The URL can be used to link to this page

04-13-81 agenda~r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 127 Agenda April 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: 1 There is an item on the April 13, 1981 city council agenda providing for council approval of a labor contract agreement which has been negotiated with the International Association of Fire- fighters Local 1215, to cover the period from January 1, 1981 through December 31, 1982. The International Association of Firefighters Local 121.5 is the officially recognized bargaining unit for fire division personnel, including the positions of fire captain, fire lieu- tenant and firefighter. There are presently 24 employees repre- sented within this unit. The major changes in the 1981-82 contract with the Internation- al Association of Firefighters Local 1215 are as follows: 1. Effective 1-1-81, a 9.23 adjustment over 1980 wage rates for all classifications.. In addition, the wage rate for fire lieutenant has been adjusted to repre- sent 107% of the top firefighter rate (previously -104% of top firefighter). Thus, the fire lieutenant rate is now situated at a midpoint between the fire captain and firefighter rates. 2. A 10% adjustment in 1982 wage rat ~°er 1981 wag,, for all steps in each classification. 3. An increase in the city's portion of the premiums paid for health insurance, from the $81 paid per employee per month in 1980, to a maximum city con- tribution of $93 per employee per month in 1981, and $103 per employee per month in 1982. Council Letter No. 127 -2- April 13, 1981 4. "Implementation of a dental insurance program on April 1, 1981, which provides a maximum $10 per month per employee city contribution for the cost of the employee's coverage. 5. Beginning in 1981, the employee holiday leave be increased from 216 to 240 hours per year. In addition, each employee will have the option of selling back 24 hours of holiday leave to the city at their straight time hourly rate of pay in 1981, and either 24 hours or~48 hours of holiday leave in 1982. 6. which provides a payment of'4% after the completio of 20~years of service. (Currently, employees re- ceive 1% after 5 years, 2% after 10 years, and 3% after 1 5 years . ) 7. The annual clothing allowance was increased from $150 to $200 per employee. The change in the city's health insurance contribution and addition of the dental insurance plan, are consistent with the council approved 1981 insurance program for the city's general services and management employees. Other benefit modifications in the contract package relating to longevity,clothing allowance and holiday leave are comparable to such benefits paid to firef fighters in area communities similar to Richfield. In negotiating the 1981/82 firefighter rates, the following factors were considered: 1. Firefighter settlements in other area communities, which range from 8% to 10%. 2. Duties of firefighters in Richfield as compared to other communities. Richfield has historically main- tained a position in the top three communities with respect for top firefighter base wage rate. The proposed package maintains that position. 3. Wage adjustments of other Richfield city employee groups, including the relative position of police officer wage rates. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolutions, approving this labor agreement, and authorizing a transfer of funds from the contingency account to the Public Safety Department, to implement terms of the agreement. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Public Safety Director Personnel Manager Finance Coordinator RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION-APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 1215 BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE YEARS 1981 & 1982 WHEREAS, the City Manager and the International Associa- tion of Firefighters Local 1215 Bargaining Unit have reached a complete understanding concerning rates of pay, hours and other conditions of employment for the years 1981 and 1982, and WHEREAS, the Personnel Ordinance requires that contracts, between the City and the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be implemented by council resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Rich- field and the International Association of Firefighters Local 1215 Bargaining Unit for the years 1981 and 1982 and orders the provisions of the labor agreement to be implemented effec- tive January 1, 1981. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of April, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE 1981 CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT TO VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6290 appropriated funds for each department of the City for the year 1981; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. approved a 1981/1982 contract agreement between the City of Richfield and the members of Local 1215, International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO which provides for a pay plan and establishes a city contribu- tion for various insurance purposes; and WHEREAS, it is hereby determined necessary to adjust the 1981 budget appropriation $72,909 to reflect these adjustments; and WHEREAS, the insurance liability cost for 1981 is less . than the budget appropriation for Community Services; and WHEREAS the City Charter, Chapter 7, Section 7.09 gives the council authority to transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from one department to another within the same fund at the request of the City Manager; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has requested a revision of the 1981 budget appropriations in accordance with charter revisions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the sum of $61,482 be transferred from the contingency appropriation of the General Fund to Public Safety and $11,427 be transferred from the arena insurance appropriation of Community Services to Public Safety. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of April, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk t ~~ ~ ~t 8 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 126 Agenda April 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members,: s Subject: Easement Authorization for Dredging of Milner Pond Milner Pond is a storm sewer water holding pond located be- btween 64th Street and 66th Street, in the vicinity of Apple Lane between Clinton Avenue and Fifth Avenue, with the main body of the pond lying between 65th and 66th Street. This main body of the pond was acquired by deed in 1949. There is a triangular shaped portion of land included in the pond south of 65th Street that was acquired by the city in 1961. In addition, there is a 10 foot wide easement from 66th Street to this triangular portion. The area of land actually covered by water south of 65th Street includes not only the portion owned by the city as outlined above, but also includes private property of six residences along Fifth Avenue. Records we have found indicate that the property owners had this fingerlet dredged in 1954 (including their own property). Last fall, when the pump which maintains a regulated water level in Milner Pond was not functioning and, therefore, the water level was down, the city rented equipment to excavate some of the material build-up in the main portion of the pond. (The pump was installed in the early 1950's by property owners concerned about the aesthetics around the pond). The neighbors along the fingerlet asked that the city also dredge inthat area, but it was discovered that the city does not have an easement or legal right to enter the private property where much of the water fingerlet exists. Two meetings have been held with the six neighbors invited to discuss the problems and concerns on the part of both the residents and the city and to examine possible solutions to those problems. It would seem that the best solution for both the property owners and the city would be to have the city attorney's office prepare easements for execution by the city and the property own- er. The easement would provide the city the legal opportunity to treat the storm sewer water holding capacity storage and ponding * Council Letter No. 126 -2- area at Milner Pond as the city wo ponding area. Any work to be done to the sewer utility budget as is case with the clean-up of the main last fall. April 13, 1981 uld treat any other storm water in the area would be charged currently done and as was the ponding area at Milner Pond To assist council members in identifying the area, a colored sketch is attached. The rippled lines represent the approximation of the water ponding area. The yellow area is a designation of those areas currently owned by the city, or to which the-city has easement rights of access. The r$d area- is that area proposed for the dredging and execution of easements. The Director of Community Services will be present at the April 13, 1981 city council meeting to answer any questions you may have on this matter. It is recommended that the city council authorize the city attorney's office to draft easements as basically outlined and authorize the execution of said easements as required. Respectfully submitted, ~.~ nls' ' ? ~`` Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ ej a cc: Community Services Director 1N3W 3St/3 '1S ~ u~99 r- ~Q o, Q~ . CTI ~P CT1 w • ~ ~ 'w N - ,V .,,~-Y,..,,,. Q~ T 'I ~ IV -P ~ .,,.~ ' i W ~ ,1 .~ IV ,p .~ UJ i ~~~ •• ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~~• 'w "' ~ N w 'o N 0£ ..W ,. . .,....~ . . , ~ ~Y _.._. _. , .. . . , . _ _._ .:~ I.n t 't 1Sd3 091 00 O ~ M 51'b51 ~' ~ rn in 0 N M < ~' Zbl ", W M L ;'£bl A -p Q ~ 8 f~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 125 Agenda April 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Request to Move Dwelling from 6608 18th Avenue to 6925 12th Avenue The city has received an application from Mr. Eugene Selchow to move a single family dwelling and garage from its present lo- cation at~6608 18th Avenue to 6925 12th Avenue. This home is 30 years old and is a one story, one family ranch style dwelling, 37 x 24 feet and proposed to be relocated on a 60 foot lot. An inspection of this dwelling has been made and Mr. Selchow has been informed of the existing maintenance and site work necessary to bring this dwelling into code compliance. Mr. Selchow has agreed to furnish the city with a bond in the amount of $12,000, the estimated value of work to be completed, to be held by the city until such time as final acceptance for occupancy is issued from the city to parties of ownership. The owner shall not cross over a curb as access to the property. Any necessary curb cuts shall be the responsibility of the owner. If it is necessary for water and sewer lines to be brought into the property, such shall be the responsibility of the owner. Property owners surrounding and adjacent 6925 12th Avenue have been contacted and have approving Mr. Selchow's proposed plan to move property. Attached to this council letter is the vacant lot as well as the locations of ad owners who approve of this move to the property at signed a document this home onto this a site map, showing joining property It is the recommendation of the Community Services Director, in which I concur, that the city council approve moving the afore- mentioned dwelling onto the vacant property at 6925 12th Avenue. Respectfully submitted, 1 c Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ ej a cc: Community Service Director Chief Inspector ~, March 18, 1981 Eugene Selchow 7538 17th Ave. S. Richfield, `1N Re: 6608 18th Ave. S. The investigation of the above structure was made by the Department of Inspection. The following items were observed as deficiencies and will need to be upgraded to code compliance. Also other moved dwelling requirements and final site work as listed shall he completed. This project in reference is the moving of a single family, one story dwelling, to 6925 12th Avenue South. Items of work to be completed are as listed: 1. Install neiv basement and floor 2. Paint and surface repair exterior 3. Reroof dwelling (15 sq.) 4. Insulate attic, foundation and rimbox 5. Install new electrical service (100 amp) and miscellaneous other code eaork 6. Install ne~v furnace to existing ducts 7, Install new water }seater 8. Reconnect dwelling to sanitary line and install inhouse plumbing 9. Install copper 3/4" water service 10. Finish grading and sodding 11. Landscaping as approved by Chief Inspector 12. Relocate garage, slab and repair 13. Take out proper permits 14. Pay metro Sewer Availability Chage All costs are estimated. Total a 3,500 600 75n 500 800 1,000 220 800 S00 1,20n 200 1,500 425 X12,025 A bond for the above value shall he furnished to the City of Richfield and held by same until all above ~aork at site is complete and a final acceptance for occtm ancy is issued by letter from the city to parties of ownership. ilpon completion of above work thi-s dwelling will he an asset to the area of 6925 12th Avenue Sout!1 and should give many years of service. }}. Kuehl Chief Inspector W '1 .. W f.L~~l_ _ o°_ J l ~ o ~ 'Q j ;31.5 '~i 53 -' ~)0 0 0 . ~ t)L)4 l3L34 ~ ~ 3 Y . '1t.4i- --~ -- .R. ..~- 'R------ - ` 1 w _ i 1~ r~ ''1. ° , '~ls o ~j~ - 1 °v0 ai0 _.___.._._~~ ~C ._._ p '}f~` 1'1 °•^ 1 _.._ ._ ~ __._ .1 _.~ ~v 1V, ~~ ~b.{O 1~ao ,~, ? S a° o ,..; ~ -_~_ . r~~ ~ ' ST. r t w O 1~ h ~bo z ~' c~ f~1 ;Y Q ti y~~0 _ ""' 4,~ ' 11 ti ~~ '~I 4. ~-- ~- ~0 ti 1ti i,~ h ~ i A M - y..' 1L io r ,00 I .K . o i o~ ,` `9 JO t 1Q00 267 ~ ? _-.._ ~ O~ I ~'~ o L to J. ~1 l "•,-o S T. h b a 4 i D V 60 '~ 1'~ .4i \a~ 2 yi_ I ~. ~ p5 a`~ a,h y r _ _ _._---_. ` Q fC0 . - A f I a'.~ • Vow _--.___~ qq •kti~ ~ I..L_-__.. y ~~° '~~ c~ r ~~ Z O _, 136 ~ti r l 3y e~f ' W ~ N ~O ~~ ~,~ °ji .._.~,~ e~ , '~41 ~ ,p3 A~O y ~ tiA` ~~'~ ' 100 N p v_ ~ .n d o ° S~ "~ w~ R ~uR ;: P' ,~ v (~DP'c~ Stl~, y .,.~ 5b... 2 5.G ~I y~ ~ t '~ ~'1 Z b~ J)3.1 L (~.~ i33.2_ J b~.lo j~tl0 V ~'~,tio Vt,u ,,1~6 N - ~)3u M ~, b~`b J M b~.o d b~ M ~O~O ;pOt," :.ine 1685'+ ~ 5 oS { qlo var~gc!'w~~, ~ he EtVd,°~ ~tna~ Syj~ 5i.lp;••~o q Z~ q , ~.l 4°0. Q yoo X11. G ~~ 60 -°°r ~ ~ No~Q•, No SL w;dtt+s on 9ta' Hof ~.9~' EQ ST .~ 1 !.36 r, 4~0 ~So '~ vs ~'~ Z ;.55 0 J on a _.. 7 ~~ , N a , _ S _ , l-' ~ {per I t _ ~ r° 0 ~~~ - ' ,~° 1 bj° ' ~.. - i~ • 5 1..2 ^ ~ b7 ~ ~~ 1 ~ {,, i i'1`'h . `y __ y J ~ trje ~. ryM `H t~ E~ 33 ' 33 ° 1 hoo . y lea ~S ,~ +12i`3-- ~4 {Z . ' o ~ ,, ~1~ . .. ~ "' ' _1~2 _ i ` 1.' ~"-' QQ // 0 ry°°0 ~ ~.. ~ j[ ~4d~ ~ ti° ~ ---Y'tFZc~. ; ~ ~;ita. ~ •~~'1~~ ~ti ~ s ~ O ~.ao:~ S'~~ ~ m~ j`. r ~y :~ `.. 5 V~ IaG '3Z. ,0 1 i`7 lrt -1 2. ~-Sx% I a) , ,,.~ ~ - y. ~ ~ ~ °°° 3 } _~11i~ . 1~~'1 _ t ' ~~ ,L,o ' `O, 4 - Itio T b ,~ S 4 ',3:' 3 yw o ~. cp q a';~i 1L~ D ~jZ ~1 3 ~ ~ ~ . ~ , 1_ _ 11i o~ 4,.,ao ~;~~ 4 , p ,}Z ~ - ----~~=1~--- .~ __ .:~ U0 - _ -- - EAST ,9.-- ;; .: - . ',~ {,\ _~~ ~ ~.- _ .. / ~ A- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 124 Agenda April 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request to Move Dwelling from 6556 Emerson Avenue to 7320 Grand Avenue . The city has received an application from a Joan E. Pelfrey, to move a single family, one and a half story dwelling from its present location at 6556 Emerson Avenue to 7320 Grand Avenue. The home is 40 years old, of brick construction and considered to be in good condition. It is 35 x 28 feet and is proposed to be located on a 48' legal lot. An inspection of this dwelling was conducted and Ms. Pelfrey has been informed of the existing main- tenance and site work necessary to bring this dwelling into code compliance. Ms. Pelfrey has agreed to furnish the City of Richfield with a bond in the amount of $9,750 (estimated value of work to be completed) to be held by the city until such time. as final accept- ance for occupancy is issued from the city to parties of ownership. The owner shall not cross over a curb as access to the property. Any necessary curb cuts would be the responsibility of the owner. If it is necessary for water and sewer lines to be brought into the property, such shall be the responsibility of the owner. Property owners surrounding and adjacent to the property of 7320 Grand Avenue have been contacted and have signed a document approving Ms. Pelfrey's proposed plan to move this home onto this property. Attached to this council letter is a site map, showing the facant lot as well as the location of adjoining property owners who approve of this proposed move. It is the recommendation of the community services director, in which I concur, that the city council approve moving the afore- mentioned dwelling onto the vacant property at 7320 Grand Avenue. Respectfully submitted, ~((~~,, ,, ( ` Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Community Services Director Chief Inspector v btarch 24, 1981 Joan E. Pelfrey 7325 5th Ave. S. Richfield, hiN Re: 6556 Emerson Ave. S. The investigation of the above dwelling was made by the Department of In- spection on A4arch 24, 1981. The following items were observed as deficiences and will need to be ungraded to code compliance. Also other moved dwelling requirements and final site work as listed shall be completed. This project in reference is the moving of a one family, one and a half story dwelling from 6556 Emerson Ave. S, to 7320 Grand Ave. S. The items of work to be completed are as listed. 1. Install new foundation and floor $ 3,500 2. Surface repair and repaint all exterior wood 200 3. Repair roof and shingle as needed 200 4. Insulate foundation to grade and insulate rimbox lSn 5. Reinsulate back side of kneewall and ceilings 300 6. Install new 100 amp+ electric service and miscellaneous outlets and G.F.I.'s 800 7. Install new furnace to existing ducts 1,000 8. Install new water heater 225 9. Install new water line inhouse below floor area 350 10. Reconnect dwelling to sanitary line and inhouse plumbing 800 11. Install new water service to dwelling 500 12. Final grading of lot and sodding 1,000 13. Landscaping as approved by chief inspector 300 14. Pay sewer availability charge - 1 unit 425 15. Acquire all necessary permits Total $ 9,750 All costs are estimated. Note: This lot has no water or server stubbed to property line from main in street. A bond for the above value shall he furnished to the City of Richfield and held by same until all above work at site is complete and a final acceptance for occupancy i.s issued by letter fxom the city to parties of ownership. Upon completion of above work this dwelling will be an asset to the area of 7320 Grand Ave. S. and should give many years of service. ~fL~ _ H. Kuehl Chief Inspector ~ ~~ ~ > i ~. - ~ ` s . . ,.• _ tsp.. H 5 .i ~K1 ~'~ -.,., ..;~ ~1 ~4 ~s t ~t i ~~~t•-+1 i ~~ ~+' ~f {S• `~y ...w~~ ~.f ~~~~~ -~ t,> >.._~1 ~ yF ~~ ~ G~ `~~ ~~ ~t '~ f.N. _;. V a. - 'ate i .. 4 ' FF y e y~ * ~` _ , !s Tb .Y1't ~ a .. ';_ I ~~ ?2 .....~~ L~.~,i} *M~y~S+•w~+ray l~~.~~ r -..,•!~ ~! Y ~-.« • Q ^_w+~~~ ~.i ~~~ ~ .!• 4a~ 3 'a ~ 5 :,~ Ii ~ t ~ ~.~? Lt1 iV sr ~ a . 1 „~-~~-- ..-..~. - +'~ H ~ ~ 1, " r v >r3 X01 ~ W ~} w - ~ ~ = 4- ~ ,,,~t t~'.a iir t i ... ~` *m ,E y ,~ ,~ a:~• •Y' t2 -'_-'Tl .may,. ,„ ~9 ~ f ~€~n +t y~- - ,R - = s. .s .. SAS L'trvt~.-i -- a.•z ]~ ,F :f I~,,~ S !~ y/ ~~~ 4~ 7 .. M~~ • ..sw , ~ .- "' ~` . ;y.+!'~~ ..i ~ .ice .! ._ ~,~ ~ + ~ ti ~ ~ ~, w +-, l~N+ ~ t.~,.1 ,{ . , ,'t ^ ^ r I'~ 1 .,~~ a i ~~``~$ ~ ~tn ~~ ~ 4. n - ~E r~ ~k'~ rr ~,, w , ~ i~ +r . r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ fi ~- ~ -- j ., +^' f dry ~~ ~ r}'~ sI 7 ~ ~ ~ f 'r ' .~ ..~ ~ ~. ^ r~ .' s '. : ' .4013 ` . ~_ , a ..;~~~ ~ ~ _ _ g. , , ..ate '~~a~ i ~=d .-. , r.' 1.. r•. C a ~ •~c ~'~ {"'S."( ~S~~x NOS Q '' ~,; a+ , ~' • w ~ w r= F :,~~+l4' .a , j' , l i ~: ~~+~~ M ~r: ~.. '[....ter 3 i w~ _ ' ~ y.~a i,',4. ; ~ fr - . } }~'~s y ,ld 7 # 7 Q • _ t. ! rw ~ ..l 44 rv ~L yI +~* t fy fy1 y3 'A ~F.~~I~r .~- a7.'Y +.~g~~•~r•V ~~, v ~,~ i ~ ~~:f .~,. s':al~ x ~ ' M y~'~!.,~r -cx y ~ -`_-y ~ • ~~ t h ,,~y ~ *~ '~'a ~ \a a ~ ~.. ! ~,. ,fJ r~ ~ ~ ~, a i,~ a.+e --. a o 1~~+y L,~ ~ ~`~ f~~~,..e~`~- ~~Sk.- t~~x~..Q(r~T ..~~'t A~~~~ ~s, c +4 s t.4 r~a~ylr r~~ r <~. ~ ° .~~i ~~~~~~~~* ds ~}'~ ~ ~s~,gg..,~t;~'3;r + ~ <. ~ .:~ • 'r,~.yre ~.~~,~1QY~(,~t~ r y~ N „~kS ' c .. t ) t~'~ fs h,~ ~ ~. ~. a . ~..."~~~c. 1 4" :~`x fir, ~-rte ~ = ,~?„ .?!~ iia ~f, ~~t ,~~{ s tr ~ Z . ~~. F~~~ .~,, +~~ ~ . ....;y-:, ~ ,', ~ ~ ~4 -'+°' es '~F`~~7 ,v 3~ ~ : r+b'a n ~~6.Kt }fit -..•~ .>s`.* w ti'~ t' .i~~ ,.~ C. , +i. +' ~ ~ sR~'~ ' ~ `p- tr ~._"~ - '~ ai r~ ~! ~ . aS: ~ i ~~ Cv x..97 V a.. r fi'~. '4' , i • ,/ -~ r t •. • ~ , - L '{. ~~4,, .~~,,.?¢, 3•? y _ ~ }.•. _ w't ~ ` :+~"~-. .. ~ ~ -R-rc '~" ~ y~-',~ .4- , ~ r ,X-'•~ ~' Se ~_.~.~.3~ n p ~+~'~°' }~_y~y~~~~~ --Mt1t.~ IPLE~• ~ES•IDENCE~' 3 > a L pn, ~q +} ..~. w ~_ - .,~ ~ S it. alb "'~4 ~,i.~`y '"' ~ f ° .~. ax' } 'a ~ ~c ~ ~'a ' L ~ A .''~~ .. ~ ~~~~~+- t~~~ t"i. 4:; .ti !'" " t+``R" S ~ ~1 .,~ a~` t -i ~` I~a tt~t • #. ., ~'~'* l ,~ - .( ~' ~}~. 1a a;~ri: ,yM1t. s' +,~.. r2 [4. ~-u'j• ~rw, 1t ~~.,. ~.4„1a f" t +,r may; r - - I ~}~ ,~~ ~• .'t• ~ y.a i .. s-f V, '- ~4 ~ "ii'~.4~`..h y 7 ..~ ~~~.~.,''-{: ! )_.~. i ~.r ~F •~~ >~~~F ~~ t c q., ~` aT ;6 F, ~~ r4~ ~; ~~ ak:~ a-~,a .. ;~.. ~,y~ t'; ; ..:w . r .,i .. ~~s CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 123 Agenda April 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Metropolitan Council/Metropolitan Airports Commission (MC/MAC) Committee Final Report The city council has previously received a copy of the MC/ MAC Committee final report on Airport Planning Issues, and a memorandum outlining a number of concerns which the fully devel- oped communities around Minneapolis-St. Paul International Air- port have with the report's recommendations concerning land use/ noise compatibility around airports. At a meeting on March 17, 1981, the Metropolitan Council Transportation subcommittee initiated review of the final report of the joint MC/MAC Committee on Airport Planning Issues The committee received considerable comment from representatives of each community that is affected by aircraft operations at MSP International Airport. Acounter-proposal to the MC/MAC recommenda-• tions, involving aircraft noise/land use compatibility guidelines, was jointly presented by the fully developed communities located around MSP International Airport. In addition, representatives from Eagen, Mendota Heights and Inver Grove Heights presented views toward expanding the MC/MAC Committee's recommendations.- In view of the information presented to the subcommittee, it-was recommended that the staff of those agencies involved in develop- ing the MC/MAC land use guidelines, and each community, attempt to come to mutually agreeable solutions. As requested by the Transportation subcommittee, the Joint Communities/Interagency Staff Group has met. twice to try to resolve the various issues identified.. Participants in the meetings in- cluded representatives from: MAC, Metropolitan Council, Richfield, Mendota Heights, Eagen, Inver Grove Heights, MPCA., Metro Clear Air Committee, BRW, Mn/DOT, Bloomington, Minneapolis and St. Paul. The group has identified the areas of mutual concern and has ..been able to agree on revised recommendations for resolving a number of those concerns. The following is a summary of the discussions which have occurred so far: 1. to prevent potentially incompatible development around an airport during the period needed for amending the Metropolitan Development Guide and while communities are reviewing their plans. Council Letter No. 123 -2- April 13, 1981 DISCUSSION: Though it was agreed that the final authority for policing action that may be in conflict with any noise guidelines belongs with the local unit of government, the group felt strongly that the strategies available should be clearly spelled out. Among the strategies discussed were Metro Significance and Municipal "moratoriums" under MS 462.35. The limits of each strategy, however, must also be investi- gated. CONCLUSION: A recommendation should be developed, providing suggestions or guidelines informing all inter- ested parties of the strategies available to maintain a uniform interim reporting and control mechanism. 2. ISSUE: :Develop Ground Noise Attenuation Program to investigate feasibility of certain noise attenuation strategies, particularly in areas of existing development. DISCUSSION: Though the MC/MAC Report addressed, as a , first priority, non-compatible new development, it was not intended to ignore existing land use conflicts. Cognizant that correcting existing problems is more difficult and involves complex and costly measures, all agreed that additional study and investigation of methods is required. In addition, a majority of the group felt that study should include possible funding programs, analysis of cost vs. benefit, in terms of both energy and noise attenuation, and identifying areas having highest priority. Given that any strategies dealing with existing uses relates to all affected parties, the group felt that such a program should be accomplished in a comprehensive manner and not simply involve MAC and an individual community. CONCLUSION: A recommendation should be developed stating that a task force, comprised of representatives from the Metro Council, MAC and affected communities, be estab° lished to develop an Aircraft Noise Attenuation Program. Such a program should include such strategies as insula- ting noise-sensitive land uses, redevelopment of appro- priate areas and zoning or rezoning property. In addi- tion, the program should address alternate funding sources, including innovative grantsmanship. 3. ISSUE: t^`MPCA Standards. (Revise or Review) - The MC/MAC report states that the MPCA Noise Standards, as they re- late to aircraft noise, are inappropriate and should be revised. DISCUSSION: Certain community representatives felt the language "revise" was too strong and should be changed to "review". MAC was strongly opposed to the change since they firmly believe that the standards are not practical for airport operations. MC staff concurred, since MPCA has been quire reluctant to even address the concern al- ready posed. Additionally, it was noted that the land Council Letter No. 123 -3- April 13, 1931 use compatibility guidelines included in the joint community proposal differ significantly from PCA's standard. The MPCA staff indicated that they are re- viewing their standards and would generally support the guidelines presented by the fully developed commun- ities. CONCLUSION: The language in the MC/MAC report should be changed to "review". 4. ISSUE: ,.Financial Aid to Communities to assist implem- entation of noise compatibility. DISCUSSION: Community representatives voiced concern that they will not be able to implement noise compati- bility plans without financial assistance. MAC stated that they had insufficient funds to simply give money to communities . MAC is also •expecting to lose federal f iri- ancial aid for MSP International (due to federal policy). MAC pilot project to sound insulate St. Kevin's School will be accomplished in exchange for an easement. Besides noise attenuation, energy efficiency should also result from this project. Economic benefit to communities as a whole must be weighed against localized disbenefit. Many factors must be con- sidered and some alternative funding might exist, CONCLUSION: All agreed that the subject is complex and should be explored more fully. Topic should be another consideration of separate task .force, as recommended earlier. 5. ISSUE: Planning = The MC/MAC report confuses planning for air- port safety zones, and land use planning for noise compat° ibility. DISCUSSION: Community representatives felt that these two issues should be dealt with separately because they are essentially different problems which involve separate processes for their resolution. CONCLUSION: The MC/MAC report recommendation should be resolved to keep airport safety zoning within the joint airport zoning board process and noise land use planning within the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act process. 6. ISSUE: Source Noise Reduction should be encouraged by lobbying manufacturers and the federal government. DISCUSSION: All agreed that control of source noise is beyond state and local government control. Alderman • Rockenstein of Minneapolis reported that from his exper- fence little progress is being made on the federal level Council Letter No. 123 -4- April 13 , 1981 to limit production of noisy airplanes. Federal policy appears to relax p_ior rules requiring that engine manu- facturers meet certain noise standards. CONCLUSION: None 7. I;~SUE: 4rhich Lard Use Compatibility Guidelines should be used to reduce noise impact around airports? DISCUSSION: Certain community representatives voiced the following concerns about the MC/MAC report guidelines: A. They do not protect new residents on undeveloped land in the southeast flight corridor. B. They could lead to changes in the preferential runway system which could result in more air traffic over Richfield, Minneapolis, St. Paul and Bloomington. C. They do not address land use compatibility in fully developed communities. D. They appear to be inflexible and unnecessarily restrict community land use options. The guidelines have no performance standard which would allow exceptions for uses where superior construction or rehabilitation techniques provide a high level of noise attenuation. The guidelines contain no variance procedure. E. They depart radically from the Minnesota Pollution Con° trol Agency Standards.. This may result in litigation with the MPCA and may expose communities, the council and MAC to lawsuits for permitting new development in violation of state noise standards. Community representatives from developing suburbs voiced concerns about the proposal from the developing communities because it would unnecessarily restrict development in their communities . CONCLUSION: No final conclusions have been reached on this issue. There seems to be general agreement, however, that the guidelines should clearly deal with fully devel- oped communities, that an exception process based on per- formance standards should be developed; that a variance process is necessary and that the D2PCA will have to be in- volved. Discussions on this issue are continuing. In summary, it appears that the concerns which fully developed communities have expressed with the MC/MAC Committee Final Report on Airport Planning Issues are being addressed. It would be help- ful, however, for the city council to indicate their feelings on v _ Council Letter No. 123 -5- April 13, 1981 this matter to the staff to insure that their concerns are fully addressed by the committee. A draft resolution is an item which the city council may want to adopt. The joint communities/inter- agency group will be meeting again in a couple of weeks, the exact date has not yet been determined. Council members are welcome to attend this meeting if they wish, and we will keep you informed as to the date and-time. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ej a cc: Community Development Director City Planner r R E S O L U T I O N N O. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR CHANGES IN THE AIRCRAFT NOISE/LAND USE C0:1-IPATIBILITY PLANNING GUIDELINES RECOMMENDED BY THE JOINT COh1h1ITTEE OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COhIMISSION. WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has a ongoing commit- ment to protect andSenhance the environment and health of the people living around h4inneapolis/St. Paul International Airport; and WHEREAS, the joint committee•of the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Airports Commission has approved a report on Airport Planning Issues containing guidelines for aircraft noise/ land use compatibility planning; and WHEREAS, the "Recommendations" section of this report, if adopted by the Metropolitan Council, will become the guideline for revising metropolitan policies for land use compatibility surround- ing airports; and WHEREAS, many of these recommendations inadequately address the City of Richfield's concern for protecting its citizens from aircraft noise, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The Richfield City Council recommends that the hletro- politan Council re-evaluate the recommendations of the - 2 - ..- MC/h1AC Committee to a. Clearly distinguish between the responsibilities of communities with large tracts of undeveloped land and the responsibilities of developed com- munities in responding to land use standards; b. Incorporate performance standards which allow .. communities to prepare individual controls and standards for land use, design and construction in noise impacted areas; c. Clearly define the Metropolitan Airport Com- mission's role in aircraft noise abatement and ground attenuation. 2. That city staff be authorized to participate with the Metropolitan Council and its committees to ensure that Richfield's concerns are met. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk ~ /.3 RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA of City Manager Council Letter No. 122 Agenda April 13, 1981 v ::~ ~f ~ The Honandble Mayor ~ r`'`te ~v'\ ~~r~ v ~F ~ ' ~ ~~' Members of the City Council ~~+-~ F'' ~~ ~:% City of Richfield ~ n ~~ ~~~.~~~~~ ~J~" ~C Council Members: \~- ~ " ~ ~~\ Subject: Application for Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License, Fred Babcock VFW 5555 There is an item on the April 13, 1981 city council agenda providing for council consideration of an application for a non- intoxicating malt liquor license for the Fred Babcock VFW Post. The applicants have requested the license to permit the dis- tribution of free beer to members and guests of the annual VFW Post picnic, scheduled to be held in Augsburg Park on July 26, 1981. The proposed hours of the beer distribution are from 12:00 noon until 6:00 p.m. The city code requires that: In order for the city council to issue the mit.to the VFW, the date of July 26, 1981 must state holiday or a civic celebration so designa At the March 23, 1981 city council meeting, the nated July 26, 1981 as a civic celebration, "Fr However, the action did not receive a unanimous a normal council agenda item so the validity of in question. requested beer per- be a national or ted by the council.. city council desig- ad Babcock VFW Day." vote and was not the action is It is my feeling that the council should carefully evaluate celebration, as has been requested by the VFW. Council action des- ignating this event as a civic celebration, and thus permitting the sale or distribution of beer in conjunction with the event, could potentially generate numerous other requests for similar designation by other city organizations. The precedent of the council designating one such activity sponsored by one group as a future requests. I am especially concerned with this request, + since it is for an event which is open only to a select group of Richfield residents, that is, VFW members and their guests. I do • Council Letter No. 1~Z -L- .~~t 11 I r ~ i Jv i r... .,.r ... ~. ..... ~..~ .~".... 'r~~~ ... • . ~v . .. ~..Y vv...... .ii a..•..~a„s.aay vv aa._a. ~. as wvu~. do just that. This draft ordinance will be ready for distribu- tion at the April 13, 1981 city council meeting. KN/eja - Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: City Clerk Community Services Director Public Safety Director LJ 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) 6a~e-e~-eens~x~ptie~-ef-beep-is-a~~e~aed-envy-~~-eer~- neetien-~raitk-Pdatieaa~-ems-State-kelie~ays-e~-dt~r~~g-eivie eelel~ratiens-se-e~es~gaatee~-3~y-tke-eet~ne~~ . Sale and consumption is turthe~ limited to the dates and times specified by the council in the permit." Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1981. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk .~~i • i A 4' _ t ~t 1 ~~~t~rr~~~ ®~' ~~~~e~c~ ~~^~a~~ ®~' ~~uC? ~~as~~~ ~~~tt~~ FOUIVDFD 1889 v •a,llg . ~'~/•4 ,, P•ir. Donald Priebe, P~,ayor City oz I~3chfiold F.ichriold City hall 67th end Portland Richfield, Pin 55!23 Telephones: 869-5555 - 869.9940 - 866.6112 710 LAKE SHORE DRIVE - RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 April f3, '@9B1 l~ttn: ,City Council Sub~oct: Ordinance change request D3ar Sir3: Aa you are aware, Prod Babcoclc V.F.1J. is seeking permission to hold its annual picnic in Augsburg Parlc, this forthcoming July. Sinc© pro have traditionally provided bear for th© adult participants, our city ordinance lrould have to bo amend3d to allow such activity under special conditions. To provide evidence that there is sufficient sentiment trithin the City of Richfield to suppo^t such change, vo herein suba3.t a amall sarspling o° such opinion, solicited in 3uat a few days, here in Richfield, FIad pro made an e.ctondod and concerted oi'"ort in that rogarda ire could have provided thousands of n~o3. Aa you are all tro11 alraro, Babcock Post has long stood in the foro4'ront of thoao organisations auppor~ting Richfield youth activitioa, thororor3 ~.t is an established fact tha'~ cro carp about our Lids. It thou ohould bo ont~ally obvious that~~tro taco spacial procautiena in planning Post activit•aoa ~rh~?cli, inc~.udo cur o:rn >Welabora children. Our Poat picnic and our Christmas Party, are the two Poat act~iv~.tios pla->.nod spociflcally foa "gamily" aft©ndanee, That boi.r_g the ca ,o, each part icipa.nt is rocluirod to re~iate_r, display proper idcnt~.f-icat~.ong and ? s "sta^~nod" faith proper identification to obtain free "~;oodioa"9 etc. O,~>.1y those displaying the p?^opor identification ago served beer. All gamo3, ri_doo, or othes• actLv-ities ago sup3rvisod by volunteer t~lsmbors to insure a~ainat ?~a;rdfnoss. In addition, tae uaua3ly biro an of'f-d1~ty police officer to pats°ol th.3 gro~.luls, c~ra~°n Ls of problc*~.a, and assist LLa in enzo_°cln~; our rules. Oa bob alf oi' the > or..bo 'a o" our Peat, wo rocluest that you chan~;o the ordir~^.nco to allocr ua t!~o opportun_~ ty to shoo the rosi dents or Rieh^iold ghat orgenications az?ch as ours can do in the tray of planned activities with a "r;..>"ily" eWp':a3_ta. Sin ~ el -,____---, /- g ~ ~ . ~~ obort lri ,3nior Coa*~and~or~ .r ~ ~, , 1' , f' t ~;;:, '' ;~:' NEB 2HE ~+~aIDENT9 OF 12ICHI+IFLD, STRONGLY SUPPORT THE USL Q@' ' ~, .. , ~..~.; ; :.••,RUG3BUft4 PARK P01? TITI~ FFtI:D ~3.~B000K V.Fetile PAST 11NNUAL PICPIIC TO £~ ~ i i i Ti T~ f ~ f ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ .F~'L•D JULY 2b, X931, A.T•ID I'(]R T~Ii„I Tfl ~I.!1UT TITi, PRIt7IY.F:Gv O. SRItV~A:Q BL'rFt • .. T3 ~r~x~ r~r~~~ ~s ~:o~rc ns ~~~-~ F~.nvr ~~~~~~ ~r:cvzlTx ~r Dv~ro ,, :~ ;; ~; ~ . ~ : r~nr~ ~DDR~sS . ~ ~. s~ 4 r ~;, ,, ; a ,, , .,, . ~~~ .. 1 ~ • f ~x ,~ •, - J r ,~ d r d • f - ~ 31,E ~~ ~ ~r°.~-~. ~ ~T _ ~ r- tf ~ ~ r' ~-~ , ~CJ , ,, ~ ~ d 6--s-t. . ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~__~ ,. ~.~. .~L:.i4',~~f ' C~ ~ ~ ~~h~v~ , ~ ~ o~ -r n'~ ~ V'* C~ ~A~ 1'.o.r R•f Y~ ~:~ ~ P:' ~ r,. ,J~4~y~q!Be:•,~i:A3~sSY?A''. ..~ ....+, ... .....,Mnw.^~er ' , '~ ~ + `'~J `~ ~ ` ° ,' ~ ~ ` ' r' • W~' THIS I~f ~a'TDET1'~' ~ OT' FZI CHI'TEI:D, .`aTRC;1(~I;Y ~itJl,'P~itT T~ Iif~~ USE Qt+' ~t , ` ' ~ '~~A17(3~~3UItt~ P11I~,K I~'O~t Tlil; FRS B,ABCOCK V.~'.j~) a POST ~A~IW AL P2CNTC TO I~ , :, „ ~TE~ ~TU7Y 463 ~9n13 ~llll) FC~t TII~~ TO Ii,~,VF TIIF PRIVTZ~FC.r OF S"I~tV.~t?t~ S~ ;,:.. ~ . _ ~~ ~~~`?nr.~~ P~If3k~tS ~S I:O;IG ~S 7'I~:;~' ILAUP gRO~ ~~ ~I?CifltTTg dot I~t7'i`Y e ~~ +` - . 6 h ' ~' ~t~•~ ~ ., ~ .~E3D~S~ , 1 'a ~ ( r t r z .. ~ .s~ c ;~ ro~-~, /v~/ 1 - ~i iii Ld1'. ((~~ ~~U fS._.!.m~. !/ -'"'~.. a ~~~ - . ~l '~ ~ ;~ t , ` .. . c ~, ,;'. ;<~_ r~ ,' _ a ~. , . ~.: ,. ~. '` r'' G ..I;l./. r.. ,,o .~' , ,~'f y, i .' ~, ;:":'~ _. 1. C ~.,, , . :, . , ;:, h, ~~ i ~~ 1 ,. .~ ~~ :.:~ , ,~,y~ 4. i 7~1 (~,i ~, ~$ NC ,4~ y, i i~ Z i ri y ~ ~,~ , , 1 ' , ' • T,~dE, ?I'IXE Ff3~;~IIRL;NTB CIF ItICHFIIa,I~,, ~RONGLX SUPPORT THC U5T' ~' , ,~ 1 ti . ~,. ' ~ `~ ~.,. ~1UG3BtTzR4.P~':RK Fit TII~ FRED Fi,(~IlCOCIC VeFet'Ie _POST ,~rIPN~.L FTCNIC TO IIla • ,; ~. ' -.. H~ZD JUg,Y 269 ~9fi~.9 l1rTD rOR z'I~~ TO H,~VP TIIF PRZVxLFaE (~F' ~LIZVIN(~ D ~ ' -,, .. -.:.':`~*'~`;:';:'.TO TF~I~ A~`r•SD~' ~ l1•.~~ F:Ci1G Ida ZI ~_ IIIIVF A'ROPF'I1. SECtTtIl$ OTJ Dj3d'~a s ~' , : PI~.~IL ADDR~Sa .J i ~. ~i!.' r F~. - .. ~ __ , ~. _ '. 1 ,/ d. ~ - ~ .. , 4 ; .{l~~ i ,.. it ~ V ! ~~/ ~2[ y f 7-- I .'1 ~ ~ f' -i '~ ... ~ .. .. ., .~a, . `~ ~ ~. y. , S. .. , . • y~ --..-r- , . ~ a - ~, ~i~j ~+~y b ~ ~ ~. - - ` G ~ `~ i t y, f 1 ~~~ , , ~ ~' / ~ _ ' ,~ ~ i ~ ~_ "~, D U ~ /I)~'7G'/-'~lf~'~~r'/~i''U , fL4',C~~ c~i/ ~- , . ~~h~ ••. {. ~ ,. , ~. L~~~ ~~~ e - - __-________ - ~ , . ~• y ...-.,,. D~%-«* ~ ,~7t r ~ ~1. i~ ~ ltr'nti. i i~ ~ ...xy,~ mr :I..w t ., .+~, i) .. Y~ .a.~ Shy {r,ta t~ft~ltrt t. ,`,1, ..t,i ~k ale ,a .~;;~t `, ; ~;:~~ ~ -~ w~, TIDE aMTn~:rlTS or RT~x~rt,n, sT~to~raL~ 'suPra~rr TIDE U5E c~ . ~, . ' F ~R 1 t}c ~at A t t t t ~ i.l)1a I~1 I! .t~ .', a ,' F ,; ~ ~Pi4t9BU~t(i P~f~tT{ I'~Z TIII; I~Ft~D F3,llI3000K V.F.'~(J. POST ~1NPN!1T, PTCAITC TO E~, "~ ~ ; `' : . t, ~ .',z~~ Jt~,~ 26, ~~n3, nrm Foy ~II~~s ~o Il~vr T~~ Pz~TV~~t;c~ ar ~v~rr~ n i t . . ... . ' '' " , `.:t .. ;' .': ~ 0 ~ ?'~f~~t P'~'IB t't ~ 11S I b~IGr 1! S TI 7; Ii 11V1; A"kZbi •DR ~2CiIItTTY (aid DITb"~', ~' i `; t ~ ~ j ` 1 tx- ~ t t~. ,:~, ~ } t t sr tf ~.. .t l -: i o ~ rl t' -~ a _, ;,; ~~~~,~ ~ ;~ ~. ern 3 az~ ' `f ~:' .. ~ '' `,' .{ t r. {, I A,.f fl ~ t4 .~~ i.~ .. , ~ - 7 Lt ~ . ~;s ~: ,, ,. 1 C~C •,., ,4 ~. ~ 4---A-l -,,-~j ' r 1 , s, ~ t 1 , , _ ' ' ,.~ ~ , ~ -rte ~ ~ ~ 1-(> ~~: ~~~~° f -: ~~ , ~. , ~ 7 ~ - //////I 1 ~ s .. ~ ..r. __ _.___ .1. ~ ~ ~ .~~~.' 1 0~ `~ Z I W 14-5 l~" (`' ~l r ~V ~ , .. ~ Z ~~ t s `~ ` ~'"'' ~ . ' ,„ ~~ 1 ' ~~: ~ -~~ . -THE f~t~::TiDL~iTS OIr ti.TCE1ZrIrLt) S~TROI~L'~ ~'(1PI?aitT Tttt; i1~ 01z' - , `'~ `t ' ~ °, ~ .~UCt3~iltt(3 PE11ZK F(i;? TFIP I'Ftl~ }3~.BCOC1~ V,F,iJe y, S ~. _ ' POST I~NNUIII, PICMC TO }~ ~ .:; ~ ~ III~:D ~~' 26, I!9a1, 11111) I'OR 1iIT~1 TO H11V1 Tt1~ PRTUC~:L~QI~ OF ~TIIP;i~ ~ '1"~t ~. t A,, , ' ~ ~ k ~ ~~ ?~~' t~~~m , ~~ ns ~;a~1c ns T~~ F1•nv~ ~.a~?t ~cu~x~ a.t DiJ'~'-~o o ~ i I ! I k ( {~ \ `/ ~ ~ ~`" ,; ,,: ~ r j c.=~= . , ., , ~~::' i. ~.l ;t ,~ J-- ,. ~. .. ~; ;, ,;: ':.~ ~~ . ~:: '~~ ~,'~~ ,, ., , . s , ~ ~ _ . v „ ~ ~~ ~~~ t , ;~r.~~FhS.~f ,~t~ >` ~t iii ~ (~?1y~r k~ .~ ti ~.' v~yG „'..•, 1~9 ~~"~?bT' R { ~-u a „ ~ I ~' , ( ~~ , a ',~' ~ '~1 I 1 ci F ' f . t' ~ , ~: ~ ,.THE k~:~lID~1iT3 OF' k2ICHI+'IELD STRONGLY" 4UPP0~2T TFiC II3~ (~ ",, , ; ; 1 ~ . I , :: ~ . . , ; ' ~ 11~~~G PQ~K I'OFt THE I'ItF1D D.~1~3000I~ VeFetJ, HOST ~INNUAL I'xCNxC T0 ~; .. I J. .. ~ ~ r:l}itr . 1 '~ ~~ V U° Q~~ t~'..t79 JJ~U~a X71111' 1• ~ bI~T~~I TO II,AVP TIII; PRIPIL~(IS GP S.F'gi~P1G Dt~t ". - " ~ ~ n~ T~~IL'~ ~.r t •L~3~'rS 1!r F~Q~iG 1?S TI tt'. i ;`~ > I ~ I. FI~UF ~R~~. £'It :~T'CiTt'I'1'Y d~1 11U`~3'' ., ~ ,~ ~ pl~.~ , 0 " ` ~, . . t I ~ 1 -- ~ ~ ~ l q ,fir t 1 tl l4 i q /((~y~J -~ ///J ' t , ~ /~. / `~ . '~( ~ ~~j~~,~ ~ Q ~~ ~ i~2 J •"'"".',:.-t C./ ~-~PJ l T ~-~C-sYa.f IF..J/L f .. { . it ~~ ~, ~ ~ ` r, 1 ;, ~, A i, ,. _ ~ ~ ~ .. i, , ~.;.' ,•. n ~t.e, 1, . I ' f c. 1 ~ ~ ~I• ~ t ~ } / o mo + ~ `' i rl• ,, _ .. ~ ; .,l ~n ~I 2 ~ ~7 - ' ~ a~ '^ ; ' 1 I ti - ~~ 1 - ~ ~ ~ i , ~ - ~ ~ i ;;l ~ ~~~ G , ~ l Cam' s _ , r ~ ~~ ~~. / ~' ~ ~ / ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~j ^ ~ / ~ 1 7 r ~ ~ I A,ii'~ (~ I ,f ~~t ~~..G~ ..~ ,i~,/"' ~ CT ~, ~ ' 7 ~~ _3=~ ~T -nr~~. .+~~' ~7f] J 1 r. ~ ~ t ,t ~ F ~.. _ .', ~ ~.,-~...•~--.~-.-.ago--.-Z -S..:~., t 1:.. ( ~f tip}. '"_ .. i _ ''. ' ~~ 2 ~ rr ~ ~~ ~ .._ __.._.._.~_._ .~-.~ f.1 r- ,..~ 2 (I ~ ~ -~ ~ ~c..-?. .-~ ~ : - - ~(~ ~ t G E.~ / ~h c. lik, .i/~ 4}-e-_. ;~ ,gin-~ i~, A S! f ,~f ~ i .. r ~ ~~ ~•-,r-~-- ~ . ' , '' ' r ; • ~ ' I c~ , ;~~~i~ ; ~~`c~" 92r' . . c %c ~ ; t' ~R ~ -c 2r-~ir' :~ ~~`' , . ~ , i (T~ .a,~('fi.. ~•t ~1}A. ~.. r*i . .. .~~~,.~,~~.. yr t..en. 1. r?. ~ ,. ., ,'.l~ .., .. ... ..... . ~~: ... .1 . r~ '.Sr' r ~'~1 i ~~ Jai FCi ~~ .iii ~ ~ . ~ I ,. ~''4{°'. ~~t it Yl~ i-~~4'~ijy ~ 5~. r1~ .` ~.'.. a ~:~ s'~r ; 4 y ,; '"l,; =? ~,~D;; T~~ ~:"~ilIl~rM':; (yP' ~'tT~Ht~'T~~d ~1'fd,ONttL~ ~ F3tT!'I'0~`.1' ~'i~ ti:~ ~ '' . ~ '. f" , ~~ ~~ ~ '?~;~'.~A~ILktDU~i.4 Pl~Tt3~ Fail TIiL~ PRID Ti„A,}3COCIi VoI~'o1Tp POSE 11r1NU,41I, ~zcr~xa ~0 ~ ~~ `' . ~, ,: ' ' ~ i 4 s r'y ~ Ti' ~' a ~ p 4 r , .;. ,.. ~ ~ ~ z~,~.si, ~c~' ~~D ~!9f11a nrm ray ~It~r.z 4A~a ~t~vr ~~r~anTZ~vx~..a~, oz v ~r~c~ t~~~ , {~ :4.t ~, p,. r. , 4 :~ ~~,!~~I~ T~I'~g3L'~2~ r~ yc3rr~ r~s AI°~u Ii~UF~ PRf3P~It STCITk1.~'3 QA1 DU~I'X, a ; ~ ' , ' ~ . ~ T?AMC ,~D~I?t;5~ n , ;:~ t}4 - - roc ~ i..f ~. ~ ~l j ~ N ~~ ~ i ,, ~! C~~i~' j a~j~y~j ~ tea`-' ~ [ •Z~i~~.s'"'` ~~ ~. 7 i /~ r / ;' r i /_ it r, { ' `;; J i` 5 ~~ } ~~ I ~^ l a iI. ~ / VVV" f~\ ~' // ~. r .{,~ i. ~ ~. ~ i '_ tier ~ 4. ~ .~ ~. ~.y n ',1 '; ' ~i: r / it ,i~~~~ ~~ ~ rCii~/~~lJ~~~ ~ !~7//1 ~-+_~Jr<~]r~.....LL'..,f mil' ~ ` ~ ~_.~ ~~ :n ~• t ` i ~ ~ ~` `` _ LI/ ~ f '~ .,/ , ' - .~'/, "" ;,/,~ `~-~f.~~/ ~ ~~~ `~~ s_~'-mot--~ :~ ~ f ~, ~ 4 ~ ~/1 ~. 4 ,.. , , ~~ - ' ~' . Z.v,~ Tf.r~ i'i:t'~~:'f~li~~ (?" i:fT..!'1±1~:IrT;i), ~'F~.O?'ICY1'`l. ~[TF'I'0~'P 'P'ITT; [7:`i~ 0'" ,~J:i.~~~.~~(} Pr'!._~ i~~_nn.. _ 1~; r:'r''~:i i'/1_;'.~'.::L `f~r'~,77~ r r?~.!' nPii;~~nl., P_~('.•i'r(;(; , F.t-:T:~ Ul~'.~T ~~.~ J,~:)1..~ ~~' / ~ ~_ :{ .?1~± r'~?~: ~ 4 ~ )':~~.~~~._, r~~.s,''~ ~.~ ~ ;~i~l',p:f.f'• F~iT'i~ r^,'3 c...~r~~ T"..T"? i ~~ ; ;'ai'T~:r n'; `,'..,~;iT II~~ i'li ^~`'i"1 c"-"~1;~'!`';~' lli i'To ~1~I,1~ X45` l ...'r` ~ .ii ~~:''^ ._ C __- 1 / /; . . -v C "~ ~ ~~' -- J ~` .,~ . r _~.~....._._.__. ...~~_.,_..,.-_..-.- .----...-.---_~.__._.______...,.,_..._.__._____.._._.__.._,._.___.._._-__._..__.__..___._.. -.___..._._._. ..~_._~_._.___._._____ ....._._.__.._,.~_.__1 ~ .__.. _- _._ _ ..._ . --- __ ,~ .~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ r -~ , ~~ ~ ~ ti-c.., .._ ___._____~~._~ ~._.__ _~t___:.__.~~•2~~____~_____~__ -- -- r• ~~' ~ ~ ~ __ _ -----__~~~~_.--_-_---L. -_-~~-~ ~ _-___- --__~ _ 1'c ~ a~,+~+~ta~j~'l~.y ~i ~~; i}, 11t1r r~•"V ,1,E. 1., ~. ~ ~ _ '. ~... fl ,~ Ni yF t~l -~~(kf ik~t`j~7•~t ~ ~.. r `''~. + ~ ~~' ,; ,,, > •. ~~~ TIiIa I'{t~.~,:~TAI•;NTS OF ~tCH1~TEI1D, STRONGLY 3i1I'POFtT TIII; USIA OF ~` ~~~:ii',':' , t- . AUQS~UI~d(~ P,~.RK FOR Tlii, r'RI:D I3,A~i000K V.F.TrJ. POST l1NDNAL PTCI~C TO HI, . ,.~ I~~ JULY 2~, ~9~~., ASID rOR TIII~~1 TO IIAVI~ TITI; PRIVTLCGE OI'' SP~t~N(~ 'f3~EA. . :'~ :. ~~ ,• ~'0 `r`I-~c~TFt I' zi~il?I'Ft~ t!S LGi10 ~u TIIi~;~' IiAVI~ 1CROPI!R ..t+CUItTT~' 02d 13UTXo ~ - ' t ,. . r:.. ~ .. . plAtit~ 11I?I~~US .. 'r~ '.,~ :, , ~ t : _ ,~ . `,.~;, t ,- ~ ~ T .~ • r .-tit ,, • ,.. r ~ ' :1. ,_/..~f/ ~~ ///111 ~~~+ ~ , ,~, --A ~ ';~N ~'`'t•,/ +4f-/~P'i1t~=%'~ l%' l ~"~~ 'yam' +%). _ ~ ,' ~ 1 ~ ~ f '~~~~ r':yi~:/ 't ~~ ~ ~ ' ~~ c:_~ ~'- 1r it ., r .~ ~. x '}~r1_i, ~. .,?f *. , _ c . ~c ~ ~ r . +.~~ .W-~+ti~ ~ ~ V` ~ "•~.,1 it (/~~. '..`~/ _ -~~~~ A 7 t i~ ~~ Yj , r .. j -~; ~ r!'r ~i ~ )"'~ ` ;~I i ~r~.~l'(';1 cs~l' )r;f.€'; r; ~~}~ ~,?~, f"f iid~ i(~xr`' EtTk'1?~nT a tifi, T1~r; f~''~ A IJ,' ~,I,ti1L~7 n f-~.,~ }''1~.. L: ', }. L:' P1 (. fiT,,,rl,'\ arc.:' nt.'s ?. (~_.S ~~T}I'`~1.~ , ]''T(;P(~~.1, `}'7 ~~.~i j'7 j?ti/ !1/ ~~er, •a t ~(I ~'~ ~ r:. ~ ~ , ~~•~n; ~ f: ~i ~ ~• A ~y~~,~~~ , ~ / T.~j)~sr ~ ~~~ + ~~ ~i:~~'~ i._.,...nl~~~ j~~ ~.:r'r n a `~'ti~:;'! 1 .1111; }Tl_lie"1 ~ , (°Z~'(?'p',•':•~J v>T }~:1~'1:.,~0 ~1i~t^-. ~v:Li~r, c _. _ ~~ ~~~~ ' `/ ,. . -~ ~. --~ - ~,> ~" ~ ~ _ ~~ r.~ ~ ~~ 1. L ~~ ~~_~ 1 \ ~_: ~ .____ ,~ _ if ~~~ / - ~ ~' ~~.~~ ; /i ii .,~ ~ ~~, ~, ~' ~ c~:- ~~ ~ z 1 _~__..._ ~.------_.._.._.~_~_. ;~ -_-- "' t- _ ------- _.._. ----~_-~-- --r----~- ------------ G ~ ~ I w _-----------___.__._... __._--.__~_____._...._._---.._._.w.._..___ . , ',. l r ~ '~'If-f ~ R ~.'~'i ~'r,~;l:"~ i C~ ~' ? ~2CFTi~:X ~~.A lip ~"i?~rrr,7~r :if1~='P7~2`1.' 1n. FI,~ I'~;a CJ ~' I!''"'r,T.y'} :^!_.~~ T,,r, - r; ;-+~ f?~°, -. V.,F~I7~ 1'i?`~~' !'1~fritln.3:, r:i~CP,TI:C T:~ r' 1. : ~ ~t^9r r~ ~! 1 ~ ,~ ~ ~''I~ i^'~'~. :"ii"'.~ )'!~ Tjl1,j7;, r`i:' T~.~, .~~t ; n~., ~-;~ ~„_-,Ci i~ '-, '^r. ,_. ,, n T - ~ ~~ , G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~, C.._._._._. _ .... - ------- - --. ___.. ~ _ - - - -- -- ~ L c. . ` - ~.- __ , ~__.~__ _ __ ____~.~. - __ __ _- _ ____._ _ _._ __ ___ __ ____ __ . ________ ____ _ __ __ ____~ _. _..__ __~ ~_ ~ s ___~ ~~.. . ~' --~- ~-~~ s, . ~~~ ~ a--: __ __ _ _ _ _ ~ . _.. - ,r. A _~. A._.....-_~...-......--.. _..~.__..~._~ _..... .. - h.._._~._._.~____.___________.~_._.__._~~-.___.. .. ...____ _ _ .....__...._.. _. _. .. ~'~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 121 Agenda April 13, 1981 ,~~-;,, ~~ c ~S The Honorable Mayor ~jP`~ and Members of the City Council ~~~~~ City of Richfield Council Members: .. , Subject: Request for Special Use Permit, 609 W. 74th Street to Operate Day Care Center e applicants property and :parking spaces. The building is to be constructed of wood and mason- ite siding with asphalt shingles. A privacy fence will also be con- structed enclosing the rear yeard and a portion of the side yards. However, specifications for the fence have not been submitted. The proposal will have two curb cuts along 74th Street for egress and ingress to the parking area. The proposed maximum enrollment is 111, and a maximum of 16 employees per shift. The hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 't'he property i~ zoned "MR" multiple family residential. Site Description The property was subdivided in February of this year. The ex- isting buildings on the premises are a single family house with a detached garage and a shed. The property is surrounded by property zoned "C-2" general commercial on the west; "C-1" limited business on the south; "MR" multiple family residential on the east; and "R" single family residential on the north. The property lot is 135.26 feet by 154.51 feet and contains 20,899.02 square feet. Staff Review The staff has reviewed this application and found the following: 1. That the proposal is in compliance with the comprehensive plan which indicates the site as mixed land use, high/medium density. Principle uses allowed include those of an in- stitutional nature. Council Letter No. 121 -2- 2. That April 13, 1981 crated from this use. The estimated increase in traffic is based on date from the Institute of Traffic Engineers. The staff feels that this estimate is low, and that the increase in traffic could be as high as 100 trips. Ex- isting average daily traffic on Lyndale Avenue at 74th Street is 11,832. The staff believes that Lyndale Avenue at 74th Street will be the primary route to reach the day care center. An increase of traffic by 100 trip ends per day would be a .845 percent increase on Lyndale Avenue. Traffic counts are not available for 74th Street however, because of the capacity design of 74th Street the staff feels that an increase of 100 trip ends Aer 3. That the proposal is in compliance with the conditions governing the issuance of special use permits in that .- the structure and operations will meet all state regula- tions for this type of use and~that the proposal would not pose any hazards to persons working or residing in the area. However, the public safety department has indicated that the staff has been contacted by several surrounding residents expressing opposition to the proposal because of playground noise and increased traffic. 4. That the The applicants are proposing to locate the play area on rear yard; the use of the play area on a shift basis with a maximum of 30 children using the play area at any one time, and the construction of a solid wood privacy fence enclosing the play area. The staff believes that these measures will adequately reduce the impact of playground noise on the surrounding properties. 5. That the applicant is limiting the hours of operation .between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. No operations are proposed for weekends or holidays. The staff feels that this will further reduce the nega- tive impact on surrounding properties. 6. That although specifications for the privacy fence have not been submitted, it is desirable a solid wood privacy fence enclosing the play area be constructed. This type of fence will sufficiently reduce noise and negative visual impacts on the surrounding area. 7. That sufficient parking is proposed to facilitate this type of use. The off-street parking requirements are based on the number of employees on the maximum shift at the site. One parking space is required per one and one-half employees. Thus, 16 employees at the day care center require 10.66 off-street parking spaces. The Council Letter No. 121 -3- April 13, 1981 applicant is proposing 16 off-street parking spaces. The proposal also meets the requirements set forth in Section 4.05, "Driveways and Parking Areas", of the ordinance code. 8. That the construction design of the .building with wood a-cinle wizn Lne surrounaing would sign if icantly improve 9. That the staff studied alternative uses for this prop- erty and found that a low rise apartment complex could be built on the site requiring no variances or rezoning. 10. That a petition opposing the granting of this special use permit was submitted at the planning commission meeting and is attached for your review. Staff Recommendation the staff is of the opinion negative nature, the special s application is 1. That the applicant construct a solid wood priva~:y fence enclosing the outdoor play area. 2. That the hours of operation be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 3. That subsequent to the planning commission hearing on this matter the Assistant Fire Chief has recommended that a stipualtion be added to require that the building be sprinklered. While this is not required by the building code, there is local precedent for this request. The council has previously required that both the Coach Homes Condominium Development and the Minnesota Federal Savings and Loan .buildings be sprinklered. The staff further recommends approval of the attached resolution approving the layout and authorizing the execution of an off-street parking contract. Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission recommends that the city council approve this special use permit application with the stipulations. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager use permit must be granted. Approval of thi recommended with the following stipulations: ~\ Fact Sheet For Proposed.-Child Care Center Especially For Children The proposed site for a new child care center is located one lot off Lyndale Avenue on 74th Street. The site is bounded by a commercial building to the west, a trailer park to the south, a multi-family residence to the east, and a single family residence across the street to the north. The home to the north does Y:ot face the project. The site consists of a gross area of 20,894 square feet. Since the proposed building is to be 5,474 square feet, all offset requirements can be met and no variance is requested. The size of the site affords ample parking and play- ground area. The site plan places the building on the east offset line and as far forward as possible to maximize the playground area to the southwest or the commercial side of the site. The building's profile is designed to blend in with the surroundings, and its clean, attractive styling will make it a positive addition to the neighborhood. The parking lot design provides two curb cuts which allow parents entrance into a drop-off area and smooth egress back to 74th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Designed with the safety of the children in mind, the building will have a grade-level exit out of every class- room, an approved fire alarm system, and emergency light packs. We would like to address for the moment the process that led us to desire to purchase this site and construct this facility. As a private corporation, not funded by any agency, the risk is entirely ours and an accurate assessment of the need was required. By using the birth rates from 1975 to 1978 we were able to determine that there are approximately 1,800 children between the ages of 22 and 52 years residing in Richfield. Assuming that 35/ of the families have working mothers, we estimate that there is a need for some type of care for 630 pre-school children. This does not include the infant and toddler aged children who were specifically identified in a recent study conducted in the south suburban area as groups with a great need for care. We then surveyed the existing programs in the vicinity to determine what is available to the families of Richfield. We found that there is one fulltime preschool center at Woodlake Lutheran Church on 76th and Oliver. The remainder of the programs are half-day nursery schools or "latch-key" programs and do not provide a full range of choices for Richfield families. .. , We noted that the Woodlake center is in the southwest corner of the city (see attached map) and we feel that our more central location would serve the population of the city east of 35 W. While there are other centers in Bloomington, Edina, and South Minneapolis which may presently serve Richfield parents, experience has shown that most parents would rather have their children cared for closer to home. We feel the facility will be as nice as any in the Twin Cities, and it has been specifically designed to provide a high quality child care environment. The plan and program reflect the experience gained in six years of successfully operating two other child care centers. {Please refer to March 9th letter to Mr. Thomas MacGibbon, City Planner, for background on operation.) It is our opinion that if a city is to attract young people and assure the long term viability of its tax base and school system, it must provide needed services for them. We have addressed the problem of the special needs child in designing this building and are confident that we could successfully integrate handicapped children into our preschool program. We presently have children with special needs in our other programs and have served them ~^rell while gaining an added measure of enrichment for all of the children in the center. We are attaching a very timely article from the Minneapolis Tribune which addresses the subject of the need for child care facilities in a wide geographic area. i~ The child care center has been designed to accomodate 111 children, comprised of the following age groups: ~~~~°`` 9 infants with a 1: ~ adult/child ratio ~°`'~ ~s , ~l 27 toddlers with a 1: 7 adult/child ratio ~~''`~ ~~ ;.a ,~ ~'~ ~- 60 preschoolers with a 1:10 adult/child ratio 1~indergarten children with a 1:15 adult/child ratio ~ 1 (Kindergarten children would be served before and after school) `\ . Our. plans include provisions for a full kitchen and full-time cook to provide nutritious meals for the children and staff. .,"sy At the most recent planning commission meeting two concerns were expressed which we feel resulted from inadequate information regarding such a facility. One was noise from the playground. 1. The playground will have 5,700 square feet as compared to the 2,250 square feet required by state standards to accomodate 30 children. 2. A maximum of 30 children would be outside at any one time and they would be of various ages, including toddlers who are not noisy. 3. The playground will be divided into two separate areas, one for toddler children and one for preschool childreno This serves both to diffuse children and to provide equipment appropriate. for their ageso They will be supervised at all times by teachers in the same ratios as in the classroom. ~. The building is situated on the site so as to locate the playground to the west away from the multi-family dwellings, while the building itself will screen most of the playground from the residents to the north. 5. There will be a complete privacy fence placed around the playground and no child will be allowed out of this area. 6. There are two trailers directly to the south of this site, however the playground is not used prior to 9:30 a.m. 7. Since the center closes at 6:00 p.m., there would be no children at the site after this hour and very few would be outside after 4:30 since pick-up starts in mid-afternoon. ~, $. There is no school on the weekends so there would be complete quiet during the weekend when most people are home working in their yards, walking, etc. 9. Most important, we feel that the sound of children at play is refreshing and positived A second concern was related to traffic. We again feel that there was a misconception as to its impact. 1. This is not an elementary school which requires children to arrive at a certain time. Because they are dropped off at various times between 7:00 and 9:30 a.m., we do not anticipate any undue surge early in the morning. The same is true regarding pick-up in the afternoon where departures are spread out mainly between 4:00 and 5:30 p.m. For verification we have attached an analysis which shows the arrival and departure schedules for the center at 41st and Lyndale. You will note that we took three different days of the week at three different times of the year to get a good cross section. At no time is there a large traffic congestion. 2. We secured state traffic counts for 1979 for Lyndale Ave. which are as follows: South of 66th 12,000 average daily car travel South of 76th 13,900 average daily car travel North of 494 to 772 17,100 average daily car travel Using an absentee factor of 10 or 11 children, and assuming the center is at full capacity, we calculate that if each parent drove only one child to the center there would be a maximum of 200 cars on Lyndale to the site. This is less than 1.4f of the existing traffic on Lyndale, using an average of 14,300 frog. above. Since most of the parents served will reside in Richfield, many of these people may already be driving on Lyndale and would not be added to the existing traffic base. 3. The parking lot provides a one-way into the drop-off area and an exit which redirects them back to Lyndale, thus neighbors need not be concerned about parents turning around in their driveways. Since the major employment areas are along the 494 strip or downtown, we anticipate that parents will return to Lyndale and head south ....~_,~....._.-- -_-_ _.a . _ __ _ _. _ . ~. f away from the residential areas to access ~9~ and 35 W. ~. Since the center closes at 6s00 p.m. it will not create traffic problems at night, and the same applies to the weekends. ~. We must also remember that those using the services of this facility are responsible Richfield citizens and themselves the parents of young children. We can expect them to be sensitive to the needs and desires of their own community, and to be courteous and responsible in their driving habits. We hope that the above information has provided an understanding of our goals and dui desire to be good citizens and neighborso We look forward to meeting you on the 13th: Sincerely, Priscilla Williams '~ , , ~J ~~ Jerry Kamps ~~ ~, ~~~ rV /) ,.n ;~ ~ ~ ,' G\ ;! I °D ~ Q . 8'S ^° 116 _f_]_~ __i.__ ~ x 5 10 ~- T .__ ~ - -j-I~ n ~ ZONING ,MAP . I~ II _~~ - :_ I II----o: ~z~ 181 - - _ i (:. „l . _ - - _ ST. ~ ~ GENERAL C~~MMERCIAL ~ ' ~, ~ ," 13 12 ~ ~ " N v 41 _ ~ ~ 24 0 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ';, ~ 0 73rd o . , ^ ~ --- - -=~- z 2 ~ ^ 23i ~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ~~' Q v = 1 ---~-~---~ 22 3 ~ ~' ~ ~ _ J " 214 ~, ~ 22 LIMITED BUSINESS ~] ° °' _~ i i 2 ~ ° ^ ~ Q h r 2 5 ] ~ ~.~?. 197 _U ~ 178 . ^ti ~ I 9 ^~ Q ~ 15j10 ^ ;, t II ~ ; ] 13 t2 ^~ 2p 5 _ i R N^ 1 e ~C ~^ 1 ^:; IS 10 a~ I I ~~ s 13 12 ^.. - - -~~4 _ _ - 9W4 _I ^_~ __ _, --- t 9 + -~ _, ~_r N ' Y ~5 ~ N ~ 'i ~ ~ 7 :6 P ~~, ~- g Z N r r_ ~~ c _ J ~ ~ N r^ ` p ~/~ 9 2 (~ ~ ~ WW~~ ~ 1~ 2 6 r_ ~ ~, i N n ~ 1 n (~ .. 3.. J ~ A L.>./ LJ .Zi 1. 1 ~ ~ M 'f ~ D 4 ~ o c T M ~J v :1 D • ~-- ~ - -,:~.. - rn ~ ~ a ,°, L- T a tt, • t _ __ i L ~~ a ~~ _ _ `r 2 ~-- i _ __ ~ ~ - - - b 0~_- ~ 2 : I _~ 21 4 `-' n'2v, ,~ 5 `~ _ --~ -- - 1 - ~~ 18 - ~- -~~7_.. ~ 1 - - l 718 -- - --- i - -- - - -- ~ - _ _15 ---- - , ~ ~'M~ , r i4 - , -- - -- ~'~ j / 1 / ~~ - Q -- - - ---- ~ , _ _ ~ FIELD ~/ 2~ 3 _~ - i 2 4I ~ ---~ ~ :1 4 ~ 6 ~ r^ W ~ - - -- - // / g- Q --,-2d - - - / _ _, 5110 _~- i 71 LJ ~ ., 4~U 1 ~i ~ 6 i '-- n ° 6 3 I ~ 6 L_J ~ °~ ~ 1 _ - n V -t2 ~~ ... ~ y _ I - - __ ~ -__ ..- 3 `t - 1' ~ - I ~ . S 4 ` •' ~' .. ° :- U ~ S 4 ~ n o S T. L A 241 _ x _2 2 ^o 2114 I I ~- NO = U 18 ~, _ " 178 ^ti Q _ 1 9 _ -a N Q 15.'10 r ^ '~ 1 ,II ^ 1312 ^ x S T. 2 I .oo. -- _ i ~' ~ ~~ ~:~ 8 21 4 .- zOjS ~. _ 7 r.. 178 _ . 1 ~9 ' ~ ~ -"- ~1, I _ ; ~'^24 ^23 _I n 2 ^ 22 3 - ~~ 4 ~v 5 N ' - N^ I 8 ^~ =, ^ 1 ^ :; ^ 15 10 ^ ;~ :^ I i ^' 13 12 ^ ,3.2 _ ~~ ----~ ~5' 12___r_,- ~- L.__ - _ •._ -. _~ ; 3 _~ ~ ~3 ., ~ 2q o> _ , _1 4 ,_ ~ 23 ~ ~aC v 65 -- ,~ ~ ~ 5 ~ c ~ _- ~. ~ ~r~„ 1 B' Q 20 !8 i _ ~ ~ , ~9 - - - ~~, !9 . •_-- - a~ 10Of{ic~ 11 ~~~ - - .7i 12~ -~ -- -- - ~ - - - -- -~ . ~-,~a~~,.: I.. ~-e - t-, _, ~-~ ND USE MAP r _' ~ .; 13 12 ' ti n • ~ -.~~ ~•.-, ~J ~ i J ~ - ~ I2 .._ }- (r I~ :~ It _ ~4 _ o ~ ~: ~ ~ . ~ - . _ 5 8 ~ . _ . ` Tf6 - -- ~~ N a ; ~' a 2~5 ~ 2 j 1 ~~ ~ - (n ,Dieu 3 _; Sing - w ~a~~X V .' _ _ 1II I2 . ~~ ,_ Ia ~ 3 ~A ~ ~ N _ - = UI r ~-- --_ , U1 L` _ Cj ~n i Q __ N R~~ - ..;~ 2a -_ r ^ ~ ~ /~~ 73rd ~~ 1 o M r ~ , - ---!. ~. ., Il 2 _ -~ 1 _ ~ .~_ _ --- ~ - n ~ Z ~. - -- i l ~ •--~ 1~ " I .._ _'_ - --.- N ~ N M _. . -_ - 1 .-m r~ n J ~=j ~ - a ,Q • ' 1- ~ ~ ° - ~~'-:?'~}'--~~~~~~~~~ S21 ! 515 ; SG3 I 501 ~ a27 ! .21 •~ •~~ •09 .01 iN 3:" O{fice .............~- ~ ~ I - ` ~ ~ o ~ - Mobile Home Park ~~~-~ _- ~ ~i-- -- _ Apartments ~- ----~ r___. __~ !--,- -1 A ~~ i ~ arlc~ ; . Apartments ~ ' ~ ~! /%~, r -~ !. I ~ ~ ~ ~' :~ ~ , ~ , . o, ~,~,` ,' ,,, I ~ / ' __/ ~ ~-~ /~ s o, .i I ~ l ~~ L-_.~ % ~ 76th --_ r--- -~ 'Ci m z c~ ~ _. yr - j ~ i r ~, L' ~. T }--' -7 ~~ e;~ r 1 ~ Im ~' ~. t \ ~ ~ - ~ r p v_ Z I Q !~ 1 q f~ t 1 +~ , , ~ ~ 1, i W ~ ~ { _ _ • .f ~ C + i` S V _ Z 7 Z nu 2 ~ Z uv'~s~.0, w~taocn ~~ r ____^ j:M ,--• , ' ~ 'I ~ ~ G ~ ~; ~ ~ Id ~~' ~ ~_~ ;~ ; ~. ---- ` i '. ~ \i`` ` ~ ' ~ ? \~~ J } } ~- ' ~~ ~ 3 ,~ ~; i ~. I ~. I~ pV I O ~ `lV+J~'' ~-_ ~_ ~`_-__~ cK:. ~L.r ~JDICICEY /KODET/ARCHRECT'S/MCORPpRATED ~~.~.. 1. O':~. o w..Q w..e aver . ..gun. , a~r~... ..... l ~ r h .>~; ~-~ I C`{ ~`' ~: ' ~ 1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT FOR OFF-STREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION N0. 81-2, CONTRACT NO. 2332 Name: Priscilla Williams Address: 4717 Aspasia Circle Edina, ?~I Location: 609 West 74th Street Use: Day Care Center BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the proposed geometric layout of the off-street parking as contained in Off-Street Parking Application No.81-2, Contract No. 2332 is hereby approved subject to and upon comple- tion of performance of the contract for such off-street parking as hereinafter authorized. 2. That the proposed off-street parking contract for the improvement of said off-street parking, bearing contract No. 2332 be placed on file and that the manager be authorized to sign said contract and the clerk be authorized to seal the same for and on behalf of this city. 3. That the off-street parking operator provide the City of Richfield with Surety in the form of cash, passbook saving with- drawal authority, or performance bond in an amount to be determined by the community development director and city manager, to ensure the off-street parking lot is constructed within the terms and regulations of the Off-Street Parking Agreement. 4. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of said Off-Street Parking lot shall remain the responsibility of . the off-street parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code 4.05. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of April, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk ~~ t's~i'1`i'1C'iV We, the undersigned property owners, hereby object to the special use permit being considered for constructian of a day care center at 609 W. ?4th Street. r~ArrE ADDRESS c~ ~. _ ~L_._~2,~ _ ~ __-- /~.~c - fit' -~=-'{ ~~-~_s~ n r/ .~~c,c.~-.~ v _> ~~ c C ~ ti{~~, j' .,,~ 'mil =~,`f w ~ ~~': ~` ,~~-~.. C%s '" -~---=-- `/' _ ~~'% ~ln - ~i '9 -b ~ - -c., r~ ~ "' 7G ,1 ~= T ` r- ~ -+ ~ ~ ~ - - ~~~u~a2.t__ ' 1 ~ l.tJ , ~_t~__~~G-_ Y S~r~~ ~ b c~,,Z S p /r'r, ~ ~ "~ - ~ . ~/ ~ PETITION We, the undersigned property owners, hereby object to the special use permit being considered for construction of a day care center at 609 W. 74th Street. NAitE ADDRESS ,~ ~ ~ `~ J ~<~'7v . . ,, ~ ~zc- `~, -~-- C . i" ~~1 yam- - J ~ `'j'Cj ~ ~ ~= X33 a ~'~.~. ~33y ~ ~~ ;~;~% ~ r ~!~~ - ~ .~ S-a . _ ~ ~' Gv~ ..E~ E Z4' J c-•, f. N O T I C E O F H E A R I N G N ~' O i ® ._ ^ ® ~ -. ~ . c~ L ^ ® ~ h ,~-~;, ;i ...^r :, x Dear Property Owner: ,. , I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South on Tuesday, March 24, 1981 at 7:30 P.M. The Planning Commission will be hearing a request for a special use permit to allow the con- struction of a day care center at 609 West 74th Street. I would encourage you to appear at this meeting and give testimony for or against this matter. Should you have any questions or need specific information on this matter, please feel free to contact me or the Planning Division Staff at 869-7521. Respectfully, Rick Jopke Associate Planner City of Richfield ~.r Gt.~.i~~.~ ~., '' `~~~.t..t.s r•~-.~x..~~:. c ~.:.=mar Jt :~ r i ~ .o>,~~ ~ ~ ~,,. ..~' i ; g'}3`;i „ ~ yr' .~' ''~ ',_ -~ ~ - ~~~ r "°~ s; ~ " J y-~+A~vt'..~ . .,ter .ei Y~t'dJ~.~-vS.,s'..~-r''~.t ..;~'lvrtL+ A~~"~ /'.~-{..-'+~"-;~.. "/ ~"~f .<:::/".~-~-t~iC~-~.--~L~s -Y~.~~G-~_.a'r-- ~v1~i1~7~7ti'~'Z"r .•~Y;~/' /'~~~ ~ «"~.i`~^.A"+~,a.~lrrr' f~.-' --^tiJ-.. s~~%~f ~:x~,y~!'_ C. P. ~~~i-+-~-~-'~-'~-+~~ f -- ~ ~~-- ~_.~.-exc./ . %'~ ,l~~! ~'C.`- /L~^ ~ee.t/ ~~~-/ "tefe~"hon~ 869-7521 (612) - ~ J ,~ an a ua opportunity employer N O T I C E O F H E A R I N G M . '~t ® ~~ ~ a ® ~ _ .~ • o ® ~ -. ~ f.. 0 Q ^ ® ~ (0 Dear Property Owner: I wouldSlike to take this opportunity to invite you to a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South on Tuesday, March 24, 1981 at 7:30 P.M. The Planning Commission will be hearing a request for a special use permit to allow the con- struction of a day care center at 609 West 74th Street. I would encourage you to appear at this meeting and give testimony for or against this matter. Should you have any questions or need specific information on this matter, please feel free to contact me or the Planning Division Staff at 869-7521. Respectfully, Rick Jopke Associate Planner City of Richfield ,i'~vrA ,Go /C~st~"~J c~ ~l'~ ,~~~! /~ ~-i.P ~ /C'vs,~~y.JJ~/ ~~/~-t'.~,/~`~` telephone: 869-7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 120 Agenda April 13, 1981 The .Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Release of Bond for Off-Street Parking Contract 6228 Penn Avenue On November 28, 1966, the city council authorized execu- tion of an off-street parking contract-with Lund's, Inc. (Rhoda S. Lund) for Lund's Supermarket located at 6228 Penn Avenue. An inspection of the site by the city staff reveals that the owner has complied with the terms of the off-street parking agreement except for a requirement to construct a concrete barrier curb on the west side of the lot, abutting the right-of- way easement for Queen Avenue. At the time, it was anticipated that Queen Avenue would be extended upon the right-of-wa.y easement. from the frontage road south to 64th Street. In July of 1967, the city council voted not to open Queen Avenue along this ease° ment. In March, 1968, Lund's agreed in writing to construct the barrier curb along Queen Avenue whenever Queen Avenue is opened, or when requested to by the City of Richfield. A~t the March 25, 1968 city council meeting, the council considered a resolution which would release the bond on the Lund's off-street parking contract. According to minutes of that council meeting, the resolution was "deferred indefinitely until such time as the city is contacted by Lund's Market." Lund's has again requested the release of this bondo This bond has been in effect for many years and it appears that no useful purpose is served by the continuance of this bond require- ment. If the city council were to decide to open Queen Avenue, Lund's Inc. did agree to construct the barrier curb.. Therefore, since Lund's has complied with all other terms of the agreement, it is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing release of the performance bond for this off-street parking contract. Respectfully submitted, ~``~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Community Development Director City Engineer i ~~ f~ RESOLUTION N0. -- RESOLUTION RELATING TO RELEASE OF BOND ON OFF-STREET PARKING Lunds, Inc. (Rhoda S. Lund) 1450 West Lake Street Location: 6228 Penn Avenue South Use: Super Market WHEREAS, Lund's,Inc., 1450 West Lake Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota, had an off-street parking agreement with the City of Richfield relating to 6228 Penn Avenue South, which contract bears the designation of Contract No. 1007, and which contract was guaranteed by a bond of the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, San Francisco, California, in the sum of $18,500.00, and WHEREAS, said Lund's, Inc. has substantially complied with the provisions of said agreement and now seeks to be re- lieved of any further obligation under said bond, and WHEREAS, there appears to be no justification for re- quiring said Fireman's Fund Insurance Company to continue to provide a bond for security on the performance of said agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to release Lund's, Inc. from any and all acts committed or in- curred in violation of said Contract No. 1007, on and after the 13th day of April, 1981. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of April, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk /J~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 119 Agenda April 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Purchases in Excess of $1,000 Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that the city council must approve the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There are five such items on the council agenda-of April 13, 1981. ~,ual Fuel Conversions for City Equipment Because of the increasing costs of fuel to operate our mobile fleet, the staff is making continuous efforts to keep abreast of all new devices to help conserve gasoline. A dual fuel system, which would allow equipment to operate on both, or either, gasoline or propane is one such device. Although this is not a new theory, the equipment and system has improved over the years to now make it a viable fuel backup for our mobile equipment. It is the staff proposal to convert two units, a half-ton pickup truck and a three-quarter ton pick-up, to the dual fuel system for a trial period to analyze the extent of the improvements and the cost efficiency to the city. Although cost savings will not be_, fully realized at this time, since we will need to purchase propane from a local supplier at a cost of approximately $.87 per gallon, there may be some immediate savings in that the current price for unleaded gasoline is $1.15 per gallon. Should the trial period with the two units appear to be successful, it is anticipated that the staff would recommend purchase and installation of a bulk tank which would enable the purchase of larger quantities through competitive purchasing and potentially reduce the cost of propane per gallon to approximately $.67. The cost for the conversion of the two units would be $906.65 for each unit. This i ncludes the cost to train city mechanics on maintenance of the dual fuel units. Any future installations or conversions would be at a cost closer to $696 per unit. The equipment used in the conversion can be transferred to other units at the time the equipment is replaced. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council authorize the the purchase of two dual fuel units, including equipment, for Auto Energy, Inc., at a total cost of $1,813.30. Council Letter No. 119 -2- April 13, 1931 Trees ~ The capital improvement program includes an annual $45,000 allocation for the purchase and planting of trees as replacement for tree losses anticipated due to dutch elm disease, oak wilt disease, windstorms, insects, etc. On March 9, 1981, the city council approved the purchase of 200 trees for spring planting. It was noted at that time that the quantity of trees available could be greatly reduced by fail, especially in terms of quality, and that the staff would return to the city council with a recommendation related to the purchase of trees for fall planting. The same vendors were contacted with the same information as was provided for the spring planting. Because it is difficult to estimate the number of trees likely to be lost this spring and summer, it is the staff's recommendation to purchase 150 trees at this time for fall planting, and return to the city council at a later date if it is necessary to purchase more trees. , Skyline Honeylocust: One vendor, Minnesota Tree, Inc., provided a quotation on Thornless Honeylocust, wYiich is not the species specified. Two vendors had the specified tree available. See- fer~t's Hudson Road Nursery quoted $125 per tree. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of 50 Skyline Honey- locust at a unit price of $75, the low quoted price from Bachman's Inc., for a total purchase price of $3,750. Sugar Maple: Only two vendors had sugar maple available for fall planting. Seefert's Hudson Road Nursery, Inc. quoted $145 per tree. It is recommended the city council authorize the purchase of 50 sugar maple from Minnesota Valley Wholesale, Inc. at the low quoted price of $89 each, for a total purchase-price of $4,450. American Linden: Three vendors had American Linden available. Seefert's Hudson Road Nursery quoted $125 per tree and Minnesota Tree quoted $80 per tree. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of 50 American Linden at the low quoted price of $75 per tree, from Bachman's Inc., for a total purchase price of $3,750. Cart Path Limestone It has been the intent of the city to provide golf carts at the Rich Acres Golf Course. However, before that is possible, it is necessary that some paths, those essential for safety to the players and those essential for the condition of the course, be provided. Factors such as cost to install and maintain, as well as an aesthetically pleasing appearance, make limestone an ideal surface for these paths. Three companies were contacted to provide quotations. Kramer quoted $5.35 per ton for 3/8" minus rock. Sheely quoted $5.37 per ton for 5/16" minus rock. Bryan Rock quoted $5.75 per ton for 1/4" rock. It is the opinion of the staff that the material quoted by Bryan Rock is best for this particular project, in that this size provides long term service- ability, good quality drainage, and is of a decorative red color- Council Letter No. 119 -3- April 13, 1981 ing which coordinates nicely with the redwood theme at the course. The other sizes of rock quoted would tend to compact more and would potentially not allow for proper drainage. The material quoted by Bryan Rock is used in the majority of cart paths constructed in this area. Therefore, it is recommended the purchase of 700 ton 1/4" rock purchase price of $4,025. that the city council authorize from Bryan Rock for a total Cold Mid The city is entering into a major alley patching program in 1981. Two quotations were received for 100 ton cold mix patch material. Bury Carlson quoted $23.85 per ton, undelivered. Mc- Namara Vivant quoted $28.00 per ton, delivered to the city On an as-needed basis. Because the city equipment is relatively small, the cost of labor and equipment to obtain the material from Bury Carlson would cause the price to exceed the delivered price quotation of McNamar Vivant. _ Therefore, it is recommended .that the city council authorize the purchase of 100 ton cold mix patch from McNamara Vivant at the delivered price for a total purchase cost of $2,800. The adopted 1981 budget for government buildings includes fund- ing for purchase of a carpet shampooer. Three quotations have been received for an industrial/commercial type unit that would primarily be used at city hall, but could also be used at other carpeted facilities, such as the nature center, ice arena, golf course and community center. The quotations included the base unit or tank, and the brush attachment. Dalco Corporation quoted $2,075 Brissman-Kenedy, Inc. quoted $1,802. Needels Janitor Supply quoted $1,428. The quotations are not all for. the same brand, but the brands and units quoted are essentially comparable. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of a. Multi-Clean nine gallon Shampoo N Vac carpet cleaning ex- tractor with vacuum and solution hoses and a Multi-Clean Extractor 16 Power Drive Brush Power Wand from Needels Janitor Supply, at a total purchase price of $1,428. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ (~ Karl Nollenbe))rger City Manager KN/eja cc: Community Services Director ~9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No~ 118 Agenda April 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Recommendation to the Commissioner of Highways for the State of Minnesota that the Contract for CP 7052 (Lyndale Avenue from 64th Street to Lake Shore Drive) be Awarded to Progressive Contractors, Inc. On April 6, 1981 bids were opened for the CP 7052 reconstruction of Lyndale Avenue from 64th Street to Lake Shore Drive. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for council review. The engineer's estimate for the project is $726,146.65, while the budget prepared in April of 1980 was $782,000. The low bid on Because the project is financed primarily with Federal Aid Urban (FAU) Funds, the Minnesota Commissioner of Highways must award the contract. The commissioner will take into consideration :the recommendation of the city council. The staff recommends that the city council move to recommend to the Minnesota Commissioner of Highways that the CP 7052 contract be awarded to the lowest re- sponsible bidder, Progressive Contractors,:.Inc. _ At this time there is a potential element of controversy surrounding the award of the bid to the low bidder. The published deadline for the submission of bids was 1:00 p.m., April 6, 1981. ~6ubsequent to this deadline, the representative from Arcon Con- struction Company arrived~at city hall with his company's bid. The bid was stamped at 1:05 p.m. by the city hall receptionist. The bids which were submitted prior to the deadline were opened by the city clerk and the amount of each bid was announced. After the completion of the bid opening process, the bid from Arcon Con- struction was opened by the Engineer from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. This bid was for an amount somewhat over $682,000, or approximately $4,000 lower than the bid submitted by Progressive Contractors, Inc. Representatives of Arcon Construction Company subsequently indicated that their bid was the lowest and the bid should be awarded to them. They were in- formed that their bid would not be honored because it was sub- mitted after the 1:00 p.m. deadline. They later threatened legal Council Letter No. 118 -2- April 13, 1981 action against the city if they were not awarded the bid. As of the writing of this letter, no legal action has been initiated and the city attorney has been informed of Arcon's threat of litigation. It has been three years since the beginning of the construction of CP 705. Curing this time, the staff has had an opportunity to look at the maintenance of improvements that has been involved in this construction. One problem that has been detected is the de- terioration of the bomanite crosswalks. Bomanite has been utilized ~ both the crosswalks as well as the sidewalk area around the intersections, but deterioration has only been noted with the .crosswalks. To eliminate this problem it is recommended that the .surface of the new crosswalks on Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street be brushed tan-colored concrete rather than bomanite, while leaving the sidewalk areas around the intersection in the same bomanite material. This change will maintain the integrity of the pedestrian circulation system and promote the urban design theme established for the L/H/N area, but will eliminate the maintenance problems , the city has experienced with the bomanite crosswalks. One of the most important elements of the L/H/N public improvements was the attempt to tie together the entire commercial area in an in- tegrated theme. The pedestrian system serves as a vital part of ghat element so continuity from that part of the public improvements already constructed and those to be constructed is important. The question of pedestrian safety along 66th Street was care- fully evaluated by the city staff as a result of questions and ;concerns raised earlier on this subject. The standard sidewalk in Lichfield is 5 feet in width. The setback of sidewalks from the street varies appreciably, with the distances ranging from the sidewalk being located immediately adjacent to the street, to-the sidewalk being located many feet back from the street.. While it would be ideal to have a distance of 8 or 10 feet between the side° walk and the curbline, because of the limited width of the right- of-way along 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue this is not possible. In an attempt to address this concern of pedestrian safety, a total of .seven alternatives were evaluated. In all instances it was recognized that the distance from the curbline to the interior sidewalk line would be 8 feet. The alternatives considered in- cluded the following: 1. A 5-foot wide sidewalk separated from the street by a 3-foot wide sod strip. The major disadvantage of this alternative was that because of the amount of traffic on 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue, and the amount of salt used on the streets, along with the need to store snow adjacent to the street, would result in a very hostile environment for the sod, with the great likli- hood that much of the time grass would not grow within the 3-foot area. The cost of installation of the sod strip would be $2.00 per lineal foot less than a 3-foot wide strip of concrete; r Council Letter No. 118 -3- April 13, 1981 2. Another possibility would be that of having 5-f oat wide concrete sidewalk along with a 3-foot wide strip of asphalt. The disadvantage of this option would be that it would be aesthetically unpleasing and would introduce another discordant visual element into the design of the street. The cost of a blacktop strip would be $1.40 per lineal foot less than a 3-foot wide strip of concrete; 3. The .third option considered would be to.install an 8-foot wide concrete sidewalk. This would enable the effective storage of snow in the winter on a very wearable surface. The installation of an 8-foot side- walk would allow pedestrians to be several feet from the curbline if they chose to walk along the inside part of the sidewalk. This option would be relatively easy to maintain; 4. The next option was that of having a 5-foot wide strip concrete.. This alternative would have the durability of a concrete surface and would also conceivably provide some visual delineation of where pedestrians were ex- pected to walk. The major disadvantage of this option is that it would cost $.90 per-more per lineal foot for the installation of the colored concrete; 5. The next option to be considered would include a 5-footir sidewalk which would have one row of brick om the other 3 foot wide strip of concrete nt to the street. This option would, once a durable surface. However, it would nother material into the overall design, and might be somewhat visually unpleasant that. This would also cost $1.10 more than that of plain concrete; 6. The next option was that of having. a 5-foet wide strip of concrete, along with a 3-font- wide strip of exposed aggregate along the street. The major disadvantage of this option would be that it would be appreciably more expensive, i.e. $1.70 per lineal foot more than that of plain concrete; 7. The last option considered was that of having an 8-foot wide concrete sidewalk which would include the install- Thevmajor~disadvantageyof thisvoption~included the~prob- lem of maintenance and snow storage as a result of the existence of the bollards along with an appreciably higher cost; in this particular instance $3.40 per lineal foot more than the cost of plain concrete. This option would also have a much higher on-going maintenance again, provide introduce yet a that of brick , as a result of per lineal foot Council Letter No. 118 -4- April 13, 1981 cost because of the propensity of individuals to periodically run into the bollards and knock them down. After careful consideration of the above-mentioned alterna- tives, it is recommended that an 8-foot wide concrete sidewalk be installed along both sides of 66th Street. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Community Development Director Community Services Director City Engineer CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening April 13, 1981 Lyndale Avenue, 64th Street to Lake Shore Drive Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids Street Construction Work on Lyndale Avenue, 64th Street to Lake Shore Drive, as advertised in the official newspaper on March 11, 18, 25, 1981. Present: Michael Eastling, City Engineer Arthur P. Bailey, Engineering Aide Sharon Boyson, Personnel Assistant Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER BID SECURITY TOTAL C, S. McCrossan, Inc. B.B. 5% $707,759.58 Progressive Contractors B.B. 5% $686,973.75 Thomas & Sons B.B. 5% $764,126.83 Shafer Contracting Co. B.B. 5% $723,164.60 (1st Alt.) $695_.,084.60 (2nd Alt.) MN State Curb & Gutter Fisher Sand & Gravel B.B. 5% $827,013.75 Victor Carlson & Sons B.B. 5% $711,064.57 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of April 13, 1981. Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk ~S CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 117 Agenda April 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Request for Rezoning, 7001 3rd Avenue 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 o;f the existing house and to construct an exposed spiral staircase. No other con- struction is being contemplated. The property, located at 7001 3rd Avenue, will have one access point from 3rd Avenueo The staff has reviewed the request and found the following: 1. That the petition initiating the rezoning is of proper form and exceeds the minimum required number of signatures 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 far 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 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. Council Letter No. 117 -2- April 13, 1981 Staff Recommendation Because 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: 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. Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission recommends approval of this rezoning application with the listed stipulation. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ej a cc: Community Development Director City Planner 1 /''~i I l ~ "~ L4 ci'~ 1- u . , ~~o v i ' NW I ~~ •-, cn `~ ~T ~ r w~~, N^ . - _. ~ f tt.~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ -~ -- , , ~~ I ~ a~ - ~;: ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; .,~ ~ 1 ~ "^ ~ i ~ ^t ~ `J _- , ~ o N .1. • r -..1Y4 ... .c I ..,.~. ~; - ` r 1 ,~ =~- t.. ~. 4 ~` ) M Q N C x ~~ +-~ r..-. ~ . y F am~~y ;ing~. ., ___ 13 - ~J~ ° ~ 16 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~; • ~ 15 2 ~ I , 14 3 ~i•' a~,,y , ,: g~ a . ~ N I; W iV • ~ ~ , ~~ I i fi "" 10 7 v1 ? I st ~ ~ ~ _~ _I 2 ~ 1 rr ' _._._ _ r- ..1 ~ •_5'~ngie~ f arn~ly .~ 1 1 o -_` ~3~ t~ i-~._ 1 ~v~•~ N~ r~---J- +~'~ x .' !7 i f~ e ~7 ~ M x.:.16 l_l m ~L~ .., :, ,~r^-- _ ~~ , _ Zoning Map --, ---. Land Use Map 8v~ I : P 2 __~ ~ m u ,n . ~L~ ~ 69th Op I ~ d 2 3 G`~ , e ~" 1 ~ ~ N ~n~ V J Q~ ^~ u 8 ~ ~ I N U "' ;~ T `~~ ~ .. e • -~Oth -- ~®~~ r t e J 8 1 ^u T~ -~ ^ ` 6 't - rl ' S~. r u -" 16 -, 1I ~ °o 15 2 11 0 14 j 3 'ni --. - ,`~ ~ia~~,y o F °'Sicig~~~~l ~ " '~ 01215 f~; N -- t ~ _ - s :;' ~~I1 ,' Q N N ,-^ •_ 10!7 _ _'~ m <'~' 9 1 8 r] v 0 ,. $ ~ -~ (` r, ,~ :~ ,~ .152 -~ ~ ~ ~ I2~~ ;' Iir 11 14 3 ", ~ ._ I c Fa ~ - ~- ie ~annily $~~`g~ , CJ ~~ ~ ~p~ $ ~ ;" 25 ~ ry ~; ~_~ ~ ~ , a ~ ~ 107 i a ! 47~:m l _ . ~ ~° a i I ~ J- - c.~ N M "~ ~ 24i I i ! ~ I ~- - ,, ~, !? ~ ; ~ :Family le I ; ~ ~`e Family ~, Sing ~~ i .Sing , ; 4 " 3 ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ G{ t(t~ / _, I ~,: ~~. o ~ ~~a Q ., ti ,..J I:I ._ . . N I ~ ~- ~ - . 1 T" n l . C 1 ~ 5~ ._. .1 ~___ __._ I r , ~ ~ o . z, ~____- w ~j .,.a,.~.. _ _~ _ __ _ _ J CJ 8~1 ~1 ~ O n ^v U ., ~~ - A "''.J 7 2 ~, '' 1 i r. I jJ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~e ~^ 5' o~ ~ D m .p ~'! Q 16 f _- ^ m `D ma- 15 2 ^,~ p 14. 3 ~ _ 5 ~~~ ~ a~``~y Q N - ~ r.~ 12 S ~G .IO a - ?' _ 9 8 1J y m ,~ ! =0 s ~~ I i C ~ =~ ( i, u n 16 rn L! .c 1 _ U ~ o S n 13 2 ^ o ,n ~ 14 3 _=~~}J , Fa _- ~-~ d~ e Y 7~~~ 3 ~ 4 . ^ N 125 ~ ~.. ~ ~^ [ ~ I I , 6 ^ lJ ~ ,~ ., rb~7 n r~ 9;e • t m ~~ ~ S T. ,, , I6; I -~ ~ ^ - - -t .' i'~ Family $tng ~ ; 14~ 3 '~ I 134 i N I ~ o N i ~ ~ •i i ~ ~Y t2~5 ~ ,N ~ r 1 ~~ 1 ~ 6 -I ~ .. ~ ~ I .. ~ _~. C3 -~ Q -:ry E_~=4 ~Ll 3~`I. -~ ~~~i; Q ----~.3,~I; >ri ~31~~ _.`( ~z A ~ __ `~- ~' T ~ t ~, - ' -~ =, n ~ __ _ `J ~~ . ~~ _Y. 'J ' ~'4 \~J- ~i r 3o C ~~ ~ ~ ~a, /Y, .~/,t~~ Pfc. ~s~ T~ ~ ~~ s~ ~ 76 ~~ s~ • L ~~D ~ o I p~i,~Ea~~Y o _ _ _ _ ~__-- - ~ z~' /~~ ~ ~a~ s ~ _ ~~~ ~o n , /~ 6~~ fir. N _4, .. . . AMENDMENT 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, Minnesota defining the boundaries of the various zoning districts of the City, enumerated in Chapter III, Part IV, Secti.or~ 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. Bergh, City Clerk 7~ ~ 7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 116 Agenda April 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Review of Edina Comprehensive Plan The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires that prior to submitting a comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council, a community must submit it to adjacent governmental bodies for their review. Pursuant to that requirement, the City of Edina has submitted a draft of their comprehensive plan to Richf field for review. The city staff has reviewed the Edina Comprehensive Plan, and developed the following findings: Land Use Element Land uses in Edina and Richfield are very similar., Both are fully developed inner ring suburbs where the primary land use is for single-family residential purposes.. The comprehensive plans of both cities are aimed at preserving the existing resident° ial character. The area of most concern to Richfield is the Southdale/Yorktown commercial district immediately adjacent to the city's western border. The intense development in that area represents one of the largest traffic generators in the state. This development gen° erates high traffic volumes in Richfield on Xerxes Avenue north of 66th Street, 66th Street and 76th Street. The Edina Gomprehen~• sive Plan indicates that the highest planning priority for this area is the amelioration of existing and anticipated traffic conm gestion. A combination of roadway improvements, land use controls and transportation alternatives will be used to deal with this problem. Edina's proposed policies to accomplish this will be as follows: 1. Restrict the extension of retail co: the area. Prohibit any rezoning to lands not now zoned commercial. 2. Encourage an appropriate mixture of for increased intra-area travel and thus relieving pressure on external nmercial uses in commercial of land uses to allow multi-purpose trips; street systems. Council Letter No. 116 -2- April 13, 1981 3. Encourage or provide incentives to large office, industrial, or multiple residential developments to incorporate accessory convenience retail services within such developments, so as to capture or intercept possible travel. 4. Encourage uses that generate traffic during off-peak traffic volume times. 5. Encourage employers to implement flexible work hour scheduling, car pooling, and mass transit incentives for employees. 6. Cooperate with the Metropolitan Transit Commission to in- crease mass transit alternatives. 7. Provide additional pedestrian and bicycle paths to en- . courage non-motorized commuter shopping trips. 8. Extend the existing Yorktown commuter strip to the south corporate limits. 9. Require that mass transit facilities be incorporated, where feasible, into all developments.. 10. Continue to pursue funding for a mass transit demonstra- tion project which would utilize the Yorktown commuter strip. 11. Acquire, through subdivision dedication, a 12-15 acre pub° lic park north of West 76th Street in conformance with the Open Space Acquisition Plan. This park should serve as a focal point for surrounding developments. Density credits should be granted for dedication of this park lando 12. Non-residential uses should not be allowed north of 76th Street and east of the proposed public park or commuter strip. 13. Encourage planned unit developments for non-residential uses. If appropriate, allow high density residential uses as an element of such planned unit development. There are some large, undeveloped parcels of Land in. the south° eastern corner of Edina. Development of these parcels will add to the traffic volumes of 76th Street. The land use plan calls for mixed land use on these parcels. The City of Richfield should en- courage the City of Edina to encourage development in southeast Edina which would minimize traffic increases on streets in Richfield. Housing Element Edina's Housing Element contains two central themes. The first is protection of the existing housing stock and residential Council Letter No. 116 -3- April 13, 191 neighborhoods, 90 percent of which are now in place. The second theme is the development of policies and programs that will broaden the range of housing choices available in the city. Edina's policies in this area are mainly to provide modest cost housing through rental assistance and financing programs., and also to encourage developers to include a variety of dwelling unit prices in development proposals. General locations planned for assisted elderly housing in- clude a strip along Xerxes and York Avenues on the Richfield/ Edina border. There are four different locations planned for assisted family housing, including the area in the southeast corner of Edina which is now vacant. Edina's Housing Element is very similar to that of.Richfield in that both cities wish to preserve existing residential neigh- borhoods and also to provide a wider mix of housing types, This element is compatible with Richfield's Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Protection Element The goal of Edina's Environmental Protection Element is to protect and manage significant remaining natural resources, im- prove the health and diversity of the urban forest, preserve Edina's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage, and mit4J igate defoliation of land forms, waterbodies, and water courses caused by pollution and unsound land use practices.. Richfield's environmental protection plan is also directed toward the wise management of existing natural amenities and resourceso Transportation Element The Transportation Elements of Edina's and Richfield's Compre°~ hensive Plans are similar. They are both aimed at maintaining the existing community and correcting existing deficiencies.. Functional classification of streets in Edina is compatible with those in Richfield with one exception. Edina has classified-_76th Street as a collector street. The Richfield Comprehensive Plan indicates that 76th Street should be classified as a minor arterial street. Edina. Transportation Element policies which concern Richfield are as follows: 1. Continue to participate in efforts to improve circula- tion of traffic along I-•494, especially efforts to im- prove access at France Avenue. 2. Continue to emphasize diversion of intra-area trips from one principal arterial system to an internal system. 3. Coordinate with MNDOT, Hennepin County, and the cities of Richfield and Bloomington, the implementation and construction of the ring route concept along I°°494. Council Letter No. 116 -4- April 13, 1981 4. Support efforts to upgrade arterials influencing local traf f is f low, especially along the coms~ion section of I-35W and CSAH 62. Bikeway and Ped System It is the objective of both Edina and Richfield to provide bikeway and pedestrian systems which link the existing system, the new system, and the neighboring community's system. Both cities are looking to improve non-motorized access to the Southdale activity center. Both cities have scheduled future sidewalk im- provements. class Transit `l~he objective of Edina's mass transit plan is to provide several alternatives to the private automobile, especially between residential areas and the Southdale corridor. This is compatible with Richfield's transit plan. Community Facilities Element Edina and Richfield have similar goals for parks and recre- ational programs and to provide parks and recreational facilities in close proximity to all residents. There are, however., some inconsistencies in the utilities element, especially the sanitary and storm water sewer systems.. Three of Edina's truck sanitary sewers, serving approximately two-• thirds of the city's area, flow into the Richfield interceptor (I-RF-491) located at 75th Street and Xerxes Avenue.. The land remaining to be developed in Edina is expected to contribute an additional 800,000 gallons of wastewater per day during the 1980's.o Almost all of the flow will enter the system at the 75th and' Xerxes interceptor. Richfield is concerned that the wastewater capacity of this interceptor may not be adequate to handle the additional flow from this expected development. However, accord- ing to the Edina Comprehensive Plan, sanitary sewage generation from Edina, based on a maximum 1990 population of 53,600, will be within the planning limits established by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and will not require increased capacities for the metropolitan interceptor system. The City of Richfield should encourage the. City of Edina to monitor the effect of new development to ensure that the capacity of the interceptor is not exceeded. Richfield has also identified the Richfield/Edina border as a significant storm sewer related problem area. The problem extends along Xerxes Avenue from 64th to 70th Street. The storm sewers draining 66th Street from Xerxes Avenue to France are too small to handle runoff from the intense commercial development in the area. The runoff now exceeds the system capacity for a Council Letter No. 116 -5- April 13, 1981 five-year storm. Installation of a new line, as a joint project with Edina, Richfield and Hennepin County is under study and tentatively scheduled for 1983. Neither the problem nor the study is mentioned in the Edina plan. No such project appears in the 1981-85 Capital Improvement Program. The City of Richfield should encourage Edina to address this problem in their comprehensive plan and to schedule this project in their 1981-85 capital improvement program. Implementation Element This element includes discussions on zoning and subdivision ordinances, environmental ordinances, the Housing Action Plan and the Capital Improvement Program. This element is compatible with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan, with the exception of the 66th Street/Xerxes Avenue storm sewer problem, previously discussed. Staff Recommendation 1. to development in Edina should be minimized°. Partic- ular emphasis should be placed on the following Edina land use policies: A. :Restrict the extension of retail commercial uses in the southeast Edina area. Prohibit any re- zoning to commercial of lands not now zoned commercial. 2. The capacity o f the I-RF-491 interceptor should not be exceeded. The City of Edina should moni tor the effect of new develop ment and ensure that the c apacity of that inte~ceptor.is not exceeded. 3. There is a storm sewer problem in the 66th Street/ Xerxes Avenue area on the Richfield/Edina border. Discussion of this problem and some proposal for its mitigation should appear in the Edina Comprehensive Plan. A plan to correct this problem should appear in the Edina 1981-85 Capital Improvement Program. It is recommended that the•City Council notify the City of Council Letter No. 116 -6- April 13, 1981 0 s Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission considered this matter at their February 24 and D'Iarch 24, 1981 meetings and recommended that the council adopt the staff recommendations on this matter. Resjpectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Program Directors City Planner ~ // CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of C ity Manager Council Letter No. 115 Agenda April 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: o ~ G~~ ~ ,~ '~ J ~~ , ~ Council` ~~ ~ r -"~ v `~~~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~N ~' Policy For Deferment of Special Assess- ments for Senior Citizens During the March 23, 1981 city council hearing on alley improvements, the city council requested the staff to develop senior citizens to be deferred°, under certain. circumstances. Under the special assessment section of the Minnesota Statutes (435.193 to 435.195) the. city council may defer the collection of an assessment for any homestead property which is owned by a person 65 years of age or older when it determines that re- quring payment of the special assessment would create a hardship. Application for such a deferral of special assessment payment would be made on a form prescribed by the county auditor. If the deferment is granted, the auditor notifies the county recorder, so that the assessment is not collected.. 't'he council determines the amount of interest to be charged on the deferred assessment. The deferment is terminated and all accumulated amounts, plus applicable interest, becomes due upon: 1. Death of the owner (if the spouse is not otherwise eligible for the deferment) 2. The sale, transfer, or subdivision of any part of the property 3. The loss of homestead status of the property 4. Determination by the city council that requiring immediate or partial payment would impose no hardship. If the council wishes to utilize this authority to defer collection of special assessments, it must adopt an ordinance or resolution establishing standards and guidelines for deter- mining the existence of hardship. The council may, however, find hardship in the case of exceptional and unusual circumstances not covered by the standards and guidelines of the ordinance. Hardship in the resolution proposed by the city staff is defined ' Council Letter No. 115 -2- April 13, 1981 as a gross income of less than $11,000. If the council follows a policy of deferring collection of special assessments for senior citizens in hardship cases, it should include a notice of this fact in the final notice of confirmation of the assess- ment. It will also be required to give such notice in the Notice of Hearing on the proposed assessment which occurs usually after the project is substantially completed. If the council wishes to establish a policy for deferral of special assessments for senior citizens as described, the ;attached resolution would establish such=~a policy. Respectfully submitted, ~'` Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ej a cc: Administrative Services Director Finance Coordinator Community Development Director City Engineer f J RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AGAINST OWNER-OCCUPIED HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES OF PERSONS OVER SIXTY-FIVE YEARS OF AGE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. It is the policy of the city to consider requests for the deferment of special assessments upon homestead properties owned by persons sixty-five years of age or older for whom it would be a hardship to make payments of such special assessments. In the adoption of such policy and the procedures established by this resolution the city is acting pursuant to authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 435.193 to 435.195. _ 2 A qualifying hardship shall be deemed to exist if the owner of the homestead property and other occupants of the homestead, taken together (a) had a gross income of less than $11,000 in the previous calendar year and (b) will have an estimated income for the current calendar year and sub- sequent years which will not exceed said sum. 3. Application for deferral of payment of special assessments shall be made on forms prescribed by the county auditor. The home owner shall furnish the city with such information as it may require at the time of the original application and at any time thereafter while the special assessment remains unpaid, which will permit the city to establish, verify or continue the deferral of special assess- ments or to determine whether eligibility for such deferral has ended. 4. Interest on deferred special assessments shall accrue until the special assessment is paid, at the rate established by the city at the time of levying the special assessment. 5. The city manager or his designee shall examine all applications for determination of his/her eligibility for deferral of payment of special assessments (a) in compliance with said statute and (b) in accordance with the standards and guidelines for determining hardships contained in this resolution or any subsequent amendment thereof. 6. No deferment of payment of a special assessment shall be made unless the owner furnishes the city with an ., application and such supplementary documentation and verifica- tion as may be required to establish the following: 1. The legal description, plat and parcel number of the property; 2.~ The street address of the property; 3. Its status as homestead property 4. The description or designation of the local improvement 5. The name of the homestead owner-occupant; 6. That said owner-occupant is over 65 years . of age; 7. That payment of the special assessment on the ordinary time basis would be hardship as defined herein. 7. Within 30 days after the filing of the application in completed form the city manager or his/her designee shall make a report to the council on the application, with a recommenda- tion as to whether the application shall be granted. The council shall, by resolution, either grant or deny the applica- tion and the decision of the council shall be final. 8. Within 30 days after the filing of said application for deferment of special assessments, the city manager shall review the application for consistency with and conformance to the council prescribed standards and guidelines; and then either grant or deny the application. In the event of the existence of exceptional or unusual circumstances not covered by the standards and guidelines, the city manager shall make a full re- port to the city council within 30 days of the filing of said application along with a recommendation as to whether said application should be granted or denied. In the event of the denial of the application by the city manager, any applicant shall have the right to have the application considered by the city council. In those instances where the city council con- siders an application, it shall, by resolution, either grant or deny the application; and the decision of the city counci'1 shall be final. The city manager shall report to the city council on a quarterly basis on deferrals granted. by him/her. 9. The option to defer the payment of special assessments shall terminate and all amounts accumulated, plus applicable interest, shall become due upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) the death of the owner, provided that the surviving spouse is not eligible for the benefits hereunder; (b) the sale, transfer or subdivision of the property or any part thereof; (c) if the property should for any reason lose its homestead status; or (d) if for any reason the taxing authority deferring the payments shall determine that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield, this 13th day of April, 1981, llonald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk ~ /U CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA -Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield CQUIIC i1~~.Members Council Letter No. 114 Agenda April 13, 1981 Subject: Authorization for Hennepin County to Acquire Property for the Realignment of Lake Shore Drive ~, change in configuration of the realignment of Lake Shore Drive at 66th Street is being pursued by the Hennepin County Design Engineer. The present plan includes two relative]_y sharp curves, in order to align the Lake Shore Drive/66th Street intersection with that of Rae Drive. The county now suggests that the design be altered to soften the curves, which will provide safer traffic flow and capacity. ~hibit A shows realignment of Lake Shore Drive as proposed _ __ - __ _ _ _ _ L. L ~ i ..., l .~ ... to be acquired for the new alignment. The additional property to be acquired is Outlot A of Lynwood Addition.. This parcel is vacant and is owned by the Johnsons who reside at 901 West 66th Street. The county is presently in the process of acquiring Lot 1, Block 1, Lynwood Addition from the Johnsons. Exhibit B shows the revised street alignment and the rev7sed disposition of the area. There will be no change in the amount of land to be set aside for right-of-way. .The right-of-way is simply being moved, resulting in more land being added to what n~~.r ; ~aAnt-; f; P~ as the cooperative housing site. The portion The county has appraised the value of the vacant lot to be $40,000. The land will be purchased using the contingency fund of the CP-705 project. The e,sta.mated increase in project costs for this design change is $7,000. Although the city has been hesitant to use any money from this contingency fund until the bids are in on both the Lyndale Avenue project and the 66th S treet project, the staff believes that this realignment and additional acquisition is a wise investment. The staff has re- viewed the proposed realignment and found several advantages. The new alignment would be a better road design for both safety and capacity reasons. The land that would be added to the cooper- ative housing site enlarges the open space on the site. The Council Letter No. 114 -2- April 13, 1981 principal disadvantage of this design change is the increased cost. It may be possible to recover a portion of the cost by increasing the land price on the cooperative housing project, however, this is by no means a certainty at this time. The purchase of the Johnson house on 66th Street would leave the Johnson's with the remaining parcel of land that is now sugges for purchase. The parcel is totally surrounded by Wood Lake Nature Center, and is a potentially developable lot. It would be unfortunate to have a parcel at this location developed to the detriment of the center. The planning commission has reviewed the plan change and found that the proposed acquisition and disposition of land ad- jacent to Lake Shore Drive to be in conformance with the city's comprehensive plan. A copy of a resolution adopted by the planning commission is also attached. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ej a cc: Community Development Director Community Services Director City Engineer ~~ ; ~, r LAECE SHORE DRIVE REALIGNMENT ~ EXHIBIT A . _. .__ ._ ~~ 1 .. I i i _ s .` .~~' - ~W. E~th STREET' _ .,. >_ .._ - -- i .;:g i :•:{:: •.t~ r. 'fr'• ' ~ 1 ~- f •':~~ ~ '7,}:• t ~~ J -`-lam i ~ ~ ~~^ I E L B SO D . ~~~ ~;3;;':- :•:~..: '~ ;, '} ~ i '' FIRST ,' - REALIGNMENT • ~ - ~ .` ~ ,~ _ . ~ `~ 1 - ,\ ~~ • ~~`~ ~ r J l \, ~ :^ \\ 1 ~l ~~; . v , . ,.. _; . `~ ~ i E~h11BIT ~ B ~ ~~' ~~ . ~~ ®NEW REALIGNMENT _. PROPERTY TO BE • ACQUIRED FOR WOOD ADDITIONAL PROPERTY' LAKE NATURE CENTER TO BE SOLD FOR USE IN MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT W. 66th STREET -_ -~ _ . ,_ --_-_ - .: .. t .._ -- -- .. _ ~. .~. :1~ j ~ ~~ ~ _ _/ '~.. .~- ~ f ~~_ _~. _; i ~ ' ~. ` 1 \` 1 ~. ~J;• • '} ~~~>.; ,'. ,_ ~~ r~~. _._ ..__._ v_.._._ _ - .__ ---~ 1 - -, ;=; . i ~~ ~ ~ -` ' / i ,,~ ,1 ` ', .. ~• \ ~~ ;.::.:: ~. .v::}?.i: YS .. ~ _ \~~, ~ t `M`~~ \I~\ ~ .. . .• ...__ r... \i c - ., iF . ~ .~._ ._ - ~ .-_ ~i, . ~ ~f -_ ~ .,,. , < ~ r, ~ ~ \ . , !~~ ' ' RESOLUTION NO . C RESOLUTION FINDING THE ACQUISITION OF OUTLOT A OF LYNWOOD ADDITION AND THE DISPOSITION OF OUTLOT B AND LOTS 1 AND 2 OF LYNWOOD ADDITION TO BE IN CO\fPLIANCE WITH THE COI4IPREHENSIVE PLAN . WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed acquisition of property described as follows: "Outlot A, Lynwood. Addition" WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed disposition of property described as follows: "That area of Outlot B, Lynwood Addition and Lots 1 and 2, ,B lock 1, Lynwood Addition, except public right of way." WHEREAS, the proposed acquisition and disposition are consistent • with the Comprehensive Plan n1ap, the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies and the Lyndale Hub Nicollet Redevelopment Plan Goals and Policies; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission finds that the proposed acquisition for street and park purposes and the disposition of property for the purpose of medium to high density, multiple family use to be in compliance with the city's comprehensive plan. Passed by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield this 24th day of March, .1981. Joseph Ertman, Chairman Richfield Planning Commission ATTEST: Erich J. Russell, Secretary I • { ,' ~' RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING HENNEPIN COUNTY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY UNDER TERMS OF COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT-SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT No. PW 13-19-76 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT NO. 7625 WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and the County of Hennepin have entered into an agreement; and WHEREAS, the agreement provides that the parties may purchase additional land; 'and WHEREAS, the city has determined that certain additional lands are needed for roadway and other public purposes; and WHEREAS, the property to be purchased is known as Lot A in the Lynwood Addition. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield: 1. The City Manager is authorized and directed to notify the County that the city is formally requesting the County to include these properties in the acquisition of lands which is the subject of the Agreement-Supplement No. 1. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 9th day of March, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk #.s CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 113 Agenda April 13, 1981 The Honorable A4ayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Request for Special Use Permit and Variance, 78th and Pillsbury Avenue To Allow A Residential Unit in an "I" Industrial Zoning District and for Reduction of the Required Setbacks tc Construct Six Storage Buildings Eric Holst, representing Public Storage, Inc. has submitted a request for a special use permit to allow one residential unit in an "I" industrial zoning district; and for variances to reduce The special use permit and variances are needed to allow the construction of 6 buildings on a vacant lot, The property is bound by Pillsbury Avenue on the east, 78th Street on the south, railroad right-of-way on the west, and city owned property on the north. The six buildings would be used for rental storage space that would be offered to the general public. The applicant is also proposing to construct a structure containing the man- tiger's office and living quarters. The office and living quarters will be located near the property access point. Six off-street parking spaces will be provided. The six storage buildings will provide 343 storage units, ..ranging from 5 feet x 5 feet to 10 feet x_ 30 feet in size.. Each storage unit will have a separate entrance. One controlled prop- erty access point will be provided from West 78th Street. The property will be enclosed by a wrought iron decorative security fence with brick posts. Landscaping, consisting of over-story trees, grass and flower beds are also proposed. One pedestal sign is proposed on the southwest corner of the lot. The prop- erty is zoned "I" industrial. Staff Findings The staff has reviewed the proposal and found the following: 1. That the required side street sideyard setback (along Pillsbury Avenue) is 40 feet. The proposed .side street sideyard setback is 25 feet. Council Letter No. 113 -2- April 13, 1981 2. That the required rearyard setback is 25 feet. The proposed rearyard setback is five feet. 3. That the proposed residential use on the property will require the issuance of a special use permit. 4. That Richfield's parking guidelines do not specif- ically address this type of use. The general re- quirement would require one space for each 1,000 square feet of floor area, or a total of 47 spaces in this case. It is the opinion of the city staff that this is excessive. The nature of the business, combined with the physical design of the buildings and driving aisles, does not require that many parking spaces. The staff feels that six parking spaces will be sufficient, but that an off-street parking contract will be required. 5. That a residential use is allowed in an "I" district only by issuance of a special use permit. The pro- posed residential use is incidental to the principal use of rental storage space.. The residential unit is to be occupied by a site manager/guard and his/ her immediate family. 6. That the proposal will meet all building codes and regulations. However, the pu':blic safety department has indicated that the_buildng should be sprinklered. The staff reviewed the variance requests against the-three criteria for granting variances and found the following: 1. That 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 Richfield. 2. Denial of the application will not preclude reason- able use of the property. There are existing alter- natives for use of this land 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. The staff reviewed the special use permit request and found that the residential use will not pose any hazards to the general public or persons working or residing in the area, and that the proposal is in substantial compliance with the conditions governing the issuance of special use permits. . Council Letter No. 113 -3- April 13, 1981 Staff Recommendations Variances: Because the three criteria for granting vari- ances have not been satisfied, the staff must recommend denial of the variance requests. The pity manager recommends that the ,...variance be approved. Special Use Permit: Because the proposal is in substantial compliance with the conditions for granting special use permits, the staff recommends that the council approve the special use rormi ~- ronncci- _ jai th the fc~l 1 caw ina St1tJllldtlonS 1. That the applicant enter into and execute an of"~ street parking contract:. 2. That the residential use terminate if the principal use changes or terminates. 3. That the occupancy of the residence be limited to the site manager-/guard and his/her immediate family. 4. That the building be sgrinklerc~~d, consistent with the recommendation of the Richfield Public Safety Department. The staff further recommends approval of the attached res- olution approving the layout and execution of an off-street parking agreement. Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission recommends approval of this appli- cation with the following stipulations: 1. That the applicant enter into and execute an off- street parking contract. 2. That the side strut sideyard setback match the. setback of the city garage north of their property along Pillsbury Avenue, which is 30 feet. The applicant has verbally agreed to this stipulation. Respectfully submitted, JV o arl Nollenberg r City Manager KN/eja cc: Community Development Director Planning Director PUR~IC STORAGE Inc. ~ i i T ~1 • 'y' p R .1j - w J .~ ~.~sy , ~~~~ ~~ 94 SOUTH LOS ROBLES AVENUE, SUITE 200, PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101, (213) 681.6731 March 6, 1981 The Council of the City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue, South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Re: Pillsbury Avenue (#6023) • Richfield, Minesota Dear Council Membe'r's: Public Storage, Inc. is engaged in the development, construction, and management of self-service storage facilities. Space for personal • and business use at relatively low cost. Individuals lease storage units for possessions such as furniture, household appliances, personal belongings, and other household goods. Businesses normally lease units for storage of excess inventory and business records. The usage may be on a long or short term basis, but the typical rental period is for less than one (1) year and spaces are usually rented on a mon*_h to month basis. Every space in each facility has its own entrance, which enables renters to load and unload personal and business possessions directly from their vehicles. Each renter has his own lock and key consistent with the objective that no one has access to the space except the renter or an authorized representative. Each space is accessible at any time during normal business hours, seven (7) days per week. Onsite management is the responsibility of a resident manager security guard, and possibly an assistant manager. On our proposed Richfield, Minnesota site, Public Storage, Inc. is requesting a special use permit for the onsite managers quarters, a variance for parking, and a variance for building set backs. The onsite managers are usually a semi-retired or retired couple who manage the facility on a 24 hour basis. They live in an apartment that has two bedrooms, one bath, kitchen, and living room. This area also has office space and restrooms for the public. The total area is about 1,500 square feet. We believe our proposed project is compatible Laith the current I-2 zoning; however, in order to protect the interests of our renters and the integrity of Public Storage, Inc. as the leader in secure self-storage facilities, we need to have onsite resident managers. ~ We are also requesting a variance regarding parking requirements for parking since Our facility will not generate a large volume of traffic and parking is generally intermittent in front of the storage spaces. Realistically, the volume of traffic would not be greater than 25 vehicles per day and 4 at any given time of the day. Los Angeles • San Francisco • Miami • Atlanta • Toronto • Seattle March 6, 1981 The Council of the City of richfield Project #6023 Page 2 In addition to the variance in parking, we would request a variance to construct permanent buildings slightly over both forty foot (40') building set back lines. We do not feel this will disrupt the area in any manner, and when the total project is completed, it will be appealing to the eye. We are prepared to go to considerable lengths, and expense, to introduce attractive, professionally designed, architectural screening and landscaping. We are committed to making our development a quality development and an excellent transitional buffer- between the 494 bypass and the residential area. This can only be of benefit to the surrounding properties and the community in general. Very truly yours, PUBLIC STORAGE, INC. Eric A. Holst Development Coordinator EAH/ds cc: Tom McGibbon Richfield Plan Commission (6 copies) ~ ~.r ! 1 1T1 I hill j' 1 1, ~~ ~ ~; I Q~ i~ ~~ i I ~> ! ~ ; ci 0 i i I 1 ~Y~ C O :«. N t ». O c C O ti r OJ N r~~ >~ l ;, ~: 1: I 1 ~~ I. ~ ~ I ~ . I~ I I I ' i ~ p ~I j ~' i~~ > ,~~II~ ~ I i ' d.1 cv d l~ 1~; I .~ ~~ a~a . ^ i----------- -- ---------I I v ~ ~ I o - a ~~ ~ ~~ = ~ '" E ^ + o a ~L. Eo g c i 0 ° ~ u _ ~' ~ r --~ .. ~ i g « _~ IIF~4. E i o ~s 10019 ~~ ~~- vl I ! \ 'I rte, ~~~ ~' E ~~`~ ~ ~~jJV E o !~ :.~~__ -~umsa~u~,nui-.i~..^_#=_~Inyb~mi~~-i=nm'e~: ~ ~~ ~_ V' I a ~~ i ~I ~~~ ` 1 ~ ! U O ' Z w z IE I UW'' 41 f 1• I O j O ~T I '- ~' W :~, ~, ~~_ a, ~. fC u I .°~~:~, ~i~. ~,l :y..t r 1 ! ,I: , !: I '; li . . j ~~ i .. I ~I ;;. ~Ir fr , ~1I .III . i. I~;' i,l~ :;ail :i,:` ~ ~,~ .' ;; ci -- n r' r UI i ~~ 'tea ;, ~ ~' ~ .s i+ ~~%r ~~"~~~~ ItlF~li e^r . ~~r--, ~ ~ ,., : , ~~ ,:~; ; I C'~ L,I~'~I'~i ~~ (~• ' ; ~. ~ ~ ~ , a... ~ . 3~~• .l 1. I ~ L:a I 1, ;: i C~" , 1_ . r ~ i'~III'I ., .-~~ I I :..~~. % ~ L 'L~ ~ ' III I'~ III ~_' o~\~ _ ,~II1, ~~ ~_• ~~' 1,. L'~ I.. a~;.;1 ,., ~,, ., ,; c ,\ ~Ill~u .. ;I jj~ ', I ~~' ~'' ~~' I ""v~ I ;j c 0 ~ =• ro ~ N. I. ' N, ':4 ~I 31 1. ~, I ~ !, r I, ~ n ,~ ' i L C ~ ~~ ~W 1-1, 1 c Irl ~~I I „ o ~9 `r ''" `•,• C I .. ~Y7.'tcg'~ _i---~ ~~ N N ° ~° o ~ , N °z° ~ ,~Mr J N W J N J ' I~IIII~ I~IIIII ^ 16 I ~~ ° ^ ~ ° 15 2 ° ~~ ~ 14 3 ~~* - ^ 13 4 a ~-- -- o 12 N M ^ ~, I I 6 ^ N ^ n to : ~ ~.~ ~ a ^ 9 8 ^ v 16 0 I ~ ;, ~~ ~ 15 2 r 14 3 `^ e 13 N 4 C N ~ ~ N 12 ~ ,~ 5 N ., ~ t i 6 ^ ~M~ to .rj ~ ~ 9 r ^ g ., 8 ^< ~ -~- , ~ l s. ~ GENERAL INDUSTRIAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - . ~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. ' ii jj U u..; "u ~ ~I~I~° 13 I4 ~'I?I^~~ 3,4 a` ~> ,~~ `~ ~ 1 NI-~ ~ 12 5 ~ ~ ZONING MAP ~ `13 4 ~ ~+12 ~ ~s r __-- __ n~J _ 1 I 6 ~o _ ~ ~ II 6 { LAND USE MAP _~ I o~t. ~~ ^ ~~ -i L .` S T. o i4 1 ~ 13 0 2 ^ -- 0 12 ~'^ 3 ~., ~ _ Q N~ II~ l G ^ n J J m `' ^ ^ t0 5 nm1 ~ 9 6 ~ v p^ 8 T LL~~ n . :: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT FOR OFF-STREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION NO. 81-3, CONTRACT NO. 2333 Name: Eric A. Holst Address: 94 South Los Robles Avenue Suite 22 Pasadena, California 91101 Location: 7720 Pillsbury Avenue South Use: Rental Storage Units BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the proposed geometric layout of the off-street parking as contained in~dff-Street Parking Application No. 81-3, Contract No. 2333 is hereby approved subject to and upon completion of performance of the contract fm.r such off-street parking as hereinafter authorized. 2. That the proposed off-street parking contract for the improvement of said off-street parking, bearing contract No. 2333 be placed on file and that the manager be authorized to sign said contract and the clerk be authorized to seal the same for and on behalf of this city. 3. That the off-street parking operator provide the City of Richfield with Surety in the form of cash, passbook saving withdrawal authority, or performance bond in an amount to be determined by the community development director and city manager, to ensure the off- street parking lot is constructed within the terms and regulations of the Off-Street Parking Agreement. 4. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of said Off-Street Parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the off-street parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code 4.05. Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of April, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk M CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 112 -. Agenda April 13 , 19 81 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ' C ity- of Richf field ~r~ Council Members: ~~_ Subject: Plat Approval of Nicollet View Gardens 7515 Wentworth Avenue, Request for Resubdivision --rr---- r~equirements of the subdivision regulations. The property is located at 7515 Wentworth Avenue and is zoned "R" single family residential. History The two lots were originally subdivided as 74.5 feet by 134.64 feet, and platted as lots 14 and 15, block 7, Nicollet View Gardens, Richfield. The applicant constructed a house on lot 14. In 1950, an attached garage was constructed which extended 8.8 feet onto lot 5 foot sideyard setback. Thus, the proposal will create one lot 89 feet wide and the other lot 60 feet wide.. The proposal will not alter the 134.64 foot depth of the lots. ~~;division approval except the lot width requirements. 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 foot requirement. The staff reviewed the request against the subdivision require- ments and found that the proposal meets all the conditions for sub- The staff reviewed the request for a variance from the subdivision requirements and found the following: 1. The area in which the site is located is made up of predominately 74.5 foot lots. 2. That the creation of a 60 foot lot in this neighbor- hood should not adversely affect the surrounding properties. -~ Council Letter No. 112 -2- April 13, 1981 3. That dwellings similar to-.those in the neighborhood can be constructed on a 60 foot lot. 4. That the applicant's property is larger than surround- ing properties. She is, therefore, subject to higher maintenance costs. To reduce those maintenance costs, she could sell off one of the existing lots, but this would cause a hardship because a portion of her garage would have to be removed. The variance is, therefore, necessary to reduce the hardship by allowing the applicant to sell part of the land without altering the existing structure. 5. That the approval of a variance would allow development of the property in a reasonable manner.. The public ~relfare and interests of the city and surrounding area would not'be harmed. The general spirit and intent of these regulations are preserved. 6. That at-.:the planning commission meeting, apparent dis- creptancy in the registered survey was noticed. However, subsequent discussions with the surveyor confirmed that the survey is accurate. Staff Resubdivision Recommendation Because the proposal meets all subdivision requirements except the 75 foot minimum lot width, the staff recommends approval of the requested subdivision, with the following stipulation. 1 . That the applicant obtain a subdiu.~sion _ rce to the minimum lot width requirement. 2. the staff further recommends that the city council pass the attached resolution, approving this resubdivision request. Subdivision Variance The staff recommends approval of a variance to the subdivision minimum lot width requirement to allow a 60 foot wide lot, with the following stipulation: 1. ghat is the submitted sur vey is incorrect, the var- iance requested allow a 5 9.85 foot lot, in order to maintain the required fiv e foot sideyard setback of the existing house and ga rage. Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission recommends approval of this application for a resubdivision and of a variance to the lot width requirements, subject to verification of the survey. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager M RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING OF A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 15 and 16 BLOCK 7, NICOLLET VIEW GARDENS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the application for a resubdivision of Lots 15 and ~.6,, Block 7, Nicollet View Gardens 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 for lot width is obtained. Passed by the city Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Cler r s ao BE ~NGINEE(~ING COM(~ANY, INC. 1000 EAST 146M STREET March 18, 1981 City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, Mn. 55423 CONSUITINt3 EN(31NEEAS PIANNEAS and LAND ~UAVEI~OAS BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 53337 PN X132-3000 Re: Lots 14 and 15, Block 7, Nicollet View Gardens. Owner - Mary L. Jacobson, 7515 Wentworth Ave. So. Dear Sir: This is written on behalf of Dennis McGraw for the purpose of requesting the split of the common line between the two existing lots referenced above, as per the attached certificate of survey showing both lots. The reason for this request is to officially shift the common lot line between the two lots northerly to place the existing home on Lot 14, which now overlaps slightly into Lot 15, on its own separate parcel. This leaves Parcel A., which is made up from the remaining portion of Lot 15, substandard in regard to front footage; with a length of 60' rather than the _ 75' required, but in all other respects the lot would meet ordinances includ- ine the total area requirement of 8,000 square feet. The new parcel being 8,078.4 square feet. We would appreciate your action in this matter to allow construction of a new home on parcel A. Sinc r ly yo rs, _ ~~~ al D. Wagner, .E. RDW/jw Enclosures .; <:~,~• ROBE ~ ~. CONSUITiNC1 ENOINEEAS ~~~,. ENGINEE(~ING PIANNEAS and LAND fUAVEYOAS '~„~, ~..<. x ~y)... .. ,x~~.. COMPANY ING. ... ~Q `llY. , L 1000 EAST 1~ 6M STREET, BURNSVILLE ~ MINNESOTA 5S33T PH 432'3000 Cer~ ~}'z ca~`~ o~ S~r~'~ S/ ~Q~ .~C.?CT"~p~ZO7Z: parcel A: The North 60 feet of Lot 15 .•- Block 7, Nicollet View Gardens, City of Richfield, Minnesota. ' Parcel B: Lot 15 Block 7 except the~North 60 feet thereof, together with all of Lot 14 Block 7, Nicollet View Gardens, City of Richfield , Minnesota. !~ r !6 • NoRTx - i3y.Gy ~N Pu~c c • 1 o pA2~E L A o c o `~ - ~.o r l 5 ~ Lor° 2 W ~ 8Lo ~ 7 3` ~ ~.o o do _ N ) 2.o S.9 I~ ~ }~ o ~~~, t'/~/2~L B ~ N - ~ O ~ .~ .2 ti's ° '•~ ~ LoT- 1'-~ Lo T 3 , a° ~ . I 35.3. ~'O h ~ i /3y,Go I hereby certify that this ie a true and correct representation of a tract of land as aho~+n and described hereon.. Aa prepared by me on this ~ ~- day of (~a.r G ~ ~ 19~. R~,,,S~~ added d-.>.~.,s,~.., F_~ N...~.~ To S'~~ ~nr C.^:E S /^Sf4LC ~ ^ ~f\K A~R`D~~Q~ ~grlGtE SNew~~iG ~K~W. ~ }{inn. Rta• NC.~.3600 -- - - ._,..._._..., __ _ _ _ - _._ __ ~_.. .__.. ~ _.__._.......___..~._~..,..y.._.Y,..-.,~_ __..._.F >t 7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 111 Agenda April 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: ,,. S Subject: Appeal for Denial of Taxicab Drivers License On February 6, 1981, the Public Safety Department received an The background investigation conducted by the Public Safety Depart- ment indicated that the applicant had convictions for both driving related traffic offenses as well as a license related criminal offense. On the basis of this investigation, the Public Safety Director denied the requested license on February 19, 1981. The applicant has notified the Public Safety Department that he wishes to appeal the denial of the requested taxicab drivers license to the city council. Council consideration of this appeal has been scheduled for the council meeting of April 13, 1981. At that time, both the applicant and the Public Safety Director will offer testi- mony before the council with .regard to this matter. Respectfully submitted, "~ ~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Public Safety Director City Clerk ~ ~y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 110 Agenda April 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Legislative Position Statements Attached to this council letter are;two legislative position statements for council discussion and consideration at the April 13, 1981 city council meeting The first state- ment indicates the City of Richfield's support for a proposed increase in the gas tax; the second statement opposes estab- lishment of a single class of beer in the State of Minnesota. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Program Directors CITY OF RICHFIELD LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT NUMBER 19 April 13, 1981 SUBJECT: Proposed Gasoline Tax Increase The purpose of this statement is to indicate the City of Richfield's support for a proposed increase in the gasoline tax. Current Status The state gasoline tax is the primary source of funding for municipal state aid streets funding received by the City of Rich- field. In 1981, the city anticipates receiving slightly over $300,000 in municipal state aid street monies. We presently have a fund balance of an estimated $1.3 million. These monies are used for street construction and related purposes in accordance with state law. Impact on the City of Richfield Because Richfield has almost completed construction of its street system, the continuation and expansion of municipal state aid street funding is of particular interest to the city, since we anticipate that, upon completion of the southern portion of Lyndale Avenue, we may be able to receive permission from the state to use a large portion of our annual state aid street allocation for street::.maintenance purposes. If the Governor's proposal to increase the gasoline tax by 4~ is passed, Richfield would receive an additional $78,558. The Governor has also proposed an increase in motor vehicle fees, which would result in an additional $46,460 for the City of Richfield, making a net annual increase of $124,918. ~ ., CITY OF RICHFIELD LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT NUMBER 20 April 13, 1981 SUBJECT: Establishment of a Single Class of Beer The purpose of this statement is to express the City of Richfield's opposition to legislation which would establish one class of beer in Minnesota. Current Status Presently, Minnesota law differentiates between "strong" and "3:2" beer. The state law provides that strong beer can be sold only in a licensed liquor establishment. Most licensed liquor store establishments now are either municipal liquor stores, or restaurants, with the remainder of licensed liquor establishments authorized to sell strong beer comprised of licensed off-sale retail liquor establishments in communities which do not operate a municipal liquor store. Impact on City of Richfield The sale of strong beer comprises a significant portion of the sales in Richfield's three municipal liquor stores. If strong beer is made available wherever 3.2 beer is sold now, the profits of the municipal liquor stores could be significantly diminished. Revenues from the municipal liquor stores are the major source of financing for most of the city's capital improvement programs. Furthermore, the City of Richfield is concerned that control over who consumes beer will be reduced if strong beer can be sold at grocery store check-out counters and wherever 3.2 beer is now sold, which is generally in a setting where a large variety of other products are also sold. Finally, the city may have reduced control through licensing if the proposed legislation would force cities to give a strong beer license to anyone who now has a 3.2 beer license. /a- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 109 Agenda April 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: ti 1 Subject: Resolution Relating to Council Agenda Format At the March 23, 1981 city council meeting, some council ;nembers expressed concern regarding the addition during council meetings, of agenda items which were not on the agenda transmitted to the city council previous to the council meeting. Subsequent to that council meeting, I reviewed the city ordinance code re- lating to council agenda format, and the resolution regarding the council agenda format which was adopted by the city council on April 28, 1980. The cit~ agenda forma the April 28 In an effort have drafted added an ite; city council council is currently con t by the city charter, the 1980 resolution relating to combine all three poli the enclosed resolution. n on the order of business at each council meeting. trolled in its council city ordinance code, and to council agenda format. pies into one document, I On this resolution I have to be considered by the Item No. 4, Approval of option of the whole agenda at that time. This would allow council members an opportunity to: -Ask for additional items to be added to the agenda (with unanimous consent from other council members) -Ask for items to be removed from the Consent Calendar -Respond to any public requests for council discussion of additional items. This resolution has been placed on the April 13, 1981 city council agenda for council discussion and consideration. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ej a cc: Department Directors City Clerk ~# / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 108 Agenda April 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Governor Quie's Budget Proposal At the April 13, 1981 city council meeting, the staff will be prepared to go through some information with the city council showing the financial data derived out of past operating state- ments, as well as the potential impact of the Governor's budget on 1982 property taxes. A copy of charts which will be reviewed are attached to this council letter. The city council has re- quested that this matter be placed early on the agenda so that persons in the audience will be aware of the significance of the problem. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ ej a cc: Director Administrative Services At a meeting in early March, 1981, the city council adopted a Legislative Policy Statement concerning the budget proposal recommended by Governor Quie for 1982 and 1983 fiscal years. The impact of the Governor's budget is of a high degree of signif- cance to the City of Richfield. •The impact financially on our N r ~ I I I w I H I LL. S I ~-, ~ m I ~ ~ ~ I u- +~ U1 o ~~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ I- ~ ~ ~ H v W x f~ t~ lp lfl .O La c- r O r r h r ~-- ll~ r 'mot' r 1 rn N r cf' M N °. ' ~ ',. '~, ~~, t . ~ ~ ~ - ~ ,~ ~'~ ~ ~ '~c' <" 4 a. _ _ ~ _ '~ (n J 4J ~ 6Z U LL ~ _ ~ m ~ H a ~Sa ~ ~ N +~ U ~ a ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O II ~' N ~ U t~ ~ ~ ~p ~ ~ M N ,~ ~ rl Q rl r--I rl ~. S. ~~ ~ ~~ U o •rI W w ~ ~ H WbSa ~~~~o u- W +~ ~- ° ro r-, ~ i ~' N ~Ut~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~~-Oa~ /~ f / I \ 1 ~ 1 \ +~ I ~ b i ~ 'o ~ v ~ x~ w ~~ ~ ~x ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ,.. a~i~v 1 ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ W x _f 1 Y 1 ~ 1 1 ~ O O O O O O O ~ ~ 1~ l0 tf1 V' ('7 ~ r ~- r r `--- r ~ ~ -~ O E-~ w --~ ~ 4-i u. O _ ~ H ~ ~ ~..~ ~a ~- v ~ H V I ~ l 1 1 o`P Olo 0\0 0~ oW t11 I.C) Lfl Ln ll1 lp Lfl ~' M N N c- O r ~~ r lp f1 ~ t ~ cd !Z ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D ~-I ~ ~- ~ W ~ ~ H }-I u.. ~ = i a v H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LL O ~ } ~ ~ ~ r-I V (U ~~-' N ~ l I 1- ! ~ f Q\ r o`P o~P oW o`A oW O O O O O lfl Ill ti' M N N r c- O O r r-1 O ~ O ~ x O - O ~ O N ` O v r m ~- ~ N O ~ ~ ~ ~ rn C7 p O z z ~ r D J W H ('7 IL ~ 2 ~ U ~- H d' LL. O ~ r ~..~ N F- ~ ~ ~ '~' v V (,~ r ~- ~ X11 O tf1 O t11 00 O l0 ~ ~ ~ ~- ~-- r r O O al O r r r r _~e _ .... _.~ z ~ _ _ _ - - - - _ M ..._,e...~._.. .._._r ~...._. - - ~.. . . - a w Q H v1 W A a H U] x H H R+ N H ~ ~ G1 W r-+ a 0 A ~ z w Q ~ d c0 W rn H ~ ~ W O O 0o x r--1 W z 0 H U ~ C U U1 ~ (4 4J N c U ~+ S 3.+ U ~ ~ Pa r-+ ~ SC < H .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; •rl v t U z P v ~o f 41 ~ +-i E N cn •~ ~~ 1J N 'b c0 ~ 41 c ~ x V ~ ~ ~ E O".. ' i +~ ~ F ~ ~t O +~ C •~ ~ U P N 1J i ro Pi r t ,~ .a .~, V ~ b ~b 4J v 1J (q ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ r O ~ ~ x~ .b v ~ 1.1 N d •rl .~ •~ cep ~ a~~ v a x~ ~~ ro rl O CO vl t ~- N O ~t i ~ n O O O ~O N rl ~O ~ r--1 ri i ~- ~1 u'1 O GO M O r-i ~p n I 01 rl r-I ~ ~ t!r ~ ~ ~ N O O I N ~ M I r-+ N GO N N N yr i ~ ^ ~ li O rn O I 0 0 ~n ~ ~ rn ~ ~ ~ O O N GO CO .'-~ ~ N u1 N c7 ~' rl r-1 rl O O O ~ ~ O ~, z z ~- 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~n ~, rn 1~ M n ~ ~ ~ ~ yr ~ O rl N ~ ~ ~ T v a ~-+ o a p 00 00 M 1 -~- ~ ~ ~ ~t O +-~ N ~ •--~ n ~ ~ i/} i ~O r-~ M ~ r1 O N r-1 if1 I t~ 6~ O r-I L} N ~p rl O~ rl N ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ r-I r-i rl ~ ^ ~ I O rn O 0 0 ~n ~ ~ ~ 'I ~ r+ r--~ O N O !i N O~ ~O i irl r+ O I DO O~ O it r-1 c/)- i O O ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~, z z 0 0 0 ', 0 0 o I r~ .o O I N CO N ~ ~ ~ i yr yr cn- I O r-+ N ~ ~ ~ v a N o ~+ a Lf'1 ~p M '}" + rn rn ~ O ~t ~t M ~D ~1 O ~-+ O~ N N N u1 ir1 O GO M O rl ~p 1~ O~ e--I r--i r--I rl ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N O~ M r-I N C'~1 ~ ~ ~ O O~ O 0 0 ~n ~ ~ rn ~ ~ .-+ O 00 GO ~ ~ ~ M ~' r-I I~ OZ r-d r-1 r-I N ~- O O N ~ z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ~ .o ~p L!1 r--1 ~ ~ rn ~- ~ ~ O r-+ N ~ ~ ~ T t~ v a r1 o w January February March April May June July August September October November December Total *Assume 12% Interest CASH FLOW IMPACT OF GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL _ Cash Flow Cumulative Interest* Present Proposed Difference Income Loss $ - $ - $ - $ - 617,942 - -617,942 -6,179 - - -617,942 -6,179 - - -617,942 -6,179 - - -617,942 -6,179 1,104,442 574,128 -1,148,256 -11,483 - 574,128 -574,128 -5,741 617,942 574,128 -617,942 -6,179 - 574,12 -43,814 -438 1,104,442 574,128 -574,128 -5,741 - 574,129 - - $3.444,768 53,444,768 S 0 $-54,298 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: ~ l~ Council Letter No. 107 Agenda April 13, 1981 Subject: Preferential Runway System Metropolitan Airport The Mayor has requested that a matter be listed on the April 13, 1981 city council agenda to discuss the preferential runway system at the St. Paul-Minneapolis Metropolitan Airport. The Mayor would like to relate recent information concerning the preferential runway system and to receive council direction for future positions regarding that runway system. Respectfully submitted, 1 --~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja J'' ~~ ' vj ~~y~ \ ~~~ ~`~/ ~~ ,\ ~ vti ~. ~.> \ / n "c ( ti9 1\~ x v ~\\ r / d',~/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 106 Agenda April 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: ,Resolution Authorizing Quit Claim Deed For Area of Vacated Street (65th and Emerson Avenue) There is an item on the April 13, 181 city council agenda providing for council adoption of a resolution authorizing the city clerk and mayor to execute quit claim deeds for the area adjacent to 65th Street and Emerson Avenue which has been vaca- ted as part of the Duraps, Inc. Coach Homes development. The city attorney has reviewed the records related to this quit claim deed, and has certified that the appropriate informa- tion has been provided. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing execution of the requested quit claim deeds. Respectfully submitted, i~ ~~~~..~~~'~ Karl Nollenberger -~ City Manager KN/ ej a cc: Community Development Director City Attorney r RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF QUIT CLAIM DEEDS TO AREA OF VACATED STREET (65TH AND EMERSON) WHEREAS, Outlot A, Wood Lake Village and Lot 2, Block 1, Wood Lake Village comprise part of the former street right- of-way of 65th Street on the East side of Emerson Avenue, and WHEREAS, the city has vacated that portion of 65th Street by the adoption of Ordinance No. 1979-19, and WHEREAS, the city has received a request that it relinquish its ' interest in the vacated right-of-way through the execution of quit claim deeds to the abutting property owners, and WHEREAS, the execution of such quit claim deeds is for the sole purpose of assisting in title clearance of the above-described property and does not involve a transfer of any property interest still held by the city, and WHEREAS, the requested conveyances are, therefore, an accommoda- tion to the abutting property owners who are already in fact the owners of the affected property, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield as follows: The mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute the following quit claim deeds in behalf of the city: Lot 2, Block 1, Wood Lake Village to Robert H. Smith and Mary A. Schmidt; Outlot A, Wood Lake Village to Duraps, Inc.