10-25-82 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 329
Agenda October 25, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Off - Street Parking Permit Request for
Southdale Square Shopping Center
Carlson Properties, Inc. has requested that the city council
approve an off - street parking permit to allow them to construct
improvements within their existing parking lot. The proposed
improvements include the construction of concrete islands and
barriers, restriping with angled parking stalls, light standard
relocation and the relocation of a curb cut on Xerxes Avenue.
The staff has reviewed the proposed improvements and found the
following:
1. The existing number of parking stalls provided on the
site (465) would be maintained. There would be 85
parking stalls for compact cars only. This is within
what is allowed by.city guidelines.
2. The proposed improvements would result in better de-
f fined, safer , traffic flow on the site.
3. Bollards have been constructed as part of the building
improvements which do not show on the plan and which
would appear to reduce driving aisle widths. This
occurs in the northwest corner of the site. The driving
aisle in this area is currently below the city's guide-
lines for minimum driving aisle width.
4. The Public Safety Department has indicated that the
20 foot wide driving aisle immediately south of the
building may not be wide enough to provide proper fire
vehicle access.
5. There are existing storm sewer and drainage problems
on the site due to the fact that there is surface
drainage only. The proposed improvements would not
improve the existing situation or make it any worse.
The addition of catch basins could help correct some
of the existing problems.
C'
el
Council Letter No. 329 -2- October 25, 1982
6. The type of concrete curb proposed does not meet the
city specifications for concrete curbing.
It is recommended that the city council approve the off -
street parking permit subject to the following stipulations: c�
n�
/north That the public fety department give final approval
of the driving ane width immediately south of the
leg of the building.
That the bollards on the west side of the north leg 7
�� rC of the building be removed to prevent the further re-
duction of the sub - standard driving aisle width.
That the city engineer approve a drainage plan for the
site. 11)
4. That the city engineer approve the type of curb pro V
vided on the site. J
v 9(_
Respectfully submitted, R
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Engineer
Public Safety Director
r_�
�7
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT FOR
OFFSTREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION
No. 82 -8, CONTRACT NO. 2348
Carlson Properties, Inc.
Location: Site bounded by 65th
Street, 66th Street,
Xerxes Avenue and
Vincent Avenue
Use: Commercial Shopping Center
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the proposed geometric layout of the offstreet park-
ing as contained in Offstreet Parking Application No. 82 -8,
Contract No. 2348 is hereby approved subject to and upon completion
of performance of the contract for such offstreet parking as here-
inafter authorized.
2. That the proposed offstreet parking contract for the
improvement of said offstreet parking, bearing Contract No. 2348
be placed on file and that the manager be authorized to sign said
contract and the clerk be authorized to seal the same for and on
behalf of this City.
3. That the offstreet parking operator provide the City of
Richfield with Surety in the form of cash, passbook saving with-
drawal authority, or performance bond in an amount to be determined
by the Community Development Director and City Manager, to insure
the offstreet parking lot is constructed within the terms and
regulations of the Offstreet Parking Agreement.
4. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance
of said Offstreet Parking lot shall remain the responsibility of
the offstreet parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance
Code 4.05.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
day of
ATTEST
y vi.a K. Bergh, City C erk
1982.
John Hamilton, Mayor
z
4"
��
N �
��
\N ��
� �
J,
s�
n
n
L
°S 3nN3AV LN30NIA
wro
..- - - -- — • -- __.' f - —�% _- -- _ -- —� -� _- avow
�� st•
U
qq a'
yJ Y u: I
i
j
j`
- � ` �. _- .•arsreaas..aworre� j
t � �
aaaa f / C!
a \c 6 do \ I fg
4n f
c
.0 a � � � y � � �' � • ' 3a I 1->
lusom
p
F rt
o'oi':i`3 a g - I
3nNa AV S3XU3):(
/4
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 328
Agenda October 25, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for an Off - Street Parking Permit at
7400 Lyndale Avenue and Permission to Use
Public Right -of -Way
Mr. Charles Miller, owner of the property at 7400 Lyndale,
is requesting that the city approve an off - street parking permit
to allow the expansion of the existing parking lot on the east
side of his building. The proposed expansion would increase the
parking available on the site by 16 spaces. The applicant has
indicated that in his opinion, inadequate parking is available,
since parking was prohibited on Lyndale Avenue. The proposed ex-
of pansion would require that the city allow the applicant to use
10 feet of the Lyndale Avenue right °of -way. The existing curb
cut on Lyndale Avenue would be moved approximately 18 feet to
the south.
The planning staff has reviewed the request and found the
following:
1. The number of spaces currently existing on the site
meet the current city guidelines for office uses. There
are 30 spaces underneath the structure some of which
are leased out.
2. The proposed improvements would meet current city
guidelines and specifications.
3. There is approximately 25 feet of unused right -of -way
between the improved portion of Lyndale Avenue and
the applicant's property line. Sufficient distance
(15 feet) would be maintained between the proposed
parking lot and the improved portion of Lyndale Avenue.
No sidewalk currently exists along this portion of
Lyndale Avenue. Sufficient space would be available
for future sidewalk construction. The need may arise
at a future date for street widening or other improve-
ments which would require use of more of the existing
right -of -way, but that is unlikely.
Council Letter No. 328 m2- October 25, 1982
4. A parking lot expansion could be carried Out totally
within the applicant's property by moving the parking
lot 10 feet closer to the building. This would result
in the removal of a substantial amount of landscaping
in the front of the building.
It is recommended that the city council approve the off-street
parking permit for the proposed parking lot expansion subject to
the stipulation that the property owner agree to enter into the
attached hold harmless agreement, and that parking spaces
provided on the site not be leased Out to uses not directly
connected with the businesses therein.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Engineer
KN /eja
74th
ST. f_7® -a.
MET.
-RAMP DOWN
�_... -- - CONL. Vft
- 5' CMA►N LINK FENCE —
BA BRIER CURB
Specifications of lot' expansions
411 Bass Crushed Rock ( lima stone )
20 Mat AC Asphalt
Asphalt 3jWed with Barber Greece Paver
B6-12 Concrete Curb and Gutter
ApProxImat&3q 28-29 stalls total
LLJ
E=LI
Li
t-4
4
<
Az
do
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT FOR
OFFSTREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION
No. 82 ®7, CONTRACT NO. 2347
7400 Realty
Location: 7400 Lyndale Avenue
Uses: Offices
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the proposed geometric layout of the offstreet parking
as contained in Offstreet Parking Application No. 82 ®7, Contract
No. 2347 is hereby approved subject to and upon completion of
performance of the contract for such offstreet parking as herein-
after authorized.
2. That the proposed offstreet parking contract for the improve-
ment of said offstreet parking, bearing Contract No. 2347 be placed
on file and that the manager be authorized to sign said contract
and the clerk be authorized to seal the same for and on behalf of
this City.
3. That the offstreet parking operator provide the City *of
Richfield with Surety in the form of cash, passbook saving with-
drawal authority, or performance bond in an amount to be determined
by the Community Development Director and City Manager, to insure
the offstreet parking lot is constructed within the terms and regu-
lations of the Offstreet Parking Agreement.
4. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance
of said Offstreet Parking lot shall remain the responsibility of
the offstreet parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code
4.05.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
day of , 1982.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
19824 by and between the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal.corporation, hereinafter "City"
and Charles Miller or their succes- ;ors_,
hereinafter "Permittee(s) ",
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Permittee(s) are owners of those parcels or tracts of
land legally described as:
Lots 1 ® 3, Block 10 Irwin Shores Addition
WHEREAS, the Permittee(s) are desirous of utilizing a part of
the unimproved portion of Lyndale Avenue, for parking lot purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to permit such use based upon the
conditions hereinafter contained,
NOW, THEREFORE, it is stipulated and agreed by and between the
parties as follows:
1. City hereby grants permission to Permittee(s) the right to
use for off street parking and related purposes the following portion
of Lyndale Avenue (hereinafter referred to as subject property).
The west 10 feet of the unimproved right of way adjacent to the parcel
included in the foregoing legal description.
2. In the event that the City shall need to use the subject
area for roadway or other public purposes at any time, the permission
granted in paragraph one (1) above, shall terminate upon thirty (30)
days written notice by the City to the Permittee(s).
3. The Permittee(s) shall not erect or permit the erection or
construction of any improvements on the subject area, except off
street parking improvements which is hereby permitted, without prior
written approval by the City.
4. All improvements constructed or placed in the subject area
by the Permittee(s) shall be removed upon the termination of this
-2-
permission. The Permittee(s) shall make no claim against the City r
for the value of any improvement which is affected by the termination
of the permission herein granted.
5. Permittee(s) agree to indemnify the City and save it harmless
against any claims, actions, causes of action or costs or expenses
of defending the same, arising out of or by reason of the granting
of this permit or by reason of the use or occupancy of the City's
right of way pursuant to the permission herein granted.
6. The City shall not be held liable by the Permittee(s) or
any representative thereof, for damages to improvements on subject
property, caused by cleaning, snow removal or any other maintenance
activity by the City.
7. This agreement shall be banding upon and insure to the
benefit of the parties and their heirs, successors and assigns.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands
the day and year first above written.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
By
John Hamilton
Its Mayor
f Anr
y
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 327
Agenda October 25, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Final Development Plan, Special Use Permit,
and Off-Street Parking Permit, Hauser /Snyder
Hub Area
History
In February, 1979, the city council approved a preliminary
plat, PUD plan and rezoning for the Hub /Summit /Penny Planned Unit
Development. Penny Supermarkets, Inc., as part of the PUD appro-
val process, are requesting city council approval of a final de-
velopment plan to allow them to construct parking lot improvements
on the Penny Supermarket property. This final development plan
covers only the parking lot improvements. Prior to the construct-
ion of the additions to existing buildings or other improvements,
additional final development plans will need to be approved by
the city.
Proposal
The proposal involves the removal of the curb along the west
side of the previously vacated Pillsbury Avenue, construction of
concrete islands, sidewalks, and restriping of the parking lot.
Zoning and Ordinance Requirements
Section 3.34A, subdivision 6 of the zoning ordinance requires
that prior to commencement of any construction or development of
the land, and after rezoning, an applicant shall submit a final
development plan, consistent with the council approved PUD plan,
and an application for a special use permit for said development.
A special use permit in conformance with the final development plan
must be obtained before the PUD district can be devoted to the
uses provided in such plan. In this case, each property owner must
submit a final development plan and obtain a special use permit
for the development of their property for each phase of the overall
Hub/penny development.
Section 3.41 of the ordinance requires that it be demonstrated
that the development would not be detrimental to the public welfare
and Section 3.34A, subdivision 3 requires that the development be
Council Letter No. 327
-2-
coordinated with subdivision regulations.
Staff Review and Findinqs
October 25, 1982
At the time the city council approved the preliminary PUD
plan and plat, certain stipulations were placed on the Penny Super-
market development. These stipulations include the following:
1. Elevation drawings of proposed buildings should be
submitted, including signing;
2. Schedule of light replacement, and an amortization
schedule, should be provided for replacement of exist-
ing lights with new lights which conform to the city's
L /H /N Design Standards;
3. Penny's has been exploring the possibility of an arcade
to connect their store with a rear entrance to the K -Mart
area. If this is not desirable, some type of through -
block connection will have to be arranged;
4. All end islands should be concrete or landscaped.
The staff has reviewed the proposed development and found
the following:
1. The proposed plan is generally consistent with the
PUD approved by the council in February, 1979. The
plan does differ in the following ways:
a -the property owner is not ready to proceed with the
building additions on the north side and east sides
of the existing building.
b -there will be 37 more parking stalls available under
the proposed plan. This is due to the fact that the
building additions will not be constructed at this
time.
c -the trees originally shown in the two southern most
islands along the previously vacated Pillsbury Avenue
have been omitted because the islands called for in
the previously approved plan are too narrow to protect
the trees. The islands could be widened to provide
additional protection.
d -the existing entrance to the site from 65th Steeet to
the driving aisle in front of the building will remain.
e -the crosswalks connecting the new concrete walk to
the structure are proposed to be tinted concrete
rather than bomanite. This change is consistent with
the city's decision not to use bomanite crosswalks
at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue.
Council Letter No. 327 -3 October 25, 1982
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the city council approve the final
development plan, special use permit, and off - street parking per-
mit subject to the following stipulation:
1. That the trees be provided as indicated on the
approved PUD plan.
The council may want to refer this matter to the Planning
Commission for a recommendation, if they feel that this change
is of a substantial nature. It is the opinion of the planning
staff that this change is not substantial and therefore, does not
require planning commission review.
Respectfully submitted,
kL
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Engineer
City Planner
KN /eja
t
•
i➢
WALr-,
a I
I-1cm
IWO
A
11.4
-Ar"Aw. v i 0
4LL
45-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Council
r-zm
Council Letter No. 326
Agenda October 25, 1982
Subject: Variance Request at 7045 5th Avenue
Mr. Ted Bergman has submitted a variance request to reduce
the required streetside: sideyard setback from 15 feet to 8 feet
to allow the construction of a 24' x 24' detached garage. The
proposed garage site is located on the southeast rear yard of
the property and meets the rear yard setback requirement for
detached accessory buildings. The existing residence has a single
car tuck -under garage.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
Section 3.30, subdivision 5, requires a minimum street -side
sideyard setback of 15 feet for accessory; and Section 3.40, sub-
division 6, lists three conditions which must be present before
a variance can be granted.
Staff Findings
The staff reviewed the three conditions for granting variances
and found the following:
1. It is the opinion of the staff that no special conditions
exist on the site. The site and existing building loca-
tion is common to the surrounding area and similar dis-
tricts.
2. It is the staff's opinion that denial of the variance
would not prevent reasonable use of the property. The
site provides adequate rear yard area to construct a
24' x 24' garage meeting the required 15' street -side
sideyard setback and 2' rearyard setback. The applicant
could - continue the existing residential use and single
car garage use.
3. It is the opinion of the staff that the proposal will
not materially or adversely affect the health or safety
of persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
1�
•
Council Letter No. 326 -2m October 25, 1952
The applicant has submitted a signed petition of
abutting and surrounding property owners in support
of the variance request.
Staff Recommendation
Because the proposal does not meet the three conditions
necessary for granting variances, it is recommended that the
variance be denied. Alternatives for construction of a garage
on the site are available.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission recommended by a unanimous vote to
deny the variance request.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc. Community Development Director
City Planner
KN /eja
1; v IT A� (2, c !,, C- F- R T,/
U-C"UL-L; LII<E
TC- 71 r=jAR,94E
FR 11 A IVr- c1Srr
t pjj,� AZ �j AF71 -r-T-t A: -1
To— H,4u�
Anx Mi,
PLv
7t-
° °�............ m °.-
a
,
t
V
e .
0
1
®
. q
° °�............ m °.-
10 -15 -52
TO: Kevin Rasmussen, Planning and Zoning
FROM: Joan C. Eason, 7100 Portland AVe. S..
RE: Request for variance: to reduce the required streetside- sideyard
setback from 15 feet to 5 feet: 7045, 5th AVe. So, Ted Bergman residence
For what it is worth, I have a positive statement to make about this requested
variance.
The area in question is part of a good sized corner lot, well - balanced, so
that the variance will not cause the appearance of the corner to be out
-of context with the overall appearance of the corner. I don't feel it
would contribute to any appearance of congestion of structures, particularly
since the distance of 8 feet (rather than 15 feet) is the equivalent
distance of neighboring fences. I cannot speak for the safety factor
regarding the entering of the driveway to the variance area, since I do
not drive. But it would appear, from eyepoint distance, that there is
sufficient space to allow for safe entry and parking.
I recognize that personal confirmations of a home - owner's character is
not evidence sufficient to warrant the granting of such a variance request.
But when one considers the fact that the City of Richfield's population
has dropped by some ten thousand inhabitants within ten years or so,
one likes to believe that home - owners, such as the above, and their
families, would prefer to remain in this community. That can be encouraged,
by serious and positive consideration of such variance requests - a home -owner
needs encouragement, and this particular home -owner is a hard - working and
conscientious family man, wit five children who are taught not only work
ethics, but service ethics. These-.are the kind of home- owners it behooves
Richfield to desire to keep within the community.
I have owned my home (together with the Richfield Bank and Trust Co..) for
24 years, and many of us have been there longer, in this area. But this is
a younger aged family and I have my own personal feeling that these type
of families are needed for continuity in Richfield neighborhoods.
OCT .1 21982
cty ®f Richfield
�e
eA
A
-- i Ala"L t aff� -)�l &Ara4L) A7-'J�.
a�l r��7--U-4
7« -�
V�,,i� -w J' ✓��3
-a S
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 325
Agenda October 25, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for a Variance to the Minimum Lot
Size to Permit Construction of Dwelling,
6314 Newton Avenue
Proposal
Mr. Allan Mattson, representing Beverly Builders, has sub-
mitted a variance request to allow the construction of a 42' x
26' single family residence on a lot below the minimum lot area
of 6,750 square feet (lot is 5,112 square feet), and the minimum
lot width of 50 feet (lot is 40 feet). Presently, the site has
a detached garage located on the southwest corner and the site
is vacant of residential use. The proposed structure meets all
required setbacks for interior lots and is zoned R single family
residential.
History
Previously, the site contained a single family residence
which was destroyed by fire in August, 1979. In August, 1981,
the city granted lot area and lot width variances to allow a
house to be moved onto a site which included this lot and five
feet of the lot immediately to the south. The lot is presently
platted and recorded as a 40 foot lot. The property has remained
vacant with the exception of a garage.
Staff Findings
The staff has reviewed the three conditions for granting
variances and found the following:
1. The property was platted as a 40' width and was
used as a single family residence for many years. It
is the staff's opinion that the finding of no special
conditions, in comparison to abutting and surrounding
properties, is a special circumstance. The proposed
building location, property area, and property width
is of the same general character as the surrounding
4
•
� -7
I
Council Letter No. 325 -2-
October 25, 1982
neighborhood. Without these variances the property
owner cannot develop his property in a similar manner.
2. It is the opinion of the staff that granting of the
application is necessary for the applicant to have
reasonable use of the property. The property is zoned
R single family residential. The property cannot be
used as a single family residential lot unless the
variances are granted. The only alternative use avail-
able if the variances are not granted, is for open
space.
3. It is-,the staff's opinion that the proposal will not
materially or adversely affect the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood. As
stated, the proposed single family home meets all re-
quired setbacks providind adequate building separa-
tion from abutting property structures. The proposed
development would be in the same general character as
the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff Recommendation
Because the proposal meets the three conditions for granting
a variance, the staff recommends approval of this application.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission recommended, by a unanimous vote,
that the variance request be approved with the stipulation that
the existing detached garage be brought into conformance with
city building codes.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
KN /ej a
0
•
•
i
co®
I • to = co
® Q
QL 0 ar
�- C:L
1
Cl)
CD
� Cn
C�
ALLEY
CXl
D
CD
=r
C.
a-=- n
CD
CD
®
=r
�--C-
f
-.�
® 0)4-<
R
R
n CL n
b
r
la.
)
Cz�
CD
z
144. U
o
�
.
Ju tom. CD
rd
N
A
Cr
Cn��i
•
am o -s
_
w
t
• A) CD .
CD
Cr
C7, :n
C: CID
'
m
lm 0
®
fl3
rT-j
� en
®
.-a- CD
co®
I • to = co
® Q
QL 0 ar
�- C:L
1
Cl)
CD
� Cn
C�
ALLEY
]RON
�I
t P
t
2 t
632f�t
rb
f®
P�
,1
t
ld! i
�v
U
!F ;N
CXl
D
f
R
R
b
r
la.
)
Cz�
3 1
z
144. U
o
�
.
rd
_
w
t
I
I
'
]RON
�I
t P
t
2 t
632f�t
rb
f®
P�
,1
t
ld! i
�v
U
!F ;N
N'L'--WTCiV
:r.
N
O
CXl
D
f
R
R
r
D �I
3 1
z
N'L'--WTCiV
:r.
N
O
97
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 324
Agenda October 25, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and <
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield Q
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Approval of an Amended Planned
Unit Development Plan, Final Development
Plan, Special Use Permit, and Off - Street
Parking Permit - Richfield State Agency
History
In September, 1981, the city council approved a planned unit
development plan, rezoning, preliminary plat and street vacation
for a development on the site bounded by 66th Street, 67th Street,
Lyndale Avenue, and Grand Avenue, subject to the stipulation that
building materials and all site lighting, landscaping, signing
and buffering conform to city standards. The proposed develop-
ment by Richfield State Agency was to ultimately result in 138,000
square feet of bank, office, and commercial space. Of this, 82,000
square feet was to be new construction and 56, 000 square feet
was to be remodeled space within the existing building.
The construction was contemplated to occur in two phases.
In the first phase, the existing building was to be expanded and
remodeled to bring its gross floor area to 110,485 square feet.
The Richfield Bank and Trust was to occupy 70,000 square feet of
this space, and 47,378 square feet of the 70,000 square feet
being new, earth sheltered construction with new drive -up tellers,
parking, and landscaping located on the roof. There was to be
5,000 square feet of new, at -grade construction and 17,600 square
feet of remodeled space in the existing building. Phase I was
to also include 29,650 square feet of leasable office or commer-
cial space. The existing medical building at the northeast
corner of the site was to remain as well as four of the existing
houses on the southeastern part of the site. Additional surface
parking was to be provided on the north and east part of the site.
Phase II construction was to remove the four remaining houses,
add parking, and add three additional floors of leasable office
space to the top of the north half of the existing two -story
bank building. A specific date for implementation of Phase II
was not specified.
Council Letter No. 324 -2-
October 25, 1932
Richfield State Agency has recently indicated a desire to
make changes in the way the proposed development is to occur.
The ultimate development remains unchanged. The improvements to
be constructed in the first phase have changed, however. Rich-
field State Agency is now requesting that the city approve an
amended planned unit development plan.
Proposed Plan Changes _.
The following is a summary of the changes contemplated in
Phase I of the development:
1. Construction of the earth - sheltered structure to the
south of the existing structure and the relocation of
of the drive -up teller facility would no longer occur
in Phase I. The existing teller drive -up facilities
would be remodeled and new equipment installed. A 12
x 48 foot manufactured building would be placed on the
east end of the existing drive -up facility and would
be occupied by bank tellers. The building would have
an 3 foot setback from the 67th Street right-of-' - way
line. The building would be brick -faced and be on a
concrete slab and be connected to utilities (sewer,
water, electricity). Its appearance would be similar
to the remote banking facility at the southeast corner
of 66th Street and Harriet Avenue. An additional lane
will be added to handle campers, vans, and other taller
vehicles.
2. Three additional stories would be constructed on the
north half of the existing building. This was to
occur in Phase II in the previously approved plan.
3. The house on the northeast corner of 67th Street and
Harriet Avenue would be converted from a residence to
an office.
4. The second house north of 67th Street on the west side
of Grand Avenue is to be removed instead of remaining
until Phase II. This house will be acquired, moved, and
renovated by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment
Authority as part of the Vo -Tech housing rehabilitation
program.
5. The drop -off area on the west side of the building will
not be constructed in Phase I.
6. A large area on the eastern edge of the site south of
the existing medical offices will not be developed as
parking in the first phase as shown in the approved
plan. Less parking is required because less floor area'
is now being constructed in Phase I. Less existing park-
ing is also being removed. This area will be maintained
C
U
•
Council Letter No. 324
-3- October 25, 1932
as a grass area until Phase II. A landscaped berm
will be constructed along Grand Avenue to screen ad-
jacent residential properties.
Staff Review
The city staff has reviewed the proposed amended plan and
found the following:
1 Tie completed development �.after Phase II) in the prop-
osed Planned Unit Development Plan amendment is exactly
the same as in the previously approved planned unit de-
velopment plan. The changes involve changes in the sched-
ule of when improvements are completed along the way.
Phase I would begin immediately with the improvements
to the drive -up teller facility, completion of the traffic
control improvements at the 66th Street and Grand Avenue
and 67th Street at Harriet Avenue entrances to the site ® -
and buffering along Gland Avenue. The construction of
the three additional stories and remaining Phase I im-
provements would begin in the spring or summer of 1953
when a sufficient number of tenants are found for the
new space. No schedule has been indicated for the con -
struction of the improvements called for in Phase 11.
2. Two aspects of Phase I of the amended plan have not
appeared in the plan before. First is the use of a tem-
porary building to house tellers to serve the drive -up
facility. The existing teller equipment is failing and
this improvement is an interim solution, until the re-
located drive -up teller facility is constructed in Phase
II. The proposed temporary building will be located no
closer to 67th Street than the existing drive -up structure.
The vacation of Harriet Avenue has been previously
approved so the setback from Harriet Avenue is not an
issue. The proposed building location will not pose a
visibility problem. The proposed building will be brick -
faced and will meet the city's Urban Design Guidelines.
The second change is the conversion of the existing
dwelling located at 67th Street and Harriet Avenue to
an office. The exterior appearance of the structure will
remain substantially the same. There will be no major
site improvements on this parcel. Existing trees will
remain. Parking will:.be provided by the parking area
north of the dwelling. This change is also a temporary
one as this dwelling will be removed in Phase II. This
change should not be detrimental to the surrounding
neighborhood.
3. Subsequent to the submittal of the attached material to
the city, the applicant has made two changes. The first
Council Letter Pao. 324 -4-
October 25, 1982
is that the existing commercial building south of
the existing bank building (6637 Lyndale) shown on
the Phase I site will be removed upon the completion
of the construction of the additional three stories
on the north half of the existing bank building. The
second change is that the applicant has decided not
to pursue the metal panel and glass enclosure exterior
design. The brick exterior alternative will be used.
The brick exterior alternative would meet the Urban
Design Guidelines while the metal panel alternative
would not.
4. The amended plan will meet current city off - street
parking guidelines concerning the number of parking
spaces to be provided, parking stall dimensions and
driving aisle dimensions. Some existing parking areas
remaining until Phase II do not meet city specifications
for concrete perimeter curbing. Insufficient detail
has been provided to determine if planned parking lot
improvements meet city specifications.
5. The amended plan will not result in undue traffic haz-
ards or congestion on surrounding streets. Traffic
control measures included in the previously approved
plan will be constructed in Phase I with the exception
of the relocation and reorientation of the drive -up
bank facility. Cars leaving the drive -up facility will
leave via 67th Street and be free to short -cut through
the adjacent residential neighborhood. This is the
current situation, however, and the proposed improve-
ments will not make the situation worse,
6. The proposed amended plan is consistent with the city's
comprehensive plan, and redevelopment plan.
7. Design details of site lighting, landscaping, and
signing have not been developed and submitted for city
staff review.
8. The proposed amended plan would not be detrimental to
the public welfare.
Staff Recommendation
The staff has found that the proposed amendment is not a
substantial change and would not be detrimental to the public
welfare. It is recommended that the council approve a revised
planned unit development plan, and a final development plan, and
special use permit for Phase I development subject to the follow-
ing stipulations:
1. That all permanent parking lot improvements be con-
structed to meet city specifications.
Council Letter No. 324
-5- October 25, 1982
2. That all building materials, site lighting, land-
scaping, and signs meet city guidelines. Final build-
ing, lighting, landscaping and sign-plans should be
submitted to the city staff for review and approval.
3. That the commercial building located at 6637 Lyndale
Avenue be removed in Phase I.
It is further recommended that the city council approve an
off - street parking permit for the Phase I development by passing
the attached resolution. It is recommended that the off - street
parking bond requirement be waived because the parking lot im-
provements would be covered by the required PUD performance..--.bond.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission unanimously recommends that the amended
Planned Unit Development Plan be approved with the following
stipulations:
1. That all permanent parking lot improvements constructed
meet city specifications.
2. That all building materials, site lighting, landscaping
and sign plans should be submitted to the city staff
for review and approval.
3. That the commercial building located at 6637 Lyndale
Avenue be removed in Phase I.
4. That the residential structure located at 6645 Harriet
Avenue (northeast corner of 67th Street and the previous-
ly vacated Harriet Avenue) remain as a residential
structure and not be converted to an office structure.
5. That all perimeter traffic control and landscaping im-
provements shown on the Phase I site plan be constructed
immediately.
6. That all Phase I improvements including the drive -up
facility renovation and the construction of three addi-
tional stories on the existing building occur
eousr .-y . vr, s.ec � �6ko oec"
Respectfully submitted,
;< N
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
KN /eja
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT
FOR OFF - STREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH
APPLICATION No. 82 ®9 CONTRACT NO. 2349
Richfield State Agency
Location: Site bounded by 66th Street
67th Street, Lyndale Avenue
__and Grand Avenue
Use: Office /commercial uses
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
I. That the proposed geometric layout of the off-street
parking as contained in Off-Street Parking Application No. 82-
9, Contract,No. 2349, is hereby approved subject to and upon
completion of performance of the contract for such off-street
parking as.-hereinafter authorized.
2. That the proposed off-street parking contract for the
improvement of said off - street parking, bearing Contract No. 2349
be placed on file and that the:-manager be authorized to sign said
contract and the clerk be authorized to seal the same for and on
behalf of this City.
3. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance
of the said off-street parking lot shall remain the responsibility
of the off-street parking lot operator in accordance with ordin-
ance code 4.05.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this
25th day of October, 1982.
john Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
m
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 323
Agenda October 25, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Variance to the Frontyard
Setback to Permit Construction of a Garage
at 7245 Humboldt Avenue
Mr. John W. Clarke has submitted a variance request to allow
the construction of a 20' x 30' detached garage forward of the
front building line on a lot with an area less than the required
10,000 square feet minimum (9,657). The existing rear yard set-
back of the house is also below the required minimum of 25 feet,
(5.31 feet). Presently, no garage exists on the site. The prop-
osed garage site will have a frontyard setback of approximately ,
31 feet and a sideyard setback of 12 feet. The property is zoned
R -1, residence district.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
Section 3.30A, subdivision 4, lists requirements for lot
area, width and coverage for R -1 residence districts. Subdivision
5 lists minimum building setbacks for single family dwellings and
and accessory buildings. Section 3.40, subdivision 6, lists three
conditions which must be present before a variance can be granted.
Staff Review
The staff reviewed the three conditions for granting variances
and found the following:
1. It is the staff's opinion that special conditions do
exist on this site not common to surrounding properties
and similar districts. The site was originally platted
with an area of 13,267 square feet. U. S. Interstate 35
right -of -way reduced the site to 9,657 square feet, 343
feet below the minimum of 10,000 square feet for R -1
districts.
The average front yard setback for this portion of
Humboldt Avenue is 30 feet. The front yard setback of
the existing residence at 7245 Humboldt Avenue is
approximately 57 feet. The house is located on the
Council Letter No. 323 '2°
October 25, 1982
rear half of the lot effectively eliminating the
rear yard as buildable space and limiting alternative
sites for the proposed garage.
2. it is the opinion of the staff that denial of the
application would not prevent reasonable use of the
prop -grty. The applicant could continue the residential
use of the property. The applicant could consider an
alternative design and location for the proposed garage.
An alternate design and /or lecation could be on the
north side yard meeting the required setbacks for de-
tached accessory buildings.
3o The staff is of the opinion that the proposal would not
be detrimental to the public welfare. The sideyard set-
back of the proposed garage site is 12 feet. This dis-
tance provides adequate building separation from existing
structures on the abutting property and adequate build-
ing separation should the abutting property owner build
within the minimum sideyard setback of two feet for de-
tached accessory use or 10 feet for residential use.
Staff Reco mendation
Because the proposal does not meet the three conditions
necessary denial of�thevvariance� requests. The e
r city manager,
ecoom e�e
however, recommends approval.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning planning commission unanimously recommends approval of
the variance requests.
Respectfully submitted,
P4 A"'" -A�
Karl Nolienberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
91ock 5, rrwin 5 Ores, exc,9pt thl6t,o9,rt takl for
l%5 IPterst ,dto 1711ghway No SfW,
I
jlelYV,01�7 COV17ty, M1h17eSOtd
t.�
d
e`-
f
��Existirl9_ ;
1
,
��1 g
--�
s
ate►
.�-L..
s
�
.
e •
�°
d
2013
M sa
548le e 1 inch =,W ¢et
Exi�rinq House Carr°
VS - E.xi�f. Gar � � •
T 93/4
e�
oirt
Nb
Q109 a3� I
7
1
f
> ?0 -�Pc
11
j
I ' s♦
1 I 1
yr
ZD ¢-- /5
I
L
Setback Lire
-- wFST /00.00 --
iota/ 4roa = 9, 6 ,57 sq.
io ` °r-
►.
-T 3A -_4
"Ohn W C;crke,;, r0-j-22
0
a�
1
o
2013
"Ohn W C;crke,;, r0-j-22
0
a�
1
_ _�..- � -»� _. __,.,.__..._�r..._ -_. _____._.____ _.-__. _ _- - - - - -. _--___ _- ��- ..�_._._
October 15, 15, 1952
9:25 AM
To: Community Development
From: Mr. Robert Bower
Citizen who lives immediately east of 7245
Humboldt Avenue South
He would like Planning Commission members to know he
has absolutely no objection to this variance request
and he is in favor of this request being approved.
4:f / 3
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
CouncileLetter No. 322
Agenda October 25, 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. First Reading.
In accordance with the process which the city has been foll-
owing over the past few months to implement the revised residential
zoning district requirements, the city must now establish the new
MR -2 Multiple Residence-- zoning district boundaries. As the council
may recall, all multiple dwellings were previously zoned MR. The
new residential zoning code contains three multiple residence zoning
districts; MR -1 for two family dwellings, MR -2 for three to 17 dwell-
ing units, and MR -3 for those units of 18 or more units. A list of
all of the existing multiple dwelling units in the city is attached
for your information.
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 rezone 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 is for 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-
quirements 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
•
0
•
Council Letter No. 322 _2® October 25, 1982
zoned MR -2 (instead of MR-1) because they are very
close to meeting the minimum lot width requirement
of 75 feet.
There are approximately 20 parcels which have 3 -17 dwelling
units and which do not meet the minimum lot area and /or lot width
requirements for MR -2 zoning requirements. Although the Planning
Commission recommended that these parcels be zoned MR-1, the
council may wish to consider zoning these parcels MR-2, non-
con-forming use because of the area or width, rather than because of
the number of units.
Attached to this council letter is an ordinance amendment
which would carry out the rezonings as recommended by the planning
commission. If the council gives first reading consideration to
this ordinance, second reading and the public hearing will be held
on November 8, 1982.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/ ej a
cce Community Development Director
City Planner
•
r
•
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 ITT, 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 1:1,
13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 43, 48, 50, 53, 56, 65, 67, 68, 69,
77, 92, 103, 104, 1051 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 11 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 4) of the east
quarter (E 4) of the southeast quarter (SE ;) of the
southwest quarter (SW J) of Section 27, Township 28,
Rance 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 h of the northeast 4 of the southwest
of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24.
14. Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7,
Addition.
15. Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and
16. Lots 4 and 5, Block
2nd Addition.
17. Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and
Homes 2nd Addition.
Block 2, Ralph Hollenbach's lst
10, Block 5, Nicollet Homes Addition.
4, Rearrangement of Nicollet Homes
10, Block 5, Rearrangement of Nicollet
18. That area lying between the center lines of Blaisdell and
Nicollet Avenues and between the center lane 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 h of the SE 4, except the west 30 feet thereof; also
the south 100 feet of the east 1/3 of the west 3/8 of
the SW h of the NE h, except the west 30 feet thereof,
all in Section 32, Township 28, Range 24.
22. The east h of that area lying between Penn Avenue and
Oliver Avenue and lying north of 65th Street within 299.2
feet of the north line of 65th Street,.and sout 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 F'iarwood Park Addition.
31. Lot 8, Block 7 F°airwood 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
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
, 1982.
John Hamilton, Mayor
Dot ® 2 REZONING
ellingsa Multiple /Dwellings
3 ® 17 Units
® Non - Conforming Area
® Non ®Conforming Width
Non -Conf orming to Comprehensive Plan (C.P.)
-1-
3-1.7 tests
Legal Description
Lot Block
Po
Lre
Width
75 ft
Zone
9.2-0
Cedar Avenue South
4 Iverson's Third Addition 1
12
17,842.3
159.52'
G.C.,
6720
Cedar Avenue South
Lot 3 & 4 Wexler's Addition 4
11
17,497.5
150'
C.C.
6730
CpAar Avenue South
Lot 5 & 6 Weir's Addition 4
11
17,497.5
150'
G.C.
6744
Cedar Avenue South
Lot 7 & 8 Wekler's Addition 4
11
17,497.5
150'
G.C.
6821
Cedar Avenue South
Lots 17 & 18 Rich Acres --4
_ 4-
13,444
100'
GmC®
7040
En#erg- Walden Secand Addition
_
--
Cedar Avenge South
Lots 4 & 5 3
8
16,761.6
120'
G.C.
7108
Emperg-WaIden Se=nd Addatim
Ceda AveM38 South
Lots 8& 9 3
8
14,727.6
120'
G.C.
7116
Migberg- Waldee Se=nd Addition
Cedar Avenue South
Lots 10 & 11 3
7
14,733.6
120'
G.C.
14
Part of ouLlot 1 lying south of
cedar Avenue South
the N 367 feet, Elder Grove 4th
Addition
17
28,068.2
228.16.'
G.C.
6609
Tracts A and �G
Twelfth Avenue South
R.L.S. 589 e=. N 100 feet
11
13,000
100'
G.C.
6614
Tract E, R.L.S. 92
T!hYr°teenth Avenue South
Section 26 T28 R24
10
13,863
114'
G.C. -
2015
S. � beginning 656' E of SW corner
123,667
West. 77th Street
of Section 33 T28 R24—cmTtimed
17
163'
G.C.
2025
N. 183' of S. h beginning 656' E
West 77th Street
of SW corner section 33 T28 R24
11
16,049
104.9'
G.C.
continued ...
7100
N 140' E 1/8 of S h of NW 4 of
Limitf
Chicago Avenue South
NW ; of Section 35 T28 R24
11
14,619
110.0'
Busine'
C -1
7115
Limitec
Chicago Avenue South
4 Zdmrt's Elliot Avenue Add. 4
11
10,801.57,
82.11'
Blum,
C -1
21
Limitec
:sago Avenue South
3 Zubert's Elliot Avenue Add. 4
11
10,804
82.11'
Busine_
C -1
®2®
n7UM==' �
Lee�� D escription
T®
Ares
Wider
s
Lot E1. ®ck
No . 10,000
75 ffUiUmMite
7137
Fallden's Third Addition
Chicago Avenue
S. "I Lot 7 N. 56' of ?dot 6 12
�
9
,310021 93.5
7145
Fal,lden's Th r tion
Chicago Avenue South
Lot 5 S. h Of Lot 6 12
11
12,182.5
92.53'
7127
FaUden's Third Addition
Chicago Avenue South
Lot 8, N. h of 7 12
11
14,800.5
112.5'
C -1
6328
Id's Third Addition
Cedar Avenge South
3 plus N. 40' Lot 2 3
11
15,318.8
140'
Genera
Indust
6344
Lot 1 and S. 60' Lot 2
Cedar Avenue South
Iverson's Third Addition 3
11
17,528
160'
Genera
6400
Cedar Avenue Soh
6 Ives's Third Addition 2
4
11,135.8
103.54'
t:3
6214
4
.Oliver Avenue Sough
Sects 28 T28 R24
6
22,477.7
137.9'
t:3
6220
Oliver Avenue South
Section 28 T28 R24
6
22,477.7
137.9'
13
lnk.�t
6275
W. of E. 163; part of N. ;j of. NW
Penn Avenue South
4 of Section 28 T28 R24 cmt'd...
6
22,614.5
138.29'
General
6221
Penn Avenue South
w
n
n n
n
Gerieral
7701
S. h Of S.E. Of S.E.
Fourth Avenue South
Section 34 T28 R24
12
22,644
162.44'
Goveral
jrxhwtj
6607-
MOCUtChirm Portland Avenue Park
General
Fish Avenue South
Iogs 22, 23, 24 1
17
18,602
146.02'
caumerci
7420
S. 150' of E 4 of N 4- of NE h of S
Cedar Avenue South.
E a lying E of W 153.05' of
10
25,969.5
150.00'
M.R.
35 T28 R24
6600
Chicago Avenue South
Lots 1, 2, 3 Okstad Addition
17
27,451.74
212.59'
M.R.
7107 9
Zuberts Elliot Avenue Addition
111,510.81
Chicago Avenue South
W 325.3 of S 70' of NE h of NW 4
4
70'
M.R.
of Section 35 T28 R24
7106
E 161.40' of W 325.3 of S 70' of
Elliot Avenue South
NE k of NW 4 of Section 35 T28 R24
4
11,298
70'
M.R.
7601 •
N 173' of N � of W 5 acres of SW 4
Logan Avenue
of SW a Section 33 T28 R24
13
19,115.6
140'
M.R.
MCI!
3®17 Units
Legal DescriptioZBI
Lot ® ck
T®
No.
Area
10,000
Width
75 ft
Zone
336
E. 175' Of S. 4 of E. 4 of SE of
Nicollet Avenue South
SW 4 N of S 175 Section 27 T28 R24
4
18,750
1508
M.R.
6244
E. 1508 of W 329.6 of S 200 of N
Oliver Avenue South
of NW k of NW 4 of Section 28 T28
R24 (Survey 6253 Perm Avenue)
4
12,000
100'
M.R.
6416
1
f
Oliver Avenue South
N h Section 28 T28 R24
14
26,197.8
198.8'
M.R.
6436
E 'h of S 199.2 of N 548' of W 4 of
Oliver Avenue South
SW It of NW 4 of Section 28 T28 R24
17
26,832.2
199.2'
M.R.-
6520
S 88' of N 964.8 of E � of W 4 of
Oliver Avenue South
SW h of NW 4 of Section 28 T28 R24
11
11,865
88'
M.R.
6526
N 3/4 Of E h of W 4 of SW k- of NW
Oliver Avenue South
4 of S 28 T28 R24 oontinued....
11
11,816
87.78'
M.R.
6532
4
N 88' of S 263' of W h of SW 4 of
Oliver Avenue South
NW 4 of S 28 T28 R24, continued...
11
11,924
88'
M.-R.
7412
E 101.8' of N 90 of S 224 of W 4
Oliver Avenue South
Of N 4 of NW 4 of SW 4 of Sew
11
9162
90'
M.R.
33 T28 R24
7420
E 101.8 of N 90' of S 134 of W
Oliver Avenue South
of N ;4.0f NW k of S 33 T28 R24
11
9162
90'
M.R.
7426
E 30' of W 183' of W 4 of Sh of N
Oliver Avenue South
4 of NW 4 of SW of S 33 T28 R24
11
13,248
92.48'
MoR.
7434 *
N 100' of S 230' of W 4 of S h of
-
Oliver Avenue South
N � Of NW 4 of SW of Section 33
11
11,483
100'
M.R.
T28 R24
7444
S 130' of W 4 of S of Nh of NW
Oliver Avenue South -
4 of SW of Section 33 T28 R24
11
11,484
100'
M.R.
7500
E 151 of W 331 of N h of S h of N
Oliver Avenue South
W 4 of SW 4 of Section 33 T28 R24
11-
16,737.9
1218
M.R.
7520:-:
S 100 of W 331 of N h of S � of N
OL.ver Avenue South
W 4 of SW 4 of Section 33 T28 R24
11
13,400
100'
M.R.
7530 _
E- 149 of W 331' of S 4 of NW 4 of
Oliver Avenue South
SW 4 of Section 33 T28 R24
7
,290.72
94.888
M.R.
7536
N 100' of S 233 of E 149 of W 331
C'_ -er Avenue South
of S 4 of MT 4 of SW 4 of Section
33 T28 R24
7
11,900
100'
M.R.
7544
S 133' of E 149 of W 331 of S 4 of
Oliver Avenue South
NW 4 of SW 4 of Section 33 T28 R24
7
11,900
100'
M.R.
X;3-17an9jt-r,
6715
PeM,I Avenue South
6901
Penn Avenue South
6'25
Penn Avenue South
6936
Penn Avenue South
6944
Penn Avenue South
7413
Perri Avenue South
7421
Penn Avenue South
7427
Penn Avenue South
7435
Penn Avenue South
7445
Penn Avenue South
7521*
?ern Avenje South
7527 i
Pem Avenue South
7539 •
Penn Avenue South
7533
Penn Avenue South
7545 9
Penn Avenue South
m4-
Legal Description
Lot Block
•••
Wale Highlands Survey
17,18 T ° Bros. Iin =ln 10
Hi Is 2nd Addition Address nap
8 Fwd Park 7
Tingdale Bros. Lj=jn Hills
3-rd motion S j, I,at 9 all 10,
N 5' of Ict 11 16
Tines Bros. Liz=ln Rill
3rd Addition Tat 11 B =. N 5'
all of 12 16
W 104.8' of N 90' of S .224 of W
of N 4 of NW 4 of won 33 T28
R24
W 104.8 of N 90 of S 134 of W 4 of
NkofNW11OfSW4of SecLiom 33
T 28 R24
W153' Of W4ofSIl ofN;fofNW
Of SW 4 of Section 33 T 28 R24
N 109 of S 218 of W 183 of S h of
N h of NW 4 of SW 4 S 33 T28 R24
N 79 of S 109 of W 183 of S h of N
h of NW h of SW 4 of Section 33
T28 R24
S 100 of W 167 of N Is of S h of N
W 4 of SW 4 Section 33 T 28 R24
N 74 of W 182 of S 4 of NW of SW
4 of Section 33 T28 R24
S 74 of N 222 of W 182 of S 4 of N
W 4 of SW 4 of Section 33 T28 R24
S 74 of N 148 of W 182 of S 4 of
NW - of SW 4 of Section 33 T28 R24
W 182 of S 4 of NW 4 of SW 4 of
Section 33 T28 R24
11
16,020
120'
M.R
8
118,157
1134'
1 M.R,
12 21,600
4 110,104
4 11,114.4
11 19432
11
10
11
4 1
11
,7
7
7
7
19432
13,254
16,350
°4, 457
.3,400
1,026
1,026
1,026
,935.11
120'
80'
88'
90'
90'
110.45'
109'
79'
100'
74'
74'
74'
73.39'
X.R.
M.R.
M.R.
X.R.
M.R.
M.R.
M.R.
M.R.
M.R.
M.R.
M.R.
M.R.
X.R.
-5-
3-17 Quits
Legal. Description
Lot Block
PTaEpArea
Width
75 ft
Zone
,301
Nicollet Hanes Addition
Pleasant Avenue South
Lot 10, N 21 Lot 9 5
11
11,003.4
98'
M.R
6313
Nicollet bones Addition
Pleasant Avenue South
Lot 9 Exc. N 21' and N 44' Lot 8 5
11
10,971.1
98'
M.R,
6321
Nicollet Hanes Addition
Pleasant Avenue South
Lot 8 exc. N 44 & N. 67 Lot 7 5
11
10,935.8
98'
M.R.
6329
Rearrangement of Nicollet Hares
Pleasant Avenue South
Sid Addition. Lot 7 exc N 67
Lot 6 Block 5 & N 15 of Lot 5 4,5
11
10,902.5
98' -
M.R.
6337
Nicollet Hanes Additcn
Pleasant Avenue South
Lot 5 exc. N 15' & N 4' Lot 4- -4
11-
10,869.
98'
M.R.
6345
Re t of Nicollet dies
Pleasant Avenue South
Second Addition Lot 4 east. N 4'
11
11,721.5
106.271-
M.R.
6401
Pleasant Avenue South
Lot 10 and N. 20.5 of Lot 9 5
11
12,438.3
102.5'
M.R.
613
"
n
Pleasant Avenue South
N h Lot 8 Lot 9, S of N 20.5' S
11
12,398.4
102.5'
M.R.
--*21
Pleasant Avenue South
S h Lot 8 Lot 7, N of S 20.51. 5
11
12,359.4
102.5'
M.R.
6429
" "
Pleasant Avenue South
Lot 6 and S 20.5' of Lot 7 5
11
12,321
102.5'
M.R.
6438
_
Pleasant Avenue South
6 Lyndale Oaks 2
7
10,196.5
78.89'
M.R.
6729 !
Pleasant Avenue South
7 Ralph Hollenbacks 1st Add. 2
4
9505.7
93.35'
M.R.
6737
Pleasant Avenue South
6 '° " 2
7
10,092
100'
M.R.
6745
Pleasant Avenue South
5 " 2
7
10,108
100'
M.R.
7608
Sunset Terrace Addition Lot 2,
Pleasant Avenue South
ex=. W 121.94' & E 30' 2
4
9145.5
75'
M.R.
7614
Sunset Terrace Addition Lot 3,
Pleasant Avenue South
Exc. W 121.92' and.E 30' 2
4
9144
75'
M.R.
3
Sunset Terrace Addition Lot 4,
L.zasant Avenue South
EXC. W 121.9' and E 30' 2
4
9143.25
75'
rs_Q_
:m
Dwel l
3-17 emits
Legal Description
Lot Block
pTota
Area
_0,000
Width
75 ft
7626 ®
Sunset Terrace Addition Lot 5,
Pleasant Avenue South
exr— W 121.88' and E 30' 2
4
9141.75
75'
7632M
Sunset Terrace Addition Lot 6,
Pleasant Avenue South
e=. W 121.81 and E. 30' 2
4
9140.25
75'
7638
Suet Terrace Addition Lot 7,
Pleasant Avenue Sots
exc. W 121.8' and E 30' 2
4
9138.75
75'
7644' 0
Sunset Terrace Addition
Pleasant Avenue South
8 ..... continued 2
4
8074.85
74.76'
7232
S h of NE k of SW 4 of NW 4 of
Portland Avenue South
Section 34 T 28 R24, cmtinued
11
12,000+
166.2'
7244
S h of NE J of SE of NE h of
Portland Avenue South
Section 34 T28 R24 ... continued
11
12,000+
135.1'
6610
Tingdale Ries. Lincoln Bi.11s
Queen Avenue South
Addition Ict 6,7 and N 18 of Lot
8 2
7
15,056
118'
` 6620
Tingdale Bros. Lincoln Hills
Queen Avenue South
Addition L®t 8 S of N 18' Lot 9
& N 34' Lot 10 2
10
14,732
116'
6629
Tingdale Bros. Lincoln Hi, 33
Queen Avenue South
AdditJon Lots 16, 17, 18 1
13
18,930
150'
6630
Queen Avenue South
Lots 11, 12, & part of Lot 10 S
of N 34' 2
7
14,790
116'
6645
"
Queen Avenue South
Lots 13, 14, 15 1
12
15,750
125'
900
Rae Drive
Tract B, R.L.S. 733
11
20,131.5
98.15'
910
Rae Drive
Tract C, R.L.S. 793
11
19,970.5
110.64'
7401 -*
Washb= Avenue
N 30 feet of E 1/3 of W 3/8
4
17,485
130'
7403 �;
Mashburn Avenue
N.W. h of S.E. 4, East of West 30
17,485
130'
feet and S. 100 feet of E. 1/3 of
2917
West 74th Street
W. 3/8 of S.W. k of N.E. < East
17,485
132.51
of West 30 feet
2923
West 74th Street
32 T28 R24
17,485
17,485
132.51'
-7-
3-17 Units
Legal Description
Lot Block _
Tota
No.
Area
10,000
Width
75 ft
Zone
;00
Terrace Gardens
! Tenth Avenue South
Lot 3 E. � Lot 2 2
12
16,320
125'
M.R.
6612
Jerpback's First Addition
Ztaelfth Avenue South
E. � Lot 1, S. of N. 100 feet
11
12,916
100'
G.C.
7601
W. 132' of N. 10 acres of S.E.
Eighteenth Avenue South
of SE h of Section 35 T28 R24
7
13,359
101.21'
M .-R.
7615
N 101.21 of S 202.42 of W 132 of
Eighteenth Avenue South
that part N 10 acres of SE 4 of SE
h Section 35 T28 R24
7
13,359
101.21'
M.R.
7625
S 101.21 of W 132 of that cart N
Big teenth Avenue South
10 acres of SE h of SE ;4 of Secti
35 T28 R24
7
13,359
101.21'
M.R.
901
Terrace Garde
-
East 66th Street
Lot 1, W h of Lot 2
U
16,309.4
130.57'
M.R.
1001
Terrace Gardens
East 66th Street
Lot 1, W ;5 of Lot 2 1
11
16,352.9
130.5'
M.R.
1015
Terrace Gardens
_ -
-
'st 66th Street
lot 3, E. h of Lot 2 1
11
16,354
130.5'
M.R.
2000
New Ford Torte
East 66th Street
lots 10, 11, 12 4
15
21,432
160'
M.R.
East 66th Street
13 New Ford Tom 6
4
6668.79
50.13'
M.R.
222000
-
East 66th Street
14 New Ford Town 6
4
8093.9
60.72'
M.R.
2224.
East 66th Street
10 " 7
4
8160
60'
M.R.
2228
East 66th Street
11 '° 7
4
6800
50'
M.R.
420 •
Fast 73rd Street
Section 34 T28 R24
11
12,000+
98.83'
M.R.
424 *
S. h of NE 4 of SE h of NE 4 of
East 73rd Street
Section 34 T28 R24 ... continued
11
13,093
78.83'
M.R.
400
west 65th Street
1 J.N. Aausers Second Addition 2
11
16,456
135'
M.R.
i7 -19 -21 •
N. 208 feet of W ; of E � of NE 4
West 66th Street
of SW ; of- Section 28 T28 R24.
3
11,812.5
67.5'
M.R.
-a-
pie #j tiple
3-17 units
Legal Description
Lot E1®ck
T®ta
No.
un q
Area
10,000
Width
75 ft
Z®ve
2 2.
Pairwood Park First Additim
West 66th Stmt
Lots 10 and 11 8
14
23,625
1351
M.R.
2116
West 66th Stmt
14
23,625
1351
I.R.
240500
Tingdale Bros. Linw1n Hills
West 66th Stet
Additim Trot 3 and W 20' of Lot 2
(ce) = Harry Ticlner's
Subdivisicn 2
7
3431.6
73'
M.R.
2275 ®
N. 10108' Of E 81 ®f W 204.4' of W
West 74th Stmt
h Of N. h of NW 4 of SW ;g sectim
33 T28 R24
11
8245.8
81'
M.R.
FA
MR ® 2 REZONING
Multiple Dwellings With 17+ Units
Per Single Lot.
® Non- Conforming Area
® Non - Conforming Width
Non- Conforming to Comprehensive Plan (C.P. )
_1®
Multiple Dwellings
Legal Description
Tota
Area
Width
17+ units /Lot
Lot Block
No.
10,000
75 ft
Zone
7300
N. 390' of Outlet 1
Cedar Avenue South
Evergreen Gardens 2nd Add.
28
44,655
390'
M.R.
7320
Cedar Avenue South
n °°
44,655
390'
M.R.
6325
Lyndale Avenue
Section 27 T 28 R 24
34
15,202
462.8'
M.R.
6335
Lyndale Avenue
Section 27 T 28 R 24
215,2021
462.8'
M.R.
7400
N. 126.23 of S. 1283.7 of ET2.2
Penn Avenue Southf-
1/8 of N.E. of S.E. h of
Section 32 T 28 R 24
_16„597.9
126.22'
M.R.
7420
Penn Avenue South°
Same as 7400 Penn Avenue So.
16,597.4
126.22'
M.R.
7501
W. 331 of N. h of S. h of NW
.Penn Avenue South
h of SW 4 North of S. 100...
continued Section 33 T28 R24
22
45,077.6
198.45
M.R.
7515
Penn Avenue South
Same as 7501 Penn Avenue So.
45,077.6
198.45'
M.a�.
2100
New Ford Town
East 66th Street
Lots 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 5
32
35,890
271.90'
M.R.
22116
-
East 66th Street
n
35,890
271.90'
M.R.
300
1
West 65th Street,-
1 J.N. Hausers 2nd Add. 1
22
31,509.
258.49'
M.R.
312
West 65th Street-
1 J.N. Hausers 2nd Add. 1
31,509.
258.49'
M.R.
1601
South h of the N.E. k- of the SW
West 75th Street
; of Section 33 T28 R24
Description Cmt1 macs
136
568,000.8;
957.32'
G • C.
1609
West 75th Street
° re
u of
n n
G. C.
1617
West 75th Street
° n
n n
n n
G. C.
1625
West 75th Street
n Legal Description n
n n
n n
G.C,
includes 7501 to 7521 Iogan
1701
Avenue nth
West 75th Street
n n
n
G. C.
-2-
Multiple - Dwellings
17T units /Lot
Legal Description
Lot Block
Tota
No.
Area
10,000
Width
75 ft
Zone
South h of the N.E. 4 of the
X109
Southwest 4 of Section 33
West 75th Street
T28 R24 Description Cont...
136
568,000.E6
957.32'
G. C
1717
G. C.
1725
West 75th Street
n If
If it
IT If
n If
G. C.
1751
West 75th Street
If If
It n
it n
If it
G. C.
1759
West 75th Street
If
G. C.
1767
West 75th Street
If If
n n_
If IN
n If
G. C.
1775
West 75th Street
If n
If a
If n
If If
G. L.
1740
South of the Northeast of the
Nest 76th Street
Southwest 4 of Section 33 T28 R24
136
586,000
957.32'
'G.C•
Descr2ptioez continues .. .
1760
West 76tH Street
If If
to n
If If
If If
G. C
1810
West 76th Street
If n
n If
to n
n n
G.C.
1820
West 76th Street
If n
If If
If If
n n
G. C.
1830"
West 76th Street
If
IN
If n
G.C.
1840
West 76th Street
n n
n n
n r
n u
G. C.
7700 -14
E. 1981 of S.E. of S.W. of SE
Bloanington Avenue So.
k of Section 35 T28 R24
40
64,718.64
168'
G.C.
7716 -38
Bloaningtcn Avenue So.
n
n n
n
n
G.C.
7740 -62
.caningtcn Avenue -So.
n n
n n
n i
u o
G.C.
7764 -78
Bloarti.ngtm Avenue So.
G.C.
®3_
Multiple Dwellings
Legal Description
Tota
Area
Width
17+ units /Lot
Lot Block
No.
10,000
75 ft
Zone
NINON
6733
Wexler's A&Ution S. 223' of N.W.
Cedar Avenue Sott'th
4 of Sec am 25 T28 R24 4
28
47,025
501.6'
G.C.
6745 `-
Wexler Is Addition
Cedar Avenue South
Legal same as 6733 Cella Ave. 4
47,025
501.6'
G.C.
7721-
E. h of SE h- of SW h of SE � of
Emerson Avenue South
Sect:Lm 33 T28 R24
64
93,026.3
311'
G.C.
7733
it
Enersm Avenue South
Saone as 1100 and 1112 W. 78th St.
93,026.3
311'
G.C.
1112
West 78th Street
7733 won arid 1100 W. 78th St.
93,026.3
311'
G.C.
6437
See 200 West 65th Stmt
Pleasant Avenue South
for Survey
33
44,946.7
240.1'
G.C.
200
E. h of N.W. h of Section 27
West 65th Stet
T28 R24
44,946.7
240.1'
G.C.
212
West 65th Street
"
G.C.
6601 '-
Jerphacks First Addition
Eleventh Avenue South
W. 1/3 Lot 1 1
22
25,842
200'
G.C.
6613 -
Eleventh Avenue South
°
n n
n '"
G.C.
701
Parcels 4100 and 4200 of plat No.
East 77th Street
44835 ac==I 7 to tax rec=ds.
Tn the SW h of the SW ;4 of Sectimn
35 T28 R24
153
239,855
623'
G.C.
711
East 77th Street
"
" ��
" ��
G.C.
717
Fast 77th Street
^ n
n ro
n
„ „
G.C.
729
East, 77th Street
G.C.
735
East 77th Street
G.0
710
Fast 77th Street
G.C.
-4-
Multiple Dwe Ings
Legal Description
Ares .
Width
�7+ units /Lot
Lot Block
PToEta2
10,000
75 ft
Zone
-- - l
parcels 4100 and 4200 of plat No.
16
44835 according to tax records
East 78th Street
In the SW h of the W 4 of
153
239,855
623'
G.C.
Section 35 T28 R24
728
East 78th Street
" to
to to
to n
n is
G.C.
734
Fast 78th Suet
" n
n n
" n
it n
G.C.
620-
SW h of SW of SW h of section
East 78th Street
35 T28 R24
68
239,855
623'
G.C.
Description Continues....
-
_ -
626
East 78th Street
" n
ro n
n n
n w
G.C.
632
East 78th Street
" n
" n
n w
n "
G.C.
638
Fast 78th Street
" "
w "
n n
n n
G.G.
r '4
r±ast 78th Street
" re
n w
n n
n "
G.C.
2101
N. 200 following SW h of SW ;j of
West 777th Street
Section 33 T28 R24 M y's Adel.
46
65,616
328.08'
G.C.
2109
West 77th Street
" n
n n
n ro
n n
G.C.
2115
West 77th Street
" n
n n
n n
n rr
G.C.
2121
West 77th Street
" IT
n n
n n
n it
G.C.
7720
Fourth Avenue South
1 Section 34 T28 R24
48
84,277.5
371.84'
G.I.
7730
Fourth Avenue South
" n
n u
n n
n °
G. I.
7740
Fourth Avenue South
" n
n n
n rr
n rr
G. I.
45- 49- 53- 57 -61 -65
R.C. Soen's Addition 7
West 77th Street
Lot 6, Lots 1 and 6 6
24
67,658.5
453.02'
G.I.
�5-
Multiple Dwellings_ Legal Description Tota Area Width
17+ units /?dot Lot Block No, 10,000 75 ft ZaDe Sa rt
_B.
47 ®51 ®55-59 -63®67
R.C. Soents Addition, 7
West 77th Stmt
Ict 6, Its 1 and 6 6
24
67,658.5
435.02,
Industr
81-8589-93-97
X77-
tale At 77th h alt
n IB
BB W
IB iB
BB
Ind5NsA tom.
79- 83®87 -91 ®9599
-
West. 77th Street
tt n
Bt BB
tt
n BB
Industr.
30-40- 50®60 ®70 -80-90
Lots 4,5 R.C. 7
West 78th Stet
Lots 2,3,5 6
80
95,625
489.46,
G. 1.
ES1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 321
Agenda October 25, 1932
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Arlendment to Allow Family Memorial
Funeral Chapels in C -1 Limited Business
Zoning Districts by Special Use Permit.
Second Reading.
On October 11, 1982 the city council gave first reading
approval to an ordinance amendment to allow family memorial fun-
eral chapels in C -1 Limited Business Zoning Districts by special
use permit. The public hearing on this matter has been scheduled
for October 25, 1932. A copy of the previous council letter on
this matter is attached for your review. Also attached is a
letter from Morris Nilsen, expressing his concerns on this matter.
It is recoiLunended that the city council conduct the public
hearing on this matter and give second reading approval to the
attached ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Clerk
KN /eja
I� t 7
G1^Tervl0. l set .(}� I
CO V\ +'eC_�k W\1� pG JAG e \l/ ✓�Qr0.1 ✓�U✓Y�f \v
CdS� 64' Cr a'-S's
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 7
Office of City Manager
Council Letter-No. 304
Agenda October 11, 1952
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment to Allow Family
Memorial Funeral Chapels in C -1 Limited
Business Zoning Districts by Special Use
Permit
The city staff has recently received an inquiry about the
Possibility of constructing a chapel to conduct family memorial
funeral services in a C -1 limited business zoning district.
The city attorney's office has issued an opinion that this type
Of use would have to be considered as a funeral home and, there -
fore, could only be located in a C -2 general commercial or I
general industrial zoning district. A draft ordinance amend-
ment which would allow family memorial funeral chapels in C -1
limited business zoning districts by special use permit is
attached for council consideration.
Also attached is a copy of a document which discusses the
concept of the family memorial funeral service. Briefly, the
family memorial funeral service is an attempt to provide a
simpler, less expensive funeral than the traditional one. The
family memorial funeral service would eliminate the public re-
viewal element of the service. The body would not be present
at the funeral service, and burial, cremation or entombment is
private for the family members only, and would eliminate the
need for limousines, long funeral processions and pallbearers.
Facilities which exclusively offer this :rind of simpler
funeral service can be much smaller and would have considerably
less impact on surrounding uses than a traditional funeral home.
The facility would essentially be the same as an office type
use. There would typically only be office -type space where
families would come to make funeral arrangements, an embalming
room for the preparation of the deceased (required by state
license provisions), a room for private reviewal of the deceased
by family members, and the required public restroom facilities.
Traffic generated by this type of use would be minimal because
only immediate family members would be coming to the site and
as was discussed earlier, there would be no public reviewal or
funeral services conducted on the site.
Council Letter No. 304 -2-
October 11, 1982
It would be desirable to insure that this type of facility
is limited to providing family memorial funeral services, that
sufficient parking is provided, that adjacent residential uses
are adequately screened from the facility, and that the facility
is properly licensed by the State of Minnesota. It is the
opinion of the staff that, with these protections built in, a
family memorial service chapel would be an appropriate use in
a C -1 limited business district. The attached ordinance builds
in these protections by°reguiri.ng that a special use permit be
obtained and by malting the protections outlined above conditions
for approval of a special use permit.
It is recommended that the city council give first reading
approval to the attached ordinance, and schedule a public hear-
ing and second reading consideration of this ordinance for
October 25, 1982®
The planning commission reviewed this ordinance and unani-
mously recommended that the city council approve-it.
Ressp^^ectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
City Attorney
City Clerk
KN /eja
Bill No.
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3.32
OF THE CITY'S ORDINANCE CODE TO PERMIT
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FAMILY MEMORIAL
FUNERAL CHAPELS IN C -1 LIMITED BUSINESS
DISTnCTS BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter III, Part ZV, Section 3.32 of the ordinance code of
the City of Richfield is hereby amended by amending Subdivision l
thereof to read as follows-.
Subdivision 1. Permitted Uses. In the neighborhood business - disc -�
trict, unless ota erwa.se specs. led in this chapter, the following
uses are permitted:
(l) Any use permitted in an "R" district or an "MR" district,
upon compliance with the procedural requirements for each such
district provided that no one family or two family dwelling shall
be constructed in this district without the-procurement of a
special use permit in accordance with the provisions of Section
.41 of this chapter.
(2) Uses intended for the.supplying of a limited variety of
coamtodities or services, primarily for the benefit of residents of
the immediate neighborhood. These small include any local retail
business or service establishment such as a grocery store, fruit
or vegetable market, meat market, drug store, barber shop, beauty
parlor, clothes cleaning and dry good pickup station, business or
professional office and similar uses.
(3) Restaurant, cafe and soda fountain, which uses do act
emit dancizq, on -sale beer, or the serving of alcoholic beverages.
g - estaurant, cafe and soda fountain, however, shall not be estab-
esi�ed in a neighborhood business district without first securing
a special use permit therefor. A special use permit shall not be
=anted =or any such use in a neighborhood business district unless
co =lies with the recuirements of section 3.41 of t:is code and
-n -ess t::e council finds that the proposed use wi11 provide commodi-
and sernvices primarily for the residents of tae immediate
.e®giborziocd and wi11 be part of a aei.gaboracod Shopping center
rcv:..iac a variety r ,
f commodities and services. . Drive -in and
=ake-out restaurants, cafes and soda fountains shall not be located
=.Ze C -1 distmicrs. (Bill 1970 -2) 2/9/70
_) ?ami' Memorial Chapels upon sec= nc a special use aercu.t
accordarce w_rz =.Ze =eau = cements or sec-a.on .4:, Of this ccee.
scecia= use -erml snai_ not oe crantec unless t:Ze counci=!aas
cchalzicns are me
-2-
(b) Activ°:.ties on the site shall be limited to 1
,. ,
1. Of lice uses recess
9
I
2. The preparation and care of the deceased;
3. Visitation or reviewal by members of the
aeceasen s Imme =ate a= y only.
be adecauate screening and
(5)+4* Other accessory -uses and strnatures not otherwise prohibited
an =customariely accessary and incidental to pexmitted uses.
(6)4-3+ SO gasoline service station, garage car sales lot, or other
similar or related activity is permitted +n this district.
(7)44-� The following retail businesses and service establishments
and others of the same general character shall. not be considered to
be local service businesses and shall not be permitted in the oC_Ig
district
(a) Electrical appliance shop
(b) F Iumbing and heating shop
(c) Printing shop
(d) Furniture shop
(e) Interior decorating and upholstering shop
( =) Theatre
g) Ectel
n) Funeral establishments as defined in MI.-mesota
Statutes 149.08 except F amil J xemoriai Ce are s
(i) Garage
(;) Used car !at
:'d) Filling station
3 % any athem use may be permitted which is determined by tie
cci:.tcil Pursuant to tze provisions of Section 3.40 of t'jis chapter
_c be of to same General character as the uses Listed as permitter
n_s Section; provided that suc!% use is not specifically pro,
._ri red _n =Is secucn .
-3-
Passed by t-he City council of
the City Of Rictitield, Minnesota
this day of
1982.
Ham:Ll toll Mayor
AT'.7.5 T -
3y via Sex9h, its clex—w�
Family Memorial
Funeral service
PRESENTING A VLV POINT OF VI Pri
test AN AGE OLD CONTROVERSY
Family Memorial -
F'uneral Service
INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION -
The rusiness is that of providing memorial funeral services (a
simplified funeral service) to fulfill growing trends and chang-
ing patterns in today's society. Traditional funeral establish-
ments are not respondinq to these needs in any significant way.-
.More and more families are concerned with simplicity and dignity
with regard to funerals and are selectinq a memorial funeral
service when a death occurs.
A memorial funeral is a service where the casket (and body) are
not present at the actual church or chapel services.
Burial, cremation or entombment is private for family only.
Reviewal of the deceased usually is private - for family only.
The emphasis of the funeral is on respect for the deceased.
'_'here is no confusion of "funeral parlor" visitations.
There is no requirement for pallbearers, or limousines.
'_":ere is no need for unnecessary and ex=ensive ostentatiousness.
. ..:fore.. .
Family memorial
Funeral Service
HISTORY AND EVALUATION OF FUNERAL SERVICES
Visitation, reviewal and wake are really synonymous terms.
The original intent of the mortuary was to care for the re-
mai ns . `the visitation was held in the Dome and the funeral
service was held in church. Burial or cremation followed.
The traditional funeral was not considered a metropolitan:
affair as transportation was limited and the cemetaries were
on the church grounds.
Since World War II, the custom was abbreviated to hold the
visitation for one day, the funeral service in the church of
the family's choice and then to bury or cremate. However,
because of the building of large churches and the disappear-
ance of small churchyard cemeteries, long tedious processions
to large cemeteries became necessary.
n,. a above funeral service as briefly outlined is commonly re-
'erred to as a "traditional* funeral service. This funeral
service is still predominantly and numerically the majority
Cf the people's choice and still serves a great need in our
society. This need presently is being served by funeral es-
tablishments of integrity.
Hc'dever, since the 1950's there is emerging a new emphasis
eo_ a more si.- plified and less expensive funeral service.
The senior citizen, the aced and the institutionalized are
ar.ding to be served in .heir own way. And their survivors
_ e creaking away -rcm tradition m f
:� von o a simpli *ied _vet
-- i = -ed = -nera? service with a view �_.:ard acor_cm�•.
_'ass - :era is an estabieszed and ever Lncrs - need eed for "a
cecter ..av" -- via Family Mie_riorial - Funeec? Service.
SCCJetV nursing homes, axzanded ware, a great in-
'-==se in aced ponulat_on has dE:rianded a more :treanti'_zea
—c -ra.i service. -
by necessity the arear- need.
. . ..Tic re .. .
Family Memorial
Funeral Service
HISTORY AND EVALUATION OF FUNERAL SERVICES
- (Continued)
The above cannot go through all that a traditional funeral
demands.
Family Memorial - Funeral Service has to exist to serve their
needs.
Presently there are memorial societies, clubs, hushed conver-
sations to try to accomplish these needs. They are not estab-
lished funeral and licensed establishments. Family Memorial -
Funeral Service is established to accomplish what they all try
to do.
The funeral homes presently doing their service are mortuaries
staffed to take care of traditional funerals. They are trying
and doing a good Zola under the circumstances. By necessity it
is expensive. Total concentration on "a better way" memorial
is the cnl.y way this can be accomplished.
? =mi.ly `iemorial - Funeral Service is dedicated to this service
to tae society that demands a voice, an audience. Family Memorial
?_ne_al Service has heard and is ready to answer society's need!
Family Memorial -
Funeral Service
PROCEDURES
Family memorial - Funeral Service.
UPON NOTIFICATION OF DEATH THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES WILL BE
TAKEN:
1. Removal of the deceased by licensed mortuary personnel
to the facilities of Family Memorial - Funeral Service.
Z. Preparation and care of the deceased.
3. Scheduling of meeting with the next of Jean to arrange
service details.
Specific funeral arrangements will be made in the offices of
Family Memorial - Funeral Service or other selected location.
The priest, rabbi or minister may attend this arrangement meet -
4ng. The following will be arranged:
1. Scheduling of location for the actual, memorial service
at church or chapel.
2. Obtaining necessary vocalist or special music, if needed.
3.: ;as463ting in securing proper floral, tributes. Select
casket.
acsring and pr` paring information for obituaries and
_�neea? notices.
�;otifec::t:on of lodges and Associ-ations.
6. Administrative details in handling Social Security,
'%aterans Administration, legal and insurance forms.
of det32.�a =or orC er tJllr =? 1 Or Oe °.:� ?_t'
_On
Family Memorial -
Funeral Service
PROCEDURES
(Continued)
8. Assisting and preparing for final committal space
and attending to specific details.
9. No pallbearer selection is necessary for memorial-- -
type services, but in certain instances honorary
pallbearers may be selected.
During the period from time of death to actual services, the
remains will be in private repose (casketed).
The memorial service format will require transfer of the casket
by hearse to the cemetery or crematory for private services at
the specified time.
These services which require that the casket be present at the
church or chapel services, Family Memorial - Funeral Service will
transfer the casket by hearse to the specified facility and then
transfer to the cemetery or crematory for final committal.
Family memor!.al - Funeral Service will encourage no "visitation"
or "reviewal "'services. If a family does request this service,
the Family Memorial - Funeral Service chapel may be used or the
"meviewal" can be arranged prior to the church or chapel services.
:!--morial - Funeral Service will provide person (s) of *heir
s =� po _ss_s` at church or chapel- services, rev ewals and com-
"_ _al Scr': i ces .
Fr.*zily :e*ncrial - Funeral Service will provide regi.st.:y book,
emor:al cards and post- service J ineral counsel to the 2�ami.ly.
eaAVTpM 6 . _CFCVCWC
»CRNCI" 8, .XFtsle
..3CMMe: @'Cwoere
.0$4" C. Z*A%Vg
=AVeO e.,CCMMCOv
:mz.en C. MWjWC dC
s,C »A ®o .. SC3*#C7VC9
1066CW a `svtsw
- CVWQCT e. STAAem®
.A*ACX A 2*?4CAIBA
.oA*V e. im®Ael"MO
.08000 O.AACSBCL
:AV%X °MaLAro
a:MOV _ i.AVCWATQ
weCaeAgt..A. �aAiae
..ewC ,.xCI*A*Cx
. ®Aeb - CMICxSCM
Ce:>°AlCTee 2.,rORAM
i_AW CI►VtCZ3
L .tREVERE,LEFLER.KENNE ®Y,013RIEN G ®RAWZ
Mr. Rick Joke
City Planner
6700 Portland Ave. S.
Richfield, M 55423
A 00®®92M! ®Post. AJCOCEATPOpe
8000 ►eq$T SAMIC 'te,CZ ,gar
"INNCAP4*WZ, MPNNCsoTA
°CLCM00MC ;ee31 389.@8.63
July 6, 1952
Re: Family Memorial Fvaeral. Services
Dear Rick
YOU recently asked this office to comment upon the zoning
t� locate funeral a proposal by Gill Brothers, puneral Chapels, inc.
chapel in Richfield to provide . Simplified The details of the proposal were set out in yot� letter
of Tune 25, 1982, and the attachment thereto.
Based upon our review of our zoning ordinance, we conclude
that the proposed use is peratitted only in the general commercial
and industrial districts of the City and then only after the
_ sssance of a special tree pe=it.
Funeral homes and mortgaries are prohibited in C -1 districts
(Section 3.32, Subdivison 1(6)1. The proposed use, a fly
°emcrial funeral service, would appear to be a "funeral home" as
hau eezmm is used in the above cited section. The fact that the
acti "r:ties do riot invci ®e those of a mortuary, or are substantially
scaled down, does rot, in our opinion, alter tine essential use
prcpcsed - a funeral home.
Sec:-ion 3.33, Subdivision 2(1), permits "undertaking estab-
? :si�ents" .n -Is general ccammercial districts of the City upon
_he issuance of a special use permit. Section 3.34, Subdivision
like'dise pe=its undertaking establishments in industrial
c_stricts upon the obtaining of a special use permit. Ti, term
"=dertakirg establishment" is not defined, but we conclude that
--e prcposed use is a "funeral establishment" as defined in
6AW ApPr10Es
L.sREVERE. LERLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN s CRAWZ
lick J°opke Page 2 7/7/82
:'innescta Statutes 5144.08 and would therefore be entitled to be
astablished in the general commercial and industrial districts of
r�"Ie City upon the issuance of a special use pe=it.
I hope that this answers your inquiry; if you have any
`urger gnestions, please advise.
-•
.:Respectfully yours,
— _ i
IT � 2 ® Dew
JBD ®kb
Oct. 15, 1982
Mr. Ivan Ludeman
Dear "Ivan:
Thanks for letting me see the proposal for the "Family Memorial-Funeral Chapel"
as requested for Richfield. I would like to address certain points on the proposal
so that you might be better informed when it comes time for the City Council to
make a decision. I would like to take the documents one at a time and make my
comments on that basis. I will mark numbers on the documents and comment is this note.
First I would like to refer to the document entitled "Family Memorial Funeral Service.
There are numerous incorrect statements in this paper, beginning with the page
marked Introduction, Purpose and description.
1. The paper states that'traditioaal funeral establishments are not responding
to these needs in any significant way." This is a totally false statement. All
funeral chapels offer families a wide range of choices from a lour cost, m
type immediate disposition to a full "traditional" funeral service. The aunt
charged by the funeral homes is detained by the type of service requested and
the anoint of time and materials involved.
2. The terms simplicity and dignity mean different things to different people. Dimity
is not too difficult to define but simplicity is impossible to define. A significant
number of families come to us indicating their requests for a "simple" funeral. To e
this may mean, an immediate disposition of the body with a memorial, service before
or after the intermit or cremation of the body. To the majority of familiss the
term simple means what we have come to know as the "traditional." funeral service
which would include visitation, religious service and procession to the cemetery.
3. One must define the term family to determine what is meant. I can state that
even in those cases . where the funeral. arrangers have indicated that only the family
would be present, the family that came to the service included many others® When
a death occurs virtually everyone who had any contact with the deceased or a family
member of the deceased becomes a "mourner ". We have what has become /mown as the
"pr--.mary mourners ". These would be the immediate spouse, parents, children, brothers
and sisters of the deceased. After this group comes the "secondary mourners ". Normally
this would be cousins, aunts, uncles, in -laws, and certainly close personal and
business associates. Lastly we have the group we refer to as "tertiary" mourners.
These would include others who have known the deceased but not on a regular close
basis. each of these groups have different needs that must be met at a death. Naturally
the primary mourners are of immediate concern and perhaps would be those listed in
the proposal as family. it is extremely rare however that certain of the "secondary"
group would be eliminated totally from any, type of service however private et may
be. 'Ibis then means that a strictly private family type service is virtually
impossible to have as the majority of families are aware of the needs of this group.
4. Todays funeral director serves the living while caring for the dead. We all Incw
that we can do no more for the deceased, he/she is beyond our assistance. The survivors
are and rightfully should be the emphasis of the funeral as we seek to assist them
in bringing some degree of comfort to them. We do this as we pay respect to the dec, eec
in any manner a family chooses.
5. I really don't understand the term confusion. I have never been confused at a
visitation.
6. here never is a need for unnecessary and expensive ostentatiousness.
(2)
gistor4 and Evaluation of Funeral Service
7. The original intent of the mortuary was nor necessarily to care for the remains.
Funeral service as we know it today started when the local furniture maker
was called upon to make a wooden coffin /casket for a deceased person. The family,
members normally cared for the deceased themselves and eventually, particularly
around the civil war, did engage the furniture maker to add more services and
facilities so that the family could be relieved of many of the "unpleasant" duties
associated with the care of the deceased person. Among the duties the furniture
maker "undertook" was embaiaing. The proposal states that the traditional funeral
was not considered a metropolitan affair. This is incorrect to a large degree.
Deaths occurred in Metropolitan communities as well as on the farms or in small towns.
S. Small churchyard cemeteries did not disappear. Drive through -any town in this country
and you will find sm&U churchyard cemeteries. "Tedious" processions died not become-
necessary for that reason. The custom of acempanying the deceased to the, amatory
originated bade in the days of the ancient Egyptians and most likely before that.
The procession is a valuable part of the entire funeral process. It is st:Ul -the
best way to assure that all those attending the funeral can and will reach the
cemetery together for that last leaaetak -l" g of the deceased. The committal service
itself is an important park of the funerab service in that it signifies the final
separation is nog► real., there is no turning back. Life is now different for the
survivors. As they Leave the cemetery one by one, often to attend a social reception,
the family and friands are sharing their grief with each other.
9. Since the 1950s we have to a large degree a different society than we had prior
to 1950. We now have thesa;= tad family as opposed to the unclear family. Our
children have left home to take jobs in other cities. Our elderly are moving to
sunbelt areas for retirement. Many persons travel on vacations and certain jobs
require a husband to be gone from home for days and weeks at a time. This has
changed the complezion of our duties completely. Formerly when all of the family
lived within a fear miles of where they were born the funeral was centered in the
immediate area. It could be held almost immediately as there was no need to wait
for those coming from a distance. Today families are requesting that we delay the
funeral ceremony so as to permit those coming from a distance time to reach their
destination. Also a fairly high percentage of deaths occur in places other than
where the funeral services are to be held. This than involves the embalming and
preparation for shipment by common carrier. The statement in the proposal that
the senior citizen, the aged and the institutional 'wed are demanding to be served
in their own way is a mystery to me. People have always demanded to be served in
their own way and are being so served by the full service funeral chapel. This is
co different than it has ever been. The proposal states that their survivors
are breab4ag away :;rom tradition in favor of a simplified yet dignified funeral
service with a view toward economy, is another mystery. Our elderly are living
longer today than they did 50 gears ago. la many cases they, are outliving their
funds due to medical costs and other living ezpen as. This shortage of funds has
n some instances dictated the type of funeral the family can afford. In most
cases however the family still desires and can afford to do as they wish. Our
medical assistance programs in effect today allow those about to go on public
assistance the opportunity to set aside adequate funds for funeralization, funds
chat are allowable so as to permit all persons to have a dignified funeral service.
?O. "he increase in the aged population has not demanded a more "streamlined"
uneral service. On the contrary, we are now finding it important for us to
consider the aged by bringing the casketed body to the nursing home or other
institution for the visitation and /or services. This is not "streamlined" rather
it is a sensitivity to the needs of the elderly.
(3)
11. The traditional funeral does not demand anything of anybody.
12. It does not have to exist to meet these needs, they are currently, being met by
full service fuaeral homes who provide everything the family, memorial- funeral. service
does .and more, far more. The full service funeral, home offers a total range of options
not merely a single option.
13. The memorial societies are groups - -that believe in one type of service basicly,
or at least they did at one time. They have since changed and are now offering
additional service suggestions to families who have demanded more. In this area
the memorial societies have no facilities of their own, they are still dependent
on full service mortuaries to do their work. A memorial society is not a funeral
establisimment, merely a gathering of people with a common belief who do`,aeed to
use a full service mortuary lies to' accomplish what they desire, they can't do it
themselves. There is a "cremation society" established in this area now. Th" is
nothing more than a funeral chapel offering a specific type of service under
the term "society". This society does Uve a membership fee and is a for profit
corporation.
14. Again, the funeral homes do mace -than the traditional funeral, they offer everything.
Under the heading "procedures"
Z. I have underlined chapel here. Does this mean that they will in fact be holding
memor{..al. ' services in this facility? According to their proposal they will not
but this statement seems to conflict with that. How about that segment of society
that does not have a church affiliation? Where will their services be held? It
would seem to me that they then will be held in this facility. This of course
would involve more cars and more people than are provided for.
3. Where will be vocalist and soloist perform? In this facility? I see no provisions
for a music roam.
4. Where will the,f lowers be used? Where will the casket be selected? This is
normally done in a room in the funeral chapel, the plan does not call for a casket
selection room. '_ixere is an alternative to choosing a casket from an in house
supply, that alternative is by means of a projector and screen. At present there
is only one casket company who.offers such a plan and that casket company does
not offer a choice of "low end" units, they only make metals and hardwoods.
3. What if the lodges and associations are to be part of the service. Where will
they function? A lodge or association type service is normally not allowed in
a church, they are usually held in the funeral chapel.
6. The family memorial- funeral service may well encourage no visition but what if the
family insists on a visitation in this facility? Will it be allowed? If so, then
they come under the catagory of a regular funeral chapel.
(4)
I fully realize it is not my place to pass judgement on the wisdom or lack of i-tv�
concerning the proposal for this facility. I have made my comments based on
my experience in funeral service and in a geau a effort were t amius the proposal
in Light of the type of facility being proposed.
a conclusion from what I have written so far I would say that what is proposed is
in fact a funeral chapel minus certain rooms, but nevertheless a funeral chapel.
I strongly question the ability of this facility as proposed to meet even the needs
anticipated. The procedures,introduction and history sheets have been addressed
in; my remarks. Let me give you just one esample of what I anticipate cow happen
-,,within such a facility based on 30 Years of experience.
A family might well.contact such a firm with the intention of having the private
family viewing and memorial service elsewhere. When the family comes in to view
the deceased might well change their mind and tell the operator that "since _
mother looks so good we would like to have a few more friends come to sea herdQ.
This happens to us very Often. The concept of the private service/viewing-has
then appeared. It is now a more traditional situation. Would the city be -
able to tel that family that further viewing b71 others is not permitted? Who would
police this? Then perhaps the family =7 well decide to have their clergyperson
come is for a prayer service.
Wonted this then be prohibited? Again, who is to police
and further friends were invited..
this el 4+�mat if this service then Bede eiPsnd did decide
Would they be barred from entering? Peshaps at that time the family
to all go together to the cemetery. Would the foxmatioa of a procession oa public
streets be allowed in view of the stipulations involved?
These types of things happen very often. It is rare that we plan a funeral service
or Immediate disposition that follows every made based on circumstances ore wishes
conference. 'There are a1VZTs changes to be
of the family-or others. Today we often find that the circle of friends of a
deceased person are ''closer" to that person then those Listed g family next of kin-e
wizen a nephew or niece from another part of the country
ce and later be asked to
That nazt of kin might well propose a pr -vats typ
change their minds since the friends of the deceased wish to be invite .Wo the at
proposal, if passed, then deny the members of the Richfield � a ride to the
a chance to attend a visitation at a time when they p lack
facility? Often times they cannot get to the place omost the funeral certainly wouldobe unable
of transportation or distances involved. Then they most
of the agreement.
to have any part of the service due to the stipules
Let me turn now to the report of the City Manager. it would seem that the zoning
crdinances specifically prohibit such use. I believe this is as it should be. The
State of Minnesota does have a definition of a funeral chapel (see Lafavere firm letter=
They do not have rro definitions. A funeral chapel is just that regardless of what oth
name is being used. Ia this instance it is obvious that this is a funeral chapel
as the title "Family Memorial- Funeral Chapel." is used in the sub__ect line of the
City Managers letter. To call it otherwise would be incorrect.
in the first paragraph of page 2, the manager states that "It would be desirable to
insure that this type of facility is limited to providing memorial funeral services,
that sufficient parking is provided and that adjacent residential areas are adequately
screened ". The proposal calls for 4 parking spacers for each 1,000 square feet of
gross floor area or part thereof plus one space for each vehicle used in conjunction
with this use ". This criteria was not used when we built our funeral chapel. The
requirements for parking demanded by the City of Richfield were far in excess of the
proposed requirement. Here we must come back to the earlier question of what is a
,'amily. I have made arrangements with as many as 25 people at a time, each arriving
in vehicles which numbered from 18 to 20. Also for the "private" visitation, how
many carb will there be for that? Obviously 4 spaces is not adequate for the intended
(5)
use, much less the unanticipated uses. There are times in our operation when even our
extremely large parking lot proves inadequate. To rewire so few spaces is unthinkable.
I .could choose to bring up a point here which may be difficult to answer. What if the
funeral operation found themselves in a position where the present facility does not
accommodate the unanticipated usage. What if it became necessary to, for example,
I
uild a casket selection root or a service chapel- Mould these be allowed once the
original permit was issued? Could the City Council prohibit further additions? This
question must be answered am in order to prevent great conflict is the future.
Regarding the opinion of the LaFevere law firm. I feel the opinion expressed is
correct, the proposed facility would be in clear violation of the zoning ordinance.
:'hank you for tairiag the time to read this. Throughout the country there are changes
occuring in everything including funeral service. l ay of these changes first appear
in the west coast, particularly California. Let as give an ecample. Some years ago
a company in California started an operation that was to provide a service of
immediate cremation following a death. Nothing more, nothing less. This did meet
with some degree of success as apparantly there existed in that area a need for such
a plan. To me it seemed a pert of the California syndrome, divorces, free and open
life styles etc. Unfortunately the funeral directors of California, chose not to
meet this need and were in fact refusing to serve families requesting this type
Of service. Our National Funeral Directors Association told the funeral directors
Of California that they should proside- this type- servics, but they chose not to lister,
Because of that the disposition type of facility gained in size. Now, however,
this type of facility is being asked by the families they serve to provide additional
services such as visitation, a chapel etc. They are'now opening a funeral. home.
In Minnesota when people asst us for this type of service we provide it with no
questions asked and at a price obviously far lower than for a service which requires
more facili.ti.es and time on our part.
Every day now we have requests to provide something for a family or to perform a
service that 25 years ago would have not been requested. We have trained our staff
to meet these changes if at all possible and they usually are.. Today there may well
be a need for less than full funeral services. We accept this and meet it within
the present full service concept. I could no more insist that everyone who calls us
must have a traditional funeral than I believe the other type of operation can limit
their services to what they propose. Families will call this operation beLeving
that they can get what they want. I an afraid that they will soon discover that they
will. be unable to obtain:1what they want and possibly be forced to go to another funeral
chapel t= have their wishes fulfilled. This is certainly not in the public interest.
I do question whether such a facility would be able to offer lower prices for similar
services than a full service funeral chapel.. There will still be taxes to pay, utilities
to cover and basic overhead costs that must be recovered plus hopefully a profit made.
A full service funeral chapel can amortize these costs over a larger number of calls
with a lesser share of the overhead to be charged to a family:.
3 similar operation was started in Milwaukee, Wisconsin about three years ago. This
firm has now closed their doors. There was simply not enough demand for what they offered.
in referring to the bill itself I note that section 2 of Subdivision 1 makes the
following statement.
Uses intended for the supplying of a limited variety of commodities or services
arimari.ly for the benefit of resldenrs of tha Tf,e - i ;_s -- - -
(6)
There is simply no way that the use intended by the proposed facility meets this
c°iteria. Rather it is meant to appeal to people, no matter where they live, who
desire a highly specific service. The proposal talks about todays "Society ". There
is no reference anywhere that this is intended for neighborhood use.
You mentioned that the City Council was told that there are Qther such facilities
operating in this area at present. I do not believe this is true, nor do any of
the others I have asked know of such a facility. it might be well to ask the
applicant where other such facilities are located. There once wane a "memorial chapel "
established in Minneapolis but it has since closed, in fact it closed within a few
months after: receiving only 1 or 2 calls. That particular facility was basicly
established to provide cremation services and memorial services.
Wilier I started to say in conclusion. It just takes me too long to conclude I guessi--,-
I mainly, wish to give you the benefit of my experience on this and my opinions on
this matter. I do fully understand that it is not within my rights to ask that this
permit not be issued based upon the chance of success or failure of such a venture®
Th±siisof course up to the applicant to determine. Easicly it's their money.
I do however feel that the presentation made by the applicant Wi had to curateby in
�y ways. &1so of course the utter of zoning, is p�� ad t the city ma ter:
the zoning and we would expect others to do the same. I would question
endorsement of this project based upon the opinion of the LeFevere laW firm-
Finally I do not fael that this would meet the requirements of being primarily a
neighborhood business.
If you would care to discuss this with me further I would be most happy to do so.
In fact I might even contact you next weep when you have had time to study these
comments. It most likely will seem as though I an opposing the thought of competition
in Richfield. This is not true. We made no attempt to stop any plans of the Gleason
Mortuary when they were being made as they obviously complied with the ordinances.
Competition is healthy for all, it mattes us work that much harder to satisfy those
we ser7e.
Sincerely,
Morris A. `tilsean
p.,. The above is based upon the assumption that the requested facility would be
caring for only one case at a time. This is of course impossible to predict. In
funeral serJice we have a high number of families that merely "walk in" to talk to
as without prior notification by,phone. They come in expecting to be assisted
immediately. We have the facilities to accomodate such matters, however the proposed
would be unable to handle more than one at a time if I am reading the proposal
facility staff, space etc.
correctly. This of course would require additional parking,
!8�
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 319
Agenda October 25, 1932
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Purchases in Excess of $2,500
The city charter stipulates the city council must approve
the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction
when the amount exceeds $2,500. There is one such item on the
council agenda for October 25, 1932.
The school di
residence with a
class, and other
tatted to submit
brochure. Three
ows:
strict and the city combine
quarterly brochure contain
general information. Four
quotations for printing of
of these vendors submitted
Crosstown Printing $3,331
Bolger Publications 3,651
Sexton Printing, Inc. 3,345
to provide each
ing recreation,
vendors were con-
the winter 1932/33
quotations as foil-
It is recommended that the city council authorize the work
to be done with and by Sexton Printing, Inc. in the amount of
$3,345.
Respectfully submitted,
44C
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Services Director
KN /eja
F- -,
LA
Ll
W 0
�19
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 318
Agenda October 25, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf ield
Council Members:
Subject: Zoning District Change from MR Multiple
Residence to C ®2 General Commercial, 66th
and Queen Avenue, Second Reading.
On October 11, 1982, the city council gave first reading
approval to an ordinance to rezone the vacant lot located at
the northeast corner of 66th Street and Queen Avenue from MR
Multiple Residence to C -2 General Commercial to allow its use
as a parking lot. The public hearing on this matter has been
scheduled for October 22, 1982. A copy of the previous council
letter on this matter is attached for your review.
It is recommended that the city council conduct the public
hearing on this matter and give second reading approval to
the attached ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
vo-.".z
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Clerk
KN /eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Council Letter No. 300
Agenda October 11, 1982
Subject: Zoning District Change from MR Multiple
Residential to C -2 General Commercial,
E. W. Realty Company, 66th and Queen Avenue
Proposal
E. W. Realty Company has requested a zoning district change
from MR Multiple Residential to C -2 General Commercial for the
property located at the northeast corner of 66th and Queen Avenue.
Such rezoning would permit the development of a parking lot to
provide additional parking for a 9,147 square foot addition to
the adjacent shopping center. The subject property is. currently
an undeveloped vacant lot owned by the applicant.
Staff Findings
1. The rezoning of this property would not constitute
spot zoning. The site abuts a C -2 general commercial
zoning district to the east and there is also a C -2
general commercial zoning district immediately across
66th Street on the south. The site does abut an MR
multiple residence on the south, and an MR multiple
residence zoning district to the north. There is,
however, a significant elevation difference between
the two properties. The MR zoned property to the north
of the site is considerably higher than the site and
than the adjacent commercial uses. The site is at the
same level as the adjacent commercial uses. This
grade differential would provide a natural separation
of commercial and residential uses.
2. Because of the existing commercial uses south and east
of the site, and the high traffic volumes (approximate-
ly 18,000 vehicles per day), development of residential
uses as allowed by current MR zoning designation of the
site may not be appropriate. The residential uses
would be subjected'to considerable noise, traffic,
trash, air pollution and other negative impacts associ-
ated with automobiles and commercial uses.
1�
Council setter No. 300 ®2® October 11, 1962
3. The proposed parking lot use would not.'in and of _
itself generate additional traffic on adjacent streets-
The applicant has also indicated that access to the-
parking lot would be provided from the -'existing- curb
cut and parking lot to the east, and that no access -
would be provided from Queen Avenue. This would -dis®
courage additional cars from shortcutting through- the - -- - -
residential area to the north.
- - _
•4. Major improvements are being scheduled for the Penn -
Avenue - 66th Street intersection in 1964. Pre-limin®
ary plans developed by Hennepin County indicate that -
- _ -- additional right-of-way will have to be acquired- along-
- the north side of 66th Street between Queen Avenue -and - -
-- Penn Avenue. Such acquisition could severely= limit- the - -
: -- use of this lot. The current lot size is 70 feet -by - -
- -_ -_- -_ 125 feet and the area is 6,750 square feet. Prelimin - _
- ary plans indicate that an additional 20 feet= of r _ighto -- --
- -- -__ -- -- of-way may have to be acquired from the subject proper
ty, which would leave.a 50 foot by 125 foot lot with: an area of 6,250 square feet. Both the existing -lot
area of 6,750 square feet and the 6,250 square foot = -
_ _ lot remaining after right-of-way acquisition are below' - - -
= the minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet which is- re®-
_ _ -_- quired by the Richfield zoning ordinance for duplex uses-
The 6 6,250 square foot lot is also below the minimum lot-- -
area for a single family dwelling. Any development of
the site after the acquisition would require setback
variances also, because of the narrowness of the -lot
and the steep bank on the north side of the site.
Based on the above information, it would appear that
if the anticipated additional right-of-way is acquired,,
the property could not be developed without - --the city -
granting numerous variances. If the variances were not _
granted, it could be construed that the city would be
denying the property owner reasonable use of his prop-
erty and this would probably constitute a "taking ".
This could leave the city open to legal challenge.
5. If the site were rezoned to C -2 general commercial, as
requested, and the additional right -of -way is acquired,
the potential use of the site would also be limited.
The C -2 zoning district setback requirement from a street
is 40 feet. On a 50 -foot wide lot, this would leave an
area sine to ten feet wide available for building any
kind of structure, depending on which side of the lot is
considered the front, and thus, effectively preventing
any structure from being built without variances. In
_. all likelihood, the only reasonable use which could be
developed without obtaining variances is a parking lot.
6. The rezoning of the property to C -2 general commercial
is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Develop-
ment Plan Map. The Comprehensive Development Plan Map
Council Letter No. 300 -3- October 11, 1982
indicates that this site is designated as part of the-
medium density buffer zone. Principal uses in the
_ medium density buffer zone include duplexes, single -
family dwellings and existing convenience commercial -
uses e' The proposed C -2 zoning and general commercial - - - - use are not included as permitted uses--medium density
buffer areas. The comprehensive plan is meant to pro-
vide the city with a general policy guide for rezonings
and other matters. It is -meant to guide and not govern-.
The city is free to amend the comprehensive plan or -
-- to make decisions based on other facts if the - general -
- - welfare of the community is protected.
_
_-In gummaryg the:mstaff investigation indicates that if adds- _
gional right-of-way needs to be acquired as indicated by prelim`° -
- -- inary- Hennepin County plans, for intersectioh improvements _,___the__ __.-
- - _ - _ - only= reasonable use of the site without the city granting-numerous -_
-variances would be for parking. Parking as a principal use-would---
only be permitted in a commercial zoning district. Parking as an
= accessory use would be permitted in any district, but would have_ __-
= to be contiguous to the..principal use. The grade and - street --separ - _
ations -of this site dictate that usable.parking could- only_.be de --- _
veloped as an accessory use to the shopping center abutting the_. -
site to the east, which would require the site to be rezoned -to
C -2 general commercial.
Staff Recommendation
While the staff is generally reluctant to recommend against
the comprehensive plan, the facts in this case indicate that re-
zoning of the site to C -2 general commercial, as requested, is
appropriate. It is, therefore, recommended that the city council
give first reading approval to the attached zoning ordinance amend-
vent, and schedule a.public hearing and second reading consider-
ation of this ordinance for October 25, 1982.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the re-
quest for a zoning district change be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
City Attorney
City Clerk
KN/ e j a
L��lO
fi � r t�afar.
a
74
ST
I
e/E
T
�ve ®a
6
G e� °
1 y®
®Q � E41 i ! i 9 • 6
1
1§441 i ®° -1 � ®, '•!�° P� yap °4
-*rl-- - Fs-
I IL e
{. ® �-:__
- OK 61
s ; • e F
°
Iii
Lj
ei 1
4 '
��� ai � s s •� • � ° I °
i L
Lu
�
lei
,e
3
's v e •• 1
L��lO
fi � r t�afar.
a
74
ST
I
e/E
T
�ve ®a
6
G e� °
1 y®
®Q � E41 i ! i 9 • 6
1
1§441 i ®° -1 � ®, '•!�° P� yap °4
-*rl-- - Fs-
I IL e
{. ® �-:__
- OK 61
s ; • e F
°
Iii
Lj
ei 1
4 '
��� ai � s s •� • � ° I °
i L
car cc a
jrx
now
114n I
OR It
400 In 004 ft
Mo Sc
bait
at
1w fall sill quio 16,
E,
11A 4140. Q EEE • IL
ru
Imhus H199 1s3m
o
133EL1S H199 Is3m
I
uu
Ujiu
U51
%
21
aigi.
mom
An-
SAW
Glow.
- co
.9m am
asp ai
am
mm 4.7—
ammam OL
- -momy on
nummeamer
llmmo� on
del
0. 49L
4113DAS, go
_,4"m on.
aesa as
so a
0
IV
C_og
I Zo ...
Mogen-do
Slow,
Oc immm fis
an
T__-_
mon ow
M-429
mas
;2
a
aroma All
30 allafto me
QUED aft
WOMEN
ivalow
malkilb as
"Illaw do"
.
—as
slow in.
am �
.1m
mom fis
am as
folum GIL
mom= as
4>
wom do
fassm GO
saw
6.44
Wm on
—ow.
—go,
ammorms, ML
me, sp
le-
siamom
I" da
0— on
%
21
aigi.
mom
An-
SAW
Glow.
- co
.9m am
asp ai
am
mm 4.7—
ammam OL
- -momy on
nummeamer
llmmo� on
del
0. 49L
4113DAS, go
_,4"m on.
aesa as
so a
0
IV
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 3.29,
Subdivision 2 of such code is hereby amended in the following
respects;
(1) Appendix C, Section 3 is amended by adding the -
following new paragraph 77:
(77) Lot 3, Block 3 of Harry Tickner "s subdivision-
of Lot 15, Richfield Gardens.
(2) Appendix C, Section 4, Paragraph 6 is amended to
read as follows:
(b) That area lying between the center lines of
Russell and Queen Avenues and the center
lines of 65th and 66th Streets except Lot 3 „
Block 3 of Harry Tickneres Subdivision of
Lot Richfield Gar ens.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of , 1932.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 317
Agenda October 25, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council-
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Report and Recommendation on Consultant's
Selection Cedar Avenue Liquor Store Site
Study and Transitory Ordinance Appropriat-
ing Funds from the Special Revenue Fund.
First Reading.
On April 26, 1982, the city council authorized the staff to
solicit market study proposals for the Cedar Avenue liquor store
site. That is, a study to determine the most appropriate future
land use of this site. The analysis of the liquor store oper-
ations, undertaken and completed during 1980 -81, indicated
this site was underutilized.
The HRA undertook a study of the Cedar Avenue area in 1981.
The study discussed the revitalization potential for Cedar Ave-
nue between 67th Street and 63rd Street. The liquor store site,
because it is under utilized, and publically owned, presents a
unique opportunity to help improve the area.
Four firms. were invited to submit a proposal, and two firms
responded - James B. McComb and Associates, Minneapolis; and
Engineering Plus of Ames, Iowa. Engineering Plus was teamed
with Zuchelli, Hunter and Associates, Inc. of Maryland. The
staff has evaluated each firm by reviewing their proposal, in-
terviewing principals and contacting previous clients. Each
firm is highly regarded and has related experience.
The study would evaluate the marketability of the following
uses: hotel or motel, retail shops, office and /or warehouse
and housing - both subsidized and market. The evaluation would
be undertaken in two phases. Phase I would identify the least
marketable and most marketable uses and would also assess optimum
development levels in addition to providing a financial analysis.
Phase II would examine the most marketable uses in more detail
and make recommendations based on the results.
The cost of each proposal varied. McComb and Associates in-
dicated that Phase I would cost up to $11,600. Phase II would
cost from $2,500 to $5,000 depending upon the result of Phase I.
Council Letter No. 317 m2- October 25, 1982
A Phase II office analysis would cost less than a motel anal-
ysis, for example. Engineering Plus has estimated the total
cost of Phase I and Phase II not to exceed $17,500. Their study
would contain a conceptual design element in Phase II which
McComb's would not.
At their October 18, 1982 HRA meeting, the HRA considered a
staff report on the consultant proposals. It is their recommenda-
tion that the firm of James Ho McComm and Associates be selected
as the consultant. The McComb firm is a respected company, they
have related experience, are locally based and have tied Phase I
toa specific not-to-exceed figure of $11,600. Following a pre-
sentation to the city council on the results of Phase I, a prop-
osal will be made for Phase II.
Funds for this project have been transferred from the liquor
profits to the Special Revenue Fund. A Transitory Ordinance
appropriating funds for this purpose is attached to this council
letter for first reading consideration.
It is recommended.that the city council accept the recommenda-
tion of the HRA and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to ex-
ecute a contract with McComb and Associates for a Phase I study
not to exceed $11,600. It is further recommended that the city
council give first reading to the attached transitory ordinance
and schedule the second reading for November 8, 1982.
Respectfully submitted,
T4k
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
Administrative Services Director
Liquor Stores Director
Finance Coordinator
KN /eja
•
C7
•
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
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 316
Agenda October 25, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Disposition of City-Owned Property Along
the Crosstown Highway
During the months of September and November, 1980, the city
council took actions necessary to sell three city owned lots
along the Crosstown Highway. The parcels were located at 6204
Morgan Avenue, 6209 12th Avenue and 6204 Vincent Avenue. these
lots were originally purchased by the city from Hennepin County
in the early 1960's to permit installation of water and sewer
lines. The city explored a number of alternative uses for these
parcels. These alternatives were limited by residential zoning,
small lot size, and the location of utility easements on the lots.
It was determined that bids would be accepted from the adjoining
property owners to purchase and maintain the lots as a combined
lot with their own property. The bidders were notified that
utility easements would be located on the lot and that the lots
could not be used for the construction of new housing.
Since the fall of 1980, the lot on Vincent Avenue has been
sold to the adjoining property owner. The closings of the other
two parcels, the one on 12th Avenue and the one on Morgan Ave-
nue, were delayed because of title problems caused by deed re-
strictions and questions about the bid amount. Through further
negotiations and completion of title work, the adjoining property
owners and the city have negotiated a final bid price for the
two remaining parcels.
The history of the bidding on these parcels is summarized
as follows:
9 -22 -1980 11 -1980 Present
6209 12th Ave. $ 100 $ 500 $ 500
6204 Morgan Ave. 11000 1,500 1,000
The increase in bids from September to November, 1980, was in
response to the city council's request to negotiate a higher
sales price with the purchasers. From November, 1980 to the
present, the offer to purchase 6204 Morgan Avenue was withdrawn
and rebid at the original offer. This decrease is attributed
to the purchaser's reaction to building restrictions the city
L J
C:
•
Council Letter No. 316 -2- October 25, 1982
was placing on the parcel because of the securer and water line
locations across the lot. The impact of the restr.ictions appar-
ently reduced the purchaser's ability to use the property as in-
tended for an expansion to his house. He felt the lot was less
valuable to him and requested a return to the original bid. The
sale of 6209 12th Avenue was delayed because of title work rather
than problems with the bid.
The city council originally approved the sale of these proper-
ties on December 8, 1980 by adopting Transitory Ordinance No. 16.70.
Resolution No. 6336 further outlined the details of the sale and
acted as an addendum to the Transitory Ordinance.
It is necessary that the original Resolution No. 6336, be
amended to define the change in purchase prices that have been
made since the original approval. The purchasers have agreed to
supply earnest:.mon,ey for the total amount of the purchase price to
further demonstrate their intent to purchase. These revenues would
be deposited into the General Fund.
It is recommended that the city council approve the attached
resolution authorizing the sale to the adjacent property owners
for the revised bids as noted above, thus, modifying the original
Resolution No. 6336.
Respectfully submitted,
T�
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
Community Services Director
Finance Coordinator
KN /eja
0
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF
CERTAIN CITY -OWNED LOTS ALONG THE CROSSTOWN HIGHWAY
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield wishes to sell certain real
property to reduce its maintenance cost; and
WHEREAS, a parcel, legally described as:
That part of Lot
Addition," lying
in the East line
of the Southeast
West line of sail
Southwest corner
thereof.
2, Block 3, "Lein's Richfield First
Southerly of a line drawn from a point
of said Lot 2 distant 62.26 feet North
corner of said Lot 2 to a point in the
3 Lot 2 distant 43 feet North of the
of said Lot 2, according to the plat
Was sold in accordance with Resolution No. 6336, which
was passed by the City Council, November 10, 1980; and
WHEREAS, two additional parcels referred to in Resolution
No. 6336 and legally described as:
That part of Lot 2, Block 1, Donnay First Addition, lying Southerly
of a curve concave to the North and having a radius of 1370
feet, and said curve being drawn from a point on the East line
of said lot distant 71.22 feet North of the Southeast corner
of said lot, to a point on the West line of said lot distant
34.03 feet North of the Southwest corner of said lot.
Or known as in the tax description as:
Lot 2, Block 1, Donnay First Addition commencing at the
Southwest corner of Lot 2 then East to the Southeast
corner thereof then North 71.22 feet then Westerly
along a curve concave to the North and having a radius
of 1370 feet to a point in West line of Lot 2 distance
34.03 feet North from Southwest corner thereof then
South to beginning.
That part of Lot 2, Block 2, Melbar lying Southerly
of a line running from a point in the East line of
said lot distant 59.8 feet North of the Southeast
corner of said lot to a point in the West line of said
lot distant 40.67 feet North of the Southwest corner
of said lot, according to the plat thereof.
Have not been sold as yet; and
WHEREAS, to complete the sales, the sales price referred to in
Resolution No. 6336 has been changed and this change is intended
to supersede and modify Resolution No. 6336; and
-2-
WHEREAS, informal proposals were accepted from the adjacent
property owners for the amounts listed below; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the
proposed sale of these parcels is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota:
1) that the offers to purchase the above described properties
are hereby determined to be reasonable, are hereby accepted,
permitting this resolution to supersede and modify
Resolution No. 6336, authorized November 10, 1980;
2) that the Mayor and City Manager are authorized and
directed to enter into an agreement for the sale of
such parcels to the purchasers for the amount below
on the basis that the parcels not be used for the
construction of primary residential structures, and
that utility easement rights are to be retained:
- Parcel 1 to Dennis Tharaldson, residing at 6215 12th
Avenue South, Richfield, in the amount of $500.00;
- Parcel 2 to Dean K. Wiley, residing at 6210 Morgan
Avenue South, Richfield, in the amount of $1,000.00;
3) that the City Manager and staff are authorized to take
such steps that may be necessary to effectuate this
resolution and any sales agreement; and
4) that the sale proceeds will be paid into the general fund.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 25th day of October, 1982.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
/ 8 c-le
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
.Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 315
Agenda October 25, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Authorization to Secure Vacant Building
Pursuant to a court issued consent order, the city removed
the remains of the Richard Laird home at 2118 West 69th Street
on Monday, October 18, 1982. A two -car garage, which was sep-
arate from the home, remains on the property. The garage is
unsecured and the Public Safety Department has received com-
plaints of children playing in the building. These complaints
have been referred to Mr. Laird °s attorney, but no action has
been taken to secure the garage so that it might become a safe
structure to remain on the property.
Minnesota State Statute 463.251 provides for a local unit
of government to take whatever action necessary to secure a
vacant building and assess the cost against the property after
a property owner has been notified of the problem and taken no
steps to correct the situation.
In light of the situation and our past experience in attemp-
ting to correct hazard problems which exist on this property,
it is recommended that the council formally declare the garage
structure at 2118 West 69th Street to be a hazard and authorize
the city to secure the building and assess the costs involved
therewith against the property.
A resolution to accomplish this has been prepared by the
city attorney and a copy is attached to this council letter.
It is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which
I concur, that the city council adopt the attached resolution. .
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Public Safety Director
KN /eja
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING SECURING
OF STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 2118
WEST 69TH STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
FINDINGS
1. On or about July 12, 1981, the single family residen-
tial structure located at 2118 West 69th Street was substantially
destroyed by fire so as to necessitate its removal in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 463.
2. That since the fire the premises have been vacant and
unoccupied. •
3. That there is located on the property a detached
accessory building previously used as a garage and storage shed
by the occupants of the primary structure.
4. That since the primary structure was destroyed by fire,
the accessory structure has been unsecured and open to trespass
and has been used by children in the neighborhood as a place to
smoke and engage in other activities to the disturbance of the
neighbors.
5. That the accessory structure would be made secure from
trespass if it were boarded up.
6. The premises upon which the accessory structure is
located is legally described as:
Lot 10, Block 8, Wood Lake Highlands Addition,
Hennepin County.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The accessory structure located and situated upon land
above described constitutes a hazardous building within the mean-
ing of Minnesota Statutes, Section 463.15 and 463.251.
2. That such structure could be made safe by securing and
boarding up.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, the City Council of the City of
Richfield makes the following ORDER:
1. The owners of the property located at 2118 West 69th
Street, including all lienholders of record, are hereby ordered
to secure the structure by boarding up the structure within 10
days of the date of the service of this Order upon them.
2. Unless the structure is secured by boarding up within
said period, the city shall enter upon the premises and board up
the structure.
3. All costs of such abatement by the city shall be
charged against the real estate as provided in Minnesota Statutes
5463.21.
4. The City Manager is directed to serve this Order upon
the owners as provided in Minnesota Statutes 1982, Section 463.17.
0
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, this day of , 1982.
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
John Hamilton, Mayor
IRF
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 314
Agenda October 25, 1952
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Release of Bond for Off-Street Parking
Contract, Southdale Square Shopping Center
On January 10, 1972 and May 14, 1979, the city council
authorized off - street parking contracts with Carlson Properties,
Inc. for construction at the Southdale Square Shopping Center.
An inspection of the site by the city staff indicates
that the owner has complied wit4 all terms of the off - street
parking agreements. Therefore, it is recommended that the city
council adopt the attached resolutions authorizing release of
the performance bond for these off-street parking contracts.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /eja .
cc: City Engineer
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO RELEASE OF BOND
ON OFF- STREET PARKING
Carlson Properties
12805 State Highway 55
Minneapolis, MN 55441
Location: Southdale Square Shopping Center
Off-Street Parking 79 -6, Contract 2302
WHEREAS, Carlson Properties, 12805 State Highway 55, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, has an off-street parking agreement with the City of
Richfield relating to Southdale Square Shopping Center, which
contract was guaranteed by a bond in the amount of Thirty Thousand
($30,000.00) dollars, and
WHEREAS, said Carlson Properties has substantially complied
with the provisions of said agreement and now seeks to be relieved
of any further obligation under said bond, and
WHEREAS, there appears to be no justification for requiring
said Carlson Properties to continue to provide a bond for security
on the performance of said agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
That the city manager is hereby authorized and directed to
release Carlson Properties for any and all acts committed or incurred
in violation of said Contract No. 2100, on and after the 1st day
of November, 1982.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
lst day of November, 1982.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO RELEASE OF BOND
ON OFF- STREET PARKING
Carlson Properties
12805 State Highway 55
Minneapolis, MN 55441
Location: Southdale Square Shopping Center
Off-Street Parking 71 -15, Contract 2100
WHEREAS, Carlson Properties, 12805 State Highway 55, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, has an off- street parking agreement with the City of
Richfield relating to Southdale Square Shopping Center, which
contract was guaranteed by bond in the amount of Ten Thousand
Seven Hundred ($10,700.00) dollars, and
WHEREAS, said Carlson Properties has substantially complied
with the provisions of said agreement and now seeks to be relieved
of any further obligation under said bond, and
WHEREAS, there appears to be no justification for requiring
said Carlson Properties to continue to provide a bond for security
on the performance of said agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
That the city manager is hereby authorized and directed to
release Carlson Properties for any and all acts committed or incurred
in violation of said Contract No. 2100, on and after the lst day
of November, 1982.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
1st day of November, 1982.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
gly
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 313
Agenda October 25, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Extending Alley Access to 104 E. 69th Street
Mr. Bill Krahn, 104 E. 69th Street, has requested that he
be allowed to construct a garage at the rear of his lot with access
from the alley right-of-way. The alley right -of -way behind this
lot is currently not used and is maintained as grass. The oil mix
surfacing terminates approximately 50 feet west of 104 E. 69th
Street. (See attached map).
Extension of the alley surface to provide access involves
several issues. It must be established how such an alley extension
would be paid for, what type of surface should be required, and
what provision should be made for control of the drainage.
Funding the Improvement
Extending the alley to 104 E. 69th Street will not only pro-
vide access to the subject property, but will provide access to
the alley for three neighboring lots. Mr. Krahn does not have a
petition from these other abutting property owners and is not
suggesting that these other benefited properties be assessed for
the improvement. Mr. Krahn is willing to pay for all of the costs
incurred to improve the alley to his property.
The properties abutting the proposed extension would be sub-
ject to alley maintenance assessments, however. The properties at
100 E. 69th Street, 101 and 105 E. 68 Street as well as 104 E. 69th
Street would be charged for maintenance based upon footage abutting
the improved portion of the alley. All of the residents in the
block have been notified of the proposed improvement and have been
invited to comment on it at the meeting.
Type of Surface
The present alley paving policy specifies the use of a concrete
surface. Mr. Krahn proposes to use either asphalt or gravel. A
contractor would do the work and a permit would be necessary. The
staff recommends that asphalt be used rather than gravel for ease
of snow removal.
•
•
L
Council Letter No. 313 °2m October 22, 1982
Drainage Considerations
This block was identified as one of the problem areas dur-
ing the 1977 and 1978 heavy rainstorms. When Norby's Pond fills
up, water accumulates on 68th Street near Stevens Avenue. During
heavy rainfall events, water may overflow the curb and pool at the
low spot about mid -block behind 125 and 129 East 68th Street. The
walkout basements in the.-block have experienced flooding. The por-
tion of the alley being considered for improvement also drains to
this low spot within the block. There is no storm sewer along
the alley to drain this low area. Because the elevation in-the
backyards is very close to the elevation of Norby's Pond, a storm
sewer line into the block would not solve the flooding problem.
In severe rainfall events, it would be possible for the water pond -
ing in Norby's Pond to backup in a storm sewer into the backyards
of this block. The solution to the flooding in this low area would
be to provide a larger capacity in Norby's Pond be dredging and
providing a pump, not an additional catch basin in the alley.
Paving with a hard surface such as asphalt will add less than
two percent of the total amount of water reaching the low spot in
the block. This increase is insignificant. However, any future
improvement to this--alley should take storm drainage into consid-
eration.
Recommendation
While the alley improvement would not
the city, it would also not be detrimental
est. Therefore, the staff recommends that
pave the alley surface with asphalt to his
the standards guaranteed in a permit to be
eering Division.
be of any benefit to
to the the city's inter -
Mr. Krahn be allowed to
lot at his own cost to
obtained from the Engin®
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Engineer
�9
F
•
•
Al
r4o
■ ttttttttt�
ttttttttt�
0
>N
U
October 18, 1982
CIO
N
q° Dear Property Owner:
L0
L0 The city as received a
y proposal from Dir. Bill Krahn,
M 104 E. 69th Street, to extend the surfaced portion of
'W the alley right- of-way east to provide access to his
® property from the alley. (See attached map) The area
shaded in red is proposed to be surfaced with either
gravel or asphalt. This area is currently grass. Mr.
Krahn has offered to pay for the entire cost of the
installation of the proposed surfacing.
All property in the city abutting surfaced alleys is
assessed annually for maintenance. This maintenance
assessment pays the cost of any snowplowing, sweep -
ing, patching, and grading which is performed in that
particular alley for that year. The estimated average
yearly assessment for a 50 foot lot is $25.00. The
properties at 100 E. 69th Street, 104 E. 69th Street,
W 101 E. 68th Street, and 105 E. 68th Street would be
> subject to this yearly assessment if this proposal is
cc approved by the City Council.
The City Council will be considering this matter at
C the October 25, 1982 council meeting. The meeting
begins at 7:00 PM at Richfield City Hall, 6700 Port-
® land Avenue South. Anyone wishing to be heard con -
_W cerning this matter will be heard by the City Council.
LM
0 Sincerely,
CL
O
O Michael J. Eastling
ti City Engineer
Enclosure
telephone: 869 -7521 (612)
an equal opportunity employer
ail
`e[)
`D
(n
0
m
II
�I
II
II
I,
;o
-
x
O
-®
o
-•
N
I
m
®
I
o
�
o
x
v
CD
CL
v
w
o
I®
NI COLLET
m
n
l�
1
_ 1
I '
I
i
I
II
I
r� O
/ C7o
2 n AV E.
m�
0)
OD
V
z-- N -mw-
October 25, 1982
Council Members:
We would like to advise members of the council that we are
not in favor of the improvement to the alley right -of -way re-
quested by the resident at 104 E. 69th Street. While this may
seem to be unneighborly, we think it also unneighborly that all
abutting property owners would be assessed for maintenance costs
for an improvement requested by one property owner. My other
concern is the fact that during the winter, snowplows will plow
only up through his driveway, which means that all the snow
plowed will be pushed in back of our lot and against our fence
constructed at the rear of our lot. Since our lot is also
several feet below the alley right -of -way, we would also get
all the drainage from the pile of snow in the spring.
A permanent alley, requested by abutting property owners, is one
thing. Then all construction and maintenance costs are equal
and expected, This is not the case in this request.
Sincerel yours,
Curtis and Eileen Anderson
105 E. 68th Street
�c
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 312
Agenda October 25, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Amendment to Nuisance Abatement Ordinance
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. This limit was based upon pro-
visions of the state statute.
The 1981 session of the state legislature amended the statute
to remove this limit. The attached amendment brings our city
ordinance code into conformance with the state statute and elim-
inates the maximum assessable charge for nuisance abatement. As
the council may recall, it is city policy to assess the actual
cost of abatement against the property. In the past, we were
limited in our recovery of city costs to the $100 statutory max-
imum. With the change in the law and this amendment, we will
be able to recover our full cost of abatement proceedings.
It is recommended that the city council give first reading
approval to this ordinance amendment, and schedule the public
haring and second reading for November 8, 1982.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Public Safety Director
City Clerk
KN /eja
•
•
-1
L .A
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
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
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 311
Agenda October 25, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Transitory Ordinance Providing for the
Sale of City -Owned Property to Lyndale
Garden Center
Despite its appearance as a completed project, there are
still some necessary actions for the City Council, HRA, and
owners of the Lyndale Garden Center to take prior to formal
project completion. Yet to be completed are transactions re-
lated to the real estate, final inspections and the issuance
of the Certificate of Completion.
Both the city and the HRA participated in this develop-
ment. The city agreed to sell parcels of land adjacent to
Richfield Lake and to vacate a portion of Aldrich Avenue and
to provide tax exempt Industrial Development Revenue Bond fin-
ancing, and the necessary PUD zoning and special use permits.
The HRA agreed to acquire property adjacent to the vacated
Aldrich Avenue from the Adams family and sell it to the Garden
Center. On behalf of the city, the HRA was to also sell the
city owned property.
Much of the property in this area is unplatted. It has
complex legal descriptions and title transfers in the past were
not always undertaken and completed to accepted legal standards.
Thus, there have been title problems identified during the efforts
to finalize the aforedescribed land transfers. The Garden
Center was given possession of the property so that the improve-
ments could be constructed. The title problems have recently
been resolved; thus, it would be appropriate for the council
to take certain actions regarding the sale of the property.
The attached map indicates the property to be conveyed to Lyn-
dale Garden Center. The three triangular shaped areas marked
1, 2 and 3 are owned by the city. Initially, the city was to
sell areas 1 and 2. It was assumed that the Garden Center
owned area 3. The Developer's Agreement between the Garden
Center and the HRA contemplated the sale of triangles 1 and 2.
However, real estate title search has indicated that the city
owns area 3 as well.
Council Letter No. 311 -2-
October 25, 1982
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. Their value was placed at an average of approxi-
mately $.728 per square foot during the negotiating process.
Negotiations must be initiated for triangle number 3. It con-
tains approximately 4,286 square feet and is valued at approx-
imately $.30 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 give first
reading approval to the transitory ordinance regarding dispos-
ition of these properties. The public hearing and second
reading of the transitory ordinance would be held on November
8, 1982.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
Dousing and Redevelopment Coordinator
City Planner
KN/ e j a
•
•
c:
�v
K
�. ca OO
Ilk
is
goo
� "1YY4TT I 'r O
=; � i J ) ,fir _ .• :v:, r '> �
! t t Ir
APPENDIX A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE 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 line bearing due north for the purpose of this descrip-
tion.
and
Also, that part 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
of 442.58 feet; thence S12° 16' 44 "E a distance of
374.92 feet; thence N770. 43' 16 "E a distance of 164.29
feet; thence S21° 32' 59 "E to its intersection with the
southwesterly extension of the northwesterly line of
Registered Land Survey No. 675, files of the Registrar
Of Titles, said Hennepin County, said point being the
actual point of beginning of the parcel of land to be
described; thence northeasterly along said southwesterly
extension to the northwesterly corner of Tract C, said
Registered Land Survey No. 675; thence southerly along
the westerly line of said Tract C to its intersection
with a line bearing S720 50' 34 "E from the actual point
of beginning; thence N720 50' 34 "W to said actual point
of beginning. `
and
That oart of Government Lot 3, Section 28, Township 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 00'64 a distance
of 442.58 feet, along a line hereinafter referred to as
Line A, to the actual point of beginning of the tract of
iand tp 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 Line B, a distance of 141.58 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.
Line Ba
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
Ray'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.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 320
Agenda October 25, 1932
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment to Require Conformance
with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Re-
development Plans. First Reading.
One of the necessary revisions to the zoning ordinance men-
tioned in the implementation section of the comprehensive plan
is a requirement that all development or construction proposals
brought before the city staff, planning commission or city council
be reviewed for compatibility with the comprehensive plan and
officially adopted redevelopment,.-:plans. Currently, as long as
the proposed development is permitted use in the zoning district
in which it is to be located and meets the general standards of
the district, the city cannot deny a building permit even though
the proposed use or design would be inconsistent with the compre-
hensive plan or redevelopment plan of the city.
A draft ordinance amendment is attached for city council
review. This ordinance amendment will amend the section of city
ordinances outlining the building permit process. The amendment
indicates that building permit applications will be reviewed for
conformance with the comprehensive plan and redevelopment plan
and that an application may be denied if it does not conform.
The ordinance also outlines an administrative review and appeal
process.
It is recommended that the city council give first reading
approval to the attached ordinance amendments and set November 3
as the public hearing date on this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
�4 1y
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Clerk
Public Safety Director
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 buildinq__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:
3.06A. 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. 310
Agenda October 25, 1982
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Amendment to the Liquor Licensing Ordinance,
Relating to Veterans Service Organizations
Historically, on -sale liquor licenses for veterans service
clubs (American Legion and VFW), have been authorized on a state
wide basis by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. How-
ever, to obtain an on -sale liquor license, the organization
was required to obtain a "club" license from the local unit
of government in which the establishment was located. Over the
past several years, modifications to this procedure have devel-
oped as a result of legislative changes. The effect of these
changes has been to place more control for this licensing activ-
ity with the local unit of government. During the 1980 legis-
lative session, a licensing fee schedule was adopted by the leg-
islature which, for all practical purposes, has now placed the
complete on-sale-licensing responsibility with local units of
government in the State of Minnesota.
Our city attorney's office has reviewed this matter in de-
tail and recommends that we amend our on -sale liquor licensing
ordinance to include a new class of licenses to be issued by
the city for "veterans service organizations." The new class
of license is required because there still are some unique stat-
utory provisions for veterans organizations that must be recog-
nized in our local licensing procedures.
The matter first came before the city council on September
13, 1982. At that time there was some discussion regarding the
need to amend our on -sale liquor ordinance to accomodate the
statutory changes in licensing veterans service organizations.
The council directed the city manager, the public safety dir-
ector and the city attorney to meet with representatives of the
American Legion and the VFW Posts located within Richfield so
that any proposed ordinance amendment would fully address the
concerns and needs of all of the parties involved. On Monday,
October 11, 1982, the meeting requested by the council was con-
ducted. There was agreement that an ordinance amendment was
needed in Richfield to establish a new class of on -sale liquor
licenses for veterans service organizations. Attached is a copy
of the necessary amendment prepared by our city attorney's office
to comply with all of the requirements of the state statute in
r -1
�JI
C
•
Council Letter No. 310 -2m October 25, 1982
this matter. Both our
Post are in agreement
ance amendment.
local American Legion Post and the VFW
with the language in the proposed ordin-
In addition to the ordinance itself, the new statutory
provisions establish a maximum license fee schedule which may
be applied on the basis of the membership of the local club or
on a flat rate basis, at the discretion of the city council.
In the past, both the American Legion and the VFW have been
issued annual "club" licenses for a fee of $100 per year. Linder
the new licensing requirements, both of these organizations
will now need a Sunday liquor license in addition to their on-
sale license. The established fee for the Sunday liquor sales
license for 1983 is $250. During the meeting with representa-
tives of the American Legion and the VFW, a consensus agreement
was reached to recommend that the new class of on -sale liquor
for veterans service organizations be established at a flat rate
license fee of $100, as it has been in the past. Additionally,
both of these veterans service organizations would request
licensure for Sunday liquor sales at the established rate of
$250.
It is recommended that the city council give first reading
approval to the attached ordinance amendment, required to
establish a new class of on-sale liquor license for veterans
service organization. While the issue of the license fee itself
is not normally considered until second reading of the ordinance,
it is the joint recommendation of the city staff and representa-
tives of the veteran service organizations within our community
to give favorable consideration of the fees herein recommended.
However, if the council desires to establish a higher fee than
has been proposed, we would suggest that this matter be taken
back to the representatives of the two service organizations
for discussion prior to the time that the council gives second
reading consideration to this ordinance amendment.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Public Safety Director
City Attorney
City Clerk
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 9veterans organization means an incor-
porated and congressionally chartered veterans organ-
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 accomcdation of its members, and whose
affairs and management are conducted by a board of
directors, executive committee or of er similar body
chosen by the members at a meeting held for that
purpose, none of whose members, officers, agents, or
employees are paid directly or i d rectl any com en-
satio t e distribution or sale-
of beverages to the members of the organization, or its
guests beyond the amount of such reasonable salary or
wages as may be fixed 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 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 eh4 :eg -ef
pelice 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
organiz i
ation which does not comply n all respects with
the definition of a veterans organization contained in
Subd1vision 1 of t is section and w Bch does-not amit ___ --
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) Except to the extent authorized by Richfield
- Ordinance Code Section 5.19 no licensee or any - o € - -h
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. Eli ibilit . Notwithstanding the
other provisions o the Ordinance Code, establishment
te- �ris�ei�- era- see�em��ee�ses- :net- be- �es�ed- � ®� -t3�e -ease
hotels, and rest-
aurants and veterans or anizations qualified for licenses
in Section 11. 6 ot this Code, ar 44} and a +ubs -as
defied-- �4an-- 6tat: =- Seet ®s- 34�T8�; 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