O O O O O 0 0 0 O O c9 O V 00 W to r-1 x M m O iii Co ri m x U") O N O (3) N ri r-1 rl N co N co N co ri r-i M r-i w O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O co O Iti+ O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O a r-i N r-I ri N M M N M N M ri N M r-i ^ d 64 ZS U1 a) O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O o d �f' 00 00 00 ri c}+ H N O [r m r-I m x H O x O •r1 00 .. .. .. ., .. .. .. .. .. +� z 07 N ri H N co- r-i M N co, N co, ri N co, ri HI Z r+ U O Cl) x C E- z 0 O :E N N co N O N r-i N �I+ N N N N N N N N N r� C7 0� O W W O O co LO 00 a H N z n z �D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 H N O Lo N CO d' N O lz:V M O O N N N Co O lq P:4 LO N di M r-i 00 [` n O O E N CO O CO c7 CO Cfl N 00 LO N 't' Q' Cfl Cfl N M d 0:, a 0 � x w a) ua E� E-+ a) 4-' 0 w a) A H H x M x x +) C a r1 Cd x z .� �n a, +) +) ;-4 ca O r. ca a) uo w H O C) 75 o Z a a d a uA a) d z m +-) z 0 O a) cd t-i ri = O N E� z 0a 3 ;-4 x O U) •ri CO > p ;-4 IZ U F-i O +-> +� M 0:. M cd c3 U z z O O OP-4 04 m CO m to m 7 3 q a U z U GZ d a a 0 z z 0: W O a m a O z z O o 0 0 0 0° 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 °° 0 0 0 °o °0 0 0 00 00 C11 CD tzr 0 GO O 00 O O Co 't' Qo M O O O CA 00 d+ O O M O M N N tt� O 0 M C CO V� M co Ln M M co M M M cr di M M M M M [r �' C' Cl) M N p p 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 cc O O 0 0 0 Lo O O O O O O 0 0 0 0o O O o o Oo LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 N CO O Cfl O O CO 67 CD N O O 00 C' Co O Cl) N Co l� N tf] Cfl C9 O 07 d7 _ M M M M M C' in d" M M d' M M ; C' t7' M M N rl V' M CD d^ M M Cfl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 O o 0 0 0 LO o 0 0 0 0 0 ct" -' O 0 C9 d0 7 O Cfl ud0 O O O O O LO O O O N O O O O o O O O O [- N to Co O O 00 V" -I 00 O A 00 - - - - - - Cl) ai ri �r C � � � cn cry TV Tv cn d+ M M N C) c c4 rn c M cfl bm to :~ bn ca a Ca a 3 3 Q .:v 0 o O o O o O O O O O O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o O O O O x O O O O O O O to O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O Co CC N N O .14 I' C4 00 00 C.1 d� CD CD 00 Cfl GO N x N N O O l� o N O w CA d' to Q' co lf7 CD L7 Q' �' C �' Cfl Go LO to O M 00 r-I O O O O o O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O W O O O O O O M O O O w 0 o O O O O O tt� O O O O O O CX1 0 0 0 0 O o 00 00 N N Q' 00 00 N N v LO C9 00 Cfl N CO N O C� O O O d" O 07 O - - 0 �}+ V LO M C9 O di Cfl TI, C' Cfl C9 Co Cfl M � ' ri 0 0 o o 0 o o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ao 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 x O O O O o O o LO O O o o O N x O O m C' v CO x N N C' 00 LO 0 O N 00 LO o N 00 O O O o (3) LO O N CD O v � � ri co z 0 F N z N N ,,+ N N N N M N N N N N N N N M N N M N N N N O a+I O O M o w a N O ri W ri U O 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 o O o O Z O O CA Lo (Z) C' ri 00 N N CO o M 00 co N N r-I M 00 N m O 00 LO O Z U N 6) et+ 00 rn O 6� IN a 0c' O ON N N Q' N N N N al N N M M M �' O N oa N M q Q' co M N a F � O x an r >, o o - o °' Cd a a) x •� v a o x +� •o m �+ > 3 ca a a� >, c7 0 .� o o O w W U O E x x U E C m +-) +j to a cd C: r-+ b a) "o O Z -� O +� >1 rn C. 04 (2) r+ 0 o q U U U U W a a W O= Z z v7 az U ' d p g q q • • • I f� N .7 q 00 > m H a ri w U U E � a o co 00 cx 07 a a a 00 z m O O O O N O E-+ 0 0 0 0 ri 0 r~ z 0 H E4 a 0 a 0 a x E- H 3 W H E-4 H U O N >-4 00 � O O M 00 � O a M a I z �I � w CJ E-+ E--q z O C7 fZ W W x a� M 00 .a 67 H r-� U z z a Oa0 E-� w Sao a x O E-+ a w o � a E- a a H U H z O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O 0 Zl+ 0 0 0 0 0 o M r-! TV 11:14 " *-i N M 00 w Co O M O M m '74 LO N M N N N ri N ri ri N Co- ri Cl- co 1 N r-� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N M N N N r-I M ri ri M CO ri M Cl N N r1 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO O O to O O O N O O O �] M N N N N M ri ri M co ri co co N N ri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d+ O CO O O O M tq O N CO di Co ri N O H N M M N H M N M Cl) CO N Cl d' N M N ff} O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 o 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 t� O CO O O M O qt' O CO CO �' Co M CO O N N rj+ M CO N H tlq N CO Cl M N co M co N 00 0 0 00 00 00 000 0 °o coo 00 0 0 00 0 00 °o t- O CO O O M O v' O 6) co c7+ N Lo CO O N N Itil M M N M d" N M M M N V' d+ M M N £4 I LO N N N N N N N �}+ N N N N I N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � O O tt� c!' N 00 O 00 O CO L� CD M O N cO ,-I �+ � o o rn o ao 0 o co o �• 0o co a+ co O u] (M N LO N T N N M O -,:v O co N 00 ri ri ri ri ri ri ri rl ri ri r-+ ri ri M bio z r� n� C •+ 0 3 a a) � > a� a •14 o c� U) �, �, Cn M c7 �+ v� O M a� •+ c� +� �, o a c •14 M —, a c o. 3 U) > CSI rl r I i .t~ CSI (1) '*i O (1) r-1 -� o a) M C] > x Z r) «3 o r+ M o a Cd o s~ Cd o yc M m oo .: ,� � a) yo Q•i Q•i W w x" H � z O C4 = co � m v 3 0 o o 0 0 w •o z a x x B (D rn p� �,. r• �C °C � C "d a� CD ro CZ O U7 iD cD �c �- aa• CD O � � c ro r N N A W W W N N �A N N N N 04 N N N W N W W W W N N O N Ul �7 Ul N W O 'mil iA N CO Un U� 00 67 C9 N W 00 W N � N W 00 W O 00 H+ O O U� Cfl 07 QA co N N 00 �A N �A 00 U� d7 W 00 W 00 F-� 4 00 Co N L� N 00 F� 0 C0 � Cfl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 o c� 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N CO C Co �4. O O 0 O C O 0 ZD N 0 O C UI O = m It h h 00 O n 0 r� ! (DD m Sv ti P a O rn Ul w cn Ul c9 p O O o N O O O O 00 00 Ul O O O N O 0o O CL a 00 O 6) O v O .A O G O w ul 47 m �A 4 rA 4 4 Ln O w W 4 U1 CD O O o O o ' O o -4 O O O O O c O O N c0 O N O O 0o O O O 00 O O o O OA O O 00 U O o O O o cD C cn G r+ cD L3 r• O M rr r r+ r+ cD OA O Ul (D O � .ti O x x 0 o o 0 0 w •o z a x x B (D rn p� �,. r• �C °C � C "d a� CD ro CZ O U7 iD cD �c �- aa• CD O � � c ro r N N A W W W N N �A N N N N 04 N N N W N W W W W N N O N Ul �7 Ul N W O 'mil iA N CO Un U� 00 67 C9 N W 00 W N � N W 00 W O 00 H+ O O U� Cfl 07 QA co N N 00 �A N �A 00 U� d7 W 00 W 00 F-� 4 00 Co N L� N 00 F� 0 C0 � Cfl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 o c� 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N CO C O O �4. O O 0 O C O 0 00 000 N 0 O C UI O 00 C N 0 O O W O Ut 00 00 O iA O �4 m � (3) rn Ul w cn Ul c9 p O O o O 0 O O O O 00 00 Ul O O O N O 0o O N O O O 00 O 6) O v O .A O G O w ul 47 m �A 4 rA 4 4 Ln O w W 4 U1 CD O O o O o ' O o -4 O O O O O c O O N c0 O N O O 0o O O N O O 00 O O o O OA O O 00 U O o O O o O O W N N N N PP N N h o > oro� z OHO � z z z H CD N r co o i w o O O t7 t7 p n 7 z � � n x c.0 00 N N O 0) 0A O O ° 0 °o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 � o N N � 00 rA N N W W O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 w FA N �A CO �A iA 67 �7 .A W Cfl 00 N O 00 oc N N O N O O o 0 00 O O O O O 0 C 0 0 0 0 ze oa P oG � fD a fD Q. N W W .a a W iA iA W W rA cn FP co W .4 w W W 07 W rA iA O rA r 0 r o O 00 00 C^ O O w P N O N O) O CZ C 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 O 00 0 0 0 O O O O O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 N W W a s W W iA W w iA cn .a W W iA W w W o O 07 U, N � m N W O G7 wA 00 C0 O N 07 CJ O O O 61 I-` O 00 N 0 0 0 0 0 u o 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C c 0 0 O o oA 00 O O 6) O CO a7 A C� O N C 00 O J 0 0 0 0 O O O O O V 0 0 0 0 O O O O O C o 04 O O O O O O O O O O O O c 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Go 0 00 w I� 0 00 N z z C 9 r r ►C O �C O z z c a r r z ►C O n n r: z r W CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA x- /.43 Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 307 Agenda August 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Richfield Lake Pathway System Discussion Council Members: The purpose of this agenda item is discussion related to the pathway system at Richfield Lake. Construction of the path system began in late 1983 following neighborhood meetings during which it had been noted that the path would be constructed along with open vistas and that on occasion the path would be under water due to weather variations and seasonal precipitation. There is currently some concern that the path elevation may not be high enough thereby placing the path under water for more than an acceptable amount of time. History indicated good percolation of soils in that water levels dropped rapidly or at a fairly steady rate. Braun Engineering examined the site area and provided recommendations. A granular fill of two feet over an engineering fabric was recommended for stability purposes. According to Braun Engineering, more than a two foot fill might require additional investigation into soils and the ability to provide the desired surfaced width and accompanying shoulder. The decision was made to fill to an elevation of approximately 114.5 knowing that at high water times parts of the path would be under water. A 1979 Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Report indicates the ordinary high water mark at Richfield Lake is approximately 115.8. The winter of 1983/84 brought record snowfalls. The winter water displacement coupled with unusual spring and summer rains have inundated Richfield Lake which does not have an outfall. This means that water must be displaced either by evaporation or seepage. Due to concerns expressed earlier in the season, we have added fill, varying from 7" to 12 "9 to bring the elevation to approximately 115.0. Following settle of the fill, a three inch asphalt surface is to be added to the path according to the contract already awarded. These steps would bring the path to an elevation of approximately 115.25. Based on the 1979 calculations of the DNR, the path could still be under water at high water times. Council Letter No. 307 -2 The high water times are difficult to predict. For example, according to Orr- Schelen- Mayeron (OSM) we can expect 2.3" of rain to fall in a 24 hour period once a year. This would typically be the most significant rainfall accumulation on an annual basis. If we were to assume that the ground is already saturated by earlier moisture, the 2.3" rainfall could raise the water level at Richfield Lake by 1.7 feet. Another variable is the intensity of the storm. For example, one inch of moisture in one hour would have a greater effect on water elevation than one inch in 24 hours. In general, Richfield Lake seems to evaporate water or reduce the water level by approximately a tenth of a foot per day. For example, a water level at 115 would reduce to 114.5 in approximately 5 days. OSM has kept data on precipitation for the period June - August for 28 years. There is a wide variability is frequency and intensity of rainfall, but an average would indicate a rain of .34" falling in a period of 4.2 hours. This would occur about every ?5 hours. In other words, about every three days, it would rain for 4.2 hours with a total rainfall of .34 ". This would add about two tenths of a foot to the water elevation at Richfield Lake. If the water level at Richfield Lake increases by twotenths of a foot in three days and if the water level is reduced by one • tenth per day or three tenths of a foot in three days, the water level should continue to reduce at a small, but steady rate. As noted, there is a wide variability when looking at rainfall data. For example, there is a 10% probability that there would be nine days between rainfalls instead of three days. Also, there is a 10% chance that the rainfall would be one inch or more. When construction of the pathway began at Richfield Lake the ground was not frozen and there was virtually no water on the site. When the first pond or vista was dug, it was dry until the accumulation of wet snow melt and rain began. This year of heavy snowfall, heavy rains and resulting high water levels has provided problems throughout the metropolitan area. In June of 1984 flood warnings and flash floods were not uncommon although not historically typical. This year Lake of the Isles in Minneapolis recorded the second highest water level since its path construction. As a result, paths were under water. Minnehaha Creek has had water year- round. Minnehaha Creek is usually dry by mid -July, but this year there is still water and at fairly high levels. Nine Mile Creek is experiencing the same situation as Minnehaha Creek. Wood Lake Nature Center has also experienced paths under water at the same time the Richfield Lake path was under water. Based on historical, engineering and park user aspects, it is the opinion of staff that the current plan for the Richfield Lake path to be at an elevation of 115.25 is sufficient. The experience of 1984 is not anticipated to be the norm. The Council Letter No. 307 -3- • 115.25 elevation should be satisfactory under normal circumstances. In the event a decision should be made to keep the path out of water, several things should be taken into consideration. Due to variables it is extremely difficult to determine the highest possible water level at Richfield Lake, but based on the best information currently available, it appears there would be two options: 1. Raise the path elevation. Currently the elevation is scheduled to be at approximately 115.25 when complete. Should another 6" be added, the path would be at an elevation approximately equal to the 115.8 DNR estimated high water mark. The 6" additional fill would provide additional weight which would mean additional settlement. In other words, 6" of fill material would not necessarily equal a 6" elevation. The higher the path elevation, the more predominate it would be during dry times or period of low water elevations. The slopes of the pathway, regardless of its elevation, are scheduled to be treated with certain plant materials to reduce erosion. The greater the variation of the path elevation from the water level, the greater the potential difficulty in working with slope treatment. It is estimated that it would cost approximately $4,000 to place an additional 6" of fill. If the path were to be elevated by more than additional 611, additional engineering fabric would probably be need for support. Cost estimates have not been made for this option. 2. Install an outlet. Establish a pumping system between Richfield Lake and Wood Lake and between Richfield Lake and Legion Lake. In other words, attempt to control the water level of the lake since percipitation cannot be controlled. This would be an very expensive alternative. Cost estimates have not been made for this option. JGC /eja • Respectf y,submitted, John G. Cartwr ht City Manager # y,4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 306 Agenda August 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Recycling Contract with Hennepin County Council Members: This council letter summarizes past activates related to the recycling program, and requests authorization to enter into an agreement between the County and the City for funding assistance in an amount not to exceed $10,000. PAST ACTIVITIES RELATED TO RECYCLING PROGRAM On April 9, 1984, the city council authorized the expenditure of $10,000 of Community Development Block Grant Funds for the implementation of a curbside recycling program to be undertaken in cooperation with volunteers from Richfield's civic and service groups. The city council also adopted a resolution authorizing a funding request to Hennepin County for $20,000 to be used for equipment costs to initiate the program. The city council had previously received program information, including program goal objective, target date, tasks and needed funds. The goals of the recycling program are: 1) reduce need for landfills in Hennepin County; 2) conserve natural resources; and 3) provide income for Richfield's civic and service groups. The program objective is to establish curbside recycling for all recyclable waste using volunteers. The target date for the first pickup is September 8, 1984 city -wide, newspapers only. CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS Richfield will begin its recycling program September 8, 1984 with the help of 13 community volunteer groups and Recycling Unlimited. The volunteers will collect newspapers city -wide. Recycling Unlimited will be collecting glass, aluminum, cardboard, used oil, and batteries west of 35W. The program is scheduled to be a one year pilot project. Originally the city requested $20,000 of County funds for the purchase of ten trailers. Since that time Richfield staff has met with some of the volunteer groups and determined that 0 • Council Letter No. 306 -2- fewer trailers are needed. Richfield has now requested $10,000 of County funds for publicity and promotion costs and the capital cost for two trailers. The trailers won't be purchased until a need is established. The following figures represent the best estimates available for the first year of the program: City Funds Admin. Aide - Supervision $ 7,000 Publicity /Promotion 3,000 Program Admin. (in -kind) 10,000 $20,000 County Funds Recycling Guide $ 2,000 Signs 1,500 Trailers (2) 5,000 News ads 800 Contingency or misc. equipment 700 $10,000 Staff recommends that the city council approve the proposed agreement with Hennepin County and direct the mayor and city manager to execute the agreement. i ohpectf submitted, n G. C twr ht City Manager 'At�- a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 305 Agenda August 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Sale of 7300 - 1st Avenue South Council Members: The City Council authorized the purchase of the property at 7300 First Avenue in September, 1982. This property has an erratic history of flooding. It was determined that the purchase of the property and the of making of minimum floodprocfing improvements was the most cost effective alternative for reducing flooding potential and minimizing city licability. Staff has secured a person who has entered into a purchase agreement for buying this property. As required by the transitory ordinance adopted by the City Council in October 1983, the sale can proceed if authorized by resolution. This letter requests that such a resolution be authorized. Since the initial sale offering of the property during the Spring of 1983, advertising on several occasions has prompted 68 calls and 31 showings. The property price was modified from $73,500 to $68,600. (The City purchased the property for $69,500). However, even the price adjustments were not a great enough inducement for potential buyers. Buyers have simply been reluctant to purchase the property because of the potential flooding risk. More recently, the property was offered to the highest bidder with a bid equal to or greater than $62,600. The bidding process has resulted in a bona fide offer of $68,288. A purchase agreement was executed and the lender qualifying indicates that the buyer appears to be eligible for a Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, (MHFA) first time home buyer mortgage commitment with an interest rate of 10 112 percent. The Data Practices Act classifies the name and other details about the buyer as private. Thus, further discussion about the buyer qualification cannot occur in this letter. The final review by the lender occurs the week of August 20th and it appears at the time this letter was drafted that the sale can be finalized if three conditions are met: is -MHFA determines the buyer mortgage committement request meets program requirements. The lender submitted, the mortgage commitment request assuming that MHFA will be satisified. Council Letter No. 305 -2- i- "caulking /weatherstripping" improvements are completed as requested by the lender, the lender requested the improvements on August 15, 1984 as a condition of mortgage ccmmittment. - "electric service is certified" as adequate and meeting minimum standards (and repaired if necessary) as requested by the lender on August 15, 1984. • 0 Staff believes that the buyer will be eligible to purchase the property based on the lenders willingness to pursue final MHFA qualifying. The improvements requested by the lender are estimated to cost $750.00 and required for closing to occur. Closing could occur sometime after August 27, 1984 with the buyer interested in occupying the home by the end of August. At closing, the buyer will pay $68,288 as the purchase price, a minimum down payment of at least $3,250, and closing costs of approximately $1,300. The city is paying 3 1/2 points at closing, an amount of approximate $2,275, and $1,300 as part payment for the non homestead classified 1985 taxes. The buyer accepts the dwelling with the knowledge that storm water may collect on the property from time to time and further; may on occasion, enter into the dwelling. The $68,288 sales price, minus expenses at closing, will be returned to the sewer fund to reimburse this fund for the property purchase. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution which authorizes the sale of 7300 - 1st Avenue South for $68,288 to the buyer who entered into a purchase agreement in July 1984. ectful�y u tted, hn G. art fight City Manager JGC /eja RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF THE HOUSE AND PROPERTY AT 7300 FIRST AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, it has been determined that the property located at 7300 First Avenue South and legally described as: North 105 feet of East 150.48 feet of West 1/4 of North 10 acres of South 20 acres of Southwest 1/4 of Northeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, except road; is susceptable to seasonal flooding hazards; and WHEREAS, it has been determined to be in the best interest of the City of Richfield to purchase this property, make flood proofing types of improvements, and sell the property; and WHEREAS, in preparation for the sale of the property, the City Council adopted a Transitory Ordinance (17.08) and held a public hearing concerning the sale; and WHEREAS, as the result of advertising, and in cooperation with the lender, a qualified purchaser for 7300 - lst Avenue South has been selected during July, 1984 and it is likely that they will be found eligible for a Minnesota Housing Finance Agency mortgage commitment (MHFA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the sale will be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the conditions of sale include a sale price of $68,288, and buyer cognizance of the flooding potential of this property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 1) That the City Manager is authorized to sell 7300 -1st Avenue to the buyer which entered into a purchase agreement in July, 1984. 2) The sale is contingent on confirmation of qualifying for the financing being secured from MHFA. Adopted by the Richfield City Council this 27th day of August, 1984. • John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Cler Irm CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 304 Agenda August 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Reconsideration of Advertising Billboard at 7609 -13 Lyndale Avenue Council Members: At the August 13, 1984 city council meeting, the Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company applied for a permit to relocate the rooftop billboard which is currently located at 7609 -13 Lyndale Avenue. They wish to install it on a single pole adjacent to the south wall of the Tom Thumb Store. During the council consideation of this matter, only four members of the council were present. Following discussion of this requested permit, the council voted 2 -2 to grant the permit. The request, therefore, failed and the permit application was rejected. Naegele has now requested that this matter be reconsidered before the full council. The existing sign is now approximately 37 feet from the ground level of the building. They are proposing a total height of 40 feet from the ground to the top of their sign. The following sections of city ordinance code are applicable: Section 3.49, subd. 8 (i) limits advertising displays to 27 feet in height but permits the council to grant a special permit for a ground sign exceeding 27 feet under certain con- ditions as follows: (i) No outdoor advertising displays may exceed 27 feet in height above the ground level of the nearest street towards where it faces. The council may permit an increase in the allowable height to a maximum of 48 feet in the event that the following findings are made: (i) As a result of unique circumstances, a sign 27 feet in height could not be located on the premises so as to be visible from the abutting street which it faces or that visibility of the sign from such street could be substantially obstructed. Council Letter No. 304 -2- (ii) The increased height of the sign would be unlikely to have any adverse or detrimental impact upon traffic safety, pedestrian safety, aesthetics, or the value of other properties within the area. Section 3.49, subd 8 [2] (g) provides that the sign faces may not be visible from residential areas within 300 feet of the sign. The proposal is to mount the sign in substantially the same configuration as the existing one so the sign faces are oriented toward the commercial area. Staff Recommendation It appears that additional height is not necessary for visibility from Lyndale Avenue unless a higher building might be erected on adjacent parcels of land. The staff, therefore, does not recommend approval. If the council wishes to reconsider this request, a motion for reconsideration must be made by one of the council members voting on the prevailing side of the original action. In this case, such a motion would have to be made by either Council Member Priebe or Council Member Kirsch. JGC /eja • pectfu s itted, C /G "G John G. art ight /i' City Manager .49 Subd. 8. Outdoor Advertising Disolaysl General Requirements and Restrictions. (1) Permit Required. No new outdoor advertising display may be established in the city unless a permit is first obtained. Permits may be issued by the city council only after a public hearing preceded by the giving of 10 days notice mailed to the owners and occupants of all properties located in whole or in part within 660 feet of the proposed outdoor advertising display. Failure to comply with this notice requirement, however, shall not invalidate the pro- ceedings. The council may attach conditions upon the granting of any permit. (2) The following regulations apply to all outdoor advertising displays within the city: (a) Outdoor advertising displays are permitted only in the C -2, PC -2, I and P -I districts of the city. (b) An outdoor advertising display may not exceed 750 square feet in sign area per sign face. (c) An outdoor advertising display may have no more than 2 sign faces. (d) All outdoor advertising displays will be freestanding signs either supported by a single or double column or some other support which has all structural and support members screened from view from all directions. (e) Outdoor advertising displays may not be located closer than 1,000 feet apart as measured along the same side of the same roadway. (f) The sign face of outdoor advertising displays must not be visible from the boundary of any residentially zoned property which is located en- tirely or partially within 300 feet of the sign face. (g) Outdoor advertising displays may not be located within 300 feet of any school or church. (h) Outdoor advertising displays must comply with the setback require- ments for buildings in the zoning district in which they are located. Any variance from those requirements will be subject to the procedure established in the zoning code for such variances. (i) No outdoor advertising displays may exceed 27 feet in height above the ground level of the nearest street towards where it faces. The council may permit an increase in the allowable height to a maximum of 48 feet in the event that the following findings are made. i) As a result of unique circumstances, a sign 27 feet in height could not be located on the premises so as to be visible from the abutting street which it faces or that visibility of the sign from such street could be substantially obstructed. ii). The increased 'height of the sign would be unlikely to have any adverse or detrimental impact upon traffic safety, pedestrian safety, aesthetics, or the value of other properties within the area. (j) No outdoor advertising display may exceed 65 feet in length. (3) Nonconforming Outdoor Advertising Displays. Outdoor Advertising Displays lawfully erected and located on the effective date of this section may continue subject to the following limitations: (a) Except as provided in Subdivision 9 of this ordinance, no nonconforming outdoor advertising display may be expanded, rebuilt, relocated or altered without being brought into conformity with the requirements of this ordinance. This provision shall not apply in the following circumstances: (Bill 1983 -5) 2/14/83 2/14/83 ORDINANCE CODE 88. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • • �I NAEGELE OUTOOOR AOVERTISING COMPANY OF THE TWIN CITIES 1700 WEST 79TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55423 16121 B69 -1900 NANCY J. JORGENSEN Vice P —&aent C— porete Gevoopment end Gene,e. Counsel August 17, 1984 Mayor John Hamilton City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mayor Hamilton: Naegele Outdoor's request to rebuild a roof sign at 7609 -13 Lyndale Avenue to a single pole ground structure was denied at the Council meeting on August 13th by a tie vote. We would appreciate reconsideration of this item before the full Council at its meeting on August 27th. We appreciate your time and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Nancy J . rge{� Vice Pre de{ rporate Development and General Counsel NJJ:ah CC: Richfield City Council Tom Morgan, Acting City Manager 7 NAEGELE OUTDOOR AOVEQTtSING COMPANY OF THE TWIN CITIES 9700 WEST 76TH STREET NV4NEAPOUS. MN 55•x2316121 66S-9900 NANCYJ.JORGENSEN Vt P.•ea. t Covor•ece 0e aQr 6n 3 C-. C_ August 13, 1984 Mayor John Hamilton City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Mayor Hamilton: Two years ago Naegele worked with the City to draft and adopt a new sign ordinance. Included in the new sign ordinance is a provision prohibiting roof signs. Naegele promised to look at its plant in Richfield to see if Naegele could, over a period of years, take its signs off the roofs in Richfield and convert them to ground signs in compliance with the City's preference for ground signs. Naegele has converted most of its freeway roof signs to the new single pole ground signs. Before the City tonight is Naegele's first application to begin the remodeling process of non - freeway signs. Naegele respectfully requests the City Council's approval of our application to rebuild the roof sign at 7609 -13 Lyndale Avenue as a single pole new ground structure with the same size and at the same height as the existing sign. The Richfield sign ordinance allows the Council to grant a special permit for a ground sign exceeding 27 feet (to a maximum of 48 feet) provided two findings are made: 1) A sign 27 feet in height would not be visible. Clearly southbound traffic could not read the proposed sign at 27 feet in height because it would be at an angle behind two buildings. Naegele isn't requesting any additional height, just the height it already has. Cr _ ,. r. _ %4t ,,,er, IA . Ev.ins v,n y. Ifs, . Fwc'. !. �... „�r. r.0 . C' 'S A- G ^een vd, e. SC: Sna ^twnourn. SC: oshe,noe. NC Grsenn,e r, N-- NC . t,c 11- :3on' ;. 1`1 . ° . JaeKsonvdie. NC . K,nston, NC . Lows -l-, KY M% ...,r.. C,- -- KY . a�m Se ^.n 7c.C4 . Aaeirl r' Ou na^,. I`JC NC . Y;�u nc75taw r. ur, .-0 Mayor John Hamilton - 2 - August 13, 1984 2) The height of the sign would be unlikely to have any adverse or detrimental impact upon traffic safety, pedestrian safety, aesthetics, or the value of other properties within the area. The new sign should improve aesthetics and shouldn't have any detrimental impact. Especially given the alternative that the old roof structure remains as it always has been for another 20 years. Z will be unable to attend the Council meeting tonight, however, George DeGideo from Naegele's Real Estate Department will be in attendance. He is the gentleman who handles the leasing in this area. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, _.Nancy Jo ense Vice P sident Corporate Development and General Counsel NJJ:ah CC: Richfield City Council Tom Morgan, Acting City Manager George DeGideo JO • �. T 1 -1 LLJ 0 A-)466,S� 0 v774av�t AO v. 76 TH ST. S0. Ex 20' j 36"hlgh fence --- C~E�JiNG I x- 71r L�,Cht ��C' __ 1 11 it iSPAC'S i 1 �TCGNLL'1 ISlanao•d r.,gh� 1 1 1 1 CUPS trWns,.t t _ i T 1 ASP�LI_; _lr 6 Screen Fe. ,.r I i { GL.:;–GE I i L. l� f v � -4- D.RWEV.A7 2" c t iv. Liant Sian 2 FROP^5Z D q 6 0 i n' o fixture - ` c ,��o ��ry.4 SITE SeedlmV WatKl = ' 1 "' Z° Ic ! y�, I 7601 — ksr. J { EX. x E -- - --1,' I_ 2.590 d Bidg. 11 r'ttJCt I /W 16 I.f 4 S ?f 92.47' l • r E" BLDG. i Lw t - - � r - � • 3; � 7 aye 5 `� s - - y _ _l •� u = i l f JI �� 4 jrt _ r i hCl✓ pro�.ot�� l �. j�f to 7�Ps.►�i. �►�C7' a-It K= 1 I 1 7ZO; a s ZD 1 l Q., SC-LE - 3'- r• 1y- :/l • • 114 v q Y s4ret 7 ,JA � of F ct jo L �Ago;-d r1 NP, 0 1 W C)vz -Oavo )aov, w Qi- N � �. 1� r' � v 4� \tl s Q G � 2 MJ n W fV O � 1 r1 NP, 0 1 W C)vz -Oavo )aov, w Qi- N � �. 1� r' � v 4� \tl s Q • _V?_/� CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 303 Agenda August 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Approval of Minutes, Tabulation of Bids and Award of Contract for City Project 795 Council Members: On August 17, 1984, bids were opened for City Project No. 795, the improvement of Nicollet Avenue, Portland Avenue, 66th Street, and various other locations by the installation of sidewalk pedestrian ramps; (state aid funding) the installation of a bus turnout on 70th Street for the Community Center; (CDBG funding) curb and gutter and sidewalk repair between 62nd Street and 78th Street / Nicollet Avenue to 23rd Avenue at various locations; (General Fund financing) and the construction of a sidewalk on the south side of 77th Street between Sheridan and Thomas Avenues. The sidewalk pedestrian ramps are scheduled for funding through municipal state aid. The Community Center bus turnout is scheduled for funding through the Community Development Block Grant program. The sidewalk repairs and the 77th Street sidewalk are scheduled for funding through the general fund operating budget. Five bids were received for this work. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for council review. The engineer's estimate was $178,435.17. The low bid was submitted by Minnesota State Curb - Gutter Corporation of Apple Valley, Minnesota in the amount of $143,733.35. It is recommended that the city council take the following action: 1. Approve the bid minutes; 2. Adopt the attached resolution to award the contract to Minnesota State Curb - Gutter Corporation of Apple Valley, Minnesota in the amount of $143,733.35, pending final State Aid approval. Respectfully submitted, John G. Cartwright, City Manager RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONCRETE SIDEWALK, CURB AND PAVEMENT CITY PROJECT NO. 795 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the improvement of Nicollet Avenue, Portland Avenue, 66th Street and various other locations by the installation of sidewalk pedestrian ramps; the installation of a bus turnout on the south side of 70th Street, west of Nicollet Avenue; curb and gutter and sidewalk repair between 62nd Street and 78th Street / Nicollet Avenue to 23rd Avenue at various locations; and the construction of a sidewalk on the south side of 77th Street between Sheridan and Thomas Avenues, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law; AND WHEREAS, it appears that Minnesota State Curb - Gutter Corporation of Apple Valley, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. That the bid of Minnesota State Curb - Gutter Corporation • of Apple Valley, Minnesota for construction of the above - mentioned project with estimated construction cost of $143,733.35 is hereby accepted; 2. That the mayor and clerk are hereby authorized to enter into a contract with Minnesota State Curb - Gutter Corporation of Apple Valley, Minnesota in the name of the City of Richfield for such improvement according to the plans and specifications, pending final State Aid approval; 3. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 27th day of August, 1984. John Hamilton, Mayor 0 ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk rAFF U&A CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 302 Agenda August 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Award of Contract - Play Equipment Richfield Lake and Memorial Park Council Members: On Monday, August 20, 1984, bids were opened in accordance with legal requirements for play equipment at Richfield Lake and Memorial Park. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulations is attached for city council review. Sets of drawings and specifications were provided to twelve play equipment vendors. Two proposals were submitted. Each proposal was to include a bid for Richfield Lake play equipment, . a bid for Memorial Park play equipment and a bid for both Richfield Lake and Memorial Park. The city has the right to award separate contracts, one contract or no contract. The equipment specified included a variety of play features designed primarily for children ages 6 -14. As outlined on Attachment A, the proposal submitted by Earl F. Andersen did not meet specifications for either Richfield Lake or Memorial Park. On both structures Earl F. Andersen submitted a substitute design. Platform heights, placement of platforms and type of wood were the primary changes making a substantial variation from the specified design. The alternate design proposal is not acceptable to staff. Attachment A com- pares both bidders against the components called for in bid specifications. Attachment B describes the unacceptable components substituted by E. F. Andersen. is Council letter No. 302 -2- • August 27, 1984 Therefore, it is recommended the city council award one contract to Builder's Engineering Company for both the play equipment at Richfield Lake and the play equipment at Memorial Park. The proposal submitted by Builder's Engineering does meet the specifications. The amount of the contract award would be $16,791 for Richfield Lake and $14,045 for Memorial Park for a combined total contract award of $30,836. Funds are available in both city projects for this work. Respectfu ly submitted John G. Ca twr ht City Manager • ATTACHMENT "A" 0 RICHFIELD LAKE Builder's Engineering is providing all of the 22 components specified. Earl F. Andersen is providing 12 of the 22 components specified. Eight of the 12 components to be provided vary from the specifications. The bidder proposes to include a tire climb, which was not specified, as an apparent substitution for a ramp. SPECIFIED COMPONENTS ANDERSEN BUILDER'S A. 1 Clatter Bridge 12' long Yes* Yes B. 1 Tire Bridge No Yes C. 1 Play Counter No Yes D. 2 Fire Poles off 716" platforms Yes* Yes E. 1 Glide Ride 12' long Yes* Yes F. 1 Horizontal Ladder 12' long Yes Yes G. 1 Pole Ladder 4' wide to 716" platform No Yes H. Ladder rungs as indicated No Yes I. 1 Monkey bar at 5' height Yes Yes J. 21 4' x 4' treated wood platforms 20 ** Yes K. 1 Ramp to 516" platform No Yes L. 1 Diagonal Rope Climb to 916" platform No Yes M. 1 Tube Slide off 716" platform Yes* Yes N. 1 Tube Slide off 916" platform Yes* Yes 0. 2 4' wide Slides off 716" platforms Yes* Yes P. 2 Tire Swings Yes Yes Q. 1 Suspended Moving Tunnel 12' long Yes* Yes R. 1 Tube Crawl to 516" platform No Yes S. 1 Wall Climb with blocks to 716" platform No Yes T. 1 Tire Wall to 916" platform No Yes U. 1 Log Roll Yes Yes *Bidder has provided this component but it does not meet specified dimensions on either height or length. Details outlined in Attachment B. * *Treated wood was specified. Bidder is providing non - treated wood. Bidder is short one platform. 0 MEMORIAL PARK Builder's Engineering is providing all of the 22 components specified. Earl F. Andersen is providing 13 of the 22 components specified. Eight of 13 components vary from specifications. The bidder proposes to include a tire climb, which was not specified, as an apparent substitution for a tire wall. SPECIFIED COMPONENTS ANDERSEN BUILDER'S A. 1 Balance Beam Stationary 81 long Yes Yes B. 1 Clatter Bridge 121 long Yes (2) Yes C. 1 Tire Bridge 12' long No Yes D. 1 Play Counter No Yes E. 1 Fire Pole off 916" platform No Yes F. 1 Glide Ride 12' long Yes* Yes G. Ladder Rungs as Indicated Partial* Yes H. 1 Monkey Bar as 5' height Yes Yes I. 18 4' x 41 treated wood platforms 19 ** Yes J. 2 Half Platforms treated wood No Yes K. 1 Diagonal Rope Climb off 716" platform No Yes L. 1 4' wide Slide off 916t1 platform Yes* Yes M. 1 41 wide Slide off 51611 platform Yes* Yes N. 0. 1 1 Tube Slide off 716" platform Stairs to 516" platform Yes* Yes* Yes Yes P. 1 Tire Swing Yes Yes Q. 1 Tire Wall to 71611 platform No Yes R. 1 Tube Crawl to 51611 platform No Yes S. 1 Log Roll No Yes T. 1 Horizontal Ladder 121 long Yes Yes U. 1 Suspended Moving Tunnel 121 long Yes* Yes V. 1 Wall to 91611 platform No Yes *Bidder has provided this component but it does not meet specified dimensions for either height or length. Details outlined in Attachement B. * *Treated wood was specified. Bidder is providing non - treated wood. Bidder has one extra platform. • • • ATTACHMENT "B" RICHFIELD LAKE SPECIFIED COMPONENTS A. Clatter Bridge 12' long Bidder is providing an 8' long Clatter Bridge. D. 2 Fire Poles off 716" platform Bidder is supplying two Yire polies off 4' high platforms. E. Glide Ride 12' long According to the bidder's proposal, the Glide Ride or Trolley Ride is only 9' long M. Tube Slide off 716" platform Bidder is supplying a Tube Slide off a 416" high platform. N. Tube Slide off 916" platform Bidder is supplying a Tube Slide off a 5' high platform. 0. 2 4' wide Slides off 716" platform Bidder is supplying two 3' wide slides off a 4' high platform and a 6' high platform. Q. Suspended Moving Tunnel 12' long Bidder is providing a tunnel that is 8' long. There is no indication whether it moves or is suspended. MEMORIAL PARK SPECIFIED COMPONENTS F. Glide Ride 12' long According to bidder's proposal, the Glide Ride or Trolley Ride is only 9' long. G. Ladder Rungs as Indicated There are three areas specified that require ladder rungs. The bidder has provided ladder rungs in only 1 of the 3 areas. L. 4' wide Slide off 916" platform Bidder is providing a 3' wide slide off a 6' high platform. M 4' wide Slide of 516" platform Bidder is providing a 3' wide slide off a 4' high platform. • N. Tube Slide off a 716" platform Bidder is providing a Tube Slide off a 5' high platform. 0. Stairs to 516" platform Bidder is providing stairs to a 3' high platform. V. Suspended Moving Tunnel 12' long Bidder is providing a tunnel that is 8' long. There is no indication whether it moves or is suspended. r � �J • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 301 Agenda of August 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Approval of a joint cooperation agreement with Hennepin County concerning the Community Development Block Grant Program. Council Members: Attached for your consideration is a copy of the joint cooperation agreement recently received from Hennepin County into which the city must enter to continue participation in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program. The current cooperation agreement will expire at the • end of this program year. The attached agreement will be in effect beginning with program Year XI which begins on July 1, 1985 and will continue through program Year XIII which ends on June 30, 1988. The new agreement varies from the previous agreement in a number of ways. First, there are some housekeeping type differences, such as date changes, changes in terms and federal regulations citations which have been changed to be consistent with current HUD regulations. Major changes include the following: 1. Cities will have to spend funds received from the CDBG program within 18 month of approval by HUD. The previous agreement gave communities 24 months to spend the funds. The reason for this change is that the level of unexpended funds on an overall county basis is too high. It exceeds the levels required by HUD which could jeopardize future funding levels. The agreement also indicates that communities will not be able to move funds from a project in one funding year to the same project in a more recent funding year to give them more time to expend the funds. In all cases the funds must be spent or incumbered by a contract within 18 months or they will revert to a county wide discretionary account for reallocation. Council Letter No. 301 -2- 2. Unexpended funds will revert to a county wide discretionary account rather than a planning area discretionary account. Currently communities within each individual planning area have an opportunity to compete for additional funds which are available because communities within the planning area have been unable to expend the funds within the required 24 months. Over the last two years Richfield has received approximately $80,000 from this account. Richfield was competing for these funds with only the eight other communities within our planning area. With this change Richfield will have to compete with all of the 43 communities which make up the urban county. 3. The proposed agreement allows the county to retain 10 of all funds placed in the county wide discretionary account to help defray their administrative costs associated with planning and administering the county wide discretionary reallocation process. The current agreement does not have such a provision. 4. The new agreement indicates that program income derived from activities funded by the CDBG Urban County Program will be placed in the county wide discretionary account for reallocation except that income generated from approved revolving account activities dependent upon return of that program income shall remain with the activity and not be placed in the county wide discretionary account. Under the current agreement program income is returned back to the project which generated that income. All other provisions of the agreement are basically the same including the allocation process currently used. It is staff's opinion that the revisions in the agreement would not have a major impact on the community development program as operated by the City of Richfield. The changes in the agreement would potentially reduce the cities ability to obtain additional funds through the discretionary account but would not have a major effect on the basic program opperated by the city. It is therefore recommended that the city council approve the attached joint cooperation agreement and authorize its execution by the mayor and city manager. A resolution is attached providing for such an approval and authorization. JGC /eja pectf y` s itted , �ohn G. ar wright City Manager • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING CDBG JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota and the County of Hennepin have in effect a Joint Cooperation Agreement, County Contract No. 10401, for the purposes of qualifying as an Urban County under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant program; and WHEREAS, the City and the County wish to terminate the Agreement and execute a new Joint Cooperatin Agreement, County Contract No. 40448, to reconstitute the Urban County for purposes of the Community Development Block Grant program. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the current Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and the County, County Contract No. 10401, be terminated effective September 30, 1984, and a new joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and the County, County Contract No. 40448, be executed effective October 1, 1984, and that the Mayor and the City Manager be authorized to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City. . The question was on the adoption of the resolution, and upon a vote being duly taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and, the following voted against the same: WHEREUPON SAID RESOLUTION WAS DECLARED DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1984. CITY OF RICHFIELD BY John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: 0 Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk Contract No. 40448 JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by HENNEPIN, State of Minnesota, hereinafter refer CITY OF Richfield hereinafter TING UNIT,' said parties to this Agreement each of the State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant Section 471.59; WITNESSETH; and between the COUNTY OF red to as "COUNTY," and the referred to as "COOPERA- being governmental units to Minnesota Statutes, In consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions. I. DEFINITIONS For purposes of this Agreement, the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them: A. "The Act" means the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Title I, of Public Law 93 -383, as amended (42 USC 5301 et.se .). B. "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act, including but not limited to 24 CFR Part 570. C. "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. D. "Cooperating Unit" means any city or town in Hennepin County which has entered into a cooperation agreement which is identical to this Agreement, as well as Hennepin County which is a party to each Agreement. E. "Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds" means the document bearing that title and submitted to HUD for authori- zation to expend the entitlement amount and which is developed by the COUNTY in conjunction with COOPERATING UNITS as part of the Community Development Block Grant Program. F. "Planning Area" means one of the various regions of Hennepin County as defined in the Citizen Participation adopted for purposes of the Act by County by Resolution. The definitions contained in 42 USC 5302 of the Act and 24 CFR 570.3 of the Regulations are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. • II. PURPOSE COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY have determined that it is desirable and in the interests of their citizens that COUNTY qualify as an Urban County within the provisions.of the Act. This Agreement contemplates that identical agreements will be executed between COUNTY and any city or town in Hennepin County which does not qualify as a metropolitan city under the Act in such number as will enable COUNTY to so qualify as an Urban County under the Act. The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY and COOP- ERATING UNIT to cooperate in undertaking, or assisting in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing and authorizes COUNTY to carry out these and other eligible activities which will be funded from annual Community Development Block Grants from Fiscal Years 1985, 1986 and 1987. III. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on the effective date of October 1, 1984, and terminating no sooner than the end of program year thirteen (XIII) covered by the Statement of Objectives and the Projected Use of Funds for the basic grant amount approved by HUD subsequent to the effective date. This Agreement is- extended automatic- ally for each subsequent three year program period unless written notice of termination to be effective at the end of the three year program period is given by COOPERATING UNIT to COUNTY following the same schedule as the notification of opportunity to be excluded. COUNTY shall provide written notification to COOPERATING UNIT of the opportunity to be excluded and terminate this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be terminated at the end of the three year program period during which HUD withdraws its designation of COUNTY as an Urban County under the Act. This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY pursuant to authority granted them by their respective governing bodies, and a copy of the authorizing resolution and executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the COOPERATING UNIT in the office of the Hennepin County Administrator, and in no event shall the Agreement be filed later than September 14, 1984. IV. SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES COOPERATING UNIT agrees that awarded grant funds will be used to undertake and carry out within the terms of this Agreement certain projects involving one or more of the essential activities eligible for funding under the Act. COUNTY agrees and will assist COOPERATING UNIT in the undertaking of such essential activities by providing the services specified in this Agreement. • A. COOPERATING UNIT further specifically agrees as follows: 1. COOPERATING UNIT will in accord with a COUNTY established schedule prepare and provide to COUNTY, in a prescribed form, an annual request for the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds consistent with program regulations and Urban Hennepin County program objectives. 2. COOPERATING UNIT will use all funds received pursuant to the Agreement for each annual program within eighteen (18) months of the approval by HUD of the basic grant amount. Expenditure period extensions shall not be permitted, except in cases where the funded activity has been initiated and /or subject of a contract to execute between the COOPERATING UNIT and a vendor. 3. COOPERATING UNITS will take actions necessary to accomplish the community development program and housing assistance goals as contained in the Urban Hennepin County Housing Assistance Plan. 4. COOPERATING UNIT will ensure that all programs and /or activities funded in part or in full by grant funds received pursuant to this agreement will be undertaken affirmatively with regard to fair housing, employment and business opportu- nities for minorities and women. It will in implementing all programs and /or activities funded by the basic grant amount 0 comply with all applicable federal and Minnesota Laws, statues, rules and regulations with regard to civil rights, affirmative action and equal employment opportunities. 5. COOPERATING UNIT will participate in the citizen participa- tion process as established in the Urban Hennepin County Citizen Participation Plan. B. COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows: 1. COUNTY shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies on an annual basis all plans, statements and program documents necessary for receipt of a basic grant amount under the Act. 2. COUNTY shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance and coordinating services to COOPERATING UNIT in the preparation and submission of the request for funding. 3. COUNTY shall provide ongoing technical assistance to COOPERA- TING UNIT to aid COUNTY in fulfilling its responsibility to HUD for accomplishment of the community development program and housing assistance goals. The parties mutually agree to cooperate fully in the preparation of the Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds to qualify for receipt of the basic grant amount. 7 4. COUNTY shall upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT agree to administer local housing rehabilitation grant programs funded pursuant to the Agreement provided that COUNTY shall receive reimbursement for costs associated with operating local housing rehabilitation programs, the amount of which shall be established on an annual basis. 5. COUNTY shall, as necessary for clarification and coordination of program administration, develop and implement Administra- tive Rules consistent with the Act, Regulations and HUD administrative directives. The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable requirements of the Act and the Regulations and other relevant Federal and/'-or Minnesota statutes or regulations in the use of basic grant amounts. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate COUNTY's responsibility to assume all obligations of an applicant under the Act, including the development of applications pursuant to 24 CFR 570.300 et.seq. V. ALLOCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under the Act shall be allocated as follows: A. COUNTY shalt retain ten percent (lob) of the total basic grant amount for the undertaking of eligible activities. B. The balance of the basic grant amount shall be apportioned by COUNTY to COOPERATING UNITS in accordance with the following formula for the purpose of allowing the COOPERATING UNITS to make requests for the use of funds so apportioned. The allocation is for planning purposes only and is not a guarantee of funding. Each COOPERATING UNIT shall use as a target for planning purposes an amount which bears the same ratio to the balance of the basic grant amount as the average of the ratios between: 1. The population of COOPERATING UNIT and the population of all COOPERATING UNITS. 2. The extent of poverty in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of poverty in all COOPERATING UNITS. 3. The extent of overcrowded housing by units in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of overcrowded housing by units in all COOPERATING UNITS. 4. In determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio involving the extent of poverty shall be counted twice. It is the intent of this paragraph that said planning allocation utilize the same basic elements for allocation of funds as are set forth in 42 CFR 507.4. The COUNTY shall develop these ratios based upon data to be furnished by HUD. The COUNTY assumes no duty to gather such data independently and assumes no liability for any errors in the data furnished by HUD. 4 • In the event that any COOPERATING UNIT cannot commit, expend, does not apply or cannot qualify for a community development block grant, or a portion thereof, COUNTY will reallocate the unexpended or unallocated grant funds to a Countywide Discretionary account. The reallocation will include funds pursuant to Article IV paragraph A. 2. of this Agreement. COUNTY will retain ten (10) percent of all funds placed in the Countywide Discretionary Account to help defray the administrative costs associated with planning and administering the Countywide Discretionary reallocation process. COUNTY will inform each COOPERATING UNIT of the Countywide Discretionary account balance and will provide the opportunity to COOPERA- TING UNIT to make request for use of all or a portion of the funds.. VI. FINANCIAL MATTERS Reimbursement to the COOPERATING UNIT for expenditures for the implementation of activities funded under the Act shall be made upon receipt by the COUNTY of Summary of Project Disbursement form and Hennepin County Warrant Request, and supporting documentation. All funds received by COUNTY under the Act as reimbursement for payment to COOPERATING UNITS for expenditure of local funds for activities funded under the Act shall be deposited in the County Treasury. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall maintain financial and other records and accounts in accordance with requirements of the Act and Regulations. Such records and accounts will be in such form as to, permit reports required of the COUNTY to be prepared therefrom and to permit the tracing of grant funds and program income to final expenditure. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree to make available all records and accounts with respect to matters covered by this Agreement at all reasonable times to their respective personnel and duly authorized federal officials. Such records shall be retained as provided by law, but in no event for a period of less than three years from the last receipt of program income resulting from activity implementation. COUNTY shall perform all audits of the basic grant amount and resulting program income as required under the Act and Regulations. Program income derived from activities funded in total or part from the basic grant amount received by COOPERATING UNIT shall be returned to COUNTY for inclusion in the Countywide Discretionary Account, except that income generated from approved revolving account activities dependent on the return of said income, shall remain with the activity. 5 0 is COOPER County Board of County officia be bound by the AT NG UNIT, having signed this Commissioners having duly app 19 and pursuant to such having signed this Agreement, provisions herein set forth. Agreement, and the Hennepin roved this Agreement on approval and the proper the parties hereto agree to Upon proper execution, this COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA Agreement will be legally valid and binding. By: Chairman of its County Boara And: Deputy Associate County Administrator Assistant County Attorney Date: August 15, 1984 ATTEST: Clerk of the County Board APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: CITY OF: BY: Assistant ounty attorney Its Date: And: CITY MUST CHECK ONE: Its The City is organized pursuant to: Plan A Plan B anrter 0 DATE: August 15, 1984 Cooperating Units /Urban Hennepin County TO: Community Development Block Grant Program H EN N EPIN Hennepin County Office of Planning k FROM: and Development T-A SUBJECT: JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT The accompanying Joint Cooperation Agreement (three copies) and sample authorizing resolution are herewith transmitted for consideration by the City Council. The Agreement was developed with the aid of an ad hoc committee made up of representatives of participating communities. It has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office and is endorsed as to form. Passage of the resolution and execution of the Joint Cooperation Agreement will commit the City to participate in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program for Federal Fiscal Years 1985, 1986 and 1987. The corresponding Urban Hennepin County program years are XI, XII and XIII, respectively beginning July 1, 1985, July 1, 1986 and July 1, 1987. By opting not to execute the Agreement, the City will be excluded from the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program for the same period. To be a part of the Urban Hennepin County program and share in its benefits, each of the three copies of the Agreement must be executed and returned by September 14, 1984, along with a certified copy of the authorizing resolution to: Hennepin County Office of the Administrator A -2300 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487. After the County executes the Agreement, a copy will be returned. Through Program Year X (1984), $32,000,000 in federal community develop- ment funds have been programmed for use among the participants in the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program. Urban Hennepin County receives an entitlement grant each year under the federal Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. The attached table presents the total received by year and participant. To remain entitled to receive community development block grants for the next three years, a Joint Cooperation Agreement between Hennepin County and a sufficient number of communities totalling at least 200,000 in population must be executed and submitted to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. The more participants, the greater the grant. L7Ln C1Qp� ��Dyb �"j1 C�C1 MOG�QC1cY°�M�y^�OI�NC1NN tCCa f"f L'�'oo7 Q1 pQ 1NL�LD A J LQ o w pj �• � �tM1��OnMt1 ')MCT- ���Q��°j�0�:7•- -t�Jn• -� Ln Ld `��cN7�Ni�O�N.-- �OC'�Nf'M'}M�C1 7`NN�NgnM�~- rQ•�r ^�p�•N� -�CV� O q r-+CV N N rr N N M --� M LCLnr, )f, CLn VMLP) Ln O�((''��LAOO• -r OOM C1QMI�L'��QM t�L� ��4.( �.O Lf�(4iOM 1"�r -1f� G"1 '�G'° t\ LO L�igt.c')MnLO C" CJL o wO C�OC,S�v� c0� � Lt��MN •- KVI�f'J t�NQ1 Q1 Q1 C��V'�C1MlO C'1� .-- rt1�q. -ilt7 �,- �M�O�N N�p�C1N2��O7C")M.-- i�OQ�t C� QS I �L'x'+')MM�N.- tit:��p�q ri..r C1 .-+C Nt�:*') CV'ctOI�N � 7N•- -t cv X N LC•�t. -+N °- -a dtlf�')Q1�+'� l;�nnC1C1 "72�0'11� ;��y CC�y)l��^,NI.t')lD•o -� top t�Mt:�LO7pgJ LNC) 8 pQ t��C�MOG��C w�li5�°".��N�O�D 1��Df�MC1d�'Q'OCJ O�C'N�Oi.C'7NM(�CJC;�O N O Lt?f`•)Q1 °- +G'�c'� t1�r+. -r tom.- -r.-.� �Olat�.chd�V7 C'M Q� t� C�.-�� C�3c�t�.- iG��N1�NCJNCV��M ^�� Mpg°-+ MN��M�d�c�" �N3O���tD�.OI�C'G�c'nCOt.C)t.C) L'� N N }C �cTQ'MO t C NNr„� N cn � � CNVV CV l'� M v �- +c�t�- CC11 MIOOCO LC')N�L7NM `c�,"'�` IrCScJ'l�D �pc 'Dun pp oQ M ,--i M� �NI��CVG1Q1 cf Mf�t�i�Mt�O C.Jf`�NI� l0 V c -n �DppMrn"C\J rC-XNJpQ�1G1NC7NLOCVNIO��J' NN �NL�')Q1NN�r4 .-yN qr+r- -�t'VN M�t.t'7 ACV.' -�+� L`� � t'7 •r ? F5 U I.CX') q_C1(lyD Q1 QO Q1M f�L'] LC') CM�IQ�tf'+�)lpo �Q1C"iQIOL'� 2EN <:D Ln L.-)Ln- --o n_pq poi+y�QQ (qy QQ oQ y fr�'gQW1G1G1 Ma ( Q' �1pV1C�* O�tDO( ��5r it^ ��p—'.L- fN"�)t��Q�1C�NNNNC'')GO t:7lNN.'�f'� Q G�.]7 rtp3L� M N C d � !� L'�1�©©( s�N.-- �7�N.- +•- - ��,`tl..C�) ,N..��p}r`C1f� M USN t,�NN�1� LZ pLC>• --� OO.-- wp�M1�N�Q1 M V44"Jyj p� tO� l� c�� I V�"1'1tO MNNcnr- MQI LDL .C)M�NC1Mt^D��QC11CJt�00�'7�T� cf' M N t�VJ � 21? rncn )C)iC)- iLnM. C_hCn 'O-1t:rgNJ�p -4M� M MT g. o�Sca�5 2 w . v�w•w,lzr(:)C G1L11ctM��jgMCp -. lD-- �I�rr�1L��C1^�G7Q� Q1NI� I�CO p ccc��� NMION��. -� NN M MfVfVN CL _ L .-- 4P�LnN MC1LC7 N-w 1� w M . tMO C� �CJL�L.0.71M�Q-+' s�"'} CJ M VC Ln Cj Lt)MtC C>M� �Lnm Lr, M o CQ V1 may^ .� CV r t Q Lp� �y C-2 C1 C1 °-- �L.C7t=�N Ln" OMM. --i p J Q^1 OEM gN C"NNCC """L't L^i �G�C'�.- �O.-1v LC)N �OiCn O �.c •--�C V"Ct�..- +q.-- i. -�.-�� Nt� N�NN (n�S ~+ 01�:.C)p4G1. -+I-r� M Np lJ� C'�c+� MCCp�?. --� � ISO. --�T� (�J N O t � Rr' -L4NM LCD. -.QJ M �L'� CC, Lf��C''XV 4�VCO N N.-- ��s. -� nj Ln r- rn r Ln p t��1 O Mo�p N NC1 C_ �+N - Ln O^i CJ Li ON QN Ou N Ln�z nq� w o nr n rp r6 rtszrU6� tlf _ y c J,gc�a +� _ v_Ip cd � �� C- s�r�y—�c .. r•+ � V?f ^' C �� �J j > � � OJ CJ U C fJ `� p , 4-° Y L -lE=J �j FIlz Nr +�+;+� .]C)000UDILL.IWW C�C..^.__r- +_;J�`iYJz.�� �004C.^....^'.�V�NNC�(/')�33s CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 300 Agenda August 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Temporary Sign Permit, Market Plaza 738 W. 66th Street Council Members: Fish and LeBeau Sign Company has requested an advertising permit for a temporary ground sign advertising the opening of the Woodlake Point Condominiums and the sales office. The sign will be located at the Market Plaza site, 738 West 66th Street. The sign is to be 6' x 4' (24 square feet), and city ordinances limit temporary ground signs to a maximum size of 12 square feet. City of Richfield ordinance code 3.49, subdivision 16 (5) provides that city council approval is necessary for temporary ground signs. Because the sign is 24 square feet, requires council approval for temporary grund signs, and is larger than that permitted by city ordinance, the city staff cannot approve the permit. The City Manager is recommending city council approval of the permit application. JGC /eja Wf y submitted, John G. Cartwr ht City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 299 Agenda August 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Community Opinion Survey Council Members: Bob Nelson will meet with the City Council at the 6 p.m. study session to discuss the first draft of questions for the City of Richfield community opinion survey. The two specific tasks at this point are: 1. Identify the topics 2. Develop good questions • Bob Nelson hopes to have the first draft of questions to the City Manager on Friday, August 24. If they are received on Friday, the draft questionnaire will be sent to you for review over the weekend. JGC /eja • pect 1 submitted, John G. Cartw ight City Manager 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager -1-174 5 Council Letter No. 298 Agenda of August 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Vacation of Graham Avenue Between 65th Street and 66th Street, Second Reading Council Members: City staff has received a petition from Market Plaza, Inc. and the owner of Bridgemans Restaurant requesting that the city vacate the portion of Graham Avenue lying between 65th Street and 66th Street. Assuming that the planned sale of property by the HRA to the Market Plaza developer proceeds as planned, this petition would include 100% of the abutting property owners of the portion of the street to be vacated. The vacated street would be utilized for pedestrian amenities such as pathways and outdoor eating areas for the proposed condominium project. Vehicular and pedestrian access to Bridgemans would be maintained. Staff has reviewed this request for a street vacation and found the following: 1. The Woodlake Point Condominium site when compared with the Lake Shore Drive Condominium site has signifi- cantly less open space - -only about one - third. The definition for open space in this case includes paved driveways, parking, sidewalks, etc. When only green (grass, ground cover, etc.) open space is compared, Woodlake Point Condominium has only about 15% of the open space LSD Condominium has. This factor alone is a compelling reason for the justification to vacate Graham Avenue in order to enhance the site for its future occupants. 2. The proposed condominium and parking garage structures occupy a large area of the site which leaves little site area for green areas, recreational space and other amenities for the residents of the condominium. The proposed vacation would result in additional open space and pedestrian amenities for the proposed condominium project. It is staff's feelings that this would enhance the condominium project and provide additional open space on a site of limited size. 3. There are existing electric, water and sanitary sewer lines within the present Graham Avenue right -of -way. If the street is vacated, utility easements would need to Council Letter No. 298 -2- be maintained for these utilities. This should not pose a major problem in that no building improvements are planned within the vacated portion of the right -of- way. 4. A traffic count completed in April, 1984 indicates that there is an average daily traffic count of 1,635 vehicles on Graham Avenue between 65th and 66th Street. If the street were vacated these vehicles would than be forced to proceed either to the intersection at 66th and Rae Drive or the intersection of 66th and Lyndale. This would mean additional traffic on 65th Street and on Rae Drive. A portion of the 1,635 trips are generated by the Bridgeman'd Restaurant which would be unaffected by the vacation of Graham Avenue because access would be maintained to Bridgemans from the vacated portion of Graham Avenue. The existing entrance from 65th Street would also not be affected. The private road on the Market Plaza site running from 65th Street and 66th Street between the condominium tower and the commercial /apartment structure will also provide an alternative route for traffic. The median on 66th Street will prevent left turns, from or to 66th Street from this private road. This would reduce the traffic increase on the other streets. Rae Drive between 65th and 66th Street and 65th Street between Rae Drive and Lyndale Avenue are designated as collector streets and have been constructed to handle the amount of traffic which could be expected on collector streets. There is sufficient capacity to handle the increase in traffic due to the proposed vacation of Graham Avenue. There is an existing area of congestion adjacent to the Post Office at 65th Street and Rae Drive due to the lack of off - street parking at the Post Office and due to the 90 degree turn which traffic must make at that point. While the proposed vacation would force additional traffic through that area, it is staff's opinion that there would not be a significant increase in traffic congestion in the area. The proposed vacation results in safer conditions on 66th Street because the number of left turn movements at the uncontrolled intersection of Graham Avenue and 66th Street would be eliminated. The vacation would force these movements to be made at the controlled intersections of 66th Street and Rae Drive and 66th Street and 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue. 5. The portion of Graham Avenue to be vacated is a designated state aide street. The State Department of • Transportation has indicated that if this portion of the street was vacated, the city would have to reimburse the state for the value of the roadway because state aid funds were used to improve the street. The Council Letter No. 298 -3- value of the roadway as determined by MNDot is • $1400.00. The state has indicated that the city would not have to make a cash payment to the state, but that a future allocation of state aid funds to the city would be reduced by the amount determined to be the value of the roadway. The applicant has agreed to be responsible for this cost. • 1� 6. The portion of the street to be vacated would have a market value of approximately $68,000. While, if vacated, the street would revert back to abutting property owners at no cost the additional land could generate a tax increment of approximately $2,400 as part of the Market Plaza development and as such would benefit the redevelopment area. 7. The vacation of Graham Avenue to enhance the Market Plaza site would be consistent with the city's actions on other sites in the LHN redevelopment area. The city vacated Graham Avenue south of 66th Street to provide sufficient site area for the Lake Shore Drive condominium. The city also relocated and vacated a portion of Lake Shore Drive adjacent to the Lake Shore Drive condominium which resulted in additional open space for the condominium residents. The city also vacated streets and /or alleys for the Hub Shopping Center, Richfield State Agency, Lyndale Hardware, Ahlquist, K -Mart projects, and Lyndale Garden Center projects. It is recommended that the City Council give second reading approval of the attached ordinance. The Planning Commission reviewed this matter at their July 23, 1984 meeting and on a 7 -1 vote recommended council approval of the vacation. JGC /eja Respectf y submitted, John G. Ca tw ght City Manager • 10 • BILL TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF THAT PORTION OF GRAHAM AVENUE LYING BETWEEN THE SOUTH LINE OF 65TH STREET AND THE NORTH LINE OF 65TH STREET CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The following described strut is hereby vacated: "That portion of Graham Avenue lying between the south line of 65th Street and the north line 0 I 56th Street." Section 2. This street vacation shall not affect, destroy or interfere with the right of any person, corporation or municipality owning or having control of any elctric, gas, telephone, sewer, water or other utility to construct, reconstruct, operate, maintain, repair and remove any public utility facilities upon or within the vacated right -of -way. This vacation shall be subject to perpetual easements on the street to permit improvements of maintenance on existing utilities. Section 3. The mayor and manager are authorized to take such action as is required to give effect to the vacation of the public right -of -way as provided in the foregoing Section 1. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1984. ATTEST: City Clerk, John Hamilton, ;Mayor PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT City v= Rich:fia', c is - Pet1t =CL' YO. %� Dats �eceivet: • WSJ t�8 �.= 2:3�c1',.'L'rz, c me-S O? .:ot lass -_;-.a..= 51% i.S _f_-c=tz a G:! '�»e :aa1 p ge:.. � a:� .-:� ca G.—ra^m Ave—In a between 66th Street and 65th Street he:ei:y sz:cu street ;:e vacated. Si�..at•�__ c3 C�re__s_ ticZ.=_ss _ - Lesz? Desc= mac,= • ,� bsd v , rC � lltl. Iiol I I .I I f •I " I i f I I i I f � I l i . I ! I i =xa..:red, cteck&dl . a. c :cLwd _c ce _.. . _ cer =;.� a.: ,c c.e Sic-mad cwne_s c: _ _- =e —.; a_:ec a jv ;.`_e =ak4 c c= --=e ne :t _et_ticnec _vr. M n�7 m z.v o. r .t T w Y 5 L tt z � t �II�'�III Q a C C t � n >2 •1 C C t � n It M � ` � • � � � : s .:` � iii � \ � c�'1f t ('Tj all- ro YW ' 111 � J •• e t `Z•� t' +.• .•1�9 9'.7 — 14— -p _— �jiC'r'.\• T (�. ...f 't s�T, �� `S �'•.�._ ,Ilk f iP � � ♦r �- ���� • 2l1�'' �wtSS: ;° -S—w� n, -,�C � :' s� .�^ r=4 v .i'' "'' ALAI �^ 44 rn i ••t • a : �• J• t. • • � � it V��a r • 7 . O Mr� - •�- � { � I+�� � 4trc;� 1 .j_ tl+. „7. .t tt•. fib. o '� _ w � -" � � ,;• '� ,. " _.• _ y .,,,,,, .{ S0� . 1* , ,,) i . : • f�� .�� t` I: �•` � • ­'HARRIET '.I '.I X..t is - , r� ��^ � • —t�.`� _ "`" • r '. r Hi i �� � � +, t3 -�+ -:-t i'� >'T• s+i 1 1 ,•,, � I � � e•+ .L �^ A tr � - -•?.� Zt ' i2•�f . ^'f s o ssi rsU. f �� I � cRAN o z's s.,• _ �. •. ,SQ, �� 'r cn i _� ^ v ..• a �1 � I .� i S f'- � Q �a!}••;� •t' �l• W .t r 5. � -��_) 5 - � -t'tl -_ �� .'LU ,.� ,1 � �; +n 'itsV �t... Y_ � � • a L • � -" � w to s r _ a v / r J ♦. O w r•. It M � ` � • � � � : s .:` � iii � \ � c�'1f t ('Tj all- ro YW ' 111 � J •• e t `Z•� t' +.• .•1�9 9'.7 — 14— -p _— �jiC'r'.\• T (�. ...f 't s�T, �� `S �'•.�._ ,Ilk f iP � � ♦r �- ���� • 2l1�'' �wtSS: ;° -S—w� n, -,�C � :' s� .�^ r=4 v .i'' "'' ALAI �^ 44 rn i ••t • a : �• J• t. • • � � it V��a r • 7 . O Mr� - •�- � { � I+�� � 4trc;� 1 .j_ tl+. „7. .t tt•. fib. o '� _ w � -" � � ,;• '� ,. " _.• _ y .,,,,,, .{ S0� . 1* , ,,) i . : • f�� .�� t` I: �•` � • ­'HARRIET '.I '.I X..t is - , r� ��^ � • —t�.`� _ "`" • r '. r Hi i �� � � +, t3 -�+ -:-t i'� >'T• s+i 1 1 ,•,, � I � � e•+ .L �^ A tr � - -•?.� Zt ' i2•�f . ^'f s o ssi rsU. f �� I � cRAN o z's s.,• _ �. •. ,SQ, �� 'r cn i _� ^ v ..• a �1 � I .� i S f'- � Q �a!}••;� •t' �l• W .t r 5. � -��_) 5 - � -t'tl -_ �� .'LU ,.� ,1 � �; +n 'itsV �t... Y_ � � • a L • � -" � w to s r _ E l CITY OF RICHFIELD, MI1ME OTA Office of City Mange, Council The Honorable Mayer and :Members of the City Council City of Richfield Letter No. 297 Agenda of ,August 27, 1954 Subject: Special Use Permit for Restaurant and Bar at 7746 Morgan Avenue Council Members: Mr. Paul Knudson has requested a special use permit to allow the operation of a deli - restaurant serving wine and beer. The restaurant will be located at the southwest corner of the Viking Center 7700 block of Morgan Avenue. The 70' x 30' space will have a floor plan divided roughly into thirds: one third for food preparation, one third for sit down dining, one third for a bar. There will be 56 seats in the dining area, with additional table space for 14 in the bar area. The wrap - around bar will have 28 stools. Total seating is 93. The restaurant will serve breakfast, lunch and dinner. Breakfast and lunch will be buffet style, with full dinner service. Hours of operation will be 8:00 AM to 1:15 AM daily. Additional space in the center abutting the proposed restaurant may become available and utilized in the future. If so, the applicant is contemplating live entertainment and a full liquor license. Any of these additions would necessitate a new special use permit. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.33, which may be allowed special use permit. 2. Section 3.33, must be complied with a restaurant. STAFF REVIE'd subdivision 2, lists restaurants as uses in C -2 districts if they are granted a subdivision 4, establishes standards which in order to issue a special use permit to Upon reviewing the application against the standards of Section 3.33, subdivision 4, staff has made the following 0 finJings: Council Letter No. 207 -2- August 27, 1984 • 1. The proposed site is located in a C -2 general commercial district which allows restaurants by special use permit. 2. The site is adequately situated to provide satisfactory traffic access and circulation. The Viking Center, which will lease sp�,ca to the applicant, may be accessed by either the frontage road or Morgan Avenue. The parking lot has a 36' wide center aisle and two points of ingress /egress which make safe traffic circulation possible. Because of the amount of on- street parking in the area some congestion does occur on streets in the area. 3. Located, as the restaurant will be, within an existing office /commercial structure, there should be no problems with setbacks, screening, glare or landscaping for surrounding properties. The facility will not detract from the existing architecture in the area. Dust and fumes should also pose no problem when the equipment meets with requirements of the Environmental Health Services Inspector. 4. Parking in the area is perceived to be a problem. A number of complaints have been received by the city in the past and the council has directed staff to monitor the situation. The parking shortage is the result of heavy demand generated by • two large car dealerships and a number of other commercial operations. Hence, any overflow parking created by a shortage at the Viking Center lot would exacerbate the situation. The center requires 91 parking spaces and 92 are provided. With the addition of the proposed 98 seat restaurant 125 spaces would be required. A site check at 3:30 PM on 7/13/34 revealed up to 45 empty parking spaces in the Viking Center let. At 12:00 noon on the same day the applicant reported finding 40 empty spaces. If the restaurant were to generate a moderate traffic volume, there might be adequate space. However, it must be noted that there are five other vacant rental spaces in the center. Were they all to become retail businesses, as many as 40 more parking spaces could conceivably be. needed. This would use all available space without the restaurant use. Shared parking use studies suggest that the peak hours for retail and office parking demands would not coincide with those of a full service restaurant. Full service restaurants traditionally do their best business during the evening when offices are closed. Initial response received by staff from area business would indicate that a healthy lunch volume is to be expected as well. This would overtax the parking availability if the vacant rental spaces were to be occupied. • Council Letter No. 297 -3- August 271984 5. In order to serve alcohol, the premises must be located on a main thoroughfare. In this case, the 494 service road may be considered a main thoroughfare. Access to all parking spaces must also be gained from internal driveway systems and net directly from the street. This is the case with the prcposed restaurant. 5. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which designates the site within the freeway strip area. This allows fcr high density uses specifically including dining /entertainment establishements. 7. The Public Safety Department made the observation that while the issuance of a wine and beer license may be possible, a full liquor license requires more floor area than the prcposed site has. If additional space is acquired, a new special use permit must be stained prior tc the issuance of a liquor license. 8. Staff has received several responses from neighboring property owners. Two are adamantly against the proposal on the grounds of the nuisance potential caused by a bar open until 1:15 AM. Two others thought it would be an asset to local businessmen, their clients and their employees. 40 STAFF RECOMMENDATION In the event that the Viking Center were to be fully occupied and the proposed restaurant became successful at lunch time, there would be a parking shortage. Since the area has an acknowledged parking problem already, the situation could become critical. Staff therefore recommends denial of the special use permit. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commissioners unanimously recommended denial of the special use permit, citing parking as a major deficiency. TAM /eja C� Respectful ub tted, 0 1 1 1 1 mul 70 r- m X I z • CA z r / lill N) I 711 rTi z rTi ♦Q 5 , : — Si 351 291 23, 17 QI 77 s4 1 38 j 3♦ vl 2 0 j 14 /V il- OLIVER 39 I 33 27 21 I '� I �1, 9 EL L co Qn i --Pii N A DO/ TION W, 7 6 A lia 4z zs 20 14 NEWTON Si 351 291 23, 17 77 M �RST /V '� I �1, 9 EL L A W, -V 1 22 1 ZA'I ZO .4 M -- 4 w -- - - iu - L cn — — — — — I SITE k; - - 4 - .......... ........... .......... r 8 � 1 � FRONTAGE ROAD w z w z c� 0 SITE PLAN 7746 MORGAN i • AVENUE , • z W _U W 0 1 ! i C-0 (7) ol -cQS i I' r� ti FRONTAGE ROAD July 18, 1984 City of Rich=field 0700 Portland Ave. South Richfield, Minn. 55423 Attn: Bill Tuzmblad Dear 2�srn glad , We were most interested in the notice -or Paul .{nudson and his plans For a Deli restaurant. We would appreciate having a restau_, -ant L--i the a ea. It would be convenient For our employees For lunch. TWe have missed havi g a restau_ -ar_t i out mediate a--sa ever since the Belt line closed. Sincerely, L Dan Jacobson,Sr. Repro Pri.ntirg, Inc. • Rt ro printing -�4 7701 Morgan Avenue i�- ���- -��- ��- �- T -�� -r- Tom►-- �-- �- T- �i"-- +�-- r- f -+r -t South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423 Phone: (612) 861 -2245 a July 18, 1984 City of Rich=field 0700 Portland Ave. South Richfield, Minn. 55423 Attn: Bill Tuzmblad Dear 2�srn glad , We were most interested in the notice -or Paul .{nudson and his plans For a Deli restaurant. We would appreciate having a restau_, -ant L--i the a ea. It would be convenient For our employees For lunch. TWe have missed havi g a restau_ -ar_t i out mediate a--sa ever since the Belt line closed. Sincerely, L Dan Jacobson,Sr. Repro Pri.ntirg, Inc. • rolFPdislyma2ile cCarttys 1500 NEST 78th STREET, 141NN5APOLIS, MINNES•TA 53423 -Phone W9 -144 J Ju,?y 10, 1984 Pt4xning Commi.&.6ion City o6 Rich6ie?d 6700 PotVand Ave. So. is RichiieU, Mn. 55423 Attn: B.c 17cvcnbtad Vean ,un . 7unnb ?ad, We received the Pub Uc Heating Notice in tegand to 3t. PaLd.. Kru d son' a ,teque,st to operate a de,"i te/stautant and bat at 7746 ,Tongan Ave. We understand this utabZi shmen-t to mean a deti %utauAant amd bat 4--o -include Good, been and on wane. We ate one o6 the cZo4ut neighbonz o6 thiz pnopen.ty and wU-e tupond by ,sa. ing we have no objection to -th.i s -type o6 opera t i-on on th.c s pnopen-ty, we beUeve ,there .i s a need bon 4ome -type o6 te�sawtan.t in our area. Sinee,te.?.y, Ra fmond Habe toth Ope,tati.on s '.lanagen MRH;'aw t au n, q a— b a-,n �L LL al- C P � 0 s C7 III CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 296 Agenda August 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Council Acceptance of $500 Donation from the America Legion to the Fire Division Council Members: The Richfield American Legion Post 435 has requested an opportunity to appear before the City Council for the purpose of donating a check in the amount of $500 to the Richfield Fire Division. Members of the American Legion will be present at the August 27, 1984 City Council meeting to present this check to the Fire Division. JG.0 /eja 1.1 L y t "I C1 I I C1 6 t- I- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 295 Agenda August 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Presentations to Recycling Program Volunteers Council Members: An item has been scheduled for the August 27, 1984 to honor those volunteer groups who will be participating in the recycling program that will begin in September, 1984. This recycling program is intended to reduce the amount of refuse taken to landfills, conserve our natural resources and provide income for volunteer groups. Representatives from the groups will be present at the • August 27, 1984 city council meeting to receive their copy of the resolution, a copy of which is attached to this council letter. JGC /eja • sp ctfu1 y- A tted, ohn G. Jartw ght City Manager • • • co 4J U) 4-r O 75 4J r- N U) 4J v O ca E 0 x O v A +� cn N 0 4 v O U O 4 rU � v U r. m U U) �31 (1) .c a) U 4J 4-4 �A QW co L• U] t0+ A �3 a) 4-1 -P O v o S 4 0 75 ro U U $-4 S4 -H U) v LL+ ?, CO r- � a� mv - acn 4-J Ul v E a a �4 (0 v o r-1 a) 4J U 4-4 -'4 o a:� O co Z? Q4 va Q) O �:l v � O °O , n� 00 v�4 z�� a v - x Z- 0 Q) 4-) ♦..i O >, U) rd o U) r(� •rl 4J O 4- W�4 '�" O O S•4 4J U ::$ o E r- 0) rO U 4J •. rn W A U 4- 4-) x v 3 E a. a. > 1:7) a r-1 U U r a) �-i U) is r0 i4 v •• 00 U 0 t:� a) r--1 4J M r U co 4J O r- .0 cn Q U O -U O E m r-I 0 a 0 (') v 54 0 4J U O r� 5 v 1-) E - n m O O 4J U s4 a L � a, U a) �i O 4J 15 � 4J cis a 4J v <n v .� .[ � � s-+ U U U) rO 4J , fr4 cn a) N >1 �44-a l0 ­4r1 v U) 4J 7 - U) (0 -H a •r+ � U) �l 4J U 0 4J 0 W F- 0 _w cc W O /�L. Lim L ..� V ^♦ W H � A ri 3 ro r-I v .H 4-1 Ui t>~ v "cl � r- -r4 —4 4J O 4-1 W a) U) rI +� 41 3.4 :� O > s4 �-: Oa U cn r-1 —1 r4 4a '� r � r-I 9 M U) O N tr 4 v v .0 z z r-1 r-1 v O N co a) S 4 CT a) .() 4a z O ro -Cr - � � -W rya 4 rO - � •rUi U (f) O a rl v cn o :n > o J C rC E+ O O O O 4a bl) U 4J O C 4- v (1) •ri U) O U 4-) 3 U cn :1 0 U) 0 ?, U) O 3 •r-1 � � r-1 > A _q a) 0 ro a) +) O > O •r� ,� O 44 v PQ r- U U s 4 34 2W � r� > rl O O M a) c Un 44 C- v 44 i-1 � N o' -+ H M �+-i O a) r W A O •r+ S--. 4J �4 W 0 m a .� v O � U .� w rZ4 r) a) a 1 W v �4 P� •r{ a �-1 O> 0 UC rcl W its a U) W a a) �a 4J o 44 U) a) (1) a) I r0 < �C rte a -P .0 h W --1 z�:: U a U) o v rt7 w A s 4 U�-: r-1 (0 4-4 H U rI b rc� �7: its m x IT 3 co x 3 4-) v x U� U (0 a) 3. .. �4 r•1 O 4-4 2 O U) >1 6l �- v E O U s~ U) v 4-4 bP ?+ S-. OJ x ro -P U c •rl v s4 4J U 4-1 C O -rj ::5 •ri O 41 r>1 U' �4 ate 4J its v •r•1 -C U 41 a) co 4J U) 4-r O 75 4J r- N U) 4J v O ca E 0 x O • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 294 Agenda August 20, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council I City of Richfield Subject: Revised Schedule for Review of 1984 Revised and 1985 Proposed Budgets Council Members: As council members are aware, the staff has been working the last several weeks to prepare the 1984 revised and the 1985 proposed budgets. In order for council members and staff to arrange their schedules, the following dates and times are suggested for the council's budget review sessions: September 5 7:00 p.m. Overall Budget Presentation (Wednesday) General Fund Public Safety Community Development Community Services Administrative Services Legislative /Executive September 6 7:00 p.m. Water Fund (Thursday) Sewer Fund Golf Course Fund Liquor Fund Debt Service Funds Internal Service Funds September 26 7:00 P.M. Special Revenue and (Tuesday) Capital Budget Budget Adoption October 3 7:00 p.m. Reserve date, if (Wednesday) necessary It is expected that the review sessions scheduled above will provide sufficient time for budget discussion. It may be possible to shorten the number of sessions; however, all of these dates should be held open in case they are necessary. JGC /eja R pectfu y John G. ar City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 293 Agenda August 20, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request by St. Peter's Church for Temporary Banners, Pennants and Ground Signs Council Members: St. Peter's Church located at 6720 Nicollet Avenue has requested advertising permits for their Fall Fesitval to be held September 8 and 9, 1984. The signs would be in use August 24 through September 10. The permits requested are for a banner, a pennant and two temporary ground signs. The banner would measure 7' x 3' and would be located over the double doors of the church on Nicollet Avenue. The pennants are to be located on a temporary ground sign next to the permanent church ground sign. The final sign is a temporary A frame ground sign to be located at 6600 Pillsbury Avenue (Holy Angels sports field). Both temporary ground signs will measure 3' x 6' (18 square feet). City of Richfield ordinance code 3.49, subdivision 16(5) provides that city council approval is required for temporary ground signs. City ordinances also limit temporary ground signs to a maximum of 12 square feet. The city staff recommends approval of the banner and pennants. However, due to limits of Richfield City Ordinances, the staff does not recommend approval of the temporary ground signs in excess of 12 square feet. They have also requested a fee waiver for the sign permits. Re;-Rectfulyy nVuAi�ted,,_ John G. Cart City Manager 0 JGC /eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager It Council Letter No. 292 Agenda August 20, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for a Temporary Ground Sign at the Hub Shopping Center, Richfield High School Council Members: Richfield Senior High School has applied for a permit for a temporary trailer sign measurig 12' x 25' to be erected in the Hub Shopping Center parking lot. The city staff has denied the application on the basis that city ordinance limits the size of temporary signs to a maximum size of 12 square feet. This trailer sign will measure 300 square feet. Signs of unusual height and size require council approval. The city council has approved such oversized signs in • the past. -'Re'spectf�,�41ubmitted , JGC /eja 6 John G.y`Ca%wrig City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 291 Agenda August 20, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Industrial Development Bond Allocations for 1984 Council Members: The City Attorney's staff has furnished communications dated August 8 and 9, 1984, summarizing the procedures for IDB allocations for entitlement issues (Richfield is an entitlement city) under the new Minnesota law. Staff requests City Council authorization to make a $36,061 deposit with the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority (MEEDA) on or before September 1, 1984 to protect our IDB entitlement for one of several pending redevelopment • projects ( Opdal and Cedar Liquor Store sites). Page two of the City Attorney's memorandum of August 8 sets forth the steps necessary to protect our IDB entitlement; namely: 1. Pass a resolution of intent to issue ;* 2. Send a check to the state in the amount of 1% of the proposed bond issue; and, 3• Submit a MEEDA project(s) application. * It has been learned that the resolution is not a requirement at this time. The objective at this point in time is to protect our IDB entitlement. If Richfield is successful in protecting our entitlement, but then decides not to issue IDB's and notifies MEEDA by October 31, 1984, Richfield will get the $36,061 (1% fee) refunded. In other words, by depositing $36,061 with MEEDA, Richfield can keep our IDB allotment available to assist such potential redevelopment projects as the Opdal and Cedar Liquor Store sites. The city will lose interest for two months on the deposit. n E Council Letter No. 291 -2- It is recommended that the City Council direct the City Manager to inform the state of Richfield's intent to use IDB's and authorize payment of the 1% fee (1% of the $3,606,074, or $36,061) on or before September 1, 1984. JGC /eja cc: HRA Commissioners ke�pectfu�>> 4 i -ttPd _ ohn G. C�rtw City Manager f�- LeFevere Lef ler` Kennedy • O'Brien & Drawz A Professional i-4t��"�' Assm iat ion 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis August 9, 1984 Minnesota 55402 Telephone 612- 333 -0543 Clayton L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler J. Dennis O'Brien John E. Drawz David J. Kennedy John B. Dean Glenn E. Purdue Richard J. Schieffer Charles L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler III Jeffrey J. Strand Mary J. Bjorklund John G. Kressel Dayle Nolan Cindy L. Lavorato Michael A. Nash Brian F. Rice JII&raine S. Clugg es J. Thomson, Jr es M. Strommen Mary C. Nielsen r� LJ Mr. John G. Cartwright City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Re: IDB Allocations: Entitlement Issues Dear Mr. Cartwright: Enclosed find a memorandum summarizing the procedures for IDB allocations for entitlement issues under the new Minnesota law. We hope you find it useful. It should be noted, however, that this complex process is subject to further administrative and legal interpretation. We will attempt to keep you informed as the process is refined. DJK /mjd Enclosure Very truly yours, LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, 0.- - Na L� 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 Telephone 612 - 333 -0543 Clayton L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler J. Dennis O'Brien John E. Drawz David J. Kennedy John B. Dean Glenn E. Purdue Richard J. Schieffer Charles L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler III Jeffrey J. Strand Mary J. Bjorklund John G. Kressel Dayle Nolan Cindy L. Lavorato Michael A. Nash Brian F. Rice rraine S. Clugg W les J. Thomson, Jr. es M. Strommen Mary C. Nielsen LeFevere Lef ler Kennedy O 'Brien & Drawz 1 Prole siunal 1'sm cation Date: Re. MEMORANDUM August 8, 1984 IDB Entitlement Issuers: Timetable for Under Laws 1984, Chapter 482, Sections (to be codified as Minn. Stat. §474.16 Allocations 13 to 20 to 474.24) With the passage of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, signed by the President on July 19, 1984, several signifi- cant changes have occurred in the amount and manner in which Industrial Development Bonds (IDB) can be issued. The federal legislation principally affects the amount of IDB's a state can issue by imposing a volume cap on IDB issues. The Minnesota Federal Limitations Act, Laws of 1984, Chapter 482, Sections 13 to 20, principally affects the manner in which the State of Minnesota will dispense its federally granted IDB amount. Simply stated, Minnesota has slightly over $600,000,000 to allocate to IDB projects. Approximately $100,000,000 is designated for state agencies, $100,000,000 is designated for non - entitlement cities and $400,000,000 is designated for entitlement cities such as yours. The attached Time Table indicates the parameters which apply to the entitle- ment amounts and other funds. The procedures for the state allocation process are outlined below. The new law applies to Private Activity Bonds, that is, IDBs which are not housing bonds, convention or trade show facility bonds or airport, dock, wharf, mass communicating facility, parking facility bonds (provided the project is owned by or on behalf of a governmental unit) , certain refunding issues, or IDBs for exempt organizations or persons. The Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority ( MEEDA) annually determines which cities are entitlement issuers and amount of their entitlement based on the formula in the new state law. Final allocation from MEEDA is due on August 17, 1984; the city certificate was due August 2, 1984. From January 1 to September is issue bonds up to the amount prior MEEDA approval for the 1 an entitlement issuer can of their entitlement without amount of the issue. However, IDB Entitlement Issuers Page 2 as in previous years, a public hearing, preliminary resolu- tion, state approval and final resolution required by state and federal laws still apply. At any time during the year, a city may enter into a joint powers agreement with another city or agency to issue any agreed upon portion of the other city's IDB entitlement amount. (Minn. Stat. §474.18, Subd. 4 (1984)). September 1 is a critical date in the new process. On that date all the amounts that state agencies, entitlement issuers or non - entitlement issuers have is lost unless certain actions, forms and deposits are made. The amount of bonding authority that has not been issued or has not been committed is placed in a competitive pool and subject to distribution by MEEDA. The order of priority at this time is essentially time and MEEDA 19 point application form. Entitlement issuers may consider using up their entitlement early in the year by approving projects which will close before September 1. In that way they can enter the competitive pool immediately in September. If an entitlement issuer has not used up its entitlement prior to September 1 of the year, the issuer can protect its entitlement by: 1) passing a resolution notifying MEEDA of its intent to issue before the end of the year (this resolution must be at MEEDA by August 20th to ensure the entitlement is protected); 2) Sending a check to the state in the amount of to of the proposed bond issue; and 3) Submitting the 19 point application form which MEEDA uses to rate projects. At this point the city may retain its entitlement until the end of the year and proceed with the bond issue. Note, unlike the non - entitlement issuer, the entitlement issuer need not submit a preliminary resolution to preserve its allocation. If an entitlement issuer has used up its entitlement by issuing bonds in the full amount of its entitlement, after September 1 it may submit a proposal to MEEDA with a letter • of intent, the application form and the to fee. These proposals then compete with other proposals for the remain- ing bonding authority amounts but all entitlement amounts • • • IDB Entitlement Issuers Page 3 must be issued before the pool is available to an entitle- ment issuer. To be considered for the September allocation, applications must be submitted by August 20th. Thereafter, applications for October must be submitted by September 20th, etc. If an entitlement issuer ties up an allocation and decides not to use it and notifies MEEDA by October 31st, it get the 1% fee refunded. The year end rules are very important. After October 20th, all issues need to have a preliminary resolution. Prior to December 20th, if the issuer notifies it cannot issue bonds before the end of the year or the issue cannot be carried forward under federal law the city will receive 1/3 of 'its 1% back. At the close of the year the state will try to use up its allocation in two ways: first, by reallocating amounts to projects that have submitted an application by December 10 and second, by accepting carryforward IDB proposals which comply with federal law. Carryforward treatment of the 1984 volume is allowed only for exempt issue activity, not a small issue project (i.e. issues limited to $10 million) . (The state law on carryforward allocations is vague, but it would appear under the Federal Act the allocation carryforward would be valid and the state should recognize this.) Five days after the close of a bond issue, the City must notify MEEDA on forms provided by it that the project has closed or risk losing the tax exempt status. Thirty days after receipt of the notice of issue form the 1% fee is refunded to the city. The new allocation system is a bit confusing and there are many areas in which MEEDA is still formulating its posi- tion. The discussion above sets forth our understanding of the process but some variations may occur as the process continues. 0 0 IDB Entitlement Issuers Page 4 IDB ALLOCATION TIME TABLE January 1 to September 1 * Entitlement issuers allocation protected * Bonds must be issued to avoid 1% deposit fee * State and Federal requirements of publication of hearing, hearing, preliminary resolution and state approval still apply * Entitlement issuers cannot compete in the state pool * Entitlement issuers can enter into joint powers agreements with other issuers for use of their entitlement * Notify MEEDA within five days of closing or lose tax exempt status of IDBs September 1 to November 1 * Entitlement issuers can compete in pool if all its entitlement is used up (applications due by 20th of preceding month) * Requires a letter of intent to issue by end of year, 1% deposit fee and completion of 19 point application form * TEFRA public icensing requirement applies, but not preliminary resolution * Joint powers (if another issuer has protected its entitlement) * 1% fee is refundable in whole if MEEDA is notified by the issuer it will not issue by October 20th * Application needs to be into MEEDA by the 20th of the preceding month * 1% fee is refundable 30 days after Notice of Issue is sent to MEEDA November 1 to December 31 * Sames as September 1 to November 1, and * A Preliminary Resolution is required for all issuers * If cannot close and notify MEEDA by December 20th get 1/3 of 1% back * Carryforward possible for certain projects, i.e. §103(b)(4) and (5) and student loan bonds IL