The URL can be used to link to this page

11-10-80 agenda//~= CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 395 Agenda November 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Minutes, Tabulation of Bids, and Award of Contract for Brush Chipper The 1980 operating budget for the central garage provides funding for a new brush chipper. On Friday, October 31, 1980 bids for this purchase were opened. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulation is attached. The city makes extensive use of a brush chipper for routine tree trimming, storm damage and diseased tree removal. The only • bid received is for a machine new to the market. The city staff has seen the machine demonstrated and is impressed with its vers- atility. The unit is smaller than most currently on the market and is towable. It will handle brush, trees and limbs up to 12" in diameter, regardless of length. The chipper will chip down both green and dry material, as well as pine, which reduces the need for tying the branches or delimbing with a chain saw. It also provides a chip of a size that can be used for other city operations, such as mulching around newly planted trees and shrubs. Because of this, it is anticipated that the city will save on costs formerly incurred for disposal of limbs and branches and in the purchase of wood chips, used for new plantings. The base bid for the chipper was $12,700. With the $3,500 trade-in allowed for the brush chipper currently in the motor pool, the net bid price is $9,200. It should also be noted that the city has received a grant for at least $3,500 from the Minn- esota Department of Agriculture for the purchase of a brush chipper to be used for forestry purposes. Tt is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of a Morbak Eeger Beever from Road Machinery and Supplies of Minn- eapolis, Inc. in the amount of $12,700 less the $3,500 trade in. Respectfull: submitted, Karl nlollenberger City Manager cc: Community Services Director CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening October 31, 1980 r~ • Brush Chipper Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Sylvia Bergh, Acting City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for a Brush Chipper as advertised in the official newspaper on October 22, 1980. Present: Marshall Raaen,Technical Operations Supt, Don Fondrick, Community Services Director Eileen Anderson, Administrative Aide Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR BASE BID LESS TRADE-IN TOTAL BID RMS Road & Machine $12,700 $3,500 $9,200 The Acting City Clerk announced that the bid would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of November 10, 1980. Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 394 Agenda November 10, 1986 Council Members: Subject: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Providing for Assess- Costs in L/H/N Improve- Ordinance Amendment ment of Maintenance ment District The 1981 budget recently approved by the city council pro- vides funding for a separate maintenance activity in the L/H/N .redevelopment district. This separate budget item was first added to the city's operating budget in 1979, although extensive maintenance efforts concentrated in this area did not really be- gin until early 1980. In 1981, the L/H/N maintenance activity is expected to approximately double in cost, to about $76,000. The 1981 budget plan also provides that the cost of this concentrated maintenance in the L/H/N district will be borne by the ber.efitted property owners, through a special assessment program. At the November 10, 1980 city council meeting, the city attorn- ey will present an ordinance for council consideration which would provide that the city may specially assess for current services. The purpose of the ordinance will enable benefitted properties to be assessed for all or a portion of the costs of certain current, or operational type, services provided to those properties by the city. Chapter 429 of the Minnesota Statutes defines what types of activities and improvements may be specially assessed to property onwers. That chapter specifies certain types of maintenance activ- ities which are eligible for special assessment. These maintenance activities generally include such things as snow, ice or rubbish removal from sidewalks and streets, removal or elimination of health or safety hazards, sidewalk or alley repair, street light- ing operations, trimming and care of trees, etc. Most of these types of maintenance services the city provides to some extent on a citywide basis. However, as additional improvements have been made to the L/H/N area, the extent of maintenance needed to pre- serve the public area, sidewalk, lighting, and landscaping im- provements has become far greater than the level of maintenance to public ways in the rest of the city. Furthermore, it is extreme- ly important that the redevelopment area be maintained in an ex- emplary fashion, because of the sizeable public and private finan- cial commitment that has been made in that area, and as important- ly, to set an example for the rest of the community in generating positive examples of property maintenance which is highly visible in this area. __ Council Letter No. 394 -2- November 10, 1980 The proposed ordinance which the council will consider on November 10 will essentially describe the services which are in- cluded, provide that the council may determine by resolution that certain or all of such services beir:g provided in certain areas of the city can be specially assessed against benefitted properties, and establish the process for determining and making such assess- ments. The special assessment process for the assessment of current services is similarly defined by Chapter 429 of the State Statutes and is essentially the same as that for other public improvement projects that the council has recently been involved with such as CP 705 and the alley improvement project. This will essentially require that we notify all benefitted property owners of the spec- ial assessment which is proposed for their property, and that the council hold a hearing on those special assessments. Since the current services will be established and paid out of the current year's budget, it will be necessary that the assessments for such current services be established on a year-to-year basis and for the council to hold an annual public hearing on the assessment for these services. Despite the somewhat cumbersome process that this will entail, I believe the concentrated and extensive nature of the maintenance which the city is obligated to provide in the L/H/N special assessment district is such that it is most appropriate for that cost to be borne by the properties in the area. It is recommended that the city council approve the ordinance on first reading at the November 10, 1980 city council and set the public hearing for November 24, 1980. Res ectf/ully submitted, Karl Nollenberge~r City Manager KN/eja cc: City Attorney Community Development Director Community Services Director __ _ _ _ _ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD BY ADDING A NEW PART IV, TO CHAPTER XII THEREOF, PROVIDING FOR THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF COSTS OF CERTAIN CURRENT SERVICES. CITY OF RICIFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter XII of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield is hereby amended by adding thereto the following: "Part IV. ASSESSMENT FOR CURRENT SERVICES. Section 12.24. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the special assessment of benefited proper- ties for all or part of the costs of certain current services provided by the city. Section 12.25. DEFINITION OF CURRENT SERVICES. The term "current services" as used in this ordinance means one or more of the following: Snow, ice, or rubbish removal from sidewalks; Weed elimination from streets or private property; Removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 463.15 to 463.26; Installation or repair of water service lines; Street sprinkling, sweeping, or other dust treatment of streets; The trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees from any street; The treatment and removal of insect- infested or diseased trees on private property; ,- ~ The repair of sidewalks and alleys; The operation of a street lighting system; The maintenance of landscaped areas, decorative parks and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way; Snow removal and other maintenance of streets in commercial redevelopment areas. Section 12.26. PROPOSAL TO ASSESS CURRENT SERVICES. The city council may by resolution propose that some or all of the current services described in Section 12.25 hereof be undertaken by the city and that the cost or some portion thereof be specially assessed against benefited property. The resolution as to a proposed project shall state which current services are proposed to be undertaken and specially assessed and which properties are proposed to be specially assessed. The clerk, under the council's direction, shall publish notice that the council will meet to consider the undertaking of such current services and the levying of special assessments to pay costs thereof. Such notice shall be published in the official newspaper at least once, two weeks prior to a meeting of the council at which the providing of such current services on a special assessment basis is to be considered. Such notice shall state the date, time and place of such council meeting, the streets affected, the particular current services proposed and the estimated cost of providing the proposed current services in the area proposed to be specially assessed. Section 12.27. HEARING: ORDERING PROJECT. At such hearing or any adjournment thereof, the council shall hear property owners with reference to the scope and desirability of the proposed current services projects. The council shall thereupon adopt a resolution determining the extent to which the proposed current services projects shall be undertaken by the city. Such resolution shall provide the manner of accomplishing any project which is ordered, which may be by day labor, by city force, by contract or by any combination of these. Section 12.28. RECORDING COSTS. The Director of Community Services shall keep a record of the costs of the project and shall report such information to the city clerk. A project may consist of the costs of current services for a specified period of 12 months or less. At the end of the designated period of the project, the total costs of the project shall be determined. -2- -~ Section 12.29. BILLING. The owner of property on which or adjacent to which the current services have been performed shall be personally liable for the cost of such services. When the costs of the services have been determined, the city clerk, or other designated official of the city, shall prepare a bill and mail it to each owner in the project area. Thereupon, the amount of such changes shall be immediately due and payable at the office of the city clerk. Section 12.30. ASSESSMENT OF UNPAID BILLS. On or before September 1 of each year, the clerk shall list the total unpaid charges for current services against each separate lot or parcel to which they are attributable under this ordinance. After notice and hearing as required by law, the council may spread the charges against the properties benefited, as a special assessment, for certification to the county auditor and collection along with current taxes. Such certification may provide for the payment of the special assessments the following year or in annual installments, not exceeding ten, as the council may determine in each case. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, • this day of 1980. riayor ATTEST: City Clerk -3- :~- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD BY ADDING A NEW PART IV, TO CHAPTER XII TIiEREOF, PROVIDING FOR THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF' COSTS OF CERTAIN CL'RRE27T SERVICES . CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter XII of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield is hereby amended by adding thereto the following: "Part IV. ASSESSMENT FOR CURRENT SERVICES. Section 12.24, PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the special assessment of benefited proper- ties for all or part of the costs of certain current services provided by the city. Section 12.25. DEFINITION OF CURRENT SERVICES. • The term "current services" as used in this ordinance means one or more of the following: Snow, ice, or rubbish removal from sidewalks; Weed elimination from streets or private property; Removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 463.15 to 463.26; Installation or repair of water service lines; Street sprinkling, sweeping, or other dust treatment of streets; The trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees from any street; The treatment and removal of insect- infested or diseased trees on private property; •~ • The repair of sidewalks and alleys; The operation of a street lighting system; The maintenance of landscaped areas, decorative parks and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way; Snow removal and other maintenance of streets in commercial redevelopment areas. Section 12.26. PROPOSAL TO ASSESS CURRENT SERVICES. The city council may by resolution propose that some or all of the current services described in Section 12.25 hereof be undertaken by the city and that the cost or some portion thereof be specially assessed against benefited property. The resolution as to a proposed project shall state which current services are proposed to be undertaken and specially assessed and which properties are proposed to be specially assessed. The clerk, under the council's direction, shall publish notice that the council will meet to consider the undertaking of such current services and the levying of special assessments to pay costs thereof. Such notice shall be published in the official newspaper at least once, two weeks prior to a • meeting of the council at which the providing of such current services on a special assessment basis is to be considered. Such notice shall state the date, time and place of such council meeting, the streets affected, the particular current services proposed and the estimated cost of providing the proposed current services in the area proposed to be specially assessed. Section 12.27. HEARING: ORDERING PROJECT. At such hearing or any adjournment thereof, the council shall hear property owners with reference to the scope and desirability of the proposed current services projects. The council shall thereupon adopt a resolution determining the extent to which the proposed current services projects shall be undertaken by the city. Such resolution shall provide the manner of accomplishing any project which is ordered, which may be by day labor, by city force, by contract or by any combination of these. Section 12.28. RECORDING COSTS. The Director of Community Services shall keep a record of the costs of the project and shall report such information to the city clerk. A project may consist of the costs of current services for a specified period of 12 months or less. At the end of the designated period of the project, • the total costs of the project shall be determined. -2- •,~-- • Section 12.29. BILLING. The owner of property on which or adjacent to which the current services have been performed shall be personally liable for the cost of such services. When the costs of the services have been determined, the city clerk, or other designated official of the city, shall prepare a bill and mail it to each owner in the project area. Thereupon, the amount of such changes shall be immediately due and payable at the office of the city clerk. Section 12.30. ASSESSMENT OI' UNPAID BILLS. On or before September 1 of each year, the clerk shall list the total unpaid charges for current services against each separate lot or parcel to which they are attributable under this ordinance. After notice and hearing as required by law, the council may spread the charges against the properties benefited, as a special assessment, for certification to the county auditor and collection along with current taxes. Such certification may provide for the payment of the special assessments the following year or in annual installments, not exceeding ten, as the council may determine in each case. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, • this day of , 1980. Playor ATTEST: City Clerk C: -3- ~ - y • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 393 Agenda November 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Animal Control Report At the June 9, 1980 city council meeting, the city council re- quested that the staff revie~,a current city ordinances relating to animal control and enforcement, and report back to the city council. At the September 22, 1980 city council meeting, a report and recommendations relating to animal control was submitted to the city council. That report contained the following recommendations: -An impoundment fee with progressively higher fees for each offense be established -An ordinance prohibiting dogs in city parks and play- grounds be enacted -An ordinance giving authority to dispose of animals after a second attack on a person, be enacted After receiving the report, the city council requested the city attorney to draft an ordinance amendment to incorporate the impoundment fee schedule, the authority to dispose of vicious an- imals after a second attack, and a pooper scooper ordinance. The city attorney has drafted this ordinance amendment and a copy is attached to this council letter. At the September 22, 1980 city council meeting, the city coun- cil also requested that the staff study a cat leashing ordinance, the requirement that cats wear a bell on their collars and that pet owners present a rabies tag before receiving a license for their pet. The city staff has studied these items as follows: Cat Leash Requirement Since the city receives a great many complaints regarding "cats at large", the staff would recommend this ordinance amend- ment. Requirement of Cats to Wear Bell on Their Collar • Bells placed on cat collars may warn birds of approaching cats, as well as to serve as a warning to residents that a cat may be using their window wells or sandboxes. Rabies Taq Requirement The city staff would not recommend a rabies tag as a license requirement. There has not been a rabies case in the City of Rich- field for the past 19 years. The City of Richfield is an urban area, surrounded by highways, and most pets are not usually ex- posed to this threat by wild animals. However, the Minnesota Humane Society does strongly recommend that all dogs be vaccinated for rabies every two years. They ad- vised that rabies has increased approximately 200% in the past year (on a national average) and would recommend rabies shots for pets. Summary If the city council wishes to amend the animal control ordin- ance it would be appropriate for council members to: -Give first reading approval to the attached ordinance amendment providing for progressively higher impoundment fees, a pooper scooper ordinance, and disposition of ani- mals deemed to be dangerous. -Request the city attorney to further amend the animal control ordinance to provide for the leashing of cats as well as dogs, to require that cats wear bells on their collars, and to re- quire that pet owners provide proof of rabies vaccinations before licensing their animals. Respectfully submitted, ll / I~ti~ ~ V~ v~ ,ti~~~~ Karl Nollenberger City r4anager KN/eja cc: Public Safety Director AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5.27, SUBDIVISIONS 9 AND 16 AND TO APPENDIX D, SECTION (12)i. OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 5.27, Subdivisions 9 and 16, dealing with the restraint of dogs and the disposal of dangerous animals, respectively, and Appendix D, Sectio~i (12)i, setting forth the fees for impoundment of animals, all of the Ordinance Code of the City of P,ichfield, are hereby amended to provide as follows: "Subd. 9. Dogs Not to be At Large; [.l Immediate Disposal of Dog Feces. No owner shall permit his dog to be at large in this city, but shall keep such dog under restraint at all times. Every dog owner and every person having custody or control of anv dog shall immediately clean up and sanitarily dispose of any feces of the animal, except that this provision shall not apply to blind persons with respect to their ownership ar.d use of seeing eye dogs. "Subd. 16. Dangerous Animals. If a dog or cat is diseased, vicious, dangerous, rabid or exposed to rabies and such dog or cat cannot be impounded after a reasonable effort or cannot be impounded without serious risk to the persons attempting to impound it, or if a dog or cat has made more than one attack on a person or persons, such dog or cat may be immediately killed by or under the direction of an officer authorized to enforce the provisions of this section. "(12) Animals i. Impounding fee 5.27 1st time $ 5 2nd time $ 25 3rd time $ 45 4th time $ 65 5th time $ 85 6th time $105 [i.l Each animal $ 5 1.2 Impounding penalty 2nd time $ 5 3rd time $ 10 4th time $ 15]" Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, `~ Mayor ', ATTFCT: I City Clerk i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 392 Agenda November 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor _,- ~,~~_~ ~ ; -_ -. ~-'` ~~~~ ~~, r-~~~~ and Members of the City Council / ` - ; , _~; ~- ; ~; -" City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 6916 Queen Avenue South During the summer of 1979, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provided Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Bonus Funds to Richfield for the construction of a five unit, Scattered Site Section 8 rent assisted housing project. During ' August, 1979, the Richfield HRA selected David Ames as the developer for the project and the property at 6916 Queen Avenue South was acquired as one of the five development sites. The CDBG Bonus Funds covered the HRA's costs of acquisition, demolition and clearance, relocation of the existing residents, and professional services to staff (appraisals, legal, insurance, etc.). The total cost of pro- viding a vacant lot for new construction at this site was $30,230. • The purpose of the acquisition was to eliminate a deteriorated, substandard house and provide a housing opportunity to a low to moderate income family. The cleared lot was sold to David Ames on October 31, 1979, for $500. The estimated land value of this lot in 1979, was $14,500. The writedown of $14,000 between the estimated value and the purchase price was used as an incentive to assist Mr. Ames in building a modest-cost home. The increase since construction in value of the property and corresponding increase in tax revenues it generates should return acquisition costs after 30 years. The financing of the project for Mr. Ames as the private de- veloper was provided by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). The MHFA derives its funds from the sale of tax exempt bonds and state legislative appropriations. By securing the MHFA financing, a 40-year mortgate in the amount of $236,000, Mr. Ames also received a commitment to Section 8 rent assistance funds for the five units he constructed. These funds are used to pay the landlord (Mr. Ames) the difference between the market rate rent that is charged for each house and the maxi~lum rent a tenant family can pay. Utilizing the Section 8 program tenants pay no more than 25% of their income for rent. As a condition of sale, the HRA required Mr. Ames to rent the houses for the next nine years to tenants that are eligi- ble for the Section 8 program. The nine-year period starts after the date the Certificates of Completion for the project are executed. Council Letter No. 392 -2- November 10, 1980 The Certificate of Completion is a legal form which indicates that the developer has constructed the improvements in accordance with local and state code requirements. The HRA approved release of the certificates October 20, 1980. However, the certificate for 6916 Queen Avenue South cannot be released by the HRA until after a variance has been granted for the side setback violation. Mr. Ames proposed a 40' wide house on the 50' wide lot. This meets the requirement for having 5-foot side yard setbacks. The house that was constructed, however, was not located to allow the proper side yard setback. This side yard setback violation was discovered after the house was completed during the summer of 1980. A detailed explanation for the cause of the violation follows, with a discus- sion of the construction history. The building permit for the site was applied for November 5, 1979. At the time of application, the chief inspector reviewed the plans and the site survey for the proposed structure. The site survey showed that the structure would be located within proper setbacks; thus, the permit was granted. The site survey done for Mr. Ames to start construction indicated by wooden stakes, where the corners of the property were located. The contractor usually • works from the stakes to properly place the structure. The in- spector may use the stakes as a general indicator of the location of property improvements. The first required inspection was done November 15, 1979, to verify that the building footings were ready for pouring. The build- ing inspector verified with the foundation contractor that after the footings were poured, the house foundation would be constructed at the required 5 feet from the property line. Construction was then allowed to commence. The second required inspection occurred ~~ after the building framing and utilities were roughed in This occurred March 17, 1980. The final inspection for the building occurred July 21, 1980. To meet specification of the i~1HFA as the lender, the sites had to be resurveyed at the completion of construction. It was this second survey, done on July 17, 1980, that showed the location of the completed structures and indicated the error in house placement. The house was between 8" and 12" too close to the south side lot line and the total length of the house was approximately 2" too long. It is the responsibility of the contractor to construct the house in accordance withthe plans submitted and local code require- ments. Without the Certificate of Completion for this site and the variance approval, Mr. Ames and the development may be jeopardized financially. Council Letter 392 Proposal -3- November 10, 1980 Nir. David Ames, 7101 York Avenue South, has submitted an ap- plication for a variance to reduce the required side yard setback of five (5) feet to the existing four (4) feet. The variance is needed because the recently constructed house at this site was located in violation of side yard setback requirements for 1z story single family houses. The property is located at 6916 Queen Avenue South, and is zoned "R" single family residential. Zoning Ordinance Requirements Section 3.30, Subdivision 4 lists setback requirements in residential (R) zoning districts. Section 3.41, Subdivision 6 lists three conditions that must be met before a variance may be granted. Staff Findings The staff has reviewed the application against the three con- ditions which must be met before a variance may be granted, and found the following: 1, There are no special circumstances affecting this particular property. This property is not signifi- cantly different than any other lot in the City of Richfield. The house could have been constructed in accordance with zoning ordinance requirements. 2. Since the house has been constructed in direct vio- lation of the side yard setback codes, no reasonable alternative exists to yield conformity to the codes, except granting of this variance. Also, denial of the variance may hinder the property owner from selling his property, because the property would not meet the city's zoning ordinance. 3. The house is an improvement to the property and should not be detrimental to the public welfare or improve- ments in the neighborhood. Staff Recommendation Because the three conditions for granting a variance have not been met, the planning staff must recommend denial of this application. However, it is the recommendation of the city manager that the city council approve the variance since the negative effects are minimal and the alternatives are rather expensive to implement. n L~ i Council Letter No. 392 -4- Planning Commission Recommendation November 10, 1980 The Planning Commission recommends that the city council deny this variance request. The Planning Commission expressed concern that granting this variance may set a precedent which could pose future problems for controlling setback violations, in that granting such a variance is approving a variance after the fact", and could encourage others to request variances after the fact in the future. Respectfully submitted, i ~,~,,,. ~ ill ,~ `•~. ~ , ~~, __ , ;~---~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/jf cc: Community Development Director City Planner r =~I "! 141 II ~ ! S T. .xl-' - ~ ~ ~ 241 IIb~~ ' i ~ ,J Joa ' , 23 _ I I2 ~J~. 0 9.-~ 2 2 3 • ~o • n = i ~ ' ~ I ~ ~_ z Iy , 21 4 , C~!s - C~'_®~I~~ I~IfP'lP ~ ~ ' •~- a~ J 14I 11 ' ' w a i , 14 ~~ ~ 4i ._ ! 13 12 I d4 "_ 13~ ~C J 241 ~ 1 cc I 12 -_~ -- y ~ i j r-, - 09 ~- ~ I ---- _ 09 r~ 3 r ,~ti , ~ ~_ W ~ 19 ~ ~ CJ2a ~y LL W 2S ~ I 18 I 17 ! ~Z• ~ /~ V / 25 _i 18 ^32 z3 16 'g ;isz ~ 33 16;9 f J -o s~ X14 ~ I I ~ ~~ ~ - -~ 1 It, J 1 +~ J .~ ,~ _ 1 3 I 1 2 _ _ i,_ _ 1 3 I ......I-----2~~~ S T. .~ ,~ zz z 7i 2• W 28 ~ t ~!°= d ~, ~~ ~ 39 I I LL ~ C lar+ ~~ p ! '~ 7 P~ j ___1 m o f N I'-~ ov°oI~ 24 ! ~ :so~~: 24 I 69OJ ~ ~ ~ ~.- _ 24 ~~CZ 1 n ~ _ °4 ~ os ~J 23 2 I ;°' °S I~3 ~ i2 N ~ ^ 'C°.l 1 r231 ~"~^~; - "7 ~ 0 b ~3 ! ~ I I -TAP i ' ~ ~ ~--T -' 21 '4 ~ ~-`r-' 22 3 l _ n ~ ~~ :~ IJ12 ~~ 21 ,4 2! 4 ~ ~ - ~z ~ ~ 3 ^ I ~ ~ - --,4 i8 ~. -.a r f~,; ` ~ rr 20 it , _ ~ ^ _ 2 - (9 I6 r,2'' 2' U I9 6 1~7u ~~ ~J !9~ j _ 'v lJ i8 (~ I 1 ~ - ~ 16l I24 -S~ ~ 18 7 I-~~a i~ ~.~ 18 7 j-.Z ---y ~-----.J Z N ~l~ `~' ^J r u -t ~. zs :.~ 17 ,8 ~ .z~ z~ ' 17 8 ~ ~zo zv ~~ 17 ~8 ce ~1 w ~ I ~ 16 8 ~ m 14 ` ^ M 7 r I S 10 --3s - - - -15 1 I U ~ ~' ~ 14~ 10 f 1 ~ 12 3 ; ~ 14 I I ( I _ LJ i~ ~ I ~ s i --, 1 4 I I ~ l I I 1 3 a •_.~ .~ '~``~'--~ - GENERAL COMMERCIAL ~L ~~r' ' ~"`~~ ~=:~=~ ,~='; MULTIPLE FAh11LY RESIDENTIAL - -. -: ; _ Zjf' L a ai~~~r~i~ ,,17.~'M~'vi-.ie:-.'kir~. Rr.IW~-w.:3a.Cit~ ~'iaiti~-y..'. c_ ~ w~^w.. ~.i... .~~ ..... ~ ... .a ~K 'LAi-?-':'.. ~~ ~iYtfu'+~a:S~r'w3x ~l~3t~9a b~Y•~'.tXti+4~'.~zR~:5r • ~... ._ 7 6 ~''-~ ~ ~ i~_ 1 ^ . C~ _ zz^8 ~~„ F~ `° 0 l'_i w~°'`^ to 9 j '~ ^ ~, oA^ e ~. _ ,. ~;~ yam- /.PLW - _. i . `_ ._ Q O ~ p (/) ~ ~ T ^'~ - rf ~ N ('"r~ ~ O ~,,/ . Q" tn ~ ~ ---1 ~,.~ ~--. n C O ~ z ~ ~ 0 ~- -~. ~ o r ~ -~ o ~ ~ .-~ .~ - - ~ -~ ~ v, ~ ~ rH~ O 1 I ~- ` 00 a' ~ I cn O -, ,-.- ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~'D C~ . - ~G ~ tD _ i ~~ d --r~ r7 CTJ O ~ ~ C'J CD O ~~ ~ ~ Q J ~ ~ ~ •--~~ L~ o a~ ~ -' v~ `~ ~ cp ,_,. ~- ~ ~ r-~- --t -~ _. n~ c~ ~ - cn o -~ c7 ~ , O < ~ p - N' ~ ~ .=, ,~. ~ - CD ~ = ~ J O l,/] ~ --+, ~ -~ ~ L`J n J. J . ~ ~ ~ ~ °~ C ~ c' J ~ ~ = ~ ° ~ ~ z a. _ ~ ~ _. o cv T ..-.. ,- - ~ _ ~ - ~w~e 50.00 ~~~ ~"~ ~ .' d' '^ ~ ~ . /RON i ~ .' / ~ ti ~ \ ~}" r i I ,~ r / ~ _~ ~ Vt T .~ N G \ n =~ Mo ~ ?- / ~~ ?; ~~~ ~_ .` Y / /" ~" ~ ^ ~f ~ N ~ = ; v ; ; ~ U~ N 4 , ~ ~ - y.,_ CA ~ N.'r. 69iF '~ _ s~ ~~/ i / Irk \J '~ ' ui1 G• /~ U r ~i-C, / ~~'` ~ ~ 01'C.C'NANrs w ,~. w w I' •I ~, ~' ~ 1J •_ i I _ T, 1 ~ ~, /RON 1 ~ ° ~ ~ /RON --~ ~ 50.40 ; -- ~ j as I I a I T'r ~~. ~ ~ G - Guc'B ~Y .;S _ tI 9^ PIPE SAN,"TiSR~ .~vL:~Q ~ ~' G - 3'" vAs iYf~:N - ICI // ~ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 391 Agenda November 10, 1980 The Honorable Nlayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Canvass of Election • Attached to this council letter is a resolution providing for canvass of the results of the city's general election of Tuesday, November 4, 1980. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, certifying these election results. Respectfully submitted, ,~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Deputy City Clerk • ~~ ~ RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION DETERMINLNG RESULTS OF CLTY GENERAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD HELD ON TUESDAY,-NOVEMBER 4, 1980 BE IT .RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that at` the General Election herd fJovember 4, 1980, the results ~~iere as follows: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the folloa~ing 1-ist of judges were those certifying returns of said election: Shirley Gisselquist (D) Martha Siddy (R) Marie Richardson (D) Louise Carlson (R) Joyce P~orrell (R) Bernice Utter (D) John Gera (D) Helen Soderstrom (D) Myrtle Lindgren (R) Phyllis P•1cKisson (R) Jan Kispert (D) Joyce Rodeber (R) Millie Hines g(D} Evelyn PangiTo (R) Blanche Goodin (D) Jean Rand (R) Lorraine Maki (D) Ellen Brandon (R) Margaret Seeger (R) Judy Tooley (R} Beverly Stelman (D) Linda Knotz (D) Kathleen Leckner (D) Dona d Franson (D) Betty Obenchain (D) Alice Strom (R) Mrs. Arbie Johnson (R) Pat Brenner (D) Wilbur Johnson (D) Betty Halloran {R) Shirley Clough (R) Bernice Johnson (D) Carol Feist (D} Rebecca .Harris (R) Helen Volz (R) Pam Cummings (R) Tom Schmidt (R) Kim Anderson (D) Lillian Pearson (R} Jeff Dickie (D) ~' Steve Sable (D) Eunice Aulwes (R) Mi l area •1ar~cs ~_~) Margaret Cummings (R) Elayne- Gilhousen '(R) Mary Suess (D) Jerome Pompa (D) Tim Drackert (D) Doris Lattery (R) Gertrude Sanders (R) Ann. Burkhardt (D} Carol Bissonette (R) Ethel Hommes (R) Marie Gera (R) Jean Kallstrom (D) Helen Peterson (D) Irene Janski (D) Esther Anderson (R) Mary Morton (D) Gertrude Broker (R) Janice Nunn (D) Russell King (D) Greg ;Jong ( t) Clarence Milton (R) Joyce Petersen (D) Donald 1•Ja11er (D) Pat Bunting (D) Jean Lofstrom (D) Christine Aulwes (R) Frances Gunlaugson (R) Jan Cerny (D) Rachel Pritchard (R) Charles Fanning(R) James PJeuhart (D) Monica Lindstrom (D) Donna Vidas (R) Ione Lunas (D) Lorraine Utterberg (D) Pat Farnham (R) E11a Haight (R) Helen Hillstrom (D) Jean Frenz (R) Bernadette Lais (R) Mabel Pederson (D) Pauline Huber (R) Mrs. Sid Sanford (D) uoro~r~y ~r,sbine (D) William Sanville (D) Joyce Emerson {R) Lois Awes (D) Barb Berk (D) Phoebe Nelson (R) Lucille Brandell (R) Donna Fischer {D) P. Lloyd McKisson (R) Ann Stensby (R) Linda Bloomgren (D) Jack Foeller (R) Lois Ball (D) Donna Peterson (R) James Jungels (D} David Arnold (R) Margaret Fleming (D) Margaret Wagner (R) Ruth Marks (R} Mary Janco (D) Franc Gray (R) George Hegdahl (D) Grace Dahlien (R) Kerrn i t Randal l ( R) Carolyn GJalker (D) Ethel Naslund (R) Pat Sazdoff (R) Christine Stenzel (D) Gerry Kleist (D) Pluriel Findell (D} Dolores Tester (R) Louis Couture (D) Chrystal Linn (R) Scott Myers (R) • Dee 1~Ji 1 cox. (R) Alice Dickinson (R) Fabiola Sullivan (D) Tami Nessler (D) Rosemary Reynolds (R) Gladys Juen~l i r,c ~( D} Martha Prottenger (R) Doris Lon g. (R) Ione Waller (R Joan' b~Jo~,~ ~. J,) ;iTitii'e~ i'1drkS(tj -2- R) ll l~rlY_(D) H Rosemary Koelln (R} Audre Wnslow R y ( ) O jstlund Leota (R) Janice Anderson, (R) J~1ar aret LaVallee (D) Joann ,B hoomber g (D) Ilene Holen (R} Mrchael 4Jinkelman (R) ' Linnae `Erhardt (R) Virginia tJitke (R) Susan Lewis (R) Jan Hal~bur (D) David Ophoven (D) .glary Grafing (R) Monica Wittig (D) glary. Endrzzi °~(D)- Loin Kovack (d) Joan Sc'~haefer (D) Ethel Marlou (D) Jane Nelson {R) Corrine Cosgro ve (D) Alice Neuberger (D) Catherine Alfano (D) Nadine 'Solberg (D) Genevieve Anderson(R) Patricia O'Hare (D) Barb Co'~I k (D) Sandra Sumner (R) Gloria Gordon (D) Eloise ,Friend (R) Deborah Robinson (R) Catherine Lepel (D} Passed by the City Coun ~~ I~ cil of th~~~e City of Richfield this 1Qt`~ uay of November, 19.80. ~~=~, ATTEST: cn ~ cn s cn ca v c c~ o 3 a s ~ o c~ ~ n ~ -v l ~ cv c-r ro I cu -~• o ~ o -s n ~ a -s rD o w ~ ~ ~. = >1 ~ ~ m m ~. O 'T'1 A ~ ~~ N f2o O ,5 O Z n p ~ r -< -~ -s ~ ro ~ ~ o -~ -s sz~ sv rn = r ~ c-r ~.. ~ cn -a o -~ ~ ~ --~ O (D d !D ~ N ~ 'S Sp n C.. ~ < Ro S2a O Q7 3 ~ ]C c0 N fD -J fD 7r fA -~• C7 C O ~ O to !D fD fi fD iv S2o C O -+• ~ ~ c-f to -• O fD O -~ n -~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ -~• 'S C'r Z fD ~ ~ -' ~ ~..f N ~ i'j ~. ~ !D fD (D ~ ~ f"1' U1 N '~ ~ ~ ~ ~• ~ fD ~"* ~ < Sl) C !D ~ W "~ ~ V C _ 1 A W +--~ ~--~ cr+ O~ r-~ ~ O V N N CO 1-r N ~' ~ 1 V O ~, ~ ~ N F--~ F'' N GO 1 t0 O N `~ ~ -P p Cn 1~ O F-+ tp f-+ CT1 ~ O N O W ~--' r-` ~O r-' N N O N ~ V N d`~ N b ~ 1--~ O U7 W W O C~ F-+ D ~ ~ ~ r+ V t-r W CJ7 O N O O ~--' N r-~ O~ N W + t-+ ~ W to ~ N O W J~ D ~ ~, ~ cn w cn O ,--• v ~ 00 N tp V ~--~ ~--~ C,Tf O ~! O N O O O 1--' N W V CO F-+ O I-+ ~O ~ D v ~ ~-+ V r-~ -A O: -P N -1~ N W W O~ ~O N CTi ( O N ~-+ ~ N F-+ l0 -P l0 D N l0 t0 N ~ 01 6> ~ Ul G7 V O." -P N V ~ ~ O N Ul ~l O~ V i--~ l0 00 O W ~-+ Qt O N O 1 q O~ t N ~ ~1 ~~ ~ v ~, O W O ~ ~ ~A N U1 ~ J~ ~ ~--' t-~ Ql N A h-~ Ol ~ V Ul i--~ A O N ~ ~ N ~--, U'1 O W OJ O ~--• ~ p O N W O N !/ r v N C^. -1 D r r o z -n o C O m m 3 Q m m ~ ~ r -tom m r~ n ~fl ~~ -i o O z C~ O ~ O N O ~-' Ql O N (T V CT ~ ~ -P ~ D V W ~ W O N h-• O O i-' ~ l0 N V O W N d> U'1 I D N CO Ul CT7 O ~ ~--~ rs v-+ ~--+ 00 O N OJ W lp F-~ OJ ~--~ I W ~ O ~ lD N N ~--' 1-r O N V I--+ N l0 O Ol ~O ~` 00 ~ W N Cb ~1 '--~ Ol b ~ Ui v ~O ~: l0 CL Q. C.T1 V t-+ V N OJ N ~ - l0 N -~ 01 tD W O W W ~-+ O v ~ V v p- -i o ~ v ~ cr, cn r 1 c, D c, a ~ ~ a ~ v ~. I O ¢7 ~• O C O1 N I O N ~ N A~ tp N (D yv ~ (D 7C~ ~ ~ tD ~' -~ CD ~ 'Z ! O ~ O ,'~ O JC"' -5 ~ O Q,, tD c+ N SL Z !~ C~ n N n C° ~ ~, ~ ~ -z a J ~ ~. I I ~, ~. ~, 'Z --i sZ p C'1 ~ ~ O l'7 LU O ~ ~ ~ ~ (D n "T a N !D t-h l ct • c+ 7r 3 c+ O ~ o n, ~ o m ~ --i ro r~ co r~ ca r (D ~ C7 ~ -S A I O O ~ ~ _ lD ...+. L c'r O 5= ~ Q C ~. ~ n C p' N (D fp -h -< R t].. N Ll. O Q. O ~ N N O. ...5 fD ~p cII t-+ CQ fD - ~ J. ~ S ~ ~ ~., i ili ~ frt (~ ~ p ~ n ~ ~ l _. N p ~ ~ l f G fD ~ ~ i SL .5 /~ c~ ~, V -s o ~, 1 V t0 ~. ~ i O O .A r+ v O I W ! ~ O ~ cn ~ i 1~ ~ t-~ I-+ , F-+ W f..+ 1 1 N 1 W 11. O O . ~ ~ X 1 1 ~n .. F-+ W b lfl i, II ~ ~ N N. r-~ 1 1 W O t0 01 v , O O CT N 1 1 y D 00 O~ CSI Cp !. W V ~ N 1 l Cn , V ~ O ~ GJ ~ b ~' Cp ~ CO 1 W CT W V ' ~ C~ O V t 1 CSI _ I-+ ~ ~ ~ ~ CJl Ol i I CO W v W W lD N I--+ 1 1 ~ ~ o o ' rn ~ m; 0 1 1 ~a CT1 dl -A N -P lD N N i i. 1 W Ol V ~ V V W V 1 4 '~ I-+ CT W ,I W ~ ~ p I 1 ~ n 1 ~ F-~ W F• ~~ l -P 01 (7-i. 00 1 1 .A V tp ! ,I Cp ~+ N f.:, i I V 1 N ~ W i pl O V F..~ 1 t I n 1 .~ O 1--+ N N ~ O 1 I W ~ 1 w rn ~: ~ Qo W ~ v ~ f p 1 07 l0 V.. ~. Q1 ~ 07 i.+'1 V ~ CT. Q7 1 Ol N Ul ll 00 O W - N U'r 1--~ , 1 tD V V N O ~ t--~ Ol O 1 Q - 1 V W N '~ I l0 O ~ O d>.. CT O O O ! ~i f--~ 1 W V 00 CO tp W lp V CD p I 1 ~ Ol J~ W -A V W V ~ p i t0 V V ~A N ~ CSI ~: O CO ~I ~! ~ ~ ~ W O N ~ ~ p v • ti. `fit ~ it L ? \: ~~ i i GJ 1N ~ - .. ,fp . _ .. m _ .~. ;._ .. _._. _ c c o ~ ~ ~ -s c a c c ~ .. ~ -5 cn ~ ~ s. ~ a: < s. -z ~ c0 a. c~ ~ ~ ~ < ~. O (D ~ J. O (D O' T J. ~TT ,Y ~ m ,V ~ ~ ~ m `Y J- ~ ~ T .Y ~ //1111 .V I TT .V ~. ~. O LU O .:+ O O O O L2 O ~ O ~ O ~ ~ G~ Al J. C... O ~ T~ CD CD C7 CD i-r J. 'J. J.. (D J. . _ '. Q ~ J. (p J. sv ~ r ~ ~ ~ < <n ~ N ~ N ~ ti ~ ~ ~ ~ -T ~ rn ~ ~ cn c* sv rr ~ c+ a c+ c+ -~ c+ J ("* ~ J ~ ~ It O 3 O O C -- :C O 3 3 O O O C n. O ~ . O C O -S ~ Z "5 N I -5 I 'S ~ ~ ~ J. ~' Ct ~' Ct ("i' if ~ J. ~ J. l0 (7 lfl Cp l0 ~ lp l0 F-~ 1--~ ~ (7 ~ n v J• V W V CC -P O Q N J. ~ J. O Ol G1 O O l0 F-~ ~ W ~ ~ J ~ 1~ ~ C7 tD t7 l0 O ~--~ l0 lp F-' <O F-+ I N p O l0 O lD C O V l0 O ~ O ~~ ~ C ~ C W "S F-+ 61 ~ 1-+ V al O 'T 'S c+ O OJ Cn ct ct ~p lp l0 lD CO lJ l0 lfl t-+ W ! V V CS'1 V 01 dl ~ t37 O 3~ l0 (a,7 W V N W CO CO W h-~ p~ O~ 00 O~ CJ CO ~ CA l0 ~ ~ ~p V lfl O~ V G"` ~ Ol ~ 1~ Q~ N V QJ N CSC C3'1 61 N F-r V O O ~ W F-+ V C.JI I D Ol Q1 I-~ W W O I-~ V N V V V V V V V V V ~ i G,~ W N (Jl F-+ N N ~--+ CO ~ ~ ~ W ~ i--~ al Ol N ~ ~p l~ lD lfl to lD lD l0 CO V ~ .A N W W F-+ N ~ N OJ .~ N V O rn O ~ cn O c+'i v V V V v V v V ~ b ( tD V W 00 Cn l0 OJ 00 N CA ~ tD --+ Cn ~o O W -P -!~ pp 00 00 ~ 0o W ~ W OJ Igo .p J~ ~A CJ~ h-~ W Ul F-+ l0 CO pq l0 Q~ tD N W l0 CT7 00 pp 00 b b b OO ~ W ~ I ~' Ol 00 cTr V -A Ql to 01 N J O - V Ql O lD -P V N ~--~ l0 CO pp 00 q Oo 00 ~ O~ O~ t0 ii-i pp v v Co cn v ~ rn w 10 Q1 ~ .A Ol Ol -A ~O W N -i q c~^. ~ .A ^, rv ~ W . ~ ~ z -< o z z -< m~ ~. -< o m ~, o O m v~ ~ O m N c+ N c+ -+• N N C~ LU c+ i J• ~ C'1' CA V7 ...a. I Q' ~ tL .J ~. .T J• ~ O l7 J [D (D p CD < ~ '~ ~7 Q j V lD -' q tD ~ V F-= - V~ V V V ~ (3l O .p ~G l0 ~ .. l0 O N V r--~ ~p i-+ V ~-+ 01 O N O V O I, -a ~ W .~ w ~ I Ul V l0 ~. 01 N (~ 1--• V i--~~ ~ O A O O O CI'I V O O ~ V ~ V to J~ q N O W V O Cn tO ~ cn O q Ol l0 q lfl 01 I lfl 'I q q t-+ v v 01 ~~ W - D> l0 W _ Ol N i V1 V ~ V a1 V ~ Co u'i V v W O I q V Ut q N Ol ~ ~--~ q tD 01 F--~ al O W (J'7 61 O ! ' o ~ o q o I O ~ Ql q V q Ol qII CTI .A h-+ l~ -P V i, V tp t0 W W V II W l0 lp lD V ~O ~~ ~-' O O Ol -P `O N V q N C.TI V V q V lD V I CA '~ (T1 .tom ~ W ~--~ ~O O Ul N N Ql N V v ~D v q lD V LO ~i ~ ~ v N ~ Cfl ~ O y CJl N GT _ ~ ~ U't ~ 00 V 00 l0 W N ~ I i ~, .~ c~ _ z -< r n z -< .. c.f. ~ ~ ~, r~ ~. o m ~. Q, O m-.~' o o ' Q, ~ ~ N ~ ~ N ~ ~ Q OJ F e'+ SL N fD J.. ) i 0 (D O Q N 'Z O C.. _ N ~ . ~ c+ ~. O fD . ._ J. ~ ~ J. ~ O C'7 ~ C'F' O (D N .. p ~ ~ ~ C - -{ N O 'S J "S < (D ~. p~ 3 ~ N ~ ~ _' N V7 ~ O t~ . -P Ul ~ O I (D C3'. (~ , Co "h V1 - V Ul ~ ~ Z - W - .. O O SL -P F--~ 01 i-~ lD f") N V -P CTS N q O ~ ~ v cr q N ~ ~ V q. 'q ct ~P r--` CSl F-' - ~ ~ W O J~ ~O N rn rn I y V dl p 3 m z -A F--~ cn ~ -~ q ~ ~ ,-• w v ~--~ cn V ~ D W q W. V F-+ F.a ~ W ~ Ul ~-+ V CJ7 lfl W W ~--~ ~ ~ D , O Cs'~ q w .p ~ ~ W h-.. .'~. q V O t-~ ~O -A N ,~ O ~ W t~ W O. ~, ~ ~ V Ul W al I-~ N ~ I N O ~p ~ N q W W i--' .p ~ V Cp J~ N CO O V I W W W W l--~ (Ji r-. q l0 Co S~ q ~ ~ , W W r--+ Cn r-+ q F,,_, N W lfl O Q~ O } ~ q O ~ V GO W (Ji W ~ ~-.+ V O q ~ V ~ V Ol W f-+ N ~, ~ o V w i-- l0 q ~~ 1 a --r v 'v •-~ m -~ cn v~ cnI cn o -~ ~-+ v n sv ~ n w n p rD c+ -~ cD ~ -~i ~ ~ ~ .-•~ O (D -~ rr r -~ -z -S J. .~ ~ ~ J. .~. J. ~ < w -~ r ¢. c~ ~ CD c-t G O ~ ~ (~ 1. -5 _~ O O 0 0 0 ~ rn rr ~ N ~ a S c CO N c'h O ~ ~ O ~G D fD A~ Z fD d tD Ul c'+ Z O ~ N C•') Q. -A~ 1 c"1' fD Q SL N ~--~ ~ ~ v o ~ o co ~ ro r .. -S -h 'S O p (D O O O i..p O ci' ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ -D J. D N fD LT ~ N Q ~ 3 c+ 3 'S •~ Z 'S . . G fD ~ O ~ O c-+~ O C-f J• W F-+ V N N N f-+ O CT1 V Y O~ ~-+ ~-' O O i/ W V O ~ ~ Vl O O ~ DJ F-+ N V V U'i V -~ W O~ N N O ~-' CJ'I O~ 1-' !~ `Y ~ -. ~~ d0 .--+ W -+ W r-+ Ql N -P N F-~ CT7 Ol F-+ l0 N V 3 ~ W .A ~ N N. l0. O O V C `J ~ _ .. d ~ N ~ W W ~ F-+ F-+ 01 dl O V N. p '~ ~ ~ V ~ W fi O W ~ V N ~ N ~ W t3~ Y ~..a W p f-+ N a-+ O Q~ O N W ~ O (D q~ W V V t•-~ N W N V -A l0 ~'~ 9 C7 ~--~ 1-' -•~ W Ql dl N ~ N l0 -P 61 lD V ~ ~ ~ C.TI CS1 V ifl v N W .~+ dl O C7 Z C~ N ~-' J. Q J• ~ O 3 V (1 W O~ V N ~ N OJ W (.3l lO lJ CSl ~ ~ ~~ o -~• O ~ O ~-+ ~ cn ~ ~ rn Co cn D ~ ~- ~ W W Ul ~ O Ol ~-' CU N / ~ O W C3} N O O N ~ N 61 V I-~ -P ~--~ V -P iT1 V 01 p7 ~ ~--~ r-~ W W N V N l0 ~D O~ C.ti N F-' D 1 i~ Q1 O V W OJ ~ l0 Cp N ~1 'T1 "S O V W p ~ -+• ~ ~ ct II. N (D ~ lp N i--+ V N W N ~ -P ~ ~--~ ~O V ~ ti' ~ .~. V r--~ -p O J~ ~ 01 W 1--~ O ~ ?~ ~ \ ,~ ~ ~ ~ Ul ~A O O W N 00 ~ W V \~ N (.T1 N Cal W '\^ ~~~\ ~ / s G > N V V 1-+ W N ~ -A Ol l0 Q1 ~ UJ ~A CJ't ~O ~ i--+ 1--~ J~ N W h-+ 00 W N O ~ ~--~ N W N ~ W l0 l0 t-' ' ~7 ~--+ -~ W ~--~ V N -A N lD U't 00 07 V (~O O r t--• f-+ N ~ V O ~ ~ Q~ 1-' W v ~ - J - ~ ~ ~ cn W a ~ CT'1 cs~ ~ O > ~ ~ D c+ V tD N Ql V F-+ W N Cfl CJ1 ~l l0 V h-~ ~ J• Ol l0 (,Tl t0 CIl N W N N W W (O J. ~ W t31 O~ b N r-~ O ~ ~ W N l0 00 W C (D N lO V N ~ N t0 -P Ql l0 CO ---1 l0 Cn ~--+ O O CT7 W C3'1 -A ~l N O N 00 OO 1--~ 1.., tp ~ ~ l0 00 ---I /_ r , - ~~ ' , // CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 390 Agenda November 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Amendments to Lyndale Hardware Developer's Agreement On September 8, 1980, the city council approved a Developer's Agreement with the S & I~1 Company which identified the responsibil- ities of both the city and the S & M Company which, when completed would result in the rehabilitation and renovation of the Lyndale Hardware property. A critical part of that agreement is the willingness of the city to provide tax exempt financing for this project. As efforts to provide this financing have begun, it has appeared desirable to amend the developer's agreement, as follows: The agreement contemplated the issuance of a tax exempt mortgage rather than bonds. The proposed amendment would authorize the use of industrial development revenue bonds. The city assumes no greater liability by approving this change. The approved agreement contained a provision by which it was terminated if the financing was not completed by December 1, 1980. Because of unstable conditions in the bond market, it is recommended that the city council modify the cutoff date to March 1, 1981. At this time, it is likely that the bonds will be delivered by December 1. However, because of the desirability of this project, to the overall L/H/N area redevelopment, it might be helpful to extend the termination date as suggested. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, amending the developer's agreement as indicated in Exhibit A. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ' (, :earl Nollenberger City Manager hN/jf cc: Community Development Director Housing and Redevelopment Specialist City AttnrnPv ~, ,. ~r ~, RESOLUTION NO. ' A RESOLUTION RELATING TO AN AGREEMENT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT-BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE S`& M COMPANY: AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THERETO BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City of Richfield (the "City") has entered into an Agreement For Private Development dated September 8, 1980 (the "Agreement") with The S & M Company (the "Company") in connection with the development of certain land within. the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area. 2. The Agreement contains certain provisions relating to the issuance and sale by the City of its .Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (the "IDR Bonds") t~ provide funds to be loaned to the Company-for a project consisting generally of the expansion of Company's Lyndale Hardware retail facility at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue in the City. 3. It appears necessary that tho e provisions of the Agreement relating to the IDR Bonds be modified to more accurately reflect the provisions of the underlying financing documents to be utilized in the IDR Bonds and the contemplated schedule for the issuance of the IDR Bonds. 4. Pursuant to Section 8.9 Company has requested that the Agreement be amended. 5. The Agreement is hereby amended in accordance with the amendments .set forth in the form of amendment attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to execute the form of .amendment on behalf of the City... Mayor Attest: EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT This AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT,' dated as of , . 1980, between the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") and The S & M Company, a Minnesota business corporation {"Developer"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City and Company have entered into an Agreement For Private Development dated September 8, 1980 (the."Agreement"); and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the parties to the Agreement that certain modifications be made to the Agreement to more accurately reflect the intent of the parties, the provisions of the underlying financing documents to be utilized in connection with the City's Industrial Development Revenue Bonds to be issued and sold in connection therewith, and the contemplated schedule for the issuance of said Bonds: NOW. THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations set forth in the Agreement, City and Company mutually agree that the Agreement is amended as follows: 1. At the end of paragraph l.l(c) add: "The term also includes the "Project" to be constructed by the proceeds of the IDR Bonds as defined and described by resolutions of the City Council giving preliminary approval to and authorizing the issuance of the IDR Bonds." 2. Add the following clause to Section l: "(i) IDR Bonds. The Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (The S & i~I Company Project Lyndale Hardware Co., Lessee) Series 1980, to be issued by the City to provide funds to be loaned to Developer." 'i 3. Amend Section 2.3 to read as follows: "The obligations created under this-Agreement are conditioned upon the issuance .and delivery._by he City of. the IDR Bonds in the amount of at Least $1,365,000 to provlide :funds to be .loaned to Company to finance the cons ruction of the Improvements. In the event the I'pR Bonds area not issued and delivered on or bel'fore March 1, 1981, this Agreement shall terminate ar_Id be of no force or effect." 4. Add the followingparagraph to Section 5.1: "(c) The insurance required to be carried pursuant to financing documents executed by City and Cornpany in connection with the issuance and sale of the IDR Bonds shall be deemed to. satisfy the requirements of this Article."' 5. Add the following~',paragraph to Section 6: "6.7 Issuance of ';IDR Bonds. Upon the issuance anddelivery of the IDR Bonds to..the purchaser thereof the provisions of the financing documents executed by the City and Company in connection - with the IDR Bonds shall be deemed to satisfy the • requirements of this Article." IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City has caused the AMENDMENT TO- . AGREEMENT to be executed in~its name by its. duly authorized officers, with the City seal affixed, and Company .has. caused the Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer, with its seal affixed, as o'f the date first-above written. ' CITY OF RICHFIELD (SEAL) ~ By Its. Mayor By Its City Manager THE S & M COP~IPANY j _BY --- ', Its President (SEAL) Attest: Secretary i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 389 November 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 7016 Harriet Avenue South Mr. John Bjostad, 7016 Harriet Avenue South, has submitted an application for a variance to reduce the required 10-foot side yard setback for two story houses to the existing 5-feet. The vari- ance is requested to permit the construction of a second story ad- dition to the existing one and one half story house. The existing S-foot side yard setback meets zoning regulations for 1~ story houses, however, the proposed addition will convert the house to a two story structure, and a 10-foot side yard setback is required for two story houses. The rambler style house to the north is also five feet from the shared property line, resulting in a total dis- tance of 10 feet between the two structures. The property is zoned "R", single family residential. Zcning Ordinance Requirements Section 3.30, Subdivision 4, lists setback requirements in residential (R) zoning districts. Section 3.41, Subdivision 6, lists three conditions that must be met before a variance may be granted. Staff Findings The staff has reviewed this proposal against the three con- ditions that must be met before a variance may be granted, and found the following: 1. There are no special circumstances affecting this property. This is a typically sized lot and is not significantly different than any other residential lot in Richfield. 2. Denial of the application will not preclude the applicant from existing or reasonable use of the property. 3. Although the proposed addition would be an improvement to the applicant's property, the proposal may impede light and air circulation to a degree, and increase the risk of fire spread to structures on adjacent properties. Council Letter No. 389 -2- November 10, 1980 Staff Recommendation Because the three conditions have not been met, the staff must recommend denial of this application for a variance. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the city council ap- prove this application. Respectfully submitted, ~' =~~:,..~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/jf cc: Community Development Director City Planner 1 ` ~. (f REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF ~ttl't-Gin/(,- S ~F~~n1 Sd)~' ~Ra~rX~y t~Ne' /~'%17~~D c~ !t'' FOR PURPOSE OF ;" t!!~ ,;-..-~~r`/ .%iJD/~i~ii ~!n ,/;~:~-LL- T/~'»1/l~~%~aj_°, Legal Description: We, the undersigned, being owners of ir.~mediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby concur with the variance as requested. S1~'natllTe Of OtJT1erS Addre5S LeQ31 Tlncr~^~^~r~yn-- /~ T G I ~~) 4/~ ~~ i J~ ~ Liter ~D =~~--~ ,~ ~ _ ~ I ~-- ~~, ~ ~ I ~ / •' r ~ t r. ~ r% ' ~~ ~ ~ ` ~_ _ _~ 1 ___ _ _-__I____~ -- \' `.. 3 ~ ` ~ ~ ` a 1 1 ~ ~ N O ~~ _ - , x C r _~ 0 4 ~ ~ SS `' 7 -z, tih °- a o ~ ~ Z ~- l o ~ s ~ 0 V - L~ J a ., ~ o ~ s C~ ~ ~ _ ~ G J1 ~, ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ s y ~, ~ `1 ~I! I ``1 ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~- ~ ~ a i ~, ~ Y ~, ~- <~'~ 2~ z T' 1 ` n ` q D ~ ~ 0 `r- ~ f ~ I , , o ~ 36~ «~ ~ ~ x _ p v i ~ 00 S ---- s- r 0 - ~ t -a ' ~ 3g ~ ~ ( ~ ~ - -- ~s_ tZ3.3t ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ u J ~ ,R v, ~ `r~ U O V" N ~ ~- 36 ~ V ~ ~.l _~ p ~ Q~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~,7~ _ i yaati--:~ aft-~,Y /U CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 388 Agenda November 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Disposition of City Owned Land Along the Crosstown Highway At the September 22, 1980 city council meeting, the council considered the disposition of three city-owned lots located along _ the Crosstown Highway. The council at that meeting referred the matter to the Planning Commission for a determination as to whether the sale of the lots would be in conformance with the city's Comprehensive Plan. A copy of the September 22, 1980 council let- ter regarding this matter is attached for your information. The Planning Commission, at their October 28, 1980 meeting found that the sale of the lots for residential uses or for acces- sory uses to residential uses would be in conformance with the comprehensive plan. A copy of the resolution passed by the Plan- ning Commission containing this finding is attached. Subsequent to the September 22, 1980 council meeting, the staff has continued negotiations with the property owners adjacent to the parcels in question. The staff has indicated to the adjacent prop- erty owners the following options that would be considered if the council rejected the bids for pt:rchase of these lots. 1. The city could continue to own and maintain the land. 2. The city could continue to evaluate an alternative use for the land. 3. The city could sell the lot to the highest bidder other than an adjoining property owner. As a result of these further negotiations, the staff has re- ceived the following bids for the lots: 1. 6209 Twelfth Avenue: Bid of $500 from Dennis Thar«ldscn, 6215 Twe=fth. Avenue. Mr. Tharaldson '.gas increa=ec. his er_ic~inal bid by $400. 2. 62.04 ~~oraar. Avenue: Bid of $1 ,500 from Dean Miley, 6210 Morgan Avenue. r1r. [Ailey has increased his bid by $500. 3. 6204 Vincent: Bid of $1,000 from Mrs. Gertrude Holtby, 6210 Vincent Avenue. This is a new bid. No bids have previously been received on this parcel. Council Letter No. 388 -2- November 10, 1980 It is recommended that the council approve the sale of the parcels in question Lo the adjacent property owners for the bids received. If the council approves the sale of the lots, the nec- essary ordinances to accomplish these sales will be presented for council consideration at a future meeting. Respectfully submitted, 1 ` ~ j i~,=~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/jf cc: Community Development Director City Planner . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager _-~ .,,, .. . ~:.~. ~. _ The Honorable Mayor and -- Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: %~ Subject: Recommendation Regarding Disposition of City Owned Property, The "Crosstown Lots" ~. During the latter part of 1977, Hennepin County initiated the sale of three properties adjacent to the Crosstown Highway. The parcels are located at 6204 Morgan Avenue, 6209 12th A~,~enue and 6204 Vincent Avenue (see attached maps). Wher. bids for these properties were requested, the county discovered that the City of ~:~~ ~ Richfield owned them. The city had purchased the lots in the early 1960's to permit the installation of water and sewer lines. - To complete the sales process, the county offered to repurchase the property from the city. This request_grompted the city to reevaluate the future of this land. Alternatives examined in- cluded: ~,; , „~ : ~:- ~. .;,, ;: ~. ~.; ;;1s;1 ,~~iE ::;~ ~- ...t., . ~....... 1. Rezoning the land for commercial development. This was unlikely because it would be ar. incompatible use in a residential area; 2. Using the parcels as open space for parks. The lots are too small to be versatile enough for such a pur- pose; Allo~r~ing single family homes to be built. The lots irregular shape and size do not meet requirements, without variances, for construction. Utility ease- ments also prevented utilization of the lots for housing; Negotiating owners, and the parcels to adjacent property the parcels to the county. _. 4:,~ - 1978, the city council considered the county's" Council Letter No. 349 ,~ Agenda September 22, 1980 _},~' ~ ~F~~Council Letter No. 349 -2 4~r September 22, 1980 ,~ -~, maintained, as vacant land, to serve as a buffer between the '_ residential area and the Crosstown Highway. The commission felt _ w that the vacant parcels served a public purpose when considering factors such as noise control, house spacing, public health, vis- - ~. ual aesthetics, and some future undesignated public use. They - specifically mentioned that the lots on Morgan and Vincent Ave- =.~.. nues are attractively landscaped and should remain that way, and ~~- that houses should not be squeezed in between the existing houses and the road. Thus, it was recommended that the parcels not be -~~ returned to the county. • - On April 10, 1978 the city council authorized the staff to _ e;{plore the negotiated sale of these parcels to the adjacent prep- erty owners. This city action was taken after the county stopped maintaining the parcels as part of their routine crosstown highway right-of-way maintenance program. The bids received were as follows: " Area If Build- If consid. Bids Sg.Ft. able Unbuildable Received ~ ; ~~ , 6209 12th 7,018 $9,500 $2,100 $ 100 , . : ~ .6204 Morgan 6,761 9,100 2,000 1,005 _ 6204 Vincent 7,088 9,600 2,100 None C The two bids received were from property owner s adjacent to the two parcels. Dennis A. Tharaldson, 6215 12th Avenue, bid $100 for the arcel at 6209 12th Avenue. Dean ;dilley, 6210 Morgan Avenue P tip. :~., bid $1 ,005 for the parcel at 6204 Morgan Avenue. No bid was re- ~~~,;';=: ~ ~-,',~~~ ceived for the property on Vincent Avenue. ,`:-~- Prior to returning to the council for action, the HRA staff - ~:^..,`;: ' has been reevaluating the parcels to determine their suitability ~`~''~'` for housing uses. This evaluation was undertaken because of the - very limited availability of housing sites in Richfield. Lot ~~ size, easement locations, neighborhood suitability and deed restr;_ct- ions have been reviewed for each of these parcels. The parcel at ~t` 6209 12th Avenue has a deed restriction that prevents construction , ' ~ given the existing parcel dimensions. The opinion of our legal ~`rY - counsel is that these restrictions would be very difficult to re- - move. The parcel could be sold subject to restrictions that ~.-.~ 3 - ' . maintain the utility easements . ~?" -'- ~ '' The parcels at 6204 rlorgan Avenue and 6204 Vincent Avenue K~ ~;,~ could be utilized for the construction of market rate housing. °~~ ~~A" "` ~' It would be necessary to relocate the watermains at an estimated 'S~y}'r,t' ~.` ~ cost of $5,00 ~~,r p=~^e1• This cost could be borne by the city .y--tip:'; 7S.e~: A • r w~?".._~~`p~a.- ~"nr a dQv~looer. Because the nrope.rty is subject to high traffic R ~~~ `~,•:_,~,, r= _-Council Letter No. 349 -3- ~;,' September 22, 1980 4~ t ~Ay~~ However, although these two lots are buildable, it would - be more appropriate to provide that their future use be for open ` ~. space. Because of the lot size and proximity to high noise levels," the homes would probably not be similar to the existing adjoining homes. The amount of yard space remaining after construction of a house on the lot would be limited and not supportive of long- term occupancy. By selling to the adjoining property o~r~ners, the lots will remain essentially as open space. One bidder, for ex- ample, would like to plant additional landscaping and locate a fence on the lot. With sale of these properties, the city would no longer have the burden of maintenance costs, and would recei~,~e a small amount of additional tax revenue. It is recommended that the city council indicate its recept- ivity to the offers to purchase the lots at 6209 12th Avenue and 6204 Morgan Avenues, with the stipulation that they be kept essent- ially as open space and not utilized for housing construction. With this council action, the sale should be referred tc the pla:~n- ing commission for a finding as to conformance of the proposed property disposition with the comprehensive plan. It is also recommended that the staff be directed to continue seeking a buyer for the property at 6204 Vincent Avenue. .--~ Resp ctfully submitted, L7 . ~:~ ~~ ~~ , Karl Noilenberger City Manager •- KN/ej a ec: Community Development Director ;, ~.. .~. i- . r, • » -~ ~, ' y ._ ~ P - _ A ~ f ,4;. ~'i~ }'~ ' .•~ .I t c 4 ti •. -. ~ ~ i ~~ ~ f' " re \ S r•r~-Yi. _ _. rte.... .., - ~ ~ ti+ . J' - j. 1 S- `~j k. - • r +.; _ t 5: 1 i '; - - '.:a~ y~ ~,~ • rt` `~ . Z . -' ~ ~ ~ i i . c`> _ y'`~. y x ~,.. ~` CO. RD. No. 62 (C. oss'o~,vn H~~iy.) ~. N o ;= ~~ /~ ~~~ ~ I ~ ! ,1 I ~ i~~ N i c~ I > I °'_ ~ ~j Lo' 2 B!. I I - i ~ rnI- - - 7ua sa. rt.- ~ ~ .- _ a I I I c . '~ ! ' ~ ~+ _,,. ~ ` ~+ ~ ~~~~ ~~. ~- 1 ~ i i I f I I I t ~ -~ n ~._, `, .. r C~ i N tai Q z W z Cam. RD. No. E? (C. ~~st:;'r,n H'rry.) ~:~:.. U z C L ,^ . c G ' t~l N Scc!a: ~„- ~~ 6~:~ 6~'Y L.' r- L; L G ':i'M ~." CO. F~. No. E2 (C,cs~~crvn Navy.) ~ ~ JIC~ ~C"~ _t 1~~ ~-~." ` .. Lat 2 ~I. 3 ~~ 7C' 8 sa 9!. lam' :•raterm~ain easement I ~ . _ , ~~ Resolution No. 26 RESOLUTION FINDING THE DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY TO BE IV CO`IPLIANCE ~9I TH THE COIIPREHENS I VE PLAN jVHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed disposition of property described as follows: 1. Lot 2 Block 1 Donnay First Addition 2. Lot 2 Block 2 lielbar Addition 3. Lot 2 Block 3 Lein's Richfield Second Addition ~`'HEREAS, the proposed dispositions are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan tilap and the Comprehensive Plan Goais and Policies. NO~~ THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds the proposed dispositions to be in compliance with the city's Comprehensive Plan. Passed by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield this 28th day of October, 1950. Joseph Ertman, Chairman P~ichfield Planning Commission ATTEST: Erich J. Russell, Secretary _. ~_ ~ :fi ter: ,..~ `Y'y^r. Transitory Ordinance No. A~7 ORDINANCE PRO'JIDING FOR THE SALE OF CE RTAIN CITY OWNED LOTS ALONG THE CROSSTOWN HIGHWAY CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The following described lots along the Crosstown Highway are hereby authorized to be sold by the City as herein provided: Lot 2, Block 1, Donnay First Addition commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2 then East to the South- east corner thereof then North 71.22 feet then Westerly along a curve concave to the North and having a radius of 1370 feet to a point in West line of Lot 2 distance 34.03 feet North from Southwest corner thereof then South to beginning. ' That part of Lot 2, Block 2, Me lbar lying Southerly of a line running from a point in the East line of said lot distant 59.8 feet North of the Southeast corner of said lot to a point in the West line of said lot distant 40.67 feet North of the Southwest corner of said lot, according to the plat thereof. • That part of Lot Addition," lying in the East line of the Southeast West line of sai Southwest corner thereof. 2, Block 3, "Lein's Richfield First Southerly of a line drawn from a point of said Lot 2 distant 62.26 feet North corner of said Lot 2 to a point in the ~ Lot 2 distant 43 feet North of the of said Lot 2, according to the plat Section 2. Such lots may be sold by the City pursuant to and in accordance with resolution adopted by the Ci~y Council. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of November, 1980. Donald J. Priebe, D2ayor ATTEST: Svlvia K. Bergh Acting Cite Clerk RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED LOTS ALOI~IG THE CROSSTOWN HIGHWAY WHEREAS, the City of Richfield owns certain real property legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1, Donnay First Additior_ commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2 then East to the Southeast corner thereof then North 71.22 feet then T~aesterly along a curve concave to the North and having a radius of 1370 feet to a point in West line of Lot 2 distance South to beginning. That part of Lot 2, Block 2, ~ielbar lying Southerly of a line running from a point in the East line of said lot distant 59.8 feet North of the Southeast corner of said lot to a point in the West line of said lot distant 40.67 feet North of the Southwest corner ' of said lot, according to the plat thereof. That part of Lot Addition," lying in the East line of the Southeast West line of sai~ • Southwest corner thereof. 2, Block 3, "Lein's Richfield First Southerly of a line drawn from a point of said Lot 2 dist~nt 62.2v feet ~lorth corner of said Lot 2 to a point in the 3 Lot 2 distant 43 feet North of the of said Lot 2, according to the plat to be referred to herein as parcel 1, 2, 3, respectively, and WHEREAS, on April 10, 1978, the City authorized staff to explore the negotiated sale of these parcels to adjacent property owners, and WHEREAS, informal proposals were accepted from the adjacent property owners for the amounts listed below, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has c` ~=r.::~::ea ~r a~. ~-=~ proposed sale of these parcels is in conformance with the Compre- hensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rich=~eid, i~iir.nesota: 1) that the offers to purchase the above described proper- ties are hereby determined to be reasonable and are a 2) that the Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to enter into an agreement for the sale of such parcels to the purchasers for the amount below on the basis that the parcels not be used for the Resolution No. -2- construction of primary residential structures, that • utility easement rights be retained, and that this resolution is ccn~i:.y~... ~ _ .. _-. ~.... =.u.~p~.-•- -.~ effectiveness of a transitory ordinance authorizing such sale: - Parcel 1 to Dennis Tharaldson, residing at 6215 12th Avenue South, Richfield, in the amount of $500.00; - Parcel 2 to Dean K. Wiley, residing at 6210 Morgan Avenue South, Richfield, in the amount of $1500.00; - Parcel 3 to Gertrude Holtby, residing at 6210 Vincent Avenue South, Richfield, in the amount of $1,000.00. 3) that the City Manager and staff are authorized to take such steps that may be necessary to effectuate this resolution and any sales agreement; 4) that the sale proceeds will be paid into the general fund. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of November, 1980. • Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk /l0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, ~1INNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 387 Agenda November 10, 1980 The Honorable Dlayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Purchase in Excess of $1,000 Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that the city council must approve purchases of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There are three such items on the council agenda of November 10, 1980. Tennis Court Lighting ~l'he adopted 1980-85 Capital Improvement Program includes city project 705 which calls for energy improvements to the tennis courts at Donaldson Park and Washington Park. At the present time these two sites provide lighting of tennis courts on an "all or none" basis. In other words, to light a single court, all four courts in the series must be lighted. The project provides for these sites to have the capability of lighting a single tennis court at a time. Funding for the project is through the special revenue fund., and $9,121 has been appropriated in the 1980 CIP budget. Quotations have been received from Don Von Electric Company; Rome Electric, Inc.; and other companies contacted, such as Olympic Electric, have chosen not to submit quotations. It is recommended the city council approve the quotation from Don Von Electric Com- pany in the amount of $8,700. Tires The city motor pool includes a 1973 front end loader used primarily for snow removal. The unit is in need of new tires. Hennepin County received bids for tires. It is recommended, through this joint purchasing effort, that the city council authorize the purchase of two tires for the front end loader from Ziegler Tire Service in the amount of $1,664.74. Funds for this purchase are available in the Central Garage Equipment Fund. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenbe`r'ger City Manager cc: Community Services Director CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESGTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 386 Agenda November 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Review of Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan Attached for your review and discussion is a draft of the housing element section of the Comprehensive Plan. The housing element is the section of the Comprehensive Plan which discusses the housing needs of the city and outlines the city's goals and policies proposed for the next ten years to meet those needs. The HRA and the Planning Commission have reviewed the draft housing element and have recommended favorable consideration of the document by the City Council. It is recommended that the city council review the draft housing element and make any changes which may be necessary. The council should not formally adopt the element at this time, however. The total draft Comprehensive Plan document will be submitted to adjacent governmental bodies at the end of December for their review and comment. Concurrent with their review, the staff will be conducting neighborhood meetings to elicit citizen reaction. The staff will present a final draft Comprehensive Plan for coun- cil consideration in June. The council will then have to approve the final draft and authorize its submittal to the Metropolitan Council for their review. The Comprehensive Plan must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council no later than June 30, 1981. The city council should not officially adopt the Comprehensive Plan until after comments are received from the Metropolitan Council. This item has been placed on the council agenda to receive any input from the council that is deemed appropriate prior to sending this to the other communities. The staff will incorporate any council directions into the final document. Respectfully submitted, Karl r~ollenberg r City Manager KN/eja cc: Community Development Director HOUSING ELEMENT INTRODUCTION Richfield is predominately a residential community. The high demand for housing. indicates that the city has a_reputation as a good place to live and a good place to buy an affordable home. This demand for housing in Richfield encourages the continuing upkeep and reinvest- ment that keeps the housing in good condition. To ensure the future of Richfield.as a desirable community a wider mix of housing will have to be made available. Richfield recognizes the value of a diversified population and is,commtted to promoting housing. opportunities for all segments of the population. The purpose of this section of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide data and analysis~of .existing housing conditions in the city and to identify. housing goals, objectives, and policies which the city will pursue to conserve, enhance and expand the residential environment of the city. A. DATA SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS The purpose of this section of the Housing Element is to describe and analyze the existing housing base and needs of the community. 1. Housing Distribution Table 1 Housing Type Housing Richfield Hopkins St. Louis Park Robbinsdale Structure 1970 1978 1970 1978 0 7 70 7 Type % $ ~ $ Ingle Family obile Home uplex le Famil ultip 10247 71 364 4304 10283 71 370 4456 67.7 .5 2.4 29.4 -2535 108 533 1680 2387 128 511 3704 36.4 1.9 7.5 54.2 11296 - 422 4315 11439 - 338 5447 66.4 - 2.0 1.6 3 4148 - 550 674 4206 - 568 810 75.3 - 10.2 14.5 ~ ~1~~1~1 ~1J t-i~GO -~_.' .vim.. .3oSll ~JVJ 16~.J _l' 17~L'+z / it7V .l7 .JAIL _ ~~i0.1~'. Source: U.S. Census; Richfield, Hopkins, St. Louis Park and Robbinsdale Planning Departments -1- Richfield is a fully deve-loped suburb which has developed with a limited variety of housing hypes. As .shown in Table d the predomi- nant type of housing is single family detached housing. 67.7 per cent of all dwelling units in Richfieicz are single ~uruly .::nits. This is about average for fully developed suburbs such as Hopkins (36.4%), St. Louis Park (66x14%) and Robbinsdale (75.3%). Less than 2 per cent of the single family units are townhouses (57 units), condominiums (4 units) or mdbile homes (65). An additional 92 condominium units are presently under construction. Multiple family dwellings (including ,duplexes) make up 31.80 of the total dwelling units in Richfield.. The 1978 housing unit total of 15,180 is within 20 units of the 1980 Metropolitan Council housing projec- tion of 15,200. Richfield ~hould surpass the 1990 Metropolitan Council projection of 15,401 by 1983 if planned developments occur. There is a shortage of rental opportunities for large families.. Table 2 shows that according to a survey of 800 of the apartments in Richfield that only 2% o~ rental units in Richfield are 3 bedroom units. This is lower than other communities in the south suburban area. ,Table 2 Comparison of Richfield Rented Housing Inventory With Surrounding Communities Burnsville Total South Richfield*** & Eagan** Edina** Bloomington* Suburban Units o Units j % Units % Units o Units Efficiency 27 1% 99 20 181 5% 334 6% 614 30 One-Bedroom 2729 690 2215 41% 1937 48% 3295 54% .9294 51% Two-Bedroom 1141 29% 2369 44% 1537 380 2320 38°s 6901 38% Three-Bedroan 78 20 754 '14% 393 10% 119 2% 1327 7% Total. Units 3975 100% 5437 X00% 4048 100% 6068 100% 18136 100% Sources: *City of Bloomington Minnesota, Apartment Licenses, 1978 **Apartment Outlook Report, November 1977 ***Apartment Survey, 1979, Richfield Planning Department (Response rate: 80%) C~ -2- From 1970 to 1978, 116 new single family and-198 multi-family units, including i49 units oz elde`r~~% zousing, have been built in Richfield. As shown in Table 3, 50 single family homes have been demolished:, 24 homes have been moved out of the city and 50 housing units have been lost through conversion to other uses. The net change of 190 additional units represents a 1.3 per cent increase in housing units. Table 3 Housing Changes 1970 - 1978* Single Family Multi-Family Units Units New Construction. 116 198 Demolition -50 - Housing Moving Into City 1 - Out of City -24 - Conversions To Residential - - From Residential -7 -43 Rehabilitation - -1 Net Change +36 +154 *Includes construction and moves in progress by September 1, 1978. Total Units 314 -50 1 -24 -50 -1 +190 2. Tenure of HouGincr Richfield has a high percen age of homesteaded (owner occupied) structures. As can be .seen in Table 4, 95.2 per cent of the total residential structures in R~'chfield-are homesteaded. 97.5 per cent of the total number of sing e family ..and duplex structures=_n.Rich- field are homesteaded. Thi percentage is slightly higher than the percentage of the total number of homesteaded single and duplex structures in Robbinsdale {~3.4%), St. Louis Park (96.6%), and P~tinneapolis (88%). Minneapolis and Robbinsdale do have a higher percentage of duplexes whic are homesteaded however. Table 4 • Tenure Richfield Robbinsdale Structures 1970 197 8 T970 1977 Single Family.. 1'0,318 10,3 1 54 4,148 4,206 Homestead 10,1 74 3,964 98 .3% 94.20 Duplexes 182 1 $5 275 284 Homestead 0 8 228 St. Louis• Park Minneapolis 1970 1977 11,296. 75,414 93% 211 11,928 o ~3% 80.3% 600 3-4 Units 31 29 ~ 2,454 Homestead 7 24 1% 35%' 5+ Units 225 2 ~9 2,940 Homestead 2 .9% 13% TOTAL 10,756 10;7 7 92,741 Hcxnestead 10,125 10,2. 81 0 94.10 95 .20 85% 1 and 2 Family 10,500 10,5 19 4,423 4,490 11,507 87,342 Homestead 10,115 10,27 2 4,182* 4,192* 11,116* 96.30 97 .50 94.6% 93.4% 96.G% 880 .__ Source: U S. Census.; R1ctlileCl Roobinsdale, anti ~t. Louis ~~~~. ~ s~~:~~~-;.g Departments; City. of Mi eapolis, Housing Profiles: Trends & Issues (1978) . *All owner occupied . structures ~ a assumed to be single family or duplexes..: s . -4- According to Metropolitan Council data found in Table 5, Richfield . has a .7 per cent vacancy rate for single family homes, a 3.5 per cent vacancy rate for multi-family units and a composite. rate of 1.5 per cent in September, 19.78. These rates are lower than the metropolitan area average. Compared with other fully developed suburban communities, Richfield has a lower multi-family and composite vacancy rates and an average single family vacancy rate. The total annual turnover rate for Richfield (28.9 per cent) is below the. metropolitan area average turnover rate of 34.6 per cent but about average for a fully developed suburban community. The turnover rate of single family homes is 12.7 per cent. This is lower than other fully developed communities indicating a more. - stable population. The turnover rate for multi-family units in Richfield (69.3 per cent is slightly higher than other fully devel- oped communities. Table 5 Vacancy and Turnover: 1978 St. Louis Richfield Robbinsdale Park Metro Area Units % Units % Units o Units o Vacancy* 222 1.5 60 1.1 367 2.2 14065 2.5 Single Family 71 .7 34 .7 142 1.2 3527 .9 Multi-Family 151 3.5 26 3.3 225 4.8 10538 6.1 Long-Term 1 - - - 4 - 1361 .2 (6+ months) Annual Turnover** 4348 28.9 1152 21.2 4732 28.0 197345 34.6 Single Family 1370 12.7 559 16 1999 16.3 71768 18.1 Multi-Family 2978 69.3 404 52.1 2735 58.1 125577 72.8 Source: Metropolitan Council "Data Log" Social and Denxx3raphic Reports 22,26, 27, 30. Information is derived from Northern States Power Company records. *September, 1978 **October, 1977 to September, 1978 • -5- 3. Cost and Rental Range of Housing Richfield's property valueshave increased rapidly since 1970. Table . 6 shows that the average va]1ue of a Richfield home in' the first-half of 1980 was $64,624. This. ias below the average value of all homes in the greater Minneapolis rea ($71,947) and similar to housing values in other fully developed. communities with high .percentages of post-war tract housing. (While the dwellings in Richfield are generally small and are aging, their value has continued to increase because of the community's c~,entral location, good accessibility, local amenities and affordab',le housing. As can be seen in figure 1,iRichfield doe^~ have housing with a range of values and that low value dwellings are located throughout the community and are not concentrated in any one area of the community.. The highest concentrations of low. value housing are east of Legion Lake and south of Wood Lake .l Table 6 Residential Value 1970 1971 1972 1973. 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980* RIC~IFIEL,p 24,201 25,732 27,304 29506 30,377 35,272 38,296. 44,406 53,132 .60,051 64,624 mange 6 6 7 3 14 8 14 16 12 7 ST. IAUIS PARK 24,730 25,938 27,156 28,554 31,190 34,948 38,387 44,830 52,892 59,690 64,374 ~ Change 5 4 5 8 11 9 14 15 11 7 i GREATER MINNEAPOLIS AREA 25,903 27,776 29,510 311536 34,555 38,095 41,883. 47,943 57,178 .66,417 .71,947 $ Change 7 6 6 9 9 9 13 16 14 8 Source: Greater Dlinneapolis Area Board of Realtors *Represents increase for half year. i -6- ~' ~ ~ j d i. c tl. d a CL ~ & ~, H 1 ~ ~ ~ ~';, ,.. w.. ~-~~ ` ~ ]n. xsax.ls ',-~,~, at~ .:- -~° ~ ~ o L7~y. 3n..xz V to 3 . N ii ' "T '~ ~ ~~ W ~ 4 ~ W a -3n. n L ~ Q ln. ww ice, S~.•• •:•~.j~~ _-e'i_ ~~I`~ 6 `k 6 ~ G ~ •.: wo: Z ~_. ln. x,w ~. , :~~:~ ••i ' I r-~ ~ w t ~ R ~ c ~ .o„llaxt, ' li ln..t„ll,xt ,-~ ~ W J Ul ln. ralo 1,,. w.. ..... ~ D _J L--- ,n. V r:::: ~. v 1 ~~. .... lx. wu ~ `y~ G;~;= ='~ .- .: `f ~~ul__...,.w ~~ r ~r - ~ g_ l~. os~ y ~ ~ wn i ........:. '~ ... .:.r I_~ L~ ~ L__.v_;, k.g..-~,.~ ~ `- ln. xoitxx, In I~ ~ ~~ ~~_ ~ ~~~~~ , u QD ( -~~<~_ ~~ ln.., ~~ ... ln. wo, ~ ~~.....~........_._ _. 3n. 09.J~x, '. O W ! ' ~ ~;y~;~yy ~ ~ L~ ~ 1_J~ ~..~w;+.`a~ ~ r_ ~J • ~ r '3n1 SIIY.11101 3n. SM.ittnJ ~ 1 - 1^' I^~ I - is :.: :. fir- ;,~ : _. ~ ~~:>..: 3 .. r _~ ~-~ - -_,4 i CiC~~<:::>::::>:::: C~ - ln. tx.,.xa .~....~.:...----~-s,.:.f-. - ln. tx.,.~. ...................................... _i.. ~,f~ t ......- - - .. Pc/;Y __ ___ _ ___ lnv wt ..~ x~w~ ._ ;.:-: .~ ',~ -- -- -- - ~ - - -- ~..::. y:_: . -....: ~;:::~ .rya..u ~ I ~:~.,::~ z: ~ j ::• i. ........................... ~~~~; ~::: ln. xo.xiv - :?~:?:;:~>r:~~3i~it -- ln. xo.xno -- ~~ t ~~' ~ • ^ tpp ~>:~a:i'i2'" i ~~J ~ L-J I~}} ~}:r} } i??::::~~. Gi::> Sii;>::i:::~ S::i:a :Ci ln.. c ~ 4r2'i:_:i;:';:;:;:iiiir:::.:::.::::>::~~~ >]I ln. o s -f~ .~~ _ --~--~ 0 :~•: ~~ 0 r:~ > o 00 ~.:~::~ ~~ ~~~:'.. . .:::::............................... u~: ln. •, -~ - ,.~ - ~ ln. - - ' ui _ o ~ _ ~~t. I _ L•. __ ".SS`s'-4~i :• ~• 3n. i3„OJix I ~---~^-~•__ -_. ~AW~. .,~_ ~ J:}.~•~W`.t~c!2s"n ~.~.~ ~-t 3nv 13,10>iH 3 v.,e l ~ ~ ~ _ m,'.~::a I ~ L.~ Y~.~._.:.~; ;~: - ~ 3n. „las~v,B lx. f~ tt„b ~ - ~- ~ ~ V ~' lln. n„,tt,,. 3 3 , ~_ ' ~ .~~ - - IB is ']^•3nv •ox.n ~ - ~ -^•f ~ 3nv3naMUx.e9 ~ W W ' - ~,-~ :---, "~.,.». _ . _ Off l~..mxx.x _ ___ ~ _~ _ '.:i.=~..z: ~' : I, ~ l.. ,~~uu.x r W W - --•„ ___ :.. ::. - - ~ .~ a,lu ,. ~ ...... l.. ... ~- =- ln. t,l~,... ~ -- ~ - i.`M r-~-~ _ :,~; :. ~.. _~._~ M. ::'.~4:v+:+ F---r s~;:;'> - .>.: -- - - V V -r~-.;: _ ,~ •i'rrrr .•• ... n. x . l ,.o . - \ - ln. xo~xo,. ln. lxo.m ~ , .J .... .: .. ...: .: ln. lxmno ln. xx,xl.l ~`..:.::.... _--- -~,3•. o C'~ .::~::>:=`_+r ln. x~txla O l,. lxoxl., ~>:... - s ~ 0~>? `:- ~ lx..x~xlx, -~ ' ' i:::• . ln..oroxx~x ---- :•::-::4.:..~. ~ n. a,~xxnx lx. ~x ~ i_~ - - ln. ,wnx ~ ~, .~ ],-ter-- ~ r •:: SS •r 3n. •Oxx t~ •~-~JCvi~iii:l_1L_~' ~q ~ /-~ ln. •Oxv v,~5x. ` ~ : .. . . ::.. it I ~ ~~r J . :: .. ..:. ....~..:.;..:.:~:.. L - .:..: ,_ - -- - - __ - , x,l,x ~. Ia r~ ~~ 4....i.x.w - ~ ~- - - 3n. x. ~ ' I --- ~- ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ l.. ......;:.: : ~ :»» ~:r:-.:;:;~~: ~C :,. . _ ..~ ..., _...., . ,~~...~, I . .J~ ~C~ _.. ~~ s. s ^ • s s s s r • r s r s r s - :: _ __ Average apartment rents in ing suburban communities. rents in Bloomington and 5 ~ suburban area. Table 7 sums ichfield are lower than those 'of surround- ents are approximately T2 per cent below • er cent below the rents in the south arizes Richfield's rental costs. TABLE 7 APARTMENT SURVEY Units Allowing Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Total Children Rent/Month Number ~ Number Number ~ Number ~ Number ~ Number $ 141 - 160 3 11.1 3 .4 161 - 180 24 88.9 79 3.1 103 2.8 14 1.1 181 - 200 289 ll4 5 ,5 294 8,0 75 6.0 201 - 220 1007 397 19 1.8 1026 27.8 99 7.9 221 - 240 684 26.9 120 11.2 804 21.8 120 9.6 241 - 260 200 79 69 6.5 269 7.3 158. 12.6 261 - 280 136 54 346 32.4 482 13.1 333 .26.6 281 - 300 143* S6 218 20.4 3 5.6 364 9.9 207 16.5 301 - 320 181 17.0 2 3.7 183 5.0 118 9.4 321 - 340 68* 6.4 1 1.9 69 1.9 51 4.1 341 - 360 41 3.8 41 1.1 30 2.4 361 - 380 - 24 44.4 24 ,6 24 1.9 381 - 400. i - - 401 + 24 44.4 24 .6 24 1.9 Average $163 $218 $280 $385 $243 Total Respon. 27 100.0 2538 10010 1067 100.0 54 100.0 3686 100.0 1253 100.0 (100) (93) (93.5) (69.2) (81.7) (31.5) No Rent Info. - (0) 191 (7)' 74 (6.5) 24 (30.8) 289 (6.4) 18 (.5) Units Report. 27 (100) 2729 (100) 1141 (.100.0) 78 (100.0) 3975 (.88,1)3975 (.100.0) * Includes 149 (143 one bedroom and 6' two bedroom) units of subsidized housing for senior citizens at Richfield Towers. Residents pay 25 percent of their income with the remainder of rent paid by a subsidy from theU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Source: Richfield Planning Department As can be seen from Table 8 Richfield has a low percentage of • housing base affordable to low income families and a low percentage. of the total units in subsidized units compared to surrounding cor•.imunities. The percentage of housing base affordable to moderate income families ranks well however. Table 8 Housing Base Affordable to Low & Moderate Income. St. Louis Metro ! Richfield Bloomington Edina Park Hopkins Mpls. Area i ~ Housing Base 4.4g 4.6$ 1.2$ 6.9$ 16.6$ 20.3$ NA Affordable to Low Income (1) ~, $ Housing Base .46.4$ 27.4a 8.3~ 44.3 51.1$ 36.7$ NA Affordable to Moderate Income (2) g Housing Base 1.43% 1.32 1.84 2.21$ 3.74 7.600 _+4.4~ In Subsidized Units (3) (1) ~ of units renting for $119 or less or valued at $12,500 or less in the 1970 census. (2) ~ of units renting for $199 or less or valued at $19,999 or less in • the 1970 census. (3) ~ of subsidized housing units constructed, purchased and approved in 1977 Source: Metropolitan Housing Guide: July, 1977 4. The Richfield Housing Programs The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has initiated a number of housing assistance programs. The purpose of the programs is to: - improve the attractiveness of neighborhoods throughout the city . - increase the supply of affordable, and habitable dwelling units - prevent the spread of urban blight - promote home ownership - discourage abandonment of properties, and, - stimulate the use ~i N~s;;ac~ capital nor Housing impro~~,~1~. -9- I The housing assistance programs operated by the HRA'assist both elderly and low and moderate income renters anc:i ~~o.~~eowners. 3?4 • units of subsidized rentallhousing have been provided in .Richfield through participation in thle federally funded Section 8 program. Under the Section 8 program direct rent subsidies are .provided to low and moderate income families and individuals to make-up the difference between the rental of the unit and 25 per cent of the occupants' income. The Section 8 program includes new construction,. existing. units., moderate rehabilitation, and substantial rehabilitation. 154 units have been provided using the new construction program. These include the 149 unit Richfield Towers Senior Citizen highrse and the scattered site housing project. The~HRA is not directly involved in the manage- ment of the new construction units. The scattered site housing project to date has provided for the construction of five large 'family rental units in Richfield. Initially application was made by the city for a CDBG Bonus Grant • to be used for property acgiuisition and clearance. When funding was approved, the HRA was responsible for the acquisition and demolition of five substandard houses and the sale of the vacant parcels to a private develoiper at a write down. MHFA provided below market rate financing to the developer. In return, the developer agreed to construct, maintain and operate the units as part of the Section 8 rentall assistance program for a per_od of at least nine years. The developer has completed the construction of the five scattered site 3 and 4 bedroom homes and they are currently occupied. One of the three bedroom units is designed to be acces- sible to the handicapped. In 1975, the. Richfield HRA entered into a contract with the Metro- politan HRA (a unit of the ',Metropolitan Council) to operate the Section 8 existiry program. The Metro ?iRn ~JtaG11j1L~S the operating procedures including when the Richfield HRA may take applications.. They also select participants for the program. The Richfield HRA -10- is responsible for inspecting each living unit to ensure that it is • safe and sanitary. For taking applications, helping participants. find a unit and facilitating good tenant-landlord relations, the Richfield HRA receives administrative funds from the. Metro HRA. The HRA began accepting applications in September, 1975. The first rental units were occupied in January, 1976. Since Richfield began to participate in the program we have been near the top in number of Section 8 units under lease .through the Metro HRA program. As of mid-December, an approximate total of 2300 units were under Section 8; Brooklyn Park (llo), Brooklyn Center (8%) and Richfield (80) were the top three communities. 210 units of Section 8 existing assistance has been provided in - Richfield. Metro HRA anticipates less future funding for the Section 8 existing program due to congressional evaluation of the program because of its expense. Table 9 summarizes Richfield's participation in the Section 8 existing program. . TABLE 9 --- --- - -- SECTION 8 EXISTING RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE F[[NDED BY. METROPOLITAN HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Funding Years 9/75 to 1/76 to 1/77 to 1/78 to 1/79 to Total 1/80 tol 12;75 12/76 12/77 12/78 12/79 9/75 to 12/80 12/79 Applications Accepted 131 210 180 82 123 726 Net Units Leased 62 80 43 26 211 Total Units in Program 62 142 185 211 211 210 1For 1980, we expect the total number of units to remain at approximately 210. During January, we continued to take applications for non-elderly families. Twenty-nine families applied. The Richfield HRA also provides housing assistance to low and moderate income homeowners. Assistance to homeowners involves _~.~~er the provision of rehabilitation loans and grants, the sale of land for construction of new housing, or a combination of both. Housing re- . habilitation loans and grants are provided through .the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) and through the. Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). -11- CDBG funds are received from HUD by Hennepin County through an Urban County Entitlement Gr~nt application. In recent years, • approximately 25 per cent o~ the CDBG funds received. by Richfield have been allocated by the ~ity Council to the HRA for housing rehabilitation programs.. T~e following are the various CDBG housing rehabilitation activities: under this program. (1) CDBG Housing Rehabilitation - Grants of up to $6,000 are made available to low income homeowners for building code, energy related repairs, and general improvements. The adjusted annual incomes of applicants cannot exceed $6,000. This program was.ini- tiated during the latter pat of 1978. Repairs most frequently needed include replacing old, defective furnaces, replacing old roofs, updating electric wiring, insulating, caulking and weather- stripping. A total of thirty-six. housing rehabilitation grants have been provided. (2) Emergency Grants - Flood grants. provided to homeowners affected by storm water run=off. In 1977, and again in 1978, a total of four grants of up to $5,000 were made available. to home- ~ owners with an adjusted annual income of less than $5,000 whose _ houses suffered structural damage from flooding. In 1979, no excessive rainfall occurred land no emergency grants were requested. However, in anticipation ofpossible flooding, $15,000 has been set aside for use during the spring and summer of 1980. Unexpended. emergency grant money is made available for other housing rehabili- tation grants in the fall. ;When additional CDBG funds are received for the next funding year, $15,000 is again made available for emergency grants. (3) Y.E.S. for Rehabilitation - Youth Employed and Supervised for Rehabilitation was funded using CDBG money for- the cost of materials and a Comprehensive Employment Training Act (CETA) Grant for employee labor cost. The CETA crews were trained in general housing repairs. They did not make tradesmen repairs in plumbing, electrical and heating. Homeowners with an adjusted income of less than $5,000 were eligible. The prog~ui~ was .initiated in 1~iarch of 1978 and operated for one ye,'ar only. Seventeen grants were made • -12- (4) Incentive Grants - Supplementary grants.. for -~_...:~esr.:~.:. • Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) loan recipients. The program was initiated in 1975. Eligible persons are low and. moderate income homeowners who have received an MHFA home improvement loan from a lending institution. The grant cannot exceed 20 percent of the loan proceeds which were spent on building code and energy related improvements. The maximum grant is $1,000. It must be used for additional energy or building code related repairs or to reduce . the principal amount of.the MHFA loan. .Grants have been awarded to 49 households. This program was initiated in 1975 and operated until 1980. The CDBG funds have been utilized to provide 106 rehabilitation _ grants to Richfield households. A summary of Richfields CDBG housing rehabilitation program is shown in Table 10. TABLE 10 REHAB GRANT PROGRAM FUNDED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT LJ Year I Funding Years 7-10-75 to 9-1-76 Year II 9-1-76 to 7-31-77 Year III 8-1-77 to 7-31-78 Year IV 8-1-78 to 7-31-79 Year V 8-1-79 to 7-31-80 TOTALS Year I - Year V Total CDBG Allocation to City of Richfield $98,855.00 $125,610.00 $419,346.00 $328,076.00 $352,174.00 $1,324,061.00 Rehab Project Allocation 10,000.00 38,805.0 92,842.00 76,384.00 82,174.00 300,205.00 Incentive Grants - 14 3 24 6 2 49 Emergency Grants - 0 2 2 0 0 4 YES for Rehab - 0 0 16 1 0 17 CD Grants - 0 0 9 17 10 36 TOTAL Grants 14 5 51 24 12 106 $ of CDBG Allocation for Rehab Project 10$ 2 31~ 22~ 2 23$ 23~ 238 1Number of grants reflect number of households assisted by the grant grogram, i.e., i_. ~ hcus_°..'_,; received more than one grant from the same program, the household is reflected only once in the total; if one household received more than one grant from different programs, the household is counted in each program total. 2Additional amounts of CDBG funds were allocated to housing in Years IT and IV. In Year II $51,305 went to the New Home Program, and in Year IV $100,000 established a Site Acquisition Fund. Thus, the total percent of CDBG allocated to all housing programs in Year II was 72 percent and in Year IV was 54 percent. •. The MHFA, through the bonding authority granted by the state legis- lature, provides money as grants and loans for housing. rehabilita- ~~.;::. -13- The following programs are presently assisting Richfield residents: (1) MHFA Grants - Grants of up to $6,000 are made available . to low income homeowners. The applicant's adjusted annual income must not exceed $6,000. It `is similar to CDBG Grants. in that the money is used to repair furnaces, roofs and other building code related items. The HRA is responsible for processing applications and ensuring that rehabilitation work is completed. The percen- tage of MHFA grant money made available to Richfield and other communities is based in part on a ratio. The ratio reflects the number of pre-1940 houses valued at less than $20,000, the number of homeowners with annual incomes of less than $5,000, and the population growth rate. This program was initiated in 1976 and funding is presently administered through Hennepin County to the i HRA. Hennepin County utilizes the above ratio but also considers planning areas in allocating the monies. The allocation is designed c ommunities to fund at least one grant. to allow all participating for rehabilitation. As sho n in Table 11,39 grants have been made to date. • (2) MHFA Loans - Low 'nterest home improvement. loans of up to $15,000 are available to homeowners who have an adjusted annual income of less than $16,000. The interest rate of these loans. varies from one per cent to eight per. cent. MHFA allocates funds directly to the banks and s wings and loan associations.. The loans are processed by the participating lenders. Each institution volun- tarily requests the money according to the amount they estimate can be loaned. Richfield Bank and Trust, Summit State Bank, and First Federal Savings and Loan have participated in the program. Richfield residents are not restricted to Richfield lenders for loans. Region 11, which includes the seven-county metro area, receives 40 per cent of the total state allocation. An estimated 276 loans have been utilized in Richfield as shown in Table 12. -14- Funding Years Grant Allocation to Richfield Total Grant Amount3 Expended and Committed Number of Grants Administration Allocation % of Allocation for Administration $ of Total MHFA State Allocation in Richfield % of Total Hennepin County to Richfield TABLE 11 REHABILITATION GF,AN1' PROGRAM Funding Source: Minnesota Housing Finance. Agency (P~HFA) I 9-76 to 8-77 II 9-77 to 8-78 III 9-78 to 8-79 IV 9-79 to 8-80 I - IV Total 1976/80 Proposed V 1980/81 $26,522.00 $31,733.46 $31,734.00 $56,378 $146,367.46 $50,740.00 33,034.30 34,206.95 54,457.19 30,000.00 151,698.44 27,OOA.00 10 10 13 6 39 5 838.00. 1,706.10 1,024.00 1,100.004 3% 5% 3.1259% 3% .94% .94% .94% ~ .94% 1.77°s 1.77% 1.77% 1.77% 1 The proposed allocation for Year V is expected to be 10% less because of a reduction in total funds available. 2 This value indicates the amount to be distributed within our planning area. Our allocation from the county is now based on competitive application with other planning area communities. • 3 The total grant amount expended is higher than the initial allocation in Years I - III because of the reallocation of unspent funds from other communities. 4 The administrative allocation for Year IV has not yet been determined. The anticipated amount in the 1980 budget is $1,100. Prepared: February 1980 Table 12 L0~9 INTEREST REHABILITATION LOANS Funding Source: Minnesota iiousing Finance Agency (MHFA) Funding Years Number of Loans to Richfield Residents Amount Issued Pha:;e I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V1 Phase VIl Phase VII 8-75 6-76 1-77 7-77 1-78 7-78 1-79 TOTAL2 to to to to to to to 5-76 12-76 6-77 12-77 6-78 12-78 1-80 24 65 41 42 C20] [507 34 276 4 10 99,100 264,288 200,558 163,727 C54~,680J [147,640] 187,569 1,117,562 10,936 29,528 1Figures for Phase V and VI are figures from a 20% sampling done by MHFA. The numbers in brackets are estimates of what a 10~$ sampling might have indicated for Richfield (not statistically accurate). 2The total includes the estimated figures mentioned in Phase V and VI. Phase VIII operates from 2-80 to 1-81. Summit Bank has requested $150,000 for loans.. _ Prepared: February 1980 -15- i The HRA's New Home Program provides land at a write~.down for the construction of new homes. 'This program was established in 197.4 • to eliminate deteriorated structures and provide new houses for low and moderate income families. The program is financed through the New Home Revolving Fund. T~,is fund was established in 1975 with - -- monies from CDBG ($51,305) and the proceeds from the sale of fourteen city owned lots in New Ford'Town ($50,000). The development of ten of these New Ford Town parcels for market rate housing has resulted in almost $8,000 of additional annual tax revenue. Development is pending on other parcels so this amount will increase in the future. The New Home Program is implemented when substandard homes are sold voluntarily to the HRA. Vaunt substandard houses are particularly desirable. The properties are .then resold to a developer who agrees to meet certain criteria. The new house must be affordable to a moderate income family and ~e in accordance with the FHA 235 mort- gage and total cost limits. The houses must have at least three and preferably four bedrooms. Construction of the new homes can be financed through the federal FHA 235 program, the MHFA Affordable • Home program or through conventional financing programs. Four new homes have been provide through this program. An HRA program which involves both rehabilitation and land write down is the Vo-Tech rehabiliItation project. On November 8, 1976, and on February 28, 1978, the HRA approved the rehabilitation of two houses, 7238 Wentworth Avenue and 7444 Bryant Avenue respec- tively. The program calls for the HRA to acquire a substandard single family lot using CDBI' money. Rehabilitation is undertaken by South Hennepin County Voational Technical School (Vo-Tech) students as on the job training. Subcontractors then complete the electrical, plumbing and heating work. The house is then sold to a moderate income family un'er the FHA Section 235 Program., (The FHA Section 235 program is iesigned to assist first time home buyers (families) with a moderate income by establishing the maximum purchase price and mortgage on a home. The buyer receives a housing "subsidy" by paying a reduced interest rate that fluctuates with income level.) -16- The 7238 Wentworth project involved acquiring a parcel that had a small one-story ".garage" house. The house was structurally sound which allowed it to be updated and the living space to be expanded. The house wasthen sold. For the 7444, Bryant project, the HRA acquired and demolished a deteriorated "garage house". A structurally sound house was acquired from a site which was cleared as part of the city's Lyndale/Hub/ Nicollet Redevelopment project ,and moved to Bryant Avenue. The rehabilitation resulted in a four-bedroom house. It was sold in November, 1979. The Vo-Tech has recently contacted the HRA about initiating another _ project for the fall of 1980. A city-owned house will be moved from land designated as park open space to a lot at 6500 Standish Avenue. The Vo-Tech will then rehabilitate it and it will be sold in accord- ance with the FHA 235 program .guidelines to a moderate income family. • As of 198.0 the City of Richfield has provided a total of 766 units of assisted housing since 1975. Table 13 summarizes the number and type of assistance which the city has provided. TABLE 13 ASSISTED UNITS - RENTAL As of 1980 1) Single Family a) Section 8 existing 10 b) Section 8 Substantial Rehab/Mod Rehab 0 c) Section 8 New Construction 5 2) Multi-Family a) Section 8 Existing 210 b) Section 8 Substantial Rehab/Mod Rehab 0 c) Section 8 New Construction 0 3) Multi-Unit Elderly a) Section 8 New Construction 149 ASSISTED UNITS - OWNERSHIP 1) Single Family 6 • 2) Multi-Family 0 3) Rehabilitation (Single Family) 386 TOTAL 766 -17- In conjunction with Richfield's participation in the Community Development Block Grant pro~ram a ~i~usincr P>ssistance Plan (HAP) was developed. The HAP set forth specific numerical goals for assistance to low and moderate income renters: and homeowners. As can be seen by Table 14 Richfield has exceeded those„goals in most cases except for goals for dotal assistance to renters. This was due to the lack of funding ~or rehabilitation of rental units. TABLE 14 ' THE HOUS NG ASSISTANCE PLAN (HAP)1 PERFORMANCE / VS. GOALS OF RICHFIELD HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS Funding Source:', CDBG, MHFA, Metro HRA (Section 8) Funding .Years (1) Total Housing Assistance to Homeowners (No. of units) (a) New Construction assistance for Homeowners (VO- Tech, New Home) (b) Rehabilitation Assistance for Home- owners (CDBG, MHFA Loans and Grants) (2) Total Housing Assistance for Renters (Section 8) (No. of units) Year I ~ Year II Year III Year IV (TOTAL (Year I - IV) 7-75 to 8-76 9-76 to 7-77 I 8-77 to 7-78 8-78 to 7-79 Performance/vs.Goal P E R F O R MAN C E / G O A L S 71/3 .88/53 125/69 I 108/72. I 392/197 O/N.A. 0/0 2/5 4/2 6/7 • 71/3 88/53 123/64 104/70 38.6/190 51/50 53/2522 215/80 46/40 365/422 5 a) New Construction Rental Units) - 0/150 149/03 - 149/150 b) Rehabilitation of 0/3 0/504 0/504 - 0/103 Rental Units c) Existing Rental Units 51/47 ', 53/52 66/30 46/40 216/169 (Net New Assistance) 1Required by the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) prior to release of 2federal CDBG money i The large difference between goals and performance is caused b~ a dela in construction for Richfield Towers and the lack of funding for "substantial rehabilitation' of renal units. 3Richfield Towers elderly high-rise completed. 4Funding for "Substantial Rehabilitation" of rental units not available. SThe total of 374 units indicated in the nlarrative have been added from 8-79 to 1-80 and is an increase from 365nits. These additions were made to the Section 8 existing program and the scattered site houses have now • been completed. -18- 5. Housing Conditions A windshield survey of housing. was conducted during the summer of 1978. Houses were identified if they fit into the three following classifications: 1) Neglected: Houses with deferred maintenance such as severely peeling paint., deteriorating roof, crumbling steps, broken windows, or a combination of several conditions. 2) Deteriorating:. Structurally sound houses needing sub- stantial repair and renovation - such as rotting boards. and window sills, crumbling chimneys, unsound roofs and other conditions that if not alleviated could lead to substantial decay and potential structural damage. . 3) Dilapidated: Houses with structural defects such as sagging roofs and crumbling foundations so that the building is an inadequate or unsafe shelter. The location of deteriorating and dilapidated housing is shown in Figure 2. Some minor concentrations of housing in deteriorating or dilapidated conditions can be discerned. On even the worst blocks, the majority of the houses are in sound condition with no more than three houses in deteriorating or dilapidated condition. While problem housing is scattered through the city, some minor concentration of poor housing are apparent from the recent survey shown in Figure 3. The rehabilitation or removal of a limited number of houses could significantly change the patterns on that map. -19- a ~::, .++«..+F -. W C v G~. F 3 ~ d ln..EE W \\ nr~ _r- ~ ln. +Ewnls !~ Enr uu ~ ~~~ ' ~~~ w rim 'i Env w„l,~o EM ., 1~ _~ _~ i ~uL__~ ~ , >M ~.E.~mm . ,- ~L, , r- - ~~-.~_u ~~~~ 'ln. r10i ']n. lpll3 I ~ , ~ ~ ' ' En. Ena,~~ 3M axvtv.0 , _ i ~~ , ~ ~~r~ ~. .E~, ln. a ~ ~~~ : Env raix l0 ~ .-- ~ --_J~i ~_-_ ~_~ l 3n. r c .__ ~- ]n• W2 3n. Sx1n315 : ~- -y~-J -, lnv Y~ - ~ '~ ~ v C=== a ' En. immix ln.•~.b..~ 3. lnv ~YMntie _~ ... F. -- ~~ l = ~-_ _;__..~ lnan.•o..~ ~ ~!~--~ 3n. ilebvv '' • _. • • ~ En. a 1,,..~ ln. lAOxnt . ~ ~ //--_ 3M iM+bB ~ ~/ ~~ r / /~/2y a / ~ / 1 °~ n. v,wm l+. wsul~E / x 11 3 ' u ~ ~E. -.~~-._ \ .~ Avi ~a 7M n. - ~~ -~ 3nv NvJm _~ ~'~ r-~ -- '~' ..>. I L - ,=~~ ln. ,l>M _ E.. ~,.l~l 3Q ~ i - r "~ - ln'..~,.E. _ ~ it ~~ 1 ~< w ~ - ~ ',~ K tl G C ~~ [y C-w -~ ~ U w w ~x~ A ~!~L-JU~~`,=~ ~~--J~- ~~ ~ ,r---~ .\\\ ~\'-~p~ jywv~-~ , r--,--, ~~~~I~~~~l~~ ~oC~oo~oooo~ ~~~o~~o~oooo -r-, ~!OC~~~~~~'~C~~~ ~ ~ n ~ I~ ~~0~'~~r J ._~ L- •. Q _..- ~--' '-l ~ qe - ~ _ -- ~-~i~C~ 'ice-_- - '~ I• -~~ L~ ~-- - _~~ -~ ~n •'- ~r-~ - - ~ I ' -, - ~-'--- - '--------~-=--J'---- --------- ----i'=- ^ ~ ]M a.: Env nsiax.ls W . ' 'Env WEE ~i. ]n1 ulE /y 3M r~OE \W d '. Env wmnlewl 0 lnv n030 `j . m,.. - Z EAV r~9i J En. »o.~~.~~~ 9 W 'ln. v~.i 3nv .~f~ ,~, EAV v121 M ln...01 W ')A. LMt3 Enr oE.Ei.I ~lnv sna.ntm ~ lM ESN ,. aM.~, lnv vet Ent v~. 3M MixnE '3nv v [ ~ 3nv Sx1n315 ~. 'Env ~~i 3nv lllUS tB E'ln.„AVEOnMEEtte r .~F n..~.E.l,. ~ E~ a«... C i En.I~EE.. v 1 3nv Ol3iltl.D W \' 'Env ]tvOxx ` Q,V '3nv lxavn En. exam ~ J En. xowE.E J W ~ m ` l ,~owl.l ~. ln. a..E~o . 1 3nv3nv lM1 nxN ~ x l . Eli.. .Z W En..0,. 0 d ~ ~. 3n. M.ml r ~' n. ~..E~~ F• o 'Env HO~.xEx Q "~ SEE En. EEn~,o Z ~ W Z ln. H,E. J ~ a O n. ,ll~e V ~ c o ~.o3El.E Z ~ a ~ En.:.~, ~ ~E J W ln. ~o.,n N Z o 0 Enl . EI..E. = ~' ii ~, * ~ F _ - c i- _ „ ~". nci 3w r•f~ r,,. ,~.3^~,. ,... `, ant s"sn 3;5 ;,,i ,~ . d~, F F. G F 1'~ 3 ~~~ ~ ;~` - ~ a c k r ~~ .~F• !^~I ~~ ~~ Ca. Z x~ C~ i ~i ~~~ $:ii ,_ Lc. ~ ® a ~ z (-~ w x (~ ~ E W ~-, ~ ~_ ~; ~ ~ i ter--- ~-Z ~--,, ~--~~~~' ~ ~ .~-- - r--- -- r JC ~ ~r L ~~'_ -J;- J' - ~-~-~- ~QC7L~C{ ~~C~- C~ 9 ~L~~~~C^C~ ~C~CD~CC~~C~~I- rb -mot ~ ~ J - - ~ ~ ' ~ ~~ ^~_ t$ :~ ~ _ _ .. -_. y ~~ . , _ ~ i r-' ~ ~~~ J -- ~.-.. ter- i,3 ~'.$f~s+ ~~_ 1~-~~ - ^_-. ~ __ J ~~ __ `-- _ __ - " ~ "> _- w - - ~~ ,. __ _ ~. 11- _ ~ _ - ~~ _-_ ~ ~ -- - -- ~- ~~_ .__ ~ .~ (S '_ ~. o - Mr ~G `rr~,-__ Jam. :_ -~ A L ~~ r - ...... ~r ~~. M ~ `' ':::::. _. - ____ ___ ____ _._ _ ~_____. .-.___I _.. _ ___. __~_ 1 - Y -M 1. a t l 3 t 3 ~ s ~ t 3 3 s ~~,Z ~ Z W ~ ~ ~ Z ,". "~.: W Z C ~ s". w a W = Q d 3"..s~a..~s V V ~ W 3". w~z= ~' d D ,". "~oay 3nr 61 Z W ~ 3"...03~ Q ~ a r". ",,, ' ~ ~ ~,o M '~ t7 Vm1 x j~~~ "r ", e, 3 ~ ~ a ~. "r ,a„3 .~. W d d 6. 3". ~.,~~, ~ z r ~' 3nr sneenroo W O "° Z ". a„.,.ro a ~ Z r ~ ~ 3". a~.v.Y~, w o° m i ~ F W F+ d 3". P,. J O W W ,".w~ adZG~ 3". ~"3"3., y~ ~ I 1 1 1 ". ,. ~ ~ t/1 to 4R 1 ~ _ ~ ~- F- s"..r.s.s,. 3".r.adr., ~~I~~~ ~ 33". a3,ea..~ YI ".s a". a.am O ,", .~.,,r, ~ ,",3,. a,~~,r v ,.. ~,.3 p ~ w• r "r .,"„~ Z I i ~ v.. .",>"~" ~ d rtrtL 3.atla 3. O 1' TABLE 15 HOUSING CONDITIONS 1978 (Single Family & Duplex) Richfield Robbinsdale St. Louis Park Minneapolis I Conditions* # ~ ' # ~ # $ # ~ Sound 10,065 96.0 3,428 77.2 _ 91.0 76,683 83.0 Neglected 348 3.3 902 20.3 6.6 14,477 15.7 j Deteriorating 58 0.6 86 1.9 Dilapidated 11 0.1~~ 27 0.6 2.4 1,214 1.3 Totals 10,482 100.0'. 4,443 100.0 100.0 92,374 100.0 *Condition classifications considered equivalent: Richfield Robbinsdale St. Louis Park Minneapolis Neglected Some rehab I Minor Deterioratio n Fair Deteriorating Substantial Rehab Dilapidated Major rehab Unsound Poor Source: Richfield Housing Su ',rvey, 1978; St. Louis Park and Robbinsdale departments of planning, Minneapolis Departmen t of Planning: Housing Profile: Tends & Issues (1978). TABLE 16 RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION WORK 1970 - 1978 1970 1971 11972 1:973 1974 1975 976 1977 1978* Total Number of Permit s ' Additions 113 79 84 79 118 102 132 114 95 Alterations 337 324 413 385 423 500 545 553 616 Garages 112 94 96 84 74 84 105 101 102 Value/Permits ', Additions $3020 $4650 '$3890 $4810 $4420 $5940 $7710 $8550 $9460 Alterations 930 1170 1000 1150 1410 1300 1400 1840 1680 Garages 1490 2800 ', 1810 2170 2860 2640 3610 3630 3670 Number of System Permits Water 328. 263 222 181. 136 119 102 76 126 Plumbing 775 598 ~ 620 559 607 493 558 478 438 Sanitary Sewer 73 64 ' 63 70 59 54 69 102 94 Heating & Ventilating 327 332 361 364 368. 403 420 451 482 Electrical 604 557 612 705 741 756 849 851 896 *Twelve month estimate based on eleven months ~~ a= Source: Public Works Department. Inspection Division 916 4101 852 1553 5126 648 3508 6571 ~~ -22- As shown in Table 15, approximately four percent of the single family and duplex houses in Richfield are in need of rehabilitation. An estimated eleven houses are dilapidated to the point that .rehabilitation may no longer be economically viable. It is estimated that nine other houses needing major rehabilitation cannot be rehabilitated for a variety of reasons. The estimate of about 400 buildings needing rehabilitation compares well with the 1970 census figure of 401 structures suitable for rehabilitation and an estimate in 1975 of 555 structures from a survey prepared by the conomic Research Corporation for the Metropolitan Council.. These figures indicate. that rehabilitation in Richfield is apparently keeping pace with the deterioration of housing. No past data is available on the number of houses needing substantial rehabilitation - which would be more indicative of trends of the effectiveness of rehabilitation. From -1970 through 1978 approximately 4,100 building permits have been taken out. for residential alterations, as shown in Table 1. An additional 900+ permits have been taken out for additions. Assuming most of the structures had only one permit, almost half of the residences in Richfield have undergone some alterations. Undoubt- • edly the permit figures do not reflect the total amount of renovation, especially where do-it-yourselfers are involved. As shown in Table 16 the number of residential alteration permits applied for each year has increased substantially since 1970. This increase is evidence of a growing housing rehabilitation trend. While no clear trend is apparent in the number of addition permits, the average value of each home expansion has increased substantially. These two trends are indicative of an increase in reinvestment in residential property. Substandard housing can be rehabilitated or demolished. Demolition of substandard housing enables land to be recycled for construction of moderate and low cost housing. This process has been implemented through. the voluntary sale of sub-standard homes to the city or condemnation of vacant structures that do not meet minimum housing standards.. Removal of garage homes has been emphasized because most are both substandard in construction and location on the lot, and do not conform to the building codes. Available information - 2 3- _:~~. -"`-~' ,~ -gym ~I ~! W 0' G7 W ~~~ d c ° ° a ~ ~ 3 :~' 3 3 I_J ,..«. y~y ~~~~ zA. »fN».fs __r~~~~"'~ IF ~ G K ~• wzz i! _J~ ~ s iA... ~i ' . _ ~~l ~ zn..o»zaewo - `~ tt~ ~~ i v .~ ~ i ~ ~~~~~ ~L~L- ,A...<, ,~~~~~J~~~~ ,A. •.a, - ~ ~~~C '3A. ip••3 , ~ ~u~~ . , o~~_C 3A• 00. Y»J ,~~ ~ ~ I~~~ ~C ~,. a».,.~. _ CSC-~~ ~' ~ ~ ! ~~~ -_-..= ~- Y f i !. • ~ o~ W ,. ~~ ~z t cW `C r d d W D U i'~ ^ ~va •..a W ~ ~, 3A1 v~fi ~ 0 ~ I iA• »siox.u ~ W znr wz F w u 3M lili ~ ~ ~ ~ Kt' .~ / zA• a~ii ~_-; L- ~~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~~ oA. ••ma ~>w. •~.~ - ~ ` ~'~.. i ~__ z i I__e~ __ L-7 ~ A ~oe. ~. . «o n ov ~,~ ~ J~'~ a x~eo f •A. .~ ~ ~ ~ ,.. v;., ~ fC~ I_ (D~ O~C~ ~9ie v~. v~u ~UJ~~L-J Jl-J~ = ~ ~~ C~CICIiO~ ~, I~DO~O~~~~ ,A. ,~,,, 1v 0.•~i»~ -~~~~~CC,~ ~A. ,M ... ~~_~ ~I~~~OOC' ' ~~~~~~% ,A. aA.„ro - ~~- ~ '3n. OMilbov '3nv v~f _ i~-'! ~~~~,0~ -- -~, ,--- ;~ ~~r •i~u~~. •A. ai ~' ~~ ~ ~~C' ~~ • v ~ ~ f ~' . ~ 3A. f.,,,,.f a.• ~.i _ f 7~L.t~~~ ~r^ 7C ^ ice`~~ o~ , s ~~~ - ~~ i ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ` iA _ ~ LL_J ~ _. ~ `_ ' 3nv ]1soNil _ ~- ,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~_. ~ J ,~~i _ ~~i `,.;~ ~ ant z a~ ~~ _ e a »o,~ J ~ ~~~. ~- _~ : ~---~ ~ 3 ~~ ~~~'~'~~ f, z . xofunn• ` r 3 1 ~~`~' ~-~ ~~ nr tl ~ . ~ z auvu o ~~ ~.x ~ / ~_._ _ a - 3A. s r o * _ ~~ ~~~ - i~pp _ ~ 3AY x.00 i~ ~{ .. _ ~_ L_-_. L ~ ~- -- ~ 3A• M~.oM O 3A. »J1.3 x sf1 ~ r ~ ~ - r_ rig ~ •». , 3=f~. O ~:~ J I I ~~' { ~~ ._ A i ~ ~ i. i~.. sO~ -- ~ ^~` -r. - i- ~ R s Z T. J .d 0 J W W x v m W V Q N Z F ~ i 4• Q o ~ ~ ~ a ~ m a m O H W ~ to W ~ S b F- S 1 .h^- indicates that an estimated three houses. in Richfield are sub- standard because of the lack of complete. plumbing facilities. Figure 4 shows the location of 100. buildings that were identi- fied in the recent housing survey as not in compliance with the setback requirements in the zoning ordinance. Many are right on the back lot line. In addition 44 houses are shown in Figure 4 that are out of alignment and in many. ways fit with this category of houses, but apparently do not violate: setback requirements. Several of these houses are original farm houses that pre-date the street and subdivision patterns. _ Another general indication of housing condition is age of the housing base. Generally the older the housing the more exposure to material deterioration and neglect. As can be seen in table l7, less than five percent of the housing in Richfield was built before 1940. This compares with approximately 10 percent of housing in St. Louis Park, 68 .percent in Minneapolis and 22 percent in Robbinsdale. Richfield was almost completely built up during the post-war building boom of the 1940's and 1950's with an apartment boom taking place in the 1960's. Less than two percent of the housing in Richfield was built in .the 1970's. TABLE 17 YEAR DWELLING UNIT BUILT Richfield Robbinsdale St. Louis Park* Minneapolis ~ (1978) (1977 1977 19 0 $ 8 ~ $ 1939 or earlier 690 4.6 22.2 9.7 68.1 1940-1949 3,095 20.4 25.3 24.5 9.7 1950-1959 6,751 44.5 30.7 35.0 9.5 1960-1969 4,344 28.7 17.0 23.6 12.7 1970-1977 279 1.8 4.9 7.2 N/A Source: Robbinsda le, Richfield, St. Louis Park, departments of planning; U. S. Census *Estimated-from data supplied -25- ; Eigu e 5 shows that four areas of the city have more than 20 perc~nt and one had between 15 and 20 percent of its.houses built before 1939. The three areas in the northeast contain about 24 percent and all five togethe~~ contain almos ~ 4G pert, t of .this pre-939 housing in Richfield. Although these sections of the city have a significant percentage of their housing aging, housing stock in the city is maturing, but not aging to the degree that old ~.nd obsolete housing is becoming a significant problem in the city~as a whole. 6. opulation, Household and Employment Projections Proj ctions for 1980, 1990 a,d 2000 for Richfield's population, numb r of households, averag household size, and number of jobs are iven in Table 18. Household numbers are projected to increase slow y butsteadily at a rate 'of about 300 units every ten years. Most of those units are expected to be multiple dwellings. The hous hold projection is based on current and predicted trends, proj,cts in progress, plans fllor redevelopment and the need for subs dized housing. .These husehold numbers, which are slightly high r than Metropolitan Council projections, were used to determine population projections that ~gree"with the Metropolitan Council predictions of declining population levels and closely relate to thei .ratios of population t~ household numbers. (TABLE 18 POPULATION, HOUSEHOLD AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS 1970 1976 1978 1980 1985 1990 2000 Population 47,231 43,952 43,250 39,000 .37,500 36,800 36,550 Hous holds 14,797 14,947 15,176 15,300 15,500 15,650 15.,900 Hous hold ize 3.19 2.94 2.84 2.55 2.42 2.35 2.30 Employment 10,328 N/A N/A .10,500 10,700 11,000. 12,000 Sour ,e: Richfield Planning Department and Metropolitan Cou oil This trend toward increasing households while total population is declining is due to the decrease of average household size from 3.19 in 1970 to an estimated ',2.55 in 1980. This decrease in -26- y ~ .. . ,_ ,; 0 <. i ~ ~ F ¢. C ' ...... tl~ ~ ' onr ww ~ _ x.a».i, ~ ~. ~ ~a• k F w 3 I7 ~ { ~ O ~. inr .„ l~ W ~I~----JtI1 y .F ~ k f'~''~ ~~I"N1 k k m .n. YA» ~~_ _~ _ ~ 'inr r~ti ~ ~~~ ~ ~~-_ r lM .~9~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ •;N N;ii.~i ~ - '^^'II :i ~- __ _ :::::: ~' I ~~. I !-1 ~ i 1 ~~-.=i.~ 5 I 3n. orpN~ ~<~~~CC~~C~~~~~ -- ............ i r - o,:NNbr'- ~: ~ _ - - ____J =; - --- .............. - r- ............... ........................:: ~~ .........: in.. i - -- -- _~. -- - - - - -~ >_~- - - ]e. c+i -- . ----- -- - ~.:.:-.- on. ttiua.,. ~ --~- i~~-.. ~~ i~~~r~~~ ~, ~ uC ~C __ ~,_ _ jai - h NC`r- --- f.~:.:.:.....:.~ J 4 J i __ 3M aww3N ~ -_ ,~;~• i a :: ~ _ ::::~:~:: 3 - _ :::;j .; - i%'~ iotw„ - . ............................ . _ r ..................................... . ;:] G - - .;)! -i ~--- i..Nn.~ ----- -- __- - - ~"~ r~ -. ~" nxw.': - - ~ .:per '::':~:',r- ~. ~'. ~~ i ~^~ -_ •.L; - ~- -~ 1 ~~ n :::~:~ ~ -~3 l . N.'lbOn i Yt .'~.' ~ r__ --. ~ __. _- _ __- i~ - ~ ... __ N3 -J `l b L_. ~:.:~:: ~~~ ~~~~ ---.... .: ......... i.. xK.N>K ~ r3 ~~ _- ~ `_ _ ~ev r r-.~,~...~~C' ~ S £+ c e E E • • • Y ; ) • • ! ) Y • 3 • • ; Y ; t '~ ...~.. 3n. wS ONLY 3n. wi2 in... i ~ nr +~s~ ' • int Y.~~ W - ~,nr wn 1. .~9~ Z ` .n. »oi•w,.~,N ~ ,n..~i J H d 3n. ri.~ S~ Q 3n. v~[i SS /~ ,n. Y1:~ C=Wi S ' yr .~ m (/) V 3AY 1p113 ~ ~ y >^. ~,rpN~ WW, '3n. SM•TOt N 3n. .N.i '•^i A.. NN.,w~ H 3n. ~. nnr unwx 3~.w..e=,,, M .. in. i~.N.w ~ 3n. „i,N.~ C lnr x.StpJ '3n. ix0lM 3n. NOStl3.3 - 3n. iMN3n M~M tn. amN~ W n..o,oe~ 3n. oN,nw~ 3n. .pxv tn. Nv ~ ~, in. N.pp• W ,n. »oiN,N in. , i,=~. ~ , ~ o 0 ,n. N.p.i»s Z O ~ N ~ r ~ ~ ~ ,.. ~.xo., „e, 1 in. Na.,~ ~ ~ ~ °~ = o o u~ 3n.. iN3.txin ~ _r r inr x.nexs.; O ~ - , ..,.Ni. _ i ~f.4' average household size is due to the trends toward single parent households and families witY's fewer children and to the fact that the average age of the populatidn is increasing. As children. grow up .. and move out of the communi~y, the parents continue to live in the community. Housing is not being. recycled to younger families in the child-bearing age groups. Petropolitan Council predicttions project slowly rising employment opportunities in .the city o~rer the next decade. I 7. Income According to the Metropolitan Council, the 1978 estimated average household figure in Richfield was $18,600. This figure is about 8.5 percent below the estiml~ted average household income ($20,344) of the urban and suburban part of the metropolitan area. Richfield also had a higher average percentage of low-income households .(38.1 percent for Richfield'vs. 33.2 percent for the urban and suburban part of the metropolitan area). 8. Type, Amount and Intensity of Existing Land Use _- -- Richfield is predominately a residential community. Table I9 shows that almost 50 percent of the total land area in Richfield is in residential use. Less than five percent of the total land area in the city is in commercial or industrial land use. .Table 20 shows that Richfield has a higher percentage of land in residential land use than Robbinsdale or Minneapolis. • -28- TABLE 19 LAND USE INVENTORY: 1978 Land Use Type Acreage % Total Area a Change 1969-1978 Residential 2,261.9 49.5 1.0 Single Family 2,055.9 45.1 0.6 Two Family 29.2 0.6- 1.4 Multiple Family 176.8 3.9 8.1 Commercial 188..9 4.1 4.5 Industrial 25.7 0.6 2.8 Public & Semi-Public 680.7 14.9 0.2 Parks & Recreation. Areas 461.0 10.1 1.9 Schools 104.9 2.3 -5.6 Other Public 7.8 0.2 -2.5 Semi-Public 107.0 2.3 -0.6 Rights.-of-way 1,378.8 30.2 -0.3 Roads & Alleys 1,368.3 30.0 -0.3 Railroads 10.5 0.2 - Tota1 Developed Land 4,536.0 99.3 0.6 Vacant Land 32.2 .7 -47.1. Total Area 4,568.2 100.0 Source: Land Use Survey, 1978; Land Use Survey and Analysis (.1969), Richfield's Engineer's Office. --- - ----- - TABLE 20 LAND USE COMPARISON Richfield Robbinsdale Minneapolis Residential 49.5 44 39 Commercial 4.1 3 4 Industrial 0.6 - 9 Transportation 0.2 2 8 Streets 30.0 28 25 Public & Open 14.9 18 16 Vacant 0.7 5 - 100.0 100 101 Source: .Richfield Land Use Survey, 1978; Robbinsdale Department of Planning: City of Minneapolis, Land T1se Profile (1978) -29- Single family houses are dispersed throughout the city: Only on the, 2494 strip are they almost totally absent. Apartments on the other hand are strongly concentrated~with_approximately 95 percent of all. units located within one block.of six major. and one minor street crossing in Richfield. Sixty percent of all units are south of 74th. Street, with over 40 percent o~ all units concentrated in sx`complexes in that area. Figure 6 shows. ~he distribution of apartments in Richfield. 1. These seven streets are 66th, 76th and 78th. Streets and Penn, Lyndale, Cedar and Pleasant Avenues.. 2. Century Square (77th and Penn) = 700 units.; .Century Square... (75th and Lyndale) = 306 units; Heritage Central (78th and Chicago) = 221 units;'The Colony at Richfield (76th and Knox) = 212 units; He~itage Square East (78th and Elliot). = 195 units; Fountainl'Head (76th and Knox) = 180 units. Average density in single fami~y residential areas is 5 units per acre. Over 70% of the single family residential. areas have densities between 4 and 6 units per acre,. Average density for multiple family development is about 26 units per acre. Overall density. is 6.7 dwelling units per acre. The size of lots in a communitl'y can have a significant impact on the character and availability of housing in a community. High minimum lot size restrictions can reduce the economic feasibility of modest cost housing by requiring high''~,,land investments. On the other hand, lack of minimum standards can ~esult in over-development, crowding and lower quality housing. Richfield has an average single family lot size.. of 8,600 square feet. Minimum lot size required for !residential construction is 8,000 square feet, although a revision of the zoning ordinance is now in process that as written would reduce the minimum residential lot size to 6,000 square feet for most of the city. The older platted areas in the' city have smaller lots. All of the .significant concentrations of lets below 7,000 square feet shown in Figure 7 were platted before World War II. Less than three percent of the residential lots are less than 6,000 square feet. -30- • .~ ~ ~ ~< j ~ w ri: :R '•. : G. k ti ~ d ~ ~~~ ~_~ a Yn...N y _ .. ~.. ~ , i -' ~ `Si, lam„- W ~ W ~ ~ __ __ 1 ~=-~: 3I ~ r F : : F F G _~:` i ~ ~ R L~ bll3"vwl )M YA3~ ~ ,.. . ~~~~~::~~~oo~~~oo~~i ,n. ~, . ~;~~~ ~C]00 ~9ga CQC~~~O ~Ynv is Y ~ ~C7~~C~~~D~D~e}' -.Y•rvsnwmw 'oa ~ 1 i!!I~--~!---~~~,~L!~~~7(~I~jjI~I~J~I-1~ 3q MUVV • ...IJ ' ~~~~~~Lu~~~~~ ~ t 3 ~! i~~~~L__ J0~00~0}~: l ~',- Y C ~.. w.. r ~ ~~ ~~ ~t~~~{C~~~_ -~ ~~i i - ~ s L -:~ - - -- --'- r- _-- '" - - -~ ~~ _ - I _ ~ QQ- ~ ^~ ~ ~ n _ '~ »F.__~ _~ r_ --~ - ,.rte _.___ S S S.. _ y. ~ ~~ g _ f C 3n~ "~<i Ynv Ynv wv:e Ynr ".o Yn..o„Y,.«o, ~ YAV YvOI, Yn. ",i, ,.. ,~.r~r.~,. Yn. ".~ ;::::~; Yn..a,;, Ynr oaax> 3AV 3q^"r•a 'Ynv O"~t"M 3nv OxvlivM ~ j 3A~ "~• .a ,n.:"Yn, : 3nr ~~ i 3nv 13110" Yn. „Y~s.," \ 33nY"AMnBSl1e 1n.3 .Ma"."o YY . aY,.o~ n f ,nr ", ~,. ~ ~ m ~ i ; x c a l Yn..".... , ~. Yns xv.wo q N 0 V O i 3n.."~ _ _ .. I Yn. «osxY"Y ~ O L ~., ~ L ; y a 3nv aurae G O 9 :. N J a j, n. .o,ourn" • • G Yn. ,u~nu~ N a+ Yirvr ~ N 7 anv uvxl ~~ ~ N en. «.ow" C O N w g O Yn. uo,.eu lnv uYnw N + . to d ~ v .~. C I.. 3n. ""u ~ .~.. q O ,.. "„"e Z ~ w x ~ v ~ i w ln. ,,,,,"" W ~ a ~: ~ e ~ °o° 3 " " 0` o ~' w I rc , 4 ~ t ,.. „_.. I "e Q . el,eY. ^ Q ~ ,~ ._ Y ~• ~. I;I ~~~//~ - - ,------- QF K1 i ~l ~ qi a a ~ ~ ~, z i ~'` a ~ D 3 Z ~ ' '~ n. x,.. I _s~ lnr r c: i \~ - C~ C C [.L, ~ ~ lna Nsruxa.s l.. x,px..a ~ : ' ~ s a o _ I, W ..w~ '' Z ln. vxx t~ G ~ N ~ ~ .. l r J '~, I ~ ..~ - nr xr sr 3~ ws r ~.:' ~ / G ~ `ati~-~. ___ lnv xoiox naoie yr waox xww I'+. y ^ w"~ c^- ._ LL _rav 3nr xr Gr •: r M~4tlwJ ~ 3nr xr Sr .y In r ~ , ; ~ 3 • ar ..~'ni{ ~ ~-_T ~ ~J6A _ I I ]nr iall] ham.'-..~•: 8 w ~ ~~ -rau l.. ~,axxbl ~a r ~ _ ~ ~..~ ' _ ~ ln. s~xxx~~ r _ lnr vxaa ~ ~ "lnr v l.. ~N...o <'•'1 ~1 ~ 1 --'I~'11~ ~.' ~~ ~1.-- - ln. axN.,,.o . I ~: ~ :: •~ ~- .... _ iawiorrrr ~ _ -.-~•~ - t ... _ l .: 3na w~xr» 4r' •{ • '~ ~ ~ 3na x0lNrll 3vs e i `~ ~'-•'•] 3na o c 3 . ixlnll5 ~ lna sx3n J15 .l tea: x _ __ Jw:~... ' ~~_J .... _... _ I o~ 3nr ~ - ;~. ~ _~ 3na 13n x 3~r •. m v ~ ~ 3na il30s a~B KS r+e s Y ~~_~ rs. ~ ~~ _ -.r .x ) ..xr. i" \ / _ _ _ 3na 3 O y,} a ; ~i. ~, '~ W ~- .. ~.K _ ~ ~ - 3na ;N~,x~ a ~ Q ~ 3na i J v,~,..a T j ~ 3__ ~-. ~...:.~ ~ I ,. ,... :~ / . ~.~~ n. xrnx~ w ~~..~. l ~ ~ / ~~~ `• .. '~ ~ .. ::! l v .. .. .n.cw ® lna N w 3.: C .. ,. :. - ~ ---~ ~ - _. l Nxl. o. >~~ _ o ' N T~~ .. ;...,, , ln. xllx n a e ~ I~ .; _ .... ..... -r~ N r ~ o R ..... ~ ~ '~ C1 l~'. ax srxcs ~ N- O r i Si! ... " ~lr r ..... LL 1.~..~r _r -- =- --.~~ -- __~_ ~' ~ 1. ~l.xl J ,` 1 8 N '.:'~ t s s • s s t s ~ s s s l 8. Future Residential Land Availability Richfield is a fully developed community with less than l per cent of undeveloped land. Table 21 shows that there are only 24.9 acres of developable vacant land available in the community. Of this total,. 10.3 acres are suitable for residential development. It is estimated that development of this land would provide 83 additional dwelling units. An additional 37.3 acres of land is considered underutilized. 16.8 acres of this could be potentially used for residential development and could provide 114 additional dwelling units. Future new housing development will be limited and will be dependent on people selling off excess residential land, the development of - excess or unneeded institutional property and on redevelopment of existing land at higher densities. Vacant land when available is expensive however. TABLE. 21 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES Single Multi- Commercial & Family Family Industrial Total Acres D.U. Acres D.U. Acres Acres D.U. Vacant Developable 7.7 43 2.6 40 14.6 24.9 83 Undevelopable 6.3 8 1.0 2 0.1 7.3 10 (D4P,C land) (3.8) T O T A L 14.0 51 3.6 42 14.6 32.2 93 Underutilized* 14.2 78 2.6 36 20.5 37.3 114 Projected Development L/H/N -3.0 -12 5.3 435 10.5 Future Projects N/A 175 T O T A L -12 610 Possible Conversions** - 130 376 Projected Development Timing 1978 - 1990 40 435 1990 - 2000 11 _.____253 ~~ *Includes vacant part of oversized residential lots, obsolete commercial developments including old motels and car washes. **Estimates removal of all single family homes in areas zoned for other uses and construction of replacement structures, mostly multi-family units. -33- ~~ / ~ p ~ _ 1 i G r\ G Y ~ Lc] ...E i' \ ~ ~ i ln.. ~: y ~ y r. ~ ln. x,iE ln. xsbN.iY ~- r ~~~ G tl c e ~„ ' N.wN.,< `i _• i~ I 3 ~ E O~ e 3n1 M32 • -,;-/.1i_ W u J J ~ ~ lnt wEE ry 3n~ ,~ ii j .._ r' ~ W n ln. v ~E a (~• ~l _ _ {{ • i I w ~ 9 w. wonE - - -ln. wonllaw, d 3n. •.031 .. - W Y03~ ]n. xoiox NOOw r---, =-- ~~~TT'i'II ~~'~-JI ~ '- .~-. ~ ln. Noiax.oo,a _R 3M xiL ~~~. ~~1J Lulu __N_Y~14tlwJ ~~Y L--J~\~~~~'_~J~_I~~-, '3n1 ., L~ '~ o Ya,.1N1 ~~ , ~ I~CIC•~DUDCO~C~O~ ln. ~.1N1 ..~ n. snann,w dl _ nENN,~I - 'm0~~~~~~000 i r-+- y _U ln.]„o.x,l ' ~ ~;~~ [~~~~---~•-± 01' ~~ ln.lNOiN,~ i - -~ -, ~ i r--. ,---, ---, ~ ~ ~ ln. =NlnllE ln. x~ i ` C- -rr~~•t~rrrtm ~tF ~~r- ~~-- ~~~---,i ~ i ln. ~. ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ln. „lass.,. 3n. xiNOwix3w ~ ___ - --~ ~~-J • ~'~ 3n. NiaOwiNlw p~ "lnv iN.E.3,d -.. --a _ _.:... ~ ~~ ;' j ~ : n ixn9slt E ~ ..- _... _ ' _ ... 3nV i } ~-- ~ ~ `J ln. axon ~ _ --- • • ~ I y9 - - (-~ ® N.s.l,a . r ~ .,. -_~, ~ ~-- -~- _ 3n. +lia0,v •~ / ~ ~ ~~' _.. _ ~_ _ ,YON , p ~~ ~ ~\ ~I •-- ]n. iN N. lr o x a ~ ~s'~ ~~~ ~~-•• ~ ln. Nlx~,. Z - L I \ lEl \l ~•~ _ - •- 3nv vvfM~ O v '~ Y VC~`~ ~ ~ ~ J Nara ' ]n. ~EN1Nl --~_ _ ~ J ~ i • • ln. iNa.na ~ d Ear - -~, o ; ~~ C^^-~~' lwl p. d .. ,.. iN~aa ~ - ~~ ' 8 i ~ Cam'- ~~-, --- ln. iN~NE . W ~ o e i 'e ln.s _ ~ `-~ ~ ~~J`.~~`-J J ~Y I % lwvr= J 0: __ ~~~II I ~~~ g ~` ~.. xoo.oNN ~ __ ~---J• •%y~~~J~~,~~ '4~L. - 3aN.oxoNQ ~. f--, -U~~_ ~`--~'i==~ - _ ~~ gin. NoiaN; I i' f~• (- I •J 3nY wln~W l.. , ~s:n. - ~• ~~~~~' ~_ r,$~ i~ In 11 t0 < s _ 1. N.l,„,»< ~? - ~~~~: I ~i ~ ,lS3NU h ~ __ - ,~ _- r r-- - ~ > ~n __ i ~."' ~_~~~, I it .- ~ - r= -. ~.. --- ~" i a - 1~ ,n.NNMS.w-_ irr ;` ~~ ~~I !I Ir=~ ipi i _I ~-~_' .•xxnNNS.w~ _'B In ,.. 1,. =1..,. ~ ~~~L~i , ~ ~ 3 T s + F ~ f E • L. y~ `'- S- B. NUD'lERICAL HOUSING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The preceding section of the Housing Element described and analyzed the existing housing base of the city and the existing housing assistance programs which the city operates.. The purpose of .this section is to identify the factors which will influence the housing base over the next decade and then to establish numerical housing, q_oals and objectives to meet the community's housing needs. 1. Factors and Assumptions The factors and assumptions which will influence Richfields housing needs in the future are: a. The demand for housing in Richfield will remain high because of the city's amenities, its close proximity to major employment, commercial, and entertainment centers, . and because of its affordable housing opportunities. This strong demand will increase sales prices and rents however. b. The current trend towards homeownership will continue. -This trend is perpetuated by an increased demand due to a .large portion of the population entering the late 20's and 30's age group, by the tax advantages of homeownership over rental housing, because home ownership is considered a hedge .against inflation because of the fast appreciation in home values, because of the increased household incomes due to two income families, and because of innovative housing designs such as cooperatives, condominiums, townhouses, quads and no frills single family housing which keep the cost of housing down. c. There will be little incentive to construct market rate rental housing because of the high rents necessary to support increasing construction costs. New multi-family construction will therefore be either ownership, cooperative, or subsidized low moderate income rental housing. d. Market demand for ownership-types of housing and increased housing maintenance costs will also act as incentives for conversion of existing rental units into condominiums. - -35- e. The lack of avail ble land for new construction will limit the amount of n w housing units available in the future. Because of this, Richfield will not be able to meet the demand for single family housing. f. The lack of suitable existing units, the lack of land to construct new units and potential site restrictions due. to aircraft noise limit the amount of subsidized housing which the city can supply. Most apartment units are one or two bedroom units which a e not suitable for large low or moderate income families. Low vacancy rates and high rents also make it difficult to find ~ualified,units for low or moderate income families or the elderly. g. New construction of subsidized housing for the elderly is unlikely in the near future until Richfield's performance for providing housing assistance to low and moderate income families improves or until the Metropolitan Council reevaluates its policies. h. Family size will ontinue to decrease and the population will age until 1990. i. By providing alternative housing to the elderly, existing under-utilized housingiwill be made available to younger and larger families. j. The used single family market will be strong and the demand for privately and publ',,ically financed rehabilitation will also be strong. k. As housing costs rise, the middle income population .will come under increasing stress, because higher proportions. of their incomes will be taken for housing. Government assistance programs are not available to helpthis segment of the population. 2. 1990 Projected Total Un'lits It is projected that the increase in total dwelling units will be small in the planning period to 199.0 due to the lack. of land for new development.- There will~'il be an average yearly increase of approximately 50 dwelling wits.. It is estimated that the total housing base in 199.0 will b 15,650 .dwelling units. This number is sightly higher than the Me._ropo?itan: Council projection of 15,400, The vast majority of this 4 5 unit increase in dwelling units will be multi-family developments. -36- 3. Numerical Objectives for Future Housing Characteristics a. Low and b~oderate Income Housing Goals The Housing Allocation Plan recently adopted by the rietro- politan Council allocates state and federal subsidies (Section 8) in "fair share" dollars for the period ending. in September 1983. According to this allocation plan Richfields total fazr share dollar amount for Section 8 assistance will be $438,000. It is estimated that this share could be used to provide 96 units of Section 8 new construction assistance or 128 units of Section 8 existing housing assistance. This total allocation is broken down further into family, large family, and elderly units. Richfield's fair share family amount is $224,000.(52 units new or 63-units existing). The large family fair share amount is $35,607 (6 new units ~r 9 existing units). The elderly fair share amount is $178,378. (38 new units or 56 existing units). The allocation plan -also indicates that 88.8 per cent of assistance should go to renters and 11.2 per cent should go to home owners. Finally the allocation plan indicates that 92 per cent of subsidized housing in Richfield should be accomplished through existing housing, 2 per cent should be substantially rehabilitated multi-family housing and 6 per cent should be new construction. This emphasis on existing housing is because of Richfield's lack of available land for new construction. As discussed earlier, the lack of available land for new construction and the difficulty in finding additional eligible existing rental units limits the amount of additional Section 8 units which will be provided in the future. The bulk of housing assistance will continue to be rehabilitation assis- tance. -37- Table 22 indicates tha' there will be a range of 2,067 to 2,131 assisted housing units in the City of Richfield by 1990. This total represents an increase of approximately 1,330 units from the present total of 766 assisted units and is equal to 13..6% of the total units in ichfield. It wall be the goal of the ~. community to insure that 60 percent of the total-assisted housing will be occupied by families and 40 percent will be - to the elderly . TABLE 2z Additional Units Each Five-Year Period ASSISTED UNITS - RENTAL As of 1980 19851 19904 1) Single Family a) Section 8 existing 10 0 0 b) Section 8 Substantial Rehab/Mod Rehab 0 0 15 c) Section 8 New'Construction 5 5 0 2) Multi-Family ~, a) Section 8 Existing 210 128 159. i b) Section 8 Substantial j Rehab/Mode Re ab 0 0 25 c) Section 8 New Construction 0 58 76 _ 3) Multi-Unit Elderly a) Section 8 New Construction 149 38 51 ASSISTED UNITS - OWNERSHIP 1) Single Family 6 8 10 2) P4ulti-Family 0 0 15 3) Rehabilitation (Single Family) 386 500 500 TOTAL 766 ! C609-641]3 [692-724]5 A range of 2,067 to 2,131 assisted housing units in the City by 1990. This is equivalent to 113.6$ of the total units in Richfield.2 1The addition of new assisted housing units is dependent on available 2funding and available sites.!, 681-745 units or 4.6g of the total housing units will be Section 8 rental or Section 235 ownership assisted housing. units. 31985 total has allowed for`the 1980-83 three year fair share allocation plan goals for existing or new construction Section 8. A portion of these funds could be utilized for Section 8 rehabilitation single family or multi-family units. One total figure would not be appropriate because we have an option of a particular number of Section 8 new or existing assistance units for 4planning purposes. ', The ten year plan developediby the Metropolitan Council indicates Richfield I will provide a "fair share" of subsidized units from 1980 to 1990 by providing 5a minimum of 320 and a maxi~um of 800 units of Section 8 and Section 235 assistance. 1990 total has allowed for Meeting the ten year allocation plan developed by the Metropolitan Council. Again',, the figures are displayed in a range depending whether new or existing Section 8 programs are used. b. Market Rate Housing ~oals It is estimated that 80 per cent (375 units) of the new units constructed in Richfield'':by 1990 will be market rate housing units., 20 per cent of tl~e market rate units (75 units) will be modest cost units while 80 per cent (300 units) will be -38- middle or upper income housing units. It is anticipated that. this housing will be multiple family housing including coopera- tives, condominiums, townhouses,' and apartments. c. Housing Unit Type Table 23 indicates the projected distribution of housing types in 1990 and shows that the major increase will be in the number of multi-family units. d. Rehabilitation, Demolition and Redevelopment Goals It is the goal of the City of Richfield to continue to utilize federal and state funding sources to provide 100 rehabilita- tion loans or grants each year until 1990. Table 23 - 1990 Housing Types Net Change Type of Unit 1978 1978-1990 1990 Single family 10,279 45 10,319 Multi-family 4,826 430 5,256 Mobile home 71 0 71 TOTAL 15,176 475 15,651 It is anticipated that an additional 30 substandard units will be demolished and replaced with new assisted housing by 1990. 24 additional units will be demolished in the citys Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Redevelopment Area to make sites available for new commercial and/or multi-family housing devleopment. 4. Housing Policies Because Richfield is .land use pattern, the make will be aimed a~ not on regulating new of actions taken will .field housing base. ~ fully developed suburb with an established. policy decisions which the community must ...,..__. _~ _~.~y_, ~ ~.._.. w~_ _ ._,,:using base and development. Policies made and the adequacy be critical to the conservation of the Rich- -39- ', a. General Housing Po ides will be: 1. To require high standards of residential development. 2. To seek a diversified housing supply with a balance between high al'nd low value homes with the. reservation that lower vane housing shall .not become so extensive J as to place an undue financial .burden on- the_ ~.ocal tax base. 3. To permit all types of housing, provided each is properly locat d in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, and the ~ite plans and structural quality are in accord with. health and building standards as well as urban design standards and promote a safe, secure energy efficient residential environment. 4. To maintain pr housing supply ograms which will sustain the existing in a safe, sound condition and be developed and administered in a manner consistent with the housing go als of the community. 5. To actively pursue alternative housing options for the ld rl i l di i e e y nc u ng cooperat ves, condominiums and ~ apartments to ~ree up existing housing units for ~~ younger larger families.. 6. To reaffirm the role of the community as a source of middle income housing opportunities and to continue to strive to make use of any programs to meet the housing ~ needs of that e ment of the o ulation. g P P b. Low and Moderate Income Housing Policies will be: 1. Richfield willlwork towards meeting the "fair share" low and moderate income housing. goals as outlined l by the Metropo itan Council in the Metropolitan Housing Guide`. 2. .Richfield will continue to pursue funding from all available sources and administer housing assistance programs for al l segments of the low and moderate ,. ~, ., : family, 1=rge family P elderly, renter s and homeowners. 3. Richfield wll'continue its acquisition of substandard -40- residential properties and will continue its use of land write-down. techniques as incentive fog development of low and moderate';ncome housing. 4. Richfield will continue to provide housing rehabili- tation grants to assist law and moderate income persons in maintaining their homes. • c. Market Rate Housing Policies will be: 1. Richfield will continue to maintain and administer a zoning ordinance which protects the health, safety and welfare of the community but which does not contain standards which exclude any economic group in the city. 2. Richfield will work towards a revision of the residen- tial zoning regulations to promote the conservation of the existing housing base while utilizing residen- tial districts with varying lot size and density requirements to allow varying housing values, size, type and environment. 3. Richfield will require that city-owned land that is sold for private housing development be developed with affordable units compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. d. Maintenance, Rehabilitation, and Redevelopment Policies will be: ~ 1. Richfield will develop neighborhood. conservation ~c`{ programs and housing. rehabilitation programs which will encourage residents to maintain their property. ~-- 2. Richfield will develop a systematic housing code ~ enforcement program which will require residents to maintain their property at minimum. 3. Richfield will preserve the integrity and value of -_- ____•~ -~._-. __.~_. __ .~ .-__~s ;,~, ~-rc'r:~bit~_ ~ intrus~---- ~- incompatible land uses through active enforcement of the city's zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. -41- I 4. Richfield will require. the removal of vacant or abandoned structures which are deemed a hazard to citizen health or safety if such structures cannot _ be brought up ';to acceptable standards within a reason- able period of; time or if rehabilitation is not economically fleasible. 5. Richfield will actively encourage the replacement of back of the lot "garage houses" and other buildings of substandard construction. 6. Richfield Willi allow the development of mixed commercial and residential uses in the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet redevelopment '',area and future redevelopment areas to provide higher) density alternate housing types con- venient to com~ercial services and facilities. 7. Richfield wil allow the development of higher density housing opportunities along :arterial streets to provide buffers to adjacent uses. 8. Richfield will promote the installation of energy related improvements to conserve energy use in the community. -- ~s~ -~ //G CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 385 Agenda November 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Deferral of Request for Vacating Alley on Block 7 Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hi11s Mr. Ron Lee, 6613 Washburn Avenue South, has submitted a petition for vacating the west 127.6 feet of the 14 foot wide ' alley extending between Washburn and Vincent Avenues South on block 7, Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills. The staff reviewed the request and recommended that the alley be vacated. The Planning Commission held a hearing on the request and recommended that the city council deny the application. Subsequent Lo the Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Lee has requested that city coun- cil consideration of this item be deferred until April, 1981. ' Therefore, it is recommended that the city council defer consid- eration of this item until April 13, 1981. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/jf cc: Community Development Director City Planner City Engineer CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 384 Agenda November 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and _ Members of the City Council "~~C~~~vN ~S -r~~ t~`-~ ~ ~ ~ --F- City of Richfield _ ;. Council Members: Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance to Vacate a Portion of Pillsbury Avenue At the October 13, 1980 city council meeting, a public hear- ing was scheduled to consider a request to vacate a portion of - Pillsbury Avenue lying between 65th Street and 66th Street. At the request of the petitioner the public hearing on the matter was continued until November 10, 1980. United National Corporation has again requested that the city council's public hearing of this street vacation be con- tinued until January 12, 1981. It is recommended that the council continue the hearing on this matter until January 12, 1981. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/jf cc: Community Development Director City Engineer //E CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 383 Agenda November 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Setting Date of Public Hearing on Community Development Block Grant Each year, as part of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program application process, Richfield is required to hold at J_e~st one public hearing to inform citizens about the CDBG pro- - gram and to obtain the views of citizens and groups on the com- munity's community development and housing needs. It is recommended that the city council set November 24, 1980 as the date to conduct this public hearing. Respectfully submitted, r fem.,=tip nl~.,~~ ~~~. ~~~~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/jf cc: City Planner CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 382 Agenda November 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council tilembers Subject: Mayor Council Salaries There is an item on the November 10, 1980 city council agenda providing for discussion of the salaries for the Mayor and Council Members of the City of Richfield. If council members are desirous of making changes in their salary ordinance, it would be appropriate to do it at this time so that the necessary changes would take effect in 1981. Respectfully submitted, ' L. Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja ~~ n ~ ~ e" N v ~~ ~ o . ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~, ~~ ~ ~ ~ MAYOR - COUNCIL SALARY SURVEY 1980 SELECTED SIX Mayor $7,200 5,400 5,100 ($5,400-81) 4,800 4,140 3,900 ($5,850-81) $5,090 ($5,465-81) ~~ O~ ~`~ ~/ ~ ~ ~~ ~'~~ ~ ~ ~ J N ~ ~ ~~v~ l\ ~~ \ / Council $6 , 000 3,600 3,900 ($4,200-81) 3,600 3,140 2,600 ($3,900-81) $3,806 ($4,073-81) 1. Bloomington 2. St. Louis Park 3. Roseville 4. Burnsville 5. Golden Valley 6. Edina AVERAGE ~ ~~ ~/~ v' 1980/81 TOP TEN (Excluding Richfield) Mayor Council 1. Bloomington $7,200 $6,000 2. Columbia Heights 7,200 4,200 3. Fridley 6,600 4,800 ($5,400 council-at large) 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Brooklyn Center South St. Paul Plymouth St. Louis Park Roseville Maple Grove Minnetonka Edina 6,480 6,000 5,400 5,400 5,100 ($5,400-81) 4,800 4,800 ($3,600-81) 3,900 ($5,850-81) AVERAGE $5,~°S ($6,033-81) Richfield $6 , 000 * Minnetonka used for 1980 averages, Edina used for 1981 averages. 4,140 3,000 3,600 3,600 3,900 ($4,200-81) 3,600 3,600 ($3,000-81) 2,600 ($3,900-81) $4,500