Loading...
09-14-81 agennda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: -,~ ~ y Council Letter No. Agenda September 14, 1981 Subject: Traffic Control Signal, 76th Street At West Ramp of I-35W At the request of the City of Richfield a number of years ago, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has determined that there is adequate justification to install a traffic control signal with street lights and signing on the I-35W west ramp at 76th Street. This signal is warranted under 'the uniform traffic code because of the high volume of traffic on the ramp and the hazardous left turn movement involved. The proposed signal construction is to install a permanent two phase, fully actuated signal system with overhead and pedestrian indications. The project would be funded through a 76 percent grant with primary funds from the federal government. Primary funds are being used rather than interstate funds (which have a 90 percent funding grant) because the ramps at ~4est 76th Street are not original in- terstate ramps and were added later. Therefore, they do not qualify for use of interstate funds. The remaining 24 percent would be split approximately 8 percent by the State of Minnesota and 16 per- cent by the City of Richfield. This is consistent with the state policy in that the intersection has three legs and the city has jurisdiction over two of them. The City of Richfield's portion of the cost is estimated to be $7,562.68. This would be paid for by the city's municipal state aid funds. As is standard in such an agreement, the state will be respons- ible for maintaining and repairing the traffic control signal, while the city will provide electricity, maintain the street lights, clean and paint the traffic control signal. It is recommended that the city council pass the attached resolution to authorize execution of the agreement with the State of Minnesota for this traffic signal, and to authorize the use of municipal state aid funds. Respectfully submitted, I~:ar1 Nollenberg'er City Manager cc: Director Community Development City Engineer Finance Coordinator a~ ~ •. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL ON THE I-35W WEST RAMP AT 76TH STREET BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, for the following purposes, to wit: To provide a traffic control signal with street lights and signing on Trunk Highway No. 35W west ramp at 76th Street in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in agreement No. 60585, a copy of which is before the council. Be it further resolved that the Mayor and tre City ?Manager are hereby authorized to execute such agreement, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the City all of the contractual obligations contained therein. Be it further resolved that the City of Richfield will use Municipal State Aid Funds to fund the city's portion of the project. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of September, 1881. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: ylvia K. Bergh, City Clc~r • (f / 7 /- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and P~iembers of the City Council:. City of Richfield Council Members: Council Letter No. 323 Agenda September 14, 1981 Subject: Amendment to Transitory Ordinance 16.70 and 16.71 On August 24, 1981, the city council held a public hearing on the vacation of a portion of Graham Avenue and Auto Lane. These street vacations are necessary to provide for the condomin- ium development to be constructed on the southeast corner of 6Ftr: Street/Lake Shore Drive intersection.. Subsequent to the hearing, the transitory ordinances vacating these streets were given second reading approval. • In discussions which have ensued involving the parties to this development, and the Registrar of Titles for Hennepin County, it has become apparent that the wording in the ordinance must be changed. The word change does not alter the area of Auto Lane and Graham Avenue to be vacated. It is recommended that the city council give first reading approval to .the amendments to the transitory ordinances. The public hearing and second reading consideration of this amended ordinance will be scheduled for September 28, 1981. Respectfully submitted, ,,,,,; ~/' _ _. ,, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Director Community Development City Clerk Housing and Redevelopment Coordinator KN/eja ,.w~..~. AMENDMENT TO TRANSITORY ORDIANCE NO. 16.70 AN AMENDMENT TO A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF GRAHAM AVENUE SOUTH AND CIRCLE PLACE City of Richfield Does Ordain: Transitory Ordinance 16.70 vacating a portion of Graham Avenue South and Circle Place in the City of Richfield is hereby amended in the following respects: A. Section 2 thereof is deleted in its entirety. B. Section 3 is renumbered Section 2. • Proposed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 14th day of August 1981. All persons for or against this proposed ordinance are notified to be present September 28, 1981, and they will be heard. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL September 14, 1981 Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk (publish August 16, August 23, 1981) AMENDMENT TO TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 16.71 AN AMENDMENT TO A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF AUTO LANE WITHIN FAIRWOOD SHORES City of Richfield Does Ordain: Transitory Ordinance 16.71 vacating a portion of Auto Lane within Fairwood Shores in the City of Richfield is hereby amended in the following respects: A. Section 2 thereof is deleted in its entirety. B. Section 3 is renumbered Section 2. Proposed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 14th day of August, 1981. • All persons for or against this proposed ordinance are not- ified to be present September 28, 1981, and they will be heard. BY ORDER OF THE COUNCIL September 14, 1981 Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk (publish August 16, August 23, 1981) /~ • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ~~~ (, .\: , ~ ? ~ L \' r ~ J J ~~- ~ ~ The Honorable Mayor u y Q~ and ,/ Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: On August 10, 1981, the city council scheduled a hearing to be held September 14, 1981, related to the assessment of current main- tenance services in the L/H/N redevelopment area for the period Jan- uary 1, 1981 through June 30, 1981. The city clerk, with the assistance of the city engineer and the facilities/project coordinator calculated the proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land specially benefited. The proposed assessment was properly filed with the city clerk, notice was duly published and notices were mailed to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll. Subject: Public Hearing Regarding Adoption of Assessment Roll on City Project 763, L/H/N Maintenance January 1, 1981 through June 30, 1981 Council Letter No. 322 Agenda September 14, 1981 -l~~ SS ~O ~vJ ~~n~ ~~`~- The current maintenance services for this period totaled $45,029.05 and included, but were not necessarily limited to, one or more of the vollowing, including labor, equipment and material: 1. Landscaping, including tree turf management. Sidewalk sweeping in summer. Snow removal in winter. Sidewalk deicing. Painting and repair of wood Trash removal. trimming, sod replacement, 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. furniture. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement. As of this time the city staff has not received any written ob- jection to the assessment. The public hearing provides an opportunity to alI interested persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed assessment. All single family, two family and multiple family residential properties within the L/H/N redevelopment area ~~aere eliminated from the special assessment levy by earlier council action. Special assess- ments to commercial property was made on the basis of area, with each square foot of assessable commercial property within the district Council Letter No. 322 -2- September 19r 1~~81 being assessed an equal amount without regard to valuation. i R When the city council adopted the ordinance amendment providing for assessment of maintenance costs in the L/H/N improvement district, the attempt was to provide a process whereby assessments for current services would be established on a year-to-year basis and for the city council to hold an annual public hearing on the assessments for these services. This September 14, 1981 hearing is the first hearing to be held for the adoption of an assessment for L/H/N maintenance. The city ordinance provides that special assessments for current services may be certified to the county auditor for collection along with current taxes. This certification may provide that the special assessments be completely paid either in the first year or in up to ten annual installments. It has been, and continues to be, the prop- osal and staff recommendat_ within the first year rat adopted assessment roll fog 30, 1931 would be certifies 1981. The city has the ric assess in that the city prc services. It would seem gc staff to charge nine pert ed with the special assessr provement project. Payment November 15, 1981 in order of ter that date during the the interest payment. on that such payments be due and payable her than in annual installments. The the period January 1, 1981 through June with the county auditor by October 10, ht to charge an interest on the amount vided the funds initially for the current od policy and the recommendation of the ent (9%) interest. This policy was follow~- ent for City Project 705, the L/H/N im- may be made by the assessed owner by to avoid interest payments. Payments made period to December 31, 1982 would include Following the hearing, it is reconunended that the city council adopt the attached resolution. If the city council should change the proposed assessment roll as a result of the hearing, the following clause should be added: "and has amended such proposed assessment as it deems just." Respectfully submitted, 1~ ~ Karl Nollenberger City I~Tanager KN/eja cc: City Clerk Community Services Director Finance Coordinator RESOLUTION RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT 763 . L/H/N MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1931 - JUNE 30, 1981 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for current services related to maintenance of the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (L/H/N) Redevelopment Area which is approximately bounded by Goth Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Such proposed assessment roll, a copy hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accep the special assessment against the lands named of land therein included is hereby found to be proposed current services in the amount of the against it. of which is attached ted and shall constitute therein, and each tract benefited by the assessment levied 2. Such assessment shall be payable before or during 1982 and shall bear interest at the rate of nine percent from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property to the city treasurer and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the city treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31, of the succeeding year. 4. The city clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the county auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this 14th day of September, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Nlayor ATTEST: . Sylvia K. Bergh City C1er'.~ r. .. September 14, 1981 • Ms. Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk City of Richfield Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Proposed Special Assessment - Lyndale/ Hub/ Nicollet Redevelopment Area P.I.D. 27-028-24-24-0054 and 27--028-24-24-0041 Dear Ms. Bergh:' The undersigned is the owner of two parcels of real property located within the L.x.N. Redevelopment Area in the. City of Richfield, Minnesota. The. two parcels are identified by the property numbers listed above. Please accept this letter as notice of my objection to the proposed. special assessment as described in the legal notice thereof which you have provided me by correspondence dated August 24, 1981. I am basing my objections to the proposed special assessment on a number of grounds, some of which are as follows: 1. At the time that the redevelopment. of the project area occurred, and the former Nelson's Family Restaurant was condemned and .relocated, the City specifically agreed that I would be responsible for the landscaping and maintenance of the public areas located. on the site of -the present restaurant. I note that many of the items described in the proposed special assessment are dupli- cative of the work which I am presently performing and ' I am responsible for. 2. I am presently performing many of the services described in the notice of the proposed special assessment, at my sole cost and expense. 3. Several of the expenditures stated in the notice which you provided me are unwarranted and unnecessary, Further, they do not appear to be expenditures of the type which are traditionally recouped from property owners by the special assessment process. 4. In my opinion, and based on the knowledge presently available to me, it does not appear that all bene- fited property owners have been subjected to the pro- posed special assessment. This would constitute an unfair and unequal tax on those property owners which may be assessed for these services. Page Two r rs. Sylvia K. Bergh September 14,.1981 Based on the foregoing, and all such other grounds as may also be discerned, I am impelled to state my objections to the proposed. special assessment. Very truly yours, C ~ _ ,~_ : _ ~` Delores L. Nelson 7244 York Avenue South, Apt. 116 Edina, PSI 55435 ii CITY OF RICHFIELD, MI~.NESOTA Office of C ity b?anager • Council Letter I~To. 321 Agenda September 14, 1981 C~~ ,_~~ The Honorable I~7ayor ~ and ~ ~~ members of the City Council ~~ City of Richfield ~~,i Council DTembers: Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Specially Assessing Current Maintenance Services - L/H/N Area On August 10, 1981, the city council scheduled two public hear- ings for September 14, 1981 to consider establishment of a special assessment district for current maintenance services costs in the L/H/N redevelopment area. Notice of these public hearings was mailed to all owners of commercial property in the area, and pub- lished in the official newspaper. The higher level of maintenance proposed to be provided in the area includes the trinuning and watering of trees and plants, operation of a special street lighting system, removal of snow and ice from sidewalks and performance of other specialized maintenance functions for public improvements in the L/H/N area. The resolutions ordering the hearings provide that the special assessments be made on the basis of area, with each square foot of assessable commercial property to be assessed equally. The council has chosen in-the past to exempt single family, two family and multi- family residential property from this current services assessment. The estimated maintenance cost for the period July 1, 1981 to December 31, 1981 is $26,000. If the estimate turns out to be exactly correct and all properties of the redevelopment area are assessed on a square footage basis, as per the earlier assessment roll, the assessment would be .915 per square foot. The estimated maintenance cost for the period January 1, 1982 to December 31, 1982 is $81,000. If the estimate turns out to be exactly correct and all properties of the redevelopment are assessed on a square footage basis as per the earlier assessment roll, the assessment would be ~~ per square foot. At the conclusion of the September 14, 1981 public hearings, it is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolutions, ordering the L/H/N maintenance work to be performed and costs to be specially assessed. Respectfully submitted, t ~ ~~~ ~~: :-~~`~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ORDERING UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT L/H/N 1~1AINTEr1ANCE - July 1 , 1 981 - December 31 , 1 981 WHEREAS, pursuant. to ordinance the',.City Council of the City of Richfield did on August 10, 1981 establish a special assessment district and did propose that certain current services be undertaken by the city and that the cost of such services be specially assessed against benefited property, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield did also by such. resolution set the date for public hearing on the undertaking of such current service projects and the levying o.f special assess- ments to bear the costs :thereof, and WHEREAS, following due notice, such public hearing was held on September 14, 1931 at which time all interested parties desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard.. Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richf field, 1~linnesota as follows 1. That the following examples of current .services of the City shall be undertaken by the city within the Lyndale/ Hub/Nicollet Development Project Area which area shall constitute the special assessment district with the ex- ception of single family, two family and multi-family residential properties, with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against benefited property within the District: Snow, ice, or rubbish removal from sidewalks; Weed elimination .from streets and private property; Removal and elimination of public health and safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure included ~-.under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 and 463.26; Installation and repair of water service lines; Street sprinkling and other dust treatment of streets; Tree trimming and care of trees and removal of unsound trees from any street The treatment and removal of insect infested or diseased trees on private property; The repair of sidewalks and alleys; The operation of the street lighting systems; The maintenance of landscaped areas and .other public amenities. on or adjacent to street right-of-way; Snow removal and other maintenance of streets in the commercial redevelopment area. 2. The work to be performed may be by day labor, by city force, by contract, or by any combination thereof. 3. The designated period of the project shall be from July 1, 1981 through. December. 31, 1981. Costs of the project shall be collected_:in the manner provided in Richfield. • Ordinance Code Sections 12.29, 12.30, and 12.31. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this. 14th day of September, 1981. .Donald J. Priebe P~ayor ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ORDERIr1G UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT • L/H/N r1AINTErdANCE - January ~1 , 1 982 .through December 31 , 1 982 WHEREAS, pursuant. to ordinance the_City Council of the City of Richfield did on August 10, 1981 establish a special assessment district and did propose that certain current services be undertaken by the city and that the cost of such services be specially. assessed against benefited property, and WHEREAS, the-City Council of the City of Richfield did also by such resolution set the date for public hearing on the undertaking of such current service projects and the levying of special assess- ments to bear the costs :thereof, and WHEREAS, following due notice, such public hearing was held on September 14, 1981 at which time-all interested parties desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. raow, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the following examples of current services of the City shall be undertaken by the city within the Lyndale/ Hub/Nicollet Development Project Area which area shall constitute the special assessment district with .the ex- ception of single family, two family and multi-family residential properties, with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against benefited property within the District: Snow, ice, or rubbish removal from sidewalks;. Weed elimination from streets and private property; Removal and elimination of public health and safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure included '.under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 and 463.26; Installation and repair of water service lines; Street sprinkling and other dust treatment of streets; Tree trimming and care of trees and removal of unsound trees from any street The treatrent and removal of insect infested or diseased trees on private property; The repair of sidewalks and alleys; The operation of the street lighting systems; The maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way; Snoc•~ removal and other maintenance of streets in the commercial redevelopment area. 2. The work to be performed may be by day labor, by city force, by contract, or by any combination thereof. ,~,--ti:a..w... 3. The designated period of the project shall be from January ;1, 1982 through December'31, 1982. Costs of the project shall. be coliected_in the manner provided in Richfield Ordinance Code Sections 12.29, 12.30, and 12.31.. • Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this 14th day of September, 1981.._ Donald J. Priebe P~ayor ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk _~::. i>; a~y~: r- . ~-;< ....~. ~.;w,. . ~ /0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 320 Agenda September 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and h:embers of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Approval of Planned Unit Develop- ment Plan, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Special Use Permit, and Street Vacation, Richfield State Agency, 6625 Lyndale Avenue Proposal Richfield State Agency is proposing to construct improvements to their existing bank and office facilities located at 6625 Lyndale Avenue. The net area of the site is 337,000 square feet and it lies between 66th Street, 67th Street, Lyndale Avenue and Grand Avenue. The proposed improvements will ultimately result in 13£3,000 square • feet of bank, office, and commercial space. Of this, 52,000 square feet will be new construction and 56,000 square feet will be remodeled space within the existing building. The construction cost of the planned improvements is estimated at $7,500,000. The construction is contemplated to occur in two phases, with the first phase scheduled to begin in spring, 1952, Under this phase the existing building will be expanded and remodeled to bring its gross floor area to 110,455 square feet. The Richfield Banc and Trust Company will occupy 70,000 square feet of this space, with 47,375 square feet of the 70,000 square feet being new, earth shel- tered construction with new drive-up tellers, parking, and landscaping located on the roof. There will be 5,000 square feet of new, at-grade construction and 17,600 square feet will be remodeled in the existing building. Phase I will also include 29,650 square feet of leasable office or commercial space. The existing medical building at the northeast corner of the site will remain as will four of the existing houses on the southeastern part of the site. Additional surface parking will be provided on the north and east part of the site. Phase II construction will remove the four remaining houses, add parking, and add three additional floors of leasable office space to the top of the north half of the existing two story bank building, A specific date for implementation of Phase II has not been deter- mined yet. The applicant currently owns all of the property within the proposed site except for one single family residence, the parcel Council Letter No. 320 -2- September 14, 1981 owned by Bjorn Hagen Furs, and the parcel occupied by the Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant. The applicant is negotiating with the three property owners and has indicated that HRA assistance may be required to acquire these parcels. Nine single family residences would have to be removed to allow for the proposed development. The existing Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant, the former Richfield State Agency building, and the building housing Bjorn Hagen Furs and other commercial and office uses will also have to be removed. The proposal will involve the vacation of Harriet Avenue and vacation of the alley on the site between Harriet Avenue and Grand Avenue. Some physical modifications to Grand Avenue will occur to discourage commercially oriented traffic from penetrating adjacent residential areas. Access to the site will be provided by one entrance off of 66th Street, three entrances off of 67th Street, one off of Lyndale Avenue, and one off of Grand Avenue. Off-street parking for 454 cars will be provided in Phase I, and for 558 cars in Phase II. Existing mature trees on the site will be maintained where possible. Additional visual screening will also be provided adjacent to parking areas, to protect adjacent residences. The applicant is requesting that the site be rezoned from C-2, general commercial, and R, residential, to PC-2, planned general commercial. The applicant is contemplating using a tax exempt mortgage to finance the development. Construction will occur over a two year period after project approval. Applicable Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 3.32 and 3.33 of the zoning ordinance sets standards for commercial developments in commercial zoning districts. Section 3.34A sets standards for planned unit development districts; Section 3.41 establishes criteria for issuing special use permits, and Section 3.42 establishes procedures for zoning district changes. Section 3.54 of the city code sets standards for land subdivisions and platting standards, and Section 4.05 sets standards for off-street parking areas. Staff Findings The staff has reviewed the proposal and found the following: Relationship to Ordinance and Plans ~1'he PUD ordinance requires that a PUD project be compared with zoning ordinance requirements otherwise applicable to this type of development. Shown belo~•~ is a comparison of the standards for this type of development, and what is proposed in this project: Council Letter No. 320 -3- September 14, 1981 Required Proposed 1. Parking Phase I: 580 Phase I: 454 Phase II: 715 Phase II: 550 2, Maximum Floor Phase I: 196,911 Phase I: 123,588 Area Phase II: 196,911 Phase II: 138,100 3. Setbacks Front: 40' Front: 66th St: 165' (Existing) Front: Lyndale: 6' Front: Grand: Bank: 345' Front: 67th St: 40` ~edical:331' 4. Building 3 stories - 40` 5 stories Height The Comprehensive Plan indicates that this site should be de- veloped as medium to high density central business district devel- opment, including retail commercial establishments. The site is within the boundaries of the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet redevelopment project. The L/H/N redevelopment plan calls for the development of additional office and commercial facilities on the site. The project plans have been coordinated with the subdivision regulations of the city and there is no departure from subdivision regulations. It is the opinion of the staff that the proposed project is in . general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, the Redevelopment Plan and the subdivision regulations of the city. The proposal does depart from the general commercial zoning district requirements for front yard setback along Lyndale Avenue and maximum building height. The proposed new bank addition will be set back six feet from the property line along Lyndale Avenue, which is 34 feet less than is normally required. A portion of the building will be two stories higher than the maximum building height allowed by ordinance. It is the opinion bf the staff that the proposed front yard setback along Lyndale Avenue and the building height will not be detrimental to the public welfare. The setback of the existing building from Lyndale Avenue is 36: feet. The new addition will be set back six feet from Lyndale Avenue, however, this addition will be underground. The only above ground elements will be some low skylights and an exit stairway. These elements will be combined with landscape features so the visual impact will be softened. The five-story portion of the build- ing will be located adjacent to the surrounding commerical uses, a considerable distance from the residential uses. Visual screening along the residential areas will also minimize the visual impact of the additional height. Shadow impact will be minimal. Availability of Public Services The site is adequately served by utilities including gas, . water, electricity, storm sewers, and sanitary sewer from lines within the Lyndale Avenue, Harriet Avenue, Grand Avenue, 66th Street, and 67th Street rights-of-way. Some relocation of utilities may be Council Letter No. 320 -4- necessary as the final design is developed. Traffic Circulation and Control September 14, 19x1 Considerable effort has been made to develop a traffic circula- tion system which minimizes the amount of commercial traffic using adjacent residential streets while still providing the neighborhood with reasonable access. Residents of the surrounding neighborhood have expressed concern about commercially oriented traffic using the residential streets. There are a number of factors which will minimize such use. First, the development should not generate a significant amount of new traffic because a majority of the expanded area will be for tenants already existing on the site. Secondly, the flow of traffic in the drive-up lanes has been reversed so that the primary exit is now onto Lyndale Avenue instead of 67th Street. The third factor is that improvements at the intersection of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue should relieve congestion in the area and encourage people to use 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue rather than the adjacent residential streets. The existing conditions at that intersection now result in some traffic sYlortcutting through the residential neighborhood to avoid the congestion. Finally, the angled design of the exits on Grand Avenue and 67th Street, and the median on 67th Street, will make turns onto the residential neighborhood from the site difficult, if not impossible, for all but the smallest of cars. The angled design will not pre- vent cars from entering the site from the adjacent residential • streets, and some traffic could cut through the residential area to get to the site. Because of the other factors previously described, however, it is likely that a majority of the traffic which travels on the residential streets to get to the site will be people who live in the neighborhood. Alternative traffic solutions were presented to the Planning Commission and the neighborhood which called for cul-de-sacs on Grand Avenue and on 67th Street or for one-way, out only on Grand Avenue and 67th Street. It was the opinion of the staff that these alternatives would not significantly reduce traffic through the ad- jacent residential neighborhood, and would only shift traffic to Pleasant Avenue and 68th Street. Pleasant Avenue is a very narrow street and additional traffic should not be encouraged to use it. The alternatives would also increase emergency vehicle response time. Any changes to 67th Street would also require the city to reimburse the Municipal State Aid funds because the street would no longer meet state design standards. It is estimated that this cost would be $30,000 to $50,000. For these reasons, it is recommended that the proposed traffic circulation plan, leaving 67th Street and Grand Avenue open to two-way traffic, but designed to make turns out of the site into the residential neighborhood difficult, is the best alternative. Parkinq City parking guidelines indicate that 715 off-street parking spaces should be provided on the site. The site plan indicates Council Letter No. 320 -5- September 14, 1981 558 parking spaces. The effect of this shortage will be reduced • by the fact that a more efficient drive-up teller system will be developed, thus reducing the demand for parking spaces. The bank also operates a van system, which further reduces parking demand. The proposal considerably increases the number of spaces available on the site from those presently existing, while the parking demand should not increase as much because the expansion is primarily to provide additional space for the existing bank. The proposed parking areas would not meet city parking stand- ards in that parking stalls will only be 19 feet deep rather than the required 20 feet. Some stalls would be 8.5 feet wide instead of 9 feet. In light of the trend toward smaller cars, the staff is of the opinion that these differences should not be detrimental. Light Exposure, Air Circulation, and Open Space There will be adequate light exposure and air circulatian on the site. There will be adequate space between the proposed build- ings and adjacent buildings to insure sufficient light and air cir- culation to all buildings. Considerable landscaped open space will be maintained around the proposed buildings and around the perimeter of the site. Impact of Project on Neighborhood The project should not have a detrimental effect on the surround- ing neighborhood. Nine single family residences will have to be removed to allow for the proposed development. No undue increase in traffic will occur in surrounding residential areas because access to the site will be primarily from Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street. The amount of additional traffic generated by this develop- ment would not be great because the proposal primarily involves ex- pansion of space for existing uses on the site. The primary build- ing materials to be used on the existing and proposed addition will comply with the Urban Design Guidelines and relate well with surround- ing buildings. The plaza proposed along Lyndale Avenue will tie in very well to the civic plaza across 66th Street. Proper screening will be installed to protect adjacent residences from the proposed use on the site. Preliminarv Plat All required information is shown except for a subdivision title. Citizen Input Neighborhood meetings were held on August 3 and 17th, 1981. The primary concern expressed was about buffering potential traffic in- - creases on adjacent residential streets which might result from the proposed development. The Residential Impact Neighborhood Group (RING) considered this matter on August 5, 1981. Again, discussion centered around traffic circulation. The RSA plans were presented to Council Letter No. 320 -6- September 14, 1981 the Commercial Improvement Committee on August 6, 1981 and they indicated their general support for the project. Staff Recommendations Preliminary PUD Plan, Special Use Permit, Rezoninq, and Street and Alley Vacations. It is the opinion of the staff that the proposal is in sub- stantial compliance with applicable ordinances and plans. The project fulfills the goals of the city`s comprehensive plan and the L/H/N redevelopment plan. The proposal will be compatible with surrounding structures and will have minimal impact on surrounding residential neighborhoods. Traffic generated by the proposal can be handled adequately by the planned improvements on Lyndale Avenue and on 66th Street. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council approve the PUD plan, rezoning, and street and alley vacations, with the follow- ing stipulation: 1. That building materials and al.l site lighting, landscaping, signing, and buffering conform to city standards. To carry out the rezoning, it is recommended that the city council give first reading approval to the rezoning ordinance, and schedule the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance for October ~~ 12, 1901 . To carry out the street and alley vacations, it is recommended that the city council pass the attached resolution acknowledging receipt of a petition, set the public hearing for October 12, 1981, and give first reading approval to the transitory ordinance. Copies of these ordinances will be distributed at the council meeting of September 14, 1981 . Preliminary Plat It is recommended that the preliminary plat be approved with the following stipulation: 1. That a subdivision title be shown. Planning Commission Reconunendations The planning Commission has reviewed this proposal and reconunends approval of the rezoning, and street and alley vacation. The comm- ission further reconunends that the council approve the Planned Unit Development Plan subject to the following stipulation: 1. Tlzat building materials and all site lighting, landscap- ing, signing, and buffering conform to the L/H/N Urban Design Guidelines. That traffic circulation system be consistent with the alternative No. 1 which provides for Council Letter No. 320 -7- September 14, 1981 two-way access on Grand Avenue and on G7th Street and which provides angled exits to control traffic leaving the site. The commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat sub- ject to the stipulation that a subdivision title be shown. The commission also found that the HRA's acquisition and disposition, if necessary, of the Hagen Fur and Kentucky Fried Chicken properties is in conformance with the city's comprehensive plan. Respectfully submitted, t r Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Community Development Director City Planner Housing and Redevelopment Coordinator r • APPLICATION FOR: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REZONING TO: CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING DIRECTOR ~, It1~11' aic~ati~l~i:~:~l~~ 9 AUGUST 1981 1 1 t 1 1 I 1 1 1 i 1 RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY LYNDALE AVENUE AND WEST 66th STREET RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA This submittal represents the Application for Planning Commission Review to establish a Planned Unit Development Zoning District in the City of Richfield. OWNER: Richfield State Agency William Kirchner - President Carl McBride - Vice President and Property Manager MAJOR TENANT: Richfield Bank and Trust Company William Kirchner - Chairman Martin Chorzempa - President ARCHITECTS: BRW Architects Bennett-Ringrose-Wolsfeld-Jarvis-Gardner, Inc. David J. Bennett - Principal-in-Charge Mark Swenson - Project Manager Dennis Sutliff - Project Architect SITE PLANNERS: BRW, Inc. Bennett-Ringrose-Wolsfeld-Jarvis-Gardner, fnc. Miles Lindberg - Project Planner Frank Burg - Project Engineer ECONOMIC CONSULTANTS: Gruen Gruen + Assoc. Dr. Claude Gruen -.Principal Nina Gruen - Principal TABLE OF CONTENTS Page APPLICATION FOR PUD DISTRICT REZONING 1-3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PUD D I STR I CT 4 PROJECT SUMMARY 5-9 DRAW! NGS 10-22 1 View from Northwest 2 Zoning Classifications/Property Owners 3 Existing Conditions 4 Landscape Plan 5 Site Grading/Utilities 6 Site Plan Nhase II 7 Site Plan Phase I 8 Building Plan - Level 1 9 Building Plan - Level 2 1C Building Plan - Level 3 11 Building Plan - Levels 4, 5, and 6 12 View from East Parking Lot 13 Site Generated Trafafic GENERAL SPECIFICATION OF MATERIALS 23 OWNERSH I P OF PUD 24 DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE 25 L I ST OF PROPERTY OWNERS 26-31 CITY OF RICHFIELD Application for PLAI1i~tED UIQI~i' DEVELOPMEIJT (PUD) DISTRICT REZONING To: Richfield Planning Director Application is hereby made for PUD District Rezoning. 1 t Applicant Name: BRW Architects Telephone # 379-7878 Address: 2829 University Ave. S.E., ~1inneapolis, t°1N 55414 Legal Description of proposed PUD District: See attached sheet entitled "Legal Description of Proposed PUD District" Attach copy of petition if this amendment is to be initiated by petition as provided in Sec. 3.42 Subd. 5. A Planned Unit Development Plan is attached in accordance with Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.34A, Subd. 3(2) of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield. 1 t 1 Brief description of the general character of the proposed PUD See attached sheet entitled "Project Summary" Proposed zoning: PC-2: Planned General Commercial Existing zoning: C-2: General Commercial and R: Residential Ownership of PUD (including an explanation of the way in which the require- ments of Section 3.34A Subd. 2 {1) are met) : See attached sheet entitled "Ownership of PUD" Amount of land area and floor space devoted to each different use. FILL ALL BLAiQI:S; IF NOT APPLICABLE, PUT N/A. N/A Single Family Residential (number of units) N/A Neighborhood Commercial N/A Multi-Family Residential 429,000 SF Genarai Commercial N/A (number of units) 429,000 SF Gross land area of PUD as defined in Sec. 3.34A, Subd.10(2)(a). 122,973 SF Total floor area as defined in Sec. 3.34A, Subd.10(2)(b). 396,565 Amount of open space as defined in Sec. 3.34A, Subd.10 (2) (c) . N/A Amount of livability space as defined in Sec. 3.34A, Subd.10(2)! -2- Amount of recreation space as defined in Sec. 3.34A, Subri.10(2), N/A 214,120 SF Amount of land area designated for parking space, streets, drives and loading areas. If residential: Plumber of occupant car spaces as defined in Sec. 3.34A, Subd. 10(2)(f) parking space for residents N/A dumber of total car spaces as defined in Sec. 3.34A, ~~ Subd. 10 (2) (f) N/A If commercial or industrial: N-umber of parking spaces 558 3,145 SF Amount of space for truck loading facilities. 6 (see plans) 1V umber of vehicular entrances and exits and thei r general location. see plan #13 Average daily traffic from entrances and exits and their peak hours volume. see plans Distance to nearest public street intersection front each entrance and exit. 52 Applicable Land Use Intensity Rating from Sec. 3.34A, Subd.9. APPLICABLE MULTIPLIER STAi1DARD ACTUAL RATIO .459 x 429,000 SF = 196,911 SF 122,973 SF Floor Area (Gross Land Area) (Maximum Area) (Proposed) .72 x 429,000 SF 308,880 SF 396,565 SF Open Space Gross Land Area) (Minimum Area) Proposed) N/A x N/A N/A N/A Livability Space) (Gross Land Area) (i~Slniraum Area) (Proposed) N A x N/A - N/A N/A Recreation Space) (Gross Land Area) (Piinimum Area) (Proposed) N/A x N/A = N/A N/A Occupant Car) (Living Lnits) (Minimum .10. (Proposed) of Spaces) N/A x N/A - N/A N/A Total Car) (Living Units) (;linimum No. (Proposed) of Spaces) ~, Describe any changes to the Concept Proposal: Modifications made to ring road: major circulation is now through the interior of the site. ~_ 2 Describe development schedule as required by Sec. 3.34A, Subd. 3(4): See ~~ i e " enclosed shut entitled "Development Scr~~!_ It is understood that if PUD District Rezoning is granted, the applicant shall submit a final development plan along with an application for a special use permit in accordance with the ordinance affecting same and that applicant may be required to submit such further information as may be required by the Planning Di _ector. O Applicant Signature Date * ***** ~~ Fee in the amount of $ ~ r~c~ivel. Rcceirt #~!~~ ******** ~d ~ ~~ Concept statement to Planning Department - Date: Director approval of PUD concept statement - Date: Referred PUD to Planning Department - Date: Referred for comment - Date: Referred PUD to Planning Commission for public hearing recommendation - Date: Referred PUD to City Council for public hearing & approval - Date: Final plan referred to Planning Department - Date: Referred final plan to City Council for approval - Date: EFFECTIVE DATE: w i R t 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED P.U.D. DISTRICT RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY Lots 24 and 25, Block 4, LYNDALE SHORES ON WOOD LAKE, according to the recorded plat thereof, 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 through 10, Block 2, together with the alley in said Block 2 LYNDALE SHORES ON WOOD LAKE, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, Block 2, J.N. HAUSER'S ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 3, J.N. HAUSER'S ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. That part of Harriet Avenue per plat of LYNDALE SHORES ON WOOD LAKE, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as lying westerly of the east line of Block 3 and easterly of the west line of Block 2 of said LYNDALE SHORES ON WOOD LAKE. That part of Harriet Avenue per plat of J.N. HAUSER'S ADDITION according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as lying westerly of the east line of Block 3 and easterly of the west line of block of said J.N. HAUSER'S ADDITION. t 1 r r a 1 ~ PROJECT SUMMARY RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY BRW Architects, on behalf of Richfield State Agency wishes to make application i to establish a PLANNED GENERAL COMMERCIAL (PC-2) P.U.D. Development District within the City of Richfield. The property involved in this proposal is all of that bounded by Lyndale Avenue South on the west, Grand Avenue South on the east, West 66th Street on the north, and West 67th Street on the south. It would include a vacated Harriet Avenue South between 66th Street and 67th Street. The project area also includes a parcel roughly 140 feet by 140 feet at the southeast corner of Lyndale Avenue and 67th Street. The majority of this property is currently owned by Richfield State Agency. With the aid of the City, Richfield State Agency is in the process of acquiring the remaining few parcels. Lying as it does at a major street intersection in Richfield and within the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Redevelopment District, the Richfield State Agency project t will be a highly visible and certainly a needed addition to the area. In its ultimate form, the project will involve 138,000 square feet of leasable office and banking functions, including approximately 82,000 square feet of new ' construction and the 56,000 square feet of remodeled construction. The $7,800,000.00 of hard construction costs, the expansion of the existing business and the new businesses which will ultimately be housed in the project will create a new vitality in the neighborhood as well as provide an increase in real tax income for the City of Richfield and the Redevelopment District. The development proposal for the Richfield State Agency project is currently planned in two phases with construction of the first phase scheduled to begin in the spring of 1982. It will add to and remodel the existing bank building bringing its total gross area to 110,485 square feet, an increase of over 50,000 square feet. The existing medical building at the northeast corner of the site will remain as will 4 of the existing houses in the southeast portion of the site. Additional surface parking will be provided on the north and east por- tions of the site. Access to the parking is made primarily by a new interior ' site circulation system which will virtually exclude intrusion of heavy traffic into the residential neighborhoods to the east and south. The configuration of this interior roadway has been modified since we submitted the Concept Proposal ' to the City of Richfield. This was done in order to make the intersection of Grand Avenue and 66th Street more effective. The new configuration will still allow many of the mature boulevard trees on the west side of Grand Avenue and in the new parking areas to remain, further reducing the impact of the new develop- ment on the existing neighborhood. Within the expanded building, Phase I will provide 70,000 square feet of space ' to be occupied by Richfield Bank and Trust Company. Of this 70,000, 47,378 square feet will be new, earth-sheltered construction with new drive-up tellers, parking, and landscaping located on its roof. 5,000 square feet will be new at-grade construction. Both additions lie to the south of the existing building. The remainder of the 70,000 square feet of banking facilities, ' PROJECT SUMMARY RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY approximately 17,600 square feet, will be remodeled within the existing t building. Phase I will also include 29,650 square feet of leasable office space, and 10,135 square feet of circulation and mechanical spaces. Of this 10,135, 8,470 ' square feet will be located in remodeled areas of the existing bank building, and 1,665 square feet is new construction. Construction cost of Phase I is anticipated to be $6,300,000.00. Phase II construction of the Richfield State Agency project will remove the 4 remaining houses, add parking, and add three additional floors of leasable office space to the top of the two story, north half, of the existing building. ' Each of these floors would contain 9,205 gross square feet bringing the total area of Phases I and II to 138,100 gross square feet. t Total parking after Phase II will be 558 cars. This is a ratio of 4.5 cars per 1,000 square feet of net usable floor area (not including atriums, rr~chanical space, elevators, toilets, etc.). It is possible to reach a ratio of 4.5 cars per 1000 square feet, but in doing so, we would be forced to cut many existing mature trees. There is also increased stacking area for the drive-up tellers which will reduce the congestion which now occurs on the site and adjacent road- ways during busy periods. The precise schedule for Phase II construction is somewhat dependant upon the developing market for quality office space, but Richfield State Agency would ' like to proceed at the earliest practical date, perhaps even simultaneously with Phase I. The construction cost of Phase II, in 1982 dollars is $1,500,000 bringing the total development cost of both phases to $7,800,000. i Since almost 60 percent of the new conntruction will be earth-sheltered, the visual impact will not be great. Much of its architectural image will be expressed as structured landscaping and planted courtyards. The principal exterior material will be face brick which matches the existing building and will be accented by canopies and architectural metals and fabrics. Site design, paving materials, and exterior signage and lighting will be compatible with ' Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Redevelopment Guidelines. We all look forward to continuing to work with Richfield City Planning and Richfield H.R.A. in the development of this project and wish to aid in any way we can in following through with the Review and Approval Process. r r ~ s 1 PROJECT SUMMARY Richfield State Agency 1. SITE AREAS: Gross Land Area (center line of streets) 429,000 S.F. Net Land Area (property lines) 336,860 S.F. Ailowab4e Floor Area (gross land area x L.U.I. factor .459) 196,911 S.F. 2. BUILDING AREAS: PHASE I Gross Building Area (outside wall) 123,588 S.F. Bank Building 110,485 Medical Building 8,486 4 Existing Houses 4,617 Net Building Area* (less uninhabitable spaces) 104,532 S.F. Bank Building 93,915 Medical Building 6,000 4 Existing Houses 4,617 3. BUILDING AREAS: PHASE II Gross Building Area (outside wall) 146,586 S.F. Bank Building 138,100 Medical Building 8,486 Net Building Area (less uninhabitable spaces) 122,973 S.F. Bank Building 116,973 Medical Building 6,000 4. OPEN SPACE: PHASE I Minimum Open Space Allowed . (gross {and area x L.U.I. factor .72) 308,880 S.F. Open Space Provided 391,676 S.F. Total Site Area 429,000 ~'' Less Bank Building (25,006) Less Medical Building (4,243) Less 4 Houses & Garages (4,889) ' Less 1/2 Covered Open Space (3,186) TOTAL OPEN SPACE 391,676 *Net building area excludes uninhabitable spaces such as storage, circulation, stairs, elevators, atriums, toilets, mechanical rooms, and community rooms. t ' r PROJECT SUMMARY Richfield State Agency 5. OPEN SPACE: PHASE II Minimum Open Space Allowed (gross land area x L.U.I. factor: .72) 308,880 S.F. Open Space Provided 396, 565 S. F. Total Site Area 429,000 Less Bank Building (25,006) Less Medical Building (4,243) Less 1/2 Covered Open Space (3,186) TOTAL OPEN SPACE 396,565 6. BANK BUILDING AREAS New Remodeled Total LEVEL 1 __ 67,104 S.F. Banking Area 47,378 8,347 55,725 Leasable Area (Retail) - 7,000 7,000 Mechanical 1,665 935 2,600 Circ, stairs, etc. - 1,779 1,779 LEVEL 2 __ 25,006 S.F. Banking Area 5,024 9,251 14,275 Leasable Area - 6,900 6,900 Mechanical - 350 350 Circ, Atriums, etc. 700 2,781 3,481 LEVEL 3 18,375_ S.F. Leasable Area (Office) 15,750 Mechanical 350 Circ. Stairs, etc. 2,275 PN.A,;E i TOTA.L 110,485 _S.F. LEVEL 4, 5 and 6 (3 Floors) 27,615 _ _S.F. Leasable Area 7,686 (x 3) 23,058 Circ. Stairs, etc. 1,519 (x 3) 4,557 PH;1S~ I !_~-,,~~ 138, 100 S.F. 8 PROJECT SUMMARY Richfield State Agency 7. FLOOR AREA SUMMARY: PHASE I Net Gross Banking Area 64,265 SF 70,000 SF Leasable Retail 13,900 13,900 Leasable Office 15,750 15,750 Mechanical N/A 3,300 Circ Toilets, Atrums NIA 7,535 Total Bank Building 93,915 SF 110,485 SF Medical Building 6,000 8,486 4 Houses _ _ 4,617 4,617 TOTAL PHASE I *104,532 SF 123,588 SF FLOOR AREA SUMMARY: PHASE fl Net Gross Banking Area 64,265 SF 70,000 SF Leasable Retail 13,900 13,900 Leasable Office 38,808 38,808 Mechanical N/A 3,300 Circ Toilets, Atriums N/A _ 12,092 Total Bank Building 116,973 SF 138,100 SF Medical Building _ 6,000 8,486 TOTAL PHASE I1 *122,973 SF 146,586 SF * Phase I and Phase II net building areas used for calculating required parking. 9 iF ~ J ~~~ fi ~ ~~ ~ ~ a~ ,~ ~s 1. '' ~~~~ I b ~~ ~~~~ ~. ~ n ' ~ ~ ~,'" ~~ ~ : , ~ ~ ' ~ ~ `~ ~ VIEW FROM N.W. III I 1 ,~; ~ ~,, .~ t ~~ .~~~ `_ -, --~ `,` .`~ ~ ,~~ ail ~!J ~ a3. .,---r== -~ + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~.x ~ : „~r ~~ ~I ~,. ~ ~ ~, ~ U ~A~~ ;' ~ ~ a G~~~' ,~'• \` l i 6 '~!4~ ~ ~ ! ~ - ~1 1. ~ ~ ~b1 - ~ ~ F. _~ q -'~~a ~- ~.. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ 'tl~l e' ~ •. ~ ~ ~- - ! ~ ~ ~ f / r ' ~; I' ~~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~.., YdY.~ ~ I~ .. ItS . I 't l.,v ~',' r.l J 1' \ ~' ~ Y 't . ~ iL ~ ~~~ ~~ a ~--~' ~ ~ - ads;' ~i'~ ~-_~ _~ .~~ ~ ~_ ~~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ I~ - ~ ~- II~nIII 4 L~l l , ' _ _ ~ ,~ ~ 80 ~ ~~ ~ -F - -~ i F----~ 83 ~~ i/ I I I ~ I F--- --- ' - _ 27-028-24-23 -- W66th ST. _ _. ~-- -~ r ~ C-2GENERAL COMMERCIAL 27-028-24-32 r-- 28-028-24-41 _ ~ ___ - ~ 26 25 ~\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --~~ _~~ 1TL /-- -__ ~ ,,, ~ J- ~ C9'9 ~ ~ ~ / 115 ---~ ~ ~ L ~, 9 - ~, ~ 1 ~~ C~qC ~/' Q I LF c~ __ l~ J f ,7~ $ ~/ ~ ~ 111 ~~~~ :RESH7E~'lA~/ /~ Il1~TQF[` 7 / ,~ i 'y. 9 <q~ ~ Fsyo 9F 28-028-24-43 .,,v ~~~ WOOD /~ to J ~_ - - __... _._ _ _.--J O~ ~ I - r2 ~ - -_I ~- C~~~tCIAL ~ - - -- - ~ ` ~ _ _---- ~ LIMI D - -0 __ _ , USI !/~I 45 i \I tq t ~ ~~, ~4i I l so ;~ 47 ~ ~ ,' tia ~ ~ i 59 /-~ ~ (48'1 -'~-/ I ~ ~ r~ 49J J,1 ~t ~ ~- 57 I~ ~ ~i- __ J __. _ ^_~~ ~ 0 r - (,- -~ 56 ~_- / - S} ~~ ~ ~~ I- ~ I s s s a i ^~ t s I i I ~ '1i~ 82 ~~ - -J ~ ~ s .~ i ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS ~~ PROPERTY OWNERS I KEYS ~ ~_] C-2:GENERAL COMMERCIAL 1 [-_] C-1:LIMITED BUSINESS [~ R:RESIDENTIAL i I i {~ 1 I I® I ~ NOPTH 0 ~0 I ~" A[1;1~1'131,'T~ .. ~ i ~:: • ~: _ WEST '66TH _ STREET ~ ' - - r~"" _ .. .,._......, `tip ~ ... ~- s .~_ - LA1` m. , . 9. .. ,. .... ,,. 1 r _ ~~; ~ ., ` ... - .~ I '~ _- JY ~qY' 1 \ i ~ .. ,. ,... FI~~~~-` a __ ~ ye g s» u[~s ..~1 ~ '~y --~~ £ j ~I =( I ~r ~~ - . ' ---~~ `;r '~ ~ ~~ ~ EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 / v ~ ~ ~ ~ ` fi 4, zJ ~ ~/r/ .f ~ I I 1 W II J ///iTT"~~ _ ~ i.~/ j ~ ~~ r ll' w. y ~ J !`~ i ..Y 1~ a) ICY':. . i ~~ ~.. MMM 1 CIRCLE ;/v ry. ~° '~~/ ~ ~~ ~" _ 1 ~-~ -- - ~. ~.... ~ ~ ' ..:. _ .. ~'~ ~:y ~ ~ ~ c a. 1. .r-. -.., 'I 'LACE .. 1 Q ~ A / _ ~' - . b v '.. I ~/r a,.~~4 g .. _ x ` a ~ ~ i 'A:J ~ ~I I~ ~~ Lam- 'b _ ~, ~ .~..(~.,~ N\ \ ` `\~° /~l~ ... 4 'ma'r "t R :l 4` L FI__L...e O i 1kFSi~ \~\ ~~~(~ 4 C I~ t '7 7 ~ 1 , '~j ~ ~ ~/~/~ o. I ~ .•~~~, ~ I.~~~ r Ir ~ 1.' ' j c, ~6)~ T- e weFrzvw 15i~ .' CZ .--eC.. ...eM'M'~u' 1 .. '~ H •.r STREET -o - a '~~ .fie: WEST - - { ,•a - _ .~, ~ ~ .. z _ _ ~ I ~~ o tx a>~87 TH STREET 1 ~ I '' / ~ `•"~ W e.-. ~.L ~~~~~~ -7-air..... .., ~'_~ ~~~lll...... ~! ' r:.•-. ~ ~~ v_~1. >ri - e'~ 1. ~ .- ~ ~~~'~++~ I~~ ~ ~~ / _ ... ~. 1. ... ' ~~ ~, .~ ~.. ~~ : e ~ ~~ t °^~~ ~..~ ''"~ ..~u ...:, i 1 _,`.4Y ~~ ,~ y ~ .f t"O/c yK,,1YHh' Sl(RPtV )OX Y ~~.. ' `~ , ' /_e. .. R/CHF/ELD STATE AGENCY /NC. j ~ ~ 4~0~ ~ ;~~ -r Q MonrH o io ao ~o eo ioo ~ rr~~w a HIND _. ` ~ o ~~ ..a~ N . ,"'. ~ .,.,,.~.~,,.,, ..~ ~~ .,,,.~..,,~,> .. ,,.,. Q ~, I - - .__ i -i~ - _ _._._._._._._._._._. - _._._. . _ __._._ - -.._. "'i WEST 88TH STREET i .-- ---~. ~ _ ---- - l ~ ~ ' y .:,. .. _•~ K ~ _ _ __ i .. ~ _ i r i ~ i ~r ~ '/ ' ~ ~ LANDSCAPE PLAN ~~ - ~ 4 ,~u i ~-- i I w2 ~ ~° ~ ~i s p'. Q 7 ' /J = p % ' ~f- ~f/ ~ 9 \ ~ ~/ % - ,_J EXISTING TREE S T REM O AIN Q i ,~. - O <n Z~ ~ ~ ~ _,, i o<~ 1 PROPOSED ORNAMENTAL TREES 1 _ Sj ,.,. ~ Z a1~ROPOSED DECIDUOUS TREES 3 ~ ja ~~~ p110POSED CONIFEROUS TREES - p ® L ~ ~a .'PROPOSED SHRUBS ` ~ O PROPOSED SOD OR / = A = ~ i GROUND COVER i / - i 'I '' ? MAJOR PLANT MATERIAL LOCATIONS i LTNDALE AVENUE: ~ ~ ^"'~"' ~, ~ YARBNALL'8 ABN it ~ 1 ~ BPRMO BMOW CRAB ' - _ i i ~ 60 TH STREET: ~ / I 1181[R ~ ~ BcHUaERre cRORECRERRr /,y r ¢'" GRAND AVENUE, 67 TH STREET, Aj ~ ~ 8 PARKING ENTRANCES: Y: RonwAr vnE MAPLE ~~~~ ~ ~ .r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PARKING LOT ISLANDS ~I I ~ i PLANTERS EAST OF BULDRiO: ~' _. n' - RoRErLOCUaT f;' i RTAL ORNAME CRAB 1 f~ i r / / ~ !f/J '. / i ~ ' / I / 1 - _ - ~ __ Ili ~ , .~ '~._.~.~._ . _ ._ _._._.~._ _._ _._._._._.~... ~? ~~_..,._...._._._. ~ _.. _._.__.~ - - - - - -~ j ..,_, i WEST 87TH STREET~~ ~ ~~._ , i SCR EN WALL __ _ ~, j j ;I ~ VH/N ENTRANCE ~~ '~ ~,` ~ MONUMENT '% WOOD FENCE :~I TO REMAIN !, j j ^, ~~ / /~ IgR111 o to ]O M BO 100 10 A,~t r~T M~) ~' ~ ~~~ ~ •~r ~ ~r w~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ar •~ w~- ~ •~r ~~~ ..x i~ -- - ~ ~„~.= ~ 7 wesT earn srnEET - -- -- °~~~ ~~ '~..,•i; . _ , - - ! ~ ~ r ~~ • ro _~ ~ -- ~ -- ----- - - i E • r. l I i `•. _ _. i i DRAR/AOE A B • 1 i ~ .. ~~ ~ i i l '% / _.1 ~ `~ • ^••~• GRADING & ~ `'' ~ ~ 5 UTILITY PLAN / -r I ~ ~ DRAINAGE' AIIEA A ~, ~ r./ • w. r i i i • wr u ~ I* r ~ i ~,'' I 1 .1 ~ Aroi~ae ~. y~ i ~ ;~'. R ~ i KEY: ~! o..y j .. t •1 r~ u i ~: ii a~ ~ . ,•a,~,~ ,.•,,. .,,. . ~ DRAMA AREAL i ~~ EXISTING GRADES ., i j ~ ~-~~~ PROPOSED GRADES ~,' /f ~J EXISTING STORM SEWER ~ ~ ` DRANIAOE AREA O ~. ~i; ~ x D PROPOSED STORM SEWER i i . or .•.r. ~..._... ~o ~ s I:" .. ......~ i ~ I .r O DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY i A ~ i ~ ~,~ ~,' ` x _ ~ 1 NOTE: i i "` I 1. ALL ELEVATION! CRY DATUM ' ..r.l 2. ALL VT1LfTE8 WRNMI VACATED ~~ or '~! inv „ ' i HARRN'T AVENUE R.O.W. HERVWO (I ~ FRIST FLOOR EL 128.21 on •r DEVELOPMENT TO REMANI. ALL SECOND FLOOR EL 140.54 OTNERB TO BE ABANDONED Olt rr Ix • R CLNFrtLD STATE AOENCNYEANOY I THE CRY OF RM:NFIELO w I .. r .. ~i / I ~ I I+w I. u 1.~... ..~/ ~.. r .. / .. I ~~; ;;;.. ., . "~ +.~' ~• .. , ' / . ............ _ .. «'... ~ ON-SITE STORM DRAINAGE I T 'I' ~ 1;;:i i r DRAINAGE AREAS 'p- i C~ f w ~ - ~,r r„y.. g- p.33A r ~ i ~ - F ~~~^ C- 1.39A ((('''''''^^"~""~~~ E - 0.97 A J`I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~~~' F - 1.61 A ~I ~ +•~.r 0 - 0.68 A •' ~~~~ r DRANAGE AREA F __ _ - r: v ..+ OE~7 CR11~ I A ••' +oo rEAA i/ r ~ i - 1 orxEA •AE•s +o rEAA III I DRAIRAGE AREA A- M I `Lio+mMURE•cE nor . rw. i ioErxeNED couRrrARO EL. +:A.oI ~ ~ /i o rNE wrtuL •urR•cTwx i < ~ IYO • 0 xEAiNODR ` ", i / I I+00 EO iMCxf.ixOUA I J IIIADE AR~CA~E I I coxAwEA •u EuArp .s To .AS i ( ,1 ~; Aeun.eu wrERV c ~i i 4 CALCLLA710N8 i i~ I ......u. ~• .~ +.. ~+ ...+ ~..AU. ..: A _ _~, _ DgAR1AGE AREAD ., +~.. ~. ;~ j ~ i ; _._._._ ._. _._._ ._._._.M._._.__._._._._._._~ ._ ~. ' ~...~- i ~ ' ::5 , WEST 67TH 8TREET ~• I ri f ~ ~I ii i ~.~. I i i i i "' `~~ MORTN oloxD 4o so loo r ,.: r .ti. ~,....,~ ~ r A i~~"""`rRCra~..~,,...,.,,,,,~. i0 au6V'+r '9B ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~r ~ err ~r ~ ~ rt a~ ~ •~ ~ a~ _ .r ~ i ~ ~/ - ' WEST i ' 88th STREET i i _ . - -- - --- - i _ _ _ _ . __~_ . ~',~,:5'r t ~`j' ~ li ~ ! I! I . IJJ ILIiJJ.:~~: + I I y ~ ~ l .y i ~~ ~~ SITE PLAN ~ii -I- 6 PHASE 2 f 4 ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ i ~i '~ I I ~ ~ ! I I GROSS LAND AREA 429,000 S.F. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ 1 ~ ,_ i NET LAND AREA 336,880 SF. / i j ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 198,911 S.F. new omce •oomor+ d noaa0 I '~, - - - _- 1 - -' i GROSS BUILDING AREA 146,586 S.F. ~~ - - _ i - - ~ - -- ,~ i BANK BUILDING 138,100 ~ - i I I ~ - - - _ _ - + MEDICAL BUILDING 8,488 % no~oonim sum wawa I ~ ~ - ~-- i . I i W __ _ __ _ _ ~~i MIN. OPEN SPACE ALLOWED 308,880 S.F. JY ~ - _n a_ ~i w_ _a a -- t+! OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 398,585 S.F. _ ._ -- 'r N u - ~ -- '--- p -- Y O -- ~ - - - - - i P rPKic~sT~AUVIDED ~ =S9 8 AUTOS i y i ~ i - -. -__ -_ I YPICAI BAY 82' '~~ ~ ~~4/ .~: ~ ~~ _ _ _ - _- HANDICAPPED PARKRIO 1Y AUf08 t~ -~'~l - - - - -- -- - - - - ~ 16' LOADING 8TALL 2 BPACE8 ~`~ - -- _ _ B.8' EMPLOYEE STALL 73 SPACES • ~ 9' STALL 471 SPACES ~ +e - - i 1 ~~ ~~ I - I G~ ~ ' I _ ~ I (i y~ II II ~I _ _ __ _ _ - --. o ~ Si23,000 OSFT.fNET) ' 4.6 BPACE8/1000 SOFT. %' llll~ UUU llllll~~ llJl~ Illlow _ _ 1 ~~ 11 ~; I i -- -- - i II n n n n -ii- ,+ w i, - -- - i i i, - - - i ~ i 1 - I ~ i i - I i ~` ~ I ~ i I i ~ - i i .~ ~ _- one+.~ I r / - ' i i % i t, ~. ~. _._._._._._._._. _._._. M 1 t ~ ;~ , _._._._._._._.~__,_._._._._._m~._ WEST e71h~STAEET._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.__._: ~ - - --, ~ i , ,---- - ~ ~ ;; f ,, ; ,i, i %~~ -~, i t ~ ~~ ~' ;i i J ; r~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~Nr :'n rH ,,. . _ -_-~ ~ ~~ --_ ,, ~~=- 7 SITE PLAN PHASE 1 GROSS LAND AREA 429,000 S.F. NET LAND AREA 338,880 S.F. ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 198,911 S.F. GROSS BU~DMG AREA 123,588 S.F. BANK BUILDING 110,485 MEDK:AL BUILDING 8,488 4 EXISTMG HOUSES 4,817 MIN. OPEN SPACE ALLOWED 308,880 S.F. OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 391,678 S.F. PARKING PROVIDED b54 AUTOS TYPICAL STALL P' ^ 117' TYPICAL BAY py' HANDICAPPED PARKMW 9 AUTOS 16' LOADING STALL 2 BPACEB p.p' EMPLOYEE STALL 73 BPACEB 9' STALL 370 SPACES 16~ BPACEp _ 4.6 BPACEB/1000 60.FT. 100,000 SO.FT.(NET) J r ~.~ i ,~ ~~ it Home. o io zo ~o as ioo rprr.~~r- .l S BUILDING PLAN LEVEL ONE TOTAL BANKING AREA 55,725 SF. TOTAL LEASABLE AREA 7,000 S,F, (RETAU MECHANICAL 2,800 SF. CRCULATKNJ,STARS,ETC. 1,779 S.F. TOTAL 87,104 SF. rr ~ NOgTN o ~ e ie z~ .u ;i~%xr~~H~:rs ,.,,,.~,~ ,~~,,, ~ rrr ~ ~ a~ ~ ! ! ~ ~ t~ i ~ ~ ~ ~lis .r 9 BUILDING PLAN LEVEL TWO TOTAL BANKNG AREA 14,275 S.F. TOTAL LEASABLE AREA 8,900 S.F. MECHANICAL 350 S.F. CIRCULATION,ATRIUMS,ETC.3,481 S.F. TOTAL 25,008 S.F. WEST ELEVATION ® ~~ RORa~R~ro a e ~e a ao 10 BUILDING PLAN LEVEL THREE TOTAL LEASABLE AREA(OFFICE) 15,750 S.F. MECHANICAL 350 S.F. CIRCULATION,STAIRS,ETC. 2,275 S.F. TOTAL 18,375 S.F. SECTION LOOKING NORTH ® I i~ I~~ HOa TH o. a ~e z~ ~o r~~~~xrrHC~n ' .», ~,„~,,,AE ~_$_~ 11 BUILDING PLAN LEVEL FOUR/FIVE/SIX TOTAL LEASABLE AREA 7,688 EA.LEVEL 23,058 S.F. ' C IRC ULATIO N, STAIR S,ETC. 1,519 EA.LEVEL 4,557 S.F. TOTAL 27,815 S.F. N O SECTION LOOKING WEST ' ® ~~ ~~JJM'~OYYN''T H o ~ ev~i e o ~ +o I- -~- ~ - --~ , ~ . ~ .1 /~ ~( ti- ~ ~~ ~--~ ~ ,,i ~ ,~,_ VIEW FROM EAST 12 PARKING LOT i l' '~ N 1 ,~~ 4 ~~ /~. 3/1/51 ~ / 16./90 ~ / _ _- / /~ .-~_.~ .. .r. ~ r. ~....~. ~. ~ .. - ~ _ - ---~ ~1,/ea ~~ yenta! WFiT MTN e711~T ~~ aoeiu .9vdT rmto aatrn ~ 855/ttt ~~- a0a/0.j y 1 - tes/1e ~ aaon. ~ I SITE GENERATED 1 TRAFFIC 968/112 DAILY TRIPS ~ P.M. PEAK HOUR TRIPS i ~~ ~ /I I % 4•~ % •~. N N _~ -___ WEST l7TM ~Tl!!7 ~~N~-ON``TH O 10 20 .0 a0 3p0 io •Atleux ~nDi ~ .,~„t..o~~e .. ,e. ~. GENERAL SPECIFICATION OF MATERIALS RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY In general, the proposed building and site materials match those or are compli- mentary to those now in the existing building and being employed in the Lyndale/ Hub/Nicollet improvements. General Conditions and Specifications General conditions of the construction contracts shall be standard AIA Document A201, and shall include Performance Bond,Bid Bond and Labor and Material Bond. Specifications shall be Uniform Construction Index format. General Construction Demolition shall include removal of existing structures as indicated on site plans as well as removal of selected structural floors, walls, and interior partitions within the existing building. Landscaping and site work as per landscape plan: structured planting areas and courtyards of concrete and masonry. Irrigated planting areas. Contractor is responsible for maintenance for 1 year. Bituminous parking areas on prepared base. Concrete pedestrian surfaces shall be compatible with L/H/N standards. Site lighting shall be compatible with L/H/N standards. Signage is planned for retail and bank tennants. Storm water will be carried by gravity flow and pump to city storm sewer. Primary exterior building material shall be brick to match the existing building (4"x8" Saxon Fine Art Velour). New fascias and architectural metals shall be pre-finished. Color to match existing metals. Entry canopies and south awnings shall be permanent fiberglass fabric on tubular metal frames. ' Below grade portions of the building shall be reinforced concrete wall and roof structure with paving and landscape materials on the root. At grade or above grade portions shall be reinforced concrete and steel frame structure. Mechanical and Electrical Construction The building shall have new, energy efficient, HVAC system throughout. The building shall be fully sprinkled and provided with fire department connections and alarms as required. Lower level courtyards shall be provided with duplex storm water sump pumps. Pumps shall be connected to a standby generator in the event of power failure. 23 t OWNERSHIP OF P.U.D. RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY Under the proposed plan submitted in this application for PUD District rezoning, Richfield State Agency, Inc. will ultimately be the sole owner of all properties included in the plan. It is the intention of Richfield State Agency, Inc. to be solely responsible for maintenance, upkeep, and ongoing compliance of Richfield's applicable ordinances and regulations. The proposal for Phase I calls for replatting of the property into seven lots. Lot numbers 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Block 2, LYNDALE SHORES ON Vy00D LAKE remain. These are the lots on which stand the four residential structures which will remain in Phase 1. Lot Number 1, Block 2 of J. N. HAUSER'S ADDITION, on which stands the e xisting medical building will also remain. The remainder of the site will be platted into two lots. One lot will con- tain the remaining property to the north of a line drawn in an east/west direction at or near the south wall of the existing bank building. The ' second lot includes all of the properties to the south of that same line. The precise location of this li ne must be verified, for it will mark the exact division of the separate financing packages. The property to the south is that which is included in the Tax Increment financing. Security interests on the northerly lot will be pledged under existing financing. At the time when Phase II proce 6 of 81ock 2, LYNDALE SHORES ON eds, the four residential lots (3, 4, 5, and WOOD LAKE) will be added to the new southerly lot, if deemed necess ary. t 24 rs ~II~ ~ +~ ~ ~ +~ ~ li ~ I~ ~ ~ ~r ~ ~ r PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY. P.U.D./PLANNING APPROVAL SCHEMATIC DESIGN DESIGN DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT DOCUMENTS BIDDING CONSTRUCTION N CTS ~a~~ 1982 1983 LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY The following list identifies all of the Property Onwers/tax payers of the sub- ject tract and adjacent properties within 350 feet of the proposed P.U.D. district boundaries. The I.D. number in the left column keys the location of each property to the plan entitled "ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS/PROPERTY OWNERS" included as a part of this submittal. ' I.D. PROPERTY ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER 27-028-24-23 0083 N/A Amos 8 Daniel Heilicher ' 850 Decatur Ave. N. Minneapolis, MN 55427 0004 6532 Lyndale Ave. S. G. E. Strom 6617 Humboldt Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 ' 0080 N/A Richfield HRA 7000 Nicollet Ave. 0079 N/A Lawrence Kadish c/o K-Mart 3100 W. Big Beaver Rd. Troy, MI 48084 0082 N/A NW Bell Telephone 224 5th St. S. Minneapolis, MN 55402 27-028-24-32 0011 Joan Hall Florence Nelson 301 66th St. W. 0012 Mark A. Johnson 6614 Pleasant Ave. S. 0013 Jean A. Nelson 6620 Pleasant Ave. S. 0028 Arthur P. Gokey 6626 Pleasant Ave. S. ' 0029 James S. Vargo 6630 Pleasant Ave. S. 26 I.D. PROPERTY ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER 0030 Lynne A. Pickart 6640 Pleasant Ave. S. 0031 John H. Martin 6644 Pleasant Ave. S. 0091 Robert 8 H. Stixrud 6700 Pleasant Ave. S. 0092 Sheldon F. Anderson 6708 Pleasant Ave. S. 0093 B. C. Miller 6712 Pleasant Ave. S. 0104 Allen P. Grazzini 6721 Pleasant Ave. S. 0105 Sharon M. Bersie L. R. Hurd 6717 Grand Ave. 0106 Robert D. Carter, J r. 6713 Grand Ave. 0107 Archie J. Miller 6712 Pleasant Ave. S. 0108 James P. McCabe 6705 Grand Ave. 0109 Georgette Belford 6701 Grand Ave. 0032 Bernard ~ C. Meyer 6645 Grand Ave. 0033 A. L. Grabar 6635 Grand Ave. 0034 Leonard 0. Hedahl 6627 Grand Ave. 0014 John C. Evans 6621 Grand Ave. 0015 Reuben Talle 6615 Grand Ave. 0016 6607 Grand Ave. Janice P. Nicholson 4145 Parklawn Ave. #125 Edina, MN 55435 27 I.D. 0017 0018 0019 0020 0021 0022 0035 0036 0037 0038 0039 0068 0069 0070 0071 0072 PROPERTY ADDRESS 6600 Grand Ave. 6608 Grand Ave. 6616 Grand Ave. 6620 Grand Ave. 6628 Grand Ave. 6632 Grand Ave. 6640 Grand Ave. 6644 Grand Ave. PROPERTY OWNER Mary Joan Draxler Winer 8 Loper Law Clinic 6601 Grand Ave. Gordon E. Strom Bonnie J. Supalo 307-66th St. W. Richfield State Agency Inc. 6625 Lyndale Ave. S. Richfield State Agency Richfield Inv. Co. 6625 Lyndale Ave. S. Richfield Inv. Co. 6625 Lyndale Ave. S. Richfield Inv. Co. 6625 Lyndale Ave. S. Richfield Inv. Co. 6625 Lyndale Ave. S. Richfield State Agency 6625 Lyndale Ave. S. Harold A. Lund 6636 Grand Ave. Richfield State Agency 6625 Lyndale Ave. S. Richfield State Agency 6625 Lyndale Ave. S. Jay B. Campbell 6700 Grand Ave. David $ Kay Tellinghulsen 6704 Grand Ave. John W. Doody 6708 Grand Ave. Esther Larson 6712 Grand Ave. Carl Burge 6716 Grand Ave. 28 I.D. PROPERTY ADDRESS 0073 0086 ' 0087 0088 0089 6709 Harriet Ave. 1 0090 0040 6645 Harriet Ave. 0041 6639 Harriet Ave. 0042 0043 6629 Harriet Ave. 0023 6601 Harriet Ave. 0026 0025 601-66th St. W. ' 00111 ' 0044 6645 Lyndale Ave. S. 0110 6700 Harriet Ave. PROPERTY OWNER Colette C. Sir 6720 Grand Ave. R. A. Lund 6721 Harriet Ave. C. E. Swanson 6717 Harriet Ave. Thomas J. Scott 6713 Harriet Ave. Eugene E. Ahern P.O. Box 23086 (55423) Eberhardt Co. George F. Meyer II 6701 Harriet Ave. Marie F. Fagerstrom Richfield State Agency 6625 Lyndale Ave. S. Richfield State Agency 6625 Lyndale Ave. S. Doris E. Garvey 6633 Harriet Ave. Richfield State Agency 6625 Lyndale Ave. Richfield State Agency 6625 Lyndale Ave. Bjorn Clarence Hagen 6601 Lyndale Ave. S. Garnett I. Kirchner Richfield State Agency 6625 Lyndale Ave. S. Richfield State Agency 6625 Lyndale Ave. S. Commercial Inv. Co. Kentucky Fried Chicken Mgmt. Co. P.O. Box 35910 Louisville, KY 40232 City of Richfield 29 I.D. PROPERTY ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER 0045 6700 Garfield Ave. S. Charlotte E. Strom Richfield State Agency 6625 Lyndale Ave. S. 0046 N. D. Sprecher John P. Rickert 6710 Garfield Ave. S. 0047 6716 Garfield Ave. S. Lorin A. Gasterland 8500 Pillsbury Ave. S. Bloomington, MN 55420 0048 John D. Dolan 6720 Garfield Ave. S. 0049 Paul A. Marchessault 6724 Garfield Ave. S. 0050 Larry E. Messerli 6732 Garfield Ave. S. 0051 Robert J. Willard 6736 Garfield Ave. S. 0052 Howard W. Carlsen 6740 Garfield Ave. S. 0056 Steven and K. Anderson 6741 Lyndale Ave. S. 0057 Kenneth C. Orvis 6737 Lyndale Ave. S. 0058 W. W. Zetzman 6733 Lyndale Ave. S. 0059 6725 Lyndale Ave. S. Thomas $ C. MacGregor 7445 Girard Ave. S. 0064 Norman H. Gilbertsen 6717 Lyndale Ave. S. 0061 6713 Lyndale Ave. S. Norman H. Gilbertsen 6717 Lyndale Ave. S. 0062 6709 Lyndale Ave. S. Richfield State Agency 6625 Lyndale Ave. S. 0063 6701 Lyndale Ave. S. Richfield State Agency 6625 Lyndale Ave. S. 30 l,p, PROPERTY ADDRESS 0064 0065 0066 ' 0115 N/A 0114 N/A 0005 6630 Lyndale Ave. S. 0006 6700 Lyndale Ave. S. 0007 709 Graham Ave. 0008 715 Graham Ave. ' 0009 ' 0010 6724 Lyndale Ave. S. 28-028-24-41 ' 0005 28-028-24-43 0015 N/A PROPERTY OWNER R. F. Melony 6730 Harriet Ave. S. J. Brian Flesche 6725 Garfield Ave. S. James R. Laube 6743 Garfiield Ave. S. The S & M Company 2101 Kennedy St. NE Minneapolis, MN 55413 City of Richfield Red Lobster Inns P.0. Box 13330 Orlando, FL 32809 A. T. Koritz Sharon Trestman Fairwood Shores Realty 3412 Oak Ridge Rd #215 Minnetonka, MN 55343 A. C. Rallis Maplewood Med. Inc. 1814 N. St. Paul Rd. St. Paul, MN 55109 Richfield HRA 7000 Nicollet Ave. Richfield HRA 7000 Nicollet Ave. Fred Babcock Post 710 Lakeshore Ave. Mae E. Rogers RO Hanouser 9840 Lyndale Ave. S. Bloomington, MN 55420 Delores L. Wire William Wire 721 Graham Ave. City of Richfield 6625 Lyndale Ave. S. 31 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING STREET AND ALLEY VACATION • PETITION ~~ND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the City Clerk requesting the vacation of a portion of Harriet Avenue described as follows: "That part of Harriet Avenue South, lying between the south right of way line of West 66th Street according to the recorded plat of ,7. N. Hausers Addition and the north right of way line of ;Jest 57th Street according to the recorded plat of Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake." and the vacation of an alley easement described as follows: "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 Block 2, Lyndale Shores on ;flood Lake." WHEREAS, said r~etition complies in all -respects with the require- ments of Richfield Ordinance Code 12.04, Subdivision 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: • 1. The petition for vacation of that portion of the street and alley described above is received. 2. A public hearing on the street and alley vacation in said petition shall be held on October 12, 1981. 3. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing in the official newspaper of the city and post notice of said hearing in the manner provided by Rich- field Ordinance Code, Section 12.04, Subdivision 3. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of September 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Syl~~~ia ... ~3~r:~~,-~ - - -- ~' L,~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING STREET AND ALLEY VACATION • PETITION AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the City Clerk requesting the vacation of a portion of Harriet Avenue described as follows: "That part of Harriet Avenue South, lying between the south right of way line of West 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." and the vacation of an alley easement described as follows: "The alley in Block 2, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake lying between the easterly extension across it of the northline of L,ot 10 and the southline of Lot 6 all in Block 2, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake." WHEREAS, said petition complies in all respects with the require- ments of Richfield Ordinance Ccde 12.04, Subdivision 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: • 1. The petition for vacation of that portion of the street and alley described above is received. 2. A public hearing on the street and alley vacation in said petition shall be held on October 12, 1981. 3. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing in the official newspaper of the city and post notice of said hearing in the manner provided by Rich- field Ordinance Code, Section 12.04, Subdivision 3. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of September 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: • Sylvia K. Berc7h, Cit~_; Ci~r;; RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING STREET AND ALLEY VACATION PETITION t~ND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the City Clerk requesting the vacation of a r~ortion of Harriet Avenue described as follows: "That part of Harriet Avenue South, lying between the south right of way line of West 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." and the vacation of an alley easement described as follows: "The alley in Block 2, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake lying bet;veen the easterly extension across it of the northline of L,ot 10 and the southline of Lot 6 all in Block 2, Lyndale Shores on Gdood Lake." WHEREAS, said petition complies in all respects with the require- ments of Richfield Ordinance Code 12.C4, Subdivision 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follews: • 1. The petition for vacation of that portion of the street and alley described above is received. 2. A public hearing on the street and alley vacation in said petition shall be held on October 12, 1981. 3. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing in the official newspaper of the city and post notice of said hearing in the manner provided by Rich- field Ordinance Code, Section 12.04, Subdivision 3. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of September 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: • Syl~~~ia K. ;3crc;., .~~;,_ ~~1.:_~;_ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING STREET AND ALLEY VACATION • PETITION AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the City Clerk requesting the vacation of a portion of Harriet Avenue described as follows: "That part of Harriet Avenue South, lying between the south right of way line of West 66th Street according to the recorded plat of J. N. Hawsers Addition and the north right of way line of West 67th Street according to the recorded plat of Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake." and the vacation of an alley easement described as follows: "The alley in Block 2, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake lying between the easterly extension across it of the northline of I~ot 10 and the southline of Lot 6 all in Block 2, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake." WHEREAS, said petition complies in all respects with the require- ments of Richfield Ordinance Code 12.04, Subdivision 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: • 1. The petition for vacation of that portion of the street and alley described above is received. 2. A public hearing on the street and alley vacation in said petition shall be held on October 12, 1981. 3. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing in the official newspaper of the city and post notice of said hearing in the manner provided by Rich- field Ordinance Code, Section 12.04, Subdivision 3. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of September 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Cite.- Clerk r BILL 1981 • TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF HARRIET AVENUE Section 1. The following portion of Harriet Avenue South within the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby vacated. "That part of Harriet Avenue South, lying between the south right of way line of West 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, Minnegasco, 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 way as provided in the foregoing Section 1. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • BILL 1981 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF THE ALLEY ON BLOCK 2, LYNDALE SHORES ON WOOD LAKE Section 1. The following descirbed 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 Block 2, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake." Section 2. 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 way as provided in the foregoing Section 1. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • BILL 1981 • AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota defining the 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) Clot 1, Block 2, and] 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: C(34) That area lying within the following 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 Harriet Avenue to its intersection with the north line of Lot 3, Block 3, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake Addition extended; thence west 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 west along the center line of 67th Street to the point of beginning and there terminating.] C(68) Lot 7 and Lot 8, Block 2, J. N. Hauser's Addition (515 West 66th Street and 6609 Harriet Avenue South).] [(70) Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 3, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake and that part of Harriet and Garfield Avenues lying westerly of the southerly extension of t11e east line of Lot 1 in said Block 3 and lying northerly of the • easterly extension of Lot 5 of said Block 3.] -2- [(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 Wood 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 paragraph which will read as follows: (4) Lots 24 and 25, Block 4, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake, according to the recorded plat thereof, 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 through 10, Block 2, together with the alley in said Block 2 Lyndale Shores on ~9ood Lake, according to the recorded plat thereon, Henn~r~in County, Minnesota. Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, Block 2, J. N. Hauser's Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 3, J. N. Hauser's Addition, • according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. That part of Harriet Avenue per plat of Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as lying easterly of the east line of Block 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. Hauser's Addition according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as lying easterly of the east line of Block 3 and westerly of the west line of Block 2 of said J. N. Hauser's Addition. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1981. Donald J. Priebe, ylayor ATTEST: ylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk __-l-~f~ c~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 319 Agenda September 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: History ~~ Subject: Final Development Off-Street Parking Summit Bank PUD Plan, Special Use Permit, Permit, Phase IV, Hub/ In February, 1979 PUD plan and rezoning the city council approved a g for the Hub Summit p Preliminary plat, velopment. In ~1une / / enn ment 1979, the council a Y Planned Unit De- impropementsptoltheuse permit PProved a final develop- , and off-street parking permit for buildin Parking area south and west old 65th •S treetOcnobth ~o f980, the council a of the Summit Bank the Summit Bank PProved the vacation of as part of the PUD a r propert Sppeetal of a final developmentCelan is requesting citymcouBcil~ parking permit to allow teem tospecial use permit and off- north of their building, includin construct 65th Street g the area within Pheking area right-of-way, vacated Pro----mss a 1 The existing curb and sidewalk within right-of-way will be removed and new curbthe vacated Handica and sidewalk5th Street Aped ramps will be installed adjacent to handicaconstructed. spaces and, where sidewalks intersect corsswalk will be installed to connectdtovthe H P parking There will be 23 n g aisles, a concrete to the ew 90-degree parkin ub Shopping Center. parking area will be from g stalls provided. Nicollet Avenue a new 24-foot Entrances parkin ' from the drive-u wide curb cut from g area west of the Summit Bp teller facility, and from the Medical Clinic will be maintainedank Building. Access to the New 1 andscaping will consist of sod installed on th east of the driveup teller and also in corner of the bank an area at the ~oa~hWeStuth- tree and 15 buildangareark chip ground cover, one junipers in adjacent to the overstory Zonin and Ordinance Re uirements medical clinic. Section 3.34A, subdivision that prior to commencement ~ of the zonin of any construction ordinance requires development of Council Letter No. 319 -2- September 14, 181 the land, and after rezoning, an applicant shall submit a final 1 development plan, consistent with the council approved PUD plan, and an application for a special use permit for said development. A special use permit in conformance with the final development plan must be obtained before the PUD district can be devoted to the uses provided in such plan. In this case, each property owner must submit a final development plan and obtain a special use permit for the development of their property for each:=phase of the overall Hub/Penny/ development. Section 3.41 of the ordinance requires that it be demonstrated that the development would not be detrimental to the public welfare, and Section 3.34A, subdivision 3 requires that the development be coordinated with subdivision regulations. Section 4.05 requires that an off-street parking permit must be obtained for parking areas in commercial zoning districts, and sets standards with which parking areas must comply.. Section 2.60 requires that final plats be submitted and approved by the city council if the property is re-subdivided. Staff Review and Findings At the time the city council approved the preliminary PUD plan and plat, certain stipulations were placed on the Summit Bank De- velopment. These stipulations included the following: 1. Handicap ramps should be provided at sidewalk inter- . sections and driveway and parking areas; 2. Issues with the Richfield T~'tedical Group should be resolved before the north parking lot in Phase IV will be constructed; 3. Issues concerning the undergrounding of overhead power lines must be resolved; 4. Entrances and exits at 65th Street and Tlicollet, and drive-ins, should be dimensioned and the dimensions shown on the plan to ensure adequate turning radius; 5. Stormwater drainage plans must be approved by the city engineer; 6. Easements must be provided for underground utilities. The staff has reviewed the proposed development and found the following: 1. The final development plan is generally consistent with the PUD plan previously approved by the city council. An island has been eliminated between the bank building and the drive-up teller facility to provide better traffic flow and the sidewalk connection to the Hub Shopping Center has been relocated south of its present location. These changes are improvements to the plan and should result in safer vehicular anc~ pedestrian movement. 2. Handicapped ramps will be constructed at sidewal]c inter- sections with driveway and parking areas; Council Letter No. 319 -3- September 14, 1981 All issues with the Richfield Medical Group have been resolved; Summit Bank will underground the overhead utilities at the time that the overhead utilities for the Hub Shopping Center are undergrounded. Necessary underground conduit has been provided on the Summit Bank property during Phase I to prevent damage to the site improvements when the utilities are undergrounded in the future. The entrances and exits have been dimensioned, and sufficient turning dimensions have been maintained in the drive-in areas. 3. The property development will meet all off-street parking standards except the parking stall depth requirement. It is proposed to have 18 -foot deep parking stalls. However, the proposed parking stalls will be sufficient because ad- equate space exists to ensure that cars do not intrude into the driving aisles; also because of the trend toward smaller cars, less space is required. 4. 1"t .is the opinion of the staff that additional landscaping should be provided. It is felt that the bark chip ground cover should be replaced by sod in the larger areas. Addi- tional overstory trees and other plant materials should be • provided to soften the appearance of the parking areas. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the final devel- opment plant, special use permit, and off-street parking permit for the Phase IV Summit Bank development, subject to the stipulation that a revised landscape plan be submitted for approval by the city staff. Respectfully submitted, 11 ! ~, w ./~~~ ~~~ ~wtisi-~~~. ~ Ivar~~?Ollenberg~r City Manager KN/eja cc: Community Development Director City Planner Housing and Redevelopment Coordinator • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT FOR OFF-STREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION N0. 81-5, CONTRACT NO. 2335 Summit Bank, 6500 Nicollet Avenue South Location: 6500 Nicollet Avenue South Use: Bank 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 contained in off-street parking application No. 81-5, Contract No. 2335, 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-stree..t parking contract for the improvement of said off-street parking, bearing contract No. 2335 be placed on file and that the manager be authorized to sign said contract and the clerk be authorized to seal the same for and on behalf of this city. • 3. That the off-street parking operator provide the City of Richfield with surety in the form of cash, passbook saving withdrawal authority or performance bond in an amount to be 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 stipulation: That a revised landscape plan be submitted for approval by city staff. 4. That responsibility for proper upkeep and maintenance of said off- street parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the off-street parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code 4.05. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of September, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, riayor ATTEST: • Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • _- ~1 I I _-~~ __.--_- I ~ -~ --- ~-TRErcT , ~~ . N. ~- - c / : ..1-'Ear,p ~i 111•Ib IT%Rl,i~r l!7N -)STEM ' Y -~ W -=' ._. ~=Fs~_.. r~ .'~.>,TEFl +S iR.V~ itr cF.r, , _.-- _ _ --' - __ I _ ~ ~ , _ - ~ ~~ - ,y. n ---_- -- _ - i' ~; _ i ' •,. _ S 1 W 1 - ~- r r .. :.~- E.~=.,~,-•'_~~e } ,~, >, },k9r' QJ% of F . , ti I] f =- __~ .,.r _ / •'- .c+E,aE :; ~. ~\~,I ~~~~~{~ rj, .~s r``~ ~ ~,i~~~'~ ~ ~~.'U~ Y cil LI.I MEDICAL ~ I -- 1 f ~ ~~' ~ S r. i s ~ h "•~' .~'~ ' R 117- I =L~NIC ~---- - ..- -----, - Il u ~~ .11 r "' ;i i ~- ~_ k ~ 1, ~ ~ S f ~ 7 .~+` 4 p'~.u C I~ W _ -- I _-. ~ Il i +~ 'l n ~~~ ~. N -~ I .{ I, y . '.I it 1 ~ s '~ ~°~i. h~ ~F, z ~t< l) I IS New I 6Y,.S'nNi 56h- ~ .BULL W ~~ ~ `f ~ ~ vu NIp~RS -o j t,. 1 '~ 1 -1 II `, III ~... l yr 1,.. 4 IR~ W '~ ~ h~@N LO _AT SON-.~ 'L3 11 ~[ .r c.Eti c:;TCPS I r I 1b.~ ~ ~r ~ 1I MATCH n%+ST. I ti=CGi t,AR~E O ~ ~ 1J 1 -, J r .r 4 ~ aNL WLL ~ IN A~..:O.NINC~ E%'S'rl r+v ROCK L~ :) ;II 1 ~,Ji .~ t .1, CL Z ~ PS_ANT~N6 ARCH --.__ ~ ~r1W W , ~ ` F- En:?.~ _...PS- - ~5 t~ W ~ I ~ rEx •-T: c m -+~ Z ~~I ~U s L O 1F. I _ r~ANHO__ a l W t W lil a r' ( '~ { IJ~ 7 _I ~ IAD~USTEC Ac .. y.;,D lI ~•.' ~~I r~TA ~'~ ~-EW '''~ I~'b ri~ f~. (:. yl 3 L I - -.-~-t,I~ F p~ W u -. a.. ~; a ^~N'>l~c ^~ MEET F J ( W J ~O lI ul . r I _ ~' ~ Q cr. ::.T ^,G d,I~MINOV ~III~ ~ a I ~ ..p ~.~ Z ~ _ _ L 'alU N ' j v e~RAI O.+T SIN E.CUT ,~ .. ~V~ ?II IIW l ~ -r~ _-~r'.v6 = ST. ~.T~,) _L~h W I lf. Ilu Wljn- a It } ~` /__- Ir i /,L Et jT. iAV ".:t r5 FEQ D ~I~ k ~~~ 5 k: i L ~ \ ~. ~ ~I ~.6w~`µ` .;.HD ,. ~ 1, W W W Il '1 li _~_~+L, i/~C)~'.~ i,•p;~ .., ~ I y / \~ 'v T 1 ~.nET la~l Q E '~ _ f ~~_^~/~E = Y.S NGtic -_ gN q f ~ cm.,: L _ \'fl.-0 54-0' _~~'I~ ~a~ - _~ 20'O~ .~ :a ~ ~(I Ot+ r~RC .h TH 5 A4EA ~ I`.Jb KCn' - F- L SSA ¢6 4Q'. .. f~-. ~ J F . y y `' a`' ~^x "'czt A Qr.J r ` o j ,~ ~. y3 : ~ - --I `+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ' c _.J~n,rl-v r~/ 7~~'~-~',-+L~ :.~...;:.~1, ~ Q - - - - - ~ +-r ~' ~~~+yl.. 'I ~ ~ ~ 'w ~ u if - • - .P Sa= B-i'tH ,ICES ~ t~k x \.~'Fp~ ~~'C \' \ ~\~\~~, ~ ~ "'~ 1t' > CJtPA" b I ~ If1 F FRK -` i +D Kr sN . E E ~~~'. w a _ .5 t ' vl ~ ~t'pc+~`~ tv ~ ~ ~t fi.~urSCr !~ ,8{~' ~ (( > -~ .I 11S rt' ~'tia cw = ~ ~ ~ F III \ _~ do^~ .. ., ;=u n .~.. -'- ~• ~ - j?'~ ~.:.,, - ur~ov+c rYr~r: c vi =I- J ti,"~, ,, gcwrsce cvr~ lu ,_ r. ., f ~. W ~ 1 J l'r~"..~~,~ \ `~~~~~a~'"''~, °ti' `_ , f , a>ar,~ssns ... ~,.~ ~u~[ T~µ ~ ~ oI W -_ _ \~. -\a i r I .=- "'"~ E =x ., ET„^^.'~NGI;G.r_---~ 0 •KI .GONQ:KC CLML.GP[: l^L iSTIfVf~"7'~AT~jQ\T'®•/yC.y.l 'TT.17 ,~ 1 1 f ®T..M NO.:S .. ~nES -~, ~ ~ ;.~ \\ ~ ~ "t,~,,~ fi A~II/,~11.1L3wra J!~~t 1`4A['T~ I"IS~V~I; ~~T{.1 M_IL'1G11~3. \ ~~ I '1 -__- E .:~r -W(- ~ .I ~ ~ ~.''J~-1 #~.5~5,~;~i~ ;rep',, i.~ -~ 1~ ~ YK';y .y :r \ ~,~ .`_. __ ..~ •~ ~U ~ ~ t ~ ~.. ~ ~I ~ i -. "- ~•~ ~'~ R .f u .D to ~ ,o. ,+,I. P ~: - r.. i ';j ks~ F. ~ _ re `.. ~ o ~: ~~t ~ ,~ I -.,-'. ^_n, //_" "' ~~~ >- ~ a ~I,r" t--~ yli~ t~ ~.~.L~.(`~-«-~1"I i~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ i35.~ ~' ,°.. I) ~~~~ Ip ~ t T~_ '.C J. ~1.:. 'A'GE NA~r~ ~ ^, fir.,., s I _-' t.,._. __ue _~r~ o ~ &O ,~,f r\~~ ~ 1~ / f 6S~T' ~ o~L:. i NCVV :avc. ale=rJr~~.- - __.-~ _{-`_ \ L ' 2~, ~ I / LL2~.IJ (. 1 1 ~ ~ ^ 1.. ~...,~.r .x., ., ~ 1 - ~ ~;ew A ~ eAS,h --c- ~ w al ~I ~ I 1 r ' •: - -c~-"aE",~EC ~.° ~+" ---r~n I'-REMOVH P1_ANTINGS IN--~~ +~ i~'El ~'A '.A _K I.'.'; / / ~ ~ THIS '.REA IF Re O'O. I^_~C. n6.vAL •c ,. 'k +-W /~~ `^CET ii7DT. I ~\\ iv ~ C~ I}+~ ~ I I cr ;'. .~•.-... h,:: r~1F;,;r.T ~ E'E -.-.. _. /' ~ 11~0~~ /~ J~ _._ ~aa'. O' II .r ~~ '~~7 Y~ G-F..• .r'?`.. -1'' -- 1 ~Ea r.r+.~ :lo nP.~CC6 h. 9'. r).. EA. I I~ \ F: r1 SJI 1 1 ! ~' I Ft E%IST, GCNC.--l--- ul ~ I W \° f/ ~_:~.'_. -~:=H T'~ ~shT'.`+ rYir~T, !1[ `EY.~'''~O ...: Cci~jb :'.:^!^~ TR hNS F^.PM~F2 16.DEYJAI-r( I \ ~.<w ~ ) .E,. .- r~ :f•lv _~r.C.Ew -h-tEE a'e,.a. ~ / ~/ ,151; SUMMIT STATE BANK -- --- ~~s.ss' --- - .. _. -----.. I I ~ _ -e ,~ =r~ST ~ ~ ~+,CEP'~F ~'~t,D A~uM,ED EXiST~N:~ FIN. FLR. El_. :3t.,1 ~r ~ ~ Z °' ;P'~ ~^. - °TTin -~ T~II•_-~ ~~'~. ~- ~ -EX:67. _ONC ~ J C Sri'`-/^- C~: -R~'10vE 6[IST. CCNC. °CEWALK PLAZA ~-~~ nl ~1 ~ 1 .'.FRB .N TH65E AFaEAS ~ ~ ~ ~ W J , _'--~ ~___~ ~- , W S W ~~ _._ ~ ~ ~ lC Il L h /~I \ 1 h i ~r- . I v .. .. r 1 J3 1 y11 I y ~ ,. ~ .! 1 ~, ~~ r 5 ~: ~~ :~ i 7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City 1~lanager Council Letter No. 318 Agenda September 14, 1981 The Honorable i~lavor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Dlembers Subject: Purchases in Excess $1,000 Chapter 6, section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that the city council must approve the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There are seven (7) such items on the city council agenda September 14, 1981. STORM SEWER EXTENSION When QRS Corporation, Inc. was doing storm sewer improvement work at Rich Acres Park it was discovered that an additional extension would be needed. It was important that proper drainage and grading be provided to meet the fall seeding date rather than delay the construction of the park to 1982. It is recommended that the city council authorize QRS Corporation to do an estimated additional $2,000 of storrl sewer improvements at Rich Acres Park. STORM SEWER REPAIR In 1966, the City of Richfield entered into an agreement with the City of Bloomington to permit the draining of storm sewer water from Wilson Pond (in the vicinity of 74th Street and 14th Avenue South) to Smith Lake in Bloomington (vicinity of 79th Street and 11th Avenue South). As part of this agreement, the City of Richfield is obligated to make necessary repairs to this storm sewer line in the City of Bloomington. A repair at the outfall of this line is now necessary. Richard Knutson, Inc. quoted $4,960 and G.L. Contracting quoted $3,883.55. Under the low estimate, the City of Richfield would pay approximately $2,906.75 and the City of Bloomington would pay $876.80. It is recommended that the city council authorize the staff to proceed with this story; sewer repair by G.L. Contracting. STUMP CIIIPPIrIG • As the city removes diseased er damaged trees from boulevards it is also necessary to chip or remove the stump that remains after the tree has been cut down. The lowest price for such work this summer has been quoted by Richard Novak at $ .38 per inch. -- - ---- --- Council Letter No. 318 -2- September 14, 1981 The estimated cost of chipping stumps currently existing is $1,004. There are very few other trees still beinc: removed and it is anticipated that the incidence of Dutch Elm Lisease will fall off rapidly now that colder weather in approaching. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council authorize a master purchase order to complete the 1981 season of stump chipping by Richard Novak. RESTAKING REAR PROPERTY CORNERS Gne of the agreements between the city and some of the property owners abutting Adams Hill Park provides that the rear property corners would be restaked. C.E. Coulter and Associates, Inc. quoted a per lot price for a total cost of $4,400. Ron Krueger and Associates, Inc. quoted an hourly rate of $75 for an estimated day or two with a $600 minimum, $1,200 maximum. It is recommended that the city council authorize Ron Krueger and Associates, Inc. to do the restakinq of rear property corners in Penn Lake Terrace 2nd Addition as it abuts Adams Hill Park pond, at a cost not to exceed $1,200. BUILDING FRONT PAVING - ADAMS HILL PARK The site contractor at Adams Hill Park was responsible for asphalt paving. However, the building contractor was not far enough along in construction to permit the site contractor to pave in front of the shelter building when the rest of the park area was paved. Therefore, the site contractor provided a credit to the city for the work that was not done in front of the shelter and the city agreed to obtain separate quotes and have the work done at a later date. Three quotations have been received. Although their lump sum proposal included some work which will not be part of this project, Hardrives, Inc. quote is the highest, in excess of $3,00. Prior Lake Blacktop, Inc. quoted $2,320.86. It is recommended that the city council approve the low quotation of Dakota Blacktopping in the amount of $1,850.00. PATHWAY PAVING - RICH ACRES PARK A pathway system is proposed as part of the minor park improvements at Rich Acres Park. Three quotations have been received for this work. Hardrives, Inc. quoted $6,585.00. Prior Lake Blacktop, Inc. quoted $5,204.60. It is recommended that the city council approve the low quotation received from Dakota Blacktopping in the amount of $4,980.00 SKATE TILE One of the city responsibilities in completing the Adams Hill Park project is to provide flooring for ttie shelter building. A rubber_ flooring, frequently referred to as skate tile, is proposed. The material recommended is the same material as is found in the ice arena, as provided by St. Paul Linoleum and Carpet Company at a quoted price of $4,350, including installation. Other quotations were from the Floor Store, who would also provide Tuflex installed at a price of Council Letter No. 318 -3- September 14, 1981 $4,500. Unirite Skate Resistant Matting was quoted by St. Paul • Linoleum and Carpet Company at a price of $4,600 installed. Hamele Recreation Company, Inc. quoted $3,571.92 for Off Ice Tile and $3,886.80 for Skatetile. These last two prices did not include installation, the price of which would bring the total price in excess of the low quotation for installed material. It is recommended that the city council authorize the installation of an estimated 984 square feet of 27" x 27" Tuflex Spartus by St. Paul Linoleum and Carpet Company in the amount of $4,350. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Administrative Services Director • .~ ~ 7 ~. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 317 Agenda September 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Certification of Delinquent Sewer and Water Utility Accounts There is a resolution on the September 14, 1981 city council agenda designating the annual accumulation of unpaid sewer and water utility accounts. Although the Richfield utility ordinance places unpaid water and sewer charges as a lien against the property, some homeowners have traditionally chosen to have the charges certified and included in their annual property tax billing. A $10.000 Certification Charge (preparation for certification • to taxes of delinquent accounts) shall be charged against each delinquent account as authorized by Ordinance 8.12, subdivision 12. The attached resolution represents those delinquent accounts which have occurred from August 30, 1980 through August 30, 1981. It is recommended that the city council adopt this resolution certifying delinquent water and sewer accounts, Respectfully submitted, t ~ "~ Karl Nollenberger City I~ianager KN/sh cc: Finance Coordinator • RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING UNPAID SEWER AND WATER SERVICE CHARGES TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO BE COLLECTED WITH OTHER TAXES ON SAID PROPERTIES WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 8.23 establishes rules, rates and charges for water service in the City of Richfield, and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 44.075, Subd. 3, provides that all delinquent water service charges not paid may be certified to the County Auditor with the taxes against such property, and shall be collected with other taxes on such property, and WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 8.12 establishes rules, rates and charges for sanitary sewer service in the City of Richfield, and WHEREAS, Subd. 12 thereof provides that all sewer service charges not paid within fifteen (15) days after the quarterly due date may be certified to the County Auditor with taxes against such property, and shall be collected with other taxes on such property, and - WHEREAS, an assessment roll has been prepared specifying the amounts which shall be certified against each particular property. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that 1. There is hereby determined to be a total uncollected amount for water and sanitary sewer service of $54,281.00 2. That a $10.00 Certification charge shall be levied against each delinquent account; such charges totaling $7,990,00 3. That such amount is hereby certified to the County Auditor for collection with other taxes on said properties, 4. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Passed by the City Counciil of the City of Richfield this 14th day of September, 1981 Donald J. Priebe Mayor • ATTEST: Sylvia h. Bergh City Clerk ~~ ~~-~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 316 Aqenda September 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Assessment Rolls for Diseased Tree, Nuisance Abatement and Weed Destruction There are several resolutions on the September 14, 1981 city council agenda certifying special assessments to Hennepin County. These resolutions provide for the following certifi- cation: 1. Resolution certifying special assessments for weed destruction. This is a one-year assessment at R% penalty. • 2. Resolution levying special assessments for nuisance abatement. This is a one-year assessment at no interest or penalty. 3. Resolution levying special assessments for abatement of diseased tree. This is the assessment roll for diseased tree removal on private property which has been performed by the city at the request of the property owner. The assessment is certified at the city's actual cost of the tree removal, less the amount of the city and state subsidy for which the removal qualifies. The subsidy provides for a maximum of $100 or 50% of the removal costs, whichever is less, per tree. This abatement is spread over three years at the rate of 8% per annum. It is recommended that the city council adopt the resolutions certifying these special assessments. Respectfully submitted, ~' Karl Nollenberger City I~lanager KN/sh cc: Finance Coordinator RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR WEED DESTRUCTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the following described properties are hereby specially assessed in the following amounts for expenses incurred by the City in connection with abatement for weed destruction pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, 1969, Chapter 715, Sec. 17.271. to wit: PROPERTY ID .DIVISION N0. ADDRESS AMOUNT 26-028-24-12-0152 45225 6208 13th Ave. So. $ 40.00 25-028-24-24-0031 45880 6520 Standish Ave. 30.00 25-028-24-24-0030 45880 6524 Standish Ave. 20.00 25-028-24-24-0029 45880 6528 .Standish Ave. 20.00 34-028-24-41-0059 44834 7434 4th-Ave.. So. 20.00 34-028-24-23-0133 45590 7320 Grand Ave. So. 45.00 35-028-24-44-0030 45314 1600. E 77th St. 60.00 26-028-24-44-0065 45197 6900 Cedar Ave. 65.00. 28-028-24-33-0159 46950 6941-45-55 Penn Ave.. 90.00 34-028-24-33-0011 44834 400 W 78th St. 50.00 440 00 2. That the above listed assessments be spread over a period of one year at the rate of 8% interest per annum. 3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this resolution to the. County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 14th day of September, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk • RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The following described properties are hereby specially assessed in the following amounts for expenses incurred .by the City in connection with abatement of a nuisance health hazard pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 145.23, to-wit:. PROPERTY ID DIVISION N0. ADDRESS AMOUNT 33-028-24-32-0042 44833 7515 Penn Ave. So. $ 28.00 27-028-24-32-0080 45740 6745 Harriet Ave. 40.00 34-028-24-41-0059 44834 7434 4th Ave. So. 60.00 34-028-24-23-0133 45590 7320 Grand Ave. So. 100.00 25-028-24-21-0012 45880 6320 22nd Ave. So. 20.00 35-028-24-22-0060 44835 619 E 70th St. 50.00 26-028-24-34-0119 44985 6919 -21 Chicago Ave. 30.00 328.00 2. The above special assessments are to be spread over one year at no interest. 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 14th day of September, 198.1. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk ,.RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR ABATEMENT OF DISEASED TREES. WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 4.11 establishes rules and regulations with reference to the abatement of diseased trees on private property in the City of Richfield by tree removal, and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 429.101 provides that all unpaid or special charges for such tree removal may be certified to the County-Auditor with the taxes against such property, and shall be collected with other taxes on such property, and WHEREAS, an assessment roll has been prepared specifying the amounts which shall be certified against each particular property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. That the following described properties are hereby specially assessed in the following amounts for expenses incurred by the city in connection with abatement or removal of diseased trees pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.101: PROPERTY ID ADDITION COIIE NO ADDRESS AMOUNT 26-028-24-43-0079 46270 6915 12th Ave.. So. $ 92.22 34-028-24-42-0049 45890 7400 1st Ave. So. 145.53 • 27-028-24-22-0056 45650 6236 Pleasant Ave, 64.28 28-028-24-42-0048 45085 6609 Humboldt. Ave. 57.99 29-028-24-42-0084 46790 6724 Washburn Ave, 77.53 27-028-24-43-0:073 46290 6921 Nicollet Ave.. 253.11 32-028-24-14-0015 45565 7239 Queen Ave. 76.12 28-028-24-33-0032 46792 6827 Oliver Ave 71.14 29-028-24-44-0005 44829 6845 Queen Ave. 614.28 25-028-24-23-0089 45880 6416 19th Ave. 298.06 25-028-24-24-0107 45880 6440 2.3 rd Ave. 538.38 33-028-24-14-0120 .46470 7124 Oak Grove 727.08 29-028-24-11-0065 45675 6335 Russell Ave. 14b.81 33-028-24-14-010 3 46970 7234 Bryant Ave. 267.20 32-028-24-13-0011 45566 7245 Upton Ave. 93.27 26-028-24-31-0036 46750 6638 10th Ave. 146.20 27-028-24-13-0045 46830 6438 Stevens Ave. 146.20 26-028-24-33-0057 45256 6909 Oakland Ave. 98.31 33-028-24-41-0049 45605 7444 Bryant Ave. 146.20 26-028-24-41-0081 46910 6708 18th Ave. 93.27 Total 54,153.18 2. That the above listed assessments be spread over a period of three years at the rate of 8% interest per annum. 3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a -2~ copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Passed by the City Council of the ..City of Richfield, Minnesota,-this 14th day of September, 1981. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh. City Clerk Donald J. Priebe -Mayor ~ a, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 315 Agenda September 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council DZembers: Subject: Presentation to the Public Safety Department By Richfield American Legion Post No. 435 Mr. Larry Meck, Manager and Mr. George Lais, Commander of American Legion Post 435, have requested an opportunity to appear before the Richfield City Counci]. o.n September 14, 1981 to present a donation in the amount of $500 to the Public Safety Department. This donation is to be used for the purchase of a recusitator for that department. This presentation has been placed on the September 14, 1981 city council agenda. Respectfully submitted, / r~ ~~ r1 Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Public Safety Director KN/eja i ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 314 Agenda September 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council bTembers: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Second Mortgage Position on Housing for Moderate Income Families. Second Reading. At the August 24, 1981 city council meeting, the city council gave first reading to an ordinance amendment which would permit the HRA to place a second mortgage on property it sells to moder- ate income families when utilizing FHA Section 235 subsidized housing program. Both HUD and the Richfield HRA are pursuing programs to recover their subsidy when the initial buyer receiving the subsidy, sells the property. By imposing a second mortgage on the property, the HRA can recover its subsidy or writedown at the time of resale, A copy of the proposed ordinance amendment is attached to this council letter and has been placed on the September 14, 1981 city council agenda for council action. Respectfully submitted, i` Karl Nollenberger City P~ianager cc: Community Development Director Housing and Redevelopment Coordinator Kr1,l e j a TRANSITORY ORDINANCE N0. 16 • AN ORDINANCE DIRECTING THE RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LIENS AS SECONDARY City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1. Statement of Policy. The City of Richfield has from time to time loaned monies and sold real property to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Richfield for the purpose of assisting it in carrying out its redevel- opment activities within the City of Richfield; and anticipates that it will continue to do so in the future. As a result, the City is desirous that the Authority be able to obtain sufficient security to assure the repayment of such loans. Section 2. Direction to HRA. The City of Richfield requires that, consistent with Federal law, all repayment notes and mortgage deeds executed in favor of the Authority, involving Federal Housing Administration Section 235 insured mortgages, be designated as second liens which will be junior to the Federally insured mortgage but senior to any FHA recapture note and mortgage deed. Section 3. Transactions Effected. This ordinance shall be applicable to all HRA sales on which the closings are pending as of the effective date of this ordinance. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, D4innesota, this day of 1981. Donald Priebe, ~Zayor ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk __ _ __ ___ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Dzanager ~ /J Council Letter No. 313 Agenda September 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Dlembers: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Public Bathhouses. Second Reading. At the July 27, 1981 city council meeting, the city council gave first reading consideration to an ordinance amendment which would regulate public bathhouses. Second reading of this ordin- ance amendment was scheduled for the August 24, 1981 city council meeting, but because there were changes in the proposed ordinance, second reading consideration was continued to the September 14, 1981 city council meeting. A copy of the proposed ordinance is attached to this council letter and has been placed on the September 14, 1981 city council agenda for council action. r^~ `~,~.~'~ ~v ~M` Respectfully submitted, 1U% rtiu~,~ :LC;:-~,~~ Karl Iv'ollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director Public Safety Director City Attorney City Planner •. 4 n ° AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER V, PART II AND APPENDIX D • OF THE ORDINANCE CODE. OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: I. Chapter V, Part LI of the Ordinance Code of the City regu- lating certain recreational activities is hereby amended by adding thereto the following new Section 5.261 to read as follows: "5.261. Regulation of Public Baths. Subdivision 1. Definitions. As used in this ordinance, the terms defined in this subdivision shall. have the meanings ascribed to them: (1) "Bath" means a container or receptacle designed to hold water and in which the human body may be entirely or partially immersed for the purpose of bathing, `~ cleaning, or relaxing. The term does not include a sauna as defined in Section 5.25 of the Code. The term does not include any device which is being used under the direction of a doctor, chiropractor, nurse or licensed physical therapist for the purpose of physical therapy.. (2) "Public Bath° means a facility open to the public or operated as a club where, for a consideration. one may use a bath. The term public bath does not include baths located at primary or secondary schools. Subdivision 2. License Required. (1) It is found and determined that the type of business activity subject to licensure under this section is particularly .subject. to abuse which may take a number of forms contrary to the morals., health, safety and general welfare of the community. Further, it is .found that control of these abuses requires intensive efforts of the public safety. department as well as other departments of the city. These efforts may exceed those which are required to control and. to regulate other business activities licensed by the city. This concentrated use of city services tends to detract from and reduce the level of service available to the rest of the community and thereby diminishes the ability of the city to promote the general health, welfare, morals and safety of the community. The number of public bath licenses which may be in force at any one time shall be one. • (2) No person shall operate or engage in the business of operating a public bath exclusively or as a substantial part of a business enterprise without being licensed as . provided in this section. (3) No person shall hold out any establishment as providing public bath services unless such establishment is licensed as provided in this section. Subdivision 3. Contents of Application. Application for a license shall be made only on forms provided by the city manager. The application shall contain a description of the property to be used,. the names and addresses of the owner,: lessee, if any, and the operator or manager, the names, residences and addresses of two persons, residents of Hennepin County, who may be referenced to as the appli- cant's, the manager's or operator's character, whether the applicant, manager or operator has ever been convicted of a crime or offense other than a traffic offense, and if so, information as to the time, place and nature of such crime or offense; and such other information as the. city manager may require. If the application is made on behalf of a cor- poration or a partnership, it shall submit along with its applications, its business records showing the names and addresses of all individuals having an interest in the busi- ness, and, in the-case of a corporation, the names and addresses of the officers. The application shall describe the manner in which the premises will be furnished and the equipment available for use by patrons. All applicants shall furnish to the city, along with their application, documents establishing the applicant's interest in the premises on which-the business will be located. Documenta- tion shall be in the form of a lease, a deed, a contract for deed or any other document which establishes the applicant's interest. Subdivision 4. License Fees and License Year. (1) D of this cation is or in the cancelled fee shall action. The annual Code. The filed. In event that suspended be returne license fee is as provided in Appendix license fee shall be paid when the appli- the event that the application is denied the license once issued is revoked,- orsurrendered, no part of the annual 3 to the applicant. unless by council (2) At the time of each original application for a license, the applicant shall also pay a minimum invest- igating fee. This minimum fee shall be as provided in Appendix D of this Code. Lf the expenses of the invest- igation relating to any application exceed the minimum investigating. fee, the city shall notify the applicant of this fact and shall require the applicant to pay such additional investigating fees as the City Manager deems necessary to complete its investigating of the applicant. 2. ~• The applicant shall pay such. an additional investigating fee within five (5) days of being so notified. If such additional investigating fee is riot paid within such five- . day period, the city shall discontinue consideration of the application. (3) A separate license-shall be obtained for each place of business. The licensee shall display the license- in a prominent place in the licensed business at all times. A license, unless revoked or surrendered, is for the calendar year or part thereof, for which it has been issued. Subdivision 5. Granting or Denial of Licenses. License applications shall be reviewed by the public safety department, community development department,. and. such other departments as the city manager shall deem necessary. The review shall include any inspection of the premises covered by the application by the inspection division and fire division to determine whether the premises conforms. to all applicable code requirements. Recommendations shall be made in writing to the city manager. Thereafter, licenses shall be granted or denied by the city manager subject to the provisions of this section. The applicant .may appeal to the city council from the manager's. decision. Subdivision 6. Conditions Governing Issuance. (1) No license shall be issued if the applicant or any of its owners, managers, employees or agents is a person of bad repute. (2) Licenses shall be issued only if the applicant and all of its owners, managers, employees and .agents are free of convictions for offenses which involve moral turpitude or which relate directly to such person's ability, capacity or fitness to perform the duties and discharge the responsibilities of the licensed activity. (3) Licenses shall be issued only to applicants who have not, within one year prior to the date of appli- cation, been denied licensure; or who have not within such period had their license revoked. (4) Licenses shall be issued only to applicants who have provided, fully, all of the information requested in the application., have paid the full license fee, together with all other fees required, and have cooperated with the city in review of the application. (5) If the applicant is a natural person, a license shall be granted only if such person is 18 years of age or older. 3. (.6) Licenses may be granted only for locations in the general commercial districts. A license shall not be granted for any property which. abuts upon property located within a residential district. Properties shall be deemed to abut if they are separated only by a public alley, but not if they are separated by a public street. (7) Licenses shall be granted.only to establishments which meet all applicable code requirements of the city and which have obtained a special use permit pursuant to Section 3.33 of this Code. (8)- A license shall not be granted if granting the license (a) would be inconsistent with the comprehensive development plans of the city, or (b) would otherwise have a detrimental effect upon other property or proper- ties in the vicinity. Subdivision 7. Restrictions and Regulations.. (1) The licensee and the persons in its employ shall comply with all applicable regulations and laws of the city .and state relating to safety and morals. (2) If the licensee is a partnership or a torpor- ation, the applicant shall designate a person to be manager and in responsible charge of the business. Such a person shall remain responsible for the conduct of the business until another suitable person has been designated in writing by the licensee. The licensee shall promptly notify the public safety department in writing of any such change indicating the name and address of the new manager and the effective date of such change. (3) The licensee shall furnish the public safety department with a list of current employees indicating their names, addresses and dates of birth. The licensee shall promptly notify the public safety department of any change in .the list. (4) The licensed premises shall be closed at 10:00 p.m. each day and shall not open until 9:00 a.m. on week days or until 12:00 noon on Sundays. (5) .The licensee shall permit and allow the inspec- tion of the premises during business hours by all appropriate city employees. (6) Upon demand by any police officer any person employed in any licensed premises shall identify himself by giving his true legal name and date of birth and his correct address. 4. • (.7) No person under 18 years of age shall be employed in an establishment requiring a license under. the pro- visions of this ordirianCe. (8) The licensee-shall take all necessary .steps to prevent the consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages and controlled substances on any part of the premises by either customers or employees. (.9) The licensee shall refuse to accept as a customer any person obviously under the influence of alcohol or drugs. (10) No person. shall be permitted to bathe nude or in a bath or in a room which is also occupied by a person of the opposite sex, including employees of the licensee. (11) No employee of the licensee shall be permitted to scrub, massage, wash, or apply lotion to any customer. (12)_ No part of the licensed premises may be used for sauna or massage activities as those terms are defined in Section 5.25 of this code. (13) The licensee shall have at least one person on the premises during business hours who holds a currently valid . CPR certificate from the American Red Cross or comparable organization. (14) The furnishings to be located on the premises or the equipment available for patrons shall not be modified from the descriptions contained in the application without the prior approval of the City. Subdivision 8. Construction and 1~iaintenance Require- ments. (1) All bathing rooms and all restrooms and bath- rooms used in connection therewith shall be constructed of materials which are impervious to moisture, bacteria, mold or fungus growth. The floor to_wall and wall joints shall be constructed to provide a sanitary cove with a minimum radius of one inch. (2) All restrooms shall be provided with mechanical ventilation with 2 cfm per square feet of floor area, a hand washing sink equipped with hot and cold running water under pressure, sanitary towels and a soap dispenser. (3) All rooms in the licensed premises including, but not limited to bathing rooms, restrooms, bathrooms, janitor's closet, hallways, and reception area shall be • 5. illuminated with not less than 30 foot candles of illum- ination. (4) Each establishment shall have a • janitor's. closet which shall provide for-the storage of cleaning supplies. Such closet shall have mechanical ventilation with 2 cfm per square foot of floor area. Such closet shall include a mop sink. (5) Floors, walls and equipment in bathing rooms and in restrooms and in bathrooms used in connection therewith must be kept in a state of good repair and clean at all times. Linens. and other materials shall be stored at least 12 inches off the floor. Clean towels and wash cloths must be madeavailable for each customer. (6) Individual lockers-shall be made available for use by patrons. Such lockers shall have separate keys for locking. (7) Such establishments shall provide adequate refuse receptacles which shall be emptied as required. - (8) The doors to the individual dressing and bath- ing rooms shall not be equipped with any locking device and shall not be blocked or obstructed from either side. (9) Baths shall be completely drained and cleaned • after each use. The water supply shall be from the city water system and shall be protected from cross-connections. (10) Materials used for the baths and bath shell shall be kept light colored, smooth, easily cleanable, and shall not be capable of cutting, pinching, puncturing or abrading the user. The shell shall be at all times maintained in a safe and sanitary manner. (11) The maximum bath depth .shall be 4 feet measured from the water line. (12) The maximum depth of any seat or sitting bench in the bath shall be 2 feet measured from the water line. (13) Each bath shall have at least one handrail. Steps or stairs shall be provided when depths are greater than 2 feet. (14) A deck shall extend around the bath at least 4 feet in width on at least 2 sides. The deck shall be slip resis- tant, free from hazards and drain properly. (15) The inlets and outlets must be designed to allow for uniform circulation. Outlets except skimmers, on pump suction shall be covered with suitable anti-vortex grates 6. • provides one of the following alternatives: (a) Two outlets whose ppe_diameter sizes are equal (this may be two outlet drains or an outlet. drain and a skimmer). The system shall be designed so that neither one of the two outlets can be cut out of the suction line by valve or other means. (b) Provide a grate of at least one square foot. (c) Provide other approved means that guard against outlet entrapment. (.I7) All overflows shall be handled in a sanitary and. safe manner. (18) The ph of the bath water shall be kept between 7.2 and 7.8. (19) The maximum temperature. of the bath water shall be 105 degrees Farenheit. A thermostatic control for the water shall be required. (20) A sign containing the following precautions shall be permanently located so as to be clearly visible from any bath: • 1. CAUTION Elderly persons and persons suffering from heart disease, diabetes, high or low blood pressure, should not enter the bath. 2. Unsupervised. use by children is prohibited. 3. Do not use while under the influence of alcohol, anticoagulants, antihistamines, vasoconstrictors, vasodilators, stimulants, hypnotics, narcotics or tranquilizers. 4. Observe a reasonable time limit, then shower, cool down, and if you wish, return for another brief stay. Long exposure may result in nausea, dizzi- ness or fainting. (21) No furniture which is designed for sleeping purposes shall be allowed on the licensed premises except a single first-aid and emergency cot. Subdivision 9. Liability Insurance. (1) Prior to the issuance of a public bathhouse license, the applicant shall file with the city clerk a 7. liability insurance. policy providing coverage of at least .$200,0.00 and $500,000. (2) The policy shall provide that no cancellation for any cause shall be made by either the insured or the insurer without first giving written .notice of .such cancellation to the city at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the cancellation. (3) The policy shall further provide that no pay- ment of any claim by the insurance company shall in any manner decrease the coverage provided for in respect to any other claim or claims brought against the insured or the insuring company. (4) The policy shall be subject to approval by the city attorney as to form and execution and shall be issued by companies who are duly licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota. The policy, when approved, shall be deposited with the-city clerk.- Subdivision 10. Revocation and Sus ensign 'of License. The .license may be revoked, suspended or not renewed by the city manager upon a showing that the licensee, its owners, managers, employees or agents have engaged in any of the following conduct: (1) Fraud, deception or misrepresentation in • connection with the securing of the license. (2) Habitual drunkeness or intemperance in the use of drugs including, but not limited to, the use of drugs defined in either 26 USC S 4731 or Minnesota. Statutes, Section 618.01, barbiturates, hallucinogenic drugs, amphetamines, benzedrine, dexedrine, or other sedatives, depressants, .stimulants, or tranquilizers. (3) Conduct inimical to the interests of the public health, safety, welfare or morals. (4) Engaging in conduct involving moral turpitude. (5) .Failure to fully comply with the requirements of Subdivisions 7 and 8 of this section. (6) Conviction of an offense involving moral turp- itude by any court of competent jurisdiction. (7) Engaging in any conduct which would constitute grounds for refusal to issue a license under Subdivision b of this section. (8) Failure to keep the insurance required. by • Subdivision 9 of this section in full force and effect. 8. - The licensee may appeal such suspension, revocation, or non-renewal to the city council. The council shall consider the appeal at the next regularly scheduled council meeting on or after 10 days from service of the notice of appeal upon the City Clerk by the certificate holder. Hearing on the appeal shall be open to the public and the licensee shall have the right to appear and be represented by legal counsel and to offer evidence in behalf of certification. At the conclusion of the hearing the council may order: (1) The revocation, suspension or non-renewal of the license. (2) That the revocation, suspension or non-renewal by the city manager be lifted and that the certificate be returned to the certificate holder. (3) The city council may base either suspension or issuance of the certificate upon any additional terms, conditions and stipulations which they may in their sole discretion impose. • Subdivision 11. Every person who commits or attempts to commit, conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of, any act constituting a violation of this ordinance, whether individually or in connection with on.e or more other persons or as principal, agent, or accessory, shall be guilty of such offense, and every person who falsely, fraudulently, forcibly or willfully induces, causes, coerces, requires, permits or directs another to violate any of the provisions of this ordinance, is like- wise guilty of such offense." II. Appendix D, Section 5 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield establishing fees for various licensed activities is hereby amended in the following respects: A. The following new paragraph (11) is inserted after the existing paragraph (10): "(11) Public Baths Investigation Fee 5.261 l yr. 5.261 Actual Cost, Minimum 1,500 1, 500" B. The Current paragraph (11) is hereby renumbered (12). Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1981. ATTEST Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk Donald Priebe, ^~iayor 9. .~ I ~ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 312 Agenda September 14, 1981 The Honorable Alayor and I~Zembers of the City Council City of Richf field Council ~~iembers: Subject: Request for Kennel License, 6309 12th Avenue h1s. Mary J. Verschoyle, 6309 12th Avenue has submitted an application for a kennel license at her residence for one dog and six cats. A report from the city's environmental health department is attached to this counc~_1_ letter. Several neighbors have expressed their opposition to the granting of a kennel license at this address. Copies of their correspondence is also attached to this council letter. Because . of the neighborhood opposition, Ms. Verschoyle has requested a tem- porary kennel license to December 1, 1981 so that she may have ad- equate time to relocate. This kennel license application has been placed on the September 14, 1981 city council agenda for council action. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Environmental FIealth Manager City Clerk f ` ~„ r, o ., - s . ;.~„Y+°'~y~+~4~5~'t'~i~.'~',~ . ~oao"r.~s 0 ~,,~ "=r`"'a~w, ~kx,~'a` ~. . w ~~ ,. The kennel and property at 6309 12th Avenue South was inspected and found to be satisfactory with the exception of items #4 and #11 listed below. Not alI abutting residents of said property approve of the residential kennel, as noted by the absense of one signature. F4 Aa ..C~~ a ~,. r .. F ~ ,U~y .Y 4 The applicant has submitted a statement which is attached to the application. ------------------------------------------------------------ Questions from the Kennel Inspection questionnaire: 3. Is the yard enclosed with a fence? -YES Is the fence in good repair? YES If the occupant has dogs, will the fence keep them on owner's prope~rt~f? Y~:S 4. Is garbage kept in metal garbage cans? PLASTIC BAGS 9 How many animals requiring licenses reside at this address? Dogs 1 Cats 6 10., Give breed and sex of animals: 6 CATS: 1 PAALE, NEUTERED - S FEMALE 1 DOG btALE 11. Was food in open dish and available outdoors for pet at all times? YES 12. Are pets kept for breeding purposes? NO 13. How many pets were licensed last year? 4 CATS - 1 DOG 14. How are pets exercised (areawise)? YARD AND HOUSE 15. Are there unpleasant odors present? NO 16. Date: August 6, 1981 August 5, 1981 City Council Richfieid, Minnesota Dear Council Members; Until recently I was completely unaware of a city ordinance requiring a Residential Kennel License for more than three pets. i presently have one dog, six full grown cats, and two kittens which I plan. to keep. ( am clearly in violation of the ordinance. I have attempted to comply with Residential Kennel Licensing by asking for the written consent of my immediate neighbors, as indicated on the application to rm. One neighbor had no objections, indeed did not know I even have one cat, but two others have refused consent because of the cats. I have just recently learned that there are objections to the cats from ,more distant neighbors, was surprised to hear this, for no one has ever complained directly to me about my cats, and there are no complaints on `record-from neighbors at com- munity services. Only one of my cats goes outside regularly, two go out occasi- onally, and the rest never go out at all. My home is clean and orderly and does not carry an odor. There are three litter boxes which are changed daily. The refuse is double-bagged and collected weekly by a sanitary service. The cats have dry food-.and water .available at all times and are fed eight to ten cans of cat food daily. I have special arrangements with a neighbor to let the dog out- side at least once midday. 1 have no doubt that my home would pass a health inspection. None the less, in view of the objections, I must anticipate the council will refuse a regular Residential Kennel License. All members of my "family" are equally loved and equally well cared for. It would be impossible to decide which cat would go and which would stay. Therefore, I am looking fora new home in the country for al) of us, and I plan to move just as soon as possible. Despite the fact that I have been a Richfield resident by choice since 1967 and my parents fifteen years before that, that I have traded with local merchants for years, that Richfield is a pleasant and convenient location for my business and social activities, and despite the fact that a move is a physical and a fin- ancial hardship, a change of residence does seem the only solution satisfactory to all concerned. I would like to be moved and settled by October 1, 1981, at the latest as fall is my most active business season. I have two realtors helping me look, but it will undoubtedly take a little time to find a suitable place. -2- I therefore respectfully request the Council consider approving a temporary. Residential Kennel License to give me time to find a new home. My adjacent neighbors, who do oppose a regular Residential Kennel License, have no objection to a temporary License valid no longer than December 1, 1981. Attached to the date amended Kennel License application are notes from each of them to that effect. .These past two years I have bought animal Licenses for the dog and more than two cats. No information about an ordiance limiting animal numbers, nor a Kennel License was ever given. to me at City Hall. Had I known, l would have complied. Perhaps the Council will also consider some way to distribute such information in the future so that other Richfield citizens are not forced to suffer the same shock and pain that l have. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, ~~~ Mary Joel Verschoyle 6309 12th Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota ~ ~ , ~~ 4 / ~~J /~{ lLL ~ ~ ~G(~, ~~ ~ ~yyLJLIrL~'l~ ~V'v~ , ~/j~, ~~J/~~J ~" L ~ Z~ ~ ~~~ . V ~ / `~~ r / u~~,r~~ / ~y ,~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ /~~ ~ ~1~~' '7 ~Th . i 4 y `:G/ ~c/ice--z~ .~C-.~i-~-~C'.-~t,'6-=--~--°I~-L.~`'"~ -2-/~y_ I J ~li(i2-' ~jC~~--•-C' -c~-!C~-'~~y~-~--~C=`~'-~-:--j '~-'/ Lt..iC.: ~L/ -/JC _--- .. _ ~~ ~ ,~-~ ,- ,-lam ~ __ _ _ J ~~ ~ - --- ---- - ~. -, ~, ,~~ ~~ ~~ ~~--~--- :~jJ , ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ _--t i ----_. f,. ~, ~~~x~ ~ ~~ C.~ ~-'~--' _ in /, ~~~ ~~ F /~~• /7 /,j 1 ~ /~ r • WOODLAKE LUTHERAN CHURCH From the desk of.' Marilyn Erickson Financial Secretary ,e:~: ~.~, .c=:~ l~ ~.~~-sue ~ ,~ L lam: ~~"'"~ 1~~~.~L a~~''~ ;- `~'. ~~..~ ~~~ ° ,x,: i!. ~-- ~; ~-z.~ ~--- ,`.-cwt .~~!r~t-~1- ,L -~ "~`~ yam- ~ _/ l-~''~ ~-_~~.~c'*-nom -~~~ 6'-~' `` `-` J ~..G;~.-r_---- f-7 G~ ~~ ,Qti ~ -_. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager e Council Letter No. 311 Agenda September 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Planned Unit Development Proposal: rZultiple Family Development - Multi-Family Site L/H/N Redevelopment Project Area Knutson Independent Living Centers, applicant for the devel- opment of the multi-family site in the L/H/N redevelopment project area, has requested that the preliminary PUD hearing scheduled for September 14, 1981, be continued until the September 28, 1981 city council meeting. Legal notices were published for this hearing; therefore, the • city council should z.ontinue this item until the September 28, 1931 city council meeting. ectfully submitted, Res p ~~n_-Y_ 1~~k-~-~.~aC_Zcsa-~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja • -T-~ ~ .~J • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 310 Agenda September 14, 1981 The Honorable I~layor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Charter Amendments There are two matters which would involve amendments to the Richfield City Charter which are scheduled for discussion on the September 14, 1981 city council agenda. The intent of the discussion is for the city council to review the two proposed charter amendments and to refer them to the charter commission for their consideration and recommendation back to the council. Both of the charter amendments are essentially of a housekeeping nature and are intended to clarify language which exists in the present charter. • The first charter amendment deals with time consideration related to filing of nominating petitions by candidates for elective municipal office. The charter currently indicates that "the name of any registered voter of the city shall be printed upon the ballot as a candidate for an office whenever a petition signed by at least ten registered voters has been filed with the city clerk in his behalf at least four weeks before the municipal primary election date provided in Section 4.02." The state law governing municipal elections indicates that "not more than six nor less than four weeks before the primary election, or before the municipal election if there is no primary election, any person eligible and desiring to have his name placed on the official ballot as a candidate for an office to be voted for at the election shall file his affidavit of candidacy with the municipal clerk." ,The state law conflicts with the city charter in that the timing for filing of petitions is very specific, between six weeks and four weeks prior to the election. For that reason, it would seem appropriate to bring the city charter into conform- ation with the state law. The city attorney has drafted a charter amendment ordinance which would do exactly that by eliminatinq the "at least" and inserting "not more than six nor less than" in the above language, quoted from the charter. The purpose of the amendment would indicate that the filing with the city clerk would have to take place "not more than six nor less than four weeks before the municipal primary election." Council Letter No. 310 -2- September 14, 1981 The second charter amendment relates to the status of the • Public Safety Director in relation to the Civil Service. This matter would be an insertion on the city manager's appointment powers under Section 6.02, subdivision 3. Subdivision 3 now reads, "he shall appoint and remove upon the basis of merit and fitness and subject to applicable civil service provisions if any, city clerk, all heads of departments and all subordinate employees in the department." The proposed addition to the charter would read as follows: "the Director of Public Safety, having administrative and supervisory control over the police and fire divisions of the Department of Public Safety, is not under the jurisdiction of the police and fire civil service commission of the city." It is suggested that this language be added to the charter in order to clarify any consideration of the Director of Public Safety position and its applicability to civil service for the future. While we do not consider the existent Director of Public Safety a civil service employee, some dispute could be made of that matter under the existing state law. This amendment would clarify the status of that position for the future in the event any problem arose. It is recommended that the city council refer both charter arlendments to the Charter Commission with the recommendation that they be analyzed and considered fairly by the corrullission. Respectfully submitted, i • t ;~..::. ~~<. ~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Public Safety Administrative City Clerk City Attorney Director Services Director • CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE NO. CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE RELATING TO NOMINATIONS FOR CITY ELECTIVE OFFICES, AMENDING SECTION SECTION 4.04 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER. CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 4..04 of the City. Charter of the. City of Richfield relating to the nominations of candidates for City elective offices is hereby amended to .provide as follows: "Section `4.04. Nominations by Petition. All candi- dates for elective office provided for by this charter shall be nominated by petition. The name of any registered voter `- '~~- of the city shall be printed upon the ballot as a candidate ~~ for an office whenever a petition signed by at least ten registered voters has been filed with the city clerk in his behalf at-east not more than six nor less than four weeks • before the municipal primary election date provided in Section 4.02. No registered voter shall sign petitions for more candidates-for any office than the number of persons to be chosen for that office at the election; should he do so, his signature shall be void as to the petition or petitions. last filed. Each petition presented shall be accompanied by a five dollar ($5.00) filing fee. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance is effective ninety (90) days after its publication, subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 410.12, Subdivision 7. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1981. Mayor ATTEST: City-Clerk CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE N0. An Ordinance Amending Section 6.02, Subdivision 3, of the Richfield City Charter, Defining he Status of the Director of Public Safety in Relation to Civil Service. CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 6.02, Subdivision 3, of the City Charter of the City of Richfield, is amended to read: • "Sub. 3. He shall appoint and remove, upon the basis'of merit and fitness and subject to applicable civil service provisions, if any, the city clerk, all heads of departments and all subordinate officers and employees in the departments. The director of public safety, having administrative and supervisory control over the po ice and fire divisions of the Department of Public Safety, is not under the jurisdiction of the police and fire civil service commission of the city.. Appointment or removal of department heads. shah be made final only upon a majority vote of the council." Section 2. Subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section • 410.12, Subdivision 7, this ordinance is effective 90 days after its passage and publication. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 309 Agenda September 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and P~lembers of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 7001 Harriet Avenue South PROPOSAL Robert Collison and Lowell Larson, representing Independent School District 280, have submitted a request for a variance to allow the construction of an 8' x 18.5' scoreboard. 2' x 18.5' of the proposed scoreboard would be reserved for advertising. The proposed scoreboard would replace the existing sign at the south end of the football field at Richfield Senior High School. ~ ~ The property is zoned "R," single family residential. ~' The applicants have not remitted the variance fee, -1 7 approximately $85, and are requesting a waiver of the fee ~ ~ requirement by the city council. ~ ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.36, subdivision 1 of the zoning ordiannce regulates advertising signs in "R" districts. This ordinance limits outdoor advertising signs to non-illuminating or non- reflecting signs not exceeding 10 square feet in area. Section 3.40, subdivision 6, lists three conditions which must be met before a variance may be granted. STAFF REVIEW The staff reviewed the request against the three conditions which must be present before a variance is granted, and found the following: 1. Because the activities, because the sufficientl staff feels surrounding property is used for school related during a limited part of the year, and proposed location of the sign will be y buffered from surrounding land uses, the that there are special conditions on the site. Council Letter No. 309 -2- 2. Denial of this application will not • use of this property. However, the integral part of the athletic facil denial of the variance may restrict use of the athletic field. September 14, 1981 preclude existing scoreboard is an ity, and therefore reasonable proper 3. The illumination of the scoreboard is restricted to the statistical information displayed. The advertisements will not be illuminated. The proposal will be an improvement to the property and should not pose any hazard to the public welfare. The scoreboard would be positioned at the south end of the football field, facing north. The entire length of the athletic field, tennis courts and West 70th Street would serve as a buffer to the residential uses north of the site. The remaining uses adjacent to the site would not be affected. However, a resident south of the site has expressed concerns regarding the aesthetics of the scoreboard. This letter is attached for your review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because the proposal does meet the three conditions for granting variances, the staff recommends approval of this request and waiver of the fee with the following stipulations; • 1. That the advertising be limited to an area 2 feet by 18.5 feet and that it not be illuminated. 2. That the permitted advertising be limited to the front of the scoreboard only. PLANNING COMi~'IISSIOIv RECOM!~iENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of this application. Respectfully submitted, '~ ~, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner RlCHFfELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 280 7001 Hamlet Avenue South Richflein, Minnesota 55123 Telephone (612) 861-8201 • LO`~/ELL D. CARSON, Superintentlent June 18, 1981 Dtr. Rick Jopke Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, bfinnesota 55423 Dear Rick: It is the intent of Richfield Public Schools to replace the scoreboard on the High School athletic field. LVe would also like to add a 2'X18'6" sign across the top of the scoreboard and sell the advertising in order to pay for the scoreboard. The sign would be at the south end of the field in the same location as the present scoreboard. The field is quite sheltered from 70th Street, particularly in the fall and spring when the tennis screens are up, so the sign would not be seen outside of the stadium. The • board would be approximately 8' from ground level and extend 13'3" above that point. The school district requests approval for the replacement of the scoreboard with the addition of the advertising panel and waiving of the variance fee by the City Colulcil. Thank you for your consideration of this variance request. Since ely, U ' 12ob~°rt Collison :\thlctic Director RC: jm ;:,;.~ .~ z~ ;~ 1 C ~ i __._~ ~ ~~ _ ~,;, I ''; i; , ; ~E (~ I '. i I _~ ~~ ~~ ~~. . ~ -. ,~ ;t . ~~o~ebc„g.4d - s~~n, o~ ~~ I r ~'~ '~" ~~ . -~ _~_ _ ~ , ,~ ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 308 Agenda September 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 6501 Penn Avenue South PROPOSAL Nir. Charles Haglund, representing Auto Machine & Supply, has submitted a request for a variance to reduce the required 25 foot rear yard setback to nine feet 11 inches. The variance will allow the construction of an 18' x 32' addition to the existing structure. The proposed addition will house a garage (service bay) to be used for repairing automobiles and trucks. The property, located at 6501 Penn Avenue South, is zoned "I," Industrial. • STAFF FINDINGS Z'he 131.91' x 189.0' lot has an area of 24,929.1 square feet. The property is bisected in a north/south direction by an approximate 9.4 foot difference in grade. The front half of the lot along Penn Avenue is 9.4 feet higher than the back half of the lct and is used for retail sales of auto supplies and off-street parking. The off-street parking area is not striped. The rear, or east, half of the lot is used for storage of materials and automotive repair. The applicant property abuts property which is zoned "r1R" to the east. A six-foot solid redwood fence has been constructed on the rear property line for screening purposes. This fence is in disrepair. The northerly lot on Oliver Avenue, immediately east of the proposed addition, is presently vacant. The staff has been contacted by an abutting property owner who expressed strong concerns regarding the dilapidated fence, outside storage of equipment, late hours of operation and noise. ~~ Council Letter No. 307 -2- September 14, 1981 ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.34, subdivision 5 of the zoning ordinance lists rear yard requirements for property in "I," Industrial districts. Section 3.34, subdivision 3 prohibits offensive uses by reason of noise or manner of operation. Section 3.40, subdivision 3 lists three conditions which must be met before a variance may be granted. STAFF REVIEW 'l~he staff reviewed the request against the three conditions which must be present before a variance is granted and found the following: 1. This lot is not similar to other lots in this district in that the property is bisected in a north/south direction by an approximate 9.4 foot difference in grade The staff feels that this is a special condition. 2. Denial of this application will not preclude reasonable use of the property. Alternative locations for con- structing additional space on the site do exist which would not require any variances. 3. The proposed addition is an improvement to the applicant's property. However, the addition, which will be a service bay for trucks, will intensify the use of the property, • and therefore intensify the nuisances associated with the principle use. Such nuisances as noise, odor and improper screening may intensify as a result of the proposed addition. The staff feels that any objectional or offensive nuisances could be minimized. To ensure that the proposal will not adversely affect persons or property in the neighborhood, the fence on the east property line could be repaired and repainted for effective screening, and debris and rubbish could be stored in or near a designated trash bin. The noise levels are restricted by the recently adopted noise ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Fsecause the proposal did not meet all three conditions for granting variances, the staff must recommend denial of the requested variance. Should the city council approve of this application, the staff recommends the following stipulations: 1. That the applicant repair the fence on the east property line to good condition. 2. That the applicant enter into and execute an off-street parking contract to provide for a safe and orderly flow of traffic to and from the property. Council Letter No. 307.. -3- September 14, 1981 3. That the applicant maintain and keep the property free • from debris and offensive odors. 4. That a designated trash enclosure be constructed to be approved by the Environmental Health r~'lanager. PLANNING COMMISSION RECODTMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance request with the following stipulations: 1. That the applicant repair the fence on the east property line to good condition. 2. That the applicant maintain and keep the property free from debris and offensive odors. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director • City Planner Public Safety Director BIG +~~ 6501 PENN AVENUE SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55423 • PHONE: 861-4475: t, r « ~~1 /L ~ l.:~i'C_ !~i ./~..L.~2i~f-Cl~~1rC_tL 4 /~2L ~ „ I a~ y ,iC-~~-G.- ~ "" ~ 7 - - ,/ / } / ~//.G. /mot-'!? f/ /1 ^-".PLC- ~Y-G.LC.s--ye-~ ~~f_it.~.f.~~y~ / ~~" "' ~ r/ }~iw.~-lam ' ~~ C(_ It!L f f-f ~e f G' , ~ ~ ~.CG2 /~~tzc-L .~.~ .~.u-~~e~~ ,.~2~~ ,,~i.~zr~-~t.~.o-r F' ~%yi-~~~,~ ~~ ~/u -a. ' ~~¢n/Ay~ iL~.l~/U lCi7. LX~ (/ _ ~h,!~F~E.. ,.T~ue:. ..a"1-.~CGlGG.~'--~^T:J. ..~. ~-"GYLsZ..:~i. e~-~~il ~ i ,!! ~r ~.c~-G.~~~1t~fc~L~.-t~ ..i~jQtt-ti2,[-,i'L~ G:.tliL:lJ !~-t2 Iz i ~. ~..~-Glz.a.~. y-fL~ `•~c., Wiz, y //<~?t~ .l-=~~l=aX i ~t'2' ~sl.f ~ca~.:6, ~:s~/l. ~.G(1~ s~~~'Gf ~'~~' .l S C~~/~l~l/ / am{ i c • u7~i~ L~.l1~r~ ~~~F- ~. / ,ffz.-- ~r.,~, r..-/ ~-`. ~f c~~G~~ ~ti u-u~~ti ~ ~ ~1 ~~rn~ !mot-!~i ~ / ~ ~ ddd a''~~ i ~ ..~~ - ;~. ~ • M ~ ~ `'NrEaQ ~- (MC011-O•AT~D .~~ .. . REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF FOR PURPOSE OF_ ~D~l ?7 e n / D ) ~ Legal Description: We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate. adjoining land as above described, do hereby concur with the variance as requested. Signature of O~:ners Address Leal Desc:-iDtion .`l ~~y .. i i i - ---- - - I ~ - - - - L_ . -.. 0 I .:.f .~~ .. WI 1 a ~ ~. ~~ e 5 -•~ - ~ -~ _._ s 201 ~~ LJ '7: y - ©' ;_ ~ _, 5 J I~° - I$ - 19 • ~' 20. r~~~" .._ --1 U' 21~ 250 J _~-- :~1 ~ 1 -'to Iw_~.. > , ~y _ ~ . ~..~ _J 3~ 2 ~I s li, 7 8 Z 201 1"v---Ob -~OG~ > . a 1 -~J ~ ` ~~ Iii . s "~ --~ _ _ ~ I~ 2 L ~ ~~ o z+.o ~ / o°a°o°c` O°O O°O % ~ - oooc ~°O O°O O ~ ~;; ,}O°°o°o°o ~a°OOOC ~~~ °O°C°O°C -{;oooc~ ~ n0o 0 o°i ~,A000o ~ n o°°°ooc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 o°°° ~ ooooo o~ o ~°p ~~ .- -~~'~~: . 2 i rS -~T-O G 72 a ,, - -- -' ~ LU . I - ~-- I IW _~ W~ ZONING MAP - -~" 23 z °~~1 ' 23 z-= --~ ~ ~ 3 ~~ ~~sa 22 - ~ ,,.. 115--- ® GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ;s °°ooo "r ° 0 0 00° GENERAL. COMMERCIAL ~~ , _. ~ t 0 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL !9 a _ ~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RES~DENTIAL~ _ ~1.~ ,il 20 i ~-~ - 19 ~_ P -' 18 3 U ss~~ 17 I 4(~ H zi ~~? 16 5 n~o iJ z5~, 15 s _ ~~4 7~J 14 7 n zs lug j,~~ _ l_~ _ I3 _ 8 -Dsa ,~,~ - !~--I 12 r. _,~~w 'y u i 1 10 ' . a~ V~ tot ^ ~•. - --- - --r- - - :'~ ~' U '17 ~ 2 '~' 1 t6 3 !..J r_~~l _ 111 I ~ _ 1 ~._ _ ^ _ ,• -J --_ I-~ ~ , J ~ - 1 ('.'` L; Y ,~ Y~ ~~ ~' b"~ 2'J 1 os a 19 2 u 0 18 3 O ,sa 17 4 ~- va Is ,~ - ~ ~_ ~_ W `V i5 ;6 - --- ~9~j 14 ~7 -- ~ - ---1- ---- 3slu 13 i & --- -~-- syD 12 19 os ~- -1~ -- } .. .. 1 I ,10 18 It ~.~ I ~ z ~~ 1 I6 3 -- - - s~ ----15 4-- ~ r J~ t 3 • J - _. _- . ~ ' _yl 12 7 1 1 _ l 1 ~ 55 - ; ... ~ti ~~ ~~ . • • a I i ' 651,. r4~e. So. ~~ _o GR.A SS. 19-II" ~ - 69.19.30 ~ho4• - ' a 163:' _ 13f.91 t= ~ EusT R.v~FENCC~ I(ey.3 c 165aS ~ I ~ ~~^ ~ Y EXISTING o a o _ ~ [iUiLDINCn ~ i',,~,~ o y m i ~ I ~r F~. E~av. 16c.o ,, ~ W 1l1 ~ t 44! o, O N i i54 9 /• ~ ~ c~ a tS5 . I -i .3S r t8 -a i 6 z } j l a `_'---- I i -- --~ i V ~ W J r Z -~-8~ 1 ~ --Z--;~ ~I z - ~ - -~ ~? - - --! < W I ° 9 c LL i ~ ~ ~3_-_ K ~ 61 ----- CA = - --~ -o ~4 - --~1 ,;, 5 ~I ' ~ 16165 ~~^ ~ +153,'l5 ~bLtS ~ 16 - I y II j 17 13 I p N - -----+ 11 I a 3 / 16 , 10 Z i Isr ~ ~ j3' Z lip I I Z •Wi ~Qb I.~ I ~ ~~9 ~--J- i rr- I y °- et i4 I~ d 3 m_ I i a In. 1e ~~ ism - - ~ 1t w j - Fl.°oa:C(v: 156.0 i ---- -a ~I r--- I I t54.SS ~ X11 --- .I 1 - 1 -° cane ~ eNll"+y,9 ~ /151. i - 55 45= II' \ ~ ~ RCTAINiN4WAt1. q(,' - 4. ..-...__ _ _._. ~~{ I ~ ~ Ilsa.0 i 151.0 1 LAND AREA 251'10 S,F, h°+•e: 9enc~~hork ~~~m fr°^, ~l,t DI.DC, /i REA 4498 S,F G+y ~~ 2,-ch#ialc~ . TuP nut o~ LANO AReA CovERED- I'j.91 °~ Flungt. ~~ 4y~ro „} N.W, C1`uuc~ PARKtnG SPACES 23 65~" S{r, orb ~l-v erwN, EIE~: Ie3.o1 SERVICE ~RY ADDITION ~SOI ~ENr1 VENUE So i~IC+i1=1`LD, MINN. C. _ . O' RIC:.PIS n, Rich Field, I•?i^.^.eso~ D•~•~~_ t~:`r.t of : u • u ~ _ d ~~ _ ~l~c/c•;~rF~ 3uil ing Di'.:.sion u700 Poi ~l~^c ?venue So;:th (G12) Su9-7521 ~i ~ c~:s^cJ in aon_r.g ~a re.:uest °or variance Special lise Apartment Use Owner/ pplica: 1~~0~' (N 131 yZ. '"7~ rd,: r e s s --~~'-~~~ X1151/1 L-~F City ~[c~/' .~--r~r ~.~- Bus.. P':one For the proper~v or land loca`ed at: cc_ess ~Q/ -}~~i(f/J l~`, P1~* Parcel Se:'~;?i~.•ision: Sloe: Lot _ ~ `~- G°==°r3 nsio::s c= ~o ~ ( ~~ c'::_d . dl.,,e ~ : ~ ~er~y a a all necessary d~3~•'i nr'S, III~DS~ n • E::is ti^g use o= laid : ,~G,'~(i ~t~?~• --f- k~L i~'~rl 1? Ee:.sting zcning: ' E:•._ste::g bt:ilddr.cs? Procosed czanges in Yes - ~ No . -- u~= ~~r7r ~_ -- Prccosed c:-:a::7es in ~o^ing : ~~~/l~/- Va. 1a.^.CC L E~ ~eS _.=:~ . ~`" ~ ~.~IC~T^Vf~~~' _ADDlicar.ts S:;^LL~~._ ,~L~ ~ f~''- _~~ '~"~, 1'...c. ~~~i /~ / ~1"% ~ - , - _. ~~ ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 307 Agenda September 14, 1981 • The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, Avenue South PROPOSAL '70 0 ~ Lyndale bor. Wilbur Johnson, representing Oak Grove Lutheran Church, has submitted a request for a variance to allow the installation of a 4' x 8' non-illuminated sign. The proposed sign is to be located on the south portion of the church property, just north of 71st Street. The sign would indicate the name of_the church and hours of operation. The property is zoned "R," single family residential. _ - ~-~ ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.30, subdivision 2 of the zoning ordinance allows ,_ churches, including nameplates, in "R," single family res- idential districts by issuance of special use permits. --- ~~ . Section 3.36, subdivision 2, states that signs not exceeding 10 square feet in area are allowed in "R," single family _ residential districts. Section 3.40, subdivision 6, lists three conditions which must be met before a variance may _ be granted. STAFF REVIEW _. _ ..._ . ._. The staff reviewed the request against the three conditions which must be present before a variance is granted and found the following: - ~~ 1. Although this property is irregularly shaped, there are no special conditions affecting this property that require the granting of this variance. - _ 2. Denial of this variance will not preclude reasonable use of this property. A sign can be constructed - which conforms to the ordinance and requires no variances. 3. The proposed sign would be an improvement to the appli- cant's property. The sign location meets all setbac,c" requirements and should not pose any hazards to the public. Council Letter P~Io. 307 -2- September 14, 1981 STAFF RECOI~IT~IENDATION Eecause the proposal did not meet all three conditions for granting variances, the staff must recommend denial of the re- quested variance. Recognizing that the sign is not illuminated and within reasonable size considerations, the city manager recommends approval of the variance. PLANNING CO?II~IISSION RECODIMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance. Respectfully submitted, i Karl Nollenberger City manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner KN/eja REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OFSize of sign FOR PURPOSE OF_.erectin4 4' X 8' sign ,~ Legal Description: We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby. concur with the. variance as requested. Signature of Owners Address Legal Description . ,,... v ` y rygi~;~y§k` ~ Y.! K ~~ } f ~~~ f . t ~~F ~~, ~._> ~~ t . ~#, ~~~ ~_:,t ~~ , ~~{ ;, {zz 5 Yfs 5 (5+ A:. Y ~~~e_ .~ T- 1~~1 ` ., 6 ~ lip ~,~~ ~ ~~, .- ~~~1. ~'~ ~ ~~:~, /;-~ ~ ~~~.~ - - --- ~ ~ . - -_ ~ -- -- --- -- - - -- - h --- ----- --+ .. c ~ --- - ~/ a I~ J ~.. _ '' 6 _~ D ~ ~ ~ a s a 4 ,^C 3 ~. n , ., L,J N N N •. ~~ ~ ~ ~ -EtITION-_MAP 6.~,p p r Qz wf M ~ a ° 1~~ .~ 0 s.3 I sae ~ soi 8~~ 6r~-)-~ 603 '-T fw t 1 ~:i20 21 223 24 19~ t 223 24 ~~~~ c It ... 'p ~_. -~1 Y v 'z ~s~ :~. ~ ~` 5 . ~' 9 r O IO m N 11 : r r m : ~ 12 ~~ ~ g ''ww V r tom/ ~' '' ~~ ~. p 22, r _ . - 71st o ,~. o '= C1 I 2 t. ,~ - -~ 3 f N I 4 N N(; I 'l M ,n C] I 6 ~ n i ~ I I ~` l ~ Q ~.' ' . ~ R u. J Q C] Z ~~ J 7! s t ST '"~~"'~ i p~ ~ i~ 2 ~ O .:t::;:~;::;:::: ~~ --- - ~n r ~ r >~''~~' ~'~ 3 ~ ~ o ~! 22 3 r] ~ :~~•~ I ~- 5 a ~ _ ~ ~ w ~ - 2 5. ~ ~ - W >, Q a ~ i g (~ N Q N(~ 19 6 ;~ N ''' ' N ' 11 ~ N 1.1 N~ 1 `J.N _. 1 N ~J it M DN N~]. 1~ 8 - C M ~16 9 ~n n~. 16 9 Cn i 1 to +;~ ~ , I ~o - _ , 1 1 t ~.] + r X14 I i u F ~d 12 «~ ~~ 13 12 Q' r~ 2 I ~ f.~.~ ~ ( ,, 2 I Y r ~Y~y,.~: ~_Y4`, i;. ~~ -4.. `~~ 2,~~ ~Gi~6-ho~N a • D~M~ b1~OwN • ~' ~ Oak Crave l~th~ran church Arr~~an Lutheran Church :~ ~. ... •r ; 9 :0~ / 10 ~~ .9 ,.... s J - E~iu~ation Ho~ir~ : 9~~~ / 10 ~ 3 . .. ~ .. ., _ , ., ~, ._ 4 _. _. br.... ,. .. ,.. t - . ~ . r ;: .., ,. _< +r _., :: .. ., t '~ ~ •- t -~ ~; s ~'`~' ,r ~< ~ f + fr "' r° f• 'l '~ a l ; ~ , ~' '„ "' ~N tom' ~ , `~ f.~~ F"~ ~ "1 ,~ ~ I{1.~~sy// ~/~` 1 1/ i~~~N~!~ Iv ~'t/~L , ~ Z L, S u ~/~/ I F I Y ~ ~ / 'r.~ ~~i~~~ _~_ _ i i~ ~, , •~ O _. 't __~ ~ - f- --;< p ~~ I ~/k" I~ff~l N ~~~',~aG.G, ~~~~ `~~; 51 ~r"h; _ ~I'10VP~~Pi ~~EV ~~~' MIME pF ~~,~r"" t 21 ---'_'--- , v ._~~ '___~1, U -~~ fl /~ `~/~ ~ tl( 8 Q~ 1017 ~ $ `r -~ 10 9 Q~" ~~ 98 ^ ~ =~x'.s r'~~;~ __ -~ i 1 ^~ ~0;~181,1 - v--17 2 ~~ .~.:: ~ - --- r_~_ ~. ~~ 151 i 4 ~~~ _~ ~---.. 141 15 ! j ~„ _ ~, - 13: s - __-._ ~__ __~ J la ;9 st .1 }.. ~ '^' ~ ~ 241'1 -1~ °- O f ~ _- _~ 1-_ - = -~ ~ ~- 1 ~ ~-+ -__ F e -231 I~ ~ ~ ° n .--1 23. ° ~2 ': l Q ,__ ° 1L1 ~ -~-x=}22 3 ~ ~ y ---- - ~ ~ __ ,~_ 22 ~ r3 F-- - .,, Q 1a - 1~21 21 4 -- _~ - ~ -T_ `-tj ~5 ~ l ,_, I->`-1 = .--• 201 5 ~ 7 yJ ~ la ~ ~ NI ,~ t8 ~- - - ~ ~ I J v _ ' y I + ~ i8 4J .N - N ~~~ ! i ~ ~ ... .. ~. _. _- -_---~ 15;'10 ,' „ ~r - ~ ~ IS I~0 - ~ , ,a. ~ • - _ ---e ~---- ~--`~n . . - ~.., - - ,- _ ~ - o~ ~Qc (, N a G r. a ~~ ~ - :n.:~< ,~ a~ .~ D` ~. - '. DaT~: July 27, 1981 < ~. . " C~':Y OF RIC:;~ILLD, Rioh`i.eld, t•linnesota ,,,rr.~ Buil~ing Division 6700 Port13^C Avenue South (G12) Su9-7521 ~ I a c^a::cJ in ooni^g Special lise (~ :a reou~st °or variance -Cf Apartment Use £>~' c Oak Grove Lutheran' Church Owner/Applicar. . --Z_lQls Lvndal"e Ave.' So. ;` ;.. _,.. r,ddress _ - . Richfield .L O~- ~Y •8.69-4917 pus . .Phone. r^or the pz°c~erty or land located at. do=ess: ~qp~ -• Lyndale So. - Plat 44925 Parce1482 5 Su'.;;?, ~. i Sion. _Augsburg Park ~ : - Bloc', 006 Lot Ce::eral G~1'.:~enSyCnS O~ FrO~er~y__ (a~tached all neCeSScrV drawinGS, P.laDS) 'E:•:isti.^.g use o~ land: Church Building _ //~~ - E:._s _ing. zcnirg: ,~ L~ 11' 'T ~~-~" ` (y/ft. ~ `" E;:ist_ng buildi.-:cs? ~ Yes ~ Igo . P_ooosed changes in use: Erect a sign Prcoosed c::a.-:ges in zoning . Va_ lance revues ~d : Fora 4foot by 8 foot sign; r ttG~.~n ~~ ~ n'eC•~'=.~~~_.'_" C:_~~`.'1.,,..;, ~ ..,._... ~ :.a ., L ~.'' C~~V~~~ ._._.,.~~?n'~ L:! .. S ~ i ~ ,_ /~: /) / i / / Aoolicar.:s Si~.;tc:r^ -- - ~;.-~-'1~~ ['::~c: July 27, 1981 Property C mmissioner ~~ F'C'~`~C'd F.ccci~~c~ 5•.•~~~ l ~ ~i~` ^ccci: ~ ~ ~ r L/ `~, ~ ~/ . T' - / is ~ w„• ~# 1 ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 306 Agenda September 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council - --.. _. City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Special Sign Permit, LaBelle`s Catalog Showroom The city has received a request for a permit fro_~: P:c~~Prn Merchandising, Inc., the parent company o.f LaBelle.`s Catalog Showroom, for installation of a pedestal sign on East 78th Street adjacent to the LaBelle building. R.chf~eld City _ Ordinance -Code 3.49, which regulates sign installation';- - ~'- specifies in subdivision 4 that signs may be erected, up t.o. a height of 27 feet. The ordinance does provide for erection of a sign not to exceed 35 feet in height, but .only of e.r-_ approval of a special sign permit by the city council. . The proposal from r!odern Merchandising; -Inc: ~equests~-per-in i5- - sion to establish a new pedestal sign 35 feet high. The sign. is to replace an old, not operational, . d-ouble pedestal -sign _-`-~_-- currently at the site. The request complies with all stip- ulations outlined in the city grdinance-code with regard_to_ the issuance of a special sign permit. y approve the special It is recommended that the cit council sign permit requ~st._ submitted by I~lodern Merehandis.e, _Inc.. ,. ozx -- _>. behalf of their subsidiary, LaBelle's Catalog Showroom. Respectfully submitted, ,. _ _. ~ __ __ - Karl Nollenberger City Manager ~.. ~ ..: _ _: _ ~ _ KN/sh cc: Public Safety Director Chief Inspector ~ __ ~17~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 305 Agenda September 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council rlembers Subject: Request for Gambling License, Church of St. Peter • The Reverend Joseph Kivel has submitted an application on behalf of the Church of St. Peter for a gambling license to allow a bingo activity on Sunday, September 13, 1981 and a raffle on Monday, September 14, 1981. Both of these events are proposed to be held as a part of a church celebration. The church has also requested that the license be granted on a fee waived basis since they are a non-profit organization. The Public Safety Department has reviewed the license applica- tion and found it to be in order. The applicant has submitted the required bond and certificate of insurance. It is recommended that the city council authorize the issuance of the requested gambling license for the activities and dates specified. Additionally, the council should make a determination with regard to the request of the applicant for a waiver of the fee on this license application. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Public Safety Director City Clerk atl CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 304 Agenda September 14, 1981 The Honorable Nlayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Presentation From Richfield Optimist Club to Department of Public Safety For several years, the Richfield Optimist Club has actively supported and provided contributions for the Bicycle Safety Program operated by our Public Safety Department. Aqain this year, the club has voted to make a substantial donation of funds toward development of the 1982 Bicycle Safety Program currently being planned by the Public Safety Department. The club has voted to contribute $1,500 for use in both the Bicycle Safety Program and support of the Bicycle BMX course recently developed on the east side of Taft Park. Mr. Ed Anderson, current President of the Richfield Optimist Club, will be in attendance at the September 14, 1981 city council meeting to present a check in the amount of $1,500 to the city for utilization by the Public Safety Department in the 1982 Bicycle Safety Program. Respectfully submitted, ,~-"\ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Public Safety Director