10-10-83 agendaTELD MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHF ,
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 334
Agenda October 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Amended Final Development Plan, Special Use
Permit and Off-Street Parking Permit -
Hausers/Snyder/Hub Area
On Marcr~ 14, 19$3 the city council approved a final develop-
ment plan, special use permit, and off-street parking permit for
the Hausers/Snyder building within the Hub Superblock Planned Unit
Development area. The following-stipulations were part of the
approval:
1. That trees be provided as
PUD plan;
• 2. That the crosswalk across
Pleasant Avenue remain in
driveway is to be widened
accommodate semi°trucks.
cuts is to be submitted f~
indicated on the approved
65th Street adjacent to East
its existing location. The
to the west and redesigned to
The final design of the curb
~r city staff approval;
3. That a schedule of light replacement for parking lot
lights be submitted for staff approval to bring these
light standards in conformance with the L/H/N guide-
lines;
4. That a pedestrian sidewalk be constructed from the Ken-
tucky Fried Chicken facility. north property line to the
sidewalk system on the Hub/Snyder/Hauser property, sub-
ject to city staff approval;
5. That the Fotomat building be repainted in colors conform-
irg with the 7~/H/N design guidelines or that the
structure be removed at the earliest possible time.
In June, 1983, the city council approved an amended plan re-
ducing the amount of space in the proposed new addition from 12,350
square feet to 9,950 square feet. The depth of the proposed addi-
tion was to be 80 feet instead of the previously approved 100 feet.
This reduction was to be accomplished by constructing the addition
even with the front of the existing building, instead Of jogging
eastward 20 feet as was indicated in the previously approved
Council Letter No. 334 -2-
October 10, 1933
proposal. Exterior building materials were to remain the same
as previously approved. The following stipulations were part
of that approval:'
1. That a continuous sidewalk be provided along the
total frontage of the Hauser Supermarket building;
2. That trees be provided as indicated on the approved
PUD plan;
3. That a schedule of light replacements for parking. lot
lights be submitted for staff approval, to bring these
light standards in conformance with L/H/N guidelines.
The property owner has now submitted another amended final
development plan for city appro~Tal. .This revised plan differs from
the plan approved in June as follows:
1. The addition would have ore story instead of two;
2. The totalfl.oor area of the addition would be increased
from 9,950 square feet to 24,760 square feet;
3. The "footprint" of the building and the parking layout
-would be the same as was shown on the plan approved by
the council on March 14, 1983;
4. The space would be occupied by two tenants instead of
four.. Approximately 2,000 square feet on the first
level would be occupied by "Great Clips Inc", a discount
haircutting firm. The remaining space on the first level
and the entire second level would be occupied by the
"Nautilus Swim and Fitness Club."
The Nautilus Swim and Fitness Club is an exercise facility.
The first floor of. the proposed facility would contain a.lobby,
reception desk, offices, nursery., mens' and womens' locker rooms,
two whirlpool baths, a sauna, and four lane swimming pool for .lap
swimming. The .second floor would be an open area which would con-
tain Nautilus exercise machines, a running track and an area for
aerobic exercise classes. The facility is open 24-hours a day.
There are trained instructors to set up individual exercise pro-
grams for members and to train members individually on the proper
use of equipment. Aerobic exercise classes are also conducted
throughout the day.
The staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and finds the
following:
1. The proposed increase in floor area is a 59.8% change.
The city PUD ordinance requires that the development
of the PUD district sYiall be insubstantial compliance
with the approved PUD plan, final development plan, and
any conditions imposed by the city council. Compliance
shall not be considered substantial if there is more
Council Letter No. 333 -3-
October 10, 1983
than 10% change in the floor area of the structure, or
if there is any change in the. ratio of off-street park-
ing to floor area. Therefore,-the proposed change would
not be in substantial compliance because there has been
more than a 10~ change in the floor area of .the building
and off-street parking ratio has been reduced.
It is the opinion of the staff, however,, that the. .change
in floor area would. not be detrimental to the general.
welfare or to the development within this PUD district.
2. There should be sufficient parking available on-the site..
The city's parking guidelines do not specify how many
parking .spaces should be provided by this type of use.
The applicant has indicated that the maximum number of
people at similar facilities which they operate in Color-
ado and Bloomington during their peak .usage is 90-100
people. Using the worst case where each of these'indiv-
iduals drives separately, 100 spaces would be required
for this use. ,Allowing 100 spaces .for this use, the
total parking available in the total PUD -(Hub Shopping
Center, Summit Bank and the Hauser/Snyder sites) would
still have five spaces more than required by city guide-
lines.
3. The applicant has also indicated that their experience
• indicates that the fact that .they are open 24-hours a
day spreads the usage out and reduces the parking needed
at any .one time. They also have found that the usage
of their facilities drops during Christmas shopping periods
when the usage of the other uses in the Hub PUD would
increase. This would .reduce the impact of the facility
on the parking in the area.
4. As indicated earlier, the proposed addition would be
two stories in height rather than one as previously proposed.
It is staff's opinion that this change would not be
detrimental. L7hile the addition would be higher than the
existing building, the exterior of the addition. would be
brick to match the existing structure. This .would visu-
ally tie the two structures together. The varying heights
would. be consistent with other commercial centers in the
area and.the community as a whole.
5. At the March 14, 1983 city council meeting there was con-
siderable discussion concerning pedestrian access from
66th Street to 65th Street, across Kentucky Fried Chicken
property and the Hauser/Snyder property. The council
stipulated that a pedestrian sidewalk be constructed from
the north property line of the Kentucky Fried Chicken par-
cel to the sidewalk system on the Snyder/Hauser property.
The proposed plan indicates that a new five-foot wide
sidewalk would be constructed along the south edge of
Council Letter No. 333 -4-
October 10, 1983.
the property which would connect to the sidewalk to be
constructed along. the east side of the Kentucky .Fried
Chicken parcel. A continuous sidewalk would also be
provided across the front of the Hauser Supermarket.
6. At the March 14, 1983 city council meeting the council
stipulated that the crosswalk across 65th Street adjacent
to Pleasant Avenue remain at its existing location and
that the curb cut on the northwest corner of the site be
widened to .the west rather than to the east. The current
.plan does not indicate that this stipulation will be
carried out.
7. V~hen the council approved the final development plan in
March, the council stipulated that trees be provided as
indicated in the approved PUD plan. The trees in question
were not shown on the end. island on the proposed site plan
on the southeast portion of the parking area, and the
current plan also does not indicate that these trees will
be provided.
8. Staff has not received a schedule of light replacement
as previously stipulated by the council.
It is the opinion of the staff that the proposed change would
not be detrimental to the general public, nor to the. development
in the area. However, because it is a substantial change as defined
by the ordinance, the staff recommends that the council refer this
matter to the planning commission. The applicant has indicated
that they need to begin construction. by November 1, 1983 .because
of weather and other constraints and that if they cannot meet that
deadline then they cannot proceed with this proposal. 3ecause of
this,. they have requested -hat the-city council approve this
amendment at the October 10, 1983 city council meeting.
At the time of preparing this report, staff does not know if
the date of November 1 is the last possible date that the project
could be undertaken during 1983. Perhaps it could be November 15?
A November 1 or November 15 date for council .action can be met in-
cluding the referral of this matter to the Planning Commission as
follows•
November 1 Deadline November 15 Deadline
Council refer to planning
commission 10/10 10/10
Planning Commission mtg.: 10/25* 10/25*
(includes public hearing)
Special City Council mtq. 10/34
Regular City Council mtg. 11/14
Staff not only recommends referral of this .matter to the
. .planning commission, but that a public hearing be included for the
October 25 meeting. .The zoning ordinance does not specifically
require a public hearing for a PUD modification, but past practice
Council Letter No. 333
-5- October 10, 1983
has been for the city council to refer major PUD modifications.
to the planning commission for a public hearing and recommends-
tion. There is no clear. policy regarding referral of this type
of action to the planning commission.
(In the case of variances, the ordinance requires that one
public hearing be held. The normal practice has been for. the.
planning commission to hold a public hearing subsequent to all
property owners within 350. feet of the subject Property being:.
given notice of the hearing. A legal notice is not published in
the newspaper for the planning commission meeting. The city
council also holds a public hearing after legal notice in the
official newspaper. The city council does not notify property
owners within 350 feet of the proposed variance of the hearing.
It should also be noted that written notification goes to prop-
erty owners, not tenants.)
One of the mast important reasons for conducting a public
hearing and giving notice to concerned porperty owners- is to ensure
input on the proposed modifications. -The two-story .construction.
proposal may or may not meet with approval or objection. The pub-
lic hearing before the planning commission will provide the oppor-
tunity for input on this question as well as other features of
the proposal.
The council does have the option to approve the proposal at
• the October 10th meeting. The staff would recommend that the follow-
ing stipulations be included in that approval at the time the matter
is ready for a final vote:
1. That the trees be provided as indicated on the approved
PUD .plan;
2. That the crosswalk across 65th Street adjacent to East
Pleasant Avenue remain at its existing Icoation. The
.driveway should be widened to the west and redesigned
to accomodate semi-trucks. The final design of the curb
-cut should be submitted for city staff approval; and
3. That a schedule of light replacements for. parking lot
lights be submitted for staff approval, to bring these
light standards in conformance with L/H/N guidelines.
Respectfully submitted,
V .
Joh G. Cartwright
Cit Manager
JGC/ej a
d'i~i~HJl~I ~~~ :~-sa
~~~$ ~~s'3~~
.
~=o~ ~ .
:~ ~ ~~s _
doaa ~ ~~ ~ a
14 vsa! '
J
"~
_
s
z
ll_.i ~_)_L1l ~ I - - .
_.___,______. T_.1
mow.- 1..1.11.1..1. ' - ~~ S ~P 31' Z , II II
~ ~ ~ o
- ~. ~ N ,~i
~~~
ICI 1 I~~ W ~~
T 6.
~~,,
s
_ ~!':;
~7 ~ - ~ ~~;
~ ,~
~i-,;
~,,
i,
~ ~
~~'~~
~ ~~`''~i
,.
<<~
,~~1 ~ ,
f~~~~lj
i;
~ ~~I Vii;
~I~~~
,,
~~~~ '
ail
,~.`'
Z o
O~
Q
W
J
W
N
W
O>
Q
W
..J
W
O
ZI
•
•
~i
ca ewe-,,. NOlSNt/dX3 "ilt/W SOOOd 8l1H tJ3QANS
ft/[i/iyY _ J
! '
v
15 YIS9 1S3M
° ~~
`'
I
~~--P 3 ii i'II~I;Iii~iilll
T
~r
i
I ~~
t
~ i
~ ~ t
I
... n.w..
I I!! I ~ I I I
' ~
~ ~ I i
I I
t
'
~'
:~ !
~;'Pi '!II'illlll; !I;!Is
I Y
g ill:. i~ il~j'.
Z
1
-
IIIII ;II ~Ilil -
l" Q
a
o ~ ' i ii~l~
~ I ~
. .,
° d
i
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
i a
r
'II!il!I I!~ ,i J
I,I II iil~ ~ ~
a
III;~II~ ~ y
YII II il;ili, ~'$ ao
I Ili!,II;I'!If a
III ~III~! a~.
~.,.~.,...Y v
,.~....
1~~1
1S Y199 1SHM
i
~ ~Y
I_ -•-'-
~~` -'
~ ; ~ !Ili~ll ~lil~ Illi:l I~
I
I
1 I
I Is
I ~ 2
'Ili'Ihljo..i_~~~ J
I
i •I. G
• ~
•
~ a
j llli;~lllll ~il!i W
I
I - O
a
i --~ li I g a
I I Il~ll ~
' "_
I e I : Q
I -~--~- '~ Z
;W
' ~ d
' a
°~ f a
i dl,l ,
I ;
j t ' ' .?.~.. ~...~-. .
:D _~
I .
J.
~-
=i
of
~-
~'
a~
of
u
i
i
I
s
W
.,
O
a
W
W
2
O
t-
W
W
F
O
Z
~. ., `~
~z
~m
i~
n ,:
i.C
z
N
C
n
-~
O
z
~~
~ ~
~~
~,: ~
r
'fl ~
~ ~
o
O ~~
'v ~' ~ ~
o ~' y
v
R~1 ~ ~
O a
'n z
~Z
~ ~,
-v w
o
c
v~
-v
~r ~ "
~~a
z _'_ ~
!7
Z
9 ,
n ~~
~ ~,
W ~'1
' PHOTOMAT
1
1
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
i ~
I
I
i
I
I
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I i
I
1
1
I
- ,
1
1
I
___ ..
.._
.~. ~ ;~
m
ly
I "'
a
v 1=
m Im
C la
Q m t+ I~
o -'+ I a
0 0 to
~m ~ a I
~o ~ x i _
~~ x~l
m ~ o I
9 I
/~ 2s a I
. ~I p
\~ u. N
~~~ ° t
` I
4~1'., t
_1
REVS/27/83
`~8 FEB'83
" Conan. ~,o.
~rwn
WEST 65th ~ ST
n
7
•
•
ID
EXISTMG PARKING LANES
m x
~ I ~
'~ '° s
I i Ii °
Q "t T
N T
O ~ D P
Z
O D r
~ v'
' 24 ~
m ~ ~ ~ I
O a
z
'11 N
o n , ,,
Z °z
r .^' , I
w
• ~
C y
• m
v
~ a
r i
~ `°
V
Z ~I
l c6'p'
N "~
A '"~.
~~'~"~~
m
v.. #k?
"'~ ,
W
~:~:>,
~,Y . ,3,,,~r I ~ -
n
m~ e rp'1~ 28 RELOCATE[
WEST 65th ~ ST
/1
C
ro m
o ~
~ 3
o A
o ~
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
1
I
115 ~
N ~
o~
v C
N ~
. :. ...............__.. t
0
~OODS MALL EXPANSION
{°:~ q ;
o ~
~C ~~«~ ~
;~fi` `~~'
, w o
$
i
~
~~,
~~~~ a v ~
~ ~ ~
. 1 ~ l
/ p
1
--~~ ~
° I
~ w
P 1
~ ~
..~_
~TREE~~`~ __-
~2 ~ -
II
820470
i
~'
1
i
I\ /
V
'+ I__ _ _ _ i i-
C
f
~ `
~`
\,
LL
F
1~ of
1 Y
II
1 ~
Q
W
_~
r
I
t
I
i
i
i
I
I
i
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
~v
,~
I.
I
~ i! i i i
y
O
ILL
O
~~
N
Z
0
N
Z
Q
~a
x
,~
0
w
O
a
O
a
~ ~ i 1~ i i
l~
~ ~ •-
i i ( ~ i l i i l
__~- ~ I
_ /~
J
a
o'
a
o~
w
a
Q
a
Z
J
a
X10
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of .City Manager
Council Letter No. 332
Agenda October 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
-and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Comprehensive Energy Conservation Program
The first section of this council letter summarizes past
activities related to the development of an energy conservation
program. The second. section presents a comprehensive energy con-
servation program for city council consideration. The third
section provides supporting data so that the city council may
consider making the appropriate findings.
Past Activities Related to Program Development
On June 27, 1983, the city council authorized the expenditure
of $28,000 for the development of a comprehensive energy conser-
vation program and passed a resolution approving the implementation
of Minnesota Laws 1983, Chapter 197. .This legislation allows. the
City of Richfield and the City of Bloomington to implement and
finance a residential energy conservation program. (The City of
Bloomington has not approved this legislation due to current. staff
commitments; however, the Bloomington HRA is supportive of a pro-
gram for a future date).
The city council has previously received program information,
including the program goal, program design guidelines, grid program
elements. The goal of the Comprehensive Energy Conservation Program
is to improve the energy efficiency of single family housing and
reduce the expenditure of energy dollars in Richfield homes. The
program has been developed using the following guidelines: to be
self-supporting; to involve as many citizens as possible; to be
simple and easy to use; and to address the major .elements of educa-
tion, lifesytle change, low cost/no cost improvements, major weather-
ization, and furnace appliance efficiency. As part of the develop-
ment process, the marketing firm of Anderson & Berdie Associates,
Inc. initiated a survey of 273 Richfield residents during August,
1983. The results of this survey are discussed in the second and
third sections of this letter.
Proposed Comprehensive Energy Conservation Program
The proposed program has five elements: a mechanism for finan-
cing major weatherization measures; a home energy audit to determine
t
CITY OF .RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Chronology of Events Related to the Rede-
velopment of the "Godfather Block" and
Request for Authorization to Initiate
Eminent Domain
•
This letter contains a chronology of
redevelopment activities on the "Godfather
the Citg Council will be presented with a
adopted, would authorize the initiation of
ceedings against all property owned by Mr.
Wendy's restaurant parcel.
Council Letter No. 333
Agenda October 10, 1983
events related to
Block". On October 10,
resolution which, if
eminent domain pro-
Strom except the
11/75 HRA and City Council adopted the LHN Redevelopmen-
•Plan which identified subject block for redevelop-
ment by the private sector as an entertainment
ceater.
197.7+ Big Mi.'se's restaurant, corner of 65th Street•&
Lyndale Ave., ceased operations.
11/15/77 Letter to Mr. Brier, Development Director, from
Mr. Cook confirming results of meetings on 11/10
and Il/14 regarding design features of Wendy's
restaurant which was proposed for construction
on the site of Big Mike's.
11/15/77 Letter to Mayor and City Council from Mr. Cook
containing•general statement of the nature cf the
Wendy's operation.. in Minnesota.
11/22/77 Planning Con~unission meeting to act on Special Use
• Permit (SUP) request for Wendy's. Staff recom-
mended that a SUP not be issued until a satis-
factory redevelopment plan for the adjacent property
owned Icy Mr. Strcta is approved by the City Council.
1/24/78 Planning Commission was requested to review proposed
city ordinance amendment which would require that
- ..:
Council ;Letter No. 333 -2- October 1.0, 1983 "
. within a redevelopment project, development must
comply with.a~ll adopted plans, regulations and
guidelines. Planning. Commission recommended approval
by City Council. `
2/13/78 City Council. adopted.•the ordinance.
3/28/78 :.; _ .,..
Pl.anninq Commission.-letter reports that RING and
CfiC reviewed and commented on Wendy's proposal..
They requested concept plan for all of Strom's
"`groperty which. would indicate. how Wendy's would
'"relate: to that. concept plan. Letter also indicates
3/20/78 meeting with Wendy's.representatives at•
"`which they ,were. requested and agreed to prepare a
~'-~ ' `new site plan and a concept plan for the Strom
l`property as.a whole. Letter notes that the SUP:
~`
request was.'continued until 4/25/78:.
4/24/78 RING and City Council. meet to review concept plan.
4/25"f78 ~~ fetter to.Mr.. Rrier from Mr. Strom transmitting
`~ ~' ':requested concept plan .for- his. property (see
__ ;°attachment~.'Entertainment. Development .Guide)..
'4/25/78 Plannsng`Commission letter -Staff finds Wendy's
"
~' ~ ,"proposal to be in compliance with the LHN
Redevelopment_Plan and Comprehensive Plan and .meets
conditions for the SUP. .
5/I/78. Letter to Mr.. Krieg from Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, &
^_.
~ Lnd~ren.objeetinq to process for amendments to
~, the Comprehensive Plan and. Redevelopment Plan
~- - 'because they-are unnecessary. Cites staff Planning
'-`Ecmmisson report.-dated' 4/25/78 indicating that
- 'Wendy's conforms- to both the existing Comprehensive
Plan and existing. ,Redevelopment Plan...
=`5/9%78 P•Ianninq Commission letter indicates SUP request
abled at '4/25/78 meeting because of a need to amend
-
~ `:the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the concept
` plan from Mr. Strom.. SUP approved at this 5/9/78
- meeting.. -
.5/9/78 :-. Flannng~Commission Resolution X19 incorporates
~
~
- '
'~
Mr., Strom's concept plan into Comprehensive Plan
by amendment.
" 5/1Z/78 Publication date. for 5/22.'City Council hearing on
amending Comprehensive Plan and SUP.•
Publication date for HRA hearing to, amend Redevelop-
meat Plan,
Council Letter No. 333 -3- October. 10, 1.983
5/22/78 Public hearing before City Council regarding SUP
to construct and operate a restaurant at 6500
Lyndale Ave.
' .
City Council grants SUP for Wendy'~s.
_ City Council amends. Comprehensive Plan to reflect
Mr. Strom's concept. plan.
8RA amends..the LHN Redevelopment Plan to include
Mr. Strom's concept. plan.
5/24/78 Application from Mr. Cook for off-street. parking
- ..: contract agreement received..
6/2.6/78. City Council approves off-street parking agreement.
Fai978 _,
Staff initiates re-evaluation of ISSN redevelopment
plan.
'Il/9/78 Memo". to City Council announcing discussion session
- >:=elated to proposed LHN plan changes.
11/16/78 Special HRA meeting"at Woodlake Nature Center to
;discussstaff.proposalfor plan. changes. ,.,.,
Two:alternatve>developments were studies fore the..
"Godfather Block":-
- .:~'1) 170 units of~rental housing and 57,000 s"q.ft.
, 'of office. space, with the BRA acquiring the.-
_ 'entire block.
...
`(:2) 100,QOD sq..ft. of commercial space with the
HRA.buyingonlyproperty not. owned by
Mr~«"Strom and Mr. Heilicher.to minimize.
. SRA-costs and make. less .intensive development
feasible. All.,the existing structures would.
be removed from all parcels.
1/23/?9 Planning Coaunission sets dates of .February 13- and
February Z7, 1979 to consider LHN plan modifications.
Z/2?/79 Planning Commission approves resolution related to
LHN Plan-modifications which, among other things,
called for the acquisition and redevelopment of the
"Godfather Block".
3/27/?.9~ City Council adopts resolutions. amending redevelop-
went including that which called for acquisition
and redevelopment of the-"Godfather Block".
3/26/79 HRA authorizes implementation of LSN amendments.
.10/20/80 HRA requests City Council to impose aone-year
moratorium on requests for rezoning, special use
permit, variance, platting, building permit and
sign permits on "Godfather Block".
Council. Letter No. 333 -4- October 10, 198.3
~._
11/24/80
City Council adopts resolution imposing a moratorium.
12/21/81 HRA requests City Council to continue moratoritxra
as additional year. _
12/21/81 Letter to Mr. Strom from Executive Director inviting
- him. to. submit. adevelopment proposal for "Godfather
Block". A preliminary concept proposal .was requested
by 2/1/8.2.•.
12/28/81 .City Council extends moratorium for an additional
;..year. _
1/25/$2. City Council_.adopts resolution establishing a public
hearing date.for consideration of preliminary reso-
-4lution for tax exempt financing for New-Age. Developers:
tc construct a. mixed: use development.- ~~.~~`
2/16/82 ~ HRA and City Council meet. concurrently to hear
;`proposal from New Age., Developers. City Council
approves preliminary resolution for financing and
HRA.authorizes negotiations with. developer.
11/15/82 HRA:authorizes negotiations with Mr. Strom for the
purchase of his Property.
• 1/10/83 Moratorium expires.
2/83 ..
Gonnor Schmid, representing Wendy's, contacted staff
regarding: plans. for displacement of;Wendy's and
.: red"evelopment.. , ; .
5/16/83 .. :_:
Wendy's representatives-make presentation to HRA
regarding~~feasibility of maintaining their facility
- with redevelopment proceeding on adjoining groperty.
6/20/83 HRA adopts resolution authorizing the acquisition by
eminent domain proceedings.
The series of events identified in. the chronology indicate
that there has been considerable public discussion regarding
the future of the "Godfather Block". In pursuit of the redevel-
opment goals, Mr ..-Strom was given. two opportunities to privately
redevelop his property. The first came in 1978 when he sub-
mitted aconcept plan for development of his property. The
second opportunity was in 1982 when he was invited to submit
a proposal..
Council Letter No. 333 -~-
October 10, 1983
Derrick Land Company has indicated. it would like to in-
itiate construction of its development in the spring of 1984.
Negotiations with Mr. Strom were authorized in November, 1982.
Several meetings and telephone conversations have failed to
achieve agreement on an acceptable level of compensation for
his property. Thus, it would be appropriate and timely for the
city council to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the
initiation of eminent domain proceedings against his property
with one exception.
It is proposed that the parcel occupied by Wendy's be ex-
cluded from the authorization at this time. This would be proper
because of the .desire expressed by Wendy's representatives to
remain in operation, and .the preliminary status of Derrick's
site plan. Staff would work with the developer and explore the
design and cost implications of proceeding with redevelopment which
would include the parcel occupied by Wendy's and proceeding with
development without the parcel. At such time as these alterna-
tives have been more closely evaluated and Derrick has provided
firm assurances that they will proceed with development, staff
will report back to the city council.. Property already owned by
the HRA is to be included in the proceedings because of title
problems (Exhibit A, which contains the legal description for
the property.)
Even though the HRA adopted a resolution authorizing the
initiation of eminent domain proceedings against this property
• on June 20, 1983, Minnesota .Statutes requires action by the city
council when. the proposed reuse of the subject property includes
housing. Therefore, city council action is requested at this
time.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached
resolution authorizing the initiation of eminent domain proceedings
against the property owned by Mr. Strom, excluding .the Wendy's
parcel.
respect ul ~y~ ~bmitted, n n
John G.~Car~wright
City Manager
JGC/eja
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS
WHEREAS, on October 15, 1975, the City Council in and for
the City of Richfield adopted, and has subsequently amended,
the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet Commercial Improvement Program, and
has .determined that propertes~within the project area were
deteriorated and deteriorating .within the meaning of Minnesota
Statutes 1982, Section 462.42.1,. Subdivision 11; and
-WHEREAS.,. the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet Commercial Improvement
Program has been determined to be necessary to eliminate and to
prevent the spread of such deterioration; and
WHEREAS, the property described i.n Exhibit A, attached
hereto and made a part hereof as thoughfuily set out at this
point, is within the project area and has been designated for
acquisition; and
WHEREAS, the Citg Council in and for the. City of Richfield
finds it necessary, proper and expedient, and in the interest
of the public health, safety, convenience and ,general welfare
of the citizens of the City of Richfield to ..acquire, for the
public purposes of redevelopment, said property at the earliest
possible date; and
WHEREAS, the acquisition of the subject property is con-
sistent with and necessary to the implementation of the Lyndale-
Hub-Nicollet Commercial Improvement Program and to the elimina-
tion of, or prevention of, the spread of deterioration with the
project area; and
WHEREAS, efforts to obtain the property through negotiation
have. been unsuccessful; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest that title to and
possession of such property be acquired before the filing of an
award by the court-appointed commissioners;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council in and
for the City of Richfield as follows:
1. .The commencement of eminent domain proceedings for
the. purpose. of acquiring fee simple absolute title
to the property described in Exhibit A is hereby
~ authorized.- Such acquisition shall be for the
purpose of redevelopment.
2. Authorization is hereby given to obtain the trans-
fer of title and possession of the subject prop-
perty prior to the making of the award by the
court-appointed condemnation commissioners and as
soon as may be allowed by law.
3. The. City Manager and Mayor are authorized to take _
whatever action they shall deem necessary and con-
sstent with this Resolution for the purpose of
acquiring title to the property described in Exhibit A.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
10th day of October., 1983.
ATTEST:
EXHIBIT A
<_-~
1. That part of Government Lot One (I), Section Twenty-seven
(27), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-four (24),
described as follows: Commencing Two Hundred Twenty-nine
and 6/10 (229.6) feet North and Two Hundred Fifty-six and
6/10 (256.6) feet East from the Southwest corner of Lot One
(1), thence North One Hundred Three (103) feet, thence
South Eighty-two (82) degrees Fifty-six (56) minutes East
One Hundred Forty One and 7/10 (141.7) feet; thence North
Eighty-two (82) degrees, Thirty-four (34) minutes East to
center line of Lyndale Avenue, t.~ence Southerly along t.~ie
center line of Lyndale Avenue One Hundred Fifteen (I15)
feet, thence West Three Hundred Six and 5/10 (306.5) feet
to beginning, and
2.. Tracts B and C, Registered Land Survey No. 1318, except
that part of Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1318,
described as lying easterly and northerly of the following
described lines: Beginning at the Southwest corner of
Tract A Registered Land Survey No. 1318; thence southerly
along the southerly extension of the westerly line of Tract
A, a distance of 8.62 feet; thence easterly deflecting to
the left 82 degrees 13 minutes 28 seconds, to the easterly
Iine of said Tract 3 and there terminating:
3. That past of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township~28,
Range 24, described as beginning at a point in the South
line of said. Government Lot 1, distant 256.6 feet East of
the Southwest corner of said Government Lot I; thence
Northerly ,parallel with the West line of said Government
Lot 1, a distance of 229.60 feet to the. point of beginning;
thence at a right angle Westerly 2.20 feet; thence Northerly
deflecting to the right 89 degrees 38 minutes, a distance
of 10.4.7 feet to the Southerly line of Registered Land
Survey No. 1318, Files of the Registrar of Titles, County
of Hennepin; thence Easterly along said Southerly line of
Registered Land Survey No. 1318, Files of the Registrar of
Titles, County of Hennepin, to its intersection with a line
drawn Northerly from the point of beginning and parallel
with the West Iine of said Gover:unent Lot 1, thence Southerly
along said Last parallel line to the point of beginning,
according to the Government Survey thereof.
The West Iine of said tract has been judicially determined
,and marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens
Case No. 17641, and situate in Hennepin County, ?Kinnesota.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN
PROCEEDINGS
WHEREAS, On October 15, 1975, the City Council in and for
the City of Richfield, adopted and has subsequently amended,
the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet Commercial Improvement Program, and
has determined that properties within the project area were
deteriorated and deteriorating within the meaning of Minnesota
Statutes 1982, Section 462.421, subdivision 11, and
WHEREAS, the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet Commercial Improvement
Program has been determined to be necessary to eliminate and
to prevent the spread of such deterioration and to alleviate
the shortage of decent, safe and sanitary housing for persons
of low or moderate income, and
WHEREAS,-the property described in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and made a part hereof as though fully. set out at this.
point, is within the project area and has been designated for
acquisition; and
WHEREAS, the City Council in and for the City of Richfield
finds it necessary, proper and expedient., and in the interest
of the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare
• of the citizens of the City of Richfield. to acquire, for the
public purposes of redevelopment, said property at the earliest
possible date; and
WHEREAS, the acquisition of the subject property is consistent
with and necessary to the implementation of the Lyndale-Hub-
Nicollet Commercial Improvement Program and to the elimination
of, or prevention of, the ,spread of deterioration within the
project area;and
WHEREAS, efforts to obtain the property through negotiation
have been unsuccessful; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest that title to and
possession of such property be acquired before the filing of
an award by the court-appointed commissioners, and
WHEREAS, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
on June 20, 1983 by Resolution No. 224, did authorize the acquis-
ition of such property by eminent domain.
NOj~7, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City .Council of the
City of Richfield as follows:
1. The commencement of eminent domain proceedings for
the purpose of acquiring fee simple absolute title
to the .property described in Exhibit A by the HRA
is hereby approved. Such acquisition shall be for
the purpose of redevelopment.
i
Passed by the City Council of
this ~Oth day of October, 1983.
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
I
i
~~
the City of Richfield, Minnesota
john Hamilton Mayor
Council Letter Nv. 332 -2-
October 10, 1983
cost-effective home energy measures; education to provide informa-
tion on home energy conservation; marketing to encourage homeowner
participation; and ongoing administration in a manner suitable to
the council.
Finance Element:
The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) developed a "Home
Energy Loan Program" in'Sept•ember, 1'983, which provides financing
for major weatherization work. This program makes loans available
up to $5,000 at 8 1/2% interest with a five-year .repayment period.
Loans are available through participating local lenders to home-
owners regardless of income, although households with. incomes
less than $2.4,000 are eligible for a reduced interest of 7%. Three
local lenders in Richfield will participate in the MHFA program
by providing a total of $650,000 in MHFA energy loan funds, or
approximately 217 loans at $3,000-each. If the lender's request
for $650,000 is reduced by MHFA due to a high overall state demand,
it is proposed that the city request MHFA energy loan program funds
which could be originated by these same lenders (authorization to
apply is contained in the resolution attached to this council letter)
Audit Element:
Mir~negasco and Northern States Power Company (NSP) are required
by law to provide a home energy audit upon request by their resi-
dential customers. The Minnesota Energy Conservation Service,
"MECS" Audit, is performed by persons trained and certified by the
Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development (DEED).
The audit cost ~s $100-$125. However, the utility is required to
cover a majority of this expense so that individual customers pay
only $10 for the home energy evaluation. The utilities send out
two personalized audit offers to residential customers as required
publicity for the audit. Minnegasco is scheduled to mail its second
audit offer to Richfield customers in later October, 1983.
Education Element:
It is proposed that a combination of methods be used to provide
home .energy conservation information to Richfield homeowners. The
Minnegasco, NSP and DEED energy information. phone centers will be
publicized in Richfield. Energy information displays will be es-
tablished in buildings accessib~e to citizens to provide written
brochures on technical information related to home energy conser-
vation and information on the audit and the home energy loan.
Brochures will be obtained at a low cost (or free) from Hennepin
County Extension, the utility companies, DEED, and MHFA. Press
releases on-home energy conservation will be issued to local media
services. Two or three "workshops" on home energy conservation
will be provided if community group sponsorship is obtained.
..Marketing Element:
MHFA will advertise the home energy loan in: local newspapers
and energy loan brochures will be distributed by participating
Council Letter No. 332 -3-
October 10, 1983
local lenders. Minnegasco and NSP will mail out personalized
MECS audit offers to Richfield residents. City staff .will coor-
dinate the advertisement of the loan, audit and education .through
the established energy information centers, energy information
phone centers, billboards, bank signs, newspaper ads, notices in
bulletins/newsletters, the city`s water bill mailing, and perhaps
an "energy week" promotional effort.
Ongoing Administration Element:
It is proposed that the Energy Aide coordinate the audit,
loan, education and marketing activities during the fall of 1983
and an energy aide by hired for six weeks in the fall of 198.4 and
1985 to coordinate these same activities to .reach additional home-
owners. Existing staff will hire and supervise the Energy Aide.
The total program budget is $28,000; including $8,500. for the mar-
ketsng survey, $12,000 for the Energy Aide position, additional
professional services $900, and $6,500 for professional financial
services. It is proposed that the $6,500 be reallocated so that
$3,2.50 is used for an Energy Aide and marketing materials in 1984,
and $3,250 for an Energy Aide and marketing materials in 1985.
With a special contribution from MHFA, staff was able to obtain
a more reliable marketing survey. MHFA will pay $2,330 toward
the .survey which costs a total of $10,830. The city is eligible
to apply for a $367 .DEED grant to pay for MECS audit marketing
materials in 1983 (authorization to apply is contained in the
resolution attached to this council letter).
• Summary
The proposes'. residential energy conservation program is based
on the .results of program development considered different alter-
natives using the following information: 1) the program goal,
guidelines and elements; 2) analysis of the marketing survey re-
sults; 3) analysis of the Minneapolis and St. Paul energy programs;
4) assessment of the availabiity anal timing of state energy pro-
grams; the MHFA-financingpr-ogram, audit programs, and a special
community energy project of the Governor; 5) comments provided by
the Energy Awareness Commission; and 6) the possibility of coordin-
ating a program with Bloomington.
As stated previously, the goal of the proposed program is to
improve the energy efficiency of single family homes in Richfield.
The. method of achieving this ggal is to promote the MHFA home
energy loan and utility MECS audit. in-the City of Richfield.
Both the audit and loan programs ..are low cost to homeowners and
to the city since they are administered by others. Staff will pro-
mote the. loan and-audit by providing the elements of education,
marketing and ongoing administration in the fall of 1983, 1984 and
1985. Staff believes that the goal of improving home energy effic-
iency will be achieved only if the city promotes use of the loan
and audit through a local effort of education, marketing and ad-
• mir~istrative coordination. Furthermore, staff should emphasize
in promotional activities the importance of getting an energy
audit before an energy_:a oan. The city is not creating another
Council Letter No. 332 -4- October 10, 1983
program; rather, the city is ensuring that existing programs are
more widely utilized in Richfield.
An example illustrates this concept. The utility MECS audit
(available since 1981) is utilized by less than 2% of eligible
homeowners in Richfield. Richfield demand is substantially less
than the 9°s audit demand in St. Paul and Minneapolis. In each of
these cities, local education, marketing and coordination stress
the importance of home energy audits to homeowners. A Richfield
reGident is more likely to utilize a state program such as the audit
or loan if it is extensively and repeatedly advertised and coordin-
ated at the local .level, rattier than minimally advertised at the
state level.
The marketing survey results support the proposed methods of
education and marketing. The education activities, primarily
energy information .centers and energy hotlines, are intended to
be easy to use and accessible to Richfield homeowmers. The survey
results indicate that these methods are preferred by Richfield
homeowners over home energy workshops or meetings. Marketing the
loan, audit and education primarily through utility bills .(including
the city's water bill), lenders, newspapers, and the community
services bulletin, is based on the survey results indicating how
Richfield residents obtain .information.
Ongoing administration ensures that the program elements
occur in a coordinated and timely fashion in 1983, 1984 and 1'985.
The marketing survey results indicate a demand for home energy
conservation assistance which cannot reasonably be met in 1983 alone.
In addition,; it is widely accepted that marketing energy conserva-
tion is most successful in the fall at the start of the heating
season. Therefore, a coordinated marketing and education effort
is planned for a period in the fall of 1983, 1984 and 1985. As
previously mentioned, it is proposed that approximately $6,500
originally intended to be spent on professional financial services
in 1.983 be reallocated to a six-week energy program planned for
the fall o.f 1984 and. 19.85. Professional financial services are _
not necessary given the recent availability of the MHFA Home Energy
Loan Program.
The proposed residential energy conservation program is en-
dorsed by the Energy Awareness Commission (Attachment No. 1). The
proposed program is also supported by a current community energy
project of the Governor. The Governor has identified Richfield
as one of 16 communities in the state to receive special DEED and
Governor's staff assistance to provide this type of residential
energy conservation program. Staff believes that the Governor's
project Mill bene_f it_ Richfield' s program. P awl ~^Iel lstone of the
Governor's staff has tentatively agreed to make a presentation to
the city council and Energy Awareness Commission at the October
17, 1983 joint meeting.
Supporting Data for Findings
Minnesota Laws 1983, Cahpter 197, require the city council
to make the following three findings relating to the development
Council Letter No. 332
-5- October 10, 1983
and implementation of a comprehensive energy conservation program:
1. Whether- home repairs and improvements result in a re-
duired cost-effective reduction in energy use;
2. That there is a need to reduce energy consumption
in Richfield homes; and
3. That if tax exempt financing is utilized, financing
is not readily available from private market sources
at similar rates.
Supporting date related to each of these three findings is provided
below:: -~ -
A. Richfield. marketing survey results indicate that 91%, Or
9,191 of the 10,100 owner-occupied, single family house-
holds in Richfield believe making energy improvements to
homes is justified by savings on electric and gas bills.
(The sample survey results are representative of all
single family owner-occupied households in Richfield
due to the size of the random sample and high survey
response rate).
B. The Richfield building official comments that certain
home energy improvement in •.a cost-effective reduction
in home energy use. These .comments are provided in
Attachment No. 2).
C. An evaluation of the Minneapolis program, which includes
Neighborhood Energy Workshops and Energy Bank Loans, will
be completed by Minneapolis and Minnegasco in the Spring
of 1984. However, some preliminary. estimates of annual
energy savings are available. Households which take out
a Minneapolis energy bank loan to finance at least one
energy improvement realize from 10-25o reduction ire their
use of fuel for home heating. If an average 1982 gas bill
of _$730 is assumed for a Richfield home, this translates
to an annual savings of $73 to $182. '
D. An evaluation of the St. Paul and DISP Energy Resource
Center which provides low interest energy loans to house-
holds will be completed by NSP this year. Preliminary
results indicate that households taking out a loan for
major weatherization work used approximately 200 less
fuel for heating than in the previous year. On the
average, this translates to an annual savings of $146
to a Richfield homeowner.
E. A report
Security
dwelling
• programs
of 14.5
age, thi
prepared for the Minnesota Department of Economic
in January, 1983, indicates that the average
weatherized through low income weatherization
in Minnesota in 1981 showed an average savings
in fuel use over the previous year. On the aver-
s translates. to an annual savings of $105.
Council Letter No. 332 -6- October 10, 198.3
F. The Energy Division of the Minnesota Department of
Energy and Economic Development (DEED) provides estimates
of cost-effective energy conservation measures. This
list is provided in Attachment No. 3.
G. Minnegasco and NSP provide estimates of annual fuel bill
savings for particular energy conservation measures.
These estimates are presented in Attachment No. 4.
Finding No. 2 indicates that there is a need to reduce energy
consumption in Richfield homes as follows:
A. Richfield marketing survey results indicate that 470, or
4,74? of the 10,100 owner-occupied single family house-
holds in Richfield believe that something could be done
to make their homes more energy efficient.
B. The Richfield building official's comments .indicate
that the average Richfield home needs a number of energy
conservation improvements (Attachment No. 1)
C. The DEED states that the average Minnesota homeowner paid
$730. for natural gas in 1982. In 1983, this bill is ex-
pected to jump to $822 and by 1990 a homeowner could be
paying $1:,265. Current natural gas price projections are
provided in Attachment No. 5.
D. The DEED estimates that 65-80% of every dollar spent on
natural gas and electricity benefits the economy of places
other. than Richfield or the State of Minnesota. In other
words, the majority of money spent on energy is "drained"
.from the local and state economy. The-DEED states that
energy conservation reverses this drain.
Finding No. 3 indicates that if tax exempt financing, is util-
ized, financing is not readily available from private market sources
at similar rates.
A. MHFA sells revenue bonds to provide statewide loan funds
for the new Energy Loan Program. The sale of these tax
exempt bonds allows local participating lenders to offer
MHFA energy loans at 8 1/2% interest to customers re=
gardless of income for home energy work. Local lenders
are willing to participate in this program. Current
market rate loans for home energy improvement work are
available at a 12-14o interest rate.
The staff recommends that the city. council adopt the attached
resolution which makes the findings required by Minnesota Laws
1983, Chapter 197, and approves implementation of the proposed
residential energy conservation program, including a reallocation
of $6,500 and, if necessary, a city request for MHFA Energy Loan
Program Funds.. ~.
Council Letter No. 332 -7- October 10, 1983
City Manager .Recommendation
The city .manager further recommends that the 1984 and 1985
programs be approved tentatively at this time subject to an eval-
uation of how well the program meets the management objectives
set forth below.
The city manager proposes that the Energy Conservation Pro-
gram be evaluated during the summer, 1984, to evaluate program re-
sponse during. the period October 11, 1983 - July 31, 1984. The
program will be evaluated using the following objectives:
1. An audit request rate greater than the present response
rate of less than 2% of eligible Richfield households.
Response in the range of 2 to 9% is projected. The
utilities will be requested to provide information that
will confirm program results..
2. Loan commitments by local lenders in the range of 173
to 260 loans, depending on the size of the loan (esti-
mated to be $2,000 to $3,000 per..loan). Optimal per-
formance would be to ensure that all MHFA loan funds
secured by local lenders were committed as loans. The.
local lenders will be requested to provide information
that will confirm program results.
Appropriate decisions by homeowners responding to the market-
. ing of the program, to be measured by the number of loan commitments
and audit response should result in an estimated 20% reduction in
annual fuel consumption. If the annual consumption costs $730 (as
it did on the average in 1982), the reduction in consumption trans-
lates into a savings of approximately $146. For most residents,.
this is a savings equivalent to two-thirds of the city share of-
their. property tax bill. Assuming this 20% estimated annual
savings and utilizing 1982 fuel costs as a baseline, the $21,500
initial program investment by the city can result in an energy
dollar savings over a 10-year period from $252,580 to $379,600.
And this savings is based only on a first-year program response.
Additional program .promotion, as proposed for 1984 and 1985 will
improve the effectiveness of the original investment.
The-city will be provided information in the summer 1984,
reporting the results of the program. Appropriations for 1984
and 1985 can be given further consideration, if necessary, as the
program results are reviewed.
i JGC/eja
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION MAKING THE FINDINGS REQUIRED
BY LAWS OF MINNESOTA 1983, CHAPTER 197,
AND AUTHORIZING'THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
AN ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS,. the City Council of the City of Richfield has approved
Laws of Minnesota 1983.,. Chapter 197 (the Act)_, which permits the
city to develop and implement an energy conservation-program (the
Program); and
WHEREAS,. available data, including results of an information
survey, supports the findings which must be considered by the City
Council as required by the Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized expenditure of $28,000
for the development of a Program; and
WHEREAS, .the-.results of program development indicate that the
city should. provide a program. of education, marketing and admin-
istration to coordinate and promote loan and audit programs to im-
prove the energy efficiency of Richfield homes; and
WHEREAS, the Energy Awareness. Commission of the city has en-
dorsed the implementation of the Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows.:
1. It is found and determined that:
-there is a continued need to reduce consumption of
energy from nonrenewable petroleum based resources;
-there are housing units within the jurisdiction of
the city which are in need of energy improvements and
energy rehabilitation;
-private sources of financing are not reasonably avail-
able to .provide the needed loans for energy improve-
ments and energy rehabilitation;
-the types of energy improvements and energy rehabilitation
will reduce-the consumption of energy from nonrenewable
petroleum based resources or from nuclear sources.
2. It is_further found and determined that:
-home repairs and improvements result in a cost
effective reduction in energy use;
-there is a need to reduce energy consumption in Rich-
field homes;
-financing is not readily available from private market
sources at rates similar to loans provided through. tax
exempt financing.
3.. The program as proposed. by city staff, and as referred
to in Council Letter No. ,'and as authorized by the
Act, is established in the city.
4. The authorized expenditure of $28,.000 be modified so
that $3,250 be expended in 1984 and $3,250 be expended
in 1985 as part of the program proposed by city staff,
and as referred to in Council Letter No.. , and as
authorized by the Act.
5. The city does not intend to administer energy .improve-
ment or energy"rehabilitation loans at this time., but
intends tm~make such loans a part of the Program in the
event MHFA funds are insufficient for the present purpose
of local lenders. In the event that the request of local
lenders for MHFA funds is reduced, the city manager is
authorized and directed to apply to MHFA for additional
program funds to be originated by local~`.3.enders. Modi-
fica.tions;to this resolution will be made in accordance
with -the Act to authorize the city to administer its
own loan program,. should it be determined appropriate
at some future. time.
6. The city manager is authorized and directed to apply.
to the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Author-
ity for a grant of $367 to promote the Minnesota Energy
Conservation Service Audit.
• Passed by the city council of the city of Richfield this 10th
day of October, 1983.
John Hamilton- MAYOR.
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
U
Attachment #1
RESOLUTION NO. 14
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT :OF PROPOSED
RESIDENTIAL ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Energy Awareness Commission has as
one of its objectives to promote energy conservation;
and
WHEREAS, the Energy Awareness Commission endorsed
funding for the development of a comprehensive residential
energy conservation program; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined within a verbally
proposed program,. that education, marketing and ongoing
administration should be provided in conjunction with an
energy loan and utility-audit program to improve the
energy efficiency of Richfield homes.
BE TT RESOLVED, THEREFORE, by this Energy Awareness
Commission of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows.:
- That the Energy Awareness Commission supports
the implementation of the proposed residential
energy conservation program, as previously
funded by Council action..
Passed by the Energy Awareness Commission of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota this 3rd day of October, 1983.
Bruce Stone, Chairman
Gordon. McKinnon, Secretary
•
Attachment #.2
Based on my experience of 17 years in home building in the southern
metropolitan area and 18 years in code administration, which
includes development of the Minnesota Building.. Code provisions for
energy conservation in new buildings and the-'Minnesota Department
of Administration Rules entitled Energy Conservation for Existing
Residences, I offer the following considered opinions.
Certain home improvements are cost-effective in reducing-energy
consumption. In order of cost-effectiveness, they would be
caulking, weatherstripping, insulating of areas that ire accessible
without removing permanent wall or ceiling finish material,
installation of storm windows and .doors where none exist, replace-
ment of deteriorated windows and doors, replacement of inefficient
heating systems with high efficiency units, insulating exterior
walls prior to re-siding, and other improvements.
The average Richfield dwelling (leg story) built in the late
40's, 50's and early 1960 era are minimally insulated with no
more than l~" insulation in the walls and in the sloped ceiling
attic areas. ..Many of these-could be improved with insulation
and. provide a ready payback on fuel. Rambler style homes of this
era usually have no more than b" of insulation in the ceilings
and additional insulation in those attics is xeadily accomplished
and provides a quick return on the investment. Caulking, and
.weatherstripping of doors and windows was not universally done,
and normal deterioration in 20, 30 or 40 years often renders them
ineffective, though the energy efficient measures were installed.
Many.Richfield residences have two or three courses of exposed
concrete block foundation walls .above ground level which can be
insulated in a cost-effective manner. Normal life expectancy of
forced air furnaces is 20-25 years and several Richfield homes
have old gravity .type furnaces which are not efficient.
Replacement of such units usually results in a ready pay-back of
investment.
In conclusion, I believe that many Richfield residences can be
improved in a cost-effective manner, and conserve much of our
depletable energy resources.
S1vert Hendrickson
Minn. Certified Building Official #0001
U
~~ ~ C N ~ N '~~_:. ~C .1. AWE Cam. ^., .t.~ r:l:
i f: G ~ i ^ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z
O ~ ~ ? 7 ~ Z~ ~ = =
3y _ "~c ~c C. _~ ? p c iac ~ _
,; ~ - ~ -
n
7
_,
_
_
,,. C -. N N _ .:'~ N L O C
m C~
~ C f
n
r v O -
G
~ < x
- [C
G
y ~
„_.
. :.
~
~
_
,,~
~ ~ ~.n
~ n
O
~ ~x
CW
~
~ C
A ¢= G_:N
N "77 W'~ani rW VV
~ ,v~ Vy
~? ~~+
J ~~ ~
~ "'
,
7 N GJ :n N N v ?
- N S O. LI .i
Z
$ y.7
a
.~ ~
..
-
- {
v ,
~ c ~ - -' N :i
V a
V ~i~ ,.
N m
~ N ~ M
~- C A
_ l,Q
~
V{ ~.^~
A A 4: :.'
~- C.:
C~ Cf .71 W~
V r,C
[ WN
:
O 67
C
'1 N CjD
W V =.>:
~
2 "J.. YYr//.~.
r.~~l
~'
_ .
~ ~ a N .n J W o
Jl :Tt
' ~
N
a
.,,
o
w N
- o
way
c
c
N
`
=
"~ .
~
v ~
~ ~ /
1
~ ~
~
~
? v
H•
~
C
5. __
~ .
~
!~C N s . N.~.
p W
.F C A
A , .~~. ~ A' ~
0 L ~e
2
~ ~ s'
is _.._ ~ O
~
C~
Z ..
,~ . .AC _ ~~N V N~ .vC C VC 0 C cT?^ ..
C
I'
-(I~
,~
Oo
C7 N
~ _ s+
~
c.7
V
N
Oe
~ .
N _
~" "V 1 h
~ r+
.
~
~~..i
N' CJ A V C- ~ A V OD ~ ~ /
~
~J :L
. p _ - r~
' . 7 C1 O ~ CD - .. W r r W C O s
~
~~~
CCC~Y~Y~Y
c
^~e
-A
A
N
V
Ja -
V+
iii
m ~ ~ ~ . n
A'
n
$ - = y N
~ ,. ... ~ is N l ~ 1
.. _ ~ 1 T .. =
~
i
~ ~n
Ci7 ~ b ~+ ~ ~' ~ ~ Z ~ ~ N
Ar ~ C]. C1 ¢: G. 0q ~ ~
~: ^U :.. as Co ~o ~ ~ o ~'. ~'o ~'~ 9~ N O
rn C" ?70R ~ OR ~oR cfl p o •-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CrJ ~ O "`
to ~~ ~~ $ ~ V'n 0,~^"„
~ O ~ to ~ ~ ~ CcDD ~ ~ r0" ~ `C ~ ~ ~
.y
OQ C~ A3' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cr O ~
~ l7 ~ ~n ~ ~ (~D O ~ ~. ~~.. fD fD
~ ~O tn. ~ A~ N O _ ~ ~ ¢i
CL ~ ~ ~ G CAD C~D ~ • e-' ~ CAD
~j to v, O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~°
A~
G ~• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
~„i OR ~ v~' ~ ~ o
O ~.
N
.. ~ W
b
C!) `~ o G
O (~
CTi O CT1 v O O ~ ~ O W ~~~
Q ~ :~
m
~ ~ rt A.
to O
~ ~
O
a
~.
~+
_ ~ z ~ hN-+OCO 00~1~GT1:PW N~~-'00000vO'~U1:? W Nr-+ ~~
N ~ 3~, ~co ~rn duo o x~, o ~ c9 „-cs ~ ~ n o ~-
~_ m Cn ~ O ~-s ~e ~ v> ~ '-' cD cn ~ iv
• v ~ tn~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ cD ~ ~ ~ S o ~ ~ n X04 ~; .~-p ~ ~
~ g ~ do Kb ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~~ c o' -s
c ~ to ~ max`-' C~~~; ~~',r,o n
`~ ~; ~ ~e boo =~~o 0
~ ~ ~ v~
x ~
rs
t/i
U'1 CJl CJt ~-+ ~l r-+ ~-+ t-+ N -j N ~-' N f-+ ~° S. ~
0000 OOWC.nWt3l000lOOWCDWO~CStO ~~
H
~ ~
rt
ct
A~
n
(D
ct
oc~cccflmcf0ommcccoc~ommmm`6'mmmomo
O CO m V O1 U7 A W N -~ O tDm V G7 O A W N~ C ~
1D
„~. ~
A
~
0
(j
~
j.i~ ~
W
~ = ~
C ~
N
~ O d? V7 fJ1 ~ ,,pp d A d W W W N N N N W
W O V A m O W O V A N GJ O A -~ CO f31 A N d~ ~
~ O
~
F,,,~
lD -+ G d
o O
N N
O• "
~ a~
~ ~
y ~
C
~
K m
o
~
ft
`~
r• ° ~c
<
d
~~~ ~_ o
t.,y ~
k
~ f"~ ~
~ 6S'1 d A d ~A W W W fJ N fJ N~ ~+ O b O -~
N (O C71 W O V A ~+ UO 07 W O V (37 N O V A N tJ1 G
p 0 O n
y
i
,
~°~ rt
~ ~ ~
~ ~
T. y
C
]
iJf Cn L7 A a a W C.7 W W N N N 1J ~+ ~ ~ O O N
v C
~
O
o V A ~. N CJt N O O A ~ m V1 -W O N CT1 W t0 m ~+ C m
~.....
' ~
O
~ ~
c~
m ~ °'
1 yam(
O
V m pp~~ pp~~ Q~
O m~ d N~ (D VO ~ A N~ O m C) W O m O) ~
~ L~
O
C'r
~ Z
0 d
rt moo.~".~.~.,.~o~wa~o~a~a~a~a~v+aaAa ~'c
N W CC V OI G.1 tJ O m C7 L7 W W N ~+ O tC ~ O'
A V1 V m~ W
(0 N m Cn
n
O CO A W W
K 0
V V
c
A ~
- G) ~
~
~ K' . yyl rt
N
m ~
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACncr+cr~a+
~
~ ~ n
'° ~
O) ~ fJt T ~ O O Qf T <G~ d1 O V OD !D fC Q
A.1
' U7
V N m 0 -~~ W CJ7 w fT N a m G1 W ~+ ~ a A (77 t0 ~ n
,... <
,t
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~ 7
Off ice of City Manager
Council Letter No. 331
Agenda October 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of .the City Council
City of Richf field
Council-Members:
Subject:. Transitory Ordinance Providing for Disposition
of Property, x300 First Avenue. Second Reading.
At the September 26, 1983 city council meeting, the city council
gave first reading approval to a transitory ordinance providing
for the disposition of property at 7300 First Avenue, and scheduled
second reading and the public hearing for October 10, 1983.
The city purchased this property, which has a history of season-
al flooding, when it was determined that purchase of the property.and
making minimum floodproofing improvements was the most cost effective
alternative for reducing flooding potential.
The floodproofing improvements have not been made and the prop-
erty has been placed on the market for sale. At the September 26,
1983 city council meeting, the city council approved the following
methods for sale of this property:
-Attempt to secure an NIHFA mortgage at a cost of 3'1/2 points
or less. It may be necessary to make additional improvements
relating to site grading and energy efficiency if .required by
the lender. These improvements would cost. approximately $1,000.
-Modify the sales price to a range starting with the 1983
assessor's estimated market value of $68,600.
Once a buyer has been identified, the city council will be re-
quested to approve the sale of this property.
A copy of. the proposed transitory ordinance is attached to
this council letter, and it is recommended that the city council
hold the public hearing and give second reading approval to this
transitory ordinance at the October 10, 19$3 city council meeting.
Respectfu y ubmitted,
f
ohn G. Ca twrig
City M nage
JGC/eja
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE
DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OF THE CITY
LOCATED AT 73.00 - 1ST AVENUE SOUTH
The City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Section 1. The following property of the-City is hereby
authorized to be sold and disposed of:
North 105 feet of East 150:48 feet of West 1/4 of
North 10 .acres of South 20 acres of Southwest 1/4 of
Northeast l/4 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24,
except road.
Section 2. This property may be sold by the.City
pursuantto and in accordance with a resolution adopted by
the City Council.
Proposed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
. Minnesota this 26th day of September, 1983.
All persons for or against this proposed ordinance are
notified to be present October 10, 1983 ,and they will be
heard.
By Order of the Council
September"26th, 1983
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
~~i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 330
Agenda October 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Council Members:
Subject: Acquisition of 920 West 66th Street to be
Utilized for 1983/84Vo-Tech Rehabilitation
Project
On September 19, 1983 the Richfield HRA authorized the acquis-
ition of 920 West 66th Street. This property and the existing dwell-
ing are to be utilized for the 1983/84 Vo-Tech Rehabilitation Project.
The property is presently owned by Hennepin County,. and was
acquired by the county during the right-of-way acquisition process
for CP 705. Since the 66th Street improvements have been completed,
the balance of the lot (approximately 9,975 square feet) and the
dwelling are considered excess property which the county wishes to
dispose of. The cost of acquiring this property is $52,400 based
on previously .incurred acquisition and maintenance expense.
According to the CP 705 agreements between the county and the
city, the county acquired. the property and billed the city for half
of the cost of acquisition. The HRA can acquire the property for
$52,400. Of this amount, the city will receive $26,200 and the
county $26,200, as reimbursement for expenses attributed to the
acquisition. The council has an opportunity to consider this trans-
action at the October 10, 1933 city council .meeting. The County.
Board will consider the sale of 920 W. 66th Street on October 11,
1983. The planning commission has already determined that the acquis-
ition of ..this property for duplex housing is in conformance with the
comprehensive plan.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached
resolution accepting $26,200 as reimbursement for the city's snare
of acquisition expenses related to the excess property located at
920 West 66th Street. The $26,200 would be returned to CP 705.
Respectf 1 ubmitted,
i
John G. Cartwrig
City Manager
JGC/eja
r
RESOLUTION NO.
REIMBURSEMENT FDR CP 705 ACQUISITION EXPENSES
RELATING TO SALE OF COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY TO
THE RICHFIELD HRA
WHEREAS, the City of'Richfield and Hennepin County have
entered into agreements authorizing Hennepin County to purchase
necessary rights-of-way within the 66th Street improvement
project (City. Project. '705) ; and
WHEREAS, under-these agreements the City of Richfield and
Hennepin County share-the project costs; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin.County has determined there is excess
right-of-way.,. which it holds title to, located at 920 West
66th Street and .legally described as:
Lot 8, Rae Addition, Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and
for the City of Richfield (HRA) desires to acquire this
property for housing purposes; and
WHEREAS, the HRA authorized purchase of the subject
property .for-$52,200, .with said payment to be divided evenly
between Hennepin County and the City of Richfield.
NOW, THEREFORE,_BE IT RESOLVED. by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota:
- that $26,200 is accepted from the HRA for the City's
portion of the cost to the County of acquiring the
property. at 920 West .66th Street;
- that $2b ,200 is to be paid to the County by the HRA
to reimburse the County for its interest in the
property_at 920 West 66th Street; and
- that the $26,20.0 received by the City is to be
returned to CP 705; and
- that the City Manager is authorized to effectuate
this resolution.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th
day of October, 1983.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:.
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
•
i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~ C~
Office of City Manager ~J
Council Letter No. 329
Agenda October 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject
Proposal
Council
Request for Variance to the Street sideyard
Setback Requirements to Construct Addition,
7144 First Avenue
Craig and Mary Harrington have recently purchased the home
at 7144 First Avenue, contingent upon the city's approval of a
variance to the city's streetside sideyard setback requirements.
The Harringtons wish to add a 6 1/2 foot wide addition onto the
south side of .the existing house. The proposed addition would
have a streetside sideyard of 5' 7" instead of the required 15'.
The existing house also does not meet the ordinance. requirements
in that its streetside sideyard setback is only 12' 1". The
Harringtons have applied .for a variance to allow the proposed
addition.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
Section 3.30, subdivision 5 requires that a 15' streetside
sideyard setback be maintained. (Corner lot); and Section 3.40,
subdivision E lists three conditions which must be present for a
variance to be granted.
Staff Review
The staff has reviewed the proposal against the three con°
ditions which must be met and found the following:
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions
affecting this land not common to other properties
or similar districts.
It is the staff's opinion that no special circumstances are
present on this particular lot not present on .other lots in
the. area. This lot is of similar size and shape as other
corner lots in the neighborhood and community as a whole.
Council Letter No. 3.29 -2-
October 10, 1983
2-:: That .the granting of .the application is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights.
It is-the staff's opinion that denial of the variance would
not preclude reasonable use of the property. .The property
owner can continue the existing single family residential use
on the lot.
3. That the granting of the application .will not materially
and adstersely affect the .health or safety of persons re-
siding or working in the neighborhood and will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to improvements in the neighborhood.
It is the staff's opinion that the proposed addition would. be
detrimental to the public welfare... Building inspection records
indicate that the streetside sideyard setbacks of other homes
in the area vary from 1.3 feet to 30 feet with the average
being 13.34 feet. While the proposed setback would be within
the range of other setbacks in the area, it would be below
the average setback and, therefore, would not be in cr~aracter
with the typical corner lots in the area.
Staff .Recommendation
Because the variance does. not meet the three conditions for
granting variances, the staff must recommend denial of this variance
.request.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission-.unanimously recommends that .the vari-
ance be denied because the three conditions for granting variances
have not been met.
spect 1 bmitted,
John G. Car rig
~'ity Manager
JGC/ej a
Sept. 12, 1983
To Whom it may concern,
RE: Variance for 7144 - 1st Ave. So.
Richfield, Minnesota
We, the undersigned, have made an agreement to purchase the above noted
residence. This sale is contingent upon obtaining a 6~ foot variance to
add onto the tiny kitchen. The kitchen measures 8~'x9~'. There is NO
eating space in the house. This rambler has only 732 sq. ft. of space.
We wish to improve the property and make it more functional.
___._.- -
Obviously, it would be more logical to make the addition larger to provide
a better floor plan. But, we realize that it would get too close to the
street. We need at least 6~' to justify adding on the addition. Anything
smaller would not provide enough space for a 4 people to eat. (NOR would
it be economically prudent to put on less). This addition would also add
a.cioset, which is much needed in the house.
We have talked to the neighbors that are 300' around the property. WE showed
them the attached .plans and asked if they had any objections. WE have a signed
petition stating that the neighbors do NOT have any objections to this.
After this addition is put on there would be 17'and 7" between the house
and the curb. We measured the buildings behind and in front. The house
behind measures 18.8'(metric tape) from the curb. The house across measures
20.3'(metric tape) from the curb. We also noted the 6' high fortress fence
(which in some ways is no different from a building) is on the property line
of the house to the south. '~ ~ • ~ _ - ~~ -~ - • ~•-- ~ ~ '-~ " ~ • ~ =~=
It is highly UNlikely that E. 72nd street would be widened, as it is not a
a feeder street to a traffic artery. The inside lots are allowed to be 5'
from the next lot (either side). We would like to be 5'7" from the next "lot"
wbi~h just happens to belong to the city. From what we understand, there is
not much likelihood that the city will be placing any surface or above ground
improvements on their 12' lot.
Thank you for your consideration,
~ /r
.,1, ;
.~
~Y `,
~. ~
~>
~,
,. ---~ ,~ m. ~ ,
~St fi..~ure ~
.~. sx
~ ~ ~` ,..
•
~~
`11 ~ - `3+ ~~ ~ • So •
4
i~
~i~
•
y .-
t" ; G
.~ ; . _ ~ ~;
{ '• 2
a„• .. .. W
•
r
AREA STREETSIDE SIDEYARD SETBACKS
Address
First Avenue
7000
7001
7044
7045
7100
71.01
7145
7200
7201
7244
7245.
7300
7301
Stevens
70700.
7001
7044
7045
7101
7144
7145
7200
72.01
7244
7245
7300
7301
Average
Streetside Sidevard
30
8
30
23 .5
8
16
7.6
10.97
6
17.95
15.95
20
1.3
8
8
20
18.7
6
13.9
7.9
13.9
13
13 .9
9.9
5 .85
15.0
13 .34
•
<.//~e / o // LG/ L
,cam ~ „~i,N„F~ ~',~~:~ ~ ^~"~`
~~~,7~j ~/Je
~~
`~-.4
•
~y
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Off ice of City Manager
Council Letter No. 328
Agenda October 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Special Use Permit to Operate a Van
Rental Facility at 6405 Cedar Avenue
•
Proposal
Adventure Van Rental Systems, Inc. has requested a special use
permit to allow them to operate a-van rental facility at 6405 Cedar
Avenue. This rental operation would be operated in conjunction
with a van accessory sales, showroom, and. installation facility also
on the site. A special use permit is only necessary for the van
rental portion of the operation. The site was formerly occupied by
Yellow Cab Company.
The applicant is proposing to enclosea 54' x 65' portion of
the existing blacktop area north of the existing building with an
eight foot high chain link fence. There would be storage for approx-
imately 11 vehicles in this. storage area. Access to the stcrage
area would be from 64th Street via a 16' wide gate. Parking for
eight customers and/or employees would be maintained north and west
of the existing building.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
Section 3.34, subdivision 1, paragraph 1 and Section 3.3.3,
subdivision 2 require that a van rental operation would require a
special use permit. Section 3.41, subdivision 5 indicates that a
special use permit should be issued only if the proposed use would
not be detrimental to the public welfare.
Staff Review
The staff has reviewed the proposal ar~d found the following:
1. The site is zoned general industrial. Surrounding
properties are also zoned general industrial.
2. The area around the site is a mixed use area. The site
is isolated from single family residential areas and
Counc~l Letter No. 328 -2- October 10, 1983
located between an intermediate arterial (Highway 77)
and a collector s`reet (.Cedar. .Avenue) which handle
relatively high volumes of traffic.
3. There would be sufficient parking available on the
site for customers and employees.
4. The proposed use will not create undue traffic hazards
or congestion on adjacent streets.
5. The proposed .use would be consistent with the city's
comprehensive .plan. The comprehensive plan. indicates
the site should. be used. for medium to high density mixed
land use including retail, wholesale, office, and light
industrial uses. It is the staff's opinion that a van
rental use would be in the same general character as
these uses, especially when operated in conjunction with
a rental/wholesale van accessory sales operation.
Staff Recommendation
It is the staff's opinion that the proposed van rental use
would be an appropriate use of the site which would not be detrimental
to the public welfare., Therefore, it is recommended that the special
use permit be granted.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission on a 8-1 vote recommended that the
special use permit be approved.
Respectf y ubmitted,
ohn G Ca wrig
City P~anager
JGC/eja
r . ~ y
~ >w ~ 9 i.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .9 ~
`t ~
'tl~i.. ~' ~ ~ O
' M~ N~ ~
tr. V
V ~
~ ~
~
`
n
ci O
/
..aa .
E
v' ~" • . i)et
go
t ~ • ~ ~
M
ry Sub jest Pro ert
p Y
~ Z~
~ 'J IS ~ ~ ~~y j8 `^
`
C ~ rTj
s .
-
_
} i q
` Q13 : ,. -c ~ : A:
#~~ s
.a ~ \
='~5ai I
W .
l55~
I ~ t
~r
~
,tl
......
ftR! T ~5~~ t0 :i1i~3^ .
L.~j
et I .... .
i -
r- '34 a8
I?4 48
I Q
r ~33.G2
-
~ -TT3
1 --. .. i
... ~ .
` ~~
. ~: M
y~ . ~,,; .. _ .
W ~~_ _.
;~ S;F~
I r ...
i
{ it -e, .....
.. _. ...
~ O 12(,r:
t~ ..
fi~4~5S_ f ,~+$~ o } EAST __
4
S
s
.
~„{ i•E?4 134.44 r.
~„~t ~ :S3} 16
~,~ `y. 's
,~, 3 , y i, is . .
~ ~5'
a
~', 13
- si,~
, `~q~ 12 =
;
fi ~S~} ~+b~ rt
T '~• t
i ~.~'+i tp
c~~ '~~'
fi 5 ST.
.•~ :33.96 !33.9e .-
o:. l i t Q oe
2',~~ . ~~j u ~
,.
3 '` I %4~t 10
I
4 °i i 3b1 9
S =~~ i •
1 %.~ g
1
ss ~33d2 . :32.:2
f
m
~N
is
W
Q
i
i
I
i
i
^! _
.
r
4 ~ k
' T
,. _M
~~ ,
..
S
:. _`_
.~
.n ZZ,
~,
o~p[~ ~~ ~,~; .
20~y5,
~ ~y ~~~
i. I a r`~3)
,~,
a 'l,~~i
i i tC
is rs`u•
Igi~i
i' ,,
0 13 ~~~ c
~~ _ ~~
;~, ~~-:
24 (q?~
- -, ~0 23 !c{b
2t ~ '~ 9~)
' 20 ~
' - .,~54,
;,
., ret5~~
is5a~;:
~ - :a ;g3~
>~ 0 13 ;. ~+~ o
~ ~ ;~3 a'~ X22+
_ ,
~; Y 21
-
_.' Sry~; ;~ e0
.. 5; job l y
Vii; z is v
w s 3g~ IT
`!
.
,
>
Q
:r ~y~ 3 ~
'. --
--flS-
to .s `~
\,~}~ 1( r i Iq
o ~ r2
0 13
.a cg .r- ,z.,a
~ ?l~~ l ~ J4 ~.,~
-
-~--•
,~ ~4ti> 2 ~ - ~ ~ti
~oo~ ~ ,e:,,a
7
•V~
,
nr
Q~
` ~ e ~ ; 9 -- -s•-
.a ;i i4~~.
>
.
o~ ~4) ~2 o s3'. ~~~
•
. r;
•z. ~ z. ;;
9 EAST
-
- ~
.
i 3 Lip . 2• ti5~ `3D` 3 2
1
_
~~ .
....
. ..
_
~? ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ _.
.Land Use Map - -
e I .
s ~
.
... _
~ 98.3
- ... - ---- - -
~, (: 3
:~ ;
~~ ~ ~
~ N '• ' ---
^~I ,~
~,
~ ~ =i _ ~ ,
;; .. Z , ,
~.~;~,~
C~ •
-~: ..:. .. 6405... CEDA R..... ........
;.
r_ i , 1.6 ,~ ao 7 eol !I 111f1 aT~ ..,c-. _ .. ~, G,~ST. .. i. : .. .. _.... ~. -.._.... !.. .
'~ ` >rt c
~ 2~~ `' 15 ~ ~ ^'i8 h'1 iyr P1'Ifl
~ ~ t! I~ 11 "' ~~~7y-//
° ~.r
N i Ikl(~tfkll,ta
~ flf'tT1Tit l1~ I ... ..
.. .. .
3 :ryi
,j1; ~l4 .C
,r~~~ 9 .~IIf21 Iltl I
= , ,J
1i111i'Tl~t~rlit
;
~ ~I l l l i 1 1 I'7I~i
j ` 4 S~•
~13 ~ • I~t1111;tai
=~ t0 ~ ° ! / 1 111 1 I I t~ I !
l=11111 I~ I i I
- I .. .
,,
S
}~
12 -
~ i~ I 1 1 1
•, 5' II rill
~'~ 11 !I I I I I l l 111( i
~ D I Y t 1
Ir+14fI
'1 f I I I 1 I f
~ .~5~ ~ I tIItII Illl
~ ! 1 1 ! 1 1
_ + Ill I f Akl l ~ ;rrl I l I I~ t.I 1 l I l I ,
~~~ 6 15~' /
~ ~+I~11 1 ~ 1 I I tjF (
.
r fj~! 7
~5~\ 10
'
I ~I~I~1~~11I~
n~~113 ,Il III h 1 -
l
l
l
' ~'!I ! ~
~ ~tilllll~IYIIII
- 1 I I II'~J 11
1
(
1
1
I
:I
I
I ..- .... .
~ .. ..
1 I
f
l
:
~ I 1
I,
I
1
1
I
I
'
~ I FbI
lli~ 'f I I f 11
f 1
.
-
^~;;e
;3448 `5~ 9 ~
;?41$ ( ~ {4Q~i rlilill'r~i
/33.62 '1111aq~+l ~
I rhl~ll~ll(kl.
;}rt 1• tll., .
...... -
-
'-- -
~
~ t
V
,
~f~
_ cZ,
s ~`
~'s ~ `~''
;
5 ' ~~ 20 •'y5;
. %~ ~
' 7
9 r 51 ~,
v
Ig
+C~iy; r: 15~U,'
. ~ -
.n ~3^ io~.
!.n / Z 2
a
Y4 ; 21 -
' c;,;~`~
r ~ + fir,
~
~ `~(~ 7 !. 18
w 9 ~ !~ ~~~i 17
.
Q
,'Sys 3 '
- re -
to ~. Ig%3.
`M.~~ a2 .~ u3 ~.
6r,,,~_S?~ ! `! s~) o ~ }' EAST --
i
,.~ 3~- ; 3s 44 ,-
`i t y3; 6 ~
~ r-
~2 I
~ ~~ 's
;~
..r" 3 f
~;5f; to • .
4 ~ .5~~ 13
Y:~.
s •~~ i +;rii 12
,,
6 ,;?; I ,~~; n
e r5' ~ 9
I=ap { ~=sn
i
t
m
0
v
Q
i
i
i
1 .
! V
j,t,~lalilik1l r
Illli~lillllt ~ c+
1111111 tIl 61I
sr r~.• r
Q 1 I , t ....
..... ..
.....
~l
lk
llflll'ilj
tlt11
~
.
~~
.
1~II111 14'la( _ .
fll' (I,~ Iltllll
III119 I II11
.. '.
....
.
f111Ii~k JI
fll II II 1 .
1
1 1~y, I J I
~'f~lll~l 111
.. ..
.
.--
III11t(I
i r',~I'rl,lft~,'!
I~I(!tt1rtllkl
!~I11I I1L .. .. ...
N ~i~ 1 ,fA
I .fir) ~?~.•
24 `~'~~
~
~
~ ?'jam ,~ 23 ',~'i;
~}'' ~. 22 :. ~~I}
~
~ 4
21 --y~D)
5 ~y :. 20 ~S~\.
6 :9t,~$~
~ ,,~~
:, t l' Spa
,0 ,~, , g , ~k ,
7
•
'~
O _~
~
~
~ll ~.~
~fl ~^- .~ t.,o
~~~ 3 22',,a
.
.
~
~1~ a 2! .,~~,
`q~ i ~ ~ 20 •,~~
,~3j 6 t9 :~~.
t;o1 7 18 .~o~.
t ~~, t ~ i7 ;ta
- ..
_
Q! , e . 9 - -+b- --
:~S`
T f 31 10 ----~5- __
v
' _'z.
~
~
~i
~ f
,
6~ ST. ,~ ~ 3 EAST
SINGLE ~ .... ~~ r, -.. ~ ----- ~~ ~~~.
i. i'i.B i
FAMILY - ! . - .. ~ " ? `'i 2 ,,y, +'~~ ~ - 21
. ~~~; r
_ GENERAL ~'t~ =i~ 5 ~ n\ -- - -° --
COINMERC~A . ~ ' W ~'"
honing il~a~
li'ili'~ ' •~'tl ~ ~
~;~;;,; 17VDL~S;fRIAC - ~~~ - - ~ to
9/83
~ -2' ,, ~ -
~ wad%^I M 7 t ~ if ~ ~ -.
y ... _
i
I.
~ ~' T
.fi ~ - ~ k ~
~, r ~ a
w ~ N
~ i~r----
!' ~
;_
m
-t
~_
----~,
-~
~_:___~
~. '' ..
1 .. 1
~..---
_~ ~
~_.__._
_. ~
i ~
, ....
a\
z
~
~ D
L
c :`
a
2 ~
r #
l ..
~~.
~~~ ~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
.Off ice of City Manager
Council-Letter No. 327
Agenda October 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subjects Request for Special Use Permit to Operate a
Daycare Center, and Request for Variance for
Sign, Elliot School,. 7001 Elliot Avenue
Proposal
The Southdale YMCA has requested a special:.use_permit to
allow them. to operate a daycare center for up to 16 children be-
tween the ages of six weeks and 16 months within the former Elliot
Elementary School facility located at 7001 Elliot Avenue. .They
have also requested a variance to allow them to construct a sign
which is greater than 10 square feet in area which-would be located
20 feet from the curb lines of 70th Street and Elliot Avenue. (See
City Manager recommendation to postpone consideration on the re-
quest for a sign variance; page 3).
Zoning Ordinance Requirement
Section 3.30' subdivision 3 requires that day care centers
for more than 10 obtain a special use permit. Section 3.36, sub-
division 1 indicates that only nonilluminated-signs under 10 square
feet in area are permitted in "R" single family residential dis-
tricts. .Section 3.40 subdivision 6 lists three conditions which
must be present for a variance to be granted, and Section 3.41., sub-
division 5 outlines conditions for granting special use permits.
Staff Review.-..Special Use Permit
The staff has reviewed the special use permit-Nand fo_un~ t-he
following:
1. There is a need for infant daycare facilities in Rich-
- field. Daycare facilities are typically the most diffi-
cult facilities to find for working parents. There
currently. are no daycare centers in Richfield which offer
daycare for infants (0-16 mo.). .Infant daycare in Rich-
field can only be .obtained in daycare homes. There are
currently 52 licensed daycare homes in Richfield.. State
license regulations limit the number of infants which a
licensed daycare provider can care for in their home to
two. This would mean that the maximum number of infants
which can be.cared for is 104. However, the actual number
r
•
Council Letter No. 327 -2-
October 10, 1983
~, of infants which can be served is considerably less
because many day care providers choose to take orsly cne
infant or no infants at all. According to the Greater
Minneapolis Daycare Association, they received 12 requests
for infant care in Richfield in the month of September
and there were only 6 vacancies in daycare homes. Some of
the 6 vacancies may also have not been available for in-
fants because of the preference of the daycare provider
to not take infants.
2. The proposed daycare center. should not be detrimental to
the neighborhood. .The center will generate considerably
less traffic than the elementary school which existed at
the site previously. Adequate parking and drop off space
exists on the site to handle the expected use.
3. There are some fire code violations present in the build-
ing.
4. The proposed sign would be located inside the 50-foot
corner visibility triangle and could somewhat restrict
the visibility at the corner. The size of the sign is
smaller than other similar signs approved for other.. uses
in residential districts.
Staff Review of Variance Request,
Staff has reviewed the request fora variance against the
three conditions for granting variances and found the following:
1. That there are s ecial circumstances or conditions
affecting this land not common to other properties or
similar disa.ricts.
2.
It is staff's opinion that no special conditions exist
on the site. This lot is not significantly different than
any other lot in a similarly zoned district.
That-the gran
the preservat
rights.
Denial of this variance request will not preclude reasonable
use. of the property. A sign conforming to the ordinance can
be installed requiring no variances.
3. That the granting of the application will not materially
and adversely affect the health or safety of persons re-
siding or working in the neighborhood and will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to improvements in-the neighborhood.
ing of the application is necessar for
on and enjoyment o su s an is pro erL
• The sign~at its proposed location .would be within the 50
foot corner visibility triangle. If the sign was relocated
Council Letter No. 327 -3-
October 10, 198'3
outside of the corner visibility triangle, it would not
be detrimental to the public welfare. It is smaller in size
than similar signs located at churches in residential zoning
districts and the sign would not be illuminated.
City Manager Recommendations:
The city manager recommends that the. city council postpone
consideration of the Southdale YMCA request for a sign variance and
that the city council only act upon the Southdale YMCA request for a
special use permit.
The Richfield School Board at its October 3, 1983 meeting, con-
sidered the Southdale YMCA sign request. The school board did not
take an action to recommend the request to the city council. The
school board referred the matter back to the school administration
to develop a signing policy after consulting with city staff.
The reasons for the school board action include:
1. There are several schools which have clients renting
space and there will be further requests for signs and
the school system does need a policy to deal with signs;
2. Central School may have as many. as ten clients utilizing.
space and the ten signs of the size being sought by the
Southdale YD'!CA would be excessive, and
3. The school board would like to have a policy on signs
which would not be in conflict with the city ordinance.
A meeting will be arranged between school and city staff to
consider the sign matter further. A follow-up report will be made
to the city council at a later date.
Staff Recommendations
It is recommended that the variance be postponed as recommend-
ed by the city manager.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission unanimously recommends that the
special use permit be approved with the staff recommended stipula-
tions.and that the variance be denied .because the three conditions
for granting variances have not been met.
Respectf ubmitted,
John G. Cartwri t
City Manager
«,
Sf^.•!a LAYOUT PROPOSAL 4Y:
~.: ;':`.CTA SIGN, INC.
G4;~7 PENN AVENdE SOUTH
!r{ItVNEAPOLIS. MINN. 55423
•
i,~
I
.cI ~.
~i ~
~~
.~
'~ •
~~
-~
~..~ i
~~ d
~. - s _ .
.~. --
• . ~.
..
i
~..
T
~ ~ ~ ~~.
~ ~ • • ~ ~ ~~
• ~ ~ ~~
s r
iiy ~ -~
i
i
;:
~ :. E ;,
,~. .. ` ; ,
.. I
_ , $,~T,p,' ~ ~ YOUT PRC?CSA4 d ~:
~ ~
'r~~~b`~~ad +~i'` ~Pt ~4PS IY~IN•W+iY.~ 55--.
s ~¢''
~ X17 ~~~ ~ c-aiiG:
brt C' _ - .
$~t7~-
~~ ---
t
. _a
.,
TO
APPLICANT
LOCATION
OF PROPE~iTY
PURPOSa=
TIME OF HEARING
PLACE CF HEARING
' HORN TO PAATIC3PA'
•~
ANY QUEST IONS
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF AtCNFiELD .. ;..
PLANNING COMMISSION
~- .
Property owners within 350 feet of the Richfield
Community Education Center (Formerly Elliot
~,- 7001 $lliot Avenue South
Southdale YMCA
'That part of the north 5 acres of the northeast
quarter of the .northwest quarter of section 35
township 28 range 24 Lying east of the west
355.3. meet thereof. (7001 Elliot Avenue,
Richfield Community Education Center)
To hear a request for a special use permit by
Southdale YMCA to operate a Daycare Center for u
to 16 infants in the former Elliot Elementary
School Building.
7:30 P.M. Tuesday, September 27, 1983
Council Chambers, City Hall, 6700 Portland ave.S.
1. attend the hearing and give testimony for or
against the proposal.
2. Submit a letter to the Planning Commission
expressing your views in writing.
Rick Jopke .
City Planner
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richf field , ~!V 55423
869-7521, Ext. 511
MAILING DATE Szpt . 15 , 1983
^~tsc r.~ ~:i,~~~+~_y~ ~~ + ° ..o.~.~ps± _.i r. _ ~.'c!;1?I ';.,~~ ~F?~"':~. ~0 ;~'?°2"?.... ? ,., ~~ P " ~';+
.. ar ~~~. „er
~v - ,
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
s
Council Letter No. 326
Agenda October 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
ar~d
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Appointment of Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioner
The term of HRA Commissioner Donald Hassenstab will expire on
October 27, 1983. Commissioner Hassenstab was appointed to the
HRA on January 4, 1982 to fill an unexpired five-year term.
Under state law, the Mayor appoints HRA commissioners subject
to confirmation by the city council. Mayor Hamilton has indica-
ted that he will reappoint Commissioner Hassenstab to a full five
year term at the October 10, 1983 city council meeting. Although
it has been the past practice of the city council to set the terms
for commissioners to coincide with their council terms, this would
not be required now, since Council Member Hassenstab's council term
will expire December 31, 1983. The city attorney's office has in-
dicated that this action would be appropriate and in .accordance
with Minnesota State Statutes 462.425, subd. 6 as follows:
"Any member of the governing body of a municipality may
be appointed and may serve as a commissioner of the author-
ity in and for .the municipality. The council of any muni-
cipality which appoints members of the city council as
commissioners may set the terms of office for the commission-
er to coincide with his term of office as a council member."
The appointment to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
has been placed on the October 10, 1983 city council agenda.
Respectf ubmitted,
i
John G. Car Wright
City Manager
JGC/eja
~i~~
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Off ice of City Manager
Council Letter No. 325
Agenda October 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Award of Contract, Liquid Carbon Dioxide
Each .year the City of Richfield and other municipalities and
agencies jointly request bids for liquid carbon dioxide, a chemi-
cal used for ,water treatment. Two bids were received: Airco In-
dustrial Gases quoted $77 per ton, while Cardox quoted $59 .per
ton. The.-City will be using an estimated 200 tons of liquor car-
bon dioxide during the period November 1, 1983 through October 31,
.1983. The chemicals were also purchased from Cardox last year,
at a Brice of $54 per ton.
• It is recommended that the city council authorize a master
purchase of an estimated 200 tons of liquid carbon dioxide at $59
per ton from Chemtron Corporation, Cardox Division, for an estimated
total. purchase price of $11,800.
Respectf" 1 bmitted,
ohn G. Cart right
City Manager
JGC/eja
~J
~13~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA -
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 324
Agenda October 10, 1983
ThE Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
.Council Members:
Subject: Ratification of Labor Contract Agreement
with Local 49
There is an item on the October 10,..1983 city council agenda
pr®viding for council ratification of "local issues" that have
begin negotiated between the City of Richfield. and Local 49 of
tho International Union of Operating Engineers bargaining group.
Local 49 represents most of the city's maintenance employees.
Wage and insurance issues for Local 49-represented employees
are determined annually through a master contract agreement be-
tween the P~Zetropolitan Area Management Association (MAMA), repre-
senting approximately 23 suburban communities, and Local 49.
Otrier i~s~su:es, such as vacation and sick leave provisions, coffee
breaks and uniform allowances are not included in the master
agreement and are left for each separate community to negotiate
with Local 49. These latter issues comprise the "local issues".
The local agreement which has been negotiated will cover
the second half of 1983 and continues in effect until the end
of 1984. The changes included in the local .agreement include:
1. Uniforms to be provided for the water plant mechanic,
water maintenance workers aand water plant operators.
(Uniforms had been provided to most of these individ-
uals previously, although there was no contractual
obligation to do so).
2. The three water plant operators are allowed to switch
one day per year with supervisor's approval. This
does not result in any additional cost to the-city
or any additional time off for water plant operators.
This contract provision should help the employee
obtain a day off for a special occasion (i.e. family
birthday, anniversary). The employee will work some
C
Council Zetter No. 324 -2- October 1Q, 1983
other non-scheduled day to offset the time off.
. Where~zer possible, supervisory personnel will
cover for the employee who receives the day off.
There were no other changes in the agreement and the additional
cost to the city o~°er the previous year for the above two items are
negligible.
It is recommended that the city council approve execution of
this contract agreement with Local 49, and authorize the City manager
to implement the provisions of this contract.
Respectf ubrnitted,
ohn G. Car righ
City Manager
JC~eja
RESOLLJTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE. INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL. 49 BAR-
GAINING UNIT FOR THE-YEARS 1983 AND 1984
y~iEREAS, the City Manager, and the International Union of
Operating .Engineers Local 49 Bargaining Unit have reached a
complete understanding concerning-local contract issues for
the years 1983 and 1984, and
WHEREAS, the Personnel Ordinance requires that contracts
between the City and the. exclusive representative of employees
in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be implemented by
council resolution.
.NOW, THEREFORE, BE``TT RESQI,VED that the City Council does
hereby approve the Labor Agreement between the .City of Richfield
and the International tJnion of Operating Engineers Local 49
Bargaining Unit for the years 1983 and 1984 and orders the pro-
visions of the labor agreement to be implemented effective July
1 , 1983.
• Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
10th day of October, 198.3.
John Hamilton Mayor
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
.7
~y8
CITY OF RICHFIELD, N[INNESOTA
Office of City Manager
X138
Council Letter No. 323
Agenda October 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Council Members:
Subject: Resolution Providing for Polling Places .and
Designating Judges for Statewide General
Election, November 8,1983
•
There is a resolution on .the council agenda for October 10,
1983, designating polling places for the General Election on
Tuesday, November 8, 1983. This resolution also provides for
election judges at this election.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the resol-
ution attached to this agenda, providing-..for polling places
and designating judges for the Statewide General Election on
November 8,..1983.
Respectf bmitted,
John Ca twri ht
City Manager
JC/eja
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR POLLING PLACES AND DESIGNATING
JUDGES FOR STATE WIDE GENERAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 8, 1983
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows:
1. That there will be a General Election on Tuesday, November 8, 1983...
2. That said election shall be held at the polling places as herein
appear specified, and that the following are hereby appointed
as judges for said election:
PRECINCT N0. 1
Chairperson:
Election Judges:
PRECINCT N0. 2
Chairperson:
Election Judges:
PRECINCT N0. 3
Chairperson:
Election Judges:
PRECINCT N0. 4
Chairperson:
Election Judges
Mt. Calvary~Educational Bldg.
6541 - 16th Avenue South
Shirley Gisselquist - D
Ralph Roberts - R
Louise Carlson - R
Helen Connelly - D
St. Peter's Church
67th and Nicollet Ave. So.
Elayne Gilhousen - R
Mary Jane Suess - D
Ellen Brandon - R
Jan Bray - D
Sheridan Hills School
64th & Sheridan Avenue South
Jan Anderson - R
Lois Awes - D
Rose Hoppenrath - R
Linda Bloomgren - D
St. Richard's School
7540 Penn Avenue South
Dave Arnold - R
Mathew Kasinkas - R
Carolyn Walker - D
Catherine Alfano - D
•
Chairperson:
Election Judges:
PRECINCT N0. 5 Richfield Junior High School
75th & Oliver Avenue South
Chairperson: Phyllis Reinmuth - R
Election Judges: Beverly Stelman - D
Barb Vinge - D
Maxine Evans - R
PRECINCT N0. 6 Central .School Bldg.
7145 Harriet Ave. South
Chairperson: Eunice Aulwes - R
Election Judges: Pat Brenner - D
Muriel Bernstein - D
Betty Halloran - R
PRECINCT N0. 7 Portland School
72nd and 4th ivenue South
Chairperson: Donna Vidas - R
Election Judges: Pauline Huber - R
Fabiola Sullivan - D
James Gilhousen - D
PRECINCT N0. 8 Richfield Intermediate School
7000 12th Avenue South
PRECINCT N0. 9
Chairperson:
Election Judges:
Democrat
R. Jean Rand
Millie Hines
Ione Waller
Marion Horning
Gertie Herll - D
Audrey Winslow - R
Ann Mullerleile - R
Pat Bunting - D
Centennial School
7 3rd Street & Bloomington Avenue South
Corrine Cosgrove - D
Barb Cook.- D
Joan Schaefer - R
Susan Lewis - R
Republica n
Donna Peterson
Ethel Hommes
Alice-Strom
Lil Pearson
Joyce Rodeberg
~ 73~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Off ice of City Manager
Council Letter No. 322
Agenda October 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
an d
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Council Members:
Subject: Transitory Ordinance Providing for Certain
Capital Improvements. First Reading.
In April, 1982, the city council approved public improve-
ments for 1982, consisting of: city hall parking"lot improve-
ments and certain energy improvements for city hall, the nature
center, and the city garage. These projects were authorized by
loaning money from the Permanent. Improvement Revolving Fund to
the Special Revenue Fund to be repaid in 1983 from normal reven-
ues of the Special Revenue Fund.
Resolution No. 6594 approved April 12, 1982, authorized
the transfer of $48,000 from the PIR Fund to the Capital Improve-
. merit budget of_ the city for purposes of financing costs related
to the city hall parking lot and city facility energy improvements.
The 1983 revised budget for the Special Revenue Fund pro-
vides for $48,000 to be appropriated to the Permanent Improvement
Revolving Fund. It is, therefore, recommended that the city council
give first reading consideration to the attached transitory ordin-
ance, appropriating monies from the Special Revenue Fund to the
PIR Fund as described above. Second reading of :the proposed
ordinance, and the public hearing, may then be scheduled for
the October 24, 1983 city council meeting.
Respectful ,glpbmitted,
John Cartwr ght
City Manager
JC/eja
r
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE N0.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE
EXPE~7DITURE -0F MONEY FROM THE
SPECIAL REVENL7E FUND FOR CERTAIN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROVIDED BY
TEMPORARY FUNDING FROM THE PERMANENT
IMPROVEMENT REVOLVING FUND
City of Richfield does ordain:
Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and
expedient for the City to expend money from the Special
Revenue Fund for the making of Capital .Improvements listed
in Section 2 hereof,. for which the city would be authorized
to issue General Obligation .Bonds..
Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expendi-
tures for such improvements which are authorized to be paid
from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, subd. 2
of the City Charter, are as follows:-
Energy Improvements $35,000
Parking Lot Improvements 13,000
(city hall)
TOTAL $48,000
Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made
.pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to
time by council action.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richf field this 24th
day of October, 1983.
john Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
r