Loading...
08-22-83 agendac - ° , ~- ~ o CITY OF RICHFIELD, CIINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter PTO. 296 Agenda August 22, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and ^~embers of the C ity Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Building Permit Issuance at 1525 West 68th Street Mr. Mark Banwart has acquired a small, triangular piece of land adjacent to Interstate 35w on the south side of 68th Street east of Humboldt Avenue. The parcel in question is substandard and approximately 2,500 square feet in area. To meet the city's lot area and width requirement, Mr. Banwart also acquired the underlying fee ownership of an easement area, originally part of the lot, which was acquired for the construction of I35W. The city ordinances are somewhat unclear concerning whether lot area width, and setback are to be determined by using the full proper- ty lines, or by using only that part of the parcel which is not covered by the highway easement. The staff has interpreted the ordinance to read that the lot area, width, and setback require- ments should be determined by using the legally described prop- erty lines, irrespective of highway easements. Therefore, variances would net b~ required in this case. This interpretation by staff has been questioned by an adjacent neighbor, and is being appealed to the city council in accordance with Section 3.40 of city ordinances. This section of the ordinance allows citizens to appeal any administrative interpretation by city staff to the city council. It should be noted that easement areas, such as alleys, have typically been included in the past when calculating lot area, width, and setbacks. The staff, therefore, believes the proposal by Mr. Banwart has been addressed in a manner consistent with past interpretations of the ordinances. It is recommended that the city council revie~,a this matter and determine if there is doubt about how the ordinance should be interpreted. If the council believes that there is doubt, it is recommended that the city council schedule a public hearing on this matter fen September 12, 1983. . r, Council Letter No. 296 -2- August 22, 1933 The staff will notify the surrounding neighborhood of this public hearing . Respectfully submitted, c,I ~' ~ 1 Thomas A. Morgan, J~~ Acting City ~~Ianager T~u,T/eja • • W o o to Wit. - ,. SOUND WALL BOULEVARD AREA 14 ~: <~J ~ ~ 124.1' :~.~ •::;• ::~.•.~:7•:~:~•• y!. •ti~ • •, '~. .•~.• •• ~ . ~7. >i1'.1' .'~"• • t. . ~. • Y~, ~~°°.. ~,:,: rt. .9. ~~:BLit:~:~1~:~:~:~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~: . to ~•.•.. -~ . ~.' . ~•.•... . . :~.~ ti~ o• :,~. :~~: ~ . M. :~~• a ~.•; }. .~~•. •• •~. -~. F-' .:F:• ~o :~:• ~:~:~ ~• ~~ :~: .LL :~. :.~ .. d.•.~. ' ::.~. . .i. •~. u .`?~.' .5 °~i .~ .~•"• .~'.' ..' .. Y.'{'. ,,./ . ~ . .~. .~. .>~•. .V. .~ . ~. ~ . ~ •:::;::::::::a•:•:::• ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::e:::::::::::a::::::::::;::::::•. ••~ `•••••• a•••'•••••••••••••"•••••"•"•"•••"•"•"•••'•"•••"•'•'•••••'•••••••••••••••••••~•~• ~•.'.•. :, :~r,. , . .. .. ;~~.~:~. <• :~L1:~:~ :~ •:.:. ~~•:~ ~~ :~::: ::" : ~: :k:•. '.'.'.'.' X• •.•.• !••••• .'. .'.'. .'.'.'.'.'.'.•. L'.'.'.•.'.'. . T.•. •. ••• ••.•••.•.•. •. •. •. •........•.•.•.••.•. ~~• .t• ~ .•~.•.• ~'1..•.•.w•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•,•,•.•.•.•,•••••,•••,• •' ~.Y...'.'.•.'x .~. .Z• ,.Y~ .~' .'. Z~.'.', •. •, •, •,', •, ~, •, ..'. . scale: - 1 C" :`~: ^. :~~ _- - - - - - --- ~ ii CITY OF RICHFIELD, I~1I~IT:ESOTA Office of C ity Manager Council Letter No. 295 Agenda August 22, 1933 The Honorable Mayor and ^~embers of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Subdivision Request by Richfield Baptist Church, 6215 Oliver Avenue Richfield Baptist Church has requested that the city approve the subdivision of the property at 6215 Oliver Avenue. The church would like to split off a 75' x 135' lot for sale to a party to develop a single family residence. The church would retain owner- ship of a 370' x 135' foot parcel immediately north of the site in question. The church has also requested that the city council exempt them from the preliminary platting requirements of the city sub- division ordinance. This exemption is allowed by city ordinances where three or fewer lots are created. The staff has reviewed the attached survey outlining the proposed subdivision of the church property and found that it contains all the necessary information. Staff has also found that the lots created would meet all zoning and subdivision requirements for lot width and lot area. The proposed new lot and development of a single family residence would be in character with the neighborhood and would not be detrimental to the public welfare. It is, therefore, recommended that the city council approve the subdivision as requested. The council may instead refer this matter to the planning commission for review if the council be- lieves this would be a major action, since the planning commission normally reviews and makes recommendation to the council on pre- liminary plats. The final plat then only requires city council review. Because the property oom er has requested exemption from the preliminary platting requirement, this matter was not reviewed by the planning commission. If the council ~,aishes to approve the subdivision as requested, it is recommended that the council pass the attached resolution. Respectfully submitted, 1 ~-`. ~°..`~ Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting C ity Manager T A',I / e j a RESOLUTION No. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota has reviewed the subdivision of the parcel of land described as follows: A11 that part of the North 1/2 of the Northwest Quarter of the northwest 4uarter of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24 lying East of the centerline of Oliver Avenue South extended North and West of the centerline of the alley in Block 11, "Ray's Lynnhurst" extended North, except the South LuS.uu feet , thereof ; Subject to an easement for utilities over the East 5.00 feet thereof ; Also subject to an easement for a public roadway over the West 30 feet thereof and over the ;worth 33 feet thereof, as contained in Document No.'s 358872 and 443149; Also subject to the right of way of County Highway No. 62 as described in Document No. 653688; All subject to easements and restrictions of record, if any. into the following described parcels: A11 that part of the North 1/2 of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24 lying East of the centerline of Oliver Avenue South extended North and West of the centerline of the alley in Block 11, "Ray's Lynnhurst" extended North, and lying North of the South 180.00 feet thereof; Subject to an easement for utilities over the East 5.00 feet thereof; Also subject to an easement for a public roadway over the West 30 feet thereof and over the North 33 feet thereof, as contained in Document :~-o .'s 358872 ar.d 443149; Alsc subject to the right of way of County Highway No. 62 as described in Document ~o. 653688; All subject to easements and restrictions cf record, if ar,y. -2- Parcel B The North 75.00 feet of the South 180.00 feet of the north 1/2 of the Northwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24 lying East of the centerline of Oliver Avenue South extended North and West of the alley in Block 1.1, "Ray's Lynnhurst" extended Forth; Subject to an easement for utilities over the East .5.00 feet thereof; Also subject to an easement for a public roadway over the West 30 feet thereof, as contained in Document No.'s 358872 and 443149; all subject to easements and restrictions of record, if any. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richr"field, Minnesota approves the above described subdivision. Passed by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1983. • John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • • • S~~~Ey Fo.~ ,P/GyF/EL1~ _ B,4.~T/ST _ CyU,PC.~ .H~.PT.f/ U.liE OF SK' Id, Tll~,e Zd, ~jE [~f ~ ~ __ l s_ ml : .41tI01W/~EeSEAEHT JS /!.P ~ ti I L_ _~_ __~_~_~~~ ~~ , ~ - -L. ~ $~~ $~~ e ~.~ ; ~~ ,, ~ . ~ ~ NV L53LSB• .. i i I s -..1 % ~- w I ' `~ ~ -- f I I I i ~ I I I ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ • ~^" ~ ~ ~ a h ~ ~h~ fi W ~ ~^ ~ ~C ~ ti~ ~ h I ~~ ~ \~ ~~ ~ ~ '~ a ~' ~ W ~' ~ ~ W r ~~ ~ '3 ~, ~ ;~ .~ , , ~ ~ ~~ ~ +~ i ~~ ~ ~ \• y ifs ~ ~ j,Y I . ~ 7 y 4~' ~e ~ ~ ~ \Y ....... /3l ~.-.....' ~ ..1 ~. ~ © 0 ~ I QQ A' ~ ~ ! S 5 -: ---•-/33 /O. .. { I I a' i I J 3a ^ i ~__ ~ i ~ -SGI/r.V U.vE QI" 7,VE ,V~'~! Qf'.vlvl; .a~.,/n'~ '• • • i I i i o a.o ra so we ,Sp w~ w srr'r JVt'Rnii :.c'Gai :%ESC?.Zr^.".OA7• N al< _ier. :art of the ~iorrh T ~2 of the uorthwa: ~~~at:er of -rte `7orthwst tuarter of Faction .S, :ovnshio 28, Range 24 lylny last of the centzrl_ne of ~~l:ver Avenue Scut;? extarsded north and ::eet of the centerline of th~x a l'_ey ir. 31oc:t 11, "Ray's Lynn hater" extended ±iort."., exec nt t'.:e Son th 1~S.GC feet, tiered. Sub;xt to an easexnt for ataities air the East 2.~~G feet `_he reop: :i iso s•~b'ect to an ease rent for a cvblic roedvay s:er c.`.e s.est .., feet t iereof and .vet _._ ...._ _.. ,_ ___. Hereof, as ccntaine~3 in ^or.::nent 'co.'s 3588"2 and ;43149: yi sc subject to t:.e riait-of-nay of County Highway ,`kJ. 62 as descr tSed in xc.:+rent No. S:i3688; ~'_: svb~ecc to ease:rents and restricticnt of record, if env. ..c _.aL '.'rSCP.7?TIQN J= ??A CEL .•a••, :11 _ier cart of the north 1;'2 ~z the '7orth.1est 'y`vsrter of the vort!:tieest ,vnrter _:: Section 23, °osn:ni? 28, Ranee 2< lyuiq ~aat of tta~a eenterl:ne of ~ ~.,.r .avenue South axterded north and %xest of the canteriine of the al_a" ~n 31x!: 11, Ray's Lyr.:ihurst" extended ~iorth, and 1y±nq north of .._ -curb '_3G.iG feet t;.ereof: ~ut-x t to a~ easenrnc for .~ilities ever _he 8asc i.'JO caet thereof; ?iso n_b-~xt to an easer.'sct `oz a ?ubLc roadwy over The siee*_ '0 _feet r.,_r .., and over -he t:or th 33 `ee*_ thereof, as eonte.ned _, GoCtre nt ~:c. ' s ' i3H'2 and J47 i39; .so _-.~-ec: -o tree ant-of-~^av of ^eunty H~.ghvay •10. S2 es deserir_d yli 3lib left t0 eaeeRYentS anC re9t~~etiOn9 of reecrd, :' nv. 'CA:e >lorth ..,, act cf =ne 3ovth '_9C.''r '~e~ o° ~:e 'forth 1i2 of t^.e vor*nw~t ;uerter o~ _he voz t.`:ve et tae-ter o' :ect:on ;y. .cmeh•~ 23. yanye 2d _yi-^. 'ae~ _. ^=e rentsr..ne of C_'ver Ave rue Sou ti: axtenr'ec `ier-h and Nc:s- :. .he ai_ev :.. =,xx :;, "yaw's _~r-hars^" ex tend ec :ore C ; - ;c A'ecc to ar. aeeece^- °or .-. ,_c.es ~ner t:^e =ast ~. `ae' .^.. reo `: ?.. s. ;c o-.ae' tc ar. ease ee^.t ._r a = -._c r.a~'.vav wet -ie '.:a 7^, cee^ .ne reoi, as ..cnta :::e~ ... :cx_•:.-~n! '.:o.'s .:eb-^ a^d :43143: all sub's t to ~asemenr_s and resrr:ct:or.s :,; _ecord. __ an': _ _.,~.? i i i ~ ~ ~J IRg 9~I1 tft NO 3N Aa3Y3N ~ u CITY OF RICHFIELD , T'II~?~?ESOTA Office of City Manager ~~ Council Letter No. 294 Agenda August 22, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and ~Tembers of the C ity Council City of Richf field Counc i1 I~~Iembers Subject: Public Hearing Regarding Adoption of Assessment Roll on City Project 771, A11ey Maintenance for the Period April 1, 1982 - through March 31, 1983. The city council has scheduled a public hearing to be held August 22, 1983 related to assessment for the cost of current maintenance services on alleys for the period April 1, 1982 through March 31, 1923. The city clerk, with the assistance of the city engineer, and the technical operations coordinator, calculated the proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land specially benefitted. The proposed assess- ment was properly filed with the city clerk, notice was duly pub- lished, and notices were mailed to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll. The cost of current maintenance services for this period totalled $27,705.51 and include labor, material and equipment re- lated to alley patching and snowplowing. Due to the length of the list, the assessment roll is not included in the council packet, but a copy of the assessment roll for alley maintenance April 1, 1Q82 through March 31, 1933, will be available for council refer- ence and review at the August 22, 1983 city council public hearing. Serving as a reference at this time, it is noted that: 1. High assessment per parcel is - $96.81 (6501 Cedar) 2. Low assessment per parcel is $ 1.97 (6428 Lmerson) 3. High assessment for an alley is $1,006.38 (Sheridan.-Russell 67-68) 4. Low assessment for an alley is $30.61 (James-Irving, 63-64) 5. Total assessment of $25,705.51 - 98 alleys = $262.30/average 6. Total assessment of 525,705.51 = 93,625.50 total footage = • 27.4556/foot average Council Letter No. 294 -2- Agusut 22, 1983 7. $.274556 x 5~' average lot = $13.7278 average 50' parcel Several inquiries have been received regarding payment schedules, use of or access to an alley, the type of work performed by the city, and the cost of maintenance. Staff has investigated each inquiry and has found no basis for adjusting the amount of the proposed assessment. It is, therefore, recommended that no adjustment be made for parcels at 6901 Vincent, 6740 Russell, 6800 Garfield, 6700 Queen, 7141 Second Avenue, 6300 Knox Avenue, 6311 Cedar, 6301 G;rard, or 6735 Russell. Inquiries were also received regarding an error for two alleys included in the assessment which did not receive maintenance for patching or snowplowing. It is, therefore, recommended that the assessment be abated for properties on the alley between Grand and Pleasant (73rd to 74th) and the alley between Fifth Avenue and Portland (73rd to 74th). The Staff also received a written objection to the assessment of 6630 Queen Avenue, which stated that the special use permit issued for construction of a seven unit apartment building at that location in 1959-1960 stipulated the owners and tenants not use the alley. This objection is that if the alley cannot be used, there is no benefit from the maintenance performed by the city. However, intensive investigation of city records from 1959 and subsequent years finds no records of such a stipulation. Also, no . objection was made for the X982 assessment of this property. It is, therefore, recommended that no adjustment be made for this parcel. The city staff will be available at the hearing to answer questions related to the special assessment that may not have been raised prior to the hearing. The public hearing provides an opportunity for all interested persons to present their objections, if an~~, to such proposed assessment. The city ordinance provides that special assessments for current services may be certified to the county auditor for collection along with current taxes. This certification may provide that the special assessments be completely paid either in the first ten years or in up to ten annual installments. However, it is recommended that the certification adopted by the city council pro- vide that payments be due and payable within the first year, rather than in installments. The city t-:as the right to cr~arge interest on the amount assessed in that the city provided the funds initially for the current services. It is the recommendation of staff that the interest rate be established at eight percent, the maximum per- mitted by law. A property owner may make payment by ~'.ovember 15, 1983 in order to avoid interest payments. Payments made after that date, up to December 31, 1984, would include the interest charges. • Following the nearing, it is recommended that the city council Council Letter No. 294 -3° August 22, 1983 adopt the attached resolution, adopting the Assessment of City Project 771, A11ey D^.ainter.ance for the Period April 1, 1982 through March 31 , 1 983 . The city council may make changes in the assessment roll as a result of the hearing by adding the phrase "and :gas amended such proposed assessment as it deems just." Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~. ~ I Thomas A. Morga ~ Jr~ Acting C ity Manager TANI/ e j a • RESOLUTION iVO. RESOLUTION,' ADOPTING ASSESSMEi~;T ON CITY PROJECT 7?1, ALLEY MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 1 9 8 2 THROUGH °~?ARCH 3 1, 1 9 8 3. 6vHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for current services related to mainten- ance of alleys in the City of Richfield; r`TOr~7, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the C ity Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, ~~~innesota, as follows: 1. Such proposed assessment roll, a copy of which is attached hereto and a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be ber.efitted by the proposed current services in the amount of the assess- ment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable before or during 1984 and shall bear interest at the rate of eight percent from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay whole of the assessment on such property to the city treasurer and he may, at any tune thereafter, pay to the city treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which payment is made. Such payment must be made before \Tovember 15 or interest ca ill be charged through December 3i of the succeeding year. 4. The city clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the county auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same :Wanner as other mu r.icipal taxes. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 22nd day of August, 1983. john Hamilton ?"avor ATTEST Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk ~- ~,~ . • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of C ity Manager ~~ Council Letter No. 293 Agenda August 22, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Rezoning of Property at 910 West 66th Street. Reconsideration. On April 25, 1983, the city council was approached by Dr. David Elasky who requested that the council initiate action to rezone his property from R (residential) to C-1 (limited business) This initial approach was made to the city council because of Dr. Elasky's inability to obtain the necessary signatures of adjacent property owners who were in favor of the rezoning. • At that time, the city council referred the matter to the planning commission for review and recommendation. Subsequently, the planning commission recommended against the rezoning by a 7-1 vote. The city council then conducted the first reading for this rezoning at the June 13, 1983 city council meeting. The second reading and public hearing of this zoning amendment was set for July 25, 1983. At that time, the city council denied the rezoning, but subsequently brought it up for reconsideration and the item was tabled until the August 22, 1983 meeting. In considering this zoning ordinance amendment request, the city council should take into consideration the provisions of the comprehensive plan and the need to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority is in the initial stages of a project which will involve the rehabilitation of residential structures immediately west of the subject property. As a part of this project, an application was submitted to the Planning Area One Citizens Advisory Committee of Hennepin County for surplus CDBG funds to assist in this project. The Citizens Advisory Committee has recommended to the County Board of Super- visors that an amount slightly less than the $60,000 be allocated for the project. However, the Citizens Committee attached a recommendation that the money should not be given to Richfield • if the Elasky property is rezoned to C-1 Commercial. Council Letter No. 293 -2- August 22, 1983 The City Council should not take this grant into consider- ation when considering the rezoning of this property, but rather should consider the above mentioned comprehensive plan and general welfare criteria. Based on information previously presented to the city council concerning the comprehensive plan for this area and the effect on the general welfare, it is recommended that the city council deny the request for rezoning to C-1 Commercial. Respectfully submitted, ~y~ Thomas A. Morgan` J~ Acting City Manager TAMjeja __ __ - - . ~ _ _ - -- , ~ ~ ,.. 3 ~;.L:, ~~0 . 1983- L6 -~~ ~.__ Q^' ~~+.~~q~er_ci.~c C a. `: e dr~i az~:c~ Coca o~ _..~_ C' ~~ c~ _.i c::='_=? -~ ^: - - L13 ZC^.°`~ `:3t:=CAS _ =- ~ - = _ ', sec ~_cr_ 3 23 C. SZ.C~ Z ::SD~G ~5 ; • C `S ~. 3E?C t~CI: Z ~S =~~°:=cdr ~V =C.^.i. C =.=i~ ~C L ~ ( Z?) pct 7 has 3c i ~icr -a c3v a; 983 '_ --- - ~cn : ~a~~_-=cam , ^avc~ TTR~ s nq • a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA. Office of City Manager ~ isA Council Letter No. 292 Agenda August 22, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and ^embers of the C ity Council City of Richfield Council Members Subject: Source of Funding for CP 771, Alley Maintenance On August 22, 1983, the city council approved a resolution adopting the assessment roll for city project 771, alley main- tenance, for the period April 1, 1982 through March 31, 1983. The Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund has sufficient cash balance to provide interim financing for this project. The fund would be able to retain all of the special assessments levied, and the proceeds from the collections would then restore the monies necessary to close the project. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing a temporary financing of this project from the Permanent Revolving Improvement Fund. Respectfully submittted, I ~. ~'~ Thomas A. Morg ~, J~ Acting City Manager cc: Finance Coordinator Administrative Services Director TAi`~/ej a • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROI~1 PERr•4ANENT IMPROVEME~?T REVOLVING F UND TO CP 771 ALLEY MAINTELTANCE TO PROVIDE I1`dTERIM FIB?ANCING OF SAID PROJECT ~ti7HEREAS, the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield provides that a Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund to be used for the purpose of financing local improvements, and WHEREAS, the ordinance states that the proceeds of said fund may be used to provide interim financing of capital ex- penditures for projects of the city by resolution of the city council; and WHEREAS, it appears desirable to transfer funds to provide interim financing for CF 771, alley maintenance, and WHEREAS, the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund would assume collections of the levied special assessments. i`?OW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by resolution of the City Council of the City of Richfield that $25,705.51 from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund of the City be transferred to CP 771, Alley Maintenance for the purpose of providing interim financing . Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 22nd day of A~-gust, 1983. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Syliva K. Bergh City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINT?ESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter ~?o. 291 Agenda August 22 , 1 9fi3 The Honorable i•layor and ":embers of the C ity Council City of Richfield Counc ii ,~~embers Subject: Bid Proposal for Sale of 1975 r".ini-Pumper As the council may recall, the fire division of the depart- ment of public safety, recently purchased a fire pumper to re- place the 1975 mini-pumper. Since delivery of the new pumper, the 1975 mini-pumper has been for sale, and though we have received many inquiries, we have received only one acceptable bid for this piece of equipment. The Southern Fire Equipment Company, Inc. located in Jackson, Mississippi, has submitted an acceptable bid proposal to the city in the amount of $7,711. It is the recommendation of the Public Safety Department, in which I concur, that the council give favorable consideration to the acceptance of this bid proposal submitted by Southern Fire Equipment Company, in the amount of $7,11, and that these funds be deposited to the Fire Vehicle Reserve Fund. Respectfully submitt~d, ~'~`. ~ ~ J T Thomas A. Morga Jr1 Acting C ity Manager TAM/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, ^1INNESOTA Office of City Manager ~~s~ Council Letter No. 290 Agenda August 22, 1983 The Honorable I~iayor and :?embers of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Purchases in Excess of $2,650 By Council Resolution, the city council must approve the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $2,650. There are two such items on the council agenda for August 22, 1983. Van The adopted 1983 central garage budget includes replacement of a fully depreciated half-ton van, a motor pool vehicle used primarily by the engineering division. Four vendors were con- tacted. Southtown Dodge did not provide a quotation. Bloomington Chrysler/Plymouth submitted a quotation for a unit that does not meet specifications in that it is too small. The other two ven- dors submitted quotations based on 1983 models. Harold Chevrolet Inc. quoted $9,630.39, and Brookdale Ford, Inc. quoted 59,214.00. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of a van from Brookdale Ford, Inc. in the amount of $9,214.00. The existing vehicle, although fully depreciated, will be retained for use in the government buildings operations of the city. ~^?inter Brochure Six quotations were received for t'r:e winter ' rochure, a pub- lication primarily of recreational program information, distrib- uted quarterly to each mailing address in Richfield. Lloyd Commun- ications quoted $7,950, Carolyn Casper cruoted $6,690, 6aestern Design and Printing quoted $6,228, Sand Graphics quoted $6,224, and Sexton Printing, Inc. quoted $5,716 with Nekoosa paper being used. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase from Sexton Printing in the amount of 55,4'9, with Scott paper being used. Respectfully submitted, ~`l r Thomas A . ~•"organ , Jr . Acting City Manager ~. ~ s ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MIi~?NESOTA Office of C ity Manager Council Letter No. 287 Agenda August 22, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Proposed Amendment to Licensing Ordinance for Taxicabs and Taxicab Drivers • As the council may recall, at the council meeting on June 27, 1983, there was an open hearing on ordinance revision prop- osals on the licensing criteria for taxicab and taxicab drivers. Durinq the discussion, concerns were expressed by some taxicab management representatives on additional ordinance revisions relating to the requirement for a physician's statement. At that time Mayor Hamilton directed Captain Richfield of the Police Division to look into these concerns and resolve these problems, if possible. It has been determined that the ordinance could be revised to require that each applicant complete a health history state- ment in lieu of the physician's certificate. This would still avail us the opportunity to assess the fitness of the applicant, but would not place additional financial burden on the majority of the applicants. It is the recommendation of the Public Safety Department, in which I concur, that the council give favorable consideration to the attached proposed amendment relating to the Taxi Driver Ordinance, and schedule the public hearing for September 12, 1983. Respectfully submitt~d, ~~ `~, Thomas A. .:organ , ~ r~ Acting City Manager cc: Public Safety Director TA.~1/ e j a • 1^'~E~D~iENT TO C~AP-;La J%, SECTIC.: h . 21 Oi= T"r"'~' O~DI'~A ':CE CODE Or THE' C! TT' 0~ ~IC?ir'! ~D Ci ~y Of ~iC;~~i«?1 ~i DOc~s Grda1:'i: Chapter VI, SeOt1Cn 6.~1 Gf ...._ G?~Gina:_ce Cc'de cif t}le C~ t~' Of P.1Chfleld dealing W1 ti: tr':e il0°riS1i:G anG regulatlOP. Of taXlCab drivers 1S hereby amend?d '.''~,~ a~:el"1C;1P.C r.:araQraph ~) of subdivision 4 thereo?= to read as fcilcws: "(3) He shall furnish a ee~~_fi.ea~.e-~u-a _~eenaed-N~:uere~ap state:~.ent on the form Drovided by the city e~e~=:°g at~estinc ~l.at he is ir. good physical condi~ion, :_as good eyesight and is nGt subject tc any disea.s~ or infirmity Gf body or mind which might render him unfit to operate a taxicab. In adds t? Gn to SUCK s =atement, the appli cart stay ;urnish, if ~-eau~r`u~ ~c nc so by the cit-; , additional in=orr.~~aticn concerning his ph~~sical condition, eyesight or health including a physician's certificate." Dassed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1983. John riamilton, Mayor ATTEST: S•;1'~'ia ~. Berah, City Cler._ • RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY TAXI DRI'JER HEALTH STATE~~EtJT Date dame Of Applicant Address Home~Phone Business Phone HEALTH HISTORY: Date Of Birth Age Height lei ght Have you been treated within the last year for any of the follouring? 1. Eye Problems Yes No If yes, explain Is your eyesight at least / corrected? Yes (Vo 2, r{eart Problems Yes 'Jo If yes , expl ai n 3, f~1ental or Nervous Problems '!es ~Jo If yes, explain 4. Alcohol Abuse Yes No If yes, explain 5. Drug Abuse Yes No If yes, explain 6. EpilepsylSeizures Yes Pao If yes, explain • 7. Are you currently taking prescribed medication? Yes If yes, what kind and for what reason 8. I certify that I have good eyesight and am not now subject to an_y disease or infirmity of body or mind a~hich might render, me unfit to operate a taxi cab. The above answers are true and complete and are given as a condition for obtain- ing a license to operate a taxicab in the city of Richfield. Any false or in- complete statements or failure to reveal a medical condition may be reason to deny or revoke the requested license. Signature of Applicant License may be issued License Investigator Doctor's Certificate Required No 7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of C it_y Manager ~~ Council Letter No. 289 Agenda August 22, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and :Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council P~~embers: Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Specially Assessing Current Maintenance Services - L/H/N Area The city council has scheduled a public hearing for August 22, 1903 to consider the establishment of a special assessment district for current maintenance services costs in the L/H/N re- development area. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to all owners of commercial property in the area and published in the official newspaper. The higher level of maintenance proposed to be provided in the area includes the trimming and watering of trees and plants, operation of a special street lighting system, removal of snow and ice from sidewalks and performance of other specialized maintenance functions. The estimated maintenance cost for the period January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1983 is $35,263. A11 commercial properties would be assessed on the basis of area, with each square ,foot of assessable property to be assessed equally, for the costs incurred in the maintenance of common areas such as street islands, the civic plaza, sidewalks and so forth. There is an agreement be- tween the city and many of the businesses that the business shall maintain the property behind the curb. In the event the city must do this maintenance, the particular business is assessed for the cost of the special, individual maintenance of direct benefit to the given property. At the conclusion of the August 22, 1983 public hearing it is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution ordering the L/Hj?`1 maintenance work to be done and the costs to be specially assessed. Respectfully submittei, ~. r~. ,~ Thomas A. Morgan Jr~. Acting City Manager T Al's? / e j a RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ORDERING UNDERTAKING OF CURREP~T SERVICE PROJECT L/H/N MAINTENANCE - JANUARY 1 1A83 - DECEMBER 31 1983 WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinance the City Council of the City of Richfield did establish a special assessment district and did propose that certain current services be undertaken by the city and that the cost of such services be specially assessed against benefitted property, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield did also by such resolution set the date of public hearing on the under- taking of such current service project and the levying of special assessment to bear the costs thereof, and WHEREAS, following due notice, such public hearing was held on August 22, 1983 at which time all interested parties desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. ?iOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the following examples of current services of the city shall be undertaken by the city within the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area, which area constitutes the special assessment district with the exception. of single family, two family ar.d multi-family residential properties, with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against benefitted property within the district: • Snow, ice or rubbish removal from sidewalks ; •Weed elimination from streets and private property; •Remcval and elimination of public health and safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 and 463.26; •Installation of and repair of mater service lines; •Street sprinkling and other dust treatment of streets; •Tree trimming and care of trees and removal of unsound trees from any street; •Treatment and removal of insect infested or diseased trees on prig°ate property; •Repair of sidewalks and alleys; •Operation of street lighting system; •Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities or, or adjacent to street right-of-way; !Snow removal and other maintenance of streets in the commercial redevelopment area; • 2. The work to be performed may be by day labor, by city force, by contract or by any combination thereof. 3. The designated period of the project shall be from January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1983. Costs of the project shall be collected. in the manner provided in Richfield Ordinance Code Sections 12.29, 12.30 and 12.31. Passed b_y the City Council of the City of Richfield this 22nd day of August, 1983. John Hamilton Mayor ATT~'ST S_yl.via K. Bergh City Cierk • • -"~'l~ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 288 Agenda August 22, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Public Hearing Regarding Adoption of Assessment Roll on CP 776, L/H/I~? Maintenance for the Period January 1, 19~~2 - December 31, 1982 The city council has scheduled a hearing to be held on August 22, 1983 related to the assessment for the cost of current main- tenance services in the L/H/?~? redevelopment area for the period January 1 through December 31, 1982. The city clerk, with the assistance of the city engineer and the facilities/project coordin- ator has calculated the proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land specially benefitted. The proposed assessment was properly filed with the city clerk, notice was duly published, and notices were mailed to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll. The cost of current maintenance services for this period totaled $27,168.59, and included, but were not necessarily limited to, one or more of the following, including labor, equipment and materials: Landscaping, including tree and turf management; Sidewalk sweeping in summer ; Snow removal in winter; Sidewalk de-icing; Painting and repair of wood Trash removal; trimming, sod replacement 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. C~ fern it~.~ re ; General maintenance, including repairs and replacement. As of this time, the city staff has received three inquiries regarding the assessment roll. One call related to payment schedules. The other two calls were related to purchase of prop- erty by the HRA during the assessment year. The public hearing prcvides an opportunity to all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed assessment. The city ordinance provides that special assessments for current services may be certified to the county auditor for collec- __ Council Letter No. 288 -2- August 22, 1983 tion along with taxes. This certification may provide that the . special assessments be completely paid either the first ten years or in up to ten annual installments. It has been, and continues to be, the staff recommendation that such payments be due and payable within the first year, rather than in installments. The adopted assessment roll for the period January 1 through December 31, 1982 would be certified with the county auditor by October 10, 1983. The city has the right to charge interest on the amount assessed in that the city provided the funds initially for the current services. It is the recommendation of the city staff that the interest rate be established at eight percent. Payment may be made by the assessed owner by 'N'ovember 15, 1983 in order to avoid interest payments. Payments made after that date would include the interest payment. Following the public hearinq, it is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution adopting the assessment on City Project 7~6, L/H/N Maintenance for the period January 1, December 31, 1982. The council may make changes in the assessment roll as a result of the hearing by adding the phrase "and has amended such proposed assessment as it deems just." TAM/eja Respectfully submitte , i' ~a/~ ~; c1, / Thomas A. ^TOrgan , Jr Acting City Manager RESOLE?T ION ~?0. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT ? 76 , L/H/N ~1AINTE~?ANCE FOR THE PERIOD JA1~1LiARY 1 1 982 - DECEMBER 31 , 1982 ^IHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council has met and passed upon all objections to the nropesed assessment for current services related to maintenance of the Lyndale/uub/Nicollet (L/H/N Redevelopment Area, which is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 6?th Street, and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield. NOPT, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Such proposed assessment roll, a copy of which is attached hereof, is hereby accepted and shall con- stitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein in- cluded is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed current services in the amount of assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable before or during 1984 and shall bear interest at the rate of eight percent from the date of adoption of this assess- ment resolution. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property to the city treasurer and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the city treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31, of the year in which payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. ?. The city clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the county auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessment shall be collected and paid ever in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 22nd day of August, 1983. ATT~ST. John Hamilton r?ayor Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk ~. 15 ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MI?~?NESOTA Office of C ity Manager Council Letter No. 287 Agenda August 22, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: subject: Proposed Amendment to Licensing Ordinance for Taxicabs and Taxicab Drivers As the council may recall, at the council meeting on June 27, 1983, there was an open hearing on ordinance revision prop- osals on the licensing criteria for taxicab and taxicab drivers. During the discussion, concerns were expressed by some taxicab management representatives on additional ordinance revisions relating to the requirement for a physician's statement. At that time Mayor Hamilton directed Captain Richfield of the Police • Division to look into these concerns and resolve these problems, if possible . It has been determined that the ordinance could be revised to require that each applicant complete a health history state- ment in 1 ieu of the physician ' s cert if icate . This would s till avail us the opportunity to assess the fitness of the applicant, but would not place additional financial burden on the majority of the applicants. It is the recommendation of the Public Safety Department, in which I concur, that the council give favorable consideration to the attached proposed amendment relating to the Taxi Driver Ordinance, and schedule the public hearing for September 12, 1983. Respectfully submitt~d, /~ ~ ~ ~~ Thomas A. ~ _organ , J~r~ Acting City Manager cc : Pub1 is Safety D irector TAM/eja r~ :ter-iEND~iE~'T TO CH P^Er VI , SECTION 6.21 Or T~?E CRDIN.=~<CE CODE OF THE CITY OF ~.TCi-i~ ~ ~I.D City of Richfield Does Ordain: Chapter VI, Section 6.21 of the Ordinance Ccde of the City of Richfield dealing with the licensing and reaulatior. of taxicab drivers is hereby amended by amending paragraph (3) cf subdivision 4 thereof to read as follows: "(3) He shall furnish a eAKt~=yee'e-bu_a ?~ee~eed-hue=e;an statem.er.t cn the form provided by the city s~ie~i:~e~ attesting that he is in good physical condition, has good eyesight and is pct subject to any disease or infirmity of body or mind which might render him unfit to operate a taxicab. In addition. to such statement, the a~nlicant s:r~all furnish, if reau~red tc do so by the city', additional information concerning his physical condition, eyesight or health! including a physician's certificate." Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1983. john riamilton, Mayor F_TTEST S°.°lvia K. Bergh, City Clerk RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY TAXI DRIVER HEALTH STATEPIEPJT Date game Of Applicant Address Home~Phone Business Phone HEALTH HISTORY: Date Of Birth Age Height ~~Jei ght Have you been treated within the last year for any of the following? 1. Eye Problems Yes No If yes, explain Is your eyesight at least / Yes (Vo 2. E~eart Problems Yes "Jo corrected? If yes, explain 3. h1ental or Nervous Problems 'f es ado If yes, explain • 4. Alcohol Abuse Yes No If yes, explain 5. Drug Abuse Yes No If yes, explain 6. EpilepsylSeizures Yes fdo If yes, explain • 7. Are you currently taking prescribed medication? Yes iVo If yes, what kind and for ~vhat reason 8. I certify that I have good eyesight and am not now subject to any disease or infirmity of body or mind avhich might render me unfit to operate a taxi cab. • • The above answers are true and complete and are given as a condition for obtain- ing a license to operate a taxicab in the City of Richfield. Any false or in- complete statements or failure to reveal a medical condition may be reason to deny or revoke the requested license. Signature of Applicant License may be issued License Investigator Doctor's Certificate Required '! CITY OF RICHFIELD, ~TT:~INESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 2~?6 Agenda August 22, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and :`embers of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Amended Off-Street Parking Permit for Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant, 220 West 66th Street On rlarch 14, 1983, the city council approved a special use permit and off-street parking permit to allow the construction of a 40-seat Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant at 220 West 66th Street. Subsequent to that approval, a problem has arisen re- lating to the location of the trash enclosure, which was to be located in the northwest corner of the site. It has been deter- mined that because of a steep drop in elevation in that area of the site, an expensive retaining wall would have to be constructed to allow the trash enclosure to be built at its previously approv- ed location. It was also determined that access to the trash enclosure by garbage trucks would be difficult because of the turning movements required for a truck to back-up to the enclosure. Representatives of submitted a revised site indicates that the trash its original location an~ eliminate the need for a access. Kentucky Fried Chicken have recently plan for city approval. The new plan enclosure would be relocated south of 3 turned approximately 4 50, This. would retaining ~.aall and also provide better The planning staff has reviewed the proposed change ar.d found the following: 1. The proposed change would eliminate three parking stalls. The restaurant would still have 22 parking stalls, eight more than would be required by c ity guide 1 fines . 2. The proposed relocation cf the trash enclosure would result in trash being more readily visible to 65th Street if the gates are not closed, or if the area is not properly maintained. • 3. The proposed relocation would result in additional landscaped area north and east cr the proposed trash enclosure. Council Letter ~~o. 286 -2- August 22, 1983 4. The proposed relocation would not adversely affect • traffic circulation on the site. 5. In reviewing the proposed change, the staff discov- ered that there is an NSP power pole and overhead wires on the site. In light of the effort to place utility lines in the L/H/N area underground, it would be appropriate to remove this power pole. This would require undergrounding the power lines to the pole from the feeder lines located on the railroad right-of-way, the installation of a pad- mount transformer, and the undergrounding of the service lines to the KFC Restaurant and to the ad- jacent commercial building to the west. The rest- aurant will be required to underground its service from the power pole in any case. NSP has indicated that they could do this, but certain costs would have to be paid by others. The planning staff will dis- cuss this with the adjacent property owners. Based on the foregoing information, it is recommended that the city council approve the revised site plan subject to the stipulat ion that power lines be placed underground on this site. Respectfully submitted, ~- ~ ~, • Thomas A. ~"_organ Jr~. Acting C ity ~?anager cc: Community Development Director TA.^~/ e j a ~J I F~ - 'd ~~ i ~~ ~~i ~i!I ~ i = I~ ~I ~~ ~I II J ii .~ t 1~r1 ~1 _ ...__ryr... -- ~ -- _~ _~• _ ~ ~ Y' 1 - x-11' ._"-' i ~ ~ y ~ I ~ 3 _ 1 ~ _ iL 1 r - a I~ _ ~ T~.t .. _____ __ . - - y r .. i ^ ~~ r ~ / t .' ~ /.~ ~ ~u ~ ~ 1 ~ L~ ' 'l _ ~ \ , ~ I I T ~ ' tro / ~ " d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~' J ~ ~' 3 ~ N ~ / ~ ICI .1 W C ~ ~ _ __ ~ r•J ~~'T _~-~y Y~~ I SY 111 `q F ~ •` 0 s{'~ ~ ~ J N .~ ~ r ' _ I ~ s ~ -, __ 4 ~x} -~ ~,r. - ~ _ o . L S -_ .I o_ • tee- ~ ~ ~i _ - 3 3 ~ r~~ ° i ~~ .~ rt ~S ~_ _ ~~ ~, ~~~ J D ®~ W I .x ~ sri u.~ ~ .'.UILOIAIG I I i r~ L • ~ ^JrTVld1 .-' ' r Q ~ ~ ~\ 2A o ~ ' ~ 28 c~-_- ~, ~. o ~ i ~ ~ ~~ y,,~ ~y~%3 ~ NYC r~ ~~` !~ ~ ~~~ ~i ~ ~ ~ '~' ~' y,~,:l -`- - - ~~ p o.~. ,} ; -~ a,TV~.o ~ yi 1 / vsvu..ca \.. ~ '' ~ ~, tnr~.$'rY+P~_ ~. A ~ . _ _ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ <, z8.rov~ eYrnw. w.~.. ,+~.+c _ C„e ~ I ~~ i ~ •~ ~ ~ c.~aaG.: - { ;; ~ yip ~~~° ~ ~ ® , ~~ -eo u; `. F~bv --~ ;~ au~c nwu i ~ . __,~ j 3 i cow .y~_ , . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . o..~, i EXI~iT11J9 ~W6 ~Y'eT[Jf esrx,u~uie5 ~ ~~>r ~, i ___ ._~ -ST S._ _._ _ .__ _ 4G.d _ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~sr 7f,cnJE J J _ T I ~ ~ I -- - ~ - 1y I ,, ~ i ii GAY ~ `\ ~ i _ 71 .G,.L. ~r0 '-YARD ~+C~+T ` .~ ~ i QSIVC^SPit -- ''-3's..a s- APPROVED PLAN ~,uc= _~- _ ~ S_ .~_~ a -~ ~~ { r CITY OF RICHFIELD, D1INT?ESOTA Office of City Manager ~y Council Letter '~o. 2£35 Agenda August 22, 1983 The honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance to Expand Existing Garage 6344 James Avenue Proposal John and Bonnie Manthey have requested a variance to expand an existing garage which does not meet the city's streetside sideyard setback requirements. The existing garage has, and ex- panded garage would have, a five-foot setback instead of the required 15 feet. The expanded garage would be no closer to the street than the existing garage. Zoning Ordinance Requirement erection 3.30, subdivision 5 requires that an accessory build- ing have a minimum streetside sideyard setback of 15 feet. Section 3.40, subdivision 6 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 present for a variance to be granted and has found no special circumstances on this site. This lot is sufficient in size and shape for residential use. Denial of this variance would not preclude reasonable use of this property, however, the resident could not construct an addition to their garage. While the proposed addition would match the setback of the existing garage, it would not be ir, character with the street- side setback of other neighboring garages. The staff investiga- tion has found that the aaracres in the area are setback on an average of 22 feet. The proposed setbac'.~ of five feet would not, therefore, be i_~ character ~;~ith typical corner-lot garage set- bac'.~cs found ir. the area. r1 LJ Council Letter lo. 285 -2- August 22, 1983 Staff Recommendation Because this proposal does not meet the three conditions necessary for granting a variance, staff recommends that the variance be denied. Planning Commission Recommendation At their July 26, 1983 meeting, the planning commission recommended that this variance be denied by a 8-0 vote. Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. ~~7organ , ' Jrr Acting City Manager TA~'~?/ e j a • • r • 0344 James Avenue South ?~ichfield, :~d 5jd23 June 3, 1983 Citq rlarnirg CoIP~IIi ssicn ~i ty Jouncii Cit~.l cf 3ichfieid o i OG' =~rt~.~ avenue 3ichfi eld, i'lid 55423 :Je would like the City of 3ichfield to grant a variance to enable us to build a 14 foot by l0 foot addition onto the west er_d of the existing single car ?~ara~e located at o344 James avenue. 'rre believe v that the location of the existing garage and our desire to maintain the shade-li'.se character of the backya~. make this reuosed addition the only way we can garage two cars without removing at least one, ar_d cossibly two, mature shade trees. ~ new detached double ~araKe y would, in our opinion, negatively af_°ec t 'he character of ±he backyard. ^he construction of this addition would necessitate a variance of ~ha 3.ichfield ordir_ance that requires a set back of 15 feet on the side street of a corner lot. 3cth the ex].Sting ~?ra~e and tha proposed addition are currently set back five feet from the pro_erty line and 21 feet from the curb . ~"he fro pos ed arage .adCiltiOn 41ii1 b e eritir ely identical in t 2'"'^c ~...... of desi~r:, appearanc e, and corstructicr~ wit. the exic .,_ng -arage. _. Site molar ~Or she CTO ~er,y 3i?C'.Jl^?' a..l exiStl nt Sii.w'c ~',:r5s and distances is encyosed wish th:.s let~er and vanianc- ac _cation. le :O ".e tiZat ..n ~ Jl liy OS' 1YiP_f i21~, ~hrOU~f'1 the rlailr~=_=~' .',~;tiLi;].3SlOn and ~i~ '.llty~~our~cil~1'_ grant our requested variance. ' ~ ~ _'. i ~~ ~/ orn i~ian trey ~orri e i':ar_they enclosures-2 • JUL ? 1 ;983 ~.fC:17i ^i p67oo PoRr~A,vy f~Y R&' : Jp~r,v rgtiD t~o.~.iiE /~fF.veyEy' 6 3 y-4c r1 ~4 ,H~-s ~{ v So ~, T tt ENTL F,..tEw ; ~8° 1~f~4 /~. i1lO ~cjc~~'~Tloy 7"~' TEfE ~'x pAivs ro .v ©NSTRGCCTIO,~/ rQ,S ~ESCRiC3e'p /N yau~ '7-1't-$3 /1?~ic,./y~ . S~„~.c~nE~. y i l~ E tiyETh~ C. , L3t~ T.-Q~ Ii2%'Y~ --~ ~ r/ ~! ..~ irO~f/ti E ~ c ~G.t Ti9 ~ ~0 3.27 ,~ ivo ~c /~ v ,So , ~~ ~ ~~ 86 ~- .5 ~1 ~/ • ,~ i ~~ ` ,~/ c ~~ s~1a3 7- LP~~~G~~~2a GG~G~ J ~~'~~ o~~ ~~~~ 3 ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~, ~ w ~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~' i~~Zu~?i .~.~~.e~ Lys, ~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ `` ~ ~. ~~~/ -J ~~a ~ ~~~Q~Sd `~~ 1 l;~ ~,~~ 3 in~a giro w N ~ ~.~ C;~y o7 ?iClll""" City of Rochfield: 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Gentlemen: A few days ago. I received from you a communication relative to an application by John ~'1ar,they for a variance from provisions for location of an extension to his garage. I did not keep the paper, but now wish to express my opinion about the matter. I cannot see how the variance would in any manner inconvenience or trouble anyone under the circumstances, It is my opinion and request that~the varance be granted,and that Mr. Manthey be permitted to construct the building as outlined. b'ery t my yours, enneth H, OaTly . 6327 James Ave. So. ~linneapoiis, Mn. 55423. • • 6400 James Ave, So, Richfield, MN 55423 July 26, 1983 Subject: Building Code Variance Aoolication 6344 James Ave. So., Richfield, MN Members of the Richfield Planning Commission: My residence is located directly across 64th Street from the subject property. From my backyard and kitchen window,. the proposed garage will be an overpowering structure to the North. The reasons for my opposing the approval of the subject variance application are as follows: 1, The proposed garage addition will adversely affect the visual quality of the neighborhood, redueing property values of surrounding homes. 2• A 14 feet by 3$ feet garage will not conform to the architectural character of other buildings in the neighborhood, 3. The existing. garage does not conform to Ordinan will the proposed garage addition. ce Building Codes, nor 4. Granting of the proposed variance will violate the city's Land Use Policies according to the Comprehensive Plan of Richfield. 5. There is adequate room in the applicant's backyard to build a double garage that conforms to other buildings in the neighborhood and to specifications dictated by Ordinance Building Codes. Copies of Land Use Policies from the Comprehensive Plan of Richfield are enclosed for your reference. Those policies that would be violated by approving the subject application are highlighted. I urge you to recommend to the Richfield City Council that the subject application for variance be denied. Sincerely,. -, ~' i / ~ ~~ ~ Pl L L (, lr'C ~ Ron Scriver RS:el Encl. • 3. To review and modify regulatory measures and proced- ures in recognition of the needs of .contemporary situations; the development policy will not be rigid and inflexible, but neither shall it be indiscrimin- ately permissive. 4. To require all public imnrove_*nent programs or private applications for rezonings,-special use permits, varian__ces_, o_r land subdivisions, be approved only if shown to be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan or any officially adopted redevelopment plans. 5. To prohibit development proposals which tend to pro- duce--undesired effects to the public health, safety, ~ convenience ana general welfare. 6. To encourage and extend full cooperation to new development proposals. However, the welfare of the general public and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. and the regulations of the city will be the primary guide in reviewing development proposals... 7. To__maintan compliance of all development with the intent, if not the letter, of regulations established by the City Council to guide and direct the develoA- ment within t_he community. 8. To provide the citizens of the community with compre- hensive and timely information on all aspects of the Comprehensive Guide Plan, new development proposals, zoning and other regulatory :measures adopted by the City Council. 9. To provide and maintain a complete set of policy statements, physical plans and development program strategies to serve as a relevant and purposeful reference to-guide private and public development within the community. i0. To continue to support the Richfield Historical Society in their function as an active watchdog for historic buildings. 3. Land Use Concept Policies Will Be: 1. To regulate existing and future development so it will not adversely affect adjacent land uses. • 2. To develop and enforce strong design standards requiring the use of open space, earthwork, land- scaping, and fences at the interface between residen- tial and non-residential land use. 3. To improve the rear of commercial properties that negatively impact .residential uses. 4. To encourage the. improvement of the visual environ- ment~ by~ establishrig~"design standards for building structure, lighting, signage, and other aspects of residential and non-residential development. 5. To include as major factors aesthetic considerations such as architectural style. and appearance, site desigh, development of open space and landscaping, in the acceptance of all development and redevelop- ment proposals both public and private. 6. To unify new construction with existing development through the use of a common palette of materials or design theme. 7. To renovate existing strong retail commercial esta- blishments within the city. 8. To require commercial development to provide adequate off-street parking and one-site aesL~,hetic improve- ments. C. Land Use Control Policies Will Be: 1. To provide for separate areas wit:~in the community for residential, commercial and industrial land uses, and to provide for public community facilities, neighborhood facilities and private institutional facilities . 2. To regulate indus~~.rial and commercial developments within the community so that they shall not consti- tute a "spot zone", meaning: a single location com- pletely surrounded by a different land use classi- fication. 3. To deny rezonings unless the proposal is shown to be in accordance with the intent of the Comprehen- sive Plan, Redevelopment. Plans, and the Zoning Ord- finance . -, i ~ ^'" JKrn~s ~"-. ~ ~ s ~ t ~[ h ~ .C-O ~ a,~_ V F ~ ~~ ~ .1 I~ C ` v ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ _ ~~;~ „ 5 ~, _ ,~ \~ ,o ~~ ~~~}_ ~~ +- o ~ ~ ~ c 5 F ;, ~ .-. ,~~ ~ ~ )~ ~e 4Z~ C ~. ~ U ~~~~ ~~, , i 1J r\ {~ ,~ ". /y f\~ \\ \ ~ ~fb f ~- ~. 3~i r = ~~• ~ ~ ~ T7 i \~ ~,W ~ i ~ se ~ ~ ~e r '~ C~ ~ ~~ A ~~ <; ~~~- Tloc' ~ 'C , ~ ~~ ,. ~ ~ ~ n / ~;~ ~ ~~ v ~\ v ~ I --~--~.-_ ~\ \ \~ \ \ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ i ~~~ \ 0`~ ~`, ~,\ ~ , r ~ '\ \ ~ ;~ ~ . ~ ~~ \ ~~, , \ ,! \~\~~~, ~~ ~ ~, ~ I ~. ~~ \ \ ~ ~ i '~ 1 ~ \ \ \~, \ \ ~~ \ \ \ ~ ~~ , ~ `. ~ ' \ _ - - ~: ~: • ..~ i~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MIS:NESOTA Office of City P~lanager Council Letter No. 284 Agenda August 22, 1983 The Honorable b.ayor and Llembers of the City Council City of Richf field Council ~~embers Subject: Requests for Residential Kennel Licenses and Waiver of License ~'ee • There are five requests for residential kennel licenses listed on the August 22, 1983 city council agenda. Four of the applicants have four dogs or cats, and one has three dogs. One of the applicants, Karen Hughes, 7527 Penn Avenue, Apartment ~6, has also requested that the city council waive the required residential kennel license fee ($43) for her four cats. Attached to this council letter is a copy of a petition supporting the license request and fee waiver, which has been signed by the occupants of six of the apartment units. City Ordinance Chapter V, Section 5.28, subdivision 3 provides that ".... when an applicant has more than two dogs or two cats over six months of age, but no more than four such animals, and the city council determines that keeping such animals upon the applicant's property will not have, or will not be likely to have, any adverse effect upon adjacent properties or the occupancy thereof, the council may waive the requirement for a residential kennel license fee." Because the nuisance potential is greatly increased when people have more than two dogs or cats, the city requires that they obtain a kennel license. The city also incurs inspection expenses for each license application. So far in 19`?3, twelve people have applied for residential kennel licenses. Two have been previously approved, five are listed on this agenda, and the remaining five will be placed on upcoming council agendas. Norse of the other applicants have requested that the fee be waived. Since the ordinance was amended in the fall of 1982 to provide for a fee waiver, the fee has been waived on 1_y once, in the case of a person who had four cats. Because the staff believes that the keeping of four cats may have an adverse effect upon the present occupants of the __ Council Letter Tio. 2~4 -2- August 22, 193 apartment building, or on tenants who may move into the build- ing the future, and because there are inspectional costs in- curred in reviewing the license request, it is recommended that the city council deny this request for a fee waived kennel license. St is further recommended that the five residential kennel licenses be approved. Respectfully submitted,' Thomas A. i~iorgan , ~ . Acting City i~7anager cc: City Clerk TA:~1/ e j a • ~_ . L .„ y J ~- --.. _ica::t's cddress:_,5~~ ~O£~ ~ ~ . lx =~esldential Kennel $ _ ..i. _ ~ .-__~c~nt s Tcleoncne Nu:::ber:~lo~ _ lR9r, _ Cc~. Terc~al :~ennel $ ~_ :;a~e._~a .'OT?.I. :=`.oUNT DUE $ y3, ~e ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~s• rd~-ess: A ~~1 ?LS- ':eye: hcne v~ber: /Uf} - T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L we; '~ereb r r ~ y ag_ee ~o operate s ~ ;.. uc., bus_.less in acco try rda .~ o=~_::ances of the Cat F ~,.:: ace with the laws of Minnesota and y of nic..~leld. The for g to the best of .^: knowledge e Ding statements are true and correct and belief. :authorized Signature: - - - - - - - - - - - Date; ~v l -------------------- -~-~ 9~',~ (C:, Sete fcr :cesident~al Ker~.-lel only. ~~'= D= CONTIGUOUS PRO?E~iy O~~EBS~TO _ ... :tES'DE`7T1aL KE*; :v EL rc place where more than two cuaii_`ed for resident; al purao~e5or `wo cats are Wept ca pre:..ises c,whic., are zoned and -~ t:';e OCCUpal`1Cj' Oi the premises foraresinere~ t.,.e ~:ee/yPg Of Su Ch dogs Or Cats iS incidental cent_a_ PurCOS'es.) ~_~_ _ia .ce Code S. 28 . Subd.3, states: "i!-:e appl ::e ~!C.:^,:.`.a.^.leQ bV a f72tit10:1 Sn0»'i-;g t~2 a^v~0`altlOn tOr a re51^.~Cntidl Kennel i1C"^.Se sI)a11 estate a'~ ,r.; - r. of the occupants c~ -~ ate' o L~~_.. ~ 1 rrly _y cwned real ^g t e premises on which the fennel is to be located. wnether or not all cf the ~CCUp:: ;tS O apL'Lt1n *+-~p 6`~ Yl pert}' apprOVe the appliCatiOn, tale ~OllnC:l m3V grant Or defy the license. one license shall not be granted unless the Council :rods that the use of the •-=cant's premises as a residential kennel will not nave cr w a - ac-:9erse effect upon. adiacent pro , iwl ..et be likely to ~:ave, pert_es or the o cu^.anc~• T '~ =:'~-:>c.'?Ce LO t7e nelgnbCr!-100d. C ---"-CI"eCf , a17d ~~ 1 nOt - - ine Ccuncil ~.ay i. ~ ~` cc.at-~utc -es; ~^ ~ ~ ~pese condltior.s upon tale granting cf any _c~. _ia~. Fennel license. - --=..--~_ A?=:cOV~ OF A ~.SIDE.vTI_.Ir ,- - KENh~L ON _._- ?R^~ISES Oc . ~.~v~~ ~,~,CJ,t/' ~ C' ~ ~ . __------------- --____ -75a7 ~P~„ .,.~ ~ ~s _gned- Date; ~n 1 J J • July 8, 1983 To `~Ihom it May Concern: 'rle have peen advised of the laws concerning the ownership and Boarding of animals as stated i_n Chapter 5, Fart SII of the ordinances in this regard, and wish to appeal under 5.28, Subdivision 3, Approval of Contiguous Property Owners, that the Council waive the requirement for a Residential Kennel License Fee. `.~1e, the undersigned hereby petition to show our approval for a Residential Kennel at 7527 Penn Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota, of which we are ail tenants, and can determine no adverse effects on the occupancy thereof. 0 ~~`~ ~~~~ - ~s~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ .~. #~ ~~ ~~ ~a z ~oP~'.ri~;~ ~~ etiS~raEV~ ~:~n,nerr5atr~~t ~,~~~7artu any C~rsualttf ~;rsu~ayrce ~1u1 G~,b1BLc ~R1A'E ~I_ii~E ,Oa ~~ LOUIS SARK ~1i'~;~~~0?~ --~ ~ -~ ,=';;g8 ~- ~ 3 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, ^1I`?NESOTA Office of C ity i~'anager Council Letter No. 283 Agenda August 22, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and .'embers of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Fee-Waived Gambling License, Richfield Intermediate School The Richfield Intermediate School rias applied for a gambling license to hold a raffle to raise funds to send 3CC sixth grade students to the Environmental Learning Center at Isabella, `-?N. The raffle would be held between October 1, and December 10, 1983. They have requested that the fee for this license be waived, as well as the bonding requirements. ^1r. Robert Burkard, ?139 14th Avenue is the desia_nated gambling manager for this activity. It is recommended that the request for a fee waived gambling license be granted to the Richfield Intermediate School as re- quested. Respectfully submittei, ~~ ~ ~ Thomas A . ~?organ ; Jf .,( Acting City Manager cc: City Clerk TA:'~1/ e j a ~/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, i~'~I~1i~ESOTA Office of City ~^anager Council Letter :~?o. 282 Agenda August 22, 1983 The Honorable ?~~ayor and ~`~embers of the City Council City of Richfield Council rlembers: Subject: Donation to the City of Richfield P•^s . ~~arian Husbands , a representative of the Richfield Lioness Club, has requested an opportunity to appear before the City Council to present a check tc the city at the August 22, 1933 meeting. The Richfield Lioness Club wishes to donate funds to be used at the Richfield Community Center. N1s. Lil Hipp, Community Center ~^anager, will also be present at this meeting to accept this donation on behalf of the city . Respectfully submitte , Thomas A. `,?organ,jJ~.~ Acting City ~?anager cc: Community Services Director TA~ti^_/ e j a