06-27-1972CITY OF RICHFIELD
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
JUNE 27, 1972
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 10, 1972
Regular Business and/or Public Hearing Items:
Item #1, Case 72-V-4 Vern Veit, 6634-6644 Penn Ave. Request for variance from
the off-street parking
guidelines of the City
for commercial buildings.
Item #2 Consideration of a request to
rezone several parcels of land
within the area of the City
described by the Comprehensive
Plan as the Central Business
District.
Item #3 Consideration of proposal
to purchase several parcels of
land within the New Fordtown
area offered for sale to the City
by the Metropolitan Airports
Commission.
Study Items:
Item #4 Report: Regulatory revisions to the Richfield Sign
and Billboard Ordinance.
Correspondence Items:
None
Communications Items:
1►om
ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 p.m.
DATE February 23, 1972
June 27, 1972
CITY OF RICHFIELD
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Item #1
Case: 72-V-4
Action Requested: Variance from the off-street parking guidelines established
for commercial buildings
Originating Department: Planning Department
Exhibits: Planning Commission Minutes of February 23, 1972 as attached, and
concept plans which will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting of
June 27, 1972.
Mr. Vern Veit requests approval of a variance from the off-street parking guidelines
established for commercial buildings within the city. The purpose of the variance
is to allow Mr. Veit to construct a two story commercial building which will be
occupied by a mixture of office and specialty shop businesses.
The property for which this commercial building is proposed, is currently occupied
by a grocery store and retail commercial building. The retail commercial building
would be -removed and the grocery store reconstructed and integrated into the
proposed building.
Mr. Veit appeared informally before the Planning Commission to discuss this concept
and gain the encouragement of the Commission to proceed to develop plans for the
proposed use. The Commission encouraged Mr. Veit to proceed with.the plans for
this project even though it was aware that the project would require a variance
from the off-street parking guidelines of the city. A copy of the minutes of the
Planning Commission as it relates to comments and advice given to Mr. Veit at the
February 23, 1972 meeting are attached hereto.
The project property is located within the C-2 zoning district. The total square
footage (grosp) of the building will be 14,968. Of this footage, 1964 square feet
will be used for storage (warehousing) and 13,004 square feet for the commercial
retailing and office space previously described.
The City off-street parking guidelines require that for every 200 square feet of retail
building, one (1) off-street parking space must be provided. Further, these guidelines
require that for every 1,000 square feet of storage area (warehousing) within a
building, one (1) off-street parking space shall be required. Applying these
guidelines to the proposed use, the applicant needs 67 off-street parking spaces
to comply with city requirements. The applicant is proposing to provide 50 spaces
for parking, of which 31 will be located within a parking ramp facility and 19
will be on site. The net effect is that the applicant's project will be deficient
17 off-street parking spaces. This explains the necessity of the variance.
Planning Commission Agenda
Continued
Item #1
Continued
-2- DATE February 23, 1972
June 27, 1972
The staff has reviewed this project and feels that the variance can be justified
on these grounds:
1. The property was subdivided several years before the current off-street parking
requirements became effective. To require the applicant to comply with these
requirements would mean that he would have to purchase additional property to the
west or north of this site. This property is virtually unavailable to him.
Therefore, to deny the variance would be to deny the applicant use of his property.
2. The applicant has suffered from flooding during times of heavy runoff from rain
showers. This run off has existed in spite of the fact that storm sewer service
exists in the area. An engineering error in the construction of the portion of the
storm sewer system servicing this property has significantly contributed to this
flooding problem. The project will construct a wall system as a part of a parking ramp
facility designed to service customers and employees of the building. This wall
system will handle the flooding problem. If the wall system did not have to be con-
structed, additional parking space could be provided for the project.
3. The applicant has agreed to limit businesses occupying the building to types
which will generate low traffic volumes. This will reduce the use of off-street
parking space provided for the project.
4. If the project is successful, it will implement proposals of the comprehensive
plan and provide additional tax revenue for the city.
For these reasons, the Planning Director feels that the variance can be justified
and encourages the Commission to recommend approval of same.
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance request, findings as
required by Section 3.40, Subdivision 6, paragraphs 1-3 of the city code must be
affirmatively satisfied. These findings read as follows:
"Subdivision 6. Conditions Upon Grant of Adjustment or Variance. Before granting
an application for an adjustment or variance, the council must find:
(1) That there special circumstances or conditions affecting the particular land,
building, or use referred to in the application, not common to other properties in
this or similar districts.
(2) That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights.
(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 of the
property of the applicant and will not materially be detrimental to the public welfare
of injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. At the hearing, the
applicant shall present a statement and evidence in such form as the city may require
to show these facts."
`v
Planning Commission Minutes
Continued
-5- February 23, 1972
Lem #1, Case 72-SP-1,
Special Use Permit
for Restaurant.
(Continued)
. Correspondence
Mr. Vern Veit
Motion carried 5-1 with Wozniczka opposed.
M/Gilhousen, S/Helmberger to change the order of
items on the agenda to allow Mr. Vern Veit to present
his correspondence item to the Planning Commission
Motion carried 6-0.
Item: Robert Worthington explained that Mr. Veit approached
him sometime ago on the feasibility of developing a
retail store on a piece of land which would require
the removal of an existing building. This site
was very limited in terms of space for the size of
the building being proposed and therefore, would have
little room for off-street parking required by the city.
Mr. Veit had developed a plan for a ramp which would
direct cars to indoor parking spaces. However, even
with this indoor parking, it would not be possible to
meet the City's requirements for the number of off-street
parking spaces necessary for a project of this size
and scope.
In order to develop this property, the developer would
need a variance from the off-street parking requirements
of the city. Mr. Worthington explained that the
Planning Commission's policy in the past had been to
grant the variance if it could be demonstrated that it
was justified.
Mr. Veit showed the Planning Commission plans for
the proposed store. Mr. Veit discussed these plans
with the Commission. Mr. Worthington reminded the
Commission that what Mr. Veit wanted was to know
if it would be feasible for him to go ahead and file
an application for a variance or if it would be
doubtful that the Council would grant the variance.
Roy Peterson felt it would be a good idea and it would
up -grade the site.
Mr. Worthington told the Commission that they should
specify what types of businesses they feel should
occupy the building being developed for this site, as
well as whether or not they feel the City Planning
Commission would grant the variance. He said that the
burden would be upon the applicant to investigate what
types of uses would have characteristics producing low
peak hour traffic volumns while also providing high
value products or services that would benefit the city.
Examples would be photographic supply shops, jewelry
gift shops and other similar types of specialty shops.
Planning Commission 14inutes
Continued
-6- February 23, 19W2
.correspondence Item Mr. Worthington pointed out to the Commission that some
(Continued) people currently park their cars on the street, and
if there should be an overflow of cars, consideration should
be given to allowing this practice to continue and therefore
give the developer some credit for off-street parking
located in the street in front of this proposed building.
This would only be considered if after further study,
Mr. Veit found that he still required a variance from
the off-street parking requirements in order to construct
this building.
Mr. Wozniczka felt Mr. Veit should be encouraged to
try to increase the number of parking spaces if at all
possible. Mr. Veit stated that he could, instead of
the proposed ramp, have access off of the alley and
then create more spaces, but there were some problems
with storm and sewer drainage in the alley.
Mr. Edberg and the Planning Commission encouraged
this developer to proceed with his development which
would be an improvement_ for this area and help up -grade
it in the judgement of the Commission.
Item #2, Resolution Mr. Worthington reminded the Commission that they had
to Edina on Yorktown instructed Staff to bring to the attention of the developer
roject. some of the concerns and potential problems that the
Planning Commission felt might occur if the Yorktown
Project is approved. He stated that he had developed
a resolution to the Edina Council on this subject and
read this to the Commission.
There was some discussion on the proposed resolution
by the Commission, with the members of the Commission in
agreement with it.
Lawrence Wozniczka felt that the Richfield Staff and
Edina Staff should be encouraged, through the resolution,
to discuss the proposal of having Adams Hill ponding area
being used as a drainage holding pond. Mr. Worthington
stated that this specific proposal was contained
in the Southeast Area Edina Plan. He felt that the
Yorktown Plans had superceeded the proposals of the
Southeast Edina Plan for this area and therefore, probably
would not use Adams Hill as a drainage pond.for the project.
Mr. Wozniczka suggested that the Commission amend the
resolution to read in Number 4: "Work with the
City of Richfield to coordinate the planning and
development of the drainage, sewage, and recreational
facilities. . ." This suggestion was never moved or
seconded as a formal recommendation for amending the
resolution by the Commission.
DATE June 27, 1972
CITY OF RICHFIELD
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Item #2
Case: None
Action Requested: Rezoning and/or amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Originating Department: City Council
Exhibits: Petition text and zoning map of the city. Larger zoning half section maps
will be presented at the meeting of June 27, 1972 to the Commission.
On April 24, 1972, the City Council referred a petition from several property owners
within an area generally bounded by First Avenue, 68th Street, Grand Avenue, and
67th Street to rezone certain property located within this area from multiple family
residential to single family residential. In addition, the petitioners requested that
"hearings on this rezoning be established as early as possible and that all future
zoning and comprehensive plans properly reflect the nature of this area." A copy
of the text of this petition is attached hereto for the consideration of the
Commission.
The petition would have been placed on the Planning Commission agenda at an earlier
date but for some confusion as to how the request should be processed by the City.
The intent of the petition is to have all property not currently zoned single family
residential in the area between 67z to 68th Street, and between Nicollet and Pleasant
Avenue to be rezoned to this residential classification. As such, the petition
raises several issues related to the undesirable nature of the current comprehensive
plan proposal as applicable to the area for which rezoning is requested.
The Planning Commission's adopted plan recommends that the area between 67th and 68th
Street, and between lst Avenue and Graham Avenue as it meets with West 66th Street
on the North/west to be utilmately redeveloped as commercial uses. To fully comply
with the recommendations proposed within the petitions request, means that an amendment
to the existing plan must be performed.
It was originally proposed by the staff, during a brief period of correspondence with
the leadership of the petitioners, that this rezoning request and its proposal
to amend the comprehensive plan be taken under advisement of the City Council, who
is currently considering recommendations of the plan. If the Council -felt that the
petition contained enough merit to warrant the changes desired, it could do so and
thereby officially sanction and approve those actions encouraged by the petitioners.
The petitioners, however, felt that the Council had referred the matter to the Commission
for comment and advice and therefore the council's will should be complied with.
There are three possible courses of action available to the Commission. Staff shall
briefly describe each of these as follows:
Planning Commission Agenda -2- DATE June 27, 1972
Continued
Item #2
Continued
1. Uphold the recommendations of the comprehensive plan by finding that the
proposed changes recommended within the petition are not meritorious enough to
warrant amendment of the current recommendations of the comprehensive plan. It should
be noted that the current zoning of .this property is not consistent with
recommendations of the comprehensive plan and therefore, do nothing to carry out these
recommendations.
2. Recommend that an amendment to the comprehensive plan should be considered
and set the date for which a formal hearing could be conducted on this request. It
should be noted that the Commission's consideration of this item at this time .
should not be interpreted as satisfying the requirements of a public hearing on
this request. Proper notification through adequate advance publication on such a hearing
is required. If a public hearing is decided to be the appropriate course of action
it should be set for the next regular meeting of the Commission scheduled in July.
3. Continue any discussion on this item until after the City Council has made its
intent known as to what plans it feels are appropriate for the area under consideration.
It is expected that the Council will be formulating its final recommendations on the
proposed comprehensive plan within the next four weeks. The final determination may
well reflect the desires of the petitioners as presented within the text of their
request. If this is the case, then no additional hearings or debate on the issues
raised within their petition is required. If the contrary is so, then the Commission
can proceed with a hearing on the portion of the petition concerned with amen&ng
the comprehensive plan to reflect the land use and transportation pattern desired by
the petitioners.
The staff 3s in need of guidance from the Commission „as to the course of action it
feels the City should be advised to take in this matter. It is assumed that several
of the petitioners and their representatives will be present to provide their advice as
to the most appropriate course of action to take on this subject.
674.4 Wentworth Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 552+23
June 9, 1972
Tiir> Robert A. Worthington
Planning Director
City of Richfield
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Dear Bob:
u J U N! 2 i:372
Rich l�,, t-la llifflg beet.
Thank you for your letter of May 25 explaining -why rezoning of the area
bounded by 672 and 68 Streets, Nicollet and. Pleasant Avenues, was not
placed on the Planning Commission agenda. Your letter helped clarify
some questions remaining in my mind after my telephone inquiry on May 22.
Your letter defines two methods of requesting rezoning which can be
summarized as:
Method Aa By Petition (normally developer initiated)
Method Ba By Petition for City Council initiation on its
own authority.
There is a difference in understanding between the City Staff and our
intention in submitting the rezoning request to the Council on April 2/,
1972. We intended this petition to ask the Council to act on their own
authority to initiate rezoning (Method B). The City Staff assumes that
we are initiating the rezoning (Method A) and therefore the necessary
filing fee of $100.00 and .official petition forms must be complied with.
We acknowledge your stated opinion that the Council initiated rezoning
action (Method B) is most appropriate in this case. The suggestion that
this course of action not be pursued "until after the City Council has
completed its deliberations on the Planning Commissions proposed compre—
hensive plan' is questioned. It is our belief that we have already peti—
tioned the City Council to initiate rezoning on its o?rn authority on
April 24. The Council acted to have the Planning Commission review the
request.
Please advise me of all courses of action that exist to have the
Council's will brought before the Planning Commission.
Very truly yours,
yLnr,vv/t�
L. R. Woznaz ca
LRI,Tw bah
cc: Mayor & Council Members, City of Richfield
Petition Solicitors
May 23, 1972
Mr. Lawrence 1,loz iiezka
6744 „"?=it`:iorth Avenue
?iciziiLld, ZT-N 554-23
Dear Larry
you havv re;;uested t''at I provide iliformat 0, o-i; the Min procedures
esta-fished by the city for rezoningapplications. parr est
�p Your r�,�L4Jt
for�i�tfor-aation or, t: is slI:)ject was rail L'd within the contf.xt'. Of
the recent group rezoninc- Petition presented to the City Council by
n`igilcors Iaithia the so --culled Centra? Dtsilless District of the city.
Apparently, this p titian .:as Sl2D::'-2.ttee wit hcol' full kuowled+-e
O t'c filing prt::cedur• S i t'ae, city and, therefore, is inco'_riplate.
It '-fill be-aecz-s-sary for Lae representative's Of t4a afor?Mentioued
group 1:0 alllend a-.d restructure the information contained within their
petitions to more fully co__p1,T w-.t i procedures 2-- ._3hlisLied by the
City for rt'^Otllilo requests is of t.lis nature.
1"'tc:'ro are t':i0 ..ays that: r,2 J:iinr- ar'� aV11=.--va'C 't? iCl':'i
J rlliieid. i.l -C_ first ' 3 wit 01. t i
�-le 1.t-CI: �-�p roac., requires
t"--t tie O P-crs Of 1-1 1 for ..:l1 c' ttie rezoninz is requested
securc the signatures of at least fifty ozpL (71) per cent of the land
owners located witiii ri t;1rec :lun.drad {3.i.}," square f e.t of iz: -je property
to be rezoned. These sli ;.inturos shall be .recor: aclk. On a petition form
'4111ch is supplied to C:- rCzCliing applicant by t, e c.i-Lv. Dili'..
Petition is .attached to a fora_al a plieaticn for-' w;:licil is officially
Tiled with tli:, city for proco,33ing. T"he application ;;tu-t he accompanied
a ` 1JO f ding f " - , , died
I , e� .y.11c:_I IS su:) -y t.. � c=':; ;er.. of property who
art' �. �_
.+.tiati. :t; tli:. ri�,�0'_l 1� r`qLii'_:3t...-,.iZI:S t:rOC<:.C".?rG' I2a.S i,i''cTl in
exista acte for a lon r�rio-` of ti '.� and �;• n ed with by
�� i.4 i\a is C:J �L:.:�_L CC?�l�ll
all persons raquesting a zV.0 r. change w°itllill the 1 ty f -Richfield.
0 o C. ' O
c -Od approlach to ac i,,:! n a chancy? iY � '`n� '1S to petition ttil�'
C_ cy Cc)U11C4i to initiate tha rLzoniro or, its c. ;lyauthority. This
approach has i;een usod v.l:y rarely -..hill 'tile city Of �.lC::"f'L`c'_ld eiarii?g
the past several years. I O-, ever, it is c_ii apY-G<aca ili':zl the City
Council currently laas uz-,cicr :viseme-t for prot,ertyJ located two lots
::forth of 77t1 '- treet. lii'. it 1 µ
tcullc is col Si tlis type ca; action
at t lt-, request of nei i—,bors livi2:,-r ire the arewiio are concerned
about t'iic current raultipie fa%2ily d-eiling rORiilG C12ssilication
a,^si.c.-ned to several parcels of land iocated along 77t l Street.
1io ever, it is ray u.lders; a_ �'_ng that the Council „ill not for ally
take— finalaction of., the request until they have given filial deliberation
to all ZI:ICIidzients Or ch--nges to the propos :d co,.-,pr/eile sine plan Of the
In My opinion, the approach which would have the
:ir. Lawrence Wozniczka
>ay 23, 1972
°age 2
greatest application to your situation would be rile Council initiated
rezonilag method. This approach .could cost your group nothing and would
also have an added bene-iit of being less time-'consuiaiag wad less
c:li:ip-Licat.`-:d to achieve. Siowever, l :ignt I suggest that this approc`!ch
not be pursued by your group until tiie City Council i as co::ipleted
its deliberations on tlae _'?.annia;, Gom iissit.n's proposed comprehensive
plan. I alp assuraing, that_ oace tlla deliberations have baa-n vorspleted
zilose modifications tilat ti`. ,could line t:o dcs—Lgia irLo this plan,
including proposals for cnanging current zoning classifications of
c`rtaiu property city, could be better rlanagad as a process
of adopting the plmi.
I an- confidenC that tine suggestion which I a:a giving will help you
successfully achieve tli-� o:jjectives uuderlyiu6 the concar-as of your
;roue wliiicia proiapted tiv I:. z"Ming petitions. uo; ve-, i-I you feel
the alter_1-=cl..ve apprcaca would be productive L+itil i:oga.rd to your
group'6 interests, tii':n you should proceed to properly iilt? a request
for rezoaing in accordance with thka p�:ocedurea p-.--viously outlined
within this letter.
If i can b.'_ of any a3s is to lc:= to yvu oi: cr.ay C, this
"--oup with rr: c rii to _ ,71 a_-2illn of tli?i iii: ou uadcrstaE-d tfte
i.iforyiation coatainad wiLiiia v 1iS letter
Sincerely,
e.obert A. vj'ortiaiUgrtoll
I'lanlainn Director
RAW : s dg
cc: _ r. James 1'i:encil
t::�
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of. the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Council Letter No. 101
Agen-la of April 24, 1972
Subject: Petitions from Mr. Lawrence R.Wozniczka and Others
Attached to this council letter are two petitions which have been submitted
by Mr. Lawrence Wozniczka. One petition relates to a rezoning and the other to
changes in the proposed central business district.
You will note that Mr. Wozniczka has requested that these be presentedat
the April 24, 1972 city council meeting and that Mr. James J. Trench will make
the presentation to the city council.
Respectfully submitted,
&P(o
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB/eja
cc: Planning Director
City Attorney
18 .:kpril 1972
lair . Wayne S . Burggraaff
City Yanager
` City of Richfield
'rd chf ie l., l-ii nne s o to
Dear Mr. Burggraaff:
.Attached are two petitions we would like to have considered by -the
City Council at their neat meeting. The first petition requests
rezoning of an area presently developed as single family residential
from wiltiple resi denced.. The second petition requests lixi changes
to the Central Business District on the Comprehensive Plan-.
Mr. James J. Trench will make the presentation to the Council.
Please advise.
Sincerelyy
: 70--.a7
L. R. Woz-Lai _7
MIT: cgc
attadmwnts
114:12'r'ea;i he J_-''��'=.'. 1,1e5 .-�'_"'O�i� D 'u0 O uZ' i• -i `I --i
� _ _ l-- _h G__ ee � be-L-t�;een . t co � e-� �:.�_d
Pleasant Avenlzes are desig-,--ted =-Itiple xesi.�enca, on the
Official Zoning 11ap, City cf :°ieh_ield, dated Ja.r_uary 19605
reviaed 1 January 1972., ana
vinexeas, this area is p2esently developed as s-Ingle family ,residential.
Sri th the exception of fo'-r lots repzresenting a total of
less than. 20'o of this area, ar
Th,ereas; this area is� a:ueL,ted on three sides by single f ly residential
- zoninand the forth side by educational na lopment and
.. � � .o l ev d v e �
�;.aerea -s, the eclucationa.l develo-pme t .D ovi des a p r —1 iKe a t-'t"osp ei e
compatible, -�n th single f annily residences as well as an ideal
buffer between single family residences and cow rcial develo-Q---
m.ent to the Nor—h., and
Whereas, the spot zoning of the area zoom 672 to 68th 'ne t� -en NicollUt
and Pleasant is believed to h ve prop Led some tmdesirable
inci-a'sion•of the Central Ru,^roves District into prim residential
properti< ,s in the Gomprehen live Plan- prepared by the P7 annmg
Com ission in 1971, and
Maerreas, many of the o"ners of singl�� f ly residences in the area pur-- ; ~
chased their homesteads assumi—ng them to be iu an area. zoned .
single family residential., ans.
TvTherea.s, the single family residences in are area zoned multiple residence
have a _reduced desirability and attendant effect- of market value,
and
4lnereas, changes to the e_xiotinj Zion ? no Iltaps as e being fo_ m a teri
it is hereby petitioned by property owners in and adjacent to the subject
area that tb�s area from 6i'j to 68th Sweets, bet,;;ean,icollet and Pleasant
Avenu---5 be rezone'. from mml.tiple residence to ainpl.e fam_jj ' re;_,�_tiea?t13"i with
proper exemptions granted to permit existing Mu7 ti na; -L ;;tructrxes and t�? -t
hearings on this rezoning be established as early as po:ssible and that all
f'iztt7xe zoning and comprehensive plans properly Tefllect the nwt-,Ire of this
area
r
T i iiC anG F t1cd �721L1. L-L �i e LO '.�.._� C� unC �i�, ^v L t� C C� L�
lJr-�' u �02 Lhe a;'ea. ?.: om o'r, uo ���•t �u' CA vs bo L re en i':1CC1y_i'� � �a Q �'�e= s n
i�i` it S be CLi%n�el. 101� jl iiio?e e5yu'_nCe to sL g ^-. fa-i3.ly reside
vl h e-_empti ons on- f for exii s V mj _____-w- c n T, ,s vrLI.C-v'. ? es and n a"LiEs
yin this r e zonin- be es uab H shed- as as possible- and that al � 'upure
70 L?i- aid Cow.; r ehen5=Ve p1.ans 'rel"l eCi, _E, w e i dvi t ia- a`r'; '! this
area
Y�onert v l�'r^'�ct .
r ;L6
� n
�fr ---
W '
fir .:
>.1 _
� i ;�•'
_ - -
f.
• 1
-iJ7 J
f
, ,'
-----------
�'JW L_J
Z y �� euCj - `= ----
_
N
--- ------
Additional signatures on file in the City Manager's office.
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE
90, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
r
W 62 nd ST
W 63 rd ST
W 64 th ST
W 65 th ST
W 66 th ST.
W. 67 th ST.
W. 68 th ST
W 69 th ST.
W. 70 th ST
W. 70 f ST
W. 71 ft ST
W. 71 4 ST.
W. 72 nd ST.
W 73 rd ST
W. 74 th ST.
W 75 th ST.
W. 76 th ST.
W. 77 th ST.
W. 78 th ST.
GENERAL COMMERCIAL LIMITED BUSINESS
w
a w Q w w w w w w w w a w
a
i
w mo w z
;oN
o i m ozJ_ w a rn a a -1-72
r a o
h,♦...
VM
P"A Zed
1 1
IIIIIIIIIIIII�iTT�� =1 ,r:: 1 11 1 1
lL /
IIII��IIIII ��I.1 11 � _" 1 11 1
I
I\
.IIIIIIIII II�� 1 •••
11
4 ■
�1111 , II 1 II 1 illllll 1111 1 i ..
1 1
•• �� /// i�/ - ,i .1♦z •i i 1♦♦ .1d i ff .:::i : Oi O J• • !i .♦ L•:. • \
> a
a
a
' '
z a
m a
a > a
a
a
a
z
~
a
c
z
o
a
� • r
N W O 0 m
W
> > s ¢
O a O
z
i
a
a
f
4
w o m a
w > �
w a a w a a x a a
a �
w o a z x ii J w
m a
a a 3 m
7 2e-6 SO P, L w
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
E. 631d ST
�1411 Si.
Daa�
� s5th sr.
E 66th ST.
— _ E 67th ST
-� E. 6811, ST
J LJ
E 691h ST
E. 70th ST
7M ST
E. 76d ST
OFFICIAL MAP
OF
E 73rd STCIlTY OF RICHFIEL.D
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Public Works Department
E 741h ST Engineering Division
CITY ENGINEER
E 75M 5TJANUARY, 1960
.
"49 I--N--�°°
SCMJ: Ih f
E T6ih ST
E. T7th ST nor—
..e r.r uuc •'K"nnn,.e .. cwm...�m'�
N(I/WAY 10056(79M Sr.)
'a
a
w w
a
a
a a
w i >a >
a 'a
o
ii