Loading...
02-09-81 agenda4* /y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 51 Agenda February 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Status Report Regarding Cedar Industries As council members will recall, the City of Richfield has been engaged in a court case regarding Cedar Industries in the past few months. The case has now been decide in _District Court, and Mary B r,ney!-s -- office,- -w_i1- -be- -p es -en-t -at the February 9, 1981 _city co_,uncil meeting to give a verbal pre- sen ation on the status of this matter. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: City Attorney Public Safety Director CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 50 Agenda February 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Public Hearing Regarding Sidewalk Improvements, Penn Avenue A public hearing on 1981 sidewalk construction has been sched- uled for the February 9, 1981 council meeting. The proposed project will complete the sidewalk system on both_ sides of Penn Avenue from the Crosstown n T- Exhibit A shows the areas designated for the proposed sidewalk construction. On January 12, 1981 the received the preliminar y en- gineering repor or this project. At that time, sidewalk construc- t ortion of Penn Avenu one block either side o 6t S_treet, was left out of the project in antici ation o� intersection improvements to be completed in-that--area-by Hennepin County— n 1983 or 1984. The council requested that the staff fur - tYier investigate prans for the intersection. Further investigation indicates that 1981 instalLation_of - --- - -side- =- - --- walks near 66th Street__ on_ Penn Ave nue- would _Ee_v_ery- _costly. South 0 66th Street on Penn Avenue, there are parking_ lanes on both sides of the street. The rig-ht--of-way line is only about one foot behind the curb, which means that right -of -way would have to be purchased to make room_ for a sidewalk to be built in this area. North of 66th reet sidewalk is needed on the west side_ of Penn. There is enough right -o -way or` tie sidewalk to be bu -ice in this area. How- ever, the county's preliminary engineering plans indicate that the street in this area is to be widened. To-- .n- stall this sidewalk far enough back so that it would not be affected by future- is reet im- provemen s equire right.- of_- w_ay_.pur-chase_. The total estimated riaht- e se_c-os_t.. would- be: South of 66th Street $36,4765 North of 66th Street 13,9`5 TOTAL $50,37 If, we wait for the intersP (-t;en r 4-4- nth-e county will pay all or part of these riu_h.t- of -waS7 _rchase costs. For this reason, th ommends that _wes %ter sidewalk_construction on the west side c.f.�enn__Avenu from 65th to 67th Street and on the Council Letter No. 50 -2- February 9, 1981 east side of Penn avenue from 66th to 67th Streets until the county reconstructs the intersection. If the county s p ans s ou all throug , the city could build these sidewalks in some other year. The sidewalk is to be constructed of concrete, be 5 feet wide and 4 inches thick. It will generally be placed in the boulevard, one foot_from_ the- property - line, and -will match the existing grade whenever possible. Handica placed along the whole leng±J oZ pe __Avenue where they _do not presently exist. The sidewalk assessment policy already established for the 76th Street sidewalk project contains the following assessment procedure: - All costs of the sidewalk construction will be spread evenly over the total length of the sidewalk to pro - duce a cost per._ _1inea_L f-oo -t; - Single family-. - -and two family residential property shall be assessed 20 percent of the cost of the abut- -____ _ _ - tjn�idew-alk; however, the maximum assessment for residential property will be based upon the shortest of the twoimary dimensions of the property; - All other properties will be assessed for 50 percent of—the -cost of the sidewalk abutting the property. The total project will include sidewalk, sod, handicap ramps, administration and engineering costs. The engineer_'s est_imate_for the Penn Avenue sidewalk, excluding the sidewalk near 66th Street, is The 76th 76th-Street- sidewalk construction is estimated to cost $69__ 750_ Excluding the sidewalk construction near 66th Stree tion cost will _ be_$1.61 -,750 ($92,000 + $69,750). In the 1981 Capital Improvement Budget $185,000 was budgeted for sidewalk construction, which leaves $23,250 for other sidewalk construction. . A resolution ordering the Penn Avenue project is attached, should the council choose to proceed with this project after the February 9, 1981 public hearing. It is recommended that the council approve this resolution. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director City Engineer Administrative Services Director Finance Coordinator I X LLJ 1 K71 �D I -7 4 zw .—JL J; 07- 4, 7il ti L ED L�n L L --- --- J, EE�E3 U) CL t3 LtJ UJ 0 0 a_ 0 0� CL Ld 0 F- cn X Ld Z 0 co CL cr CL O z C) Lij U) 0 CL 0 cr S RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING CITY PROJECT 727A SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnes --ta as follows: 1. The improvement designated as City Project 727A, described in the notice of hearing and as proposed by the Council in a resole -:ion adopted on the 12th day of January, 1981, except that sidega =k one block north and south of 66th Street, is hereby ordered. The engineer is hereby-.authorized and directed to proceed to prepare complete plans and specifications `or said improv s,-nent . 2. Said improvement shall be completed in accordance with the previsions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. 3. Such improvement is hereby combined with Cit:1 Project 727 and the combined project will hereafter be known and designated as Cit-: Project 727. Donald J. Priebe Mayor. ATTEST: Sylvia �. Bergh, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Appeal of Denial Drivers License Council Letter No. 49 Agenda February 9, 1981 for Richfield Taxicab On January 9, 1981, the Public Safety Department received an app licati n a taxicab dri e from wrence_A. Car son. The background investigation conducted by the Public B-a-f—efy Department indicated that the applicant had a history of driving - related traffic violations. On the basis of the appli- can riving s reco —�rd - Eh-e -- Public Sa_fe-ty- D_irec- tor- denied the requested license on-January--13i 1981. The applicant has notified the Public Safety Department that he wishes to appeal the denial of his requested taxicab drivers licensP__o_ the city counc ounc consid are Lion of this appeal has been scheduled for the council meeting on February 9, 1981. At that time, both the applicant and the. Public Safety Director will offer testimony before the council with regard to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Public Safety Director City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 48 Agenda February 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Contingency Transfer Resolution to Implement Dental Insurance Plan, Specialized Pay Plan, and 1981 Police Officers Contract In late December, 1980, and during the month of January, the city council in separate actions established a group dental in- surance plan for the city's general services and management em- ployees, adopted a 1981 pay plan for the part -time and seasonal employees paid off of the specialized pay scale, and approved a 1981 labor contract agreement with the Richfield Police Officers Federation. There is an item on the February 9, 1981 city council agenda providing for council approval of a contingency transfer of appropriations to the appropriate operating departments which will enable implementation of the dental insurance plan, the specialized pay plan, and the police contract. The total cost of implementing these previous council actions is $137,215. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached contingency transfer resolution. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /ej a cc: Program Directors Finance Coordinator Personnel Manager 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, a contingency appropriation was made in the General Fund for various purposes, including 1981 salary adjustments and the related fringe benefit contributions; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6355 established a group dental insurance plan for all General Services and Management employees; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6370 established the 1981 pay plans for the Specialized employees; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6371 approved a 1981 contract agreement with the Richfield Police Officers Federation and established the means of determining 1981 pay rates, and established a city contribution for various insurance purposes; and WHEREAS, it is hereby determined necessary to adjust the 1981 budget appropriation $137,215 to reflect these adjustments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the sum of $137,215 be transferred from the contingency appropriation of the General Fund to the following departments: DEPARTMENT AMOUNT Executive $ 180 Administrative Services 2,415 Public Safety 95,411 Community Development 1,762 Community Services 37,447 Total Contingency Appropriation 5137,215 Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of February, 1981. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk Donald J. Priebe Mayor December 16, 1980 Applicant - Judy F Joe Garcia 6703 18th Ave. S. The above property was inspected and found to he in a satisfactory condition as evidenced by the following report. There are 3 dogs and one cat at this address. The petition shows 3 signatures. It should be pointed out that 6701 -03 is a double bungalow and the tenant at 6701 18th approved the petition as presented by the owner and applicant at 6703 18th. The resident at 6700 18th who also approved the petition does not qualify as a contiguous property owner for 6703 18th. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) II 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) + I, '�-' ql z 'i'P, I. F. Roesler Number of occupants res.-Laing in 4wei -M g. 3 Does the house and garage appear to be in good repair? Uz�) Is the yard enclosed with a fence? Is the fence in good repair? �If "the occupant has dogs Will the fence keep them on o er's property?S Is garbage kept in metal garbage cans? �j C Are garbage cans kept out of public view. Are cars and /or trucks parked on la-,nn - either w front or rear of house? t1 Are there inoperable vehicles in outside storage? Y1 Is the lawn well kept and grass under 6" in height? �� s Is driveway in good repair? y S How many animals renui ing 11denses r °side at this address? Dogs Cats Give breed and sex ox animals, Ej1yl, h s elo CO oJ, Mct 1; .Gel E I, /4 C. /Z If %ha Was food in o en dish and available outdoors for pet at all times? Yes No (If so, advise owner to stop the�pJ actice). Are pets kept for breeding purposes? Yes No How many pets were licensed last year? 7D�-- How are pets exercised (areawise) ? /c Are there unnleasant odors press ^'' t'1 Date � C �. S �� r. CJ, October 16, 11180 6314 14th Ave. S. A. The kennel at 6314 14th Ave. S. was inspected and found to be in a satisfactory condition as is noted by the inspection report. T. T. F. Roesler 1) Number of occupants residing in dwelling, _1 _ 2) Does the house and garage appear to be in good repair? 3) Is the yard enclosed with a fence? Is the fence in good repair? `If the occupant has dogs - Will the fence keep them on owner's property? 4) Is garbage kept in metal garbage cans ?, 5) Are garbage cans kept out of public view? 5) Are cars and /or trucks parked on lawn - ei her front or rear of house? y,,, 6) Are there inoperable vehicles in outside storage? -2,,, 7) Is the lawn well kept and grass under 6" in height? «� 8) Is driveway in good repair ?_ 9) How many animals requiring licenses reside at this address? Dogs 0 Cats j- 10) Give breed and sex of animals: 11) Was food in open dish and available outdoors for pet at all times? Yes Nom_ (If so, advise owner to stop the practice), 12) Are pets kept for breeding purposes? Yes Nom} _ 13) How many pets were licensed last year? 14) How are pets exercised (areawise) ?`° 15) Are there unpleasant odors present? 16) Date 4n/Ya I. F. Roesler1 Environmental Health Director IFR /ab .= J.r$Utiri . October 16, 1980 6744 Grand Ave. S. The kennel and surrounding area were inspected and found to he in satisfactory condition as noted in the at.tached inspection report. J. G'. I. F. Roesler 1) Number of occupants residing in dwelling. 2) Does the house and garage appear to be in good repair?� 3) Is the yard enclosed with a fence? \I( Is the fence in good repair? g �"`2 If the oq,cugant has dogs Will the fence keep them on owner's property' 4) Is garbage kept in metal garbage cans? 5) Are garbage cans kept out of public view? yE" 5) Are cars and /or trucks parked on lawn - either front or rear or house? �\�L 6) Are there inoperable vehicles in outside storage "? jt�0 , 7) Is the lawn well kept and grass under 6" in height? 8) Is driveway in good repair? % 9) How many animals requ; T.g licensas reside at this address? Dogs f Cats f2 10) Give br ee d and sex of-animals: Cct-vl& �-C, C-NN-A-e p?C cU `J 11) Was food in opz dish and available outdoors for pet at all times? Yes No (If so, advise owner to stop the p~ ctice). 12) Are pets kept for breeding purposes? Yes No 13) How many pets were licensed last ye r? lid 14) How are pets exercised (areawise)? 2 Cl 15) Are there pleasant odors present ?? 16) Date �����? �"L4 "ti4 I. F. Roesler Environmental Health Director IFR /ab M_ October 16, 1980 6733 10th Ave. S. The report shows the property is well maintained except for tall grass and /or weeds along the fence line. Residents north and south of the above address chose not to sign the petition. J. 6-R . I. F. Roesler 1) Number of occupants residing in dwelling. d 2) Does the house and garage appear'to be in good repair? `I�c 3) Is the yard enclosed with a fence? 4) S) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) Is the fence in good repair? �;'.^ if the occupant has dogs Will the fence keep them on owner Is property? Is garbage kept in metal garbage cans? �'� tf��= Y� ►',� ` Are garbage cans kept out of public view?� Are cars and /or trucks parked on lawn - either front or rear of house? 4 r Are there inoperable vehicles in outside storage? t'") Is the lawn well kept and grass under 6" in height? Klr`. - Fev,',ri Is driveway in good repair? N�5 How many animals requiring licenses reside at this address? Dogs Cats_ Give breed and sex of animals: 1. 0r'(l 7 11) Was food in open dish and available outdoors for pet at all times? Yes No ✓ (If so, advise owner to stop the practice). 12) Are pets kept for breeding purposes? Yes ,/ No 13) How many pets were licensed last year? _LZE —pr o" c- 14) How are pets exercised (areawise)? N(C 5 15) Are there unpleasant odors present? V" (�/ ,.�1.r %� , f ? j e-� �� ✓,. c5 S - /<i .�n� G'.cr✓ c er in c (- _ C�. r c^ ,i- �-�t /1..e,�- c�:i�c'✓ ,�,,- _.uc �n, - 1�ti5c�CLc-�L _ � j,�:� ,,�� .s;,.� -�� �` :' ��a�x��.Fl: /t:.: =f VCG.ctc- I. F. Roesler Environmental IFR /ab Health Director October 16, 1980 6344 Bloomington Ave. S. The kennel and surrounding area was inspected and found to be in a good condition as noted by the followin? report. �. J� : I. F. Roesler 1) Number of occupants residing in dwelling. 2) Does the house and garage appear to be in good repair? 3) Is the yard enclosed with a fence? No T— is the fence in good repair? — If the occupant has dogs - Will the fence keep them on owner's property? 4) Is garbage kept in metal garbage cans? NF—'S 5) Are garbage cans kept out of public view? -41S 5) Are cars and /or trucks parked on lawn - either front or rear of house? 6) Are there inoperable vehicles in outside storage? N 0 7) Is the lawn well kept and grass under 6" in height? z e- 8) Is driveway in good repair? NC-`� 9) How many animals requiring licenses reside at this address? Dogs -- Cats_ 10) Give breed and sex of animals: C�GwQS�C mo.1Y C C Cam, 1'1> 11) Was food in open dish and available outdoors for pet at all times? Yes No x (If so, advise owner to stop the practice). 12) Are pets kept for breeding purposes? Yes No 13) How many pets were licensed last year? c 14) How are pets exercised (areawise)? (xt >o — CiF 15) Are there unpleasant odors present? —_Lq� n I. F. Roesler Environmental Health Director October 16, 1980 7325 Fremont Ave. S. The kennel at 7325 Fremont was inspected and found to be in satisfactory condition as noted by the inspection report. J.0Z - I. F. Roesler 1) Number of occupants residing in dwelling. ` 2) Does the house and garage appear'to be in good repair? yA 3) Is the yard enclosed with a fence? . NCB Is the fence in good repair? If the occupant has dogs - Will the fence keep them on owner's property? 4) Is garbage kept in metal garbage cans? \I C 5) Are garbage cans kept out of public view? 5) Are cars and /or trucks parked on lawn - either front or rear of house?L 6) Are there inoperable vehicles in outside storage? NO 7) Is the lawn well kept and gras under 6" in height?��� 8) Is driveway in good repair? - S 9) How many animals require g licenses reside at this address? Dogs Cats 10) Give breed and sex of animals: 0 Yv1 ctll \ CQ v\s� c� l F 11) Was food in open dish and available outdoors for pet at all times? Yes No_) (If so, advise owner to stop the practice). 12) Are pets kept for breeding purposes? Yes No- 13) How many pets were licensed last year9 LL- U �� 14) How are pets exercised (areawise)? 15) Are there unpleasant odors present? CD J. Dr, - G� I. F. Roesler Environmental Health Director IFR /ab October 16, 1980 7429 Humboldt Ave. S. The kennel and surrounding area were inspected and found to be in a satisfactory condition as noted by the following report. The kennel has been approved as a grooming service in prior years. a0. I. F. Roesler 1) Number of occupants residing in dwelling. _ 2) Does the house and garage appear to be,ip good repair? 3) Is the yard enclosed with a fence_? %4,e i Is the fence in good repair? �� If the occupant has dogs Will the fence keep them on owner's propert�? 4) Is garbage kept in metal garbage cans? 5) Are garbage cans kept out of public view? 5) Are cars and /or trucks parked on lawn - either front or rear of house? 6) Are there inoperable vehicles in outside storage? 90 7) Is the lawn well kept and grass under 6" in height. S 8) Is driveway in good repair? �(G 9) How many imals requiring licenses reside at this address? Dogs � Cats 10) Give breed and sex of animals: 11) Was food in open dish and available outdoors for pet at all times? Yes No (If so, advise owner to stop the practice). 12) Are pets kept for breeding purposes? Yes No 13) Now many pets were licensed last year? 14) How are pets exercil-ed (areawise)? 15) Are there unpleasant odors present? h3_0- I. F. Roesler Environmental health Director IFR /ab October 16, 1980 6338 Clinton Ave. S. The above kennel and surrounding area at the above address were inspected and found to be in satisfactory condition as noted by the following report. I. F. Roesler 1) Number of occupants residing in dwelling. 2) Does the house and garage appear" to be in good repair? .;(Je, 3) Is the yard enclosed with a fence? Ntl T° Is the fence in good repair? If the occupant has dogs Will the fence keep them on owner's property? 4) Is garbage kept in metal garbage cans? 'NiLS 5) Are garbage cans kept out of public view? �c 5) Are cars and /or trucks parked on lawn - either front or rear of house? l��l 6) Are there inoperable vehicles in outside storage? -NO 7) Is the lawn well kept and grass under 6" in height ?_S 8) Is driveway in good repair? N 5 9) How many animals requiri ng licenses reside at this address? Dogs Cats_ 10) Give breed and sex of animals: Z. 1Nl �oG�SSI�c\0". Sties:: tG 1�G��i (� i iLL Cw-�s 1 L \LA S 11) Was food in open dish and available outdoors for pet.at all times? Yes No (If so, advise owner to stop the ractice). 12) Are pets kept for breeding purposes? Yes No �. -13) How many pets were licensed last year? \A_)ujk2v''Q_ 14) How are pets exercised (areawise)? L ZU' by V,6 15) Are there unpleasant odors present? NO I. F. Roesler Environmental Health Director I FR/ ab '1� December 5, 1980 6726 Chicago Ave. S. The kennel at 6726 Chicago Ave, was inspected and found to be satisfactory as noted by the report below. Myrtle Wickstrom is the applicant. Please note that only 2 of 3 adjacent neighbors signed the petition. The appli- cation is for renewal of the kennel license. I. Roesler 1) Number of occupants residing in dwelling. Z') 2) Does the house and garage appear to be in good repair? `IE", 3) Is the yard enclosed with a fence? Is the fence in good repair? If the occupant has dogs - Will the fence keep them on owner's property? 4) Is garbage kept in metal garbage cans? -11,1S 5) Are garbage cans kept out of public view? 5) Are cars and /or trucks parked on lawn - either front or rear of house? 6) Are there inoperable vehicles in outside storage? 7) Is the lawn well kept and grass under 6" in height? 8) Is driveway in good repair? 9) How many animals requiring licenses reside at this address? Dogs Cats 10) Give breed and sex of animals: �, �� -�� � �^ ►�+��> � ►'1'i fit- i� i _ 11) Was food in open dish and available outdoors for pet at all times? Yes No (If so, advise owner to stop the practice). 12) Are pets kept'for breeding purposes? Yes No_ , 13) How many pets were licensed last year? 14) How are pets exercil-ed (areawise)? `f =': 15) Are there unpleasant odors present? 16) Date �iL December 5, 1980 7340 Emerson Ave. S. - Joyce McPheeters The kennel at the above address was inspected and found to be satisfactory except for fence maintenance. Please note that there are 4 dogs and they are used for reproduction purposes. 1 (�1111el I. Roesler 1) Number of occupants residing in- Awelling. (, 2) Does the house and garage appear to be in good repair? 3) Is the yard enclosed with a fence? Is the fence in good repair? r.. ;i If the occupant has dogs Will the fence keep them on owner's property? 4) Is garbage kept in metal garbage cans? `if -I 5) Are garbage cans kept out of public view? 5 5) Are cars and /or trucks parked on lawn - either front or rear of house? 6) Are there inoperable vehicles in outside storage? I 7) Is the lawn well kept and grass -under 6" in height? ' 8) Is driveway in good repair? 9) How many ani-als requiring licenses reside at this address? Dogs �4. Cats 1, \ V 10) Give breed and sex of animals: 11) Was food in open dish and available outdoors for pet at all times? Yes No Y (If so, advise owner to stop the practice). 12) Are pets kept for breeding purposes? Yes x No 13) How many pets were licensed last year? 14) How are nets exercised (areawise)? 15) Are there unpleasant odors present? ' 16) Date T -4I-5g CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 47 Agenda February 9, 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 purchases of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There are two such items on the council agenda for February 9, 1981. Electric Hoist The adopted 1981 central garage /motor pool division budget in- cludes funding for the purchase of an electric hoist. The three mechanics assigned to this division provide most of the maintenance for the city's fleet of vehicles and equipment. The hoist would provide a more efficient operation in moving major parts, engines, etc. Three quotations were received for the two ton, three phase hoist. Dakon quoted $1,131; Zeco quoted $1,066; and Olsen Chain and Cable quoted $1,038. It is recommended that the city council approve purchase of a hoist from Olsen Chain and Cable, in the amount of $1,038. Freon Freon is the chemical used in the refrigeration system at the Ice Arena to maintain the ice sheet. On Friday, January 30, 1981, the compressor began to leak freon. Emergency measures were taken to repair the leak and replace the freon, and the ice sheet was not damaged. Other arenas have had similar problems in the last year or two and some have had to close down for several weeks or months until repairs could be made. The Richfield Arena was quite fortu- nate in being able to save the ice sheet. A shut off valve helped save the situation, although much freon was lost. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council approve the emergency purchase of 1,000 pounds of freon from Holmsten Ice Rinks, Inc. in the amount of $1,350. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Services Director CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager TheIHonorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Council Letter No. 46 Agenda February 9, 1981 Subject: Transitory Ordinance, Providing for Certain Capital Improvements, Second Reading On January 12, 1981 the city council gave first reading approval to a transitory ordinance, appropriating money_f -r-om the Special Revenue Fund_to -imp 1emen cer_ n projects included in e 1981 capital budget. This transitory ordinance provides for the following project appropriations: Because ing 1981, it reading and these approp_ j cts. Ice Arena $ 25,000 Swimming Pool 20,000 Forestry 45,000 Sidewalks 10,000 Park Land Acquisition 30,000 Rich Acres Park 50,000 Monroe Fairwood Park 40,000 Legion Lake Park 10,000 Central Garage 28,109 Gen. Govt. Bldgs. 30,000 Public Safety Bldg. 316,891 Total 1981 Special Revenues (::1$605,000 _f. these projects are scheduled for implementation dur- is recommended that the city council give second final approval to the transitory ordinance making- sia ions from t Sp�E ra — eveue - - -un or these pro- Respectfully submitted, 1'C z "�'� (! ��r�?%q, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Finance Coordinator Program Directors TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The City of Richfield does ordain: Section 1. It is found and determined necessary and expedient for the city to expend money from The Special Revenue Fund for the making of capital improvements listed in Section 2, hereof, and as further detailed in the city's 1981 Capital Improvements Program, and are projects which the city would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2. The capital improvements and the amounts of expen- diture for such improvements, which are hereby authorized to be paid from The Special Revenue Fund under Chapter 7, Section 7.12, subdivision 2, of the City Charter, are as follows: Ice Arena $ 25,000 Swimming Pool 20,000 Forestry 45,000 Sidewalk 10,000 Park Land Acquisition 30,000 Rich Acres Park 50,000 Monroe /Fairwood Park 40,000 Legion Lake Park 10,000 Central Garage 28,109 General Government Building 30,000 Public Safety Building 316,891 $605,000 Section 3. The expenditure herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by council resolution. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield, this day of 1981. onald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Cler CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 45 Agenda February 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Pay Plans and Compensation Policies, Second Reading There is an item on the February 9, 1981 city council agenda providing for council consideration of an ordinance amendment_re- 1ating to _ oyertime pay and compensatory time -off policies of the city. A copy of the proposed ordinance amendment, whicl was - -given first reading approval on January 12, 1981, is attached to this letter. The attached ordinance amendment is designed to make certain minor language changes i ordi_ nanr_e__cQde _that will insure comp t e _ c-urrent state statutes relating to over- time pay and compensatQ.- y__time, and to reflect past policy, on overtime compensation_-a,t._- tom_._ foreman_.1eveL _ of_ -sup- er_vi.s_ -L(m- The ordinance contains three changes: The first change adds a paragraph (3) to the section which exempts certain employees from overtime pay, and is in accordance with MS 177.23 and 177.25. The second change relates to compen- satory time off in lieu of overtime pay, and allows that such compensatory time off be granted on a time and one -half basis instead of a straight time basis. This conforms to the rate of cash payment to overtime worked and is required by MS 177.25 Overtime. This change will also encourage the use of compensatory time for overtime, rather than overtime cash payments. The third change allows for the payment of overtime to foremen in the city as has been the past city practice. When the new pay plan was adopted, the foremen were included in the management pay plan for the first time, which has created a problem with overtime provisions. The existing practice has been recommended for con- tinuation, due to the unique characteristics of the position, and the fact that the foremen supervise employees who frequently receive overtime cash payments. It is recommended that the city council give second reading approval to this ordinance amendment at e Fe ruary y council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Program Directors percnnnnl 1�Tcn orrrr SECTION ORDINANCE AMENDING PART III, SECTION 2.33, SUBDIVISION 17 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 2.33, Subdivision 17 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield dealing with overtime pay and compensatory time off is hereby amended in the following respects: I. By amending paragraph (1) thereof to read as follows: (1) Administrative Employees. The employee classification plan established pursuant to Section 2.30 of the Ordinance Code of the city shall include a designation of those adminis- trative employees who have responsibilities which are mana- gerial and supervisory in nature. Persons holding such positions in the city's service may be referred to as 'ad- ministrative employees' or 'managerial- supervisory employees' Such employees other than those designated as foremen, shall not receive overtime compensation either in the form of pay or time off, as provided for herein for other employees. The city manager may, however, grant reasonable periods of time off to administrative employees when he determines that such time off is warranted. (3111 1980 -5) 2/25/80 II. By adding thereto paragraph (3) to rea6 as follows: (3)_ Certain Public Safety Personnel. Permanent part -time per- sonnel in the Public Safety Department including, but not limited to Community Service Officers and Communication Aides shall be compensated at their regular hourly rate for all time worked. III. By amending paragraph (5) thereof to read as follows: (5) All Other Employees. Employees other than administrative employees [and] shift employees and personnel described in paragraph (3) of this section shall be compensated for work ordered and performed in excess of the first eight hours per day and for work ordered and performed in excess of a regular forty hours per week. Such compensation shall consist of either compensatory time off on a [straight time] time and one -half oasis or payment in cash at the rate of time and one -half. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this th day of 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor Attest: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk 1 )- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 44 Agenda February 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Vacation of a Portion of Circle Place (That area immediately south of the Lyndale Hardware Building, 66th and Lyndale) First Reading. The S & M Company, owners of the property being leased to Lyndale Har war 6th Street and Lyndale Avenue) are_request- ing that vacate the northerly- 26_feet of Circle- Place adjacent to their property. This request is being made to expand the amount of off -st k' avai a -L n a e Hard- ware usiness. The city gD a c-; 1 appro_ve�1_ an off- street parking agreement with the owners of the property for their planned im- p s v3tfi the stipulation that the ovide an additional 12 0 -s reet par ing spaces This is the alternative suggested t ce. - -- Staff Findings The staff has reviewed the application and found the follow- ing: 1. That the petition submitted has the proper number of signatures to initiate the street vacation process; 2. That there is an existing sanitary sewer line in a portion of the street to be vacated. The owners will provide the city with the proper easement; 3. That the proposed vacation will not adversely affect adjacent property owners. 1ccess to all properties will not be affected. Parking is currently occurring on this portionof_ the rig t- of-.-way_ so usage wi of chan�,e_; 4. That a small portion of the building is located on the current city right -of -way, so the proposed vacation will help correct this situation; 5. That the vacation will not result in traffic congestion on surrounding streets; Council Letter No. 44 6. That the vacation w parking shortage on lines indicate that There are currently tion will result in -2- February 9, 1981 ill help correct the existing that property. City guide - 145 spaces should be provided. 100 spaces provided. The uaca- a total of 20 plus spaces; 7. That the proposed vacation will not adversely affect the redevelopment going on in that area. Staff Recommendation The staff has found that the petition is in proper form and has the proper number of signatures and that the proposed vacation would not be detrimental to the public welfare. Therefore, the staff reco- mmends- _that the._,parti,o- a__Qf_C rcle Place be vacated as reaue Ad. To accomplish this, the council should ac c7- nowledge re- ceipt of the petition, and set_ a_public hearing on this matter or Marc-h---9-,- 1981, by passing the attached resolution - It is also recommended that the council give first reading approval to the attached ordinance, vacating the requested por ion o� Circle Place. Planning Commission Recommendation The., commission recommends_ that the portion of Circle Place be vacated as reaueste wi the followirig-st- ipulations: 1. That an agreement and -the city conc of Circle_= Place. 2. Thatresent ii off-street parkin area. be reached between S._ &_MCompany Drning maintenance.o-f that portion parking use be continued and that this a agreement be amended o inc u e this The applicant will be submitting a site plan showing the parking within the portion of Circle Place to be vacated. This site plan will be part of the developer's agreement which the, city as e eyed- nt­o--with__the applicant. The off - street parking rotitr- acU--jreviously approved by the city council can be amended by attachingt,Ybp_____above-mentioned site plan to the off- street pa inq a reement. This will insure __th -at= parking _ will - continue an,,; the app ;c-ant to maintain all parking areas on the site. The remaining portion of Circle- Pace wI continue to be maintained by the City of Richfield. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Community Development Director City Planner City Engineer WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS SINCE 792i i )?ES3 9 1.3-ATTERIES CLEVELAND & KENNEDY STS. ' M.E. (ONE BLOCK SOUTH OF BROAWAY) BOX 580,1\4 1 N N E APO L IS, MINNESOTA 55,140 PHONE: (612) 331 -6680 January 19, 1981 Planning Commission City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Minneapolis, Mn. 55423 Attention: Tom MacGibbon Planning Department Re: Petition for Vacation of Circle Place Dear Mr. MacGibbon: The S & M Company has submitted a Petition for the vacation of a portion of Circle Place, immediately south of the building, The Lyndale Hardware. The portion requested to be vacated is essentially the north 26 feet of Circle Place. The Petition has been submitted as required by the City Council, pursuant to its approval of the off - street parking permit for the Lyndale Hardware granted September 8, 1980. At this time I anticipate I will be out of the city and not able to attend the Planning Commission Meeting on January 27th. If that is the case, our legal counsel, J. E. Brill, Jr., will represent The S & M Company at that meeting. V y truly yours, JOHN SIEFF PRESIDENT L/ js;gmw cc; J. E. Brill, Jr. �. .. �. a+ E n+ B E Q (E22 f Ww...w. +w. +l� + +l +,s 4�t�.w: X•!Y 1yN..1 yy L ' t PETITION FOR STREET AND ALLEY VACATION CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Date Received TO: *The City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota We, the undersigned owners of land abutting Circle Place hereby petition that the part of such street described in Attachment A be vacated by the City of Richfield Signature of Owners Address THE S & M COMP NY 2210O1.KBeonned8v0Street N.E. P. By: 'na ,% �. Mirr�arn�;� Mr1 55ddll Theodore D. Horwitz,Treasurer ` Examined, checked and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the required number of owners of land abutting the street, alley, or public grounds (City Code of Ordinances, Section 12.04). ner r =nt County Public Works checked by NSP fee paid Minnegasco Community Development Northwestern Bell Public Safety Chief Inspector December 29, 1980 DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED CIRCLE PLACE VACATION That part of Circle Place as platted in "Fairwood Shores" described as follows: Beginning at a point in the South- erly line of Lot 14, Block 1, "Fairwood Shores" therein distant 47 feet Westerly from the Southeast corner of sai, Lot 14; thence Southerly, parallel with the Easterly line of said Lot 14 and its Southerly extension, a distance of 26 feet; thence Westerly, parallel,with the Southerly line of said Lot 14 and its Westerly extension, to the intersection with a line drawn from the most Easterly corner of Lot 6, Block 3, "Fairwood Shores" to the Southwesterly corner of Lot 11, Block 1, "Fairwood Shores "; thence Northeasterly, along said line so drawn, to the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 11; thence Easterly, along the Southerly line of Lots 11, 12, 13 and 14, Block 1, "Fairwood Shores" to the point of beginning. The City of Richfield, Minnesota will retain a permanent easement over, under and across the Southerly 10 feet of the above described tract of land for maintaining an exist- ing sanitary sewer. EXHIBIT A 444 ii .il *4J - jt �. j vi o / 1 � $ ..........,� I LLL 0 1(,, 1 Yt / jo Id N � k-4-/ CA 14 1 22 0 L -47, 11 ZZ - CIRCLE PLACE VACATION ..,x � ' / � „• '' � " PRC";SED VACATION •�• —el PER'!`,--ANENT EASEMENT I �; HEE_^ BY CITY RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING STREET VACATION PETITION AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the city clerk requesting the vacation of a portion of a public street described as follows: That part of Circle Place as platted in "Fairwood Shores" described as follows: Beginning at a point in the south- erly line of Lot 14, Block 1, "Fairwood Shores" therein distant 47'feet westerly from the southeast corner of said Lot 14; thence southerly, parallel with the easterly line of said Lot 14 and its southerly extension, a distance of 26 feet; thence westerly, parallel with the southerly line of said Lot 14 and its westerly extension, to the inter- section with a line drawn from the most easterly corner of Lot 6, Block 3, "Fairwood Shores" to the southwesterly corner of Lot 11, Block 1, "- "Fairwood Shores "; thence northeasterly, along said line so drawn, to the southwesterly corner of said Lot 11; thence easterly, along the southerly line of Lots 11, 12, 13 and 14, Block 1, "Fairwood Shores" to the point of beginning. The City of Richfield, Minnesota will retain a permanent easement over, under and across the southerly 10 feet of the above described tract of land for maintaining an existing sanitary sewer. WHEREAS, said petition complies in all respects with the requirements of Richfield Ordinance Code 12.04, Subdivision 2. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The petition for vacation of that portion of the alley described above is received. 2. A public hearing on the alley vacation in said petition shall be held on March 9, 1981. 3. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing in the official newspaper of the city and post notice of said hearing in the manner provided by Richfield Ordinance Code Section 12.04, Subdivision 3. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of February, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor r,,mrCT Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF CIRCLE PLACE Section 1. The following portion of Circle Place within the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby vacated: That part of Circle Place as platted in "Fairwood Shores" descirbed as follows: Beginning at a point in the south- erly line of Lot 14, Block 1, "Fairwood Shores" therein distant 47 feet westerly from the southeast corner of said Lot 14; thence southerly, parallel with the easterly line of said Lot 14 and its southerly extension, a distance of 26 feet; thence westerly, parallel with the southerly line of said Lot 14 and its westerly extension, to the inter- section with a line drawn from the most easterly corner of Lot 6, Block 3, "Fairwood Shores" to the southwesterly corner of Lot 11, Block 1, "Fairwood Shores "; thence northeasterly, along said line so drawn, to the southwesterly corner of said Lot 11; thence easterly, along the southerly line of Lots 11, 12, 13 and 14, Block 1, "Fairwood Shores" to the point of beginning. Section 2. The City of Richfield, Minnesota will retain a permanent easement over, under and across the southerly 10 feet of the above described tract of land for maintaining an existing sanitary sewer. Section 3. The mayor and manager are authorized to take such action as is required to give effect to the vacation of the public right -of -way as provided in the foregoing section 1. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: ylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: �-5 Council Letter No. 43 Agenda February 9, 1981 Subject: Vacation of Alley on Block 10, Ray's Lynnhurst Addition (Block bounded by 63rd Street, Goth Street, Morgan Avenue and Newton Avenue econd Rea ing -­ On January 12, 1981 the city council received a petition requesting that the unimproved alley right -of -way in Block 10, Ray's Lynnhurst Addi i.on e vacated. At that time, the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance vacating the alley and set a public hearing on the request for February 9, 1981. - It is recommended that the city council conduct the public hearing and then amend and ive n reading approval o -'he attached ordi ance. s ould be noted that the lan ua e in t he original ordinance, concerning easements, ._ -has been amen ed to clarif that the easement to be is for all utilities an not just city_. utilities. Respectfully submitted, �C Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Community Development Director City Planner City Engineer TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF THE ALLEY ON BLOCK 10, RAY'S LYNNHURST e1(` Section 1. The alley &rlr Block 10, Ray's Lynnhurst within the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby vacated: r e��� ��i4F.e� ■y dairy. Section 2. This vacation shall be subject to perpetual easements for utilities including electric, gas, telephone, cable television, water and sewer to permit construction, improvement, or maintenance of said utilities. Section 3. The mayor and manager are authorized to take such action as is required to give effect to the vacation of the public right -of -way as provided in the foregoing section 1. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City C er PENN AVE. N aI IL I 0 I I I N O (D (7) OLIVER AVE. D In I C3 Eli uN n jL—jl I 09 N 16401 �-N 1 W i A U I Qfl v OJ (D i 0 O tD 1 m I-4 01 U I a m I o m a p > a W T i •� I { U = ! 1._.C.��1t ' ' 0 0 (' 5253 i a J II S>= 0� 6244 NEWTON AVE. 1� -- 7 J O'nng V1 +F i Cn 21 I I i � S>= 0� i SZ IZ o N II SO lub9 El o 0 _' W i+ i W j Zs U i 01-4 I cow i N — N (D ,w� r! i :► I �O ,(,� IL v { U = ! 1._.C.��1t ' ' 0 0 w O ! 0) U A I I l N- ;ignatures NEWTON AVE. 1� -- 7 J O'nng V1 +F i Cn 21 6f Co S>= 0� i SZ IZ o SI o! II SO lub9 El o 0 O (D Qp I V IO1 U A I W C!OOjCIOOO +CSC; i N dl MORGAN 00ED0000 6f Co S>= 0� i SZ IZ o SI o! II SO lub9 El o 0 ! iO O — N W :► I U p> v kb w O 0) U A I I l N- ;ignatures on Petition ID Iy. DDulao, a► c� r 1c .v 9; 0 :�: ola El loF, rb9 8£ I i•£ Oi bZ OZ bl 01 h0 0C 9 -'�OGAN �i'Yf9 6f Co S>= 0� i SZ IZ o SI o! II SO lub9 El o 0 6_ I O O I - — (D O 0) U A w l N- ;ignatures on Petition ID Iy. .a.i a► c� r 1c .v 9; 0 :�: AVE. _7 W O (D m 1 V ! C' "[ O (D W V C` bZ9 � 8ti � bf � •. S►Z91 6f Lti i 6Z I 2nd � 7 1 m l V AVE. 6_ I O O - — (D O 0) U A w l N- ;ignatures on Petition ID Iy. .a.i a► c� r 1c .v 9; 0 :�: _7 W O (D m 1 V ! C' "[ O (D W V C` bZ9 � 8ti � bf � •. S►Z91 6f Lti i 6Z I 2nd � 7 1 m l V j . -3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 42 Agenda February 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 6401 Standish Avenue Wayne C. Kline II and Phyllis M. Kline have submitted an application for a variance to reduce t-r,P u ' ee -moot hedge setback f. lic rights -sway to_.z&r- o---f_ee_t._ The var- iance would permit the planting oof a hedgerow on the applicant's west property line and within the Buhl ; r- r; c3ht- of =way ads agent to the applicant's north property.1ine. The applicant has not e ermined the exact location of the north portion of the hedge- row except that it is proposed to be within public right -of -way. The proposed hedge is to consist of dogwood and redbark shrubs, 4 feet in height. The property, located at 6401 Standish Avenue, is zoned "R ", single family residential. Staff Findings ing: The staff has reviewed the application and found the follow- 1. That the intersection of E. 64th Street and Standish Avenue is controlled by stop signs at the four corners, and should not affect the proposal; 2. That there are no of Standish Avenue are plans forte existing sidewalks on the east side or on 64th Street. However, there Pwalks to be installed on the east si e tandish AvenuE U-9; . 3. That the r-Qadway is approximately three feet below the grade of the app scant s proper and the hedge- row would impair visib-ilit.u- on._�estbound 6 th Street. The staff reviewed the request against the three conditions for granting a variance and found the following: 1. Except that 64th Street deadends at the applicant's rear property line, there are no conditions affect- ing this particular property. This is a typically Council Letter No. 42 -2- February 9, 1981 sized lot and is not significantly different than any other lots in the City of Richfield; 2. Denial of the application would not preclude the ex- isting property use. There are alternatives for constructing the hedge that would not require a var- iance; 3. The three foot setback requirement is intended to en- sure that sufficient snow storage space is available adjacent to public sidewalks. The hedgerow would occupy this snow - storage space -along Standish Avenue where a sidewalk -is planned. Also, the hedgerow would be within the 50 feet visibility triangle at -t e-- inter- ection, and would - - significantly impair visibility on we`�T�ound 64th Street east of Standish Avenue. Although the hedgerow meets the height requirement of four feet, the grade difference between the roadway and the applicant's property would exaggerate the height of the hedgerow. However, the staff also feels that, as an alternative, if the hedgerow were set back five feet from the northwest proper y corner, ere =would be -s-u- T E 1c1 erit visibility. Staff Recommendation Although the proposed hedge would be an improvement to the applicant's property, the staff recommends that because the three conditions for grantin�v�riances have not been._mot and - -- -- a t e impaired visibility on westbound 64th Street east of S andish Avenue, does pose safety_ problems, this _implication be en ied . — However, should the city council decide to grant the vari- ance, the staff recommends the following- stipulations: 1: That the hedgerow be set back 5 feet from the north- L corner. -- - - - -- 2. That a formal agreement betweenn the, applicant and the City of Richfield be reached to allow the hedgerow on the ubli - --- - - - - -- - ay. This agreement should ho d the city harmleas = for damages the hedge if it i am, a ed__by_ snow removal. It should also ensure that the hedgerow is removed at no expense to the City of Richfield shoul-d-any public improvements a on Standis4- A-v�ue or East_ri4_t 1__St. req_uirg_ the use of the right -of -way. Planning Commission Recommendation The plannin c n recommended ap roval_of this vari- ance with the above noted stipulations. Respectfully submitted, AI Karl Nollenberger City Manager P City of Richfield Department of Public Works Attention: Building Division 6700 Portland Avenue, Soo Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Request for Variance and Statment on Conditions My reasoning regarding the feasibility of this request is, in the main, that sidewalks on either side of 6401 Standish Avenue are remote. Con- struction of a sidewalk on the Standish kve. side is rather remote in view of the topograph on the 64th block. In that 64th Street deadends east of the Standish Ave crossing, there is little or no pedistrian traffic on that block. Therefore,,in my estimation, the need for a side - walk is very unlikely. I will maintain the planting in a controlled manner. I would accept any future determination on sidewalk construction and would be prepared to move the shrubs, if requested„ If permission to plant these shrubs is granted, in variance of city ordances, there will be no adverse effects on neighborhood health, safety (not to forget the general public, also) WAXIv C . KLEIId, II 6401 Standish Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 i i REQUEST FOR VGA;? ; A\CE OF FOR PURPOSE OF PlantinW ve ?etation at or on pu c r o.w Legal Dcscri--.. ton: private property line 6401 Standish Avenge Lot 1, Elock 14 i:ew Ford Town Addltlon- We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby concur with the variance as requested. "Siznature of Owners — Address Leal Descrintion I 6336 -23d Ave, So I Block 21 /Lots 13, 14, 1 K&1 PAUL F. CA 648 Standish Ave Block 20 /Lot 13 JOHN N`, DALT014 6400 Standish Ave Block 13 /Lot 24 K. M. LAURETTE 6404 Standish Ave Elock 13 /Lot23 r 641 Ave 3 Standish Block 14/Lot 4 FREDRICK W ROGERS, S 6409 Standish Ave Block 14 /Lot 3 i r� lm . a4) • ® V 0 W ... G W Q � W H D N W W F-� N s t7� CO Q ' trti I . > W 6 401 i_ y~ W W EE 11 „�,• fa T r c�p _ m �U 3nN3AV NSIaNVIS l:Y a N rl cu f; N CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Council Members: Council Letter No. 41 Agenda February 9, 1981 Subject: Transitory Ordinance Relating to Vacation Of Alley on Block 1, Oaklane Addition (Area Bounded by Nicollet Avenue, Blaisdell Avenue, 68th Street and St. Peter's Church Property) First Reading. Attached to this council letter is a petition requesting the vacation of the alley on block 1, Oaklane Addition. The petition is in proper Form and has t e required "number -of-signatures to initiate the alley vacation process. The block is bounded by Nic.ollet Avenue on the east, Blaisdell on the west, 68th Street on the sQ- th,_and St. Peter's Church property on the north. Staff Findings ing: The staff has reviewed the application and found the follow- 1. That the alb is unimproved and not used for prop- erty access; 2. That vacating this alley would not pose any hazards to the property owners of the city; 3. That NSP has utilities in the alley, and has requested a 10 foot wide easement; 4. That when the city vacates an alley, the alley is equally divided between the abutting property owners. Staff Recommendation Because the petition has the required number of signatures to initiate the alley vacation process, and since the staff has found that the proposal will not be detrimental to the public welfare, t is recommended that the city council approve vacation o_f phis - w th -- the fol owing - stipulation: - - 1. That the necessary utility easements be granted to the utility —c panties to maintain the utilities that exist in the alley right -of -way. Council Letter No. 41 -2- Planning Commission Recommendation February 9, 1981 The planning commission recommends approval of the alley vacation request mulation. Summary It would be appropriate for the city council to approve the resolution receiving the vacation petition and setting a date public hearing for March 9, 'ty-coun -c-il should also give first reading cLnsideration to the attached transitoryordinance providing for this vacation. —`- - Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Community Development Director City Planner City Engineer U') .55 (q M 00 Camf0q A (i/0) < 06 -b pR Church U C) roper y 4 'AGA Dr. C, A� C Uj 4BA Uj Alley > z > vi 3 35. 3 3 0 N E2.' 35." --5- 6ot 3i 1A 4� �V) 4� 68th Street -1 A 'i I- ST R N-2� SURETY 8 ADJUIST;' A (L4 t-. — cro 3 M PA id) ) 61 T I ON M V) • 4, A 10) 1 ZY) 69 th ST {�t \l� W i��t... !IMo7'�, ;,f V� i Q i .t 0 I C H L A"p < 4-1 659 th T a) 7E3 CC Ld > Jill 10 U— z n E R R ACE` " 10 'j Signatures on Petition U L Q .j,Y) i`.t�,) � 1 J � ` � F....: ( `59z7) `j � _`-^! � •.>br't� �pl5,',�; � r ��. -_... Cf) x t i d PETITION FOR STREET AND ALLEY VACATION CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Date Received TO: The City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota We, the undersigned owners of land abutting hereby petition that t?ie part of such street described in Attachment A be vacated by the City of Richfield 1 Signature of Owners Address U l x-7111 A) C- IIl {f AV -L 5Q. Examined, checked and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the required number of owners of land abutting the street, alley, or public grounds (City Code of Ordinances, Section 12.04). per cent checked by fee paid Community Development Public Safety County Public Works NSP Minnegasco Northwestern Bell Chief Inspector RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING VACATION PETITION AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the city clerk requesting the vacation of a public alley described as follows: "The alley on block 1, Oaklane Addition" WHEREAS, said petition complies in all respects with the requirements of Richfield Ordinance Code 12.04, subdivision 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The petition for vacating that alley described above is received; 2. A Public Hearing on the alley vacation in said petition shall be held March 9, 1981; 3. The city clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing in the official newspaper of the City and post notice in the manner provided by Richfield Ordinance Code, Section 12.04, subdivision 3. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of February, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE FOR THE VACATION OF A PUBLIC ALLEY ON BLOCK 1, OAKLANE ADDITION Section 1. The following public alley right -of -way within the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby vacated: The alley on Block 1, Oaklane Addition Section 2. That the necessary utility easements be granted to the utility companies for maintaining existing utilities. Section 3. The mayor and manager are authorized to take such action as is required to give effect to the vacation of the public right -of -way as provided in the foregoing Section 1. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 40 Agenda February 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Subdivision Waiver for Property at 74th Street and Lyndale Avenue Mr. Jerry Hanson, representing Mr._Philop C. Smaby, owners of the property located at the southeast corner of the 74th Street and Lyndale Avenue intersection, have requested a sub - `d- ivision waiver to allow them to divide the parcel into two lots and sell the parcels to separate buyers. They have a signed purchase nt w th_a.buyer for the west" ee f—the par - ce . A survey recently completed by the owner is attached. The total parcel measures 135.26 feet by 279.51 feet. Existing build- ings on the lot include a 40 foot by 60 foot two -story brick C:o arrial office building on the west portion of the lot. A one and one -half story dwelling, a - -20— foot - -by 30 foot garage, and a small tool shed exists on the east portion of the parcel. The west 125 feet of the parcel is zoned C -2 gezeral commercial. The remainder of the site is zoned MR _ multiple residence. he owners are proposing to ivi e e parcel into two lots. The division line between the two new lots would be coterminous with the zoning district boundary line. If the division is approved as proposed, the existing build- ings will have slightly substandard setbacks. The rearyard set- back of the commercial building would be 24.94 feet instead of the required 25 feet. The shortage would be .72 inches. The sideyard setback of the existing dwelling would be 4.75 feet in- stead of the required 5 feet. The shortage in this case would be three inches. It is the feeling of the staff that these shortages are not significant and that it is desirable to estab- lish the division line at the zoning district boundary to provide for easier administration and application of the city's zoning ordinance. Also, in all likelihood, the eastern portion of the site will be redeveloped with some kind of multifamily use, which will be required to meet the setback requirements. This would eliminate the dwelling and setback shortage. The city's subdivision regulations require that the city City Council Letter No. 40 -2- February 9, 1981 approve divisions of land into two or more lots, any of which is less than 5 acres in area. Because the proposal involves the division into two lots less than 5 acres in area, the city must approve the division before any conveyance of property can take place. Thy normal pros- e�re for _city approval of divisions is f_ or a plot or_re_gistered -1 and survey to -be developed and S, for__planning commission and city council review. The subdivision recr1111at -ionc do- however, allow the council to waive this procedure where compliance to the normal procedure-- 4v -11 -1 result in an unnecessary hards ip, and where the purposP of the sub ivision requ a ions is not inter -fered -with. The council may, at its option, refer such questions to the planning commission for recommendation before council action. The owner is requesting such a waiver to_ allow _him to close the sr west portion of the site within --- the time frame established within t e purc ase agreement. It is the opinion of the staff that the waiver would not in- terfere with the intent of the subdivision regulations, but that the council may want to refer the matter to the planning comm- ission prior to taking final action. If the council wishes to take final action on this matter at this time, it is recommended that the council adopt the attached resolution waiving compliance e su division rocepre. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /ej a cc: Community Development Director City Engineer RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION WAIVING COMPLIANCE WITH SUBDIVISION PROCEDURE WHEREAS, Mr. Philip C. Smaby, the owner of the property described as follows: The west 1/4 of the north 5 acres of the northwest 1/4 of the southwest 14/ of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, according to the U. S. Government Survey thereof. has requested a subdivision waiver in accordance with Richfield ordinance Section 3.54, subdivision 5, to allow the division of the property into two lots; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield has reviewed the request and found that compliance with the normal subdivision procedure would cause the owner of the above described property undue hardship and time delay; and WHEREAS, failure to comply with the normal subdivision pro- cedure would not interfere with the purpose of the platting regulations outlined in Richfield Ordinance Chapter III, Part VI. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that a subdivision waiver is hereby granted to Mr. Philip Smaby to allow subdivision of the above described property into two lots. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of February, 1981. 5onald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sy via K. Bergh, City Clerk January 29, 1981 Dear Mayor and Council Members: I am acting as a representative for Philip C. Smaby, the owner of the property at the southeast corner of 74th Street and Lyndale Avenue in Richfield. The owner would like to divide the property into two lots. The west portion of the property is zoned general commercial (C -2) and the east portion is zoned multiple family residence (MR). We are proposing to divide the property so that the new property line dividing the two lots coincides with the zoning district boundary line. The two parcels would then be sold to sep- arate buyers. We currently have a signed purchase agreement with a party inter- ested in the west lot. A copy of a survey we recently had completed is attached for your reference. As I understand, all divisions of land in Richfield must be approved by the City Council. I also understand that according to Richfield City Ordinance, Section 3.54, subdivision 5, the council may waive the normal platting procedure. I would hereby like to request that the council waive the platting procedure so that we can convey the west lot to our interested buyer. I feel that the waiver is necessary for the following reasons: 1) Because the request falls right on the zoning line, this is nothing other than what the City of Richfield, many years ago, designated as their preference of division of this lot. 2) Time being of essence because of the request of the buyer and seller; 3) Seller will comply with all other legal requirements such as platting and furnishing new abstracts and forms for tax purposes for the City of Richfield; 4) For the good of the citizens of Richfield, the City of Richfield, and both the buyer and seller, we feel the improvement of this property, long over due, will finally be accomplished. Because of the time constraints that we are under we would request that the council consider our request at the February 9, 1981 City Council meeting. I appreciate your consideration of my request. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Hanson cc: Philip C. Smaby James F. Bermel Rick Jopke, Richfield City Planner REALTG R 5309 Lyndale Avenue South • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55419 . 827 -5321 r b b � d i � I p� � �, \�. �. i <.'. /U � � �� � \ �•\ 32.39 � - ^- ' I f I ny j r zoN /NG O! ✓ /SION c /NE ..I i T 32.42 i � I y� 32.43 ,b I V "1 N \ Z U. .:o I \ y I `w Q) rrl I 13.50 �I I I �I 0 JA � - fRSr LlNf OF vV'i OF lNE NORTH S4LRE5 OF ;ilE h'H/i �¢ `* a- rq,6 cccwo1N.; f0 ,-NE as ,� ✓�E/�N%NEN "T ,� ✓RG may' 135.26 N C O � T CD Q =7 O Q — CD CD C .r- CD '•Z C' CD — CD CD N Q —•N-r• a fj CD �� � - C , o W CD --% _ C.v = n O p Z7 d d Q L CD Lo CD CD Cn n -" CD C-) C-)� Z "+. O .--t C CD C/1 �, T _ O C .-. O� .,- CD O Z O CD ty C C — =; CD N ° o ° ca c, _a n C z Cz L., _ -1 O rh n, O -1 -' CL o C-) T N d C'D \ Q _ -C3 N C Q CD C �^ o t m fD CD T D \Z C rte« N CO H Lo _. H O C (/•1 — < C rT'I —• O CD h Qp = V7 CD `< CD N z - C .'N , CD _. CD < 0 D � cD o �, o -^ CD Q o. a o a� C — ::3 w — a J N r r b b � d i � I p� � �, \�. �. i <.'. /U � � �� � \ �•\ 32.39 � - ^- ' I f I ny j r zoN /NG O! ✓ /SION c /NE ..I i T 32.42 i � I y� 32.43 ,b I V "1 N \ Z U. .:o I \ y I `w Q) rrl I 13.50 �I I I �I 0 JA � - fRSr LlNf OF vV'i OF lNE NORTH S4LRE5 OF ;ilE h'H/i �¢ `* a- rq,6 cccwo1N.; f0 ,-NE as ,� ✓�E/�N%NEN "T ,� ✓RG may' 135.26 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Members: �6 o Council i C C/,. �l Council Letter No. 39 Agenda February 9, 1981 Subject: Presentation of Award to "Employee of the Quarter" An item has been.scheduled for the February 9, 1981 city coun- cil meeting, providing for formal council recognition of Jean Mitchell, Finance Coordinator,--who has been selected as the "Employee of the Quarter" or the period October - December, 1980. The "Employee of the Quarter" is a relatively new program estab- lished in January, 1980, to give recognition to city em loyees o make significant_ contributions to the overall city organization. Jean Mitchell was selected t is quarter or er c inuous outstand- ing service to the city. In the past year, Jean has assumed several additional workload duties, which have necessitated her working many long, extra hours. For example, during the preparation of the 1979 annual financial report, Jean undertook the unenviable task--of - - - - -- --- - c- ete.re�ier_uc'i�uring tTze financial__z_eporting system to coincide with the chance_ n_ he_cityIs organizational structure. This was an extremely time - consuming and complex task for which Jean assumed virtually the sole burden, because in effect, she had to prepare a dual statement to first collect and organize the data as it existed during 1979, and then rework all accounts to correspond to the new organizational structure in order to provide for comparability in 1980 and future years. Ms. Mitchell will be present at the February 9, 1981 city coun- cil meeting to receive this award. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Program Directors CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 38 Agenda February 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request -for Variance, 7720 Nicollet Avenue Representatives of Superamerica have submitted a request for a variance to allow the construction of a free- standing _.._._.� stan_ding canopy at 7720 N co e -- 'the design of the prop - dsed 56' x 42' free - stand' can ould match other proposed improvements to the existing_ building at that location. Me proposed free - standing canopy is a part of a plan by Superamerica to occupy and refurbish the existina_�t�c�nt building into a gas- oline service s ation sto e. The property has been the site of trari ne service stations and service station stores in the past. The property which was previously granted a special use permit for a gasoline service station store, is zoned "C -2" general commercial. The staff has found that the proposed canopy is to be 17' in height. The maximum allowable height _for canopesis 16'. It is the opinion o e s a that the applicant needs a variance in order to construct a 17' high canopy. The staff be- lieves that this variance to the height requirement should be reviewed in conjunction with the original variance request to construct a free - standing canopy. Staff Review The staff has reviewed the proposal against the three con- ditions for granting variances and found the following: 1. That there are no special conditions affecting this particular property. This property is not significantly different than any other lot in "C -2" general commer- cial zoning districts. 2. Denial of this application does not preclude reason- able use of this property. A canopy can be constructed so as to conform to the ordinance requirements. 3. That the px4.po_sal would be. an__improv.emen_t_ to- -the applicant's property and would not pose any hazards tb�he welfare of the public. Council Letter No. 38 -2- February 9, 1981 Further the staff believes that the city council should be informed that the existing Su erameri_ a Ser ti vice Staon at 7645 Nicollet Avenue would be_.re a ata(� to Nicollet Avenue. The Suuperamerica Station at 7645 Nicollet Avenue is a non= conforming use, in that the property is zoned "C -1 ", neighborhood business. Superamerica has indicated that the site may __be_used as a training center for its employees, although no formal plans for conversion of the building to this use have been submitted for review at this time. Staff Recommendation While the proposal would significantly improve existing land use conditions in the neighborhood, the proposal has not satisfied all three conditions for granting variances, therefore, the plan- ning staff must recommend denial of the requested variances. The city manager recommends approval due to the improvement to the welfare of the neighborhood. Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission recommends approval of the variance requests. Respectfully submitted, V'Q_ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /ej a cc: Community Development Director City Planner I U. t� %fi# gap , a e I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — - - - - V is 0i m U. t� , a e - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — - - - - V is 0i m t O Z a 9 7 w N x LI 9 lll N K ;. .� } } .' • . * •: . . �, r �f r f' f 1 t S { •;� l . r .' i 1 .f �� � >� tr ;..• . 11 t � �r i , � ' .. ( � i 1 } � F � �1 1. � . �•. '� 1._: V ' 1T w Eu u ri TWA i ry ri f 1 � :c 2Ii 8 � 9 � 4 s { 1 �• 3I 3a :s 7� O N r W J W a Z a LL O CL O u t JJ J D Z s— d i ! ! i it r'1 �L z• aZ � • � '0t z a'4 d I� 2 F— LL• O r U. • N ■ Ul) Q N r N � � ap ,C �✓ r ■• W J W ~ r C1 Z a Z .. W m o J m m O M O O N r W J W a Z a LL O CL O u t JJ J D Z s— d i ! ! i it r'1 �L z• aZ � • � '0t z a'4 d I� 2 � G CITY OF.RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 37 Agenda February 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: First Reading of Ordinance Amendment Relating to Subject: Vacation of a Portion of Lake Shore Drive As an element of the West 66th Street improvement project, the city is proposin� to vacate a portion of Lake Shore Drive. Vaca'ting this portion of Lake Shore Drive is necessary to carry out the overall West 66th Street improvement pro�'ec ' pare of which includes relocation of Lake Shore Drive to intersect with West 66th Sttre��at Rae D -rive _. The proposal will eliminate two angerous T" intersections (Rae Drive /66th Street, and Lake Shore Drive /66th Street) and includes installation of a traffic signal at the new intersection. This realignment of the intersection will create safer conditions for vehicle turning movements as well as pedestrian and bicycle traffic. A description of the portion of Lake Shore Drive to be vacated is attached. History A traffic engineering alternative analysis conducted for Lake Shore Drive evalu a swing - -s -ix = ait i fives 1. Relocate Lake Shore Drive to intersect with W. 66th Street at Rae Drive; 2. Relocate Rae Drive to intersect with West 66th Street at Lake Shore Drive; 3. Leave Lake Shore Drive and Rae Drive in existing locations; 4. Create median openings at both Lake Shore Drive and Rae Drive; 5. Continue a median through the Lake Shore Drive inter- section; 6. Continue a median through the Rae Drive intersection. The analysis indicated alternative one as the best possible solution to the existing traffic problems in that area. Council Letter No. 37 -2- February 9, 1981 In December, 1 979,,_ th_e -._c- ity._council approved a design concept p_an for improvements ,to_ West- 66th Street between Lyndale Avenue and I35W. Included in this concept plan is the re at±On -of La:tie Shore Drive. A series of neighborhood, RI`;G and CIC meet- ings followed council approval of the concept plans. In May, 1:80, the city council passed a resolution authorizing implementa- �-ion_.Q t-hP enai ParinJr contract and agreements initiating right - c= -way purchase - for -the proposed improvements. On January 5, 1981, - Btate Aid Eng i neering Division of the State of Minnesota approve the West 66th Street improvemen s n - =r- enn-epin County and the City of Richfield. Thus, the next step in the process is t vacate that portion of Lake Shore Drive designated in the plans fcr vacation so that the project can be carried out. Staff Findings The staff has reviewed the proposal and found the following: 1. That the residual property _weuld be r-tLrned to the abutting roperty owners, In this case, the HRA and Hennepin Count will b�_habutting _ property_ owners . he HRA is to acquire the n�Yt; on rty_ owned by the county,, which is to be made --.a par'- of the multi- family_te. The multi - family site will then be sold in accordance with a developer's agreement and the L /H /N redevelopment project plan; 2. That the relocation and vacation of Lake Shore Drive will result in safer traffic conditions on West 66th Street; 3. That utilities exist on Lake Shore Drive. These util- ities are'owned by the City of Richfield, Northern States Power, Minnegasco and Northwestern Bell; 4. That the proposed vacation is in substantial compliance with the regulations governing street vacations. S =� =f Recommendation The proposal will not be detrimental to the safety or wel- fara of the general public; therefore, the staff recommends the app -oval of this vacat ; on .of _ a-__pgrton_ o _-Lake Shcre Drive, with tt-- follow n —s_tipulation : 1. That the necessary utility easements be ^ranted. Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commis_s_i -on recommends approva_._c= -h _street - vac-tion , wi - t�pulatio and the stip --lation that , ire vacation take e fe_ct___subs ent to acquisitio . of the three e s o rty. The p arming conunis a-1 .s -c passed a -sep- ra�a motion recommending that the city deed the parcel of prop- er west of the relocated Lake Shore Drive right -c= -way line to :.e abutting property owner. The staff subsequently learned Council Letter No. 37 -2- February 9, 1981 that this parcel of property is already owned by the abutting property owner, as a result of a parcel boundary line change some years ago which is not reflected on the attached map. The county is not acquiring any excess property beyond the right -of -way as a result. Summary It is recommended that the cites council calve first reading consideration to ched transitory ordinance providing or vacation of a PortiQn of jA%e Sh_oreDr1ve, -and approve the attac ed resolution sett#j _._thedate 6-f--- ublic hearing for March 9, 19 Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Community Development Director City Planner City Engineer City Clerk T _ - J__ W 6 6th STRE To be vacated 7 (f.............''' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... ........... ­V'. J: lrb• . . . . . . . . : �:•: •i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR VACATING PUBLIC STREET_ AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is proposing the vacation of a portion of a public street described as follows: That part of Lake Shore Drive, as dedicated in FAIRWOOD SHORES, according to the recorded plat thereof, lying northerly of Line B, hereinafter described, and lying southerly of a line parallel and /or concentric with and 50.00 feet southerly of Line A, hereinafter described: Line A Commencing at the northwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence on an assumed bearing of East 475.00 feet along the north line of said Southwest Quarter; thence South 20 degrees 48 minutes 35 seconds West 6.00 feet; thence South 88 degrees 51 minutes 44 seconds West 462.23 feet to the beginning of Line A; thence westerly 226.37 feet on a tangential curve, concave to the south, central angle 22 degrees 38 minutes 14 seconds and radius 572.96 feet; thence South 66 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds West 133.72 feet, tangent to said curve; thence westerly 429.11 feet on a tangential curve, concave to the north, central angle 42 degrees 54 minutes 40 seconds, and radius 572.96 feet and there terminating. Line B Commencing at the northwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence on an assumed bearing of East 475.00 feet along the north line of said Southwest Quarter; thence South 20 degrees 48 minutes 35 seconds West 6.00 feet; thence South 88 degrees 51 minutes 44 seconds West 462.23 feet; thence westerly 226.37 feet on a tangential curve, concave to the south, central angle 22 degrees 38 minutes 14 seconds and radius 572.96 feet; thence South 66 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds West 133.72 feet, tangent to said curve; thence westerly 336.12 feet on a tangential curve, concave to the north, central angle 33 degrees 36 minutes 43 seconds and radius 572.96 feet to the beginning of Line B; thence South 05 degrees 25 minutes 31 seconds West 58.83 feet; thence southeasterly 71.79 feet on a tangential curve, concave to the northeast,central angle 72 degrees 09 minutes 35 seconds, and radius 57.00 feet; thence South 66 degrees 44 minutes 04 seconds East 82.24 feet; thence southeasterly 153.45 feet on a tangential curve, concave to the southwest, central angle 47 degrees 00 minutes 53 seconds and radius 187.00 feet and there terminating. WHEREAS, said proposition complies in all respects with the requirements of Richfield Ordinance Code 12.04, subdivision 2. -2- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. A Public Hearing on the street vacation shall be held on March 9, 1981. 2. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing in the official newspaper of the City and post notice of said hearing in the manner provided by Richfield Ordinance Code, Section 12.04, subdivision 3. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of February, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF LAKE SHORE DRIVE Section 1. The following portion of Lake Shore Drive within the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby vacated: That part of Lake Shore Drive, as dedicated in FAIRWOOD SHORES, according to the recorded plat thereof, lying northerly of Line B, hereinafter described, and lying southerly of a line parallel and /or concentric with and 50.00 feet southerly of Line A, hereinafter described: Line A Commencing at the northwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence on an assumed bearing of East 475.00 feet along the north line of said Southwest Quarter; thence South 20 degrees 48 minutes 35 seconds West 6.00 feet; thence South 88 degrees 51 minutes 44 seconds West 462.23 feet to the beginning of Line A; thence westerly 226.37 feet on a tangential curve, concave to the south, central angle 22 degrees 38 minutes 14 seconds and radius 572.96 feet; thence South 66 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds West 133.72 feet, tangent to said curve; thence westerly 429.11 feet on a tangential curve, concave to the north, central angle 42 degrees 54 minutes 40 seconds, and radius 572.96 feet and there terminating. Line B Commencing at the northwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence on an assumed bearing of East 475.00 feet along the north line of said Southwest Quarter; thence South 20 degrees 48 minutes 35 seconds West 6.00 feet; thence South 88 degrees 51 minutes 44 seconds West 462.23 feet; thence westerly 226.37 feet on a tangential curve, concave to the south, central angle 22 degrees 38 minutes 14 seconds and radius 572.96 feet; thence South 66 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds West 133.72 feet, tangent to said curve; thence westerly 336.12 feet on a tangential curve, concave to the north, central angle 33 degrees 36 minutes 43 seconds and radius 572.96 feet to the beginning of Line B; thence South 05 degrees 25 minutes 31 seconds West 58.83 feet; thence southeasterly 71.79 feet on a tangential curve, concave to the northeast, central angle 72 degrees 09 minutes 35 seconds, and radius 57.00 feet; thence South 66 degrees 44 minutes 04 seconds East 82.24 feet; thence southeasterly 153.45 feet on a tangential curve, concave to the southwest, central angle 47 degrees 00 minutes 53 seconds and radius 187.00 feet and there terminating. Section 2. That the necessary utility easement be granted to the utility companies for maintaining existing utilities. -2- Section 3. The City of Richfield, Minnesota will retain a permanent easement over, under and across the above described tract of land for maintaining existing utilities. Section 4. The Mayor and Manager are authorized to take such action as is required to give effect to the vacation of the public right - of -way as provided in the foregoing section. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: ylvia K. Bergh City Cler _4�, J 5' h CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 36 Agenda February 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Planning Commission Resolution Approving Disposition of Residual Property Along West 66th Street The planning commission and the city council have previously passed resolutions authorizing the acquisition of property to facilitate construction of the West 66th Street improvement proj- ect. Part of the project includes relocation of Lake Shore Drive, which necessitates purchasing the properties located at 901 and 911 West 66th Street. However, the completed project will use only portions of these properties, and the remaining portion of the properties can be resold. (See attached map). The planning commission has reviewed the sale of this residual property, and found that the sale of the property is in compliance with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, which indicate that the city should promote a variety of housing types, create an improved living environment and accommodate the demand for addi- tional residential dwelling units within the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet area. The residual property is to be annexed to the multi - family site of the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet redevelopment project, which is to be incorporated into the developer's agreement, and sold in accordance with the L /H /N redevelopment project plan. At their January 27, 1981 planning commission meeting, the planning commission passed the attached resolution finding the sale of the residual and policies of the action necessary at resolution. KN/ ej a property to be in compliance with the goals comprehensive plan. The only city council this time is to receive the planning commission's Respectfully submitted, i i Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner City Engineer � vV N STREET No .. :. i I 1 _ �; Property !i. t �. b e sold RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FINDING THE DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed disposition of property described as follows: "That area of Lots 1 and 2 Block 1, Lynwood Addition, except the public right -of- way." WHEREAS, the proposed disposition is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map and the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission finds that the proposed disposition for the purpose of medium to high density, multiple family uses to be in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Passed by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield this 27th day of January, 1981. Joseph Ertman Richfield Planning Commission ATTEST: Erich J. Russell, Secretary