06-08-81 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Off ice of City Manager
Council Letter No. 200
Agenda ,Tune 8 , 19 81
Extra Item
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Confirmation of Appointment, Liquor Operations
Director
Immediately following the resignation of the previous Liquor
Operations Director, the city staff began advertising for a new
department head for this critical position in our city government
structure. Advertising in several locations around the midwest
resulted in approximately 130 resumes being submitted in application
for this position. After narrowing down those applications, eight
persons were invited for in-depth interviews.
One applicant in this process possessed qualifications that
stood out from all the rest. Therefore, I am requesting confirma-
tion of my appointment of Mr. Bill Fillmore as Liquor Operations
Director for the City of Richfield. Bill has been employed by the
Armanetti liquor operation in Chicago, Illinois, where he is
--- presently the Manager of the largest store in their chain (doing
a business of around $4 million per year). Bill has extensive
experience in supervision, merchandising, buying, inventory control,
and on-premise sales for a multi-unit store company that is well-
known in the midwest for its medium-range discount image. I have
had the opportunity to visit his store, and was impressed with the
obvious expertise that is displayed in the management of that store.
Bill has a particular interest in wine and has been successful
in expanding this profitable segment of the market in his store.
As the manager of Armanetti's largest outlet, he trains managers
for the other store locations. Bill has had a life-long interest
in liquor retailing as a result of a family involvement. The two
and a half years of college training that Bill completed emphasized
business-related course work. Prior to his employment for Armanetti's,
Bill had worked at another liquor store.
The consultants on our liquor study, Beverage Marketing Inc.,
have known Bill through their relationship with Armanet,ti's Liquor
Stores and recommend him highly for this position. I believe that
he has the right combination of talents for our operation in Richfield.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
a 1 Nollenberger
City Manager
KN:sb
cc: Personnel Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Off ice of City Manager
Council Letter No. 199
Agenda June 8, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Purchase in Excess $1,000
Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates
that the city council must approve the purchase of merchandise,
materials, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds
$1,000. There is one such item on the council agenda of
June 8, 1981.
PUMP AND RELATED EQUIPMENT
Pumping and related equipment, such as control panel and
piping, is needed for use in water retention areas, such as
storm sewer holding ponds. One of the immediate sites
requiring such equipment is Adams Hill Park pond. Funding
for this purchase would be made available in the Revised 1981
budget of the sewer fund. Two written quotations were
received to provide this equipment. Waldor Pump and Equipment
Company quoted a total delivered selling price of $8,700 for
a Flygt Submersible Pump and related equipment. Tri-State
Drilling and Equipment Company provided a quotation of $4,800,
for a Hydr 0-Matic Non-clog sewage pump and related equipment
and an estimate of $500 for labor for a total price of approx-
imately $5,355. It is recommended that the city council
authorize the purchase of pumping equipment from Tri-State
Drilling and Equipment Company at a total estimated price
of $5,355.
Respectfully submitted,
.~~,~ ~I ~ ~C:~ .tiC,~.,~
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Services Director
~~a~
CITY OF TICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 197
Agenda June 8, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Award of Contract for Trailer-Mounted
Generator
On June 1, 1981, bids were opened for a trailer-mounted
generator. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulation is
attached for council review.
For some time, the city has considered the purchase of a
generator for use primarily in emergency situations related
to pumping at storm sewer ponds and lift stations, and
sanitary sewer lift stations. A current situation indicates
that pumping equipment should be available at Adams Hill
Pond until such time as a permanent storm sewer lift station
can be provided. The estimated cost to provide power through
NSP for operation of pumping equipment at this site is $9,000.
In 1979, the city received bids for a generator listed
as an alternate, but did not accept the alternate because
funding was not available at that time. Three companies
submitted those alternate bids, with prices at $11,000, $11,800,
and $12,000. Essentially the same specifications were used in
the bidding procedure at this time.
One bid was received. Flaherty Equipment Corporation is
a responsible bidder meeting specifications. Funding for the
purchase is proposed to be included in the revised 1981 Sewer
Fund budget.
It is recommended t:iat the city coundil award a contract
to Flaherty Equipment Corporation for one trailer-mounted
generator, in accordance with the specification, in the amount
of $11,940.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Services Director
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
June 1, 1981
Trailer Mounted Generator
Bid No. 81-5
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, sealed bids for a
Trailer Mounted Generator as advertised in the official newspaper on May 20, and
27, 1981.
Present: Marshall Raaen, Technical Operations Supt.
Don Fondrick, Community Services Director
Eileen Anderson, Manager's Designate
Joyce L. Wilde, Acting City Clerk
The following bid was submitted and read aloud:
BIDDER AND BID SECURITY
Flaherty Equipment Corp.
Certified Check $597
TOTAL BID
$11,940.00
The Acting City Clerk announced that the bid would be tabulated and considered
at the regular city council meeting of June 8, 1981.
Joyce L. Wilde Acting City Clerk
~ ~ ~
~.. ,-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 196
Agenda June 8, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Council Members:
Subject: Resolution Establishing Policy Related to
Beer in the Parks
On May 11, 1981, the city council approved an amendment to
the ordinance code of the City of Richfield related to sale and con-
sumption of beer in the parks. The ordinance specifies that the
only parks where beer would be allowed are Augsburg Park and Taft
Park, and that sale and consumption of beer is prohibited unless
there is a council permit granted for the sale of beer. That ordin-
ance contains several stipulations, including a requirement that
an indemnity bond be posted, holding the city harmless from liabil-
ity of any kind or character, that the sponsoring organization re-
imburse the city for any property damage or clean-up costs, (deposit
to be provided) be responsible for all clean-up expenses, that
a police officer or officers, as determined by the city council,
would be in attendance at the site at all times while beer is being
sold, at the expense of the applicant. In addition to these and
other conditions outlined in the ordinance, the city council requested
the staff to .develop a resolution detailing additional policies re-
lated to the sale and consumption. of beer at Augsburg and Taft Parks.
The resolution establishes the following additional conditions on
sale of beer in the parks:
1. All financial records, such as expenditures and reven-
ues for and from the sale of beer, shall be made avail-
able for review by the city staff.
2. Any sale or use permit approved by the city council is
non-transferrable and may not be contracted to another
concessionaire.
3. Any organization as defined in the ordinance code may
receive only one permit per calendar year.
4. A sale or use permit is good for only one day and may
not be transferred to another day, another permit site
nor to another organization.
Council Letter No. 196 -2-
June 8, 1981
5. Sale or use of beer will be permitted at a maximum of
once per month at each of the two permit sites.
6 . Draft ti~eer ~ is permitted . for dispensing in paper cups . Cans
and bottles are not permitted.
7. Non-intoxicating beer, commonly referred to as 3.2 beer,
is all that is permitted. Strong beer and other intoxi-
cating beverages are not permitted.
8. The type and location of a beer concession must be
approved by the city staff prior to the permit day. The
park buildings and other city buildings or structures
may not be used for beer concessions.
9. The sponsoring organization may dispense beer only between
the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on the day of the
per.rnit.
10. The beer concession may not be set up prior to the day of
the permit and it must be removed the same day as the
permit. Set up time shall be approved by the city staff
prior to the permit day and removal must be prior to the
11:00 p.m. curfew in the parks.
19. Deposits and other required forms, information and data
are to be provided at the time of application for a permit..
12. All beer applications shall be reviewed by such city de-
partments as the city manager deems advisable as well as
by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. The
recommendation of such staff review and commission review
shall be included as part of the city manager recommenda-
tion to the city council.
13. Inspection of the permit site shall be performed by the
city staff the day following the event for which a permit
is granted. The cost for such inspection and any addition-
al cleanup required as a result of the inspection shall
be the financial responsibility of the sponsoring organ-
ization.
Over the years, the staff has received numerous complaints
'about beer drinking in the parks, most frequently related to soft-
ball playing at Taft Park. Several years ago, the council took
action to prohibit possession and/or consumption of alcoholic bever-
ages in any Richfield park. Since that time, however, we have con-
tinued to receive occasional complaints pf beer drinking in the parks.
Although the ordinance prohibiting beer in the parks is still in
effect, there was apparently some beer drinking, littering, and other
things that took place Thursday night, May 28, at Taft Park. The
staff received calls of concern from Northwestern Bell and from
residents in the immediate vicinity.
The new ordinance and proposed policy would provide for sale
and/or consumption of beer under specific circumstances. While
there have been some complaints about alcoholic consumption, partic-
Council Letter No. 196 -3- June 8, 1981
ularly by underage individuals at Augsburg Park, the majority
of complaints seem to focus on Taft Park and the softball players
and fans, who use that park. Regular season softball play in-
volves about five hours a night, four nights a week, Monday
through Thursday. Fridays are used primarily for make-up games.
By council policy, a maximum of two softball tournaments are allowed
per month. There has been no problem with these tournament spots
filling to capacity, evert without beer sales or consumption avail-
able.
While the proposed additional policy related to beer sale and
consumption may appear restrictive, the staff is of the opinion
that picnics, family gatherings, softball tournaments and other
existing park uses would continue, even if a permit to consume beer
were not available. The policy restrictions recommended for allow-
ing~permits, has the intent of determming major potential problem
causing events. In other communities where beer is allowed in parks,
there has been major neighborhood opposition, especially with
frequent softball tournaments that include beer sales.
Potential problems include noise, litter, parking, public nuis-
ance, including harassment, damage to persons and property, and
urinating on public and private property. For the council member's
information, there is a beer tournament on June 14, 198'1 at Dred
Scott Park, 10820 Bloomington Ferry Road in Bloomington.
The proposed policy would still allow for various functions,
including softball tournaments, to have beer for sale and consumption.
However, the proposed policy would allow the staff to monitor before,
during and after an event and to make reasonable recommendations to
the city council for issuance of a permit, without having a virtually
open beer consumption in the city parks.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resol-
ution, establishing a policy for regulating the consumption of beer
in the city parks.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: Community Services Director
Public Safety Director
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF POLICY RELATED TO SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF
BEER IN THE PARRS, AN EXPANSION TO CHAPTER IV, APPENDIX
D AND CHAPTER X, PART III OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Richfield has ad-
opted an ordinance code, Chapter IV, Section 4.17, related to the
sale and consumption of beer in parks, and
WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Richfield has adopted
an ordinance code, Chapter X, Part III., Section 10.16, subdivision
5, Public Possession and Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages, de-
fining certain misdemeanor offenses, and
WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Richfield finds it
necessary and in the best interests of the community to provide
additional policy related to the sale and consumption of alcoholic
beverages at Augsburg Park and Taft Park in the City of Richfield.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the
City of Richfield that the following shall be additional policy and
that items not specifically included or defined may be included as
part of the policy from time to time with regard to sale and con-
sumption of beer in the parks:
1. All financial records, such as expenditures and revenues
for and from the sale of beer, shall be made available
for review by the city staff.
2. Any sale or use permit approved by the city council is
non-transferrable and may not be contracted to another
concessionaire.
3. Any organization as defined in the ordinance code may
receive only one permit per calendar year.
4. A sale or use permit is good for only one day and may
not be transferred to another day, another permit site _.
nor to another organization.
5. Sale or use of beer will be permitted at a maximum of
once per month at each of the two permit sites.
G. Draft beer is permitted for dispensing in paper cups.
Cans and bottles are not permitted.
7. Non-intoxicating beer, commonly referred to as 3.2 beer,
is all that is permitted. "Strong" beer and other in-
toxicating beverages are not permitted.
8. The type and location of a beer concession must be
approved by the city staff prior to the permit day.
The park buildings and other city buildings or structures
may not be used for beer concessions.
9. The sponsoring organization may dispense beer only
between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on the l
day of the permit.
10. The beer concession may not be set up prior to the
day of the permit and it must be removed the same
day as the permit. Set up time shall be approved by
the city staff prior to the permit day and removal
must be prior to the 11:00 p.m, curfew in the parks.
11. Deposits and other required forms, information and
data are to be provided at the time of the application.
12. All beer applications shall be reviewed by such city
departments as the city manager deems advisable as
well as by the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission.
The recommendation of such staff review and commission
review shall be included as part of the city manager
recommendation to the city council.
13. Inspection of the permit site shall be performed by
city staff the day following the event for which a
permit is granted. The cost for such inspection and
any additional clean-up required as a result of the
inspection shall be the financial responsibility of
the sponsoring organization.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 26th ~
day of May, 1981.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
. '` /O
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 195
Agenda June 8, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Approval of Plans and Specifications for the
Aldrich Avenue Cul-de-Sac, CP 768
At the May 26,'1981 city council meeting, the city council
ordered the preparation of plans and specification for the recon-
struction of the Aldrich Avenue cul-de-sac, 175 feet north of
the present location. The city engineer has prepared plans and
specifications for this project, which will be financed entirely
by a special assessment on the Lyndale Garden Center property.
It is the recommendation of the city staff that the council
approve these plans and specifications, and order the advertise-
ment of bids by passing the attached resolution. The award of
bids is scheduled for the July 13, 1981 city council meeting. It
is anticipated that construction-would begin the last week of
July, 1981.
Respectfully submitted,
!! \ ~1 ((11
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: Community Development Director
City Engineer
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR CP 768
ALDRICH AVENUE CUL DE SAC
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution passed by the city council
on May 26, 1981, the city engineer has prepared plans and specifi-
cations for the reconstruction of the Aldrich Avenue cul-de-sac
175 feet to the north of the present location and has presented
such plans and specifications to the council for approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. Such plans and specifications are hereby approved.
2. The city clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted
in the Richfield Sun an advertisement for bids upon
the making of such improvement under such approved
plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be
published on June 17, 1981 and June 24, 1981, shall
specify work to be done, shall state that bids will
be received by the clerk until 1:00 p.m. on June 29,
1981, at which time they will be publicly opened in
the council chambers of the city hall by the city
clerk and engineer, will then be tabulated and will
be considered by the council at 7:00 p.m. on July 13,
1981, in the council chambers of city hall, and that
no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed
eith the clerk and accompanied by a bid bond payable
to the clerk for 5 percent of the amount of such
bid.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this
8th day of June, 1981.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
~t 9 A
CITY OF. RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office o~ City Manager
Council Letter No. 194
Agenda June 8, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: CP 705 Special Assessment on Adams Property
The HRA has purchased the Adams property- parcels 28-11-004,
28-11-00~, and 28-11-0013. These parcels are to be resold by
the HRA to Lyndale Garden Center as part of the Developers-
Agreement between the HRA and the Garden Center. Charles
Adams, former owner of the property, had filed an appeal to
the CP 705 special assessments on these parcels and the special
assessments for the property have not been certified, pending
a final decision re the appeal. However, Mr. Adams agreed to
withdraw the appeal on the special assessments as part of the
purchase agreement for the property. Therefore, it is
recommended that the city council adopt the attached Resolution,
spreading the special assessments to this property, prior to
selling the property to Lyndale Garden Center. Lyndale Garden
Center has agreed to pay these special assessments as part of
the terms of their Developers Agreement.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
Administrative Services Director
Finance Coordinator
Housing and Redevelopment Coordinator
v
„. :..
~,.
,. •,. .
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT
ON CITY PROJECT 705
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Hennepin County, Minnesota as follows:
1. That the city clerk has, with the assistance of the city
engineer, calculated the proper amounts to be assessed for the
L/H/N Public Improvement Project, City Project 705, against every
assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land specially benefited
thereby in accordance with the provisions of law, and the proposed
assessment so made up was filed with the city clerk for more than
15 days prior to the assessment hearing and was open to public
inspection during said period.
2. That notice has been duly published and a public hearing
heretofore duly held as required by law so that this council could
meet and pass upon the proposed assessment.
3. That an opportunity has been given to all interested
persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed
assessment or to any item thereof at said public hearing.
4. That the city council has heretofore duly established
City Project i`io. 705 and after carefully considering all the facts,
the benefits to each lot, piece o~ parcel n= land anCi fully advising
itself in the premises, has found and determined and hereby declares
that each and every lot, piece, or parcel of land included in .said
proposed assessment roll was improved by reason of the construction
of said City Project No. 705 and has been and is specially benefited
in the amount set out in the attached, amended assessment roll
opposite each such lot, piece or parcel of land.
5. The sums fixed and named in said attached assessment roll
are affirmed, adopted and confirmed as the proper special assess-
ment for each of said lots, pieces, or parcels of land therein
described.
6. Said assessment is hereby affirmed, adopted, confirmed,
and shall be certified by the city cleric and filed in the office
of the city cler}:, and shall thereupon be and constitute a special
assessment for said City Project No. 705, L/II/1`1 Public Improvement
Project.
7. The assessment with accruing interest, shall be a lien
upon the property included therein, concurrent with general ta:;es
and shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over
a period of 20 years. The first installment shall be payable on
the first Monday in January of 1982. All assessments shall bear
interest at the rate of nine (9) percent per annum.
...
All assessments and interest thereon shall be collected ar_d
paid over in the same manner as other municipal taffies.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
8th day of June 1981.
ATTEST:
Donald J. Priebe, Mayor
Sylvia K. Bergh, Deputy City Clerk
C.P. 705
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
PROPERTY OWNER AMOUNT
Parcels Richfield Housing and $23,236.44
28-11-004 Redevelopment Authority
28-11-005
28-11-0013
#9
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 193
Agenda June 8, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City 'of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Strom Property Hearing on Special Assessment
for CP 705
On September 22, 1980, the city council adopted the roll of
assessments for CP 705 with the exception of assessment for the
properties which had filed objections to those assessments.
On February 17, 1981, the council scheduled additional hearings
for the purpose of receiving testimony from those property
owners who had submitted objections. G. and E. Strom, owners
of the property at 6500-20-34-38 Lyndale Avenue South, requested
that the hearing on their objection be continued because they
were out of town at the time that the notice .for continuance
of the hearing was mailed and at the time that the hearing
itself was held on May 11, 1981. The council agreed to reopen
the hearing on June 8, 1981, for the purpose of taking testimony
regarding the Strom property special assessments. The city
attorney and a representative of Mr. Strom will be present to
submit evidence regarding those special assessments, It will
not be necessary for the city council to make a decision on
this matter on June 8. The council will make a final
determination on the special assessments to this property at
a future date.
It is recommended that the city council chose the special
assessment hearings for CP 705 after receiving the testimony
regarding the Strom property assessments.
Respectfully submitted,
~~ __ii
Karl NollenbergJJer
City Manager
cc: City Attorney
Community Development Director
Administrative Services Director
Finance Coordinator
~ ll
BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
r o eox 67
16220 MAIN AVENUE SOUTHEAST
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
161 21 447.21 31
PAUL H. THOMSEN
ASSOCIATE March 2 5 , 19 81
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423 -
RE: Gordon E. Strom and Elaine
Strom - City of Richfield
(Special Assessment Appea~-
City of Richfield Project
Number 705)
Gentlemen:
In behalf of Dir. and Mrs. Strom, I enclose for inclusion
in the transcript of the proceedings on the Stroms'- informal
appeal from the foregoing special assessments, the original
copy of a preliminary appraisal prepared for the Stroms by
Mr. i4aynard C. Pasmussen, dated March 23, 1981. I call your
attention to Mr. Rasmussen's conclusion which is that the
assessments, combined with the moratorium pursuant to
Ordinance Number 16.61 actually caused a reduction in the
value of the premises, rather than an increase in market
value as set forth in the Janski opinion.
I would also request on behalf of Mr. and ?~lrs. Strom that
you accept this letter as a petition for reopening the hearing,
for causes based on the following:
1. At the time of the initial hearing on the appeal that
was scheduled by the City of Richfield, Mr. Strom was on vacation
and unable to participate in the proceedings. He returned from
vacation late last week and immediately retained Mr. Rasmussen
to make a preliminary report over the weekend of Dlarch 21,
1981. The preliminary appraisal prepared by rir. Rasmussen ,
indicates that there are material and substantial grounds for
the Stroms' appeal and that these grounds should be made a part
of the official record of the proceedings.
2. The Stroms are of the opinion that the Janski opinion
fails to adequately assess the impact of the moratorium ordinance
and the redevelopment activities in arriving at his opinion as
to the increase of the market --... :: ~`_ ":~ ^r^^erty. Accordir.yly,
t~lr. Strom would like to have additional testis:ony presented to
the City Council on these issues.
\ /
City of Richfield
Page 2
March 25, 1981
3. Mr. Strom has reviewed the synopsis of the testimony
of Richard C. Krier and desires to present rebuttal testimony
as to the manner in which the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet Project
improvement would be financed.
All of these matters are material elements in the deter-
' urination of validity of the special assessments on the Strom
'property. The matters to be presented by the Stroms at a
reconvened hearing would consist of the testimony of three or
four witnesses and should take approximately one to one and one-
half hours.
t
Please advise me if this letter o~ petition is satisfactory
for the purpose of reopening the hearing. If not, would you
kindly advise as to the procedure that you desire be followed.
If this petition is satisfactcry, I would appreciate being
advised of the date for the reconvened hearing as soon as
possible. _
Sincerely yours,
~-;; ,`; ~ ~ `a - /~~,
Bryce D. Huemoeller
BDFI : mg
Enclosures (2)
cc: John E. Drawz
Attorney at La~v
rVAT10NWIDE
REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES
~' REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS
' ~-
•' PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the
market value of the property as it is hereinafter
described.
DEFI~ITIO\ OF MARKET VALUE AND VALUE-IN-USE
• 1
Market value is defined as the highest price,
_ expressed in terms of cash money; that a buyer will
pay for a property which has been exposed to the
market for a reasonable time provided both the buyer
and the seller are not under compulsion to act and
provided both are reasonably well informed as to all
l the uses to which the property is adapted and can be
used.
A Justice of the Supreme Court of the U. S. has said
market value is a price at which the owner might have
sold his property at or about the time of appraisal.
"Value-in-use" is the accruing amenities which a
typical buyer who is contemplating acquiring owner-
ship would take into consideration and would consider
as having monetary value.
RIG}STS APPRAISED
The rights appraised fn this appraisal are the rights
in fee simple, unencumbered,
l ~
APPRAISALS
BUILDING INSPECTIONS
DESIGN
LAND DEVELOPMENT
REAL ESTATE BROKER
REAL ESTATE CONSULTANTS
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH
REAL ESTATE RESUMES
SITE FEASIBILITY
NATIONWIdE
REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES
• ~
REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS
POST OFFICE BOX 16149 922-7670, 927-6197 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416
March 23, 1981
Mr. C-ordon Strom
6617 Hu.<<boldt Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota
Dear hlr. Strom:
I have reviewed the properties at 6500-38 Lyndale Avenue South,
Richfield, Minnesota. -
I have also reviewed the approximate $15,000 of general. improvements
made in the area by the city but not specifically on tYie subject
property. The City of Richfield has made the general improve-
ments foi the benefit of all property owners in the city of
Richfield.
The city has put a moratorium plus excessive assessments on the
subject property, both of wY~ich penalise and lower the market
value of the property. This property is now burdened with the
general improvement assessments. General assessments in the amount
of $45,000 would not normally be recoverable from the market place
but same specific well-placed improvement may be.
The market valuation of a property is adversely affected by ex-
cessive general improvements and may be affected in the amount of
the assessment.
If there is any question please call me.
IvATIOA''rlIDE REAL ESTATE ASSOGIATF~S
C
~a,/r. rd C. Rasmussen, I.F.A.C.
NATIONWIDE -PROFESSIONAL REAL ESTATE PROGRAMS _ ,,, __ _~ ,,_ ,4. _,,. _o....Y.. ~_......~._.. ,..
CE;TIFICATIO~:
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE NO UNDISCLOSED INT~:REST
I~ TlIIS PROPERTY, PRESENT, OR INTENDED, A\ll T1iAT F~Ty'
• FEE ADD E?1PLOY:FENT ARE NOT CONTINGE\T UPOX THE VALL'A-
TIO\ FOL'\D, AND T}IAT I HAVE PERSO~'ALLY i;:SPECTED TFIE
1
PROPERTY. _
I Ft': THER CERTIFY THAT ACCORDING TO THE EEST OF 1•IY
,• KNO~.'LEDGE, THE CO\TENTS OF THIS REPORT ARE TRLE•, AND
THAT NO I:iPORTANT FACTS HAVE EEEN W1TH(iELD OR OVER-
LOOKED.
THE APPRAISAL IS SUEJECT TO THE A.SSL"?IPTIO\S, CO\TI\-
CENCIES AAD LIi`IITING CO\'DITIO;~S RECITED. I HAVE
EST I;]ATED THE riARY.ET VALUE OF THE INSTA~~T PROPERTY,
NATIO\'tdIDE REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES
C
,-
' ' ASStiMPTIONS, CONTINGENCIES AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
It is assumed that the legal description furnished the appraiser is correct.
No responsibility is assumed by the appraiser for legal matters, nor is any opinion of title rendered
herewith. The appraiser assumes that the title to the property is good and marketable.
All existing liens and encumbrances, if any, have been disregarded and the property is appraised as
though free and clear.
The appraiser has made no survey of the property and, unless specifically stated, he assumes that
there are no encroachments nor violations of any code, restrictions nor covenants involved.
The appraiser assumes that the subdivision plat, plot plan and contour plan are correct, but he has
made no survey nor caused one to be made and, therefore, he assumes no responsibility for their
accuracy.
The land value reported herein applies only to the highest and best use of the property and is
;invalid under any other program.
It is assumed that management is competent and that the ownership is in responsible hands.
Any construction to be done, shall be done according to plans and specifications and other
exhibits, and in conformity with local codes and ordinances.
All furnishings or equipment, except as specifically indicated, -have been disregarded by the
appraiser. Only the real estate has been considered.
' The estimate, in regard to replacement costs, is as of the date of this appraisal. Reliance on
information secured from others is believed to be proper and reliable but no responsibility is
assumed for such accuracy.
The sketches submitted with this report are approximate only as to ground plans, etc., and are
provided only to assist the reader to visualize the property.
The appraiser has accepted as correct and reliable certain infor°tnation provided by the employer,
his counsel or agent, but no responsibility is assumed for complete accuracy.
Possession of this report or any part thereof does not carry with it the right of publication without
the written consent of the appraiser.
No responsibility for any subsoil condition of the site is assumed by the appraiser, except as
specifically noted and contained in the report.
Conclusions or estimates that have been derived from documentary data, anticipated improve-
ments, indicated potentials or pending assessments not recorded are opinion facets only.
Effective age, remaining economic life, economic rent are ,judgment factors only and no monetary
or personal liability is attached thereto.
Appraiser by reason of this appraisal shall not be required to Give testimony or attendance in court
with reference to the subject property unless previously arranged.
Neither all or any part of the contents of this report shall be disclosed to the public through
advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media without the written consent and approval
of this'appraiser, particularly as to rttre-valuation conclusion, the identity of the appraisQr or '•
appraiser group or firm with which he is associated.
No energy audit or truth in housing reports are included in this appraisal and if considered will be
noted in the report.
The amount of any damage that can be perceived that is caused by termites, infestation, fire or
water damage, earthquake or any damage that was caused by natural elements is considered only
from the viewpoint of the effect of this damage on the value of the property. This effect on the
value is the appraisers opinion.
Al] Profit and Loss Statements or financial records, furnished by the employer, his council or any
agent or broker, on investment properties are assumed to be accurate and reliable.
NATIONWIDE
REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES
• • _
REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS
POST OFFICE BOX t6i49 922-7670, 927-6197 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416
APPRAISALS
BUILDING INSPECTIONS
DESIGN APPRAISAL
LAND DEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS - MAYh'ARD C. RASMUSSEN, I.F.A.C.
REAL ESTATE BROKER Independent Fee Appraiser Counselor
REAL ESTATE CONSULTANTS
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH
REAL ESTATE RESUMES
SITE FEASIBILITY
Real Estate Appraisal experience includes income producing properties-
apartments-hotels-motels-land assemblage-doctors' clinic-merger and acqui-
sition-urban and rural land-farms-easements-theaters-mortuaries-supper
clubs-taverns-commercial land and buildings-equipment-land fill properties-
subdivisions-office buildings-land use research-large apartment tracts-
special purpose property-tax appraisals-Minneapolis and St. Paul loop properties.
O~~er 200 parcels for Minnesota Highway~Department in Anoka and Hennepin counties
including some partial takings determining a before and after value. Property
appraised in Mankato, Lamberton, Redwood Falls, Li'~tle Fa11s, Montevideo, Monticello,
Big Lake, Grand Forks, Fargo, St. Cloud, Waconia, Duluth and most metropolitan suburbs.
Commissioner in Hennepin County Eminent Domain
Ownership and Real Estate sales and related fields since 1945.
Sales Manager Real Estate 4 years.
Sold -for 2 of the largest builders in the Twin Cities (approximately 3 years).
Built and sold 2 multiple dwellings. Built 10 conventional homes.
Built 11 National Homes prefabricated.
Sold Real Estate since 1952 - Pautz Franklin Realty. Penn Realty-Sales.
Penn Realty-Sales Manager. Marvin Anderson Construction Co. - Sales
Thernell Bros. Cons t. Co. - Sales Manager. Vern Donnay Homes - Sales
Sold approximately 450 homes and properties.
Platted 5 subdivisions-platted a lakeshore and channel subdivision,
Construction and land development-approximately 4 years.
Have attended seminars at University of Minnesota, appraisal courses in St. Paul,
Minneapolis, Bloomington, Rochester, Lafayette, Ind., Oklahoma City, Okla., Phoenix,
Arizona, St. Louis, Mo., Atlantic City, N. J.
Qualified as an expert witness in Anoka, Hennepin and Ramsey counties,
Sold approximately $500,000.00 in new homes 1967-1968.
Leased 5 properties since 1965.
Licensed and Bonded Real Estate Broker in the State of Minnesota.
Professional Societies
Counselor in the National Association of Independent Fee Appraisers.
Secretary to the National Education Director of N.A.I.F.A. (1970-1971).
National Director of National Association of Independent Fee Appraisers (1967-68-69).
National Convention Chairman of N.A.I.F.A, Convention in Minneapolis 1968.
Past President of the Minneapolis Chapter of I.F.A.-
Member of National Association Faculty for 1970-71 and has been appointed instructor
for educational programs, seminars, workshops and appraisal courses under the spon-
sorship of the National Association of Independent Fee Appraisers,
.~:~::::~: G. tce Education : ro6ram as an instructor in the National Appraisal Course
100 at Anoka-Ramsey Junior College-1970.
NATIONWIDE - PROFESSIONAL REAL ESTATE PROGRAI,IS
~/. ,
NATIONWIDE
REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES
• •
REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS
• POST OFFICE BOX 10149 922-767n. 927-6197 ~,AINNEAPOLIS, t.11NNESOTA 55415
APPRAISALS
BUILDING CONSULTANTS
BUILDING INSPECTIONS
•• DESIGN A PPRA ISA L
ENGINEERING'
LAND DEVELOPMENT Complete Real Estate Appraisal Service operating in N:i~I-':eapoi is
MARKETING and servicing all of the State of Minnesota. Professional
PRO-FORMA STATEMENTS
REAL ESTATEBRGKER endorsed Real Estate Appraiser-Counselor. Appraising ccns~s-s
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH of about 90% Eminent Domain and tax appraisals .
REAL ESTATE RESUMES
SITE FEASIBILITY
ZONING coNDclt~ilNlvr~
Preparation and-sales of residential and commercial co~dor.i:-i~:--s.
DATA
Researching market data including lease or sale of data to appraisers and o"per
companies on a contract basis. '
FRANCHISE
• Nationwide Real Estate Associates will furnish manuals, all forms, materials,
signs and equipment at a monthly gross billing fee that exceeds 10;~ of t:-;e cress
monthly billing of the Franchisee.
LAND DEVELOPt~'Er1T
' Complete residential, commercial and industrial subdivision development in she
surrounding S-county area for any parcel of land.
PHOTG~RA PHY
An exclusive photographic service for the Resume and Appraisal Division.
PROPERTY N1A~lAGEMEPIT
Residential and commercial properties serviced by contract and done on a
management fee arrangement.
PUBLICATIONS
Publishing company coordi:.=~:es Real Estate material for manuals involvinc_ t:-.e
Seminar programs that will be offered nationally in the near future.
RECREATIOtdA L
Future ownership of recreational businesses including appraisals of all t~'^es
of recreational facilities.
REAL ES~'ATE SALES AtvD LEASES ~ -
General Real Estate office operating in Metropolitan area including future
plans of expansion to a Nationwide service using the Resume and Data ser~~i_es.
REAL ESTATE R~ESUt'ES
An exclusive marketin7 system by Nationwide Real Estate Associates of coT~.er:.ial
and industrial real estate including marketing and sales with the use o: ce'.p~.er
services.
REAL ESTATE SE 'T"~::S
Complete arpraisal se,..inars and manuals fcr the student, senior appraiser,
assessor or anyone i;,terested in sound appraisal technigl:es incl.~.:ding E-.i-:ent
Domain.
.;.~~ L _...,.,:_ SMELTER APPRAISAL ACADEMY PROFESSIONAL REAL ESTATE PROGRA~,'$ _
C-
• " "'~ FA
phi
~~ ~ d O
~O 'S
• d
~o
~`•,O~ ,/
ll1~s~r~u~c~~olrs ~~elr~<<l~c~a~~e
awarded to
I~a~y~ard ~asu~usse~
Under ~ll¢ aus ices of ~t~e
Anoka-Rase 5'~~e ~Tr. Collie
Cot~t~u~i~~¢nrices ~r~rnm
- 19-
~~~~~~
>~
,~~ ~~_
`rte
•l~
i
`1 r--
fir
~. ~ ~~
x .1~~ w
I
~ ,. y ~v
~~7~
~'
. ..~.
,~,t i
~~.. i
,~~~^
a. ,
y ~~~ ~
yti. '!~~
~ _~~.. i
,.~,
or• ,
4 '•~ r
y : ~ ~~ .;
',~\
~~
i
:~
^ ~l
~~~ ~
•~~ a~
~~N. ~' .
~~ ~
~~ (~ ~l"~' *W
,~_ v~*
~. i '~ ~
~ I ,
~` ~+
~~ ~ . ~~_
X ol:' I~
` = .~ „~`
' "e `S e
..
.~ ~ .I ~~ wIY_
~ "i
~~=~
\ ~~
n M
~~
~~
w
ti ~
~. :'.,
0
C r
~~
r
o ~
o
0
~~
rr H
~ O
x
a m
a S
M of
~ ~~n
a
~ x
a a
.ti
x
0
~~ a
N
0
~'_ ~,~
~, x
~J
w
m
w
c~
m
a
a
d
0
N
m
0
00
~~~ ~ ~~~ I _ ~~b
``,, ,,.~~-~~~ .. ~` -rte ~~1rw_'~
~'
" ~-. 1~
~ ~ -~ ~ ~~i
~ ~:o
~+ "~.
x f ,~
~ ~ d ~~~
•o ~~~
+~
~o
m M ~ y ;. ,~ , ~~
~ ~ ~~
~ ~ , .a ~~
~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ O 1 ~~~' ~~
x ~ ~ ~ z • o 's
~~ ~ ~ ~~
C) °' °' ~ ~ ~ ~,
1 ~'
Y ~ ~ H o ~ ~ ~ ~l~~'M
M ~ M VL •~
® ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~~~, ~~
m p~1 ~ O .z ~~ ~:
s
~ ~ ~ C~
~- ~ H ~`
..
° ~ :~ ~ ;:
~ ~ .i
1 fD O p ~ ~
A ~ / ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~~ l~
C~ ~ ~ d . Vic, ,
n ~ ~
p ~ o . ~~. ~
M ~.
x ~ ~
d ,.~~~
', ~~ ~
o
z I ..o
.reeY ''
'! +:
~'
~~,~~
t~ .
1
Section 1 - 5
1. ;Jational Association of Independent Code 410
Fee Appraisers (N.A.I.F.A.) Johnson
HE;1 Acceptance (Continued)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Office of Education
Bureau of Higher Education
,~
_,
Higher Education Facilities Act of 19b3
Bulletin No. 8 (Revision No.,3)
TO ; All persons interested in the Higher
Education Facilities Program
FRC~i : Richard R. Holden, Acting Director
Division of College Facilities
1
Olof E. St~mbcr~, Ct~icf
Graduate Facilities Branch
Division of Graduate Programs
SUBJECT Real Estate Appraisals
Februarf 17, 1~9
This Bulletin cancels and supersedes HEFA Bulletin No. 8 (Revision No. 2)
dated August 27, 1968,
Under certain circumstances, the cost of lend and/or acquisition of
builJinL.: is eligible to be included as an item of project deveiopmc•nt
cost. In order to assist in determining the portion of tits uligiblc project
development cost attributable [o the cost of land and/or buildings~an
applicant institution shall be required to furnish two appraisal reports
issued by appraisers Who meet one of the following requireaents:
(1) is a member of the American Institute of Real Estate
Appraisers (designated M.A.I. or R.M.*), or
(2) is a Senior Member of the Society of Real Estate Appraisers
(SREA and SRA) , or
(3) is a Senior Member of the American Society of Appraisers
with t!-,e professional designation in Real Estate, or
(4) is a Senior Member or Appraiser-Counselor of the National
Association of Independent Fee Appraisers (designated I.F.A.S.
or I.F.A.C.)
This revision to instructions is effective with all applications requesting
financial aaelacance under the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 unless
othervlae determined by the Commissioner.
w
1
Appraisals wade by menbers or :;;~ ,,~~:__,.,, _.._ .;_:_ - ...
Appraisers designated R.M. are acceptable only .for oae-, cvo-, sad
three-family houses.
l -.
-~
~~~~
s~ y:~ ;T
1!~"vb
~'~~~ oT ;iCiiil;ti
t;;TO LYNDALE AVE,IIUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, Ml~'VNESOTA 55423 TELEPHONE 867-4483
Gordy Strom March 2b, 1981 '
6532 Lynda le South
Lichfield, ~'~i 55423
,
' ~E: ?ent Increase
We do not feel an increase in rent,due to a tax assesment,is justifiable
since our sales have not increased as everyone thought it would as a
result of the City project 1705. K-dart has r,ot helped our sales, in
fact our growing has slowed since the store opened. We Have been lead
to believe that the building we are ir: would be replaced with an office
buildinb and that we would have to move. necause of this we have not made
any improve^ents to the appearar;~e o: our stcre.
Your cor:dideratiorl i~: this matter will be appreciated.
Sincerely
Keith V. Walters
-.
•...: ;.,
- -~ -- ~_ _y, ,~.. _,.~...
a ~ r
,t
-;~'~ ~
~~~~~
. ~,~~
-_
. `~
~ ~`C~ ~`C~ K~
l
~~~,a~ 4 ~1 ,,~ ~ l ~~
~,
p ~ i
., C~ S
' . Z~;_(_
J l: ~
/-
. , 1 ~/`~~' C.c-(~ (~ 'Lf ~,• 2- ~~. ~-/~? r Z ~L ci ~ ~ y,~~1 L
- ~ G ~% ~ i
. G' ~ ~,
_~~:
.~
.•" ,; G ~ ~
~ r-----
. ~ .~
_ - .~0
.~
~? •~ ..
'-.. ('j
. _ ~~
RE~EiV~~(.. -
tll~iR 2 ~ 1°~1
Cit-~ of Ptic~~r~e~;,
f
~~l'~.t~i'~j.:Ji~'E~.}.Y:~~l...~aa ~.~a°S~.'~.'.1:4. :a.--•. ~ ~ _...~.`....r- _~:s.'.w~w-;x ~'.`~ y :.-'_'.* r ~~- ~" - .-<. ~ - _
L•a~..._-~... .~]G. _ -. .,..c ..x.~ SEww.7~: Ys.i~..~3':~+wt.{R~S:we wi•w~a.r'~ ~Tw.w ~ai~L...'A
IUD
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 192
Agenda June 8, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Circus License Application
The city has received a license application from Carson
and Barnes Circus for a performance of a tent circus at the
Hub Shopping Center on Sunday, July '~. 1981. The proposed
circus performance will be sponsored by the Hub Merchants
Association.
Over the years, there have been several tremendously
disasterous fires, which have resulted in substantial life
loss, at tent shows. As a result of those fires and loss
of life, the Uniform Fire Code has established some very
specific fire safety requirements for tent show operations.
In their application, the Carson and Barnes Circus has given
no indication of their compliance experience with the
Uniform Fire Code requirements. Therefore, it is the
recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I
concur, that this license application be given conditional
approval, with the requirement that the license applicant
satisfactorily conform to all fire safety code requirements
as may be required by our Department of Public Safety.
Respectfully submitted,
t~
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Public Safety Director
City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 191
Agenda June 8, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Public Health/Community Health Nurse
Week, June 21-26
At the May 19, 1981 meeting the Richfield Advisory Board
of Health unanimously passed a resolution asking the city
council to declare June 21 through June 26, 1981, as Public
Health/Community Health Nurse Week. Governor Al Quie has
made a proclamation to that effect, a copy of which is
attached.
Charlene Swanell, chairman of the Advisory Board of
Health, plans to be present at the June 8, 1981 city council
meeting to present a recommendatio that the council adopt the
proposed resolution, designating June 21 through June 26,
1981, as Public Health/Community Health Nurse Week.
Respectfully submitted,
,~
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Public Safety Director
Environmental Health Manager
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WEEK OF
JUNE 21 THROUGH JUNF. 26, 1981 TO BE
PUBLIC HEALTH/COMMUNITY HEALTH NURSE }MEEK
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield is the official
governing body of the City of Richfield and functions as the official Board
of Health of the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to promote, support, and maintain
the health of the entire community on the highest level; and
WHEREAS, the Advisory Board of Health of the City of Richfield advises,
consults with, and makes recommendations to the board of health on matters
relating to the development, maintenance, funding and evaluation of community
health services;
WHEREAS, the Advisory Board of }}ealth has recommended to the City Council
approval of the week of June 21 through June 26, 1981 to he Public Health/
Community }iealth Nurse Week as proclaimed by Albert Quie, Governor of the
State of Minnesota on the sixth day of T4ay, 1981 ; and
6VHEREAS, the City Council finds the Richfield Advisory Board of Health's
recommendation and Governor Quie's proclamation consistent with community
health and that it recognizes the many contributions made by public health/
community health nurses to the people of Richfield in that they have promoted
the highest level of wellness, independence, and self care possible; that
services to the sick and disabled are provided in a manner that assists many
to convalesce quickly, others to regain higher functioning levels and some
to die with dignity and comfort in their own homes; that these nurses have
shown competence in the prevention of disease and promotion of health;
NOIV THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
that the week of June 21 through June 26, 1981 to be
PUBLIC }HALTH / COP~}UNITY HEALTH NURSE WEEK
in Richfield.
Passed and adopted this 8th day of June, 1981.
Donald J. Priebe Mavor
ATTEST
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Agenda June 8, 1981
Council Letter No. 190
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Presentation on the Need for an Ordinance
Setting Decency Standards for Cable
Television
Ms. Sheri Johnston, 7305 14th Avenue, has requested an
opportunity to appear before the city council to make a pre-
sentation on the need for an ordinance setting standards of
decency governing cable television and the legality of such
a step.
In accordance with Ms. Johnston's request, we have scheduled
this item for the June 8, 1981 city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
i a. f3
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 189
Agenda June 8, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Tabulation of Bids, Approval of Minutes and
Award of Contract for Sealcoating
On May 28, 1981 bids were opened for the 1981 street
Sealcoating project. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached
attached for city council review.
This Sealcoating project is the second phase of an anticipated
seven year project to sealcoat all of the city's permanent
streets. An appropriation for this project is included in the
1981 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. There were two
approaches, or alternates, for which the bidder was to submit
a proposal. The first alternate called for the work to be done
with a type of aggragate called buckshot. This is a rounded
material or stone, and is the same type of aggregate used in
the first phase of the sealcoating work. The city would be
able to provide approximately 790 ton (material remaining from
the sweepings of the first phase that could be reused) of the
total estimated 3,630 ton required. According to the bids
received, this material is cheaper, by approximately $4.26/ton,
than the second alternate aggregate. The second alternate
called for the work to be done with a type of aggregated that is
chipped, with a more angular rock than the buckshot. All the
aggregate material, an estimated 4,300 ton, would need to be
supplied by the vendor should this alternate be accepted.
Although more expensive, there has been some suggestion this
material may be preferrable in that there is less movement
when applied to the bituminous mat, and it would be longer
wearing and provide less skid. These features may be especially
important in winter months and/or at intersections or places of
vehicular start and stop. There have also been suggestions that
the buckshot aggregate is sufficient in a residential area where
there is relatively little traffic, that it is quieter than the
chipped aggregate (although the sound difference is minimal) and
has the advantage of being cheaper than the chipped aggregate
which may outweigh some of the advanatges offered by the chipped
Council Letter No. 189 -2- June 8, 1981
aggregate. The second alternate requires more total tonage of
aggregate and gallons of bituminous mat than the first alternate.
Staff has observed and questioned communities such as
Bloomington and Burnsville which have used both aggregate types.
It is staff's opinion that residential areas such as that in
this bid, should be done with buckshot type aggregate. Next
year, main thoroughfares should be examined and for those areas
the chipped aggregate should be used. Orr-Schelen-Mayeron,
engineering consultants for the city, were contacted for an
opinion of the two types of aggregate. OSM has concurred with
the staff recommendation to use buckshot type aggregate in
residential areas and chipped type aggregate in heavy traffic
areas, such as main thoroughfares.
It is recommended that the bid submitted by Bituminous
Roadways be accepted, regardless of the aggregate type
selected. The specifications were for 13.593 miles of local
city streets. There are approximately 18 miles in one-seventh
of the city. It is recommended that the council approve a change
order to increase the contract by 25% (maximum allowed by statute)
to take advantage of the favorable price and sealcoat almost one-
eleventh of the city.
It is recommended that the city council take the following
actions:
1. Accept the bid minutes.
2. Award the contract to Bituminous Roadways in the amount
of $99,064.35, for alternate one.
3. At7T~YCIVA a chance order to increase the contract a.;,cur.t
`, ~' to~ $125,830.44.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~ ~~e~:~C ~ 1~-.
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
May 28, 1981
Seal Coating
Bid No. 81-4
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, sealed bids for Seal
Coating as advertised in the official newspaper on May 13, and 20, 1981.
Present: Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director
Don Fondrick, Community Services Director
Joyce L. Wilde, Acting City Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
BIDDER AND BID SECURITY ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2
Bituminous Roadways
B.B. 5% $ 99,064.35 $141,504.40
Black Top Service
B.B. 5% 110,581.80 147,868.00
Allied Black Top
B.B. 5% 104,109.30 142,660.00
The Acting City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered
at the regular city council meeting of June 8, 1981.
Joyce L. Wilde Acting City Clerk,
....x,.„ ~, __I_____ ____________
..ww.» . --~ .-_._- ~
.,,,,x..... i ~A x-~;,
a~.....x '~ --~
x.,o, ... ~: - ,
.i t-S.
.o. .r~[ ._ 8~'
uxs ..[ : ~
aM'y"n u.
~-JI _-_ ~~ __ 7L-J~.J
l,. ;r__-
_ ; ______~~JfC~=~
j
~,.i xsar ..e 1- _ ~ ~ -- _i1 j p _ ..'. _v -~~_ nc.sox rx.
o,.a, . x- ~ ~ - (- 1 i ~~~ ~ ~ m ~~ - g i S~ ~ wo.x ..c
...., ..x - - -~ ~ 'r~l ~ ~ l~~ ~ ~ ~ ~J^1 «,..,,x
_ i - ~.K...~x
....
~ ~r-~
- -. _~L '- ~; --,~
. ... - ~ l i - --_ - ~.~,. ,. ,.c
_ ;, _
:, ..
, ~ eu. .vc
II , ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ caurua .v[-
' m9~' cM..co
9i o ,p..xY(
R ~ '
' v~~~. _ ~ _l .aM
;~ _ t~ ,,,, .~
- - ~--- _ - .,.~.~.a ..x
a ~ _ ~ , ~~ ,,..K
Z '~~,. ~ ,
~m .. - ~ - -: xx....
~' ' ;y'; ~ .. ~ ~ o ~ ''" c~ e o 7 m ~ ~~ ~,~,
x '~~ ~~ _ x.,...x
rn
O
D
rz'
M
.~ x.
R i ~~ m y y ~ 7 ', ~~
. i S= to rr, , ~
. y ~: ~ ^'. ~ ~ I
4 q - --- - ---_ /~ ~ ~I~
~ a_ a ~ f x a
t y ~ s i t
~8
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 188
Agenda June 8, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Variances, 6228 Aldrich Avenue
South
pRnpncnr.
Mr. John Paulson and Ms. Vivian Palthen have submitted a
request for variances to allow the construction of a 1z story
single fami.]_y house and an attached garage on the site located
at 6228 Aldrich Avenue South. The variances requested are:
1. To reduce the minimum lot area of 8,000 square feet
to 5,112.7 square feet;
2. To reduce the minimum lot frontage from 75 feet to
37.9 feet.
The lot is located on the corner of Aldrich Avenue South
and the Crosstown Frontage Road, which is an "L" intersection.
The property north of the Frontage Road is the Crosstown 62
Highway right-of-way. A noise barrier wall has been constructed
in this area.
The property was originally subdivided at 75' x 134.9' and
contained an area of 10,117.5 square feet. The subsequent
construction of the Crosstown Highway and the frontage road
north of the property resulted in the reduction of the lot
width, and lot size.
In June, 1967, the city council denied a request for
variances to allow the construction of a single family house
on this property.
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Section 3.30, subdivision 4 of the zoning ordinance sets
minimum lot area, frontage, and yard requirements for property
in "R," single family residential zoning districts. The
minimum lot area required is 8,000 square feet, and the minimum
lot frontage required is 75 feet. Section 3.39, sibdivision 2
lists exceptions and modifications for yard requirements.
Council Letter No. 188 -2-
STAFF REVIEW
June 8, 1981
The staff has reviewed this request against the three
conditions which must be present for granting variances, and
found the following:
1. This lot is not significantly different than any other
in the City of Richfield. There are other lots of
similar width and area with single family dwellings
on them. However, this lot was originally platted
so as to conform to applicable ordinances. The con-
struction of the Crosstown Highway and the frontage
road required taking a portion of the lot, thereby
resulting in the insufficient lot width and area.
2. Denial of this application will preclude reasonable use
of this property. There are no alternatives to develop
this property for residential use except by granting of
lot area and lot width variances.
3. The construction of a single family house on this lot
will be an improvement and. should not be detrimental
to improvements or residents in the neighborhood. The
surrounding lots, however, do meet or exceed the
minimum lot area and lot width requirements. Therefore,
the granting of the requested variances will create a
single family lot significantly smaller than those lots
in the area and in the city, and could be construed as
contrary to the community standards set forth in the
zoning and subdivision regulations of the city's code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Because the three conditions for granting variances have not
been met, the planning division staff recommend denial of the
requested variances to the lot width and lot area requirements.
PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission recommends denial of this application.
The commission felt that the lot is not buildable and that the
proposed development of a house on this lot would not be in
keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
(j ~
J
_..1
~`-
W
W
i7
W
0
Z
~+1» os ~~/~ y Nit btd ~~
I
i I
h
M
I ~
~ I
~ I
Q
~ ~
d
~~ 6 ~
i~C ' p- ~ ,
I ~`_ ~
W a - ~
,
d ~
2 '
°
~
o a
LL 4 c~
~
•:~
. .
~..
~ h~. .
1
r. ~- : ~ F
.. .. .. i
I
1
l_ _ '
I
_ ~_ __
~~
Z
Q
J
~C
00
(""1
.. c~i_
~"- ~ .~
.n _
W ~ Q-
N ~
W ~ ~
~~4~--
N p
~ ~ ~
~ J ~
K
_~
cr
o~
Freeway
BARRIER WALL
'.~Q 8 3 Q
(....~ ~ N
U{
'°•~ T 4 ~ m
X0650,
63rd
^ 13 1~ esoo
,~ ~ rl ~ r
,R z - -. ~ m
u ~ i0 9 8 7 6 5 4
Q ~ i9os i o0
8 7
~- ~~~
0
:~
~o
0
T 12
3
~J
L~
a
5 n
U 63C~_ 1 6300 u ,
2'
~-
I 9 8 7 6
`I ^ d ^ ~
~~ 9i4 9~0 906
R/CHF/EL D
TT-?.
Freeway
9 h
-" - on ge - ~~
N
8 ~
h-•---
,w~ P 3 O N
u
~
~ ~,i~
~~ 7 4 0
g
o
5
~a 6 5 D-a
A y
a
S T.
0 13 ~ra,~p °_ 8
L~ "12~ 2
I... ,~_.
~ U 1 3
6
z =~ IA 4 ~~ is 5
_
u ~ ,
~
e V ~l ~
(V ~ '1 ~ N
/
~ _
_ f~~ ___~l
N
U ~ s ~; <
~ ~
- ~
~ N {~
- - -;.
'
~
N
a 5 ~_
v Q r
, n
ND
r
~~
'~
-, L A K c
,~~ /~.
,~ ,~
/ j / ~. ~ \
'% ~~.
i ~ ~/" ~ % ~
~~- j ,, ~ ~,\~.
- ~ ~ / ~~ ' ~
:a~~ ...._ .,._
W
_Q
CO MERCIAL
~ ZONE &
' LA D USE
~.1..~
Q
....._~ z
1.
I'Jlay 18, 1981
City of Richfield, Planning & Zoning Dept.
6700 Portland Ave.
Richfield, 1~?N. 55423
Attention: PJ:r. Thom NaacGibbon
Dear Sir:
Reference is made to the notice of Public Hearing for Tuesday, f~~!ay 26, 1981
regarding the application for variance and building permit at 6228 Aldrich
Avenue South, Lot 2 Block 2 Fallden's Addition.
own the joining property at 6232 Aldrich Avenue so. A few years ago
Hennepin County wanted to sell me the strip of property that was left over
from the Cross town Highway. I went to the Richfield City Hall and made
an application for a building .permit and a variance on the property you now
desigrrute as 6228 Aldrich Ave. So. I appeared before the City Council at a
regu'arly scheduled meeting. It was Flatly denied. They told me there was
far too much difference between the lot size and the required 75 ft. frontage,
plus the fact that a house built longway on the lot would be inconsistant
with that neighborhood. I did bid on the lot but was uncessful.
strongly object to a variance and I would find it very diffic.alt indeed
after being denied, to reconcile the fact than" now it would be all right
for some one else to be granted a variance and a building permit on the
same lot.
Respect ully,
~i~~?~ r!
C. H. Goudy
Owner, 6232 Aldrich Avenue o.
Richfield, ~!In.
{
~ ~
r'+L;-sd.~i.~~ - __ .wr..d~~._.uawi u~:.c<v.L.~+.~'.:::i.'e1!e~~.iJa:xY wr.~-t.+urrk~`S3. -•.it.U..`~^taSr.~.'i:~U.Ftl:ki+4.51-~~ais -.YF
~ ~ _ .c n ,
~2~ ~ / 9
~v~~~
~Uf L ~•~ ~' ~ _ y
~~ ~~
~.-6-v~ ~ , , l
a n r
~~t-~-C/~i~ (/I/-L`r.LLv~ lt~~ ~~ ~L.L G°'j~ y,z.i~..t ~,
v l ~ ~~~J,
~.
L
~~~ ~ ~L2C~" ~
~i
,o ~ .~
.~ ,
r
~. ..
'~~kzz ,~' ~ ~a
~~ -
May 21, 1981
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF RICHFIELD
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is in answer to the form letter I received regarding the
property at 6228 Aldrich Avenue South. I can not see how any-
one can possibly build a home on this lot that would blend in
with the other homes in the neighborhood. I can't visualize a
skiney long house which would really add to our neighborhood.
The thing that makes me most angry is that last year I called
the Building Inspector or someone in your office as I wanted
to put a fence on my land (with the same footage) as the one
at 6228 Aldrich South and I was told I would have to put the
fence 15 feet from the curb which would have been almost in the
middle of this lot. I thought perhaps I misunderstood, so I
called again and was told the same thing - 15 feet from the curb.
I have lived at 6223 Bryant Avenue South for 24 years and I did
think they would have given in a little but to no avail. The
fence would have added alot more to our neighborhood than an
overgrown house on a miniature lot.
Sincerel~y~, .~
. C~~~ ~ .
Mrs. Robert Pribnow
6223 Bryant Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
28-028-24-11-0026
RP:rd
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 188
Agenda June 8, 1981
Deferred June 22, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Variances, 6228 Aldrich Avenue
South
PRnP(~SAT,
request for variances to allow the construction of a l~ story
single family house and an attached garage on the site located
at 6228 Aldrich Avenue South. The variances requested are:
1. To
2. To reduce the minimum lot frontage from 75 feet to
37.9 feet.
The lot is located on the corner of Aldrich Avenue South
and the Crosstown Frontage Road, which is an "L" intersection.
The property north of the Frontage Road is the Crosstown 62
Highway right-of-way. A noise barrier wall has been constructed
in this area.
The property was originally subdivided at 75' x 134.9' and
contained an area of 10,117.5 square feet. The subsequent
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Section 3.30, subdivision 4 of the zoning ordinance sets
minimum lot area, frontage, and yard requirements for property
in "R," single family residential zoning districts. The
minimum lot area required is 8,000 square feet, and the minimum
lot frontage required is 75 feet. Section 3.39, sibdivision 2
lists exceptions and modifications for yard requirements.
Council Letter No. 188 -2- June 8, 1981
STAFF REVIEW
The staff has reviewed this request against the three
conditions which must be present for granting variances, and
found the following:
1.
simil
on them. However, this lot was originally
so as to conform to applicable ordinances.
struction of the Crosstown Highway and the
road required taking a portion of the lot,
resulting in the insufficient lot width an
platted
The con-
frontage
thereby
d area.
2. Denial of this application will preclude reasonable use
of this property. There are no alternatives to develop
this property for residential use except by granting of
lot area and lot width variances.
3.
will be an improvement and should not be detrimental
to improvements or residents in the neighborhood. The
surrounding lots, however, do meet or exceed the
minimum lot area and lot width requirements. Therefore,
the arantina of the requested variances will create a
contrary to
zoning and
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
and in the city, and could be construed as
the community standards set forth in the
subdivision regulations of the city's code.
Because the three conditions for granting variances have not
been met, the planning division staff recommend denial of the
requested variances to the lot width and lot area requirements.
PLANNING COMMISSION
The commission felt that the lot is not buildable and that
proposed development of a house on this lot would not be in
keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
Res/p) ectfu{l(ly submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
Freeway
BARRIER WAl
J~
:~o 8 3 o N
~' T 4 m
D ~
6 5
~a a
•
63rd
' ~ 13I t~
'R Z ,
~ ~ t0 9 8 7 6
~ ~ ~ rgoe
IB 7 p
~I
i
:,~
~a
0
T
~~
~l
O
T 2 ~
3 '~
_ J
~r
5
63~ i 1 6~
~.
2
~~
8 7 6
^d^
pia 9~0 cos
\\
R/CHf/EL D
Tom;.
Freeway
9
J
OI1 ge - ,~ ~
~ 8 ~
_ i
J
-~ -^-~ - /
T '
:wU ~ 3 ~ N 0 ~~~;
-~-
^74^~ off,
UQ 6 5 ^' a N5~%
~~ '12~ 2
t- °~
V `J 1_
z ~a 18
~ ~ 9
, ~
~ e
-
N ~ 7
N
D
U s ~-
-
^ 5 r
\ ~'> L A K c
~~ /~.
%'
~'
~~.
~~ ~ ~
~ . ~,,
i ~ i --i'
~, /,,/
j /' ~
S T.
0 6
D . °~`.~
~~ 6
i~ 5
Q = --~
M
U ^~ I
~ -- ----,
N ;
N
J n'
_ Q ,,, j ~ ~
}
-' N ^
Ls!
J
Q
Z
J
- -~ - -
I ~
1 f
• I
•
.
~ ~~
~
J
'
O ~ r i • •
. r
~
Ei
i
-z ., ~ ~~
m ~
t,~ ~ P a
rn
• • -~
6'
0 ov
~ I
P ~
° ,
cY. 9 ~
N c
n
'° ~
~
OQ I
~ I
r
~ I
~
I
z
w I
(
p i
~
'
~
I
s
E---37. 9' --~
~, Ac. AR ~cN AvE. ~SO uTFF
0
Z-~ _. ._ _
Q
c
m
0
~
~
~!'~
Q
-3
'Z
-.~
r
r
4.
t
5.
~t~~.Y. £la:.:r:~...:.u1'.~;:aw.~~.w::.Lrk~e,:w.~i.+:a:Y,a`+. ci S:.;1.:io.;ti ~T.:J7v3.t'.~sr.':+.•sa...:d~~.•~%•ai..u:,3~.T'.ae:.F;+ri+,•.-~++cu~icb~.:J.:.xs~i~'.i.iwa.a...:a4... •2; r...:%4.~,Y Y.-,..~?e+cc. wV.:d~+'~si::;
.:
~. ~~Z~ y
/ ~/
~~~
(.
/~~ GZ~c~ ~-(~i~~c.tZ,C~ .r G ~L(/J ~ ~~j.~~-t-~.1~7~
•
` ~v GUS LG•YCty~i~~ / ~iy~J
_ `~ f ~'
~~"/~
- ~ ~,
y~
i
May 18, 1981
City of Richfield, Planning & Zoning Dept.
6700 Portland Ave.
Richfield, l~?N. 55423
Attention: PJ;r. Thom NiacGibbon
Dear Sir:
Reference is made to the notice of Public Hearing for Tuesday, i~~ay 26, 1981
- regarding the application for variance and building permit at 6228 Aldrich
Avenue South, Lot 2 Block 2 Fallden's Addition. -
I own the joining property at 6232 Aldrich Avenue so. A few years ago
Hennepin County wanted to sell me the strip of property that was left over
from the Cross town Highway. I went to the Richfield City Hall and made
an application for a building permit and a variance on the property you now
designate as 6228 Aldrich Ave. So. I appeared before the City Council at a
regu'arly scheduled meeting. It was Flatly denied. They told me there was
far too much difference between the lot size and the required 75 ft. frontage,
plus the fact that a house built longway on the tot would be inconsistant
with that neighborhood. I did bid on the lot but was uncessful.
I strongly object to a variance and I would find it very diffic.alt indeed
after being denied, to reconcile the fact than' now it wculd be all right
for some one else to be granted a variance and a building permit on the
same lot.
Respec ully,
~" - ~
C. H. Goudy
Owner, 6232 Aldrich Avenue o.
Richfield, l1,~n.
~t 7
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 187
Agenda June 8, 1981
The Honorable riayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Variance, 7525 Oliver Avenue South
Mr. Larry DeFries, representing Woodlake Lutheran Church,
has submitted an application for a variance to allow the
installation of a 4' x 8' illuminated sign. The sign is
proposed to be located on the southeast corner of the church
property, near the intersection of West 76th Street and Newton
Avenue South. The sign would carry the words, "Woodlake
Lutheran Church" and a logo. The property is zoned "R," single
family residential.
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Section 3.30, subdivision 2 of the zoning ordinance allows
churches, including nameplates, in "R," single family residential
districts, by the issuance of a special use permit.
Section 3.36, subdivision 2, states that only nonilluminated
signs which do not exceed 10 square feet in area are allowed in
"R," single family residential districts. Section 3.40, sub-
division 6, lists three conditions which must be met before a
variance may be granted.
STAFF REVIEW
The planning division staff reviewed this request against
the three conditions for granting variances and found the
following:
1. That there are no special conditions affecting this
particular property. This lot is not significantly
different than any other lot in a similarly zoned
district.
2. That denial of this application will not preclude
reasonable use of this property. A sign conforming to
the ordinance, requiring no variances, can be installed.
Council Letter No. 187 -2-
June 8, 1981
3. That the proposed sign would be an improvement to the
applicant's property. The sign location meets all
setback requirements and should not pose any hazards
to the public. However, specifications for the illum-
ination of the sign have not been submitted; therefore,
the staff is unable to determine the effects of the
illumination.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Because the three conditions for granting a variance have not
been met, the staff must recommend denial of this application.
However, should the city council approve this request, the
staff would recommend the following stipulation:
1. That the illumination of the sign be approved by the
city manager to ensure that it poses no
hazards to the welfare of the public.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends denial. of this application.
The commission felt that an illuminated sign of such a large size
was not appropriate in a single family residential neighborhood.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
Public Safety Director
Chief Inspector
~ ' ~=-
+~' ~ .~
~r. . _. _ .
. ~ I
1 ,'
:~
i
i
I
I
I
~~
~~~ i
+,
{'.
:~
i j
11~
•^ - t~
r
~. ` y
z ~~r a r;
_~ ~~~;~~
~~N~~-
~ sr,x ux. 4_^y.
I --__ ~-..-~-.. .,r.
_ '
///y
N ~ • ~ //Y~
~ ~ ~~ G
J
C~.~
. \
n ~'
r
C ~~
'J
=,L
~1
/~ ~,
• r
..~ ~
_ ~
.,.
~-
~~~_~.'
,, .. w
\` s ~.1
'~Y
~.~} ~`
~~ r ~
~r
5
Y.1f
'~
/:.
~~
Ground Sign -~ ~~ Pedestal Sign
Width -~ ~_ Width -~
---, Legend
h~
;~ i
I
~~
'~
~ M
Legend
Indicate legend on
the reverse side in
_ Wall Sign
~_ Width _~
Legend
Roof Sign
}~-- Width _~
Legend
Ground ~, Roof
r ~
.~l r
~~
_~
Ground
Legend
`1 .
,r _ ~
~: ~ ~
k,.:.
i~
"" ~ _
Place location of sign on this sketch with distance
the sign is from Property lines. Locate any traffic lights within 300 feet.
DEFINITION: Minor Signs -- Single or double faced sign less then 32 sq, ft.
DPS 101 on a common board. Indicate
10/1/79 ~. ~ ~ h
Sheat 2 of 2 Sheets nl~
Projecting Sign
k--- W i d t h
Legend
Indicate distance
from the building
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 186
Agenda June 8, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
• Council Members:
Subject: Request for Special Use Permit, 6700 Portland
Avenue South
pRnpn~Ar.
The City of Richfield has requested a special use permit to
allow expansion of the Richfield Municipal Center Complex, located
at 6700 Portland Avenue South. The proposed 13,500 square foot,
one story addition will house the Public Safety Department. The
property is zoned "R," single family residential.
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Section 3.41,subdivision 1, paragraph 2 of the zoning ordin-
ance states that a special use permit may be issued for a public
service or building in any zoning district. Section 3.41,
subdivision 5, establishes criteria for the granting of special
use permits.
STAFF REVIEW
The planning division staff reviewed this application and found
the following:
1. That the proposed addition will architecturally match the
existing building.
2. That the proposed addition will not reduce the existing
minimum setbacks.
3. As close as can be determined for this type of use,
the off-street parking guidelines require one (1)
off-street parking space per 200 square feet of gross -- _
floor area. The proposed 13,500 square foot addition
requires an additional 68 parking spaces. The proposal
makes no provision for additional parking spaces and thus
does not meet the off-street parking requirements. The
provision of additional parking spaces is contemplated in
the future, in conjunction with the development of Memorial
Park. The final number of additional spaces, however, has
not been determined. Preliminary plans indicate that 51
additional spaces could be provided.
Council Letter No. 186 -2- June 8, 1981
The existing structure contains 39,980 square feet. The
required number of off-street parking spaces is 200, and
only 104 spaces are actually provided. This deficiency
in the number of off-street parking spaces has significantly
contributed to the acute parking shortage during peak
periods (court, recreational registration, licensing,
elections, etc.) The overflow parking is forced onto
residential streets such as Fifth Avenue and 67th Street.
The staff feels, however, that because the proposed addition
will not add or expand existing services, the parking
problem will not increase. The staff further feels that the
city should endeavor in the future to provide additional
parking spaces as determined by a specific use analysis.
4. That the surrounding zoning is "R" single family residential
and surrounding land use is single family residential and
public park.
5. That the addition is necessary for better and more efficient
provision of necessary public safety services to the
community.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Because the addition is necessary for better provision of
necessary public safety services, and because the addition will
not result in any conditions which would be detrimental to the
public welfare, the staff recommends that the special use permit
be granted. The city should alleviate the existing parking
shortage by providing the maximum number of additional parking
spaces possible when Memorial Park is improved.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends approval of this application
with the stipulation that an additional 51 off-street parking
spaces be provided as part of the development.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
Public Safety Director
~-
_ a r
E
P
7
N
~~ OB Ob OZ Ol 0
\® ~~~ ~
N`d~d ~1{S
1N~Wd0~i3/1~a NJ{S~a
A13ddS ~118f1d C]1~IdH~{~!
•nu~~y puo~~iod
~.
'~. !n"
•~noH 6u~wwM
~~ 'u~W)J~O~Q )~1~d
r
l
E
y.
k
L-8
{
;~
O
C
S
m
iii
D
-.{
O
Z
z
O
m
r
m
D
1
d
~-
m
D
-i
m
r
m
D
-~
O
Z
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Off ice. of City Manager
Council Letter No. 185
Agenda June 8, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Variance, 7430 Portland Avenue South
Tartan Construction Company, representing Mr. and Mrs.
Terrance Straub, has submitted a request for a variance to reduce
the required front yard setback by 4.15 feet. This variance will
allow construction of an addition to the side and front of the
house. The current setback requirement is the average front
yard setback on the block, which is 47.41 feet. The proposed
addition will reduce the front yard setback to 43.27 feet.
The property, located at 7430 Portland Avenue South, is
zoned "R," single family residential, as is all the surrounding
property. The surrounding land use is also single family res-
idential, with the exception of a duplex located across the
street at 7427 Portland Avenue South.
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Section 3.30, subdivision 4, and section 3.39, subdivision 2,
of the zoning ordinance list the lot area requirements for "R,"
single family residential property. According to these sections,
the required front yard setback is the average depth of the front
yards .on the block, since more than 25 percent of the houses on
the block have setbacks different from the normally required 30
feet. In this case, the average setback on the block is 47.41
feet.
Section 3.40, subdivision 6, lists three conditions which must
be met before a variance may be granted
STAFF REVIEW
The planning division staff reviewed this request against the
three conditions and found the following:
1. That there are no special conditions affecting this
property. The lot is of sufficient size and is not
significantly different than any similarly zoned lot
in the City of Richfield.
Council Letter No. 185 -2- June 8, 1981
2. That denial of this application will not preclude
reasonable use of the property. There are alternatives
to the proposal which would not require variances.
3. That the proposal will be an improvement to the applicant's
property and should not be detrimental to the public
welfare.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Because the three conditions for granting variances have not
been met, the staff must recommend denial of this application.
It is the recommendation of the City Manager that this variance
be approved.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends approval of this application.
Respectfully submitted,
c
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
Dear Neighbors -
We have made application to the city of Richfield for
permission in the form of a variance, to expand our existing
resident's. We are seeking to encroach the setback requirement
::.
along Portland Avenue South, by 2.0 feet. For_the most part this
will hardly be noticeable, however we feel that your added support
will enhance our efforts to secure the variance. We intend to
use the variance to construct an addition to our home, which will
provide us with much needed bedroom and living space. We would.
greatly appreciate your cooperation by signing this letter of
petition which we will present to the city council, city planning
committee, and city staff, showing your support.
Respectivly
Mr. & Mrs. Terrance Z. Straub
730 Portland Avenue South
Richf field, Minnesota
. ~ NAP~TE ADDRESS DATE PHONE NUI'.ZBER
-- _ ,_ ;
~ ~3 ~' -~ ~"~ ~~,~~~ -.~~_~ ~~ ~ " ~ 5` .sue'
CtJ ~i~~-c~ ~ . (~C`~ e-.
'
~ I [~ ~ I J 2 I l 1 c P I (~"~ I~ 12 iI Q O
° °
-
.3 _
2 rJ4 o _
f-; 23 __
2 ~~~~
.. I_II 2 ~ n
._~~ o ~ ~ 3 ~.~ ; 2; PETITION MAP ~ 0
,2 3
~ Q
- -~" "- ~] 2 55 ~! ~ ~~
= I Signatures on Peti tion
` (
8 ~ ~ N N~ I ~~~N .~ ~ D p Q
7 8 SIN V ^ I I.7 `lea ' VCI N ND Jo
O N
g [; ~~- 16 9 _
L!: [~ I g ~r FD 7 -
_
.,
II C19 U I II r~ - ~ I II .c~ ~~
~. !7 l :~ n I~ 13 IZ r+~ n ~~ I 2 ~~n a~i ~l
a ~ ~ ~
9 °
0
= ^ V
a °~
-
~V
O
N ~ N
N
OI ^
N ~ T
N
a O n
_
r
°~a
°
o°
° ~
°
n ~] z
~
i6 I
r
IS 2 ~ o
14 3 r~ °
~ ^ ~
~ 13 4
N _n ~ ~ 1_~.l~l~
~ 11 6 ^~
-
9
L' - -- t i
e Ji
a h~ '
a v
1 r
^:~
2 Q
N
3 ~"
N
4- --
s - ~;
I6 0~l
~!
i
J `]
c
:J
~,n ~
O v
r
a .o N
A °
_ ~
N ~ ~
I ~ I
''. l~ ~ .
~ ~ -- ~ s
_0 a°
-
_
f~
~. ~ []
N
_L~ ~~ L-
I_1
n t Qe
~
T
^
o r
Z Q ~,
0
~
A
L_
L
'
~
3 °_
n ~ (]
N CJ 4
' 0
QN
N a
`
J Q N
r
N p N
Q h
^ 7 Q
STREET
0
D ^V
~^ D 12 I Q
- D 11
N 2 a
t0 l3 a°
n O 9 1 4 a ;~
m n 9
ri U ,5
I ~ ~
°
~' ~ 7
~
^
°
6 of
n
h
STREET
t~
0
Q
O
~IZ I D°
oQ II 2~~
~~ ~0 3QD `-
N Q ~~ ~ QO ti
(~} ~ B
N 1
- 5 D m
N
-
^ n ~ ~
1uI ' ~ ~ O N
I
~-
^O 4 'I LL~]
n
s 3
2
Q ~ Is I I ae
a a IS I
0 2 ~o
Q 14 3 C] Q
Qi3 `4
N N
r
N [] 12 ~
I5 aN
~!!
wt 6 ~^
a a10 7 Qr
9
°
r 8 Dc
n
°'~ !6
~15
°~ ~ 14
13
v
~ ~ I
~'_~tl
~~10
n ~ g
a 16
N
o ~ t5
h Q t4
- a 13
N 1'^1I C
N 1 i t7
~16 Il ~~
o a t5 ,2 Do
a 14 i3
_ I a Q
13 4
_, a ~
o
T-~-~ON
~l-~6
_ O^
-
., 10 ~ 7-
L ~1r
" 9 ~8
I I
u
L~'!,
le ~2 (-'x ~rl
T ~~ -T-f-f~~
- ~ 7 3 ,~ J
~ 81'
/3
.
r _ ~ ~~
r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"
~ ~ ~t
~ m ~1 ~.
o x
.
L ,,, _. ~ ~ ~ «
Vo >~ '
iw
Q O (t] v
~
1
1 0
a
`
° °
z z vo
~-v
O
~
i~
c
zm
v
i ~
f
~ ~
n
o ---+ ~ a ~~ cn
~ ~ ~= c~ ~ O r-3 ~
~7 O •• ~ ~
N• ~ ••
~ y N.
'y n ~d '~ ~ rl-
v ~' o ~ ~ ~
c ~-b ~i cD
N• ~+- n n,
CD F--' y H O
F--' ti cD ~, 2 b7
c~ fz ~ ~ C7 ~ ~C
~ ;d ..
,~~ a ~ ~
F-' f~• C C7 C~
~ CD CD y
~ :3 ~ H
~ cD ~ N O
~ O ~
O ~
c+ U] ct C7
Sll O ~S O
~ W
cf
0
~~ ~-
_ ~__
ems.
00
o
I
aC
rn
~
.~
-
rn
x
C