Loading...
06-14-82 agenda~i • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 205 Agenda June 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Consideration of Review of Property Valuation, 7000 Portland Avenue On June 2, 1982, the Richfield Board of Review met to hear appeals from property owners who objected to the valua- tions placed on their properties. Mr. Sid Sanford, 7090 Portland Avenue, was one of the citizens appealing his valuation. The Board of Review requested the assessor to complete a new phys- ical appraisal of Mr. Sanford's property and to report back • to a continued Board of Review session scheduled for June 14, 1982. The assessor will be prepared to report on the findings of his appraisal on Mr. Sanford's property and to present valuation data for similar properties in Richfield, at the June 14, 1982 Board of Review session. Respectfully submitted, ~~ c ~~~~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ e j a • Name: :~tiailing Address: APPRAISAL REPORT Sidney Sanford 7000 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 Legal Description: Lots 1 2 3 & 4 & that part of Lot S Lying N of the S 10 Ft. thereof. Property Address: 34-028-24 11 0071 7000 Portland Ave. So. Land Market Value Structure Market Value Total Market Value 1982 Appraiser`s Review Assessment Market Value 20,700 20,700 52.500 57,100 73,200 77,800 1~AME' `ydney Sanford ~. AabRe,~~ ~nnn pQ,-rrand A.;,~_ Ste. P~,v~ 34-028-24 11 0071 ~~ ry K Enclosed Patio ~ l0' ^~ Unheated Family Room 59' ~. L- 12' DIMEAJ~Yofl~ S(,~,p7; 3n x 33 _ 4 x 12 48 x x x x o~L ~ 4~$ " T . U . GJ1Y.J-.~~E . .... ~,__ 22 _ x 26 572 _..._._ x ~_x 2C~ r 572 10 x 18 180 'CoTh1.. , ' ~P 5 ' A~,E TYPE GRADE R• a °~ Rans 0A-na5 vFiaRc~ otto• C FIN ~ 5 ZE MiS~> size. RoPEP`T`( U ~.JE~ T a ARe . . Sq:Ft T.U. '72' 114 X f 5 7000 Portland 1.946 1~SB A 1038 1285 1+l 1-3/4 2 --- 400 22x26 Sq.F 144 CoMPA'~A&-~~E~T1E5 SALE 61.LE AL t'/~~E PRIGG Ric d~• ,~a~c.~ Det 50 X 1 ~ 80 73000 f 97 6 82 5 (, 6805 Grand Ave. 1946 14SB A+5 1090 1335 2+1 1-3/4 1 yes 546 20x20 23 rick > . 9- . Att 77 X 2. 6301 Wentworth 1941 114SB A 1016 1226 '2+l 1 1 --- 288 20x20 135 8-81 69900 68.80 74.95 Att 75 X ~, 7033 2nd Ave. So. 1951 114SB A 1036 1231 2+1 1 --- --- 5 1 x22 1 12-80 71500 69.01 77.16 Att 75 X ~, 6730 4th Ave. So. 1945 l~SB A 990 1170 2+2 1 1 yes 300 1x20 135 6-81 70896 71.61 75.33 RECo-JCII~Ar~oN ~ Subject is a l~ story bungalow with a first floor living area of 1038 Sq. Ft. Attached to ttie rear of the bungalow is a 572 Sq. Ft. three season porch over a basement garage and shop. This "porch" is finished and used as a family room and has a fireplace. It is classified as a porch because it is unheated. Adjustments were made to all comparables for the porch. Other adjustments were made as necessary for baths, fireplaces, air conditioning and time. 1038 Sq.Ft. @ $75.00 = $77,800 t" ~/Aw~, ~~ 77.800 E~m*~~-~~_v M~Arcke~ ~~~; 6-8-82 for 1-2-82 ~ 7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 204 Agenda June 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Rezoning Certain Properties to MR-1 As council members are aware, the amended residential zoning ordinance is being implemented in stages, upon review and recommendation by the Planning Commission. The council has already adopted ordinances rezoning certain properties from R to R-l. A public hearing has been published for June 14, 1982 to consider an ordinance rezoning certain properties to MR-1. However, the Planning Commission, on May 25, 1982, deferred action on these rezonings to their June 22, 1982 meeting. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council continue this public hearing on the MR-1 rezoning ordinance to the July 12, 1982 city council meeting, to permit the Planning Commission to formulate a recommendation on this matter. Respectfully submitted, ~~ . Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: Community Development Director City Planner City Clerk w ~~~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 203 Agenda June 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Award of Contract for CP 772 and CP 775 On Monday, June 7, 1982, bids were opened for the 1982 Alley Paving, CP 775, and Sidewalk Construction, CP 772 projects. These two city projects were combined for the bidding to obtain a better price. The city clerk, a representative from the city manager's office and the Community Development Director were present at the bid opening. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for council review. The city council requested that bids be solicited for both asphalt (alternate 1) and concrete (alternate 2) as the material • for the buffer strip between the sidewalk and the curb on the sidewalk project. The engineer's estimate for alternate 1 is $380,000 and for alternate 2 is $385,000. Arcon Construction of Mora, Minnesota was low bidder for both alternates, with a bid of $379,260.66 for alternate 1, bituminous buffer, and a bid of $385,680.10 for alternate 2, concrete buffer. The staff recommends that the contract be awarded for alternate 2, with use of concrete for the buffer strip. In the past, outside of the L/H/N area, bituminous surface has been used in the buffer strip. However, the bituminous surface is susceptible to normal cracking which results in weed growth and a poor aesthetic appearance. The staff is of the opinion that a concrete buffer will provide a longer lasting, more maintenance free and more attractive surface than a bituminous buffer. The higher initial cost of concrete would be offset by the longer useful life and lower maintenance costs. Therefore, the staff recommends that the city council take the following actions: 1. Accept the bid minutes and tabulations; 2. Award a contract to Arcon Construction Company, Inc. of Mora, Minnesota for Alley Paving, Concrete Sidewalk, and Appurtenant Work contingent upon the receipt of the pending State Aid Construction Funding approval for CP 772 Side- walk Construction. Council Letter No. 203 -2- June 14, 1982 Subsequent to the advertisement for bids for the concrete paving of 16 alleys in CP 775, the staff received valid petitions for the paving of two additional alleys. On May 24, 1982, the city council held a public hearing and ordered the paving of the alley between Queen and Russell Avenues, 67th Street to 68th Street. The public hearing and the order to pave the alley between Queen and Russell Avenues, 69th Street to 70th Street, is scheduled for June 14, 1982. It is feasible to add these two alleys as a change order addition after the award of contract which has been discussed above. The staff recommends the city council pass the attached resolution approving the plans and specifications for these two alleys and their addition to CP 775 by execution of a change order. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~~~~ Karl Nollenberaer City Manager KN/skh cc: Community Development Director City Engineer • • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO i ARCON CONSTRUCTION, MORA, MINNESOTA FOR ALLEY PAVING, CONCRETE SIDEWALK, AND APPURTENANT WORK C.P. 775 and C.P. 772 • • WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the improvement of the following alleys by concrete paving: Alley Between 62nd Street and 63rd Street 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue Clinton Avenue and 4th Avenue Blaisdell Ave. and Nicollet Ave. Grand Avenue and Pleasant Ave. Harriet Avenue and Grand Ave. Garfield Ave. and Harriet Ave. Queen Avenue and Penn Avenue Russell Avenue and Queen Avenue Thomas Avenue and Sheridan Ave. Vincent Avenue and Upton Ave. Washburn Ave. and Vincent Ave'. Washburn Ave. and Vincent Ave. Upton Ave. and. Vincent Ave. Aldrich Avenue. and Lyndale Ave. From To 14th Avenue -15th Avenue 66th Street 67th Street 73rd Street 74th Street 73rd Street 74th Street 73rd Street 74th Street 72nd Street 73rd :.Street 72nd Street. 73rd. Street 72nd Street 73rd Street 67th Street 68th Street 69th Street 70th .Street 66th Street. 67th Street 68th Street 69th Street 68th Street 69th Street 69th Street 70th Street 67th Street .68th Street 76th Street 77th Street And the following streets by sidewalk installation: On Side 75th Street North 76th Street South Lyndale Avenue Both Lake Shore Drive Both 65th Street South Nicolelt Avenue Both Portland Avenue West 77th Street South 12th Avenue West 77th Street South From Penn Avenue Lyndale Avenue 62nd Street Lyndale Avenue Lyndale Avenue 77th Street 77th Street Elliot Avenue 76th Street 12th Avenue To Logan Avenue James Avenue 64th Street 66th Street Pleasant Avenue I-494 I-494 Chicago Avenue I-494' 13th Avenue Bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law; and WHEREAS, it appears that Arcon Construction Company, Mora, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder; -2- NOW, THEREFORE, SE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richf field, Minnesota: 1. That the total base bid alternate #2 of Areon Construction Mora, Minnesota, for construction of the above mentioned projects with estimated construction cost of $385,68.0.10 is hereby accepted; 2. That the mayor and clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract, contingent upon State Aid approval for C.P. 772 with Arson Construction, Mora, Minnesota, in the name of the City of Richffield for such improvement according to plans and specifications therefore approved by the city council; 3. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Passed by the city council of the City of Richffield this 14th day of June, 1982. John Hamilton, Mayor • ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Cleric • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND CHANGE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL ALLEY PAVING • CITY PROJECT 775 WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution passed by the council on June 14, 1982 and May 24, 1982, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron Associates, Inc. has prepared plans and spec if ications for the improvement of the following alleys: Between From To ~_ Queen and Russell Avenue 67th Street 68th Street Queen and Penn Avenue 69th Street 70th Street NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the city council of. Richfield, Minnesota: 1. Such plans and specifications are hereby approved, 2. That the paving of these alleys shall be included as part of City Project 775, by execution of a change order addition. • 3. That Arcon Construction, Mora, Minnesota, shall be the contractor and complete the work at the unit bid prices as stated in the contract for CP 775.. Adopted by the council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of June, 1982. , John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening June 7, 1982 Alley Paving, Concrete Sidewalk and Appurtenant Work • Project Nos. 775 and 772 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Alley Paving, Concrete Sidewalk and Appurtenant Work as advertised in the official newspaper on May 12, and 19, 1982. Present: Joyce L. Wilde, Administrative Services Directc Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director Michael Eastling, City Engineer Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND TOTAL BASE BID TOTAL BASE BID BID SECURITY ALTERNATE ~~1 ALTERNATE ~~2 Arcon Consruction, Inc. B.B. 5% $3796,260.66 $385,680.10 Minnesota State Burb & Gutter/ Fisher Sand & Aggregate B.B. 5% 389 976.00 391 905.70 • Progressive Contractors, Inc. B.B. 5% ~~ 423, .292.82 430, 592.00 Shafer Contracting Co., Inc. B.B. 5% ~ 450, 158.90 456, 565.70 _ Victor Carlson & Sons, Inc. B.B. 5% 506, 496.21 504, 217.71 Area Cement Co. B.B. S% .385. ,922..05 391_ 395.'65_ Gunderson Bros., Cement Co. B.B. 5% 417 ,061.00 420, 326.96 Concrete Curb Co. B.B. 5% ______ 38I 770.32 392 537.40 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular council meeting of June 14, 1982. Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk • ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 202 Agenda June 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Purchase of Property at 7300 1st Avenue South There is an item scheduled on the June 14, 1982 city council agenda recommending that the council authorize purchase of the property located at 7300 1st Avenue South. This council letter will describe the history of flooding problems experienced by this property and describe the basis of the staff's recommendation that the city acquire this property. THE PROBLEM The earliest reports of flooding at 7300 1st Avenue South were recorded by the Engineering Division after a major rain- storm on August 30, 1977. However, the property owner indicates that flooding has occurred after heavy rains as long ago as 1958. Acoording to the property appraisal report completed in December, 1981, and based on conversations with neighbors, the property owner, and City of Richfield personnel, "periodic flooding of the subject property occurs usually two or three times a year with differing degrees of severity. Reportedly in relatively ctry years, after heavy rainshowers, water collects on this corner (73rd Street and 1st Avenue) and tends to flood a portion of the lawn area. In years with greater rainfall the public (storm) sewer backs up causing water to flood up near the house, and in severe cases the basement has been flooded." On August 30, 1977, and after unusually heavy rainfall, the basement was flooded up to the main floor joists of the first floor. Everything in the basement was lost including the furnace, waterheater, appliances, finished areas and household goods. An engineering analysis indicated that this particular storm should not occur more than once every 1,700 years, that the sewer system is adequately designed and that a storm of this magnitude could not be cost effectively designed for. On • June 25, 1978, a less severe rainfall left six inches of water in the basement of 7300 1st Avenue South. Council Letter No. 202 -2- June 14, 1982 This flooding has occurred because the level of the inter- . section adjacent to the property is approximately the same level as the ponding area (Norby Pond) where storm water from this intersection drains. The elevation of the intersection and pond are the same when the storm water outfall pipe at Norby Pond becomes just under half-filled. The engineering report also suggests that flooding occurs because the pipe draining the intersection is undersized for a five-year frequency storm. A once every five year frequency rainfall is the engineering standard to which the Richfield system was designed. At 7300 1st Avenue South, normal to heavy rainfall will cause the street, then the yard, and then the house to flood depending on the storm severity. The only advantage for the property owner has been that the water never stays long. The staff has observed that the intersection will drain in usually less than an hour, depending on the volume of the water. The flooding of the basement has been caused by this water volume coming in basement windows or over the top of the foundation rather than seeping through the walls. It has been recommended that flood proofing methods be used to keep the water away from the house. Soil around the house has been sloped to drain away from the house. However, the property owner has not sealed windows as recommended. HISTORY OF CITY INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROJECT '1'o better understand the role the city has played, a summary history of dates and actions is attached for reference. This list includes key official actions that have had an impact on solving the flooding problem at 7300 1st Avenue South. The alternative solutions for preventing flooding at 7300 1st Avenue South include: improving the stormwater holding capacity of Norby Pond, installing stormwater relief lines that drain to other ponding areas, raising the intersection, flood proofing the house by private initiative, flood proofing with public funding, and purchasing the property and making flood proofing improvements with public funding. The alter- natives, the dates of recommendation, and approximate costs are summarized below: Date of Alternative Recommendation Constructing larger sewer March 13, 1978 Raising intersection level March 13, 1978 Fill Norby Pond perimeter March 13, 1978 Dredge Norby Pond Sept. 25, 1978 Increase outlet capacity Sept. 25, 1978 Relief line to Augsburg Pond Sept. 25, 1978 Flood proofing house Jan. 15, 1979 • Berming intersection June 9, 1 980 Purchase of 7300 1st Avenue and correction by flood proofing June 9, 1980 Estimated Cost $ 280,000 "' 300,000 `_- 585 , 000 '" 500,000 1,300,000-~ 140,000 2,000-10,000 not feasible gross 70,000-85,000 net 20,000-25,000 Council Letter No. 202 -3- June 14, 1982 It is difficult to solve the flooding problem because a • method for financing any solution has not previously been identified that is acceptable to the council or residents. Besides the expensive recommended public improvements, the only other alternative that could help control flooding would be the flood proofing improvement to the house at 7300 lst Avenue South. However, as explained in the engineering studies "flood proofing recognized that local flooding could occur and that property improvements are aimed only at minimizing any loss." Thus, flood proofing does not solve the flooding. Only one suggested alternative, city purchase of the property, can be considered cost effective. The problem, after all, is a $4,000 problem, reflecting the reduction in market value of the property which is attributable to the flood The owner of the property is Chris Stromstad. He has owned the property since the house was built. Mr. Stromstad has been a vocal reminder to city officials of this continuing problem with flooding. Mr. Stromstad has been contacted about the possible city purchase of the property and has indicated an interest in participating in the Voluntary Acquisition Program (and hence, will waive relocation benefits). Negotiations for this acquisition will not start until a purchase is author- ized by the city council. • OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Some of the alternatives that are suggested in the list may be done in the future anyway. In particular, the work around Norby's Pond of dredging the pond and filling the per- imeter and increasing the outlet capacity with the inclusion of a pump will reduce the flooding of this intersection. However, we will always have those same inadequate storm sewer pipes that drain the intersection of 73rd Street and lst Avenue which can cause flooding problems in the future. An increase in the pipe capacity from this intersection is not cost effective. The city could purchase and resell the property as is, thus satisfying the owner by taking it off his hands. However, even though the new owner may be aware of the problem, and be willing to live with it, some other future owner may not know the problem and come back to the city for relief. Therefore, it will be necessary to include a provision in the title which would release the city from any obligation for any flooding problem. This release would follow with the land, and all prospective buyers would buy the property in full knowledge that some flooding occasionally occurs. Council Letter No. 202 -4- June 14, 1982 The staff recommends that an acceptable minimum amount • of flood proofing can be done prior to reselling the house. This flood proofing would include putting in glass blocks in all openable basement windows and installing a gate backwater valve to prevent a backup of the house sanitary water. This flood proofing would cost an estimated $2,000 and has been suggested by the engineering consulting firm of Orr-Schelen- Mayeron as the most cost effective. This flood proofing would give some level of flood proofing at a minimum cost. Additional flood proofing could be done. This would include reinforcing the concrete walls, raising the foundation by a course or two of block and regrading the yard to increase the slope away from the house. This work would cost an estimated $15,000 with the majority of the cost going for the complete rebuilding of the concrete foundation. This would give some increased flood proofing but' we would be spending over $15,000 to help relieve a $4,000 depressed market value of the house. The house would still be sitting in a low area and some flooding of the yard would still occur. Once these additional flood proofing measures are made, the chances of basement flooding would be less than that of the neighboring houses several lots down the street. The house is a three-bedroom rambler with full basement and detached single garage, and was constructed in 1955. The • house contains approximately 1,000 square feet of first floor area, with a standard floor plan of kitchen, living room, bathroom and bedrooms. Amenities include the oak flooring, woodwork and cabinets, and the brick living room fireplace. The basement is approximately half finished with wood paneling, a drop ceiling, a small bathroom and a brick fireplace. The furnace and water heater were new in 1977 and are located in the unfinished half. According to a property appraisal report completed in December, 1981, the exterior and interior are very clean and in very good condition. The assessors estimated market value for 1982 is $68,600 (with land value estimated to be $19,900 and the structure valued at $45,600). The independent appraisal of the property as of December 3, 1981, indicated a market value of $70,000. The appraisal considered the water flooding problem and discounted the property value by approximately $4,000 to the $70,000 estimate. The appraiser believes a "willing buyer" would discount the property by this amount because of the potential physical loss, the inconvenience of sometimes having a partially flooded yard, and the mental duress associated with an anticipated loss. • Council Letter No. 202 -5- June 14, 1982 The appraiser has determined that minimum and maximum multi-flood proofing, regardless of cost, will not add to the value of the property in excess of the estimated market value. Solving the flooding problem with sewer system improvements within the public right-of-way will increase the property value by $4,000. Community Development Block Grant funds could be used for the acquisition only providing that the resulting flood- proofed house would benefit a low/moderate income family for an extended period (five to ten year) period of time. There is presently no ownership finance assistance program from HUD (Section 235) or MHFA ("Affordable Homes") that could provide an affordable opportunity for a moderate income family. Although there may be a program in three to six. months, this house exceeds the price limitations in that MHFA program and does not have enough rehabilitation work to make it eligible for Section 235. It appears that the city would have to "write-down" almost $30,000 just to put the property in an affordable range for a moderate income family. An FHA mortgage would not be available because HUD's minimum property standards require that the basement be above the 50 year frequency storm. It is recommended that funds from the sewer fund be used to purchase the house, and finance the cost of undertaking minimum flood proofingimprovements, including glass block • windows and a gate on the sanitary sewer. The preliminary estimate for the flood proofing is about $2,000. The city will also occur some cost in selling the house and registering a release from future flood proofing liabilities. The staff recommends that the council pass the attached resolution, directing the staff to buy 7300 lst Avenue South, make some minimum flood proofing improvements, and resell the house. Respectfully submitted, ~/ ~ ~6~1 Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: Community Development Director Community Services Director City Engineer Finance Coordiantor • RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF THE HOUSE AND PROPERTY AT 7300 FIRST AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, it has been determined that the property located at 7300 First Avenue South is susceptable to seasonal flooding hazards; AND WHEREAS, it has been determined to be in the best interest of the City of Richfield to purchase this property, NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. That the city staff is authorized to negotiate with the owner of the property located at 7300 First Avenue South f®r purchase of said property; 2. That sanitary sewer funds be made available to purchase said property; 3. That of ter the purchase of this property, minimum flood proofing improvements be made to the property, including but not limited to glass block windows and a gate on the sanitary sewer; 4. That when the flood proofing improvements have been completed, the city will sell the property to willing buyer, who will be required to sign a release admitting cognizance of the flooding potential of this property. Adopted by the Richfield City Council this loth day of June, 1982. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • Summary of Actions Relating to 7300 1st avenue South • Date Action 6~ugust 30, 1977 Rain~tcrm " September 14, 1977 Council discussion, modify CDBG grant program • to allow structural rehabilitation of low/ moderate income homes damaged by storm. Resolution ~o. 5786. Septe.*nber 19, 1977 HRA concurs in grant program change (HRA Reso lotion Vo . 60) . March 13, 1978 In-house report "Preliminary Engineering Analysis of Effects of the August 30, 1977 Rainstorm". The information in this report eras presented to City Counci.i for discussion May 30 , 1978. " clay 27, 1978 Mayor indicates at :~iay 30, 1978 council meet- ing that 7300 1st property was threatened by rain on May 27 , 19 7 8 . May 30, 19?8 Council requests staff to report on engineer feasibility studies for sto ~. sewer improve- . ments at 7300 1st. GS~~* .contacted to assist. June 25, 1978 Rainstorm June 26, 1978 Council requests staff to prepare estimated costs of alleviating sewer problem at a number of sites besides 7300 1st. July L0, 1978 Council authorizes OSM to expand its ,feasibility study to include all flood • affected areas . Septe.~i.ber 22 ,1978 GSM completes "Storm r•7ater St~.~dv and ~.nalysis of rlooding, City of 3ichfield". Sar_.te:nber 25, 1978 Report ^resented to council on "Stormlater Study" further study requested. ~1ove:nber 27 , 19 7 8 alternative solutions to the flooding Grob 1em were discussed. Cour.ci? deters action. .,a.Tluar`_1 1.7, 1979 'i'd'le COU_*1Cll d1sC'15sed flOOd~nC^.rCi~1e:R5 further ar.d aut:-lorized, fv ResolT.:tion x'032, chat `;crhv ?ond ~e en1a~--ed a.^_d public funds be used for :minor zcree= and curs izorove- • :meats -1ith_r- the rig^c-of-wad.. It '.acs understood ~-nat the c~ v "-could not orov~de =financial ass_stance to an~~ fro^zr-y owner ~.~ ish_nc .o encase _n =lcc~~ roof ac `ivities " , ace 2 • • apr-il 9, 1979 June ~7, 1979 June 25, 1979 June 9, 1980 however technical assistance on flood proofing anti information on the Federal Flood Insurance program was to be provided by staff . Council authorized public hearing for special assessments to cover cost of improvement to :~orby Pond . ° Informational neighborhood meetings to discuss improvement to Norby fond and special assessment oz improve.'nent. Public Hearing on improving Vorby Pond. Project rejected at end of hearing. Council suggested other alternatives be discussed. ° Council told that no other cost feasibly alternatives e~cist to solve flooding problems but Borne partial solutions e~cist a - Flo®d praofirrg - Purchase of 7300 1st as a more oust effective way to solve the problem - ,Including storm drainage project as part of the 1981-86 Capital Improve- ment Program. . *GS~? ra=er- .o Grr-Schelen-:~+averon and ?~sscciayes, encin eerinc ccrsu~tants to the City of Richfield • ~~ ~ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No, 201 Agenda June 14, 1982 • The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Transfer of Monies From PIR Fund to Public Safety Building Project The 1981 Capital Improvement Budget appropriated $300,000 from the city's Permanent Improvement Revolving (PIR) fund to the Public Safety building improvement project. The city code provides that monies in the PIR fund, in a total amount not to emceed $300,000, may be transferred to the Capital Improvement budget of the city, by resolution of the city council, to provide funds for the acquisition and betterment of Public Safety facilities of the city. On January 25, 1982, the city council adopted a resolution transferring $200,000 from the PIR fund to the Public Safety building project. There is an item on the June 14, 1982 city council agenda providing for transfer of the remaining $100,000 from the PIR to the Public Safety building project. These funds are now needed for completion of the project. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing the transfer of monies from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund to the Public Safety building project, C.P. 767. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~~~~.~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: Public Safety Director Administrative Services Director Finance Coordinator • RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM PERMANENT IitiIPROVEMENT REVOLVING FUND TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET TO FINANCE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, C.P. 767 WHEREAS, the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield provides for a Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund to be used for the purpose of financing local improvement, and, WHEREAS, the ordinance states that the proceeds of said fund, in a total amount not to exceed $300,000, may be transferred to the Capital Improvement Budget of the City, by resolution of the city council, to provide funds for the acquisition and betterment of the Public Safety facilities, and WHEREAS, the 1981 and 1982 Capital Improvement Budgets of the City of Richfield provide for a Public Safety facility improvement project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by resolution of the city council of the City of Richfield that $100,000 from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund of the City be transferred to the Capital Improvement Budget of the city for purposes of financing costs related to the Public Safety building improvement project, C.P. 767. Done at the City of Richfield this 14th day of June, 1982. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk • .~3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 200 Agenda June 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: ProclaMation Designating the First Quarterly Outstanding Business Person The City of Richfield and the Richfield Chamber of Commerce, in a joint venture, will begin publicly honoring business persons in Richfield who have made outstandinct contributions to the community. The recipient of this recognition for the first quarter of 1982 is Lloyd Olson, proprietor of Hub Jewelers. qtr. Olson and members of the Richfield Chamber of Commerce will be present at the June 14, 1982 city council meeting for participate in the proclamation honoring Lloyd Olson as Richfield's Outstanding Business Person for the First Quarter of 1982. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City T.'tanager KN/skh • -~"f'r' • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 199 Agenda June 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Proclamations Declaring June as Recreation and Parks Month, and Designating East Richfield Girls Softball League Week • There are two proclamations council agenda: one recognizing Month, and the other designating League Week. on the June 14, 1982 city June as Parks and Recreation East Richfield Girls Softball The celebration of June as Recreation and Parks Month has nearly become institutionalized across the country. Rec- reation is a liftime of experiences that can be individual, or organized, creative use of free time, including a myriad of activities resulting in satisfaction and unity, not confined to the young or those with great physical prowess, can be pursued by persons of all ages, interests and abilities and has some far reaching benefits. "Life. Be In It," the theme for Recreation and Parks month, is a program to generate increased public awareness of the value of recreation and leisure. A major focus of the program is to aet people to place activity higher in the priorities of day-to-day life. Perhaps you have noticed the "Life. Be In It," characters used in city program brochures, on television and in other media. The little "bee" characters are depicted in a variety of recreation activities. In conjunction with June as Recreation and Parks Month and the "Life. Be In It" program, one of the volunteer special interest groups in the city is celebrating a 25th anniversary. The East Richfield Girls Softball League is believed to be the first organized girls softball association in the United States. As the city's population for the age groups of girls participating the league has declined, the league has not reduced its com- mitment to this fine recreational activity. The week of June 13 through June 19, 1932, is proposed as East Richfield Girls Soft- ball League Week with culmination of the week to be a celebration on Saturday, June 19 at the ballfields used by the league in the vicinity of 66th Street and 24th Avenue. in • Council Letter No. 199 °2- June 14, 1982 It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached proclamations. Mike Sandahl, chairman of the Community Services Advisory Commission, will be present to receive the proclamation declaring June as Recreation and Park Month, "Life. Be In It." Representatives of the East Richfield Girls Softball League will be present to receive their proclamation and to make some presentations of their awn. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: Community Services Director • # 9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 198 Agenda June 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council c~~embers : Subject: Public Hearing - Additional A11ey Laving, C.P. 775 On May 24, 1982, the city council adopted a resolution receiving a preliminary engineering report and calling for a public hearing on the paving of one additional alley as part of C.P. 775, the 1982 Alley Improvement Project: Between From To Queen Avenue and Penn Avenue 69th Street 70th Street It is feasible to add this alley to the 1982 alley paving project by execution of a change order addition to the C.P. 775 contract at the time it is awarded on June 14, 1982. The estimated assessment is $18.50 per abutting foot or $925.00 for a 50 foot lot. At the close of the public hearing, it is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution ordering the project. Respectfully submitted, ~- Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: Community Development Director City Engineer • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PAVING OF ONE ADDITIONAL ALLEY AND PREPARATION OF PLANS I CP 775-B WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 24th day of May, 1982, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed improvement of the following alley: Between From To Queen and Penn Avenue 69th Street 70th Street AND WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice was given and the hearing was held thereon on the 14th day of June, 1982, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon, NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution adopted the 24th day of May, 1982. 2. Orr-Schelen-Mayeron Associates, Inc. is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. They shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improve- ment. Adopted by the council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of June, 1982. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • PETITION FOR PERMANENT ALLEY IMPROVEMENT CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Date Received .~. ~ -'~ T~° The City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota W~the undersigned, owners of more than 50 percent in frontage of the real pro erty abutting on the al~y between ~ and ~ Streets and _ and ,_p,~~ Avenues hereby petition that such public alley be improved by permanent paving of its surface. We are aware that the costs of such a project will be wholly or in part paid for through special assessments to the abutting property owners. SIGNATURE OF OWNERS ADDRESS 2. ~ ..~; ~ o~~a ~ ~~. ~ f 3. ~- ~ 9 a ~ . ,~ -- --- ~ 9' ~ ~ ~...~ _' 5_ ~ ~ ~4~ 3 ~,,~~~~./ ,6. .~ , 7 . l.~ ~~ ~i~ - ~ :L ~ ~~ ~, t"~~.%~ c.~::-tom - --x ~ j' %~ ~`` ~ > - r ~i 5 ~R ~- m~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ 11. ~' 12. 13: 14. 15• 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. ~' Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the re wired number of ow~s of property affected by the making of the impro ent pe i n fo Percent ~'~ ~ ~ ~~ r Ci y Cler Note: Additional forms available from the Engineering Division, 869-7521, Ext. 520 ~t 23 G CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 197 Agenda June 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Release of Off-Street Parking Bond • On November 27, 1978, the city council authorized execution of an off-street parking contract with Cardo Investment Company, 703 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403, for a Clark's Submarine Restaurant at 6545 Penn Avenue. An inspection of the site by the city staff indicates that the owner has complied with terms of the off-street parking contract. Therefore,.it is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing release of the performance bond for this off-street parking contract. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~ V J1~J.Ul~.Q~Q`- Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: City Engineer RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION RELATING TO RELEASE OF BOND ON OFF-STREET PARKING CONTRACT Name: Cardco Investments, Inc. 703 Hennepin Ave., Mpls., Minn. Location: 6545 Penn Avenue Use: Clark's Submarine Restaurant WHEREAS, Cardco Investments, Inc., 703 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota, had an off-street parking agreement with the City of Richfield relating to 6545 Penn Avenue South, which contract bears the designation of Contract No. 2280, and which contract was guaranteed by an off-street parking operator's bond in the amount of Seven Thousand ($7,000) Dollars, on which the Cardco Investments, Inc., appears as surety, and WHEREAS, said Cardco Investments, Inc. has substantially complied with the provisions of said agreement and now seeks to be relieved of any further obligation under said bond, and WHEREAS, there appears to be no justification for requiring said Cardco Investments, Inc. to continue to provide a bond for security on the performance of said agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: That the city manager is hereby authorized and directed to release Cardco Investments, Inc. for any and all acts committed or incurred in violation of said Contract No. 2280, on and after the 14th day of June, 1982. Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of June , 1982 . John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: • Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk ~- 2 3 Ill • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 196 Agenda June 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Release of Off-Street Parking Bond • On N1ay 2, 1980, the city council authorized execution of an off-street parking contract with the Church of St. Peter, 6730 Nicollet Avenue, for a new church structure. An inspection that the owner has parking contract. city council adopt release of the per contract. of the site by the city staff indicates complied with terms of the off-street Therefore, it is recommended that the the attached resolution, authorizing formance bond for this off-street parking Respectfully submitted, ~~~.~~~~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: City Engineer • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO RELEASE OF BOND ON OFF-STREET PARKING CONTRACT Name: Church of St. Peter Location: 6730 Nicollet Use: New Church. Structure Off-street Parking Contract No. 2321 WHEREAS, the Church of St. Peter, 6730 Nicollet Avenue, had an off-street parking agreement with the City of Richfield relating to 6730 Nicollet Avenue South, which contract bears the designation of Contract No. 2321, and which contract was guaranteed by an off- street parking operator's bond in the amount of Forty Thousand and no~100 ($40,000) Dollars, on which the St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, appears as surety, and WHEREAS, said Church of St. Peter has substantially complied with the provisions of said agreement and now seeks to be relieved of any further obligation under said bond, and WHEREAS, there appears to be no justification for requiring said Church of St. Peter to continue to provide a bond for security on the perf ormance of said agreement. • NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: That the city manager is hereby authorized and directed to release the Church of St. Peter for any and all acts committed or incurred in violation of said Contract No. 2321, on and after the 14th day of June, 1982. Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of June, 1982. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST : Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • zo CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 195 Agenda June 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Special Height Permit, Naegle Outdoor Advertising Naegle Outdoor Advertising has submitted a request for a special height permit to allow them to construct a billboard 40 feet high. The maximum bilboard height permitted by ordinance, without a special height permit, is 27 feet. Naegle Outdoor Advertising is proposing to remove the existing 50 foot high double-face sign which currently exists on the roof of the Astleford Equipment Company, located at 400 78th Street, and construct a new 40 foot high double-faced sign on a vacant lot approximately one and one-half blocks to the east of the existing location. The new location would be on the vacant land south of and adjacent to the city garage. The sign would be located approximately 135 feet from the west property line, 118 feet from the east property line, 15 feet from the south property line and 409 feet from the north property line. The new sign will be 14 feet by 48 feet and have an area of 672 square feet not including extensions. The sign will be supported by a single pole. The staff has reviewed the proposed sign against the conditions set forth in Section 3.49, subdivision 4, governing the issuance of special height permits and found the following: 1. The billboard will be adjacent to a federal freeway and will exceed the height of 35 feet by 5 feet. The ordinance provides that under no circumstances should the height of a billboard adjacent to a federal freeway exceed 35 feet. There are no buildings located on the same premises. The addition height is necessary to provide adequate visibility from the freeway. 2. The site is zones general industrial. 3. The sign will not be within 300 feet of residentially zoned or used property. Council Letter No. 195 -2- June 14, 1982 • 4. The sign will not unduly obstruct visibility from neighboring property. 5. The sign will not exceed the elevation of 204, Richfield datum. 6. The sign should not adversely affect the value of adjacent property. The proposed sign meets all sign regulations except for its height. The proposed sign should not be detrimental to the public welfare. The height of the proposed sign would be 10 feet less than the sign to be removed, and the single pole design would be much more aesthetically pleasing. However, because the ordinance indicates that the special sign permit can be granted only if the council finds that the structure will not exceed the height of 35 feet, the staff cannot recommend that the special height permit be approved. It is also the opinion of the City Attorney that the city cannot vary this requirement. The staff has drafted an ordinance amendment which would allow such a 40-foot sign if certain conditions are met, including a provision than an existing sign exceeding 35 feet in height be removed somewhere within Richfield. A copy of the draft ordinance is attached. The proposed sign construction would meet the conditions outlined in the draft ordinance. It is recommended that the city council deny the special height permit at this time. It is further recommended that the council give first reading approval to the attached ordinance and schedule the public hearing and second reading for June 28, 1982. If the council gives second reading approval to the ordinance amendment then, Naegle may resubmit this request for a special height permit, for review under the amended ordinance. L~TI~"2fYl- ca r l L ~ Fl'r ~i~t~ _ \ 1`~ L(. ~, ~ -r-~t , ~t C ~ 7 Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: Community Development Director City Planner City Clerk • City Attorney C • AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III, PART V, SECTION 3.49 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, Part V, Section 3.49 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield regulating th+e construction, location and maintenance of outdoor signs is hereby amended by amending Sub- division 4 thereof to read as follows: "Subd. 4. Special Permits Height The council may grant a special permit for a ground sign, signboard or billboard exceeding 27 feet in height, but only if it finds that such struc- ture (Z} if located on property adjacent to a federal freeway, will not exceed 35 feet in height or the highest part of any building located on the same premises, whichever is higher; (2) if not located adjacent to a federal freeway, will not exceed in height the highest part of any building located on. the same premises; (3) will be located on industrial property; (4) will not be within 300 feet of any single family residence property; (5) will not unduly obstruct visibility from neighboring properties; (6) will not in any event exceed elevation of 204, Richfield datum; and (7) will not adversely affect the value of any adjacent property. If the sign for which the special permit is issued is a double-faced sign, the council may permit the sign to have screening standing not more than 10 feet above the face of the sign, in addition to the maximum elevations hereinbefore specified, provided that such screening must consist of a plain metal surface bearing no advertising matter, lettering or writing. The allowable maximum height for a structure described in paragraph (1) of this subdivlslon may be increased by the council from 35 feet to 40 feet if it finds: The si will not exceed 825 er sicrn face; feet (b) The sign will have no more than two sign aces; • c) The additional height is necessary to insure adequate visibility from the adjacent federal freeway; and N r In conjunction with the construction o the new sign, an existing sign exceedi the height of 35 feet will be removed from a location within the citv." • Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1982. Jo n Hamilton,-Mayor ATTEST: Sy via ergh, Ca.ty Clerk City Manager Date 'il+prave ~,._I Denv C ~Flanning Dept. . Date Approve :... Deny • ~1J t/v r ~v~ Date • Ci t~ Corm ci 1 Hate ~ou~ to above far special General Si~tns aaoroval oer code APPLICATION FOR ROVER?ISI`'G PER.*!IT (Z parts) City of Richfield, Minnesota Date ~v 3. 1982 Zoning ~~SS 1dl Sign Erected ~- Yes X_^, :~o~ Fee P.I.N. t?RA Address of Sign ~a_n~st..2a-~a-DnS3 Proprietor Name V~nlt_~~- _, ~~ Sign Erector ~Tae~el~ Outdoor ,,~,v~, Address , ~~~ f.T ~Q~.~, c~. rs; ~~,f; Al ~ ~ iv~T ~Sa~'~ ,_, - Tvt~e of Sign Design Weather Cover ~ Lighting i le face Sin ~ Clear Lexon ~.-.; Constant" Wall g Double face Frosted Lexon ~~ F3ashing Projecting Multi-faced Plastic Covered ! P.evvlving X~ Ground Aerial/Blimp ~ Traveling Shaded _,j Roof Searchlight Neon ~ `Zip-life ~,. Pedestal Changeable Banner/Pennants Other ~ Other (Eaml.) . tahle Frame r Po Sign Cglors Multi Vapor Temrorary ~ !~ Past- = A T'J: Trailer ~ ~_ . .. ! - I ~ laminated - J~'e No tiYatts 1640 Electrical Contractor . *T-----~~-- r*~+-~-*~r n~~ ~. Addresses'^~ _ ~'~-1° Phone~~b=338I ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ `- ~ ' ~~ Phone 866-338] Property Owmer or his Agent Signature y /~lii~ ~',_____ ~~ - " ~lF-~ ---~- Estimated Cost $25,000 Sign Width 14' Height 4gt Total Sq. Ft.672 plus.-.. .~_ ""-' extension Position of the advertisement structure in relationshir to the adjacent buildings,. sidewalks,. curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement Lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page Z. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign .copy relate to solely the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? NO Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? No ._.r_ ~C~ C~?6~£S~-~ Date ~. /~$ Z- Title ~ iican~~s~"i,~iature and with Firm Jr~~r~s~a~ ~~~~~` Phone Vum~er ~?'~/r' { ~~ ~ ~' DPS lnl •.-. :2[,: . ~ / 2 SEC. 34 T. 28 R. 2 ~ (~9~ ~5~ 15 c9¢~ c~f~ z + ~ is ~ Sca-Lr.: i" =Zoo.. ~, _. __ q3~ 1- ~C~~ G(~n C A R C e ~ So :34.~ki1~ /- -X34.0: ~ ~o ~ ~,,, . :.o~ ~ ' =;~, > I `~~~¢~ r ~~ tz Ca,~ CC'S 12 ~~' ~ W r~~.'T, t•~i.J ~,~~1 W ~Z~,1 ~ ~~5~~+ ~(G1~- tt`fo, ~~g6 tt t <( 'x4 ;,~j,`t} 134.5 Q Y• ~..~~. F' ..cl"" 2' I Q ~73~ ~'0~ r to C~9711~ v e 10 ~~~5~ ~~ ' L O r" .7 ~_ ,~. ~ :i, Q ~ ~5 ~. ~.. ~~.~.t ,..~~ ~ p ~~1.IR1 8 r 4 ~ ~L ,t v '34 ~ i ,;,~~~ ° a .°t. W G pti.~: ~ 4C a W I - ('~L~ C~1 R I ~t' ,.i ~i J ;e • ~ ~+' i34..:a u ~ - •r D J]J. !21.03 I t2:.o3 '" 34. i ~ 1 .St r r34S: - N .~_ r >,a H- :~--- 3. {~ Q ~; :z i (t9~ C1.8~ r .~. ~ tt•41° ° 1 `~ ~~> T2~ ~ ~~1~ (fir '~V "''~ . S 4 _ .. ~ ..~ .,.,- - 31- -w- -°n JJ 4 CZ~~ ~Z~ _ Z'3.3: ' (ZS~ 5~24~ _ - •' ° 4 ,° G3 ~2y1 6 (.r~~ a ~ (Zq~ ~ CZ~~ ~.~ ~~. - _ ~ ~ .,,~. N • ' (SZ~ v .* a 9•q ;.t~~~1 ,~~34.5 t, ~L, ~"' t ra I 4.~ ,~bQ t4~ ~ 3 = • 134 '' I .+ 13 ~q4~ ~~3`~ 4 I~.__, ~_.~ _ i2 t~~~=,(~' s :34.+~ _ -x}4.4 tt (k2~.~~~116 `34.j* s 3• ~ tO C 'u ~ ~ .n r• r• r- !~. , a~ H ~'`' ~ r r 134.? ~' t5 (~~~ (~ '?G d• ib Cz4~ s ~1Z~ 4~- 34~ I t ~~~: ~+ ;i4 • _ t0~~~~ :~.~3' ~z~ = (, N 4 ~,: ~ i4 ae r-. ._ - - ~....~7a ,Q~ S , ' ~~ 2Sa ...: ~ ~~4,:q :~,3: 13~ 34 1 025 -3~o C~~ ~~ `~ ~ C~ o .~-~''" I ! ~• ~ w t755 ~ - I z~Z i3zv i ~Nt~K.~ ~ ~ ' n C.4 . ~t~Gt'-1 .. ~ ~~ To a~.1~4.tMoVeO~. i I ~ .~ ~•--.1 ~ „~- _ CASZU~oR~ t ! _ _ !~!___ V 4 3 =0 fJJ>•iJJ~JJJ~~JJ~~=1~JJJJ~~JJ~~ i^s><>•>f1~~~_~>,~ai~a~ t6~e1.»~~l t ~: ~ :3G... '` i t34.4b .a.. _.~_ ;34_..3 _ 134.44 R '4 :~~3 A .. ~~ '34 == 34~ ~ t3 (~S~,C~ a i34.c.> '=4.40 ~2~~`?~~.5 • =G.3e ':y.3: +10 ~k2~^~,q'~ ~ . ~.4 ~A~~N ~~~ g. 3, N r r . '" a,; i2 ~.~ 33 .:4.31 , ,_: S 4.3 i _ - ,/ . - W rp+ G _~) ~~1 ~ 4~G4~~ 1 3--to N n1' 1 ~~ ~ 3 6° i Cpl ~' r•{IAEtKGT OR. v' ~° !~='Z• x'98 ~ t ~. ..~.--.-J ~~; Ci? , CF RtCM~}EL~ `a,rr.,r~x mar' ~ ~rs.ai yt ~ s SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSED. REI~OCA'TICg3 SITE I. Hei t: Present Site (Astleford) 50' Pxvposed Site (Lot 53) 45" II. Site: Present 14° x 48' Proposed 14' x 48' III . Ste: A. No other autd~~or advertising stn~cture within: 300.' east . or crest along and abutting the north side of I-494 in Richfield. B. No residential zoning within 100' of site. C. No public parkway, park, school or church within 200' of site. ~~• Proposed location site is zoned general industrial. V. Setback: ~_ A. Front yard: 15' off Market Drive R.O. W. /lot Line. B. Side ya~1: 155' east of M. N. & S. R. R. R. 0. W. /lot Line. vs. Pr sed: Aesthetic The remava7. of a back to back roof sign and its relocati.~ on a single pole (graiuid) lccatics~ for a cleaner presentaticu: and image. • • c :;r.-~ '`. i i , c .. rx j ':{~ '~4t; t ='~ L1 Zr' / ~ i~: ti ~w 1+4' wt-... 5 ~• ~Ll ~'~ t ~ t'„111.{7 ,'N..,'~'•.~~~ ~; ~ ~~~ 1 -___... ,l i ..~- 1 1 .' se` i1, 1 `' r , ~: ~ F ~,. r ~1,.: E a ,,t;:. :..~._ 1 Y ~~ ~. .'~ ~~~ . :# s ...~..:...~..~.r- -.; .t .. ~, ~ ~ 1~ ,:, r%/ ti, ~y,~., ~,r Y. 1:x.1 fa..~~,.. ,, ;. F ~--.~~.!„. .~t . at ::t~ •i• '!~ ` `t ~, .. t ,',_... } or tli~y -vu~d~lii't be cops. ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 194 Agenda June 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ~, ~ ~~ roi ~ ~' r °~~_~~~"~~ City of Richf iel 1>~) Lz--~~ ~,.y ~,. Council Members: Subject: Request for Subdivision, 609 west 74th Street HISTORY On November 23, 1981, the city approved a special use permit and variance to permit the construction of six townhouses at 609 West 74th Street. Mr. Jim Plat is now requesting that the city approve a common element residential subdivision of this site into six lots, in accordance with the recently passed subdivision ordinance arr.endment. This subdivision will permit each townhouse unit to be sold separately. STAFF FINIDNGS The staff has reviewed the proposed common element residential subdivision against the requirements found in the city's sub- division ordinance and found the following: 1. The proposed the proposed permitted in is obtained. has been app site. site is located in an MR zoning district; six-unit multiple dwelling structure is that zoning district if a special use permit As indicated earlier, a special use permit roved for the proposed use on the subject 2. The total site is 154.45 feet wide and 135.26 feet deep and has a lot area of 20,890.9 square feet. The site meets current and revised standards for lot width and area. The six-dwelling-unit townhouse structure to be constructed on the site does not meet current or revised sideyard setback requirements. The proposed structures would have sideyard setbacks of five feet on the west side and 9.5 feet on the east. The current and revised ordinance requires a 20 foot setback on the west side. The existing ordinance requires a 10 foot setback The reivised ordinance requires a 20 foot setback on the east side. The city has granted variances to allow construction of the structure at its proposed location on the site. Council Letter No. 19~ -2- June 14, 1982 3. All information required by the subdivision ordinance has been provided and the proposed common element residential subdivision is consistent with all subdivision requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the proposed common element residential subdivision be approved, subject to the following stipulations: 1. No owner may remove or alter any intervening common wall separating two units for the purpose of joining such units without amending the plat to permit such joinder. 2. Except to adjust for settling or lateral movement of structures, the boundaries between adjoining units may not be relocated without amending the plat. 3. LTnits may not be subdivided without amending the plat. 4. Common areas or facilities may not be subdivided without amending the plat. 5. In the event that any unit is damaged or destroyed, it must be rebuilt to the boundaries of that unit as described in the subdivision plan. • 6. Common areas may not be used for any purpose other than the purposed described in the subdivision plan and contained in the plat. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the proposed common element residential subdivision be approved with the six stipula- tions outlined in the staff recommendation. Respectfully submitted, L~ ~~~~ l~: ~w ,~x ~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager K Zv ~ S iC h cc: Community Development Director City Planner • :` ON~N~ trc o• -zt t o ~ r ~t • ~ zc et •n. O ~ N '~ N ~ to W r-..i J tt ~ ~ -U ~Ot/ SO ~R~ it /1 ti 12 tt ~ 6i t-t/ s ! ' g. -r --s, vc)tt -~ 9: Lt !t Q 'OZ ~ 't --t/! J - t ""~ . ~ f ~ ~ 1 ~ A t~' ~ ~f~lU ~ ~ Q .~ _J W ~ tr rr ~t - ~ Q V A ~ ~ a e CJ _ _ U ~_ ~ ~ Q ~ ~nt~I~ d -m ca ~ Q W a A ~ ....,1 (~ { _ ~ ~ W ~ J ,; ~ _ ., , :. N w ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, .~I oa ~xt ~! ^1~ - i r) tD (~ v ~~ - l N t Q ^ ^ ^ 1 N~ ~ N N ~_ ty ~ ~ - _ ~ M O ~ ~ ( ~ ~ O O tnct ct, LO 60 ~ t R r a c ~: a «r. \ v ~ fi.1wQ I V ,aa ` ^~ ~1/ t ~ t 1 IQ ~ ~ ~© {..J ~ ~ a~ ~ N N ~ _, ~ ~, vl ~ M , -~~nd - .' - i - - - - d " ~ . t~ ~ • tt .. 1` ~ n •-, ' ~_ o ~ , 1- o ~" ~ tv v' ti ~ ~ `~ ~ t 1 (~ N t~v~N ~~'t(1 ~ its it ~"Ni .~ .and ~ ~ , __ N' r{Mr V 1~[h~~ 11)~ I ft1 I Q ~ :. N t~l N t ~~dCl N A~ r ~- -T'~" L. a. N(i 2~5 ~ H U N i!'i'.V /~ Ft~ jfiARF~fIDa .aVx'Nf.IELC) D 1 '1' ! ~~ i'"i ' - -r ~-' - t 1 . .... ----- --__-~.I•r•rr/rw~.•~•"I r1rfrsVVw.«i wiwN+wtw , h .i ., ~; ~ ~ j Q I~ i ,. , r J_ .wa r • ~3 ~I. :~ f r d:y N~ ~~ t-ast [•~ Rj :~. ;~ j+ ~~ ~~ .-F _ _. I 2 ~ ' ' . ~ ..,v « .... • ; """1r.• : SCALE: I" 20' ~i II S/ NII II.N fI.N /f 10 fflf 1 ~____.__. ..._...__ ,.,,, `.,wri•M MIVV wrnw l/s.111 MM MA'XfrM a+M ~''N.1f•i Cl1"[. - -• ---- • If 10 i0 f0 ron PRUPC~SE D~ TANGLEW4~D AD ITI@ 4 D N F RICHFiEL. D OWNIR: Phllllp C. SmaDy OEY[IOPERS• Jla Plall ~ Jell Guslatson OESGRIPftON: S)09 lyndaie Avenue Saulh S)09 /yndalt Avtnut SouEh The Wtsl Ilf of the North S acres of Iht Norlhwesi 111 0l the Souihwe~l 114 0l Sec lion ~, Mlnntapolis, MN 55419 Mtnneapolis, MN S3itt teweship 21, Range 29, utording to Iht U. S. Government Surrey Ih/rcol, /ICepi Ihr i. Ph'nte 190-61d0 Wtxl IdS tstllhereel. SURYlYORS: tgan, ~Itld i NowaA, Enc. 1~IS Wayfata Ooulevai® t htreAy cerllfy that Ihis plat was prepareA by me or under my'elrtcl uprrvlsiun - _Mlueetpotts, MN SS~26 That t a[I a duly Regtslerto Etnd Surveyor under the Nws of Iht Siralt f1 Mlnne.oia. Phone: 546-861d $altd this 1OIh day of becea-Otr, 1911. ELAN, EIELO i NOWAK, INC. /~~ Surveyn[rs KY _lC K a_ ~~_ _ _ Minnesota Reglsiral on No 9051 '~~ ~ S T. 24 i x 2 C1 ZJf4 _~ U ~• _ gas T~/~ _ ~ 18T 1T,$ p ~ Q j~9 _ p ; Q -~ -o p 14(( p 13~ 2~ ^ z S T. (~2a ~pz3 ~1 .: z p 22 3 - Duple~ ~ 2L' S .-'r" ~. r-; 1 N I....i ~"- 8 p .G - p:: p .s ,o p 3 Q ( { p 13 12 [] z ._ .. ''I _. ~ ~f_ J, . '' ~ 13 12 ' LAID USE 1~AP 73rd . ~ ~ •.J ~ ;.. ~ o « w r 3 '- 4 - - - 9 ~s.. ~ 9 - ~ S ~ - ~I~ _ . ' `u C .a _ ._ ~ . N ~ ~ 1~ ~ g 2 2~~ ~ ~ - ~ 2 ~ ~ ~= 1 ~ .-• • 'A ~ ~ - - - - - 3 w.i ~ ~ L..` _ ~ /~ . ~ .. . _ w w _ Sltng ~ar>~i~y ing a ~ ......_ .- - '~ ~ . ~ T sr f w ~ • ~- a i3i~ ~,~ I ~ ,+ !""GGtiG~ ~~~ ~ . ~, z~ ~ zl ~ ~ ~ ~;~; 4 e}a~~ _ =-~s.,~~~at_ -~ . r-- 7~~ _' ~ , I [] • ~~ _ -~ j .. ..-. ~ ~ . =3 " ~ 2a '3 ~~ _ ~ Q I _- 2~ ; g~a~'i _ s . . I~ ~ io~fftice I I :1 ~~ _ ~~ __ IZ 'ta . .; .' -I~e . '2 . •'1 ..~ '4 Sts :~~ ! SG9 I S+Ss •27 ` .ts .l •.; wos •W ,2f. i o ~. j .. r-- Mobiie Home Park _.- _. ._ ~~_...____ /j ,, -. / / _ ~ '_ ~____, ~ i ate ,, f_ Apartments Apartments , ' / ~~ ; -r...__~ ~ f / ~ - --~ ~ . ._-^ ~ .r, ,% ~~, -- I / ~ ' I .f y` a' ~` ~1 O S '_ - ~ c t '"~ ~ i ri ..~ S 1~ ,,..J ~ 3 '4 ~ o 4.r +~ 76th .. .. °i ' ;~ ~~. r 1 !.r, v+r r ,. t. 1 <~~'~ ~,4rR Z _. {.r ! ~ ! A a ~ , 3 .:. r .+ ~ t ~ { ~~'f' ~Q P'~~A r'r~i; f 1 44 ' ' } , } ~ F* 2 r' t l ~I •i i 1 ~ S r~ 1,5 t ~ i {~ ~'~ I~~f '?~1 ~; ~S. ~ r r{ { ~ 'µl its r }~, ~ t 1 4 r { ~1 /~ 7 ~i r ~ * ~ ~ i ,: c J ~n ~~ ~ '~. .~ - 1 ~ Ir 7 1+ 1~~ ~ 1~ y: Zs;, H': 1 , ~,~ ~,. r rs+. t.a ~ 1~ 1 1 ~ ~ 1~6 T~ q {,' ~` ~" fJ .:I ) ,tiu~ -~ni~,ly~' f r `r ' },kK C~ ~{yY ~ti _ fX ~. ~a •~~ - ry}1 ~~'~ f ~~` ~ ~~~} >F ~•~4'b. e r ~ ti ~i y M° ~~+ r4i' s 4~ A f . x ;,, ,. , -`~- ~,~ :C s/~s/g~ !p h~ ~i~y / ~ar,nir, ~omv-~issrov~; 1nJ ~ w i ~ ~ ~ ~ car orb 1 e.. ~ o a~'1'c r, cl ~~ e.. ~ ~ G ~n h i tin q wog. !d 1~kc ~o ti9n to.~or O~ '~hL. b e b t,, - ~ '~' a1` c o q C.O m W~ i S S l d 1r1 m t G~ i V1 q ~` ~ ~trG tort, Lv e. 5 ~ ~ h^ i I `~i 5 ~ G~GY` ~ro ~®St, c~ lawn {~~uStS W ~ s'1' ~ y T1. S7r c ~~' . l.v ~ h o PC ~~at t~,c. G ; ~y t'la~~, - ~~. • Cov~nrn~ SS+Or. wi ~~ 0.~PrGV~, t.~G S~U~~VtiS10V1 ®t C.~~ S P!~'O~GYi y )h~0 ~p ~O I S ~OY 0. SI ~[ ~1n~1 `OV~+t~ ~OUSG ~tV~,1O~OW1~,v1~~ ~a~k yoa.., Qe MAY ~ ~ 982 City of Richfield '~ 3~j$ Go• r i- i ~. ~ d 1'~v t. J U. ~ ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 193 Agenda June 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and C7embers of the City Council ~~~n~~~~s -tom Pr`s=5~~`t City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Subdivision, 6512-14 Oliver Avenue HISTORY In September, 1981 the Plannina Commission reviewed a request for a variance to allow subdivision of the property at 6512-14 Oliver Avenue into two lots of substandard area. A duplex exists on the property, and the property owner was desirous of dividing the lot in half in order to sell one of the units. The new property line would have run down the conunon wall of the duplex structure, creating a zero setback situation. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request. The commission generally supported the concept of this kind of subdivision but felt that it varied too much from the city's ordinances. The commission indicated that possible ordinance revisions should be explored to allow this kind of development. The city council subsequently tabled consideration of the request and referred the matter back to the city staff and the Planning Commission for further research and reconunendations. The Plannina Commission, on April 13, 1982, recommended an ordinance revision for city council approval. The council has subsequently passed the ordinance amendment recommended by the Planning Commission. The ordinance amendment will be effective on or about June 19, 1982. Mr. Myron Gunderson is now requestincr that the city approve a common element residential subdivision at 6512-14 Oliver Avenue South in accordance with the recently passed ordinance. Council Letter No. 193 -2° June 14, 1982 STAFF FINDINGS The staff has reviewed the proposed common element subdivision against the requirements found in the city's subdivision ordinance and found the following: 1. The proposed site is located in an MR zoning district; the two family dwelling use is permitted in that zoning district. 2. The total lot dimensions are 59.61 feet by 133.29 feet. The total lot area is 7,945 square feet. The existinq minimum required lot area in an MR zoning district is 10,000 square feet. The city granted a variance to this requirement in 1979 to allow construction of a duplex on this site. The recently passed revisions to the res- idential zoning district requirements require a minimum lot width of 75 feet and a minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet. The existing site would not meet either of these requirements. The existing two-family dwelling on the site does not meet existinq or revised zoning ordinance requirements for front and sideyard setbacks. The existing front yard is 29.04 feet instead of the required 30 feet. The sideyards are 9.80 feet and 9.81 feet instead of the required 10 feet. The existing lot coverage of 29.2 percent would be greater than the 25 percent maximum lot coverage allowed in the revised ordinance. 3. All information required by the subdivision ordinance has been provided, and the proposed common element residential subdivision is consistent with all subdivision requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the proposed common element residential subdivision be approved, subject to the following stipulations: 1. No owner may remove or alter any intervening common wall separating two units for the purpose of joining such units without amending the plat to permit such joinder. 2. Except to adjust for settling or lateral movement of structures, the boundaries betTr~een adjoining units may not be relocated without amending the plat. . 3. Units may not be subdivided without amending the plat. 4. Common areas or facilities may not be subdivided without amending the plat. 5. In the event that any unit is damaged or destroyed, it must be rebuilt to the boundaries of that unit as described in the subdivision plan. Council. Letter No. 193 -3- June l~z, 1982 6. Common areas may not be used for any purpose other than the purposes described in the subdivision plan and contained in the plat. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the proposed common element residential subdivision be approved with the six stipulations outlined in the staff recommendation. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~, ,~I,~:C:.,.l~r ~~-~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh • cc: Community Development Director City Planner • J NC ~ ~ ~ ~~K ~~~ NARR1 S. IONNS4N COMPANIES, INC. ~O/ WCST 7f TM fTl~[[T OlO0Y.N6TON• MINNeIOTA ii~20 INON~ 16121 fN.iJ~.1 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ~QR MYRON GUNAc~RSON I hereby certify that this is a true-and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of: PARCEL "8" The North 29,8 feet of the South 59.6 feet of the North 875.8-feet of the East 1/2 of the west 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 except road in Section 28, To+anship 28,.Range 24. PARCEL-°B" The South 29..8 feet of the North 875.8 feet of the East 1/2 of the West 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 except road. in Section 28, Township 28, Range 24. • It also shows the location cf an existing building. As surveyed by me or under my direct supervision this .14th day o May, 982. S SOn'~ Land Sur eyar Minn. Reg. No. 5065 HARRY S. J08fISOlt C0lAPAlIIES, INC. ~o~ wssr »r« srwccr ngow«aro«. r,«»csor~ ad~se YMOM[ ~s~T a..s~a GERTIFlCATE OF SURVEY ~ FoR ~r~au GuNC~~5a,r. ~-~~ a vs -. Sc~~ t"= 20, ~~ ~~ ~~ ~I . r ~~ _~ ~ -(r..~-etCy 4.8s v ~, :~ .... t t S ~ ~$ ~ ~ : ~ ~ h ~~ CFiI ~ ' PCW. i.iN~- ~ ~" '~ Q~~~ .. ., A 3 .x '/ 1, I A ~~~.~.•~q' a H:ts++•••WAOO (~' Cja•(o1 ~L ~a " """"+"` x{'12 ~ ~~. ~~12 ~~5 O•Dgr2 ~G;~.f. ..r .~-2•.4MA biYjattiL '?J'S C+ N tt1 ~~ --+'+ Oy ''~-~ l ~ ~.~„as o.~'i , ~ '• ~ ~. ..:}' , ,c ~~/~ ,... . _ .... ..~.....r .~~..r, r.. ~. .eac .. ~, ae \ a .* i.00 _. ~~~~,~ r I I • ~a `~ ~' i i ~~ I 1 o ---_ _ -- bo u 6n ~~~r``»t~ • i,~s!'S•I V• ~~97~ :~ aces ii~\ • `~ ~ ~~- t. ~ e. .,,, r ~ ~~'- e 15 ~ ~ _ V ~' ~~ ; • r ~ -r34~a~- tt ~ ~ ~13~Faf p 3 . ~, : . e,° -[1'x'1: ~ ~ S"4. . 3 ~jr ey; ~; . ° ~, e . `p r I~, 1wir ,1, ~ . ,. , -~~_;~ -;~ 9 ~ _134..3 ' i3_~~.2L_ ~ E~. 1t~S• '~Se ~~. `. °o° i ry5i5~, 3•i7~ r 4 q.- i~• ,~^~~• ~ ~t~o ~ - ;i:~f ~c3s.al '~, 1~ ~: tiM~O ~• ~~~ I G.tio,~ e • ,.~'S6 3~.'fi 34. f F - 3~e:~r• ~ S jj~g ~ ~~• h~1 1~pO a. ~4~"- -13'~:f 4 W a @sfi 1 ~ kt~ • e ~~ i~. ~~ f 4. s ~~_~3 „ c e s4 _ - ~ v - ~ tS• ,~,~ ~ •134.7 ~ +~. - --~~ ~ a 4 +~ ~° e ~S * t -gr'' ~ ,~~, C. .11 :_i! 4.Id ;~, a f A; e~Q GJ 4F M , . ~. ~ ~ i, • r .~ 1~ m ' .V !-~ G• W Q 3 rlj, M~°Q -,0~5 ~. F ~;~ 139.4 ~3 c• ~~ 43 ~!! x` 1G b is. ~,~- ~ p,~yo 4 ~ i~ ~ q~~ ~ S, A . ~ 1 a~nR _ _ ,~,~ 4,1 ~ .3d _L34 ~ ~i •e~~° ~s T• , ~ , ~. h ~~,4 ~ ... pr'~1~ J.47 ~1So rt.a ~a. ,, 3 ~ ~. ~ r A a ° ~S i I Q {~ ~I Ew _ 2to•- ••! M a- n W _ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ J J Q Q ~ Z z ~`' Q Q O W - ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ >- ~ Z Q Q ~ '-~ oc a w a ww_z~ ~ c~ to ~ • ~` -~ 0~~ 3 Z -r~ r m m tT1. D D ~ ~ r ~ . 0 Z ~ r ~ c°° r ~ ~ ~ r o z r ' fn ~ z D, r D r w ~ ~ ..osY:.. ..~,. ~ ; ~ `off ~ V v 8 "~ ,~ ~~ ti~ oy y~ u o~t~ a r ~ • e` ~~ ` ~ '~ aC1 t o tb bf i ~:}~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~` • ~~, rye ~ y, Y, ,. • , ~~ ti ~ ~ ,~ . .' yti°n o~y*e 91 € ~~a1~4 >~ ~, ~1 • e-~ yL ~Vy4~~i I [r YEiy- t' -_7 C~Y ai ° °`~t~~ t f °~ °°`L y~$L•4~ t4~S~l~ ~_i~. ~~ 9ti ° `~d ~ • °~ o°~~ ` ~~ °~~ '6'~ f!_ _ ~ _~C' 4 tl_.._ 4`y~ ~ : y w 9 ~ ° ~ _i8 fi l_ j1 li L' -6~3f! _ y l o, , °Ot .y~ s . ~~e~ 't! i y. t ~_fS- . ,, N ; '~ t~'~~ tit: '~ ~ .. ~ l ih = ~y~' ~ ~ L t ~ L' ~~ ~~~~~~ q ~' ~° °71 ~ * ore ~f~`` ~1~ ~ •~_~.~.! '4'btt O, t o0° ~ 41 t ~1` >~) ~F~S 1 t_ jl ~- _ _._., . w ' ~ _i~9r wY '• °~ ~ t ,Y~ tiS~ i __. __ L k 0 i >f ~~ .- ~. 1 i ~z3 (~ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 192 Agenda June 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Delegate to South Hennepin Human Services Council At the January 27, 1982 city council meeting, the city council appointed Lt. Phil Majors, Public Safety Department, as one of the city's delegates to the South Hennepin Human Services Council. Because of scheduling conflicts, it has become difficult for Lt. Majors to attend meetings of the SHHSC. It is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur, that Sgt. John Nelson be appointed by the city • council to replace Lt. Majors on the South Hennepin Human Services Council. This appointment will be for a two-year term which will expire in January, 1984. This item has been placed on the June 14, 1982 city council agenda for council action. Respectfully submitted, ~.~~.c~. Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: Public Safety Director • The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council ~y Council Letter No. 191 Agenda June 14, 1982 Public Safety Commendation Award Police Officer Teresa Johnson As members of the city council may recall, for three months earlier this year, Police Officer Teresa Johnson worked an undercover assignment with Minneapolis Police Officers and Agents of the State Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Officer Johnson and the other officers involved in this matter operated a "sting" program and purchased stolen property from burglary suspects. As a result of this intensive three-month operation, over 50 individuals have been charged with a variety of felony crimes. Officer Johnson's involvement in this operation was a very integral part to success of the total project. She became one of the key contact persons dealing directly with the suspects in the purchase of stolen property. The operation was aimed at "career criminals," those who have prior felony convictions. Therefore, Officer Johnson's assignment in this case posed an unusual degree of personal safety hazard. As a result of her efforts in this matter, Officer Johnson has received commendation citations from the Minneapolis Police Department and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. She was also honored, on May 5, 1982, by the Richfield Optimist Club for her participation in this project. Officer Johnson's personal courage and dedication to duty merit the appreciation of all of the residents of our community. It is a pleasure to award her the Public Safety Commendation Award. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Dlanager KN/skh cc: Public Safety Director ~$/8 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 190 Agenda June 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Amending Section 2.07 of the City Charter. First Reading. Attached to this council letter is a copy of a transmittal order received from the Richfield Charter Commission, requesting that the city council consider amending Section 2.07 of-the City Charter relating to salary increases for council members. 'The amendment would delete the phrase "and such ordinance may be amended only by a four-f ifths vote of the council" and add the phrase "No change in salary shall take effect until after the next succeeding municipal election." -- Under current legislation, a change in the salary of the Mayor or council members, or both, can be made effective 30 days of ter publication of the ordinance, under Section 2.07 of the city charter, by a 4/5 vote of the council in favor of the or- dinance. Any change in the mayor's or council member's salaries can be made effective after the next succeeding municipal elect- ion with a simple majority vote of the council, under provisions of Minnesota State Statutes. This item has been placed on the June 14, 1982 city council agenda for council consideration. Copies of the proposed charter amendment are attached to this council letter. Respectfully submitted, .~~ ~i~.C~,,,CQ„~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: City Attorney City Clerk :.. TRANSMITTAL ORDER To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: We, the undersigned, being duly qualified and acting members of the Charter Cc~anission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, do hereby respectfully submit and deliver to you the attached proposed ordinance amending Section ~ . ~ j of the City Charter of the -City of Richfield. We hereby respectfully proposed, rectnmend and suI~nit for adoption, by unanirrous vote of the City Council and approval by the Mayor of the ~~ ~ City, the attached proposed ordinance this ~~~' day of ~; ~ ~ ~, ~ `, , f~, ~ ` t ~, ~, ~, i, •~--y ~t CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: The City Charter of the City of Richfield adopted November 3, 1964, as subsequently amended, is hereby amended in the following respect: Section 2.07, relating to the salaries of the mayor and members of the council is amended to read: ' "Sec. 2.07.. Salaries. The mayor and the members of the council shall receive payment as set by ordinance [and such ordinance may be amended only by a four-fifths vote of the council]. No change. in .salary shall take effect until after the next succeeding municipal election. The city manager and all subordinate officers - and employees of the City shall receive such salaries or wages as may be fixed by the council." This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and publication in the manner required by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, by unanimous vote this day of 1980. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk LAW OFFICES LEFEVERE, LE-PEER, PEARSON, O'BRiEN &DRAWZ CLAYTON L. LRFEVERE HERBERT P. LE FLER CURTI3 A. PEARSON • J. OEN NIS O'BRIEN JOHN E. DRAWZ DAVID J. KENNEDY JOHN B. DEAN GLENN E. PURDUE JAME$ D. CARSON CHARLES L LcFEVERE H ERBERt P. LEFLER ~ JEFFREY J. STRAND JAMES P. O'M EARA MARY J. BJORKLUND THOMAS D. CREIG HTON 1100 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 November 20, 1979 Mr. Karl Nollenberger City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Re: Change of Council Salaries Dear Mr. Nollenberger: - ~ ~ ~:`-.7~. ~ Oy 21 1979 Ri~hfieW Cii~i Manager TELEPHONE (612) 333-0643 We have been requested to respond to several, questions which have been. asked about the procedural requirements which are applicable to changes in council salaries. Section 2..07 of the city charter provides as follows: • "Salaries. The mayor and the members of the council shall receive payment as set by ordinance and such ordinance may be amended only by a four- fifths vote of the council. .The city manager and all subordinate officers and employees of the city shall receive such salaries or wages as may be fixed by the council." In the absence of any statutory provisions, it would be~possble to Change the sa aries of-.the mayor and-.the other members of the council only by an ordinance adopted by four-fifths vote of the council. The charter provision does not contain any limitation on when the change becomes effective. It appears that the only limitation is that the change could not be effective before the ordinance {or an amendment of the ordinance) itself became effective. From time to time the city council has amended the salary ordinance and made the amendment effective upon publica- tion. .After the adoption of the Richfield city charter, the legisla- tune passed the following legislation relating to council salaries: "415.11 CITIES OF SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH CLASS, SALARIES OF GOVERr1ING BODY. Subdivision 1. Not- • withstanding the provisions of any general or special law, charter, or ordinance, the governing body of any statutory or home rule charter city of the second, LAW OFFICES LEFEVERE, LEFLER, PEARSON, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ Mr. Karl Nollenberger November 20, 1979 Page 2 • third or fourth class may by ordinance fix their own salaries as members of such governing body, and the salary of the chief elected executive officer of such city, in such amount as-'they deem reasonable. Subd. 2. No change in salary shall take effect until after the next succeeding municipal election." It is our opinion that the provisions of X47.5..11 prouide an independent alternative method of fixing council salaries. If the council proceeds under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes §415.11, it is our opinion that the salary change could not take effect until after the next succeeding municipal election. If the council undertakes to proceed under §415.1.1, rather than under charter section 2.0.7, it is our opinion that the require- meet of a four-fifths vote does not apply, and the salary amend- ment ordinance (which would be delayed in its effect until after the next municipal election) would require three favorable votes to pass. Very truly yours, Clayton~L. LeFevere CLL:jpf ~iR CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager • Council Letter No. 189 Agenda June 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Amending Section 5.01 - 5.20 of the City Charter. First Reading. Attached to this council letter is a copy of a transmittal order received from the Richfield Charter Commission, requesting that the city council approve amending Section 5.01-5.20 of the city charter of the City of Richfield. Specifically, these amendments include: Amending Chapter 5, Section 5.01 relating to Initiative and Referendum to include '°Recall." Sections 5.14 through 5.20 are new sections relating to the procedures for recall. Copies of the proposed charter amendment are attached to this council letter. This item has been placed on the June 14, 1982 council agenda for council consideration. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: City Attorney City Clerk TRANSMITTAL ORDER • • To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: We, the undersigned, being duly qualified and acting members of the Charter C~unission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, do hereby respectfully su~nit and deliver to you the attached proposed ordinance amending Section S.~ (' S ~ of the City Charter of the City of Richfield. We hereby respectfully proposed, recommend and st~Yxnit for adoption, by unanimous vote of the City Council and approval by the Mayor of the ~ ~~ City, the, -attached proposed ordinance this '~' ~ day of / ~ ~-/ . ~-'' 19-x- ~~_ _ _ ~ - ~; t ^~~ L / / -.~ ~ / L • CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE N0. • CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE RELATING TO RECALL OF ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICERS OF THE CITY, AMENDING CHAPTER 5 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: The City Charter of the City of Richfield is hereby amended as follows: -~ (1) The title of Chapter 5 is amended to read; "Initiative aad, Referendum and Recall" (2) Sec. 5.01 is amended to read: "Powers reserved by the people. The .people of Richfield reserve to themselves the powers, in accordance with the provi- signs of this charter, to initiate and adopt any ordinance, except an ordinance appropriating the money or authorizing the levy of taxes, to request such an ordinance when passed by the council to be referred to the registered voters for approval or disapproval and to recall elected public officials. These powers shall be called the initiative ae~, referendum and recall, respectively. • (3) Sec. 5.02 is amended to read: "Expenditures by petitioners. No member of any initiative_ '. e~ referendum, or recall committee, no circulator of a signature paper, and no signer of any such paper, or any other person, shall accept or offer any reward, pecuniary or otherwise, for service rendered in connection with the circulation thereof, but this shall not prevent the committee from paying for legal advice and from incurring an expense not to exceed $200.00 for station- ery, copying, printing, and notarial fees. Any violation of the provisions of this section is a misdemeanor. (4) Sec. 5.03 is amended to read: "Further regulations. The council may provide by ordinance such further regulations for the initiative, e~ referendum or recall, not consistent with this charter, as it deems necessary. (5) The following new paragraphs shall be added after Section 5.i3: "Sec. 5.14. The Recall. No less than 25 registered vote 'orm themselves in a committee for the urpose of brings the recall of anv council member including the mayor. • the. committee seeks the recall of a dis the registered- voters constitut the council member's district. the city clerk the name of the sought, a statement of the roun~ 250 words , and their intention. t< A copy of this certificate shal] paper and no signature paper sha vious to such certification. The. .grounds as set forth predicated on one or-.more charge: both. For this pure®se -the word mance of an act by a ~o~tncil meml city that is wholly illegal and sauce" means the neglect or refu :he committee shall be from committee shall cert. to • cil member w ose remova is ~r removal in not more t an Lng about his or er reca attached to each signature e put into circulation pre- Ze recall etiton must be ma easance, nonfeasance or 1 easancE" means the ~erfor-- in his or'her official ca"`a- '~ ful and t e word "nonfea- w~.thout su ficient excuse, member's legal duty to do. RECALL, PETITION Name Address 1. 2. 3. The undersi ed re istered voters, all being eligible to vote on candidates for that o face, understanding the nature o e char es a ainst the council member herein sought to be reca e , desire the holding of a reca election for that purpose. Name Address 1. 2. • 3. -2- • ', • At the end of the list of signatures shall be appended the aff- davit o£ the circulator. "Sec. 5.16. Filing of Petition. within 30 days after the filing of the original certificate the committee shall file the completed petition in the office of the city clerk. The city clerk shall examine the petiti n within the next five days, and if the clerk finds it irregular in any wad or finds that the number of signers is less than 25 percent of the total number of registered voters eligible to vote on candidates for that office at the last preceding regular municipal election, the city clerk shall so notify one or more members of the committee. The com- mittee shall then be gi en ten days in which to file. additional s~naturer papers and to correct the petition in all other res ects, but they may not change the statement of the .grounds u on which the recall is sou ht. if at the-end of that time the city clerk finds the petition still insuf icient or irregular, the clerk shall notify all the members of the committee to that effect and shall file the eti ion in the cit clerk's office. No urther action shall be taken thereon. "Sec. 5.17. Recall Election. If the. petition or amended petition is found sufficient, the cif clerk shall transmit it to the councilw h ut delay, and shall also officially notify the person sought to be recalled of the sufficiency of the~etztion and of the endin action. If the council member sou ht to be recalled does not resign within ten days a ter having been icLven such notice, the council shall, at its next meeting occuring~more than ten da s after the recei t b the council of the recall petition, b~ resolution, provide for the ho ding of a special recall election not less than 30 nor more than 45 days after such meeting, but if any other election is to occur within 60 days after such meeting, the council ;nay in its discretion provide for the holding of the recall election at tYlat time. If the sp al recall election involves a district council member, the recall election shall be conducted only within the district of such council member. If it involves several district council members, the election shall be conducted only within the districts of such council members. If it involves a council member who is elected at large, the election shall be a city-wide election. "Sec. 5.18. Procedure at Recall Election. The city clerk shall include with the published notice of the election the statement of the grounds for recall and also, in not more than 500 words, the answer of the council member concerned in justifi- cation of his or her course in office. The election shall be conducted as far as possible, in accordance with the usual proce- dure in municipal elections. "Sec. 5.19. Form of Recall Ballot. The form of the ballot at such election shall be as near as may be: "Shall be recalled?" .The name of the council member whose recall is sought and his or her office shall be in the blank. The electors shall be tiermitted to vote separately "Yes" or "No" upon this -3- question. If a majority of those votin~T on the question of recai~ vote an favor of recall, the official shall. be thereby . removed from .office. "Sec. 5.20. Procedure to fill Vacancy In the event that a council member is recalled by the electors or resigns after a petition as been. filed for his or her recall, the vacancy shall be filled in the following manner: If less than six months remain in the council member's term of o ice at the time of the recall election or at the time of resignation ~.n response. to a recall petition, as the case may be, the vacancy shall be filled by the remaining members of the city council for the unexpired term .pursuant to Sec. 2.05. If six months or more. remain in the council member's term at the tame caf such recall or res. anon, the council shall call a s~ ec~.a~, e~.ection~~ill the vacanc,Y for the balance of the council m~er's term. Such election shall be called within ten ~~a~~s after such recall or resignation, and the special election s~ia11 be held not less than 30 nor more than 45 clays after the meeting at which the election is called. Candidates to fill the unexpired term shall be nominated in the usual-way and the elec- tion shall be conducted as far as possible in accordance with procedures in municipal elections except that there shall be no rimar election. and the candidate receivinr,~ the hzghest number o. votes for the office sha1.1 be elected to fill the unexpired term . '' • ......., (6) Effective Date. This ordinance is effective ninety. (9d) 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 1982. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk • -4- ~*'y • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 188 Agenda June 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendments Relating to the Serving of Minors in Establishments Serving Intoxicating and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquors r • The city council has previously issued wine licenses for Millers Fireside Pizza, The Inn, Pontillos Pizzeria and Shakey's Pizza Parlor. At the April 12, 1982 council meeting, the council approved a non-intoxicating malt liquor license for Godfather Pizza, to be located in the Hub Shopping Center. At that time, the council expressed concern with the procedure used by this and other licensed establishments to serve minors. A review of city ordinances indicated that there was a different standard for 3.2 beer licenses than for wine and/or liquor licenses, as related to the serving to minors. At the May 10, 1982 city council meeting, the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance which would bring the provisions relating to the presence of minors in establish- ments serving non-intoxicating malt liquor, and establishments serving wine or liquor into conformance with each other. This ordinance amendment provides that these establishments provide a separate area where no wine, beer or liquor will be served, for minors not accompanied by their parents. This ordinance amendment, a been scheduled for second reading 1982 city council meeting. copy of which is attached, has consideration at the June 14, KN/skh cc: Public Safety Director City Attorney City Clerk Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XI, SECTION 11.42 OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD City of Richfield Does Ordain: Chapter XI, Section 11.02 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield licensing and regulating the sale of nan-intoxicating malt liquor is amended by amending paragraph (1) of subdivision 8-._. thereof to read as follows: "(1) ~3ay No ~e~9ea-e~nde~-tire-age-e£-~8 miT nor. shall net be permitted to enter or remain on that part of the licensed premises where nan- a or guaraan. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this ~ day of 1982. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk n r _,~ ~ ~. r AMENDMENT TO CHP.PTER XT, SECTION 11.06 OF TIC ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICFiF'IELD City of Richfield Does Ordain: Chapter XI, Section 11.06 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield regulating and licensing the on-sale sa3.e of intoxicating liquor is hereby amended by amending paragraph (1) of subdivision 16 thereof to read as follows: "{1) No licensee, its agent or employee shall serve or dispense upon the licensed premises any intoxicating liquor to a minor, nor shall such licensee or his agent or employee permit a minor to be furnished or consume any such liquors on the licensed premises, nor ..shall such licensee or its anent or emnlovee permit Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this ~ day of , 1982. John I?amiltan, Mayor ATTEST: Sy via Bergh, City Clerk ~~ X13 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 187 Agenda June 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Bingo and Other Authorized Gambling Activities. Second Reading. On May 10, 1982 the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment which would bring the city's ordinance into conformance with the state statutes as amended by the 1982 Minnesota Legislature. The amendments are as follows: • 1. Increase the maximum compensation for bingo operators from $20 per bingo occasion to $50; 2. Increase the total prizes awarded for paddle wheel, pull-tab and tipboard from a maximum of $35,000 to $50,000 per license year; 3. Anew section (b) has been added providing that the county attorney shall be responsible for investigating and prosecuting violations of the ordinance; 4. A new section (c) has been added providing that "an organization which directly or under contract to the state or a political subdivision delivers health or social services and which is exempt from taxation pursuant to Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended through December 30, 1981, may award total prizes in a calendar year from the conduct of raffles, in excess of the limitation contained in Paragraph 7(b), provided the prizes consist of real or personal property donated to the organization by an individual, corporation or other organization, and except as provided in subparagraph (d) provided the organization complies with the other requirements and restrictions of this section." This provision would apply to nursing homes to allow those agencies to raffle off donations, etc. they may receive during the course of a year. It would not apply to service or religious organizations. Council Letter No. 187 -2- June 14, 1982 5. Adds a new section (d) "for the purposes of this para- graph, an organization covered by subparagraph (c) is hi limitations nor to the not sub'ect to the members p J ~~ ontained in this section. com ensation limitations c P At the May 10, 1982 meeting, the city council directed the city attorney's office to provide an explanation of the new language in paragraph (7)(b) of Subdivision 9 "The county attorney shall be responsible for investigating and, if appropriate, prosecuting organizations for violation of this paragraph." The city attorney's office has advised that this language, which applies only to prosecuting for violations of paragraph (7), was placed in the state statute by the 1982 Legislature. In fact, the language was added in the senate Committee on General Legislative and Administrative Rules by its chairperson - Senator Olhoft. Senator Olhoft's stated reasons for the amendment was that problems had occurred in the enforcement of the prize award limitations caused by city attorneys and county attorneys each asserting that the other was responsible for prosecution. Consequently, the amendment was designed to place this prosecution squarely in the hands of the county attorneys. Moreover, we believe one could interpret the amendment to place the balance of enforcement obligations with city attorneys. A copy of the proposed ordin ance is attached to this council letter and has been placed on the June 14, 1982 city council agenda for second reading consideration. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~, Karl A7ollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: Public Safety Director City Attorney City Clerk • AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER V, PART II, SECTION 5.19 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD City of Richfield Does Ordain: Chapter V, Part II, Section 5.19 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield regulating and licensing certain bingo and gambling activities is hereby amended in the following respects: A. By amending Paragraph (2)(a) of Subdivision 9 thereof to read as follows: • "(a) In the case. of bingo, compensation may be paid to an active member of the organization or its auxiliary, or the spouse or surviving spouse of an active member, conducting the bingo occasion. In the case of bingo only, a person not an active member of the organization or its auxiliary, or the spouse or surviving spouse of an active member may participate in the conduct of a bingo occasion by•resolution of a majority of the member- ship recorded in the approved minutes of the organization. Non-management assistants who are not active members of the organization, or the spouse or surviving spouse of an active member may be hired to assist members in conducting the bingo occasion. Beginning August 1, ~9~9 1982, compen- sation shall not exceed $8:98 $50.00 per bingo occasion." B. By amending Paragraph (7) of Subdivision 9 thereof to read as follows: "(7)(a) Total prices from the operation of paddle wheels, pull-tabs and tipboards awarded in a single day in which they are operated shall not exceed $1,000.00. Total prizes resulting from any single spin of a paddle wheel or from a single seal of a tipboard, each tipboard limited to a single seal, or from a single pull-tab shall not exceed $150.00. The total prizes awarded for paddle wheel, pull-tab and tipboard by any organization shall not exceed X35;999 $50,040 per organization for any license year. (b) The county investigating a izationsfor vio ttorney shall be if appropriate responsible for prosecuting organ- aaraoh. 0 or tnis pa (c) An organization which directly or to the state or a political subdivisio ealth or social services and which is anon pursuant to Section 501 (c) (3 ) of Revenue Code of 195.4,. as amended throw 981, may award total prizes in a cale: the conduct of raffles, in excess of t; consist of real or ,personal property do: organization by an individual, corporal: organization and,. except as ,provided in provided the .organization complies with meats and restrictions of this section. r contrac fivers pt from t Internal cember 30 year from mitation rues d to the or other rectuire- Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this _____r_.. day o f 19 8 2 . ATTEST: Sylvia ~3ergh, City Clerk John Hamilton, Mayor • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~ ~ ~' Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 186 Agenda June 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Rezoning Certain Properties to R-1 - Second Reading On May 24, 1982, the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance which would rezone certain property in Richfield from R, single family residence, to R-l, single family residence. Properties along the west side of Lyndale Avenue between Oak Grove Boulevard and 73rd Street were included in this rezoning. The city council asked the Planning Commission to study these rezonings and make an additional recommendation regarding zoning of these properties. The council also scheduled the public hearing on this matter for June 14, 1982. The Planning Commission has the property along the west side Grove Boulevard and 73rd Street, in the aforementioned area with rezoned to R-l, single family re single family residence . again considered rezoning of of Lyndale Avenue between Uak and recommended that all property Lyndale Avenue addresses not be sidence, and remain zoned R, At the last city council meeting the council gave first reading approval to an ordinance which would allow any lawful nonconforming single family residential use in an R-1 zone which existed at the time of the adoption of the zone to rebuild after a fire, explosion or act of God, provided that the degree of nonconformity is not increased. It is recommended that the council conduct the public hearings on this matter, move to amend the ordinance to delete the properties having addresses on Lyndale Avenue, and then give second reading approval to the attached ordinances, implementing the rezoning and grandfathering existing dwellings. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager • KN/skh cc: Community development Director City Planner City Attorney City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. S 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 def fining the boundaries of the various zoning districts of the-city enumerated in Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.28, Subdivision 2 of such code is hereby amended in the following respects; (1) Appendix C, Section 6 is amended to read as follows: "section 6. Residence District (R) (1) that area not Chereinbef ore? assigned to any other district." (2) Appendix C is amended by adding the following new Section 9: "Section 9. Residence District (R-1) (1) Blocks 7, 8, 9, 10 Fairwood Park Addition. (2) Commencing at a point 390 feet south and l00 feet west of the northeast corner of Block 11 Fairwood Park Addition thence northwesterly 79.3 feet to a point 125 feet west of the east line of said block thence west .parallel with the northline of said Block 11 to the west line thereof thence southerly along said west line to a point due west of beginning thence east 94.4 feet to beginning. (3) Commencing at a point 315 feet south and 125 feet west of the northeast corner of Block 11 Fairwood Park Addition thence northwesterly 75.8 feet to a point 135 feet west of the east line of said block thence west parallel with the north line of said Block 11 a distance of 189.7 to the west line thereof thence southeasterly along said west line to a point due west of beginning thence east 124.5 feet to beginning. (4 ) That part of the south 72 feet of 'the north 240 feet of Block 11 Fairwood Park Addition lying west of the east 135 feet thereof and the south 8 feet of the north 168 feet of the west 113.7 feet of the east 248.7 feet of Block 11 Fairwood Park Addition. (5) Commencing 210 feet west and 80 feet south of the north- east corner of Block 11 Fairwood Park Addition thence southeasterly 110.3 feet to a point 135 feet west of the east line of said Block 11 thence west parallel with the north line of said Block 11 113.7 feet thence south -2- parallel with the east line of said Block 11 8 feet thence parallel with the north line of said Block 11 to the westerly line of said Block 11 thence northwesterly along . said west line to a point 80 feet south of the north line of said Block 11 thence east 190.5 feet to a point of beginning. (6) That part of the north 80 feet of Block 11 Fairwood Park Addition lying .west of the east 21.0 feet thereof. (7) Tracts A and B of Registered Land Survey Number 174. (8) Lots 1-24 Block 1 Lynwood Addition. (9) Block 2 Lynnwood Addition. (10) Lots 1-4 and 14-22 Block 1 Wood Lake Shores Addition. (11) Lots 18-3 4 Block 2 Wood Lake Shores Addition. (12) Blocks 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 Wood Lake Shores Addition. (13) Lots 1-10 Block 7 Wood Lake Shores Addition. (14) Tracts A and B Registered. Land Survey Number 379. (15) Lots 1-18 Ralph Milners Addition. (16) The west 74 feet of the north .130 feet of Lot 19 of Ralph . Milners Addition and the east 4 feet of the north 130 feet of Block 3 Ralph Milners Second Addition. (17) That part of the north. 130. feet of Lot 19 Ralph Milners Addition lying east of the west 74 feet thereof. (18) That part of the east 4 feet of Block 3 Ralph Milners Second Addition and of Lots 19 and 20 of Ralph Milners Addition lying .south of the north 130 feet thereof and north of a line commencing at a point in the southeasterly line of Lot 19 Ralph Milners Addition distant 15 feet southwesterly along said lot line from its intersection with the north line of Lot 5 Block 3 of Ralph Milners Second Addition extended thence northwesterly 40 feet to a point in said extended line thence west along said line to the west line of said east 4 feet of said Block 3. (19} The east 4 feet of lot 5 Block 3 Ralph Milners Second Addition and that part of Lots 19 and 20 of Ralph Milners Addition lying south of a line commencing at a point in the southeasterly line of said Lot 19 distant 15 feet southwesterly along said lot line from its intersection with the north line of said Lot 5 extended thence north- westerly 40 feet to a point in said extended line thence west to the northeast corner of said Lot 5. -3- (20) Block 4 Ralph Milners Second Addition." • Passed by the City Council of the. City of Richfield, Minnesota This .day of 198.2. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. ' BILL 1982 AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III PART IV, SECTION 3.29 SUBDIVISION 2 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter IIT, Part IV, Section 3.29, Subdivision 2 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to nonconforming uses is amended by amending Paragraph 6 to read as follows: (6) If at anytime a non-conforming building or structure is damaged b~ fire, earthquake,. wind, water, explosion, riot, war or an aCt of Cod to the extent of more than 5©~ of its thin market value at the time of the damage, then without further action day the council, the said bgilding•and the land on which the building was located shall from and after the date of such damage conform to all regulations of this chapter[.] exec t that an lawful nonconformin ss.n le farnl residential use whzc exa.sted at the time o the ado tion of t zs amen ent ma be"reconstructe a zt is ama ed or estro e b fire, ex loszon, or an act of God, provided t at the degree of non-con ormity zs not Increased. The eterm1nation o the extent o e amage and the fair mark~:t value of the building or structure shall be made by the City Council. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 198.2. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: • Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager i Council Letter No. 185 Agenda June 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Preferential Runway System Some time ago, the city council requested the city attorney to put together a report concerning Preferential Runway System and any legal basis for action to compel the Metropolitan Airports Commission to amend the procedures used to designate runways for landings and takeoffs in a way which would reduce the level of noise in Richfield. The issue is a complicated one which requires some discussion on the part of the city council. To that end, I have scheduled this matter for the attention of the city council at the June 14, 1982 .city council meeting. In addition, I have notified the council's representative to MASAC that this matter is scheduled on the agenda. The city attorney will be present at that meeting to answer any questions you may have on the matter. Respectfully submitted, ,~~~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: City Attorney Commissioner Will Viitala Charles LeFevere Joan Erickson • LAW OFFICES LEFEVERE,LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN ~ DRAWZ A PROFE5570 NAL ASSOCIATION CLAYTON L. LeFEVERE HERBERT P. LEFLER 2000 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST J. DEN NIS O'B RIEN JOHN E. DRAWZ MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 DAVID J. KENNEDY JOHN B. DEAN TELEPHONE C612~ 333-0543 GLENN E. PURDUE RICHARD J- SCHIEFFER CHARLES L. LeFEVERE HERBERT P. LEFLER III JEFFREY J. STRAND JAMES P. O'M EARA MARY J. BJORKLUND JOHN G.KRESSEL OAYLE NOLAN May 18 1982 CINDY L. LAVO RATO , MICHAEL A.NASH LUKE R.KO MAREK JOAN N. ERICKSEN ELIZABETH D. MORAN Mr. Karl Nollenberger City Manager 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Mr. Nolienberger: We have been asked to investigate the Preferential Runway System and to determine whether there is a basis for legal action to compel the Metropolitan Airports Commission to amend the procedures used to designate runways for landings and take-offs in a way which would reduce the level of noise in Richfield. Our investigation has involved a review of the law relating to the Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC), its authority, and the legal requirements relating to its administrative procedures. We have reviewed documents, met and discussed procedures with staff members of the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Coun- cil (MASAC), the Pollution Control Agency, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and MAC to gain an understanding of the nature of the Preferential Runway System and the justification for its implementation. Further, we have considered a number of legal challenges which might be used in an attempt to force the MAC to change the system. This memorandum is a report on these investigations, our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The Preferential Runway System The Twin Cities Metropolitan Airport has three runways, two parallel ones running from northwest to southeast and one which crosses the two parallel runways and runs northeast and south- west. The runways are numbered as shown on the attached diagram. The numbers are derived from points on a compass with the last digit removed; thus, 29 is actually 290 degrees on a 360 degree compass. The L stands for left and is left to a pilot coming in from the southeast and would be 11R {right) to a person coming in from the northwest. Each runway, therefore, has two designations depending on which way the pilot is facing. Mr. Karl Nollenberger May 18, 1982 Page 2 • The major problems for the City of Richfield, as can be seen from the map, are take-offs on Runways 22 and 29L, and landings on Runway 4 and Runway 11R. Before the Preferential Runway System (PRS) was instituted, air traffic was routed according to exigencies of traffic and wind, with most operations taking place into the prevailing northwesterly winds. While that system is optimal from an air traffic control standpoint, most of the time, the wind conditions are sufficiently moderate that several run- ways would be well within safety standards. PR5 is a modifica- tion of the system in which traffic patterns are simply dictated by wind conditions (the wind based system). The PRS is theoreti- cally designed so that, when there are runway options available, operations will take place where they will create the least noise for the greatest number of people. This means that when weather conditions and traffic conditions permit, the air traffic con- trollers will send as many planes as possible out on Runway 22 and will have as many planes coming in on Runways 29L and 29R as possible. The second choice under the Preferential Runway System is to have aircraft land on Runway 4 and depart on Runway 11. With the kind of aircraft in use today, take-offs create much more noise than landings. The fewest number of people would be affected by airport • noise if all landings and all take-offs were over Eagan. That would be all take-offs on 11L and R and all landings on 29L and R. The reason this is not the first choice in the Preferential Runway System is that airplanes cannot take off and land from the same direction, except during the very light traffic of the nighttime hours, since FAA regulations require a 3 mile separ- ation between all aircraft at all times. It is claimed that the reason the PRS favors landings on 29 and departures on 22 over landings on 4 and departures on 11 is that more effective use is made of the airport when landings are on a double runway and take-offs are on a single runway because landing is a more com- plicated flight procedure, and because of delays in ground maneuvers. MAC states several other facts as justification for the PRS. The first is that the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport has a pre- dominance of northwesterly winds, and take offs and landings are best accomplished with a head wind. For this reason, from the point of view of air traffic controllers and pilots, it would be best to plan almost all take-offs on Runway 29 over south Minneapolis and northeast Richfield. The second fact is that the Highland Park area (off the end of runway 4) is somewhat ele- vated, making landings difficult because an increased altitude drop is required. In addition, the Highland Park area is north- east of the airport and therefore wind conditons almost never make this an ideal landing or taking off area. Mr. Karl Nollenberger May 18, 1982 Page 3 Currently, PRS dictates the following priority for landings; {1) 29L and R; (2) 4; {3) 11L and R; (4); 22. Similarly, the preferred take-off priorities are (1) 11L and; (2) 22; (3) 29L and R; (4) 4. When using the parallel runways, airlines use the one closest to their operations. Northwest Airlines, therefore, uses the south runway and Republic uses the north one. The Preferential Runway System is not used at all times. Its use is subject to four primary restrictions. (1) The runways should be clear and dry. Ice. or slush on a noise abatement run- way renders PRS unsafe and inappropriate. (2) PRS is only in effect when the wind velocity does not exceed 15 knots. (3) PRS is not used whenever there is a cross wind exceeding 90 degrees from either side of the centerline of the runway in use whenever the wind velocity is 5 knots or more. This third restriction is again related to the need of an airplane for avoiding a tail wind in take-offs and landings. (4) Whenever there is an excessive amount of air traffic at the airport, PRS is abandoned. MAC claims that the control tower attempts to use PRS as long as possible and usually does manage to use it during the busy hours in the morning but typically has to abandon it for safety and more efficient use of the airport during the extremely busy hours from about 3:30 or 4:00 to about 5:30 or 6:00 in the evening. • During those hours, take-offs and landings are either both on Runway 11 with south Minneapolis getting the landing noise and Eagan getting the take-off noise or, depending on the wind, both on 29, in which case take-offs are over Minneapolis and landings are over Eagan. The Impact of Preferential Runwway System on the City of Richfield As can be seen from the attached map, Richfield is situated so that the northeast corner of the city is affected by one runway (29L and 11R) and the southeast corner is affected by another (22 and 4). The northeast corner is closer to Runway 11-29 than the southeast is to 4-22. A contour map is attached which shows roughly the increase and decrease in noise impact caused by the implementation of the Preferential Runway System. This contour map is only a rough indication of the current effect, since the PRS was put into effect 10 years ago, the air- craft in use at that time were different and take-off noise was not as much of a problem as was landing noise. In any case, the map shows that the noise level in the northeast corner which is closest to south Minneapolis was expected to be improved by PRS and the noise level in the southeast corner was expected to be made slightly worse. In terms of the number of homes affected, the impact of 4-22 activity is probably somewhat less than the impact of 11-29 activity. This is because of the proximity of . the area to the runway and because of the size and shape of the area affected. The noise contour from the 11-29 runway in the Mr. Karl Nollenberger May 18 , 1982 Page 4 • northeast is roughly rectangular and is larger than the 4-22 noise contour which cuts a triangular swath across the southeast corner of the City. In terms of the times of day in which the noise is a problem, the late afternoon is said to be more of a problem for south Minneapolis and the northern part of Richfield, since it is then that the 11 parallel runways are in use for landings. During that time, the triangular southern portion of Richfield is not very much affected because of the use of 11 for take-offs. Attached to this memorandum are a number of charts showing the hourly use of the different runways. These charts are of some use in trying to establish the amount of impact on Richfield but it should be remembered that the hourly usage does not reflect the number of planes using the runways. A count of the number of planes and when they take off and from which runways they take off is not available. When Alevizos v_. Metropolitan Airports Commission, 298 Minn. 471, 216 N.W.2d 651 (1974) arose, aircraft counts were requested by the plaintiffs. At that time, a number of excuses were advanced by the MAC and the air traffic control- lers as to why such a count was impracticable, such as that the controllers are too busy to keep a count, that the equipment is • not sophisticated enough to do it on its own, and that it would be unreasonably expensive to hire round-the-clock counters. To the present day no such figures have been compiled. It is there- fore difficult to know (a) exactly how PRS affects Richfield, by taking into consideration such factors as frequency of adherence to PRS, flight patterns during busy times, and the time of day during which the noise occurs and (b) whether or not PRS is actually being adhered to. MASAC indicates that a counting system will be in place by the end of the summer of 1982, but at the present time, any evaluation of PRS must be based on some degree of subjective assessment and confidence in the good faith of the control tower. The Origins of PRS Preferential Runway System started in about 1970 as the result of intense public pressure to reduce the amount of airport noise. MAC explains that this pressure came primarily from south Minneapolis, which receives most of the airport noise under a system based on convenience for air traffic controllers and the wind. During the years since its inception, it has attained a high level support on MAC, and has the support of the FAA. In Alevizos v_. Metropolitan Airport Commission, 1980 PRS was given a further stamp of legitimacy by the Minnesota Supreme Court which cited efforts to reduce airport noise saying "the . Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council organized in 1969 and consisting of local residents, airline officials and MAC Mr. Karl Nollenberger May 18, 1982 Page 5 developed and implemented a 17 point program for noise abatement. This program included a Preferential Runway System, a voluntary night curfew and different landing and take-off procedures. Even so, the trial court found that there is little more that MAC can do to lessen noise below current levels for the [plaintiffs]". No public hearings have been held in correction with the Preferential Runway System. Alternatives to the Preferential Runway System One alternative to PRS would be a straight wind and traffic based one, which would basically be a return to pre-1970 patterns. The impact that this would have on Richfield again is not precisely clear because concrete information has not been compiled. However, it would send a great deal more traffic on the 11-29 runways which would have an adverse impact on northeast Richfield. There is little doubt, however, that the southeast portion of Richfield would benefit from such changes. Overall, the impact on Richfield as a whole would probably be greater under the wind-based system because of the noise contours (see above), and other measures available for 22 take-offs to reduce noise. There are at least two reasons why a change to a wind • based system is not likely to occur. The first is that it would adversely affect a greater number of people. The rationale behind PRS was to reduce noise for the maximum number of people. Therefore, a change to a system increasing the impact on a greater number of people is not likely to be a change which is favored politically. The second is that such a change could expose the MAC to greater potential liability in lawsuits based on damages caused by noise. The 1974 Alevizos decision, 298 Minn. 471, 216 N.W.2d 651 1974 (Alevizos I) gave a property owner the right to sue on a taking theory if he could show "a direct and substantial invasion of his property rights of such a magni- tude he is deprived of the practical enjoyment of the property, and that such invasion results in a definite and measurable diminution of the value of the property." It should also be noted that, according to the FAA, PRS is being touted as a panacea to other airports in the country who look to Minneapolis-St. Paul as an example of how they might do things better. Another alternative to PRS would be a system based on an equal sharing of the burden according to geographical area. This would spread, as much as possible, the noise equally over all the areas adjacent to the airport. Changes might be hourly or daily but would be on the basis of which areas had recently had the • most noise. Under such a system population density would not be considered. Again, there are problems with this alternative. Mr. Karl Nollenberger May 18, 1982 Page 6 • Portions of Richfield are highly populated and benefit from the Preferential Runway System. There have also been improvements made in land use in certain areas of Eagan so that the impact of the airport noise is less than it might otherwise have been. Houses have been purchased, and land use plans have been modified to accommodate the air traffic patterns. It should be noted that the control tower does make some attempts to spread the noise burden by geographical area to the extent that such efforts are consistent with PRS. When wind and weather conditions permit, if one area is getting a dispropor- tionate amount of traffic, another preferential configuration (i.e., 29-22 or 4-11, depending on which is being used) will be implemented to alter the traffic. Of course since counts are not kept of where airplanes are sent we have only the word of the tower for this. Given the political position of PRS and its uncertain effect on Richfield as a whole, we investigated the possibility of modifications to the existing PRS which might be advantageous to Richfield. One modification in particular appears as a sort of compromise between an equal geographical distribution and PRS. • The in-on-11 and out-on-11 pattern used during extremely busy hours could be added to PRS as an alternative for the control tower to use in situations where the 29-22 pattern had been in use for a substantial number of consecutive days and wind condi- tions did not permit a switch to 4-11. Without traffic counts, however, we cannot tell for certain whether this would be an improvement for Richfield, nor can we know whether failure to include 11-11 in the PRS constitutes an arbitrary governmental action. Theories of Legal Challenge to PRS A challenge to the PRS could be based on one or more of a number of legal theories. These include: a challenge to the procedures followed by MAC in establishing the PRS; a charge that the PRS constitutes a violation of constitutional rights to equal protection or due process of law; and a suit based on the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 116B. Another alternative which would not actually be a challenge to PRS as such would be for individuals whose homes are affected to bring their own suits under the authority of Alivezos claiming a taking of their property and demanding just compensation there- for. Some citizens have made the assertion that the PRS is a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law. However, the constitution does not require that the laws or action of government result in precisely the same impact Mr. Karl Nollenberger May 18, 1982 Page 7 • on all citizens; virtually all governmental action has effects which are greater on some citizens than others. Rather, the Constitution requires that when the government takes action which has a disparate impact on its citizens, the government must have a legitimate and proper public purpose which causes them to do so. Furthermore, the action of the government must be reasonably designed to accomplish that purpose, and any disparity in treat- ment of two classes of citizens must be based on substantial differences between the two classes which are reasonably related to the public purpose being ,served. In the case of PRS, the government presumably had as its purpose in establishing the system, the overall reduction of noise impact from airport opera- tions. In doing so, a decision was made to take population density into consideration so that the smallest number of people would be affected by airport noise. This meant a greater impact on some parts of Richfield where population was less dense in favor of other more densely populated areas. It also had the effect of reducing the impact on some parts of Richfield at the expense of less densely populated areas. Therefore, the PRS does "discriminate" against some parts of Richfield when compared with some parts of south Minneapolis. However, the PRS has a proper public purpose behind it, i.e., the reduction of the impact of noise, and the different treatment of the two classes of people • (i.e., those in less densely populated areas and those in more densely populated areas) appears to be reasonably related to that purpose. All of the legal challenges to the PRS have a common diffi- culty. In order to prevail, Richfield would ultimately have to demonstrate that MAC had abused its discretion in adopting the Preferential Runway System, that it was arbitrary or capricious, or that there was no rational basis for its decision. It would not be sufficient merely to complain of the noise or the effect of the Preferential Runway System; it would be necessary at some point to demonstrate some alternative which is so clearly prefer- able that to use any other system would be arbitrary. The best that could be hoped for in a challenge to the procedures followed by MAC in establishing the PRS would be a requirement that MAC hold hearings and reconsider the PRS. Given the current attitude toward the PRS at MAC, such a procedure would not be likely to result in abandonment of the PRS. We believe that a court would conclude that the PRS has a rational basis and that reducing airport noise for the greatest number of people by routing flights over less densely populated areas is a proper public purpose. The only remaining question would be whether the PRS as implemented actually serves this public purpose. In other words, does the use of PRS actually • reduce airport noise for the greatest number of people. One piece of information which would be necessary for an in-depth, Mr. Karl Nollenberger May 18, 1982 Page 8 • critical evaluation of the PRS is traffic counts by time and runway. Without such counts it is not possible to determine precisely what the effect of the PRS is on Richfield, nor is it possible to determine whether the PRS is accomplishing its objec- tive of noise abatement on areas of greater population density. As noted above, this information has never been compiled, although there have been requests to MAC to do so. It is possible that traffic counts would reveal that the PRS is not being followed properly or that it is not accomplishing its objectives. However, we have found no reason to believe that the PRS is not being complied with by the control tower. Further- more, it seems very likely that the PRS is, to some extent, accomplishing its purpose. It may be that the change in impact from one neighborhood to another is not exactly as anticipated when the PRS was established; specifically, it may be that the relative impact on Richfield is somewhat greater or less than that which was originally anticipated. However, it would take more than a slight change in relative impact to justify forcing the abandonment of the PRS. It would be necessary to show that it does not tend to reduce the overall noise impact on more densely populated areas. We have found nothing which would lead us to believe that this is the case. It should be kept in mind that the Court would not favor people in Richfield over those, for example, in Minneapolis. Rather, a Court would consider the PRS in light of its overall effect on the total population. Therefore, on the basis of all information which is avail- able to us and given the rationale of MAC for the PRS and the context in which it was established, it is our opinion that a lawsuit challenging the PRS would not be successful. Recommendations by time and runway. While we do not recommend bringing suit to challenge the PRS, the City should continue to monitor the activities of MAC and evaluate any proposed changes in design or policy which may effect Richfield. It could prove to be helpful to continue to encourage MAC to begin to keep records on take-offs and landings There are some developments on the horizon which could have an impact on Richfield. One is a project called the Runway 22 Channelization. MAC states that this project was meant to go into operation last October but was postponed by the air traffic controllers strike and is now merely awaiting final FAA clearance, to enter into an experimental phase. That would be a procedure under which airplanes taking off on Runway 22 would take an immediate left turn and then proceed roughly over the old stadium and over Bloomington rather than Richfield. This change Mr. Karl Nollenberger May 18, 1982 Page 9 • has been discussed for a number of years and has only recently become a realistic possibility since the FAA has recently moved its "dump zone" so that the 22 take-offs would not interfere with landing aircraft. In preparation for this change Bloomington is now requiring strict soundproofing in all new buildings which. would be effected by the change. We can expect this to go into effect around June 1. MAC believes that when put into effect, it should have a similar impact to that of the decision three years ago to require aircraft making a right-hand turn after taking off on Runway 22 to reach an altitude of 1,500 feet before changing course. That change resulted in a drastic reduction in the number of complaints from Richfield residents recorded by MASAC. Very truly yours, • CL/mj n LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz A Professional Association Charles L. LeFevere f C ~~~ ~~ "l~' ~. ~~ ~ ~ . Joan N. Ericksen • r ,.~ $ ~. Y. • I ! ~ ,f:k„ ~ ., ,.` ~ ]~ l ", .,, (~ 7~c~' i~~ r' ~~ ~'',~ ;~, ~ y ~" Exhibit 11 ~- ~ Ldn N i e o s Contours - ~~ ~' ~ ~ !i , ~ ~~ ;w ~ ~ _ ~- ~'~ ~,%, y ~ . ~ ~ Existing Preferential Runway ~, .~ ~~ ~ r f f~, .~ ' } r~`~ ~ i ~'~''• -z ~~i ~ _~ ~ l;,'1 ~~i ;' %%~ '-'~4 c Use Program ~~~~ ~ ~I~~1 ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 _il_l~t ~ ~ ~ ~I~l`Y ~ar -.,d ir~~ `tar j'~/,~~ 1~~~,t :`~r• '" ~ ~; ,~ t ltt,I ~,.I ~ Ili _~ -.~ , ~ ~ ~ ;. ~,~ ~ x ,~ ~ ~ ~~w ~ ~. r~ I . ~ ~,, I_..(.i,_:r~. ~ ~~ _ ~. ~ .~ I ~ ...+a,t ~{ 1~1t•. 11.111 ~~ ~ } i ~ ~ ~ I fii ~lr ~~ i~ ~~{ ~r,~~„ I C 1 l~lJ ~ .~ 1 ~ t } ~ _ I r I f ~! ~ ~ ~I~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + , mil' s ~ ~y, ~ I ~ i[ ~i'~.,;;, ~I ~ , lr ~I _,~ V ~,'+~ ~~14y~~~- ~ ~~~'1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~!d ~ 1977 Baseline Contour (with : ~ ~~1~ ~ `',~I~~„I~'~w ~'~ ~~~ ~' ~` '~i~ ~ ~ .,.~ ~ ~~.~ ~~' ~ ~4 }~~~~I~ nl 1 ~, 111~~ ~ Measure in Effect) r ,.'I'~~ ~. ~ I j ~~ .-", - _ ~~ ~_, ~ } I.I~.,~ l ~ Contour without Measure I ~~', `~~ ty ~ ~ ~-~ ~ Increase Caused b Use of .~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~. 7( ~. ~3r ~- N Y . _ dh 6 r ~2. ~ - ~ ~ i:- t ~- r °-~, .p ® Measure ,y ~ ~ ' 1 {~ 11 ri 1 ~ ; ~~~..~ ' ~ f' ~~ ~~. ~~ ~~~~~ l ~ I~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ Reduction Achieved by Use .. , ~ ~ ~\ ~/ ~i' _ ~ _~ _' ~ of Measure /, ,. / ~ o --~ ~ ~ I I ~ , ~_! I , ~~~, ~ a,. ,I - 1 ' .._, ~ . _ I f C" , ,, z o r ~., j _ ~ - Via' ~r t1 :~. . , ~ ~ , ~~ --,~ ~~ ~ c 1_ r .A ,. ~, it I 1 I ~ ~, ~ -- Prepared by li~~ c , ~ ~ -~ ~ ' ~ ~~ ~ Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff 4 ~y~ ~,,, ~ X11 ~ ~ ~ ~ _- ~~ ~ .,.~. ' _ '~' _ . _ ~~ Q. __ .. ~.. ~/ t ~ ~- r , - .O - Y _ ~ 1 - Statute Mtles ;/ ::: ~ ~. ~ nr~ t - z~ ~~ .. ~ _ ~ Q o z 3 -1 f' t ~ r ~ ~r ~ ~,~~ ~~~ ~= . _' `~ `. ~ tD Kilometers ~ ~~,,~ ~ ~. 7 .•^'-~~^S,I~~ ~~ ~ -..,_ ~ Source: HNTB analysis i 61 1, ~', ,~ ~. ~ t 1 r ' 4 ~ a ~ }. t P i. R "~`\ ~vl t rj ~ tl < <ra,~~th ~~. T'S ~ ''l i-. ~I ~ ~~7.1~ § ~ h -I~~. I~ .N'~ i~ y'~:~~ ., `t ~' •, ~ ~ d i` ~~ ~ r ~~~' yr i . r • • . I `.~i.a~ 1 ~ Ir il~/ ~ tllil~ ~ ~i! I ~~' :}~' ~! 1 ~r l.._~ ~.l'•'LIt~T.~-J t4 ~\'•\`,'~,`~ ~`. `._ _!~(_ u r: ' T{', ~ ~ r. 1-ir{~ r ~ ., is r _. al. 1~'~ ~ 1 7 1 1 ! 11-; ~'~ t ` ?f, ~ ~~Z'-~j r'+Y C ~xh~~~t 4 i ';;''~'. ^r)'I.I I'~11 T4 {~'' 1111 r lil }I \,~l ill t , ~y~:'{1{114 i. 1 , { t1~ \. - ~• ~^+ '~ .~- r~ ~~:.~ _ `1 i~ {1'Ui 1},1{~r it 11n'i ~i ~.\ \'}I' II III rl .~ .,~- 2 11 ~ 'I~~ f 1 ! L f -11~ ~!,r_ ~1 ~11 1~ `~ ~2",/ • O) f `v ~ _ 'j _ ff l ~1 1{i.i{ ~ i ~~,1 ~ I ! I! t I I 1 r ~ ~fO~.CSBi~ C.~1 la'{f'SlZ3tlOC3 fJ~ ~, _d/ 1 ... 'i'I;Si'flfl ~,j`I IIII ff\ I~Ir.."itl.i~r -I 1111}.1:. !.. f,L--l•-a...-,~I~_..,F+~~1-rt i-,li1 ~y'{~~ ` •ti ~~ I` \~„ ~~\~' ~ u I ~ '~ ~1 l,' '' .1 i , r, ~1i't IN +u ,t rl +, I I I+t at t ~" 7 I 1 I I i-i~' ~ /` ' 1 i~' 111 ~ \'. p~ ~D~f ~+ ~' ,~ ~, .il ,,~ ~ii I I'I; j iil I II i t I'~ 1 11 I ~ I I'I,t ., I ~I' '; .1 ~ ~~ ~ I ~f~' ~j-a i I~ ~, f ~ ~ ~ T f..-~ ~,; "~' ~~' r ,'!t ~~ !1) Y~Ufl~d~~ LG 16id'..£3i36t:9TrC.i ~ '' t., r~1~1~ i ~' ~I I 'i,r III },11' i ~1 i 1~ I ~I.,, 11 ~ i f t Ik I I ~ t _ ( I ~ ~. L! ~~ .,rv t :! ~ r - J i I'.. I irr ;~,~ ~. r. . (' j { ,S •. .'} I i I rl ., i`! / t. + p ~~ - ~ ~~'•i l'i r es i •I ~ ,i i ;, I Il I. ' ~1 ( 1 t z I, ;~~ t I ~ ~. I;_ I 11 ` ~ w; (I' I, '' ~ `ry r~ ( i ~ tl "fl' I I~1' I ' I \II~} ~ `! ~! ~..:.. I I:, I t i ' I ,, + ~ /t t % t r .` c~, I 1 ! ,~, t('' SI t', }.~~ii (~]'._. ,ri It! It'~i~ Ill~;tj~l{III lii_j ( i, \' i r'i,~rlr S i '~ ~, I.,i~ ~Q }° ~,r*rd 1 iz ~ I{~.:I.~I{i~a~ ~ i.~jr\ r. lY3 ~'.; c i ,( t I ,? {? ~ t1 I• ` 1'i~'' c i~l~ ~\~~'~rl !~i ~: a l ~! { - IG i ~ li ~i'r , , ty.,:~ l} }. r l ~~ ~~' r\ ~j~~' > .li~i?{I .~:,~IiSl~t l ).-I li' I~IF„ .Il~~lt `ti (}"i i~ \'\tFl { II 1~1 t' ( ~ -: ~~ ___I ~f- '~-If ~ y ~ 1• -tli({I '~1?~r,{;~-~ (I •.,f'"a'~-~~. .I` ffi I~ , I S ~~i 1'ri ~1t l.t{ I{ 1; ~~ t°~I~I~~T -' ih{1.« .~..r,i .~ ~ s\~ / 1 ~11~. J 1~._~{ I _ r~~j '!~. t'r'f t' c~" + r( 11 1.11 ,;t~ ~.~I~'lti tC~'~`,. ~` I n -•-•r 7 i ~ 111 1 r 1 ! i , .. i (. < \ \~ I 1: { II ''' I I 7';.` I ~'~ ~H -•n tl~ It ' ~ ~{ 1 1 ~ t~2 / d ~ 3#! ~! 'r Y~{ '', 1, ` ~.;~ tt'~ r li i I r Ilt ,J~t. i t( ~.A ~~ ~ -a ~ 1 ~/ ~_S ''I 11" ~~~ ~„1 r ~:1 t ~,d- h e ~ f l't f.•~.rl ,~-. (I~.(` r ~: ~ -7 ,t~J~ ~~ ~- ~~I ~`. r'~j! ~it ~t. l C ~ 3 \ .~, i 1 tIlil' 11~' IP',}!tilt aal~`.~ 'I ~il r~ ,, 1~ ! .i~.-r-a _ r - 1 ,.r~{ ~~~~r A. ~~,.. 'o. 1 ;I I _r r 1 7 / it {'ri '~I ' 1 11 .~ ..~ j'', l t i r UI 1 i. ~'f 1',~~. ~Ar } ! 1 + I -. 1 I ~ ~ - i'~,re__ 3 i I i ~~ ~ 1;'. ~ I t __ '~ %~ ~ ~ ti I ! t, ;- [~ r ~ jt : I ...t.< II Ilt ~ t ~ '~~ l I " a"~ 0 I I'' ~~' `'v ~ ~ ~ ~~' { ~y ~ ~~ -i" t ~~r t ~ ~ .t.ll j v j) t r S r 1 a i ~V, a _) ~~ S~'. 1 ~ i. IZ ~ CI _ ~, I j y 1~, i ~~ i~'~I~I'f~ ~' I I ' I' I i ~ ~ , ~ ti i r r _ ~~. ~~ ~ ~1 I1 ~'t 1 i II ~ '~ SI' I I II { ' r~ ~ ,+ ! Ir. I.l. _ ICI .._..~ ~s: F 'Lr1.14'`z 1 ~.~~( w ~I~tl -!~'? I~, .: -~.. ~, t t 11~ %t ~ b 1 1 ll' I l I .r:,l r {r }t't 1 1 ~' t I' ~ I 1 ?. / _/ ."~~~. ~ ~r~ .. ~ 1~.. s/ 1. 1 t I ,s~lr CD i I ~.'I I I ItI ~}V rill S ,.~ r., irl ,-~ ~ u l1 ~~ t~ ~,~{~ f ~~l rr. y {~c ,~'~-,{~1,{. ~•,~ .os (+ ~ ( , c ,.'/ }~ , 11 ~ ` L% •:=-- ;y {T' .~ , {ll ~i I r! i t ~I ' it ~ ~ ~r jl; 'I' : ~ I ~§ ~ ~_~ _~ ~` _,.r;,'~' r ~l~ .-,~ -'~ 'r- a f L~ ,,.. I ~ . ~ I (~~ j!~~ ~7. ~r I ~ }r s~ 'ra`m Exls2ing ~lfg:lt Traclta to h® I ~ ~ 1°~1. ~>~ 111' , _i* It i' »'I k,.y + +. I { ! ~ I t ^• p .~.y.~ J. ~~' (.-~ r 1,`~,{.l}- ~r ,~~ [ .,r.1 ~{ >•~111 t I r ,~~ ~tlRn~y®~ b/ '~7C CyL`dL''!®33Ul~ ~ I' lSl.l I'1 i~ I} i ~t I~IiI ~~/ I I j; 4, ~ I I ~ +-~ ~ ~`, a G,~-_ ~ ,( `~ '-.~. .~ ) J= ' itl ~, I ~ ~ ~ { `'- P t t I ~ , r t r 1 ~ ~ :~ (! r 1 ~ ~ 37 -''a, Y' ~ `• ./ ~; ---1 --.,A~ " ~ ~ . _ 7 I t S. `,._ ~s. 1 ., r ~ i ~ I I r . , t i ~` ~~ .'('~'~ -"! I ` ~, t, ~'T-f ' ~ `T--. J` S., ; . : ~~.,'' I t' ~ !f I{ II t pll ~,/{ I ii 'I lil I t ! ~t~ .~~ ,.~~_\ J l y 9't ~/ !:-__ ,~ r' ~+--1 '~'. {1i~ ~ry ? _ f I ,{ 1 i I i ~ rrI :J "t iJ ',i _ "o ~ .r:~ ~. A- ._ .i.J _ t~ rL q 1, '' ~'~~ ii T:, j u . Rdvl~od ~ ii~ I +/ - ~ ~. i. ' +i;l 4 '.l - -c~~ 3 ( '~ ~ ` ` - _ ._~4 ~_~~ ,'.~j, •U tLa~.:i+~3 5.:'tt ~lc GlE$ fJf. ~I c ~ ' I. _ r(.I ~ I I {,~. ~}. 't~ ~' ~-=:~~'t B ~+`'f ~~ I IF~~~:T _ ~~_~~~~. ~~I- ~ =-}_I '_r G.-. ~fa j. ~ p6C~C~S€~ .'.~2GLL'f Nr f:~ is}:~Ci ~~ t nl 1 l ,E; I~~ I ,: ~ r1t~~ 3 f (j r- '? r _ Y.t ' _ s r t f\ 1 Irr-)+ l~}Itil~l i71 Ilj i~il;t,~ljll I r' ~ ~ ry/ra:s~~?-;J~~ ~`} _ - 1,~ I~t~/!'\~ ~.~_ Wrt7)}~(1 a a__~~t}~ ~ I ' `1! ~ ' {.,.,. fix ail ~I T II ~'~I ~ r~ { r i~~'. ~ l ,° ~ t (l lt'1 ,~e'A ~ _. ~s ~ YBI l'Yt ~UR6`9d LZ ~~t- h~ t, r- ; .. ~ ~ 1.. ~ ' ,~ ~.a~m ~-.• _~,~~~ ~. - ~~~___ ~,•,r~ t~ 7, .. _ :. ~i mlovA .~.. 9 y ~ g 1 ~ ~ff I ~_ t I~~ rl ~_t_.,~ (~ ~- ~ ~.. __,. ,.~ ` _ lr-- -~~~) .~ T:ac:~ UnaF:oct©si Df Arop~osad I ! ' t "'~ ~t i 4 I 1 I~~~r ' l r ~f~ S iS ~:' ~-~-.. _~ a ~mYAf2tw 1~ /I rJ1 1 I~ I ~1~ r1 ~ s~ l J ~~. _ ~.Y [-t ~:' ~, J -\ '.i. ,_s y ,itllll r- i ( I i r~:-.. ,1 i •j, `~I. {~- I ~~ ' + j D„ j t { 111 ~1 I I I' t + ~' -._ "" .,, ' ~ { t. } ~ ,~..i... -. 4! _..._ I,.~ }_' ~ .+-__ L_,.:,. 1 I 1, l!t r t l ~ _ I ~f i I t ~ , , I,I ~ I ~ ~ `. ; I ~ i; 1 4 l ~ - t :r >v. ~ :>~,j ~ , ~ , _ : -~- +'- ~y,~•-, t .. ~r ~~ ~T_ r ~ I Irtir. ! Zit a'A,~4~~~I;~rl ~~j.~~If II ~~i~.r ,I~l~~` .~ ~~~ {~~ ~ ) i '1 -` s ~ ' t V t ~r II I f I'lI' ( l .ti ~. - /~. / ~ if r y -. '.`. - _._. ~ t i ...I l I ~ ii II;I I }!' ` I ~~,._•-•~ hl;.~' i Y C`-''~ _ Pte utud b ~, ,t ~~ ~~~ ~ 11 ~1 y+~rl1 ~I I'}tl~ itl~~~ l,~7 /~_ ~tti~ i(~ ~~ ~ '~ D ~~"~~---~l ~~t~y q ~-. ...._- ~ ~ _-_ i ~ ~ y ` ~~ ,,~ ~ ,I ~' t ,'+~ y. ~}~ ~ -.. ~ III ~~~, ~ ~ ~ ~~'~~ ~ ' f ~ ~7 % :. ,.~i~ }t^ ,,,~ ~~L, t•I . ~' /' { I `0~,~ v ~ lio~vnrd ~Iv~as Tan~merr 6 Ber9~ncioti {{ '`i~ !,stl I.I i~l Il ~ ~~, ;r' ~ •r- ~.... F,yy~~r ti6~.f I~>w,1.. 3~ ' --- ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~{t ! i _ / • 1 ~. 1!t ~} ~~ rte. ~ ~~~ r~~c' ._ _ .: ~~~' Ir 17`.-. _._ .. ~2- .i. I cT ~ ~. '~~ !1 i, Ir'r!I~i! ' ,I~l'rrj+ .flit.. ~ ~r~-a~~•-~.. r.~ ~!lt ,~~ /f~ ~l~i ~-~ --4- - 1~~ i .'I' }' - ----- '~~' -i-f _, .. .. ~ ~ ~II I ~~ `~) 4. ~!;-_. ~.~• ~ `~,.! .ri ~ ~ ,:. ~/~'~~~-..~-r~ ~a.' 1~ l~~, I+~`sl-•y~~{~ ~. _ ~~ ,t-, S -- ._a-~` ~j Stulute ~°:IOS ~-~_._---• s;,'~'~4:.'%~d+,r~ __ ~ , ~ ~i ~'~ ~ ~'~fr__ 1 ~~tf'~J~1~ f''~,^` Y~ t.Z "~ I ~ JIr ~ KibmEPisda ~ I a ~ ~, 'r ~ _ rj t~~ ~ i;~=~4~rS:r~~ ~ nf~r - i..~: t. .SL. _~..>'~+ "~P'`b `~i 7 I I \f•--• ~ Sor:rc~: FI:JTt~ anatyaia li 1`~ J ~~ 'l~lold-Chamberlain Field 13 Run-ups 5 Miscellaneous 1 Total 19 ';Miscellaneous complaints in- cludes helicopters and secon- ',dary airports. NOTE: One helicopter complain !,from Downtown St. Paui Holman .Field was received. COMPLAINT [3Y AREA ~ T.O. LDG. ~ Bloomington 1 0 l 'Burnsville 0 3 ~ 'Eagan 0 1 'Minneapolis 11 1 (Richfield 2 0 (Rosemount 0 1 ,'Total 7 6 1 ~1f RICHFIELD/ (3LOOMINGTON HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNIJAYS MINNEAPOLIS /_/ner1. .1 .1 0 31~ ~.`~ n MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT JANUARY, 1981 • • 0 1 ,. \ rr O ~ 0 ST. PAUL/HIGHLAND PARK `Nl,lu«U. n fNe~ ~oRTrl MENDOTA HEIGHTS/ EAGAN OPERATIONS SUMMARY - Itiner~nt: Ai r Carrier ~+~+~+ Air Taxi ~~ General Aviation 271 M i l i to r~y 1 ~+ Local: Civi 1 ~+0 Military `. 1 Total Average Daily Opns. 7~+8 CONSOLIDATED SCHEDULE (AC) 1+98 ;:5ia of these are 3rd level cr+rriers utilizing prop aircraft. • Wold-Chamberlain Field 5 Run-ups 13 Miscellaneous 0 Total 1g Miscellaneous complaints in- cludes helicopters and secon- dary airports. COMPLAINT BY AREA T.O. LDG. Minneapolis 2 0 Richfield 3 0 Total 5 0 MINNEAPOLIS O 3~ ~ ..\` 15i ^. 0 RICHFIELD/ BLOOMINGTON ~ Nt HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT FEBRUARY, 1981 • l 2i rr O - 0 ST. PAUL/HIGHLAND PARK NiNUN,op. n FNtR IloRid MENDOTA HEIGHTS/ EAGAN OPERATIONS SUMMARY - Itinerant: Air Carrier 456 Air Taxi 27 General Aviation 208 Military 15 Local: Civil 32 Military 0 Total Average Daily Opns. 738 CONSOLIDATED SCHEDULE (AC)498 `54 of these are 3rd level carriers utilizing prop aircraft. • W~~Id-Chamberlain Field 19 Run-ups 5 Miscellaneous I Total 25 Miscellaneous complaints in- cludes helicopters and secon- dary airports. COFIPLA I ~1TS i3Y AREA T.O. LDG. Burnsville 1 0 ~ ~' Mendota I-Its. 1 O ~ Minneapolis 10 5 Richfield Z 0 ( _____ ~ 'total 14 5 I MINNEAPOLIS c,rossloNrl 10 3 0 ~~~ 9~ 5 0 n 1 /1+ R I CIIF I I.LD/ BLOOMINGTON HOURLY PLRi,EPJTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEMOLIS/Sf. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT t1nRCl l , 1981 • • 3 i ~ ~'~, ~t 0 ST. PAIJL/N I GIII_AND PARY, .__1~ r ~,+~,rrr~~t,. ~(~ ` PNE~ tl~r.T~ MENDOTA FIE I GIITS/ EAGAN OPERATIONS SUMMARY - Itincr~~nt: '~, Air C~~rrier h!,Ir Ai r~ Taxi ~I i General Aviation )>~~ Mi 1 i tary I'1 Local: Civil ~) Military r) ~_ Tnlal overage Daily Opus. 7(~I CON SOLIDATEh SCIiEDUL[ (nr,)~,OR !I ;,51r of these are 3reJ level c~~rrir~~' utilizing prop air~`t. Wold-Chamberlain Field 34 Run-ups 10 Miscellaneous 2 Total 46 Miscellaneous complaints in- cludes helicopters and secon- dary airports. One complaint was received from St. Paul Downtown Air- port. COMPLAINT BY AREA ~ T.O. LDG. Bloomington 1 0 Highland Park 0 2 Inver.Grove H ts.O 1 Mendota Hts. 3 0 Minneapolis 14 8 Richfield 1 0 St. Paul 1 3 Total 20 14 MINNEAPOLIS GI~OSSf n V d 14 ~7i 0 RICHFIELD/ BLOOMINGTON ~ N• HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT APRIL, 1981 • 40 5~ \ O ST. PAUL/HIGHLAND PARK NiNUL~oU- (\ fNt~l {IoRid MENDOTA HEIGHTS/ EAGAN OPERATIONS SUMMARY - Itinerant: Air Carrier 444 Air Taxi 28 General Aviation 224 Military 15 Local: Civil 35 Military 0 Total Average Daily Opns. 746 CONSOLIDATED SCHEDULE (AC) 498 `54 of these are 3rd level carriers utilizing prop aircraft. • Wold-Chamberlain Field 49 Run-ups 0 Miscellaneous 3 Total 52 Miscellaneous complaints in- cludes helicopters and secon- dary airports. One complaint was received from Anoka Airport and two complaints from Crystal Air- port. COMPLAINT BY AREA Y' l T.O. LDG. Edina 1 0 Inver Grove Hts.l 0 Mendota Hts. 2 0 Minneapoli 29 12 Richfield 4 0 Total 37 12 i MINNEAPOLIS 32 16 0 RICHFIELD/ BLOOMINGTON t ~~• HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MAY, 1981 I ' 3 ~~. r~ 0 ST. PAUL/HIGHLAND PARK n ~ ~Nt t °~' tlvRTd MENDOTA HEIGHTS/ EAGAN OPERATIONS SUMMARY - Itinerant: Air Carrier 433 Air Taxi 26 General Aviation 233 Military 16 Local: Civil 33 Military O Total Average Daily Opns. 741 CONSOLIDATED SCHEDULE (AC) 470 "35 of these are 3rd level ca rriers ulilizincl prop aircraft. . Wold-Chamberlain Field 191 Run-ups 4 Miscellaneous 5 Total 200 Miscellaneous complaints in- cludes helicopters and secon- dary airports. Two complaints were received from Flying Cloud Airport and three Complaints from Crystal Ai rport. COMPLAINTS BY AREA T.0 Bloomington Eagan Edina Highland Park Inver Grove Hts. Mendota Hts. Minneapolis Richfield St. Paul Total 20 0 1 0 2 106 35 0 165 LDG. 1 1 0 6 0 0 17 0 1 26 MINNEAPOLIS ~Msst o N ~! 102 18 0 ,,~` 20 6 0, RICHFIELD/ BLOOMINGTON 1 N• HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT JUNE, 1981 ST. PAUL/HIGHLAND PARK n ~Nt~ °~` IloR111 MENDOTA HEIGHTS/ EAGAN OPERATIONS SUMMARY - Itinerant: Air Carrier A i r Tax i General Aviation Military Local: Civil Military Total Average Daily Opns. 452 28 253 18 36 0 787 CONSOLIDATED SCHEDULE (AC) 498 `35 of these are 3rd level carriers • • utilizing prop aircraft. • ~:.J 0~ 5~ rr O 7 Wold-Chamberlain Field 236 Run-ups 9 Miscellaneous 15 Total 260 Miscellaneous complaints in- cludes helicopters and secon- dary airports. Ten conplaints were received from Anoka Airport, three from St. Paul Downtown Airport, and two were miscellaneous. COMPLAINTS BY AREA j l T.O. LDG. Bloomington 7 f 1 ~ Eagan 2 0 Edina 0 1 Golden Valley 0 1 Highland Park 0 1 Mendota Heights 13 0 ~tinrieapol is 130 61 Minnetonka 1 0 Richfield 14 1 St. Louis Park 0 2 St. Paul 0 1 Total 167 69 MINNEAPOLIS cross t o -J JI 6 a ~~ ~ 131 ~3 ~b ^~~ tr 3 3 `~ ~~, 6 5 ~\~ i~/~ .- ZZ~h O z6~~^ 21. RICHFIELD/ BLOOMINGTON 1 4'1+ 0 /~J ~v ST. PAUL/HIGHLAND PARK `NnJrlttoyr FNtr~ ^~ ry u -loRt~l ~ a n HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT JULY, 1981 NOTE: Due to the Air Traffic Controllers' `.itr-ike, runway percentages were not available. MENDOTA HEIGHTS/ ~!~! 15 EAGAN r~ OPERATIONS SUMMARY - Itinerant: Air Carrier 460 Air Taxi 3g General Aviation 232 Military 19 Local: Civil 37 Military p Total Average Daily Opns. 786 CONSOLIDATED SCHEDULE (AC)491~ -~32 of these are 3rd level carriers • ~ utilizing prop aircraf t 0 Wold-Chamberlain Field 266 Run-ups 4 Miscellaneous 8 Total 278 Miscellaneous complaints in- cludes helicopters and secon- dary airports. Five complaints were received from Anoka, one from Flying Cloud, one from St. Paul Down- town, and one complaint due to helicopter traffic. l~ COMPLAINTS BY AREA T.O. LDG. Bloomington 2 3 Edina 3 0 Mendota Hts. 11 0 Minneapolis 194 34 Minnetonka 3 0 Prior Lake 1 0 Richfield 8 0 Roseville 2 0 St. Louis Park 0 2 St. Paul 2 1 Total 226 40 MINNEAPOLIS GNoS51a N 11 ~----- 09 25 0 0 .. ~~ 0 RICHFIELD/ BLOOMINGTON HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUGUST, 1981 ST. PAUL/HIGHLAND PARK H~Nuttop. '-Nth IIeRT~I MENDOTA HEIGHTS/ 56~ 13 EAGAN OPERATIONS SUMMARY - Itinerant: Air Carrier 418 Air Taxi 47 General Aviation 176 Military 11 Local: Civil 12 Military O Total Average Daily Opns. 664 CONSOLIDATED SCHEDULE (AC) 496 `32 of these are 3rd level carriers • • utilizing prop aircraf t Wold-Chamberlain Field 66 Run-ups 2 Miscellaneous 13 Total 81 Miscellaneous complaints in- cludes helicopters and secon- dary airports. Four complaints were received each from Flying Cloud and Anoka Airports. Three com- plaints from Crystal and one from St. Paul Downtown Airpor One from Airlake Airport. COMPLAINTS BY AREA ~ T.O. LDG. Edina 2 0 Highland Park 0 1 Mendota Hts. 2 0 Minneapolis 40 8 Richfield 10 0 St. Paul 3 0 Total 57 9 MINNEAPOLIS f.RvSSIa-11) ..--- 42 22i ^~~ 15 o O. ~~ •- 270 0 24~ RICHFIELD/ BLOOMINGTON IN+ HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPOR SEPTEMBER, 1981 • i 0 ' ~ ST. PAUL/HIGHLAND PARK Or O N~NU~iop. FNb~t O ~4 0 11oR1~ w58° MENDOTA HEIGHTS/ 54~ O EAGAN i 1 OPERATIONS SUMMARY - T Local: { Civil 20 Military 0 Total Average Daily Opns. 714 i CONSOLIDATED SCHEDULE (AC)456 4,46 of these are 3rd level carriers utilizing prop aircraft. /~ Itinerant: ~ I Air Carrier 400 A i r Tax i 50 General Aviation 229 Military 15 Wold-Chamberlain Field 19 Run-ups 1 Miscellaneous 4 Total 24 Miscellaneous complaints in- cludes helicopters and secon- dary airports. One complaint was received from Anoka County Airport anc two complaints from Flying Cloud Airport. One heli- copter complaint was receivec COMPLAINTS BY AREA T.O. LDG. Mendota Hts. 0 1 Minneapolis 4 11 Richfield 1 0 St. Paul 2 0 Total 7 12 MINNEAPOLIS Glint<f.. J J 0 2,.30 0 RICHFIELD/ BLOOMINGTON HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT OCTOBER, 1981 ~. Oi 0 2.30 ~.~/ ST. PAUL/HIGHLAND PARK n Fwt~'°~` {IoRid MENDOTA HEIGHTS/ EAGAN OPERATIONS SUMMARY - Itinerant: Air Carrier 398 Air Taxi 53 General Aviation 204 Military 13 Local: Civil 22 Military 0 Total Average Daily Opns. 690 CONSOLIDATED SCHEDULE (AC) 456 '`•46 of these are 3rd level carriers utilizing prop aircraft. • Wold-Chamberlain Field Run-ups Miscellaneous Total 20 4 MINNEAPOLIS 2 GIbSSio X111 26 Miscellaneous complaints in- cludes helicopters and secon- dary airports. One complaint was received from Crystal Airport and one complaint was from a helicop operation. COMPLAINTS BY AREA T.O. LOG. Inv. Grove Hts. 1 0 Mendota Hts. 1 0 Minneapolis 10 2 Richfield 6 0 Total 18 2 ~---- t t 23q ~~ 209 O' ~~ *- 14~J 29~ O RICHFIELD/ BLOOMINGTON 1~ 1~ 0 ~ Nt HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOVEMBER, 1981 ST. PAUL/HIGHLAND PARK n FNe~`°~ rleRiA MENDOTA HEIGHTS/ EAGAN OPERATIONS SUMMARY - Itinerant: Air Carrier Air Taxi General Aviation Military Local: Civil Military Total Average Daily Opns. 402 46 175 12 t8 0 653' CONSOLIDATED SCHEDULE (AC }487 * 60 of these are 3rd level carriers • • utilizing prop aircraft.. Wold-Chamberlain Field x,,..1.4 Run-ups 1 Miscellaneous 0 Total 15 Miscellaneous complaints in- cludes helicopters and secon- dary airports. COMPLAINTS BY AREA T.O. LDG. Eagan 1 0 Mendota Nts. 2 0 Minneapolis 2 1 Richfield 8 0 Totals 13 1 MINNEAPOLIS GRnSSio -111 O 21 % ^~. 130 1 0 ~~ 11~ o 40~ O RICHFIELD/ BLOOMINGTON MENDOTA HEIGHTS/ 38~ O EAGAN OPERATIONS SUMMARY - Itinerant: 1 N• 0 \/ • ST. PAUL/HIGHLAND PARK oq 0 ~! O 1hN-1Hoy- FNE~I O ~M •~11.R1A 76~ HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER, 1981 • • Air Carrier 419 Air Taxi 67 General Aviation 160 Military 14 Local: Civil 20 Military 0 Total Average Daily Opns. 680' CONSOLIDATED SCHEDULE (AC)539 *82 of these are 3rd level carriers utilizing prop aircraft N~(C-tFl Lf~ND f'/~f~l~- - 5T, Ply V L MINN~.~•Po~is Wold-Chamberlain Field 9 I Run-ups 0 Miscellaneous 1 Tota l Miscellaneous complaints iri- ~I eludes helicopters and secondary airports. 10 '~ NOTE: One complaint was re- ceived from Flying Cloud Airpor COMPLAINTS BY AREA T.O. LDG. ~ Eagan 4 0 '•~The four Eagan complaints were due to take-off noise ~ on Runway 29. ~, Minneapolis 3 2 To to 1 7 2 GPo5510 -1 tl ~- 0 46a .* 3i 2i ~r O I 1 414 f~IGNf=(~L[7 HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS a ~ooMirr~`roN M I NNEAPOL IS-ST. PAUL I NTERNAT I ONAL A I RPORT JANUARY, 1980 • • r ~ MrU1E5oT~ P- Iv E R Flo-_T~{ 2 5 0 4'`• MCN PoTf'~ ~-i ~IC~ 111'`~ ~P~~N ~, Average number of scheduled 499 flights per day. NOTE: 58 of these are 3rd level carriers utilizing twin engine prop aircraft. O Indicates number of co~>>plaints from area. • MINN~.1s•Po~l~ Wold-Chamberlain Field 16 Run-ups 1 Miscellaneous 3 Total 20 -- Miscellaneous complaints in- cludes helicopters and secondary airports. NOTE: All three complaints received were from Anoka County Airport. COMPLAINTS BY AREA T.O. Burnsville 1 Bloomington 1 Edina 1 Minneapolis 7 Richfield 2 t LDG. 0 0 0 4 0 Total 12 4 RIGI-IFI~LD .~'"" d LooMIr~G'TbN GRo551o -! 11 __--- Q 270 O 1 4'14 HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT FEBRUARY, 1980 • • n NICyFII.f~NU 0 ~''/'~ KM~ .---- 5r, P~ ~ ~. Hi-hlt5o1h FNE~ IloRt~l 31q MEN AvTr~ N ~ I ~ N T~ ', ~A~a/'.N Average number of schedule 498 flights per day. NOTE: 57 of these are 3rd level carriers utilizing 'i twin engin prop aircraft. Indicates number of complain+~', from area. MINN~~.Po~iS Wold-Chamberlain Field 11 Run-ups 0 Miscellaneous 5 I Total 16 Miscellaneous complaints i'h- eludes helicopters and secondary airports. ~, NOTE: Three complaints were received from St. Paul Down- '~ to~~m Ai rport and one complaint each from Flying Cloud and Anoka County Airports. COMPLAINTS BY AREA T.O. LDG. i Minneapolis Richfield Total V 5 5 1 0 6 5 ~' ~,~ ~~ Z-IGNFI~L[7 8 LooMING~N • N 'i ~-~ N ~.. ~ ~! e ~~ GRo551o-111 ~- 0 24, ~.. 20i O ~~ .- 25i 31i 0 1 414 HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MARCH, 1980 ~~ ~, ,; 1~ 0 3~ „r • ~Y 0 ~y 0~~4 ~~ n Ply R~ s~l', Ply V L. ~ `NiiluESoTh PT E R Ilo/-111 44% D MAN r~,vTr~ N ~ I ~ - ~ rs ~i, ~~~~N Average number of scheduled Ogg flights per day. NOTE: 5] of these are 3rd level carriers utilizing twin engine prop aircraft. O Indicates number f complaints from area. MINN~.I'~PoLiS Wold-Chamberlain Field 16 Run-ups 1 Miscellaneous 2 Total 19 Miscellaneous complaints i,r~ eludes helicopters and secondary airports. NOTE: One complaint was re- ceived,from Anoka County and one complaint from Crystal Ai rport. COMPLAINTS BY AREA T.O. Columbis Hts. Edina Highland Park Inver Grove Hts. Mendota Hts. Minneapolis Total t 1 0 1 2 3 8 FZIGNf=1~LD ~.,_ BLOOMiraG'T~rri • LDG. t 0 ~ v 0 1 0 0 7 8 I~1L~triL/4l~la i_o .,<_e r,. .1 .1 o ~90 0 MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT APRIL, 1930 10 2i ~r o n Pry N.~- -.- ~r, P~ ~ ~. !1 _~'.i ~fl PNE~ 11~--1~( MAN ~Tf~ N ~.I ~a I I T': Average number of scheduled 492 flights per day. NOTE: 49 of these are .3 rd level carriers utilizinr~ twin engine prop aircraft. O Indicates number of cony>l.~int ' from area. ,~+ - --- HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS N ~I C-~ H L,~ N D Pp. FZK. 5~1', P!~ V L. M1NN~-~•Po~ls Wold-Chamberlain Field 35 (Run-ups 6 Miscellaneous 5 (Total 46 (Miscellaneous complaints iri cludes helicopters and seconds airports. NOTE: Two complaints each were (received from Anoka County and Flying Cloud Airports. One (,helicopter complaint was re- ceived from St. Paul Airport. COMPLAINTS BY AREA T.O. LDG. V 'Bloomington 3 0 Eagan 2 0 (Edina 1 0 Mendota Hts. 1 0 (Minneapolis 13 11 (Richfield 4 0 ,Total 24 11 iR,IGNFI~L[7 ~ d ~ooMir~G'roN GOo551o'111 14 t9i 0 ~,~~ HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MAY, 1980 • Oi 0 Oo ~r o n ~__` ~/.~~~ Ni,lutSoi.. '- IJ ~ q 110/-111 MEN~o7A N~i~,~irs ~AdI~N Average number of scheduled 485 flights per day. NOTE: 52 of these are 3rd level carriers utilizing O twin engine prop aircraft. Indicates numbe ~f complaints from area. MINNE~~•Po1.15 1•l~ld-Chamberlain Field 94 Run-ups 7 ttiscellaneous 8 Total 109 / ~ ~~tiscellaneous complain ts irr eludes helicopters and secondar~j ~~ i rports. i I NOTE: 4 complaints we ~ re from Crystal, 2 complaints from Anoka, 1 complaint fro m St. Paul Downtown Airport and 1 heli- copter complaint. Y COMPLAINTS BY AREA ~ T.O. LDG. V Bloomington 7 1 Eayan 1 0 Highland Park 1 1 Inver Grove Hts. 1 0 I•tendota Hts. 4 0 r`tinneapol i s 41 23 Richfield 7 1 St. Louis Park 0 1 `~t. Paul 3 2 To to I 65 29 f3 ~ooMircG'T~N HIL-~IIL/4ND GPoS51o-111 41 18i (~1~ HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT JUNE, 1980 0 3~ l~ ~r O ('/'~ KY~ 5T, Ply V L. \i ~ ~ NI,IIlt~~1~. PwE.~ Ilol-Tt1 4g ~ ~5 MC-..N poTfs- I-I I=1 ~ I i rr '~I ~~~~~ Ii Average number of scheduled 453 flights per day. NOTE: 52 of these are 3rd level carriers utilizing twin engine prop aircraft. O Indicates number of complaint '' from area . MINN~-~.PoLls Wold-Chamberlain Field 1050 Run-uPs 4 Miscellaneous 9 Total s complaints fin' Miscellaneou helicopters and secon- i es clud dart',airports. i NOTE: One complaint was re- ~ Air- ; ce'ived from Anoka County port, one from Lake Ewa°'from from Crystal and one a helicopter. COMPLAINTS BY AREA Bloomington Mendota Hts. Minneapolis Richfield Roseville St. Paul Total T.O. .._- L~- 6 1 10 1 69 6 g o 1 0 2- ~' g6 9 i G1~DS51 o N -) ~0 21% --I-`- { 4'1~ ~~(i~-Ir IG.Lp HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS L O ~ M~~I~~N .MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ~ lg8o JULY~_ • • N~I~aM ~~N~ to __---- li a ~r O 1 PARK p~-VL ~ `NnlutSoV~ '-N E ~ lIoR111 'r 0 y~~ 10 MAN ~oTP~ N ~I~I~ t` I! ~~ ~! ~P`~ Average number of schedulec!'I 505 flights per day. NOTE: 52 of these a"re 3rd level carriers utilizing i, twin engine prof aircraftll O Indicates ~ber of comPl`~I from area. MINN~./'•f'ol.ls 1Jold-Chamberlain Field 147. Run-ups (1 tliscellaneous 6 Total 1 Fliscellaneous complaints in- cludes helicopters and secon- dary airports. NOTE: One complaint was re- ceived from Flying Cloud and one from Crystal Airports. T~,~o complaints each ~~iere received from Moka and Doom town S l . Paul Floln,an Field. COMPLAINTS dY AREA T.O. LDG, (31 oo~n i ng ton 9 0 Edina 2 0 Highland Park 2 1 11nndOta Hts. ~ 1 Minneapolis 80 28 Richfield 9 0 St. Louis Park 0 7_ St. Paul 0 1 To tai tog 33 fZIGNf=1~LC~ [3~OOM lr~"ibr~ HiL-~~1L~4I~J.V c t ~ ~+- ,~ LOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUN1dAY5 t11NNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUGUST, 1980 • . ~. Gro551a-11) 83 1 7 l~ l \ ~r O %i I' /'~ a ter-. .~- I~, f'~ V L r ~ I1irI,1F4~p. ~ NEl llor.Trl 59~ O MCN ~Tr'~ I-I r_Ic~ I I ~~ ~~~~f~l Average number of ~r•I,r'~It~ 1 •~~ 505 flights per day. tJOTE: 57_ of these ~r.r' i~ rl level carriers utili~ini~ twin engine hroh :1irCrn~1 O I nd i ca tcs numhe r o F cr,n~~~ I :, from area. • j ~lold-Chamberlain Field 61 tun-ups 1 liscellaneous 3 i ~oTnl_ 65 liscellaneous complaints in- ~~I:ludes secondary airports only ''TOTE: One complaint was re- ~ieved from Anoka, Crytsal,and (Flying Cloud Airports totaling j F1isc. complaints. COMPLAINTS BY AREA T.O. LDG, c (Bloomington 0 0 Edina 1 0 Highland Park 0 1 1lendota Hts. 3 1 ~linneapol is 31+ 19 Richfield 1 0 St. Louis Par k 0 1 St. Paul 0 0 TOTAL 39 22 RIG~FIELD/ BL..Oa'1I idGTOi ~ ~~1I ~d(dEAf'GLI S 0~ Gt'oS51o-111 2~ 35 38~ -,~` ~~ 1 0 31~ 20 ^ I ~~~ HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL nIRPORT SEPTEMEER, 1980 n ST, PAUUHIGHUI'~ PARK ' IloRtrl ~'~dDOTA NE I GE-f1 E~1GA`I OPERATIONS SUMMARY-SEPTEMBER 1880 Itinerant nir Carrier 433 nir Taxi 33 General Avia[ion 22T+ Military 16 Local Civil 2G Military 1 Total Average Oaily Ops 733 NirI~l~Soj/- ~ NEl COTJSOLIDATED SCHEDULE (AC) 464` ~~T+B of these are 3rd le • • carriers using prop~ai~aft. ~Id-Chamberlain Field 21 II1-Up5 2 Illscellaneous 0 Total 23 ~sc~llaneous complaints in- ludes helicopters and secon- Iry airports. COttPLA4NTS BY AREA T.O. LDG. loumington 1 0 11111@ahOl IS lj 11 ichfield 2 0 I. Paul 1 0 Total 10 11 ~ ! Nt RICHFILED/ BLOOMINGTON HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS 0 31~~ ,. ~~ 1 ~I% 1 1 MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT OCTOBER, 1980 • O 1r \ rr O ~ 0 ST. PAUL/HIGHLAND PARK ~ ~ Nlrlrlt4oU. / n rN~~ IloRid MENDOTA HEIGHTS/ EAGAN OPERATIONS SUMMARY - Itinerant: Air Carrier 423 Air Taxi 34 General Aviation ~ 257 Military 16 Local: Civil 2B Military 0 Total Average Daily Opns. 758 CONSOLIDATED SCHEDULE (AC) 464' ,~50 of these are 3rd lev el carriers utilizing prop aircraft. • 0 Wold-Chamberlain Field 14 Run-ups 2 Miscellaneous 0 Total 16 Miscellaneous complaints in- cludes helicopters and s econ- dary airports. COMPLAINTS BY AREA T.O. LDG. Minneapolis 6 5 Bloomington 0 0 Richfield 2 0 ~ St. Paul 0 0 Mendota Hts. 1 0 -~ ' Total 9 5 ~ ~ N• RICHFILED/ BLOOMINGTON HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS U~o5s10 N ~1 0 23~ ~,. 12~ ~, n MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOVEPIBER, 1980 r~, - 0 ST. PAUL/HIGHLAND PARK ~ ~ Hnl~l~y. Fhita •~ IleRid MENDOTA HEIGHTS/ 35~ O EAGAN OPERATIONS SUMMARY - Itinerant: Air Carrier Air Taxl General Aviation Military Local: Civil Military Total Average Dally Opns. 417 31 231 1 ll 37 0 730 CONSOLIDATED SCHEDULE (AC) ~~~~~~:. *50 of these are 3rd level carriers • ~ utilizing prop aircraft. Mold-Chamberlain Field 13 Run-ups 0 Miscellaneous 3 Total 16 Miscellaneous complaints in- cludes helicopters and secon- dary airports. PJOTE: One complaint was received from Anoka County Airport and two were received from St. Paul Downtown Air- port. ~A .T COMPLAINTS BY AREA ~ T. 0. L D G. t~. li ~f Edina 1 0 Fiinneapol is 5 6 Richfield 1 0 Total 7 6 j 111 .. ~v J R I CIJF I LED/ BLOOMINGTON I-IOURI_Y PERCEN-fAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS ..------ o ~~~~ %'. hINNEAPOLIS/S'f. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DEC["t-1BER, 130 • • l ~~ 0 ST. PAUL/HIGHLAND PARK __~~,/ o ~ r ~H~~~~retojr.. (~ FNE• 11oR1-I MENDOTA HEIGHTS/ EAGAN OPERATIONS SUMMARY - Itinerant: Air Carrier 126 Air Taxi 33 General Aviation 7.06 Mi 1 i tary l~~ Local: Civil 37 Military 0 Total Average Daily Opns. 716 CONSOL I DA-iED SCfIEDULE (AC) ' ` 54 of these are 3rd level e:~rrier~ utilizing prop aircra~ t~1 I N t~l ~.1~• i'o ~ I ~ told-Chamberlain Field 6 ~ turd-ups Z '~ 1lscellaneous 2 total II 1lscellaneous complaints include helicopters and secondary airports. . DOTE: Anoka County Airport gad one complaint and there gas one complaint on hel icopi iolse fr.orn E3loominyton. ; COMPLAINTS E3Y AREA • ~. T.O. LDG i ' ~linneapolls 0 ~ 4' lighland Park 1 0 i I nne ton ka 1 0 I, totals 2 4 l IGI-IFI~Ld.~=,. • Q ~ooMirl~`roN , . • Lao551 v N rl 36~ O , 0 0 ~ o~~~ ~' -~ ~/~ 1 414' HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS.-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT _ JANUARY 1979 .~ ~ i r , . 5~ 5~ \ IlvRirl MAN ~T~ N ~IE~ I~ r`= ~' .. . I Average number of scheduled '471' flights per day. ' NOTE: 53 of these are 3rd II level carriers utlliziny. twin 'engine prop aircraft. Q Indicated nun,l,er of cnmt,l,~ints from runway inclicat~~l. • ~ ', ~~ s~, ~. ~ -~ (1 FNei°t~ n I Vl r I t. ~ t v v r r-~ r~ _._ 1.----" 5r, ~~. ~ ~ M IF N frls•Po~IS • o O I Iduld-C(r~~mburlain F,ie'Id 8 ~ r ~ • Itun-u ~s 0 •~ 1 11 i stet I aneous 5 eaossto-)rt Total 13 1~ • Fliscullaneous complaints O ~3~ ~~~ rr 0 I include helicopters and scconJary airports, 31~ o• ~, NOTE: One complaint was from .~` , - - -- I St. Paul [)own town Air ort ant , ) I ~~' P four complaints were recelve~ NrNr~tSoU. • from Anoka County Airport. p~!vE~. C011PLAINTS BY AREA 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ', .t ~ 0) i T.O. LDG. ~/ M i nneapol i s 1 2 49~ ~ "u~Rid , Richfield 2 0 ~ 18~ 0 , Edina` O ~ 1 0 v- • h • La I,ev i l l e 1 0 49~ 0 i Bluuminptun 1 0 28 ~ ~ Total G 2 • . ~ a MEN tao7f~. 1~ ~ r~ . ~ .. IAN ,- t 41,H . ~, SIG{->•FI~.LG~~=. • .. (3L00MIf1C~r7t~N HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS Average number of scheduled I~ ' MINNEAP01.(S-ST..R~UL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT X66' flights per day. • FEBRUARY, 1979 NOTE: 52 of•these are 3rd ' ~ level carriers utilizing ' twin en ine roe aircraf 9 P f t• O Indicates number of complaint~~' ' from area indi _d. • • MINN~hPol.ls Wold-Chamberlain Field 21 Run-ups ~ Miscellaneous 3' To to 1 2~ •Miscellaneous complaints include helicopters and secondary airports. NOTE: One complaint was a ,helicopter from St: Paul (r~ Downtown Airport and two i complaints were recorded from~Anoka County Airport. COMPLAINTS BY AREA .t • T.O. L Bloomington 1 0 Edina 1 0 Highland Park 2 2 Minrieapol is 2 9 Richfield 1 1 St. Louis Park 0 2 Total ~ 7 14 i 8 ~. o o M irbG'1bN , ,. • sr. ~P ~~ ~,' GPos51o -11J ~-- O ,330 ~e n O .~ I ,-,+ c~ DOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLISzST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL•AIRPORT MARCH,.1979 • • NINNE5o11. FNER -IoR1d 34~ o MAN ~7P~ N ~IE~~ !, I ~PEa~N ', • - Average number of scheduled ~, 466- f•lights per day. • - i i NOTE: 52 of these are 3rd level. carriers utilizing twin engine prop aircraft. O Indicates number of complaints ~,, from area indica~~. MINN~hPol.is - Wold-Chamberlain ~4 Run-fps ~2 ' Miscellaneous 8 To to 1 54 II Miscellaneous complaints~l • include helicopters and secondary airports. NOTE: :One compl•.~ i nt was from Flying Cloud Airport; and seven complaints were I, • from Anoka County Airport. , 'COMPLAINTS BY. AREA • ~ T.O. LDG•~ Arden Hills 1 0 Bloomington 0 •1 v Eagan 2 0 Minneapolis 11 28 Richfield 1 0 To to l 1'S 29 I':IGNFI~LD.__ --~- _ B LOOMINGTt~N , . .• N1laHl.~Nd Gi~o551o N IJ .~-- 10 26% 0 .~ ~^ 28 t ~~ Pa ~~. ST, PF, V L MrrJUESot~ FNEt O ~^~ ry 0 _~ HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL~,INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT APRIL, 1979 • 0 r 20 40 rr 0 IJoR1-I 45~ O MEN~oTA N~i~Nrs ~Afar~t~ ~• Average numberi of scheduled flights per day. • 444 NOTE: 53 of these are 3rd . level carriers utilizing twin engine prop aircraft. O Indicates number of compl.a~n~•. from area indic~d. L ~ MINN~p•Pol.ls - , Wold-Chamberlain 54 Run-u p5 z .Miscellaneous 2 To to 1 58 caossto u -~ Miscellaneous complaints 30 32i include helicopters and secondary airports. / NOTE: One complaint was re- ceived from Anoka County . Airport and one complaint I~ from Crystal Airport. ~ COMPLAINTS BY AREA T.O. L ' 1 0 Eagan. , . ~ Inver Grove Hts. 1 0 Minneapolis 29. 13 Richfield 4 0 St. Paul 4 1 St. Anthony Vil. 1 0 273 To to 1 ~ .~ 40 ~ 14 4 o ZIGNFI~L[7 1 N+ ~^~ 0 ~ O ~ 8LOO1'hINC~IVN , . HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS • ~ MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT • MAY, 1979 • s'1", P~ V L 7~ 0 3~ ~/ • ~ ' 11oRTA MEN~Tf~ N~I~Nis ' Average number of scheduled 444 flights per day. NOTE:' S3 of these are 3rd level carriers utilizing twin engine prop aircraft. O Indicates number of compliint~ from area indic~d. r'\ H~~utsoTi. p-NEt ~' ~ MINN~~•PoLIS gold-Chamberlain 134' stun-up`s 4 ''liscellaneous 7 dotal 145 liscellaneous complaints include helicopters and ~~econdary airports. NOTE: Two complaints were 'recorded from Crystal Airport and four complaints were re-~' I~eived from Anoka County ~Ai rport:. ' COMPLAINTS BY AREA T.O. LDG. . v Bloomington 9 2 Edina 7 0 ''Inver~Grove Hts. 1 0 .Minneapolis 77 27 Mendota Heights 1 0 Richfield 4 2 St. Lou i s Park 0 1 St. ,Paul 2 1 ~' To to 1 101 33 .IGNFI~L~ __ ~_. 6 LOOMINGT~N . • HI(~MLp~NV i.a'.«~_.i.i 84 260 13 HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS-ST: PAUL.INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT n JUNE, 1979 ~ 2° 9i 0 rr ~ 1 ~oR1-1 MEN~oTA N~I~NfS ~Afa,~~I Average number of scheduled 483 flights per day. NOTE: ~ 55 of these are 3rd. level carriers utilizing twin engine prop aircraft. O Indicates number of con,4,lain~•. from area indicat~ I'/'~ f<M~ ~-- ST, P~ ~~ n ~~~E~t~ MINNE~•Pol.ls Wold-Chamberlain 135 ' Run-.ups 2 Misr~ell'aneous 3• To to l .. ~Tl +0 Miscellaneous complaints / includes helicopters and secondary air rts. ~ Po . NOTE: Two complaints were.re- ceived from Anoka County Air- port and one complaint from St. Paul Holeman Field. (~ COMPLAINTS BY AREA ~ T.O. LDG. ~ Bloomington 33 6 i Bur~nsv~i 11 e , ' .2 0 ~ Eagan• 4 ~ 0 Edina 1 0 Inver Grove Hts. 2 1 Minneapolis 40 21 Richfield 10 1 St. Louis Park 1 2 St. Pa~rl 9 2 To tai 102 33 ~IGNFIELD -- • . - 8 LOOMINGTt~N , 37 8~ 46. t N+ NIC~HI.~N 13 . 2~ 4~ it n HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS-ST, PAUL•iNTERNATIONAL AIRPORT JULY, 1979 • • -loR~ MEN ~T~ N I`Ic~ N TS ~PEa~N I~ .. . Average number of scheduled 508 ~ f l i.ghts per day. j NOTE: 56 of~these are 3rd level- carriers utilizing twin engine prop aircraft. Indicates number of complaints from area. . d Pare. 5~1', PA U L n FNE~ °r.. MINN~aPoL~s 'old-Chamberlain Fiel 172 ~n-ups 1 'iscell~neous 5 '~~tal 17$ iscellaneous complaints in- ludes helicopters and secondary, lirports. I)TE: Three complaints were re- ~ived from Flying Cloud Airport Ind one complaint each from '-ysta) and Anoka County Airport COh1PLAl NTS BY AREA Y • T.O. LDG. ~iloomington 20 2 Egan '1 • 0 ~ 'ijina 5 0 Iighland Perk 1 0 'a ver Grove Hts. 0 1 ~ndota Hts. 2 0 linneapolis ]0 58 'ichfield 2 0 . Louis Park Pau 1 1 7 2 0 ~_. ~~~tal 109 63 - ~IGNFI~LD - - .-•. - 8 LOOMING'TbN , . 76 1 16~ 22. t ~+ 1 h o~~~ ~l ni HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUGUST, 1979 • ~ • 1~ . 5~ \ 2t > ~. doRi~ MEN~Tp. M~I~NTS ~Pe~~N ', ;~, Average number of scheduled .~ '508 ~ 'flights per day. ', • NOTE: 56 of these are 3rd ~ level carriers utilizing j twin engine prop aircraft. O Indicates number of complaints a from area. • M,NUt5o1i~. n FwE~ MIN f~I ~. /~• Pa L l Wpld-Chamberlain Field 59 Run-ups ' 3. Miscellaneous 5 Total' 67 Miscellaneous complaints in= crudes helicopters and seconda airports,. NOTE: Three complaints were received from Flying Cloud ' Airport and two from :Anoka County Airport. COMPLAINTS BY AREA T.O. LDG. Blodmirigton . ~ 1 ~ .1 Mendota Heights 1 1 Minneapoli•5 31 20 Richfield 2 0 St. Paul 0 2 Total 35 24 IZIGNFI~LC7 ._ __. Q LooMtrllG-roN • W'I~N~~ND ~d +J V GPo551n N!1 31 2 0 ~ ~,` 17.°6 2.0 1 41~ IiOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL ~1NTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SEPTEME3ER, 1979 • 0~ 6~ tr r 2 Ply f~K ~-- -~' s~", Pi^~ V L Nnhlt4oT/. FNER ' 11nRiFl 34~ o McN~T~ N ~I~II r~ ~~~~~ I!~ Average number'of scheduled 516- flights per day. NOTE: 64 of these are 3rd level carriers utilizing twin engine prop aircraft. O Indicates numb of complaini~~, from area. f1IL~hL/~Nl.~ MINNf=/~•Pol.lS Wold-Chamberlain Field 28 Run-ups 2 Miscellaneous 5 Total 3 Miscellaneous complaints in- cludes helicopters and second- ary airports. NOTE: Three complaints were received from Anoka County Air- port and two complaints from Flying Cloud Airport COMPLAINTS BY AREA L T.O. LDG. r{ Minneapolis 14 8 Richfield 5 0 St. Paul 0 1 Total 19 9 NOTE: Runway 22 was closed for landing during the greater portion of the month due to installation of a landing light system. Fz. I G I-I F I B LD _____ © t_OOMt~~GTbN GPo551o-1l) 14 38i ^''~ a 220 0 1 414 HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NiNUEsoi~ ~-1~ E ~ lloRT11 I'l'~ V L. Mi~N~Tr~ N~I~I~r~ i ~P~a~N 510 Average number of scheduled flights per day. OCTOBER, 1979 NOTE: 64 of these are 3rd level carriers utilizing ' O twin engine prop aircraft. Indicates number of complaint • ~ from area. , li 0 0 \ „r E'f~ f<~ r- 5~ \v ]i / . /_-~ M IN N ~~•Po~ls Wold-Chamberlain Field 15 Run-ups 1 Miscellaneous 0 Total Miscellaneous complaints in- cludes helicopters and secondary airports. COMPLAINTS BY AREA GRo551 O -1 F1 ~- O 2 7 ~ ..~~ 6i O2 ~~ T.O. LDG. Mendota Hts. 2 0 Minneapolis 8 2 Richfield 3 p Total 13 2 v 'i F~IGNFItrLl7 B~ooM1r~G'i~N ,- - 17% 47 O ~ +~~ HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS rr_ MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOVEMBER, 1979 HIG~HL~NI;7 0 J 1 l u!`soti- 'E~ FloR1~ MAN ra~Tp. N ~I~ I~ r~ ~~~~N 481 Average number of scheduled flights per day. NOTE: 62 of these are 3rd level carriers utilizing O twin engine prop aircraft. Indicates numb of complaint • from area. 5T, Pf~ V L MINN~~•Pol.ls Wold-Chamberlain Field 15 Run-ups 3 Miscellaneous 2 Total 2 Miscellaneous complaints in- cludes helicopters and seconda ai rports. NOTE: .Two complaints were received from Anoka County Airport. COMPLAINTS BY AREA j i <I T.O. LDG. i ~ t Bloomington 3 0 ~ Richfield 3 0 Minneapolis 5 3 St. Paul 1 0 Total 12 3 ~IGNFI~LD 8 ~ooMlrl,G'roN N~I~-~N~~Na GQ n~Ct 1., -1 J O 33q 0 1 49+ HOURLY PERCENTAGE USE OF RUNWAYS MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER, 1979 • 2% 0 5~ // r ~..J n P/~ f~K. .,.- 5-i', Pf~ V L ~ ~ N~rhlbsol~. (\ FNER {l o 8111 MEN~TP~ N~IIaI~TS ~~I Average number of scheduled 502 flights per day. NOTE: 58 of these are 3rd level carriers utilizing twin engine prop aircraft. O Indicates number of complaints from area. ~l CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 184 Agenda June 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor an d '. ,~,. Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 2968 Washburn Circle PROPOSAL Steven Showalter has requested a variance to reduce the required sideyard setback requirements for an interior lot from five feet to three feet to allow the construction of a new 24 feet x 22 feet attached garage on his property, located at 29e8 Washburn Circle. A detached garage currently exists on the site, and is located at the northwest side of the lot to the rear of the residence. This existing garage will be removed when the new garage is constructed. The sideyard setback of the existing garage is two feet at the northwest corner and five feet at the south corner. The new garage will be attached to the southwest side of the residence and will have a sideyard setback of three feet at the northwest corner and five feet at the south corner. Entrance will be from the southeast: Washburn Circle. The proposed frontyard setback will be 30 feet. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.30, Subdivision 5 of the zoning ordinance requires minimum sideyard setback of five feet for single family interior lots. Section 3.39, Subdivision 3 requires that structurally attached accessory buildings comply in all respects with the requirements applicable to the main building. Section 3.40, Subdivision 6 lists three conditions which must be present before a variance may be granted. STAFF FINDINGS The staff has reviewed this proposal against the three conditions for granting variances and found the following: 1. It is the opinion of the staff that special conditions do exist on the site. The geometric configuration of the site is unique and will not allow the required sideyard setback for the proposed attached garage as desired. • Council Letter No. 184 -2- June 14, 1982 2. It is the opinion of the staff that denial of the variance would not prevent reasonable use of the property. The applicant could continue the existing residential use of the property. The applicant could continue the use of the existing unattached garage which complies with sideyard setback requirements. The applicant could also construct a smaller garage which would meet city setback requirements. 3. It is the opinion of the staff that the proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The applicant has noted that surrounding residents feel this attach- ment would give better visual appearance and improve the site. The proposed garage would abut the rear yard of the adjacent property, so sufficient building separation would be maintained. • STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because the proposal does not meet the three conditions necessary for granting variances, the planning staff recommends that the variance be denied. The city manager recommends approval. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission recommends that the variance be granted due to the unique boundaries of the site. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: Community Development Director City Planner • •;:~ - _ _ REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF ' FOR PURPOSE OF--~=-~3`%~`''~-=~------ Legal Description: ~ Y- _ ` ~ .. ~ P, We, the undersi~,med, being owners o£ immediate adjoining land as above described, da hereby concur with the variance as requested. Signature o Hers Address Legal Dcscriotion ..~.~ .~. / / ~~ v ..... /~ v `. v _~ i~ .~i r~ ''-....y-~.. r' ~,,. i. ~=.- ~`~/~ /L~~L~st C..C~L/~o 1L/~i'vr> :' ~~G~ ~~% a y ll i ~~ . ~~. ~~~ h ._ _ i ~ rte' t'?5er'~~ Stye 2968 Wa~i~~~rn '.;rc~2 >>ae 1 I~ ~k i S • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 183 Agenda June 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Amendment of Year IV, VI, VII and VIII Community Development Block Grant Program As the council is aware, the city is negotiating with the school board about possible purchase of the Lincoln Hills School property, for reuse as housing. A potential source of funds to purchase the property is Community Development Block Grant funds. To retain the option of using CDBG monies for this purpose, the city must amend its years IV, VI, VII and VIII program site acquisition and clearance project description to indicate that the funds could be used to purchase • surplus school property for low and moderate income housing purposes. The site acquisition and clearance project description now focuses primarily on elimination of "garage houses." The city must conduct a public hearing on this matter before the amendment can be carried out. It is recommended that the city council conduct a public hearing on this matter and approve the attached amended project description. R1es~pectf,,ur llry submitted, ,,, K„~ ~s-~~ ' J ~J J ~ Karl Nollenberger ;, ~' ~N City Manager ~-~' ,~ r _'J ~ KN/skh ~, '~l ~ ~7 ~, ~ ~ /~ ~ ~ u . ~o ~~ ~, ~~ ,~ .tip ,~~. 11Jy TEAR YIa tiRBAN HENrEFIN COtfNTT CD8S PROJECT PROPOSAL ssssssssassssssssssasssss=assessssaasaass~sasssssssasassssssssssssssass:ssassssssssssa FOR USE BY HENNEPIN COUNTY/OFFICE OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ONLY ER Status: status signature date Project Number: ~~F~~~ number signature date Project Approved: re~resentati ve date sssssss:sssssssssssssassssssss:sssasssssaessssss:ssssssasssszss:assssssssssss:sssssassssa A. GENERAL INFORMATION I. Proposed Project Name: Scattered Site Acquisition/Clearance 2. Subgrantee; Richfield 3. Contact Person: Mick Jopke 8. PROJECT SUMMARY INFORMATION I. Project Information: • - ~ a. Locate the .project: Census Tract City Wide 1970 or 18.80 Check one} Street Address (Attach rnap) ~~ b. Identify the Cort~nunity need the project is meeting and explain now the project will make substantial long term improvements. The .greatest need identified is for decent housing affordable to low and moderate income persons. This project w11 expand affordable housing opportunities and/or maintain the ex.stz:g housing stock for laa and moderate incanz persons. The project makes long-team imp~ts when substandard housing is aognired and cleared, when builcli.ngs are acz,~u.red and rehabilitated to create additional housing, and when new housing is developed that incr-eases the affordable stock of housing in Richfield. ~c. State the accnmplismnents of the prajec~t in a quantifiable manner. (For example, the rehabilitation of IO Houses for low and moderate income families} Through this multi-year program, the•HRA can acquire single family sites and build, rehabil~.tate, or maintain two, single family homes per year with Cancrn~nity Develagneizt Block Grant funds. A portion of the acquisition funds may be utilized tO initiate a larger multi-unit develognetzt. An existing building may be converted to housing units, existing multi-uni.t buildings are rehabilitated, or new multi-unit buildings are built. The multi-unit develognent that provides affordable housing opportunities may be as sma11 as 8 units or have as many as 70 units. UNC - A82 d. Identify start, milestone (if any) and completion dates of the project. Start: _y_1,.1982 • Milestones: Completion: June 30,.1983 e. Describe tfae project and all component activities. Be as detailed as possible. Add stteets• if necessary. Multi-year: ,~ yes. ~„ no When was project started? COSG Year• N __ Project Number. 21 The scattered ~ site project provides Richfield and its - housing Arad Redevelopment Paath©rity (HRA,) i~he crpport~ty ix~ a~~aire vacant farad, sites :with substa3d hou.~ang sites with housing a.r: sound ccanditio~n and sites where buildings ea~ist that ~ xae tx~n3rnrna:*ted to housing. The vaunt farad would be developscl with the c~vrstru,c:ton of a m~.xture of housing units. Substandard. housing and buildings suitable for cxanversion would be rehabilitated or, when rehabilitation is not practical, cleared to allow new construction. Ifiousing ia~ sound oundi,tion would be maintained for cx~ntnued use. The housing units made avaa.lable by this project. wc:uld be utilized fr~r rental or ciwr:ership to qualifying low and moderate ins persons. die program would cx>nsst of the purchase of existing hcat~s ixi sound or substandard cx~ndtion that are available for sale, vacant lots suitable fcir resid~ata.a3. deve3.og~nt, and vacant buildings or residences.. HUn reg~tations for aoquisition and relocation wavld be followed. tnhen appropriate, these sites will be acquired o~n a voluntary • sale basis to reduce relocation cxasts which anust be paid. After acxuisition, the HRA would rent the standard housing or sell. the housing to quali; Eying low/'mpderate incane persons . If rehabilitation or new construction is to occur, the HRA could retain ownership or se31 the property to a private or nonprofit developer. The developer would beocane responsible for subsequent sale or rental. 2iie deveiap~s would cooperate with the Ridzfi.eld HRA iri choosing low to moderate ixicc~rtie persons under Section 8 eligibility guidelines . another use of these farads are for the acquisition of singl rehabilitation and sale to low and moderate incane persons. with the South Hennepin Vocational Technical Institute. Vo for this project. e family dwel3.ings .for This is done in conjunction Tech stvdex~ts provide labor 2 2. Project Eligibility a. Cite the federal regulation/Section of the Act under wnicn the project is eligible. Citation: Sect. 105 (a) (1) b. Tnis project will: (cnecx one and provide requested information) X Principally benefit low and moderate income persons State any special considerations you nave given to benefit the moderate income persons, the number of persons directly benefiting, and now they will benefit. Aa~ii.sition and clearance activities followed by rehabilitation or construction creates affordable rental and ownership housing opportunities. Affordable ownership housing primarily benefits mcde~ate income persons because the type of benefit r~~i res a moderate uicame level. 'lt,~ro amderate i.ncane families could benefit°by single family hcsnes. Between 8 and 30 low-to-moderate incca~~ families could benefit by amulti-family project. Affordable rental. opportunities primarily benefit laa and moderate incase persons. .Between 8 and 30 families and between 16 Removal of slums and blignt and 100 elderly could benefit by a multi- unit project. Describe the blignt and indicate wnetner the municipal government ° nos officially designated the area as blignted or when it plans to do so. • Urgent Need Describe the nature of the need and the time at wnicn it originated. ° c. Identify the element of the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objective wnicn the project addresses: Citation: Housing Section; New Construction, Existing Rental, Housing Reizabilitation Subheacli.ngs of the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives • 3 -- - f r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 182 Agenda June 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Special Use Permit and Application for On-Sale Wine License, Kenny's Family Restaurant, 6700 Penn Avenue On May 10, 1982 the city council continued until June 14, 1982 the public hearing concerning a request submitted by Kenneth Youngberg ror a special use permit which would allow the on-sale of wine at the existing Kenny's Family Restaurant, located at 6700 Penn Avenue. This continuance was necessary because the Planning Commission had not finalized a recommenda- tion on this request, awaiting additional information from the • applicant. The Planning Commission, at their May 25 meeting, deferred this matter until their June 22 meeting because the applicant was not present. Karl Nollenb re ger City Manager cc: Public Safety Director Community Development Director City Planner It is recommended that the city council continue the public hearing on the special use permit to the July 12, 1982 city council meeting. A public hearing for a wine license application was scheduled for the May 10, 1982 city council meeting. This hearing. was continued to the June 14, 1982 city council meeting because the Planning Commission needed clarification of certain issues before making a recommendation on the special use permit request. Since the required council hearing on this matter has already been continued once because of insufficient information provided by the applicant, it is the reconunendation of the city attorney that at the hearing scheduled for June 14, 1982, the council take action to dismiss the pending application for an on-sale wine license. At some future date, when the applicant has satisfied the requirements of the Planning Commission with regard to this matter, the required hearing can be rescheduled. Re pectfully submitted, .~$ ~ O • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 181 Agenda 3une 14, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 78th Street and Morgan Avenue • • PROPOSAL Lindahl Oldsmobile, Inc. has requested a variance to reduce the required frontyard setback along Morgan Avenue from 40 feet to 31 feet to allow them to construct a 9,800 square foot addition to their existing facility at 78th Street and Morgan Avenue. The proposed addition would lie between the Lindahl Uldsmobile Body Shop at 7725 Morgan Avenue and the structure occupied by Lindahl Oldsmobile automobile display, offices, and the Beltline Bar. The site of the proposed addition is currently used for parking for the Beltline Bar and for new car storage. The Beltline Bar use will be discontinued. The new addition will be used for parts storage and distribution, service write-up, and automobile display. The proposed setback on Morgan Avenue will match the setback of the existing building on the corner of 78th Street and Morgan Avenue. The staff can find no record of a variance ever being obtained for the existing building. Therefore, a variance is necessary at this time. The existing special use permit for the automobile sales lot should also be amended to reflect the expansion. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.33, Subdivision 6 and Section 3.32, Subdivision 4 of the zoning ordinance require that the minimum frontyard setback in a C-2 general commercial zoning district be 40 feet. Section 3.40 lists three conditions which must be present before a variance may be granted. Council Letter STAFF REVIEW The staff three conditio 1. It is exist area. large would No. 181 -2- June 14, 1982 has reviewed the request for a variance against the ~s for granting variances and found the following: the opinion of the staff that no special conditions which are not common to other properties in the The parcel is regularly shaped and sufficiently to allow the construction of an addition which meet the city's setback requirements. 2. It is the opinion of the staff that the variance is not necessary to protect substantial property rights. The property owner could still use the property for the existing or other commercial use and could build an addition which would meet city setback requirements. 3. It is the opinion of the staff that the proposed addition and expanded parts, service and automobile display uses would meet all the requirements for car sales lots and would not be detrimental to the public welfare. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Because the proposal does not meet the three conditions necessary for granting variances, the planning staff recommends that the variance be denied. The city manager recommends approval. 2, It is recommended that the existing special use permit be amended to include the proposed addition. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the variance be approved and that the special use permit be amended to include the new addition subject to the stipulation that there be no new car storage or display within the public right-of-way or required setback areas. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager RN/skh cc: Community Development Director City Planner • _ 7:- .. ~ :. .; ~ :~ ~"K_: EXHIBIT A ` ~ ~ ` ~ - I ~~'~ •, '~, ~ ~~ .~ ...r..-.~~..~~.. 'r (j r~ Fi i ~ i:l ~~'~ i ~' ~1 f~'.i _ ~.: ~ ~ . s ~ _~ . ` ;- ~ _ :,. Ems; ~ ~ {{ ~ ~+~~ , y ~ 1 ,~ - -` ,; E ~ ~ ,~ ; , rte; }... ~ ~ ; `I ` ~ .. ~ rd Z ' ,~ ~ J' :~ ~ r, . ~ ~~ 1 .. j L 4' .. _+~. ~ . ~_ .~ Pi l• -~.v it A r---_ ^ ==~~ C;~~1`= ~'"~! CO~C~~~ERGI,^,L t ~ GF''~,lE~,%;L. liv~l.:~ i dim{ t.:.._~ ~ r , . ~ h ~. i ~ __ ~-" i `~f '._ _ ~ _ _ fem.. ~ ~ ' < <. ¢ r± _ ~ ~ -. ~ < -__..ti -.~-~.r~~-..-.ter _ ._~.rr..r _. _ i~~~. _. .~_w. ~.~~~...--- _ . r _.~ _~i. - _. - .~~ ~._. ~_ - .. ~~ -ray i_..r ~ - .._ ~. .v _. _ VII _. y v .` \`t ~ ~.\ ;. /~` %;/ /' ~'~ ~'` X\ Y Y~ ~, j~,. // %\/ ~ ~/ ~ ~~ \ ~ i ~ /, l ~~ i~ '.. / ~\ , ~ ~~\ ~~ ~~ v' . 7 tr 1 _.._ _ _~ ~~fCT ~iT~F~W~~---~IU.~B~F~ - T 8n~- - ..., -= _~~..T..~~.~ . -'-'T~'r =ZV, t \ .e F'_' x w U: o F ~~..~~r Gm"~ ,,, ~F ~z. i~~ .~ ICS 1 ~~_ ~, ~. ~ :~ L~ ' ~~ ~~ ~~ „ -~ 0 V i~~ r-!' ~ ~ ' L- -. ~~ .~ ~; ~, ~ ~ o _ _ C~~ I ~' V3t1 Ism 0`HI v~ ~~ 6- ~. ~~ -- -9-r / ~, ~ ;~. \ - c t,~ ,~ ~, Z..!~ q / 1 ~~ . `~ ~~ NCO ~~ _ _~ 7 J J' ~ p ,t.). ~1`". 1 4'r ~ ~V' Y(blDd~ 1 ~ ~~ ~:~ ..; ;~~ ~ - _.. - 1 V V :l - ~ ___- t l I -~ F~ -~ ! ~ 1 f o~ _~~ ~J - __ y~+~ ( 1 ~~j-}.-1yNJ ~-~ .~ I i~~ ~ i 1/ .3 i •~c~' I C a~ee I F~,~, I r. 1~~~~ 1~' r- .. ~ _:1 i ~ a ~ •- . ; 1 ' ~ L- ,~?~~ i ~ ~ y~ - -- - mot:: ( ri11''~~ J •~. I V' i~I _.j 1 ~_ _~pan,sarl-- ~: -_ .*-__ r ~ ~ 1 ~. j i. ~ .._ ~" ; `~~ez' i ..: i u, rbl ~'7h_~:4 i ~_ •1 I.- .1 `r):ii.. ,~.%.~ ~n.>• 1 1 ti~ ^~ l,~~~~' ~ I 1 ~ ~L•~ I~ I - - -t .-.r./ r=~.Y 1 ~ q ~. • ... ~~ `[~ 5ar e0p `~`~. ...._.~.. - ~ ~d ---- ->N ~~~.~ .. kk , ~~v:'~~ j ~ ~. ~• .. ??fits ST. is2' ~ ~ a~tc~ SLOG. 1 ~ ' ~ s CAR CLEAN- ~ Est ~ 1 COMM'L UP BLDG. s~av~ i BLDG. Q.,~'~c,~s ~ J ~t t ~ arsc s~r-. cis i i ' Q ~ 80DY ~ • * ~ SHOP ~ ~f t ~ _ ~'~ ~ t40 Saes Says) l 1 cas ~ ~ IIM ~ t . • • a r T ~ ~. i ~:. It '~ 18 T~ 5T. ~ Proposed ,addition .,t.. .. EXIST. Scr~V1CE OEr~T. UNOAHL aL,DS. o~cE ~ sHOwROOM II o ~~ ! _~ ~' f42 ~ ~~ i Setvics EXHIBIT C • _''''f iL1i~+~-sPac~s-+}I.~.iti ~ t.~n. Quo. ~~ Z ~ ~ A BLDG: l1 sraus • .C.~CI Q so w+e fi ... _~ aus~ . c~ ~ QQ ' C~CI QQ U QQ CIQC ta~v rsas j . Emc-r i' a n use cis O u . ~, L!: ~ • Q w . ~ ~ ~' ~~~ ~ ~~~ T_ 81vd~ 3l3 ', Rood ~~ F' ~ ~