10-12-81 agenda/ 7 ~}
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 355
Agenda October 12, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council rlembers
Subject: Resolution Setting Date of Hearing for
Proposed Industrial Bond Issue - David
P. Webb, for Property Located at 78th
Street and 12th Avenue
Nlr. David P. Webb has requested that the City of Richfield
undertake and finance a.project under the Municipal Industrial
Development Act in the amount of $1,500,000 to acquire the prop-
erty at 78th Street and 12th Avenue (Robert Hall Building) in
order to operate a restaurant and related facilities at this site.
The resolution enclosed with this council letter would set
a public hearing on Monday, November 9, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. in
the Richfield City Fall Council Chambers. Mr. Webb is proposing
to rebuild the Robert hall property into a re,~~kaurant facility.
An item has been scheduled on the October 12, 1981 city
council agenda for council consideration of the resolution setting
a date of hearing for this proposed bond issue for November 9,
1 981 .
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Tlanager_
cc: Community Development Director
City Cler}c
City Attorney
s
EXTRACT -0F MINUTES OF MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RICHFIELD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the.
City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was
held at the City Hall in said City on Monday, October 12, 1981,
commencing at 7:00 o'clock P.M.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent.:
-- , _ _
Thee following resolution was presented by Councilmember
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING
ON A PROPOSED PROJECT UNDER THE
MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT ACT.
WHEREAS, David P. Webb, a resident of Ramsey County, Minnesota
(the "Applicant") has proposed that the City undertake and finance a
project under the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 474 (the "Act"); and
. WHEREAS, the Act, as amended, requires that a public hearing on
the proposed project be conducted by the Council before any action. may
be taken by it relative to the proposed project:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield:
1. The Council shall meet at 7:00 p.m. on .Monday, November 9,
1981, to conduct a public hearing on the proposed project
requested by the Applicant and to take whatever action in
relation thereto as it deems appropriate.
2. The City Clerk is authorized .and directed to publish notice
of the hearing in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A once
in the official newspaper and once in the Minneapolis Star &.
Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in the City, not
less than 15 days prior to November 9,-1981.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by Councilmember and upon vote
being taken thereon, the following voted in favor of the motion:
and the following voted against:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
--iii' ~ - -•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office oa City Manager
Council Letter No. 354
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Agenda October 12, 1981
Subject: Resolution Establishing Procedures for
Deferment of Special Assessments
ti n No.
On April 13, 1981, the city council adopted Resolu o
6416, a copy of which is attached, establishing procedures for
the deferment of special assessments against owner occupied home-
steaded properties for persons over 65 years of age. Subsequently,
the Minnesota State Legislature amended the provisions of state
law which permit such deferment of special assessments to provide
that persons who have retired due to permanent disability may also
quality for deferment of special assessments, where it would be
a hardship to make payments of such special assessments. The
previous provisions for determining hardship and applying for such
a deferment have simply been extended to include persons who have
retired due to permanent disability.
The city recently received an inquiry from a citizen who re-
quested that the council consider extending the provisions of
Resolution No. 6416 to permanently disabled persons, as provided
for in the amended state law. If the city council w~_shes to con-
sider such an amendment to Resolution No. 6416, it is recommended
that the city council pass a new resolution identica]_ `o the attached
resolution except as follows:
Paragraph 1 - (to read as follows) It is the policy of the
city to consider requests for the deferment of special
assessments upon homestead properties owned by persons 65
years of age or older or_ by persons retired by virtue of a perm-
anent total disability for whom it would be a hardship to
make payments of such special assessments. Permanent and
total disability for the purpose of this section means a
condition which is permanent by nature and totally incapac-
itates the person from working at an occupation which brines
him an income. In the adoption of such policy and the pro-
cedures established by this resolution the city is acting
pursuant to authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, S~>ctions
435.193 to 435.195.
•
Council Letter No. 354 -2- October 12, 1981
Paragraph 6, Item 6 (to read as follows) That such owner-
occupant is over 65 years of age or permanently and totally
disabled;
A copy of the proposed resolution is attached to this council
letter and has been placed on the October 12, 1981 city council
agenda for council consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: Director of Community Services
Community Center Manager
s
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
PROCEDURES FOR DEFERMENT
OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS'
AGAINST OWNER-OCCUPIED
HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES OF
PERSONS OVER SIXTY-FIVE
YEARS OF AGE OR PERSONS
PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY
DISABLED
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1. It is the policy of the city to consider requests for the
deferment of special assessments upon homestead properties owned
by persons 65 years of age or older or by persons retired by virtue
of a permanent total disability for whom it would be a hardship
to make payments of such special assessments. Permanent and total
disability for the purpose of this section means a condition which
is permanent by nature and totally incapacitates the person .from.
working at an occupation which brings him an income. In the
adoption of such policy and.the procedures established by this
resolution the city is acting pursuant to authority granted by
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 435.193 to 435.195.
• 2. A qualifying hardship shall be deemed to exist if the owner
of the homestead property and other occupants of the homestead,
taken together (a) had a gross income of less than $11,000 in the
.previous calendar year and (b) will have an estimated income for the
current calendar year and subsequent years which will not exceed said
sum.
3. Application for deferral of payment of special assessments
shall be made on forms prescribed by the county auditor. The home
owner shall furnish the city with such information as it may require
at the time of the original application and at any time thereafter
while. the special assessment remains unpaid, which will permit the
city to establish, verify or continue the deferral of special assess-
ments or to determine whether eligibility for such deferral has ended.
4. Interest on deferred special assessments shall accrue until the
special assessment is paid, at the rate established by the city at the
time of levying the special assessment.
5. The city manager or his designee shall examine all applica-
tions for determination of his/her eligibility for deferral of
payment of special assessments (a) in compliance with said statute
and (b) in accordance with the standards and guidelines for deter-
mining hardships contained in this resolution or any subsequent
amendment thereof.
6. No deferment of payment of a special asses:~ment shall be
made unless the owner furnishes the city with an application and
such supplementary documentation and verification as may be required
to establish the following:
d
1. The legal description,. plat and parcel number. of the
property;
2. The street address of the property;
3. Its status as homestead property;
4. The description or designation of the local improvement;
5. The name of the. homestead owner-occupant;
6. That said owner-occupant is over 65 years of age or
permanently and totally disabled;
7. That payment of the special assessment on the ordinanry
time basis would be hardship as defined herein.
7. Within 30 days after the filing of the application in
completed form the city manager or his/her designee shall make
a report to the council on the application, with a recommendation
as to whether the application shall be granted. The. council shall,
by resolution, either grant or deny the application and the decision
of the council shall be final.
8. Within 30 days after the filing of said application for
deferment of special assessments, the city manager shall review
the application for consistency with and conformance to the
council prescribed standards. and guidelines;. and then either
grant or deny the application. In the event of the existence of
exceptional or unusual circumstances not covered by the standards
and guidelines, the city manager shall make a full report to the
city council within 30 days of the filing of said application
along with a recommendation-as to whether said application should
be granted or denied. In the event of the denial of the applica-
tion by the city. manager, any applicant shall have the right. to
have the application considered by the city council. In those
instances where the city council considers an application, it
shall, by resolution, either grant or deny the. application; and
the decision of the city council shall be final. The city manager
shall report to the city council on a quarterly basis on deferrals
granted by him/her.
9. The option to defer the payment of special assessments
shall terminate and all amounts accumulated; plus applicable
interest, shall become due upon the occurrence of any of the
following events: (a) the death of the owner, provided that. the
surviving spouse is not eligible for the benefits hereunder; (b)
the sale, transfer or subdivision of the property or any part
thereof; (c) if the property should for any reason lose its
homestead status; or (d) if .for any reason the taxing authority
deferring the. payments shall determine that there would be no
hardship to require immediately or partial payment.
Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield, this
12th day of October, 1981.
Donald J. Priebe, Mayor
ATTEST:
•
,Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
i ~
RESOLUTION N0. 6416
~- RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
.PROCEDURES FOR DEFERA4ENT
OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
AGAINST OWNER-OCCUPIED
HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES OF
PERSONS OVER SIXTY-FIVE
YEARS OF AGE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1. It is the policy of the city to consider requests
for the deferment of special assessments upon homestead
_, properties owned by persons sixty-five years of age or older
for whom it would be a hardship to make payments of such
special assessments. In the adoption of such policy and the
procedures established by this resolution the city is acting
pursuant to authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Sections
435.193~to 435.195. _
2 A qualifying hardship shall be deemed to exist if
the owner of .the homestead property and other occupants of
:..the homestead, taken-together (a) had a gross income of less
than $11,000 in the previous calendar year and (b) will have
an estimated. income for the current calendar year and sub-
..~,
sequent years which will not exceed said sum.
3. Application for deferral of payment of special
assessments shall be made on forms prescribed by the county
auditor. The home owner shall furnish the city with such
..information as it may require at the time of the original
application and at any time thereafter while the special.
assessment remains unpaid, which will permit the city to _
establish, verify or continue the deferral of special assess-
ments or to determine whether eligibility for such deferral
has ended.
4. Interest on deferred special assessments shall
accrue until the special assessment is paid, at the rate
established by the city at the time of levying the special
assessment.
5. The city manager or his designee shall examine all
applications for determination of hip/her eligibility for deferral
of payment of special assessments (a) in compliance caith
said statute and (b) in accordance with the standards and
guidelines for determining hardships contained in this
resolution or any subsequent amendment thereof.
6. do de~err„ent of payment of a special assessment
shall be ~: ace unless the otdner furnishes the cit`' with an
application and such supplementary documentation and verifica-
tion as may be required to establish the following;
1. The legal description, plat and parcel number
>C
of the property;
2.~ The street address of the property;
3. Its status as homestead property
4. The description or designation of the local
improvement
5. The name of the ..homestead owner-occupant;
6. That said owner-occupant is over 65 years
. of age;
7. That payment of the special assessment on
the ordinary time basis would be hardship
as defined herein..
7. Within 30 days after the filing of the application in
completed form the city manager or his/her designee shall make
a report to the council on the application, with a recommenda-
tion as to whether the application shall be granted. The
council shall, by resolution, either grant or deny the applica-
tion and the decision of the council shall be final.
8. Within 30 days after the filing .of said application for
deferment of spec ial~assessments, the city manager shall review
the application for consistency with and conformance to .the
council prescribed-standards and guidelines; and then either
grant or deny the application. In the event of the existence
of exceptional or unusual circumstances not covered by the .
standards and guidelines, the city manager shall make a full re-
port to the city council within 30 days of the filing of said
application along with a recommendation as to whether said
application should be granted or denied.. In the event of the
denial of the application by the city manager, any applicant
shall have the right to have the application considered by the
city council. In those instances where the city council con-
siders an application, it shall, by resolution, either grant
or deny the application;_and the decision of the city council
shall be final. The city manager shall report to the city
council on a quarterly basis on deferrals granted. by .him/her.
9. The option to
shall terminate and
interest, shall beco
following events:
the surviving spouse
(b) -the sale, transf
part thereof; (c) i
its homestead status
authority dcferrinq the
would be no hardship tc
er
amo
the payment of special
unts accumulated, plus
upon the occurrence of
death of the owner,. p
eligible for the bene
ubdivision of the prop
roperty should for any
d) if for any reason
payments shall determine
require immediate or par
assessments
applicable
any of the
rovided that
fits hereunder;
erty or any
reason lose
the taxing
that there
tial payment.
Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield, this
13th day of April, 19131.
ATTEST:
Uona ld J . Priebe i~Iavor
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
def
all
me due
a) the
is .not
er or s
f the p
or
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 353
Agenda October 12, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Appointments Qf Members to Committee
to Work on Redistricting
At the August 10, 1981 city council meeting, the city council
passed a resolution establishing a coi~unittee to work on redist-
ricting. The duties of this committee will be to formulate a
recommendation regarding election district boundaries, to implement
the city's ward system in 1982.
The committee is to be comprised of no more than seven members
with the following composition:
• Two representatives from each of the two major political
parties (IR and DFL);
One representative from the League of Women Voters;
One representative who is a registered voter who is an
Independent; and
One representative who is involved in the field of educa-
tion, in governmental, public or civic studies.
After that meeting, the DFL, IR, League of Women Voters, and the
schools were contacted to make a reconunendation of persons to
serve on this committee. The following names have been submitted
for consideration of appointment by the city council:
DFL - Gordon Anderson, 7501 Elliot Avenue
Suzanne Sandahl, 7601 Bryant Avenue
IR - Vern Luettinger, 7045 14 Avenue
Dale Erickson, 7125 15th Avenue
League of ~4omen Voters - Irmo Janski, 6500 2nd Avenue
Respectfully submitted,
~;~irl NollenbergoL~
City ^lanac~cr
KNjeja
t
RESOLUTION NO. 6477'
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A COI~MIITTEE TO WORK
ON REDISTRICTING
WHEREAS, .the Richfie ~ city charter provides that, beginning
in 19II2, three council members are to be elected by district, one.
from each of three districts which. are to be established in the
city.; and
WHEREAS, before this election can take place, it is
necessary that the city establish these election districts; and
WHEREAS, the city council has determined that the process of
establishing such dis ricts should provide for an active role
of citizen representatives;
BE IT RESOLVED, therefore, by thin city council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota, as .follows:
a. That there hereby-be created a Citizen's Advisory
Redistricting Comi;~ittee.
b. That the Committee shall serve in an advisory capacity
to the city council.
.. c. That the. Committee should be comprised-of no more than,
seven. (7) members who shall reside in the City. of
Richfield and be of voting age.
d. That the composition of said Committee shall be as
follows
1. Two (2) representatives from each of the two
. major political parties, Independent Republican and
Democrat-Farmer-Labor;
2. One (1) representative from the League of Women
Voters.
~,~ T
~.,
I 1
~~
~,~-,
e.
f.
3. One (1) representative who is a registered voter
who is an Independent.
4. One (1) representative who is involved in the field
of education, in governmental, public, or civic
studies.
That the Committee shall be formed as soon as possible
.and serve until the city council has made a final
decision establishing election districts within the
City of Richfield.
That the Committee member who is the registered Independ-
voter shall serve as chairperson of the Committee. :~11
Conunittee action shall be in resolution form and must
receive majority vote approval of the members pre ent.
L~E'_51i1'~: i..iliil ..U.
g. The purpose of the Committee is to develop at leant
two alternative recommendations for city council
consideration in establishing election district
boundaries within the City of Richfield.
h. Staff support, materials, and facilities shall be
.provided by-the city at the direction of the city
manager.
i. The final. decision regarding the establishment of
election districts or boundaries within: the City of
RichfieldwilT remain the sole authority of the city
council.
Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 10 th day of August, ..1981.
Donald Priebe, P~3ayor
ATTEST:
i
.
Sylvia ~
Bergh, City Clerk.
~;
~x~~ ~ _
~t 1
,~~:.~
~_~
4, - -
,•-ti ~ vas`,,, ,._ - _
/ 7l3
CITY OF RICIIFIELD, DIINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 352
Agenda October 12, 191
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
:,
Mr. G~vr-ge McKasy, owner of the property at 2200 1~'est 66th
Street, has applied for an off-street parking permit. Mr. NIcI<asy
is proposing to open an automotive electronic speciality sales
and installation shop, which will include the sale of radios,
tape players and other related equipment at that site.
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Off-Street Parking Permit, 2200
I~Jest 66th Street
This use will require a total of 7 off-street parking spaces.
The applicant is proposing 5 spaces, one of which is partially
on public right-of-way (along Oliver Avenue). The property is
extremely constrained in terms of available space for parking
purposes. The existing building occupies 630 of the lot, thus
eliminating reasonable alternatives to provide the required number
of off-street par}sing spaces.
The applicant is not proposing any expansion of the existing
building now on the property. He is proposing, however, major
remodeling of the exterior and interior of the structure. The
proposal also indicates three enclosed service bays, for the in-
stallation of the merchandise. Hence, a total of 8 vehicles can
be parked on the property. The off-street parking guidelines
do not include the enclosed service bays as meeting the require-
ments; therefore, the proposal is 2 spaces short of the required
7 off-street parking spaces. The applicant's plans do not indicate
permanent curbing on the south side of the par]cinc~ area.
Summary
The staff believes that, because of existing conditions, it
will be difficult to reasonably meet the required number of off-
street parking spaces for the proposed use, and for nearly any
other type of use. The staff also believes that the remodeling
will significantly improve the aesthetics of the property, since
the structure is presently severely deteriorated. The applicant
should enter into a hold harmless agreement with the city in
order to rele,zse the city fro,: liability in tease the applicant's
Council Letter No. 352 -2-
October 12, 1931
improvements on the public right-of-way are damaged or need to
be removed for subsequent city use of the right-of-way.
Staff Recommendation
Although the applicant's proposal does not meet all of the off-
street parking requirements, the staff believes that the proposed
improvements for the structure are a good compromise, would enhance
the appearance of the property, and would positively impact surround-
ing properties. Therefore, the staff recommends approval of this
off-street parking layout with the following stipulations:
1. That the applicant improve/remodel the existing
structure as indicated in the submitted plans;
2. That the applicant install permanent curbing as per the
off-street parking guidelines;
3. That the applicant enter into a "hold harmless" agreement
with the city to allow improvements on the public right-
of-way;
4. That no outside storage of vehicles to be serviced be
permitted on the property during business hours, to max-
imize parking available for customers and employees.
Respectfully submitted,
.,~
~ ~..i t~
., ~ - _~ - t~~.
~i
Karl Nollenberger
Cit Manager
Y
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
•
~e~tc~„her ?l~~ ~';'~:1
Cit;,r o ~ _ii c:i~ iglu
6, 00 Portland <~venue mouth
Richfield, iiinnesota 55~+~z
To :1ho~~ It _':ay ::cncern:
•
~,:;
.7E .!1"il "i,0 L.'_"li~:^' 't0 ;~rOlJr ._.`tii~T'_LiOhi tiln i.0~ 1.,~ 1: --
COnS1C:er~:t1v^n.> COi1C01'nln'" OLtr ~:.';';'J11CC:t10~1 .~0~' OS :~tl^et 1?.''..riC1i~.!.
perl7!lt. ~1[le ;%rO:;O;ed U:ae O'' ti ,.~~ 't~U1iC~~_1Il='_° ~J.t 2r-U~ .~~eSt `_:?tii .qtr O~-
~y ,'+O'rJ ~i'_On1C.~ lv :.. ~°OOC? :~a1~11Cc.j;7.On O".. .,_~.~, e;:1St1'P_'' JU.iI'~1i1::;
111E '~us111ess i1aS ~ Z.O'.J T1Ui;~E'r Of ernplG;;~'e~~. irafllC In .i1Ci OUt
.'. should 're of s~lo~t ru"~aLiQn. Phe service ~~~.cii_it~r is co~:~-:^.le"tel
enClO:~eG. ~~'fle ~Oti:lldln~ cYtcrior ^.n0_ :?~t~.~.=~ 10'1" '~Il~ ~ '~~e li.?,Ci`t~:Ci 1'.1
tin _- coc:es a.nd ~~,~iL 'tie c.rec!it to ~"Le
accorc.ance ~-rit^ ._::is u '~~'
ne1,.';ili"JOrhOO~w. i_1L; t;rjJO O:. i~u£>illO~::i ,?Oil~G. _lOt IJe ~1S i10]_:3:?;,r _.
I;lOSt. r;dC1i;1Cn!'.l "~i~irlall;:" CGl]_1C: i10t ue irOb'1C.et`_ 1.n X11;; aireC ~'.Ql
'DeC~L132 OI c::1:~C7_i; :,trUC".;Lli'(3.,.
_"[1,;i~!. GU JOr '"O'.1~ C011~1Ci~_'<1L1Cll..
~l J
~~~
A.':~
A wc.. ; ~sy;:.._.. .
40~
J
.------
2200 W. 66th ST.
-1
~ --~i
I i
l I
I i
I
~- ~ I -': l
~ ~ ~ Exist. sidewalk
---- ~
°' ~Aspholt
~_
~- 20~-~i
~-sidewalk-may
W. 66th ST.
N
Scale: 1~~= 20~
EXIST.
CURB CUTS
I ~
I
W
Q
W
0
~~.~.ar
~~ ~
, :
~,,
,~
Slf,y,,.~,, y ~:/
G-r"" ~ v
i
' ~1
. ~
i
,
V
dc~.
~
`ui~`'`J'J:
`~y
- r
N
~
.. y3'J ti. ~~~f ~ ..
~~ JNN~ ~ ~~ ~~
I~ ~ ,.::
r
+
~ ~ ~ /{
-
~
fi
.,, i,l+i~
~
~
' .
~~ ~ ~...
,,r
v .-
.ii~4.1i.
~
~
u~
x a.,
'f~.
a
_~
t J. _ _i
,._l i
i
2200 'VAT. 66th St. Richfield ~~ ~-
__ ~
Tti~ IDesdp.~'ollcetlvc ~10t1 I:a~;t I.:~kc fit. 1~Ifiz~tcupolis.-tin.:>:51t1K f~.~.:-~!)
i;
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT FOR
OFF-STREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH
APPLICATION NO. 81-7, CONTRACT NO. 2337
Name: Thomas McKasy
Address: 2016 W. 78th Street
Richfield, MN 55423
Location: 2200 W. 66th Street
Use: Automotive Electronic Specialty
Sales and Installation Shope
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 parking
as contained in Off-Street Parking Application No. 81-7, Contract
No. 2337 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. 2337 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 withdra:aal
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 regulations of
the Off-Street Parking Agreement with the following stipulations:
a. That the applicant improve/remodel the existing structure
as indicated in the submitted plans;
b. That the applicant install permanent curbing as per the
off-street parking guidelines;
c. That the applicant enter into a "hold harmless" agreement
with the city to allow improvements on the public right of
way;
d. That no outside storage of vehicles to be serviced be
permitted on the property during business hours to
maximize parking available for customers and employees.
4. That responsibility Eor i-_he ;>ro_~er~ ui:keep .;nd maintenance of
said off-street ~~arking lot shall remain the responsibility of tile.
off-street par'..ing lot operator in cc~~dance ~.~'iti: t~rdinance Code ~;.05.
•
-2-
Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield this
12th day of October, 1981.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk
•
..ry
CITY OF P.ICHFIELD , ~~IINNFSOTA
Office of City Manager
•
Council Letter No. 351
Agenda October 12, 1981
The Honorable I`Iayor
and
1`iembers of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members
Subject: Disposition. of Property at 6244 16th Avenue
and 6413 22nd Avenue, and Relocation of a
Structure to 6413 22nd Avenue
The Richfield I-IRA is proposing to relocate the house at 6244
16th Avenue to the vacant lot at 6413 22nd Avenue. This house
moving and subsequent rehabilitation work is to be a cooperative
effort between the HRA and the suburban Hennepin County Area Vo-
cational Technical Schools (Vo-Tech). Presently, the house has
two bedrooms and one bathroom in a one and one-half story struc-
ture. The finished rehabilitated structure will include a 12` x
• 23' addition, four bedrooms, and two bathrooms. In order for
the relocation of this dwelling to occur, the council must de-
cide whether the structure, once relocated and rehabilitated, will
be similar in character to adjacent residences at 6413 22nd Avenue.
In addition, it is recommended that the city council transfer
ownership of the city-owned house at 6214 16th Avenue and the
city-owned vacant lot at 6413 22nd Avenue to the HRA.
To assist the city council in its evaluation, site elevations
and a survey showing the location of the finished 'Home on the
lot are attached. Photographs of the site and of adjacent houses
will be available at the council meeting. A petition with sig-
natures of adjacent residents will also be available. In addi-
tion, an advertisement was placed in the Richfield Sun Newspaper
indicating that public hearing testimony on the issue of structure
compatibility would be received at the October 12, 1981 city
council meeting. The adjoining property owners have been notified
by mail that this item is scheduled for council consideration on
October 12, 1981.
The city council approved acquisition oL the property at G244
16th Avenue in April, 197, at a purchase price of $38,000. The
purchase was negotiated when the city became aware of ~>torm water
runoff problems experienced on the property which lies directly
adjacent to Taft Park. Since purchase, the rental of the property
has been managed by the IIP.A.
The vacant lot at 6413 22nd Avenue i~> the last developable lot
Council Letter No. 351 -2- October 12, 1981
in the New Ford Town area that the city acquired from the Metro-
politan Airport Commission. The lot was originally authorized
for sale through the New home Programs, but problems in finan-
cing eliminated the original bidder in late 1980. Relocating
the structure to the lot at 6413 22nd Avenue will eliminate
structural flooding hazards, create a more definite property line
to Taft Park, and permit possible expansion of the park in the
future.
•
The Vo-Tech has contracted with the HRA over the past four
years in the substantial rehabilitation of three single family
homes, located at 7238 Wentworth (a 1977 project), 7444 Bryant
Avenue (1979), and most recently, 6500 Standish, completed in
July, 1981. Since expressing interest in initiating another
project, the Vo-Tech has evaluated the house and proposed lot and
believes that the house can be rehabilitated and enlarged for
approximately $46,500. The rehabilitation will provide a new
basement, a i2' x 23' addition, two additional bedrooms, new
roof, windows, kitchen, bathrooms, wiring, plumbing and heating
system, and insulation. The house will be sold to a moderate
income family that qualifies under the FHA Section 235 program.
Other financing mechanisms will be considered if the 235 Program
is discontinued by the present federal administration. The max-
imum selling price for the four bedroom home is expected to be
$52,800. After meeting HRA program expenses, any remaining
balance could be given to the city to offset the original cost
of purchasing the house and the vacant lot. A balance of about
$2,000 is projected.
The HRA will be reviewing the Vo-Tech contract on October 19,
1981. If tl~ house and property transfer and the house moving
is approved by the council, the contract with Vo-Tech can be
executed. The house will be relocated in early November and the
exposed foundation at the 6244 16th Avenue location will be
covered. The house rehabilitation should be completed by the
summer of 1982.
The house moving is suggested at this time because Vo-Tech
is ready to start another project for_ their new school year.
The lease for the tenants at 6244 16th Avenue expired September
1, 1981, so the house is now vacant. If the house is sold using
the Section 235 program with Section S income limits, the city
will receive credit from the Metropolitan Council for providing
additional family housing.
It is recommended that the city council approve the
resolution, authorizing transfer of the house at 6244
and the land at 6413 22nd Avenue to tlic IIRA to be used
family housing purposes. This transfer is contingent
HRA authorizing a Vo-Tech contract for rehabilitation
attached
16th Avenue
for single
upon the
of the house.
t
COLii1C1i ~l'CtU~- ~U. ~~ i -~-
•
~.~~LOUer i z , yis i
It is also recommended that the city council find the structure
to be compatible with adjoining residences, which will allow
moving of the structure to 6413 22nd Avenue.
Respectfully submitted,
r
:4
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: Community Development Director
Housing and Redevelopment Coordinator
-.fir
~X il~~'~1tA'na~
,_-- City ~v~~~c~ ~~r~ ~ 1~4~[ -1 ~,-r~ - ~~~~ ~5', ~i`1~
~~~
~:~b~
~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ups
~-
~,~ si~'rUS ~ X41 ~~ ~-~~~ ~ ~s ~ es~~Zy
~-
Vw
__
CSI ~-I~-~I~ ~ `~o,~c~ ~-~,~~ ~S,`7~ 116 ~o~
~~,,.~ c~c~,,,~r
C~~~ c~~~3-a2 io,oba >c ~c~,~~ ~ x
~ ~ ~ . ~ ~1~~~ ~ x ~ ~'~ a `193
~- ~,,~
ca~a~„ap ~~ ~ ~+-3-~
..
~ C
1~v~w~ov I
W~ s STI~~
~i~~-; Tb u~rr~D
m~~~T
'~~=
11~~ ~ ~ Pss C-s5 mC-'I-~'~
a
~i~~ ~~5o~~i69C-~ fi~c+rn `-T~ ~~c`~Posc~P ~Qo~~-i lti~rns~
~`I~1o.~ I ~.
RESOLUTION NO.
. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DISPOSITION
OF PROPERTY AT 6244 - 16th AVENUE SOUTH
AND 6413 22nd AVENUE SOUTH AND THE
RELOCATION OF A STRUCTURE TO 6413 22nd
AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield owns. certain property located
at 6244 16th Avenue South and 6413 22nd Avenue South, said property
being legally described as follows, respectively:
Lot 13, Block 9, Girard's Parkview Addition
Lot 4, Block 13, New Ford Towri Addition,
County of Hennepin; and
WHEREAS, the property at 6244 16th Avenue South has been
acquired by the city and it is recommended the existing structure be
removed;.and
WHEREAS ,-the vacant lot at 6413 2"2nd Avenue South is available
as a relocation site; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield
(HRA-) does acquire, relocate,=and rehabilitate structures with the
cooperation of the area vocational technical school; and
WHEREAS,. the HRA desires to acquire the structure at 6244 16th
Avenue South, to relocate it to 6413 22nd Avenue South, followed by
rehabilitation in cooperation with the Suburban Hennepin County
Vocational Technical Schools; and
WHEREAS, to initiate this activity, the HRA will have to
acquire ownership of the structure and title to the lot at 6413 22nd
Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, the acquisition of the structure and lot is contingent
upon the HRA approving a contract for rehabilitation of the structure
with the vocational technical school; and
WHEREAS, the structure, if relocated, must be compatible with
those structures adjacent to the lot at 6413 22nd Avenue South.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield:
1) That the City Manager is granted authority to execute the
sale of the structure at 6244 16th Avenue South to the HRA.
2) That the City Manager is granted authority to execute the
sale of the lot at 6413 22nd Avenue South to the HRA.
3) That this .sale is for housing purposes and is contingent
on .the approval of an HRA contract with the Vocational Technical
School.
4) That the structure can be relocated to the property
at 6413 22nd Avenue South and rehabilitated in .accordance with local •
code requirements.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,. Minnesota.,
this 12th day of October, 1981.
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
Donald. J. Priebe, Mayor
=~~~ ;~~
12~
_- °L~N.~ fAGIC
-:=
~~;,,:,
~~
:rs=
` ~.
f ~.`•:
~,~ ,:-
~!~'~:
bk~,.,
1a:1Yi Z.. .._ .,. r_.._
~I
~~ ~
~~z~~A~ ~
-~~/i~
--
r
i ~=
I
~ ~ ~
~~ O ~J'~ ~l_ ~~A~ i O
__ _ ~~ -
- ~~ -
~ II II == ~ ,
- --
~zI _ --
-- ~~~~
w
'~`
~- ~~Ot-J~
~I~~~
~ ~~ ~
;.: ~ ~~~
I'
i0 ._
~,~ , ,
-, ~ i _
~ ~
---
~F_,~~ F~FU~T~
__ _ _
~~ RC31~S K~~~~=c=^ tom. .~~~^~~.~~"~~i, l~C.
11 t REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS
°~ `~ as LOUD DRIVE, EDEN PRAIRIE, MINN. 55344 PHONE 612-941-~OJO
4 ,~ ~ 6 J FLYING C
-- ~
Suwey to- .~~ ~ or •e;~:nr.~%>/ Job No- ~Z~Z Bk. ~ .S~
.`
.~ -.
~. _
~. .
~~
a
.i
.~
,r..- - -.
..i - -
_ I _
l8' -j ~r
.~
~~? ~~c~'
0
0
~~~T~
5~'a is / ~~_ ~O
~ / S~iU
HovsE ifi~~09
~\\~~
,t~
- ~I F''°
o,tzivE'u/Ay I
/ J ' \ `
35.o I ~ - -- /3500 ~ .._
36 ~ SIC , >So ' ~ -~~
r
r 380 ~5
~~~ I
~ / /Op05~
~ i
i DUNG
~~
V
O fb
,.,7 y~.~ 3v O
` 3So
8~ 1 BST. O~~vEi.c/A `J./
~~ -
I~
i5n
~~
' ~ zs o
~- -----
---
~ {~
J
~
~
i
i~
~~
~~
5~
0
0
N
~~
~~
~~~~0
~ ~,~~~ ~
~ ~.
i ; `~. /
' 'I
7; ~ =' ~
~,
~vv
hereby cert ply tna! IhrS ~S A VuE• ar^ ,,r•N-• rr;,~r PAP ' + r r .~.rnrl~i' 'ti ~ 1
~. :p. .. !.1. i ~'J nn~7 '~! the• i,.t .71 `~ 'f di he I ' R,~ rhr~lCJn and ,1'1
//EK/FnRD To fin/ •" - ~' ti% _ _
vrs~bie encroacnments .f any, Iror^ .~r un ,.~~a i,,rw 5„rcre...l r ~ ~ ., ,,-- _--. a.rv ------. -------- --- 7-+ -- -----
^7•;r• --- - -- F;U^~ KRU~!~~R ~4 ASSOCIATES, INC.
^~ ~ ...
• .~ ;
l.8' Y3.:,'
-,- ~~,~;
,~ ~ ~;
' m ~ ~ .
V
3
4 ~ 4~
v~ ..
~~
~?
~~
~~
~~
~~~
11 ~
~ `~
i! J
6~4J FLYING REGIS 7 E R E D
CLOUD DRIVE. EDEN LAND SURVEYOR S
PRAIRIE. MINN. 55344 PHONE 612-941.300
~. li..o~ r.~ 1Ry I+ q`~_\.u~
~j ~ ~ ~ ti frr~ i~'~9~ ~ ~ t ,; r~ ~a'~'"' cterctY ~ ~~ @s ~~
~r® GeaiJ L vJ
Serve; toy ~ ~ ~~ o f ~r~%~ r ~io~ Job No. ~Z? ' 1 Bk. ~ Pq.s~
~~/O~TH
~~-a /~ / "_ ~o '
/ 5 5TU
i HovSE ~1~9
~~~
.. I
~~ i ~F~,o
~'
I~
_ /$~ ~B/T DR/VE[.t/A~/ ~ _ _ _ _ .._...
_ ~ ~ t „ i.>>- ~o
35.0 ,, /
P
_ o
.. ~;
6
.- ` -
`a `~
3 "~
N ~°
I
-- i
..
\ 36. o gnlG i5o
l~' ~ r ~
G ~-
n?
~ i4
fb
38 0
~0,~05~
~~~~c
I Aso
i {
I ~-~
~•~
~°
~~
~ ,~
'~5(~
~h
G,/~
V Q
b
N
~ ?3 0
k2~~
V
~ ~7
/SF
r;
1
I r 'i o7r~
I__~J I
,~ ~ ' '
i m3~1
X38
Q ~?
~~ i
~~ f
t
`n
W ~ ~
~~~
3 5v b ~ - ~~J~00
_ ~ ~~
r~- ~,
f ~~~'(./: ~ ~'~
„= r-_•i i
hereby certify lnat tni5 iS A Ir~ie` a~'^ ;;r•r•"~ rrcrr`Sr"" ~ '~ ~ f.r" ` r ~ j
~EWFDR~ TO r~/~ 1.~. rr,~~ i r ,•t .~~I r~. Ir;~r~a r~.~~reo~ and .~
.. ~
vrs~ble enCrbacnments ~f any, IrOr^ _`r :~n ,e~~7 i.iru; .,~n~~~ , 'v ~ .~-_ _-_-- J.rv ----- ----- ---- ------
~'T-, ~ SON KRv~G`R S~ ASSOCIATES, INC.
r . . _
u.
Jib
~11`\ REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS
~/ ~ , 644J FLYING CLOUD DRIVE. EDEN PRAIRIE. MINN. 55344 PHONE 612-941-90J0
y
Survey to- .~~ ~~ o F' ,P; ~:, r,~%~ (Job No. ~1~2 Sk. Pg.S~
/VOF~T,~
~~'a /c / ~~= ZD
{
i
-~ . -~- -
%~ lg' gir
~~ (.
~. o
.. ~°.
' y N~
~~ - 3 0~
`~ '+1
f-/OVSE ~1~09
~\ ~.
,:~
a.QivE'cvAy I _ ,
/ J i\ `
Asa i ,I,, - -- /3500 - - '_ - .. _ .-, ~ .
'YiG ~~
~c
fb
~.~ 36 O
` 3 5.0
:.~, ~ 8~ 18?. O~wElc/ft Y./
`.'. `'
~: ~ .
I
/sue
38 0
~ooos~
rov~G
i5o
~ h
~ z3 0
I (%
I (h ~
I~ J
i~
,~
I~
,.
'>.5~
,5 ~
5~
0
v
N
~~, ~~
..$- ~.,
t r ~ -,- S~~r'.
I_ _ ~ J I ~•
_~ ~ ~
I ~:
~^~(~ ~~ Hn Arc. ~,
m
VQ
V~~
~~:
~~
`~
W
~~~
- - /3500 - -
~f
p f Y+0
i ~ r~ ~ ~ ,
~I,rY., /
L" H ~ ~ /,!
111111 ..~ c-,-. i %
Q
• I hereby certify tna! IhiS i5 d true dr, .. -.,~l.,, .^. 'r~rr,~r~ .f:~, .. ..'. nr i ,~. r., .~,.f' . ~r :t L-Ot '= ~ `~''/Gk~.CI ___~--__.-_.-
~~, ~. !~~ 'd drf 7 Ut th I~;c ~lt~~~n ~,I ,r•I C~u Ji'in:~c ! rr CJpn dn~7 ,1'~
/1/E'K/FnR~ 70 Win/ ` ~ ~ "•4'
-- ~._.~, v ~~l „~ O
,~ -
VlSrble enClOdChmentS it dny, Hor-i rr :;n 9d~tf IdncJ >.rNe~r~!7 Cv r.. ..,-; -_. __ ,:dy r`t _____-. __ ____-._.-._ __ _-_~
,r.,- __._ _._-_ ~. ~_ ~ _. _ _ . __- _. _____ __~-
~" f;CN KRUEC~ER ~ ASSOCIATES, INC.
,.
~~ c~~~ ~~~~~=~ ~ ~. ,~~~~~~.~-~~, tic.
~11`~ REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS
'j , 644J FLYING CLOUD DRIVE. EDEN PRAIRIE. MINN. 55344 PHONE 612-941-3030
Su,vey for !~ ~~ o r .~; ~H r ~ic~ Job No. ~Z4 ' Bk. Pq.~~
l
~/o~T~
5~~ a !c / ~ _ ~ O
,~ / s srv ~
,yovsE ~~9
~~~~~~
. ~ ~ ~?~
I ~~LvI~ "
=.. -~- J
~~ `
%.; ~ l8' sir. D,~zivE'u/sayJ I -
~r( I ~v - /3500 - . .
~,p((!~-~ (.="~~ 350
'~/ ^ ' S
!/P~ ~ ~r 380
~ ~~'~
\~/ - o
• 0
-~-
~ `~
- _~ 3 ~~
- '~ O ~~b
35v
`_ ~ ~ -
~~
I
Pooos~
rov.~c
a
ti
~%
~`~
~ /so
~ h
i ~
~ ~ ~3 0
~ ~i
~ rr
~~ J
i ~
'~
~r
' 0
i p ~~L+
i ;~ ~. ~
~ l'~ C 1
i ,r~~ ,~
~~ f~~'U~ G ,~
• i
-_'
/5,~~~.4,eA~
µ
~G~ /
~P
hereby certify ina; iris ~s n True a~~7 :;r~~'; •r~~rr~r'^' i'~ ~ !-
• .. ,,.
//E1~~D.Q~ TO r//~ _ _ ~ ~.4~ ~u;,•,t. r~,nr. . ,d n~~ t yr tr,. i,:~.,+t~rn ,,t ,1, ,iii;in^a H'~r•r('on an„ ,r
wsrDie enCroacnments .f any, from `r ';n ,e~!1 IdnU ;.,r~.•vr~~J r,v ~",' " " i:dV ,'f ~ ---------
;~_:_ ~;Cr~ KF;uE ~~R & ASSOC~NTES, iNC.
~~ _. t
fl--~~ ~ go~~1
,~ ~
i m3 '
~3 g'
Q ~~
`~ ~ ~
W ~ i
~~
~~r R~3~ ~C6= ~' ~~=.c = ~. ,~~~~~3~u'~~, IBC. -.
i-j;,, .
~~ j\~ REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS
64sJ FLYING CLOUD DRIVE. EDEN PRAIRIE, MINN. 55344 PHONE 612-941-30J0
Survey to, .!~ ~~ o ~' rE'i~.~ r ~%~ Job No. ~Z4Z Bk. ~ .S~
' I
_ _ ~
iK ~y 1
~~ Y
iu . _
~. .
.~~
I
I
_~_
$~ B/r
~.="~
l
/~~~O~TH
~~-a i~ i "_ ~o '
/ 5 5Tv
~ f-/OVSE ~~d`~
I ~ \~\\\\
J t
ayt t O
I \ `
DR/VE-!,r/AY I
35o t -._e - .- x.3500 _` - .. _. ._.
~\ 36. ~ nlG ~)So
~V ~ o
v
0
~°.
~ \~
\V ~ - - 3~ °
_ - `~~
.. .'. .• .
~~~. ..
fb
3b o
. ~""
3So
8~ ~ B?. ~.Q/vEi<s/A %~
I
G~ 38 0
~ /apoSCC~
rOU]`G
,so
~--------- ~ Z3o
~ {~
I ~r
I O
,~
~~
v
~n
v
-'~ t^,~0
i ~,
i •
i .rY. ~
1~
~Jv"
hereby certif ~ tna! ihi5 iS A Iru~ an^, ;,r•N' ; •r;,~re Se^'a ~ r.• t,,~;inrtar~rti rr
i/Eh/FnRO TO Win/ r/'~~+~/h/ CU., !1 r r ,~>!d do 1 ~~+ t•,.• IvC.lt rn r•f d ~ C'u~l~:ir•^< (~•rlPJn dnd ,tll
-- --------- - - - - -~. <,, ~~E1=TEN1~~~ ~~ 8~
vis~bie enCroacnments .I any, fror^ ur r>n •;e~~1 Lind _,,;rv~vr,7 ov ~ .• .~-_ -____ .7av ____--_--_---_---.- --- --
,.1~..~.- , w _
:~" FiO:^J KRUEGER ~ti ASSOCIATES, INC.
~ ~ .5v
~5
5
a
0
N
~~ '
v
~R ~'
V \
`~
W ~~
~..
~.$i ~n~:
1
-~ 7r
i_ _ ~ J t ~•
_~
i m~ '
v3 S
~# 8
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 350
Agenda October 12, 1981
The Honorable Nlayor
and
rlembers of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Street Vacation, L+lest 74th
Street and Upton Avenue
At the request of the applicant, the council previously con-
tinued consideration of this item to the October 12, 1981 city
council meeting. The delay is due, in part, to the need to
determine if the city .c an, in fact, vacate a small "park" at
the northwest corner of 74th Street and Upton Avenue. The
applicant has been in contact with the city attorney's office
and Chicago Title Insurance Company in an effort to clarify this
matter.
Mr. Eric Lindholm, the applicant, is again requesting a con-
tinuation of the council's review of this request to Decezc~ber
14, 1981. The staff concurs and recommends that the council
defer this item to December 14, 1981. However, it is also
recommended that the deferral to December 14, 1981 be the last
continuation of this item, and that the applicant be advised
that any delay beyond that time will necessitate beginning the
process all over again with planning commission review.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City P•lanager
KN/eja
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
•
~.-~-
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 349
Agenda October 12, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Presentation of Award to "Employee of
the Quarter'_'
An item has been scheduled for the October 12, 1981 city
council meeting providing for formal council recognition of Vi
Hoff, Computer Operator, who has been selected as the "Employee
of the Quarter" for the period July-September, 1981.
The "Employee of the Quarter" award gives recognition to
city employees who make significant contributions to the overall
city organization. Vi Hoff was selected this quarter for her con-
• sideration of the Cer~trai Services Division employees and user
divisions when she volunteered to give up her regular work schedule
and adjust her personal schedule in order to work hours between
6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. tdhen new applications are being written
and tested and when data entry becomes overloaded, it becomes
necessary to find more Data IV time, thus requiring batch time and
report processinq to be done at other times. Vi cheerfully vol-
unteered to change her hours to enable the departments and divisions
to continue receiving their reports and to make the terminals avail-
able during regular working hours.
This she did for 11 weeks. This adjustment in scheduling also
resulted in a monetary savings, as overtime was not required.
Vi Hoff will be present at the October 12, 1981 city council
meeting to receive this award.
Cc~w S ~ s-~ t~.~r~~! ~ ~`~~L Ate- p Respectfully submitted ,
~- C N u:~`2.F/V 1. ~'^ P W V. LL - L ~ ~I ~ 'i-1 M ~=
i:ar1 Nollenbergcr
T'~~,r~ City Tlanager
cc: Administrative Services Director
Central Services :Manager
KN/eja
/7G
CITY OF RICIIFIELD, T~IINNESOTA
Office of City :Manager
Council Letter No. 348
Agenda October 12, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Council Diembers
Subject: Purchases in Excess of $1,000
Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that
the city council must approve the purchase of materials, merchand-
ise, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There
are five such items on the city council agenca of October 12, 1981.
Golf Course Chemicals
For winter protection of the golf course, primarily the greens,
• several chemical products are needed. These chemicals are to be
applied before December 1, 1981. Three quotations for the needed
chemicals were received: Landscape and Turf Supply $1,712.89;
R. L. Gould and Company - $1,683.00; and Turf Supply Company -
$1,535.45.
It is recomillended that the city council approve the purchase
of these chemicals from Turf Supply Company in the amount of $1,535.45.
Irrigation Well Repair
An emergency arose at the golf course in late September when
the irrigation well broke down. When this happened, the original
sub-contractor on the project came to the site, pulled the pump with
the broken pins and bolts and sent the equipment to Electric Motor
Repair. The cost of this repair work was $1,265.
It is recommended that the city council approve the payment of
this repair wor]c to Electric Motor Repair in the amount of $1,265.
Water Dieters
To maintain an inventory for routine replacement of water
meters that are damaged or not wor}:fine{ for some reason, aizd for in-
stallation of new service, it is recommended that 200 water meters
be purchased. Three quotations for =.aater meters ~•~ere received:
William Sales - $58.61 per unit; Power Prc~-ess },quipment, Inc. -
$ 54.00 per unit ; and Davies [~~?a ker ~'qu ip:.lent Cc:~a~~anv - S 4 5 . 5 0 per
unit (less tail pieces).
Council Letter No. 348
-2- October 12, 1981
It is recommended that the city council approve the purchase
of 200 5/8 x 3/4 Trident 10 Remote Style water meters from Davies
Water Equipment Company for a total purchase price of $9,100.
Funds are available in the 1981 budget document for this purchase.
Fire Truc}c Repair
It was necessary to repair and/or replace the gears, rings,
four wheel drive and pinions in the city fire truck. The cost
of this repair work was $3,351.41 for parts and $382.14 for labor.
It is recommended that the city council approve payment to
DZacQueen Equipment for this repair work in the amount of $3,733.50.
Change Order-CP 7053
Due to an oversight by the engineering firm, the construction
plans and specifications for CP 7053 (66th Street-Grand Avenue to
I356V) provide for a unit price payment only for the 12 lighting
units, and not for the bases for these units. In that bases are also
needed, the staff recommends that the city council approve the
addition of a new contract item of 12 light bases at the negotiated
unit price of $501.78 each.
It is recommended that the city council approve this addition
in the total amount of $6,022.44 to the original contract with
Hennepin County.
Respectfully submitted,
i
i
~.',, '~
. ~`._ ~ - - -`a`
Karl Nollenberger
City 1~7anager
KN/eja
cc: Finance Coordinator.
V~
~~
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, ~IIN?`IESOTA
Office of C ity PZanager
The Honorable P•layor
and
~ier.~bers of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Council Letter No. 347
Agenda October 12, ?981
Deferred October 26, 1981
Subject: Airport Planning Issues
Earlier this year, the council reviewed a izumber of concerns
which the sta==f had identified concerning the joint metropolitan
Council/Metropolitan Airports Commission (P~1C/MAC) Committee final
report on airport planning issues. At that time, the city council
passed a resolution outlining Richfield's concerns regarding the
report. A copy of that resolution is attached for your informa-
tion. Since then, the staff has been working with other communities
and agencies to develop alternatives which better meet Richfield's
concerns.
The following is a description of recommended amendments to
the I~IC/TIAC Committee Final Report on Planning Issues which have
been suggested by a concensus of the working group of municipalities
and agencies:
1. Land Use Guidelines
The working group agrees with the TIC/i~1AC Committee that the
Noisenrap Policy contours represent the most current informa-
tion about potential noise exposure at rTinneapolis/St. Paul
International Airport. Land use compatibility guidelines
should correspond to these policy contours.
The MC/MAC Committee Final Report should be amended to
describe a process for implementing land use compatibility
guidelines. This process should:
-separate land use planning for noise compatibility and
land use planning from airport safety zones;
-distinguish between developing and fully developed areas;
-place responsibility for zoning ordizlances and building
codes which implement land use compatibility guidelines
with the local governments;
-provide an interim method for discovering and preventinq
potentially incompatible development around metropolitan
system airports.
Council Letter No. 347 -2-
October 12, 1981
To achieve these objectives, the group suggests that land
use compatibility guidelines contain performance standards
for new or substantially reconstructed structures, and that
a procedure be established which provides for area-wide
variances for existing uses in noise impacted areas.
The attached Appendix One describes fir. detail the working
group's proposal for performance standards and variances.
The group is recommending that the Metropolitan Council
adopt Appendix One as a guideline for land use surrounding
metropolitan airports.
2. Source Noise Reduction
The most effective place to abate noise is at its source.
It is recommended that the Metropolitan Council consider
policies which require a firm commitment from the airport
operator and all involved federal and state agencies to re-
duce noise at its source.
3. Noise Impact Amelioration
The MC/T1AC Committee Final Report does not address tine need
to protect people in existing homes, businesses and institu-
tions around metropolitan system airports from excessive
aircraft noise. Two general classes of action can reduce
• airport noise impacts:
-Aircraft operational procedures provide for noise source
reduction and distribution of aircraft operations to mini-
mize the number of people impacted. The P~Zetropolitan Air-
ports Commission should adopt an operations plan by December
1931 and the Metropolitan Council should consider policies
which insure that the operations plan is monitored and
periodically reviewed;
-Ground noise attenuation programs reduce noise at the re-
ceiver by insulating noise-sensitive uses and developing
policies on relocation of severely impacted noise-sensitive
uses. retropolitan Council policies should recommend that
the Metropolitan Airports Commission and affected communities
jointly develop ground noise attenuation programs.
4. Costs to Local Government
The l-'IC/MAC Committee Final Report
to local government for planning,
and litigation in connection with
bility around metropolitan system
to expect communities to bear the
patibility planning and the costs
without compensation from the air
fails to address the costs
regulation, implementation
achieving land use compati-
airports. It is unreasonable
full cost of land use com-
of implementing these plans
port operator and the wider
community served by metropolitan system airports.
Council Letter I\TO. 347 -3- October 12, 1981
The Metropolitan Council should recommend that the Metro-
politan Airports Commission participate in funding for noise
compatibility planning, regulation, ground noise attenuation
and litigation.
5. Representation on Advisory Commissions
Only four communities are represented on the Aviation Sub-
committee of the Metropolitan Council Technical Advisory
Committee. The I~ietropolitan Council should take the necess-
ary steps to insure that the concerns of all affected municipal-
ities are heard and given proper consideration on all airport
related planning issues.
As is shown on the attached map, two-thirds of Richfield is not
in compliance with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (I`1PCA) noise
regulations. The guidelines outlined above are based on b4PCA noise
regulations and would allow the city to apply for a variance to the
AZPCA standards for the city as a whole. As part of the variance
process, the city would have to develop and implement a plan for
reducing the noise impact on citizens within areas affected by
noise. This plan could include the following strategies:
1. Insulation of noise sensitive land uses such as schools;
2. Insulation of homes in high noise impact areas;
3. Adoption of building noise attenuation standards for new
construction, additions, or substantial rehabilitation;
• 4. Disclosure of the degree of noise exposure to prospective
home buyers;
5. Development of policies on the location, relocation,
and closing of public structures in aircraft noise
impact areas;
6. Rezoning property;
7. Redevelopment of appropriate areas.
The city's comprehensive plan would then have to be amended to in-
clude this noise impact reduction plan.
The Transportation Subcommittee of the Metropolitan Council will
be considering the MC/MAC Final Report on Airport Planning Issues
and the recommended amendments in October. Following their action,
the full I`Ietropolitan Council will consider the reports and decide
whether to amend the Aviation Chapter of the l~letropolitan Develop-
ment Guide. Subsequent to this action, communities will have to
amend their comprehensive plans, if necessary, to be in conformance
with the Metropolitan Development Guide.
It is the opinion of the staff that the revisions to the MC/
MAC Committee "Final Report on Airport Planning Issues" proposed by
the working group adequately address the concerns expressed by :ich-
field in the previous resolution. It is recommended that the city
council indicate their support for the revisions by passing the
•
Council Letter No. 347 -4-
October 12, 191
• attached resolution. This resolution will then be presented to
the Transportation Subcommittee when they consider the revisions.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
•
56
• R E S O L U T I O N N 0. 6412
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR CHANGES IN THE AIRCRAFT NOISE/LAND USE
C03IPATIBILITY PLANNING GUIDELINES RECOi41MENDED BY THE. JOINT
COlIb1I TTEE OF THE hIETROPOL I TAN COUNC I L AND THE h4ETROPOL I TAN
AIRPORTS COhIMISSION.
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has a ongoing commit-
ment to protect and enhance tre environment and health of the
people living around Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport;
and
.. ., ...,_. , .-,_._,...,WHEREAS., .the. _joint..committee• of the Metropolitan-Council
and lt4etropolitan Airports Commission has approved a report on
Airport Planning Issues containing guidelines for aircraft noise/
.land use compatibility planning; and
WHEREAS, the "Recommendations" section of this report, if
adopted by the Metropolitan Council, will become the guideline for
revising metropolitan policies for land use compatibility surround-
ing airports; and
WIIEREAS, many of these recommendations inadequately address
the City of Richfield`s concern for protecting; its citizens from
aircraft noise, and
NOW, TIIEREFORr, Br IT RESOLVT'll by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, I<Iinnesota as follows:
1. The Richfield City Council rec,omtnc~nci5 that the tiletro-
politan Council r~~-c'~•aluatc' thr. rec~ommendatic~n~ of th~~
•
- 2 -
h1C/1IAC Committee to : •
a. Clearly distinguish between the responsibilities
of communities with large txacts of undeveloped
land and the responsibilities of developed com-
munities in responding to land use standards;
,b. Incorporate performance standards which allow.
communities to prepare individual controls and
standards for land use, design and construction
in noise impacted areas;
c. Clearly define the Metropolitan Airport Com-
mission's role in aircraft noise abatement and
ground attenuation.
2. That city staff be authorized to participate with the •
Metropolitan Council and its committees to ensure that
Richfield's concerns are-met.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield. this 13th day
of April .1981.
ATTEST
ti. ~ C--'
Syl pia 1;. f3c.r~h, City Clerk
•
APPENDIX ONE
APPENDIX: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT AND VARIANCES FOR
EXISTING USES SURROUNDING METROPOLITAN SYSTEM AIRPORTS
The goal of the land use guidelines described in this appendix is to
achieve acceptable aircraft noise exposures for people living, work-
ing and visiting in noise impacted areas without unnecessarily restrict-
ing the economic use or reuse of land.
Performance-Oriented Guidelines .for New Development
A list of prohibited and permitted land uses is an approach to making
uses around airports compatible with noise exposures. However, if
experience with other environmental regulatory systems is any guide,
there are advantages in moving away from specification standards
toward performance standards. Tables 1 and 2 describe a system of
advisory land use guidelines which is similar in concept to Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency regulations (NPC-1 and 2).
The guidelines recognize that different strategies must be applied in
developing and fully developed areas. Table 1 describes conditions
under which new construction will be permitted in the four noise
exposure zones described by the Noisemap policy contours for metro-
. politan system airports. Table 2 presents standards for existing
uses, change of use of an existing structure, infill development,
building additions and reconstruction.
The tables indicate:
PERMITTED - uses which are acceptable in all cases;
EXCEPTION - uses acceptable if they meet the performance
standards described in table 3;
VARIANCE - uses acceptable if they are consistent with a
community's area-wide variance or a site-specific
variance approved by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency;
NO - uses in these noise exposure zones probably will
not be acceptable under any circumstances.
•
•
TABLE L• LAND USE GUIDE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
SLUCM
Land Use Cate or Grou s Code
RESIDENTIAL 10
Single Units 11,11-13
Two Units 11,21-22
Apartments 11,31-32
Group Quarters 12
Residential Hotels 13
Mobile Hone Parks ~ 14
Other Residential ~ I9
MANUFACTURING . .0 and 30
TRANSPORTATION, C0`L~IIJ:II- 40
CATION and UTILITIES
Passenger Facilities.
included in NAC-2
Facilities iaclc:ded 9'
in NAC-3
TRADE 50
SERVICES 60
Transient Lodging..:.. ,15
Finance, Insurance
' 61
and Peal Estate ~
Personal Services : j 62
Business Services : ~ 63
Repair Services 64
Medical and Health ` ~ 651
Services ~
Legal Services ~ 652
Other Professional ' 659
Services, NEC '
Contract Construction ~ 66
Services ~
Governmental Services ~ 67
Correctional Institutionsi 674
Educational Services ~ 68
.Miscellaneous Services b9
Religious Activities b91
CULTURAL, E.*ITERTAINMENT ~ 70
and RECREATTONAL ;
i
C:sltura'_ activities a^.d i
I 71
Nature Exhibitions ' 1
Public Assembly 72
Entertainment Assembly ~ (
721
Race Tracks : 7223
Amusements ; ~ 73
Fairgrounds and i ~ 731'
Amusement Parks ,
Recreational Activities , ~ 74
Camping and Picnicking ~ 7491
Areas
Besarts and Croup Camps 75
Parks 76
Other Cultural, Enter- 19
tainment and
Recreational
RESOURCE PRODUCTION I 80
and E.YTRACTICN i
UNDEL'ELOPED LLW and 90
WATER AREAS
L o r Equ
65-70 dBA
Variance
Variance
'.Exception
Exception
'..Exception.
Variance
.Exception
.Permitted
Permitted
Permitted
Permitted
.:,..Exception.
Permitted
Permitted
Permitted
Permitted
Exception
Permitted
Permitted
Permitted
Permitted
Exception
Exception
Permitted
Exception
ivalent Lpo
70-75 dBA
Variance
Variance
Exception
Exception
Exception
Variance
Exception
Permitted
Exception
Permitted
Exception
., Exception
Exception
Exception
Exception
Exception
Exception
Exception
Exception
Exception
Exception
Variance
Exception
Exception
Exception
Noise Policy Area
~ 75-SO dBA ~ E
Variance
Variance
Exception.
Exception
Exception
Variance
Exception
Permitted
Exception
Permitted
Exception
Permitted
Permitted
Permitted
Permitted
Exception
Exception
Permitted
Exception
Permitted
Permitted
Exception
Exception
Exception
Permitted
Exception
Permitted
Exception
Variance
Variance
Exception
Variance I
Permitted
Permitted
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
~ Exception
Exception + Variance
Permitted 1 Exception
Exception , Variance
~. Exception - ~ No
Exceptiod Variance
~~ Exception Variance
', Excepticn Variance
Exception Variance
E.ception I No
Exception ~ Variance
Exception Variance
Exception ~ Variance
Exception j Variance
Variance No
Exception No
Exception Variance
Exception No
EsCEpCiOn
Exception
Exception
Permitted
Exception
Permitted
Exception
Variance
No
Variance
No
Exception
Variance
Exception
Variance
No
Variance
Exception
Variance
Permitted
Permitted
No
Variance
No
Exception
Permitted
TABLE 2: LAND USE CUIDE FOR INFILL DEVELOP:SENT, AND
RECONSTRUCTION OR ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES
~SLUCM ~ L or'.Equivalent Len Noise Policy Area
Land IIse Category Groups ;Code 65-70`d.BA 70-75 dBA 75-80 dBA '80+ dBA
RESIDENTIAL i 10
Single Units
T
11,11-13 ~,
!. .Variance
Variance
Variance
.Variance
wo Units ~ 11,2I-22 i Variahce : ;.Variance ( Variance. ( Variance
Apartments ( 11,31-32 ~ Exception ~ Exceptfon ~ dxception ( Variance
Group .Quarters ~ 12 I Exception ,Exception i Exception I Variance
.Residential Hotels i 13 ' Exception i Exception ~ Exception j: Variance
Mobile Home Parks 14 ~ Variance ~ Variance ( Variance Variance
Other Residential "19 I Exception L Excep.Eion i Exception ~ Variance
Y
ANU
R
,
PACTU
ING 20 and 30 Permitted ~ Permitted .Permitted ~ Exception
TRANSPORTATION CO,tiL"IU;iI-
CATION and UTILITIES 40
Passenger Facilities ~ Permitted Exception Exception Exception
included in NAC-2
Facilities included Permitted Permitted Permitted ~ Exception
is trAC-3
i
TRADE 50 Permitted ~ i Exception ~ Exception
i I E:ception
SERVICES b0 f !
Transfent Lodging I5" Permitted :Exception '! Exception ~ Variance
Finance, Insurance -•61- Permitted :Except on 1' Exception ' ~ Exception
and Real Estate ~ I
Personal Services 62 Permitted ' Exception .Exception j _£xception
Business Services ~ ` 63 Permitted Exception Exception 1 Exceptfon
Repair Services. 1 ;64 Permitted Exception j .Exception Exception
Medical and Health I 651 Exception Exception ; Exception Variance
.Services
. (
Legal Services ' 652 Permitted Exception ~ Exception racception
Other.Professional I 659 I Permitted Exception Excep ion Exception
Services, NEC '
.Contract Construction ' 66 ! Permitted ~ Exception ~ Exception ' Exception
Services
~
Governmental Services 6J Permitted '.Exception F Exception ..Exception
Correctional Institutionsk 674 ~ Exception. Exception _ i Exception Variahce
Educational Services ! 68 i Exception ~ Exception Exception ~ Variance
Miscellaneous Services 69 4
.Religious Activities '
.. 691 ~ Exception j Exception. Exception j Variance
CULTURAL,. ENTERTAINMENT 70 (
and RECREATIONAL ~ i
Cultural Activities and 71 ( Exception Exception Exception i Variance
ZZature Exhibitions ~ I ~
Pub1Sr Assembly 72 ~ Permitted iException ( Exception I Exception
Entertainment Assembly 721 I Exception Exception j Exception Variance i
Race Tracks ' 7223 ~ Permitted Permitted i Permitted E.ception
Amusements 73 1 Permitted Exception ! Excep;ion Exception
Fairgrounds and f 731 ~ Permitted Permitted .Permitted ~ Exception
Amusement Parks
ReczeationaL Activities I 74 J
Permitted 'Exception ~ Exception Exception
Camping and Pfcnickit~g 7491 ~
I Exception. ` Exception I Exception ( Vaziance
Azeas
~
, }
Resozts and Group Camps 75 Exception Exception i Exception ~ .Variance
Pazks 76 Permitted Exception: Exception ' Esce tion
p
Other Cultural, Enter- 79 Exception :Exception Exception ~ Variance
t$4~ment and ~ ~ i
Ztecreational ~ i
RESOURCE"PRODUCTION
80
~ Permitted.. _
Permitted i
Permitted
Exception
and E%TRACTION
UNDEYELO?ED LASD and 40 Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted •
T~TATER AREAS
(
*Existing uses in noise policy areas where noise levels exceed state standards will be subject
'
to provisions contairad
obt
a
i
i
: in a city
s area-wide ari3nce. Any iuiti~atiun measures aecessary,to
a
n a v
r
ance
or ex isting uses will be id~ ntizied in each city's area-wide variance.
•
Perfo nuance Standards for Exceptions
If a land use is indicated as "Exception" in table 1 it may be made compatible
with the exterior noise exposure by achieving performance standards for interior
sound levels due to intrusive aircraft noise. Performance standards should be
administered by communities.
The performance standards described ir. tab le 3 specify maximum interior sound
levels due to intrusive sound by land use type. An architect or building inspector
may estimate the composite sound attenuation required in a building oy subtracting
the interior L10 performance standard from the exterior noise exposure on the
site as predicted by the NOISEi~L~P contours.
Table 3: Performance Standards for Exceptions
Uses may be allowed by exception in certain aircraft noise impact zones shown ir.
Tables 1 and Z if all of the following conditions are met:
1. Structures constructed after (date) shall be acoustically constructed so as
to achieve the interior sound levels described below;
2. The structure possesses and uses year-around climate control;
3. Residential buildings (SLUCM codes 11, 12, 13, 14 and 19) do not have facilities
intended fer outdoor activities including swimming pools, tennis courts, golf
courses, patios, balconies or yards.
Structure Performance Standards*
Interior L10
SLUCM for Intrusive
Land Use Code Sound
Residential 10 40 dBA
Manufacturing 20 and 30 60 dBA
Transportation, Communication and Utilities 40 50 dBA
Trade 50 50 dBA
Services 60 50 dBA
Transient Lodgings 15 45 dBA
Medical and Other ~Iealth 651 40 dBA
Educational Services 68 40 dBA
Cultural, Entertainment and Recreational 70 50 dBA
Resource Production and E:{traction i 80 I 60 dBA
*These performance standards do not apply to buildin~,s, accessory build in s, or
portions of buildings which are not normally occupied by p~opi~.
r-
The performance standards described in table three may be achieved in new or
substantially reconstructed structures using standard construction techniques and
readily available components. The additional costs of structures which comply with
these standards may be easily justified by the health and welfare 'oenefits to
building occupants. Factors which make a structure "sound efficient" usually
serve to make it energy efficient. As a result, noise insulation costs are often
paid back by energy savings.
Retrofitting existing structures for sound attenuation is more complex than insulating
new structures. Performance standards for retrofitting should be a part of each
community's application to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for an area-wide
variance for existing development.
VARIANCES
Any community near a metropolitan system airport may choose to apply to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency for an area-wide variance covering existing uses in
areas where a violation of Noise Pollution Control Section Two already exists.
The purpose of an area-wide variance is to describe to the Agency the strategies
a community intends to follow for reducing or preventing incompatible uses and for
mitigating the impact of noise exposures that would occur under the variance.
Once an area-wide variance is granted by the ~iPCA, it wculd become part of a
community's amended land use plan which would be submitted to-'the Metropolitan
• Council to demonstrate compliance with the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan
Development Guide. Each community would be responsible for administering Land use,.
zoning and building code controls according to policies described in its variance.
In preparing a variance application, each community should consider the following
strategies where appropriate to reduce cr prevent ircor:patible uses and/or to
mitigate the impact of excess noise exposures that would occur under the variance:
1) Insulate noise sensitive land uses.
2) Insulate homes in high noise impact areas.
3) Adopt building noise attenuation standards for new construction,
additions or substantial rehabilitation.
4) Disclose degree of noise exposure to prospective dome buyers.
5) Develop policies on the location, relocation and closing of public
structures in aircraft noise impact areas.
6) Develop policies on the extension of utilities into aircraft noise impact
areas.
7) Zone or rezone property.
8) Redevelop appropriate areas.
. Each community should consider the advisability of bringing the Metropolitan
Airports Commission into the variance process to aid in the implementation
and financing of prevention and mitigation strategies.
In reviewing any com:runity's application for an area-wide variance, the fiiPCA will
use the following standards (stated here as questions):
1). Does compliance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards result
in any undue hardship?
2) Would compliance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards be
unreasonable, impractical or not feasible?
3) Would granting the variance be consistent with the spirit of the land use
guidelines?
4) What are the relative economic and environmental consequences of compliance
versus the variance being sought? (In weighing environmental values against
economic and technical considerations, state law requires the rSPCA to give at
least equal consideration to environmental values).
5) Is there a reasonable and prudent alternative to the variance. which would ca:ise
less pollution or less harm to the environment? Or, to put it another way,
does the variance proposal contain measures to mitigate the impact on people
• of the excess noise exposures that would occur under the variance?
i
... ,,. I i '~~ ---- ~,
~~
'f~ ~
ki
r ON ~~
z a~
E i,
~ ~ >.. ~~..a.. ,
,....,.
v /~ c ~.. .~.~
~ ra ~ f C V•
f G
COY ~ "°~3' ~~'±: ~~ . T>>n~~oo ~` ~
d.. f 25 ..
Ek
„~t ~3 1'3V`b4~ t ~ ~ ln~ ov~r.~
.~~~ r ~~ ~ *Y'Fi ~ .~ lnr SnYnnl~~
X.~.....w....k .a yqti. ~~ s' ~.. s..s
~ 3~ ~ €t gyn. o..~..o U
~i ~ .5£. ~nr o..,avo. ..
m r
5 ~ mow: ~...,. c ~ i
3...~ ~
~~. ~ a. ~
L\ x,
'....._} ~ .cR~F d ~ ~ 3 Jew
~+'~ ~ ~ ~. ~ nr i ~ io
-:+~r+~~~ ~ yj ]n~ i~N15ni~
x ~~ "~ $ ~~ ~.<~1 ^L l.r ~~nai.~v
h~~y,,,,y,~ ~ ,.. ,..:.3v
~}~mr
^~ ~ ~~ ~..
~ 3W '~ a
T. ~ ~
~ rc ,...~ ~,. a a.
~~. ,........ w a
...
~: ~ ~~.~
N O
` ~ . ,.,n~ ` O y m
A u
,~ ~ ~
- ,~ r ,.. ,...
-9 ~ ~~:
r. ~,~..
ti~~~:.,.. a,wM.
LL ~ n
t ,, .. , ~ . ,~,. E y
r
J `~ _.. ~....x, m .. D
., ~ ~
II I ,
I
I I ,+. wr~ww C
I ~ r' a 7
I i ICI ~ -..~ N Q O
wz e--9 ~. .~ ,...,.
m
4) ` N C
... Q E N m
7 - U
r;;,,~ ~ ~ ..., . V Q U ~ > >
- I :ice ~ ,.... q. ,
1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR CHANGES IN THE
AIRCRAFT NOISE/LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING
GUIDELINES RECOMMENDED BY A JOINT COMMITTEE
OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND THE METROPOLITAN
AIRPORTS COMMISSION (MC/MAC)
WHEREAS, the D~etropolitan Council's Transportation Subcommittee
met on March 17, 1981, to consider the MC/MAC committee report
entitled "Final Report on Airport Planning Issues February, 1981.";
and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council's Transportation Subcommittee
tabled consideration of the MC/MAC report and requested representa-
tives of effected communities and agencies to meet and resolve ques-
tions about the report; and
WHEREAS, the effected communities and agencies met as a working
group to resolve these questions and have developed a proposal for
achieving land use compatibility in areas adjacent to metropolitan
system airports; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has reviewed the working group's
proposal and finds it consistent with the policies of Richfield.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the city council of the City
of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. The city supports the findings of the working groups
report which:
a. Clearly distinguishes between the responsibilities of
communities with large tracts of undeveloped land and
the responsibilities of developed communities in
responding to land use standards;
b. Incorporates performance standards allowing communities
and administer individual controls for land use, design
and construction in noise-impacted areas;
c. Clearly defines the roles of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, the Metropolitan Council and Metropoli-
tan Airports Commission in land use control, aircraft
noise abatement and ground noise attenuation.
2. That the city requests that the Metropolitan Council conduct
public hearings on the proposed land use guidelines when
they are incorporated in the Airport's section of the Metro-
politan Development Guide.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
day of 1981.
Donald J. Priebe, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
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. 346
Agenda October 12, 1981
Subject: Request for Variance, 1920 West 76th Street
Joe Krzyzaniak has submitted a request for a variance to
reduce the required three-foot fence setback from the public
right-of-way to zero feet. The variance will allow the con-
struction of a wood fence 2.5 feet in height on the property
located at 1920 West 76th Street. The fence posts will be
three feet in height, and will support two wood rails, one at
15 inches and the other at 30 inches. The applicant is pro-
posing to locate the south portion (along 76th Street) of the
fence on the property line and the west portion (along Morgan
Avenue) seven feet beyond his property line, on the public
right-of-way.
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Section 3.39, subdivision 2 of the zoning ordinance lists
yard requirements, including fence setbacks from public right-
of-ways. Section 3.40, subdivision 6, lists three conditions
which must be met before granting variances.
STAFF REVIEW
The staff has reviewed this request against the three con-
ditions 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 significantly different than any other lot in the
city.
2. That denial of this application will not preclude reasonable
use of the property. A fence can be constructed in accord-
ance with the zoning ordinance, _-equiring no variance.
3. That the tt:ree-Foot setbac;c is intended t.o provide
sufficient snow storage space adjacent to public sic.e-
wallcs. In this instance, a sidewalk is present and the
proposed location of th<, fence .~ou1d be 3.S feet from
the sidewalk alonct 76th Street. The staff feels that
this is adequate space "for sno~•~ :tor. age and ;should riot
pose any other problems in terms of visibility, f~Jo
Council Letter No. 34G -2-
October 12, 1981
sidewalk exists, nor is one planned, along Morgan Avenue.
Because a portion of the fence would be on the public
right-of-way, the applicant should enter into a "hold
harmless" agreement with the city, to ensure that the
city cannot be held liable in case the fence is damaged
or has to be moved due to maintenance or improvement on
the public right-of-way.
STAFF RECOI`:MENDATION
Because the three conditions for granting variances have not
been met, the planning division staff must recommend denial of
this application. Should the council approve the variance, the
staff recommends the following stipulation:
Q
1. That the applicant enter into an agreement with the city
to hold the city harmless from damage to the fence and
for costs of removal or relocation if the right-of-way,
is needed at a future date . -~ ~- - ~~ ~ ~ + ~ ; `~~"
,~~ :. - ~ v
The city manager recommends in favor of the variances on
both the south and west of the property. Neither variance is
injurious to the city and both variances are beneficial to the
property. Location. of the fence along Morgan Avenue at a
distance of 12 feet from the curb (where the property line is
located) would give the appearance of being situated well back
from the yard rather than as a perimeter fence. There are
other p~~o~~~~-~es for location of fences on city right-of-way
in these situations subject to the signing of a hold harmless
agreement.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOn'[MENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends approval of this
application, with the stipulation that the west portion of the
fence, along Morgan Avenue, not be constructed on public right-
of-way.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City ^ianager
KN/sh
cc : Community Develop~nen t Uorc~cYor
City rlanner
•
~ ~ ~ ~ f 1
~~ ~_ ~ U
i oral
C~
~~
.~
I IY (-~ j ~ j j
n~ -- -- -- ___
~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ l I I 1 <...
. t - .,
.:::.
n T_._-__ _ _. _
Q ` .'
~ o -r ~~ 1 i~> >, .
~ ~
i
:~
~ .
_~._
- _.-_
__
------- -_.._..-._--
n
L1
- - L" ~ -
~~nd
f
0 .: an i : ~ 9c r r
---~
-- --Tl -~ - --~ --
~ iI ~ `. ~! ~,^ 0 ^
n.;, I ~Z to 14s 66 sr
r_,
F~
--___ _ -_ -- ~~~~~o~-----_ _ --
~ ~ r
-,~` ~ 1 ~ ~~~ i ~ i
~~, ;,
I .I --
_7 T ? j
I ~~` `
~ t~~?~{C:~If~
-,----
... , ~ -ti-
~ ~~ r--
i4,,
`~>>
___, i ~,
i
~~ I,
-~ i ~
i f )
C ~ ~ '.
r" ~ ~ I ~ I
1 ~
Ii ~ .~~ i ~
1, ~~ ; i
I
II ~ ~ ICI
L i
~ '~ I
,' ~ ~ r~ i
-_
--r----~- _ ~ ~
NOl1wOC ~ - I ~ ~ ` ~ ~ i
iV ~ ~ V _~ ~n ~ ,cD ~ t- ~ N ~- - ~~ i~ ~~
~ M N ~ - _` __ t / ~
~~ ~ S,~C7b'~'N~11/ - ~ ~ i :~ ~ i~~~,~~ ~ ~ i
~, ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ _
~~: 60 ~ .~~ CP o~ ~ ;s9~
__- ~ ~ ;
~~n~~o -
{~
`I
a: i
r'
f
-.
W
Z
W
Q
z
a
PROPOSED
FENCE _
• I
•
•
• ( I
•
•
• i I
•
•
•
• I I
•
•
•
•
•
•
• I I
•
•
•
•
• ( I
•
• i
• `
• I
• I
•
•
•
•
•
~ I ~ ~
• ~ ( Propert
•
•
• I I I Line
•
5' ~ 7' r I driveway
• I TREES & SHRUBS I I
I
• i
I
• I l
• ; ~;
••••••srot'•••ii•ii'~'ii•Ti'•'Tii•i•'••ii•i•iTii ~'
5.5'J.
4'
76th Street
back of curb
~ 1920 WEST 76th STREET
(v scale: 1' : 20'
Ik
• • s
OPCI 99
I/ 1%c6
LEGAL :ESCR IFT;C^:
:iE~ THE l;N„~RSIG`.E~~ -~i:'+G ..:i•.E=.. .r !_.~^J ITHI?1 ?0~ =E.T ~~ Ti-t _N.^dD „-JVE ]_:C'r',I~~J ~., --- _
IN THIS KEZCi11NG i.EQ!~E~T~
SIG?J,.TIfRE Or 0::'~E~S -;~DR~SS L~'~.;1 ~cS~F IFT in":
r
...s• _ .
JS"s;.'~
~....
„- ~- •- - ~ `• 1.
~},~J. i `..rte ~ ~'~:'.:.~~• - ~ ,' ~ i ~~ ,
cY•li'1/Yr~GLv( '•J L•7~z~~~%v~~~.1~L, j .< <=-L. i.~~~'>T7.r;~=:~-..r U=ti- _f-~
U
~~y _
'f'~ /1'~ / ~ . ~ L
-- ~
~ ~ _
f
,
_
- -- -
- i -
. , -.
-I- -- ----- -~- ---- ----- -
/,
--
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 345
Agenda October 12, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Variance, 7400 Cedar Avenue South
PROPOSAL
Steven Hadden and Thomas Leininger, representing Green Scapes,
a landscaping firm, have submitted a request for a variance to
reduce the required 40-foot side street sideyard setback to 10.5
feet, and to increase the maximum allowable height of a fence
extending into the front yard from four feet to six feet, for the
property located at 7400 Oliver Avenue South. The requested
variances would permit the construction of a 23-foot by 40-foot
• addition to the existing building and a wood or a chain link fence
with screening material. The proposed addition would architecturally
match the existing building.
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Section 3.30, subdivision 6, of the zoning ordinance lists
lot area and yard requirements, including a 40-foot setback from
streets. 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 request and found the following:
1. That the fence is proposed to be built on the property
line along 74th Street and Cedar Avenue. A sidewalk exists
along Cedar Avenue; therefore, a variance to the three-
foot fence setback along public right-of-ways would
also be required. This letter address that variance at
this time also.
2. That the proposed fence an<:i ene off-street parking space
violates the 50-foot visibility triangle on the corner
of 74th Street and Cedar Avenue by five feet, thus a
variance to that requirement will also be reviewed in
this letter.
Council Letter No. 345 -2- October 12, 1981
3. That the distance from the back of the curb on Cedar
Avenue to the applicant's property line is 31 feet, and
• the distance from the sidewalk to the property line is
19 feet. There is no sidewalk on 74th Street, and 74th
is not a collector street; therefore the city manager
can waive the three-foot setbac}c requirement for this
portion of the fence.
4. That the proposal calls for landscaping the margins of
the property and portions of the public right-of-way.
The plan does not indiciate the type of vegetation to be
used, and thus staff cannot determine if the landscaping
will meet the requirements for planting within the 50-foot
visibility triangle.
5. That 11 off-street parking spaces are proposed. The city's
off-street parking guidelines require a minimum of seven
spaces.
6. That the proposed wood or chain link fence with screening
extending to the front property line should not pose
any hazards if the 50-foot corner visibility triangle
requirements are met. The fence would serve to screen
activities on the site and serve a security function.
A gate is proposed on the Cedar Avenue access also.
STAFF FINDINGS
The staff has reviewed the application against the three
conditions 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 significantly different than any other lot in
the city.
2. That denial of this application will not preclude
reasonable use of the property. Alternatives do exist
for construction of the addition and the fence which
require no variances.
3. That the proposal is a general improvement to the
applicant's property. Conversely, portions of the fence
and an off-street par}~:ing space violate the 50-foot
visibility triangle and thus pose a potential hazard for
motorists at the Cedar Avenue/74th Street corner. One
off-street parking space can be eliminated and the fence
relocated, to maintain the 50-foot visibility triangle.
The staff beleives that the 13 feet between the side~,~alk and
the proposed fence on Cedar Avenue is adequate for mair~,tenance
and snow storage and should not pose any problems for the side-
walk. The applicants indicate plantings on portions of the
adjacent public right-of-way. The _~taff recommends that the
applicantsenter into a hold harmless agreement with the city, in
case the plantings are damaged or must .>e r~>itlovec~ c~~ie '~~ maintenance
or improvements of the rigYit-of-way.
Council Letter No. 345 -3- October 12, 1981
STAFF RECOT~II~IENDATION
• Although the proposal is an improvement to the applicant's
property, the staff recommends denial of this application because
it does not meet all of the conditions necessary for grantir:g the
following variances:
1. Reduction of the required 40-foot setback from E. 74th
Street to 10.5 feet;
2. Reduction of the three-foot fence setback from public
rights-of-way along arterial or co llector streets to
zero feet;
3. Increase in the maximum allowable height of the fence
extending between the front line o f the b uilding and
the front property line from four feet to six feet;
4. Allow a portion of the fence to be within the 50-foot
visibility triangle.
Should the council approve these variances, the staff recom-
mends the same stipulations as shown under the Planning Commission
recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
• The Planning Commission recommends approval of the variances
i ul tions:
with the following st p a
1. That the fence material be of wood.
2. That there be no storage outside the fence.
3. That the 50-foot visibilitytriar_c~le be kept clear to
ensure proper visibility at the corner of Cedar Avenue
and East 74th Street.
4. That the applicant enter into a hold harmless agreement
with the city prior to improving portions of the public
right-of-way.
Respectfully submitted,
f. ~ ~,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager.
KN/sh
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
y s y
~ -~ _ ~~
.~: ._.
~~~ 6221 -12th 1wa. $o. :369-5515
`' Richfield~MN 55$23 ~+T'f?'ti ~ {c~z~~~`~, r
September 2, 1981
t
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN • 55423
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This letter is regarding the property on the corner of 74th
& Cedar. Our company is called Green Scapes and we are a
landscape contractor. Our intentions are to purchase this
existing property and building, and to add an additional garage
building. in the near future as it is essential for our business.
Without it, we would not be interested in buying the property.
Also, we need to enclose the property with a 6' chain link fence.
This fence would have a screening material on it to block .the
view from the outside neighborhood. Because we would have this
screening does not imply that we will be stockpiling or storing
alot of material or scrap inside the lot; it is merely to provide
an attractive enclosure for the neigh}~orhood. Storage that we
would have outside would be .timbers, some lumber, rock and dirt
in bins. At the present time we have two dump trucks which will
be parked on the property. The larger of the two can be put in
the garage and the other is low enough that it will be screened
by the fence.
We intend to landscape the outside of the fence and some of this
landscaping would be clone on city property.. LVe understand the
city has the right to use the property to cahateveL~ means they need,
therefore, if the time arises we will remove what is in the wa~-
of their use at no exE~ense.
Our summer office hours would ;~c ~ou~~lli.v i~c~t~•~~~~~n :30 a.,r.. ~~nd
6:00 p.m. We have been lookin~i :`ter 1~t-oL~~rt~.~ i;1 i;i~h'=i~1.i ;-or
quite Some t1n1C and 110I)C t}1a t. `.JC :•I L1 )_ )?~' ::J~~t'~~~; C:? , ;~'.- ~_:. _ .~ ) t_`~';1 ~ ~ ~;1 .
We feel very COI1l1dCllt that C~i'~'l'tZ ~C;l;?~~_; `,v'i ) i L:,Ut':~~,'~"'. : -.--~ CC`?-a: .
and lOOk forwarc: ~C) C'St~lb).1`:i1L:;,t ;ll;" f)ll`..LP~'_>., l:':1~'.~~'.
Sincerely,
. _.---
Steven J. Ilaci~l~n ~ _~,;;',,'•-'~. •- ~ -
Thomas J. Leini;lu~~r !~ ; •
ffE
f,
r
•
• . f`7
•
• I N
: .
.I
••
:I ~---~o--~
.i
:
.I
. •
I
•'
.I
Par
in
•' Property Line
~.r_•_•.•-.~ s • s-~-i'rs-r•
I ra~'•'sz • i"rl'~'T'i• i17'o'i's'•' ti's if'i i's'7'~ a iii? ti
74th S t r e e t
back of cu
, 50 Visibility
Property Line
10.5' di t & ro k
~ s o rage parking
• ••••.
•I
••
•
scale.l°~ 20'
sidewalk
d
c
co
U
a ~
Plantings
gate=
~_
I=
RL-QUEST FOR VARIr1NCE OF ~~lLf~(~J~ ~ {-=F~)G~
FOR PURE'OSE OF_(~~JLjSCflP~ COn~~1{-Gi ~tiJro
Legal Description:
We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described,
do hereby concur with the variance as requested.
Si£nature of O~:ners Address Leal Descrictio;,
,--- -
c
f
n. ~/r ~
I % ~~/G % / .o r.~ ~ w ,
I
C~ 1
`
~
o.
O I t 33
1 I
~ ~ i 735; ~~'.~ ~~ ~
. C{. ~ 73.3.E /~~ ~-~
a ~~ 3 ~l /~~~~,t~ .~ .
'
~ ~ ~~ ~
_ ~ ~
~~~! ~L~ - --
-
_ ~ ~ - C~
1
_j ..
r
r-. , i
-r---- ,--------------- ---- -- -- - --- - - ------- ---~
s ~. ~ ~ ~ i
% ~~~ ~- --
j2 ~ 26 , 20 I ..~ • . ~ ..p i ~~, v l
~~ :~~ AVE.
!3 1` Ii ~ 09 ~ '~.,~
~ ~D D
Iiil it d (~ U fTl rn
.T~-N~=
DAD D ~7 D jl=
. ~ 1 ...
' '~'
AVE.
y
rJ _. J~._.__ n .- • ~~
-.r.
~- 1.. v, i . _J
..
r '
' i ii. _.
~ - , .i _
~ , . .... _
tJ ,
r ..
,,~
. -
~~aaa~ ...~.. ~~~_ i..`8 ~ 1~ 1 a I „P ~~s~r.
f
1
:.- i
7445 S9 3a` 2'~ 25 11 ~~ ~~ C~ 7~Oi
"' ~ y.t ~-
i W I ~.I,J O J m ~ O
W N - A W N~`-
i 1
(`~ ~ . ,r.
• i ^4 ~ 38 3a 2 8 24 20 •• ~ ~ s ~
7s~: 39 35 i 29~ 72. t"'~~ ~ I ~ (~~5 .r.
U)
~ ~ W .
U' a ~_
u~
.
_ _ _1
~~, r".~. ~.ir'--~~.~
~
~, ,
, ~- -- .-,
L
~ L _.
_ J
_
. y y! v J
~ .
z2 - _ _ _~
--~
.~ ,~
. <
_ ~
C ~.~}
t~`,/ E: .
l
`1' ~'
~ ... ^.
r` j r..
~__ IIl
734+~' ~:^. ~ 3~3 I .o ~ c4 I ~~ ~ ~ I ~ I `~' l ~ -.._L:..r1~.:.-..t.. _._
.~ ~ BLOOMING:
~ .~fv+~ ~ --_
1^x•1 39 35 Z~ ~ 20 c~ ~.
7+Ny J9 3i .
O ~ ~.~~
r I i o ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~`~
1 ~ ~~
Cal r .~ ~ ~
L.~ J i ~ ~ I I
I ~ ~ ~~+. r- ~ ..
i 16ih
._r-----_-`_... _ --_ I1tI ~ 4 ~ . ~ 1 1- .
. , ~~ :` cD - .. _ a~ J ~, ~ cJi ~ A ~ w ~ tv I O `i/ ~ jt
{ :~~ ~ 1 f.
a: :~::~;:,.~:. I _
„•h .. ... ......
_..___ ,y- __ -- ---..
i ......... _....__._...._.._._._ _.._ _ .. __ . _ y _ _.
__ I~jtfl
---- - ~ . [
{• ~ -
......
.,
. ...
..,
...,
... ..
..
~~ ~ ~
1 ~ - , r ~~~~f .~~
-, I '. _ _ .
E~Af,
r' -•-~ ~,.~ \ GENERAL COM~AERCIAL
~- ~ LAND USE MAP 0 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
~~3-4~- _ _~ MULTIPLE >`AMILY RESIDENTIA
`~ ' 8 ~ =~ ~~\ ~- '~ LIMITED BUSINESS ~J ~~~_ ~-~
_ ~ ~ ~ _,
30 I I ~ i -', ~ ; ,
2 912 i ; ~ - - ~ J ~:;5''
t i 2 ~ ~ 1= .~~~a~ ~, i
jj `~ ~ /
- - - ~ ~ I ---- - - i I _ \J ~~`~ _ 3 -
~~ J _~
1- s~
25 16 ~ ~~~ 6 I q y ~~ -- ~ J~_
2316 ~ ~ - ~'t- ~~ ~.
U ,'1 ° ~
;~21 20 Q ~ ~ Q - ,,,~---- -- --- ; ~ -~
~s ~,
'- - ---~ v
IS ~ ~¢I
V
la 3 ~ a
13 4 __~_
L1`
12 5
~.
11 6 a
N '
to ~ '
D~ ,
9 e 0 c
7~tn
.6 I --
a~
-\
i
l
*
:~,
~ tt!~ y
3 av I ,4 i3 -
'
~ :nU
~.
.i
4
O -
~
--
r~ i j i 4
~.~ o~ ,_,
~
~
11° s...~
6:~: _UriK:~_ ~'~~
5 _"
11
~
- ~*aiiGS-.-. ,. - ;
~
- --
- - - r--. r t ~ r t
L 1 ~ -
fir ..i - j
-
~_: ~
L
~ ~{ a + "
-J ~, f ~ ' -~
~ ~!
-
~ ,~
+-+
c '
_ - - _ ~ ~ v~ -
~ I - -~
~
/yam
,,
st. -
-:.~.
~ -. _ „
1 ''
i
._ - 1
_ j
_. ~ ~ 1
i
I ~.~r-.:_ _ .
. ~ I
~~~~ - i
I
_ ,-
~_ ,
d
w
v
'>
t r' C ~l) ~
r >
nn
.
t
=
f
rt,
~
v °
~ ' 'Y
c
_
~ ~, ,r1
~
f il;
_ v
~, J / ~~
~J
~
;:- -
~~
r
~
'
~
_
~
- ~ ,
.4~
~//
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINI~'FSOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 344
Agenda October 12, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Transitory Ordinance Providing for the
Vacation of an Alley in the Block Bounded
by 66th Street, 67th Street, Harriet Avenue
and Grand Avenue. Second Reading.
At the September 14, 1981 city council meeting, the city
council gave first reading approval to an ordinance to vacate
the alley on Block 2, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake to facilitate
-the proposed Richfield State Agency improvements. The council
scheduled a public hearing and second reading consideration on
• this alley vacation for October 12, 1981.
It is recommended that the council conduct the public hearing
on this matter and give second reading approval to the attached
ordinance. The ordinance has been amended to vacate only a
portion of the alley to maintain access to the property at 6636
Grand Avenue. This is necessary because access to the garage
on this property is from the existing alley. The remaining portion
of the alley can then be vacated at such time as Richfield State
Agency purchases the property.
Respectfully submitted,
F<arl Nollenberger
City i~ianager
KN/eja
cc: City Cler):
Community Development Director
BILL 1981
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE PP.OVIDING FOR
THE VACATION OF THE ALLEY ON BLOCK 2,
LYNDALE SHORES ON WOOD LAKE
Section 1. The following described alley within the City
of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby
vacated.
"The alley in Block 2, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake lying
between the easterly extension across it of the northline
of Lot 10 and the southline of Lot 6 all in Bioc'.~c 2,
Lyndale Shores on G1ood Lake."
Section 2. That access be maintained to Lot 3, Block 2,
Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake over the existing alley right-of-way
until such time as the property is acquired by Richfield State
Agency.
Section 3. The mayor and city manager are authorized to
take such action as is required to give effect to the vacation
II
of the public right of ~,aay as provided in the foregoing Section 1.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, :iinnesota
this day of 1981.
Donald J. Priebe, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, Cit_: Ol~:rk
.:;,.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 343
Agenda October 12, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Second Reading of a Transitory Ordinance
Providing for the Vacation of Harriet
Avenue Between 66th Street and 67th Street
On September 14, 1981, the city council gave first reading
approval to an ordinance to vacate this portion of Harriet Avenue.
This vacation is necessary to carry out the planned Richfield
State Agency improvements. The council scheduled October 12,
1981 as the date for a public hearing and second reading consider-
ation on this matter.
• It is recommended that the council conduct the public hearing
on the proposed vacation and give second reading approval to the
attached ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
Housing and Redevelopment Coordinator
City Clerk
BILL 1981
TRJ~~dSITOPY ORDINANCE NO.
A TR.'1NSITn`-?Y r~?;DI~,I_"~1CL PROVIDI`iG i~0~ TIIE
V~~CATIO`i OF ?~ PORTIOrI OF HARRIET A`JL`iUL
Section 1. The following portion of Harriet Avenue South
within the City; of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State cf
Minnesota, is hereb~~ vacated.
"That part of Harriet Avenue South, lying bet:aeen the
south right of way line of ~^lest 66th Street according
to the recorded plat of J. N. Hausers Addition and the
north right of way line of West 67th Street according
to the recorded plat of Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake."
Section 2. This vacation shall be subject to perpetual
easements running in favor of the City of Richfield, Mir_negasco,
Northern States Power Company, and Northwestern Bell, their
successors and assigns, for public utilities, to permit improve-
ments or maintenance of said utilities.
• Section 3. The mayor and city manager are authorized to
take such action as is required to give effect to the vacation
of the public right of '.,ray as previaed ~~. the foregoing Section _.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, i`Iinnesc~ ,
this day of 19S1.
Donzld J. PrieL~, ~la~~or
ATTEST:
ylvia K. Berg:;, _~ ~.:~1.-:_
CITY OF RICHFTFLD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 342
Agenda October 12, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Resubdivision and Variance
6512-14 Oliver Avenue
Proposal
Myron Gunderson has submitted an application for a resub-
division of property located at 6512-14 Oliver Avenue. The
proposed lot division would create two lots 29.8' in width and
133.29' in length, having an area of 3,972.7 square feet each.
The existing dimension of the lot is 59.61' wide and 133.29'
long. The resubdivision will not affect the 133.29' depth of
the property. The property is zoned "A1R", multiple family
residential.
Background
The city previously granted a variance for this property to
permit reduction in the 10,000 square feet minimum lot area re-
quired for properties located in T'iR districts. That variance
allowed construction. of the duplex now existing on the site.
The applicant now wants to subdivide the property in half, in
order to sell one of the dwelling units.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
Section 3.57, subdivision
that the standard width of the
subdivision 3, establishes the
requirements for properties in
subdivision 2, establishes sid
unit.
1 of the zoning ordinance provides
lot shall be 75 feet; Section 3.31
10,000 square feet minin;um lot area
MR districts, and Section 3.31,
yard setbacks of 5 feet for each
Staff Review
The staff has reviewed this request and found the following:
1. That although suk.~dividing the p.roper_ty would not change
the use, i.c., multiple Lamily residential, the subdiv-
__ __ _
Council Letter No. 342 -2-
October 12, 1981
ision would have other implications. Should the sub-
division be approved, and the duplex were subsequent-
ly destroyed, it is quite possible that single family
detached homes could be built on the properties. The
lots would be substantially deficient in terms of lot
width (29.8'), and lot area (3,972.7 square feet).
The staff feels that this represents an undesirable
condition and is contrary to city standards set forth
in the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance
regulations.
2. The proposed subdivision would create a zero lot line
sideyard setback along the shared property line. A
variance to the sideyard setback requirement would thus
be necessary.
3. That this request is unique, in that this is the first
application which the staff is aware of receiving
which seeks to subdivide a duplex.
Staff Findings
The staff has reviewed the application against the subdivision
regulations and the three conditions for granting variances and
found the followiizg;
1. That there are no special conditions affecting this
property, this is a typically sized lot and is not
significantly different than any other lot in the city
with a duplex on it.
2. That denial of this application will not preclude
reasonable use of the property. The property can still
be used as a duplex, and there are alternatives to sell-
ing portions of the property which would require no
variances, such as selling the units as condominiums.
3. That the proposed subdivision would not change the ex-
isting use of the property, i.e., multiple family-duplex.
However, the proposal would have adverse impacts on
surrounding properties by creating sub-standard lots.
The city's legal counsel has suggested that, if the
subdivision and variance are granted, a stipulation be
added to the variance which would allow only an identi-
cal structure on the site. This stipulation would
effectively prohibit the construction of other types cf
housing or other buildings and could prove to be detri-
mental to the surrounding neighbors.
Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends denial of this application because it
does not meet all three of the conditions necessary for granting
variances. Ilowever, should the council approve this application1,
Council Letter No. 3~2 -3- October 12, 1981
the staff strongly recommends the following stipulation:
1. That this variance, allowing a zero side yard setback
along the coterminus property line of the newly re-
subdivided lot, is for a "side by side common wall"
duplex only, and shall not be construed as to allow
the construction of any varying type of structure.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommends denial of this application.
Respectfully submitted,
i
1 ,'~ r 't
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
KN/eja
•
•
o~~~
YfSiq~
l
~I
~' l ^°I1
S '~1 ,3
~I~flSl
r '
i ~.
Ni
yti~
i
~
a
~~ ~
- i-"
~
I I
EA~Sf:n9 ~ I
{~oc~ F~w.~.e S
I o
f~ooCSG
~ ~
_Ih.3=
i ~
I~
t\ '
N ^~
m ~
E- R ,~ vow .v ~
Jig 6/- ~ ~`3D'~ ~ 07 S~reri~~
- ~\ _
~' 1
g9o I~ ~~
~ A
,1 ~ X51
~„ Irv ~~~iY
y~v
' A ~ ~
j ~
I ~ a
N h ~
3
h gsti ' ,S'~ o b
~ ^ '~ '
'~ .
P,POP SEA ~ i"4
.AUP E,f~ I
8U/G / ~~ ~' .. ~ c
h ~ ~a
ey f
4
.. ~ 3f. { o---
I~~~ q°~.
~ "
A
~,y a ~y, ~
t
I
II
~~
la
l ~.
I~y~~_~~4_ 596~_-
O Denotes iron iv~~r•~urrard
)
C3~
M
a
~1
L
~ .J~'or~ .Uric~C
N ffp4 rf /mtrr ~
i
~`F~~
s3
~s i
a
o ) /VofC.' Bencbmo.,~ Da>'un >^r-on fnc
~151,o L;ff/o/~~fi~i~/~. ToP nub or
ffQ~~e o~ ~ydron~ N. l~! 9k4o!
6S~" 4r~o~ D/:rcr Avg. E/~/. /6302
hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of:
The South 59.E _`eet of the North £375.a feet of the %ast 1/2 of
the i•7est 1/4 0'~~ the Southwest 1/~ of .the tdor.thwest 1/a elcept
road in Section 25, Township 2II, Ranee 24.
And of the location of all buildings, thereon, and all visible en~ roachments, if any, from or on said
land. As surveyed by me this 17th day of Februarv~
i
~ /'
land Surveyor, ^.inn. Req. No. ~ ~~'~;,
" CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
., /' _3O•
®, ~~~~~~E f o r
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. /64I lB ~ /A~ A`/ ~1'
t•)~,J~~ CGNSUl11NG [NGINff AS ~ lAAO SaBVf YCfl$ ^ SIiE PLAN9f NS E ~ilE N0. ~ /I// y P~ ~ / /„~l J~D ~~SD~. ~.
~~,'fy'~y ~.~~ MINNEAPOLIS.MUTCHIfC$ON a~~h1AR$HALL, MIYNESOTA SQ,1S p> //'J ~l '1/ (~j (J
.:
Q
°O
C
I
I,
~.~
r^^.,•.
:~
i
I
l
~~3s
I
•
__ . -- -- _
0
~0
gyp:.
c?
60
v°
2fo•. b ~"~
~~ ~~
o IS4.Rj ~ I~pp ~
to. ~~`~ v
.
_, m l ~d v
.l~L~
A~
~3~ ~
~,
~~a~ ~--~ ~.af--o
Id. 3S5° : ,~,~ 3. b
i3~~ - i~~:3._
I R
~r
l
~ , l o
T
3
•
1 ~ ,
atiS: ; ~ r
40
, ,`
1 ~}.11 1 r
14, ,~a'~ X115
~~1F,fi-
" Via. t
13. ,
~
^.a ~ a.
~~~
i 3'+-~~ 13 ~ z
tY. ~,
X34. ~ 3 ,;
~_~+12~.
~~
'~
0
~"'
W
~~~ ! 3'~
o°~~
5--
~- ,yS~SI. ~.
r~ca ~ ~. ~
~a 1~• ry~`v ~55p t
i8 ~-
ry ° _-r3~-d~
,4,5 3.
-ri~c:s- _~_;~~
7~9- r ..
i L. a~' , ~~56
~~~J~ '33a. ~
inr
14,n0"° ~ ~,~5 T.
ti
-T3d:7
~ ~~•ti~~S ! 3
p°o a.
,ti
1 L ry~`°: ~1~ 9.
~3 hZ ~3_
v 11,~~~5.
v 1~5° I~
~'•~ ~ ~ fi
' ~ / J V
4 I
~ { a. c~`~ ` ko~5 1. ~
-i S~ 13a.9~
17, -P` ~,o° Z,
1 ~ 95~h~
I G. Ach ; 3°-:
A`y~ 3,
!5, ~~ . a.yo 4.,
3 ~9T
a"~ `~ 71
~ Sd
~
,
s
1
~5
a oo `91
,
I .
~ ~ti
tl.t~~S° ~h.YS 7•
7.'~J
h "o
~'~` „ ...
~ti~5 7.4~
~tiSo
„ n. to. ,, ~. a.
~~
~~° ,
2L
I
~I
~I
O
~.. ~~
J
~
J
{1
t-
Z p
_1 Q p G7
a w
~; ~ ~
~ ~ w
~
,z J
~ ~ J
O ~
z ~
~
~ 1
J J ~ W
W Q
~ ~ ..
J
Z Z ~
~ C~ (n ~
~~~
' ~~~; r~]
i
„w~:~.
#54~'~gY
~7T ~
.- '!SfMfR~
•
f~
^e
A
i
I
I
~~
~~
~.
I
i
__
0
__
~o -
t!~
1
bo
v°
bo
~.}
C
i I
n 60
3 ~35.
a ~;a.lt7 Y
~O. of r'
~ 1~4. D
r
~
M
t
.. ~
',
,.1~ +
~_~
~
T?
~J'f'~Q n
I g. ~y`~ • ova 3. ~
1~.3- i~~:~"
. ~To -
- - 1 ` ','~
3t -
1
~ ,,S ~
I°~T34~
3
F 9!
[
I.Z ,
N^y: `50
~ x
1~.9f lei 1
~~i~9i- I~_M1.~~.
__i3,~~3i ~,, ~ 13 ~fi
I1, A
_133~9~ ,;
'~ !3~
I I. ,~~^ \~ ~,~r~e 10. ~
1 .9;
v I $
e
°h°~s 13 .
~" I,
,
, ,
IT. a°y Z,
~~ ~~- I j4.7~
I~l~ ~ 1'~4
I ~5 ~
s ~, 8 ;h.
,
_
1 ~~T ° 1 I'~1•~1
.
~
I (•
S
~ t~4~T
~~
~ l i, ,~~,~' ,~~5 T,
'
G7•'19
3d
~
ti~`0 G7~49
'r
11. c
10 n
°'
r c
10A
~
- ,~,,' z3 ~ ~ -j-
txl
0
i-
c.
3 1 ¢, h5°~ ~~5 (. ~
I ~5 13 ~.9 3
I 95 ~
I G. qrh ; ~4•
~\,,S ~.
i 3~. ~c ,, r3 .
• 13 49Qti ~ ~~;s3~ 7
~
• 13~9M1~ ~o4.9)
4 ~
4~d~ ~ L3
L
~ II,Lt~'!~° ti5 7•
~ti
h 7s•!
4"~`° h •••
~ti15 1.4!
~ti5 0
n. to. ,, 9. 6.
v q o.
0
~4 ~ ~
~ J
rc 1
J
a Q
F--
f'
~ W
~
J J
Q p W
Q
~ U
~ ~
W ~
c~n ~ ~ J
~
~ ~
Q ~
~
Z U ~ ll,.
J
Q J
Q ~ W
~
LLI W
Ur C..
J
`=
Q i w w ? t
~
O
• c~
•.t>•.. 2i0•• "i M ~
tMn '~ ~ -•
1 ~ = 1 f-1 I-1 f
~. • ..
~~0
.~. ~.
~~
•t ~ ~~ ,
1~. `
~~~ ~: ~ fi
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 341
Agenda October 12, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend
Appendix C of the Ordinance Code
On September 14, 1981, the city council gave first reading
approval to an ordinance to rezone the property generally bounded
by 66th Street, 67th Street, Lyndale Avenue and Grand Avenue from
general commercial, limited business, and single family residential
to planned general commercial. This action is necessary to
facilitate improvements on the site planned by the Richfield State
Agency. The city council scheduled October 12, 1981 as the
date for public hearing and second reading consideration of
this matter.
It is recommended that the city council conduct the public
hearing on this matter and give second reading approval to the
attached ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
-~~t< ~
Karl Nollenberger
City rlanager
KN/sh
cc: Community Development Director
Housing and Redevelopment Coordinator
City Planner
City Clerk
BILL 1981
t'1MEND~lENT TO APPENDIX C OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD, MI1`dNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota defining the boundaries of the various zoning districts
of the City, enumerated in Chapter 111, Part IV, Section 3.28,
Subdivision 2 of such code, is hereby amended:
1. Appendix C, Section 2 is amended by deleting the
following paragraph 3.
[(3) Lots 24 and 25, Block 4, Lyndale Shores on
Wood Lake Addition]
2. -Appendix C, Section 3, Paragraph. 30, is amended to
read as follows:
(30) [Lot 1, Block.2, and_1 Lot 7,-Block 1, J. N.
Hauser's Addition
3. Appendix C, Section 3 is amended by deleting the
following paragraphs 34, 68, 70, 71, 75, 76:
[ (34) That area lying within the follocairg described
boundaries: Beginning at the intersection of the center
lines of 67th Street and Lyndale Avenues; thence north
along center line of Lyndale Avenue to its intersection
with the center line of 66th Street; thence east along
center line of 66th Street to its intersection with the
center line of Harriet Avenue; thence south along center
line of Iiarriet Avenue to its intersection with the
north line of Lot 3, Block 3, Lyndale Shores on ti`~ood
Lake Addition extended; thence Nest along north line of
said Lot 3 to the northwest corner of said lot: thence
southwesterly along the southwesterly line of Lots 3, 4,
and 5 to the center line of 67th Street; thence ~.:~st
along the center lire of 67th Street to the ~-oi::t of
beginning and there terminating. _;
[ (68) Lot 7 and Lot- t3, !31oc1: ', J. `J. II.~ucser' ~ _\::ditior.
(515 [~:est E;Gth Strcr_t ,Znc'. r.GO'~ ?,~lrr~~_t: a~•~,nuc 5~~,:t:.) .
lying .: ~?iitCr L`. (:. ~... ~~..~:. ._ ... .'~:. _ :.. ...>t:
line <~: :.<,?: _ .:~ .; . : .... -:: ~ • :. ~ .._
caster' - ..._....,.. ., - ..
T /..
';
[(71) Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, J. N. Hauser`s Addition
(6615 and 6621 Harriet Avenue South).?
[(75) Lot 10, Block 2 of Lyndale Shores on ~rlood Lake
Addition (6629 Harriet Avenue South).
[(76) Lot 2, Block 2, J. N. HauSer'S Addition and Lots
6, 7, 8, 9; Block 2 Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake Addition.?
4. Appendix C, Section 7 is amended by adding a new paragra_h
which will read as follows:
(4) Lots 24 and 25, Block 4, Lyndale Shores on .^lood
Lake, according to the recorded plat thereot, Hennepin
County, Minnesota; Lots 1, .2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and
10, Block 3, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake, according to
the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Lots 1 throua_h 10, Bloc'.~c 2, together with the alley in
said Block 2 Lyndale Shores on yvood Lake, according to
the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, Block 2, J. N. Hawser's
Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Lots 1, 2, 3~~and 4-Block 3, J. N. Hawser's Addition,
according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
That part of Harriet Avenue per plat of Lyrdale Shores
on Wood Lake, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as lying easterly
of the east line of Bloclc 3 and westerly of the west
line of Block 2 of said Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake.
That part of Harriet Avenue .per plat of J. N. Hawser's
Addition according to the recorded plat thereon, Hennepi:~
County, Minnesota described as lying ~~ast~rly o~ the eas:.
• line of Block 3 and westerly of the west line of Block
of said J. N. Iiauser's Addition.
Passed by the City Council of thf` C.i.ty oc RicllLield, ~ii.nnesc~~a,
this day of 1'?f31..
ATTEST:
•
via r. Ber ,::, ~ _ ~. _ • _ .
__ _ _ __
~ ~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 340
Agenda October 12, 1981
The Honorable :Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Transitory Ordinance Providing for Sale
of Property to the Richfield Housing and
Redevelopment Authority
On September 28, 1981, the city council gave first reading
consideration to a transitory ordinance providing for the sale
of property in the L/H/N area to the HRA. The property involved
will subsequently be sold to the Knutson Company for development
of their multi-family housing project at the southeast corner of
the 66th Street/Lake Shore Drive intersection.
The two lots to be sold to the HRA are the Mobil Oil property
• and a portion of the former Betty Crocker Pie Shop site. Both of
these parcels were acquired to meet part of the right-of-way needs
for the reconstruction of 66th Street under CP7053.
This transitory ordinance, copy attacrled, has been placed
on the October 12, 1981 city council agenda for second reading
consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
~~ / \_ _~
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: Community Development Director
Housing and Redevelopment Coordinator
Administrative Services Director
City Clerk
Finance Coordinator
BILL 1981-24
• TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 1685
A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE
PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSITION OF
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OF THE CITY
City of Richfield does Ordain:
Section 1. The following property of the city is hereby
authorized to be sold and disposed of:
Lot 5, Block 1
"FAIRWOOD SHORES " according to the recorded plat thereof,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Said Lot 5 is subject to a perpetual easement for street
and utility purposes. Said easement lying northerly of
a line parallel and/or concentric with a line 50.00 feet
southerly of line A, hereinafter described:
Line A _.. ~ ~.
Commencing at the northwest corner of the Southwest
• Quarter of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24,
Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence East, assumed
bearing, along the north line of said Southwest
Quarter a distance of 475.00 feet; thence South
20 degrees 48 minutes 35 seconds West a distance
of 6.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line
to be described; thence South 88 degrees 51 minutes
44 seconds West a distance of 462.23 feet; thence
.southwesterly a distance of 226.37 along a
tangential curve concave to the southeast having a
radius of 571.96 feet and a central angle of 22
degrees 38 minutes 22 seconds; thence South 66
degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds West tangent to said
curve a distance of 133.72 feet; thence westerly
a distance of 4"19.11 feet along a tangential curve
concave to the north having a radius of 572.96 feet
and a central angle of 42 degrees 54 minutes 40
seconds and said line "A" there terminating.
Section 2. The terms and conditions of such sale shall be
determined by the City Council.
Passed by the City Council. of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, •
this day of 1981..
Donald Priebe, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
•