Loading...
05-11-81 agendaEXTRA ITEM F RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ce of City Manager Council Letter No. 163 t~genda May 11 , 1 981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Application for Taxicab License Steven A. Harvey/Suburban Town Taxi Company On April 14, 1981, the City .of Richfield received an applica- tion for a taxicab license from a Mr. Steven A. Harvey, 4248-:6th Street N.E. Minneapolis. Mr. Harvey recently purchased, and is the President of the Suburban Town Taxi Company, located at 7440 Oxford Street in St. Louis Park. The Department of Public Safety has conducted the necessary background investigation, which has included an investigation of Mr. Harvey, also the Suburban Town Taxi Company, previously operated under the name of Town Taxi Company, .and this investigation has found everything to be in order. Insur- ance has also been verified and is in compliance with the necessary requirements. It is the intention of the Public Safety Department to spot check all Suburban Town Taxi Company cabs periodically . throughout the coming year. It is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur, that the city council consider approving the applica- tion for a taxicab license for the Suburban Town Taxi Company. R~~e~~spe^c~tfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ej a cc City Clerk Public Safety Director ~~ S~ ~~n f~+nrl ~oul~1.,~~'~~ 1\j ~~ /~ .1 PiECEIPT~`~r10.~ ~~ ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD 1 Q~ ~!`~- 6700 Portland Avenue South LICENSE NO, Richfield, ~1~, 55423 ~~5~ FEE: ~~ APPLICATION' FOP, TAXICAB LICEfJSE G~~ or .a en ar ear Business Name:__Sr~t,~rban Town Taxi Telephone Plo. Business Address: 7440 Oxford St., St. Louis Park, MN. 55426 ~/~ ~ ~o ~ NEW xx RENEI~!AL $ZO first car ~2~ $10 each add' 1 -$'f5U-' TOTAL UE S 270 935-034 Applicant's (dame: StpVPn A. HarvP Telephone No, 781-1002 Applicant's Address 4248 6th St. N.E., Mpls., MN. 55421 Date of Birth 10/20/42 .~ If a resident of Pichfield, when did you become a resident? no Place of birth: M Is., MN. Are you a citizen of the United States? yes If a naturalizee+ citizen your certificate of naturalization must be presented arith application. It will be returned to you.} How many vehicles do you propose operating? 26 ti on on attached form. List vehicles and requested informa- .. If any of the vehicles are mortgaged, give name and address of mort4actee, amount of mortgage and date below: Information given up ~n request. State below whether said motor vehicles are being operated by the person; firm or corporation having a legal title thereto, er whether said vehicles are leased, licensed or under any form of contract permitted to be used and operated by some other person-than the one holding legal title thereto. Yes -see attached list of owner-operators Describe in detail the general color scheme and monogram to be used: Omaha orange with black lettering What person, firm or corporation collects the revenues from the operation of said vehicles and pays the expense of operation of same? See attached list of owner-operators State whether any insurance against personal injury or property damage is carried, and if so in what amount and in what company. ransit Casualty -Policy NO.CLA 760549 $:!00,000/300,000/100,000 SIGNED: DATE: April 6, 1981 TITLE: President (f1VER) ...,,. ., rt . -2- _ OF MINNESOTA) ss ,QTY OF HENNEPIN) INDIVIDUAL OATH Steven A. Harvey ~ b duly sworn says that the several answers an statements in t is app ~cat~on are true he best of hi knowledge and belief. 4'~' s . igna ure o .pa scan Sworn to and subscribed before me this bth ay of April ig81 ~, a.c~-- Notary Public, nnepin County, MN Address: 3727 Rhode Island S., St. Louis Pk., MN . 5 426 STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) My commission exoires . ,. . , , •:.r~ :: ~ ... ... . .i .~ { CORPORATION OATH ~ ~ ~ '~ ' " " Steven A. Harvey being duly sworn says he is the President of Town Taxi Co . Inc . described in and who signed the foregoing app cation; t at t e severa answers an state- ments in said application are true to the best of 's knowledge and belief. a-u -. `~~ ac-c~ otary u is ennepin ounty, Address: 3727 Rhode Island S., St. Louis PK., My cgm~rri$sion,expires .. .-;i u .. ... ........ ~. si JC:~o/'v ~~..i,.,,cy;rrY+v ,'v'v'v ~>.,. FOR CITY USE ONLY Applicant's vehicles have been examined by police personnel of the City of Richfield and have been adjudged fit for use as taxicabs in the City of Richfield as defined by city ordinance. S I G ~! E D : ~~ N ~ 1,2-E~-~ TITLE : ~t'Z ,e..-~- DATE : ~ -~/ ~" council approval: yes no Date; .-..~..,...... _.....__,_...___-.._-_. _- GEI!FI1!11_ LI/1[311.ITY IIUTOL1Ul)ILE POLIC'( .. _..,~.._. ....,.~ .. .'«:~:.,;; _ ~a:- _, :~'. ,) ;i .6 ~1~C~ ~~I''``q,,b[1C1~~~~~~' Q ~p~ ~ ~i.A 75 (y~ ~/)3 ~" ~~~er, ~ /~W'' ~ ~~ -TiEIfEWA7. ~F F'C3LICV'---. '~ iI it ~,, 3700 wII SHlftl 13uU1_f:Vnftl) I OS ANGE-I.ES, CALIFORNIA 9(1010 i, i ST. LOUIS, h11SSOURI '~ ; I{ ~I IA ~.til~~- ~r~suronrc r.unq,,uw, I~rrem callcrl the r.ompony) ! I, OECLARATIOtlS ItCm T. gamed (OSUred and AddrCSS: (No., Street, Town nr City, l:uunty,`.tatr.l • TOLJN TAXI COMPANY , INC . 7440 OXFORD ST. ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55426 Item 2. Policy Period: (Mo. oay yr ) From 7-1-79 to 7-1-82 12:01 A.fA., standard time at the address of tttc named insured as stated tterem. the named insured is: ROGER M. HADIAUER AGEtJCY, 2359 JOY AVE. ~~fiITE BEAR LAKE , MINK . zrlc . 55110 Individual ~ Partnership ~ Corporation ~ loin[ Venture ~ Oiher: 13USIneSS Of the named inSUred I5: TENTER oeLOw) Audit Period: Annual, UnICSS OtherWlSC Stated. tENTCR O6LOW1 ---~.a~icah__ CQmganX- -- - -- - --- - -------- - --_-_ Item 3. The insurance afforded is only with respect to the Coverage Part(s ) indlcatr.d below by specific premiwn charge(s) and attached to and forming a part of this pollcv Advance Premiums --- Coverage Part Nols). -- -- -- -- ---- Coverage Part(s) - - - - - - -~-T---__ - S Automobile Medical Payments Insurance S Autornoblle Physical Uamage Insurance (Dealers) S ~ Auton~obUr, Physical Damage Insurance (Fleet Automatic) S k Automobile Physical Damage Insurance ~ (Nun FIcuI) E Basic Automobile liability Insurancr. S Completed Openhuns and Products liablllty S ~' Comprehensive Auturnobilu liablllty Insurance E Cornprchensrve 6eneralliabifity Insurance S - Contractual Liability Insurance - _- S Carage Insurance 1 z orm numbers of endorsements, other than those entered on Cnvcragl CA0710, TA9003, GU6631(5), MC1632 ------------------------ --- y Total Advance Premium for this policy. Advance Premiums Coverage Part Ito(s-. Covsrabs Partlsh ' $ Manufacturers' and Contractors' Liability Insurance ' $ Ov+ner's and Contractor's Protective Liability -___ _ Insurance b Owners', Landlords' and Tenants' liability Insurance ~- S Personal Injury Li~bllity Insurance E -----_- ----- ~- Premises Medical Pa}•arenis Insurance - ~ NINSUP~D Iv10TGi:?'ST5 _ ___IncL_ At _ NSUP~NC?3 1 $ Inc . ~ ERSnNAi, INJUP~Y ~1ut_o. ~xab . CP0587 ?P.OTI~.C T. ____ 1 __ ___ - . _ Part(sl, attached at issue ~ , ,CP0587 ' If the Policy Period is more than one year and the premium is to be pall in installments, premium is payable on: Effective Date 1st Anniversary Ind Anniversary , $ ~~ $ TBD ~ Tin Item 4. During the past three years no insurer has canccllcJ insurance. Iti$lll;d t0 thl! named insured, similar to that afforded hereunder, unless other~~+iso stated h~rcin: Countersigned: 7 / 1 / 79 / Ich ° ~ ~ ~ 'Nnt applicable in Texas K._'--~' ` ~,~/ ~~` ~y --- ---- ~- - - L-- -. -- ~--~"' ----- OKP6300-LF F to in u s n. f ~thonzed Representative (1-1-731 ,..;.,r„ r CP 00 10 (Ed. 1 T4) .. -+•'.~ai: y''•. a::{ ., - CO~APREHENSItlE AUTOfAOQILE LIABILITY iPiSURAPICE ' '!'A"103 . (Ed, 1~1r+1" ' ~.t to Policy No._~LA .7~_.~~ ~±~_ __, to complete said policy. once afforded is only with respect to such of the following Coverages as are indicated 6y specific premium charge or chart?es. Ttte limit qt the company's.. , against each such Covera;e shall be as stated herein, subject to all the terms of this policy having reference thereto, ~ ~ + ' ------ ------- -. -_ --- - - I __ .__. .' Advance Premiums Limits of Liabildy Cov~ra~es '~ ' ' ' lOO -thousand dollars each person C- Dodily Injury Liability .._ , a ' Ine1^_ 3_0.0_ thousand_dollars each occurrence _ _ _ __ _ •' ' ' ` 5 Inc l~ ~_ thousand dollars each occurrence ~ D -Property Damage Liability- Four nom*ers of t:ndatsertents z"zched at is tre ,. _ Q 0-___.__ ._ s I~ c 1 ~ ~ P I P = C ~ 5 ~ 7 _ - ----_----------__.~_ _ _. . s Total Advanc® Frem3um~ + ~ , . ,. I, r . t, ''t . f. Advwnca P(C:rII'Sms [lescrirltran of Hazards _ __ • Bt , , pD 1. Owned Putomobilos -Premium 8as+s -_ Pe_r_Gutamobils ~ ' ~ •" __ ,T_,i ~ ' , , • - Town or Clty and Stab In v/hlch the Autornab~.e Year of Trade Name Undy 'type and 1.lodah TfLC1( S1tq; lanh GallnnxeC G_pac• , IdentiLrat~on ~aumbcr ,+~ , `,crlal NwnCCr purpo...s , pf tics , , , r , ~+ - ~ :. WIII Ba Prlncipany Garaged hlodel Ity; or Bus Seating Capacity' tAOtor Number IIN~CL DED Per schedule on Company file ' ' r-.r - ~'- ~~'"'~-°~ '`~.'""~~ - ' I .. ~ ~~„ 1 'I 1 . r/S I •'' •;~'; :~ '•~^' Hired Automobiles -Premium Dasis -Cost of (lire ~ " ' "` - ' ~ ~"'• ' ~' ` ~ ' ~ '' 2 . Purposos E,tlmaL d Cost Ira cs Per 8100 ~oit at dire Loratlons Whrre Ratomobi!as -~ --~ " PD ' ~ types HIreG Will Be Principally Used of Uso ••: of Nlrt, BI 1 - - ~•, ~ .. "'''~'~~ ~` ' -~ Pcr schedule on Company file ~, ~ ~ " . , ~'J • COMPOS TE , ., ,. ~ - " ti ,: - ~,,. . , '~ ~ ,.,.~ s: -~' ~ ~ 3. Non-0rrned Automobiles -Premium Basis -Class 1 Persons and Class 2 Employees ' - • • ~ Class 1 Persons-Name of Each ~ Location or Headquarters of Persons Named Herein ' Included ~ .. ;: ., ~ .... ~• ~ °' ' ~~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ;' ' --- iratr;3 Vef Emnlcyr,~ r ' r. Clas•. 2 Employees-Estimated Average Number Location of Headquarters of CIaz3 2 Em~loydes UI ~-FD ~ - ,. :. ..... ~, . , ..,, . ; I • ~' ~" .. } { , Included ,\ , .-., 1 ,,. . ~~ ; ~ ITICLtJ . ^I) Total Advance D.I. and P.D. PremwmsT ~ • • " ' b ~ f.. 1':;1en used as a premium basis: ' A. "c;ast et hire'' means Ute amount incurred for (a) the hire of automobiles, including tho entire remuneration of eYcit employee o`. the rr,.:~cd t-•.r.d en~~g^d in iha opela'.iGn of such ..,tor..a~llxs s.lbj:;ct to an acer<~e s;uekly maximum remuneration of $100, and fur (b) -re';-u?, transpurfatir;n eK L ~!i',e!y sar:.~'^. of proaerty or passengers, other than Bch services performed by nwbx careers v;hich are subject to the :ecunty r;r;nrc mints et any meter c~ n^r I~. v or ordinance. The rates fcr each ~1C0 „f "cost of hue" shall be 5"~ of the applicable hired automaL•ila rates, pro~~;~cd , ^ o^+ner of ~cc;t E.:re~i t_°,:rr.Ahi': has purchased zutor:obil3 Eddy Ir.;ur/ LiabilHy and Pldperty Damage Lrlbdrfy insurance covering the intere:,t cf tha r,;..ned iasareJ un a uir~ct pri,u;.;~ basis as respects such outoma~aa anJ subnuts evidence of such Insurance to the nzmed i^sured; B. "Class 1 p~rs;as" means the following persons, provided th~irusuel duties .n the uus~ness of the namsd irst:red includ. t!'.e BSe r:f es^-oansd ~stema4i'et: (a) all employees, ioclcdir.g o±ficers, of the r.a;n~d insured cun;pensaled fcr the use of such xutamabiles by salary, con;musion, terms ct eTpi;,y.;,xnt, er specific operating allowance of any suit; (br all direct a,enls and representatives of the named Insured; C, "Class 2 ew.p;ayaes" means all employees, including othcers, of the namzd irsured, not included in Class 1 persons. -~ ~- ' y~ .. _ _.. _. vo~~ 4~rI oo. '~ '• 7440 OISFOFJD ST ST LO(JIS PRRt: P,AtJ 55426 JNE_R-_O_PERATOR Krc~9s, Audree _ ~ _ `- Block, Roy R, Ramsey, James Ncil~on, Maynard Nrolson, Maynard Russ Shehadeh, Mohamed Cavitt, Paul Curtiss, 1Nallace H. Remick, John Clock, Michael Turner, Maurice RQbinSan, Joseph E. Seel, Jack Stevenson, Bob Langb~in, Paul Lockett, Benjamin Clough, Dan Rionke, (:enneth °iper, Clifford J. ~oops;r, Edward =fisher, John 'I~ `d, Daniel ou,,,, , Mohamad :ook, Bruce anSvein, James abdungh, Hisham 8 Pat YE_AR_M_AKE 1980 Chevrol ~t LICENSE ~ -- - ~, - - SE RIA L ~ CA B # ~_ 1979 Plymouth f= ~A415 I _ IN69HAJ213072 _ _ _ 53 1978 Plymouth EIW 149 HL41L9B203337 55 1977 Plymouth CUE 778 HL41C8F186404 55 1979 Chc~v. Wagon 1979 Dodge . (EF 154 FIL4uDlB'!u$534 I1N35P19K596869 57 58 1978 Volvo F WU 325 CJB 717 N1.45D9Q125933 59 1977 Ford 41<M 069 VC24545L1203115 60 1980 Chevrolet CLI< 536 7P631-1172900 61 1978 Plymouth r=1W 146 IL69I<AJ2205pb 62 1978 Plymouth CWG 304 HL41C8F186401 b3 1976 Plymouth APC 116 RL41G8A154885 64 1978 Chevrolet 1978 Ch v l DMC 641 HI-141C6F239139 IL69U8J1254488 bb 6 e ro et 1976 Dodge CA Q 70 CGV 252 I L69U8J175465 8 70 1978 Olds. CWY 308 NL45C6B424725 71 1978 Plymouth EIW 147 3N69R8C10,327$ 72 1977 Ford E K I: 535 HL41C8Ff86402 73 1978 Ford Fairl ELM 917 7H40FI127850 74 1978 Plymouth E DE 724 8W82L118032 85 1978 Plymouth DNJ 007 RL45K8A154977 91 1977 Plymouth ECN 719 RL41K8A207173 92 1977 Ford CPN 376 RL41G7A102619 93 1978 Fard ELR 206 7H31 F192922 95 1977 PI;--nouth 1978 Chevrol t CMH 358 8U63F126378 PM41 G7D221650 96 97 e TAXI 62 I L35U8J141964 99 .~ (3) "Trailer coach park" means a trailer coach park as defined in Minnesota Statutes 327.14, et, seq. Subd.3:. License Required. No person shall operate or maintain any motel in the city without a license. Subd. 4. License Application. Any person desiring a license shall make written application. The application shall set forth the name and address of the prop- erty on which the motel is situated, the name and address of the owner of said property and the number of lodging units in the motel. The license fee shall accompany the application. Subd. 5. License Fees. License fees~are as provided in Appendix D of this Code. (Bill 1977-16) 8/8/77 Subd. 6. Approval and Issuance. The council shall approve or disapprove all applications. If the application is approved, the clerk shall issue the license. Subd. 7. Inspection. Each motel located in the city shall be periodically in- spected by the city health officer or sanitarian who shall make written reports of said inspections which shall be given to the council. Subd. 8. Maintenance Standards. The following are considered minimum standards to be maintained by licensees under this section: (1) All bedding, mattresses, and pillows shall be kept clean and sanitary. Clean sheets and clean pillow cases shall be changed daily or, if used from day to day by the same person, as often as is necessary to keep it in a clean and sanitary condition. (2) Abed with bedstead shall be provided for each lodger and no lodger is allowed to sleep elsewhere than in such bed. (3) All water closets, wash basins, bowls, windows, fixtures, fitting and painted surfaces shall be at all times kept thoroughly clean and in good repair, The floors of all rooms, passages and stairways shall be sound, in good repair and either shellacked or painted; the same shall be either scrubbed, wet swept or otherwise treated as often as is necessary to keep them thoroughly clean and sanitary. All walls and ceilings shall be thoroughly cleaned or painted at least twice each year. (4) Each motel shall be provided with an adequate supply of wholsome water and with adequate and sanitary toilet facilities and at all times be kept clean and free from vermin and filth. Facilities shall be provided for the effective disposal of sewerage, garbage and rubbish. ' Subd. 9. Registration of Lodgers. The motel proprietor at all times shall place and maintain a number or other designation on each lodging and provide and keep a register book. He shall cause to be registered in ink in such register book the name of each person staying at such motel and occupying a lodging unit therein, the place of residence of the person registered, the license number of the automobile in which the person is traveling, and the designation of the lodging unit occupied by him in the motel. Subd. 10. Period of Residence; Permit Fee. No person shall be permitted to reside in any lodging unit for a period of longer than six months from the date of his first registration in the motel without first obtaining a permit from 8/8/77 ORDINANCE CODE 195 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO fA the council. Such permit may be issued for a fee as provided in Appendix D of this Code. If the council grants the permit, it may specify the length of time for which the permit is granted. No person is permitted~to reside in any lodging unit for a longer period than that specified in the permit unless a new permit is obtained. (Bill 1977-16) 8/8/7T Subd. 11. Parking of Trailers and Automobiles. Parking space for automobiles, and trailers may be provided at motels, but no trailers shall be used for housing or sleeping accommodations unless they are located in a licensed trailer coach park. It is unlawful to remove the wheels or any part of the running gear necessary to transport a trailer which is parked at any motel. Subd 12. Posting of Regulations. The licensed operator of a motel shall post in each rental unit a copy of the laws and regulations governing residents of motels in the city. Subd. 13. State Law. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to limit or abrogate the provisions of Min nesota Statutes Chapter 157 applicable to the regulations contained in this section. CROSS-REFERENCE: See Chap. V, Sec. 5.36, for regulations pertaining to trailer coaches and trailer coach parks. 6.20 TAXICABS Subdivision 1. Definitions. The following terms have the meanings ascribed to them in this section: (1) "Taxicab" means a motor vehicle regularly engaged in the business of carrying passengers for hire, having a seating capacity of less than eight persons and not operated on a fixed route. (2) "Auto liveries" means vehicles used indiscriminately in conveying the public. The term includes vehicles available to the general public for carrying passengers for hire, but does not include registered route common carriers as defined in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 221. . Subd. 2. License Required. No person shall engage in the business of operating taxicabs or auto liveries in the city without first obtaining a license, Subd. 3. Contents of Application. Any person desiring to engage in the taxicab or auto livery business in the city shall submit an application setting forth: (1) The name and address of the applicant; (2) The experience of the applicant in the transportation of passengers; (3) The make, body style and model year of each vehicle fo be operated by the applicant; (4) The locations of all proposed depots and taxicab terminals; (5) The color scheme or insignia, if any, to be used to designate the appli- cant's vehicles. Subd. 4. License Fee. The annual license fee is as provided in Appendix D of this Code. (Bill 1977-16) 8/8/77 Subd. 5. Insurance Requirements. No license shall be issued, and any existing license shall be immediately revoked by the manager, until the applicant or licensee files with the city a current policy of insurance whereby each vehicle for which a license is required is covered against loss or injury in the fol- lowing amounts: 8/8/77 ORDINANCE CODE 196 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO fA (1) Each passenger, at least $25,000; (2) Each accident, at least $50,000; (3) Property damage, at least $10,000. If the applicant has qualified as a self-insurer under Minnesota Statutes Section 170.52, and has filed with the city a certified copy of a duplicate original of his self-assurance certificate issued by the state commissioner of highways, no policy of insurance shall be required to be filed with the city. In lieu of a policy of insurance or certificate of insurance, appli- cant may file with the city a surety bond issued by a surety company, authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota, in the sum of $50,000 running to the city for the benefit of the city and of all persons who may suffer damages or injury to person or property arising out of the ownership, operation, use or maintenance of any one person injured or killed or whose property is damaged, and $50,000 on any one accident, irrespective of the number of persons injured or killed or the amount of damage to property. This bond shall be kept in full force and effect during the full time of the license and the liability thereon shall be continuing, notwithstanding any recovery thereon. If a bond at any time during the term of the license is deemed to be undesirable by the city it shall be replaced by a suitable bond to the licensee. The bond shall contain provisions guaranteeing payment of any final judgment entered against the owner or licensee of any taxicab licensed with the city irrespective of financial responsibility or of any acts or omissions of the owner or licensee. Subd. 6. Approval by City Attorney. Every surety bond procured under this section shall be first approved by the city attorney before a license is issued. Subd. 7. Notice of Cancellation - Insurance. Insurance procured pursuant to this section shall provide for notice to the city of the termination or can- cellation of coverage. Each license issued to the licensee whose insurance is cancelled or terminated shall be suspended automatically until the insurance herein required is provided. Subd. 8. Investigation and Inspection: Each application shall be referred to the chief of police for investigation of the applicant and any vehicle to be operated in his taxicab or auto livery business. The chief of police shall ' determine the operating condition of any such vehicle and make a report to the council based on his findings. The council may grant licenses applicable only to those vehicles described in the application and approved in the report of the chief of police. Subd. 9. Addition of Other Vehicles. In the event that the licensee desires to obtain approval of vehicles other than those described in the original ap- plication, he shall proceed as he did with his original application. The license fee shall be paid as to each additional vehicle, notwithstanding the discontinuance of the use of any previously approved vehicles. Subd. 10. Mechanical Requirements for Taxicabs. No license shall be issued unless the taxicab or auto livery is: (1) In a thoroughly safe mechanical conditition; (2) Plainly marked as a taxicab or auto livery; (3) Equipped with doors that may be easily opened from both inside and out; (4) In good appearance - well painted and clean inside; 4/8/68 ORDINANCE CODE 197 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO fA (5) Equipped with a taximeter in good working order which has a light so placed as to enable the passenger at all times to see the fare registered when operating on the meter basis. (6) Equipped with a printed card containing the taxicab license number and the authorized fare printed thereon in figures and letters easily seen by passengers seated in the taxicab; (7) Equipped with shatterproof windows and windshields and four-wheel brakes. Subd. 11. Conditions Governing Issuance. The following conditions govern the issuance of a license pursuant to this section: 4/8/68 ORDINANCE CODE lgg CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO ~A (1) No licensee or his employees shall permit more persons to ride in a taxicab or auto livery than are provided for by its normal seating capacity. (2) The rates, fares and charges being charged by the licensee shall, at all times, be kept on file by the licensee with the city clerk. No change in the filed rates, fares or charges shall be made by the licensee without first filing such revised rates, fares or charges with the city clerk at least 30 days prior to the effective date of such change. (Bill 1974-6) 4/22/74 Subd. 12. Maximum Number of Licenses Granted. The maximum number of taxicab licenses to be granted pursuant to this section until next amended shall be limited to 115. (Bill 1977-25) 12/12/77 Subd. 13. Repealed 3/11/74. Bill No. 1974-4. Subd. 14. Public Convenience and Necessity. The council shall consider at the hearing whether the proposed increase or decrease will promote the public convenience and necessity. Subd. 15. Suspension or Revocation. Taxicab licenses may be revoked or suspended at any time, for cause, by the council after notice and opportunity for hearing. 6.21 TAXICAB DRIVERS. Subdivision 1. Definitions. The following terms have the meanings ascribed to them in this section: (1) "Taxicab Driver" means any person who operates a taxicab, as defined in Section 6.20 of this chapter. Subd. 2. License Required. No person shall operate a taxicab unless the operator possesses a current taxicab driver's license. Subd. 3. Scope of Section. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subdivision 2 of this section, any taxicab driver licensed to operate in another municipality in this state may carry passengers from such municipality into the city and re- i ceive local passengers for carriage to the licensing municipality without procuring a license under this section; provided, however, such foreign taxicab driver does not solicit business on the streets of the city nor pick up passengers, except where a trip for such passengers has been arranged at a central office of the company for whom the driver does business, which office is located outside the boundaries of the city. While in the city the foreign driver shall observe all the regulations and conditions of this section. Subd. 4. License Application - Requirements. Any person desiring a taxicab driver's license shall make application to the clerk. Each applicant shall meet the following requirements in making such application: (1) He must possess a valid chauffer's license issued by the State of Minnesota. (2) He must be a United States Citizen, over 18 years old, a resident of Hennepin County or any county contiguous thereto and able to read and write the English language. (Bill 1973-17) 9/10/73. (3) He shall furnish a certificate by a licensed physician showing that he is in good physical condition, has good eyesight and that he is not subject ORDINANCE CODE 12/12/77 199 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO fA to any disease or infirmity of body or mind which might render him unfit to operate a taxicab. (4) He must be clean in dress and person and not addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors or drugs. (5) He shall provide testimonials to his good character from two reputable city citizens who have known him personally and observed his conduct during the year preceding the date of his application. (6) He, when requested to do so, shall demonstrate his knowledge of city and state traffic regulations and his skill and ability in driving an automobile. Subd. 5. Contents of Application. Eligible applicants shall furnish the following information in making application: (1) Name, residence, address, age, height, color of eyes and year and place of birth: (2) Places of residence for the five years previous to the application date; (3) Previous employment dates and places; (4) Whether applicant has previously been denied a taxicab driver's license or had such license revoked and, if so, when, where and for what reason; (5) Whether applicant has ever been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor and, if so, the date, place and type of conviction. Subd. 6, License Fee. The annual license fee is as provided in Appendix D of this Code. (Bill 1977-16) 8/8/77 Subd. 7. Temporary License. Pending council action on a taxicab driver's license application, the manager may, in his discretion, grant a temporary license to the applicant, not to exceed 30 days. Subd. 8. Investigation and Issuance. Each application shall be referred to the chief of police who shall investigate the applicant and make a report to the council based on his findings. The council shall then act on the application. Subd. 9. Conditions Governing Issuance. The following conditions govern the issuance of a license pursuant to this section: (1) Each licensee shall give written notice to the manager when he changes his residence address. (2) No licensee shall permit any person to use his taxicab for any un- lawful act. (3) No licensee shall permit more persons to ride in his taxicab than are provided for by the normal seating capacity of such taxicabo Subd. 10. Renewal of License. Applications for renewal shall be made on forms provided by the manager. The renewal application form may be substantially the same as the original application form, except that the renewal applicant need not provide the physician's certificate required as part of the original application. Renewal applications shall then be processed in the same manner as original applications. (Bill 1977-3) 2/14/77 Subd. 11. Trip Sheets. Each licensee shall keep a trip sheet noting the following information for each taxicab trip: (1) Starting point and time; (2) Termination point and time; (3) Amount of fare charges and whether calculated upon meter, hour or trip basis; 8/8/77 ORDINANCE CODE 200 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO fA ~/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 162 Agenda May 11, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: This item is scheduled for second 11, 1981 city council meeting. sumption of alcohol in the city parks. As a result of a number of incidents which involved the abuse of alcohol in the park system, and nuisances which were created as a result thereof, the city council adopted an ordinance prohibiting the consumption or sale of alcohol in the city parks altogether. That ordinance ..~....,-. .a .-.., a-1,.~ hr.nvc ;., ghat format „nt; 1 the spring of 1 980. In the spring of 1980, the Int Local 1215 requested the ci at Taft Park in conjunction firefighter's were desirous festivities. That-request ernational Association of Firefighters ty council to allow the sale of beer with a softball tournament that the of sponsoring during the 4th of July resulted in the city.~ouncil adopting 1 by the city council in the issuance of the permit, and allowed for .substantial restrictions on the consumption of the beer. For in- stance, specific hours of operation were addressed with discretion in the hands of the city council, as well as other such matters as police officers being required on the scene, clean-up deposits re- quired, and an ability for the city to halt the sale of beer immediately upon determination by the city manager or director of public safety that a nuisance existed. In addition, the 1980 amendment to the municipal code allowed for the sale or consumption of beer in those-two parks only in conjunction with federal or state holidays, or civic celebrations. Due to the lateness of the organization of the firefighter's softball tournament, the tournament did not receive enough partici- pation to justify the cost involved, and as a result was cancelled. eration at the May Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Sale Or Consumption of Beer in Public Parks Second Reading r Council Letter No. 162 -2- May 1 1 , 1 9 81 The amendment which was passed on first reading at the April 13, 1981 city council meeting, eliminates the provision in the exist- ing ordinance which requires that the sale or consumption of beer In the event the city council adopts-this ordinance amendment on second reading at the public hearing on May 11, 1981, it is suggested that the following stipulations be added to the issuance of a beer license to the VFW: n~ 1. Hours of Operation 2. Police Officer on Duty (paid for by the sponsoring organization) 3. $500 clean-up deposit 4. Execution of a written agreement in form acceptable to the city holding the-city harmless from liability of any k ind . or character . - - ,. 5. -All rubbish, trash and debris shall bP rc?mca~rPr~ frnm There will undoubtedly be requests made to the city council in relation to the issuance of beer licenses for softball tourn- aments at Taft Park on a regular basis. The city council may want tournaments, KN/ej a cc: City Attorney City Clerk Respectfully submitted, .~~- ~S= Karl Nollenberger City Manager 1 e I would encourage the city council to restrict the issuance LEGAL NOTICE Bill 1981-8 AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 4.17, SUBDIVISION 8, PARAGRAPH (1) OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD RELATING TO THE CONDITIONS APPLYING TO THE SALE OR CONSUMPTION OF BEER IN PUBLIC PARKS CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 4.17, Subdivision 8, Paragraph (1), relating to the conditions which apply to the sale of beer in public parks is hereby amended to read as follows: "(1) Sale-er-ee~sex~ptie~-ef-Hee~-~e-alle~eel-er~ly-}~-ee~- rteetien-bank-Pdatienal-e~-State-kalielays-e~-eltt~i~e3-ei~ie eeleb~atiens-se-elesigr~ateel-3~y-tire-eet~~eil. Sale and consumption is ~t~~tl~e~ limited to the dates and times specified by the council in the permit." Proposed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of April, 1981. All persons interested for or against this proposed ordinance amendment are notified to be present May 11, 1981 and they will be heard. BY ORDER OF THE COUNCIL April 13, 1981 Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk Publish April 22, 1981 ,:~ .,.. ,. 4.17 SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF BEER IN PARKS Subdivision 1. Definitions. The following terms shall have the meanings described herein: (1) "Sale" means all means of furnishing and includes but is not limited to the furnishing for money or other consideration. (2) "Beer" means any beverage which is produced wholly or in part from the brewing of any grains or malt or malt substitute and containing more than one-half of one percent alcohol by volume. (3) "Organization" means any entity having religious, veteran, charitable or business activities as its principal purpose and which qualifies in all respects for the issuance of a license to sell the type of beer to be furnished at the activity or event for which the permit is being sought. Subd. 2. Sale and Consumption Prohibited. Except as permitted by this section, the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages is prohibited in the public parks of the city. Subd. 3. Permit. Any organization desiring to sell beer in Taft or Augsburg . Park may apply for a permit to do so. Such application shall be made upon forms furnished by the city clerk for that purpose. Subd. 4. Application. The application shall contain the following information together with any additional information requested by the city: (1) Full name and address of the organization. (2) A brief statement of the organization's purposes and activities. (3) The length of time the organization has been in existence. (4) The number of active members. (5) A brief description of the event or activity for which the permit is being requested. (6) The park proposed to be used for the activity including any facilities in the park which will be used. (7) The dates and times for which the permit is requested. (8) The anticipated number of participants. (9) The person or persons from the organization who will be in responsible charge of the event or activity and of the sale of beer. The application shall be made to the city manager who may refer the application to such departments as he deems advisable for review. The city manager shall then make his recommendation to the city council which may grant or deny the permit. Subd. 5. Permit Fee. The fee shall be as provided in Appendix D of this Code and shall be paid in full at the time of application. Subd. 6. Bond. 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 may require that the city be made an additional insured. (Bill 1980-13) 6/9/80 ORDINANCE CODE 6/9/80 124.6 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO (A Subd. 7. Conditions of Issuance. Organization Permits may be issued only to organizations which qualify in all respects with the following criteria: (1) Is located in the City of Richfield. (2) Has been in continuous existence for a period of at least 3 years. (3) Has at least 20 active members. (4) Has established to the satisfaction of the city that the proposed event or activity will be controlled in such a way as not to constitute a hazard to or a source of nuisance or annoyance to other persons in the park or on adjacent property. (5) Has designated persons in responsible charge who are free of convictions for offenses relating to the fitness of such persons to perform their duties. (6) Has a currently valid license issued by the city authorizing the sale of the type of beer to be sold at the activity or event for which the permit is being sought. Currently valid licenses previously granted to the organization allowing such sale at a different location within the city will satisfy this requirement provided that the insurance and bond required under such license cover the sale of beer in a public park. (7) Executes 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 out of our occasioned by cancellation of the permit pursuant to subdivisions 9 and 10 of this section. Subd. 8. Conditions on Permitted Activity. The following conditions apply to the activity: (1) Sale or consumption of beer is allowed only in connection with National or State holidays or during civic celebrations so designated by the council. Sale and consumption is further limited to the dates and times specified. by the council in the permit. (2) The sale and consumption of beer is not allowed in streets or parking areas adjacent to the park. The council may further limit the areas within the park where beer may be sold or consumed. (3) TI~Le sale of beer to and consumption of beer by individuals who are for- bidden by any statute or ordinance from purchasing or consuming such beverage is not a?lowed under the permit. The council may further limit the sale or consump- tion to be allowed under the permit. (4) Alcoholic beverages other than the beer sold by the organization holding the permit may not be consumed in the park. (5) The event or activity must be conducted and controlled in such a manner as r_ot to constitute a hazard to or a source of nuisance or annoyance to other persons in the park or on adjacent property. (6) All rubbish, trash and debris sha"1 be removed from the park and disposed of by the organization promptly at the conclusion of the event or activity. The organization shall be responsible for all clean-up expenses. (7) The sale to each customer at any one time may not exceed 16 ounces of beer, (8) A police officer or oif:Ccers, as determ:±ned by the council, would be in attendance at the per~r~i:t site rt the expense of the applicant at all times and ~~hile beer is being sold. (Bil'. 1980-13) 6/9/80 OF~D!NA,NCE CODE 6/9/80 124.7 Ci~"Y OC= FiICf-AFIELD, MINNESO (A %~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 160 Agenda May 11, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Resolution Relating to Removal of "No Turn on Red" Signage at Exit of I35 and 66th street Eastbound _ Council Member Hassenstab has requested that the city con- tact Hennepin County and ask that the county remove the "No Turn on Red" sign located at the eastbound exit of Highway I35 and 66th Street. It is our understanding that the sign was installed when Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ej a cc: Public Safety Director City Engineer A resolution requesting Hennepin County to remove this traffic regulatory sign has been placed on the May 11, 1981 city council agenda for council consideration and action. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO "NO TURN ON RED" SIGNAGE AT THE EASTBOUND EXIT OF I35 AND 66th STREET WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield is desirous of facilitating traffic flow on 66th Street in the City of Richfield. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby requests that Hennepin County remove the "NO Turn on Red" signage at the eastbound exit of Highway 35 and 66th Street in the City of Richfield. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the proper authorities air ~[ennepin Cclar.~ty for their consideration and action. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 11th day of May, 1981. Donald J. Priebe. Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk i 31114 ~: ,.7 ~~ _ =-s~ ~ ~-; - s u+ cL~J t,c~ *.~.r,l ^`~! ~~_~ ~`~tu!u'~~ ?M ~~ 1 =3~IAb3S 431S3f1~~a _____ ~ J =SS3bddy // ~3NOHd ~! ~t ~~T~SS1f ~3WdN -~~~,~ =1.8 LZ C' ~NO 43/1I3~3d S1iM 1S3f1D32f 9NIM0~~0~ 3H1 ~ , 3~IA213S ~I~Bfld 210 1S3fli~3a i L-2 ~ =31d4 ~>>~LC ~~~ ~F:~11 ~Ol 4321a3~3b ~1/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 159 Agenda May 11, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members.: Subject: Presentation by The Storefront/Youth Action, Inc. Y Steve Lipenski, Executive Director of the Storefront/Youth Action, Inc. has requested an opportunity to appear before the city council to make a brief presentation regarding activities of this agency. Tla~.s item has been placed on the May 11, 1981 city council agenda, and Mr. Lipenski will be present at that meeting to present this information to the city council. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ej a 7515 12th Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 April 9, 1981 Richfield City Council 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Distinguished Members: The purpose of this letter is to formally request a variance to the Richfield Buildine• Code to allow the construction of an addition to the property at 7515 12th Avenue South. This addition would entail the construction of a second-story storage area above the North half (approximate) of the existing resi- dential dwelling at the above address. I have been a resident of the City of Richfield for almost my entire life. My parents moved to Rich- field (621? 14th Avenue) in 1952, when I was 18 months old. I attended Richfield schools, graduating from Richfield High in 1968. After achieving a degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Minnesota in 1972, I served in the US Army for four years. My wife and I returned to Richfield in 1977 and bought the property at 7515 12th Avenue in October, 1977. Since returning to Richfield, we have worked hard to improve our home and property. The proposed addition is, in fact, the culmination of our investment in our property and neighborhood. Instead of seeking residence in other areas of the Metropolitan Area, we strongly desire to fashion our residence into a suitable home for ourselves and family. The attached petition shows the support and goodwill that our neighbors have bestowed on our project and our overall efforts. The proposal we have made is the result of much thought and planning. We believe this project will enhance the surrounding neighborhood, add to property values (and City revenues), and, to a small measure, add to the favorable impression that visitors already hold for the City of Richfield. This proposal has also been designed to optimize our personal flexibility and space utilization in our home. We strongly maintain that a refusal of this variance request would injure the long-term optimiza- tion of the property's potential in terms of usable space. ;~._._ Page 2 Variance to Richfield Building Code April 9, 1981 There are three conditions that,. apparently, define the grounds for a successful variance request: 1. This residence stands on a "standard" 150' x 75' lot, with a gentle slope from the location of the dwelling to front and back. The existing structure, as purchased, defines the need for this variance request, since it already sits at the allowed five foot side-yard setback. The physical construction of the original dwelling precludes the construction of the addition at any other part of the structure, as the original dwelling is constructed with a trussed roof and only 2 x 4 ceiling joists, which would not support usable space above. An addition to the back of the dwelling is not feasible without great expense and re-construction due to the location of load-bearing walls, utilities, drains, and the nature of the roof and ceiling joists. The garage at 7509 12th, being setback behind the existing dwelling, would also restrict the access of emergency equipment if an addition to the rear were proposed. 2. This application is made in order to optimize the use of the property for the lowest front-end cost; yet, with the greatest positive impact on aesthetic and property values, whereas other families tend to move to larger and more expensive properties outside Richfield as their needs overtake the capacity of their property, it is our intention to make the property fit our needs while maintaining and improving the quality of the property and the surrounding neighborhood. By waiving the requirement for a ten-foot side-yard setback, the City Council would be protecting the rights and privileges of the • neighborhood, and maintaining our rights to a comfortable and high quality residence as well. The attached petition from the surrounding neighbors reinforces the point that they perceive no adverse impacts from the completion of this project, and, in fact, endorses the project. The refusal of the application, on the other hand, would injure the right of the property owner to improve the property, to optimize the cost/ benefit relation of the improvement, and to promote the long-term potential of the property. ..-a-....~~-__. _.._-~. -.~.r.-~ .-~ , ~:_~_...:.~,..r^,.>.-.,.=Y` -._,-.-...as~a -._.: .,..<4c:a°~c....._. _.. -~. °"~~:-: .rte".... --._ _.. ~'dycr ~ Variance to Richfield Building Code April 9, 1981 3. The proposed variance would not injure the health, safety, or well-being of the neighborhood or its residents. The project in question maintains the separation distance between the residence in question and its adjoining neighbors. Sufficient clearance is maintained to allow the passage of emergency vehicles, circulation of fresh air, and the passage of pedestrians from front to back. No obstacles or obstructions impede the free movement of people or small objects. No barriers are thrown up between properties. The attached petition is an expression of the neighbor- hood's approval and blessing on the application in question. No concerns have been raised pursuant to the health and safety of property or residents. We trust that the City Council will review the content of this letter and the attached application and supporting documents. We ask the City Council to weigh the benefits to the applicants and the community at large against the Building Code in question. We also ask the City Council to judge the approval of the neighborhood relative to this application. Finally, we ask that the City Council approve the request for this variance. Thank you. s s p ~ t f u l lY . ' _._.._ ----.,._~~ ~- ~ S~- ~f clt u~~ C~ `1.~.~~-~~~`~~--- John Edward Peterson and Sharon Elizabeth Peterson ATTACIIMENTS REQUEST FOR VARIANCE QF to reduce the required side yard set-back FOR PURPOSE OF construction of an addition to by 5', include a partial second story. Legal Description: Lot 14, Block 5 South Murray Lane Addn, Hennepin County, MN We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby concur with the variance as requested. Signature of O~,~r,ers _ Address Legal Description ~ ,1 , , l; ~ ,, r~ ' ~. d ~~- zC~~ ~z~ / ', .. ~~ ~ ~; ,~ r r _ ,. _ ~ ...._ ~.~ r a~ d a -c o= ~ .ram. . ~ ~ l 0 1 WZ° ~o° 1 z°~ - i WW} U ~ QUO C7 JLLH i aocn i ~ I ~ - -- ~ I . ~ 1 .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ~ :•:•:::t::~ ::::::::::::: I I ~ .• .:......:... ... • ~.•.•. i 1~5 .•~....f..... L.•.•.v t •.~•.•.•.•...:.,nr.:.•e ( I f0.... x 2 1 ~ _ -'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 1 ~ ;.~ :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. I T 1 i i•. . I 1 ~ t 1 1 3 ' I I w 1 1 1 > 1 1 I I ~ ~ ~ 1 ~' 1 ° j I 1 3 1 I 1 1 > ' I i ,- I 1 I I i _ i ° 1 , 1 1 ~.I._._.L. ..i i ~._._:.._._._.J.._ 7515 - 12tH AVENUE SOUTH . -{ _ . -.~ 0 M w t7 -~ w #'/~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 158 Agenda May 1 1 , 1 981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 7515 12th Avenue Proposal ed ten feet side yard setbacx ror The zoning code of the City of The variance will allow the construction of a second story addition to the existing single story dwelling. It should be noted that a partial building permit has been issued to allow con- struction to begin on the first story of the house. The property is 150' x 75' and has an area of 11,250 square feet. The addition will architecturally match the existing house. The property, located at 7515 12th Avenue, is zoned "R" single family resident- ial. The surrounding zoning and land use is also single family residential. Staff Review The staff has reviewed the application against the three conditions for granting variances and found the following: 1. There are no special conditions affecting this property. This lot is of sufficient size and is not significantly different than any similarly zoned lot in the city. 2. Denial of the application will not preclude reasonable use of the property. There are alternatives that exist which will not require variances. 3. The proposal will be an improvement to the applicant's property and should not be detrimental to the public's welfare. 5°a two story single family dwelling. The existing single story house has a five foot setback now. Council Letter No. 158 -2- May 11, 1981 Staff Recommendation Because the three conditions for granting variances have not been met, the planning staff must recommend that the variance be denied. The City Manager recommends approval of the variance. Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission recommends approval of this variance quest. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ej a 1 cc: Community Development Director City Planner ~/y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 157 Agenda May 11, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Appointments to the Human Rights Commission Four terms on the Human~Rights Commission expire .in May, 1981. ,Three of the terms are for three-year adult terms, and one is a one-year student term: 3'~wo of 'the incumbents, Diane McKeown and Nancy==Lindberg, were appointed to fill unexpired terms in October, 1980. They have served only a few months on the commission and wish to be reappointed for a full three-year term. Diane Olson, who has served two terms on the commission, does not wish to be reappointed. Attached to this council letter are applications from Linda ~'Fjelde and Lora Ulrich, for consideration of appointment to the one youth member term.. Also attached are application forms from 3-yearApp~icantsppoint 3 Diane McKeown (App't 10-80) Nancy Lindberg(App't. 10-80) Steve Sable Don Fellows 1-year ter - a oint 1 Applmican~~ Lora Ulrich Linda Fjelde Respectfully submitted, 1`~ .5~. I Vv~ ~~.C.~,~. Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ e j a i.I l~. Ctreat ~.:~. - - FHO~~: r~~e ~9-33d~ NAME >~ LL J~~-~l~f'L~7e, ~ (C Pf~}r2 (J ic3jt HOr.1E ADDRESS ~~ tree. '~:~. ~,'i~~,, _ - "1 D _ 1 ~._ 1~'lA 1.J l~v~ .`i/DI~F ~~J ~1i ... i. ~LiC1'1± .. ,.i,. r': ~r:'.~ r3 :i is r_'.:>, .{,-^Lr`-"~TT,~,w ..iF `.i~i'~ C!c~ RIL.rTi':-E~.1- A -, ~.{ --,.r,-., D.'IJJ;.~ ~'~i,~l:,T;i ~L.E '~fZ ~~ni. "~'`iS~IC~`V l'.FrCIi~~T'~.'F* ---. ~i :.".. ~j,^s1r"_.~s APFOI\'Ti'.`E:i ''"'REF~i<.E~;C~. Flar:ninc .;gym; ;ls;i'~r. Fars anc Recreatlo:; Ac~~1s~r•:~ Colr:m. Senior Citizen & ran:::~.appe Acvis~ry Commission ~urn~1:~ ?i~hts Cor:.-:,is_ .~ X .:! : 11 5erV1Ce :,~Jr:'~::1SS1Cr: ,- ~tC1cr Briefl':' u1SCL'SS c3Sae^tS Oi "Ol!r c~.X?~,'2,,;.e .:hiC~l 'IvLI 'tie1L?~~=~ "u~1iF`.' ';, L' *~r ,~1c T:lllnlCl~c~1 C;Ci;tr:'i1SS1C... _;.7:iir:lli.tec? --~,:-r-~r `• - anc CV(":}` '_Li 3r~~ .._~,_ r oLP_" :rl 3e1"'..;" j1 ., ~e~ CIVIC, ,FR C'FE~~IC~`~A._, '~:._~ _;^~i:~1L"`'TT'. .Try .,,. .• :~L.1 Ji! EJ: OCCUPATION'; Employing firm, agenc;~ Address Position <~~T.~V\ ,1C3rJ +'fir^~, ~~ge-;~ Other work experience (optior_ai) REFERE:vCES (Optional) c-' A . ~1'~1~~ ~~~L~ ('i~ / ~®MM,iSS/ ,~ II~M~ Full name /~ ;=~el:zti~n~~h--i~a ~~{~~ ~z,D~~GH' IMF-t/~ ~' Q.~J~ y-~ Mailing ad~?ress Phone nucnb~r B . t'J~-tt C.. [ I f=~ rJ~~ Y'I~tb~1gd ~CX-s-~2tQ,M ~ - 2~ ~ 2 Full name Ralationship - - ~_ ~ ~ Mailing address ~suMP1'ta~ ~c.t2Cr~ Phone number Full name Rel~tions'r,ip Sa Ming address ~S ~ -~z~, Phcne number Return to; City P~lanager'~ ~.fice 6700 Portland A•~~enue Richfield 55423 Att: E~1eer. Hr..:erson -.:.~,_ R~ Date APPLICATION FOR CITY OF RICHFIELD ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION APPOINTMENT ~~ r-- NAME ~,E% U n GAS ~~3c3 l~ ~/ ~ Last :First Middle HOME ADDRESS~~~ ~(~ ~%t,J ~ ~~ ~. ~~ iC~Gl7 ; i Street No. City MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address) Street No. G City PHONE: Home Q ~~ ~~ C.~ .~-.Z-- Business_ APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Planning Commission Human Rights Commission Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. Civil Service Commission Senior Citizen & Handicapped Advisory Board of Health Advisory Commission Other Briefly discuss aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this municipal commission/commit*_ee and why ;you are interested in serving: CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMU~iITYACTIVITIES: ~{/ /(/ ~y i ~ . /~ -~-'~'---~` , ` r ~~~Z Zip Ccde Zip Code /~ r7- OCCUPATION: Employing ,firm, agency__~~~a~.~y ; Address Position~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ears vw: firm,~age;,,~, Other work experience (optional) REFERENCES (Optional) C~ Full ifame Relationship Mailing address Phone number Full name Relationship Mailing address Phone number C. Full name Relationship Mailing address ~T -l- Phone number Return to: City Manager's Office 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield 55423 " -.~.< ^ _~ ^ ~U M 'd' ^F~+ 0 ._ ^ ~~ W a ~i~+ L 0 January 22, 1981 Mr. Donald Fellows 1500 W. 66th Street Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Fellows: - At the January 5, 1981 city council meeting, the city council made several appointments to various boards and commissions of the city. At that time, all adult vacancies on the Human Rights Commission were filled. The remaining vacancy on the Human Rights Commission is a one-year term for a youth member. We appreciate your interest in this commission, and will keep your application on file for consideration by the city council when future vacancies occur on this commission. Sincerely yours, / _ i~L~.~, r V v U~ ~~ ti~~ c Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja telephone: 869-75^' +6t ~) .~ ---r .j :,PLiL y~ I~~: ,_: .nt ~.1 r-, ~.~1~ RIL.:Ii IE i. i~ ADL'ISCR`_ ~: '~T';IIT`~~E -,~ -n, `!~i,ISSIO1i t:~n; ;Ir,-T~-~r,' _r_, i~~iSt _ ir._,. ..,.~1in HOME ADDRESS 1p7o7~U ~~ ~~" /~tJ~ . ~~lC'~-/~~/~~~6,:~ 5~~~3 Str'~C~~ .\J. ~YLL~r' C. L.J ~~1J MAILI~ii, ~;DL~:<ESS (iI ..~__~re,.t _. ~.,~ ::~,,.e a~~ro~s. Street Igo. P~~v:.F: some ~b~ -73%~ _ ~;,$Li.E'~.- - AFPOI\Tt.~E~~i PRE I'_?E`:C~. Pla::ning Cam,„fission Par;: and Recreanon A~vis~r~. Com^7. Senior ~iti~en & ~?anu.capae':~ hc;visor~~ C:~^^^^issior, .i; ~~ .~ I~!'.iRlan Rty;i~5 ~,OT7LSSIC'::~_ ~~.~i1 Ser~.~ice C:'orr,~.,issi^~n A,_ivisor;% boar':; o` Iieaith Other [3r1?fIV .^•1sCllSS c3S~eCtS O~ ;lr~t!r C"{J~: 12r.'~c'. ::':?1C ~oU ~C'i!~".'~ ~U~1!i~.' ;%;?U tJC _.115 municipal commissicr~, ~o:.,rlittee 3nc ..~h~~ .•o~ are .~,tcreste~. ;n Sergi.'., . STU D~ tvT ~1~~ jN YY1~ t'yT ~U f'l1 i~ ~~ Ems- ~6+- (t~ ~L-~ ~~~(~0L 1~~~NiS l~(1~~ ~f~~'0 , ~~`L-E--1 `C~l-~C~C~L ~U~IC~L CIVIC, PRCFE~SIOi~~,;_, ''~:~ :-~~,.''.i;ViL_"~'.T•_ ~;L.TI`vi?':I:J: OCCUPATION: Employing ~iirm, agency `,1~T ~~~T~~. Address 7 ~.f ~ ~ p ~~'. ~ (~~ , C /L-t.7.~Z/~7 i !l~ ~ TQ f'U 5~"~~ a Position_~~~ }°, cars ~.,v;"ir-;~, r~ger,= ~ rn~j. Other work experience (optional) REFERE~~~CES (Optional) 1 A. - Fu11 name Relation~hin Mailing address Phone number B. Full name Mailing address C. Full name Mailing address Ret~~ _o: Ralationship Phone nuTber Reiatior,s;:io Phone nu~:.ber City ;~1an~~Qer's ,;:lice 6700 Por*.land f~venuc~ Rich±ield 55-123 f+tt: E~Ieen f~raerson February 24, 1981 N CI' ® ~ ~+ ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ ca c c~ ~+ L iii. ^~ ~ Ms. Linda Ann Fjelde 6720 11th Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Ms. Fjelde: At the February 23~, 1981 city council meeting, the city council appointed Ms. Dawn Nilsen to the youth vacancy on the Human Rights Commission. The city council has asked me to express to you their appreciation for your interest in this commission and to let you know that your application will be kept on file for appointment as soon as another vacancy occurs on the commission. Sincerely yours, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja telephone: 869-7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer Application for StudentPosition Date x_19_8 APPLICATION FOR CIT`I OF RICHFIELD ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR COP.iMISSION APPOII~iTMET~TT NAME~~ ~Tru Lori Marian Last i= first i.i!~cie HOME ADDRESS 7hgl .f~.lc3rich ~1v. S. _ Richfi.~7.d I"'n. Street No. City= Zip Ccde MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address! Street No. City Zip Coe PHONE: Home 86F-817:1 Business APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Planning Commission Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. Senior Citizen & Handicapped Advisory Commission. Human Rights Commission_Jj1 Civil Service C'ornmission Advisory Board of Health Other Briefly discuss aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this municipal commission/committee and why ;=ou are ~.nterested in sere,=ing: T have 1 ; Sled i n Ri ~.hf i e'f d a,l l mgr 7 i fP anti t~kP~ r~.rt in srhoo~_ a.ctit~i ties, noinr I t.~roul_d like to take part in city activities anr3 the ~iama.n Ri ^~ht;~ Co*n~nission interests me because I ti~roulc7 like to he1_p people build. a human commi,~nit,y. CIVIC," PROFESSIONAL, AND C'OMMUNIT'Y' ACTIVITIES: lTni-innal -,nnnr '=;nr~i~rv r~mnf'irn, rir"1^r `r~^~lr ire r~iti,h ~c~h~ol. Cirl ~r rro~-s country i n ~-+i~h ~~chcol Precinct C'a~.~cus activities, T40r~Sln} for nan~i~j~~"n^ f'01" ~1~b11C Of'f'1CE'. :-~pCl.etu ref ;'~;O'.7lP,n ineer y4~`~u~Y'... ._~ ~_ .,. .,::.aw,gv,rr,_~__.._. .. ._..~.....,... .-f.--- _. ~_ .,.-~...._.._._----.____...~:.._.._~._..____.._..w.,,~.._._.....__._~..,.~.....~.va.~':.,.,.,.:....,.w:ai:,b....wwc~.a.;iaa..._......YU.~- OCCUPATION: Employing .firm, agency Addre s s student Position gears w/fire;%agenc; Other work experience (optional) Per_t~.7_ ss s tart. ~^T~.ltre~s REFERENCES (Optional) A. r~'rs. John ~ rudder fami7_v friend Full name Relationship h7~F Park Av_ 8~6-8862 Mailing address Phone number B. T-ir. Far'Le i'~nderson f'ami1V friend Full name Relationship 75~~5 Aldrich Av, s~ 866-5790 Mailing address Phone number C. nr. James grimmer farmer teacher Full name Relationship Richfie~l.d '_ninh School. 86'L-82115 Mailing address Phone number Return to: City Manager's Office 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield 55423 Att: Eileen Anderson CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~~~ Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 156 Agenda May 11, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Determination of Findings of Fact; Adoption of Assessment Roll for CP705 On September 22, 1980,-the city council held"a public hearing to consider the special assessment for City Project 705. At that time, owners of the following properties filed objections to their special assessments. G & E Strom 1. Hub Stationary & Drapery Shop 2. Wendy's 3. Suzukki Motorcycle Shop John Anzevino, Jr., Godfather Restaurant F.N. & J.C. Steinmetz, Post Office R.C. Nelson - Double Bungalow United National 1. Hub Parking (North Lot) 2. Hub Shopping Center Wayne D. Johnson 1. Apartment Building 2. Apartment Building Rose Zeller - Apartment Building Robert Blumberg - Apartment Building Henrik Miller - Apartment Building 6532-34-38 Lyndale 6500 Lyndale 6520 Lyndale 708 W. 66th, Street 825 W. 65th Street 6400-02 Nicollet W. 65th Street 66th & Nicollet 212 W. 65th Street 200 West 65th Street 400 West 65th Street 300 West 65th Street 312 West 65th Street Harriet Adams (Estate of C.B. Adams) 1. Vacant land, Backs to lake Behind 6340 Aldrich Avenue 2. 2 Residences on 1 lot 6329 & 6335 Aldrich 3. Vacant land Approx. 6340 Aldrich Avenue Council Letter No. 156 -2- May 11, 1981 Excelsior Cen ter, Inc. 1. Retail Stores, etc. 6501 -03-07-11 Nicollet 2. Pier 1 Imports - Richfield Center 6515 Nicollet Avenue 3. Vacant land 6515 Nicollet 4. Shops & Offices 6521 thru 6529 Nicollet 5. Addition to Warners Hardware 6533 Nicollet On September 22, the council adopted the assessment roll for CP705, except for the properties listed above. On February 17, 1981, the special assessment hearing was continued for the purpose of hearing testimony regarding the assessments, to which objections were filed. The by assessments on these properties can be spread by adopting the CP705 assessment packet. V V .For those properties on which objections were filed and testimony taken at the hearing continuance, the council must consider the record and make a final determination on the amount of she special assessment on each of the properties, if any. Accon~anyina ,this council letter is the findings of fact assembled by the city's legal staff with regard to each of these properties, and letters from the affected property owners. the levels summarized below. The specific reasons for the various recommendations are contained in the CP705 special assessment packet which is being transmitted to council. Initial Proposed Name Address Assessment Assessment Harriet Adams 6329-6335 and approx. To be establishes 6340 Aldrich Avenue 26,736.44 June 8, 1981 ' °~ A. Zeller Property 400 West 65th Street 8,263.87 6,00,0 .00 ~~ ~i ~ H. Miller Property 312 West 65th Street 7,922.30 4,000 00 ~' .. .:..., _.. r .. _ , ~~~ ... ~y. .w~ .~.~:eY~a ~. Np MANY a.t~AW+If!#~4~1~~NY'AR~~W_ __. - .. i .. tii+.. _.n. '+ww ... ~ ~.~.a.~ ..c w-~~M1M~1/YN: ., -. 1trAlt .._ _... ~~~'~+. 'N'~~'M~Ma ~~ .. ,. ~ ~~ ~ ~.~. ~.~. •.MIMTVSFfTra•4++~I1fs.4YAWV1Gtn~v~r~~yy~.~~+~~1 _ , 4:.... ,.y ..~.. +wll~f.'PW=pJ n~ sK'W~i~(Mr"tlMSfin'K':wve.'\Y.~ YF~---'.-rvs_ s. Y~b~M~}A~1~ .. F-. ~t~{}~.rp~*N..-0+lss~.V rV'rMN.yY~„.ice .. .. '1/T\~.'M'F.r~t_..~1s:-T4T'~.r~ T ,~,yM.v~.~e`!M . .. ,. ~~'"..~T..~ --S.I'. _.. r...,arq~ACv~raw.++w.e~... .,Nyyt~ ~Ifn111~Atc~.tab1K•'+rXaW~'~"- -~lsp,..•'J•-~. «.MM4>r c~y~y~ ~M,IMr..1W~M+~NYNIIKi~M!N..I~~`, ~ !fie 77~s77w~1 ~,wrrrwWS~n'+nw~h'-.wm•!'sll. ~ r. ,..- .~ .... .-..._-.....~~""~y-!a .. __.. •a?e!Mrf+'e~ .,y+,q'~ ., ~' Council Letter No. 156 -3- Name Address United National Property West 65th Street 66th & Nicollet W.D. Johnson Property May 11, 1981 Initial Proposed Assessment Assessment 283,784.28 275,000.00'+ 212 West 65th St. 13,515.51 200 West 65th St. n fin, 13,57.51 ~ v° R. Blumberg Property 300 West 65th St. 7,922.30 4,00 F.N. Steinmetz Property 825 West 65th St. 14,761.67 10,000.00 In summation, the staff recommends that the council adopt the assessment roll for the aforementioned properties by adopting the appropriate resolutions in the packet after reviewing the letters and findings of fact. It is further recommended that the council schedule a continuance of the public hearing for June 8, 1981, to hear testimony on the Strom property and Adams property. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~Q ~~~~ V Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: City Attorney Community Development Director Administrative Services Director City Engineer Finance Coordinator l` 1 1 65TH STREET APARTMENTS: OWNER Wayne Johnson Zimmerman Realty Hendrick Miller Ambrose Zeller PROPERTY 200 West 65th Street 212 West 65th Street 300 West 65th Street 312 West 65th Street 400 West 65th Street ~,: TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 65th Street Apartments - Findings of Fact-Conclusions ------- - -------- - - -~ of Law and Order, Resolutions and Memoranda - 2. W. D. Johnson Property 200-212 West 65th Street ._...-. -. ---_.-..._.__.._. _ -.-- g, R. Blumberg 300 West 65th Street 4. H. Miller 312 West 65th Street >. w , .xc S. A. Zeller 900 West 65th Street -.- _ 6. Brief on behalf of the 65th Street Apartments 8. United National, Inc. - Hub Property - - 9. F. N. & J. C. Steinmetz - Post Office 10. Letter from F. N. Steinmetz `~'- 11. G. E. Strom - Request to reopen hearing, Preliminary Appraisal of Maynard C. Rasmussen 12. Resolution adopting assessments for: -~' ~ Godfather Restaurant, 708 W. 66th Street _ R. C. Nelson, 6400-02 Nicollet Avenue Excelsior Center, Inc., 6501 thru 6533 Nicollet Avenue ~: .: {, ;. ~.~:~ - -. ~ '- - _ ._ p~...;^RM+n-~c--~.-•,Fa-r.F-a.--,4`!~-• --:..-n+T..ehq~+!'-:zmlkfw~acsuni.ie~,ty: BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF _ OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In the Matter of Special ) _ »~_~, . __. _ Assessments by the City of ) FINDINGS OF FACT, Richfield for Project CP-705; ) CONCLUSIONS, AND Parcels 27-24-0005 and ) ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT 27-24-0004 ) The above-entitled matter came on for hearing pursuant to due and regular notice before the City Council on September 22, _.__.-----._ __.__-----._-__.._......... .. _ .. 1981. "-'°° `°°""""-'` -" The hearin of Se tember 22, 1980, was ad'ourned, g p ~ pursuant - ~ __ to Minn. Stat. §429.061, Subd. 2 until October 6, 1980, February 2, 1981, February 3, 1981, and was completed as to the subject parcel on February 17, 1981. The landowner was present at the hearings and had the right and opportunity to be represented by counsel, to cross-examine city witnesses, to present oral or written evidence, and to raise all relevant issues or defenses. The city staff testified as did consultant expert witnesses on - the ways in which the property being assessed is benefited by the improvements for which assessments are proposed and on the value of said property, both before and after said improvement. All ~- testimony on behalf of the City was under oath or affirmation and subject to cross-examination. The proceedings were transcribed ._, _,_ _....._ . - by a court reporter and heard by the City Council. The land- _ ~ owners were informed that the record of the proceeding was to remain open for 30 days from the close of the hearing as to each parcel for the receipt of additional written evidence; that the Council would receive for consideration petitions to reopen proceedings or to extend time limitations filed within 45 days of the close of said hearing; and that the Council would receive and consider briefs and proposed Findings, Conclusions and Orders - filed within 60 days of the close of said hearing. The city staff was represented by John E. Drawz, Esq., Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Council was advised by Clayton L. LeFevere, Esq., the City Attorney and John B. Dean, the Assistant City Attorney, ..rv. is ~yYaa.Gt..~. «,a~ ..e~ _ ..:.- .. _ z /.. . The owner of the subject parcel, Wayne D. Johnson, was repre- sented by Ralph A. Gale, Jr., Esq. Having heard the evidence and the arguments of counsel for both parties, and reviewed all proceedings, pleadings, and documents of record herein, and being """""'-" ~~-~'~""~'~ .~, fully advised in the premises, the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota, makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions„ and Order for Assessment, all on the basis of the record herein: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The assessment which is the subject of these pro- ceedings is for the financing of a portion of the costs of City ____,r_.-V,_ _.__ ~_ ._ v. _---_ _~..,.,:,_.._...._. -~ ~:_..~.. _.__ _. _ ..._ _._ project (CP) 705. This Project includes a number of public -. _ - - - improvements, undertaken, or to be undertaken, by the City in conjunction with the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment __ _ _. Project in the City. The assessment area boundary is the same as the project boundary the LHN Redevelopment Project. The primary - - purpose of CP-705 is to improve the retail climate in the LHN --- - -- Project Area. This is to be accomplished by increasing the capacity of area streets and intersections; widening and realigning streets; improving pedestrian access to the commercial area; and other improvements designed to provide a retail image, • a "theme shopping center" concept, to the area such as land- - scaping, improved sidewalk areas, crossings, bus shelters, and _ ,, pedestrian plazas. 2. The estimated cost of the improvements being financed is $9,280,818.00 of which $1,900,142.32 is proposed to be assessed against benefited properties. 3. The formula for determining special assessments for this project is a square footage formula in which each property in the assessment area was assessed at the rate of $0.52 per - ~ ~ SgU3re fOOt. 4. Two of the parcels subject to special assessment were Parcel 27-24-0005 and Parcel 27-24-0004, the addresses of which - - - -~~ are, respectively, 212 W. 65th Street, and 2000 W. 65th Street (the "subject parcels"), '.which are owned by W.D. Johnson. 2 ~~ ..' _~, _. - .. . _ _.. , . _ .. _, _ .. _ _ .. . _ ... _ _. ~:.~.~. ~~ -~,>~T< _:.....:.,:,~e..=-ate ..~ _-"-.-_.~+.~++~s~:r_4w.~.~t,.aG~.w~n:. i "'' 5. Applying the above-described formula to the subject parcels, the resulting proposed special assessments were deter- mined by the City Engineer to be, respectively, 56,245.85, and $7,269.66. 6. The assessment hearing was commenced pursuant to due and regular notice on September 22, 1980. All proposed assess- ments to which no objections were made were adopted by the • ~. Council on September 22, 1980, by Resolution Number 6315. The hearings were continued pursuant to Minn. Stat. §429.061, Subd. 2, from time to time, as necessary, to complete hearings on all parcels as to which objections were raised at the hearing of September 22, 1980. - 7. Mr. Johnson appeared and, through counsel, cross- examined the City's witnesses. Mr. Johnson offered no expert testimony as to the value of his properties before and after the assessment improvements. 8. The subject properties are located east of the Chicago Great-Western railway track on the north side of 65th Street. Rising from the land are 2'~ story apartment buildings containing 12 dwelling units each. Improvements benefiting Parcel 27-24-0005 include those adjacent, those across Pillsbury Avenue, and those along 65th Street. Adjacent improvements include: a new 18 foot wide, 90 foot long driveway constructed in the right-of-way of Pillsbury Ave.; decorative street lighting; a new 8 foot wide sidewalk at the corner of Pillsbury and 65th Street. Improvements across Pillsbury Avenue include a .59 acre park with landscaping and sidewalks. Improvements along 65th Street include: new decora- tive lighting; landscaping; intersection improvements at 65th and Lyndale and at 65th and Nicollet; and a new storm sewer. The following improvements made to benefit Parcel 27-24-0004 include improvements adjacent to the Parcel, and improvements on 65th Street. Adjacent improvements include: decorative street lighting; pedestrian crossing and special pedestrian plaza area. Improvements on 65th Street include: a .59 acre park created as part of this project (within one block of the Parcel); land- scaping and an improved sidewalk on the north side of 65th 3 ;,~_ - l:~ Street; pedestrian crossing east and west of the property; a new storm sewer. 9. The value of the subject properties before the improve- ments were, combined, $126,000. 10. The value of the subject properties after the improve- ments were, combined, $142,000. , 11. The special benefit to the subject properties is $16,000.00. CONCLUSIONS 1. The proceedings involved in this special assessment have been, in all respects, lawful and proper. 2. The improvements financed by special assessment are proper improvements to be so financed as provided by Minn. Stat. Ch. 429. 3. The formula proposed for determining assessments is fair, reasonable, and lawful. 4. The special benefit on the subject parcels for the construction of the above-described improvements exceeds the proposed assessment therefor in the amount of $2,484.49. The assessment is lawful to the extent of the proposed assessment, already put forward in these findings as, respectively, $6,245.85, and $7,269.66. 5. The special assessment hereinafter ordered is not arbi- trary, capricious, or unreasonable and does not constitute a taking of property without due process of law. ORDER A special assessment for Richfield Project CP-705 is hereby levied against Parcels 27-24-0005, and 27-24-0004 in the amounts of, respectively, $6,245.85, and $7,269.66, all in accordance with the attached Resolution which is hereby adopted and made a part of this Order. 4 k :X _~ ~' _-'~; Adopted by the Richfield City Council this day of 1981, the following members voting in favor thereof: and the following against: ,. _ - ,~ ~` r' ~- RESOLUTION N0. 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/A' 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 No. 705 and after carefully considering all the facts, the benefits to each lot, piece or parcel of land and 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 clerk and filed in the office of the city clerk, and shall thereupon be and constitute a special assessment for said City Project No. 705, L/H/N Public Improvement Project. 7. The assessment with accruing interest, shall be a lien upon the property included therein, concurrent with general taxes 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. .: ,;~ C~ ~`.- 5 .;:;sments and interest then- ~n shall be collected and ~~.a:_~< c, .:: ~ ~ the same manner as other .~.nicipal taxes . ~ ~.:~ =: :c by the City Council of the ~.;ity of Richfield this :. ~ ~.~ 19 81. Don.. '..d J . Priebe , Mayor S:~r z ~ 3 ~. ~ .~ Bergh , Deputy C::~ ty C- lark .~ . ~.:; rec. _ ml, _, ~ C P 705 ASSESSMENT ROLL PARCEL 27028-24-24-0004 _.~_ 27028-24-24-6005 gal PARCEL AREA AMOUNT 14,481.40 S.F. $ 7,269.66 t 12,441.93 S.F. 6,245.85 Carl/Delores Elwood Trust 14323 Sladen Court Poway, California .92064 Wayne D. Johnson ~..>~ ;- 'f i'f ?: >': BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In the Matter of Special ) _~~.._^____.... _ --~- ----=• Assessments by the City of ) FINDINGS OF FACT, ~~ Richfield for Project CP-705; ) CONCLUSIONS, AND Parcel 27-23-0007 ) ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT The above-entitled matter came on for hearing pursuant to due and regular notice before the City Council on September 22, 1981. The hearing of September 22, 1980, was adjourned, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §429.061, Subd. 2 (1980) until October 6, 1980, '~ February 2, 1981, February 3, 1981, and was completed as to the - ~ ~ `' - subject parcel on February 17, 1981. The landowner was present at the hearings and had the right and opportunity to be repre- - - - -~ sented by counsel, to cross-examine city witnesses, to present oral or written evidence, and to raise all relevant issues or ' defenses. The city staff testified as did consultant expert "-" witnesses on the ways in which the property being assessed is benefited by the improvements for which assessments are proposed and on the value of said property, both before and after said _ improvement. All testimony on behalf of the City was under oath `, or affirmation and subject to cross-examination. The proceedings _ were transcribed by a court reporter and heard by the City -..-. _ Council. The landowners were informed that the record of the proceeding was to remain open for 30 days from the close of the .. hearing as to each parcel for the receipt of additional written evidence; that the Council would receive for consideration petitions to reopen proceedings or to extend time limitations filed within 45 days of the close of said hearing; and that the Council would receive and consider briefs and proposed Findings, Conclusions and Orders filed within 60 days of the close of said hearing. The city staff was represented by John E. Drawz, Esq., Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Council was advised by Clayton L. _ °•=• _ ~-. - - LeFevere, Esq., the City Attorney and John B. Dean, the Assistant City Attorney. The owner of the subject parcel, Robert Blamberg, ~k~~~~S 3 ~~ _~_;"..~ - ~ .~_~. 3; i .w - was represented by Ralph A. Gale, Jr., Esq. Having heard the evidence and the arguments of counsel for both parties, and ' reviewed all proceedings, pleadings, and documents of record herein, and being fully advised in the premises, the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota, makes the following Findings of Fact, ___ -,_~ _ _.__... Conclus}ons, and order for Assessment, all on the basis of the record herein: A FINDINGS OF FACT _ _,-_ _ ___.,_" 1. The assessment which is the subject of these pro- - ."___.-___. ceedings is for the financing of a portion of the costs of City - Project (CP) 705. This Project includes a number of public improvements, undertaken, or to be undertaken, by the City in _ __ conjunction with the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment " Project. in the City. The assessment area boundary is the same as the project boundary the LHN Redevelopment Project.," The primary purpose of CP-705 is to improve the retail climate in the LHN - Project Area. This is to be accomplished by increasing the capacity of area streets and intersections; widening and realigning streets; improving pedestrian access to the commercial area; and other improvements designed to provide a retail image, a "theme shopping center" concept, to the area such as land- -- scaping, improved sidewalk areas, crossings, bus shelters, and - _~"- ~ pedestrian plazas. 2. The estimated cost of the improvements being financed is $9,280,818.00 of which $1,900,142.32 is proposed to be assessed against benefited properties. 3. The formula for determining special assessments for this project is a square footage formula in which each property in the assessment area was assessed at the rate of $0.52 per square foot. 4. The parcel subject to special assessment was Parcel __ 27-23-0007, the address of which is 300 W. 65th Street, (the _.- - .. - -" "subject parcel"), which is owned by R. Blamberg. S. Applying the above-described formula to the subject ~~ ' 2 ;;~_ parcel, the resulting proposed special assessment was determined by the City Engineer to be $7,922.30. 6. The assessment hearing was commenced pursuant to due and regular notice on September 22, 1980. All proposed assess- ments to which no objections were made were adopted by the Council on September 22, 1980, by Resolution Number 6315. ~ The hearings were continued pursuant to Minn. Stat. §429.061, Subd. 2, from time to time, as necessary, to complete hearings on all parcels as to which objections were raised at the hearing of September 22, 1980. _ _„_._ 7. Mr. Blamberg appeared and, through counsel, cross- _ _______ ~_µ;_-_ ~+.__,__ __. ._.._ _ ,__ examined the City's witnesses. Mr. Blamberg offered no expert - ~- testimony as to the value of his properties before and after the _. assessment improvements. Mr. Blamberg testified that the improve- ments were of no value to his property. ...-_ ..- x ~ -' 8. The subject parcel is a 12 unit 22 story apartment building located west of the railway tracks and at the northwest intersection of W. Pleasant Avenue with 65th Street. The improve- - ments which benefit this property include those adjacent to the property, and those along 65th Street. Adjacent improvements - ~ include: an 8 foot side sidewalk in front of the property; a 42 inch storm sewer and new catch basins; and a new concrete curb cut, curb return and driveway apron. Improvements along 65th _ ... ;. _. Street include: new decorative lighting; landscaping; inter- = section improvements at 65th and Lyndale and at 65th and Nicollet; and a new storm sewer. - - 9. The value of the subject property before the improve- ments was $39,000. ... _ ... 10. The value of the subject property after the improve- . ments was $43,000. 11. The special benefit to the subject property is $4,000.00. ,._, _ __ _ CONCLUSIONS 1. Trr~ ..~zedings involved in this special assessn~nt have been, in all respects, lawful and proper. - 3 __ ~ ::--. ~. ,: -. _ ~:~.> 2. The improvements financed by special assessment are proper improvements to be so financed as provided by Minn. Stat. Ch. 429. 3. The formula proposed for determining assessments is fair, reasonable, and lawful. 4.) The proposed assessment on the subject parcel for the construction of the above-described improvements exceeds the special benefit therefor in the amount of $3,922.30. The assess- ment is lawful only to the extent of $4,000.00. 5. The special assessment hereinafter ordered is not arbi- trary, capricious, or unreasonable and does not constitute a taking of property without due process of law. ORDER A special assessment for Richfield Project CP-705 is hereby levied against Parcel 27-23-0007 in the amount of $4,000.00, all in accordance with the attached Resolution which is hereby adopted and made apart of this Order. Adopted by the Richfield City Council this day of 1981, the following members voting in favor thereof: and the following against: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 4 ~:~% =~~ << RESOLUTION N0. 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 No. 705 and after carefully considering-all the facts, the benefits to each lot, piece or parcel of land and 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 assess--~ent 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 clerk and filed in the office of the city clerk, and shall thereupon be and constitute a special assessment for said City Project No. 705, L/H/N Public Improvement Project. 7. The assessment with accruing interest, shall be a lien upon the property included therein, concurrent with general taxes 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. s~ ~ ~_.. .a ~x~T _~ _.: .,..rte <_..,:„ __..a.-.. .~,. __ .... ... .__ _''__-,. ..~. ._..:....:~...___..;__.....~....~~+-~+:~=:.Yw~n:sa::.-...~.. .~.,.,.~xtsrn .. S' All assessments and interest thereon shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other muni-cipal taxes. Passed by the City Council of the City of_ Richfield this day of 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor - " ATTEST: ' Sylvia K. Bergh, Deputy City Clerk r• ...._ ._. ... .-~~1 •~;;r C P 705 ASSESSMENT ROLL PARCEL 27028-24-23-0007 Henry B. Blumberg 1954 University Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 :. =_a , PARCEL AREA 15,781.47 S.F. AMOUNT $ 4,000.00 ~: `, ~; ;a: ;r:_ ~~ ~. _. _ `~ BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In the Matter of Special ) Assessments by the City of ) FINDINGS OF FACT, Richfield for Project CP-705; ) CONCLUSIONS, AND Parcel 27-23-0008 ) ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT The above-entitled matter came on for hearing pursuant to due and regular notice before the City Council on September 22, 1981. The hearing of September 22, 1980, was adjourned, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §429.061, Subd. 2 (1980) until October 6, 1980, February 2, 1981, February 3, 1981, and was completed as to the subject parcel on February 17, 1981. The landowner was present at the hearings and had the right and opportunity to be repre- sented by counsel, to cross-examine city witnesses, to present oral or written evidence, and to raise all relevant issues or defenses. The city staff testified as did consultant expert witnesses on the ways in which the property being assessed is benefited by the improvements for which assessments are proposed and on the value of said property, both before and after said improvement. All testimony on behalf of the City was under oath or affirmation and subject to cross-examination. The proceedings were transcribed by a court reporter and heard by the City Council. The landowners were informed that the record of the proceeding was to remain open for 30 days from the close of the hearing as to each parcel for the receipt of additional written evidence; that the Council would receive for consideration petitions to reopen proceedings or to extend time limitations filed within 45 days of the close of said hearing; and that the Council would receive and consider briefs and proposed Findings, Conclusions and Orders filed within 60 days of the close of said hearing. The city staff was represented by John E. Drawz, Esq., Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Council was advised by Clayton L. LeFevere, Esq., the City Attorney and John B. Dean, the Assistant City Attorney, Tlie owner of the subject parcel, H. Miller, was ... . ....~.~.t----~---. Wit: represented by Ralph A. Gale, Jr., Esq. Having heard the evi- dence and the arguments of counsel for both parties, and reviewed all proceedings, pleadings, and documents of record herein, and being fully advised in the premises, the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota, makes -the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Order for Assessment, all on the basis of, the record herein: FINDINGS OF FACT ri , 1. The assessment which is the subject of these pro- ceedings is for the financing of a portion of the costs of City ~~ ~' Project (CP) 705. This Project includes a number of public ~" '-" '" - improvements, undertaken, or to be undertaken, by the City in conjunction with the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment - - ~ - - Project in the City. The assessment area boundary is the same as the project boundary the LHN Redevelopment Project. The primary - ~ purpose of CP-705 is to improve the retail climate in the LHN Project Area. This is to be accomplished by increasing the capacity of area streets and intersections; widening and - realigning streets; improving pedestrian access to the commercial area; and other improvements designed to provide a retail image, a "theme shopping center" concept, to the area such as land- scaping, improved sidewalk areas, crossings, bus shelters, and pedestrian plazas. 2. The estimated cost of the improvements being financed .., __ is $9,280,818.00 of which $1,900,142.32 is proposed to be assessed against benefited properties. 3. The formula for determining special assessments for this project is a square footage formula in which each property in the assessment area was assessed at the rate of $0.52 per square foot. 4. One of the parcels subject to special assessment was Parcel 27-23-0008, the address of which is 312 W. 65th Street _r- - __ _'" (the "subject parcel"), which is owned by H. Miller. 5. Applying the above-described formula to the subject parcel, the resulting proposed special assessment was determined r ~-~•-- : -; -. ~ by the City Engineer to be 57,922.30. 6. The assessment hearing was commenced pursuant to due and regular notice on September 22, 1980. All proposed assess- ments to which no objection was made were adopted by the Council ~~-~ r._ _ on September 22, 1980, by Resolution Number 6315. The hearings were continued, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §429.061, Subd. 2, from time to time, as necessary, to complete hearings on all parcels ~' as to which objections were raised at the hearing of September 22, 1980. . . .-- .,.-- . - _ _ 7. Mr. Miller appeared and objected, through his attorney, - _.. _... . ~r-_. . _ , c-. to the assessment. Mr. Miller testified that his property had appreciated due to inflation, and that the benefits conferred - ~~"` - '~~ -" upon his property were not due to CP-705. Tenants of the subject '~ - - ~- parcel's apartments submitted letters which described their dissatisfaction with redevelopment in general and, in particular, -- with the construction of a K-Mart near their apartmeri~s. Neither Mr. Miller, his counsel, nor any other party associ- ~'~ ated with Mr. Miller, claimed any expertise in appraisal, or - - - - offered any opinion as to the value of the property either before ' or after the completion of CP-705. No expert testimony on value was offered by the landowner. 8. The subject property is a 12 unit 2%2 story apartment building located at the northeast corner of 65th St. and Grand "- -" Avenue. In 1978, Mr. Miller requested that the city extend the - LL. .... 42 inch storm sewer in front of his property. The purpose of the extension was to prevent flooding of this property; flooding had recently occurred. Construction plans were changed aFfQ"the storm sewer was extended at an additional cost of $8,000. Benefiting this property are public improvements both along 65th St. and adjacent to the property. Adjacent benefits include: a 42 inch storm sewer with three catch basins; a decor- ative street light; a new curb at the corner of 65th and Grand; an eight foot side walk for the entire width of the property; a new concrete curb cut, curb return and driveway apron. ~'- `.` _.- '-` '' Benefits along 65th St. include: a catch basin on the south side of 65th St. directly across the street; a pedestrian cross- - - ~~'~'~ 3 walk; landscaping; new decorative lighting; intersection improve- ments at 65th and Lyndale and at 65th and Nicollet; and a new storm sewer. 9. The value of the subject property before the improve- - -~. _. _ :~. ments was $39,000.00. 10. The value of the subject property after the improve- ` ments is $43,000.00. 11. The special benefit to the subject property is $4,000.00. CONCLUSIONS `~_ - __-~ ~~ 1. The proceedings involved in this special assessment have been, in all respects, lawful and proper. 2. The improvements financed by special assessment are - - -- proper improvements to be so financed as provided by Minn: Stat. Ch. 429. 3. The formula proposed for determining assessments is - _" fair, reasonable, and lawful. 4. The proposed assessment on the subject parcel for the construction of the above-described improvements exceeds the - special benefit therefor in the amount of $3,922.30. The assess- " ~ ment is lawful only to the extent of $4,000.00. 5. The special assessment hereinafter ordered is not arbi- _.a......_v. ~ r ~ °.. _ :; --v-:,_, <,~- - trary, capricious, or unreasonable and does not constitute a taking of property without due process of law. L.- _. 6. The objections raised by Mr. Miller by his counsel, or by tenants of the subject parcel's apartment, are not relevant to - our determination of special benefit. Though his property may have appreciated due to inflation, that factor was taken into account in the appraisal before adding the benefit due to CP-705. Opposition to redevelopment in generaal and, in particular, to - the nearby K-Mart, does not affect the extent of special benefits conferred by Project CP-705 on the property as a whole, and is _. __ _ _. not relevant to the determination of those benefits. -",~ _ - ~"-- ~ _" ORDER A special assessment for Richfield Project CP-705 is hereby levied against Parcel 27-23-0008 in the amount of $4,000.00, all in accordance with the attached Resolution which is hereby adopt ; and made a part of this Order. Adopted by the Richfield City Council this day of 1981, the following members voting in favor thereof: and the following against: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 5 ~•, RESOLUTION N0. 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 No. 705 and after carefully considering all the facts, the benefits to each lot, piece or parcel of land and 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 clerk and filed in the office of•the city clerk, and shall thereupon be and constitute a special assessment for said City Project No. 705, L/H/N Public Improvement Project. 7. The assessment with accruing interest, shall be a lien upon the property included therein, concurrent with general tales 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. :'~': ;. ,. , i A11 assessments and interest thereon shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of , 1981. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Deputy City Clerk Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ,~ PARCEL 27028-24-23-0008 C P 705 ASSESSMENT ROLL PARCEL AREA 15,781.47 S.F. Hendrik A. Miller 10532 Zion Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55437 } AMOUNT $4,000 .sue .~. -.:,.~,--,,,.~.;v.•.a.- _ ... -.:: ~~~ ~> -. «~- ~ _'• ~ ~~„ - _.- _ -~`_ _ _ _. '-~ ~,~ - .. ;~ - - ~~.;c _ .._ - _ r . _. _---- -- - _ - ~~ -. : ~ ..- ~ 'y' A . _ . .z : •.:~_~ -~ - :. o ~. - . _ BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In the Matter of Special ) Assessments by the City of ) FINDINGS OF FACT, Richfield for Project CP-705; ) CONCLUSIONS, AND Parcel 27-23-0009 ) ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT The above-entitled matter came on for hearing pursuant to due and regular notice before the City Council on September 22, 1981. The hearing of September 22, 1980, was adjourned, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §429.061, Subd. 2 (1980) until October 6, 1980, February 2, 1981, February 3, 1981, and was completed as to the subject parcel on February 17, 1981. The landowner was present at the hearings and had the right and opportunity to be repre- sented by counsel,~to cross-examine city witnesses, to present oral or written evidence, and to raise all relevant issues or defenses. The city staff testified as did consultant expert witnesses on the ways in which the property being assessed is benefited by the improvements for which assessments are proposed and on the value of said property, both before and after said improvement. All testimony on behalf of the City was under oath or affirmation and subject to cross-examination. The proceedings were transcribed by a court reporter and heard by the City Council. The landowners were informed that the record of the proceeding was to remain open for 30 days from the close of the hearing as to each parcel for the receipt of additional written evidence; that the Council would receive for consideration petitions to reopen proceedings or to extend time limitations filed within 45 days of the close of said hearing; and that the Council would receive and consider briefs and proposed Findings, Conclusions and Orders filed within 60 days of the close of said hearing. The city staff was represented by John E. Drawz, Esq., Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Council was advised by Clayton L. LeFevere, Esq., the City Attorney and John B. Dean, the Assistant City Attorney. The owner of the subject parcel, Ambrose Zeller, was represented by Ralph A. Gale, Jr., Esq. Having heard the f, ~~. ~- ~\. 5 evidence and the arguments of counsel for both parties, and reviewed all proceedings, pleadings, and documents of record herein, and being fully advised in the premises, the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota, makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and order for Assessment, all on the basis of the record t,erein: FINDINGS OF FACT ~._ - 1. The assessment which is the subject of these pro- ceedings is for the financing of a portion of the costs of City Project (CP) 705. This Project includes a number of public improvements, undertaken, or to be undertaken, by the City in conjunction with the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Project in the City. The assessment area boundary is the same as the project boundary the LHN Redevelopment Project. -The primary purpose of CP-705 is to improve the retail climate in the LHN Project Area. This is to be accomplished by increasing the capacity of area streets and 'intersections; widening and realigning streets; improving pedestrian access to the commercial area; and other improvements designed to provide a ratan ..=:..>y_, a "theme shopping center" concept, to the area such as land- scaping, improved sidewalk areas, crossings, bus shelters, and pedestrian plazas. 2. The estimated cost of the improvements being financed is $9,280,818.00 of which $1,900,142.32 is proposed to be assessed against benefited properties. 3. The formula for determining special assessments for this project is a square footage formula in which each property in the assessment area was assessed at the rate of $0.52 per square foot. 4. The parcel subject to special assessment was Parcel 27-23-0009, the address of which is 400 W. 65th Street (the "subject parcel"), which is owned by A. Zeller. 5. Applying the above-described formula to the subject parcel, the resulting proposed special assessment was determined by the City Engineer to be $8,263.87. 2 r '~G :~`' , . .~, 6. The assessment hearing was commenced pursuant to due and regular notice on September 22, 1980. All proposed assess- ments to which no objections were made were adopted by the Council on September 22, 1980, by Resolution Number 6315. The hearings were continued pursuant to Minn. Stat. §429.061, Subd. 2, from time to time, as necessary, to complete hearings on, all parcels as to which objections were raised at the hearing of September 22, 1980. 7. Mrs. Zeller appeared and, through counsel, cross- examined the City's witnesses. Mrs. Zeller testified that because of increased development, her property suffered increased parking, litter, noise, and the like, and stated her belief that there was no increase in value due to redevelopment, and that any increase was due only to inflation. Mrs. Zeller offered no expert testimony as to the value of her property before and after the assessment improvements. Tenants of the apartments on the subject property submitted letters which described their dissatisfaction with redevelopment generally and with the new K-Mart in particular. None claimed any expertise in appraising real estate values or offered any opinion as to the value of the property before or after the completion of CP-705. 8. The subject parcel includes a 12 unit 2%, story apart- ment building located north of 65th Street and west of Grand Avenue. The property is adjacent to commercial property. Mrs. Zeller was paid $4,000.00 by the city to purchase a storm sewer easement across the front of her property. Public improvements which benefit the Zeller property include those adjacent to the property, and those along 65th Street. Adjacent improvements include: a new 42 inch storm sewer which was built to solve an existing problem and drains the area on 65th and Grand; a new concrete curb cut, curb return and driveway apron; eight 8 foot high Japanese tree lilacs; a new eight foot wide concrete side- walk; and a new sidewalk to match the existing entry sidewalk. Improvements along 65th Street include: new decorative lighting; landscaping; intersection improvements at 65th and Lyndale and at 65th and Nicollet; and a new storm sewer. 3 9. The value of the subject property before the improve- _ ments was $56,000.00. " 10. The value of the subject property after the improve- ..,._ - - ments was $62,000.00. 11. The special benefit to the subject property is ,,tea,,..-_:_._. -.. _....~...._.------- ~- _ ..-. $6, 000 X00. • ~. CONCLUSIONS --~~---------:--.------------ - --- - 1. The proceedings involved in this special assessment '-Y-" -:' ~. ~. have been, in all respects, lawful and proper. --- - _ _ -~_"_-.'.._ _,- ; 2. The improvements financed by special assessment are proper improvements to be so financed as provided by Minn. Stat. ^ Ch. 429. - ~ -= 3. The formula proposed for determining assessments is fair, reasonable, and lawful. -~y-::;.,.,-<;:,~._:-~- 4. The proposed assessment on the subject parcel for the construction of the above-described improvements exceeds the special benefit therefor in the amount of $2,263.87. The assess- - ment is lawful only to the extent of $6,000.00. _ 5. The special assessment hereinafter ordered is not arbi- - - trary, capricious, or unreasonable and does not constitute a _ ____ . taking of property without due process of law. _ _ :;• _ , - - ._ ._. 6. The objections raised by Mrs. Zeller, by her counsel, ~ and by tenants of the subject parcel's apartment, were duly noted by the Council, and appraisal values have been found to include many of the factors raised by those objections. Though Mrs. Zeller's property may have appreciated due to inflation, that factor was taken into account in the appraisal before adding the benefit due to CP-705. Opposition to redevelopment in general and, in particular, to the nearby K-Mart, does not affect the extent of special benefits conferred by Project CP-705 on the property as a whole, and is not relevant to the determination of __ __._~~_.__ _.J_, those benefits. ~~~~ ?~a~s*-a..r ~ „Sw~ _ - - _ 4 C ._ ' ~\ y~~Fg..a.+r, ~y~ ., r ~ r ... ~SYt ~' w?' ~'~!Y4~?R.=_ _ `~:~?'sw~!'~L+!e.!o : -. '-w".~- `eaea4'e'4M'~,~,'. ORDER A special : .sessment for Richfield Project CP-705 is hereby •.';f;d againsi -rce1 27-23-0009 in the amount of $6,000.00, all ~: <ccordance ith the attached Resolution which is hereby ,:~+d and ma apart of this Order. , Adopted ~ the Richfield City Council t:iis day of 19t. the following members voting in favor thereof: ~' follo~: against: Mayor t:ity C'J erk 5 C_~.~ ..~ 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 ?05, 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 counc.il__coul~ 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 No. 705 and after carefully considering all the facts, the benefits to each lot, piece or parcel of land ,and 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 clerk, and shall thereupon be and constitute a special assessment for said City Project No. 705, L/H/N Public Improvement Project. 7. The assessment with accruing interest, shall be a lien upon the property included therein, concurrent with general taxes and shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 20 years. The first installment shall be payable on the first P~Ionday in January of 1982. All assessments shall bear interest at the rate of nine (9) percent per annum. '•:~; ,r. .~. ~- A11 assessments and interest thereon shall be collected and paid over in tre same manner as other municipal taxes. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of 1981. " ATTEST : 1 3~. .. P.i P_ W' ~3CIt' Sylvia K. Bergh, Deputy qty Clerk jai, r-~ 1?'q b.Li .~y~ _ ~~~L~i~_~^~ ~~ :: Donald J. Priebe, Mayor . ,. ~; PARCEL ' 27028-24-23-0009 Ambrose Zeller 6812 Antrim Road Minneapolis, MN 55435 ,- ~~;; ~'`~_ C P 705 ASSESSMENT ROLL PARCEL AREA 16,461.9 S.F. AMOUNT $6,000.00 `,,,, CITY OF RICHFIELD and Wayne JoYu~son, Zimaarma^ Realty, Hendrick Miller, and Ambrose Zeller ,_.,,~ -~ C.1 ~~ ~°~ G ~ ..dam ~~. BRIEF y ~~~ ~~ .~-' ~ ~~~ In accordsnce with the proposed order of proceeding as stated by Mr. John Dasn, the undersigned is submitting a brief on behalf of the following landowners: OW?~R PROPERTY Wayne .Johnson 200 West 65th Street 212 Wast 65th Street Ziuunermsn Realty 300 West b5th Street Hendrick Miller 312 West 65th Street Ambrose Zeller Q00 West 65th Street (All of the above properties are on the north silo of 65th Street) All o£ the above listed landowners have filed objections to the proposed assessments against their respective properties, The basis of their objection and the ultimate question to bo determined by 'the Council is whether or not these properties have been Specially banefite3 by the various changes made in the area near their properties which must now bo psid for by the imposition of spacial assessments. First, I woudl direct the attention of the Council to goals and objectives of the Lyndale Hub ?licollet improvement program, (CP705). Those goals anti objectives were clearly based upon the desire of the City Council at the time L?i,Y was proposed to upgrade the commaroisl area encompassed in the LHN Redevelopment Project area, Mr. Richard C. Krier who appeared before the Council in his capacity as a city planner stated in his prepared statement that °The primary intent of CP']05 was to improve the retail climste in the LHIJ project area." (Page 2). In fact, his statement dealt with the chsngas in the area that would improve the business and comm3rcial aspect o£ the area with ittle or no eonaideration given to this impact on 'the resi3ential areas. What was done was dons for the benefit of the business and commr:rcial areas of LHN and not for the resi9en'tial. Further sapport ,:or this conclusion is fouu3 in th© publication by City o.f the boo;clet entitled Amondm-.^.nts to the Lyndale Hub Nicollet Commercial Improvam~nt i'rogram. I urge each of you to review that publication before baking your decision. ~ - /. !~h Secondly, I would call your attention to the appraisals submitted by Mr. Janski. Mr. Janski concluded from his appraisals that the land upon which the apartment buildings sit was improved and incraasad in value by various amounts, The validity of his conclusions comes in to question for two reasons. First, ha failed to provide the Council with the market value of the property in its present condition, namely, s lot with as 11 unit apartment buil3ing qn it. The Council in order to be folly advised should have been told rorhather or not the property as presently used was benefited and whether or not the entire property, that is, the land and the building had incraasad in value because of the changes made an3 the work done. Also, Mr. Janski's inability to provide ;ales of com- parable properties casts a cloud over his conclusions. His appraisal of the properties owned by ilayne Johnson reflected a higher increase in value because the apartment buildings at 200 West 65th Street and 212 '+lest 65th Street era loeatsd on land that is zoned commercial. Since those buildings are relatively maw, the value of the property is in the improvements on the land and the fact the land is zoned commercial logicially should have no bearing of the value of those two properties. Those properties in all probability will never be used for commercial purposes, The £oragoing would also apply to the Zeller property which is also on lan3 zoned commercial. Thera are a member of factors to be considered when determining whether or not a property has been specially benefited. Most important is whether or not the pro?arty in question received something it did not have before. The testimony by the landowners was that basically nothing maw *,ras added bu't rather the existing improvements, sidewalks, streets, street lights, etc.vnra all there and is good condition but nevartiielass wer:torn up and replaced. Another consideration i:t whether or not what was done has improved the area for toe landowners and for their tenants. The tsntimony of the landowners was u-ianimous, The area was not really improved to their benefit. The tenants stated in smiting that the changes , made have made the area less desirable from their point of view. If the properties to be assessed were in reality specially benefited, then it would be reasonabia to conclude that the landowners could raise their rents to cover the assessments and even higher because of the gra3ter d=_sirability of th~:ir buildings. - 2 - -,~_,. _ _~. .. ''.L.. - #'.. ~; 7 s . ~Ai~i171wlww.~fe~.iw~+i++~~ - .. _ i-., +.'L` :x. wMpC~'~u' ~."~-. a`.v YL°- _ __.- _ _ - - Rental information in the area does not support thst conclusion. The rants in the apartment buildings in the 6+00 b1o:k of Pleasant era all renting at rents equal or greater thsn the buildings on West 65th Street and nose o£ these building3 will be subject to arW assessments. The net rasalt is that the owners o£ the _.. buildings in the 6QCC block of Pleasant can i.a^.C933' their rents as will have .,-,....,,,~~_,>:.:....:,,_.~---_-,:;;,.:. ------.-. - ,-.- to be 3one ~y the owners on West 65th Street but -the rant increase will go in the owners pocket wherass the increase for the other owners will have to be used to cover their increased costs. An additional consideration facing these landowners is, assuming they could ~.,_________ __~_____--._ ....._ _- -._- .. justify an increase to cover their increased costs, how many of the tenants they .•.-„-._.-_: ,.-...~-.-_- --- have will be 3ispossessed becauae they do not Nava the financial ability to pay the _ _ --_. ..-_ -- increased rent. Tha great majority of the tenants in the buildings that would be ' affected are retired and on fixed incomes. Should they ba priced out of their : homes in Richfield and forced to seek the lower priced units in Minneapolis and St. __._.....~... .,, .._......:~----- . Paul? Would such a result be a desirable result from tho viewpoint of the Council The question of the increase in market value of these apartment buildings is also a factor in determining ap~cial benefit. The property owners claim that the construction of the K-Mart store across from their buildings has definitely not _.r - ~.-~._..:..-... increased the market value of their buildings. It is the property owners position that the K-Mart store could require a conclusion that the market value hss been decreased. - Tha letters From the tenants describing the adverse effect on the livability of the buildings would support that conclusion. A parson does not have to be an • expert to mske his or her own determination that the building of a large department store with a large parking and rasultsnt increase in traffic would adversely affect the market value o.f a piece of residentisl property. The ultimata question remains, should the properties on page 1 be assessed for the costs incurred by the City of Richfield in making changes in the LHN Re- development area under CP705? The landowners listed on page 1 stron;;ly believe that none of these special assessments should be placed on their properties. Thsir basis for that position is thst the project was conceived snd carried out for the - ----- - - - benefit of the business and commercial owners in the LI{N R~developm•=nt area. That what ever ben=fits beyond those that accrue to the business and com~cercial owners - - will accrue to the comvunity as a whole and not specially benefit these landowners, -3- ~~ _. -. . ~<.; These landowners also feel that none of the changes would hsve been msde if it had not been the objectives of the City Council to improve the srea for business an3 commercial purposes. Further that the special benefits alleged to have accrued to the properties listed on page 1 cannot snd are not supported by credible evidence. _..~,a;,___~..,_ ...„ ,____...,,_,,.. __.. _..., The sppraisals presented fail to disclose any increase in market value•to the properties as presently developed namely, land with 11 unit apartment buildings. The changes made in the area hava not improved these properties so that the owners can support a rent increase based upon the greater desirability of their ~~._.____ __..,..___~._....:_.... _.. ___, . building now that the changes in tl:e area hsve been made. Attached as Exhibit A - -.-- - -. ,- -:- are the rents chsrgad by nearby apartment owners who are not going to be assessed. _ -- - -- - -- --- -- -- Finally, it is important to remember who the burden of these increased costs - redly falls upon, namely, the tenants. Testimony by some o£ the tenants sffi*med that the increase in rent that would be required to cover these special assessments would price many of the tenants out of their apartments. The evidence before the Co~incil does not support the conclusion that the properties listed on psge 1 were specially benefited by the worn that was done. In fact, the evidence leads to logically and reasonably to the conclusion that these properties were not specially benefited from the work that was done, therefore, it would ba unfair and unjust to glace the burden of the special assessments for this work on these properties and property owners. - - - Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ ' ~ C~ , ~C~/ Ralph ~: Gale, Jr. Attorney for Wayne Johnso , Zimmerman Reslty, Hendrick Miller and Ambrose Zeller 9901 Lyndale Avenue South - '--. Bloomington, Minnesota 55420 888-4k74 Yyz _ ~ ~'_+ _j . ~Jl -4- .. ~~a ~._ -..- -~~ _..._. __.-.. _...._.. ,..~...~w...~:.a1-a'.,._...... ~.~.-osa. .ti...s..--.a-:sb-~..-5~'a~ .. _ ..,... .. ,,.-.„AS«yr...~,,.~ "'*. ,-. rte ~~ -a RENTAL C0~61PARISIONS Proposed Effective Date Building Address Present Rent Increase of Increase 200 West 65th Street $250.00 None planed at this time I 212 West 65th Street 250.00 None planned at this time 300 West 65th Street 225.00 (Garden Units) None planned at this time _ 235.00 (Upper Units 312 West 65th Street 235.00 (Average of $15.00 per unit July 1, 1981 (rent for all units) ~~• ._ ~,_wrTy_ __._ ' 400 West 65th Street 263.00 (Average of None planned at this time - ~ (rent for all units) The following buildings are not in the LHN Redevelopment Proaect Area (CP 705) 6401 Pleasant Ave. So. $270.00 Unknown 6413 Pleasant Ave. So. 250.00 $25.00 per unit June 1, 1981 .~ .._ _,~.~_ ~ _ ... _.. 6421 Pleasant Ave. So. 260.00 Unknown ~ - 6429 Pleasant Ave. So. 250.00 $20.00 per unit June 1, 1981 ,r,. __ - 6437 Pleasant Ave. So. 270.00 Increased from $257.00 April 1st ..~.. - ..:......,r.. ~. .:;::, .~ ;.:::., .. EXHIBIT A X- n• ~' ~' 'ja t_ ~_•.... __. _ ..r .. . _ __._ .. 8 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In the Matter of Special ) Assessments by the City of ) FINDINGS OF FACT, Richfield for Project CP-705; ) CONCLUSIONS, AND Parcels 27-24-0050 and ~ ) ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT 27-24-0051 ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The above-entitled matter came on for hearing pursuant to due and regular notice before the City Council on September 22, 1981. The hearing of September 22, 1980, was adjourned, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §429.061, Subd. 2 (1980) until. October 6, 1980, February 2, 1981, February 3, 1981, and was completed as to the subject parcel on February 17, 1981. The landowner had the right and opportunity to be and was represented by counsel. The land- owner further had the right to cross-examine city witnesses, to present oral or written evidence, and to raise all relevant issues or defenses. The city staff testified as did consultant expert witnesses on the ways in which the property being assessed is benefited by the improvements for which assessments are proposed and on the value of said property, both before and after said improvement. All testimony on behalf of the City was under oath or affirmation and subject to cross-examination. The proceedings were transcribed by a court reporter and heard by the City Council. The landowners were informed that the record of the proceeding was to remain open for 30 days from the close of the hearing as to each parcel for the receipt of additional written evidence; that the Council would receive for consider- ation petitions to reopen proceedings or to extend time limitations filed within 45 days of the close of said hearing; and that the Council would receive and consider briefs and proposed Findings, Conclusions and Orders filed within 60 days of the close of said hearing. The city staff was represented by John E. Drawz, Esq., Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Council was advised by Clayton L. LeFevere, Esq., the City Attorney and John 3 '`~ .. ~ - ' .1.. .~ _ ..._. ..~..._. .: ~~_ c ~ _ _ Wr U"~a~..~r~w~._- ~'...::i ~r~~r_' _F„e^ar~--^n-ate.!`-74 Xw-. ... .., B. Dean, the Assistant City Attorney. The owner of the subject parcels, United National, Inc., was represented by J.E. Brill, Esq. Having heard the evidence and the arguments of counsel for both parties, and reviewed all proceedings, pleadings, and docu- ments of record herein, and being fully advised in the premises, the C~.ty Council of Richfield, Minnesota, makes the following Findings of Fact, Co^clusions, and Order for Assessment, all on the basis of the record herein: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The assessment which is the subject of these pro- ceedings is for the financing of a portion of the costs of City Project (CP) 705. This Project includes a number of public improvements, undertaken, or to be undertaken, by the City in conjunction with the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Project in the City. The assessment area boundary is the same as the project boundary the LHN Redevelopment Project. The primary purpose of CP-705 is to improve the retail climate in the LHN Project Area. This is to be accomplished by increasing the capacity of area streets and intersections; widening and realigning streets; improving pedestrian access to the commercial area; and other improvements designed to provide a retail image, a "theme shopping center" concept, to the area such as land- scaping, improved sidewalk areas, crossings, bus shelters, and pedestrian plazas. 2. The estimated cost of the improvements being financed is $9,280,818.00 of which $1,900,142.32 is proposed to be assessed against benefited properties. 3. The formula for determining special assessments for this project is a square footage formula in which each property in the assessment area was assessed at the rate of $0.52 per square foot. 4. Two of the parcels subject to special assessment were Parcel 27-24-0050 and Parcel 27-24-0051, the addresses of which are, respectively, W. 65th Street, and 66th and Nicollet (the "subject parcels"), which are owned by United National, Inc. 2 :'' '~ -. ;~ i ~ ti 5. Applying the above-described formula to the subject parcels, the resulting proposed special assessments were deter- mined by the City Engineer to be, respectively, $32,590.95, and $251,199.33. """""~"`""'"`'"""""'-`-"''~ ~ 6. The assessment hearin was commenced g pursuant to due and regular notice on September 22, 1980. All proposed as$ess- <:_ ~ - ments to which no objections were made were adopted by the Council on September 22, 1980, by Resolution Number 6315. The hearings were continued pursuant to Minn. Stat. §429.061, Subd. 2, from time to time, as necessary, to complete hearings on all parcels as to which objections were raised at the hearing of September 22, 1980. =-~-- '-------~ ' - -- 7. United National, Inc. appeared through counsel and .; >- - --.- - - cross-examined the City's witnesses. United National, Inc. offered no expert testimony as to the value of the properties _ _ -._ before and after the assessment improvements. 8. From the plat filed with the City, Parcels 27-24-0050 and 27-24-0051 have been combined. The HUB redevelopment - -•---- ---- (Planned Unit Development) is a superblock commercial area of - - =ir-< approximately 12 acres. Area benefits from the redevelopment can - be divided into four categories. First, the redevelopment - - creates a new area image and more conducive shopping environment. Second, the redevelopment amplifies the benefits of location _ - -- - which the area already possesses. Third, the redevelopment _ - ., facilitates traffic and helps alleviate current congestion problems. Finally, the development enhances the area in other _ ~ general ways, including increasing the intensity of commercial use, eliminating blight and deterioration, and in indirect - - - benefits, including job creation. 9. Several major improvements were made to facilitate the - redevelopment of the HUB. These improvements and actions included: relocating West 65th Street; vacation and improvement of vacated West 65th Street; vacation of Pillsbury Avenue; creation of a new entrance and exclusive left hand turning lane; _ .' _ _.~r. -. -. - _'`_ "'°'"-'-"' '-~°'-", °---'-'- ---'' connecting this property with the area east of Nicol~~* -'- Avenue. Improvements along 65th Street - Nicollet Avenue and 66th Street •v~i+~~s:-~~~ 3 C as well as related actions which directly benefit the HUB are as follows: '- 5 _.. . a. Adjacent improvements on 65th Street 1) Addition with the vacation of 65th Street and Pillsbury Avenue of 5344.6 s.f. of property to the 1 HUB. These vacations were made possible only by •the r~3ocation of West 65th Street, construction of a new street and new intersection of West 65th Street and Nicollet Avenue. 2) Curb and gutter, pavement of new West 65th Street. 3) Asphalt overlay of the old West 65th Street, removing curb. In addition, all public storm sewers were left in place and repaired to allow the drainage of this private parking lot and public fire hydrants were relocated to accommodate the HUB's new parking lot design. 4) Mid-block pedestrian crossing to the HUB. 5) New storm sewer. 6) Decorative street lighting. 7) Two concrete curb cuts, curbs and aprons - also, a temporary curb return was installed ~at Pillsbury Avenue to accommodate the HUB redevelopment phasing schedule. 8) Removal of overhead powerlines and burying major electrical lines. 9) Parking lot curb around the new parking lot. 10) Landscaping, including thirteen 5" caliber Red Maple, thirteen Japanese tree lilacs and sodding. b. Adjacent to the HUB but north of 65th Street. The improvements completed in these areas are a direct benefit to the HUB. One of the development problems which was addressed in the Redevelopment Plan was the interface buffering between the commercial area and the residential area. For the HUB to add space tc the present facility, buffering the single family neighbor- hood had to occur. (This is a requirement of the city ordinance). Besides the relocated 65th Street, the 4 F ~: W~ ~~t' '~'_^+IIwr~TF'^.S~E:f.~7>.•os'!r!V -:". ... i/9C+7M4~Ra~" ~.... ~ali!~sfi s~s effective buffering was accomplished by buffer on the north side of 65th Street. This also allowed the HUB to increase its parking by 47 stalls and thus the total leaseable area which could be added to the existing HUB. Specific benefits include: 1) .59 acre landscaped area with 31 trees, 35 shrubs and small trees and sodding. 2) The midblock crosswalk treatment which goes directly to the HUB. 3) An 8 foot wide concrete sidewalk running the entire length of new 65th Street. 4) Landscaping, including five 5" cal. maples, four 8 foot Russian Olives, eight 8 foot Japanese tree lilacs, assorted shrubs and sod. 5) Extra wide snow storage curb. 6) Decorative street lighting - decorative bollards. 7) New 42" storm sewer built to solve an existing problem. 8) Both Blaisdell and Wentworth were cul-de-saced to reduce congestion. This cul-de-sacing involved new street lighting, moving fire hydrants, and storm water catch basins, new concrete curb and gutter, driveway curb returns and aprons. 9) To allow the relocation of 65th Street, 64% Street had to be removed and Nelson's restaurant had to be purchased by condemnation. 10) Also associated with the cost of construction were the delays in receiving dedication for right-of- way; these delays were incurred as a direct result of United National's actions. c. Adjacent to Nicollet Avenue 1) A pedestrian plaza was built from 66th Street to and adjacent to the east side of the HUB. This plaza area consists of special pavement (fish scale designed cobble stone), planters, benches, telephones, decorative trash containers, land- scaping walls, decorative street lights and land- s soaping which includes S" cal. Imperial Honey locusts, fifty assorted shrubs and ornamental _ trees. 2) The HUB parking lot was curbed to city standards - _ _~+---°--J along the east perimeter. 3) Two new 30 feet wide curb cuts, returns and drive- _ _ _ _ __ _: : -F -_.- :~'~' "'° ~~ ~ way aprons were installed and two o1Q drives •removefl. 4) A bus turnout lane with storage space was in- - stalled to increase the bus service to this area. -- -• S) A pedestrian crosswalk was installed to connect - the HUB midblock with the shopping center east of - _..-_._._. v _.~__.w _ ___ -_ Nicollet Avenue. -. ~ 6) Nicollet Avenue was widened and protected medians . t_ - ~.:. installed. ~~ ~~~~,~„~~~- 7) An 8 foot concrete sidewalk was built north of the HUB. ~~.,_=x--.:=•~~:.~r=L:-_--: - d. Adjacent at intersection of Nicollet Avenue and 66th Street: 1) Nicollet Avenue was widened south of 66th Street - to improve the capacity of the intersection. - _ -- 2) New phased traffic control signals and raised "_ protected turning lanes were installed on all 4 ..,„ ... _ approaches. -- --_- '- ='- ----- --- 3 ) New cross walks were . installed and pedestrian -~-.-- plazas created on the corners, including land- scaping walls, landscaping and special pavement. 4) A LHN Commercial area marker was installed on the - southeast corner of the intersection. This marker identifies the area and promotes the shopping theme. _ -- - - - e. Adjacent along 66th Street: f 1) An exclusive entrance with protected, raised and landscaped turning lane was built to move traffic _~~ __ : _- ___.. into the center of the HUB parking lot. Also, a 48 foot curb cut return and driveway apron were ...,m:_;__.v_...,__-_... constructed for the HUB. Two small curb cuts were .3 - 6 ~. r~~ ~.~ ~. :~~: ~' ~ .. ~.; y ~. ,..,.; removed including removal of concrete and asphalt. 2) Bus shelter and waiting are near the 66th - Nicollet interchange, making Nicollet a major bus transfer area. 3) Pillsbury entrance was reconstructed with improved protected turning lanes. ~ 4) Extra width snow curbs were installed. . ,~ 5) Landscaping including eight 5" cal. American Linden, nineteen 8 foot ornamental trees, assorted shrubs, six American Linden in the raised land- scaped median, sod and ground cover. 6) Raised medians to increase street capacity. f. Across 66th Street (South). The improvements along the south side of 66th Street benefit the HUB in the following way: 1) The 8 foot wide sidewalk was built across the street from the HUB rather than on the HUB (north) side of the street to encourage shoppers to use the midblock east-west walk which runs adjacent to the HUB or to walk in the HUB's enclosed mall . _ area. 2) Landscape improvements provide a more aesthetic approach to the HUB's main entrance. g. Along Nicollet Avenue to the north. Traffic studies conducted by the HUB in 1977 and by the city indicate a high percentage of the HUB's traffic comes from the Minneapolis part of the trade area on Nicollet Avenue. 1) Access improvements at the 65th Street and Nicollet intersection affect the access to the HUB. These access improvements include: new traffic control signals; protected left hand turning lanes; pedestrian crossings and pedestrian plazas; decorative street lights; and widened 65th Street. 10. The value of the subject properties before the improve- ments were, combined, 52,260,000. 7 'z~r ~: 11. The value of the subject properties after the improve- ments were, combined, $2,535,000. 12. The specific benefit to the subject properties is 5275,000.00. CONCLUSIONS '~ 1. The proceedings involved in this special assessment have been, in all respects, lawful and proper. 2. The improvements financed by special assessment are __ _ __ __ --.-. proper improvements to be so financed as provided by Minn. Stat. -, Ch. 429. 3. The formula proposed for determining assessments is _ ._..._ fair, reasonable, and lawful. ' '-- -"-- "'" '" - 4. The proposed assessment on the subject parcels for the construction of the above-described improvements exceeds the special benefit therefor in the amount of $8,784.28. The assess- ment is lawful to the extent of $275,000.00 5. The special assessment hereinafter ordered is not arbi- "` "`"' trary, capricious, or unreasonable and does not constitute a taking of property without due process of law. _ ORDER A special assessment for Richfield Project CP-705 is hereby levied against Parcels 27-24-0050 and 27-24-0051 in the amounts - •- of, in total, $275,000.00, all in accordance with the attached . Resolution which is hereby adopted and made a part of this Order. ._ Adopted by the Richfield City Council this day of 1981, the following members voting in favor thereof: and the following against: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ::r - -,~ _ 8 - - a..~ ..~ -- _ . __ - .._ ~` -::.. t ~~ 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 No. 705 and after carefully considering all the facts, the benefits to each lot, piece or parcel of land and 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 clerk 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/H/N Public Improvement Project. 7. The assessment with accruing interest, shall be a lien upon the property included therein, concurrent with general taxes and shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 20 years. The first installment shall be payable on the first ironday 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 and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor " ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Deputy City Clerk r~ ,;~' _' •-~~- C C P 705 ASSESSMENT ROLL PARCEL ' 27028-24-23-50 27-28-24-23-50 United National Corporation 745 5th Avenue --New York, New York 10022 PARCEL AREA 64,922.22 500,385.12 AMOUNT Combined Total $275,000.00 s - _ _ _ ,._...,..-..-.-a.-,r.,.., .- ,~ BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In the Matter of Special Assessments ) By the City of Richfield for Project ) MEMORANDUM CP-705; Parcel 28-0011 ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The property which is the subject of this assessment is • ~. Parcel 28-14-0011, located at 825 67est 65th Street, Richfield, Minnesota (hereinafter "the subject property"). The subject property is owned in fee by F.N. and J.C. Steinmetz. The owner, Mr. Steinmetz, asserts that the property was leased to the U.S. Postal Department in 1963. The lease, which runs until 1997, is for a fixed amount of rent. It is the position of Mr. Steinmetz that improvements cannot result in benefit to his property because the value of the property is based on income, and the income is fixed by the lease agreement. In other words, he is claiming that the market value of the building is determined and governed by the return generated by it; and that return is not increased by reason of the construction of CP-705. Rather, it is fixed and limited by the terms of his lease. Mr. Steinmetz' argument rests on a false premise. He is assuming that the benefit, the enhancement of value, caused by construction of CP-705 must be an enhancement to the value of his interest. If this were true, his argument would have some merit. However, the issue here is not the special benefit to the Steinmetzs' interest, it is the special benefit to the property as a whole. The special assessment is not a personal charge against Mr. Steinmetz; it is a lien against the property as a whole. The _ fact that Mr. Steinmetz' interest is subject to an improvident lease does not mean that the property as a whole is benefited any less. The benefit to the property must be determined as though - --- --- - - - - no lease were in place, for the special assessment is no more a ~o _. .. ~._t- '- -, .. ~:<< _~^, personal obligation of Mr. Steinmetz than it is of the U.S. Postal Department. The various parties who have an interest in real property may assign responsibility for special assessments among themselves as they please. But once responsibility has been assigned to one party, that party cannot challenge a special assessment merely because the non-responsible party will not be reimbursing him. Mr. Steinmetz could have required the tenant to enter into a lease under which the tenant would be responsible for special assessments. Such an arrangement is quite typical, particularly in long term commercial leases. He chose, however, to undertake responsibility for special assessments himself. It may well be that rental payments from the tenant are higher than they otherwise would have been simply because the tenant is free from risk of unexpected special assessments. In any case, Mr. Steinmetz has entered into a personal contract with another party (the U.S. Postal Department). The City is not a party to that contract, and has no responsibility for its terms. That contract is not relevant to a determination of the validity of the proposed special assessment. Dated: .,~~ ~ 1981. Respectfully submitted, LEFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN AND DRAWZ BY ~~~ Charles L. LeFevere 1100 First National Bank Bldg. Minneapolis, tiN 55402 Tel. (612) 333-0543 ~:- _ - ,::.:..ti~..e. _. ._ ..~,__ .,. , ~ _ . .Y . _ . ,_.:,. BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, D9INNESOTA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In the clatter of Special ) ' Assessments by the City of ) FINDINGS OF FACT, Richfield for Project CP-705; ) CONCLUSIONS, AND Parcel 28-14-0011 ) ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _= -- "' The above-entitled matter came on.for hearing pursuant to• due and regular notice before the City Council on September 22, 1981. The hearing of September 22, 1980, was adjourned, pursuant - -<~----- - ----'----- -" - to Minn.Stat. §429.061, Subd. 2 until October 6, 1980, February 2, ' ~'t - 1981, and was completed as to the subject parcel on February 3, - .. _.~____ _ _..,_ - :_: 1981. The landowner was present at the hearings and had the right __ and opportunity to be represented by counsel, to cross-examine city witnesses, to present oral or written evidence, and to raise -- _ ~~ all relevant issues or defenses. The city staff testified as did consultant expert witnesses on the ways-in which the property - _ being assessed is benefited by the improvements for which assess- ments are proposed and on the value of said property, both before and after said improvement. All testimony on behalf of the City - was. under oath or affirmation and subject to cross-examination. - - The proceedings were transcribed by a court report and heard by - the City Council. The landowners were informed that the record -- of the proceeding was to remain open for 30 days from the close .., ,-._ °~--° --~ °- -° - ~ - of the hearing as to each parcel for the receipt of additional written evidence; that the Council would receive for consideration petitions to reopen proceedings or to extend time limitations filed within 45 days of the close of said hearing; and that the ,_ ... Council would receive and consider briefs and proposed Findings, Conclusions and Orders filed within 60 days of the close of said hearing. The city staff was represented by John E. Drawz, Esq., - - Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Council was advised by Clayton L. - LeFevere, Esq., the City Attorney and John B. Dean, the Assistant City Attorney, The owner of the subject parcel, F.M. Steinmetz, --,--- - --- represented himself. Having heard the evidence, and the arguments _t ~r ~- .~.^.... _. - .. of counsel and Mr. Steinmetz, and reviewed all proceedings, plead- ings, and documents of record herein, and being fully advised in the premises, the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota, makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Order for Assessment, all on the basis of the record herein: -1~*-=-,_,.._,.,......_,..:»., _~- _...-, _ - ~ FINDINGS OF FACT .,_ 1. The assessment which is the subject of these proceedings _ is for the financing of a portion of the costs of City Project ~.:;:.~_..___,_~,,.._~._v___. ....- __ __-.. (CP) 705. This Project includes a number of public improvements, -- ='_'°_°-"``"'-"' - undertaken, or to be undertaken, by the City in conjunction with the -- _ _- ___._ - " _~ ~ -_ Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Project in the City. The assessment area boundary is the same as the project boundary the LHN Redevelopment Project. The primary purpose of CP-705 is __ to improve the retail climate in the LHN Project Area. This is to be accomplished by increasing the capacity of area streets _ _._ and intersections; widening and realigning streets; improving pedestrian access to the commercial area; and other improvements - designed to provide a retail image, a "theme shopping center" concept, to the area such as landscaping, improved sidewalk areas, crossings, bus shelters, and pedestrian plazas. ' 2. The estimated cost of the improvements being financed _ is $9,280,818.00 of which $1,900,142.32 is proposed to be assessed :. ___.. _.___. -.-' _. against benefited properties. - - 3. The formula for determining special assessments for this project is a square footage formula in which each property in the assessment area was assessed at the rate of $0.52 per square foot. 4. One of the parcels subject to special assessment was Parcel 28-14-0011, the address of which is 825 W. 65th Street (the - .- ~ "subject parcel"), which is owned by F.N. Steinmetz and J.C. :- Steinmetz. 5. Applying the above-described formula to the subject __ - __ _ __ _ _ parcel, the resulting proposed special assessment was determined by the City Engineer to be $14,761.67. acs ;. ~fL-~4z~v^d~:>°H'.tlts - ..e-?"-_._.....a«udnib.:-a::i'+.iJYi4.+~..c~3;..:--~ -- T'-. f lj -- . 6. The assessment hearing was commenced pursuant to due and regular notice on September 22, 1980. All proposed assess- ments to which no objection was made were adopted by the Council on September 22, 1980, by Resolution Number 6315. The hearings were continued, pursuant to Minn.Stat. §429.061, Subd. 2, from time to time, as necessary, to complete hearings on all parcels as to which objections were raised at the hearing of September 22, 1980. 7. Mr. Steinmetz appeared and objected to the assessment. His principal objection to the assessment was that it did not take into account the nature of the lease to which his interest in the property is subject. He explained that the lease, entered into with the U.S. Postal Service in 1963, is for a term until 1997 at a fixed rental rate. His claim is that, because the rental pay- ments are fixed, there can be no increase in value, no special benefit to the property. Mr. Steinmetz also contested the calculation of the assessment based on 29,405.7 square feet of land. He asserted that the figure should have been 26,811 square feet. The Council finds that the figure used by Mr. 0. J. Janski, the appraisal witness for the City, 26,331 square feet, is correct. No expert testimony on value was offered by the landow,_. 8. The subject property is located across j•T. 65th Street from Richfield Lake and across Rae Drive from a multi-family housing building. The site is characterized by peak hour traffic problems and poor access from 66th Street. The improvements which have been made along 65th Street and Rae Drive and 66th Street which benefit this property include: an 8 foot wide concrete sidewalk north of W. 65th Street and west of Rae Drive; replacement of a two foot wide bituminous strip with concrete adjacent to and east of Rae Drives; removal of a concrete strip south of W. 65th Street and adjacent to the north parking lot and replacement with 6 eight foot tall Japanese tree lilacs; addition of a decorative street light immediately in front of the property and replacement of a street light at the east and west of the property; and addition of appropriate traffic control signs. ~....~ ~_ _~ - The intersection at 66th Street and Rae Drive provides primary access to the site. Realignment of this intersection is planned ' with Lake Shore Drive, along with traffic control signals, protected turning lanes with raised medians, and pedestrian crossings. Besides these physical improvements, the street will be widened and it will beynecessary to acquire two single family homes to realign Lake Shore Drive with Rae Drive. Access to the subject property will be enhanced by this intersection improvement. East of this property on 65th Street the 8 foot sidewalk is extended to Lyndale Ave. Landscaping and boulevard treatment is provided south and north of W. 65th Street. New street lighting _ __ _` _ (decorative lighting) has been installed along W. 65th Street. - At Lyndale and W. 65th Street, which is the only other con- +- -~~~- venient access to this site, major intersection improvements are planned. These improvements include new traffic signals, protected - ~ raised turning lanes from Lyndale Ave., new cross walks, and corner improvements. -_ ~r_ Y_ _ - _ -... 9. The value of the subject property before the improvements ~_- .~- _ was $90,000.00. 10. The value of the subject property after the improvements -- ~ is $100,000.00. _- 11. The special benefit to the subject property is $10,000.00. _ _ ---- _ - CONCLUSIONS 1. The proceedings involved in this special assessment have been, in all respects, lawful and proper. 2. The improvements financed by special assessment are . '~3 proper improvements to be so financed as provided by riinn.Stat. Ch. 429. 3. The formula proposed for determining assessments is -.>-_ ___.__ _ _ _ _ fair, reasonable, and lawful. 4. The proposed assessment on the subject ^-_ cal for the --- -~-- construction of the above-described improvements exceeds the ' -` ` ' special benefit therefor in the amount of $4,761.67. The assess- ~.~ '~; .. , ment is lawful only to the extent of $10,000.00. 5. The special assessment hereinafter ordered is not arbi- trary, capricious, or unreasonable and does not constitute a taking of property without due process of law. 6. The objections raised by Mr. Steinmetz are not relevant to our determination of special benefit. The fact that he, personally, as landlord, has entered into an improvident lease may affect his income, or the value of his interest subject to the lease; but it does not affect the extent of special benefits conferred by Project CP-705 on the property as a whole. ORDER A special assessment for Richfield Project CP-705 is hereby levied against Parcel 28-14-0011 in the amount of $10,000.00, all in accordance with the attached Resolution which is hereby adopted and made a part of this Order. Adopted by the Richfield City Council this day of 1981, the following members voting in favor thereof: and the following against: ATTEST: City Clerk c,=.:. _ '~?~ - ., Mayor l~~`'`~ 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 No. 705 and after carefully considering all the facts, the benefits to each lot, piece or parcel of land and 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 clerk and filed in the office of the city clerk, and shall thereupon be and constitute a special assessment for said City Project No. 705, L/H/N Public Improvement Project. 7. The assessment with accruing interest, shall be a lien upon the property included therein, concurrent with general taxes and shall be ~a~,~hi_e ~_n. ^rual annual installments extending over a period of 20 years. The first installment shall be payable on the first Pdonday 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 and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of 1981. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Deputy City Clerk Donald J. Priebe, Mayor C C P 705 ASSESSMENT ROLL PARCEL PARCEL AREA AMOUNT 28028-24-14-0011 ~ 26,385.8 $13,245.67 F. N. Steinmetz 1117 North Broadway Stillwater, MN 55082 A - ~ ~. ~; February 23, 1931 To the Honorable Mayor and City Council Richfield, irIinnesota, 55423 Gentlemen: After having the opportunity of Post Office property, identific 0. J. Jans]ti and Associates and February ord., we would like to following additional testimony. reviec~ring the appraisal of the ~tion T;28-14-0011, prepared by presented at the hearing on resL~ectifully submit the 1. tie believe th® marl~et value a_aproach to this appraisal to be unfair.` Under the terms of i~riarket Value as defined at the bottom of page 1 of the appraisal, vre believe no kno~rrledgeable buyer would be interested, as the return on his investment ~nrould be limited to a 1963 income until- 1997. 2. bl~`e believe the "Income Arproach", kno~•:n also as the "Economic Value", should be used, as this reflects the onlyfair wag of determining its current sale value because of the lease encumberance until 1997. using this as a determining factor, v~re believe the improvements add no dollar value to our land or building. 3. By the year 1997, the improvements v:~ill be 16 years old and vrill have by that time deteriorated and de,reciated to a large extent. i~iuch of the value :ill have been lost before ~~!~e could expect to benefit to any degree. 4. Page 10, paragraph 4 of the apcraisal outlines the usual benefits from area improvements such as increased attractiveness, more tenants and customers, irn reasea rent levels andrate of return on investment. 4Ye not-only cannot particip2te in any of the above, but most of them, because of our unusual position, ar° a decided detriment. Increased traffic, business and other activity only increases wear and tear on all parts of the building, wrhich we have to maintain and pay for at today's costs. l~'le assure you that this is substantial in a Fost Office buildinp~ because of the heavy traffic, constant in and out loading and year arou d use. 5. The Richfield Land Sales Chart sub:.^.itted as a su:;Tle?r:e:^_t to the appraisal sho~~~s onl ~ a few nearby, si*~ilar size .parcels sold recently. Those that are shown ~+~ould L, `.~ %~ I indicate that the price of 4a3.4U per sq. ft. on the Post O.t'fice property to be too high. Example: sale ~lU from the chart, i~Tr~C 6th. and Lyndale, 247, 314SF, X2.58 rS~'. 1Ye believe most every one would consider this corner to be the prime commercie.l location in Richfield making the .x3.40 PSF price hard to justify-. vre appreciate the op~,;ortunity of presentin~• our vie~~°s on these additional points and hope they are helpful in arriving at an equitable solution to what to us is a very difficult problem. Thank you for your concerned consideration. Yours very truly F. ~. 8: J. C. Steinmetz By ~• ~. ~ • t . .F.~N. Steinmetz 1117 N. Broadway Stillwater, ?vli~T. , 55082 GC: Nr. John P;. Dr~.vrz WS ..c'J~'4e"'.. '' '~SBGi~~fSr1~r1..i~:..iwa.i: - _...~-_, ~~~ ~~ r RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT N0. 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 especially 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 No. 705 and after carefully considering all the facts, the benefits to each lot, piece or parcel of land and 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 said proposed assessment roll opposite each such lot, piece or parcel of land. 5. The proposed total assessment in the amount of $1,900,142.32, which was affirmed, adopted and confirmed, except for parcels for which written objections have been filed, on September 22, 1981, and the sums fixed and named in said proposed assessment are affirmed, adopted and confirmed as the proper special assessment for each of said lots, pieces, or parcels of land respective lots, pieces, or parcels of land therein described for which objections have been withdrawn: OWNER Godfather Restaurant R.C.Nelson - Double Bungalow Excelsior Center, Inc. 1. Retail Stores 2. Pier I Imports 3. Vacant Land 4. Shops & Offices 5. Addition to Warners ADDRESS 708 W. 66th St. 6400-02 Nicollet 6501-03-07-11 Nicollet 5515 Nicollet 6515 Nicollet 6521 thru 6529 Nicollet 6533 Nicollet PROPERTY. ID ASSESSMENT. 27-028-24-23-0083 $40,277.95 27-028-24-24-0039 164.00 27-028-24-13-0059 16,196.33 27-028-24-13-0060 12,262.03 27-028-24-13-0061 8.86 27-028-24-13-0064 10,122.63 27-028-24-13-0065 7,580.91 {•c _2_ ~' 6. Said assessment is hereby affirmed, adopted, confirmed, except for parcels for which written objection has been filed, and shall be certified by the City Clerk, and shall thereupon be and constitute the special assessment for said City Project No. 705, L/H/N Public Improve- ment Project. 7. The assessment with accruing interest, shall property included therein, concurrent with general ta: payable in equal annual installments extending over a years. The first installment shall be payable on the January of 1982. All assessments shall bear interest nine (9) percent per annum. be a lien upon the yes, and shall be period of 20 first Monday in at the rate of .All assessments and interest thereon shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this 11th day of May, 1981. ~ ,~ r- ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ~ ~~ PAUL H. THOMSEN ASSOCIATE City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER ATTORNEY AT LAW a.o. fiox 67 16228 MAIN AVENUE SOUTHEAST PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 161 21 447-21 31 March 25, 1981 South 55423 RE: Gordon E. Strom and Elaine Strom - City of Richfield (Special Assessment Appea,l- City of Richfield Project Number 705) Gentlemen: In behalf of Mr. 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. Maynard 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 P~Irs. 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 March 21, 1981. The preliminary appraisal prepared by Mr. 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 -.-__.--___ _f the cronerty. Accordingly, Mr. Strom would like to have additional testimony 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. f 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 satisfactory, I would appreciate being advised of the date for the reconvened hearing as soon as possible. - Sincerely yours, ~~ r ~, Bryce D. Huemoeller BDH:mg Enclosures ( 2 ) cc: John E. Drawz Attorney at Law ,. -+~i~i~iii~iY w`.w~ ~^o"" -••'~w+:ii-..~w+~.,•_=a.:~.cc:+;.s~.»~-....~.r...-...~w..:Mrwtiy~~::::..y~et~.:~tM~..r:.t _.... -.._: - ir.~'a.r'w:J<Vawi~N-Ai~r~_s.r+~+.s "O.~n+.+:.ws L.k.~~ ~- NATIONWIDE REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES • • REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS -- --~v''~~.oarYr`"--.a't'~'ai+SSii.$iA~.`w+l.~aa...cw4..+Y.c- ~- PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the market value of the property as it is hereinafter described. DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE AND VALUE-IN-USE 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_ 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. RIGHTS APPRAISED The rights appraised in this appraisal are the rights in fee simple, unencumbered. ( l ~ . NATIONWIDE REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES • ~ REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS POST OFFICE BOX 16149 922-7670, 927-6197 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416 APPRAISALS BUILDING INSPECTIONS DESIGN March 23, 1981 LAND DEVELOPMENT REAL ESTATE BROKER REAL ESTATE CONSULTANTS REAL ESTATE RESEARCH REAL ESTATE RESUMES Mr. G-ordon Strom SITE FEASIBILITY 6617 Humboldt Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota Dear I~`,r. Strom: I have reviewed the properties at 6500-38 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota. I have also reviewed the approximate $1+5,000 of general. improvements made in the area by the city but not specifically on the subject property. The City of Richfield has made the general improve- ments for 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 wt:ich penalize 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 some 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. IdATIOA'WIDE REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES C~ a rd C. Rasmussen, I.F.A.C. . ..r. ~. NATIONWIDE -PROFESSIONAL REAL ESTATE PROGRAMS CERTIFICATIO\ I HEP.FEY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE NO UNDISCLOSED INT~:REST _ IN TfIIS PROPERTY, PRESENT, OR INTENDED, AND THAT tiN • FEE AND EMPLOYMENT ARE NOT CONTINGENT UPON TkiE VALL~A- TION FOUND, AND T~1AT I HAVE PERSONALLY ii:SPECTF,D TfiE 1 PROPERTY. - I FL': THER CERTIFY THAT ACCORDING TO TlIE EEST OF 1`fY ,_ KNOttirLEDGE, THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT ARE TRLE-, AND THAT NO II`iPORTANT FACTS HAVE BEEN WlTkifiELD OR OVER- ~• LOOKED, THE APPRAISAL IS SUEJECT TO THE A.SSL'~iPTIONS, CO\TI\- GENCIES AND LII`tITING CONDITIONS RECITED. I HAVE ESTIPL4TED THE MARKET VALUE OF THE INSTAi~T PROPERTY, NATIONWIDE REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES ~,,.- , : . _ _ _ :_ r- ASSUMPTIONS, 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. Al] 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 information 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 ~th~a~uation conclusion, the identity of the appraiser 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. All 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 16149 922-7670, 927-6197 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416 APPRAISALS BUILDING INSPECTIONS DESIGN APPRAISAL UALIFICATIONS - MAYNARD C. RASMUSSEN I.F.A.C. LAND DEVELOPMENT Q ~ 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, Lf~tle Falls, 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. Const. 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, i2rl~Y. GI t7e Education i'rogram as an instructor in the National Appraisal Course 100 at Anoka-Ramsey Junior College-1970. ~_~ NATIONWIDE -PROFESSIONAL REAL ESTATE PROGRAMS ~ ~ NATIONWIDE REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES • • REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS ' POST OFFICE BOX 16149 922-767Q. 927-6197 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 554th APPRAISALS BUILDING CONSULTANTS BUILDING INSPECTIONS ,' OESIGN APPRAISAL ENGINEERING' LAND DEVELOPMENT Complete Real Estate Appraisal Service operating in N:i-1;-:eapo? is MARKETING and servicing all of the State of Minnesota. Professional PRO-FORMA STATEMENTS REAL ESTATE BROKER endorsed Real Estate Appraiser-Counselor. Appraising ~cnsis-s BH of about 90% Eminent Domain and tax appraisals . REAL ESTATE RESUME SITE FEASIBILITY ZONING CONDc IMINIUM Preparation and sales of residential and commercial condo: i-:i ~:~s . DATA Researching market data including lease or sale of data to appraisers and or:-ler companies on a contract basis. ' FRANCHISE Nationwide Real Estate Associates will furnish manuals, all forms, ma~eria ls, signs and equipment at a monthly gross billing fee that exceeds 10% of the gress monthly billing of the Franchisee. LAND DEVELOPMENT ' Complete residential, commercial and industrial subdivision development in she surrounding 5-county area for any parcel of land. PHOTOGRAPHY An exclusive photographic service for the Resume and Appraisal Division. PROPEF.TY MANAGEMENT Residential and commercial properties serviced by contract and done on a management fee arrangement. PUBLICATIONS Publishing company coordi-::~tes Real Estate material for manuals involving t-.e Seminar programs that will be offered nationally in the near future. RECREATIONAL Future ownership of recreational businesses including appraisals of all t~~~es of recreational facilities. REAL ESTATE SALES AND LEASES General Real Estate office operating in Metropolitan area including future plans of expansion to a Nationwide service using the Resume and Data services. REAL ESTATE RES(1MES An exclusive marketing system by Nationwide Real Estate Associates of coT,^ercial and industrial real estate including marketing and sales with the use of cer.put?r services . REAL ESTATE SEMINARS Complete appraisal seminars and manuals for the student, senior appraiser, assessor or anyone interested in sound appraisal technigl~es including Er.,inent Domain. SHELTER - APPRAISAL ACADEMY - PROFESSIONAL REAL ESTATE PROGRAMS C~ FA phi ~~ + ~ a' ~o h .- a ,o ; . ~~ _-~ ~/ G,~'/ ,,~ 111~~~rulc~~o~s ~~er~~~il~~~~~~e dward'ed to- l~a~y~ard ~asu~usse~ Under ~h¢ aus ices ofthe Rnoka-~att~se S~a~¢ ~Tr. Coll~¢ Co~~uni~~¢ruices ~r~rn~ 19 ~,~~~~w t. -.r„- r ~- .,~ Fa .f i~i~ir{Ifado~:ici.rav.~,:i~1i Wu~=.~tii.A:3s'_.: ~'-.~~.:~:..._.-..M.,..~.~....ar..-~..-.:~:a...:'--.~.:..:++w.~~..,. --- ~~w.R;:+~-as~..¢:+: ., _.. .. '~ - -:~....,a - Q- ~~ ~~~ ~ ,_ ~, . ~~~ ~~~~o 7A' s A +1r~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ,n ~~ ~I l~l ~' f ~' ~° ~ w ~~~`~~ U~ y~ ~ ~t j ' ~,• + ~~,~ 0 ~~ ~ N ,~~~ a ~~ . ~~~~ ~ a }~" ~ ~ ~''t,~, ~~ ~~ ~ w ~, ,~! ~.: ~ w ~. ~ ~~ ~ ;~.~ow ~':; ~' f ~~:. ~• l ~~~~ ~; z w O N w ~. U p ~ A ~ 'U ~ ~ m ~ a ~ o F °0 U ~ ~ W ~ w A o ~ " W ~R '~ O F ~ E. y ~ ~ z ~p ,~ .. a q ~. ~ F pC E W v ~i .~'. U 0 ~ a + U t • ~ ` `~' W ~ ~.'~. t ~ O ~~r ~ ~~ Q• ~ ~ 7 obi l a ~~" ~ f ~ O ~~~' w ~~ 3 ~ ~, '.~" i ~ o .. ,~~ a ~ p ~ ~ W a. y~ Y~~ ~ z . ~.~ ~ w ~ ~~~. ; A W ~~;~~; m ~~ o. ; ~ ~ 4 ,7 ,~ ~ H ;~ x 0 a ~: P, C U ~a m .. z a a m C '~ • ~ 0 0 .~ ~~ m r, ~ a m 3 z 0 N a W O x a ~~ w~ ~~ ~~ a ~~ ~~ 0 0 OF ~ 0 O ~ V~f O d O a ~. `~-~ y O p A p ~ ~ d ~, ~ ~ O $ W q a W ~~ N ~~ O .~ -~ ~D ~~I~~~1, ~~! t / •a _, ~~. 1 ' y ..; _ ~ ~ f/ ~ ` r ~` r C.\ Y P ~ . ~ ~t ~: ~~ ~ i ; ~ ~~~ ~~~- :'~ ~~~ ~~.a P~'J • ~ `• .~ r ~'' a.{ ,•~". ~: . I ~~ ,~, ~~ ; ~~ _ ~ ~~ ee~~.. ~ ~~~~; ~~; ; ~~ ~Y ~.. ~_ I ' ' { ~~ .~.f c w ~ t ~" ,° *~`r, ;~ ~ :. .; s~ ~ : ~:. ~_ ~ ` v: ~ .a v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fi ` t SSS r • is Q~' ~ F ~ ~ i ~ ~ '"a~ I ~~,: ``/ F ~ ~ I 1 ~~o ~f U ~' ~r ~; . M~~ ~:' °.,,:_ \; . Section 1 - 5 1. t~ational Association of Independent Code 410 Fee Appraisers (N.A.I.F.A.) Johnson HE;~! Acceptance (Continued) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Office of Education Bureau of Higher Education Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 February 17, 1~9 Bulletin No. 8 (Revision No.,3) TO : All persons interested in the Higher Education Facilities Program FROM : Richard R. Holden, Acting Director Division of College Facilities 1 Olof E. 5tombcrE, Cl~icf Groduate Focilitics Branch Division of Graduate Programs SUB3ECT Real Estate Appraisals This Bulletin cancels end supersedes HEFA Bulletin No. 8 (Revision No. 2) dated August 27, 1968. Under certoin circumstonces, the cost of lend and/or acquisition of buil.linL:~ is eligible to be included as an item of project development cost. In order to assist in determining the portion of tf~e ~ligiblc project development cost attributable to the cost of land and/or buildings~an applicant institution shall be required. to furnish two appraisal repozts issued by appraisers who meet one of the following require©ents: (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 wit]^, the 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 i~ effective With all applications requesting financial assistance under the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 ualess otherwise determined by the Commissioner. * Appraisals made by members of t~~e .~:~___,... _<..~:.._..:_ ~ ... ~ Appraisers designated R.M. are acceptable only for one-, two-, and three-family houses. i- --- ~. , ~~~b~'a' ~~: i`~I'„~ 2 art- -~~ _ -~ y fly i:iCiiP3.i ,~~ n ~~i~~ r?;;40 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55423 TELEPHONE 861-4483 Gordy Strom rSarch 26, 1981 ' 6532 Lyndale South Lichfield, M2~i 55423 RE: ?.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 ~~705. K-dart has not helped our sales, in fact our growing has slowed since the store opened. We Have been lead to believe that the building we are ii: would be replaced with an office building and that we would have to Move, because of this we have not Wade any improvements to the appearance of our stcre. Your condideration in this matter will be appreciated. Sincerely Ke.itti V. Walters __ f _ -:~ . ~:;_~ ~ t C.t-~ of ~ici:t~..r:, z ~ ~ , _ ' ~ o '~ I ,, - C.U ._.= S ~- I ~- .. ,/ J i ~ ~' ,, ~ ~ , _ fi / ~ ~ ~ ,~ J _/ { J ~, j f~ ~ //~~ ~ ~ /~ '/^1 (//may /n// 1 /y Y '.S•~ / n ~ YY ~ ~ '" .~l ~n G ll~ ~ t~ ~~~~`~~ -. .~1° :* s~_ . - _. -- _.~. - ~-~-y=1 ~~~ - ~~~ _ ~ ~ . -. ~ ~ -~ iS CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 155 Agenda May 11, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: The Turnback of the Jurisdiction of Certain Frontage Roads from the State to the City re° 1. 78th Street from 12t h Avenue to Portland Avenue 2. 78th Street from Mor gan Avenue to Penn Avenue 3. .Lake Shore Drive fro m 69th Street to 74th Street The offer from the state is conditional upon the city execu- ting an agreement to take over jurisdiction of the improved front- ;age roads. For years, the city has been performing the routine maintenance duites of snowplowing and street sweeping on these roads. The state has been responsible for the heavier maintenance of patching potholes and resurfacing. In the past, the state has not been as diligent in their maintenance efforts as the city would have liked them to be. The frontage roads are now in a deplorable condition and have been in relatively poor condition for a long time. 78th Street (12th Avenue to Portland Avenue) at one time served as a traffic bypass during construction of I-494 and, therefore, has a heavy duty design. There is a concrete curb on the north side and a bituminous curb on the south side. It appears that the overlay will solve the problems with the cracks and the breakup in certain areas on this section. 78th Street (Morgan to Penn Avenue) is similar, except that it does not have concrete curb on the north side of the street. Geived this year. Therefore, they propose to overlay the follow° ing frontage roads in Richfield: Council Letter No. 155 -2- Lake Shore Drive has curb~on both sides of the street, how- ever, the asphalt mat is only about an inch thick. A substantial overlay will be required on this section to tive it the needed strength for a street with normal traffic volume. r gineer. The council can accept this jurisdiction by adopting e attached resolution. KN/eja May 11, 1981 Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Engineer RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH CITY OF RICHFIELD JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN FRONTAGE ROADS WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation will assume all costs in the construction of an overlay for the following frontage roads: 1. 78th Street from 12th Avenue to Portland Ave. 2. 78th Street from Morgan Avenue to Penn Avenue 3. The west frontage road of 35W from 69th Street to 74th Street AND, WHEREAS, as a condition for such construction, the state will turn jurisdiction of said roadways over to the City of Richfield; THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: ~ That the Minnesota Department of Transportation is authorized to proceed with construction of an overlay on said roadways; and That the City of .Richfield will assume jurisdiction of said roadways upon the placement of an overlay acceptable to the City Engineer. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of May, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk r~~ u. r ca i \ y ~~ C~ ~-~z ~ LL aC ~~~ U G G G C ~y ~~~'n ~~C~C~ 3 i ~ o .o»,.,~ -.. ,~..., 5g ice[_~L__ ~C~~~C_~~.i~ ~- ~I -,~~u~_~~~~;~~-. ~_ ,~,.r ~ ~,..a,,, ~C~C~C~~~C~C ~C-~C~~C~C~C ~., .~,.m ~ L- _7 j i r ~.. <,,,... ~~(-~~'`~;,I~^'~~`-JCL-~~~~- ',~ ;f L' ~~j~I ~ J -- r-- -, ,...~, -~ a~~C~C_-JAI C-iC~~~ ---~ - u . ~ i j~~~~n~1C ~ ~~_ ~ u Lama .~Cin~~~~C~~ ~~~ ~ ICI '-~.. ,o,~,.M 7 e e : : s i i i ~ z+ c i z z z ~ _ i i ¢ P ~. K G i i `~ C.~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 154 Agenda May 11, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Award of Contract CP7053 Bids for the contractfor the final phase of construction of the LHN public improvements were opened April 29 at the Hennepin County Government Center. The following bids were received: Bidder Bid Budget $767,000.00 Engineer's Estimate $9%8,338.80 1. progressive Contracotrs, Inc.. 763,150.81 2. Hardrives, Inc. 780,436.00 3. NW Asphalt, Inc. 799,976.60 4. Arcon Construction Co., Inc. 802,913.59 5. Shafer Contracting Co., Inc. 803,907.49 Hennepin County will be awarding the contract and acting as the construction managers for this project. The cooperative construction agreement between the county and the city requires the concurrence of the city on the award of the bid to the lowest bidder. The staff recommends that the council concur with the county's award of the contract for CP7053 to Progressive Con- tractors, Inc. in the amount of $763,150.81. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Engineer c~ =~/ ,~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 153 Agenda May 11, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Purchase in Excess $1,000 Chapter Six, Section 6.15 of the city charter stipulates that the city council must approve purchases of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There are two such items on the city council agenda of May 11, 1981. The Richfield municipal outdoor swimming pool has three diving boards that are now in need of replacement. Three quotations were obtained for 16' Maxiflex diving boards, the same kind of boards currently at the pool. Vendors indicate this is perhaps the highest quality board available. Anchor Pool and Patio Center quoted $1,380 each. Hamele Recreation Company Incorporated quoted $975 each. Pools, Inc. quoted $935 each. It is recommended the city council authorize the purchase of three 16' maxiflex diving boards at the unit price of $935 from Pools, Inc. for a total purchase price of $2,805.00. For a number of reasons such as salt damage, utility work in the area, and general maintenance, it is necessary to replace sod in certain sections of the L/H/N area along 65th Street. At the present time,, the staff proposes to have a contractor remove the existing sod and soil to a 4" depth and replace it with 4 inches of new topsoil and sod in specified locations. Specifically, those locations would be the south side of 65th Street from approximately Graham Avenue to Lyndale Avenue and the north side of 65th Street from approximately Nicollet Avenue to Wentworth Avenue. It is .estimated that 925 square yards would be included in the sites mentioned. Two quotations have been received. Al's Landscaping and Nursery, Inc. quoted a unit price of $4.63/square yard and Jerry's Landscape Maintenance, Inc. quoted $3.90/square yard. s Council Letter No. 153 -2- May 11, 1981 It is recommended the city council authorize an agreement with Jerry's Landscape Maintenance, Inc. for replacement of sod in the locations indicated above at a unit price of $3.90 per square yard for a total estimated purchase price of $3,607.50. Funds are available in the appropriate budgets for these purchases. Respectfully submitted, l ~:~.c ~I~CC, .,~:.~„ Karl Nollenberger City Manager ~/8 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 152 Agenda May 11, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Implementation of the Assessment Procedure Established by the Alley Paving Policy On December establishing a This policy wa informational paving. The po Generally, There are many different combinations of residential and commercial properties within a single block. The city staff is in the process of calculating the pending assessments for the proposed alley paving project. At the May 11, 1981 city council meeting the city engineer will provide information on how the properties are being assessed for the alley paving program. A copy of the resolution which established the alley paving policy is attached for your information. This item has been placed on the May 11, 19~lcity council agenda for informational purposes only and no council action is required. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager 1 8, 1980, the city council adopted a resolution n alley maintenance and improvement policy. s the result of the November, 1980 neighborhood meetings and a public hearing regarding alley RESOLUTION No. 6345 ~ RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN ALLEY POLICY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. All costs involved in maintaining an alley will be assessed against the property abutting the alley. 2. An alley paving project may be initiated on an alley by a petition signed by the property owners of more than 50 percent of abutting property. - 3. All costs involved in the paving of an alley will be~assessed aga"inst the abutting property except that residential property will be assessed only for the shorter of the two primary sides. • 4. The maximum amount to be assessed a ainst resiaential properties will be 50 percent of the cost of paving full width of the_ abutting alley. However, if the residential property is located in a block which contains some commercial property, the residential. assessment will be less than 50 percent. In this particular instance, the commercial'assessment will. first be levied against the commercial property in the block and then the residential property will be _ assessed a prorata share of the remaining portion of the assessment. . Under no circumstances shall the residential assessment be less than ~ 25 ercent of the cost of paving the alley. 5. Commercial alleys will be assessed for three-fourths of the cost of paving the actual full width of the alley, except that should the total assessment collected on a block using the aforementioned ,procedure amount to more than the cost of the alley, the commercial assessment wi e prorated by abutting ootage. 6. The City of Richfield will pay the costs of paving an alley not abutting assessable property. 7. The type of surface will be chosen at the time the contract is awarded on the first alley paving project. 8. A minimum of six alleys in one cluster (as defined by the city engineer) or ten alleys regardless of cluster is required for a project. ~. The deadline for the submittal of petitions is February lst of each year. 10. The maximum assessment for commercial properties in a block will not exceed 75 percent of the cost of the alleys to be paved and the minimum assessment shall be at least 50 percent of this cost. 11. If a commercial lot has an alley on two primary sides, the commercial property will be assessed only for the longer of the two sides. ~, -2- Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 11th day of May, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor F~ ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk . ~ (~ ' RESOLUTION NO. 6345 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN ALLEY POLICY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. All costs involved in maintaining an alley will be assessed against the property abutting the alley. 2. An alley paving project may be initiated on an alley by a petition signed by the property owners of more than 50 percent of abutting property. 3. All costs involved in the paving of an alley will be assessed against the abutting property except that residential property will be assessed only for the shorter of the two primary sides. 4. Residential properties will be assessed for one-half the cost of paving the full width of the abutting alley unless the property is opposite commercial property in which case it is assessed one-fourth the cost of paving the full width. 5. Commercial alleys will be assessed for three-fourths of the cost of paving the actual full width of the alley, except that should a commercial lot have an alley on two primary sides, the commercial property will be assessed only for the longer of the two sides. 6. The City of Richfield will pay the costs of paving an alley not abutting assessable property. 7. The type of surface will be chosen at the time the contract is awarded on the first alley paving project. 8. A minimum of six alleys in one cluster (as defined by the city engineer) or ten alleys regardless of cluster is required for a project. 9. The deadline for the submittal of petitions is February lst of each year. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 8th day of December, 1980. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk -~~v J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 151 Agenda May 11, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Easement Agreements, SuperAmerica Station, West 66th Street On September 8, 1980, the city council authorized the execution of an easement agreement with SuperAmerica Stations, Inc., providing for the installation of improvements to West 66th Street. The easement was donated to the city as part of a rezoning and special use permit granted to SuperAmerica in 1977 for remodeling of their facility. ~~ The original easement along 66th Street was 20 feet deep. It has nod been determined that only ~ feet of depth is required to install the improvements as planned. Secondly, an additional easement area on SuperAmerica property adjacent to Rae Drice is needed. This area is needed to more properly align Rae Drive with the relocated Lake Shore Drive. To effectuate these changes, it would be proper to issue a quit claim deed to SuperAmerica for the original easement area. The city would return this easement area to the owner. Then a new easement agreement for a 14 feet deep strip adjacent to 66th Street and for the triangular area adjacent to Rae Drive would be executed. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the execution of a quit claim deed returning the original 20 feet easement to SuperAmerica and the execution of the easement agreement. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Attorney f • M. ~. . ~` -.. . is r -.T.VSkf?:_: -lr .. i•'y: ~ `. • 1 ~ ~ v ~ 7 `,'- ~1" j ~L .\ 4 ~, _ ~ _ ~ .` / ~ -'ate. i ~ ~ ^'`. 'Jl~ - - ~ - -M~ '~~• ~ ~ --- _ `rte-=--_`_ -.~_` _ ~ ~~ ' ~ ---~~ , - _ _ ~-~ ~ ~' , . . r ~ ~- ; `~ ~ - 'ERs NT f~ FAR StD,~ `~~~ c=am ,- ` ~~, ~N SCE' ~COc~~T-R1~;C.~C 10~ - ~=5,F ~, .~_. .. . `sf ^~Yr ~ ~* %'~''i ~.+s,?P~i7Lfjt ,?CAxk ~y ~ {~'.~ _ .:- _ „sue: .. 'i'?zt . 4` 'Sxx~ ,t~tt'~ . ~~,-.:~~ ... ~. ~ ~ ?~r y~~ N,i~''x~r°Gt`~'~~.?f-,t iar~,~s> ,-.. ~-: f~, d., y ~ ,. _ w~ - -..~~--_ ...+~~es...e~~+w..~i.~..e~:-- .. _... _ ~ ...A..._:+a+7-~ . <r'~~~.-~.__.~.~.~iii~ ~~i"~id'J.:a'.~in RESOLUTION N0. AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A QUIT CLAIM DEED AND EASEMENT AGREEMENT, 66TH STREET PROJECT WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council (City) desires to make certain improvements to Vest 66th Street; and, WHEREAS, these improvements will provide expanded roadway areas to accomodate medians, and turning lanes and for the installation of landscape elements such as sidewalks, plant materials and street furniture; and, WHEREAS, to install these improvements it is necessary to gain possession of land from private property owners; and, WHEREAS, it has been determined that less land area is needed for the installation of some improvements than was originally contemplated adjacent to West 66th Street; and, WHEREAS, it has. been determined that additional land area not previously contemplated is needed adjacent to Rae Drive. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD: 1. That a quit claim deed be executed by the ?t4ayor and City Manager returning the 20 foot easement area to Super America, Inc. 2. That the Mayor and City Manager are authorised and directed to execute a new easement agreement attached as Exhibit A. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 11th day of May, 1981. ATTEST: Donald J. Priebe, 114ayor Sylvia Bergh Acting City Clerk ~ // CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 150 Agenda May 11, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Vacation of Pillsbury Avenue between 65th Street and 66th Street - Second Reading between 65th and 66th Streets. At the request of the applicant, United National Corporation, the council has deferred second reading of the ordinance numerous times. This item is scheduled to come before the council on May 11, 1981. It is recommended that the council close the pub~ir. hearing on this matter and disapprove second reading of the ordinance amendment vacating Pillsbury Avenue. Should United T~Tational Corporation wish to pursue this matter at a future date, it will be necessary that they begin the street vacation process from the beginning. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner City Clerk _:..,._,....,._~~..~~,,.,..,......h..~.:~..~_.._.,._....~. .._ _ _,_~ r ~JNIT~~ NATIONAL CORPORATION 745 FIFTH AVENUE • NEW YORK, N. Y. 10151 • (212 758-9200 April 22, 1981 Mr. Karl Nollenberger City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Re: Richfield Hub Richfield, Minnesota Dear Karl: I'm glad we had the chance to spend some time together particularly since you and Dennis adapted your schedules on such short notice. Our Company has not lost confidence in the future of the Hub; we are more bullish today than we were two years ago. It is unfortunate (as I said at breakfast) that the business climate and particularly interest rates have inhibited retailers' expansion so drastically. After all the time and money we spent planning the project, it was a keen disappointment to us to be unable to secure sufficient tenant interest to justify the originally planned major expansion. We are determined to revitalize the physical plant, albeit in a way more realistically related to the potential market. Twill welcome a meeting for a preliminary review as soon as concept drawings are in hand because we consider the continued support of the City essential even before we expose our current thinking to prospective tenants. The new comprehensive design will include compatible locations for out- buildings. It appears that the restaurant location presently approved under Phase 2 of the PUD will no longer be suitable and negotiations present Phase 2. Accordingly, we request that no f taken on the vacating of Pillsbury Avenue un adopted. We appreciate the City attorney's tinuation of the hearing and understand that to be introduced to have the street vacated Thank you again - and the entire staff, the Mayor and Council - for your unstinting cooperation, especially vital to the success of the project in these times of economic uncertainty. We are confident the new develop ment plan we have commissioned will be achievable, thus bringing to fruition our mutual goals of an expanded, up-to-date Hub and a stronger downto~rm P,i Ci:iield. Cor~lsally, . ~ 1, RN/b Richard Naiman Vice President/Construction til the new plan has been concern regarding the Ion- a new ordinance may have at a later date. ~D f5 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 149 Agenda May 11, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Vacation of Alley between Vincent Avenue, Washburn Avenue, 66th Street, and 67th StreE~t On October 10, 1980, a petition was submitted to vacate a portion of an alley on the block bound by Vincent and Washburn Avenue South and West 66th and 67th Streets. The Planning Commission heard the request on October 28, 1980 and recommended denial of the application. The applicant, Mr. Ron Lee, 6613 Washburn Avenue South, subsequently asked that this item be deferred to sometime this spring. The staff recently received a letter from Mr. Lee withdrawing the alley vacation application because of neighborhood opposition. Mr. Lee's letter is attached. It is recommended that council acknowledge withdrawal of this application. RespecAftfu(lly submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner Mn.~t ~dns~ `~o~1j. l~ (~~3 WAS ~ - `~~~-~.~, Mug ~u ~Tu~ 3, L~ I ~ ~~~i12, ~, . ~qC~l o _ '- t~~~-~LZgQc... "L~ ~~n~u ~ ~tL. ~l~t~- `la ~ ttbt ~ w c7u~ ~~~ ~~~~,~ ~. -tfi~" W~S~~u~ ~~ v~~G~t- ~~~~ o~ ~rt~ S~~t~l - Sc~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~5 ~~~~ ~ ~~~p5 ~ (~- ~~ ~~ a~ ~a~-t- o~ tsSc~E ~ ~ ~j'n7~ goo -t~S ~ ~ ~ ~td~ '~ -~ (_.l~~ T~ ~~ L Gov ~o~' `~~- rt~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ A~ acs ~ --~ ~a~- ~ ~~ ~~ ; ..~ l~No~ Tyr `'t~ ~ 6~~%~'~`' ~~~ ~ -CCm,E- W ~~ ' ~-AI,I.S`' ~~ wL- -rte ,~sd ~ ~~ ~~ ~ . ~`~~~ APR 7 1981 City of Richfield ~y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of C ity Manager Council Letter No. 148 Agenda May 11, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City of Richfield Council Members: at 7001 3rd Avenue South from "R" single family residential to "MR" multiple family residential. That council action included the stipulation that the rezoning is to allow a two-family use only. Background information on this rezoning is contained in Council Letter No. 117, a copy of which is attached. Respectfullly submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner City Clerk Subject: Second Reading for Rezoning Property from "R" Single Family Residential to "MR" Multiple Family Residential The staff recommends that the council hold the public `f. ~,- ~- ~ ~" c. To Convert Single Family Dwelling Into ~< ~~~•' Two Family Duplex . _ Mr. Alfred E. Roske has submitted a petition for rezoning property from "R" single family residential to "MR" multiple family residential. The rezoning will allow the conversion of a single family dwelling to a two family duplex. The applicant :>,~> is proposing to expand the second level of the existing house • ; 7 ;} - ' 4 ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~~" a '€ Office of City Manager :`~ ~ ' ` `~ Council Letter No. 117 _ - n? { '~ Agenda April 13, 1981 ;y~ } +ii. c, The Honorable Mayor .' r , ~ -a ~ ~ , and ~, - } ' Members = of the City Council , ,, ' " City of Richfield ~; - .Council Members: e . Subject: Request for Rezoning, 7001 3rd Avenu ,_ '~ and to co nstruct an exposed spiral staircase. No other con- ~;z struction ~ is being contemplated. The property, located at 7001 , a y" 3rd Avenu , e, will have one access point from 3rd Avenue. The staff has reviewed the request and found the following: `" ., 1. , ~ That the petition initiating the rezoning is of N f; fil proper form and exceeds the minimum required number f 5 ~~ : of signatures ' ~ : .;3:. ~' 2. , That the area of the lot is 12,515.4 square feet ` and thus, meets the minimum lot area requirement ~ ~` "` ~ of 10, 000 square feet for lots in "MR" districts _ , : designed for the housing of two families. , , 3. That the subject property is surrounded by property . '` zoned "R" single family residential and the rezoning of this property would constitute spot zoning °. .;. ~~~ 4. That the proposal is in compliance with the city's ~:~ comprehensive plan which indicates that this property *~~ .~', ~~~ should be developed as low density , residential , <`~~:-~,`- ~`_ principle uses of which include single or two family ,~ ~ t: _, , units and accessory uses 5. That the proposal is also in compliance with the - proposed revisions to the residential zoning ordin- `~~ ance. The proposal would meet the three conditions, _ '~ necessary to grant a special use permit for a two family use in an "R-1" district. fF / - - - - - - - ':'u ~' Council Letter No. "117 -Z- April 13, 1981 ` ; {' ""° r <-.>. `'" Staff R ~ ~ LS ,~ ~, ecommendation '~ Y:,. - F~ecause the proposal is in compliance with the ordinances ~- regulating zoning district changes, and the existing comprehen- ~, sive plan, the staff recommends approval of this application ," with the following stipulation: a". 1. That the rezoning is to allow a two family use only. :`;~~: ,;~- - ' The staff further recommends that the city-council give first reading approval to the attached ordinance amendment which ~- would accomplish this rezoning. , : f -_ Planning Commission Recommendation ' ,~` - The planning commission recommends approval of this rezoning "~_ application with the listed stipulation. ;_~. Respectfully submitted", ~_ ~• ,_~~r, r - .: °" ~' Karl Nollenberger ' ~ ' '" ',.~"-:.v,.n v~l" ~3~ri .;,.. C' i t v A4 a n a rr a r ~~ z. s ~;~ 4 RN~e~a _ ~~ -. -- ~:- -" cc : Community Development Director `"` 1: ~~- t# City Planner _ . r > - ~ ~~- ;li _ ~ ~~i - _ t .. .:J 1 .. .. "- iT J+ , .. ."." t .} A ~t;'^ f -} r zr 1. i~ t ,, ;.. `~~ ~ . c - .r- :itj L - i <:~ - - ~ - _ - ~ - Qom. _ - .. - ... ~~t~ j ~ ++~~ { 3 1i _ ' ' - ' . "' - *F: f =~.\ . I~ ~ -: 9 _: - f •: . r _ ' i ~ ,. -. ,-_ .. - - :,~ _ ^; ..1. ,'.'R .. l._:i.~..d...~.. ~.a »~.~..:.ua ,i.'._""__L.sL; z-~~..,-e_:'-'3 ..,.e~L.. :4 ~fx ._F.r .r.-..: -_.. .. ss.~..~+c ,_ __. «,r e..-. _., ter: _u.,_c ._.. ...x ~... .._ .. - ~..,_,-.. . ~ 1 ~~ T I O ~.J ~~ I ~ w o ~l ~ ~ -~ ~ . ;- i C ~I~ ~, M '«t r i:.~lu ~~t 4 J °~ L' J(.pT~ ~ Z a W and / ~~ 4 I I IJ O N ~ •; I Zoning Map Land Use Map 8 V -- ~ g m ~-= '~ 2 -- --0-~ 69th 0 1 :..~ Q tD . = _.,+ ~..: '~~irY ~ d _ N ~ - IUU~ 2 .~"' ~~>: V ~ ~ , t ~- - ^, ~N .:~~y~~ :J-a s A ~ - - ~ f^~ _- i ` Q N :~~ ~ ~- ~~ 1 J ~~ V .y . ^ I1..~1 ~ N g ~ n ~~ i eFamily ~ ~ 7 ~ ~..J .. 1 0 N ~ S ~~~ ` . -----~ 0th ~9~ .. O ,,,, -..:,. I ~. .. .. . ~ • - ~ 'W ;~ _. 1 ~, ~) « Q ... ^ V1 C ~, .•~•: ~ ~, N ~u 7' -~ M^ s~; r „~ ; 51• r ' ; ~ 16I ,. 1 ~ o 1 ~ 2 I~ o ~ __ 41 " ! ~ -- 1 3 a ' ~ 1~~am,,y ~' inK N S I ~ _ rv ~IZ!5 r_, N ... ' s •~II O M 'i i i 9I8 ~~ .~ ~J I~ U i ~. 8 ~ ..r ~ ~ ~_ O I ...° ,. ~ ': ~ ~ 15 2 I ~ ~ ~ ~ , , ! 2~1J ~ I ~ ~ 14 ' f ~: 3 Yl ' I ., •I 13 -- - ~_ 4 I.I~ 1 P amity ~-., 'W I ~~ 1 ! S~~g-i `4 ~~y" a ~ ~ ~. '. Sig ~e ., ~ . N ' ~2 5~~ ~, . I~II ' G :I ~. .~ ~ ~ U ~~ ~,~ I' ~ a ~ hIO ' T } c ~1 ~ 4 T m Q N +~ I 9 8 ~ M ;~ I 51 8 ~- - v = 71st _ ~~ 24! iI I ~ ~.~ I 24~ ~Ir~ ~ ~_~! ' ' y )~ ~:I I 231;1 '_ zs ~ ~~ _ ,, , , M I ~, , • 1 j ti --5ing~e~~amily . Singe F ,~ ,, ..-- ~i ~r r ~~I n _ '~C?ji5 .~ `/yA __ ~1.. lfy~ ._ -• .. p_. ~. ~- ` "--- - -- - - ; •- ~~ -.- .__ t _- __ r '~ . 1. ^ ~ ... ..r+.. ~ _ O~~ ~ N n ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ eel _ {~1~~J n ! i 712 N ~ J n ,1-1 u M ~j ., Y) ~ ' e ~ 5 m m O O I ., -i ~ ~ O N 0 I ro S~ "` O - 1 6 1 --~ s ~a 152 On ~p 14. 3 ~~ - _ V ~ ~~~ ~ a~~`y ~ ~ , G.. ~ .lo z :r~ 9 8 ~~ m =^ ~ '!~ ~~ C 1 i ^~ , 8.: ~, ~ rn I ~ ^ o (-'~ I-'-~ 13 2 ~ m o '~ ~ ~ I4 3 _,~~~), ~a_ ~~--~~ e l~•~~~t 3 4 O .-n N IJ 12 5 O ~ , _ ~v III6 ^~ „O~ b~7 •a~ d P 9 ~ 8 j ~* ~ , I1 _ • am+~y ~> 5ing~e F ,~ ~3 "~ G3 U`i ~ tY. , 4.a Q. -. ' ~ J •--- _. .. , i f" ~ S T. .~ 16 1 ., _ _~ . ^ r. Family j =! ~ 143 ~~ _ ~ 134 ~ to ~ ~ N ; ~ 1 j ~ N ~~tL}~ I f'N . ~'J tlls ~ -~~ I.~ l ~,.~ 5v1 48. -- --- 47:x'• 46; - t1 d5.~ -~, Q ~: _ 43z~ _ _ _4Jy2 ~ = ..N ~ _ ~ _.. ~iV _-^" } ---W3~,r _ 36~i. _ <7 3 5' 1~ ~;~ ~~~{ __ ~Y Imo' ~ ~ ~ ..C y I- ~ 2~°C ~,- - , i- ~, ~ --,t' ~~ - ' :, -}- r~ IJ Q C __ _ } S 1 /U , -. ~ ~ ff a~ s ~ _ /~, ~o n ~r- /, ~~~ ter. ~G ~~j~,G~ ~D ~l ~ ~~~ r~'d IY -!iX. ' r ~ ,_.. ._. ....._.~_. _. _ -_w...,..- .oa.~ •. ~ ~ AMENDn1ENT APPENDIX C OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, binnesota 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 respect: 1. Appendix C~, Section 4, is amended by adding after paragraph (123) the follow- ing new paragraph: "(124) The North 123 feet of the West 160 feet of the East 320 feet of Section 34, Township 24, Range 28" Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1981. Donald S. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Berhh, City Clerk --- - -~ _.._.____~. ,. -_ ... .. -._.___.r.__.~._..__.-. ... _-.. ._ ..:__...-.:-~- __.. -.-~. ~. :dam:Wg3ii+Yilli~~ J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 147 Aqenda May 11, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 7409 Wentworth Avenue South PROPOSAL ~ ~lr . Frank T . to reduce the req The variance will Mr. Uggla's garage>, increasing the existing one car garage to an oversized two car garage. The addition will match the existing structure in terms of siding and shingles. The property, located at 7409 Wentworth Avenue South, is zoned "R" single family residential. The surrounding zoning and land use is also single family residential. STAFF REVIEW The staff reviewed this request against the three conditions for granting variances and found the following: 1. There are no special conditions affecting this property. This lot is of suff icient size and is not signif icantly different than any similarly zoned lot in the City of Richfield. 2. Denial of the application will not preclude reasonable use of the property. There are alternatives which exist that do not require variances. 3. 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. Council Letter No. 147 -2- PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner y May 11, 1981 ~~,_..w .~ ~~.... . , _.._._...~~.~.._.,..._ .......e,.. __ _.__~~i~/L J/~C.~' i v/~1~~ . ~ ~ ~ i ®'N ~Hr ~1'ly'c/'Ti'~ ~~~,~ LdT /~ .dt~C-J.~ _ .. .--- .. ~ T-~v-~~ h'~~JL-J~ / /.i1i~c CCG /.$~~Cr ~ 7'"~'CJ l _ .. _l'(~~',f//bt/~rt/~//~ ~-~"! !2 Ti~~ ~ r ...Ar~~lcr~~,c~ ~•~.~ ~v. /~~.~, rid ~ ~ - ~J~ ~ c_. !~ ~ ~.o c.~~ ~? d'.~~ -- ~ --- - - _ _ .. ~ ~f=~Ci~=a i LSSC G'' f= / /~/S ~ ,~ r~'cl~r ~ .~~ . /u G ~i3~C --- - - - -.C~/Lt?}/~ /~~ ~Jn/ ~,~5/r~efi(~C,C' ~'J, ft/!~ ~l/`/j'[-t~^/~rt ,G) ~j rt/~.f ---~-- -- -. -- _../~a __ ~J1,t~Cfr~,f C~ c~/L 5,~~ =~ c~ ~,Dll~.~c~-z~', i~l _ _ .. _ .. /yam ~ C~~.~'~/L ~ ~,/`~1crS ~~ /,u ~ ~ !`~ !-/~=~, ~ /~~~~'j~ /~ ^ ,{ f . / G'G=~Tt/Ei1L_ fit/ ~ fj`~L'~C ~/l~rl~'`-'~ /J C'`C./'/ ~C~/~ /~C/ZEZ-/, . C? r~/ ~~~ ~~~ pr"~ /~ c Tim' ,~ CSJ U ~fzi -f/~~ ~ ~~/~L ~s,s.u~`~''r r"' f~ ~/ ~ ~ /~i NT c-ifi~ ~~ 4^r- j'~~~7L`~ ~F~ ~,~6:'S/. ~/!';>,.i~, ,,~~-?..?,?t'~ /~~c` C~c.J f ~. rte, t~/C~ ~ !/'!/'h` ~yd ~,s-'/ t~~/,•9~.v:'~,g~G~'. ----------- - - • -- - - ~~ 9 ~~ y~ ~j _ ' .-. ._ _ ._ i t-7L S ~. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF ~ ~ ~ ,~ FOR PURPOSE OF ~~ ~ ...-~ ~ ~:., ,1~- Legal Description: ~L,~~ yS-`~ ~~, ~ /~.~/1~e-L iSSGJ We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby concur with the variance as requested. Si£nature of O~.ners _ Address Legal Description r 17 ~ l . J .e -~ -o~ t ~ ~-- ~~ ~ ~~~. r ~'~~ L ~ 1 - ~ r~/ ,~ ~ j ~3~-G.~,~ -a. 3 i c~a 30 1 - - I -- - -- ~ ---- ~ - - - - --- - I- --- - ---- - I - ---~ - id E-- ~~ ~ - --..~c~ " :;~c.. ;e~^ - I~ i~ t ~!G i i ~I ~~ ~'_ I ~ i1 ,. ~ I ~) ~ ''i .. ~. ds i ~ ~ ~ I~ ~,.~ ~ ~ G1 i .., - -r iC,' /r~~i /i °c~ J~`Jvi~"l U°" /~/c. indthS c-/- Cu gal Crw•7~•. / PETITION TO SUPPORT GRANTING OF VARIANCE The property owner and applioant~Frank ~ Uggla residing at the property in oonsideretion at 7 a0y ~Yentworth Ave South has requested a three foot variance on the south lot line for the oonstruotion of an attatohed garege.The proposed addition if the varianoe is granted would be two feet off the south property line ss opposed to the standard five foot req s ui roment. • At the initial hearing the city planner reoommended that the Planning oommis~d~~on deny the request for a variance. The above named applicant and the undersighnsd surrounding neighbors maintain that the following oonditions and req uirements have bean satisfied and the request for a varianoe be granted. l.'Ehers are special oonditions affecting the partioular land and propos®d atruoture not oonunon to other properties in the arse. 2, Granting of the Tarianoe is neoossary for the er,~oyment oP substantial property rights. 3.~hat granting the variance will not materially end adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhoodedetrimsntal to publio wslfar® or in3urioua to prop®rty or nei;hborhood improvaznsnts. SI GNATUSE AP~~Itir; SS /r ~. `. ~~ ,~ f . ~: ~i _ '/ ~...°l ~~`1..i~y~_ie:/'v.~~'.•. ~.~~_~--i °%;,.rs''. ~:: ...- f~ ~/ .~ ~ •~~~iF .l -?~:i'':J ~.cJ[~ ~i~..y Gj'~ ..-~r_. _f_...~. ,.~~ .... .:... .. ~, ..... _.. _.., ..... ._. ... ..... __..,. ,.. _. h_.. ..._,._.....~....,,.. _......_.:~...;...sw~n..r:_.,,.a.:.~..e +..x~.i.:.xs._W.fFx~Saa CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 146 Agenda May 11, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 6932 Russell Avenue Proposal The proposed addition will arcYiitecturally-match the existing structure. The property, located at 6932 Russell Avenue, is zoned "R" single family residential. The surrounding zoning and land use is also single family residential. Staff Review The staff reviewed this application against the three conditions for granting the variances and found the following: 1. There are no special conditions affecting this particular property. This is a 50' x 127.8' lot and is not signifi- cantly different than any other lot in the neighborhood, or similar areas in the City of Richfield. . 2. Denial of the application will not preclude reasonable use of the property. There are alternatives that do exist which will not require variances. 3. The proposal will be an improvement to the applicant's property and should not be detrimental to the public welfare. .. .. ~:~.~. Council Letter No. 146 -2- May 11, 1981 Staff Recommendation Because the three conditions for granting variances have not been met, the planning staff must recommend denial of this appli- cation. The city manager recommends approval of this variance request. Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission recommends approval of this applica- tion. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ej a cc: Community Development Director City Planner _ __ . , _ _ _ r -. _ _ . _ I -- - _-...._ - __ _. _. i ~.st ~".~asG« fur hv~ ~c~~~'~~ _ - - -. _ ttt~ S ~LL'"~ A ~ '~" ~ -E •Y -k ~. ~' --F' f F~ Y'.F ..X '~ Y'~ rr~2 S _ . -- --.7'G J -k r~ h'1. C V -F G\ . ~~ ~ F" 5 ~ . L~ F~ ~-~ ~ t S U - - _.. _ .~-'~..~ r u o n~ c~ ~f~ -~-~ fh-e b ~ ~ I~ _..._fh.~_ ~X.tS~~h~ J~EG~ 1~'CC}')'~ 1G/'~~C~/' - -• -- ... _. ..~~ ~ C.X. c. l~ O ~ W C~ t1 ~ ~-v ~7'L O U .~ C:~,ti l _ ~ ~ C~ ; t i s c I S v G - l; .~ ~~~~ r~ ~` ~ ~e yt ~ ~` c~ It ~ o i~- - - - //~~ . ~Gc)CX. ~ .~~~,«. 1}1,~.:~, ~ ~~. ~ Lam..( i ;. - - . - - - -?3'; `?,`=sue ... L ~1.:~ w ~4Y:rf ~.o Tr h"_ -1 -'.' ~_ "W ` ~ Northwestern I3uilclers of Minneapolis Inc. 8053 East Bloomington Freeway BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55420 Phone 884-8868 JOB - SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY - SCALE O F .- DATE DATE s_ _..: _ ___.. Z~ .r~ € __.: _~ 1000UC720~1 /v£Bs Nc, GaYS ra 01150 '~~ i~ .i << is _ - --• ! ~ j, p t S' ~ ~~; h C.Q 5 ~v~ ~;c. f ~'~..( GZ-CC Cl'I'..Z 5 s c~ 'f t -- ---- - __ . t.,... ._ _ 1 . ~C "~G r _ _ ___ a ~-~~~ . 1 - - -- .~ - `i"l! ~"~l ~ --- -- - ---_-_- -- . s d .. i l _ . -- - `~ ,~~ _._ r v -<, _, _.. l ~ ... - - __ _ ~ _L r-- S~_ ...~:,s..:. ------- -- - --- ..~~_~ ~ ~ LPL ~ L.,'• _ ~~~~ `t~ "S~.s.~_ h~1C~ . ~ n ~v l - ~ ~. 0 l `r ~ ~ 7 yy ~~~~ ~ l ~~ ~:' ` Log '~U ~~.,~-~L~(~,~ . ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 145 Agenda May 11, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 300 West 73rd Street e) . addition to his existing garage. The lot is 126' x 50'. The house is situated facing 73rd Street so that the depth of the lot is 50 feet. The rear yard setback requirement is 20 percent of the depth of the lot, or in this instance, 10 feet. Because the existing five feet rear yard setback does not meet the required 10 feet, the use is non-conforming. Therefore, to construct an addition on this property, the applicant must obtain a variance to bring the property into conformance with the ordinance. The proposed addition will enlarge the existing 14' x 20' garage to 24' x 20'. The addition meets all setback requirements. The property is zoned "R" single family residential. The surround- ing zoning and land use is also single family residential. STAFF REVIEW The staff reviewed the request against the three conditions for granting variances and found the following: 1. There are no special conditions affecting this property. This lot is of sufficient size and is not sianific~ntly different than any similarly zoned lot in the City of Richfield. 2. Denial of the application will not preclude reasonable use of the property. Although the applicant cannot construct additions to his house or garage unless the variance is granted to bring the property in conformance with the ordinance, they can still continue the existing use. PROPOSAL 1 Council Letter No. 145 -2- May 11, 1981 3. 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 city staff must recommend denial of this application, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner - ~ _i 30C '+Yest 73rd Street Richfield, PJ~n. 55423 j April 3, l°gl Planning Depart^~ent City of 3ichfield Gentlemen; The reason for this variance is so that I can enlarge my 14' by 20' ~ara~e into a 24' by 20'. Thy^_k you. ~~,~,cxw~,°~(~r~ ,~. , rr '~ ' _ _. . rY ~r ~" / C_'?Y G? 1'.I;::.. ID..D,' Rio:::iclc', ::_^^.eso~~ _.. _~...._n: D_ .,lon V ~ 00 ~ Cr ..lat.\• il~~(1n LL ~`• {'~ v L (G12) SC'~_jS~'1 etc _ ~~Ce.^IO:; IS H..^r'i~~' ,~::lD . 0^ . L I ~ c^a^ce in zoning , ~_ ~ ~ Special L'se (~ a revues;. fer variance ~ Apartment Use - B~' Now~rd "!. Krohn ~ Oti.ner/P.pplicar. • 300 `'lest 73rd Street ~ Address _ . Richfield Ci tv ,,}n• ~,3~~.~C~/~ Bus. Phone ~~ , r c= t e prc~er`~- or lane loci wed at - =ess: 300 ,'lest 73rd Street Plat Parcel Su';;?i :•i-sion: I~~~inda,lP "_~idi+, ion Bloc': 1 E.ot 12 C°::ercl G~l::enS~.^r:?S O~ procert:y (attaC}:ed all neCeSCarV dra~`:ines, IP.aOS~ . E:._s ~i^g use o~ land Sir.~le family residential £::? s wing zC::inc : Sin,;le family residential E:._st_r.g buildi::cs? ~ Yes ~ No . P_coCS`_d cZar.ges in use ..'or'e - to exn?nd ;a.ra~e into required ,yard set }~a.ck. Prcposed c::anges in zoning • Tlone Va. is^Ce recu~~s ~e3 : Tn reduce the required re?.r. ,set, t-ac'< of 10' to the Pxistin~T 5' . c.`taz:^. a?i ne^..'~JJ4r,, dr,~~:i;:cs, ,:,~~-, L::~? site ceve:c~..,'~nt ci:.ns e+o:.licar.ts Si:zatu:c Dr:te: Fcc Fecci~•cd R:• i cccint Datc ~n ~ -- ~w~.s ~ . e~ ~ ._ . ~. 0 ~~ ~ ~~8 N ~ ~ ~ i o q ~ -- N t.~ ~ 1~ a - - N _.- n I_ - ' r- - M -~ o of S T. 17 " ~- W N N TQ {~ S i N N r i i f~ G d f N N (, 24~ I N r~.__. 7~ O I 2 ' _._~ ~ 2 I .J ~ O ° I _ 22 --- _ ~' '. _r 21 4-- - -- W N i-' i b ^ O N N~~ ' ~N Q 18 ~ 7 W, Ni I r`~ g I N ~ ~ ~(1 I 9 I ' 15i - IO ~ _ _ ~ I~ II ° _ N ~ I3! 2 ~~~~ .~~:,: f V-. 2i5 209 2 U1 1 -! r-' r i 3 2, I ~- i - 214 208 200 Q I ~. 0 ^ N A o^ ~i5 2 ']~ "C' 14 3 ^-° !~j N ~ ~ 13 4---- ;~ ---- Q r, ~ N I _- N 5 ~^ . ~ - ., h - ~- _- -- -~. 7 ~ ^ 9 N -- f 8 ~o N r- O '~ I 1 N + J A- a ~~ 152 " ^ X4'3 W . ^ - 134 - N a ~, ~-- " i5 N __ ^ ' tt 6 ~~ _, I O 7 " ` 98 !- 0 215 209 20i Z f---T - , r -- .._ J _- 3 2 ~ ~1 ' 2i4 208 POO 73rd ~ w o " ~ O ~z _ (~ a W7 < ~-~ N H -"1 ~ ~ I h wf 1 i 9, 4 ^ N Q L~ V J i - a " .-~ 5 .mil '° - - -a 5 Z ~ ~ N j ^`° aka N N i - N „ i - ~ N V ~ _. MI ~ I I -1 Vl ~ • .l A~ ;, ; r r m ~ ~ L/j/ ~~ n J ii ~ n n /IA „I1 1~n I ~ `t?I I G .~ _ w n '- _' n ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ S T. 215 C9 2 20+ ~~ (( L~I ~ -~ 3 2 I 4 ~ ~ I~ 1 ~ 2io zoa 2oc zl 11 3 1 ~ 5 - 2+4 ~ 209 ~.. 200 ~~ ~ 16 1 ^° A A ~ - ~ ~ -_ ~ ~ - J - ~ 14 3 ~^_' j ( I 4 Lo N I N r- ^ Ni_ I 5 ti ~ MI M tl 6 r~A ~r 1 m r~ _ I 7 - ~ ~~ " h ~ 8 ,. ~ _._ n 73 1/2 ST. '~ _._J S 209 201 16 -C - 1 - ~, ° ~- 14 ~ ~ I w 4 Z ~-- W w ^ N 12 5 11 6 ~-' 1 .~ 7 f I "` 98 ~ L-. - _. .~. ._._ _ .. .. .._ .. .. _ _..-~,.__._. __. _._. ... _... ,.~.. _.. _.__, .-..s...r 72nd c~ REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF FOR PURPOSE OF Legal Description: We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby concur with the variance as requested. Sig of Owners - ddress Legal Description ,. !~k ~ ~ ~ ~2 ~S~ ~~ , ~ . _. wu . _ i { t 51TE T I 1 I-~--- I I ~I ~I I PLAN 5~ 73rd Street 1 ProQ~y I ~~r -~ I I ., Ih I I ~~ . - . -. _,. 300 WEST 73rd ST ~~~e: ~~~- zo~ 4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 144 Agenda May 11, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 6400 Thomas Avenue PROPOSAL yard. The property is 134' x 60', and is 8,040 square feet in area. There is some confusion as to where the front yard is in this case. Although the :::house fronts on 64th Street, the address is 6400 Thomas Avenue. The staff feels that because addresses can generally be used to establish yards and that no attempt has been made .to change the address to 64th Street, the Thomas Avenue side should be consid° ered as the front yard, although it should be noted that a variance would be required in any case. The property, and the surrounding zoning and land use is single family residential. STAFF REVIEW The staff reviewed the request against the three conditions for granting variances and found the following: 1. There are no special conditions affecting this property. This lot is of sufficient size and is not significantly different than any similarly zoned lot in the City of 'Richffield. 2. Denial of the application will not preclude reasonable use of the property. There are alternative designs that do exist for the porch addition, which would not require variances. 3. The proposal will be an improvement to the applicant's property and should not be detrimental to the public welfare. into the front yard trom six Council Letter No. 144 -2- May 11, 1981 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because the proposal has not satisfied all three conditions for granting variances, the staff must recommend denial of this applications although the city manager recommends approval. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of this application. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger ~ City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner • r April 7, 1981 Dear Sir or Madam, We would like to ask you for a variance to build a deck on the east side of our property on 6400 Thomas Avenue South. Our plans are to build a deck that extends ten feet out from the house. This would require the reduction of the yard set back. Because the kitchen, dining and living areas are on the east side of the house and the bedrooms are on the west, the logical place for the deck is on the east side. We wanted the deck to extend out ten feet to allow enough space for the . deck furniture. It's the shady side of the house in the summer and the only reasonably cool place we have in our yard in the afternoon. We also planned to put in a sliding glass door to allow better circulation in the house. If you give us the variance,. be assured that the deck will be built properly and will enhance our property. It would be built at a level so it will not obstruct our neighbor's view. We love our home and the area we live in. Our neighbors are great and we plan to stay right where we are. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ~ ;~ `~ r Gary & Kathy Joles ~..-!~~_ c::_. ~~ in _.`..i. ~~ y _"e: l:~S ~ ~Cr variance B~•: Gary L. Joles ~I J^CC;.c±i l.'SC Apc.rr~;ent Use 0:•:ner/..~~lica A :cress ~:: nom.,-,o 6400 Thomas Ave. So. Richfield C_ t~.• 830-8742 rc_ ~. ~ p_.,~e_-~: or la lc~u..e~ ate. a14 - ss : 6400 Thomas Ave. So. p~~t 45513 ~'arcel 1000 29-028-24-13-0005 _ S:~';;?_~._; son: Gorra Brothers First Edition ~lcc': got 1 G°:'.eral a1::e_^.S_;::5 0= _'"_^,cert~' (a~`_aC~~r? cll n=c`=_..."~' G'=aC•:_i?c ^,!a ) , J ~ i :~ 5 E::_st=::7 use o. la:-:c: Single Family House E::=s ='-n7 zc::-nc ~ "R" Single Family Residential E:._st_::; b;._ld_-cs? X ~ les (-~ ~:o . P=:,acs=c c~a^5 _s i:l us°: None - Add deck to existing house P_c: ^3°_~. c ~^:,ns in _cn~^.; None Varia^ce r=dues == :~ :_ To_reduce the sid~ard set back to allow the construction of a deck. r~ D J ` l ~~- , _ ~• r L i'CO~~ ~ C_~.._ F,000_ _~ ~ i ~.0001 '~ n1LC Z~ :J N_ ~'HbYY1 IBS ~V E , 1~' a~ REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF FOR PURPOSE OF Legal Description: Mie, the undersigned, being owners of irimediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby concur with the variance as requested. Signature of (hrners _ Address L^c:~l ~^scrir.*i^~ ~- I ~ ~~ ~ _ -- _ ~ . , c,____-__i -, ,' ~ r ...i i i Y 1~ , ~k-L1 - ~ ~ Lv ~ c~~o /~~~~s A~.I. - 633~ _ ~,~ s_ to Soo i - - .- -- ~ --------- -- - --- -- -i------ --- i ~ : CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 143 Agenda May 11, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Resubdivision, 6624 Morgan Avenue South HISTORY square feet each. The applicant is also requesting a variance to the minimum lot width requirements of the subdivision regula'~ tions. The property is located at 6624 Morgan Avenue South and is zoned "R" single family residential. The surrounding zoning and land use is also single family residential. The lot was originally subdivided as a 120' x 135' lot, and platted as lot 4, Block 5, Fairwood Park. The applicant constructed a house on the north half of the lot. The proposal will not create any setback violation; however, the existing 3.2' sideyard setback on the north does not meet the 5' sideyard setback requirement. The house was constructed prior to the setback requirement and the resubdivision will not affect this setback. STAFF REVIEW The staff has reviewed the request against the subdivision requirements and found that the proposal meets all the conditio for subdivision approval except the lot width requirement. The minimum lot width requirement is 75 feet. Because the proposal will create a lot 60 feet wide, the applicant is requesting a variance to the 75 feet requirement. The staff reviewed the request for the variance from the subdivision requirements and found the following: 1. That the area in which the site is located is predominantly made up of 60-foot lots. 2. .That the creation of a 60-foot lot in this neighborhood should not adversely affect the surrounding properties. The adjacent property owner to the south will purchase the new lot and has no plans to develop it at this time. Council Letter No. 143 -2- May 11, 1981 3. That a dwelling similar to those already existing in the neighborhood can be constructed on a 60-foot lot. 4. That the applicant's property is larger than surrounding properties. They are, therefore, subject to higher maintenance costs. To reduce those maintenance costs, the applicant could resubdivide the property and sell off the vacant parcel. The applicant cannot, however, resubdivide the property without creating at least one of the lots less than the 75 feet requirement and be able to maintain the required yard setbacks for the existing house. The variance is, therefore, necessary to reduce the hardship of maintaining a large lot and to maintain the required yard setbacks for the existing house. 5. That the approval of the variance will allow the development of the property in a reasonable manner. The welfare of the public and interests of the city and surrounding area would not be harmed. The general intent and spirit of the regulations are preserved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because the proposal meets all the subdivision requirements except that for the minimum lot width, the staff recommends approval of this application with the following stipulation: 1. That the variance to the lot width requirement is granted.,, The staff further recommends that the city council pass the attached resolution, approving this subdivision request. Subdivision Variance The staff recommends PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of this application with the listed stipulation. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~. ~~~-~,.~.:z.~~ V Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner ', I I ( I April 9, 1981 Planning Commission City of Richfield Attn: Rick Jopke 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Jopke: Genevieve and John Bolger of 6638 Morgan Avenue South and Mr. and. Mrs. G. W. Astleford of X624 Morgan Avenue South request var~.ance from the city ordinance which requires a lot to be 75 - feet. ~ There is precedence for our request to change the lot size to 60 feet as all houses on the block are on 60-foot lots, and all lots are built on. The house on the north half of the lot in question f ~ is more than the required five feet from the lot line. The lot has been surveyed, and a petition has been signed by a number of neighbors surrounding the property. These exhibits are attached ~ for your use in taking this matter to the city Planning Commission. As we understand it, the Planning Commission will take this matter up at their next meeting which is April 28. If the Planning Commission approves, it in turn will recommend to the City Council that this variance be allowed, and the City Council will consider the matter at their May 11 meeting. Thank you for your cooperation and fine handling of this matter for us. If we can be of more help, please contact us. Cordially, ~~ ~y ~~ ~ ~,> enevieve G. Bolg~ Vice President/SJles Enc: Survey report (2) Petition papers (4) :.r ;{ t~. ~ ~11.iit~ Bolger publications/creative~printing 3301 Como Avenue Southeast, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 612 /645-6311 i ~~_ .~ Sale of Lot - G.W. "Skeet" Astleford desires to sell his lot, the one south of his house at 6624 Morgan Avenue South, to his next door neighbors, John and Genevieve Bolger, who live at 6638 Morgan Avenue South. The Bolgers are willing to buy this lot. The price for the lot and the terms have been agreed upon and earnest money paid to Astleford by the Bolgers. This sale requires the formal division of Astleford's lot, and must be cleared through the Richfield Planning Commission and the Richfield City Council. We would like your support in this matter. Please sign below. . ~_o~ j ~~ ~, (:x~~ ~~ ;}%~ X r/~~a ~--~~'`L f~~ ~~~ ~.~ --vim ~~ ~=- ,.~ ~~~~ 1 Lam, ~~ c~~.~ ,~ -} ~-- Sale of Lot - G.W. "Skeet" Astleford desires to sell his lot, the one south of his house at 6624 Morgan Avenue South, to his next door neighbors. John and Genevieve Bolger, who live at 6638 Morgan Avenue South. The Bolgers are willing to buy this lot. The price for the lot and the terms have been agreed upon and earnest money paid to Astleford by the Bolgers. 1 This sale requires the formal division of Astleford's lot, and must be cleared through the Richfield Planning Commission and the Richfield City Council. We would like your support in this matter. Please sign below. ~~ll'~C' ~~L4 . . ~ ~,,~.- ~- _---_- ~ C~f,«s:~.ct~ c~1LJZ.NC~ rc.~ ~~~> ~~ ~~~ . ~r ~~ i ~~ ~~ ~- ~°r- ~ ` ~+ , I ~ r ~ ` I' / ~; ..-~~' / ~ t~ IC ~. r ~ / ~' ~ ,~ v - - -~._~......_ _ ~... _ - _ . _ __ _ . _ ___ ~-. _ ..~~ _ r ~-- ~ - - G.W. "Skeet" Astleford desires to sell his lot, the one south of his house at 6624 Morgan Avenue South, to his next door neighbors, ` John and Genevieve Bolger, who live at 6638 Morgan Avenue South. The Bolgers are willing to buy this lot. The price for the lot and the terms have been agreed upon and earnest money paid to Astleford by the Bolgers. This sale requires the formal division of Astleford's lot, and must be cleared through the Richfield Planning C!~mmission and the Richfield City Council. We would like your support in this matter. Please sign below. ' ~~~~ ~ "~ ~Z~`" ~~y~~a , C. ~ lv ~ ~ f ~d G Gam. ~ , ~ 3~ ~~~~~~ ~ , - G.W. "Skeet" Astleford desires to sell his lot, the one south of his house at 6624 Morgan Avenue South, to his next door neighbors, ` John and Genevieve Bolger, who live at 6638 Morgan Avenue South. The Bolgers are willing to buy this lot. The price for the lot and the terms have been agreed upon and earnest money paid to Astleford by the Bolgers. 1 This sale requires the formal division of Astleford's lot, and must be cleared through the Richfield Planning Commission and the Richfield City Council. We would like your support in this matter. Please sign below. -_ . .6 ~ 13 8 ~~< -- _ i9~j 12 9 u ~3e ~6N ~ o ' I1 IO 4` ~ r~0 _ 5 0~ I e 1 ~ aw os 0~ iT 2 -_ u ~ t6 3 Q 1 4 t5a i4 ^ 2iD ~2a 14 5 G z~ 13 6 ~z~ r~ ~, 6539 ~12 7 ~;e + `-' - II j 10 9 B ^~ 1D 7 0 ~~ _ _ ^ _ ~~a 1 ry W o O ._ ~~~~ o ~ D d ~ , -y l .~ N I Dul D ~O ~ nn -- ~ ,., j - !_' _ -- - ` - u - ~ o ., N 8 _\. h L~' n r1 I/1 ~. J q r- '+ .o ,~„ ~ y .1 -. _ n -- , ;,r -- ~~ ~ a I T- W Q Z __ _. _~ _ ...-_ LJ 3sj ~ 13 ~ A D34 39~ -- 12 9--- x139 4 ~ 1 1 10 1 LLI JIJ • e`bl i 18 I ~so os0 IT 2 ~L4 url (6 LLJJ 3 Qio IS iSD 4 ~ is 2.0 14 ~ a x z5~ 13 6 ~ za ~~ 12 7 o ze 3~ 0 I 9 8 2ulb°.2010 of ~ 2006;CUi7 u ~ u ~ 3s Q 13 8 ^ w a 39 ^ 12 9 ^ m 45 ^ 11 10 ~ p 65th of ^ ~ t B I o: ~ o ~^ 17 2 ^ 9 ^ 16 3 ^ o f5 ^ I 4 ^ w 2i ^ 14 5 ^ o z` ~ 13 6 2O^ 12 7 ^ I I 10 ^~o i9~B i X92 9 D „90 8 ~ 8 ; ^ 9co F~th ~ ~ ; .,~ , yv.d 3 ho f3 8 ~ d ;D 12 s ~n --~ ~I I Q a "(-1 I ( 10 N ~; ~ m o 18 1 "~ 0 0 -----I T- 2 a a ----~- 3 n i_~ ~ o 14 5 ` '°~ l3 6 ~ d ~' .2 7 t ND tl r10 9 8 I f ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ O ° a L~ ~ -1 0 ~~ ~ ~ ~ w T I I I I V ^ o ~ _ __ ~ I r-i 2 - 2 L ~~, u _ r-+ ~` N Z ^ 3 -- -- ~'~ ' N ~ - ~ _ 4 ~ ., --- Q ^ I - - ~ ~ ~~ ; - ---. ; - __ _ _- J I L ~ l O - - 6 ! ----~ ~--' W ~-- - .. 6 i -~ 3 r ~] „ o 67 t h 0 61 :•i Im 7ir~ /- 7~.i7 2~1i 20Ji a (~ ; f 6xl J ° ~- ~ 1 5 4 i 3 :~n 7 E ~ - 10 I 11 12 ~~ - ^0 7i~0 zi - zino 2n]i ~O~c ( Oi5 ~ - FOREST ~~ ^' i 5 W ^~ ~ 4 ~ } -11 `-J a Z 5 t g O ,- r-1 6 T . ~ , ~' ~ -1 3 ]~'~~ [~ Q W ;' n lr 2700 8769 Z ~ .._.. 2029. ~- _ _ _~M 1 ~ oc„ DRIVE 2009 J T (2 „~ r~ L rl 3 2 i Z~ Q 8 9 10 ~ 0 0 oo ~--. 2 O ~2 • ~(/ t ) o>t9 . ~:~~~ ~~--? ,. ~ ~ W ~~ ~ , ~ (/ ~ ` 7 \~ _~ 6 ~ 2 ~ Q o '^ i ~_ r w ___ __ .~ u~ ~~ m Q a U po ~n °r ~ f 0 1 _ ti =. eiu T ~~_~- ~ ~ • 4 -~- -- I :>, - ~a ~\~~ 1 V / \ ~ , 3 _~a m _..........,.... RESOLUTION No. RESOLUTION APPROVING OF A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 4, BLOCK 4, FAIRWOOD PARK BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the application for a resubdivision of Lot 4, Block 4, Fairwood Park is approved and the appropriate city officers are directed to take the necessary steps to evidence this approval provided, however, that a variance to the subdivision requirement 1 for lot width is obtained. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of May, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk