The URL can be used to link to this page

09-08-86 agenda0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 358 Agenda September 8, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Permit for Illuminated Sign Richfield Bank & Trust, 6625 Lyndale Council Members: Nordquist Sign Company has requested an advertising permit to erect a 9' 8" x 2' single -faced illuminated wall sign at the Richfield Bank and Trust (remote banking facility) located at 6625 Lyndale Avenue. City ordinances provide that the city council must approve all permits for illuminated signs. Staff Review: The sign contractor and owner did not make application for a sign permit prior to erection. The owner was advised of the need for a permit several months ago, but did not respond at that time. The sign appears to be out of character with the balance of the development and the L /H /N Urban Design guidelines. The L /H /N Urban Design guidelines provide that signs should have individual illuminated letters. The sign erected at the Richfield Bank and Trust is a panel board type of sign. The sign does not conform to the Urban Design guidelines in that the colors of the sign are not consistent with other signs on the site (which are mostly earthtones) and does not blend in with the surroundings. The sign has a white background with colored letters on the face. Recommendation: Because the proposed sign does not meet the L /H /N Urban Design guidelines, it is recommended that the City Council deny the permit for this illuminated sign and request that the present panels be removed and redone with an earth tone background so that the sign is consistent with other signs on the site conforms to the Urban Design Guidelines. Respectf ly submitted, Jam s . Prosser Cit anager Ci7 l_� aanagat Dater Inspectar ` " 2�"f Date v :?ROVE DE:'L APPROVE DENY Planning Department City Council Date Date Routs to above for special approval per code General Sisns g•� APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, , Minnesota Date. %;� Zoning Sign Erected - Yes k No Fee . Address Of Proprietor Name'UCWtM _-t-Ta {' DBA Sign Erector (0 I1�. Address 31Z U1• Uke St. �f0�5� MV1• 6'5yQg T' -,e Of SI-, sign Weather Cover Li-hting X1 Na11 Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable I Te=orary I ITrailer Single Face Double Face aulti -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searc :light Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T CI A U Post 7 I1' uminated _(Si) No Watts Wlectrical Contractor Clear Leson Constant Frosted Leson Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Aeon Zip Lite Other Other(Explai: Sign Colors Whrfe 6(cgs COICgi CD0,4 v Address Phone ?ropaart v Owner or his Agent Signature j� l`f�,V�� Phone _St_=ated Cost loco. Si Lvidtlh T 9"Elleight V -otal Square Feet %% T ?CS__iQn Of the ad'Jer= sere ^.t Str :Ct :re aosh_ _n el_n L sidewalks. curbs, roadways, Overhead uteri_ __nes, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drsw�ng with Sig^_ =_cant d_mens_c- s and attached thereto Of major signs. : nor signs as de_'imed on page 2. Teo blueprints of the s_ .., blllboa:d, or outdoor advert-; structure construction plans: including specifications, _lst of materials, and e::piicit anc er ng or fastening details and a copv of t a stress sheets, calculations, color of s-:-n str'=zure. Dces t :e s -;n copv relate solely to the business, Or ac---; 7_ty conducted on :-a ?rem; ses' t a Sign, Structure, or bi117Card rest_4_,-_ any sight distan ?e under, around, Or over r � l erSOES d St_ed for Or paSSi: th h0 e Subject pre�1S2S� , l I�cS� Jy I � :: h� ill Applicant's ?hcne :lumber 1 Z3 -7�qi e wit Firm ��' Date 1 Lkt 1988 PLEASE SEE Rr4IRSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION ScZ-TCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 966 -5061 • • • 16U-IEZB•Zi9 % t I 9OV55 NW S!pd -- W alYCl Ip^ V Ism aaY(I y + a 7wa5 ;nm �-am ZI£ ~ l 1dsap? n 311110'.)1aJ1 t J,SIN iYil■ 1� q,'`s`x �o �3iadn�d ayi s1 SUW-P SNI ale�5 ssaippy uD N N pp Iri V o pQ3 1111 iu� 1111111 + 1lfilfli�� I i '�nlllll� 0 ap I �� III ' l� -�• _ 1 i �I IIIII � I S �IIII1� I Ilnllll i Ilnllll' I (till) Z n�r,z - • n CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 357 Agenda September 8, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Revised Joint Powers Agreement Between the Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Bloomington and Richfield and the South Hennepin Human Services Council Council Members: Background: On August 11, 1986 the city council considered a request from the South Hennepin Human Services Council to approve a revised Joint Powers Agreement. During discussion of this matter, staff reported that the revised agreement provided a major change from the existing agreement and that the operational control of South Hennepin was to be transferred from the four member city councils to the Board of Directors of the South Hennepin Human Service Council. Based upon this change, the council took no action with regard to the proposed revision of the agreement, and directed staff to resolve the control issue and retain the operational authority for the agency with the four member city councils. Attached for council reference is a copy of the August 11, 1936 Council Letter No. 307. Proposed Revisions: The Public Safety Director has met with the Bloomington City Attorney's office and a representative from the Edina City Manager's office. The result of the meetings is a new revised Joint Powers Agreement which addresses the control issue which had been of concern to the city council. A copy of this proposed agreement is attached. Basically, changes have been made to Article VI, which clarifies the ability of South Hennepin to enter into contractual arrangements and removes the authority for the Board to apply for and receive loans. This Article has further been amended to deal 40 with the operational control of the South Hennepin Human Services Council by returning the original language to the agreement which made the four city councils jointly responsible for operations. r� • SOUTH IiENNEPLN HUMAN :)LRVICES WUNCLI. JOINT AND 000PE!1,A LVE AGRL1.1* •iLNT The parties to this Agreement are governmental units of the State of Minnesota. This Agreement is ; =lade pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 and supercedes all previous agreements between the parties relating to the organization created by this agreement. Section 1. The general purpose of this agreement is to provide an organization through which -the parties may jointly and cooperatively coordinate the providing of human services, both publicly and privately, in the territory of the respective parties. Section 2. The organization formed by this Agreement, being governmental in nature, shall not be used or operated for the pecuniary gain, directly or indirectly, of any party or any member of its board. The organization shall not participate or intervene in a political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office. ARTiCLZ II. DEFINITIONS Section 1. For the purposes of this Agreement the terms- defined in this section have the -meanings given them. 6ection 2. "South Uennepin Human Services Council ", or "Council ", means the organization created pursuant to this Agreement, which is formally Known as the "South Hennepin Human Services Council ". v Section 3. "Board" means the board of directors of the Council. Section 4. "City Council" means the governing body of a party. Section S. "Party" means a governnental unit which enters into this • section. Section h. °Governmenta.l unit" means a city, however organized. • :)ection 7. ";4um.u1 services" includes but is not limited to, services and facilities to deal with and serve human needs. ARTICLE•' III. PARTILS Section I. The initial parties to this Agreement are tiie following governmental units: City of Bloomington City of Eden Prairie City of Edina City of Richfield ARTICLE IV. GOVERNING BODY Section I. The governing body of the Council is the board. Each party is entitled to four directors. A director has one vote; there is no proxy voting. The city council of each party shall appoint its four directors for terms of two years, who shall remain until such directors' successors are selected and qualified. The city council may also, at its discretion, rescind such appointment. In January of each ear each city y council shall make two regular appointments of directors whose terms shall be for two years, commencing on the following February 1. Directors serve without compensation from the Council. Section 2. A quorum of the board consists of nine directors with one director from each party. Section 3. A vacancy in the office of directors is filled by the couticil of the city appointing the director. Ln the event the director whose position becomes vacant was also an officer, the board shall fill the vacancy in that office. Section 4. In appointing members of the board each city council will appoint one member from the city council, and dive consideration Lo health prof`ssionals, administrative officials, senior citizens, Young adults of voting; age, persons enraged in law � enforce „,ent, mr.u►bers ot the clur };y, sampling of the population of all of the parties. The city councils should endeavor to avoid having more than one -half of the directors from any one "roue, profession or interest. The board shall advise the parties of the names and occupations of each of its directors. The council of a party, however, shall have complete authority to appoint and to remove, at any time, a director appointed by it. Such appointments may be made by a council pursuant to such restrictions and requirements as the city council may require. If the city council does impose restrictions or requirements oil its directors, the directors must inform the board of those restrictions or requirements. ARTICLE V. METINGS - ELECTION OF OFFICERS Section.l. At the organizational meeting of the board, and in February of each year, the board shall elect from its members a chair, a vice - chair, a secretary and a treasurer. Section 2. In February of each year, the board of directors shall adopt or amend rules and regulations governing its procedures, including the time, place and frequency of its regular meetings and the manner of calling special meetings. Such rules and regulations must provide for an annual meeting of the Council. The rules and regulations may be amended from time to time subject to the provisions of this Agreement. Section 3. The board may create an executive committee and other committees as it may deem necessary pursuant to its by- laws. The executive committee shall include at lease one director from each of the cities and the board may authorize it to exercise specified powers of the .board of directors between board meetings, subject to the limitations imposed upon it P P by t he board. 3 representatives of business and labor and others with special concerns related to council activities so that LhQ hoard ajay be a representative sampling of the population of all of the parties. The city councils should endeavor to avoid having more than one -half of the directors from any one "roue, profession or interest. The board shall advise the parties of the names and occupations of each of its directors. The council of a party, however, shall have complete authority to appoint and to remove, at any time, a director appointed by it. Such appointments may be made by a council pursuant to such restrictions and requirements as the city council may require. If the city council does impose restrictions or requirements oil its directors, the directors must inform the board of those restrictions or requirements. ARTICLE V. METINGS - ELECTION OF OFFICERS Section.l. At the organizational meeting of the board, and in February of each year, the board shall elect from its members a chair, a vice - chair, a secretary and a treasurer. Section 2. In February of each year, the board of directors shall adopt or amend rules and regulations governing its procedures, including the time, place and frequency of its regular meetings and the manner of calling special meetings. Such rules and regulations must provide for an annual meeting of the Council. The rules and regulations may be amended from time to time subject to the provisions of this Agreement. Section 3. The board may create an executive committee and other committees as it may deem necessary pursuant to its by- laws. The executive committee shall include at lease one director from each of the cities and the board may authorize it to exercise specified powers of the .board of directors between board meetings, subject to the limitations imposed upon it P P by t he board. 3 • ARTICLE VI. POWL RS AND DUTIES OF Ttt:; COUNCIL Section 1. The powers and duties of the council acting through the board include the powers set forth in this section. Section 2. It may employ a person to act as executive director of the Council. Section 3. It may make such contracts as are necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Agreement. Section 4. It may employ such other persons as it deems necessary to accomplish its powers and responsibilities. Persons may be employed on a full -time, part -time or consulting basis, as the board determines. Section 5. It may conduct research and investigation regarding existing and possible future human services facilities and programs and may develop a proposed plan for providing and coordinating of human services in any or all of the areas of (a) mental health, (b) mental retardation, (c) drug and alcohol abuse, (d) family counseling, and (e) other related or similar problems. Section b. It may prepare an inventory of human service facilities, services and agencies, both public and private, available to persons residing in the cities. It may make a cost analysis of any existing or proposed human services programs, may call attention to humac► service needs and human services programs and may undertake to coordinate human service programs, public and private, within the territory of the cities. Section 7. It may apply for and receive financial support in the form of grants from any ordanizatiou or agency in order to accomplish its purposes and may enter into the agreements necessary to obtain that support. ■ 0 : Section 8. It may invest and reinvest funds not needed for current ;2�,2' operating expenses, if any, in the ;canner applicable by law to statutory cities. The council may not incur obligations in excess of funds available to it. Section 9. It may contract for space, material and supplies. Section 10. It must make a financial accounting and report to the parties at least once each year. Its books and records shall be available and open to examination to authorized representatives of the parties at all reasonable times. Section 11. It may provide for the indemnification of directors, officers and employees against reasonable costs and expenses incurred by those persons in connection with any action, suit or proceeding in which the person may be involved by reason of being a director, officer, or employee, except amounts paid or payable to the board itself, and except in relation to matters as to which the person shall be finally adjudged in any action, suit or proceeding to have been derelict in the performance of duties as such director, officer or employee. The indemnification need not be exclusive of other rights to which any such person would otherwise be entitled as a matter of law. Section 12. It may conduct human service programs within the territory of the parties, provided that the undertaking of any such program shall first have been approved by the council of each of the parties, and provided that it transfers control and direction of the program to another entity within two years, unless otherwise authorized by the parties. Any such program may be submitted to the parties in Conjunction with the annual budget of the organization, or it may be submitted between budgets at any time. Section 13. It may exercise any other power necessary :ind convenient to the implementation of its powers and duties under the provisions of this Agreement. Section 14. No director may on the basis of sex, race, creed, national origin, color, religion, age, or disability, be excluded from the partici- pation on all decisions of the board. Nor may a director be treated differently from the other directors. All directors shall have the same voice on the board. ARTICLE VII. FINANCIAL MATTERS Section 1. Council funds may be expended by the board in accordance with the procedures established by law for the expenditure of funds by statutory cities. Orders, checks and drafts shall be signed by the chair or vice -chair or other officers as the bylaws may designate. Other legal instruments shall be executed on behalf of the Council as provided in the bylaws. Section 2. Contracts shall be let and purchases made in conformance with the legal requirements applicable to contracts and purchases of optional Plan b cities and for such purposes the executive director, if any, shall be deemed to occupy a position equivalent to that of a city manager. Section 3. The parties are not required to provide funds to the council, but any parties may do so. The board (1) is strictly accountable for all funds received and for all funds expended by it, (2) must have an annual audit of its books, and (3) must make an annual report of all of its receipts and disbursements to each of the parties. Section 4. A proposed annual budget must be formulated by the board and must be submitted to the parties on or before August 1 for their approval. The budget shall be deemed approved by a party unless, prior to October 17 of the year involved, the party gives notice in writing to the t> CounciL that it does not approve the budget. The budget shall be revised and resubmitted to the parties until it is approved. Final action adopting an annual budget year shall be taken by the board on or before November 30. Section 5. Except as authorized by law, no member of the board or other public officer of the organization who is authorized to take part in any manner in the making of any sale, lease or contract may voluntarily have a personal financial interest in such transaction or personally benefit financially therefrom. A director may not be employed to perform or be compensated for the performance of-services for the Council. Section 6. The fiscal year of the Council is the calendar year. ARTICLE VIII. DURATION Section 1. The council shall continue from year to year unless the number of parties is less than three. Withdrawal of a party member at the end of January of any year may be accomplished by that city's filing a written notice thereof with the board by November 1 of the preceding year, giving notice of withdrawal as of the following January 31. The withdrawing party shall continue to be a party to this Agreement until the effective date of such notice of with- drawal. The South Hennepin Human Services Council may also be terminated by mutual agreement of all of the parties at any time. Section 2. If a party withdraws from the council before the termination of the council, the party has no claim to the assets of the council. If the council is terminated by mutual agreement of all of the parties to the Agreement, surplus monies of the council shall be returned to the parties in proportion to their respective contributions. If there have 7 been no such contributions by such parties, surplus monies of the coullciL shall, upon termination of the council, be returnt:d to the parties in equal shares. ARTICLE IX. EFFECTIVE DATE Section I. This Agreement is effective on the date on which a fully executed copy of this Agreement, together with a certified copy of a city council resolution of each of the parties authorizing its execution, is filed with the City Clerk of each city. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts each of which may be considered an original copy. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have caused this Agreement to be signed by their duly authorized officers as of the date indicated after their respective executives. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON By: • Its Mayor DATED: By: Its Manager CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By: Its Mayor DATED: By: Its Manager CITY OF EL'INA By: Its Mayor DATED: By: Its Manager CITY OF RICHFIE'L'D By: Its Mayor DATED: may: K Its Manager • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 307 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Revised Joint Powers Agreement South Hennepin Human Services Council Council Members: Background: For the past several months the Board of Directors of the South Hennepin Human Services Council has been in the process of updating the Joint Powers Agreement signed by the cities of Eden Prairie. Edina, Bloomington, and Richfield in 1971. A number of "housekeeping" modifications to the Agreement are necessary to reflect changes in law which have occurred over the past 15 years. Attached for council review is the proposed revised Joint Powers Agreement. The Public Safety staff has reviewed the proposed Agreement, particularly as it relates to changes from the original Agreement. Most of the changes are not substantiative'in nature with two exceptions. Proposed Revisions: The first change which the council may wish to consider relates to the membership appointments to the SHHSC Board of Directors. The city councils of the four participating members of the Joint Powers Agreement each appoint four members to the Board of Directors. The original Agreement was not restrictive in relation to the appointments made to the Board, but suggested human service areas which Board members might represent. In this regard, the original Agreement provided that in making appointments the city councils will "give consideration to members of their councils." The new Agreement however, provides that "in appointing members of the Board each city council will appoint one member from the city council." This may not be of concern to the } Richfield City Council, since Council Member Ludeman presently represents Richfield as one of the four Directors from our community. The other directors are Lia Ozols and Sgt. John Nelson. The fourth director, Myrna Hammer, recently resigned and this position has not yet been filled. The other revision is a very significant change between the original Agreement and the proposed revised Agreement. This deals with the authority granted to the Board by the member communities. The power given to the Board in the original contract provided: It may conduct human service programs within the territory of the parties provided that the undertaking of any such program shall first have been approved by the council of each of the parties. The revised Agreement has been changed in relation to the authority granted the Board by the following provision: It may conduct human service programs within the parties, provided that it first inform the city council of each of the parties of the intent to provide such services. This proposed change seems to eliminate city council control, other than through budget appropriations, of SHHSC programming activity. The change means that the SHHSC Board, not the city councils, will decide such issues as new program development or developing direct service activities. It would seem to allow SHHSC to generally operate as an independent organization, apart from the city council control which exists in the original Agreement. It is clearly a very different direction than the original concept which provided basically for coordinating control of existing human service activities in the four member cities. Based on past council concerns about operating activities of SHHSC, particularly as they relate to the provision of direct services, the council may wish to consider whether this change reflects current feelings with regard to this program activity. Recommendation: The proposed revised Agreement has been approved by the city councils in Edina and Eden Prairie. If the Richfield City Council is not concerned about the proposed change in the Board authority, it is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, that the council authorize the Mayor and the City Manager to execute the new Agreement. If, on the other hand, the council does not wish to endorse this change, it is recommended Y r that staff develop a letter for the Mayor to send to the Mayors and City Managers of the other participating cities expressing Richfield's concern with the change and attempt to resolve this issue through negotiations. The Executive Director of the South Hennepin Human Services Council, Larry Oppold, will be present at the August 11, 1986 meeting to discuss this matter with the pity council. SD /eja LI 0 z ct ully s mitt d, r L. Devich Acting City Manager • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 356 Agenda September 8, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing, Comprehensive Plan Amendment For The Louise Whitbeck Fraser School Apartment Site at 66th Street And Sheridan Avenue Council Members: On June 23, 1986 the City Council approved a rezoning of a site at 2500 and 2516 West 66th Street to allow the construction of a 30 unit apartment building proposed by Louise Whitbeck Fraser Community Services. The council also authorized staff to transmit to the Metropolitan Council a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the designation of the site from medium density buffer to high density residential for their review and comment. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment. The city staff submitted the proposed amendment to the Metropolitan Council for their review. Attached is the response from the Metropolitan Council indicating that the proposed amendment has no potential impact on any metropolitan system plans and that the city can officially adopt the amendment. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing on September 8, 1986 and adopt the attached resolution amending the city's comprehensive plan land use designation of the site at 2500 and 2516 West 66th Street from medium density buffer to high density residential. Respe fully submitted, Ja s Prosser Ci y Manager JP /eja • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE SITE AT 2500 AND 2516 WEST 66TH STREET WHEREAS, the Richfield Planning Commission conducted a public hearing concerning changing the land use designation of a site at 2500 and 2516 West 66th Street from medium density buffer to high density residential; and WHEREAS, the Richfield Planning Commission has approved the change on May 28, 1986; and WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council accepted the proposed change on June 23, 1986 and submitted it to the Metropolitan Council and affected government agencies for review; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has found that the proposed amendment has no potential impact on any metropolitan system plans and that the city can officially adopt the amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that figure 13 of the City's Comprehensive Plan entitled "Comprehensive Development Plan" is hereby amended to change the designation of the site at 2500 and 2516 West 66th Street from medium density buffer to high density residential. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of September, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas r erber, City Cferk • John Hamffton, — Mayor'' • • - _ .... 40 0 August 1, 1986 Mr. Rick Jopke City of Richfield 6700 Portland Av. S. Richfield, MN 55423 RE: City of Richfield Comprehensive Plan Amendment 30 -Unit Apartment for the Developmentally Disabled Metropolitan Council District 12 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 13844 -1 Dear. Mr. Jopke: Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291 -6359 The Metropolitan Council staff and I have reviewed the city's comprehensive plan amendment received by the Council on July 17, 1986. We have determined that the proposed amendment has no potential impact upon any of the metropolitan system plans. Therefore, the city may place the amendment into effect immediately. Because the proposed amendment appears unlikely to affect policies and plans in other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide, the Council will waive further review and comment on this amendment. The amendment, explanatory materials supplied and the information submission form will be appended to the city's plan in the Council's files. This concludes the Council's review. Sincerely, �- Sandra S. GardAring, Chair , SSG:ms cc: Gertrude Ulrich, Metropolitan Council District 12 John Rutford, Metropolitan Council Staff Tori Flood, Metropolitan Council Staff An Equal Opportunity Employer is • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 355 Agenda September 8, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing, Amendment To The Richfield Comprehensive Plan; and, approval of LHN Land Use Plan Amendment No. 5 Council Members: There are two plan documents which relate to the property at 64th Street and Lyndale Avenue; the LHN Land Use Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan. Although both have been in agreement as to their designation of the use of this site, the process for changing that designation in each varies. Both plans identified this site for multi - family development. Because of the commercial rehabilitation activity recently completed on the site, it is appropriate to change the land use designation as a "housekeeping" item. The LHN Land Use Plan requires action by the Planning Commission, HRA and City Council. To date, the Planning Commission and HRA have approved the amendment known as Modification No. 5. On June 9th, the Council held a public hearing. There was no public testimony. Approval of the amendment was delayed pending a response from the Metropolitan Council which must review a change of this type in the Comprehensive Plan. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan requires a recommendation from the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. The Planning Commission supported the change in the Comprehensive Plan after a public hearing. The Council authorized submission of the proposed amendment to the Metropolitan Council for review. As a result of their review, they concluded that it would have no impact on metropolitan systems plans, thus it can now be adopted by the City Council following a public hearing. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun - Current. • • Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing on the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and following the hearing, adopt resolution Amending The City's Comprehensive Plan Concerning Property Lying Between 64th Street And 65th Street Adjacent To The East Side of Lyndale Avenue. JDP /eja RespeqAfully submitted, J s D. Prosser C y Manager • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCERNING PROPERTY LYING BETWEEN 64TH STREET AND 65TH STREET ADJACENT TO THE EAST SIDE OF LYNDALE AVENUE WHEREAS, the Richfield Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing concerning changing the land use designation of a site at 6401 -6453 Lyndale Avenue South from multi - family residential to commercial; and WHEREAS, the Richfield Planning Commission approved the change on April 22, 1986; and WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council accepted the proposed change on May 27, 1986 and submitted it to the Metropolitan Council and affected governmental agencies for review; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has found that the proposed amendment has no potential impact on any metropolitan system plans and that the city can officially adopt the amendment. ;-*� -,', NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the is City of Richfield, Minnesota that figure 14 of the Richfield Comprehensive Plan entitled "Redevelopment Plan" is hereby amended to change the designation of the property at 6401 -6453 Lyndale Avenue South from multi - family residential to commercial. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of September, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk • John Hamilton, Mayor 0 RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING MODIFICATION NO. 5 IN THE LYNDALE HUB NICOLLET COMMERCIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota (HRA) did on October 15, 1975, approve a redevelopment plan for the Lyndale Hub Nicollet "Commercial Improvement program" (the "Plan "); and WHEREAS, the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota did on November 24, 1975, approve Plan; and WHEREAS, the Plan has subsequently been amended including those amendments adopted in 1979; and WHEREAS, the Plan designated certain land uses for particular properties; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the land use plan for a certain property should be changed to more appropriately reflect current conditions; and WHEREAS, Modification No. 5 is described in the attached Exhibit A and shown on the attached map- Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 462.356 requires the Planning Commission's finding as to the conformance of the proposed land use modification with the Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that: 1. The receipt of the findings of the Planning Commission with regards to the conformance of Modification no. 5 to the Comprehensive Plan is hereby acknowledged. 2. The approval by the HRA of Modification No. 5 in resolution No. 280 dated May 19, 1986 is acknowledged. 3. Modification No. 5 is hereby adopted and the Plan is changed to conform with said modification. 4. That the City Manager be, and hereby is authorized, as an agent of the Richfield City Council, to effectuate this modification. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 8th day of September, 1986. • • ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk I• � 0 John Hamilton, Mayor / • • • -{'IN C1T �t August 1, 1986 Mr. Rick Jopke, City of Richfield 6700 Portland Av. Richfield, MN 55423 RE: City of Richfield Comprehensive Plan Amendment Consistency of Plan with Zoning Metropolitan Council District 12 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 13844 -2 Dear Mr. Jopke: Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291 -6359 The Metropolitan Council staff and I have reviewed the city's comprehensive plan amendment received by the Council on July 17, 1986. We have determined that the proposed amendment has no potential impact upon any of the metropolitan system plans. Therefore, the city may place the amendment into effect immediately. Because the proposed amendment appears unlikely to affect policies and plans in other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide, the Council will waive further review and comment on this amendment. The amendment, explanatory materials supplied and the information submission form will be appended to the city's plan in the Council's files. This concludes the Council's review. Sincerely, andra s. Garde SSG:ms g,- Chair cc: Gertrude Ulrich, Metropolitab Council District 12 John Rutford, Metropolitan Council Staff Karen Harrington, Metropolitan Council Staff An Equal Opportunity Employer EXHIBIT A MODIFICATION NO. 5 THE LYNDALE- HUB - NICOLLET COMMERCIAL • IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM "Amendments to the Lyndale- Hub - Nicollet Commercial Improvement Project ", approved March 12, 1979 by the Housing and ' Redevelopment Authority, and, the City Council on March 26, 1979, is hereby modified as follows. The Land Use Map, page 31 is hereby modified for the following: The property lying between 64th and 65th Streets adjacent to the east side of Lyndale Avenue except Block 2, J. N. Houser's Second Addition, from multi- Family to Commercial. U" rn M O (A rn 0 m r 31 z O w SL 0 .9 0 z 0 Z Z • m CA 0 K G) > -4 %w. OD 0 -3s Now 'IK gn cc TM n 2.0 E \01 110, I ....................... LJ L-4 H EXHIBIT F), O 1A ET! 1 i.. PL9&&"w :1-!7 -1 Fr 1 LL PMLSW414 AWL 77 7-i IO :9 z 11 LLLL14' -21 �T"_ii-7171 F, l' I y� it n• om W • *00 SPIL L YNCALS Fmic—aLLUT / HUa / rp-4 'J COMMERCIAL IMPROVEMENT M�':PROGRAM I MN RICHFIELD, ---------- N1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 354 Agenda September 8, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing, Special Use Permit For Skippers Restaurant, Located at 6613 Penn Avenue South Council Members: Proposal Skippers Inc. has requested a special use permit for a sit - down seafood restaurant at 6613 Penn Avenue (the former Quarterback and Arthur Treachers Restaurants). The restaurant would have a seating capacity for 86 people. Notice of the Council public_ hearing was published in the Richfield Sun - Current. The site is in a C -2 (general commercial) district. Staff can find no record of a special use permit being obtained for the previous restaurants on the site. Zoning Ordinance Requirements 1. Section 3.33, subdivision 2, indicates that restaurants are permitted in C -2 (general commercial) districts if a special use permit is obtained. 2. Section 3.33, subdivision 4, list regulations relating to restaurants. 3. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, lists the conditions governing the issuance of a special use permit. Staff Review Staff has reviewed the proposal against the city ordinances and found the following: 1. Land Area and Building Setback The site has an area of 18,900 square feet. The existing structure will be remodelled and seating expanded to accommodate 22 additional seats. The existing building would have an area of 2,104 square feet. The site has only a 25 foot frontyard which •. 1 is less than the 40 foot frontyard setback. The existing building is a nonconforming structure and cannot be expanded without a variance (expansion is not being proposed). All other setback requirements have been meta The existing patio and pole sign will be removed and anew pole sign installed. The rear exterior wall of the structure has deteriorated and needs replacement or major repair. Applicant proposes to repair the wall as part of the remodelling project. 2. Parking and _Traffic _Issues According to the city parking guidelines, the proposed restaurant with a seating capacity of 86 would require 29 parking spaces. The site plan indicates 32 parking spaces, 3 spaces more than required. When the county acquires the additional right -of- way for the 66th Street and Penn Avenue improvement project the 3 excess spaces would be lost. Therefore, on -site parking is adequate for the proposed use. The existing curb cuts on Penn Avenue will remain the same. The parking lot would be repaired and restriped. 3. ScreeningL Buffer, and Landscaping The property to the east of the site is residential, thus requiring a 15 foot buffer. There is a fence and a 15 foot green space separating the site from residential property to the east. The fence at the back of the site is in poor condition and needs to be repaired or replaced. The site plan also indicates adequate landscaping. 4. Consistency With The Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan indicates medium to high density mixed land use on the site. The proposed.restaurant use would be consistent with principal uses permitted in the medium to high density mixed land use designations suggested in the Comprehensive Plan. 5. Penn -66th _Street Improvements The county is acquiring an additional 8 feet for the street and intersection improvement project. This reduces the frontyard setback from 25 feet to 17 feet and reduces parking on the site from 32 spaces to 29 spaces. The proposed median will extend beyond the curb cuts on this site. The right -of -way taking reduces the front open space and also reduces the potential for any future improvements on the site. x /9.2 6. Impact On The Neighborhood The site was previously used as restaurant for several years, but is now vacant. The proposed use does not change the use of the property. The building needs a substantial facelift, however. The proposed use would definitely be an improvement to the site. It is the opinion of the staff that the proposed use would not have any adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood if cooking odors are controlled. - Planning Commission Recommendation Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously (9 -0) voted to recommend City Council approval of the special use permit for an 86 seat Skippers Restaurant at 6613 Penn Avenue with the following stipulations: 1. That the wooden fence located along the east property line be repaired or replaced. 2. That proper vents be installed to meet all applicable city codes to prevent food odors from going into the abutting residential properties. Staff Recommendation Residents to the east of the site expressed concern regarding potential noise and cooking odors from the proposed use. However, the site has been used for a restaurant for quite sometime and is not being changed. Therefore, staff concurs with the Planning Commission to recommend City Council approval of the special use permit for an 86 seat Skippers sit -down restaurant at 6613 Penn Avenue with the following stipulations: 1. The wooden fence located to the east of the property shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of city staff. 2. Proper vents shall be installed to meet all applicable city codes to prevent food odors from going into the abutting residential properties. JDP /eja • Resp c ully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager 0 Ll • 0 la o. TA • x X i . f •tC 9, :2 PLAN cl .3 �A V., A ten u 'CST. 017 "o .nom -4 7. or-IV 2- '!Z" COMPREHENSIVE PLAN �A V., A ten u "o .nom -4 or-IV 2- '!Z" Fj -4MST88TH STREET WPM- Kom -i•* -.A 4 d ;' Ul JA. 67. T7- W1 al A S .4loc" saw 'A WST as. Tin a le" w lei "o. Q� va EST MEDIUM TO HIGH MIXED LAND USE MEDIUM DENSITY BUFFER 666di1 INSTITUTIONAL Tc , NO W ew m z uj r 40 Fi I �t�— tCST Z-lw C • • E OT Rw 2 :m UA x ZONING ESE z ��Trf W 7 77 r 41i WEST 66TH S TREET , (:77 UJ )-cr: IX' L WEST i% 10 -14 15- is.- . 5� 0 ro' 0 7 spmv I -in ale- INDUSTRIAL Q' , GENERAL COMMERCIAL Lid MR (MULTIPLE RESIDENCE MR-2 (3-17 DWELLING UNITS) A AUP r rqu MR-1 (TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE) 7 v'.•u-j'j 4n 10 SPIL USE PERMIT ■ 10 *� VARIANCE 12 z mA jr. '0I 01. oo ZONING ESE z ��Trf W 7 77 r 41i WEST 66TH S TREET , (:77 UJ )-cr: IX' L WEST i% 10 -14 15- is.- . 5� 0 ro' 0 7 spmv I -in ale- INDUSTRIAL Q' , GENERAL COMMERCIAL Lid MR (MULTIPLE RESIDENCE MR-2 (3-17 DWELLING UNITS) A AUP r rqu MR-1 (TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE) 7 v'.•u-j'j 4n 10 SPIL USE PERMIT ■ 10 *� VARIANCE z mA z ��Trf W 7 77 r 41i WEST 66TH S TREET , (:77 UJ )-cr: IX' L WEST i% 10 -14 15- is.- . 5� 0 ro' 0 7 spmv I -in ale- INDUSTRIAL Q' , GENERAL COMMERCIAL Lid MR (MULTIPLE RESIDENCE MR-2 (3-17 DWELLING UNITS) A AUP r rqu MR-1 (TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE) 7 v'.•u-j'j 4n 10 SPIL USE PERMIT ■ 10 *� VARIANCE � 0 � 0 ------------------- #Jill :. I In- Ei fill 711 R.I.. ma--, 14 e 14 I Lii II • I .1 • i 1 , FEETT9 - - -i , 3 ,o i n 0 0 li 04. n p LAND USE w" EF Lj - r - ----- w P t I --x. 'j E r" + "IdLull 1#4 WEST 66TH STREET "n 1-T z ..'A; 44 V Lu . - 'pt- ;- t rw 7' � X_ U J 67. STREET A 77—n WEST L _A7 .4*. lot M7 :41 4L SIRWE. .'A NO, 3—'— ' i, p4p.. M .-I ..A Y� -.1 9. 1 It. 41 COMMERCIAL APARTMENTS DUPLEX fo SCHOOL 16, UncWa PARKS AND OPEN SPACE cr.] 0 IS. ? 4" t tu t t z 0 0% 5 101. RFJ STREET J_ .0 -STREET 4,3 107 i i w EF Lj - r - ----- w P t I --x. 'j E r" + "IdLull 1#4 WEST 66TH STREET "n 1-T z ..'A; 44 V Lu . - 'pt- ;- t rw 7' � X_ U J 67. STREET A 77—n WEST L _A7 .4*. lot M7 :41 4L SIRWE. .'A NO, 3—'— ' i, p4p.. M .-I ..A Y� -.1 9. 1 It. 41 COMMERCIAL APARTMENTS DUPLEX fo SCHOOL 16, UncWa PARKS AND OPEN SPACE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 353 Agenda September 8, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing, Special Use Permit for a Combination of Sit -Down and Drive -Thru Arby's Restaurant on the Northwest Corner of 78th Street and 5th Avenue Council Members: Proposal: Mr. Charles E. Nadler, President Franchise Associates, Inc. requested that a special use permit be granted for a 106 seat Arby's restaurant with a drive thru window. The site is located on the northwest corner of 78th Street and 5th Avenue. The Blaylock Plumbing Company and Mr. and Mrs. Jankord presently own the property and have submitted an application for replatting this property to create three separate lots. Arby's restaurant will occupy one of the lots described above. The existing zoning of the subject property is I (Industrial). Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun- Current. Zoning Ordinance Requirements 1. Section 3.33, subdivision 2, and Section 3.34, subdivision 1, indicates that restaurants are permitted in C -2 (General Commercial) and I (Industrial) districts if a special use permit is obtained. 2. Section 3.33, subdivision 4, list regulations relating to restaurants. 3. Section 3.39, subdivision 2, indicate that in any commercial or industrial district, the setback shall be 40 feet or the average of the front yards on the lots if 25% or more buildings on the block have setbacks less than the required 40 feet. 0 4. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, lists the conditions governing the issuance of a special use permit. Staff Review: Staff has reviewed the proposal against the city ordinances and found the following: 1. Land Area and Building Setback The site would have an area of 30,690 square feet and the proposed building would have an area of 3,441 square feet. The proposed restaurant will have 106 seats. The structure would front 78th Street. The building setback on the frontage road would be 27 feet and 34 feet at the rear of the property. The property abuts commercial properties, and therefore does not require any sideyard. However, there is adequate sideyard indicated in the site plan. The building would meet all the setback requirements. 2. Parking and Traffic Issues According to the city parking guidelines, the proposed restaurant with 106 seats will require 36 parking spaces. The parking layout on the site plan indicates 49 parking spaces on the site. Therefore, the on site parking is adequate for the proposed use. The plan indicates that two curb cuts on the service road would be provided. Staff has some concerns that the easterly curb cut may be too close to the 78th Street and 5th Avenue intersection and cause traffic problems. However, relocating the entryway would disrupt the traffic flow and decrease the number of parking spaces on the site. Increase in traffic due to the proposed use would not be substantial enough to adversely impact the neighborhood. The traffic volumes on the two streets are not excessive so the curb cut location should not cause a significant problem. 3. Screening, Buffer,_and Landscaping The site plan indicates adequate screening and landscape. 4. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan indicates high density freeway strip development on the site. The proposed restaurant use of the land would be compatible in that area. Therefore, the proposed use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • 5. I -494 Corridor Study I -494 Corridor Study is at a preliminary stage therefore, determination could not be made regarding the potential impact on land use at this time. If the frontage road is eliminated access to the site could be a problem. 6. Impact on the Neighborhood The surrounding properties to the North and West are commercial. North of 77th street is Roosevelt Park. The proposed Arby's site is underutilized and the proposed use would be a definite improvement for the site. The proposed use of the property would not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission voted (9 -0) unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the special use permit for a sit - down and drive -thru Arby's restaurant with 106 seats with the stipulation that the drainage plan be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. Staff Recommendation . Staff recommends that the City Council grant a special use permit for a sit -down and drive -thru Arby's restaurant with 106 seats with the stipulation that the drainage plan be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. JDP /eja Respe tfully submitted, Ja s D. Prosser Ci y Manager �y7 ranchise Associates, Inc. -Arbys — 5401 GAMBLE DRIVE PARKDALE 1, SUITE 204 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 612/546 -3391 r August 1, 1986 City of Richfield Rick Jopke ' City Planner 6700 Porltand Ave S Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Request for Special Use Permit Dear Mr. Jopke: Please consider this our formal request for a special use per m it.to develop an Arby's Restaurant with a drive -thru on the property located on the Southeast corner of 78th Street and 5th Avenue South in the City of Richfield. You will find attached, our application and all necessary drawings, maps and site development plans. CEN:mp Enclosure ICENSUE. FOR ARBYS ROAST BEEF RESTAURANTS Sincerely, &I-q,VP&3 Charles E. Nadler President • � 0 • �n I J r v� 5� U R PNlll,�T MOKr+ �i� y • 6 LANDSCAPE PLAN < lb -. I�j .I�il.il..,�ll�� Ii �I I' �.I:i�l!I' ! i!. 'i L smww�%" ffi� wam mom Um. m kA li Iill'I�fI�III!•Illli HE 1 �7z i�l ;ii; ` ii i4f .I�il.il..,�ll�� Ii �I I' �.I:i�l!I' ! i!. 'i L smww�%" ffi� wam mom Um. m kA li Iill'I�fI�III!•Illli ��s7ii■ A'f't! � ■ ■U ■ ■ ■Ild ■ ■t �_ N ! ■ ■ ■ ■11■6dl! I � �11� ou ■Ono ■■■■■■■ ■■■ ■■■■ vl' 5 F, LAND USE MAP E] r `\F O.1 RTH"\ Ei F • Boom=--- wem r—1 11 2 7 j12 7545 39 1 1-- 5 'R p,Cio- joCD -4 3, , a 7344 36 OAKLAND 3 29 ► 25 ki 15 05 176,)1 7545 39 E3 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL; GENERAL COMMERCIAL r L MULTIPLE RESIDENCE. �CE E*= o iO E>:] 10 jC 'o , 4 F ham r'r)l I l►ADI IZ„ ft V CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 352 Agenda September 8, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield. Subject: Replatting of Property Located at 7715 and 7731- 4th Avenue South and 7720 and 7732 -5th Avenue South Council Members: Proposal Mr. and Mrs. Jankord, property owners at 7715 4th Avenue South and Blaylock Plumbing Company, property owners of 7731 4th Avenue South, 7.732 and 7720 5th Avenue South have requested replatting their property into three separate lots. All the properties are zoned I (general industrial), There is a two story house and a detached garage used for residential purposes at 7715 4th Avenue South. At 7731 4th Avenue, there is a one story building with an approximate area of 6,400 square feet, used by Blaylock Plumbing Company. There is a metal building at the 7732 5th Avenue site and a frame garage at 7720 5th Avenue site both used by Blaylock Plumbing Company. Blaylock Plumbing Company plans to purchase the south 30 feet the of 7731 4th Avenue site from Mr. and Mr. Jankord to relocate the frame garage from 7720 5th Avenue South. The metal building at 7732 5th Avenue South will be removed. The proposed replatting of these properties indicate that 7732 and 7720 5th Avenue South will be lot 3 and used for a proposed Arby's restaurant. The existing property at 7731 4th Avenue South with the additional 30 feet land from Mr. and Mrs. Jankord would become lot 1 and house the existing Blaylock Plumbing Company along with the relocated frame garage. The garage at 7715 4th Avenue will be removed from its present location. Therefore, the proposed lot 2 at 7715 4th Avenue will only have the existing two story house. Mr. and Mrs. Jankord did not indicate any future location of their garage. Proposed lot 1 owned by Blaylock Plumbing Company would have an area of 20,800 square feet, lot 2 owned by Mr. and Mrs. Jankord would have an area of 16,100 square feet and lot 3 owned by Franchise Associates would have an area of 30,690 square feet. Zoning Ordipance_Requirements 1. Section 3.59, outlines the requirements for approval of preliminary plat. Staff Review Staff has reviewed the preliminary plat against the requirements contained in the city subdivision ordinance and find that all the information required to be shown on a preliminary plat is shown. Planning,Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission voted (9 -0) unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the preliminary plat as submitted. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat as submitted. JDP /eja Respectfully submitted, JamVeD. Pro sser CityManager • 11 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Continuance of Use Permit For E. 78th Street Council Members: Council Letter No. 351 Agenda September 8, 1986 Public Hearing Concerning Special A Restaurant With Liquor at 1200 A public hearing has been scheduled on September 8, 1986 for the Council to consider a special use permit request for a special use permit for a restaurant at 1200 East 78th Street. The proposed restaurant would be a Mexican theme restaurant with a drive thru service window. At the Planning Commission hearing and subsequent to that hearing, a number of issues and concerns were identified by staff and surrounding property owners. These issues and concerns include traffic, litter, noise, screening, parking lot design, building design, liquor related issues and landscaping. Recommendation: In order to properly address these matters, it is staff's recommendation that the City Council continue this hearing until October 13, 1986. This will allow the applicant to complete a revised traffic study and to provide more detailed designs to address other concerns. Letters have been sent to persons within 350 feet of the site informing them of this continuance. JDP /dh Respect ully submitted, Ja s D. Prosser City Manager Ji • • • .1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 350 Agenda September 8, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Application for On -Sale and Sunday Liquor Restaurant and Tavern Licenses Champps of Richfield 300 West 66th Street Council Members: On July 31, 1986 the City of Richfield received applications for on -sale and Sunday liquor, restaurant and tavern licenses from Mr. Dean S. Vlahos, owner of Champps Sports Bar located in St. Paul. Mr. Vlahos has submitted $2,604.75, one -half of a prorated on -sale license fee, and $248 for investigative fees with the applications. The balance of the fees, including restaurant and tavern fees, will be paid prior to the issuance of any licenses for Mr. Vlahos' proposed restaurant establishment in the Market Plaza complex. Background Investigation: The Department of Public Safety has completed the necessary background investigation and finds the applicant, Mr. Dean Vlahos and his wife Cynthia Vlahos, the current owners and operators of Champps Sport Bar of St. Paul. Mr. Vlahos is a native of New Jersey and has an excellent reputation in the restaurant business. He has owned and operated Champps Sports Bar at 2431 West 7th Street since November 24, 1980. He also owned and operated Plums, a restaurant and bar located at 480 Snelling in St. Paul from January of 1983 until July of 1985, at which time he divested himself of Plums primarily due to parking problems that he was unable to resolve. Prior to Champps Sports Bar and Plums Restaurant, Mr. Vlahos managed the Cabooze Bar in Minneapolis and the Red Carpet Bar in St. Paul. Both the St. Paul Police Department and the St. Paul Licensing Division have verified Mr. Vlahos' outstanding reputation and referred to him as an "excellent operator who caters to the white collar sports enthusiast ". Mr. Vlahos has no known criminal history. The background investigation revealed that all state and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The applicant has been very cooperative in supplying personal and corporate a financial information. A financial sta Paul corporation, for an 8 month period indicates a breakdown of total sales as Food Sales: $ Beverage Sales: Total Sales: $1 tement for the current St. ending June 30, 1986, follows: 788,028 610.402 ,398,430 These figures appear to fall within the Richfield City Ordinance Code requirements. The applicant supplied the Department of Public Safety with an extensive list of current suppliers for reference purposes. All of these references were contacted and without exception, each reference gave high ratings in terms of prompt payment as well as quality. The applicant has never filed corporate or personal bankruptcy. The applicant has furnished the city with the required $10,000 on -sale liquor license bond. This bond states that the Great American Insurance Company of Cincinnati, Ohio holds the bond which is valid until December 31, 1986. The City of Richfield has also been notified that the Paulet /Slater Insurance Agency of St. Paul provides public and liquor liability coverages for the applicant's St. Paul establishment and will also be providing the required coverages for the Richfield establishment. Evidence of these coverages will be provided to the city prior to the opening of the proposed Richfield Champps Restaurant.! Proposed Operation The applicant has indicated that there will be an investment of approximately $775,000 in the Richfield operation. The sources of investment have been identified and confirmed as follows: Investor Amount Purpose Cornell Moore $125,000 Operating capital Iry Plesco & Assoc. 200,000 Const. allowance Shelard Bank 300,000 Add'1 capital for construction Twin City Novelty 100,000 Kitchen equip., interior design Dean Vlahos 50,000 Miscellaneous exp. initial start -up Total $775,000 expense Mr. Vlahos has signed a 10 year lease with the developer. This lease agreement establishes a fixed minimum rent of $12 per square foot. Based on an area of 6,200 square feet the rent is $74,400 annually. Additionally, established in the lease agreement is a "percentage rent" based upon total sales. Mr. Vlahos will be the sole corporate officer of this newly formed corporation called Champps of Richfield. The applicant's proposal allows for seating of up to 250 people in this establishment. This would include both dining patrons as well as patrons served at one of two proposed bar areas. The proposal includes a request for an outdoor screened patio which will be adjacent to 66th Street and located on the south end portion of the restaurant. Access to the patio will be gained only by entering the restaurant. Mr. Vlahos has an area specifically designated for dancing and this area would include a booth for a disc jockey since the majority of music played for dancing would be recorded music. The Champps Sports Bar of St. Paul is serving as a model for the proposed Richfield operation and Mr. Vlahos has indicated that his St. Paul operation caters to sports enthusiasts. Therefore, he has several T.V. monitors that are connected to satellite dishes that receive and televise all types of sporting events. He hopes to enlarge upon this concept for the Richfield establishment by installing more monitors and larger monitors than he currently has in his St. Paul operation. The applicant has indicated that he expects to spend a great deal of time at the Richfield Champps Restaurant. as he is concerned about making sure the establishment projects a positive image in the community. Therefore, he has taken an option on a lease for an apartment in the Market Plaza complex. This would allow him to closely monitor the activity in his new establishment. Recommendation There is only one area of concern that arose during the investigation and that was the question of adequate parking to accommodate the volume of traffic that Champps of Richfield is likely to generate. The applicant feels that if a problem does arise, the city should not hold him responsible for resolving the problem since, in his opinion, the parking is the responsibility of the developer. This matter will not be reviewed by the Planning Commission with relation to a special use permit since the granting of a PUD for the project by the city authorizes the uses requested in this application. A restaurant of this size would require 110 off - street parking spaces. The Market Plaza site will have 521 parking spaces - 290 for commercial use and 231 for the apartments. After reviewing all of the information submitted by the applicant and information gathered in the background investigation, it is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the city council give favorable consideration to granting the licenses requested by Mr. Dean Vlahos for the Champps of Richfield establishment to be located in Market Plaza with the following stipulations: 0 1. Applicant receives final approval and inspection for all building plans. 2. Applicant supplies proof of public and liquor liability coverages as required by the Richfield Ordinance Code. 3. Applicant designates a Manager for the Richfield operation and that person applies for, and is granted a Manager's license by the City. 4. The balance of all license and investigative fees are paid in full. If council approves this license request, and the foregoing stipulations, staff will issue the licenses prior to the scheduled opening of the establishment, but only after all remaining fees have been paid and the stipulations have been met. Respectf lly submitted, Jam D. Prosser City Manager 0 JDP /eja �} M CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 349 Agenda September 8, 1986 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, 1987 - City Project No. 831 Council Members: On August 11, 1986 the City Council scheduled a public hearing for September 8, 1986 concerning the 1987 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, cleaning and sweeping, cold patching and snowplowing. Community Services Department personnel estimate the cost of this project for the period January 1 through December 31, 1987 to be $7,000.00. Alleys which were resurfaced in 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 or 1986 or which are scheduled to be resurfaced in 1987 would not be assessed for patching -type maintenance. Further, the special assessment amount could vary according to the amount of work necessary on each individual alley. The costs for the repair of an alley will be charged to the property owners abutting the alley. For patching - cleaning- sweeping -type maintenance, this would result in an estimated average assessment of about $16 per lot, assuming a fifty foot lot. Another portion 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 a estimated average assessment of about $7.50 per lot, again assuming a fifty foot lot. • • Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council hold the public hearing and adopt the attached resolution ordering the 1987 alley maintenance project and special assessment of current services. JDP /eja Respectfully submitted, (:x Ja s D. Prosser City Manager 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT FOR ALLEY MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1987 CITY PROJECT NO. 831 WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 11th day of August, 1986, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed maintenance of the following alleys: Number Surroundin_q,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 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 2020 2021 3002 3003 3004 3005 3006 3007 3008 3009 3011 3012 3013 3014 3015 3016 3018 3020 3021 3022 3023 3024 3025 3026 3027 3028 3029 3030 3031 3032 3033 3034 3035 3036 3037 3038 3039 3040 4001 4002 4004 4005 4006 4007 4008 4009 4010 Girard-Fremont (35W) Fremont (35W)- Emerson Fremont (35W)- Emerson Dupont- Colfax Colfax- Bryant Bryant- Aldrich Graham - Lyndale Aldrich - Lyndale Aldrich - Lyndale Lyndale - Garfield Augsburg - Garfield Augsburg - Garfield Lyndale - Garfield Lyndale - Garfield Garfield- Harriet Garfield - Harriet Garfield- Harriet Harriet -Grand Harriet -Grand Harriet -Grand Harriet -Grand Grand - Pleasant Grand - Pleasant Wentworth - Blaisdell Blaisdell - Nicollet Blaisdell - Nicollet Blaisdell - Nicollet Blaisdell - Nicollet Nicollet- Second Avenue Nicollet -First Avenue Nicollet -First Avenue Nicollet - First Avenue First - Stevens Avenue First - Stevens Avenue Stevens - Second Avenue Stevens - Second Avenue Second -Third Avenue Second -Third Avenue Second -Third Avenue Third - Clinton Avenue Third - Clinton Avenue Clinton- Fourth Avenue Clinton- Fourth Avenue Fourth - Fifth Avenue Fourth -Fifth Avenue 13th -14th Avenue 14th -15th Avenue 15th - Bloomington 15th - Bloomington Bloomington -16th Cedar - Longfellow Cedar- Longfellow Cedar - Longfellow 19th -20th Avenue 65th -66th Street 64th -65th Street 65th -66th Street 63rd - Mildred Drive 63rd - Mildred Drive 63rd - Mildred Drive 66th -Lake Shore Drive 75th -76th Street 76th -77th Street 68th -69th Street 70th -71st Street 71st -72nd Street 72nd -73rd Street 73rd -74th Street 71st -72nd Street 72nd -73rd Street 73rd -74th Street 67th -68th Street 68th -69th Street 72nd -73rd Street 73rd -74th Street 68th -69th Street 72nd -73rd Street 67th -68th Street 72nd -73rd Street 73rd -74th Street 74th -75th Street 75th -76th Street 68th -69th Street 70th -71st Street 71st -72nd Street 72nd -73rd Street 71st -72nd Street 72nd -73rd Street 71st -72nd Street 72nd -73rd Street 66th -67th Street 71st -72nd Street 72nd -73rd Street 66th -67th Street 73rd -74th Street 66th -67th Street 73rd -74th Street 66th -67th Street 73rd -74th Street 65th-66th.-Street 62nd -63rd Street 62nd -63rd Street 65th -66th Street 65th -66th Street 63rd -64th Street 64th -65th Street 65th -66th Street 65th -66th Street 4012 4013 22nd - Standish Avenue 65th -66th Street 13th -14th Avenue 66th -67th Street 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 #y� 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 8th day of September, 1986, 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 by resolution adopted the 11th day of August, 1986. 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 8th day of September, 1986. • ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Cler 40 John Hamilton, Mayor • • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 348 Agenda September 8, 1986 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, 1987 - City Project No. 830 Council Members: The City Council has scheduled a public hearing for September 8, 1986, 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 of snow and ice from sidewalks and performance of other specialized maintenance functions. The estimated maintenance cost for the period January 1 through December 31, 1987 is $49,936. The 1985 maintenance cost was $35,726.30. $11,470 of this $14,210 increase from the actual 1985 assessment total to the estimated 1987 assessment total is based on an increase in utility fees ($2,695), the need for additional supplies such as light heads and bases ($3,775) and the capital outlay costs for repair and replacement of worn and broken sidewalks and crosswalks ($5,000). A protest to the proposed assessment has been received from John Sieff of Lyndale Hardware. A copy of Mr. Sieff's letter and response is attached. All commercial properties would be assessed 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. . Recommendation: At the conclusion of the September 8, 1986 public hearing, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution order the L /H /N maintenance work to be done and the costs to be specially assessed. JDP /eja 0 • Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit. Manager RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT L /H /N/ MAINTENANCE - JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1987 CITY PROJECT NO. 830 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 Lyndale /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 8, 1986 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 Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet Redevelopment Project area, which area constitutes the special assessment district with the exception of single family, two family and multifamily 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 area 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, 1987. Costs of the project shall be collected in the manner provided in Richfield Ordinance Code Sections 12.29, 12.30 and 12.31. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of September, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • John Hamilton, Mayor WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS OF TIRES, S M BATTERIES AND AUTO SUPPLIES i I ESTABLISHED 1921 THE S&M COMPANY ■ 2101 KENNEDY ST. N.E. ■ P.O. BOX 580 ■ MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440 ■ PHONE: 612/331 -6680 September 3, 1986 Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Ferber: I have not had the opportunity to meet you, however, we do own two businesses in the City of Richfield, namely Lyndale Hardware and Lyndale Hardware "Mr. Tire" Service Center. I am writing this letter to object to the assessment letter of August 20th sent to property owners of the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet Maintenance Program. I believe the arbitrary amount of $49,936 for the district for the period of January 1 through December 31, 1987 is far too much of an increase over the 1985 assessment of $35,726.30. We want to be a success, but I am wondering if it is not just as important to be efficient and accountable for the things that we do. Not many businesses can afford this kind of continual increase in their cost without having anything to really show for it. At the present time, it is running no greater than 2% so, in my opinion, there really shouldn't be any more increase than 2% in 1987 over 1986 and shouldn't have been more than a 4% increase in 1986 over 1985. I am enclosing seven (7) copies of this letter and I would appreciate very much if you would circulate this letter to the various members of the City Council for their information and appraisal. Thanking you in advance, Yours -ve y truly, O N SIEFF P esident dr r r • September 5, 1986 Mr. John Sieff President The S & M Company 2101 Kennedy Street N.E. P.O. Box 580 Minneapolis, MN 55440 Dear Mr. Sieff: Thank you for taking the time to write the city in advance of the public hearing to be held on Monday, September 8, regarding the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet maintenance program assessment. Given the amount of the assessment increase, your letter and concern is understandable. In retrospect, it appears we could have provided some additional information regarding this increase in assessment over the 1985 assessment. i The 1987 estimated total cost of $49,936 is an increase of $14,210 over the 1985 actual cost of $35,726. When the proposed budget for the 1987 assessment program was prepared, several items contributed to this increase. Utility costs have steadily increased and we are now estimating these costs to be $2,695 higher in 1987 than in 1985. The need for general supplies continues to increase and an estimated $3,775 increase is reflected in 1987 over 1985. One of the major supply expenses is for light heads and bases. The third item contributing to this increase is the repair and -replacement of worn and broken sidewalks and crosswalks. Beginning in 1986 the city has budgeted $5,000 for such capital outlay work. These three general items contribute approximately $11,000 of the $14,210 increase. While this information may not satisfy all of your concerns, we hope that it does provide a better background for this increase. A copy of your letter will be forwarded to the City Council together with the general agenda materials. telephone: 869 -7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer N LO U) CU U ■ L � O O � i LM O Q ■ ■� O O ti co • September 5, 1986 Mr. John Sieff President The S & M Company 2101 Kennedy Street N.E. P.O. Box 580 Minneapolis, MN 55440 Dear Mr. Sieff: Thank you for taking the time to write the city in advance of the public hearing to be held on Monday, September 8, regarding the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet maintenance program assessment. Given the amount of the assessment increase, your letter and concern is understandable. In retrospect, it appears we could have provided some additional information regarding this increase in assessment over the 1985 assessment. i The 1987 estimated total cost of $49,936 is an increase of $14,210 over the 1985 actual cost of $35,726. When the proposed budget for the 1987 assessment program was prepared, several items contributed to this increase. Utility costs have steadily increased and we are now estimating these costs to be $2,695 higher in 1987 than in 1985. The need for general supplies continues to increase and an estimated $3,775 increase is reflected in 1987 over 1985. One of the major supply expenses is for light heads and bases. The third item contributing to this increase is the repair and -replacement of worn and broken sidewalks and crosswalks. Beginning in 1986 the city has budgeted $5,000 for such capital outlay work. These three general items contribute approximately $11,000 of the $14,210 increase. While this information may not satisfy all of your concerns, we hope that it does provide a better background for this increase. A copy of your letter will be forwarded to the City Council together with the general agenda materials. telephone: 869 -7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer L r� If you would like to discuss this is matter further, please feel free to contact me or Don Fond,rick of- our staff. Sincerely, ame D. Prosser Manager JDP /eja . • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 347 Agenda September 8, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing on Adoption of the Assessment Roll for Removal of Diseased Trees from Private Property for the Period August 1, 1985 - July 31, 1986 Council Members: The City Council has scheduled a hearing to be held on Monday, September 8, 1986, for the assessment of the cost for removal of diseased trees from private property during the period of August 1, 1985 through July 31, 1986. The city staff has calculated the proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, 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 diseased tree removal from private property for this period totaled $18,259.74. The city ordinance provides that special assessments for current services may be certified to the county auditor for collection along with taxes. This certification may provide that the assessment be completely paid in the first year or in annual installments. It is the staff recommendation that such payments be due and payable over a three year period. The adopted assessment roll for the period August 1, 1985 through July 31, 1986 would be certified with the county auditor by October 10, 1986. 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 percent. Payment may be made by the assessed owner before November 15, 1986 in order to avoid interest payments. Payments made after that date would include the interest payment. 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. 9 Recommendation: • Following the public hearing, it is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution adopting the assessment for removal of diseased trees from private property for the period August 1, 1985 through July 31, 1985. It is further recommended that such payments be due and payable over a three -year period. The 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 ". JDP /eja Respect ully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 1, 1985 - JULY 31, 1986 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the city council has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for current services related to removal of diseased trees from the following private property in the City of Richfield: Prooerty Identification Number 28- 028 -24 -11 -0064 35- 028 -24 -43 -0062 34- 028 -24 -42 -0027 28- 028 -24 -32 -0096 28- 028 -24 -34 -0139 34- 028 -24 -24 -0044 26- 028 -24 -14 -0052 35- 028 -24 -42 -0056 26- 028 -24 -13 -0110 34- 028 -24 -13 -0079 26- 028 -24 -12 -0087 25- 028 -24 -24 -0054 25- 028 -24 -24 -0049 29- 028 -24 -41 -0095 25- 028 -24 -24 -0117. 25- 028 -24 -33 -0052 32- 028 -24 -13 -0016 27- 028 -24 -33 -0012 26- 028 -24 -14 -0115 33- 028 -24 -23 -0077 25- 028 -24 -21 -0029 34- 028 -24 -22 -0031 32- 028 -24 -14 -0097 25- 028 -24 -24 -0097 34- 028 -24 -23 -0009 34- 028 -24 -31 -0046 35- 028 -24 -41 -0008• 35- 028 -24 -12 -0130 34- 028 -24 -13 -0098 34- 028 -24 -13 -0155 26- 028 -24 -31 -0057 33- 028 -24 -22 -0070 33- 028 -24 -33 -0008 28- 028 -24 -33 -0041 35- 028 -24 -14 -0104 35- 028 -24 -11 -0040 28- 028 -24 -33 -0111 35- 028 -24 -11 -0041 26- 028 -24 -34 -0080 32- 028 -24 -12 -0114 33- 028 -24 -23 -0006 Property Address 6308 Colfax Ave. So. 7632 - 15th Ave. So. 7433 Stevens Ave. So. 2007 W. Forest Drive 6935 James Ave. So. 7227 Pillsbury Ave. So. 6408 - 18th Ave. So. 7415 - 12th Ave. So. 6525 - 15th Ave. So. 7320 - 2nd Ave. So. 6349 - 14th Ave. So. 6512 - 23rd Ave. So. 2236 6704 E. 66th Street Russell Ave. So. 6520 - 23rd Ave. So. 6805 Longfellow Ave. So. 7215 Upton Ave. So. 6801 Garfield Ave. So. 6511 Bloomington Ave. So. 7314 Morgan Ave. So. 6314 Standish Ave. So. 7044 Garfield Ave. So. 7320 Russell Ave. So. 6405 Standish Ave. So. 7339 Harriet Ave. So. 7413 Pillsbury Ave. So. 7414 - 18th Ave. So. 7105 - 15th Ave. So. 7213 Nicollet Ave. So. 7221 - 2nd Ave. So. 6609 Chicago Ave. So. 7132 Logan Ave. So. 2017 W. 77th Street 6820 Oliver Ave. So. 7338 - 18th Ave. So. 7111 - 17th Ave. So. 6924 Logan Ave. So. 7105 - 17th Ave. So. 6810 - 10th Ave. So. 2800 W. 71st Street 7201 Penn Ave. So. Prooerty Identification Number 28- 028 -24 -11 -0064 35- 028 -24 -43 -0062 34- 028 -24 -42 -0027 28- 028 -24 -32 -0096 28- 028 -24 -34 -0139 34- 028 -24 -24 -0044 26- 028 -24 -14 -0052 35- 028 -24 -42 -0056 26- 028 -24 -13 -0110 34- 028 -24 -13 -0079 26- 028 -24 -12 -0087 25- 028 -24 -24 -0054 25- 028 -24 -24 -0049 29- 028 -24 -41 -0095 25- 028 -24 -24 -0117. 25- 028 -24 -33 -0052 32- 028 -24 -13 -0016 27- 028 -24 -33 -0012 26- 028 -24 -14 -0115 33- 028 -24 -23 -0077 25- 028 -24 -21 -0029 34- 028 -24 -22 -0031 32- 028 -24 -14 -0097 25- 028 -24 -24 -0097 34- 028 -24 -23 -0009 34- 028 -24 -31 -0046 35- 028 -24 -41 -0008• 35- 028 -24 -12 -0130 34- 028 -24 -13 -0098 34- 028 -24 -13 -0155 26- 028 -24 -31 -0057 33- 028 -24 -22 -0070 33- 028 -24 -33 -0008 28- 028 -24 -33 -0041 35- 028 -24 -14 -0104 35- 028 -24 -11 -0040 28- 028 -24 -33 -0111 35- 028 -24 -11 -0041 26- 028 -24 -34 -0080 32- 028 -24 -12 -0114 33- 028 -24 -23 -0006 C / -j 7639 Penn Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -33 -0031 6232 Bryant Ave. So. 28- 028 -24 -11 -0075 7649 Penn Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -33 -0012 6828 Russell Ave. So. 29- 028 -24 -44 -0048 7100 - 2nd Ave. So. 34- 028 -24 -12 -0133 7210 James Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -24 -0071 7034 Bloomington Ave. So. 35- 028 -24 -12 -0088 7221 Knox Ave. So. 33- .028 -24 -24 -0010 6741 Sheridan Ave. So. 29- 028 -24 -41 -0107 6337 - 14th Ave. So. 26- 028 -24 -12 -0089 6625 Lynnwood Blvd. 28- 028 -24 -41 -0030 7015 Newton Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -22 -0034 7300 - 5th Ave. So. 34- 028 -24 -14 -0036 7321 Penn Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -23 -0012 7519 Girard Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -42 -0096 6919 Logan Ave. So. 28- 028 -24 -34 -0094 6244 Aldrich Ave. So. 28- 028 -24 -11 -0023 7645 Xerxes Ave. So. 32- 028 -24 -43 -0049 6336 - 22nd Ave. So. 25- 028 -24 -21 -0010 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Such proposed assessment roll 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 in no more than three annual installments 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's Assessing Division and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the city's Assessing Division 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, Minnesota this 8th day of September, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • John Hamilton, Mayor • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 346 Agenda September 8, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Certification of Delinquent Sewer and Water Utility Accounts Council Members: The City Council is asked to consider a resolution on the September 8, 1986 city council agenda certifying the annual accumulation of unpaid water and sewer utility accounts. Although the Richfield utility ordinance places unpaid water and sewer charges as a lien against the property, some homeowners have traditionally chosen to have the charges certified and included in their annual property tax billing. A $20 certification charge (preparation for certification to taxes of delinquent accounts) shall be charged against each delinquent account as authorized by City Ordinance 8.12, subdivision 12. In 1985 the city council certified $77,974 of delinquent water and sewer charges which represent 565 properties, for an average of $138.00 per delinquent account. The 1986 certification currently under consideration totals $80,189 of delinquent charges for 371 properties, an average of $216 per account. It appears that the penalty provision in the water and sewer billing procedure which became effective in 1985 has had the desired effect of reducing the number of property owners who allow their water and sewer charges to become delinquent. However, the addition of a 5% penalty charge as well as the storm sewer utility charges which also became effective in mid -1985 have had the effect of increasing the average delinquent amount per account and the total amount of delinquent charges due. By certifying the delinquent charges to the property taxes of the delinquent properties, the City is assured of ultimately collecting the delinquent charges. • Recommendation: The attached resolution represents those delinquent accounts which have occurred from August 31, 1985 through August 31, 1986. It is recommended that the City Council adopt this resolution certifying delinquent water and sewer accounts. JDP /eja �J is Respec ly submitted, Jame . Prosser City anager 4- • C • ;zIel//- If, 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 and shall be collected with other taxes on such property, and WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 8.12 established 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 $72,769.81 2. That a $20.00 certification charge shall be levied against each delinquent account; such charges totaling $7,420.00. 3. That such amount be hereby certified to the County Auditor for collection with other taxes on said properties. 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, Minnesota this 8th day of September, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk John Hamilton Mayor • is CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 345 Agenda September 8, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Assessment Rolls for Weed Destruction Certification Council Members: There is a resolution on the September 8, agenda certifying special assessments for weed Hennepin County. This assessment is for costs city in connection with abatement for weed des properties. The attached resolution provides assessment with an 8% penalty. 1986 city council destruction to incurred by the truction on certain for a one -year Three properties have been assessed this charge for 1986 for a total amount of $1,209.25. One property, the Minneapolis - Northfield and Southern Railway, represents $1,000 of the total assessment and includes weed abatement for a two -year period. In 1985 a total of $719.00 was incurred and billed to property owners for weed destruction. Of that total amount, $709.00 has been included in the 1986 assessment certification. Recommendation:. It is recommended that the city council pass the attached resolution levying a special assessment for weed destruction in the amount of $1,209.25. Respec f lly submitted, Jame D. Prosser CityvManager JDP /eja 0 • U RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR WEED DESTRUCTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The following properties are hereby specially assessed in the following amounts for expenses incurred by the City of Richfield in connection with abatement for weed destruction pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1984, 18.271, Subd. 4 to wit: PROPERTY ID ADDITION ADDRESS AMOUNT 27- 028 -24 -21 -0095 44827 62nd thru 77th St. $1,000.00 29- 028 -24 -43 -0025 46793 6800 Upton Avenue 179.25 28- 028 -24 -23 -0010 44828 6500 Oliver Avenue 30.00 $1,209.25 2. The above listed assessment be spread over a period of one year at the rate of 8% interest per annum. 3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County Minnesota. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of September, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk John Hamilton Mayor 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 344 Agenda September 8, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing on the Assessment Roll for Installation of a Fire Protection System for Richfield Shoppes North Council Members: The City Council has scheduled a public hearing to be held September 8, 1986 on the assessment for the cost of installation of a fire protection system for Richfield Shoppes North, located on Nicollet Avenue between 65th and 66th Streets. The city staff has calculated $48, 705 as the proper amount to be assessed. The proposed assessment was properly filed with the City Clerk, notice was duly published and notice was mailed to the owner described in the assessment roll. The public hearing provides an opportunity for all interested persons to present their objections if any, to such proposed assessment. The city staff will be available at the hearing to answer questions about the special assessment. The city ordinance provides that special assessments may be certified to the County Auditor for collection along with current taxes. This certification provides that the special assessment may be paid in full prior to November 15, 1986, or may be paid in five annual installments. In June of 1984, the annual interest rate of eight per cent was established between the property owner and the City of Richfield. Recommendation: Following the hearing, it is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution, adopting the assessment of the Fire Protection System for Richfield Shoppes North. Resp filly submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager 0 JDP /eja • • 1�1 f- I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON INSTALLATION OF A FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM FOR RICHFIELD SHOPPES NORTH WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment on the installation of a fire protection system for Richfield Shoppes North, located on Nicollet Avenue between 65th and 66th Streets; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota as follows: 1. Such proposed assessment roll is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the property named therein - PID number 27- 028 -24 -13 -0059, addition number 46830, 6501 Nicollet Avenue South. 2. Such assessment shall bear interest at the rate of eight percent from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution. 3. The owner of the property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor or prior to November 15, 1986, pay whole of the assessment on such property to the City's Assessment . Division and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City's Assessing Division the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid. 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, Minnesota, this 8th day of September, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk John Hamilton Mayor • �J a � CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 343 Agenda September 8, 1986 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. 803, Longfellow Avenue Improvements Council Members: A public hearing concerning the adoption of the proposed assessment roll for the Longfellow Avenue street improvements (City Project No. 803) has been scheduled to be held on September 8, 1986. The owners of the ten residential properties affected by the improvement have received proper written notice of this hearing. City staff has calculated the amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land specially benefited by the project. In November, 1984 the city council set the maximum assessment to property owners on Longfellow Avenue between 68th and 69th Streets at $4.00 per front foot for the curb and gutter or the actual cost of the improvements, whichever is less. Actual per front foot costs slightly exceeded this amount; therefore, the cost of installation of curb and gutter for a typical lot of 60 feet is $240.00. In addition, the cost for installation of driveway aprons will also be assessed, as previously directed by the city council. These costs vary with each property depending upon the width of the driveway apron and the amount of concrete or asphalt used to match to their existing driveway. The average cost of a driveway apron was $245.00. The property owner may make prepayment in full, make partial prepayment, apply for deferment if qualified, or have the balance spread over a period of 20 years. City staff members will be present at the 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 ask questions or raise objections, if any, to the proposed assessment. • • 7-z/Uz- / Recommendation: Following the hearing it is recommended that the city council pass the attached resolution adopting the assessment roll for City Project No. 803, Longfellow Avenue Improvements. If the city council makes any 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." JDP /eja Respectfully submitted, -V- Jam. D. Prosser City Manager RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT NO. 803 LONGFELLOW AVENUE 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 Longfellow Avenue, 66th Street to 69th Street, by reconstruction, paving, curb and gutter and driveway aprons and overlay of the service road from 69th Street to 24th Avenue. 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 No. 803, Longfellow Avenue Improvements, against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land specially benefited thereby in accord- ance 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. 803, 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. 803 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 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 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 City Project No. 803, Longfellow Avenue Improvements. 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 20 years unless prepaid or deferred. The first installment shall be payable on the first Monday in January, 1987. All assessments shall bear interest at a rate of 8.58% 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, Minnesota this 8th day of September, 1986. ATTEST: C Thomas Ferber City Clerk • John Hamilton Mayor • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 342 Agenda September 8, 1986 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. 812, 1985 Alley Paving Council Members: The city council has scheduled a public hearing to be held September 8, 1986 concerning the adoption of the proposed assessment roll for City Project No. 812, the 1985 alley paving. The city staff has calculated amounts to landespecially against every assessable lot, piece or benefited by the project. The costs for the 1985 alley paving project are $18.45 per assessable foot. The estimated assessment rate used at the project hearings was $19.75 per foot. The total cost of.a typical 50 foot lot is $922.50. The property owner may make prepayment in full, make partial prepayment, apply for deferment if qualified, or have the balance spread over a period of 20 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 ask questions or raise objections, if any, to the proposed assessment. Requests for Exemption of the Assessment 1. Oak Grove Lutheran Church Representatives from Oak Grove Lutheran Church will be present at the hearing, requesting exemption from paying the special assessment amount for this project for the three 500 foot lots they own on Augsburg Avenue and use as a parking lot for their church. The church was previously required to install a four -foot high basketweave fence on the parking lot's east property line as part of their off - street parking contract. It is their opinion that an assessment for improvement to the alley is inconsistent with the non -use requirement imposed by the city. The total assessment for the three lots (150 feet at $18.45 per foot) is $2,767.50. Past correspondence between Oak Grove Lutheran Church and the city regarding this matter is u attached. In this letter, the former city manager indicated he would recommend to the city council that no assessment be placed against the church property. If the city council chooses not to assess Oak Grove Lutheran Church for the alley improvements, the city would be responsible for payment of the $2,767.50 assessment cost. Funding would come from the city's portion of the Special Assessment Bond, repayment of which is outside the levy limit from the general tax base. 2. Howard J. Olson, 6800 Penn Avenue Mr. Olson has submitted a letter requesting exemption of the $2,658.66 assessment against his property at 6800 Penn Avenue. Mr. Olson will be unable to attend the September 8 city council meeting, but his attorney will be in attendance to address the issue. Mr. Olson's request for exemption is based on his opinion that neither he or his tenants use the alley and therefore receive no benefit from it. A letter and supporting data from Mr. Olson is attached. Mr. Olson points out that the homes that do use the alley will pay a combined assessment of $2,767.50, as compared with his assessment of $2,658.66. He further requests that if the city council does not exempt his property from the assessment, that it be assessed at the same rate as the other property owners for a total assessment of $1,789.55. (His assessment of $2,658.66 is based on the commercial assessment rate of $27.68 per foot.) City staff recommends the city council follow their past policy and assess costs to those who can access the alley whether or not this access is used. If the city council chooses not to assess this property for the alley improvements, the city would be responsible for payment of the $2,658.66 assessment cost. Recommendation Following the hearing, it is recommended that the city council pass the attached resolution, adopting the assessment roll for City Project No. 812, 1985 alley paving. If the 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." Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP /eja k. o RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT NO. 812, 1985 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 Augsburg and Garfield Ave. 70th St. 71st St. Russell and Sheridan Ave. 68th St. 69th St. Blaisdell and Nicollet Ave. 75th St. 76th St. Upton and Thomas Ave. 68th St. 69th St. Xerxes and Washburn Ave. 68th St. 69th St. Queen and Penn Ave. 68th St. 69th St. 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 No. 812, 1985 Alley Paving, against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land specially benefited thereby in accordance with 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. 812, 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. 812 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 assessment is hereby affirmed, adopted, confirmed and shall be certified by the City Clerk and filed in the office of thee City Clerk, and shall thereupon be and constitute a special assessment for said City Project No. 812, 1985 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 20 years unless prepaid or deferred. The first installment shall be payable on the first Monday in January of 1987. All assessments shall bear interest at a rate of 8.58% 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, Minnesota this 8th day of September, 1986. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: I* Thomas Ferber City Clerk °c Oak Grove Lutheran Church 701'and Lyndale Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423 (612) 869 -4917 August 28, 1986 Mr. Michael Eastling Community Services Department City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Mr. Eastling: I am writing regarding the Richfield City Council hearing September 8, 1986, on proposed assessments for City Project No. 812, alley improvement. Oak Grove Lutheran Church was represented at the public hearing April 22, 1985, when paving of certain alleys was considered. We expressed our concern at that time regarding assessment on Lots 1016_11 and 12, Block 5, Augsburg Park Addition. These three lots are owned by Oak Grove Lutheran Church and used as a parking lot for our church. Our use permit from The City of Richfield was granted with the stipulation precluding encroachment on and /or use of the alley. We feel that - improvement of the alley does nothing to enhance the value of our property and that assessment for those improvements of the alley is inconsistent with the require -. ment that we do not use the alley. This view has met with favorable comment by the Richfield City admin- istration in the past. 7 We will have representatives at the hearing September 8, 1986, and we request that the Richfield City Council consider the abatement of assessment for alley improvement relative to the three lots owned by Oak Grove Lutheran Church. Sincerely yours, Arnold L. Moe, Treasurer ALM:ed Oak Grove Lutheran Church • W-n M N U) 0 M cc i • May 31, 1985 Mr. Clifford Taylor, President Oak Grove Lutheran Church 70th and Lyndale Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Cliff: Thank you for your May 13, 1985, letter expressing your concern about the assessment policy for the paving of the alley between Augsburg and Garfield Avenue which will occur this summer. Based upon the fact that the city required your church to build a fence and install curb to prevent cars from the church parking lot using the alley, it's the city administration opinion that there is little or no benefit to the church if the alley is improved. Therefore, the writer will recommend to the city council that no assessment be placed against the church property. However, if you and the church membership would like to have the city reconsider the stipulation that prevents use of the alley, the writer would entertain such a proposal. This option, if desired, could be discussed further with neighbors and the city council. If-there were a change to permit the use of the alley, then the assessment would be in order. The assessment hearing for this project will not be held until the fall of 1986. At that time the city council will consider all requests regarding abatement of this special assessment. Your letter requesting that the city council abate all, or a portion of the assessment, will be kept on file for that assessment hearing. I would recommend that representatives of the church plan to attend the hearing to present your concerns to the city council. I trust this letter answers your concerns. Call on me if I can be of any further assistance. S,�. ce)rely yours, Obn G. Cartwright ity Manager cc: Director of Community Services City Engineer telephone: 869 -7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer >1 L O ■NJ a ■� O U ~ t0 • May 31, 1985 Mr. Clifford Taylor, President Oak Grove Lutheran Church 70th and Lyndale Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Cliff: Thank you for your May 13, 1985, letter expressing your concern about the assessment policy for the paving of the alley between Augsburg and Garfield Avenue which will occur this summer. Based upon the fact that the city required your church to build a fence and install curb to prevent cars from the church parking lot using the alley, it's the city administration opinion that there is little or no benefit to the church if the alley is improved. Therefore, the writer will recommend to the city council that no assessment be placed against the church property. However, if you and the church membership would like to have the city reconsider the stipulation that prevents use of the alley, the writer would entertain such a proposal. This option, if desired, could be discussed further with neighbors and the city council. If-there were a change to permit the use of the alley, then the assessment would be in order. The assessment hearing for this project will not be held until the fall of 1986. At that time the city council will consider all requests regarding abatement of this special assessment. Your letter requesting that the city council abate all, or a portion of the assessment, will be kept on file for that assessment hearing. I would recommend that representatives of the church plan to attend the hearing to present your concerns to the city council. I trust this letter answers your concerns. Call on me if I can be of any further assistance. S,�. ce)rely yours, Obn G. Cartwright ity Manager cc: Director of Community Services City Engineer telephone: 869 -7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer r � LC • �7G Oak Grove Lutheran Church 70"'arid Lyndale Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423 (612) 869 -4917 May 13, 1985 Mr. John Cartwright, City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota Dear Mr. Cartwright: City Manager S. 55423 On Monday evening, April 22, 1985, we attended a public hearing held by the Richfield City Council. We represented Oak Grove Lutheran Church. The hearing was held to consider paving of certain alleys this summer. We expressed our concerns regarding assessments for paving the alley between Augsburg and Garfield Avenues South, from 70th Street to 71st Street. Oak Grove Lutheran Church owns lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 5, Augsburg Park Addition. These lots abut the alley mentioned above, and are used for parking. We have no objection to the paving project. Our concerns, as expressed to Mr. Michael Eastling and you, and subsequently to the Council, are with regard to the proposed assessment for the paving. A parking lot was built first on Lots 10 and 11. A stipulation or condition in granting the permit for this parking lot was that a basketweave fence be constructed along the east side of the parking lot. This was to preclude encroachment on and use of the alley, and to screen the residents to the east from the parking lot. This was reaffirmed on October 18, 1974, when the Council approved the layout and contract for expanding the parking area to include Lot 12, a stipulation being that the basketweave fence be extended to include Lot 12. It is our understanding that we would normally be assessed at the commercial rate, estimated in this case to be approximately $29.63 per lineal foot. We respectfully request that consideration be given to abating all or a substantial portion of the assessment for our property. We were required to install the fence to prevent use of the alley. An assessment for improvement to the alley now seems inconsistent with that requirement and non -use. Additionally, improving the alley does nothing to enhance the value of our property under these circumstances. Please give your consideration and that of the Council to this request at the time assessments are determined at completion of the project. Thank you. Sincerely yours, liff Taylor esident Oak Grove Lutheran-Church Wilbert Oman, Treasurer I$ • • City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, Mn. 55423 Re: Council Meeting Sept. 8, 1986 7:30 PM Regarding special assessment alley paving. Honorable Mayor and Council Members; I am very sorry I couldn't make your meeting but I had a previous commitment which I could not ignore in Montana. My letter is to respectfully object to the $2,658.66 assessment for alley paving on my property at 6800 Penn Ave.So. This alley does not in anyway improve the value of above mentioned property. Please see attached copy of legal opinion I copied from a law book. I also would ask you to please look over the attached photos. I have included a before and after photo of the rear end of the building facing west and the alley. You will note that there is no door, dock or ramp that could be used by my tenant, The Print Shop on that side of the building. All paper deliveries and deliveries of any kind are made fromthe north or east side of building. All paper waste is also picked up by BFI from our side entrance off 68th street. This is a stub alley that really goes no where. It serves 3 homes only.for automobile traffic and 5 homes for garbage pick -up. I am sure the alley does improve the value of the three homes that have their automobile garages bordering the alley. As I figure it they together will pay for their driveway a total of $2,761.50 and I would be forced to pay $2,658.66 , just short of equalling their combined payment by $108.84. I feel this is an unfair and unjust assessment and in no way does it improve my building or help my tenant. I feel confident that in all fairness you will come to the same conclusion. If for the sake of helping my neighbors I would suggest that you reduce my assessment to the same amount per running foot that you are charging the people that are getting the benefit, this would at least reduce my cost to $1,789.55. Still a sizable amount to pay for no benefit or improvement. I hope you will see fit to act in my favor on this matter. R p ctfully, Howard J. O1 A s " C7 • § 429.011 Note 1 AL IMWRKY 11EPf1'm 161 2d y { applies only to local improvements and proced es Equipment V. Town of Stuntz, could be extended into second area and this aiva" therefor, and therefore city charter controll to 546. .. 429 submission of bids for contracts other than r local `' le Test of validity of special assessment w � improvements. Op.Atty.Gen., 707 -A-4, Aug. 1, improvement for which assessment was levied'. �('pr 1955. increased market value of property Against h `oil If village should determine that one-h of cost of assessment operates in at least the amount 'of . por, installing a water and sewage system ' new resi- assessment. Id. bul dentist area should be paid from funds of unicipali- Where majority of property owners : residin : in ter ty and that abutting property owners ould be first area petitioned city to construct .a t of S assessed the remaining one -half of the cos price- . storm sewers for the drainage of the City of a dure set out in this and following sections sho be desired to construct a storm sewer :larger ebr followed. Op.Atty.Gen., 387 -13-1, April 12, 195 . a Or the drainap of inn the first area and to pay the additional cost for the .e increased size and depth of the trunk line . fewer Att• 2. Powers and duties of council. Local governmental units are authorized to levy special assessments to pay metropolitan waste con- trol commission charges. In re Village of Burns- ville, 1976, 310 Minn. 32, 245 N.W.2d 445. Surplus funds derived from sanitary sewer system, in excs of reserve required by ordinance, could be transferred to a fund to be used for the purpose of erecting a new city hall. Op.Atty.Gen., 59b -10, Oct. 3, 1%2. The town of Albert Lea has the powers that were set forth in §§ 412.401 - 412.481 at time of enactment of Laws 1953, c. 168 conferring on the town the powers enumerated in §§ 412.401 - 412.481, though §§ 412.401 -412.481 were repealed subsequent to en- actment. Op.Atty.Gen., 396 -F -1, June 24, 1957. Village had authority to extend its water mains beyond village limits so as to permit property hold- ers owning property outside village limits but not abutting thereto to connect with such water system. Op.Atty.Gen., 624 -D-11. water system. Op.Atty. Gen., 624 -D-11. Village had authority to permit a person owning property outside of the village limits but not abutting thereto to connect onto the sewer system of the village. Id.. Village council had discretionary power to deter- mine that one -half of cost of installing water and sewage system in new residential area be paid from certain funds of village, and to assess abutting prop- erty owners for the remaining one -half of the cost. Op.Atty.Gen., 387 -0-1, April 12, 1955. City council making improvement and assessment therefor is bound to follow the procedure outlined in § 429.061, and has no authority to defer accrual of interest for prompt payment. Op.Atty.Gen. 40", March 4, 1955. 3. Property benefited In imposing special assessment, any method re- sulting in fair approximation of increase in market value for each benefited parcel may be used; method which on its face appears to be fair approximation will be presumed valid, with burden resting on objec- tor to show its invalidity. Continental Sales and through the first area, so that in the fututti..Iaterals. could be extended into second area and this aiva" I to city could pay the additional cost. for the mere** 429 size and depth of the trunk line sewer through the ;Rau: first area and later assess the additional Cott agaiint (:ea benefited property in the second and third are" to ;.:A the extent that such property VFW :pecia;ly fCt }. aysi Op.Atty.Gen., 408-0, April 27, 1957. ..... q� Where city charter did not otherwise a WMIY am sue' provide, cost of constructing sewer in city- Could be 1951 assessed against property benefited, though :'such property did not abut on the sewer. Op.Atty.Gea., C into 387B1, May 26, 1955. filed 4. Improvement* —In general - Cost of railroad crossing soft signals could`Ubt be assessed against spec property, since such sig- nals were not mentioned in statute setting,. forth authorized improvements. Peterson v. City of Elk River, 1981, 312 N.W.2d 243. Interceptor trunk for water and sewage system owned by the metropolitan waste control codsmis- sion was an "improvement' constructed by dty sed; thus, subject to specid assessment.. Joint Indepen- dent School Dist. No. • 287 (Suburban: HemmOn County Area Vocational - Technical Schools) v. City of Brooklyn Park, 1977, 256 N.W.2d .512.::,:.: ; cc1• Sewer project of the metropolitan waste' d afibl commission, designed to carry village's sewall mgt of village to a new treatment plant, was an 'improve. meat" within statute authorizing local unit to levy special assessments to pay f improvements. In re Village of Burnsville,, 1970 , 310 Minn 32, 245 N.W.2d 445. �:,; .. City of the fourth class existing under :11�i,ltws 1891, c. 45, would not be required to advertise: for bids if the estimated cost of purchase, materials, supplies or equipment does not exceed $5,000. Op. Atty.Gen., 59a -15, Dec. 19, 1968. City council of city of fourth class operathrg i id& home rule charter could not enact resolution'*M& assumed the existence of spatial bendits-9mmid" from public improvements prior to m4mi,, tttexis urination as to the existence and extent of aobeatF fits. Op.Atty.Gen., 59a -11, July 7, 19646 16 dty Aug. !'lusts '.�eoer ;.when to tht 4 �to. the .Y�I. se VyI Lal ft o� i a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 341 Agenda September 8, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing on the Assessment Roll for City Project No. 810, Alley Maintenance for the Period January 1, 1985 through December 31, 1985 Council Members: The city council has scheduled a public hearing to be held September 8, 1986 on the assessment for the cost of current maintenance services on alleys for the period January 1 through December 31, 1985. The city staff has calculated the proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land specially benefited. The proposed assessment was properly filed with the city clerk, notice was duly published and notice were mailed to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll. The cost of current maintenance services January 1 through December 31, 1985 totaled $15,141.97 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 January 1 through December 31, 1985 will be available for council reference and review at the September 8, 1986 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 person to present their objections, if any, to such proposed assessment. The city ordinance provides that special assessments for current services may be certified to the county auditor for collection along with current taxes. This certification may provide that the special assessments be completely paid either in the first ten years or in up to ten annual installments. However, it is recommended that the certification adopted by the' city council provide that payments be due and payable within the first year, rather than in installments. The city has the right a y to charge 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 make payment before November 15, 1986 to avoid interest payments. Payments made after that date, up to December 31, 1987, would include the interest charges. Recommendation: Following the hearing, it is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, adopting the assessment of City Project No. 810, Alley Maintenance for the period January 1, 1985 through December 31,1985. 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 ". Respe f ;ly submitted, Jame Prosser City,- JDP /eja • • • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT NO. 810 ALLEY MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1985 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 Humboldt- Girard 63rd -64th Street 2010 Girard- Fremont (35W) 63rd -64th Street 2011 Girard - Fremont (35W) 64th -65th Street 2012 Girard- Fremont (35W) 65th -66th Street • • 1� 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 2020 2021 3002 3003 3004 3005 3006 3007 3008 3009 3011 3012 3013 3014 3015 3016 3018 3020 3021 3022 3023 3024 3025 3026 3027 3028 3029 3030 3031 3032 3033 3034 3035 3036 3037 3038 3039 3040 4001 4002 4004 4005 4006 4007 4008 4009 4010 4012 Fremont (35W)- Emerson Fremont (35W)- Emerson Dupont- Colfax Colfax- Bryant Bryant - Aldrich Graham - Lyndale Aldrich - Lyndale Aldrich - Lyndale Lyndale- Garfield Augsburg - Garfield Augsburg- Garfield Lyndale- Garfield Lyndale- Garfield Garfield- Harriet Garfield- Harriet Garfield- Harriet Harriet -Grand Harriet -Grand Harriet -Grand Harriet -Grand Grand - Pleasant Grand - Pleasant Wentworth - Blaisdell Blaisdell - Nicollet Blaisdell - Nicollet Blaisdell - Nicollet Blaisdell - Nicollet Nicollet- Second Avenue Nicollet -First Avenue Nicollet -First Avenue Nicollet -First Avenue First - Stevens Avenue First - Stevens Avenue Stevens - Second Avenue Stevens - Second Avenue Second -Third Avenue Second -Third Avenue Second -Third Avenue Third - Clinton Avenue Third - Clinton Avenue Clinton- Fourth Avenue Clinton- Fourth Avenue Fourth -Fifth Avenue Fourth -Fifth Avenue 13th -14th Avenue 14th -15th Avenue 15th - Bloomington 15th- Bloomington Bloomington -16th Cedar - Longfellow Cedar - Longfellow Cedar - Longfellow 19th -20th Avenue 22nd - Standish Avenue 64th -65th Street 65th -66th Street 63rd - Mildred Drive 63rd - Mildred Drive 63rd - Mildred Drive 66th -Lake Shore Drive 75th -76th Street 76th -77th Street 68th -69th Street 70th -71st Street 71st -72nd Street 72nd -73rd Street 73rd -74th Street 71st -72nd Street 72nd -73rd Street 73rd -74th Street 67th -68th Street 68th -69th Street 72nd -73rd Street 73rd -74th Street 68th -69th Street 72nd -73rd Street 67th -68th Street 72nd -73rd Street 73rd -74th Street 74th -75th Street 75th -76th Street 68th -69th Street 70th -71st Street 71st -72nd Street 72nd -73rd Street 71st -72nd Street 72nd -73rd Street 71st -72nd Street 72nd -73rd Street 66th -67th Street 71st -72nd Street 72nd -73rd Street 66th -67th Street 73rd -74th Street 66th -67th Street 73rd -74th Street 66th -67th Street 73rd -74th Street 65th -66th Street 62nd -63rd Street 62nd -63rd Street 65th -66th Street 65th -66th Street 63rd -64th Street 64th -65th Street 65th -66th Street 65th -66th Street 65th -66th Street 4 0 4013 13th -14th Avenue 66th -67th Street NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Such proposed assessment roll 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 1987 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's Assessing Division and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the city's Assessing Division 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, Minnesota this 8th day of September, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • John Hamilton, Mayor • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 340 Agenda September 8, 1986 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. 809, L /H /N Maintenance, for the-Period January 1 through December 31, 1985 Council Members: The City Council has scheduled a hearing to be held on September 8, 1986, on the assessment for the cost of current maintenance services in the L /H /N Redevelopment Area for the period of January 1 through December 31, 1985. The city staff has calculated the proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land specially benefited. The proposed assessment was properly filed with the city cler.k, 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 $35,726.30, and included, but were not necessarily limited to, one or more of the following, including labor, equipment and materials: 1. Landscaping including tree trimming, sod replacement and turf management; 2. Sidewalk sweeping in summer; 3. Snow removal in winter; 4. Sidewalk de- icing; 5. Painting and repair of wood furniture; 6. Trash removal; 7. General maintenance, including repairs and replacements; and, 8. Irrigation maintenance. The city ordinance provides that special assessments for current services may be certified to the county auditor for collection along with taxes. This certification may provide that the ten -year special assessment be completely paid in the first year or in up to ten annual installments. 7 J It is the staff recommendation 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, 1985, would be certified with the county auditor by October 10, 1986. 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 percent. Payment may be made by the assessed owner before November 15, 1986, in order to avoid interest payments. Payments made after that date would include the interest payment. Recommendation: Following the public hearing, it is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution adopting the assessment on City Project No. 809, L /H /N Maintenance for the period January 1 through December 31, 1985. The 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 ". �i JDP /eja Respectfully submitted, Ja 's D. Prosser Ci, Manager .. 4 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT NO. 809 L /H /N MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1985 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 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 assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable before or during 1987 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's Assessing Division and he may, at any time thereafter, pay.to the city's Assessing Division 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, Minnesota this.8th day of September, 1986. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: 0 Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • • � f CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 339 Agenda September 8,1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing, 1987 Alley Paving City Project No. 832 Council Members: The City Council established a policy for the paving of alleys in 1981. This policy provides that a petition signed by property owners representing more than 50% of the abutting footage is necessary for an alley to be paved. The projects have been initiated on a yearly basis. To date, 67 of 96 total alleys have been permanently paved as a result of this policy. The continued yearly decrease in the number of alley improvement petitions submitted by property owners, however, has prompted a review of this policy. Several alternatives were discussed at a special City council study session in April. At that time, it was the consensus of the Council to support the alternative which recommended paving all remaining eligible alleys during the 1987 construction season, without submittal of petitions. Pursuant to this revised policy, on August 11, 1986 the City Council accepted the preliminary engineering report and ordered a public hearing on the project to be held on September 8, 1986. The following alleys have been proposed for paving: Alley Between E. 65th St. and E. 66th St. E. 65th St. and E. 66th St. E. 65th St. and E. 66th St. E. 66th St. and E. 67th St. Nicollet and First Avenue Wentworth and Blaisdell Ave. Harriet and Grand Avenue Harriet and Grand Avenue Lyndale and Garfield Avenue 63rd and Mildred Drive 63rd St. and Mildred Drive Humboldt and Girard Avenue Irving and Humboldt Avenue James and Irving Avenue Logan and Knox Avenue Morgan and Logan Avenue Penn and Oliver Avenue From To 19th Avenue 20th Avenue Bloomington Ave. 16th Avenue 15th Avenue Bloomington 13th Avenue 14th Avenue 68th Street 69th Street 68th Street 147' North 67th Street 68th Street 73rd Street 74th Street 73rd Street 298' South Colfax Avenue Bryant Ave. Dupont Avenue Colfax Ave. 63rd Street 64th Street 63rd Street 463' South 63rd Street 118' South 63rd Street 223' South 63rd Street 243' South 63rd Street 443' South Queen and Penn Avenue 66th Street 67th Street Russell and Queen Avenue 66th Street 67th Street Washburn and Vincent Avenue 67th Street 68th Street After the notices of the public hearing were mailed to all affected property owners, it was discovered that the unimproved alley identified as being located between East 65th And East 66th Street from 19th Avenue to 20th Avenue has been scheduled for vacation, pending final legal requirements. Therefore, staff recommends that this alley be deleted from the list of alleys proposed to be paved next summer. The resolution which is attched for council consideration does not include this alley. is: The Richfield alley assessment policy for new construction A. In a 100% residential land use block, each side of the alley pays 50% of the running foot cost (50% of $41.00 is $20.50): and B. In a block where one side of the alley is all commercial, the commercial property pays 75% and the residential property pays 25% of the running foot cost. The estimated 1987 assessment rate for residential- abutting property where all property in the block is residential use is $20.50 per foot. In a block where 50% of the land use is commercial, the estimated assessment rate for commercial- abutting property is $30.75 per foot (residential assessment is $10.25). The assessment can be prepaid in full, or payment may be spread over a twenty -year period. A deferment may be granted to persons over 65 years of age or persons permanently and totally disabled provided that certain conditions are met. Recommendation: It is recommended that at the close of the public hearing, the City Council adopt the attached resolution ordering the project and the preparation of plans and specifications for each of the nineteen eligible alleys proposed to be improved next year. Approval of this project, if ordered by the City Council, will require a 4/5 vote. RespectTully submitted, r Jamef D. Prosser City Manager 0 JDP /eja • • • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PAVING ALLEYS AND PREPARATION OF PLANS FOR C.P.832 WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 11th day of August, 1986, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed improvement of the following alleys: Alley Between From To E. 65th St. and E. 66th St. E. 65th St. and E. 66th St. E. 66th St. Adn E. 67th St. Nicollet and First Avenue Wentworth and Blaisdell Ave. Harriet and Grand Avenue Harriet and Grand Avenue Lyndale and Garfield Avenue 63rd St. and Mildred Drive 63rd St. and Mildred Drive Humboldt and Girard Avenue Irving and Humboldt Avenue James and Irving Avenue Logan and Knox Avenue Morgan and Logan Avenue` Penn and Oliver Avenue Queen and Pen Avenue Russell and Queen Avenue Washburn and Vincent Avenue Bloomington Ave. 15th Avenue 13th Avenue 68th Street 68th Street 67th Street 73rd Street 73rd Street Colfax Avenue Dupont Avenue 63rd Street 63rd Street 63rd Street 63rd Street 63rd Street 63rd Street 66th Street 66th Street 67th Street 16th Avenue Bloomington 14th Avenue 69th Street 147' North 68th Street 74th Street 298' South Bryant Ave. Colfax Ave. 64th Street 463' South 118' South 223' South 243' South 443' South 67th Street 67th Street 68th Street 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 the 8th day of September, 1986, at which time 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: 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the Council resolution adopted the 11th day of August, 1986. 2. Michael J. Eastling, City Engineer, is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of September, 1986. • ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk John Hamilton, Mayor -4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 338 Agenda September 8, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Approving City Manager's Election to be Excluded from PERA Council Members: Background: State law was amended in 1980 to allow city managers to choose to be excluded from the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA). The change allows city managers to channel • contributions that would otherwise go to PERA to some other retirement system, because city managers have a mobile profession and often do not reside in any one state long enough to vest in the pension benefits of the state system. Present Request Richfield's new City Manager has chosen to apply to be excluded from PERA, and the application requires an accompanying resolution from the City Council approving the exclusion. Under the exclusion, City and Employee contributions that would have gone to PERA will go the ICMA -RC, an independent, portable retirement fund sponsored by the International City Management Association. Recommendation It is recommended that the Council adopt the attched resolution Approving Election of James D. Prosser to be Excluded from the Public Employees Retirement Association. Respec lly submitted, Jame D. Prosser C t Manager JDP:sb 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING ELECTION OF JAMES D. PROSSER TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION WHEREAS, James D. Prosser has notified the City Council of his election to be excluded from membership in the Public Employees Retirement Association and has provided this council with a copy of his written election to do so, all as authorized by Minnesota Statutes 353.028. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The Council makes the following findings: (a) James D. Prosser is the City Manager of the City of 2. Said election is therefore approved. 3. A certified copy of this resolution will be provided to the Executive Director of said Association. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of September, 1986. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: • Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk Richfield, Minnesota. (b) That position is provided for in the home rule charter of the City of Richfield. (c) He was duly appointed to serve in that position effective September 1, 1986. and he has held that position continuously since that date. (d) The City Manager is the chief administrative officer of the.City of Richfield. (e) Acting under Minnesota Statute 353.028, he has elected to be excluded from membership in the Public Employees Retirement Association, effective upon his filing such election with the Executive Director of that Association. (f) In making this election, he has agreed that he will not at any time in the future seek any authoriza- tion to purchase service credit for any period of excluded service. He has further agreed that this election is irrevocable. 2. Said election is therefore approved. 3. A certified copy of this resolution will be provided to the Executive Director of said Association. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of September, 1986. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: • Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk • Y * PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION Capitol Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 296 -7460 APPLICATION FOR EXCLUSION FROM PERA MEMBERSHIP BY A CITY MANAGER Laws 1981, Chapter 254, Section 1, defines a city manager as follows: ". (1) a person duly appointed to and holding the position of city manager in a Plan B statutory city or in a home rule city oper- ating under the 'council - manager' form of government, or (2) a person appointed to and holding the position of chief administrative officer of a home rule charter city or a statutory city pursuant to a charter provision, ordinance, or resolution establishing such a position and prescribing its duties and responsibilities. ." I the undersigned, a city manager as defined, elect to be excluded from membership in the Public Employees Retirement Association. I will not at any time in the future seek any authorization to purchase service credit for any period of excludable service and I understand that this election is irrevocable. I became a city manager as defined under Laws 1981, Chapter 254, for the City of , on 6 Signature Street Address City, State, Zip Code Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 19 Notary Public of County My commission expires (Seal) A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF YOUR CITY APPROVING YOUR EXCLUSION FROM PERA MUST ACCOMPANY THIS FORM. -) _ &A- • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 337 Agenda September.8, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of th.e City Council City of Richfield Subject: Purchases in Excess of $5,000 - Market Plaza Sidewalk and Extension of Storm Sewer Lines Into Legion Lake Council Members: By resolution of the City Council, all purchases in excess of $5,000 must be approved by the City Council. There are two such purchases on the September 8, 1986 city council agenda. Market Plazp Sidewalk According to the developer's agreement for City of Richfield is responsible for constructi landscape along Lyndale Avenue similar to other L /H /N. Borson Construction, the contractor for begun site work on the parking lot and now is a construct the sidewalk. Market Plaza, the ng sidewalk and areas in the Market Plaza, has good time to The design calls for approximately 600 lineal feet of nine foot wide sidewalk adjacent to the curb on Lyndale Avenue between 65th Street and 66th Street. This allows four feet of space along the curb for snow storage. No sidewalk will be installed at the corner of 66th and Lyndale Avenue until the developer has finalized plans for a monument at the corner. Some special bomonite sidewalk will likely be placed at the corner later this fall or next spring, depending on progress on the site. Funds for the sidewalk construction are included in City Project No. 705, L /H /N Public Improvements, as the sidewalk was included as part of this project. Market Plaza is one of the last phases in City Project No. 705 which is funded to a great extent through Tax Increment Financing. Two quotations were received for the sidewalk: Arcon Construction quoted $1.60 per square foot for approximately 5,500 square feet of sidewalk for a total of $8,800; and Standard Sidewalk quoted $2.15 per square foot for a total of $11,825. • • is '-�- 2- / Extensiop of; Storm.Sewer Lines into_Legion Lake The four storm sewer pipes draining into Legion Lake from 11th Avenue stop short of the new open water area by approximately 200' each. Open ditches take the storm water to the lake. The Legion Lake Park plan calls for the elimination of these ditches. The city staff is planning to construct paths near some of these ditches soon. Therefore, the timing is right to eliminate the ditches now. Arcon Construction Company has the contract for the new storm sewers into Legion Lake as part of the Norby /Wilson Pond project using funds from the Storm Drainage Utility. The Storm Drainage Utility fees pay for operation of and improvements to the storm drainage system. Arcon is willing to do the work for the same unit prices bid on the large contract. This change order, therefore, is in the amount of $22,219.40. Recommendation: It is recommended that the city council take the following actions: 1. Approve a contract with Arcon Construction in the amount of $8,800 for construction of a sidewalk for the Market Plaza project; and 2. Approve a change in the amount of lines to Legion JDP /eja order to the Norby /Wilson Pond contract $22,219.40 to extend the storm sewer Lake. Resp f lly submitted, Ja a D. Prosser Ci - Manager ,4 # 1�1 is CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 336 Agenda September 8, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject Award Contract Remove 6339, 6425and 6429PortlandrAvenues At Council Members: The properties at were purchased by the structures so that the Lake Park improvements between the Water Plan currently owns five o scheduled to be remov be removed next year two remaining homes n taking place for purc 6311 Portland has bee interest in purchasin g of an interest on the Bid Comparisons: 6329, 6339. city with the property co There are t and the Am f these prope ed this Fall after the cur r of owned by t h hase of 6301 n contacted a but there h part of the 6425 and 6429 Portia n intention of removi uld be included in th seven homes on Portl erican Legion. The c rties; these four whi plus 6315 Portland wh ent tenant vacates. e city, negotiations Portland. The owner id informed of the ci as been no indication owner to sell to the a Hvenue ng the e Legion and Avenue ity ch are ich is to Of the are of the ty's to date city. Bids for the removal of the four structures were opened on August 28, 1986 in accordance with legal requirements. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulations is attached for council review. Four bids were received on each of the four properties. In addition to removing the structures from the sites, the successful bidder will, as a stipulation of the specifications, also fill and rough grade the sites after removal of the structures. The double concrete block garage at 6329 Portland is the only structure to be retained by the city. Badger Movers, Inc. of Minneapolis, MN bid a total sale price of $19,524: $4,756 for 6329 Portland Avenue, $5,756 for 6339 Portland Avenue, $5,256 for 6425 Portland and $32756 for 6429 Portland Avenue. The $19,524 bid by Badger Movers, Inc. compares very favorably with the total bids submitted by the other three vendors: Otting House Mover's: $13,400; Charles Pearson: $109000; Rocco Fabio: $8,000. Recpmmendation: It is recommended that the city council take the following actions: 1. Approve the minutes and tabulations of bids and award a contract in the amount of $19,524 to Badger Movers of Minneapolis, and 2. That the $19,524 be credited to the Parkland Acquisition Fund. JDP /eja • • Respectfu ly submitted, Jame D. Prosser City VManager Cl) 00L- '-f W • ci ~ 0 co O O cr, I'D P ii FY (D ,D r. (D O O O (D N tz O 0 m 00 C+ tQ 0 Co c 0 Qi C+ rD (D O 00 C+ tQ 0 O & - Zl'-, 00 c 0 0 is (D I ITI > jq co C: F--4 in 00 'Irl Z cn CD 17, 00 0 Co c C) rD & - Zl'-, 00 c 0 0 is (D I ITI > jq co C: F--4 in 00 'Irl Z cn CD 17, 00 0 rD (D CT, t p 0 AL p w 0 a 1�1 C 0 (D O. 0 > 11 rw pi (11 = 0 N :3 cn A :) C— r_ 0 c P, M, 0 E3 0 c- 00 < 31 p r o (D C- C c 0 (D cr t= F" C+ 0 0 (D (P Cl) 0 0 (D In In & - Zl'-, 00 c 0 0 is (D I ITI > jq co C: F--4 in 00 'Irl Z cn CD 17, 00 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 335 Agenda September 8, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request by Minnesota Deer Hunters Association for a Fee Waived Raffle Permit for a One Day Raffle to be Held at the Richfield VFW Council Members: Mr. Kerry Baker, representing the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, has submitted an application for a permit to conduct a raffle on behalf of that organization on September 10, 1986 at the Richfield Fred Babcock VFW Post. The purpose of the raffle • is to raise funds for the south metro chapter of the organization which currently has over 500 active members. The funds will be donated to a conservation prorarn. Minnesota Deer Hunters Association is a nonprofit organization, but is not a charitable organization. Recommendation: Based upon the Public Safety Department investigation, it is recommended that the permit for the September 10, 1986 raffle be approved. As the organization is not a charitable organization, it is also recommended that the council deny the request for waiver of the $100 raffle fee. JDP /eja �i Respect lly submitted, Jams D. Prosser City /' Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Inter- Office Memorandum DATE August 5, 1986 TO Lieutenant Barry Fritz 1 , FROM Agent William Hollick SUBJECT Mr. Kerry Baker has submitted an application for a permit to conduct a raffle on behalf of the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, a- non- profit organization. Mr. Baker is the designated gambling manager, a Richfield resident, and has no known criminal record. The applicant is requesting the permit only for September 10, 1986. The raffle will be conducted at the Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555 at 710 Lakeshore Drive in conjunction with a fund raising event for the south metro chapter of the organization which currently has over 500 active members. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of any permit fee. The names and addresses of the organizational officers are listed below. None have any known criminal record. President: Mr. Allen Larson, 10949 Drew Ave. So., Bloomington Vice - President: Mr. David Martin, 7115 James Ave. So., Richfield Secretary: Ms. Norma Martin, 7115 James Ave. So., Richfield Treasurer: Mr. Jerry Bergman, 3316 W. 107th'St., Bloomington Based upon the information submitted by the applicant there appears to be no reason to deny the request for the permit to conduct the raffle. WJH:lkw V o /( xx44a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager /Executive Director The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Planning Commission, on Revised CDR Proje Improvement Program Council Members and Commissioners: Council Letter No. 334 HRA Letter No. 28 Agenda September 8, 1986 Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioners City of Richfield City Council, HRA Session ct Concept and ILN Public A meeting of the above identified three groups has been scheduled from 5:30 PM to 6:45 PM on September 8th in the Council Chambers. A light supper will be provided. • At that time, staff and representatives of CDR will present their respective concept proposals for revising original plans. On Monday, August 25th, each member of the three organizations received memoranda which presented and explained the revisions. This information will be presented verbally and with the use of drawings on Monday evening. On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of last week, three meetings were held at which the modifications were presented. On Monday evening, CDR representatives met with community representatives. Approximately 50 people were invited, and sixteen persons attended. On Tuesday, the city sponsored meeting was with the ILN Advisory Committee and on Wednesday with the newly formed Residential Advisory Committee (The Residential Advisory Committee selected Marvin Kaiser as chair, Diane Olson as Vice - Chair, and Dawn Stovall as Secretary). The purpose of the three meetings was to present the revised concepts and solicit comments. Staff and representatives of CDR will compile a list of the comments and evaluate them against the revised concepts. Meetings with these groups will then be scheduled to respond to the comments. In addition, now that the initial meetings have been held with people most familiar with the projects, additional meetings will be scheduled for people from throughout the community which include both residents and business people. 0 • The,presentation on Monday is for information purposes and also to obtain your comments. No action is being requested as a result of the presentation. JDP /eja ReYe ully submitted, J Prosser Ci ager /HRA Ex cutive Director