Loading...
12-17-84 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 461 Agenda December 17, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Issuance of Industrial Development Bonds (IDBS) For Commercial Component at Market Square Council Members: As of Thursday evening, December 13, 1984, the City Attorney's office had been provided by the developer of the commercial component of the Market Plaza project a conditional letter for a financial commitment on the enhancement of the IDB bond issue from First Federal (copy not available to the writer). The conditional financial commitment provides among its conditions that First Federal will pickup the bonds and hold. The bonds will be callable in six months or less (this is referred to as parking the bonds). The six month period is to allow additional time for the developer (Market Plaza Limited Partnership) to try and get credit enhancement and a good bond rating (triple A). Also, Market Plaza Limited Partnership will be securing additional financial commitments for the apartment component. If successful, both bond issues will go out for sale in early 1985. Due to the tremendous time limitations to put all these documents together, many of the documents will not be ready for council review until Monday night's special council meeting. R ectfu y s mitted, LL"L L' ohn G. Cart righ City Manager JGC/eja 0 I• LeFevere Lefler Kennedy O'Brien & Drawz A Professional Association 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 Telephone (612) 333-0543 Teiecopier (612) 333-0540 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. Leffer III Jeffrey J. Strand Mary J. Biorklund John G. Kressel Dayle Nolan Cindy L. Lavorato Mi A. Nash Br ice LoS. Clugg James J. Thomson. Jr. James M. Strommen Mary C. Nielsen Terry L. Hall Ronald H. Batty • December 14, 1984 Mr. Dennis Kraft City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Re: $5,5:00,000 Commercial Development Revenue Bonds, Series 1984 (Market Plaza Limited Partnership Project) City of Richfield, Minnesota Dear Dennis: Enclosed are four copies of the text of the resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of the above bonds for Council action on Monday night. Please arrange to have Sylvia certify three copies of the minutes and return them to me at your convenience. The text of the resolution describes the transaction as clearly as we can at this point. Basically, a single bond will be sold to First Federal Savings and Loan Association which will be held by them until a rating and other security arrangements can be put in place for the bonds, and the developers have secured financing for the apartment phase of the project. We will attempt to have the basic documents for the transaction on file with you on Monday, but I must tell you that they will be in a_form that will possibly require a good deal of technical revision thereafter. Yo very truly, David J. Kennedy DJK:caw Enclosure cc: Clayton L. LeFevere ErnUCT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, HENNEPIN_COUNTY, MINNESOTA Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City Council of -the City, of Richfield, Hennepin County, was duly held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, December 17, 1984 at 7:00 o'clock p.m., C.T. The following members of the Council were present: andthe following were absent: 11 Councilmember _ introduced the following resolu- tion and moved its adoption,. the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF $5,500,000-E6MMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS (MARKET PLAZA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PROJECT) SERIES 1984 UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT TO FINANCE A PROJECT THEREUNDER BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the City), as follows: Section 1. Authorization and Recitals. 1.01. General Authority. The City is authorized by Minnesota Stat- utes, Chapter 474, as amended (the Act), to issue its revenue bonds and to make secured or unsecured loans to finance the acquisition of real property and the acquisition or construction of buildings and improvements on such real property and the installation of machinery and equipment of any and . all kinds and any other personal properties deemed necessary in connection with .a project, as defined in the Act. . 1.02. Proposed Project and Bonds. Representatives of Market Plaza Limited Partnership (formerly New Age Developers) (the Company) have proposed that the City, acting under and pursuant to the Act, issue and sell to First Federal Savings and Loan Association (Purchaser) its $5,500,000 Commercial Development Revenue Bonds (Market. Plaza Limited Partnership Project) Series 1984 (the Bonds), the proceeds of which are to be, used for the purpose of paying costs incurred by the Company in the acquisition and construction of a project consisting of the acquisition of land in the City and the construction thereon of an approximately 70,000 square foot retail shopping facility and related parking facilities (the Project). Pursuant to the proposal the proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned by the City to the Company and the Company agrees to make payments sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds. The City wili grant a security interest in certain revenues and payments to be received by the City under the Loan Agreement (as hereinafter defined) to a Trustee (as hereinafter defined). Under certain conditions more fully described in an Indenture of Trust (Indenture) between the City and Trustee the Bonds may be remarketed to the public pursuant to a Remarketing Agree- ment between the City, Trustee, Company and Prudential-Bache Securities. 1.03. Preliminary City Approval. On February 16, 1982 after public hearing the Council gave preliminary approval of the sale of its revenue bonds pursuant to the Act and the loan of the proceeds to the Company for the acquisition and construction of the Project and authorized the prepara- tion of such documents as may, be appropriate to the Project. A public hearing on the project and proposed issuance of Bonds therefor was held on this date. 1.04. Documentation. Forms of the following documents relating to the Project and the Bonds have been prepared and submitted to this Council and are hereby directed to be. filed in the office of the City Clerk. (a) a Loan Agreement (the of December 1, 1984, proposed to the City and the Company; Loan Agreement), to be dated as be made and entered into between (b) a Trust Indenture (the Indenture), to be dated as of December 1, 1984, proposed to be made and entered into between the City and The First National Bank of Minneapolis, a national banking association, as trustee (the Trustee); (c) a Remarketing Agreement between the City, Company, Trustee, and Prudential-Bache Securities, dated as of December 1, 1984 (Remarketing Agreement). Section 2. Findings. i It is hereby found, determined and declared that: (a) the Project, as defined herein _ and in the Loan Agree ment, constitutes 'a project authorized by Section 474.02, Sub- division la of the Act; (b) the purpose of the Project is and the effect thereof will be to promote the public welfare by encouraging and re-' taining the location, retention and development of economically sound industry and commerce within the City and surrounding community so as to prevent, so far as possible, the emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of chronic unemployment; by promoting the use of available resources of the community and the region thereby retaining the benefit of its existing investment in educational and public service facilities; by discouraging the movement of talented, educated personnel of mature age to other areas, thus preserving the economic and human resources needed as J a base for providing governmental services and facilities; and by encouraging more intensive development of land in the City to provide an adequate and better balanced tax base to finance the increase in the amount and cost of governmental services; and the Project could not be financed without the assistance of the City in issuing the Bonds; (c) the Project is located in the City, at a site which is readily accessible to employees residing within the City and the surrounding community and. within the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet Rede- velopment Project Area; (d) the Project. adds to the tax base of the city and the overlapping taxing jurisdictions; (e) the Project has been approved by the Minnesota Depart- ment of Energy and Economic Development as tending to further the purposes and policies of the Act; (f) the financing of the Project, the authorization of the Bonds in the principal amount of $5,500,000, the execution and delivery of the Loan' Agreement and the Indenture, and the perfor- mance of all covenants and agreements of the City contained in the Loan Agreement, and the Indenture and of all other acts and things required under the Charter of the City and the Constitu- tion and laws of the State of Minnesota to make the Loan Agree- ment, the Indenture and the Bonds valid and binding special limited obligations in accordance with their terms, are authorized by the Act; (g) it is desirable that a series of Commercial Development Revenue Bonds in the amount of $5,500,000 be issued by the City upon the terms set forth in the Indenture, under the provisions of which the City grants to the Trustee a security interest in certain revenues and payments to be received. by the City under the Loan Agreement as security for the payment of the principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds; (h) the loan payments contained in. the Loan Agreement are fixed, and are required to be revised from time to time as neces- sary, so as to produce income and revenue sufficient to provide _ for prompt payment of principal of and interest on all Bonds issued under the Indenture when due; and the Loan 'Agreement also provides that the Company is required to pay all expenses of the operation and maintenance of the Project, including, but without limitation, adequate insurance thereon and insurance against all liability for injury. to persons or property arising- from the operation thereof, and all taxes and special assessments levied upon or with respect to the Project site and payable during the term of the Loan Agreement; and (i) under the provisions of Section 474.10 of the Act and as provided in the Loan Agreement and Indenture, the Bonds are not to be payable from nor charged upon any' funds of the City- other than the revenues and payments pledged to the payment thereof; the City is not subject to any liability thereon and no holders of the Bonds shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing powers of the City to pay any of the Bonds or the interest thereon nor to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City, except the revenues and payments under the Loan Agreement pledged to the payment thereof; the Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City, except the revenues and payments thereof; each Bond issued under the Indenture shall recite that the Bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues and payments pledged to the payment thereof; and no Bond shall constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional, charter or statutory limita- tion; provided,.however, that nothing contained in this paragraph (i) shall impair the rights of the holders of the Bonds or the Trustee to enforce covenants made for the security of the payment of principal. of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds. Section 3. Approval of Documents. • The forms of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture and the Remarketing Agreement referred to in Section 1.04 hereof are approved subject to such modifications as are deemed appropriate and approved by the City Attorney and the City Manager, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by execution of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the Remarketing Agreement and the Bonds by the Mayor and City Manager. The Mayor and City Manager are directed to execute the Loan Agreement upon execution thereof by the Company, to execute the Indenture upon execution thereof by the Trustee, to execute the Remarketing Agreement upon execution thereof by the other parties thereto. Copies of all of the documents shall be delivered, filed and recorded as provided. therein. The Mayor and City Manager are also authorized and directed to execute such other instruments 'as may be required to give effect•to the transactions herein contemplated. Section 4. The Bonds; Terms, Sale and Execution. 4.01.: Authorization. TheCity authorizes the issuance of the Bonds in the principal amount of $5,500,000 in the form and upon the terms set forth in the Indenture and this resolution. The Bonds are hereby sold to the Purchaser at a price of par. 4.02.. Execution. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to execute the Bonds as prescribed herein and in the Indenture and to deliver them to the Trustee, together with a certified copy of this resolution, the other documents required in the Indenture, and such other certificates, documents and instruments as may be appropriate to effect the transaction herein contemplated. The Trustee is hereby appointed authenti- cating agent pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.55, Subdivision 1. 4.03. Modifications, Absence of Officers. The approval hereby given to the various documents referred to above includes an approval of such modifications thereto, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necissary and appropriate and approved by the City Attorney and the City Manager prior to the execution of the documents. The execution of any instrument by - the appropriate officer or officers of the City herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such documents in accordance with the terms hereof. In the absence or disability of the Mayor, any of the documents authorized by this resolution to be executed, may be executed by the acting Mayor and in the absence or disability of the City Clerk-Treasurer by such officer of the City who, in the opinion of the City Attorney, may execute such documents. Section 5. Authentication of Proceedings. The Mayor and City Manager and other officers of the City are author- ized and directed to furnish to the Purchaser, the Bank and bond counsel certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Bonds as such facts appear from the books and records in the officer's custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representation's- of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. Section 6. Statement of Election. The principal amount of the Bonds being in excess of $1,000,000, the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed on behalf of the City to execute and file with the Internal Revenue Service a statement of election to issue its obligations in excess of $1,000,000 as provided by Section 103(b)(6)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and Section 1.103(b)(2)(vi) of the Regulations promulgated thereunder. 0 Passed and Adopted this 17th day of December, 1984. Mayor John Hamilton Attest: City Clerk Sylvia Bergh The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly secgnded by and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against or abstained: • whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. C? J STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS. CITY OF RICHFIELD ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a special meeting of the City Council held on Monday, December 17, 1984, with the original thereof on file in my office and I further certify that the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to the issuance and sale of the City's $5,500,000 Commercial Development Revenue Bonds (Market Plaza Limited Partnership Project) Series 1984. WITNESS My hand as Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this day of 1984. (SEAL) Sylvia R. Bergh City Clerk City of Richfield, Minnesota 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 460 Agenda December 17, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing on a Proposal to Undertake and Finance a Project Under the Municipal Industrial Development Act for the Market Plaza Project Council Members: This public hearing should just be a formality. The reason for the public hearing is that the original resolution passed by the City Council in 1982 did not contain the project address. State law in 1982 did not require this technical point. However, in 1983, the federal government passed legislation that requires the project address. Hence, it is necessary to pass a resolution giving the address for the Market Plaza Project which is to be financed in part under the Municipal Industrial Development Act. pectfu mit ted, L +.? ?iL ?l?' Zi ohn G. Car right City Manager JGC/eja is • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota will meet in the Council chambers in the City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423, at 7:00 p.m.. on Monday, December 17, 1984, to conduct a public hearing on a proposal that the City undertake and finance a project under the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474. The project is proposed by Market Plaza Developers (formerly NuAge Developers) (Company) and consists of the acquisition of land and the construction thereon of an approximately 70,000 square foot retail shopping facility and related parking facilities. The location of the proposed project is on the northwest corner of the intersection of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue in the City. The principal amount of bonds or other obliga- tions proposed to be issued by the City to finance the project is estimated to be not in excess of $3,500,000. Information relating to the proposed project is available for public inspection at the office of the City Clerk in the City Hall during regular City business hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. daily, except Saturdays, Sundays and holidays). w Any person wishing to express a view with respect to the proposal to undertake and finance the project will.be heard at the public hearing. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL Sylvia Bergh City Clerk Dated: November 24, 1984. .1 C? CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 0 Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 463 Agenda December 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request by Market Plaza Corporation for Subdivision Waiver Council Members: Market Plaza Corporation has requested that the city council approve a subdivision waiver to allow the construction of the Wood Lake Point Codominium structure to begin. When the development is complete, the condominium structure and the commercial/apartment structure will be under separate ownership. The developer is in the process of replatting the property, but this process won't be completed until March, 1985. The mortgage for the condominiumj structure cannot be placed until a deed is recorded with Hennepin County for the portion of the Market Plaza site occupied by the condominium. The City of Richfield subdivision ordinance provides that no conveyance of land shall take place in which the land is conveyed by metes and bounds description which is.not approved by council resolution, shall be made or recorded if the parcel described in the conveyance is less than 5 acres in area and 300 feet in width, unless such parcel was a separate parcel of record as,of March 11, 1940. The parcel in question would be described by metes and bounds description and is a newly created parcel not in existence prior to 1940. The Market Plaza Corporation would like the city to waive any subdivision requirements to allow them to record the deed, place the mortgage and begin construction. It is staff's opinion that strict compliance with the subdivision requirements will result in an unnecessary delay and hardship because construction could not occur until after the platting process is completed in March, 1985. The subdivision waiver would not interfere with the purpose of the platting regulations of the city because platting of the property will still occur and the subdivison regulations will be met The council may wish to refer this matter to the Planning Commission for their recommendation, although staff believes this is not a major action and would not merit Planning Commission review. -2- A resolution granting the subdivision waiver requested by Market Plaza Corporation is being drafted by the City Attorney's office and will be available for council consideration at the December 27, 1984 meeting. It is recommended that the city council approve this resolution to allow the deed to be recorded and construction to begin. ect mitted, f?WJohn G. Ca twright City Manager JGCIeja 0 11 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 459 Agenda December 17, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Variance Request at 7614 Vincent Avenue South Council Members: PROPOSAL Mr. James A. Villeneuve has requested that the city grant a variance to allow him to construct a detached garage on his lot at 7614 Vincent Avenue South. The proposed garage would have a street side sideyard setback of 13 feet rather than the required 30 feet. (In that the subject property is a corner lot adjacent to a key lot, the sideyard must be of a width which is at least equal to the front yard of the key lot.) The proposed garage would be located 5 feet away from the existing • dwelling and 13 feet away from the property line adjacent to Washburn Circle. Access to the garage would be from Vincent Avenue. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.30, subdivision 5 (e) requires that accessory structures in the R residence districts have a 30 foot street side sideyard setback if they are on a corner lot adjacent to a key lot. 2. Section 3.40; subdivision 6 lists the three conditions which must be met for a variance to be granted. STAFF REVIEW Staff has reviewed the proposal against the three conditions which must be met for a variance to be granted and found the following: 1. That there are special affecting this land not common stricts. circumstances or cord other properties or s ar it is staff's opinion that there are no special • circumstances present on this site. The site is regular in shape and similar in size to other corner lots within the neighborhood and within the community as a whole. -2- 0 • 2. That the granting of preservation an en.lovmer.t o antral property runts. for 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 teriallyv a and adverse v affect the hea th or safetv o persons or etrimental to the in the neiahborhoo It is staff's opinion that the proposal would not be detrimental to the character of the area. While the garage would stick out in front of the adjacent single family residence, it would be similar in character to other street side sideyard garage setbacks in the area including the garage immediately across Washburn Circle. It is unclear about the separation between the overhangs of the house and the garage from the information provided by the applicant. The nearest point of the garage should be at least 5 feet away from the nearest point of the dwelling itself in order to meet safety requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because the three conditions for granting the variance have not been met staff recommends denial of this variance request. If the city council approved the variance a stipulation requiring a five foot separation between the garage and the house is recommended. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission, on December 11, 1984, voted to deny the application by an 8-1 vote. tfL41,.y,submitted, Bohn G. 'Car\twri City Manager JGC/eja • 7614 Vincent Avenue South • (KEY LOT) 108.76 %,0 A house f ? garage ' c co CV 3 E -,24-- T N ti M WASHBURN CIRCLE O co 'Z W i Q z !w V z 0 Address 7545 7545 7544 7600 7601 7626 7744 7745 7601 7659 7725 7545 760. 7644 7645 7700 7701 Washburn,Ave. S. Vincent Ave. S. Vincent Ave. S. Vincent Ave. S. Vincent Ave. S. Vincent Ave. S. Vincent Ave. S. Vincent Ave. S. Xerxes Ave. S. Xerxes Ave. S. Xerxes Ave. S. Upton Ave. S. Upton Ave. S. Upton Ave. S. Upton Ave. S. Upton Ave. S. Upton Ave. S. Street Side Sidevard Setback 10' 36' 25' 24.61' 25' 12' 25' 31' 35' 37.55' 10' 28.5' 16.2' 12' 13' 17.7' 13.7' 0 4: n 0 m r 6 ? 2 n J 2 N u C Q 2 t p o h N J r T D m -, o UPTON =r . pr.. p I - ! N W A I ?:p ? - r (.(.ll AS `.-OWNERS THAT SIGNED PETITION 1 PETITION MAP 10 w 7 .5 Sr I 1°. r - ,C Doc-Ne. I' 1 1 } _ 7 r. 3476867 v C? t (J1 F A W A D N ? 1A/ t0 I DAI w CITY OF RICHFIELD 40 12 SS y ' f , 8:.85 i :oo U 31 ;J3 r ? r b ? r.r ? A r V ,` O,t I NY ! N" I ?1 ? {tM N ? I? d. ? L S. O 0. m YwJ. ?1 •?'.:.?dj :?.' R 1 - 17.C •.2 .?L. SL It7' -??j Or I. ° N cWt?, to N / : V kip I"N O hr tD eq f?'''''? ?co ?1 C1 U. 44 CIRCLE I J :? 3 ?s?fm ? ` (- ,e spa ? ell nar"' i r r1?a ?• ? ?Dt` r\N 1d Of N Ii • O yr cNO6s . i 4 ? ` J ...J ?! I ?rJ w ..1 i Soo o WASH 8' a o oar s,, AVENUE o J ?J ID v o+ C_ ,j ."•J -J AVENUE ` 7 0. o ! ? . i0 p N I a I ? A O C i I 0 tT I °„ a ?a a•. vn_ m v l rn cn ? • W I N - w a m ,°• V m J i SECONC? , ADD N -? m r . i r _w v 1 1 i ?t ? ? 7S o077• i t :2 r w ee ? r >. SHEftIDAN - -- --- - - - a o O (n IIt ? O --4 o O w I[ a^Io"• rn S\1.51 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager i Council Letter No. 458 Agenda of December 17, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Special Use Permit Request at 400 West 78th Street (Bloomington Honda Dealership) Council Members: J. H. Motor, Inc. (dba Bloomington Honda) has made application for a special use permit to allow the operation of an automobile sales agency on a site presently occupied by Astleford Equipment Company which is located at 400 West 78th Street. Bloomington Honda's proposal would involve the clearance of all of the structures on the site with the exception of a 4,000 • square foot building which is located in the northwest corner. The later mentioned structure would be renovated and used for a used car sales office and for the storage of vehicles. A new 24,400 square foot structure would be constructed on the south part of the site and would be used as a new car showroom and for offices and a parts and service operation. Exterior materials to be used in the new structure will include brick, metal panels and architectural face concrete block. Site improvements would include curbing, asphalt, landscaping and screening. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.33,-subdivision 2, indicates that a car sales and service business is a use permitted by a special use permit in an "I" Industrial District. 2. Section 3.33, subdivision 3, sets forth the standards to be met for a car sales and service establishment seeking a special use permit. Copy of this ordinance is attached for your information. 3. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, governs the issuance of special use permits. Copy of this ordinance is attached for your information. 0 -2- STAFF REVIEW 1. This item was initially on the November 27, 1984, Planning Commission agenda. At that time, the staff indicated that a number of legal concerns needed to be answered by the city attorney's office. The city attorney's office responded prior to the December 11 Planning Commission meeting. A copy of the letter to the city attorney's office outlining those concerns and the reply are attached for your review. The city attorney's office has indicated that the standards listed in the ordinance apply only to the particular uses specifically mentioned in each paragraph. The city attorney's office also indicated that there is no numerical test to determine substantial compliance. Substantial compliance is open for city council interpretation for each individual proposal. 2. The comprehensive development plan for this area calls for intensive development. While the proposal involves a significant investment, it is not as extensive as the city might expect if a better plan for the area is forthcoming. Richfield already has much of its most developable land along 1494 occupied by non-intensive car sale activites. 3. The use site does not abut a lot in a single family residential zoning district as defined by the attached memo from the city attorney. • 4. The use will not create undue traffic hazards or traffic congestion because of turning movements into and out of the site. Three entrances to the site will be provided. Vehicles entering and exiting the site will not be concentrated in one entrance which would minimize congestion on surrounding streets. At the neighborhood meeting held by the applicant, a number of neighboring property owners were concerned about the existing traffic levels on Harriet Avenue and 77th Street and specifically the effect which this new use would have on those traffic levels. It is staff's feeling that while the automobile sales and service facility would increase traffic levels on Harriet Avenue, the legitimate traffic concerns expressed by the neighborhood are a result of area wide traffic problems which need to be addressed in the area as a whole. Sufficient parking will be provided on the site for customers and employees. This sufficient on site parking is important to prevent congestion in surrounding neighborhoods if cars are required to park on the street. 5. Drive-ways will be located at a sufficient distance away from intersections and will not be flared out to encroach on adjacent properties. 6. Staff has not seen details on the exterior lighting but • the applicant has indicated that they would be designed so as not to be a nuisance to adjacent properties. 7. The corner visibility triangle will be maintained. -3- 8. The zoning ordinance in Section 3.41, subdivision 5, indicates that the council shall not grant a special use permit unless it finds that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use for which the special use permit is sought will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. Because of numerous problems in the area including traffic problems, land use conflicts, aging and detriorated structures, asthetic appearances, and lack of sufficient off-street parking, the city's HRA and City Council are contemplating a major redevelopment effort in the area generally bounded by 77th Street, 494, the railroad tracks and highway 35W. The city council will be considering, on December 17th, a moratorium on major development within the area while a planning study is being carried out. There is concern that if extensive improvements are completed within the area prior to the completion of the planning area study the resulting use could be inconsistent with the plan and could be done in an area designated for public acquisition. This would result in increased public costs to acquire the property and to relocate its owners or tenants. The imminent passage of a moratorium ordinance is a legitimate item to be evaluated by the City Council in considering this special use permit application. Alternatively, the subject property may be best developed in conjunction with adjacent property. This could be through public or private land assembly. The development of larger segments of the ILCSA may permit far more intensive and valuable development than is represented by the applicant's proposal. The applicant's project, however, would create a very serious obstacle to an such larger development in the area. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended that this item be forwarded to the City Council without recommendation. The vote was 7-2 in favor of the motion. The original motion of the Planning Commission was amended to include the provision "but for the imminent council consideration of a moratorium ordinance the Planning Commission would recommend approval of the special use permit." R pectful s fitted, x ohn G. Cart right City Manager • JGVeja LL x • .? ra, ------------ LAIMRH &t? . 1 3 l ? • anew COMMM" t ran um Am- i I i i 1 i I ob 0 MAM" ? I ri • • ? . moo. A In as O - - V y L r 1 . i i' on PLAN r+aT l on BLOOMINGTON HONDA o M R m 'a ,r o °tl1 "Tv BIOONUW 3' I'llam- ? WCHPMMA um . v ? r r v o. {. e 1 a. ? r w ? . ?s? v Jt IN r ?tia31 13S1W ?S No .y. • . J I .t-1 '3AV ..t N Y •f Q•t 0. ca i C3 _Z Z O N F 3nV J. • Q i rMb r `? G G ?. N r? ,??• MM •?-_?+?L Div 1 Hli ! Lu LL Q Q J LL LU L U (L Q J J W Cc. Z M Z . N LU Z '.•; z r. N r Mf W v tftftft?. • t- % t z, nom. ' 13sabdH ? t ? J ? V M1-, rj J t •t ?. Q?31??dJ . • w ? c? T• ? 7 / ---?-. . J f s 1 f .? ?.f . f . %XX ... ri - - - - -.'[::+!q.!:.:}ASS:::%i:::{•:•:•1 69 4::.: 5•:•:•.:.p ;•_'•,: _:..• .•L._.: a. { - and- - - - - -: _•::r: X?:•}::•:i a•.:•.r • • _ . r•ra?tst?tntvtr?•trt?tt ur{U?::?ttrtrrrrnursalntaMIGI IAli;toilerftrert>rrrttrrtrttrtrrrt?rr:rrrrrrtrerr?arrrrrrtrtrrttt_f 19 ONV'?l9 TO: FROM: DATE: M E M O R A N D U M' Clayton LeFevere Terry Hall December 6, 1984 SUBJECT Applii:ation of Richfield Zoning Ordinance . Special Use Permit for Car Sales Lots in a letter dated November 28, 1984, Dennis Kraft asked a number of questions concerning the application of Richfield Code of Ordinances (R.C.O.) section 3.33, subd. 3, as it applies to car sales lots. This subdivision reads as follows: • Subd. 3. special use permit for a gasoline service station, a public garage or a car sales lot shall not be granted unless the council finds that the proposed use will be in substantial compliance with the following standards: (a) The use site will not abut a lot which is in an "R" or "R-1" district. For the purposes of this paragraph, a lot which merely adjoins the use site at one corner will not be deemed to abut the site. (Bill 1982-5) 2/8/82 (b) The use will not create undue traffic hazards or traffic congestion by reason of the turning movements which vehicles would make in entering or leaving the site. (c) No dtiveway, at the point it crosses the property line of- the site will be within 40 feet of an intersection. An "intersection" as used in this paragraph means the point of intersection of the extended curb lines if the curbs on the near side of the site, and measurement shall be along such extended curb lines. (d) The station or garage will not display any banners, noisy ribbons or similar attention- distracting or visibility-obscuring devices in the area in front of building setback lines. (e) The minimum frontage on any street will be 120- feet nd the minimum area of the site will be 12,000 square feet for a station with four pumps or less; and stations with more pumps will have sufficient additional frontage area to provide . equivalent' and sufficient space for • • • servicing vehicles, for off-street parking, for safe vehicular approaches into the station, and for good visibility for pedestrians and-divers. (f) No driveway will be flared outward on the boulevard in such a way a to encroach upon the boulevard of adjacent property. (g) The station or garage will comply with the off-street parking, sign construction and other regulations of the city. (h) Any required buffer or screening area will be so constructed as to obstruct headlight beams of automobiles on the station property from beaming onto adjacent residential property. . (i) Pump islands will not be so close to street or adjacent property lines as to create the likelihood of encroachment by vehicles upon street right-of-way, sidewalk areas or adjacent property. (j) only one permanent detached ground display sign, pedestal type may be erected on the street frontage at or near the property line adjacent to the street, except that if the front- age on the street is in excess of 150 feet, two such signs may be allowed by the council on such frontage, subject to any other applicable sign regulations. (Bill 1970-10) 3/23/70 (k) All exterior lighting will be so de- signed, placed and operated as not to be a nui- sance to adjacent properties. (1) If the station or garage is to be located in a shopping center or other integrated development, it will be in architectural harmony with the rest of the center-or development. (m) The station or garage will not provide for the outdoor operation of lubrication equip- ment, hydraulic lifts or service pits, or the outdoor display of merchandise; but the outside underground storage of gasoline and other petrole- um products''hetween pumps, or the temporary display of merchandise within 4 feet of the station building is permitted. (n) If the station or garage is not to be located on a county road or state highway, it shall not be operated between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following day. (o) If the site is at an intersection, provision will be made for an unobstructed area on the site, adjacent to and within 50 feet of the intersection, free of vehicles, signs (other than a pedestal sign), displays or other materials which tend to obstruct intersection visibility. Mr. Kraft has asked a number of questions concerning the subdivi- sion quoted above. I will attempt to answer each of his questions in this memorandum. 2 Question 1. What does substantial compliance mean; does it mean essential compliance with all 15 of the conditions or does it mean 13 of 15, or 14 of 15, or some other specific number? Answer: "Substantial compliance" is usually defined as a situatio where the partial compliance with an ordinance has fully satisfied the purpose of the ordinance as though there had been complete and literal compliance. The purpose of the statute or ordinance must be satisfied. Houman v. Mavor and Council of Bourou h of Pom ton Lakes, 382 A.2d 413, 155 N.J. Super 71; Kelley v. City o Rochester, 304 Minn. 328, 231 N.W. 2d 275 (1975). In other words, the test is not whether a specific number of the requirements contained in RCO 53.33, subd. 3 have been met, but rather the purpose of the ordinance has been satisfied. duestion 2. Is RCO §3.33, subd. 3(a) violated where single family residence districts are located immediately north' of the proposed sites for the car sale lots, and does this preclude the sites from being in substantial compliance with RCO 53.33, subd. 3? Answer: Whether the proposed sites violate subsection (a) is a fact question which must be determined ultimately by the .Council. However, in a previous case the Hennepin County Dis- trict . Court has ruled that sites which are across the street or alley from residential lots do not abut the residential lots. Question 3.. Does RCO §3.33, subd. 3(h) apply to a car sales lot,. or does it only apply to gasoline service stations? Answer: RCO 51.04 contains the rules of construction for the interpretation of the code. This section requires that all words are to be interpreted in accordance with their common and accepted usage. By reference, this section- also "adopts the Minnesota statutory rules of construction contained in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter, 645. Minnesota Statutes §645.16 provides in part that-every law be.construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions. In interpreting the language in RCO 53.33, subd. 3(h), applying these rules of construction would make the requirement of a buffer or screening area applies only to gaso- line service stations. Any other interpretation of the sub- section would make the word "station" superfluous and without meaning. Question 4. Does RCO •§3.33, subd. 3(d) apply to car sales lots? Answer: The prohibition contained in subsection (d) applies to a "station or garage." Following the rules of construction in R.C.O. 51.04 it would be my opinion that the term "garage" refers to ,a public garage. My interpretation is based upon the fact that the first paragraph of the subdivision appears to refer to three separate categories of uses. One category was "gasoline 3 • service station;" the second category of uses was "public garage, the third a car sales lot." Since car sales lot is not included in subsection (d) the prohibitions contained in the subsection do not apply to car sales lots. Question 5. Do each and every requirement of subsections (a) - ) apply to each and every use regulated by subdivision 3? Answer: This question has, in part, already been answered by the answers to questions 3 and 4. Every subsection does not apply to each use. The fact that the title of the subdivision is "Regulations Relating to Gasoline Service Stations, Public Garages and Car Sales Lots" does not make each subsection apply to the uses named in the title. RCO §1.04, subd. 1(5) states that the titles of subdivision are not a part of the subject matter of the code but are intended for convenience only. Question 6. In that the city staff and, to some extent the HRA, have been considering the possibility of redevelopment activities occurring in..this area in a planned manner, would the introduction of potentially incompatible uses be inconsistent with the public welfare condition in RCO §3.41 which has to be met before the city council could grant a special use permit? Answer: It is my understanding that at this time no specif- ic development plan or program has been adopted for the area. If no standard has been adopted, the Council should be unable to determine whether the proposed use is inconsistent with a plan which has not yet been formulated. The Council could not find that the use is detrimental to the public welfare because it may potentially conflict with a nonexistence development plan. if uncertainties exist about the uses compatible with this area, an interim zoning ordinance should be adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 5462.355, subd. 4. • 4 • 'AL-mber L2, i sa4 m N V *.+ C 40 e t!Z O O t*? • P$`. CaY't= Ley evere Le: were, Laf er, Kenneaty, Crmzz eacca F .;-St ark P ce wen MPIS. , M 55402 &bjeCt:. 4pl iCati= Of Richfield Zan{..:a Q_dinaMC* Specw Use Pemd provisicns to -Car Sales L^ts. . C*F CayC=: As we discum:ed earl:ar then-e is sane giestl= as to the meaning of caruin peovisicas of Subdivision secticn x.33 of the. caf-aid zanina - amc. t.== re..? alas a =nditiOrs that must met _ - .Z we city ==oil Granting of a Special use ;emit fcr a :%.w sa/as lot.. Miese questic:s ar_ as fc-tota: (t) Me immduct :r-f pr'asm;h indicates that a der ia,L =e Fermit may Flat :a graatad for a car sates ict =,.a= the =uaci.: ff.: ds mat =;csed use *--:? 1 to in aubatarttiai =M:-umce ;.t!: the foisWi=g standards. tea- f7r3t • ' art is utat dca3 subs`,Qatial cCmpl.anc* meats, dcas t 'mean essentfal,. ?ps.ianc. With aL' f{.fteen of the =di .Zors or does it mean `hir raen of f'? refit, cr our taea of 11 teen, :tee other --;e;i; is Flumber? (2) paragraph (a) of this sec -.14C." irdieates -"he case ? Flat abut `w:e ict- Whict i5 Lm an R or R1 district. :+ e t-ao pra cer t-as c: der cons eraticn ty a .1an111.-8 C=C .=Z= aL this ::,_* or Car Sales l at C e3'3L?Cns are ? caata<s L ; t a ;vest 7 7/2 street and ca 'we- m. ? S t:; St-4-mm. :a tcth instances, singe fani,:f residence dLV,-r- cts are :acatad i=edJAtal7 rc. w: of these Subject pt r;.ertias. With this teing the 5+?tuaticn, are these in viclaticn C4. secticr• (a) as Site above cr are I =hey Ln Substantial c;l.:ance? (r? !? 'ca"". a;.r ( ) iCct2S what . ?sny :'°r.t?: tuf , :r 'r C.ee:: ... M ra.e. 32'°a 'i ,?11 :e Sc C:rSt rC'.2r a : w CrSw i c : . c_ d::.;t*z .re.=s ..? ?.. ?.~`?irr ?i.?.? •:?.w? ?irG?r.?rii r ??`G :rte zesm-- iii Vi. 2L',?aL.a•::. ?Ol+ ip,•? G.? M ?w.n.• ?f, :sl*ChanQ: 339.7321 (312) •_ -A y . _ . N!'. C.:ayt :n Ler-ereria mow.w.= ; av a. 3 . S w i1.P.?.?\IN r •?$.?~:y. e?2'O we to ass=. t:•Iat this also a ;:urli•i garno cr a car sales lit oration cr does t =17 relate a a '' service station? saw, ' C u3 s ?z-z a?». td.? is a cafes that "stat_cz cr ire will- any ?+-?.%?'?t farmers, Gcisy r??CC:'.S Cr si=de ..aat:cn " L."aCL`.:$ Cr V-3 ?y ii devises z & area in frcr: cf c:.e bum A s etback L l es.'• iz ^n! }? ?y ? } ? Cc" this Wew that a car sales -^i1V `? uja 1.1 lay banners 1 this mazter 3 ne .her a . stati= or a gar-age? t5? Paragra?fss (Z? , Cud and CSI? refE.r is stations or garages but not car sales icts ?e several other 3eca1cr2 such as (o) , (k) , C 7 and (n) do not s;ecify a ;.ar'tietzLa use but merely establ!sh certain c^ad_t:cr= acs must be =. ra that the title of subdivision is "regulaticrz relating to gazo T-e servfc. staticns, guhlic garages and car =ales lots." Ca aL' of twese previsicns a;ply to ale of these uses? (6J Lit section 3.41 "s;ecial use ;&-.Its" subdivisica 5. "corditicits gcvera=g ?.ssuance" there is a Frcvisic3* that irdicazas that the cc=c:.' z.2.11 rat gram a ;wmit. unless it fir-Os he esta?l: wet - . ntanance or CPerazion of the use for- Mich the =0 *mrmit is sought " WLIa not under the cim=zi cam of the ;arlpicu ar case bo da« ;im=al to .t: a heosith, safet•i, mss, coafcrz , canvinecc or we fare of it: a -era rs r-_szdlr3 cr w= ldn; in he r.eizmccr:xrd of such use, or (2) ra the pbi:c wa fart or in,, _cus t^. ;m;ez":y co Lm;rcvemmms in tht neijt:bCt•".ccd. it that the Ci t'l Stuaf i aft, to soles utatt the ERA, have cea c^ns cer•? he ` ?CSSZbiI++.•f of redevelO;ment act" vities in :!iis area in a Coed marner, 4uld the !zt:-cducti= of ;ctentiaLy uses '-,e r.Criisistant. AWi04. =*, ;ubl.:c Fars c :r c{ ticz 4c has = to met before :"ha city ==ail could T83It a =ecial use Fer?it? in the cover letter = t.",e Pl=i ng C==.Usica for he agenda of November e7,. 1, 4 t "he staff did itdicato that there are lesal i-4 area aide ?.tarnw.g =ncerns need t ; to accressec ; 4 -r cc the that a c--naidersticn of these zzues stcuid tak; ;lace. =f Fassitie mould Uke w discuss this :am f»+t;: ycu cr a d er cf lour lm !.n w a mev f u`%re, W what "m c2.1 :=clete -L.r naf f re;crtz for cist- ut:Cn ?age 2rx ?i. C.ayt= r arwers ??easa .rrta?? sa Ycu Have My .:as?icrs this. 7wy U%ly yozz Ca=:s R. -Traft Cir*C r cf r: .?i.•? ?av?c a::? • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 457 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Agenda December 17, 1984 Subject: Special Use Permit Request at 918 West 77 1/2 Street (Terry Feldman Mercedes Benz Dealership) Council Members: PROPOSAL The proposal involves the use an existing commercial building and contiguous outdoor property. No expansion of the existing building is proposed. Three additional overhead doors would be installed on the north side of the building and service space created in the interior of the northeast corner building. The easterly half of the space would be for a parts sales and office operation, and the front of the westerly portion of the space would be used for display of new and used vehicles. New vehicles would be stored along the westerly side of the existing building as well as within the existing parking area on the south side of the building immediately adjacent to 77 1/2 Street. The parking stalls along the front of the building would be maintained for customer and employee use. There would no sales personnel, as such, offficed on this particular site. Customers would be brought over to the site to view cars on display as necessary. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.33, subdivision 2, indicates that a car sales and service business is a use permitted by a special use permit in a C-2 general commercial district. 2. Section 3.33, be met for a car sale special use permits. your information. 3. Section 3.41, special use permits. Your information. subdivision 3, s and services A copy of this subdivision 5, A copy of this sets forth the standards to establishment seeking ordinance is attached for governs the issuance of ordinance is attached for -2- STAFF REVIEW 1. Prior to consideration by the Planning Commission on December 11, 1984, the staff raised a number of legal concerns about the standards for a car sales lot. A copy of a letter to the city attorney's offic outling those concerns is attached along with their response. 2. There should be sufficient parking available for customers and employees and within the strip center as a whole with this new use. There are approximately 157 parking stalls provided on the south side of the existing strip center between Aldrich Avenue and Colfax Avenue. The uses within t,,e center would require a 140 parking stalls. Therefore, there would be an excess of 17 parking stalls on the site. Observations have indicated that there is not a parking shortage within that existing strip center at the present time. However there are some vacancies within the center which could generate additional parking need if they are filled at some future date. 3. The proposal would improve the appearance of the building. 4. There would be no storage of equipment or parts or similar material on the north side of the building. There would be short term service car parking and occassional vehicle • parking over night if a service vehicle was not picked up. 5. The vehicles parked along the west side of the building would be within the unimproved right-of-way of Colfax Avenue. This is a problem that we have with other vehicle dealers within the city and it is a problem that we should deal with on a community wide basis to ensure equal treatment of all car dealers. 6. The use would not create undue traffic hazards or traffic congestion on surrounding streets. At the meeting of December 17, 1984, the city council will consider giving first reading to an ordinance which, if adopted, will impose a building moratorium for an area of south-central Richfield including the subject property. Because of the nature of the request (no additional building construction and little, if any, increase in the value of the improvements on the property), it is the opinion of the staff that the approval of this request will not negatively impact the interests of the public if the moratorium is enacted by the city council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the special use permit as requested, with two stipulations: -3- 1. The ten parking stalls along the front of the building should be reserved for employee and customer parking. These ten stalls should not be used for new or used vehicles which are for sale. 2. That the applicant enter into a hold harmless agreement with the city for allowing the use of the boulevard area of Colfax Avenue for the display of new vehicles. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval of the application by an 8-0 vote. (Commissioner Jensen abstained from voting on this issue because of a potential conflict of interest). Re ectfu1 u itted, Z J n G. Cart right ity Manager JGC/eja a 0 i0 9 ? - ! eisruu.wauuu:??ir??eu,?ttttltr?t ?urtuwr?uut3pwQifrymuiiuuiitAILL iui r tii ueuui¦•uAlu,:wtutri T 'o, p -411 '•.'.7!,.x: x: d. •.:n? °L' . +101: %' •' , ?.±? • S . • S` ' Q1 .? ? s .'•• : ?+1 :1., • y '111?j (, 1? •• ••• ?-, •!?•_? y 'ice, -, •? prat Ti t ?J.: A? 'Gd:: h?_ 4c ?s1k a r? ??CD??o! ZNVASS xxoo3 0 ? .t 0 S.N N319 - M ?L F t" t,4 NOS ti ti H? ti N 'C% r Fl; Q ?c r g m _ ? h f c r lip- ? r • ? y 11UH1ISON NP - 11. of! p ? of ? V?b o a ? .o s ` w ::•'?? ,:: -W 41? e, . G- ?4L o5' m VJ , `. , - .. ?. M V Z W 0 3a. z z 2 i • Tr • ?r i o rl i is a ? f + q ?j ? • t( It ?E I t 3 ti I r t I ?! N r i „ b t t t II s a= ?J 4Q II I 1 !1 ii n ;I i d L+? ?IT _Ix Dim ? i + November 2,Q,, 1984 ' M Mr. Clayton LeFevere GV LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, d. C'Brien & Drawn - LO 2000 First Bank Place West ltd Mpls. , MN 55402 Subject: Application of Richfield Zoning Crdinance Special Use Permit Provisions to-Car Sales O Lots. U ? Dear Clayton: = _ As we discussed earlier there is acme question as .to the meaning of certain rovision f bdi i i ti f h p s o v su s on 3, sec on 3.33 o t e Richfield zoning ordinance which relates to conditions that must be met prior to the city council granting of a special use permit for a car sales lot. These questions are as follows: (1) The introductory paragraph indicates that a special use permit may not be granted for a car sales lot unless _ the council finds that proposed use will be in substantial canpliance with the following standards. > first question is what does substantial compliance - mean, does it mean essential compliance with all 0 fifteen of the conditions or does it mean thirteen of fifteen, or fourteen of fifteen, or some other specific number? (2) Paragraph (a) of this section indicates the use will •i•+ not abut the lot which is in an R or R1 district. The two properties under consideration by the Planning O Camission at this time for car sales lot operations Q are located at 0,18 West 77 1/2 Street and 400 West 78th Street. In both instances; single family residence • O districts are located immediately north of these O subject properties. With this being the situation, are these in violation of section (a) as sited above or t0 are they in substantial compliance? (3) Paragraph (h) indicates that "any required buffer or screening area will be so constructed as to obstruct headlight begs cf automebiies frcm station property from beaming onto adjacent residential property." telephone: 869-7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer Page Two Mr. Clayton LeFevere ;his paragraph refers to "station" property. Are we to assume that this also applies to a public garage or a car sales lot operation or does it only relate to a gasoline service station? (4) Paragraph (d) indicates that "station or"garage will not display any banners, noisy ribbons or similar attention distracting or visibility obscurring devises in the area in front of the building setback lines." Does this mean that a car sales lot could display banners in this matter in that it is neither a station or a garage? (5) Paragraphs (l), (M) and (N) refer to stations or garages but not car sales lots while several other sections such as (o), (k), (j) and (h) do not specify a particular use but merely establish certain conditions which must be met. In that the title of subdivision 3 is "regulations relating to gasoline service stations, public garages and car sales lots." Do all of these provisions apply to all of these uses? (6) In section 3.41 "special use permits" subdivision 5 "conditions governing issuance!' there is a provision that indicates that the council shall not grant a permit unless it finds the establishment maintenance or operation of the use for which the use permit is sought will not under the circumstances of the particular case. be detrimental'to -the health, safety, morals, comfort, convinence or welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use, or (2) to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. In that the city staff and, to some, extent the HRA, have been considering the possibility of redevelopment activities occurring in this area in a planned manner, would the introduction of potentially incompatible uses be inconsistent with the public welfare condition which has to be met before the city council could grant a special use permit? In the cover letter to the Planning Ccmission for the agenda of November 27, 1984 the staff did indicate that there are legal in area wide planning concerns that need to be addressed prior to the time that a consideration of these issues should take place. If possible I would like to discuss this item with you or a member of your firm in the near future, so that we can complete our staff reports in time for distribution for the planning commission meeting of December 11, 1984. Page Three Mr. Clayton LeFevere Please =ntact me if you have any questicns on this. Very truly yours, 4&m.4 tennis R. Kraft Director of immunity Development. DRKljle 1. 0 0 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Clayton LeFevere FROM: Terry Hall DATE: December 6, 1984 SUBJECT: Application of Richfield Zoning Ordinance Special Use Permit for Car Sales Lots ,In a letter dated November 28, 1984, Dennis Kraft asked a number of questions concerning the application of Richfield Code of Ordinances (R.C.O.) section 3.33, subd. 3, as it applies to car sales lots. This subdivision reads as follows: Subd. 3. Regulations Relating to Gasoline Service Stations, Public Garages and Car Sales Lots. A special use permit for a gasoline service station, a public garage or a car sales lot shall not be granted unless the council finds that the proposed use will be in substantial compliance with. the following standards: (a) The use site will not abut a lot which is in an "R" or "R-1" district. For the purposes of this paragraph, a lot which merely adjoins the use site at one corner will not be deemed to abut the site. (Bill 1982-5) 2/8/82 (b) The use will not create undue traffic hazards or traffic congestion by reason of the turning movements which vehicles would make in entering or leaving the site. (c) No driveway, at the point it crosses the property line of the site will be within 40 feet of an intersection. An "intersection" as used in this paragraph means the point of. intersection of the extended curb lines if the curbs on the near side of the site, and measurement shall be along such extended curb lines. (d) The station or garage will not display any banners, noisy ribbons or similar attention- distracting or visibility-obscuring devices in the area in front of building setback lines. (e) The minimum frontage on any street will be 120- feet nd the minimum area of the site will be 12,000 square feet for a station with four pumps or less; and stations with more pum s will p have sufficient additional frontage area to provide equivalent and sufficient space for servicing vehicles, for off-street p-a-rking, for safe vehicular approaches into the station, and for good visibility for pedestrians and drivers. (f) No driveway will be flared outward on the boulevard in such a way a to encroaclCupon'the boulevard of adjacent property. (g) The station or garage will comply with the off-street parking, sign construction and other regulations of the city. (h) Any required buffer or screening area will be so constructed as to obstruct headlight beams of automobiles on the station property from beaming onto adjacent residential property. (i) Pump islands will not be so close to street or adjacent property lines as to create the J likelihood of encroachment by vehicles upon street right-of-way, sidewalk areas or adjacent property. (j) Only one permanent detached ground display sign, pedestal type may be erected on the street frontage at or near the property line adjacent to the street, except that if the front- age on the street is in excess of 150 feet, two such signs may be allowed by the council on such frontage, subject to any other applicable sign regulations. (Bill 1970-10) 3/23/70 (k) All exterior lighting will be so de- signed, placed and operated as not to be a nui- sance to adjacent properties. (1) If the station or garage is to be located in a shopping center or other integrated development, it will be in architectural harmony with the rest of the center or development. (m) The station or garage will not provide for the outdoor operation of lubrication equip- ment, hydraulic lifts or service pits, or the outdoor display of merchandise; but the outside underground storage of gasoline and other petrole- um products-'between pumps, or the temporary display of merchandise within 4 feet of the station building is permitted. (n) If the station or garage is not to be located on a county road or state highway, it shall not be operated between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of-the following day. (o) If the site is at an intersection, provision will be made for an unobstructed area on the site, adjacent to and within 50 feet of the intersection, free of vehicles, signs (other than a pedestal sign), displays or other materials which tend to obstruct intersection visibility. . Mr. Kraft has asked a number of questions concerning the subdivi- sion quoted above. I will attempt to answer each of his questions in this memorandum. 2 Question 1. What does substantial compliance mean; does it mean, essential compliance with all 15 of the conditions or does it mean 13 of 15, or 14 of 15, or some other specific number? Answer: "Substantial compliance" is usually defined as a situation where the partial compliance with an ordinance has fully satisfied the purpose of the ordinance as though there had been complete and literal compliance. The.purpose of the statute or ordinance must be satisfied. Houman v. Mayor and Council of Bourou h of Pompton Lakes, 382 A.2d 413, 155 N.J. Super 71; Kelley v. City o Rochester, 304 Minn. 328, 231 N.W. 2d 275 (1975). In other words, the test is not whether a specific number of the requirements contained' in RCO 53.33, subd. 3 have been met, but rather the purpose of the ordinance has been satisfied. 6uestion 2. Is RCO 53.33, subd. 3(a) violated where single family residence districts are located immediately north of the proposed sites for the car sale lots, and does this preclude the sites from being in substantial compliance with RCO §3.33, subd. 3? Answer: Whether the proposed sites violate subsection (a) is a fact question which must be determined ultimately by the Council. However; in a previous case the Hennepin County Dis- trict Court has ruled that sites which are across the street or alley from residential lots do not abut the residential lots. Question 3. Does RCO 53.33, subd. 3(h) apply to a.car sales lot, or does it only apply to gasoline service stations? Answer: RCO §1.04* contains the rules of construction for the interpretation of the code. This section requires that all words are to be interpreted in accordance with. their common and accepted usage. By reference, this section also adopts the Minnesota statutory rules of construction contained in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 645. Minnesota Statutes §645.16 provides in part that every law be-Construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions. In interpreting the language in RCO 53.33, subd. 3(h), applying these rules of construction would make the requirement of a buffer or screening area applies only to gaso- line service stations. Any other interpretation of the sub- section would make the word "station" superfluous and without meaning. Question 4. Does RCO 53.33, subd. 3(d) apply to car sales lots? Answer: The prohibition contained in subsection (d) applies to a "station or garage." Following the rules of construction in R.C.O. §1.04 it would be my opinion that the term "garage" refers • to a public garage. My interpretation is based upon the fact that the first paragraph of the subdivision appears to refer to three separate categories of uses. One category was "gasoline 3 service station;" the second category of uses was "public garage, the third a car sales lot." Since car sales lot is not included in subsection (d) the prohibitions contained in the subsection do not apply to car sales lots. Question 5. Do each and every requirement of subsections (a) - (o) apply to each and every use regulated by subdivision 3? Answer: This question has, in part, already been answered by the answers to questions 3 and 4. Every subsection does not apply to each use. The fact that the title of the subdivision is "Regulations Relating to Gasoline Service Stations, Public Garages and Car Sales Lots" does not make each subsection apply to the uses named in the title. RCO §1.04, subd. 1(5) states that the titles of subdivision are not a part of the subject matter of the code but are intended for convenience only. Question 6. In that the city staff and, to some extent the HRA, have been considering the possibility of redevelopment activities occurring in this area in a planned manner, would the introduction of potentially incompatible uses be inconsistent with the public welfare condition in RCO §3.41 which has to be met before the city council could grant a special use permit? Answer: It is my understanding that at this time no specif- ic development plan or program has been adopted for the area. If no standard has been adopted, the Council should be unable to determine whether the proposed use is inconsistent with a plan which has not yet been formulated. The Council could not find that the use is detrimental to the public welfare because it may potentially conflict with a nonexistence development plan. if uncertainties exist about the uses compatible with this area, an interim zoning ordinance should be adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §462.355, subd. 4. • 4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 456 Agenda December 17, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Amending 1984 Budget Council Members: There is an item placed on the December 17, 1984 City Council Agenda providing for the City Council consideration of a resolution which would amend the City's 1984 General Fund Budget. The City Charter provides that the City Council must appropriate monies for operations of the City on a Departmental level basis. During the course of the year, the City Council usually amends the operating budget at least once. This is referred to as the Revised 1984 budget. However, since • October, the Housing and Redevelopment and Planning and Zoning Divisions activity budgets 1984 expenditures have exceeded the appropriation contained in the revised 1984 budget. The Housing and Redevelopment Division budget by 12/31/84 will be overspent by about $8,250, which is primarily due to over-estimated inter-departmental labor credits for the Housing and Redevelopment Division. Additional labor credits were anticipated for time spent on the energy project and Cedar Avenue liquor study (CP 785). However, during the course of the year, the energy project administrative support staff to theEnergy Aide minimized their time charges to the program to allow maximum time of the Energy Aide and the Cedar Avenue liquor study has not been as active as anticipated. Thus, with the inter-departmental labor credits over-estimated, an over- expenditure would result in this area. The Planning and Zoning Division budget of the General Fund failed to include personnel charges for the city Planner, Plan- ning Intern and clerical staff to administer several community development block grant activities in the amount of $9,710. Offsetting these labor charges of $,9710 is an adjustment of $9,710 of community development block grant revenues to the Intergovernmental Revenue category. The city initially understaded the amount of CDBG funds allocated to the city. • Thus, the $9,710 labor expense is offset by increasing the General Fund revenues by a like amount. -2- Also, the 1984 budget anticipated receiving a Federal Aviation Administration Grant to amend our comprehensive plan. • concerning land use noise compatability. The city has received tentative approval of the FAA grant, but monies will not be received until 1985• Therefore,-it is necessary to reduce the General Fund revenue by $1,380. The transfer of $10,000 from Administrative Services Department to Community Development Department is made possible because of a lower charge by Hennepin County for assessing services and the six month vacancy in the position of Administrative Services Director. . Summary Expenditures Community Development Dept Add: HRD Personnel Costs $ 8,250 Add: Planning and Zoning $10,080 $18,330 Decrease: Administrative Ser. $10,000 Net Increase in Expenditures $ 8,330 Revenues Add: Increase CDBG Funds $ 8,330 Net Change to General Fund -0- Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing a transfer of appropriations from the Administrative Services Department budget to the Community Development budget, as described. tfu1/1y //sgHS itted , hn G. Cart fight ty Manager JGC: sb cc: Acting Administrative Services Director Community Development Director Finance Manager 0 RESOLUTION NO • RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISIONS OF 1984 BUDGETS OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6806 appropriated funds for personal services, and other expenses and capital outlays for each department of the city for the year 1984; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6940 authorized revision of thr -1984 budget of various departments; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has requested a revision of the 1984 budget appropriations in accordance with Charter provisions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: r 'i. That the 1984 appropriations for the following departments of the General Fund be revised as follows: • GENERAL FUND AMOUNT Administrative Services $10,000 Decrease Community Development $18,330 Increase 2. That the 1984 estimated revenues of the General Fund be revised as follows: GENERAL FUND' AMOUNT Intergovernmentl Revenue $ 8,330 Increase 3. That the City Manager bring-into effect the provisions of this resolution. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 17th day of December, 1984. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh My Clerk 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 455 Agenda December 17, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Waiver of Subdivision Requirements for Property to be Conveyed to the Lake Shore Drive Condominium Association Council Members: The Lake Shore Drive Condominium Association intends to take title to three portions of land conveyed by the HRA on September 7, 1983 to Knutson Construction Company. The three portions of land are known as the Vacated Lake Shore Drive, the "Sliver" and the "Finger". (See attached map). These parcels are described by metes and bounds. The Lake Shore Drive Condominium Association requests a waiving of any subdivision requirements • on the metes and bounds parcels which would allow them to convey the property without platting. Platting of parcels is very costly and time consuming. The Richfield subdivision ordinance provides that no conveyance of land shall take place in which the land is conveyed by metes and bounds description which is not approved by council resolution, shall be made or recorded if the parcel described in the conveyance is less than 5 acres in area and 300 feet in width, unless such parcel was a separate parcel of record as of March 11,1940. The parcels in question are described by metes and bounds descriptions and were not in existence prior to 1940. The Lake Shore Drive condominium Association is requesting that the city waive any subdivision requirements concerning these small metes and bounds parcels. It is the staff's opinion that strict compliance with the subdivision requirements may result in an unnecessary hardship. These small parcels have' been considered part of the open space for the Lake Shore Drive condominium, and the condominium association is intending to place a covenant on the parcels to restrict their use to open space. 0 -2- The subdivision waiver would not interfere with the purpose of the planning regulations of the city. The council may wish to refer this matter to the Planning Commission for their recommendation, although the staff believes this is not a major action and does not require nor merit Planning Commission review. The proposed resolution would grant the subdivision waiver for property to be conveyed to the Lake Shore Drive Condominium Association will be available at the Monday night meeting. It is recommended that the City Council approve this resolution to allow the above described conveyance to occur. Respectf mitted, Lrh., Gu ohn G. ar wright City Manager JGC/eja 0 0 a 66TH WEST - Ji ? e ss?7%s; `SLIVER' f 1 ?J ?o ar. loo LAKE SHORE DRIVE CONDOMINIUM • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 454 Agenda December 17, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Reallocating Year IX Community Development Block Grant Funds 40 Council Members: This item has been scheduled for council consideration on December 17, 1984. The City Council previously allocated $161,243 of program Year IX Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to an Economic Development Project and $1,920 for the Y.E.S. Home Services Program. The Economic Development Project was intended to provide funds for acquisition of commercial property for redevelopment and/or for providing interest write-downs on loans to renovate existing commercial properties. The Y.E.S. project was intended to reduce the fees charged by Y.E.S. to provide household cleaning and related services to low income and disabled adults as well as senior citizens. According to expenditure guidelines established by Hennepin County the city must expend all program Year IX funds by June 30, 1985. All Year IX funds not expended by that date will revert back to Hennepin County. Further, we cannot reallocate Year IX funds after December 31, 1984. At the present time it appears we will be unable to expend these funds by June 30, 1985. Therefore it is recommended that these funds be reallocated to different Year IX and X projects as follows: E -2- Previous Project Budget Amount • Economic Development ; 161,243 H.O.M.E. Program ; 4,985 Housing Rehabilitation 117,284 Scattered Site ; 377,622 Acquisition YES Home Services ; 1,920 Program TOTAL ; 663,094 Proposed Budget Amount 9,985 190,027 463,082 663,094 Change - 161 ,243 + 5 , 000 + 72,743 + 85 , 420 1:920 The previous Scattered Site Acquisition budget of $377,622 has been expended except for $3,000 in site clearance which is anticipated to be committed before the end of the year. The properties at 1016 West 66th Street, 901-03 Rae Drive, 7245 Humboldt, and 6820-12th Avenue have been purchased. The $85,420 proposed allocation will be utilized within the Rae Drive/66th Street project area to perform tasks before June 30, 1985 that will reduce costs for a developer and therefore make the proposed housing units more affordable. Anticipated CDBG eligible tasks include site clearance and completion of tenant relocation. A portion of the fund would also be utilized to complete site clearance at 7245 Humboldt and 6820-12 Avenue. If enough funds remain after these other activities are completed, one additional Scattered Site would be identified and acquired before the expenditure deadline. The previous Housing Rehabilitation budget of CDBG Year IX and X funds has been expended or committed. Year IX funds provided approximately 17 loans where rehabilitation work has been completed and all funds have been expended as of November, 1984. Year X funds have provided approximately 14 loan commitments where rehabilitation work is in progress or deferred to better weather in the Spring, 1985. The proposed allocation of $72,743 would provide approximately 10 loans to a portion of the 22 households on a waiting list for loan funds. Respectfu ',?ubmi'tted, John G. Carb?wrig City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 453 Agenda December 17, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Building Permit Moratorium, Interstate Lyndale Commercial Study Area (ILCSA) Council Members: Attached is a map, resolution, and an ordinance related to the ILCSA. The map delineates the study area. The interim ordinance concerns the enactment of a building permit moratorium for a period of at least twelve months for the ILCSA. However, permits could be issued for certain types of improvements which will not involve new building construction or expansion, or increase the fair market value of structures by • more than 10 percent, or intensify traffic or parking problems during the effective period of the ordinance (See ordinance section 3). The Council is being asked to give first reading to the ordinance on December 17th with the public hearing and second reading scheduled for February 11, 1985. The resolution directs staff not to issue building permits for improvements which are requested during the interim period which would end when the interim ordinance becomes effective, or 120 days after the passage of the resolution, whichever occurs first. The City Council, HRA and Chamber of Commerce have expressed concern about the future of the ILCSA. In 1980, the HRA expressed concern about the area and thought it should be studied. At the request of a Chamber sponsored committee in July 1982, the HRA budgeted funds for a study of the area. At that time, the area extended east to Nicollet Avenue and north to 76th Street with the exception being along Lyndale Avenue where the boundary was north to 74th Street. In subsequent years, through the 1984-85 budget process, the HRA maintained its committment to the area. As recently as March 1983, the 76th & Lyndale area was identified as a "Target Issue" for 1984. In April, 1983, staff initiated a series of meetings with • the Chamber sponsored committee which was chaired by Mr. Tom Price. The meetings continued until approximately March, 1984. The meetings ceased in the opinion of the city staff because an impasse evolved. The commitee wished to pursue a traffic -2- study. Staff desired to undertake a comprehensive study which would result in a long range strategy for improving the area. • Land use intensity and traffic planning are very closely related. It is mandatory to consider both land use and traffic for valid long term planning of the area. Events of the last few months suggest that the future welfare of the City will be impaired if some action is not now taken. "Piecemeal development" has occurred and is contemplated for a number of vacant or underutilized parcels within the proposed study area. If these developments proceed, the problems of blight and incompatible land use enumberated in the ordinance in Section 1.B will be exacerbated. The unique potential for this area in terms of additional jobs, increased sales and increased tax revenues could be lost for the next generation. ' At this time, it is proposed that a building permit moratorium be adopted for the study area. During the moratorium period, staff and planning consultants would undertake a comprehensive study of which traffic would be a part. Other elements such as building conditions, present & future land use, finanical and economic ramifications and lack of parking would be examined. The study area has been reduced in size from that initially contemplated. The reduction resulted form the need to focus more specifially on problems in the commercial area which are identified with the 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue area. Only houses immediately adjacent to the commercial area have been included in the study area to permit the study of resolutions to the conflicts which exist between these abutting uses. Inclusion of residential structures does not imply their acquisition. The study will include planning to reduce conflicts between residential and non-residential property. The resolution directs staff to prepare a proposal for implementing a planning process which would be undertaken during the moratorium period: The process will propose funding by the HRA. It will also include the establishment of working relationships between the staff and a committee of business people and a committee of residents. The question of the need for a referred to the Planning Commision the public hearing and the second February, both organizations will the need for a moratorium and the plan. Recommendation: moratorium will also be and the HRA. Thus, prior to reading of the ordinance in have an opportunity to study formulation of a comprehensive The city manager, city attorney and staff recommend that the city council adopt the attached resolution and give first -3- reading to the attached moratorium ordinance. It is further recommended that the city council set the moratorium ordinance for public hearing and second reading on February 11, 1985. • During this interim period before the February 11 public hearing, it is also recommended that the city council direct the planning commission and the HRA to hold one or more public meetings for the purpose of elciting public comments from both residents and business people. Also, it is recommended that the city staff publicize the city council's desire to seek volunteers to serve on a residents committee and on a business committee to assure good communications and participation on the planning study. Because of the citywide significance of the proposed plan, representation should be from both within the project area as well as from all parts of the city. A presentation will be made at the special city council meeting on Monday, December 17, 1984 at 7:00 PM. tf,,tfl?j9? submitted , t Bohn G. Ca_rtwrigP City Manager • JGC/eja 0 DATE: December 14, 1984 T0: Members of the Richfield Chambe of Commerce Board of Directors w FROM: City Manager ?i SUBJECT: Proposed Building Permit Morato 'um the Area Known As Interstate-Lyndale Commercial Study Area (ILCSA) At last Wednesday's (12/12/84) Chamber of Commerce Board of Director's meeting, a discussion took place concerning the city staff proposal to the City Council that a building permit moratorium be initiated for ILCSA (also known as ILN or Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet). The moratorium ordinance requires two readings. The first reading is scheduled for the special City council meeting on December 17, 1984 at 7:00 P.M. The second reading and possible passage of the ordinance would' not be scheduled until February 11, 1985, in order to allow time for Community input and a public hearing by the Planning Commission in late January. Attached hereto are copies of city staff reports, a map of the ILCSA, the proposed building permit moratorium ordinance and a resolution directing the staff, if approved, to not issue building permits during the interim period that the building permit mortorium ordinance is under consideration (from December 17, 1984 to February 11, 1985). During the period the ordinance is in effect, permits for maintenance and repairs would continue to be issued-,V- provided that the permit work will not increase the fair market value of the property involved by more than ten percent. (see Section 3 of the Moratorium ordinance). The writer's summary of why a moratorium on development is critical follows. T4 AI CFirst, development interest and activity in the ILCSA is happening and can happen very quickly. For example, in recent months the desire by Terry Feldman to expand his Mercedes dealership. Or, the proposed new Bloomington Honda dealership on the three acre Astleford Equipment Company site. City staff is aware of developer(s) interest in the 14 acre Lyons property (Cloverleaf Motel site). rThe problem is the City does not have a plan on how best to redevelop this area for the future in terms.of achieving high intensity development. The City needs to look to the future for the best development that meets with Community acceptance and will generate its fair share of taxes to provide quality education and city services. L To highlight this point of high intensive development, let's comparePthe Market Plaza project df o t The Market Plaza site is approximately 5 acres and will contain development valued at $22 million dollars or $4.4 million per acre. The Bloomington Honda site is about 3.25 acres and the development is. valued approximately $1 million or $308,000 per acre. This equates to the Martket Plaza project being fourteen times as great as the proposed Bloomington*Honda project. • The Comprehensive Plan for this area calls for intensive development While the proposal by Bloomington Honda involves a significant investment, it is not as intensive as the city might expect if a better plan for the area is forthcoming: (Richfield already has much of its most developable land along the 1494 corridor occupied by non-intensive car related activities. Secondly, the Astleford property of approximately 3-1/4 acres is situated between the Colonial Motel property at the Lyndale-I494 interchange and a large parcel of land now occupied by a lumber business. Alternatively, the subject property (Astleford) may be best developed in conjunction with adjacent property. This could be through public or private land assembly. CThIle development of larger segments (i.e., Market Plaz°a example) in the ILCSA may permit for more intensive and valuable developmentthan is represented by the Bloomington Honda proposal. The Bloomington Honda proposal, however, would create a very serious obstacle to any such larger development in the area. 1 Thirdly,?f the Community supports a need for a comprehensive development plan for the I CSA, then policy makers can decide what can be developed to bring a stronger commercial and industrial tax base. Very little undeveloped land reamins within the city. This area under consideration with its proximity to the International Airport and downtown Minneapolis has the potential to provide a location for some of the most valuable and desirable commercial and/or industrial development within Richfield Fourth,[?the existing retail areas on Lyndale south of 74th Street if left to individual property owners to develop will continue along the past trend of small, piecemeal development. The ILCSA contains serious problems such as: -underdeveloped land; -aging and deteriorating buildings; -insufficient off-street parking; -commercial-residential traffic conflicts; -some narrow streets; and, -lack of buffer land uses to protect the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Action is needed now to stop piecemeal development following the old pattern of smaller investments. This is not good enough. Therefore, the need for a moratorium ordinance cc: Mayor and City Council Housing Redevelopment Authority Members Planning Commission Members