Loading...
06-14-76 agendar e? CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 193 Agenda June 14, 1976 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Discussion of Revenue Sharing Funds At the May 26, 1976, city council meeting, the city council requested that there be !a discussion item on the June 14, 1976 city council agenda for the purpose of considering the city's future use of federal general revenue sharing funds!. ` Respectfully submitted, Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/bll c;2- y CITY OF RICHFIELD,, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 192 Agenda June 14, 1976 The Honorable 'Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Authorization of Police Officer Training Funds Periodically the Minnesota Peace Officer Training Board requires that city councils in municipalities authorize the municipality to apply for reimbursement monies for the! training of 'local police officers. The City of Richfield has made application for approximately $13,650 in reimbursement funds. However, council • approval of the attached resolution is required by the State of Minnesota before they can release this moneyto the City of Richfield. This resolution will re- affirm council 'authorization of the city manager to apply for state funds. It is recommended that the city council pass this resolution thereby authorizing the city manager to continue to apply for reimbursement for the training costsiof city police officers. Respectfully submit , t Wayne S. Burggra a ff City Manager WSB/bll i cc: Public, Sal ety Director Finance Director I i I RESOLUTION NO. 5549 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REIMBURSEMENT OF POLICE TRAINING FUNDS FROM THE MINNESOTA PEACE OFFICER TRAINING BOARD • WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as a legally incorporated municipality within the County of Hennepin and the State of Minnesota, and WHEREAS, the city council is impowered by the city charter to employ the city manager, and WHEREAS, the city manager is authorized to conduct the administration functions of the city, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the city manager of Richfield, Minnesota, is authorized to apply for reimbursement of police training funds authorized by state statute from the Minnesota Peace Officer Training Board. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of June, 1976. Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: al CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 190 Agenda June 14, 1976 The Honorable' Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen; Subject: Proposed Planned Unit Development Ordinance Planned Unit Development is a distinct type of land development control designed to provide a rational alternative to the traditional lot-by-lot residential and commercial development that has shaped the pattern of Richfield in the past. Planned! Unit Development reflects the pragmatic and systemmatic way in which the development industry today builds commercial and residential developments., The design of residential and commercial development by means of a flexible but interrelated site plan integrating housing, transportation and pedestrian' circulation with non-residential uses while preserving open, space and.natural features is an important part of a Planned Unit Development. The planning commission has reviewed two drafts of a proposed Planned Unit Development Ordinance. The commission review began by developing a general unders anding of Planned Unit Development; what P.U.D. is, how it differs from traditional zoning practices, what kind of physical development is possible through using P.U.D. as a planning tool, and how it works. In it's review of the proposed ordinance, the planning commission discussed considera- tions of zonin? techniques, ownership requirements, site plan review procedures, site requireme is and the proposed design and land use intensity (L. U. I.) standards. Changes in th:proposed ordinance resulting from the planning commission review have been incorporated into the recommended zoning amendment, which is attached to this council letter. The city a?torney has reviewed both drafts of the proposed ordinance and suggested some changes beyond those recommended by the planning commission. These changes dare also included in the attached proposed zoning amendment. In additio to adopting the Planned Unit Development Ordinance, other changes in the zoning ordinance would be necessary to retain consistency with the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. These changes would be as follows: Council Letter No. 190 -2- June 14, 1976 1. Section I13.28 - the Planned Unit Development districts of PR, PMR, PC-1, PC-2 and PI be added to the districts allowed in the City of Richfield. 2. Section '3.29, Subdivision 1 - the following words should be added: "and, it the case of a P. U. D. district with applicable P. U. D. plan". 3. Section 13.29, Subdivision 6 - the following language should be added: "provided, however, that no outdoor advertising shall be allowed in a PR or PMR district or in portions of PC-1, PC-2 'or PI districts designated for residential uses, except as may be provided in the applicable Planned Unit Development plan". I 4. Section 3.29, Subdivision 7 - the following language should be added: "off-street parking in P.U.D. districts shall be governed by Section and the-japplicable P. U.D, plan". 5. Section 3.37, Subdivision 1 - the following language should be added: "group housing development of a Planned Unit Development district shall • 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, MR, PR, PMR, or in portions of PC-s, PC-2 or PI districts designated for residential uses, except as maybe provided in applicable Planned Unit Development plan". 7. Section 13.38 A, Subdivision 2 - striking the words "residential district" and adding the words "R, MR, PR, PMR, or in portions of PC-1, PC-2 or PI disltricts designated for residential uses, except as may be provided in applicable Planned Unit Development plan" . 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 restrictions for commercial property, which are attached, should be used to amend the existing 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 Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet redevelopment plan. Planned Unit Development provides the only effective method for accomplishment of this redevelopment plan. Council Letter N',o. 190 - 3- June 14, 1976 Recommendation, It is the recommendation of the planning commission that the city council adopt the Planned Unit Development Ordinance as an amendment to the Richfield Zoning Ordinance, Section 3, Park 4. It is also recommended that the council adopt the necessary changes ( 1 through 9 above) in the remainder of the city zoning ordinance. Respectfully submitted, Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/bll cc: Planning Director i AMENDMENTS TO THE R I-C H F I E L D ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 3, PART IV ZONING REGULATIONS r. Staff Report May 1976 00. - 'PLANNED UNIT°DEUELOPP04T ZONING DISTRICT Title page (s) Purpose-------- --------------- ------------------------------------- 1-2 Subdivision 1: Establishment of Planned Unit Development District-------- 2 A. Ownership ----------------------------------- --------------------- 2 B. Integrated Design----------------------- ------------------------ 2 C. Relationship of Site to Comprehensive and Redevelopment Plan---- 3 D. Site------------------------------------------------------------- 3- E. Type of Planned Unit Developments/Allowed Uses----- ------ 3 Subdivision 2. Procedures------------------------------------------------ 4 . A. Initiating Proposal Statement and PUD Plan ---------------------- 4-5 B. Application/Planning Commission Review--------------------------- 5-7 C. Coordination of Subdivision Regulations-------------------------- 7 D. Development Schedule--------------------------------------------,- 7 Subdivision 3. Planning Commission Review - PUD Plan -------- ------ 7-9 Subdivision 4. City Council Approval - PUD Plan--------------------------- 9 Subdivision 5. Final Development Plan ------------------------------------- 9-10 -Subdivision 6. Compliance with the PUD Plan and Final Development Plan-- 10 A. Changes----------------------------------------=----------------- 10-11 B. Building Permits------------------------------------------------ 11 Subdivision.7. Plan Components as Zoning Law ------------------------------ 11. Subdivision 8. Periodic Review and Schedule Development------------------ 11-12 Subdivision 9. Bond for Conformance for Overall Development Plan----- --- 12 Subdivision 10. Criteria and Standards ----------------------------------12 A. Land Use Intensity ------------ ----------------------------------- 12 B. Land Use Intensity Rating-for Dwellings-------------------------- 13 C. Land Use Intensity Rating for Commercial and Industrial---------- 13 PLANNED 'UNIT 'DEVELOPMENT ZONING 'DISTRICT Title page(s) Subdivision 11. Method of Computing Floor Area, Open Space, Living Space, Recreation Space, Parking Requirements from Land Use Intensity Rating-------------------------------- 14 Definitions and Methods of Measurement Relating to the Land Use Intensity Ratios : Requirements and Limitations-------------------=-- 14 1. Gross Land Area---------------------------=----------------- 14 2. Floor Area (FA) ------------ 14-1S 3. Open Space (OS)-----------------------------------=--------- 15 4. Livability Space (LS) --------------------------------------- is-16 S. Recreation Space (RS) ---------------------------------------- 16 6. Car Space, Occupant and Total------------------------------- 17 . Subdivision 12. Required Land Use Intensity Ratios - LUI Table----------•, 18 n L...J Purpose: Within the zoning districts now existing or which may, hereafter be created, it is the intent of the city to provide; at the discretion of the city council, for the establishment of planned unit development (PUD) 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 districts are to be planned and developed on a unified basis. Suitability of the tracts of land for the development proposed shall be determined primarily by reference to the city's comprehensive development plan and.any redevelopment plan of the area which has been adopted by the city. Consideration shall be given to existing and surround- .ing development when establishing a .planned unit development district. It is intended that the provision of this ordinance relate only to PUD and any additional requirement established by the city council in establishing a PUD district will accomplish the purposes of zoning as set forth in Section 3.27, Subidivision 1. and other related regulations to a similar or higher degree. 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-pub- lic safety, creative design and preservation of natural scenic and recreational qualities of open spaces for a better living, working and shopping environment. For the purposes'of these regulations, a planned unit development is: 1. Land under unified control to be planned and developed as a whole; 2. In a single development or definitely programmed series of develop- ment operation,, including all land and buildings; _2- 3. To be developed according to detailed plans that include not only streets, utilities, lots.or buildings and the like, but also site plans and floor plans for all buildings as intended to be located, constructed, used and related to each other, and detailed plans for other uses and improvements on the land as related to the buildings; and 4. A program for provision,,operation and maintenance of such areas, facilities and improvements, as will be for the common use by some or all of the occu- pants, or visitors, to the district, but will not be provided, operated or maintained at general public expense. Subdivision 1. Establishment of Planned Unit Development District. A. Ownership. • . In order that the purposes of this section may be achieved, the land, buildings 4 and improvements in a proposed PUD district shall be in a single ownership or under the management and supervision of a central.authority, or otherwise sub- ject to such long-term-leases or other ownership control as shall be deemed necessary to carry out the provisions of this section. The city attorney shall review the _ownership and related documents to insure compliance with this requirement.- B. Integrated Design. The planned unit development will consist of a harmonious selection of uses in groupings of buildings, services, parking areas, traffic and pedestriancircula- tion and open spaces and shall be planned and designed as an integrated unit. If a proposed PUD district falls, in whole or in part, within a redevelopment project, the PUD plan and design shall be integrated with the general character of that redevelopment project. _3- C. Relationship of Site to'Comprehensive Plan and Redevelopment Plan. The planned unit development shall be consistent with the comprehensive develop- ment.plan and redevelopment plan(s) of the City of Richfield. _D. Site. No planned unit. development district shall contain less than 43,560 square feet in g::oss land area (GLA). See Subdivision 11, Number l for the definition of GLA. E. Type of Planned Unit Developments/Allowed Uses. A planned unit development district shall be any of the following: .Single Family Residential (PR) Multi-Family Residential (PMR) Neighborhood Commercial (PC-1) General Commercial (PC-2) Industrial (PI) ; Uses allowed in a PUD district shall be as follows: 1. Uses allowed in a "R" district shall be allowed in a PR district. .2. Uses allowed in a 'W1 district shall be allowed in a PMR district. .-3. Uses allowed in a C-1 district shall be allowed in a PC-1 district. 4. Uses allowed in a C-2 district shall be allowed'in a PC-2 district. S. Uses allowed in an "I" district shall be allowed in a PI district. Uses other than the ',permitted uses, as listed above, are allowed in a PUD district provided the use is 'one which is authorized in one of the five types of PUD dis- tricts, and provided further that such additional use cannot occupy more than 33% per cent of the gross floor are of the PUD district. Subdivision 2. Procedures. A. Initiating Proposal Statement and PUD Plan. It 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 planning 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 development district. Upon review and acceptance by the planning director, the concept proposal statement, the PUD J plan as described in below and the recommendation. of the planning director shall be referred to the planning commission for review. The following items shall be contained in the concept proposal statement: 1. A legal description of the total site proposed for development, including a statement of the present and proposed ownership. 2. A statement of the planning objectives to be achieved by the planned unit development through the particular approach proposed by the applicant. This • statement should include a description of the character of the.proposed development rationale for choices made by the applicant in the course of development of the plan. 3. A development schedule indicating the approximate date when construction of the planned unit development or stages of planned unit development can be expected to begin and to be completed. 4. Additional information as may be required by the planning director to deter- mine that the proposal is in conformance with the city's adopted comprehensive plan and any redevelopment plan. B. Application/Planning Commission Review. Upon acceptance of the concept proposal statement.by the planning director, an applicant for a planned unit development district rezoning shall apply therefore • to the city.on forms to be furnished by the planning director. The application .shall be filed with the chief inspector and transmitted to the planning director. The planning department shall then make a report and recommendation to the planning commission. The application is to be completed by the applicant and shall be accompanied by a PUD plan for the entire tract of land. The applicant shall also provide such of the following additional supporting data that the planning director may require: 1. PUD Plan shall consist of, but not be limited to, the following data as may be required by the planning director: a. All drawings required to.be part of.the PUD plan shall have a e scale of not more than 50 feet to the inch; f b. The outline, overall dimensions and the area of the tract des- cribed in the application; C. The use, existing zoning, and ownership of the subject tract and adjacent properties within 350 feet of the proposed PUD district boundaries including the location of all structures and the right- of-way widths and travel width of all adjacent public roadways; d. The existing and proposed topography of the tract with vertical topographic contour intervals not greater than two feet; e. The location, general exterior dimensions and gross floor area _.of all proposed buildings; f. A separate list of the type of use proposed to occupy each par cel, each building, the amount of building floor area devoted to each 'different use, and a legal description of all areas to be designated for uses other than the use allowed in the section; g. The proposed location, arrangement and number of automobile park- ing stalls; h. The proposed location, arrangement and general dimensions of all truck-loading facilities and all passenger loading areas including bus turn outs and shelters; i. -the location and dimension of all vehicular entrances and exits, driveways and their relationship to all existing and proposed public streets; J. the location design and dimension of pedestrian entrances, exits, -walks, skyways, plaza courts or other related pedestrian areas; k. the general drainage system; the location and dimension of all walls, fences and plantings both designed to screen the proposed district from adjacent uses and to enhance the environment of the district; m• the location and dimension of all signs and lighting including the illumination characteristics of all lighting; n•. - in half tone, black and white, show existing buildings, roads, trees, utilities and utility easements; o- preliminary building plans,.elevation sections and general speci- fications of material and unusual structural systems for the pro- posed building or buildings prepared by an architect registered in the State of Minnesota; P- site grading plan including an analysis of the adequacy of surface drainage, erosion control, visual screening and landscaping; q• as part of the PUD plan, the applicant shall submit proposed declarations of.covenants, conditions and restrictions, articles of owner's associations, and all other such documents as the city may deem necessary in such form and containing such provisions as will . .ensure that adequate property control is provided to protect the indi- vidual owner's rights andiproperty values, to establish responsibility for maintenance and upkeep, and to ensure continuing compliance with the plan. All such documents shall be subject to the review and approval of the city attorney. The city may require that such declarations of covenants, conditions i and restrictions or.other.documents provide that in the event any association or corporation fails to maintain properties in accordance with the applicable ordinances and regulations of the City.of Richfield or' fails to pay taxes or assessments on properties as they become due and in the eventthe said City of Richfield incurs any expenses in enforcing its rules and regulations, which expensesare not immediately reimbursed by the association or corporation; the City of Richfield shall have the right to assess such property its pro rata share of such expenses. These assessments, together with interest,thereon and costs of collection, shall - be a lien on each property against which each such assessment is made. C. Coordination of Subdivision'Regulations. It is the intent of this ordinance that subdivision review under the 4 subdivision control ordinance be carried out simultaneously with the review of the planned unit development under this section of the zon- ing ordinance. In addition to the PUD plan, the applicant shall sub- mit plans in a form which will satisfy the requirements of the subdi- vision control ordinance for preliminary plats. D. Development' Schedule. The applicant shall submit a proposed schedule for construction begin- ping at the',time the requested zoning may be granted by the city and continuing until all the components of the planned unit development are fully completed. If the construction.of the proposed planned unit dev- elopment is to be in stages, then the components contained in each stage shall be clearly delineated. Subdivision 3. Planning Commission Review - PUD Plan Upon receipt and review of the concept proposal statement and receipt of the appli- cation and PUD plan, the planning director shall refer the PUD plan to other departments -and agencies for review. Within thirty (30)'days.after the receipt of the written • concept proposal statement, PUD plan and application, the planning director shall recommend to the planning commission: 1. Approval of the proposal in the form submitted; 2. Approval with modifications; or 3. Disapproval of the PUD plan. The recommendation of the planning director shall include' findings of fact, and shall set forth the reasons for the recommendations specifying with particularity in what aspects the plan would or would not be.in the public interest, including but not limited to the following: 1. The extent to which the plan departs from the zoning ordinance, sub-. division regulations, comprehensive development plan and redevelopment_ plan, if any, otherwise, applicable to.the subject property, including • but not limited to density., bulk and use, and reasons why such depart- ures are or are not deemed to be in the public interest. 2. The extent to which the plan does or does not make adequate provisions for public services, vehicular-traffic control, air and light, recreation and-visual enjoyment. 3. The nature 'and. extent of open space, the adequacy of provision for maintenance and conservation of .the common open space, and the ade- quacy or inadequacy of the amount and function of open space in terms of the densities proposed in the plan. 4. The impact, beneficial or adverse, of the planned unit development-- project upon the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be established. • S. In the case of a plan that proposes development over a period of years, the sufficiency of the terms and conditions proposed to protect and maintain the integrity of the plan which findings shall be made only -9- after consultation with the city attorney.: 6. The relationship of the proposed structures to existing structures, to any redevelopment plan, and to anticipated future development of the area; , Within forty-five (45) days after receiving the planning director's report, the planning commission shall hold a public hearing on the application. Within forty-five (45) 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. Subdivision 4. City Council Approval PUD Plan. -After the planning commission has made its recommendation, the city clerk shall set a date for public hearing before the city council. The council shall con- sider the PUD plan at a public hearing after giving notice as provided in Sec- tion 3.42, Subdivision 4. of the city code of ordinance. If approved by,the city, the PUD plan shall be adopted by resolution subject to such conditions or restrictions as may be imposed by the council, and the area of land shall be redesipmated as a planned unit development district by ordinance. The resolution -approving the PUD plan shall not become effective until the effective date of the ordinance designating the area,as a planned unit development and until 'a final plat and final plan have been submitted to and approved by the planning director and.city attorney. Subdivision 5. Final Development Plan. Upon approval of the PUD plan by the city council, the applicant shall submit to the planning director, a final development plan which shall consist of the following: A. If required, a final plat of that segment of land to be developed, i or-if to be developed in stages, the plat of the stage to be developed first; t • -10- B. A site plan sufficient for recording the engineering drawings and ti consisting of the following on a-drawing to scale of not more than 50 feet to the inch: 1. The adopted PUD plan with required modifications stipulated by the city council; 2. A legal description of the PUD zoning district; 3. Location and dimension of major natural feature and existing feature which will remain on the tract of land; 4. Location, dimension and arrangement of buildings, streets, drives, truck loading areas, automobile parking areas, vehicle entrances and exits, pedestrian entrances and exits, walks, skyways, plazas and courts, bus turn out and bus shelters, wall fences and plant- ings designed to screen the district from adjacent uses, signs and lighting. S. Topography; 6. Landscaping; 7. Location of uses; 8. In addition, the final development plan shall consist of the declaration. of convenants, conditions and restrictions and articles of ownership. If the final development plan and final plat are not submitted within the time allowed, approval of the PUD plan shall become void and the applicant must pay the application fee and start the process again. Subdivision 6. Compliance with the PUD Plan and Final Development Plan. A. Changes The development of the planned unit development district shall be in sub- stantial compliance with the approved PUD plan and final development plan. Compliance shall not be considered substantial if there is: ' -11- 1. more than 10 per cent change in floor area; 2. more than a 10 per cent change, in the original approved separa- tion of buildings; 3, any change . in the original approved setbacks from property lines; 4. more than 5 per cent change in the ground area covered by the building; 5. any change in the ratio of off-street. parking and loading space to-gross floor area in the building. $. Building Permits. No building permit shall be issued for any structure within the PUD dis- trict unless and until the planning director certifies-th,.t it conforms to the provisions of the final development-plan. Upon approval by the planning director, the building permit application along with the appropriate information required for building peimi.ts be submitt. to f the chief inspector, who shall process the building permit in confor- mance to the'-City of Richfield building code as adopted in Section 3.02, Subdivision 1. Subdivision 7. Plan Components as Zoning Law. The final development plan and any stipulations and restrictions imposed.-by--the city council, shall-govern and control the use of land involved. Subdivision 8. Periodic Review and Schedule Development. If no construction has been done in the planned unit development within twelve -months from the effective date of the approval ofthe planned unit development, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect. A resolution from the City Council shall be made documenting the lapse of approval. The city council upon showsing good cause by the developer may extend for a period of twelve months, the time for the beginning of construction. The applicant must begin and sub -12- stantially complete the development of the planned unit development within two years from the time of its approval. If the planned unit is to be developed in stages, the applicant must begin and substantially complete the development of each stage within two years of the time provided fremthe start of construction of each stage of the development schedule. If the applicant does not begin and substantially complete the planned unit development or any stage of the planned unit development, within the time limit imposed by the preceding section, the planning director shall review the plan and development schedule and may recom- mend to the city council that the time for the completion of the planned unit development be extended, that the approval of the planned unit development be revoked, or that the planned unit development be amended. Subdivision 9. Bond for Conformance for Overall Development Plan. Upon approval of the PUD plan by the city council and before the chief inspector issues building permit(s), the applicant shall provide the city with a performance bond in the amount of 10 per cent of the estimated value of the proposed building(s) and improvements in the area designated as planned unit development, Upon completion of planned unit development as approved by the city council, inspection by the planning director and chief inspector and approval by the city council, the performance bond may be released. Subdivision 10.. Criteria and Standards. A. Land Use Intensity. The maximum land use intensity rating for dwellings permitted in a PUD district shall be determined by gross land area of the tract of land and the proposed type of planned unit development district. -13- B. The land use intensity rating for dwellings shall be as follows: GROSS LAND AREA PR & PC-1 PMR, PC-2 & PI SQUARE FEET Acres LUI RATING' LUI RATING A. 43,560-87,120 1-2 .40 48 B.. 87,120-130,680 2-3 43 50 C. 130,680-174,240 3-4 45 52 D. 174,240-217,800 4-5 48 54 E. 2173,800,-261,360 5+ 50 56 F. over 261,360 6+ 55 58 C. 'The land use intensity (LUI) rating for commercial and industrial uses shall be as follows: . GROSS LAND AREA SQUARE FEET R & PC-1 LUI RATING PMR, PC-2 & PI. LUI RATING A. 43,560-87,120 30 38 B. 87,120-130,680 33 42 C. 130,680-174,240 35 44 D. 174,240-217,800 38 48 E. 217,800-261,360 40 50 F. over 261$60 45 52 Subdivison 11. Method of Computing Floor Area, Open Space, Living Space, Recrea- tion Space, Parking Re quirements from Land Use Intensity Rating. For the purposes of 'a planned unit development district, land use intensity (LUI) applicable to the particular type of planned unit development (PR,- PMR, PC-1, PC-2, • and PI) shall be established by the above tables and the ratio of floor area, open space, living space, recreation space, parking shall be establ ished by the use.of -14- the WI tattle, Subdivision 12. ' t Definitions and Methods of Measurement Relating to'the Land Use 'Intensity Ratios: Requirements and Limitations. l . Gross Land Area Definition and Method of Measurement. Gross land area of the planned unit-development district shall be computed as all tract(s) of land within the proposed district boundaries plus half of the adjoining permanent open space such as streets, parks, lakes, cemeteries, and the like, provided that the width of such open space shall be limited to the number of feet equal to the land use intensity rating applying to the land involved. 2 . Floor Area (FA) Definition and Method of Measurement. For the purposes of determining the floor area, the LUI table in Subdivision 12, shall be applied to the gross land area. The floor area of the building(s) shall be construed as the sum' of the areas of the several floors of the building measured - from the outside faces of-the exterior walls, or from the center line of the wall separating two buildings, including halls, lob bies, stairways, elevator shafts, enclosed porches and balconies, and below grade floor areas used.for habitation.--Not-countable as. floor area are: (1) open terraces, patios, atriums, or bal- conies; (2) carports, garages, breezeways, tool sheds; (3) spec- ial purpose areas for common use of occupants, such as recreation room, social hall; (4) staff space for therapy or examination in care housing; (5) basement space not usedfor living accomodations. The maximum floor area shall not exceed the number of square feet. derived by multiplying gross land area by the floor area ratio (FAR) applying in the land use intensity table, Subdivision 12. 0 t d., covered open space may include covered balconies, covered por- tions of improved roofed areas; or spaces under buildings supported on columns or posts. -15- ' 3'. Open Space (OS) Definition and Method of Measurement. Open space can be of a covered or uncovered character. a. open space is the total horizontal area of the uncovered open space plus half the total horizontal area of the covered open space subject to limitations set forth below; b. mcovered open space.is the total gross land area not covered by buildings, plus open exterior balconies and roofed.areas that provide recreational space; c. covered open space is usable open space closed to the sky but having two clear unobstructed openings or partially open sides. Partially open is to be construed as 50 per cent open or more; The square feet accountable as covered open space shall not exceed the square footage of the open sides. The minimum open space required shall not be less than the number. of square feet derived by multiplying gross land area by the open space ratio (OSR) applying. in the land use intensity table, Sub- division 12. Open space shall not be applied to commercial and industrial uses. 4. Livability Space (LS)Definition and Method of Computation. Livability space is part of the total open space appropriately improyled and located as outdoor living space for residents and for asthetic-appeal. Such space includes lawns and other land- -16- scaped areas, walkways, paved terraces and sitting areas, out- door recreation areas, and landscaped portions of street right- of-ways. Such.space shall not be used for vehicles, except for incidental services; maintenance or emergencies. The minimum livability space required shall not be less than the number of square feet derived by multiplying the gross land area by the livability space ratio applying in the land use intensity table, Subdivision 12. The livability space shall not apply to commercial and industrial uses. 5. Recreation Space (RS)'Definition and Method of Measurement. Recreation space is part of the total.and'livability open space; and is the exterior area appropriately approved for common recrea- tional use. In eeneral, such space shall have at least a dimen- sion of 50 feet, and`a minimum area of 10,000 square feet. A smaller dimension is acceptable if the recreation space is a suitably improved roof area. A smaller dimension in the area is acceptable if 10,000 square feet is more than the total needed or incases where anticipated needs of residents require smaller facilities; such as tot lots. Off-site permanent public recrea- tion space and facilities may be approved as meeting up to one- half the recreation space requirements if said space meets the intent of the regulations and if said space abuts the site. Minimum recreation space required shall not be less than the number of square feet derived by multiplying gross land area • by the recreation space ratio (RSR) applying in the land use intensity table, Subdivision 12. The recreation space shall not apply to commercial and industrial uses. -17- 6, Car Space, Occupant and Total -,Definition and Method of Computation. Occupant car space can be defined as parking spaces in-a garage, car port, or other off-street parking area, together with the appropriate access and maneuvering ways available to residents without an addi- tional charge or time limit. Total car space is occupant-car-space plus other parking space for unlimited or seldom limited time periods, primarily for guests. The minimum car space requirements are the occupant car ratio (OCR) and the total car ratio (TCR) from the land use intensity table times the number of dwelling units equals the number of occupant and total parking spaces required. Car space for commercial and industrial uses shall be determined by Subdivision 12. '' -18- Subdivision 12. Required Land Use Intensity Ratios - LUI Table The maximum floor area ratio, the minimum livability space ratio, the minimum recrea tion space ratio, and the minimum car space ratio for each land use intensity reading are defined by the LUI Table. L- E y b 00 N E o t C4 E? I b 2 Inten- sity Ratings 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48- 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80. LAND USE INTENSITY (LUI) RATIOS .LUI RATIOS X GROSS LAND AREA Floor Open Livability Recreation. Area Space Space Space (FAR) (OS R) (LSR) (RSR) .100 .80 .65 .025 .107 .80 .62 .026 .115 .79 .60 . .026 .123 .79 48 .028 .132 .78 SS .029 .141 .78 .54 ..030 .152 .78 S3 ..030 .162 .77 S3. ..032 .174 .77 .5 .033 .187 .77 .52 .036 .200 .76 •S2 .036 .214 .76 S1 .039 .230. ..75 .51 .039 .246 ..75 .49 .039 .264 .74 .48 .042 .283 .74 .. .48. .042 .303 .73 .46 .046 .325 .73 .46 .046 .348 .73 .45 .049 .373 .72 AS .052 .400 .72 .44 .052 .429 .72 .43 .055 .459-- .72 .42 .056. .492 .71 All' .059 .528 .71 Al .062 566 .71 .40 .062 .606 .70 .40 .065 .650 ..70 .40 .065 .696 .69 .40 .070 .746 .69 ..40 .075 .800 .68 .40 .080 - .857 .68 .40 .080 .919 .68 .40 .083 .985 .68 .40 - .085 1.06 .68 .40 .085 1.13 .67 All .090 1.21 .67 All .097 1.30 .67 .42 .104 1.39 .68 .42 .104 1.49 .68 .43 .104 1.60 .68 .43 .112 1.72 .68 .45 .115 1.84 .69 .46 .115 1.97 .70 .47 .118 2.11 .71 .49 .127 2.26 .72 .50 .136 2.42 .75 .51 .145 2.60 .76 S2 .145 2.79 .81 56 .145 2.99 .83 .57 .150 .86 .61 .160 LUI RATIOS X LIVING UNITS. Occupant Total Car Car (OCR) TCR 2.0 2.z L9 2.2 1.9 2.1 1.8 2.1 1.7 2.0 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.8 1S 1.8 -is 1.7 1.4 1.7 1.4, 1.6 1.4 .1.6 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 .99 1.2 . .96 1.1 .93 1.1 .90 1.1 .87 1.0 .84 1.0 .82 .99 .79 .96 .77 .93 .74 .90 .72 .87 .70 .85 .68 .83 .66 .81 .64 .79 .62 .77 .60 .75 S8 .63 .57 .71 .56 .69 .54 .67 .52 .65 SO .73 .49 .61 A7 .60 .46 .58 .45 .56 .44 .5.5 L g ? ? Parking 'Requirements 'for `Non=Residential Uses. A. Nrmiber'of Spaces 'Required. 1- Commercial and Industrial: t The required minimum number of parking spaces per each 12000 square feet or major fraction thereof of gross floor area shall be as follows, subject to the exceptions hereinafter set forth: Allowed Use Gross Floor Area Minimtiun # of Spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA Commercial 0-1,000 sq ft g 1,000-5,000 sq ft 6 over 5,000 sq ft 4 2. Exceptions: y a. automobile service stations: three spaces for each enclosed service bay and one space for each full time day shift employee; b.. medical and dental offices: four spaces for each doctor or dentist and .5. spaces per employee; c. offices: one space for each 25.0 square feet of leasable floor area; d. restaurants: one space for each three seats plus .5 spaces for each employee; e. restaurants with "on sale" liquor and taverns: one parking space for each 2.5 restaurant seats plus 5 spaces for each employee; f. churches, theatres, auditoriums, mortuaries, stadiums, arenas, lodge halls and other places of assembly: spaces equal in number to 1/3 maximum seating capacity; g. furniture, automobile and boat sales: one space for each 400 square feet of floor area for the first 25,000 square feet plus one space for each 600 square feet over 25,000 square feet; h. hotels and motels: one space for each unit plus one space for each employee. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manage Council Letter No. 188 Agenda June 14, 1976 The Honorable (Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Calling for Assessment Hearings for the 1975 Permanent Street Improvement On the council agenda for June 14, 1976 there will be two resolutions in connection with the permanent street. construction, Project No. 667. This was the street improvement project which consisted of Areas 7, 8, 9, 12A and 12B which was initiated and completed in 1975. The purpose of the attached resolutions, is to declare costs to be assessed and to schedule the assessment • hearings on this project. Due. to the size of the 1975 permanent street improvement program it is recommended that the assessment hearings be scheduled on four different Monday` nights to facilitate notification, response to citizen inquiries and other related procedures. The assessment hearings have been tentatively scheduled for: Hearing -July 26, 1976 Street, Improvement District No. 7 That area bounded on the north by 78th Street, west by Pleasant Avenue, south by 74th Street and east by Portland Avenue. Hearin - August 9 1976 Street . Improvement District No. 9 That urea bounded on the north by 66th Street, west by Penn Avenue, south by 76th Street and east by 35W. Hearin - August 23, 1976 Street Improvement District No. 8 West of L ndale Avenue That area bounded on the north by 70th Street, west by 35W and Wood Lake, south by 78th Street and east by Lyndale Avenue. i ?t Council Letter To . 18 8 -2 June 14, 1976 Hearing - September 13, 1976 Street lImprovement District No. 8 (East of Lyndale Avenue That area bounded on the north by 70th Street, west by Lyndale Avenue, south by 78th Street and east by Pleasant Avenue. . Street iImprovement District No. 12A That area bounded on the north'by 68th Street, west by Lyndale Avenue, south by 70th Street and east by Pleasant Avenue. i Street (,Improvement District No. 12B That area bounded on the north by 66th Street, west by Lyndale Avenue, south by 68th Street and east by Pleasant Avenue. It is recommended that both these resolutions be approved. Respectfully submitted, r r • Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manger WSB/bll cc: Public Work s Director Finance Director I 14 A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ZOLL FOR C. P. NO. 667 WHEREAS, the following construction was performed during the year 1975: Permanent Streets in the following areas.: Street Improvement District No. 7. That area bounded on the north by 78th Street, west by Pleasant Avenue, south by 74th Street and east by Portland Avenue. t ?J Street Improvement District No. 9. That area bounded on the north by 66th Street, west by Penn Avenue, south by 76th Street and east by 35W• Street Improvement District No. 8. (West of Lyndale Avenue). That area bounded on the north by 70th Street, west by 35W and Wood Lake, south by 78th Street and east by Lyndale Avenue. Street Improvement District No. 8. (East of Lyndale Avenue). That area bounded on the north by 70th Street, west by Lyndale Avenue, south by 78th Street and east by Pleasant Avenue. Street Improvement District No. 12A. That area bounded on the north by 8th Street, west by Lyndale Avenue, south by 70th Street and east by Pleasant Avenue. Street Improvement District No. 12B. That area bounded on the north by 6th Street, west by Lyndale Avenue, south by 68th Street and east by Pleasant Avenue. and WHEREAS, the city share of costs have been paid in the sum of $5,090,OOG.00. NOW, THEREFORE,', BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the cost of permanent street construction in the above described areas to be specially assessed is hereby declared to be at least 20% of the total cost, or $5,090,000.00, and therefore this sum will be assessed against privately owned property benefited thereby. 2. That said assessment shall run for a period of 20 years and include interest at the rate of 8% per annum. 3. The city clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land affected without regard to cash valuation, as provided-by law, and he shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 0 r _ .2 4. The clerk shall notify the council upon completion of such proposed assessment. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of June, 1976. r ATTEST; Thoxgas J. Moran City Clerk. I7 41 Loren L. Law Mayor ?r 4 RESOLUTION NO. I1i f RESOLUTION CALLING HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR PERMANENT STREET'IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CITY PROJECT NO. 667 WHEREAS, by Resolution No. passed by the council on the 14th day of June, 1976 the city clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment roll of the cost of permanent street construction., City Project No. 667, and WHEREAS, the city clerk has notified the council that such proposed assessement has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City'of Richfield, MInnesota, as follows: 1. A public hearing shall be held on the following dates in the council chambers.of the Richfield City Hall at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such-improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such improvement. VHed;ring - July 26, 1976. Street Improvement District No. 7. That area bounded on the north by 78th Street, west by Pleasant Avenue, south by 74th Street and east by Portland Avenue. Hearin August 9, 1976. Street Improvement District No. 9. That area bounded on the north by 66th Street, west by Penn Avenue, south by 76th Street and east by 35W. Hearing'- August 23, 1976. Street Improvement District No. 8. (West of Lyndale Avenue). That area bounded on the north by 70th Street, west by 35W and Wood Lake ,'south by 78th Street and east by Lyndale Avenue. Hearing - September 13, 1976. Street Improvement District No. 8. (East of Lyndale Avenue). That area bounded on the north by 70th Street, west by Lyndale Avenue, south by 78th Street and east by Pleasant Avenue. Street Improvement District No. 12A. That area bounded on the north by 68th Street, west by Lyndale Avenue, south by 70th Street and east by Pleasant Avenue. Street Improvement District No. 12B. That area bounded on the north by 66th Street, west by Lyndale Avenue, south by 68th Street and east by Pleasant Avenue _ 2 2. The city clerk is hereby. directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published in the official newspaper at least two. weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total assessable cost of the improvement in the amount of $5,090,000.00. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this' 14th day June, 1976. Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST `Thomas J. Moran City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable M,iiayor and 1. Members of the City Council City of Richfield r Council Letter. No. 187 Agenda June 14, 1976 //7 Gentlemen Subject: Planning Commission Recommendation for Approval of Hennepin County Transportation System Study For the past year and one-half, city staff representatives and Planning Commissioner Giertrude Ulrich have participated in the development of a Hennepin County Transportation System Plan for the year 2000. This participation has been through an advisory committee with forty-five other communities. This council letter is placed ion the agenda for council review and comment on the draft final report for this systems plan. A copy of the report on the Hennepin County System Plan was forwarded to the city council in January for your review. The purpose of the systems plan is to update the old 1959 Hennepin County Highway Plan. The Hennepin County Transportation System Study (HCTSS) .is a plan for the yg'ar 2000 Hennepin County Transportation System. Because it is a system plan, this study does not address operational problems, staging or costs. As a part of Sub-Area 1 in Hennepin County (which includes Richfield, Edina, Bloomington, E en Prairie and Chanhassen) Richfield's representatives met with county staff an consultant to discuss Richfield's transportation issues to be addressed by th study. Council members may also recall that staff and council of Richfield, B1, omington, Edina, and Eden Prairie were invited to a joint meeting to further discu s this matter. The city's existing demographic characteristics, roadway types, functional classification, traffic volumes and transit service were all analyz d in terms of their anticipated year 2000 transportation performance capabilities. From this analysis, three alternative Hennepin County roadway systems were developed and reviewed by the various community representatives. Based on existing and pr jected need, functional and jurisdictional transportation alterna- tives were iden ified and evaluated. Input from Richfield's representatives, together with tchnical analysis, were used to assess the alternatives as they relate to 'Richfi ld. This evaluation resulted in a recommended functional and jurisdictional classification system for county roadways in Richfield. i I I . Council Letter No. 187 -2 June 14, 1976 The existing functional and jurisdictional county road activities and the recommended alternatives are as follows: t FUNCTIONAL Alternative Roadway Existing Function Recommended Function Nicollet Avenue; Minor Arterial Collector (C.S.A..H. 52) j between Crosstown 62 and Old Shaklopee Road Reason for Recommended Alternative The close proximity to Lyndale and Portland Avenues and lack of an inter- change at County Road 62, make this alternative desirable. This change conforms to the L/H/N Transportation Plan. Exhibit A defines the functional classification system. JURISDICTIONAL Alternative Roadway Existing Jurisdiction Recommended Jurisdiction Crosstown 62 between County of Hennepin State of Minnesota T. H. 55 and I-315W and between I-35W and U.S. Highway 169/21':2 Reasons for CY an e The high volumes, regional importance and intermediate arterial function make this change des rable. The change provides continuity of state jurisdiction which presently exists over adjoining section of I-35W. Alternative Roadway Existing Jurisdiction Recommended Jurisdiction York Avenue bet een Municipality of Edina County of Hennepin 66th Street and I-494 Reasons for Can e The regional as iect of this road as an access to Southdale from I-494 and County Road 62} and the high volume of traffic makes it y desirable to change the jurisdiction of this road from the City of Edina to the dounty i i i i Council Letter No. 187 -3 June 14, 1976 The draft final report of the Hennepin County Transportation System planning project also includes general recommendations on transit services, bikeways and sidewalks. In response to the problems of roadway capacity, future travel demand and existing transit service identified in the study, the following general recommenda- tions were made: Transit - 1. In the designs and redesign of county roadways, the county, in cooperation with the MTC and other governmental agencies, should plan and implement the appropriate street-related transit improvements. The non-federal share of financing for the improvements on the county roadway. system (i.e. , bus pullouts, bus pads, signal actuation, bus turnarounds, bus lanes, etc.) should be the responsibility of the county. The local share of financing for the improvements adjacent to the county roadway system .(i.e. , shelters, park-ride lots, and community bus stations) should be shared by the MTC, county, and municipality. 2. Public works !capability exists at three levels of government--state, county, and municipal. The capability at the municipal level varies depending upon need and community size. When a street-related transit facility off the county roadway system is required and the municipality requests assistance, the county should contract with the municipality to provide engineering design services for the implementation. Two significant advantages for the county toj serve as the agency initiating the design and implementation of street-related transit facilities are: -- uniform treatment of design problems -- per onnel efficiencies, training minimum number of persons for work and making continued use of their skills this 3. The MTC is the agency with responsibility for the implementation of programs oriented to reducing vehicular travel demand by encouraging usage of para transit and other low capital alternatives. The county should work with the MTC, especially when a problem directly impacts the county roadway system or when a problem involves more than one municipality. Bikeways. • 1. The county public u works department should be knowledgeable about bikeway plans, coordinate inter-municipal problems and implement the plans as related to the county roadway system. 2. The specific designs to incorporate the bikeways adjacent to county roads should be th responsiblity of the county public works department with approval from the agency making the proposal. V. i Council Letter No. 187 -4- June 14, 1976 3. The cost sharing of the bikeways should vary by class type according to Exhibit e. Sidewalks 1 . If pedestrian needs exist along a county road, meeting the pedestrian needs will laminate conflict with vehicles 2. The countyihas responsibility to provide a safe facility through proper design of pedestrian facilities. This can help to assure a safe pedestrian environment, i 3. A policy of the Transportation Section of the Metropolitan' Development Guide is to? encourage multiple use of a corridor, including roadways, transit>facillities, bikeways, and sidewalks: i Recommendation The planning commission recommended that the. study be approved. The commission is satisfied,that the concerns for Richfield's needs expressed in an • earlier review of the; draft had been satisfied in the final copy. The Richfield city staff and community representatives who have been involved in this project cone r in the Hennepin County Transportation System recommendations contained in this report. Approval of this draft final report is recommended as a guide for future county transportation planning and improvements in Richfield and Hennepin County. Respectfully submitted, Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/bll. cc; Planning Director • , ? ql J t t v / 03:. T- U O ry, ?er (wv///?qqq/{{{ Y rir U) 0 =dq W rG Z [/ !/ Ecrr V Z 6G D, LL y Y O. LL y C r 4 o t q - ? ?y Y uv1 M d M N Z N L i O V =? V q V „ 3 -wl i J C V d L 6 L ? P ' O V? C V ? ? „ ° £'" ^ Y y RV V P C N T gMpoO ?• 4 C o N L N Ow. N N a ? y? =" • b V ? V ? O? `?NN> Y N , pNY 4 t ° YOWL LpY ^qCS Oil O C '•? rC o 41 e a V i E gu «Y? t o ae ? '^° E ?pcLL ?No -.• °. u N « N W cp Mo `? ^ n M d O L i ° wp ? N Y ; ?rnut e Y P p..cc yq V? N ? P O• 57 L i p $$ w q N N L.- e 2 O?Y?-$+- N OpG+ • UCN3?• °NY.q T:L Or r.°-a O?i <VOM r 3^ ? .r^ SS O M o r 0 g N O N NON u V? F NYN L W O ? N g i y Y C Q O b u au ? 3NN bMN Y? L'2 NY Nu °° . o . ?n c orb ` *^ cN ^ E o r ?° «.?+L vim .+°v ' L° ?a^ ? N L m o^N n e rn ^ °. CIO cp ?? u 3r.. r C'L ?.-s ico _ EN oW LL r0.-4 yy E?.?MNG N iYGgw? N o N LL. OC yyi E hV u Na 6?0 ?N 0 - g ° finis Y y 6 L ? d 0 O L i g N ? g O N 9 NBC ?iN Soo o A g l t «r IS ?L C+- E LN q Y EOT Sia?ic ? - E O O ?^ ^ O' r CN WA N°2 .. Y N O ?Oy? n«? r V? «° i N • H O e. N N r vpr p y t ? C O r N N e iu N N i N N YO Q L r N ` O.M C^i > SS 06.0 Ifs csc " Y M Lp p 00 .. ` a i N V > U.LYL ?] o iV - ?°'^EYO T: °?M O C OE J 4 . ?. U a 4 N-? e7J •O 6TV36 L?nCU N O O C^ ° N ° t N! V W c ?': N = N i ? ca WV ? N C r wCCU C C t q t ?ee O? L W e° V u?? otcm Y p o ^' N L CFy9? E Nts°,°. M c `p.q^°o- c _ ?mq? ` ¢` $ ? wcaw V d. ? L qw a Ngc °' v a L ? Nc ? ? L 'NE =-?? »?t o ?_° ^od€ A" d A" `? E ' q? o€ ^ ° ?bo 8 ?H? r? v a^e ? A _ _T.-__`d ? e ,? s ecC _ _ Eh°?c r . ` cw ?a M od .,c SV d"" C °? L ?g - ON o oY .- w " i cNc EG4.°- °.OiOOG< pp 6Ea FC°q°CYC cr-N 7M ?06EMnY .. MO i 1 ? - 4 N ? L L ? G E 6 r N G N ? a ? 9 + L -r C C _ S N O y L OY L v L g v y. o L •'• L W NL?O' ESC .^ CC yy d Y v L S L V C c C C q E y o.e C 4 .7; 6 96 P U r3Oy EQu v ?E - .- 6.Liw x p ? 'EN _ ?C q0 OO '° V.N i TM _ i ? V ? Y nZin N^A o ° 3LW ^ YwO N y ENO i w V _ •+ oW 0 opp E?io ? ? OL4 Y pj .N Qp L LNLOY Ep L q;q N pN LL °° p 7z g O G'09O o? ?0 N q 7 ?v n NN O 7 N E Y 1- q N qr V ? n+?OSY N •-•NCN i Z ?C r - 0 :; . Q ?:M +•.: . < .: •:. . .w.Nrl:??LiSi$'!?F,•:YMYY?LVtl\'9lSb..`i1dP?YMPK W:i>:M:'?N.R ^+.3MTG?70tIMF alt.lrWl."afrnt§4?W?"11YF:Fd?riJYl.?'W:ti.s?iJIIY?{(A'.i?¢49CLu14WW?uwIW.L?'IAKvIb1YE01S'KA`;.Y'eM.?MaiOt.++:.:. y.•,v , •. y r ? ?? 17 S • G O 4J G tic iJ ZR \ 34 \ i-? aE \ G N G •r O O O C) O O O O •r > =5 U LO LO LO G C9 m O 0 tu f 3 U +) Z N d c2 W S_ i 4J 4 Y rts A to I ?y a Cn 4- 4J O N CSC N S- O d O } ? .G t0 y N ? Q ? N Q? N s. O Cr (o LL M N tr G O. +) tr> f N `r• Li W i- S. Y O G i J N to N to S_ Z Z U" 't CO O 3 O r to O C) S- - ¢ V ? r- ? "L H H N ? F - tC U 0) !- h CL G > O -? d S. Q Q •r F- .C O a w C7) 4J Z Y N d ¢ G U CL. CL •r . O d•) t0 G th c W W 3 Lf U G 3 S_ t0 S_ Cm N N Q N 1 p O -0 4.3 N '0 N LLf W *- { W V •r- 0-0 r C3 m O S_ f C) N X: t0 :3 >-, Q <C 4- 4! i Z G O O _Q ck: c C3 4.3 3 LLJ O O O [r t C!3 C'3 Z Q)4- 4J 4-J N Z7 H C t0 G . O O O m O Z i-2 O C) 4-•1 4„t .0) -0 t ' Q Q to CD # G G to O 0 o a >- t-. 04-3 r•-) S . ui F• O GJ d•) U t -t r Q N 4-) to 00 GC 1-4 U U C t0 H !- \ \ 3 O CL H H (0 to O 4- H CL >- >- ui >- T3 U •?' t0 ---4) •-?, S_ S_ E d <L LLJ ¢ as u 3 N LN 17 'o LL O N O 3 3 'Q 3 4-3 r •r• N N N Q ¢ N N U w W Li W r (0 4-) Y d 4 Q U Y ]G Y E U S- L •r- J J J 4 s-r H H r O 40 co C) U V CO co CM r C1 k CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager i Council Letter No. 186 Agenda June 14, 1976 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield I Gentlemen: is Subject: Approval of Loan to HRA for the Purchase of Property in the L/H/N Area j Mr. Alden R. Hanson, 719 Graham Avenue, has requested that the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority purchase his single family home which will become available for sale at the end of June. i This home is I,'ocated within the Lynda le/Hub/Nicollet project acquisition area for a home improvement center (see attached map). Because the HRA does not have acquisition funds at this time., it will be necessary to borrow funds from the city to accomplish the purchase of this property. The recommended procedure provides that the HRA and the city execute a loan agreement for the borrowing of the money, with the understanding that the HRA will repay the borrowed funds to the city with interest. The city council will have to execute the attached loan agreement and resolution before the HRA may proceed with the purchase of this property, j i The estimated lamount of the city loan will be $42.,000.'00. This amount will cover the purchase' price, which has not yet been negotiated, and the cost of relocation, if any. The home is a two-story,, st4cco dwelling which was built in 1919. It has 920 square feet on the first floor with three bedrooms. The city assessor's off ce has recorded a current market value on this property of $31,800.00. The loan from the city will be paid back with interest at the end of three years. The intere t rate will be five (5) percent per annum ($2, 100 per year) on the unpaid bala ce. The interest on the loan will be paid from two sources: 1. Until the?and is needed for the L/H/N project, the home will be rented, he gross rental income would be $280 - $350 per month. .2. When the?land is needed for redevelopment, the home will be sold to . a mover f r $1,500 - $3,000. P i Council Letter No. 186 -2 June 14, 1976 It is recommended that the city council adopt the -attached resolution authorizing execution of the loan agreement (which is also attached) with the HRA for the acquisition of this property. s ectfully bmitted, Wayne S. Burggraaff < City Manager WSB/bll cc: Planning Director Finance Director City Attorney A. i --) r-- Y I /?p4E BRYANT AVE. 'I? T 11 T ALDRIC" AVE. 1-7 7 1 ;GAf -vo ? lip F NARRIET AVE. ntra..tt?ttn?t.t?Naty '.__r_., i 1 GRAND AVE. 1 I ' PLEASANT AVE. L -?_I o. PILLSBURY AVE. 0 0 } ED 13 m O -_ WENTWORTH AVE. 33 >0 m _ 0 i 13 m 6LAISDELL AVE. u o 0 T _ -El = -771 i NICOLLET AVE. r -I RAA V 11 1 - ?{ .?A._ ? luofata.iiwn tAtl?..t.ARE.A e I N I? ?_i_111 _1 L - STEVENS AVE. T - __1MI r 2.4 AVE. 10 H N 'O .T.. I Z ?C S -x g ' R A ANNE ?? LYNDALE / HUB / NLCOLLR ET l COMMERCIAL L PP V NT a? I ?? , PFOGRA___ RICHFIELD, MN RESOLUTION NO.- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT TO LOAN MONEY TO THE RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND PROVIDING FOR THE PERFORMANCE THEREOF BY ADVANCEMENT FROM THE SEWER FUND WHEREAS, the HRA desires to borrow money for the purpose of purchasing certain real property pursuant to and in furtherance of the L/H/N Redevelopment Project heretofore adopted by the City and the HRA, said real property being described as follows: Lot 6, Block 3, Fairwood Shores, Hennepin County, Minne- sota, and WHEREAS, the purchase of said real property is necessary to accomplish the purposes of said L/H/N Project, and WHEREAS, the BRA is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.445, to purchase real property and to borrow money from the City therefore, and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.581, to make loans to the HRA in aid of projects. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD: 1. That the Mayor and City Manager be, and hereby are, authorized to • execute, as agents to the City of Richfield, an agreement with the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority; entitled "Loan Agreement", a copy of which. is hereby given Clerk's File No. HRA- and is ordered placed on file. 2. That the City Clerk be, and hereby is directed to advance monies to the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority in such amount and at such time as is provided in the above agreement, said monies to be taken from the sewer fund, and to return to the sewer fund all payments made by the Housing and Redevelop- ment Authority pursuant to said agreement. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of June, 1976. Loren Law Mayor ATTEST: omas oran City er v • LOAN AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into as of this day of , 1976, by and between the Housing and Redevelopment AutIority of_Richfield, Minnesota, a body public and corporate (hereinafter the 111RA"), and the City of Richfield, .a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter the "City"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the HRA desires to borrow money for the purpose of purchasing certain real property pursuant to and in furtherance of•the L/H/N Redevelopment Project heretofore adopted by the City and the HRA,. said real property being described as follows: Lot 6, Block 3, Fairwood Shores, Hennepin County, Minne- sota, and WHEREAS, the purchase of said real property is necessary to accomplish the purposes of said L/H/N Project, and WHEREAS, the City desires to lend money so that said purchase may be accomplished, and WHEREAS, the HRA is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.445 to purchase real property and to borrow money from the City therefore, and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.581 to make loans to the HRA in aid of projects. , NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual tenants and agreements herein set forth, the HRA and the City do hereby agree as follows I. The City agrees to advance to the HRA money in an amount to be determined by the HRA at such time as a decision has been made by the HRA to purchase such property, said amount to be equal to the purchase price of said property, and II. The HRA agrees to repay the sum so advanced, plus interest, as follows: A. Interest shall accrue on unpaid principal at the rate of 5.00o per annum from the date of advancement until repaid. B. Payments shall be applied first to reduce interest accrued at the date of payment, and the remainder, if any, shall reduce the principal balance. C. The HRA may make payment or payments in any amount and at any time, provided that the entire unpaid principal together with accrued interest shall be repaid no later than three years from the date of advancement of funds to the HRA. III. This agreement shall be void and of no effect if advancement of funds by the City as provided herein is not made before December 31, 1976. 9 HOUSINGS AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ° By its Chairman Dated: By Its Executive Director CITY OF RICHFIELD By its Mayor Dated: By I Its City lager l1 i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA r `Office of City Manager Council Letter No.. 185 Agenda June 14, 1976 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council - City of Richfie?d Gentlemen: Subject: Tabulation of Bids, Minutes, and Award of Contract for Heating and Air; Conditioning Equipment and Controls Service/Maintenance On May 10, 1976 the city council authorized the call"for bids for a three year service/m',aintenance contract for heating and air conditioning equipment and controls at! city facilities. The contract provides for preventive maintenance inspections, emergency repairs, and replacement parts and labor for controls. The equipment !covered under the contract includes such items as heating and cooling plants, walk-in coolers, thermostatic controls and humidifying units at six city own ed facilities, On June 4, 1976 the-acting city manager opened bids pursuant t o council authorization. Analysis i Bids for th is contract were received from two companies. One firm, Yale Inc; submitted a bid calling for an alternate proposal. This bid differs radically from specificat ions and does not provide for predicable future costs for this service contrac t. Therefore, this bid has not been considered. The other id submitted was by Advanced Engineering and Manufacturing, Inc: This bid compli es with all aspects of the specifications. Under the terms of the proposal, A dvanced Engineering proposes to provide services under the agreement at $ 5,815.80 in 1976, $5,990.27 in 1977, and $6,169.97 in 1978. The total bid am ount is $17,976.04. In 1975 the cost of the contract was $4,910.88. H owever, it should be noted that the 1975 contract did not include the Penn Liquor Store or the heating and air conditioning controls at locations other than city hall. The 1976 quotation of $5, 815.80 represents a 15% increase over the 1974 c ontract cost. However this increase in contract cost reflects the addition of the Penn Store and the additional controls at other city locations. The increases proposed in the contract price between 1976 and 1977, and 1977 and 1978 represent a 3% increase each year. In light of inflationary pressures on our economy, these `increases appear to be reasonable. Advanced Engineering represents the only proposal meeting specifications'. In addition, the proposal submitted by Advanced Engineering represents a reasonable increase in contract costs. Finally, Advanced' Engineering has held this contract in the past and our experience with this firm has been acceptable. it is, therefore, recommended that the city council approve this bid by approving the attached bid minutes and tabulations and awarding this bid to"`Advanced Engineering and Manufacturing in the amount of $17, 967.04. Respectfully submitted, L ayn S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Public Works birector Finance Director 1 Administrative Assistant } t CITY OF RICHFIELD • Bid Opening f June 4, 1976 Heating and Air Conditioning Service/Main.tenace Contract pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the administrative staff was called by Peter Eberz, Acting City Manager, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids on re- surfacing tennis courts as advertised in the official newspaper on May 19, 1976 Present: Peter Eberz, Acting City Manager Don Fondrick, Park and Recreation.Director I. F. Roesler,. Environmental Health Director - Frank Boyles, Administrative Aide Thomas J._ Moran, City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND BID SECURITY TOTAL. BID Advanced Engineering 976.04 Cashier Check $900 $17,976004 Yale Inc. No Bid (Submitted an alternate proposal.) James Valkevich, Owens Services Corp. Present, but no bid. The Acting City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular council meeting of June 14, 1976. Thomas J. Moran City Clerk TABULATION OF BIDS, BID NO. 76 - 3 Heating and Air Conditioning Service/Maintenance Contract Opened: 11:30 a.m., June 4, 1976 0 Bidder Bid Security Bid Price 1976 1977 1978 Total Contract Bid Yale Inc. None Alter , ate Prop sal No Bid Advanced Engineering $900.00 Certified Check 5,815.8 5,990.2 6,169.97 $17,976.04 Owens Services, Inc. Prese t but no id. i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No.. 184 Agenda June 14, 1976 The Honorable Malyor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject Request for Zoning District Change - 7609 Morgan Avenue Mr. Robert Gi. Swanstrom, 10532 Drew Avenue South, has requested a zoning district change from residential (R) to multi-family residential (MR) for the new north parcel created by the subdivision of 7609 Morgan Avenue. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow the construction of a two-family dwelling on this property. The following items.are attached to this letter and will be referred to throughout this report: 1. -Exhibit A, shows the current land use in the area; 2. Exhibit B, shows the current zoning of the site; 3. Exhibit C, is the proposed site plan with building driveway and tree locations. 4. Exhibit D, is the area of the rezoning petition. Background Land Data Building Data Zo.iing Reg. New Lot: 75 x 133.8 (10,035 sq. ft.) 10,000 sq. ft.' Proposed Building: Approx. 1,800 sq. ft. , 900 sq. ft./dwelling unit Setbacks: 30 fl-, front 30 f., front 17 ft. side 10 ft. side Site Zoned/Land se S. F. Residential/ Vacant Parcel Council Letter 'No. 184 -2- June 14, 1976 j Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: Zoning Land Use N - S. F. Residential S. F. Residential across 76th Street E - S. F. Residential S. F. Residential W - S. F,. Residential S. F. Residential S - S. F. Residential S. F. Residential Traffic,: Average daily traffic on 76th Street at Morgan Avenue is approximately 13,733 vehicles per day. A two-family dwelling will generate 10 to 15 vehicle trips per day. Sidewalks exist on both the south and north side: of 76th Street. Comprehensive Plan: Indicates single family residential at low densities the principle uses being single family or two- family dwellings . • Staff Review and Findings Comprehen sive Plan The propos ed zoning is consistent with the city's adopted Land Use Plan. Property V aluation The presen t value of the land is $11,900. The zone change will not affect the value of the land. After the construction of a two-family dwelling the value of th , is property would be approximately $90,000. Taxes generated from this t wo-family dwelling will be approximately $3, 663.00. Service an Environmental This parce l is in close proximity to schools, churches, and Donaldson Park, which mak es this a desirable location for residential dwellings. The site plan indica tes that one dwelling will be oriented toward N. organ Avenue and the other t oward 76th Street. This arrangement will make the duplex more compatibl in appearance with the surrounding single family residences. i I Council Letter No. 184 -3- June 14, 1976 i A total of four designated off-street parking spaces will be provided, two enclosed ands two open. Additional off-street parking spaces can be accomodated'in the remainder of the driveway. The proposed driveway will utilize an existing curb cut at this location on 76th Street, and a drivewa turnaround will be rovided an that residents can exit more • Y p safely onto 76th Street. An.alternative to this is a curb cut at the interior lot line on Morgan Avenue and a driveway for the full depth of the lot. In order to accomodate this, the dwelling would have to be 12 feet from the 76th Street right-of-way rather than the proposed 17 feet. The effect 76th Street will have on the residents should be mitigated by location, design and landscaping. The proposedi zone change will not substantially increase traffic. It will improve the aesthetics and value of the corner lot. The location of a two- family dwelling along a minor arterial (76th Street) in a single family residential district will not affect the existing social environment on the neighborhood,;. A two-family dwelling which is well-constructed, designed and maintained will be beneficial economically to the surrounding properties. Economic Needs At this time there is an acute shortage of housing in the metro area and an even greater shortage of affordable housing. The development of this two-family dwelling wil?.ompatible provide both as additional housing in Richfield. The proposed dwelling is with its surroundings and will provide a quality developement of one of Richfield's few remaining buildable lots. This project fulfills a metropolitan and Richfield housing need by making housing available to younger families. t Zoninq and Relationship to Exisitinq MR Districts This single 11 cation zoning is considered spot zoning. Until the 1976's this action might have had a slight effect 'on value of the surrounding properties. However, wil h the large need for housing, these potential impacts are no longer evident in the marketplace. A quality-built and well-maintained two- family structure will benefit the neighborhood on an equal basis with a single family home. A proposed residential amendment to the zoning ordinance which is bein g reviewed by the Planning Commission would allow two-family dwellings on arterial streets It is the staf?,'s position that the proposed zone change is consistent with Richfield's Comprehensive land use plan. It will offer a buffer to the single family homes to the south and provide a structure which is compatible` with the neighborhood. L j Council Letter No. 184 -4 June 14, 1976 It is the recommendation of the staff that the zoning district change be granted for a two-family dwelling. Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission reviewed this petition for rezoning and recommended to the city coumcil that the rezoning be denied. The commission recommendation was based on the following considerations: 1 That having the curb cut on 76th Street would add:,to the existing 76th Street traffic problem; 2 The commission questioned the use of MR's as a buffer. Respectfully ub tted Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/bll cc: Planning Director ti ll Ci • ? .Y. .. E Vn? y .. .. ....-tip. Ix . 7 • .. i V t r • : s s s. ? 1 ?h GENERAL MULTIPLE ?••t?.•-?-.-..fig.:..., ® ME ' x' COMMERCIAL:- GENERAL - RESIDENCE INDUSTRIAL ••"' """` LIMITED BUSINESS 7;(7;Yl 0) - - ----------- l..t X51 ....,,,...??,....? 1 "l m r CZ) 5 14 0 L - 110 g G? j , 0? O ? ` E } 511 4 N 1 r ` 018 2006 r n p p s? T5o1 ? 0 0 ? O VV N? t ?. fV`. 200L 1920 9i7? n t8id -76 th ST. p1? 1? z rw `L\ h 1 ? P ?? 1 5 N t?,l ?3 V ? N I 7 R G 9 LJ `° 1 pa 10 16 1 no a rl 15 .2 ,J CIO 2. 5 C) b? V?1 6 p? 9' $ t, r• t .. 0 2 .. 1-. j n PA c _ J' . "I s a vv- C L?-D 4 \ \\\o \.\X ? 0' rorcn 1 i 30, { ti n ' ? rv 1 . Garage Scale* 130' L _ a &2' 133.88' a Existing Tree j Q Tree to be removed 11 o- ? 0 ? ? ; cszzo) a ??' Clio ? /30.55 c 190.1 e (S6oe? Y'? 4a2? ?' - - . ? . . `°? ,is• p ? 3. 00 O m ? 1 ?0 p? q ?I J 40 cr. e a 4 00 3o1 9 131 . 3a,?16y1 ion ! slat 335.96 - W S ,71; 133. 3030 33. I 2 133.82 3 133.64 • 4*33. ®133A e° 133.61 133.13 8 1 133.7 10 I3o w ? 1 N C /Sl.d1? ? 00 ` fj 1 n M r 1000 2 #4 i t 'o 05 5 Zsee 5 W 6 3 3°J ty- 7 as ' V ?. tae.. N0 8 , g g +$pO g Ili " /33.80 30 30 i 1 r 3v 3o 17910) > -A Zook 63 8B o ? M S s. 6e t2s e „ 4 Vaec 4 Y pOe _ h 5 n Q ?s.. 1 (- 5 ?B4A5) ... 6• . o I 140 ' y0 I S. B9'S2 "? 1 ° A y ?1 `t ?W o / 31, 30I 14,0 ST. W1.41 pr/t/? 1 ,0? ° 14j0 °L? Area of proposed rezoning Signers a Non-signers CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Wna5ek Council Letter No. 183 Agenda Tune 14, 1976 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen; h Subject) Request for Special Use Permit, Alpha House; 6539 Cedar Avenue Mr. Jim Martinson, Executive Director of Alpha House, Inc., has requested a special use permit to allow establishment of a private lounge and recreation facility. Alpha House, Inc. , a residential facility for adult male multiple offenders,. is located at 2712 Fremont Avenue South, Minneapolis. The following iitems are attached to this letter and will be referred to throughout this report: 1, Exhibit A,? shows the current zoning of the site; 2. Exhibit B,? -shows the current land use of the area; 3. Exhibit C? is the site plan for the property owned by Alpha House, Inc.; - 4. Exhibit D, is an information letter on Alpha House, Inc.; 5. Exhibit E, is the 350 foot area for notification. Applicant's Proposal Alpha House, ?nc, would like to use a 'presently unused portion of their commercial building at 6539 Cedar Avenue South as a recreation lounge area for their residents. It is proposed that unoccupied space on the main floor be used as a lounge area where residents and their approved guests and relatives could visit. The walkout basement would be a recreational area with pool' tables, foosball tables and other recreational equipment. These facilities would be used nightly by the residents with principal use on weekends. The facilities would also be used for a m on th ly; open house. The applicant anticipates that weekend activity would not last: beyond 12:30 a.m. and weekday activities would begin after 5:00 p.m, and cease.?by 11:00 p.m. The resident users of these facilities would arrive either in the house van or by private vehicle. The lounge is proposed to occupy 576 (24 ft, x 24 ft.) square feet on the main floor and the recreation area in the basement will occupy°l, 152 (24 ft, x 48 ft.) square feet., There are no other resident facilities of this type in the Twin Cities which have their recreation facilities 'separate from the residential facility. Council Letter No. 183 -2- June 14, 1976 Background Alpha House, Inc. has been operating for four years at 2712 Fremont Avenue South Alpha Houlse has 24 residents eighteen residing at the Fremont Address and six at the Cedar Avenue, location.Four residents at the Cedar Avenue location live in the residential home north of the commercial building. and two residents live in tlwo apartment units in the commercial building. -Six Alpha House residents are currently working for Alpha Type, -which'is an Alpha House business located in their commercial building on Cedar Avenue. A multiple otfiender is referred to Alpha House by a court judge, prison caseworker or probation officer. Alpha House can choose to either accept or not accept an individual into the program depending on results of psychological tests, MMPI"tests, review of the person's criminal' background and a personal interview. Approximately one-half of those referred to Alpha:.House are accepted into the program. As explained in Exhibit D, the Alpha House rehabilitation program has four phases. Upon completion of the fourth phase the resident is''able to enter into community living,' Only third and fourth phase residents will be allowed to use the proposed visiting and recreational facility. Approximately 16 residents privilege. All residents could be allowed at the facility currently have thMse. during the open Present resid?nts of Alpha House have criminal backgrounds in the following areas: i i 2 - Burglarie 6 -Rapes 4 Indecent' liberties 2 - Assaults 2 - Armed robberies 4 - Narcotic sales 3 - Theft by heck Adequate off-street parking is available for the regular weekday and weekend activities. This oes not include parking for their commercial business. Addition- al parking is avai able on adjacent Alpha House property for the heavier parking demand of the monthly open house meeting. Zoning Ordinance Requirements The property at 6539 Cedar Avenue is zoned general commercial (see Exhibit A). The uses permitted in a general commercial district include uses permitted in "R" and "MR" districts upon compliance with the procedural requirements for such districts. A club is one of the uses permitted by a special use permit in the "R" and "MR districts, and this applies to the C2 district as well. The city attorney has determined that a private lounge and recreation f46cility is within the `club definition. f l I I Council Letter No. 183 -3- Tune 14, 1976 The conditions governing issuance of a special use permit are as follows: That the iise for which the use permit is sought will not under the circumstances of the, particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use or to the public - welfare or "injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. is Staff Review The application has been reviewed in accordance with Section 3.41, Subdivision 5 1. Will the use and its operation be detrimental to the health of persons residinglor working in the neighborhood? It is important to note that this proposed use is not a residential facility for criminal offenders, but a lounge and recreation area separate from the'r residence facility at 2712 Fremont Avenue in Minneapolis. There is potential for anxiety in the neighborhood due to the type of resident; offenders involved and the location of the facility. However, factors do exist which could tend to mitigate these anxiety feelings. These falctors include the on-site supervision and control provisions of the program, and the use of the facilities for part of the day only. Only those residents which are about to enter the community on a normal basis will be using the facilities. 2. Will the use be detrimental to the safety of other people ? The concentration of ex-offenders for limited periods of time does not necessarily constitute a safety threat to the affected neighborhood. The factors present which would influence this consideration include resident participation in a recognized program with supervision and control of residents at the site, and the rehabilitation received. Past experience at the Minneapolis Alpha House residence location has been favorable. 3 Will the use be detrimental to the morals comfort convenience or welfare of the people working or residin in the nei hborhood? Effects on neighborhood and "quality of life" compatability with this type of f cility are difficult to interpret. Community reaction to.persons with soc'al disabilities can be viewed as a function of a threat to well- establis? ed beliefs -regarding how and where programs for criminal offenders should take place. 1 1Community Based; Residential Facilities in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Report prepared for, Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, Untveristy of MN, 12-75. i Council Letter No. 183 -4- June 14, 1976 l' Alpha Type, a business owned and operated by the residents of Alpha Howe, along with two resident apartments, has been in this neighbor- hood! since August of 1975 without any problems affecting neighborhood moralls, comfort, convenience or welfare. 4. WilLithe proposed use be detrimental to the public welfare? Deinjstitutionalization of the criminal offender is a fairly recent occu ence and studies available on the effects of'this;policy are limited. A report, completed in 1975, studying, community based residential facilities in the Twin Cities offers some information regarding the issued of public welfare and property values. Qualitative issues surrounding the effects on public welfare are extremely difficult to measure. At best, a perceived impact on public welfare does`j occur in terms of neighborhood confidence and security levels when clustering of resident facilities takes place within blocks of each other.1 No other residence or facilities of this type exist in Richfield, 5'. Willi the use be injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood? While property devaluation is often mentioned as a negative impace`of community based residential facilities, no hard 'evidence exists that this is the case in the Twin Cities. The relationship between housing turnover rate, property valuation and the presence of community based resi ential facilities is not yet clear.l Ther are factors which could substantially reduce any potential detri- men1al effects. This is not a community based residence facility but merely a lounge and recreation area for residents of a facility based in Minneapolis. Secondly, this activity will be occurring in a commercial district, not in a residential district. The facility will be open in the weekday evenings from 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m, and on weekends from 6:00 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. Staff Recomm ndation It is the pinion of the city staff that, given the nature of the use (lounge and recreatio al area), location in a commercial district (zoned and use.general commercial), witha supervised and controlled recreation environment (Alpha o gram and staff) the use does meet the conditions set forth in House, Inc. Ff Section 3.41the city zoning ordinance for this special;, use permit. (See page 3),I I I Council Letter No. 183 -5 June 14, 1976 i Planning Commission Recommendation i, The planning commission reviewed thi's request for a special use permit at its May 25; 1976 meeting. Several neighbors `in the area gave testimony opposing the special use permit; however, one neighbor appeared entirely in favor of the program. The applicant appeared before the planning commission and expressed his understanding of the anxiety felt by the neighbors. Concerns emerging, during the discussion at the meeting included the idea that more clubs could mo e into the area in the future and the fact that the special use permit applies to one parcel and the stipulations established by the commission apply to other parcels. After much discussion, the planning commission recommended approval of the special use permit. This approval is based on the i understanding that there be sufficient supenvision The special use permit applies- . only to 6537 Cedar Avenue South, but provides that the following' stipulations apply to the resit of the parcels in the area owned by Alpha House: 1,, Street landscaping per Richfield's landscaping policy be accomplished for two vacant parcels to the north; 2. All debris be removed from vacant properties; 3: Turf maintenance be effected on all four parcels i 4. Dust-free surface be established on vacant parcels Respectfully submitted, Wayn6- S. Burggraaff , fr City Manager ' WSB/bll cc: Planning D'rector s 1 s t ,•• c,T.a• ? .• t ,t°• . ,?..?. toc, ' ST ' 1 t ! b 3ic? j Sao '• ,'Id'•l i VO•'• M 7 J "Mom I GENERAL X HIS IT to i 1 i !•. h 14 l( a tL ? ! 6 4 20 P -9 - ••f ?•i,0 k.•r`..?...."" ? } } O 4 i . aQ9_ t 1 ^;t' ?'y? '? yi ? w TT 43 COMMERCIAL GENERAL INDUSTRIAL 10 .i.•F ; .? 30 --------;- &6$h. ST t.. E.? ?. { t ? ,Y. Y ` r 111¦ r1: -,% z I m a site MULTIPLE RESIDENCE LIMITED BUSINESS IBIT + 1 L' i_ `?Y 4 }?I cJ_ A El •,? 1"" r®a _ 7ri?v _02s 7;18_ C !I r ?• ?'rt?p - I ? ? i???-J 55_91#?,`_? ??...;?r:3I!'f,. ?,? C <4: I! i {µ ? i it Z', I •?t i i .._.? ? ._. LAW -? ?_J` ^.? L ? ' ; , , i r??o+ ? 123 ` j IW6 4 P!22- l._J-'4 (x'..22 3 ?1 2-1 4,2 z c (? 45 7117 ?= ' (? :5 7147 -, .?.'-?03 .tom r IBM r ;°.. "fit _ t 1 t •?Cl 11 r tiL. Ili i In U-- El .ti._lr? ih T. O V ?__ y 44 Ipf t' , ?.i ? O 1[Q•Li 813 ... 1 U 41 . E I ? N r , L3 r` p Lid L j [77 6 t C? c. {7•`t' t`t.'.. !17 2 is 7 ST. ? h m 152 D + 0 1825 11 zf?7, 2831 - T-6 _ nJ r, { 15 2 •.?. i 0 rr D E. 66th ST. m -c D G rn i I• R W O I i q Freedom is not t ettint; out of prison or beating a rap; freedom is being able to learn from the past, plan for the future and live responsibly for ,'I'rovidQ a residential transitional facility for adult I male multiple offenders (two felonies or more, or a murder conviction in any degree) coming from: o correctional facilities *the judicial system as an alternative to prison *the streets or another community program The people at Alpha all have long histories of institu- tionalization, in most cases startircr from early child- hood. You could say that we provide services to the "hard-core offender" .Initially, Alpha was aimed more at providing. education- .al/vocationrs guidance and personal support while the individual was in the transition phase from the criminal justice system to "straight society". After operating with this concept for approximately one and one-half years,* we found that the program was not facilitating substantial behavioral change. Therefore, in lieu of the conventional half-way house setting, we are now operating with a behavior-oriented Experiential Treatment Program, which consists of the following four phases: P SASE I idents become totally involved with the positive G ?r group, from entertainment and recreation to group therapy. One-to-one counseling is conducted regularly with a staff member. PHASE II Phase II is a continuation of Phase I, with less em- phasis on peer group interaction and more on indivi- dual motivation.. Group and one-to-one counseling are less frequent. The individual is beginning to focus on settinglong-term goals. He isbeginning to use and be involved with various community resources. PHASE III In this phase the individual is b.asically on his own. His dependency oil the positive peer group is diminish- ing considerably. His interests have become minimally oriented toward therapy or criminal justice and are mainly concerned with vocational/educational, rec- reational, interpersonal or other community interests. PHASE IV The individual is living in the community, but is not yet a graduate of Alpha. lie is working or attending avocational/educational trainin-program and pursuing other long-tern] personal coals. A resident's involve- ment withAlplia is coniir:ensurai(,with his progress in comnniiiity living. We encourage involvement in other satisfactorily. -a M lor therapy or ei-iiilili.il-justice-orietitecf activities in to break any dependency upon a treatment pro- grain and to cstabli.sh a more stable and broad-based adjustment to community living. A resident wiII not be considered a graduate until he has completed this please P 449 A phone call or letter can initiate the referral process. .Any.adult male with two or more felony convictions is eligible for admittance to Alpha. We will also consider admittance of persons with other than two adult felony convictions depending uponthe severity of their adjust- ment problem and their past criminal record. A POINT of CLARIFICATION: Although we are not specifically geared toward chemical dependency, we do admit and.provide treat nient foroffenders with chemi- cal nroblenis. Please feel free to call us for infor- mation concerning referrals or anything that you want to know about Alpha. If Alpha House is to continue as an effective community corrections progr.m, we must be a part of the com- munity and the community a part of us. Community corrections programs can provide more effective rehabilitative services than conventional institutions do. We are here to help reducethe crime rate, provide for safer communities and save tax- payers money. To accomplish this takes much more than a small staff can provide. An ex-offerdar needs tralring and a lob, even a shirt term job for reference and experience. ` He needs a chance to be trusted and to build his own self-confi- dence and esteem. Maybe you can provide a short or long term employmentpossibility, evenoddjobs, such as minor maintenance. The main objective of our program is to resocialize men in positive constructive community involvement. Alpha House staff is limited compared to the need for services. Without community support, we will not be able to achieve this objective. Alpha holds an Open House on the second and fourth Friday of every month, from 7:30 to midnite. The only requirements are that you be over eighteen and come chemically clean. Our newsletter provides information on program pro- gress and informs the community of our broad-based support. To receive the newsletter, free of charge, phone 823-9000. ALPIIA IIOUSE, INC. isa nonprofit, tax exempt ort;an- ization. Contributions of money, goods or services are tax deductible. WORK PR.0'GR AM PHASE I Goal: to initiate development of an "in-program" simulated society contain- Amhdng the information, interpersonal relationships, and reinforcement, both positive and negative, essential to initial development of positive behaviprial patterns and communication skills. 'ObJjective I: to foster awareness of the self and the environment in the here and now. Objective II: to, 'develop accountability and responsibility for self and to others. Objective III: to develop an almost totally exclusive intense positive in•- volvement with the positive peer group and focus attention on positive and negative behaviors. Means Whereby: A. Assignment of house duties to provide the setting residents can receive small doses of responsibility at a time and '',.ere experience small successes in knowring• that he can be responsi b'' ::ot only to him- self, but also to others (i.e. working in the kitch,..;i: includes responsibilities such as preparin? meals for the era ire resident population and keeping the kitchen up to Health Department specification). B, Through the use of basic therapies such as Reality and Humanistic Psychotherapy (Rational) we can'showr residents that,_first of all they are responsible for their actions, and secondly, there is abetter way to act. From that point, numerous positive alternatives to negative behuV-.ors are offered, in group and one-to-one therapy sessions, bo,h by the staff and the positive peer group. C. By utilizing the benefits of the positive peer group, tie can effect- ively identify negative behaviors on a more timely basis and thereby confront negative behaviors at the time (i.e. it is much more effective to confront. John on rationalizing negative beha for when it is happening rather than waiting for a scheduled time) and reinforce positive behavior that may otherwise not be known to the staff. PHASE II Goal: to apply and integrate information gained in Phase I to personal behaviors both in the program and in limited encounters in the community and to further expand :cro:?ledge of self and others. Object;i.ve I: to begin diminishing interaction with the positive peer -group and increase one-to--one counseling with the staff. hjectiye II: to foster limited involvement in the community both for program and self. hj.c ve III: to begin development of long-term goals and means whereby to attain these goals. Means I- hereby: A. By increasing community involvement, we effectively decrease available time for positive peer group interaction and amowits of therapy that were received in Phase I. B. C? C. 1 Involvement with the community agencies and organizations such as the Minneapolis Jaycees and neighborhood groups, develop.p0sitive relation- ships, and thus decrease the possibility of interaction with negative peers. Also this involvement fosters relationships necessary to achievement.of long-term goals„ • By decreasing positive peer group interaction, a setting is provided ' Where residents test their re.:-ity 'and communications skills outside of a protective environment a:_d thus increase self-reliance. PHASE III Goal: to further integrate and apply information gained in Phases I and II by extensive encounters in the community and 1..ni_ted encounters in the program and to further diminish interaction ;:.ith the rvs-it:ive peer group and one-to- one counseling with the staff. • Objective I: to focus maximum amount of attention on attainment of personal long and short-term goals. Objective II: to further develop positi e relationships frith various organizations, individuals, amend cor. purity 2 sc ._•ces, Objective III: to further self-Pe1 z Wince it the a_-reas of personal direction and. probler solving s!:- lls, Means Whereby: 4 in. .onall/vocati opal pro ar A. All residents ::ill be erg oll d i n ar. ec ,-- L or be employed be-fore enteri -_g 'he o = h Y- ase. Resources such as resident compiled job an-d eokc4:,10- l.nneapolis Rehab Center, Division of Voc-i oral Re;.:b, and c:= . t' ens *vFill be used. B.. Residents vri.ll assume the Mo°t ::C;sitions in the program5 such as house coordinator and asst w:e 1_-:44-,-d responsi bild ties of group facilitating and providing supe-?visicn nor residents ih earlier phases, thus increasing the ar;:ount of responsibility taken on. and accelerate personal achievement. PHASE IV Coal: to establish alr.ost complete a stable living and financial situation. • Obajective I: to protride a sir-month follo;.?--ap where residents will live in the community. Objective II: to alle : access to .1::. : _r-;i ces .: o-vi'd.ad t-o residents in earlier phases. Objective III: to mor=tor i-div--1-dt_a1 Fuccess in corms- city living and provide feedback necessary- to ;matte effective Means Whereby: Residents in this phase will attend a weekly mand_i_to„; meeting at Alpha, to deal with proble..is encountered. Also -wnditoiy "gout -groups" Trill be available on a sera-weekly basis. Out gz•oups -we a collection of graduates and residents 'in latter phases of rur„b:,r of commundty programs. These groups are non--structured acid provide: per::onal support, recreational opportunities and opportunity to interact idth people in a comparable phase .of their rehabilitation. These groups ago sinu.lar in concept Lo Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) but do not operate on the AA philosophy. NDIE: Residents will not be con idered. graduates until complotion 'of tlu.s phase. 1 15 iw J,?4 + N ,[! ` r. IJ O M J l . ELI oA .1 t'24 d- 05' 2 i 2? -i?)OvBir U 412.1 _? ! ! r r 4121 LJ 74 0 zs 7118 ?;. co r 17 La - m7® .. ! t.J 53 9 1:8 .: ?' x!1!7 !" {4;15 I-T LAM low ! I2 ' ' { ' . or 11271 ZiP2 ` ?- .'?1 ,? ?-{ 4 ? 1 eK ?? "•sR ' 1 ! . .._? ? - }r? -? ? .d±i?1~?-, J8 ?L...) ? ~3,? 1-- ` 18 ?- t 1 ?r 7117 -3 3 15 617 : ?i.7 - ?? i} 9, 1 ,•l } {J -? IT • , i r ?` Ali ! li 20..--_ _ _ _ O1 - f + i s s 1 : p ` 6b T. 1825 l G ST. IG ! ! F ! [_•-_l w ,o n ,o 15 2 Jr, 2 v • j ? . n - -- Council Letter No. 182 Agenda June 14, 1976 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of, Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Award of Contract for Tennis Court Resurfacing On April 12, 1976, the city council approved a transitory' ordinance providing $18,000 from the special revenue fund for resurfacing of tennis. courts during 1976. The courts to be resurfaced include those at Memorial Park Sheridan Park, and Jefferson Park. On May 10, 1976, the city council ordered City Project No. 691 for resurfacing of these tennis courts, approved the plans and specifications as prepared byithe city staff and authorized the call forbids. Bids were 'opened by the acting city manager on June 1, 1976 in accordance with previous city council authorization. The acting city manager, park and recreation director, planning director, city clerk and representatives from some of the bidding firms were also present for the bid opening. The bid minutes and tabulations are; attached for city council review. The lowest bidder for resurfacing of the six tennis courts as recommended by staff and the park and recreation advisory commission is Carlson-Lavine, Inc. with a combined bid total of $9,9 32. The park and recreation advisory commission reviewed the bids at their June 9, 1976 meeting. The commission discussed tennis court construction as well as the tennis court resurfacing. As the city council is aware, four new tennis courts are scheduled for construction at Washington Park in 1976, and the two new tennis courts and practice court at Donaldson Park are nearing completion. Realizing the very high demand for tennis facilities, the park and recreation advisory comm ssion and the park and recreation director recommend that the city council to e the following action: I? i L, Council Lette r No. 182 -2- June 14, 1976 1. Apprl' ve the bid minutes and tabulations for tennis court resurfacing. 2. Approve the award of contract for tennis court resurfacing at Memorial Park, Sheridan Park, and Jefferson Park to Carlson-Lavine, Inc. in the amount of $9,932. 3. Authorize redistribution of the remaining $7,000 from the tennis court resurfacing project (City Project Number 691) to City Project Number 673 for tennis court construction per the attached resolution. 4. Authorize a change order for Henry O. Mikkelson Company in the amount of $2 , 160. This change order is necessary to provide for resurfacing of the two existing courts at Donaldson. Park. Although resurfacing was not included in the original park project sufficient funds will be available through transfer from Project Number 691 to provide for this resurfacing. Respectfully submitted, Wayne S. Burggraaff j City Manger WSB/bll cc: Park and ? ecreation Director Finance Director TABLUATION OF BIDS CITY PROJECT NO. 691 Bids Opened: June 1 1976 RESURFACING TENNIS COURTS 2:00 P.M., C.D.S.T. Memorial Park, 67th and Fifth Avenue South Sheridan Park, 65th and Upton Avenue South Council Action: June 14, 1976 Jefferson Park, 67th and Upton Avenue South' Richfield, Minnesota 55423 BID TABULATION CONTRACTOR MEMORIAL SHERIDAN JEFFERSON COMBINED BID BID BOND _ Action Courts $4,480 $3,456 $3,456 $11,392 5% 4785 Dodd Road Eagan, Minn. 55123 Carlson-Lavine, Inc. 2831 Aldrich Avenue South $3,884 $3,024 $3,024 $ 9,932. 5% Minneapolis, Minn. 55408 G. & L Seal Coating Co 2148 N.W. Bunker Lake Road $4,148 $3,167 $3,167 $10,482 5% Anoka, Minn. 55303 Henry 0. Mikkelson Company 20 West 59th Street $3,990 $3,100 $3,100 $10,190 5% Minneapolis, Minn. 55419 Finley Brothers 3701 West 104th Street $4,012.68 $3,157.68 $3,157.68 $10,328.04 5% Bloomington, Minn. 55431 * Manager's Recommendation CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening y June 10 1976 CITY PROJECT NO.? 691 Resurfacing Tennis Courts _ Memorial Park, 67th and Fifth Avenue Sheridan Park, 65th and Upton Avenue Jefferson Park, 67th and Upton Avenue Richfield., Minnesota Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the administrative staff was called by Peter Eberz, Acting City Manager,.who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and.read aloud, sealed bids on re- surfacing tennis courts as advertised in the official newspaper on May 19 and 26. Present: Peter Eberz, Acting City Manager I Don Fondrick, Park and Recreation Director Richard Krier, Planning Director Tom Moran, City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND BID SECURITY TOTAL BID I Action Courts, Inc. B. B. 5% $11,392 r Carlson-Lavine, Inc. B. B. 5% $- 9,932 G & L Seal Coating Co. B. B. 5% --- $10,482 -- Henry.0. Mikkelson Co. B. B. 5%$10,190 Finley Brothers B. B. 5% $10 328 The Acting City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and con- sidered at the regular council meeting of June 14, 1976. Cit Clerk Thomas J. Moran y 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO CARLSON-LAVINE, INC. FOR RESURFACING OF TENNIS COURTS AT MEMORIAL PARK, SHERIDAN PARK AND JEFFERSON PARK CITY PROJECT NO. 691 Clerks File No. BE IT RESOLVED, by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That it is hereby determined that the bid of Carlson-Lavine, Inc. is the lowest bid, by a responsible bidder for the resurfacing of tennis courts at Memorial Park, vicinity of 67th Street and Fifth Avenue South; Sheridan Park, vicinity of 65th Street and Upton Avenue South; and Jefferson Park, vicinity of 67th Street and Upton Avenue South, City Project No. 691. 2. That the bid of Carlson-Lavine, Inc. for the resurfacing of tennis court facilities of the above referenced project, at the price contained in • their proposal of June 1, 1976, with an estimated cost of $9,932 as a combined bid is hereby accepted. 3. That the proposed contract between Carlson-Lavine, Inc.and the City of Richfield be given clerk's file no. and be placed on file. 4. That said proposed contract for the resurfacing of tennis court facilities as referenced above 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 City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to affix the city seal thereto. 5. The 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. 0 -2- 4innesota, this 14th Mayor 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REDISTRIBUTING APPROPRIATIONS FROM CITY PROJECT NO. 691, TENNIS COURT RESURFACING, TO CITY PROJECT NO. 673, TENNIS COURT CONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, in 1975, the city council did appropriate $60,000 in Revenue Sharing monies for the construction of tennis courts in the City of Richfield with such monies assigned to City Project No. 673, and WHEREAS, it was estimated the monies in City Project No. 673 would construct two new tennis courts at Donaldson Park and four other new tennis courts at a park to be later designated in East Richfield, and WHEREAS, two new tennis courts and a regulation size practice court have been constructed at Donaldson Park at a bid price of $23,976.73, and WHEREAS, Washington Park has been designated as the site for additional tennis court construction as part of City Project No. 673, and WHEREAS, in 1976 the city council did appropriate $18, 000 in special revenue monies for resurfacing of tennis courts at Memorial Park, Sheridan . Park and Jefferson Park with such monies assigned to City Project No. 691, and WHEREAS, bids have now been received for said tennis court resurfacing with such bids being submitted at a range well below the estimated $18, 000 allocated for City Project No. 691, and WHEREAS, it. has been determined that the resurfacing of the existing two tennis courts at Donaldson Park would be in the best interest of the city so as to provide high quality facilities for the residents of Richfield, and WHEREAS, it has been further determined to be in the best interest of the city to pursue the possibility of also providing a practice tennis court at Washington Park in addition to the proposed construction of four new tennis courts, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that $7,000 be redistributed from City Project No. 691 to City Project No. 673 and that the revised project appropriations shall be as follows: City Project 673, $67,000; City Project 691, $11,000. l? 0 -2- Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of June, 1976. Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk 0 /5' CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 181 Agenda June 1.4, 1976 ,The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Purchase in Excess of $1,000 Chapter 6, Section 6.05 'of the city charter, stipulates that the city council must app ove the purchase of merchandise;, materials, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1, 000. There is one such item on the June 14, 1976 city council agenda. Council members will recall that County Seat. Stores has donated a scoreboard for use; at the Richfield Ice Arena. While County Seat has provided the funds for purchase of the scoreboard, the City of Richfield will actually place : the order for the scoreboard thereby saving County Seat the burden of paying sales tax on the purchase. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council approve the purchase in the amount of $2,801.08, with his amount to be reimbursed by County Seat. Respectfully submitted, Wayne S. Burggraaff City Maanager WSB/bll cc: Park and Rem eation Director j CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City _Manager Council Letter No. 180 Agenda June 14, 1976 i The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Amendments to the Comprehensive Development Plan i Minnesota'', State Statutes provide that the comprehensive plan of a municipality is'', the guide for all of the following municipal actions: • 1. Capital Program 2. Zoning District Changes 3. Redevelopment Plans Although t e L/H/N Redevelopment Plan, adopted by the city council late last year, is substantially in compliance with the city's comprehensive plan, there are some differences. The city council is requested to amend the comprehensive plan for more complete conformance with the L/H/N Redevelop- ment Plan. The, proposed amendments are: 1. The c 'mprehensive plan commercial goals and policies should be amendTd to include the adopted L/H/N goals and policies. 2. The comprehensive transportation plan should be amended to reflect the L/ /N Redevelopment Plan transportation element. 3. The land use plan should be amended to: a. Stiow the Wood Lake School site as a multi-family use. The m lti-family use category should also be added to the comprehensive pl n legend; b. • C. nge the density guide to high density only, eliminating medium 3 ity; Clange the principle use listing to include not only small retail shops but all types and sizes of comparable retail shops. I r I i 1 1. Council Letterl No, -2- June 14, 1976 I These amendments are "housekeeping" types of changes in that the planning commission and city council have previously adopted both the L/H/N goals and policies as well as the L/H/N land use and transportation plans. Planning Commission Review and Recommendation The planning commission held a public hearing on Vay 26, 1976 on the proposed comprehensive plan amendments. After consideration, the commission adopted the comprehensive plan amendments and recommended them to the city council for adoption. It is the recommendation of the planning director, in which I concur, that the comprehensive plan be amended as described above. Respectfully submitted, • Wayne S. Burggra a ff City Manager WSB/bll cc: Planning Director CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office'of City Manager i Council Letter No. 179 Agenda June 14, 1976 The Honorable Mayor and Members of tt iq City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: City Flag Design The Richfield Bicentennial Committee this spring sponsored a "Create. a City Flag" contest. The committee has judged all of'the- d.e.signs submitted and has selected a design which is recommended for the official City of Richfield flag is Reverend; Richard Bingea, Bicentennial Committee Chairman, will be present at the! June 14, 1976 city council meeting to present the recommended winning design and: four "honorable mention" designs to the council. i The °winners have not been notified of their selection and will not be i notified. until after the council endorses the official design for the city flag. It is anticipated that the 'artists will be honored at a flag-raising ceremony as soon as t4 flag is completed, Respectfully submitted, Itar Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/bll fo CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 178 Agenda June 14, 1976 The Honorable Nayor and -embers of the '',City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Application for Waiver of.Preliminary Platting Procedures Mr. Robert1G. Swanstrom, 10532 Drew Avenue South, has requested the city council to waive the preliminary platting procedures for subdivision of land, in accordance with Section 3.59 of the city's subdivision regulations. The applicant proposes to subdivide a 157.8 foot by 133.8 foot, lot into two lots which conform to city ordinance. One new lot will be 75 feet by 133.8 (10, 035 square feet); the other lot will be 82.8 feet by 133.8 feet (11, 079 square feet). Tie parcel of land to be divided is located at 7609 Morgan Avenue South. A house is located on the southern parcel of land, and the northern parcel vacant. It is necessary to subdivide the land to build on the northern parcel. Subdivision Re t Section 3.59 of the city code provides for waiver of the subdivision procedures for preliminary plats containing three lots or less. Exemption from the subdivision procedures must be granted by the city council. A copy of the subdivision regulations is a tacked. Staff Review Staff is of he opinion that the waiver of the preliminary platting procedures is justified. A l,ot of record is proposed to be subdivided into two conforming lots with no additional easement or public right-of-way needed. However, it should be noted that the action before the city council does not constitute approval of the land subdivision. The present action is only for waiver of the preliminary platting procedures. In accordance with city ordinance and state statutes, a final plat must be submitted for council review and approval. The procedure for submitting final plats is contained in Section 3.60 of the city ordinance. I Council Letter No.l 2 Agenda June 14, 1976 I Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission reviewed the request for waiver of preliminary platting op he dures' at its May 25, 1976 meeting. The commission recommends waiver i preliminary platting procedures for the division of the lot at 7609 Morgan Avenue South. Respectfully, submitted, Wayne S..Burggraaff City Manager WSB/bll cc: Planning Director .Jr'il it iS Le i s*trw 3; yr LL •r? ? i s : ^r v ? C ? ?r - i At i Z K - 7 C i f4181T A GENERAL COMMERCIAL .r.r. t , MULTIPLE RESIDENCE i. C X qq? GENERAL INDUSTRIAL LIMITED BUSINESS a . z 0OR I CD C3 0 El ©. ? o ' w ? °" . m Q a Y ;; ? t?f t n 1 3 ?= er . t 4 EN o- 7t 5 LI N > l__ N ,? J3 5 1-? ? t0 ?n - 8 ?i M -So `9 n to D v v 7745 • 70 r is t n^ a rt t5 ,2 o n u 3 a- •Z D-:: J ea A O I"4 N ? 24 1 C ? (b 5 Cl) 1 4 t o r 0 :?I tt '9' 8 c ?snf cj 183 00 .76 th- ST. .. ? i2 ` -10 0 IRI ?n-' _ ,, ems, ?t _awn r? N 1 _. •? ? r=te. ,, ? ? ? ..,?,: ?? ? _? t? ?-,? f^ ' i • LIJ ?. 4 _ LC D CJ J- I 7 7 i1 S T. o 221 201 p 0 0 ? 2115 2109 NF n D ? ? t o J c- cc: n land fin use Ma- 2 5 (?7 a2 ??- t - site HIBIT • LAX HiBir ?f, I• - - -t!i---- -ST. N Scale= ":, DWELUNG 7609 co CD CD __T OD GARAGE] I 'R 00 3.58. VARIANCES FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART. Whenever the tract to be sub- divided or platted a.: of such unusual size or shape, or is surrounded by such de- velopment or -unusual conditions that the strict application of the requirements containr-•n in this part would result in a substantial hardship or injustice, t-he council may vary or modify such requirements so that the subdivider is allowad to develop his property in a reasonable manner, but in such a manner that the r public welfare and interests of the city and surrounding g area , are protected and the general intent and spirit of these regulations are preserved. 3.59. PLATS -- PRELIMINARY APPROVAL. 5" 4AaJ,, Submission to Council. Any person Wishing to subdivide land into ..m?,ut•so,m..S.s..wagu+tcr.3ae?al•..sac.v..-....,.C.e.wwnu........,..-......- buildin, to s or to dedicate streets afe s or land for public use or to sub- divide land into bui 1dinQ lots tc^ether with the dedication or reservation of pub- .?,.:a.s?':.w..,s.. . _ - -r fig..,,,..,..... ...-.?. 6...._? _ r > .,.,,-....,-r-.?..,?...?....-..??-...,.._.......:,?.-.?-a_,.. •. _- .-••,. • li?c riva?, e. streets res ectivel, shal Le l sub„ t n.? (1?) gop-ies ?of?the? relimin- 16.'K`Vw"Ar res Vega.-•,nr `++++.C ••..•••. ...ar,sl:?etehZan,preferab? black and white prints, to . the council before submis-- 'l?'?.•.t•'.u .....•.. .?.?av+:..ij....•.y..Y• • +rrC`• .1N'Y:W...a...,uru.,,.......... LtY+. ?'...re•+?n./.a.-w--....r ,iooi the find plan. PJ_a?ts? c?ontainnth ;eelotsp 1r?,ssnabe exempted by ?.-?.....a.... th---•- e council from the _provisions of this section. Subd. 2. Contents of Submission. The preliminary plan is to be drawn to a scale of not more than 100 feet i:o the inch and shall show : (1) The location of present property and section lines, streets, buildings, water courses and other existing features within the area to be subdivided. (2) The proposed location and width of streets, lots, buildings, and set back lines and easements. (3). Existing sanitary and storm s.:aers, water mains,' culverts and other un- de'rground structures, within the tract -,r immediately adjacent thereto. The lo- cation and size of the nearest eater main and sewer or outlet are to bei.indicated in a general way upon the plat. (4) The title under which the proposed subdivision is to be. recorded and the, name of the subdivider platting the tract. (5) The names of all adjoining subdivisions or a description of unplatted areas and the layout of their streets. (6) The council may require a contour map to,be made, having contour intervals of not more than two feet. (7) north point, 'seal and date. (8) Plans or written and signed statements regarding the width of. all types of pavement, location, size and type of sanitary or other sewerage disposal facili- ties, water mains and hydrants or other utilities, storm water drainage facilities and other proposed improvements such as sidewalks, planting and parks and grading of individual lots. Preliminary plans not containing all of the above data wi.31 not be approved by the council. Subd. 3. Procedures:for Approval. Approval of the preliminary plans shall not constitute an acceptance of the subdivision by the council. One copy of the ap- proved preliminary plat, signed by the mayor and the manager, shall be retained in the office of the engineer. One signed copy shall be given to the subdivider. Receipt of this signed copy shall be authorization for subdivider to proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications for the minimum improvements required and with the preparation of the final plat. Prior to the construction of any im- provements required or to the submission of any bond, the subdivider shall furnish the council with all', plans, information and other data necessary for said improve- ments. The plans shall be examined by the engineer and will be submitted for ap- proval. by the council if in accordance with the requirements of this code. If ap- 97. d CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 177 Agenda June 14, 1976 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Barricades for Block Party Mr. Buster Smith, 6231 15th Avenue, has requested permission to barricade 15th Avenue between 62nd and 63rd Streets for the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 a.m., on Saturday, June 26, 1976, for the purpose of holding a block party. The only %stipulations attached to this request are that the barricades and warning devices be erected by the city in such a way so as to dis- courage through traffic, but to permit ingress and egress of emergency vehicles in the event this would be required during the time of the block party. Respectfully submitted, Wayne S. Burggra a ff I City Manager WSB/eja cc: Public Public Fire C ty Director cs Director i CITY OF RICHFIELD,! MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 176 Agenda June 14, 1976 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Concerning Participation in a Disorderly House At the city c uncil meeting of May 24, 1976, the council gave first reading consideration to an ordinance amendment concerning participation in a disorderly .house. The prop sed amendment subjects the operator of a business, the owner, the employees and the patrons to arrest and prosecution for being present in a disorderly house A disorderly house is any place where prostitution, illegal sale of intoxicating liquor or non-intoxicating malt liquor, or gambling occurs. It is recomm nded that this amendment be given second reading consideration at the June 14, 1976 city council meeting. WSB/bll cc: City Atto Public Sa Respectfully submitted, s. - Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager Director AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER X, PART III, SECTION 10.16 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter X, Part III, Section 10.16 of the ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to miscellaneous misdemeanor offenses is herebv amended by adding subdivision 12 to read as follows: "Subd. 12. Participating in a Disorderly House. No person shall own, lease, operate, maintain, reside in, visit or entice or attempt to entice another to reside in or visit any building or place with knowledge that prostitution as defined in Subdivision 10 of this Section, lewd, lascivious or -indecent acts, gambling or the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor or non-intoxicating ma t iquor occurs therein._ Evidence of the general reputation of such a building or place as one where any of the foregoing occurs shall be prima facie evidence of such • knowledge." Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, ]`Minnesota this _ day of une 1976. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk, 9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA j Dffice of City Manager I Council Letter No. 175 Agenda June 14, 1976 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject Ordering Preparation of Preliminary Engineering Reports for Permanent Street Construction and Ornamental Street Lighting Projects Proposed for 1977 i On the Junes 14, 1976 city council agenda there will be a resolution for the purpose of ordering preparation of preliminary engineering reports by our consult- ing engineers or? permanent street surfaces and ornamental street lights for 1977 projects. It is necessary to initiate this project for 1977 construction at this time in order to provide sufficient time for the public hearing process and the engineering survey work so that plans can be prepared during the winter months and bids received as early as possible in 1977. The areas proposed for 1977 paving are shown on the attached map. The streets shown o the attached map represent approximately `9.5 miles of street surfaces which would be included in the 1977 program. The area includes District # 12 bounded on the north by 62nd Street, on the west by I-35W, on the south by Wood Lake and 66th Street, and on the east by Pleasant Avenue. District # 14A includes that area known as "Rich Acres". Council members will recall that his area was originally scheduled to be part of the street construc- tion project several years ago, but was deferred upon request of area residents. However, since 1977 is the last year for the permanent paving program, if Rich Acres is to be included in the street construction program, it must be done in the 1977 project. The final ar a includes Lyndale Avenue between 74th Street and Lake Shore Drive. 1' IIi Council Letter ?, o. 175 -2 June 14, 1976 It is recommended that the resolution ordering preparation of preliminary reports be approved. Respectfully submitted, Wayne S. Burggraaff 1 City Manager WSB/bll cc; Public Works Director Finance Director j RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT ON PERMANENT STREET SURFACING, ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING AND APPURTENANCES THERETO CITY PROJECT NO. 686 AREAS NOS. 12, 14A and 15 WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve the following areas: Street Improvement District No. 12. That area bounded on the north by 62nd Street, west by 35W, south by 66th Street and east by Pleasant Avenue. Street Improvement District No. 14A. That area bounded on the north by 66th Street,, west by Highway 36 south by 69th Street and east by 21st Avenue. Street Improvement District No. 15. That area bounded on the north by Lake Shore Drive, west by Lyndale Avenue, south by 74th Street and east by Lyndale Avenue. Permanent street surfacing and ornamental street lighting and appurtenances thereon to assess abutting lots and parcels of land in the City of Richfield for all or a • portion of the cost of the improvement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: That the proposed improvements be referred to Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates, (Consulting Engineers) for study and that they be instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed, advising the Council in a preliminary way, as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible, the area to be assessed, and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. That the improvements listed in this resolution shall hereafter be known as City Project No. 686. That the cost for preliminary work shall be paid from the Construction Fund, such costs to be reimbursed when financing has been accomplished for the construction project. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of June, 1976. ATTEST: Loren L . Law Mayor Thomas J. Moran City Clerk 2 k E k Y k k k Y } k } ! } } > > - ti b -. ti H r y r ti ti H v ti .r -? y y ti y rERYES AVE _ _ _ ____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______ _____________ _ _ _ KERKE WASHBURN AVE a• -- _1 - WASHF VINCENT AVE - - ??----? -• 7t L?-- ?_ - - VINCEF UPTON AVE IPTON - i ?F?FERS(1H ? ' n THOMAS AVE ( /? E ] O _ lPARK .(_ G THOMA SHERIDAN AVE - `'-? ?- SHERIC RUSSELL AVE RUSE QUEEN AVE - - - D .. ? JUEEN PENN AVE •`??• PENN O 1 J OLIVER AVE D .. , _! ^? ' 1 • ouvEf I 111 NEWTON AVE _I ;. NEWTC ?rnI ? i aJ ??JJJ MORGAN AVE ' • 1 / JDT1 G' MORGAi LOGAN AYE ?^• D .. -? /3. - - LOGAN KNOX AVE J Cn (D IAq vh JAMES AVE D - JAMES T MONRfY I'FLL. 10 IRVING AVE ` . - RVING NUMBQL DT AVE •+UMB01 I _ GIRARD AVE GIRARC FREMONT AVE ---•- I f \ FREMOI EMERSON AVE IT EMERS( a r % .........: DUPONT AVE A D 1 ;:;.h.H, °e_j•:?'''?.?.•'• ?..:.....: ONT COLFAX AVE Qr Z •? f :': •: ? ? 'Cl '. ? .?: :..._....`:_; ).FAY I may`` '?{[f. BRYANT AVE V O ! ••1 : A1( .Z • i".' IITANT "•t ALOPICH AVE ALORI[i } :•:. .?.. sy •:`:i•i•'FF: YN A AY 'p?': :'..'.: .. ... ;N D LE E _ D l Al OD AVE ? •'_ ?'?'?'?.•'?':•:!'i:{•.:•. . .'::::?'?:':i}•''..•••' OA It D - cfl - D HARRIET AVE 11I ?,J N N N T?•? ^, •''L ..•.:•.: ?ARRIE GRAND 1?1 1?V rn --j cn AVE Asz •?-jam D - D 'E,?,•TI oR VT n D GRAND 2 ' PLEASANT AVE PLEASA PILLSBURY AVE { ' 1 'f PIV V58L WENTWOPTH AVE > i WENTW 1 r1i BLAISDELL AVE /?f I ?1 ? BI AISDE AI AVE !? ?? ?. -- - D 2 I z i . AVI ?( i STE vEn S.EYEN ..._ o ? o z 2,6 AYE I? /.: ?? ?\\ { O 2n0 AI rn r? ( _ 3,4 AVE CTI ?1 D T 1 ; !.A aI CLINTON AVE CtINT(I Arn AVE -4 - - ? AI• A MEMORIA, 511 AVE "AHN n A' PORTLANC AVE +ORTLJ OANLAN;' AVE 1 JAK;. Al PARK AVE 7 PARK A [DI ufAR114 AYE '? L D ?? z 1 r rn UM 00 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City `Manager Council Letter No. 174 Agenda June 14, 1976 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the 'City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Commission Appointment Attached for council consideration is an application for appointment to the Advisory Youth Commission from Steve Lindborg, who' wishes to be appointed for a one-year term as a youth member of this commission. There are still three adult term vacancies on this commission for which no applic tions have been received. Respectfully submitted, KhtA S. t Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Park and Recreation Director CITY OF RICHFIELD APPLICATION FORM FOR INDIVIDUALS DESIRING TO SERVE -ON MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMISSIONS OR COMMITTEES 1 Committee or commission for which application is being made you-r?.Ahv ?? . ? l 2. Name Cj'?"' A `J 1 tnc" 16 li r t? t.? ?? L? 3. Residence address C.yl- P_ ?,) 60 t ` r No. Street City Phone 4. Business address v uv ' Name of employing agency Address Position He d S . Date of birth Month Date Year 6. local organizational memberships and affiliations: a. b. C. 70 Briefly discuss aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this Municipal Committee and why you are interested in serving. I I 8. c 3. 9. Signature of applicant List the names of three persons who are thoroughly acquainted with your qualifications Name Occupation Address Phone 1. Me, WS V i ?a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 173 Agenda June 14, 1976 The Honorable IV ayor and Members of the +City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Establishment' of Parking Restrictions Attached to';this council letter is a petition received from the majority of residents on 732 Street between East Pleasant Avenue and Pillsbury Avenue. The petition requests establishment of parking restrictions om 732 Street in the form of "No Parking School Days 8:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. " This request is consistent with the policy established by the city council for parking control in the area of the Richfield High School. It is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director and the Public Works Director, in which I concur, that the requested parking restrictions be established. Respectfully subm ' ed, ilO I Wayne S. Burggraa City Manager WSB/bl'1 cc: Public Safety Director Public Work' Director wl - DPW 421-2 PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT ' City of Richfield, MN Petition No. Date Received To: The City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. We, the undersigned, the real property abutting on f owners a , -both _-.sides of__Z3% Street between PJ- 1sbury Avenue and Pleasant_Avenue _ _ __ hereby petition that such' street be improved by ?Lke_-jjjstallation of signs r? ? _ Examined, checked, and found to be in proper fora and to be signed by the required number. of owners of property affected by the making of the improvement petitioned for. per cent ity Clerk L