07-25-77 agenda/~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 234
Agenda July 25, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Block Party Barricades
Mr. Clarence Huckle, 6920 Thomas Avenue, has requested that
Thomas Avenue between 69th Street and 70th Street be barricaded on
Saturday, July 30, from 2;00 p,m, to 9:00 p.m. for purposes of holding
a block party,
Ms. joy Muscato, 7400 Upton Avenue, has requested that Upton Avenue
be barricaded between 74th and 75th Streets on Saturday, August_ 27, from
4:00 p,m. to midnight for purposes of holding a block party.
The only stipulations attached to these requests a~rould be that the city
erect the barricades and that they be erected in such a way so as to permit
ingress and egress of emergency vehicles should that be necessary during
the time of the block party.
Respectfully submitted,
~ r' ' f ' "'
U ~. V~fiayne S. Burggr~aff ~ f
City Manager
WSB/eja
cc: Public Safety Director
Public Works Director
y
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 233
Agenda July 25, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen;
Subject; Authorization to Call for Bids
The 1977/82 Capital Improvements Program adopted by the city council on
March 31, 1977 reserves funds for improvements to the central garage.
The first phase of this project was completed in the spring of 1977 and
entailed installation of a concrete floor and drains in the main portion of the
centra 1 garage building .
The schedule for phase two of this project includes the placing of concre•~2
floor and drainage in the north part of the west garage building. The floor
space to be improved is approximately 6500 square feet in size. Approximately
5500 feet will be left unimproved after completion of phase two and the balance
of this work scheduled for 1978. The city staff estimates that the cost of
completing the 1977 portion of the project is approximately $20, 000.
Specifications have been prepared and it is recommended that the city
council authorize the call for bids to improve the north part of the west building
of the central garage facility.
Respectfully submitted,
~~ - ' tai
~~ ~ ~
Wayne S, Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB/eja
cc; Finance Director
Public Works Director
9
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 232.
Agenda July 25, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
y
Subject: Off-Street Parking Contract, 7724 Harriet Avenue
Mr, Jim Weitzel, property owner of 7724 Harriet Avenue, has requested
approval. of an off-street parking agreement. This off-street parking contract
would establish performance standards for driveway and parking area modif-
ications required pursuant to the special use permit for a public garage
which the council approved at their July 11 , 1977 meeting.
The parking standards. require eight parking spaces to accomodate
employee and customer vehicles . This requirement is based on three -parking
spaces per service stall and one per employee. The applicant is providing
seven parking spaces. The parking area should also be resurfaced and the
boulevard landscaped,
The staff has reviewed the off-street parking agreement and recommends
cauncil approval.
Respectfully submitted,
~ Wa ne S . Bur raa ~~~
Y gg
City Manager
WSB/eja
cc: Acting Public Works Director
Planning Director
.. ,£ s r
~~ ~ ,
t"
t~:
.;
i~= `~
_. - - - - --- --
99 _
...,~
SGCtie~
G
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 231
Agenda July 25, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject; L/H/N Rezoning
Late last year, the city council requested-the planning commission to
review the issue of zoning district changes in and near the L/H/N redevel-
opment area. Some zoning changes in the L/H/N area have been proposed
as a part of the redevelopment project. The purpose of the suggested zoning
changes is to better relate the existing land use to an appropriate zoning
district. For example, an area used for multi-residential purposes should
perhaps be zoned MR instead of commercial. Zoning district changes may
also be appropriate in areas where the redevelopment plan calls for a change
in land use; a zoning district amendment could serve to encourage use of
that land for the desired purpose. (An example of this would be the Woodlake
School site) .
The result of this rezoning process would be to have the zoning throughout
the L/H/N redevelopment area consistent with the land use elements contained
in the redevelopment plan. To accomplish this, zoning changes would be
required in some places to allow higher intensity uses ("up-zoning"}; in other
cases, the suggested zone change would require zoning for less intense uses
than are presently possible ("down-zoning") .
Background
At the July 1976 planning commission meeting, the commissioners discussed
the proposed rezoning. This discussion was continued to the August meeting
when representatives of Holy Angels Academy and Mr. Larry Wozn iczka were
present. At that meeting, the commissioners heard testimony from these
people relative to their feelings on the suggested zone changes . Also at that
meeting,: the commissioners briefly discussed the effects of down-zoning and
up-zoning, .and the relationship of zoning changes to property rights.
At the October, 1976, planning commission meeting, the assistant city
attorney, john Dean, provided the commission with additional information
Council Letter No. 231 -2- July 25, 1977
regarding the authority, procedure and legal considerations of zoning
ordinance amendments.
In summary, this information explained how Minnesota legislation provides
the Richfield City Council with the necessary powers and uniform procedure
to undertake zoning and zoning amendments: published notice and/or mailing
must be sent to adjacent property owners notifying them of the public hearing;
the city council has established a policy of notifying property owners within
350 feet, A zoning amendment requires atwo-thirds vote of the full city
council. Different factors may prompt a .rezoning, but all rezonings should be
able to stand the test of reasonableness; this is, the zoning amendment
cannot be arbitrary, confiscating or discriminating.
The challenge to the validity of an ordinance is customarily made on the
grounds that it is unconstitutional, in that it is confiscatory, arbitrary, un-
reasonable, deprives the plaintiff of property without due process of law and
denies the plaintiff equal protection of the law,
The basic words "confiscatory" , "arbitrary" , and "discriminatory", although
in some instances overlapping, are generally used to depict different situations .
Confiscation is the taking of property by a municipality without the due process
of law required by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The amend-
ment, therefore, is not to be held unconstitutional merely because property
may not be put to its most profitable use. But where property values are
extensively reduced by the restriction and the corresponding gain to the public
is slight, the ordinance will be held invalid as confiscatory.
Whether an ordinance is arbitrary depends upon whether it is shown to
have a substantial relation to the furtherance of any of the general objectives
mentioned in the enabling act. Where property is zoned at variance with
existing conditions in the surrounding area, so that the objectives of the
enabling act are not and cannot be advanced by such restrictions, the im-
position of such restrictions is arbitrary with respect to the particular property
involved .
A zoning amendment is discriminatory if it does not operate with uniformity,
being alike in its application to all persons or property in like circumstances.
It is just as important to follow .the statutory procedure required for the
amendment of an ordinance as it is to do so in the case of enactment of the
ordinance; failure to conform to the statutory requirements will render the
amendment invalid. (Arden Rathkopf, The Law of Planning and Zoning, 3rd
Edition, Volume 1, Clark Boardman Company, Ltd. New York, NY 1968).
Recommendations
At the January, 1977 planning commission meeting, the commissioners
adopted recommendations regarding the suggested zoning changes .
In making these zoning recommendations, the commission and staff have
Council Letter No. 231 -3-
July 25, 1977
utilized the adopted goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, trans-
portation and land plans in relation to the existing zoning ordinance, and
the background of legal information. At this time, the city council is being
asked to take action to either initiate or no.t inatiate the suggested rezonings.
The planning commission will hold a public hearing at a later date on any
actual rezonings if the council decides to initiate the rezoning.
Following are the eight suggested zoning district changes in the L/H/N
area which the staff and planning commission have considered:
1. Location: 150 foot wide strip zone on the south side of
66th Street between Nicollet Avenue and Pleasant Avenue.
Recommendation: The staff recommends down-zoning this
piece of property from general commercial, C-2 , to institutional
and, in turn, rezoning the entire Holy Angels Academy property
from single family residential to institutional. This would
require the development of a new zone (institutional) .
Perceived Advantages Perceived Disadvantages
Uses zoning as an implementation Limits use of property, in-
tool in conformance with Compre- stitutional only.
hensive Plan.
Promotes L/H/N goal of contained Reduces amount of land zoned
commercial for commercial development
Prevents extension of strip comm-
ercial along 66th Street
Maintains open space between
commercial and residential
Helps promote "positive" image of
area (park-like institutional)
Protects property values to the south
Limits additional street traffic which
could be generated by commercial
land use
Increases use potential for other
types of institutional purposes .
2. Location: One lot 79 x 129 feet at 6601 Grand Avenue
Council Letter No. 231 -4-
Recommendation: The staff recommends that-this property retain
its general commercial, C-2, zoning classification. The comm-
ission reviewed advantages and disadvantages of possibly down-
zoning this property to single family residential:
Perceived Advantages
Maintains single family
character of block
Restricts continued use of
single family home for comm-
cial use
Helps prevent extension of strip
commercial along 66th Street
Eliminates asemi-spot zone
July 25 , 1977
Perceived Disadvantages
Comprehensive Plan indicates
CBD •commercial use for entire
block
Would create anon-conforming
use
Reduces amount of commercially
zoned land in Richfield
Would promote, through zoning,
single family use of land in
conflict with character of 66th
Street (high traffic volumes)
3. Location; Land zoned one lot deep on both sides of Lyndale
Avenue north of 63rd Street and south of Crosstown 62.
Recommendation: This area was studied for down zoning from
general commercial, C-2 , to neighborhood commercial C-l . The
staff recommends retaining the existing general commercial zoning
classification. It is further recommended that stringent design
and development standards be enforced to promote economic and
development actions complementary to the activity in the L/H/N
area .
The preceived advantages and disadvantages of down-zoning this
area from C-2 to C-1 include the following;
Perceived Advantages
Promotes concentration of CBD
use in L/H/N project area
Small parcels make area more
conducive to neighborhood
commercial
Perceived Disadvantages
Creates many non-conforming
uses (auto and retail stores)
Comprehensive Plan indicates
general commercial CBD type
uses
provides transition in use to Freeway interchange location not
L/H/N area conducive to neighborhood commer-
cial uses
Council Letter No. 231 -5- July 25, 1977
4. Location: Two separate pieces of property on either side of
Lyndale Avenue north of 64th Street. Land use is presently
multi-family.
Recommendation: These parcels were studied for the effects
of changing the zoning from general commercial, C-2, to
multi-family, Staff recommends changing the zoning to multi-
family residential, '
Perceived Advantages
Would maintain multi-family use
of property
Perceived Disadvantages
Limits options open to owner
of property on use of property
Maintains a break in the strip
commercial on Lyndale
Reduces amount of commercial
zoned land in Richfield
Provides transition between Breaks commercial front of the
commercial north of 63rd Street street
and proposed commer cial activity
in the L/H/N
Would prevent conversions of
entire structures or individual
dwelling units to commercial uses
Property within the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet project boundaries where zoning
is not in conformance with the Redevelopment Plan:
5. Location; Wood Lake School site, presently zoned single
family residential, should be rezoned to multi-family.
Recommendation: No rezoning action at this time.
Reasons: Proposal requesting rezoning to PUD for rtnulti-family
residential has been submitted .
Comprehensive plan indicates multi-family land use.
6. Location: Parcels one lot deep fronting on Harriet Avenue between
66th Street and 67th Street. Presently zoned single family residential,
should be general commercial.
Recommendation; No rezoning action at this time .
Reason: Wait for development proposal from Richfield Bank & Trust.
Neighborhood promise . Shown as CBD type commercial in
Comprehensive Pian,
Council Letter No. 231 -6- July 25, 1977
7. Location: Seven parcels on Graham Avenue between 66th
Street and Lyndale Avenue. Presently zoned single family
residential, should be zoned general commercial.
Recommendation: No rezoning action at this time.
Reasons: Wait for Home Improvement Center proposal.
Comprehensive Plan indicates this land should be general
commercial .
8. Location: The area which includes a portion of Aldrich Avenue
at Richfield. Lake and the Lyndale Garden Center property. These
properties should be rezoned to multi-family residential.
Recommendation: No rezoning action at this time .
Reasons: Wait for multi-residential development proposal,
Comprehensive Plan indicates the land should be multi-family
residential.
In summary, the staff is recommending addition of the zoning classification
I, (institutional) to the zoning ordinance, establishing development standards
to be implemented in the commercial area north of 63rd Street, and rezoning be
initiated at the following locations:
1. Down-zone commercial zoning on the Holy Angels Academy
property between N collet and Pleasant from general commercial
to single family residential and rezone entire Holy Angel's
property to Institutional (#1 on attached map) .
2. Rezone the property at 6345 Lyndale Avenue from general
commercial to multi-family residential (#4b on the attached map) .
3. Rezone. the .property at 6320 Lyndale Avenue from general
commercial to multi-family residential (#4a on attached map)..
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission at their January 25, 1977 meeting, took testimony
from Mr. John F oley, Busi ness Manager-for Sisters of St. Joseph, who
represents the Holy Angels property. Mr. Foley requested that no change in
zoning occur on the Holy Angels property, and expressed concern that rezoning
would reduce the value of the property if it were sold in the future .
Mr. Larry Wozniczka, 6744 Wentworth Avenue, appeared and expressed
his opposition to rezoning the Holy Angels property, and indicated that he
Council Letter No. 231 - 7 - July 25, 1977
felt it should remain zoned for single family use. Mr. Harold Lunow,
6233 Lyndale Avenue, inquired about the definition of neighborhood
commercial . '
The planning commission discussed, various aspects of the suggested
zoning district changes and made the following recommendation to the
city council:
That the city council initiate rezoning the property at 6345 Lyndale
and 6320 Lyndale from general commercial to multi-family residential.
The commission also asked that the city council provide additional
guidance regarding whether there should be further study of the institutional
zoning classification and areas to which this possible classification could
be applied.
Respectfully submitted,
Wayne S . Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB/eja
cc: Planning Director
City Attorney
( -
..
«~~ - _
6744 Itilenti.~zorth Avenge South
Richfield, I~L~~ 55423 .~ _
August 24, 1976
Planning Co,nnission
ci_~y of Ra_chfie7_cI, Minnesota '
1`ie,.iber°s of the P1az-~~ing Conu,~.ission:
Tlris letter is i.n regard to the possible.rezonings i.n the areas of the Lynd-alo/
Hub/Nicol.let Conunerci_a]- IT;~provement Project.
Differences exist in three maps which govern the development of this area,
nalnel}r :
1. The project boundaries
2. The co>>~prel~.ensi :re plan
3. The zoning map
Difficl~lties iallich arise from this sort of inconsistency are 'r:ypified by the
change f~°am single fariily to commercial which occured taithout Planning Canu~~.ission
la~owledge at the July 12, 1976 Council meeting. A simple reU4uest for off-street
parking permit has Z~~,ade it possible for commercial activity to extend to 6601
Grand Avenue - are area. indicated as single family on both the J iiN and Cor~iprellen-
sitire Plans. (I`eference Letter of objection by L. R. 1-ti'ozniczl:a to Mayor Law and
Cit}Y Cou~rcil in regards to Item it on- the July 12 agenda). The City Council
approved. the pa-ric.-~ng peririt without fencin-g betT{:een- it and single family residel~-
tial ar~d without the addition of any off-street parking under the belief that the
new business ~~~ould not e~.etract from the residential nature and with the under-
standing that the new o~~nler would agree to dojrn zoning of the property to single
family with permission to continue that specific business iri the residential zone.
The Council instructed the Planning Conunission to revieTa the entire I,I-IN project
botli~dary and recor~nend changes which will enable it to become consistent with th.e
zoning map. I believe that this course of action ~,~ill enable those of us tivilo
live in the near vicinity to betty plan our destinies. The current state of dif-
ference, leads to a subconscious fear every time a map is drattinr up. This is exag-
gerated by subtle differences such as: ~
~:
Project recommended Alternate Plan of 9/15/7G shoi;ring boundary of LIl'~I af. n'x ddle
of block between Grand and Harriet.
Project plan received 1a.st Friday shows it to be at west side of Grand.
Zoning map showing commercial along entire southern edge of 66th. Street, except
for on- lot, but only about 100 feet inward.
Comprehensive Plan being changed within the last fear months to the west side of
Grand (convllercial) , i~Titb-o~zt notifying the neighbors of the change and ~4Tithout
hon-oring a promise that the City Council gave the residents that the boundary
would not be established wltil after a neighborhood meeting.
-2-
Project plan :zz.r area of so~_zi.h~resc. Pich..f:field Lalc~~~ e;xpandecl on 8/20/76 map over
11/5/%5 map.
T_n order to pro'rect the rieigli:(~orhood to the greatest. possible exf:ent, I recoi;i-
mcn.d that the Goz~i.~1g i,laii be ~r°evisecl to rei=:lect the I.otiac~st t;se of the 1 ai~cz. in
u__.. _ ca.~ c5 T._,e~ ..-. c, ~:rz~.~, . s to trzat usa ~ are pro j c ctec by Project Developme;tlt A~1ap
plans. I£i_gher uses of the lazzd should. not be rezcncd unt~.1_ after th.e specific
appl.ica_nt lzas been iclent~ified, and. ~-.~:ith the assurance that 1i.is plans are corzpati_-
ble with the project developp~en_t plan and the conurel~.ensive plarz_.
`This course of action accoiizplishes the follo~4~ing:
1. Assures the project intents are achieved by cortrollirzg random higl"ier
uses of tl~e land ti~:~hich are inconsistent ~:Tif.h project ciev~lopznent goals .
2. Assures a thorougl-r public hear. frig on up zon:uig at the time a. develop-
ment is ma%ur.e by :deans of the hearings related to rezoning.
3. Encourages the mai.ntezzance of single far~~ily r. esi dentia.l developmeii`ts
in boundary areas by virtue cf the assurance that their destiny is
protected by zoning ordinazi.ce .
Thee°e is a. nu.estion that the do~~~r> zoning of existing property may be detrimental
to its valuation. For large parcels, phis should be no concern since the possi-
ble fzzture change in use i,Tould rewire a rezoning o:~ most of tine area an.yt1TajT. For
individual parcels, the arg?.nnent must include a specific ara.luation of the property
valuations used for tax purposes and tl~ie value if sold for coml~r~ercial purpose.
In the case of 6601 Grand this data is noj~T history and could be used. I am c{uite
certain that for the past few years valuations for tax purposes were t~rel.l beloi;r
the sale price. `I'I>.erefore, it is not urireasonable to dot~v~zi zone,
The greater protection and more orderly development o.f_ the LHI~I district are
assured by th.e dorm zoning of properties not plazried for uses as high as indicated.
on the zoning rnap .
I would like to talcs this opportunity to ask the Planning Commission to establ.i.sh
two other controls which will enhance orderly development:
1. Maintain a change or revision level to indicate modifications to the redevelop-
ment map. (I would 1-,.ope that such changes t-~Tou1_d only follow due process of
review by n~~~iglibors, property oi~nzers and tenants, Planning Co~mizzissio::. and
Council).
2. Distxibute copies of the comprehensive plan, establish a. revision level ir~d.i-
catiorz and rigorous change procedure.
Thanlc you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
~..
L. R. Wozniczk~:
RICHI'IELD PI~71NN7NG COI~~M:I:SSION
MINU`1:'ES
January 25, 1977
MLMBE;RS PI;ESENT. Cl~iairman Lindgren, Commissione.r.s Lien, Anderson,
Er_t~~an, Ahlqu.ist, U1.rich, Ketcham, a.nd Council
Liaison Ludem~_.ri.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ccn~missioners Susag and Helmberger.
STAI'F PRI~'SEN`I': Richard. C. Krier, Pla.nn:ing Dirc~otor; Judy Kunz,
Secretary.
APPROVAL OI' MINUTES
M/Anderson, S/Ulrich to approve the minu.tcs of the December 28, 1976
rneeL-irlg.
Motion carried.
ITEM #l, L/H/N RF70NING '
The chairman tools testimony from the residents first since one indi-
vidual had ano-cher cor~~~nitment early in the evening .
I~Ir. John l~'o1ey, Business Manager for Sisters of St. Joseph, St. Paul,
Minnesota appe erred before -she Pl~inn.ing Colrmllssior~ and requested that
no change in the zoning of Holy A..ngels tal,e~ place since he felt it
would reduce the value of the property in view of any possible sale
in the future.
Mr. Larry Wozniczka, 674 V~7entworth Avenue South, appeared before
the Planning Corruni>sion and expressed his opposition to rezoning the
Holy Angels property to insti.t.utional, however, he would be in favor
of sinale family as part of it is now.
The Planning Director then cJ_arified the option of the commission in
rezoning Holy Angels a.s instituti.onal, i.e., if there is a public
purpose for Richfield to maintain Holy Angels as an institutional
use then it should be rezoned institutional and not si~igle family.
The Planning Director then reviewed the history/initiation of this
item and reviewed each of the eight areas of rezoning as found in the
staff's lett-_er_ of recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Harold Lunow, 6233 Lyndale Avenue South, appeared before the Plan-
ning Commission inquiring about the definition of neighborhood com-
mercial. The Planning Director explained the difference in allowed
uses and intent for_ general corzunercial and nei_ghbor..hood commercial..
The Planning Commission discussed various aspects of rezoning in the
L/H/N area including the following:
-2-
Area From `I'o
1. .150-foot: wide strip zone on Genera7_ Commercial Institut.iorral
the south. side of 66th Street C-7_ -
between Nicol let Avenue and
Pleasant Avenue.
2. One lot 79 X 1.2~ feet at Retain General Commercial C-2
6601_ Grand Avenlxe Soutl-~.
3. Land. zoned oile lot deep on Retain General Commercial C--?_
both sides of Lyrrdal.e Avenue
of_ 63rd S tree t and south of
Crossto~h~n 62.
4. Two separate pieces of pro- General Conurrerrial Multi--Fami1_y
petty on either. side of_ I~yn-
da1_e Avenue earth of 6~lth
Street.
5. Wood Lake School site. Single Family Multi-Family
Residenti~~_"I Residential
6. Parcels one lot deep front- Single Family General.
ing on Harr~_et Avenue South Residential Cozrunercial_
between 66th Street and 67th
Street .
7. Seven parcels on Graham Single Family General.
Avenue bet~~,een 66th Street Residential Comrrlercial
and Lyndale Avenue.
8. Tyre area G-rhich includes a
portion of Aldrich Avenue
South at Richfield Lake
and the Lyndale Garden
Center property.
No rezoning action at tYiis time.
M/Lien, S/Ahlquist to recommend to the city council that_rezonings be
initiated to rezone the properties a~ 6345 Lyndale Avenue SGUt'i~ and
6320 Lyndale Avenue South from general commercial to multi-family
residential.
Motion carried 5-2 with Commissioners Ketcham and Ertman voting no.
M/Ahlquist, S/Ulrich i.o inquire of the City Council if the Planni.nq
Commission should_ study the c]_assification and areas of Insti'cutional
zoning.
Motion carried.
FIVE MINUTE RECESS
c
~ cs r r~ / Ei r-~ 1. `: , ~, ~ C 1 - I F ; a b p[ ~ :u f
0...74. L:~u.' ~.,~ . ~ t, ~,r ~~, _ `.. ~. ~ )`~ _ __-__.__-- °~-~~ __
_r
_ _ _ __ o~~
l ~- .._ ~
_ 1
° ~ TT f ~" t 1 1 1 I 1 ' I ~--I -~ i 1, ~ ~ E"
I I 1 , I ~ ~ I• ~'
_ ..
I _~ ---
_ .- - -
- --
,~- I( ~ i; i ~~~I-~ r~ji1~( ~ +~ i it-IIII~ ~~ ~
_~ I ~ I _
T T~I._~Lr 1 -
~ ~ ~ , ~ .
--
.l ~ i~ ~ (~ ;~ 11 1 ~; I X111 1, ~ ~ ~ 1 1 I ~ -f-
I __``
\\\1 ~\ i- I - ~ ~ f - F I I.:..~ r~mx r e (` ~ - I f ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~-~ ~~ J~
~~:~ r
{ r~ i ^
_ l ~ o `~
\ ~~~ ____ ~__~._1_!__I_~ 1 i___L__.. 7~t_1 7lJ, ~ L 1-f g LI u" ~" C_'~_
~ 3nY 13110 J/. v -l1, rF Qp t
\ I i I ~y j _i _T 1 T ~ .1 I („} ~ ~ I rG ~ i , y _ ._ ,_. I'-mil Sv il,_~ L
-_r -'-1 I - ~ -I ~ I ~ -.45~^tl ..i ... _ -_4H.33 ~4 ~ .~ ~ ~ ii ! ~ E t•'"}
~---~- _.I ; i l t ._J ~-_i_~ L_r "v , :~l (? I pp' rn ii}} r~', $.'s \ ^_
• - 1~T 1~ ~ ( ~ ~ i I I I _.~ i i I r_-1 I ~rY ' ~ ~c 2-i Qf rU ~~~* g.
I~ 1=~~-~''~1.~;!~i!Ii~ IIi(~ r!! ~~_, is <°~ ~'~~~ ~:;
=-^ I it -~ ---- `- 1 -~-1 L L__.. ~ ~ ` ~nT ¢ ~.J ~' ~.
1-i 1-- ~) W n \.~
~~ I °D ~ '~".° (~7 ~ 1 _ ~ I I i ---I I --I (v ~~ ~ 6 - ~ t _~ .r , y. ~.r
r
~J.... _ _ _ 1jY Y31L ~ J ._.__ -...
I ~I ~t I ~n ~ __I I~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I, ~ i 1 T~ ~ ~T I r~
S _ QAYXI
~J ~ ~ L)A / T r i c! --r1 l Itc-neto-, 4 4.
m ~
' _ __
n ~ - r tI _ t. . _ _
U a ~:~ _ ~:. i .____ _ _~ .._. _ ~ ; . _ _
__ ,
,I ~~ _a_ _ __ ~ _ _ _
p 6
~; `3n~[t} 0131lNYa ~ -___111 f4 `_ ,Cd A - `. ` ~pF _.- -.._.
~ f 111111 ` IIYYO 4O4 ~ - 1' ~ ,f \.= - _ .. J ~ R
' ~'
_ ~/ ~ P a> i _. ^ J
Ir/
\ :r -
p ~ ~ `~ ,
! 1 1~r
,;: n
I{///\ 5 ,
I I I '3AYu. NaItlJIY ~ _..~ •~ ,I // ~/i ~ ,5t` ~. \ ~y i
~~~ I T~ -~ ` I ~ -~ % e ~`Fec;syi /! _ ~o .<~r1`~llr`( ~ /'•~ o _
`,~I-_1 ~ . LI ~,. x14 --_ A ~ ~ _ ~ ~,
--{ ,~ ~- ~,, _
- ~~~~ -- ~ _ IW 3:i f `
~ '~nY 1NO.rnu '~ ~ ~\/I ~._-r OOOA1Nti1 l n~ _ ~
i.. _ \` I M I I ~ 7il I~
1 I I I ~ ~ I ~ - ~ o~~ ~ X ca 0 ~ ~ ~ _ I ~ it ~ ,1 II I i !r~ ~ r ~1 ~ ~ .
I I ~ I t1. ~ __~ IifTJ61yFSR18yIi341d ) ~ I ) I I I I
~;~~,, ,,~f, ~, ;1 .~ ~_ ~ ~- ~ .1. , ~ ~ ~ . , l_11 I ~~~~~,
~ \;, ~ ~ .ILt) I I ' ). 1 L ~ Iw - vwllG IcYnusr~l. 1 1 I._. 1 1 ~ I - _
I ~ \ 3 Y Nosuy y{'
~~~,~ ~ ~~~_. ... Il I~~i ~f ; I ~ 1~I` ,~~r~ R--I-- 1 I _ I--r~ ! ~\.
.,~I,,I, ~ II ~~~ I I
\~ ~Il. ~ ~~ `'~~ i l~ l i'! ~ I ~ I I1 J 1 i. ~ t. I i 1 1 L_! `~I _ I I I I 1 7 l l 1_ ~ i
\ _
7 -~ ~
. -_ __ .\ - Y _ y -- 4S - _
_ ~_
-~, £ ~-
__ __ ~ _
- ~ '-
l' 4' s
//
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 230
Agenda July 25, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Community Health Services Plan
As council members are aware, the City of Richfield has received in 1977
a state subsidy of approximately $55,000 to help support local health programs.
Richfield has used most of these monies to purchase personal health services
from the City of Bloomington and the remaining funds to maintain our own
environmental health program.
In order for the city to continue receiving the subsidy, it is necessary for
us to prepare a local community health services plan for 1978. Because we
have had only six months experience with our current community health services
program, the 1978 plan will be essentially unchanged. It is anticipated that the
city will again qualify for approximately a $55,000 subsidy in 1978.
It is recommended. that the city council adopt the attached resolution
authorizing submission of the 1978 community health services plan in application
for this subsidy.
Respectfully submitted,
~ Wayne S . Burggra ~f~ ~ ~ ~
City Manager
WSBjeja
cc: Administrative Assistant
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAN FOR PROVISION OF
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
AND THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES ACT SUBSIDY
WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Richfield is the official
governing body of the City of Richfield and functions as the official
Board of Health of the City of Richfield, and
WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to promote, support, and
maintain the health of the entire community at the highest level, and
WHEREAS, .the Community Health Services Act provides for subsidies
in support of public health services on the local level throughout the State
of Minnesota .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield 'chat the Community Health Services Plan for the City of Richfield
is approved and authorization is hereby given to submit this plan in
application fora Community Health Services Act subsidy. - - ._
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 25th day of
July, 1977,
Loren ~. Law MAYOR
ATTEST:
Thomas j. Moran City Clerk
CITE OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 229
Agenda July 25, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen: _
Subject: Appeal of Masseuse Certificate Revocation
Ms . Darlene Virginia Fahrney
There is a public hearing scheduled for the July 25, 1977 city council
meeting regarding the revocation of a masseuse certificate issued to Ms.
Darlene Virginia Fahrney.
Ms. Fahrney was notified on July 11, 1977 that the masseuse certificate
issued to her by the City of Richfield was being revcked in accordance with
Section 5.26, subdivision 9 of the Richfield City Ordinance, in that_as an
employee or agent of Paradise Palace Sauna she did engage in conduct
inimical to the interest of the public health, welfare, safety or morals; and
did engage in conduct involving moral turpitude.
This revocation is based on the following grounds:
That on July 7, 1977 Ms. Fahrney did offer herself for the purpose
of prostitution contrary to Richfield City Ordinance Code Section
10.16, subdivision 10.
Ms. Fahrney was arrested in this incident, and council- members received
information regarding this arrest in Council Memorandum No. 128, dated
July 25, 1977.
Ms. Fahrney has filed notice with the city clerk that she wishes to appeal
this masseuse certificate revocation. Ms . Carol Grant, legal counsel, will
represent Ms. Fahrney at the hearing on this appeal.
Respectfully submitted,
Wayne S. Burggraa~f *'
City Manager
cc: City Attorney
Public Safety Director
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 228
Agenda July 25, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the Gity Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Authorization to Sell Food Stamps
Several weeks ago, representatives of the Hennepin County Welfare
Department approached the city staff to inquire if the City of Richfield would
be interested in selling food stamps. Food stamp sales have most often been
handled by banks, but in the south suburban area, only two banks have chosen
to participate in the Food Stamp Program and neither are located in Richfield.
After reviewing this proposal, the staff has recommended that the city
execute an agreement with Hennepin County to begin selling food stamps by
September 1, 1977. These sales would be handled by the licensing division,
located on the lower level of city hall. The validations of eligibility and
administration of the overall program would remain the responsibility of
Hennepin .County. The city would be reimbursed at a rate of $0.75 per trans-
action. We would propose to have the food stamps available for sale during
all regular business hours , although the county has indicated that most
transactions occur during the first five days of 'the month. Although we have
no way of measuring how many people will choose to purchase food stamps
here, we do know that in 1976, 296 Richfield residents participated in the
Food Stamp Program.
A copy of the proposed agreement with Hennepin County is attached.
It is recommended that the council authorize the mayor and city manager to
execute this agreement.
Respectfully su ed,
~~~~,
... Wayne S . Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB/jkl
/~-
cc: Finance Director
Administrative Assistant
. `. AC,i'~.r.~~~ I~bIi FCOD SI'tti~.p Pi~C:I'ti~'~I
Agreement between the Hennepin County P~elf^:re Department and the
City. of Richfield, regu.•ding the sale of Food Stamp Coupons to eligible residents
of Hennepin County.
A. The Hennepin County Z',elfare Department agrees to:
1. .Cause to be issued to Brink's, Inc.., of Minneapolis, United States Depart-
. went of Agriculture Food Stamp Coupons, and in turn approves of the
distribution of said coupons to the City of Richfield upon receipt of
appropriate requisitions.
2. Supply the City of Richfield with detailed instructions pertinent to the
handling, recording, and sale of the Food Stamp Coupons and deposit of
the proceeds from the sale of the Food Stamp Coupons. USDA C & n~ In-
Struction 733-1, Accountability for Food Coupon Books and Deposits of
Cash Received, is incorporated in. this agreerr~nt by reference.
3. Compensate monthly the City of Richfield at the rate of seventy-five
cents (x.75) per Food Stamp Coupon sale irz full satisfaction for all
services rendered ~=ritr~in the terms of this agreement . Each completed
Authorization To Purchase Card will be evidence of a sale.
4. Designate by Authorization to Purc'ase Cards - (a) the exact ar~unt of°
cash (or voucher or combination of cash and voucher) required and the
total value of the books to be issued including the bonus, (b) the r_um'oer
of books of various ar-ounts, and (c) the individual and alternate eligible
to matse the purchase of such coupons.
5. Supply to the City of P~.i.chfield information necessary to ccrrplete United
States Department of Agriculture, Constcmer and i4laxketing Service Fo~.~n 250.
6. Allow the City of Richfield to e:~.ine completed Authorization to Purchase
Cards in the possession of the Hennepin County ~~'elfare Department, if
necessary.
B. The City of Richfield agrees to:
1. Sell Food StGrrp Coupons to persons designated, or reasonable believed to be
the persons designated, and in the e.Ya.ct arrs~unts specified in the Authori-
zation io Purchase Cards. Food. Stara Coupons ~=rill be sold bet~i-een the hours
of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.r~I. -Monday through Friday, excluding leo~a.l holicL~.ys,
~at the. City of Richfield.
2. Remit daily to the P,Iinneapolis Federal Reserve Bank all xeceipts from the
sale of Food Stamp Coupons in accorc~~.nce with the instructions referred
to in Section A, item 2 of this ao cement.
3. Present vouchers xeceived i.ll payzrent for Food Sta:~p Coupons directly to
the appropriate poor relief apenci~s in iennepin Cotuity aid receive payment
for said vouchers for deposit t~rith the ',Iinnea~olis Federal Reserve I3,•u>Ic in
accordance ~=rith instructions referred to in Section A, it~n 2 of this
agreement.
61V14J31 r..L:LI~l i V14 1 WL 4JlL WIC ri1V1111L+r~l - -G-
4. Safebruard all Food St~s~r Coupons in its custody and to indemnify th~ti
Hennepin County 1";elf~~.re Departrrtint for the value of any Food Stamp
Cottpons r~~hich cannot be accounted for. It is further agreed that the City
of Richfield t~~ill not be liable for any Food Stamp Coupons proved, to
the satisfaction of an independent investigator mutally agreed upon by
the parties, to be destroyed by fire or similar disaster.
5.' bla.intain a perpetual inventory of Food Stamp Coupons and a record of
cash and voucher receipts from the sale of Food Stamp Coupons and
other information in the mariner and form prescribed by the Hennepin
County tiPelfare Department. Authorized representatives of the United
States Department of Agriculture, and the P,innesota Departr~nt of Public
1h'elfare, and the Hennepin County ~4'elfare Lepartrrent ~ti~.ll be permitted
at any and all reasonable timers to have access to the location of the
unsold Food Stamp Coupons on the premises of the City of Richfield ar~d
to other areas as necessary to ascertain that records and procedtrxes
are being follo~ced as outlined under provisions of Section A, item 2,
6. Cause to be imprinted on each authorization card at the tirr~ of sale,
the date of sale and i,~entification of the City of Richfield. These
authorizations are to be kept segregated by dates and to be returr_ed to
the Hennepin County j`elfare Department on a desi gnated day of each ~~~eek.
?. C~sz^y out its responsibilities in connection <<rith the issuance of Food
Stamp Coupons in compliance with the rec~uirer;ents imposed by or pursuant
. to Part 15 of Title 7, C F R of the Regulations of the United States L~-
partzrent of Agriculttre to the end that no person in Hennepin County
shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be subject to
discrimination in the issuance of such coupon. This assurance is given
in consideration of and for'the propose of obt~?nirg Federal~Financial
assistance under the Food Stamp Prod am far eligible- households in
Hennepin County. This assurance shall obligate the City of Richfield
for the period during e>~hich it a~r-rees to sell Fcod Stares Coupons. The
City of Richfield recognizes and agrees that Federal Financial assistance
under the Food Stamp Program t~d.ll be extended in reliance. on the:.re=. .: .
presentations and agreements m~.de in this assurance anti that either the
h~innesota Department of Public j';elfare or the United States Department
of Agriculture, or both; shall have-the right to seek judicial enforce-
ment of this assurance.
8< Make FCOd Stamp Prop am records available for revie;a or audit by the
United States Department of Agriculture for a period of three years
"follo~=~dng the close of the Federal Fiscal year to ~~nich they pertain.
9. Institute procedures covering the sale and reporting of the sale of Food
Stamp Coupons in accordance with the instructions referred to in Section A,
item 2,
C. 1. It is ag-reed and ttnderstaod by the parties to this ~`I~~reen:ent that the City
of Riehfielcl tt,211 not b~ liable for the sale of Foocl Stamp Coupons to tu1-
authorized persons presenting at the tilr:r of sale an otherwise valid
Authorization to ~.rreiiase C~•txrd provided thclt the taller has follo<<;ed
prescribed procedtu es in the sale.
AC~'~','-~~' +'T FOIE IC~CD ST?~1T' P:~GRl~",l -3-
2. Prather it is weed th~.t the City of Richfield will -not be held liable
for the value of .food stamp vouchers presented by Lulauthori~eci persons
__ in exchange for food Starrrp Coupons provided the- City of Fiichf field had
taken all norn~a.l precautions and follo~~~ed established procedures.
D. Either party of this agreement may teYru.nate this contract upon ninety days
notice in writing to the ..other contracting party. It is further agreed that
the parties hereto may by mutual consont amend the contract without terr~i.xiation
in order: (1) to conform to any change in Federal or State latitr affecting the
Food Starry prow am, (2) to provide for changes in circtm~stances affecting the
administration of the Food Stamp Program, or (3) to px'ovide for changes. in
c3.rctanstances affecting the City of Richfield's operation in the program.
Any costs ~v~ich are not l~o~tin at the termination date, but accrued during the
terms of thz contract, shall be paid by the parties hereto pursuant to the
terrors of the contract .
For the Hennepin County ~`+elfare Department
Sigxred
Title
Date
For City of Richfield
Signed
Title
Date
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• ~ Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 227
Agenda July 25, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of .Richfield
Gentlemen:
v
Subject: Extension of Off-Street Parking Contract
Dyna-Motive, Inc. , 7700 Portland Avenue
On March 28, 1977, the city council approved a special use permit
and off-street parking contract for an automotive machine shop at 7700
Portland Avenue. August 1, 1977 was established as the completion date
for the off-street parking contract.
One of the stipulations of this contract was that. the present two-~-curb
cuts on Portland Avenue be closed and one new curb cut be constructed.
Mr. David Skramstad, owner of Dyna-Motive, ?rec. , 7700 Portland Avenue,
has requested an extension of time on the off-street parking contract. to the
end of October because bf difficulty in getting a cement contractor to perform
this work.
It is the recommendation of the Acting Public Works Director, in which
I concur, that the requested extension be granted.
Respectfully submitt ,
V•
~~~
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB/eja
cc: Acting Public .Works Director
4
CITY OF RLCHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 226
Agenda July 25, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Supplemental Assessment Hearing on Oak Grove
Lutheran Church
Last month, the city council set a hearing date of July 25, 197.7 to consider a
supplemental assessment to the Oak Grove Lutheran Church for the permanent streets
construction program.
On September 13, 1976, the city council heard an appeal by the church on the
proposed assessment for a triangular parcel of church property which was improved
by City Project 667.. The appeal by the church at that time was not based on the
method of calculation of the assessment, but rather on the issue of rather that
piece of property benefited by the amount of the assessement. Subsequent to that
hearing, the council approved an assessment of $3,348.12 for the triangular parcel
of land .
In June, 1977, representatives of the Oak Grove Lutheran Church again contacted
the city staff to discuss this assessment. After reviewing the request of Oak Grove
Lutheran Church, the city council adopted Resolution No. 5739 of which a copy is
attached .
In considering the assessment on this property and the method of calculation,
it appears that the street lighting assessment is not in question. We hava, how-
ever,.developed two alternative methods of calculating the street assessment.
The existing assessment together with our alternatives and the church proposal
are as follows:
Existing Assessment (Exhibit A) $3, 348.12
Tax exempt procedure with street footage $1, 860.06
divided by two (Exhibit B) '
Tax exempt procedure with residential $2,160.80
rate (Exhibit C) ~
Church proposal $ 334.81
(See attached 6/22/77 letter)
• Council Letter No. 226 - 2 - July 25, 1977
Should the council determine that the benefit received is less than the
original assessment, it is recommended that the revised assessment be
determined with the understanding that to this figure would be added 15 months
interest at the rate of 8% annually. From this total then, would be deducted
the amount that has been billed Oak Grove Lutheran Church on the 1977 tax
statement, $502,27. It is not possible now to cancel the property tax bill
that has already occurred, so any new assessment total should give credit
and Oak Grove Lutheran Church should pay the already billed tax statement
as billed.
Respectfully submitted,
~,~,, ~ ~.
G~ '/ v`^ .
Wayne S . Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB/jkl
cc: Finance Director
Acting Public Works Director ,~~}.~
5'p Z..Z 1
-~ 11
2..
RESOLUTION N0. 5739
RESOLUTION RELATING TO REASSESSMENT FOR 1975
PERMANENT STREETS ON TAX EXEMPT PROPERTY
PLAT 44925 PARCEL 4900
BE IT RESOLVED by the City. Council of the City of Richfield as
Follows:
1. It is hereby determined that an error or mistake may have
been committed with reference to the special assessment
made for City Project No. 667 insofar as such special
assessments relate to the following described tract of
land:
Plat 44925
Parcel 4900
2. The alleged error or mistake is that by applying the policy
of assessing abutting front footage of any tract benefited
by such improvement, the assessment was greatly in excess
of the actual benefits received from such improvement.
3. In order to permit this council to correct any such error
or mistake, a special hearing is hereby called to be held
by this council to reconsider the aforementioned special
assessment in the amount of $3,348.12 made against such
property. Such hearing shall be held on Monday, the 25th
day of July, 1977 at 7:00 o'clock p.m, in the council
chambers of the city hall of the City of Richfield.
4. For the purposes of such hearing the amount of the proposed
assessment for such projects against such property shall be
$3,348.12, the sum originally assessed, but such assessment
may be reduced as the council shall deem appropriate at the
conclusion of such hearing.
5. Notice of such hearing shall be given to the owner of such
property and shall be published in the official newspaper
of the city no less than two weeks prior to the date of such
hearing,
Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield, this 27th day
of June, 1977.
Loren L. Law Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk
1
•- '
0 .
O N N
° p '-i e-1
M
M Ql
N M
{~} 64 Ef}
u u it
O v-i
O M '`
. •-i
_
N M cd
ia4 *1 iJ
~# O.
X E+:
K .
~D
oo ~
M
II
N
O
O it
N r-i
M
~ •.
M
}C .1
Ca
SC
n
d
~}
CC1
v
W
.~, d0 .
~ ~ ~
W +~ sv
~ N
~ b0
¢ N
a
~ d
2
H
H
N
H
X
W
.`
~v. r~ St. ~~'.
_ ~- .
3(6
.~.•,
i.3~
7
~ U~
..''`` ~
i~+ f
..,
h
~ ~
CD ~
~ m
(>
,~
~y
,•
I
s
d
;~
1
~R
}
y :.
,..
,~~ 22 1977
Ric~ltic.~ City ~~-anageC
)A K GROVE LUTHERAN C H U R C H -I. 71ST AND LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH ~^ MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55423 ° ~~ PHONE 869-4917
June ~2, 1977
City Counci.i
Richfield, t1n. 55423
Oear~Council Members:
~A suggestion has been made that an adjustment be considered on the assessment for
paving .and street lighting that has been charged against the triangle of land, situated
immediately South of 71st Street and East of Lyndale Avenue, which is owned by Oak Grove
Lutheran Church. It appears this should be a workable possibility but the amount Of the
adjustment should be logically deterruined.
Perhaps p roperty valuation might be a basis for such an adjustment, if it were
possible to calculate the value of a valueless piece of ground. However, if there is any
psis for figuring its value, certainly square feet of area is a logical basis to use.
The remainder of this discussion is based on a "per square foot" analysis.
The piece of property is approximately 300' long by 50` on list street and coming
to a point at the South end. Thus this property has about 300y:~0/2 =.7700 square feet.
It is assumed that approximmtely 300' of paving 'on Augsburg Avenue has been assessed
against the property to date to arrive at the figure of $3,34&.12. Eventually, of course,
there will be another approximately 300' assessed against the property when- Lyndale
Avenue is resurfaced, making a total of 600' of paving assessed against the property.
If we assume for the moment that a normal pity lot is 50' wide by 124' long, and
having 6250 square feet of area, this lot will have assessed against it only 50' of
paving. On'an equitable basis the triangle of property in question should have
(7500/6250)50 60' of paving assessed against it.
This is just 10~ of the 600' that will eventually be assessed against our hapless
piece of property. This being the case it would seem justified to request that the
assessment of $3,34.12 be reduced to $334.31 and that a similar multiplier of (0.1) be
applied to the normal costs for the future paving of Lyndale Avenue.
Sincerely,
ELY/k
Oak Grove Lutheran Church
Earl L. Youngren, Treasurer
O O O
Q 00 00
N ~ O
t~ 9~ ~D
M t~
w .-i °
w-
~ N
fR ~ {~}
p it ti
O O .-1
O O td
• ~
N GO O
#,~ H
d`}
~
K
~O
~O
- GO M
M N
N
tt.
U
O .
O O
e O
N
W
~ - eft
K !C
sn r-, °
Q
+
~
.~
cu
v
...t
rn
a
A N +~
W ~--. O
U .[ O
O ~ ~
0.' •
a a v~
~H
a
W
'd
H
A ~~~
._
s
il]
Q ~
U
is 1 .~
eL
.J .-
~ m
C~
C~
~,
l
., .
.~ .
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 225
Agenda July 25 , 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Resolutions Declaring Costs, Ordering Preparation of
Assessment Roll and Calling for Hearing on Assessments
for 1976 Storm Sewer
In October, 1976 the city council adopted Resolution No. 5632, ordering a
storm sewer construction project for the purpose of providing drainage to
residential properties in the vicinity of 73rd Street and Colfax Avenue. This
project was constructed using monies of the sewer utility fund with the under
standing that the eleven properties involved would be specially assessed in
accordance with the city's storm sewer assessment policy.
The city's policy is to assess a maximum of $.0355 per square foot. The
total cost of the project is approximately $17, 000, although only 11 .5°i~ of this,
or approximately $1,950, can be assessed. The unassessed costs will be borne
by the sewer utility fur~d.
The proposed assessment roll varies from a high of $400 per property to
a low of $86 per property. It is recommended that the assessment roll be
spread over a period of fire years rather than the traditional 20 years, as when
storm sewers were constructed nn bonded money.
Attached to this council letter are two resolutions required Lo initiate the
hearing on the assessment roll tar this storm sewer project. The hearing is
proposed to be held at the August 22, 1977 city council meeting.
It is recommended that the council adopt the attached resolutions.
Respectfully subp~tted,
~~. ,~1
~~
WayrAe S. Burggraaff
City Manager
cc: Finance Director
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING
PREPARATION Or PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR 1976 STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION
CI1'X PR03ECT N0. 700
WHEREAS, storm sewer construction was performed during the year 1976
on Colfax Avenue from 73rd Street to approximately 1.20 feet north; and
WiiEREAS, the City's share of costs has been paid in the sum of
__ ------ ---$17,000. _ _ _ -- -
__ --. _. -
- •
- -- - -
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL~rED~ by the City Councl~of -the City of
R~.chfield, Mini~csGta as fellows:
1. That .the oost of etnryni epr•Yor CGn~tri,'C`tioii in the above
dCit-fiYVCil a~~a .rv ..~ vN~~.. i.ia.L i~ a.jJ e.~~7C11 1y ~L ~ti efli.~y
uc a r~ix ilila l.Ct
estimated t^ h pp '-~'y $1,949. i9 and-therefore
th-i c r,.~i 7 1 ho µe gagSo„7 uguynSt priva.tciy vwiled prUpe"rcy
benefited thereby. _
2. The ~ssess.~.~~~t sha11 be caiciiia~ed according to City
pOl1Cy that tI"le Y(lf aI amrnmtaacoaoPri nri .~ ..~ n..., ..
__ _ _ __ ___ _ -____---__- ._,.....~W~~__" ...~_~ u_r.~=~_~ ~f
_ _ _
w ~~ ~ ~ property for alI storm sewers sha11 not exceed $.0355
per square foot. That said assessment shall run for
a pei::i_od of ive years and include interest at 8°! per
a~Lr~um.
4.
The City Clerlt Sh aii fvr tilivitll caic:ulate the proper amount
to be assessed for such improvement against every assessable _ _
lot,-piece or parcel of land affected without regard to r__ash
valuation, as provided by law, and he shall file a copy of _-- - -
snrh r~rnnncorl ,-.~- i..s'. _r_re_ r____ ~
------ r-~-r "•""' µ•-'v~-~~+«<-i+~- a-ii Fits v1t1. C:C 1VL- pUU11C inspection.
The Clerk sha11 notify the council upon coir~plet-iGn of s„rh
proposed assessment.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
~- 'this 25th day of-July, 1977. -
Loren L. Law Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas J. Moran City Clerlc
RESOLUTION N0,
RESOLUTION CALLTNG HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
FOR 1977 STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION
CITY PROJECT N0. 700
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. passed by the City Council on the 25th
day of July, 1977, the city clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assess-
ment roll of the cost of the 1977 storm sewer construction, City Project No.
700, and
WHEREAS, the city cleric has notified the council that such proposed
- _ -.
- assessment has been-completed and filed in his office for public irispection.•
- -- - -
___.,_____---_-.~___~;__ f~~t~z --I'"t-ci~itE~`ORr; ~ --itE -T-RESC~B~IED lv rh P _ _ _-- __-. _ _ --
_ Ci t~ -Council-of the Ci ~° ,^;f
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1, A public hearing shall be held on the fo~( lc-,Wing date i.n tl:e
council chambers of the Rl~flii.cid City Hali at 7:00 P.ii. to
pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and p"lace
ail uers`oris owning »rnnarty atfnrr to 4i ~y S'~.Cii IiTiprv'v'eiiieiit `w'iii
o r - - r - °
be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such
improvement.
Hearing - August 2.2., 1977
~i_nrrrZ CPTf~Pr rnn~tr~as.ntivxx aiid Aj~}~urteALQnC.eS i ieie`LO
The urea tv be assessed fGi 1i1tj7iVve?IleT7.t 1S Lhe fQiiO`d71.ng
described property: Bounded on the north by Oak Grave
Boulevard, on the west by Dupont Avenue, on the south by
73rd Street and on the east _1?y Bryant Avenue.
2. The city clexk_is hereby directed to cause a notice of the
hearing on the proposed assessment to be published in the
Official nPwcnanar at- 7r~~ci- tr.,l, r.,ooi,~ +.,. +-~.... z. .._._~__
- 1 "L" --. -- -~~•••••~ •••. •• .•.~.~.., ~r.~vt {..V l.llc LlcQ1111~
and he shall state in the notice the total assessed cost
of the improvement in the amount of $1,949.19.
Passed by the City Counci:L of the City of I?i~hfield, Minresota,this
25th day of July, 1977.
Loren L. Law Mayer
ATTEST:
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 224
Ager~da July 25, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Resolution Approving Classification ar~d Sale of
Tax Forfeited Land
Each year the city receives from Hennepin County a list of tax forfeited
land located in the City of Richfield. This year, there are three such tax-
foreited parcels, shown on the attached rnap. One parcel is a vacated alley
and the other two parcels are 1 1/2` foot and 3 foot strips that had never been
combined to the adjacent properties,
The .Hennepin County Board has classified these parcels as non-conser-
vation land and authorized their sale. However, Minnesota Statutes require
that the city council approve the non-conservation classification in order to
make the land available for public sale.
These parcels have been reviewed by the city staff, and it is .recommended
that the city council adopt the attached resolution authorizing classification of
these parcels as non-conservation land and approving their sale.
Respec.-tfully suhr~itted,
v ~. ~ ~
C~~ ~ ~
o ~5- Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB/eja
cc: Finance Director
Planning Director
Public Works Director
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION APPROVING CLABSIPICAI'IDN OF ~ I~ELiNQUEN'r
LAND AS NON-CONSERVATION I~ND
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lichfield, $ennepin County, Minnesota,
has received from the County Auditor of Neanepin Ca-Lmty, Minnesota, a list of lands
in said city which became the property of ~e State of Minnesota under the provisions
of law declaring the forfeiture of lands to the State for non-payment of taxes, which
said list has been designated as Classification List No. 552-NC, dated June 27, 1977
and described as follows:
Plat 44835, Parcel 5125, S 3 ft of N 135 ft of E 1/2 of
W 1/4 of S 1/2 of NTi7 1/4 of NW 1/4 ex st, McCabes Wood
Lake Out Lots
Plat 45800, Parcel 2095, that part of N 405 ft of E 1/2
lying W of E 157 ft thereof, ~.ch ~ielrls Nannepin County
Minn
Plat 46190, Parcel 1810, that dart of Blnck 2 lying S
of N 125 ft thof and lying W of E 28 1/10 ft thof and
lying N of N line of S 7.58 x/10 ft of N 1/2 of said
block
WHEREAS, the parcels of land described above have heretofore been classified by
the Board of County Commissioners of Iiennepin County, Minnesota, as non-conservation
land and the sale thereof has heretofore been authorized by said Board of County
Commissioners.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by .said -City Council, acting pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes 1957, Section 282.01, Subd. 1, that the said classification by said Board of
County Commissioners of each parcel. of land described above as non-conservation land
be and the same is hereby approved and that the sale of such parcels of land be and
the same is hereby approved.
Passed by the City Council of the City flf Richfield this 25th day of July, 1977.
ATTEST:
~or~. Z. Law Mayor
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk
_, . _
~ ,.__. .. - ~ , t
~
W ~ ! ~
f
~ E ~~.
cC
. M# C . ~ _
`y
`
A
k
~ _ ? ~ i P
a ~ '
~ , ~ ~ ;~:
6
~ $ ~, a
r !
__._ .. ~..,.. _ .. ~.._ _.. ., ~~Fr. p=
t
,
_
s C k
l
~ ` f t
~ ~
F fr
~
~
w.s
....s.-max.,.- __~..
v f~ ..
, xsc.uv-:.
.. ~
~vurc ~
~... as.,> .~....~ Qa.~. ..~... m«xw-... ~.~uum mina e..au.. a_ ,u. a+zo m~am>, ~_xa. w
v
~^.,r.., ~..
~: .--.s.~v
.
: -
arm-
.,.
.
: .
..__..
t
F
.
.
.
. .~,
v _ y
,
lt: <J
~~~
.a }.~
.-~ -P ~
~' p
._
. ~..
~~ 7 _.
. _ _. ~ ~ _._ 4~, b ._. ..-
~
.j r
jj
~
i
i J of ~:.;~
~. _
7
'
{
~
_ J__.._.-. i
~
__ ~, f
..
,:,_ ~
. , .,
_ _ _.
t f ~ ,~._
~ -~ ~ „ ; S
t
_._i, .._~
. !
_.. t. _ •, ,
., ,_
.. ~r
r .
i
s ' II
S ~ ~
£ .
~
i y ~
v io . s ~ ~ i e
~ ,`~
~~ .
! ~
~
t ~
r .
_i~
_. _ 1 ~
_ ~ ~ _
~.. .? 4 . <x. a ~_.
.._.
y ~ ~ ~
_..
_ . o
[ . _..
_ .
.-
,. ,. .,_.
`
'
v W ti
i ~ 3
~,, ~ ,~
!' ., i x
' ,.. a
~'
f ~
~. ~
~ ~~ ~ F
rq ~! ~
k
r ~~
t %~ e i ~ {.`~f
_ ! J,fi % S i
{ •~ ~ ~ _
a