Loading...
07-26-76 agenda1 ~~ ~. _~ ~ -CITY OF RICPIFTI;I.D, MINNESOTA Office of City Ivlanager ~ ~ ~ - . Council Letter No, 230 ,: Agenda July 26, 1976 .. The Honorable Mayor and ' Members of -the (City Council •City of Richfield. _ ~Genttemen: ~ _ ~ Subject: Proposed Amendment No. 6 to the Metropolitan Sports Area Comm.ission's Ownership and Operations Agreement i ' Attached to this council lefter, is a proposed .amendment to the Metropolitan Sports Area. Co mission's Ownership and Operations-Agreement. This amendment .would authorize the Sports Commission to maintain a maximum of $St~, 000 in its bank account, rather than the current maximum of $25,000. The amendment is proposed. primar'ly to address. internal accounting procedures of thu Commission, . , . • d s zchfiel use of R but tree city cou cil is asked to approve-the amendment beca participation in the Metropolitan. Sports Axea Commission's Ownership and Operations Agreement. . Respectfully sub fitted, . •- ~. Wayne S.. Burggraaff ` . City Manager • ., . WSB/bll cc• City Attorney .Y ~ ~.. I _., I ~ - -, - _ ' '. . . ~ .. 4.,' ,. _,~ MExROPOI:ITAN SPORTS AREA OWNERSTiIP 1~uvD OPERATIONS AGREEMENT p,~Yr;,;~~tUn~I~T N0. 6 . THIS AGREEI~NT, Made and entered into as o.f the day of 1976, by and between the Cities of Minneapolis, Richfield and Bloomington, Minnesota, WITNESSETH: The parties hereto agree that that part of subparagraph numbered 7.3-2 of the Metropolitan Sports Area Otimership anal Copes°ations Agreement dated as of August 13, 1954, as amended, shall be amended to read as. follows: 7.3-2 No other disbursement shall be made from said fund except ~.n accordance with written orders thereon, each of which shall (1st) be ordered by resolution of the Commission, (2nd) be signed by the Chairman or .Vice Chairman and. attested by the Secretary of the Commission, and (3rd) specify the account of .said fund to be debited and name the payee and the amount so to be disbursed, The Commission may, however, establish a bank account far payment of payrolls and other current operating. costs, after approval thereof by resolution of the Commission, by checks drawn on-such account, signed by any one of the following parties, viz., the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, the Secretary, or General Manager of Operations. The maximum amount of money at any time held in said bank accoi'int shall be Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00). The initial money in such bank ~aceount shall bedobtained by an order drawn, as aforesaid, on the Operation and Maintenance Account of said Metxopo]_itan Sports Area Fund, Subsequent replenishments of said bank account sha11 be made on like orders, each of -which shall have attached thereto a memorandum, signed by the Chairman or Vice Chairman and attested by the Secretary of the Commission, listing the. .dates, amounts, and purposes for tahich the prior disbursements were made, which in the aggregate equal the amount of such subsequent order. (See amendment 4~2.) In the presence of: ~ CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS ~. ~y . Its Mayor And (SEAN) ~~ Tts City Clerk . In the presence of: '~ In the presence af: Countersigned: City Comptroller CITX OF RICHFIELD By (SEAL) Its Mayor And Its City Manager CITY OF BLOOMINGTON By (SEAL) Its. Mayor. And Its City rlanager -~ ~~~ A ITY h RICHFIBLD MINN~SOT C O Office of City .Manager . Council Letter:Na. 229 • Agenda July.26, 1976 The Honorable N~ayor and Members of the; City Council - City `of Richfield:.. .Gentlemen: SubjBCt: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Regarding Planned Unit Development On the city council agenda of July 26, 1976, there is an item providing, :~ far first reading considerationof aPlanned Unit Development ordinance, and other related zd i ni.ng ordinance amendments . Council me mbers will recall that previous discussion on the P.U.D. ~- ordinance has c entered on a review of the P.U.D. concept. as it might apply.. to Richfield an specifically as it appl.ys to the L/H/N area . After this review the city counci , at their June 28, 1976 meeting reviewed a draft of the proposed ordinance and equested the city attorney to prepare a final ordinance for first " reading consid ration. ~ A subcomm . ittee of the planning commission was actively involved in developing the ordinance, and .the planning. commission has reviewed various. drafts. of the pr posed Planned Unit Development ordinance. The commission review began b ~ developing a general understanding of Planned Unit Development;:. what P.U.D. i~ , ,how it differs from traditional zoning practices, what kind of " physical develo pment is possible .through using P.U.D. as a planning tool, and • how it works. Considerations. of zoning techniques, ownership requirements, . site-.plan revieI procedures, and the proposed design and Land Use Intensities (L.•U.I,) standa rds were also discussed by the planning commission. Changes in the proposed or dinance resulting from the planning ,commis ion review have been . incorporated int o the recommended zoning amendments, attached to this council letter. -The Comm rcial Improvement Committee (C.i.C.) also established asub- - committee to re view the proposed P.U,D, ordinance. Chaired by Carl McBride, the subcommitt e_reviewed the ordinance and made recommendations for change,.. all of. which w re incorporated into. the P. U. D, ordinance .except those dealing • with parking ra ios . i _ " _ . i. _ . j ~: - t: ,.,. i Council Letter No. 229 --2`- ~'uly 26, 19T6 - •1 It was the Qpinion of a .number. of C.I. C; subcommittee members that the total car ratio (subdivision l0 of the .proposed ordinance) was too low and should be increased. The staff is of:the opinion that a small increase could ~ be made; however, care should be exercised in increasing car'space ratios. An unjustified zoning ordinance -requirement for car-space will limit development options, and at-';the same time have little or no effect on asthetics or the price ~ range of the multi-€amily development. Similarly, oo love a number of parking space .requirements will negatively affect economic longevity of the project.' The car ratios cpntained in subdivision~l0 represent needed, parking spaces, ~ based on studies of multi-family housing developments of various price ranges . These numbers reflect successful experience on required parking spaces. It should also be noted that the car parking spaces required by the ordinance are a minimum, and~~ the developer may wish to increase the number of spaces if he feels it is feasible, The proposed ordinance has also been reviewed by B.R,W. The experience which B'.R.W: las had with private developers has given them some background ~ ~ for judging how the proposed ordinance might affect developers in Richfield.. The city attorney has prepared the P.U.D. zoning ordinance amendments and . suggested some'. changes which help clarify procedures and definitions... The • ~ ordinance. amendment being presented to the council at this time, does not change the subs~,tance of the ordinance from that which was reviewed and approved by the planning commission and the Commercial.Iinprovement Committee. In addition to .adopting this .Planned Unit Development ordinance, other changes in the oning ordinance would be necessary to retain consistency with the Planned Unit Development-ordinance. These changes would be as follows: • 1. Sectiom 3.2.8 -the Planned Unit Development dstri cts of PR, PIVIR, PC-1, PC-2 and PI be added to the districts allowed in the City. of Richfi ld. 2. Section 3.29, Subdivision 1 -the following words should be added: ` "and, ~'n case of a P.U.D, district with applicable P.U.D. plan.". 3, Sectio 3.29, Subdivision 6 ---the following Ian~uage should be added: "provi ~ ed, however, that no outdoor advertising shall be allowed in a . - PR or I~MR district or in portions of PC-1, PC-2 or PI districts designated:. for res dential uses, except. as may be provided in the applicable. Planned Unit D velopment plan" . 4. Sectio i 3 , 29 , Subdivision T~ - the following language sheu ld be added: "off-street parking in P.U.D. districts shall be governed by Section and the applicable P . U . D, plan" . . .''; ~I ~- ~ _ - - -. i ' Council Letter No. 229 -3- July 26, .1.976 • i ' S. Section 3.37, Subdivision 1 -the following language should be added: . "group housing deve,lopr~ient of a .Planned Unit Development district sha l be .governed by the applicable Planned Unit Development plan" . 6. ~ Section 3.36, Subdivision 1 -the following language should be amended to read: "outdoor advertising signs, R, MF, 'PR, PMR, or in portions of PC-l, PC-2 or PI districts designated for residential uses, except , as mayl be provided in-applicable Planned Unit Development plan" . ~~ 7. Section 3.38 A, Subdivision 2 -striking the wards "residential district" and adding the words "R, MR, PR, PMR, or in portions of PC-l, PC-2 or PI districts designated for residential uses, except as may Ue provided ` in applicable Planned. Unit Development plan" I 8. Section 3.39 -adding the words"in P.U.D, districts, shall be governed - by the applicable P.U.D. plan" . ~~ . 9. The parking regulations for non-residential uses are attached. These regulations will amend the parking requirement section of the zoning ordinance . The adoption of the Planned Unit Development ordinance .and the changes outlined for the zoning ordinance are necessary for the city'to implement the adopted L/H/N edevelopment plan.. Planned tTnit Development. provides the or~ily effective method for accomplishment ~of this redevelopment plan. A lication of t e P.U.D. Ordinance . , The ro ose'd ordinance rovides for review and recommendation by the p p , p planning-commislsion of proposed Planned Unit Developments. .The ordinance- requires the city council to approve: several factors before a P.UD, may be ,. establishedy 1. A preli ' inary P.t,T.D. plan; . 2. A zone hange (four--fifths vote) to a P.U.D. zone; 3. A sped 1 use permit for various P.U.D: uses; 4. A final lat in accord with the city's subdivision regulations. f i ~_ _. ~, ~~ AMEi~IDTdETJT TO CHAPTER IIL, PART IV OF THE ORDINAiQCE CODE OF -THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chagter III, Part IV of the Ordinance Code of the City~of Richfield, relating to zoning, is hereby amended in the following respects.: Anew Section 3.34A is added there- to, after Section 3:34, providing as follows: "3.34A PLANiQED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONTNG DISTRICT . ~'ubdivision 1. Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to provide for the establishment, at the discretion of the city council, of planned ,~ unit development (PUU) zoning districts on tracts of land which are suitable in location, area and _ character for the use and for.-the structures ~~ proposed. All such PUD zoning distric-~s are to be planned and developed on a unified basis. Suitability of the tracts of land for the de- yelopment proposed shall be determined primarily by reference to the city's comprehensive develop- ment plan and any redevelopment plan for the area which-has been adopted by the city. Con- • sideration shall be given to existing and surround- • ing development when establishing a planned unit development district. It is intended that the provisions of this s~ct2on and any additional re- • quirements established by the city council in establishing a PUD district will accomplish the purposes of zoning as set forth in Section 3.2?~ Subdivision 1. It is the intention of the city to provide for flexibility in planning mixed land uses, economic-and efficient land uses, a high _ level of amenities, improved public safety, crea- ', tive design and preservation of natural scenic and 'recreational qualities of open spaces for a better • living, working and shop~,ing environment. . _1_ - I ~.'l- a Subd. 2. Establishment of Planned Unit Deve)_opmont District. (1) Ownership_ In order that the purposes of this section may be achieved, thel,land, buildings and improvements in a proposed PUD district shall be in a single ownership or under the ' management a.nd super~~ision of a central author- I hty, or otherwise subject to.such long-term leases or other ocanership control as the city council may deem necessary to carry out the provisions of this section. _. (2) Integrated Design. The planned unit develop- ment will consist of a harmonious selection of uses ngroupings of buildings, services, parking areas, traffic and pedestrian circu- lation and open spaces and shall be planned and designed as an integrated unit.- If a proposed PUD dihtrict falls,iin whole or in part, within a redevelopment„pr_oject, the PUD plan and design shall be integrated with. the general character of~tha_t redevelopment project. (3) Relationship-of Site to Comprehensive flan and Redevelopment Plan. The planned unit develop- ment shall be ccnsistent with the comprehensive development plan and any applicable redevelop- ment plan of the city` (4') -Site. No planned unit .development distric t shall contain less than 43,560 square feet in gross land area as defined in Subdivision 10 (2)-(a) of this section. (5) Type of Planned Unit Deve).opr~ents;_ Allo~aed Uses. (a) There shat>l lie five types of planned unit devel.opmerit districts, viz: _ Planned Single Family Residential (PR} Planri~d Multi.-Family Residential (PbIR) Planned Neighborhood Commercial (PC-1) Planned General Conunerc!ial (PC-2 ) Planned.Industrial (PI) (b} Uses all-owed in a PUD d';istrict shall be as follows: Uses allowed in a "R" district shall be allowed in a I?R distric't. Uses allowed in a 'MR"'district shall be allowed in a PMTZ district. ~. _3_ Uses allowed in a "C-1" district shall be allowed in a PC-1 district. Uses allowed in a "C-2" district shall be allowed in a PC-2 district. Uses allowed in an "T" district shall be allowed in a PI district. (c) Uses other than the permitted uses, as listed above,. are allowed in a PUD dis- trict provided the use is one cehich is authorized in one of -the five types of PUD districts, and provided further that such additional use cannot occupy more than 33 per cent of the gross floor area f th PUD district i o e Subd. 3. Procedures. (1) Initiating Proposal Statement and PUD Plan. Every applicant requesting establishment of a planned unit development zoning district shall submit a concept proposal statement in writing to the planning director. Acceptance by the Manning department of the concept statement shall not obligate the city to approve the PUD plan, final PUD plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a planned unit develop- ' merit district. The following items shall be contained in the concept proposal statement: (a) A legal description of the total site pro- posed for development, includinga state- merit of the present and proposed ownership. (b)' A statement of the planning objectives to e achieved by the planned unit development • through the particular approach proposed by th° applicant. This statement should • include a•descrzption of the character of the proposed development and-the rationale for choices made by the applicant in the'. course of development of the concept. (c) A development•'schedule indicating the approx- imate date when construction of the planned unit development or stages of planned unit development can be expected to begin and to be completed. • (d) Additional information as may be required by the planning director to determine that the proposal is in conformance with the city's adopted comprehensive plan and any redevelop- ment plan. -4- .. Application; Planning Commission Review. Upon review and acceptance o~ the concept proposal statement by the planning director, an applicant far a~planned unit development district rezoning shall apply therefore to the city on forms to be furnished by the planning di're'ctor. The appli- cation shall be filed with the chief inspector_ and transmitted to the planning director. The application .is tv be completed: by the applicant and shall be accompanied by a PUD plan for the entire tract of_ land. (a) The PUD plan shall consist of, but not be • ~- liniit~d to,` the following data: (i) All drawings required to be part of the PUD plan shall have a scale of not more than 50 feet to the inch. Drawings shall be 'submitted showing: (I) The out?ine „,,overall dimensions ~~ and the areaof the tract de- scribed.in the application; • (II) The use, exi,'sting zoning, and ocanership_ of the subject tract and. adjacent properties within 350 feet of lthe proposed PUD district boundaries including. the location of all structures and the righa-of-way widths and travel widths of all ad- ~acent public roadways; -(III) The location, general exterior dimensions and gross .floor area of all proposed buildings; (IV) The typo of 'use proposed to occupy each !.parcel. and each build- h. • ~ ing, the amount of. building floor area devoted to each different use, and a legal description of all areas to be designated for • users allowed by subdivision 2.(5) (c) of this'section.; (V) The location, arrangement and number of_ automobile parking stalls; (VI) Tee location,'',,.arrangement and. general dimensions of all truck. loading facilities and all passenger . loading areas including bus turn outs and shelaers; _ ,. ,. ~~, 6 -5- (VII) The location and dimension of ` ' all vehicular entrances. and exits, driveways and their re- lationship to all existing and proposed public streets; (VIII}The location, design and dimension of pedestrian entrances, exits, walks, skyways, plaaa courts or other related pedestrian areas. (IX) The location and dimension of a1i walls, fences and planting- areas both designed to screen- the proposed district from ad- ~acent uses and to enhance the environment of the district; (~) The location and dimension of all signs and lighting including the illumination characteristics. of all lighting; (XI) Existing buildings, roads, trees, utilities and utility .easements, all shown in half tone, black_ and white; (XTI) Preliminary building plans, ele- yation sections and general specifications of material and unusual structural systems for the proposed building or buildingsL prepared by an architect registered in the°State of Minnesota; . ~XIIT}The .site grading plan including an analysis of the adequacy of surface ' drainage, storm sewer and catch basin drainage, erosion control, visual screening and landscaping f arrd existing and proposed topo-- -~~graphy of the tract with vertical topographic contour intervals not greater than two feet; (ii) As part of the PUD plan, the applicant shall submit proposed declarations of covenants, conditions and restrictions, articles of owners associations and all other such documents as the city may deem necessary iri such form and containing such provisions as will ensure that adequate property control is provided. to protect the individual owner's rights and property values, to establish responsi- bility for, maintenance and upkeep, .and to. ensure continuing compliance with the -6- (3) (4) plan. ^1 he City shall require that such declarations of''icovenants, conditions and restrictions or other documents provide that in the event. any associ~.~tion~ or corporation fails to rnaintain propert~.es in accordance with the applicable ordinances and regulations of the ~. ~~ty or fails to pay taxes or asses~Tiients on properties as they become due and in the event the city incurs any expenses in en- orcing its ordinances, rules and regulations, which'expenses are not imme lately reimbursed by the asso- elation or corporation, the city sFiall ave the right to assess each property its pro rata share 'of such expenses. ^lhese assessments,ltogether with in- ter_e5t thereon and ;costs of collection, shall be a lien on 'each property againrst wwhich each :such assessment is made:: Coordi__n.ation of Subdivision Regulations. Su.b- diy sign review under the subdivision control- ordinance shall be carried gut simultaneously with-the review of the planned unit development under this section. In addition to the PUD plan, the applicant shall submit information meeting the requirements o"f the subdivision regulations o~ th- e ty. ' Development Schedule. The applicant shall submit a proposed sc:nedule for construction beginning at the time the requested zoning may be granted by the city and continuing ur_til.all the components o t~lanned unit developrnert are fully completed If the constructio,z of tine proposed planned unit development is to be in stages, then the components contained in .each stage shall be clearly delineated. Subd. 4. .Planning Commission Review - PUD Plan. Upon rece~.p and review of the concept; proposal statement and receipt of the application anel'PUD plan, the plannin director shall refer the PUD plan', to other departments and agencies for Review. L~Jithin thirty (30)-days after t'e receipt of the wr tten concept ,',proposal statement, PUD plan and application, the planning director shall recommend-to the planning cor~unission either (a) approval o',f the pr.oposalin the form submitted, or b) approval with modl~icat~ons, or r_ isapprova.l. i _7_ . • I~ The recommendation of the planning director shall include findings of fact, .and. shall set ort the reasons for the recommendatior_s specifying with particularity in what aspects the plan would or would not be in the public interest, including. but. not limited -to the fo.llocving: (a) The extent to which the plan departs from the zoning ordinance, subdivision regula- tions, comprehensive development plan an. _ redevelopment plan, if any, atherwis:e • applicable .to the subject property, in- cluding but .not limited to density, bulk- and use, and the reasons why such departures are or are not deemed to be in the public interest. (b) The extent to which the plan. does or .does not make adequate provisions for public ser- vices, vehicular traffic control, air and light, recreation and visual enjoyment. (c) The nature and extent of open space, the adequacy of provision for maintenance and conservation of the common open space, and the adequacy or inadequacy of the amount and unction of open space in terms of the ensities proposed in the plan. • (d) The impact, beneficial or adverse, of the planned unit development project upon the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be established. (e) In the case of a plan that proposes develop- ment over a period of years, the sufficiency 'of the terms and conditions. proposed to protect and maintain the integrity of the plan. (f) The relationship of the proposed structures to existing structures, to any redevelopment plan, and to anticipated future development of the area. L~7ithn forty-five days after receiving the planning director's report, the planning commission shall hold a public hearing on the application. ti4ithin forty-five days after the public hearing, the planning commission shall submit its recommendation to the city council. ,The commission may recommend approval with or without modification or recommend disapproval. -II- .. areas, automobile parking areas, vehicle Subd. 5. City Council. Approval --;PUD Plan. Following action by the planning commission the city council shall consider rezoning the area described in the plan in accordance with th.e procedures set forth in this part. If approved, the~area shall be rezoned as one of the five types of PUD districts. Prior to the commencement of any construction or developrnent of the land and after rezoning the applicant shall submit'a Final Development Plan, consistent with the PUD plan, together with an application for a special' use permit for the develop- ment shown in such Final Development Plan. A specs_al use permit, in con ormance caith the approved Final De- velopment Plan, mast be issued by;a two-thirds vote of. the council before the PUD distrct;cari be devoted to the uses provided for in such plan.' Subd. 6. Final Development Plan. A Final.Development Plan shall consist of the following: (1) If required, a final plat of'the land to be de- ', veloped. (2) A s tei plan sufficient f_or_ recording the engineering drawings and consisting" of the following on a drawa_ng to-scale of not- morel than 50 feet to the inch: {a) Th.e adopted PL7D plan with required modifi- cations stipulated by the city council; I (b) A legal description of the PUD zoning district; {r.,) Location and dimension ~f major natural. features and existing features which will ', rem na on the tract of ~1and; (d) Location, dimension,_ and arrangement of b lau dings, .streets, drives, truck loading entrances-and exzts, pedestrian entrances and ~exits,'walks, skyways, ;plazas and courts, bus turn outs and bus sk~elters, wall fences and plant?.nas desic;ned 'ito screen the district . from adjacenir uses, signs and lighting. (e) Topography; (f) Zandscaping; (g) Location of uses; (h) The decl~.ration of covenants, conditions and restra.ctions and articles of ownership.. (i) Any .additional information required by the council. Subd. 7. Compliance with the PUD Plan and Final De- velopment Plan. ~-Changes. The development of the planned unit de- velopment distr_zct s'--' , L_ ,_ ~ ___~...~.~r,-; ,, ,.~,rn~ ; _ ance wit the approv i • _9_ . Plan and any conditions imposed by the council. . - .Compliance shall not be considered substantial " if there is: (a) nio.re than ten percent change in floor area in any one structure; • (b) more than a ten percent change in the ori- .ginal approved separation of buildings; (c) any change in the. original approved set- backs from property. lines; ,. • (d) .more than 5 percent change in the ground area covered by the .building; or (e) any change in the ratio of off-.street parking • and loading space to gross floor area in the building. (2) Building Permits. No building permit shall be issued for any. structure within the PUD district unless-and until the planning director•certifies that it conforms to the provisions of the PUD Plan, the Final Development Plan and any. other conditions imposed by the council. Upon approval by the planning director, the building permit • applicat-ion along faith the appropriate infor_m_ation required for building permits shall be submitted to the chief inspector who shall process the building permit in conformance with applicable bui.ldTng codes. -• Subd. S. Bond for Ccnformance. Prior to the issuance • of a special use permit, the applicant shall provide the city with a performance bond in the amount of ten percent of the estimated value of the proposed buildings and improvements in the area-designated as a planned unit development district conditioned on the satisfactory development of the PUD in accordance with the PUD Plan and Fina Development Plan and any add:ztzonal conditi.on5" imposed by the council. Upon completion of the planned unit development as-approved by the city council, in- spections by the planning director and chief inspector and approval by the city council, the performance bond • may be released. .~; Subd. 9. Criteria and Standards. (1) Land Use Intensity (LUI). The maximum land use intenszty rating permitted in a PUD district shall be determined by the gross land area of the tract . of land, the proposed type of planned unit develop- ment district, and the uses assigned. to the PUD district. (2) The land use intensity rating for those parcels 'of. the PUD district desi.gnated'',for residential uses, or a combination of residential and non- residential Lzses, shall be as ollows: GROSS LAND ARi1A PR & PC-1 PMR, PC-2 & SQUARE FEET ACRES LUI RATING PI LUI RATING • ' 43,560-37,120 1~2 40 48 87,120-130,680 2-3 ' 43 50 130,6$0-174,240 3-4 45 52 174,240-217,800 4-5 I :48 54 217,800-261,360 5-6 ~ 50 56 over 261,3360. 6+ ' S5 58 {3) .The land use intensity rating'',for_ those parcels of the PUD district designated'solely for com- mercial and industrial uses shall be as follows: GROSS LAND • AREA PR I& PC-1 PI~SR, PC-2 & SQUARE FEE^1 ACRES LUI RATING PI LUI RATING 43, 560-87 ,1.20 1-2 i30 38 87,120-130 r'6$0 2=3 '33 42 130,680-174,240 3-4- ', 35 44 ', 174,240-21,7,800 4-5 138 48 217,800-2c1,360 .' 55-6 ', ~'40 50 over 261,360 b+ 45 52 SI'ubd. 10. Method of Computing Floor Area, .Open Space, Livability Space,. Pecreation Space, Parking Requirements from Land Use Intensity. Rating. (!1) For the purposes of a planned ,unit development dis- ,.. trzct, the land use intensity"rating applicable to the particular type of planned unit development (PR,_ PMR, PC-l, PC-~2, and PI) shaill be established by I the above t~~.b;'_es . 'I'he ratio' of the maxim~uro. permis- . ~ Bible floor area and required open. spacz, livabi.l_ity space, recreation space, and. parking to gross land ' area shall be`deterznined by!r~ference to the LUI Table, subdivision 11 of this'section. (2) Definitions and Methods of P~Ieasurement Relating to '~ the Land Use Intensity Ratios.; Requirements and Lim- itations. ' (a Gross Land Area Definition and Method of Measure- menu. Gross land area !i_s defined, for ',' purposes of this section, as the total area of l~~~id. within t_he proposed district boundaries plus half of the area ~f adjoining permanent '~ ,, open space such as streets, par_ks,lakes, . I cemeter_ics, and the like', provided that the width of such adjoining permanent-open space shall be considered toi;be na more than the ~. ~J ings .~ a e con ' the areas of the several floors .of the build- X11_ number_ of feet equal to the land use. inT tensity rating applied to that portion of the.PUD dzstr~.ct to which t e open space adjoins. (b} Floor Area Definition and Method of Measure- ment.. To determine the maxlmtzm perm~ssi le floor area, the LUI rat~.o in subdivision 11 s al be applied. T e loos area o t e uild- ch 11 b sidered to be the sum o ings measured from the outside aces o t e exterior walls, or from the center 1 e off' the wall separating two buildings, including halls, lobbies, stairways., elevator shafts, enclosed porches and balconies, and elow grade floor ~ areas used for > abitat~.on. Not included as floor area are: 1 open terraces,. patios, atriums, br balconies; (2 carports., garages., breezeways, tool sheds; (3 special purpose areas zor common. use. of occupants,. such as recreation room, social hall; (4) staff space for therapy .or exam n tion in care housing; (5) basement space not used for- living accorrurioda~t~ -~os~s The maximum permissible floor area in a PU7 shall be determined as follows: In parcels designated for non-residential uses the maximum permissible floor area shall be de- rived by multiplying that portion of the gross land area contained in such parcel by the applicable land use intensity ratio. In parcels designated solely for residential uses or for a combination of residential .and " _ non-residential uses, the remainder of the gross lard area shall be multiplied by the j applicable land use intensity ratio. (c) Open Space Definition and P~Iethod of Measure- ment. ' ~ . (i) I'or purposes of this section, open space shall be defined as the total hori- zontal area of uncovered open space plus Half the total: horizontal area-of '; covered open space. (ii) Uncovered open space is the total gross area of land not covered'by buildings, open eyterior balconies, and roomed areas that. provide recreational space. -1:2- ~ ~ (iii}_Covered open spac I ii . ~.~s usable open space closed to''the sky ~'but unobstructe ' a3.orzg at leapt 5--0' ~ "ot the si es. o the .:space.' The 'a cwer_ed open spaG rea includable as ~ shalJ_ .not exceed the area o'~ f~~s cpen ' space may ncludle ~i!des . Covered open ~covered balconies, ..covered p~:r_t_ions of improved rooted yeas, or_ spaces '+ un!;der buildings sup- ported can cpluznns (iv) The minimum amoun 'I or Frosts . t ;of open space re- qured :shall..': be 'd ~t'~'ierini~ned by multZ- plying the applic able open space ratio shown- ~.r~ the 'land zz!se intensity ' °.L-able, sizbdiv o I', 1, by the gross lazed area which 'i s lnot designated ,solely ~r. coznmereial or': ~ industrial uses. (v) Open: space requir ements shall not be ap~l.ied-to those p~!rtions of a PUD district ~eSZ;gz-zat_ ~d~ solely for commor- ciaJ_ or zrzdzzstrial Livabal:ity; Spt:c,:~ D~f~z7i~ l 'uses . ten az.d lZetho~ of Compu~ ~.tiorz. For purpo ses of .this section, livabi`I':ity space ~hall~ e defined as that porno- of the total op en space which is so improver~'~~and s~ l.ocat~d~ as to provide aesthetic ally pleasing areas of p z~tdoor laving space for r_~sidents. 'Li.vabi.l ity space includes lawzis anal other_ ~.andsca' ed areas , walkways , paved terraces and sitt ~rig areas; outdoor recreat~rz areas, ~.nd T, ridscaped portions ~f str_eet right-a.f-ways ., Livability space -->----- shall riot inc]_u~e space 'used for vehicles,. except for incidental s~ ervicos, maintenance or emerg~~z~ic ~ies. ~ Tc~.e ` nini.znj uzn amount of livabil.it~° sp Ga e-shall b~.determin ed by multiplying the. appl~.cabl~ livabzJ_ity _s~ pace ratio shown in the land us~e:izzte~sty tabl e; subdivision 11, by! the gross lan~iV"area whi ch is not designated solely for comr,~ercal o', r'industrial uses. Livabil~.ty space. requir ements sha11 not apply to t.h~s~ portions of a PUD district designated s~le~.y for comnercial'a~ nd industrial uses. Hecrh~a~~_an Space nefin~ ton azzd Method. of Measu.r.EiJz~r~t: T f'ar' purpd s~s oi= ~th s section, recreat?:on spac~'shall ~ bs .defined as that o~ rLion; ofMl:Yze t~~~tal o`. em space which. may !,~ ~, -13- p. fie, cl''~ ~2' ~Q ~°N" (f) appropriately be used for recreational purposes. Tn general, suc space shall be a minimum of 10,000 square- eet an shall b.e no less than 50 feet on any one side: Smaller areas may be consi ere if the recreation space is a suitably improved roof area. Smaller areas may also be considered if a 10,000 square. foot area would provide more than the total recreation space require or i anticipated needs of residents require smaller facilities, such. as tot lots. Permanent public recreation space and facilities located outside of the PUD district may be approved as meeting up to one-half of the recreation space re-- quirements zf the inclusion of such space is consistent caith the purposes of this section and if said space a uts the PUD district. The minimum amount of recreation space required shall be determined by multiplying the applica- ble recreation space ratio shown in the land use intensity table, sub- division 11, by the. gross land area which is not designated solely for commercial or industrial uses. The recreation space requirements shall not apply to those portions of a PUD district designated solely for commercial and industrial uses. /Car Space, Occupant and Total; Definition anal Method of Computation. For purposes of this section, an occupant car space shall be defined as a narking space in a garage, car- port, or o`the'r off-street parking area which is available -~o residents without ~ 0. time limit. For purposes of this section, total car spaces shall be defined as the occupant car spaces plus other parking spaces which may be used for unlimited or seldom limited time periods, and which are intended primarily for use by guests. The minimum number of occupant car spaces and of total car spaces in those portions of a PUD district deSJ_grlated for residential uses shall be determined by multiplying the applicable-occu- pant car ratio and the applicable total car ratio respectively by the number of dwelling units. r~ ~~ . Subd. ~_1. Required Land Use Inten'ty Ratios - LUI Table_ The ma_~:imum floor. area ratio, the minimum livability sp~t~,•a ratio, the min~~mum recreation spac.e;ra'tio, and the min- imum car-space ratite for each land: use intensity rating .. shall be as follows:. LAND USE INTEDtSITY ('LUI) RATIOS . Land-Use LUI RATIOS; ', LUI RATIOS Intensity X GROSS LAND 'AREA X LIVING UNITS Ratings Floor Open Livabil- Recreation Occupant Total (ZUT) Area Space ity Space ,Space Car Car 30 .100. .80 .65 .025 2.0 2.2 '33 .123 .79 .58 .028 1.8 2.1 35 . .141 .78 .54 .030 1.7~ ~.9 38 .174 .77 .52 ..033 1.5 1.8 a '40 .200 .7~ .52 .036 l.4 1.7 42 .230 .75 :51 .039 1.4 1.6 - 43 .246.. ~.75 .49 .039 1.3 1.5 44 .264. .74 ~ .48 .042 1.3 1.5 '45 .283.. ..-74 .48 .042 1.2 1.5 48 .348. .73 .45 .-049 1.1 50 .400 .7?_ .44 .052 1.1 1 '52 .459 .72 .-42 .056 1.0 1.2 54 .528 .71 .41 .062 .96 1.1 55 .566 .71 .40 .06?_ .93 1.1 56 .606_ :70 40 .065 .90 1.1 58 .696 .69 .40 .070 .84 1.0 Subd. 12. Amendment of Special Use Permit. Amendment to any special use permit issued under this section or for land within a UD district shall be by two-thirds P _ vote of the council. `t'he council; may hold su ch hearings ' on a proposal to am~~hd such permits as it may censidor ' necessary; but at least one public .hearing shall be held. In acting on such a proposal the council-may consider all factors considered in connection with rezoning the PUD district and issuing, special use permits therefore a''s ~,aell as any other factors relevant to the public health, safety, morals, c omfort, convenience or welfare and to the protection of property or improvements in the neighbor- h'ood . r ,' I . . Section 3.28, Subdivision 1, is amended to read as follows: 3.28 ZONING DISTRICTS. Subdivision 1. Establishment of Districts. For the purposes of this chapter the city shall be divided into the following use districts: R -- Residence District MR "-- Multiple Residence C-1 - Ydeighborhood Business District _ C-2 --- General Commercial District -~ •~ I -- Industrial District FR Planned Residenttial District PMR -- Pla ned Multi-Famil- Residential PC-1 - _ P~.anne Neighborhood Commercial PC-2 - Pl n d Genera~~ Cr ommercial .~ PI --- Planned-Indus ria Section. 3.29, Subdivision 6, is amended to read as follows: 3.29 PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL DISTRICTS. Subdivision 6. Outdoor Advertising. For purposes of this chapter, outdoor advertising shall be classified as business and shall be permitted in _ all districts zoned [for industrial and commercial _ . uses] C-l, C-2, or I,subject to other applicable regulations. Section 3.36, Subdivision l and 2, are amended as follows: 3.36 SPECIAL PROVISIONS - OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, BILLBOARDS, REAL ESTATE AND OTHER SIGNS. Subdivision 1. Outdoor Advertising Signs, R or MR " Districts or Portions of Planned Unit Development " District Designated for Residential Uses. No outdoor . advertising signs, billboards, or real estate signs shall be erected in a "R"~ or "P-IR".district or in any portion of a planned unit development district desig- nated for residential uses, except as follows: (1) A sign not to exceed two square feet displaying !the name of the owner, occupant or lessee and " 'the nature of a Home Occupation, if any. (1975-3) 1/27/75 (2) INon-illuminated or non-reflecting signs, not ex- ~ceeding ten square feet in area pertaining only to the sale, rental 'or lease of the premises upon • .f l -16 - 'I which displayed; or bulletin.,. !boards. of schools, churches and other public ins;-tttztions permitted in such districts. j (3) ..Signs advc~r:t.i.s.i.ng the sale of a subdivision when located thereon, provided th~t~,the sign, location, and length of time that. such signs shall remain ' have been first approved by the council. (~) Direction a.u:d i_nformat_ian si~~'n,~ of a public or ', _ quasi-public nature, includirg'Isigns serving as directional signs tc p?-opert des not situated adjacent to-the.. street next to',which the signs ', are bated, upon first s:ecur~n~ approval by the council. ._. { Sub bd 2 4iitdoor Advertrsirzg .Sign I , ~ C or I Districts . Outdoor advertising~sgn~, billbo~.r!ds, real estate signs and -the like- shall--be permz~ted in any "C" or_ "~" district pravidcd the fol].owrjlg conditions are met: (I) -Such signs. meet the requirements of this city. relating to signs as ,set for-~h~ in. part V of this ~ .chapter. (2) Any such sign must be set baI ]-~~ from the street equal: to at Ieast as far as the required front yard from the distr•i.ct i:n wh~.ch it is located, i .provided that ort a anajor cit~ !,streett or federal or state highway such signs may be required to be set back such additional distance as may be re- ~ qui.red to insure proper visipri -and safety to the ,- Section follows: trazric on ~ucn. ~zs~:~;~~ a~~u (;3) No such sign shall be ~ermit ~~.~y~LYY~.~Y~. ~t~d which faces on '~ the front or side lot line o f 'any lot in an "R" used for xe ~r "MR" d_is-triot sden.tial puxposes . orportions of ..planned unit- ;d2velopment di.stri-cts designated for resi'der_tial ' u ses within. 100 feet of -.such lit of_ wirn~_n 2.00 fe ' lef of any publi c ublic to an r , parkway, public square car. en park or public or parochial y p ance t school, library, churc ~, or similax institution. 3.36 is amended by addi~:g subdivi sion :4 thereto as. c ~ utdoor Advertisin .Sig Subd. 4. O g n's;. Portions of PUD for Commerc,~ Distr_~.ct nesignated l! or. Sndustrial Uses. - bi_l Igo ou-4door aclver.ti.si.ng signs, ~ boards, real estate _ signs, or .the l3:e shall. be perm~ t'ted in p~rti_ons of Tanned unit .development distric-~ s designated for i.nclustria.l use exc,~ omi~iercial or -~-- p,it as provi.ded_ by the _ Final ~eyeld applicable FUll Plan, p ch nt Plan. or special - use permit. ~~ j - ~~~ . II • ;h, <~ -~- '~. - _ ~_ -17-- Section 3.37, subdivision 1, is amended. to read as follows: 3.37 SPECIAL PROVISIONS - GROUP HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Subdivision 1•. Definition. A group housing develop- ment is defined'as a development consisting of one or more structures containing three or more dwelling units on a single site. Grou .housing. development does not include such structures when located within a planned unit development district. Section 3.38A, subdivisions 2 and 3, are amended to read as follows: Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Recreational vehicles and equipment may be parked or stored in [a residential district] R or PfR districts or in portions of planned. unit development districts designated for residential uses in accordance with this Section and other pro- visions of the City Code as follows: (a) On any rear or side yard of a lot except the side• yard of a corner lot adjacent to the street. (b) Not closer than three feet to any building or structure, including fences. (c) In an established driveway cif a lot but not closer than three feet to any building or structure not beyond the lot line and not closer than twelve. • .feet to the curb line of the street abutting an established driveway. (d) A recreational. vehicle may be stored on a lot without .regard to the location on the lot for the . sole and express purpose of loading and unloading for a period not in excess of 48 hours. (e) Unmounted slide-in pickup campers must be stored no higher than 20 inches above the ground and must . be securely supported at least at four corners by solid support blocks. Subd. 3. Prohibited Uses. A recreational vehicle may not be stored, parked, or utilized in [a residential district] R or MR districts or in portions of planned unit development districts designated for residential uses as follows: (a) Recreational vehicles and equipment shall not be 'used as a permanent residence. (b) A recreational vehicle which is in ,a state of • .. • _, • Loren L.jLGw Mayor -18- O I •externally vi.s~.ble disrepair or partial con- struction must be stored or parked in a rear or side yard but not closer than three feet to any building or structure and for not more than one year. • Passed by ''the City Council of the'. City of Richfield, PAinnesata this 'day of 1976. d .. i - ' . i i. i i ,CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 228 Agenda July 26, 1976 The Honorable Mayor and ' Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject:.Creation of a Shade Tree Disease Revolving Fund and Authorization ~of Advancement to that Fund In September of 1975, the city .council took action to assess the costs of . removal and disposal of a diseased tree on private property against that prop- erty.: This council action was necessary because the property owner was un- able to remove the tree within the time ,limits specified by Richfield. ordinance. For the city to accomplish this, it is necessar for the cit council to Y Y authorize a loan from'the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund. Existing assessment policy. stipulates that costs are to be specially .assessed against private property over a three-year period, at an interest rate of 8% on the un- paid balance. In 1976; the in ~ idence of shade tree diseases in Richfield has increased significantly and more residents have requested that the city remove diseased trees and specially assess the costs against their property. The present pro- cedure for special assessment of these costs re uires cit council a royal for q Y pP each loan from the ermarient Improvement Revolving Fund. This process is cumbersome becaus it causes delays 'in obtaining funding, thereby hindering prompt tree removal and increasing the .potential for spread of the tree disease. Lt is advisable that ny delays in the. deseased tree removal process be elimin- ated in order to ins~re the success of the .tree disease control program. Attached to this council letter is a resolution which will minimize such delays by: 1. Establishing a Shade Tree Disease Revolving Fund. This fund will be fin~nced by temporary loans from the Permanent Improve- ment Revol~ing Fund and will be used for immediate removal and disposal of diseased trees on private property where the owners are unable to pay the costs or'are unable to make removal within Council Letter No. 228 -2- July 26, 1976 the s e! p icified time limit. - 2. Authorizing the city manager to make advancements from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund to the Shade Tree Disease Revolving Fund as required. The resolution limits the total dollar amount of all advancements for this purpose to $5, 00;0. Once this total amount has been emended, it will-be nec- essary for the council to autYiorize additional advancements should they become necessary. Each advance is limited to the full cost of tree. removal, plus one ;year's interest on the temporary loan. The adoption of the assessment roll for tree removal will occur in September of each year. State and local shade tree disease subsidy amounts, if applicable,.. will also be used to .repay the loan and reduce the .special .assessment. Any remaining amount will be;paid by .the bene- ` fting property owner through the. special assessment payments-. It is recommended that the. city council adopt the attached resolution, establishing the Shade Tree Disease Revolving Fund and authorizing the city manager to make ;advances to that fund from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund. Respectfully submitted:, ~! ' ~.~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja ~, cc; City Attorney; Finance Dire ~' for Public Works~Director RESOLUTION N0. P.ESOLL'TION CP.EATI:7G THE SHADE TREF. DISF.ASr REVOL~~IN~ F'[2fi AidD AUTIiORIZINf; LOANS FRO'~T TtiE PEP.'"'A,IF.:iT I?`~PROCEMI?NT REVOLVIh(' FL'I1D WHEREAS, the incidents of Shade Tree Disease on private proner.ty within ttie city of Richfield i.s increasing, and 6~~lEREAS, the best method for the control of Shade Tree P,isease is swift treatment, removal and disposal of diseased trees, and WHEF.EAS, state and local law require such treatment, removal and disposal within specified time limits, and WHEREAS, necessary removal, disposal and treatment costs may constitute a hardship to Richfield residents making i.t impossible for them to take necessary abatement measures within such time limits. ?dOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council. of the City of Richfield, as follows: 1. That a Shade Tree Disease Revolving Fund be established, to he held and administered by the finance director, separate and apart from all other funds for the purpose of the removal of diseased shade trees on private property. 2. That in cases of hardship or when the legal time lir~i.t f.or diseased tree rer.:oval, disposal and treatment has expired, the city manager is hereby authorized to make advancements from the ?'err.~anent Improvement Pevolving Fund to the Shade Tree Disease Fevolvi.nr rund for the payment of costs relating to necessary disease abatement activities. In each instance, such advancement is limited to the amount of the estimated cost of removal plus one year's interest on the loan. The cumulative total advancements made under the provisions of this resolution shall not exceed $5,000. 3. That all such monies so furnished shall be restored, with interest, to the Permanent Improvement Revolvi.n~ Fund crhen and as sufficient monies are received in the Shade Tree Disease i'evolvinQ Fund from repayments made by the owner of the improved property in the form of loan payments, special assessment payments or, where applicable, state and local subsidies allowed for tree removal. 4. That the Shade Tree Disease Revolving Fund shall he maintained during such time as the city manager shall deem i.t necessary based upon the status of shade tree disease control efforts. • -~- Passed by the City Council of the City of ??ichfiel.d this 26th day of July, 1976. Loren L . Lan+ 'Favor ATTEST: Thomas J. ?Moran City ('lerk. • • `~ ! CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA .Office. of City.Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members, of the City Council City of Richfield. ', Council Letter No. 227 Agenda July 26, 1976 Gentlemen• Subject: Permanent Street Paving Project Change Orders Earlier this s~,pring, the city council requested that the Richfield School District reconsider its decision to not include the private road adjacenf to Lincoln Hills School between Sheridan Avenue and Penn Avenue in the city's 1976,. permanent street paving program. The School D',istrict has reconsidered this matter and is now requesting • that the city arrange to have this street paved as part of the 1976 permanent street paving program. In order to have this work completed this season, it is necessary for the- city council to approve three change orders to the current permanent street paving program contracts; 1. The first%change order in the amount of $20,404.25 is to amend Progressive Contractors , Inc , contract for the construction of the permanent street, 2. The second change order in the amount of $882.00 is to amend Rehbein ~Brog . InG . contract for, sod restoration . 3 . The third) change order in the amount of $2 , 537.00 is to amend Eagan McKay Electrical Contractors, Inc. contract for the .installation of street lighting, It is recommended that the cit council a rove these chan a orders . Y pp g Respectfully submitted, ~~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City. 1Vianager WSB/bll cc; Public V1Torks Director ~ ;` ~, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council. Letter .No. 226 Agenda July.26,...1976 The .Honorable Mayor and Members of the Ciity Council City of Richfield Gentlemen:.. ~ Subject; . Change Order for Community Center ,~ - The city council. agenda for July 26, 1976, includes a change. order. for ABj Enterprises, as related to the Community .Center. This change - order provides thati>the contract sum be increased to reflect electrical changes made during the remodeling. The change :order generally covers installation of additional lights, switches and outlets, required primarily • for safe y considerations: It is recommended that the change order in the amount of $395.88 be .approved. I Respectfully sub fitted, ~• ~~~. YV Wayne S . Burggraaff ~ City Manager WSB/bll cc: Park and Recre tion Director f' CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~ Office of City Managers , I, - , i Council Letter No._225 Agenda July 26, 1976 i The Honorable Mayor ..and Members 'of the Cityt Council. City of Richfield ', Gentlemen: Subject:I Recommended Denial of Application for Taxicab Driver License - ' Mr. Michael Dean Leander, 110257 Village Road, Chaska, MN. is listed on the ,ju.ly 26, 1976;city council agenda-as an'applicant for a new taxicab driver license. ' Investigation conducted as part of'the license application process has substantiated the fact that Mr. Leander has. two speeding violations within a one year period. The'~refore, it is recommended that the city council° deny this application for taxicab driver license. WSB/eja cc: Public Safety Deputy -City C Respectfully submitted, ~~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager I. CITY OF RICHFIELD, ivIINNESOTA Council Letter No . 2 2 4 Agenda July. 2 6 ; 19 7 G ' The . Honorable ~ Ivlayor and . IV~embers of theCity Council City of Richfiel Gent .e men: .: Subjecti Bids for Drilling Deep Well No. land-:Appurtenant zNork, City Project`No. 697. On June 26l' 1976 bids were opened by the city manager far the drilling of Deep Weil No. 7, City Protect No. 837, in accordance with previous city ,.council authorization. The public works director:,. park and recreation director, ' water superintendent and city -clerk also represented the city` at the bideopenirg. The attached bid tabulation indicates the amount bid`by each of the four bidders for thisproject. Minutes of ~this_bid apen.ing are also attacYiec~,. The consultant engineers cost Astimate for the construction of this project was $88, 000. The i~Ow bid `of E. H, Renner and-Sons Well Company.. at $80,-570 is approximately ten percent below the estimate . It is 'the re ommendation 'of the consulting engineer and the :public works director,- in wh',ch I eoncur•, that the city council approve E. H.:Renner and Sons Well Company as the low bidder and authorize the mayor and city manager ' to execute 'a contract with this firm to initiate the first phase of City Project Nb. 697. ~ , ' Respectfully submitted, k p ~!v{,d~+ Wayne S . Burggraa f C.~ty Manager i'f V1TSB/b l1 . - -cc: Public Wor s Director ' • Finance Director I` CITY OF RICHFIELD 'Bid Opening July 23, 1976 Deep We11 No. 7 and Appurtenant Work City Project No. 697 .~ Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the administrative staff was called by Wayne S. Burggraaff, City Manager, who announced that the ,purpose of the meeting was t o receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids on deep z 1 number 7 and a urtenant work as advertised in the official newspaper on wet PP _ ~ June 30 and `July 7, 1976. Present: Wayne S. Burggraaff, City Manager Peter Eberz, Public Works Director ~ Don Fondrick, Park and Recreation Director Ken Conway, Water Department Superintendent Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk The following-bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER. AND • BID ,S'FCI7RITY TOTAL BID 4 Bergerson-Caswell Inc. B.B. 5°~ $104,250 E. H. Renner & Sons Well Co. B.B. 5% $ 80,570 I Keys We11 Drilling Co. ~ B.B. 5% $115,895 Layne Minnesota Co. ', B.B. 5% $ 93,680 The City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular council meeting of July 26, 1976. Thomas J. Moran City Clerk ~~ L Tabulation of Bids, City Project No. 697 Deep Wel)_ No. 7 and Appurtenant Work Bids Opened: 11:30 a.m., July 23, 1976 Council Action: July 26 , 1976 ' Bidder Bid SecuritT Total Bid Bergerson-Caswell Inc. B.B. 5% $10+,250 ~E. H. Renner & Sons Well Co. B.B. 5% a 80,570 Keys Well Drilling Co. B.B. 5~ 115,895 Layne Minnesota Co. B.B. 5~ 93,680 Manager's Recommendation ~ low bid ~ E. H. Renner'& Sons Well Co. Amount: $80,570 ~~ k { i ;'i r -. li - ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, 'MINNESOTA ~~ Office of City IV;anager Council Letter No. 2'23. i ` Agenda July 26, 1976 I ;' ' The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: ~ Subject's Purchase in Excess. of $1, 000 Chapter'6, Section 6.:0.5 of the city-charter stipulates that the city council- must approve the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction .when the amount exceeds $1,000. There is one such item on the council agenda. ' of-July 26, 1976. I As park of Richfield's efforts. in amployee safety, the fixed ladders at Richfield's four lift stations were inspected to determine their condition. This inspection revealed that the fixed ladder at Lift ,Station No. 4 was. badly deteriorated, due to the corrosive atmosphere in the lift station, and created a potential hazard. The staff has received' two informal quotations for the replacement purchase and installation of a fixed ladder with- safety cage as required by the Occupational 'Safety and Health'Act. It is the Public Works Director's recommendation, in which I concur, thlat the council approve a. purchase in excess of $1, 000 in the amQUnt of $2 , 510.00 for the purchase and installation of this'ladder. Funds are 'available in the 176 sewer division budget for this purpose. Respectfully sub 'tted, Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/bll . cc: Finance Director Public Works Director Administrativ Assistant i -r - i .~' '~ _` -=~ I' CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council. Letter No. 222 Agenda July 12 , 19 7 6 The Honorable .Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen Subject: Request for Amendment to Amusement Establishment Ordinance Attached is a'letter from Mr. R. A. Benson, owner of the 7th Hour establishment. Mr. Benson is requesting that the city council give con- sideraton to amending the .Amusement Establishment ordinance be reducing the minimum age requirement from 14 years of age to 12 years of age. '~ ~ Respectfully sub ted, tW~ ~• j Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja /S »,~ ~, ., - ~~~~~~ I Juzy 20, x_376 ~ ~ J U L 2 ® 197& . ~ ~ Richf ie~d City ~~anag~t Richfield City Council ~ . f Gentlemen, ~~ ~ ' Hill number 1g7G-3, t`re a'~Lmen::Y~ant to Cr~^.pter 5, Part II I of the ordinance code governing; ax~cactes now restricts use of these arcades by anyone under ale 1~1~ years usless acco,zpanied ~,~, par ents. I would like the council to consider chan~in~ sub division 7, part six to s,~_losr a miniz~u:n ale of 12 years. . 'I~ We have ;~:•ad a great deal of interest shovm in use of the arcade by younger chi:~_dr~n Yrhase parents have na objection to their criidren's presence t:.cre, but do not themselves wish to r°~mwin with tho children II as is r~o~t requi _ ed. • ' .. Yours Truly, ~,,•.~ . ~~( , s n en o . B R. A ' O~,~rner - 'jth Hour i ,~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA .Office of City Manager Council Le ter No. 221 Agenda ;July 2 6 , .1976 The Honorable Mayor and' Members of the City 'Council City of Richfield ~ Gentlemen r Subject: Report on Noise Control.Meeting' L At the last :city ~ouncl meeting the city council briefly discussed placing a discussion item oni the August 9 , 1976 city council agenda for the purpose of discussing local noise control regula ions. However, Councilman Luettnger attended a meeting o~ this subject on Tuesday, July 13,and would like the. opportunity. to make ~ brief report on this subject at the July 26 council meeting. Therefore, a disl ussion item has been placed or. the agenda for this .purpose. It is likely that due. t~o .the anticipated length of the July 26 meeting it may be necessary o continu amore detailed discussion of this subject to the August 9 meeting. Respectfully submitted, ' (1 ~, Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja ,, L i i ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ", i, Office of City Manager Council Letter No: 220- Agenda July 26, 19.76 The Honorable (Mayor ~~ and j Members of the City Council. ' City of Richfe d { ` Gentlemen : '~ Subject:. Barricades for .Block Parties . Mrs. john Kt~jawski, 7415 Oakland Avenue has requested that Oakland Avenue i be barricaded between 74th and 75th Streets between the hours of S:OO p. m. and midnight on Sat rd~ ,August 7,, 1976. for the purpose of holding a-block party. 'NIs. MarciaDeRoma, 6,821 Sheridan Avenue. has requested that Sheridan Avenue be weep 68th and 6'9th. Streets;,. be barricaded between the hours of 1:00 -p. m. and midnight on Saturday, August 7, 1976 for the purposes of • holding a block' party. . Ms. Delores Hovelson, 7240 Grand Avenue, has requested that Grand Avenue ' :between 72nd and 73rd Streets be barricaded between the hours of 6:00 p, m. and midnight on Saturday, July 31, for the purpose of holding a :.block party... The only stipula tion attached to these requests is that the barricades and warning devices be erected by the city in such a way so a's to discourage. 'through traffic, but to permit ingress and egress of emergency vehicles in the ' ' event this would be required during the .time of the block pa"rty. I .Respectfully sub tted, Y. Wa ne S : Bur raaff Y gg City Manager WSB/eja _i cc;'Public Works Director Public Safety Director - Y i . 4--°!'~'r°'° j 1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City l~lanager Council Letter No. 219 i Agenda. July 26, 1976 The Honorable Mayor and ~ Members of the City Council City of Richfield ~! ° .i Gentlemen: i Subject'; Off-Street Parking Contract, 1Vir. Steak,,. , ~' I420 East 78th Street At the city council meeting of July 12, 1976, the city council approved an amendment to thelspecia use permit for Nr. Steak, 1420 East 78th Street, -.permitting them to enlarge the existing restaurant and expand the existing parking area onto the vacant parcel of land between the current parking lot and East 77th Street. This special use permit was. approved with the stipulation that a new off-street parking, contract be submitted and approved . The owners of Mr. Steak are now re question approval of an off-street parking contract. With tl~e parking area expansion there will be 83 parking spaced provided. Parking space required: 57 customers (one. space/three seats) ~ 10 employees (one space/two employees) 67 Total paring provided:. 83 Extra par~Cing: 16 City staff has reviewed and evaluated this off-street parking contract request ..and recommends t at it be approved subject to the following stipulations, which were approved in t e council's granting of the special use permit amendment: ' 1. Additiona landscaping be provided in accordance with the city's landscaping policy. 2. Fence to e constructed on the north end of the parking lot across .the lengt of the Mr. Steak property along 77th Street. -j i i I • D m n a 0 m 0 D _O ~_ z C~ ~ O C. J ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ M .J H 1--i J w 7 y~ "~ F~+ t '_' C '~ H ~ ~ i~ :"~ H r.i C- `~ H ~ -~ F-~ ~ ~ r.i l~ ' ~ ~ 1 .. a .. ~_, f,-~ ;~ ~, t e5 <<; ~.. J .. ~ ~+ _ ._ C ^ ~= • ~-!, ~ r F- • ~ Fi - c+ '~' C F-~ r• C ,. •1 -_~ - c` !~ ,. `) :: `< j C: _ '~ ^, ~ C S' c-* ~~, - N ry ~ `. , ~ C. ~ • ~ ? N A O _I w r 0 D D Z G7 ao m x E. 78th ST. w ~ ~ 1 ~ ~- i l i l ~ ~ ~~ I a '~~ -80~- -- ~8~ 7~-22 Sidewalk ntings--~ °, nn I' w U ~^PlantincLs - _ _r ~ 1 - CROP-OFF ~ANF E-~ - E-. ~ ~ I' f / - I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor Council Letter No 218 ;Agenda July 26.,.:.,.1976 and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: j `Preliminary Engineering Report. on Permanent Street Construction and Street Lighting Proposed `for 1977 At the city council meeting of ji~;ne 16, 1976; the city council adopted a resolution requesting a preliminary engineering report on the approximately six miles of permanent street improvements and treet .lighting :proposed for construction in 1977. Attached to thi council letter are copies of the engineering reports for Project Areas 12 , 1q A and 15. A shaded map showing. the areas where the street paving and lil hting is scheduled during 1977 is also attached:. It is"recommen ed that the city council adopt the attached resolution, receiving tYie preliminary engineering report and confirming the date of public hearing fort is project. The hearing .date is scheduled for September 27, 1976'. .Respectfully submitted, ~• , Wayne S. Burggraaff City IVlanager WSB/bll ..~.~n..~y . ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS MINNEAPOLIS, MINTJESOTA PRELIMINARY Ri~PORT & ESTIP~i.ATE OF COST ON PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT NO. 686 STREET PAVITJG AREA NO. 12 CITY OF RICHFIELD, i•ZINNESOTA JULY 9, 1976 • I. TYPE OI' WORK Street paving and lighting. II. DESCRIPTION OF Ch'ORK Permanent street surface, concrete curb and gutter and street .lighting. III. LOCATION OF PROJECT • Street Improvement Area No. 12, bounded on the west by I-35W, on the north by the 62nd St. Crosstown, on the east by West Pleasant Avenue north of 66th Street and south of 66th Street by Lyndale Avenue South and on the south by 66th Street from West Pleasant Avenu!.e to Lyndale Avenue South and Wood Lake. west of Lake Shore Drive and Lyndale Avenue South. The streets in this area not included in this project are 66th Street from. I-35W to West Pleasant~Avenue,:65th Street from Rae. Drive to _~ West Pleasant Avenue, Rae Drive from 65th Street to 66th Street, Graham Avenue from 65th Street to Lyndale Avenue South, Circle Place from Graham Avenue to •Lyndale Avenue South, Lyndale Avenue South from the 62nd Street Crosstown to Lake Shore Drive and Grand Avenue South from 65th Street to 66th Street. IV. LENGTH OF PROJECT 3.6 raffles . V." SPECIAL CONDITIONS In Area No. 12, there are three streets excluded from the Project that aren't already paved, Graham Avenue, Circle Place and Grand Avenue from 65th Street to 66th Street. These streets are in the redevelopment area and will not be constructed at this time. VI. FEASIBILITY From an engineering standpoint, Project No. 686 is feasible and can best be accomplished as proposed. Richfield PR Improvement No. 6a6 Page 1 of 3 VII. ESTIMATED COST Street Construction Cost • Residential Streets Indirect Cost (20%} Total Street Cost Ornamental Street Lighting Street Lighting Indirect Cast (200) Total Ornamental Street Lighting Cost TOTAL PROJECT COST $522;000.00 104,400.00 626,400.00 81,000.00 16,200.00 $ 97,200.00 $723,600.00 VIII. PROBABLE ASSESSMENT The assessments presented below are the average estimated assess- ments based on the 1975 projects. Frontage Assessable - Streets Residential (Front & Side) 17,830 ft. @ 11.60/f t. _ $206,828.00 Residential . .. (Side Only) Driveways 1,230 ft. @ 260 @ 3.60/ft. _ 100.00/ea. 4,428.00 26,000.00 tJon-Residential (Front & Side) 1,760 ft. @ 24.65/ft. = 43,384.00 Non-Residential . ~ (Front Only) -285 ft. @ 17.00/f t. = 4,84.00 ilon-Residential (Side Only) 2,985 ft. @_ 7.65/ft. = 22,835.00 Driveways 13 @ 100.00/ea. = 1,800.00 Non-Residential ('15 o Engineering Cost) 11, 000.00 . Total Assessable X321,1.20.00 Street Lighting 13,875 ft. @ .2.00/ft. _ $ 39,750.00 Total Assessable $ 39';750.00 Grand .Total Assessa ble $360,870.00 IX. AREA TO BE ASSESSED Tlie property served y the improved streets , Area 2~0. 1 2, bounded west by I-35W, on the north b y the 62nd Str eet Crosstow n, on .the east by West Pleasant Avenue north of 66th Street and S outh of 66th Street by Lyndale Avenue and on the so uth by 66th Street from west Pleasant Avenue to Lyndale Avenue South .and Wood Lake west of Lake Shore Drive and Lyndale Avenue South. The property served by Graham Avenue from 66th Street to Lyndale Ave nue South, Circle Place and Grand Avenue south from 65 t1i Street to 66th Street will not be assessed u nti' triey'are constructed. Richfield PR Improvement No. 6.86 Page 2 of 3 I• I• I hereby certify t~'iat this plan, specifi- cation or report was prepared. by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of P~innesota. ~~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~i"J` eRoy i. J. N hus Date: July 9, 1976 Reg. No. 10981 i Richfield PR Improvement No. 585 Page 3 of 3 i - y. _. ~~ is ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERUTI & ASSOCIATES, TNC. ' CONSULTING ENGIIIEERS P4ITdIQEAPULIS, MINNESOTA PRELIMINARY REPORT & ESTIMATE OE' COST ON PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT NO. 68'6 .STREET PAVING AREA NO. 14-A CITY OF RICHFIELll, MITNESOTA JULY 9, 1976 I . • TYPE OF PORK Street paving and lighting. II. DESCRIPTION OF WORK Permanent street surface, concrete curb and gutter and street. lighting. III. LOCATIOTI OF PROJECT Street Improvement Area IJo. 14-A, bounded on the east by 21st Avenue South, on the South by East 69th Street, on the west by State Highway No. 36 and on the North by East 68th Street. This area also includes the East Service Road, State Highway TJ~. 36 from East 68th Street to East 66th Street. IV . LENGTI-i OF PROJECT 1~.0 mile. ~ ~ _ V. FEASIBILITY Fzom an engineering standpoint Project No. 686 is feasible and can best be accomplished as proposed. VI. ESTIMATED COST Street Construction Cost Residential Streets $127,200.00 Tndrect Cost {200) 25,400.00 Total Street Cost $152,600.00 Ornamental Street Lighting *Street Lighting $ 20,000.00 Indirect Cast (200) 4,000.00 Total Ornamental Street ', Lighting Cost $ 24,000.00 Total Project Cost $176,600.00 Richfield Improvement 686 PR Page 1 of 2 ~* , J,.,y *Included in the estimate. for. street lighting is the cost of . lighting the East Service Road, State Highway No. 36 from East 69th Street to East 66th Street. VII. PROBABLE ASSESSMENT The assessments presented b~lora are the average estimated assessments based on the 1975 projects. Frontage Assessable Streets .Residential (Front & Side). Driveways *Non-Residential ;(Front Only) *IJon-Residential (15% Engineering Cost) *Total Assessable Street Lighting *Total Assessable 3,280 ft. @ $11.60/f t. _ $ 38,048.00 54 @ 100.00/ea. = 5,400.00 2,594 ft. @ $17.00/ft. = 44,098.00 6,615.00 (Streets) _94,1.61.00 5,874 ft: @ $ 2.00/f t. = 11,748.00 (Lighting) 11,748.00 *Grand Total Assessable $105,909.00 *Included in the estimated assessment is the assessing of. Metro- politan Airports Commission Property. VIII. AREA. TO BE ASSESSED The property served by improved streets, on the east by 21st Avenue South, on the Street, on the west by State Highway No. by East 68th Street. This also includes State Highway No. 36 from .East 68th Stre Date: July 9, 1976 Richfield Improvement 686 Area No~. 14-A, bounded south by East 69th 36 and on the north the East Service Road, ~t to East-66th Street. Reg. No. 10981 PR Page 2 of 2 I hereby certify that this plan, specifi- cation or report was repared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ~. _, _ ORR-SCHELEN-DZAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. COT•dSULTING ENGINEERS _ MINNEAPOLIS, b1INNESOTA PRELIMINARY REI~ORT & ESTIT~IATE OF COST ON PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT NO. 686 ' STREET PAVING AREA N0. 15 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA JULY 9, 1976 I. TYPE OF WORK Street paving and lighting. II. DESCRIPTION OF WORIC Permanent street surf ace,. concrete curb and gutter and street lighting. III. LOCATION OF PROJECT Street Improvement Area No. 15, Lyndale Avenue South from West 74th Street to Lake STzore drive. IV. LENGTH OF PROJECT 0.82 miles. V. SPECIAL CONDITIOI~IS The improvement of Lyndale Avenue from West 74th Street to Lake Shore Drive will be 44 feet wide and constructed to State Aid Specifications. VT. FEASIBILITY From an engineering standpoint, Project Ito. 686 is feasible and can best be accomplished as proposed. VII. ESTIMATED COST Street Construction Cost State Aid Streets $229,500.00 Indirect Cost (200) ~ 45,900.00 Total Street Cost X275,400.00 Ornamental Street Lighting Street Lighting $ 23,000.00 .Indirect Cost (200} 4,600.00 ', Total Ornamental Street Lighting 27,600.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $303,000.00 Richfield PR Improvement 686 Page 1 of 2 "+ . .+ . i• I• VIII. PROBABLE ASSESST~lENT ~. The assessments presented below are the average estimated assess- ments based on the 197,5 projects. Frontage Assessable Streets Residential ~ ' (Front Only) 4440 l.f. @ 8.00/ft. $35,520.00 Driveways ~ 35 @ 100.00/ea. 3,500.00 Non-Residential 1180 (Front Only) l.f. @ 17.00/ft. 20,060.00 , Driveways 2 @ 100.OU/ea. 200.00 Non-Residential (15o Engineering. Cost) bl l ~ 3 X039.00 62 319 00 e Tota Assessa , . Sheet Lighting 5620 ft. @ 2.00/ft. 11,240.00 Total Assessable 11,240.00 Grand Total Assessable ~ $73,559.00 IX. AREA TO BE ASSESSED The property abutting Lyndale Avenue South between tiTest 74th Street and Lake Shore Drive in Area No. 15. I hereby certify that this plan, specifi- cation or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of T•4innesota. LeR y H:~ J. Ny~~~ Date: July 9, 1976 Reg. No. 10981 Richfield Iraprovement 68'6 PR Page 2 of 2 .Y y 7 y y X y ~~ ~ i i i S ! f / i 3 t 't' '7' i t i t 3 3 i i a a « a« a« a a a a g « « I~ 0~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D D D Cn N ~ NGx6 •V[ - w•fNlUNx •K ~ ~YxK[NT •v[. w,EN .K ,N.N.. •vf. yl[NIDYI wE. Nu3t4l •v[. EENN •vE anEN •vf. xtw,ON •vC. NOxtEx •vf. t94W •vE. NNDx 1v F. J •VF. Mv~M6 1v[. EMn~ ow[YE. lNtNwl •vE. tNCN5p1 •v E. plrplT •vE. car•x •vE. •ux¢x •~E Evxp4E •vE, 4ENriEEO •vf N/ANt, wf. r~EE,xN..K. w(lllwlY,N •vE. .N~f~rE.~.f E,EVfx9 •vf. IN •v[ ei, <Ex,.xN •~f , I alE lvt. Ern •vE. ~.f.Nt •.E. <N,<.~ •~ 0 eD .v[rE. ,,,..TE .<~x,N<,<N •.E. 16tl •vt. . ,r,, tvE. / M~• AK fuorumr •vc. nix at. tOl• AVE. tIN •V[. ter •vE. flwdfx •v[. n~E •vE. -- ----------------------t'------- - --------------- --- -. .fNYtl •vf. -- -- ------ ppO~~ }~ ~ CJ~~3E ~ l ~ ..,xf~NN M.. T7lT~C1f_p3 l-~ _ _ ~~E~~(~ 1CJC= -. wTNN .~f _1[~CJC=JC~O L~I~C~~ ~`w~~1L~~ ~1C --_- ,N~„ •K -=JC~7p7OC~ ~E~E~~3D~p~ >„fN~N.K. 4 ~ ( ~[~C~ ~E~~~pp ~~ C-; NxE,fff .. ~~- p ~!___- _~o_ oC~~oCO_~p~~~~~ ~p~_ ' a~N'~~f ~~C -._ ~ C-7C~C~C~C-J [~[~C1C~ _ M[wT.N •vf. C f ___~ -. - - } f00.W .vE. p ~ ~ pp~_~L_~~C_~~_,:~,__ r_~_ o~C~ MN..; ..Nf, •~f ___.__ ~ 1 ,... ~ ~~ _~; J[ -]f~ ~JC~L~pJ[p' ~NEao, •xE J~-_ -~' i WNSno •vE y r~ ~ D m ~ m \\ /~ ~ rn ~Cp W p ~~ ~ ~ pJDp ? ~ ~ .N,...T ..E s _ f i _- -~~,` ~ 1 __ ~ ~ ~) ~' ~ ~ ~ c---~ ~~ LL.N<x WE. ~ ErxouE aE I t~ _ _ - ~~~~ ~ ~~ /~ wNrE,o .~E ~ ~ _ _ lf~y ~ xKNIEi •vE. ~. -.JCL °~ ~ ~ ~I._~; ,.~{.~ c ©o_ - - - wE•,•N,.vf. ~ _ . ~J ; ~C=Ji~CC~[~C~ ~t- _ C]C_JC ~ ~I~~pO^C) ! w.x,..N,x .K ~.NxfEf ... ~pC=_~C~CJC~ 0~~ L__11~0^1, F~C~~ n N,<oE~, •~ op[_~~~~C~ ~ C-per o~c ,E.E~..E Cr - L-~C ~~E--~Ci ~C~CJ C~I~~1 i .~E .K. [~ l~ > a VC. _ ~ ~ (~C~C~L_I-JpJ~ 1(L'-~C_~E~-- p~11C- ! .,, ~. -J' ~ [~[~~~ L~._.6°~~ L _J~~l.-~ Mxx~l:~ ~ J[ ~ Sin >vE. I~OC~C~O~J~O~C~[~ .-, ~ 04`tLwD NE [HOC=7L~OC~C~[~C-~UL~ ~. F~. ~'~ ..NN.~E. _ C~CJC~~C~CJC-JC~C-J~O1 ~ ~ ~~~ I <xK.E - C~OC~C~C~C~O~C~O~ ~ ~ . , I ~ E«bT .K- ~O[_-1~ CCJ~C7( ~ ;~~ ~L~C~D~p ~M .VC_ OCIC~OC~CII ,' 1, HOC-JCS _,~Olp \ lit-1[~[-1L_ _1f~7~J _ .E ,.,. . ~ DO ~a'-f~ -p L~~ppL~COCII~CL~C~CIC7J, ,E„, ~E ~! ~ [ _ 7C _~Cp_C=~L-_ppC~CJO~ C~C1C-1C1. - -; ~ 1 __~ 1 f.,E •.E. 9 I ~ m .~ n n n n~ ~_~_ L__JL_J ~ i ttr •.f. _ ~ ...E; ~ _ _ _ tie lift ~ ;:F ~ a' ~ ~~ 1__~_ J ! n n e•m •vf. 4a ~~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~~,~ e ~ A A \A A t D~ ~ l I O n Q w~ RESOLt'TION NO. RESOLUTION,' RECEIVING FRF.LI*`I~IARY ENC:INEERI:d(' R.EPOT'.TS ANP COtiFIp"`IT?(' DATE OF BEARING 01T PEP.*'AtVENT STRFF.T I?iPROVE~~?ENTS , OP;v'A"'F:NTAL STT?E?:T LIG}iTS AND APFURTE'.1ANCES THERETO CITY PROJECT N1O. 6Rfi CLERKS FILE NO. i~~iiEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted on the 16th day of June, 1976, reports were prepared by: Orr-Sche].en-*"averon & Associates, Inc. (Consulting Engineers) with reference to permanent street surfacing, ornamental street lights, concrete curb and gutter and appurtenances thereto anal these reports were received by the Council on July 26, 1976. NOtd, THEREF(?RE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of t}1 P_ ('itv of ~'ichField, ?~`innesota: 1. That the Council will consider the improvement of the districts hereinafter described in accordance with the reports and will consider the assessment of the property hereinafter described for benefits from the making of such improvements, the assessable areas being as .follows: Street Improvement District No. 12. Bounded on the north by the 6?_nd Crosstocn, east by west Pleasant Avenue north of 66th Street and south of 66th Street by Lyndale Avenue South, on the south by 66th Street from ceest Pleasant Avenue to • Lyndale Avenue South and iaoodlake west of Lake Shore Drive and Lyndale Avenue South, and on the caest by I-35t~?. The streets in this area not included in. this project are 66th Street from I-35W to west Pleasant Avenue, 65th Street from Rae Drive to west Pleasant Avenue, Rae Drive from 65th Street to 66th Street, Graham Avenue from 65th Street to Lyndale Avenue South, Circle ?'lace from Graham Avenue to Lyndale Avenue South, Lyndale Avenue South from ttie 62nd Street Crosstown to Lake Shore Drive and (;rand Avenue South from 65th Street to 66th Street. Assessable Area. Property abutting the improved streets in Street Improvement Area No. 12, bounded on the north by the G2nd Street Crosstown, on the east by t~7est Pleasant Avenue north of 66th Street and south of 66th Street by Lyndale Avenue, on the south by 66th Street from tdest Pleasant Avenue to Lyndale Avenue South and Woodlake west of Lake Shore Drive and T.vndale Avenue South and on the west by I-35t~]. The property abutting Graham Avenue from 66th Street to T,vndale Avenue South, Circle',P1ace and Grand Avenue south from 65th Street to 65th street will not be assessed until they are constructed. Street Improvement District No. 14-A. Bounded on the north by Fast 6Qth Street, on the east by 21st Avenue South, on the south by East 69th Street and on the west by State Highway No. 36. This area also included the cast Service ??oad, State Highway No. 36'from Fast 68th Street to East 66th Street. Assessable Area. Tlie property abutting improved streets i.n the Street Improvement Area No. 14-A bounded on the north by East 68th Street, on the east by 21st Avenue South, on the south by East 69th Street, and on the west by State ??ighcaay '~?o. 36. This also includes the East Service P.oad, State ~iighway Nn. 36 frnm East 68th Street to East 66th Street. • Street Improvement District :~Io. 15. Including Lyndale Avenue South from t•'est 74th Street to Lake Shore Prive. Assessable Area. The property abutting Lyndale Avenue South het~•~een tdest 74th Street and Lake Shore Drive. far all or a portion of the cost of the improvements at an estimated total cost of the improvements for the three districts of 51,2(13,200. 2. A public heari.n~ will be held on Monday, Sertemher 27, 1A 76, at 7 n,P?, in the council chambers of the city hall. The city clerk shall dive nub lic notice of. this hearing on the improvements as required by law. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this 26th day of July, 1976. Loren L. Law `favor. ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran City Clerk • ;: .~ .,- - CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ~, Council'Letter No: 217 i Agenda July 26, 1976 1 ' Thee. Honorable Mayor ..and I Members of the City Council City of Richfield, Gentlemen: . Subject: Discussion of Problems Related to 62nd Street Crosstown Highway Mayor Law has scheduled a discussion for the July 26, 1976 city council meeting on problems caused by the location of the 62nd Street cros town high- way. 1Vlayor Lawjplaced this item on the council. agenda at the request of Representative Shirley ~Hokanson who surveyed residents near the crosstown highway earlier t ~ is year. This discuss on item has been .scheduled for 9:00 p.m. on the July 26 agenda to make i possible to complete action on the special assessment hearing and other busine s before this matter is considered. At he reque t of Representative` Hokanson, we have invited Richfield resi- dents living in th vicinity of the crosstown highway to participate in this dis- cussion. -The. att ched map indicates those portions of the crosstown highway which fall ;under ennepin County jurisdiction and those portions which are the respon ibility of~he Minnesota State Highway Department. Representative ( Hokanson has in ited individuals from these jurisdictions to participate in the discussion. _A c py of a news article on this subject which appeared in the June 2, 1976 Richfield Sun and a copy of a letter from Representative Hokanson con- firming the° arran ements for the council meeting is attached. • Respectfully submitted, ~• Wayne S. Burggraaf City Manager WSB/e j'a i cc• ub P lic. Work SDie r co tr I ~` Y Y Y i Y Y y E Y Y L Q " L S T .. - ~ a a s - a i a t "~ - ~+ a x x i a - r i ~ a • i• [EUa[ aY: - -~ .~RE~NJ .Y SNf [~[~x .. [_ Wf[N Jv[ 0. vC[AV.v[. ~a~M. EE JuiEi wf ENYN[~EaA E,YE iPEU0N1 .vE. , EuEaSOM AvE. WPonx •vc ~.[I o .Yf ~ OEf}${N CpvE. ....YE } 0 ~ avEVE. Is...Yf. BEOON~xcEaN .vE ~6n aK. an M lan av[ Ean SK. a a •ve. Ei~NdsxE •rL. tin W[. E...Y[. _Jf-~C-1[--7CC_--~1 __ _ CJ~C--~__ ~_~~17L~ ~ ~~~CC== ~`i_-1C -1C-~C~IC~_ C~~E~C~)C ~' r~ C____ C-JC=1 ~~~~j ~ 4f L i,-- ~ =-~I~CC~~_-.)CCU CCpCCC _~ ~. 7C . ] ___ CCC~CiC C~C:~C~~ __ _ __ ~ ~CJCCOCCICCCC~ -- f_~U s r, =T 7,. - -~E - / ~CCJ ~ Y ~ ~' T g O d~~.-._ ~-___ •~_~-~C-_ JJ 7~JCC--- C~~C-~C~7 ~L-~~ ~, `_ _ -. C C-~~]C~C~~C~C~~ ~ ~C~C,, CC~f~C~~~ OC ) 'C~^ CCCCC~I~CC C_J0001__ ;fig ~~~~~~~C ~~-~ I C~C~~ ~• 1 a -~C~ C~ ~CC- If ~CC~~~~ ~CC~oC~~~C~C~C- C oC~1CC~C~c~CC~~~! _-, ~~ CC_~CCCCC~CCC~I ~ '-' rm C~)C-JCC-'iC~C~CIC~C_)C~C~~ ~' '~ mz CCCC~oC~~~CCC ° . ~CC)CC~C~C a;f, ~ Cooo~ ~C~C~C~C)C C ,,~ X15, C_~C-7C~C~ ~_-~ 1= !CCJCC~CIC~CC~C-J~C~C~C~C~C~C !CC~~ `:T\ ~ _C_~'I---_]C-1~1C1C11C7C1[~C C~C~CJC~~I__~ ~~ C-JI~~'C C~C7CCJC~OC L _ .. _ ~_ -~ _, = "' J V NN[ENN vM. ~.[aN aY[ tINtW. aYE SN(.iWN ava v[. . E E !~ pKEN AY[ arvf[.wf. aYf. ~~ ~: - - . ~ aYf. [NO[ .YE. JAMFS •vf., Nv :EOEV' NE. 1 1 1 f[FMONE SvE EMERSON avt. avart •vE. E«j.. .YE. ~ . ~ KN e. 4PUgf avE.G ~EE=~,a..Yf. wENENO[TN .K 1 ,E.Y~ ~ ~ ~~~ ..~M.Y. ~,EaJf. ~, aYf. ~JNf vanTlln[ .Yf ~ _~1 , ~EEEw,Y, ..~ ~~ vEE EEEMT . . If ...YE. ~. ~ A ..[ I-~ . ..YE I )1 ~ . Ili ~NN<T .YE ,~ T ~ T m ~ ~ y y 9 7 '! 7 7 Z .-j ~ m 'C ~. ~ ~ Z o T u :3•i l$t~ RB:: ~.K ~° ~ ~ ~ d~fi F ], rye ~S~ o c~ ~ ~ 8 3 . E. ~ -. a A+ y po ~j r _ ~ z `Ed rp . a 3 ~n CT1 o ~ , n d ~C _~CC-!C~l~r-tCii _ _1 `i L_~ Lit-JI_Jl__1• ~ ,,, ,,,[ L ~j CL~_1C~_1C_, ~ ; itN.K. r n r n~ Cp~UC_1 1 r avE 1 LL_I ~-I ~ Yid aV[ r - ~ g 'y ~ , 1 ~. i- ` .. a ~~ ~*lrx~ ~.~ C!' M (r; ~ 4. VoO. ~ 1, (~o. 3 ;~ a ~ r`f. s~,~ rro,w ~. . . ~ - ~ rs.. Q. 1'~ papea, Int. .. „ ` '~ a ~ ~ ~ .~. . •} .-_i. ~~ ~~~ yr ~' ~~ ~ r~. rwc~ s~cT~orvs ------:._._._____ _. Wednesday. June 2 a a . c.~ O ru O ~ ., rdu ~~ ~ ~, iii i ~ ~ ~,` t~~ ~~ 9 (S{ ; F ~-~~ BY .~oxly .LISCII>/rs ~• ~S ~,_. . i .w ~ , ?" ~ ~~'~ -':I i 1 KA - i"4~ ~'' • ,The Richfield Crty Council has.. InalettertolViayorLorenLawiast Y ~:6 publle discus- Plant' of the problems with the scheduled. for Jul week, Hokanson said the problems .crosstown are a result of its ~~ lion of pr°b}ems associated w}th the residents had with the highway, and said. Dealing effectively with the ~~ Cr°sstown Hi j the solutions they sus t, ag°, she ~_ bhway. Mayor Loren bgest,.d, went situation is complicated by the loe - r ~ Law placed the }tem on the council's beyond what she expected. ` : `~ ~~ agenda at the request of Repres~nta- Complaints about the hi hwa Ceri_ tion of the hiv a r, ~ - . ~ : I, five Shirle tered on noise, mainte ante and several jurisdict~asses right through ;jF • y Hokanson. safety: Iiokanson ,aid soma resi- a , I J - Last Month Hokanson surve ed re- '•i ~I silents near the Crosstown. Y dents reported they are selling their necessary," ons, so cooperation ~j mono several governmental units is I I, homes because the crosstown creates In addition to the Cit of R' #• _ .. too many problems for them. Y rchfield .•.~ ~I Hokanson sent tPre surve Hokanson has been working, with ~l ~ ~~ ~ ~ Richf}ell residents wlro live ton° Hennepin County and the Minnesota ~_ F+ and one blcclc sor~th of the crosstcw,~ res de ay D`partrnent. Minneapolis ~ R `i To date, slightly more than one-third highway seem nts who live just north of the ~ j ~ of the questionnaires sent~out have about the ~• , . 'equally concerned - ~ been returne r ~ ~~ d. ..It.ration, she said. ~ Thi Ho s is ar kanso , ~ unbeii n, who i eveably good re- House Transportation Comem ttee~ ~q, sponse rate for this type of su,•vev," said she has been work}n 'r`,~~ she said. °°I think its a good indite- c g with th A lion that dissatisfaction with the cur- ommittee staff to determine which ~ - • rent situation exists." governmental unit has jurisdiction ° In the survey, Iiokanson specifi- mee given problems. r• •~ ~~~~.~` ~„ tally asked residents if they thou t with Richfield pub]iplans to ~ sound barriers should be construcght Director Peter Eberz later~thks f gy JQHN LISCIIEFSKA and whether maintenance was~a late~directly to theoCitions which "re- ` ~ 4 '' . ' df everything goes according. to problem. plan, by 197E P~ichfield residents will In addition to noise, respondents r Onenpossibilit'• f , y of R1Chfield's Q' ~ .- be able to reach all c}ty and county also complained about debris blow- slue solution emergency services b Y 01 atom '° y dial}ng a ing into their to problems preteen- , M simple three-digit number. yards from the hi h- from the C: osst°wn iii resulting .. ,' The systena, call 911 emergency w`"Y' she said, g ghwa ~~:~;~::~_~. Such complaints are not un~ cial legislation, Iiokanson sa rs spe- telephone service, svoald be operated mon, accordin om- haven't rutcci out the idea of intoduc ~'~~ { Marra g t° Richfield City ing a bill to cope directt ~• under a joint powers agreement' get- Wayne Burc raaff. '~ ~ among the City of Richfield, Iienne-' think you'lI find that reside I situation." y v'ith tl;e ~ ier the weekend tlu pin County, the City of Minneapolis most freeways complain aboutlthe ci]Itokplace the issue onc~dshe rated 1~Aemorial L)oy•: and most suburban Hennepin County litter," he said. " g coun- ling National Cemcte municipalities. that you'll have some ofsthese ob because, " agenda the overwhclrnin Although. the city council hasn't you build a freeway." included g ma) Y) lems when. P Y (of the responses to the surve ~'°'~ r- approved the agreement yet, it will Although residents in other Twin br}n personal narratives w ~„~*_ ~ ~~~a f~r~~ consider the subject at its June 14 Cities neighborhoods tom lain about h1eh ~~~- meetin g the problems into focus on '~"'~" g• City 14lanager Wayne :similar problems from highways need aal basis. I believe these people c Burggraaff said he expects the coun- near their homes, Iiokanson said lne c}I will a public forum to express their ~ ~ ,~ ~! pprove the agreement, crosstown situation iS es eelall COr~cerns. . e council passed a resolution in acute. P Y I. the council agrees to consider the r`~ h1975 iric~icatin~ }t was interested "«'ith freeways like 3 W ~ problems associated ;y . t e system and authorizing Gity the homes are laced well back from Cr°sstowri highway, Iiokanson s~ ~ • the roadwa ~ d BY JOIi,^v' SCIiIII)Is'1 p she would provide rnernbers with the Just as 5 • C,~t1~f:G~hICY Y,>' she said. In the data she has g<It;l~~•f,cl and arran j P'm. signals tl crosstown corridor, many homes are f°r highway de}>,~,rtrnent officials fU another workin•> d•r ; To Page 2 very near the hi ~lnva, •," Led .field citizen;,, ~ ` y for i, ~_ ~` g. ~ provide un repd~,[c ou tl:e situation. for some I •~ P•nl• sif;na!s the start of .. ..• I~.'' ;'E~ ~~~'~~~:~ ~ .~. ~ •~ Korl,rng nihhr. ...... _ _ _. .. - _- n .... .. ~ y. .. ~ ~~~ ~ 234 State Office Bldg. State Capitol ' StrPaut, Minnesota 55155 Phone:6i2/296-4239 ccl `~. M~ ~~'• Shirley Hokanson MINNESOTA STATE REPRESENTATIVE 37A Committees: Governmental Operation-Transportation-Higher Education a~~r ~ July 12,.1976 The Honorable Loren Law Mayor -City of Richfield 6414 11th Avenue So. Richfield, Minnesota 55423 7345 Russell Ave. S. Richfield, Minnesota 55423 ~~ ~~ 1g~6 J~~- 14 :• ~h~~e1d C~'ty ~anaget ~i1 Dear Loren, 3n a most cooperative manner, arrangements are now being ~• finalized far the council meeting on July 26th which will be devoted to problems created by the 62nd St. Crosstown. Peter Eberz has been most helpful in doing the "leg work" for the City. Key personnel from both the county and state will be in attendance as well as Representative Stanley Fudro, . Chairman of the House Transportation Committee and Representative Dick Lemke, Chairman of the House Subcommittee an Highways. Formal notification of the meeting is being sent to all state representatives and senators whose districts border the cross- town on bath the north and south sides and to County .Commissioner Ticen. Richfield residents who are-affected by the crosstown • also will receive formal notification. In the event that there is some facet of preparation for the July 26th meeting which has been overlooked perhaps it would be cti*eil for. us to get together before that time. A telephone conversation may suffice. I want ~to personally thank you and the members of the Council in the joint effort to serve the people of our community. Sincerely, Shirley Hokanson State Representative SH:me cc A. P. Anderson ~ . E.E.~Jacobsen van Ludeman ayne Burggraaff Peter Eberz - Vern Luettinger Not Printed at Government Expense / I / ~ it CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ~' - Council Letter No. 216 Agenda July 26, 1976 -The Honorable Njayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield] Gentlemen. Subject: Washington Park-Tennis Courts On Monday, July 12, 1976, the city council approved the pre iminary concept plan for Washington Park which included construction of four (4) new tennis courts and a practice court. The advertisement for bid appeared in the Richfield Sun on July 15-and July 22 , 19?6. The opening of bids is scheduled for 1T00 a.m., Monday, July 26, 1976. ~...~ At the .council meeting- on the evening of July 26, 1976,. the: bid minutes, bid tabulations, i,and recommendation for award of contract wall be available to the city council for action. Respectfully sub 'tted, ~. Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager I tion Director CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening July 26, 1976 Tennis .Court Construction. Washington Park City Project No. 673 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the administrative staff was called by Wayne S. Burggraaff, City Manager, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids on Tennis court Construction at Washington Park as advertised in the official newspaper on July 14 and July-21, 1976. Present: Wayne S. Burggraaff; City Manager. Don Fondrick, Park and Recreation Director Peter Eberz, Public Works Director Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk The following bids were submitted and .read aloud:. BIDDER AND BID SECURITY.. BASE BID ALTERNATE. TOTAL BID Carlson-Lavin B.B. 5% $30,471 $ 9,757 $40,228 Bituminous .Roadways, Inc. B.B. 5% 23,287 9,299 32,586 Henry 0. Mikkelson Co. B.B'. 5% Warrens Excavating Co. 30,800 10,900 41,700 B.B. S% 26,945 9,448 36,39.3 ;r ~ The City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular council, meeting of July 26, 1976: z r Thomas J. Moran City Clerk ~ ' ~, rn .-- tp N r 7 w w~ •N t-- . ~ , N r-•• ~ ~ 7 V w d w [~ O ~. O O i O ^ i r r O ' ° C3 1-- Z_ U Z Q W J O.. H O U d H O ~ V .~ •~ O N 4-- O Q1 M ~ N ?_ ~Od• O -1-~ 4! tf) H •r ~ Ln v ~d . M = U .O d t~ c,1 •r }~ 1- lOF-' >qO to r N • ~ w lyJ O CJ aG 'U ~h-d ~~ Q: i-~ W O Z (ll ~ 700 NC] '~ ~ U U` 'I-~ W ` ~ G1. to Z N *-+ i ~7~~~ r-~ W ~C tom. ~-+ s- O ~ x x x a W O • O • -N >- ~ F- -..] ~ W ~ X X X H O Z v H I • ~ ^' ? Z J ~ Z ~ X. Y. Y. X J O O O+ r O ~ O O O O ~ q t~ O M N q O Q1 ~ N w 1.C) w ^ w M w z Q ~ M ~ M II'. V3 W O O O O d O O O O W ~ n ~ N ~ O d• }•_ • w w ~ ~ ~ d _ ~ O O O O O O O O ' Q r 1~ O t.[) ~-+ F~ q O d• CO d• w N w q w dl w W O M O CO N M N M N d CY] D Q h-f Z ~ o o~ o\° o\° ^..11 O L.C) 1.() Ln t.[) m a ~ ~ ~ .~ t1 E O q ---~ -N f~ ~ Ol' O Q1 (n O 00 O r U U M U ~ ~~ tnf~Ln -N !TS-.M . ~ Ln ~ In ~ Q1 Ln ~ S- L.C) ~ O ~~ a i 3~ v i~ +~l N N¢ Y ~ ~ N~ N E > r z •r- ~ w tY d w ,G ~ w U •r > ZU N N •r +-~ to X -C w Q'' fd •r-• 'r- to 5- •r ~ Ol •r W T3 t~ O _! S.. ~-- ~ rt3 r to .- p ,C E-• I 'C3 O O 'C3 O O N O C U O .- L~. C CU Cl O •f••~ Or. - 3 O d O d ~ •r- U rt3 ~n ttf O •1•~ c~ vl cu E a> >, a~ a~ a~ Ise <v F- r r ~: ~ t.C) O S.. 3 O S.- N~ Z S.. M O -}-~ N O O O S- l.() Q [C3 CO •r r00•r NO•r rtic}••r f C ' O .I..t •O yCO C O v a~ CG N S- CU O C RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND. AWARDING CONTRACT TO BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS, INC. FOR CONTRUCTION OF TENNIS COURT FACILITIES AT WASHINGTON PARK CITY PROJECT N0. 673 Clerk's File No. BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield, Plinnesota, as follows: 1. That it is hereby determined that the bid of Bituminous Roadways., Inc. is the lowest bid, including the practice court alternate, by a responsible bidder for the construction of tennis court facilities at Washington-Park, City Project No. 673. ~~ 2q That the bid of Bituminous Roadways,. Inc. for the construction of tennis court facilities of the above referenced. project, at the price contained in their proposal of July 26, 197b, with ~- -~'~~-~°-~--~' construction cost of X32,586.00 is hereby accepted. 3. That the proposed contract between Bituminous Roadways, Inc. and the City of Richfield be given clerk's file no. and be placed on file. 4. That said proposed contract for the construction of tennis court facilities at • Washington Park is hereby approved and adopted and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute said contract for or on behalf of -the City of Richfield and the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to affix the city seal thereto. 5. That payments to be made under the terms of said contract shall be charged. . against the Project Fund. 6. That the corporate surety bond in the sum of the estimated contract price which •~ accompanies said proposed contract is hereby accepted and approved. 7. That the City Clerk is authorized and directed to return the security documents to the unsuccessful bidders upon the execution of said proposed contract. ,. Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield this 26th day of July, 1976. Loren L. ~ Law Mayor I• ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran City Clerk i R i~ ~F '. _ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA j Office of City 1V.ianager r i Council Letter No. 215 j Agenda July 26, 1976 . ~~~~ _The Honorable Mayor r and ~ ~~ Members of the City Council City of Richfield ~~ ~ ,~A ~~~'" rte, 7j~ 1~`lta+" Gentlemen: . ~ Subject: ~ Hearing on Assessment Rolls for 1975 Street Improvement Project No: 667 in Area 7 July 26, 1976 h~ s been scheduled as the hearing date on assessment rolls for the 19.75 perman~nt streef improvement construction project.; The assessu~ant hearing will cover the construction work .performed in City Project No'. 667, in • Area No. 7 shown on the attached map. Each property owner who will be assessed for this work has re~eived two letters from' the city. The first letter requested property dwners to advise the city of any defects or problems concerning the project of which the may be aware. Each response has been answered either through corrective ~ork already completed- or scheduled or through an' explanation " to the resident desc ibing the circumstances involved in the particular situation. A second letter has also been sent,' advising property owners of the date and timz of the assessm nt hearing. This letter included the amount of the assessment and an.explanation ~f the alternate ways by which-the. assessment could be paid. A total of 53:7-parce s are included in the 1975 Project Area 7. The assessment xolls for this project have been calculated in accordance with the Street Improvem nt Assessment policy adopted by the city council in June, 1970. An important elemen in the city-wide street improvement project is the position of the city council t at the assessment policy adopted in 1970 would ;remain in effect until the .enti~e project is completed in 1977. This means that all property owners would recei a equal treatment for assessment, using standardized criteria.' The 1975 as essme trolls have been adopted based on this policy. Property owners have previo sly been advised of the assessment policies at public informa- tional meetings; pu lc hearings., and by way of printed materials and audio-visual information aides pr pared by the city. Area 7 includes 537 assessment parcels. .1 ~ X X X A y ~ v 3 ~ i i 1 L e ! i . t t i i i L ~" M' i t i i i i i j a a a a a a~ a a a a s .. x ~ ; .~~[.,~.,~ ; ~~C~C~ -fin ~C~C~f~ _ _ C~ -- •~.3[«N`~vE. ~~: r-, Tx0M.3 .V[. TxM.> .v[. _ CEO ~~~~~ ~C_ ~=_r _ WF[xL .v[ [. ~_.__~~'~f: r~ ~~ ~~J~J~``-~~u~~_ ~ auEx`evc L. ,~i;r U .E~ .,[ - ~-_]C~7OC~C~C~C~C~C~ --- f-~C~C=~'~ ~ ' [E., .vE. wvice .vE. arv[e .vE. MEr/,ox ~E ` ~---7C_ _7 -----~C_=)f-JC~C=~C.-7~C~C_~C~C~~ x[wio. .vt ~~..EL C ~C~ ~ C__JC-1C~C~C=1 OC~C~C~C~ ,~ ,~E ~C -~C~7 _.mij~._ [~OC7C~C~ _ EC~CJCIV[- .,E [x0a ~rE _~'r_-_~~ -' O~.IC~OC~ OOC~C~ .A~ .>a, .v[ C JC-~1C-lOCI~__~C~L~C~ ~p~y. tIP.ROOT .v[. ~ .II ~ 1 y ~ - -~~C-~1 1~~ ~ dP.wB OOAVEVE. . _i ;__ IL_ll -~._~_~ ~ ~ J ll 11 ~J 11__11 LL~~JJ . [~E,~, .~ __ C~nC~o ~ ~ s '' 1 ; ~~ [.EMT .~E ~ ` ~l ~` -ICC~~C_.~C-~U~C~~`-J i ~ m v~~ on~c..ve M~iT .,,E ~..-_ _wY~ ~=_ ~ - C~C~~ L _1L1[~OC~ ~ ~.~ET ..E. .,..>~,T .~E ~ ~ °R !' ~ _ g , ~ i+ ~~[-~C~ C-1C~C~C~ .,E.>..T .vE. .KML[, .v ~- n xi[aE ET .VF. A~` 1C__ ~ _IE~~3C~ ~ CSC=7C~ i L~.., ~ -,r ~!= ~uC~L-IOC~CJO 1~~~J >.~E,..•i .VE. ?r-` ,_-- - _~C_.''~? ._ ~t-~OC~~~~~C=~~_! 1 [~TEA"o .,E C~C~[~C~~JC~C_1C~C=~C~O ~ ~ C~ ~ .....~E ~a~.~ .>E L~C~C~C~C~C~1 =_~~-7CJl~C~ __ ~ ~ ~ b~ j E~~.~, .vE C~C~ClOOC7C-=1C~C-JC~C~1 ~ t mg~ [.~ a.p.~E.[ LAC-7C~C~C7C7` s:~ ;•-1 i~JC~C~C~ ,oM .~E. C~O~~C~C~C~ ,`~~'~ ~JC~OC~ .,...,E .E..[ - --JC~C~[~C~~~J ~' ~ C~C~C7[=-7 ~U' .EM.~E. >„ .vE =IC~C~C~CL~C~[-IOC=-IC~[~~~C~O(='l,; ~>., .,< ,..,E _!OC~~. ~ ~~ ]~___~~~C~C~C~C~I~C~C~C~ ..E ® _ _ .. - - -, .,,..~[. ~ l~. __J[-~C"=~'--~~C~C ~ Sri a~C~C~[~[-~~~Q~ ~>,...,E ~ .~.~E,~, .vE._,~,-~C~ ~°~1 _ _ C~~~7C~C~C~C~ CI~C~On~, .,M ...E ~ „M .vE. ~~ ~ [-]L-~[-7[ ~C -- 7 h( -1[~C=1CI CSC-7f~l, - ~ 11i, .~` ,: ,,,...E [CD.e .vE .. ¢ou O ~ m „ .>E . /v LON4.EllOM .vE. i, n n M. I+ ~ Z [.... r ~ ~^ ~ i[.[ .vE. ,~ ~ z c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C1~C11(C_ 1, i,~ A...~ .. LSM M'E. Z~~~ ~ ` ~ O [ ~ L.M.vE. -~~~ '~~ ~s~ °$ ~ ~ ~ g ~~g~F Q P A i~~g ~j _ ~ z ''7 n a~n a (~ Id3 ~3 0 ~~ /r ~: A i~i~ ~ D ~ ~ iii - - ------ ----- "~{ L RESOLUTION JO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESS*tENT ON CITY PFO.TrCT ~:(;. 667, AT'rA. \'~, 7 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of ?'.ichfiel.d, Hennepin founts, Minnesota as follows: 1, That the .city clerk has, with the assistance o.f. the city engineer, calcu- lated the proper amounts to be assessed for the 1.975 Permanent Street Program, ~itv Project No. 667, Area No. 7, against every assessable lot, piece, nr r.arcel_ of land specially benefited thereby in accordance with t}ie nrovi.sions of l.aw, ant? the proposed assessment so made up was filed ~~ith the city clerk f.or more. than. 1S days prior to the assessment hearing and was. open to public inspection during said period. 2. That notice has been duly published and a rublic hearing heretofore ~ulv held as required by lane so that this council could meet and Hass upon the nronosc~c? assessment. 3. That an opportunity has been given to all interested persons to Present their objections, if`any, to such proposed assessment or to any item thereof at said public hearing . 4. That the city council has heretofore duly established City Proiect \o. h-~.7, Area No. 7, and after carefully considering all the facts, the benefits to each lot, piece or parcel of land and fully advisin~* itself in the premises, has fount? ant} determined and hereby declares that each and every lot, piece or Parcel of l.anc'. • included in said proposed assessment roll was improved by reason of. .the construction of. said City Project tdo. 667, in Area P7o. 7, and has };een and is special.l.v benefi ter' in the amount set out in said proposed. assessment roll opposite each such 1_ot, piece or parcel of land. 5. T}ie proposed total assessment in the amount of $652,91,72 is hereby affirmed, adopted and confirmed and the sums fixed and named. in said proposed assessment are affirmed, adopted and confirmed as the proper special assessment for each of said Lots, pieces, or parcels of land respectively, and said amount so set out is hereby levied against each, of the respective lots, pieces, or Parcels of land therein de.scrihed. 6, Said assessment is hereby affirmed, adopted, confirmed and shall he certified by the city clerk and filed in his office, and shall thereupon he and constitute the special assessment for said City Project No. 667, in Area No. 7, Permanent Street Program. ', 7. The assessment with accruing interest, shall be a lien upon the property included therein, concurrent with general taxes, and shall be Payable in enual annual installments!,,extending aver a period of 20 years. The first installment shall be payable on the first Monday in January of 1977. All assessments shall bear. interest at the rate of 8% Per annum. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1977, to each subsequent installment shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. ~' All assessment's and interest thereon shall be collected and paid-over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Passed by the council of the City of Richfield this 26th day of .Tu1.y, 1976, ATTEST: Loren L . Law "•'avor Thomas J. Moran City Clerk