The URL can be used to link to this page

10-12-76 agendaCITY OF, 1?1CY-F1FrLD, J~~INNESOTA r,~ Office of City it~Tanac~er Council Letter No. 329 AgeiZda October 12 , 19:7 6 '.I'he Ii'cnarable Mayor and IVienibors of the City Colzn cil . Gity of Richfield Gentlemen: - Subject: City. Project ho. 693, Fire. Suppression Sprinkler System At the September 27, 3976 city council meeting, .the city council autfrorized a call for bids. fox_Giiy Project. INo_,, 693:, ..the installation of :a :.fire suppression: .,.. sprinkler system in tho lower level of city hall. Council members wile recall that in addition to the fire suppression system,. certain modifications to the air conditioning system in the council chambers and minor alterations to the rear 'stair=well were also Manned and. budgeted for in 1976. Since the fire suppression spriniciersystem ~:aill involve work in these general area s, it is the recd mrnendation of the staff tlsat these irinprovements be included within City Project No. 693 and this additi:onai v~inrk be scheduled to coincide with sprinkler system installation. The concurrent cnmpl.etion of these operations will help to minimize any effects whicl:c construction might have. upon city hall. work operations . It is anticipated. that the Staff will. accomplish the installation of the fire sttppxessiori sprinkler .system through formal bidding procedures, while the mcd- i:fications to the air ~.ondition.ing system and stairwell will' be through i:nforrnal bids and purcha'Se orders. Therefore, the city councia may anticipate future re- quests fcr apprdval of purchases i.rr excess of $I, 000 to conclude the air Condit- a~7incg and stairwell modifications. . • . ~., . ~ Respecifully submitted, f ° ~• ~~~ ' •~ ', '~Nayne S. Burggraaff City. IUia pager . V'dSB/eja cc: Public ~Vcrics 7~irector ~drr:i;~i:.str.~ti~Te .Assi.staztt ~'iriance T~irecto:- ~- - CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City lvlanager i i~ ~ Council Letter No. 328 ' Agenda October 12, 197:6- I The Honorable Mayor ' and - h/Iembers of the City Council City of Richfield - .Gentlemen;- Subject; Certificate of Appreciation The first. scheduled agenda item for the regular council meeting of October 12 , 1976 is the presentation of three Certificates of Appreciation which` have been recommended by the Planning .Department. -Ms. Barb Belk, Ms. jan Bray and Mr. Leon Brixius served as volunteers in .helping the H. R.A, start-up the Section 8 Rent Assistance Program , This program has been s ucces~full in o oration fcr one e r• ~ - Y p a the.. e individuals are t b o e Y , recognized for their role in helping the program get established R - The above individuals have been invited to attend- this presentation. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/vap _~a. ..y,.f-- . CI3'Y O?~ PICHFIELT~, h~IN?~E~OTr~ Office ai` City l~~anager C~~uncil Letter No. 32G Ag~:x~da Oc*.~k7er I2. 197G The Honorable Mayor and Members of tl~e City Council ' City of Richfield- Gentlemen: Subject: Special Use Fermit, Conversion of Existing Stdown Restaurant into a Restaurant With "On-Sale" Liquor: 818 ti^Test 77 I/2 Street -jimmy° s Lemon Tree ,Rest-- aurant, Inc. Mr. Ben Katzman and Sam Swartz, owners; and Mrs. fames Assimes, l.easee of 81~ West 77 1/2 Street are requesting the issuance of a special use permit-for a restaurant having, "on salE" liquor. The following exhibits are attached to this letter and will be referred to throughout this report: 1. Exhibif A - sho~n,~s current zoning 2. ExlAibit B -shows current Iand use 3~ Exhibit C - is the site plan 4. Exhibit D -Restaurant Standards, Ssction 3.33., subdivision 4; • and Section 3.41, subdivision 5 5. ~ Exhibit E -Resolution 4340 Cot~:ncil Action Requir~~u "~ Before a special use permit can be issued, the-city council must-find that th.e proposed use is iri substantial compliance with the standards established for restaurants (Section 3.33, subd.- 4j and that the ~establisnment, maintenance. or operation of the proposed use will not under the circumstances of this particular case be detrimental (I) to the health, safety, morals, comfort or convenience or welfare of the persons residing ~r working in the neighborhood of such use, or (2) to the public. welfare or injurious to prcperty or improvements. in the neighbor- ' hood as contained in Section 3.41. , subdivision 5 governing issuance of special u~~e permits., 1 " Council Letter No. 326 -2-.October 12, 1976 I~ the city council does` not find' this use in substantial compliance with the restaurant standards and if a"11 thF conditions for issuing a special use permit are nat met, the. council should den ' this rar~uest. If the council does find this y ~. use in; -substantial compliance with the restaurant standards and ali the conditions for issuing a -special use permit are met, the council should issue.-the special use permit. •. Applicant's Proposal Mr. Assimes would like to enlarge his restaurant seating capacity from 95 seats to 300 seats.' Pursuant to this request is a request for. issuance of a liquor License. The additional seating capacityis as follows:,. Ssatirig ' Use ' 95 Existing dining capacity 55 Lounge and bar seating (proposed) 150 Reserved banquet or meeting rooms {proposed) 300 Proposed seating capacity Staff Review building The restaurant expansion wi.Il occur within the existing building.. The restaurant issituated approximately in the middle of a block long structure which is composed of individual buildings with common walls. These buildings and their property are under separate ownership. Service entrances and some customer entrance are located at the rear of the building along 77th Street. The restaurant will have: only ' emergency exits on -the 77th Street side. Extensive remodeling of the interior is planned. Parking - The proposed restaurant has two .functional items when' a large amount of traffic will be generated: (1) low turnover evening restaurant with high peak use from 7:00 p, m, to 10:00 p. m. and (2) a high turnover daytime restaurant with peak hours from 11:00 a.m.:to I:30 p. m, -Because of this dual function, two distinct types. of parking ,demand will occur and must be ~~lanned .fore. The existing and proposed parking for this restaurant is shared with 15 other businesses. In determining parking spaces available to the restaurant it is of critical importance to establish what kind of parking arrangement' exists between -a11 the property owners. If the. parking on this block is shared, language to this.., effect. must be contained in the property deeds or other appropriate documents. There. would be nothing. to prevent the other property owners. sometime in the future from separating their parking areas from restaurant use. This potential action would significa<ntly reduce the number of parking spaces available to the restaurant. , ~., 'Council Letter No, 326 -3- >October 12,. 19%6 At this time the applicant h.as not provided staff .with. information. necessary to dodument the parking arrangement, Parking available to the restaurant if it is' shared and if it is not shared is t:eviewed uelow. Parking Requirements Because the off--street parking spaces for the restaurant and the other businesses, in the block are not striped, the available spaces wexe scaled from an aerial photo for 9' x 20° parking stalls, Using this method, and if shared parking .exists, it has. been determined that this block has 119` off-street parking spaces in front of the building and parking in the .rear for approximately 29 employee vehcles,..making atotal of 148. parking spaces. If shared parking does not exist, there would be fewer than 22 parking spaces on the restaurant parking property only. Both parking figures do.not include larger spaces required for handicapped parking, which would reduce the parking paces available by three. Parking requirements for the .proposed restaurant operation are as follows: (The requirements are contained in Resolution No. 4340 (Exhibit E) re la*ing to restaurants intending to serve liquor. ~ ` Spaces Needed Parking Requirements 60 One space for every 2.5 seats in restaurant, .bar and 1_ounge (150' seating capacity) 98 One space for each 25 square feet of banquet or' meeting area (2, 450. square feet) 8 One space for every two .employees (15) - ~ 166 Total parking required The: parking space needed by the other businesses in this block were determined by; applying the adopted off-street parking guidelines . Spaces Needed Remaining Businesses .• 30 Furniture store (showroom and storage) 6, 000 sq. ft. (5 spaces per 1,-000 sq. ft, of floor area) 10 TV sales - 2, 000 sq, ft, (5 spaces per 1,000 square feet) 4 Gen. Trading Company -4, 000 sq. ft.- (1 space per 1, 000 sq. ft.) 4 Sauna City - 4, 000 square feet 12 Sample Sales - ?, O:OO sq. ft. (5 per 1, 00.0° sq. ', ft. Upholstry Shope- 120'0 sq. ft. (1 per 1; 00 sq. ft. 16 . Vinyl Sash & 5 othe< business, offices 0 3, 2,'00 square feet (1 spare for' every 200 sq. fit. ) _ , ~f/~uncl Letter No. 3'L6 -4- October 12, 1976 Spaces Needed Remaining Businesses (Conti.nued) 4 ----- Gold Fagle Wash..- 4, 000 sq. ft. ,5 Survey Instruments - 4, 36.0. sq. ft. (1 -space for every l ,>OOO sq. ft. I2 Office Supply- 1, 00(~ sq. ft. retail (5, spaces • for i , 000 sq. ft. ) 6, 600 sq. ft. wholcsaie (1 space per l , 000: square feet 97 Total. parking needed, (other) Total parting,spaces available and total parking spaces needed are as follows: 166.. parking spaces required for restaurant . (Resolution. No. 434D) 97 parking spaces required for other businesses 263- Total. parking spaces needed :for entire" block ' Minus 148 Parking spaces determined"~ to iae available • on the entire block 115 Number of parking'`:spa.ces deficit As stated earlier, peak parking demand for this restaurant-must be planned for. It'has been determined that the parking area for this block has;a parking-deficiency, of 115 parking spaces. When this large existing shortage is added to the shortage which would be created during the peak demand period, a much larger parking def- - iciency can be anticipated. Parking in adjacent. par. king lots cannot be considered because there is an existing shortage of off-street parking spaces for the commer- cal uses to the south and east of the subject block. Use of on-street parking can be considered only to help the parking demand created during peak parking derna~zd • periods and cannot be counted frr meeting. the required number of parking spaces . Assuming that there is shared parking, there is a parking shortage of I15 spaces. If shared parking, does not legally exist, there would be fewer than 22 spaces on the restaurant property; and the restaurant alone would have a parking deficiency of.144 space Reasons Why Adequate Park ing Is Necessary _~ It is important to the city that adequate parking be provided- for, in terms of ' tax base; to the. adjacent residential neighborhood. in terms of maintaining a residential character and to the other businesses in terma of maintaining an econ-- omic stability. Experience in commercial development indi;,ca~es;that provision- of adequate convenient parking is one of the primary criteria f~r',a successful business operation. If this business and ct her nearby businesses suffer econ- omcally as a result of inadequate parking space and other .associated impacts, the city, can expect a reduction in tax base from disinvestment in property and deterioration of the business environment on 77 1/2 Street. The lack of any . ~ sort of buffer or barrier between the single family residential area: north of ?7th Street and the commercial. area to the south will encourage the use.. of the adjacent residential streets for commercial parking when there is not an adequate . ,. . .. ..u _ _ .. .., _ ...:.b Goun~il better Igo. 326 -5-- Odtober 12, 1976 amount of commercial parking space avail~l,~e. ~ detrimental impact on the general welfare and stability ~,f rxiA~ nelcl~ik~ortjood would re ult if this shortage of parking is allowed'to occur.. This detriment would result from the hazardous and congested situation which. would occur on the adjacent residential property as vehicles seek accessao hi"s comm~ercia~ aroa and then search. for a parking: location. During the evenng;th~: glare of vehicle headlights 'into -this residential neighborhood would create additional adverse impac a and the 'severe lack of adequate commercial area parking, coupled with limited street parking spaces (1.15).would encourage these vehicles to park on the residential streets to the north of this commercial area. • This "pocket" of single family residential homes, because of its location I between the commercial strip to the east on I,~yndale Avenue, the commercial strip and mixed land-use south of 77th Street, the heavily traveled 76th Street on the north and the anticipated large scale development `at the freeway` interchange to . the west,..already faces tremendous odds for remaining avable-single family neiglib~orhood. If this neighborhood. became ~ parking of for he commercial area to the south of 77th Street, the detrimental impacts faced by tha'neighborhoad' would be. irreversible. Staff Recommendation It is the. finding of the staff that the proposed use will not be in substantial compliance with Section 3.33, subdivision 4 of the zoning ordinance, that the . operation of the restaurant as proposed would create undue traffic hazards and congestion in the parking area on and adjacent to 'this site and on the public streets adjacent to this site, and that adequate off-street. parking space is not available for .restaurant pztrons and employees . Fndl.ngS 1. It has been determined that., with shared parking,. the proposed restaurant wo~a.ld create a .parking shortage of 11S spaces. Z. It has been determined that, without shared parking, the restaurant - could provide parking spaces for less than 22 vehicles and would have a parking shortage of 144 parking spaces 3. -It has been determined that total "an-street" parking availa~rle on Colfax and Aldrich south of 77th ,Street, and 77 1/2 Street>between Lyndale and Colfax is 1.55 parking spaces and that these spaced cannot be used in meeting; the minimum number of required "off-street" parking spaces.. Additionally; under the circumstances of this particular case, the operation of this ruse will be in direct conflict with the conditions which must be present to issue a special use permit. Under the circumstances of `this particular case, the operation of this use will be detrimental to the safety, 'comfort, convenience and welfare of persons residing in the adjacent. residential neighborhood and working in the vi~rinity of .such. use: and. to the public welfare, property and improv.ew - rnents in the neighborhood in the following ways; - ~ ,, ~: Council Letter loo. >326 -~6- October 12, 1976. 1. It has been determined. tliaf; when adequate c~mmercial~eas of off-- - street parking is not provided, parking will take place on -the surrounding stY°eets. Because a si:ngl~ family residenti:aL neighborhood is directly adjace#xt to the north and there arc no k~uffers or other means of preventing cominerci.al traffic from moving through this neig7lborhood and us:€:ng its . streets for commercial parking, a~detri:ment to.health,. afety, comfort .and welfare to .the property rights of the homeowners on Aldrich, Bryant, Colfax, Dupont and Emerson between 76th end 77th Street will occur. • 2 ,. It;has ;been,determired that an inadequate supply of off street parking - spaces;. for the proposed restaurai~it will,under the ci:rcumstanees of this case, cause associated parking space problems for thee-adjacent businesses and by reason of this create business `hardship. for the .adjacent businesses , ~F - 3. ' It has been determined that when adequate off street parking space is not provided there ~Nill be a heavy dependence on "on street" parking- l space: When -the public streets are. utilized as parking lots .for vehicles which are to be accommodated oft street, a detriment. to the public welfare which wcu 1d be injurious to property and improvements woulr~ occur; I, -Until adequate parking can be provided for. this use, it is._ the recommends ion t r nds contair~ec~ of staff thaw this re uest for a s ecial use ermit be denied on he ou q p A g in the above findings. Parking Development There are two alternatives that could be utilized by the applicant. i:o'balance he-demand for parking space with the available parking space. One opti.on~is to enforce control over closure of the bai~.quet or meeting, room space during the :. daytime operation o~` the restaurant. The' reason for this is -that the demand for parking for other businesses in the area• is mucr~ less in the evening than during ..the daytime. The peak hours of•the other businesses are during the day. If'tYii.s • pace could be controlled or if it is even good public policy to control the space, the number of daytime parking spaces required would 'be requred by °98 spaces and the Arkin ishorta e would be reduced to from 3.7.5 s aces to 17 s' aces . '~ p g g p p -Thus assuming shared parking, if adequate parking does riot exist, closing of this .space would not make any difference. Another option -is to require the applicant to obtain additional parking to trie south across 772 Street or to the west across Colfax Avenue. Either location would be less than 400•feet from the restaurant. .The location to the south :would offer the lessee benefit because of a high anticipated cost while the vacant property to the west has the greatest potential for providing adequate parking development. ~` _ ~ \ C;ounc i1 Ze tter Tv`o . 3?.. 6 -. i . ' Qctaber "12 , ~lg 7 6 • .~ P anning Commission Recommendations. At ias regular meeting'of September 28, 1976, the planning commission reviewed at length this request for a special use permit. They planning commission recommends denial of this special use permit i.n that the standards relating to restaurants contained i'n Section 3,33, Subdivision 4, paragraph a and d are'. 'not complied with and because of the detrimental impact on the conditions . governing issuance of a special use permit contained i.n Section 3.41, Subdivision 5 `of the zoning ordinance . -Respectfully submitted, -Wayne S . Burggraaff City Manager cc; Planning Director ~„ '~ ,~ ; , , ~ f~}~ ~r}, y~ ~~ ! ., ti's ,i ;~_ ~' ~ ~~~s~~ i ~~ ~ ~ ' y ~ ~' a ~ ` E S i j ti ~ ~ l ~ > ~ t ) 1 ~ ` t ~ r } ~( ! 1 1 { 4 '/// j S, /;';' ~~ ~~tcf ~~ ~~# ti{S~~`s~~~f;~~~~;?tt~~ Sid ?~ ~~~~? ~ } ~~? , ~ ~ ~)) v ((~(( } i~ ~~~}1S S)( ~~ ~;,~~~S~Stk~;~t(1(SS t~ ' y`~}f,)(((`( `c(S ~2~r71 ~ t.; !i ~~ ) 4(11>' ,.. SS 1! S ^~,.l~ttt21~ ;S(~(~~?f~17.~151 tt~~;;;( ,}. ' r ~ l' _ _ y ~ ,._ - ± f 1. ` ~ _ _ _ ... ... .. _ _ ~_. r r 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t 's ~ ' ~ r ~ , } ~ ~ ~ ` , ~ )))) ' •~ ~ if;t ~ ~~~1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ to ~ a .' 1- - - s ~ r~ ~ ~ r ( , tt \\ 51 Ei t r } { < <., ~''y'~ r ~. { ' ~ ~ 1} ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ _ _.Tl .. ~ ~ as . ~,.t ~3, E ~ E~ y t.a_~__ _~~:,.____..... __ _._ __~ _. _._....._ . ._ _ _ i ~ cwt - , .~ .: ~:... -~ ~,. ~. ~.:.~_.. ~ ;, ~. _ t~. _ _.__. .. I~ r (( t - i ~ ~~ .. .. . . '~ ~. i. ~ .c ~ .. 1- ~ 1 4 ~ , s I~ `I s ~. .. ,.. , ._ k ,` 3 1. .. i . .. t t ~: ~ < ` }1 . } ~ c 1}S ~ ,. j r ' i •+ ' .. . _: -; ~ ~ y ,.. ~ ' , ( . et .. ,~ Lt .a t~', p'~ ..\ ' ' ~ S } ' r 3 i:S rr rV ~~0 +~ F y,1.4 i~ ti)t iS1 r.~E f ~,,,, r .{~': L. ~ ,(( i , , ' t +• i - ///~~ a ?' ~ ~ ~_~-_-_~~.____-. , ' _... G.. , ' ~.; { f (} f..l '' F~~ (.~, ~ ~ (} 1 f i ,/. !: ~ZZ.' ~.a .-.t ' < ..E~ ~t'~ i.N ~64, )t 2 rr 111 1 1 ~y1 i' t }I y ~, I ;ao 7s ~o (f'~ "'„~ ~ , ~ l~Y( !~.(.. ; ~ ~ i. ~.p / y~ ,~ ~. ! ~ (((( ~ 1~ til ~ an ., u~ •5 . t6 ~ _. ~L- ._..... _ ~ ~. _ {t t1 } } (.~ •_~ I t ~}.. i4`,~,A>.~i u ~:~ t, .~ { } f'3} ":~ ~~>fC'S{'(~tf~' ` '~t,S~ j t t.`',. ~""' ~ r ~ t_,}` ,"i~ ~~~ `I ~ ~ r..:) ` «' % ~ ~ , } ] t E 1~ }1 ;~ 4 !a { ~ 1, ~: ~ 1 j .t t ~ 1,.t ~ ~f i1 ~' ; ' i ,.n<::.~ ~ ~ ~' .l ' c S~7~' :~ •z t /y ~'}~t''+ i' 4' ((/ y ~ 13 s.,'~ 1¢..?;S~ S } ~ ~ 1~ (~ ~ ~(((S )) 11t,,>.' ~(~ ? .;(. ,~'. i"~} i ~ ' E~. J,`~ ~ y Y 1 ! SS tt {{ ~ I f ``J l l..L~ ,AAt . .. :~ ,~ i ~ I I I _ ~._ ~ ~ I I ~r- I i I ~z_,hil a~ ,a7' 2J . - i~..~._ _ ____ .._ _._ _ .. - -___ ~~ I i; i -I--~ ~- 1 I i~ ,, 1~ I ~~ I I i` i ~~ ~ ~ - e ~ _. Ct; I ~ ~ ~!~ l f i ~~ ~~~~-=; ~ ~ ~ `~ ~= ~ o~ '~~- I ~~_ __ 1 ~ } ~~ ~L g'yJ,r]C3~ F~ k ~. _. ~. .. , ~ ~, I M I' ~~ I-oEs ~,, _Y ~5 i ~I .! rr es Aso,. ia~;l ~~ I, sr ~ a ~ zs ' f J I' i h t,.l j .r, i! UI I ~ ~Y; I OJ ~ ~~ C7 C71 -~> tT1 I N __ N ~~ ~_~ ~~UJ ~~ ~%-I ~'b44 3d ~ 3' '6 2~~ '4 O -~:Cl!'l 54~ J I 16 2(i. ii ~..._....~, ~,..~ ~,,..~.~....1., w,._.w...~,. fg a ~. ~ ~ 'i z+ 21 p~ __._... I S -' ! i ! ^ ~ o I i ~_: ! _ :_7 !J • ~ ~ i ~ ~J1 ~ I ~ ~ III ,_, --1 O ~ 'O I ~___' i ~ 1 ~~~~~~~ w,lalcnlci ~; i~ #<a ' ~o I :~ y f ~7,;4~ ¢j ; '7 ~ :r ~ s_~ C'J !T!OI i5 n~ _ ~I 1 a r, ~ I ~ i\) , 1 r ,/ 1 ~... r :37 ~ 39 I 3 [ ~ - I ~ o~., q 1154•)! i :~? ~~ ~. i ~ `l i• . , ( r 1 1 ~ .. r n (:::; YS /(I /{7;)9~~)/ /.~ is `+p~ > ~ n]^~y~ rrt~ ["•'y~ i'?,t N. ; ~ i ~' _. I _. _.b-e~.J / Y ~C.../ ~'' f~{ 4./ ~L.r7~ i f 7 fs.... 4~.J ~~~~ I I r ~ __ l_~ I L ~ _u ~ Y , 4J 6.~~ I J I P .J~ i ' ~~ ~r l _._ _ 1...... - i~--ij 'G•(S •,~ ~~ 5 ~ :/ I _ 15 :.9 ~ 6Ui 75•Itr •3 r S'~ 2. ,• ~ . ~~ ..3 y ~~ 1 , r j 1 °'s'3J. f G( ° Id ~,7 '1cilGB 7•;r'.r I _ ~ ~> ~; '. _ •'fi °_ ~~ I W 3 ~ D. D. t7 ~j O ~ m ~ N ~ N Q O ~ ~ 1 to N ~ ..~. -~ ~ A N .~+ ..- 'p 'd Q Q ~ ~ ~ i ~ m .y to N A A lD (D N •~_ i• 1 ' ~. Q n ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' J :Sl'y-n ~, r ~rn ~ U i ,. Subd. 4. Regulations Rel.atin~; to ll.otels, Motels, Restaurants and Cafes. A special use permit shall not be granted for a hotel, motel, restaurant or cafe unless the council finds that the proposed use will be in substantial compliance with the following. standards: (a) The use will not create undue traffic hazards or traffic congestion either on the public streets adjacent to the site or on the parking areas on or adjacent to the site or on streets adjacent to the site unto which traffic to or from the site is channeled. (b} Adequate provision will be made, through the use of building set- backs, buffer areas, screening, and exterior treatment or placement of the building on the site to avoid .noise, glare, fumes, dust,-and any other sources of nuisance or annoyance to adjacent properties. :.... .. (c) Adequate provision will be r•~ade through the use of building seteaclcs, .~ screening, landscaping, exterior design and placement of the building on. the site to avoid noise, glare, fumes, dust, and an}= other sources of nuisance or annoyance to users, or patrons of the facility. (d)~• Adequate off-street parking space is available for patrons and em- ployees. (e) If liquor in to be sold on the premises (].) the property abuts upon a major. street, (2) access to all off-street. parking spaces is from internal driveway s}=stems and is not directly from public streets, and (3) provision is -`made for well-desigr_ed vehicular stacking space allowing for an efficient and orderly flow of traffic from the site onto adjacent major streets. (f) The proposed facility will provide a.n aesthetic appearance which krill not detract from or conflict with the existing or proposed architectural forms of buildings in the same area. ____ (g) The .use will not create an excessive burden on public parks, public open-space, streets,, or utilities requiring public services which aid proposed to serve the facility. (h) The proposed development will not conflict with the comprehensive development- plan of the. city. .. ~ ., ~ , •o _ r ,~ ~, .~ ~j i f~ IzESf~l,rJIOl~~ i~1a.4340 U RESCULUTIC>1V RE~LA'TING 'i`O PROc:EDI7F~ES FOR THE PROCiSSTNG OF APrLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS F'OR CAFES AND RF'STALTRANT'S INTENDING TO SERVE LIQUOR BE IT .RESOLVED by the City Council of ti.e City of Richfield, Minnesota as follo~NS : i The following procedures and substantive guidelines shall be used il}~ the processing of applications for special use permits for cafes and restaurants in which it is intended to sell lief uor: 1. The applicant shall retain the services of an architect registered in the state of Minnesota for purpase~ of developing site and building plans which meet the highest level of design excellence and performance standa~„ds consistent with the ~rurposes and abjecti.ves of City Codes . The architect shall certify all site and building plans submitted as exhibits to accompany any special use or rezoning re- view process. This certification statement shall include the declaration that the architect has personally viewed and analyzed the site and has individually designed the structure anticipated to house the restaurant activity to fit the site . Also, the architect sriall be responsible for managing all of the development aspects of the plan from the bane of its initiation until its completien. 2. The applicant, -once he has retained the services of an arel?i.teet, shall obtain an appointment with the Planning Director of the City for purposes of discuss- - ing the essential development .characteristics. of the proposed restaurant, The appli- cant and his architect shall submit a sketch plan of the proposed development and which shall shorn= such site crganizatian information as: Location of parking areas, driveways, public streets, proposed Iacation of structures on the site, iar~dscaping plan, existing and final grade estimates, location of utilities and such other infor- motion as may be helpful in providing as complete a picture of the proposed de~re.ap- meat as possible . The Planning Director shall witl~!:in a time period..Iaot to exceed 20 days revie~nr the- inforrriation and advise the applicant on how best to p~ oceed w~.th the project. If the .applicant is advised to proceed with applicafi;ion fog a special. use permit more detailed site and building plans shall be retruirEd for the revie~nr and recomnnendation of the Planning Carrimission and .City Council. These site 'and build- ing plans should be based upon and have evolved from tl~e informal sketch plans discussed with the Planning I~ia•ector. 3. After. making application for the special use permit the application shall be considered at a pub?.ic hearing before the city planning conrimissian, f-'ublished notice of such hearing givinc tho time, pl.acF and purpose thereof sha1.1 be pub?ished in the official .newspaper of the city at Least 10 days before the date of the rc-:arr.ng. ~~t tlz~==: hearing tllru aa°chitt~ct and tdi~: appl.ic:int shall pre:~ent the prcposed c?ev~~lapanent project. The Planning Commission shall review the proposal and wifihin 60 days after. the public hearing slze.ll :make recommended findings relating i:o the granting or dea7ial of the application. .. - 2 - 4. The recommended, findings of the Planning Commission shall thereafter be considered by the City Council which shall accept, reject or modify the findings of t;he Planning Commission. 5 . If the Council. adopts the findings providing .for the granting C?i:' ta?.e special use permit, however, the permit shall nevertheless automatical..ly be conditioned upon final.. approval of site and building plans by the Council when such plans have been completed . 6. Tf the City Council approves the special .use permit' subject t.o final approval of site and building plans the applicant shall thereafter submit to the Plannir.~g Dir- ector eight (8) copies of preliminary site and building plans . Such prul.irni.nar-~ site and building plans shall be submitted to the Planning Commission fc~r rtvi.evv and recommendation to the City Council . Copies of such plans shall be di stri.bu.te:d. to the Director of Public Works., Chief Bui1_ding Inspector, the Fire Prevention Bureau and other appropriate city departments for review and comment prior to consideration of such plans by the t Tanning Commissian. The Planning Director shall also submit his recommendations with reference to said plans and with reference to the carnments of other city departments . 7. The Planning Commissian shall review the preliminary site and building plans and recommend approval or denial thereof to the City Council. • 8. The City Council shall review the recommend.ati.ons of the Planning Com- mission relating to the preliminary site and building plans and shall adapt, reject or modify `the recommendations of the Planning Commission. If the Council approves preliminary site and building plans the granting of the special_ use permit shall 'automatically remain conditioned upon approval by the Council of the final site and .building plans . 9 . The applicant shall thereupon prepare final site and building plans .for sub- mi.ssi~an to the City Council. Such plans shat_l be in accordance with the appro~red preliminary situ and building plans and shall incorporate any conditions o'±- rnadifi- cations thereof required by the City Council. _, 10. The Council shall review the final site and building plans and, if. accept- able, shall grant a special use permit to the applicant based upon such plans. 11. „The applicant may be required to plat or replat the property upon which th.e proposed project is to be constructed. 12. The City Council shall not schedule a hearing on an application for a ' liquor Licer~se or any project prior to approval by it of final site and bui.l.ding plans; and no liquor license shall be issued until all of the conditions attached to th.e • granting of the special use permit have been complied with. .,;:, , . a • v~ , ~~ _ 3 - . 13. The fallowing standard shall be applicable to off-street parking space: Provision shall be rnade for at .least one parking spade for etch 2.5 restaurant seats plus .5 spaces for each employee .plus one space for each 25 sctuare fF~et of •banquet or meeting area. This standard may be modified where the restaurant will be located in a hotel ar motel which provides adequate off-street par'ki.ng spaces for the entire project. s 14. If the City Council denies an application fora special use permit for a tract of land no further application fora special use permit far the same tz-act of land, or any part thereof, sl-zall be filed for a period of 12 months foli.owing such denial o Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, ~ Minnesota this 9th day of Mardi,. 1970. Stanley VJ. Olson Mayor Attest: Thomas. J'. Moran Clerk • ^~ _ ~9. -CITY OF RIr'FIFTELD, MINNESQTA Office of°Cty Manager Council Letter No. 325 - _ Agenda October 12 , l y 7 6 k~ t ;The.. Honorable .Mayor and • Members of the City Council .. City bf .Richfield '~ i Gentlemen: '; Subject: Deletion of Highway 35W Noise. Wall Segment ~ On October 6, 1y.76 I requested the Minnesota Highway Department to delete construction of the noise wall on the west side of 35W-north of the 73rd Street pedestrian bridge. This action was taken at the direction of a majority of the Richfield City Council members who individually indicated ~ their desire to eliminate the wall. A majority of residents in this area supp- orted this decision. r ~ ~ Even. though the project had .been. previously approved -by Ehe .city council and construction was actually underway, the State Highway Depart- meat has agreed to stop construction and delete this portion of the noise . . wall. However, the State Highway Department has asked that the city ~ council adopt a resolution formally requesting the deletion of this portion of the noise wall to provide proper documentation of the action. A brief reso- lution prepared for this purpose is attached. Respectfully submitted,. ~• ' t C Wayne S. Burggraaff .. City Manager WSB/eja cc: Public Works Director f RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING 35W NOISE ABATEMENT PROJECT . AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 5536 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield has approved the plans and specifications labeled and identified as S.P. 2782-172 Noise Abatement Project through passage of Resolution 5536, and WHEREAS, the above named project includes the construction of noise abatement barriers on the west side of 35W north of the 73rd Street pedestrian bridge, and WHEREAS, it appears advantageous to delete this section of Noise Abatement Barrier; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 5536 be amended to delete the construction of Noise Barriers on the west side of 35 W north of the 73rd Street pedestrian bridge. • Loren- L. Law MAYOR+ ATTEST: Thomas j. Moran City Clerk I~ / ~. 'CITY OF RICHFITLFi,• MINI~TESOTA Office 'of City lvianager Council Letter No. 324 . Agenda October 12 , 19.76 \The Honorable Mayor ~ • and ~ '~ Members of .the City Council . City of Riehfe d . ,, . .Gentlemen; _ . -Subject: -Purchase_in Excess of $1,000 ' On August 25, .1976, the city manager opened bids for a public safety monitoring system, in accordance with. previous council authorization. .The public works director, park and recreation director, city clerk, and public safety administrative assistant were also present. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for council review. Because of the -very technical nature of this project, the public safety department requested that Dr. -john DuBois, Hennepin County Communications .Manager, review the~bids for compliance with the specifications. Dr. DuBois completed his review of the bids which indicated that the 3 - h'I Alarm .Service, the. lowest responsible bidder, did submit a proposal in compliancE with the specifications. 'While bids were requested for the system on a component basis, the bids submitted for the total system ranged in price from $11, 193 to $16,'249. The complete system would provide mine closed circuit television cameras to monitor critical areas within the public safety department, as well as the parking area directly behind the public .safety wing. In addition,' the system will provide three television monitors in the public safety dispatch .center to provide constant scanning for the cameras in operation. Finally, the system will provide.•automatic video taping capabilities to permanently record any incident, to be used at the discretion. of the dispatcher. This recording capabil- ity .may also be used in connection with the testing .process for subjects who have been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol.. The system will greatly improve ithe security of both the. public safety area and the security of the personnel working within that area . i Council Letter No.' 324 -2- O~~tober 12, IQ76 Six bids were received for,'the public safety security sys'Eem. 3 - M AIaY•m Service, :with a bid of $11, 193, was the lowest responsible bider for this • project. It is the recommendation of the public safety director, in v~;hch I - concur; that the council approve the bid minutes, the bid tabaiation, and the resolution awarding the bid to the how bidder, 3'- M Alarm Service in the amount of $11, 193. ' Re~spectfull.y sub , fitted,- ~. c~,~. ~ Wayne S. Burggraal'f City Manager WSB/bll cc: Public Safety Director • CITY OI'' RICHFIELD Bid Opening August 25, 1976 Closed Circuit Television Security System Public Safety Department Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the administrative staff was called by Wayne S. Burggraaff, City Manager, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and xead aloud, sealed bids on Closed Circuit Television Security System as advertised in the official newspaper on August 11, 1976. ' Present: Wayne S. Burggraaff, City Manager Peter Eberz, Public Works Director Don Fondrick, Park and Recreation Director Paul Linnee, Administrative Assistant Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk i The following bids were submitted and read aloud; BIDDER AND BID SECURITY AhP. A ALT. B ALT. C ALT. D ALT. E 3 M Alarm Service 10 83 ? 585 $ 325 $11 193 $ 9 .072 B. B. $560 • _ _ Wahl & Wahl, Inc. 13 515 $ 864 $ '.'934 15 313 11 903 B.B. 5% Mid Co. TV System $12 460 $ 670 $ :670 $13 ,800 _ $12 ,665 B.B. 51a , K & M Electronics $11 931 $ 952 $ ~ 747 13 $ ,630 $12 ,635 - B.B.-5% , Motorola ~~ B.B. 5% $14,441 $1,049 $ 759 $16,249 14 987 Motorola 2 149 Second Bid $22,136 $2,279 $1,989 - $26,404 $ 5, Blumberg Photo Sound No Bid The City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular council meeting of October 12, 1976. -~ Thomas J. Moran City Clerk . ~ a~ . CITY OF RICHFIEI:D, iVIIh?NESOTA ~` Office of City. Manager C©uncil Letter No. 32.3 . Agenda.October 12, .1.976 ~x .. • the Honorable Mayor . and Nierribers of the `City Council City of Richfield,. Gentlemen Subject: Discussion Item Relating to Permanent Street Improvement Work -At the September 27, 1976 city council meeting, the city council adopted the proposed assessment-.for property' located at 7541 Emerson Avenue. At that time, Jr. jack Frolund, the property owner, questioned the location of his driveway apron, and the council requested further dis- cusson on tn~s item. be scheduled ;for the October 12, 1y76 agenda. As council members will recall, Mr. Frolund indicated a desire for a ten foot driveway apron. .Pursuant to his request, the apron was con- -strutted at a ten foot width to match the existing driveway, the south edge of which abutts the property line. A ccpy of Mr. Frolund`s letter and his diagram are attached for information purposes. Respectfully su -pitted, ~~~ ~• ~~' ~' . _. Wayne S. ~B~irggraaff '-City Manager ~ WSii/eja ce:.. Puk~lic Works Director -t. • M - .. ~.: . Sin 21-176 ~~ . Cit~+ ~~ ~~c~~fetd i y Mx. Peter G. Eberz :September~.21~. 1976 •. Dixectox of Public Woxks .. .. . • Richfield City ~Ta11 "~ 6700 Portland Avenue South` . .Richfield, MN 55423 ~ _ •. Dear Mr. Eberz: I was at the counsel meeting on August 23,~'I9%b. The counsel agxeed to-send soYrieone out to check the placement of my driveway. Ivan. ' Ludeman came out and agreed that the driveway apron is not placed.. • -. properly and that it should be moved two feed." The driveway apron is"one foot over my neighbor's property line, ' ~ therefgre making it impossible for me to have a standard ten foot driveway running straight onto my property. If two additional feet were •added to the north end of the apron, I could angle in a foot from each side to make a ten foot driveway without having to move, the .entire apron. I am enclosing a rough diagram of the driveway illustrating the present placement of_the apron and the suggested solution. I was to attend the meeting on September, 27 .but ~ai11 be out of town on that date, hence the reason for this letter. I would greatly appreciate your help on .this matter. Thank you for your ,time. Sincerely. l ~f Jack W. Frolund ~ _ ., ~ ~ ..__ _ ___ .., _ , 1 _ .~-~~_._-~_ i . .. i l I I ~ ' i L. _. _ .~`.... I- .. ~ .. _. _ _... _ .' _ . i_ } . . ~ I __ _ ._, ,.. ... . _ ~ ~._ 1....~ ... ._..., .... .-.l ....... y.. ._._ ._ .. .... - - -~-- - d` I I I i 1 j..., I -_ __. _ ._... , _ . _ ~ .1_ _ .. _. h __ _ _ I ~ ~~ ~ I i. -~- -; . , _ f ~ ~ - ~ '~ ~ j I _ ~ { ~ 4 ~ __- i .. , _ _ _ _~ - :... ,. ._ .. ~ E I ~ ~~ I i I`i 1 _I -- - - ~. _ i • _ _ _ _ ;. . ~ i~ r f 4. _ -- - - ..~ -- - . I I i~ t i I i. T" + } +~ I _ .__ .. • . .. :. i - I ... .~ i I ~ - ~ !- -- -- ~ - . _. _ ~ _ - . -, - _j ::. _,.. .t ' ~ `` •- - i • i I i I ~' 1 I ~ j i i ~ i• i i ; ~ _ ! ~- __ __ _---~---~---t-_._.-_-•__-------~- - -- -- ----- - - - -- . , . . ' ~~ ~ 0 i f - --~- - ---~--: ---._. _ __. f ~ - -- - e ~ ~ i ~ i I r - - - - .__......._. _....__. _ -•---~_....~_ - _.. __~._ ..~----~-- - -- ----- -- ~ -• ---- ~-i--~- ---- - • I r • i I i I .~ _' I I ' i f I ~ , T' ~ i I ( i ( ~ I I ~I- -- ' i + r ` ,~ - 1 i ~I i I f ` i i I ~ ~ .'_ _I. ._' C ~ ' _ .I '. .J - - ---- - -- ---- - --1-- ~ - -. ~._. ; . _.. -- -- ~-- - -- -- - - - - ..._ ~ r 1 ~' i 1 ~ ~ , I ` --~--t---- -- - ~-- - - - I . ,. ` \ 7 . . ' ~ I ; ~ ' , ~ I ; ~ ~ I I I I ~ ~ I ~. I .i_ ._..... __. .._.~ ~ _ L_ ~._._.:.. .. ~ . ; i ~, I I ~ 1_ ~ ~ t ~ 1 - - - -... c-, I i ~- ~ -_. _.._ ----1---~---... ... ~ ,.~ ~.... ~ _ f -1- ~ - .- -- - - -.- - .-_ f7 I'''` ~~ .~-.' - .tee----.. - '~ ~ ~ i I I ~ ~ i _L _ I .... . . _.._. 1. ..__ _ .__. ~....I .__ ___- __.. i__.. _.1--..... .___ _ _._ _. __..i __. .... i.._ ~ ... i is ~ . .. __ _ . _. .. .. ~ . (r M - _ _ ! __ __ ~,.; CITS' OP R'(C:HFI:ELD,' I~/IIN.NISOTA Office r.,f Czty Iviana~er ~~. - Council Letter No. 32? Agenda .October 12, 1976 The Honorable Nfayor _ and Members of the City. Council C.ifiy of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject, Drainage Report for 73rd Street and Colfax Avenue.. At the August-23, 197G city coranrl meeting, the city council authorized - the staff to ha~~e a, preliminary engineering report prepared for a storm sewer. pumping station and force main to alleviate the drainage problem located .in the urea of 73rd Street and Colfax Avenue. : History..' In 1956, Colfax Avenue between ?3rd Street and Oak Grove Boulevard was vacated, thereby allowing this property to revert bark to residential ownership. Since. that time, additional houses have been constructed in this area with the "~ _ exception of one Tot located at 7231 Oak Grove Boulevard. Because of low' ele anon of each of the lots, residents have directed drains away from their- property and onto. the vacant lot. 'Phis vacant lot was recently purchased .and house construction started. -The neighbors in this. area. have, therefore, contacted the city, indicating concern about the potential drainage problems which might result from filling in this l:ot. Preliminary Engineering Report _ Attached .to this council letter is a copy of the preliminary engineering re- port for the construction of a storm sewer pumping station and force main. -This 'preliminary engineering report indicates that construction. is, technically feasible and would cost an estimated $14, 4~0, Alternatives 1. After reviewing fihe preliminary engineering report, the"c-ty council could determine that the drainage problem is a private problem and ~ that the city should not undertake responsibility to construct and maintain a pumping station and farce main..., In that case., the. city council could grant the xesinents per?nissian to connect to the city's Council Letter No. 322 -2W October 12, 1976 1. (Contiizued): storm sewer systerrt on 73rd Street if they were to decide to have this t;~p~ oa: instailatic~r~ privately constructed. ; 2. "The city council could determinethat the city should be involved in"alleviating the drainage problem, In that case, the clay couricii could:authorize the .project and direct a staff to prepare final plans and specifications with the full~.cost ~if~ the project to be paid from the. sewer fund., 3 The' city council could determine that the' city should be involved • in alleviating the drainage problem. The ciay council-could set a hearing date to authorize a special assessment project with. the .cost of the project to be paid entirely by the benefitted property owners. If the cauncil .chose .this alterna-five; and based the assessment do squarE footage, it would be necessary to assess $.134 per square. foot. 4. The city council could determine that the city should be involved " in alleviating the drainage problerr~. The city council could seta hearing date to authorize a special assessment project with the cost of the project to be paid in accordance with the former policy for storm sewer assessment. That storm sewer policy was adopted in 1953 and revised on February 14, 1972 and called for maximum storm sewer assessment of $, 0355 per square foot. Residents affected by this proposed project have not. paid the maximum .storm. sewer assessment and $2,224.06 of the estimated cost ~f $14,400 could be assessed under this policy. ' It should be pointed out'that Resolution No. 4735 stipulated that all storm sewer. construction after 1974 would be assessed at the full cost of coristruction. • For your review, we have attached: a summary sheet of the cost of the four alternatives . • Respectfully submitted, ~. ~ ,~ . _. .. • Wayne S. Burggraaff- City 1!<ianager . ~~ a, •~ "~+ J ORR-SCHELTsN°1/1.T~YisR.Oly F~ ASSOCIATES, INC. CO:dS~ ~a:~'1. ~~tC7 I~~ICs ~ I~IL;i;RS MIi~PdL.1~,POli.Lo, bI.Lldl~l~SU`i'A PRELIi~~IIIVARY Rr PORT AIdD LS'1'IPiiATE OF COST S`i'ORI.4 SEt•7L•'R S~l'UllY ______~ RICiiFIELD, MINNESOTA SLP~i'LiI.t3ER 14 , 19 7 J _~ . One pumping station and approximatly 120 feet of force main. V. SPZ;CIAL CO;:dDITIOIIS Permanent and construction easement will be required for construction of the project. The pumping statian will be constructed underground. The electrical control panel wi1.l be above ground at the electrical service point. VI. F~;ASIBILITY .., From an engineering standpoint the project is feasible and can best be accomplished as proposed. ~ ,VII. .'L5TII•'IATED COST . Construction Cost $ 12,000 Indirect Cost (20~} $ 2,400 Total Project Cost $ .14,400 Richfield, M.nneso!:a . 0213--2706 ::.. . .. .. .: .4 Z . TYPL OF FdORI: ~ ~ . Storm Sewer and .Appurtenant ~~Tork. TI. DESCRIPTIOI~J OF G4OS:~: Storm Sewer pumping station and force main. . III: LOCATIO21 OF PROJECT The project is bounded_on the nortY~i by Oak Grove Blouvard, on the west by Dupont Avenue on the south by 73rd Street, and on the east by Bryant, Avenue. • IV . L~IVGTi:T OF PROJEC^1 P12 ~ J. ,~,~~ r" {. r ~'~~ VI1:I. CONTRIl3U`I'ING AP1,A The.. area contributing starm.water_ flow is shown on the attached , • map. ~ - ' I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered. Pro-- " fessional Engineer under the laws of - the State of Nlirinesota. LeRoy H. J. Ilylus ,, Date: Septesnber~l4, 1976 Reg. No. 10981 ... n - s! w~ • Richfield, Minnesota 023-2706 PR -2 .~ • • J 4 U to ' rx ~~. ' 1 _ ~p 1 ~ ~~~ t / ~ I ~~ a 1 y ~ y 1 ~1 1 ~' i I ... V..... I...: ' y ,..~, •..... •.,' .... 1 ly ..ti• .........:.:.:.:.: ~ ~ ~~ :.... '•. tom. •,•:.'.'.'.'. ~ 1 .'.'..•.~. }. .' .~'.•.•.'.•.•.•.•. 1 ~. o-'" II .'1'.','.'-~+.~~.---tom -~zl-~:.•.,•.::• :•~t•~/ 1 d ?? Q '1 U ;1 a I _ ., a ~ y` .,,•.......,.• •....•..• • .1 a III .'.':•.'.:~.: :.~`...+.: •..• ..1 '.. •.~{{ ~/ O ~ ~:~:~:•:•:•::. ~,:•:,:.::;::::::::•., • ...:::::::::::::: •.f ~ ~ 1 ::1 ::::::::::::.::::::: . ~ ~ ` .....•.... ~: W ~ ... I o z ++ t • :'7::;::::~:~:~:~:•~•' 1 1 ^~^ I N `J `I t() ~ • ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 I 1 ,, t \I 1 7 •\ 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~ I I I \ ..L.• O .3 /~~ a. ~`~ 7 cj ~ ,49 g h ~ O ~ 1~. n. w ~ w a ~ w ~ z ~ ~ ~ }. W e ~ 5, 2 ~ CC ~ cn ~ W ~ Z O O ~ N ('J O ~ ! }.. w IJ.I d J ~ ~ (n x Ci Q. ... . QS ~.ynd Q • ~ O b S l:, O ' O H -~ ~ -1 O -~ x ~ O ' ~ ~ -~ ~ -~ 4'~ -~ C -a ~ N -~ :d N --a rJ N N 7J t~J ~~ ~ .!e H ha O F~ N O N d N F~ N O N O ~ ,' ~O N ~ ~ F~ N .D W }-' N W .!=' (--' h N N -~' lD N W fi'~ h-' (n N W W ~ W 1-, Cn O ~ ~ ~ K ~ ~ ¢~~ ¢ ~ K !-' ~ ~. Bc O ~ • ~ C~ O .-1- O C O fz ~ fD cD N ~ O tzi ~ K CG tzi ~i t~ td ~ O O ~ (~ O p~ Cn O trJ. ¢i rn ~ U b ~ O 'r ' ~ N m ch c1- ~ ~ : rn `C K ~ t-' 'T~' IT."' O rY+ ~ c~ p.. 3 H ~ + ~ + ~ ~ • P~ cp C ~ 4] O K A> 4~ K 4~ m K ~ -~ F, W I~• --a ! J W! ~s N ch ~ ~ c+ ~' ~ N c 4~ P~ K ~ 4~ N K ~~ ~ ~i N t-3 C~ O (z ~ O ~ O Sn ti' O K N R~~ K tD P~K ~ ~~ O ~O ~ O ~ ~ O C O O ~ ~ J tr d b J tr cf- ~ (D fD fD ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ O P~ (~+ £~+ fz P~ tz d- ~' v ~ fD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a\ ~ W ~ N ~ K -~' W a> ~' O\ ~ ~ -~' ~ V trJ N N O O N N O O O O O O O O O O N V7 ~' -G' N 0 N ~ ~ ~ 0 . '~ N ~ '~ ~ ~ O\ ~ L~ K O n N R~ Oh I c+ ~ i [D Fd K O Fd c+ ~ O O O (D K e m '~ -~ ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O y ~O ~' O O y H v L=J U2 !.._, ~ y .~- V !--' V N V N V N N V I-' N F-' x ~~ O ~ N N N ~C F-' Oo po N N O vi trJ ~ O W ~Il O ~O Vl I - 7 ~ O O ~ txJ O O ~Jt O V7 Vl `J7 \Jl O O N N N •~ ~J O ~O '~ Vt .F W Vl ~O O \O O\ Ol O alt \ ~O O 1-' Cb Oo N OJ ^~] ~ J O\ `ri N N r RESULU'.CItJN NO. 4735 RESOLUTION ON POLICY FOR STORM SEV1rER ASSESSMENTS • WHEREAS, the city has been constructing storm sewers throughout the city according to a master plan prepared in 1953, and WHEREAS, the city council has had a policy of assessing this storm sewer coristxuction at a maximum assessment of $.0355 per square -foot, and WHEREAS, the construction of -these storm sewers throughout the city has been sub- stantially.completed, and WHEREAS, the cost of constructing these storm sewers has increased considerably over the years , and WHEREAS, it appears desirable to change the existing storm sewerassessments policies to rriore accurately charge the benefited properties with the cost ~f providing the improvement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield that the City adopt the following general policies for storm sewer assessments: 1. That all remaining storm. sewers constructed in 1974 and future years , should there be any, be assessed at its full cost of construction. 2. That the assessment be spread over a 20 year period at 8% interest with the privilege of prepaying the storm sewer assessment at any time waahout additional interest. 3. That the above policies begin tNith the storm sewer hearings held in 1973. 4. That the policies contained in this resolution shall be subject to modification if necessary in individual cases if the council determines that the assessment or assessments resulting from the application of the policies will exceed the benefits received. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of. February, 1972. Mayor Attest: :City Clerk :..~, . '., CITY OF KIGHI'IE,D, ~JIINNESOTA Office ~of~ Cite Manager Couricil:Letter No, 321 Agenda October 8 , 19 7 6 h The Honorable PvIa yor and: Members or` the ;City Council.. City of Richfield ~. Gen.talemen: I Sub}ect. Adoption of 1977 General Fund Budget The city council has completed 18 hours of hearings on the proposed- ].977 ~ - bucket. The final budget hearing is scheduled for Friday, October-8, 1976 at 7:00 p. m. In addition to acting on the general fund budget, it i.s necessary th~~t i;he city council certify the mill levy requirement for the HRA budget which was 'adopted by`the HRA: at a budget hearing on October 5, 1976. • In summary, -the fo1_lowing actions are required by the city' council on October 8: ` 1. Adopt a resolution certifying the HRA tax levy 2. .Adopt.' a resolution amending the 1976 general fund budget 3. Adopt. a resolution adopting the 1977 general fund budgei arld certifying the necessary levies to Hennepin County 4. Adopt ,a series of resolutions cancelling tax levies for various bond issues vahere it has been determined that sufficient bind pinking ,funds are available for debt service. Copies of'the resolutions referred to above are attached. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~ LL''- ~ `( ,~ ~ h" d`~ Wayne S. Burggraaff . City Manager V4TS B ei a cc: Finance Director '~ ~_ , RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING 1977 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BUDGET AND CERTIFYING THE TAX LEVY WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield has. recommended to the City of ,Richfield the proposed budget for the year 197 7 . and requested the certification of property tax therefor, and WHEREAS, the estimated gross revenue of ,the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield from all sources, including general ad valorem tax levies as hereinafter set forth for the year 1977, and as the same are more fully detailed in the Executive Director's official copy of the Proposed Budget for the year 1977 are in the amount of $93,432. N W BE I RES D b the it ouncil of the Cit of Richfield 0 T OLVE C C y y y as follows: Section I. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City: of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in. the-year 1976, payable in 1977 for the following purposes: . ~_- PURPOSE AMOUNT Housing and Redevelopment Authority 1/3'Mill Relocation Information, Services and Assistance 1/30 Mill Section 2. A certified copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the County Auditor. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 8th day of October, 1976. Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: .Thomas J. Moran City Clerk _... 4 • ~.~ ' RESOLUTION N0. 5591 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 1976 BUDGET OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WHEREAS, Resolution No. 5420 appropriated funds for personal services, other expenses and capital outlays for each department of the city for the year 1976; and WHEREAS, Resolutions Nos. 5450, 5467, 5478, 5485, 5492, 5504, SS20, 5527 ' and 5531 made appropriations from the-1976 Contingency Account to various departments; and W~REAS, The City Charter, Chapter 7, Section 7.09, gives the council authority to transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from d one office, department, or agency to another within the same fun f at .the request of the city manager; and ' j,,»REAS, The city manager has requested a revision of the 1976 budget appropriations in accordance with Charter provisions and as detailed in the proposed 1977 budget document; and WHEREAS Federal General Revenue Sharing regulations requirriated in thee of Federal General Revenue Sharing funds be approp same manner that the city would ordinarily appropriate its own general revenues .• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield as follows: Section 1. That the 1976 appropriations for each department of the General Fund and the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund be revised as follows: GENERAL FUND Mayor - Council Executive Legal Finance Planning Public Safety Public Works Health Parks and Recreation Unallocated $ 200 Increase 4,960 Decrease 1,992 Decrease 4,466 Decrease 8,394 Decrease 18,380 Increase 16,922 Decrease 691 Decrease 18,606 Decrease 17,344 Increase Total General Fund REVENUE SHARING TRUST FUND 2$ O'I07 Decrease 1,S 5,000 Decrease • Resolution No. .5591 Page 2 Sec t^ ion 2, Estimated 1976 gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, as the same are more fully detailed in the city manager's official copy of the proposed 1977 budget document, are hereby revised as follows: .GENERAL FUND 9 OOO Decrease . REVENUE SHARING ~ TRUST FUND 6 166 Decrease Section 3. That the city manager and the finance director bring into effect the provisions of this resolution. Passed by the city. council of the City of Richfield this day of Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran City -Clerk •i i .i RESOLUTION N0. 5590 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 1977 AND LEVYING TAXES , BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: Section 1. The budget for the City of Richfield for the year 1977 is hereby approved and adopted with appropriations for each of the departments to .be as follows: ,, GENERAL FUND Mayor - Council $ 42,191 Executive 141.,101 Legal 58,013 Finance 314,897 Planning 100,517 " Public Safety 1,926,730 Public Warks 997,974 Health 86,546 Parks and Recreation 873,157 .Unallocated 231,860 TOTAL GENERAL FUND ,$4.772,986 REVENUE SHARING TRUST FUND S 252,585 Section 2. The estimated gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, including general ad valorem tax levies as hereinafter set forth for. the year 1977, including-prior years levies budgeted -for 1977, as the same are more fully detailed in the city manager's official copy of the 1977 budget, are hereby found and determined to be as follows: GENERAL FUND 54,772,986 REVENUE SHARING TRUST FUND S 2~S Section 3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 1976, payable in 1977, for the following purposes and in the following amounts: 1~ ;, ,~3&XiY+'n .~.~. •~~.,. swrol.mwou~Fiw(~aawaiar„" -tp:n.~r'~e.?Hn#s PUT~POSE ~ AMOUNT GENERAL FUND $2,336.,000 BONDS OF 1972 13.8,900 BONDS QF 1975 283,500 OTHER FONDS AND IATTERESTs` N0~ " TOTAL LEVY $2,758,400 '^Previously certified by deferred levy. See separate cancellation .resolutions. Provision has, been made in the General Fund for the payment of the city's contributory share to Public Employees Retire- ment Association, and the Police and Firemen's Relief Associations. Provision has also been made in the General .. Fund revenues for receipt of the local government aid distri- bution. Section 4. A certified copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the .County Auditor, Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this day of ATTEST: 'Thomas J. Moran City Cleric • •i Loren L. .Law Mayor RESOLUTION N0. 5592 RESOLUTION.AUTHORIZING CANCELLATTON OF CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES ON IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1960 r -. _ +~a _ k WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2862 provided for taxes to be levied for the re- payment of principal and interest on the Improvement Bonds of 1960, and WHEREAS, It appears desirable to cancel or reduce such ad valorem tax levy to be levied in 1976 by reason that there are currently sufficient funds available in the debt redemption fund to pay all remaining principal and interest on such bonds. ' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows; 1. That the amount to be levied in 1976, collectible in 1977 on Resolution No. 2862 in the amount of $3,750, is hereby cancelled. 2. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. ' Passed bg the city council of the City of Richfield this day a Loren L. Law Mayor AT7T:5 T; Thomas J. Moran City Clerk i i ~• i• RESOLUTION N0. 5593 RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE DISCONTINUATION OF THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1953,. SERIES C, DEBT SERVICE FUND AND TRANSFER OF SURPLUS WHEREAS, On November 1, 1953 the city issued Special Assessment Improvement Bonds in the- amount of $217,000, and WHEREAS, Final payment for principal and interest maturities was made on Novear~er`I, 1973, and WHEREAS, A major portion of the delinquent special assessments has been collected and WHEREAS, It appears desirable to discontinue this fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that: 1. The approximate cash surplus of $1,162 in the Improvement Bonds of 1953, Series C, be transferred to th.e General Fund. 2. The Improvement Bonds of 1953, Series C, Fund be discontinued as of December 31, 1976. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this. day of Loren L. Law • Mayor ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran 'City Clerk RESOLUTION N0. 5594 ~~~ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER FROM WATER UTILITY FUND TO WATER BONDS OF 1961 FUND AND REDUCING CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES .WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2624 provided for the sale of $120,000 Water Bonds of 1961 and provided for taxes to be levied for the repayment. of. prinicipal and interest thereon, and WHEREAS, It appears .desirable to cancel or reduce such ad valorem tax levy to be levied in 1976 to-the extent that such reduction is possible. by reason of transfer from the Water Utility Fund, and WHEREAS, Such transfer shall be charged to the Water Utility Fund,- and WHEREAS, The ad valorem tax levy requirement includes a 5% excess provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the transfer and appropriation of $7,600 from the Water Utility.-Fund to the Water Bonds of 1961 Fund is hereby authorized and directed. 2. That the amount to be levied in 1976, collectible in 1977, on Resolution No. 2624, in the amount of $8,000 is hereby . cancelled. 3. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County-Auditor. .Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this day of Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST; Thomas J. Moran City Clerk .. .. . , ,, RESOLU'TIUN IvjO. 559 5 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TR1'~NSFERS FROM IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1956 AND WATER UTILITY FUNDS. TO IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1961 FUND AND REDUCING CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES ' 4JHERCAS, Resolution No. 2624. provided for the sale of $1,155,OOO,Improvement Bonds of 1961 and provided for taxes to be levied for th.e repayment of principal and interest thereon, and ~ WIiEREAS, It appears desirable to cancel or reduce such ad valorem tax levies to be levied in 1976 to the extent that such reduction i.s possible 'by- reason of transfers from the Improvement Bonds of 1956 Fund, and the Water Utility Fund, and WHEREAS, Such transfer from the Improvement Bonds of 1956 shall be from surplus monies not needed for the payment of principal and interest in that fund, and WHEREAS, Such transfers shall be charged to the Water Utility Fund, and WHEREAS, The ad valorem tax levy requirements includes a 5% excess provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,. as follows: • 1. That the transfer and appropriation of $15,237 from the Improvement Bonds of 1956 Fund, to the Improvement Bcnds of 1961 Fund is hereby authorized and directed. 2. That the transfer and appropriation of $14,213 from the Water Uti.Iity Fund to the Improvement Bonds of 1961 Fund is hereby authorized and directed. 3. That the amount to be levied i.n 1976, collectible in 1977, on Resolution No. 2624 in the amount of $31,000, is hereby cancelled. 4. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Passed by the city council of the city of Richfield this day of Loren L. Law Mayor AT`.L'EST• T lom-T •as J. Moran City C~ e~ roc RESOLUTION N0. 5596 ~~ ~ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFERS FROM IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1959, AND WATER UTILITY FUNDS TO IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1962 FUND !;y AND REDUCING CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2726 provided for the sale of $2,500,000 Improvement Bonds of 1962 and provided for taxes to be levied for the repayment of principal and interest thereon, and WIiEREAS, It appears desirable to cancel or reduce such ad valorem tax levies to be levied in 1976 to the extent that such reduction is possible by reason,of transfers from the Improvement-Bonds of 1959 Fund and the Water Utility Fund, and LJHEREAS, There is presently sufficient funds available in the Improvement . Bonds of 1959 Fund to pay all remaining principal and interest on such bonds, and WHEREAS, Such transfer from the Improvement Bonds of 1959 Fund shall be surplus monies not needed for the payment of principal and interest on such bonds, and WHEREAS, Such transfers shall be charged to the Water Utility Fund, and WHEREAS, The ad valorem tax levy requirement includes a 5% excel provision. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the Cit Minnesota as follows: y of Richfield, 1.. That the transfer and appropriation of $25,151 from the Improvement Bonds of 1959 Fund to the Improvement Bonds of 1962 .Fund is hereby authorized and directed. 2. That the transfer and appropriation of $13,680 from the Water Utility Fund to the Improvement Bonds of 1962 Fund is hereby authorized and directed.. 3. That the amount to be levied in 1976 collectible in 1977 on Resolution No. 2726, in the amount of $40,875 is hereby cancelled. 4. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Passed by thefcity council of the City of Richfield this day of ATTCST; Loren L. Law Mayor Thomas J. Moran City Clerk RESOLUTION N0. 5597 a RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TE.ANSFER FROi~1 WATER UTILITY FUND TO WATER BONDS OF 1962 FUND AND REDUCING CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2877 provided for the sale q~ $1,500.,000 Water ' Bonds of 1962. and provided for taxes to be levied for the re- payment of principal and interest thereof, and WHEREAS,. It appears desirable to cancel or reduce such ad valorem tax levy to;be levied in 1976 to the extent that such reduction is possible by reason of transfer from the Water Utility Fund, and WHEREAS, Such transfer shall be charged to the Water Utility Fund, and WHEREAS, The ad valorem tax levy requirement includes a 5% excess provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the-city council of the City of Richfield, Tlinnesota, as follows: 1. That the transfer and appropriation of $10?.,030 from the Water Utility Fund to the Water Bonds of 1962 fund is • hereby authorized and directed. 2. That the amount tb be levied in 1976, collectible in 1977 on Resolution No. 2877, in the amount of $107,400 is hereby cancelled. ~3. That a copy of this resolution shall .be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this day of Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: Thomas 3. T4:oran Gity Clerk RESOLIITION N0. 5598 RESOLUTI02d AUTHORIZING TRANSFER FROM WATER UTILITY FUND TO WATER 'BONDS OF 1963 FUND AND REDUCING CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES WHEREAS, Resolution No. 3079 provided for the sale of $1,700,000 Water Bonds of 1963 and provided for taxes to be levied for the payment of principal and interest thereon, and WHEREAS, It appears desirable to cancel or reduce such ad valorem tar, levy ' to be levied in 1976 to the extent that such reduction is possible by reason of transfer from the Water Utility Fund, and WHEREAS, Such transfer shall be charged to the Water Utility Fund, and WHEREAS, The ad valorem tax levy requirement includes a 5% excess prevision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1, That the transfer and appropriation of $127,300 from the Water Utility Fund to the Water Bonds of 1963 Fund is hereby authorized and directed. 2. That the amount to be levied in 1976, collectible in 1977,. • on Resolution No. 3079, in the amount of $134,000 is hereby cancelled. 3, That a copy~of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this day of Thomas J. Moran City Clerk Laren L. Law RESOLUTION N0. 5599 ,~ RESOLUTTON AUTHORIZ1~dG TIZANSFEIi'FROM WATER UTTLTTY FUND TO IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1965 FUND AND REDUCING CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAB hEVIES WHEREAS, Resolution No. 344'1 provided for the sale of $2,000,000 Improvement Bonds of 1965 and provided for taxes to be levied for the paymen t • of principal and interest thereon, and WHEREAS, It appears desirable to cancel or reduce such ad valorem tax levy to the extent that such reduction is possible by reason of transfer ' from the Water Utility Fund, and WHEREAS, Such transfer shall be charged to the Water Utility Fund, and • WHEREAS? It appears desirable to cancel or reduce•such remaining ad valorem • tax levy to be levied in 1976 by reason -that there are currently sufficient funds available in the debt redemption fund to pay in 1977 the principal and interest on the above bonds, and WHEREAS, The ad valorem tax levy requirement .includes a 5% excess provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: •! . .1. That the transfer and appropriation of $20,000 from the Water Utility Fund to the Improvement Bonds of 1965 Fund is hereby authorized and directed. 2. That the amount to be levied in 1976, collectible in 1977, on Resolution No. 3442 in the amount of $108,000, is hereby cancelled. 3. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin • County Auditor. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this day of Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran. City' Clerk .,..~J a • RESOLUTION N0. 5600 RESOLUTTON AUTHORIZING TRANSFER FROM IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1955 ' FUND TO IMPRUVEMENT BONDS OF 1967 FUND AND REDUCING CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES WHEREAS, Resolution No. 3901 provided for the sale of $275,000 Improvement Bonds • of 1967 and provided for taxes to be levied for the payment of princi- pal and interest thereon, and , WHEREAS,. Final payment for principal and interest maturities on Improvement • Bonds of 1955 was made on June 1, 1976, and WHEREAS, Such transfer from the Improvement Bonds of 1955 Fund shall be surplus monies not needed for the payment of principal and interest on such bonds, and WHEREAS, The ad valorem tax levy requirement includes a 5% excess provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the transfer and appropriation of $3,325 from the Improvement Bonds of 1955 Fund, to the Improvement Bonds of 1967 Fund is hereby authorized and directed. 2. That the amount levied in 1976, collectible in 1977 on Resolution No. 3901 in the amount of $3,500, is hereby cancelled ,3. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this day of Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran City Clerk i• ^t • • RESOLUTION NO. 5601 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REDUCTION ,OF CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES OF THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1973 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 4990 provided for the. sale of $6,300,000 Improvement Bonds of 1973 and provided for taxes t.o be levied from the payment of principal and interest thereon, and WHEREAS, It appears desirable to cancel or reduce certaitz ad valorem tax levies to be levied in 197 due to the extent that such reduction is possible by reason of substaxitial pre-payment of special assessments and the investment return on these funds, and WHEREAS, There is presently sufficient funds available in the Improvement Bonds of 1973 Fund to pay current principal and interest on such bonds, and. WHEP.EAS, The ad valorem tax levy requirement includes a 5% excess provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the amount to be levied in 197 b, collectible in 1977 on Resolution No. 4990, in the amount of $90,894, is hereby cancelled. 2. That a copy of `this resolution sriall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this day of Loren L. Law Mayor • ATTEST Thomas J. Moran City Clerk . , =r • • RESOLUTION N0. 5602 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER FROM IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1959 TO IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1974 AND REDUCING CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAB LEVIES WHEREAS, Resolution No. 5198 provided for the sale of $3,300,000 Improvement Bonds of 1974 and provided for taxes to be levied for the repayment of principal and interest thereon, and WHEREAS, It appears desirable to cancel or reduce such ad valorem tax levies to be levied in 1976 to the extent such reduction is possible by reason of transfers. from the Improvement Bonds of 1959 fund, .and WHEREAS, There is sufficient funds available in the Improvement Bonds of 1959 Fund to pay all remaining principal and interest on such bands, and WHEREAS, Such transfer from the Improvement Bonds of 1959 shall be surplus monies not needed for the payment of principal and interest on such bonds, and WHEREAS, The ad valorem tax levy requirement includes a 5% excess provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the transfer and appropriation of $34,688 from the Improvement Bonds of 1959 to the Improvement Bonds of 1974, is hereby authorized and directed. 2. That the amount to be levied in 1976, collectible in 1977, on Resolution No. 5198 in the amount of $36,514, is hereby cancelled. 3. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor, Passed by the city council of the city of Richfield this day of ATTEST: Loren L. Law Mayor • Thomas J. Moran City Clerk :r ' RESOLUTION1 N0~ 5603 RESOLUTION REI~A.TING TO THE DISCONT11ti'UATION OF THE IMPROVEMEi1T BONDS OF 1954, SERIES B,-DEBT SERVICE FUND AND TRANSFER OF SURPLUS WHEREAS,. On August 1, 1954 the city issued Special AoSSessment Improvement Bonds in the amount of $1,000,000, and WHEREAS,. Final payment for principal and interest maturities was made on ' August 1, 1975, and .WHEREAS , A major portion of the delinquent special assessments has been ~collected,'and WHEREAS, It appears desirable to discontinue this fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ?2ESOLVED by the city council of the City of. Richfield, Minnesota,- that: 1. The approximate cash. surplus of $2,000 in the Improvement ,Bonds of 1954, Series B, be transferred to the General ' Fundn 2. The Improvement Bonds of 1954, Series B Fund, be discontinued as of D~cemcer 31, 1976. Passed by the city council o.f the City of Richfield this day of Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST Thomas J. Moran City Clerk ~ ` • I. i• ' RESOLUTIONd N0. 5604 ',~ RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE DISCONTINUATION OF THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1955 DEBT SERVICE FUND AND TRANSFER OF SURPLUS WHEREAS, On June 1, 1955, the city issued Special Assessment Improvement Bonds in the amount of $1,410,000, and WHEREAS, Final payment for principal and interest maturities was made on ' June 1, 1976, and WHEREAS, A major portion of the delinquent special assessments has been collected, and WHEREAS, It appears desirable to discontinue this fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that: 1. The approximate cash surplus of $2,392 in the Improvement Bonds of 1955 be transferred to the General Fund. 2. The .Improvement Bonds of 1951 Fund be discontinued as of December 31, 1977. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this day of Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST Thomas J. Moran City Cleric • It » ti u~ t i ~~ ti-vstv~M~r R ~ ~ 3 zt ~i $~ . ,~'~, ~ II \ xECxFS.ncw' lr~ GOJRI•YN.A ~I N524Zt :o..e~: -- • ~ YP.T o ~ I .• ~ ~ f ' ;I ( ~ ~ ~ ~` °! ~`Y -. ~I ~• UNas~Piw . rn~zco 6u~orM. ~ pr+y(te1Y m~~... _ `.~ ~~ ~4 1 • T~ .. • • ~ I ~ l1 ' . •1 tN,DSeK 1+f 6. y 1i- V.~aDSGaPiFt4 ~-~ •~ .~s~ ~ I I IiI li li ~ ~ ;s ~ .. ' M SPC6S ~ Pi./tr./..w tec- eo s~tieee ~ . j, _ UNDC'F.6SOVAtV PRNNAl.E / ~ ~ 1ft I.KtM~:1D GrI ~L ~ tti s{ocet ~ B •• ~~NI~IIIIiII~II-IiIIII~'~R"--~---, ~~ ~. ,:~ J~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ° Council Letter No. 319 Agenda October 12 , 19 76 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Release of Off-Street Parking;: Cantract'Bonds On the October 12, 1976 city council agenda there are two items re sting to the release of off-street parking contract bonds. The first bond is for the Fred Babcock Post 555, Veterans of Foreign Wars, for their parking lot located at 710 Lakeshore:°Drive The second bond . is for Robert F,. Adelmann..for..~ paint store: parking. lot located at 721 West • 77 1/2 Street. The. public works departmenthas inspected these properties and confirmed that the requirements of the off-street parking contracts: have beon met. It is recommended that these bonds be released. Respectfully submitted, ~. Mayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc; Public Works Director ,i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO RELEASE OF BOND ON OFF-STREET PARKING Robert F. Adelmann $05 West 772 Street ° Location: 721. West 77 z Street Use: Paint Store ° WHEREAS, Robert F. Adelmann, 805 West 772 Street, Richfield, Minnesota,. r had an off-street park~.ng agreement with the City of Richfield, relating to 721 West 772 Street, which contract bears the designation of Contract No. 220q and which contr. act was guaranteed by a bond of the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, in the amount of $3,250.00., and' WHEREAS, Robert F. Adelmann has complied with the provisions of said agree- went and the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland now seeks to be relieved , of any farther obligation under said bond, and .WHEREAS, there appears to be no justification for requiring Robert F. Adelmann to continue t~ provide a bond for security on the performance of said agreement. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: That the city manager is hereby authorized and directed to release the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for any and all acts or Robert F. Adelmann, committed or incurred in violation of Contract No. 2208 on and after the 12th day of October, 1976. • Adopted. by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th day of October,.. 1976. ATTEST; Loren L. Law Mayor Thomas J. Moran City Clerk <~, I• RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION RELATING TO RELEASE OF BOND ON OFF-STREET PARKING Fred Babcock Post 5555 Veterans of Foreign Wars 710 Lakeshore Drive, Richfield Use: Parking Facilities WHEREAS", Fred Babcock Post 5555, Veterans of Foreign Wars, 710 Lakeshore Drive, Richfield, Minnesota, .had an off-street parking agreement with the City of Richfield, relating to 710 Lakeshore Drive, which contract bears the designation of Contract No. 2055 and which contract was. guaranteed by a bond of the Agricultural Insurance Company, Watertown, New York, in the amount of $x+,875.00, and WHEREAS, Fred Babcock Post 5555 has complied with the provisions of said agreement .and the Agricultural Insurance Company now seeks to be relieved of any further obligation under said bond, and WHEREAS, there appears to be no justification for requirir_g Fred BabcocY> Post 5555 to continue to provide a bond for security on the performance of said agreement. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: That the city manager is hereby authorized and directed to release .the Agricultural Insurance Company, Watertown, New York, for any and all acts of Fred Babcock Post 5555, committed or incurred in.violation of Contract No. 2055 on and after the 12th day of October, 1976. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th day of October, 1976. Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran City Clerk .. „ .. ~ ~ G c CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA. Office of City Manager • Council Letter Flo. 318 :Agenda October '12, 1976_ The Honorable Mayor and ' Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: - Subject: Authorization to Call for. Bids On the October 12, I976 city council agenda there is an item providing for city council authorization"to call for bids; for the. annual excavation, re- moval and disposal of lime residue at the water treatment plant. 'a The bids on residue removal will be opened on November 2, 1976. i . ~ _ Id CITE OF RIC~IFL~LD, MINNESOTA ,. Office of City Manager Cet~ncil Letter No, 3 7: T ', Agenda October 12 , 19-~6 The Honorable IV~ayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Award of Bid for l~oof Reconstruction at Richfield Cortlmunty Center On October 5, 197.6 bids f~,r root reconstruction at the Richfield Comm-unity Center were opened by he city manager.:. The environmental. health director, par}, anal recreation director, city .clerk. and. a :representative from the bidding ', firm v~rere also prosent at the bid opening.. 'The .bid minutes and tabulatiUns are attached for... city. council review. As indicated in the minutes; only one bid was received for the work. The ', other plan Holders have indicated that a lack of time for the bidding and construction prevented their submittal of bids. Because.of the high bid received, the staff is interested in looking at alternate means of completing the work, at lens expense than proposed in the one bid submitted . Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation director, in ', v~~hieh I concur, that the bid for roof. reconstruction at the Richfield Community Center be rejectad; and that staff be directed to investigate further alternates for completing the room reconstruction . ', Respectfully submitted, ~.~..~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager. WS;3/va p I• CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening October 5, 1976 City Project No. 699 Roof Reconstruction/Community Center Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the administrative staff was called by Wayne S. Burggraaff, City Manager, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids on Roof Construction for the Community Center, City Project No. 699; as advertised in the official newspaper on September 22 and 29, 197 6. Present; Wayne S. Burggraaff, City Manager Don Fondrick, Park and Recreation Director Kathy Wilson, Asst. Park and Recreation Director Lil Hipp, Recreation Supervisor Sandy Rosenow, Administrative Aide I. F. Roesler, Environmental Health. Director Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud; BIDDER AND BID SECURITY BASE BID ALT. ONE ALT. TWO ALT. THREE ALT. FOUR ALT. FIVE Ette1 & Franz B. B. 5% $6,130 +$1,575 +$2,573 +360 +$1,595 +$8,278 The City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular council meeting of October 12, 197b. Thomas J. Moran City Clerk .b .. y' f' •~ CITY OF FTCFTFIELD; MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council- Letter No. 316 . Agenda October 12, 1976 The Honorable Mayor ~ ''1 and- M~mbers of the City. Council ~ City of Richfield Gentlemen• < ', Subject: Minutes, Tabulata.on of Bids and Award of Contract for Construction of Pathways at Taft Park On October 5, 1976 bids were opened by the city manager for asphalt path- way work in Taft Park. The environmental health director, park and recreation. director, city clerk and representatives from the bidding firma were also present: at the bid opening. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for city • 'council review.- Two -bids were received for asphalt work on the `pathway system at Taft_ Park. Bituminous Roadways,. Inc. , with a bid of $9, 775 is the lowest respons- ible bidder for this project. As council members-are aware, the present appropriation for the project is derived from the Community Deg,=elopment Block .Grant and the Special Revenue Fund. It is proposed that this contract be assigned to the Community Development Block Grant. The appropriate officers of thee. Community Development Block Grant program have been contacted and this bidder has been confirmed as eligible. . U It is the recommendation of. the. Park and Recreation Advisory Commission and the Park and Recreation Director, in which I concur, tha t, the city council approve the bid minutes,` the tabulation of bids and the attached resolution approving the low bid of Bituminous Roadways in the amount of $9,775.00.. Respectfully submitted, r / ~• G6~~ Wayne S. Burggraaf City Manager ~;'VS B,/e 9 a cc: Park and Recreation Director.. ' Finance Director II I I. i • 'r f O tD ~_ N cn 0 fD O C].. rt .~. O v--~3 3N~0 O 'L3 -P f7 •L7 Z '~ 00 -'• 4' ~--~ N z ~ c ~ J• GC,-5 3fD ~ n Ai O A~ -+• Ll O ~ -+ S 1 --~ .S C ~ OJ ~ N ~ •" O S ~ J• << << < N n ~ a o < o n ~ rr ~o w 3 ~ c+ sy C ~ O (D O ~ ~ • ~ ~ N N ~. ~. p ,. G1. -S ~ ~ a ~ 1 n N ! C ~ --+ c+ c1 N ~J ~• L2 ~ W H CJt CTI C1 ~e ~ ~ • O z v ~ ~ J ~ W O v ~ V N rn ~ m . N ~ r-~ O -~ Z N n O O -~ c•h < l7 n. ~ ~ N ~ l0 [D C3i CD v ~ v ~ ~. Q.. J ~ .1 Q 01 Q. ~ ~ c' 1 (' N lA t x x x x X X s nwn~-~ O ...1. Vl .a. '~y C Ll.b N' ~ O N S<< C ~. O -+ -~ ~ -~..0 c-F "S -~ lD O H y ~ v v. O C1 !D fL fD Z a ¢~~ O ~ ~ O ~-~~o vo •~ v 00-101 N f.1 O SL 00 O ~~ V Q-. m 3 'o 'T pr -S N O v (7 ti• ~..~ ~ l0 Q• V fD CIT V ~{ v rn 9 - RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO • BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS,. INC. FOR ASPHALT WORK ON THE. PATHWAY SYSTEM AT TAFT PARK CITY PROJECT NO. 687 Clerk's Ffle No. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,. Mfnnesota, as follows; 1. That i~ is hereby determined that the bid of Bituminous Roadways, Inc. fs the Lowest bid by a responsible bidder for asphalt work on the pathway system in Taft Park, .City Project No. 687 . 2. That the bid of Bituminous Roadways, -.Inc. for the above referenced project,. at the price- contained in their proposal of October 5, 1976, with a construction cost of $9, 775.00-is hereby accepted. 3. .That the proposed contract between Bituminous Roadways.,. Inc. and the City of Richfield be given clerk's file no. and be placed on file. 4. That said proposed contract for the above referenced project is hereby approved and adopted and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute said contract for or on behalf of the. City of Richfield and the Clerk is authorized and directed to affix the city seal thereto• 5. That payments to be made under the terms of said contract shall be charged against the Project Fund . 6. That the corporate surety bond in the sum of the contract price which accompanies said contract is hereby accepted and approved. 7. That the City Clerk is authorized and directed to return the security documents to the unsuccessful bidders upon the execution of said proposed contract.. - Adopted by the City Council of the City of 1Richfield this 12th day of October, 1976. Loren L. Law ATTEST: Thoma J. Moran City Clerk Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening October 5, 1976 City Project No. 687 Asphalt Pathways/Taft Park Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the administrative staff was called by Wayne S. Burggraaff, City Manager, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids on Asphalt Pathways for Taft Park, City Project No. 687, as advertised in the official newspaper on September 22 and 29, 1976. Present: Wayne S. Burggraaff, City Manager Don Fondrick, Park and Recreation Director. Kathy Wilson, Asst. Park and Recreation " Director Sandy Rosenow, Administrative Aid e I. F. Roesler, Environmental Health Director Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: • BIDDER BID. SECURITY Bituminous Roadways, Inc. 5% McNamara-Vivant Contracting Co. 5% BASE BID $ 9,775 $10,562 7.'he City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular council meeting of October 12, 1976. Thomas J. Moran City Clerk ^ 1 ~ '- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City AZanager Council Letter No. 3TS ~ Agenda October 12 , 1976 - The Honorable Mayor. !- and IVlembers of the,City'Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject;...Award of Bid fs~r Fremont Park Tot Lot Improvements On October 5, 1970, .bids for the redevelopment-of. Fremont Park.. 4~7E?re opened by the city manager. in dccardance with previous city council. authoriza.- Lion. The environmental ;health director, park and recreation. director and city clerk wire also present at the 'oid opening..: The bid. minutes and tak~ulations are attached far city council review, Four bids ware receic~ed for the construction and iristallatiorx of wooden tot lot play apparatus at Fremarit Park. Sacon, Inc. , with ;bid of a5, 9G9.00 is the lowest responsible bidder for this .project. As council members are _ aware, the appropriation for the praject;is derived from the communi y develaptnent block grant and the general revenue sharing fund. -'it is prdposed that this contract be assigned o the: community developrnena block grant. The appropriate officers of the community development block grant program,have keen contacted and the low bidder has been confirmed: as eligible. `It is .the recomrr~endation of the park and recreation director and the park and recreation advisory commission, in which I concur, that the city council approve the bid minutes, 'the tabulation of bids, and the attached resolution approving-the low bid of Socon, Inc;, in the amount of $S , 9 69.00 . a . .; _ Respectfully submitted, ~. i "'r" ~'t.CQ ~ NTayne S. i3urggraaff City Manacer WSB/bll cc: Park and Recreation Director ( r fv w tD Vf c~ n O CD fu c-I- .~. O x~ NNW prJCflN ~+~A f")G~~ O ---+ N ct fy O C'1 -~ N -+ Sv O c-f' „~ N C77 O -,• -~ O V1 O to fL (D ~ ii c-~ • ~ x ~ m ~ ~ ~ s ~ 3 CD O ~~ 3 X fD ~ ~ V ..~ '"v ~ -5 to ..~. c-t c7 ~ _+ n _+. ¢ O ~ ~..,.n ~D~ ~ in~.~ ~• o<o r~cn oo m - N' (D LU ~ C'1' c'h ""S ~ N fv ~ ~ C ~ ct Don ct (D fp fv ? N ~ ~ : < n O ~ . c'h ~ O CTt -,• c+ ? W ~ "'S -~ W CI7 {y4 C") H ~ W ? Vl U7 C51 [D ~ o\\° W O C~ ~ O ~' Z 37 01 t17 V V N V V V V m N l0 W N O ~ O O W ' O t0 O O ~ Z -P W 00 lD O O O O n ~ !1. A • CL C1 t1 t7 A~ Ai Pi ~ Ai A~ J J ~ J ~ ...1 C< ..i u lfl N (~ N N cA fD V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. Q Q. ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ V l0 "S ~ "'S • Ql V al i X X X X x x r >e x x ~c O -+• O ~• D O p:.rtthW O N ~ C •O+• O O '~ D -' -v ct -s -I (D O H y O -p c.,. O (~ •fD -~ fD Z o~~c+O ~ y z .. --~ zs o 00 O 'tS H OW'S alN f7 O iv Ol c+ ci' CJ7 • O D O a' • to N 3 ~• ..S -n V "f NO~ f7 ct ~ ~ O ~{. ~ s V N 'O ~ ~ ~ t37 7C° v .~i V r r - .. - - a .. RESOLUTION) NO, RESOLUTION ACCEPTiNIG BID AND AVTARDING CONTRACT TO SOCON, INC. FOR COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF TOT LOT PLAY APPARATUS AT FREMONT PARK CITY PROJECT NO. 665 Clerk's Fiae No. ~~ EE IT RESOL~JED by "the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows 1 1. That it is hereby determined that the bid of Socon, Inc.. is the lowest bi.d by a_responsible bidder for the complete construction and installation of tot lot play apparatus at Fremont Park, City Project No. X65. 2. That the bid. of Socon, Inc, for the above referenced, project, at the price contained in their proposal of October 5, 1976, with construction cost of $5,969.00 is hereby accepted. 3. That the "proposed contract between Socon, Inc. and the City of Richfield be givAn clerk's file no. and be placed on file . • 4. That said proposed contract for the above referenced project is hereby approved and adopted and .the Mayor and City Manager are hereby directed and authorized to execute said contract for or on behalf of ` the. Ciay of Richfield and the Clerk is authorized and directed to affix .the city .seal thereto. S. That payments to be made under the terms of said contract shall be charged against the Project Fund. 6. That the corporate surety bond in the sum of the contract price which accornpani.es said contract is hereby accepted and approved. 7 , That the City: Clerk i.s authorized and .directed to return the security documents~to the unsuccessful bidders upon the execution of said proposed contract. Adopted by the City Council of 'the City of Richfield this 12th day of October, 1976.'. Loren L. Law ATT3~ST: Thomas J. Moran pity Clerk Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening October..5, 1976 City Project No. 665 Tot Lot Play.Apparatus/Fremont Park Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the administrative staff was. called by Wayne S. Burggraaff, City Manager, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids on Tot Lot Play Apparatus for Fremont Park, City Project No. 665, as advertised in the . official newspaper on September 22 and 29, 1976. ' Present: Wayne S. Burggraaff, City Manager Don Fondrick, Parke and Recreation Director Kathy Wilson, Asst. Park and Recreation Director Sandy Rosenow, Administrative Aide I. F. Roesler, Environmental -Health Director Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk The following.. bids were submitted and read aloud: • __ _ BIDDER BID SECURITY BASE.BID Arteka,.Inc: All American Recreation & Sales, Inc. Socon, Inc, 5% $7,200 5% $7,300 Certified Check $350 $5,969 Bituminous Roadways,. Inc. 5% $6,200 The City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular council meeting of October. l2, 1976. Thomas J. Moran City Clerk ^~;, I: ,;1- r CITY OF 1ZICIyEIELD MINNESOTA Offi^e of City 1Vla~nager Council Letter No. 314 Agenda October 12, l y 7 6 The Honorable Mayor and• ' Members- of the City Council - Gity of uichfield Gentlemen: Subject: Proposed Amendment Regulating the Licensing and Playing of Bingo At the September 27, 1976 city council meeting the city council. gave first reading consideration to an ordinance amendment providing for city licensing and regulation of bingo names. At that meeting the council requested staff to propose a daily permit fee for these organizations which would be conducti.~g bingo games less often than five times annually, - The city clerk and the-public safety director have reviewed the costs which the city would, incur ir. processing a daily bingo permit. The daily permit. would be reviewed by the public safety department so that a patrol of the aria where the game would be conducted can be scheduled. It is also necessary that the organization receiving the permit file an annual report with ' the city and that the' finance department review this- report,. Based on these activities which would have to be conducted far each permit holder, it is recommended that a daily permit fee of $30 be established. This fee would be expected to cover the city`s costs for processing the daily permit. It is recommended that the city council give second reading consideration to the attached ordinance amendment, Respectfully subm'tted, ~'. n ~~~ VlTayne S. Burggraaff City Manager ti'VSB/e j a cc: Public Safety Director l'inanre Director 4,i s I.. . ~ _ AMENDMENT.' TO CHAPTER V, . PART II, SECTIOPd 5.19 - ~ ~ OF ~~"HE ORDIPIAVCii CODE ~ . • ~ OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF~RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: • Chapter V, Part II, Section 5.19 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to the licensing and play- ,ing of bingo is .hereby amended to read as follows: - t, 5. l9 ~ Bingo ~ - Subdivision 1. Definitions. The following terms shall have the meaning. given to them by P~finnesota Statutes, 1976, Section 349.12: (1) Active member - {2) Bingo. - ~. g g P .[Section 349.03] 1976, Chapter 349, shall apply to the clerk for a license before conducting the game of bingo • within the city. Bingo may not be conducted until the (3) Bingo occasion (4) Checker (5} Lawful purpose (fi) Organization (?) Profit (8) Bingo manager Subd. [1) 2. License Required. Any [associat~.on] organ- ization authorized to apply for a bingo license [conduct the ame of bin o] ursuant to Minnesota Statutes, license is issued. -Subd. [2] 3. Application. Application shall be made on forms prepared for that purpose by the city clerk. Applications shall be verified by a duly appointed oFficer az the organization and (signed) by the person desicrnat^d by the organization as,bir_go manager [conducting, operating and managing the game). Applications shall state the dates for erhich permission to play the game is requested and the place where the games t,•~ill be played.. The city. clerk may require additional information on~the application for the. purpose of carrying out the provisions of this section. Subd [3] 4. Change i.n [Association] Or~~.ni~,._on . Officers or Bingo ~ anager. If during__thhe periodfor which the icense is issue there is a change in the officers of the [association] organization, or 7.n the person designated to act as bingo manager, a new application disclosing such change Must be made and filed t~~ith the city clerk. _ 1 ~ ,. . `" -2 Subd. [~] 5. License Fie and License Year. [There is no license 'fee] T11e annual" i~e-`~`sfia~I'1 be $ '. The annual .license shall run from .7anuary 1 to December 31~'` of the year. . Subd . 5 . $nnr~ - (1) At the time of filing the application, the UCb 1.1j 11CY I.CU iJ 1. 11_~V 1tIGl llCt Lj Ct 511U.L 1. L 11G- W 1. l,l l i~1lG - city clerk a bond with corporate surety duly licensed to do business in the State of Minne- --,._-.. sofa. Such bond shall. be in the amount of $10,000.00 and shall be subject to approves l the city attorney as to form and execution. The bond shall run in favor of the organization conducting the bingo activity and conditioned as follo~,rs: (a) The designated bingo manager will obey. all ordinances and statutes relating to the . licensed activity. - (b) The designated bingo. manager shall fully -and .faithfully perform his duties. » - (c) The bond may not be cancelled for any reason ~.~ithout the written consent of the city and then only after- at least 30 days written notice of intention to cancel . the bond. (2) The citX counc~.l may upon unanimous vote waive the bonding requirement. If waived, the license shall state that it is issued with a waiver of- surety bond. - (3) Should there be any change in the designated bingo manager during the license year, the ne~a • bingo manager shall, before assuming his duties, comply ~~ith all of the bond rec{uirements of • ~ this subdivision. Subd. [5] 7.~ Approval and Issuance of Ylicense ~ The - application shall be referred to the [city police d'e- partment] Police and fire divisions of the Public Safety Department, to the inspection division of the Public [4or}cs Department and to such other persons or departments as the city manager shall eleen appropriate for invest- igation and recommendations. The application shall .thereupon be returned to the city manager ~•~ho'shall note .his. o~an recommendations.and comments thereoh. The appli- cationshall be then presented to the council for fines]. approval or denial. The council .may not act. on the .~ -3- application until at ].east'30 day after it has been - submitted in completed form; and must act within lII0 days of s*abmission. _'" Subd. 8. Cand:itions Governing Issuance. The follot,rin g conditions govern the issuance of licenses pursuant to .this section• (l) [The licensee. shall not conduct the game on any . date nor at any place other than those dates and " places enumerated ire the application] No license shall be issued~to an organization whose desist-- _. ,. ~ Hated manager, or anv organization officer, has ' ~ , been convicted by ar_y court of competent juris- . diction of anv offenses which relates to"the " - competency of the designated,manager or the organ-_ . ~ ization to perform the licensed activity. ... (2) [No game_of bingo shat], be played more than ttaice a week or. the carne premises, nor for a . _ period Longer than four hours on 'any-one days nor beyond the calendar year during which the 4 first date covered by the license is played.] Licenses shall be issued only upon applications which are complete in every respect and~have been accompanied by the pa~~ment of the annual license fee and fils_ng of the bingo manager's surety bond. . . r (3} jBimgo may be played only in the hall trhere ~ regular meetings-of the association are held.... unless otherwise permitted by the council.] ', ~[ (4) ] i~To license shall be issued to any [associ- ation] organization unless such [association) #: organization .has existed in'thecity for at least ' (two] three years prior. to the date of appl- cation. This restriction shall not apply if the [association] organization rlaking appli- ~~ cation is, or is a subsidary of, an~~ religions, ' charitable or fraternal organization, of nationa]_ or statewide jurisdiction tvhich has beon in existence [in excess of two] at least three years. ~..(4} No license. shall be issued to any organization which does not have, cm the date of application,_ at )_east 30 active members. . "{5) No license shall be issued to any organization " whose designated bi n~_ma.nager i_s not a mem Er r in good standincr of the organization and who hz_s not~been a member. for-at toast two years prior-' ' to the date sin wliic~z <~pplzcaticn made. [(5) The game of-bingo shall not be operated or played by any person unca:er the ache .of eighteen years except tahei~ such person is accompanied '' by 1~1is parent or c~uardiari.) ,~ t '~ ` `~ ((~ [The game of bingo may be conducted only by _ r~lerc-bers of the l~:censed association. No member shall r_eceivccompensation of any kind for` his servi ces in conducting ;the "~ game in'excess o~ the compensation provided by State Law, and no. person shall assist in operating the game unless he has been and is a member or the spouse of a .member in good standing of. the association. for at least . be licensed one year. t3o organization may ith- i ses w to conduct bingo on any leased prem at least equal - out a' written 1,ease for a term the term of th_e bingo license sought. to . Leases ayments shall be at a". fixed monthly rate car rate per' bingo occasion, not sub- sect to' chance durine~ the `term of the lease. No such Tease s~ia11" provide .that rental pay- ment be. based oz~ a percentage of receipts, . or pro{`ts" froze' bingo occasions . 5ubd. 9 . ~onditorls r uPrni ng.S_s~n~tir~ of Bi ncro (l~. bingo manager shall not be thee bingo manager The _ for any o"ther organization. ( 2) No coznpensatien sl2all be paid to any person . _ in connection wth.'a bingo occasion except an active member of t e organization, or its auxillaxy,' or 'cite spcuse or suriving spouse • _ o~-a r_ "active rle~i~~er, con ~:~cting the s~ingo occasion nor s;na"l~ any parson not an active. mem`~er of "the ~.rranization or its auxil cry or t e spouse ~r'surviving spouse o an active member uarticipate in t e con..uct o a Ingo occasion,` excep~ ~;~ reso3ution o a majority o~tho rrtem.bersizip'"recorded in t'_ne of zcia nanutes of the org~.nization. Non-management _~~_,. assistants who are' not active me, ers o t e organiza~ t o or its auxy cry, or t e spouse or surva~v?ng spoua~ of an active mem er may be h.ir~c~ to ass st mem. ers in con ucting t e not exceed ~ " - Compensate on s a Ingo c~cc~.sion. .00 per' Lngo"c~CCasion. , (3~ Unless the city council shall so provide'in " the license, no more than 104 bingo occasions each year or two 'bingo occasions per week may be conducted by the organization. " Dio bingo occasio'.~ shall ..:'continue for more -than four 'consecutive hour_ s 9 ~ ^ . ~ v ~. ,_ ::. -, • -5- •(4) Anx person or corporation, other than ah organi- ' nation, which leases any premises that it owns • to two ar more.o~anzations for purposes in- ~ eluding thcconduct of bingo. occasions, shall . ° not allow more than four bingo occasions to be ' conducted on the premises in~any week.. (5) Any organization which leases any premises to ' one or more Wither organizations for purposes in- cludinq the conduct of bingo occasions shall use the proceeds of theren-cal, less reasonable sums for maintenance, furnishings and other • ' necessary expenses, only for lawful purposes as 1 defined in Minnesota Statutes, 1976, Section 349.12. At the end of each license year-the organization shall report to the city clerk the disposition of all receipts cahich it has - . received during the license period from the .rental on its facilities to other organizations _ for purposes including: the conduct' of bingo occasions. ~. (6) Prizes for a single bingo game- shall not e exceed $100 -00 e~>cept for prizes, fora game of the type commonly known as a "cover-all".game which shall he in aggragate value. not. exceed $500.00. T . _ aggragate of prizes for a bingo occasion shall not exceed $2,500.00, except that t•~hen the bingo occasion includes a "cover-all" game, the aggragate of prizes shall not exceed $3,000.00". ~~ Merchandise prizes shall be valued at fair market retail value. (7) No expense shall be incurred or .amounts, paid in connection with the conduct of bingo, except those reasonably expended for bingo supplies and equipment, prizes, rent, or utilities used during the bingo occasion, bingo license fees, 'taxes related to bingo and cennen~ation to active member_ s iJhO conduct the came . {g) ,Each bingo ~ainne_r shall be determined and- every prize shall be .awarded and delivered the same day on which the bingo occasion is conducted. ' (9) All bingo occasions shall be under the direct supervision of the designated b.~rigo manager crho shall be responsible for gross receipts and profits from bingo and for the conduct of the liingo occasion in corlpl nce ~•n.th all ap~lzcabl.e statutes and ordinances. `~ ~; ;, i . . t -. _6_ {10) IIinc~o shall not be conducted on dates or at ,. places oi.her than those-dates and places enumer- ated in the application. {11) Bingo may be played only in the ha_l1 where recJular meetings on the organization are held .unless otherwise 'permitted by the council. (12} Bingo shall not be played by any person under eighteen years of-age unless accompanied by his parent or legal guardian. Subd. [7] 10. Recording Players and Receipts. [Each association permitted to play bingo shall keep a perm- anent record containing the names and addresses. of all winners of przes'of a value of one hundred dollars or more and the dates-when such prizes were awarded.] One or more checkers shall be engaged for each bingo occasion. The checker or checkers shall record the number of ,cards .played in each game riot to the coripletion of each game 'and record the prizes awarded to -the recorded cards . Each checker shall certify:`all.figures which 'he has recorded as accurate and correct to the best of his knowledge. This record shall.be kept on file by the 'association c•~thin the city and shall be open to inspec-. tion by city polies officers. Su_b_d 11. Records Each organization shall keep records . of its gross receipts and profits for each bingo occasion. Gross receipts shall be compared to the ..checker's records for the bingo occasion by a person who did not sell cards for the bingo occasion. All deductions from gross re- ceipts or other records. The distribution of profits shall be itemized as to ayee, amount and date of pav- ment. Bingo gross receipts shall be segregated from other revE~rues of an arc;~nization ar.:1 ~lace~? in a separate account. Each or anizaton shall mairtair, separate records of its bingo .operations.' The person cvizo; accounts-for bingo gross receipts and profits shall not be the same erson tiaho accounts for other revenues of the organization Records required to be kept.by this ordinance and by Minnesota Statutes, 1976, Chanter 3n9 shall be preserved for at least three years. Licensees shall make their Dingo records available to the pol?ce department at an reasonable time and after proper .notice . ~~ ;~` ~\ e. Any lease agreemcrts required by this ardin~zncG executed by the organization in ': xegard to preiniscs leased for the conduct '. of bingo. Subd. 13. Revcicati~n or. Suspension of l'~i_cense_ 'i`fie license i:~ay ~e revo :~ec or susponc.e rev o city manager tahenever the licensee, its o~~ners, directors, bi_n:~o manager,. or employees or agents Izave engaged in any o~ the iollowiaig conduct: (1) Fraud, rlecention o.r. misrepresentation in connection caith the securing of a license (2} Conduct inimical to the interests of public health, saf_ ety, _tael fare or morals . (3) Conduct involving moral turpitude` (4) Convictior: for an offense involving moral turpitude or relating to the conduct of trie licensed activity. (5) ~'ai].ure to promptl.y comply tait.h any of the re- c?tii.re?~?ents or. Lhis ordinance or state lacrs re- lating to bingo. • ((,) Engaging in activity, action or change tal~ich ..~, would have disqualified licensee fxo.~, obtain- . ing a license. • The matter shall then proceed as provided in Richfield Ordinance Code 5.14 Subda.vision 9. Subd. 14. Penalty. Any alleged violation of the provis- • ions of this section t•~hich shall also constitute a vie- ~.c~itlOn Of l:fic'• :?rOVls~.On:i O?• !''•i?nIleSOta S~.:a~tlte5~ 176, Chapter 3~ 9 s~all first be pr•~sent~d ~.o she o~ ~ i Cc of ti,e Hennepin County Attorney for prosecution of a gross rais-- demeanor. In' any instance tahere the county attorney shall decline, for_ any reason to prosecute the alleged va.olatioTl, and in al1_ other rases involving alleged violations of this section the' matter shall be pre- sented to the city attorney for:.prosc.cution as a mis- dcmcanor." Subd15. ~xistinq Licenses. 1111 _licenses heretofore issued shall_ termi_nat.e upon i:llc effective date of i:his ordinance. ~~ny or anizata_on ~•rhose licensor is .termin- ated mt.i~,t c_casc conczuct:a_nq b.ncjo not~l.atar th~zii ~`t•~er.ty _ da~r,: tlie:l_c~aS=i er unl.c~ss wathi.n 1:1~a_t. period ii-y m`i}:es- a,~~J.icatiori as zl~ot~c proviciecl~ zf ripp.l.i_cal.i.or! i~; made, i ~~ - Subd. 12. Reports and `Applications.. . (1) If any discrepancy is found between the amount • • ~ of gross receipts for a bingo occasion as de- - ~ termined by the ckec}:en's records and the amount _ ~ ofgross receipts, as determined by totaling the • cash receipts and the discrepancy exceeds $20.00•, the disr_rcpancy shall be reported to the city ' •• clerk within five business days of its discovery. •'• ~ {2} An orgari:ization shall report monthly to its • ~ nembe`i~ship dross receipts fro^~ binc_~o, its profits ----- ~`- • ' k t; ' n o f those profits f -. ~~ •~ f rUm binc}o and the dxs ~z i ~u io itemized as required by subdivision 11 of this Section. ~ At least 30 days prior to conducting its first bingo occasion of the license year, ar. •organi- zation shal)_ file with t'rIe city cler}: copies of the fallo~•r.i_ng: - a. Department of the Tr_easur}~, Internal Revenue • Service, "P,eturn of Qrc~anization F'};emit front Income .Tax, " For 990, or a ce^~I:~arable form if - . the organization is required to file the font . with the Department of the Treasury; b. Department of Treasury; Internal Revenue Ser- vice, "Exempt Oraanizatior~ Business Income Tax, "Form 99U-T, or a corlparable form~if the organization is required to file the form with the Department of the Treasury;. • c. The annual report required of charitable organizations by r~sinnesota Statutes 197 Section 309.53, provided that an organization that conducts bi nc;o but i s e::el~~~. front Sub[Cilttln~ tf11~~ ~_?7ort. ~O tl1' _-- Commerce under.secticn 309.53, subdivision la, shall nevertheless submit such a report under this sub~ii_vision; d. The Piinnesota Department of Commerce "State-- r,~ei~t of .Bingo Operations . " ~'~"11 information conta~nec-' in the statement shall .be true, correct, and complete to the best of_ the kno~aledc~e of the~crson or persons s~.gning t}7~atc~moi~t. E~ny person who shall kliot:~iltgly make a false :,tai:cment or kliocetllc}.Ly concoal a mater i.al far t. a_.i the statel;ir_ni; ;ha 1.1. beJ S sul~jr-.c_t to t}io penalties provided a.n sul.~- • division 14' oi: this ~~ect5_on. ~g_ th;e organization may continue `to 'co'nd'uc't bin ~o unt' 1 the counc~_l sha 11 act upon the application and tllere- after if a license is granted. Subd. '16. Exempt~oms zn lied of obtaining the annual incense as provided inin this section,- daily permits may .;, be issued, covering the conduct of bingo if conducted• Cl~_ hn-connection v~=ith a county. fair conducted by a count~agriCUltural society or associ- anon, th.e state faire conducted the state ~ ___ _ agricultural society, or a civic celebration recognized by resolution or ather's'imilar action by the city council provided that bingo zsnot conducted more than twelvecon- ~secutive days in any one calendar year (2). 13y an orc~anizatiori t~hich conducts less than .five bingo occasions in any calendar .year.. Application for dail permits shalh be on forms ~re- pared ror the City Clerk for that purpose. Applications shall. be presented to the .council. for itsa proval. The daily permit fee shall be and the city council may. waive all or part of the fee. The council may also place such conditions and restrictions upon the .daily permit. as it shall deem necessary ~ Passed by the City .Council of the City of Richfield, . Minnesota: this day of 1976. , Loren .Law, Mayor ATTEST:. Thomas Moran, City Clerk 3' ~_ f £ - ~ . `:: CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager . Council Letter No. .313 i . Agenda October 12, 1976' ~ The Honorable Mayor and ..Members of the City Council. ` Gity of Richfield ` Gentlemen: Subject; Ordinance Amendment Relating; to Open Ignitions For some time the public safety department has experienced difficulty. in dealing with problems of vandalism or mischief created by vehicles left with open ignitions. The present city ordinance (9.02, subdivision 1) addresses only open ignition prob- le;ms as related o passenger automobiles.: However, open ignitions on trucks, campers and., particularly, construction equipment create problems just as signifi- cant as those experienced with 'automobiles. ~ i ~ In an attempt to resolve this problem, the city attorney has prepared two prcposed ordinance amendments. The first amendment would expand the present automobile ignition regulation to include all motor vehicles. The second amendment would ex- pand the .present public nuisance ordinance (10.01, subdivision 4, .part 12) to provide ` for ignition locking requirements on construction equipment. f i It is the feeling of the public safety director, in which I concur„ that these amendments to city ordinance would help us better control these public safety f problems. Both of the proposed ordinances prepared by the city attorney are attached to this council letter. It is recommended that the city council give first reading ~ consideration to these ordinance amendments at the October 12; 1976' city council meeting. ~' Respectfully'sub 'tted, ~/, U Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager w .~,g _ . .. ;; f r - ~ ~. - AMEPIDA~Ef1T TO CHAP`l''EF? TY SECTION 9 . (~2 Off' THE ORDI~:P.tCE • CODE OF THx' CITv Or RIC%iFIELD CITY OF P.ICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter IX, Section 9. ~2, Subdi vision 1 of the Orc?finance Code of the City of Richfield relating to lockir_g vehicles i_s Hereby amended to read as follo~•;s:. • "9.02 SPECIFIC REGULATIONS - PARKING. Subdivision. 1. [Locking Vehicles] Securi na zcrnitions . Any person parking a [passenger_ au o-~0 1_e rotor ve s.c1e on a city street or alley or in anv city par?wing area sliall [lock] secure the ignition so that it rtay then Hat be started by another. If the ignition is secures? by a'key, the person stall rer.!ove the key arc? .take it with him." Passed by the City Council of the City of R.icnfield, Minnesota this day of , 1976. . Mayor •~ ATTEST: City Clerk I• ., Y~:~ .« ar AMETJDR?ENT TO CHAPTER X, , PAP.T I, SECTIOT~7 10. Q1 OF `T'FTE ~. ORDIAIANCE CODE OL' THE CITY OF P.ICHFIELD . CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES OP,DAIr:: ' Chapter. X, Part I, Section 10.01 of the Ordinance Code of the. City of Richfield relating to public nuisances is hereby amended by amending subdivision ~, p~ragr_aph (12) thereof to read ~ as follows: " (12)_ All dangerous, unguarded machinery, ir_cludinc~ parked and unattended construction equipment and construction vehicles ~•~hose igniti.ens are unsecured, _. in any public place, or so situated or operated on private property so as to attract the public." Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Tlir_nesota this day of , 1976. .~~".. _ Flavor r CITY OF:'RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City N[anager Council ~,etter'No. 312 Agenda October 12, 1976 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen:.., Subject: Request .for Variance, 6301 Dupont Avenue Mr, ana Mrs. Larry Pfleiderer, 6301 Dupont Avenue have. requested a variance to Section"3.39, subdivision 3, paragraph 8, which requires that a garage be set 20-.feet back from the lot line where. the garage doors face a street.. The requesf is to permit the garage to be built 14 feet from the sidayard lot line. The applicants are proposing to construct a large double garage (24' x 30') in their rear yard, with adcess from ~i3rd Street.. (Exhibit A --site plan). • Ba ckgt ound The proposed garage would be an accessory building to a single family home.. Both would be situated on a narrow 40' x 128' corner lot. The house conforms to all other. required setbacks. .Zoning .Requirement A request for a variance must be judged in accordance with the conditions set forth in. Section 3.40, subdivision. 6 of the- city zoning ordinance. If the conditions .for granting a ,variance are present on the property, the city council . should approve the variance. If all the conditions are not present on the property, the city council should deny the variance request. . :Staff Review and Recommendation Staff has reviewed. this proposal for the conditions set forth in; Section 3.40, subdivision 6, of the city zoning ordinance.. 1. That there': are special circumstances or conditions affecting the particulars use referred to in the application, not common to other properties in this or similar districts. '~, It is the opinion of tY~c staff that there is a special circumstance'p~rtcular to .this ~, l Council' Letter No. 312 -2- Oetoher 12, 1976 property. The narrow width of the lot (40') would prevent the, construction of a .garage with the standard depth of 22' - 24' . 2. Tha the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation. and enjoyment of substantial property rights. It is the opinion of :staff that this variance is necessary for the preservation of sub tantial property rights. Thy denial of this variance would prevent the applicants from full use of their property. - 3. That the granting of the application will not materially and ad- versely affect. the health `or safety of persons residing or working, iri the neiglborhbad of the property of the applicant and will not - be materially detrimental'to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvamen s in the neighborhood. It;s the opinion of the staff that the granting of the variance :will not materially and adversely affect the health and safety of the neighborhood or be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements. The garage 4vould set back 14 feet from the property line. An additional 12' of street right-of-way '> would `be available following the construction of permanent :streets in this area . This: would permit adequate driveway parking one car deep without hanging over - the'curb line or presenting a hazardous situation. • Staff recommends approval of the request-for variance because all three conditions necessary for granting a variance are present on the property. Planning Commission Recommendation .At its regular meeting of September 28, 1976 the planning commission recomm- ..ended approval of this request for variance based on the commission's conclusion that the criteria for granting. a variance was present. Respectfully submitted, UJ- V""'°' ~• _. ~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Planning Director i - -. _ _ _. , - ,,. _. .. ._ , .: .. _ . , R 63rd ST. EXHIBIT A 12~ as psr proposed 1977 paving plan.. o .~~ . ~~ _ _ -_ , ~_ 14~ 30~ ~ Non-upgrod d p Alley ~~ N Proposed Gorage 2 I N N Scale: l~~_ 20~ Site Plan ^ ;,~: 6 :r a~ - . CLTY OF RICZ-IFIELD, 'M?NNESUTA I Office. of City Manager Council Letter No, 311 I Agenda .October 12 , 19 7 6 i The Honorable Mayor ...and . •Members of the City Council City of Richfield 'Gentlemen• Subject: Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance 7545 Emerson Avenue 1VIr, and-Mrs. Marvin D. Meyer, 7545 Emerson Avenue, .have requested a ;variance to Section 3.30, subdivision 4, paragraph 3, which require a ten foot side: yard when a home exceeds one and one-half stories in height. The request I, is to permit a sideyard setback of eight feet. The applicants are proposing to reconstruct their one and one-half story home into a two story home. No ground level expansion is proposed.. I Background .. • The structure is a single family ~horrie situated on a corner lot. The property is .:.zoned. for single family residential. There are 20 feet between this house and ~ the house immediately to the north. Eight feet of this separation is the present sdeyard for the home requesting the .variance. This setback exceeds the standard for a one and .one-half story home, but would not be in conformance with the ten foot. setback required for a two story house. The house conforms to all other 'setback requirements. Zoning Requirement ~ I A request fora variance must be judged in accordance with the conditions j set forth in Section 3.40,- subdivision 6 of the zoning ordinance. .If -the .conditions for granting avariance-are present on the property, the city council should approve the variance. 'If all the conditions are not present on the property, the city '~, council'should deny the variance- request. Staff Review and Recommendation '~ Staff has reviewed this proposal for the condition set forth in Section 3.40-, subdivision 6, of the .city zoning ordinance . ~ I Council better No. 311. ~ -2-, Qctober 12, lyi6 i 1, ` That there are. special circums ances ar conditions `affecting the • particular use referred to' in the application, not common to other . properties in this or similar districts . - It is the. opinion.. of the staff that .there are no special circumstances or conditions which .affect this property. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for he preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. ` It is the opinion of staff .that: this variance is not necessary for the preser- nation-of substantial property rights. The denial of this variance does not prevent the applicant from full use of their property as a single family re idence.. Expansion of the living area- can. be built at ground level. 3. That the granting of the application will not materially and and adversely affect affect the heaith or safety of persons re -- siding 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 orimprovement's in the neighborhood. It is he opinion of staff that the granting of the variance will riot materially and adversely affect the health and safety of the neighborhood or be detrimental to • the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements. 3f this variance is granted, the burden of maintaining the minimum separation between dwellings -'will then be with the property. owners to the north. _ _ _ .. It is the recommendation of staff that the request' for variance be denied be- cause all three conditions .required for granting a variance are not present on the property. Planning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of September 28, 1976, the planning commission recommended :approval of this request for variance based on .the commission's conclusion trot the .criteria far. granting a ,variance was met. . ~e~pectfully submitted, ._ (~,~~ ilVayne S. Burggraaff Gity Manager WSB/eja . _ . • ` cc: Planning Director t t f ~. } /f .~ ~ ( ,(. t~ .1 -f t ~ ! !~` f ~ t. r~~ ~~ ~ a • :- : ~ i ~ F ~ ~: s ~ f ~ ~ t ~..y 'i ~ t i p S i ~ f n' f i (~ ~ I ; ry T" tf r l ~ { ~ }~ f f'-~ ;} 1 C r ~ f ~ t j i ~ ~ ~ 1 4h+` ~~ f f, ~ ~ r `( ~ 1 ~ ~ ()((j ~~ 7 } i 7 ~~ ~ ~ ~ F i~ + ! ~ ~ ~ ~ i f ~i t ~ ~ I. ~ ~ ~ ~ j ; ~ ~`~ J1J1J1 ~ :~ ~ ~ ~ i .. .R J ~ ~ P i ! ~".. i, P }~".~ 1~ i i k R ' ~ ' ~~ E ~ ~ ~ ' ~; t i f ` f { ~; t E ~ t i ~ ~ i ~ ! _ t ; ~ ~~; ~ a ~. ((~ ~, n ~ ~~~ ~ . a~ ,,, r r <~ •. ~- S - ~ ~ ~.. ~ ~#} 1 ~ ~ 5 ~,,: a _ , _.... 2 t _-_ ` t ~ ~ ~ ,..,. .., . ~ ', ~ S/ _ ~~ I e ,,jjf t j7 f {1 ~y~ ~~ _ ~. i ~~Pa 4`cgi i._ ( ) 111 . i y R r dc[l~'Y'`C1P~` v ~ f ~~~aa n ,,^`~~' ~ i s`.'~" j,"* ' 1 t ~~s ( t I ~ ,~ ~ 4 ,, '" f Vii. i;a o.:c L!E~~ S11•'j t : , ~ S ~ ~ ~ { ,F {t ~ - it 1. l SS} (`} 1 ..... .. .. .: ~ ._:.. t. _:.. .... .. j ... -.. _. _... gy' ... ,._._... { (~ i' ~ .w T I { - l ~' *~ ,..;~• t ~ fast' ~ ~ 3~v 1 ` Lt ~,~5 uj C `.A _ 1 f ~ L ?y G 3 (} - __ 1` ~ a 'E.~ y t ~ .~,~. ~:~ t L .ASS" ~, 1 -. _ __ .... ~--~--w... _ F '~ r ~_...i._.._ ___ ~ ' ': , . f zw F. ,. . ._ ,. . ~ #s: ~ ~ , ,. .. ~ ~._ r: ' l ~ R '#, X :.} . ... _ . ' ~ f ., ~xh~b~t 17 . _ __ Subd. 4. Regulatioxxs Relating to lintels, Motels, Restaurants and Cafes. A special use permit shall not be granted for a. hotel, motel, restaurant or cafe unless tine council finds that the proposed. use will: be in supstantial compliance uri.th the following standards:. (a) -The use will not create undue traffic h~~ards rar. traffic congestion either on the public streets adjacent t.o the site or on the parking areas on or adjacent to the site or on streets adjacent to the site unto which traffic 'to or frbm the site is clxannaled. (b) Adequate provision will be made,. through the use of buildi.~g set- backs, buffer areas, screening, and exterior treatment or placement of the building on the site to avoid noise, glare, fumes, dust, and-.'any other sources of nuisance Qr annoyance to adjacent properties'. • (c) Adequate provision will be made t'rxz~ougl: the use ref bKz:i.lding setbacks, screening, landscaping, ext~:rior design and placement of the building oxY the site to avoid noise, glare, fumes, dust,, and any othet sources of nuisance cr . annoyance to users, or patrons of the facility. (d)~ Adequate off--street parking space is available for patrons and em- ployees. . (e) If liquor is to be sold on .the premises (i) the property ab~~ts upon a major street, (2) access to all off-street parking spaces is from internal driveway systems and is not directly from public streets, and (3) provision xs made for well--designed vehicular stacking space allowing for ail efficient and orderly flow of traffic from the site onto adjacent major streets. (f) The proposed facility will provide an aesthetic appearance which will not detract from or conflict Faith the existing or proposed architectural forms of buildings in the same aria. The use will not create an excessive burden on public parks, public (g) - utilities re uirin ublic services which are proposed ens ace streets, or q g P oP P to serve the facility. (li) The proposed development caill not conflict with the comprehensive ~ development plan of the city. _ ..._.: ~. _ ~ . Y •® I t , ."~ ,~ ~ - . . :, ~ e . ~.. ~ ~ ~' t ,ia s! _ ;~ . ~ ~' , '. . . .. ~ M 1 . ~ ~ :,w._ .,, 4 ~ ~ ~. ~; l - Gi ---~- I, l 76 SO , i 1 rs~s ~' s'r ~ zs I t ---, L.9 I t ' -, i ~ _ _ _ ~~t r~~ ~ _100 ~tl~ ~ W ~ O i~ ~ ~ t~ ~ ~y 20 (7733 77[t i 1 r 1112 .~00~ 7701 --~ 1,'645 ~9 3S i5 jl ' IT OA 7601 J J Q - ^.1 L~ QO of fri V+ ~ W N -" o ~~ ~~ ,~ r `, ' 1644 3d 32 26 20 ~ 4 OB 7600 DtJPOiVT ~ w G w. N' Y~~~ww r ~ ? C _ .~ I ~ ~/ ~~ I ~ 77z s ~ ., ~j T6a`~I i0 ~3 7 2 2! !5 09 ~_J 1 LJ t_J , + i.--J ' l~ I u !_ ~O t , ~ O I ~ i~ : ~ l~ ~; ~~~ ~J I~ ~~ u ~ ~ a ~ i .i' _ QA~ ~>z 32 26 70 , 1< 03 _ 7b4; • I 37 S 3 12 9 L1 ~ j ; J' ~ J , l_ ~; w .~ ~~n-rn l-~ N - O ~ I I y~ _.~o 754 4J :6 32 ~ 28 .+5 41 37 S3 ty -- ~- - __ I t_. i1 t_.~ . _ ~! ~ ! W A I tJ~ 161_i~ N - Q; cQ ICA ~ i ! rte' . 7 I __~ ~ ~ . J 1. _ ' I _~ C4 ,40 3E~ 32 1 _COLFAX ~ 3 [7_ =1 5 r09 ~~ 7601 45 +a, g_ _-- J ~ - ~ ~i ( ~ L~ 1. ~ _.~ ~ ! .. . ~ ~ - I ~ I J ~ W .A ~• ' ~ _ _i V IAA f X11 ._'r j~'~ 7545, 4' . 37 ~ ' ' ._. _~ ~ , ...~ ,: j i; _c la ~ ~Q I/6~c 44 4C F 3 .. c+ ALC~~IC~ sT~T lI-~15 Oi T60! 7545 4! S' ~ 'S 2y -T-~ ~- ~ N ~ w (.A j in `~ 4fi ~~ trip D~~e~tD meat I ~--, I t }P 4A~ 4 aiC~ w: '30 ~£; 26' : ? Id ~0 is '1 21~ 09 I 7 ~r.r. 3 n - --- -' _ . -- -. .~ ~~ (~i N " `a its ;~ , ,~- ~SQ'l (_-~' j~ l ' ~ ~~'~. : .~ .n .. ; ~ __, - .. 1 .. r' IIS i r• ~ S~pterrber 28, 1976 WEtiRMAN b. keith wenrman CHAPMAN b. b. Chapman ASSOCIATES toy a, andersar, INC john o. bergly i ~ r;chard d. fredlund Charles a. Wittenberg Richfield Ciry Council and C%ty-Planning Commission 6700 Portland Avenue South ' Lichfield, Minnesota 55423 ~lonorable Chairman and Panning Commission: ' d ask your #avorable consideration of this request, for a sideyard variance for Marv ~~, end Diane Meyer, so that they may add a second floor to their residence at 7545 ~.m~rson Aver•~ue South, I ask your consideration far three reasons; the addition ± ~vilFaid in increasing the value and desirability of the neighborhood, it wil! pro- vide an anchor: against the infi{tratio~~ of the deleterious effects of 76th Street traffic, and the precedent for setback has already been established with the exist- ing structure. The Meyers could bvy a house elsewhere`, in Bloomington, or Edinar ye# they have chosen to stay in this neighborhood, The neighborhood is one of moderate value • wlZi'ch over the next ten to twenty years can easily deteriorate. As there is a direct cotta{ation between value of housi~`g. and rate of deterioration, ..the most lagical tool tr, maintain standard conditions is io inc~~ease tl•ie valuation .of that area. The City fins already done a great deal to combat deterioration by installing new street,. curb and gutter and additional street lighting which is good and has already improved the area considercbly, The next logical extension is the upgrading and improvement of the housing qualify and value, which is what the Meyers intend to do by adding an- otherfloor to their residence, increasing the room to occupant ratio and adding to the overall value of the neigl•~borhood. 7bth .Street is an arterial roadway that for the most. part traverses a number of resi- ~lentiai neighborhoods. One of the most common results t`rom the adverse effects of auch,o high volume roadvray system is the depredation in the environments! use of adjacent property #or single family housing, and the consequent increase in demand for either higher density land use or change in land use catagory-. The .request for variance by the Meyers, would help eliminate that long term potential prob{em by anchoring the Emerson Avenue area as a single family neighborhood: this is particu- larly significant on Emerson Avenue because of the church and its associated park- ing lot across the street from the Meyers; which .because of its institutional appear- crnce increases the potential for non-single family usage in the Emerson Avenue - 7bth Street area. • k V _' y planniner-enr~ineering-landscape architecture phone 1-612-546-4303-14i51ilac drive, minneapolis, minnesota 55422 _..: ~ ;~ • :_ ~~ 71, W^: 'j.:~ I• ~, .,' i •<r" . • .• _.... . ..., Finally, the real purpose of sideyard setbacks, to insure adequate space for light and air between buildings: has been accomplished. The neighborhood is complete, there is less need to be concerned with what setbacks may be between buildings in that we know what those setbacks are. The addition as proposed by the Meyers would not in- trude beyond the existing established setback nor would it jeopardize the flow of light air or access of emergency vehicles or personnel to the rear property of either the Meyers or their adjacent neighbor. I would therefore, request your approval of the variance on the basis that the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance has been accomplished, that the request would have excel- lent long term effects for the neighborhood by decreasing adverse traffic effects and ' that the request reinforces the City Master Plan for the area, Very truly yours, WE11.R AN, CHAPM ASSOCIATES, tNC. Richard D. Fredlund Associate, Vice President and Director of Planning RDF:jb ~ ~ ,~ _ ~, ! ~ ~ .~,~ ~` ` --~ - _~~ :.: .W. _ _~ ! ~ ~ a _ , ~. `~ . i ~~ r ; ~ ,; ~ T --,$,. , .~ ~ rte- ~ . -~ ~ ---- r ~~ ; .~ r` ~ ,~ ; t ~' ~ t A r ~ i .~ o: ~ ~ i ---; . , , i , , ~ .:> ~ __..., ~ ~, r ! il~ ~ .I :~ ~~ ~~ ~„ , , i ~ ~ ~~ i _ .. _ .... _...~~ ._.~s .; ' j ~ : ~~ ~~ i ,>; ~ ~ i i ... - ` i .. V ! ' i i r~ l.J CITY OF RICHFIELD, IvIIU1VRSOTA Office of City Manager t;auncil better No. 310 Agenda October 12, 1y76 The Honorable Mayor ~' and Members of the City Council City of Richfield, Gentlemen: Subject: REquest for Variance,, 7044 Irving Avenue Mr. and Mrs. Robert jab?onski, 7044 Irving Avenue, have requested a variance to Section,3-30, subdivision 4, paragraph 3 which requires a five foot sideyard far a home less than one and'one-half,stories in height. The request is to permit a sideyard setback of 4 feet .7 inches,: The applicants are proposing to construct an addition to the south side of Their home. The house is nova 12 feet 7 inches -from the side lot line. The proposed addition will extend eight feet frcm the house, reducing this sideyard to 4 feel;., 7 inches rather than the required 8 feet. {Exhi.bit A) Background This is a single _family home. situated on a corner lot. The property is zoned for single 'family residential. A five foot sideyard .exists: on the north side of the house which will not change. Staff Recommendation The house conforms to all other required setbacks and it is the staff's conclusion that no problem would be created in granting this. minor variance of five inches'. Planning Commission Recommendation At :its mceting'of September 2~8, 1976 the planning commission recommended approval~.af this 'request for variance based on the commission's conclusion that the criteria for granting a eariance was. rnet. Respectfully submitted.,. ~' _ U~ Wayne S. Bur~graaff City Manager WSB/e ja cc: -Planning Director ~- .- CITY OF RIC,hFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of Ci~:y Manager Council Letter Nc. 309 Agenda October 12 , l9 7 6 The honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject; :.Variance - 6601 Oliver Avenue South' Mr, and Mrs. John F. Walstrom,_ :6601 Oliver Avenue South, have' requested a variance to Section 3.30, Subdivision 4 paragraph 3 , which requires a' five foot sideyard for a home leas than one and one-half stories in height. The applicants are proposing a family room addition to their 'Home, as' sho~niri in Exhibit A. tsite plan):. There is presently 10' 4°' between the ~-iwelling and the s etback side yard lot line. The proposed addition would reduce this existing to three feet. The request for variance is to permit a side yard of three feet. Background.: ..This property is a single .family-home located on a .corner lot. S'h'e property is zoned single family residential and he surrounding land use south ,of 66th Street is re idental. The garage a tacked to. the dwelling immediately to the 'south is located` 6' 4" from. its north sideyard lot line . If a variance its granted , ighbor's attached d the n d addifi a r w en n b a ' e on n opose the p et e ~" would rem i 9 i `garage . j Zonin Requirement '~ Are nest for a variance must be judged in accordance with the conditions set forth n,~Secton 3.40', Subdivision 6 of the-city zoning ordinance, j I~ the conditions for granting a variance arepresent on the property, the city counci should approve the variance . If all the conditions. are not .::present on the property, the city council should deny the variance re guest, Staff. Review and Recommendation ' Staff has reviewed this proposal for the conditions set forth in Section 3.40, Subdivision 6, of the city. zoning ordinance. ._ '.~ Council Letter No.. 309 -Z- October 12 , 1976 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the Particular use referred to in the app;:ication, not common to_other_ ,Qropertiesin this. or similar districts . ~It is the opinion of staff that them are no pecial circumstances or conditions affecting this property' which d re not common to other residential ciwelings in this zoning-district. 2. That-the granti~ of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of .substantial property <rc~hts . It is the opinion of staff that this'-variance not necessary for the preservation of substantial property rights.... ~'he denial of this variance does not prevent the applicants :from foil use of their property as a single 'family residence. 3. That the_grantincr of the' application wiaa not'matei-ially any? adversely affect the health or safety of .persons residing or ~NOrkr~g in the neighborhood of the.. pro' erty of the ~plioant and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injuriohs to'propArty or improvements in the neighborhood . It is the `opinion of staff that the granting of the variance would adversely affect the health and sa€ety. of he neighborhood. This adverse affect would take the form of light obstruction, .restricted air movement, and reduced fire protection space, and would result from reducing thedistance between these dwelings tc less than the minimal combined separation of ten feet. It is the recommendation of staff that the variance be denied because none of the conditions required to grant-the variance are present. Planning Commission Recommendation At its .regular meeting. of ~eptember.28, 1976, the Planning Commission recommended denial of this. request for variance based 'on the commission`s conclusion that !the criteria for granting a variance was not met. Respectfully. subrr~itted, . ~• ~ I Wayne S . Burggraaff City Manager V~TSI3/bll cc: Planning Director: i ~~ - ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 3a8 • Agenda October 12 , 1 y 76 Th.e I~onorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Centlemezz: Subject: Request to Alow Private fence to Remain on •1'ublic Street, Right-of--Way Mr. Rmerico DCicco of 6432 21st :Avenue is requesting permission from the city council to allow his fence to remain on a public street right-~f-wa,~. The, fence is a decorative cedar split rail; located eight (8) feet into tihe boulevard and four _(4) feet from the street. - (Eyhbit A). • ~ Ordinance.: Code No. 3.3J, Subd. 2, Yards (e) reads as follows: :'....No walls, fences, or hedges shall be con tructed or permitted on any boulevard area or public right-of-wa}~. " This ordnance was adopted-to insure that thAre are' no traffic obstructions and `that street construction and maintenance projects can be done without the. cost of removing fences and hedges. The city-wasalerted to thrs violation by a city inspector who was on the property inspecting a garage under construction. It i~ recommended that the council consider Mr. DiCicco's request at the • ' ~ °- -~ctober 12, 1.976 (city council meeting. Respectfully. submitted.; N 1~J'~", Var°'~ ' Wayne S. L~urggraaff City 1vlanager WSBieja h • cc: Public V~lorks Director i .~ - ~ - 3 `CITY QF RIGHFIET D, r/IINNESQTA Gffi.ce of City Manager Council I}etter No. 3U7 Agenda October T2, 976 The Honorable Mayor ° and Members of the Gity ;Council City of Richfield' Uentlemen° Subject; Variance - 6432 - 21st Avenue South Mr. America ?~i.Cicco, ` 6432' - Z st Avenue South is requesting a variance to Section 3.39, Subdivision 2, paragraph C, which allows an open front porch to extend six feet from the front of the dwelling into the required front yard setback. The applicant would like a variance permitting .the deck on the front of his; Ylouse to extend into the front yard a total of nine feet eight i:nche . See ExhbitA (site plan) . The deck for which the variance is requested was built without a building permit. • Background Thia is a sngle• famiay home located on an interior lot. The property is zoned `residential and the surrounding land use is resid-enti:al. The front yard setback is 30 fele~. The house conforms to all otter required setbacks. Zoning Requirement A request for a variance .must be judged in accordance with the conditions :set forth in Section 3.40., Subdivision 6 of the: city zoning. ordinance. If the conditions for granting a variance are present on the property, the city council should approve the variance. If all the conditions are-not :present on the property, the~city council should deny the variance request. Staff Review and Recommendation. Staff has reviewed this proposal for the conditions set forth in Section 3.4Q, Subdivision 6, of the city zoning ordinance. ., 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the particular use referred to in the application, not common to other ro er~ies in this or similar districts. It. is the opinion of staff that them are no special circumstances or conditions v~hich affect this property. y Council Letter Igo. 30/ -`L- October 12, 1976 ?.. That the grantinc~^of the. ap~ication is_ necessary for thereservation and enJoYment of sui~stantial propertyrights, It is the opinion of taff that this variance is not necessary for the preservation of substantial property rights° The. denial of this variance does not prevent he applicants from full use of 'their property as a single family residence. 3. That the c~rariting_ of the application will not materially and adversely affect the .health or safety of persons residing or working in the , neic~hberhood of the property of the applicant and ~vil1 not be materia!?.y detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or im~rovemerits in the neighborhood . It is the opini~ri of staff that the granting of the variance will not materially and adverse y affect `the health and safety of. the neighbor- -hood ox be detrimental to the pu~alic welfare or injurious to property or improvements . It is the re comr.~iendation of staff hat the variance be denied because a l • three <condtioxzs req~.ired for issuance, of a variance are not preserxt on the property. Planning Cemmissian Recommendation. At its meeting of September 28, 1976; the planning commission recommended _ approval of this! request fer variance, to allow the open deck to extend three feet eight inches beyond the six foot setback requirerr:ent. Respectfully. submitted, ~~~t~: • ~~ Wayne S . Burggraaff City Manager WSB/bll cc: Planning Director y ~~