The URL can be used to link to this page

11-09-81 agenda -~[~/8~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 395 Agenda November 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Tabulation of Bids and Award of Contract for Public Safety Furniture, Furnishings, and Equipment On October 28, 1981, bids were opened for furniture, furnishings, and equipment for the Public Safety addition and remodeling. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for council review. The low bid was submitted by General Office Products Company of Minneapolis, in the amount of $45,106.97. This figure of $45,106.97 is lower than estimated, and therefore, it is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur, that the city council a:aard the contract for furnishings, furniture and equipment relative to CP 7670, Public Safety Addition and Remodeling, to the General Office Products Company of Minneapolis, in the amount of $45,106.97. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Public Safety Director • • CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening October 28, 1981 Public Safety Furniture, Furnishings and Equipment Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Public Safety Furniture, Furnishings and Equipment, as advertised in the official newspaper on October 14 and 21, 1981. Present: Thomas A. Morgan, Public Safety Director Lois Evers, City Manager's Designee Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER BID SECURITY TOTAL BID S & T Office Products B. B. 5% $48,963.28 General Office Products Co. of Minneapolis B. B~ 5% $45,106.97 Dayton's Commercial Interiors B. B. 5% $50,243.00 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of November 9, 1981. Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk S P E C I F I CATT~)1~ 5 STYLE Sectetarial Workstations 1-5 5 9063-B 5 9013-C Terminal Stand #6 4 99233 1 1 1 1 2 98234 99214-A 98705 98706 99229 ,.t,; . DESCRIPTION Steelcase table " desk A" Pedestal with Steelcase 65" L•J x 30" D x 30" H Laminaan~ rim6 W4~866~1arm Brown Value 1 t Pant Steelcase typing return organizer with stationery 20" x 45" x 26" Paint and trim: N 4686 Warm Brown Value 1 Steelcase Panel One sided acoustical 65" H x 30" l'1 Fabric on acoustical side: Tweed 5464 Blue Blue Violet Ta~eed 5471 Fabric on non-acoustical side: Warm Brown Value 2 Steelcase Panel One sided acoustical 65" x 35" Tweed 5464 Fabric on acoustical side: Blue Blue Violet Fabric on non-acoustical side: Tweed 5471 Warm Brown Value 2 Steelcase wall mount worksurface 65 x 30" Laminate: 2766 Warm Brown Value 1 Paint: 4686 Warm Brown Value 1 Steelcase 30" worksurface support Left hand Paint and trim: 4686 Warm Brown Value 1 Steelcase 30" worksurface support Right hand Paint and trim: 4686 Y1arm Brown Value 1 Steelcase "A" pedestal 3-6" box drawers Paint: 4686 Warm Brown Value 1 02000-1 QTY STYLE DESCRIPTION 6 98428-ACC Steelcase worksurface 42" x 25" Supports both sides Laminate: 2766 Warm Brown Value 1 Paint & trim: 4686 Warm Brown Value 1 8 98428-ACP Steelcase worksurface 42" x 25" Cantilever support left End panel support right Laminate: 2760 Warm Brown Value 1 Paint & trim: 4686 Warm Brown Value 1 6 98428-APC Steelcase worksurface a2" x 25" Cantilever support right End panel support left Laminate: 2766 Warm Brown Value 1 Paint & trim: 4686 Warm Brown Value 1 10 98703 Steelcase worksurface support 25" D, right hand Paint & trim: 4686 Warm Brown Value 1 • 10 98704 Steelcase worksurface support 25" D, right hand Paint & trim: 4.686 Warm Brown Value 1 10 99224-P Steelcase full height pedestal 25" D 2-Box, 1 file drawer Paint:4686 Warm Brown Value 1 10 99223-P Steelcase full height pedestal 25" D 2 file drawer Paint: 4686 t4arm Brown Value 1 10 98555 Steelcase shelf wall mount 42" W Paint: 4686 Warm Brown Value 1 10 PB-40 Steelcase paper flo back 39 9/16 4J x 5" H for 42" panel Paint: 4686 Warm Brown Value 1 10 pr. PS-P9-5 Steelcase paper flo supports 5" H Paint: 4686 ldarm Brown Value 1 02000-3 M.4 .. ~y STYLE 100 PT-25N-R 20 PT-55N-R 3 98716 3 pr. 98719 g 842-251-HF • 1 842-48 10 842-551-HF SEATING 6 10 .~~nnntnTT/1 ~1 Steelcase paper flo card tray 2 1/2" tJ x 5" H x 11 3/4" D Right hand Paint: 4686 lJarm Brown Value 1 Steelcase paper flo card tray 5" W x 5" H x 11 3/4" D Right Land Paint: 4686 Warm Brown Value 1 Steelcase wall attachment 65" H Paint: 4686 lJarm Brown Value 1 Steelcase wall mounting tracks 65" H Paint: 4686 Warm Brown Value 1 Steelcase lateral file 42" x 18" D x 28 1/4" H 2drawer with lock and hanging folder frames Paint: 4686 Warm Brown Value 1 Steelcase open bookcase 41ith 3 each 842-FS-15 openings and 1 each 842-F-3 filler Paint: 4686 Warm Brown Value 1 Steelcase lateral file 42" W x 18" D x 64 11/16" H 1-12" H shelf with door 4-12" H file drawers lJith lock and hanging folder frames Paint: 4686 Warm Brown Value 1 459-520P1 Steelcase monochromatic posture chair ~ With 5 star polypropylene capped base Fabric: Scotland D566 Blue Blue Violet Shell and base color: 6217 Warm Brown Value 2 i Casters: 2 3/4" hard composition wheels 454-1221 Steelcase monochromatic operator chair s Full function with vinyl coated cantilevered arms Five arm polypropylene capped base. Fabric: Huntstock E 36S Blue Blue Violet Shell and base color: h217 l~Jarm Brown Value 2 Casters: 2 3/4" hard composition wheels. 07.000-~! k ~ {~ ~. t Y F F - __ __._-_ 11 ~. 2 2 16 12 1 1 STYLE DESCRIPTION 454-430P1 Steelcase monochromatic side chair Operational, armloeslene capped base Five star polyp pY Fabric: Huntstock E36Q Blue Blue Violet Shell and base color: 6217 Warm Brown Value 2_ Casters: 2 3/4" hard composition wheels lOD 101 102 103E WB-1355SD AT-1120 SD WU-1023 SC WI-1098L Touhy Mesa 6 Lounge 30 W x 30" D x 28" H x 16" S.H. 4" Polyfoam cushion bonded to particle board Oak butcher block base module 3/4" radius edges Fabric: Staccato M42 Navy/Spice Touhy Mesa 6 Ottaman 30" W x 30" D x 16" H 4" Upholstered polyfoam cushion Oak butcher block base module 3/4" radius edges Fabric: Staccato M42 Navy/Spice Touhy Mesa 6 Low Table 30" W x 30" D x 12" H Oak butcher block base module Plastic laminate top: Navy1Blue~9-65F Touhy Mesa 6 Planter 30" W x 30" D x 28" H Oak butcher block base module With water--tight metal liner Smokador non-burning plastic waste basket 13.5 " x 8. 5 " x 15 H Color: Sand Smodador Stacking plastic ashtray 5" D x 1.25" H Color: Sand Smokador wall hanging dual ash/waste receptacle 8 3/4" W x 23" H x 4 3/a" D Satin Chrome Smokador Disposable Plastic Bags For WU-1023SC 250 per carton 02000-5 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNEOSTA Office of City Manager • ~ f:~ .rte Council Letter No. 394 Agenda November 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Amendment to Off-street Parking Permit for Walser Buick, 7745 Penn Avenue South _~ In August of this year, the city council approved a special use permit, variance, and off-street parking permit to allow the conversion of an existing service station, located at 7745 Penn Avenue South, into an automobile sales facility for Walser Buick, Inc. Walser Buick, Inc. is in the process of acquiring a piece of vacant land, adjacent to the south boundary of their property, from the State of Minnesota. The state has indicated that they are willing to sell the property to Walser Buick and the process is currently underway. Walser Buick intends to expand its off-street parking area to include this additional land that is being acquired. They are requesting that the city approve an off-street parking permit for the property as a whole, including the new parking area. The staff has reviewed the proposal and found that it would meet all city standards for off-street parking areas and would result in no adverse impacts on surrounding streets. No new curb cuts would be constructed and the number of parking spaces would greatly exceed the number of spaces required. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, approving the proposed off-street parking layout and authorizing the city manager to execute this contract. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner City Engineer RESOLUTION No. • RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT FOR OFF-STREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION NO. 81-9, CONTRACT NO. 2339 Walser Buick 7745 Penn Avenue South Location: Same Use: New Parking Area BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the proposed geometric layout of the off-street park- ing as contained in Off-Street Parking Application No. 81-9, of performance of the contract for such off-street parking as hereinafter authorized. 2. That the proposed off-street parking contract for the improvement of said off-street parking, bearing Contract No. 2339 be placed on file and that the manager be authorized to sign said contract and the clerk be authorized to seal the same for and on behalf of this city. 3. That the off-street parking operator provide the City of Richfield with Surety in the form of cash, passbook saving with- drawal authority, or performance bond in an amount to be determined by the community development director and city manager, to ensure the off-street parking lot is constructed within the terms and regula- tions of the Off-Street Parking Agreement. 4. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of said Off-Street Parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the off-street parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code 4.05. Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of November, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk PENN AVE. ~-IV~~ Scales I "= 40~ • •c~-Sidewalk `~~ 175% _ ~ \ _ / ~ I ~~ ,' ~ ~ Exist. concrete cur ~ _ _ to be removed ~ PARCEL ~2 5' 17 W TO Q ~_ BE / i ~i Z ACQUIRED ~ I O FROM (,~. STATE OF 1 MINNESOTA ~ ~ i io / N / N IE--31=~{ i~ - ~ - --•233'4 I/8"••- - -~ ~ ~'~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 393 Agenda November 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Purchases in Excess $1,000 Chapter 6, section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that the city council must approve the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There are eleven such items on the November 9, 1981 city council agenda. MUNICIPAL SWIMMING POOL ROOF REPAIR `i'he 1981 Capital Improvement Projects includes funding for roof repairs and other improvements to the bathhouse at the outdoor municipal swimming pool. The roof repairs are primarily new flashings with some resealing of drains. Three written quotations have been received for this work, from 12 vendors contacted. Allweather Roof Company quoted $2,980. Gamber Roofing Company quoted $2,220. It is recommended that the city council authorize the roof repair to be performed by Minneapolis Roofing Company in the amount of $1,595. ZAMBONI REPAIR Emergency repair of the Zamboni was required one week-end in October. It is recommended that the city council authorize payment for the completed emergency repair to R & R Specialties, Inc. in the amount of $1,313.16, including parts and labor. SALT AND SAND SPREADER This is a replacement item in the 1981 central garage budget for an item that was fully depreciated about two years ago. Three written quotations were received for this attachment item. Bryan Equipment, Inc. quoted $6,279. Itasca Equipment Company quoted $4,617. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase from Truck Outfitters, Inc., who submitted the low quotation of $4,025.10. SANITARY SEWER REPAIR An emergency situation recently developed with a sanitary sewer line where an outside manhole was broken, causing eroding and seepage. The long range effect, if left untended, could be caving in of the street. Verbal quotes were obtained for the required work, which was predominately labor with some equipment and material charges. Hayes Contractors, Inc. quoted $2,000. It is recommended that the city council authorize payment to F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. in the amount of $1,900 for this emergency repair. Council Letter No. 393 -2- November 9, 1981 SECURITY SCREENS The Adams Hill Park redevelopment project included funding for purchase and installation of protection or security screens over the windows of the park shelter building. This screening includes stainless steel wire cloth of 12 by 12 mesh per inch, as previously installed at Christian Park. Two written quotations were received for the screens to be furnished and installed. Bartley Sales Company, Inc. quoted $3,407. It is recommended that the city council approve the purchase from Allied Aluminum Manufacturers in the amount of $2,176. TRAFFIC SIGNS a The majority of the signs to be ordered are per the traffic sign inventory and eligible for funding. The order lists included 12 No Parking Here to Corner; two Lane Ends Merge Left; 10 Do Not Pass; four Ped Xing (symbol); 40 No Parking Any Time with double arrows; six No Parking Between Signs; eight One Way (four left, four right); six Road Closed; four Axle Weight Limit 4 Tons; 50 No Parking Except Sundays and Holidays; and 20 Speed Limit 30; all of engineering grade reflectorized on aluminum. In addition, 10 E-Series Street Name Plates, white on green are needed. Two written quotations were received. Gopher Sign Company quoted $2,215.90, which did not include the E-Series Street Name Plates. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of the above listed signs from Earl F. Anderson and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $1,685.96. TREES Permits were obtained from 14 neighbors abutting Adams Hill Park for the purpose of park redevelopment. One of the neighbors, 7308 Upton, stipulated that trees were to be replaced. Two written quota- tions and one verbal quotation were received for 20 trees to be delivered and planted. The verbal quote from Minnesota Tree was $2,834. The written quote from Bachman's was $3,203.40. The written quote from Dundee Nursery and Landscaping was for $2,148.16. The neighbor has stated a preference to receive the value of the trees rather than to have the trees replaced. It is recommended that the city council authorize payment to Gordon McKinnon in an amount of $2,148.16, equal to the low quotation. Funding for this payment is available through the Adams Hill Park project. FENCING SOUTH BOUNDARY OF GOLF COURSE One of the 1981 capital outlay items for the golf course is completion of the fencing along the southern perimeter of the golf course, where four-foot chain link fence with toprail, end ports and corner posts is needed. Three written quotations were received. Crowley Fence Company, Inc. quoted $7,045.18. Midwest Fence quoted $6,670.00. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase from Century Fence Company of the estimated 2,300 linear foot chain link fence with C section posts and rails, in the amount of $6,028.00. Council Letter No. 393 -3- November 9, 1981 FENCING MAINTENANCE YARD OF GOLF COURSE Another of the 1981 capital outlay items for the golf course is the fencing for the maintenance yard at the golf course. As with the perimeter fencing, this fencing is proposed as a security measure. Three written quotations were received for the estimated 750 linear feet of chain link fence with toprail, three double swing gates and necessary posts. Century Fence Company quoted $4,400 or $3,900 if C section posts and rails were used. Crowley Fence Company quoted $4,404.62. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of fencing for the maintenance yard of the golf course from Midwest Fence and Manufacturing Company, in the amount of $3,527. RADIO EQUIPMENT The adopted 1982 budget for the Inspection Division of the Public Safety Department provides $5,700 for the purchase of replace- ment radio equipment for the building inspection staff. There is presently a county purchasing contract in effect for the acquisition of such equipment through the Motorola Corporation. However, that contract provides for a substantial price increase effective December 1, 1981. The present purchase price of the authorized radio equipment for the Inspection Division is $5,674. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of this equipment prior to December 1, 1981 from the county contract. Because of delivery schedules, the equipment will not actually be received, nor will payment be due, until after January 1, 1982. CASH REGISTER RIBBONS New cash registers have recently been installed in our city's municipal liquor stores. There is an item on the November 9, 1981 city council agenda providing for the purchase of 20 dozen cash register ribbons for these registers. Minnesota Cash Register is the only vendor that can provide the specific ribbons needed. It is recommended that the city council approve the purchase of '20 dozen cash register ribbons from Minnesota Cash Register in the amount of $1,100:00. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City I~lanager KN/eja cc: Finance Coordinator Community Services Director Public Safety Director ~~~~- CITY OF RICFIFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Canvass of Election Council Letter No. 392 Agenda November 9, 198i Attached to this council letter is a resolution providing for canvass of the results of the city's general election of Tuesday, November 3, 1981. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, certifying these election results. • Respectfully submitted, ~~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja RESOLUTION N0. nE:SOLUTIOfJ D'tTERMINING RESULTS OF CITY iaENERAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF RICf;FIELD HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEPIBER 3, 1981 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that at the general election held November 3, 1981, for the purpose of electing for the position of Mayor and one city councilperson position, the results were as follows: Total number of ballots cast......7,235 votes cast for candidates: MAYOR John Namilton ..............3,983 Donald J. Priebe...........3,207 COUNCILPERSON hlartin J. Kirsch...........3,515 Juanita Collins............3,528 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following candidates, having received the majority of votes cast and counted are declared elected: MAYOR-------------------------------------------- John Hamiltcn • - ~(artin J. Kirsch COUf•1CILPERSON----------------------------------- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following list of judges were those certifying returns of said eiection: Shirley Gisselquist (D) Michaeline Kvaale (R) .Evelyn Pangilo (R) Myrtle Lindgren (R) James Jungels (D) Elayne Gilhousen (R) Jan Bray (D) Ellen Brandon (D) Mary Jane Suess (D) Carol Bissonette (R) Joyce Emerson (R) Eunice Johnson (D) Linda Bloomgren (D) Lucille Brandell (R) Ann Stensby (R) Dave Arnold (R) Catherine Aifano (D) (~9argaret ~Jagner (R) Ethel Homrnes (G) Joan Schaefer (R) V Jean Lofstrom (D) Franc Gray (R) Darrell (Coss (R) Lois h:ovach (D) Chrystal Linn (R) Betty Obenchain (D) Betty Halloran (R) Alice Strom (R) Wilbur Johnson (D) Eloise Friend (R) Donna Villas (R) Ella Haight (R) Jean Frenz (R) Gladys Juengling (D) Jane fdel son (R) Eunice Aulwes (P.) Pauline Huber (R) Joan 6~Jong (D) Pat Brenner (D) Bernadette Lais (R) Gertrude Herll (D) Joyce Rodeberg (R) Barb Cook (D) Audrey Winslow (R) Rosemary Reynolds (D) Corrine Cosr_,rove (D) Susan Lewis (R) Janice Andersen (R) Alice Neuberger (D) Steve Sable (D) ALTERNATES: ~~1ary Morton (R) Janice Nunn (D) Beverly.Stelman (D) Carolyn 6v~a1 ker (D) Esther Anderson (R) -2- Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this th day of November, 1931. Donald J. Priebe-Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh-City Clerk • .~,, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 391 Agenda November 9, 1981 4 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Council Outdoor Skating Rinks During council review and discussion of the revised 1981 and proposed 1982 budget, it was stated that those budgets assumed a reduction of at least two skating rinks someplace in the city for the 1981-82 skating season. During the 1980/81 season, the city began closing some skating sites. At that time, the open skating rinks at Washington and Memorial Parks were both closed, and the hockey rink at Madison Park was closed, although the general skating rink at Madison was kept open. The general skating rink at Sheridan Park was recommended by the staff for closure, but was kept open pursuant to council action. The rinks which were closed at that time were selected because of their comparatively low attendance rates, and because other skating rink locations existed in the general to serve residents who might otherwise have skated at Washington, Memorial or Madison Parks. Because the skating season will soon be here, the city has recently been reviewing the attendance figures from previous years skating programs in an effort to identify sites which should be closed during the coming skating season. Based on historical attendance figures, the city's cost per skater, and a review of the dispersion of skating rinks throughout the city, the staff has developed a recommendation that the skating facility at Sheridan Park be eliminated, and that the buildings be closed at Madison, Nicollet and New Ford Town Parks, although ice sheets could be maintained at Madison, Nicollet and New Ford Town sites. This would mean that the city would keep 8 skating rinlt sites with warming house attendants and buildings open, and provide an addi- tional five skating sites without warming house buildings and facilities. The attached map shows these locations. The attendance figures at these three rinks over the past three years are shown on the attached pages, along with figures for all of the rinks, along with a calculation of the average cost per skater. The 1981 revised and 1982 adopted budgets assumed a total savings of approx- imately $8,000 to be achieved through closings of the skating rinks. The actual savings estimated for each of these sites, re- sulting from elimination of building attendants and utility savings Council Letter No. 391 -2- November 9, 1981 from closing of the warming houses, are assumed to be what the total cost shown in the attachment indicate. One of the concerns expressed by the council last year with regard to potential cicsing of the Sheridan Park rink related to the proximity of that rink, and the usage it receives from the school children. The attached map indicates that, even with closing of the rink at Sheridan Park, the rin;1 at Jefferson Park would still be as close, or closer to Sheridan School as any rink in the city is to any other elementary school. It is recommended that the city council take action to elim- inate the Sheridan Park general skating facility, and to close the building and eliminate the attendant at Madison, Nicollet, and New Ford Town Parks. Respectfully submitted, ~,~ . ,~ A ,~ ~~ (' , Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Community Services Director • ~\ ~ ~~ s r ~ ~ ~~ .~ ~ ~ ~ o ~° ~ n\ ~ C~ o\ `° t z O cry Q w w z_ 3 N - - - - - - - - - - iii i~ .--1 ```''~QQQ'~~' p ?~ c - l_~I~JC IJ k t t C LL LJ.. 3.~ WS d1 i°-!: 'Fiy ~~~~~ ~ Z u ~ , i::: ' :1 ~I'._.__I~~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ o_~~w ~I__~~)~~ I~ W _ ., ~ ~ W a d f ~~ _~C ~~~~ 11 :, z ._ IL .~..~~ ~ = t ~~ II W w ~ ,I r _ _. _ 8 ' 7~ L- - _ I ~ ~_~ I I'. f -a I - ~ ' ~ ~~ l..~C~~_ ~ if IIII~_ L ~, 1~--_ ' ~ .. t IL i r - '~_ ll ~ sy,, u[ 1~ 11 ~[ ' -~ - - W ~ _ ,~~ ~ _~~ ~[ --.~C] - _;L _~~ _ 1. ~~ __--'i : _](_ ~ 1~ -IC-Jf --1~ JC: lL---iL ~[ __~i _ JC ~~ ,_ _, Jf 1C-7~C~7C_ i!_ ~C =~~ ~ -- --- - y [b ,.„.,! ~ 1L ..] [ i l ;, ~- is .' I ~~~JL_V ~- _ _ 1C-~~7 ~~_ -JC ~C~~-i[ .. ~,wa i ,.. ,a,a.,... z ~-- a Y c/') (!S J Z Q } H ~ W D W ~G J Z ~--~ 1--i W O ~ C.~3 2 CO i i i i i e ~'. F r c ~ i `. Comparative Attendance and Costs for Four Parks 1980-81 Season 'te Total Attendance Total Costs Cost per Skater New Ford Town 469 $ 2,993.79 $ 6.38 (general skating and hockey) ' Sheridan 1,096 1,293.83 1.18 (general skating only) Madison 899 1,293.83 1.44 (general skating only) Nicollet 468 1,293.83 2.76 (general skating only) C 1978-1979 !~lIi~TER {rJARMING HOUSE AVERAGE ATTEi;DANCE FIGURES* DAYS TOTAL AV. DAILY EVENINGS TOTAL AV. EVE. COf~IP. RANK PARK OPEPI ATTEidD. ATTEND. OPEN ATTEND. ATTEf~ID. AVG. 1 Jefferson 47 821 18 43 429 ~10 I9 1 Roosevelt 48 809 17 44 938 21 19 2 Donaldson 48 726 15 41 634 16 15.5 3 Christian 46 714. 16 36 491 14 15 4 Taft 46 689 15 42 512 13 14 5 Madison 49 870 17 41 389 10 13.5 6 Fairwood 50 804 16 46 389 9 12.5 C 7 Adams Hi11 50 471 9 47 616 13 8 Augsburg 50 .575. 12 45 405 9 10.5 9 Nicoll et 35 350 10 29 281 10 10 10 New Ford Town 49 453 9 43 352 8 8.5 11 Memorial 47 387 9 43 186 5 7 11 Sheridan 43 398: 9 41 179 5 7 11 Washington 36 368 10 33 130 4 7 *The number of days open for skating this season was again (as in 1979-1980) affected by poor weather conditions. The ~~~eather also caused ice conditions to vary from site to site which affected opening/closing. 14 sites - Comp. Total 169.5 - Comp. Avg. 17_.11 • COMPARATI VE ATTENDANCE AND. COS TS FOR FOU R PARKS 1980-L981 SEASO N Total Total Cost Savings Cost/Skater Under.' Under:. Under Site Attendance .Cost ,Proposal Proposal :.:Cost/Skater ..Cost/Skater Proposal NFT (general, hockey skating) 469. $5,455 $2,461., $2,994 $11.63 $6.38 $5..25 Sheridan ~, j go ~ ~~ 9 3' (general skating , only) $0/ej 1,096 3~~~' 3,755 0 3,755. 3.43 3.43 0 Madison (general skating only) 899 3,755 2,461 1,294 4.17 1.43 2.74 Nicollet (general skating only) 468 3,755 2,461 1,294 8.02 2.76 5.26 TOTAL 2,932 $16,72.0 $7,3~?3 $9,337 ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ • COMPARATIVE ATTENDANCE. AND COS TS FOR FOU R PARKS 1980-1981 SEASO N Total Total Cost Savings Cost/Skater Under.:.. Under. Under Site Attendance Cost ;Proposal Proposal .:Cost/Skater Cost/Skater Proposal NFT .(general, hockey skating) 469 $5,455 $2,461- $2,994 $11.63 $6.38 $5.25 Sheridan (general skating only) 1,096. 3,755 0 3,755 3.43. 3.43 0 .:Madison (general skating only) 899 3,755 2,461 1,294• 4.17 1.43 2.74 Nicollet. (general skating only) 468 3,755 2,461 1,294 8.02 2.76 5.26 3~OTAL 2,932 $16,720 $7,383 $9,337 i 1979-1980 1•lINTER ~•JARMING HOUSE AVERAGE ATTE~lDANCE FIGURES* DAYS TOTAL AV. DAILY EVENINGS RANK PARK OPEN ATTEfdD. ATTEND. OPEN 1 Jefferson 17 624 37 49 2 Christian 19 637 34 45 3 Taft ~ 20 527 26 48 4 Fairwood 21 519 25 41 5 Donaldson 18 304 17 41 6 Augsburg 19 365 19 45 (. 8 Roosevelt 21 330 16 47 7 Sheridan / 19 371 20 48 9 New Ford Totivn ti' 17 200. 12 34 10 Nicollet ,~ 6 77 13 9 11 4Jashington 17 225 13 36 12 Memorial 19 233 12 45 13 Madison ,1 27 259 10 30 14 Adams.Hi11 14 163 12 34 TOTAL AV. EVE.. COMP. ATTEiJD, ATTEND. AVG. 1,891 39 38 1,489 33 33.5 1,348 28 27 1,103 27 26 1,245 30 23.5 1>151 26 22.5 978 21 18.5 988 21 20.5 686 20 16 150 17 15 531 15 14 657 15 13.5 436 15 12.5 380 11 11.5 * Qecause of poor weather conditions and attendant reporting records, the actual number of days open is less than previous seasons. 14 sites -Comp. Total 292 -Comp. Avg. 22.46 ~6 ~ ~~ ~~ \ ~~ 1980-1981 IJINTER 1,JARi~ING HOUSE AVERAGE ATTENDANCE FIGURES* DAYS TOTAL AV. DAILY EVENINGS TOTAL AV. EVE. COi•SP. RANK PARK OPEN ATTEidD. ATTEND. OPEN ATTEidD. ATTE;JD. AVG. 1 Christian 41 879 21 39 1,154 30 25.5 2 Donaldson 49 1,144 23 43 1,158 27 25 3 Jefferson 52 1,062 20 47 1,156 25 22.5 4 Taft 42 842 20 35 675 19 19.5 5 Roosevelt 42 840 20 36 573 16 18 6 Fairwood 45 X90 13 37 579.. 16 14.5 7 Sheridan ! 45 565 13 37 531 14 13.E C 8 Augsburg 50 555 11 46 584 13 9 Madison ,; 47 401 9 42 498 12 10.~ 10 Nicollet j 30 255 9 26 213 8 8.~ 11 New Ford Town ~+ 33 232 7 27 237 9 8 * The number of days open for skating this season wa s again (as in 1979-1980) affected by poor weather condit ions. The ti•~eather also caused ice conditions to vary from site to site which affected opening/closing. 11 sites - Comp. Total 177.5 - Comp. Avg. 16.1 ~_ 1978-1979 WINTER WARMING HOUSE AVERAGE ATTENDANCE FIGURES* DAYS TOTAL AV. DAILY EVENINGS TOTAL AV. EVE. COMP. PARK OPEN ATTEND. ATTEND. OPEN ATTEND. ATTEND. AVG. Jefferson 47 821 18 43 429 10 19 Roosevelt 48 809 17 44 938 21 19 Donaldson 48 726 15 41 634 16 15.5 Christian 46 714 16 36 491 14 15 Taft 46 689 15 42 512 13 14 Madison 49 870 17 41 389 10 13.5 Fairwood 50 804 16 46 389 9 12.5 Adams Hill 50 471 9 47 616 13 11 Augsburg 50 575 12 45 405 9 10.5 Nicollet 35 350 10 29 281 10 10 New Ford Town 49 453 9 43 352 8 8.5 Memorial 47 387 9 43 186 5 7 Sheridan 43 398 9 41 179 5 7 Washington 36 368 10 33 130 4 7 *The number of days open for skating this season was again (as in 1979-1980) affected by poor weather conditions. The weather also caused ice conditions to vary from site to site which affected opening/closing. 14 sites - Comp. Total 169.5 - Comp. Avg. 12.11 • 1980-1981 WINTER WARMING HOUSE AVERAGE ATTENDANCE FIGURES* DAYS TOTAL AV. DAILY EVENINGS TOTAL AV. EVE. COMP. PARK OPEN ATTEND. ATTEND. OPEN ATTEND.. ATTEND. AVG. Christian 41 879 21 39 1,154 30 25.5 Donaldson 49 1,144 23 43 1,158 27 25 Jefferson 52 1,062 20 47 1,156 25 22.5 Taft 42 842 20 35 675 19 19.5 Roosevelt 42 840 20 36 573 16 18 Fairwood 45 590 13 37 579 16 14.5 Sheridan 45 565 13 37 531 ~ 14 13.5 Augsburg 50 555 11 46 584 13 12 Madison 47 401 9 42 498 12 10.5 Nicollet 30 255 9 26 213 8 8.5 New Ford Town 33 232 7 27 237 9 8 ,~ 0 ^N * The number of days open for skating this season was again (as in 1979-1980) affected by poor weather conditions. The weather also caused ice conditions to vary from site to site which affected opening/closing. 11 sites - Comp. Total 177.5 - Comp. Avg. 16.1 • 1979-1980 WINTER WARMING HOUSE AVERAGE ATTENDANCE FIGURES* DAYS TOTAL AV. DAILY EVENINGS TOTAL AV. EVE. COMP. PARK OPEN ATTEND. ATTEND. OPEN ATTEND<, ATTEND. AVG. Jefferson 17 624 37 49 1,891 39 38 Christian 19 637 34 45 1,489 33 33.5 Taft ~ 20 527 26 48 1,348 28 27 Fairwood 21 519 25 41 1,103 27 26 Donaldson 18 304 17 41 1,245 30 23.5 Augsburg 19 365 19 45 1,151 26 22.5 Roosevelt 21 330 16 47 978 21 18.5 Sheridan 19 371 20 48 988 ~ 21 20.5 New Ford Town 17 200 12 34 686 20 16 Nicollet 6 77 13 9 150 17 15 Washington 17 225 13 36 531 15 14 Memorial 19 233 12 45 657 15 13.5 Madison 27 259 10 30 436 15 12.5 Adams Hill 14 163 12 34 380 11 11.5 * Because of poor weather conditions and attendant reporting records, the actual number of days open is less than previous seasons. 14 sites - Comp. Total 292 - Comp. Avg. 22.46 • . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Inter-Offir,e Memorondurr, SATE October 28, 1981 To City Manager rR;~rn Community Services sue~ECT Skating Rinks Tentatively scheduled for the November 9, 1981 council agenda is an item related to closing of skating rinks. The attached information was prepared by Frank White. Can we try to get together Friday of this week or Tuesday of next week to discuss the subject prior to going to council? f ~~s G~,- Don Fondrick, Director Community Services Department Attachment V • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Inter-Office rneTr,randurr•, SATE October 26, 1981 ro Don Fondrick rROM Frank White ,`~%~ 1 ~. sue.~ECT Outdoor Skating Program Savings From 4755 The following savings would be realized by (1) closing down park buildings completely beginning with the month of October through the month of April, eliminating utility charges, and (2) not hiring warming house attendants, thereby eliminating staff expense: NEW FORD TOWN PARK* Attendants 2 @ $3.35 x 92 hours (1981 budget) _ $ 616.00 2 @ $3.62 x 245 hours (1982 budget) = 1,774.00 2,390.00 Oct. PJov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Electricity - 1.56 7.50 30.88 57.05 35.89 (3.62 cr) _ $129.26 Gas 16.77 5.81 61.82 108.10 113.43 106.13 62.47 = $474.53 TOTAL SAVINGS $2,993.79 *Because of the continued vandalism at NFT, we have two attendants full-time to work at this site to help reduce the problem. SHERIDAN PARK Attendant 1 @ $3.35 x 92 hours (1981 budget) _ 1 @ $3.62 x 245 hours (1982 budget) _ Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Electricity 3.38 3.38 3.38 8.41 16.32 Gas 3.72 2.33 3.31 10.18 19.04 TOTAL SAVINGS $ 308.00 $ 887.00 1,195.00 Mar. Apr• 7.27 3.38 11.23 3.50 $1,293.83 _ $ 45.52 _ $ 53.31 Memo to Don Fondrick October 26, 1981 Page 2 From 4751 The following savings would be realized through reduced "labor & equipment costs" and "building maintenance costs" at each site: (based on 1980 season figures) LABOR & EQUIPMENT CHARGES Total dollars $17,837 13 sites = $1,372.00 BUILDING MAINTENANCE CHARGES Total dollars $13,372 13 sites = $1,029.00 WATER COSTS (rate: .75 per 1,000 gallons) Based on 2,000 gallons (one flush truck) a day to build and maintain each skating rink: 2,000 gal. x 5 days (per week) x 8 weeks (approx. season) _ $ 60.00 TOTAL 4751 SAVINGS $2,461.00 TOTAL SAVINGS: New Ford Town Park Sheridan Park $2,461.00 (4751) 2,993.79 (4755) ,, ~ 5,454.79 ~ n $2,461.00 (4751) 1,293.83 (4755) ~ ,~ 3,754.83 ~ :~ "~. Total of combined parks - $9,209.62 i~ .~ 'J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 390 Agenda November 9, 1981 The Ilonorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ O Subject: Federal Tax Status of Local Fire and Police Relief Associations The Richfield Police and Fire Relief Associations, which are primarily engaged in providing retirement benefits to members and death benefits to beneficiaries of members, have had a tax exempt status for the past 20 years. However, the IRS has recently been challenged by other groups who have been denied a tax exempt status and, as a result, the IRS has evaluated existing exempt groups. We have recently learned that the federal IRS, based on revenue ruling 81-58, will rescind the tax exempt status of all those Minnesota Fire and Police Relief Associations which are now exempt under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(4), beginning with calendar year 1982. If this ruling is upheld, the tax consequences on our relief associations are staggering. The tax rate on corporate excess retained earnings can run as high as 50 percent, and could mean that the city's annual contribution to the relief associations might be required to double in order to replace the taxed earnings on invest- ments. The City of Richfield is required to provide a level of funding that meets the normal costs and amoritizes any existing :actuarial deficits during the next 30 years. Federal legislation is being sought to authorize exemption of these organizations in a manner similar to that provided to teachers' retirement fund associations. Attached to this council letter is a reoolution urging Congress to enact this federal legislation. It is recommended that the city council approve this resolution and request that the city manager forward copies of it to our federal congressional delegation and urge their support and action on this subject. Respectfully submitted, ,~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Public Safety Director Administrative Services Director Finance Coordinator RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION RELATING TO TAX STATUS OF RICHFIELD POLICE AND FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATIONS WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has issued Revenue Ruling 81-58 that appears to remove the exemption on earnings of police and fire relief associations from federal taxation, and WHEREAS, the effect of this ruling could result in the more than doubling of the city's annual contribution to the police and fire pension funds, and WHEREAS, the effect of this ruling would result in a trem- endous burden on all taxpayers in the City of Richfield. NOjV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the • City of Richfield urges its United States Senators, Boschwitz and Durenberger, and Representative Frenzel to work closely with our police and fire relief associations to obtain an extension of the effective date of Revenue Ruling 81-58 by one year, and BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield supports the immediate passage of legislation correcting the exemption problem by creating an exemption similar to that which teachers have under IRC 501 (C) (11) . Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of November, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk v ~F~J • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 389 Agenda November 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Fees and Charges. Second Reading. There is an item on the November 9, 1981 city council agenda providing for the council to give second reading con- sideration to an ordinance amendment relating to various fees and charges of the city. This ordinance amendment would pro- vide that the establishment of license, permit and miscellan- eous fees can be accomplished by city council resolution, rather than by ordinance, as is presently required. Council members gave first reading approval to the attached ordinance amendment at the October 26, 1981 city council meeting. The ordinance has been amended, as the council requested, to provide that the various license, permits and other fees established in a city council resolution are subject to a public hearing. This public hearing requirement is contained in paragraph 2, section 1. It is recommended that the city council amend the proposed ordinance to include Section 1, and then give second reading approval to this ordinance amendment. A notice will be pub- lished for a hearing to be held on November 23, 1981 regarding a license, permit and miscellaneous fee resolution, which will be presented to the council at that time. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. .~ v Karl Nollenberger City rlanager cc: Program Directors City Clerk R:N/eja s ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX D OF THE.ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINESOTA CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: (1) Sections 1 through 9 of Appendix D of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "License, Permit and Miscellaneous Fees" are hereby repealed. Section 1 thereof does not have a specific title. It provides that licenses, permit and miscellaneous fees re- quired under the ordinances of the city shall be as contained in the following sections of Appendix D. It further provides for a table of cross references of the various code sections and subdivisions to the sections and numbers of Appendix D. The titles of Sections 2 through 9 of Appendix D are as follows: 2. Construction and Related Permit Fees and Charges. • 3. Construction and Related License Fees. 4. Zoning, Land Use and Related Fees and Charges. 5. Amusement and Recreation Licenses and Permits. 6. Vehicle and Transportation License and Permit Fees. 7. Commercial Business and Trade Licenses and Permits. 8. Liquor and Related License and Permit Fees. 9. Miscellaneous Fees. • (2) In lieu of the foregoing repealed sections, Appendix D shall provide as follows: Section 1. Establishment of License, Permit and Miscellaneous Fees by Resolution. License, permit and miscellaneous fees established under the ordinances of the City of Richfield and under this Appendix D shall be deter- mined from time to time, by resolutions of the city council. Before adopting a resolution changing any such fee or fees, the city council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed changes. Ten (10) days' published notice of such hearing shall be given in the official newspaper. The city council or the city manager may propose such changes. The city manager shall arrange for publications of notices of and schedule the holding of hearings on the proposed changes. Section 2. Official Copies of Fee Resolutions. Three copies of the most recent resolution establishing such license, permit and miscellaneous fees shall be marked "Official Copy" and shall be filed and made available for. .use and examination by the public in the office of the city clerk. Section 3. Authority for Each Fee to be Stated. Any such resolution establishing .fees shall state the ordinance section, if any, pursuant to which each particular fee is being established. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1.981. Mayor ATTEST: • ty Clerk i ~f // CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 388 Agenda November 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Tlembers of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: o~ env G~'` J c ~. (~-'° Subject: Request for Rezoning, 6717 Lyndale Avenue South PROPOSAL Norman Gilbertson has submitted a petition requesting the rezoning of his property located at 6717 Lyndale Avenue South. Mr. Gilbertson is proposing a zoning district change from "R" single family residential to "C-1" limited business. Should the council approve the rezoning, Mr. Gilbertson plans to remove the single family house and garage now existing on the property and construct a 3,264 square foot.,one-story office building and 12 off-street parking stalls. The proposed use is allowed in C-1 zoning districts. ZOT~'ING ORDINANCE REQUIRMEENTS Section 3.42 of the zoning ordinance lists procedures and requirements for zoning district changes, including the petitioning of owners of not less than 50 percent of the land within 300 feet of the subject site. STAFF FINDINGS The staff has reviewed the proposal and found the following: 1. That the applicant has secured signatures of_ the owners of 51.3 percent of land within 300 feet of the subject property. This petition is therefore valid to initiate the rezoning process; 2. That the subject property is adjacent to residential property on the north, south, and east, and commercial property across Lyndale Avenue to the west. The staff does not consider this spot zoning. The "C-1" limited business district is intended for supplying a limited variety of services primarily for the benefit of residents of the immediate neighborhood. The "C-1" district would therefore be a compatible zoning district with the surrounding zones. Furthermore, since there is commercial property across Lyndale Avenue from the proposed site, this requested rezoning would constitute continuity in zoning patterns in the area. Council Letter No. 388 -2- ~lovember 9, 1981 3. That the existing single family residential use of the property is not necessarily the best use. Lyndale Avenue • average daily traffic is 12,030 in this area. Typical average daily traffic on residential streets in Richfield is 200 - 1,000. The subject property is directly across the street from a "C-2" general commercial zoning district. The staff feels that rezoning of this site to Limited Business will provide the applicant better utilization of his property, and will maintain a "buffer" for the residential property east of the site. Proper setbacks ar.d screening will add to the buffer effect. Mr. Gilbertson's proposed building meets all setback requirements, including screening, and will require no variances. _~4. That the subject site is in the "Central Business District" as indicated on the comprehensive plan. The re onincr to limited business is,therefore,in compliance with the comprehensive plan, which also indicates this site to be developed with high/medium densities and principle uses, which includes limited business district uses. 5. That the proposal in in compliance with the goals and p.;'- ~ policies of Richfield, which state that rezonings should be ~ ~ in compliance with the comprehensive plan. 6. That some of the neighboring residents who did not sign the petition have expressed opposition to the proposal. The concerns expressed include the possibility of a restaurant locating at the site, negative impacts on property values and a "promise" by the city in years past not to "commercialize'' property south of 67th Street on Lyndale Avenue. Although a restaurant is not proposed at this time, the rezoning remains with the property indefinitely or until another rezoning is granted. Certain types of restaurants are allowed in the C-1 zoning district, however, special use permits are required for all restaurants in the city. Thus, if a restaurant were proposed in the future, council action would be required and it would be necessary to find that such use would not cause adverse impacts or be detrimental to the neighborhood before a restaurant could locate on the property. The city is not initiating this rezoning application. The applicant and owners of 51.3 percent of land within 300 feet of the subject site are initiating this application. Also, the comprehensive plan indicates this site as commercial property. It is staff opinion that the city, through the com- prehensive plan, clearly indicated that development in this area can be commercial in nature. 7. That the property is outside the L/H/N redevelopment project area; therefore review by the RING Committee is unwarranted. 8. That the property is approximately 88 feet by 150 feet, and can support the proposed development with no variances required. Council Letter No. 388 -3- November 9, 1981 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since the proposal is in compliance with the comprehensive plan, goals and policies statement, and the petition exceeds the minimum required signatures, the staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning. It is recommended that the city council give first reading approval to the attached ordinance amendment accomp- lishing this rezoning, and set a public hearing date for December 14, 1981 for the second reading consideration. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ~' The Planning Commission recommended denial of this--rezoning application on a 6-1 vote. The commission's position was that this rezoning would constitute commercial ?ncroachment on the Neighbor- hood and that the ~~eighbors felt that the-city had indicated a commitment to minimize such commercial encroachment during discuss- ions of the redevelopment activities in the overall L/H/N area. KN/eja Respectfully submitted, ;t ~, ~ ;,J Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director Bill No. AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~` CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix C of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota defining the various zcning districts of the city, enumerated in Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.28, Subdivision 2 of each code, is hereby amended in the following respect: 1. Appendix C, Section 2, is hereby amended by adding after paragraph (20) the following new paragraph: "(21) lots 21 and 22, Block 4, Lyndale Shores on Woodlake" Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor Attest: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • Bichfi~•7_d, T•~~n. ^;ovpmber 3, 181 4ic~fiald City Counci 1 ~iichfi`1_d ;n .;,~4n3 Re . ~~cplic~xti on for ~3~ -zanirng of pr^perty _3.t o71~-b`71~ Lv'nd~al~ yvc. ~o., from 13-~ to C-1 Gentlemen It is my belief a.nd e~nv~ction th<~t the fal?.ovaing poi~ats oI 9_nformation Clearly iustify this propo~.::~1. (1) Thy prop~*rty looted 5t? ft, to t11.~ north of m^~ is zoned C-l. (2) The view from ;ny homy ~cress tine strut (wes:t side of. Lynd:~le) includes the Cricket rhoto shop, the Vrf~: Club (with it's tv;~}ce-.-v~rE~ek ~singo parties ~r~d thr . ' ~xttendant congestion of hundr~;ds of car;;) , the in-S~,un~ (Urith it's fl4ashing lighter and 24-hour ~ day service), end the !auto P~.rts building. _4 (3) Qn-going construction, together with ~nnoune~ad ~~nd future° plans, indic~.tes th=at this ~,re~ is going to continue to develop commercially c~ind to ~~ttra.ct more pE°ople end more tra.f f is . (u) Lyndale ~v~:nue, 9.n front of my hcuae, is approx. 50f.t. wide, ha, four If~nes of tr:~ffic end carries mere then 15~GOvehiei~~ (e~r;~, bussc°s, trucks, etc.) per d.=~y. `1'l~ls COF:i?7~rP,"' t0 .+i: ;?Vc"r"~gC". Uf ?,u0-400 Cnl^~ On resi denti~.l streets. i P~a~e T*~~ro - A~~-~~~_ic~':ien fcr ~~~~'-zon;n.~ b713-6717 Lynd~~l~ ~v~, (K) p°'': y~eenl;~, 9.ncludir.~; Boric Ca.ty offi:ci<?ls, b~°liev~° thUt the logic:}.l end n•~Ztur<l ~en<?r~~tion of Corw;ercir3.1 r:nd c~;idcnti~l in this, -;rti<z. ~-hou1:~ b~~ the. int~rsectior. of L4~nd:~l?~ .~v~. ~,rit'': L,~-ke~horc~ 'fir. Th~~ =d joinit~~ o,~~r_er of Lot 2G, ~,nd hiM ne:i'r_bor to the so~;th both concur cyit'r. thir~ . (6 } The #:e~.l Fit=~t:~ `i'=~xe^ (.~omeste~~~d) on my lots 21 & 22 ~.re ~~_~prox. ~~90G.GG der ~re~.r. The ''?rn~0:^~~d building T.,~ould h=?v°' t~.x~:s of <~.p~ro:Y.. ~~7,~GG.GOz :. 9„~."~~.G;: (~) r.' Jr r ~.+ c± p. y, t C ; o r-;~ ~ j_ j- ~ ,-~ ~t ~ T> c~ nm Cr :~ !-lr["~ E9 ~ C f OU r I ?'. C" t :~GO','E .try ndcll'; ENV°. rI'Ci~' 'C1Ea,l aht O1~ th~ Y7.ol,,FJ'E'. l._. c;jJprC~. ~~-~ tC 26 f~~'.t ~~bCVc' LVY'ld<':?le tlS7s`'. :~? ;~r0{'CSCd .`.'if?~lE`- ~tory 13P~~1 E~t~ate building, 3200 ~qu~j.re feet, ~tiiith ~w r~~.mb1C~r t~T~~.:e roof, T~rould, in f~~.ct, ~?c such 1o~aer th<~n ::1y i r AS~'.nt i10?TJ?''. - <itr]d i'JOLi.'~t bf' Vary cC~:,~~:~tible ?^lit'C'i °cSiderti~l. (~) Thy: mortL -~c f in,~-~ncina far thy: ~~1~ of my ho~;e h=~.a be:~r.. checked Triit'el .Ii.'~. ~~nd other l~ar_di_~g institutions. Th- consfAn~u~ ic.' irdic<~te~?. bV thi 8 cl~.iate from the ~t .F~±ul - -r r '-., "nr~rn S~1hat T,,;~• urn ~~~rst~+nd e~f ~;~>df:r~~~)_ Hou;~in.~ r1ut~ZOri~,,; . t~i~ Co~~7~?lerci~~~l E!nvirCYl~Tt~;2`~t, it is vf~ry no.~;3_bl~ that :.} reaAuest ~ or :~ mort~<'.~c G~oI,?;i ~~~/ turned do.~.n• ..,noi.~'d ' Ong C?P. rP<de, :I.t taro~,1:~- 'r~C~ GO"~`;lder~^l;r 10~'.~ar .~,~,~n n euuiv~l~;r_t re;:~id~~nce in resid}~ntiF:l ~are~". i'~ith the n i ~ ndln?: Vnl ,r~~°nient Qf 't;I`l.'.` lC:'r1f l~°'lr7 ~:^ne. :tiit~'7 it; ~:, l~~r,~ i-:~sr~>~i?~~; r<~:~p .~t 67ti~ :1• L~rn~~,~le 'c;eir~~ ~~proxim~tt~iy %~l%n; fi-.. i f =sir r t ~ ) ~~~^.~rt r '.h~CU~_d ~"`F' ~`tl~~ . ft.;rth~r de,~~re~cz :t~;~' <~~s resi_,aenc~ - or ~vf°n _~ rental rcp~°rt3*. respectfully, ,!7'R ~.r • i C Cif L C ld , 1''?~ =ovmmber ?..nd, 1981 I~ichfi~id City Council ~ichficld, I•~n. 55~2:~ Gm nt lemen ~ I own tha re~~idcncc ~t 6725 Lynd;-.le .venue, south of I'r. silbti,rtscn. I curt~inly corlciar ~-,ritl~ hie rcqu~°st to rezan~ hi propR~rty to limitod buuiricss . I ~lsc strcngly ur~~ you to give ^or_sid~-:rution tc in.clude my property in the rezoning. It is only n~tur~}1 ~~nd lo-7ic~~1 that. the cut-off bctctreen C1 ~~.n~? I~1 should b~ ir_ line: b'Jitfl L:-:_kr~ whore Jrivc. Iy property is •cros,, from Ccmx:~rci;:~1 ~>roy crtie ~~v~ryry other r:;sidence scuth of .n~ is across fra~~ t h~ 'e•daodl ~.k Preserve. The inequity I h~~ve suffered because of the Commerci ~~.1 n"ture of the property acrass the strVet, the 15GG~nlus cars, trucks, etc. , ~~rain~jted ne to move 7~y wife end teen «gc childr~;n out cf t'nU neighborhood. I 'n~~~ve ~~.tt~mpted to sell the house but cf^.nn.ot _Uet .-, rc~son~ble price fa-r it. T have r~:nted. it to v•~_riou t~:n•nts but, ~.g..:.in, due to tYx9 cnviranment, th•~ r~^nt~l fee is belo:rr narm~:1 end tr~~ ten:~r_ts do hat stay. It h.~s no~fr buAn v~.cant sires August. I ~~g~.~in request that you incar~r~orr~tc my ,~ropcrty vrith I~Ir. Gilbertsen's in rezcnin7 to C1. ~~°spectfully, Torr .'IcGre~ggo~ r: ~s 6717 Lyndale Avenue South. Richfield, t~~. 55423 November 5, 191 Richfield City Council b700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, N,~I. 55~+~23 Res Meeting of October 27, 19~I, with the Planning Commission Sirs; Unfortunately I had no opportunity for rebuttal at the time of the meeting of October 27th. I wish to state some facts in this matter, and clear up some misleading statements mace by same parties at the time. 1. Some of my neighbors in back of my property on Lyndale Aven~~e feel their property values will go down if my request is approved. I wish to point out that the Rickert residence is already backed up to the Richfield Bank parking lots for at least two. thirds its width. I would also point out Mr. Gasterland has an oversized garage, 4f; feet in length, covering well over half the width of my two lots, one foot from my back property line. The remai.~:der is heavily treed, allowing complete privacy from my property. 2. P'!r. J.B. Flesche, 6725 Garfield Avenue, complained about the possible decline in property value. The fact is Mr. Flesche • resides on the east side of Garfield, some distance away. 3. An opponant stated that a "commitment" had been made to them some years ago. I seriously question such a commitment. St's obvious to all concerned that conditions change. Certainly Richfield is a changing and developing city. Lyndale Avenue has changed greatly in dust the. .past few years. The Planning Commission must be free. to act responsibly on behalf of the entire city allowing for any change that makes sense. 4. Mr. Gasterland stated that I had built my house knowing full well that I was on a street that would turn out as it hass commercial- ized. The facts are not as Mr. Gasterland would have. you believe. I did not build my home. I purchased it from the previous owner in 1953•. At that time Lyndale was a modest country "thru" street, with very little commercial development. Since that time the V.F.W. has been built, the Unsauna and auto parts building, Trestmen Nusic store, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Richfield Bank all have been built. I had nothing to do with this changing environment. What my opponents want of course is for me to continue to be a buffer for them as I have been since 1953. The problem is that now the traffic and commercialization was gotten many times worse over the past 2~ years, to the point of being unbearable now (as a residence). 5. A remark by one of the opponents was "if you want a building, why don't you Ro buy the one on 74th and L,yndale." Obviously, this in- dividual is missing the ma3or point of this issues the property I presently own is not suited as a residence any longer. I believe I can sell the house (to be moved), and build this proposed single story real estate building in this commercial area and come out of 2 this better financially. I also feel my present property is in a exceptional commercial area. I don't believe this proposed sinPle- story building would adversely effect my neighbors, but rather would serve as in ideal buffer between the residential area on Garfield and the commercial area on Lyndale. 6. Chairman J. r"~trnan made a couple of remarks which were derogatory and uncalled for. He s+„ated he didn't like:."the. way the petition. has been put together" in obvious reference to two signers that later had written letters requesting their names be stricken off. They of course had been pressured by the immediate rear neighbors. One of these parties resides on the east side of Garfield, the other on Harriet Avenue, both a significant distance away. Secondly, Mr. Ertman, referring to Kentucky Fried Chicken, sails "I don't think its worth much, because they won't be there much longer and I believe they won't be in Richfield much longer either". I fail to see where this has or should have any bearing on this matter. The fact is I paid ~wi_50.00 to attempt to secure support of at least 51~ of the owners within 300 feet, in compliance with the law. It's disappointing to hear the chairman, of all people, speak in such an irresponsible manner. In st,,^amary, I would like to make a couple additional points. Several of Richfield's Planning Consultants, including the first ones Mr. Jorvig, had initially planned this area,. south to Lakeshore Drive,; to be com- mercial. Commercial is now up to Lakeshore Drive opposite my property on Lyndale. Lakeshore Drive is a natural cut off point, Woodlake being across from the remaining residences on the east side of Lyndale, to • the south. I would also like to address a couple of negative opinions. solicited ,.: from real estate agents by Mr. Gasterland. One of my instructors this past spring, in a continued education for real estate brakers seminar, .~~ was Mr. D. Montague. Mr. rlontaque is the Chief Assessor of Coon Rapids, and certainly qualifies as an expert in property values. When I asked Mr. Montague for his opinion, he .pointed out on his zoning map the many similar situations in Coon Rapids. He stated that in no way is there a loss in property valae as far as they were concerned. He pointed out that while perhaps Richfield was different, he seriously doubted it. I would again point out that i~'x rlontaque is a practicing assessor, and instructs appraising for several schools in the evenings. In shorts he knows what he's talking about. Finally, I need your help and I am requesting it. Commercial property is to my property and across from my property. The street construction and lighting at my property is commercial in nature, as is the traffic flow. The situation can only get worse as the bank enlarges, including a parking ramp at 67th and Lyndale, barely 200 feet away, and the new 11 story high rise condos being built directly .across Lyndale on Lake- shore Drive. Now is the time to make this decision dictated by common sense and planning, not dust rhetoric and emotion. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully. Norman H. Gilber+,sen oPrl g9 i/ i/~b ~. BEQUEST ~,,P EGC~!I„~ ~;~n.. ~A. TG si (l.f'~f..GP/., SCR irc -'~L!_'~";PdG FUiiFCSE (%%~iGe ~cL!~(.l.UL7.• i (~ G {Fa.-F t ~~Lvf r;C/f ~ ~ c ~sCf^~S c" 6.%p.w r.EN ~ ~'(Z fi f. rJ _ 1~_ :prn JiYC ~'rf`'' ^r,~~.i .r;. ~~~_.; ,,ti: ~..- a= `v? ~~..IC.k-L ' i': ~~ r r ._,ui f 7~ F'cT~-k:c*~ ~`~~•r' ,,^t, ~n r~r,.,,' Y./i-r IEGnL :ESCR IFT:CP:: i.~rn.de,(-e Sfia~~e~ :::oac.~.~L~lce , :,ice=t~7LGt: 4?, ,~.'.c:- .t,>7-~.~~', cvzc~-? '?5~~?j~;0 La.t~ 2 f ~ d ~? %.La c.':. t ,~ :iE, THE I:NCERSIG".EOM -_fi'G ...I;~Enti ,:~ !_..P:;., ITHIif 300 FE.T )~ T-E _.~a:0 n~OVE JESCRI;cO ~„ r_^.E~y ,,,,..,,,,~. IN THIS REZOiJING REQUEST. ~~~~ .~ ,, ~~ r;~ -; `r-` ~ ~~~ ~~; ~~-_~~ ~~ L~ - ~ , ., ~• r J Ddnr~ ~. =,~,k~f f • ~~~,~ ~AUf ~ .~li~-»'v'4N 7.. ~.. tiL+~.sOC.r~'+w.w. ~.. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ;r..., :,, r.71 ~ ~ $~ LL'CrL CES;P IPT I i x%37 Lr~.racL~e eve. Sa. :^ ,~ X733 =-~~r.r~::•'.c.:,e yP . So . X72$ i~Yrac.'~!_e .eve. So. %0~ ~u.r~~.%;;Le .'eve. Sa, G.-~. s.,,,; ...c,.l i F64 _rrt;'ai_e .'eve. S~. _ ti ~;. ~ ' ~_ r J•- .. ~_.- _ _____._ __._ ~__. .. - ., •i.,'.~~ . `vim . J a . f, "~ ! ~/~ rl _ r ~`__ . ,n . ~ ~- _ .. ~ ~ L fz -T , 1 tl ~a t f J ;.,~. r~ ~~~+~yrl~ i 4 ~ Li ~ ! . ~:az !r; ~'r~~ UrJttu4. rKc" y ` is i~ i/ - i~~ ~~ {jLrC •4 i,ynn•.o~..:-Si>. 1~ O ~. ;,~(;*~-: j1lC~ ~t Y!~ r vet %-~'~'"~ "~f / ~ ~fi ~ r~~~.4•.SitG.s.t=j• , 1L-'lCi-b~df'6im~5~~ ti~IZII L~.~'.i~'fo.:4 i -f~ -/af~`~'ti~ I -5'~~•'/ La'Y s.t7 iC:fi~'i. ~r2:rG.r) ~f ' I •RLK ~ 1-''%i~.:Lxl~i .S?Yrr.r_s a ..._ :._a -rA ~ ~----- rr. r/2.6~/~ci i ~4'N~.'f2, a'r 4. r rC'+ t fr: l~ ~~,ia..:' JlY a'I. t.~s' ~~.lv ~•-L-tfrLi•2~'J/Jf.:~.ti w•<.%IL',~ ,qwd t\+:. (y a r L r r t..; i.Crc a ` stirs Sr w•.: ~-'c•i-u"1 4' i ~ r, ~ t _.1~./i- ," lc ~ IYr 1' S L/~.• a .. r`~~:i -- ~ - ~7 - ,~ • DPC1 99 1/I/on .f t,Sy~. 7 \~f i „l,-4.1 ~ 1, u G LEG,~L DESC4 IPT ~ -.., ' :i - ; :lE~ THE ~T.CERSIG~.E7~ '~I'.~ ~•.~:E~.. .F _.. .,, ..!Tr.:,. 30C FEET _' THE _,,,:D „~C~:E ~.°CRI ~~ - -- IV 7H1S '~EZCNItiC RECUE~T. SIG~InT!'RE CF n,,.~,~~5 _.l,_1~`SS cr n l_.:,aL cS•~R IPT I" (.~ ~ L-Later ,~7., n ~.7.~1, ~!i ^_a :) ~ I . ~ r 1 ~ FJ t-ti.'.2~'/~~ L.li-~~.'.~~:' I ' ~~. ~z --r-.~Ce ~~._ I ~ ---r 4 y 1. ,, ~,_/.. ,.a ~, I ~ v 7 -i S ~~[ il. tf, G.~jn_ t~ r,~i;:- S..c!-f1-y - ,,I}..~ ~ ~ ~i.Z ~~~.~ f'••„~- -- _ _ _ L`f-'~ J/ F 9 ~ / `~ ,/.~L4F ~~i _ ~~ Il vG!. i. G,.;.-spa ~~~ t3- :2 / ,~; 2 ~~.- l•~i1~' j<,c~~~z.: -~~=! ~i~~s ~:.'_~/ 'T'iN I L _-,~/ !i 1 i I ~ I --t J i ` ;r: --~.•:_ i '<s:~- . ,:..• •I ~ C!~ ~'c~~j~'/~ ~,L lye ~.~ ~ , ~ / . > (/ •r ~ i ~ ~ • ~~ }~ 1 f~•' ~:-~ c' S ,{' ~ i ' ~i I ~ ~ ~'n ~. 'i ~., .,, r iJ ~L '~ ~ f T C f~ ~~ iJ ~ y~,. J -L ' ._.,-, i ~! ~-^ ~; ~:~3 • C 6730 ~azzie,E egve. cSo. ~ic~Z f izLd, cil~jlan£!ofa 5423 ~;~.. ~ /y.~'~ ;') , ~~ ::..;;,. ,,'. ~ ~ ~ ~~~ C`am`/ ~f~ti`" , , ~' ~ ~~, ~1- ~ ~`~'~ /~ Irv /{~Z.GG ~rL~~ ~ ~ ~~'~ Y..i312.~. J J ~` _ ~r ./~1 / J .c_.d t ~~~~~ , ~, • ~~ i l A =----- S T. ~. ~~ ~~ ~~F.. vyo~ F r . ;. WOOD s SAKE 9ti c~\ C1RC- ~ .,_ 6 7th ~= ~) ~. .; w: r. N N .-~ :~ ~ c r. [7 ~ f / t-- _ ~ J ~ ~ .- ~ ~ ~ Q ~ _ ~ '~. ~`' ~ ~ J ~, - 69th !~'~- Signatures on Petition ~ ~~i ., ,: '.- PETITION MAP ,' ~' S T. ,~ :` \ ~n/Oa~D SAKE I l I i ~~ ~; ~. a r. f r .. w- -..~: 68th CI~CL~ a ° °°°o°O°o°o 0 ° ° ° ~~. °°°°°°°° o°o O°°° ~ ~LF ° °°°°~°~o°~° °~o~ o~o a~o 0 0 0° ,QO°oo°ao°°o O O ; ^ O O O O °° °°O °° O°°O ° °° O f J V ~ O O O O~ OO ~po0 ~O p ~ Qp ° °°°° °° ° ° °° L F ° SITE °°° °°° °° / ° °° ° °° °° ~ . w ~.~ a W 0 ~ ~` 2 ~! _ °°U°°° ° ~ GENERAL °ooo~° COMMERCIAL y i_ w (-- "L !' - Z °.t-~ l~/~[Q N V ,' ~^- :L ._._ 0 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 69th ® MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-PUQ ~ ~ ~a~ r '~---- .. L_J_ `= f ~. -- ZOn1INC;~ MAP °oooooo°°°oo°oo°°O~ °00000°°0000°0000 o°°o a o°°o o a°° a o°o °°° o° °o°°°o°°°°°o°°°O°°°°°o°o°°o°°o°°°o ° o~° o°° o° O°o° o ° ° 00 000000ooooogooo00 o°OO°°°o°o°o°°°°°°°°°o°°°°°o°°°o° o 0 ° 0 ooooo°° O o°O°o° ° ° °o ci n n n°n°n o°n°n°n°n°n~n°n n° _ O o°n~ °~°~O O 6 ?th LAND U~~ MAP _._ --- Furs .~ ', . Hardware ~ Jewelry ST. ~ T ~ ~ ~ Store T ` - ~~ ~CondominiumTs Clt~C~ E Bank ~ ~. OR. Music qL~ Store - edical Offi q~ F ce s ealth a„ sta~ran - ~ ~F ~'i~F I / J J 66th iG ~ Parking ~/ i~ 68th i~ .e Q ,, i,.i a t"" W Q i 6 7th • r I N .. r,~ N ~. Y~ u J, 3~.1. ~, r :~ f~ ~- ~ --'f h `~ Q "L Tr .i 69th /~' • _ ....._ -- t - -- - - ... ~_ _.: _ ~ _ _ ~- _- • ;`< . . :, ...~. ~ ' + i~ - -- ~ ,, • 'a!~o ~ ! ' '. i ~1~t_- -- 4~--- _ _ v ~ ` ' i I rG~t~ '. I .1 L~l~ ~ I i if 11 ~~ ~ ' ~ S• ,1~I ~x!ST(o Tor sE ~ G~Jl~ ~ ii ~ ~ . ~;~ ~~~` , .., . • ,. 7p ~ ~~~O~Fw ~ll 1 : I. ;, ~ •; 1 ~ ~ li ~' Vu'.~ (fib x ~? ~ ~°i ~G ~C Dfo,~ ~ --1 i ~; ,~•; ' n .. • ~ ~ .~ ,~,o ZZ ,o '. 'X t ••r . - ---- , ~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~ v;;. cam. yV ~ , . r-- - - - --~~ ~ i - ~_ ~; ~' ~" I~ . I ~ _ ~ ~ =~ ~~ ~- ---~_...- - --- ---. .. _. y_ -- i proposed site plan y%~-t,~ i~' • ~= o" elevations .. , .. .. r--. ,yy,... r L i --+ F_p ~ r c.< _ .,. X~. e b ry r 4 .~, , ~~, } ,;~ west a r s- ~'~ 'r° ~; t . . ~ "~~~ ~~~ south i ` ' a .. !` ` •., - east ~ -~_ .~ n -~, ~ • - -- ----- ~~a~ t 1 f~r~~~~ M ~~('~l.G /l/~'/~$(/%~l ~. ~i.Z/il)e^/:~3 YI:..G ~1E-,7;?1s%Y fjM a~~. ~" ~~: .-.~~ j r%>o2% (, /4ir..' i :/Ji Ji /rw~ ~:JLDL, `'r"~~4h!~r/v~ .~ ~"~, l i9 ~ i ki' ~ ~~~i ~I [~'I ~ I~' G pG i. ,.. as ~ \~ ~~_ L_L .+'' u"'~,~riSn J~~. ~ .{Y~v,,~i' `k' t~..,,~'~'J,y3,qu 4~sh Y.Y' .~,?. '~'~ y;.k,. ~ r r.+{}v,X, ~.a"V ,.,.~ P .,F,~4~Ji ~ aka s~ ~~~i`tLV'Si~y~ '~~y?~y~,a*.N~}~3F+y t~iuw~~p~~Y~'s5.~ a.x xsnn..s ! i.. I { 13w,~. r y ~ .vY, ~ ~n,. /d'~ 1~~JV'~+YL,.Y ~J~+Y u(,,~^.+ N'f.+l, ~j3~`S',~„Y~y;y'Y i 1- t, (r , n..aa ; ~ -. ^ j rr' r .0"a Y ju ~:~~ r'aw"q s~~is'~~if y ~j ~Ji §4j~"~s. wao~'~'~~ w ~J .i- an. «u ~~,i \.1 ~ r~i isuL ). ~~o'~.t'"rys~~~T~ s~~M~t7~`~W~~'.s~7 ui~d,~" ,n. «a, '~' -- --,- aftl~,r.+r ,ufs~'a~r~ ~ y ~, 5 i~ Sg}~•#jx3„~,~.~~,.~s~ ,y~a ~.55~ yJ~a ~,v3' a _ ~t -- _ ,.. I -- '-^ ,-r 11_ - = ! ,` - - ~ __ - - - ~. , . _.. M1 ~ rl..~f ~~ t~t ~~ S ~hcF Fh. - L.. l._ J l_ F ~ ~ '.. ~d _-' ~~ ~~ ,. ~. -~„ "" - -~ _ , n. ., - ~ -.- _. r r= tit ~~ .~~'~ ~`tL.-s ~!. _J ~ ? i i ._1 !~ .~ ~s~: r} .~ 3 ~~ . a x.a.. . V ~ __- ..F . •~ y s,. ti, a,.ox., CL ~ ~ ./-~~~ 4 ~ a •s a -.. L'lv::"~ ~..~L :iii: I/(/ ..,,{{ , n µf ~~rr } ~ ~: ,nx awn,.. ~n (~ rt 1 1 ~1 <, ~< r ~. u. ax. a ~?mT a > l s .. Y ate::. ~O E ...ra ,H .. ~ ~ ~ _ .. .. _... .. t u Y. ..»..~ s. - .. ,.. uw rru _.. 1~pCy' _ i ` * . r T>w. „a.an,. ya.. a.',w.~ 5,",:°,~:T: ~n~xx'~x ~~hensiv~ level®pment plan fog the cAty of richfaeld iAl~~ use: j description density I ~`~' Mixed Land Use \~~. Mixed Land Use ~,~ ~:~ .Central. Business ,,',!~ District ~ ' ' Mixed Land Use Mixed Land Use f i Industria l Multiple Convenience Shopping Area L~J Single Family ~~ Residential CCiA~iN1UNITY F ACILITIES: ' ~ < ^ • L==J ' J 1 .~.~. 4 S •i&#.WSPORTATIOt~: a ..~........ High High/Medium High/Medium Medium Medium High Low Low principal uses Combination of multiple dwellings, office, research industrial, hotel, motel, institutional, and retail Commercial Combination of office, institutional, light and. research oriented industrial, retail commercial, and multiple dwellings Combination of office, retail commercial, entertainment and eating establishments, smal l comparison shopping and service businesses, institutional, limited cultural, recreational facilities, and_ multiple dwellings Combination of single family .dwellings, multiple dwellings,.. .townhouses, and. neighborhood convenience commercial Light and research oriented industrial uses. Multiple units with related accessory uses. .Grocery, drug, hardware stores. Single family Or two family units and accessory uses. cun~patible with single Or two family units Public parks and open space Public schools Churches or church-related facilities Other public,:.quasi-public, or private institutional facilitie ----- Major arterial thoroughfare a dopt~d by th• city of richfiold ehis15th day of January ,,q 73 ~- i /~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 387 Agenda November 5, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance and Offstreet Parking Permit, 7401 Lyndale Avenue South PROPOSAL Mr. Mark Balkowitsch, owner of the property located at 7401 Lyndale Avenue South, has applied for an offstreet parking permit and a variance to the front yard setback requirements in a C-2 General Commercial zoning district. The variance is necessary to allow the construction of a 7' 10" by 7' 4" airlock entry addition to the front of the existing building. The requested variance is to reduce the required front yard setback from 40 feet to 32 feet, 8 inches. Improvements to the building and site will include a new roof, new windows, a garage addition to the south of the building, land- scaping, and parking lot improvements. Parking lot improvements will include the construction of a new asphalt parking area on the north and west sides of the building, concrete perimeter curbing, closure and relocation of existing curb cuts on Lyndale Avenue and 74th Street, retaining walls, and landscaping. ZONING ORDIr:ANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.33, subdivision 6, and section 3.31, subdivision 4 of the zoning ordinance require a 40-foot front yard setback in C-2 General Commercial zoning district; section 3.40, subdivision 6 lists three conditions which must be met before a variance may be granted; section 4.05 lists standards for d.r:iveways and parking areas. STAFF VARIANCE REVIEW The staff has reviewed the application against the three conditions necessary for granting a variance and found the following: 1. That there are special conditions affecting this particular property. While this is a typically-sized and shaped lot and is not significantly different than other commercially zoned lots in the city, there is l7 feet more right-of-way provided on the properties north and south or it. This right-of-way width in this location is consistent with the amount of right-of-way dedication required by the city's subdivision regulations. Council Letter No. 387 -2- November 9, 1981 Because of this, the property owner south of this property could build a structure 17 feet closer to the street than: could this property owner. 2. Denial of this variance request will not preclude reasonable use of the property. The applicant could renovate the exist- ing building and operate his business without the entry addition. 3. The proposal is part of an overall plan for improvement of the property. The addition is small and will not have a detri- mental effect on the general public welfare. Because of the extra right-of-way width on this site, the proposed addition will be set back approximately 60 feet from the street. Ths distance will provide sufficient separation between the use and Lyndale Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMt~1ENDATION - VARIANCE The planning commission recommended approval of this variance. -~ - ~~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION-VARIANCE Because the proposal does not meet all three conditions necess- ary for granting a variance, the staff must recommend denial of the requested variance. The city manager recommends approval of the variance. STAFF OFF-STREET PARKING PERMIT REVIEW The staff has reviewed the proposal against the requirements for off-street parking areas and found the following: 1. A portion of the proposed parking lot improvements and some landscaping are within the public right-of-way on 74th Street and on Lyndale Avenue. There are plans for improve- ment of Lyndale Avenue in the area of this site that could potentially require the use of more of the existing right- of-way than is currently being used. Preliminary plans indicate that the street will not be widened in this area, however. If the council approves the proposed layout, the property owner will have to enter into a hold harmless agreement with the city as part of the off-street parking contract. 2. The total number of spaces provided is three short of the number required by the city's off-street parking guidelines. Three additional spaces could be provided on the site by eliminating the landscaped areas on the south side of the building. The number of spaces proposed would be sufficient to meet the needs of the applicant's specialized audio use. However, if the use changes in the future, it may not meet the parking needs. There are currently 10 spaces on the site. 3. The plans indicate that the parking area will be graded to provide for surface water to drain into the adjacent city streets. It is the staff's opinion that catch basins should be provided to minimize ice sheeting problems at the entrances to the site which might result from freezing of surface drainage. Council Letter No. 387 -3- November 9, 1981 4. The depth of the parking stalls on the west side of the build- . ing is two feet short of the minimum parking stall depth required. 18-foot deep stalls are proposed to be provided, while the city's guidelines require 20-foot deep stalls. 5. The proposed layout would provide for safer traffic flow on and adjacent to the site. Cars would no longer be required to back directly out of the parking stalls onto 74th Street. Entrances and exits to parking areas also would be away from the 74th Street/Lyndale Avenue intersection. 6. The plans do not indicate what, if any, screening will be provided between this property and the adjacent multi-family residential district to the east. City ordinances require parking areas to be effectively screened and be set back 15 feet from multiple family districts. The 15-foot setback area should be free of parking and be landscaped. The plans indicate that there will be no parking within 15 feet of the adjacent multiple family district, but a driveway will be within two and one-half feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - OFF-STREET PARKII`IG PERMIT It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, approving the proposed off-street parking layout and authorizing the city manager to execute an off-street parking contract, subject to the following stipulations: 1. That the property owner enter into a hold harmless agreement with the city to allow the use of the public right-of-way. 2. That catch basins be installed to handle drainage, and that the final drainage plan be approved by the City Engineer. 3. That a solid wood screen fence be proved along the east property line at the maximum height allowed by city ordinances. The design and height of the fence should be approved by city staff. Respectfully 1 ~ l submitted, '•~ ~ ~ Karl Nollenberger City rlanager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner City Engineer }2LSOLUTION No. RESOLU`1'ION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT F'OR OFF-STREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION • NO. 81-8, CONTRACT N0. 2338 Audio Perfection 7401 Lyndale Avenue South Locations Same Use: New. Parking Area BE IT RESOLVF;D by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the proposed geometric layout of the off-street park- ing as contained in Off.-Street Parking Application No. 81-8, Contract No. 2338 is hereby approved subject to and upon completion of performance of the contract for such off-street parking as hereinafter authorized. 2. That the proposed off-:street parking contract for the improvement of said off-street parking, .bearing Contract No. 2338. be placed on file and that the manager be authorized to sign said contract and the clerk be authorized to seal the same for and on behalf of this city. 3. That .the off-street parking operator provide the City of Richfield with Surety in the form of cash, passbook saving withdrawal authority, or performance bond in an amount to be deterrriined by the community development director and city manager, to ensure .the off-street .parking lot is constructed within the terms and regula- tions of the Off-Street Parking Agreement with the following stipulations: 1. That the property owner enter into a hold harmless agreement with the city to allow the~iuse of the public right of way. 2. That catch basiris~be installed to handle drainage. Final drainage plan should be approved by the City Engineer. 3. That a solid wood screen fence be provided along the east property line at the maximum height allowed by city ordin- ances. Tree design and height of the fence should be approved by city staff. 4. `Phat responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of said Off-Street Parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the off-street parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code 4.05. Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of November, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City. Clerk _F~s >;4;i .~ ~'!~ `. ~ "'k~< .:_:: ;;i~>; ~~ ~f; ,„ y ~~, .HJ%>`g ~,;;~# • ~' ~~~ »a ~..~_ _ _ _ _ s~ - ,;~ ' ~ ^ ~ nl~.,~ I f I '~ a~Tai_ rnrcK+.l~ : i~~ ~"~ ti 7aI1.s , i - uetilac~ ~ z ~ cU.~Rr_-D ; b . ;i n Zm ~M BF1~'JJ wWx/_ ~ f~15.'r"~~l. GRADE I~~ 7 'tII~ ' TC-'~ ~ Glil36 I~Q~ I ~;1 s+t enTTah cr- w%N_l. YW : 7-v a= w~l-L ~! ~Ll. Thl, EMl ~ rG P.G, rvr: f*'im!rO ,=V/'L~^, ~ '} -..•_-~ ~.L~cA'rF LWP,.'Tr~J cQ MF:kU~I-lam Flcs~l. i ~~::~ ~_ i {` ~~- ~ ~~ ~ ~ rb. .~r -~~ OL-~ ' ~- ~ ~~~ , ~~ ~. ~a~ -~ ~~'. ~~-~ l ~~ ,~ ~• ~o ~~ ~€ ,; «,: yr r `L;;ifi r.. :'r o~ ~. °~ ~o_ oN. --- ~ _ = - \oN. _ _ _ t • a sJHmH I+I!~fE~NiNa penal-1"I'L ~ItTpNINa ~nceM'~Z L~`l1hNiNa Peser~'~`3 . O - - '-O ~P ~t c~ ~~~D~Ne. ~ ~ Na~.s~iD~H.. DeOa O~sn I-1- o' . ,, ~• °fY~o6r"L affi~6~'Z ---._____ o~r1oG~3 ,ate UP • • r(( lLL nlr-,lU~ I k. IIII If r, oVll II ~~ j; ~:-d• , ~ ,~v1l1 11 ;. hl ~ ~~-o' _. •'~~_N'I . ~-~'. -I'll tl~ i~ISl I ~ ~~I'f) ~I '~ ~D III 7 i I I I ~ ~ w ~ .., I , ~ :I r}o I I IY•Tell bee-. I ~t1M`K YOa._ _ -.1 ~'------ --- r ~i ' ~ e..,+....s.~ I o . , , , ~ o a i e+fk~.HU r-Z' I O ~.1 ~ I ti•owe.. ~ . I . d ~oWN'ro e.~.cprirrrr j C I •.z . I x' \1 ~, ~- i \l I \~. ~' n ~:, UU ~ ~. Q_ ~ -- --~ ul ~ • o ,~- i~ ~; ' .C ~ ;;': . ~ d,.~ ~. IfI /\~ ~vtl ~ustiNa ~-ft~u~TUa~~' !Y ~~ r+Fw GoNsT°+JC_rroN V ' ~ ~ ~ ,~ t 2r ~ ~ ' c. ~ 4 t : ~ Fc ' '~ J t Z+~ iii 7 ,.S j 1 . _~ ,y w .Y t~ ~~ ~ ~ -4 r. M 1: _ ~, iy r . 'l, p n ;~~ , , r i ' ~~ p '; ;; ~ III 0 • 'i . := ~ I' Iii ~~~~ ! - -- ,_~_~ ~,qZ,C CJ~,~/=~~ r'~-~J.O ?`=.z =L; O. ~~z~ ~~~0,.,."-'JL- ~ES~cru=~-c- =a... ~a.r: e-~a ~-~ ,. .. .; - ` . ~~ ~~e~~'~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 386 Agenda November 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Accessibility Guidebook 1981 is the International Year of the Disabled Person. The city council has previously supported community efforts for various activities related to the handicapped. The Richfield Community Center, a division of the Community Services Depart- ment, the Richfield Senior/Handicapped Citizen Advisory Commission and the Richfield Optimists Club have united to develop an Accessibility Guidebook. It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution, endorsing this cooperative community effort. Respectfully submitted, i .; 'J Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Services Director Community Center Manager RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION ENDORSING COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY EFFORT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN ACCESSIBILITY GUIDEBOOK IN THE INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE DISABLED PERSON WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is supportive in addressing the needs of individuals with disabilities, and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is actively participating in the International Year of the Disabled Person, and WHEREAS, the Richfield Community Center, the Richfield Senior/ • Handicapped Citizen Advisory Commission and the Richfield Optimist Club are united in a cooperative community effort to develop an Accessibility Guidebook, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, to endorse this project and its cooperative community spirit in addressing the need of accessibility for individuals who are disabled in our community. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 9th day of November, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk • -~~ i~ ~= CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 385 Agenda November 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Council Members: Subject: Contract Amendment Awarding 1980-81 Local Planning Assistance Grant Richfield has been recei_v__ing_fun_ds from the Metropolitan Council through the Local Planning Assistance Grant program to help finance preparation of the city's comprehensive plan. Richfield is eligible to receive_a,.~_.-.add.itir~nal.-- $_6_fi.6.9.5__.thr- o~.gh this grant program. To receive the funds, it is necessary to execute a revised grant agreement with the Metropolitan Council. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, approving the amended grant agreement and authorizing • the city manager to execute it. Respectfully submitted, i .. Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REQUESTING 1980-81 LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE GRANT FUNDS FROM TIIE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL • WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 473.851 - 473.872 requires that Richfield prepare and submit a comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council; and [^:HEREAS, the Metropolitan Council and Richfield have previously entered into a grant agreement for a local planning assistance grant agreement for a local planning assistance grant, Metropolitan Council Contract No. 7844, dated March 3, 1978, and amended on March 7, 1979, and October 1, 1980; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has awarded $6,695 in 1980-81 grant funds to Richfield from funds appropriated by Minnesota Laws 1979, Chapter 333, Section 16, Subdivision 4, for the preparation of its comprehensive plan required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act; and WHEREAS, Richfield has made a timely submission of its compre- hensive plan to the Metropolitan Council. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the City of Richfield approved the 3rd amendment to • ttie grant agreement (Metropolitan Council Contract No. 7844) between the Metropolitan Council and the City of Richfield. 2. That the City Manager is authorized to execute the amended Metropolitan Council Contract No. 7844 on behalf of the city. 3. The City of Richfield requests $6,695 in 1980-81 entitle- ment funds and authorizes the city manager to request these funds in accordance with Metropolitan Council Contract No. 7844 and amendments thereto. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of November, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: • Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 384 Agenda November 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Final Development Plan and Special Use Permit, Hauser-Snyder, Hub Area HISTORY In February, 1979, the city council approved a preliminary plat, PUD plan and rezoning for the Hub/Summit/Penny Planned Unit Development. Penny Supermarkets, Inc. and Fotomat Corporation, as part of the PUD approval process, are requesting city council approval of a final development plan to allow them to locate a drive-up Fotomat retail store on the Penny Supermarket property. This final development plan covers only the Fotomat store. Prior to the construction of the additions to existing buildings or other improvements, additional final development plans will need to be approved by the city. PROPOSAL The proposal involves the construction of a seven-foot by 21-foot concrete island in the northeast portion of the existing parking area near the intersection of 65th Street and Pillsbury Avenue. A 36 square foot prefabricated "kiosk" would be placed on the con- crete island. The kiosk will be metal, and be brown and beige in color. There will be drive-up lanes on either side of the concrete island. ZONING AND ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.34A, subdivision 6 of the zoning ordinance requires that, prior to commencement of any construction or development of the land, and after rezoning, an applicant shall submit a final development plan, consistent with the council approved PUD plan, and an application for a special use permit for said development. A special use permit in conformance with the final development plan must be obtained before the PUD district can be devoted to the uses provided in such plan. In this case, each property owner must submit a final development plan and obtain a special use permit for the development of their property for each phase of the overall Hub/Penny development. Council Letter No. 384 -2- November 3, 1981 Section 3.41 of the ordinance requires that it be demonstrated that the development would not be detrimental to the public welfare, and Section 3.34A, subdivision 3 requires that the development be coordinated with subdivision regulations. STAFF REVIEW AND FINDINGS tit the time the city council approved the preliminary PUD plan and plat, certain stipulations were placed on the Penny Supermarket development. These stipulations include the following: 1. Elevation drawings of proposed buildings should be submitted, including signing; 2. Schedule of light replacement, and an amortization schedule, should be provided for replacement of existing lights with new lights which conform to the city L/H/N Design Standards; 3. Pennys has been exploring the possibility of an arcade through their store to connect a rear entrance to the K-Mart area. If this is not desirable, some type of through-block connection will have to be arranged; 4. All end islands should be concrete or landscaped. The staff has reviewed the proposed development and found the following: . 1. The proposed Fotomat store was not included as part of the PUD plan approved by the council in February, 1979; 2. The proposal would result in the loss of six parking stalls. There currently exists 204 parking stalls on the Penny Supermarket property, while only 166 spaces are required. However, if all the development in the Penny, Hub, Summit area occurs which is shown in the approved PUD plan, the total area will have a deficiency of 396 parking stalls based upon current ordinance requirements; 3. The proposed structure would not meet the city's Urban Design Elements. The proposed use of a metal exterior does not meet the requirement that primary building materials be of "warm" natural materials including deep tone brick, stone and wood in natural or "earthy" tones. The applicant has indicated that the exterior would be painted beige and brown instead of the standard Fotomat colors of blue and yellow. The proposed colors would meet the Urban Design Element require- ments. Compliance with the Urban Design Elements is important to maintain the image and character which has been created in the L/H/N area; 4. The location caill not adversely affect the traffic flow on the site or the surrounding area. Council Letter No. 384 -3- November 9, 1981 STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council approve the final development plan and special use permit with the following stipulation: 1. That the primary building materials of the proposed Fotomat store meet the Urban Design Elements. The council may want to refer this matter to the Planning Commission for a recommendation, if it feels that this change is of a substantial nature. It is the opinion of the staff that this change is not substantial, and, therefore, does not require Planning Commission review. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner `~~ ~,~ ~~ L1j~ October 30, 19x1 TO: C.i t" of l:iciif : ~ L<a RE: Lnstall.~tion of f'otc~:~.at ,Zt~ta.il Store LOCATION: 65ti1 an<i I'ii7sl.~ur~,~ Iw~~. Dear °~lembers of :our:._, i_l, Fotomat Corporation has a lease agreement to construct a kiosk on property o~ti~ncd 1}y Penny's Super P'Iarkets Inc. Exact location is demonstr<~ted on attached site plan. Our standard unit is >6 sq. ft. anchored in a 7~ x 21~ concr_ete planter. We intend to install a modified unit that is in concert with the earth to.ie e~:ter_ior color scheme employed by the other commercial buildings irl this area. We, (Fotomat and rand.lord), respectfully request that a Fotomat store be approved as part of the overall developernent plan concerning I[auser-Snyder, Hub area. Due to our position- ing, it is our opinion that the selected location, with drive- thru lams, u.~ill not disrupt existing traffic flow patterns or impact the main parking area. This installation will require the use of six parking places. Every effort bias ;.peen made to comply with City guide lines concerning this application. Regards, llick ~~lullvain Fotomat Real Estate Agent • • t ~•f I ~. ~ ~ ~, ~~' I T ZG ;~ `- l I I~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ t ~~ 1~ ~ 11. _ ~_T - - ~ i _(\lll . ~~ lt, l ` 1 U ~ •J _ lt. ~ v ~ _ ~ l~~ I V~ ' ? ' __ ~ ! - - _ i ~ . . _ . ~ `~ -- ~ _ . i i ~ _. ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- ~-1 ~1 ~ ~- ~C D S ~,o z-. ~ - - - .~ I ~~ - -- a° J r _ ___--~ _ ._ / ~i ~- - - - ---- ~-- - --- - -------~ ---- C---7 ~ - _ _ -- .__. _ _ .._ .~ -.- p~ ~L~. s ~.____ ___ 7 ~ ~ ~ i~~ /~ ih ~: .., - t ~ --.. .---J- --- - au~. - ---- ~~ - 70 6 -b -- ~;i~ - - r~ ~ -- - - 9i.'i ,~ _.,_._~ _. _ _..._ _._... -_ v- ----1~ ._._. ia~ll--~11- ~. ..~ . _. a~~ .,\ ;+~ ~; ~- l ~.. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager J~ J \ ~ r ~- r ~ F~ The Honorable Mayor and ~ ~ ., Members of the City Council ~ ~ '' City of Richfield Council Members: ~, Council Letter No. 383 Agenda November 9, 1981 Subject: Request for Variance to Noise Ordinance, 6300 Cedar Avenue South PROPOSAL Norman Wendt, President of Dairy Homes, Inc., is applying for a variance to the noise ordinance. Mr. Wendt wishes to provide overnight parking of his company's refrigerated trucks at 6300 Cedar Avenue South, with the refrigeration units operating. The property is zoned industrial and abuts single family residential property on the west. NOISE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 10.02, subdivision 4, paragraph 4 of the noise ordinance states that it is unlawful to operate a motor vehicle or any auxiliary equipment attached thereto for a period of ten minutes in any hour which the vehicle is stationary on property within 150 feet of any residential zone between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. of the following day. STAFF REVIEW the staff has reviewed the proposal and found the following: 1. That the applicant has purchased the property contingent upon the approval of the noise variance by the city; 2. That the property is bounded by residential property on the west; all other abutting properties are zoned "I" industrial and "C-2" general commercial; 3. That the applicant is proposing to park the refrigerated trucks 75 feet from the residential property west of the site ; 4. That the applicant indicated he would construct a fence in order to reduce the noise level which might be transmitted to the residential property. The staff feels that a fence will not sufficiently reduce the noise. The maximum height of the fence is six feet; the refrigeration units are Council better No. 383 -2- November 9, 1981 generally located near the top of the trailer of the truck, usually more than six feet in height. The applicant has not provided any information regarding this, however. 5. That during summer months, when household windows tend to be open, noise levels become more of a problem for residents, especially during the nighttime hours. 6. That the staff has asked the applicant to provide additional information regarding test measures for the proposed noise level. At this time, the applicant has failed to respond. 7. That the staff feels full compliance with the ordinance does not constitute an unreasonable hardship on the applicant, which outweighs adverse impacts on the public welfare. The applicant can use the property in such a way that no noise ordinance variances are necessary, or he can not purchase the property. The property is zoned "I" industrial, and facilitate numerous types of uses. 8. That, because the proposal is clearly contrary to the noise ordinance requirement, the staff feels that granting of the variance would set a precedent that could render this part of the noise ordinance ineffective, and make it difficult to enforce. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because of the possible adverse impacts on the public welfare, the staff strongly recommends denial of the requested variance. Respectfully submitted, ~; Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner Public Safety Director CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Inter-Office Merr.r,randum DATE November 9 , 19 81 To Karl Nollenberger Dennis Kraft rROM Thom MacGibbon~jy( SUBJECT Noise Variance Public Hearing This morning I received a phone call from Andrew Schmall, 6327 18th Avenue South. Mr. Schmall indi- cated that he cannot attend the noise ordinance variance public hearing tonight. Mr. Schmall owns residentially zoned property in the neighborhood of the subject site and stated that he is opposed to granting this variance. He asked me to transmit his opposition to the city council. I told Mr. Schmall I would inform the City Manager of his request. • • DALRY HOME, Inc. MIL K A N D I C E C R E A M 2210 TERRITORIAL RD, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55114 (612)645-3681 October 23, 1981 T0: City of Richfield Planning and 7_oning Division FROP~1: Norm Wendt, President We need to operate our cool inn units on our ice cream trucks during the night hours. Ice cream has to be kept at a temperature of l0 to 20 decrees below zero. tle would erect a solid fence or whatever is needed between the property lines so that we would not be in violation as to the noise level. We are asking specifically fora variance that pertains to motor vehicles and auxiliary equipment running during the niclht hours. Our vehicles do have to recharge for the next day deliveries. Thank you N!IJ : b h r I _, _ ,.~, I i A P A R~rn:~ Nr Bu~Lpt-v~ __ _._~ ~QuSE f~~, PROPE R7' Y L 1 NE --~ ~' v- / ~~~. 1 ~ ~~ ~i 1 ~ ~/ ~ I l~ r-.1 qtr' ~~rr ,-~ ~-~ :-~ G RRSS --•---~ ([~'~ ~~J, _ .. ~., PARKtn)G QROPOS,<D c ~~ C-~, ~ ~, ~~ ~'> ~' ~-' ~-- r inn ~ nti r~-nr~ r ---..._ ~~°~ ~ "1bf1N3aiS3b ,,A'IIWd~ 3~JNIS 0 Z1i , r ~dI~a3WW0~ ~b2~~N3J ,~~~~`~;~; 3 a l s ups s r--- 01 L .~:. ~ ~ ' :. .:.:.~ :; ~::... r - -- ::;~~:.: I y. ~;~5•_ ._ ..__.._ '~" ~ •,~"~'• .•y,.+.:+ ~: ~i.~,.>;'+'r=; g " S~ I Gam' ~ v ~f ~ ;.~„~ ;,r,.Y.,.~~~..: ~ ?ins'; L _ 9 I I sr Q re ~ £I ZI cb C 91;6 _ -1 -62 c. --'--... ~= D p'~ L1~9 6Z-S2 ~ - Q (~ 1 • 1 rZ ~~ ~ I~ ._ ~~ __ - .z a OZ ~ ~Z ~~- --- - t~ ~ 9 ~] OZ.S 61 [] - i cZ!£ --~ -- ,l } ~~~+++-------------- -~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' i ~ ~ ( ~ ! y i i i / I ~ ~ ~ ~; _ ~, i I ~ `, '' ~ ' , ~~ ..~ . I' S 133x1 ~ti9 -- ~ w .. --, (-~ -- _ .... .-r--- - I l i A ~- N Q ~ N ^~ ZI I S j N P 1 ZI S - D ~ -~ Ll °~ __, _ £I I ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ J £I ~ ~-, m bII£ r -- --- , u -- -- - Y ~ SI~ / r -- ry A' Z 133ti1S P~S9 / Y --- /~ ~-^n~~nar ~ i ,~ a~--i Z? RI.1 II ~ -= U m CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION COM~~UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. NOISE ORDINANCE VARIANCE APPLICATIf~N Application is hereby made for. a noise ordinance variation: By: DAIRY HOMES, IPlC. Owner/Applicant 2210 .Territorial Road Address _St. Paul , Minna City 645-3681 Business Phone For fifteen days or less O More than fifteen days Q For Property. Located at: 6300 Cedar Ave. South, Richfield, ~9inn. Address L4,5, So. 17 Ft. L 6, Blk. 3, Iversons 3rd Addition Legal Description Section of Noise Ordinance to be. Varied Subd.4. (4) (b) Proposed Noise Level. (expressed in DBA} 50 Proposed Noise Source. Proposed Hours of Use. Per Day If Temporary Variance, Number of Days Existing Zoning of Subject Site Existing Zoning of Adjacent Properties North Ind. -South Ind. Refrigeration Units 2 to 6 hours NA Industrial East Ind. West- Res ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS:. 1. Site plan indicating existing and proposed buildings, parking areas, fencing, vegetation, location of noise source on property, including. dimensions and distances from all property lines and a north arrow. 2. A letter indicating reason(s) for noise ordinance variance, including actions taken to .minimize noise levels and alternatives that require no noise ordinance variations. Date: October 23, 1981 ~1~ f ~ ~~ l -~" ~ ~ c. -1<,. ..f Applicant Signature ~--~-=-= ~ ~ ~ ,'Z`~C~ Fee Paid Received by: ~ ~; ;` November 9, 1881 To: President Richfield City Council Richfield, Minnesota. From: Norman Wendt Dairy Homes 2210 Territorial Road St. Paul, Minnesota. 55114 Subject: 6300 Cedar Avenue South 10.02 Ploise Control and Regulation Subd ~ (~ )(b) (b ) The following additional information is being submitted to help council members in their decision: 1. This is not a request for a noise level variance; Mr. Wendt fully intends to meet ~~ lashed. (Letter from 2. The maximum number of will be parked; there 3. The units are electric the noise Twin City trucks at wall be n :-not gas; level standards as estab- Testing Laboratory attached) .the site would be four; they ~ evening traffic. not unlike household refrig- erators. (See pictures). ~. The building will separate the trucks from the residential zone. (See pictures). 5. Current plans call for P~Ir. Wendt to seek a building permit in the not-to-distant future for expansion, thereby adding additional separation. o, Tests run with all four units operating showed an increase in the noise level of ~ dba. ti October 23, 1981 Dairy Home Attn: Norman Wendt 2210 Territorial Rd St Paul, MN 55114 Gentlemen ~~~ ~~ any engine~nr,~q iat~csr~torU, ane. 662 CROP~IWELL AVENUE ST. PAUL, MN. 55114 PHONE 612.!6x5-3601 CHARLES VJ. BR{TZI'JS, P.E. Chairman of the Board NORMAN E. HENNING. P.E. President CLtNTON R. EUE Executive Vice-President! Treasurer ALBERT C. HOLLER, F.A.I.C. Vice-President Chemistry Subj: Expected Noise Levels at 6300 Cedar Ave S TCT Lab No. 7-10049 This letter summarizes the information we have given you verbally re- garding the expected noise levels due to your trucks' auxiliary equip- ment operating at 6300 Cedar Avenue South. The expected noise levels are based on measurements made by our laboratory on the four ice cream trucks at your present location. .~ The expected maximum noise levels generated by the auxiliary equipment on the trucks and received by the residences to the south and south- west at 6300 Cedar Avenue South should not exceed an L10 of 50 dBA if a noise barrier is located properly on the property at 6300 Cedar Avenue South. The residences directly west .at 6300 Cedar Avenue South should not receive a noise level (L10) in excess of 50 dBA due to the auxiliary equipment since the building itself will act as an effective noise barrier. The size the location of the noise barrier can be varied somewhat al- though a location close to the trucks is desirable. We are willing to work with you to design and locate the noise barrier properly. If you have any questions, please call at your earliest convenience. Your Very Truly, K nneth aemer, ~ KRK/lo t __i c, CT or.. .. ~ ~. .a.-~^[a A~., r.i4 inn a~~i o.c as .nr~~ .. ~:i r.n rnn~~.. r.~nv< a~. ~i n~r~n r. a.~,n r-i-. ...~i ~~a. _.. .-: .., nn,~ . .__.I _.r-,.. _..~I i.. !fit= I:., in`-'.iF .. .. ...!I l•!; CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NOISE ORDINANCE VARIANCE APPLICATION Application is hereby made for a noise ordinance variation: By: DAIRY FtOMES, INC. Owner/Applicant 2210 Territorial Road Address St. Paul , ~4inn. City 645-3681 Business Phone For fifteen days or less [~ More than fifteen days D For Property Located at: 6300 Cedar Ave. South, Richfield, Minn. r Address L4 ,5, So. 17 Ft. L 6, Blk. 3, Iversons 3rd Addition Legal Description Section of Noise Ordinance to be Varied Subd.4. (4) (b) roposed Noise Level (expressed in DBA) 50 ~~ Proposed Noise Source Refri gerati on Units Proposed Hours of Use Per Day 2 to 6 hours If Temporary Variance, Number of Days Existing Zoning of Subject Site NA Industrial Existing Zoning of Adjacent Properties North Ind. South Ind. East Ind. West Res. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. Site plan indicating existing and proposed buildings, parking areas, fencing, vegetation, location of noise source on property, including dimensions and distances from all property lines and a north arrow. 2. A letter indicating reason(s) for noise ordinance variance, including actions taken to minimize noise levels and alternatives that require no noise ordinance variations. ;,= Date : October 23, 1981 ~ ' - _ '`~-~~~- ~,~ ~~~ 1AppliSant Signature Fee Paid Received by: DAIRY HOME, Inc. MILK AND ICE CREAM 2210 TERRITORIAL RD. ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55114 (6121 645.3681 October 23, 1931 T0: City of Richfield Planning and Zoning Division I-ROM: Norm l~endt, President We need to operate our cooling units on our ice cream trucks during the night hours. Ice cream has to be kept at a temperature of 10 to 20 degrees below zero. ~~le would erect a solid fence or whatever is needed between the property lines so that we would not be in violation as !~ to the noise level. We are asking specifically fora variance that pertains to motor vehicles and auxiliary equipment running during the ni clht hours". Our vehicles do have to rechar~7e for the next day deliveries. Thank you Nil: bh ~- ~~ ~ CN 7Q O V' t`~1 r*1 -~--- r-c-nn~ n~ir~~~~c ~/~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 382 Agenda November 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Auditor for 1981 City Financial Records There is an item on the November 9, 1981 city council agenda providing for council approval of the audit contract with Cununings, Keegan and Company, providing for an audit of the city's 1981 financial records. A copy of the proposed audit contract submitted by Cummings, Keegan and Company is attached. This contract provides essentially the same auditing services as those provided for the 1980 financial records by this firm. Council members might recall that, in selection of an auditor for 1980, the commitment was made to retain the same firm for several years, • to enable them to achieve an in depth understanding and complete a thorough analysis over a period of time of the city's financial management practices. It is recommended that the city council authorize execution of this audit a reement with Cummings, Keegan and Company. g Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Administrative Services Directcr Finance Coordinator JA MES J. KEEG AN, C.PA. ~ MEMBERS OF JOHN M. FREES, C.PA. K ~ • PRIVATE COMPANIES JEFFREY D. EMERICK, C.PA. PRACTICE SECTION OF ROGER S. WHERRY, C.PA. ~ AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF Cummings Keegan 8c Co. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS NALDCUMMINGS.C.PA. • MINNESOTA SOCIETY OF ~ RETIRED I ~ CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Certified Public Accountants 6800 France Ave. So. • Suite 465 • Minneapolis, MN 55435 Phone (612) 922-3622 November 6, 1981 City of P,ichfield City Council c/o ~loyce L. hJilde, P,dministrative services Director 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, f-'fd 55423 Dear Council P'embers; This letter is to confirm the arrangements for our examination of the financial statements of City of Richfield for the year ending December 31, 1981. IJe will examine the financial statements of the various funds and accounting groups of The City of Richfield, Minnesota, The City of Richfield Police Relief Association and The Richfield Housing and Rede- velopment Authority, for the year to end December 31, 1981. Our examin- ation will be in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and will include such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we consider necessary in the circumstances. While the objective of our examination is the expression of an unquali- fied opinion on the aforementioned financial statements, an opinion may have to be qualified or denied as the facts and circumstances dictate. The ordinary examination leading to the expression of an opinion on financial statements is not designed to disclose defalcations and other irregularities, nor can it be relied on for this purpose. However, if such irregularities come to our attention during t{ie examination, vie v~rill discuss them with you to determine what course of action to take. Your accounting department personnel will be available to assist in preparing certain audit schedules and data, locating various supporting documents in the files and typing confirmations and the final audit resort. Fees for these services are at our standard hourly rates and will be billed to you, plus out-of-pocket costs, monthly. These invoices are payable on presentation. A service charge of 12°! per month is made on accounts over thirty days old. The hourly rates vahich will be in effect during the period of your 1981 financial statement audit examinations are as follows: • ^ Accounting Firms Associated inc. City of Richfield Administrative Services Director Page 2 • Staff Auditors and Accountants $26 to $34 Audit Managers and Partners $50 to $70 Every effort would be made to keep our fees to the minimum consistent with the service requirements of the engagement. Assuming that the City and the two related entities have accounting records which are complete, balanced, recon- ciled and well documented as of December 31, 1931, and that City personnel would be available to assist in preparing certain audit schedules and data, locating various supporting documents in the files and typing confirmations and the final audit report, our charges for the various audit examinations for the year ending December 31, 1931 would not exceed the follo~ving maximum fees: City itself and City Police Relief Association $15,500 Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority $ 2,500 • If at any time during the engagement, any extraordinary matters requir- ing an extension of our services come to our attention, we will consult with you before proceeding. If the preceeding correctly expresses your understanding, please sign the enclosed copy where indicated and return it to us. We are looking forward to serving you again and working with the City staff. Sincerely, CUMMINGS, KEEGAN & CO. ~~ ~ - ~---- Cert~i fi ed Publ i c AccT~ ou tant The above is in accordance with our understanding. By Title .~ / ~ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 381 Agenda November 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Penn Avenue/1-494 Signal Agreement Between the State and City of Richfield The State of Minnesota is upgrading the hardware in the signal box at the intersection of Penn Avenue South and I-494. Although the city does not participate in the cost of the construction, the state has requested that we continue to provide electricty and maintenance for the new equipment. The maintenance would include relamping, cleaning and painting of the structure. The staff recommends that the city council pass the attached resolution, authorizing execution of this agreement. Respectfully submitted, .~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: City Engineer Community Services Director Technical Operations Superintendent RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO REVISE THE EXISTING TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL WITH STREET LIGHTS AT 494 NORTH RAMP AND PENN AVENUE INTER- SECTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the City of Richfield enter into an agreement with the State of DZinnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to-wit: To revise the existing traffic control signal with street lights at the Trunk Highway No. 494 North Ramp and Penn Avenue in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 60206M, a copy of which was before the Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City of Richfield officers be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the city all of the con- tractual obligations contained therein. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of November, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk ~~~~~~1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 380 Agenda November 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Release of Off-street Parking Bond On December 26, 1978, the city council authorized execution of an off-street parking contract with Donald F. Hagen and Herbert A. Mason, in conjunction with a print shop located at 7701 Lyndale Avenue South. An inspection of the site by the city staff indicates that the owner has complied with terms of the off-street parking contract. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing release of the performance bond • for this off-street parking contract. Respectfully submitted, ~a -.. Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community DevelopmentDirector City Planner RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION RELATING TO RELEASE OF BOND ON OFF-STREET PARKING Donald F. Hagen & Herbert A. Mason 1014 Excelsior Avenue W., Hopkins, MN 55343 Application No. 78-17, Contract No. 2283 Location: 7701 Lyndale Avenue South Use: Print Shop WHEREAS, Donald F. Hagen and Herbert A. Mason, had an off-street parking agreement with the City of Richfield relating to 7701 Lyndale Avenue South, which contract bears the designation of Contract No. 2283, and which contract was guaranteed by an off-street parking operator's bond in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) on which the Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company of Hartford, Connecticut, appears as surety, and WHEREAS, said Donald F. Hagen & Herbert A. Mason have substantially complied with the provisions of said agreement and now seek to be relieved of any further obligation under said bond, and . WHEREAS, there appears to be no justification for re- quiring said Donald F. Hagen & Herbert A. Mason to continue to provide a bond for security on the performance of said agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: That the city manager is hereby authorized and directed to release Donald F. Hagen & Herbert A. Mason for any and all acts committed or incurred in violation of said Contract No. 2283, on and after the 9th day of November, 1981. Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of November, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk -I-f ~ / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 379 The Honorable Mayor an d Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Agenda November 9, 1981 Subject: Request for Resubdivision, 7245 Humboldt Avenue South PROPOSAL Darcy and Lori Debing have submitted a proposal to resubdivide two 50-foot by 100-foot "east/west" lots into two 50-foot by 100-foot "north/south" lots. The property, located at 7245 Humboldt Avenue it South, is a corner lot, and is zoned "R" single family residential. A single family house is located on the property, on both lots. The proposal would divide the lots so that the house would be on one lot only, and the remaining lot would be vacant. The resubdivided lots would remain 50 feet wide and contain approximately the same area as the existing lots. No construction is being proposed at this time. STAFF REVIEW The staff has reviewed the proposal and found the following: 1. That the average front yard setback for this portion of Humboldt Avenue is 30 feet. The subdivision, Irwin Shores, was previously approved by the city, and the layout of the lots are generally an "east/west" direction; the area has developed accordingly. If this resubdivision application were approved, the city would be creating a condition whereby a variance would be necessary before a house could be built on the newly created vacant lot. The required setback off Humboldt Avenue is 30 feet. Thus, only 15 feet of the 50 foot lot would be buildable. (A five foot side yard setback would be required also). The ordinance further requires, however, that in no case shall the buildable width of the lot be less than 30 feet. The staff feels that the development of the new lot would result in an undesirable condition, and one contrary to the ordinance. Council Letter No. 379 -2- November 9, 1981 2. That the subdivision ordinance establishes minimum requirements i for single family residential lots of 75 feet wide and 8,000 ~, square feet. Although the resubdivision would not significantl,, alter the dimensions of the existing lots, the proposal would not meet minimum requirements. '~ 3. That most of the lots in the neighborhood are 50 feet to 75 fees' wide; however, many of the 50-foot lots are combined with ~~ another 50-foot lot under one ownership and thus the two lots are used as one. Furthermore, many of the existing houses, are located on two lots and therefore the creation of a 50-foot vacant lot would appear to be undersized in this neighborhood. 4. That access to the property now is from Humboldt Avenue along the north property line of Lot 11. The proposed resubdivision would cause access to the interior lot (the easterly lot) to I cross the corner lot. A new curb cut would have to be installer' on West 73rd Street in order to avoid driving on the adjacent lot. Although this could be done, the staff feels that the location of the garage north of the house would not adequately facilitate such an access. 5. The staff feels that this proposal, creating a "north/south" lot, is contrary to the intended development of this area due to the approved layout, design and subsequent development of Irwin Shores Addition. 6. That denial of the proposal would not preclude existing or reasonable use of the property. 7. That approximately 35 feet of unused public right-of-way exists along Humboldt Avenue adjacent to the residential lots in the area. While this vacant space could visually minimize the negative aesthetic aspects of subdivision, at least for the new lot which would be immediately adjacent, the staff feels that inclusion of this unused right-of-way would create problems in terms of setbacks and property access. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because of the implications of this proposal, with regard to property access and the necessity for variances for future construction, the staff strongly recommends denial of this request for resubdivision. RELATIONSHIP TO NEW ZONING ORDINANCE The proposed zoning ordinance establishes a minimum lot width of 60 feet and area of 6~ square feet; therefore, this resubdivision ' proposal would still require variances. ,~ ~~'~ .~ ~ I° P Council Letter No. 379 November 9, 1981 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION • The Planning Commission recommends denial of the request for resubdivision. -O KN/sh -3- Respectfully submitted, I - Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner 0 v~ ~t W N ~ ~ Z W Q ~" 0 0 Cm G N R----4 3.1 4'--i~i p?QO.'(~o~;'•:-:o. :o, o:Q•OD.O':b•0:0'•'o.QO.;~~':Q:~•G°:O:.o•: o: o;•O~''~•..;o~;.;•o.~'.: O~oi. •°•o((//.(~~(~~jj]]••pp ~°.•V.~" .~~~~L7O~ :aQop°:( 0~~~0;°''(~0.~•~•:Q•.o,•,°. 0: o:o•O:O'••'••o'••• o °~•° •p;.. .•..:o:Q:• . .V• •~ .O' O:.•Q. ••~:o'•.o O.' .~ • ti•o.•:o•:•.: Oa•. PROPOSED I'oo:Q: p°` ' o~•c~. . i I PROPERTY LINE` ~ ~~ Qo'~;~o•.oo~. _ p d:~:d. ' "" ` i ~~ ••~ O E .•a~•~ ~ i.aDo: • ~. excess ~ i~.ooo•:.a:• ~ ~ 1 i,oo~Q^o i ~i ~ N f p Existing ~ .•~ . ~ J_ 1 I r ` ~ House • I Existing _ i Property Line ~,~-25' I right-of-way I I i = 5.8 I i t I.-.-._._. I 50.0 ~ 50.0 . t -. WEST ~~ STREET. scale : 1 nch equals 20 -feet J -~ ~(/ -~ 1 ,~ ~~ ~ i ~ ` L-f i~7 /~~-`/ ,.«C.~L`-•: '~~~.~1 •`CI~.i~ /.L~-':%Z:'~' _ • {~ 7 ..'L.~ ~~i:~~ ~w~"~v _~: ~ ~.C ~"~' ~ `! ~/// ~ / t /t,-'-~'-'C.c_L".~-~E~lt~ .L,~ ~~-L\'. ~'~C.' ~ ~ / C C'L/~~, ~ ,~L. ~.L•~.t'JLG'....~ ~ // ~~J ~,~1~,~~ .~-"~'^^~tiJ~~ - C..V ~~ ~G:..~ ~a.r~-1: C~.LC+.-L-C.~L tI/ ~ ~ ~ ~t.,f~i.... ~/~-~.-' ~~ . ~~) CG~ y".~}...t?~ •. G.i' ~J ,G-~1 ._/~-~-~ ~XL:~-C..~?.~.~--.'~. ;•~G~.,s~~'I _(%~"= .?~E ~ - G~,~-t' ~'~` _"'V ~'r'yC~C.~~.r =-lu^`.C+~.fJ, 1 ;y %~; c,~.~. cam... ~•~'~.~~- ~: c~ r:.; ,,c G~~ G~<-~ ~. =~:~t~:~i:~/...~s~~ ~~ ~:'//j G•C-f~LCLLC;:/'~ 1.~~~~.E~ C~*~7.~ ~' C;~=G•Cr~,i v~C;•1.C__/~C.c,~ ~-~ILC,I~" ~ C.~f~ ~`E J 1 ,, 7~~5' ~~ ~ ~~ ,~ J ~ ~ ~ ~, ~~~°~~` ~~~~~~~ ~~~~ c~~ -., N ti ~ \ ~' i v ~ 0 ~~~, ~,.1~ ~, ~~~` ~~ r~ ~~ ~~ ~~ v October 25s198I Planning & Zonizig Division City of Richfield 6700 Portland Aveo Sop Richfield, P~,no 55423 Att: Thomas Mac Gibbon This is to testify that we are strongly opposed to subdividing. the lot at 7245 Humboldt aveo sooaTwo lots at this location would be much to small to accommodate twe houses in keeping ------ --- with the rest of the houses in this area, Off-Street parking,-and additional traffic could be a problem,. It is not feasible to 'resubdivide' this property, ~1~. ~-~~ ~ e PJIra Lynwood Fo Kelton -- Mrso Mildred To Shelton ___- ___ _ _ _ _ - . _. 7232 Girard Ave o So 0 Richfield, Mn., 55423 • 869 6734 ._ Sec/Lct 6 __ .. T ~i~P/BLK o 5 Irwin Shores lfs Robert & Donna Vidas 7225 Girard Ave. 50. Richfield, r~ln. 55423 October 26, 1981 Thomas A~acGibb.on Planning & Zoning Divis ion City of Richfield 6700 Portland ~,ve. So. Richfield, Mn. 55423 Dear i~4r. T~ZacGibbon: Re: Variance for 72.45 Humboldt, Lots 10 and 11, Block 5, Irwin Shores, except th.e easterly 50 feet thereof and except that part taken for U.S. Interstate Highway 35w. ~4e, the undersigned, owners: and residents of 7225 Girard Ave. So. .hereby Hake record of our opposition to the proposed variance to the .above identified property on Humboldt Avenue. The property is too small to divide further without adverse effect on the adjacent and nearby properties. Denial of the variance is requested. -~,, ~~~ ~~ Sincerely, Donna J`. Vidas. & Robert 0. Vidas 7225 Girard Ave. So., Richfield ~?a=`'.` ;:~:~. :~~,,. ~_.~%~:' ~t Robert and Helen Bower 1400 W. 73rd. St. Richfield, MN 55423 Oct. 27, 1981 Thomas MacGibbon Planning and Zoning Division City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr . ?~'IacGi boon RE: Variance for 7245 Humboldt, Lots 10 and ll Block 5, Irwin Shores,. except the easterly 50 ft. thereof and except that part taken for L'.S. Interstate Highway 35 W. we, the undersigned, as owners and residents of 1400 W. 73rd. St. put on record our opposition to the proposed variance to the above identified property on Humboldt. Ave. We feel the property is too small to divide further without having an adverse effect on the adjacent and nearby properties. We ask that the variance requested be denied. Sincerely, /~ ., ~~" ~ l/" ., .-.-- ~,,~%z ~ L~~ -tip ~ ~ Robert L. Bower and Helen A. Bower 1400 t,1. 73rd. St. Richfield, MN 55435 • • - i.~u, .. , _.. ~ j ~+ k ~~ ~ti ~~~ ~ v ~ Cc.~G ~ - .2~ r L ~ mac.-[ Lc. ~l~-s c_ ~ ~,-G"J/ / ~ ,; /~ ~ 1Z~.=Z•Z.L G~-~L' ~ lZG ~rL~ `~ ~ G~ `~ 7~-~ ~ G~~., ~` - /.lam-Lr:LC~ G~ ~i'L G'~it.C~' G~L~.~ !~'Q'. iZc~~L.J ~,j :ALL ~-~z~ ....~~-~-~ ~ ~ ~z ~~-~'-fie v `~~~~ - Cti~-c.~~~~ j ~ZC zee y~ .~~ C'~ ~Z, :'vz~ - ~ , ~ _,.~ ~ ~L-~' yll~2~~ - ~~i~~/ - ~~ " ~ f ~-' ~f~C.~ i ~ ~ C"lZ ice. •~~~'~-chi -~.c~~• `;~~ ~;~' , `z' z.-c L ~ ,~ PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE '~;' ,,; ;;i CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION CisY :~~ ::L~~isld Prcperty owners within `350 feet of subject property. `( ~~t,.CiLvy' ~l.;.G~~X !C.!-`L` -~c!O -L'C~~ It .LC~ez~~(' G~"JL(e~.~ `I- ,~(.~~f' ~ ,.r~~%:~~ APPLICANT `J Darcy and Lori Debing LOCATION OF PROPERTY PURPOSE. C `~~ - TIMc OF HEARING PLACE OF HEARING I'~VVY 1 V PAn I II.IPH'I C ANY QUESTIONS 7245 Humboldt Avenue South Legal All of Lots 10 and 11, Block 5, Irwin Shores, except the easterly 50 feet thereof and except that part taken for U.S. Interstate Highway ~o. 35~,v. To hear a request for a variance to reduce the minimum lot area and lot width request require- ment to allow a resubdivision of the property. Tuesday, October 27, 1981 at 7:30 PM. Council Chambers, City Ilall, 6700 Portla-nd Avenue South 1. Attend the hearing and give testimony for or against the proposal. 2. Submit a letter to the Planning Commission c::pressinc~ your views in writing. Contact: Tllc)m:.ls :'Iai~Gibbon Pl.annin~3 ~ :;oninc7 Division C.itt~ o:' I:.icht.i~~L~l ~) i (l l) I'<)I: t'. L.lI1Ci iw~'I111C~ ~l)ll t ~1 ,z~ • 1~ ~ r r C ; • ~. ~,~'~ (~,' ' L~ ;f ~ i~-/ ~ ' /~ 1~ . ~ ~ .~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~C,~ r~~--I~.~ ~ j~~: - ~ <~t ~%~" ~' = 'tom i i ~Z t `'mot, ~~ ~'~t,~; j~ ~~~ ~ ice.-~-~-~`~~a ~ -~^ !~~ ~' Z~~-L,, .mot ~~~rvl'`.~ / ~~ .- f ,, -~ ~/ ~~~~. ~~:Z~t..,C7-fir ~;_-~ C./ ~~. ~~. ~~ C ~v~-~ ~- wu . (( pL ~. ff, ~~l~h ~~L ~` E? ~ CL L~ . S c.^ I ~ ~ ~- l~,i~,.,~t ~ (a.,~-~ s- ~0. w' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • MINUTES October 27, 1981 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Ertman; Commissioners Kamprud, Hoverson, Blevins, Russell, McDermott, Anderson, and Ahlquist. Council Liaison Ludeman. MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Ketchum STAFF PRESENT: Rick Jopke, City Planner; Thom MacGibbon, Planning. Aide, Judith Kunz., Administratde Aide.. Chairperson Ertman called the meeting. to order. APPR(1VAT. (1F MT_NiTTRS M/McDermott, S/Russell to amend the minutes under Item #8, page S, to indicate that the City Planner indicated that the State would be considering the variance request in the near future. He did not know the exact date but indicated .that he could find the date out from the City Engineer and that if anyone wanted to know the date they could contact him or the City Engineer. Motion carried. M/Ahlquist, S/McDermott to appr Commission meeting of September Motion carried. e the minutes of the regular Planning .ITEM#l, CASE #81-V-26, VARIANCE AT 7145 PARK AVENUE SOUTH Thom MacGibbon presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. LeRoy Burkemper, 7145 Park, .applicant appeared stating they intend to improve the property immensely. He also stated that the porch would be appropriate because of the size and style of the house. M/Ahlquist, S/Russell to close the hearing. Motion carried. M/Blevins, S/Anderson to recommend to the Cif Council granting the two variances at 7145 Park Avenue South. Motion carried 7-1 with Commissioner Ahlquist voting no. ITEM #2, CASE #81-V-27, VARIANCE AT 6319 NEWTON AVENUE SOUTH Thom MacGibbon presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. -2- ~. Walter Hoppenrath, 6:319 Newton Avenue South, app icant appeared stating the carport is needed because there is no room for a two-car • garage and .they are a two-car family.. .The carport would provide protection.. for the second vehicle. M/Russell, S/Ahlquist to close the hearing.. Motion carried. Commissioner Ahlquist stated he felt this was a drastic variance and he would be opposed. M/Ahlquist, S/Russell to recommend denial of this variance. Commissioners Blevins pointed out that copies of two letters were received by the commission against the proposal. Motion carried 8-0. ITEM #3, CASE #81-SUB-4, #81-V-28, RESUBDIVISION AT 7245 HUMBOLDT AVENUE SOUTH Thom MacGibbon presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Blevins asked what the width of the existing driveway is. Staff :replied approximately TO feet. Commissioner Blevins also asked what the size of surrounding lots are. Staff replied that. most lots • in the area-are 50' to 75' wide, but that most lots are under one ownership and hence are used as 100' and 75' wide lots. Darcy Debing, 7245 Humboldt Avenue South, applicant appeared stating they would like to have the lots resubdivided and sell the housing and the vacant lot so they can purchase another house. Robert Bower, 1400 West 73rd Street, appeared against the proposal because it will not be conducive to the neighborhood, because the lots-will be too small. Russell Hamsness, 7237 Humboldt Avenue South, appeared against the proposal because he doesn't want a change made to the existing drive- way so a drainage problem is created. Commissioner Russell asked Mr. Hamsness if the driveways were undivided and if both property owners used each others driveways for more than 15 years. Mr. Hamsness said yes. Ralph Kowalski, 7236 Girard appeared opposed adding another house on the vacant lot because of the area being crowded. and drainage problems. James White, 7228 Girard, appeared opposed and presented three letters in opposition. M/Ahlquist, S/McDermott to close the hearing. Motion carried. -3- Commissioner Ahlquist asked if this property abutted the service road. Staff indicated it: does.'. • M/Blevins, S/Russell to recommend denial of the resubdivision request. at 7245 Humboldt Avenue South. Commissioner Blevins expressed concerns with so large a variance and the extent of nonconformity to the neighborhood. Commissioner Ahlquist suggested purchasing the. right of-way on Humboldt.. Motion carried 8-0. ITEM #4, CASE #81-V-29, VARIANCE AT 7401 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH Rick Jopke presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Blevins asked if this would tie .into any future rede- velopment plans for this area. Mark Kawell, architect for the property at 7401 Lyndale, appeared and reviewed the building plans. Mark Balkowitsch, owner of the property at 7401 Lyndale Avenue South, applicant appeared and explained that his clientele would • be professionals wanting finer audio equipment. .(Audio Perfection). Commissioner McDermott asked if the noise could be heard from the outside. Mr. Balkowitsch said they have taken great steps to pre- vent this. Commissioner McDermott also asked about traffic on .the site. Mr. Balkowitsch stated you wouldn't find any more than 4 clients there at any one time. So, there would be 10-12 vehicle trips per day. Bob Kost, landscape architect, appeared. Commissioner McDermott asked about traffic flow onto 74th Street. The next. exit would be 150 feet distant. Commissioner Kamprud left the meeting. Commissioner Blevins asked how many parking spaces there would. be. Mr. Kost replied 13 spaces. No residents appeared. M/Russell, S/Ahlquist to close the hearing. Motion carried. • M/Ahlquist, S/Hoverson to recommend to the City Council granting the variance at 7401 Lyndale Avenue South. Motion carried 7-0. -4- ITEM #5, CASE #81-SP-11, #81-V-30,31,32, SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES AT 609 WEST 74th STREET • Thom MacGibbon presented .the staff. report to the Planning Commission. Jim Platt,. owner of the property at 609 West 74th Street, applicant appeared and distributed a pamphlet showing the quality of construc- tion of the units to be built. Commissioner Russell asked about the proposed market value. Mr. Platt stated $75,000 - $90,000. Commissioner Russell asked if this proposal was cut from 6 to 5 units would the development still,go. The applicant replied probably not. Chairperson Ertman asked if there could be more landscaping and less asphalt in the .front. .The applicant replied they would try to have more. green area in front.. Chairperson Ertman asked what percentage would be outside recreational space. Staff replied that 28% is building and that the square footage of the rear yard .exceeds the requirement not including the driveways. Chairperson Ertman asked if their intent was to put in a swimming pool. The applicant replied that if financing is available they • will have a swimming pool. Jeffrey Gustafson, Edina, MN builder appeared. Allan Anderson, 7333 Garfield Avenue South, appeared asking if the. two existing structures would be taken down. .The applicant indicated they would. He indicated he was in favor of this proposal. M/ Blevins, S/McDermott to close the hearing. Motion carried. M/Blevins, S/ to recommend to the City. Council approval of this special use permit with the following stiuplations: 1) That the variances are obtained; 2) That additional. green space be provided in off street parking area subject to the City Planners approval. and granting of the following variances: 1) To reduce the required 20' side yard setback from commercial properties to 10 ..feet; 2) To increase the maximum allowable lot coverage of 20o to 28.5% • (an increase from 4,224 square feet to 6,160 square feet); 3) To allow a townhouse development without screened private yard spaces. -5- Motion failed for lack of the se'cond`. • M/Russell, S/Ahlquist to recommend to the City Council approval of the special use permit with the following stipulations: 1) that the variances are obtained; 2) that additional green space be provided in off street parking area subject to the City Planners approval. Motion carried 7-0. M/Russell, S/Anderson to recommend to the City Council denial of the following 3 variances at 609 West 74th Street.. 1) To reduce the required. 20' side yard setback from commercial properties to l0 feet; 2) To increase the maximum allowable lot coverage of 20% to 28.50 {an increase from 4,224 square feet to 6,160 square feet); 3) To allow a townhouse development without screened private yard spaces. Commissioner Russell sees the need for this type of development but would like to .see the development fit within the standards, or a prior rethinking of the standards. • Commissioner Blevins spoke against the motion. The 10 foot side yard setback is justified in this case; and increasing the allowable building size has been .talked about. Commissioner Ahlquist stated his opposition to the motion and that the ordinances should be put in order. Commissioner Ertman also stated that the ordinances should be changed to provide for this type of development. The applicant stated that he feels the units are designed reasonably with square footage available. The builder stated they wanted to keep the building with a low profile. .Commissioner McDermott asked that. applicants explain why they want the variance at the beginning of their presentation. Motion failed 3-3-1 with Commissioners Ertman, Blevins, and Hoverson voting no and Commissioner McDermott abstained. - M/Ahlquist, S/Hoverson to send this to the City Council with no recommendation. • Commissioner Blevins said the Planning Commission should make a decision. 5 Minute Recess -6- The motion was withdrawn. M/Blevins, S/Hoverson to recommend. to the City Council .granting Variance #l: 1) To reduce the required 20' side yard setback from commercial'. properties to 10 feet. Motion failed 3-4 with Commissioners Russell, McDermott, Anderson and Ahlquist voting no. M/Ahlquist, S/McDermott to recommend.. to the City Council. granting Variance #3: 3) To allow a townhouse development without screened private yard spaces. Motion carried 6-1 with Commissioner Anderson voting no. M/Blevins, S/ to recommend to the City Council granting. Variance #2: 2) To increase the maximum allowable lot coverage of 20% to 28.5% (an increase from 4,224 square feet to 6,160 square feet). Motion .failed for lack of a second. M/Ahlquist, S/Russell, to recommend to the City Council denial of • Variance #1 and #2. Motion carried 4-3 with Commissioners Ertman, McDermott and Anderson voting no. The applicant stated. they do not want to appear before the council. The chairperson directed the applicant to talk to staff. ITEM #6, CASE #81-RZ-2, ZONING DISTRICT CHANGE AT 6717 LYNDALE AVENUE- 'SOUTH Rick Jopke explained the petition proces in general. and the history of this particular petition. Mr. Jopke indicated that after dis- cussion of this matter with the City Attorney's office it was concluded that .the petition was valid and that the review and public hearing process should continue. Thom MacGibbon presented the staff report to the Planning Commission stating the petition was initiated by the applicant. Commissioner Ahlquist asked what the use and zoning of the property to the north was. Staff indicated both are single family-residential. Norman Gilbertson, 6717 Lyndale Avenue South, applicant appeared • stating that he proposed to put in an office building similar to that of a Twin City Federal building; one story, 1,700 Square feet. He stated that in checking on financing if he were to sell his house -7- he would either be rejected. or several percent less because of loca- • tion. Commissioner Hoverson asked what kind of office building. The applicant stated real estate. Chairperson Ertman asked the applicant if his property was ever going to be included. in the LHN'.. Ivan Ludeman stated it was talked about. Loren Gasterland, 6717 Garfield Avenue South, appeared stating that earlier discussions of the LHN included a statement that the commer- cial would be cut off at 67th Street with the exception of the bank's parking lot just south of 67th Street. Concerns are the C-l. and the effect on his property value. He feels that it is not up to the Planning Commission to correct an error in building a home on Lyndale Avenue. He feels that this would be spot zoning; and that it's unreasonable to add more commercial in the center of a residential block. He distributed a letter from an appraiser from 1955. He indicated FHA told him that his property value would decrease if the property behind were. zoned commercial. John. Rickert, 6710 Garfield Avenue South, appeared opposed to the rezoning and. stating his property would be adversely affected if this property were rezoned to commercial. Warren Zetzman, 673.3 Lyndale Avenue South, appeared stating that he signed the petition but if the neighbors objected he would also object. Julian Flaaten, 6749 Lyndale Avenue South, appeared in favor of the rezoning. Paul Marchessault, 6724 Garfield Avenue South, appeared opposed because it would be spot zoning. Brad Diamond, 6725 Harriet Avenue South, appeared opposed to this rezoning because it's a nice area and neighborhoods should not be destroyed. Brian Flesche, 6725 Garfield Avenue South, appeared opposed to the rezoning, concerned about commercial creeping into his residential neighborhood. M/Anderson, S/Russell to close the hearing. Motion carried. M/McDermott, S/Hoverson to recommend to the City Council denial of the rezoning request at 6717 Lyndale Avenue South. Commissioner Hoverson stated she agrees that this is spot zoning and is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Ahlquist stated that it was the intent that there would not be any commercial expansion. outside the LHN boundaries and he agrees with the motion. -8- Commissioner Blevins spoke in favor of the rezoning in that C-1 would not have that great affect on abutting residential neighbor- hoods and that the comprehensive plan does support this rezoning. Chairperson Ertman stated that he defends the applicant's right to make this application. He also stated he has some problems with the validity of the signatures on the petition including that of Kentucky Fried Chicken. He does not see a need for commercial in this area. Commissioner Russell stated he supports the motion because the purpose of the LHN boundaries was not to allow commercial to creep outside. Commissioner Blevins stated there are other C-1 areas .abutting residential. Motion carried 6-1 with Commissioner Blevins voting no. Council Liaison Ludeman left the meeting. ITEM #7, CASE #81-V-33, VARIANCE AT 6412 LYNDALE AVENUE-SOUTH Rick Jopke presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. Burt Rutman, 6400 Lyndale Avenue South, applicant appeared. stating the fence is good for a buffer but they have been having security. problems and would like it to be 10 feet high. Chairperson Ertman asked what materials will be~used and will't withstand Minnesota winds. The applicant indicated it would be of the same material as the existing fence and would be.built to withstand winds. Commissioner Russell asked why it is necessary to go l0 feet in this area only. The applicant stated there is a chain link fence next to Richfield Lake and they don't have security problems because of the lake. No residents appeared. M/Ahlquist, S/Anderson to close the hearing. Motion carried. • M/Russell, S/Hoverson to recommend to the City Council granting of the variance for fence height a 6412 Lyndale Avenue South. ~~ Commissioner Russell stated he has some problems with the existing fence ordinance and that with security problems there should be some flexibility. • Chairperson Ertman asked if there are any standards to comply with. Staff responded that the PUD calls for a wood screen fence and that would apply. .. ., -9- Commissioner Russell stated stipulations should be: 1) addition to fence be of a continuous wooden material; 2) and be maintained. Commissioner Hoverson agreed to include the stipulations in .the motion. Motion carried 7-0 with stipulations. ITEM.#8, CASE #81-APUD-1, AMENDMENT OF LYNDALE GARDEN CENTER SIGN PLAN Rick Jopke presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Blevins asked if the mural might not be overwhelming and if plastic lettering was originally approved. Staff indicated the plastic lettering was approved. Burt Rutman, applicant appeared stating that they. want a sign that. can be looked. at while driving, not like the freestanding sign that's hard to read while driving around a curve. Commissioner Russell stated concerns with drivers being distracted by too much verbage. The .applicant stated he does not. expect them • to read all the signs at once. Chairperson Ertman stated he thinks Lyndale Garden Center does not need that much advertising and he thinks the Garden Center will lose its image with all the letters. Mark Roasch, Leroy Signs, appeared stating they put the proposal together for Mr. Rutman. He explained details of the proposal. M/Ahlquist, S/Russell to close the hearing. Motion carried. M/Russell, S/McDermott to recommend to the City Council denial of the amendment to the PUD for the Lyndale Garden Center. Commissioner Ahlquist stated he will oppose the motion because he likes the mural. Commissioner Ertman stated he will abstain because its not a land use issue. Motion failed 3-3-1 with Commissioners Ahlquist, Blevins and Hoverson voting no and Chairperson Ertman abstained. M/Ahlquist, S/Anderson to recommend to the City Council approval of the mural in muted colors. Commissioner. Russell feels the mural is inconsistent with the LHN guidelines. -10- Motion failed 3-3-1 with Commissioners Blevins, Russell and McDermott voting no and. Chairperson Ertman abstained. M/Ahlquist, S/B evins to recommend to the-City Council denial of the signage-along the east'side of the building,. Motion carried 6-1-1 with Chairperson Ertman abstaining. M/Ahlquist, S/McDermott to recommend forwarding the-mural issue on to the City Council without'a recommendat-ion. Motion carried 4-2-1 with Commissioners Blevins and Russell voting no and Chairperson. Ertman abstaining. ITEM #9, INFORMATION LETTER #3D, JOINT MEETING WITH PARK AND`RECREA- TION COMMISSION CONCERNING LEGION LAKE PLANS M/Blevins, S/Russell that we ask for a 6:00 meeting on the `10th with the Park and Recreation Commission. (With the stiuplation that we get. fed!) Motion carried.. ITEM #10, SCHOOL BOARD LIAISON REPORT Commissioner Hoverson gave the report. ITEM #11, PARK AND.RECREATION COMMISSION LIAISON REPORT No report was given. ITEM #12, CITY COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT Commissioner Anderson gave the report on-the October 12, 1981 meeting,. Commissioner McDermott' gave the report on the October 26, 1981 meeting. ITEM #13, HRA LIAISON REPORT Commissioner McDermott gave the report. ITEM #14, INFORMATION LETTER #3l, DECEMBER MEETING DATE It was decided to keep the .regularly scheduled meeting date of December 22, 1981. ADJOURNMENT:. 11:45 PM` r ~.~ ~J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 378 Agenda November 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 7145 Park Avenue South PROPOSAL Leroy and Patty Burkemper have submitted an application for a variance to reduce the required 10-foot side yard setback for two- story houses to the existing five feet, and to reduce the required 40-foot front yard setback to 35 feet to allow the construction of a covered entry porch. The entry will not be enclosed, but will be roofed and attached to the main b~zilding, thus requiring a variance. The variance will also allow the construction of a second story addition to the Burkemper's house. The property, located at 7145 Park Avenue South is zoned "R" single family residential. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.30, Subdivision 4 of the zoning ordinance states that side yard setbacks for two-story houses shall be 10 feet. Section 3.40, Subdivision 6, lists three conditions which must be met before a variance may be granted. STAFF REVIEW The staff has reviewed the proposal against the three conditions necessary for granting variances and found the following: 1. That there are no special conditions affecting this lot. This is a typically-sized lot and is not significantly different than any other lot in the City of Richfield. 2. That denial of the proposal will not preclude existing use of the property. A second story addition, however, cannot be constructed without this variance. 3. That the proposal would create a substantial improvement to the applicant's property and would not pose any hazards to improvements or persons in the area. Council Letter No. 378 -2- November 9, 1981 REVIEW AGAINST PROPOSED NEW RESIDENTIAL ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS The staff has reviewed this request against the proposed new residential zoning ordinance requirements and found that no variances would be required to construct the proposed improvements. It should be noted, however, that the proposed zoning ordinance is not yet adopted and therefore not applicable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because the proposal does not meet all three of the conditions necessary for granting variances, the planning division staff must recommend denial of the requested variances. However, the city manager recommends that the variance be granted. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of the requested variances. r ~ _ Respectfully submitted, r ~, Karl Nollenberger City Manager ', ~ KN/sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner October 14, 1981 City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, P-annesota 55423 To `,1hom it P•~ay Concern: This is to acquaint you with our ideas regarding the. improvement of our home at 7145 lark Avenue and the associated variances. Cur lot is one of the larger in the area, but our house is about average size. ?~+e would. like additional living space and have elected to build a second story rather than more first story because the only remaining area to build is the back yard on the iv'.R. corner. This area of the back yard is small already in relation to the front yard and overall lot size.. ?fie would like to add a second story to the full house and design it so that • it does not appear as an obvious add-on. ~' .le believe that for reasons of proportion and balance, - a house of this style should have a larger front entry ~~ cover than is permitted by present code. This cover would be open, but would offer additional protection from the weather. ~~e have the enthusiastic support of ali our neighbors for this pro3ect. ?ve enjoy living at our present address very much and intend to raise our family in Richfield. Therefore, we have ruled out moving as a means of gaining more living space. Sir.,cerely .~_ ,~ ~; ACC C__ C~~. G ~ L ~ G f fC,~'~ - ~, --; Leroyrand Patty Eurk'emper T Scale: 1~ equals 20' ~r _-~ .~L-- ~ ~' - - .~ . i t _.. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF /~/t1~;" f-'.,;~ ~' /'..,( ~; FOR PURPO5 OF _ _~~,,,; :- ' - iY~ ; ~ t<< ,-1 ~ , / ;~t- -~: ~ . '/- ~ ` :<i Legal Description: J We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby concur with the variance as requested. Si£nature of Q~.~ners _ Address Leal Description 1 L~ ",-1 ~, ., c" ~ .,, -1 ~ .- ,, t , ~ , j I 4V~ . ~... //r~r11~1.~ `f'% '7/,'~l~i( (-~~f~. 4 - ~ //•J/~ L~CLL11~l~w: ,~ - ~ -- - l i t I- -- --- ------ ~--- i I i ------ --- ~---------- -- -- ------I------ - i ~ ! ~ ~ t I i October 21, 1981 City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. Richfield, Minnesota 55423 - Attention: Planning Commission Dear Sir: We have received your notice of public hearing concerning the property at 7145 Park Ave. We would like to advise you that we have no objection to the proposal. Very truly yours, .., "~ ,:v-'~ ` ~~.4: 111 ~~`_ .~ ~- V Arthur W. Boerner Laverne M. Boerner 7137 Park Ave. Richfield, Mn. 55423 ~7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 377 Agenda November 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Special Use Permit and Variance, 609 West 74th Street A public hearing has been scheduled for the November 9, 1981 city council meeting to consider the issuance of a special use permit and the granting of a variance to permit development of a six-unit townhouse at 609 West 74th Street. Jim Platt, the applicant, has requested that this item be deferred to the November 23, 1981 regular council meeting. Notice of the November 9 hearing was published. The staff therefore recommends that the council receive testimony from any interested parties that may be present at the November 9, 1981 meeting, and then continue this item to the November 23, 1981 regular city council meeting, as requested by the applicant. Respectfully submitted, {{ 1 , , ,. Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner i • October 28, 1981 Rick Jopke City Planner City of Richf ie~d 6700 Portland Ave. Richf field, Mno 55423 Dear Rick, Per our conversation this morning, we are requesting that our meeting with the city council be moved from November 9th to November 23rd. Thank you for your thoughts and concerns on this project. Sincerely, /. ~~~ fat i~ _.-~-~- . 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. 376 Agenda November 9, 1981 Subject: Request for Variance, 6319 Newton Avenue South PROPOSAL Mr. Walter Hoppenrath has submitted a request for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 30 feet to 15.75 feet. The variance will allow the construction of a freestanding carport. The proposed wood frame structure will be roofed and the sides will be open. The structure is to be located in front of the applicant's existing one-car garage, and would be 15.75 feet from the front property line. The property is an interior lot and is zoned "R" single family residential. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.30, Subdivision 4 of the zoning ordinance sets lot and yard requirements for single family residential lots. Section 3.40, Subdivision 6, lists three conditions which must be met before a variance may be granted. STAFF REVIEW The staff has reviewed this proposal against the three conditions necessary for granting variances and found the following: 1. That there are no special conditions affecting this lot. This is a typicaly sized lot and is not significantly different than any other lot in the city. 2. That denial of this application will not preclude reasonable use of the property. 3. That although the proposal is an improvement to the applicant's property, the reduced setback is a substantial departure from the required 30 feet. The staff is of the opinion that the proposed 15.75 foot setback is contrary to community standards and undermines the intent for requiring setbacks. The intent for front yard setbacks is to provide for uniformity, suf- ficient yard space and separation of streets and buildings. The staff is of the opinion that the proposal therefore does not meet this condition. Council Letter No. 376 -2- November 9, 1981 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because the proposal does not meet all three of the conditions necessary for granting variances, the staff recommends denial of the requested variance. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends denial of this requested variance. r ~_7 Respectfully submitted, ~:,, ., Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner 1: ~~ _ .. ~ MR WALTER C HOPPEN~~ ' -~--~~-- ~~ ~ 6319 Newton Ave S ' "" - - - ~~~ Richtield;MN 55423 !~~ ~ _ ~_ ~ ~ , ~ - !"~v ~ 1/ ~rV"Kr Qr -- -_c~.-. ~-~.~. ~ A - _~~ .~`~" ~~, --~ .~-~_ ~--r ~w j a-e-~ iara.yp4/r.e-icv J Ito - ~ e .. _ . o-.,.` C~e~ v v ~L-e / ~~~~~~ - ~-awn.-~ o_,..a ~ ~ _. ~. °'~. ~',~.ay'~ ~.. __ . _ °:;~~`. .mod a R.,.,. ~~ a ~ ~.:. ep -~.v._ vat ~f ,<:,[,,,,.~„„. ~ A A _ • +~. ,y~~ ...~,~~ \-^ MH WALTER C HOPPENRATH 7 6319 Newton Ave S ' Pochlala, MN SSa23 f ~~ T T M co W Z W a Z O W Z i ~-~ 13~ -} '`~~~o P op::._9.:.....:~ t~i4V~~}Y•1 CI ~-~~~ a J. in ~. 127.83` Scale:l"equals 20" ~~ I jl ~~ • ~. ir ----,..__._. --------- i i ti a _ fv G r'.' lL i ''v. (1. ;. ~ ~ i ~ ____ ... _.~ ., -- _._~fi t _.._ ___ _~ -J i i ~~ ' ~'~,.: 1 ti.~ ~ ~~ { ~ f! i' ~I i ... 1 r..:,. ~= Planning Commission City of :~ichfield 6700 Portland Ave. South Richfield, MN 55423 Gentlemen: October 22, 1981 ~:, . . i; ;~.~~ :; :: ~ _~, I ;+, t.t~1 ,.,. ,.. ._ . I have my doubts whether or not Mr. Hoppenrath should be granted a variance to reduce the required 30 feet front yard setback to 13 feet. This seems to be getting pretty close to the street and I wonder if it would block out my view of the traffic coming down Newton Ave. as I back out. of my drive way. If a variance is granted in this case would other people on tho block be entitled to the same consideration. If others were to build this close to the street I feel it would not be an assest to the neighborhood. Sincerely, r/'~ , Betty Achterberg T b305 Newton Ave. So. Minneapolis MN 5423 ~` (:;;: ~:. id.. • ._ ~ . .l ~- ____._...__ _ .___. _. _. _._. _. _ _ .._.. 4 "~ _ ....... r ~ ~ ~ I i`.:as J~ -"'~ J~~ C~~~- ~ y • l~ -vU~ ~ y ~/ .:: - (~~~~ ~ ~~ - - ~~ . ~~~~~~ ~ . Ct - /L _.. ~t tG~. c~avt.~o"-~~..~~_t~Y~ ~~~_ ems... ~-~.-~' a--~ ... ~~- ¢~ ~.Lt-Ct Zt,-E~s`- ~Z~ L.G. f~L'~ ~Z Gi,_, ~'VLiTLZ.~ _ .- --- ~ - . .(„~J-i-~-L~ ~J.~,~(' [,_Q_.Q._ JO..LL-.~~( ~i..:'YT~--L G, L.U;-.ri-~-~~c~ ____ _.... ~ /` ' .. ~ I ~ ., .3 0 ~ Eli ~_~ ~~ ~~-~,~ ~S ~; ~', (.,~~ ~..{~~ 6, 4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 375 Agenda November 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Amendment to Lyndale Garden Center Sign Plan PROPOSAL Mr. Burt Rutman has submitted an amended sign plan for the signs on the Lyndale Garden Center building at 6412 Lyndale Avenue South. Two types of signs are being proposed. The first is a mural sign to be located over the main entrance to the building on the north side. The mural is proposed to be approximately four feet high and 64 feet long, and to be constructed of a series of multi- colored painted half-inch thick, plywood cutouts depicting the products sold by the garden center during the various seasons of the year. The second type of sign proposed consists of individual letters on the four-foot high wood band along the entire east side of the building. These letters are proposed to be two feet high, and will spell the names of products offered for sale at the garden center. The letters will vary in color, by product, alternating white and yellow. A red dot is to be used to separate product names. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.34A, Subdivision 7, paragraph 1 of the zoning ordinance requires that the development in a planned unit development district be in substantial compliance with the approved PUD plan, final devel- opment plan, and any conditions imposed by the city council. In the staff's opinion, the proposed sign plan differs significantly from the plan previously approved as part of the final development plan. Therefore, an amendment is required. STAFF REVIE~9 1. Thy proposed sign plan differs from the approved sign plan in the following ways: a. The letters are two feet high instead of one foot, four inches high. b. There is considerably more verbiage than was shown on the approved plan. The wood band will have verbiage from end to end. The approved plan showed verbiage on only about 25 percent of the total wood band length. ~ Council Letter No. 375 -2- November 9, 1951 c. The lettering will be yellow and white. The approved plan indicated that the lettering would be all white. There will also be red dots to separate the names of various products. These were not indicated on the approved plan. d. The proposed mural over the main entrance on the north side of the building was not a part of the approved plan. 2. It is the staff's opinion that the proposed mural on the north side of the building is a unique idea which could have a positive effect on the aesthetics of the building and surrounding area, if done well and properly maintained. The L/H/N Urban Design Elements also encourage the use of graphics, whenever possible, in place of words. 3. It is the opinion of the staff that the proposed signage along the east side of the building would have a negative effect on the aesthetics of the building. The wood band was added in front of the greenhouses to soften the visual appearance of all of the greenhouse glass. The proposed sign plan would negate the positive effect of the wood band on the design and appearance of the build- , ing. The amount of the wood band covered can be reduced while still allowing sufficient opportunity to advertise types of produces offered at the garden center. This reduction in area covered could also eliminate the need for more than one color of lettering. It is also the opinion of the staff that the wood band could support more verbiage than was originally approved, and still maintain a good aesthetic appearance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the sign plan be approved with the following stipulations: 1. That no more than 50 percent of the length of each section of the wood band be covered with letters. 2. That the letter height be no more than 24 inches. 3. That all the lettering be white in color. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the request for the (~ ~ ~ amended signage along the east side of the building be denied. The commission could not reach agreement on a recommendation concerning F the mural sign along the north side of the building and therefore passed this matter on to the council with no recommendation. Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has agreed to comply with the stipulations outlined in the staff recommenda- tion. • Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: City Planner Community Development Director _T .________. _. ... _. .__` _._._.._r _ ~ ' ~~ ~~ r~ ~~C _ ) Y ` i n y,,,,~~Yw~~n CU'( Ova S (Mi~~M~M of b~1n~~~ 43uPFAcE VA~~T~Q~ Izo~ ~ } Ye~~ow Rr~ Do, wN~r~ G°~ ° ~~ O ~ (~G°~~ Ctrl G~ M G°~ ~~t M C~ C~ loo' YELLOW ~2 ~ G~GJ G~J C~~ G~G°~ M ~ t`~ ° µirE ~ 100' RED ~d-r I:L~.OW -~.3 ~ C~ G°-J G~ C~ C~ G~1 C~ ° ~ G°~la GP3 °~ U ~ ~ C~ - 65~' wN~Te t ~`~~ _ L~~~Rs Z'~'~ FGRM PLEx LErjERs UPPER CASE: VENL!S ,+ ~ APP{iUVED PLAN ~. .. ~ , 1 _~_ ~_ ~ , . ~ .. ~ i- _. .'i i~ ~~ i I ~ (~ ,. ~ ~~;,~~ rl;,~ ~~i ,~ ~ ~~, , T"~ k~ ~~ ., a~ Y . IiO~D AND GcTAIL _ N O nT ~ G L e. ~/ -~.TI U I~l - - ----_ ._-_~,,._-o GsI6. CYCr-~:l ~ '.I I ~ ~i ~ ~ ~i,-, I -~I I i, i', ~. -.. ~~ I , ! - li r .} I li~l~ -I Id ~~'Tj III I ~'. ~ ~ ; i. ~ i.11',`~~/I'If I,; ~ ~ >' ~ ~ I I ~~ ~~I~ T t ~i,I ~ `V~ ,\IY, ~;'I,' ~; 11 ~~; ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ }~^ T~ li !1 ~~-i ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~1 I 11~ ~ \..I i ~I ~~ V ~ ~ ~I 4 _ . ~i ~ ~ -_ I ~ I - I 1 I p+ ' ti '~~ I ~ _ ~ . ~ I' li . , ~ ~ ~t~ ~ I. ~ i r ~ ~~- - ~ , _ ~ a , U ~ - T I ~ I ~ ~ ~-~ 11~~ ~ ~ ~ {-1 f , ~ ~~.=~ 1 ~ -~ ' u~ ~11~_~ ~~? ~t ~ -, Pa~- , .,~ fi~1't 11 r ~I. ~ ~`~ i-rnn _ , ~ ~~-~f'~'~ ~~!} ~-~ TT~~ =~:T~~iT'i i `17~~ ~ ..I ..: , - ~ I ~ ~~'' ~ [. `E~ i ~ _ F s- ~ _+...~-~ 11.1' 1 ~ ~ 1,1 ! ~ ~. ~ ~ I ~m-1 ~ T-r~T-, mnn-r-r-r ~ •, , ° - - - Sign No. 1 Sign No. 2 1 Sign No. 3 ~}• ;ign No. 4 - 1 n 4 -o ~ , &~~o' ~ 140-0~ \A^I_S ~ _ n.a~~ ~ I ~ , i ~ , ~ 2. 6 ~. l f z f + i ~: CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA . Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 374 Agenda November 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request Lyndale South for Fence Height Variance at Garden Center, 6412 Lyndale Avenue PROPOSAL Mr. Burt Rutman, representing Lyndale Garden Center, has requested that a variance be granted to allow him to increase the height of his recently constructed fence from six feet to 10 feet. The fence in question is the wood screen fence located in the southwestern portion of the garden center property, which separates the garden center from the adjacent multiple family structures. The new portion of the fence would be of the same material and be designed to match the existing fence. The additional height is being requested for security reasons. The applicant indicates that he has experienced thefts because the fence is not high enough to prevent people from passing merchandise over the fence to persons and vehicles parked in the adjacent apartment parking lot. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.39, Subdivision 2, Paragraph 1(e) of the zoning ordin- ance indicates that the maximum fence height for fences in rear yards is six feet. Section 3.40, Subdivision 6, lists three conditions which must be met before a variance may be granted. STAFF REVIEW The staff has reviewed the application against the three condi- tions necessary for granting variances and found the following: 1. That there are no special conditions affecting this particular property. This is a typically-sized lot and is not signifi- cantly different than any other commercially zoned lot in the city. Council Letter No. 374 -2- November 9, 1981 2. That denial of this variance will not preclude reasonable use of the property. The applicant would not be prevented from operating the existing or other commercial use on the site and other security measures not requiring variances could be instituted to reduce losses. 3. That the proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The design of the additional height would match the existing fence and the additional height would provide additional screening for the adjacent multiple family use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because the proposal does not meet all three of the conditions necessary for granting variances, the planning division staff rec- ommends denial of the requested variance. However, the city manager recommends that the variance be granted. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that this variance request be approved with the following stipulations: 1. That the fence be of a continuous wooden material. 2. That the fence be properly maintained. ~i- ~ Respectfully submitted, '~_ r ' ,~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner • i °" t I ~° ~y ---?~ i ~' >' ° ` , C k`~ e._a-a, S ~` T~ tr t. ' ~, , a .~,.,o ~I~ ~~tl._ U EG^o-+ -,.,,, ... ,.,.., ~~ .~ , ~~ ~~ ~- I ~ ~~ ~,,, i ~~~.r ~ if ~ ~. .i~~~ASS LAKE ~ ~~i~ ~~ ~ .. ... I ~l ti i -.... ~..r, ~ ~ // / ~ "nc. ..~ f-7 - {P~ ~~11 ~J ' _ ___. _.____ ___-. '~~. ~ ~t r i ~~ '~ k ~-~ it ~ ~~~, ~~' ~ i - ~~ ~ ~ ~__ r i" v,. n9' i' t 9 ~) r J/ / ` l __ it I u t':-~' ~~ x, , ,~ , '~~ ~ ~~ I i i_ "~ (11 JEST ,N .,..~ ,..... ~ Jf^^Z i ~ .,~ /J v~ /. tl"Y4 x C,~/~~ _ ___. _I _ t.~ ,, a~~,~d ~ ~~~6 .~ -~~ -,~~ o~~. a. ~as - - ~ ~ - ~ .~ ~~.. ~ . _ ~ ~' ~.~: - es' ~^ '~ - _.. 1 ~ ~ ~ ., a 4, ,~ ,~ ~.. __ -. __ ~ ~`, `. ~:~~ ;wc .~ ~ ~, ~~~ ,t -1. ~ ~~ ~Yc .. 4 -s ~>, ~ o i ,, ~~,, ~ - :, , _ t,-- ~,~~ ~~ ,, _. -- ~y~, . ~ ~,~ 11 F~ .. ., o~o,a~. ~~. ~~ _- . , ~ .~.., O .,~c. ..x.... o ~ , ® Fence Location • David Todd Rt~ & Associates.i Architcas/Planr~ Mills./St_Paul, A'~ ~~~' ~~~ ~, - .~ . - , -%. ~~r 2 ~ - --