06-13-83 agenda
0
;i?a7X
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 221
Agenda June 1 3 , 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Resolution Setting a Public Hearing for
7:00 p.m. July 11, 1983 to Consider Commercial
Development Revenue Bonds of $4,750,000 for
Richfield Shoppes Developers
J
Attached is a proposed resolution setting a time and date
of public hearing for this matter. The staff is aware that
the city council is not familiar with this proposal. However,
the resolution has been requested by the developers to meet
their schedule for financing and construction.
Richfield Shoppes Developers are proposing to use the commer-
cial development revenue bond financing to redevelop approximately
40,000 square feet of retail shopping facilities at the north-
east and southeast corners of 66th Street and Nicollet within
the L/H/N redevelopment area. A detailed presentation regarding
the redevelopment proposal will be made on or before the date
of the public hearing, perhaps at a joint study session of the
city council and the HRA.
It is recommended
June 13, 1983 adopt
of hearing for July
that the city council at its meeting of
the attached resolution setting the date
11, 1983.
Respectfully submitted,
I I )?? nj't'?
arl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
•
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RICHFIELD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was
held at the City Hall in said City on Monday, June 13, 1983,
commencing at 7:00 o'clock P.M.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
•
The following resolution was presented by Councilmember
who moved its adoption, the reading of
which was dispensed with by unanimous consent:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING
ON A PROPOSED PROJECT UNDER THE
MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT ACT.
WHEREAS, Richfield Shoppes Developers, a Minnesota partnership
(the "Company") has proposed that the City undertake and finance a
project under the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 474 (the "Act"); and
WHEREAS, the Act and federal regulations require that a public
hearing on the proposed project be conducted by the Council before any
action may be taken by it relative to the proposed project:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
18 Richfield:
1. The Council shall meet at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, July 11, 1983
to conduct a public hearing on the proposed project
requested by the Company and to take whatever action in
relation thereto as it deems appropriate.
2. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to publish notice
of the hearing in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A once
in the official newspaper and once in the Minneapolis
Star-Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in the
City, no less than 15 days prior to July 11, 1983.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by Councilmember and upon vote
being taken thereon, the following voted in favor of the motion:
and the following voted against:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
•
•
Exhibit A
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON COMIIMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota will meet in the Council chambers in the City
Hall in the City of Richfield at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, July 11, 1983,
to conduct a public hearing on a proposal that the City undertake and
finance a project under the Municipal Industrial Development Act,
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474.
The project is proposed by Richfield Shoppes Developers (the
"Company") and consists of the acquisition and improvement of land in
the City and the construction and equipping thereon of an approxi-
mately 40,000 square foot retail shopping center facility and related
site improvements ("Project"). The Project is proposed to be located
on land in the Northeast and Southeast quadrants of the intersection
of 66th Street and Nicollet Avenue in the LHN Redevelopment Project
area in the City. The principal amount of bonds or other obligations
proposed to be issued by the City to finance the project is estimated
to be not in excess of $4,750,000.
A draft copy of a proposed application to the Minnesota Depart-
ment of Energy, Planning and Development, together with all attach-
ments and exhibits thereto, is available for public inspection at the
office of the City Clerk in the City Hall, City of Richfield,
Minnesota during regular City business hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
daily, except Saturdays, Sundays and holidays).
Any person wishing to express a view with respect to the proposal
to undertake and finance the Project will be heard at the public
hearing.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
/s/ Sylvia Ber h
City Clerk
Dated: June 13, 1983.
0
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) -
CITY OF RICHFIELD )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City
Clerk of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I
have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of a
regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on Monday,
June 13, 1983, with the original thereof on file in my office and the
same is a full, true and correct copy thereof, insofar as the same
related to the setting of a public hearing on a proposed Commercial
Development Project of Richfield Shoppes Developers.
WITNESS My hand as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of the
City this day of , 1983.
City Clerk
City of Richfield, Minnesota
(SEAL)
•
1?
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
?y
Council Letter No.220
Agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Legislative Report Update
•
•
This council letter will go through the major changes in
legislation which occurred in 1983 Legislative Sessions of im-
portance to the city of Richfield. Each area will be discussed
under topical categories.
Finance and Revenue - Omnibus Tax Bill
The Omnibus Tax Bill has significant changes which affect the
City of Richfield and its financial status. The first relates
to the property tax system. One section of the bill provides
that residential homestead shall be assessed as follows for the
taxes payable in 1984 and thereafter:
Current New
First $27,000 market at 16%, next First $30,000 market value at
$27,000 market value at 22%, estimated 17%, next $30,000 market
market value in excess of $52,000 at value at 19%, market value
23% in excess of $60,000 at 30%
The impact of this change is that an $80,000 home would be assessed
in 1983 for $18,100, while an $80,000 home in 1984 will be assessed
in 1934 for$16,800. Even with the 1.4% increase that was put into
effect on market value in 1984, market value in 1984 would only go
up to $17,136. The homestead credit percentages decrease from the
present 58% of tax to 54%, while the maximum credit remains at
$650. Homestead credit will apply only to the gross tax of the
first $67,000 of the market value. On the average homeowner in
Richfield that will still mean that they will receive the full $650
of homestead credit. The lower priced homes in Richfield, however,
will be affected adversely by this provision.
Levy limits were also adjusted for the 1984 city budget. Basically
the levy limit on the property tax increases will be a combination
of taking the 1983 levy limit plus the 1983 local government aid
and the amount of special assessments levied to cover general
operation and maintenance costs in 1933 and increasing it by either
the implicit price deflater, or 5%, whichever is greater. The
The implicit price deflater is the number for government purchases
for goods and services for state and local government prepared by
the Bureau of Economic Analysis of United States Department of
Commerce for the 12-month period ending in June of the levy year.
It appears that the 5% provision will apply for 1984. Additionally,
there is a provision whereby any governmental division which re-
duced any of its unreserved undesignated fund balances because of
spending for non-special levy purposes in the calendar year 1981,
is authorized to apply to the Commission of Revenue for a base ad-
justment. If approved by the Commission, the levy limit base is
subject to reverse referendum. Richfield did not utilize all of
its levy limit in 1981 by some $700,000. However, it may not be
easy to justify that we reduced any of our unreserved, undesignated
fund balances. The city staff will continue to pursue this element
however. Any increase in local government aid in 1984 will by
necessity decrease the amount of levy by the city for next year.
The City of Richfield fared quite well in local government aids
for 1984. In 1983 our certified amount was $2,496,694. For 1984
we will receive $2,645,000 which is a 5.9% increase. The levy
limit formula which was adopted in the bill is beneficial to the
City of Richfield as well as other central and first ring suburban
cities. Those communities which already have low tax rate as a
result of high assessed value will receive less local government
aid in 1984. However, they will not have to increase in 1984 the
property tax by more than 3/4 of one mill in order to make up for
their reduction which would occur in subsequent years. The
Commissioner of Revenue has to notify the city by August 15 of the
• aid amount as well as the factors which are being used to calculate
that aid.
The Omnibus Tax bill also adjusted the property tax law requiring
that real estate tax payments be made on May 15 (instead of May
31) and October 15 (instead of October 31) in 1984. This will
increase the cash flow to the city for property tax payments.
Another portion of the Omnibus Tax bill allows any city by ordinance
to impose a tax on the gross receipts of lodging sales at a rate
of up to 3%, 95% of the proceeds of that tax must go for tourism
promotion. There may be some desire on the part of the city or
the Chamber of Commerce to pursue this matter.
The City of Richfield was successful in obtaining a bill amending
Minnesota Statutes 444.075 relating to storm sewer system financing.
The bill allows the imposition of availability and connection charges
for the financing of storm sewer systems, including mains, holding
areas, ponds and related facilities. The law became effective on
May 20, 1983. This will allow the City of Richfield to impose
user charges for storm sewer improvements. At the June 27, 1983
city council meeting, a study session will be held to give the
city council a complete review of the storm sewer improvements
required to finalize the city of Richfield's storm sewer system
and the impact of a user charge.
• General Government
The Day Labor Bill which would have mandated city governments to
contract out certain public works contracts for over $50,000 was
-3-
49 laid over for further study by the State Legislature. Another
law required that any meeting open to the public have at least
one copy of the materials relating to the agenda items of the
meeting which the city council or its employee prepare, or which
are distributed to the city council members, be available for
the public to read.
Hous ing
•
•
The legislature passed a bill prohibiting rent control ordinances
by local municipalities, but this bill was vetoed by Governor
Perpich. As a result, each city individually still decides as
to rental control ordinances. The City of Richfield was success-
ful in getting an energy bonding proposal passed which would allow
the city of Richfield to make loans to private dwellings for the
purpose of energy improvements. As you may recall, the city has
a $35,000 budget in 1983 for an energy program in the city which
would be a comprehensive energy effort. We put program on hold
until such time as we knew the financial status of the city in
1983 and 1984.
It appears that the comprehensive eneray program should move for-
ward at this time as a result of the stable financial situation
which the city finds itself in for 1983 and 1984. The energy
bill which was passed will help the city and its comprehensive
energy program.
By acceptance of this legislative
consider direction to pursue the
steps towards its implementation.
report, the city staff will
energy program and to begin
Liquor and Beer Laws
A bill was passed which makes it lawful for an off-sale liquor
store to provide samples of wines, liqu cers, and cordials, which
the city currently has in stock and is offering for sale. No
license is needed provided. that the city dispenses the samples
at no charge and persons consume them on the premises during
permitted hours and in a quantity less than 50 millimeters of
wine per variety per customer and 25 millimeters of liquoer or
cordials variety per customer. Additionally, a law was passed
eliminating the ban of sales of liquor between 1:00 a.m. and 8:00
p.m. on the day of any statewide election, but a provision was
added that prohibits the sale of liquor after 8:00 p.m. on Christmas
Eve.
The city staff will pursue an ordinance changing our local code
to allow for liquor sales on election day.
Pensions
The 2s additional employee contribution for PERA will terminate
on the last full pay period before July 1, 1933. Deductions for
the first six months of this year will be refunded with interest
-4-
at the time of termination or retirement. Public employees will
• no longer be subject to this 20 tax.
The provision of pension changes on PERA to allow for the rule
of 85 (unreduced early retirement when age and years of service
equal 35) was laid over for further study. A provision, while
being a attractive retirement provision, would be costly to the
city.
Personnel Administration
The Public Employees Labor Relations amendment law was changed
slightly to redefine a public employee as somebody who works 67
days as opposed to the previous definition of 100 days. This
still exempts full time students under the age of 22, however,
so we can continue to provide employment for summer purposes. The
final law did not, however, change the definition of supervisor
so that all foreman and above level in the city of Richfield will
continue to be considered supervisors in our community.
General
The state passed a law indicating that ordinary expenses a city
fire department incurs in extinguishing a grass fire within the
right-of-way of a trunk highway have to be reimbursed to the city.
As you are aware, gasoline tax was increased early in the session,
is which means increased revenues to the city of Richfield.
An additional law was passed revising the building movers statutes
in a number of ways, and also indicating that cities can only issue
permits to state licensed movers.
These are the general in the state law for 1984, there is significant
minor items which the city staff will continue to update on.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN?eja
0
;?4
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
•
Council Letter No. 219
Agenda June 13,1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Assessment Hearing for CP 757, Reconstruction of
Lyndale Avenue, Lake Shore Drive to 74th Street
The city council has set the date of the special assessment
hearing for City Project 757, Reconstruction of Lyndale Avenue,
Lake Shore Drive to 74th Street, for June 13. The city has sent
each property owner a notice of the proposed assessment for their
property, and of the public hearing scheduled before the city
council on June 13, 1983.
The term of the proposed assessment is 20 years, with in-
terest to be paid on the unpaid balance of the special assessment
each year. Although permanent financing for these improvements
has not yet been arranged, it is recommended that the city council
set an interest rate of ten percent for the assessment. This rate
is recommended based upon discussions held with the city's finan-
cial consultant.
A property owner has several financing alternatives to meet
the assessment obligation:
1. Prepavment in Full - No Interest. Under state law, a prop-
erty owner may prepay his or her special assessment without
interest if paid in full within 30 days after the city
council adopts the assessment roll. However, under
present Hennepin County policy, Richfield may accept
• special assessment prepayments until the November 15 deadline.
Council Letter No. 219 -2-
2. Partial Prepayment - Reduction of Interest Rate. In the
year of adoption, partial prepayment of an assessment in
any amount of $100 increments is allowed if the original
amount of the assessment is $300 or more and such partial
prepayment is made within 30 days after adoption of the
assessment roll. Such partial prepayments pay no in-
terest charge. The unpaid balance will be respread over
the life of the adopted roll.
3. Certification. The adopted assessment will be certified
to Hennepin County and spread in equal annual install-
ments with interest on the unpaid principal. Such in-
terest is calculated from the date of adopting the assess-
ment and each annual installment includes interest through
December 31 of the year of collection. The principal
and interest are shown on the property tax statement.
4. Payment in Full of Any Unpaid Balance - Cancellation of
Future Interest. At any time during the life of the
assessment, the property owner may pay the unpaid balance
of any principal. Such payment will cancel future inter-
est and interest and installments not certified to the
county from appearing on the next year's property tax
statement.
• 5. Deferment of Special Assessments Against Owner-Occupied
Homestead Properties of Persons over 65 Years of Age or
Permanently and Totallv Disabled . It is the policy of
the city to consider requests for the deferment of special
assessments upon homestead properties owned by persons 65
years of age or older or by persons retired by virtue of
a permanent total disability for whom it would be a hard-
ship to make payment of such special assessments.
A qualifying hardship shall be deemed to exist if the
owner of the homestead property and other occupants of
the homestead taken together, (a) had a gross income of
less than $11,000 in the previous calendar year and (b)
will have an estimated income for the current calendar
year and subsequent years which will not exceed said sum.
Application for deferral of payment of special assessments
shall be made available from the city assessing division.
It is recommended that the city council receive testimony from
affected property owners at the public hearing. At the close of
the public hearing, it is recommended that the city council adopt
the attached resolution, adopting the C.P. 757 special assessment
roll, as proposed.
0 Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
-r r1
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON
CITY PROJECT 757, RECONSTRUCTION OF LYNDALE AVENUE
LAKE SHORE DRIVE TO 74TH STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the city clerk has, with the assistance of the city
engineer, calculated the proper amounts to be assessed for City
Project 757, Reconstruction of Lyndale Avenue, Lake Shore Drive to
74th Street against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land
specially benefited thereby in accordance with the provisions of
law, and the proposed assessment so made up was filed with the
city clerk for more than 15 days prior to the assessment hearing
and was open to public inspection during said period.
2. That notice has been duly published and a public hearing
heretofore duly held as required by law so that this council could
meet and pass upon the proposed assessment.
3. That an opportunity has been given to all interested
persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed
assessment or to any item thereof at said public hearing.
4. That the city council has heretofore duly established
City Project No. 757 and after carefully considering all the facts,
the benefits to each lot, piece or parcel of land and fully
advising itself in the premises, has found and determined and
hereby declares that each and every lot, piece, or parcel of land
included in said proposed assessment roll was improved by reason
of the construction of said City Project No. 757 and has been and
is especially benefited in the amount set out in the attached
assessment roll opposite each such lot, piece or parcel of land.
5. The sums fixed and named in said attached assessment roll
are affirmed, adopted and confirmed as the proper special assess-
ment for each of said lots, pieces, or parcels of land therein
described.
6. Said assessment is hereby affirmed, adopted, confirmed,
and shall be certified by the city clerk and filed in the office
of the city clerk, and shall thereupon be and constitute a special
assessment for said City Project No. 757, Reconstruction of Lyndale
Avenue, Lake Shore Drive to 74th Street.
11
-2-
7. The assessment with accruing interest, shall be a lien
upon the property included therein, concurrent with general taxes
and shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over
a period of five years. The first installment shall be payable
on the first Monday in January of 1984. All assessments shall
bear interest at a rate at or below the legally authorized limit.
All assessments and interest thereon shall be collected and
paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
13th day of June, 1983.
John Hamilton, Mayor
•
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 218
Agenda June 13,1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Assessment Hearing for CP 772, 1982 Sidewalk
Improvements
The city council has set the date of the special assessment
hearing for City Project 772, 1982 Sidewalk Improvements for June 13.
The city has sent each property owner a notice of the proposed
assessment for their property, and of the public hearing scheduled
before the city council on June 13, 1983.
For sidewalk improvements, residential property owners are
assessed 20% of the cost per assessable foot; commercial properties
i are assessed 50% of the cost per abutting foot. These proportionate
costs for this project are $2.35 per assessable foot for residential
properties, and $5.87 per abutting foot for commercial property.
The term of the proposed assessment ?s 5 years, with in-
terest to be paid on the unpaid balance of the special assessment
each year. Although permanent financing for these improvements
has not vet been arranged, it is recommended that the city council
set an interest rate of ten percent for the assessment. This rate
is recommended based upon discussions held with the city's _= an-
cial consultant.
A property owner has several financin(, alternatives to meet
the assessment obligation:
1 Prepayment in Full - No Interest. Under state law, a prop-
erzy owner may prepay his or her special assessment without
interest if paid in full within 30 days after the city
council adopts the assessment roll. -iowever, under
present Hennepin County policy, Richfield may accent
special assessment prepayments until the November 13 deadline.
49
Council Letter No. 218 -2-
2. Partial Prepayment - Reduction of Interest Rate. In the
year of adoption, partial prepayment of an assessment in
any amount of $100 increments is allowed if the original
amount of the assessment is $300 or more and such partial
prepayment is made within 30 days after adoption of the
assessment roll. Such partial prepayments pay no in-
terest charge. The unpaid balance will be respread over
the life of the adopted roll.
3. Certification. The adopted assessment will be certified
to Hennepin County and spread in equal annual install-
ments with interest on the unpaid principal. Such in-
terest is calculated from the date of adopting the assess-
ment and each annual installment includes interest through
December 31 of the year of collection. The principal
and interest are shown on the property tax statement.
4. Payment in Full of Any Unpaid Balance - Cancellation of
Future Interest. At any time during the life of the
assessment, the property owner may pay the unpaid balance
of any principal. Such payment will cancel future inter-
est and interest and installments not certified to the
county from appearing on the next year's property.tax
statement.
5. Deferment of Special Assessments Against Owner-Occupied
Homestead Properties of Persons over 65 Years of Age or
Permanently and Totally Disabled . It is the policy of
the city to consider requests for the deferment of special
assessments upon homestead properties owned by persons 65
years of age or older or by persons retired by virtue of
a permanent total disability for whom it would be a hard-
ship to make payment of such special assessments.
A qualifying hardship shall be deemed to exist if the
owner of the homestead property and other occupants of
the homestead taken together, (a) had a gross income of
less than $11,000 in the previous calendar year and (b)
will have an estimated income for the current calendar
year and subsequent years which will not exceed said sum.
Application for deferral of payment of special assessments
shall be made available from the city assessing division.
It is recommended that the city council receive testimony from
affected property owners at the.public hearing. At the close of
the public hearing, it is recommended that the city council adopt
the attached resolution, adopting the C.P. 772 special assessment
roll, as proposed.
• Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
Citv Manaaer
FN/eja
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON
CITY PROJECT 772, 1982 SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
E assessment or to any item thereof at said public hearing.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the city clerk has, with the assistance of the city
engineer, calculated the proper amounts to be assessed for City
Project 772, 1982 Sidewalk Improvements against every assessable
lot, piece, or parcel of land specially benefited thereby in
accordance with the provisions of law, and the proposed assessment
so made up was filed with the city clerk for more than 15 days
prior to the assessment hearing and was open to public inspection
during said period.
2. That notice has been duly published and public hearing
heretofore duly held as required by law so that this council could
meet and pass upon the proposed assessment.
3. That an opportunity has been given to all interested
persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed
4. That the city council has heretofore duly established City
Project No. 772 and after carefully considering all the facts, the
benefits to each lot, piece or parcel of land and fully advising
itself in the premises, has found and determined and hereby declares
that each and every lot, piece, or parcel of land included in said
proposed assessment roll was improved by reason of the construction
of said City Project No. 772, and has been and is specially benefited
in the amount set out in the attached assessment roll opposite each
such lot, piece or parcel of land.
5. The sums fixed and named in said attached assessment roll
are affirmed, adopted and confirmed as the proper special assess-
ment for each of said lots, pieces, or parcels of land therein
described.
6. Said assessment is hereby affirmed, adopted, confirmed,
and shall be certified by the city clerk and filed in the office
of the city clerk, and shall thereupon be and constitute a special
assessment for said City Project No. 772 Sidewalk Improvements.
0
-2-
7. The assessment with accruing interest, shall be a lien
40 upon the property included therein, concurrent with general taxes
and shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over
a period of five years. The first installment shall be payable
on the first Monday in January of 1984. All assessments shall
bear interest at a rate at or below the legally authorized limit.
All assessments and interest thereon shall be collected and
paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
13th day of June, 1983.
John Hamilton, Mayor
0
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
C77 Y 7_Y OF RICr.'FIFLD, _..: SCTA
• Office cf City anacer
Ccur_cil Letter ::c. 217
agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Assessment Hearing for CP 775, 1982
Alley Paving Project
The city council has set the date of the special assessment
hearing for City Project 775, 1982 Alley Paving, for June 13.
Each property owner has been sent a notice of the proposed assess-
ment for their property, and of the public hearing scheduled before
the city council on June 13, 1983. Attached is a copy of the alley
assessment policy.
The residential assessment rate was $16.25 per assessable foot;
the commercial assessment rate was $24.38 per abutting foot. The
residential cost of $16.25 per assessable foot was significantly
lower than the estimated cost of $18.50 per foot.
The term of the prcpcsed assessment is20 years, with in-
terest to be paid on the unpaid balance of the special assessment
each vear. Although permanent financinc for these improvements
has not vet been arranced, it is recommended that the city council
set an interest rate of ten percent fcr the assessment. This rate
is recommended based upon discussions held with the city's finan-
cial consultant.
A property owner has several fi:ancinu alternatives to meet
assessment oblication:
1. Prepavment in Full - No Interest. under
erty owner may prepay his or her special
interest if paid in full within 30 days
council adopts the assessment roll. How
Q?u present Hennepin County policy, Richf iel,
GSspecial assessment prepayments until the
j
state law, a preT,--
assessment without
after the city
ever, under
a may accept
November 15 deadl ir.e .
Council Letter No. 217 -2-
2. Partial Prepayment - Reduction of Interest Rate. In the
year of adoption, partial prepayment of an assessment in
any amount of $100 increments is allowed if the original
amount of the assessment is $300 or more and such partial
prepayment is made within 30 days after adoption of the
assessment roll. Such partial prepayments pay no in-
terest charge. The unpaid balance will be respread over
the life of the adopted roll.
3. Certification. The adopted assessment will be certified
to Hennepin County and spread in equal annual install-
ments with interest on the unpaid principal. Such in-
terest is calculated from the date of adopting the assess-
ment and each annual installment includes interest through
December 31 of the year of collection. The principal
and interest are shown on the property tax statement.
4. Payment in Full of Any Unpaid Balance - Cancellation of
Future Interest. At any time during the life of the
assessment, the property owner may pay the unpaid balance
of any principal. Such payment will cancel future inter-
est and interest and installments not certified to the
county from appearing on the next year's property tax
statement.
• 5. Deferment of Special Assessments Against Owner-Occupied
Homestead Properties of Persons over 65 Years of Aae or
Permanently and Totally Disabled . It is the policy of
the city to consider requests for the deferment of special
assessments upon homestead properties owned by persons 65
years of age or older or by persons retired by virtue of
a permanent total disability for whom it would be a hard-
ship to make payment of such special assessments.
A qualifying hardship shall be deemed to exist if the
owner of the homestead property and other occupants of
the homestead taken together, (a) had a gross income of
less than $11,000 in the previous calendar year and (b)
will have an estimated income for the current calendar
year and subsequent years which will not exceed said sum.
Application for deferral of payment of special assessments
shall be made available from the city assessing division.
It is recommended that the city council receive testimony from
affected property owners at the public hearing. At the close of
the public hearing, it is recommended that the city council adopt
the attached resolution, adopting the C.P. 775 special assessment
roll, as proposed.
• Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
0 RESOLUTION NO. 6423
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN ALLEY POLICY
(Rescinding Resolution No. 6345)
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. All costs involved in maintaining an alley will be assessed
against the property abutting the alley.
2. An alley paving project may be initiated on an alley by a
petition signed by the property owners of more than 50 percent of
abutting property.
3. All costs involved in the paving of an alley will be
assessed against the abutting property except that residential property
will be assessed only for the shorter of the two primary sides.
4. The maximum amount to be assessed against residential
properties will be 50 percent of the cost of paving full width of the
abutting alley. However, if the residential property is located in
a block which contains some commercial property, the residential
assessment will'be less than 50 percent. In this particular instance,
the commercial assessment will first be levied against the commercial
property in the block and then the residential property will be
assessed a prorata share of the remaining portion of the assessment.
Under no circumstances shall the residential assessment be less than
25 percent of the cost of paving the alley.
5. Commercial alleys will be assessed for three-fourths of the
cost of paving the actual full width of the alley, except that should
the total assessment collected on a block using the aforementioned
procedure amount to more than the cost of the alley, the commercial
assessment will be prorated by abutting footage.
6. The City of Richfield will pay the costs of paving an alley
not abutting assessable property.
7. The type of surface will be chosen at the time the contract
is awarded on the first alley paving project.
8. A minimum of six alleys in one cluster (as defined by the
city engineer) or ten alleys regardless of cluster is required for
a project.
9. The deadline for the submittal of petitions is February lst
of each year.
-2-
10. The maximum assessment for commercial properties in a block
will not exceed 75 percent of the cost of the alleys to be paved
and the minimum assessment shall be at least 50 percent of this cost.
11. If a commercial lot has an alley on two primary sides, the
commercial property will be assessed only for the longer of the
two sides.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
11th day of May, 1981.
Donald J. Priebe, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
•
is
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON
CITY PROJECT 775, 1982 ALLEY PAVING
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the city clerk has, with the assistance of the city
engineer, calculated the proper amounts to be assessed for City
Project 775, 1982 Alley Paving, against every assessable lot, piece,
or parcel of land specially benefited thereby in accordance with
the provisions of law, and the proposed assessment so made up was
filed with the city clerk for more than 15 days prior to the assess-
ment hearing and was open to public inspection during said period.
2. That notice has been duly published and a public hearing
heretofore duly held as required by law so that this council could
meet and pass upon the proposed assessment.
3. That an opportunity has been given to all interested
persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed
assessment or to any item thereof at said public hearing.
4. That the city council has heretofore duly established
City Project No. 775 and after carefully considering all the facts,
the benefits to each lot, piece or parcel of land and fully
advising itself in the premises, has found and determined and
hereby declares that each and every lot, piece, or parcel of land
included in said proposed assessment roll was improved by reason
of the construction of said City Project No. 775 and has been and
is specially benefited in the amount set out in the attached
assessment roll opposite each such lot, piece or parcel of land.
5. The sums fixed and named in said attached assessment roll
are affirmed, adopted and confirmed as the proper special assess-
ment for each of said lots, pieces, or parcels of land therein
described.
6. Said assessment is hereby affirmed adopted, confirmed,
and shall be certified by the city clerk and filed in the office
of the city clerk, and shall thereupon be and constitute a special
assessment for said City Project No. 775 Alley Paving.
7. The assessment with accruing interest, shall be a lien
upon the property included therein, concurrent with general taxes
and shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over
a period of 20 years. The first installment shall be payable
on the first Monday in January of 1984. All assessments shall
bear interest at a rate at or below the legally authorized limit.
-2-
All assessments and interest thereon shall be collected and
paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
13th day of June, 1983.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
•
0
LJ
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
-#.5
Council Letter No. 216
Agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Continued Meeting of the 1983 Board of Review
The 1983 Local Board of Review convened on Wednesday, June
1, 1983, and several property owners appeared concerning the
estimated market values set for their property. Some of these
appeals were held over to the continued Board meeting set for
June 13, 1983, in order to obtain a review of the properties
and their values by the assessor.
The following is a list of those appeals, the status of their
review, and the staff's recommendation for action by the Board:
1. Mr. Ed Calvin, 7038 James Avenue
A review appraisal has been completed (attached) and it is
recommended that the 1983 estimated market value be reduced
from $80,600 to $75,100. Mr. Calvin has been notified of
this recommendation.
2. Mr. Wilmot Holtzman, 7300 Knox Avenue
A review appraisal for this property has been completed
(copy attached) and it is recommended that the 1983 estimated
market value be reduced from $71,000 to $64,100. Mr. Holtzman
has been notified of this recommendation.
3. Mr. Garfield Hoversten, regarding three apartment buildings.
Mr. Hoversten discussed his concerns at length with the
assessor and received answers to his questions. As a re-
sult, Mr. Hoversten did not wish to provide the rental in-
come information or to have a review appraisal conducted.
It is, therefore, recommended that the Board reaffirm the
1983 estimated market values for these properties.
4. Mr. Richard Zimer, regarding property at 6229 Xerxes Avenue
This review appraisal is not yet complete - information
t will be presented to the Board on Monday evening.
' ff 7420 P
l
S. Wis. Sherry Ho
man, ort
and Avenue
Ms. Hoffman discuss ed her concerns with the assessor's
off ice and decided that she did not wish a review appraisal
to be conducted. I t is recommended that the Board reaffirm
the 1983 estimated market value for this property.
6. -Dr. Wm. Rennecke, 7 533 Sheridan Avenue
On June 1, 1983 the Board voted to reduce the 1983 value
on this property from $97,300 to $96,000. However, Dr.
Renneke has made several requests for more information since
then, and may appear at the June 13 meeting. Since the
Board has already taken action regarding his 1983 appeal,
Dr. Renneke should be referred to the County Board of
Review.
The staff recommends that the Board take action at its June
13, 1983 continued meeting as outlined above.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
•
KN/eja
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 215
Agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Selection of Executive Search Firm
Attached to this council letter are copies of proposals
from Korn/Ferry International, Loren L. Law and Associates,
and Paul A. REaume Associates.
This matter has been scheduled for the 5.30 P.M. study
session on June 13, 1983.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
LOREN L. LAW & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTANTS To MANAGEMENT
71 7300 France Avenue South El Suite 120 G Minneapchs. Minnesota 55435 Telephone (612) 835-3677
June 10, 1983
Honorable Mayor John Hamilton
and Council Members
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Dear .Mayor and Council Members:
This letter will be an additional supplement to my proposal which was
delivered to the City Manager's office several days ago.
The City Council asked for a fixed fee for assisting them in the re-
cruitment and selection of a City :Manager. In my previous proposal
I listed a flat fee of ten thousand ($10,000) dollars for professional
services plus out of pocket expenses.
As an alternate fee schedule for your consideration, I propose a daily
consultant fee of $500 per day with a maximum fee of ten thousand
($10,000) dollars for the professional services plus out of pocket
expenses.
It may be more reasonable for the City to go this route if they wish
to restrict the search more to the Minnesota area and not a nationwide
search.
Your consideration of my proposal will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Loren L. Law
President
LLL:al
40
West Palm Beach. Florida
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 214
June 13, 1983 Agenda
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf ield
Council Members:
Subject: Continuation of Hearing Regarding Denial of
Itinerant Food Sales License, Fabian Seafoods
On the May 23, 1983 city council agenda, there was an item
providing for an appeal of the denial of an itinerant food sales
license by Fabian Seafoods. The appeal had been requested by
Mr. Steve Fabian based on the action of the public safety director
to deny his itinerant food sales license application, on the
basis of inadequate provisions for inspection of the seafood
products that were to be sold in the city.
At the May 23 hearing, the public safety director informed
• the council that the city attorney and the attorney for Mr.
Fabian were involved in negotiations to resolve the issue. On
this basis, the hearing was continued to the council meeting of
June 13, 1983. The city attorney, the public safety department,
and legal counsel for Mr. Fabian have since arrived at a mutually
satisfactory inspection process which will allow the city to issue
the requested itinerant food sales license. A copy of that agree-
ment is attached for information of the city council.
Since this dispute has been resolved through negotiation,
it is the recommendation that the council close the hearing which
has been continued on this :ratter, and take no further action
since the requested license has been issued to the defendant and
he is no longer pursuing his appeal rights with regard to this
issue.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
0
June 1, 1983
M
N
ma q?r
® L0
N
¦
co
c
ca
L
O
Q'
¦® O
O
IN-
?D
•
Mr. John Dean
Richfield City Attorney
LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy
O'Brien & Drawz, P.A.
2000 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Re: Itinerate Food Sale License Application
of Steve Fabian
Dear John:
Following our meeting on May 25, 1983, I have had an
opportunity to further discuss this matter with the
Bloomington Health Inspection personnel. Based upon
this discussion, I have reached the conclusion that
the application for a 1983 itinerate food sale license
requested by Fabian Seafood should be granted upon re-
ceipt of the city of the $54 balance due on the 1983
license fee.
The license, once granted, will be subject to the
following continuing conditions:
1. Prior to each two (2) day sale in Richfield,
a sample of the shrimp to be sold in the City
of Richfield will be delivered to an independent
laboratory acceptable to the Bloomington Health
officials for testing. The expense of each such
test will be borne by the licensee and a report
of the results of such testing will be made avail-
able to the City of Richfield.
2. The sale activities will be subject to the routine
inspection by the Bloomington Health Inspection
personnel operating under contract with the City of
Richfield.
In the event that the testing described in paragraph one
above, or the inspection discussed in paragraph two above,
discloses unwholesomeness or adulterated conditions in the
food product being sold the health officer may, at his
bW?plwnr:$99-7521 (512)
an 048W 9PPWtM ty *WV*W
Itinerate Food Sale License Application
of Steve Fabian- continued
Page Two
discretion, order the sale or future sales suspended until the
health officer is satisfied that the cause of the problem has
been eliminated. These actions are in addition to any right on
the part of the City of Richfield to terminate, revoke, or suspend
the itinerate food sale license herein granted.
I understand that Fabian. Seafood is planning a sale in Richfield
on June 2nd and 3rd. Would you please contact Mr. George Doff so
that we can make the necessary arrangements to have the license
in place by that date. This will also include a sample testing
which has been discussed above under item rumazer one.
Thank you for your assistance in resolving this matter.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Mdrgan, Jr.
Director of Public Safety
TAM/1 j e
enclosure
40
w
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 213
Agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Amendment to the Liquor Licensing Ordinance.
First Reading.
•
On May 16, 1983, the city council and the Housing and Re-
development Authority held a joint meeting to discuss a prelim-
inary proposal for the development of the Cedar Avenue liquor
site. At that time, the proposal that was discussed involved
the construction of a 48-lane bowling alley with restaurant and
banquet facilities included as part of the project. The pros-
pective developer indicated that a liquor license for this
business operation would be advantageous to the effective im-
plementation of the development plan.
Under the current provisions of the liquor licensing ordin-
ance, the proposed development would probably not qualify for a
liquor license, since such licenses can only be issued to business
establishments which have "a principal part of the business"
involved in a restaurant activity. The developer submitted a
suggested ordinance amendment which would remove this requirement
from the existing Richfield liquor license ordinance. Both the
city attorney and the director of public safety expressed a con-
cern with the proposed ordinance change because the change, as
worded by the developer, would allow the establishment of "saloon"
type on-sale liquor establishments to be licensed by the city.
The city attorney, the public safety director, and the con-
sultant for the proposed development project have now agreed on
an ordinance amendment which would meet the needs of the proposed
development, but at the same time preclude the issuance of on-sale
liquor licenses to business operations whose principal purpose
is the sale of liquor. An ordinance amendment, prepared by the
city attorney's office to reflect this concept, is attached to
this council letter.
If the council wishes to amend the on-sale liquor license
ordinance, it is the recommendation of the public safety director
in which I concur, that the attached amendment have first reading
approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XI
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter XI, Section 11.06 of the Ordinance Code of the City
of Richfield entitled "On-Sale Liquor" is hereby amended in the
following respects:
A. By amending paragraph (3) of subdivision 1 thereof to read
as follows:
"(3) The term 'restaurant' means an establishment under
the control of a single proprietor or manager, having
appropriate facilities to serve meals in one or more
dining rooms having a total area of at least 4,000 square
feet, and where in consideration of payment thereof, meals
are regularly served at tables to the general public, and
which employs an adequate staff for the usual and suitable
service of its guests aid-the-p?eeigal-past-e€-the-beseess
is-the-ee?eg-e-€eeds. The area to be used in computing
such 4,000 square foot minimum shall be the gross floor
area of the restaurant including areas for the preparation
and serving of food and liquor. Basement areas, however,
shall not be counted for the purpose of meeting such 4,000
square foot minimum requirement.
is
B. By amending paragraph (15) of subdivision 12 thereof to read
as follows:
(15) A restaurant shall be conducted in such a manner
that the-pepal a substantial part of the all business
activities conducted on the licensed premises for a license
year is the serving of food; and that the revenues from the
sale of liquor shall not constitute the principal part of
revenues derived from all business activities conducted on
the licensed premises. A hotel shall be conducted in such
a manner that, of that part of the total business attributable
to or derived from the serving of foods and intoxicating
liquors, the principal part of the business for a license
year is the serving of food.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of , 1983.
John Hamilton, Mayor
•
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA -VCIZ7
Office of City Manager
•
Council Letter No. 212
Agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Residential
Kennel License Fee Requirement. First Reading.
The ordinance code of the City of Richfield provides that
any person having more than two dogs or two cats over the age
of six months must obtain a residential kennel license in addi-
tion to obtaining individual licenses for each animal. In order
to obtain a kennel license, the requesting party must secure
signatures of approval from all abutting property owners, and
the city inspects the property to make sure that the pets will
be adequately provided for and not constitute a nuisance in
the neighborhood. The basis for the ordinance requirement is
that the keeping of any pet poses a potential noise and nuisance
problem for abutting property owners, and this potential increases
when persons have several pets.
The ordinance further provides that the city council may
waive this residential kennel fee ($40) if it determines that
the keeping of such animals will not have any adverse effect
upon adjacent properties. However, the ordinance limits this
fee waiver provision to situations where there are no more than
four such animals.
Mrs. Garnet Kelber, 6314 14th Avenue, has held a residential
kennel license for cats since 1969. At the present time, Mrs.
Kelber has 11 cats for which she has secured individual licenses,
and has requested that the city council waive the fee for a
residential kennel license. However, because Mrs. Kelber has
more than four animals, this is not permitted under the present
ordinance code provisions. Therefore, she has requested that
the city council amend the ordinance to delete the phrase "but
no more than four such animals,".
A copy of the ordinance amendment requested by Mrs. Kelber
is attached to this council letter and has been placed on the
June 13, 1983 city council agenda for first reading consideration.
The staff has concern about granting Mrs. Kelber's request. We
believe the fee should not be allowed to be waived for residential
kennel licenses in cases where there are more than four animals.
•
•
Council Letter No. 212
-2- June 13, 1983
In such situations, the potential is great for the city to in-
cur costs for inspection and responding to inquiries or complaints.
It is, therefore, recommended that the city council take
no action on this request.
KN/eja
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
0
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER V
• PART III, OF THE ORDINANCE
CODE OF THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
City of Richfield does ordain:
Chapter V, Part III, of the Ordinance Code of the City
of Richfield entitled "Health, Safety and General Welfare" is
hereby amended as follows:
I. By amending Section 5.23, Subdivision 3 in the following
respects:
Subd. Approval of Continauous Property Owners. The application
for a residential kennel license shall be accompanied by a petition
showing the approval of the occupants of privately owned real estate
abutting the premises on which the kennel is to be located.
Whether or not all of the occupants of abutting property approve
the application, the council may grant or deny the license. The
• license shall not be granted unless the council finds that the use
of the applicant's premises as a residential kennel will not have,
or.will not be likely to have, any adverse effect upon adjacent
properties or the occupancy thereof, and will not constitute a
nuisance to the neiahborhood. The council may impose conditions upon
the granting of any residential kennel license.
When an applicant has more than two dogs or two cats over six
months of age, 3?ut-ne-mere-ti?an-fetxr-5tzeh-ae#ma?s; 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.
0
Xz /d'
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 211
Agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: An Ordinance Granting a Non-Exclusive Franchise
to Minnegasco, Inc. to Operate in the City of
Richfield (Suburban Rate Authority Uniform
Gas Franchise)
As indicated in the attached letter from the Suburban Rate
Authority (SRA), the group has developed a uniform franchise
to replace-the franchise with Minnegasco that recently expired.
The new franchise updates several provisions of the earlier
• franchise and, significantly, adds a provision which would en-
able the city to institute a franchise fee of up to 5% of gross
revenues from the sale of gas within the city. The proposed
uniform franchise ordinance has been reviewed by the city
attorney, and was, in fact, drafted by his office in its capacity
as counsel to the SRA.
It is recommended that the city council approve the first
reading of this franchise ordinance at the June 13, 1983 city
council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
0
•
iVemcers May 18, 198-)
inaton
'roo"?yn Cer,;er Members of the Suburban Rate Authority:
?rOOK? n FarK
3?r+ ''e
For the past several months a committee of the Suburban Rate Authority
AeiCkts has been working with Minnegasco to produce a revision of the Suburban
Rate Authority Uniform Gas Franchise. At its April 20 Board meeting
the SRA Board of Directors approved a model ordinance. A copy is
_==e?sior enclosed.
-?3t r s^ We expect that Minnegasco will accept the SRA model. The Board encour-
ages each city in which Minnegasco requires a franchise to use the SRA
:.a%e :;t. Cro ; 3eacr: model, either presently or when a current franchise expires. Minnegasco
cagier aZe has expressed a willingness to consider surrendering its present fran-
' chise in favor of the SRA Uniform Franchise in those cities in which
A:c-
_e Fa`r the present franchises have a number of years to run. All cities are
-=cl
'.'env t e r-s encouraged to include the uniform expiration date of June 30, 2003 in
o
rnetcr%a their new franchises to provide for a joint renegotiation at that time
.
' n
"•'curws View The benefits of a uniform franchise have long been recognized. The
;?• r _ n enclosed uniform franchise is quite similar to the original SRA Uniform
"orin =t• Facet Franchise, negotiated over twenty years ago. SRA attorneys have previ-
ously sent each member a memorandum comparing the enclosed draft with
r;?a the Minnegasco proposal. If that is not readily available, a copy will
c rsca e be sent to you on request.
r
st ?o?is =wrL The enclosure contains some changes from the draft sent to you with the
C7aYccee earlier memorandum. These changes are rewordings for the purpose of
r e clarity, or they are additional provisions favorable to the city.
r
a`na s
Fe; Y Sections 1.4, 2.1, 2.4, 3.3 and 3.4 contain new wording, without sub-
C '--~a stantial changes of meaning intended.
Wa; a
w OG:: _ a ra
The second paragraph has been added to Section 2.6 to provide an addi-
tional remedy for defaults of the company, and Section 4 now includes
"elected officials" within the group the company must indemnify and
defend. Sections 8 and 9 are new.
If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact either
myself 0559-2800) or Glenn Purdue, the SRA attorney (333-0543).
Encl.
Z co:::?
Fred G. Moore
Chairman
Suburban Rate Authority
7400 PZ?z%rnouth ?ouZevard, PZ_,mout7, "irsnesota 55447
LeFevere
Lef ler
Kennedy
O'Brien 3c
Drawz
a Professional
A osotiation
?000 First Bank Place West
I.-inneaooiis
'Annesota 55402 May 24, 1983
Taleonone 612-333-0543
avton L. LeFevere
?eaen. P Lefler
Dennis 0Brien
,onn E Drawz
_a, .,o i Kennedy NOTE
;onn B. Dean
lenn E Puraue
Richard J Scnietfer
' Thanes L. LeFevere
reroert P Lefler I II
efrrev J. Strana
'.Iar,J Blork una The mailing of this draft was delayed by the
,onn G Kressel reluctance of Minnegasco to agree to the second
aye Nolan paragraph of Section 2.6. As an accommodation to
-.nav L. Lavorato
cnae! A. Nash it, a third paragraph was added to Section 2.6.
Line R Komarek The SRA Board has not approved that third para-
:can N r'cksen graph, but it is our opinion that its provisions
P !zabetrh D. Moran '
Enan F Rice do not materially change the meaning of the
Lorraine S. Ciugg section as approved by the Board.
tames J. Thomson. Jr.
•
•
0
•
SRA UNIFORM GAS FRANCHISE (MINNEGASCO)
Approved by SRA Board of Directors
April 20, 1983
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF
COUNTY, MINNESOTA
An ordinance granting Minnegasco, Inc., a Minnesota corporation,
its successors and assigns, a nonexclusive franchise to con-
struct, operate, repair and maintain facilities and equipment for
the transportation, distribution, manufacture and sale of gas
energy for public and private use and to use the public ground of
the City of , Minnesota for such purposes; and
prescribing certain terms and conditions thereof.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. The following terms shall mean:
1.1. Company. Minnegasco, Inc., a Minnesota corporation,
its successors and assigns.
1.2. Gas. Natural gas, manufactured gas, mixture of
40 natural gas and manufactured gas or other forms of gas energy.
1.3. Municipality, Municipal Council, Municipal Clerk.
These terms mean respectively, the City of ,
the Council of the City of and the Clerk of the
City of
1.4. Public Ground. All streets, alleys, public ways,
utility easements and public grounds of the Municipality as to
which it has the right to grant the use to the Company.
SECTION 2. FRANCHISE GENERALLY.
2.1. Grant of Franchise. There is hereby granted to the
Company, from the effective date hereof through June 30, 2003,
the right to import, manufacture, transport, distribute and sell
gas for public and private use in the Municipality, and for these
purposes to construct, operate, repair and maintain in, on, over,
under and across the Public Ground of the Municipality, all
facilities and equipment used in connection therewith, and to do
all things which are necessary or customary in the accomplishment
of these objectives, subject to zoning ordinances, other appli-
cable ordinances, permit procedures, customary practices, and the
provisions of this franchise.
0
2.2. Effective Date; Written Acceptance. This franchise
shall be in force and effect from and after its passage and
publication as required by law, and its acceptance by the Company
in writing filed with the Municipal Clerk within 60 days after
publication.
2.3. Nonexclusive Franchise. This is not an exclusive
franchise.
2.4. Franchise Fee. The Company may be required to pay to
the Municipality, in the manner and at a rate prescribed by a
separate ordinance, a fee determined by collections from sales of
Gas, but not to exceed 5% of the Company's gross revenues from
the sale of Gas within the Municipality. Such ordinance may be
adopted, amended, repealed or readopted at any time during the
term of this franchise. The fee, if required, shall be effective
90 days after written notice of the ordinance to the Company. No
such fee shall be effective as to sales made before January 1,
1984. The fee shall be separately stated on gas bills rendered
to customers within the Municipality.
2.5. Publication Expense. The expense of publication of
this ordinance shall be paid by the Company.
2.6. Default. If the Company is in default in the perfor-
mance of any material part of this franchise for more than 90
days after receiving written notice from the Municipality of such
default, the Municipal Council may, by ordinance, terminate all
rights granted hereunder to the Company. The notice of default
shall be in writing and shall specify the provisions of this
franchise under which the default is claimed and state the bases
therefor. Such notice shall be served on the Company by per-
sonally delivering it to an officer thereof at its principal
place of business in Minnesota.
If the Company is in default as to any part of this fran-
chise, the Municipality may, after reasonable notice to the
Company and the failure of the Company to cure the default within
a reasonable time, take such action as may be reasonably neces-
sary to abate the condition caused by the default, and the Com-
pany agrees to reimburse the Municipality for all its reasonable
costs and for its costs of collection, including attorney fees.
Nothing in this section shall bar the Company from chal-
lenging the Municipality's claim that a default has occurred. In
the event of disagreement over the existence of a default, the
burden of proving the default shall be on the Municipality.
SECTION 3. CONDITIONS OF USE.
3.1. Use of Public Ground. All utility facilities and
equipment of the Company shall be located, constructed, installed
and maintained so as not to endanger or unnecessarily interfere
2
with the usual and customary traffic, travel, and use of public
ground, and shall be subject to permit conditions of the Munici-
pality. The permit conditions may provide for the right of
inspection by the Municipality, and the Company agrees to make
its facilities and equipment available for inspection at all
reasonable times and places.
3.2. Permit required. The Company shall not open or dis-
turb the surface of any public ground for any purpose without
first having obtained a permit from the Municipality, for which
the Municipality may impose a reasonable fee to be paid by the
Company. The permit conditions imposed on the Company shall not
be more burdensome than those imposed on other utilities for
similar facilities or work. The mains, services and other prop-
erty placed pursuant to such permit shall be located as shall be
designated by the Municipality.
The Company may, however, open and disturb the surface of
any public ground without a permit where an emergency exists
requiring the immediate repair of its facilities. The Company in
such event shall request a permit not later than the second
working day thereafter.
3.3. Restoration. Upon completion of any work requiring
the opening of any Public Ground, the Company shall restore the
same, including paving and its foundations, to as good condition
as formerly, and shall exercise reasonable care to maintain the
same for two years thereafter in good condition. Said work shall
be completed as promptly as weather permits, and if the Company
shall not promptly perform and complete the work, remove all
dirt, rubbish, equipment and material, and put the Public Ground
in good condition, the Municipality shall have the right to put
it in good condition at the expense of the Company; and the
Company shall, upon demand, pay to the Municipality the cost of
such work done for or performed by the Municipality, including
its administrative expense and overhead, together with ten per-
cent additional as liquidated damages. This remedy shall be in
addition to any other remedy available to the Municipality.
3.4. Relocation of Utilitv Facilities. The Company shall
promptly, with due regard for seasonal working conditions, per-
manently relocate its facilities or equipment whenever the Muni-
cipality orders such relocation. If the relocation is a result
of the proper exercise of the police power in grading, regrading,
changing the location or shape of or otherwise improving any
Public Ground or constructing or reconstructing any sewer or
water system therein, the relocation shall be at the expense of
the Company. If the relocation is not a result of the proper
exercise of the police power, the relocation shall be at the
expense of the Municipality. If such relocation is done without
an agreement first being made as to who shall pay the relocation
cost, such relocation of the facilities by the Company shall not
be construed as a waiver of its right to be reimbursed for the
3
relocation cost. If the Company claims that it should be reim-
bursed for such relocation costs, it shall notify the Munici-
pality within thirty days after receipt of such order. The
Municipality shall give the Company reasonable notice of plans
requiring such relocation.
Nothing contained in this subsection shall require the
Company to remove and replace its mains or to cut and reconnect
its service pipe running from the main to a customer's premises
at its own expense where the removal and replacement or cutting
and reconnecting is made for the purpose of a more expeditious
operation for the construction or reconstruction of underground
facilities; nor shall anything contained herein relieve any
person from liability arising out of the failure to exercise
reasonable care to avoid damaging the Company's facilities while
performing any work in any Public Ground.
3.5. Relocation When Public Ground Vacated. The vacation
of any Public Ground shall not operate to deprive the Company of
the right to operate and maintain its facilities therein. Unless
ordered under Section 3.4, the Company need not relocate until
the reasonable cost of relocating and the loss and expense
resulting from such relocation are first paid to the Company.
When the vacation is for the benefit of the Municipality in the
furtherance of a public purpose, the Company shall relocate at
its own expense.
3.6. Street Improvements, Paving or Resurfacing. The
Municipality shall give the Company reasonable written notice of
plans for street improvements where paving or resurfacing of a
permanent nature is involved. The notice shall contain the
nature and character of the improvements, the streets upon which
the improvements are to be made, the extent of the improvements
and the time when the Municipality will start the work, and, if
more than one street is involved, the order in which this work is
to proceed. The notice shall be given to the Company a suffi-
cient length of time, considering seasonable working conditions,
in advance of the actual commencement of the work to permit the
Company to make any additions, alterations or repairs to its
facilities the Company deems necessary.
In cases where streets are at final width and grade, and the
Municipality has installed underground sewer and water mains and
service connections to the property line abutting the streets
prior to a permanent paving or resurfacing of such streets, and
the Company's main is located under such street, the Company may
be required to install gas service connections prior to such
paving or resurfacing, whenever it is apparent that gas service
will be required during the five years following the paving or
resurfacing.
SECTION 4. INDEMNIFICATION. The Company shall indemnify, keep
and hold the Municipality, its elected officials, officers,
4
employees, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims
and actions on account of injury or death of persons or damage to
property occasioned by the construction, maintenance, repair,
removal, or operation of the Company's property located in, on,
over, under, or across the public ground of the Municipality,
unless such injury or damage is the result of the negligence of
the Municipality, its elected officials, employees, officers, or
agents. The Municipality shall not be entitled to reimbursement
for its costs incurred prior to notification to the Company of
claims or actions and a reasonable opportunity for the Company to
accept and undertake the defense.
If a claim or action shall be brought against the Municipal-
ity under circumstances where indemnification applies, the Com-
pany, at its sole cost and expense, shall defend the Municipality
if written notice of the claim or action is promptly given to the
Company within a period wherein the Company is not prejudiced by
lack of such notice. The Company shall have complete control of
such claim or action, but it may not settle without the consent
of the Municipality, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.
This section is not, as to third parties, a waiver of any defense
or immunity otherwise available to the Municipality, and the
Company in defending any action on behalf of the Municipality
shall be entitled to assert every defense or immunity that the
Municipality could assert in its own behalf.
SECTION 5. ASSIGNMENT. The Company, upon notice to the Munici-
pality, shall have the right and authority to assign all rights
conferred upon it by this franchise to any person. The assignee
of such rights, by accepting such assignment, shall become
subject to the terms and provisions of this franchise.
SECTION 6. CHANGE IN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Any change in the form
of government of the Municipality shall not affect the validity
of this franchise. Any governmental unit succeeding the Munici-
pality shall, without the consent of the Company, automatically
succeed to all of the rights and obligations of the Municipality
provided in this franchise.
SECTION ?. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this franchise is
found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, the validity of
the rest of this franchise shall not be affected.
SECTION 8. NOTICES. Any notice required by this franchise shall
be sufficient if, in the case of notice to the Company, it is
delivered to Minnegasco, Inc., attention Vice President,
Minnesota Operations, 201 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55402, and, in the case of the municipality, it is
delivered to:
5
SECTION 9. PREVIOUS FRANCHISES SUPERCEDED. This franchise
supercedes all previous franchises granted to the Company or its
predecessors. •
Passed and approved
Mayor of the City of
Minnesota
ATTEST:
Clerk of the City of
Minnesota
•
6
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
x? 7
Council Letter No. 210
Agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Variance to Reduce the Required
Rearyard Setback to Construct an Addition,
7229 Humboldt Avenue
•
Joseph and Sharon Schrodt have requested a variance to re-
duce the required rearyard setback in an R-1 zoning district
from 25 feet to 16 feet. The applicants wish to remove an ex-
isting deck on the rear of their house and construct an addition
onto the rear of their house. The proposed addition would be
14 feet wide at its widest part and would extend the full width
of the existing house. The proposed addition would be set back
16 feet from the rear property line. The existing house is
setback 30 feet from the rear property line and the existing
deck is set back 18 feet from the rear property line.
Staff Review
In reviewing the proposal the staff has discovered that
the existing property does not meet a number of the R-1 district
requirements and, therefore, is a non-conforming use. The
following R-1 district requirements are not met on this site:
1. The existing lot area is 4,200 square feet rather
than the required 10,000 square feet;
2. The lot frontage is 50 feet rather than the required
75 feet;
3. The interior setback on the north side of the dwelling
is 5 feet instead of the required 10 feet. The ex-
isting lot coverage is 28% which is 3% more than the
maximum lot coverage allowed.
•
The ordinance states that non-conforming uses cannot be
expanded, therefore an additional variance would be necessary
to allow the proposed expansion.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
Section 3.29, subidvision 1 indicates that non-conforming
structures cannot be enlarged, extended or altered except in
conformity with the zoning regulations. Section 3.30A, sub-
Council Letter No. 210 -2- June 13, 1983
• division 5 requires a minimum rearyard setback of 25 feet, and
Section 3.40, subdivision 6 lists three conditions which must
be present for a variance to be granted.
Staff Findings
The staff reviewed the application against the three con-
ditions for granting variances and found the following:
1. It is the staff's opinion that there are special cir-
cumstances present on this site. The site is located
adjacent to 35W and on this particular block the 35W
right-of-way extends beyond the street, closer to the
houses. The front property line is therefore located
approximately 44 feet behind the curb of Humboldt
Avenue. There is typically a 10 to 12 foot boulevard
area on residential streets rather than the 44 feet
that is the case on this particular lot. This increased
distance not only reduces the size of the lot, but also
requires the building to be located much closer to the
rear property line than is typical in most residential
areas. This limits the ability of the property owner
to construct additions to the rear of this house.
2. It is the staff's opinion that the denial of the variance
would not preclude reasonable use of the property. The
existing single family residential use could be continued
on this site if the variance is denied.
3. The staff is of the opinion that the proposal would
not be detrimental to the public welfare. The proposed
addition would be in the rear yard and would not be
visible from public streets. There would be sufficient
separation between the addition and the structures on
adjacent lots. The proposed addition would only be
slightly larger than the deck which currently exists
on the site.
Staff Recommendation
Because the planning staff has found that the three conditions
which must be met for a variance to be granted have not been met,
it is recommended that the variance be denied.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission unanimously recommends denial of
this variance request.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/ej a
t o okorn 11 ma?
Oe hereby make pyre c?-fio? ?r ? vary Q•?c ? o,
?
Car prope4y f 0ce,14e d a i 722q Pico ?re ld NI,? ,, Ps o fa. {?.-? ??('or,?? n yeas orts
y
Aas &7 -
? y
?e?sed 6 Z f? f o (. l Je Ore ver
y y
a?Py ?? ?e? y?bo??oodr die rler h bons a/Let
au r- ?Dr'oJp e r /oc ? ? o h.. G4)e do des r re- -/-o el-;last c
car hCMe- as sAoCZY7 0/7 7%P of awed dr-afolnys
7D /'CMa'r? r- 71j16 1°Qri oT 71' e Cor.-?nr urt i7? GJe
Y
AAve 4wo bobs ?? ??Aje'lPlel 14A JcAool 0124K 540
/10- ' Gvi.S A Ta r-eino Ve 7i7 E/3't by n" o vl rls 7ZO ano lI&r'
COm ? ur1 ? ? .
f7S matt o? Car re 64 f ner Lt bor-S hove ? •z?
? y f l Po ?
o r 7hP to ro?os ec? llrr.,We d-? our ra e r w i l j
Q/So enhance 71' e svrrcanali, prooer ?y / a1701 a-/.
W l / Prob?b l /?Cr«s? -Iqe fixes 1641 d >ZO ?(f
y
C Drn nl 4,4,r7
??orl cv is ?-o o s ed a d r cod
y ? ?o d ro r? , cc? l ?
-Su,OP?emer?7?/rl? mart y C'i??°?' ConSer'?/?.?io,? a Tl C4 S 1/7 C /"Z// n el?el-j 41 e7q/ c r c rt f 7"/ r'e ?? c e
Nenerjy e ?;(c, c 4l- u)r rr dOC4-)s 7'Aro u /7 o cif' h o u,se
It7 eludir, y &XtS?rn? yOo!flopl.
/n 7ne eer bfi? (?) /7gtc) SIB/n 04 7f'1e enT/re Avase
5
/rl G l udrflf r lr 12 ?rrsr,?/?, f r®? addr ?7o4 be-rlu.)eel 74?e
17e.w srd rril 4.r7 a/ -freAme o?house (S) r'l rd InsCLfa
bel-7eC--I-A new ,SecAlvo ojel- base,Piet eonCre1 e.
Cc?e kel #a-,V we haVt- me f OW 7%e
Se? ? /- Tit l ? ? ? l /n 7°o r" C 9/Cc (° l ?. n ? C o? r S
? y 5
roperl a.I dPS rrc 7r >? f 4?rr?.r co?.?.t rs.s 1
P Y P ?
L?
•
J
y
?d d? ??ort . / r1QrL?c o? .
a Pro?P o 7 iS home_
%?sPe???u/l y
?? ?{ SAP
?se??. M. ,Sr?rodf
Sharon M, S?Gt?cdf
•
7 AO'
7T
oc) y A kmboia
•
?SZ 3-G3
.02
•
•
9
REQUEST -70R VARIANCE Or FOR PURPOSE OF
Legal Description: '
We, the undersigned, being owners or i.=ediate adjoining land as
above described, do hereby concur with the variance as recuested.
Signature o= 0umers*
•
Address
i
T
f
1?
V?
I
I
I
I
I
1
•
_? `7 y
•
From
Bob Bower
i
124
S 5 7'?LJ
rI
L
C7
C7
1-1
October 15, 1979 Room 511 256-8566
Ms. Sharon M. Brunner
7229 Humboldt Avenue South
Richf ield, minne,sota 55423
In reply refer tot 360
S.P. 7727 (65-50) 901
Hennepin County
Parcel 28 - M. F. Ackley
Reconveyance
Dear Ma. Brunners
A little better than a year ago you requested the reconveyance of a portion
of Lot 14, Block 5, Irvin Shores, Hennepin County Minnesota.
I am sorry to inform you that the necessary approvals have not been obtained
for this reconveyance. We have been advised by our District Office in Golden
Valley that there is a possibility that this easement may be needed at a future
date for the upgrading of T.h. No. 65.
if the property can be sold at a future date and you are the underlying fee owner
you`will be given the opportunity to repurchase the State's easement.
If you have any questions please feel free to call mr. W. M. Swanson at (612)
296-8566.
Sincerely,
J. }i. Ashe, Acquisition F..ngineer
Right of Way Operations
bcc:
W. M. Crawford, Dist. 5
E. IL-Howe, Dist. 5
W. M. Swanson, 511
J. G. Schmitz, 509
It j4
I**
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
40 Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 209
Agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Variance to the Interior
Sideyard Setback to Construct Addition,
7020 Knox Avenue
John and Janet Jensen are requesting a variance to reduce
the required interior sideyard setback of their residence at
7020 Knox Avenue from five feet to three feet. The Jensens
wish to remove an existing 10 foot by 12 foot three-season type
porch on the south side of their dwelling and replace it with
a 12 foot by 27 foot three season porch with a full basement
under it. The proposed addition would be within three feet of
the side property line, which would require a variance.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
Section 3.30, subdivision 5 requires a minimum interior
sideyard setback of 5 feet in an R residence zoning district.
Section 4.50, subdivision 6 lists three conditions which must
be present for a variance to be granted.
Staff Review
The planning staff has reviewed the proposal against the
three conditions which must be present for a variance to be
aranted and found the following:
1. It is the staff's opinion that there are no special cir-
cumstances present at this site not common to other sim-
ilarly zoned sites in the neighborhood or other areas in
the city;
2. It is the staff's opinion that denial of this variance
would not preclude reasonable property rights. The ex-
isting family use could be continued on the site and
there are also alternatives available for constructing
. a three season porch which would not require a variance;
0
•
i
Council Letter No. 209 -2-
June 13, 1983
3. It is the staff's opinion that the proposed reconstruct-
ion of the three season porch would be detrimental to the
public welfare. The proposed 8 foot separation between
the adjacent buildings would be insufficient, and accord-
ing to the Assistant Fire Chief, would increase the fire
exposure hazards and would ultimately increase costs of
fire suppression if a fire would occur in either of the
two buildings. Also, the proposed three foot setback
would not be consistent with the typical five to ten
foot interior setbacks found in the neighborhood.
Staff Recommendation
Because the three conditions for granting variances have not
been met, the planning staff must recommend that the variance
be denied. It should also be noted that the council previously
has not approved variances which allow residences to be separ-
ated by less than ten feet. Therefore, approval of this variance
would be creating a precedent for allowing separations of less
than ten feet.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission unanimously recommends that this
variance request be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
KN/eja
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
0
Pi
:1
ay 183
•
Fequcst fcr Variance
7020 Knox Ave . So.
ZZ
rice: iel,::, '„n. Ja7YGJ
To Whom It `ay Concern;
TI
e are requesting this variance for the curr_oae of
enlari ng cur porch on the south side of our home. our
existing porch, which, extends 1,-_1 the house and is
la' vide, is in very had condition and is uncozmfcrtaoly
sr:.al1- 'Ie need to do scmethir_g to remedy this situation.
Several factors have led us to request tc'is variance.
The first, and most important to us, is the vast airferer_ce
in usability between a 10' vide room and a 12' Ni :a room,
in both the casement anti in the , orch. Another factor is
the small difference in cost cetseen going mown to frozt
footing level versus full basement level. Another factor
is shat we reel ?vculd be the increased attractiveness of
the house and the neighborhood.
ee hcpe that you :vill conside- ,heae factors in cu-
favor .
Sincerely,
Jon N. and Janet L. Jensen
0
1 ? a A t
i ? I !
I ?
i
M
I ?
`aa
I
c
•
1 ?
i
REQUEST FOR VARIZLVCE OF .^
FOR PURPOSE. OF
Legal Descri_otion•
We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as
above described, do hereby concur with the variance as requested.
Signature of Owners*
•
•
Address
1
,
,? IJ kti? 7a.3 ?.1..v
i
-70
?l 7(Ir C1
22-
,; ?, -
P r
i
i
i
* Signatures may not be removed once the petition is signed and
returned to the Planning Division. L
L_.J
5/I8/83
J.Jensen vs Richfield
Planning Comm.
I believe that anyone should be allowed
to improve their property as long as
they remain within their property limits.
This is exactly what the Jensens pro-
pose to do.
Iam in favor cf granting the varience
that the Jensens 'require.
Sincerely
/ e??1A_ __ ?,
7 a /2 B X ?_; 0
1s 7 Y 7* n y ?+-er
_ ?Da-O ?'Cno?
?? 7,?
??
??.? ? ,
??-?-?
? ? ? ? ?
? ?
???,. ? ??
??.?.??
?. ?
??
???
?,/?
a !?. ? ?
??.? ?'
?? ??
? ? .?
?? -?-
?? ? ??
j1 ???
? ? ??
??
????? ??
.? ?
..-, ,y v i
?. y? 1
rU?LiC HEM lNC NC7!C`
CITY CF FIC;?F?__
- ?t ANNINC- "CCM ,AI
TO I ?ro erty owners wi t.in 350 feet o L.
7020 ro
revenue South
APcr ICAN i I -on and Janet :ensen
LC CyA711?CNp???(?..j????-, I of 1 -,. - ,
C_? 1 f 11Vi x.11 ••e 0 i•/ V..r:s v, ?.i?.?..v .. +..??n.V it ?\..s a..i? 1
1
(7020 Knox :venue Scuth)
?URPoS? To hear reasons for or against the granting cf a
variance to reduce an interior sideyard setback
requirement -from 5 feet tc 3 feet.
TIME Ct HEAPING
?!-ACE Cr HEARING
?CVTY 70 ?A.hli iC:PAnW ? -3 I ,CNS
7:30 PM, Tuesday, May 24, 1963
Council Chambers, Ci _, Hall, 6700 Portland
-
L___ tend the hearinc and give ces--' - or or
against t;- roccsa71 .
? -etter 1i Tt1 1 - - 1= P ar
C '' eX?°r AS Slng (Dur Iiews
'mial[°o
contact. R_ct Jccxe
?a ?, ?n^er
6700 ?crtLand Avenue Scut.l
669-^52 e::t. ?__
0-
r
,may
•
;??
0
TC
:,raLIC:.NT
LCCA7?CN
CF PROPER Y
e v
1.
Pj?
t
71ME OF HEARING
PLACE OF HEARING
HCW To PAR i 1C:PA i e
ANY CLES i 1CNS
rUS' iNG NC71CE
C TY OF FIC F;C6-
YL INNING C`;,?;`r11SS iCN
Pr=ert,r cwners wit^in 350 feet of 7020 Knox
Avenue Sou--.,
ion and Janet ease^.
Lot 5, ?_ock 8, Forest Lawn Addition
(7020 Knox Avenue Scut:!)
To 'year reasons for or aclainst tIle granting of
variance to reduce an interior sideyard setback
requirement from 3 feet to 3 feet.
1 7:30 PM, Tuesday, May 24, 1983 P
I Council `C,ya,q,bers, Hall, 6700 Portland
a e:cr --
1. =he :ear' ng and ai',e yes?_.-ton?_- c-
3ca1nS t_.e prcpcsa.L.
2. a _etter t^@ P1ann?_^C CCTT1iSS4
,s
°x?ress?nq ,To'1r ?y_ews in ?Nr4 "a.
C'ontac ? .{ vpke
':D 7 _anner
Ci t-r
City ofi ..= e
6,00 ?crtland Avenue Scu_h
?_cnf-e_ `T 4 23
'AAIL:NG n ^ '.Tarr - ^ a 93
•
?- v
i
a- 4 ? ? ?-?e-?i SOU
TO
C
DOROTHY & WALLACE SKOGL UND
7030 Logan A ve. So. Minneapolis, Minn. 33423, (612) 869-0644
LJ
? a X13
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 208
Agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Purchases in Excess of $2,650
By resolution, purchases of merchandise, Materials, equipment
or construction in excess of $2,650 must be approved by the city
council. There are two items on the June 13, 1983 city council
agenda.
Dasher Facing for Ice Arena
The approved improvement project at the ice arena includes re-
placing the dasher boards and kickplates around the ice sheet.
• The project is to be funded over two years, 1983 and 1984, with
the work to be done by city staff during the annual shutdown. One
half will be done in 1983, and one-half in 1984, due to the limited
amount of time available for construction during shutdown. However,
to assure that the dasher boards and kickplates will match, it is
necessary to order all of the supplies and :materials at the same
time.
Two written quotations were received for white dasher facing,
yellow kickplate, red and blue line kit, and nylon rivets. Seelye
Plastics, Inc. quoted a total of $3,814 and Holsten Ice Rinks, Inc.
quoted $3,711.
It is recommended that the city council authorize this purchase
from Holmsten Ice Rinks, Inc. in the amount of $3,711.
Hot Mix Base and Wear Surfaces
In August of 1982 there was a water main break in the area of
63rd Street and Cedar Avenue. In April, 19013, a major water main
break occurred in the area of 71 1/2 Street and Upton Avenue. As
the breaks were repaired, temporary rough patching of the streets
was done with the use of a cold mix asphalt material. In order to
complete the repair after the settling of the disturbed area, it
is necessary to excavate the area, apply a base mix surface and
• then complete the application of a wearing surface of hot mix.
Council Letter No. 203 -2- June 13, 1933.
Two written quotations were received for this asphalt work.
• Northwest Asphalt, Inc. quoted $5,731 and rcNamara-Vivant quoted
$5,500.
It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase
from McNamara-Vivant in the amount of $5,500.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
0
3
0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 207
Agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Airport South Transportation and En-
vironmental Study Presentation
At the 5:30 p.m. city council study session on June 13,
a presentation will be made by the staff of the Airport South
Transportation and Environmental Study. The purpose of this
presentation will be to give the council members an opportunity
to be updated on the nature and status of the above mentioned
study. The boundaries of the study area are I-494 on the
north, the Minnesota River on the southeast, and County Trunk
Highway 77 on the west. While the study area was prompted by
the future redevelopment of the Metropolitan Stadium site, the
study area itself is actually much larger than the stadium
site.
It is anticipated that the presentation will take from 20
to 25 minutes and will be followed by a question and answer
session. The staff for the study includes personnel from both
the City of Bloomington and the Metropolitan Council as well
as a consulting firm.
The city council is not being requested to take any offic-
ial action on the study at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
(
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
0
?Zz
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 206
Agenda June 13, 1933
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 March 14, 193, the city council approved a final develop-
ment plan, special use permit, and off-street parking permit for
the Hauser's/Snyder building within the Hub Superblock Planned
Unit Development area. The following stipulations were part of
the approval:
1. That trees be provided as indicated on the approved PUD
plan;
2. That the crosswalk acorss 65th Street adjacent to East
Pleasant Avenue remain in its existing location. The
driveway is to be widened to the west and redesigned to
accommodate semi-trucks. The final design of the curb
cuts is to be submitted for 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 guidelines;
4. That a pedestrian sidewalk be constructed from the Kentucky
Fried Chicken facility north property line to the sidewalk
system on the Hub/Snyder/Hauser property, subject to city
staff approval;
5. That the Fotomat building be repainted in colors conform-
ing with the L/H/N design guidelines or that the structure
be removed at the earliest possible time.
Subsequent to that approval, the property owner has attempted
to market the space in the proposed 12,350 square foot addition
on the north end of the existing structure. However, the property
owner indicates he has been unable to find tenants for the
19 proposed space. He has further indicated that potential tenants
were unwilling to rent spaces 100 feet deep.
Council Letter No. 206 -2- June 13, 1983
The property owner has recently submitted an amended paln re-
ducing the amount of space in the proposed new addition from 12,350
square feet to 9,950 square feet. The proposed addition would be
80 feet deep instead of the previously approved 100 feet deep.
This reduction would 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
proposal. The driving aisle in front of the building would con-
tinue straight on to 65th Street and the curb cut would not be re-
located eastward as was earlier indicated. Exterior building mat-
erials would remain the same as previously approved.
The staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and finds the
following:
1. The proposed reduction in floor area is a change of 19%.
The city PUD ordinance requires that the development of
the P17D district shall be in substantial compliance with
the approved PUD plan and any conditions imposed by the
council. Compliance shall not be considered substantial
if there is more than 10% change in the floor area of the
structure. 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. 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. The property
owner will still be making a substantial improvement to
the property.
2. 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 parcel to the sidewalk
system on the Snyder/Hauser property. Staff has since met
with a representative of the property owner to discuss al-
ternate sidewalk locations. The current plan indicates
that a new five-foot wide sidewalk would be constructed along
the south edge of the property which would connect to the
sidewalk to be constructed along the east side of the
Kentucky Fried Chicken parcel.
Also, there currently is no continuous sidewalk all the way
across the front of the Hauser Supermarket. There is
sidewalk only along approximately half of the building.
The other half is landscaped and, according to the current
plan, would continue to be landscaped. The staff suggests
the council may want to consider an additional stipulation
• requiring_ a continuous sidewalk across the front of the
building to better connect to the proposed new sidewalk
along the south end of the property.
Council Letter No. 206 -3- June 13, 1983
3. The council also 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 indicates that this stipula-
tion will be carried out.
4. There will be sufficient parking available on this site.
The reduction in floor area results in 12 fewer parking stalls
being required, which results in an overall improvement of
the parking ratio on this site.
5. The traffic circulation on the site would be improved by
the proposed change. The previously approved proposal in-
dicated that the driving aisle in front of the building would
jog eastward in front of the new addition. The current
proposal indicates that the driving aisle would be straight
which will be safer from the standpoint of not requiring
turning movements by vehicles and also by improving ped-
estrian visibility.
6. When the council approved the final development plan in
March, the council stipulated that trees be provides 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 pro-
vided.
7. Staff has not received a schedule of light replacement as
previously stipulated by the council.
It is the opinion of the staff
would not be detrimental to the g
ment in the area of the proposal,
that the city council approve the
special use permit and off-street
following stipulations:
that the proposed change in plan
eneral public, nor to the develop-
and it is therefore, recommended
amended final development plan,
parking permit subject to the
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.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/ ej a
•
I o
z
O
m
S
m
r-
m
D
1
O'
z
IF7
m
D
y
-4
m
r-
m
D
O
Z
'.
pal",
as
•
11
] 7r-7
j- -=r
a 8 ??`4 P
mt-
z K -0- 7- fi'
1 ?
D i LI
O S i
<
jl
c
D
Z ?
>I
n
i
l
i
i
i
I1? II I' i I I i i! ?` i
WEST 66th ST
Ell
O ol? ? ilk j. o>
m
m Y
a
z = ° £> -
r.. I ,
of I i I
Z
3 R
t
? i
WEST 65th ST
SNYDER HUB FOODS MALL EXPANSION
•EY]/])/1]
•
C7
•
O
Z
G7
Z
c
3
Z
C:J
m
7
z
N
U1
r"
r"S
Z
C!!
m
Z
7
I
I?
SERVICE
??. "CS- NG PARKING LANE)
T
x ,; I rr I
S I ? ? L I Cl1
m
O n Gv >
A J 2• ° C
Un
m I I!; °
R1 ?' I ? m i
..a ..?•• ? I j i? t t 5
I I ? i
•
.w
D ? i l
R
T ?` AA
G?V? Of
I
U 4GII ? ?
v
Q? ! ? I
G? ?p 3Dflt3 ? ? i?
y
m •
? t 3II?iD ? ? m -
I
is
U - .sue i.. - 8ti
?. _ ..r.
7 "• _
k 21 fL.?CA: sCLLj FARO 'DE=S
WEST 55th ST
J
N
o ?
pp??g z
j
C?hbG Gpr1G ? / ?
Aso i
i
i
i
' I
-rL154?54 1-j 71 .., vPA'L"
FS'
Paul Pink and Associates, Inc. Cate:
430 Oak Grove Minneaoohs, MN 55403 (612) 871-5615 Comm: i570
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
-7&4,-Wj
Council Letter No. 205
Agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Cedar Avenue Redevelopment Planning
On May 16, 1983, the HRA and the city council heard the re-
sults of a market study authorized by the city council for the
Cedar Avenue liquor store site. During the discussion, there was
expression of interest in considering the establishment of a tax
increment redevelopment project in the area. The information in
this letter is presented to facilitate that discussion.
During the past two years, two studies have been initiated
and completed which involved the Cedar Avenue area, that is, the
area generally bounded by 63rd Street on the north, State Highway
77 on the east, two parcels south of 67th Street on the south,
18th Avenue Avenue on the west, south of 66th Street, and Cedar
Avenue on the west, north of 66th Street. There are two non-resi-
dential properties on the west side of Cedar Avenue, one at 63rd
Street, and one at 65th Street which would also be included within
thie project. In 1981, the HRA authorized the Technical Advisory
Research Service (TARS) of the League of Minnesota Cities to examine
the potential for redevelopment in this area. On October 25, the
city council authorized a study by James B. McComb & Associates
to determine the most marketable future land uses for the Cedar
Avenue liquor store site.
The TAPS report examined four basic issues: the condition
of the property in the area; redevelopment of the liquor store
site; vacation of 67th Street, and inclusion of property adjoining
67th Street, and inclusion of property adjoining 67th Street to
the south in the redevelopment; and comprehensive renewal/redevelop-
ment of the area. TARS concluded that the conditions in the commer-
cial area north of 66th Street warranted public intervention. The
mixed land uses, inappropriate land uses, and deteriorating structures,
were the basis for recommending intervention. Another conclusion
was that the redevelopment of the liquor store site, because it
is publicly-owned and tax exempt, could be utilized to leverage or
help pay for redevelopment north of 66th Street. Tax increment
would be the financing method which would provide this leverage.
The amount of leveraging would be determined by the intensity of
the new development - the greater the tax generated by the new de-
velopment, the greater the amount of leverage. If the liquor store
Council Letter No. 205 -2- June 13, 1933
site was too small to accommodate a preferred development, con-
sideration should be given to vacating 67th Street and including
the commercial structure on Cedar Avenue and the two duplex
houses on 13th Avenue which are south of 67th Street.
The McComb study examined the marketability of the liquor
store site. The study concluded that the greatest potential
for marketing the site was with condominium offices and condominium
residential units even though the office space market is currently
soft. Also, a Richfield resident, Ralph Bruins, appeared at the
council meeting and indicated he is working with an area businessman
who is interested in redeveloping the liquor store site.
Formulating a redevelopment strategy for the area would be
appropriate at this time as the area does need improvement. The
blighting influence identified by TARS two years ago still exist.
The staff has been identifying the non-residential property for
sale or lease in Richfield on a monthly basis for about a year.
A relatively high turnover in property in the area has been noted.
In addition, there may be opportunities to remove inappropriate
land uses, such as single family housing, and create parcels suitable
for non-residential redevelopment.
A possible course of action to pursue redevelopment would
be as follows: In October and November, 1982, the city council
appropriated $18,000 from the Special Revenue Fund to pursue a
• two-step study of the liquor store site. James B. McComb & Associates
completed the first phase. At the time the study was initiated, it
was thought there would be a need for a two-phase market study.
However, a second phase, as originally envisioned, seems unnecessary.
The first phase cost $361 less than the authorized amount of $11,600;
thus, there is a balance of $6,761. That balance would probably be
sufficient to pay for the cost of a redefined second phase which
would include exploring, in a preliminary fashion, the tax increment
feasibility of a project, the cost of preparation of a financial
plan, land use plan, and other documents necessary to legally
establish a project.
The expenditure of the remaining $6,671 would include costs
for staff and consultant charges. The process would proceed in the
following manner: the staff would undertake the preliminary finan-
cial analysis during July and August. If it appeared that the cost
of purchasing property and paying relocation benefits could be
financed by the tax increment from new development, then a consultant
would assist the staff in preparing the documentation required under
the law to establish a tax increment project. The documents would
then be presented to the city council and the HRA for consideration.
It is believe that this could be accomplished by October, 1983.
It is recommended that the city council direct the staff to
pursue the formulation of a redevelopment project for the area,
authorize the expenditure of the balance of the funds in the
• Special Revenue account allocated for these purposes, and inform
Council Letter No. 205 -3- June 13, 1983
• the HRA of the city council's concern and interest in improving
this area.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
40
E
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 204
Agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Adams Hill Park Pathway Project
On May 9, 1983, the city council authorized the city staff
to obtain prices for the pathway system at Adams Hill Park. Three
quotations were received which showed that the price of the path-
way system would be in excess of $10,000, which requires a sealed
competitive bidding process. The first pathway was for the
section from the cul-du-sac at Xerxes Avenue, along the pond berm
in an easterly direction, connecting with the existing pathway in
the vicinity of the hard court area. The second pathway was for
the section encircling the ponding area. It appears there are two
options available at this time.
1. Complete the pathway from the Xerxes Avenue Cul-de-Sac.
This is a project of approximately 650 l.f. The quota-
tions which have been received for this work indicate
a cost of $5,525. It would be the recommendation of
the staff, should this option be selected, that the quo-
tation of Bituminous Roadways, at a unit price of $8.50
l.f., be accepted for a total purchase price of $5,525.
2. Complete the Pathway from the Xerxes Avenue Cul-de-Sac
and the Pathway Encircling the Pond.
On the basis of the quotations received, this option
would necessitate formal bidding process. There is
sufficient funds available in the project to complete
this work. Should this option be selected, the staff
recommends plans and specifications be prepared as soon
as possible for award of contract to allow construction
to take place in 1983.
People attending the neighborhood meetings for the planning
and design of Adams Hill Park have been informed the city council
agenda for June 13, 1983 includes an item on the Adams Hill Park
pathways. It is the recommendation of the staff that option two
be selected, if the city council feels a commitment to do the
Council Letter No. 204 -2- June 13, 1983
entire pathway, including the path encircling the pond. If the
city council does not feel a commitment to the path encircling
the pond, the staff would recommend selection of option one.
Essentially, the entire park facility should be made avail-
able to the citizens of our community as all of the other park re-
development projects have done. Pathways at Monroe, Donaldson,
Christian and Roosevelt are all set in locations to fully utilize
the parks adjacent to houses.
Respectfully submitted,
!? v ?L c 2n
KN/eja
0
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
40
?a/
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 203
Agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Approval of Amended Final Develop-
went Plan, Special Use Permit, and Offstreet
parking Permit for Richfield State Agency
On October 25, 1982, the city council approved an amended
planned unit development, final development plan, special use
permit, and offstreet parking permit for Richfield State Agency
for their site bounded by 66th Street, 67th Street, Lyndale Avenue
and Grand Avenue. The plan approved called for a two phased de-
velopment. The first phase would include the renovation of the
existing drive-up teller facility, the construction of three addi-
tional stories on the north end of the existing building, and
various traffic and parking lot improvements. The second phase
would include the construction of additional space for Richfield
Bank south of the existing building, removal of the remaining houses
on 67th Street and Grand Avenue, and construction of additional
parking areas.
Subsequent to this approval, Richfield State Agency has re-
cently requested that they be allowed to construct additional park-
ing areas during Phase I. Richfield State Agency has indicated
that because they must eliminate parking north of their existing
building during the construction of the three additional stories
on their building that without constructing additional parking at
this time they would have a parking shortage.
Richfield State Agency wishes to develop parking in the area
between the existing parking lot and Grand Avenue and between the
Medical Office Building and the house at 6636 Grand Avenue. This
area was to be left vacant during Phase I of the previously approved
proposal. They now propose to construct 66 parking stalls within
this area. With other adjustments in existing driving aisles and
the construction of the previously approved traffic flow improve-
ments on Grand Avenue, approximately 16 existing parking stalls
would be lost, for a net gain of 50 parking stalls. titi'ith the ex-
ception of some parking lot islands, all improvements would be
permanent and would not have to be redone when the adjacent ex-
isting parking area is redone in Paase II of this development.
The staff has reviewed the proposed change and found the
Council Letter No. 203 -2- June 13, 1933
1J
•
the following:
1. The proposed parking area would be consistent with the
planned unit development plan, but inconsistent with the
phasing approved as part of the Phase I Final Development
Plan. It is the staff's opinion that the proposed change
would not be detrimental in that it would be consistent with
the overall development plan for the area;
2. Sufficient parking would exist in the area;
3. The improvement of Grand Avenue to channel the commercial
traffic away from the residential area would continue to be
constructed in this phase so that this additional parking
would not result in additional traffic through the residential
neighborhood;
4. The parking lot will be screened from adjacent residences by
a landscaped buffer and a three foot grade change.
It is recommended that the city council approve the development
of this additional parking in Phase I with the stipulation that
Richfield State Agency be responsible for constructing all previously
approved improvements in Phase I and that they continue to be
subject to all previous council stipulations attached to the approval
of the Phase I Final Development Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
( ??r r
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
0
V
n
S'
Cq
3
n
3
i 1: 1 e i)! S l Mill; ,
Z i _' ! i i u i ? e4 ==i
Q y 3a .
} :'!31.1$
UJ W i 9 - `' cfea
y
H < 1 ,. i?y_
LWOS M%WV pueio
6
2 L
u ?
a L
:I
S`
A=V
.- x
?I
?I
[2
16
I0
•
(A U W m o
m o i ?
o
a n o
o ao
T m
o o
m o
ro .. g
? ? $
m Cf P1 b • O • Y Y •
? f a Y
1y
C
<
Q
p . w
w
e
4
uf O
< J j
u
t
t O _
'
U
?
Q ? i .
z
??yy T4
A J H Y r
C
Q 13
g S
Y > = •
c r S a is Oiw
93".
L t
HLf10S 3nN3AV_aNYM
G?
iEl •:
i
i
` -ze
75
•
i
y
I YEtq ?? ,
'?jj SQ M r _
• ' II ''w. i 1_ 1.? '? ;.? ? ?•? ?x]{ ? 1..1..1 -it-'Itt..1..T1?_I1?lII-.ItI-.ItI I1t-l1IIc ? _ ?1 l j' ,?°
.i'+ ' ? I{ `I r i i 1 1 l? n???.? .t?l.t???f.l'.f i,l I?(..I?i??•? E .?Ir?l? ?
} ? l i _ i-L'L-}ter +----L-- ?--.•. .i. ?J?? ? ]? ,\ ? !
.. .._ 1• ?jre .-?._ _ •--....?: -- ;- HUf04 3nW3Ar•LMVV M1f -^--#L'•? L "?. 1 N
? •\ I i 4 ? Tom` i.?'?? %l
_ t -
•
' ^ i
)!/?3
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 202
Agenda June 13, 1933
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council members:
Subject: Additional Park Playground Programs
Council Member Priebe has requested that an item be listed
on the June 13, 1983 city council agenda to discuss the addition
of a playground program at a park on the east side of Richfield.
As was indicated at the last city council meeting, the cost of
a program for an additional fulltime park would be $2,600; the
addition of a fulltime playground park at Fremont Park was an
identical cost.
It would be rather difficult to get a park playground
started in this point of the season, but could still be accomp-
lished. Normally, the playground programs start in the city
parks on June 13. It would take at least a week to hire personnel,
and get supplies available to start a new program at another park
site. If the city council decides to move in this direction, we
would need to take action immediately Tuesday morning.
The greatest concern I have over the additional park play-
ground programs at this time are the.same that I expressed during
the discussion of Fremont Park. Any time the city council takes
a budgetary decision out of context of budget discussion, it
creates distorted priorities in the city. Unless the city
council and city staff are in the position of having to trade off
program priorities against revenue availability, and other pro-
gram requirements, it becomes very difficult to prioritize ser-
vices. For instance, would the city be better off spending $5,000
on a bicycle safety program as opposed to these two playground
programs. That is only one example of a multitude of different
activities which could be looked at during budget discussions.
Council 14ember Priebe will no doubt like to make additional
comments on this matter at the June 13 city council Meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
40
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
t?,7# "
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 201
Agenda June 13, 1933
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of.the City Council
City of Richf ield
Council Members:
Subject: Subdivision of Lot at 324 Apple Lane
C]
At the May 9, 1983 city council meeting, the city council
granted a variance to the minimum lot area requirements in a
R-1 zoning district to allow the property owner at 324 Apple
Lane to subdivide his lot into two lots, one of which would be
only 9,000 square feet in area. The lot owner has subsequently
hired a registered land surveyor to develop a new survey which
establishes the boundaries and legal descriptions of the two
lots.
Attached for council consideration is a survey and legal
description which have been developed by the surveyor. The new
lot does contain 9,000 square feet, as earlier required by the
council, and the boundary has been established so that the ex-
isting house conforms to the setback requirements in the R-1
district.
It is recommended that the council adopt the attached
resolution approving this subdivision.
(Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberaer
City Manager
KN/eja
9
0 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:
That part of Lots 19 and 20, "RALPH MILNER'S ADDITION" and
the East 4 feet of Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 3, "RALPH MILNER'S
2ND ADDITION", described as follows: Beginning at a point
on the North line of Lot 5, Block 3 "RALPH MILNER'S 2ND
ADDITION", 4 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof,
thence East along the North line of said Lot 5 and the
same extended to its intersection with the Southeasterly
line of said Lot 19, "RALPH MILNER'S ADDITION", thence
Northeasterly along said Southeasterly line to the most
Easterly corner of said Lot 19, thence Northwesterly along
the Northeasterly line of said Lot 19 to its intersection
with a line drawn parallel with the North line thereof and
130 feet South at right angles therefrom, thence west
parallel with the North line of said Lot 19 to a point 4
feet West of the East line of Block 3, "RALPH MILNER'S 2ND
ADDITION", thence South parallel with said East line to the
point of beginning;
Also that part of Lot 19, "RALPH MILNER'S ADDITION", des-
cribed as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of
Lot 5, Block 3, "RALPH MILNER'S 2ND ADDITION", thence East
along the extension of the North line of said Lot 5 to the
intersection of said line with the Southeasterly line of
said Lot 19 of "RALPH MILNER'S ADDITION", which point is
the actual point of beginning; thence Southwesterly along the
Southeasterly line of said Lot 19 a distance of 15 feet; thence
Northwesterly 40 feet to the intersection with the line running
from the Northeast corner of Lot 5, Block 3, "RALPH MILNER'S
2ND ADDITION" to the actual point of beginning; thence East
along said line to the actual point of beginning;
All according to the plats thereof on file and of record in
the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
into the following described parcels:
Parcel A
That part of Lots 19 and 20, "RALPH MILNER'S ADDITION" and the East
4 feet of Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 3, "RALPH MILNER'S 2ND ADDITION",
described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of
Lot 5, Block 3, "RALPH MILNER'S 2ND ADDITION", 4 feet West of the
-2-
Northeast corner thereof, thence Ea
Lot 5 and the same extended to its
easterly line of said Lot 19, "RALP
Northeasterly along said Southeaste
corner of said Lot 19, thence North
line of said Lot 19 to its intersec
with the North line thereof and 130
therefrom, thence West parallel wit
to a point 4 feet West of the: East
2ND ADDITION", thence South paralle
point of beginning; EXCEPT that par
follows: Beginning at the mcst Eas
thence Northwesterly along the Nort
to its intersection with a line dra
of said Lot 19 and 130 feet South a
on an assumed bearing of S890141281"
tance of 122.34 feet; thence S46009
thence Southeasterly to a point on
which point is 60.00 feet Southwest
corner of Lot 19, as measured along
Northeasterly along said Southeaste.
of the tract of land to be excepted
Also that part of Lot 19, "RALPH MI
follows: Commencing at the Northea
"RALPH MILNER'S 2ND ADDITION", then
the North line of said Lot 5 to the
the Southeasterly line of said Lot
which point is the actual point of
along the Southeasterly line of sai
thence Northwesterly 40 feet to the
running from the Northeast corner o
2ND ADDITION" to the actual point o
said line to the actual point of be,
All according to the plats thereof
of the County Recorder in and for H
3t along the North line of said
,itersection with the South-
[ MILNER'S ADDITION", thence
-ly line to the most Easterly
Westerly along the Northeasterly
;ion with a line drawn parallel
feet South at right angles
the North line of said Lot 19
ine of Block 3, "RALPH MILNER'S
with said East line to the
of said Lot 19 described as
erly corner of said Lot 19;
easterly line of said Lot 19
n aarallel with the North line
right angles therefrom; thence
along said parallel line a dis-
44"E a distance of 111.06 feet;
he Southeasterly line of Lot 19,
rly from said most Easterly
said Southeasterly line; thence
ly line to the point of beginning
NER'S ADDITION", described as
t corner of Lot 5, Block 3,
e East along the extension of
intersection of said line with
9 of "RALPH MILNER'S ADDITION",
eginning; thence Southwesterly
Lot 19 a distance of 15 feet;
intersection with the line
Lot 5, Block 3, "RALPH MILNER'S
beginning; thence East along
inning;
file and of record in the office
epin County, Minnesota.
Parcel B
That part of Lot 19, "RALPH MILNER'
Beginning at the most Easterly corn
westerly along the Northeasterly li
section with a line drawn parallel
19 and 130 feet South at right angl
bearing of S89114'28"W along said p
feet; thence S46009'44"E a distance
easterly to a point on the Southeas
is 60.00 feet Southwesterly from sa
19, as measured along said Southeas
along said Southeasterly line to th
According to the plat thereof on file
the County Recorder in and for Hennep
ADDITION" described as follows:
r of said Lot 19; thence North-
* of said Lot 19 to its inter-
ith the North line of said Lot
s therefrom; thence on an assumed
rallel line a distance of 122.34
of 111.06 feet; thence South-
erly line of Lot 19, which point
d most Easterly corner of Lot
erly line; thence Northeasterly
point of beginning;
and of record in the office of
in County, Minnesota.
-3-
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
. City of Richfield, Minnesota approves the above described sub-
division.
Passed by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota this
day of , 1983.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
•
0
OVERALL PARCEL
That part of Lots 19 and 20, "RALPH MILZIER' S A
2, 3 and 4, Block 3, "RALPH M=,.NER'S 2ND ADDI
at a point on the North line of Lot 5, Block 3
West of the Northeast corner thereof, thence E,
and the same extended to its intersection with
„KPH MII.NER'S ADDITION", hence Northeasterl-
most Easterly corner of said Lot 19, thence No:
of said Lot 19 to its intersection with a line
thereof and 130 feet South at right angles thei
North line of said Lot 19 to a point 4 feet pole:
M??R'S 2ND ADDITION", thence South parallel w
inning;
C. E.- COULTER & ASSOCIATES,
410"N A. PETER30M INC.
FRANK R. LZMZ JAI-
PROFESSIONAL REGISTERED SURVEYORS
REGIWMRED IN m1NNE30TA & *jZCpN31M
ucaraEa IN CITY Of M504EAPoLn
3300 LYNDALE AVE. SO. MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 35408
TELEPHONE a S12-824-0.370
W
DITION" and the East 4 feet of Lots
ION", described as follows: Beginning
"RALPH MILER'S 2ND ADDITION', 4 feet
st along the North line of said.Lot 5
'he Southeasterly line of said Lot 19,
along said Southeasterly line to the
=hwesterly along the Northeasterly line
irawn ;parallel with.the North line
.from, thence West parallel with the
of the East line of Block 3, "RALPH
,th said East line to the !point-'of beg-
Also that part of Lot 19, "RALPH MILNER'S ADDITION", described as follows
at the Northeast corner of Lot 5, Block 3, "RALPH _e Coce eeEast
along the extension of the North line of said Lot 5 lto the inttersection"of thence East with the Southeasterly line of said Lot 19 of "RALPH MILER'S ADDITION", which point is
the actual point of'beginning; thence southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of sai
Lot 19 a distance of 15 feet,. thence Northwesterly 40
feet with the
line running from the Northeast corner of Lot 5, Block "RALPHeMILNER'Sc2NDnADDITION-
to the actual point of beginning; thence East along said line to the actual point of
beginning,
All according to the plats thereof on file and of record in the office of the County
Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
See File 3-9-111A
NEREDY CERTIFY TMAT T1113 3URvtY, p ANA 011 REPORT MAS t•11EPA
. . OR tTNDER 11Y C?l}ECT SURS11s10 NO THAI I AM A DULY REQIIS-
SY CLIENT ROBERT W. M.UR.DOC fi
D
?^" !L Arlo v?wINr1E30TA.
Joe mo. 10, 465 TSCALE
__ e• ? ., s ?
i ?
? U
G. E. COULTER 8 .ASS
JOHN A. KTE11soN
CINATES, 1V.
FRANK R. "XZ 41q-
PROFESSIONAL REGISTERED SURVEYORS
REGIsnPED IN MINNESOTA S WISCONSIN UCMfM IN CITY OF AMMNtAPOUS
3300 LYNOALE AVE. SO. MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 53408
TELEPHONE t 612 - 824 -0370
PARC.^-.L A
That part of Lots 19 and 20, "RALPH MILNER'S ADDITION" and the East 4 feet of Lots
2, 3 and 4, Block 3, "RALPH MILNER'S 2ND ADDITION", described as follows: Beginning
at a point on the North line of Lot 5, Block 3, "RALPH M- NER'S 2ND ADDITION", 4 feet
West of the Northeast corner thereof, thence East along the North line of said Lot 5
and the same extended to its intersection with the Southeasterly line of said Lot 19,
"RALPH MI NER'S ADDITION", thence Northeasterly along said Southeasterly line to the
most Easterly corner of said Lot 19, thence Northwesterly along the Northeasterly line
of said Lot 19 to its intersection with a line drawn parallel with the North line
thereof and 130 feet South at right angles therefrom, thence West parallel with he
North line of said Lot 19 to a point 4 feet West of the East 1'
MILNER'S 2ND ADDITION", thence South parallel with said East line to he point"of
beginning; EXCEPT that part of said Lot 19 described as follows: Beginning at the
most Easterly corner of said Lot 19; thence Northwesterly along the Northeasterly line
of said Lot 19 to its intersection with a line drawn parallel with he North line of
said Lot 19 and 130 feet South at right angles therefrom;
of S89014128"W along said parallel line a distance of 122.34 feet; thence assumed bearing
a distance of 111..06 feet; thence Southeasterly to a point an the nce Southeasterly line z
of Lot 19, which point is 60.00 feet Southwesterly from said most Easterly corner of
Lot 19, as measured along said Southeasterly line; thence Northeasterly along said
Southeasterly line to the point of beginning of the tract of land to be excepted;
Also that part of Lot 19, "RAL;111MILNER'S ADDITION", described as follows: Commencing
at the Northeast corner of Lot 5, Block 3,
along the extension of the North line of said Loft 5?to the intterrssection„oftsaidelinet
with the Southeasterly line of said Lot 19 of "RALPH MI-?..NFR'S ADDITION", which point is
the act'sal point of beginning; thence Southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of said
Lot 19 a distance of 15 feet; thence Northwesterly 40 feet to line running from the Northeast corner of Lot 5, Block 3, "RALPH A the intersection with the
• to 'the actual point of beginning; "RALPH M?'?`S 2ND ADDITION"
hence East along said line to the actual point of
beginning: •
All according to the plats thereof on file and of record in the office of the county
Recorder in and for 1?ennepi,n County, .Minnesota.
See File 3-9-111.A
'Ropm.c» t, 'AT THIS SURVEY, Pt
we OR UNt7ER
LINO ii/AVEY W DIRECT
UNDER PERM
E
DATE i
OR REPORT WAS PREPARED SY
IAT I Ail A DULY REOIsTEAED
RED. No,
CLIENT ROBERT W. ML,,RDCCX
Joe mo. 10 ? 46 5
SK. /P0. 662/94
SCALE
SHEET 2 OF 4
C. E. COULTER 8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
JOMN A. PETERSON FRANK R. LENZ JR.
' PROFESSIONAL REGISTERED SURVEYORS
E
?? R>:31$TfRED IN MINNESOTA 8 wlsCaNa1N L1cfN8ED IN CYfY Of M0wtAroua
3300 LYNDAI.E AVE. SO. MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 63408
TELEPHONE t 612 - 824 -0370
PARC^-.L B
"n at mart of Lot 19, "TLUPH X=MR' S ADDITION" described as follows: Beginning at the
most Easterly corner of said Lot 19; thence Northwesterly along the Northeasterly
line of said Lot 19 to its intersection with a line drawn parallel with the North line
of said Lot 19 and 130 feet South at right angles therefrom; thence on an assumed
'-earing of S89014'28"'R along said parallel line a distance of 122.34 feet; thence
S46009'44"E a distance of 111.06 feet; thence Southeasterly to a point on the South-
easterly line of Lot 19, which point is 60.00 feet Southwesterly from said most
Easterly corner of Lot 19, as measured along said Southeasterly line; thence North-
easterly along said Southeasterly line to the point of beginning;.
According to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County
Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
•
MERENY CERTIFY THAT TMIS SURVEY PLAN, OR REPORT WAS PREP
WE OR MY DIREE T SUr ISI NOMAT II AM A DULY RE31
LANG sSURVE OR UNO?It TM 0 7 STATE OF MINNESOTA.
,
See Pile 3-9-111A
SY I CLIENT ROBERT W. MLIRDOCK
I JOS NO. 10, 465 I SCALE
N
i _
E. 65TH ST.
-? s i ?-- _- - - ?- -
-r4oeru uuc of wr 19
I
O O
1 f
3
O
A
?
I ?
? X5..03
' '• ....-2.57 ..... __.. .. ... ..... .. ?Z2.34 ..... -;
I
1-. ?l0
C
T
Fr >l0
fC• J C
?
Oy tel. Q
y?y
P S, :
o
J
T;n
Y
T•
110 u
7
/4 vet
2G.3 24.; ? S
'
N ?•d 25'Srucco J1
u0
724 nv ?' 0" 14
?
y . . O
i X5.2 /
ii,a
\ Z
v 514 _?_ __? _~
^
J y
AI I ,?? n i/ T. ? v
? sf j b
'
I
?.I !V
vE. ....[NEC ,^.f lJT S -_? .. _ _
? u89°14'7,6 •C ,
Z., _I..E JV ?T S- ? SPIKE- Q
j I ? ? ?o• ?
s
e-
ao.
• ? 1-?.-f ? g r+o. ILO ? /
-.
i ..\f??"_ --.__-._ °-.001_
j ?
I
.[ a uw/. w dn[R SV'111VILOy •.e fMy I v " ouv KYT[w[O
lM !1/w C. E COULTER & ASSOCIATES
INC.
r•, •
fY°° U.wOI LAr° Y '? rll )w({°14. ,
PROFESSIONAL REGISTERED SURVEYOft
a.Q ..•.
+[ampm w rwlx3°n . rwc°?? ucuaro w cm or ww`?la
^ Al.. "° r7ic?^? 7 3500 LYNDAI£ AfE. $0. WiPO EAAaus, wta. 3540e w`/K - •_
'ELEPMNE 61I - 624-0 Ts;
;? c;-7C,,,o
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
. Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 200
Agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf ield
Council Members:
Subject: Authorization for the Sale and Issuance
of $1,500,000 Commercial Development Revenue
Bonds, Minnesota Mini-Storage II-78th Street
and Pillsbury Avenue
On November 8, 1982, the city council adopted a resolution
giving preliminary approval to Minnesota Mini-Storage II for their
project located at 7Sth Street and Pillsbury Avenue. On April 25,
1983 the city council adopted a resolution authorizing the sale
and issuance of these commercial development revenue bonds.
Subsequent to this action by the city councils it was noted
by the Minnesota Mini-Storage bond counsel, Briggs and Morgan,
that the public notice which was published did not contain the
street address of the proposed project, but only named the city
in which it was to be located. There is a tentative treasury
department ruling that indicates that in the future this might
be a requirement for the issuance of bonds. Because of this,
Briggs and Morgan has requested that an additional notice be pub-
lished which includes the street address of the project and that
another public hearing hearing be held so as to fully comply with
the intent of this tentative ruling. This industrial development
revenue bond will in no way constitute any encumbrance against
the City of Richfield.
It is recommended that the city council hold the public
hearing and approve a motion authorizing this bond issue for the
Minnesota Mini-Storage II project at 78th Street and Pillsbury.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
0 KN/eja
_Z7_4 / /
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 199
Agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for a Special Use Permit at 6409
First Avenue for Outside Employee in a Home
Occupation
Mr. Karl Kallenberg has applied for a special use permit
to allow an outside employee in a home occupation. For a large
part of the last 12 years, Mr. Kallenberg has operated a legal,
home occupation out of his basement which involved product de-
sign for the photographic industry. Mr. Kallenberg wishes to
employee his son in the business of preparing lithographic nega-
tives. Mr. Kallenberg's son does not live in the residence,
therefore, a special use permit is necessary.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
Section 3.29, subdivision 14 indicates that persons not
living in a dwelling where a home occupation is being conducted
can only be employed in the home occupation if a special use
permit is obtained. Section 3.41 outlines the conditions for
issuing a special use permit. This section indicates that the
council shall not grant a special use permit unless it is found
that the proposal will not be detrimental to the public welfare.
Staff Review
The planning staff has reviewed this request and found the
following:
1. Mr. Kallenberg has operated a home occupation out of
his residence without complaint from surrounding
neighbors. Staff records indicated that there have
been no complaints filed against the property while
he has operated the business out of his home.
2. The home occupation has been operated legally out of
the residence. The character of the site remains
residential. There is no outside storage of equip-
ment or materials and there have been no structural
changes to the dwelling to change its character.
w
E
Council Letter No. 199 -2-
June 13, 1903
3. Mr. Kallenberg has submitted a petition signed by a
majority of his immediate neighbors supporting his re-
quest for a special use permit.
4. It is the opinion of the planning staff that the addi-
tion of an outside employee to the existing home occupa-
tion would not result in conditions which would be
detrimental to the neighborhood. There would be no
structural changes to the dwelling, the nature of the
business would not change, and there would be no addi-
tional traffic, noise or other impacts on the surround-
ing neighborhood.
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that a special use permit to allow one
outside employee in the existing home occupation at 6409 First
Avenue be approved.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission unanimously recommends approval of
this special use permit request.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
0
Karl J. Kallenberg
6409 First Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
869-5057
•
•
•
May 4, 1983
Mr. Rick Jopke
Richfield City Hall
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Dear Mr. Jopke:
We have lived in Richfield for almost 35 years and raised four sons who have
graduated from Richfield Senior High School--Richfield is really home to us!
For a large part of the last twelve years, I have worked out of my home.
Essentially, this work has been product design for the photographic industry.
This has always been a very "quiet" business with nothing to distract from
the residential status of our neighborhood.
With the present recession, coupled with my age, I have had very little
income in the past two years. My son, Dale (34 years), who also has experi-
ence in the field of photographic effects, has experienced joblessness too,
but for different reasons. Bone fusion surgery on his lower back approxi-
mately ten years ago provided only a temporary relief. The deteriorating
conditions have now included the upper back and neck area, which now precludes
working in any one sustained position. Short periods of resting on his back
several times during the day has proven helpful, but, obviously, this is not
possible during normal outside employment.
I would like my son to work with me in our home (basement facilities) in a
business of preparing lithographic negatives. This is also a very "quiet"
business which meets all of the Richfield City standards for a residence.
Inasmuch as my son does not reside in the home, I am making application for
a special employee permit. The application, along with my check for $160.00,
is attached.
Please note that I have contacted eleven of our neighbors, those whose homes
surround ours,and there was 100% approval. The petition containing their
signatures is also attached. I have made a simple drawing of these neighbor
locations, relative to our home, to graphically show the area. This is also
attached.
I look forward to the Planning Commission meeting at 7:30 p.m. on May 24th,
and then to the City Council Meeting at 7:00 p.m. on June 13th. In view of
the facts that our proposed endeavor has virtually nothing which would indi-
cate a business even exists in our home, and secondly, having a great need
for the income, we request the granting of this permit.
Sincerely,
P.S. Please provide copies of these documents to the Planning Commission
and the City Council.
,?'A2 L ?T. ,BALL, EN8c.2G
PET/7'10A/ /SAGE
TAE SCETC,4? eE-IOU/
TAE- CONCUoee1A)CG HOME OwNc 2S Peo,?E-er?E s
''O THAT OF 77-1E ,2ES1DE1VCE 7-/0/1/
!0400
1V07T APP1,/CAde-Z
RENTAL ,OROQE.27Y
?'c 4 /¢
0
N
i
W
Q
Q
V)
vJ
C o4 T/-?/ S 7`,eE°E T
•
6421 First Ave. S.
1-11??h2-'ield, HH.
'1983
Rick Jooke, City Planner
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave. S.
Richfield, H. 55423
Dear ifr. Jocke:
RZ;: Lot 2, Block. 7
Towns Edge Addition
Applicant : Z-arl Wallenberg
'Je have no objections to your granting a special
use permit to allow one outside employee in a home
occu,oation at the aallenberg residence.
The 'L,',allenbergs are very fine peo--le, excellent
neighbors and we are sure they will use discretion
in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert L. and Lo i s Johnsen
6421 First Avenue
0
0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 198
Aqenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Variance Request at 6644 Park Avenue From
the Streetside Sideyard Setback Requirement
Proposal
Earl and Judith Moquist recently began construction of a
deck at the property at 6644 Park Avenue without the required
building permit. The inspection division issued a stop work
order on the deck until a permit was obtained. It was dis-
covered that the deck as constructed does not meet the city
streetside sideyard setback requirement, since it has a set-
back from the south property line of 1 foot instead of the re-
quired 12 feet. The applicant has requested a variance to
allow them to finish constructing the deck.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
Section 31A, subdivision 5a requires a streetside side-
yard setback of 15 feet. However, Section 3.27, subdivision 3,
paragraph 41 indicates that ground level landings or uncovered
porches may extend three feet into the required sideyard. The
required streetside sideyard setback of the deck is therefore
12 feet. Section 3.40, subdivision 6 lists the three conditions
which must be present for a variance to be granted.
Staff Review
The staff has reviewed the proposal against the three
conditions which must be present for a variance to be granted
and found the following:
1. There are no special circumstances present on this
site. The site is sufficiently large and regularly
shaped to allow a sufficiently sized deck without
a variance.
2. Denial of the variance would preclude reasonable use
of the property. Denial of the variance would not
preclude the existing two-family residential use of
Council Letter No. 198 -2- June 13, 1983
is of the property and alternatives for constructing
a deck exist which would not require a variance.
For example, an 8' x_ 20' size deck could be con-
structed at the existing location without requiring
a variance.
3. It is the opinion of the planning staff that the
deck would not be detrimental to the public welfare.
The applicant has submitted a petition signed by a
majority of the immediate property owners indicating
their support for the variance.
Staff Recommendation
Because the three conditions for granting variances have
not been met, the planning staff must recommend that the variance
be denied. The city manager recommends approval of the variance
for deck purposes only.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission recommended denial of this variance
request by a 6-2 vote.
•
KN/eja
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
0
•
i
C
A-2
?=? by
i
s v
ZIK
/
/J?/ref . ? 1 1
e
i
I
"?, zl-zt-z, 12
i?
r?
V/ l C? L %
s
0
April 26, 1983
Community Development Department
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55123
Gentlemen:
We would like to make application for a variance to co7struct a 19' x 20'
wood deck out to within 11-0" of the property line along 67th Street.
There is an existing 18" maple tree directly out 16' f?om the S.V. corner
of the house. The branches reach within 2' of the house and completely
shades the side entrance. Grass will not survive between the tree and
the house. The concrete curb on 67th Street is higher than the walk from
the side entrance stoop causing water to pond along the foundation. An
existing patio block area has heaved because of tree rolpts pushing the
block up and causing offsets and an uneven walk area. i
The best solution we can come up with is to cover the area with a wood
deck between the tree and the house. T"ne around below the deck would be
sloped with earth away from the house and covered with polyethylene vapor
barrier weighted down with the old patio blocks. The roots would be free
to expand wherever and would not affect the elevated wood deck.
A 6' high screen fence along the property line would of
and be constructed as a part of the deck structure. Se
would be constructed along the east and west sides of t
with 4 risers would be added adjacent to the house at t
sides.
We would appreciate your consideration and approval
Sincerely,
Earl W. Moouist
/ Judith E . \fopuisi
EW-M/cjk
er some privacy
ting and railings
e deck. Steps
e east and west
•
•
0
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF
FOR PURPOSE OF
Legal Description:
17
We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as
above described, do hereby concur with the variance as requested.
Signature of Cwners
•
•
Address
7 ?
r ` L
7 ? C2, U
L=Z-954? .
IL.CC..
i
may not be -ermcved once the petition is signed and
_returned to ?he Planning Division.
City or, . R"„;ai
May 19, 1983
Rick Jopke
City Planner
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave. So.
Richfield, MN 55423
Subject: Variance request
6644 Park Ave. So.
Richfield, MN
Lot 9 Auditors Subdivision #340
As a property owner at 6637 Park Ave. for 29 years, I have had ample time
to have seen many changes in the subject property.
For most of that time, the property has been rental, notllowner occupied,
and has deteriorated, at times to the point where it was an obvious
detraction to the neighborhood.
Since the present owners, Mr. & Mrs. Moquist, acquired ai
the property, it has greatly improved.
Since I find nothing objectionable in the requested vari?
setback, and in fact consider it an asset, I urge you to
variance.
Having people such as this in Richfield, who care for an(
property, is a gain for us all.
Thank-you
i
Wni . C. Sharkey
6637 Park Ave. So.
866-7682
id recently occupied
once for a one foot
grant the requested
improve their
ra r?
E
•
•
0
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Variance Request to
Sideyard Setback at
struct an Addition
Council Letter No. 197
Agenda June 13, 1983
Reduce the Streetside
7200 4th Avenue to Con-
Mr. Richard Cameron has requested a variance to reduce the
streetside sideyard setback from 15 feet to 12 feet at 7200 4th
Avenue. Mr. Cameron wishes to construct an addition measuring
14 feet x 21.3 feet to the rear of their existing home. The
streetside sideyard setback would match that of the existing
house. This site and the surrounding properties are zoned as
residential.
Zonincr Ordinance Requirements
Section 3.30, subdivision 5, requires a minimum streetside side-
yard setback of 15 feet, and section 3.40, subdivision 6 lists the
three conditions which must be present before a variance can be
granted.
Staff Review
The planning staff has reviewed the variance request aa_ainst the
three conditions which must be present for a variance to be granted
and found the followina:
1. There are no special circumstances present on this particu-
lar site. This site and the other residences in this gen-
eral location are of similar design.
2. It is the staff's opinion that denial of the variance would
not prevent the reasonable use of the property. The denial
of the variance would not prevent the continuation of the
existing single family residential use of the property.
However, they could not construct any additions to the ex-
isting building without obtaining a variance because the
existing structure does not meet the streetside sideyard
setback requirements.
Council Letter No. 197
-2-
June 13, 1983
3. It is the opinion of the planning staff that the proposal
will not be detrimental to the health or safety of area
residents; nor detract from the aesthetics of the neighbor-
hood. The addition falls in line with the present street-
side sideyard setback of the existing house. The setback
of the addition is similar to the homes neighboring Mr.
Camerson's and would follow in the pattern of other residences
within this neighborhood.
Staff Recommendation
Because this proposal does not meet the three conditions necess-
ary for granting a variance, the planning staff recommends that
the variance be denied. The city manager recommends approval of
this variance request.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission recommended approval of this variance
request by a 6-2 vote.
Respectfully submitted,
•
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/ej a
•
1 ? .r C ' G
0
ADDRESS
7345 Clinton Avenue South
7301 Clinton Avenue South
7245 Clinton Avenue South
7201 Clinton Avenue South
7145 Clinton Avenue South
7101 Clinton Avenue South
7001 Clinton Avenue South
7000 4th Avenue
7044 4th Avenue
7100 4th Avenue
7144 4th Avenue
7200 4th Avenue
7244 4th Avenue
7344 4th Avenue
South
South
South
South
South
South
South
STREET SIDE SIDEYARD
SETBACK
10.26'
9.26'
22.22
11'
18.8'
5'
10.4'
20'
23.2
15'
32.7
12'
17.75'
5.71'
•
0
k
?1 7
•
2
3
A
c
I ?
v_
w
r?
?
y
C?
Ns
t1?
J
'O
fn
77
O
•
17
.t- < :,i?F ? ?- ? ? ei A ? / j??? ?i?-t? tit' ? `.
` ry r
t J r?
v
J /
XL
i _ U ? '
n
M,?7,±4 Y {• Yi K? RnC!II s " •y F
MAY 23 1993
City of Richfield
- -
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 196
Agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Approval of Agreement with Summit State
Bank for Security Service
Summit State Bank has requested the Department of Public Safety
to assist in providing security when funds are transferred be-
tween the main bank building and the drive-in banking facility
twice each day. This service will be provided upon request from
the bank by on-duty Police Division personnel.
The Public Safety Department has conducted a cost analysis of
40 this service and negotiated a contractual arrangement with Summit
State Bank for an amount of $300 per month for the current year.
The city attorney's office has prepared the attached contract for
this service and the contract has been executed by the proper
officials at the bank.
It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in
which I concur, that the city council authorize the Mayor and
the City Manager to enter into this agreement, on behalf of the
city, for the provision of the requested police services to the
Summit State Bank of Richfield.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberaer
City Manager
KN/eja
0
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and
February , 1983 by and
Minnesota municipal corporate,
The Summit State Bank of
Richfield
WITNESSETH:
entered into this 1st day of
between the City of Richfield, a
:)n, hereinafter "city" and
, hereinafter "bank".
WHEREAS, the bank maintains a detached banking service
facility separated from its main building; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to transfer large volumes of cash
and other negotiable documents between the two locations from
time to time during usual business hours; and
WHEREAS, such transfer requires bank employees to carry the
cash and documents through public areas; and
WHEREAS, because such transfer must ordinarily be accom-
plished at predictable times and across a fixed path, some risk
of criminal intervention is inherent in the activity; and
WHEREAS, the bank is desirous of obtaining the services of
the Department of Public Safety in escorting its employees
during such transfers; and
WHEREAS, the city is willing to undertake such services and
believes it to be in the best interest of the public health,
safety and welfare of the community to do so.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants here-
inafter contained, it is stipulated and agreed by and between
the parties hereto as follows:
1. The city will furnish an on-duty uniformed patrol
officer to escort bank employees from their detached
facility to the main building subjec. to the following
limitations:
a) The bank will notify the public safety department
by telephone when it is in need of an escort.
b) The city will dispatch a patrol officer to the
bank when, in the judgment of the city, an
officer is available and clear for such duty.
c) The officer will walk with the bank employee from
the detached facility to a secure location in the
main bank building.
d) The officer will not handle, or carry the cur-
rency or documents and will not be requested to
do so by the bank employee.
e) During the furnishing of the escort service, the
officer shall remain in the sole and exclusive
employment of the City of Richfield and subject
to its exclusive control and supervision.
f) No more than two calls for escort service may be
made in any day.
2. The bank agrees to pay the city for such services the
sum of $ 300.00 per month. Payment shall be due by
the fourth day of each month.
3. This agreement may be terminated at anytime by either
party upon the giving of 30 days written notice to the
other party.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their
hands the day and year first above written.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
•
By
Karl Nollenberger
Its City Manager
By
John Hamilton
Its Mayor
lmm i t- State 3" n i{ of R C !7 1- i
r-
BV ._..=:
. i'
I.s
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
is Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 195
Agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Taxicab Licensing.
First Reading.
The Department of Public Safety has the responsibility for
inspecting taxicabs that operate in the City of Richfield and for
conducting the background investigations of the drivers operating
these taxicabs, as part of the licensing process.
Our licensing requirements are somewhat more restrictive than
those of other metropolitan communities and as a result many
• drivers from other communities do not meet Richfield's standards.
In the past year it has become apparent that it is difficult to
determine whether or not the activity of a taxicab driver is in
violation of our current ordinance code. It is the intention of
the Department of Public Safety to offer the citizens of our
community the most competent and safe taxi service available,
therefore, in order to assure complaince with our requirements we
recommend the proposed amendments to Sections 6.20 and 6.21 of the
ordinance code, as prepared by the city attorney's office.
It is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in
which I concur, that the city council give first reading approval
to the attached ordinance amendment, and schedule second reading
and the public hearing for the June 27, 1933 city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: City Clerk
KN/eja
is
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER VI
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
1. Chapter VI, Section 6.20 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield, entitled "TAXICABS" is hereby amended in the follow-
ing respects:
A. By amending subdivision 2 thereof to read as follows:
"Subd. 2. License Required. No person shall engage in the
business of operating taxicabs or auto liveries in the city
without first obtaining a license. Any taxicab licensed to
operate in another political subdivision of this state in-
cluding the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport may
carry passengers to any place or point within the city; but
neither the owner nor operator of such vehicle shall be per-
mitted to solicit or pick-up business on the street of the
city or to otherwise operate within the city without being
licensed under the provisions of this section.
B. By amending subdivision 5 thereof to read as follows:
"Subd. 5. Insurance Requirements. No license shall be issued,
and any existing license shall be immediately revoked by the
manager, until the applicant or licensee files with the city a
current policy of insurance whereby each vehicle for which a
license is required is covered against loss or injury in the
following amounts:
(1) Each passenger, at lease $25;999 $100,000
(2) Each accident, at least $597999 5300,000
(3) Property damage, at least $;91999 $50,000
If the applicant has qualified as a self-insurer under Minnesota
Statutes, section 170.52, and has filed with the city a certified
copy or a duplicate original of his self-insurance certificate
issued by the state commissioner of highways, no policy of insur-
ance shall be required to be filed with the city. In lieu of a
policy of insurance or certificate of insurance, applicant may
file with the city a surety bond issued by a surety company auth-
orized to do business in the State of Minnesota, in the sum of
$691999 $100,000 running to the city for the benefit of the city
0
and all persons who may suffer damages or injury to person or
property arising out of the ownership, operation, use or main-
tenance of any one person injured or killed or whose property
is damaged, and $693999 $300,000 on any one accident, irrespec-
tive of the number of persons injured or killed or the amount of
damage to property. This bond shall be kept in full force and
effect during the full time of the license and the liability
thereon shall be continuing, notwithstanding any recovery there-
on. If the bond at any time during the term of the license is
deemed to be undesirable by the city it shall be replaced by a
suitable bond to the licensee. The bond shall contain provisions
guaranteeing payment of any final judgment entered against the
owner or licensee of any taxicab licensed with the city irrespec-
tive of financial responsibility or any acts or omissions of the
owner or licensee."
C. By amending subdivision 8 thereof to read as follows:
"Subd. 8. Investigation and Inspection. Each application shall
be referred to the eb4ef-ef-pe44ee Director of Public Safety for
investigation of the applicant and any vehicle to be operated in
his taxicab or auto livery business. The eh4ef-ef-pe;4ee Director
of Public Safety shall determine the operating condition of any
such vehicle and make a report to the council based on his findings.
The council may grant licenses applicable only to those vehicles
described in the application and approved in the report of the
eh4ef-ef-peg}ee Director of Public Safety,"
D. By amending paragraph (7) of subdivision 10 to read as follows:
"(7) Ega?pped-w?tb-sbatte?p?eef-w}Rdews-apd-w?pdsb?e?ds-aed-fear
wheel.-brakes In compliance with all applicable safety requirements
of the State of Minnesota, the provisions of this code and the re-
gulations of the Department of Public Safety,"
II. Chapter VI, Section 6.21 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield
entitled "TAXICAB DRIVERS" is hereby amended in the following respects:
A. By amending subdivision 3 thereof to read as follows:
Subd. 3. Scope of Section. Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-
division 2 of this section, any taxicab driver licensed to operate
in another Fflep4e?pa4 ty political subdivision in this state, includ-
ing the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, may carry passen-
gers from such fep4e4pa44ty political subdivision into the city apd
?eee}?e-?eeal•-passeegews-fey-ea???age-te-the-}}eees??g-?dA?E}pal•?ty
w?tbeet-p?eea??eg-a-??eeese-eede?-tb?s-reef}ee;-p?s??ded;-hewe?e?,
seeb-fe?ei•gp-tai}Eab-d???e?-daes-set-se??e?t-bes?pess-ee-the-streets
ef-the-e?ty-ee?-peek-ap-passepge?s;-e?eept-wbe?e-a-t??p-fey-seeb
0
passepQews-has-l3eee-awwaaged-at-a-eewtwa?-eff}ee-ef-the-Ee?pae?r
few-wber?-tbe-dw??ew-deer-bas?pess;-wh?eh-eff?ee-?s-?eeated-ebt-
sde-the-beapdaw}es-ef-the-efy. and may freely enter and travel
upon the streets and thoroughfares for that purpose, and in such
case it shall not be necessary for the driver to obtain a Rich-
field taxicab driver's license; but such driver shall not be per-
mitted to solicit or pick up business on the streets of the city
or to otherwise operate within the city without being licensed
under the provisions of this section. While in the city the for-
eign driver shall observe all the regulations and conditions of
this section."
B. By amending paragraph (1) of subdivision 4 thereof to read as
follows:
"(1) He must possess a-?a?id-Eba?ffe?w's-?eeese the required
class of license from the State of Minnesota.
C. By adding thereto the following new subdivision:
"Subd. 12. Display of License. Every driver licensed under this
section shall keep the city issued license posted in his taxicab
in clear view of his passengers at all times the taxicab is being
operated within the city."
•
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
This day of , 1983.
John E. Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
0
0
0
0 found the following:
15
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 194
Agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
eo , )V.
Subject: Request for Rezoning at 910
From Residential to Limited
Convert Existing Residence
Proposal
T
[Nest 66th Street
Business to
to Dental Office
Dr. David Elasky would like to rezone the property at 910
West 66th Street from R(Residential) to C-1 (Limited Business) to
allow him to convert the existing residence into a dental office.
The city ordinance indicates that a rezoning may be initiated in
either of two ways. The rezoning may be initiated by petition of
owners of not less than 50 percent from the land proposed to be
rezoned and by the owners of at least 50 percent of the land within
300 feet of the land proposed to be rezoned. The other way the
rezoning could be initiated is by action of the city council.
Dr. Elasky attempted to-gain the required number of signatures
on a petition but was unable to do so. The petition and letters
of support which, he filed with the city staff only had signatures
of owners of 45 percent of the land within 300 feet instead of
the required 50 percent. One property owner, Superamerica, indica-
ted that they supported Dr. Elasky's rezoning, but company policy
would not allow them to sign the petition. Superamerica's signa-
ture on the petition would have given Dr. Elasky the required
number of signatures. The city staff contacted Superamerica and
they verified their support of the project.
Dr. Elasky appeared before the city council at its April 25,
1983 meeting and requested that they initiate the rezoning at 910
West 66th Street. The council voted to initiate the rezoning_ based
on the fact that with Superamerica Dr. Elasky would have had the
required number of signatures and to refer this matter to the
planning commission for their recommendation.
Staff Review
The planning staff has reviewed the proposed rezoning and
Council Letter No. 194 -2- June 13, 1983
• 1. The subject property is adjacent to residentially
zoned property to the northwest and across 66th Street
to the south. There is commercially zoned property
across Rae Drive to the east. The C-1 limited business
district is intended for supplying a limited supply of
services primarily for the benefit of the residences in
the neighborhood. A C-1 district would, therefore, be
a compatible zoning district with the surrounding zones,
and the planning staff does not consider the proposal
to constitute spot zoning. Furthermore, there is a
commercial property across Rae Drive from the proposed
site. This requested rezoning would constitute contin-
uity of zoning patterns in the area.
2. The existing single family residential use of the prop-
erty is not necessarily the best use, primarily because
of high traffic volume. There is an average daily traffic
count of approximately 20,000 cars on 66th Street and Rae
Drive has an average daily traffic count of 3,410 cars a
day; while typical average daily traffic on residential
streets in Richfield is 200 to 1,000 vehicles per day.
As noted above, the subject property is directly across
Rae Drive from a C-2 General Commercial District. The
staff believes that rezoning of this site to Limited
• Business would provide better utilization of the property
while maintaining a transition zone for the residential
property west of the site. Proper screening and setbacks
will add to the buffer effect.
3. The comprehensive plan indicates that the proposed site
is in a medium density buffer area which would allow for
multi-family duplexes, single family dwellings, and ex-
isting convenience commercial establishments. Under
these stipulations, the proposed dental office would not
be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
4. The site is not within the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet Redevel-
opment project area. The boundaries of the redevelop-
ment area jog around this particular block. It appears
to have been a conscious effort.to not include this area
in the redevelopment project and to maintain existing
residential uses in the area.
5. Final plans have not been submitted showing the proposed
renovations or parking lot location and design, but there
appears to be sufficient lot area to acccmodate the prop-
osed development without requiring variances.
Staff Recommendation
• A proposed reuse of the site as a dental office appears to
be a reasonable use for the site, and one which could exist without
Council Letter No. 194 -3- June 13, 1983
• detriment to the neighborhood. However, the planning staff
cannot recommend the rezoning because the proposed rezoning is
not consistent with the comprehensive plan, nor with past policies
of the city regarding the development of that particular block.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the planning staff that
the rezoning request be denied.
If the city council is of the opinion that the site should
be rezoned to C-1 Limited Business, it is suggested that the staff
be directed to evaluate rezoning all of the property on the north
side of 66th Street from Rae Drive westward to the Coach Homes
development. It is also recommended that the council direct the
staff and the planning commission to evaluate the need for a
comprehensive plan amendment for the subject area.
If the council wishes to proceed with this matter, the council
should give first reading to the attached ordinance and schedule
second reading and the public hearing on this matter for June 27,
1983.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission, on a 7-1 vote, recommended that the
rezoning be denied. The commission felt that while the dental
office use may be appropriate on the site, the city should only
10 consider the rezoning of the whole parcel lying between 66th Street
and Rae Drive and the Coach Homes development, and not just one lot.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
r
•
•
I•
REQUEST 1 OR REZONING FROM !-< ? TO 1
FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE 1?cN-
STREET ADDRESS : Ci tL. LLB . ?-- ?- S'
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
We, the undersigned, being owners of land within 300 feet of the land
described above, do hereby concur in this Rezoning request.
Signature of Owners* Address
Legal Description
UCH Ci 6 v `i i4D 1 i.Z-1{ C/ _-
* For purposes of determining if Petition contains the proper number
of signatures to initiate the rezoning process signatures may not
be removed once a petition is signed and returned to the Planning
Division.
PIF-TMoN Njo.?p
Joe
i °ec
S1??T4R?5 o$TAJtJ?? -
= FZ=r PAvI u5
•
71,2
J rt
r ?
v C /L U V
0
•
zrl1 :" y 1 C-F7
David J. Etas, D„?®y
7 01 Nicoll-t kve. S.
Minneacolis,
Dear :ter. Elasky
aorr, to to so late in ans-erinc 01
.. ar
recent letters, vut 74e have Oe°TOLl` O_°
town.
w
'IV 16 tl. TGC.?..y rQ to your -cl+b':s 1 Or v vale
ana nre DrIve, Wesee no reason _o
oojectin tC you-
z rdoosaI as suv? 4--
- -o 7our s ett .
`???aTa tTu1--
m
F.
?till'r??t?T ,P„
0
•
c=? cS.
P3 J,,. c _ C ?c li?l__ Iii^!e G»
T'°87?:1^. rte, J - r a
j ?
921 Rae Drive
Richfield,Lfinnesota 55423
March 8,1983
David J.Elasky, D.D.S.
7001 Nicollet Avenue South
Richfield, Mn. 55423
Dear Mr.Elasky,
We received your letter of inquiry on March 2 regarding
We are not in favor of your proposed building an this res910 Wet th S
idential6blocktreet.
We like the Parkins family and want them to be successful in selling their
property, but we do not feel that your proposed development would be in our
best interest here on a residential block.
We are not in favor of a variance or re-Zoning for Planning Commission and the City Council tohonoruourrdecisiondinethist
matter.
Yours very truly,
Edwin H-Burkhardt
Anne C.Burkhardt
COPY: City of Richfield, R.Joepke
Planning Commission
John Hamilton, Mayor
Council Members
0
0
rN,
?y\ r
? s
y f S l? '
? ' ? of r - ,C, . / J Y
?i
1 o f f'
A ? p ? x7
1 1.
?17
•
9
i
Uri
i
J_
^.......... .....
.--
$ZI
1
0
•
•
•
0
C
a
A
A
r
A
O
v
c°
n
7
7
71
Rr,.<?ry M
t ..[ JJ
?,M J
7r.-.*.-• =[_l?lt ?? m?iITiIIiTI^iI?1??.
l7-7-71
,? - , " , J
4 r.c[a +.[
J
;"5 a ,
B T- L
1J O.
ORDINANCE NO.
i
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, ?INtiESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield,
Minnescta defining the boundaries of the various zoning districts
of the city enumerated in Chapter III, Part 771
Section 2,28,
Subdivision 2 of such code is ::ereby amended in the following
respects;
1. Appendix C Section 2 is amended by adding the following
new paragraph 21:
(21) Lot 7 Rae Addition
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of 1983.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
0
-z;e ;2 7 /+
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 193
Agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Deferral of Award of Contracts for Well #5
Renovation and Painting of Penn Avenue Water
Tower to June 27
On June 1, 1983 bids were opened for two city projects, the
renovation of Well #5, and painting of the Penn Avenue Water Tower.
The bid specifications indicated award of the contracts would
occur on June 13, 1983. However, additional time is needed to re-
view the bids and to prepare a recommendation for award of con-
tract. An announcement was made at the bid opening that award
of contract would be deferred to the city council meeting of
June 27, 1983 and there were no objections from the bidders present.
It is, therefore, recommended that the city council officially
defer award of contracts for Well No. 5 renovation and painting of
the Penn Avenue water tower to the June 27, 1983 city council
meeting.
+Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
9
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
4?? 77C
Council Letter No. 192
Agenda June 13, 1923
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf ield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Raffle License- Richfield Jaycees
0 a waiver of both the raffle license fee and the required $10,000
On May 4, 1983, Mr. Ronald Kassa submitted an application
for a gambling license on behalf of the Richfield Jaycees, in
order that they may conduct a raffle. Mr. Kassa is the President
of the Richfield Jaycees and has indicated that the raffle would
be conducted from June through August of 1983. This is an annual
fund raiser, and the raffle tickets would be sold outside of the
city's municipal liquor stores. The applicant has also requested
surety bond.
Mr. Kassa and Mr. Karl Nollenberger, both Richfield residents,
are the two officers of the organization that are listed on the
application and neither of these two individuals have any known
criminal record.
Based upon the information supplied in the application and
the investigation conducted by the Department of Public Safety,
there appears to be no basis for denying the license. It is the
recommendation of the Director of Public Safety that the city
council give favorable consideration to the Richfield Jaycees re-
quest for a gambling license in order that they may conduct their
annual raffle.
Respectfully submitted,
4:2?- n1 , ti?Y,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
0
•
__0 C:;? ? 6
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 191
Agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Bingo License Application, St. Richards
Parish and GSA
s
Mr. William H. Westerman has submitted an application on
behalf of St. Richards Parish and GSA for the renewal of their
bingo license. The applicant requested bingo be conducted on
Wednesdays from 7:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. The two officers
of this organization are The Reverend Roger Pierre, Pastor;
and Mr. William Westerman, who is also the designated gambling
manager. Neither of these two individuals have any known
criminal record.
The applicant has requested that the required $10,000
surety bond be waived. In the past years the city council has
granted this waiver request. This request for a bingo license
was applied for at the same time as their request for renewal of
a non-intoxicating malt liquor license (January, 1933). The
city council approved the non-intoxicating malt liquor license
on February 28, 1983, but the bingo License applica-
tion has not previously been submitted for council approval.
It is recommended that the city council give favorable con-
sideration to the approval of the bingo license request and the
surety bond waiver request submitted on behalf of St. Richards
Parish and GSA.
Respectfully submitted,
A'y
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
0
has
V
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Council Letter No. 190
Agenda June 13, 1983
Subject: Salary Acting City Manager
At the May 23, 1983 city council meeting, the city council
appointed Thomas Morgan as the Acting City Manager effective
June 18, 1983. The matter of compensation for the position was
not addressed at that time. It is the normal policy of the
city to give temporary adjustments of ten percent for acting
positions. Mr. Morgan's current salary is $47,628.
It is recommended that the city council provide a salary
of $52,391 which is ten percent above his present salary for the
period of time Mr. Morgan serves as Acting City Manager.
Respectfully submitted,
v
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Public Safety Director
KN/eja
•
?? / 3
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 189
Agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to On-Sale Wine
License Year. Second Reading.
As a matter of convenience, the licensing period of the wine
license has been set to commence on April 1 of each year, and ex-
pire on March 31 the following year. However, an amendment to
the Minnesota State Statutes 340.11 subd. 16 requires that "all
intoxicating liquor licenses issued by a municipality other than
a city of the first class, except manufacturers and wholesalers
licenses, shall expire on the same date."
This change in state statutes requires that we amend our
wine licensing ordinance to bring the licensing period into con-
formance with the calendar year. The city attorney's office has
developed the attached amendment which will allow us to accomplish
this change without affecting the licenses which have currently
been issued. In effect, the licenses issued for 1934 will be
issued for a nine month period. Starting_ in 19851 all wine licenses
will be issued for a calendar year, in a manner similar to the-
presently existing license periods for non-intoxicating and in-
toxicating liquor sales.
A copy of the proposed ordinance amendment is attached to
this council letter. It is recommended that the city council
hold the public hearing and give second reading approval of
this ordinance amendment at the June 13, 1983 city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
4 ...? nom, ? -? ?•
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: City Clerk
Public Safety Director
KN/eja
•
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XI,
SECTION 11.08 OF THE ORDINANCE
CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter XI, Section 11.08 of the Ordinance Code of the
City of Richfield entitled "ON-SALE WINE" is amended by
amending subdivision 9 thereof to read as follows:
Subd. 9. License Year. The license year shall
commence January 1 Apr4:1-1 of each year beginning
in 1985 and terminate on December-31 Mareh-3-1 of
the-€e?1e?? each year beginning in 1985. New
licenses issued in 1983 and 1984 shall be on a
calendar year basis. Renewal licenses issued in
1984 shall expire on December 31, 1984. When an
original license is issued for a portion of the
license year, the fee shall be prorated at the rate
of one-twelfth of the annual license fee per month
or portion of a month remaining in the license year.
The same proration shall apply to renewal licenses
issued in 1984.
•
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this day of , 1983.
John E. Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
0
-a'l "-Z'
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 188
Agenda June 13, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Transitory Ordinance Amending Section 2.03
of the City Charter Relating to Terms of
Council Members. Second Readincr.
At its April 25, 1903 city council meeting, the city council
approved the first reading of this ordinance, which was trans-
mitted to the council by the charter commission. The amendment
would have the effect of increasing the term of the office of
Mayor from two years to three years.
A copy of the proposed transitory ordinance.is attached to
this council letter. Unanimous approval of the city council is
necessary to pass this amendment. This ordinance amendment
has been placed on the city council agenda for second reading
consideration at the June 13, 1923 city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
l /
??v ? ? \ ? -, Jai t?k ?tl.?.,,,?...? ?;??
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/ej a
0
•
CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE NO.
CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE RELATING TO
TERMS OF OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
AMENDING SECTION 2.03 OF THE RICHFIELD
CITY CHARTER
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 2.03 of the City Charter of the
•
City of Richfield relating to elective officers of the city is
hereby amended to provide as follows:
"Sec. 2.03. Elective Officers. The council shall be composed
of a mayor and four council members all of whom shall be registered
voters. Commencing with 1981 election the offices of mayor and
at-large council member shall be filled by election at large.
Commencing with the 1982 election the offices of the three
district council members shall be elected from apportioned council
districts in which they reside. the-mayor-sha}}-sere-fer-a-term-
ef-toe-pears-a?8°the-at-}arge°aid-d?str?et-ee?ne?}-?e?bers-sha}}
seree-fer-a-term-ef-three-years.- The terms of office of mayor
and all other members of the council shall be three ears. The
regular term of an office commences on January 1 next following
the general election at which balloting for the full term of the
office occurs. A candidate for the office of district council
member must reside while seeking election and while serving in
office within the district from which he or she is elected. A
council member who was elected under the at large system prior
to the 1981 election and whose term has not expired may continue
in office until his term expires. Prior to March 15, 1982, and
every time there is a United States Census thereafter, the city
council shall be ordinance establish compact and contiguous
council districts to be apportioned by population as nearly equal
as practicable."
Section 2. Effective Date This ordinance is effective
ninety (90) days after its publication, subject to the provisions
of Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, Subdivision 7.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
•
this day of , 1983.
ATTEST:
John Hamilton Mayor
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
TRANSMITTAL ORDER
•
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota:
We, the undersigned, being duly qualified and acting members of
the Charter Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, do hereby
respectfully submit and deliver to you the attached proposed ordinance
amending Section - I-- of the City Charter of the City of Richfield.
We hereby respectfully proposed, reccrmend and submit for adoption,
•
by unanimous vote of the City Council and approval by the Mayor of the
City, the attached proposed ordinance this day of
i , 19
-' ,
T'
\ 1 ?
c.c--'cam
0