Loading...
11-10-75 agenda7 CITY OF RICHFIELD., MINNESOTA Office of City Manager .Council Letter No. 346 Agenda November 10, 1975 f The Honorable Mayor and - ._, Members of the City Council City of Richfield F Gentlemen: S~zbje~a: Application for Waiver of Preliminary Platting Procedures Mr. Myron Gunderson, 66D1 Knox Avenue has requested the city council to ~^~aive the preliminary, platting procedures for subdivision of land in accordance with Section 3.59 of the city code. The applicant desires to subdivide an 118.9 foot by 132.9 toot lot into two substandard lots, one 55 feet wide; the Wither 64 feet wide. Mr. Gunderson does not wish to fallow the procedure as set forth in Section 3.59 and requests that the procedure be waived.. The property is located at 7418 Portland Avenue. • Subdivision Regulation Re uirement Section 3.59 of he city code provides, for waiver of ;the subdivision " procedures for preliminary plats containing three lots or <less. Exemption ' .from the procedures must be made by the city. council. The subdivision regu- lations are attached. Staff Review The staff finds the-waiver of preliminary platting procedures in this instance justified by `the fact that a lot of record is propo-sod to be subdivided into two lots, and no additional easement-or public rights-of-way will be needed. It should be noted that a recommendation of the planning commis Sion and subsequent action by the city council does not constitute approval of the subdivision of land. , The action is for a waiver of preliminary platting pro- cedures only. In accordance with city ordinance `and sta a statutes; a final plat must be submitted for council review and approval. The procedure for submitting final plats is contained in Section' 3:,60 of the city :ordinance-.. ~, ~_ 3..58. VARIANCES FR02•- THE PROVZSIOT?S OF HIS PART.. Whenever the tract to be sub- divided or platted l.~ of such unusual s i e or shape, or is surrounded by such de- velopment or unusual conditions that th e strict application of the requirements containc•:': ~n this part caould result in a substantial hGrdship orc injustice, the council may vary or modify such require eats so that the subdivider is allocsed ' to develop his property in a reasonable rie annex, but in such a manner that t public welfare and interests of the ct and surrounding-area are protected and the general intent and spirit of these egulations are preserved. / :~i 3.59 < PLATS -- PREL~MIAT.ARY APPY'.OVAL . , Su'odivi,Sion 1. Submission to Council. Any person wishing to subdivide-land into building lots, or to dedicate 'streets,~ alleys or land for public use or to sub- divide land into building lots togethe with the dedication or reservation of pub- tic or private streets respectively, s all submit. ten (10) copies of the prelimin- sketch plan, preferably black and ar hite prints, to the council before submis- { sion of the .final plan. s contai in three lots or less may be exempted b • Subd: 2. Convents of Submission. Th preliminary plan is to be drawn to a scale of not more than 100 feet ~:o the inc and shall shoc•~ (1) The location of present prope ty and section lines, .streets, buildings, water courses and other existing fea ores within the area to be subdivided. (2) The proposed location and wid h of streets, lots, buildings, and set back lines and easements. - (3) Existing sanitary and storm s::~rers, water, mains, culverts and other un- derground structures, within the tr ct ~r immediately adjacent thereto: The lo- ~ cation and size of the nearest water main and sewer or outlet. are to be indicated • in a general way upo;? the plat. (4) The title. under which the proposed subdivision in to be recorded and the name of the. subdivider platting the tract. (5) The names of all adjoining subdivisions or a description of unplatted areas and the layout of their streets. - (6) The council may require a contour map to be made, having contour intervals of not more than two feet. - (7) North point, seal anddate. (8) Plans or written and signed statements regarding .the width of all types of pavement, location, size and type of sanitary or other sewerage .disposal facili- ties, water mains and hydrants or other utilities, storm water drainage facilities:., and other proposed improvements such as sidewalks, planting and parks and grading of individual lots. Preliminary plans not containing all of the above data will not be approved by the council. I Subd. 3. Procedures for Approval.. Approval of the preliminary plans shall not -I constitute an acceptance of the subdivision by the council...-One ,copy. of the ap- proved preliminary plat, signed by the mayor and the manager, shall be retained ! in the office of the engineer. One signed copy shall be given to the subdivider. Receipt of this signed copy shall be authorization for subdivider to proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications for the minimum improvements required and with the preparation of the final plat. Prior to the construction of any im~`- _ provements required or to the submission of any bond ,. the subdivider shall furnish. '~ i the council with all plans, information and other data necessary for~said improve- ment5. The plans shall be examined by the engineer and will be sulmitted for ap- :. proval by the council if in accordance with the requirements of this code. If ap- 'i ` ~~ . .97. ,. - -, w .t _. ._ - ` ~^, .. _, proved, a contract c•:ill then be prepared sitting forth. the conditions ender ~•..*hich the improvement dill he accomplish•~d, based upon the approved nl.ans and specifications £o'r this caor.:. Subd. 4. Additional Req~~ireme.nts. TFie folluc•~ing ad3itional reduire^~en.ts shall be imposed: (1) Surveys and plans shall be prepared in accordance crith rules and regula-: Lions established by the engineer i retailed construction spec'~f ications an- proved by.tl~e er.Gineer shall apply to al 1. items of work included in the improv~- ment. {2) the subdivider or developer shall furnish estimates of the cost of the improvements based upon bids or upon firm prices frcri contractors. Follor~ing the posting of a bond equal to one and one-half times the estimated cost of the work and the signing of the contract documents, cvork on construction may be stated. (3) Any and all costs to be borne by the city or any costs to be paid for by special. assessment against property benefitted, shall be specifically outlined . ` in the contract documents: 3.60. FZNAL APPROVAL OF PLATS. -: Subdivision 1. Submission to Council. .The final plan on tracing cloth. and four prints thereof, together caith four copies of anydeed restrictions when such are too lengthy to be shown on-the plat or plan, and three prints of .the certified plans showing the improvements as built or as they are to be built c~~ithin the subdivisions shall be submitted to the council. Before approving the final plat or plan of all or part of a proposed subdivision, the council cai1T require proof _j that the improvements and revisions thereon required hate beer. Thelfinal plat completed or their construction secured by contract and bond. accepted shall cover only that part of the su'odivision upon which all improve- merits have been completed or secured. Subd. 2. Contents of Submission. .The final plat .shall show: • (1) The boundary lines of .the area being subdivided c•~ith accurate distances. and anglesor bearings; all section Lines, and the names of all adjoining sub- r divisi.ons•or a description of unplatted areas and: layout of their streets. •_.~ (2) The lines of all proposed streets and alleys ~~ith their c~:idth and names. j (3) The accurate outline of any property'crhich is offered for dedications for public use.. ~ (4) -All lot lines and an identification system for all-lots and blocks. ~(5) Building lines and easements .for rights of. way provided ter public use., services, or-utilities caith figures showing their dimensions, (6) All_dimensons both linear and angular, necessary for locating boundar-. ies of subdivisions:, lots,, streets, alleys,, easements for building lines and of any other areas for public or private use; the linear, dimensions are. to be ex-' pressed in feet and decimals. of afoot. (7) .:=onuments of iron pipe not less than three-fourths of an inch in diameter and tCJO feet in length shall be placed at ail street corners, and at all changes in alignment in .street lines.. :rho monuments shall be shown on the plat with the.; distances between them and c.Tith sufficient curve data plainly marked. (S) Name of subdivision, points of compass, scale of plan and name of owner. or o4mers or the 'subdivider. ~'~ (9) Private restrictions and trusteeships and their periods of existence. '.Should such restrictions and trusteeships be of such Iengt?i as to makz the let-:.. 98. ~ -~, _ ' ate, ~ S _vey For: MR. MYitON GUNDERSON ' Ev5 7~-;: ,.. .. 1b41 2sz/78 1i:1.RII~' ~. ~nIINtiO\ CO fIi'1~'IF~, INC. ~~ ~ K t y',~# 8330- 220 ST. W., LAKEVILLE,MINNESOTA 55044 PHONE (6t 2) 469-4481 ~ ~ ly. S'~. '~~ SCALE 1 inch--30 fee ~Tu]~ye~~O~~S ~ertrflCQt~ 33 o Denotes Irc Monument -North line of the South 118..90 feet of the North 386..7 I feet of the East Half of tae Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the. Southeast Quarter of Section 34 ~ m To':ans hip 28, {32_.92 (t~9FAS.) P.ange 24 ,~~) o ., --- -.-- ~ ~~~ ~ W ,-z~ ~ O 24.30 46.40 O ..~. . ~ '~ ~ ni v `-° i 1/2 STOIRY ~ ,1 ~ ~ +~ N o w ,~..~ cn ~ 2.55. Yr00D o l!0 ~ ~~, ~ ~ c0 + v. v :: u z O o FRAh1E ,~ erg HOUSE •. 1 r J f ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ ~' } ~ r ,,, .~.~ ta r '~! w ~ N 1.05 N ~ ~ ~:-! iJ 1J r+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ C N .U )-+ v w v ~ N ~ - 2s.so .4.6 .: r. ~0~ ... .. .,~ ; tJ~ANHOLE ~ a w:~ o~. Q . . . .. . , ~g 49t'~~ w ;` ~ ~ w J J to , , ~~ ~~ '. .~.~ ...1... ~~._ _ r - ..r.. s. ~ ~ ~ tJ ~O 3-I LO ~ ~r :n ~ c0 ~J N ~ ~ ' .,,.. ~ ~ 3 1.1 O ~ v M O .C ~ .r.'.a Q~ 1.1 G) ~ ( ( ~ I I ~ c O ~ J..~ O G:. M W ' M W '~ ~ `~ R3 Ri I ~ I i C+ ~ ' ~ v v w ~ .~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ - "' o N i..i ~.+ c0 .^~ 7-t N ~ . I ~ !1~ ~~ i ti '.~ u ~ ` z o a ~ y ; ~ ~ ! ~ c i ~ v ~ :~ ~n .u ,~ u ,., ~ o v I ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~~ I a, a i w ~ / i ~ ;~w oo'H 76 (M~aS.) 132 ~~- ~ . South line of the North 386.7 eet of the ~ o°~' , r 33 ter of the East Half of the Northeast Qua Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter l of Section 34, .Township 28, Range. 24 ~ ( ; LEGAL DESCRIPTION The East Half of the South 1i~.90 feet of the North 386.7 feet of the E4stiHalf of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of ~ec~ ion 34, Township 28, Range 24. ` C: ,aI hereby certify that'ths survey, plan or. report was prepared by me or-under ray di rect super- vision and that I .am a duly Registered Lana Surveyor under the lae:s of the State of Minnesota. f f~ ~ (~/~ ' -~- Ro b n r t 8. M e r e d i t h ~-° Date: September 15,. 1975 Minn. Reg. No. 8617 O N ~ ~ O O A~ ~ O ' y H ~ ~ CD ty O n • ,t, p ~ G7 ~ ~~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,d r ~ ~G ~ `d R~ ~ ~ ~ ~,• ~y -.,~ b ~ x jo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rn r ~ N ~ j + ~, ~ • n ft O• ~ r~ N f--~ N E-.+ W 1 •P O~ ~ • N ~ ~_ ~ .p ' N V N F-~ N N ~ 00 N V t 7 fJ t tp N N V N~ O~ V N t7t F-~ t a ~ ~ F-~ N N 0o Y N N (rt FN+ ~-] ~ N O ~ ~ n K z woo • ; -~. ~ , ~ ~ W ~ ~ N C!l c0 1-s N F"'' •P W N OO ~ O ~ ~ `~~ ttJ ~i ~•~-P v ~ ~ - ~ H ~ • CD n ~ W N ~-' ~"'' N N -~ - u P+ H O O~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ Z J N tp . ~ a I--i l--~ E"' J F--t Cll 1~ J ~ ~ tD ~ N CD N N N ~ N N N N n W -P Oo I--~ O tft f -' J p W t0 V f'a N J V c0 V ~ ~ cv ~ i N N N ~ t0 O N O~ ~ F•-' N N ~ a\ F..~ N ;r W td n (~ ~ I--+ N O ~? F..a. CO a N 0 ~--~ y t7 1o V ? V ~"'~ Vt O F. V 0 . T~ N N ? N N N N O~ y p S 0 O 0 ~"~ p~ C ~ ~ O ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ N F-t N N f--~ p N N Crl O~ V ~„~ ,~ RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION DETERMINING RESULTS OF CITY GENERAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1975 BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of. Richfield that at the general election held November 4, 1975, for-the purpose of election a mayor and one city councilman, the results were as follows: Total number of ballots cast .3,781 .f Votes cast for candidates: Mayor: -Loren L. Law 2,607. - Lawrence R. Wozniczka 1,156 (Write-in) -George.Kenealy 3 (Write-in) - A.P. Anderson 2 * (Write-in) -Donna Huber 1 city Councilman: - A.P. Anderson 2,240 - John H. Mattison 1,454 (Write-in) -Harry McLenighan 1 (Write-in) -Don Priebe 1 (Write-in) -Robert Lien 2 (Write-in) -Donna Huber 1 _ (Write-in) -Marvin Bix ~ 1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following candidates, having received the majority of votes cast and counted are hereby declared elected to fill the offices of mayor and city councilman from and after January 1,.1976: Mayor .Loren L. Law City Councilman A. P. Anderson BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following list of judges were those certifying the returns of said election:. S. Gisselc{uist G. Staffel B. Obenchain P. Bodhal J. Schaefer . M. Hines M. Alc{uist E. Carlson E. Grundmayer M. Kvaale S. Olson J. Lofstrom E. Johnson M. Lindgren C. Alfano B. Lais M. Bernstein V. Bennis M. Gera D. Vidas. A. Winslow J. Gera G. Seward F. Sullivan C. Dumas G. Sanders M. Prottengeier R. Pritchard P. Wolf F. Oreck J. Schleuder P. Bunting. C. Cosgrove J. Emerson G. Dahlien B. Lake R. Holm B. Workman G. Hegdahl J. Rodeberg P. Brestrup Passed by the City Council of the City of .Richfield this 10th day of Novembex, ` 1975. Loren L. Law,.Mayor Attest: Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO, A RESOLUTION RELATING TO PARTICIPATION IN THE SUBURBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY NURSING DISTRICT WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 145.08 and 145.12, provision has been made for a public health nursing district in that portion of Hennepin County outside the City of Minneapolis, and WHEREAS, pursuant to such authority such a public health nursing district has been organized and has been in operation since 1952, and WHEREAS, it is deemed necessary to continue the operation of such nursing district and to provide it with adequate funds for its proper operation NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that this political subdivision continue to be included in the public health nursing district of Suburban Hennepin County, organized on January 4, 1952; that it participate in the benefits thereof; and that it agrees to support on an apportionment basis its pro rata share of the cost of the administration of such district provided, however, that for the period of January 1 , 1976 through December 31 , 1976 this cost shall not exceed 50~ per capita on the basis of 1975 population estimates as per the Metropolitan Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be deemed an agreement to continue to participate in such nursing district on the basis hereinbefore specified with all other political subdivisions adopting similar resolutions . Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th day of November, 1975. Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran City Clerk - t } t ~<. , • CITY OF RICHFIELD,` MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 341 Agenda November 10, 1975 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council : City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject:. Request to Install-Fence .on City Property.:- On the November 10, 1975 city council agenda .there is a request from Rev. Grindal of 6645 Newton Avenue for permission to install=a fence on city property. The Rev. Grindal requests permission to install a board-on-board rough cedar fence three feet onto city property.. The fence would be located at the top of the embankment running along 67th `~ Street., The proposed fence would run from the front of the house to a point approximately teri`feet beyond the rear of the house. The city staff has reviewed this,;request and since the fence .would be located 11.feet from the exrsti'ng curb:aine, the staff recommends that the request~of Rev. Grindal be'approved. Respectfully sub fitted, ~~ ,~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Public V1Torks Director ~. ~~~ r~ CITY OF RICHFIF~ZD, MINNESOTA ~' Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 340 . Ag~~nda November 10, 1975 -The Honorable ...Mayor and... Members of'the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen; Subject; Sign Permit Approval On the November 10, -.1975 city council:-agenda there. is a request from St. Richard's Church to approve ~ sign permit.. Section 3.3 6 , Subdivision 1, of the city code does riot allow advertising. signs, billboards or real :state signs in an "R" or "MR" ' district except for certain specific cases. One of these cases allows signs to be installed, upon city-;council approval, if they are directional or information signs of a public or quasi-public nature. Attached is a copy of the application for the sign permit submitted by St. Richard's Church. The staff had reviewed the application and recommends that the city council approve the sign permit. Respectfully sub 'tted, S , ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~ ~~ Wayne S. Burggraaff ` - Clay Manager WSB/eja cc: Public Works Director CITY Or KICi-AFIELD PUFLIC 190RKS DEPARTT~ENT PROTECTIVE INSPECTION DIVISION APPLICATION FOR (3UTUOOR ADVERTISING PERrzIT ate !~(' T 3~ 19 ~S Present Zoning Fee Paid ;. scation 7~' ~ l~~ZZ~~t- ~ Is sign erected at this date Yes No _gn. Erector ~~~/lam SlG'y:S Address ~~11~ ~ ~ ~c~ ~nex of Sign S~T ~!G<•~l-t-~~4.5• C/•-~~~ Address 7~0 ~ C~ ~2~.~-~ ape of Sign: ~ tt-all ~ Hanging ~ Ground ~ Roof__~_ Pedestal ~j Pylon ~ j . Single Face ~ Double Face ~[ Business ~ ..Advertising ~ Sq. Ft. ea. side ~_ >timated cost ~ ~(~~. (!U Constructed of _w~r,~ Completion Date /Gly-~- jU ~tal height from: (Ground) (Roof)~ft. Space beneath sign to: (Ground) (Roof) ,~- Eilluminated: ~1ame of Electrical Contractor Address ype of Tllumination: Flurorescent ~. Neon ~ Incandescent(. Quartz ~ htercury ~ Other year Glass ~• Frosted Glass( Plastic Covered [~[ Shaded. ~ .Other velin Zi Other ~Vattage Flashing ~ Revolving ~ Tra g r P ~. n Applying for this Permit the Undersigned agrees: To accept and abide by all provisions of Ordinances #2,_03 and #3.271 of the City of Richfield and all other pertinent ordinances or regulations that may be adopted in the future. . To notify Chief Inspector when sign is ready for inspection, but before erection crew has left-the job. Electric wiring on illuminated signs usf omply with City of Richfield electrical ordinances. ignature of Applicant .:.-~ c/ d.dress '~S~S~ ~/'` ~- ~ Telephone No. D(~~ °~ /~.3i royal RecommendedDenied f...4 ~~ ~ Date / a~ 19~ PP ~ T Chief inspector pprova2 Recommended ~ .Denied ~... ,. ~ `Date 19 - ~~ Director of Public s'or~cs- ,ppxoved - Q Denied Manager Date 19 ~p~ved by Council: _ Date. :ouncil Stipulations G13.26 :+ t }- ~ F' t. ~'F'J 1 • i. ^ .~v0 6ROUN0 SIGN PEDESTAL SIGN HANGING SIGN _ WIDTH _~ ~ ~ ;S ~ l~lIDTH _ ~~ ice- l"lIDTH _~.__- ~~ ~ . .~ -WALL SIGN `~ ~.._ WIDTH -~i ~~ 1 ROOF SIGN j~.___._ W l oT H INDICATE LEGENC ON THE REVERSE SD E IN O ;~ -- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No . 3.3 9 Agenda November 10 , 19 7 5 The Honorable 1Vlayor and Members of the'' City Council City of Richfie d Gentlemen: Subject: Transitory Ordinance Providing. for. the. Expenditure of Money .:from the Special :Revenue Fund for Park Acquisition and Betterment At the October 1'4, 1975 city council meeting: the city council gave first reading consideration to a transitory ordinance for the purpose of - appropriating .$16.,.000 `in .special revenue funds. to be used as part of the funding necessary for remodeling the: Senior Citizens/Commun y Center Building . This transitory. ordinance is on the November 10, :1975 city council agenda for second reading consideration. It is recommended that it be given second .reading and adopted. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~~. S ~~ Wayne S . Burggraaff ~ C:[ty Manager WSB/eja cc: Finance Director Acting Park and Recreation D;~ector ~' TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 16.36. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR PARK ACQUISITION AND BETTERMENT. CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to expend money' from the special revenue fund for the acquisition and betterment of public parks and playgrounds, such improvements being capital improvements for which the City would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds . Section 2 . The sum.of $16, 000 is hereby authorized to be paid from the special revenue fund for such purposes. Section 3. The expenditure herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by council resolution. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th day of November, 1975. Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran City Clerk • " ~' CITY OF RICHFIELD., MINNESOTA Office of City Manager. Council Letter No. 338 Agenda November I0, 1975 r ~ ~. ,. - The Honorable Mayor :'~' a7d Members of the City Council w , City of Richfield ,,, Gentlemen: Subject: Amendment to Chapter IV of the Ordinance Code of the City. of Richfield Adding Section 4.15 re= lating to the Hitting of Golf `Balls in Public Parks. and Public Places At the October 14, 1975 city council .meeting the city council gave first reading consideration to an ordinance amendment regulating :golf in public parks . A copy of the proposed ordinance is attached This ordinance amendment is on the November 10,.197.5 city council agenda for second reading consideration. It is recommended that it be adopted. Respectfully submitted, ' ~' ~ 7 Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Acting Park and Recreation Director Public Safety Director f ,• :, << AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER IV OF THE . ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ADDING SECTION 4..14 CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:- : Chapter IV of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield is amended by•adding Section.4.15-relating to the hitting of golf balls in the public parks and other.. public places and providing for penalties for-.such activity which reads as follows: ~~^ "4.15 .REGULATING GOLF IN PUBLIC. PARKS Subdivision 1. Definitions. The following. terms shall have the.meanngs ascribed to them in _ this section: -=~ (1) 'Golf ball' means a ball which is of the .~ type used to play the game of golf and shall ..also _-include any pro3ectile oz solid construction .capable of being struck or propelled by a golf clop. ._. (2) 'Practice golf ball''means a ball which : is not of the type used to play'the game o gol an is compose o= a tnin no low. sphere o= plastic or of er semi ar ig t ~ae2ght material. Subd. 2. Hitting of Golf. Balls Prohibited. -No person s a it, rive, stroke o~- of zer~J~ise grope a go z a upon, in, over or across any street, avenue, a ey or of er pu ~zc place incl:~ding . pu a.c par s except within .areas oa pu is parks w ich ave been,designatea or such activity; Subd. 3. Hitting of Practice Golf Balls Prohibite NQ.personshall hit, drive, stroke or of erwise propel a practice gol :.ball uppn, n,,over =- or across any street, avenue,, alley or ct er pu is • place except public parks. Subd. 4. Hitting of Practice Golf Balls in . Public Parks. Unless tie fitting o p~actice go f a s is cpecifica ly x~rohibite ~n a pu is par -, -' any person. may hit,~drve, stroke, or ©therws.e ropel such practice gol~ balls in accordance with. t e ollowing restrictions: :' , ` ,. ~ ... • (1') The ball nay not be hit from or to any location. closer thanTTTT l00 feet from the park boundary,. (2) The balllmay not be hit from or into any location closer than, l00 feet from-any area actua ly be ni g used for any organized recreational activity such as softball, bajseball, football or tennis. (3) The ball-may not be hit from or into any location closer. than 100 feet from any playground,- tot lot, picnic area, walking or bikin tra~.l, parking ' lot, building, strucTture or lake within the. park.. ` (4) Balls ma' not be hit from.or into the Woodlake Mature Cen sr . Subd. 5. Violations: Penalties. Any person .who shall violate arty of the,provisions.o~ this section shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor .for ,the first viola ion and may be sentenced to payment of a =ine not to exceed $100.0. A second or subsequent violation without limitation to t~.me shall be a' mis- `_.~ ~ emeanor. ' ~' Passed by the City ~ouncl of the City of Richfield this day of : 1975. ATTEST: Mayor i rk Cit Cie Y f I -2- .~~~ s :1- CITY Off' RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA. Office of City Manager Council Lettej° No. 337 ,; Agenda November'"10, 1°75 The Honorable;Mayor and Members of the City Council _ City of Richfield ~ Gentlemen: Subject; Parking Regulations in the Vicinity of the High School At the city council meeting of October. 14, 1975., the-council requested formation of a task force to study parking problems in the area of the Richfield High School, The city council also requested a report from the task force" at the November 10, 1975 meeting. This task, force met on October 2;8, 19.75 and their xeport is attached. The major recommendations of the task force are: - 1. Creation of a parking control zone in the vicinity, The boundaries ` of this parking control zone would be'-from Wentworth Avenue to • Lyndale Avenue and from 6-,8th Street to 74th. Street. This zone is ..proposed .primarily to aid. the council. in .planning: for parking . restrictions in the high school area. 2. The second recommendation is that parking restrictions in this zone be standardized by choice of the residents. Three options would be available: A mornirig>restriction', "No Parking 8; a.m,. to 10:30 a.m.", a noon hour restriction of "No Parking 10:00 a.m, to 1: OO p.m.", or no restrictions whatsoever. (Any: establishment of parking restrc- tons different from the above would be based on public safety ,or "engineering considerations. 3 . The task force endorses the students concern •for more off-street ~~`~"'.--~'~'~'°arking and recommends to the city cour,.cl. that :hey discuss ~t~v.'&~ ~~ ~u ce this concern and communicate it to the ~chocl board . The parking restrictions allowable within the "pafkiny control district" would fall into the three specific categories recommended above: It is recommended that the city- council. accept .this report and approve the recommendations of the task.force. -, Respectfully submitted, ~i f ~.l ~ ~ - ~~~ ~ ~. Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager M E M O R A N D U M Date: To: From:. Subject: F November 4, 1975 Wayne S. Burggraaff :~. City Manager Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Director of Public Safety REPORT OF STUDY TASK FORCE PARKING/TRAFFIC CONTROL - RICHFIELD HIGH SCHOOL As you are aware, the City CoU~cil has recently been discussing the parking and related problems in the area of the Richfield High School. Most recently- the Council has-been considering the adoption of uniform parking regulations in the area in order to provide the most efficient system of enforcement as well as providing an understandable traffic control pattern for-both the area residents and those drivers who use these particular streets. ~ At the City Council meeting held on Tuesday, October I4, 1975, the Council requested the formation of a study task force to look at the parking and traffic control .problems in the area of the High School. The Council designated me to co- ordinate this effort. Specifically, the Council requested a broad represen- tation of the neighbors in the areas surrounding the High School, as well as representative .members of the Student Body. I have convened a task force of interested residents and students. For your information I am including a membership-list of the task force, as well as an outline of the geographical areas of representation. The members of the task force have polled their. representative neighborhoods and the student representatives on the. task force discussed this problem with members of the High School community.. On Tuesday,, October 28th, the-task force met at the Richfield High School to discuss this matter in a joint session. This memorandum contains the report of this meeting. By way of background, I might just mention that the traffic congestion problem- around the High-School is a matter which has historically been brought to the attention of~the Council on numerous occasions, both by the school community and the neighboring residents, since-the school opened in 1955. In reviewing our files I-find a number of petitions, often for only one .side of a particular block, which have been presented to the Council to request establishment of a .variety of parking regulations in specific. areas. Over the years the Council has reacted to these various petitions and established a variety of patterns of parking control around the school. The parking restrictions. that resulted from this process.-through the years have not been established on a uniform basis. In some areas there are as many as three different parking restrictions within a two block distance. With the completion of the street paving project around the High School, the City Council attempted to establish a uniform parking policy in the area of the school.. In June of 1975 the Public Works Director made a recommendation to the City Council fora parking control pattern in the Wayne S. Burggraaff November 4, 1975 .Page Two some unanimous recommendations with regard to the approach that might be used in dealing with this problem. area of the High School. That proposal was returned to the Public Works Department for further research. A final proposed policy was developed by the Public .Works Department on the basis of a survey of the residents of the High school area. This policy was presented. to .the City Council on September 22 , 1975, for their consideration. During the course of the dis- cuss-ion at that meeting it appeared that there were some options that the residents wished to consider which were not included in the original policy recommendation. Additionally, members of the High School community expressed a concern about having input into the policy before it was formally adopted by the City Council. At the meeting of the City Council on October 14, 1975,'.. this matter was discussed at great length with a variety of issues raised. Many of the issues, while certainly of real concern to both the students and the residents, only indirectly related to the issue of parking. Some of these issues included the. alleged behavior of certain students on residential pro- perty,-the problem of littering in the neighborhood surrounding-the Nigh School, driving-habits allegedly displayed by some of the. High School students, and the general-congestion that seems to currently exist in the area. While the. Council clearly expressed a concern about these problems, the concern they expressed to me relative to the matter of ;parking restrictions was based pri- marily on the traffic congestion problem,caused by the number of automobiles entering the predominantly residential area. The charge given me by the Council. was to attempt to resolve this problem in a manner that would be satis- factory to both the students and the residents, as well as a manner that would provide for the safe flow of people and vehicles in the area of the-High School: The-task force meeting on October 28th was interesting in that it was the first time in nearly twenty years that an attempt has-been made to deal with this pro.- blem on a uniform basis with all of the residents concerns, as well as attempt- ing to deal with the problems of concern to the student community. There were twenty-two members. of the task force in attendance at the. meeting with three members representing the City Staff and four members representing-the school community. Fifteen residents, representing the geographical area totally sur- rounding the school, were also in attendance. While-the group brought a variety of issues and concerns to the meeting, our discussions were able to result in First, the task force has unanimously recommended that a parking control dis.-. trict be established in the area surrounding the High School. This district. would extend from Wentworth Avenue to Lyndale Avenue and from 68th Street to ,' 74th Street.. The primary purpose of the establishment of this district would be to provide a basis from which the Council might deal with future petitions for parking restrictions. The parking restrictions allowed within this area would. be consistent, in that they would follow uniform-patterns recommended by the members of the task force. The on y exception to these patterns would be parking restrictions established specifically for public safety purposes. The parking restrictions allowable within this district would fall into three spec- ific categories: ,, Wayne-S. Burggraaff November 4, 1975 Page Three 1. No restriction unless petitioned for by the residents. 2, A morning parking restriction of S:OO a.m. to 10;30 a'.m. :. 3. 'A noon hour parking restriction of 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. • -.~._ . I might-point out that the task force was .unanimous in•tfieir choice of the times for the noon restriction and unanimous in their endorsement of not having any restrictions unless petitioned- for by the residents. With regard td the morning parking restrictions of 8:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. there was a descenting opinion in favor of a restriction of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. On a vote of the task force the choice of 8:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. was endorsed by a vote of 15 to 4. The options provided by this approach would allow the residents to select parking restriction. times which would more nearly meet their needs in convenience while at the same time providing an overlap. of thirty minutes to prevent cars from-being moved from one street to another in an attempt to avoid the restricted parking area.. 4 The final action that-the committee took was an attempt to partially define the underlying issues. of the parking problem. Primarily this centered on the fact that there is potentially more student automobile traffic than the existing off-street parking resources can accommodate. The school has allotted 106. parking spaces for students and the estimates of the Richfield High School Sto- .dent Council indicates that over. 200 cars. are driven by students on a daily basis. The task force felt that, particularly considering the size of the student population, the school administration should very carefully analyze ' their student parking resources. The student members of 'the task force sug- gested the possibility of parking on one side of 70th Street between Pleasant . and Nicollet. This area is currently restricted on a 24-hour basis orr both sides of the street. The students also suggested the possibility of parking on the north side of 72nd Street between East Pleasant and Nicollet Avenue. It was. the feeling of the Public Safety Director and the Public Works Director that parking should not be allowed in the 70th Street.~rea. However ,, there are currently no parking restrictions on the north side of 72nd Street betvaeen Nicol-let and Pillsbury and this area would be available for student parking. The task force unanimously supported the students concern for increased parking resources and. urges the. City Councii to convey this concern to the Richfield School Board. In a matter directly related to the task force meeting, the task force, on the basis of .their door to door canvas and the resulting petitions., is recommending several. immediate changes should the Council adopt their proposals. The recom- mendations, by location, are as follows: 1. Redesignate Garfield Avenue from-70th Street to 73rd Street as "no parking :10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m." Wayne S. Burggraaff November 4, 1975. Page Four X12. .Redesignate the South side of 72nd Street between Harriet and ~eu~~ Grand Avenue as no parking, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on the basis of a public safety priority. ., 3. "Establish "no parking, 8:00.a.m. to 10:30 a.m." on Pil7sbu-ry Avenue between 72nd and 73rd Streets and on Pleasant Lane be- tween East Pleasant. and Pillsbury Ave-~ue. 4. Redesignate all other existing "no parking, 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m." zones as "no parking, 8:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m." zones. ~5°:' The task force recommends that, other than these changes the residents within . the parking control district be contacted so that they might. participate in choosing the. parking control that might be most appropriate for their specific. neighborhoods, if in fact additional parking control is desired. It .would be the recommendation of the Public Safety Department that the existing "no park- ing on a 24--hour basis" restriction be maintained orr West 70th Street; the "no parking on a 24-hour basis" restriction on the south side of 72nd and 73rd Streets between East Pleasant. and Nicollet Avenue be maintained as an engineer- ing design requirement. It would also be the recommendation of the Public Safety Department that the parking restriction on both East and West Pleasant north of 70th Street be maintained, as well as the existing "no parking, 8:00 • a.m. to 4:00 p.m." zones around Central Elementary School and the High School on both 72nd Street and on Harriet Avenue. At the City Council meeting on October 14th the Council. requested a report from the task force for consideration at their November 10th meeting. The task force has.-met and thoroughly discussed the problems and the needs with both the residential and student communities and has jointly made the fore- going recommendations. I endorse the recommendations made by .the task force and would solicit a favorable action on the part of the City Council in both accepting this report and approving the recommendations contained herewith. . -T ,. ~~w .r 1 TAM:sp cc: Study Task Force Members ,~ ., STUDY TASK FORCE Parking/Traffic Control -Richfield High School -City Staff Representatives: ;;~ Thomas A. Morgan, Jr., -Director of .Public Safety Task Force Coordinator Peter G. Eberz -Director of Public Works Joyce. Wilde -Administrative Assistant, City Manager Resident Representatives: ~ hlr. Jake Bartels 7210 Pleasant Avenue South - H1rs . Penny Cl enden~i ng 7109 .Garfield Avenue South ' Mr. Stan Dzi k 6837 Harriet Avenue South Mr. Jim Ehleringer 209 Pleasant Lane Mr. Mark Erspamer ;- - 201 ldes-~ 72nd Street ~_ . Mr. Del Griffen 7216 Garfield Avenue South -._ Mrs\. Grant Hallberg • 7220 Pi easant Avenue South Mrs: Carol Holm 7304 Harriet Avenue South Ms. Marlys-Mackenthun 7100 Harriet Avenue South Mrs. Lee Ann McLaren 7108 Garfield Avenue.South: . ,,.- _ Mr. Bryan Mead - ' 7.202 Grand Avenue South.. Mr. Gerald L. Olsen 6824 Grand Avenue South _ - Mrs. Patricia Pederson . 7244 Grand Avenue South Mr. Norm Robinson 7032 Garfield Avenue South ' ,. Mr. Al ton Tekse .._ _ 7200 Grand Avenue South hfr. :James Van Bergen : 7217 Grand Avenue South. •~ High Schoo~.Representatives: ~ '` -~ ~ Mr. James Hare -Student Affairs Coordinator : _ . Richfield High School GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS OF RESIDENT REPRESENTATION STUDY TASK FORCE '.'~ PARKING/TRAFFIC CONTROL -RICHFIELD HIGH SCHOOL 6800 - 6Q00 Harriet Avenue South _ Mr. Stan Dzik Grand .Avenue South- Mr. Geraid Olsen Pillsbury Avenue South - Wentworth Avenue South - 7000 - 7200 Garfield Avenue South - Mrs. Lee Ann McLaren Harriet Avenue South - Ms. Marlys Mackenthun .".7200 - 7300 Garfield Avenue South - Mr. Del Grifferi Harriet Avenue South - Mrs. Carol Holm Grand Avenue South - Mr. James Van Bergen and Mr. Brian Mead Pleasant Avenue South - Mrs. Grant Hallberg and Mr. Jake Bartels Piilsbury Avenue South - Mr. Mark Erspamer .Pleasant Lane - Mr. Jim Ehleringer `: ldes-c 70th Street - Mr.: Norm Robinson West 71st Street - PRrs. Penny Clendening West 72nd Street. - Mr. Ai ton Tekse West 73rd Street - Mrs. Patricia Pederson CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of-City Manager Council Letter No. 336 Agenda November 10, 1975 <The Honorable Mayor and , . ,, Members of the City Council City of Richfield ~ Gentlemen: Subject: Suppelemental Assessment Hearing for St. Peter's :Church On September 22, 1975 the city council honored .a request by St. .Peter's Church and set a' hearing date to consider a supplemental assessmen for the permanent. street construction program. On August 11, 1975 the city council approved an assessment of $7,030.58 for St. Peter's Church. This figure was developed by using the assessment policy for tax. exempt property contained in Resolution No. 4382.... • adopted in June, 19.70. The objection of St. Peter's Church is not based on calculations, but on the issue of whether the :determination of the streethas been correctly interpreted by the city staff. Council Resolution No. 4382, subdivision 4b, states: "in the case of tax exempt. property front footage shall .include all abutting footage on improved rights of way. " The staff has reviewed the request of St. Peter's- Church and finds that: ].. That the original assesirient figures were correctly calculated. 2. That the tax exempt assessment policy has been used by he city since the start-of the permanent street-:paving program. ' It is the staff's opinion that the `policy-is fair and equitable . A change in the basic assessment policy at this stagQ cf the permanent street.paving program could cause considerable ditfic~ulty and unequal "treatment to tax exempt properties. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the city staff that the council not change the-existing assessment policies. Tf the council wishes to consider-St. Peter' appeal.as` an. individual case, this could be done without changing the entire assessment :..policy.. , 'r COUIlcll' Letter NO. 33 b -G- lvvvcuiuc~ ~ v-, .~ ..... ., 3. Should the council de'cide_to review the individual assessment of St. Peter's Church., the review should be 'based on benefit ;t received. It is the .opinion: of the city staff that St. Peter's Church received a :benefit fair y represented by the assessment figure of $7, Q30.58 . Since the tax exempt policy does not ..directly assess for a side street share, the city staff did cal- culate what the assessment would have been if the commercial '~ ` or industrial policies were used instead. of the tax exempt r policies., Commercial and industrial properties are directly assessed. foi- both'a front .and side street share. Using the commercial and ndustrialassessment policy, the assessment would Have been $9, 942.51. Based on this figure the staff. concluded tYiaf St PeLer's -Church was not assessed more than ` its fair share: In this particular case -the tax exempt policy actually resulted in a lower assessment than would have been .experienced by a 'commercial or industrial property.. Respectfully-submitted, ~~' ~ Wayne S. Burggraa f .,~. City Manager.... • WSB/eja cc: Public Works Director Finance Director :~> City Attorney ~Ed ~~..'t~o ~ DDD !. ~ -. '. - CERTIFICATE .STATE-OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS. CITY OF RICHFIELD ) I~ , City Clerk of Richfield, in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have examined the attached copy of Findings and Determinations, and Resolutions found,. made, and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of • 1975, and have carefully compared the same with the original hereof, now on file in this office, and that said attached. copy. is a true and correct copy of said original, and of the whole thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of said City this day. of -. 1975. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS BY, AND RESOLUTIONS OF, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, ~~ RELATIVE;TO AND APPROVING A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AN URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT .FOR .THE LYNDALE-HUB-NICOLLET AREA IN RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, ENTITLED "LYNDALE-HUB-NICOLLET COMMERCIAL IA'IPROVEi~IENT.PROGRAM,° DATED ~w ...„o .. ~.:~. ,~ WHEREAS, it has been the intent and desire of the City: of Richfield for many years to improve conditions in the section of the City of Richfield referred tows the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet commercial area; and WHEP.EAS, the Housing and Redevelopment. Authority of Richfield, Minnesota. (the '.`Authority"), has now prepared a redevelopment plan for an urban renewal project for the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet area of Richfield, ` Minnesota (the "Project Area"), entitled "Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet i Commercial Improvement Program," dated , 1975 (the "Plan") ; and WHEREAS, the Plan has been prepared by the Authority with the cooperation and assistance of .the appropriate City departments.; and WHEREAS, .the-Authority, by resolutions duly adopted at a ~ 1975, did approve the Plan ~- meeting held on _ _~ ~ and did authorize application to the City Council for approval of the Plan, and submission to the City Council of. the Plan, including a statement of the method proposed for financing the project proposed by the Plan, and the written opinion of .the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield., dated ~-`~~ t ~ , 1975; and WHEREAS, application for approval of the. Plan has now been made to the City Council, and the Plan, a statement of the method pxo- posed for financing the project proposed by the Plan, and. the written ~.___ ~~ opinion of the Planning Commission have now been duly submitted to the City Council, and the City Council on IvoV• ~~` ,.1975, duly held a public hearing on the Plan pursuant to published notice,. all as required, by Minnesota Statutes..-§462.521; and `- WHEREAS, the Authority may not proceed with the plan unless the City Council, by resolution, makes certan,.findings with respect.: to the Project Area and Plan, and approves the Plan; and WHEREAS, the Authority has studied the location and the physical ,condition of structures, land use, environmental influences, and social, cultural, and economic conditions of the Project Area, and the Planning Commission of the City.of Richfield, Minnesota, being the duly designated and acting official planning agency of Richfield, has found and determined that the Project area is a deteriorated and deteriorating area within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes §46.2.421, • subd. 11, as set out in its written opinion submitted to the City Council, which finding and determination was concurred in by the Auth- M ority; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered the written opinion of the Planning Commission, the Findings and Determinations, 'and Resolutions of the Authority dated ~t~. ~~ _ , 1975, the material and .information included in he Plan, and the testimony and evidence presented at the public heaYirg on~ tvOU /a . 1975, and 1,1A~1 2,4~ lq~s ,~ Tr7HEREAS, the members of the City Council have knovaledge of the conditions prevailing in-the Project Area and in the locality generally; and ~~ -2- ~,~.. e l ~ WHEREAS, the City Council has been fully apprised. of all action that will or may be necessary to be taken by the. City of Richfield relating to the Plan and the implementation and carrying:. out of the Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City. of Richfield, Minnesota, does hereby make the following findings and determinations: 1. That the Project Area is a deteriorated and deteriorating area within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes X462.421, Subd. 11; 2. That the urban renewal project proposed by the Plan is nec- essary to eliminate, and prevent the spread of, such deterioration; 3. That-.the acquis~.tion of real property as described in the plan is necessary to eliminate, and prevent the spread of such deterioration; 4. That the Project Area is subject to conditions preventing private development and would not be made available for redevelopment without the governmental assistance and financial aid proposed by the, Plan; -5. That the Plan. affords maximum opportunity for redevelopment- of the Project Area by private. enterprise, consistent with the sound=- needs of the locality as a whole; 6. -That the Plan provides an outline for the development and re- development of the Project Area and. is sufficiently complete to in- dicate the relationship of 'the Plan to the objectives of the, City of Richfield as to appropriate land uses within the Project Area, and to indicate the general land uses and general .standards of development or redevelopment within the Project Area; 7. That there is a feasible method for the temporary relocation of families who may be displaced. from .the Project Area, and that _g- there. are available, or will be provided, in the Project Area, or in other areas not less desirable in regard to .public utilities and public and commercial facilities, and at rents or prices within the. financial means of the families who may be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings at least equal in number to the number of families who may be so displaced; that the Authority , in 'acquiring any properties, must and will provide .all relocation. - assistance and benefits required by the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real. Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, any acts amendatory thereof, any regulations duly adopted pursuant thereto, and any .regulations duly adopted by the State of D3innesota, its agencies, or political subdivisions pursuant to law; 8. That the Plan conforms to a general plan for the development of the locality as a whole; 9. That. the method proposed for financing the project proposed by the Plan is feasible and adequate to properly and fully finance.' the project. THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve and direct- as follows: A. That the Plan, in all respects, including the method proposed for financing the project proposed by the Plan, is hereby approved;. B.. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to maintain on file a copy.of the Plan as hereby approved, together with the written opinion of the Planning Commission and.".the Findings and Determinations, and Resolutions of the Authority, dated QC-T ~ S , 1975; • _4_ ,. x C. .That the City Council pledges its cooperation, and•that of - 11 officials,•departments, boards, and commissions of the City, in `~ - helping to implement and carry out the Plan, and directs that all such officials, departments, boards, and commissions cooperate in all `;' appropriate ways to assist and expedite all actions to implement and carry out the Plan, including, but not limited-,_to, all actions that are necessary or desirable to implement the method proposed for. - financing the project proposed by the Plan. D. That the Mayor and Manager be, and they. hereby are, authorized and directed, for and on behalf of, and in. the name of, the City of Richfield, to execute all such documents and agreements, and-to take all such action, as they deem necessary or desirable to assist in the - . implementation and carrying out of the.Plan. - ~4-Nr` - Passed by the City Council, City .of Richfield on the day of November, 1975 ~' - • Loren L. Law Mayor Attest: Thomas j. Moran City Clerk . - ~5^ .. ~ . .. I. CASH FLOW .ANALYSIS The purpose of the cash flow analysis is to estimate the cash available for tax increment bond amortization. The source of the cash is the new value rather than existing value. The LHN area will generate sufficient cash flow to amortize the proposed $3,0100,000 worth of tax increment bonds (exhibit A). .Methodology Tax increment cash flow is determined from the difference betweenthe base or frozen value ($18,159,860) and the new net project value. .The new net project value consists of the captured tax increment (market value inflated at 3% until 1980 and 1.5o after-1980) and the .new value added (new construction less value removed inflated at 3% annually). The inflation rates (3.0% and 1.5%) are conservative estimates. The average annual .rate of inflation and improvement value for the LHN area from 1968-1975 was 8.28x. Captured Increment The captured increment consists of that part of new net project value which is: (1) The 3o inflation for 1975 until abase value is established in 1976. (column A). This value is constant; (2) The improvement value, e.g. new Hub. sign, .inflated at 3% and 1.5% after 1980 (column B); (3) The difference betHreen the base or frozen value and. the inflated value (column D). The total captured increment, as shown in the year taxes are payable, is estimated at $101,455 for 1977 and $9 ,932,101 by 1999. While the tax increment bonds are being payed off, the taxes generated from the captured increment will be payed by state school aid, southdale area, Hennepin County taxing area and metropolitan .area, and the rest of Richfield. The increased tax loan which is an investment by the. rest of Richfield is approximately $1,233 in 1977 and $86,000 by 1999~(this_amounts to a maximum of $2.00 a person for Richfield -.residents). New Value The new project value (approximately 1/2 of total expected value as shown in the -2- LHN plan( is calculated based on expectations for selected portions of the new development to occur (see staging plan Phase III). This new value includes the home improvement center, a small commercial center-north of the present liQuor store, part of the Richfield Bank and Trust expansion, the promotional department store and 200 units of multi-family housing (columm F). While the project value adds to the area, the removal of existing buildings (column G) must be subtracted from the new project value to arrive at a new net increment value (column H). Because buildings must be cleared before new $uildings are constructed the new net increment value (column H) is less than.. the construction value. .The total increment value (column I) is the. captured value and the new net increment value. This value (column I) is multiplied by .045 (average tax rate for LHN commercial and multi-family) to arrive at cash flow. available (column J). Conclusion The :tax increment bond issue of approximately $3,000,.000 is feasible in teams of cash flow (exhibit A). The bonds will be General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds which pledge the full faith. credit of the .city if default occurs (exhibit. B). To minimize the limited risks of financing the project with tax. increment bonds the following development strategies are recommended: 1. The multi-family project, home improvement center, Richfield Bank and Trust project and promotional department store project be completed by separate developers. Z. The bond issue. should be divided into stages. 3. Surety bonds for project completion must be retained from the each-developer. 4. -Bonds must not be sold or land assembled until a definite financial co~mnitment -is obtained from the developer. 5. Speedy site assembly (property purchase relocation-and demolition) must be completed by the HRA once a developer is committed to the project. IY.~ Revenue Analysis The Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) Commercial improvement Program will generate additional revenue's to Richfield people, business and the city. The following outlines the revenue benefits of the LHN Commercial Improvement Program. The revenue analysis does not include the intangible benefits .from the project,. such as improving the esthetics of the area, decreasing safety hazards and increasing. areas of public/private use and enjoyment. (The environmental assessment details both the positive and negative effects,on the environment. Revenue Analysis (after plan is cos~leted) loymentl Approximately 610 new jobs will be created which will bring the . ` total employment of the area to approximately 1955 full and part-time people. .Retail Sales2 The potential 19.80 retail sales and•-service for the LHN area will be: 1. Retail store sales $33,212,000 by 1980 and $40,300,000 by 1990 (Note:- Department store sales will be $12,685,000 other stores $20,527,000 by 1980) 2. Retail service sales will be approximately $3,100,000 Total retail sales and services will be approximately $36,312,000.. .This compares to estimated sales without the planned redevelopment of $19,900,000 by 1980.. Again of approximately $16,412,000 in retail sales and services. nvironmenta assessment-~ stu y 2. Development potentials analysis-LHN study -2- Tax Revenues (Table III) Once the tax increment bonds are paid off the LHN project area will have an effective taxable value of $37.4 million (total value less fiscal disparities). - This value will generate $1,684,242 in taxes.:- The following annual revenue gains above the existing revenue can be .expected by he various taxing . jurisdictions: City $ 96,348 .annually Cotmty 197,636 annually School 97,34.8 annually TABLE I YSIS CASH FLOW ANL NEW VALUE/VALUE REMOVED A."Existing. value (1975) .Commercial $15,434,000 Multi-Resid. 2,120,500 Residential 605,360. Total base .value 18,159,860 (rounded) B. Improvements 101,455 (rounded) C. New value (rounded) -includes land value 1. For projects completed in 1976, assessed in 1977 from which taxes are payable in 1978; commercial project adjacent to .liquor store $ 489,000 2. For porjects completed in 1977, :assessed for 1978 from whiih taxes are payable in 1979.(includes 1976 projects inflated at 30) promotional department store,. Richfield. Bank and Trust, home improvement center - 6,439,000 3. For porjects completed in 1978, assessed in 1979 from which taxes are payable in 1980 (includes 1976:. and 1977 projects inflated at 3%) multi-family west-of Lyndale Avenue 11,928,000 D. Value removed For demolition of property: (wilding value only) Demolition in 1976 for. taxes payable 1977. (car wash and penny print. removal, construction of commercial) - $ 65,000 Demolition in 1977 for: taxes payable 1978.. .Promotional dept. store, home improvement center construction) - 588,150 Demolition in 1978 taxes payable 1979. (Garden center removal, :vacant land for construction of multi-family). - 258,000 NOTE: Demolition and land value removal is equal to $3,705,000. Building value removal is equal to $936,650. The land value is included in the new 'value ~~ ~C~ ~) . ` 0 ~..~ 0O t1') to [~ [~ M M N N ~O ~O l~ l~ e-i r-I e-i t-I l~ [~ \p ~ N y.~ d' t.ry M ~ 01 O ~ ~ [~ ~ 01 •d' '~f• n n M M to try 00 00 00 W •r•I O ~ ~' pr 3 O SON M M0~a1M-nMM~D~MM~D~Od'd'o000Q1~ 4-~1 .~ _ 0- w w w w w w. w w- w w w w w w w w w w w w Ln .e 'c+ . ~ M ~O O O n ~ ~ d" N N .H s--a N N ch ~f DO a0 M M O O d' •+ Fi t~~.n 000000 MMo000MM0000MM0000d'd•00 O p ~ ~ ,~~ M Mai.r~u7p\O~~Ot~l~t~t~ooo00oooo~rno~ •'~ ~¢~ ~ y~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~oo ccFdd C,~ + L!1 ~--i r-I t.!) 1.!') N N t-i r-1 l~ [~ tJ~ l~ O O ~D ~O \O ~D W O n ~ M Odd' QlOlr-1H MMl~l~00l~1~M tAt~l~t~L~MM d'~DaO a000~~D~O~ONN00o0~-iHMMMMNNH~-i w w w w w w w w n w w w w w w w w w w w w w ~' ~O ~ ~O Ql Q1 ~O \O '-i N d• cr 00 W ~O ~O t~ [~ M M i.r') t.n d' d• i-.r ,--~ Nx MMr-i~r-I~~oo~~~~noo00~d•~t~tt~t~~d• ~pp~ Hr-IOO r-INS-I rINN MMMMI~L~O~O)NN ~ ~-.~ ,~,, ~~ w w w w w w w n w w w n w w w n n w w w w n ~ H O ~ .--1t~'-i r-1MM~t~ttritl~~p~t~t~a000~OlOONN e-1 ~--~ E-+ V W r-1 r-i ~--I ~-~1 ~-1 r-{ c~ e-i e--i r-t ri c--I r-1 r-I '-I H N N N N b4. H H OOO 00000007070707NNQ1~d''¢hrlr-lcpp ~ O MO OOOONN'--I'-iMMMMM i-nOIONNMM ~~ o~oooo-oMMOO~r~rrna~oooo~n~n~n~noo w w w~ w w~ w w w n w w w w w w w w w w w w w ~ ~ C7 t.r) 01 c-~ M M 07 d1 ao ~ ~ 01 '-I r-I t1') t1') N N. N N to i.!') N N j-i ~ \D Ol 00 N N M M '--~ e-~ O O c-! ri N N t~ M 07 O1 d' ~' r-•I r-i ~ ~ ~ ~ N NO~O~ MM[~t~r-1'-IN~.1~01 OlMM0000MM w w w w w w w w w w w w w n w- w w ~ 4-1 N W ~ 00 00 00 00 p1 01 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 O ~-i ri .--i .-I N N A ~ :-1 H r-i r-i r-I r-i r-1 ri c-I r-I ri ri ~ ~ + '~' N b N ~~++ ~ O o0 0000 0000000000000 000 i1i~ O tn0 O 000 000000000 OOOOOOOr-ice ~~ 0.--10 0 000 000000000 0000 000 t~~~ ~ w w w• w w n w w w n~ w w w w w w w w w w n w N~ {...a *~ r1 r"I ? L.f7 W CD ~ V') L.() LJ') L/') t.!') Ln 1.l7 tf') to I~ ~ I..I) IJj Lf) tJ•) I,n I.f) Ln In ~ r•~{ \p OpL!') OOOO 000 000000 OOOO OOO'L~ N ~ ~ ~ NN ~~t\~t\~nt\nt`t`t\~t\t`t`ti~~~~ i•+~ w w w w w w n n w w w w w w w w w w w w~--{ Gy •M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M•~ w ~ ~ v ~ t i ~ ~ ~ t ~ i i ~ ~ i t i ~ r ~ i i i ~ i ~ 'L3 OOOOOOOOOI~O~OINN~ 01d'd'r-iri~D~Or'i {.~ 000000 NNrIHMM MMM MQIOINNMM n 000000 MMOO'ctd• 010~0000~MMM00 ~ N n. w w w w w w w w w w w w w O~Q~ W oOd-d• MMd'd'~\OOOL~I~L~CO00L~["'~ 0 ~ ~Uo\° W MN Nd•~tNN'-ir-Iri~-i MM» I.n~~Mtf')He-I ~ I-f n •r-~ ri M d' 'ct Ol ~ O ~ O O d' d' 00 DD N N ~ O O O L1') t.1) O O r-i w w w n w w n w w w w n w w w w n w w U Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.O.--I.-INN MMMMMMd'd•d'd'tJ')Mi.1')M~O~O ~''., S-~ P.. Z ~ r-1 ~ r-i r-1 c--1 ,-, r-i ,-~ .-i ,-, ,-, ,-1 .--1 e-I ,-~ .-~ .--r ,-1 .-i ,-r ,-~ .'.~{ L..~ H 'yy' ~. M H ~ ~ .. A }.~ cn .-i .--~ t.r'y t./) N N ri ~--I OO 00 \D ~ OO 00 L~ l~ N N [~ Lam. ~-i ~-I ,?~ ¢, +-~ A M d• ~t 07 Q7 ri c-I r--i r-i M M \O ~ M M ~ 07 CO CO M tt) O O ~-00aoOCO~~MMNNMMNN~ d•[~[~[~[`~~-iri w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w Pa ^ U ~ + H ~./'! to~D~[~L~'M Mt.l) LA[~I~OO~t X1'0001 d~NN O M MO~OINN o0 W M Md'd•~~0~ QIMMNNMM O O `W' ~ ~~ ~nnooco~~-~nd-d•rl,--~cocoM~nMMr--I~rnrn w O ~ {, w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w. w w rir-INNd'd'd'd'V~t.I)\O~O~O~L~ t`OOOOd1Ql~01 xx H ~ d ~ U ~.,,~ ~`CO o0 M M M M ~O ~O r-i r-1 a0 W ~ O N (V M ~ ri t-i N ~NN oOCO0000o00000rir1000000 N Q ~- ,~6T 1 o~co.o\oooMM~rd-~~rn~~~~~ v~ ~ ~ 1g ~ w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w x A ~- 2100 [~[~\O~Od'd'MMM Mt1')v")000000 cJQU •~ 19 $ ~o ~-i r-i o0 0o r~ t~ 00 00 ,-i r-I .fl .o ~r ~r M M ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ S.zL'2~ $ ~r-le-it~l~d'd'rla-ice ~~O~Dd'~tNN 19 ~ ~~ w w w w w w w w n w w w w w w ~-~{~,~ r-{ (n ,~ 1884 ~ d- d• ~n ~n ~o ~ \o .o r. n oa 0o rn rn v •~ y ~ ~. 1985 \S~, 9 4' ' (tT) 1g8~ 5~4 ~ } ' co 00 ~ .o N c~ ~n ~n ,-~ ~ a~ o ~ F-+ v o - '1 ~ .o .o :o ~ ~ ~ ~ d• .o .o ~ \o c~ o o ~ a~ f. 188$ 5~ ~> ~gS~i,N v~ ~n ~ ~ ~n ~n ~n ~n ~ ao ~,~ ~ ° •o -18$9 S~ ~ S ,\~i rri vi vi o 000 00 ~ rn ,-a c~ o +~ ~ • ~~ ~ ggp 5~4,~g ~~ N N o o rn rn ~ ~ ~ +~ cd 1 91 5~4~~g5 Doooo~~MM o,-+ •~+~°~ o~ 19 5. \'Y ~i .o .o ~. ~ c~ oo : °w rn 1882 S(k4,~ 9S ~NNNN Fq rl M~r-1 1 ~ 1983 S4~' S 1q~~., ~ i 1984 Sq ~, ~gS 1~~ 6~ ~ 6._~ _ ___ , q9S 5~ ~ gS 1~8 ~ 6~5.. S44 ~ ~g5 1q.8 5~~~ S 3 S4~ ~~9 9 ~- ~~ a e Tomes at etc• OZe lev 5 19~ S a ea , Y~° ~ a e 5 , v 1'le 181 Sh°~ 1~ ye+ dote. • _ < ; ,, , N N ~ ~ O ^ ' n w > ~-- - ~r .-. o0 0 ~ ~ c~ ~ • c H H ~ r~ ~ ~ cd • ~ u~ r-i n N h ~ r-i H ~' M t~ b4 H , ~ ~ Ol ~ n r-1 N O ~ u~ O ~ w O ~ N t~' ! w O W U ~ rOi Qa'd N ~~ r-1 , ~ ~ C'd ~ w ~ •~ ~' •P'~ Lf~ ~ n i-> Fi C7 ~ N ~H ~w ° • o •~ ~ U '~ i N ~ • N ~ • ~ ~ O Cd N +~ '~. O '~ c3 ~ ~ o y ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ d1 O Qr C~ ~ ~ N On N4i fr C~ N i O ~ ~ ? •~ ~ O ~ +~ O c~ ~ to ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, - N cn ~ H ~ . ~ .~ ,.a .,~ G~ +-~ M O i-> r-i . •~ +~ N ty •r-I F-£ ~ ' ~ N {,q. ~ N ~ •~ eM ~ ~ O ~ f~ ~ om p ~ ~i 4-1 ,F,~ U S-i ' ----it ~ ~ I~ +-~ O O ~ to U ,~•-~ '~ ~ u7 ~ O o ~ '~ ~ ~w~ N ~ 0 0 ~ o~~ ao ~o +~ ~. tH _(~ v M ~ ~ ~ N + ~ Ol ~ __~~ W ~ ~ • 1 ~ w M ' ~v~p ~; ~, a T J L~ ,~Y~ / / ' J. ' j j ' j /~ :,," T. G. EVEN$EN SC SSOCIATES, INC. .~:. ~~~lll Municipal Finance Consultants iii "''• First National Bank Building ~~ Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 - 612/338.3535 October 17 , 197 5 (~'U Mr. Wayne Burggraaff D ~~ ~f j I Ci Mana er 1 r` ~' .1975 City Hall g 6700 Portland Avenue t_; v r Richfield, Minnesota 55423 RIC~1~iC,~ fly ~o~apag@C Dear Mr. Burggraaff: As a result of the joint meeting. of the H.R.A. and Planning Commission. on October 15, 1975, we were directed to prepare material on the two types of financing suggested; namely improvement bonds and tax incre- merit bonds. The process of financing public improvements -street, sidewalk, storm sewer, water, etc. through the sale of general obliga- tion bonds. to be paid off by special assessments has been used repeat-- edly by the City.: It could be used to finance thistype of project in the development district. An assessment formula on a front foot, square foot, or combination basis which is equitable .and found to be neither arbitrary nor capricious could be used. Avery tentative time schedule indicates that these public improvements could start in 1976 and be com- plete in 1977. If this were so, the special assessments would be levied _ in 1978 for payment in 1979. Bonds to finance the improvements ux~uld be sold about April 1, 1977. Inasmuch as there would be no substantial income from the .special assessments until mid 1979 it would be neces- sary to include in the bond issue an>amount sufficient to pay interest. on the bonds in the interim. The exact amount of bond financing required is not known, but it~ has been estimated at $1, 300, 000. To that amount. we recommend adding $150, 000 of capitalized interest for a total of $1,450,_000. A debt retirement schedule in that amount is enclosed for your perusal. The amount to be spread as a special assessment against benefited property would be the $1,450, 000. Interest paid on the bonds would be recouped by the City in the form of interest paid to the City by the property holders. .Tax increment bonds are general obligations of the City. They are market- able only because of this fact. Any deficit developed in the amount necessary to pay principal and interest on these bonds is spread over the entire tax base of the City.: It is contemplated that .about $3,000, 000 would be needed for projects which are apt to develop in the near future. To-this amount we recommend the addition of $700, 000 for capitalized interest bringing +~ the total amount to $3, 700, 000. Projections furnished by Peter E. Jarvis Affiliate of Northwest Bancorporation - 5_ Mr. Wayne Burggraaff October 17 , 197.5 page 2 ~. and Richard Krier indicate that: 1. Bonds would probably be sold in 1976 and 1977 . 2. Collectable tax increment would develop as follows: a. 50% in 1979. b. Full amount in 1980 y__. ~3. A minimum of $400, 000 annual tax increment would develop . Increment in the amount of $200, 000 in 1979 and $400, 000 in 1980 and subse- quent years would suffice to defense these bonds by 1996. Due to the fact that the scheduling of the tax increment projects is somewhat uncertain we have not included definitive bond retirement schedules. If ad- ditional information on any of these or related topics. is desired, please feel free to contact us'. Sincerely yours, fi. G. EVENSEN & ASSO TES, INC. ` ~s1 Donald E. Swenson Vice President cc C . LeFevere R. Krier . R. Jarvis i s •• d L' ~ ~ CLAYTON L. LcFEVERE HERBERT P. LEFLER ,105EPH E. HAMILTON ~CURTIS A. PEARSON J. DENNIS O'BRIEN JOHN E. DRAW2 JOHN B. DEAN DAVID J. KENNEDY WARREN R. SAGSTUEN GLENN E. PURDUE - WILLIAM E. FLYNN OAVIO J. BUTLER JAMES D. CARSON LAW OFFICES LEFEVERE, LEFLER, HAMILTON AND PEAR50N L100 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 October 27, 1975 Mr. Wayne Burggraaff City Manager, City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield M~,nnesota 55423' 8ub~ject: Housing and Redeyel~opmen '-- 'Consequences- of Adoption ~of A Redevelopment Plan r+'Il f~11. /a( TELEPHONE -~ (612) 333-0543 Authority; ly City Council Dear Mr. Burggraaff: . This. letter is in response to a request fora legal opinion apprising the City Council of the consequences of adoption of the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet Redevelopment Plan a In many municipalities, adoption of a redevelopment plan by the Ciay Council involves a delegation of certain powers. and. • responsibilities to .the-Housing .and Redevelopment Authority., For example, once.a plan is adopted, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. may exercise the power. of condemnation. However, since the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the City Council are comprised of the same people, the City Council will, in•ef~'ect, retain full control over the project. Therefore, the primary consequence of the adoption of the LHN Redevelopment Plan is to freeze the assessed valuation of the project `area for tax .increment purposes. -Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.585, Subdivision 2, upon or after approval of the project, the Auditor of Hennepin County shall upon request of the HRA certify the assessed valuation of all_ taxable real property .within the project area as then most recently determined. This act in effect freezes the assessed valuation within the project area. The Council could adopt a plan withoutauthorizing- the HRA to request that the County Auditor so freeze .the assessed valuation. However, assuming that, in the case of the LHN Project, tax increment financing is necessary'to the successful completion of ...the project., I assume-that no purpose would be served by refraining- from granti,n~ this authorization. Furthermorer if the Council delays LAW OFFIGES y'.. c. LEFEVERE, LEFLER. HAMILTON -AND PEARSON . Mr. Wayne Burggraaff October 27, 1975 . Page Two this action, it is possible that the next assessment period will commence before the HRA is so authorized. If this were to happen,. and the assessed valuation of the project area were to increase, the amount of tax increments available to"finance tYie project would be diminished in subsequent years by the amount of such an increase. Tf the Council approves the-plan and authorizes the HRA to notify the County Auditor to freeze the assessed valuation, any increase in taxes which result from an increase in the assessed valuation of properties in the project area will be lost to the city the county, and the school district. To a certain extent,-the amount of zevenue lost through the school district will be made up by state aid under Minnesota Statutes, Section 124.212. The-exact ' amount of such aid will depend on:the number of pupils, the assessed valuation of the taxing district, and formulas to be determined by future legislatures. By adopting the plan,_the Council is not committing itself to any specific method of financing the project. However., because of the potential loss of tax revenues, adoption of the plan is a serious step. Once .the. assessed valuation is frozen, all tax increments will be paid to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. These funds are required to be segregated by the Authority in a special fund until the cost of the project, .including interest and . all money borrowed therefor, have been fully paid and the munici- ' pality has been duly reimbursed for any principal and interest on general obligation bonds which it has issued for the project. Final payment of all such obligations are then reported to the County Auditor, who willthereafter include .the entire assessed. valuation of the project area in the assessed valuations upon which ' the tax mill rates are•computed and exterided,..andtaxes collected will be xem~,tted to :all taxing distzicts. Yery aruly yours • `~.. '~- Charles..LeFev.ere. CLL:MJP ~~~ C0~=i•~:CI~w T.i'•iPiZJV •TLii'JT CJi•iYiITTr~ i~ir.:~Tli3CxS . 1. 197:1 ,September • l Considered the appropriation of funds.: 2. 1972,1973 September City Council appropriated limited funds. . 3, August 13, 19.73 City Council instructed the City Manager - • ~ to interview consultants, it was agreed at.this time that the interviews would be delayed: 1. Until a Planning Director was. hired.. 2. Discuss with the local merchants and - landlords. 4. March 25, 1974 Commercial Improvement Committee, first considered. • work program. At this meeting the committee formerly .requested the assistance of the city. 5. April 1974 Commercial Improvement Committee approved work program and major premises 6. May i3, 1974 City Council received the report from the Commercial ' ~. Improvement Committze and .indicated approval. 7. June 18, 1974. City Planning Commission reviewed the Commercial Improvement Program and indicated approval with the change that a Cost Benefit Analysis should be added - to the work program. 8. 1974 August 8, Commercial Improvement Committee approved the hiring - , of the consultants. Stressing the-need to move ahead~as fast as possible. 9. September 11, 1974 Joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission • to discuss the future of Commercial. Improvement Program.. 10. ..September 25, 1974 Introduce-BRZ^~- discussion planning process. 11, Octobex' 2,.1974 Meeting to discuss arrangements for. neighborhood meetings. ~: 12. October 25, 1974 - 13. November 1,.1974 CIC met with Chamber of Commerce -`presentation by BRi'V and • 14. November, IS, 1974 Discussion. of Businessmen's Census. ~~~. t 15. November 22,.1974. Presentation of draft report of the Economic Potentials y, .- Analysis. 16. January 2, 1975 BRW presentation of Phase I - Inventory y Problem Assessment and residents' Census.: - -~- .I7 January 6, I975 Joint HRA and Planning Comsnision meting presentaticr~ . of Phase I _ 18. Janaury 17. 1975. Developing Goals and Objectives for Phase I--Appointment of 5tud~? Conunittee to review and modify- the Goals and Objectives. . 19. January 23, 1975 Study committee Report to the CIC on the recommended Goals and Objectives. 20. January. 28, 1975 CIC to review resedent suggested changes to the recommended Goals and Objectives 21.Febuary 28, 1975 Phase Iupdate-=start of Phase II 22. April 15, 1975 LHI~J workshop 23. April 28, 1975 Presentation of preliminaxy alternates 24. 3~iay 2, 197.5 First subcommittee meeting to .review alternate plans 25. May 8, 1975 --- Second subcommittee meeting `~ ~ 26. May 22, 1975 Third subcommittee meeting 27. May 30, 1975 Fourth subcommittee meeting 28. June 5, 1975 Fifth subcorrunittee meeting 29. June I7, 1975 Recoommended alternate plan presented to CIC 30. Jane 30, 1975 Joint Planning Commission/HRA meeting. on the recoruaended alternative. 31. July 14, 1975 City Council adopted recommended plan -gave the go ahead for Phase III. 32. September 12, 1975 Discussed Phase III plan refinements and proposed .intersection improvements. 33. October 14, 1975 'Discussed Phase III ~~ .. RESIDENT MEETINGS .DATE MEETING NO. NO. CONTACTED NO. AT'T~'~tDING Oct. 21, 1974 1 First LHN meeting 190 evening 34 Oct. 28 2 First ~~ meeting 320 evening 55 , Nov. 4 3 First LHN meeting 220 evening 27 Nov. 15 4 Joint meeting-CIC 730 morning 10 Nov. 22 S Joint meeting-CIC 730 .morning 15 Jan. 2, 1975 6 Phase I presentation 730 evening 21 Jan. 6 7 Joint meeting-HRA, PC newspaper Jan. 23 8 Discuss G. ~ 0. 730 evening 32 Jan. 28 9 Joint meeting-HRA, PC newspaper April 7 10 Organize residents for 730 evenin 42 . RING Committee g April 21 11 First Ring Comm. meeting . newspaper. 20 • ,~ May 17 12 Residents meeting -- presentation of preliminary 730 evening- newspaper notices 115 alternate plans - . May 19 13 ~ RING committee meeting RING Committee May 29 14 RING "corrnnittee meeting RING Cormnittee ~- Jtme 12 15 Residents meeting -- presentation of .:final 730 evening newspaper notices. 100 alternate plans Jtme 16 16 RING committee meeting -- RING Committee develop plan recommendation . July 9 ~ 17 RING and small area 35 residents. meeting - July 14 18 City Council adopted plan gave go-ahead for Phase III 15 Sept. 19 Update on Phase III plan . . refinements discussed - intersection improvements `~. ~ Oct. 14 ~ 20 CIC-RING -- discuss Phase III _ ., `~~' Oct. 15 21 Joint meeting, HRA/PC ~~_ I ~ - - ~ - - _,_ 1-_ - -- - -- :\ ~ _- --- ~_ _ _... .. .. - T -~ ~ EMERSON - AVE. \ O LYNWOOD ~/ ~~ ~O. _ __ .r o~ S y ~~a^ ~y a° a° c` m V z (P m V W (p f/1 N W A (n A J N W N W W O O m O C O D ~o m X ~__ j m a. o~ ~ ~ N T 29 W O (Wp ~ 30 N W N W A (T W V W VI f0 1 A P p V (T m V W A V A V rn cAO o V NICOLLET AVE. N O ~ V m N W STEVENS AVE. A r v t- --- I DUPONT AVE. G~ ~L • COLFAX AVE. BRYANT AVE. ALDRICH AVE. HARRIET AVE. Of A T ,i GRAND AVE. PLEASANT AVE. PILLSBURY AVE. WENTWORTH AVE. BLAISDELL AVE. ~ "\ `. _.i __ D 0 n 0 i ° ~ s~ ~ -.. ~~` _. 2 nd AVE. LYNDALE /HUB/ NICOLLET COMMERCIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM RicHFie~o, MN ~ ~ O p ~~~~' W ~1 r ~ RAF C A a ~ ~, ~ ~, Counci'Letter No: 335 -2- - November 10, 1975 1.`: Gross retail sales, although increasing,. were.. increasing at a declining rate and a slower rate than most other established shopping .areas . 2. The purchasing income of the existing trade area was relatively ,, ,~- ,: :less j.n 1970 than in 1960. ~ , ' ; ~3 . The ,population was getting older. 4. The deteriorating problems exhibited by many older commercial areas are, present ,in this area . a 5. Opportunities for business improvement were present,: but not being utilized: 1'"" ~~ , 6, Geographically, the area has a good commercial location. ` +~'` .~ ,;, 7. Commercial decline will have a detrimental effect on surrounding residents. After several weeks of discussion, the Commercial Improvement Committee developed awork program and developed five major premises (goals). In May of 1974 the city council approved these major premises and work program. The. firm of BRW was retained in September of 1974 to develop the.L/H/N Commercial Improve- ment Program. After several meetings to discuss businessmen's census, meetings -.with the residents, economic potential analysis and inventory and; problem assessment,. the commercial irriprovement committee developed L/H/N goals and objectives . Upon recommendation of the commercial improvement committee and the planning commission the HRA and the city councif adopted the goals-,and objectives in February, .'1975, and ordered Phase II of: the Commercial Improvement Program.: ; , During the spring and early summer of 1975, the commercial improvement committee and .the residentiah impact: neighborhood group (RING) renewed` three prelminary.alternatives based on the evaluation. The recommended alternative land use program developed by RING and the commercial improvement committee, was adopted by_the.,city council in July of 1975.' In July of 1975 the council ordered Phase III . . , Phase'III was approved-by the commercial improvement committee in September of` 1975 and by RING in I:'©vember, 1975. The. RING approval is for the land use portion of the plan, except that area from 66th Street between Grand Avenue and the rear lot'line west of Grand Avenue. In developing the plan the city. staff held `S2 meetings:wth RING and the commercial improvement committee (see ExhibitA for list' of important meetings) numerous meetings with the .;planning commission :and citycouncil,. and' has. also communicated with all of the businessmen and =landlords in the commercial area as well as large numbers of surrounding residents. `~~ Council ,Letter No: 335 -3- November lU, 1yi5 <, ; The planning commission has adopted a resolution recommending the redevelopment .~;~ plan and finding it consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. SU _,.; MMARY OF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN _ A; Phase..I The inventory of the L/H/N area reveals. the following: 1. Complimentary existing commercial. land uses are scattered :., ~~ throughout tha area . r~ ~. ~ ~' 2. Automobile related uses dominate the approaches,to the area. ~, .3 . Tl'ie Lyndale Avenue area .land uses are fragmented more than the Nicollet or HUB area:. _ 1 ,. 4. Most of the project area is presently zoned commercial. or multi- family. `The exceptions are; {'j a . Woodlake School location ~ ` ~ b . The Adams property ``a d ., c. The area north of 67th. Street between Grand and Harriet Avenue d. One lot (renter occupied) on Lakeshore Drive _ 5 . The property ownership map ..indicates that 37 percent of he facilities are owner occupied.`' Sixty-three percent of the facilities are absentee building or landowner: A complete inventory of ownership and square footage was compiled. 6. There are 3 366 off-street parking spaces and 322 on-street, - _. parking spaces in the project area. This parking is not coordinated. There is too much parking in .some areas and not. enough in other areas. The land use program will-provide approximately 4, 000 spaces with shared parking..'....: 7. The transportation sys em was s udied in terms of existing volume, traffic regulators and parking regulations:: 8. Early in< the study'110 businesses were' interviewed.. Some ;of the 'results of that interview is that fifty percent of the businesses believe the area is getting: continually weaker.:. Sixty-two percent have no intention to expand,. sixty-six percent. reported no increase in sales during the last year. .Some of .the advantages the: businessmen listed .are good. accessibility; '. `established trade; good ransportation and parking.. facilities . Some '~!~ ; ~`, "~ : of the problems the businessmen identified were lack of a major: ` ~` departnent store;. physica appearance must be improved; parking ,along. Lyndale Avenue area must be improved and the city must ~ `~ ` '" 'encourage commercial .improvement and: development. Counc'1 Letter No. 335 -5- November 10, 1975 ~~ Minneapolis trade area . Accommodate within the L/H/N area the warranted additional ~_. commercial land-uses (within their respective time frames) as ,. indicated in the "Development Potentials Analysis." prepared ' `'r by Urban Projects, Inc. Promote the strengthening of the. strongest existing retail area within the L/H/N area Provide convenient access to commercial areas for consumers who prefer not to, drive,. Resideritals Create an improved living environment for the residents of the L/H/N _area . Accommodate within the T,/H/N area the forecasted demand for .additional dwelling. units. Improve the living. environment of the existing housing stock ..within the L/H/N area . Transportation/Parking Create a safe:, congestion free transportation system to serve the L/H/N area .' Improve the operating characteristics of Lynda a Avenue, 66th Street and Nicollet Avenue . - Develop a shared parking concept in order to minimize the land area reserved .for parking. Utilize the transit services already available to the L/H/N urea to the maximum extent feasible. Encourage access of non-vehicular shoppers. Environmenta l Create a positive new image for the L/H/N area, by identifying and enhancing the dstistinctive qualities-of the area and by setting appropriate design standards for future development. Renovate existing strong retail .commercial establishments within the area . - _ ' E tablish a "Design Framework "for .the. public right-of'=way to assist in promoting the new' image of the L/H/N-area . Council Letter.No. '335 -6- November 10, 1975 Reducer the level of noise and air borne po lutants in the L/H%N' area ,,' ~ SUMMARY GF `I`~IE LAND tfSE PROGRAM , B. Phase II ,. b - ~ The`rec~mmended land use program: 1. Consolidates-the commercial area.`,4~-- , ,;, . ;, 2 . Provides for. a mayor retail draw to the area . r `~ '; ~ . 3. Adds middle andupper middle income multiple residences at approximately .3O units per acre, e.g. 30 units per acre ' can be accomplished in a mix of 3 to 5 story buildings and possibly some townhouses. 4 . Protects existing residential areas . 5. Build: on existing. commercial strengths. The .recommended -land use program.- provides` commercial activity centers: 1, A home improvement .center 2. An entertainment .center 3 . Major retail .draw 4 . Sma 11 shop area The land use program also provides for related commercial .:retail-..service and office space near'the activity centers. The home improvement center .would be located in the triangle-between 66th. Street and Lyndale Avenue with some. additional expansion area across o6th Street to the northwest: T.he major retailers iri, the home improvement center could be~ Lyndale Hardware and Lynda eGarden Center. Creation of they home improvement center,is .one key to the success of the` program. Another key'to the success of the program is attracting a major retail anchor (drawl to the area. The .major retail anchor would be located east of Lyndale-Avenue between 65th and 66th Streets.. Seven alternatives west of .:Lyndale and in the HUB-Nicollet area location. were considered for a major anchor None of the alternatives except the proposed location. is feasible. The other ,~. locations proved- not :feasible because` of lack of space, encroachment on existing ~` residential neighborhoods.,. and locations which would be detrimental to existing '. ~~ retailers and/or would riot provide the function of a'ma jor anchor. CounciL,Letter No~ 335 -7- November 10, _1975 'V`:~ ~ '~ An;entertainment center would be aocated west of Lyndale-and north of 66th St }eet ' ' The entertainment .center"wou3d draw on the existing streng fn ' "' -- of Mnotte'''s- and`help compliment Minotte's, making it a strong commercial establishment.; Besides Minotte's, the entertainment center would contain.' a heater and another restaurant. The fourth: commercial activity center is the small retail shops in the HUB/Nicollet area. Although removed from direct contact with .the major ' anchor;. the HUB is less than. 500 feet from the proposed anchor's location.. `~, '::The. consumers who come to the anchor will also shop in the HUB/Nicollet ~~ area . In addition, the intensity of commercial use and a more commercially oriented design, .including relocating 65th Street behind the HUB, has been planned. The land use program provides for a more effective.-use of the land .4. -for commercial activities. ^ ` A concern which was :raised by both the commercial improvement committee.' and RING was that the existing street system does not have the capacity to handle additional traffic: The city staff and consultant had the ame apprehension early in the development of the program. In reviewing. the existing land and pro- jected traffic volumes, it is the opinion of the staff and consultant that the existing street system:, with minor modifications, can serve the :commercial area adequa ely. We feel. that additional- capital expenditure to relocate major streets is unwarranted. The following minor modifications would be: 1. Intersection mprovemen including, signal timing and. the provision of turning lanes (widening at'intersections). 2. Bus transit improvement including, off-street loading areas.. 3 . Relocation of 65tH` Street 4..; Cul-de.=sac some .residential streets and closing of 68th Street at the - ., railroad tracks to through traffic 5 : Reduction of curb cuts in the -w mmercial area. and better off-street parking arrangements The c~nsuitant and staff also reviewed-the recommended land use ..program. in terms of environmental assessments. The program will have a minimum effect on the` .'environment with the following mitigating features: ~;: 1. Provision for the separation of land uses through landscaping and barriers ~'' ,~ 2. Preventing commercial traffic from 'using residential streets wherever possible . _ 3. - The arrangement of land uses and the. provision of pedestrian ways "~' ! ~' - t ~ ~. - ; Council'Letter No. 335 -8- - November 10, 1975 ~:, 4. Upgrading' of the commercial structures_in' the .area.... 5. Controlled drainage of water runoff 6. Traffic improvements ' ~ FLNANCIAL ANALYSIS Although not a primary objective of Phase II, the financial feasibility of carrying out alternative land use programs was also explored. In all cases the staff and consultant are satisfied that the land use program is feasible and can be carried out over a limited number of yearn. The costs in the financial analysis are estimated high. The new value is a very conservative estimate. URBAN DESIGN ELEMENTS. Phase III Development Plan "~ `` ~;~, ~ ~; C~ne of the' primary objectives adopted by the Richfield City Council and '~; ~~th"e HRA~for the L/H/N commercial improvement program is to create a positive new image for the L%H/N area by identifying and °enhancing the distinctive qua 1= ites ofahe`~rea and by setting appropriate design standards forfiuture development. a _ f,, Working toward that ena, design.: criteria have been developed for certain major landscape and building elements. These haue been developed to guide the overa'11 design character flf the area. Because it is recognized that many different designers and developers will uridoubtedly become involved in specific;. areas hroughout the area, no attempt has been made to design in .detail. Rather " the goal is to set the design tone and to establish aesthetic and functional ~~`} standards within which future design and development'should take place. ' Guidelines for Urban Design ;Elements have: been- developed for: Lighting, ~~,a screening/landscape buffers, plant material':, bulding'structure, signs and pedestrian amenities .PROJECT COSTS A1VD FINANCE 1VIETHODS The redevelopment program will .involve a public commitment of $7.2 million and a private investment of $ 21.6` million over the next 5 -6 years . The public costs will be those associatedwith physical improvements of streets.,. intersections; pedestrian areas, and landscaping. In addition, there will be-costs associa ed with the assembly of and parcels:-which will in turn be sold to developers . These costs will include ,property acquisition, occupant ,,~' relocation, and building demolition costs. ~,~. _ ~s 3A~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, 1VIINNESOTA Office of City Manager `~ Council Letter No. 334 Agenda November 10, 19'75 The Ho'~ora b le Mayor and Mefhbers of the .City Council City of Richfield Gentl~men• a Subject: Request for Variance to Residential Lot Size Requirements F . ~ ~ at: 7418 Portland Avenue ;, Mr. Myron. Gunderson, 6601 Knox Avenue, is requesting a variance to the.- zoning ordinance-requirement Section 3.57, Subd. 1, which establishes =,,ahe min~.mum area of -lots in plats or subdivisions at _8 , 000 .square feet. and the standard width of said .lots at 75 feet. A request for a variance must be judged inkaccordance with the conditions: set forth in Section 3.40, Subd. 6, of the city code. if the conditions for granting a variance are present on the prop~,f-`x ~, 4~~.... .~ erty, the city council should grant the variance. If all the conditions a,re rio~ =f , `, ~4 present, the city council should deny the variance . `rt' ~.: Background ,., Mr. Gunderson would like to divide the lot at ?418 Portland into twc<, > , , ;, ,>t lots . The dimensions of the-lot are presently 1..18.90 x' 132.9 feet. The ' '"`~ ' applicant. proposes 'to divide this lot into two; parcels: -1. ; 63:9 x;.132.9 (8, 483 sq. ft) 2. 55 x I32.9 (7.301 sq. fit.) This division would create two (21 substandard lots. A house is presently situated on the largest of the two .proposed lots. :Staff Review The applica ion ha been reviewed in accordance with the following conditions:' _ . 1. That there are: special circumstances ar conditions affecting the particular land, building or use referred to in the application, not common to other properties in this or similar districts. ~: ;°':. '' ' I-t i=s `tli:~ opinion. of the staff thafi a special circumstance does exist on this ,. '. I Council Letter No. 334 -2- - November 1D, 1975 property which is not common to other properties in this or similar districts. , ;.The,.special condition is the size of the lot in question. This lot ha almost ~: '~~ ,. ..twice the area of the average size lot in Richfield resulting in increased maintenance and tax .expenditures for the owner. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of subs tantial.property rights. It is the opinion of the staff that granting this variance is not necessary for the preservation of substantial property. rights... Not granting the variance will not prohibit he applicant from enjoying: the property, rights afforded the owner of any` other residential. property in Richfield. 3. That the granting of the application will .not materially and adversely affect the health or safety of persons .residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. There are :currently eight separate. parcels on this side of the ,7400 block of .:.Portland Avenue. Two of these parcels have frontage widths of 118.9 feet, .the remaining parcels have an average .frontage of 59.5 feet. On the opposite side of the, street the average frontage is 58 feet. Due to the prevailing lot sizes,. the granting of i,he application will not materially or adversely affect the health and safety of persons residing in the' neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to ,the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. It is the recommendation of the staff that this variance be granted with he,provision that when a~home is constructed on the new. parcel it should utilize 'the' existing curb cut a.t 7418 Portland Avenue.' Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission reviewed the application at its October 28, 1975 meeting. After taking testimony from the applicant the planning;:commission recommended the :.variance be granted with the following stipulation; 1 . When a home is constructed on the new parcel,.. it should utilize the existing or expanded curb cut a~t 7.418 Portland Avenue. .Respectfully .submitted, r ~~ ~~ ff :.. ;, Wayne S. Burg.g . City.. Manager WSB/eja cc:. P1ann ng. Director g - `. c > Y`.,.' .»..,.. t ~ '.- ...... I T.^'- ..2 •~ 'S . it .... '. 9 ~ ,.V ~ h {~~ +d ,. '. ~ 9 L....._...y a' ~ ~ ~+.~. ' .. x. > ;. 8 ( ,v' ? d ~.. ~ ew ~ a ~ ~ } .. ~ r I e° ~ L~ 1 wes'' ~c.'1 ~ t;~e°~ L . ' ! r fi. ~ ~;9 _.____~ . __-j _ _ y,.,1 t... _.~ ~ `4&. 5 .. .`~~ Yo" i awn ~ ~r t`~J ~ n`~ t~• ~ I;g ~G If ' ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ r..,. ! FH~:o~} ~~ - - --+ ~~ ~,isr3) oa4~` .,~ !L ~,yo I. ~QS` 7 fz A"' r .T"• ~- ;k ~-- - ~'~ x~' ~ `3 3'_;;_,; ~ ~3~ ? Al ~ - j + g 4 { `; 4 -_- " _"'__ 1- amp ~°o ~ ~ ! ;, ~', 9`:a~ ,~~ RQ ~. ! ~} ~.~ ~~~' .~QN i tl ~ 1 s (~ ~_.~ i j"s - ...' x ~ ` ..._ { ~ si ~.. J~ ~' ~ ^~ Y _ ,f e ~~ Iv}P t~~ ~~~ 7 f,.~ a„~ €r ~. "~!;:~ L1 __ ^f »+>s~v; ~ ~ :~'. 4~ '3..i' ~__ r ~ v !x;a* 1 IiC S .2" 7xr ~ ra~?s; ~-"' Ga 4 +~~ _... ~,. „_ ., .::~... ~ ;---~~ -•r--~~-'-• ,-•---~"""."""._°°4 ~ ~r~~ x Q ;; •:3.'~6. Rte, #;o 4~i.y r y ~~7A~ i ~''. f { :Y. -sr & c r' y.-~ v ,V 6~+ T~2.,~. C j ~ P.~ 4_~~. } -- --- - -__~ ~ _ ~G i~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a ~ i s ^ . j ~. d7 a . a' i tT• ~A . ~J ,~ (5~6~~ !. -~ ~ ~. c ~ ~ i 4~ aye r ,> '~ S____~ 3 C ~ in . t 3 ~ +4 r ~ ~ ~~ ~~ r ~ _ s t ~ ~. u_ 140.7. 725 t ~ ~..y ~ .~ x ~w s ~ .:x 4~ ~~~ ~4s7o) (45b0) n , 15'x, ~ ..o' ~, ~d p ~ j ^ n t ~ .P t w -. ~ ca .. _,Q r ' - ° { ~ -t~ {L0.~ ~,~oa ~ h° a ~ a r-• ..33.99 ~ '" 3 y i• 2 /' _` 4~ ' S~ t r~ ~'e ~ . tx L,~' ti ry , JV u; ;r 1~ ~._ Z ~~t r" ~~ 3j~ h tf~ ~z 1~ ~~ } l~ ~~~ # 2~ :,t`, ~~ ~ ; I~ ; ~#: ~.; d ~> it~ )M _.,2~ C.. d _ _._ - - -r - ! - --- ~ .t V l.. _._ "" - _ _ f ~ 2 76 k. .;~?^~ 'o~D~, ~i3~!L_v ~~ l3dtt ~~4,!!- ~''a ~ ~' 132.6 ~. t 7 ~~ ~ ~_ y #3~ ~ ~ gym. i1 ~'~~C ,i 4 ed. .,.: i+..4.1.~__.___~Y-:.~._-.. _;=mod{ eu,~a+._ o.ti~^ I! e ® 3 . d 3 t d.. ~ ~° ~ oo y"s ~~~`dr GaDe~~ ~~-~ ,a ~ ~"43s~~ jti'~ ~ ~ ~ 13424 3 j F „> o j ib is 0° _ ;z G5 ~ B r -. _ ~ ~ I .wm ;Ld_;.. .:. :;q tL_ ... r~ i?,d +c .. ~...... V 3>f .5 ~'.,~~ ~ / f ~µ - s, ~. ~"_.`~ r~~EtZ~L .uUM1~1t~~'iri... ~f":~ GE~~r~A... 1h~~U~TRi~;L `_ x; r ~ 2 __ _r .., ; _ ---.. .__ -- _ .~ _. •' .. - ' ` . • OdbL 80 bl OZ 92 2: 8£ ~ 664L. Q o, O C~ Cl~ Q I o _- N ~ ro t ~ r + ~ cp In ~ V• rn N i ~ O I ~ ~--~ c'.• ~ o O C.~~ ! o ~ ~ , 104E ~ 60 SI .2 LZ. ££ 5£ i Sbbt i-^' Gi)St 8') 67 CZ 92 ZE fS4 bbyL 0' ~ ~ ~ ~ QI ~ { O ~ i ~_ (~ ~ M ~~ ~ ~~ ~ r I .:n_. W cD j tt's i ~f ~ rn ~ ! cv ~ w O ~ dy r-; ~ c,~ ; c~ co ~ a i o: o 0 !CSL ! fi0 SI ! Z LZ~. ~ ££ -bf S4Sa. l__J ;~ ~ N ~ M 4' i d' N bpd _. ~ I ~~! a^x: ~ SO ! ~ '~nb b ^;..-~~bL o BO a 4~ ca .•. 'cam ~ 9<' o 't co Bg o ~ vbrL .~ • N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t0 . ~ - ~ M N - O Q1 a o o co o ~ o o IObL 4 50 S? 12 L2 C2 I 6£ ! SbbL 00°;[ 0 f7J 0 b! 0' ~' c~ 3Z c~ Z£ ~ 6t ca ~ o btiY[ 0 ... _ . N_ t~1 eft e.~ - R~1 ~ ~ ~' --~ 69 ~ ~ ~ M ~ o ~ a ca ~ c~ ~ o~~ 'c !;'SL I 60 $~ 17 LZ ££ 6£ S.b SL ~ ~ L'O f ! L ! ^+ ^ I _ N I ` t~'1 1 ~ S tD ~ i ~ i o L_J ~ r .r,ht tid -b! OZ ~ ti%' ! ?£ { 04 i Ybbc oo~o oco c~~a~o I N tq ¢ q' m N V D D 1D ~?D ~ ^~D fr_wL LO ~ ~ 1 i Si Lt tl ~ SZ L2 I£ 6£ 6ybi, o~ o~ o~ o I ~ Q~ ~ o ~ o M ~ N O t ~ i W P O{^i a r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ o IOSL 5:;~ SI !Z LZ i ££ f 6£ SbSL _- b t -ti ~ ° + ~---~ i M N M C Sd9L AH (~~.iH t (~ r~ a~o ~ ^ o~ o `^ a l p o C1 CD ~ D IObL SObL Stet IZ LZ ££ S6bl v; y 1 8 b; '~! r '•2 3Z ?£ P£ bb4,. Q ~__, ~ z o o ; I ~ a I~sL eo r z eti ~£ sa !x''~L11 ~J ,~.~. ~OOvL 40 ZI 9P 81 ZZ bZ -f 8Z OtbL bbtrL D D •~ ^ ^ C1 i a n ^ o n o c.~ ^ IObI OYt If %Z SZ 6Z S4 fii bbL~ OOSL ^ 80 o bt ~ OZ o 9Z 7E 8f b6SL o °i^ - N 1h ~ ' ~. ~ _... (0 ~ a M N - ' c ~ ~ a ~ a bn. 5 - ~7 LZ £~ ( w ~3~~ ObL 01 9e OZ Z2 92 BZbt B£ ~ 0 D iD O o o ~ ^ Q a o a o D ^ D C-I ^ a i041 SO -11 SI -~Z SZ 62 £LbL 6£ 46 L o 8 St blSl D Ol ~ 92 a~ 2£ o N 1~ ~ d' N O ~ ~ Q o ^ D i06 60 St I Z tZ CE -ObL. b0 OI pi OZ ~ 42 _Z£' a£ 4461 OOr[ ~,^ ~'bi OZ ~r Li }~ E%5„~~ ~ ^ ' ao~a .~. :~ .vey For: MR. 1`l'~I'ZON GUNDERSON 1641 ~~.` ~p- 2s2/7s ... II:~RI~~' S. ~UIItibO\ CI3:viP~~`~'IE:~, ANC. '"~ ~cwr- :;y~k,:,° 8330- 220 ST, W., LAKEVILLE, MINNESOTA 55044 PHONC- (612) 469-4081 a S SCALE ' 1 inch=30 fee ~LII'Ye,Y©I''S ~E'PtIfICQtG 33 o Denotes Iro Monument North line of the South .118.90. feet of the North 386.7 ~ feet of the East Half of t:~e Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the. Southeast Quarter of Section 34 m Township 28, ~ 13?_.92 EMF~1S.) . P.ange 24 ,~\~ ~ "~ ~"~ __ -- - - - - ~ CVO ~ µ.i !~ 24.30 46.40 O ~ ci v -° i i/2 STDRY ~ ~1 ~ ~ N cOr, a~ ~ ~ 0.55 FRA~E `° ~ ~ ~ i` f a c0 W u z o ~ FUSE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '," w d F+ 1.05 a ~ ~ ~ w O .[ O a yap '^ u '' a ~ ,~,', ^` ~ N,aNHOLE ~ ~ ~ . ~ a~ w ~ ~ - z5.8o :_ ~6.~.0 _:......... a a v o a. - .~ o •~+ m '.A ~ cJ N 1J O. L:a ~ p' tai N ~ ( ~ ( ~ ~ 1 ~ O~ ~~~o ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ 1 ~ ~ '~ ro x _ ~ O ^~' . ~ ~ N (gyp h a'i ~ U: V O ~ Z O t3. ' V1 ~ ~ (~'~ ` ctf G1 ~lr~ ~ ~ .>; N vI ~j d W O O • i C~~. 7~~, , 3w OO'H ~ _~ w+ i ~~ 132 ,~T6 (MEAS.) 'moo'' ~ -South line of the North 386.7 feet of the '~ ~+ 33 East-Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter cf the Southeast Quarter. ~ of Section 34, .Township 28, P.ange 24 ~ ~ s LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1 . .The East Half of the Sou*_h._118.90 feet of the' Nor h 386.7 feet of the Eustiiiii Half of the r Northeast Qiiar*_er of the Northeast Quarter. of the Southeast Quarter of ~eci~tion 34, Township 28, Range 24. t Z hereby certify-that'ths survey, plan or. report was prepared ~y me or under riy direct super- vision and that I a.~i a duly Regi tared Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. `~, ~t /~ ~) ~ ~Obert 8. Meredith ~---~-~~° DatF; `September 15,. 1975 . Minn. Reg. too. 8617 ~, ' CITY O~- RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of "City .Manager Council Letter No . 3 3 3 . ~~ Agenda November 10, 1975 The Honor,~ble .Mayor ~ ,~ ~OUA-4.. " ~~~~ and ~ ~ i~ ~c.~vd-~ Membexs of the City Cduczcil City of Richfield ~ - `Gentlemen• F- Subject:- Application for a Special Use Permit to Operate a Day . Care Home in .a Residential District Mrs . Vivian ~Trygg 7244 Stevens Avenue South, requests the issuance of a special use permit o use her home to provide day-;care for preschool.. children age two years old and older. ,. A :special use: permit is required for fihis.use in a residential district per Chapter III, ..Part IV, Section 3.30 Subd. 2 ;' Para "1. Background The subject property. is a single family residence located on the northwest :corner of Stevens Avenue and 73rd Street. The surrounding property is zoned. residential and its use is residentiai. The city's, comprehensive, plan indicates his area is best uited for residential uses _ Land Building Zoning Requirement Parcel 48.9 x 127.5 (6,234 sq. ft.) 888 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft./land `. (first floor) Rear Yard 2 , 825 sq. ft. - n~a ., Family day carehomes are licensed by Hennepin Gounty`for no morethan five. children under school age, including the provider' and helper's children under.. school age. Mrs. '~j<~g- r3s been``a licensed day care mother since 1:97,1 and has completed the required training. 'She has all.the qualifications according to state statutes for family day Cd3:'~:: 'P,t the present time she has five children -:full ime in her care. The: State of-;Jiinnesota,:requixes 35 square feet per child... indoors . The `st~t~ also requires either 3 sart~ outdoor area or a park nearby for .recreation purposes. • _ - ,~ • Council Letter Nb. 333 - 2 - November 10, 1975 Zoning Ordinance Requirements . The .zoning ordinance requires; the issuance of a special use permit for the operation of a school in an "R° district. Section 3.41, Subd. S, governs the issuance of special-use permits as follows: Conditions Governing Issuance. The council shall not`.grant a permit for any of the uses enumerated in ubdivs;ion 1, hereof unless it finds th'at`'the establishment, and maintenance of the' us.e for which a use permit is sought will-.not be :detrimenta"1, (1) to the health, safety, morals , comfort, conveniences or welfare of the persons re ding or working in the'neghborhood of such use, or (2) to the public welfare ` or injurious to"property or improvement in the, neighborhood . Staff Review and Recommendation The staff reviewed the ~pplicatiori relative to-Secton:3.41, Subd. 5, and finds.,the following:....... 1.. A beneficial community service is dera.ved from .this type of operation. ,, There :is a definite need .in Richfield for child care facilities since ''~ .,; 15% of .the married female popu~a<tion with children under 6 years of age is employed on a fall time basis . Day care facilities are_mportant . to the individual family, and is' an important element in the city's economic and social stability. _ - 2. The proposed site is located on a through street on the northwest corner of Stevens Avenue and 73rd Street. The `facility will. generate .approx- mately 20 trips': per°day. The average single `family resident trpgenera- tion is :8 `ta 1~0 ~ rips` per day. A stop sign is. located on -Stevens at 73rd :Street. Approximately 1700 vehicle trips per day pass this. home on 73rd. Street. " .The: proposed facility will not create. a detrimental traffic problem:.... 3 . The facility and operator are licensed by the State of Minnesota . , .Hennepin County Welfare Department is in charge of licensing and inspection.. One licensed operator is allowed to manage up to 5 children in a family day care -home.. It is recommended by the Planning Department .that adequacy be determined by using 200 ,square feet per child rather: than the state requirement of 35 square feet per child. This home has a total of 888 square feet on the first floor. The recommended space per-child would limifi .the number of children cared for to 5 . 4. The rearyard s$ould be fenced-for the protection of the children and adjacent property. ',' . The. staff finds the conditions- to_be satisfied and recommends approual of the special use permit with the following stipulations: e;„ .._,;, r` ~ _/ - J firs. Vivian TrYgg 7244 Stevens Avenue S. Richfield, I~1 55423 Activities rfy home day; care program fs~r children consists of a home-like atmosphere .with- lots of love, patience and a personal interest in each child; combined with a program emphasizing variety. • We have art fun to help stimulate mental and creative imagination> This ' F varies each day. Some days the children draw around, different shaped.objects, and color them. Sometimes we `paint with tempra using sponges cut in various shapes. We use little scissors to cut-from old magazines and Sunday comics er. About once a ~~~we use play and paste the .pictures. on construction pap . dough, which is good for finger coordination. On a nice day we go far nature walks and pick up leaves and sticks. After . returning to the house, we make: something we saw on our walk - stick people, animals, leaf people, etc. Other. outdoor. activities include sliding during the winter (I have one of the children's grandmothers help with this), and free play outside on the swing.-and slide set, climbing dome and trikes. For indoor activities I have a Jungle Gym set :and rocking .boat in the basement. Also the children .like to watch the educational programs on TV in the•mornings, and we sometimes play children's records and. march around with a pretend band. I have many things for the children to play with, including building blocks, doll clothes, dishes, and puzzles. ` Before lunch we do a few finger plays, sing a couple of songs:, and say thanks to God. Each day I choose a different child to be my lunch-time .helper - to set the table and fold napkins. Holiday occasions include birthday parties and special activities on Halloween, Christmas and Easter. For example, last Halloween we went to the 1 -2- Martin Luther Manor nursing home in Bloomington, sang songs and did finger plays. and took home-made Jack-O-Lanterns filled with candy. About once a month the children help me make cookies. This can be a little messy, but they really enjoy it. :3 ` I have five day-care children ranging from 2 1/2 to five years of age - 3'take naps and 2 attend kindergarten. They watch"Sesame Street" and then have nap time. Afterwards we usually pop corn or have a plain pack with juice 8r Kool-Aid. I,I I Lunch I I feed the children the same kind of food I would expect my own children i to be fed if some one had them in their caxe. .Beverage is milk. Dessert is fresh fruit, canned ,fruit, Jello, cookies or cupcakes. The main dish is one` ', of the following: soup with crackers and sandwich; hot dish with bread and • butter; hot dog or sloppy joes with chips; wieners and beans; spanish rice. with bread. and butter; pancakes; scrambled eggs; or macaroni and cheese. Experience Mother of 3 children - 2 living, 1 deceased Grandmother of 3 children Day care mother for 14 years ' Sunday School teacher at Wooddale Baptist Church, Richfield, for 8 years . (5 years beginner .dept.; 3 years taddler dept.),- currently on substitute list for beginner. dept.. Courses in child growth and development, arts and crafts,; and day care seminar ~, I I ~~: . ,.:.~ ' ~,~ . ` - _f -~ . w _ -3- I also have two eight year olds after school.. Occasionally I have a lad in to clean y house. We are in the process of redoing .our back yard. Next Spri g we a re putting in a complete fence around the back. We have i a portable fire extinguisher within-reach if needed. My husband is also a very important person in my child-care. 'The children all like him. • `• e ,,y~~o 3 ~ :~1 p rsa ~ ~? ~ 3 ~ _1, ~~9 ~T~~1=a.~ ~ Ma Iwo 4 , i5 +,a .2.1 F ._dj __ i3 ~iZ]~i I 2~~! . b'"~g IA 5 1d. of o Q 3', 0~ o wno 5 I 14a,h r- 4 5EE ' n+c7Q X r~ ! ~. 'sP`1 .~(2' ~ WW "1.•zs:) 07.71) . tails} ~~577}.~^..,, S 6~~p t~,,n . '_ _....__._.. ._.... _tma5 .Yiig44:...__ b 3 .. ~.a ~ {qp~ (p~F ~ ~ E ~t ._. 1 - ij1_N _ _ ~ _~ _ t~'-~. u i ~ ~ i ~ ~o ~rµy) -• r ~ ~' .n IC ,n'~' ~ ;n( t ;0 ~~', ^ +~ I -~ d ~ -~y. ~ 1 ~n ,- v i,Z•150 ;~ ,~~,~.~ ~.--.1348 ~? _ ( ~-.i~h82 ia8~z ~ ~ '~+ ^84*~ -- __ ~ ~ ' ~;a < , .. j _ `.,d~ t__~.a._~._i 94.8 ~`_` '.3a ~ _~ j.34. e,~ ~ __~ _8L_.~ - i n SEE Na, P X " n -p ~'~'. GO ~~' 60 r- ~za~. ~_~~. i C ~.._ 2 d Stiaa 2 n .~<8_ . _ 7. ti o~4 5~8 .~ 4 ~. h „ ,, 3 7 ~~~ Z ..~ I 6 ~ ~ _ o.. E ,~ ~+ I 9 ~ S u ~ N~: ~~ ~ ~ cs , t'.'..s° '°1 •t1 4 _1 be I 11~°~ ' YG _ W ~3 ;~ _x°12 Q '21fli Zee Z2. __1218? _ .t5o2 3~ 1,,L ~ ~ Q", ~. c -'~.~°: ~ y Z ~'"~q ~V"' d+ ~4 t~_ ' ' i ~"'21, r _. ,z~nTT 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ai'4'' ~r ~ ~~ t ' . c0 :5 i - ~ I Y g 1 ~ Y :2001 r ( ~ , ~.. j . its 71 ». ~ 'l5c 15 _ ~~ ~f «r ~ i W II i ~ ~ ~ ~1 I..~ C 2GJ IA- TT i2i` b o (3'". : - O 1i ~ x,§4 . 4 ~n ~ ~ } Ur1a1 ~ U) i 7 (J•) .~' 1$ ?3' <I~. 3~~12 Ind o I ~`•I~~o '~ ~ oa { N f2j.6~ .~ '*'°..~ I. -~c Iza O : ~ 1~ <~ ~ ~ j--_~i-!. _'1' __. 1i_r.3 v $_~2163V. ~' ~,~G __J~15.~_~ --1L~2[.r ~.._<.. b~_~ v ..~b~ U.. (.(~. ,~ i~ II. o ,°n - aio 2 ~ N SSeo I ! *,o Z o ~ (3y~ °)afeT ° ~ %~ ~f rya, 2. o I zesolo ts~3 - ,,;> c ~, 0 3 22~,' ~ 3 22 ,~. ~e 3 I ~ - CO - h fb `" 1~5 5 .~tS"f'd- V2j59 ~355q~ ~ _.2~...4 .~ ~,"s544 _2z.S'~g~ -__,_~~ ~ ~ ~.} ~ C) ", ,.i5 p weo5 ~);Jg 3s°° 5 20h C Zp q 5a oc r fS~.o ~ 41 . - :~ Y `' S~St~, _11.;i@._ ~ _.~21~8. `~ r~!1Z~`8_~_ ~.Z.'.. d J ~ i,e~ ~s° ®`.i3too7a ~K'':` ( I~~l~ii ~i 1<} a~`r`r. ' '`~~~',' d (.i.i. 7.c7 ' a 1•. 5? ~ _;3Z8? ~ .:_12~':..,_ w~,a ~s?5_15 6 ~ , ?' ~ ~..~ ~. roe ' ,~ ~! , 5. ~!~l 5. D 30130 78 9y aea , __ F.. - 1 55._... ~_ .11 ?4 z SE' %7.~5 1 ._':Z i _ -~ , Ss >; i (~ ", a? eel ~ ,c~` Z ~ .1 ¢" .I 000- ~ ~ j i ro I _ }a, - ; g}~~~!~( „~ -~ a - - YdYF~. ;.~.,~,,4 (J smi :» _•R] _2 .i2.h. ~2t_~ 8 'ic«.~ x..54 _ ~ L'~ ~" ~.~ ~ ~ ~ b~a~ t o 16 4350 :4000 ~ Ser0 0 ~ 4d~ .. ....- --. ` 5.~.: ' io5o 10 . 17,2,-SJ- „,oo 11 e~ c., 4~5e f2 _~ ~2za~ .:. °Jr le ,> > `27.5} -1 53 _. ~ ~. 5 sD' vg0 0 I ~) o~ Y <~ to ~ ! li ~ 4 I0, ~, . emu.-- T35+p0 .tom tZ i - ' ? ~. -~ ~- 5tis ~ 47 IS4 ~~ v.t"Za2~Ja ~ - - :a~ w ~ ;-4 _ _"_?T3."d3 .. _..T3'~~3 3 oxl 1 .a ,0oa Z ~ 734. ~ '34. ` rZiiv . 13 :. b,.0 yc)0 i3a~. ~a.?b I sa3 ,.c 3 , 7 ~6J ~ Z X4.34 i3a3~ _ . 1v0a .n ' be~ ~~' ~ tpµt~~~ 1 ,s4 i0 o" ___.x4 S 4P' coo 4 ^ 1343: '~ 3 1114b _ : (,Y ~ 2 ' 45 ~~ W I L I j1 , i ~~° e7 l ~~ z7~t . ., L U) j y i Z4~ ~ ~~ ~ '4~ £1~'". zl.~'~C3e ~ ~ 1 .~ , 19 e.~ I a --~ l11 I „~ i8 ` ~ J ~z7.3~. I Q ~:. ~ ~ ; ~L 'l .; _~ __ jj ~~ _~ 3~.. Ab-s. ~/ G -. r o L{ 0 3D 139550 ~ r { # { ~ } ~l rl ~ 3 l i O. - .. . \ - ~"-J L.., . 2 I ll° ~~Sfi -- r ~4 I I .. © , _ 23 12 t o ~ ,3 1 ~-~ O -~_ ~ 8 =) 221 ~' .o s ~ i ~ t-- ~.. ~2 1 F ' o .__. . 11.3 ;- ' '-}- 21j,q I j~ ... o f f~ o ~~-4 _' ' N> ~~:,at~'6~ Q j o Q ,, ~~ I~_ r. N W- 2a 5 ~ o W_ 0 1 Q __ _ L C _ .. _ _ _ Ot-~I -'•s N lA i - r l ^ "~ ~-.i13~ 7 ~N "t ~ ,~~ V ~ _ I N N I._~17 jQ I m ~ ' i 16 ) ._ J .__ _ _ ~ 15 ~~~ L _ ~ rl7 J4 11 __. _ _.. rl ~ - V ~--~ 8 • 14 I I ~ ~ o -- ! - ~ ~ A 13 ;12 ~ 1 ~ r-ir ~ o N _ 72 ~ ^ {- I O ` _.._ f _. ,__ i ~!~ i5 ~~ m _._ 142 I ,. i~2 rr,,p _ ;._ °I.?.._24;I ^A °r-1 ^° _ ° e 14 3 u' ~ _" { )- ,~ ~-- _ _ ~ N $ ''I- 2 `-J ° ~ ~ .! 22 .3 ~ o o - _ __ __ _ ' ' f N o _- ~1 - ~ -~~ r-"e ~ f ' 21 4 J- _" (-1 21~ 4 1 2 „ Q _~ _ z s r:7 ~ W ti j~ -st s _ /y µ _ Z - ,12 rJ ~ m N C~12j ! L.Jp ~ ~ " ~ ~ ..~ ~ N. //O`~ N ~ ~ I9 f1 `'j N Q. ___ c f , ~ [ 11 2 f-jN LL - --- I ~ F.... " ~ -~ ~•T7U~p _^ ~ V H -~ ~ _ v .'''iii~~~``.'''..,•'' " ~- - - - i ~II 6 ~ _ ~ ~~I ~~ /~N --_ 2 1_~' n ~ N ~.-~ 1 ~ 18 N ~ ~ N ~ N ~~I __. 0 7 n " 1 ~ 91 4~ _m d91~ 4 r_ ~ _.. ~ . _ __ "' -~L~ 16 g i ~ N • - -__ __ ''. N F ~ _-.o ..~-..~ I_T M ~__J 15 10 I ~ r ~~ N n ,? JI 8 , . ^' ~ n o rr ~ n- . ~ _e o : _ 141 IiI ! -~ o ~, + 1 r 7. 5 "j 13t~2 (~~ °~~ J ~ K N -I 12 `~~ ~ o __f ^ 9 1 0 _ ° a 73rd .. ^ ~ ~. n - ___ .. ^ n~ c __ . 2~ o a~ r^I o ~' `~,' I ^ o ~ 8 _ ~~ 5 o n rj 24; 7~ E ' ~ ° J __ 1~- N GR t~j _ h^ 6 3 ~~ _e N " (-t 32.. I,.. o ~~ 22; f 4 ~ ~ R . J ~ - ~ ~ i 21 N v ~ H ~J 5 ~ N ~: 8 ! t' ~ ~ ^ r del ^ ~ ry f~ Ig, E ~~ 7 ~~ ^^ T2 ~ ~~ 72 ~ r, ___. ~ n } 6113 u ~~ ._ 3 ------~m ~ r 15~ ;M9 ~~ ~ ~ 4 e n 54 ^.°, ~ I? 5~4 '' a° v --t,q~ ii - Mf ~ ' e i t3' i2 i J S1$~ _ .._ The Honorable Mayor and Me.~nbers of the City Council - City of Richfield Gentlemen: : Subject: Release of Off=S reef Parking Contract Bond On the November 10, 1975' city, council agenda there is a resoi~ttion relating to the releaseof a bond covering an off=street parking contract for the:Southland- C;orp~r~ icn. The property involved is a 7-Eleven .Store located at 6949 Ncollet Avenue.. The nuk~lia works department has :inspected this property. and confirmed that the requirements of the off-street parking: contract:: have been met'. It i~s' recommended that-this bond be released. Respectfully submitted, - - - ~~'~" "' :...Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Public Works Director Planning Director y ~.. ~::• . .. RESOLUTION N0. .RESOLUTION .RELATING TO RELEASE OF .BOND ON OFF-.STREET PARKING Southland Corporation 9100 West .Bloomington Freeway Locations 6949 Nicollet Avenue Use: 7 -Eleven Convenience Grocery Store WHEREAS, Southland Corporation., .9100 Bloomington Freeway, Bloomington, Minnesota, had an off-street parking agreement-with the City of Richfield relating to 6949 Nicollet Avenue, which. contract bears the designation of Contract No. 2168 and which contract was guaranteed by a bond of The Travelers Indemnity Company of .Hartford, Connecticut, • in the amount~of $4,800.00, and WHEREAS, the Southland-Corporation has complied with the provisions of said agree- went and The Travelers Indemnity. Company of Hartford, Connecticut now seeks to be relieved of any further obligation under said bond,. and WHEREAS, there appears to be no justification for requiring the Southland Corpora- tion to .continue to provide a bond for security on the performane of said agreement. . NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. by the City Council of the .City of Richfield, Minn- esota, as follows: That the city manager is hereby authorized axid'directed to release. The. Travelers Indemnity Company of Hartford, Connecticut for any.. and all acts of the Southland Corpora- tion, committed or incurred in violation of Contract No. 2168 on and after the 10th day of November, 1975• Adopted by the city council of the City of-Richfield this 10th day of November,. 1975- ATTEST • Loren L. `Law Mayor Thomas J. Moran City Clerk