04-26-82 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 139
Agenda April 26, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Raffle License, The Church of
the Assumption
The city has received an application for a raffle license
from the Church of the Assumption. The proposal involves the
sale of 4,000 raffle tickets at $10 each. Sales will take place
during the month of May and from August 16 through October 1, 1982.
Rather than having a single drawing for a winner, the church is
proposing to have monthly drawings starting in November of this
year and continuing through June, 1983. A total of $1,000 will
be paid to winners during each of these eight consecutive monthly
drawings. Proceeds from the raffle will be used entirely to
• supplement the operational cost of Assumption grade school.
The proposal is in conformance with the provisions of city
ordinance code 5.19, which controls bingo, gambling devices and
raffles. However, the applicant has requested a waiver of both
the raffle license fee and the requirement of a $10,000 Fidelity
Bond. The applicant would qualify for a waiver of the raffle
license fee, but the city council, as a matter of policy, has
never authorized a waiver of the Fidelity Bond requirement. As
a part of the licensing code, however, there is a provision to
allow the applicant a choice between a Fidelity Bond in the amount
of $10,000 or the execution of a Personal Surety Form from a
person of good credit who is a property owner within the city.
In consideration of the request of the applicant, it is
recommended that the raffle license be issued on a fee waived
basis, and the option to allow a qualified individual to file
a Personal Surety Agreement be authorized.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/skh
cc: City Clerk
Public Safety Director
~ //
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 137
Agenda April 26, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Council Members:
Subject: Request from VFW to Sell Beer in Augsburg
Park
In a letter dated February Z5, 1982, the Rickf~ielrh Fred ..
Babcock VFW Post X5555 requested the use of Augsburg Park on
July 25, 1982 for the annual picnic for Post and Auxiliary members
and their families. The grounds are proposed to be set up the
same as last year, with soda and rides for children and beer for
adults.
The PQSt has indicated that they would post the normal
damage deposit, leave the grounds as clean or cleaner than upon
arrival, and have a police officer on duty. Application for the
permit acs made February 25, 1982, at which time the S25 permit
fee was paid. The application notes that beer would be available
from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., but would not be sold to the
anticipated 300-400 people in attendance. The beer :could be e
given to Post members and their guests.
According to city ordinance, the council may require, as a
condition of issuance of the permit, an indemnity bond holding
the city harmless from liability of any kind or character and
reimbursing the city for any property damage or clean-up costs.
The council may also require, in addition to or in lieu of such
bond, that the organization furnish proof of insurance adequately
covering all such actions, claims or costs, and :nay require that
the city be named as an additional insured. The organization does
have a valid license issued by the city for the sale of beer at a
different location. This satisfies the ordinance if the insurance
a::d bond required under such licenses cover the sale of beer in a
public park. The ordinance also is:^.~dicates that the organization is
to execute a written agreement in form acceptable to the city,
releasing the city from any claim by the organization and holding
the city harmless from any claims by others arising cut of or
occasioned by cancellation of their permit. It is at the deter-
-ination of the council whet::^.er a police officer or officers need
be fir. attendance at the permit site, at the expense of the
acalicar,y, a` all times and while beer is being sold.
Council Letter No. 137 -2- April 26, 1982
• The Community Services Commission reviewed this request
at their March 9, 1982 meeting and recommended that the city council
approve this request. The Public Safety Department also reviewed
the application and has no objections to issuance of the permit.
If the city council does not eliminate this provision
in the existing ordinance relating to beer in the parks, then it
is recommended that the city council take the following actions:
i
1. Require an indemnity bond of $50-0 for clean-up costs
not performed by the VFW to be refunded if not used.
2. Require that the proof of liability insurance be provided.
3. Require that the city be made an additional insured.
4. Require a written. agreement releasing the city from any
claim arising out of or occasioned by cancellation of
the permit.
5. Consider that a police officer be in attendance.
6. Issue a permit with any determined conditions for beer
in Augsburg Park, 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Sunday,
July 25, 1982, as reauested by the Richfield Fred Babcock
VFW Post n5555.
Respectfully submitted,
~~1~.
a~
Rarl Nollenberger
City Manager °
~N/sh
cc: Community Services Director
Public Safety Director
City Cler:~
~k 7
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Fetter No. 136
Agenda Apgil 26, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
~`~
~~ L~
5J~ ~ vv
~L i~
~J' ~ ~ ~a~
~c
Subject: Amendment to Phase 2 Hub/Penny/Snyder PUD
Finald Development Plan, Vacation of Pill-
sbury Avenue between 66-65th Streets, and
Amended Off-Street Parking Permit
HISTORY _
In February, 1979'; the city council approved a preliminary
plat, PUD plan and rezoning for the Hub/Summit/Penny's PUD sub-
ject to the following stipulations:
1. That the plan be brought into compliance with the
Urban Design Guidelines of the L/H/N area;
2. That the parking lot be redesigned to effectively
park and move traffic in accordance with design standards
of the city and county. All driving aisles and access
must be dimensioned on the plan;
3. That new signs must conform to the L/H/Z1 Urban Design
Guidelines as adopted by the city council;
4. That, if within the United National Corporation park-
ing lot, cars are allowed to overhang public right-of-way,
United National Corporation be responsible for replace-
ment of any damaged city property;
5. That all transformers be protected as per city code and
screened when visible to the public;
6. That a separate sanitary sewer line be provided for the
kitchen waste at the proposed restaurant. This line
should have a grease trap and interceptor to prevent
grease from plugging the sanitary sewer line;
7. That an 8-foot sidewalk be constructed at the rear of
• Korner Plaza;
Council Letter No. 136 -2- April 26, 1982
8. That the unprotected light standards southwest of
Korner Plaza be temporarily protected;
9. That end islands without trees be all concrete as
per the Urban Design Guidelines;
10. That all end islands should be landscaped (trees) or
concrete.
The PUD plan indicated that the development would be completed
in four phases, with each property owner responsible for the im-
provements to be undertaken on their property. At that time, the
council also considered a request for the vacation of Pillsbury
Avenue between 65th Street and 66th Street. The council delayed
setting a public hearing on the proposed street vacation until
one of the following events occurred:
1. Issuance by the city, pursuant to an application and the
filing of a final development plan by Penny's Super Market,
Inc., or United National Corporation with respect to its
own property, of a special use permit allowing redevelop-
ment pursuant to a final development plan covering:
a. the proposed North Addition, or
b. the proposed Market Addition, or
c. the proposed Financial Institution/Office Building.
2. The elap~.ing of two and one-half years after the effective
date of the rezoning to PC-2, or
3. A joint request by Penny's Supermarket, Inc., and United
National Corporation that the hearing be scheduled at an
earlier date.
In September, 1980, the city approved a final development plan
for the phase 2 improvements on the Hub Shopping Center property
subject to the following stipulations:
1. That design details of all new signs should be approved
by city staff;
2. That the transformer adjacent to the restaurant should
be protected from autbmobiies;
3. That a six-foot sidewalk should be provided at the
rear of Korner Plaza;
4. That an easement for buses to use vacated Pillsbury
Avenue right-of-way be provided;
5. That United National Corporation provide a performance
bond or other acceptable security.
•
Council Letter No. 136 -3- Ap~il,26, 1982
In 1981 the owners of the Hub Center (United National Corpora-
tion) and Penny's Super Market petitioned fog the vacation of
Pillsbury Avenue. The city council gave first reading approval
to=an ordinance vacating the street on September 8, 1980 and set
a public hearing for October 13, 1980. At the request of United
National Corporation, the public hearing was continued four time,
for economic reasons, and to allow additional time to work out
access agreements with the owners of the Clark Oil Station. On
May 11, 1981, when United National Corporation was again not ready
to proceed with the uacation, the city council closed the public
hearing and discontinued the vacation procedure and second reading
of the ordinance to carry out the vacation. On March 22, 1982 the
city council again gave first reading approval to an ordinance
vacating Pillsbury Avenue, referred the matter to the planning
commission and scheduled a public hearing on the ordinance for
April 26, 1982.
The United National Corporation has recently revised their
phase two final development plan to meet additional space needs
of a prospective major tenant of the space previously occupied by
Sibleys.
PROPOSAL
Improvements which United National Corporation is proposing
to construct as part of the revised phase two development include
the following:
1. Building improvements will consist of the construction
of a 7,200 square foot addition on the north side of the
space formerly occupied by Sibleys. The addition will
extend 60 feet north of the existing structure and will
be 120 feet wide. Exterior building materials on the
new addition will be face brick and stucco. United
National Corporation has indicated that exterior improve-
ments to the south side of the existing Hub Center building
would take place during this phase. These improvements
would include construction of a canopy over portions of
the sidewalk and construction of a uniform sign band.
The exact details of these improvements are not available
at this time. Additional details will be presented at
the April 26, council meeting.
2. Concrete curbing and an eight foot aide sidewalk with
handicapped ramps and crosswalks will be constructed on
the west side of the south parking lot.
3. A catch basin will be constructed in the southwest corner
of the south parking lot.
4. Existing curbs on Pillsbury Avenue will be removed and
pavement will be repaired.
• 5. Four new concrete curbed and landscaped end islands
would be constructed in the northwest corner of the
United National property.
Council Letter No. 136 -4-
April 26, 1982
6. Three light standards would be removed and replaced
. by two new light standards in~.t~e northwest corner of
the United National property.
7. The parking area in the northwest corner of the United
National property would be restriped as shown on the
site plan.
8. A six foot sidewalk would be constructed on the north
side of the Korner Plaza store.
9. A low sign would be constructed in the southwest corner
of the United National property and pylon signs would be
constructed on the north and west sides of the United
National property.
10. An 18-inch water line and a 24-inch storm sewer line will
be relocated. Easements will be provided for the new
location.
11. Subsequent to the planning commission meeting, the United
National Corporation has retained the firm of Barton-
Aschman Associates to study the traffic flow problems
in the south.-~parking=_lot. Their preliminary findings
will be presented at the April 26 meeting.
• ZONING AND OTHER ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
1. Section 3.34A, subdivision 5 of the zoning ordinance re-
quires that, prior to commencement of any construction
or development of the land, and after rezoning, an appli-
cant shall submit a final development plan, consistent
with the council approved PUD plan, and an application for
a special use permit for said development. A special use
permit in conformance with the final-development plan must
be obtained before the PUD district can be devoted to the
uses provided in such plan. In this case, the property
owner must submit a final development plan and obtain a
special use permit for development of the property for
each phase of the overall Hub/Summit/Penny development.
2. Section 3.34A, subdivision 7 states that a .final develop-
ment plan shall not be considered consistent with the
council approved PUD plan if there is:
a. more than ten percent change in floor area in any
one structure;
b. mare than ten percent change in the original approved
separation of buildings;
c. any change in the original approved setbacks from
'~ property lines;
Council Letter No. 136 -5- April 26, 1982
d. more than 5 percent change in ground area covered
by buildings;
e. any change in the ratio of off-street parking and
loading space to gross area in the building.
3. Section 3.41 of the ordinance code requires that it be
demonstrated that the development would not be detrimental
to the public welfare, and Section 3.34A, subdivision 3 re-
quires that development be coordinated with subdivision
regulations.
4. Section 4.05 requires than an off-street parking permit
must be obtained for parking areas in commercial zoning
districts, and sets standards with which parking areas
must comply.
STAFF FINDINGS
1... The proposed Phase 2 final development plan would differ
from the previously approved plan in the following ways:
a. the proposed restaurant (Burger King) on the south
side of the building has been eliminated in this
phase.
i b. A 7,200 square foot addition to the north side of
the building has been added.
c. storm sewer and water lines are being relocated.
d. the parking lot north of the building has been re-
designed
e. 55 additional parking spaces are being provided
f. the existing power poles and overhead lines will be
removed on the property. Existing service locations
and exterior masts will be maintained, however.
2. The proposed Phase 2 final development plan would not be
in substantial compliance with the previously approved
PUD plan in the following ways:
a. the setback between the building and the north
property line has been -reduced by 60 feet
b. the ratio of off-street parking and loading space
to gross floor area in the building has been changed
from 4.99 to 5.23.
•
Council Letter No. 136 -6- April 26, 1932
3. The PUD plan stipulations will be met as follows:
a. the plan conforms to the Urban Design Guidelines
b. the plan indicates that all new signs__will conform
to city standards
c. no parking will overhang the public right-of-way
d. details on transformer pad location., screening or
protection have not been provided
e. a restaurant is no longer a part of the plan
f. a six-foot wide sidewalk is sufficient and will be
provided
g. the light standard in question will be relocated or
protected
h. all end islands constructed during Phase 2 will be
either landscaped or concrete
4. The proposed vacation of Pillsbury Avenue is an important
part of the Phase 2 improvements. The vacation of the
street would have to be accomplished before site improve-
ments.~could be constructed because they would be within
the right-of-way.
5. The proposed changes would not be detrimental to the
general public welfare and will result in development which
will be consistent with the redevelopment plans for the
area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
it is recommended that the revised final development plan and
special use permit be approved subject to the following stipula-
tions:
1. The design details of all new signs should be approved
by city staff;
2. That all transformers be protected as per city code and
screened when visible to the public;
3. That an easement for buses be given to use Vacated Pills-
bury Avenue right-of-way;
4. That easements be provided for the relocated water and
storm sewer lines; .`~.
~ ~~ r~\
,~~ ~~
~~
Council Letter No. 136 -7-
April 26, 1982
5. That the United National Corporation provide a perform-
ance bond or other acceptable security;
6. That perking aisle- changes in the south parking lot be
studied to provide smoother traffic flow;
7. That visibility problems at the westerly curb cut to
the United National Corporation property on 65th Street
-_ be corrected;
8. That detailed building exterior improvement plans be
submitted for city council approval.
It is also recommended that the city council give second read-
ing approval to the attached ordnance to vacate Pillsbury Avenue.
z. ~/ ,
~,,~r> >CU~~o*~ J~ h;,~ ~c l ~~ ~ -
It is further recommended that the city council approve the
amended off-street parking layout by passing the attached resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOr~'IENDATION
The planning commission recommends that the revised final de-
velopment plan and special use permit be approved with the stipu-
lations recommended by the city staff.
• Res ectfully submitted,
JV ~
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
City Engineer
KN/eja
Stipulation to Phase II - Hub/Penny/Snyder PUD
Final Development Plan
As a condition of approval of the Hub PUD, the United
National Corporation agrees to install a major customer
entrance on the north side of the building formerly occupied
by Sibley's and proposed to be occupied by Marshalls. This
entrance shall consist of double glass doors with a minimum
width of six feet.
As another condition of approval the new facade and canopy
improvement for the Hub Shopping Center shall extend from
the Korner Plaza store eastward and northward to include
all the stores in the center including the Godfather Pizza
business. The final design approval of the facade and
canopy will meet the L/H/N Design Guidelines and be submitted
for approval of the c ity s taf f .
That United National Corporation shall submit final parking
lot layout and site improvement plans for approval by city
staff .
The above mentioned improvements shall be started no later
than May 1, 1982 or the performance bond shall be forfeited.
UNfTED .NATIONAL CORPORATION
74'5 FIFTH AVENUE • NEW YORK, N. Y. 10151 • (2l2) 758-9200
March 26, 1982
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Att.: Mr. Rick Jopke
City Planner
Re: Richfield Hub Superblock
Phase 2 Development
Dear Mr. Jopke
Accommodating the proposed Marshall's store at The Hub will require
moderate revision to the site plan, as described on revised drawings
prepared and submitted to you on our behalf by Smiley Glotter
Associates, our architectural/engineering consultants.
We respectfully request that the City approve the amended Final
Planned Unit Development Plan and Special Use Permit for Phase 2
as set out in the Smiley Glotter Associates submittal.
Whenever requested by the City, we will agree to the vacation of
Pillsbury Avenue in connection with the Phase 2 development.
• The site plan revisions include relocating underground utility lines
in former 65th St., for which we granted easements to the City when
the right-of-way was vacated. We have instructed Smiley Glotter to
prepare engineering documents for :C1ie=relocation in compliance with
City requirements, and will grant the City easements- in alternate
areas as needed for the relocated utility lines.
It is our desire to have the amended Plan presented to the Planning
Commission. for its approval at the scheduled April 13 special
meeting. Timing of construction is an important consideration in
securing this new commercial enterprise for Richfield; we would ap-
preciate our request being expedited to final approval as quickly as
practicable. If there is need for further information regarding the
project, please feel free to call upon Smiley Glotter Associates or
myself.
We thank you in anticipation of your continued cooperation.
Ve truly yours, ._
,• `~,``
ichard Naiman
Vice President/Construction
RN/b
cc: Smiley Glotter Associates
• Mr. Richard Simon
Mr. Ralph Bruins
~ APPROV ED, Pl1D~LAN
L~3 ~ . ,~ ~ -1 1 ..r .. , 1
~ ~-
~~ yy r ~ ~:.. :~
__.. _ ~ , ' _ ....w1 ~ i ~ ~ ' ev,. ' I'
N J j .
N, ; . ... , i.~ ~ ~ j \ ;
~~ ~
• ` ..~ ~./ ~. / t~ I
• ~aT••...:•..~~1 `' ~°~'" ~~' ~ P~~•HII14~~!l~~i#HIli4~4tl#IH# II-N~#i-#4~4N#41~E~N#fl ~I#1-~#!###~ . 4. ,~.... ~~ ,
_ ~_;= ~~ ~~ ~ .1 .1 '~~f1141t~!# Iil,-I#r##~It##It~~N#I~I ~#~-~!#11 ' ~~' Ct J I .
/• N ~•/Yt~M~
~ 1 r~l
•' -
~.. --~
s ~.. ..-. - ~.''..1.
~I:
1 !1
.:'
~~
If~~ll~it
.. •• ..•. M.••oV - N• f w~• Y ~
.m.r.•. •,N« ... u.,• ~,.
•1/.1•x• II..M C t
..p,M•~tO~M ~9.RMW ~'.~I...hJ.'
MrM fpN4.L
.IV1 W.
rw ; wpr7.~ .,Y
•• YIt•~ •'• 1• Yw 11•.
p+Ot 11 Art Mr •Y.
VO / •YMy X rn •, w 1 1•
e.^•e
.MM •..7\M M W.
•iM•~ H1N-w •
K •. • MI
lrY. L.7 I..• Y r
.••.yu.- •..1•n•• w..•.
rcI b.JY • •«
er. •..., a .-
•.M• 1 1s'~. ba.lM •w •M •.•.. r
~~ ~.~
..,>".•
,.,,~. ~.
••-e •r ...1 1.. •.w
• M•.p..M • ww• ,N W. •w.w
K131'
U .~t.., «,.w .r .,..a...
~...tG•Y..•PM.M
- I. VL .wI..•..[.I.tM
~ W p...i.
~ MIV bN 41
• w.^r .w rwwe
• ....,,.,..,,b ,.., .-..
h ro.or• +..wn+..+.
~, 00 y'VI•..YIIQYM
..w Ttru.r~..r4-
1.•'M
. tovn•eV••.Ir.e•-.r•w
• \. w+. •••YYrM`•M N.N. ...~'•.`~
t *•I ~ r ow
1 •4...r'/ G.• ~4i.1. r .t.n•'M
M e ~ Mlnl
• w .-.•., a. r~ Y•,.n ..- .•.
w.....•>r..'1.....y
..... ~.1y
• .r •a• r m.~..i.. P c ~ a..f~u
1 YO •. l..+rW .U.K a+L.. 1..i +.
N...•.alan . NJU.1 •.
N.~i. h+1~• ~ •~ Nl..~ ~..•.•
/l
`.
111i••••
~•
~~~~1
~ II
' ~.
i1
.r-, ~
:, ~
~~
/:e~
V ~ ~~/~
1 -~ ~ /\
(.... 1
~./ I , ~-
-S .~.~
~t
~~i
~~
~y
o~
•---
• ,
_. _ . ~
_ - ~ s _ ~ .. ~ -....._
C ~~
r
~.
f----i
_ {{ ~ ~ j/yjI _ ~ I7 C ~ ~,. .. • ~. ., 1 4'! : w~.N EdMt7 C N•w M NAM R.
~.. .. ~ J-..JJ ~ _. }- '', . /~1.' ~~ _ .. ' • WA_R h.. MNNN Y.v f~..M,
1 I ~ 1 1 I y I 11 II /.DVNO:ONY1 xx..R+w.D D.~G!/«[Y'WV'
I EM4Y. (pMWaLt
~ ' 1 af~JSYlf '~ •... n e+Dr9a~ .~..f
~ 1
,~ ` a
I A ' 1 •' • 'L- ` ADD ~..~..s .rb rp p.. f,e,
i ~'IaNC M'.41. IJD~'DAI. t•+~•+•• •^-'Le: se•-x~.s:~
r ! ~ ~~ i~'13ti7' li:i:i'11 S'l: a ''i r. ~-- 7 `'".~:'~'° ; +D"_„`5
l -~ ~ .. DfYIO~G AV+•
7+ Y~
..._-. _ -_ _ .__ _ , a' :~ ~ _ I 1 N~..ase«nserw pwc ~. •ao
~ .__ ~ L .. -~ 1 ,.., .~ ~(i'Iliiiailllli~II~IIIIF,~„~ _ -- __~..._
. _ . .. .. .._ 1 Aw+s s...xa:a.nw-•raro+ ;..v
.. ... - _... N -._.....r I .. _. b ` r~
~ ~ 1tp \ ..:.~~ I~ ~ ! ! I i ! _ -_ ~ .~ lil~7~j~ ~~i/11157. .~+... •y-n. v.
..- ~, i9 ~ ~. •. -- .. ~ o.f 1 ~ -.__ - 1 'I '' II ' I' ~ o .w. i t~^r. wv~e •a+ ta~o.o.N..-
11 w . iw"''- ~ niora.fD ! ~ L _ ,~ . ..• ~ ~ o r+•ro .w,.aD
i i I 1 ~ f., I I I~I'I `\~/~~) ~ ++ e - frww•n .eM S•nla ~ ,Dtl,,, j! l• orN.a..D n,.
' ' ' ' II~I1, IyI II 1yy//1'1{y11 [) ` 7''~ > p+~ rig fYM • •+•MI ne
.: ..~I ~~I~~I~1'~I I1~ ~ I i~~~l`~~~• ~ ~ ~- __ I .•~Illil ~l l! I ~ ~~ ~ evo si0 uN~wroNrl.M
fX '
!, i7 ~,w.w.r»~ ~•a.wwM'r ~ ~ ' - ~ ~ ~ ~ i . wwowew+. e*.N +w uN +wa...
'~ ~ ~~ f (1 (I ~ ~ I I ~~ ~I 1~"'~• ~ e wr~e ewo.~ '~, a yr~ ~I : I.~ . !.,~/, ~ 1 ! o•evKSn revues .nrw./ H .+re
a
*.. Doe ., I f+D~w
,_ ;~m ~ ~irr~~i ~. ~N~N-~~N~H~NIN~tI~~~\ ~ ~ l:,.Y
r• ~l I ~ l_ p.\ i ~3~ ~ ~ ~ p ~,1u~11 11~11~;1 ''' I'''' 1't~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1-1 (, Z" w,q.,,".. M:r svro
I ~ ~ I~I (I I i ~1~~ _ ~ lrT1~~TT~ ~~i i I i I (I - I I i 1 I~ I I 1 IT~1T~~iT1~TrtTiTm i I~I~ i` ~Tt'f1T~ ~ I ~] ~.. •w.~. ~ 4 y
31 'I'M _ fr Ilfl II ~ •N-~-iE ~ ~• o ~.~'
11 i I -III-9 PSI-~-ff-I-I-I __ ,,,~,. HI~I~I ~I~I~H-1 f I Ifl , I~-)
>r ~ ~ - - : ~ ~ it • :.'w O°. ~':m .~.
' -~~` ~ ~ : 14~t!N~+IIII ~N~-I-N~N ~ Irl•IN-N N~N~4~1-I-I-fIINIII4II-N~ I~Ittl-II~W ~t"' i r`" I 1 `~° ~~
•,~ T. - 7 ,J +! r I -._ ~ L 1 ~ rN .+a..~. fur..-r
'yl ~ ~ ~4
o + r ~ '~ 'c ~ w~M
e ace.orl u+~+c+l..• .raw~fa
_- .. . _._-. -... _ _.~_.. .__~_~__ ~ .~_~ .. _.. _~~~ G ~ ____._ -~-.~ Nµ W 6•.M
.~ ~~ _- ' ~ I Np~ rµrlllh,•p•. McN.M
~__ C__ _.-___ ._ .. __.. ~ ~- - ~I
F.. ~ 1
7-- T-- 7kww.~-~' ew .M"brv b/~ w «'C!
'W LM'NNt~
i Nn 4. ~ "t~ fpa/ >• vw~f+t v f/'+' DN>"'NG.
I ' I . ww +.r;+l.~ ~i.+e~tu.
- _ ( /
w Y+Nr++D M ,ua ur+A e.w.
1
.APPROVED PHASE 2 FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
U 1 .. -•- - - ~ ~ 1
~,~ .. o ^ ~ .~ ._ GI C
~~ "- ~
~:~I U ~ ~~ ~~ :~~ i j u ri
Cl--. - ~ ~__ ~ . !
~ . -:-.-~_............ ... _.. I.J ~......._._ ....
~----•^ .--r •--°._^'1 ~ tlllitll illt lllllll
./
1 1111111 I ... il/ rli. 1!:i:illl~.l~ Y.~ Y •`~ ~Ilt) •%.t~
./ ~
' l!~1 '1..11 1, l; li'11 ,;. .:'1 1. ~-` - ,~•~ • ~ •I
A ~~, .......,.,..
Y 111:111 I.1 1~=~ il..l. ~~~ ~\
.If.tl.
1,
..___. -' ~~ ..-.l
. ~ 1
~i~
,' no
I~ ~ ~ fMAT I{7 M+• ~.~~
y ~ ~.~~
'• = Ililiilll~ltlirl~
~.~~!111~411lI!~~fl-
~ ~~:•liir~,~,i11i~i~l~J~ ~i' ~!ti~l 1 I,1 I11~:` ~ ' c,
~' ~:K. ~ I C~. ~ 1' !11 ~ 1 1.1 ~: l i f 1 i
i ~; ImTrri~'1, ,~rlt+lirl~ IIIfI`-: i#;IYI~~~
~~~fll~ll~-~%~'_~i~tl~lfl~ ~rl!„~-Ifrl~1-I-I-II ~.: `'":~= I~I~IE'rll ~ ~rmn
;~a~ii~t~11'iTI~F' ~/ -1.1 11 i ..i .. 1 1 I klllllilllf
• 1}IIN1111119 N' IHI~~I ~~ i i !I I !'~~rl~filll~ll~l~~fl
~~ _--~
b p
~...w....• ~!. t ~ Y
~_ I~I}WI~I~II ~I~I•~IJa-{~ ~ iTi~fl~l ~ Iti;-IIE4iill~l~-III-~I~II ~I+HNIIII
v~
~~ ~ .
S ,.
,11 .. ~.'~~'...
i ~ ~+raeu
I .
~ ;.~ _ i
...._.._ -~. ~y
.-.! ..~.tl -. •...
;'
~ •~; ...., ~ 1
.. R I
r~_ i
,.
n,~r~ . .
MI rl WNq r N.. r.N++f•.
MA.f.M / 1•.N~ ..". WY
AtYf..r lsnrb M •s'f.
fM/.A fl+M t {~f
~~~
~,~:
e.1V. AD11r II.N'
N /b'Mti Ift. n'N r••. .~f/A
w.w N.". ~w•
_. ._..tT.yi N•'..yw ~i
AeVNPV11 ((M.III M•'• fY•
M~b+W M1Mr. Y-+.Mf N••.VMa
MM Atl+.
~,..e:
,r i+er.ro fM'M ~ N..11.
f1.•.r f1.11M N. Ire
..}.
..N'.64w. ~ •IM
r rcf Iu1E.P f•+•N ro) f w
I.+.N raf•r.Mr as'w fw
_ __ ~.!+uoro+ +w
N•.•N ~~vwf
fM.l.r (If{
fl .wy I,H N.f'rN~ /1nf
. w..e..... ~ ~tl.{ •r. uN .Iw.
we.r.l. V'.r'.A • Nto-r
u.rww rewf M... Mpr
Iir3l'
Q fNJy7 .,,1,.~ •.r. rYl/..•N
N~ aw... }....w r••ee~s atl
O +W LL MM.• M..p.1 -
I.I.L IMI MNV.1 I.
c M{.e.+K
s «...w.e...~u
1 f•.'•+ UN f..•w.n
r'b1.W:I.M1 YM
.f0 .•'fI t..'1
.n .,,,,,,. ..N.,..w
se f'v.• Irf tevtl
reMr u w+we+.o.. ~I. w•.r+«ti
l µ~....{ww.r•.s....e.w+...
• f'I ~r1 W+~~1V{ / Mw'N
• 1-a rw. /+Nf
• r.+..~....-N+....1.•e......
M• 1.4V ..~ I K. W.f
M..w.•1•.w.M'~'.as bl~. •IK•
' 1. M. tti •+d.h'.N ~ N ~1.'1f
%.V {+N A. 4M
. ~ I.v /eN ~!/MM.. 1/ Vti OIM~~
W~f.e Jr/au1K .•+.I~.r n
ry.Mw •Y~1N Y.••
•{/r..ITr~I.. J H
h.•M 1.
e I!.•I..IM -
Y
~ .'
~~~
,~t
/.
r I11
~~ ''.
ill
11
1f ;
L:I,
1'..:
:.~ ~
~. z i
t;,~:
1
r~~ ;
._.
:;
1
V~
f'-:•`i
GPI
II l1
c-=~
' • r-
,
~~~
l
~i I
~ 1.
~~-
~~~~
,i
Y1+w
rn•s a. , ru r Fn.+Ga~s Vv
w+rv~Jr• uw Fr+i FPM Nlp.FG! ~
.....,_._ .,..~... rr ..~
s.~ lsrfl•a~M Gnl~n. r11'a.n
Llt-MnJ aN.v wrarlar• glryw
L.~•va w•Fna .D••.:.snn a. •n O
Ci-K A a •~M.. T. aL^a ~
..I Lav+.oa s.* ~+w~' ....~cw
w. ..._•r:r LAW
IL'F•F ~.o W
...«.r .. +wa.+Fri sho.• .
swo w vN.+
+rar oow rwaa.~•..s-r a
_vw +l. •n ..~c.^ ate.
F.w.a a Ln ..,... o0
arWr1•.•r ..~a•M O.
- IM wan CF+
+•ay a••v~ nN•M r
F'..a tetra GMO•+N L~ Fr
Mlnrw F' W V ~
14 Mnr M.w•• O
na+ M O
N4M0-/OrV Fy.
An fOJ ..• .qnr •rwr .wvl (~
ortw a~s+ y.»c.r L
rGrHa.r~• .h ~ Y~ U •lm ~-~
.Lfllt
xr'~1lwrrr swww arsro.a
N•4JM • y..L+9fA +.Y'w
"p•Mr F/I• My NG1Y 1 N•r YwG+l~
1; .rx. ~
1 wrc v.Fd
cY.igv P n~ V
+w... 'as rwr d•C'M ..1 i IF•v O
...F..,:. w4 0
.:. ,~.~-r...~..
M...C[r JYV.. LMC as Ir+4r
Oai: (AIWJYFl1 S.+M•'~rJwC
S+O..cU C1KLq+
a•a f ++~ La.i . •wMM
w» N Nic..6. i...~y
m. )LwPI wax S K
a. ~r.v
. .ir a.L'Ina
r:,s~B+GG -q~ rF.rc~r++..4 cna
v J'f ..w ~ (K CFFL-F \, aor
r.F ~ ~ a s. w: r.4.
.FSf _w ~. L•F ..sF~Aa P'•
rnv c..+
~~~~ ~.~
_~M.anFC _ M+.b 6~ar 'Jw.O:LNi1wN
r ~ fI•+OL nl+1Nb
rv-.n .»w N r w• F V .a-m.
A r.w r wrF a cacw~uY .cw ~. G_.»
~;L~'li
• r-- _.. -
I
i ~ ~1
i
i I ~1•,
-n,AJ 1
I I •~,
_ - 7
(• ~ ! ~ !
• • • , 1 n
• I _ 1
. ..K .
I I•
_ ~ ~ ~ •
I
:~
~~~~ ~~
.. I ~ I j ro c: ~~
.. I I I 1 1 ! 1 t l _ 11 ! 1. 1 1 1' ~ ..I '~ i ~ tnM~ t / +I
1111 ,I - - ~.... .. .. ,
.. ~ .....~.=~ ~~-II.1j (IIiI. fl~l ~,~ ~,n. ~ I-:LL.I_.~ ~...,.._1~:{ , ~ .al ~ eJ~
' 'M1rJ1• JM ? Na.~t1•~ F
;, ~~----•-A--~ ~ IIIII!IIIIiNI{~~l{{~+ I--.•~ - ~.-a t .:~ 1 ~+; ~
• ~ ~ ' c -~
7 ~11 j! J ,~ I r
• ~I
• __--~;~ v` II. IiI;I-~4I~r---------~-`"T1-'11~11-~1`'~iI•~trc~' \~~~'~~ '~-.~..~-;.}~ ~',
F
• ~•. s7
------ ~~ ~{iEN~tI~-I-I~I~I-~-tlHtiNYIIY" ~~~ 1~ 1 I~I~~L,~ ~ :' `E
_i 1 ~`• `~ 1. i6z :~f ".'''~''=w'I
- ~ ~ ~ - .\ ~ -r---
\ ~ a,, / •\. ~. ~~ ,~ ~\ ~,; ~~tl~~{~III(III~~I BSI
._~ ~ s `.. .t . j ;
,~ "'O'ff sw i'.:i _vrY. 6 .ala« F1~ ~ ,•~F •:- w.+aw.
• •
r_'. ~
I ~ _
-•~
~~ ;~ I _
I
~- = ~ .. _
~`•-------tl--t - -~ ~ 1 t
~Nar,r/ { / L\ily1r1
~____
_ ~ f
... L ~ ~I~li , ~ !~ II ~ "~ ~ 1
I III I I I, ~I :~ ~, a.K ... ~ _J4~ I 11 ! - ~ 1- - . 1.
1 _~ OIIIIIIIL 1:
_ ~ :,
Irrv~n. ~
/ ' 1 ~ / • '
. 1 ~ I ~ !
1 1 t
1 j
' ~ -~ ~I; 1 I I ~ .
• .! i i_.~
`t ! 1
.I t ._.J I _~ J~ ;- I -.~ ~---~ _. 1 -
r- .~
. , :,~
•
•
Bill 1982-
• TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING
FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION
OF~PILLSBURY AVENUE SOUTH
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The following described portion of the Pillsbury
Avenue South right-of-way is hereby vacated:
All that part of Pillsbury Avenue lying between the
extensions across it of the north line of Block 2,
Richfield Plaza Addition and the extension across
if of the south line of said Block 2, Richfield Plaza
Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Section 2. There. are currently located within the street
right-of-way hereby vacated certain water mains, storm sewers, sani-
• tart' sewers, telephone and electrical facilities and the respective
appurtenances. -Said vacation is subject to easements running in
favor of the authority or authorities owning or operating any such
facilities for the purpose of operating, maintaining, reconstructing,
constructing and repairing any such facilities over, under, across
and through the following described portion right-of-way vacated:
Beginning at the southwest corner of Block 2, Richfield
Plaza Addition., thence west 8.08 feet to the actual point
of beginning, thence north parallel t'o the east line of
Richfield Plaza Addition 576.84 feet, thence west 42 feet,
thence south. 576.84 feet parallel to the east line of
Richfield Plaza Addition, thence east 42 feet to the point
of beginning all in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Section 3. The r2ayor and City Manager are authorized to take
alI such action as is required to give effect to the vacation of
• the. portion of Pillsbury Avenue South provided in the foregoing
Section 1.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minne-
sota this day of 1982.
~.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sy via K. Bergh, City C erk
RESOLUTION N0.
•
RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT FOR OFF
STREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION N0.
CONTRACT NO.
United National Corporation
Location: HUB Shopping Center
66th Street & Nicollet Avenue
Use: Phase II, Hub PUD Final Development Plan
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the proposed geometric layout of the off-street parking
as contained in Off-Street Parking Application No. , Contract
No. is hereby approved subject to and upon completion of
performance of the contract for such off-street parking as herein-
after authorized.
2. That the proposed off-street parking contract for the
improvement of said off-street parking, bearing Contract No.
be placed on file and that the manager be authorized to sign said
contract and the clerk be authorized to seal the same for and on
behalf of this City.
3. That the off-street parking operator provide the City of
Richfield with Surety in the form of cash, passbook saving withdrawal
authority, or performance bond in an amount to be determined by
Community Development Director and City Manager, to insure the
off-street parking lot is constructed within the terms and regula-
tions of the Off-Street Parking Agreement.
4. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance
of said Off-Street Parking lot shall remain the responsibility of
the off-street parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance
Code 4.05.
Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield this
day of 1982.
ATTEST:
John Hamilton, Mayor
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City manager
~6
Council Letter No. 135
Agenda April 26, 1982
~"
The Honorable Mayor you J`' ,,A ~J ~
and ~ `' ~~ ;~~ ~ '' 1 `~ ~
Members of the City Council ;~ ~ C/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~
City of Richfield ~' ~' ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ S~ ~
~ ~ ~ q y ~ ~
Council Members : ; r,~" R-~ ~e
~ ;~'~,
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating~~~toJSale and
Consumption of Beer in City Parks. Second
Reading.
•
At the I~larch 22, 1982 city council meeting, the city council
considered an ordinance amendment which would restrict sale of beer in
the park by amending the definition of which organizations could
apply for a permit so that only religious, veteran, and charitable
organizations whose "principal purpose and which qualifies in all
respects to the issuance of a license to sell intoxicating liquor"
would be eligible to apply for a license. Additionally, this
ordinance amendment provided that organizations would be required
to have currently valid licenses issued by the city, authorizing
the sale of on-sale liquor and making sure that their existing
dram shop and liability insurances would cover the proposed activity
in the park. The only two organizations which would qualify under
that ordinance would be the VFW and the American Legion.
The city council; at that meeting, amended the ordinance on
first reading to prohibit altogether the sale of beer in city
parks. A copy of that ordinance amendment is attached to this
council letter and placed on the April 26, 1982 city council agenda
for second reading consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~~-
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: City Clerk
Community Services Director
Public Safety Director
KN/eja
•
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER IV,
SECTION 4.17 OF THE
RICHFIELD ORDINANCE CODE
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Chapter IV, Section 4.17 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield dealing with the sale and consumption of beer in the city
parks is hereby amended in the following respects:
A. By amending Subidivision 2 thereof to read as follows:
"4.17 SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
IN PARKS . Sttbe~--~---Sele-arie~-Eeast~gtian-P~ekil9itee~.
Exeept-es-ge~x3ittee~-bp-this-seetien- The sale or
consumption of ale@l~selie beverages containing not
less than one half of one percent alcohol by volume
is prohibited in the public parks of the city."
B. By repealing the remaining provisions thereof.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of 1982..
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
6938 Stevens Avenue South
Richfield, Mn. 551x23
April 21~ 1982
Richfield City Council
Richfieldy Mn. 551x23
Mr. Mayor and members of the City Councils
I have been a resident and property owner in Richfield for over 26 years. I
have always felt that i was fortunate to be able to live in a city like Richfield.
A year ago I became disillusioned with what was happening in our city when all
of a sudden ire were having beer in our public parks. I was disappointed and
unhappy over this situation. Now that the beer question has again risen I feel
t'1at it is appropriate to speak out,
I have no fight to pick with the service organizations. I am a retired military
person and would qualify for membership in both the Legion and VFW but have
chosen not to request membership in either organizationo
Both service organizations have their private clubs and I'm sure that whatever
they do there is perfectly legal. Since they have licenses for beer in those
clubs that is where it whould be kept and not brought to the public parks where
all people are exposed to the beer - ~ and the results of it.
• I am also a recovering alcoholic. Since my full retirement several months ago
I have spent a great deal of time as a volunteer counselor under the direction
of Dr. H, Allan Talley at the Hope Presbyterian Church Counseling Center. My
primary Sob has been that of working with alcoholics and their familieso
I also work one night a week as a counselor in the outpatient Treatment Program
at the Abbott-Northwestern Treatment Center at 1800 First Avenue in Minneapolis.
:xentlemen~ if you could only know what emotional financial and sometimes
physical devastation that alcohol has brought to these families particularly
the children you could note with drip conscience at ally vote to expose these
youngsters or any youngster to more of the same. We would be doing dust that by
permitting beer in our parks.
It is true that we can not control what goes on in private homes but we can
control what goes on in our public parks. We can not exclude the children from
the parks, The children are part of the fami3,y. Many other families could
and no doubt would be using the parks at the same dune as the planned picnic
peopled
This is a grave questions gentlemen. I feel that you are not only dealing with
beer but that you are dealing with lives as wells I request that you weigh this
question well and vote what your conscience dictates.
Respectful]y yours!
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 134
Agenda April 26, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Resolution Amending Precinct Boundaries
There is an item on the April 26, 1982 city council agenda
providing for council consideration of a resolution which would
amend the precinct boundaries in the city. A map showing the
recommended change in precinct boundaries is attached.
In February, 1982, the council adopted a resolution desig-
nating precincts and polling places. The February resolution
changed the previous precinct boundaries in accordance with the
recommendation of the citizen's redistricting committee. The
new precinct boundaries were established to coincide with the
council district boundaries which the council also approved in
January and February, 1982. Since that time, however, the state
legislative boundaries have been established, which bisect some
of our precincts. When the city council adopted the precinct
plan, the council suggested that the redistricting committee
should evaluate the state legislative district boundaries after
they were drawn, to determine if modifications should be made to
our precincts.
The redistricting committee met on April 22, and formulated
a resolution to amend the precinct boundaries. This resolution
would designate polling places for Precinct 4 (Lincoln Hills or
St. Richard's) and Precinct b (Central School) which are outside
of the geographic confines of the precinct. State law provides
that a polling place must be within 1,500 square feet of the
precinct boundary. Each of these proposed polling places meets
this requirement.
This resolution will be distributed at the council meeting
on Monday evening, and it is recommended that the city council
adopt this resolution establishing boundaries and election pre-
cincts.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Administrative Services Director
City Attorney
E E F F F £ £ £ F £ £
£ F F F
J v O m N .• u I
m J ~' _ _° ~ yr i "F_' , ~ ~ .
~ i ~ ~ y ~ 1/r y y ~ -~ ti ti ti
1 H
xERxES AVE _ - +-_~... _ __ __- _ _ r- _ - ~ ~ __._
I I WASHBURN 4vE
WABHBURN AVE I _, \~~ I~ ~ ~• I ~ ~ ~ -- ~LJ _ -_ _
I _ _ -- vINGENT AVE
L__ I J 4Q
VINCENT AVE I -~ / C ~ 8fi
I ~._~~~~ -~:L ~~~_ -~i r2 __ __ UPTON AVE
„o•CN 4VE - 1, ~ - -- --. ~. - - 1 ~ I,1FccE ~c %r _ _-xll 1 yyy
'HOMAS AVE ~ C ~-- _.__.. J r _. ___- O - - ~-. - -lll/// ._
i O ~ ~ SF!ERIDAN AVE ~
SHE RIDAN AvE I - I I, - - -,
- --- - ~ ~ ~-_... ~ RUSSELL AVE
RUSSELL AVE ~-1 ~.... .--. -. _ ~~
~N! ~- QUEEN AvE
QUEEN AvE - -'^
- _ _- ~ - Nh 4vE -\ •
PENN AVE. ~ `\~\v1
LIVER AvE
OLIVER AvE
EwTON AvE
I -i __ _. _.- -_ --_ __ _ __. - _ ___ MORGAN AVE
MORGAN AVE - - - ~--- -~ ~~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '-
~$ ~ _ ~ ~ s _- _ J r__- , r_-~ ~ LOGAN AVE
LOGAN AVE -- - _- ~ - _ I ~~ ~, _ - _~ ~
_ p • _ __ J ~II f _ -_ I ~~ ~ I - ~ ~ ~~ PA RSN/ RNO% AVE
NNO% AVE - - - $ ~ _ _
x ~ _ _ ~ _ ~_ - _ _--~ _- - ~MES AVE
JAMES AVE i ~~ ~ - MCNROE _., - _ - _._ __ ~ - --
_ _ - _ _- - iRVING AvE
IRVING AVE - _. - HUMBOLDT 4VE
MUMBOLD` AV ~- .
_ .,iPARD AVE
GIRARD AVE - -- - ~ ~=D
~._Q~ EM^_^.' 4vE
FREMONT AVE I ~(Tlrnm P 0
_ -~ L~/~ ~ -_ _ '-' O ~ M=F~JM1 AVE o \
EMERBON 4VE - 1 : /~\~ \^
-Ir---~ r fI ~~ r ~ DUPONT AVE V(\\ I
I I D ~ D --oo.,,,_~r c~ _.
l-- i-J :- ~ ~ ~
' DUPONT AvE ~ ~-~ ~-~ (~ ~~\ ~ ~ --- \
~~ rn D ~` /. i Q T COLFAY AvF ~ \
~_~ L~ - ~ _
COLFA% AVE -__ - - i ~_'. _._ __ ~Sl '~ (~ C _ // 3 r m _. - _ _
-_-_~ I ` _ _ G ~ f" ~ BRr ANT AVE I
~ \ <O ~ D
BRYANT AVE -- -~ ~ /{ (T7 T
-, ~ J~Y~~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ 4L DRICH AVE
AIDRICN AVE - - ~ _ - J'n ~~~ SO ~ ~ ~ _ ~ -l
~~1._ -~ - -- _ +~j ^/ ~ _- - LYNDAIE AVE I
LYNDALE AVE ~---~ ~- - .ZJ / r
- - -- ~_ - ~ ~ ~ 6AR FIE LD AvF.
GARFIELD AVE ~ ~ r ~- ~
-- ~ ~; I7 ~ ~ ~ - ~ HARRIET AVE
HARRIET AVE -- -- ~ ~ -~" G _ - - - AND AVE
,~ - " __ - -
Tr i
_ __.
mz - -- Rh: t
GRAND Av E. ~- - r~ _ Gs ~~ - PLEASANT AVE
~~ - °r - _ -. P _ -
z. '.
PLEASANT AVE - -
_ ~ ~ ~SB..~RY AVE
PILLSBURY AVE - J
C - ; WENT WOR T. ...
I
WENTWOPTM AV. ,
_ 1 ~Ai{DE ..
B. A'~SOE ~L AvE I
.. .... - _ _ - ~ ~ 5.. .h'~. ....
.~ AVE ~ -_-. ~-1 ~~-._ _ _. I ~ ~ I .
i
a ~~_J _JL,_ ~ __ __ ___ .-.. __- L. ~ CLINTON A/E
.'t;N AVE 1 ~ _ -~._--~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ R -
I ~ I- L_ '-- __ ~ -- --- -_~ a n 4vE
. I. AVE y .... _ - _, ~ ~..- -
EM(?R A
avE
APx
5.-. ASE
v4
~ -~u'_AND AVE
• PoRT_AN' -
- A.. :ND 4VE
OAn~AND A'/E "I - II -
~~I~-- _. -_ -_-__"~, _-____~ - ----- 1 IL-~ oAFti 4VE
PARK AVE ~ ~ (~~ f -- ~ J ~ I _ I ` ~ I 9 ~ r m COLUMBUS AVE
,~ L- - _ _ J + D G)
COLUMBUS AvE ~ lII ~~ ~ I ~- I
.--- - - _ J ~ ~ t ~. L- _ _ J 1~-~ 1 ~ m O ~ CMIC AGO AVE
-~I _ _ - , ~ ~ ~ Z I
CHICAGO a:E -. -- ~ _- I 1 ~
- ~ 1~ - ~~ ~ I _ J ~' I I ELLiOT AvE
L-_ - ~- I
~~._. -.-- ~~~ JAI
ELLIOT AvE ~ - ~ 1 I 101n AVE
_.' ~- -. L- . - __ - _. I r- ~ 1 _
10 In AvE _ -. ~ - ___-- C -
J ~ I ~ ~\----III / I I to AVE
II in Av F. ~ - - - £ ] ~ ~ ~J ~ - 2 In AVE
1 E
12th A/E _ ~ -_~'- - _~~~_--- ~}~n AVE
III
13 to AVE __ - - - _ -_ ~~. _ __~ I~l~_ In AvE
?a/. ~ - .. ~ '' +
14th A'vE _ - - _ -i",., 0/ ~ - ~~ _ - -_. L-. ~_ __4 __ I}In AVE
.. J - - i a=6 CH R~ST~IAN - ~~ ~~I ~ -_. -
- --- - --~ ~ ~ -' ~ l .
15 nn AVE - ^ '- _ - _ -
-J ~- __- - - _.` I LOOMINGTON AVE
~-
__ - _- - ._ ~-~ - _- . - ~^ I
BLOOMINGTON AVE ---- ------ -- ,1~M1">) - I` --^ ~--- _ ,
OO.CC,,'' I 6 ~n AVE
161n AVE _ __ _. -- ~ ~ / - , r _ ~~ ~~ I .n AvE
17 to AVE aG _ - ~~`4 - _ __ __. -__ -- -... ~ .. avE
IB to AVE z -
L__ - ~EDAR AVE
CEDAR AVE I ~CNGFEL~Cw AVE
_ ... T r- ~ ---
IONGFELLOW AVE I r T . _.._ _ _ - I
Y - ~ 191n AvE
I o'_I ~ 3 0 ~ - - ---- y
191n AVE I m ~ ~ ~ _ I 201n AvE
~- I i
1
2D in AVE ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ - __u.. ~~~ _ - _. ~~ ~ I 21 ttt AVE
I
m ,C i
21 sl AVE ~ ~ m w !^ ~ m r~ m _ _ ~ I z2 na A+E
p~ ~ II I
22 rya AVE. fTl ~_ Z ~ b ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ --._- l~ I BTANDISH AvE
~ CC `-I I \ I
7 ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ I j
ST ANDIBH AVE ~~~ x "- n \ ~ G n ~ ~ ~ ~ _ --J ~ 23 ra AvE
o2 EB ~ ~y ~ O ~ \\
c,.Em x>zsS c ~ -~ C ~ D
24 to AVE
23 to AVE G;~ s. ~_ __ n~R- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~~ m \\ m
yy g ~ZR 10 ~
2~tn AVE. -~I .~ m .t. 0~ ~ ~ &+ ~~ `~--•_Jp ~r ~ Iii
E N p1~ ~
i
'1~N ~R ~ ~ (n \
I Z'
I ~ ~ ~ D ~' I
I .y
I _ _
_ ~ s ~ '~
. ,.w
II~
s
POLLING LOCATIONS ADOPTED ON JANUARY 11, 1982
1) MOUNT CALVARY EDUCATION BUILDING
2) SAINT PETERS CHURCH
3) SHERIDAN SCHOOL
4) LINCOLN HILLS SCHOOL
5) WEST MIDDLE SCHOOL
6) CENTRAL SCHOOL
7) PORTLAND SCHOOL
8) ELLIOTT SCHOOL
9) CENTENNIAL SCHOOL
POLLING LOCATIONS PROPOSED ON APRIL 26, 1982
lA) MOUNT CALVARY EDUCATION BUILDING
2A) SAINT PETERS CHURCH
3A) SHERIDAN SCHOOL
4A) LINCOLN HILLS/SAINT RICHARDS CHURCH
5B) WEST MIDDLE SCHOOL
6B) CENTRAL SCHOOL
7A) PORTLAND SCHOOL
8A) EAST MIDDLE SCHOOL
9A) CENTENNIAL SCHOOL
#~v
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
•
Council Letter No. 133
Agenda April 26, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: BMX Policy
On February 22, 1982, the city council adopted a Bicycle
Moto-Cross (BMX) Policy. The local BMX Association has
requested reconsideration of this policy.
In early 1980, staff learned of interest in the community
for a BMX track. At that time, the idea was for a specified
site with a general track roughed in far use by local youngsters
who would primarily shape and reshape the track mainly on their
own. The staff's major concern at that time had to do with
city liability for such a facility. By the fall of 1980, it
was determined that the city's current "premises" coverage for
liability would include a BMX track at no additional cost,
although an exclusion was added to the city policy regarding
special events. This means that it would be necessary for a
sponsoring organization to secure from other outside insurance
sources applicable coverage for the city and the other
liability coverage for those special events.
In January of 1981, meetings were held with the Community
Services and Public Safety Department staffs, and Jack Dorherty,
President, Midwest BMX, regarding the organization of a
Richfield BMX Club and the design of the track. Loosely
organized groups from the middle schools became the focal point.
of the local club while city staff worked on the design of the
track. By now, the original request for a space large enough
for the track and some dirt to spread around to form berms had
increased to include a scoring platform, starting gate and
e°lectricity.Weekend special event races were beginning to be
discussed. In Council Memorandum No. 26 dated January 26,
1981, it was noted that a site at Taft Park had tentatively
been selected as the location for a BMX track. It appeared then
that a track would be provided by the city, although the estimated
cost of the project was continuing to rise. Discussion of this
item occurred at the January 26, 1981 city council meeting.
Council Letter No. 133 -2- April 22, 1982
By June of 1981 the local club had been formed, with an
elected slate of officers, by-laws, Articles of Incorporation,
establishment of regular meeting dates, and so forth. The
first official race on the track was during the 1981 Fourth
of July celebration. Another race, with 230 participants, was
held July 25. The local association sponsored a safety and
technique clinic on Wednesday, July 29, at the track located
in Taft Park, north of the Northwestern Bell facility south of
the lake, on the east side of the park along the frontage
road. At least two other races were scheduled in 1981 at the
track, on August 23 and September 5. Last year was an oppor-
tunity for the city and local organization to make adjustments
and learn about BMX. By the fall and early winter of 1981,
the city staff was beginning to look at development of a policy
relating to use of the. BMX track and to suggest to the associa-
tion that efforts be made to look ahead to the 1982 season.
The policy recommended by the staff and the Community Services
Advisory Commission, as reviewed by the local BMX organization,
was adopted by the city council on February 22, 1982. A copy of
that policy is attached. This policy is similar to other policies
for use of city facilities in that the city provides typical,
though minimal, maintenance of the facility, while the sponsor
of a special event supplies damage and clean-up deposit, submits
a proposed special event schedule, and pays a fee to-.the city
for use of the facilities. Additionally, the BMX policy included
notations related to insurance coverage and a fee to be paid to
the local organization as has been the policy at other BMX tracks
in the area. The policy further limited special events sponsored
by other than the local organization. Again, this is similar to
other city policies, such as that governing softball fields,
where weekend special events or tournaments are limited. The
fee to be paid to the city by the local organization was $30 per
day for the special events. This was a slightly reduced rate,
established in an attempt to assist the local organization to be-
come more firmly established, and would not cover estimated costs
to the city for providing the facility, although the local organ-
ization was primarily responsible for maintenance and improvement
of the track. A sponsor other than the non-profit local organi-
zation would be charged $100 per day or 15 percent of the gross
gate receipts, whichever is higher. This fee is similar to other
city charges for use of city facilities by other than non-profit
groups.
At the March 9, 1982 meeting of the Community Services Ad-
visory Commission, the local organization returned requesting
that the commission and city council reconsider the adopted
policy. It was the concern of the organization that the fee to
an outside sponsor was too high and the organization did not feel
it was capable of assuming the full responsibility of sponsoring
races at this time. The commission took action to provide a
reconunended change in the policy whereby the local organization
would receive 65~ per rider from the sponsor of a special event
Council Letter No. 133 -3- April 26, 1982
and the city would charge $30 per day or 15 percent of the
gross gate receipts, whichever was greater. However, before
this request for reconsideration could be presented to the city
council, the local organization requested another reconsideration
of the policy. It was the recommendation of the local organiza-
tion that an outside sponsor of special events or races pay 50~
per rider to the local organization and 25~ per rider to the
city. No other rental fees would be charged. The commission
considered this recommendation at the regular meeting of April
13, 1982. The commission voted to recommend that the city council
rescind the adopted policy as it relates to fees charged to out-
side sponsors, to provide that such sponsors of events or races
pay 50C per rider to the local organization and 25G per rider to
the city. Further, this policy would be in effect for no longer
than one year, at which time it would be evaluated based on
statistics and financial data from the city and the various event
sponsors.
The must recommend that the existing policy adopted by the
city council not be changed. It has been the policy of the city
to recover, at a minimum, the actual costs incurred for use of
city facilities for special events. Further, when there has
been use of city facilities for private enterprise, 15 percent
of gross revenues has been quite typical. Examples include pri-
vate golf instruction by a pro and private skating instruction
by a pro. There are other examples of percentages where the
city receives as high as 20% of gross revenues. It should be
noted that the existing policy provides for $100 per day or 15%
of the gross gate receipts. Typically, a race sponsor will also
provide some sort of concessions and the city has not attempted
to receive a fee from any revenues that may be derived from a
concession venture. While the staff feels that it is important
for the local organization to become established, there is also
concern that the city recover expenses for direct and indirect
costs incurred when a city facility is used for private enter-
prise as is the case when an outside promoter sponsors races at
the Richfield BDTX Track located in Taft Park. The draw on
community services and public safety services justifies the char-
ging policy already adopted.
It is recommended that the city council give due consider-
ation to the request of the local BMX Association and the
recommendation of the Community Services Advisory Commission.
However, it is the recommendation of the city staff that the
adopted BMX policy be reaffirmed.
Res ectfully submitted,
1~~~~---
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Conanunity Services Director ~~{
v
KIl~eja '~~
/`~
~9r
~J~T O
BICYCLE MOTO-CROSS (BMX) POLICY
The policy provides that the track generally be free and
open to the public, except during-those times when special
events have been planned and coordinated or the track is under
repair and/or improvement. Primary responsibility for upkeep
and improvment of the track shall be through the local BMX
Association, although the city will provide some routine type
of maintenance work typical to that provided to other such park
areas throughout the city. The schedule of special events or
races planned by the local association or any other association,
organization, agency or individual shall be submitted in writing
to the Community Services Department well in advance of the
event. The sponsor of a special event or race shall sign an
agreement and be responsible for the following:
1. Post a damage and clean-up deposit of $200;
2. Post a certificate of insurance, including property
and participant coverage;
3. Provide clean-up of the track and surrounding area at
the end of the event;
4. Provide a 50G per participant fee to the Richf field
BMX Association, i.e., number of participants in
special events times 50~ should be paid to the local
organization;
• 5. Enforce an "unauthorized vehicle in the park" policy
in this area;
6. Pay a rental fee of $30 per day for the local organi-
zation and for other sponsors of events a fee of $100
per day, or 15 percent of gross gate receipts shall be
paid to the city with the rental fee to include the ~i~
following: --
A. Use of the track area
B. Use of the Taft Park control building for six
hours (a $4.50 charge for each additional hour
will be charged for staff time to keep the build-
ing open).
C. Permission to run concessions (the sponsor is re-
sponsible for obtaining necessary food/beverage
permits).
7. It shall further be the policy that only two weekend
races per month will be allowed for sponsors other
than the local organization.
•
Adopted by the Richfield City Council
February 22, 1982
~ ~3
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 132
Agenda April 26, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: City Facility Use Policy
For some years, the Community Center has operated under
a council-adopted resolution which outlined the policy and
fees for rental of the facility. Other city facilities used by
various groups and organizations have had separate policies and
fee structureG.
To streamline the city facility use policy and make informa-
tion easier for the public, the staff has drafted a proposed
resolution which would provide a city facility use policy not
only for the Community Center, but also for City Hall, the Wood
Lake Nature Center, and the Rich Acres Golf Course Clubhouse.
This policy is very similar to the policy used in the past at
the Community Center, although the fee structure has been updated
to reflect current costs for provision of these facilities to
groups and organizations wishing a space to rent. In the past,
charges have been made on a flat fee basis, dependent upon the
size of the group using the facility. The city's cost of pro-
viding the f acility (personnel cost and utilities) are more
directly related to the number of hours of utilization. The room
rental fees are altered to reflect that fact in an effort to
break even on the costs of providing meeting space to community
groups. Even at $3.00 per hour to non-profit groups, the city
will be subsidizing these groups, but a larger increase at this
time would prove burdensome to those groups. The Community
Services Commission has reviewed this resolution and recommends
city council approval.
At the April 12, 1982 meeting, a council member raised the
question as to whether the city's facility use policy would
permit worship services to he held at the community center on
a regular basis. The policy currently in effect for the com-
munity center and the proposed, amended city facility use policy
(copy attached) would permit such activity.
__ _
Council Letter No. 732 -2- April 26, 1982
For purposes of information, there are currently two
church groups meeting at the community center every Sunday.
The community center staff calculates that under the current
policy, city expenditures to provide the facility to those
groups total $2,758; revenue collected is $2,620. The new
policy would actually reduce the revenues from these groups
even though overall revenues would increase. Should the council
choose to do so, an amendment could be made to Section III, "Who
May Use the City Facilities," of the proposed resolution to the
effect that "Meetings for worship are not to be conducted on a
regular basis." Such phrasing would still permit an opening
prayer, as may be used for such programs or activiites as Young
Life, weddings, anniversaries, Congregate Dining, and would
permit a one-time special ceremony to be conducted, but would
prohibit on-going regularly-scheduled church use of any city
facility.
It is the recommendation of the staff that the city council
a rove a olic resolution with an effective date of Jul 1,
PP P Y y
1982.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: Community Services Director
Administrative Services Director
v
RESOLUTION N0.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA,
as follows:
That effective __ ~ ~, the following shall constitute
the official City policy relating to use of the Richfield Community Center, City
Council Chambers, Golf Course Clubhouse and Nature Center Building:
I. General Statement
All organizations, except the City Council, official City commissions and
the City staff, must complete an application and have it approved before
using the Community Center, Council Chambers, Golf Course Clubhouse or Nature
Center Building. Applications must be submitted as far in advance as possible
of the date for which the reservation is requested.
II. Hours of Availability
The Community Center and Council 'Chambers are available seven (7) days a
week from 8:30 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. with the .exception of national holidays.
Hours of availability of the Golf Course Clubhouse and Nature Center Building
are more limited and should be confirmed with City staff responsible for
those facilities. Special permission may be .granted by the City Manager or
his duly authorized representative, however, for requested variations from
this designated schedule. Groups whose members are under 18 years of age
may use the facilities until 9:45 p.m. and must leave the premises by 10:00
p.m.
III. Who May Use the City Facilities
The described city facilities are available to all local com,nunity organizations
which have a membership consisting of at least one-fourth (1/4) of Richfield
residents. Groups who have their own facilities shall be allowed to use the
City facilities provided two (2) conditions are rnet:
1. The organization's own facilities cannot be used.
2. The time requested does not conflict with a request made by a
group which does not have its own facilities.
Organizations not having at least one-fourth (1/4) of its membership living
inside the City of Richfield, private profit-making agencies, and fund
raising events may use the facilities but are not allowed to reserve rooms
on a monthly basis.
The City Council, official city commissions, the city staff or any governmental
or quasi governmental organization whose meetings are sponsored by the City
Council, an official city commission or the city staff shall have priority
on the use of the Council Chambers. Although efforts will be made to avoid
potential conflicts, it may be necessary on occasion to advise groups that
• have reserved the Council Chambers for a certain time and date that it will
be necessary for them to relocate their meeting because of the need to use
the Council Chambers for purposes connected with municipal government.
-2-
IV. Rules and ReB,ulations
1. The Community Center kitchen has been equipped with a stove, refrigerator,
coffee maker, china, flatware and other items used in the preparation of
food. Only these items may be used unless permission to use special
equipment is obtained. No kitchen facilities are available at the Council
Chambers, Golf Course Clubhouse or Nature Center. .Groups using those
facilities may provide their own coffee and light refreshments; however,
no meals are allowed in the Council Chambers.
2. Beer or intoxicating beverages are forbidden in any City building, in
the parking lot and surrounding park areas.
3. The custodian shall have complete supervisory control over the operation
of the facilities. No equipment may be operated without his permission.
4. Users of the Community Center shall be responsible for cleaning the
kitchen. Soap and cleaning materials will be provided by the city. Users
of any City facility shall be responsible for basic clean-up and pick-up.
5. No banners, streamers or signs may be attached to the walls of rooms
or halls without permission of the City Manager or his duly authorized
representative. Any such attachments which are permitted must be
removed by the group using the facility.
6. Youth groups shall be chaperoned on a ratio of one adult for each. fifteen
(15) or fewer youth under the age of 18. The number of youth attending
and the names of the. chaperones shall be submitted with the applications.
If the general public is invited, the City Manager or his duly authorized •
representative and the signer of the application shall determine the
number of chaperones needed.
7. The City assumes no liability for loss, damage, injury or illness
incurred by the users of the facilities.
8. The signer of the application shall be held personally responsible for
any breakage, damage or loss of equipment. The signer of the application
shall also indicate that he has read and understands the rules.
9. Smoking shall be restricted to designated areas.
10. All damage must be reported to the City Manager or his duly authorized
representative within twenty-four (24) hours.
11. Hours of use designated on the application must be adhered to. The
facility shall be opened for the applicant at the time first indicated
on the application. The facility .shall be closed and locked at the
time last indicated on the application.
12. Failure to meet these policies and rules will be cause for forfeiture
of future privileges.
13. Groups cancelling out twice in a season will be given low priority in
reserving future dates unless the City is notified seven (7) days
prior to cancellation. •
-3-
14. None of the City facilities may be reserved on a continuing basis
for any or all of the_weekdays Monda~thr~ Frida~with_the exception
of local senior citizen or handicap ed groups approved by the City
Manager_or his dul~authorized_representative. The general purpose
room, conference room and kitchen located on the upper level of the
Community Center may be reserved by other groups between the hours
of 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. or any portion thereof with~the approval
of the City Manager or his duly authorized representative.. These
groups will be subject to the fee schedule. as stated in the regulations.
Food service not readily accommodated by the kitchen on the upper level
is not permitted; however, such food service may be provided on a
reservation basis on the lower level.
15. Organizations or groups wishing to cancel a reservation and failing to
do so shall be fined a fee which shall be charged based on the. hourly
rate equal to time actually worked by the City staff.
16. All areas of the City Hall except the Council Chambers, entry corridor
and restrooms are restricted from any use by the organization using
the Council Chambers.
V. Procedure for ApP1Yin~
1. Applications with a cover letter explaining the rules and regulations
of the Community Center will:be sent to all previous season users on
or about July 1 of each year. Previous year users will be given until
August 1 to reserve meeting times, and then reservations will be made
on a first come.-first served basis. Reservations for any other facility
will be made on a first come first served basis.
2. Reservations will not be official until the application is signed by
the City Manager or his duly authorized representative and the original
form returned to the application. Room reservations will not be
accepted over the telephone. Applications should be submitted as
early as possible and at least one week prior to the meeting date.
3. Upon approval of an application for use of the Community Center, room
designation shall be made for the meeting. or activity. The approved
application shall bear such designation and only the room(s) desig-
nated may be used by the organization or group. However, circumstances
may require reassignment of room designation. An information board
shall be available to classify room designation at the time of the
meeting activity.
4. Applicants not have at least one-fourth (1/4) of their membership
living inside of Richfield city limits will not be allowed to reserve
the facility on a~monthly basis.
5. Group reservations for regularly scheduled meetings may be made after
July 1 for a twelve (12) month period.
VI. Fee Schedule
. The fee schedule shall encompass two areas: room rental and food service.
-4-
1. ROOM RENTAL
The fee encompasses the following classifications of groups:
Nonprofit Groups
~~ .
a) Groups will be charged an hourly rate of $38~/hc-~'.
b) Food service charges will be additional..
Youth Groups
a) Youth groups will be charged one-half (1/2) of the regular room
rate.
b) Food service charges will be additional.
Profit Making Organizations/Private Parties (These uses are not
permitted in the Council Chambers. These are the rates that apply
to the golf course and nature center.)
a) Groups will be charged $20.00 /hour.
b) .Food service charges will be additional.
Fund Raisers ~ C~,.2c.~ Gcw~P~
a) Groups will be charged $6.50/hour.
b) Food service charges will be additional
ALL CHARGES ARE BASED ON A PER ROOM BASIS.
GROUPS OVER 75 WILL BE CHARGED ONE ADDITIONAL HOUR FOR CLEAN-UP.
2. FOOD SERVICE
In addition to room rental rates, the following rates shall be charged
to food service which would be provided by the club or organization.
Snack and/or beverage $ 2.50
For Community Center only:
Lunch, dinner, potluck, etc.,
prepared outside the Community
Center (may use Center coffee pot
only). 5.00
Lunch, dinner, potluck, etc.
prepared at or outside the Community
Center (using full kitchen 10.00
facilities).
Breakfast, dinner, suppers, etc., •
sponsored by a community
organization to which the
general public is invited. 25.00
-5-
• Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
'~7~
-~~ w
r
N
0
~~
~~ ~ ~
~ ~
~~
~ i ,~ ~ ~
~~ i~~ ~ ( ~
~ tU
~ ~
-)
•
SEPARATION OF STATE AND CHURCH
When America was being colonized in the 1600's and 1700's
many of the immigrants had fled from religious persecution brought
on by a State-church relationship in their home countries. America
began as a series of colonies formed by these immigrants under
charters from companies in European countries. Each colony
reflected a religious tolerance for people of only one religious
persuasion and in turn discriminated against, and even persecuted
and killed, settlers of other persuasions. One colony allowed
Luthernism, one Church of England, one Romanism, one Presbyterianism,
etc. but each characteristically discriminated against other
persuasions. In the 1770's when independence was declared, these
independent colonies were brought together in the common cause
against tyranny and oppression.
HISTORICAL FACTORS
• HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
On September 17, 1787, the Constitution of the United States
of America was signed by 39 delegates to the Constitutional
Convention (from 12 states) and on September 28th it was sent to
the states for ratification. Many of the states (formerly colonies)
feared the possible tyranny and oppression from a strong central
government and so were very apprehensive about ratifying the new
constitution.
By May 29, 1790, all 13 states had ratified the Constitution,
but only after extracting strong promises of support for amendments
that would insure the rights of citizens from such influential
backers of the Constitution as James Madison. Three states,
Virginia, Massachusetts and Rhode Island were extremely concerned
about religious freedom and not mere "freedom" to worship as the
state dictated. Rhode Island was the only one to have complete
religious liberty. On December 15, 1791, the first ten amendments
• to the Constitution were ratified by the Congress and were named,
The Bill of Rights. The First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
• or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceablg
to assembel, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
CONSTITUTIONAL INTENT
The intent of the First Amendment rights regarding religion
was to insure the personal liberty for every citizen to worship
freely without interference or coercion from state (or state-
church-type) restrictions. It did not prohibit religion from
benefiting the society and thus the state, nor did it prohibit
the state from aiding religion indirectly by aiding members of
the society who practice religion. Both church and human govern-
ment were understood as necessary to maintain a free society but
neither one was to seek control of the other.
MODERN MISINTERPRETATION
The concept of separation of state and church has been
interpolated (not interpreted) to mean that one cannot benefit
the other. Nothing could be farther from the intent of the
• authors of the Bill of Rights.
SOME CONSIDERATIONS
1. Religion and religious concepts cannot be separated
from society or government since society is composed of individuals
who are to varying degrees religious.
2. Religion and government have always and continue to
benefit each other when kept in a healthy balance as both promote
the personal physical, mental, spiritual and sociological well-being
of al 1 c it izens .
3. The greatest proponents of orderly human government are
citizens who because of religious convictions obey the laws of God
and laws of a God-fearing state.
4. Religion cannot be separated from the participants of
human government since our democracy is to be the govenment of the
people. Religious people cannot be made to be irreligious without
violating their rights to practice religion.
5. Religion cannot be separated from public servants in
• govenment without violating the rights of each public official to
his Constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of religion.
6. Separating religion from society has been expounded and
attempted by many in recent years with devastating effects upon
the character and loyalty of citizens and upon the mental, physical
and societal well-being of individuals, families and communities.
7. Separating religion from the political area of society
has already been attempted with disastrous results such as Water-
gate, Abscam and numerous indictments of political officials at
all levels because of a lack of personal religious standards and
convictions. Our society has been plagued by instances such as the
homosexual advances on minors by a judge, embezzlernent of public
funds, graft and greed by senators and representatives and lies
and misconduct by many public officials, even a President.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Constitution guarantees. the rights of citizens to
practice religion without coercion from government.
2. The intent of the First Amendment regarding freedom of
religion was to safe-guard against the tyranny that results from
• a union of church and state.
3. The Constitution did not restrict religion and government
from cooperating with each other for the betterment of the entire
society.
4. Abuses to the Constitutional rights occur when government
attempts to hinder the orderly establishment and practice of religion
or attempts to impose a Church-State relationship on the populace.
5. n4any so-called abuses or violations of the State and Church
relationship are really an attempt by some to use the state to
hinder or restrict religious liberty that was guaranteed in the
Constitution .
6. The proper criteria for judgment or complaints about State
and religious relationships should be the Constitution, not modern
ideas or pressure tactics to conform to modern ideologies.
•
lEDITORL~II.S --
A T~~ ~~ cod: ~~~~~. ~ens~
far C~~~ ]~~~~rl~
If tl2is boycott ~ fails, netv~.~ork
executives will continue their
disregard of moral standards
an the public air~tia~~es.
! Ero~xs who have been following the activ-
sties of Donald Wildmon, chairman of `1re
Coalition for Better Television, have persist-
endymisjudged him. He has been referred to
an "ayatollah of the airwaves" (Nelvsweek), as a
"religious fanatic" (Chicago Sun-71mes), and as a censor
! by just about everybody who doesn't agree with him.
He is none of the above, of course, The United Methodist
Church, in which he ministers, has little of theological ,
~ substance in agreement yi2th fundamentalism; and 4Vild-
mon himself is beating no fundamentalist drum. Rather
~ than fanatically promoting an}' particular religious view,
his doctrine is one of common sense about Gammon
decenct~ ar. telettision. Judeo-Christian morain• under~isds ~
his coalition to be sure, but it is no more Iran fire sane
morality that has been the cement of Western civilization as ~
a whole, Wildmon is not a censor: he advocates not ~,
censorship but economic pressure in +.r,e open market- ~!,
'place, It is the most common strate~v knov<m to capitalism.
On March 4, Wildmon called for a boycott of tl,e
-:products of ;\BC and ins parent company, xcA (cr, .gpril 9,
p. 74), because, he said, it has r•efrzsed to stop exploiting
i sex, violence, and profa~iity in its television programming.
He said the boycott u2Il remain in place unrl wBC agrees ',
1Sre might have preferred a somewhat different groren•
list. We might wish that the coalitirnr's boycott were
directed at advertisers u-ho sponsor degrading programs,
rather than at Rca's retail products and services. t~'e are not
so upset u2th x(:,t seising television sets as we are with t\Bc
seling moral erosion on teleaisiar: programs. Atrd it seems
a shame that the boycott must be directed against the one
network whose chairman. Grant Tinker, has had the most
sensible things to say about the need to improve television's
taste.
1'4'e trust Vt'ildmon and his board considered aIS this
when the}~ determined that a boycott of acA is the surest
and most legitimate uray to force the changes the}' seek. No
doubt many etrangelicals would feel that a slight]}~ better
time and place might have been chosen for a showdowT~.
But it would be a shame if evangelicals who so thorouglily
support the moral values for which tt'ildmon is battling
were to drag their feet because of such reservations.
Last pear Wildmon threatened a borcort of adte•d
products. Although he pulled back at the last minute. the
impact on networks and advertisers alike was surprisingly
strong. Now he has finally cast down the gauntlet. He has
caned for a boycott and he must produce one. If his threat
is empty, nerivnrk executn~es will no longer have to regard
seriously :ire complaints from people who would like to see
moral standards on telet~sion raised. Dora]d b'i'ildmon has
defined this issue clear)}~, sensibh', and soberly.
Concerned ev~ange>icals ought to take seriously this call
to stand against TV promotion of immorality and un-
biblical slues. Here is an opportunity for those of us who
complain to do some:hirrg about the situation. a't'e believe
the boycott desen~es our support. u
to; doryzrplay drug use; stop portraying alcohol as univer-
sally used, and begin showing the real consequence of its I u . ~,{~~~ • • ?7,~
overuse; downplay violence, and shrnv its consequences; ~anprofit PQJICiI PI'1Vllege .';
~ portray sex from i~ Judeo-Christian perspective; prohibit A B1C`galll PI`1Ce
~ the advertising of feminine hygiene products; cease from
profanih, treat fairly the merits of the free enterprise The price ofyour favorite magazine is going up and up and
system; and show Christianiri~ more realistically, up. Inflation, of course, hits religious publications like
Vi'hat made ti';'ildmon's bo}'con announcement~rrd ;everything else. But nets postal rulings threaten to put as
most of his public statements to date-so effective was the I many as 10 percent of all nonprofit magazines out of
I absence of diatribe and demaKOguen'. Much of what he ~ business. Since earn- in fire nineteenth centurti~, the US.
I had to say ii.14'aslungton u~as merely the quotation of what ~ goverrmrent has of~ered reduced postage rates to nonprofit
commentators in the secular news media had themseh•es organizations, Originally, the government Orly cha,-
alreadt said about the degradarlon of human values on !out-of pocket costs to handle their mail, but eyen~,
television. One need not believe in United Methodism. or ! minunas charge had fallen far below rent costs du;;n~~ 1~e
fundair~er.;alism, or in am religion at al] to recognize the ~ past centun' and a half.
common sense of what 1~'ildmon seeks to bring to the In 190, the goternnrent began a 16-year prog°am to
i public's atrentson. increase postage rates gradually uuti; nonproft publica-
ie (:Ht?1~T.:1\9'I'1' TOllAl
Lions eventuaLt would be pat'in~ alt such costs. With the
budget crunch of 1981, Congress (partly through clerical
error, we are told) rolled the cast six increases into one,
jumping rates immediate)}- to the 198' level. The result
proved to be a detastating blow to the finances of many
magazines. Now Congress debates a coup dz grace that
will require nonprofit publishers not only to pay all
out-of=pocket costs. but also a considerable portion of the
overhead (e.g., post office buildings). And u~t}r increased
postage costs come increased subscription rates. Mann
magazines will not surf ;ve.
Slwuld the Government Foot the Bill?
The U.S. government soh~ed this postal dilemma in the
pass by simply charging nonprofit publications only apart
of the total cost of massing expenses. But should American
citizens pay the bill for private nonprofit organizations? Let
them foot their rn~m bills.
Not so; the American people have r esponded. Through-
out the entire fwro centuries of its history, this nation has
freeh' voted to subsidize religious and other nonprofit
organizations. Why? Because nonprofit organizations per-
form services greatly to the advantage of the American
people, Such services fall under education (private colleges
and universities), public health (cancer or tuberculosis
societies), relief of the poor and destitute (World Vision,
World Relief), aid to the handicapped (March of Dimes,
children's homes. retirement centers, organizations to as-
sist cerebral palstT victims), political and social causes
(Anti-Defamation League, Salvation Army), morals
(churches), and minority causes that protect our pluralistic
democratic soeien~. Such clraritabse organizations raise
many bi!linrts of dollars each year to spend on causes "in
furtherance of the national good." The nonprofit share of
the Iota! rn~erhead postal budget for 1983 u~iIl be $615
million. Uncle Sam is getting one of the best bargains in his
2D0 }'ears of government spending:. for a pittance, the
American people gain benefits and sendces +hat otherwise
would cost them astronomical amounts of money.
But, some reply, we don't want that kind of bargain. We
would rather pay the bill personally and choose for
oursehres what services we want.
Actually, the American people are doing just that. The
Constitution does not require the government to subsidize
ncnproft postal rates. The American people have voted
finis subsidy freely because they want these serrdces. Then
know they are getting a bargain; they believe it is ooh' just
to help nonprofit organizations in tris u~ay, and they wish
to encourage their fellow citizens to give geuemush~ to
these worthy causes. They know that by such encourage-
ment they uZll get far more of Trose benefits than they
could ever but for thenrselres through taxation. Never
could ttire}• get so much for sc htte.
have to support causes that run contract to our deepest
personal convictions-like religion.
Thank God, so far, at least, the majorit}~ of+he American
people hate felt differen~ly about this. From the earliest
Bats of our nation, our people have held that religious
cont~ctions are the best support of morals and basic
altruism. On the whole, religion in America has brought
good to the American people.
Does this mean that our government has directs}~ subsi-
dizedparticular religions all along? Not really. Chrr Ameri-
can Constitution is clear that government must not pick out
one religion and support it over against any other religion,
or even against no religion at all. But if religious groups
perform services the American people desire, the go»ern-
ment is free even to reitrrbtnse them directly for their
sen~ices, The fact that they perform these sen~ices as part of
their religions does not make them cease to be sen~ces. The
government is payitrg for sen~ices it wants, not to support
special religious doctrines. So, for example, the govern-
ment supported GI's in Christian colleges-not because it
vydshed to support the special doctrines of such colleges,
but because ii wanted the education they prodded for GI's.
It got that education at an unbelievable bargain,
Why, then, should the American government protnde
postal relief for nonprofit organizations? Because by their
sen~ces such organizations take an immense burden. off
the back of the American taxpayer. And quite simply, the
American people know a bargain when they see one. Some
of these sent-zees the government could not buy with any
amounts of money.
Our political leaders in the nineteenth centu,-•t also saw
the unsdom and value of prodding a wide range of
educational and religious reading material to the public at
large. They encouraged this dissemination of knowledge
for the good of the county}' b}` proydding minimal postage
rates. This important element in the countr}~'s overall
welfare has been largely overlooked in the cwrent debates
about postage subsidies.
Just as they did 150 years ago, our people today stand in
great need of the kind of literature that will inform, inspire,
train, and educate. And w'e believe, once again, onr
political leaders should recall that same sense of commit-
ment tobroad values essential to the health of a democracy.
The original decision of our forefathers to provide reduced
rates for educational and religious literature distributed
through the mail proved to be u-ise statesmanship.
Nor does this support t~oiate the principle of separation
of church and state (properh understood). The American
government does not grant stir subsidy to foster any specific ~'
religion-or eten religion. oter against no religion,-but I
rather as a recv<r;rrition and an encouragement of se~•ices i
hig'lrly prised by the American. people. Uncle Sang is getting I
a great bargain! ^ '~~
i
I
I
•
fi
i
i
i
j
{
I
I
i
i
I •
1 DOeS the Goyerrlf"dent ilIt Ort Relt~'wn? I Readers mars wtsn ~,a~rite thcirCongrr'ssraari t~ urge h~~rr to vote
pp --=~ ~ for supJwrr of Via, orabl,° postc,gr rates for rw ,pra~'i orsar,i:.a-
Some. however. object drat to secure tl,cse benefits. rte ~ .io~u.
~lI9Ul. 1a. ty"'
7a
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 13I
Agenda April 26, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Planned Unit Development Plan,
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Variances,
Derrick Land Company
pR(lp(1~AT.
Derrick Land Company is proposing to construct a mixed use
development on the block bounded by 65th Street, 66th Street,
Lyndale Avenue and Graham Avenue (the Godfather Block). The
874,000 square foot and $40 million mixed use development will
include the following:
1. 191,000 gross square feet of office/commercial space
on three levels on the south and eastern portion of
the site.
2. 357,316 gross square feet of multiple family residential
development in three towers providing 288 semi-luxury
condominium dwelling units on 12 floors on the north and
western portions of the site.
3. A five level 590 car public parking ramp adjacent to
65th Street.
4. A separate two-level residential parking ramp to handle
300 cars under the residential towers.
5. Exterior plazas, walkways and park areas along the streets.
The HRA owns or will own, all property on the block except
the property currently occupied by the Godfather Restaurant, the
property owned by Gordon Strom, and occupied by Coit Cleaners,
L4endy's restaurant, Kenny's motorcycle shop, and the structure
occupied by Hub Office Products, Knight's Formal Wear and other
tenants. A11 existing structures on the block would have to be
removed and soil correction work completed on the north portions
of the s ite .
Council Letter No. 131 -2- April 26, 1982
The city council has passed a preliminary resolution approv-
ing the issuance of just over $9.5 million of Industrial Develop-
ment Revenue Bonds to support the project.
The construction is contemplated to occur in two phases.
Phase One will include the office/commercial space, parking,
and two residential towers (192 units). Phase Two would involve
construction of the final 96 dwelling unit residential tower.
The construction schedule is dependent on finalization of a
developer's agreement with the HRA and the HRA's ability to
acquire all of the land.
The following zoning-related actions are necessary at this
time:
1. Approval of a planned unit development plan.
2. Rezoning of the property from C-2 general commercial to
PC-2 planned general commercial.
3. Approval of a preliminary plat.
4. Approval of variances includ9.ng:
a. Variance to increase the maximum percentage of gross
floor area occupied by multiple-family uses in a
PC-2 district from 33 percent to 69.6 percent;
• b. Variance to increase the maximum allowable floor
area from 259,954 square feet to 431,000 square feet.
Once these actions are completed, the applicant will have to
submit a final development plan and final plat for city approval.
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Sections 3.32 and 3.33 of the zoning ordinance set standards
for commercial developments in commercial zoning districts.
Section 3.34A sets standards for planned unit development
districts. Section 3.40 sets conditions which must be met
before a variance may be granted. Section 3.42 establishes
procedures for zoning district changes.
OTHER ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Section 3.54 sets standards for land subdivisions and sets
platting standards, and Section 4.05 sets standards for off-
street parking areas.
Council Letter No. 131 -3- April 26, 1982
STAFF FINDINGS
1. Relationship to Ordinance and Plans
The PUD ordinance requires that a PUD project be compared
with zoning ordinance requirements otherwise applicable to
this type of development. Shown below is a comparison of
city standards for this type of development, and what is
proposed by Derrick.
Required Proposed
Parking 925 890
Maximum Floor 259,954.6 Phase I: 311,895 sq. feet
Area square feet Phase II: 431,000 sq. feet
Setbacks Front: 40 feet Front: 66th St: 13 feet
Front: Lyndale: 30 feet
Front: Graham: 96 feet
Front: 65th St: 28 feet
Building 3 stories
Height 40 feet 14 stores
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that this site should
be developed as medium to high density central business
district development, including multiple dwelling and
retail commercial and office establishments. The site
is within the boundaries of the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet redevelop-
ment project. The L/H/N redevelopment plan calls for the
development of commercial and/or multi-family development on
this site.. The project would meet the following objectives
of the L/H/N redevelopment plan:
l.. Reduce underutilization of land by intensively
developing the block in a unified and integrated
manner;
2. Provide a compatible environment for living and
shopping;
3. Provide for "one-stop" shopping opportunities in a
planned organized manner;
4. Provide for pedestrian amenities;
5. Provide additional housing choices which will relate
to the amenities of Richfield Lake;
6. Reduce the number of curb cuts on major streets to
provide improved traffic flow;
7. Provide employment opportunities and tax revenue.
Council Letter No. 131 -4-
April 26, 1982
The project plans have been coordinated with the subdivision
regulations of the city, and there is no departure from subdivision
regulations.
It is the opinion of the staff that the proposed project is
in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, the Redevelopment
Plan and the subdivision regulations of the city. The proposal
does depart from the general commercial. zoning district require-
ments in terms of setbacks and building height. It also departs
from the PUD ordinance requirements for maximum floor area and
for the maximum percentage of multiple family residential use
in a planned general commercial zoning district. It should be
noted that if the site was zoned planned multiple residence (PMR)
instead of planned general commercial (PC-2) the proposal would
be consistent with the PUD ordinance percentage requirements
for principal and other uses in PUD zoning districts.
The reduced setbacks will not be detrimental to the public
welfare. The setback areas will be landscaped and be pedestrian-
oriented to soften the appearance and maintain the open space
feeling created by setbacks. There will be no traffic visibility
problems created by~the reduced setbacks because of the design
of streets with medians and traffic signals. The 50-foot
visibility triangle would be maintained at all intersections.
All on-site parking will be in ramps, so setback areas are not
needed for parking.
The proposed building would become the tallest building in
Richfield, approximately three stories taller than Lake Shore
Drive Condominium. The proposed location would not affect
any existing views of residential property to Richfield Lake.
The project would block afternoon sun from the adjacent
multiple family residence on the north side of 65th Street.
It is the opinion of the staff that, because the site is located
in a commercial area in the L/H/N project at the "main" inter-
section, the additional height is appropriate. Because of its
location adjacent to the open space provided by Richfield Lake,
the effect of the height on adjacent uses would be minimal.
2. Provisions for Public Service
There is adequate public water, sanitary sewer and storm
sewer capacity in existing lines in 65th Street and in 66th
Street to adequately serve the site and surrounding area.
3. Traffic and Parking
According to trip generation estimates for various types
of uses, prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers,
the proposed uses on the site would generate a total of 10,300
Average Daily Trips (ADT). The existing traffic volumes and
capacities on surrounding streets are shown in the following
table:
Council Letter No. 131
Lyndale Avenue
Graham Avenue
66th Street
65th Street
-5-
Existing Volumes
13,206
1,717
15,977
3,852
28,000
7,500
28,000
17,500
There will be sufficient capacity on surrounding streets
to handle the traffic generated by the proposed development.
As indicated in the attached report, the proposal would also
not present peak hour problems because of the staggering of
peak hours for uses on the site.
All access to the site will be from 65th Street. This will
result in smoother and safer. traffic flow on Lyndale Avenue
and 66th Street, because of reduction in the number of curb
cuts and elimination of unprotected left turns into the site.
Left turns to the site will be from protected turn lanes, with
turn signals at Lyndale and 65th Street and at 66th Street and
Rae Drive. A protected left turn lane without signals is in
place at 66th Street and Graham Avenue. There will be un-
protected turn lanes and no signals at the site entrances on
the lower volume 65th Street.
The proposal would be 35 spaces short of what is required by
the city's parking guidelines for the type of uses proposed. It
appears as though 35 additional spaces could be provided through
restriping and through the use of compact car spaces. The
design of the parking ramps meets or exceeds city standards.
4. Light Exposure, Air Circulation, and Open Space
There will be adequate light exposure and air circulation
on the site. There will be adequate space between the proposed
buildings and adjacent buildings, which will ensure sufficient
light and air circulation to all buildings. Shadow effect on
surrounding properties will be limited because of the location
of the towers adjacent to Richfield Lake. There will be some
afternoon shadow effect on the adjacent multi-family residences
on the north side of 65th Street west of Lyndale Avenue.
Considerable landscaped open space will be maintained around
the proposed building.
5. Impact of Project on the Neighborhood
The project should have a positive effect on the surround-
ing neighborhood. No undue increase in traffic will occur in
surrounding residential areas because access to the site will
be from Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street via 65th Street. The
primary building materials to be used will comply with the
Urban Design Guidelines and will relate well with surrounding
buildings.
April 26, 1982
Design Capacity
Council Letter No. -6- April 26, 1982
6. Preliminary Plat
All required information is shown.
7. Citizen Input
The Residential Impact Neighborhood Group (RING) considered
this matter on February 16, 1982. A quorum was not present so
no official recommendation was made.
The Commercial Improvement Committee reviewed this proposal
on March 17, 1982. The members present indicated their support
for the project.
VARIANCE REVIEW
The staff has reviewed the request for two variances
against the three conditions for granting variances and found
the following:
1. It is the opinion of the staff that there are special
circumstances present on this site. If this project
is to financially support itself, an intensive amount
of development on this site is needed. Therefore, a
higher intensity of development and higher total floor
area than is normally allowed by PUD ordinance is
mandated. As indicated earlier, one of the variances
could be eliminated if the project were to be zoned PMR
rather than PC-2
2. The redevelopment plan goals and HRA policies which
require that development on the block be financially
self -sufficient do place constraints on the use of
the property. However, because the site is being
acquired by the HRA and the sale to a private developer
would be contingent upon developing within these con-
straints, reasonably property rights would be protected.
3. The proposed project would not be detrimental to the
general public welfare. The project would in fact be
beneficial because it meets city and HRA goals for
development on the block, and will result in substantial
long term tax benefits to the city. Existing land use
problems will be corrected and a well-planned develop-
ment will be constructed, which will meet an important
goal of the comprehensive plan and redevelopment plan.
Council Letter No. 131 -7-
April 26, 1982
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
i 1. Preliminary PUD Plan, Special Use Permit, and Rezoning
It is the opinion of the staff that the proposal is in
substantial compliance with applicable plans. The project
fulfills the goals of the city's comprehensive plan and
the L/H/N Redevelopment Plan. The site is located in a
commercial area and will have minimal impact on residential
neighborhoods. Traffic generated can be handled by
surrounding streets.
Therefore, it is recommended that the city council
approve the PUD plan, rezoning, and special use permit
subject to the following stipulations:
1. That the 35 additional parking stalls be provided
through restripinq or use of compact car spaces;
2. That a fire protection system meeting applicable
existing fire, health and safety codes be approved
by the Assistant Fire Chief.
2. Preliminary Plat
It is recommended that the .preliminary plat be approved
subject to provision of a subdivision title.
3. Variances
The proposed development would be beneficial to the
community and necessary to complete the L/H/N project.
While the variance request does not meet the three con-
ditions for granting a variance, the staff feels that,
because of the unique nature of the proposal and the
benefit to the community, the project should be approved.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the
PUD Plan and rezoning subject to the following stipulations:
1. That 35 additional parking stalls be provided through
restriping or use of compact car spaces;
2. That the fire protection system meet applicable existing
fire, health and safety codes and be approved by the
Assistant Fire Chief ;
3. That the city make a commitment to close the easterly
curb cut on 65th Street into the liquor store.
Council Letter No. 131 -8- April 26, 1982
The parking area on the southerly side of the Lyndale
Avenue liquor store was constructed in 1979 by the city when
additional right-of-way was required for the 6th Street under-
grounding and landscaping. The construction made for angle
parking and required one-way traffic flow from the easterly curb
cut to the westerly curb cut. Closure of the curb cut would in-
volve reconstruction of the parking area in its entirety. No traffic
concerns have been noted to this time at this location.
Respectfully submitted,
I~~~~~~
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: City Planner
Community Development Director
i
•
RESOLUTION N0. 42
RESOLUTION FINDING THAT DISPOSITION OF
HRA OWNED PROPERTY IS IN CONFORMANCE
WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the
proposed disposition of the following described property:
"The block bounded by 65th Street, 66th Street,
Lyndale Avenue, and Graham Avenue"
WHEREAS, the proposed disposition is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan Goals and
Policies;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning
Commission finds the proposed disposition of property for
medium to high density commercial office and multiple
family residential uses to be in compliance with the city's
Comprehensive Plan.
Passed by the Planning Commission of the City of
Richfield this 13th day of April, 1982.
•
`'~ ~~%~^-tom t
Mark Ahlquist, Ch 'rman
Richfield Plannin,g~ Commission
ATTEST: L/
G•--K.~.~.-w
Connie Hoverson, Secretary
BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota defining the 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 3 is amended by repealing the
following paragraphs 19 and 20:
[(19) That area lying easterly of a line distant
256.6 feet easterly and parallel to the west
line of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24,
southeasterly of 65th Street, northerly of 66th
Street and westerly of Lyndale Avenue.
(20) That area lying south of 65th Street extended
and north of 66th Street between Graham Avenue
extended and a line running parallel with the
• easterly line of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24,
distant 256.6 feet easterly thereof.]
2. Appendix C, Section 7 is amended by adding the fol-
lowing new paragraphs (4) and (5):
"(4) That area lying easterly of a line distant
250'.6 feet easterly and parallel to the west line
of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, southeasterly
of 65th Street,~northerly of 66th Street and westerly
of Lyndale Avenue.
(5) That area lying south of 65th Street extended
and north of 66th Street between Graham Avenue
extended and a line running parallel with the
Pasterly line of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24,
cisra~.:: 250.6 feet easterly thereof."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of 1982.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
BILL NO.
ORDINANCE N0.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota defining the boundaries of the various zoning districts
of the city enumerated in Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.28,
Subdivision 2 of such code is hereby amended in the following
respects:
1. Appendix C, Section 3 is amended by repealing the
following paragraphs 19 and 20:
[(19) That area lying easterly of a line distant
256.6 feet easterly and parallel to the west
line of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24,
southeasterly of 65th Street, northerly of 66th
Street and westerly of Lyndale Avenue.
(20) That area lying south of 65th Street extended
and north of 66th Street between Graham Avenue
extended and a line running parallel with the
easterly line of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24,
distant 256.6 feet easterly thereof.]
2. Appendix C, Section 7 is amended by adding the fol-
lowing new paragraphs (4} and (5):
"(4) That area lying easterly of a line distant
256.6 feet easterly and parallel to the west line
of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, southeaster
of 65th Street,^ northerly of 66th Street and west
of Lyndale Avenue.
er
(5) That area lying south of 65th Street extended
and north of 66th Street between Graham Avenue
extended and a line running parallel with the
easterly line of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24,
cistant 256.6 feet easterly thereof."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of 1982.
John Hamilton, Mayor
. ATTEST:
Sylvia X. Bergh, City Clerk
BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota defining the 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 3 is amended by repealing the
following paragraphs 19 and 20:
[(19) That area lying easterly of a line distant
256.6 feet easterly and parallel to the west
line of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24,
southeasterly of 65th Street, northerly of 66th
Street and westerly of Lyndale Avenue.
(20) That area lying south of 65th Street extended
and north of 66th Street between Graham Avenue
extended and a line running parallel with the
easterly line of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24,
distant 256.6 feet easterly thereof.]
2. Appendix C, Section 7 is amended by adding the fol-
lowing new paragraphs (4) and (5):
"(4)- That area lying easterly of a line distant
256.6 feet easterly and parallel to the west line
of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, southeasterly
of 65th Street, northerly of 66th Street and westerly
of Lyndale Avenue.
(5) That area lying south of 65th Street extended
and north of~6~6th Street between Graham Avenue
extended and a line running parallel with t_he
easterly line of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24,
~;~~ant ~Sti_F fPPt easterly thereof."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of 1982.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia X. Bergh, City Clerk
BILL NO.
ORDINANCE N0.
i AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota defining the boundaries of the various zoning districts
of the city enumerated in Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.28,
Subdivision 2 of such code is hereby amended in the following
respects:
1. Appendix C, Section 3 is amended by repealing the
following paragraphs 19 and 20:
[(19) That area lying easterly of a line distant
256.6 feet easterly and parallel to the west
line of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24,
southeasterly of 65th Street, northerly of 66th
Street and westerly of Lyndale Avenue.
(20) That area lying south of 65th Street extended
and north of 66th Street between Graham Avenue
extended and a line running parallel with the
• easterly line of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24,
distant 256.6 feet easterly thereof.]
2. Appendix C, Section 7 is amended by adding the fol-
lowing new paragraphs (4) and (5):
"(4) That area lying easterly of a line distant
256.6 feet easterly and parallel to the west line
of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, southeasterly
of 65th Street, northerly of 66th Street ar.d westerly
of Lyndale Avenue.
(5} That area lying south of 65th Street extended
and north of 66th Street between Graham Avenue
extended and a line running parallel with the
easterly line of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24,
distant 256.6 feet easterly thereof."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of 1982.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia X. Bergh, City Clerk
BILL NO.
ORDINANCE N0.
• AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota defining the boundaries of the various zoning districts
of the city enumerated in Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.28,
Subdivision 2 of such code is hereby amended in the following
respects:
1. Appendix C, Section 3 is amended by repealing the
following paragraphs 19 and 20:
[(19) That area lying easterly of a line distant
256.6 feet easterly and parallel to the west
line of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24,
southeasterly of 65th Street, northerly of 66th
Street and westerly of Lyndale Avenue.
(20) That area lying south of 65th Street extended
and north of 66th Street between Graham Avenue
extended and a line running parallel with the
easterly line of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24,
distant 256.6 feet easterly thereof.]
2. Appendix C, Section 7 is amended by adding the fol-
lowing new paragraphs (4) and (5):
"(4) That _area lying easterly of a line distant
256.6 feet easterly and parallel to the west line
of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, southeasterly
of 65th Street, northerly of 66th Street and westerl~.~
of Lyndale Avenue.
(5) That area lying south of 65th Street extended
and north of 66th Street between Graham Avenue
extended and a line running parallel with the
easterl line of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24
distant 256.6 feet easterly thereof."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of 1982.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
.~
Sylvia X. Bergh, City Clerk
~. i~ ~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 130
Agenda April 26, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Agreement with Richfield Swim Club for Use
of Municipal Swimming Pool
For the past several years the city has entered into agree-
ment with the Richfield Swim Club providing for the club's use
of the city's outdoor municipal swimming pool facility for the
two-day AAU swim meet. The Richfield Swim Club has again
requested such an agreement with the city for 1982.
The proposed agreement would provide for the Richfield Swim
Club to host an AAU sanctioned class swim meet for two days at
the outdoor Richfield Municipal Swimming Pool. The proposed
dat=mss of the 1982 swim meet are Saturday, July 10 and Sunday,
July 11, 1982. This agreement would provide that the city
close the pool to open swimming on the two days of the club's
sponsored meet.
The Community Services Advisory Commission reviewed this
requested agreement at their April 13, 1982 meeting. ~t is
the recommendation of the advisory commission and the Community
Services Director, in which I concur, that the city council
authorize an agreement with the Richfield Swim Club providing for
closing of the municipal outdoor pool on July 10 and 11, 1982,
to enable the Richfield Swim Club to host a competitive swimming
meet at the city pool on those dates.
Respectfully submitted,
K~- ~
Karl Noilenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: Community Services Director
CITY OF RICHFIELD, r1INNESOTA
Office of City Manager
w
Council Letter No. 129
Agenda April 21, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Approval of Sale of General Obligation/
Tax Increment and Special Assessment
Bonds
There is a special council meeting scheduled for 5:00 p.m.
on Wednesday, April 21, 1982 for purposes of awarding the bid
for sale of redevelopment and special assessment bonds. The
tabulation of bids received for these two bond issues will be
presented to the city council at that time.
Three bids were received for the $4.1 million general obli-
gation/redevelopment bonds of 1982. The net interest rate for
the three bids ranged from a high of 11.32087 to a low rate of
11.041269. The low bid was submitted by a syndicate headed by
First Chicago.
One bid was received for the $515,000 special assessment
bond issue. That bid was submitted by a syndicate headed by
Dain Bosworth. The net interest rate bid for that bond issue
is 10.4603%.
The projections of financial feasibility for the redevelop-
ment bond assumed an interest rate of 12%. The actual bids,
since they are almost a full percentage point less than we had
assumed in making our projections, further substantiates the
financial feasibility of this bond issue to be self-supporting.
The projections done for the special assessment bonds had
assumed an 11% interest rate. Similarly, the receipt of bids
for an interest rate considerably less than we had assumed will
diminish the cost of the city's share supporting these special
assessment projects.
City staff members and representatives of the city's finan-
cial advisers will be present at this council meeting to answer
council questions. It is recommended that the city council adopt
resolutions approving the sale of the $4.1 million GO redevelopment
~~ ~ Council Letter No. 129 -2-
April 21, 1982
bonds of 1982 to the syndicate headed by First Chicago, and
a resolution authorizing the sale of the $515,000 special
assessment improvement bonds of 1982 to the syndicate headed
by Dain Bosworth.
Respectfully submitted,
~D
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Administrative Services Director
Finance Coordinator
Housing and Redevelopment Coordinator
~ ~~ r
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
i
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Council Letter No. 128
Agenda April 26, 1982
Subject: Award of Contract for Seal Coating
On April 19, 1982, bids were opened for the 1982 Seal
Coating Project. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached
for council review. This is the third year of the phased
project to sealcoat all of the city's permanent streets.
A $100,000 appropriation for this project is included in the
1982 street division operating budget. Attached to this
council letter is a map depicting the area to be sealcoated
in this phase of the work.
Three bids were received for this work. The low bid was
• from Bituminous Roadways, Inc., in the amount of $65,871.25.
The specifications provide that the contract may be increased
up to 20 percent, through change orders. Because the base
bid is so much less than the budgeted amount for this project,
it is recommended that the city council approve execution
of a change order to increase the project by 20 percent.
In summary, it is recommended that the city council take the
following actions:
1. Accept the bid minutes.
2. Award the contract to Bituminous Roadways, Inc., in the
amount of $65,871.25.
3. Approve a change order increasing the contract by 20 percent.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: City Engineer
Community Services Director
Community Development Director
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
April 19, 1982
s
Seal Coating
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 Seal Coating, as
advertised in the official newspaper on April 7, and 14, 1982.
Present: Joyce L. Wilde, Assistant City Manager
Don Fondrick, Community Services Director
Marshall Raaen, Technical Operations
Coordinator.
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR AND
BID SECURITY
Allied Blacktop Co.
B.B. 5%
AMOUNT
$91,733.40
•
Blacktop Service Co.
B.B. 5%
$75,058.20
Bituminous Roadways, Inc.
B.B. 5%
$65,871.25
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at
the regular council meeting of April 26, 1982.
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR
1982 SEAL COATING
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the
improvement of 4.825 miles of roadway in Richfield by seal coating,
bids were received, opened,-and tabulated according to law;
AND, WHEREAS, it appears that Bituminous Roadways, Inc. of
Minneapolis, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder;
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Richfield,
Minnesota
1. The mayor and clerk are hereby authorized and directed
to enter into a contract with Bituminous Roadways, Inc a
in the name of the City of Richfield for the improvement
of 4.825 miles of roadway by seal coating according to
the plans and specifications approved by the city council
and on file in the office of the city engineer.
2. The city 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.
Adopted by the City Council this 26th day of April, 1982.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia. K. Bergh, City Clerk
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
CHANGE ORDER N0. 1
$ 396.45
Bituminous Roadways Contractor
Dear Sir:
Under your contract, dated
C. P. i1o.
Contract No.__
S.A.P. No.
with the City of Richfield, Owner for
3ealcoating
ale hereby direct you to add the following quantities : 2356.505 Bituminous material
anulsified asphalt cationic SRC-2; 6220 gallons.; 2356.507 seal coat aggregate
.Iass,A, FA-3, 311 tons; 2356.510 crack sealing, 115 gallons. These quantities
~o be used.on 67th Street, Portland to Pdicollet and 70th Street, Portland to
Jcollet.
•
3ud to (add to) (deduct from) the contract., in accordance with the contract and specifications,
the sum of Ten-Thousand Three-Hundred Ninety Six and -----------------45/100 Dollars
There will be an extension of days for completion.
The date of completion of contract was August 15 , 19 8 2 and will now be August 15 , 19 8
>65,871.25 10,396.45 None $76,267.70
-~aount of Original Contract Total Additions Total Deductions Contract to Dot
1pproved: 19
Contractor
~~,
-~ved : 19
CITY OF RICIiFIELD
` G~ i
City ineer
City Manager
~.9~~ SEAL, CO~T1NCi
as „ ..
M r ar
Mu ar.
aIn {1
as r aT
)O ~~ 1t
rod n
r1 ~ al
rtwa.
,~....
ran n
:~~ ~~~, ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~I~ ~ ~~ x3 ~
7} p p~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e; y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y~ yp Q3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j] ~ ~
i S 4 ~ ~ ~ 7 r ~ i ~ ~ B i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ # ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ w. _~ w j f ~ ~ i i D E 0 1
r. ~c r
_ -.-.._
~. _ ~ f -- .,. _ ~
L.11- '~~." - l~ c9C7lJL7 _. ~~~,~~UQ ~ ~ ~Eaar ~ ~ ll -- -l ~~rr
<_ - -~_ ~Ll~~r~~~~~~ ~ ~~rn~!LJ~a~ ~') LAKE.- __ .: ~ _J~~CJr_11~1~ t..ar n ,~.
l~ll ~` -~ 2~~~~ _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ RICHFLANE ~LJ'~~~~~~~~ +~ ~ ~ Jr~a~~ JL~~ )n/
~~~r~~~~nr~r~~ ~~~r~nr~l i~~~~~ ==~~r~r~~~-ir--~~ooo -~ ~~-~~ - ~(~~j{
- - -- - ._ ~. r ~~_ - .e awn
c. rw n
1
. n.a ~ OFFICIAL MAP
OF
rManCITY OF RICtiFIGLD
HENNEPW GOUNiY,MINNESOTA
Public WorMs peportnKnt
r rar ar EIIpIfleefYlQ ~1VI510f1
X.a .%'S
c~~» ~n
1. 1M R y ~~ap}~~
~`~eTT7Tl1 ~- -
C 1Ua n.
ru rotallar nl
~. rya' : ~ ~ ~ ~ : b i ~ . 3
e e a e e >Y e $ «~ L 1
~ II ~i ~ '~ led Y Y S 1 1 a ~ S ~ w S e w Y d E E n e ~ a e r s «
1111,11„„11„i„ Seal Coat Aggregate '••••....... Change Order
- Addition
Class A, FA-3
Seal Coat Aggregate
. . Class C, FA-2
/82
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 127
April 2~2', 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Subdivision Ordinance Revision to Allow
Common Element Residential Subdivision
Variance
•
HISTORY
In September, 1981, the Planning Commission reviewed a
request for a variance to allow subdivision of the property at
6512-14 Oliver Avenue into two substandard lots. A duplex
now exists on the property. The property owner wanted to divide
the lot in half, in order to sell one of the units. The new
property line would have run down the common wall of the
duplex structure, creating a zero sideyard setback situation.
The Planning Commission at that time recommended denial of
the request. The Commission generally supported the concept of
such a 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 tabled consideration of the
request and referred the matter back to the city staff and the
Planning Commission for further research and recommendations.
The city attorney drafted an ordinance which would
amend the city's subdivision ordinances to allow for variances
to the subdivision requirements to permit common element
residential subdivisions:
The Planning Commission reviewed the draft ordinance and
indicated that they did not support use of a variance process
to approve these types of subdivisions because it is too
cumbersome. The ordinance was subsequently revised to allow
approval through the normal subdivision process.- A second
ordinance was also drafted to deal with lot size, width and
setback questions.
- -r
Council Letter No. 127 -2- April 26, 1982
ORDINANCE SUMMARY
't'he draft amendment to the subdivision ordinance would
allow common wall subdivisions to occur if certain specified
conditions are met. It also allows the city to review each
case to ensure that the proposed subdivision would not be
detrimental to the public.
Conditions which must be present for a variance to be granted
are: that the site is located in the proper zoning district;
that all necessary special use permits and apartment use permits
have been obtained; and that the proposal meets all zoning
ordinance requirements.
The city may also place the following conditions upon the
plat when such a variance is granted:
1. The plat must be amended if a common wall is removed or
altered or the boundaries between adjoining units is to be
relocated.
2. Units may not be subdivided without amending the plat.
3. Common areas or facilities may not be subdivided without
amending the plat.
• 4. Units must be rebuilt within the approved boundaries if
they are damaged or destroyed.
5. Common areas must be used for the purposes described
in the approved plan and plat.
The second ordinance amends the appropriate sections of
the zoning ordinance to indicate that lot area, width, dimension,
and coverage and minimum building setback requirements shall be
applied as if the common element subdivision had not occurred.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city council give first reading
approval to the attached ordinances and schedule a public
hearing and second reading consideration for May 10, 1982. It
is the feeling of the staff and the Planning Commission that the
ordinance would adequately protect the city while allowing for
common wall subdivisions.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached
ordinances.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~ ~~ ;
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III,
PART IV OF THE ORDINANCE CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter III, Part IV of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield the location, size, use and height of buildings, the
arrangement of buildings and lots and the density of population
within the city is hereby amended in the following respects:
A. Section 3.30, Subdivision 4, is amended by adding thereto
the following new subparagraph (d):
"(d) Whenever a lot in the R Residence District is
subdivided in accordance with the provisions found in
Chapter III, Part VI, Section 3.55A, the requirements
for lot area, width and coverage shall be applied as
if the subdivision had not been made."
B. Section 3.30, Subdivision 5, is amended by adding thereto
the new subparagraph (h):
•
"(h) Whenever a lot in the R Residence District is
subdivided in accordance with the provisions found in
Chapter III, Part VI, Section 3.55A, the minimum building
setback requirements shall be applied as if the sub-
division had not been made."
C. Section 3.31A, Subdivision 4, is amended by adding
thereto the following new subparagraph (e):
"(e) Whenever a lot in the MR-1 or MR-2 Multiple Resi-
dence districts is subdivided in accordance with the
provisions found in Chapter III, Part VI, Section 3.55A,
the requirements for lot area, lot dimensions and lot
coverage shall be applied as if the subdivision had not
been made."
D. Section 3.31A, Subdivision 5, is amended by adding
thereto the following new subparagraph (g):
"(g) Whenever a lot in the MR-1 or MR-2 Multiple Resi-
dence districts is subdivided in accordance with the
provisions found in Chapter III, Part VI, Section 3.55A,
the minimum building setback requirements shall be applied
as if the subdivision had not been made."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this
day of , 1982.
• Jo n Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sy via Bergh, City Clerk
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III,
PART VI OF THE ORDINANCE
CODE OF THE. CITY OF RICHFIELD
• CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter III, Part VI of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield regulating the platting and. subdividing of land is hereby
amended in the following respects:
A. Section 3.54, Subdivision 2, is amended by adding thereto
the following new paragraphs:
"(5).'Common Element Residential Subdivision' means a
subdivision of land into two or more lots which consti-
tute individual dwelling units which are designated for
separate ownership and also contain designated common
areas or facilities which are owned in common by the
owners of the lots with each having an~undivided interest
in the whole of the common areas or facilities.
(6) 'Common Areas and Facilities' may include any of the
following:
(a) The land on which the buildings are located;
• __ (b) The foundations, columns, girders, beams,
supports, main walls, roofs, halls, corridors,
lobbies, stairs, stairways, fire escapes,
entrances, and exits of the buildings; --
(c) The basements, yards, gardens, parking areas,
and storage spaces;
(d) The premises for the lodging of janitors or
persons in charge of the property;
(e) Installations of central services such as
power, light, gas, hot and cold water, heat-
ing and refrigeration, air conditioning and
incinerating;
(f) The elevators, tanks, motors, fans, compressors,
ducts, and in general, all apparatus and
installations existing for common use;
(g) All other parts of the property necessary or
convenient to its maintenance and safety, or
normally in common use.
(7) 'Limited Common Areas and Facilities' means-those
• common areas and facilities reserved for use only by
certain owners to the exclusion of other owners."
B. Section 3.SSA is added thereto to read as follows:
3.55A. COMMON ELEMENT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS. •
Subdivision 1. Common element residential subdivi-
sions are permitted in the R, MR, MR-l, MR-2, MR-3, PR
or P-MR districts of the City.
Subdivision 2. Additional Submissions. Any appli-
cant requesting a common element residential subdivision
shall_submit_a subdivision plan showing the following:
(1) The number and location of each living unit
assigning an identifying number to each;
(2) The dimensions and locations of all existing
structural improvements and roadways;
(3) The intended location and dimensions of all
common areas and facilities to be constructed
labeled either MUST BE BUILT or NEED NOT BE
BUILT;
(4) The extent of any encroachment by or upon the
buildings;
(5) The location and dimensions of all recorded •
.,..easements within the subdivision serving or
burdening any portion of the subdivision;
(6) The location and dimensions of any limited ---
common areas or facilities;
(7) The location and dimensions of the vertical
boundaries of each unit and that unit's
identifying number;
(8) The location and dimensions of the horizontal
unit boundaries with reference to assumed
datum and each unit's identifying number.
The subdivision plan shall become part of the plat and
shall contain a certification by a registered profes-
sional engineer, surveyor, or architect that the sub-
division plan accurately depicts all information
required by this subdivision.
Subdivision 3. Common Element Subdivisions.. Special
Regulations. All common element subdivisions as permitted
by this section shall comply with the following require-
ments:
(1) All necessary special use permits and apartment •
use permits have been or will be obtained prior
to the filing of the plat.
J
•
(2) The proposed development shall meet all
requirements established as part of the zoning
regulations found in Part IV of of city ordin-
ances for the zoning district which the sub-
division is to be located in.
Subdivision 4. Conditions Governing Approval. In
approving common element subdivisions the city council
shall find that such approval would not adversely affect
the public health, safety or general welfare and that the
intent and spirit of these regulations would be preserved.
In approving common element subdivisions, the council may
require that conditions including the following be placed
upon the plat, together with conditions which are con-
tained elsewhere in this part:
(1) No owner may remove or alter any intervening
common wall separating two units for the
purpose of joining such units without amend-
ing the plat to permit such joinder;
(2) Except to adjust for settling or lateral move-
ment of structures, the boundaries between
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 subdi-
vided without amending the plat;
(5) In the event that any unit is damaged or
destroyed, it must be rebuilt to the bounda-
ries of that unit as described in the sub-
division plan;
(6) Common areas may not be used for any purpose
other than the purposes described in the sub-
division plan and contained in the plat.
•
~# S
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 126
Agenda April 26, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt
Liquor License Renewals:
Prest Motor Inns, Inc., 7640 Cedar Avenue South
The city has received an application for renewal of the
on-sale wine and the non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses from
Prest Motor Inns, Inc. The license renewal applications have
been submitted by Mr. John M. Prest, President of the applicant
corporation,for The Inn/Airport, located at 7640 Cedar Avenue
South. The original wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor
licenses were issued to this business on August 24, 1981. There
have been no changes in the officers or corporate structure of
the applicant. The manager of the Richfield operation continues
to be Mr. Robert J. Prest. The only change noted on the
application is the name of the restaurant business. Originally
the licenses requested were issued to Heidi's Stuberl. The
name of the restaurant operation now simply reflects the name
of the motel, The Inn/Airport. The application had been referred
to the Public Safety Department for investigation, which has now
been completed.
The Public Safety Department has conducted the necessary
background investigation in accordance with city ordinance code
requirements. All of the insurance and bonding requirements
have been met and are presently in force. Additionally, the
Public Safety Department has verified that all federal, state and
local tax obligations have been met. The corporation continues
to operate at its present location under the same property
purchase agreement that has existed in the past. A review of
the accountant's statement for the 12-month period ending
February 28, 1982, indicates a gross sale total in the amount
of $157,858. Of this amount, $147,545, or 93.5 percent of the
total sales, involved food sales. The remaining 6.5 percent,
or $10,313, of gross sales related to wine and non-intoxicating
malt liquor sales.
r
Council Letter No. 126 -2-
April 26, 1982
During the past year there have been a total of 22 public
safety incidents reported at the location. However, since
the address for the restaurant operation and the motel are the
same, the incident record includes both operations, not simply
requests for service at the restaurant establishment. Of the
total 22 public safety incidents recorded during the past year
12 were of a criminal nature. There have been no violations
recorded against the applicant or the applicant corporation
during this period of time.
Based on the information provided by the applicant, and
information developed during the background investigation, there
appears to be no existing condition which would prohibit the
renewal of the on-sale wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor
licenses requested.
Respecttfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: Public Safety Director
City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~ ~~
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 125
Agenda April 26, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject:
Council
Authorization to Submit Grant Application
The city recently received notice from the Metropolitan
Council and the Minnesota Department of Economic Development
that preliminary grant applications are being accepted for park
and outdoor recreation grants, fiscal year 1983.
The city staff is now preparing preliminary grant applications
related to park redevelopment at Richfield Lake and signage in
city parks. Due to the variety of formulas used in approving and
funding these grants, it is difficult at this time to determine
what financial commitment might be necessary on the part of the
city. However, should the applications be approved, the grant
funding would probably provide 50-75 percent of the total
project cost, with the remainder of funding the responsibility
of the city. Matching funds for the Richfield Lake project
could be derived from the long-range capital improvement program
and the L/H/N construction funds. Matching funds for the park
signage project could be derived from operating budgets.
The deadline for submission of the preliminary grant appli-
cations is April 30, 1982. It is, therefore, recommended that
the city council authorize submission of the preliminary park
and outdoor recreation grant applications as outlined above.
Respectfully submitted,
~ ~~1~
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: Community Services Director
~$1 ~, C
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 124
Agenda April 26, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Council Members:
Subject: Ratification of Labor Contract with the
Richfield Police Officer's Federation
There is an item on the April 26, 1982 city council agenda
providing for council approval of a labor contract agreement
which has been negotiated with the Richfield Police Officers;'
Federation to cover the period from January 1, 1982 through
December 31, 1983. This bargaining unit represents all public
safety employees assigned to the positions of Dispatcher,
Police Officer and Investigator/Agent. There are presently
36 employees represented within this unit.
The major changes in the 1982-83 contract with the Richfield
Police Officers' federation are as follows:
1. Effective January 1, 1982, a nine percent adjustment
over 1981 wage rates for the Police Officer and Police
~y '" Dispatcher classifications. The 1982 top Police Officer
.~ rate would be established at $2,109 per month. The
~-~,~\ Investigator/Agents would receive a 10 percent adjustment
~ over 1981 wage rates. Wages for 1983 were not established
and would be determined through a wage-re-opener provision
in the contract.
2. The College Incentive Program was substantially revised.
The per-credit monetary remuneration was set at 67G
per credit beginning January 1, 1982 and would increase
to 90~ per credit on July 1, 1982. This compares to
50~ per credit currently paid. The new maximum monthly
College Incentive for 180 credits would rise to $120.60
on January 1, 1982, and $162.00 on July 1, 1982. Currently
the monthly maximum is $90.00.
Other changes relating to administration of the college
incentive program were also made, including adoption of
a plan whereby eligibility for incentive is granted in
increments of 30 credits each, and employees receive no
increases in the number of credits being reimbursed-
. until they reach each 30-credit increment. Employees
will not become eligible for participation in the
college incentive plan until they have completed four
years of service; the previous service requirement was
two years. However, language has been added which
Council Letter No. 124 -2-
•
•
April 26, 1982
provides that no employees presently receiving college
incentive will lose that incentive because of the change
in this service requirement.
3. The longevity provision, which was previously "capped
off" to prevent any additions to that program, was
slightly modified. The longevity payment for employees
with 10-15 years of service was increased from two
percent to three percent, and the payment for employees
with more than 15 years of service was raised from three
percent to four percent. This provision, however, is
only applicable to three employees.
4. The Injury on Duty provision of the contract was
modified to limit the total compensation payable under
Workers' Compensation and any other City originated
compensation to the employee's pre-injury net rate of
pay.
5. A provision was added to the contract which established
the employer's authority to schedule Police Investigator/
Agents on an "on-call" basis for certain hours of the
day when it is not cost effective to schedule an
investigator/agent for the entire shift. The investigator/
agent scheduled for "on-call" duty would be compensated
$125 per week for such assignment. This provision should
enable the city to better control costs and manpower,
while also providing agents the opportunity to better
plan for their personal schedules.
6. Also new to the contract is a Police Officer Leadworker
provision. A police officer designated by the employer
to act as a Leadworker or Shift Coordinator for the
full duration of any duty shift would be compensated at
the rate of pay equal to the top step of the Investigator)
Agent classification.
7. Several significant language changes were made to the
previous contract. The most important of those changes
related to work scheduling and served to address several
issues which were of concern to both parties.
There were no changes in vacation, holiday and or sick leave
accrual rates, clothing allowance,. insurance contribution or any
other areas with an economic impact.
The adjustment in wage rates for this bargaining unit is
established first for the Police Officer classification, and then
for the Dispatcher and Investigator/Agent classifications. In
negotiating the 1982 Police Officer rate, the following factors
were considered:
Council Letter No. 124 -3- April 26, 1982
1. Police wage settlements in other area communities, which
range from $2,098 per month in the cities represented by
Teamster's Local No. 320 to $2,136 per month in
Bloomington;
2. Benefits provided to police employees in other metro-
politan area communities, especially Bloomington.
One such critical benefit is the College Incentive
Program, where Richfield has lagged considerably behind;
3. Duties of police officers in Richfield as compared to
other communities.
I believe the 1982-83 contract which has been negotiated
with the Police Officers' Federation recognizes these concerns
and represents an equitable settlement for both the City and
the bargaining unit employees. It is recommended that the
city council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing im-
plementation of this labor agreement.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~~~~
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
•
KN/sh
cc: Public Safety Director
Administrative Services Director
Personnel Manager
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE RICHFIELD POLICE
OFFICERS FEDERATION BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE
YEARS 1982 & 1983
WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Richfield Police
Officers Federation Bargaining Unit have reached a complete
understanding concerning rates of pay, hours and other
conditions of employment for the years 1982 and 1983, and
WHEREAS, the Personnel Ordinance requires that contracts
between the City and the exclusive representative of employees
in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be implemented by
council resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does
hereby approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Rich-
field and the Richfield Police Officers Federation Bargaining
Unit for the years 1982 and 1983 and orders the provisions
. of the labor agreement to be implemented effective January 1,
1982.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
26th day of April, 1982.
John Ha~tilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Off ice of City Manager
~ /~ G
Council Letter No. 123
Agenda April 26, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Council
Subject:
Award of Contract: Street Sweeper
On April 19, 1982, bids were opened for a three-wheel
mechanical type street sweeper. A representative of the city
manager, the city clerk, the community services director, other
staff members and bidder represenattives were present. A copy
of the bid minutes and tabulations is attached for council
review.
The central garage budget for 1982 included $60,000 to
replace an existing street sweeper that has been fully depreciated
since 1978. As the unit was still functional, it was kept until
now, when a replacement has become necessary. Street sweepers
are used throughout the city. The specifications this time
included dual brooms. This allows the unit to travel with the
traffic in such areas as the L/H/N, where there are islands.
Without the dual brooms, the existing equipment has had the
driver and the broom only on the right side of the unit, which
has necessitated traveling against traffic in those areas such
as the L/H/N where there are islands.
One bid submitted was actually a "no bid." Another bid,
submitted by Sanitation Products, did not meet specifications.
MacQueen Equipment, Inc. also submitted an alterante bid which
was for the same unit bid by Sanitation Products and does not
meet specifications. Therefore, the only bid to meet specifica-
tions was submitted by MacQueen Equipment, Inc. for an Elgin
Premier-Dual. it is recommended that the city council take the
following actions:
1. Approve the bid minutes and tabulations.
2. Award a contract to MacQueen Equipment, Inc. for a
three-wheel mechanical type street sweeper with a base
bid of $70,570 less a trade-in amount of $12,670 for a
total net purchase price of $57,900.
Respectfully submitted,
~~ ~~~~ti~
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Services Director
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
April 19, 1982
Three Wheel Type Street Sweeper
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 a Three Wheel Type Street Sweeper,
as advertised in the official newspaper on April 7, and 14, 1982.
Present: Joyce L. Wilde, Assistant City Manager
Don Fondrick, Community Services Director
Marshall Raaen, Technical Operations
Coordinator
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR AND
BID SECURITY BASE BID LESS TRADE-IN TOTAL BID
Sanitation Products,
B B 5% $68,992 $ 8,000 $60,992
• McQueen Equipment, Inc.
B B 5% 70,570 12,670 _ 57,900
McQueen Equipment, Inc.
(Alternate Bid) 66,626 12,670 53,956
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
regular council meeting of April 26, 1982.
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
•
i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of C ity Manager
~-~6D
Council Letter No. 122
Agenda April 26, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Award of Contract, Lift Station No. 2 Modifications
On April 12, 1982, bids were opened for modification of
sanitary lift station No. 2 located at 69th Street and Humboldt
Avenue South. The city manager, acting city clerk, acting Com-
munity Services Director, the consultant and representatives
of the bidding firms were in attendance. A copy of the bid
minutes and tabulations is attached for council review.
The city has systematically been renovating the four
sanitary lift stations. No. 2 is the last of the four to be
renovated at this time. Four bids were received, all meeting
specifications and providing modification equipment for Lift
Station No. 2 as has been provided in the three lift stations
recently modified. Funding for the work is available through
the sewer utility fund in the amount of $55,000.
It is recommended that the city council take the following
actions:
1. Approve the bid minutes and tabulations.
2. Award the contract, authorizing the city manager and
mayor to execute the proper documentation, to Hayes
Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $42,990.00.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: Community Services Director
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
April 12, 1982
•
Lift Station No. 2
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative
Staff was called by Joyce L. Wilde, Acting City Clerk, who announced that the
purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Lift Station
No. 2, as advertised in the official newspaper on March 17, and 24, 1982.
Present: Karl Nollenberger, City Manager
Marshall Raaen,' Technical Operations
Coordinator
Joyce L. Wilde, Acting City Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR AND
BID SECURITY
TOTAL BID
• Acton Construction
B B 5°/ $59,970
F. F. Jedlicki
B.B. 5% 47,045
Axel Newman
B.B. 5% 63,768
Hayes Contractors, Inc.
B.B 5% 42,990
The Acting City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered
at the regular council meeting of April 26, 1982.
Joyce L. Wilde Acting City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~!~
Off ice of City Manager
Council Letter No. 121
Agenda April 26, 1982
•
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject:
Council
Purchases in Excess $2,500
City charter requirements provide that the city council
must approve purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment
or construction when the amount exceeds $2,500. There are three
such items on the city council agenda for April 26, 1982.
FIREWORKS
During the Richfield Fourth 4f July celebration, a fireworks
display is held at Legion Lake. For the last two years we have
used Arrowhead Fireworks, but have not been pleased with their
performance and quality. There is only one other local vendor,
and vendors outside the metro area would provide materials
only, which the city does not have the capability of shooting.
American Fireworks Display Company has quoted $4,500 for a
display that would have 13 bursts per minute in the 20-minute
main body of the show and a finale of 277 bursts in the last
approximately one and one-half minutes of the show. It is
recommended that the city council authorize this purchase.
BLEACHERS
~;ach year, the park maintenance budget includes a $10,000
appropriation for capital outlay to provide specific and special
assistance to special interest groups in the community. One of
the items scheduled for 1982 purchase through the account is
new bleachers for East Little League. Three quotations were
received for four sets of five-row, 15-foot aluminum bleachers.
Haldeman-Homme, Inc. quoted $3,330 while Hamele Recreation
Company, Inc. quoted $2,660. It is recommended that the city
council authorize the purchase from Earl F. Andersen and Assoc-
iates in the amount of $2,639.60
i
Council Letter No. 121 -2- April 26, 1982
TANDEM TRAILER
Lvith the recent purchase of a 72" Toro Groundsmaster Mower
the park maintenance division now has four of these large units.
The 1982 park maintenance budget includes a $4,500 appropriation
to purchase a tandem trailer which would allow transport of
two such large mowers at one time. One of the existing trailers
would be used to transport smaller mowers, line stripers and
other small pieces of equipment. Two quotations were received
for the 20-foot tandem trailer. Minnesota Toro, Inc. quoted
$4,295. It is recommended that the city council authorize the
purchase from Fischer Manufacturing in the amount of $4,274.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: Community Services Director
.~ l Z-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 120
Agenda April 26, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Status Report: 1982 On-Sale Liquor License,
The Godfather, Inc.
On December 28, 1981, the council granted a provisional
on-sale Liquor, Sunday Liquor and Tavern license to the
Godfather, Inc., for the 1982 license year. The provisional
license was granted for the period from January 1 to April 12,
1982, with the stipulation that a report be made to the city
council on actions taken by the license applicant to reduce the
potential for public safety problems which had occurred during
the 1981 license year. On April 8, 1982, I sent members of the
council a status report relating to this matter (Council
• Memorandum No. 46). The report indicated that the license
applicant has initiated all of the actions requested by our
Public Safety Department in an attempt to prevent recurrence
of problems we experienced during the 1981 license year. How-
ever, many of these actions were not accomplished until February
and, therefore, the results are still difficult to measure.
Additionally, many of the problems which occurred took place
in the parking lot area of the business establishment. Because
of the weather conditions during the first three months of the
year, the opportunity for these problems did not reoccur to the
extent experienced during the full 1981 license year.
Since the action of the council on December 28 was to
provide a provisional license only until April 12, I believe this
matter should again be formally considered by the council. Based
on the comments made in Council Memorandum No. 46, it is the
recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur,
that the provisional license be continued through the balance of
the license year. As a condition of this provisional license
we would recommend that a status report again be given to the
council following the second quarter of operations. We would
plan to do this sometime during the month of July.
n it Letter No. 120 -2- A ril 26, 1982
Cou c p
The licensee, Mr. John Anzevino, and the Public Safety
• Director will be present at the April 26, 1982 city council
meeting to respond to any questions the council may have
regarding this matter, or respond to any questions which the
council may have based upon the information contained in
Council Memorandum No. 46.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cce Public Safety Director
City Clerk
•
•