05-12-80 agenda147-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 178
Agenda May 12, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Resolution Establishing Policy Regulating Use
Of City Council Chambers
There is an item on the May 12, 1980 city council agenda pro-
viding for council consideration of a resolution which would estab-
lish certain conditions for use of the city council chambers in the
city hall. The resolution which is attached was originally adopted
by the city council on November 22, 1971. I was unaware. of the
Policies contained in the resolution until just recently, and do
not know how,long it has been since it was applied to use of the
council chambers. However, I do understand that it has been quite
some time since these regulations were imposed.
The city receives numerous requests on a fairly frequent basis
from various community groups wishing to use the council chambers
for meetings. Some of these requests are fairly simple, and require
little more than that the city keep the building open so that the
participants can gain access to the chambers. However, other groups
wishing to use the council chambers have requested that the city ar-
range the chairs in a certain fashion, provide tables, or extra chairs,
or generally provide other set -up type of services which are time
consuming to city staff personnel, and which divert those employees
involved in the set -up from their regular work responsibilities. In
addition, of course, the city staff is responsible for cleaning up
after the groups which have used the chambers.
The attached resolution generally provides that a fee shall
be charged for a group using the council chambers after hours, or at
any time the city offices are not open. The resolution also provides
that any cost of special set -ups for chairs or tables shall be borne
by the group wishing those arrangements. The rules and regulations
also require that no attachments be made to the walls in the council
chamber or lobby, that the city assumes no liability for lost articles,
damages, injury, etc., and that the applicant be held responsible for
the costs of cleaning up any excessive litter or uncleanliness.
Because of the seeming increasing demand we receive for use of
the council chambers, I believe it is appropriate that we have a
systematized response to those organizations. Certainly the city
Council Letter No. 178 -2- May 12, 1980
council chambers provide a desirable meeting area for many community
groups, and I believe that the city should encourage the use of the
facility when it is not needed for municipal purposes. However, I
also believe that the city should not be responsible for bearing the
cost of using city employees to set -up and clean up after such meet-
ings, which has been done to a considerable extent in the past. The
provisions of this resolution are quite similar to regulations which
the city council has established for use of other city facilities,
such as the community center, and I recommend that the city council
endorse the provision of Resolution No. 4721, and authorize the staff
to begin processing applications for use of the council chambers in
accordance with that resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
IN
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /jf
cc: Community Services Director
RESOLUTION NO. 4721
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A POLICY TO REGULATE THE USE OF
THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOCATED IN THE RICHFIELD CITY HALL
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE City Council of the City of Richfield, Piinnesota,
as follows:
The following shall constitute the official city policy regulating the use of
the Council Chambers:
I. General Statement
All organizations, except the City Council, official city commissions, and
the city staff, must complete an application and have it approved before
using the Council Chambers. Applications must be submitted at least two
weeks prior to the date for which the reservation is requested.
II. Availability
The Council Chambers shall be available Monday through Saturday from 8 a.m.
until 10:00 p.m. Special permission may be granted by the City Planager for
requested variations from this designated schedule.
The City Council, official city commissions, the city staff or any governmental
or quasi governmental organization whose meetings are sponsored by the City
Council, an official city commission or the city staff shall have priority on the
use of the Council Chambers. Although efforts will be made to avoid potential
conflicts, it may be necessary on occasion to advise groups that have reserved
the Council Chambers for a certain time and date that it will be necessary for
them to relocate their meeting because of the need to use the Council Chambers
for purposes connected with municipal government.
III. Who May Use the Council Chambers
The Council Chambers shall be available to all local community organizations
which have a membership consisting of at least one - fourth Richfield residents.
The Council Chambers shall not be used for the following:
A. Commercial Enterprise
B. Private Ceremonies
Groups who have their own facilities shall be allowed to use the Council
Chambers provided two conditions are met:
A. The organization's own facilities cannot be used.
B. That the time requested does not conflict with a request
made by a group which does not have its own facility.
•
-2-
IV. Fee Schedule
A $5.00 fee shall be charged for any group using the Council Chambers after
4:30 p.m. on weekdays or at any other time when city offices are not open.
V. Rules and Regulations
A. The city will not provide kitchen facilities. Groups may provide their
own coffee and light refreshments. However, no meals or snacks will
be allowed.
�. The city will make available a floor microphone, viewing screen and
blackboard as may be desired.
J C. There shall be no major rearrangement of chairs or tables in the room,
without special permission and the payment of appropriate charges.
D. The use of intoxicating liquors and non - intoxicating malt beverages is
prohibited.
E. No banners, streamers, or signs may be attached to the walls of the
Council Chamber or the lobby.
F. Youth groups shall be chaperoned on a ratio of one adult for each 15
youth or fraction thereof. The number of youth attending and the names of
the chaperones shall be submitted with the application. If the general
public is invited, the City Manager and the signer of the application shall
determine the number of chaperones required.
G. The city assumes no liability for loss, damage, injury or ilness incurred
by users of the facility.
H. The signer of the application shall be held personally responsible for any
breakage, damage, loss of equipment and excessive litter or uncleanliness.
All damage must be reported to the City Manager or his representative within
24 hours. The signer of the application shall also indicate that he has read
and understands all the applicable rules and regulations.
I. Hours of use designated on the application must be adhered to.
J. Failure to meet these policies and rules will because for the forfeiture
of future use privileges.
K. Groups cancelling out twice in one year will be given low priority in
reserving future dates, unless the City is notified seven (7) days prior
to cancellation.
U �
-3-
L. All areas of the City Hall, except the Council Chambers, entry corridor,
and restrooms, are restricted from any use by the organization using the
Council Chambers.
VI. Procedure for Applying
A. Organizations requesting use of this facility shall be handled insofar
as possible on a first come, first served basis.
B. Organizations wishing to use the Council Chamber facilities must obtain
an application blank and a set of the rules and regulations for the use of
the Council Chambers. Reservations will not be official until the application
is signed by the City Manager or his representative and the original returned
to the applicant. Reservations will not be accepted over the telephone.
Applications should be submitted as early as possible and at least two weeks
prior to the meeting date.
C. Applicants are required to indicate whether at least one - fourth of the
members are Richfield residents.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 22nd day of November,
1971.
Stanley Olson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Moran, City Clerk
4751 -12
CITY OF RICHFIELD APPLICATION FOR USE OF
6700 PORTLAND AVE. SO. RICHFIELD CITY HALL
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 COUNCIL CHAMBERS
REGULATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
1. Applications must be submitted in triplicate at least two weeks prior to meeting date.
2. Group reservations for regularly scheduled meetings may be made three months in advance.
3. The person making this application and his organization assume individual and joint
obligation for replacements or payment in case of loss or damage resulting from their
use of the building facilities, and agree to abide by the rules established by the City
Council.
4. The Council Chambers will be available from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. A $5.00 fee shall be
charged for any group using the room after 4:30 p.m. on weekdays or at any other time
when city offices are.not open.
5. The city assumes no liability for loss; damage, injury or illness incurred by the
users of the facility.
Requesting Hours Required: From
Organization To
Residents of Richfield compose at least one - fourth of our organization Yes No
DATE OR DATES REQUIRED
1.
4.
7.
10.
13.
16.
19.
22.
2.
5.
8.
11.
14.
17.
20.
23.
3.
6.
9.
12.
15.
18.
21.
24.
Check facilities desired: Blackboard Podium Viewing Screen Floor Microphone
Do you have your own meeting room facilities Yes No
Purpose for which facilities are desired: Expected Attendance
I hereby state that I have read and will adhere to all rules and regulations governing this
facility.
Signature of Applicant Applicant's Address Applicant's telephone No.
Home:
Office:
.te Fee Accepted
Rejected Signature
4751 -13
ry
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of C ity , Manager
Council Letter No. 177
Agenda May 12, 1980
k,-_E.0 L,,-,L &,A
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Gity of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Resolution Appointing a Responsible Authority
and Assigning Duties, for Purposes of Implem-
enting Data Practices Act
The legislative counsel for the League of Minnesota Cities has
recently advised all member cities, including Richfield, that
effective January 1, 1980, all government data collected, created,
received, maintained or disseminated by any city, is public informa-
tion, unless classified as not public, private, or confidential by
state statutes, federal law,.or the Minnesota Commissioner of Ad-
ministration.
Council members are familiar with many of the problems that
Richfield has experienced in responding to requests from media repre-
sentatives and members of the public for information, particularly
for public safety information. Although 1980 legislative amendments
to the data practices act appear to provide us with some means of
controlling access to certain types of public safety information,
the data practices does require that we adopt specific procedures
for the City of Richfield to use in handling requests for informa-
tion.
The first step in implementing the requirements of the data
practices act provides that each city appoint a "Responsible Auth-
ority" and assign that person the duties of administering the act.
Attached to this council letter is a resolution which would designate
this Responsible Authority. The Responsible Authority must be a
named individual, and should probably be the city manager. The
Responsible Authority may select certain other persons in the or=
ganization as "designees" in charge of particular files or types
of data. The designees represent the Responsible Authority in
administering and applying provisions of the data practices act
with regard to the data they manage. It is likely, for instance,
that individuals such as the city clerk and the public safety
director might be selected by the Responsible Authority as desig-
nees, since both of those individuals maintain specific types of
ti
Council Letter No. 177 -2- May 12, 1980
records and information and would be better able to determine
which types of their information fall within which of the categories
for data established by the legislation.
According to the Minnesota Data Practices Act, the Responsi-
ble Authority is required, after appointment, to prepare a public
document containing the procedures which will be used to administer
the act. Richfield does not have a single document which defines
our procedures with regard to information collection and classifica-
tion. Because the legislature has historically amended the data
practices act, and has continually made modifications in the types
of records, files and processes classified by state law, it has
been difficult to keep up with the classifications for certain
types of information. The League of Cities is now developing a
proposed procedural document which can be used by municiapalities,
subsequent to the 1980 legislative amendments to the act. Once
this document is adopted, it will be made available to.all persons
in the city organization dealing with information.
It is imperative that city council members become generally
familiar with the contents of the Minnesota Government Practices
Data Act, including the penalties and liabilities for failure to
properly administer the act. The staff is now preparing, in con-
junction with the city attorney's office, and with assistance from
the League of Cities, a summary of the legislative provisions and
the types of information which the city has that fall into certain
classifications under the act. We will, from time to time, provide
the city council with such additional information concerning the
act, including the document establishing the procedures for admin-
istering certain types of information.
It is recommended that the city council determine who should
serve as the Responsible Authority for administration of the Minn-
esota Government Data Practices Act, and adopt the attached resol-
ution appointing and assigning duties to the Responsible Authority
in accordance with the act.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberg r
City Manager
KN /eja
cc: City Attorney
Program Directors
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPOINTING A RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY
AND ASSIGNING DUTIES REGARDING CITY DATA
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 15.1611 to 15.1698 as amended, requires that this
City appoint one person as the Responsible Authority to administer
the requirements for collection, storage, use and dissemination of
data on individuals, government data, and summary data, within this
city, and
WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned with the responsible use
of'city data and wishes to satisfy this concern by immediately appoint-
ing an administratively qualified Responsible Authority as required
under the Act and assigning duties to that person;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Richfield, Minnesota:
1. The City Council of Richfield, Minnesota, appoints
as the Responsible Authority for the purpose of
meeting all requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.1611 through 15.1698, as amended.
2. The Responsible Authority may designate a city employee or
employees to assist in the administration and enforcement of the duties
of the Responsible Authority and to be in charge of individual files
or systems containing government data and to receive and comply with
requests for government data. If the Responsible Authority appoints
a designee or designees, this appointment must be in writing, and
the city council shall be provided a copy of the appointment. If
designees are appointed, the Responsible Authority shall instruct the
designees in the requirements of administering and enforcing the Minn-
esota Government Data Practices Act.
3. The duties of the Responsible Authority are as provided in
Minnesota Statutes, 1980, Sections 15.162 - 15.1698, commonly known
as the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
4. This resolution implementing the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act shall remain in force.and effect until modified by the
City Council.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th
day of May, 1980.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk
OUTLINE RE: MINNESOTA DATA PRIVACY ACT
I. Richfield City Council names a Responsible Authority
II. Responsible Authority prepares /publishes required Public
Document.
III. Responsible Authority appoints designees to implement Act.
IV. Designees disseminate Act, promulgate procedures, inform
staff.
V. System responds to requests for information by the
General Public and representatives of Media in an on-
going manner.
VI. Responsible Authority /Designees keep abreast of Legislation to
implement any future changes in the Act.
MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE
RICHFIELD CITY C,QUNCIL
"I " ����
RESPONSIBtt AUTHORITY
E GNEES — DES NEES — DESIGNEES
GENERAL PUBLIC MEDIA
* Arrows are intended to more clearly show the dynamics
of and the on -going nature of the Minnesota Data
Privacy Act. Procedures will be changed annually in
order to insure compliance.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 176
Agenda May 12, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Funding Alternatives for Lyndale Avenue
(CP 7052) Lake Shore Drive to 64th Street
Improvements, and Adams Hill Park Improve-
ments
Lyndale Avenue
As you are aware, the city anticipated making improvements
to Lyndale Avenue from 64th Street southward to Lake Shore Drive
in 1980. Almost 60% of the funding for this project ($519,000)
was to be funded by the federal government through the Federal
Aid to Urban Systems (FAU) program. The remaining $357,000 of
the $876,000 project was to be funded from city, county, and
state sources. In April, the President placed a freeze upon the
expenditure of a significant amount of FAUS funding and the City
of Richfield is one of the communities which will not receive
FAU funds for the federal fiscal year 1980. Recent discussions
with our legislators indicate that the cutback in funds will be
temporary with the expectation that additional funds will be
available in October, 1980.
In light of this recent action by the President, the city
staff has analyzed alternative sources of funding and methods of
completing CP 7052. One option would be to carry out CP 7052 in
1980 with use of additional municipal state aid (MSA) funds. The
City of Richfield receives $380,000 per year allocation from the
receipt of the 11G gas tax in Minnesota. These funds can be used
for maintenance of state aid streets ($80,000) and construction
improvements to state aid streets ($300,000). Another option
would be to delay CP 7052 until 1981 and hope that FAU funds would
be available at that time for the project. If the latter option
is followed, very careful coordination would have to occur so
that CP 7052 would not physically conflict with the scheduled 1981
project on 66th Street between I35W and Lyndale Avenue (CP 7053).
This might even involve delay of one of the two projects in or,.?.er
to avoid both being under construction at the same time. A project
using FAU funds is controlled by the state government for bid
letting, etc., while the 66th Street project will be controlled
by Hennepin County. The result is that the city could be in the
coordinating role with very little control over the final results.
Council Letter No. 176 -2- May 12, 1980
The following is an analysis of each of the two options
mentioned, along with some comments about the financial ramifica-
tions of each:
Alternative one assumes that there will be no construction
on either CP 7052 or CP 7053 in 1980, and further, that FAU funds
will be available in 1981 for the construction of CP 7052. Figure
1 (attached) illustrates possible anticipated expenditures of
MSA funds for the years 1980 to 1983. These projects are listed
in our current Capital Improvement Program. As illustrated in
Figure 1, at the present time the city has a balance in the MSA
fund of $1,120,000 and anticipated allotments of an additional
$900,000 in the next three years.- If spending were to occur con-
sistent with this budget, the city would have a December, 1983
balance of $341,500 in the MSA construction budget. Option one
would also anticipate CP 7053 being carried out in 1981 and inter-
section improvements at 66th and Penn Avenue and 66th and Lyndale
Avenues in 1982 and 1983 respectively. As indicated by footnote
on Figure 1, an assumption has been made that beginning in 1981
an annual amount of $50,000 will be allocated for sidewalk improve-
ments. This amount, of course, is subject to approval by the city
council and is included only as an assumption at this time. There
are other smaller projects which can be added to this project bud-
get which will be considered with the.CIP for 1981 -86.
Alternative two assumes the expenditure of MSA funds for the
construction of CP 7052 in 1980. Figure 2 (attached) presents a
more complete budget based upon this alternative. Option 2 would
result in an April, 1980 balance of $1,124,000, allotments for
the period 1981 through 1983 of $900,000, and a December, 1983
ending balance of $60,500. The two major differences between
this option and option 1 are: (1) an additional amount of $481,000
spent for CP 7052 in 1980, and (2) the elimination of the 66th
Street improvement from Penn Avenue to Xerxes Avenue in 1982.
Option 2 also assumes a $50,000 sidewalk program beginning in 1981.
The major advantage of alternative 1 is that it allows the
city to utilize an allocation of $519,000 in FAU funding in 1981.
Assuming that the Presidential freeze on FAU funds is lifted by
1981 and that the Lyndale Avenue project is funded, the city will
receive the allocation of the FAU funds. The State Department of
Transportation (MNDot) informs us that we are very high on their
priority list. Also, if inflation continues and the costs in-
crease, FAU will still pick up 76% of the project cost. Another
advantage to alternate 1 is that it will leave a significant
balance ($341,500) in the MSA construction budget for other pro-
jects in subsequent years and for inflation hedge on existing
projects.
The advantages of alternative two include (1) reconstruction
of CP 7052 in 1980 as budgeted and as anticipated by area mer-
chants and (2) an opportunity for the city to bid the project in
a favorable bidding environment. The major disadvantages of this
option are that the city would in essence "lose" an approximate
Council Letter No. 176 -3- May 12, 1980
amount of $519,000, in FAU funding, and the 66th Street improve-
ment from Penn Avenue to Xerxes Avenue would not be completed in
1982. The latter mentioned project was included after an investi-
gation by the city engineer and MNDot indicated that the stretch
of 66th Street was constructed in a relatively temporary manner and
will be in need of permanent improvements in the near future.
Recent correspondence from the Minnesota Department of Trans-
portation has indicated that there is a possibility that some
communities such as Richfield will be penalized for having large
unexpended balances in their MSA construction accounts. It is
believed that if this option is invoked by the Minnesota Department
of Transportation, the amount of the penalty will not exceed an
amount of $50,000 per annual allotment (in other words, in January
of 1981, the city would receive only $250,000 as opposed to
$300,000 for the construction fund). At this time it is not known
whether this penalty clause will be invoked, but it is not antici-
pated since lack of spending in our case is based on external
factors.
The handbook (State Aid Manual) interpreting the.statute re-
lating to the expenditure of MSA funds indicates that once a city
has brought its entire MSA road system up to acceptable standards,
it may apply for the allocation of additional funds for the con-
struction and maintenance of other roads within the community. To
the best of our knowledge at this time, no community in the State
of Minnesota has ever utilized funds for this purpose. The City
of richfield is nearing the time when all major projects on state
aid roads will be completed and we will be in a position of apply-
ing for this use of the funds.
In summary, there appears to be both positive and negative
ramifications in the utilization of each of the aforementioned
alternatives. Because of the indefinite nature of availability of
federal funds at this point, a certain amount of chance appears
to be involved in the exercise of either of these options.
The staff will be available at the council meeting to discuss
this subject in more detail should the council so desire. Based
upon this analysis, it is recommended that the city fund CP 7052
with FAU funds even though it will mean delaying the project until
1981.
Adams Hill Park
A total of $517,000 has been allocated for improvements to
Adams Hill Park. Sources and timing of allocations for this project
include $100,000 in year IV (8/1/78 to 7/31/79) CDBG funds;
$250,000 in year V (8/1/79 to 7/31/80) CDBG funds and $167,000 in
in LAWCON /LCMR funds in 1980.
At the present time a Presidential freeze has been placed
upon the expenditure of LAWCON funds. LAWCON /LCMR regulations
state that if a project which is reliant upon these funds, such as
Adams Hill Park, is started prior to formal approval then the
Council Letter No. 176 -4- May 12, 1980
project becomes ineligible for the receipt of LAWCON /LCMR monies.
This means that even though CDBG funds are available at this time
for Adams Hill Park, if any of these funds are spent on the pro-
ject, the city can anticipate the loss of $167,000 in LAWCON /LCMR
funds.
On the reverse side, our Year IV CDBG funds must be spent
by August 31, 1980 in order to comply with the two year limitation
on CDBG budgets. Hennepin County has indicated that they will
support our efforts to get a waiver from that provision, but HUD
retains the final approval in the matter.
Presently, we are unable to tell whether the LAWCON /LCMR funds
are .being permanently eliminated or whether a temporary freeze is
being imposed. We should be in a position by June 1 to receive a
more complete report from the Office of Planning and Budgeting of
the State of Minnesota. If the funds are permanently gone, we
will need to supplement this budget from other sources and immed-
iately bid the project. If the funds are temporarily frozen, we
will need to get the year IV CDBG funds spent on another project
to be replaced for year VI (8/1/80 - 8/1/81) CDBG funds.
It is recommended that the city council delay decision of
the CDBG funds reallocation until the June 9 city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /eja
cc: HRA Commissioners
Community Development Director
Community Services Director
M. S. A. CONSTRUCTION BUDGET
(Assuming CP7052 uses F.A.U. Funds in 1981)
Figure 1
YEAR ITEM
EXPENDITURE
ALLOTMENT
BALANCE
1980 April Balance
$1,124,000
Portland and C.S.A. 62
Traffic Signal
$ 7,500
Lyndale Project (65th to 66th
50,000
east side)
TOTAL 1980 Expenditures
$ 57,500
December Balance
$1,066,500
1981 January Allotment
$300,000
CP7053
$473,000
CP7052
152,000
Sidewalk*
50,000
TOTAL 1981 Expenditures
$675,000
December Balance
$691,500
1982 January Allotment
$300,000
66th & Penn Intersection
$250,000
66th Penn to Xerxes(curb
200,000
and pavement)
Sidewalk*
50,000
TOTAL 1982 Expenditures
$500,000
December Balance
$391.500
1983 January Allotment
$300,000
Lyndale Avenue 67th to 494
(MSA Share)
$250,000
66th & Portland Intersection
$150,000
"
Sidewalk*
50,000
Total 1983 Expenditures
$450,000
December Balance
$341,500
*Note: The budget has not specifically allowed any funding for sidewalk
construction and a city policy has not been established at this
time. However, in that the council has expressed interest in this
area an annual amount of $50,000 starting in 1981 has been in-
cluded. This amount is obviously subject to modification.
Figure II
` M. S. A. CONSTRUCTION BUDGET
(Assuming CP7052 Uses MSA Funds in 1980
YEAR ITEM EXPENDITURE ALLOTMENT BALAN,
1980 April Balance
$1,124,000
Portland and C.S.A. 62
Traffic Signal
$ 7,500
Lyndale Project (65th to 66th
50,000
street east side)
CP7052
633,000
TOTAL 1980 Expenditures
690,500
December Balance
$433,500
1981 January Allotment
$300,000
CP7053
$473,000
Sidewalk*
50,000
TOTAL 1981 Expenditures
$523,000
December Balance
$210,500
1982 January Allotment
$300,000
66th & Penn Intersection
$250,000
Sidewalk*
50,000
TOTAL 1982 Expenditures
$300,000
December Balance
$210,500
1983 January Allotment
$300,000
Lyndale Avenue 67th to 494
(MSA Share)
$250,000
66th & Portland Intersection
$150,000
Sidewalk*
50,000
TOTAL 1983 Expenditures
$450,000
December Balance
$ 60,500
*Note: The budget has not specifically allowed any funding for sidewalk
construction and a city policy has not been established at this
time. However, in that the council has expressed interest in
this area, an annual amount of $50,000 starting in 1981 has been
included. This amount is obviously subject to modification.
�7
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for
to Allow a
76th Street
Council Letter No. 175
Agenda May 12, 1980 ,
Variance and Off - Street Parking Permit
Six Story Office Building at 1400 West
In 1972, the city council approved a special use permit, off -
street parking permit, preliminary plat, final plat and liquor license
for The Bourbon and Basin Restaurant to be located on the subject
site. This restaurant was never constructed.
In January, 1976, the city council approved a special use permit
and an off - street parking permit for The Butterfield Overland Express
Restaurant on the site. In March, 1977, the council denied a request
for an amendment to the special use permit to allow traffic from the.
site to exit onto 76th Street. Later in 1977, the applicant withdrew
his application for a liquor license, and the restaurant was never
built.
Proposal
Erickson and Sons, Inc. have purchased the 159,460 square foot
site and are proposing to construct a six -story 72,856 gross square
foot office building on the site. The site is zoned C -2 General
Commercial. Corporate Travel, Inc. will occupy one floor of the build-
ing, with the remainder of the space to be leased to other tenants.
A two -level parking deck will be constructed south of the build-
ing and will provide parking for 327 cars. Access to the deck would
be provided from 76th Street. Exterior building materials will in-
clude exposed aggregate concrete panels and glass on the building.
Substantial landscaping will be used to soften the appearance of
the parking ramp.
The applicant has indicated he will be requesting the city to
issue revenue bonds to finance the development.
Zoning and Other Ordinance Requirements
There is some confusion as to whether this request should be
considered as a variance or a special use permit. The city attorney
has indicated in the attached memorandum that he feels it should be
considered as a request for variance. The relevant ordinance sec-
tions are as follows:
Council Letter No. 175 -2 May 12, 1980
1. Section 3.33, Subdivision 5 of the zoning ordinance limits
building heights to three stories or 40 feet, subject to
the modifications and exceptions listed in Section 3.39
of the zoning ordinance.
2. Section 3.33, Subdivision 7 of the zoning ordinance allows
the council to grant an exception to the height requirements
if it finds that the project "encourages a more creative
and efficient use of the land and to environmental design
if the project is consistent with the purposes of the reg-
ulations."
3. Section 3.30, Subdivision 1, paragraph 2 of the zoning or-
dinance allows buildings to be constructed in a C -2 zoning
district to a height exceeding 3 stories or 40 feet if a
variance is obtained in accordance with Section 3.41 of
the zoning ordinance. The total floor area of the building
shall not exceed that which could be constructed if the
normal height limit were adhered to.
4. Section 3.40, Subdivision 6 lists conditions which the city
council must find to exist on the property before it may
grant a variance. The city attorney is working on an amend-
ment to this ordinance in order to bring it more closely
into conformance with state law.
5. Section 4.5 of the ordinance lists standards for off - street
parking areas.
Because the proposed office use is permitted in a C -2 zoning
district and because all zoning ordinance requirements, except height,
will be met, the variance is for the extra height only. Therefore,
review of this request should be limited to height- related issues.
Staff Findings - Variance
In reviewing the variance request against the three conditions
which must be present on the site if a variance is to be granted,
the staff came to the following conclusions:
1. Consideration of special conditions present on the site
not common to other sites in Richfield. The site is large
enough in terms of area and width to allow a 72,000 square
foot building to be constructed on the site without exceed-
ing the three story limitation. The site is 20 -30 feet
lower than surrounding properties. The proposed develop-
ment would be 5 stories above surrounding property, however.
The applicant has indicated that the poor soil conditions
existing on the south and middle portion of the site limit
development to the north portion of the site. Development
could occur in the poor soil areas, but extensive piling
would be required. Detailed soil tests of the whole site
Council Letter No. 175 -3- May 12, 1980
have not been completed. This information would be neces-
sary to the degree of hardship which the poor soils present
to the applicant. The council could make the judgment
that conditions exist which are not common to other sites.
2. Consideration of the variance being necessary to protect sub-
stantial property rights. The site could be developed with-
in the height limitations of the ordinance with the same area
as the proposed six -story building as described above. Num-
erous other alternative uses could also be developed on the
site within the height restrictions. It may be that denial
of the variance would not prevent the applicant from making
reasonable use of his property. Alternatively, it may prove
to be economically infeasible to develop the site in other
than the proposed method.
3. Consideration of whether the proposal would not be detrimental
to the general public welfare. The site is located in a
highly visible area of the city. Because of the aesthetic
appearance of the building and site it is very important to
maintain a positive community image. The extra height of
the building makes the building even more visible. The pro-
posed building and site will have a unique and good aesthetic
appearance through its use of quality building materials and
through the use of substantial landscaping materials on the
site.
The building would not be in character with the existing scale
of Richfield. There is only one building in Richfield which
is six or more stories in height. The building would not be
detrimental to the character of the community because the
site is in a commercial area adjacent to high volume free-
ways and sufficient distance away from residential uses.
Landscaped open space would be maintained around the build-
ing to help reduce the impact of the extra height.
The shadow of a proposed six -story building would not adversely
affect adjacent properties. (See attached Shadow Analysis).
The Public Safety Department has reviewed this request and has
no problem with the extra height. They will require that the building
be sprinklered and that fire vehicle access be maintained to at least
one side of the building.
The proposed development would result in an increase in property
tax revenues to the city of from $120,000 to $150,000 annually, de-
pending on what the final market value is determined to be.
Council Letter No. 175 -4- May 12, 1980
Staff Findings - Off- Street Parking Permit
The proposed development will provide 327 off - street parking
spaces, while city guidelines indicate that 365 spaces should be
provided. Sufficient land area exists on the site to provide 365
spaces.
The major traffic issue in this case is how development of the
site will affect the traffic volume on 76th Street. The neighbor-
hood perceives 76th Street as a neighborhood street but as its high
traffic volume indicates, it has developed into a minor - arterial
street. This presents problems to neighborhood residents who have
to back out of their driveways onto 76th Street, and to pedestrians
who try to cross the street. The neighborhood has concerns about
additional development which will make existing problems worse.
On the other side of the issue is the fact that the city must
allow property owners reasonable use of their property. The city's
comprehensive plan indicates that the site should be developed as
high density mixed land use including multiple dwellings, office,
research industrial, hotel, motel, institutional or retail commer-
cial. The site is zoned general commercial. Because of the site's
proximity to 35W and 494, single family residential use would not
seem appropriate. Therefore, commercial or office use would be a
reasonable and appropriate use of the property.`
Using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation
rates, the proposed development would generate an average of 852 ad-
ditional weekday trips on surrounding streets. The developer has
estimated that 250 of the vehicles coming to or leaving the site (213
trips) would come from or go onto 35W. Seventy -five percent of the
vehicles would travel 76th Street (639 trips). Of this 75 percent,
30 percent (256 trips) would distribute evenly in the eastbound and
westbound directions traveling to or coming from Richfield, Edina
or other areas. Forty -five percent (383 trips) would be going or
coming from Bloomington and Burnsville on 35W via Penn Avenue or
Lyndale Avenue and 76th Street. A traffic count conducted in
September, 1979, showed that the volume of traffic on 76th Street
adjacent to the site is 15,730 vehicles per day. The total increase
on 76th Street would be 639 trips, or 4 percent. Assuming the traf-
fic increase is evenly distributed in each direction, the increase
at any one location would be 2 percent. This increase would not be
significant when taken by itself. A more recent traffic count con-
ducted by the state highway department showed a traffic volume of
12,299 vehicles per day on 76th Street adjacent to the site. The dif-
ference in the traffic counts is not explained.
A general office type use of this land would generate less traf-
fic than many other kinds of uses which would be permitted in a
general commercial zoning district. Again, using ITE trip generation
rate estimates, the following additional trips could be generated:
Council Letter No. -5- May 12, 1980
100
Room Hotel:
958
Trips
50,000
Square Foot Shopping Center:
3,955
Trips
50,000
Square Foot Discount Store:
3,230
Trips
2,000
Square Foot Drive -In Restaurant:
1,106
Trips
In addition to higher trip generation rates, the above uses
would have longer hours of operation. A general office building is
used from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. on weekdays while other commercial uses
could be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Potential uses with lower trip generation rates would include
,the following:
300 Seat quality restaurant: 360 Trips
10,000 Square Foot Medical Office Building:750 Trips
Service Station 748 Trips
50,000 Square Foot Research Center: 467 Trips
The increase of traffic on 76th Street could be reduced by pro-
viding an additional exit on another street. Two possibilities
exist. First, 77th Street could be extended across the adjacent
property to the east to serve the property. This could be done as
either a public street or a private drive. This is not recommended
because it would increase traffic into the adjacent residential area
and would divide up the adjacent vacant Lyons property and limit its
future development.
Another option would be to construct a private drive adjacent to
the 35W and I -494 right -of -way, to connect to 78th Street. This
would require an access easement from the adjacent property owner
and would probably require removal of the end unit of the Clover Leaf
Motel. This would allow traffic going to or coming from Lyndale
Avenue to use 78th Street rather than 76th Street. The applicant has
reached a verbal agreement with Mrs. Lyons, the adjacent property
owner, to allow the construction of a one -way, exit only road to
78th Street south of the Clover Leaf Motel. It is the staff's op-
inion that a two -way access road rather than a one -way "exit only"
road should be provided to reduce as much as possible, the amount
of traffic using 76th Street.
The installation of traffic signals at the proposed 76th Street
entrance could potentially reduce congestion on 76th Street and pro-
vide safer pedestrian crossings. The applicant is exploring this
option with the state highway department. Traffic Signals are not
currently scheduled to be installed at this location. Signals are
tentatively scheduled to be installed in 1982 on 76th Street at the
ramp on the west side of 35W. Preliminary analysis indicates that
with the projected traffic increase from the proposed development,
traffic signals at the 76th Street entrance to the site would be
warranted. If the signal is warranted it could potentially be in-
stalled at the same time as the signals on the west side of 35W.
Scheduling of the installation is contingent upon the availability
of state and federal funds. If the city or the developer funds the
project, it could potentially be completed sooner.
Council Letter No. 175 -6- May 12, 1980
Staff Recommendations
The proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare and
would be an appropriate use of the site. The proposal is a creative
and efficient approach to the use of the site and to environmental
design. It is recommended that the variance to allow a six -story
building not exceeding 75 feet be approved.
It is recommended that the off - street parking layout be approved,
and that the staff be authorized to execute an off - street parking
contract with the following stipulations:
a. That off - street parking spaces for 365 cars be provided
on the site.
b. That a two -way access road to 78th Street be provided.
c. That traffic signals at the 76th Street entrance be
provided.
d. That appropriate signage be installed in the parking lot
area to encourage usage of the 78th Street exit.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /jf
cc: Community Development Director
City Attorney
O
M
3-
rn
I
m
O
rn
V)
rn
r
rn
O
%
U)
%
z
4
L
r
P
z
-sF �- may`_c�iT iii �. /. / j / -
U
WEST 76th STREET
al
I
PROPOSAL FOR
:-L INC .
CORPORATE TRAVEL
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA V✓BR ARCHMECTS i
•
� 3 3
F
I f� -i J •.
in
be
vJ
co
._ \� iii• �
Z � r
�8
rc71
��r�
77, V 1
w
33
� T
1
r
;c
il
ik d NNNu1J
It
ERICKSON & SONS, INC.
APARTMENTS AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES
410 MINNESOTA BUILDING
THOMAS E. ERICKSON 46 EAST FOURTH STREET
CHARLES W. ERICKSON SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 OFFICE: 612/224.5843
STEVEN E. WIRTH
March 10,1980
Mr. Rick Jopke
Planner, City of Richfield
Richfield, MN
Dear Mr. Jopke:
J.E. Erickson & Sons is herewith submiting an application for a
Special Use Permit to allow the construction of a six story office
building. While the structure otherwise conforms with all zoning
and planning guidelines, it would exceed the 40 foot height limitation
by being a total of 85 feet to the top of the elevator penthouse,
74 feet to the top of roof parapet.
It is felt that a height allowance would be justifiable in this
case for the following reasons:
1. The area is naturally a low lying area and needs
special consideration to just bring it up to the
road elevations.
2. N larger building would be a more effective sound
barrier for the neighborhood to shield it from
I -35 W and I -494.
3. The building should be of similar massing and
scale as the Naegle Building across 35 W to
balance the view.
4. A building of this scale allows for an efficient
floor area for leasing, and an efficient size
building for operation to take advantage of energy
conservation measures.
5. The soil conditions are unfavorable and thus would
create a hardship if forced to spread the building out.
6. A taller building would create more open space by
using up less of the site.
We appreciate your consideration of this matter and looking forward
to working with the City on this development.
Yours truly,
J._ ERI KSON & ' S`bNS
Charles W. Erickson
THOMAS E. ERICKSON
CHARLES W. ERICKSON
STEVEN E. WIRTH
ERICKSON & SONS, INC.
APARTMENTS AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES
410 MINNESOTA BUILDING
46 EAST FOURTH STREET
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
April 18, 1980
Mr. Rick Jopke
Planner, City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave. So.
Richfield, Minnesota
Dear Rick:
OFFICE: 612/224 -5843
We are herewith requesting a variance for the construction of
a six story office building, located on 76th Street and 35W.
The variance would allow a building of 75 feet in height, as
opposed to your normal height of 40 feet. We feel that there
are special circumstances that affect this property and that
strict adherence to the restrictions would cause us undue
hardship.
The first reason is that the ground conditions on the south
and middle areas of the property are very soft and would require
extensive piling. The better ground conditions are found to
the north of the property so that it would be necessary to
locate the structure on only a limited part of the ground area
and this would be towards the north end. A compariably sized
building would occupy twice the land area and would be forced
onto the poor soil conditions in the middle of the site.
Secondly, the construction of a building with a floor area of
24,000 sq. feet per floor would be economically and energywise
inefficient and this would create a further hardship on the
utilization of the land. A commercial floor area of this size
is more than the optimum for the size of tenancy anticipated
and it is felt would adversely affect the marketability of the
rental space. Furthermore, the building would have more
outside exposure per gross square feet of floor area and this
would make a more energy inefficient design. A further economic
hardship would be caused by the fact that a building with a
greater ground coverage would make necessary a greater proportion
of enclosed parking spaces. Since an enclosed space is approxi-
mately three times as expensive as open, ground level parking, the
construction cost would be considerably greater with no change
in rentable area.
[N
Page 2
While these agruments outline the hardship caused by limiting
the building to 40 feet, according to subdivision 7 of Section
3.3, a variance may also be granted on design considerations. A
project such as that proposed, we feel, perfectly fits the
guidelines that "the project encourages a more creative and
efficient approach to the use of land and to environmental -
design. . ." Our project is one that uses less ground area,
has less bulk, is of an energy conscience design, and is generally
a dynamic approach to a highly visible buffer between the traffic
and congestion on the freeway and the residential area to the north.
It is earnestly felt that the granting of this variance is necessary
for the full enjoyment and utilization of this property and would.
in no way adversely affect the health, safety and enjoyment of
the surrounding neighborhood.
Y rs truly,
r
1
Charles W. Erickson
CLUE: pw
THOMAS E. ERICKSON
CHARLES W. ERICKSON
STEVEN E. WIRTH
ERICKSON & SONS, INC.
APARTMENTS AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES
410 MINNESOTA BUILDING
46 EAST FOURTH STREET
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
March 17, 1980
Mr. Rick Jopke
Planner, City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Rick:
OFFICE: 612/224.5843
Pursuant to our conversation Friday, I am enclosing a request for
a parking variance for our project at 76th Street and I -35 W.
The reasons for such a variance are as follows:
1. When we computed the gross square footage for parking
purposes we deducted those areas that do not contribute
in any way possible to the parking load, i.e., the
mechanical areas, stairwells, thickness of the perimeter
walls, lack of 2nd floor over entry lobby, etc. This
"adjusted" gross square footage includes all corridors,
lobbys and leaseable areas and is felt to be a more
accurate representation of our parking requirements.
2. Current ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) state that
an average office building requires four parking spaces
per 1000 square feet of gross area. By this standard
our building would require parking for 292 vehicles. Our
plan calls for 327, well above the ITE recommendations.
3. Your ordinance to my knowledge does not differentiate
between retail and office use. Our building which will
be of a general use would require fewer parking spaces
than a retail use.
4. Present trends in automobile use and driving habits in-
dicate a downswing in overall automobile use. Car
pooling and the fact that the project is on a bus line
should moderate the amount of parking necessary.
Again to state, because of the computation of the adjusted gross
area we do not necessarily feel that a variance is required.
Mr. Rick Jopke
March 17, 1980
Page Two
However, if it is, the aforementioned reasons hopefully will
provide a good enough logic and basis for granting such a
parking variance.
CWE /bas
Enclosure
I
Yours truly,
J.,.E ER KSON� -A SONS
j � s
Charles W. Erickson
ERICKSON & SONS, INC.
APARTMENTS AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES
410 MINNESOTA BUILDING
THOMAS E. ERICKSON 46 EAST FOURTH STREET
CHARLES W. ERICKSON SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
STEVEN E. WIRTH
NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
Thursday, February 28, 1980
7:30 P.M.
Berea Lutheran Church
7538 Emerson Avenue
in the Main Basement
OFFICE: 612/224 -5843
This is to announce the presentation of a prelimary plan for
the development of the site located at 76th Street and I -35W
(formerly owned by Naegle's).
The proposed plan calls for the construction of a 75,000 square
foot, six story office building with an integrated parking ramp.
As developers, we would appreciate hearing the neighborhood's
comments in order to address your concerns before the final
application is made to the City Council.
This announcement is being mailed to all the residents of
Dupont, Emerson, Fremont, Girard, and Humboldt Avenue be-
tween 75th and 77th Streets. If anyone should know of others
who may be interested, please invite them to the meeting.
Thank You.
Charles W. Erickson, President
4Lo,
Se)
Ckr A%ot""
r
14 C� c� L f- zo-
"Y' ^If
'Ell r t:.�C3L�. �� �f � "� yr/r � � - r ` � �,�1' /f � •�• • , .i r �f / i � ,j 1 �. P. 7 .
C
Al
j
4t
D
5- 7
3 •0.
� ,
e.)7
1A
J,
5- d,5- e-", IJ
75-39 -4 �w
a S
Y 3,2
V
T
SHADOW ANALYSIS
c
y = height of buiding = 74 feet
x = length of shadow
6 = angle of sun
Tan G = Y
x
X = y
Tang
azimuth = Angle from true south
Worst Case: Dec. 21
TIME
SUN ANGLE
AZIMUTH
LENGTH OF
SHADOW
8
AM, 4
PM
30
530
1,412
Feet
9
AM, 3
PM
110
410
381
Feet
10
AM, 2
PM
170
290
242
Feet
11
AM, 1
PM
210
150
193
Feet
12
Noon
220
00
183
Feet
-2-
Shadows would only affect surrounding properties at 8 AM and 4 PM.
However, the sun is so low at those times that the amount of light
really is not intense enough to cast a 1,412 foot shoadow. Nine o'
clock can, therefore, be used as the beginning time to evaluate
shadows and 3 PM the ending time. This would also leave 6 hours of
sun exposure which is necessary for solar collectors. As can be
seen on the attached map, the building shadow will not fall on any
structures between the hours of 9 AM and 3PM and, therefore, would
not have any adverse effects on surrounding property.
i
A A'11140il�. Intr--
:fit
It
rt
1 31
r-
rk
Alk
rl-
M.
W-1 -4
wig?,
pe"
ia Ash
�: 44- ---'d
RUA 30"
Fm
A-1
STAFF TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
TRIP GENERATION RATES FOR GENERAL OFFICE BUILDINGI
11.69 average weekday trips per 1,000 gross square feet
2.34 total average AM peak -hour per 1,000 gross square feet
2.09 total average PM peak hour trips per 1,000 gross sq. ft.
GROSS FLOOR AREA OF PROPOSED BUILDING: 72,856 sq. ft.
AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRIPS: 11.69 x 72.856 = 851.69 trips per day
AVERAGE TOTAL AM PEAK HOUR:
AVERAGE TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR:
2.34 x 72.856 = 170.48 trips
2.09 x 72.856 = 152.27 trips
DISTRIPUTION: 1) 25% exit directly onto 35W: 213 trips
2) 75% traffic must use 76th Street: 639 trips
a. 30% use 76th to go east or west to
Richfield or Edina: 256 trips
b. 45% use 76th to get to 494 and southbound
35W via Lyndale or Penn Ave.: 383 trips
Existing volume on 76th Street: 15,730 cars.
PERCENTAGE INCREASE OF TRAFFIC ON 76th SREET:
Total: 16,369 . 15,730 = 1.04 = 4% increase
Assuming traffic is equally distributed between east and
westbound directions, the percentage increase on any portion
of 76th Street would then be 2 percent.
1• Source: Institute of Engineers Informational 1976 Report on
Trip Generation -
rOTAL E5 liviW( �-D
Q5% EXIT/ENPa!z 0M.C.-CTLY ONTO I -35W
To MII,WEAPOL-16
TO
121U4FIBLD AND 1~DiNk
7CO T:4 'jT CRL I- A"
46010 Mu!>T F =ersD 'SOUT44 TO eLcl2 ' mZ -Tow
ADD
�- VaNUlf VIA Pait4 AND L`fNCA C
n
V�.�11GLE� T�IAT MU6T T NSL ON i�
Z' Tk1 STREET
Js
A,55UMG \4EWC SS SPUT VQL`f BETWGS9 FAST EUNe
pup WeST SCUQD ; TAE =ti FOwC- Tj4E jr -4ZSI.�S ON k4
�GC.T14N OF ?MTR 15TIZMET �5TW6EN pEl.11� A�1CJ
L.`�t.�PALtE DF
��
Z" TZIPS
310 TZIF$
Mco / oA.Y
I. 3 ck2�/.c
I
ILf
400
2LO
TRAVFI IMr-
4.
TRAVFI IMr-
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Clayton LeFevere
DATE: April 4, 1980
Subject: Request Before the Richfield Planning Commission For
Permission To Build a Six Story Office Building at
76th Street and I -35W
This memorandum is a response to the questions raised by Mr.
Rick Jopke, Associate Planner, in his letter to you dated March
26, 1,980, concerning the matter mentioned above.
I. Relevant Provisions of the Richfield Code of Ordinances.
The property in question is zoned "C -2" for general commer-
cial development under Section 3.33 of the Richfield Code of
Ordinances. Ark office building of the kind proposed is a per-
mitted use under that section, but subdivision 5 thereof provides
as follows:
"In a "C -2" district no building shall here-
after be erected or structurally altered to
exceed three stories of 40 feet in height,
subject to the modifications and exceptions
provided in Section 3.39 of this chapter."
Section 3.39, subd. 1(2) in turn provides:
"Upon acquiring of a special permit as pro-
vided in section 3.41 of this chapter, any
building may be erected to a height exceeding
that hereinbefore specified for the respec-
tive district; but the total floor area of
the building shall not exceed that possible
for a building in the district erected within
the height limit specified in this chapter or
a total of 75 feet,' whichever is the lower."
Section 3.41 of the Code is entitled "Special Use Permits" and
details general substantive and procedural aspects of such per-
mits. This section, therefore, could be interpreted as providing
for the granting of height limitations under Sections 3.41.
However, it would appear to be more consistent with general
zoning concepts to interpret it as providing that if a special
permit is obtained under Section 3.41 it is then also possible to
obtain a height variance (under Section 3.40). Notwithstanding
this ultimate reference to the special use permit section of the
Zoning Code, it is noteworthy that subdivision 2 of Section 3.33
( "C -2" General Commercial District), which is entitled "Uses by
Special Use Permit," makes no reference to height restrictions as
being .a possible "special use" within such districts. Instead,
Subdivision 7 of Section 3.33 provides as follows:
"Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.40
the council may grant an exception or an
adjustment to any of the requirements of this
section where the council finds that the
project encourages a more creative and effi-
cient approach to the use of land and to
environmental design than is provided under
the strict application of the zoning regula-
tions of the city, provided that the project
is consistent with the purposes of such
regulations."
Finally, Section 3.40, "Board of Adjustment and Appeals,"
provides in Subdivision 2(2) that the board shall have the power-
"To hear requests for variances from the
literal provisions of this part in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause
undue hardship because of circumstances
unique to the individual property under
consideration, and to grant such variances
only when it is demonstrated that such ac-
tions will be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of this part."
K
This variance procedure of the Zoning Code is basically equiva-
lent to the variance provisions _.of the municipal planning act,
particularly Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, subd. 6(2).
II. Variance Versus Special Use Permit.
It is of considerable importance to determine whether the
request to build a six story building in a three story district
is a request for a variance or for a special use permit.under the
Code and other existing law because this determination will in
large part indicate the manner in which the City should approach
the request and the bases and procedure upon which it should
grant or deny it. Under Section 3.33 of the Richfield Zoning
i
Code, since extra height of buildings is not specifically men-
tioned as a special use under subd. 2, since subd. 7 specifically
refers to Sectnion 3.40 in connection with granting an exception
to any of the requirements of the section (including the par-
ticular height regulations of subd. 5), and since Section 3.40
deals particularly with variance from the literal provisions of
the Zoning Code, I conclude that the issue presented here is
basically one of a request for a variance and not a request for a
special use permit.
The Minnesota Supreme Court indicated the difference between
a variance provision and a special use permit provision when it
stated in Zylka v. City of Crystal, 167 N.W.2d 45, 49 (Minn.
1969): -
3
"Unlike a variance provision which permits
particular property to be used in a manner
forbidden by the ordinance, a special -use
permit provision permits property, within the
discretion of the governing body, to be used
in a manner expressly authorized by the
ordinance."
A typical example of a special use provision would be the
allowance for churches in a single family residential district.
Obviously, these types of uses are necessary in such districts,
but the municipality needs to retain some measure of control over
their location so that such things as density of these uses,
traffic considerations, and other relevant matters can be con-
sidered and provided for. In many cases, a special use within a
district is accompanied by a set of standards which will indicate
in a general way when that use is permissible and thus when the
permit for that use should be granted. In-theory, if the appli-
cant for a special use permit has met all of the standards for
the issuance of that permit outlined in the applicable zoning
ordinance, then the governing body has no choice but to issue the
permit, and its actions in such cases are administrative or
quasi - judicial. Sun Oil Company v. Village of New Hope, 220
N.W.2d 256 (Minn. 1974).
If the applicable zoning ordinance outlines no criteria
under which a special use permit will be granted, but simply
states that, for example, a corner grocery store will be a per-
mitted use in a certain residential district, then the applicant
is entitled to the permit if the applicant:
0
" ... establishes that the requested use is
compatible with the basic use authorized
within the particular zone and does not
endanger the public health or safety or the
general welfare of the area affected or the
community as a whole." Zylka, supra, 167
N.W.2d at 49.
In theory, the granting or denying of an application for a
variance is much less subject to judicial review, that is, it is
a question which is reserved for the broad discretion of the
applicable governing body. As the Minnesota Supreme Court stated
in Holasek v. Village of Medina, 226 N.W.2d 900, 903 (Minn.
1975):
"The allowance of a variance is compelled
only where there has been an unlawful taking
of property in a constitutional sense, demon-
strated by the landowner's inability to put
his land to any beneficial use unless the
variance is granted."
Similarly, in Westling v. City of St. Louis Park, 170 N.W.2d 218
(Minn. 1969), the Minnesota Supreme Court also indicated that a
variance is a departure from the strict terms of the zoning
ordinance so as to preclude virtual confiscation of property
whereas the special use permit is a device which lends necessary
flexibility to the ordinance, and the Westling Court cited at
page 222 the "broad discretion conferred on the City Council to
grant or deny a variance .... " Minnesota Statutes, Section
462.357, subd. 6(2) itself indicates that variances are to be
granted only in unusual circumstances. It provides in part that
the Board of Appeals and Adjustments shall:
5
" ..hear requests for variances from the
literal provisions of the ordinance in instan-
ces where their strict enforcement would
cause undue hardship because of circumstances
unique to the individual property under
consideration, and to grant such variances
only when it is demonstrated that such ac-
tions will be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the ordinance." (emphasis added)
A typical example of a variance occurred in the case of
Curry v. Young, 173 N.W.2d 410 (1969), which involved a request
for a variance from setback requirements for single family homes.
Without the variance, the plaintiff would have been able to build
a house 11.6 feet wide at one end, 6 feet wide at the other end,
and 40 feet long. Obviously, these requirements rendered the
parcel virtually useless for the erection of a single family
unit, and the Court said this was an example of undue hardship
and ordered that the plaintiff be allowed to build a house with
dimensions of „,24 feet by 40 feet. A somewhat similar rationale
prevailed in Pearce v. Village of Edina, 118 N.W.2d 659 (Minn.
1962), which involved a request for a rezoning of property sur-
rounded by commercially zoned property. In this case, the Court
said that it was unreasonable not to grant the request for re-
zoning since the property was virtually useless unless it was
zoned in conformity with the parcels around it.
III. Relevant Grounds for Granting or Denying the Requested Vari-
ance.
Assuming that the request before the Richfield Planning
Commission is actually one for a variance of the height restric-
tions of Section 3.33, subd. 5 of the Richfield Zoning Code, the
6
question remains what factors and considerations the Commission
should take into account when dealing with this request. The
Holasek case cited above; Section 3.40, subd. 2(2); and Section
462.357, subd. 6(2) of the Minnesota Statutes suggest that the
applicant must show "undue hardship" to substantiate its entitle-
ment to the requested variance. A standard such as "undue
hardship" is primarily a question of the particular facts and
circumstances surrounding the piece of property, including its
size, its adaptability for other development, and the use and
character of surrounding parcels, among other actions. Its
elevation in relation to adjacent streets and other properties
could be a factor. Certainly the extreme example presented in
the Curry case discussed above constituted an "undue hardship" on
the owner of the particular parcel. In this situation, the owner
of the property at 76th Street and I -35W can certainly build a
three story building of the same use and general dimension in
place of the proposed six story structure, and apparently a
conforming building with the same total of floor space as the
proposed building could also be built on the parcel. A conform-
ing use may not put the property to the most optimal use from the
landowners' perspective, but it is doubtful that a municipal
determination that insistence upon this height restriction will
not cause the landowner "undue hardship" could successfully be
challenged. On the other hand, it is unlikely that a municipal
decision in favor of granting the variance in this instance would
be subject to successful challenge.- In Merriam Park Community
7
Council, Inc. v. McDonough, 210 N.W.2d 416 (Minn. 1973), a neigh-
borhood group challenged the granting of a number of variances
which allowed the construction of a 32 unit apartment building in
a residential neighborhood. There were a number of variances
granted which effectively allowed a larger apartment building to
be built, fewer than normal parking spaces to be provided, and
setback and other requirements to be waived. The Supreme Court
upheld the lower Court's decision affirming the City's granting
of the variances and said that such decisions are reserved to the
judgment and discretion of the City involved. The Court also
said that it would not substitute its own judgment in such
matters unless the City acted outside of its jurisdiction, there
was a. mistake of applicable law, or the decision was arbitrary,
opressive, or unreasonable. In granting the variance the City
might also wish to place reliance upon Subdivision 7 of Section
3.33, although ""design considerations are not mentioned as a basis
for a variance in the statute.
The principal ground upon which a variance should be denied,
if it is denied, is that adherance to the restrictions sought to
be varied would not cause the landowner "undue hardship." The
reason here might be that the owner can still construct a three
story building on the parcel, and whether or not this is feasible
from the landowner's economic perspective is not relevant to the
issue from the City's zoning perspective. Requests for rezonings
are analagous to variance requests in the sense that they seek to
change the applicable restrictions for particular parcels or
areas, and in this context, our Supreme Court has upheld adher-
ence to existing regulations upon the justification given by the
City involved that it simply wanted to observe and keep intact
its comprehensive land use and zoning plans and ordinances.
Sun Oil Company v. Village of New Hope, 220 N.W.2d 256 (Minn.
1974); Kelber v. City of St. Louis Park, 185 N.W.2d 526 (Minn.
1971).
IV. Traffic Impact Not Relevant.
Mr. Jopke has asked for our opinion on whether or not it
would be permissible to consider traffic issues in reviewing the
request to build a six story building on this property, especial-
ly in view of the fact that a conforming building could be built
on the site which would have an identical traffic impact on the
area. Although the law on this question is not unmistakably
clear in Minnesota, there is a strong indication in the case law
that it would not be appropriate to consider traffic factors
under these circumstances. The leading. case in this regard is
Inland Construction Company v. City of Bloomington, 195 N.W.2d
558 (Minn. 1972). Inland involved a request for a special use
permit to build a residential shopping center in an area that was
specifically zoned for retail stores. However, the ordinance
specifically required a special use permit for such shopping
centers and also enumerated a number of conditions which would
determine whether such a permit would be granted. One of those
conditions had to do with traffic congestion. It was undisputed
9
in the case that the same development could have occurred without
any special use permits if done piece by piece by seperate land-
owners. It was also clear that the traffic results would be the
same whether the area was developed individually or as a part of
a coordinated plan. The city denied the special use permit
partly on the ground that it was not able affirmatively to find
that the proposed development would not have adverse traffic,
glare, noise, and other nuisance side effects. In discussing
this aspect of the case, the Court observed in 195 N.W.2d at 567:
"As we have pointed out, the burden of proof
on the issue of traffic and nuisance factors
should be a very light burden of proof in
this case because all those factors would
have been present if the same or similar uses
had been made as permitted under the ordi-
nance. The same traffic ultimately would
` have been drawn to the area by the W.T. Grant
Co. Store if it had been built initially
without being a part of a shopping center and
had later become a part of a complex of
retail stores."
On this basis, the Inland case can be read for the proposition
that it is generally not permissible, in the context of deter-
mining whether a special use permit or a variance should be
granted, to consider factors and impacts which could occur under
ordinarily permitted development in the district.
A similar analogy can be drawn from the case of Metro 500 v..
City of Brooklyn Park, 211 N.W.2d 358 (Minn. 1973). There the
plaintiff had applied for a special use permit to build a gas
station in a commercially zoned area of the city. The City
denied the request on the ground that there were a number of
10
filling stations already in existence in the area and that thus
that particular use was completely unbalanced with other commer-
cial uses in the area. The City cited the fact that there were
eight service stations already in existence within 7 /10ths of a
mile of the proposed development. The zoning ordinance in ques-
tion contained a number of standards which were to guide the
issuance or denial of a special use permit, but none of them
dealt with the density of similar or identical uses already in
existence. The Supreme Court determined that the City's refusal
to grant a special use permit was arbitrary, stating in 211
N.W.2d at 363:
"The number and type of gasoline stations and
other permissible uses within a zone should
be determined by the interaction of the
j economic law of supply and demand .... "
Another case of similar import is Enright v. City of Bloom-
ington, 203 N.'W.2d 396 (Minn. 1973). Enright involved another
request for a special use permit to construct a gasoline station.
In the Court's opinion on this case, there is suggestion that
part of the City's reasoning behind refusing to grant the re-
quested special use permit included (1) that there already
existed two stations in the area across the street; (2) that the
City's traffic engineer had reservations about traffic problems
generated by the proposed use, specifically that, due to the
proximity of an access ramp to a freeway, an industrial use would
be preferred since in the traffic engineer's opinion, the regular
users of an industrial site would become more familiar with the
hazards involved in exiting the-area and accessing the ramp than
11
would the occasional gas station patrons; and (3) that the appli-
cant's entire property included_ non - conforming uses in other
areas. The Supreme Court specifically found that the City
Council's motive was to end the non - conforming use of the appli-
cant's adjacent 'property and the Court held that this wasn't a
permissible reason for denying the special use permit.
V. Broad Discretion Even if Special Use Permit.
Much of the foregoing discussion has been predicated on the
opinion that it is a variance and not a special use permit that
has been requested in this instance. Even though the Richfield
Zoning Code does provide a reference to the special use permit
process for obtaining relief from the three story limitation of
Section 3.33, subd. 5, it is nonetheless indicated in subd. 7 of
Section 3.33 tat a variance is what has been contemplated. The
case of Westling v. City of St. Louis Park, 170 N.W.2d 218 (Minn.
1969), is authority for the proposition that this case involves a
variance even though there is a reference to a special permit.
In Westling, the applicable zoning code said that apartment
buildings could be built in an area zoned for single family
residences if a special permit were obtained. The Supreme Court
said that this provision had the legal effect of a variance. -
Even if one were to conclude that this situation calls for a
special use permit, since the applicable provisions of the
Richfield Zoning Code do not set out specific criteria under
which such a permit would be granted or denied, the decision
12
would be based on general health, safety, and general welfare
considerations. Zylka v. City of Crystal, 167 N.W.2d 45 (Minn.
1969). In this context, there is still a broad discretion vested
in the governing body, as the Court stated in Howard v. Village of
Roseville, 70 N.W.2d 404, 407 (Minn. 1955):
"[W]hat best furthers public welfare is a
matter primarily for determination of the
legislative body concerned,.... "
VI. Precedential Impact if Variance Granted.
Another question raised by Mr. Jopke is whether the City
would be bound to grant similar variances to other property
owners in the area if it grants the presently requested variance.
The answer to such a question will depend partly on a number of
factual considerations such as how"many variances have previously
been granted ,4nd what the circumstances were in those cases.
Since the granting or denying of a variance is based primarily on
the question of whether or not a denial would cause the landowner
"undue hardship," strictly speaking the .determination is made on
• case by case basis without reference to previous decisions. As
• practical matter, however, a previous determination may have
some precedentiel effect to the extent that a subsequent request
for a variance involves property and factors similar to the
situation involved in the first instance. For example, if a city
were to grant a certain type of variance for all but one parcel
in a particular zoning district, it might be very difficult to
refuse such a variance to the owner of the last parcel.
13
It is doubtful, however, whether one instance of granting a
variance would have much effect on a subsequent application of a
different property owner for a different parcel. There is author-
ity for this proposition in the case of Sun Oil Company v. Vil-
lage of New Hope, 220 N.W.2d 256 (Minn. 1974). As mentioned
above, this case involved a request for a rezoning of a parcel
from "limited business" to "general business" zoning district and
a waiver of platting ordinance regulations to allow the construc-
tion of a gas station. A similar zoning change had been granted
to an owner of a parcel directly across the street from the land
in question, and this owner had then built a gas station on that
site. The oil company had argued that since the city had already
granted one such rezoning and since the site it proposed to build
on was an even better site for a gas station, that the city must
grant the rezoning request. The Supreme Court took a different
view and upheld the City's "reasonable adherence to its compre-
hensive zoning ordinance." 220 N.W.2d at 257. In essence, the
Court said that the City's discretion whether to rezone property,
essentially a legislative judgment, and its exercise of that
discretion in a particular case, would not preclude the City from
coming to a different decision in a similar and subsequent case.
VII. Conclusion
The foregoing may be summarized as follows:
(1) The instant application for a waiver of the height
restrictions contained in Section 3.33, subd. 5 of the Richfield
14
V
z
_Z.
T
'IN
2, so V [E":,.
N n: V vIc
3AV
.: -11
p E
,15
01 ?J T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . a . .* ... . . . . . . . .
..................
...................
..................
..................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
r
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
............
......................
. . . . . . . ..... . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . .
RONA
.311V - i N E) 9
❑ 11
-C3 !OX
r � v :1. Cl
z sr ;eql
2,
ri r_1 rl 11 El Lcc�' .
r-
Z z
Ld CC UJ
L3 U) a
IF)
cr) :D Ld
Ld 0
Z
LU _j
LL _j <
LLj LLI
D Ld z
Qd U)
------------- . . . . .
Ld
. . . . . . . . . . .
C)
_j
<
T_
LLI
LJ
.................
................ tle
(D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . a . .* ... . . . . . . . .
..................
...................
..................
..................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
r
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
............
......................
. . . . . . . ..... . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . .
RONA
.311V - i N E) 9
❑ 11
-C3 !OX
r � v :1. Cl
z sr ;eql
2,
ri r_1 rl 11 El Lcc�' .
r-
Z z
Ld CC UJ
L3 U) a
IF)
cr) :D Ld
Ld 0
Z
LU _j
LL _j <
LLj LLI
D Ld z
Qd U)
1 90
'3AV XVA-103
Li
O CD 0) C4 ii ON! Inc\ �,-
W 10
co a" -
N Cj
cl;D
iNOdnq
E2: u
—177-4 P
0
C%j fn I 1 0 w
U; Ll"
C%J Z,
ol
60
'3AV NOSL43VY3
♦a I
1 -1 -r-T-T1 I �F
o9, f
I
CIJ 'n RD
(D In
N Cj ;&
—TI
1." 90 IIG01I 6` I�Ci� ( I t' � 62 `[C ♦ �.S - �$F':."a`: ���.+.6P:vjS
AV INOW38-4 i i i ........ ... ....
st 0.
(Ij v
CM ej
DID ❑
® I�i�1�IK1���1��
LLI
L:1
U)
LL!
i LL-
Z
< LLJ -J,
C)
z
(� i
iid
TO: CAPT. RICHARDSON
FROM: JEAN DAVIS
DATE: 4 -8 -80
RE: TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
76TH & Fremont
SEVERITY OF ACCIDENT
P.D. - 3
P.I. - 5
H &R - 0
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
OFFICE OF CRIME ANALYSIS
NO IMPROPER DRIVING - 4
INATTENTIVE - 9
FAILURE TO YIELD RIGHT OF WAY - 1
SPEED - 1
FOLLOWING T00 CLOSE - 1
DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED - 0
VISION OBSCURED - 1
IMPROPER TURN - 0
DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT - 0
BICYCLE VIOLATION - 1
DRIVER FELL ASLEEP - 1
Ak
MONTH
JANUARY - 0
FEBRUARY - 0
MARCH - 0
APRIL - 2
MAY - 1
JUNE - 0
JULY - 0
AUGUST - 0
SEPTEMBER - 2
OCTOBER - 2
NOVEMBER - 0
DECEMBER - 1
DAY
SUNDAY - 1
MONDAY - 1
TUESDAY - 0
WEDNESDAY - 1
THURSDAY - 1
FRIDAY - 2
SATURDAY - 1
UNK - 1
76TH & 35W
SEVERITY OF ACCIDENT
P.D. - 5
P.I. - 11
H &R - 1
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
NO IMPROPER DRIVING - 12
INATTENTIVE - 10
FAILURE TO YIELD RIGNT OF WAY - 8
SPEED - 1
FOLLOWING T00 CLOSE - 1
DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED - 3
VISION OBSCURED - 1
IMPROPER TURN - 2
DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT - 1
BICYCLE VIOLATION - 1
DRIVER FELL ASLEEP - 0
MONTH
JANUARY - 1
FEBRUARY - 1
MARCH - 1
APRIL - 2
MAY - 1
JUNE - 2
JULY - 4
AUGUST - 3
SEPTEMBER - 1
OCTOBER - 0
NOVEMBER - 0
DECEMBER - 1
DAY
SUNDAY - 5
MONDAY - 1
TUESDAY - 2
WEDNESDAY - 3
THURSDAY - 0
FRIDAY - 1
SATURDAY - 2
UNK - 4
Zoning code is a request for a variance and not a request for a
special use permit.
(2) The determination as to whether the requested variance
should be granted is made primarily around the issue of whether a
denial would cause the landowner "undue hardship" although con-
siderations mentioned in Section 3.33, Subdivision 7 may also be
considered.
(3) It would appear to be inappropriate to base a denial of
the requested variance on traffic considerations, since an iden-
tical traffic impact could be generated by a conforming structure
on the subject property.
(4) A granting of the requested variance in this case would
not necessarily affect subsequent and similar requests, since
each variance Ndecision involves an evaluation unique to each
individual parcel.
15
I
PAGE 2 (CONT.)
76TH & FREMONT
TIME
0700 - 1500 HOURS - 2
1500 - 2300 HOURS - 5
2300 - 0700 HOURS - 1
WEATHER
CLEAR - 6
CLOUDY - 0
RAINING - 2
SNOWING - 0
ROAD SURFACE
DRY - 6
WET - 2
SNOW SLUSH - 0
ICE -SNOW PACKED - 0
NUMBER OF VEHICLES INVOLVED
ONE VEHICLE - 1
TWO VEHICLr-S - 7
76TH & 35W
TIME
0700 - 1500 HOURS - 6
1500 - 2300 HOURS - 9
2300 - 0700 HOURS - 2
WEATHER
CLEAR - 10
CLOUDY - 5
RAINING -1
SNOWING -1
ROAD SURFACE
DRY - 11
VET - 3
SNOW SLUSH - 1
ICE -SNOW PACKED - 2
ONE VEHICLE - 3
TWO VEHICLES - 14
I'x
ir
I tu
OD
no If
'q o
Y
li
p
CA
41
I
N
0
Is
I
(D
ID
t7-
Ol
ZE:
=
CO
'D
•
m f r
21
am
m
�5
1-3
I'x
ir
I tu
OD
no If
'q o
Y
li
p
CA
41
I
N
0
Is
I
E
744h S- kree-+
NAIME,
1
I
POLICE DLPii.il'i- L1,iTP
[iichf i�ld, ,..inne�ota
Z.
Indicate North By Arrow
,r -a- -Ty
I
L�.
t
.j 11 -`)q
`;YIVlBOLS
V
TYPES OF COLLISIONS
f=---
�=�-
moving Vehicle
Backing Vehiclr.
{
�— ! `— Rear
N
.
+F — - --
Pedestrian
A
On
Parkud Vehicle
ride
I
iHOVI FOR EACH ACCIDENT
Fixed Object
E
Out
of control
1. Date and Time
Fatal Accident
2 • Wea Uie r and Road Surface
Injucy Accident
Lef t
_y.��
LL
if Unusual Condition
.j 11 -`)q
`;YIVlBOLS
TYPES OF COLLISIONS
f=---
�=�-
moving Vehicle
Backing Vehiclr.
{
�— ! `— Rear
End
--- g g
Right Angle
+F — - --
Pedestrian
--- -- Head
On
Parkud Vehicle
ride
Swipe
iHOVI FOR EACH ACCIDENT
Fixed Object
Out
of control
1. Date and Time
Fatal Accident
2 • Wea Uie r and Road Surface
Injucy Accident
Lef t
_y.��
Turn
if Unusual Condition
t,X I S t F -d
[ N`P06EC TION
ai id
PL;RIOD
T�
BY
PATIO
.j 11 -`)q
ichf eld Planning Commission
6700 Portland Ave.
Richfield, MN. 55423
7520 Fremont South
Richfield, MN. 55423
April 6, 1980
I am writing this letter in strong opposition to the proposed 6 story office
building to be built by Erickson & Sons on the parcel of land south of 76th
Street and bounded on the west by 35W.
I do not want to live in an area with a 6 story building 1 block away.
This is a residential area and we do not need a high rise office building.
Why should there be a 6 story building allowed here? Wasn't the Lyndale
Hub area planned for that?
The building would have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood in terms
of height and the traffic problem at that area.
The traffic is a problem that must be faced by all concerned people,
including the Planning Commission, and the developer as well as the resi-
dents around the area to be developed. Anyone who lives or even drives
down 76th street must realize that there is a very great traffic problem,
and to my knowledge it has not decreased by 40% as was stated at the last
Planning Commission meeting.
What is the traffic count on 76th Street at the peak hours for the pro-
posed office building? The peak hours for the office building would
probably be the same as for the children walking to and from West Middle
School. There are many bike riders also on 76th Street going to the Babe
Ruth Field, swimming pool, soccer fields, tennis courts, etc.. This is a
very dangerous area and there has to be some form of traffic control light
installed if there is any type of business built on that site.
What is the percent of grade coming out of the proposed site? If it is
over 6 to 7% this should be corrected or there will be problems in the
icy winter conditions.
I strongly oppose a Special Use Permit allowing Erickson & Sons to build
an office building that is 6 stories high at 76th Street and 35'x.
Very truly your ,
o
Arla M. Groth
P.S. Is it possible to have the whole par -eel of vacant land owned by
Mrs. Lyons rezoned into residential or multi - family dwellings?
Let's keep the commercial area in the.Lyndale Hub area!!
f
April 14, 1980
Mr. Rick Jopke
Associate Planner
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Mn. 55423
Dear Mr. Jopke:
We would like to address the issue of the variance request for the
proposed office building location at 1400 West 76th Street. It is our
opinion that a six story building would have a more negative impact on
a residential neighborhood than a three story building, and for that
reason, we strongly oppose the request for a variance. Commercial
expansion and infringement on residential neighborhoods has become
ubiquitous in Richfield. In view of our current commitments to the Lyn -
dale=Nicollet -Hub project and other existing commercial areas, starting
new pockets of commercial development would seem unnecessary. A six
story'building in our residential neighborhood would have a high commercial
impact and only serve as the inroad for future intensive development
of the adjacent property -.
We personally feel that given the size of Richfield and the close prox-
imity of other shopping /office /medical facilities, it is imperative that
we not diminish the residential qualities, characteristics, and desirabil-
ity of existing neighborhoods. A city of our size can only sustain a
limited amount of commercial development, and we believe that Richfield
has reached that threshold.
Sincerely,
Dale R. Schwie
L
Kay L.ISchwie
7514 Girard Avenue South
Richfield, Mn.
C.C. City Council
Planning Commission
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
�i(,� � nci1 Letter No. 174
Agenda May 1 21980
The Honorable Mayor l
and._'
Members of the City Counc"�il
City of Richfield s ) •o�`'" c►���o�"
Council Members:
Subject: Discussion of Ordinance Amendment Providing - � 1pe,
for Licensing of the Sale of 3.2 Beer in
City Parks i `-j'gl'`A_�i
Following the April 14, 1980 city council meeting, I indicated
to council members that there had been some interest expressed in
developing an ordinance amendment which would permit the licensed
sale of 3.2 beer in city parks under certain restrictive conditions.
At that time, I distributed language for an ordinance amendment which
would accomplish this, which had been developed by our city attorney's
office. A copy of that ordinance is attached.
In connection with the city's Fourth of July celebration, Fire
Division employees are interested in sponsoring a softball tourna-
ment. Attached to this letter is a letter from Mr. Steve Krinhop,
spokesperson for the firefighters, regarding this activity. A tourna-
ment would consist, in large part, of amateur softball teams sponsored
by fire departments around the state. A similar tournament was held
in Mankato last year and was quite successful in raising funds for
the Muscular Dystrophy Association. It is the opinion of the fire-
fighters that if this tournament could be scheduled in the metropoli-
tan area this year, it would be even more successful in terms of the
amount of money raised for the Muscular Dystrophy program. However,
they also feel that an essential service to the tournament would be
establishment of the concession tent with the ability to provide
both food and non - intoxicating malt liquor beverage service.
The ordinance prohibiting the possession and consumption of
alcoholic beverages in Richfield parks was passed by the city council
in 1975. Prior to that time, the unrestricted use of alcoholic bev-
erages in our parks had caused a number of problems and disturbances,
both to other park users as well as to neighbors immediately adjacent
to park areas. Most communities have restrictions similar to ours
relating to beer in city parks. The City of Bloomington, which has
allowed beer in the parks for many years, is currently in the process
of developing an ordinance to eliminate this practice, because of
public safety problems that they have encountered.
s
Council Letter No. 174 -2- May 12, 1980
I believe that the council should also consider the difficulties
of establishing a precedent for unrestricted use of alcohol in our
parks, and the corresponding difficulties of determining which groups
or activities could qualify for a beer license and which should be
restricted. I believe it would be especially difficult to be restric-
tive for future groups applying to sponsor activities including beer
in the parks, if a city- affiliated group were to have previously been
granted a license for such an event. Numerous other organizations
have sponsored very successful tournaments in the city, without beer,
over the past 5 years.
For these reasons, it is my recommendation that the city council
not change the present ordinance provisions prohibiting beer in Rich-
field city parks.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /jf
cc: Public Safety Director
Community Services Director
City Attorney
Y '
AMENDMENTS TO.-CHAPTER IV,
APPENDIX D AND CHAPTER X, PART III
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
I. Chapter IV, of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield
dealing with the regulation of Public places is hereby
amended by adding thereto Section 4.17 which shall read as
follows:
4.17 SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF BEER IN PARKS
Subdivision 1. Definitions. The following terms shall have
the meanings described herein:
(1) "Sale" means all means of furnishing and includes but
is not limited to the furnishing for money or other
consideration.
(2) "Beer" means any beverage which is produced wholly or
in part from the brewing of any grains or malt or malt
substitute and containing more than one -half of one
percent alcohol by volume.
(3) "Organization" means any entity having religious,
veteran, charitable or business activities as its
principal purpose and which qualifies in all respects
for the issuance of a license to sell the type of beer
to be furnished at the activity or event for which the
permit is being sought.
Subd. 2. Sale and Consumption prohibited. Except as permit-
ted by this section, the sale or consumption of alcoholic
beverages is prohibited in the public parks of the city.
Subd. 3. Permit. Any organization desiring to sell beer in
any public park may apply for a permit to do so. Such
application shall be made upon forms furnished by the city
clerk for that purpose.
Subd. 4. Application. The application shall contain the
following information together with any additional informa-
tion requested by the city:
(1) Full name and address of the organization.
(2) A brief statement of the organization's purposes
and activities.
1
0
(3) The length of time the organization has been in
existence.
(4) The number of active members.
(5) A brief description of the event or activity for
which the permit is being requested.
(6) The park proposed to be used for the activity
including any facilities in the park which will be
used.
(7) The dates and times for which the permit is re-
quested.
(8) The anticipated number of participants.
(9) The person or persons from the organization who
will be in responsible charge of the event or
activity and of the sale of beer.
The application shall be made to the city manager who may
refer the application to such departments as he deems advis-
able for review. The city manager shall then make his
recommendation to the city council which may grant or deny
the permit.
Subd. 5. Permit Fee. The fee shall be as provided in
Appendix D of this Code and shall be paid in full at the
time of application.
Subd. 6. Bond. The council may require, as a condition of
issuance of the permit, an indemnity bond holding the city
harmless from liability of any kind or character and reim-
bursing the city for any property damage or clean -up costs.
The council may also require, in addition to or in lieu of
such bond, that the organization furnish proof of insurance
adequately covering all such actions, claims or costs, and
may require that the city be made an additional insured.
Subd. 7. Conditions of Issuance. Organization Permits may
be issued only to organizations which qualify in all re-
spects with the following criteria:
(1) Is located in the City of Richfield.
(2) Has been in continuous existence for a period of
at least 3 years.
(3) Has at least 20 active members.
(4) Has established to the satisfaction of the city
that the proposed event or activity will be con-
2
ducted and will be controlled in such a way as not
to constitute a hazard to or a source of nuisance
or annoyance to other persons in the park or on
adjacent property.
(5) Has designated persons in responsible charge who
are free of convictions for offenses relating to
the fitness of such persons to perform their
duties.
(6) Has a currently valid license issued by the city
authorizing the sale of the type of beer to be
sold at the activity or event for which the permit
is being sought. Currently valid licenses pre-
viously granted to the organization allowing such
sale at a different location within the city will
satisfy this requirement provided that the insur-
ance and bond required under such license cover
the sale of beer in a public park.
(7) Executes a written agreement in form acceptable to
the city releasing the city from any claim by the
organization and holding the city harmless from
any claims by others arising out of or occasioned
by cancellation of ther permit pursuant to sub-
divisions 9 and 10 of this section.
Subd. 8. Conditions on Licensed Activity. The following
conditions apply to the activity:
(1) The sale and consumption of beer is allowed only
during the dates and times specified by the coun-
cil in the permit.
(2) The sale and consumption of beer is not allowed in
streets or parking areas adjacent to the park.
The council may further limit the areas within the
park where beer may be sold or consumed.
(3) The sale of beer to and consumption of beer by
individuals who are forbidden by any statute or
ordinance from purchasing or consuming such bev-
erage is not allowed under the permit. The
council may further limit the sale or consumption
to be allowed under the permit.
(4) Alcoholic beverages other than the beer sold by
the organization holding the permit may not be
consumed in the park.
(5) The event or activity- must be conducted and con-
trolled in such a manner as not to constitute a
hazard to or a source of nuisance or annoyance to
other persons in the park or on adjacent property.
3
(6) All rubbish, trash and debris shall be removed
from the park and disposed of by the organization
promptly at the conclusion of the event or activ-
ity. The organization shall be responsible for
all clean -up expenses.
(7) The sale to each customer at any one time may not
exceed 16 ounces of beer
Subd. 9. Cancellation of Permit. If, at any time
following the issuance of the permit, the city manager or
the director of public safety conclude that the sale of beer
for which the permit was granted will likely be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare, or will likely
result in violation of statutes or ordinances relating to
sale of alcoholic beverages, or is likely not to be ade-
quately controlled by the organization, then either may
recommend to the council that the permit be cancelled. The
council shall consider the recommendation at its next regu-
larly scheduled council meeting occurring at least 5 days
from the date of such recommendation. The council may
cancel the permit, or allow it to continue in effect or may
modify such permit as it deems necessary.
If the event has already commenced, or if sufficient
time does not exist to bring the matter before the council,
the city manager, upon the recommendation of the public
safety director, may act to cancel the permit. If the
permit is cancelled, while the activity is in progress, the
police division shall immediately notify the person in
charge of the sale of beer of such cancellation. The organi-
zation shall immediately cease the sale of beer and shall
immediately remove all unsold beer from the park. At the
request of the police division the organization will assist
in the restoration of order in the park and shall, if re-
quested, cancel the event or activity.
Subd. 10. Consumption and Possession After Cancellation.
Any person lawfully purchasing beer from the organization
prior to cancellation of the permit may lawfully possess and
consume such beer in the park for a period of 30 minutes
following such cancellation. Thereafter possession or
consumption of beer in the park is illegal. The police
division take reasonable steps to notify those present in
the park of such time limit but failure to give such notice
to a particular individual shall not constitute a defense by
such individual to any charge arising out of such illegal
possession or comsumption . Before any individual may be
charged under this subdivision, he shall be informed that
his possession or consumption is illegal and be given an
opportunity to surrender the beer in his possession. No
charge shall be brought against such individual if he
promptly and voluntarily surrenders his beer at that time.
G!
f
J
II. Appendix D on the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield
containing the various permit and license fees is hereby amended
by adding the following new paragraph to Section 8 thereof:
TYPE OF PERMIT
OR LICENSE
SECTION
REQUIRING
(5) Beer in Park 4.17 $
FEE
III. Chapter X, Part III, Section 10.16 of the Ordinance Code of
the City of Richfield defining certain misdimeanor offenses is
hereby amended by amending Subdivision 5 thereof to read as
follows:
Subdivision 5. Public Possession and Consumption of Alco-
holic Beverages.
Except as permitted in Section 4.17 of this Code, [A]ny
person who consumes intoxicating liquor as defined by
Minnesota Statutes Section 340.07, subdivision 2 or
non - intoxicating malt liquor as defined by Minnesota
Statutes Section 340.001, Subdivision 2, while (1) on a
public street, park or other_ public place, or (2) on
any private property without the consent of the owner
of such property, or (3) while in a vehicle upon any
public street and any person who possesses such intoxi-
cating or non - intoxicating liquor in any park including
all public parking areas located within or immediately
adjacent to any park.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of , 1980.
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
5
Donald Priebe, Mayor
r
ti
May 5, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Firefighters Request for Use of Taft Park
On behalf of the Fire Division of the Richfield Public Safety Depart-
ment, I wish to submit to the Richfield City Council, a request for
the use of Taft Park for the purpose of conducting a Muscular Dystrophy
Benefit Softball Tournament. This tournament would be held on July 4th
through July 6th, in conjunction with Richfield's Fourth of July plan-
ned celebration.
The Muscular Dystrophy Association has indicated that they will donate
a very large tent to be used for concessions so it would not be neces-
sary to use park buildings for the distribution of food and beverages.
We are anticipating having a celebrity game involving the Minnesota
North Stars and /or the Minnesota Vikings. The Richfield Firefighters
would be responsible for policing the area for all trash.
It is our desire to obtain an on -sale non- intoxicating beer license as
some of our churches in the community have done from time to time in
the past, for special benefits. It would be our intention to sell beer
between the hours of 8:00 a.m., and 10:00 p.m., on July 4th and July 5th,
and between the hours of 12:00 noon and 10:00 p.m., on July 6th. How-
ever, according to our Richfield City Ordinance Code, Chapter X, Part III
Section 10.6, Subd. 5, (Public Possession and Consumption of Alcoholic
Beverages), would not permit us to sell or consume beer in the park for
this very good cause.
Therefore, we are asking the city council to discuss and evaluate our
planned benefit and to give special consideration to waiving the field
rental charge, and secondly to a special waiver of the ordinance code
relating to the selling and consumption of beer in the park, in order
that we may carry out our plans for this very important benefit. I
might just add, all proceeds from this tournament will be donated to
Jerry's Kids. Should the council give favorable consideration to this
J
May 5, 1980
Page Two
request we would hope that a permit could be given for the sale of beer
on a fee waived basis to maximize the contribution to the Muscular
Dystrophy Association. We would anticipate a total of forty -eight teams
participating over the three day period and the activity could be expected
to draw several hundred spectators to the event. We think that this would
be a very worthwhile and successful part of the city's Fourth of July
celebration.
We are hopeful that you will give favorable consideration to our request.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven Krinhop, Firefighter
On Behalf of the Members of the Fire Division
Department of Public Safety
SK /l j e
cc: City Manager
1Y
/ 7e.14—
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 173
Agenda May 12, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf ield
Council Members:
Subject: Purchases in Excess of $1,000 - Golf Course
Equipment
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 several such items related to the golf course which appear on
the May 12, 1980 city council agenda.
Driving Range Balls
The Richfield municipal golf course facility includes a driv-
ing range. It is hoped that the driving range can be opened as soon
as possible, both to begin generating revenues for the facility as
well as to begin establishing a clientele for the golf course. In
order to open the driving range, it will be necessary to have approx-
imately 350 dozen balls available for use. Two quotations have been
received, one from Spalding in the amount of $1,145.62, and one
from Wittek Golf Supply Company in the amount of $1,365. Of these
two, only Wittek can guarantee delivery by the projected date of
opening for the driving range. It is also the opinion of the staff
that the golf balls from Wittek Supply are of a better quality.
Therefore, it is recommended that the city council authorize
the purchase of 350 dozen golf balls in the amount of $1,365 from
Wittek Golf Supply Company in the amount of $1,365.
Ball Picker and Range Equipment
For safety purposes and because of the economic advantages of
machines doing the work, rather than manual labor, it is recommended
that the city purchase a ball picker to retrieve balls used on the
driving range. For the proper use of this picker, an adjustable A-
frame is also necessary. Additional equipment will.also be necess-
ary for the driving range operation, including baskets, shag tubes,
etc. Two quotations were received on all this equipment. It is
recommended that the city council approve the low quotation sub-
mitted by the Wittek Golf Supply Company in the amount of $1,534.40.
V
Council Letter No. 173 -2-
Cash Register
May 12, 1980
It will be important that proper accounting of golf course
revenues be maintained through a cash register. The register should
allow speedy, efficient, and accurate flow of customer transactions,
while lending itself to ease of operation by the staff. Five quota-
tions have been received for a cash register. It is recommended
that the city council authorize the purchase of a Tech Model 173
Electronic cash register, in the amount of $1,500. This was not
the lowest quotation received, (lowest was $1,345 from Sweda),
but the staff is of the opinion that it is superior to products
costing less because of the following feature:
•1. Ribbonless printer
2. Receipt cut off, eliminating tape tear
3. Three tendering keys to separate types of
customers and five operator keys with the
potential of monitoring play on the golf
course
4. Allows the manager to get group reading of as
many types of groups as he wishes
5. Voids clearly printed
6. Automatic feed for notations on detail tape
for employee reference
7. Easily programmable keys
8. Price was $2,495, and is now $1,500 with
guaranteed parts available
9. Sunday service available
10. One year warranty, as opposed to the 90 day
warranty offered for all other machines.
The price on this cash register is also a special close out
price from a previous cost of $2,495. Therefore, it is recommended
that the city council approve the purchase of a Tech Model 173 elect-
ronic cash register in the amount of $1,500.
Walk -In Cooler and Refrigeration Unit
A walk -in cooler, to be located on the lower level of the club-
house, will provide for cold storage of kegs and ease of selling
beer from the concession counter at the golf course. Five quota-
tions were received for this purchase.
It is recommended that the city council authorize purchase of
a Vollrath cooler, 6' x 6' x 714 ", floorless urethane, model complete
with refrigeration system, at a cost of $1,866, from the New York
Tea Company. This is the low quotation received for this item.
KN /ej a
cc Community Services Director
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 172
Agenda May 12, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: 1979 Community Health Services Report
There is an item scheduled on the May 12, 1980 city council
agenda providing for a brief presentation on behalf of the Advis-
ory Board of Health. Ms. Charlene Swanell, Chairman of the Board,
will present the Board's 1979 report on our Community Health Ser-
vices Program. Additionally, Ms. Swanell will briefly discuss some
of the current issues with which the Board is involved, and address
any questions the council may have with regard to community health
programming. Council Member Collins is the liaison representative
to this Board.
Respectfully submitted,
i
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Public Safety Director
l
((�f_
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 171
Agenda May 12, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Change Order, Golf Course
There is an item on the May 12, 1980 city council agenda re-
questing authorization to execute a change order for the municipal
golf course project. The change order, in the amount of $2,750,
would provide for design, manufacture,.and installation of an air
compression chamber.
The design of the golf course facility calls for water from
the well to go through a pipe system to a tank, and from there in-
to the irrigation system. As work began a few weeks ago to make
the irrigation system operable through the well, it was found that
there is tremendous pressure as the water comes from the well on
its way to the tank. The pressure is such that it could damage
gauges and valves as it moves through the system. To solve this
problem, it has been determined that an air compression chamber,
or surge chamber, is needed. This chamber will provide a storage -
type area to accept the water from the well and move it through the
system at a steady, non - damaging pace.
The air compression chamber is not always necessary in a system
such as this, but final determination cannot be made until the time
comes to make the system operational. The original design of the
system did not include the air compression chamber in the hopes
that one would not be needed. However, the need for this system
became apparent in late April, and some discussion was held at the
April 28, 1980 council meeting regarding this matter. It is the
recommendation of the Community Services Director, in which I
concur, that the city council approve this change order in the
amount of $2,750 with Richert Plumbing & Heating, Inc.
Respectfully submitted,
- j
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /eja
cc: Community Services Director
l �le
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 170
Agenda May 12, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Minutes, Tabulation of Bids, and Award of
Contract, Water Meters
On April 8, 1980, bids were opened for water meters. A copy
of the bid minutes and tabulations is attached for city council
review.
The specifications called for 200 5/8" x 3/4" remote reading
cold water meters without couplings, which are used primarily in
residential units; 16 - 1 1/2" remote reading cold water meters
with flanges and gaskets, which are used primarily in commercial
units; and 2 - 1 1/2" straight reading cold water meters without
remote reading with flanges and gaskets, which are also used pri-
marily in commercial units. These numbers of units are specified
on the basis of past experience and anticipated demand, and will
provide meters to replace broken meters, as well as to service new
accounts. For example, the large number of meters for residential
units is in anticipation of the development at the Woodlake School
site in the L /H /N project area. The specifications provide the
city with the option of increasing the order by up to 20 percent.
Two bids were received. The lowest bid was submitted by Water
Products Company and was for a Rockwell meter which is a piston
meter and does not meet specifications. The city currently has
approximately 11,000 meters installed, all of which are disc meters,
the type specified. The specifying of disc meters provides contin-
uity to the Richfield water meter system. The difference between
the piston and disc is that the piston meter takes more water press-
ure to turn or operate the meter, and is thus not as precise in
measuring water pressure, particularly on low flow. The piston
meters are also noisier. There are three types of brands of disc
meters available in this area: Neptune, Badger and Hersey (Amer-
ican). A representative of Hersey (American), in Sioux Falls,
South Dakota, has indicated that their company did not bid because
the quantity specified was not high enough to warrant a major reduc-
tion from the list price of $58 each, (they would give us a price of
$54 apiece),or a total bid of $11,600 for just the residential meters.
The representative from Badger has been withdrawn from this area, and
all attempts to locate this company have been in vain.
W
Council Letter No. 170 -2- May 12, 1980
The second bid submitted, Davies Water Equipment Company,
does meet specifications by providing Neptune disc meters. There-
fore, it is recommended that the city council approve the bid of
$11,853.08, with the option to increase this order by up to 20
percent, to Davies Water Equipment Company.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /eja
cc: Community Services Director
W
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
April 8, 1980
Water Meters
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative
Staff was called by the City Manager's Designee, Sharon Boysen, who announced
that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids
for Water Meters as advertised in the official newspaper on March 26, and April 2,
1980.
Present: Don Fondrick, Community Services Director
Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk
Sharon Boysen, City Manager's Designee
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
BIDDER BID SECURITY TOTAL BID
Water Products Co. B.B. 5% $11,590
Davies Water Equipment Co. B.B. 5% $11,853.08
It was announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
regular city council meeting of April 28, 1980.
Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk
5
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 169
Agenda May 12, 1980
k-f-f h-0 V e_d
The Honorable Mayor
.and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Variance, 6600 James Avenue
Proposal
In March, 1974, the city council approved front yard and
rear yard setback variances for 6600 James Avenue to allow the
existing structure to be constructed.
Mr. Al D. Keenan, property owner, has now requested a variance
to reduce the rear yard setback from the existing 5 feet to 0 feet
to allow the construction of a deck. When the house was construct-
ed, patio doors were installed in the south upper level wall for
access to a future deck The main portion of the deck is prop-
osed to be on the west side of the building, with access from
those patio doors. The applicant is also requesting a variance to
increase the maximum height of a fence in a front yard from 4 feet
to 6 feet. The property is located in a single family residential
district.
Pursuant to the planning commission hearing on this matter,
the staff discovered an error in the plans submitted by Mr. Keenan.
The plan indicates a distance of 20 feet from the back of the curb
on 66th Street to the north property line. However, the actual
distance from the back of the curb on 66th Street to the north
property line is 11 feet. This means the proposed fence will be
16 feet from the back of the curb on 66th Street, and not 25 feet
as Mr. Keenan's plans indicated. Mr. Keenan would prefer that the
fence be at the location indicated in the plan, but would move it
back if the council so desires.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
Section 3.30, subdivision 4, paragraph 4 of the zoning ordin-
ance requires that a rear yard of 20 percent of the lot be main-
tained (12 feet in this case) .
Section 3.39, subdivision 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph E,
limits fence height in front yards to a maximum of 4 feet.
Council Letter No. 169 -2- May 12, 1980
Section 3.40, subdivision 6, sets three conditions which must
be met before a variance can be granted.
Staff Findings
The staff has reviewed the proposal against the three con-
ditions that must be met for granting a variance, and found the
following:
1. There are no special conditions affecting this par-
ticular property. This is a typically sized lot, and
is not significantly different from any other lot in
the City of Richfield. A rear yard variance has already
been issued to the property.
2. Denial of the variances does not preclude the existing
property use. It is the staff's opinion that a 4 foot
fence can be constructed in lieu of the proposed 6 foot
fence, and that a deck can be designed so that a 5 foot
variance is not needed.
3. It is the opinion of the staff that the proposal would
not be detrimental to the public welfare. The proposal
would be an improvement to the applicant's property. The
proposed 6 foot fence would not create a traffic hazard.
The fence is not located at an intersection and would be
set back 16 feet from the travelled roadway of 66th
Street, and sufficient visibility would be maintained.
The Community-Services Director, however, has indicated
that a 0 foot side yard setback on the south property
line would create a maintenance problem for Monroe Field
which abuts the property on the south side, because
equipment could not go right up to the property line.
This problem could be alleviated by keeping the deck one
foot away from the property line.
Staff Recommendations
Because the three conditions for granting a variance are not
met, the staff recommends that the variances be denied. If the
city council feels that the variances should be granted, then the
staff would recommend that the deck be set back one foot from the
property line, rather than 0 feet, to facilitate maintenance of the
park property up to the borders of the abutting property lines.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission has reviewed this request and recomm-
ended that the city council approve the requested variances with
the stipulation that the deck supports be set back one foot from
the south property line, and that the fence is constructed accord-
ing to the plan submitted by Mr. Keenan (fence would be set back 25
feet from back of curb) .
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberler
City Manager
cc: Community Dev. Director
r
D:,t� 00
�r. _. a P, i -- ".7 1 LD
6700 ?cr tlan".
7,77-7 TS
�I c`:snae in zoning
urecuest for variance
Special Use
= Apartment Use
�e
0 fl ve S 0
Pichh"e C
O- ner /Applican
address
;, Bus. Phone
For the pr;,_oer --v or land located at
(tZQ 0 —:Sam e S 1" ✓e- 5 P1at iP rcel YU U
Su- ;Hvision: ; — - ' s' tb 1 mac ?--°-
General dimnensicns of property (attac' ed all necessary dray: i ncs, maps)
E::isting use of land-
E: :.sting zoning:
C, M;
E::ist_ng bui ldin cs? 9�1 Yes = No.
Proposed changes in use: A In Y ~
Prccosed c::anges in zoning: "
Variance rec_uested: /d P
Attach k . i-fr CC� /��ds ."..'1 � 1 nece Sa�" C_ :l•. i. �. S , c.. 1 .'c�_^ •n � i ;;;
Annlic --nts Si:.iature D:,te:
—6w �1 - —�
Fee Received F:v /,� .J��� !'.eccint r� ` � � Date —�� —f, �.
f >
C
t
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF A-�C_ tf i e S e a ck Q pi Ac o
FOR PURPOSE OF (� „ !�
Legal Description:
We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described,
do hereby concur with the variance as requested.
Signature of Owners Address Legal Description
J
4e
"'7> 0 11
FtrZkj it, (� I I 6L L i n r �p 1-1
(,\\,A V1 P� <; k 11 CL
6-kA 0 f o c"J n c
C. "1 /0 '3
;I V a C a ��' e) 0
A
0
El
O
Di 0,�
I
El
D T
9
"I I - .--. . I � I
W56 15 6
LJ 15 6
417
7
A 14
7 )L .1
-(-.
"E] 13 8 1-3 8 13 8
11
"[] 12 9
12 9 12 9
11 110
Li
0 0
-n w
00,
Li -
- - 7-
3-
to
-LEL.
3
14
F
Ll
5
6
�D 12
7 ro
if 10
4
9 a
1
(
1620 1812
7
W>
O
1, zo
IT
PETITION
'D 1811 LI
Ll 17
L
Li -
-0 16
3-
to
C
4
3
F
Ll
E
❑ 14
5
5
0
13
ti
ra D12
7
-8 7Z
3
-
F
L
Ll
r--T
in
1, zo
IT
PETITION
'D 1811 LI
Ll 17
2
Li -
-0 16
3-
2
C
4
3
00
E
❑ 14
5
5
c
13
6
ra D12
7
0
tt 10
0
1,18
Li
:
N -
-. ---, -13 13 /
❑ 14A� � -
"E 13
0
Q
1,110
MAP
21 lb
I
Li -
O
17
2
0--
0 16
3
00
E
�- 125q_
14
5
c
13
6
11'
7
0
tt 10
1 9
re DUO 1 6 12 1 16 06 146 a 0
EmSignatures on Petition
ST
I
lk 010 I'D
ST
7
2
O
17
2
3 ':4 e.
E
�- 125q_
--
D. 4
14---
-
T4 1 16Q.
1415
13 1'65
12 17
9; 6
io
I
lk 010 I'D
ST
71 F.
2
0
0
0
-5,24 11
2
2213
121 4-
5
18 7
17 8
16
15
14 II
13 12
15 2
14 3
EJ
5
W Lj
>
> 13 4
4 <
12 5,
/ � - r l . v r� 11 8
ii 1
10
7
2
rn
�4 3
3 ':4 e.
�- 125q_
--
T4 1 16Q.
0: 7
9; 6
71 F.
2
0
0
0
-5,24 11
2
2213
121 4-
5
18 7
17 8
16
15
14 II
13 12
15 2
14 3
EJ
5
W Lj
>
> 13 4
4 <
12 5,
/ � - r l . v r� 11 8
ii 1
10
z
a
J
CL
Wi
�I
W
W
_
F-
N
s
O
(0
F-
U)
W
3
AVM d0 1HOIH '3 AV S3 W V f
r
d•
OJ
I I
0
wZ
> Z
a _
W
<[ J
W_
O LL
o =
O U
O ¢
w
U
C
O
Ty
82
.GdR
C .'..�.
raf°_
U) =E
0
4) C�Cd
N_
0 p� N
on
rda
7
5 6
.2 9
JIL
4 to 4,
X '
<A 0 _j D
D°
0
m 10
El.
$ 1500 lei
L J
W
0
15 1 6 Lj 15 6
A 7
14 7
13 8 13 g 0.
12 -I`9 12
Q7.
.-ZONING MAP
lLj 17 17 2
16 16 3
Z;
-4-
N 14
5 14 5
6 0 13 6 07
T12 7 w 12 7- Do
it to 9 18 1 _43 to 9 a
iU CID
,
'616 612 1 1606 1600
ST
6
D o
1712
eQ
F]
16 I3
0-0
1
4
Ll
Ll
0 -0
r j1
13 '! 6
12!i
7
5
to
9
a
it
a
10
10
- E
W
0
15 1 6 Lj 15 6
A 7
14 7
13 8 13 g 0.
12 -I`9 12
Q7.
.-ZONING MAP
lLj 17 17 2
16 16 3
Z;
-4-
N 14
5 14 5
6 0 13 6 07
T12 7 w 12 7- Do
it to 9 18 1 _43 to 9 a
iU CID
,
'616 612 1 1606 1600
ST
D 0(_0101
ST
6
D o
1712
0
F]
16 I3
0-0
1
4
41
1415
0 -0
r j1
13 '! 6
12!i
7
5
to
9
a
D 0(_0101
ST
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
L
W
4.
3
Ll
VI
2
2213
21 4
20 5
1916
18 7
16 9
15 10
14 tf,_L
13, 2
6
Site
S
2
14
3
1
1,11
41
-
_j 13
4-0
-IF
I I
5
16
it
a
15,2
9
jJ4
p
.
Ld
J3 4
>
—J
4
—4—
p1w
5cc-
0, 7
SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
L
W
4.
3
Ll
VI
2
2213
21 4
20 5
1916
18 7
16 9
15 10
14 tf,_L
13, 2
S
2
14
3
_j 13
ti�12
5
it
a
tr
OI
000
0
0
�El
T
ca
Ds ►900 El
5 5 6 15 6
6 j=Ll __ --
71
13 8 .4 7 14 7
13 8 13 a
8
a,_, _3
(2 9
12 9
11 10 U LAND USE MAP
?n
000,
0
-17-
2
j
OL
Lfi-
3
5 LJ
T_
145
ao 113
-0°
6
12
7
It T 10
9 9
12
:0
_T
- W
-
- -
10
11>
A
l'_� <
_21.
L] 18
1 LJ
2
Ll 17
j
16
16
3
5 LJ
16
t3
6
12
7
T 1--Fi 0-t9
❑49"
1415
13 IS
12
r7
_T
- W
-
- -
10
_9_T
1 9
'0
"619 11612
Uu
wo
12 9❑
O
r T; -I I
El
11110
71
a —tL
E
L] 18
1 LJ
2
Ll 17
16
16
3
5 LJ
16
t3
6
12
7
T 1--Fi 0-t9
❑49"
1415
1 18
706
c.
18 1
17 2
D,
O
17 2
16
3
16
t3
Na
14
5
❑49"
1415
13 IS
12
r7
_T
- W
-
- -
10
_9_T
1 9
'0
"619 11612
Uu
wo
12 9❑
O
r T; -I I
El
11110
ST
c.
18 1
17 2
Lu 1 0
D,
O
17 2
16
3
16
t3
Na
14
5
13
1415
1
12
r7
_T
- W
-
- -
10
_9_T
1 9
'0
"619 11612
1606 1600
Lu 1 0
soy 1110 II0
ST
16
ji
15 2
J3;4
30C), 12 SQ. r.
0: 7 1
'5CC
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 9 a
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
�j
0
5,2a T
22 3 3
21 4
20 5
- 19i6
IS 7
17 8
16
15 4-e-
14
13 12
16
2
Z 14 3
- - - -- -- /' j / 15
uJ LLJ -�(
>
<
<
L
'A.Lj 12 5
In
to
D,
O
17 2
16
t3
4
I A
1415
1217
10
1 9
81.
soy 1110 II0
ST
16
ji
15 2
J3;4
30C), 12 SQ. r.
0: 7 1
'5CC
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 9 a
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
�j
0
5,2a T
22 3 3
21 4
20 5
- 19i6
IS 7
17 8
16
15 4-e-
14
13 12
16
2
Z 14 3
- - - -- -- /' j / 15
uJ LLJ -�(
>
<
<
L
'A.Lj 12 5
In
to
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 168
Agenda May 12, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Special Use Permit to Allow the
Sale of Wine, 500 East 78th Street
Proposal
Mr. David J. Whetstone, representing Shakey's Pizza Parlor,
has submitted a request for a special use permit to allow the "on
sale" of wine at the restaurant, located at 500 East 78th Street.
The applicant has previously obtained a special use permit to allow
a restaurant in an "I" industrial zone, and this special use permit
request is only to allow the sale of wine at the present location.
No structural changes are proposed. The property is in an area
zoned "I" industrial.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
Section 3.34, Subdivision 1, of the zoning ordinance states
uses allowed in an "I" industrial district. Section 3.33, Sub-
division 4, paragraph E lists regulations relating to restaurants
if liquor is to be sold on the premises. Section 3.41, Subdivision5,
lists conditions governing the issuance of special use permits.
Staff Findings
The staff has reviewed the request and found the proposal to be
in general compliance with the conditions governing the issuance of
a special use permit. The existing restaurant meets all standards
for restaurants serving liquor. No new construction is proposed
and there will be no change in the use of the property, except for
the proposed dispensing of wine. The granting of the application
would not adversely affect persons residing or working in the neigh-
borhood or be detrimental to the public welfare.
Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends that the city council approve the request
for the special use permit for the on sale of wine at 500 East 78th
Street, Shakey's Pizza Parlor with the stipulation that Shakey's
obtain a wine license.
I
Council Letter No. 168 -2- May 12, 1980
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission recommends that the city council ap-
prove this application for a special use permit to allow the sale of
wine at 500 East 78th Street with the stipulation that a wine
license be obtained.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /jf
cc: Community Development Director
SATE: _..r -.h 31 , a '�
CITY OF RICHFIELD, Richfield, Minnesota APR a 1980
Department of Public Works - Building Division
6700 Portland Avenue South%'ty ofic9�ield
(612) 869 -7521
"orth ta.r :Tizzy Corporation
APPLICATION IS HEREBY i�Ir1DE FOR: dba Shake," ''izza arlo n
= A change in zoning = special use
Q A reauest for variance = Apartment use
By:— David J. Whetstone, Vice President !General Mlanager Owner /Applican-
7708 5th wive. So. Address
Richfield, i' +Iinn. 55423 City 866 -2536 Bus. Phone
For the property or land located at:
Address: 500 Eas7` 78th Street Plat Parcel
Subdivision: Ranft's addition Block 1 Lot 1
General dimensions of property (attached all necessary drawings, maps):
Existing use of land: Restaurant
Existing zoning:
Existing buildings? 7 Yes = No.
Proposed changes in use: _ rr;uliaation for Wine _IJ een e
Proposed changes in zoning: NO
Variance requested:
Attach all necessa
TO
drawings, mans. ar.1-1 c i clnvnl nom (-nt n! :?ns
1nlicants Sienature /> 1.%/� j'�f? -' Date:
0
Fee°75�� Received Bv(.�W P.eceipt 4Ls Date
-
t
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT OF
FOR PURPOSE OF ;pine T,icen;e
Legal Description:
Shakey<<; Pizza'Parlor — 500 -ast 78th Street
ra:n�t' Addition — 31oc'_ 1_ — Lot 1
We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described,
do hereby concur with the Special Use as requested.
ign . re. of Owners Address Legal Description
®s
&0-
2, V Y— 5- cz,,z-e-, IS4D
i
7-60
3 q - 4L1- �
77 7 0o
i/Ls LA
z
1
L
III
77
7733
27
770,
L i
Ej
PETITION -MAP
U-1 L-J
E-
1 4
0Q,RTH\\\
D
764 .5U 127125 2i iS 03
4
�
;08- jQCD
w
zm�
7541 39
ti CD
'344
OAKLAND
"'j.; 35 129 75 21 15 417
SIGNATURES ON PETITION
4 11 r14
I L 2
PA Pk'
Q)r Tit,
0
J 0 1 E ''D Ell
co J I (Aj
7644 4 10 04 ITIRIV,
r` (11 I MAI I I Cr;�
39
0)
I'm MINE
BOOM
MEN
Cf)
LAND USE MAP
El
1Q.
X
545 39
- CD
7541 3F
OAKLAND
35 2-9 "5,) 1 7545 39
ED
0 0 D:D
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL;
L
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
r.
LL
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE
s
E)
10 C4 rf,nC
("*t-)l I IRADI l4ra-i
Mazza
MINI
!In
---------------
ZONING
ro 1 -4 M
Foul, ou, 4\
El
A, I
145 1
Ir--h I
27 2;
2! '5 09
7545
5
39
9
cp
rj
Uo
C�3
7 q 1
-
C; 41
OAKLAND
9 25
21 5 05 Ir5Ul
1545
34
f. HHH GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
111111A -
W- w-_w-
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE
IS.
'o --i—c. I-rrc
I I f, A M I I
1x-20 27 — .< -20— 20— -- 26.59 —a!< 20
9 2
30 —
Q X40 —
LO
s -
I
I Q1 U
rt— — 40 —
ao
4-
L0
t / .
1 '
SCALE III = 40'
BARRIER CURB
OFF- STREET PARKING
NO . 63 -14
LEGAL DESCR t PT 10 N; THE SO.:TH 50 FEET OF LOT t LOT 8 2, 3 & 4, CIL^CK
1, RANFTS Aoo m oN, EXCEPT PAR7 TAKEN FOR TRUNK
HIGHWAY.. 500 EAST 78TH STREET
USES RESTAURANT
Lot Are -: Approx. 29,364 a`). FT.
M
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 167
Agenda May 12, 1980
I 'k_� v e..d.
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for a Special Use Permit to Allow
The Sale of Wine, 6736 Penn Avenue
Proposal
Mr. David J. Miller, representing Fireside Pizza, has submitted
a request for a special use permit to allow the "on sale" of wine
at the restaurant, located at 6736 Penn Avenue. The applicant has
previously obtained a special use perrizi.t to allow a restaurant in
a C -2 general commercial zone, and this special use permit request
is only to allow the sale of wine at the present location. No
structural changes are proposed. The property is in an area zoned
C -2 general commercial.
Zoning Ordinance Requirement;
Section 3.33 subdivision 4, paragraph E, of the zoning ordin-
ance, lists regulations relating to restaurants if liquor is to be
sold on the premises. Section 3.34, subdivision 5, lists conditions
governing the issuance of special use permits.
Staff Findings
The staff has reviewed the request and found the following:
1. That the fence on the parking lot perimeter is in need
of repair to ensure sufficient buffering and for
aesthetics.
2. That the parking lot needs to be repaired and striped
to meet requirements of the existing off - street parking
contract.
3. That the waste storage area is not in compliance with
code requirements.
4. That there are no construction or structural changes
proposed.
5. That there are no proposed changes in use of the site
except for the sale of wine.
Council Letter No. 167 -2- May 12, 1980
6. That the proposal does meet the standards established
for a restaurant serving. liquor.
7. That the granting of the application would not adversely
affect persons residing or working in the neighborhood
or be detrimental to the public welfare.
Staff Recommendation
a'he staff recommends that the special use permit be granted
with the following stipulations:
1. That the parking lot be repaired and striped in order
to meet terms of the off - street parking contract and
to allow for an efficient and orderly flow of traffic
from the site onto Penn Avenue.
2. That the waste storage area be cleaned up and brought in
compliance with code requirements to the satisfaction of
the environmental health office.
3. That the fence on the parking lot perimeter be repaired
to provide buffering for surrounding .properties.
4. That a wine license be obtained.
Subsequent to the planning commission meeting where this applica-
tion was discussed, the applicant has restriped the parking lot, re-
paired the fence, and obtained a building permit to upgrade the
waste storage area.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission recommends that the city council approve
this application for a special use permit with the stipulations list-
ed.
Respectfully submitted,
l
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /eja
cc: Community Development Director
DATD . 3//6/60
v0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, Rich-field, Minnesota
Department of Public Works - Building Division
6700 Portland Avenue South
(612) 869 -7521
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE FOR:
A`change in zoning
Q A request for variance
By: �a.s.ca 75.
Special Use
Apartment Use
Address
- e�r•��co-�ct� �.h�, . City EE,9 -SQSTJ Bus. Phone
`.:For the property or land located at:
Address: C -z-]3� j t.,r, G.. So. l�.c�.�C- C �t�. Plat
�{(,1�(�y Psrcel �96C13
Subdivision: Tit� s�t���_ �s2,�-r�c -mss U'3cQ%-h4 V4„4_s QiZ)0%TtC*X1oc', O t G, Lot 9 10
General dimensions of property (attached all necessary drawings,. maps):
Existing use of land: 1-- ►���o� ��1� R-- 7tavc��T�
Existing zoning: CQ"cY.&.cr-r_kr�.l
Existing buildings? Yes No.
Proposed changes in use: c_�E2V �t� \Q k tv�.
Proposed changes in zoning:
Variance requested:
Attach all necessary drawinas, m.aps, and site development plans
^DDlicants Sicnature i�j =�=— Date:
Fee "lS,QO Receii•ed By Receipt 0 Date
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT OF
FOR PURPOSE
Legal Description:
Cs
We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described,
do hereby concur with the Special Use as requested.
Signature of Owners Address Legal Description
/ 7, 09 - 0 a8 - a-k) (k4 101 S
A7
!
Js
Ct-
f
U�r %-1 i3LCCK 1/6
-�p -Ia� —
i-c>+
Pi
g,
0,
1127
7
LOT j�j js�-i-lcx k�
-';)L�) (41(314B
On- QaF4 - -a_y) (41 C
all, FIJI
m 1D I I ro w 4
90 OD -4 (r) 'La, Lm K)
108
SHERIDAN
RUSSELL \4,1
I A F 'k .
a, w
n,,i —01 .4 cb�
7 _j 1
J
L _
IL
QUEEN \J
Q
Li ; -Jl i,!
—0 Cb 0,
PENN
33 27 21 t7 1 09 105 hdo,
❑C::3
20 16 14 04 68u0 SJ 24 1
i;
L
CD 4
01
IA
a
Flz -1*11
;E
PETITION
r
r
odt!
1-4
L
L
LJ L.-I
1
- to
ry
o
N)
-
tj a
44 _
6
I
I A F 'k .
a, w
n,,i —01 .4 cb�
7 _j 1
J
L _
IL
QUEEN \J
Q
Li ; -Jl i,!
—0 Cb 0,
PENN
33 27 21 t7 1 09 105 hdo,
❑C::3
20 16 14 04 68u0 SJ 24 1
jZj
i;
L
CD 4
01
IA
a
Flz -1*11
;E
PETITION
MAP
r
odt!
1-4
L
1
1
- to
ry
o
N)
-
tj a
jZj
i;
1,0 "4
CD 4
01
IA
a
La T N
;E
PETITION
MAP
r
odt!
1-4
L
1
r 1
=i
El
44 _
6
I
0
F\)
1 J
U, 4 Ul I N m
_j
0
AVE.
Ic! lu
i;
0
CD 4
-b
m
c
;E
PETITION
MAP
r
odt!
L
,T
M
lb
El
44 _
6
I
0
28
�a -_
to
-4
N
0 (D
L4 N
—0
_j
LJ
L-i
'�`jj
!J
n
n
0 10
i
W
4
N
I N
AVE.
U, 4 Ul I N m
_j
0
AVE.
Ic! lu
—AVE.
6745 79-1 25 1 7 157 fl
Ll
7_ I
e0 04 t, 700
Q 26
i;
0
CD 4
-b
m
c
;E
co
tD
r
odt!
L
,T
—AVE.
6745 79-1 25 1 7 157 fl
Ll
7_ I
e0 04 t, 700
Q 26
,7,
i;
662
9
'D
m
c
F
co
tD
r
odt!
,7,
i;
662
9
'D
m
c
F
Co a 0 ,.
-El 1,
(X)
L
"15
44 _
6
I
0
Z.:
66'5
662
9
1.
Li
F
Co a 0 ,.
-El 1,
(X)
Z.:
w
1.
Li
F
Co a 0 ,.
-El 1,
(X)
L
"15
OLIVE A V
32
3 41 35 1 2 ! 7 27 23 19 15N 05 45
=pJll
0 1
co
( TI
z �
Ul
64
NEWTON AVE.
5 0 V/ LS4 22 is 6800 7
NEWTO Z AV E.
31 25 1 13 9 (801 Signatures on Petition
Eli El
0
gLi 0')
L] -4
03 ; ;;
IN OD
+
Ll
04 1N7 �i " -1 N I �--_
!3
(X)
I
ai_i2.
28
�a -_
OLIVE A V
32
3 41 35 1 2 ! 7 27 23 19 15N 05 45
=pJll
0 1
co
( TI
z �
Ul
64
NEWTON AVE.
5 0 V/ LS4 22 is 6800 7
NEWTO Z AV E.
31 25 1 13 9 (801 Signatures on Petition
Eli El
0
gLi 0')
L] -4
03 ; ;;
IN OD
+
Ll
04 1N7 �i " -1 N I �--_
7
L4
t'o
c)I
LA h
LF1
La r%)
-TTO
r J
JINN
P3
08
I CJ;J j =_ -'t —
SHERIDAN LAND USE MAP
,73
ILFa
QD
19
15NJ
11 05
fisol
W N
(m
L
(A
L _J! L�
L --I,!
co
_Lr. �
_-,
I
,73
RUSSELL �► AVE
ILFa
QD
19
15NJ
11 05
fisol
W N
(m
4b
(A
N
N -.Et�T U,
30
I
fa i I
6BOO
—
3
C
m i-.
v
.4
0
0 10
W i�
RUSSELL �► AVE
E!'
L
a, b
4 La j r\:
r
c
�D
QUEEN TAVE.
-4
27 -
ad-4
23
19
15NJ
11 05
fisol
c]
E!'
L
a, b
4 La j r\:
r
c
�D
QUEEN TAVE.
-4
MIN
MAO pq look 04
4
1.
n
;D N
K:F,
27 -
ad-4
23
19
15NJ
11 05
fisol
LEI,
(m
4b
(A
N
N -.Et�T U,
30
7
fa i I
6BOO
MIN
MAO pq look 04
4
1.
n
;D N
K:F,
E-J!
N
C)l
C] 7
3J 24 20 18 177
0
14 04 Ggu tj 0 04 6700 66 18
1 '1
OLIVE I S 2_AV
27 -
ad-4
23
19
15NJ
11 05
fisol
LEI,
(m
4b
(A
N
N -.Et�T U,
30
221
E-J!
N
C)l
C] 7
3J 24 20 18 177
0
14 04 Ggu tj 0 04 6700 66 18
1 '1
OLIVE I S 2_AV
Ilk 10 im
------------ m=
GENERAL COMMERCIAL Z 1 35 i 2t
SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
co t
MULTIPLE FAMILY -RESIDENTIAL .j
NEWTON AVE.
T 1�5 5-7
NEWTO L:]
1 1 13 19 (801
0
rn
50 -6 ?4 12
AV E.
27 -
ad-4
23
19
15NJ
11 05
fisol
(m
4b
(A
N
N -.Et�T U,
30
221
fa i I
6BOO
Ilk 10 im
------------ m=
GENERAL COMMERCIAL Z 1 35 i 2t
SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
co t
MULTIPLE FAMILY -RESIDENTIAL .j
NEWTON AVE.
T 1�5 5-7
NEWTO L:]
1 1 13 19 (801
0
rn
50 -6 ?4 12
AV E.
W I N _y
r -_lI 717�F=
08,
';HFRin,am ZONING MAP
A
Ln •tp t 'ki — CD -4 (n .4 z (D -4 CA
7
_j L-1 L__J
Act
RUSSELL AVE.
V
f7;
w N
7. 57 zz 1 12 1
Lz I
lb 0, _-W 11-0 4
•
Owf'. r\) i� p I an u. U4 N
LJ 'o c c
I
0
QUEEN AVE.
�. I CJ 1'.
-4
0) I Ln j F Wlf
PENN
I 0
lj� 111111
NJ I
co
ri o
I,.- i 126
(A
-4
A
(A
�
I_,
N
Ll.J
L JI L-�
L
177.
0
N
7D
A
Ln •tp t 'ki — CD -4 (n .4 z (D -4 CA
7
_j L-1 L__J
Act
RUSSELL AVE.
V
f7;
w N
7. 57 zz 1 12 1
Lz I
lb 0, _-W 11-0 4
•
Owf'. r\) i� p I an u. U4 N
LJ 'o c c
I
0
QUEEN AVE.
�. I CJ 1'.
-4
0) I Ln j F Wlf
PENN
I 0
lj� 111111
NJ I
co
ri o
I,.- i 126
t
(A
-4
A
(A
�
I_,
N
El
177.
0
N
0
co
0
t
(A
-4
A
(A
�
I_,
N
0
N
t
i
to (a
�
�
I_,
N
0
N
r
Ln r
OLIVE AV
32
4
A
27 23 19 1 6801 '07 5 41 35 2.-
LJ 05
C]
co I t
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
22
SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL '30 -6 o 12
is 6 50!
NEWTO - MULTIPLE FAMILY -RESIDENTIAL- AV E.
1 123! r q (801 I m zt
VI t
El
0
-4
Z; CTi cr)
�' � , a46� G A0� �z,r J G 'o�� 0 v
lu
00 'r a - 0)
N� Nam � Wr
a�m and s o3� z rn n o
p ✓ G� a ±� p, IN A �0 P
1pi C, - o
� � L ✓ i
H
C) n
d1 =
'n
J m
0- r
� v
s
d
N
O Z
z
Alley
� n
d c
m
0
m ,� c i
f -0
°D 0 0
3
N
.:a
L
J
a w
a
m
3 �
�Q A
N
'E 50(
• N N
1
• ' 100
Penn AveL So.
S-__
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 166
Agenda May 12, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf ield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Variance and Special Use Permit,
6608 Elliot Avenue South
Roy and Beatrice Wikstrom have applied for a variance and a
special use permit to allow the construction of a double bungalow
at 6608 Elliot Avenue South. The proposed building would be 36 feet
square and 24 feet high, with a Boxton ridge style roof. The front
of the building is to be a combination of brick and stuccato siding,
and the rest of the building is textured lap siding. The appear-
ance of the proposed structure would be similar in character to
single family residential neighborhood detached houses. The property
is zoned C -2 general commercial. Multi- family dwellings are allowed
in a C -2 district only by special use permit. The minimum lot
requirement for a two family dwelling is 10,000 square feet. The
proposed site is 75 feet in width and 129.23 feet in depth. The
area of the site is 9,692.25 square feet. A variance is necessary
because the lot is 307.75 square feet smaller than the minimum
lot area requirement.
Zoning Ordinance Requirement
Section 3.33 subdivision 1, paragraph 1, of the zoning ordinance
allows multi - family dwellings in a C -2 general commercial district
by special use permit only. Section 3.41 subdivision 5, lists con-
ditions governing the issuance of special use permits.
Staff Findings: Special Use Permit
The staff reviewed the request for a special use permit and
found that the proposal is in general compliance with the conditions
governing issuance of special use permits. The structure should not
adversely affect the character of the neighborhood and is of similar
design to the surrounding single family detached homes. The pro-
posed multi - family dwelling will act as a good buffer between the
commercial uses to the north and residential use to the south of
the site.
Council Letter No. 166 -2-
May 12, 1980
The proposal will not generate a significant increase in traf-
fic to the area. The proposed site is zoned C -2 general commercial,
and the site could be developed with commercial uses that would
increase traffic volumes in the area significantly more than the pro-
posed multi- family use. The comprehensive plan indicates that the
proposed site should be developed as medium density mixed use, which
is consistent with the proposal. Although the proposed use would
provide a good buffer between the commercial uses to the north and
residential uses to the south, the proposal does lack a buffer be-
tween the proposed structure and the commercial use to the north.
It is the opinion of the staff that the proposed double bungalow
is in general compliance with the conditions governing issuance of
special use permits, and would not adversely affect the environs of
the neighborhood.
Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends that the special use permit be granted with
the following stipulations:
1. That a landscape or fence buffer be constructed between the
proposed structure and the commercial uses to the north,
to screen the duplex from headlights and noise from the
adjacent commercial uses.
2. That a variance to the lot area requirements be obtained.
Staff Findings: Variance
Reviewing the proposal against the conditions for granting a
variance, the staff has made the following findings:
1. There are not special conditions affecting this particular
property. This is a typically sized lot and is not signifi-
cantly different from any other lot in a similar district
in Richfield.
2. Since the lot is presently vacant, denial of the variance
would not preclude the existing use. Also, the property
could be developed as a single family residence or a com-
mercial business without obtaining a variance.
3. The proposal would be an improvement to the applicant's
property and should not be detrimental to the public wel-
fare. The proposed double bungalow would provide a good
buffer between the commercial activities to the north and
the single family residential uses to the south of this
property. The design of the proposed building is in char-
acter with the neighborhood.
0
Council Letter No. 166 -3- May 12, 1980
Staff Recommendation
Although the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan,
the three conditions for granting variances are not met and the staff
must recommend that the request for the variance be denied.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission recommends that the requests for the
Variance and special use permit be approved.
Respectfully submitted,
��.� /�� (�� Jam( ✓ -. ..�' ._ °:. 1
t`
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /jf
cc: Community Development Director
DAT Hal( st
r
CITY OF RICHFIELD, Richfield, Minnesota
Department of Public Works - Building Division
6700 Portland Avenue South
(612) 869 -7521
APPLICATION IS HEREBY TKADE FOR:
= A change in zoning
Q A request for variance
By �I_!�•U L KS C;2 Yn
Special use
=__i Apartment Use
Owner / Applican-
cC �C� C��-' Address
city Sk'C1 f '�'�,,,� cC� �( G j Bus . Phone
For the property or
land
at:
Address: 0nrrc -)y
�located
Plat Parcel
Subdivision: Llea c) ce Block J Lot 4
General dimensions of property (attached all necessary drawings, maps):
Existing use of land:��;1 ":{
Existing zoning: ��`;'jy1 ti`) ") C' 1' C
Existing buildings? = Yes r7<7 No
Proposed changes in use:
Proposed changes in zoning: yLQ •
Variance requested:
Attach all necessa
U r =; i -4-, - -- (, c ( c
drawincs, mans,
�_. \J
and site develo2ment plans
Annlicants Sienatur ' '- Date: i`�Ct','C� "l I , (C1 _VC,
Fee - Received (3yl Receipt r %g 86 Date Z—F 9)
LV'T Ct� �� c_a� - I -I �'C
,)
Dopz_tment of : -. y _c �-, Cr .:s - :,;,— _n. D sion
6700 Pcr tlan, -. A: nue South
(C. _1 2) S 7521
TS IT77�TL',y
I ch-ange in zoning
recuest for variance
Special use
= Apartment Use
B%' _CSC n rew. W L((C+[i)i L�h Cj11 O ner /Fppl ican
,nfh C)(2.(_)L.(e SCO -fl) ,.ddress
�Ie. Id B,(_1L i =<_�C,b�-3 city. �'�' �; - .G -G IC ( Bus. Phone
For the property or land located att t :
Plat Parcel
G�IK(J CA) 7j B1ock ��'j Lot L4
General dimensions of property (attached-all necessary drawincs, macs)
Existing use of land:^ M'�c5��_5
Existing zoning:
Existing buildings? 0 Yes �< No .
Proposed changes in use:
Prcposed charges in zoning:
Var iance recaesced
L� � ��.r'l� •J I
we need OcLA -i cI.4-X 0-�- 3CC k
A.ttac 11 nec .-a
�t o ((uq..,L -6 c -�� i- a (Al cc( _ ix
and site r, el •e1_:ment p__.:is
ADnlicar.ts Sicnature�
Date:_l
o°
Fee j ° i F.eceix'ed Fwd Receipt Date, „�_
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERIMIT OF
FOR PURPOSE OF
Legal Description:
We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described,
do hereby concur with the Special Use as requested.
Signature of Owners Address Legal Description
9U ?c x: 'i J
ey A7
--------------------
" X7
n
67th ST
=a
I
Up. -
�Mfflll
3
45615 SITE
15
4
0
65
C
Ljj
❑
0"
•
r>
❑ 12
............
X.
...... ...
67th ST
=a
I
Up. -
�Mfflll
3
45615 SITE
15
4
0
65
C
Ljj
❑
0"
1,351
r>
❑ 12
............
X.
...... ...
0
6
q. 10
V«
67th ST
=a
I
Up. -
�Mfflll
0
0 83
mm
El to
0
65
C
Ljj
❑
0"
it
4
A
Ff
X.
iJ
:.:.::j$
6
EN
V«
7 0
7, JIB
0"
9
67th ST
=a
I
Up. -
�Mfflll
0
0 83
mm
74
0
65
C
Ljj
❑
0"
it
'Atli
0
4
- L-i
4S
ri,
J�
n
0.1
to
at
0 0
0
0 83
0 1314
0 t25
74
0
65
C
Ljj
❑
0"
0
4
- L-i
Ld
oD
0.1
o 0 15
2 110
0 14
3
0 1314
0 t25
0 1017
Ljj
0
0"
LJ
Ljj
14
3
4S
EN
V«
Petition
Signature:
6829
Elliot Avenue
f
/ ROAD
1�,! /j,,
f� ZONING MAP
GENE RAL COMMERCIAL
MULTI PLE RESIDENCE
134
I
14
t
- -❑
?
o
A
� o
n
,0
❑
1.2
I O 9
❑2
r
1314 -
123
❑
4
-
h
❑
114
4
D:
N
❑
105
1017
0 �
U In
r
tl�lt>t1�1�t�llifi�
r
r
0
9
6
0 u
*+
,
_ 8
7
0.'o o
t
67th
1�,! /j,,
f� ZONING MAP
GENE RAL COMMERCIAL
MULTI PLE RESIDENCE
134
I
-1 ,.
❑ 125
N
o �
N
A
� o
n
,0
7
Y I
,r ❑ 9I8
0
❑ 101 0 - t l - ❑P
s (�
92 m o 0 912 ❑ o
Q 0
0 8 0 � �0 �� �� w
_ Q
Q
N 0 0 + ❑ 7 {4 N
D
r 65 ❑ ". ND 615 ❑"
1
Adj/
C] 2 2 7 I:2
r
3 3 ❑ ; �❑ a (3 ❑o
oD 4 4 C] $ �� 514 ❑�
1,N
r
I
-1 ,.
J 1
❑ 15 12
o �
15
2
� o
1413
❑•r
Y I
I O 9
9 (
,1• tr it„>•
1314 -
11!
❑
2i5
�
4
O
1017
r
tl�lt>t1�1�t�llifi�
L
1
bi
Q
A
ST
I
-1 ,.
J 1
❑ 15 12
.,
-
1ai3
❑
i�ittlltll��000
Y I
I O 9
9 (
,1• tr it„>•
ttP�
11!
t„� it
■e1.1i•71t.It1•i�
�
4
tl�lt>t1�1�t�llifi�
I
t
ST
Q
E
1, if
- -� - 14 5
I
-1 ,.
J 1
❑ 15 12
.,
-
1ai3
❑
134
12 5
Y I
I O 9
9 (
(1V
❑
11�
a
�
4
Q
E
1, if
- -� - 14 5
5
~❑ '.36 -
-
-, � 12 7
7
Y I
I O 9
9 (
(1V
Fj
Li 143 �v
1314
v a _'2i5
!0,7
C gl� Dv
4
ei tt
12
D
J�
'
wo
14
1 _
— p�
Dm
0
6A L
_ D 1
2 0
M.M.
p123
A p 6
N
0
r,
h D 11
4
D�
(m
N p 105
M
D"
fflmwj
A p 9
h
�+
6 p V
R1
87
r • D
'�
or
/Rl�i�
LO
67th
12
D
J�
'
■!!�RRRR
iRlR�!■i1
=Nil
Dm
0
mm
W,IY�M_M/1rM1�w0M,.
M.M.
N
p0
A p 6
N
0
r,
r_ c
s P.
(m
■
R�RRlR�R.
fflmwj
f 4�
12
D
J�
'
■!!�RRRR
iRlR�!■i1
ap 92
0
Dm
0
1�R�IRPJR
W,IY�M_M/1rM1�w0M,.
N
p 74
N
p0
A p 6
N
0
r,
e
•
■sz /iii
p
R�RRlR�R.
3 p o
r.
=A OiF,
a ,
/Rl�i�
r
1
_
,
, [] p
ap 92
0
Dm
0
M qM/
W,IY�M_M/1rM1�w0M,.
N
p 74
N
p0
A p 6
N
0
r,
e
1 p:
712
p
+p 6
3 p o
r.
Q
A
■m!itlRRii
I
o p 152
1 po
J
r p
M qM/
W,IY�M_M/1rM1�w0M,.
,D
t3
125
ry
o
4. N
N
4
1
p 107
; D-
M
I
�p 98?
p�
D
RR��Ii•IRi1�Riit
■�Ri17�
/Rl�i�
r
1
i 1
i
Q
A
■m!itlRRii
I
o p 152
1 po
J
r p
14
31, p .r
J
,D
t3
125
ry
o
4. N
N
4
1
p 107
; D-
M
I
�p 98?
p�
Q
A
■m!itlRRii
I
15
=i•
Ri>�,!■t
■ti
N
D13
■R�a!
iRR:C:T■;71RRiri.T
4
1
. i1
�li•�il
■t
/RI�ILt1
D
RR��Ii•IRi1�Riit
■�Ri17�
/Rl�i�
r
1
i 1
i
•
ST
t fi
I
15
2 u
�+ 143
D
u
,
- O
N
D13
,
IR��:1RiR�I1R
4
1
5 p
El 1
a
D^
n
E] 107
D
D 9
0
E
_Er
I
i
IR�R� �R�IORRRI■
-DQ:
p 14
3 pn
4 D
N D 13
12
IR��:1RiR�I1R
- - ---
/IRS■
■r�1i /
/R�RRRRIRR�I
a
D^
iB /RRi R�171RiE�
■I
r
_Er
I
i
�0 -152
-DQ:
p 14
3 pn
4 D
N D 13
12
5 DN
_ 0=
- - ---
!07
a
D�
n
D99
a
D^
_Er
I
i
c � � � -ehe live development plan
far the pity Of richf field
LAND USE:
description
density
- principol uses
Combination of multiple
dwellings, office, research
Mixed Land Use
High
industrial, hotel, motel,
institutional, and retail
commercial
Combination of office,
institutional, light and
`
Mixed Land Use
High /Medium
research oriented industrial,
retail commercial,
and multiple dwellings
Combination of office, retail
commercial, entertainment and
Central Business
eating establishments, small
®
District
High/Medium
comparison shopping and service
Mixed Land Use
businesses, institutional,
limited cultural, recreational
facilities, and multiple
dwellings
Combination of single family
dwellings, multi dwellings,
Mixed Land Use
Medium
hborh00d
townhouses, and neighborhood
convenience commercial
Light and research oriented
Industrial
Medium
industrial uses.
Multiple units with related
Multiple
High
accessory uses.
®
Convenience
Low
Grocery, drug, hardware stores.
Shopping Area
Single family or two family
Single Family
LOW
units and accessory uses
Residential
compatible with single or
two family units
COMMUNITY
FACILITIES:
-'---
Public P arks and open space
®
- - - --
Public schools
Churches or church-related
_
facilities
Other public, quasi - public, or
L... —�J
- - - --
private institutional facilitie
- TRANSPORTATION:
p —�
- - - --
Major arterial thoroughfare
adopted by the city of richfield thia 15th day of January ,Iq 73
-
-
aWa
KE,s.xx .r.
EE. .
c.axxav .vc tit
s
.vE • ---- - -- �� ..y5 r j .rte.
r
s
�.,...,_ •}--c: - - - . - - - �l ..'i��t?1` :;`kXx `.Zx.xuik�24� �`>'* �a
s.. .vE -� < � .F SR it• - zo �. .rE
,,.xwsx .vE � ( _'C(r by I �� r z' [ `'d_ :. ^., E �c� 1='—, •- -�\
t
Z
Q
J
a
W
O S '3 A d 1 0
1 1 1 3
8 0 9 9
.1
1 j L
('
I
M
(k• •1
I
-z
OJ
—5L
If;
I
.(:
'F.. . . ' . .:.:.:.::':::' "' . �. a..........i
I.
ia 't
;,:.•.... ;�
«Z
D a
J �
W 0
LL Cl)
W
= Z
cc 2
0
N
W
W
7
cr
d
_:
�j
U
l
Pomp
9441
'iIIV��
lS
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 165
Agenda May 12, 1980
The Honorable Mayor e�
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members: p
Subject: Approval of Offstreet Parking Layout for
Richfield Medical Group, 6440 Nicollet Avenue
The Richfield Medical Group has requested approval of an off -
street parking permit to allow them to construct a parking lot ad-
jacent to their building at 6440 Nicollet Avenue. The site of the
parking lot is vacant and was formerly occupied by a Mobile Oil
Service Station. A portion of the parking lot will be on city -owned
land to the north of the Richfield Medical Group property. It will
be necessary to execute an agreement between Richfield Medical Group
and the city to permit their use of city -owned land for parking
purposes.
The proposal involves the installation of a new asphalt surface,
concrete curbing and sidewalk, site lighting, and landscaping. Park-
ing for 27 cars will be provided, and additional parking will also be
available to Richfield Medical Group patients on the portion of old
65th Street south of their building, although this street is sched-
uled to be vacated at some future date as part of the future Summit
Bank development. City guidelines indicate that 24 parking spaces
must be provided, so the proposal will provide three spaces more than
required. A plan of the proposed parking layout is attached.
The proposed development will meet city offstreet parking area
standards. However, the staff does have some concerns about the pro-
posal. A portion of the northwest corner of the site will drain
onto the city sidewalk. The applicant is working with city staff to
correct that problem. A traffic signal control box on the north
edge of the parking lot would have to be removed to accommodate the
plan. Because of the expense of relocating the traffic signal con-
trol box, the staff has recommended that it remain where it is and
that curbing be placed around it to protect it from automobiles,
even though that would mean the loss of one parking space. The
applicant is agreeable to this alternative.
The proposed development would not create any traffic hazards
on surrounding streets, will solve the current parking problem which
the Richfield Medical Group has, and will result in a more aesthet-
ically pleasing site than the vacant lot. Therefore, it is recom-
mended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, approving
the proposed offstreet parking layout and authorizing the city manager
to execute an offstreet parking contract, subject to the following
stipulations:
W
Council Letter No. 165 2- May 12, 1980
1. That the applicant enter into an agreement with the
city to allow them to use a portion of city -owned land.
2. That the traffic signal control box on the north edge
of the proposed parking lot remain at its present
location and be protected from automobiles. Final
design of the area around the control box should be
approved by city staff.
3. That drainage of the northwest corner of the site be
changed to prevent drainage onto the public sidewalk.
The final drainage design should be approved by city
staff.
4. That the section of old 65th Street between Nicollet
Avenue and the Hub Shopping Center be vacated subject
to easements as agreed upon by the Summit Bank and
Richfield Medical Group.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /ej a
cc: Community Development Director
Community Services Director
Jew
A
N ICOLLET AVE.
-N-r----
:ale: I"= 20'
I-=
L
}
LO
c0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT FOR
OFF- STREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION
No. CONTRACT No.
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 park-
ing as contained in Off- Street Parking Application No.
Contract No. is hereby approved subject to and upon comple-
tion of performance of the contract for such off - street parking as
'hereinafter auth ized.
2. That the proposed off - street parking contract for the
improvement of said off - street parking, bearing Contract No.
be placed on file and that the manager be authorized to sign said
contract and the clerk be authorized to seal the same for and on
behalf of this City.
3. That the off - street parking operator provide the City of
Richfield with Surety in the form of cash, passbook saving withdrawal
authority, or performance bond in an amount to be determined by
the community development director and city manager, to ensure the
off - street parking lot is constructed within the terms and regula-
tions of the Off - Street Parking Agreement.
4. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance
of said Off - Street Parking lot shall remain the responsibility of
the off - street parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance
Code 4.05.
Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield this
day of 1980.
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk
Donald J. Priebe, Mayor
I
i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 164
Agenda May 12, 1980
Y� k
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Release of Off - Street Parking Bond
On November 27, 1978 the city council authorized execution
of an off - street parking contract with Charles Armstead of Cardco
Investment for renovation of a vacant service station property at
6545 Penn Avenue into a Clarks Submarine Sandwich Restaurant.
An inspection of the site by the city staff indicates that
the owner has complied with terms of the off - street parking con-
tract. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council adopt
the attached resolution, authorizing release of the performance
bond for this off - street parking contract.
KN /eja
cc: Community Development Director
Respectfully submitted,
r_
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
�Fc_
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO RELEASE OF BOND
ON OFF - STREET PARKING
Cardco Investment Company
703 Hennepin Avenue, Mpls, MN
Location: 6545 Penn Ave. S.
Use: Restaurant
WHEREAS, Cardco Investment Company, 703 Hennepin Avenue, had
an off - street parking agreement with the City of Richfield relating
to 6545 Penn Avenue South, which contract bears the designation
of Contract No. 2280, and which contract was guaranteed by an off -
street parking operator's bond in the amount of Seven Thousand Dollars
($7,000)on which the Safeco Insurance Company of America, Seattle,
Washington, appears as surety, and
WHEREAS, said Cardco Investment Company has substantially
complied with the provisions of said agreement and now seeks to be
relieved of any further obligation under said bond, and
WHEREAS, there appears to be no justification for requiring
said Cardco Investment 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 Cardco Investment Company for any and all acts committed or
incurred in violation of said Contract No. 2280, on and after the
day of , 1980.
Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield this
day of , 1980.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City C erk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 163
Agenda May 12, 1980
k"k-0v -,d
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Special Use Permit to Allow a
Restaurant, 616 E. 78th Street
Proposal
Mr. Brian Bangs, representing Green Mill Inn, Inc. has sub-
mitted a request for a special use permit to allow a restaurant
in a C -2 general commercial zone. The proposed location for the
restaurant is 616 East 78th Street, which is zoned C -2 general
commercial. The applicant is proposing a "take out" pizza res-
taurant, to include 17 parking spaces. The proposal also includes
construction of a 10' by 22' cooler on the east side of the ex-
isting building. There is no restaurant seating being proposed
at this time.
In April, 1961, the Blue Star Drive -In Restaurant was built
on this site. In May, 1968, the Famous Recipe Fried Chicken
restaurant took over the building, and in March, 1971, Dollar -A-
Day Car Rental became the tenant. The site was used.as a car
rental service until recently, and is presently vacant.
A special use permit was issued in 1961 for a restaurant,
but because the use at that time was for a drive -in restaurant,
and because the ordinance has since been amended, a new special
use permit is required.
Zoning Ordinance
Section 3.33 subdivision 2, paragraph 4 of the zoning ordin-
ance lists uses which are permitted in a C -2 general commercial
district by a special use permit. Section 3.41, subdivision 5,
lists the conditions governing the issuance of special use per-
mits. Section 3.33, subdivision 4 lists regulations relating to
restaurants.
Staff Findings
The staff recommends that the special use permit be granted
with the following stipulations:
Council Letter No. 163 -2- May 12, 1980
1. That the parking lot design be altered to provide
20 off - street parking spaces.
2. That the applicant construct a solid fence on the east
property line to buffer the adjacent property from
lights and noise.
3. That the applicant is informed that the special use
permit is for the restaurant now being proposed, and
that any expansion in the future will necessitate
approval of another special use permit, and that if
seating is to be added at a future date, the off -
street parking requirement may change.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission recommends that the city council
approve this application for a special use permit with the
stipulations listed.
Respectfully submitted,
r
Karl Nollenber�er
City Manager
KN /eja
cc: Community Development Director
CITY OF RICHFIELD, Richfield, Minnesota
Department of Public Works - Building Division
6700 Portland Avenue South
(612) 869 -7521
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE FOR:
A change in zoning
Q A request for variance
By:— ` e Cat _ Z` Z Z /C�
For the property or land located
Special Use
CJ Apartment use
S-C Owner / cplican-
C -le -e Address
_City yy Bus.. Phone
at: lit -`tt
Address: �� %y �fi'L`'- °lat Parcel
Subdivision:
Block
Lot
General dimensions of property (attached all necessary drawings, mans):
Existing use of land:
Existing zoning: ( J t C�� -,�2 �y`,E�, CJ�� 6�rCi ce'_�
Existing buildings? E:g/ Yes 0 No.
Pr000sed changes in use:
Proposed changes in zoning:
Variance requested:
Attach all necessary drawings, mans, _=-� site d eve lo:,:nent clans
Inlicant:s Siznature -v/�i' Date:
I`����J L' _
Fee -Received By Roceint Date
C I �
EXHIBIT A
RIDIR
1. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.
All that part of the South 415 feet of the West 1/2
of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 28 North,
Range 24 West of the 4ti; Principal Meridian, lying
North of the North line of Trunk Highways No. 5
and No. 100 and Interstate Freeway No. 494 EXCEPT
the West 213 feet thereof.
ALSO ALL that part of the West 213 feet of the
South 415 feet of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4
of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 35, Township 28, Range 24 lying North of
Trunk Highways No. 5 and No. 100 and Interstate
Freeway No. 494; described as follows: Beginning
at the Northeast corner of said parcel; thence West
along the North line to a point 30 feet West of
the Northeast corner; thence South 115.5 feet
parallel with the West line thereof; thence South-
easterly to a point on the East line which is 30
feet North of the Southeast corner of the above
described parcel; thence North along said East line
to the point of beginning.
2. RENT. Tenant agrees to pay to Lessor in lawful money
of the United States for the use of said premises the sum of
ONE HUNDRED SIXTY -FIVE THOUSAND AND NO /100 DOLLARS ($165,000.00)
payable as follows:
m
MIM&
I� i
►�.i 1.
,64d 3- !
07
" tAl, 17 gll? 21 545 33
i3oa- locD
OAKLAND --i
3, 29 25
I "4,
t. GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE
:So
0 4 TKII
f-nl I MADI I Z;,
Tr-
Y'
(W
r
0
� o
o
XN 3
W Z
r
J
IL
fl
.5�
t _ .
v I
F
u
-L
S
J
Ul
W
7-2-
u
v
ti
-X
J
J
Z
ujv
M
m D Z "'++
r
z =
n
-� p
m
m
m
3
M
Q.
v
/(D /�
V/
CEO
0
Cl)
n
a
r
m
n�
N
0,
41
V
ok
20'
114' -6"
N
J
ALLEY ,5...
—i m
�x
D-
D v cn
GO =Z
_i-0 >0
O c(n m
Z m D
v
25'6"
i
nr
CA)
�p D
�v
z v_
o
Cl) z
aD
r
o
m
CA
I
ONE WAY FRONTAGE ROAD
m
X
Ch
Z
W
C
F
v
z
c�
—i m
�x
D-
D v cn
GO =Z
_i-0 >0
O c(n m
Z m D
v
25'6"
i
nr
CA)
�p D
�v
z v_
o
Cl) z
aD
r
o
m
CA
I
ONE WAY FRONTAGE ROAD
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 162
Agenda May 12, 1980
o,"k_o„ e-d
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Special Use Permit and Off - Street
Parking Permit for St. Peter's Church, 6720
Nicollet Avenue
Proposal
St. Peters Catholic Church has requested that they be granted
a special use permit to allow construction of a 12,720 square foot
addition to their existing facilities, located at 6720 Nicollet
Avenue. The existing church and a portion of the school facility
would be removed, and a new narthex and church building will be
constructed in its place. The new addition will be surrounded
by existing buildings and existing setbacks will be maintained.
Brick exterior material will be used on the new structure so that
it blends with the existing structures on the site. Seating for
815 people will be provided in the new facility.
Site improvements will include additional landscaping, new
concrete curbing and a sidewalk around the structures. The exist-
ing north access drive from Nicollet Avenue will be realigned,
the middle access drive will be enlarged from 22' to 28' and the
south access drive will be closed. The existing asphalt parking
areas will remain. Parking spaces for 375 cars will be provided,
which is approximately 40 fewer spaces than currently exists.
The site is currently zoned "R" single family residential.
Zoning and Other Ordinance Requirements
Section 3.30, subdivision 2 of the zoning ordinance allows"
churches in R zoning districts upon procurement of a special
use permit in accordance with section 3.41 of the ordinance.
According to city records, no special use permit has been ob-
tained for a church use on this site. Therefore, a special use
permit must be obtained before the proposed construction can take
place.
Section 3.41, subdivision 5 requires that before a special
use permit can be issued, it must be found that the proposed
use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals,
0
Council Letter No. 162 -2- May 12, 1980
comfort, convenience or public welfare of the persons residing
or working in the neighborhood of such use or be injurious to
property or improvements in the neighborhood.
Section 4.05 of the ordinance establishes standards with which
parking areas must comply.
Staff Findings
The staff has reviewed this proposal and found the following:
1. The proposed development would meet all zoning ordin-
ance requirements for a church use.
2. The proposed development will not create any undue
traffic or congestion on surrounding streets. The
new construction will be replacing similar existing
conditions.
Elimination of the south access drive on Nicollet
Avenue into the site will eliminate one source of
left turn movements, which will result in safer
traffic conditions on Nicollet Avenue.
3. Sufficient off - street parking is provided on the site.
City parking guidelines indicate that 271 spaces should
be provided, and 375 spaces will be provided.
4. The existing parking area does not meet city standards
for curbing and lighting. Additional curbing will be
provided around the buildings on the site, but budget
constraints prevent the applicant from constructing
curb around the perimeter of the parking area or
from providing additional lighting. The majority of
the site is properly lit, but there are areas in the
west parking area which are not covered by site lighting.
5. The exterior building materials of the proposed addition
will present a good aesthetic appearance and will blend
in with the existing building on the site.
Staff Recommendation
The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public welfare
or be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood -
Therefore, it is recommended that the city council approve the
special use permit and off - street parking permit as requested.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission recommends that the special use permit
be granted. -
cc: Community Development Director
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberg�r
City Manager
019, IYY Llc YlOS3INr NOl'.JNNYOOIP CW(M 3idOM'HS Ol0 1S3M OOt
M- NN" QNV 3MIL7311H -- JNI - S31voos Y QNV 3HVIS H 5yylt,}1
,� _ - YO15YA -13 ^IM Ha 35M OH3tl3 -Dtl a A^
' _ 'NNIW 'Ol31JH01a 5 3AV 13l10DIN 02[9 I ii
-- - li313d 1NIdS ;O H386HO 3H1 s
i.
E—ll
M�
�K
r
r
INW
r
3310
3�
r.r
f
T._
-_��_ —._
711V_--
I.-.
1
1,
Ll
�i
i.
E—ll
M�
�K
r
r
INW
r
3310
3�
r.r
f
--
J
OieSS Y10S3N4JIW N0I` IKIOOW
0195.199219 9N;NNYId pNtl 3WI1J3UH0tlY Gm 33d0XdHi Ol0 IS3M 002
JN' - S3IVIJOSN pNtl 31N1S N SVWOH
t o it
!
F
6
JHD]8 -13NM Iy 350^ 0M3tl "
-NNIW 'pl31JHJ1?) S 3nV 13llpJIN OZl9
li313d 1NIt/S ►o HounHo 3Hl
(
I
O
a_
a
:I
P'
r
—IT
I �
12 1 -
'"
OLbSS V'os3N ' �0'9"WDOIB
olll� 109 M OKM 33OXS 010 m
9NfNNV!d pV 32jo31. DtV ON, .41Vclosw GNV lJS .' sy
J!
NNM '013FJO.10�"Z
13110
6 AV OIN OZL9
E1313d INIVS JO Ho8nHO 3H1
Ij
T
z
0.
A
L
0
's3'-'
J!
T
z
0.
A
L
0
's3'-'
—:4
; Lm��-
rf
4-
I u
el— —171� Awl
err
'"NWId ONV Wnlll.�—
NNIM S 31V 13110DIN oz(9
H1313d INJVS JO HounHo 3Hi
—:4
; Lm��-
rf
4-
I u
el— —171� Awl
err
a
3nN3AV ,3 +3 13110JIN
13111
VP
If
J=
3nN3AV
FF
1___ —3-
-3 Q 0131—ON ' S110—k-
r-I
O2cSS VKS3MNw UVOd 33d)WHS OIQ 1S3
Y. IRR M 11S .
'W
4
NNIA S 3AV 13110DIN OZ19
H313d INIVS 10 HOunHO 3H1
3nN3AV ,3 +3 13110JIN
13111
VP
If
J=
3nN3AV
FF
1___ —3-
-3 Q 0131—ON ' S110—k-
r-I
1
'�
OLT% YgSiIi1Y N0191WpQN
`JMNM'b O+V 31YI1i3UN�YlY OC)d iidOMK OIO ppy
OIVS'IYS�W 7� '31\';,OSSri aq 1NVIS v SN/'IbS
-
-- -
- - --
- --
- -- --
_
_
YOaf• + -1L.Ir w6iP' ony1311)nw
'MNIYI 'p131lNpla � 5 3A7 OJ1N OZ19
»313d 1NIVS ;o HounHO 3H1
T7 ,-_ � -
I •4� a II ��
k
J
A�
�1
NOW
I
�1
Vc
i�
orm VICGP v 'NOu6fOQV C" 13d3M4 as 143n3
OWf -W►LA 5N wy Ma WL,311mcwr - I o3m3� a WS r sw ati ® ♦ _ -- —_ _ o 'NNIW 'Ol31WiN11�fl1y � -lN4H 11d3S f W 3 Atl U 131101[N 019
a313d 1NIVS to HounHO 3H
1 I
1:ZLE cl�i
IL
M �
^0w
^0
^M,
lo/
r_
rr
�1
. ►c
w
rn
O'
u
u
1 =1
_ � � -ref -� u=,! I-+ °
°
IN
is 469
��IU���I�� � N�W�1►
i ^t
£i9 ❑ v
HounHo
-1VIi.N3aISa A -1lwdd Tldirim
`�VUN3DIS38 k-JIV4VA 3 -19NIS 0
�--1 a
,L' 86 LJ.. A�
L
m
E 13�911 NC 9 ❑w
D �� �z`oL�v L] a•£ 6 L� m
N
- - D Z
£ 10 L1 N � [' z of "
b�� CAN � A ❑ "' U V Q
9 ❑f =
c
v
I'D
s L V
❑�
U�
Ej
1
I
❑ �
❑ ^_
N D O
�,s
❑ N
a�
� p
El
s
❑u
�p ,
Z16
1 iol
❑o
V oa
0
rn
O'
u
u
1 =1
_ � � -ref -� u=,! I-+ °
°
IN
is 469
��IU���I�� � N�W�1►
i ^t
£i9 ❑ v
HounHo
-1VIi.N3aISa A -1lwdd Tldirim
`�VUN3DIS38 k-JIV4VA 3 -19NIS 0
�--1 a
,L' 86 LJ.. A�
L
m
E 13�911 NC 9 ❑w
D �� �z`oL�v L] a•£ 6 L� m
N
- - D Z
£ 10 L1 N � [' z of "
b�� CAN � A ❑ "' U V Q
9 ❑f =
c
v
I'D
s L V
�0 £9
-1Z
U�
Ej
1
8 l.. "
m
❑ ^_
A ❑
❑ u
a-
a q
a�
T
I m
D
n --
O
c
Z
1 70
O
� W
-- C
W
_ Ll n r
- c AWUU ".:i(zn nmw
Y
L1�,z z D
'IS '
O p
;❑ 69 L7 u
m �s ❑�
w .
❑ yl b ❑
N
�❑ �£
±t
v
N
LSO
❑
lVl
u
El
El 0
N ED
�
T
I m
D
1S
c,
a ❑
4
r "❑
O1
crn o L�
C -
�/, _ ❑
Q
C3 � U
GA
llo, Ei
U
is q�69
W f� l kD
-4 --k -4 v ar 0 CO 110
D, Ln� two 3.
J Ell
C-1 1
Z u w >
I's ❑
A
W
I.El
El Czl(
D �,
co
F-
Y
6
m
CD
El
,zEl
2 1 ril
0
❑
El
of
m
rn 0 CC
1 L1
;m
Lj lt,.�,rz g.4j LJ
EEII
0
�F
-MIN30S3d X-IINVA 3-ldii-invq
*!-11 -1 3-1` l, 1\1 I c
xs 4A
El El
❑ El'
El
is
'1VIM3NNOO 'M3439
❑
>
<
El Czl(
D �,
co
F-
, L v
6
m
b
z
El
_z)t,
2 1 ril
>
z
of
m
0
170
r
F
AF,
❑
F-
C)
0
z
ill
Fj �I j l— D
w E]
LI
Ir
cn
I
a
'FJ
❑ ss El
El
r
pow,►
El
❑
❑
El
IS
El
Cl
El
ro ❑
cn O ❑
❑
Dom
l9z5?
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 161
Agenda May 12, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Recommendation for Denial of Taxicab
Drivers License
The city has received an application from Mr. Huseyin Babacan
for a taxicab drivers license. The background investigation con-
ducted by the public safety department with regard to this license
application reveals that the applicant has a record of seventeen
traffic violation convictions within the last five years. Most
recently, the applicant was convicted in both August and Septem-
ber, 1979, for speed related traffic offenses. The applicant
also has two outstanding warrants for his arrest.
The applicant meets none of the standards established by the
city for qualification for a taxicab drivers license. Therefore,
it is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which
I concur, that Mr. Babacan's request for a Richfield taxicab
drivers license be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /eja
cc: Public Safety Director
Acting City Clerk
l7
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
v
uncil Letter No. 160
Agenda May 12, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Discussion of Name for Municipal Golf Course
On April 10, 1978, the city council approved a resolution
establishing a citizen's golf course advisory committee. Since
that time the committee has dealt with a number of items related
to the design and construction of a golf course in the City of
Richfield, including selection of the architect, design phases,
policies, fees and charges, and naming of the golf course.
Earlier this year the committee began to talk-about naming
the golf course, and designing a logo for the course. In general,
it was agreed that the name should be short, catchy and distinctive,
and that the name should immediately identify the course and its
approximate location. _This could mean using a name with the ident-
ification of Richfield as part of it. The committee members sub-
mitted a list of name suggestions, and the council was polled for
name suggestions, and all of the suggestions were compiled into a
master list (copy attached). After discussion of the composite
listing, it was agreed that each committee member would vote for
five names, according to preference. These would be tallied accord-
ing to a point system. At the April 23, 1980 committee meeting, it
was agreed that the eight votes submitted would be tabulated and
the three names receiving the highest point counts would be sub-
mitted to the city council as the committee's recommendation(s)
for a name of the golf course.
The committee's recommendations for a golf course name include
the following, listed in the committee's order of preference.
Rich Acres
Green Acres
Municipal
Following are examples of possible names for the golf course
using the committee recommendations:
*Richfield's Rich Acres Golf Course
Rich Acres Golf Course of Richfield
Richfield's Green Acres Golf Course
Green Acres Golf Course of Richfield
Richfield Municipal Golf Course
Council Letter No. 160 -2- May 12, 1980
Should the council choose to name the golf course, the
council has the option of selecting any name. The nature center
is generally referred to as Richfield's Wood Lake Nature Center,
which typically is shortened to Wood Lake. The ice arena, swimming
pool, community center and other city facilities do not have
specific names, but would-be referred to, for example, as the
Richfield Ice Arena, the Richfield Municipal Swimming Pool, and
the Richfield Community Center. In selecting a name, the council
may wish to consider the golf course committee's comments related
to a name that is distinctive, not to be confused with another
course, immediately brings to mind a location, is short and catchy,
and easy to say or remember, and may possible lend itself to the
creation of a logo. Once a decision is made as to the name for the
golf course, it will take some time to prepare a logo, and to
prepare signage for publicity for the course.
Respectfully submitted,
IN
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /eja
cc: Community Services Director
r
i
SUMMARY - ,March 19, 1980
Possible Name Suggestions for the Richfield Golf Course
1.
Richfield City Park
31.
Sur; Prairie
2.
Richfield Green Acres
32.
66 Cedars
3.
Richfield iMeado:il ands
33.
P1 anevi e, ;i
4.
Richfield Green Meadcas
34.
i,leadowland
5.
Richfield Green Brier
35.
Cedar View
6.
Richfield Municipal
36.
Green Run
7.
Richaero Golfcourse
37.
Rich Acres
8.
Aerorich Golfcourse
38.
Spartan Park
9.
Richport Golfcourse
39.
Cedar Side
10.
Sunview
40.
Landing View
11.
Richvale
41.
Precious Ponds
12.
East Pointe
42.
Runaaa
`. 13.
Eastview
43.
Strawberry Meadows
14.
Prairie East
44.
Crabapple
15.
Richwood
45..
Breezy Hollow
16.
Richlane
46.
Little Lakes
17.
Richview
47.
Hidden Valley
18.
Richway
4S.
Strawberry Fields
19.
Sunrise
49.
Fox Meadows
20.
Sunvalme
50.
Greensward
21.
Sunway
51.
Greenways
22.
Sunny View
52•
Burmwood
23.
Sunny Side
53•
The Birdie's Nest
24.
East Trail =
54•
Standing Waterholes
25.
Eastside
55.
26.
Eastvale
56.
27.
Eastwood
57.
28.
Eastway
58.
29.
Rolling Prairie
59.
30.
Prairie View
60.
/d
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 159
Agenda May 12, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
.Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Bicycle
Paths. Second Reading.
On April 14, 1980, the city council gave first reading
approval to an ordinance amendment relating to the defined use
of bicycle paths within the City of Richfield. For some time,
Richfield has prohibited the riding of bicycles on streets ad-
jacent to which sidewalks are located. The primary legal basis
for this requirement was a Minnesota statute which requires that
"whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent
to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and not use the
roadway." Because most of the streets in Richfield which have
sidewalks adjacent are high traffic volume roadways, and because
of the rather narrow width of these streets (normally they do
not even include a parking lane), we felt that the ordinance
requiring bicyclists to use sidewalks was a significant safety
precaution.
In 1978, the state law which was the basis for our bikepath
ordinance was amended to generally give bicycles the same legal
definition as other motor vehicles. By this action, the legisla-
ture essentially gave bicyclists a right to use roadways in the
manner of other vehicles. In the spring of 1979, a Hennepin
County district court ruling held that a local (Minneapolis) ordin-
ance prohibiting bicycling riding on public roadways was more
restrictive than state statutes, and therefore, presented an il-
legal conflict with those statutory provisions. It appears that.
the principle of law involved in that case clearly extends to the
historic practice which we followed in designating bicycle paths
in the City of Richfield.
The attached ordinance amendment would conform with holdings
of the cited Minneapolis case, and accurately reflect existing
state statute, which defines bicycles- as vehicles and extends all
vehicle roadway rights to bicycles. The language of the ordinance
amendment provides that bicycle riders in Richfield would have
the option of continuing to use sidewalks rather than public
Council Letter No. 159 -2- May 12, 1980
1' roadways for bicycle paths.
It is recommended that the city council give second reading
approval to this ordinance amendment at the May 12, 1980 city
council meeting.
KN /eja
cc: Public Safety Director
Od-
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
i
I
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER V, PART IV,
SECTION 5.34 OF THE ORDINANCE
CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD,
MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter V, Part IV, Section 5.34 of the ordinance code
of the City of Richfield, Minnesota relating to bicycles and
bicycle riding is hereby amended by amending Subd. 3 thereof
as follows:
"Subd. 3. Restrictions on Bicycle Riding - State
Law Adopted by Reference.
The provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter
169 which are expressly applicable to bicycles
and bicycle riding are hereby adopted by
reference as is fully set forth herein. These
statutory provisions and the provisions relat-
ing to bicycles in Chapter IY of this code
govern the riding of bicycles within the
city. Wherever the city has provided sidewalks
and bituminous ramps adjacent to streets
[for the accommodation of bicycle riders], such
sidewalks and ramps, anywhere within the city,
shall be regarded as usable paths [within the
meaning of Minnesota Statutes 169.221, Subd. 4,
paragraph (c) and Minnesota Statutes 160.263.1
for riding bicycles.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, this day of , 1980.
Attest:
Sylvia K. Bergh - Actina, City
Clerk
Donald Priebe - Mayor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Agreement with
Participation
Program
Cguncil Letter No. 158
Agenda May 12, 1980
City of Minneapolis for
in Urban Corps Intern
For several years, the City of Richfield has cooperated
with the Urban Corps to place area college students in intern-
ship positions with the city. This arrangement has been quite
beneficial to us, since it has enabled the city to hire addi-
tional part time employees at very little cost, to either under-
take short term studies or projects, or to supplement our full
time work force in performing some of the city's on -going
services.
The Urban Corps program is administered by the City of
Minneapolis. In order for Richfield to continue participating
in this program, it is necessary to execute an agreement with
the City of Minneapolis, a copy of which is attached. This
agreement does not commit the City of Richfield to hire Urban
Corps interns, but it does provide that we can hire interns
through the Urban Corps program if we chose. The cost to the
city ranges from $1.15 to $1.65 per hour, depending upon the
time worked, and educational level of the intern. The attached
agreement covers the time from July 1, 1980 through June 30,
1981.
It is recommended that the city council authorize execu-
tion of the attached agreement with the City of Minneapolis.
KN /eja
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
AGREEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN URBAN CORPS PROGRAM
BETWEEN CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AND
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of , 19 ,
by and between the City of Minneapolis herein called Urban Corps and
(herein called "Agency ").
WHEREAS, the above named Agency, a public organization or private non - profit
organization, desires to participate in the Twin City Area Urban Corps and
in consideration for the assignment of Urban Corps student interns to the
Agency, we do hereby agree to the following terms and conditions:
1. The Urban Corps shall have the right to approve or reject requests for
student interns submitted by this Agency upon forms provided for that purpose
by the Urban Corps.
2. The Agency shall utilize such students as may be assioned to it in accor-
dance with the specifications set forth in its written request to the Urban Corps,
and shall immediately notify the Urban Corps of any change in nature of assignment,
duties, supervisor or work location.
3. The Agency shall provide such students as may be assigned to it with a safe
place to work and with adequate responsible supervision.
4. The Urban Corps shall have the right to inspect the work being performed
by such students as may be assigned to the Agency, and shall have the right to inter-
view such students and their suoerivsors.
5. The Urban Corps shall have the right to require such students as may be
assigned to the Agency to attend such general or special meetings, or to appear at
the Urban Corps office, individually or as a group, as shall be necessary for the
proper functions of the program.
6. In accordance with the requirements of Federal and State law, work per-
formed by such students as may be assigned to the Agency shall:
a. Be in the public interest;
b. Will not result in the displacement of employed workers or impair existing
contracts for services;
c. Does not involve the construction, operation or maintenance of so much
of any facility as is used, or is to be used, for sectarian instruction
or as a place for religious worship; and
d. Does not involve any partisan or nonpartisan political activity associated
with a candidate, or contending faction or group, in an election for pub-
lic or party office.
7. The Agency shall require such students as may be assigned to it to submit
time reports and follow such other procedures as may be established by the Urban
Corps.
8. The Urban Corps shall have the right to remove any student assigned to the
Agency from said assignment and from the Agency at any time for any reason without
prior notice, and the Urban Corps shall-not be obligated to replace said student.
9. The Agency shall have the right to remove any student assigned to said.
Agency at any time with prior notice given to the student and the Urban Corps_.
10. The Agency warrants that it is in compliance with the provisions of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88 -352, 78 Stat. 252), Minnesota Statutes Section
181.59 and Minneapolis Code of Ordinance, Chapter 139 and 141.
11. The Agency shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless the Urban Corps from
all claims, causes or actions which may result from the assignments of students to
the Agency.
12. The Agency shall obtain at its own expense Workman's Compensation insurance
(or shall be self- insured under State Law) for such students as may be assigned to
it under this Agreement.-
13. The Agency shall pay to the Urban Corps 30. of the gross compensation
earned by such students assigned and accepted by the Agency under a Federal or
State program. The Urban Corps will bill the Agency, in accordance with bi- weekly
payroll periods, for its proper share of the compensation of such students as may
have been assigned to the Agency and performed work during said period. Student
hourly rates are set forth in Section 13(a), and 13(b) of this Agreement.
a. Hourly —compensation for students will-'be set at S 4.10 per hour for
entering freshmen through receipt of a Bachelor's Degree, and 56,70 per hour for
graduate students.
b. A graduate student is defined for purposes of this Agreement as one who
has received a B.A., B.S., or equivalent degree or is enrolled in the fifth year
of a five year program.
14. At the election of the Agency, the Urban Corps shall place students to
intern under a Stipend program. This--option will be specified in the Assignment
Form which the intern's Agency supervisor must sign before commencement of the
internship. The Stipend rate which the Agency shall pay the Urban Corps is
$30.00 per week for each week the student works.
15. At the election of the Agency, the Urban Corps shall place interns for
whom the Agency will pay the intern's total compensation plus an additional ten
percent(10%) for administrative costs. This option will be specified in the
Assianment Form which the intern's Agency supervisor must sign before commencement
of the internship. Agency rates for said option are set forth in Section 15(a) and
15(b), of this Agreement.
a — Agency rates for students will be set at $4.51 per hour for entering
freshmen through receipt of a Bachelor's Degree; and 36.27 per hour for graduate
students.
b. A graduate student is defined for purposes of this Agreement as one who
has received a B.A., B.S., or equivalent degree or is enrolled in the fifth year of
a five year program -
16. Performance under this contract shall commence on July 1, 1980 and ter-
minate on June 30, 1981, unless amended in writing as mutually agreed upon by both
the Agency and the Institution; however, either party may terminate upon sixty (60)
days written notice.
Based upon the statements and affirmations made by the Agency through the
above document, the Urban Corps hereby agrees to the assignment of students to
said Agency, in accordance with said document and the applicable laws and regulations.
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AGENCY
Name
By
Mayor Address
ATTEST:. City State Zip
By
City C erk Title
By .
COUNTERSIGNED: Title
Attest:
City Comptroller- Treasurer
Approved as to Legality:
'Assistant City of Minneapolis Attorney
i!+
e
i
Twin City Area
Urban or s
Room 107B, City Hall, Minneapolis, MN 55415, (612) 348 -6967
April 21, 1980
TO: Urban Corps Agencies
FROM: Urban Corps Staff
RE: 1980 Agreements
Enclosed are two copies of the 1980 Urban Corps Agreement. If
your agency wishes to continue participating in the Urban Corps program,
both Agreements should be signed by the appropriate personnel and re-
turned to the Urban Corps at the above address. The Agreements should
be in the Urban Corps Office by Monday, May 26, 1980. The City
of Minneapolis will process the Agreements and return an original
Agreement to your Agency.
The following changes have been made in the 1980 - 1981 Agreement:
1. Time frame: The enclosed Agreement is effective from
July 1, 1980 to June 30, 1981. This will allow the
Urban Corps to have Agreements aligned with the fiscal
year of the programs from which the students receive
funding.
2. Stipend: (changed under current contract, repeated for
your information) The Urban Corps has changed the
Stipend program covering students not eligible to
receive hourly compensation. The Stipend is to cover
costs incurred by the student incidental to his or '
her internship. Beginning January 1, 1980 the agency
will be billed $30.00 /week=-for students accepted under
the Stipend program. The $30.00 /week will be charged
for each week the student works independent of the
number of hours the students works. The student will
receive a $20.00 /week Stipend with the remaining
$10.00 /week applied to Urban Corps Administrative
expenses. 'The Urban Corps application form you must
sign to accept an intern will' clearly identify students
under the Stipend Program.
Twin City Area Urban Corps —a creative experience in service learning
An equal opportunity, affirmative action employer
k
3. Enclosed card: To aue the Urban Cor ps. return your Agree-
ment to, the correct # 5o.n,' plea -se .comp .,e e' _the' :enclosed card,
identi -fy who the Agreement should be se�-fttl.,to,'the complete
address`':and. telephone number: Return _the card to -the urban
Corps w ?jth the signed:Agreements.
If you 'have. any questions,.regarding the _.Agreements or the Urban Corps
Program,- assistance may be received by calling the Minneepo is Office
(348- 6967_) or the St._ Paul Office (298- 4376).
RJG /sl
Enc.
Zip Code
PLEASE RETURN THIS WITH YOUR CONTRACTS
0