The URL can be used to link to this page

05-09-77 agenda The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Agenda May 9 , 1977 Gentlemen: CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 154 Subject: Resolution Initiating the Sale of Tax Increment Bond Issue The Housing and Redevelopment Authority has requested the city council to issue tax increment bonds in an amount not to exceed $6, 30.0, 000 for the depart- ment store parcel development and other project costs. These costs are described in the Housing and Redevelopment Authority resolution. It has been determined that the -cash flow from the department store develop- ment v~•ill be sufficient to retire the t'ax increment bonds over a 20 year period. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution initiating the sale of these-tax increment bonds. Respectfully submitted, ,%~ Wayne S. Burggr City Manager WSB/eja cc:~ Planning and Redevelopment Director City Attorney Finance Director . . if~~-; ,;- ~C~!~7 /J% ~~ f"i~ . } RESOLUTION 77- A RESOLU`_L'ION DETER'~IINTNG NEED FOR FINANCING FOR A REDE~~}?LOP~IENT PROJECT AUTFi0i'.IZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF GI.:NERAL OBLIGATION REDEVELOPMENT BOTdDS THEREFOR a AUTT~ORI Z Ii~1G T HE EXECUT TON OF A TAX: I1dCREi~IENT AGREE~~NT WITH Tk~E HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF RICHFIELD WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota the "Authority") has by resolution duly adopted on May 9, 1977 (the °°Resolution") requested the City of Richfield (th.e "City") to authorize the issuance and sale of General Obligation Redevelopment Fonds tthe "Bonds°') to finance public redevelopment costs in the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet Redevelop-- meat Project Area tthe "Project Area"), and WHEREAS, in the Resolution the Authority has set forth in detail the reasons, findings and legal authority necessary to justify the issuance of the fonds, and the City Council hereby adopts the recitals of the Resolution as its own as if fu11y set forth herein, and WHEREAS, it is found and determined that it is in the best interests of the sound financial management of the City and necessary for the proper financing of the costs and redevelopment of the Project Area that the City issue the Bonds for such purpose: NOW, TF3EREFOR:E, EE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF P.ICHFIELD, MINNES01^A: 1. The City sha11 issue and sell its General Obligation Redevelopment Bonds for the purposes stated above in the amounts and in such series and at such times as are necessary to finance the public redevelopment costs in the Project Area, ~1.~1 in accordance with the P.edevelopment Plan for the Project Area. Each series of Bonds so issued shall be on a parity with and equally and ratably secured by the pledge of tax increments and other revenues of land within the Project Area while owned by the Authority. 2. The form o-L- 7~'ax Increment Agreement attached hereto is approved, and the 1`~iayor and Executive Director are authorized and directed to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. The City Council is authorized and directed to transmit a copy of this resolution to the Authority. The City Clerk is further authorized and directed to file an e~;ecuted copy of the Tax Increment Agreement with the T~ennepin County Auditor and obtain his certificate of filing. 3. The City acknowledges tr?e request of the Authority to issue its General Obligation Bonds of 1977, Series 1977 in an am©unt not to emceed $6,300,OOb to finance-the redevelopment costs of that certain Project in the Project Area referred to in this Resolution. The issuance and sale of the Series 1977 Bonds shall be in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in subsequent resolutions of the Council.. It is the intent of the Council to take such subsequent action no later than August 1, 1977, but nothing herein wall. be construed to prevent the Council from taking such action at a later date. ~~ ?~' CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council. Letter No. 152 Agenda May 9, 1977 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Application for On-Sale Liquor License For The Godfather Restaurant At the April 11, 1977 city council meeting the city council set May. 9, 1977 as the date for a public hsaring on a request for on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Godfather, Inc. 700 West 66th Street. The application for this license was submitted by Mr. John C. Anzevino and Mr. Gerald Burnett. All of the required information including a surety bond insurance certificate, political contribution certificate and license fees have been. filed. The last action concerning the issuance of on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for this premise occurred on December 27, 1976, when these licenses were issued to Nick Minotte's, Inc. The present applicant proposes to buy the land and buildings at this location. Application Investigation In accordance with the city ordinance, the public safety department did make an investigation of information required by Section 11.06, subdivision 4 of the on-sale liquor ordinance. A copy of the report from the public safety director is attached . Accountant's Report The on-sale liquor ordinance requires that the applicant file with the city council a statement made by a certified public accountant which shows the total gross sales and the total food sales of the restaurant for the preceding 12 month period. . . r+ ~' Council Letter No. 152 -2- May 9, 1977 The most recent figures which the city has for the restaurant operated on these premises are for the 12 month period ending August, 1976. During that one year time Minotte's Inc, had food sales equal to 40.5% of total sales .with beer and liquor sales 59.5% of total sales.. Since the current application pend- ing before the city council is a new application there are no figures which apply directly to this applicant. The purpose of~ obtaining this information is that state statutes require the. serving of food to be a principal part of the business of a restaurant which has an on-sale liquor license. Council members will recall that originally the city on~inance included a definition of the phrase "principal part of the business'' stating that more than SO% of the gross retail sales of licensed premises must be derived from the sale of food. That definition was deleted in 1971 leaving only the statutory requirement which does not include a definition of the phrase. The city attorney has advised that "principal part of the business" may be interpreted to refer to percent of gross sales, but also to such things as the amount. of investment necessary to serve- food compared to the serving of bever- ages; or the number of employees engaged in the preparation and serving of foods compared with beverages; or the amount of space provided for the pre- paration and serving of food as compared with beverages. In short, the state statute could be defined in a number of ways and- in no way infers that the definition must be limited to percent of gross retail sales. Health and Safety Regulations The environmental health department has inspected the- premises for which the licenses are being sought. A copy of the report from the environmental. health director is attached. The city has encountered repeated environmental health problems with this establishment over the past several years. The list of corrections which must be made should be reviewed carefully together with the rather substantial improvements which the applicant proposes to make. Outside maintenance including such items as weed control, containment of refuse and general parking lot maintenance has also been a major problem in the past . Off-Street .Parking Contract Provisions The original off-street parking contract for the Heidelberg Dining Lounge Inc. then. located at 708 W?st 66th Street, was approved by the city council on July 27, 1970. The performance bond required as a condition of the off-street parking contract required numerous improvements, most of which have been completed. As the council will recall, the stipulations for landscaping and sidewalk improvements were waived due to the fact that the Lyndale/Hub/ Nicollet project would require changes . }`~ Council Letter No. 152 -3- May 9, 1977 The final .council required improvement which was not completed was the removal of the roof billboard. The billboard advertising sign was to be re- moved on or about March 31, 1974, but is still on the roof of the building. The council stipulation that the billboard advertising sign on the roof be removed occurred before Minotte became involved with the restaurant. However, during the public hearing for the liquor license for 1977, the applicant advised the city that he was willing to remove the sign. A copy of a letter signed. by Minotte to this effect is attached. The sign has not yet been removed . Miscellaneous Information It is our understanding that there are delinquent taxes owed to the State of Minnesota for operations on the premises for which the liquor license is being sought. The city's regulatory ordinance provides that no license may be granted for operation on any premises on which tax assessments or other financial claims of the state of the city are due, delinquent, or unpaid. Recommendation. In examining the attached reports, and in considering the evidence presented at the hearing, I recommend that specific attention. be given to the following areas of possible concern: 1. Does the record of business fires in businesses previously owned or operated by john Anzevino, one of the officers and a stockholder in the Godfather, Inc. , suggest a lack of effective concern for successful fire prevention and control which cap ld jeopardize the public safety and welfare, 2. Will the proposed design and operation of the establishment including the planned emphasis on bar and game room areas, result in the return of problems which the city experienced before prior operators deemphasized that aspect of the o~er- ation. Moreover, will the apparent physical separation of the one area -bar from the rest of the establishment violate the intent of the ordinance that liquor be provided only in a restaurantsetting. 3. Does the applicant possess sufficient financial resources and available capital to provide a successful restaurant and to be able to comply with any corrective orders which the city may make concerning the premises . 4, Are there sufficient assurances from the applicants that they will comply ~nrith any unresolved health, building and zoning requirements . } ~ ya~ Council Letter No. 152 -4- May 9, 1977 5. Are there any outstanding financial claims of the city or state on the premises for which the license is sought. 6. Do either of the corporate officer-shareholders have personal contacts with individuals engaged in organized gambling activities. If yes, what implication would such contacts have upon the oper- ation of the premises. 7. Is there a sufficient problem concerning legal and equitable title to the premises so as to call .into question the right of the applicant to operate a restaurant at that location. 8. Does the applicant have a designated manager who will reside in the city if a license is granted. 9. At the time Minotte's 1977 liquor license was issued assurances were made that the rooftop advertising sign on the premises would be removed by May, 1977. Minotte's has discontinued operation at the location and, consequently will not be in a positon`to remove the sign. While the grant or denial of the requested license should not depend on the removal of the sign, the council may wish to inquire of the applicant its intentions regarding the sign. Following the testimony, and once it is ascertained that all those present who wish to be heard have had an opportunity to speak, I recommend that the council close the hearing and direct the city attorney to prepare the proposed findings to be considered at the next regularly scheduled council meeting. Respectfully submitted, S. Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Public Safety Director Environmenta 1 Health Director City Attorney . . MEMORANDUM Date: May 5, 1977 To: Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager From: Thomas A. hlorgan, Jr. Director of Public Safety Subject: REVIEW OF LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE GODFATHER, INC. Acting under Section 11.06 of the Richfield Ordinance Code, the Police Division of the Richfield Public Safety Department has investigated the above-referenced application for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license. The applicant, Godfather, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, proposed to sell intoxicating liquor in connection with a restaurant which it would operate at 708 West 66th Street, Richfield, Minnesota. The Site The subject premises are at 708 West 66th Street, Richfield, Pinnesota. A suc- cession of restaurants have located at this site in the past and have been licensed for on-sale "intoxicating liquor". A liquor license is currently held by Nick P~linotte's, Inc. Minottes has gone out of business. Over the years, the police have frequently been called to deal with problems flowing from the "workingman's bar" which was located on-the premises. Those problems included assaults and breaches of the .peace. In .the past year or so, the frequency of calls has been reduced due to de-emphasis of the "workingman's bar" by the current licensee. The Applicant The Godfather, Inc. was incorporated in April 1973. The incorporator was Gerald Singer,and the original directors included John Anzevino, Chuck Sklar, Larry Zipkin, and Irving Pinto. On November 15, 1976 all of the Board of Directors except John Anzevino resigned. Interviews-with the resigning board members were conducted by members of the Public Safety Department. All three stated that their resignations were due to a variety of reasons including other business obligations and the fail- ure of the corporation to locate a suitable site to establish a restaurant. None of the resigning directors cited an,y problems with John Anzevino as motivating the resignations. In fact, all three stated that they respected h1r. Anzevino and that he was an outstanding member of the community. The Board of Directors presently consists of John .Anzevino as president and Gerald M. Burnett as vice president and treasurer. John Anzevino owns approximately 65% of the issued corporate stock and Gerald M. Burnett owns the remaining 35%. The Godfather, Inc. has entered into a purchase agreement to purchase the property at a pur--chase price of $638,370,00. A copy of that purchase agreement is contained in the attachments to the liquor license application. The sellers under that pur- chase agreement are Jerome C. Dayton and Herschel S. Swain. Dayton and Swain appear to be the equitable owners~of the property and are purchasing the property from Florence C. Rush and certain other members of the Rush family. MEMORANDUM - May 5, 1977 Page Two GODFATHER, INC. The proposed site is currently the subject of a lawsuit involving the aboved named sellers. and Eugene R. Blenkush. Mr. Blenkush, who was at one time pur- chasing the subject property on a contract for deed, is suing for return of the premises to him or in the alternative certain monetary damages. Although the case has not ,yet come to trial, a motion for summary judgment against Mr. Blenkush has been denied by the Hennepin County District Court. The Godfather purchase agreement calls for a cash down payment of $75,000.00 with the balance of the purchase price to include the execution by the Godfather of certain unsecured promissory notes as well as assuming certain mortgages. and other obligations of the sellers. Mr. Burnett will be furnishing $50,000.00 of the down payment which will come from his-cash reserves. Mr. Anzevino will~be furnishing $25,000.00 of the down payment. Part of Mr. Anzevino's contribution will come from his cash reserves and part of his contribution will come from a loan from the Summit State Bank of Richfield, which loan will be secured by a second mortgage on his residence. The information provided us by the applicant indicates that no additional working capital will be used in acquiring the property and in preparing the property for the opening of the business. The applicant anticipates that the cost of ready- ing the premises for the opening of business will be between $120,000 and $150,000. The various companies which will be involved in readying the premises for the open- ing of business have agreed to do the required work on credit. The applicant then expects to repay those companies through the revenues of the business. The Individuals Involved John Anzevino and Gerald Burnett are listed as the officers and stockholders of the corporation and as co-managers of the restaurant. A. Gerald Burnett is the vice president and treasurer as well as a 35% stockholder in the corporation and is designated as a co-manager. Mr. Burnett is 55 years of age and has resided at 8554 lAJest 28th Street in the City of St. Louis Park for many years. Mr. Burnett graduated from North High School in 1935 ar,d graduated from the University of Plinnesota in 1949 with a BA degree. Between high school and college Mr. Burnett was in the United States Air Force. He was honorably discharged in 1946. From 1950 to 1953 he was advertising manager for Gale Institute. From 1954 to 1969 he was a partner and vice president of the Humboldt Institute. In 1969, Mr. Burnett and his partner sold their business for approximately $1,250,000.00 to Career Academy of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The sale in- cluded a three-,year employment contract with Humboldt. From 7972 to 1973 Mr. Burnett was the president of Management Training Incorporated. Since that time Mr. Burnett has been involved in real estate investments in the metropolitan area. Mr. Burnett is married to Kari Burnett. Mrs. Burnett works part-time at Cedric's Womens Fashions at Ridgedale. MEMORANDUM - May 5, 1977 Page Three GODFATHER, INC. Mr. Burnett's financial statement indicates that he has approximately $28,000.00 cash on hand, owns $69,000.00 in real estate and has approx- imately $65,000.00 in contracts owed to him. His net worth according to his financial statement is approximately $157,172.00. Mr. Burnett owes only $12,000.00 on his home which he estimates to be worth approx- imately $69,000.00. He also owns $75,000.00 of life insurance on his life with-his wife as beneficiary. Interviews with Mr. Burnett`s personal references indicated him to be a reputable individual with a solid business background -lacking, how- ever, in restaurant experience. Mr. Burnett has no criminal record and a check with the St. Louis Park Police Department indicated that Mr. Burnett has never been involved with the police there. Mr. Burnett met John Anzevino through Norman Pink of Advanced Music. Mr. Burnett's brother, an employee of Advanced Music, informed Pink of Burnett's interest in investments. Pink then arranged a meeting between the two which ultimately resulted in Burnett's investment in the Godfather. B. John Anzevino is-the president as well as a 65% stockholder in the corp- oration and is designated as co-manager of the proposed restaurant. Mr. Anzevino resides at 6305 RidgeView Drive, Edina, Minnesota and has re- sided there for approximately eight years. Mr,. Anzevino was born on January 30, 1938 in St. Paul. He attended Johnson High School in St. Paul and was graduated in 1956. He has an honorable discharge from the military service. He is married to Carol Anzevino and they have two children. Mr. Anzevino's first experience in the operation of a liquor establishment came with his interest in the Flamingo Restaurant in St. Paul. In 1962 he and Joe Arrigoni purchased the restaurant from George Schaumberg. He sold his interest in the F1a;ningo Restaurant in 1964. In 1965 Mr. Anzevino purchased the Office Bar, 217 South 6th Street, Minneapolis, .Minnesota from George Schaumberg. The Office Bar was de- stroyed by fire on January 4, 1966. The fire investigator was unable to determine the cause of the fire. In 1967 Mr. Anzevino and Frank Yarusso opened the Scotch Mist in Minn- eapolis. In 1970 the Scotch P~1ist was destroyed by fire. Mr. Anzevino was indicted by the Hennepin County Grand Jury on seven counts of de- frauding an insurer and one count of simple arson in connection with that fire. The charges were dismissed by the District Court trial judge for lack of evidence. MEMORANDUM - GODFATHER, INC. May 5, 1977 Page four In early 1967 Mr. Anzevino opened Mindy's Drive-In and Delicatessen, 616 East 78th Street in Richfield. His partner in that activity was Stanley Green. On November 2, 1967 a letter was sent to Mr. Anzevino and Mr. Green giving notice by the Environmental Health Director list- ing numerous code violations occurring on the property. A copy of that letter is attached herewith. The listed defects were corrected. After the Scotch Mist, John Anzevino became part owner of Duff's In The Park. His partners in this venture were Joe Duffy and the law firm of Meshbesher, Singer and Spence. Mr. Anzevino also acted as the manager of the establishment. A check with the St. Louis Park Police Department indicated that during the time that Mr. Anzevino was assoc- fated with Duff's there were no incidents of prostitution, gambling, or drugs reported from the establishment. Two stabbing incidents were re- ported during that period, but according to the St. Louis Park Police both appeared to be beyond the control of the proprietors. In July 1976 Anzevino left Duff's In The Park in order to seek an opportunity to establish his own business. l~fhile looking for an appropriate busi- ness opportunity he met Gerald Burnett. The application lists Anzevino and Burnett as co-managers. When Mr. Anzevino was informed that the manager had to be a Richfield resident, he stated that one of them-would probably move; but they might decide to choose another manager.. Perhaps the most troublesome result of our investigation into John Anzevino's background deals with the reputation of a number of people with whom he has been acquainted.. Mr. Anzevino had purchased his interest in two liquor establishments from George Schaumberg, who, by Mr. Anzevino's own admission had a reputation that linked him to syndicate type individuals. Mr. Anzevino further stated that he is acquainted with Buddy Wolk and George Patterson. Mr. Wolk was convicted in Feb- ruary 1977 of aiding and abetting the establishment of a gambling house and sentenc- ed to jail. Mr. Patterson was convicted in 1965 of burglary and in 1966 was con- victed of aggravated robbery. Mir. Anzevino also admitted knowing William McCahill. Mr. McCahill was convicted in February 1977 with violation of the state's gambling laws and sentenced to jail. Conclusion Because of the many people and business organizations which became involved in this investigation, the investigation itself was both time consuming and complex. To date the city has incurred approximately $1,106 in costs directly relating to this investigation. Because of the costs involved in this particular investigation, I recommend that the applicant be billed for the $500 maximum investigation fee al- lowed under the state statute rather than the ttivo $100 fees provided for in our City Ordinance Code 11.06, Subdivision 8 (3). MEMORANDUM - GODFATHER, INC. May 5, 1977 Page Five The results of the investigation by the Public Safety Deaartment are neither entirely favorable nor entirely unfavorable to the granting of the application. Our investigation does raise a number of concerns which we recorrunend be explored fully by the city council before acting on the Godfather's liquor license appli- cation. Respectfully submitted, ~~ '~ Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Director of Public Safety TAM/gr attachments . . *{ 1 ~~ ,d. •^~ 4 ~i• ~i .1 . f.+` i t \j; ' V 4 F ` ',!~\ 't , t ,~ • ~, .l ` ~~ • '! `. ~. ' 1' ./ , ~ f , -. s l ~ _ l ~ ~~i- ~ `~. ~. ~ . ~ ~~~ .~ J'lc'4% i ;. @.~~ ~ iiC ~1.CaAC,r'..;Su12 t lg7 ~ T,TC• • J '`'+.Y /.. • 1 'tl a.rtl C%4~ . ~%.Lil ~Ja v 4 ?li W n^ { :mil,. r.~l , ~ i.:..:Q;ji S •• ~ ~' T. l \.CSS~a'1 iJ~ :~ i.~~J U i c-n 2'i lic^,v l:'.'•aL:9 O:i. uP.3 ' li~._'.v'--itl LVLL:;:.' 9 ~ ±. iL^>, 1:1.>_.eCl,_0= n ~ ia••ri-~UCt~'_O`si rCv°a~C~ ' ~v mil .v ~rE3 ~~ O;l .i llux'~da ~ i:t'}V~i':JL 1" G~ ~ ~•.~~. t_c, _ ' e.cistin:; ccr::~~~o^s :;-'~i OiT a'_~e conirab,,• co sa ~:~ na 4c:,.~\r r~_ ,.,l:a' ~of_:,. ~~__„ I isle C03^_~:Li%~ 01:3 a;.•e 4aMora ~:La ~,nd ~ i.l ~~;~. 10U ai @ i'-Civa% ri0 t~T 12C't utia t, Z<'_e ~001~ ~ _'ti;E:!SC I.O:~ .. • -t-- _ - 1_ ~Ctl~.: ;P i l ~; '~'_5~'^cT:G~::Cl il_.._.CSS i::-3 v:T7.. , +'~• ~C~3'.'~. `~ Q ~ 7 r ~ ''"n^r CO ~:.'.L°1:7.0:'_3 :;C C>rr :ar a iyo7. •~.:,,~e aro co'.;~aC"G~u U.f .o~.~... ~ .: . ro '~w•. l,y.^,a~..ll i1. .L aiEaS Gi ?L\n-u :.vi,3J..._ux~..C:YI~v O'~r:i3 rrrty_ _~ 1. arc~~nu ~.e ~ase~:~aY'c~s :l::ai:' ~?:a rea_• door,, ~ s. t..:.: r '- a_ld i:.n::or ail ~oo:i ert*y~~,:e:lt. i?':~ ti:s s 1-T'::~ ~reaso l:ra~ t - F' ~ C~ ~tT~u.a TU i'i~'-t'.i 17'i-T i:~aC'C? t7:1 `L:'.U cooler door r..l=:, ~ ~C . . COO~.(:r 1:111:: ~ ria C1 Gu?"ted. ii:U CO~.u a ~~ N't`,ar~1 : iLL^,L Ve3 clear~c~ a_zd re_ a ~'ed. 1 u Cd a ~ least o:TC3 a ITve. 'Z • lt_8 noo~I 1 s1. ~vr:.> .~rti~ ~%~ c-~ "~ ~ 3__ , r "~.: ~ noo~s ~ICrUai i,Cr 7.i"1SG~ad 01 CP.Cv '."• V4S,~ 1,•.TC tiCCeCu. ~ xllci ud~.n~; ~:TG' ~a eta, a-rcaJ :._>:rt be L'ical~~d. ~ d.-' ~'a t i ~ t;iH.l cover Lcs ~ uc wl~ vet 3. ~fo t•;ooc~ j.ablo :Ti'ca _inao r • ~... t anpl'c~.'~c? i.; Jer Taus„ loo + ~ ;o ~-ed _ ~c^ t . e~:,~~? tJ-~o r.~;~ ;~~ used. iii TOVa'alo Cnc?osuro to w_o o°z;.ce a,.~a _;~~s~c is ~-e::ovec? ti • ;l t•C,,,r~ T;;.U U.itCJ-~c•Ji_"':.:Tlt Ci rC~:= =C~• a^,C LCa?' a tam `.!C'.'l•+•-CU~ Ct;tCt __^,.L:i. '1~-% r3^ J. - U.-Y~ o-„i7'.l u..('i CJ(.c1U.:1:J._.rt.iVO 1 l { /f -.. .r ti • ~ ~i - ,~ '~A .'? i.. ~ t i) .:I':.ti ~~-iil _.U~ 1.C:. ~Cc:~~:i? .i t,` _ , i N~ ~ ~~' ~ ~i ` Ei 1 it3 i~:a?' S.7i ~ (?CC, ::iii: ~ Le r-~_ a_'.%C~ ui.C't rr0` t?i'_: 1 i- ~ + • 1 1V 1~~~ ~_.~. {,J I :ice (! LiJ Ci i :~a ~£~• 1?=e ~]~iNTi 1 ~i ~~:t~. i'J ~.~'~iat J ' ' ~ol~~ r.:liSt be re~a~~:'~ed. i~o•'si2 ~o~cta riis•c t;e pr:;~i~e:I qq _ 4 ZT7.~c,ll t;~i?o{ p~:per. _ e taile ~a ~:,,~ ~., be dosi~.ia~.,.^.:1 "~:, . • ~ ... ? ~ ::;;cri:.~;. ewc oea tai: •~~x o~~r - ^"'-t (~,• va::ir c^,itCi (3'if;vi a=::i£` _.Cl'•~~TS i::.~:~i .: i8?'Ottl?;'Z 2i:C~ ' ~ '' ' LJ:i~ ~i Lt2e; C Ca..081iY3 .'~ a ~SiQ t:~ ?r01` r i'?::~C:i i~Y'C:~Gr1 • ' i s y ry _ ~ a -~ :~~r:.a.c~. _tii ;.gar ~'~~r ~1 L_-iV SQL' ~.~.i.~' 1•=~ ~Z.. ~. 1'Ci:.. ~::~ v } ~~ ~ u ,' ~ `tr:?G' C;%C~CYiiJ ?_i3i1(.@ €2.~0::;; l:~:c' ~_^O.^_ic3"~ rCc~C:y y -_,-..r" . .""'",w ~ r ~;' j'Cr';j T:X':,~ .iOI;Y'S~ -- ~. ' ~. ? ~ - _ 1 ~ubl.ia ~:oa'.•i,h Sai-i~,ar:ia:i • •~ f ;~ Ii ~~:.`:.~ •. . Gk~;t._~'I~;D ~~~IL ~ , t j ~.. 7:.1:!5 ,~ „ll.l.r."-".\\'';''". PURCHASE AGREEMENT ,~Ixl:-13u>rr'.°{teo.•tpt \Lun, :~P•~li• I t ~~ ~~ " ~F• r ~ ~i: 4 {tt ;+ . ,, • i ~ -> ~, ' ............M~.n,n.a.apol.i$........M;nn, .....March .............. .._.., 19.7.7-- RECEIVED OF THE GODFATHE.R.,....INC., ....................................._ ........._ .... the sum of TtdO THOTJSAND.••FIVE HUNDRE~•.AND•.•NO%1.00---.----.-rs 2, 500..00_ J DOLLARS ..... certified funds ....•„•„••••••..,..,,,as earnest money and ;n part payment for the purchase of property a; (Check, Cash or Note-State ~4'hichl ._.... __7.~8.•.West..•66th.._Street~.••Richfie•ld, ... ..........„_.._..,,.._.__.,.....,,,._.._.,_..„.,.,..„.,,situated ;n the Cout,cy of....... Hennep•in.-• ........................................... State of Dlinnesota, and legally described as follows, to-wit: SEE RIDEP. ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE APART HEREOF, LEGAL TO GOVERN, ° All Lhzt rar[ of GovCr:~-tent !ot One. (1), iii ~cecton , • ?~:cnty-:.cvc•Ii (27), "Te::asl:i? :`-rc:Ity-c_Sl-t (7.8), P.at+~;r_ 't:: r•ttty-four (2/:) , ~ c:cccr=Scd :IS f ol? o:~s Co:.~.ncncin~ .t a point nn :i:c ~~st : nd t'r:::t onc- Qusrter lire of Section T`.:cnty-seven (?.'/), Toun- ° :hip T~cnty-cif;ht (7.S), F.cn3c '~•:enty-four (24), k'cst, c:hich point is Oac 1:L::Zr^_d . ifcy-t\~o and (3f 10 (152.5) :cet Ezst of said !•:est one-auartcr ° corner of Section T:ICr.t~ -seven (27) ; ther_ce ° xunnin~ North for a dista^.ce of T:Iree liundre~ - ° 2•:ine (30°) `_cet, more or less, to, a point on ° the shore of Gross ?.a':e; tai^ce deflect to the ° riEht with an an31e o° Si::ty-t\:o DeS~'ees (52°) - _ xhirty-foLr :-finutcs (34') for a distance of Fifty-nine- and-4/10 (S°.4)- feet, *^.o-~. or less; _ thence dell^ct to th= rig`:t o^ 2^ z^,?e of o (~ ~ fifty-fo:±r deSrees (54) t:~irty ~0 r~ir_utes ~.. ~t_ `- vv:+a.,._~5.`.c~l! c_::t ~ L:1C SC:O~e OS i,ra55 L2c:2 . for a distance of Six;-o*.:e (6l) ~eet•, more - - - or 7.ess; thence South T_?:ree ~i:.t^dred x>,irty-tag _ _ and 6/10 (332.6) Seems, :yore or :less, to s point - on the East and 6'est or.e-euzrter 1=':ie of said Sectioa.T~:enty-seven (2~), ~: ice point is T_ao Hundred Fifty-sic a^d 6/'_0 (236_6) feet Ezst ° of the !•:est one-euz-ter cor::e- o`' Sec~ion '~:aea:y- - seven (27); thcr_ce ?Vest to :?~le ?Dint of beginning:, according to-the Gnited Stites Govern__.ent Survey thereof . - ° ex~.ept ~ '. 7h:a part of "he Southeasterly 5 feet of the tollo:•Iing described tract: L "{"hat part of Government Lot 1, in Section 27, 7o:mship 28, Range 24, cor.:nr-ncing at a point, t'rl~ich point is marked by judicial landmark, and is located 256.6 feet East and 33 feet D:orth of the Souihrrest corner of Governu:ent Lot 1; thence iJorth p~ral lei :•~ith ilest i ine of said lot 90.7 foet to a po°Int r,:arkcd by a judicial landmark; thence at a right angle L".st 21.9.2 feet to point of intersection t•,ith the Slesterly line of 1_yiIJ31 e l+venue, :•!i~ i ch point i s marked by j ud i e i a 1 1 and:^ark; thence South- :~:~~sterly along said line of Lynd~le ^rie{zue 95.5 feet to point of inter- scct:ion t{ith L-hc ;iurth (ine of !'cst C6ih Street, :-Ii7ieh point is marked by judicial ]~n4inark; th~:nce blest along said line 195.7 feet to the point of t~_ginning, ::~Ii•:h lies ;outfr:r;;sterly of a i ins Jra::n Ilort~r::~st~~rly at- "right ..:91::5 to the • ~:~tri~,::;::;terly 1i17~ of s:~id t:r:•~a frr,ln a pvint•ti'~~=rcon distant- h9 f.:ct ut~rti:c:aterly iru;n t:i-te ~outhcast ~~orner of s•~Iid tr:.~:t; also that part of said Lr..rt lyin3 south- r_:~sterly of a line ,Jrc:rn rorti~.astcrly from a tioint on thr_ s:Itlth 1 ir.e of said tract distant: 16 fr_-r_t \:~~sterly of the s~uthc Est corl~cr t1~~r~of, to a ~:oint on the south- e:,st:~rly__I ine_-of mid tr: t:t distant 1(~ C.:c:t nort•l:c~s~crly of said ,~,vihc.-,t corner. 1 ~} j' y li ,+ ~-~; ~~, ~~, • ,,_~1 , ` ,~~~ • 4+ ~' ~~ _ , .., •' . ~•' 1 "11 that kart of Govr_rr.:^~nt Lot 1, Scct:ion 27, To~a- r.hip 2S ::orth, F.: +:~c 24 :•:cst °of the Foc_ ~i: i'~! nciu~l Idcridian, dcscriocd as fo11o•.:s: Corrrcncinr or. a line p:rallci to :nd 255.0 =cet rant o= t:~c [:cst line of s, id Section 27 at point therin ~::~ieh ,1 is -23r+z7• feet :`.o:•th alor.~ said line frca the South ~~"~ line of said Govcrr_^ent rot 1, ~:hich point is marked by a judicial lar.?-+z='c; the^ce \orth along said parallel line a cistz^~~ of 105.9 feet, thence Fast a distance of 305.5 `e~[, r..ore or less, to an intersection with the :•:esterly line of Lyr:dzle • ° Avenue, which point o,. ?::~e=section is dete^~ir_ed • by returni^g to the point o` 3eg'nairg of said ° line and continua^, \orth z?o~g said p~rallcl line a distzrce of 103`eet,'thence South. 32 Cegrees ' 56 -minutes-East 143.-i feet-, Bence-\orth 82 deg_ces, 34 minutes Ezst to t?:e ?.'est lire of Lyndale Avenue, thence Southerly along sz_c litter line, 115 feet to slid poti:it of ter;nir.at_on of •the RorL-h line of the lard no:a bet^.o desc__bed, ;;ieace Sout!~wester?y ' along the [•'esterly line ofsaid Aver_ue •a distance of 113.4 feet, ::ore or less, •to a judicial Iz:~d:nzr:c located °in said 1=r_e 2t 2 d~st2nce of 95.5 feet • -- 2torthe2ster?y along said 1_re f-or+ 2 judicial landm2r'.•c ?laced 2t the _r.te_sect.on of tl:e [:esterly line of syid Aver_ue 2nd •t:~e ;:ort'n line of [•:est 66th • Street; the^ce ?•:est 229.? `eet to the poin*_ of i beginning, according to the Goverr_^ent SLrti;ey thereof. ,' - _ arc: - That part of Goverr^:~nt•?,ot 1, Section 27, To~,r.~shiD ~ 28, Rar_ge 24, cer.=:+encing zt a poi-it, whic;~ uoi nt is } marked by :j::d:cia? lzac-:~r~, 2nd is locates. 25b.o j feet E2st and 33 feet lor:h of the So•~t~:-;est corner ° . of Govern_-~ent ? of 1; thence `:orth p2r211c1 :.pith ::est line of said tot 90.7- feet to 2 point r+2=keZ by judicial 12n2^+ar~; t ease at r' aht_ a:+~les Ezst 229.2 • ~ feet to the point oz" ir.tArsection with the *.;este_ly ~ line of Lyndale avenue, e;hicz point ~s mzr'.~ed by judicial 12ad:~ar::; t:~er_ce Solt^-.esterly zlorg slid j line of Lyndale llvenue 95.5 _`~et to the point of ' intersection ::ith t`:e Xorth =ine of ?:est Sixty-six~h• • Street, t;'.-+ich poi^.t is r..zr'_:ed by jLdicial_ la^c:^zr':; thence ?•;cst along said line ?95_7 feet to the phial of beginning _ -' and i Tract D, Registered Land Survey No_ 1318, Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennehin. `. . ;. ~• r •z., pI ;~ k~~{ ,,~ . t fit'' ,; t 14 ,{ t .> ' ~. ,~ -. including all garden bulbs, plants, shrubs and trees, all storm sash, storm doors, detachable vestibules, screens, awnings, window shades, blinds (including venetian blinds), curtain rods, traverse rods, drapery rods, lighting fixtures and bulbs, plumbing fixtures, hot crater tanks and heating plant (with any burners, tanks, Brokers and other equipment used in connection rherr- with), water softener and liquid gas tank and controls {if the property of seller), sump pump, television anrenna, inciner- ator, built-in dishwasher, garbage disposal, ovens, cook top stoves and central air conditioning equipment, if any, used and located on said premises and incltidittg also the following personal property: all of trhich property the undersigned has this day sold to the buyer for the sum of: SIX HUNDRED THIP.TY EIGHT THOUSAND..TH:~EE,.HIJ?~DRED,.SEVENTY..AND,.N01~:Q.~-.-.-.-.--.-.~-__~$ x,38„370 )DOLLARS, which the bu •er a •rees to pay in the following manner: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE ~~~'~~~~~~~x?~?`;xxxxxxxlrrd~xxxx~cxx x~{~on ..Apr.i.1...12.,...1.9.7.J..., the date of closing. rI Subject to performance by the buyer the seller agrees to execute and deliver a .............C.ontY•a_ct,,, f Oz'. - _ . \Varranry Deed (to be joined in by spouse, iE any) conveying marketable title to said premises subject only to the following exceptions: (a) Building and zoning laws, ordinances. State and Federal reculations. (b) Restrictions relating to use or improvement of premises without effettive forfeiture provision. (e) Reservation of any minerals or mineral rights to the State of .Minnesota. <d) Utility and drainage easements which do not interfere with present improvements. xaXeS ~ha~l begprOrated aS Of (e) Rights of tenants as follows: (unless specified, not subject to tenancies j a e O C OS In ~~-~xxx!~c~~rx~xx~x~xx~x~x~~xxRxxx}~ •l~~x~C s{g~~ ~~~~cx~e~~ ~~'+I~tYaX3l:XSellet-warrants that real estate taxes due in the year 1)..L./. wt 1 non-~SLeaQ . homestead <assmcanon (full, partial or non-homestead -state which ~ Neither the seller nor the seller's agent make any representation or warranty whatsoever concernintr the amount of real estate taxes which shall be assessed against the propeay subsequent to the date of purchase. Seller covenants that buildings, if any, arc entirely within the boundary lines of the propemr and agrees to remove 211 personal propern~ not included herein and all debris from the premises prior to possession date. 3L'fkLKR{X~stX~xi$tXl~h'TxXXIKXASX~XRC XAX PIPTiXX}~7S'iKt>~?tt'~'~E~3;'~d3~,~YZ'rk#~~.3~~'~ ~:tX~#t''~~ ~~r{C~~•'~4~~X}fi ~}~}~~$~~X42~~~ ~EXX~{;~CZ~~Ci3~?~ X The seller further agrees to deliver possession not later than48 hTS , Of CIOSing provided that all conditions of chi; agreement have been complied with. >~~X.}~~g~X~~~~p~,~~~}X,~~~X~X~~~,~~~~y~XX~X.~~~X In the event this property is destroyed or substantially damaged by fire or any other cause before the closing date, this agreement shall become null and void, at the purchases s option, and all monies paid hereunder shall be refunded to him. The buyer and seller also mutually agree that pro rata ad' tme•nts of rent inceces~ igst•-{ante aA cy c water, and, in the case of income property, atrrent operating expenses, shall be made as of L{~O.S 1Tlg.,_..~pZ'l 1~--_1G ,... 17df The seller shall., within a reasonable time after approval of this agreement, furnish an abstract of title, or a Recis:ered Prol;rrtc Abstratt eerrined to date to include proper searches coveting bankruptcies, and Scare and Federal judgments and liens. The buyer shall ire allowed 10 days abet receipt thereof for examination of said titre and the making of any objections thereto, said objections to be made in writing or deemed to be waived. Lf any objections arc so made one seller shall be allo}ved ]20 days to rnakr such title marketable. Pe•nciinc correction of tide the pa}•mena hereunder required shall be postponed, but upon .correction of ride and within IU days alter written notice to the buyer. the parties shall perform this aerec•ment according to its terms. If said title is not marketable and is not made so within 12U daps from the date of wriaen objections thereto as above provided, this agreement shall he null and void, at option of the bucer, and neither principal shall be liable for damages hereunder m the ether principal. All morry theretofore paid by the bucer shall be refunded. If the tale to said property be found marketable or be so made within said time. and said bucer shall default in any of the agreements and continue in default for a period of lU da}•s, Then and in that case the seller mac trrmrnate this contract and on such rerminatiun all the payments made upon this contract shall be retained bt• said Seiler and said actnt, a' their respective interests may appear. as liquidated damaces, time being of the essence beret(. Phis provision shall not deprive either pang of the riche of rnforcinc the speutic performance of this contract pr<.cided such conrraa shall not he terminated as aforesaid, and provided anion to enforce such specirie performance shall he commenced within si>: n;onths after such right of action shall arise. ;1 XX}CX3f XXXXxXrX.7{ XX XJ~X}CxxX:;zX~~{JC!?CX StKXX.?:•X~{ XI•CtD~44h4C X~i ~fsKMOC~L:;X:C~~: x.'{X'.}tI{:KX KXaC:Y~ 1dc ?irXX3S ~S X }r.X XY,J{.y 3: x u•x'3r ~: X~S:SC X St X X:}i;ri~C Xx sy{ 3CH x~XY: ~i•}SX x~C9S 4C-L IS 5Y X X X~ KgC X'XX X x 3t; 4i X }CK'K1Y.; XJC X IX i+s` }{:}{ xX:d2Kli The delivery of all papers and monies shall be made at the office o 7, the undersigned, owner of the above land, do hereby approve - the abov agreement and the sale thereby made. ..... ............... ....... ~ Si:A ) J OME C DAY• rr}i'e r !11 ~ U f/ ~ ~ ~.. ........ ,.-li~~ .... (SEAL) 5 . S 'IA$Fllcr ~`~...... By .. ._ .............................................. Agent I hereby agree to purchase the said propert}• for the price and upon the terms above mentioned, and subject to all conditions ~ ' HER, IPdC. /_~ t • -- ((~ / ~/~ /J B~ , ~ .....v.~<,-~.......- ..... ... .. t/~~'' , U c.i~1«{r~! .. ... (SEAL) Jo•4i~~ ~•~Anzevin~; Btryrr Fre's~ideiit .............................................. ........... (SEAL) . ....................... Buyer EXHIBIT "A" . y ' .. P.E: THE GODFATHER,. INC. , ~ . • 500.00 earnest money paid herein, $75,000.00 cash and $57,500.00 1. $2 ~~ ~ , in an unsecured Promissory Note bearing interest at the rate of 8 ~ ~ • per cent per annum, payable in equal monthly installments of $1,100.00 ~~~ per month, payable on the 1st day of_ May, 1977, and on the 1st day of each and every month thereafter until September 28, 1979, at which c ' '`~ Ct~1.~~~~ time the entire unpaid principal balance of said Note shall become due • ~ ~ ~ and payable. All installment payments shall be applied first to :, , ~ ' interest and then to principal and said Promissory Note shall contain , - the usual provisions for waiver of notice of dishonor, presentment, etc., and for attorneys' fees. in the event of default. '~1 '~ ., 2. By Buyer executing a Contract for Deed with Sellers in the principal amount of $70,000.00, bearing interest at the rate of 8 percent per ' ~ annum, payable in equal monthly installments of $1,000.00 or more, -, . each such payment being applied first to interest and then to principal \. C~• ` , with the entire unpaid principal balance becoming due and payable on the 28th day of June, 197~9.~~ The first installment on said Contract for Deed shall commence on the 1st day of May, 1977, and be due and payable ' - on the 1st day of each and every month thereafter until the 28th day of June, 1980. 3. By Buyer assuming and agreeing to pay, according to its terms and conditions, that certain First Mortgage with the Richfield Bank and Trust (;ompany, dated the 5th day of January, 1973, by and between the Richfield Bank and Trust Company and Florence C. Rush, et al, in the principal sum of $350,000.00, with an unpaid principal balance of approx- imately $329,000.00 in $?_,714.00 monthly payments. ~- , 4. By Buyer assuming and agreeing to pay, according to its terms and conditions, that certain Contract for Deed dated January 5, 1973, by and between Jerome C. Dayton and Herschel S. Swain and Florence Rush, et al, with an approximate unpaid principal balance of $100,370.65 as of March 1, 1977, $1,250.00 per month. 5. By Buyer assuming and agreeing to pay for the residual adjacent land, according to the terms and conditions of that certain Contract for Deed dated January 31, 1973, by and between Gordon E. and Elaine ?'4. ° as Vendors, and Jerome C. Dayton and Herschel S. Swain, as Strom , Vendees, in the principal amount of $5,500.00, with an unpaid principal balance of approximately $4,000.00, payable at $100.00 per month. It is understood and agreed that the installment obligations due on this Contract are in arrears and that Buyer assumes this Contract ' and agrees to make all payments due thereunder at such times and under such circumstances as may be required by the Vendor of said Contract. The ' contract for deed balance does not exceed $4,000 principal and accrued inter- 6. That the unpaid principal balances due and owing on the obligationsJest t described in paragraphs 3 and 4 above shall be current as of the date / date of closing herein, and it is agreed by and between all parties hereto /of c7_c that time is of the essence. ing. 7. Sellers agree to remove all mechanic's liens of record, either by a:av of litigation, settlement or payment in full, and in the event that Sellers fail or refuse to do so Buyer may pay same and deduct the costs and expenses thereof, including reasonable attorneys' fees, from the unpaid principal balance then due and owing on the unsecured Promissory Dote described in paragraph 1 above, and in the event the unpaid principal balance of said Promissory Note is insufficient to reimburse Buyer for these expenses and reasonable attorneys' fees, then and in such event Buyer may deduct same from the Contract for Deed described in paragraph 2 above and these shall Ue the sole and exclusive remedies of the Buyer, mechanic's liens, interest and attorneys' fees not to exceed $10,000.00. ' At the time of closing, April 12, 1977, Sellers shall execute such 8 ' . interest in documents as are necessary to assign to Buyer the Sellers . that certain tax escrow presently held by the Richfield Bank and Trust Company in the approximate amount of $4,439.00, and taxes shall be pro- ~ - rated to date of closing and adjusted at that time. . ~~ `'.t~, 9. Buyer shall pay all mortgage assumption fees, if any there be, ,•~ ~ from the Richfield-Bank and Trust Company... This Purchase Agreement is further conditioned upon Buyer obtaining 10 ~;. "`:' ~{~ . from the City of Richfield the necessary licenses required to operate , • ~ ~ ~ a liquor lounge and dining establishment on the premises above-described. ., , That Buyer shall submit its application for such licenses within five ~+ days after the execution of this Agreement and sahll promptly do and perform all requirements necessary for obtaining said licenses. That in the event Buyer shall not be able to obtain a liquor license, then `t ~ ; ~ and in such event this Agreement shall become null and void and Sellers „. shall-refund to Buyer the earnest money paid herein upon written notice "~. to Sellers from Buyer of its inability to obtain such licenses. It is expressly agreed and understood that there are no business 11 . opportunity fees or commissions or real estate brokerage fees or • commissions involved in connection with the purchase and sale of the r , above-described real estate and Buyer agrees to indemnify Sellers ' . fees, for all damages, costs actually incurred, including attorneys for any claims, demands or actions at law or equity commenced against Sellers for such business opportunity, commissions or real estate brokerage commissions by any person, firm or corporation claiming such as a result of this Agreement. 12. Buyer warrants and represents that he has inspected the premises, either by himself or through experts acting as his agent, and has determined for himself the existing condition of all appliances, heating, air conditioning, wiring, plumbing, roofing and the structure itself and acknowledges by this Agreement that Sellers have not made and do not make any warranties or representations, either express or implied, as to the condition of those items described in, this para- . graph and that Buyer relies solely on his own inspections and his oom good judgment . ` Provided that the monthly installment obligations described in 13 . paragraphs 1 and 2 above shall commence not less than thirty days ° nor more than forty five days after the closing of this transaction, ~h shall be on the 12th day of April, 1977, it is agreed that the ~~hi . unpaid principal balances, including interest and penalties, if any, on those indebtednesses described in paragraphs 3 and 4 above shall be assumed by the Buyer as of the date of closing and that these balances shall be current through March 29, 1977, and thereafter payments due thereon shall be adjusted at the time of closing by crediting the Promissory Note described in paragraph 1 above due from Buyer for any payments or amounts due on those debts described in • paragraphs 3 and 4 above. 14. Sellers represent that the legal description attached hereto is . the legal description of all of the property commonly known as Nick r:inotte's at 708 t~lest 66th Street, Richfield, Minnesota, and that said legal descriptions ire from abstracts and torrens certificates of record. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT ~~ It is hereby mutually agreed between the sellers and the buyers that the closing on the sale of the property located at 708 I4est 66th Street, Richfield, Minnesota, is hereby extended to May 10, 1977- N t \~ /-! _. J ~~~ ~. j Jerome C. Dayton Herschel S. Swain THE GODFATIIER INC . B rr J n An ec`~~ ( _ Its President (~~~~.,~~~~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Inter-Office Memorandum DATE May 5 , 1977 To City Manager M~1Y 5 1977 ___ FROM Environmental Health. Director RiC}~~~'~I~ ' '~~~ r,,:o: r .` SUBJECT Health Code Requirements for Food Facility at 708. West 66th Street, formerly known. as Minotte's John Anzevino of .6305.Ridgeview Drive, Fdina, is planning to purchase Nick Minotte's Restaurant at the above address: The necessary applications have been submitted to the city for approval. There are a number of problems associated with the f'oocl facility and they must be corrected before reopening. The corrections to be made are listed below: 1. Repair. ceiling and walls within the kitchen, bathroom and elsewhere within the building where disrepair is .noted; 2.. Provide. locker facilities with lock and key for all employees; 3. Keep all hallways free of material storage; ~+. Provide a minimum of 30 foot-candles of light in all food preparation, bar and customer areas of-the building; 5. A separate storage area (.janitor's closet). must be provided for cleaning agents and equipment. A mop sink or the equivalent must be provided within the-room. 6. The mechanical dishwasher must be replaced or properly repaired. The mechanical exhaust over the dishwasher must also be filtered and repaired to operate properly. 7. A running water dipper well must be installed if ice cream is served; 8. All food equipment must be in good repair or removed from the establishment. All replacement equipment must meet state standards. 9. Mechanica]_ ventilation-must be in good-repair and operating properly; 10.. Plumbing fixtures must be in good repair and operating properly. l.l. Light fixtures, switches, etc. must be properly affixed to ceilings and walls and made safe. Re:--708. W. 66th St., formerly Minotte's. Page 2 May 5, 1977 12.. Outside storage of refuse must be within an enclosure on a concrete slab with a roof. Mr. Anzevino has submitted a list of improvements. he will make to the building if the council approves the application for a license. The: improvements also include expanding the kitchen or food preparation-area. The estimated time needed to make the improvements is approximately 30 days. The list is included with this memorandum. Mr. Anzevino has agreed to comply with the food. code requirements before opening the restaurant for business. I am also attaching a layout plan for the remodeling of the restaurant. Please note the ~~Torking Man's Bar and the proposed Game Room. There will be entry to the Game Room from the Working Man's Bar. It appears that the Game Room and the Working Man's Bar will be separated from the rest of the building with the exception of entry from the kitchen, which cannot be-used as a customer thorough- fare. Two new toilets will be built near the check room. Two. other toilets near the north side of the building will be removed, one of which will be converted to an employee rest or locker room and-the other a pasta (food preparation) room. Several private dining rooms will be provided, replacing the linen and cloak rooms near the northwest corner of the building. The basement will be used for inventory storage and office space. d ~ ~ ~ l~~ ae~c-~2~ T. F. Roesler Environmental Health birector IFR:ml Attachments i lye Sohn Anzevino 6305 Ridgeview Drive Edina, MN 55435 May 2, 1977 . ~ 4 ~,~ i, ~I~ . .~ . r,~ ~ ~ ~• tir ; ~'~.~ ,~ t ' 1. ., •~ . 1~ • City Of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN Attnetion: I. F. Roesler, MPH RE: Improvments to be made by Godfathers Inc. Property at 66th and Lyndale Dear Mr. Roesler, The following is a list of improvements to be done fcr the city of Richfield. Rebuild or replace dishwasher Lighting to be brought up to 30 foot candle power Replace rust out steam table Replace wood-work table-with approved metal ~ l au~w` Arrange cooking line to proper~~exhaust alhquipme Complete steam cleaning and sand blasting of all duck and kitchen equipment yytt~~~~y~ Repair glass and seal~on walk in kitchen cooler vRepair Dumster enclosure and add roof per Mr. Roesler All walls to be covered with wall paper Floors to be recarpeted (both dinning rooms, main entry, and working mans bar) New furniture to be added to operate a first class restaurant Billboard sign to be removed from roof Paint outside block walls and trim in kitchen Prep-room, new floor - ceramic floor and base, ceiling tile, marlite walls Pasta Room- new ceiling Private dining rooms (2) new ceiling, walls, lights Electrical - new fixtures in bath, check room, electric heat in front entry, more lighting in prep-room, outlets for wall hung lights, lighting for private dining rooms Hanging of fire place, cleaning of brick Ceiling the for prep-room and bathrooms Removal of wall and folding doors as per plan Install piano bar Formica (4) exterior doors front entry New door, exterior doors front entry New door, exterior, west side /Repair garbage area New doors (2) to prep-room with hardware from dining area Quarry ti.le for prep-room, ceramic for new bathrooms 8 ft. high Bathrooms downstairs cove r_ with marlite Heating for new bathrooms Bat}~irooms - partitions for new bathrooms 2 fans 2 doors with hardware 2 vanities • concrete mirrors Plumbing Windows - repair broken glass Remove one exterior door and block out f .~ ~~~•. ' , ,~' , a .~ r,~ . r ~ 1t• . : e` ; ~, '+ t ~. _ 1 _, ~ ~~ '~` -2- New check room - panel walls Dutch door (1) ° Wine racks for dining room windows Canopy - remove old - install new with glass racks Block-off dining room from game room to working man's bar Paint existing ceiling light fixtures white Hang owners wall paper Change wall by existing entry Lumber fbr bathrooms and check room dRubbish removal C er a r ea a p ftt' Respectfully submitted John J. Anze`vino The Godfather Inc. ~' ~,/~ .F a~,~b ••~ ~j,C y ,~ti ~~ ~ ~~ ~.,.~, 3c .. _ STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Field Operations Division 1501 West 80th Street Room 213 Bloomington, Minnesota 55+31 r?areh 25, 1977 City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55+23 Re: Liquor License Application by Godfather, Inc., Sohn Anzevino, 3r., anta Others for Existing ]`~a.notte's Restaurant Gent? ei,.er.: Richfield requires compliance with all provisions of current ordinances a~ a condition for issuing or transferring a liquor license. Ordinance 279.6, Subd. 11, says "no license shall be granted for operation on any premises on ti,~hich taxes of the city or of the state are due,-deln- quent and unpaid." Minotte's Restaurant is currently liable for Minnesota Withholding and Sales taxes of approximately ~~F3,000.00. Mr. Anzevino is aware of this liability, but to date has made po arrange- ments Frith this Department for their payment in full. If any further help or information is needed concerning this matter, please contact the Department's Bloomington field office at 88~-00+0. Sincerely, Francis B. Riley, Tax Examiner Field Operations Division Phone 88~+-00}0 FBR/j j ec: City P~,anager . . AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER "°'~~~`"~55j ~A CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No . 151 Agenda May 9, 1977 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Industrial Development Revenue Bonds Financial Property Developers, Inc. is proposing to finance the construction of the K-Mart store using Industrial Development Revenue Bonds. The council can initiate the Industrial Revenue Bond process by authorizing the attached resolution. This type of financing is common in the state of Minnesota and other states where it has been provided #or by state legislation. In 1967 the Minnesota legislature took steps to encourage economic development in the state with the passage of the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development .Act. The Minnesota Municipal Development bonds have met with increased acceptance in use since first issued in 1970. That year industrial bonding in the state totaled just over $3 million. In the four year period following, annual bonding increased to over $96 million.. Municipal Industrial Revenue Bonds differ from general obligation bonds issued by communities in that the full faith and credit of the. community is not pledged, so that taxes cannot be levied against property to pay the principle and interest on the Industrial Revenue Bonds . Industrial Revenue Bonds are amortized solely by rents received from the leasee facility. Principle features of the bonds are: 1. Municipal Revenue Bonds are tax exempt. 2. The municipality may issue such bonds with an interest rate of approximately seven percent. There is not any direct obligation on the city to pay the bonds . 3 . The firm to which the bonds are issued may be either a new .firm in the- municipality or a well established firm in the municipality. 4. The project may be a new place of business, an addition or a remodeling of an existing place of business . r Council Letter No . 151 - 2 - May 9 , 1977 5. The bonds may be issued in amounts sufficient to pay the cost of any or all of the land cost,. construction cost, improvement cost,. engineering and architectural. costs, as well. as fiscal fees and interest during construction of six months and .for six months thereafter. 6. The project funded by Industrial Revenue Bonds is subject to advalorum taxes like other taxable properties . 7. The agreement between the municipality and the firm may provide that when all bonds have been paid by the business firm, the municipality will sell the place of business to the firm at a nominal price . Duties and responsibilities of the municipal governing body issuing Industrial Revenue Bonds are broadly outlined. These responsibilities are generally set forth in the lease and various other agreements and resolutions entered into prior to and at the time of issuance of the bonds . This resolution will authorize the sale of Industrial Revenue Bonds. The Industrial Revenue Bond issue must be then approved. by the bonding. consultant, bonding attorneys as well as the Commissioner of Economic Development for the State of Minnesota . In the event of a default by the business firm, the municipality, under the Municipal Industrial Development Act, is authroized to re-enter the premises and operate the premise or release it in order to provide for payment of the bond and interest when due. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached. resolution, there- by authorizing the sale of Industrial Development Bonds . Respectfully submitted, S . ~~~~~ Wayne S . Burggraaff City Manager WSB/jkl cc Planning & Redevelopment Director Finance Director ~- r' RESOLUTION NO. 77 RESOLUTION GIVING PRFLIhIINAP;Y APPROVAL . TO A PP.OJECT UNDER THE I`~IUNICIPAL IidDt7STRIAL DEVELOP~~F,NT ACT, REFERRIPJG THE Pt~',OPOSAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPA~iENT FOR APPROVAL, AND ALTTHORI7~ING EYECU"'TON OF A D1Es40~.A.NDUM OF AGREEMENT AND PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. BE IT RESOLVED .Ay the City Council of the Cit~j of Richfield, Minnesota, as followse 1. It is hereby found, determined and declared as follows: l.l. The welfare of ti'le State of Minnesota requires active promotion, attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce through governmental acts to prevent, so far as possible, emergence of blighted lands and areas of chronic unemployment, and the state has encouraged local government units to act to.prevent such economic deterioration. 1.2. Financial Properties Developers, Inc., a Georgia corporation (hereinafter, the Company), has advised this Council of its desire to acquire certain land, comprising approximately _5.85 acres within the City, and to construct and equip thereon one or more buildings (such land, buildings and equipment being hereinafter referred to as the Project), to be leased by the Company to the K-Mart Corporation for the operation of a retail department store. 1.3. The existence of the Project within the City would significantly increase the tax base of the City, County and school district in which the City is located, and would provide opportuni- ties for employment for residents of the City and surrounding area. 1.4. The City has been advised that conventional, commercial financing to pay the capital cost of the Project is available only on a limited basis and at such high costs of borrowing that the economic feasibility of operating the Project crould be significantly reduced, but that with the aid of municipal financing, and its resulting low borrowing cost, the Project is econornicall~r more feasible. 1.5. This Council has been advised by a representative of Duran & Moody, Incorporated of St. Paul, Minnesota, investment bankers ..and dealers in municipal bonds, that on the basis of information submitted to them and their discussions with representatives of the Company and potential buyers of tax-exempt bonds, industrial development revenue bonds of the City could be issued and sold upon favorable rates and terms to finance the Project. 1.6. The City is authorized by P~innesota Statutes, Chapter 474, to issue its revenue bonds to finance capital projects consisting of properties used and useful in connection with a revenue producing enterprise, such as that of the Cox~:pany, and the issuance of such bonds by the City would be a substantial inducement to the Company to construct its facility within the City. 2. On the basis of informa.~tion gi-ven the Cit~r to date, it appears that it would be in the best interest of the City to issue its industrial development revenues bonds under the provisions of Chapter 474 to finance the Project of -the Company at a cost presently estimated to be approximately $3,000,000. 3. The Project above referred to is hereby given preliminary approval by the City and the issuance of bonds for such purpose and in such amount approved, subject to approval of the Project by the. Commissioner of Economic Development and tr the mutual agreement of this body, the Company and the initial purchasers of the bonds as to the details of the bond issue and provisions for their payment. In all events, it is .understood, however, that the bonds of the City shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance legal or equitable upon any property of the City except the Project, and each bond, when, as, and if issued, shall recite in substance that the bond, including interest thereon, is payable solely from the revenues received from the Project and property pledged to the payment thereof, and shall hat constitute a debt of the City. 4. The form of I~?emorandum of Agreement relating to the issuance of revenue bonds of the City to finance the cost of the Project is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the D4emorandum of Agreement in behalf of - the City. 5. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision 7, the City Pdanager is hereby authorized and directed to submit the proposal for the Project to the Commissioner of Economic Development for his approval of the Project. The P~ayor, City Clerk, City Manager, City Attorney and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to provide the Commissioner ~,yith any preliminary information he may need for this purpose, and the City Attorney is authorized to initiate and assist in the preparation of such documents as may be appropriate to the Project, if it is approved by the Commissioner. -2- s 4++ -i i~Ir~~ORAP~tDUI~i CF AGREEMETdT- TIiIS 2~ENiCP.ANIDUIvI OF AGP.EEENIENT, dated as of 1977 , .between the City of Richfield , 2zinnesota (the '~Ci-ty" ) and Financial Properties bevelopers,Inc.(the "CorYaora.tion")provides as follows: 1. Preliminary Statement. Among the s~iatters of mutual inducement which have resulted in this Agreement are the follo~ring: (a) the City is authorized and empowered by the provisions of Chapter 474, P4innesota Statutes, as amended (the "Act"), to issue revenue bonds to defray the costs of a project as defined in the Act. (b) the Corporation has proposed that the City, pursuant to the Acb, issue its revenue bonds to defray tYie costs to be incurred in connection with the acquisition of certain properties, consisting primarily of land and one or more buildings to be constructed, remodeled and equipped thereon (the "Project"}, more fully described in Exhibit A, and that the City and the Corporation enter into a Lease, sale or loan agreement or similar agreement satisfying the requirements of the Act (the "Revenue Agreement'°) , (c) the Corporation wishes to obtain satisfactory assurance from the City that the proceeds of the sale of the revenue bonds of the City will be made available to finance the costs of_ the Project. (a) subject to clue corc~pliance with all requirer.~ents of law, the City by virtue of such statutory authority as May now or~ hereafter be conferred by the Act, will issue. and sell its revenue bonds in an ara.ount not e~cee~:ing $3,600,0©0(the"Boneis") to pay the costs cli the Projects (e) the Bonds sha11 be limited obligations of the City, and the principal of and interest on th.e Bonds shall be payable solely out of the revenues derived from amounts payable to the City by the Corporation pursuant to the provisions of the Revenue Agreement. 2. Undertakings on the Part of the City. Subject to the conditions stated in (d) of paragraph 1 hereof, the City agrees as follows: (a) that it will authorize the issuance and sale of the Bonds, pursuant to the terms of the Act as then in force, and the terms and conditions of this Agreement. (b) that, if it issues and sells the Bonds, it will as requested by the Corporation enter into the Revenue Agreement ~-vith the Corporation. The lease rentals, .installment sale- payt~~ents, loan payrrlents or other amounts payable under the Revenue Agreement will be sufficient to pay the principal and interest and redemption premium, if any, on the Bonds as and when the sar~~e shall become due anc4 payable . 3, Undertakings on the Part of the Corporation. The Corporation agrees as follows: (a) that it will use all reasonable efforts to find one or rnore purchasers for the Bonds. (b) that contezaparaneousiy with the delivery of the Bonds the Corporation will enter into the Revenue Agreement with the City under the terms of which the Corporation will provide security to the City for payment of sums sufficient in the aggregate to pay the principal of and interest and redemption premium, if any, on the Bonds as and when the same ,,. shall become aue and payable. 4. General Provisions. (a) All cor~ur~itments of the City under paragraph 2 hereof and of the Corporation-under paragraph 3 hereof are subject to the condition that within twenty-four (24)months from the date hereof {or such other date as shall be mutually satisfactory to the City and the Corporation, and as set forth in an ariendment to this Agreement), the City and the Corporation shall have agreed to mutually acceptable terms and conditions of the trevenue Agreement, tine Bonds and of the other instruments anci proceedings relating to the Bonds. (_b) If the events set forth in (a) of this paragraph do not take place within the time set forth therein or any modification thereof and 'che Bonds are no.t sold and delivered within such time, the Corporation agrees that i~~ will rein.k~ur_e the City for all reasonable and necessary direct out~of-poc]~et expenses which the City raay incur arising from the execution of this Agreement and the performance by the City of its obligations hereunder, and this Agreement shall thereupon terminate.- (c) This Agreement may be terminated by mutual consent of the parties at any time. ITT ti~~7ITNESS Tr~TIiEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement by their officers thereunto duly authorized this day of 1977. CITY OF RICHFIELD, I`~INNE50TA By Its~Tayor By Its City~Manager BY Its By Its .~. EXriIBIT A PROJEC^1 DESGRIPTIOv 5. S5 In general, the Project consists of approximately acres of lard situated in the City of Richfield, iJlinnesota, with buildings and equipment appropriate for use by the Corporation in the leasing of said Project to the K-2~art Corporation for the operation of a retail department store. '"i'he major components of the Project will include, but will not be limited to, the following: land, one or raore buildings, equipment and such other real and personal property as may be necessary, helpful or desirable in the business of the Corporation. iU CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 150 Agenda May 9, 1977 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Construction Cooperative Agreement-L/H/N Project #705, Hennepin County At the city council meeting of March 28, 1977, the council authorized the staff to negotiate a cooperation construction cost sharing agreement with Hennepin County for public improvements in the L/ H/N area . At the April 25, 1977 city council meeting, the council approved the concept of the costsharing plan. The County. Department of Public Works has now submitted a final coop- erative construction agreement for city approval. The agreement is basically what was negotiated between the city staff and county staff. In summary, this agreement provides that -the county pay. $211 , 224 for the construction of 66th Street from 1st Avenue to Lyndale Avenue-and Nicollet Avenue and First Avenue and that the city pay $45.8,992 for construction of Nicollet, First Avenue and 66th Street from First Avenue to Lyndale Avenue. The city's costs are basically for pedestrian oriented and landscaping improve- ments, while the county's costs are mostly roadway costs. It should also be understood that part of the county's cost includes construction inspection for the construction scheduled for 1977. It is recommended that the city council authorise the city manager and mayor to execute this construction agreement with Hennepin County. ~ Respectfully su fitted, ~~ ~ ~n Wayne S. Burggraa City Manager ~~o~ W/~~ n61a.~e WSB/eja i, r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 149 Agenda May 9, 1y77 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Request for Approval of Plans by Minnesota Department of Transportation for Construction of Noise Barrier- Walls and Landscaping Along 35W The Minnesota Department of Transportation has requested that the city council adopt a resolution approving plans and specifications for the con- struction of noise barrier walls and landscaping along 35W between 63 1/2 Street to between Clinton and 4th Avenue. A sketch showing the location of the proposed wall is attached to this letter. .The Acting Public Works Director has reviewed the plans and determined that the wall will be constructed at the locations indicated. The wall con- struction will consist of tongue and groove horizontal planting with all posts to be on the freeway side of the wall. The Department of Transportation has scheduled May 27 for the opening of bids with the bid award to occur within a one month period following the opening. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution approving the plans and specifications for this project. Respectfully su fitted, Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Acting Public Works Director RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS, SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE .IMPROVEMENT OF TRUNK HIGHWAY N0. 394, RENUMBERED AS TRUNK HIGHWAY N0. 35 WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF RICHFZLD FROM THE WEST JUNCTION OF C.S.A.H. 62 TO EAST JUNCTION OF C.S.A.H. 62 (Noise Attenuator Wall and Landscaping) S.P. 2782-187 (35W=394) Clerk's File No. WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation for the State of Minnesota has cuased to be prepared: plans, special provisions and specifications for the improvement of Trunk Highway No. 394, renumbered as Trunk Highway No. 35W, within the corporate limits of the City of Richfield, from the West Junction of C.S.A.H. 62 to East Junction of C.S.A.H. 62 and, WHEREAS, said plans are on file in the Office of the Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota; being marked, labeled and identified as: S.P. 2782-187 (35W=394) and _. _ WHEREAS, said special provisions are on file in the Office of the Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota; being marked, lar.~eled and identified as: S. P. 2782-187 (35W=394), and which, together. with, the Minnesota Department of Highways Standard Specifications for Highway Construction, dated January 1, 1972, as amended by Minnesota Department of Highways Supplemental Specifications for Highway Construction, dated April 1, 1976 will govern, and which are on file in the Office of the Commissioner of Department or Transportation, constitute the specifications-for said improvement of Trunk Highway No. 394, renumbered as Trunk Highway No.35W; and,. WHEREAS, copies of said plans and special provisions as so marked, labeled and identified are also on file in the Office of the City Clerk; and, .WHEREAS, the term, said plans and special provisions, as hereinafter used in the body of this Resolution will be deemed and intended to mean, refer to and incorporate the plans and special provisions in the foregoing recitals particularly identified and described; and, WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation desires in the inter- est of public safety that any and all parking of vehicles, if such parking is permitted within the corporate limits of the City of Richfield, on said Trunk Highway No. 394, renumbered as Trunk Highway No. 35W, will be parallel with the curb adjacent to the highway and will be at least 20 feet from any crosswalk. NOW, THEN, BE TT RESOLVED that said plans and special provisions for the improve- ment of Trunk Highway No. 394, renumbered as Trunk Highway No. 35W, within the corp- orate limits of the City of Richfield, be and hereby are approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Richfield does hereby agree to require the parking of all vehicles, if such parking is permitted within the corporate limits of said City, on said Trunk Highway No. 394, renumbered Trunk Highway No. 35W, will be parallel with the curb adjacent to the highway, and at least 20 feet from any cross- walks on all public streets intersecting said trunk highway. - i - 2 - BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the elevations and grades as shown in said plans and special provisions are hereby approved and consent is hereby given to any and all changes in grade occasioned by the construction of Trunk Highway No. 39~+, re- numbered Trunk Highway No. 35W, in accordance with said plans and special provisions. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of May, 1977. Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran City Clerk r J I~i~ oz_ a °- IZ' ' U W J ~W ~/ I O ~ a m, w a 3 3 3~'' ~~ 3 ~ ~-- ~J~ ~~~ C C k C )n) ~4anf) ~~~_ ~ Z] 3 3 3 3 )n. ,. ~) ~.. ; ~,. u., 3M M)i 3M tplor.wNl) )n. l,o~ -3nY lpll) ~. _,~, )M )aN )M wG )M ~•f 3M N) 3M f)llo.NN 3M ll)OSn1 '3M Na,Nlx3~ 3M aYg6lly 3M 1M).3L 3M O M )M w5u3w3 "3M lOIM~OH 3M d1lnYl ' 3M 5]nR ~ I "3M N _v1J11 3M tl)nltl '3n) xM3f I- 3n) M)llq JM 1135YW 3M MMY3M 3M f.nOMf )n) NOfYII )M ix30ix/. lM NWlR.w 'JA) ill))l ao W ~ u.Z~= x~t ~ c~~ gs 3x Q a cx .~ ~ ~ ; ,:. ~f. [.t. 3._ _ o. ~aAW . y, z ~' f--' `~ c ~ x ,. ~ ~ ~. ___ ~ ~0~~~~~~~~ L-]~~~L~~ ~0 ~OC~[~ODI~ ~-isrt OQI~C~~~ ~I~C7~~D~L~~O ~ ~ OL~~O ~~~~ C~~CJCI~ Z ' . ~ ~~oo~o~ ~~~~o ~ ~ , - ~OO~C~DOC»0 ~f ~{ ~- -~ eFi? Y 11 ~) ' ~~~ )M ~,.) )n. w4) ]nr x)roM'f) ,M .~: 3W v~0) lM 4,f~ )n) u)03> )M «of~~~,.~ )n. fa„) ~M ~.)wl fµ=~ )M a,.,f~, )n) Y14 3M w4 )n1 Mi 3n) f„M31f )M ,,, r M 1TlpYY 3n) 11305x)% 3M xia0~ax3~ ]nt O,n4) 3M 1}YwM 3n) z.f100 3nY 1xMq 3M MMY]n3 '3n) 1Mw3Yf 3n) 00)tli9 i -3n)) ~pla)RM 3M 53T+ 3n) )Ow) 3nY n001 )K N01M}, 3n) Y)n~10 )n) MX3e 3M x3XW 3M 113450u ]n) Al10Nl 3n) 1M)YMn' 'N) t ))lY)v • C G L C C C C C i 9 i t S R c R {: R K ! CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 148 Agenda May 9, 1977 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Initiation of Rezoning - K-Mart Department Store Site Financial Properties Developers, Inc. is requesting the city council to consider the initiation of rezoning procedures to permit consideration of a planned unit development project at the site of the proposed K-Mart depart- ment store. The rezoning request is for a zoning district change from general commercial (C2} to planned general commercial. (PC2) . A site plan describing. the general character of the project and its development schedule is attached as Exhibit A and B. Section 3.42 , subdivision 5 of the Richfield zoning ordinance provides the city council with the authority to initiate a zoning district amendment. The initiation of the zoning district amendment by the city council does not obligate the city to approve the PUD plan, the final plan or any part thereof, nor does such action commit the city to rezone the property to a planned unit development district. Initiation of the rezoning procedure simply directs the city. staff to begin review of the PUD proposal against the requirements and conditions contained in the PUD ordinance. The PUD ordinance requires a public hearing of the zoning amendment request before the planning commission and city council. If the rezoning is granted by the city council subsequent to that public hearing, a second public hearing will be held at a later date for consideration of a special use permit for the project: It is recommended that the city council initiate the rezoning procedure by referring this request from the applicant to the planning commission for their consideration. A resolution initiating this procedure is attached. Respectfully submitted, J G~~~~ ` Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Planning and Redevelopment Director RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE INITIATION OF ZONING AMENDMENT PROCEDURES TO ALLOW FOR A REZONING REQUEST OF THE LAND KNOWN AS THE PROPOSED K-MART DEPARTMENT STORE PARCEL WHEREAS, on May 9, 1977 the developer known as the Financial Property Developers, Inc., 5825 Glenridge Drive NE, Atlanta, Georgia, requested the City Council to initiate rezoning procedures on said property, and WHEREAS, Section 3.42, Subd. 5, of the Zoning Ordinance gives the City Council authority to initiate such a zoning amendment, and WHEREAS, all interested persons will have the opportunity to comment on the proposal through the public hearing process before the Planning Commission and City Council at a later date, and WHEREAS, the developer has submitted a site plan and the project development schedule, and WHEREAS, this property lies within the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet project boundaries, and is described in Attachment A, and WHEREAS, this proposal conforms in use to both the adopted Com- prehensive Plan and Lyndale/Hub/Nicoolet Redevelopment Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the rezoning process be initiated and that the rezoning request be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Passed°by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of May, 1977. Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran .C~ty Clerk ~xh~b~-t 1~ C j l " li ~~ ~ ~ ~;~ ~~--~ A r~l t9 1977 PIANNYNGtTRANSPORTATiONlENG1NEERfNG1ARCF1ITECTURE p f DESCRIPTION FOR K MART SITE All of Lots I through 4, inclusive, Block 3; and the west 10.00 feet of Lots 5 through 8, inclusive, Block 3; and all of Lots I through 9, inclusive, Block 4; and that part of Grand Avenue which would attach to Lots (through 8, inclusive, Block 3 and Lots I through 8 inclusive, Block 4, by action of a preceeding subsequent, after a resolution to vacate that portion of said Grand Avenue by the City Council of fihe City of Richfield, Minnesota; and that part of Lot 10, Block 4, lying easterly and northerly of a line described as beginning at a point on the south line of said Lot 10 distant 90.00 feet east from the southwest corner of said Lot 10; thence northerly IS0.00 feet at right angles to the south line of said Lot 10; thence northwesterly, deflecting to the left 69 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds, to the northwesterly line of said Lat (0, and there terminating. All in "J. N. HAUSER'S SECOND ADDITION", according to the recorded plat thereof, on fife or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Containing 25~+972 square feet to change after a field survey. . . (area computed from record information, and subject [3ATliER, RWGROSE, WOISF[l0, INC. 710t YORK AVENUE SOUTH EOINA, MINNESOTA 55435 PttONE 612/81-2900 s..,. ,: i. i•. _., a =, •, r. .. s-- ~. ..... s.:,.. ...._. ~-.... a .. ..... y _ _ _. _ "c ~ ', ~. ..~.. .... REAL r_iTATC~ C~VELVPEi~~~ 5825 Glenri~ge Dr., N. E., Building 2, Suite 202 Atlanta, Georgia 30328 • 404/252-8220 May 4, 1977 Mr. Richard Krier Planning and Development Director 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 RE: Promotional Department Store Rezoning Dear Dick, The purpose of this letter is to request that the City Council initiate rezoning of the promotional department store site from its current commercial zone to a planned general commercial zone. Our application for Planned Unit Development (PUD) district rezoning and all required drawings have been sent to your office under separate cover (per attachment "H" dated April 27, 1977 including drawings C-l, C-2, M-l, E-1, and SK-2). PROPERTIES DEVELOPERS, INC. ur Heyman ident :jf CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 147 Agenda May 9, 1977 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Recommendation for Denial of Taxicab Drivers License On the May 9, 1977 city council agenda john Edward Bryson is listed as an applicant fora taxicab driver license. On the basis of background in- vestigation by the public safety department, we are recommending denial of this application. The public safety department investigation has revealed that Mr. Bryson has an extensive record of convictions for traffic violations. Additionally, Mr. _ Bryson has failed to provide the required references and failed to provide proof of his required medical examination as required. It is the opinion of the public safety department that Mr. Bryson's history of traffic violations relate directly to the license for which he has applied and it is recommended that this license application be denied. Respectfully submitted, G~~~~ e~. Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: City Attorney Deputy City Clerk Public Safety Director 'I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 146 Agenda May 9, 1977 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Traffic Control Requests The traffic control committee met on Monday, May 2, 1977 to review pending requests for traffic controls. Minutes of that meeting are attached to this council letter as well as a copy of the criteria established to warrant in sta lla tion of traffic control devices . Based on review of these requests, the committee makes the following recommendations: 69th and Chicago: The request for two-way stop signs to stop 69th Street traffic at Chicago Avenue be de:zied. ~~~ o~ ~w¢5~~~ ~~~5 ~ 64th and Vincent: The request for two-way stop signs to stop Vincent Avenue traffic at 64th Street be denied. 5r~~s ~%~ i~S~oc(r "No Parking Anytime, " Cedar Avenue between 64th Street and 65th Street: The request for installation of these signs be denied. ~ do Z3 ~7 4-( No Parking, 3:30-5:30 West side of Lyndale Avenue between '5th Street and 76th Street: That such signs be installed on the West side[ of / Lyndale Avenue between 74th Street and 76th Street. ~~ ~" ~O ~Z3! ~7 S' o No Parking Anytime, Garfield Avenue between 75th Street and 76th Street: The request for installation of these signs be denied. "No Parking During School Ground Activities, West side of Sheridan Avenue between 74th Street and 75th. Street: The request for installation of these signs be denied. Council Letter No. 146 -2- May 9, 1977 Residents who petitioned these traffic controls have been notified of the committee recommendations . Respectfully submitted, ~, // ~ . G~~~v~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Acting Public Works Director Administrative Assistant Police Captain . . TRAFFIC CONTROL COMMITTEE MINUTES May 2, 1977 The Traffic Control Committee convened at 3:00 p.m. , May 2, 1977. Members present were: M. Raaen, R. Richardson, J. Wilde. Member absent was T. Morgan . The committee considered the following items: 1 . 69th & Chicago Avenue: j. Wilde reported that a petition had been received, requesting installation of a two-way stop sign at this intersection, stopping 69th Street traffic. R. Richardson observed that Public Safety records show three accidents occurring at this intersection over the past five years . M . Raaen summarized traffic counts taken at the intersection. Committee members also observed- that the area has no landscaping or geographical characteristics that create special circumstances . The committee voted to recommend denial of this request, in that the warrants are not met. 2. 64th & Vincent Avenue: j. Wilde reported that a request had been received from one resident to make the existing two-way stop into afour-way stop. R. Richardson noted thhat two accidents had occurred at the intersection within the past five years. Based on this information, a review of traffic counts taken at the inter- section, and the fact that no visibility barriers exist in the area, the committee voted to recommend denial of this request, in that the warrants are not met. 3. No Parking, 3.30 - 5.30 p m ,West side of Lyndale Avenue 75th to 76th: •Beeause of the high traffic volume along this section of Lyndale, parti- cularly in the late afternoon, and because of the widening of the avenue at 74th Street, it is the committee's recommendation that signs reading "No Parking, 3:30 - 5:30 p.:n." be posted on the west side of Lyndale Avenue between 74th & 76th Streets . 4. _No Parking Anytime, Cedar Avenue, 64th to 65th Street: It is the committee's determination that no specific circumstances exist in this area which warrant establishment of parking prohibitions . The committee voted to recommend denial of this request. 5. _No Parking Anytime, Garfield Avenue, 75th to 76th: It is the committee's determination that no specific circumstances exist in this area which warrant establishment of parking prohibitions . The committee voted to recommend deni'~l'of this request. -2- 6. The committee voted to defer action on the following requests, to permit additional data to be collected: a. Two-way stop at 68th Street and Xerxes Avenue , b. Installation of speed limit signs on 78th Street from Penn to Xerxes . . . Two-Way Stop Signs ~ • ~~ The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices lists four criteria or warrants that should b° reviewed in considering two-way stop sign install- . . ations. These criteria are: ~~ I.~Intersection of a less important road with a main•road where ~ ~ ;'" application of the normal right-of-way is unduly hazardous. Where total traffic entering an intersection averages 500 cars fora 24-hour period the street with the iarSer volume should be classified as the main road and stop signs shall be installed . ~ stopping traffic on the minor street. Z. Street entering a through highway or street. It is recommended that this warrant remain as is. An example of this type of warrant - application would be where residential streets ,enter into 76th Street, Nicollet Avenue, Lyndale Avenue, etc. 5, Unsignalized intersection in a signalized area. It is re~mmended that this warrant remain as is. - ~ ~ 4. Other intersections where a combination of high speed, restricted view, and serious accident record indicates a need for control by the stop sign. High speed shall mean where one street is posted • in e~ccess of 30 miles an hour or where public safety department radar checks indicate that a substantial-number of people driving are exceeding the 30 mile per hour speed Iimit. Serious accident ~~ record sl-.all mean three accidents in a twelve month period or '. five accidents in a .24-month period. , • • Four-Way or Multi-way Stop Signs The Manual ot~ Uniform Control Devices lists three criteria or warrants Ghat should be reviewed in considering four-way or multi-way stop sign in- stalla~tions. These criteria or warrants are: • ~ =l; An accident problem, as indicated by five or more reported ' 'accidents of a type susceptible of correction b.y a multi-way . stop installation in a 12-month period. Such accidents include right and left turn collisions as well as right angle collisions. _ 2; - ~ The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from ~ • - . .._ ~. ._.~all_approaches must average at least 500_vehicles per hour for_ ~ _ _' - - any 8 hours of an average day,. and ~ '~ ~~ • ~•~ ~ ~ ~~- 3. Potential obstructions and/or other street geometric problems that affect the safety of an intersection.. . . 'I ; CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 145 Agenda May 9 , 1977 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Variance to Swimming Pool Setback Requirement 1820 West 68th Street Mr. Wesley E. Scott, 1820 West 68th Street has requested a variance to allow construction of abelow-ground swimming pool six feet from -his east side- yard lot line. The city code (Section 3.16, subdivision 30) requires a 10-foot setback from all lot lines . The criteria described in Section 3.40, subdivision 6 of the Richfield city -code must be satisfied before -the variance can be granted. If the criteria are not present, the variance must be denied. Background The applicant would like to build an 18 foot by 36 foot swimming pool in his rear yard. The variance is requested so that a distance of six feet, 10 inches can be established between the proposed pool and a large existing deck which extends from the rear of the house. Without the four foot variance, the pool would only be 2 feet 10 inches from the deck. The applicant feels this would be an unsafe and potentially hazardous- separation. The adjacent land use is sincle family residential. Attached to this letter is a statement in response to this request from the applicant's neighbors. Staff Review The city staff reviewed the application relative to the criteria set forth in Section 3.40, subdivision 6. 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the particular land, building or use referred to in the application, not common ~o other properties in this or similar districts. Council Letter No. 145 -2- May 9, 1977 It is the opinion of the staff that there are no .special circumstances or conditions affecting the property not common to other surrounding properties. -- 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. The denial of this variance does not preclude the applicant from constructing a smaller swimming pool four feet less in length and still maintain a safe distance from his deck and the neighbor's yard. 3. That the granting of the application will not materially and adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. It is the opinion of staff that a swimming pool six feet from the property line will not materially or adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing in the neighborhood. Additionally, city code requires the applicant to construct a minimum four foot high fence completely around his pool area with self-locking gates. The applicant has indicated he plans to construct asix-foot fence. Staff Recommendation Since all the conditions described in Section 3.40, subdivision 6 do not exist on the applicant's property, it is the opinion of the staff that the request for variance should be denied. However, if the variance is granted, a stipulation should be added requiring asix-foot fence. The 10-foot setback requirement was established to provide an adequate area for maintenance and safety around the pool, fencing and grass maintenance near and around the fencing. Ten feet is necessary to effectively maintain the appearance of the lot, i.e. , five feet is a minimum fir walking area for pool maintenance and safety. The fence and pool will take up another one foot and maintenance room for the fence should be a minimum of two feet on the far side and two feet on the near side. The mainten- ance of two feet on the near side is important to prevent the fence stain from creating a detracting appearance on the walk areas and to improve the ease of maintenance . Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission at their regular-April 26, 1977 meeting heard the request for this variance. The commission discussed the other private residential pools that have been built in Richfield in relation to their conformance with the sideyard setback. All other pools in Richfield have complied with the 10-foot . . Council Letter No. 145 -3- May 9 , 1977 setback. One resident testified at the meeting in favor of the request. The planning commission voted unanimously to recommend to the city council approval of the request for a variance to allow construction of a below ground swimming pool six feet from the east sideyard lot line at 1820 West 68th Street. Respectfully submitted, S. ~~- Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc; .Planning Director 106 ~ >O o ' _ .. t ~- 3 Scale ~ I ~~= 20~ ~WG~o~e.~~o~; -' Subd. ?4. S.:3i~t ~cc~;:e~ a•.d r:~r;.r.s A G:_fnr_y rune and ? ~~'hors shall. he pr.o- vided at t?: E: tJ3FE_i 1.iae :~i:.~n ti.~_ ,:~..~.;ne~1 r;~ai u};~~r~:t.u;; Water level is four and one-hulk (4 1/.?) feet or l~JJ. Subd. 25. Elcctrica%R_~~c~uirc~_rri:na. (1) All electrical insLallat:~ous ~~rov ~ded zor, :_n:;tullect ar~d used in con j ~ _ ,_ ~ -, ... ,. ca_~K.:¢, this rode. unCtlUii ~•Jlt[' fES1i1c':T.t1:1i .~o :CC..16• (__c~y~ ,r._la t- :.Y ~v%. ~ ".t c' (2) ?~o current carryi}:g ~le;::i:~l ecr.ductorw st.,~l: .-rose resir,er.>tial swim- ming pools overhead, or be installed ~ndc-rgrour.~~ kithin f_fteeu (i5 feet of such pcoLs, provided that t1Te t~rteen (15) feet separation shall not apply to wiring to pool lighting or accessories. ~s) All metal fences, enclosT:res, or railings near or adjacent td residen- tial swimming pools, which might become electrically alive as a result of con- tact with broken overhead conductors, or from any other cause,-shall be ef- fectively grounded. CROSS-REFERErdCE: See Chap. III, Part I, Sec. 3.05, for provisions concerning general electrical construction and installation requirements. Subd. 26. Operation and 'c:aintenance. 1`1o residence swimming pool shall be used, kept, maintained or operated in the city, if such use, keeping, maintaining or operating shall be the occasion of any nuisance or shall be dangerous to life or detrimental tc health. Subd. 27. Hours of Use. Ito public or sami-public swimming pool shall be used between the hours of 10:00 o'cloctc p.m. on any day and 7:00 o'clock a.m. of the following day, provided that such poul may be .used until 11:00 o`clock p.m. on any Saturday. Subd. 28. Inspection. The Health Officer shall have authority to inspect any residential swimming pool at any reasonable time during construction or there- after to determine caYTether or not the provisions of this code regarding health, sanitation, operation and safety applicable thereto are being complied with. The inspection division shall have authority to enter upon any premises as it may be deemed necessary to inspect work done and installation made under per- - mits issued by the inspection division. Subd. 29. Shielding Lights. Lights used to illuminate any swimming pool shall be so arranged and shaded as to reflect light away from adjoining premises. Subd. 30. Location. itTO po;'tion of a swimming pool or appurtenances thereto shall be located at a distance le:s than ten (10) feet from any side or rear property line, nor in front of the building line. Subd. 31. Fences. All swimming pools shall be completely enclosed by a non- climbing type fence. All fence openings or points of entry into the pool area enclosure shall be equipped caith gates. The fence and gates shall be at least four (4) feet in height and shall be constructed of a minimum number eleven (11) gauge woven caire mesh corrosion-resistant material, or other materials approved by the inspection division. All gates shall be equipped *.aith self- closing and self-latching device-.s placed at the top of the gate or otherwise inaccessible to small children. All fence posts shall be decay or corrosion- resistant and shall be set in concrete bases, or other suitable protection. The maximum opening tretraeen the bottom of the fence and the ground or relatc>d surface shall be four (4) inches in the vertical plane, a TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: We the undersigned residents of 1810 West 68th Street, by name Paul and Marian Maxson, do not object to the residents of 1820 West 68th Street, by name of Wesley and Eileen Scott, having a variance to an offset of six feet from our property line for purposes of installing a swimming pool. SIGNED : ~Q-u~t" ~ ~~~ G` 7" ~1..L,•-~' Paul Maxsan SIGNED: ~~~~~'T~- ni~L~~~ Marian Maxson~ ~ ~~cr~~- .~ - CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 144 Agenda May 9, 1y77 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Request for Zoning District Change-7032 4th Avenue Mr. Thomas K. Davidson, president of Heritage Estates, Inc. , 3907 West 54th Street., has requested a zoning district change from single family residential (R) to multi-family residential (MR) to allow construction of a two- family dwelling on property located at 7032 4th Avenue. The following .items are attached to this letter and will be referred to throughout: Exhibit A - proposed site plan Exhibit B - current area land use Exhibit C - area included in rezoning petition Exhibit D - current area zoning Background Parcel Size: 75 feet x 134.8 feet (10,110 square feet). The zoning ordinance requires minimum of 10, 000 square feet. Existing Structures: Temporary dwelling (576 square feet) built in 1y46 and a detached one car garage. Proposed Structures: One two-family home (1 , 542 square feet) and one double garage. Proposed Setbacks: Dwelling: 35' front - Zon. Ord. Req: 30' min. frontage 20' south side 5' min. side 10' north side . . Council Letter No. 144 -2- May 9, 1977 Site Zoning/Land Use: S. F. Residential/S. F. Residential Surrounding Zoning & Land Use: Zoning Land Use N, E, W, S, - S. F. Residential N,E,W, S - S. F. Residential Comprehensive Plan:• The comprehensive plan indicates single family and two-family land use . Staff Review Comprehensive Plan - The comprehensive plan indicates one and two family residential uses in this area. Although the comprehensive policy is to allow mixed two family and single family uses, separate zoning districts or conditional uses for two family dwellings should be developed which would help guide the location of two-family homes into appropriate relationships with other single family land uses. Two-family dwellings in a single family neighborhood in mid-block locations which do not face an arterial or a collector street are not in accordance with the intent of the comprehensive plan. . Property Value - This land is presently valued at $11 , 500. Heritage Estates purchased the property in November, 1y76 for $14,000. In January of 1y77 the property was sold for $18,~OU and in March repurchased for the same amount. The market value of the property, if the duplex were to be constructed, is estimated at $66, 000 (land and building) . Ste! ~;~ ~,$?',pp ~~~ `~t.~. ~~~@~p At today's construction costs, a modest 1, 000 square foot single family home with garage could be built on this property for $40, 000. If the actual purchase price of the land were added in at $14, 000, this home would sell for approximately $56,000. The existing homes in the neighborhood are valued in the mid-forties. Therefore, the- construction of atwo-family dwelling is not dictated by economic considerations. It is the opinion of the staff that, even with a slightly higher than average land cost, a new single family home could be constructed on this site which would be compatible with the established character of the neighborhood and comparable in value to the existing homes. Relationship to Existing Zoning and Other Development Considerations The neighborhood surrounding this parcel is zoned single family residential, and the land use is single family residential. The Richfield zoning ordinance allows only single family dwellings in the "R" residential zone. Multiple housing, from a double dwelling to an apartment building, can be established only in the "MR" multiple residential zone. Double dwellings, duplexes, double bungalows or simply two-family dwellings cannot be treated adequately in either the single family or multi-family zoning districts. Given the zoning and land use relationships of the two-family home, this type of residential development could promote appropriate land use if ' Council Letter No. 144 -3- May 9, 1977 in a separate zoning district or on appropriate corner lots by conditional use permit in ,single family zones. -Many communities locate their R-2 district adjacent to major and minor arterial streets and collector streets because two- family homes tend to generate more traffic than a single family home. Two family homes can also buffer more intense residential uses and some commercial uses. Development of two-family homes in Richfield through rezoning has historically occurred along minor arterials and collector streets, i .e., 66th Street, Penn Avenue, Portland Avenue, Nicollet Avenue, etc. Asub-committee of the planning commission is presently exploring the possibility of establishing a zoning district appropriate to the development of two-family homes. The intensity of use associated with two-family dwellings -would not be compatible with this single family neighborhood, particularly at this mid-block location. An MR zone in this location mid-block between single family homes would be inconsistent with the development policy used to shape the present character of this neighborhood and would be disruptive to the neighborhood. The disruption would be present in the two-family nature of the property use, which will generate slightly increased traffic. Fourth Avenue is a residential street and does not serve as an arterial or collector type roadway. A zone which could detrimentally affect surrounding property values, and give the appearance of an uncontrolled mixed use on asingle-family oriented street will,. in the future, have a negative affect on the neighborhood. It is the opinion of the staff that a rezoning of this property to "MR" for a two-family home would be contrary to good zoning and land use practices and would not be in the best interest of this n eighborhood or the city. The request for rezoning should be denied for the following summarized reasons: 1. Spot zoning which will materially affect surrounding property. values 2. Increased traffic not compatible with single family neighborhood 3. Future use of the property and two tenant aesthetic appearance of the building 4. Relationship of two-family dwellings to existing character of the neighborhood Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission heard this request for rezoning. at their regular April 26, 1977 meeting. The commission discussed the presence of two-family homes in the comprehensive plan and the relationship of the two-family dwelling to major and minor arterials and collector streets. Three residents expressed their opposition to the re~oriing and indicated that they would prefer a single ' 'Council Letter No. 144 -4- May y, 1977 family dwelling. The planning commission voted 5-0 with Commissioner Ertman abstaining to recommend to the city council that the request for rezoning- of 7032 4th Avenue from "R" to "MR" be denied. Respectfully sub fitted, i Q~ '/rW~- C~ . Wayne S . Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc; Planning Director 134.91 _ _, . 1 ti t ~_®_ _ W Q S O 4 N b Scales 1~~= 20~ . . _ . ;; n - ¢--a.~----~ r-Z+-7?.--r-"-T-._ . ti < //<..~. _~r.__._ .__.~ ..t~-: 9 .__ -. .. ~_.I 1 ...:4i ,! ••a~ .yl -r.a i ~~ ., .~ -~ ~ _ ~ ~• I ~ a...a ~ yR ~ ... I a a '• • ~ (~. i i r, ~~ ^ r ~ ..~ •, 1; g,,,.,. y', I ~ ~. •~ ~1.1 ~ SJ G C : a ~ ~ i ! . a i ~ aA ><•, z a :a ~ 1 l u Y'..__ '~ ~' ! ~ ;e >~ .. ,. 4 ... i + ~Q ~1 I~ 4= .~ i •7. ... { ~ .3. i r, ~'. i••,~, 1 `~ ~ ~'i~^+°Il" ~ ,-.~ .~6w ~ ~.~ ~~" .~"'~ !j l~.~.; 2 r;c 1 J ~ ~~° ~ d " f ~ }: °`~+- ..'r v `A • 7 r -~1 t 3~..t Gi as ; 1nJ; ii ~~ ~I~_a a ~ ~~.; '6 ~ J f ~*s'vs ...~J i ~ •~ ~c - an r.o>. •c a a ;' ..., ' ~~ ...: Dn.'r °'' 1• J ~, ~ .Y ~i :,, ,rtJ r '~` ea•t >• ~ e -t ,C C1 3• :G ..> wC ~. •Y , .tl.. ..a 'Q~ ,1, 1 ~4 .>r~.~,..c~_ .PI Q _.,,y ~. u'-'~ j a+ t ~8d - ~ 4 ^._{ F . , ~ -.. ' '~ 8 /Q n 1 I ~' y 4 r' ~Vr mD v ~' ~ V~ li 1 `:~ .y<' ... . -5. ~ •~ i r "t - u ?3' r . '-t t . V ~aC f~ ~~~..~~_. _._~~~._....`. vim. /~ ___1~'_(t __..~~-~. ._ .~ .~~ _.. ~ cd ,~ «~~' ~_~...__~.4 ~_. ,~4 k .'3' `~dt--;---+-1:7 {j---• f•.'_"_T'_*-r- - 1'~'- -i~ ._. ._. _. _ 'i'T ~ ~ °ae "-•7 T' -•~ ~ '['~$'• i ~.c 7'.~. _'xrs-,• '.T_e,~...,.[ ;.^I ~ , r ra <.r ~ @. . a int., !. ~ •_ 1. "'•{ "t , _ •4 t ad.s -;F ! .4.Ae t t. -.. ~. ti:: ..- ~ ~' .. •~ .- ~ ~ 'I ° (r'' t ^~- j • < 1 y w ~ . ~ - ~ p 1. ~fV t11f,-~ LL ~. 1 ~ • 04~ a ~ I `7 tC° 9 t •--1 1 -a • . Ye a' „1 ~ ~ ' i v 7i 7 ~ ~ - I ~ I,aa.a 11 ~... 1 ....a ! t ,~ { ;~ ..~ ` I . ~, t , ,~ ~' '- ,,~, fir. ES- - ~'~tl ----- _ _ -- -- -- - ~ ~ - ~ t - 130 G ~ , 3 0 ,, ~....~.~ ,c .. r r _ *'e c~ r n , ter.,- r 7 ~ ~ G4 f f v .- ~y _ I } ~ ~ _7 `, ~ ~ r ,. q ~. _. ,a ,, r c F :Ga ~ +t da i ~~ ~, gSe g I' ; a' 7:. ~~ E-`'~#J iZ4-~ i dii` .:. 1; "~ ~~. 144 ~ ,.b .ra 5^ .~4~~ ..~ sYl ~,.,., v .~~ r„y - .A 4 s~-' ,-r4 i$1 '~3a, r-. ?~ '34.4. ~ 3. °7 a '-° .41; a '9A.33 ~° ~ '.3492 _~a~ t 4 gq G Y.- [ peD t C _ ~~~ o is ~ to ~+_` ~~ ~ I.~~ ~ i .* i ~ »q ~ ~~,4d .Z..~, a CZ 1$< -~ 44 . 0 /3q b 3 ,, o . 7 ~ K.. - ~. (- 3! ~ - - ~ yy h 4 p ], ,: r z y ~ t. ~ `~ tb~ s _~i_ k ,~$.4~~. d4 L ,~9. 3' 44 cb) _ `[ 9' i ~~~p i _...-~-. -~.._.` y .!_-. y- - -13, -1~: 'Y 4..YC. ,h Cv ~_1a1_ ~:44 "S1~ lslOj 1 3g.1~~o~~s v } n` ~ n f7'i+~c~ a4 C> > ~7 ~4$ 4 G 5 .o .o`°"F G I ~ it a ..y _ 13 a~ <Q r ~ ~ , C3 (~ cc ~i11b.-( ,.,r ts,a:. s ,'oi a•r< ~ ,R .c. 2S,2L (5 S 7't uY a y.,4, 14'~.,a.. 30' n }' .C m -v., -.4 30 7 ~ t ,r ~o v qj'?T-~P ~p0 ° ~~v r. ~r~ - R$ a 'bssr o 3 m~ A r ~` \ 134 - ~ r-. ~ ~~ Z4 ~ ~ ~ F .~_ `^,c4f3 ~~'_d_ Bad ~ I r ~ _ r ratio .re 2 s ~.,~ ~ n - °'.,,~~ c.., ,SZ !34.fl Z ~ ~2a. .n 2 c -~'g,ld I i r. 3~,&- --- --~- I ~41~~-13?± 79 _ : ; 35<% ~ (i ~t a ~) ~ ~ s (~ ~ a r J 3 bo,, 3~ ~ i4 IAA ~ -- - _ _ _ t - --- -------- - 13$, 34.1b ~~ ~ 4=Boo ~ 1i4. ~4 ~ ~-. ~- s S7!-1 W. ~}- L r- r 5q~! ~ n l34. ~ ~ 14.2 SL~~ z I ~ ` / n a"pO ~ ---Z---- ---- ~o _ • ---~--- I 134. > }QO 13~.i - --- - - 'J -- - - - - - bo ~ - Z 69.3 T- -~- i ~~ ~ ° -^-- ) lt` Id) ^ ~ fib 1 s ~_ '0~~~ ,. ,... 1 r ~m r- -a. ~~.~ 134.07,,0° C _. ~34:~'.__ ~~ ~ ~ Pi~~P®S~® R~Z®i'~iii°~iE~ S4Gi~~PS I~Oi~I--SIGi~JEi~S Rezoning - 7032-4th Ave. . '~ .` ~ !' 1r. 1 ~' " r {.,.., J . ~ j t. , . . L is i4 V ... _~ i, _ - ~. .5: 9~ ... :.3'iC ~ rn ~ tr1 4. •.~ ~• ': _ _ ~ ~ .- 1 Cv+l. y 1, f~ i ~ ~'r o •o j• ... •4 . 'y`;t - :, ! I 5'_"' ~ tire. °/ ! a.,. _ r•~ _ ~ 1 .~ ~L r4`~ c ~' '~_ _ 1 J ' "J ~'A' F~.w <o;,- 1 ^ - 4 ~ SJ ` `Y `~ r j9 i ~ ~. '~: d c 3/ rz ~• H ~ tr ! ~.m £ a ~ ~, _ . a - 1 , Y: j 1 ~ ~'' ` f .\ .. _ ~ I ~r ; ,, .: „. r . , . . .._ i .. . . ~ .. 1~. ~ .--__._ -. _ __.~. -. .. ~ _ ._. ~.-.. __..___ _ !~ X ~. ..~~ ~ ~:1 <l %r ~~g : x ri ~ r i.Ce ~. 'S ti~ -~ ~ ~ ;i. .t I- ? 't - . y.-%ri X11: ~ ~ ~ - =o -f ~`~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ t' +~.' :(~~' .. - _ ` 1 1 ,.: - { i .. 3.a~ t. F, ,LCD - - - N -i~ t t .. a ~. .~~. ~~' ~~ i0 ~ ~ nr' ~{ ~ a f - 1~ ~o~ Its .1 1 ~~ a:' ~ 1 :c ~ 1. ,° 1 ..... .. ` r - ' _ .1 i L 1. n K 1_ .-.1- t `t~ `~ -I ~. 1 1.. i.)t• YY_.-.. 1 .. ' j f 1 1 ~~ i:•3 ~ l,~_~~ ~1_~ _-.~L Y 1 ,) ~ ` 1 !) ~ ~ Y L v ! • +l ' (. .f . 01 ~ 1 .~_-:..^( 1. . t ~ )- -1 _ L'7 l7~ !. 1. `.~ 1, 14 ..~ I !i n q.• •-.N 1~ 4I ~j 1~ +1' v 11..:011 N~ ~ ~~..7._ ..1 ~~ --'-t -1-1 .- 1 ,. , 1 ~.l 1 ' 1 ~ .. _ - _ 1 o"i v _ _~.. _. ..-._. ~.. .._s 1 ~. .. ~• .. `.ice ~ ~~ ~ ' .~il i. ~~~, ' ~' ~ :~~ ~ ~ - ... ~, 1 ,,# CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 143 Agenda May 9 , 1977 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Resolution Regarding Lyndale Avenue Improvements As you know, the federal funding of Lyndale Avenue in the Lyndale/Hub/ Nicollet Redevelopment Project has been approved in the new Metropolitan Area priority list. In order for us to continue with this project, it is necessary for the city council to execute resolutions which provide that the State Department of Transportation act in behalf of the city for the purpose of taking bids and letting bids for construction on this part of Lyndale Avenue. This is a standard procedure which is done in all Federal Aid Urban projects in the State of Minnesota, and is necessary for us to receive the Federal Aid Urban funds. It is, therefore, recommended that the council execute the attached resolution . Respectfully submitted, W S. ~~- Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Planning Director . . _.~' RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AID FORM NO. 2 Be it resolved that the Commissioner of Transportation is hereby authorized to act on behalf of the City of Richfield and is requested to take such steps as may be necessary to have the proposed improvements hereinafter described approved by the Federal Highway Administrator as a Federal Aid Project eligible for the expenditure of Federal Funds thereon and eligible for construction and the letting of a contract therefor. Maintain four lanes of traffic and provide channelization with medians and protected left turn lanes. Upgrade signal system and provide signal interconnect. Upgrade street lighting and provide landscaping and sidewalk. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this day of May, 1977. Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: Thomas J. P~4oran City Clerk . , i~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No . 142 Agenda May 9, 1977 The Honorable Mayor. and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Cooperative Agreement with the MTC The purpose of this letter is to request the city council to enter into an agreement with the Metropolitan Transit Commission for placement of bus waiting shelters in the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet redevelopment area . There are four shelters planned for the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet area. The MTC has agreed to provide these shelters if the city provides the pads for the shelters and conduits for electricity into the shelters as part of our sidewalk construction. The proposed shelters would have a dark blond color trim rather than the standard light browns typical in other MTC shelters in Richfield. This color scheme would fit the overall L/H/N design criteria. To accomplish this construction, it is recommended that the. contract be executed between the City of Richfield and the Metropolitan Transit Commission. The city attorney has reviewed this agreement. Respectfully su fitted, of - , Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja . . ~+ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 141 Agenda May 9, 1977 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Transitory Ordinance Providing for Expenditure of Money from the Special Revenue Fund for Park Acquisition and Betterment At the April 11, 1y77 city council meeting, the city council gave first reading approval to a transitory ordinance appropriating monies from the Special Revenue Fund for the following park and recreation projects: Golf Course $50, 000 Tennis Lighting- Donaldson Park 20,000 Tennis Lighting- Washington Park 20,000 Park Land Acquisition 20, 000 Total Special Revenue Funding for 1977 $110, 000 A copy of this transitory ordinance is attached. It is recommended that the council give second reading consideration to this ordinance at the May 9, 1977 city council meeting. Respectfully subm'tted, ~- ~'~~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja . , ~ cc: Finance Director Park and Recreation Director .,- . TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 16.40, AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR ' ~ PARK ACQUISITION AND BETTERMENT The City of Richfield does ordain: Section 1 . It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the city to expend money from the special reve~-ue fund for acquisition and betterment of public parks and playgrounds, such improvements being capital improvements for which the city would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2. The sum of $110, 000 is hereby authorized to be paid from the special revenue fund for such purposes. Section 3. The expenditure herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by council resolution. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of 1977. ATTEST: Loren L. Law Mayor Thomas j. Moran City. Clerk R. _