11-08-82 agenda.T-t- /Z
CITY OF RICHFIELD,MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 345
Agenda November 8, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Amendments to the Sign Ordinance
A recent United States Supreme Court decision resulted in
a review of the sspects of the Richfield sign ordinance. This
case, Metro Media V. City of San Diego raised certain serious
legal challenges to certain elements of our sign ordinance.
Therefore, amendments to the ordinance are proposed in order to
remedy this situation.
Subidivision 9.of Section 3.47 of the ordinance code regu-
lats signs along freeways within the city. The purpose of
these regulations continues-to relate to both traffic safety and
aesthetics. The proposed amendment to this subdivision are de-
signed to accomplish several purposes, including:
To establish a zone within 660 feet of all freeway rights
of -way within which these regulations will apply. This
standard is believed to be more specific and capable of
definite enforcement than the provisions contained in the
present ordinance which regulates signs on property "ad-
jacent" to freeways.
To prohibit new billboards within the aforementioned zone.
The current ordinance prohibits new billboards and cer-
tain on premise premises commercial messages and all non-
commercial messages. Under the amendment, on premise
signs and non = commercial signs would be permitted in the
zone subject subject to the same regulations and restrict-
ions as elsewhere in the city. This amendment is specifi-
cally designed to harmonize our ordinance with the holding
in Metro Media V. City of San Diego.
These amendments also provide for the removal of legal non -
conforminq billboards in certain circumstances and continues
to permit, subject to council approval, the transfer within
the zone of a legal non - conforming billboard from one location
to another. (When the affect of the transfer would be to
Council Letter No. 345
-2- November 8, 1982
lessen the impact of the billboard upon traffic safety or
on aesthetics).
It is recommended that the attached ordinance amendment
be given first reading at the November 8, 1982 city council
meeting and that the city council schedule a public hearing
and second reading on November 22, 1982.
RANarl
tfully submitted,
ollen berger
City Manager
KN /eja
�1
L I
•
•
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III,
PART V, SECTION 3.49 OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY
OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter III, Part V, Section 3.49 of the Ordinance Code of
the City of Richfield regulating construction, design, location
and maintenance of signs is hereby amended by amending Subdivision
9 thereof to read as follows:
"Subd. 9. Signs Along Freeways. Except as otherwise provided
in this part, billboards shall not be leeated- ea- �epe�ty- adaeet
to closer than 660 feet from the right of way of any freeway with-
in the city (including Highways 35W, 494, 62 and 36 77) shall -be
b�slaess- sl��s- ad�e�tls��g- h�slresses- hele�- ee�d�eted -ems -the
pre�lse9- a -�heh- the - signs -awe- leeated: No "traveling" or changing
message signs shall be located so as to face any freeway or be
visible from the freeway. the- �e�lelens- ef- thls- sehdlls } ®n;
he�e�e�;- sha��- net- be- c® nst�eed- te- �ende�- }lleaal- er- ren- eenfe�nln�;
ang- sl�ns- �hleh- awe- �ege��p- leeated- alen�- any- s�eh- �ree�a� -at -the
tle- ef- adeptlen- e- this- g�e�lslen; Any billboard legally located
alenq within 660 feet of any such freeway at the time of adoption
of this provision may be replaced, subject to compliance with the
other provisions of this part and subject to the limitations here-
inafter contained, either in the same location or at another
location along any such freeway provided that such alternate loca-
tion is first approved by the council. The council may approve a
relocation if it finds that the relocation will lessen any adverse
impact of the sign upon traffic safety and aesthetics. If the
billboard is not used for advertising purposes for a period of
more than two years, the use shall be deemed abandoned and
and shall terminate."
Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield,
MN this day of , 1982.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 347
Agenda November 5, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Considerations Related to Preparing an
Application for the Establishment of A
Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bond
Program in Richfield
With the recent congressional changes to the mortgage rev-
enue bond program, it may now be possible to offer qualify-
ing first -time homebuyers in our community below market inter-
est rate mortgages. During January, 1983, the Minnesota Housing
Finance Agency (MHFA) will be evaluating proposals submitted
by cities to utilize a portion of the state's housing mortgage
revenue bond authority. These proposals must be submitted to
MHFA by January 3, 1983. To initiate the process of devel-
oping a proposal lcoally, the council must adopt the attached
resolution establishing the date of the public hearing on cer-
tain elements of the application for December 13, 1982. A
more detailed presentation of the proposal will be presented
at that time after the HRA has time to decide on its desirabil-
ity for Richfield.
This letter discusses mortgage revenue bonds, the use of
bonds to finance housing purchases, the process to be followed
in for-mi?lating a proposal, city council and HRA goals, and other
issues to be considered and evaluated. The HRA will be dis-
cussing this program at their November 15, 1982 meeting.
Tax - exempt bonds have been issued for housing purposes since
just after World War II, but not until the early 1970's were
they issued in any great quantity. In the 70's, many state
housing finance agencies began to issue tax - exempt bonds for
mortgages on apartment buildings and owner occupied houses. In
1978, local governments began to issue bonds for mortgages
on owner - occupied houses. The authority for their issuance was
based on Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (IDRB) enabling
legislation.
Feceral law and regulation imposed few restrictions on these
bonds, provided that they were issued under the auspices of a
state or local government. However, in 1979, Congress became
r�
U
•
•
Council Letter No. 347 -2- November 8, 1982
concerned about the--large federal revenue losses associated
with the growing bond volume and the possibility that the vol-
ume of housing bonds would push up interest rates on tax - exempt
bonds issued for more traditional public purposes. Congress
also felt that the subsidy provided by these bonds should be
available to homebuyers of more modest incomes. Some states
and cities were providing the benefits of these bonds to
people who purchased very expensive housing.
In response to these concerns, Congress enacted the Mortgage
Subsidy Bond Tax Act of 1980. This is.also known as the Ullman
legislation. This act sharply limited tax exempt bonds for owner
occupied housing and denied tax - exemption on nearly all bonds
for owner occupied housing issued after December 31 1983.
Additional restrictions from the legislation passed in 1980
restricted use of the bonds substantially. There are limits
on the amount of bonds that each state may issue for owner -
occupied housing with the limit in Minnesota being around $200
million. Additionally, issuers can charge homeowners interest
rates no more than 1.125 percentage points above the interest
rate on the bonds; 90% of the proceeds must be used by first
time home buyers; and purchase price limits are imposed on housing
financed by bond proceeds.
Interest on these bonds is tax exempt, therefore, bondhold-
ers are willing to accept a lower interest rate than on compar-
able taxable securities. This enables a below market interest
rate to be offered to homebuyers on their mortgages. The fed-
eral government subsidizes the issues in that it loses the taxes
that would otherwise be paid on bond interest. The subsidy is
divided between the bondholders and the homebuyers, with some
portion also going to the various intermediaries in the process.
In 1981, state legislative action pursued by the League of
Minnesota Cities, allocated a portion of the Minnesota limit
of $200 million to cities. The MHFA utilizes the balance to
finance housing development throughout the state. In 1983, the
amount of bonding authority for cities is expected to be approx-
imately $27.5 million. The request for mortgage revenue bonds,
included in all programs of any applying city cannot exceed $10
million. (Because of the economics of scale, it may not be
practical for a city to submit a program application for less
than $8 million).
When MHFA receives proposals for more than the amount of
bonding authority available (which they most likely will), the
programs are ranked based on three tie - breaking criteria. The
first factor used is the proportion of the proposed issue re-
served for at least a six month period for households with in-
comes below 80 percent of the area median income limit, or
$22,880. A second factor is the proportion reserved for families
below 90% of the median income, or $25,740. The final factor
is the percentage of the proposed bond program that represents
non -bond proceeds, i.e. a cash contribution. In undeveloped
•
U
C�
- - - - -----__- t_'•Ta7ets- u,9e.se:.ia�s -�ck.: �- ',GYM- �ct�t_._
Council Letter No. 347 -3- November 8, 1982
communities, a developer typically will provide cash to the
city for the right to utilize the tax-exempt financing for
the development. In a program designed for financing the sale
of existing homes, such as in Richfield, the city or HRA usually
provides a significant portion of the cash contributiono
By February 1, 1983, MHFA will have reviewed each of the
submitted proposals and selected successful proposals. These
cities are then authorized by MHFA to sell the housing revenue
bonds through an underwriter, retained by the city. Local
lenders, who have agreed to participate in the program originate
and service the insured mortgages with the bond proceeds being
used to purchase these mortgages. As with IDRB's, these bonds
are not backed by the city's full faith and credit. The bond-
holders and mortgage insurers assume the risks of default.
In addition to the Ullman restrictions, mortgage revenue
bonds are issued in accordance with Minnesota Statute, Chapter
462C (1980), as amended. The application to be submitted by
January 3, 1983 must include the following:
-An adopted general housing plan and a financing program
considered at a public hearing. The documents set forth:
A. The housing needs of the city and the data demon-
strating those needs;
B. The plan of the city to meet identified housing
needs, and the specific methods to be used to carry
out the plan;
C. Target areas, if any, of the city for each method;
D. The financing program or programs to be included
in the plan;
E. The number and qualifications of lenders eligible to
participate in such programs;
F. The estimated amount of mortgage loans to be made or
purchased in each program and the estimated amounts
and timing of the sale of revenue bonds required to
finance such loans, fund appropriate reserves and
pay costs of issuance;
G. Methods for monitoring the implementation by partici-
pants to insure that the programs will be consistent
with the plan and its objectives;
H. The administrative capacity of the city to monitor
and supervise housing finance programs;
I. The cost to the city, including administrative costs:
J. An analysis of how the programs will meet the needs
of low and moderate income families in the city;
•
r -1�
•
Council Letter No. 347
°4- November 8, 1982
K. Maximum purchase prices or appraised values of single
family residences to be financed.
-The housing plan must be submitted to the Metropolitan
Council for review and comment.
The staff would be assisted in preparing these documents
by our financial consultant, Evensen- Dodge, Inc., a bond under-
writing firm and bond counsel from our city attorney's office.
In their deliberations regarding participation in this program,
the City Council and the HRA will need to consider several
issues. Both the HRA and City Council have identified objectives
which this program would help to achieve. That is, the need
to provide housing opportunities for young couples in their
family formation years. Related to this is the need to-_provide
older homeowners, "empty nesters ", with an opportunity to sell
their homes to younger families. This program would help achieve
these objectives. However, at this time, the city has a limited
amount of alternative housing to which the older families could
relocate.
This would be one of the few times the HRA and the city would
be involved in a housing assistance program that was targeted
to participants having close to a median income rather than low
or moderate incomes. The income range for persons eligible
for mortgages is influenced by the mortgage bond interest rate
and the cost of housing. As indicated previously, the bond pro-
gram would require initial sales to be targeted to those purchasers
with incomes not exceeding 80% of the median income of $22,880.
After the first six months, if there were not enough mortgage
activity, the inoome limit could be raised to 90% and still later
to the maximum allowable income, 110% of median income ($31,460).
The size of the eligible housing supply in Richfield and
the rate of sales in the past two years indicates that there is
an adequate housing market for this type of bond program. Using
present program requirements, although they are subject to change,
mortgages could finance houses selling for a maximum sale price
of $75,680. According to Hennepin County Assessing Department
data, of the 18 homesteaded residences in Richfield, 7,913
units (or 76 %) have an estimated market value under $75,600.
Of 265 residential sales (September, 1981 to August, 1982), 162
(or 61 %) of those actual sales were under $75,000. It is not
known how many of these sales were by "empty nesters ". (These
numbers do not include the sale of Lake Shore Drive condominiums
or unrecorded contract for deed sales). A $10 million bond issue
could support approximately 140 mortgages.
As mentioned earlier, a cash contribution would probably be
required in order for Richfield to be successful in a proposal
for bonding authority. In part, this contribution is required
because the Mortgage subsidy Bond Tax Act of 1980, as amended,
tightened the arbitrage rules for these bonds. The act requires
that mortgage interest rates be no more than 1.125 percentage
Council Letter No. 347 -5-
November 8, 1982
points above bond interest rates, and that any profit earned
on non - mortgage investments be rebated to the homeowners or
to the federal government. However, the act so limits the yield
on investments made with bond proceeds that the yields are not
high enough to cover interest due on the bonds and other re-
lated expenses, and still leave a balance for unexpected ex-
penses. A second reason for this cash subsidy is simply that
MHFA uses it as a means to rank proposals.
In the past, the minimum cash contribution, which cities have
pledged, has been 3 to 5 percent of the size of the issue. How-
ever, MHFA has recently indicated that to be competitive for the
limited amount of bonding authority ($27.5 million) up to a
10% contribution may be appropriate. Thus, on a $10 million
issued, based on past competitions, $300,000 to $500,000 would
be adequate; but if competition is strong, up to a 10 percent
or $1 million contribution might be needed to be selected.
Following is some information related to actual contributions
provided:
- Nationwide, the cash contribution varies widely but
averaged 8.7 percent of the total amount of bonds
issued for single family houses in 1981.
-In Minnesota, during the 1982 bond
ing cities, issue.-. sizes and cash
mitted and given authority to sell
City
Size of
Issue
competition,-the follow -
contributions were sub -
bonds by MHFA:
Size of Local
Contribution
Edina
$ 1.50
million
50.0%
Sauk Rapids
8.00
million
4.68%
St. Cloud
10.00
million
3.68%
Eagen
9,00
million
6.80%
Moorhead
8.00
million
3.55%
Duluth
1.00
million
22.00%
Robbinsdale
7.10
million
6.37%
Brooklyn Center
8..25
million
3.86%
Columbia Heights
8.40
million
3.48%
There are several possible sources of revenue for these funds.
The.L /H /N Capital fund would be readily available, while
Community Development Block Grant monies may be available. However,
the Federal Housing and Urban Development Department is not con-
fident that CDBG funds are eligible to be spent as a cash contrib-
ution. Other sources of funds for the cash contribution may
be from lenders interested in originating and servicing the mor-
tgages. They may be willing to contribute a portion of their
anticipated income from providing the mortgages to the city for
the cash contribution. House sellers could perhaps be charged
points at closing, an estimated 1 to 2 percent contribution.
These alternatives to the L /H /N capital fund could reduce the
marketability of the program.
Council Letter No. 347 -6- November 8, 1982
The cash contribution does not have to be provided until
after the city has been selected by MHFA. However, the
application must indicate the amount and the expected source.
Presently, it is not know which, if any, banks are desirous
of participating in the program, and if they would be interested
in subsidizing the program to obtain additional business. The
possibility of homesellers paying points also has not been eval-
uated. It appears that the HRA is the only organization which
can make a commitment to provide monies for a local contribution.
If alternatives can be developed later, the need for HRA monies
could be reduced. If alternatives are not available, then the
HRA would have to provide the monies.
By committing L /H /N capital monies to this project, it is
possible that other HRA and city council priorities would-be im-
pacted. The ability to subsidize future economic development
programs would be affected, i.e. the Godfather Block, new re-
development activities in other parts of the city, such as 76th
Lyndale, and Cedar Avenue. Housing programs such as Lincoln
Hills and the Legion Lake area east of Portland Avenue, might
be impacted as well.
Another consideration to be evaluated derives from the need
for a local contribution. The premise of our involvement in
the program is to provide a housing opportunity for people be-
low the metropolitan area median income of $28,600. If mortgage
program activity is slow at the 80% and 90% of median income
levels.to fully utilize the bond proceeds, itmay be necessary
to make the program available to families at-'l-M6 of median in-
come or $31,460. The amount of subsidy to be provided families
with income levels at these amounts must be considered in light
of other priorities.
In- :conclusion, due to 1982 legislature changes, the city
has an opportunity to compete for an allocation of bonding auth-
ority to provide below market interest rate mortgages. To par-
ticipate in this program would help achieve some objectives
previously identified by the city council and the HRA, while
making it more difficult to achieve other objectives. The de-
cision to participate has to be made by both the city council
and the HRA in that the city would seek the bonding authority
and the HRA would provide at least a significant portion of the
local contribution.
Because of time limitations, the date for the public hearing
on elements of the application must be set on November 8 for
December 13. In the interim, the HRA will be meeting on November
15 at their regular monthly meeting to consider the:..-merits of
the program. If the decision is made to_ proceed, the applica-
tion can be prepared within the time prescribed by law. In the
event it is decided not to pursue the program, the public hearing
can be cancelled.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached
resolution setting a public hearing on December 13, 1982 at
7:00 p.m. Res ectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
cc: HRA City Manager
J
•
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC
HEARING ON THE ADOPTION OF A
HOUSING PLAN FOR THE CITY
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Hennepin County, Minnesota as follows:
1. It is hereby found and determined that it is necessary
and desirable that the City take the necessary actions to under-
take programs of providing funds to assist in the financing of
the acquisition or rehabilitation of single family housing for
persons of low and moderate income and the acquisition and re-
habilitation of multi - family housing developments all as author-
ized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act ").
2. The City Council shall meet at 7:00 p.m. on Monday,
December 13, 1982 to conduct a public hearing on a proposed
housing plan and included programs for the City as required by
the Act.
3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to publish
notice of the public hearing set by paragraph 2 in the manner
required by law and in substantially the form of the notice
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
4. The City Manager is authorized and directed to prepare
a proposed housing plan and included programs for submission to
this Council at the time of the public hearing, and to take such
other actions as he deems necessary to insure that the housing
plan, if adopted by this Council, and any programs (as defined
by the Act) contained therein are timely submitted to the appro-
priate regional and state agencies for review and approval.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of 1982.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 344
Agenda November 8, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Proclamation Designating Jaycee "TOYM '83
Weekend" in Richfield
Attached to this council letter is a copy of a letter
received from the local Jaycee's Chapter. In February,
1983, the Jaycees will be hosting the annual Ten Outstand-
ing Young Minnesotans competition at the Radisson Hotel.
The Jaycees have requested that the city support this event
by purchasing a $200 page in their convention booklet, as
well as a proclamation designating "TOYM '83 Week in Rich-
field."
This item has been placed on the November 8, 1982 city
council agenda, and several Jaycees will be present to re-
ceive the proclamation at that meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /eja
s
•
November 4, 1982
Mayor John Hamilton
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Mayor Hamilton:
Pumping
For
Success
_J
TOYM '83
In February, 1983, the Richfield Jaycees and Jaycee Women will be host-
ing the Ten Outstanding Young Minnesotans -1983 competition at the Radi-
sson South Hotel. This annual event is being hosted solely by the
Richfield Jaycees and Jaycee Women for the first time. The TOYM compe-
tition recognizes approximately 50 young individuals from Minnesota who
have contributed significantly to their communities. Ten of these
candidates are chosen as the Outstanding Young Minnesotans of 1983.
Past winners have included personalities such as Wheelock Whitney, Mark
Dayton, David Durenberger; Waiter Mondale, Don Wegmiller, Stanley
Olson, George Mikan and Matt Blair. Most of these winners were honored
long before the accomplishments they are known for today were a reality.
The Richfield Jaycees /Jaycee Women would like to request the City Coun-
cil of the City of Richfield to proclaim February 4 -6, 1983 as "TOYM '83
Weekend in the City of Richfield." We have enclosed a proclamation for
Your consideration. In addition, as the city has done from time to
time in the past to support statewide conventions sponsored by local
civic croups, we would like to ask the city council to purchase a $200
page in our convention book, welcoming Jaycees from all over the state
to our community.
Finally, it is our hope that as Mayor, you would be willing to spend
a few minutes on Saturday, February 5, at our luncheon extending your
personal welcome to the 1,800 Jaycees in attendance at this event.
The members of the Richfield Jaycees and the Jaycee Women would like
to thank the city council for the support you have shown to civic
groups in our community. We appreciate any help you can give our group
i:-
-he largest project we have endeavored to pursue in our history.
Sincerely _yours,
Jim i lcox, TOYM '83
? =omoticns C "airman
cc: Doug Olson, ?resident
RICHFIELD JAYCEES /JAYCEE WOMEN • R.O. Box 23025 • Richfield, Minnesota 55423
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING
TOYM '83 WEEKEND
1HEREAS, the Jaycees and the Jaycee women pAov.ide iead-
eA,hip 0a.in.ing and peAsonai deveiopmen-t to men and women
between the ages ob IS and 35; and
WHEREAS, the Jaycees believe that 0envice to human -
ity is the best woAk ob tile"; and
WHEREAS, each yeah the Jaycees Aecogn.iee 50 young
Minnesotans who waiii become .tomoAAow l z 2eadeA& and who
have con-tAibu.ted Agn.i6ican-tiy to -theiA communities; and
WHEREAS, -ten ob these candcandidates aAe chosen as the
Ten Outstanding Young M.inn'eso-tan4 (TOYM); and
WHEREAS, the R.ichb.ieid Jaycees /Jaycee Women w.iit
4ponsoA the 1983 TOYM competition on FebnuaAy 4th, 5th,
and 6th, 1983 at the Rad.i44on South Ho.tei; and
WHEREAS, the -theme bon the 1983 TOYM Weekend is a
diAefigh.ten .theme ob "Pumping bon Success ".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, John'
Hamilton, Mayoh ob the City ob R.ich6ieid, do heneby pno-
cia.im the weekend ob Febnuahy 4 -6, 1983 to be "TOYM 183
(WEEKEND IN RICHFIELD ", and do uAge aii oun citizens to
su;opoAt this 4ign.i6ican.t and won-thwhite Jaycee pxognam.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that I
the Radision South Ho.tei w.iii be an
FiAe Station No. 3 box the duna.t.ion
do heneby pxocia.im
hononaAy R.ich6ieid
Q the meeting.
Done. at the City ob R.ich6ietd, Minnesota this 8th
day ob November, 1982.
John Hami -ton ,Mayon
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 343
Agenda November 8, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Memberso
Subject: Purchases in Excess of $2,500:
The city charter stipulates that the city council must
approve the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or
construction when the amount exceeds $2,500. There are two such
items on the council agenda of November 8, 1982.
Street Light Fixtures
Street light fixtures in the L /H /N are more decorative
than the standard.-light fixture in the city. The approximate
cost of the standard light fixture is charged to the general fund
while the additional cost for the more decorative fixture is
charged to the L /H /N special assessment project. Recent accidents
and problems have left the inventory of L /H /N street lights almost
depleted.
Four quotations were received for replacement fixtures--which
include pole, base and fixture. The quotations received were as
follows: Threw Collins - $1,680; Sterling Electric - $1,715;
Carnes and Associates - $1,460 and Graybar Electric Company -
$1,429.
It is recommended that the city council approve the purchase
of three poles, three bases, five fixtures and six base covers
from Graybar Electric for a total purchase price of $5,272.
Liquid Hydrofluorisilic Acid
Hennepin County has received-bids for hydrofluorisilic acid
(HFS), a chemical used in the fluoridation of water. The low
bidder was Hawkins Chemical Co. with a quotation of $.89 per
gallon. It is estimated that the city would use 3,600 gallons
from November, 1982 through May, 1983.
It is recommended that the city council approve a master
purchase order with Hawkins Chemical Co., for an estimated total
expenditure of $3,204.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
r�
r
r---1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 342
Agenda November 8, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Setting Date of Hearing for Renewal of
On -Sale Liquor Licenses
The municipal code requires that the city council set the
date for a hearing on applications for renewal of on -sale
liquor licenses. Notice of any hearing dates must be published
in the official newspaper at least ten days in advance of such
a hearing.
It is recommended that a public hearing be scheduled for
the December 13, 1982 city council meeting to consider the re-
newal of on -sale and Sunday liquor licenses for the Ground Round
Restaurant, the Godfather, Inc., and the Consol Corporation, dba
Maximillans and Chi Chi's.
Respectfully submitted,
;<,--' k !�
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: City Clerk
Public Safety Director
KN /ej a
J
•
11
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 341
Agenda November 8; 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Canvass of Election
Attached to this council letter is a resolution pro-
viding for canvass of the results of the city's general
election of Tuesday, November 2, 1982.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the
attached resolution, certifying these election results.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: City Clerk
KN /ej a
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DETERMINING RESULTS OF STATEWIDE PRIMARY ELECTION
IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1982.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the council having
received and considered the tally of votes by the judges of the general election
held November 2, 1982, the results are determined to be as follows:
Votes cast for Candidates:
Council Member. - Ward One:
Howard Bunce
2137
Don Hassenstab.
2044
Council Member - Ward
Two:
Ivan Ludeman
2378
Michael M. Sandahl
2317
Council Member - Ward
Three:
Earl Schaefer
1360
Don Priebe
2958
BE'IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following list of judges
were those certifying returns of said election:
Shirley Gisselquist (D)
R. Jean Rand (D)
Bernice T. Utter (D)
Shannon Kelley (D)
Kevin Waldo (D)
Lisa Songle (D)
Paula Chell (D)
Martha Siddy (R)
Darrell Koss (R)
Ralph M. Roberts (R)
Norma Skogheim (R)
Janice Nunn (D)
Mildred Hines (D)
Gladys Juengling (D)
Louise H. Carlson (R)
Myrtle Lindgren (R)
Blanch Goodin (R)
Michaeline Kvaale (R)
Elayne Gilhousen (R)
Kris Knutson (D)
Ellen Brandon (R)
Helen K. Peterson (D)
Mary Jane Suess (D)
Ann E. Stevens (R)
Jan Bray (D)
Virginia Swanson (R)
Ione J. Waller (R)
Doris Lattery (R)
Susan Root (D)
Emily Day (D)
June Sveum (R)
Elinor Kuhl (D)
Mary Ann Smith (R)
Ann C. Burkhardt (D)
Russel L. Helleckson (D)
Mildred Hauge (R)
Lavella Turek (D)
Gertrude A. Sanders (R)
Helen E. Peterson (D)
Janice Anderson (R)
Philip J. Carney (D)
Lois Awes (D)
Linda Bloomgren (D)
John Gera (D)
Jane Nelson (R)
Rose Hoppenrath (R)
Donna M. Peterson (R)
Jack Foeller (P,)
Alice Dickinson (R)
Virginia Nitke (D)
Rachelle Brekken (R)
John Driscoll (D)
Ann Stensby (R)
Lois M. Johnson (R)
Robert Mack (D)
Dave Arnold (R)
Matthew Kasinkas (R)
Carolyn Walker (D)
Susann Ruzicka (D)
Beverly Strombeck (R)
Chas. Fanning (R)
Lois Ball (D)
Esther Anderson (P.)
Edward Thornton (R)
Ethel Hommes (R)
Stephen Laven (R)
Jaclyn,Schwab (D)
Mary Lou Janco (D)
Lisa Madsen (R)
Catherine Alfano (D)
Cathy Johnson (R)
Nancy Groen (D)
Ebba Bergin (D)
Phyllis Reinmuth (R)
Verla Herberg (R)
Lorayne Sutton (D)
Edythe Nye (R)
Marie Nyman (R)
Coral Carey (D)
Maxine Evans (R)
Lois Karnas (R)
Cher Merrill (D)
Dace Zoltners (D)
Beverly Stelman (D)
Esther Wiedenmeyer (D)
Margaret Wagner (R)
Jackie Lucy (R)
Chris Anglesey (R)
Joy Curran (D)
Martha Obenchain (D)
Jim Neuhart (D)
Jim Carlson (D)
Kathleen Leckner (D)
Christy Kingsley (D)
Mary H. Morton (R)
Rita Feddema (R)
Betty Halloran (R)
Gladys Hayden D)
Arbie Johnson R)
Eloise Friend (R)
Martha Prottengeier (R)
Bruce Woida (R)
Patricia Brenner (D)
-2-
Barbara Vinge (D)
Franc Gray (R)
Lisa Strom (D)
Donna Vidas (R)
Pauline Huber (P.)
Bernadette Lais (R)
Lil Pearson (R)
Florence Habegger (D)
Meredith E. Anderson (R)
Rosemary Peritz (R)
Richard Cameron (R)
Eunice L. Johnson (D)
Teresa Sherry (D)
Chris Snowden (D)
Laurie Rossow (R')
Muriel Findell (D)
Clara Darsow (D)
Patricia Farnham R)
Fabiola Sullivan D)
Jim Giihousen (D)
Ella Haiqht (R)
Rosemary Reynolds (D)
Lorraine De May (D)
Betty Alpaugh (D)
Lorraine Maki (D)
Mary Ellen Reigert (D)
Trudy Skulborstad (R)
Gertie Herll (D)
Monica Mulleriele (R)
Janet Halbur (D)
Marion Horning (D)
Stephanie Muenzhuber (D)
Helen Volz (D)
Carol Josephs (R)
Renae Fossum (D)
James Jungels (D)
Audrey Winslow (R)
Ilene Holen (R)
Joyce Rodenberg (R)
Loraine Watson (R)
Karen Sepolski (R)
Rick Cameron (D)
Pat Toney (R)
Elizabeth Eckstein (D)
Pat Bunting (D)
Corrine Cosgrove (D)
Rich Gustafson (R)
Charlotte Bonstrom (R)
Carolyn Collopy (D)
Rosemary Koelln (R)
Tracy Dureen (D)
David Ophoven (D)
Shirley Comstock (R)
Harry Waller (R)
Lois Kovach (D)
Dee Wilcox (R)
Stephen Sable (D)
Barb Cook (D)
Nancy Winslow (R)
Susan Lewis (R)
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 8th day of November, 1982.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City C er
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 340
Agenda November 8, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Appointment to the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority
In 1980, Mr. Thomas Harms was appointed to fill an un-
expired five -year term on the Housing and Redevelopment Auth-
ority. This term expired in October, 1982.
Under state law, the Mayor may appoint HRA commissioners,
subject to confirmation by the city council. An item to appoint
an HRA Commissioner for a five -year term which will expire on
October 29,,1987, has been placed on the November 8, 1982
city council agenda.
Respectfully submitted,
b4L nl
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/ e j a.
C7
•
0
/6p
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 339
Agenda November 8, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Application for Non- Intoxicating Malt Liquor
License, Chuck E. Cheese, Southdale Square
Shopping Center, 2000 West 66th Street
As the council may recall, a request for...a special use
permit to install a "Chuck E. Cheese Pizza Time Theatre" family
restaurant in the Southdale Square Shopping Center, was approved
on October 11, 1982. The Minnesota Animated Restaurants has now
made application for a food, general amusement device, and a non -
intoxicating malt liquor license. The required background in-
vestigation with regard to the applications has now been com-
pleted by the Department of Public Safety.
The applicant, Minnesota Animated Restaurants, is a business
name for Norcenco Partners, Ltd. II, a partnership that holds the
exclusive franchise for Chuck E. Cheese's Pizza Time Theatres in
the state of.1innesota. There are currently five of these fran-
chise restaurants located in Minnesota: one in Blaine, Burnsville,
New Hope, Maplewood, and Wiate Park. The principal shareholders
of Norcenco Partners Ltd. II are Marc Teren, (also Director of
Corporate Development for Mirada Corporation); Paul Justin, Eric
Siegel; Fred Schumacher; Charles Franklin and Harold Teran. Marc
Teren, Paul Justen and Eric Siegel all reside in the Metropolitan
Area, while the other three reside in California. We have found
no criminal record for any of these individuals.
As a part of our background investigation we made contact
with police agencies in each of the communities in which an appli-
cant restaurant operates and have determined that each restaurant
is well managed. It appears that they have a very strict security
operation that forbids minors from entering the establishment with-
out an accompanying adult. This policy seems to deter minors from
loitering in the establishment where there are numerous video
amusement devices. These restaurants seem to emphasize the family
environment and present a wholesome atmosphere for the family
clientele.
Council.Letter No. 339 -2-
November 8, 1982
In reviewing Richfield Ordinance Code 11.04, Sale and
Dispensation of Non - Intoxicating Malt Liquors, it appears at
this time that a manager for the Richfield establishment would
still have to be a resident of Richfield. The ordinances re-
lating to residency requirements for managers of on -sale liquor
and wine licenses have been amended to eliminate this residency
requirement. However, the residency of the manager of this
establishment should be consistent with the applicable ordinances
in effect at the time the manager is appointed.
The investigation conducted by the Public Safety Depart-
ment revealed nothing that would preclude the issuance-of-the
licenses requested by this applicant. It is, therefore,
recommended that the city council approve the requested licenses.
�Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc< City Clerk
Public Safety Director
KN /eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter Nd. 338
Agenda November 8, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Resolution Ordering Preparation of Prelimin-
ary Report for Reconstruction of 66th Street
and Penn Avenue Intersection
On May 10, 1982, a city council study session was held to
discuss the reconstruction of the 66th Street and Penn Avenue
intersection. The intersection is being considered for improve-
ment for a number of reasons including: high traffic volume,
accident reduction, deterioration of the pavement, and insuff-
icient parking at certain locations near the intersection.
The Hennepin County traffic engineer presented a prelim-
inary intersection improvement plan to the council for review.
The plan included a median extending about one city block in
each direction from the intersection. Median breaks would
occur at Oliver and Queen Avenues. Protected left turn bays
were proposed to be constructed on all four legs of the inter-
section.
In conjunction with the proposed improvements presented by
the county, the possibility of using city rights -of -way to en-
hance the parking situation was discussed. On June 7 and 8,
1982, informational meetings were held for businesses and resi-
dents of each quadrant of the 66th Street and Penn Avenue in-
tersection. The proposed improvements were presented and input
received from those in attendance.
The city engineer has been meeting individually with prop-
erty owners and businesses to explain the proposed improvements
and to explore the feasibility of using public right -of -way to
enhance parking and access. To address the parking and access
issues raised by the businesses, the city engineer has been
working with the Hennepin County traffic engineers to make ad-
justments in the length and width of the median to minimize
right -of -way acquisition and maximize accessibility.
The county has prepared a revised plan for the intersection
improvements to be presented to the city council for action. The
Council Letter No. 338 -2-
November 8, 1982_
county is requesting approval at this time to provide adequate
time for the right -of -way acquisition and the detailed planning
process prior to anticipated construction in 1984.
This project will include special assessments for street
lighting and sidewalks on the Penn Avenue - -:portion. Therefore,
it is necessary to follow the procedural steps for an assess®
ment project. The staff suggests the following schedule:
November 8, 1982: Council orders preparation of
preliminary report
November 22, 1982: Preliminary report presented to
city council and public hearing
set for December 13, 1982
December 13, 1982: Public hearing on proposed project.
The council will be asked to review and approve the final
plans and specifications in 1983 if the project is approved.
It is recommended that the city council approve the attached
resolutions ordering the preliminary report on this project.
Respectfully submitted,
�) 14 '
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development. Director
City Engineer
KN /ej a
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF
PRELIMINARY REPORT FOR C.P. 780
RECONSTRUCTION OF 66TH STREET AND
PENN AVENUE INTERSECTION
WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve Penn Avenue between the
centerline of 65th Street and the centerline of 68th Street; and
66th Street between the centerline of Morgan Avenue and the
centerline of Sheridan Avenue by widening, construction of left
turn lanes and medians, reconstruction of the pavement surface,
curb, and gutter, sidewalk installation, street lighting and
traffic signal installation, and appurtenant work, and to assess
the benefited property for a portion of the cost of the street
and sidewalk improvements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429,
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Richfield,
Minnesota:
That the proposed improvement be referred to the city engineer
for study and that he is 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 and as to whether
it should best be made as proposed or in conenction with some
other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as
recommended.
Passed by the city council of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th
day of November, 1982.
John Hamilton, Mayor
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
//
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 337
Agenda November 8, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Amendment to the Cable Television Franchise
Ordinance to Provide for Administrative
Variances in Certain Instances. First Reading.
Attached to this council letter is a copy of a proposed
administrative variance ordinance and a resolution designating
the city's authority to the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission
to act as a Hearing Officer and to grant variances to the fran-
chise ordinance after proper review.
It has become evident, now that the cable communications
system is in operation, that certain minor or nonsubstantive
changes will have to be made in the company's offering. The
services available to a cable communications system and the
applicable technology change very rapidly. Consequently, a pro-
cedure is necessary that will provide flexibility in the admin-
istration and enforcement of the franchise without entailing
costly ordinance amendments and delays. I believe the proposed
administrative variance ordinance meets this need and will fac-
ilitate efficient administration and enforcement of the cable
franchise.
Through the attached resolution, the city council will del-
egate its authority to hear variance requests to the Southwest
Suburban Cable Commission when the proposed variance affects two
or more member cities. In the event that the proposed variance
relates to an issue unique to one member city, that member city
will retain the authority to hear the variance request. In
this way, some local autonomy is preserved within the overall
commission approach to franchise administration and enforce-
ment.
It is recommended that the city council give first reading
approval to this ordinance amendment and schedule the public
hearing for November 22, 1982.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /ej a
11
RESOLUTION DELEGATING AUTHORITY
TO THE SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION
TO ACT AS HEARING OFFICER FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THE FRANCHISE ORDINANCE
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE PROCEDURE
AND TO GRANT VARIANCES
TO THE FRANCHISE ORDINANCE
AFTER REVIEW OF FINDINGS OF FACT
WHEREAS, the City of has entered into a
Joint and Cooperative Agreement to create the Southwest Suburban
Cable Commission; and
WHEREAS, under the terms of the Joint and Cooperative
Agreement, City has delegated authority to the Southwest Suburban
Cable Commission to enforce and administer the cable franchise
operating in the City; and
WHEREAS, the member cities and the Commission have estab-
lished an administrative variance procedure to review requests
for variances from the franchise ordinance; and
WHEREAS, in the interests of efficiency, the Commission is
the appropriate entity to review variance requests on behalf of
all of the member cities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT.RESOLVED by the Council in a regular
meeting assembled that the sthenfunctions hereby
ofauthorized
Hearingto act
on behalf of the City to perform
Officer to review and process requests for variances from the
cable franchise ordinance that affect two or more member cities;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission is hereby
authorized to grant variances to the franchise ordinance, after
proper review and consideration of findings of fact regarding the
variance when said variance affects two or more member cities;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that City is hereby authorized to
grant variances to the franchise ordinance, after proper review
and consideration of findings of fact regarding the variance when
said variance is unique to City and does not affect other member
cities.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
Secretary
day of , 1982.
By
Its:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE
ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE IN
CERTAIN INSTANCES AND DESCRIBING FINDINGS REQUIRED;
ADDING NEW ARTICLE XV. TO ORDINANCE NO.
The City of hereby ordains that
Ordinance No. of the City is amended by adding
Article XV thereto as follows:
ARTICLE XV
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE PROCEDURE
Section I. Purpose and Intent.
It is the purpose of this Article to establish a procedure
that will provide flexibility in the administration and enfor-
cement of this Franchise without the need for costly ordinance
amendments and delays. Changes in the Offering of Grantee that
are not inconsistent with the requirements of this Franchise may
be approved by the Council pursuant to this Article.
Section II. Matters Subject to Variance Procedure.
Any change, alteration or substitution in the Offering shall
be made only after compliance with the provisions of this
article. No changes, alterations or substitutions may be made
pursuant to this article except those relating to:
A. Construction techniques, equipment, materials; and /or
the design and development of buildings, appurtenances, or other
real or personal property incident to the cable system;
B. System design and configuration, technical standards,
performance tests and maintenance procedures;
C. Services and programming tiers;
D. Public access or local origination equipment, personnel,
facilities, and operating procedures;
E. Subscriber practices, including complaint procedures,
subscriber contracts, repair service, and information to
subscribers; and
lac
F. Amounts of insurance, performance bonds, security depo-
sits or letters of credit, and accrued interest.
Section III. Procedure.
Application for Variance
Applications for variance shall be filed with the
Administrator on forms provided by the Administrator and subject
to the following procedures:
A. The Franchise fee collected by Grantor shall be used to
cover the expenses incurred by Grantor in processing the applica-
tion for variance:
B. The Administrator shall give notice of the application
to the Council, cities having a similar franchise, and Grantee of
the date, time and place of the hearing on the application.
Notice of the hearing shall be published once in the official
newspaper at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing. The
hearing shall be held no more than sixty (60) days after the date
of receipt of the application.
C. The Administrator shall review the application and pre-
pare a recommendation to the Council prior to the date of the
hearing.
D. Following the public hearing, at which all persons shall
have an opportunity to be heard, the Council may grant a
variance.
E. Upon a vote of two- thirds (2/3) of all the members of the
Council the variance application may be approved. In granting a
variance, the Council may amend the variance sought in the applica-
tion and may attach such conditions to the granting of the variance
as the Council deems to be in the public interest.
Section IV. Findings Required.
No variance shall be granted unless, in the sole discretion
of the Council, all of the following circumstances, where appli-
cable, are found to exist:
A. The requested variance is a minor deviation from the
Offering and is consistent with the Franchise.
B. Strict compliance with the terms of the Offering may
result in a hardship to the applicant and granting a variance
will not be detrimental to other affected parties, the City, or
the public.
-2-
C. Due to expense or delay,, it would be unreasonable to . =M
perfect such change by ordinance amendment.
D. Undue delay, expense or other adverse results will not
occur as a result of approval of the required variance.
E. The variance will not result in a reduction in technical
standards or cost efficiency.
F. The variance will not result in a deviation from the
requirements of the MCCB or FCC or any other rule or law.
G. The variance is not subject to approval of a city having
a similar franchise.
-3-
-P, /U
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 336
Agenda November 8, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Public Hearing on Request for City of Richfield
to Issue Industrial Development Revenue Bonds,
Minnesota Mini - Storage II
Minnesota Mini - Storage II has requested that the City of
Richfield issue Industrial Development Revenue Bonds to finance
the construction of a 79,750 square foot self- storage facility
on the vacant property located at the northwest corner of 78th
Street and Pillsbury Avenue. The city council has previously
approved a special use permit, variances and an off - street parking
permit for this proposed use.
The amount of the requested bond issue is $1,500,000. This
figure includes $300,000 for land acquisition and site develop-
ment, $965,000 for construction, $25,000 for equipment acquisition
and installation, and $210,000 for initial bond reserve. This
bond is to be paid off over a 15 -year period.
It is anticipated that construction will begin on or about
December 1, 1982 and be completed on or about September 1, 1983.
As a result of this anticipated project an additional two new
jobs would be created, with an annual payroll of approximately
$36,000.
Miller and Schroeder Municipals, Inc. has examined the prop-
osed financing plan; it is their belief that it would be economi-
cally feasible to secure financing for this project using the in-
dustrial development revenue bond method.
In the past, the city council has typically favored the
issuance of IDR bonds when a project was located within a designa-
ted redevelopment area, when there were unusual circumstances
which appreciably added to the cost of the construction of a par-
ticular project (e.g., the Corporate Travel facility); or in the
case of the Canteen Corporation of Minnesota, when a project will
add to both the employment and tax base of the city.
The city staff has reviewed the request against the attached
city guidelines for the issuance of industrial development revenue
bonds and found the following:
Council Letter No. 336 -2- November 8, 1982
1. The project would be commercial in nature and would
be compatible with the city's overall development
plans and objectives and.would be consistent with
the city's comprehensive plan and ordinances, in-
cluding the zoning ordinance.
2. The amount requested is over the minimum amount of
$300,000.
3. The proposed development will not generate sufficient
additional employment opportunities, or incentives for
future development. It would, however, add to the
city's tax revenues. The assessor's office indicates
that, if the market value of the proposed development
was established at $1,500,000 the taxing entities would
realize annual tax revenues of $66,000, at the current
mill rate.
4. The office of the city attorney has been responsible
for the processing and coordination of this application.
It is recommended that the city council conduct the required
public hearing on this matter. Following this hearing, it is the
recommendation of the city staff that the city council not approve
the request for issuance of $1,500,000 of industrial development
revenue bonds to Minnesota Mini - Storage II. As outlined above,
the request is not consistent with the city's guidelines for gen-
erating new employment opportunities, and would not provide in-
centives for future development.
If the council, however, wishes to approve the issuance of
IDR bonds, the attached resolution should be approved.
Respectfully submitted,
4,& e,1'a&S",e,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Attorney
Finance Coordinator
GUIDELINES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS FOR
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
The Municipal Industrial Development Act (Chapter 474, Minnesota
Statutes, 1990, as amended) authorized the City of Richfield to issue
Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (IDR bonds).
In the past, the city has received periodic requests to issue
Municipal Industrial Revenue Bonds, and it is anticipated that addi-
tional requests will be made in the future. This type of bond can
be issued by the City of Richfield as a means of encouraging the
development of economically sound industry and commerce within the
community, and as a means of maintaining and promoting economic and
industrial vitality. The following guidelines will be utilized to
help both the city council and the staff to fairly and consistently
evaluate IDR bond requests.
1. projects for which IDR financing is sought shall be either
of an industrial or commercial nature, and shall be com-
patible with the overall development plans and objectives
of the city. The project shall also be evaluated in terms
of its computability and consistency with the zoning ordin-
ance, comprehensive plan, housing plan, and other similar
ordinances and plans of the City of Richfield.
2. The applicant shall have the responsibility to reimburse
the city for all expenses incurred in reviewing the appli-
cation, preparing legal documents, ar_d for other adminis-
trative activities and related additional expenses. As a
part of this application procedure, the applicant will be
required to submit the initial deposit of $500 which shall
be nonrefundable.
The decision by the city council to issue these bonds shall
not constitute an endorsement or favorable finding by the
council as to the financial feasibility of the project or
of its likely success.
4. The city will generally net consider the issuance of Indus-
trial Revenue Bonds having an aggregate principal amount of
less than $300,000. This limit may be waived under appro-
priate circumstances such as the expansion of an existing
business or industry or =or the financing of a highly sought
industry or business.
5. In considering the issuance of Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds, the ci counci? will evaluate whether a
proposed -project provides additional zmcicvment opportuni-
ties; i.certives fcr future development; and likely increases
_n the city's tax revenues.
-2-
6. The city council shall have the right to review and not
issue municipal revenue bonds at any time prior to the
actual time of issuance of the bonds, if it determines
that it is in the best interests of the city not to issue
these bonds. The city may also withdraw from participatio,,
should the parties to the transaction be enable to reach
agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the d ®cu-
meats required for the transaction. A decision of the city
council with respect to withdrawing from the process shall
be noncontestible.
i. The office of the city attorney of the City of Richfield
will be responsible for the processing and coordination of
applications for industrial Revenue Bond financing.
9. Tax exempt mortgage financing will be allowed as an alter-
native to bond financing but will be subject to the same
Policies, rules, and regulations as bond financing.
9-. The applicant shall be required to furnish seven copies of
all materials required by the city. The applicant shall
select qualified financial consultants and /or underwriters
to prepare all the necessary documents and materials as
required by the Richfield City Attorney °s office.
10. All applications submitted for consideration by the city
council shall be furnished on forms provided by the State
of Minnesota, Department of Commerce Securities Division,
for approval of Municipal Industrial Revenue Bonds. The
city council may, at its discretion, require the applican,
to provide additional materials under certain circumstances.
11. Projects of a unique nature may result in the city council
requesting that the applicant provide additional financial
or economic information so that the city council may fairly
evaluate the desirability and feasibility of the project.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GIVING
PROJECT UNDER THE
DEVELOPMENT ACT:
THE DEPARTMENT OF
FOR APPROVAL: AND
OF AGREEMENT AND
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A
MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL
REFERRING THE PROPOSAL TO
ENERGY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM
PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. It is hereby found, determined and declared as follows:
1.1 The welfare of the State of Minnesota requires active
promotion, attraction, encouragement and development of economically
sound industry and commerce through governmental acts to prevent,
so far as possible, emergency of blighted lands and areas of chronic
unemployment, and the state has encouraged local government units
to act to prevent such economic deterioration.
1.2 Minnesota Mini- Storage II, a Minnesota general partnership
(hereinafter the "Company "), has advised this Council of its desire
to acquire and improve land in the City and to construct and equip
thereon an approximately 79,750 square foot self storage facility
(the "Project ").
1.3 The existence of the Project within the City would signi-
ficantly increase the tax base of the City, County and school dis-
trict in which the City is located, and would provide opportunities
for employment for residents of the City and surrounding area.
1.4 The City has been advised by the Company that conventional,
commercial financing to pay the capital cost of the Project is
available only on a limited basis and at such high costs of borrow-
ing that the economic feasibility of operating the Project would be
significantly reduced, but that with the aid of municipal financing,
and its resulting low borrowing cost, the Project is economically
more feasible.
1.5 This Council has been advised by Miller & Schroeder Muni-
cipals, Inc., investment bankers, that on the basis of information
submitted to them and the discussions with representatives of the
Company that bonds or notes to finance all or part of the cost of
the Project can be successfully sold, and that it will assist the
Company in the placement of such bonds or notes.
1.6 The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474,
to issue its revenue bonds or other obligations (the "Bonds ") to
finance capital projects consisting of properties used and useful
in connection with a revenue producing enterprise, such as that of
the Company, and the issuance of such Bonds by the City would be a
substantial inducement to the Company to construct the Project
within the City.
-2_
2. On the basis of information given the City to date, it
presently appears that it would be in the best interest of the City
t® issue its industrial development revenue Bonds under the pro-
visions of Chapter 474 to finance the Project of the Company at a
cost presently estimated to be approximately $1,500,000.
3. The Council declares that it is its present intent to
issue the Bonds, and the Project above referred to is hereby given
preliminary approval by the City and the issuance of Bonds for such
purpose and in such amount approved, subject to approval of the
Project by the Minnesota Department of Energy, Planning and Devel-
opment and to the mutual agreement of this body, the Company and
the initial purchasers of the bonds as to the details of the bond'
issue and.provisions for its payment. In all events, it is under-
stood, however, that the Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien
or encumbrance legal or equitable upon any property of the City
except the Project, and each Bond, when, as and if issued, shall
recite in substance that the bond, including interest thereon, is
payable solely from the revenues received from the Project and
properly pledged to the payment thereof, and shall not constitute
a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional, char-
ter or statutory limitation thereon.
4. The form of Memorandum of Agreement relating to the issu-
ance of the Bonds to finance the cost of the Project is hereby
approved, and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and
directed to execute the Memorandum of Agreement in behalf of the
City.
5. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01,
Subdivision 7A, the Mayor and City Manager are authorized and
directed to submit the proposal for the Project to the Minnesota
Department of Energy, Planning and Development for approval. The
Mayor, City Manager, City Attorney and other officers, employees,
and agents of the City and LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien &
Drawz, a Professional Association, as bond counsel, are hereby
authorized to provide the Department with any preliminary informa-
tion needed for this purpose, and the City Attorney is authorized
to initiate and assist in the preparation of such documents as may
be appropriate to the Project, if it is approved by the Department.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was
duly seconded by Council member
, and
upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor of the
motion:
and the following voted against:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
, 1982.
John Hamilton, Mayor
L'' - VV42`, -0 1
This Application :rust be submitted to the Commissioner in duplicate.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
BUSINESS SERVICES
Application
For Approval of Municipal Industrial Revenue Bond Project
Date November , 1982
To:
Minnesota Department of Energy, Planning and Development
Business Services
480 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
The governing body of city of Richfield , County of Hennepin
Minnesota, hereby applies to the Commissioner of the State of Minnesota, Department
of Energy, Planning and Development, for approval of this community's proposed
municipal Industrial Revenue Bond Issue, as required by Section 1, Subdivision 7,
Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes.
We have entered into preliminary discussions with:
Firm Minnesota Mini — Storage II
Address P.O. Pox 186
City Wayzata State Minnesota 55391
State of Incorporation Minnesota Partnership
Attorney Robert P. Larson Address Wayz�r o MN adwa
S X91
Name of Project Minnacn+°a Mini -Stogy acre II Project
This firm is engaged primarily in (nature of business): Owning and operating
self — storage /office /warehouse buildings.
The funds received from the sale of the Industrial Revenue Bonds will be used to
(general nature of project): acquire and improve land and construct and equip an
approximately 79,750 sq. ft. self- storage facility:
It will be located in Richfield, Minnesota
The tctal bond issue %.,ill be approximately S 1,500,000 to be applied
toward pay^ent of costs now estimated as follows:
Cost Item
Land Acquisition and Site Development
Construction Contracts
equipment Acquisition and Installation
Architectural and Engineering Fees
Lecal Fees
Interest during Construction
Initial Bona Reserve
Contingencies
Bond Discount
Other
Amount
210,000
't is presently estimated that construction will begin on or about December 1
19 82, and wi11 be completed on or about September 1 , 19 83 . When completed,
there will be approximately 2 new jobs created by the project at an annual -
payroll of approximately S 36,000 based upon currently prevailing wages.
The tentative term of the financing is 15 years, commencing Decert)er 1
19 82
The following exhibits are furnished with this application and are incorporated
herein by reference:
I. An opinion of bond counsel that the proposal constitutes a project under
Minnesota Stat., Chapter 474.02.
2. A copy of the city council resolution giving preli;,iinary approval for the
issuance of its revenue bonds.
3. A comprehensive statement by the municipality indicating how the project
satisfies the public purpose of !•linnesota Stat., Chapter 474.01.
4. A letter of intent to purchase the bond issue or a letter confirming the
feasibility of the project from a financial standpoint.
S. A statement, signed by the principal representative of the issuing
authority, to t,e effect that upon entering into the revenue agreement,
the information required by MMinn. Stat., Ch. 474.01 Subd. 8 will be
submitted to the Department of Energy, Planning and Development.
6. A statement, signed by the principal. representative of the issuing
authority, that the project does not include any property to be sold or
affixed to or consumed in the production of property for sale, and does
not include any housing facility to be rented or used as a permanent residence.
7. A statement, signed by the principal representative of the issuing authori
that a public hearing was conducted pursuant to "Minn. Stat. 474.01 Subd. 7b.
The statement shall include the date, time and place of the meeting and that
all interested ?arties were afforded an opportunity to express their views.
8. A copy of the notice of publication of the public hearing.
and amnointed
We, the undersigned, are duly elected /representatives of Richfield
Minnesota, and solicit your approval of this project at your earliest convenience so
that we may carry it to a final conclusion.
Signed by: (Principal Officers or Representatives of 'issuing Authority)
Mayor: John Hamilton
City Manacrer: Karl Nollenberger
This approval shall not be deemed to be an approval by tl-o Commissioner or the State
of the feasibility of the project or the terms of the '�� to be executed or the
bonos to be issued therefor. revenue agreement
Date of "ocrova l
Commissioner
Iinnesota Department of Energy,
Planninc and Development
M/NNESOTAMINIIIIII
STORAGE
PO- BOX 186 ■ WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 ■ 612/473-9591
c
er 2 5,
a- c e -r 1- e r c_- e r
- ana -er -
C'n
F-
700 -o-tla-d Avenue
Ln.nesota
..'
ear Q1, e n-) e r _� e r
i=_ our intention to de-velop a self storaze
a-ili,.
4 on +-e -ronert at 7th Street and
4
r 'v e n u e --h e a c i + ',ti _11 1 c o n t. a n a to tal
0
36 L
square feet. -'e on have an o Site -P-r 4
ce
and a car l.-ment for our rnana;zer. --he facill'it-.7 -:Vill be
U m -A
and aintainad'in firs. -clas� - marner
1 i 7c e t, -1e existinc- zro :ects we o,.tml. intend
n -
aint a4- -eu
�-a""on or cperatin= one of the
-
+ fa c i I s in -he -7';i ciu, a-ea.
.e a-re asxin- foz, financin_=- t17- -n .i Industrial
_ :,L _7-on.dZ, 'cecause it iS the on!-!- 1a to
--,I on 4-
4
c, t 1. .-- t c d. _C m a, 1- et e 'ronie the
nc s a n ex c en + ab I -- user f
C.-Is
arc i r 7 h o,4
loo' for-!ard to b.-s'ness -and!
1XI
eo,-,' fi e c
C*,Ir Ser— 110 ✓t
c;z
Toll Free Minnesota (800) 862 -6002
Toll Free Odwr States ( 800) 3286122
J
Mer & Schroeder MunicipWa, Inc.
Northwestern Financial Center, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 • (612) 631 -1500
October 27, 1982
The Honorable John Hamilton, Mayor
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Re: Industrial Development Revenue Bond
Minnesota Mini - Storage II Project
Richfield, Minnesota
Dear Mayor Hamilton and Council Members:
Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. has examined the proposed financing
plan for the acquisition of land and proposed improvements for the Minne-
sota Mini - Storage II Project.
It is our belief, based on the information given to us at this time by
Minnesota Mini- Storage, a Minnesota General Partnership, that it will be
economically feasible to secure financing for the project using the in-
dustrial development revenue bond method. Miller & Schroeder will assist
the Partnership in the placement of.the debt instrument.
Sincerely,
MILLER & SCHROEDER MUNICIPALS, INC.
Kenneth L. No i ct1
Financial Consultant
KLN /ad
Headquarters: Anneaooiis. Minnesota
Branch Offices: Downtown Minneapolis • Solana Beach. California • Northbrook. Illinois • St. PaW. Minnesota • Naples. Florida • Carson City, Nevada
Nemoer of the Securroes Investor Protection Corporation
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 335
Agenda November 8, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance-Amendment Relating to the Use
of Political Signs. Second Reading.
At the Si6ptember 13, 1982 city council meeting, the council
held a public hearing on an ordinance amendment relating to the
use of political election signs. The council closed the hearing,
and returned the ordinance to the city staff and the city attorney
with the request that the language contained in the ordinance amend-
ment be refined.
The city attorney has revised the ordinance, a copy of which
is attached, to address the concerns of the city council. Specif-
ically, the ordinance amendment provides that:
1. No sign may exceed 11 square feet in area on one side.
The aggregate area of one side of all of the signs
placed on any parcel of land may not exceed 33 square
feet.
2. No sign may be placed more than six weeks before the
date of the election to which the sign relates. A sign
which, when placed, relates to a primary election, may
be retained in place after the primary election if it
relates to the next ensuing general election.
3. All signs must be removed from display no later than
six days following the election.
Also attached to this council letter is a copy of the ordinance
presented at the September 13, 1982 city council meeting. It is
recommended that the city council amend the ordinance and give
second reading approval at the November 8, 1982 city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: City Clerk
Community Development Director
Public Safety Director
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III,
PART V, SECTION 3.47 OF
THE ORDINANCE CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter III, Part V, Section 3.47 of the Ordinance Code
of the City of Richfield regulating the use of signs and billboards
is hereby amended in the following respects:
I. Subdivision 3, paragraph (7) thereof, is amended to read:
(7) An -eleet ®rieering A temporary election sign= - bet -4:t -shall
fer- a�e�e- tbar�- �4- e�a�+g- after- tbe- �a�- e�- t%e- e�eet�ea- te- �ai��e�a
�t- re�atee.
II. A new subdivision 19 is added to read:
Subd. 19. Temporary Election Signs. Temporary election
signs may be placed and maintained in the residential and
multiple residential areas of the city subject to the.
following regulations:
(1) No sib exceed eleven square feet in area
on one side. Sign copy, however, may be placed on
both sides of a sign. Signs shall not be des en d
to have more than two sides. The aggregate area
of one side of all of the signs placed on any par-
cel of land within the city may not exceed thirty -
three square feet.
(2) No sign may be placed more than six weeks
-�.. ���•.�. i� ���_ ��.yaa t=.LCLt_=Z= -tea -W yci -mart'
election, it shall not be placed before stj:ie weeks
prior to such primary election. A sign which,
when placed, relates,,te -a primary election, may be
rafter the primary election if
vO_ it relates to the next ensuing general election.
(3 ) All signs must be removed from display no later
than days following the election to which they
relate.
(4) In addition to the other remedies available to the
City under this code, any sign remaining on display
beyond the times specified in paragraph (3) of this
., r
subdivision is deemed abandoned to the cit and ma in
- t e city's dis retl.on be removed destro yea ox�- otherm
_ -- - -
- - -- wis d
-- -- -- a s,s osed a=.
(5) It shall be the responsibility of the sign owiner; -- - __ -_- - - --
- gaze roperty owner, and, in the case of a single - family-
re� nce, the occupants, to comply with the provisions
of MIS subdivision.
(6) No such sin shall be 21aced or maintained without
the prior aUroval or the Eroperty owner, an in t e
case o a single famil�r residence, the occupant. - - -.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this
® day of , 1982.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
Bill 1982 -29
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III,
PART V, SECTION 3.47 OF
THE ORDINANCE CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter III, Part V, Section 3.47 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield regulating the use of signs and billboards is hereby amended in the
following respects:
I. Subdivision 3, paragraph (7) thereof, is amended to read:
(7) AIL- eieetAieneering A temporary election sign, - but- It- sheii -be
aniaa�ai -� ®- permit- en}+- aaeh- 'ign -te- remain- en- an�r- prepe�ty -fey -mere
khan -i4- day' - after -tl�e- dad►- ei- �l�e- eieetzen- te- eilsiel�- it- �eiate' .
II. A new subdivision 19 is added to read:
Subd.. 19. Temporary Election Signs. Temporary election signs may be
placed and maintained in the residential and multiple residential areas
of the city subject to the following regulations:
(1) No sign may exceed eleven square feet in area on one side. The
aggregate area of one side of all signs placed on any parcel of real
property may not exceed thirty -three square feet.
(2) No sign may be placed before the first day for the filing for
the election to which the sign relates.
) All signs must be removed from d
llowing the election to which thev
4) In addition to the other remedies available to the city under
this code, any sign remaining on display beyond the times specified
in paragraph (3) of this subdivision is deemed abandoned to the cit
and may in the city's discretion be removed, destroyed or otherwise
disposed of.
(5) It shall be the responsibility of the sign owner, the property
owner, and, in the case of a single family residence, the occupants,
to comply with the provisions of this subdivision.
2®
(6)_ No such sign shall be pla ced or maintained without the prior
approval of the property owner, and in the case of a single family
residence, the occupant.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this
day of , 19820
.john Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh City Clerk
q
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 334
Agenda November 8, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members
Subject: Ordinance Amendment to Establish MR -2
Residential Zoning District Boundaries,
Second Reading.
At the October 25, 1982 city council meeting, the city
council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment
which would establish new MR -2 Multiple Residence zoning dis-
trict boundaries. The new residential zoning code contains
three multiple residence zoning districts; MR -1 for two family
dwellings, MR -2 for three to 17 dwelling units, and MR -3 for
those units of 18 or more units.
The Planning Commission considered this matter and made the
following recommendations: -
1. That those multiple residences zoned commercial or
industrial retain that zoning.
2. That the city re-zone property to MR -2 Multiple Resi-
dence if there are 18 or more units on parcels which
do not meet the MR -3 district minimum lot area require-
ments, and which are presently zoned MR- Multiple Residence.
The MR -2 district isfor developments with 3 -17 dwelling
units. There are some developments which have more than
17 dwelling units, but which do not meet the MR -3 district
minimum lot area of one acre. The planning commission
felt that because these parcels do not meet the MR -3
minimum lot area requirement they should be zoned MR -2
(they would meet the MR -2 lot size requirement).
3. That the city rezone property to MR -2 Multiple Residence
if there are 3 -17 dwelling units which are currently
zoned MR- Multiple Residence and which meet the MR -2
minimum lot area and width requirements. The parcels
which do not meet the minimum lot area and width re-
cuirements would be zoned MR -1 or R with the exception
of those properties at 7527, 7539, 7533, and 7545 Penn
Avenue. It is recommended that these four parcels be
Council Letter No. 334 -2- November 8, 1982
zoned MR -2 (instead of MR -1) because they are very
close to meeting the minimum lot width requirement
of 75 feet.
A copy of the proposed ordinance amendment is attached
to this council letter: It is recommended that the council
hold the public hearing, and give second reading consideration
to this ordinance amendment at the November 8, 1982 city
council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Clerk
0
C7
s
•
BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota defining the boundaries of the various zoning districts
of the city enumerated in Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.28,
Subdivision 2 of such code is hereby amended in the following
respects;
(1) Appendix C Section 4 is amended by repealing paragraphs 11,
13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 43, 48, 50, 53, 56, 65, 67, 68, 69,
77, 92, 103, 104, 105, 109, 110, 114.
(2) Appendix C is amended by adding the following new Section 11:
Section 11. Multiple Residence District (MR -2)
1. Lots 13 - 18, Block 1 Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills
Addition.
2. Lots 6 - 14, Block 2 Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills
Addition.
3. That area lying between the centerline of Penn and Oliver
Avenues and between 74th and 76th Streets except that
part thereof lying within the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the west line of Oliver Avenue
138.2 feet south of the south line of 75th Street; thence
west parallel with 75th Street 134 feet; thence south
parallel with Oliver Avenue 60 feet; thence east parallel
With the south line of 75th Street 134 feet; thence north
to the point of beginning.
4. Lot 1, Block 2, J. N. Hauser's Second Addition.
5. The south one -half of the area between 72nd and 73rd
Streets and between Portland Avenue and the centerline
of the alley in Block 2, Blair's Wooddale 3rd Addition
extended.
6. The south one -half of Lot 9, and all of Lots 10, 11 and
12, Block 16, Tingdale Bros. Lincoln Hills 3rd Addition.
7. The east 150 feet of the south 100 feet of that area
lying between the center lines of Penn and Oliver avenues
and between the center lines of 63rd and 62nd Streets.
8. The east 175 feet of the south quarter (S ;) of the east
auarter (E �-) of the southeast quarter (SE ;) of the
southwest auarter (SW ) of Section 27, Township 28,
Ranae 24, except the south 175 feet thereof.
_2_
9. Lots 10 and 11, Block 8, Fairwood Park First Addition.
10. Tracts B and C Registered Land Survey 793.
11. Lot 1, Block 1, J. N. Hausers Second Addition.
12. Lot 6, Block 2, Lyndale Oaks Addition.
13. The east 135 feet of the west 165 feet of the north 208
feet of the east a of the northeast ; of the southwest
of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24.
14. Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7, Block 2, Ralph Hollenbach's lst
Addition.
15. Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 5, Nicollet domes Addition.
16. Lots 4 and 5, Block 4, Rearrangement of Nicollet Homes
2nd Addition.
17. Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 5, Rearrangement of Nicollet
Homes 2nd Addition.
18. That area lying between the center lines of Blaisdell and
Nicollet Avenues and between the center line of 64th
Street and the south line of Lots 1 and 10, Block 8,
Rearrangement of Nicollet Homes 2nd Addition.
19. Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 4, New Ford Town Addition.
20. Lots 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, Block 5, New Ford Town,
Addition.
21. The north 30 feet of the east 1/3 of the west 3/8 of the
NW 4 of the SE h, except the west 30 feet thereof; also
the south 100 feet of the east 1/3 of the west 3/8 of
the SW 4 of the NE 4j except the west 30 feet thereof,
all in Section 32, Township 28, Range 24.
22. The east z of that area lying between Penn Avenue and
Oliver Avenue and lying nortr°: of 65th Street within 299.2
feet of the north line of 65th Street, and lout of the
center line of 64th Street except the south 80 feet
thereof.
23. Lots 1, 2, and 3 Okstad Addition.
24. Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Terrace Gardens Addition.
25. The north 183 feet of the west 5 acres of the southeast
quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 33, Township
28, Range 24.
26. Lots 17 and 18, Block 10, Woodlake Highlands.
27. Lot 13, Block 10, Tingdale Brothers' Lincoln Hills
Second Addition.
-3-
28.
Lot 10,
Block
10, Woodlake Highlands Addition.
29.
The east
133.5
feet of the block lying between Penn and
Oliver
Avenues
between 65th and 66th Streets, except the
south 142
feet
thereof.
30.
Lot 10,
Block
7 Fiarwood Park Addition.
31.
Lot 8,
Block 7
Fairwood Park Addition.
32. That area lying between 76th Street and a line running
parallel with 76th Street and a line running parallel
with 76th Street distant 330 feet south of the center
line of 76th Street and between the east line of 18th
Avenue extended and a line running parallel with Cedar
Avenue, distant 173 feet west of the center line of Cedar
Avenue.
33. The south 150 feet of that part of the east quarter of
the north quarter of the northeast quarter of the southeast
quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 24, lying east
of the west 153.13 feet thereof.
34. The west quarter of the north 5 acres of the northwest
quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 34 Township
28 Range 24 except the west 175 feet thereof.
35. The north 252.23 feet of the south 1283.70 feet of the
east eighth of the northeast quarter of the southeast
quarter of Section 32, Township 28, Range 24.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of , 1982.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
Ayff
CITY OF RICHFIELD, I,1INNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter I,Io. 333
Agenda November 8, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Consideration of Transitory Ordinance
Providing for the Sale of City Owned
Property to Lyndale Garden Center.
Second Reading.
At the October 25, 1982 city council meeting, the council
gave first reading approval to an ordinance which provided for
the sale of city -owned property to the Lyndale Garden Center.
The attached map indicates the locations of the three tri-
angles of property and identifies them with numbers 1, 2, and
3. Initially, the city was to sell areas 1 and 2 and it was
assumed that the Garden Center already owned area 3. The Devel-
oper's Agreement between the Garden Center and HRA contemplated
the sale of areas 1 and 2. However, real estate title search
has indicated that the city owns area 3 as well.
The Planning Commission has considered the sale of these
three tracts and found the sale to be in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan. Areas 1 and 2 contain approximately 13,092
square feet, valued at an average of approximately $.728 per
square foot during the negotiating process. Negotiations must
be initiated for the sale of triangle number 3, which contains
approximately 4,286 square feet, and is valued at approximately
$.80 per square foot, or $3,429. It is requested that the city
council authorize the staff to negotiate the final sale price
on the third triangle.
It is also recommended that the city council hold the
public hearing, and give second reading approval to the attached
Transitory Ordinance authorizing sale of these properties.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City :Manager
cc: Community Development Director
C
r1
U
•
::PPENDIX A TR.= NSITORY ORDINANCE
CRD2 '1IANCF. NO. A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE
DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OF THE CITY.
The City of Richfield does ordain:
Section. 1. The following property of the City is hereby authorized
to be sold and disposed of:
That part of Government Lot 3, Section 28, Township 28,
Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the east line of said Government
Lot 3 distant 1176.30 feet south from the northeast corner
thereof; thence S820 00'W a distance of 442.58 feet;
thence S120 16' 44 "E a distance of 374.92 feet to the
actual point of beginning of the parcel of land to be
described; thence N770 43' 16 "E a distance of 164.29 feet;
thence S210 32' 59 "E to its intersection with the south-
westerly extension of the northwesterly line of Registered
Land Survey No. 675, files of the Registrar of Titles,
said Hennepin County; thence northwesterly to the actual
point of beginning;
The east line of said Government Lot 3 is assumed to be
a lire bearing due north for the purpose of this descrip-
tion.
and
Also, that cart of Government Lot 3, Section 28, Town -
ship 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota described
as follows: Commencing at a point on the easterly line
of said Government Lot 3 distant 1176.30 feet south from
the northeast corner thereof; thence S820 00'W a distance
o= 442.38 feet; thence S120 16' 44 "E a distance of
374.92 feet; thence N770 43' 16 "E a distance of 164.29
:eet; thence S21° 32' 39 "E to its intersection with the
southwesterly extension of the northwesterl;, line of
Registered Land Survev No. 675, files of the R2C1Strar
Titles, said Hennepin County, said point being the
actual point o= beginning of the parcel of land to be
described; thence northeasterly along said southwesterly
extension to t:ie northwesterly corner o= Tract C, said
Registered Land Survev No. 675; thence southerly along
t. ^.e NesterIT: line o. sai d Tract C t0 1tS 1:�terS2Ction
ai _h a 1-1 ne+ bearing 5720 50' 3-41"E from the actual Point
o_ beginning; thence `1720 50' 34 "W to said actual point
3= oeg' nning .
and
T ^at _art of Government Lot 3, Section. 28, Townsh_P: 28,
Range 24, Hennepin County, ?•?innesota described as
= C1_CWs . . cr"L encing at a point C_n t=ie easterl-y ? i ne of
said Government Lot 3, distant 1176.30 feet south from
the northeast corner thereof; thence S820 00'64 a distance
of 442.33 feet, along a line hereinafter referred to as
Line A, to t e actual point of 'Deginning of the tract of
!and to be described; thence S120 16' 44 "E a distance of
75.00 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point Z;
thence northwesterly along a line hereinafter described
as Lire B, a distance of 141.38 feet, more or less, to
its intersection with the southwesterly extension of said
Line A; thence northeasterly along said southwesterly
extension a distance of 114.61 feet, more or less, to the
actual point of beginning.
Nine B:
Commencing at the point of intersection of the southerly
line of the east -west alley as platted in Block 2 of the
recorded plat of Ray's Lynnhurst 2nd Addition with the
easterly line of Bryant Avenue South as platted in said
Rav's Lynnhurst 2nd addition; thence southerly along the
southerly extension of the easterly line of said Bryant
Avenue South a distance of 170.00 feet to the actual point
of beginning of said Line B; thence southeasterly a
distance of 227.08 feet, more or less, to said Point Z,
and there terminating.
Section 2. The terms and conditions of such sale shall be
determined by the City Council.
i
o~.
a ,
� o
l
„
t �t
� d
P �
r;
bz
i
((( v t
et l� t z K
1 Ai 1 1
•\ t 1 � �� nC j%
If
le
e
Od
c
M
i
3
�o
a
c�
Ci
>p�p
♦d
r �
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 332
Agenda November 8, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Consideration of Transitory Ordinance
Appropriating Funds from the Special
Revenue Fund. Second Reading.
At the October 25, 1982 city council meeting, the city
council took two actions related to the future of the Cedar
Avenue liquor store site: they accepted the recommendation
of the HRA and authorized the Mayor and City Manager to ex-
ecute a contract with McComb and Associates of Minneapolis
for a Phase I study of the site. This study would identify
the least and most marketable land uses for this site. That
is, the viability of hotel or motel, retail shops, office and
or warehouse and housing - -both subsidized and market would be
evaluated. Following a report to the city council with the
Phase I findings, it may be appropriate to undertake a second
phase. Phase II would examine, in detail, the most market-
able land use.
The council also gave first
ance which would provide funding
hearing and second reading consi
scheduled for November 8, 1982.
would provide up to $18,000 from
the complete study.
reading approval to an ordin-
for the study. The public
aeration of this ordinance is
The transitory ordinance
the Special Revenue Fund for
It is recommended that the city council hold the public
hearing and then give second reading approval to the attached
transitory ordinance, appropriating monies from the Special
Revenue Fund.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development-Director
City Clerk
Finance Coordinator
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR
THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR
CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Section 1: it is found and determined to be necessary and
expendient for the City to expend money from the Special
Revenue Fund for the making of Capital Improvements listed
in Section 2 hereof, for which the City would be authorized
to issue general obligation bonds.
Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expendi-
tures for such improvements which are authorized to be paid
from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, subd. 2 of
the City Charter are as follows:
Cedar Avenue Liquor Store Site
Study, Phase I and Phase II $18,000
Section 3: The expenditure herein authorized shall be made
pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to
time by council action.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this *8 day of November, 1982.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
�S
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 331
Agenda November 8, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment to Require Conformance
with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Re-
development Plans. Second Reading.
On October 25, 1982 the city council approved first read-
ing of an ordinance amendment outlining the building permit
process. The amendment indicates that building permit applica-
tions will be reviewed for conformance with the city's compre-
hensive plan and redevelopment plan. It also provides that an
application may be denied if it does not conform, and outlines
an administrative review and appeal process.
A copy of the proposed ordinance is attached to this
council letter and it is recommended that the city council hold
the public hearing, and approve the ordinance at the November
8, 1982 city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /eja
cc: Community Development Director
City Clerk
•
•
0
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter III of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield
entitled "Building, Health, Zoning and Land Use Regulations is
hereby amended in the following respects:
A. By amending Subdivision 1 of Section 3.29 to read as
follows:
"Subdivision 1. Conformance Required. Except
as hereinafter specified, no land, building, structure
or premises shall hereafter be used and no building or
part thereof or other structure shall be located,
erected, reconstructed, extended, enlarged, or altered
except in conformity with the regulations specified for
the district in which it is located. No building permit
shall be issued to permit any such erection, reconstruc-
tion, extension, enlargement or alteration until the
review described in Section 3.06A has been completed."
B. By adding after Section 3.06, the following new sec-
tion:
3.0-6A. BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION PERMITS: CONFORMITY
WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; REDEVELOPMENT PLANS AND URBAN
DESIGN GUIDELINES.
Subdivision 1. Permit Application. The building
permit application shall contain the necessary infor-
mation so that it can be determined whether the proposed
construction will be in conformity with the comprehensive
plan and any redevelopment plans on urban design guide-
lines applicable to the district in which the proposed
construction will be located.
Subdivision 2. Review By Building Official. If
the proposed construction lies outside of any redevel-
opment district, is not subject to urban design
guidelines, and is, in the opinion of the building
official, in conformity with the comprehensive plan of
the city, the requirements of this section shall be
deemed satisfied.
Subdivision 3. Review By City Manager. All appli-
cations involving construction in redevelopment districts
or districts subject to urban design guidelines and all
applications as to which the building official does not
make a finding of conformity with the comprehensive plan
shall be processed as follows:
(1) The application shall be referred to the Community
Development Department for its review. The review
shall be based upon the material submitted in the appli-
cation together with any other information which the
department believes will assist in the review.
(2) Upon the completion of its review, the Community
Development Department shall make a written report of
its review to the city manager. The report may contain,
and shall contain, if requested by the manager, a
recommended finding.
(3) Upon receipt of the written report and not later
than 30 days following the date the matter was refer-
red to the Community Development Department the city
manager shall make his findings concerning the proposed
construction. The findings shall contain one of the
following conclusions:
(a) The proposed construction is in conformity
with the comprehensive plan and any applicable
redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines.
(b) The proposed construction is not in conform-
ity with the comprehensive plan or any applicable
redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines.
(c) The proposed construction is not in conform-
ity with the comprehensive plan or any applicable
redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines
but such non - conformity will not be likely to
jeopardize or adversely affect the orderly plan-
ning and development process for the district in
which the construction would be located.
(4) If the city manager makes the finding described
in paragraphs (3)(a) or (c) of this section, he shall
report that fact to the building official and the
requirements of this section shall be deemed satisfied.
If the city manager makes the finding described in
paragraph (3)(b) of this section, he shall notify the
applicant of such determination. The notification shall
also inform the applicant of applicant's right to
appeal the city manager's decision to the city council
and that the applicant has 10 days from the date of
notification to deliver a written request for an appeal
hearing to the city clerk. If no appeal hearing request
is made within the time period, the manager's determin-
ation shall be final. The building official shall be
notified and no building permit shall be issued.
Subdivision 4. Appeal to Council. The appeal
shall be heard at the first regular council meeting
which is at least 14 days following the date of a
timely received appeal hearing request. The council
may review the report and recommendations of the
Community Development Department, the building permit
application, and the findings of the city manager.
The applicant shall be given an opportunity to appear
and offer evidence to the council. Within 30 days of
the close of the hearing, the council shall make its
findings. Such findings may take one of the following
forms:
(1) Sustaining the city manager's determination.
(2) Rescinding the city manager's determination.
(3) Sustaining the city manager's decision but
placing certain conditions or stipulations upon
the construction or upon the use designed to re-
move adverse impacts upon the orderly planning
and redevelopment of the district.
The council's findings shall be reported to the build-
ing official by the city manager. If the finding is as
described in paragraph (2) of this subdivision, the
requirements of this section shall be deemed satisfied.
If the finding is as described in paragraph (1), no
building permit shall be issued. If the finding is as
described in paragraph (3) of this subdivision, the
requirements of this section shall be deemed satisfied
only if the conditions are met within the time period
set by the council. Otherwise, no permit shall be
issued.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, this day of , 1982.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 330
Agenda November 8, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Amendment to Nuisance Abatement Ordinance.
Second Reading.
At the October 25, 1982 city council meeting, the city
council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amend-
ment that would permit the city to recover the full cost of
costs for nuisance abatement proceedings. The present city
ordinance code establishes a maximum amount of $100 which
can be assessed against a property as a result of a nuisance
abatement process.
The proposed ordinance amendment will bring the city
code into conformance with present state statutes. A copy
of the ordinance is attached to this council letter and has
been placed on the November 8, 1982 city council agenda for
second reading consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Public Safety Director
City Clerk
KN /eja
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER X
PART II, SECTION 10.08 OF
THE ORDINANCE CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter X, Part II, Section 10.08 of the Ordinance Code of
the City of Richfield dealing with the abatement and control of
nuisances is amended by amending Subdivision 2 thereon to read
as follows:
"Subd. 2. Assessment of Cost. The cost of abatement
or removal
prGgarty, shall be assessed against the property as provided
in Minnesota Statutes Section 145.23."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of , 1982.
John Hamilton, Mayor
Attest:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
=�k 7
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 329
Agenda November 8, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Resolution Establishing Fees and Ordinance
Amendment Relating to the Sale of Alcoholic
Beverages by Veteran's Service Organizations.
Second Reading.
At the October 25, 1982 city council meeting, the Richfield
City Council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amend-
ment that created a class of licenses to be issued by the city
for "veteran service organizations." This ordinance amendment
was recommended to bring the Richfield Ordinance Code into con-
formance with legislation passed during the 1980 legislature
session. Current state law places the complete on -sale licensing
responsibility with local units of government, rather than the
Minnesota Department of Public Safety as has been the case in the
past. This ordinance amendment has been reviewed by the local
American Legion Post and the VFW Post, and both are in agreement
with the language in the proposed ordinance.
Also attached to this council letter is a resolution amend-
ing Resolution No. 6537 Relating to Liquor License Fees. This
resolution establishes a $100.00 annual license fee for Veteran's
Organization liquor licenses.
It is recommended that the city council give second reading
approval to the attached ordinance amendment, as well as approv-
ing the resolution estabiishing the annual license fee at $100.00.
Respectfully submitted,
k2a
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Public Safety Director
City Clerk
KN /eja
•
F- -I
•
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XI
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Chapter XI of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield
regulating alcoholic beverages is hereby amended in the following
respects:
A. By amending Section 11.06, Subdivision 1 thereof,
adding the following new paragraph (8) thereto:
'(8) The term 'veterans organization' means an incor-
porated and congressionally chartered veterans or an-
ization which has been in existence for at least 10
years, which has more than 50 active members, and which
has, for more than one year, owned or leased a building
or space in a building of such extent and character as
may be suitable and adequate for the reasonable and
comfortable accomodation of its members, and whose
affairs and management are conducted by a board of
directors, executive committee or other similar r body
chosen by the members at a meeting held for that
purpose, none of whose members, officers, agents, or
em to ees are paid directly or indirectly any compen-
sation by way of profit from t e distribution or sa e
of beverages to the members of the organization, or its
quests beyond the amount of such reasonable salary or
wages as may be faxed and voted each year by the direct-
ors or other governing body.'
B. By amending Section 11.06, Subdivision 9, paragraph (1)
thereof to read as follows:
"(1) All applications for license shall be referred to
the ehie- ®- geiiee director of public safety, and to
such other city departments as the city manager shall
deem necessary, for verification and investigation of
the facts set forth in the application. The ei�ie -e
pe -liee director of public safety shall cause to be made
such investigation of the information requested in
Subdivision 4 as shall be necessary and shall make a
written recommendation and report to the city council
which shall include a list of all violations of federal
or state law or municipal regulations.
C. By amending Section 11.06, Subdivision 11, paragraph (6)
thereof, to read as follows:
"(6) No 'on -sale' license shall be granted for a rest-
aurant or hotel unless they the establishment are is
located in general commercial or industrial areas."
D. By amending Section 11.06, Subdivision 11, adding the
following new paragraph (7):
"(7) No on -sale license shall be granted for a veterans
organization which does not comply in all respects with
the definition of a veterans organization contained in
Subdivision 1 of this section and which does not emit
access to the organizations facilities to members and
their bona fide guests."
E. By amending Section 11.06, Subdivision 12, paragraph (8)
thereof to read as follows:
"(8) E_x_cept to the extent authorized by Richfield
Ordinance Code Section 5.19 no licensee or any of his
employees shall keep, possess, or operate or permit
the keeping, possession or operation of any slot
machine, dice, or any gambling device or apparatus
on the licensed premises, or in any room adjoining
the licensed premises, nor shall such person permit
any gambling therein.
F. By amending Section 11.06, Subdivision 12, paragraph
(16) thereof, to read as follows:
"(16) The licensed establish-
ment shall display a sign calling attention to the
open bottle law.
G. By amending Section 11.07, Subdivision 1 thereof, to
read as follows:
Subdivision 1. Eligibility. Notwithstanding the
other provisions of the Ordinance Code, estab�sheat
to -wh eh -ems- sale- 14:e ems es- may- be- !issded - €er- the- sale
of -tntex eat g- Ii-eleer;- wM } eh- are- 41} hotels, aftd rest-
aurants and veterans organizations qualified for licenses
in Section 6 of t .is Code, e- 4.2* and elribs -as
defzrtee�-- �4se -- Stet -; - Seetee- 349 -9�; which have facil-
ities for serving not less than 30 guests at one time,
may serve intoxicating liquors on Sundays between the
hours of 11:00 o'clock a.m. and 12:00 o'clock midnight
in conjunction with the serving of food, provided that
the establishment is in compliance with the provisions
of Minnesota Statutes 1981, Sections 144.411 to 144.417,
the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota,° this day of 1982.
ATTEST: John Hamilton, Mayor
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION
NO. 6537 RELATING TO LIQUOR
LICENSE FEES
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, that Resolution No. 6537 is hereby
amended in the following respects:
I. By adding to Section 1 thereof the following new
material:
Ordinance Code
This Resolution
Section
Subdivision
Section
Number
11.06
8(l)
8
2(f)
II. By adding to Section 8, paragraph 2, the following new
subparagraph:
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION FEE FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING SCHEDULE
f. Veterans' 11.06 1 year $100
Organization
(on -sale
liquor;
ex- sunday)