The URL can be used to link to this page

09-13-82 agenda1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 267 Agenda September 13, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Presentation of Constitution Week Proclamation Nancy Doetsch, of the local chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR), has requested that a proclamation be issued for Constitution Week. Members of the DAR will be present at the September 13, 1982 city council meeting to accept this proclamation. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja =kk y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 268 Agenda September 13, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Public Hearing Regarding Adoption of Assessment Roll on C.P. 770, L /H /N Maintenance July 1, 1981 through December 31, 1981 On August 23, 1982, the city council scheduled a hearing to be held September 13, 1982 related to the assessment for the cost of current maintenance services in the L /H /N redevelopment area, for the period July 1, 1981 through December 31, 1981. The city clerk, with the assistance of the city engineer and the facilities /project coordinator, calculated the proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land specially benefited. The proposed assess- ment was properly filed with the city clerk, notice was duly published and notices were mailed to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll. The current maintenance services for this period totaled $22,840.25 and included, but were not necessarily limited to, one or more of the following, including labor, equipment and material: 1. Landscaping, including tree trimming, sod replacement, turf management; 2. Sidewalk sweeping in summer; 3. Snow removal in winter; 4. Sidewalk de- icing; 5. Painting and repair of wood furniture; 6. Trash removal; 7. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement. As of this time, the city staff has received one written objection to the assessment. The public hearing provides an opportunity to all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed assessment. C] • Council Letter No. 263 -2- September 13, 1982 Special assessments to commercial property were made on the basis of area, with each square foot of assessable com- mercial property within the district being assessed an equal amount, without regard to valuation. When the city council adopted the ordinance amendment providing for assessment of maintenance costs in the L /H /N improvement district, the attempt was to provide a process whereby assessments for current services would be established on a year -to -year basis, and the city council would hold an annual public hearing on the assessments for these services. On September 14, 1931, the first hearing was held for the adoption of an assessment for L /H /N maintenance for the period January 1, 1981 through June 30, 1981. This September 13, 1982 hearing is the second annual public hearing on the assessment for these services. This hearing for the period of July 1, 1981 through December 31, 1981 is for the same basis of services as provided during the January 1, 1981 through June 30, 1981 period. The third assessment period is January 1, 1982 through December 31, 1982. For this third period, agreements have been reached with owners in the L /H /N related to maintenance of property. For the most part, each owner will be responsible for property to the curb while the city is responsible for common areas such as street islands. Costs of providing maintenance during the third period will be assessed following a hearing in 1983. The city ordinance provides that special assessments for current services may be certified to the county auditor for collection along with current taxes. This certification may provide that the special assessments be completely paid either in the first ten years or in up to ten annual installments. It has been and continues to be the proposal and staff recommendation "that such payments be due and payable within the first year rather than in installments. The adopted assessment roll for the period July 1, 1981 through December 31, 1981 would be certified with the county auditor by October 8, 1982. The city has the right to charge an interest on the amount assessed, in that the city provided the funds initially for the current services. It is the recommendation of the staff that the interest rate be established at nine percent. This policy was followed with the special assessment for C.P. 705, the L /H /N improvement project, and for C.P. 763, the current maintenance special assessment for the period January 1, 1981 through June 30, 1981. Payment may be made by the assessed owner by November 15, 1982 in order to avoid interest payments. Payments made after that date during the period to December 31, 1983 would include the interest payment. �1 U • • Council Letter No. 268 -3- September 13, 1982 The proposed - assessment roll indicated a total assessment in the amount of $23,547.76. This included an assessment amount of $707.51, for property which should not have been included in the assessment roll. The total assessment roll should be in the amount of $22,840.25. Following the hearing, it is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution. The city council may make this change and any other changes in the assessment roll as a result of the hearing, by adding the phrase "and has amended such proposed assessment as it deems just." Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Administrative Services Director Community Services Director Finance Coordinator Technical Operations Superintendent KN /eja C • illilf�'S GODFRTKE I Restaurant September 7, 1982 Sylvia K Bergh, City Clerk City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave Richfield, MN 55423 Sylvia K. Bergh: RE: File # 27- 028 -24 -23 -0083 This letter is to serve as a written objection for the amount of assessment to the property known as The Godfather Restaurant. The objection being based on the following facts: 1. We have no snow, ice or rubbish removal from The Godfather Restaurant. 2. We have no trees on the Godfather property. 3. The repairs of the sidewalks and parking lot that was caused by the city or county was repaired and paid for by The Godfather. 4. Though we are located within the re- develop- ment area the developement has hindered The Godfather's operation more than it has benefited it by cutting off access to the property on two sides. Sincerely, John J:- Anzevino Jr. President The Godfather Inc 66th 8tnEE-YINDALE AVENUE SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55423 • PHONE: 612 - 861 -4577 Page 1 27- 028 -24 -13 -0001 First Federal Sav & Loan 40,016.7 sq.f t. $ 331.62 6445 Nicollet Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -13 -0052 A Treacher Fish /Chip 13,560.94 112.38 2011 Riverside Dr Columbus, Ohio 53221 27- 028 -24 -13 -0053 0 y William Stewart 29,449.02 244.04 6525 Nicollet Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -13 -0059 Excelsior Ctr, Inc. 32,263.6 267.37 716 Elm St. Winnetka, Ill. 60093 27- 028 -24 -13 -0060 Richfield Center 24,426.36 202.42 716 Elm Street Winnetka, 111. 60093 27- 028 -24 -13 -0061 Excelsior Center 17.64 0.15 6515 Nicollet Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -13 -0062 Hopkins Best Steak House 8,817.9 73.07 809 Excelsior Ave. Hopkins, MN 55343 27- 028 -24 -13 -0063 Donald C. Johnstone 10,077.6 83.51 6519 Nicollet Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -13 -0064 Excelsior Ctr., Inc. 20,164.6 167.10 716 Elm Street Suite 2 Winnetka, Ill 60093 27- 028 -24 -13 -0065 Excelsior Center, Inc. 15,101.41 125.15 716 Elm Street Winnetka, Ill. 60093 27- 028 -24 -13 -0066 Sheldon Thomas Co. 15,114 125.25 716 Elm St. Winnetka, Ill. 60093 Page 2 27- 028 -24 -13 -0067 Naegele Outdoor Adv. Co. 11,538.32 1700 W. 78th St. Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -13 -0068 Elsie M. Hollenback 7,600.0 sq.ft. 7500 York Ave. S. 4226 Edina, MN 55435 27- 028 -24 -23 -0001 Richfield HRA 10,416.6 (738 W. 66th) 6700 Portland Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -23 -0002 William Brady 21 341.47 0732 W. 66th St. Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -23 -0004 G. E. Strom 27,918.6 6617 Humboldt Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -23 -0010 Mark Ahlquist 'S 30 605.83 6449 Lyndale Ave . . Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -23 -0063 Lyndale Fruit & Veg. Mkt. 39,265.0 6412 Lyndale Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -23 -0064 Burton Rutman & Palmer 28,384.2 6728 Rosemary Lane Mpls., MN 55435 27- 028 -24 -23 -0067 800 Company 85,375.94 3401 Colfax 'Ave. S. T E Mpls., MN 55408 D E L E The above should not have been included 27- 028 -24 -23 -0069 Elaine Strom 24,928.03 6617 Humboldt Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -23 -0070 Gordy Strom 38,582.0 6520 Lyndale Ave. Richfield, MN 55423 f $ 95.62 62.98 86.32 176.86 231.36 253.63 325.39 235.22 D E L E T E 707,51 206.58 319.73 Page 3 27- 028 -24 -23 -0071 Coits Cleaners 8,255.34 Sq,Ft. $ 68.41 0729 W. 65th St. Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -23 -0073 Larry's Auto Service 12,280.18 101.77 0735 West 65th St. Richfield, MN 55423 D 27- 028 -24 -23 -0074 a Mark Ahlquist 42 265.23 350.25 6449 Lyndale Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -23 -0075 Opdal Electronics 55 a 629.43 461.00 6405 S. Lyndale Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -23 -0079 Lawrence Kadish c/o K -Mart 216,513.40 1,794.25 3100 W. Big Beaver Rd. Troy, Michican 48084 27- 028 -24 -23 -0082 Northwest Bell Tel. Co. 124,727.99 1,033.62 224 S. 5th St. #901 Mpls., MN 55402 also mail to: R.W.Dokken - Tax Office 70 W. 4th St. St. Paul, MN 55102 27- 028- 24 -23- 0083" Amos & Daniel Heilicher 80,234.97 664.91 850 Dectur Ave. N. Mpls., MN 55427 27- 028 -24 -23 -0084 Woodlake Vet Hospital 8,123.4 67.32 6436 Lyndale Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -23 -0085 Woodlake Cleaning Center 6,084.65 50.42 6438 -40 -42 Lyndale Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -23 -0086 Woodlake Cleaning Center 12,426.036 102.97 6438 -40 -42 Lyndale Richfield, MN 55423 Page 4 27- 028 -24 -23 -0087 (land for parking) City of Richfield 21,634.414 $ 179,28 J. Mitchell 6700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -23 -0088 (6444 Lyndale) City of Richfield 23,031.5 190.86 Jean Mitchell 6700 Portland Ave. Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -24 -0009 Gladys Brennan 6,706.0 sq. ft. 55.57 0224 W. 66th St. Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -24 -0040 Dr. Gary E. Oberg 10,250.0 84.94 6410 Nicollet Ave. Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -24 -0041 Delores L. Nelson 10,250.0 84.94 7244 York Ave. S. Apt. 116 Edina, MN 55435 27- 028 -24 -24 -0050 United National Corp. 64,922.22 538.01 33 W. 65th St. Richfield, MN 55423 Attn: Marge 27- 028 -24 -24 -0051 United National Corp. 500,385.12 4,146.69 33 W. 65th St. Richfield, MN 55423 Attn: Marge 27- 028 -24 -24 -0054 Dolores L. Nelson 20,500.0 169.88 7244 York Ave. S., Apt. 116 Edina, MN 55435 27- 027 -24 -24 -0056 Deil O Gustafson 73,569.88 609.67 6500 Nicollet Ave. Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -24 -0057 Richfield Medical Prop 14,807.4 122.71 8 West 65th St. Richfield, MN 55423 Page 5 27- 028 -24 -0058 City of Richfield 24,075.0 Sq.ft. $ 199.51 6700 Portland Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -24 -0059 Penny Super Market, Inc. 135,752.46 1,124.98 5005 S. Cedar Lk Rd Mills., MN 55416 9 9 27- 028 -24 -32 -0005 r Trestman Music Center 16,850.61 139.64 6630 Lyndale Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -32 -0006 Triple S Invest 18,587.45 154.03 1335 Mendota Heights Rd. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 27- 028 -24 -32 -0019 Richfield State Agency 10,783.33 89.36 6625 Lyndale Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -32 -0023 Richfield Bank and Trust 42,455.23 351.83 6625 Lyndale Ave.-S. Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -32 -0025 Richfield State Agency Co. 3,574.14 29,62 6625 Lyndale Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55.423 27- 028- 2'4 -32 -0026 Bjorn Clarence Hagen 3,714.53 30.78 6601 Lyndale Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -32 -0044 KFC National Mgt. Co. 14,622.51 121.18 P. 0. Box 35910 Louisville, KY 40232 27- 028 -24 -32 -0063 Richfield State Agency 14,855.71 123.11 6625 Lyndale Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 27- 028 -24 -32 -0111 Richfield Bank & Trust 109,852.9 910.35 6625 Lyndale Ave., Richfield 27- 028 -24 -32 -0114 Knutson Companies, Inc. 6,284.0 52.08 17 Washington Ave. N. Mills., MN 55401 (711 W. 66th St.) Page 6 27- 028 -24 -32 -0115 S & M Co. 2101 Kennedy St. NE Mpls., MN 55413 27- 028 -24 -42 -0078 Red Owl Stores, Inc. P. 0. Box 329 Mpls., MN 55440 28- 028 -24 -11 -0002 Marcego Associated 1234 Central Ave. NE Mpls., MN 55413 28- 028 -24 -11 -0070 Belle Rutman 6400 Lyndale Richfield, MN 55423 28- 028 -24 -14 -0003 Richfield HRA 6700 Portland Ave. Richfield, MN 55423 28- 028 -24 -14 -0010 Bridgeman Creameries 8151 Normandale Road Mpls., MN 55437 28- 028 -24 -14 -0011 F. N. Steinmetz 1117 No. Broadway Stillwater, MN 55082 28- 028 -24 -14 -0017 Bell Rutman 6400 Lyndale Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 28- 028 -24 -14 -0018 Belle Rutmari 6400 Lvndale,Richfield 28- 028 -24 -41 -9002 Mobile Oil Corp. P. 0. Box 900 Dallas, TX 75221 28- 028 -24 -41 -0012 Knutson Companies, Inc. 17 Washington Ave. N. Mpls., MN 55401 (821 W. 66th St.) 28- 028 -24 -41 -0039 Super America Stations P. 0. Box 391 Ashland, KY 41101 94, 727.01 Sq. ft. 76,165.96 $ 785.00 631.19 9 19,589.75 162.34 i 66,304.85 549.47 59,650.92 494.33 52,225.84 432.80 29,405.7 243.69 76,478.18 633.77 38,800.6 321.54 19,712.7 163.36 20,196.2 167.37 39,302.61 325.70 21841,521.12 22,840.25 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT 770, L /H /N MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 1981 - DECEMBER 31, 1981 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for current services related to main- tenance of the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet (L /H /N) Redevelopment Area which is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Such proposed assessment roll, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed current services in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable before or during 1983 and shall bear interest at the rate of ntrre' percent from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property to the city treasurer and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the city treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31, of the year in which payment is made. Such payment ,,must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. 4. The city clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the county auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of September, 1982. ATTEST: john Hamilton Mayor Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 269 Agenda September 13, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: 1981 Alley Maintenance Assessment On August 23, 1932, the city council adopted a resolution declaring the cost to be assessed, and ordered preparation of the proposed assessment roll, for 1981 alley maintenance. Further, the council adopted a resolution setting the hearing for said proposed assessment for 7:00 p.m., Monday, September 13, 1982. In the course of preparing the assessment roll, the staff noted a discrepancy in the total cost to be assessed. Further research clarified that the total cost for 1981 alley maintenance was $28,155.34 rather than $16,200.00. The $11,955.34 difference related primarily to the conversion from square yard to tonnage of cold patch asphalt material used, and in the calculation of salaries charged to the project. Because of this discrepancy, it is necessary for the council to re -adopt these resolutions, declaring_ the actual cost, and reschedule the public hearing. It is recommended that the city council take the following actions: 1. Adopt the attached resolution declaring the cost to be ass.essed and ordering preparation of the proposed assessment roll for 1981 alley maintnenance. 2. Adopt the attached resolution setting the hearing for said proposed assessment for 7:00 p.m., ,Monday, September 27, 1982. 3. Rescind the actions of August 23, 1982, adopting Resolution No. 6440 and Resolution No. 6441. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: City Clerk Finance Coordinator Community Services Director Community Development Director Administrative Services Director • r• u • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR ALLEY MAINTENANCE APRIL 1, 1981 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1982 - C.P. 765 WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield on September 13, 1982, the city clerk was directed to prepare assessment of the cost of maintaining the following alleys in the City'of Richfield: Alley :Vo . 100 z 100 100 100 101 101 101 101 101 1020 1022 1024 102 1029 1031 2004 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 3001 3003 3005 3007 3010 3012" 3014 3015 3020 3024 3027 3036 3039 4002 4005 4010 Xerxes - Washburn, 1003 Xerxes - Washburn, 4 Xerxes - Washburn, 1005 Washburn - Vincent 6 Washburn - Vincent, 1007 Washburn - Vincent 8 Washburn - Vincent, 1009 Vincent - Upton 0 Vincent - Upton, 1011 Vincent - Upton Z Vincent - Upton, 1013 Upton - Thomas 4 Upton - Thomas, 1015 Upton. - Thomas 6 Thomas - Sheridaa, 1017 Thomas - Sheridan 8 Thomas - Sheridan, 1019 Thomas - Sheridan Sheridan - Russell, 1021 Sheridan - Russell Sheridan - Russell, 1023 Sheridan - Russell Russell - Queen, 1025 Russell - Queen 7 Russell - Queen, 1028 Queen - Penn Queen - Penn,' 1030 Queen - Penn Queen - Penn, 2001 Penn Oliver Morgan - Logan, 2005 Logan - Knox James - Irving, 2008 Zrving Humboldt Humboldt - Girard, 2010 Girard - Fremont (35W) Girard - Fr'emont (35W), 2012 Girard - Fremont (35W) Fremont (35W) - Emerson, 2014 Fremont (35W) - Emerson Dupont - Ccls"ax, 2016 Colfax - Bryant Bryant - Aldrich, Z021 Aldrich - Lyndale Lyndale- Harriet - Grand, 3002 Lyndale - Garfield Augsburg - Garfield, 3004 Augsburg - Garfield Lyndale - Garfield, 3006 Lyndale - Garfield Garfield - Harriet, 3008 Garfield - Harriet Harriet - Grand, 3011 Harriet - Grand Harriet - Grand, 3013 Harriet - Grand Harriet - Grand, 3015 Grand - Pleasant Grand - Pleasant, 3018 Wentworth - Blaisdell Blaisdell - Nicollet, 3023 Blaisdell - Nicollet Nicollet - 2nd Avenue, 3025 Nicollet - 1st Avenue Nicollet - 1st Avenue, 2032 2nd - 3rd Avenues 3rd - Clinton, 3037 Clinton - 4th 4th - 5th avenues, 3040 4 h - 3th Avenues 14th - 15th avenues, 4004 15th - Bloomington 15th - Bloomington, 4006 Bloomington 19th - 20th Avenues, 4013 13th - 14-:h -2- WHERAS the city clerk has notified the city council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in her office for public inspection, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota as follows: 1. A hearinq shall be held on the 27th day of September, 1982,,in the council chambers of city hall at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda, to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said maintenance assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and she shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenance. She shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of September, 1982. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: - Sylvia K.. Bergh City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR ALLEY MAINTENANCE APRIL 1, 1981 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1982 - C.P. 765 WHEREAS,'costs have -been determined for the maintenance of the following alleys in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such maintenance amounts to $28,155.34: Alley No. 1002 Xerxes - Washburn, 1003 Xerxes - Washburn, 1004 Xerxes - Washburn, 1005 Washburn - Vincent 1006 Washburn - Vincent, 1007 Washburn - Vincent 1008 Washburn - Vincent, 1009 Vincent - Upton 1010 Vincent - Upton, 1011 Vincent - Upton 1012 Vincent - Upton-, 1013 Upton - Thomas 1014 Upton - Thomas, 1015 Upton - Thomas 1016 Thomas - Sheridan, 1017 Thomas - Sheridan 1018 Thomas - Sheridan, 1019 Thomas - Sheridan 1020 Sheridan - Russell, 1021 Sheridan - Russell 1022 Sheridan - Russell, 1023 Sheridan - Russell 1024 Russell - Queen, 1025 Russell - Queen 1027 Russell - Queen, 1028 Queen - Penn 1029 Queen Penn,"1030 Queen - Penn 1031 Queen - Penn, 2001 Penn - Oliver 2004 Morgan - Logan, 2005 Logan - Knox 2007 James -- Irving, 2008 Irving - Humboldt 2009 Humboldt - Girard, 2010 Girard - Fremont (35W) 2011 Girard - Fremont`(35W), 2012 Girard - Fremont (35W) 2013 Fremont (35W) - Emerson, 2014 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 2015 Dupont - Colfax, 2016 Colfax - Bryant 2017 Bryant - Aldrich, 2021 Aldrich Lyndale 3001 Lyndale- Harriet - Grand, 3002 Lyndale - Garfield 3003 Augsburg - Garfield, 3004 Augsburg - Garfield 3005 Lyndale - Garfield, 3006 Lyndale - Garfield 3007 Garfield - Harriet, 3008 Garfield - Harriet. 3010 Harriet - Grand, 3011 Harriet Grand 3012,Harriet. - Grand, 3013 Harriet - Grand 3014' Harriet Grand, 3015 Grand - Pleasant 3015 Grand - Pleasant, 3018 Wentworth - Blaisdell 3020 Blaisdell - Nicollet, 3023 Blaisdell - Nicollet 3024 Nicollet - 2nd Avenue, 3025 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 3027 Nicollet - 1st Avenue, 2032 2nd - 3rd Avenues 3036 3rd - Clinton, 3037 Clinton - 4th 3039 4th - 5th Avenues, 3040 4th - 5th Avenues 4002 14th - 15th Avenues, 4004 15th - Bloomington 4005 15th - Bloomington, 4006 Bloomington - 16th 4010 19th - 20th Avenues, 4013 13th - 14th -2- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $28,155.34. 2. The city clerk, with the assistance of the city engineer and the technical operations coordinator shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law,'and she shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in her office for public inspection. 3. The city clerk shall upon completion of such proposed assessment notify the city council thereof. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of September, 1982. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk l �t S CITY OF RICHFIELD, !- IINNESOTA Office of City manager Council Letter No. 270 Agenda September 13, 1982 The Honorable mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council members: Subject: Request for Special Use Permit to Allow Con- struction of a Drive -thru Service Window at Taco Bell, 2203 West 66th Street Per. Wayne Wysoglad, representing Taco Bell Incorporated, is requesting that the city approve a special use permit to allow construction of a drive -thru service window at the existing Taco Bell restaurant, 2200 West 66th Street. The zoning ordinance requires that restaurants can only be located in "I" general industrial zoning districts if a special use permit is obtained. Further, if a restaurant wishes to ex- pand or change the nature of the business beyond that which was approved in its original special use permit, it must obtain another special use permit. Because the applicant is adding a drive -thru service window which was not included in the original special use permit, a new special use permit is necessary. Proposal The proposal involves the construction of a four foot, eight inch by sixteen foot entry and pick -up window addition on the east side of the building. A menu speaker sign would be constructed approximately 32 feet south of the building addition. The exist- ing entrance and one -way traffic flow on the site would remain. Seven parking stalls would be removed along the east edge of the site. A total of five new parking spaces would be provided along the north and south edges of the site. Staff Findings The staff has reviewed the proposal and found the following: 1. The proposed construction of the drive -up window would create traffic hazards on 66th Street. There is in- sufficient car stacking space provided on the site for cars waiting to use the drive -up facility. There is room for one car at the menu -order sign and one car be- hind it. The third car in line would be within the Council Letter No. 270 -2- September 13, 1902 public right- of-way of 66th Street. This would create a great deal of congestion. Cars waiting to use the drive -up facility would also block customer access to parking spaces on the site, adding to the congestion in the area. The Penn Avenue /66th Street intersection area has serious congestion problems now. This proposal would add to these congestions problems. At a time when plans are being made by the city and Hennepin County for improvements in the intersection area to reduce congestion, this proposal is clearly inappropriate. 2. The existing restaurant and the proposed drive -up window facility are consistent with the types of uses suggested for the site by the comprehensive plan. 3. Sufficient parking will exist on the site under this proposal. Fourteen parking stalls will be provided on the site which is what is required by city guidelines for a 40 -seat restaurant, however, the proposal will not meet city off - street parking area guidelines for one -way driving aisle width. The driving aisle along the east side of the building would be nine feet wide at its narrow-est point. City guidelines indicate that a 15 foot wide driving aisle be provided. 4. The proposal would not meet the zoning ordinance regulations for restaurants because traffic congestion would result on the adjacent street, and because the site is not screened from the adjacent multiple residence. Staff Recommendation It is the staff's opinion that the proposal would be detrim- ental to the public welfare because it would create a significant traffic hazard on 66th Street. For this reason, staff must recommend that the special use permit be denied. Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission recommends that the request for a special use permit be denied. The commission feels that the prop- osal provides insufficient automobile stacking and circulation space and would cause additional traffic congestion on 66th Street. Respectfully submitted, 4L Afcaa, 1�1 Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: City Planner Community Development Director KN /jea C7 • [--A, Planning Corrission City of Richfield 301 N. Cass A e. - 5uice 202 - Wesemoni, Illinois 660;59 - ['121 920 -5MO Re: Taco Bell =96Z, 2203 ',:. 50th Richfield, iMinnesota Dear Commissioners: The following is a summary of customers and volume in the - Minnesota Area for the month of June, 1982. It was based on a five (5) week period of sales for a total of seven (7) stores. Total Custormers 69,530 divided by 5 weeks = 13,906 customers per store 13,906 divided by 7 stores = 1,987 customers per week per store 1,987 divided by 7 days = 284 custormers per day per store Based on a national survey for drive -thru facilities it is estimated that 18 - 25= of sales is "shifted over" to the drive -thru window from the dining room. Using the high percentage of 25 the total amount of cars projected to use the drive -thru window would be 71 per day. A store open for a 14 hour day would average to 5 cars per hour. These are actual figures for the ",inneapolis/ Saint Paul Area and because of the low volume of custormers it is our professional feeling that our site can accorrodate a drive -thru addition without being detrimental to highway conditions. Sincerely yours, ',Jayne ;Jysogl ad Regional Construction ,anacer I[— 4 w lz a ili- Ill. 7:1 jz T-T oc\ 7 44 a aG Z� 77 . cc� i ;, 7711% i ° : - - -. � �� - .�... _ �.. - r i • i y!� .. 6' ^ 1�•s � c. °....� • .r wr:•w,.pw P ° `J•,°e " �a'�•\•. R ii . .. } ,f 1 � 1 - I • � - / r �,i I ta�a,� tata�ett� I . I i . • j �;, � is ! ,/ ;;) � I) • ,, ' / I I, I; II talal,Yr ttlV4a atY � � � � • I•iit II It!•• i vsrr, ,.9% va 41"#� 1°r�. rtt• • . '_- _• I }I ,I , ' j �• • / e ` ' t tt►rsdN� / f IjI t aNrrwfN,Ye . l , 9YiEeea�^lf,. l ,au7 1lt0re►a , ' Awlb?sa0 YOB ta/we;r l' ♦ . ' i 1 i rtr 4'eute IV wow • � � .,, .u1te . m a. . •r .. i �� •- 1 f � � \ i tarevt uwv,w unybt / � ' I• el �rii 96, _��.�i ,l:�C•� 1,n; III I j' .� i, nvaa ✓caw.�� `�I ,j1� = Y1'`�I>JG'!, p•a t �Piii AU ?4 ti' / s \` al; wtrQ+w s b+t«0.a•• ' I \ // / \ I tare.e aal•o.0.. arc u4e.a '— - •1 •! -•rll. II, 1. I'} \ I ° I / �I .a rwa.ee• - �/, � 1ar1; YI• Yra{l 4 ti WP^11,! fNV \\ �'�•�` tea w YIYO.N I P ' it •i - .••K I) LNK fM/ L ' a/aw Otarr I r I .S. ' ' '•,•. II /r fatal. ��. ,+r �. - ..- \ / ti I IN Mat YKa At y� 1 �•`.. °� k IAe r ;ti I , I ( 6Y6-•µ1 iT•a•t / A x at.' �''I •f [I.t a'•Se.eK. _ . N�'a °C, -. \\ I L- .l ,j � �'rn �� •. '\ � \ \ \ \\ r._. � �.' P,pill! : i.�.it_ .ja,i,,c�.• II �� I less / /! � �� i t P tt •.r:re uYr. ow JJ / I. J+ /Kai (0M6reaY b t i•� I' .lt C4 w1IA ` ---- - LN.„1 I ,I F � ;I�•� �t;� /�!rta�e 1 i t .n:rL wfi.•et. !'I��I, r. !.. - I -'` .. I I _ / t - 1 r0 / y I i I / , I��ta•t Fs• .. wec 1 -ft lam.w.'Yras N/ 1 I M. °wftf et[ G.q / \bf �' anerY WLa• e4•MH , A11 / ' �� ' l✓/ 1 r.. \ 11116 h. /L�[�i�w '^"�' `. T'w'�Y• 'I Ilr i a/� ,n/ � ��. /Ot.l i1• � 'vo °II•a 014 a {Wa A I" j 1 I I .M/ I M.a .Lr•N.. C' I _ ,\ \ If vbr .4 (ML / {• �Ya,J M,w•e Tta00a. IIYII \ v.e•,te•r/•4N � {e GAIyEt ttaY•aLa�./._r w+.• •L. YrtO Mt ♦• {ara♦ ♦fer{ �j}R dr,1t LLTItF 96-0.4 t/ra. wat /I� u,r•w„ I I a•r .� .+01• +LK4 wrlwi a•0. ,: /llneLyr wta, ylLe4�y • I , ! I \\ / n.,e°r r..0rr ve r.efa,. a,er fl aarae. � I I 19 •rr .. N� I i \\ � ! / °I t1 / •.all,rr a.a.OH IJ•0 4,6- s far.. I \� 1 / / 1vu }• 4..41.9 eva V' {aw.to 44N6 OMa .{61If y' -6e6 LeAa I 'I I I \v, l4.Yfal /t w •. arlLr ! I i � ®",•'•I?�tl 1r ,• +t,r�.(l.J �1'•Y .lY •O+Na +„•11 tIRf.YY• 14/yya Yraaws.. rrr.rr _ /a,r,e •tMOt tcar.an.►er a reTta 6ma I .. • � Yaf r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 271 Aaenda September 13, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Special Use Permit and Variance, 6601 Penn Avenue South PROPOSAL Mr. Ray Duggan, representing Amoco Oil Company, has submitted a request for a special use permit to allow the change in use of a service station to a service station store. The existing service station structure will be demolished and a new building will be constructed. A special use permit for the current use on the site was approved by the Village Council on June 8, 1964. The current off - street parking layout was also approved on that date. City ordinances require that a special use permit must be obtained prior to the conversion of a gasoline service station to a service station store. The applicant also requests a variance to allow the installation of two free- standing canopies. The site is zoned C -2, general com- mercial. STAFF REVIEW The staff has reviewed the request for a special use permit and found the following: 1. The proposal meets all regulations relating to service station stores as stated in section 3.33, Subdivision 3, of the city ordinance. Lot size, proposed structure, -and gas dispenser location permits sufficient off - street parking to meet the needs of the proposed use. There is no conflict of traffic circulation with the off- street parking area and vehicles using the gas dispensers. �1 U • Council Letter No. 271 -2- September 13, 1982 The staff reviewed the request for a variance to allow \ two free - standing canopies against the three conditions for approval and found the following: 1. There are no special conditions affecting this site not common to other properties of similar use. 2. The proposal could be re- designed with attached canopies, thus meeting city ordinance requirements. 3. The free - standing canopies will not adversely affect the safety or health of persons working or residing in the neighborhood. With the exception of the free - standing canopy, the proposal meets all regulations relating to canopy installation as stated in Section 3.33, Subdivision 6 of the city ordinance. The design is similar to that of other free - standing canopies in use by other service stations. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends that a special use permit be granted for the change in use from a service station to a service station store. The planning staff recommends denial of the variance, as it does not meet the three conditions necessary for approval. The city manager recommends approval of the variance. j PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission recommends approval of the special use permit. The Planning Comrlission recommends denial of the variance request to construct two free - standing canopies. The Planning Commission also suggested that the staff and council review and re- evaluate ordinance 3.33, Subdivision 6 regarding canopy construction and placement, especially the requirement that canopies be constructed as integral parts of the main service station building and must extend from such building. 'Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /skh cc: Community Development Director City Planner u • • I • i I j - i � �• � r.r �.CrT :.tee ®; .� .,,' � ` . 1 .. If 7y77— e Jv f Ti R 1S I r .7 . t m rj .• e iii M we - � Ili I I� I. jf LJ n <MF'l I I� I. jf LJ n .t 7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 272 Agenda September 13, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: .Request for Special Use Permit, Off Street Parking Permit, and-Variance to Allow Residential Unit in an "I" Industrial Zoned District and Reduction of Required Side Street Setback Mr. W. Bruce Hubbard, representing Tex -Sota Construction, Inc., has submitted a request for a special use permit to allow one residential unit in an "I" industrial zoned district; and for a variance to reduce the required side street sideyard setback (from Pillsbury Avenue) of 30 feet to 26 feet. The property is bound by Pillsbury Avenue,on the east, 78th Street on the south, railroad right -of -way on the west, and city owned property on the north. The principal use on the site would be rental storage space offered to the general public. Four buildings would be constructed on the site. The principal use is a use permitted in an "I" general industrial zoning district. The applicant is also proposing to construct a structure housing the manager's office and living quarters. The office and living quarters will be located near the property access point. The special use permit would only apply to the residential use on the site and not to the rental storage use. Four off - street parking spaces will be provided. The gross floor area of the four storage buildings will be approximately 80,000 square feet and will be divided into various size rental storage units. Each storage unit will have a separate entrance. One controlled property access point will be enclosed by a chain link fence. Landscaping, consisting of over -story trees, grass and shrubs are also proposed. One pedestal sign and one roof top sign are also proposed on the site. The property is zoned "I" Industrial. History The city council approved a special use permit and three variances for a similar use on this site in April, 1981, subject to the following stipulations: Council Letter No. 272 -2- September 13, 1982 1. That the applicant enter into and execute an off - street parking contract; 2. That the residential use terminates if the principal use changes or terminates; 3. That the occupancy of the residence be limited to the site manager /guard and his /her immediate family; 4. That the building be sprinklered, consistent with the recommendation of the Public Safety Department; 5. That the side street sideyard setback match the setback of the city garage north of the property along Pillsbury Avenue, which is 30 feet. The special use permit has expired because the use was not established within one year of approval. The approved variances, however, remain in effect. Staff Findings The staff has reviewed the proposal and found the following: 1. That the required side street sideyard setback (along Pillsbury Avenue) is 30 feet. The proposed sideyard setback is 26 feet. The 26 foot setback would be four feet less than allowed by the variance previously granted, making a new variance necessary. 2. That the required rear yard setback is 25 feet. The proposed rear yard setback is 5 feet. The city previous- ly approved a variance allowing the 5 foot setback. This variance is in effect and, therefore, no new variance is necessary._ 3. Richfield's parking guidelines do not specifically address this type of use. The general parking require- ments would require one space for each 1,000 square feet of floor area, or a total of 00 spaces. The staff feels that this is excessive. The nature of the business, com- bined with the physical design of the buildings and driving aisles, does not require that many parking spaces. The staff feels that four parking spaces will be suffic- ient and that an off - street parking contract will be required. The proposed parking area and -site design meet all other off - street parking area standards. 4. That a residential use is allowed in "I" district only by issuance of a special use permit. The proposed resi- dential use is incidental to the principal use of rental storage space. Residential uses in industrial zones can be subjected to excessive noise, vibration, and traffic from surrounding uses. 5. The public safety department has indicated that all buildings will have to be sprinklered and that they have • • l J Council Letter No. 272 -3- September 13, 1982 concerns about tenant versus industrial rights if noise or other complaints are received from residential tenants. 6. The proposal would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A single-family use of the site in and of itself would not be consistent. However, in this case, the single family use is a necessary accessory use to the principal use of the site, which is rental storage /ware- housing. The principal use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan._ The city staff reviewed the requested variances against the three criteria for granting variances and found the following: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affect- ing this particular land not common to other properties in this or similar districts. There are no special conditions affecting this property. This lot is of sufficient size and is not significantly difference than any similarly zoned lot in the city. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial pro erty rights. Denial of this application will not preclude reasonable use of the property. There are design alternatives which would not require variances. 3. That the granting of the application will not materially and adversely affect the health or safety of persons re- siding or working in the neighborhood, and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. The proposal will be an improvement to the applicant's property and should not be detrimental to the public wel- fare. The staff reviewed the special use permit request and found the residential use will not pose any hazards to the general public or persons working or residing in the area, and that the proposal is in substantial com- pliance with the conditions governing the issuance of special use permits. Staff Recommendation Variances - because the three criteria for grantina variances have not been satisfied, and because of the appearance of a varied setback from the building to the north, the staff must recommend denial of the requested variances. Special Use Permit - because the proposal is in substantial complainces with the conditions for granting special use permits, the staff recommends approval of the requested special use permit Council Letter No. 272 -4- September 13, 1982 with the following stipulations: 1. That the applicant enter into and execute an off - street parking contract; 2. That the residential use terminate if the principal use changes or terminates; 3. That occupancy of the residence be limited to the site manager /guard and his /her immediate family; 4. That the building be sprinklered, consistent with the recommendation of the public safety department; 5. That the special use permit be limited to the specific land area occupied by the apartment as shown on the site plan, and not the entire site; 6. That the residential use cease if adjacent properties are devoted to uses which, although permissable in an industrial zone, render the parcel unsuitable for occupancy for residential uses. Off- Street Parking Permit It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, approving the proposed parking layout. Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission recommends that the special use permit be approved with the stipulations outlined in the staff recommendation, and that the variance be denied. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner KN /ej a TEX-SOTA CONSTRUCTION, INC. PO. BOX 186 • WAYZATA, MINNESOTA S5391 - 612/473.9591 August 9, 1982 City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue S. Richfield, Minnesota Re: Special Use Permit. We request your approval of our request for a special use permit to alloy us to have an apartment in our self storage facility at ^, . corner of Interstate Highway 494 and Pillsbury Avenue. The residential apartment is for the exclusive use by our resident manager /caretaker, having our manager reside on the site is an established vital part of our business. We are'able to assist our tennants on weekends and evenings when necessary and the on site manager is also the major elament of our security system. The managers take care of the Property and keep it in a tidy manner like they would their own home in a residential area. L 'rye feel a resident manager is vital to us, but is- also beneficial to.the City of Richfield. TEX -SCTA CCi:STRUCTICIT, Ib`C�. B •ce Hu d .ri e it- esidert r;� Z 0 1- d ,J W 0 h -s= cc 1 J v i z �iie A W L v i 'sue ��`• iAw 1 1tV � W 5_Zo O y b 4 }L h .Q 0 � 2 J0 tl s 7 I I t �4 J .e 8J Z z L ;v3 oz i a b r c J i a 1 •A � o J F a r v i z �iie A W L v i 'sue ��`• iAw 1 1tV � W 5_Zo O y b 4 }L h .Q 0 � 2 J0 tl s 7 I I t �4 a s 8J Z z Ub ;v3 oz i a b r L c i a •A � o 0 F r v i z �iie A W L v i 'sue ��`• iAw 1 1tV � W 5_Zo O y b 4 }L h .Q 0 � 2 J0 tl s 7 I I t �4 a s 8J Z z ;v3 oz i a a a r L c v i z �iie A W L v i 'sue ��`• iAw 1 1tV � W 5_Zo O y b 4 }L h .Q 0 � 2 J0 tl s 7 I i e f ta Il m z to } d 1 m J. � 1 a 83 u• r r4r Xp$= / Qy®� �7t/�2►35 - •J MIr�r Z O �� Ch I. �w ow Zo �a 1� V L J yt < d W R K /[t l t� < !& r � 0 k Zy � Z El 7 < Y ZF • F^11n J to W 1� V L J yt < d W R K /[t l RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT FOR OFF STREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION NO. 82 -4, CONTRACT NO. 2344 Tex -Sota Construction, Inc. Location: Northwest Corner of Pillsbury Avenue and 78th Street Use: Rental Storage BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the proposed geometric layout of the off - street parking as contained in Off- Street Parking Application No. 82 -4, Contract No. 2344 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 improv- ment of said off - street parking, bearing Contract No. 2344 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 off - street parking operator provide the City of Richfield with Surety'in the form of cash, passbook saving withdrawal authority, or performance bond in an amount to be determined by Com- munity Development Director and City Manager, to insure the off - street parking lot is constructed within the terms and regulations of the Off- Street Parking Agreement. 4. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of said Off- Street Parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the off - street 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 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: I Council Letter No. X73 Agenda September 13, 1982 Subject: Request for Variance to the Front -Yard Set - Back Requirements to allow Construction of An Attached Foyer Entrance, 6323 Grand Avenue Mr. Kenneth R. Tvedten has requested a variance to reduce the required front -yard setback requirements for an interior lot from 30 feet to 28 feet to allow the construction of a new attached foyer entrance. The proposed addition is currently occupied by a stoop and steps which extend two feet beyond what is permitted for a structure. The attached addition will extend 7 feet to the west of the main structure. Staff Findings The staff reviewed the application against the three conditions for granting variances and found the following: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affectina this land not common to other properties or similar districts. It is the staff's opinion that no special conditions exist on the site. The site configuration is common to the surrounding district and similar districts. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. It is the staff's opinion that denial of the variance would not prevent reasonable use of the property. The applicant could continue the existing residential use of the property or construct a smaller entry addition which would meet the setback requirement. 3. That the granting of the application will not materially and adversely affect the health or safety of persons re- siding or working in the neighborhood and will not be mater- ially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to im- provements in the neighborhood. It is the staff's opinion that the proposed foyer- entrance will not materially or adversely affect the health or safety • 1� • Council Letter No. 273 -2° September 13, 1982 Of surrounding persons residing or working in the neiqhborhood. However, the applicant has stated the addition would be of benefit to himself due to health considerations. Staff Recommendations Because the proposal does not meet the three conditions necessary for granting variances, the planning staff must recommend that the requested variance be denied. The City Manager recommends approval of the variance due the meeting of the third condition. Plannina Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance at 6323 Grand Avenue. KN /skh cc: Community Development Director City Planner- Respectfully submitted, G Karl Nollenberaer City Manager Qo Q9 d` ZF If- August 17, 1982 10-111 �c ;,Z; �r <nC� Yy� ✓e q CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 274 Agenda September 13, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance.to Reduce the Required Rear -Yard Setback Requirements to Allow Con- struction of a Porch and Garage, 2901 West 74th Street John and Mary Munsinger have requested a variance to reduce the required rear -yard setback requirements for a corner lot from 25 feet to 12 feet to allow the construction of a new attached porch and garage. Presently, no accessory structure exists on the site. The porch and garage will be attached to the south side of the residence, and entrance to the garage will be from the west, Vincent Avenue. Staff Findings The staff reviewed the application against the three conditions for granting variances and found the following: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting this land not common to other properties or similar districts. It is the staff's opinion that no special conditions exist on the site. It is not unc=ommon in this area or similar districts that a corner lot rear -yard abuts the neighboring sideyard. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. It is the staff's opinion that denial of the variance would not prevent reasonable use of the property. The applicant could continue the residential use of the property. The applicant could also design a garage and porch addition which would meet city setback requirements. 3. That the granting of the application will not materially and adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to improve- ments in the neichborhood. Council Memorandum No. 274 It is the staff's opinion detrimental to the public signature of abutting and approving the request for variance. Staff Recommendation -2- September 13, 19P'2 that the proposal would not be welfare. The applicant has the surrounding property owners the proposed attachment and Because the proposal does not meet the three conditions necessary for granting variances, it is recommended that the requested variance be denied. There are alternaitves to the plan proposed by the applicant which would serve their needs while complying with the variance requirements. Plannincr Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission, by a four to three vote, recommends that the requested variance be denied. Res %pect+fu)lly(� submitted, Karl. Nollenberger City Manager KN /skh cc: Community Development Director City Planner August 17, 1982 74, t� J'?,:Iee v IN- i� N CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 275 Agenda September 13, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Special Use Permit to Allow the On -Sale of Wine, 65192, Nicollet Avenue South, Richfield Family Steak House On August 9, 1982, the city council considered a request for a special use permit to allow the on -sale of wine at Richfield Family Steak House, 65192 Nicollet Avenue. The council deferred action on the matter until September 13, 1902 and requested additional information from the staff. The staff has researched state statutes and local ordinances to determine if there are any minimum distance requirements from schools, churches or other uses concerning on -sale liquor establishments (section.11.06) or on -sale wine establishments (section 11.08). The on -sale wine provisions do require on -sale wine license applicants to provide information concerning "the exact" legal descriptions of the premises to be licensed and the distances to the nearest church building and school grounds. Section 11..03 of Richfield's ordinances indicates that no "setup" license shall be granted for premises within 600 feet of an elementary or secondary school or of any church. Minnesota state "statutes 340.14, Subdivision 3 indicates that no intoxicating liquors shall be sold in any of the following places: 1. Within the capitol or upon the grounds thereof; 2. .Upon the state fairgrounds or at any place in a city of the first class within one -half mile of such fair- grounds except as hereinafter otherwise provided by charter; 3. Upon the campus of the institute of agriculture of the University of Minnesota or at any place in a city of the first class within one -half mile of such campus except as hereinafter otherwise provided by charter. The city may issue one on -sale wine license to a vendor in the territory described in clause (2). The license is in addition to any others permitted in the city by other law or charter; 4. Within 1,000 feet of any state hospital, training school, Council Letter No. 275 -2- September 13, 1982 4. Within 1,000 feet of any state hospital, training school, reformatory, prison or other institution under the supervision and control, in whole or in part, of the commissioners of public welfare or the commissioner of corrections. Whoever sells or otherwise disposes of intoxicating liquor at retail at a place prohibited in this clause is guilty of a gross misdeamonor; 5. In any town or municipality in which a majority of votes at the last election at which the question of licenses was voted upon shall not have been in favor of license, or within one -half mile of any such municipality, except that any intoxicating liquor, manufactured within any such district, may be sold to be consumed outside of such district; 6. At any place on the east side of the Mississippi River within one -tenth mile of the main building of the University of Minnesota unless the licensed establish- ment is on property owned or operated by a non - profit corporation organized prior to January 1, 1940 for and by former students of the University of Minnesota; a license may be issued under this clause notwithstanding any local law to the contrary; 7. Within 1,500 feet of any state university, except as hereinafter provided, or when the place of sale is not within a municipality, within 1,500 feet of any public school outside of a municipality; within 1,500 feet at St. Cloud State University except for one wine and two off -sale licenses only, and within 1,200 feet at Winona State University, and at Southwest State University. In determing the distance, the measurement shall be along the most direct line from the nearest corner of of the Administration building of the university to the main entrance of the licenses premises; as to Mankato State University in the city of Mankato when the place of sale is within 1,500 feet as measured from the front door of the student union of the Highland campus; 8. 'At more than five places on any one side of a block within and fronting upon the patrol limits of cities of the first class; 9. The restrictions imposed by this subdivision shall not apply to any manufacturer or wholesaler of intoxicat- ing liquors or to a drug store or to any person lawfully licensed to sell intoxicating liquor immediately prior to the enactment of this subdivision. r� u 0 • Council Letter No. 275 -3- September 13, 1982 As can be seen, there are no restrictions specifically dealing with the minimum distance between on -sale liquor or wine establihsments and churches and schools. The council also requested additional information con- cerning the parking situation at the Richfield Family Steak House. As was indicated in Council Letter No. 249 (copy attached), the. number of parking stalls provided on the shopping center site as a whole is 90 spaces short of what is required by city guidelines. Attached is a list of the other businesses in the shopping center and their business hours. As can be seen from this list, business hours do vary by day and by the type of business. Parking demand also tends to vary by the time of the day and the type of use. Retail and office uses do not tend to have the same high peak usage hours as restaurants do around the lunch and dinner hours. However, it is important to realize that uses within the shopping center can change at anytime, and that parking demand patterns can correspondingly also change. The planned remodeling of the restaurant would reduce the seating capacity of the restaurant from 128 seats to 80 seats, reducing the parking requirement for the restaurant from 55 spaces to 35 spaces. The restaurant is established on the site, the parking requirement has been reduced, and in the opinion of the staff, the addition of on -sale wine to the restaurant will not significantly increase demand for parking on the site. The staff recommendation of this matter remains that while the proposal would not likely be detrimental, it is recommended that this application be denied because the number of parking spaces provided at the center does not meet city ordinance requirements. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /skh cc: Community Development Director City Planner City Clerk Public Safety Director • C7 CITY OF RIC�3FIEI,D , "IINNESOTA Office of City 'tanager Council Letter No. 249 Agenda August 9, 1932 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council members: Subject: Request for a Special Use Permit to Allow the On -Sale of Wine at 6519h Nicollet Avenue South, Richfield Family Steak House Rosemary Ranallo, representing Richfield Family Steak House, Incorporated, has submitted a request for a special use permit to allow the on -sale of wine at 6519h Nicollet Avenue. The city council approved the application for a commercial building Permit to construct a restaurant at 6,519 Nicollet Avenue, Richfield Plaza Shopping Center, on September 24, 1962. The Off-street parking contract for Richfield Plaza Shopping Center was adopted by the Village Council on July 10, 1961. The request currently before the council is for a special use Permit to allow the sale of wine an the present location. No exterior structural changes are proposed and the property is zoned C -2 general commercial. The existing restaurant use was established Prior to the requirement that restaurants obtain a special use Permit before locating in C -2 general commercial zoning districts. The city staff has reviewed the request and found the following: I. There is insufficient parking provided for the Richfield Plaza Shopping Center, including Richfield Family Steak House, Inc. There currently exists 135 parking stalls in the main parking lot and space for approximately 40 pa rking stalls in the rear area. According to city guidelines, 265 parking spaces should be provided for the shopping plaza. However, peak parking demand for the restaurant does not coincide with peak parking demand for other uses. 2. The restaurant use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Interior remodeling of the restaurant will reduce the seating capacity fro:.^. 123 seats to 30 seats, reducinc the par.'{ing requirement for the restaurant from 55 spaces to 35 Parking spaces. The restaurant is established on Council Letter No. 249 -2- Atrgust 1982 the site, the marking requirement has been reduced, and in the opinion of the staff the addition of on -sale wine will not significantly increase the demand for marking on the site. 4. With the exception of parking, the restaurant meats allordinance standards for restaurants STAFF REDOr•ZMENDATION The intent of the committee which was set up to develop the wine license Provisions was than an applicant :mist meet all requirements for restaurants serving liquor before a special use permit should be issued. Therefore, while the staff believes the proposal would not be detrimental, it is recommending that this application be denied because the number of parking spaces provided at the center does not meet city ordinance requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOnjENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of the special use permit. The Public Safety Department currently has the application for an on -sale wine license under investigation. If the city council approves the request for a special use permit to allow the sale of wine, a public hearing on the issuance of the on -sale wine license should be scheduled for the September 13, 1982 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, 05c L. Wilde Acting City Manager JLW /skh cc: Community Development Director City Planner Public Safety Director o I it 1) Fashion Gal 2) Sherwin Williams Paints 3) Renta -Color Video Center 4) The Cotton Shoppe 5) Richfield Haircare Studio 6) Pier 1 7) Richfield Pharmacy Doctors Building (offices) 8) Optomitrist 9) Community Credit 10) Instant Prints 11) Jewel Art Business Hours M -F 9a.m. to 9p.m Sat. 9a.m. to 7p.m. Sun. lla.m. to 6p.m. Mon. 7:30a.m. to 9p.m. T,W,Thur, 7:30a.m. to 6p.m. Fri. 7:30a.m. to 9p.m. M -F 8:30 to 8:00 Sat. 8:30 to 5:00 M -Thurs 8:30 to 8:00 Sat. 8:30 to 5:00 M,T, W,F 9 to 5:30 Thurs 9 to 8:30 Sat. 8 to 4:30 M -Sat. 10 to 9 Sun. 12 to 5 M -F 9 -9:30 Sat. 9 -7 Sun. 10 to 6 M -F 9 to 5 Occassional Saturdays M,T,Th,F 9 -6 W 9 -12 Sat. 9 -1 M -F 8:30 to 5:30 M -F 8 to 6 M 10 to 9 T & W 10 to 6 Thur. . 10 to 9 Fri. 10 to 6 Sat. 10 to 6 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 276 Agenda September 13, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Chapter III, Part V, Section 3.47, Campaign Signs. Second Reading. At the August 9, 1982 city council meeting, the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment which would regulate political lawn signs, and scheduled the public hearing on this matter for September 13, 1982. In the past, campaign signs have been regulated under pro- visions of the ordinance pertaining to temporary signs. Major provisions of that ordinance require that the signs be strongly constructed, that they be removed as soon as they are damaged or torn, and in no case later than 60 days after their erection, that there be no more than one temporary sign on any building frontage, and that they do not project over public property or right -of -way. That ordinance specifically provides that election signs be re- moved within 14 days of an election. The proposed ordinance amendment, a copy of which is attached to this council letter, has the following major provisions: 1. No sign may exceed 11 square feet in area on one side; 2. No sign may be erected before the first day for the filing for the election to which the sign relates; 3. All signs must be removed no later than 6 days follow- ing the election to which they relate. This ordinance amendment has been placed on the September 13, 1982 city council agenda for second reading consideration. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: City Clerk Community Development Director Public Safety Director J • • Bill 1982 -29 AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III, PART V, SECTION 3.47 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, Part V, Section 3.47 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield regulating the use of signs and billboards is hereby amended in the following respects: I. Subdivision 3, paragraph (7) thereof, is amended to read: (7) An- eieetleneering A temporary election sign; - best -it- shall -be esniam�tsi -to- permit -any - each - sign- te- reiaain -en -any- property -der -mere than -i4- days -after -the- day -off- the- eieetien- te- �vhieh- it- reiatee. II. A new subdivision 19 is added to read: Subd. 19. Temporary Election Signs. Temporary election signs may be placed and maintained in the residential and multiple residential areas of the city subject to the following regulations: (1) No sign may exceed eleven square feet in area on one side. The aggregate area of one side of all signs placed on any parcel of real property may not exceed thirty -three square feet. (2) No sign may be placed before the first day for the filing for the election to which the sign relates. (3) All signs must-be removed from display no later than six days following the election to which they relate. (4) In addition to,;the other remedies available to the city under this code, any sign remaining on display beyond the times specified in paragraph (3) of this subdivision is deemed abandoned to the city and may in the city's discretion be removed, destroyed or otherwise disposed of. (5) It shall be the responsibility of the sign owner, the property owner, and, in the case of a single family residence, the occupants, to comply with the provisions of this subdivision. 2- (6) No such sign shall be placed or maintained without the prior approval of the pro2ertZ owner, and in the case of a single family residence, the occu ant. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this day of , 1982. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 277 Agenda September 13, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to the Regula- ting of Kennel License Fees. Second Reading. At the August 27, 1982 city council meeting, the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment relating to the regulation of kennel license fees. City ordinance pro- vides that owners of four or more dogs or cats are required to have a kennel license, renewable annually, in the amount of $40. The ordinance amendment, a copy of which is attached to this council letter, provides that if an applicant has more than two dogs or two cats over six months of age, but no more than four such animals, the city council may determine that keeping such animals will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent prop- erties, and may waive the requirement for a residential kennel license fee. This ordinance amendment has been placed on the September 13, 1982 city council agenda for second reading consideration. cc: City Clerk Public Safety Director KN /ej a Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager J� �C Bill 1982 AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER V, PART III, SECTION 5.28 OF THE OIRDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OB RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter V, Pert III, Section 5.28, Subdivision 3 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, regulating the issuance of kennel licenses is hereby amended to read: Subd. 3 Approval of Continguous Prorierty Owners 'rhe application for a residential kennel license shall be accompanied by a petition snowing the approval of the occupants of privately owned real estate abutting the premises on which the kennel is to be located. Whether or not all of ti:e occupants of abutting property approve the application the council maY grant or deny the license. The license shall not be grunted unless the council finds that the use of the applicant's premises as a residential kennel will not have, or will not It likely to have, any adverse effect upo=n adjacent properties or ti-;e occupancy thereof, anc will not constitute a nuisance upon the granting of any residential :ennel license. When an applicant has more than two dogs or two cats over six months or- age, but no :More than Lour suc . animals, S:?c'. the cite council cetermines that khenLn _L suc :i a:_i_nais upon. the apolicar,t's propert77 T.'711 not have, or will not be li.:eIN' Co 'aye an,,' adverse effect upoc aCj cent Properties or the occupenc;> thereof, the council ryay waive the requirement for a residential cennel license fee: Passed by the City Council of the City or ?ichfield, this dey of , 1,1--62 John Hamilton .Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergin :,ity Clerk -H,Z/ B CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 278 Agenda September 13, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Accessory Uses in Residential Zoning Districts. It has recently come to the attention of the city staff that there is a potential problem with the permitted accessory use standard section of the revised residential sections of the zoning ordinance. Principal uses in an R, residence- district include schools, public recreational facilities and churches. A necessary accessory use to these principal uses is off- street parking. However, off - street parking areas are not listed as permitted accessory uses. I have attached a copy of an or- dinance to resolve this discrepancy. The planning commission has reviewed the draft ordinance, and recommended city council adoption. It is recoiLLmended that the city council give first reading approval to the attached ordinance amendment and schedule the public hearing on this matter for September 27, 1982. Rjesspectf��ul(�ly submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner KN /eja 1-1 • • A,MENDMFNT TO C n2TT."R =II SECTION 3.30 OF THE ORDINAUNCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITv OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, 3.30, Subdivision 2 o the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield dealing with accessory uses in the "R" Residence Di,st_ict is hereby amended by adding the following: (j) Parking areas and caraaes . Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1982. John Hamilton, Mayor Sylvia K. Bergh, City Cler <t CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 279 Agenda September 13, 1932 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf ield Council Members: Subject: Amendment to the Liquor Licensing Ordinance, Relatina to Veteran's Organizations Historically, on -sale liquor licenses for veteran's service clubs (American Legion and VFW) have been issued on a state -wide basis by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. However, to obtain the state 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, there have been modifications to this procedure that have developed as the result of legislative changes. The effect of these changes was to move more and more control for this licensing activity to the local unit of govern- ment. During the last legislative session, a licensing fee schedule was adopted by the legislature which, for all practical purposes, has now placed the complete on -sale licensing responsibility with tine local units of government. Our city attorney's office has reviewed this matter in detail and recommends that we amend our on -sale liquor licensing ordinance to include a class of licenses to be issued by the city for "veterans organizations." The effect of this change will be to move the authority to issue licenses, as well as control of the licensed businesses, to the respective city councils. Because there are still some unique statutory provisions for veteran's organizations, this will mean that, in the situation in Richfield, a new class of on -sale liquor licenses must be established to effect this change. Attached for council consideration is the proposed ordinance amendment which incorporates the full licensing authority for veterans organizations into our liquor licensing code. The amendments are necessary to recognize the specific statutory provisions which currently exist with regard to the licensing of veterans organizations. Because of the timing involved in this matter, the need to the inform the two veterans service organiz- ations in Richfield of this change, and the need to develop the • 0 Council Letter No. 279 -2- September 13, 1982 necessary application forms and procedures, it is recommended that this new licensing process not take effect until the 1983 license year. We will continue to operate during 1982 under the combined local club license which the city has issued, and the state license which the Minnesota Department of Public Safety has issued. When this change does become effective, the local on -sale liquor licenses issued to the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign War club will be included in the seven on -sale liquor licenses authorized under our ordinance code. Presently, three of our seven authorized on -sale liquor licenses have been issued. If this amendment is adopted, and on -sale liquor licenses are issued to the local American Legion and VFW clubs, five of the seven authorized on -sale liquor licenses will have been issued. If this ordinance amendment is adopted, it is further recommended that at the time of the second reading of the ordinance amendment herein discussed, the council amend Resolution 6537 which was originally passed on November 23, 1981, establishing License, Permit and Miscellaneous Fees pursuant to the provisions of Appendix D of the Richfield City Ordinance Code; to establish an appropriate license fee schedule as provided by state statute for the new classification of liquor licenses for veterans organizations. This would amend Resolution 6537 (Appendix D of the Richfield City Ordinance Code) as follows: Section 8. Liquor and Related License and Permit Fees (2 ) Liquor C. On -sale 1 year Restaurant or hotel $8,250 Veteran Organizations t 200 or less members 200 201 -500 members 500 501 -1000 members 650 1001 -2000 members 800 2001 -4000 members 11000 4001 -6000 members 2,000 6001 or more members 3,000 In addition to this resolution amending liquor related fees and charges, I would like to recommend that the amendment also repeal Section 8 (5), of Appendix D of the Richfield City Ordinance Code. This relates to the established $25 license fee for a license to allow the consumption of beer in a city park. Since this activity is no longer perrlissible, the established license fee should be repealed, simply as a "housekeepinq" matter. • • 11 Council Letter No. 279 -3- September 13, 1982 It is recommended that the council give favorable consideration to these proposals. Respectfully submitted, �'& f�.a " "-' Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /skh cc: Public Safety Director • C7 11 AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XI OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD City of Richfield Does Ordain: Chapter XI of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield regulating alcoholic beverages is hereby amended in the following respects: A. By amending Section 11.06, Subdivision 1 thereof, adding the following new paragraph (8) thereto: "(8) The term 'veterans organization' means an incor- porated and congressionally chartered veterans 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 S12ace in a building of such extent and character as may be suitable and adequate for the reasonable and comfortable accomodation of its members, and whose affairs and management are conducted by a board of directors, executive committee or other similar body chosen by the members at a meeting held for that purpose, none of whose members, officers, agents, or empl gees are 2aid directly or indirectly any compen- satio by way o profit from the 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 bodv." 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 ehie € -e4 p®�:iee 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: D. E. F° . G. "(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." By amending Section 11.06, Subdivision 11, adding the following new paragraph (7)e "(7) No on -sale license shall be organization which does not corn anted for a veterans ail respects wit the derinition of a veterans organization contained in Subdivision I of this section and which does not emit access to the organizations facilities to members and na nests. 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 of his employees shall keep, possess, or operate or permit the keeping, possession or operation of any slot machine, dice, or any gambling device or apparatus on the licensed premises, or in any room adjoining the licensed premises, nor shall such person permit any gambling therein. 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. By amending Section 11.07, Subdivision 1 thereof, to read as follows: Subdivision 1. YEligibilLZ. Notwithstanding the other provisions of the Ordinance Code, estab�ekest t ®- w��ei� -ea- safe- ��ee�see- a�ay- ?�e- }ss�tee�- €ems- the -ease ef- ttexeatg- �q�e-- w�ieh- awe --{�} hotels, and rest- aurants and veterans organizations qualified for licenses in Section 6 o t is Co e, er 44} and eitibs -as ciefzrtee�-- �Ia�t -- Stet -; - Seetee- 3�9 -8�; 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 -:; �; e ///- / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 280 Agenda September 13, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Certification of Delinquent Sewer and Water Utility Accounts There is a resolution on the September 13, 1982 city coun- cil agenda designating the annual accumulation of unpaid sewer and water utility accounts. Although the Richfield utility ordinance places unpaid water and sewer charges as a lien against the property, some homeowners have traditionally chosen to have the charges certi- fied and included in their annual property tax billing. A $10 certification charge (preparation for certification to taxes of delinquent accounts) shall be charged against each delinquent account as authorized by Ordinance 8.12, subdivision 12. The attached resolution represents those delinquent accounts which have occured from August 31, 1981 through Aug- ust 31, 1982. It is recommended that the city council adopt this resolution certifying delinquent water and sewer accounts. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Finance Coordinator RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING UNPAID SEWER AND WATER SERVICE CHARGES TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO BE COLLECTED WITH OTHER TAXES ON SAID PROPERTIES WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 8.23 establishes rules, rates and charges for water service in the City of Richfield, and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 44.075, Subd. 3, provides that all delinquent water service charges not paid may be certified to the County Auditor with the taxes against such property, and shall be collected with other taxes on such property, and WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 8.12 establishes rules, rates and charges for sanitary sewer service in the City of Richfield, and WHEREAS, Subd. 12 thereof provides that all sewer service charges not paid within fifteen (15) days after the quarterly due date may be certified to the County Auditor with taxes against such property, and shall be collected with other taxes on such property, and WHEREAS, an assessment roll has been prepared specifying the amounts which shall be certified against each particular property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that 1. There is hereby determined to be a total uncollected amount for water and sanitary sewer service of�$78,260.52. 2. That a $10.00 Certification charge shall be levied against each delinquent account;-such charges totaling $06,250.00. 3. That such amount is hereby certified to the County Auditor for collection with other taxes on said properties. 4. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th, day of September, 1982. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk John Hamilton Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Background Council Letter No. 281 Agenda September 13, 1982 C_ s i ti u Subject: Airport Noise Land Use Compatibility Planning and Airport Safety Zoning In February, 1981, the Metropolitan Council considered a report by a joint Metropolitan Council /Metropolitan Airports Com- mission (MC /MAC) committee entitled "Final Report on Airport Plan- ning Issues ". This report included recommendations on policy changes and land use regulations to be incorporated into the avia- tion chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide concerning air- port noise land use compatibility planning and airport safety zon- ing. Communities adjacent to the airports expressed concern about these proposed changes and regulations. The Richfield City Council passed a resolution (copy attached) concerning this report. The Metropolitan Council took no action on the report, and referred the matter back to their staff for additional study. The Richfield staff has participated with staff from other affected corLununities, the Metropolitan Council (MC), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (14nDOT) to de- velop acceptable airport noise land use compatibility planning guide- lines. A draft set of guidelines has recently been developed by this group and has been accepted by the Metropolitan Council. The Metro- politan Council must now go through a public hearing process before these guidelines are formally adopted and made part of the aviation chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. The report has been prepared by the Metropolitan Council to guide communities in land use planning near the eight airports in the Twin Cities metropolitan airports system where there are noise problems from aircraft take -offs and landings. The report proposes guidelines to help local governmental officials implement their comprehensive land use plans, as required under the 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The guidelines provide information on the type of development that should be encouraged or discouraged around the airports. Much of the report deals with the region's major airport, • • ob Council Letter No. 281 -2- September 13, 1982 Minneapolis -St. Paul International (MSP) Airport. The guidelines also cover St. Paul Downtown Airport, an intermediate airport, and four minor airports. The guidelines will be used by the Metropolitan Council as additional criteria for reviewing proposals for federal grants. In addition, the report provides guidance to the Metropolitan Airports Commission and other airport operators for development of noise - control plans, and to various state agencies involved in en- forcing noise - control regulations. The report and its technical supplement are products of a cooperative, long -term analysis of the very complex and changing problem of aircraft noise. Study efforts to date clearly show the need for continuing intergovernmental agency coordination to min- imize noise pollution in the urban environment. The problem of aircraft noise has long been an active public issue in the metropolitan area. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, potential air traffic demand seriously threatened airport capacity at MSP International Airport. Many people thought that a new major airport would be necessary in the future to acconunodate the grow- ing number of flights. A second, more urgent, reason for a new airport was related to the problem of aircraft noise. To some air- port neighbors, the noise problem alone was ample justification for relocating the airport. Because of the public outcry against continued operation of the MSP International Airport, the MAC formed the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC). This committee was comprised of equal numbers of citizens and airline representatives. Its charge was to investigate, discuss and reconunend to the A2,C alternatives for alleviating the local noise problem. MASAC recommended several of the noise abatement programs currently in effect at MSP International, including the preferent- ial runway program, which reduced aircraft flights over the most noise- sensitive areas; diversion of all airline training flights; a voluntary nighttime (11 p.m. to 6 a.m..) flight curtailment; and construction of earth berms adjacent to some residential areas. The KAC recently completed a Noise Abatement Operations Plan Study and is evaluating several implementation strategies. Tn 1974, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in response to a legislative mandate, adopted a Noise Pollution Control Standard that described the limits on levels of sound that people could tol- erate. The standard, in effect, established a single standard to be applied. to all noise sources -- highway traffic, aircraft and industrial sites. Much of the existing land use in Richfield is inconsistent with this standard. In 1977, the Metropolitan Council, which is responsible for establishing the policies and framework of the metropolitan air- ports system, concluded that it was unnecessary to replace MSP International Airport with a new major airport. This decision was based on several factors: there was a continuing downward • 0 • Council Letter No. 281 -3- September 13, 1982 trend in forecasted aircraft operations, due to larger airplanes and more efficient engines developed by the airline industry; there was more than adequate physical capacity at the existing airport to handle any projected increase in flights; and progress had been made toward reducing aircraft noise. The noise generated by aircraft cannot be entirely eliminated, but the adverse effects on people and, in turn, the conflicts be- tween an airport and its neighbors, can be substantially reduced. There is no single solution or formula to achieve this reduction. A coordinated, continuing program is required on the part of fed- eral, state and local public agencies, including affected commun- ities and airport users, to ensure implementation of effective noise abatement strategies. Aircraft Noise Abatement Strategies There are three main strategies for aircraft noise abatement, each involving certain responsibilities inherent to various levels of government. The strategies are: source noise reduction, air- port operational procedures and land use compatibility. Implementa- tion of the first two strategies for aircraft noise abatement can best be achieved through action by the federal government and/or the airport operator. Implementing compatible land uses requires action by each community affected by aircraft noise. Following is an explanation of how the three strategies work: Source noise reduction involves controlling noise emissions created by aircraft engines. Mandated by congress, it has been administered by the FAA whith a consultive and initiating role for the Environmental Protection Agency. The FAA has issued aircraft noise standards (Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 36 and 91). FAR 36 deals exclusively with source control of aircraft noise levels, and measurement and evaluation standards for certification testing. FAR 91 is primarily an oper- ating rule dealing with safety, but a recent amendment involves source control. Airlines are required, by 1985, to have only air- craft that can comply with specified noise levels. This can be accomplished either by retroffiting noisy aircraft with acoustical treatment, or by replacing noisy aircraft with quieter types. Al- though the burden of the rule rests on the airline, manufacturers must develop the noise control capability for the rule to be effective. In addition, the federal government is continuing to study new measures to encourage engine manufacturers to develop quieter derivitives of current production engines as well as a new generation of quieter high - bypass turbofan engines. Source noise reduction is the most effective and least costly solution to aircraft noise emissions. If the fleet mix changes substantially over the next decade, i.e., if existing noisy air- craft are retrofitted or replaced, substantial noise reductions would occur around major metropolitan airports, including Minnea- polis-St. Paul International Airport. Thus, it is critical to keep pressure on the FAA, the airlines and the airport operators for source noise reduction. Council Letter No. 281 -4- September 13, 1982 Airport operational procedures involve the control of air- craft noise exposure by changes in flight operations techniques and scheduling. For example, aircraft can take off and land at steeper angles. Night flights can be curtailed. Runways that direct flights away from residential areas can be used for most flights. Airport operational changes can be accomplished with existing aircraft and facilities with a minimum of modification. Although the FAA has jurisdiction over most operational changes, the airport operator can implement certain procedures for reducing noise im- pacts. The FAA's responsibilities are founded on the basis that certain changes may compromise operating safety or affect the en- tire national and international air transportation system, result- ing in an undue burden to interstate and foreign commerce. However, since airport operators have been held legally responsible for noise nuisance damage by aircraft using their facilities, they, too, can undertake limited changes to abate noise. Most operational changes fostered by airport operators involve considerable coordination and active participation by federal, state and local authorities, and aircraft owners. Cooperation among the FAA, the airport operator and the air- lines has achieved substantial noise reductions or shifts of noise to less populated areas at system airports. Continuing responsibi- lity and pressure must be placed on these parties to achieve these results. Land use compatibility varies in cost and effectiveness de- pending on the degree of development around each airport. In de- veloped areas, the cost of foregoing certain land uses, converting land uses and retrofitting buildings to attenuate noise generally makes land use compatibility the most costly and least effective aircraft noise abatement approach. In undeveloped areas, land use compatibility is generally the most effective and least costly approach to preventing adverse aircraft noise impacts. Land use compatibility involves two steps: 1) controlling aircraft noise "impacts" by changing existing land uses, and 2) preventing encroachment of noise sensitive land uses adjacent to airports. Unlike the other noise abatement strategies, which are the responsibility of the noise generator, land use compatibility strategies must be implemented by communities affected by the noise. Changes in land uses that can minimize existing and potential conflicts with airport operations involve: 1) encouraging compati- ble development; 2) making structural changes such as insulation in buildings to reduce noise inside; and 3) relocating buildings with incompatible uses, for example, housing, very close to an air- port runway. During the past decade, considerable progress has been made nationally in relieving aircraft noise at the source. New tech- nology engines, including the high- bypass turbofan, are notably quieter (5 to 10 dBA - -see Definitions section) than the original if turbo jets powering many first and second genera- tion aircraft. Additionally, retrofit modifications to earlier Council Letter No. 281 -5- September 13, 1982 engines have achieved some four to six dBA reductions. Changes in airport operational procedures have been effective, too. The FAA, working with several airport operators, has implem- ented operational procedures and modified air traffic handling to reduce noise impacts to people on the ground. At the same time, increasing awareness by airline executives and pilots has resulted in changes to flight procedures that have also reduced noise exposure. A review of airport related noise regulations nationwide shows that only five states have legislation addressing aircraft noise. Of these, the most notable in terms of force of regulations and control is California. California's Airport Noise Standard establishes noise limits and compatible land uses within defined impact areas. On a more localized basis, several large and small cities, such as Boston, Atlanta and Seattle, have formal aircraft noise compatible land use plans in place. Seattle has an airport environs plan that addresses both present and corrective measures for dealing with land use compatibility. Although these three noise abatement strategies are directed toward a common objective, no one can be considered a complete solution to aircraft noise problems. Rather each complements the others, so that a livable environment can eventually be achieved. Predicting Aircraft Noise and Its Impact The task of quantifying the aircraft noise pattern around an airport is not simple, there is no exact science to define it. Air- craft noise is a "by- product" of a dynamic industry that is con- tinuously changing because of new technology and variable operating conditions. Defining the geographic area affected by noise from aircraft operations must rely on some methods of prediction, even when identifying existing conditions. Identifying the noise influence area around an airport cannot be accomplished simply by selecting a series of individual aircraft noise monitoring data. Extensive and expensive simultaneous monitor- ing is required. Defining the magnitude of aircraft - generated noise is subject to several variables including such factors as aircraft type, the number and type of aircraft operations, the way the airport is operated, aircraft arrival and departure routes, and general wind and weather conditions. Goals of Land Use Compatibility Plannin There are two sides to noise abatement planning: 1) minimizing the source and patterns of aircraft noise, and 2) controlling the uses of land that are unavoidably exposed to adverse noise levels from aircraft. Compatible land use planning is primarily concerned with the future use of undeveloped land. It is much more difficult to Council Letter No. 281 -6- September 13, 1982 remedy existing incompatibilities. There can be great benefits, however, in ensuring that the situation grows no worse. Guidelines for land use compatibility near airports usually have several themes in common: -they should be based on specific aircraft noise sources and frequency of potential exposure; -most land uses that are very noise sensitive, such as single family residences, schools, churches and hospitals, should be located in zones of lower cumulative noise ex- posure levels; -many land uses with high levels of human occupancy per acre, such as offices, hotels, commercial buildings and multiple family residential can be located in zones with higher noise exposure if insulating construction techniques are used and outdoor uses are discouraged; -land uses with extremely low levels of human occupancy per acre, such as agriculture, forestry and water bodies, can be located adjacent to airports regardless of the noise exposure level. These uses are considered insensitive to aircraft noise exposure; - opportunities to effectively reduce incompatible uses are dependent on the nature and pattern of existing urban de- velopment and infill development, reconstruction or addi- tions to existing structures. Metropolitan Noisemap Project In 1976, the I-Iinnesota Legislature passed the 'Metropolitan Land Planning Act. This law required each colamunity in the Seven County Metropolitan Region to prepare a comprehensive hand use plan to serve as a framework for its development. The plans are to be kept current through an established amendment process. The law also directed the I >letropolitan Council to advise local governmental units of planning requirements for metropolitan systems. In the case of the metropolitan airports system, this involved consideration of aircraft noise impacts on land uses in cor.Lmunities near the eight airports in the system. In 1977, the Metropolitan Council - .initiated the I-Ietropolitan Ivoisemap Project to: - identify the current and probably future aircraft noise environment around bSP International Airport; - establish practical guidelines for land use compatibility planning. The Lletropolitan Noisemap Project was the first step in im- plementing a coordinated, continuing effort to improve the quality of life for citizens living and working adjacent to metropolitan system airports. I Council Letter No. 281 -7- September 13, 1 1082 The study was initiated and conducted by the metropolitan Council in cooperation with IiAC bInDOT and the Transportation Advisory Board's Technical Advisory Committee and included partici- pation by affected agencies and municipalities. A major part of the effort was to develop and utilize a computer mapping, process that would simulate potential future aircraft noise zones. It also would consider both the state standard and federal standards for aircraft noise control and--land use planning. Aircraft Noise Exposure Zones for MSP International Airport The Noisemap study team developed aircraft noise contours for IYSP International. The contours reflect both current and ex- pected future operating conditions and, to some degree, the fre- quency of potential exposure to aircraft noise. The contours similar to elevation contours on a geographical map, fora four irregular zones radiating out from an airport, each representing less overall noise. Documentation on the extensive analysis undertaken by the Noisemap study team to develop the contours is available in a separate technical report. Although the Noisemap contours provide the primary basis for preparinc- land use compatibility criteria, the actual noise levels vary widely by ti.-me of day, days of the year and type of operation (takeoff or landing). It is more appropriate to address land use within zones of noise exposure rather than contours. Four noise exposure zones have been established, based on the Noisemap policy contours, to be used in determining compatible land uses adjacent to LISP International Airport. Eleven communities have some land within the 11SP International noise zones. They are Minneapolis on the north, St. Paul, Lilydale, 1,Iendota, Mendota Heights, Sunfish Lake and Inver Grove Heights on the east, Eagen and Bloomington the south, and Richfield and Edina on the west. The zones described below, lying within the various noise contours, are generalized areas. The specific application of noise zone boundaries will be established in development of the local comprehensive plans. The process will include technical assistance from the metropolitan Council to help in defining zone boundaries in the plan. The intent is to select specific land use, zoning, topographic and other boundary conditions which increase the reasonableness of noise zones for noise abatement activities. A map showing the preliminary application of these noise zones in Richfield-is attached. The four aircraft noise exposure zones for major and inter- mediate airports can be classified as severe, serious, significant and moderate, respectively. They are described below: Noise Exposure Zone I Zone I is imemdiately adjacent to the airport property and can generally be described as having a severe noise problem. Council Letter I:o. 281 -B- September 13, 1982 It is subjected to aircraft noise greater than 80 LEQ (equivalent sound level) during the busiest hours of operation at MSP Inter - nation, and 70 Ldn (level- day- night) at St. Paul downtown. It is an area frequently affected by both takeoff and landing operations. In addition, the proximity of the airport operating area, particu- larly the runway thresholds, reduces the probability of relief resulting from future changes in the operating characteristics of either the aircraft or the airport. Both the existing and expected noise intensity in this area is severe and permanent. No new development other than that dedi- cated to non - noise - sensitive land use should be considered. In addition to preventing future noise problems, the severely noise impacted areas surrounding biSP International Airport should be fully evaluated to determine alternative land use strategies in- cluding eventual changes in existing land use. Noise Exposure Zone II The noise impacts in zone II are generally sustained, espec- ially close to the run way ends. Zone II is exposed to aircraft noise of 75 to 80 LEQ for takeoffs and 70 LEQ for landings during the busiest hours at i-ISP international. Based on the proximity of the affected area -to the airport, the seriousness of the noise ex- posure is such that sleep and speech interference can be routinely expected. In addition, given that aircraft operations, particularly departures, are still relatively close to the runway centerlines, repeated noise exposure can be expected. The noise intensity in this area is generally serious and oftentimes continuing. New development should be limited to uses that have been constructed to achieve certain interior to exterior noise attenuation, and which discourage certain outdoor uses. L Noise Exposure Zone III Aircraft noise impact in zone III can also be categorized as sustained. However, the intensity is such that it should be con- sidered significant, or somewhat less than serious. Zone III is exposed to aircraft noise of 70 to 75 LEQ for takeoffs and 65 to 70 LEQ for landings during the busiest hours. In addition to the intensity of the noise, the location of buildings receiving the noise must also be fully considered. Opprational changes can pro- vide some relief for certain uses in this area. If residential development is located outside of areas which are exposed to frequent arrivals and departures, and is constructed to achieve certain interior to exterior noise attenuation, and is restrictive to outdoor use, it may be acceptable. Certain medical and educational facilities which involve permanent lodging and outdoor use should be discouraged, however. y Noise Exposure Zone IV Zone IV is best described as a "gray" area where aircraft Council Letter No. 201 -9- September 13, 1982 noise exposure plight be considered moderate. It is exposed to aircraft noise of 65 to 70 LEQ during the busiest hours. Noise exposure is predominantly related to takeoffs. Land uses are likely to receive the most benefit from changes in operations. The area is considered transitional because potential changes in airport/ aircraft operating procedures could lower noise levels. Another factor to be considered is the ambient or background noise environ- ment. Development in this area may be generally free from land use restrictions as such, but can benefit from insulation levels above typical new construction standards in Minnesota. While such measures may abate the level of interior noise, insulation cannot eliminate outdoor noise problems. Building locations and site planning can help mitigate both interior and exterior noise in some cases and. must be encouraged. Land Use Compatibility Guidelines Guidelines for land use compatibility with aircraft noise are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. The guidelines apply to noise ex- posure Zones I through IV as previously defined. An explanation Of consistent, provisional, conditional, and inconsistent land uses follows: Consistent: land uses that are acceptable. Provisional: land uses that must comply with certain land use provisions to be acceptable. These provisions are de- scribed in the proceeding section below entitled "Provision- al Land Use Requirements." Conditional: land uses that may be acceptable but require review and approval by the Metropolitan Council. The factors to be considered in the council's review are set forth in the section entitled "conditional Land Use Review Factors." Inconsistent: land uses that are not acceptable even if acoustic treatment were incorporated in the structure and outside uses were restricted. Provisional Land Use Requirements Land uses �,vhich meet the following requirements are acceptable. '_. Structures constructed after adoption of these guidelines shall be- ac al ousticly constructed so as to achieve the interior sound levels as described in Table 1. ?. Residential buildings do not have facilities intended for outdoor activities, including swimming pools, tennis courts, golf courses, patios, balconies or yards. Council Letter No. 231 —10— September 13, 1982 TABLE 1 Structure Performance Standards* TYPICAL INTERIOR LAND USE SOUND LEVEL Residential 40 dBA Education /Medical 40 dBA Cultural /Entertainment /Recreational 50 dBA Office /Commerical /Retail 50 dBA Services 50 dBA • Industrial /Communication /Utility 60 dBA Undeveloped Land /',Dater Area /Resource 60 dBA Extraction .ese per ormance standards o not apply to buildings, accessory buildings, or portions of buildings which are not normally occupied by people. Note: These interior sound levels vary depending on location relative to the airport and other factors. These levels are indicative of the mean values. y -ach local unit of government will be responsible for implementing and enforcing these performance standards within its jurisdiction. The - ;et- 000litan Council will review the adequacy of these mechanisms as part of its revie, ;r of amendments to each community's comprehensive plan necessitated by incorporating land use compatibility into the Airport Guide Chapter. Conditional Land Use Review Factors en a local unit of conditional land use Council 14i l l use t,ne t ^e proposed conditi government submits a land use plan amendment indicating a as described in the land use guidelines, the ;Metropolitan following factors in determining whether or not to approve Dnal use: 1. Specific nature of the proposed use, including extent of associated outdoor activities. ?. Relation of proposed use with other planning considerations, including a'jacent 1 -and use activities, consistency with overall comprehensive Dlan.ning and relation to other metropolitan systems. 3. Frequency of exposure of proposed noise- sensitive uses (e.g. hospitals, schools) to aircraft overflight. a. Location of proposed use relative to aircraft flight tracks and aircraft on- ground operating and maintenance areas. 5. Location, site design and construction restrictions to be imposed by the community on the proposed use with respect to reduction of exterior to interior noise transmissions, and shielding of outdoor activities. Council Letter No. 281 -11- September 13, 1932 A. % "ethod community ,vill u5e to inform future occupants of proposed use of ootential noise from aircraft operations. 7. 'Extent to which community restricts the building of facilities for outdoor activities associated with the use. S. ^istance of proposed use from existing or proposed runways, parallel taxiways, or engine run -up areas. 'and Use Compatibility Guidelines for Infill Development and Reconstruction or Additions to 'Existing Structures It is recognized that certain existing land uses, reconstruction projects and in -fill development are not consistent with the guidelines for -new development and major redevelopment (Table L). Achievement of consistency between such uses anti the noise exposure zones may remain difficult or impossible in the snort term. .!here such consistency is impractical in the short term, interim measures will be necessary. Such interim measures may include application to %'PCA for a variance from state noise standards. The long -range achievement of compatibility should be addressed through a program of strategies that eventually will reduce or eliminate inconsistencies. This program may include acouisition, insulation, long -range planning and development, modification of airoort operations, and ground noise attenuation. Program costs, financing Methods, prioritization and an implementation schedule should be identified as part of the process. J Council .Letter 1,11o. 2-01 —1 2— September 13, 15&2 Table 2 LAND USE COXPATIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR NE'el DEVELOPMENT AND MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT Noise Exposure Zone Land Use Type I II III IV Single /,multiplex with individual entrance "-'ultiplex /apartment with shared entrance "obi le home ducational and Medical Schools, churches, hospitals, nursing homes Cultural, Entertainment, Recreational T ndoor Outdoor Office, Commercial, Retail Services Transportation- passenger terminals transient Lodging Other ^redical, health and ?c''�cational services Other services ;nc'ustrial, Communication, Utility r'2ve'ooed Lind. .later area, Resource Extraction INCO rreans inconsistent COND eans conditional PR w means provisional C'!ST means consistent INCO INCO INCO COND INCO PROV PROV PROV INCO INCO INCO Ct1Nb INCO INCO INCO PROV COND COND COND PROV COND COND COND CNST COND PROV PROV CNST COND PROV PROV CNST INCO PROV PROV PROV COND PROV PROV CNST COND PROV PROV CNST PROV CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST 0 Council Letter No. 231 —13— Septe:aber 13, 19 &2 Table 3 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND RECONSTRUCTION OR ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES Noise Exposure Zone Land Use Type I II III IV Sinale /multiplex with COND COND COND individual entrance ultiolex /aoartmeni ,4ith COND PROV PROV shared entrance 'obile home COND COND COND Education and Medical Schools, churches, hospital COND COND COND nursing homes Cultural, Entertainment, Recreational Indoor COND COND COND Outdoor COND COND COND Office, Commercial, Retail PROV PROV PROV Services Transportation - passenger facilities COND PROV PROV ransient lodqinq COND PROV PROV dical, health and educationa-1 services COND COND PROV Other services COND PROV PROV 1hdustrial, Communication and PROM CNST CNST Utl I lty Undeveloped Land, 'Water Area CNST CNST CNST Resource Extraction I'!CO means inconsistent COi;D means conditional PROV means provisional CNST means consistent COND PROV COND PROV PROV CNST CNST CNST PROV CNST CNST CNST CNST Council Letter No. 231 —14— Septerrber 13, 19£2 5. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS LAND USE GUIDELINES IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS Implementation of.the guidelines, involves the following specific steps (general timing as shown in parentheses): 1. ;Metropolitan Council transmits information to affected local operators. (Dec. 1982) land use guidelines and associated governmental units and airport 2. Communities apply appropriate land use guidelines to their- comprehen- sive plans and determine if plan amendments are required. (Oct. 1983) 3. Communities prepare comprehensive plan amendments, including interim measures for inconsistent land uses, and submit to Metropolitan Council for review. (Dec. 1983) 4. Metropolitan Council reviews and approves local comprehensive plan amendment or requires plan modification. Council also reviews and comments on any proposed variance requests or other interim measures to address inconsistent land uses. (March 1984) 5. Community adopts local comprehensive plan amendment and submits any variance requests to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency with 'etr000litan Council comments; if request is not granted or a ^ odification is required, the request would be resubmitted to Council for review and comment. o. Communities and airport operators prepare detailed implementation programs to reduce, prevent, or mitigate aircraft noise impacts on land use that is inconsistent with the guidelines. (Sept. 1984) 7. Communities' and airport operators' implementation programs are sub- mitted to the Metropolitan Council for area review and coordination. ( arch 1985) 3. ' Ietropolitan Council prepares a final report of a lonq -term program for implementing noise control strategies on a system -wide basis. !Sept. 1985) Q. Metropolitan Council monitors implementation programs and evaluates changing conditions. (1982 -87) " TION 8Y AGEJCIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNITS I..olementation of the guidelines in particular, and the promotion of land use compatibility in general, includes the following actions: Council Letter i:o. 231 —15— Septeiuber 13, 1,0G2 ,ETR0P0LITAN COUNCIL ^couraoe federal and state cooperation to reduce source noise. Coanizantthat the most effective place to reduce noise is at the source, the ,Metropolitan Council, along with other concerned parties, requests a firm commitment from airport operators and all federal and state agencies LO reduce noise at the source. The Council, MAC, PCA, Mn /DOT and affected municipalities should determine the most effective approach to reducing noise at the source and jointly pursue its implementation. Develop specific noise zone boundaries. The specific extent of noise zone boundaries :rill be established in a process involving Metropolitan Council staff and local agencies. The intent is to select specific land use, zoning, topographic and other boundary conditions which best reflect land use planning /regulatory considerations and forecasts of noise exposure. ''onitor implementation of airport operational plans and community noise attenuation proarams. The Council should encourage cooperation among airport operators and the affected communities to develop jointly and implement airport operations plans and community noise attenuation programs. Provide planning assistance and coordination. The Council should provide technical assistance and general guidance to the affected snits of government in the application of the land use guidelines and the noise exposure zones. Review comprehensive plans and land use agreements. The Council will r,view consistency of local plans with the Metropolitan Development Guide " ''onitor and evaluate changing conditions. The Council, in cooperation the airport operators, local planning officials, airport userigroups and other governmental agencies, should monitor and evaluate changes in land use, zoning and airport operational procedures that might affect the viahility of the land use compatibility program. The evaluation function :roul,d be continued on an annual basis b.v the Technical Advisory Committee's Aviation Subcommittee, which coordinates activities of Che airport ,,per? tor, local planning officials, airlines, other governmental agencies and the public. ,'ETROPOLITA'J AIRPORTS C01'•i'ISSION (tiIAC) AND OTHER AIRPORT OPERATORS Implement airport operational procedures for noise abatement - Airport Oner.atinq procedures can reduce noise both on and off an airport, while t'e 'distribution of aircraft operations can reduce the number of people effected. "he 'MAC and other airport operators should prepare operational plans for each system airport by Dec. 31, 1 0-33. Council Letter No. 281 -16- September 13, 1982 - participate in the preparation and financing of a program of strategies that will address existing incompatibilities. MAC is expected to participate in the preparation and fin- ancing of a program to address existing incompatible land uses. In affected areas, the airport operator is expected to participate in a program to eliminate the incompatibility. This program should be reflected in the operator's next capital improvements program and operating budget following the amendment of the Airports Chapter of the Development Guide." Affected Local Units of Government - Adopt land use compatibility guidelines. Communities affected by airport operations should adopt land use compatibility guidelines, make appropriate amendments to their land use plans, and submit them to the Metropolitan Council for approval within nine months after the Council amends the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide to include these guidelines. - Develop and implement appropriate local ordinances and codes. The local unit of government should encourage compatible land uses near the airport by implementing appropriate building codes and zoning ordinances. Implement land use planning strategies to reduce, prevent or mitigate aircraft noise impacts. In preparing or re- vising land use plans, each community should consider the following strategies, where approrpiate, to reduce or pre- vent incompatible uses and to mitigate the impact of excess noise exposure: a) insulate structures located in noise - sensitive areas; b) adopt building noise attenuation standards for new cons:tr_zctiton -, additions or substantial rehabilitation; c) disclose degree of noise exposure to prospective home buyers; d) develop policies on the location, relocation, and closing of public structures in aircraft noise im- pact areas; e) develop policies on the extension of utilities into noise impact areas; f) zone or rezone property; g) redevelop appropriate areas. Council Letter No. 281 -17- September 13, 1982 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency - Establish review process agreement with Metropolitan Council to review variance requests. In order to assist local governments with reviews of local development that may require variance from the MPCA standards, the MPCA and Metropolitan Council will establish a specific process by which proposed variances will be considered. - MPCA Board reviews variance requests from the standards. Requests for specific variances from the MPCA standard will be addressed by the board. Impact of Guidelines on Richfield As can be seen by the noise exposure zone map, approximately two - thirds of Richfield lies within the noise exposure zones. The potential impact of the proposed guidelines on Richfield is great. The majority of land uses within the noise exposure zones would be considered conditional or provisional uses, according to Table 3 of the guidelines. Very few existing uses would be considered con - sistent. This could mean that property owners could be prevented from constructing additions or other improvements onto their exist- ing structures. Achievement of consistency between uses within the noise exposure zones and the guidelines will be difficult and im- practical, because Richfield is fully developed and uses are already established. Richfield will have to submit a comprehensive plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council which includes a program of strategies to eventually reduce inconsistencies, where possible, and to reduce noise impact on existing uses. These strategies might include acquisitions and rezonings in severely impacted areas, and a noise insulation program in less impacted areas. Richfield will also have to apply to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for a variance, because a great deal of the existing land uses are currently in violation of state noise standards. The Metropol- itan Airport Commission will be expected to assist in the prepara- tion, financing and implementation of the program to address these inconsistencies. As indicated earlier, these are draft guidelines and the Metropolitan Council will be conducting a public hearing before ad- opting final guidelines. The city council may want to provide comments at the public hearing. Land use guidelines are necessary to protect citizens ex- posed to aircraft noise. The proposed guidelines are reasonable in that they outline the roles of the various governmental body, keep control over land use at the local level and sets up a process whereby each community can develop and implement specific guidelines to meet its individual situation. However, there are changes which the city staff feels should be made to Table 3, as follows: Council Letter No. 281 -18- September 13, 1982 1. Indoor and Outdoor Cultural, Entertainment, and Recreational uses should be. provisional in Zones I, II, III and IV. Adequate noise attenuation in p structures can be achieved to reduce noise impact. People also have a choice of whether or not to utilize these types of facilities. 2. Medical, health, and educational services should be considered the same as office uses and therefore should be provisional rather than conditional in Zones I and II. It is recommended that the council review these guidelines and direct the staff to make any necessary comments to the Metropol- itan Council at the public hearing. A second type of regulation being considered, which could have an effect on land uses adjacent to the airport, is airport safety zoning. Airport safety.---regulations are separate and unrelated to the noise related regulations discussed previously. These regulations relate to air safety rather than noise. The 1978 legislature passed a state law creating joint air- port zoning boards to - :develop and enforce airpott zoning regulations. A joint airport zoning board was created for the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport which includes two representatives from Rich- field. This board has not met until recently. This board must now develop and adopt airport safety zoning regulations. Once these reg- ulations are adopted, they will be pres.ented to affected communities for their adoption and enforcement. If a community does not adopt and enforce the regulations, the joint airport zoning board will then have the responsibility for enforcement. The rules adopted by the Minnesota Department of Transpor- tation outline three land use safety zones. A map is attached show- ing how these zones apply to Richfield. The area most affected will be a corner of southeast Richfield located in Zone B. The rules go on to restrict uses in the three zones which may be hazardous to the operational safety of aircraft operating to and from an airport and to limit population and building density in the runway approach areas to create sufficient open space so as to protect.life and prop- erty in case of an accident. The state law creating airport safety zoning powers indicates that when the detailed zoning regulations are developed by the joint airport zoning board there should be minimal disruption of ex- isting land uses, particularly established residential neighborhoods in built up urban areas. The regulations cannot classify low density residential uses or isolated low density residential building lots existing on January 1, 1978 in established residential neighborhoods as non - conforming uses. Because Richfield is fully developed, the Council Letter No. 281 -19- September 13, 1982 impact of any regulations developed by the joint airport zoning board on Richfield may, therefore, be minimal. The staff will keep the council informed about this issue as the airport zoning regulations are developed by the joint air- port zoning board. Respectfully submitted, tL Karl Nollenberge:F City manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner KN /eja RESOLUTION NO. 6525 A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR CHANGES IN THE AIRCRAFT NOISE /LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING GUIDELINES RECOMMENDED BY A JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION (MC /MAC) WHEREAS, theMetropolitan Council's Transportation Subcommittee I met on March 17, 1981, to consider the MC /MAC committee report entitled "Final Report on Airport Planning Issues February, 1981.11; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council's Transportation Subcommittee tabled consideration of the MC /MAC report and requested representa- tives of effected communities and agencies to meet and resolve ques- tions about the report; and WHEREAS, the effected communities and agencies met as a working group to resolve these questions and have developed a proposal for achieving land use compatibility in areas adjacent to metropolitan system airports; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has reviewed the working group's proposal and finds it consistent with the policies of Richfield. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The city supports the findings of the working groups report which: a. Clearly distinguishes between the responsibilities of communities with large tracts of undeveloped land and the responsibilities of developed communities in responding to land use standards; b. Incorporates performance standards allowing communities and administer individual controls for land use, design and construction in noise - impacted areas; C. Clearly defines the roles of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Metropolitan Council and Metropoli- tan Airports Commission in land use control, aircraft noise abatement and ground noise attenuation. 2. That the city requests that the Metropolitan Council conduct public hearings on the proposed land use guidelines when they are incorporated in the Airport's section of the Metro- politan Development Guide. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 26th day of October , 1981. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk Donald J. Priebe, Mayor r w >M ra �M rn ar elt••ma w•po w pV w pn w V it w pll ]a1 pV ]M owao w snwnm N. Vllx)O w Nt w !Oa]If w •I w aaxell] �+ •a,our w 1pw+r a•i awwn, i 7IM VIY]D 7M a1Y•.I. �M atprw 7M l+.sui w I J•Itw M 111111 ]M )Y /1R1 ]M a.VBYa w 0•Y•V 7f V1 IOIIVIY w gaaw l.Y .aR l•• M9YV1 1n. YWb w n,.nY K YvVIOV w .p1I11 ln. mla t t • • • C tl S S 3 • 3 i R C i F ! R 2 ! R n ! w.. la. r.l 3n. v.61 ]M NN 1 )x. vl it 1 3M Vil wpV )nY atnl3 w OMapa ar sn•I•noa 7M prtl lM Owlxw) w a•naYO. w •uv w s•a)M w ..I w anbip \ ln. on are 3a. .vlbl L. ixp•q \ 'lM lIM]Ya ol )M Ma•M ln. Ylnlb lM MYIVIIaN. lnY Ixl]Vn N. xrMxM• lu of 11 In Y.. • li W Y., W YN 7M Nq YN 1Mf,] W aI.IYR W Y.I11)ISY 'W /S ]M O� 9,1 Nt 1M ]],balY vi uYwsr W aw aM taYY•Y �M fnani. vs i„YYn W ))YY JM YiY� 7YY iY0Y�1. W S1)1, W YpLff 7N YiYD W „NL W Yi1Y1 "lq 11),.IIY � YMYpIY 1M tvfOl] W YYIMY W tma an. ]n.N�fi Y,snlwYOf W Y lM wL 3nY Y, i, ].. Y.1 ]iY Y1f1 lM Y, it 3AY N n W Y101 ].• aM,i W Ob•awa In• ♦Tb}x u ,YM„w r alm.n ]w ,1YYrx n• —1— ]nv 3Mxal )M lxYaM ]nt ]xoMYl M obaY3 )n• x)MO 9-17 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City lanager Council Letter to. 282 Agenda September 13, 1982 The honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Legislative Issues As the city council is aware, there are a number of legislative issues of major impact which will be discussed in 1983 -84 legisla- tive session. The nature of the make -up of the 1983/84 legisla- ture will have a significant impact on the City of Richfield and its ability to operate within the state and local partnership. To address the major ramifications of state legislation, the League of _Iinnesota Cities has selected five major issues which will be dis- cussed in the 1983/84 legislature session: 1. State and local fiscal relationship 2. Iandates imposed "by state legislation 3. Public employment labor relations 4. Local revenue sources 5. Local government aid A discussion of each of these issues is attached to this council letter. The City of Richfield is represented by one state senator and two state representatives. The six candidates for these three seats running on the November ballot should be in a position to respond to their feelings about these issues. It would behoove the city council to sponsor a special public meeting where these issues can be discussed with the six candidates and hopefully sol- icit some response from them concerning their attitudes and opinions on these matters. It is recommended that the city council set a meeting with the six legislative candidates for the evening of October 11, 1982 at 5:30 p.m. to discuss these major issues which will confront cities in the next couple of years. If the city council approves such a sleeting, a letter to the six candidates indicating the issues to be discussed, will be mailed to theirs prior to the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager CC: Program Directors C: C • ; I league of minnescta cities v THE STATE -LOCAL FISCAL RELATIONSHIP ISSUE PAPER PROBLEM The future of the state -local fiscal relationship in Minnesota is in doubt. The combined program of school aids, local government aids, welfare transfer payments, property tax credits and other payments has become too complex, unpredictable and unstable. There is no articulated state policy to guide decisions concerning the appropriate balance between the property, sales, and income tax or the extent to which each local government should rely on local versus state -paid revenue sources. Direct property tax relief programs are confused with general aid programs and the net impact of all these programs on tax burdens is not well understood. BACKGROUND Since the summer of 1980, cities have undergone a series of state actions which have made it more difficult to operate city government: Three separate cutbacks in local government aid, imposition of new and more restrictive levy limits, cut -backs in the homestead credit reimbursement payments, a shift in the payment schedule for aids and credits, and long delays in the payment of some aids and credits. The timing of many of these actions has made it even more difficult to adjust budgets or take other actions to respond to the problems. There is no end in sight, with cities concerned about whether they will actually receive from the state their full 1982 or 1983 local government aid and homestead credit payments. Cities are now planning their 1983 budgets in this atmosphere of uncertainty. SOLUTION The Legislature and the Governor should place top priority on comprehensively re- working the state -local fiscal system in Minnesota and clarifying the policy objectives of such a system. The system needs to be simplified and made more understandable so that there will be greater accountability at all levels of government. State policymakers, in consultation with local officials, must agree on the proper balance between income, sales, and property taxes, and the types of government functions that should be supported by those taxes. Cities must be allowed more autonomy over local revenues, including the property tax. Cities must be able to count on total revenues adequate to maintain the level of services required by their citizens. The portion of those revenues received as state -paid aids or credits must be reliable as well as equitable. If the state -local fiscal problems are not comprehensively addressed the crisis -to- crisis conditions which have existed for the past two years will continue to plague the state and local governments. 7/29/82 (OVER) 2 7- 5E0,u^ MANDATES ISSUE PAPER PROBLEM Each session, the legislature enacts new laws which require cities to perform specific functions, without providing any financial assistance or permitting any flexibility in the tax levy to pay for those new responsibilities. BACKGROUND New Mandates. The legislature continues to enact each session new laws which require cities to perform certain new functions. Each new mandate, taken individually, may cost relatively little in comparison with the entire city budget, but the cumulative effect is to force cities to expend substantial funds to pay for these mandates before allocating the remainder of the city's funds to pay for traditional services (such as police and fire protection, sewer and water service, parks and recreation, regulatory efforts, etc.) This trend to enact new mandates, often without input from cities or even over their objections, will continue unless the legislature itself becomes concerned with cumulative effects of these mandated costs. Examples of new recent mandates enacted in 1982 include: requiring cities to establish by ordinance fees for land use administrative procedures; permitting manufactured homes in all cities unless regulated by enacting ordinance; forcing city attorneys to prosecute gross misdemeanors in DWI violations; requiring cities give disabled police officers and fire fighters less hazardous city jobs yet cont!nue full police /fire pay for these persons; and requiring the recording of all variances and conditional use permits. Old Mandates. A variety of out -of -date mandates remain in state law. These continue to be costly even though their need is questionable. SOLUTIONS 1. The Legislature should show restraint in enacting new mandates, and should adopt a process requiring the preparation and consideration of the fiscal impact on local government of every proposed new mandate. 2. The efforts of the Governor's Task Force to Reduce State Government Mandates on Local Governments should be supported and any resulting legislation should be enacted. 7/29/82 a` iy7j7j7j league of minnesota cities PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT LABOR RELATIONS PROBLEM The balance between public employees and public employers in labor negotiations is very delicate. Proposed legislation would swing this balance too far in favor of the public employees. "WWWO -VITG iON About seventy percent of city general fund expenditures go to pay employees. Compensation and other employment issues can best be resolved when the labor relations laws encourage negotiation and compromise rather than solutions imposed by arbitrators. In order for the negotiation process to work, there must be a balance between the employer and employees so that neither side has an undue advantage. Two recent proposals of public employee representatives would seriously disrupt the existing balance. The first proposal would permit non - essential (non - police or fire personnel) employees to refuse to cross picket lines of other public employees. Thus, if the employees of one union went on strike, the employees in other unions could (and undoubtedly would) refuse to cross picket lines and cause severe disruption in the provision of city services. The second proposal would 'limit 'the definition of supervisors. Persons who could effectively recommend but who lacked the authority to hire, transfer, suspend, promote, discharge, assign, reward, and discipline other employees, would no longer be considered supervisory employees. Supervisory employees are often used to maintain the basic services of a city when a strike occurs. Under this proposal, in a great majority of cities (over 700) there would be no supervisory employees since only the city council has the powers listed above. In the remainder of cities, the city manager and perhaps a few others would be the only supervisory employees. The enactment of either or both of these policies would give employees more bargaining power than necessary and disrupt the existing employer /employee negotiation balance. SOLUTION No major changes should be made in the existing public employment labor relations laws, and the two proposals outlined above should not be enacted. 7/29/82 V ✓erU@ ecs sL, a r �b �� 227-56010 r 5 t ,111 1 771 1 M i league of minnesota cities LOCAL REVENUE SOURCES ISSUE PAPER PROBLEM The ability of cities to raise revenues locally -- either through the property tax or other means -- is too severely limited. The current levy limit law has created a system that is often arbitrary, unfair, overly complicated, and actually may encourage higher property tax levies than necessary. Statutory restrictions on license fees and against any type of local sales taxes also contribute to a lack of flexibility to raise revenue at the local level. This is especially troublesome at a time when demand for local services is in- creasing and state and federal assistance is dwindling. BACKGROUND Levy Limits. The current law restricts cities to an 8% increase in their general levy each year. It also allows for various special levies for purposes such as payment of bonded debt. Thus the actual amount levied by a city may increase by more than 8% in a given year.* Why is this law viewed as unreasonable by so many cities? The subject is quite complex, but a few major points can be made: 1. The "levy limit base" -- the amount to which the allowable 8% is applied -- has largely been set arbitrarily and may bear no relation to a city's current needs -- either in terms of the non - property tax revenues available to the city or the service needs of its citizens. There must be flexibility in the property tax especially as other revenue sources grow less reliable. 2. In 1982, new bases were set based on the actual levy for taxes payable in 1981 and many cities were 'caught with their levies down." Their bases were lowered -- they were in effect penalized for having kept property taxes lower than they could have been. 3. Levy limits may encourage a city to borrow to finance a capital project or purchase that might better be paid by a one -time levy. 4. Since each year's increase is now determined by the prior year's actual levy, the incentive is to use the maximum 8% levy authority whether you need it that year or not. Otherwise the city loses future revenue - raising ability. *This does not mean that the city's budget may increase by 8% or greater, since property tax revenues are usually much less than half of a city's operating budget. This also does not mean that the city mill rate will increase. Growth in assessed valuation often results in a lower or level mill rate. (OVER) _.. _ -s caver�11e eases, st Qaul, minnesota 5751 C I 1611 2] 227 -5600 -2- FACT: The impact of cities on the overall property tax burden is relatively small. For every property tax dollar levied the average distribution has been: FACT: The large increases in total 1982 property taxes are due primarily to shifts in school financing from state to local sources. For taxes payable in 1982, the net school levy (i.e. the portion actually payable by local taxpayers after deduction of state -paid property tax credits) is approxi- mately 38% higher than the 1982 net levy. At the same time, the amount of state - paid education aids for the 1982 -83 school year decreased by almost 17% from the prior year. Schools are obtaining about 36.7% of their total revenues from the locally paid (i.e. not including state -paid credits) property tax for 1982 -83, compared to 26.9% for 1981 -82. This is the highest share paid by the locally paid property tax since 1971 -72. (Note "total revenues" refers to all revenues from state aids and credits and property taxes - about 85% of all school revenues.) Local Sales Tax. Cities are prohibited from enacting any local sales taxes. Duluth has a general sales tax enacted prior to the prohibition, and about six other cities have obtained special authority for limited sales taxes on hotels, motels, amusements, etc. License fees. Cities.may exercise a great deal of discretion in setting almost all types of license fees, including those for on -sale liquor, subject to many court decisions limiting cities` power in this area. However, the state has determined statutory maximum license fees for off -sale liquor, on -sale wine, bottle clubs, and Sunday sales. The statutory fees are unrealistically low. SOLUTIONS 1. The 8% levy limit law applied to cities should be repealed. 2. The Governor and Legislature should approve new legislation which: A. Allows all cities to tax at local option, hotels, motels, admissions or amusements. B. Remove the few existing statutory maximum license fees for off -sale liquor, on -sale wine, bottle clubs, and Sunday liquor. 7/29/82 1982 1981 Cities 17.1% 18.5% Schools 49.5% 45.7% Counties 27.4% 29.5% Towns 1.9% 2.1% Special Districts 2.47 2.7% Tax Increment Districts 1.47 1.1% FACT: The large increases in total 1982 property taxes are due primarily to shifts in school financing from state to local sources. For taxes payable in 1982, the net school levy (i.e. the portion actually payable by local taxpayers after deduction of state -paid property tax credits) is approxi- mately 38% higher than the 1982 net levy. At the same time, the amount of state - paid education aids for the 1982 -83 school year decreased by almost 17% from the prior year. Schools are obtaining about 36.7% of their total revenues from the locally paid (i.e. not including state -paid credits) property tax for 1982 -83, compared to 26.9% for 1981 -82. This is the highest share paid by the locally paid property tax since 1971 -72. (Note "total revenues" refers to all revenues from state aids and credits and property taxes - about 85% of all school revenues.) Local Sales Tax. Cities are prohibited from enacting any local sales taxes. Duluth has a general sales tax enacted prior to the prohibition, and about six other cities have obtained special authority for limited sales taxes on hotels, motels, amusements, etc. License fees. Cities.may exercise a great deal of discretion in setting almost all types of license fees, including those for on -sale liquor, subject to many court decisions limiting cities` power in this area. However, the state has determined statutory maximum license fees for off -sale liquor, on -sale wine, bottle clubs, and Sunday sales. The statutory fees are unrealistically low. SOLUTIONS 1. The 8% levy limit law applied to cities should be repealed. 2. The Governor and Legislature should approve new legislation which: A. Allows all cities to tax at local option, hotels, motels, admissions or amusements. B. Remove the few existing statutory maximum license fees for off -sale liquor, on -sale wine, bottle clubs, and Sunday liquor. 7/29/82 PROBLEM �aague 0f MinnS. Ua 1 � LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID ISSUE PAPER The level of funding for the Local Government Aid (LGA) program has been steadily decreasing, thereby eroding a major source of revenue to cities. RACKGROUND LGA is paid to all 855 Minnesota cities to be used for general government purposes. It is distributed on the basis of a formula. Cities rely on LGA to varying degrees, depending on such factors as the historical formula distribution changes and other sources of revenue available to the city. Until 1981, LGA worked in conjunction with the levy limit law to ensure that LGA dollars spent by the state would replace dollars that might otherwise be raised through the property tax. The levy and aids used to equal the "levy limit base ", which was allowed to increase by 8% overall. In 1981, the two systems were divorced, so that levy limits no longer reflect changes in LGA funding. Since only the previous year's levy is allowed to increase by 8 %, the increase in overall revenues may be much less than 8 %, especially since LGA has been cut significantly. One result is that losses in LGA cannot be recouped from the property tax -- the revenues have simply "disappeared ". Another result is that "high LGA" cities -- hardest hit by cuts -- have relatively lower-levy limits and so are caught in a double bind of limited revenues. FACT: LGA payments to cities have been decreasing. (Note: The most conservative analysis shows that overall state spending for the 1981 -83 biennium increased 6.3% over the 1979 -1981 biennium.) (OVER) Real Increase Calendar Amount Paid Percent Increase (Decrease) Year To Cities (Decrease) (corrected for CPI) 1978 $162,612,298 -- -- 1979 189,824,764 16.7% 5.3% 1980 208,274,623 9.7% (2.7%) 1981 213,255,187 2.4% (6.5%) 1982 205,420,204 (3.7%) (17.2 %) (Note: The most conservative analysis shows that overall state spending for the 1981 -83 biennium increased 6.3% over the 1979 -1981 biennium.) (OVER) -2- FACT: LGA is a key revenue source for many cities. LGA comprises about 16% of the state -wide total of city governmental revenues. However, many cities actually rely on LGA to a greater extent than that figure indicates. In November, 1981, 142 cities responding to a League survey stated that LGA comprised at least 30% of their 1982 operating budget. 61 of those cities stated that LGA comprised 40% of their operating budget. A separate study by the Minnesota Project in 1981 found that LGA comprises from 25 -60% of expenditures for about half of cities with a population 2,500 to 10,000 and for three - fourths of cities under 2,500. SOLUTION The Governor and Legislature should take the necessary budget, tax and appropriate actions to ensure that the amount already appropriated for 1983 LGA is not cut. Assuming the current state -local finance system is still in place in 1984, the 1984 LGA appropriations should increase at least at the same rate as state revenues. 7/29/82 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 283 Agenda September 13, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Purchase of Property at 7300 1st Avenue On June 14, 1982, the city council authorized the staff to negotiate for purchase of the property located at 7300 1st Avenue. This property has a history of seasonal flooding, depending on rainfall amounts. Resolution No. 6619A, adopted June 14, 1982, designates the use of sewer fund monies to finance purchase of the house and to finance the cost of making minimum floodproof- ing improvements after purchase. Once floodproofing measures are completed, the house will be sold to a willing buyer who will be made aware of the flooding potential of the property. The city's acquisition and floodproofing of this property should help alleviate the recurring drainage problems at this site. A purchase agreement has been signed by the property owner, indica- ting their willingness to sell for $69,500. The sellers, Mr. and Mrs. Christian Stromstad, have indica- ted a willingness to waive relocation benefits. On August 24, 1982, the planning commission made a finding that the proposed acquisition and dispostion of the property is in conformance with the city's comprehensive plan. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing purchase of the property at 7300 1st Avenue. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development. Director Administrative Services Director Finance Coordinator KN /eja RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF THE HOUSE AND PROPERTY AT 7300 FIRST AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, it has been determined that the property located at 7300 First Avenue South is susceptable to seasonal flooding hazards; and WHEREAS, it has been determined to be in the best interest of the City of Richfield to purchase this property; and WHEREAS, a purchase price of $69,500 has been determined and the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Christian Stromstad have signed a purchase agreement. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. That the city staff is authorized to take actions necessary to purchase property located at 7300 First Avenue South for $69,500; 2. That sanitary sewer funds be made available to purchase said property; 3. That after the purchase of this property, minimum flood proofing improvements be made to the property, including but not limited to glass block windows and a gate on the sanitary sewer; and 4. That when the flood proofing improvements have been completed, the city will sell the property to willing buyer, who will be required to sign a release admitting cognizance of the flooding potential of this property. Adopted by the Richfield City Council this 13th day of September, 1982. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 284 Agenda September 13, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Resolution Authorizing Application and Execution of Agreements for State Natural Resource Fund Grant Related to Richfield Lake Final application for Fiscal Year 1983 State Natural Resource Fund grants are due October 1, 1982. One of the requirements of the application is a resolution by the city council, authorizing filing of the application and execution of grant project agreements to develop open space under provisions of the State Natural Resource Fund. The current timetable calls for the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) to review all applications in December, 1982, review all applications by the Legislative Advisory Committee (LAC) in December, 1982, and processing of agreements in about January, 1983, for those applications receiving final approval. The City of Richfield is currently programmed for $105,000 in state assistance to develop improvements at Richfield Lake, to consist primarily of a multi - purpose trail, landscaping and design, and engineering. The matching share to the grant is programmed from local resources, in the 1983 Capital Improve- ment Budget. It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution. Respectfully submitted, 42a '� &S, , Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /skh cc: Community Services Director Administrative Services Director Finance Coordinator • r. u r-I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FILING OF APPLICATION AND EXECUTION OF GRANT PROTECT AGREEMENTS TO DEVELOP OPEN SPACE UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE STATE NATURAL RESOURCE FUND WHEREAS, the State Natural Resources Fund provides for the making of grants to assist local public bodies in the acquisition and development of outdoor recreation projects, and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield desires to develop certain land known as Richfield Lake, which land is to be held and used for permanent open space, and WHEREAS, in order for the proposed project to be eligible for approval, there must be proof that it is part of a comprehensive outdoor recreation plan and five -year action program (capital improvement), and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has an original or revised five -year action program which includes Richfield Lake, and WHEREAS, it is estimated that the cost of developing said interest shall be $300,000 with $210,000 of the total cost eligible for grant purposes, and WHEREAS, upon project approval the City of Richfield must enter into formal grant project agreements with the state for the specific purpose of developing Richfield Lake, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. That an application be made to the State of Minnesota, Department of Energy, Planning and Development, Office of Local Government, for a grant from the Natural Resources Fund (Minnesota Laws, 1979, Chapter 333x, Section 31, Subdivision 3, paragraphs (c) and (d), for an amount presently estimated to be $105,000 and the City of Richfield will pay the balance of the cost from other funds available to it. 2. That the city manager and mayor are hereby directed to execute and file: a) such application; b) the five -year action program with the State of Minnesota, Department of Energy, Plan- ning and Development, Office of Local Government, and to provide additional information and furnish such documents as may be required by said Department; and c) to act as the authorized correspondents of the City of Richfield 3. That the proposed development is in accordance with plans for the allocation of land for open space uses, and that should said grant be made, the applicant will develop and retain said land for use(s) designated in said application and approved by the Office of Local Government and the National Park Service (NPS) . -2- 4. That the United States of American and the State of Minnesota be, and they hereby are, assured of full compliance by the City of Richfield with the regulations of the Department of the Interior, effectuating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 5. That the City of Richfield enter into an agreement with the state of Minneosta, Department of Energy, Planning and Development, Office of Local Government to provide such grants as are specified in numbered ,paragraph 1, above, for the year(s) 1983-1985. 6. That the mayor and /or the city manager are authorized and directed to execute such agreement and any supplemental agreements thereof. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 13th day of September, 1982. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk CERTIFICATION 1 hereby certify that the attached resolution is a true and correct copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by the City of Richfield at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 13th day of September, 1982, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 285 Agenda September 13, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Purchase in Excess of $2,500 The city charter stipulates that the city council must. approve the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction in excess of $2,500. There is one such item on the council agenda of September 13, 1982. Play Apparatus Rich Acres Park is a minor park improvement project fund- ed by special revenue monies. One of the items included in the park improvement is play apparatus. Informal specifications were prepared by the city staff serving as the consultant /de- signer for the project. Two quotations were received in re- sponse to the specifications. Hilan Creative Playstructures Limited quoted a base price of $8,582, plus freight costs of $1,235, for a total price of $9,817. Earl F. Andersen and Associates, Inc. quoted $8,779, with no cost for freight costs, for play structures manufactured by Landscape Structures, Inc. Assembly and installation of the equipment would be completed by city crews. It is reconmiended that the city council approve the pur- chase of play features including, but not limited to, platforms, bridges, ladders, slide and swing from Earl F. Anderson and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $8,779.00. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Alanager cc: Community Services Director Finance Coordinator KN /eja .� rs CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 286 Agenda September 13, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Assessment Rolls for Diseased Tree, Nuisance Abatement and Weed Destruction There are several resolutions -on the September 13, 1982 city council agenda certifying special-assessments to Hennepin County. These resolutions provide for the following certifica- tion: 1. Resolution certifying special assessments for weed destruction. This is a one -year assessment at 8% penalty. 2. Resolution levying special assessments for nuisance abatement. This is a one -year assessment at no interest or penalty. 3. Resolution levying special assessments for abatement of diseased -tree. This is the assessment roll for diseased tree removal on private property which has been performed by the city at the request of the property owner. The assessment is certified at the city's actual cost of the tree removal. This abate- ment is spread over three years at the rate of 8% per annum. It is recommended that the city council adopt the resolutions certifying these special assessments. Respectfully submitted, �CAI� _11 Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Finance Coordinator KN /eja RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR ABATEMENT OF DISEASED TREES WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 4.11 establishes rules and regulations with reference to the abatement of diseased trees on private property in the City of Richfield by tree removal, and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 429.101 provides that all unpaid or special charges for such tree removal may be certified to the County Auditor with the taxes against such property, and shall be collected with other taxes on such property, and WHEREAS, an assessment roll has-been prepared specifying the amounts which shall be certified against each particular property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. That the following described properties are hereby specially assessed in the following amounts for expenses incurred by the City in connection with abatement or removal of diseased trees pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.101: PROPERTY ID ADDITION "CODE NO ADDRESS AMOUNT 26- 028 -24 -31 -0036 46750 6638 10th Ave. So. $ 73.90 27- 028 -24 -43 -0073 46290 6921 Nicollet Ave. 472.87 29- 028 -24 -44 -0097 46793 6936 Sheridan Ave. 473.31 32- 028 -24 -14 -0017 45565 7227 Queen Ave. 129.13 27- 028 -24 -13 -0070 46830 6509 First Ave. 890.35 29- 028 -24 -13 -0063 46250 6401 Washburn Ave. 205.55 28- 028 -24 -33 -0154 46950 6901 Oliver Ave. 205.55 34- 028 -24 -42 -0049 45890 7400 First Ave. 197.66 28- 028- 24 -42- 0033` 45085 6612 Girard Ave. 295.21 28- 028 -24 -13 -0066 46451 6533 Emerson Ave. 215.32 26- 028 -24 -12 -0030 ; 45460 1401 E. 62nd St. 289.95 27- 028- 24 -42- 0038 44850 6738 Stevens Ave. 289.95 33- 028 -24 -22 -0088 45414 7144 Morgan Ave. 153.57 25- 028 -24 -24 -0108 45880 6434 23rd Ave. 315.00 26- 028 -24 -13 -0095 45940 6500 Bloomington Ave. 435.76 33- 028 -24 -14 -0039 45606 7300 Bryant Ave. 102.38 25- 028 -24 -24 -0100 45880 6417 Standish Ave. 145.71 32- 028 -24 -442 -0096 45991 7501 Xerxes Ave. 225.80 25- 028 -24 -24 -0058 45880 6401 21st Ave. 290.26 35- 028 -24 -42 -0069 46565 7433 15th Ave. 126.57 34- 028 -24 -11 -0033 45575 7021 Clinton Ave. 344.26 27- 028- 24 -22- 0022 44870 6310 Harriet Ave. 243.00 34- 028 -24 -24 -0050 45920 209 W 72nd St. 194.06 34- 028 -24 -42 -0110 45890 7515 Stevens Ave. 237.45 26- 028 -24 -33 -0111 46020 6833 Portland Ave. 287.97 28- 028 -24 -34 -0108 46950 6844 Irving Ave. 352.92 PROPERTY ID ADDITION CODE NO. ADDRESS AMOUNT 27- 028 -24 -42 -0001 34- 028 -24 -12 -0027 32- 028 -24 -13 -0086 34- 028 -24 -11 -0075 27- 028 -24 -21 -0068 27- 028 -24 -21 -0067 28- 028 -24 -24 -0046 34- 028 -24- 410093 28- 028 -24 -33 -0032 44827 44834 45258 46390 45910 45910 45356 45662 46792 6700 Stevens Ave. $ 317.62 7005 Nicollet Ave. 1,376.38 2917 W 74th St. 751.20 7028 Portland Ave. 262.16 6309 Blaisdell Ave. 640.30 "6319 Blaisdell Ave. 746.16 6424 James Ave. 927.66 7526 Portland Ave. 650.38 6827 Oliver Ave. 1.033.54 Total $13,898.86 2. That the above listed assessments be spread over a period of three years at the rate of 8% per annum. 3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 13th day of September, 1982. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh.City Clerk John Hamilton Mayor RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR WEED DESTRUCTION BE IT RESOLVED bd the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the following described properties are hereby specially assessed in the following amounts for expenses incurred by the City in connection with abatement for weed destruction pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, 1969, Chapter 715, Sec. 17.271. to wit: PROPERTY ID DIVISION NO. 34- 028- 24 -33- 0011 44834 35- 028- 24 -43- 0008 44835 27- 028 -24 -43 -0112 46905 33- 028 -24 -32 -0042 44833 35- 028 -24 -43 -0008 44835 ADDRESS AMOUNT 400 W 78th St. $ 50.00 1200 E 78th St. 45.00 11 E 68th St. 25.00 7515 Penn Ave. 10.00 1200 E 78th St. 25.00 Total S155.00 2. That the above listed assessments be spread over a period of one year at the rate of 8% interest per annum. 3. That the City Cleric is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 13th day of September, 1982. John Hamilton ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Cleric Mayor RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The following described properties are hereby specially assessed in the following amounts for expenses incurred by the city in connection with abatement of a nuisance health hazard pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 145.23, to wit: PROPERTY ID DIVISION NO. ADDRESS AMOUNT 27- 028 -24 -43 -0112 46905 11 E 68th St. $32.50 2. The above special assessment is to be spread over one year at no interest. 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 13th day of September, 1982. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia Clerk K. Bergh City CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 287 Agenda September 13, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Resolution Supporting Constitutional Amendment Regarding Highway Bonding There is an item on the September 13, 1982 city council agenda providing for council approval supporting a proposed con- stitutional amendment regarding highway bonding. The highway bonding constitutional amendment will appear on the November 2, 1982 general election ballot. The issue on the ballot is whether or not the constitutional limitations on interest rates and dollar a,iounts for highway bonding should be increased. This amendment was before the voters in 1980, and received a substantial majority vote from those voting on the issue. However, a constitutional amendment requires a majority vote of all persons in order to pass, meaning that those�7oting on the issue are counted as a "no" vote. r Attached to this council letter ris a resolution-support- ing the constitutional amendment to remove,restrictions on the interest rates and the amount of trunk highway bonds. It is recommended that the city council adopt this resolution, and direct the staff to gain publicity and support for this council action through the local news media, in an effort to gain posi- tive support from Richfield citizens for this important issue. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KNfeja 3 KV :.471-1 %,j Ihi jr ......... ........ fv RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION-SUPPORTING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 2, AN AMENDMENT TO THE MINNESOTA CONSTITUTION RELATING TO HIGHWAY BONDING WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield has reviewed the facts concerning the need for a Minnesota Constitutional Amendment, removing highway bonding restrictions in the Minnesota Constitution, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that a 5% interest rate and $150 million maximum borrowing amount are obsolete in current economic times, and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the urgent need to provide flexibility to the state legislature and administration to be able to adequately fund necessary trunk highway and bridge repairs and replacements, and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that additional capability to support good highways will also aid in improving the economic vitality of Minnesota and the City of Richfield by providing more jobs and transportation facilities for the movement of goods and materials in the state. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the City Council does hereby support Constitutional Amendment.No. 2, an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution to remove- restrictions on the.in.terest rates for highway bonds, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield urges all residents of the City voting at the November 2, 1982 election, to cast a "Yes" vote for Constitutional Amendment No. 2. Passed this 13th day of September, 1982. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk