05-26-98 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1998
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY
11, 1998; AND (2) SPECIAL METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION PLANNING
AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING WITH CITY OF RICHFIELD RESIDENTS,
CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF MAY 13, 1998
PRESENTATION
• INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO PRINT
THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE RECORD.
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON
THE AGENDA
AGENDA APPROVAL
2. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
3. CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE
ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT
CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND
RECOMMENDED- ACTIONS--HAVE AL-SO-BEEN - APPROVED. - NO FURTHER
COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY
REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND
PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND
ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE
• RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR AMENDED OFF - STREET
PARKING PERMIT TO ALLOW TRUCK RENTAL AS ACCESSORY USE TO
MINNESOTA MINI STORAGE, 200 WEST 78TH STREET C.L. 120
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO ASTECH
CORPORATION ASPHALT SURFACE TECHNOLOGIES FOR 1998
SEALCOATING PROJECT IN AMOUNT OF $186,026.25 C.L. 121
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO ASTECH
CORPORATION ASPHALT SURFACE TECHNOLOGIES FOR ROUTING AND
SEALING CRACKS IN ASPHALT PAVEMENT IN AMOUNT OF $74,1.99.07 C.L.
122
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX B OF
RICHFIELD CITY CODE TO ADD SCHOOLS, CHURCHES AND DAY CARE
FACILITIES AS CONDITIONAL USES IN MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DISTRICTS AND ADD DAY CARE FACILITIES AS CONDITIONAL USES IN
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND APPROVE
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING - PUBLICATION OF SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 123
5. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCE
AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES FOR BALL FIELD REDEVELOPMENT PER STATE
GRANT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 124
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
6. CONSIDERATION OF REPORT ON STATUS OF INTERCHANGE WEST
REDEVELOPMENT STUDY AREA
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 125
7. CONSIDERATION OF EXCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AGREEMENT WITH
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC. FOR PENN AVENUE AND 66TH STREET
REDEVELOPMENT AND -TAX --INCREMENT -FINANCING - PROJECT AREA
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 126
8. CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL MEMBER APPOINTMENT TO SOUTH HENNEPIN
• REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 127
AIRPORT BUSINESS
9. DISCUSSION OF 1998 NATIONAL ORGANIZATION TO INSURE A SOUND -
CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT (N.O.I.S.E.) CONFERENCE
10. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
11. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
12. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
13. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
14. ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests
• must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director
at 861 -9702.
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 127
Agenda May 26, 1998
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an appointment of Council Member to serve on South Hennepin
Regional Planning Agency (SHeRPA) Advisory Committee.
Background:
In January 1998 the SHeRPA board voted to form a new SHeRPA Advisory Committee
composed of one citizen representative and one alternate from each of the four
communities (Edina, Eden Prairie, Bloomington, and Richfield). Both representatives
could attend meetings, however, each community would have one vote.
The committee responsibilities include:
1. Assisting in identifying SHeRPA's priorities.
2. Assisting in forming priority setting processes.
3. Serving as a sounding board for staff and provide continuity in SHeRPA's activities.
All recommendations would be presented to the SHeRPA board for approval.
Each member city is asked to select two representatives (one as alternate): The
representatives must be a member of an existing city commission or committee. While
there are no requirements, the goal would be include diversity with respect to ethnicity,
income, age, gender and disabilities.
At the Richfield Community Council (RCC) meeting on April 28, the council
recommended to have one member from the RCC and one member from the City
Council. The RCC will provide their selection on May 26.
The City Council is requested to appoint a Council Member to the new advisory
committee and indicate whether that appointment is as representative or alternate.
Recommended Motion:
Appoint a Council Member to the new South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency
Advisory Committee as a representative or an alternate.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The SHeRPA board has voted to form a new advisory committee.
2. Appointment of a Council Member to the advisory committee as either
representative or alternate is requested of all member cities.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not make an appointment to the SHeRPA Advisory Committee.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The SHeRPA board is requesting an appointment to the advisory committee by the end
of May 1998.
Respectfully submitted,
• James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
7
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 126
Agenda May 26, 1998
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an Exclusive Development Rights Agreement with Ryan Companies
US, Inc. for Penn Avenue and 66th Street Redevelopment and Tax Increment
Financing Project Area ( PASSS).
Background:
Ryan Companies US, Inc., located in downtown Minneapolis, has on a cursory basis
examined the PASSS area. They are of the opinion, that with current market
conditions, it has redevelopment potential. They are inclined to move to the next step,
which would be a full feasibility study. They are seeking an Exclusive Rights
Agreement for the area for a one year period to undertake the study. The attached
agreement is very similar to that approved by the HRA and City Council for CSM for the
Interchange West area. Also attached is a site analysis study schedule which lists
some 32 events set within the proposed 12 month period. A process for providing
information to the neighborhood during the feasibility study period will be formulated
and implemented as well.
The key features of the agreement are listed below:
• • The parties acknowledge that in order for redevelopment to occur, Ryan may at
some point need financial assistance from the HRA.
• This agreement does not constitute approval of such financial assistance nor does it
obligate the HRA to provide that assistance.
• The term of the agreement is for a period of one year.
• During the one year term of the agreement, the HRA will not provide financial
assistance to any third party in connection with any proposed redevelopment.
• The agreement may be terminated by either party with 30 days written notice.
• Ryan will provide the HRA with written reports at least quarterly regarding the
study's progress.
• The City will also be a party to the agreement.
Mr. Kent Carlson, Vice President at Ryan Companies, will be attending the City Council
meeting.
Recommended Motion:
Direct the City Manager and Mayor to execute the attached Exclusive Development
Rights Agreement with Ryan Companies US, Inc. for the undertaking of a
redevelopment feasibility study for the area indicated on Appendix A of the Agreement,
known as the Penn Avenue and 66th Street Redevelopment Project area.
n
U
Basis of Recommendation:
. 1. Exploring redevelopment of this area is appropriate as it was established as a
redevelopment and tax increment area by the HRA and City Council in 1989.
2. Ryan has demonstrated ability to initiate and complete large scale redevelopment
projects.
3. Ryan has requested that the City be a party to the agreement as well.
4. The HRA approved the agreement on May 18, 1998.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Defer action until a further date.
2. Deny the request.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
If the City Council approves the agreement, Ryan will begin the study immediately.
Respectfull submitted,
iJames Prosser
Executive Director
JDP:cak
•
AGREEMENT
�-a
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of ,
1998, by and between the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal
corporation ( "City ") and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the
City of Richfield, Minnesota a Minnesota public body corporate and politic
( "HRA ") (City and HRA hereinafter collectively referred to as "First Parties ") and
Ryan Companies US, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter "Ryan ").
RECITALS
First: Ryan is interested in pursuing the redevelopment of that certain area
identified on Appendix A (hereinafter the "Redevelopment Area ");
Second: Ryan is proposing redevelopment within the Redevelopment Area
which may include office, restaurant, limited retail, office showroom and
residential uses (hereinafter the "Redevelopment ")'
Third: The First Parties wish to cooperate with Ryan's efforts with
Redevelopment and are willing to proceed as described in this Agreement;
Fourth: The parties acknowledge that Ryan will expend substantial time and
effort, and incur substantial expense in pursuing the Redevelopment;
Fifth: Ryan is willing to undertake the above described activities with the
reasonable assurance from the First Parties that they will support and cooperate
with Ryan in its Redevelopment efforts.
Sixth: The First Parties and Ryan have executed this Agreement to document
their understanding with respect to the proposed Redevelopment.
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual
obligation of the parties contained herein, each of them does hereby represent,
covenant and agree with the other as follows:
Statement of Intent.
It is the intention of the parties that Ryan will proceed with the
development activities necessary to permit Redevelopment in a manner,
and on terms and conditions, which are mutually acceptable to Ryan and
the First Parties. The parties acknowledge that in order for
Redevelopment to be constructed, Ryan may at some point need financial
and /or site assembly assistance from the First Parties. This Agreement
does not, however, constitute either approval of such financial or site
� -3
assembly assistance, nor does it obligate the First Parties to provide such
assistance.
2. Undertaking by Ryan.
Ryan intends to undertake and pursue certain activities with respect to the
Redevelopment generally as outlined in the attached site analysis study
schedule. Ryan's activities will include the following: site planning
feasibility, development of plans for the Redevelopment, application for
necessary government approvals, and such other activities as would be
customary and necessary to permit the Redevelopment.
3. First Parties' Undertaking and Agreement.
The First Parties agree to cooperate with Ryan in Ryan's undertakings,
and specifically agree that during the term of this Agreement the First
Parties will not (i) provide or enter into an agreement for provision of
financial assistance to any third party in connection with any proposed
development within the Redevelopment Area, or (ii) except as may be
necessary in connection with the provision of public improvements,
condemn or agree to proceed with the condemnation of any property
within the Redevelopment Area to assist or facilitate development within
such area by any third party.
• 4. Term.
The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of one (1) year, provided
that, either party may terminate this Agreement as to all or any portion of
the Redevelopment Area upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other,
in the event that: (a) the City determines, in good faith, that Ryan is not
diligently pursuing the Redevelopment with respect to the portions
terminated, or (b) Ryan determines, in good faith, that the Redevelopment
is not feasible with respect to the portions terminated. First Parties may
also terminate the Agreement for failure of Ryan to meet its obligations
under paragraphs 5D or 5E. Ryan will provide the First Parties with
written reports at least quarterly regarding the status of its activities
hereunder.
Any such notice shall be deemed delivered if either actually delivered, or if
faxed and mailed to the parties at the following addressees:
Ryan Companies US, Inc.
Attn: Kent Carlson
700 International Centre
900 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55402 -3387
Phone: (612) 336 -1200
Fax: (612) 337 -5552
2
0
� -y
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Attn: City Manager
Phone: (612) 861 -9760
Fax: (612) 8618974
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Attn: Executive Director
Phone: (612) 861 -9760
Fax: (612) 8618974
5. Miscellaneous.
A. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
parties relative to the proposed Redevelopment. Unless
specifically described herein, no obligation shall be inferred or
construed.
B. As expansion of the foregoing, Ryan understands that further and
separate action, for which no obligation is created hereunder, will
be required before the First Parties are obligated to take various
actions with respect to the Redevelopment. Those actions may
include, without limitation:
a) establishment of Project Area and Tax Increment District;
b) agreement to provide tax increment or other financial
assistance to the Redevelopment;
C) zoning and subdivision approvals;
d) acquisition of land within the Redevelopment Area by either
voluntary purchase or condemnation (or both); and
e) construction of public improvements to serve the
Redevelopment.
C. Ryan further understands that many of the actions which the First
Parties may be called upon to take require the reasonable
discretion and in some instances the legislative judgment of the
First Parties, such actions may be made only following established
procedures; and First Parties may not, by agreement, agree in
advance to any specific decision in such matters.
K3
D. Ryan hereby indemnifies, holds harmless and agrees to defend,
the First Parties, their officers agents and employees from any
claim or cause of action of whatever nature occasioned by or
arising out of this Agreement or the first Parties performance
thereunder.
E. Ryan agrees that it will pay all reasonable costs and expenses
incurred by the First Parties relating to the preparation of this
Agreement and all actions taken by the First Parties in furtherance
of their obligations hereunder. Such payment shall be made to
First Parties not later than 30 days following each request for
payment accompanied with detail necessary to support such
request.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement
effective the date and year first above written.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
0 B:
Y
Its:
Its:
RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By: _
Its:
By: _
Its:
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
A
• Its:
[H:CdAdmin: H RALTR:Att -Ryan]
4
O
tD
M
V
Ol
VII
A
W
N!
O
iOl
M
V
T
01
A
W
N
S
OI
fO
M
V
A
CT
A
W
N
�
3
04
l0
v
o
W
3
M
in
ry
m
ZIM
v
v
o
O
J
N
W
N
m
N
X
N
m
N
O'
D
n
o
>
v
N C
z
la'
N
m
m
O
m
2
FD
O
�
-
5
m
2
N
0
z
fD�
S
S
(O
w
m
'�
w
uCi
N
Vl
.............................................
6
.............................
{:^.^—
6 ° 6 ¢ 0 N N W W pp
d d ¢ ¢ C a 0 00. 6 0 00. 0 00. 6 d W
O6 a
Iq
f0
f00
l0
(0p
N
W
OWO
W
N
t00
0W
d
(00
Cob
03
W
tW0
.............................................
.................................................................
.............................
{:^.^—
Iq
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. its
Agenda May 26, 1998
Issue Statement:
Consider a report on the status of the Interchange West redevelopment study area.
Background:
In June 1997, the HRA and the City entered into a six month exclusive rights
agreement with CSM for the purpose of CSM undertaking a feasibility study regarding
the redevelopment of the area known as the Interchange West. The area is bounded
by Penn and Knox Avenues and by 76th and 78th Streets. In December 1997, CSM
was given an additional six months to continue the study.
CSM has prepared two draft redevelopment options. Option A involves redevelopment
of the existing commercial areas and the removal of ten homes along 77th Street.
Option B involves redevelopment of the entire area, including all the homes south of
76th Street. Copies of each are attached.
A major question when evaluating the possible redevelopment of this area has been
whether the entire residential area south of 76th Street should be included. Over the
past several months, a process, designed to answer that question, was undertaken.
That process has been driven largely by a liaison group from the neighborhood, with
the assistance of Nancy Welsh of the Mediation Center. Ms. Welsh has been acting as
the public process facilitator for this project since December 1997.
• Through a series of neighborhood informational meetings, homeowners have been:
• Kept informed about the status of the study and CSM's activities.
• Given detailed information about the levels of compensation they could expect from
CSM should a development occur.
• Presented with the opinions of two local real estate agents regarding the
implications of living near a large commercial development.
• Briefed on quality of life issues such as increased traffic and possible crime resulting
from hotels and restaurants. (The crime issue was presented, at the request of a
resident, by a Bloomington police officer who works the "strip" and is familiar with
the types of activities which sometimes accompany such uses.)
• Given the opportunity to ask questions of City staff, a relocation consultant and CSM
representative.
• Asked to participate in an initial survey, designed to measure their opinions about
redevelopment, and a follow -up survey of similar design, which was recently
completed.
The initial survey showed 50 percent favored a redevelopment that would include both
the commercial and the residential areas. Thirty -six percent favored a redevelopment
that would impact a minimal number of homes and separate the commercial area with a
buffer. Fourteen percent were either undecided or said do nothing at all.
A follow -up survey, following another informational meeting, showed that 70 percent
now favor a redevelopment that would include both the commercial and residential
areas, and 30 percent favored a redevelopment that would impact a minimal number of
• homes. Ten households did not return the survey. Of those ten, three had not returned
the initial survey either. Three of these homes would be impacted under either
. redevelopment option, and two are absentee owners. Please refer to the attached
memo dated May 7 from Nancy Welsh for more information on the survey results.
As has been pointed out to the area residents, the results of this survey will be one of
the factors considered by the HRA and the City Council when evaluating
redevelopment proposals. The survey results are not the only factor but they are one of
the more critical ones.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the presentation from members of the neighborhood liaison group and Nancy
Welsh.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. A detailed process, designed to measure opinion about redevelopment, was
established and undertaken by the home owners over the past few months.
2. The result of that process is a survey which indicates that 70 percent of the
respondents favor redevelopment of both the commercial and residential areas.
3. The exclusive rights agreement between CSM, the HRA and the City expires in
June.
4. Redevelopment of the entire area is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
5. The HRA on May 18 accepted the report from the neighborhood and directed CSM
to return to the HRA in June with a status report and a concept based on Option B.
• Alternative Recommendation:
Listen to a presentation from members of the liaison group and Nancy Welsh.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Members of the liaison group, along with Nancy Welsh, will be at the May 26 City
Council meeting to make a brief presentation about the process, survey, and survey
results. It is the desire of the liaison group that the City provide the developer with as
much direction as possible based on the information available at this time.
A representative of CSM will also be at the May 26 City Council meeting to answer
questions. If warranted, the HRA may be requested at the June HRA meeting to
authorize staff to negotiate a developer's agreement with CSM.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City nager
JDP:cak
is
W
m
poll
Ri!1
s
11
E R
MEMO
O F F I C E
To: Homeowners Living South of 76th Street
From: Nancy A. Welsh
Subject: Results of Follow -Up Questionnaire in Interchange West Area
Date: May 7, 1998
Thanks so much to all of you who completed the follow -up questionnaire in the Interchange
West area. In this memorandum, I will summarize the results and discuss next steps.
Results. I received a total of 57 questionnaires. Ten homeowners did not return their
questionnaires. Three of these homeowners live in homes that would be removed under Option
A. Two are homeowners who do not occupy these homes.
Members of the Liaison Group met with me to count the questionnaires. The results were:
Based on the preferences of those who responded to the survey, it now appears that 70% of the
homeowners who live south of 76th Street in the Interchange West area prefer Option B --
redevelopment of the commercial and residential areas.
At the informational meeting on April 16, some of you asked that I separate out the responses
received from homeowners whose homes would be removed under Option A. Two of the 17
homeowners who preferred Option A fit in this category. Five of the 40 homeowners who
preferred Option B fit in this category. Importantly, whether you include or exclude the
responses of these homeowners, 70% of those who responded to the survey preferred Option B
Next Steps. The Richfield HRA will meet on May 18 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at
City Hall. Two members of the Liaison Group and I will present the results of this questionnaire
40 and the earlier questionnaire and information about the process which has been used. Murray
Kornberg from CSM also will be present to answer any questions of the Richfield HRA. There
will be only limited opportunity for comments at this meeting, but you should feel free to attend.
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 124
Agenda May 26, 1998
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of transitory ordinance authorizing expenditures for
ball field redevelopment per the State grant.
Background:
The City has received a grant from the State for $2 million to develop and improve ball
fields at various parks to replace ball fields currently in use on Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC) property. The ball field improvement plan was developed by the
Ball Field Task Force and recommended for implementation by the Community
Services Commission. As the grant is only half of the estimated cost of the total plan,
implementation of the plan will be based on meeting the needs of as many user groups
as possible. A meeting of the ball field task force has been scheduled for Tuesday,
April 28, 1998 to discuss the appropriate schedule for improvements.
First reading was held on April 27, 1998 and the public hearing and second reading
were scheduled for May 26, 1998. Notice of the hearing was published in the official
City newspaper on May 13 and 20, 1998.
Recommended Motion:
Coduct the public hearing and approve second reading of the transitory ordinance
related to expenditures for ball field improvements per the State grant.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The MAC has informed the City of their need for the land currently used for ball
fields.
2. The State has granted $2 million to implement the ball field replacement plan as
recommended by the Ball Field Task Force and Community Services Commission.
3. First reading was held on April 27, 1998 and the public hearing and second reading
were scheduled for May 26, 1998.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not conduct the public hearing or continue the hearing to a date certain.
2. Do not approve second reading.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The public hearing and second reading are scheduled for May 26, 1998.
Respecifully submitted,
Jam . Prosser
City nager
JDP:cak
5 -I
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT PURSUANT TO RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER
SECTION 8.04
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Background; findings.
1.01. The City Council has approved Bill No. 1998 -5, which upon its effective date, will
amend the Richfield City Charter by adding a new Section 8.04. The proposed Section
8.04 would require that any capital improvement on City -owned property that has an
estimated cost exceeding $500,000 or expenditures for design or engineering costs
exceeding $75,000 must be approved by ordinance after a public hearing.
1.02. It is proposed that the City Council approve a capital improvement project on
City -owned property located at various parks as proposed in the ball field improvements
plan.
1.03. The capital improvement project consists of ball field improvements and
additions as indicated in the ball field improvements plan (the "Ball Field Project ").
1.04. The estimated construction cost of the capital improvement, excluding design
and engineering costs is $1,800,000. The estimated design and engineering costs are
$200,000.
1.05. A public hearing was held on May 11, 1998. Notice of the public hearing was
published on May 13, 1998 and May 20, 1998 in the City's official newspaper.
1.06. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interest of the City and its
inhabitants that the Ball Field Project be approved.
1.07. The City has received a grant from the State for $2,000,000 to develop and
improve ball fields at various parks to replace ball fields currently in use on Metropolitan
Airports Commission (MAC) property. The ball field improvement plan was developed
by the Ball Field Task Force and recommended for implementation by the Community
Services Commission. As the grant is only half of the estimated cost of the total plan,
implementation of the plan will be based on meeting the needs of as many user groups
as possible.
5,D,
Section 2. Approval: effective date.
2.01. The Ball Field Project is approved, and planning design and construction of the
Ball Field Project may proceed according to the procedures required by law.
2.02. The purpose of this ordinance is to comply with the requirements of Section 8.04
of the Richfield City Charter. This ordinance shall not be construed to require that the
City proceed with the Ball Field Project; nor does it vest any rights in the Project to any
individual or entity. The City Council reserves the right to abandon the Ball Field
Project or to modify elements of the Ball Field Project, if the Council deems
abandonment or modification to be in the public interest.
2.03. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City
Charter.
Adopted this 26th day of May, 1998.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 123
Agenda May 26, 1998
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of an amendment to Appendix B of the Richfield
City Code to add schools, churches and day care facilities as conditional uses in
multiple family residential zoning districts and to add day care facilities as conditional
uses in single family residential zoning districts.
Background:
On March 9, 1998, the City Council asked that the Planning Commission review the
Zoning Ordinance to determine whether or not a church was an appropriate permitted
or conditional use in the MR -2 (medium density multiple residence) zoning district.
The Zoning Ordinance does not list churches as either permitted or conditional uses in
any of the multiple family zoning districts. Prior to the revision of the Zoning Ordinance
in 1995, land uses in the City's zoning districts were cumulative. For example, multiple
family districts listed specific permitted and conditional uses, along with the language,
"and those uses permitted in the R district ". The Zoning Ordinance revision removed
this language, and the ordinance now specifically lists the permitted and conditional
uses in each district.
The Planning Commission determined that it would be appropriate to allow churches
and other institutional uses, such as schools and day care facilities, in both single and
multiple family districts as conditional uses. Because of the potential for institutional
uses to have a negative impact on residential neighborhoods, the Commission
recommends that the Zoning Ordinance should be amended and that certain conditions
should be placed on these uses. The Commission determined that, although the
church use proposed for 609 West 74th Street may not have an impact on the adjacent
neighborhood, future churches could have a negative impact, and the City should retain
the ability to review individual requests.
Schools and churches are currently allowed as conditional uses in the R (single family
residential) district. The Planning Commission recommends that day care facilities be
added as a conditional use in the R district because they are similar to schools and
provide a service to neighborhoods. They are currently allowable as accessory uses
but not as stand alone facilities in the R district. Schools, churches and day care
facilities would be added as conditional uses in the MR -1 (two family residence), MR -2
(medium density multiple), and MR -3 (high density multiple) zoning districts. None of
these uses would be allowed in the R -1 (low density single family residential) district.
The R -1 district is located primarily around Wood Lake, to the west of Milner's pond and
• to the west of Monroe Field. The minimum lot size and setback requirements in this
district are stricter than those in the R district because of the hilly topography and
q-1
proximity to wetlands. Most of the City's few large residential parcels are located in the
R -1 district. The R -1 areas contain larger homes and significant natural amenities.
Staff recommends that this valuable land be reserved for low density residential
development.
One condition recommended by the Planning Commission is that these institutional
uses be located on a collector or arterial street or provide an access such that
significant traffic is not generated on local residential streets. Additional conditions
would provide standards for the location of play areas, picking up and dropping off
children, and landscape buffering.
Institutional uses in the R and MR -1 districts would have to meet specific setback and
lot size requirements for institutional uses. Institutional uses in the MR -2 and MR -3
zoning districts would have to meet the same setback and lot size requirements as any
other use in these districts. An attachment lists the standards currently applied to
churches and schools as well as proposed standards for multiple family districts.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing and hold second reading of an amendment to subsection 521
of Appendix B of the Richfield City Code to add schools, churches and day care
facilities as conditional uses in multiple family residential zoning districts and to add day
care facilities as conditional uses in single family residential zoning districts, and
. approve a resolution authorizing publication of a summary of the amendment.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City Council requested that the Planning Commission consider the addition of
religious institutions to the MR -2 district.
2. Other communities permit churches and other institutional uses as permitted or
conditional uses in all multiple family districts.
3. The Planning Commission determined that it was appropriate to allow all
institutional uses in multiple family districts.
4. The Planning Commission recommends that institutional uses be conditional uses
in single and multiple family residential districts because of the potential impact on
adjacent residential uses.
5. The City Council held first reading of the amendment on April 27, 1998 and set a
public hearing and second reading for May 26, 1998.
6. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun- Cun-ent.
7. On April 14, 1998, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the
amendment.
4 -a
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Approve the amendment with modifications.
2. Deny the amendment.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
A public hearing and second reading are set for Tuesday, May 26, 1998 at 7 p.m. on
the Council Chambers, 6700 Portland Avenue. A two- thirds majority vote of the City
Council is required for ordinance amendments. A unanimous vote is required to
approve a resolution authorizing summary publication.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
0
•
4 -3
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO
SUBSECTION 521 OF APPENDIX B OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendment to Appendix
B of the Richfield City Code; and
WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the
expense of publication of the complete text is not justified.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication:
SUMMARY PUBLICATION
BILL NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION 521 OF APPENDIX B OF THE
RICHFIELD CITY CODE ALLOWING INSTITUTIONAL USES AS CONDITIONAL
USES IN THE R, MR -1, MR -2 AND MR -3 ZONING DISTRICTS
This summary of the amendment is published pursuant to section 3.12 of the
. Richfield City Charter.
•
The purpose of the ordinance is to allow day care facilities as conditional uses in
the R (single family residential) zoning district and to set appropriate standards. A
second purpose of the ordinance is to allow churches, day care facilities and schools as
conditional uses in the MR -1 (two family residence), MR -2 (medium density multiple),
and MR -3 (high density multiple) zoning districts and to set appropriate standards.
Copies of the amendment are available for public inspection in the Community
Development Department during normal business hours or upon request by calling 861-
9760.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of
May, 1998.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
q-q
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX B
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 521.07 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is amended as
follows:
521.07. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses
in the R District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section
546.05 of this code.
Subd. 2. Aeeessefy dDay care facilities serving more than 12 persons licensed by the
appropriate governmental authorities, or accessory group family day care facilities
licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 serving more than 14
persons, or as otherwise permitted by law, provided surer f eili es are leeatea in no
., the following conditions are met:
a) if the day care is not an accessory use (e.g. located in an existing school or
• church the use site shall abut a collector or arterial street or be located such
that significant traffic will not be generated on local_ residential streets;
b1parking lot setback and screening shall comply with the Richfield Landscape
Requirements, on file with the Office of Community Development;
b )designated pick -up and drop -off areas shall be located on the site; and
ed)outdoor play areas shall be set back at least 15 feet from any lot line which
abuts a residential parcel.
Section 2. Subsection 521.43 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is amended by
adding the following new subdivisions:
Subd. 6. Public or private elementary and high schools, and other similar learning
institutions, provided the following conditions are met:
a) the use site shall abut a collector or arterial street or be located such that
significant traffic will not be generated on local residential streets;
b) pick -up and drop -off areas shall be designed to enhance vehicular and
pedestrian safety•
q' 5
c) outdoor recreational facilities designed for group activities shall be set back at
ileast 40 feet from any lot line,
d) buffering shall be provided to mitigate noise and adverse visual impacts on
adjacent properties, and
e) lighted playing fields shall be permitted only upon demonstration that off -site
impacts can be substantially mitigated.
Subd. 7. Religious institutions and related convents or parsonages, provided the
following conditions are met:
a) the use site shall abut a collector or arterial street or be located such that
significant traffic will not be generated on local residential streets;
b) outdoor facilities designed for group activities shall be set back at least 40 feet
from any lot line; and
c) buffering shall be provided to mitigate noise and adverse visual impacts on
adjacent properties.
Subd. 8. Licensed day care facilities, provided the following conditions are met:
• a) the use site shall abut a collector or arterial street or be located such that
significant traffic will not be generated on local residential streets;
b) designated pick -up and drop -off areas shall be located on the site; and
c) outdoor play areas shall be set back at least 15 feet from any lot line which
abuts a residential parcel.
Section 3. Subsection 521.43, subdivisions 6, 7 and 8 of Appendix B to the Richfield
City Code are renumbered as follows:
Subd. -69. Accessory roof - mounted antennas which extend higher than ten feet above the
highest point of the roof.
Subd. -710. Major public utilities.
Subd. 811. Other uses similar to those conditionally permitted by this section, as
determined by the City puruant to Section 511.05 of this code.
Section 4. Subsection 521.45, subdivision 2 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is
• amended to read as follows:
� 0
� 9
� 0
y -(0
Subd. 2. Minimum lot area, width, and depth:
slow
F.
6,700 Sq. Ft.
50 Ft.
100 Ft.
10,000 Sq. Ft.
75 Ft.
100 Ft.
4,000 Sq. Ft.
60 Ft.
100 Ft.
Per Unit
40,000
150 Ft.
100 Ft.
(Amended, Bill no. 1996 -22)
Section 5. Subsection 521.47, subdivision 2 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is
amended to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Required building setback and maximum height:
(Amended, Bill No. 1996 -22)
Section 6. Subsection 521.65 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is amended by
adding the following new subdivisions:
Subd. 7. Public or private elementary and high schools, and other similar learning
institutions, provided the following conditions are met:
a) the use site shall abut a collector or arterial street or be located such that
significant traffic will not be generated on local residential streets;
b) nick -up and drop -off areas shall be designed to enhance vehicular and
pedestrian safety•
c) outdoor recreational facilities designed for group activities shall be set back at
least 40 feet from any lot line;
„m!-s'
211111 AaHmmm
(Amended, Bill No. 1996 -22)
Section 6. Subsection 521.65 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is amended by
adding the following new subdivisions:
Subd. 7. Public or private elementary and high schools, and other similar learning
institutions, provided the following conditions are met:
a) the use site shall abut a collector or arterial street or be located such that
significant traffic will not be generated on local residential streets;
b) nick -up and drop -off areas shall be designed to enhance vehicular and
pedestrian safety•
c) outdoor recreational facilities designed for group activities shall be set back at
least 40 feet from any lot line;
q-�
d) buffering shall be provided to mitigate noise and adverse visual impacts on
adjacent properties; and
e) lighted plMing fields shall be permitted only pon demonstration that off -site
impacts can be substantially mitigated.
Subd. 8. Religious institutions and related convents or parsonages, provided the
following conditions are met:
a) the use site shall abut a collector or arterial street or be located such that
significant traffic will not be generated on local residential streets;
b) outdoor facilities designed for group activities shall be set back at least 40 feet
from any lot line; and
c buffering shall be provided to mitigate noise and adverse visual impacts on
adjacent properties.
Subd. 9. Licensed day care facilities, provided the following conditions are met:
a) the use site shall abut a collector or arterial street or be located such that
significant traffic will not be generated on local residential streets;
b) designated pick -up and drop -off areas shall be located on the site; and
c outdoor play areas shall be set back at least 15 feet from any lot line which
abuts a residential parcel.
Section 7. Subsection 521.65, subdivisions 7, 8 and 9 of Appendix B to the Richfield
City Code are renumbered as follows:
Subd. -710. Accessory roof - mounted antennas which extend higher than ten feet above
the highest point of the roof.
Subd. 811. Major public utilities.
Subd. 312. Other uses similar to those conditionally permitted by this section, as
determined by the City puruant to Section 511.05 of this code.
Section 8. Section 521 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is amended by adding
the following new subsection:
521.72. Minimum lot size, setback and height requirements for non - residential uses.
Subdivision 1. Standards. The standards set out in this subsection apply to non - residential uses
in the MR -2 District.
Subd. 2. Minimum lot size: 15,000 square feet.
Subd. 3. Minimum lot width: 75 feet.
Subd. 4. Maximum building height: 35 feet.
Subd. 5. Maximum lot coverage (principal structure): 30 percent.
Subd. 6. Minimum setback requirements:
a) Front: 30 feet.
b) Side:
(i) interior: 20 feet
(ii) streetside: 30 feet
c) Rear: 25 feet.
Section 9. Subsection 521.85 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is amended by
adding subdivisions 6, 7 and 8:
Subd. 6. Public or private elementary and high schools, and other similar learning
institutions, provided the following conditions are met:
a) the use site shall abut a collector or arterial street or be located such that
significant traffic will not be izenerated on local residential streets;
b) nick -up and drop -off areas shall be designed to enhance vehicular and
pedestrian safety•
c) outdoor recreational facilities designed for group activities shall be set back at
least 40 feet from any lot line,
d buffering shall be provided to mitigate noise and adverse visual impacts on
adjacent properties, and
lighted playing fields shall be permitted only pon demonstration that off -site
impacts can be substantially gated.
Subd. 7. Religious institutions and related convents or parsonages, provided the
following conditions are met:
•
4-q
c:
vill not be generated on local residential sti
b) outdoor facilities designed for group activities shall be set back at least 40 feet
from any lot line, and
c) buffering shall be provided to mitigate noise and adverse visual impacts on
adjacent properties.
Subd. 8. Licensed day care facilities, provided the following conditions are met:
a) the use site shall abut a collector or arterial street or be located such that
significant traffic will not be generated on local residential streets,
b) designated pick -up and drop -off areas shall be located on the site; and
c outdoor play areas shall be set back at least 15 feet from any lot line which
abuts a residential parcel.
Section 10. Subsection 521.85, subdivisions 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Appendix B to the
Richfield City Code are renumbered as follows:
Subd. 69. Accessory roof - mounted antennas which extend higher than fifteen feet from
the antenna's or related structure's point of contact with the building to the highest point
of the antenna, provided that they conform to Section 425 of the City Code. (Amended,
Bill No. 1996 -21)
Subd. -710. CWTS antennas and related features which extend higher than 15 feet from
the antenna's or related structure's point of contact with the building to the highest point
of the antenna, provided that they conform to the requirements of Section 426 of the City
Code. (Added, Bill No. 1996 -21)
Subd. 811. CWTS towers and related features, provided that they conform to Section 426
of the City Code. (Added, Bill No. 1996 -21)
Subd. 112. Major public utilities.
Subd. 4013. Other uses similar to those conditionally permitted by this section, as
determined by the City pursuant to Section 511.05 of this code.
Section 11. Section 521 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is amended by adding
the following new subsection:
521.90. Minimum lot area, height and setback requirements for non - residential uses.
Subdivision 1. Standards. The standards set out in this subsection apply to non - residential uses
in the MR -3 District.
Subd. 2. Minimum lot size: 60,000 square feet.
Subd. 3. Minimum lot width: 150 feet.
Subd. 4. Maximum building height: 50 feet.
Subd. 5. Maximum lot coverage (principal structure): 30 percent.
Subd. 6. Minimum setback requirements:
a) Front: 40 feet.
b Side:
(i) interior - 30 feet.
(ii) streetside - 40 feet.
c) Rear: 35 feet.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of May,
1998.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
^w
115f5lYL5 Ifl7igWp iAiligili 7dIGP2IIi COiLC071 W7gi0W gt11111111
■��� � 5 lifi559i� ��iif!ii\ 1111150 %c gA7icai 4A111Wq �Sgiiiii :...uN i1 e!i�l
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA (7
Council Letter No. 122 l�
Agenda May 26, 1998
aIssue Statement:
Award of contract for routing and sealing cracks in asphalt pavement for 1998.
Background:
The crack routing and sealing process involves grinding out (or routing) the cracks and
filling them with a special bituminous crack sealing compound that prevents water from
penetrating to the gravel below. Since 1991, the cracks that have been sealed using
this process have remained effectively sealed. A map of the 1998 work area is
attached.
In 1995, Council approved an accelerated street maintenance program. This program
includes asphalt crack repair, asphalt milling and patching and sealcoating of all City
streets in five years.
On May 15, 1998 a bid opening was held for routing and sealing the 1999 sealcoat
area. A copy of the bid minutes is attached. The 1998 adopted Street Maintenance
budget contains $130,860 for the contract portion of routing and sealing cracks. The
contracts are based upon estimated quantities. Payments will be made on actual work
performed. Council would be authorizing contracts at the stated amounts, with the
stipulation that the contract documents allow variances.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes /tabulation and award a contract to Astech Corporation Asphalt
Surface Technologies in the amount of $74,199.07 to rout and seal cracks on asphalt
streets.
is Basis of Recommendation:
1. The bid from Astech Corporation Asphalt Surface Technologies is the low bid.
2. The work is included in the 1998 Street Maintenance budget.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council may choose to reject all bids and direct staff to readvertise and
obtain new bids. However, the bids obtained are very reasonable, and staff does
not believe a better price from a reputable contractor could be obtained.
2. Council may choose to award a contract to another bidder. However, the bid
submitted by Astech Corporation Asphalt Surface Technologies is a reasonable bid,
within budget amounts, submitted by a responsible bidder.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Council may choose to delay award of this contract. However, the contract documents
allow the bidders to withdraw their bids after 60 days of the bid opening, and an
extended delay could result in the loss of construction season. Therefore, staff is
asking for approval at the May 26, 1998 Council meeting.
ResD-f u y submitted,
James . Pro sser
• City Manager
JDP:cak
0
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA �C
Bid Opening
May 15, 1998
11:15 a.m.
Asphalt Street Crack Routing and Sealing
City Bid No. 98 -12
City Project No. 101 -35 -604
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the
meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for asphalt street crack routing and
sealing, City Bid No. 98 -12, as advertised in the official newspaper on April 22, 1998.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
George Atkinson, Public Works Representative
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR
Bid Security
Bid Amount
Daffinson Asphalt Maintenance
5% Bid Bond
$ 75,560.22
Bergman Companies, Inc.
5% Bid Bond
$ 84,382.80
Allied Blacktop Co.
5% Bid Bond
$ 103,364.43
Astech Corp.
Asphalt Surface Technologies
5% Bid Bond
$ 74,199.07
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the May
26, 1998 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
•
•
•
J
Q
w
v I
/'0
w
co
I I O O O O O i
am
HBIQHJ9
am
ism
HJm
Kum
anrma3o
H191
HuK
HJ91
Ku9K
HM
Kum
HM
H111
HJa1
NNVd
aNV XVO
3AraNVNJIOd
H19
HJ>
NOINnO
axle
ow
SN9A3M
Jm
- V13TIOM
TMOSIM19
HJNOAUN
ANnKI9nu
JJIV9VdTd
aNVW
13M1
aT3ldNVo
3AV91WOMI
HOQtl
JNVAN9
XVd1W
imomnu
ON"I
93pw
3AV NN3d
M33M
TT39&m
mOR"
9VWOH1
Hokin
JJ9a19A
NKYNEW
3 Vamam
k g t g� K 6� t K
anrmia3o
Kum
Hut
Kum
Rol
Kw1
HIm
HJZt
Ial1
Kum
av"O
9n9N11lOO
NEi'/d
awV
3AVaNVNNad
H19
Hit
me
am
Jm
311V 13TIOJIN
TL3amm
3AV 3TAMI
HOma1V
JNVAN9
xvxm
JJIOdna
NOIAGN
N3N1O
3 vNN3d
Nown
IN30W
mrmsvM
-ANYSM M
jo;
m v
Z
9WZ
u Zuj
a =gym
zw
IL o
ots
F
D
Ir
07
CD
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 121
Agenda May 26, 1998
Issue Statement:
Award of contract for the 1998 sealcoating project.
Background:
Sealcoating streets is an effective technique for slowing the deterioration of City
residential streets. The sealcoating process involves applying a thin coat of emulsified
oil, then covering it with rock. A map of the proposed 1998 sealcoat area is attached.
A bid opening was held May 15, 1998 for the 1998 sealcoating project. A copy of the
bid minutes are attached. The 1998 adopted Street Maintenance budget contains
$177,475 for the contracted sealcoating. The contracts are based upon estimated
quantities. Payments will be made on actual work performed. Council would be
authorizing contracts at the stated amounts, with the stipulation that the contract
documents allow variances.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes /tabulation and award a contract to Astech Corporation Asphalt
Surface Technologies in the sum of $186,026.25 for the 1998 sealcoat project.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Astech Corporation Asphalt Surface Technologies submitted the lowest responsible
bid.
. 2. When combined with the recommended 1998 contract for asphalt crack routing and
sealing of the 1999 area to be sealcoated, the 1998 Street Maintenance budget
contains adequate funds for the contractor services on this project. The contractor's
bid on estimated quantities and amounts will be monitored.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Council may choose to reject all bids and direct staff to obtain new bids; however,
the prices received for this work are extremely good, and staff does not believe
lower prices can be obtained from a reputable contractor.
2. Council may choose to award a contract to another bidder. However, the bid
submitted by Astech Corporation Asphalt Surface Technologies is a reasonable bid,
within total budget amounts, submitted by a responsible bidder.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval at the May 26, 1998 Council meeting in order to facilitate
the contract paperwork required to allow the project to begin and end as scheduled.
Respectf submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
• JDP:cak
•
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
May 15, 1998
11:00 a.m.
1998 Bituminous Sealcoating Construction
Bid No. 98 -7
City Project No. 101 -35 -601
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the
meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for 1998 bituminous sealcoating
construction, bid no. 98 -7, as advertised in the official newspaper on April 22, 1998.
Present: George Atkinson, Public Works Representative
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Vendor
Bid Security
Total Bid Amount
Bituminous Roadways, Inc.
5% Bid Bond
$ 199,143.20
Astech Corp.
Asphalt Surface Technologies
5% Bid Bond
$ 186,026.25
Allied Blacktop Co.
5% Bid Bond
$ 187,220.25
The Acting City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at
the May 26, 1998 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0
••
r�
\
lh 4
■
3A
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 120
Agenda May 26, 1998
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a request for an amended off - street parking permit to allow truck rental
as an accessory use to Minnesota Mini - Storage, 200 West 78th Street.
Background:
Minnesota Mini - Storage is requesting an off - street parking permit to allow the addition
of truck rental as an accessory use to the existing rental storage facility. Up to eight
rental trucks would be parked on the east side of the property. A 20 -foot wide drive
aisle will provide a one -way access to the storage units in this area.
A 30 -foot no parking area will be maintained at either end of the row of rental trucks to
allow adequate turning space for emergency vehicles. The existing chain link fence is
in poor condition and will be replaced.
According to Minnesota Mini - Storage, the addition of the truck rental is not likely to
generate additional parking demands because truck rental customers do not leave their
cars at the site. They are planning to mark three parking spaces at the northeast
corner of the property for possible short-term parking needs. If, according to the City's
• determination, this added parking does not prove to be sufficient, the number of rental
trucks allowed on the property should be reduced.
The pavement and buildings are built up to the property line, leaving little space for
snow storage. The area proposed for truck rental has been used in the past for snow
storage. In the event of heavy snowfall, the owner should be expected to remove the
snow from the property so that snow piles do not inhibit traffic circulation and the
boulevard is not used for private snow storage.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the request for an amended off - street parking permit for Minnesota Mini -
Storage, 200 West 78th Street, to allow truck rental as an accessory use, in accordance
with the proposed site plan and with the following stipulations:
That excess snow be hauled off -site in the event that traffic circulation and /or
parking is inhibitted by snow storage.
2. That the number of trucks be reduced in the event that the City determines that
adequate parking is not provided on site.
•
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The truck rental provides a means for customers of the storage center and other
residents and businesses to transport goods to and from the storage center, as
well as to and from other locations.
2. The storage center remains the principal use of the property. The truck rental use
is accessory to the storage center use. An accessory use is defined in the Zoning
Ordinance as, "a use associated with, incidental to, and on the same lot as, a
principal use."
3. The storage facility is a low impact use with a small amount of traffic generated by
the use. The proposed truck rental is complementary to the storage facility use,
and it is anticipated that the traffic increase from the truck rental will be minimal.
4. A total of six parking spaces is available on site. The original storage facility was
approved with three parking spaces. An additional three spaces will be added to
accommodate traffic related to the truck rental.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Deny the request with a finding that the proposal would have an adverse impact on
adjacent properties or the City as a whole.
2. Refer the request to the Planning Commission.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Consideration of this item is scheduled. on the Consent Calendar of the City Council
meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame I Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
CL
Lij
O 1 21
11.1 3
0 wq
0
Ld
>
<
;n
won AA .40 ovzi 3aw CA
cn
if
oo
oz
tm
ty
jj,;
Ll -- =-TLB
�I
0
6
ON
1112
.---31,Z9.9t7.G8N
IQI
I;I
�
I
O
ICI
N
ii
0
6
ON
1112
.---31,Z9.9t7.G8N
N
O
O
fD
N
r+
co
I co I
POW
N m
C
m n
v X
r M
a M
Z z
a
r
V/ +
__ --
--2 ?3.62
N89•46'62'E- •--...
.ww
f,i •
M
,
0
nu
j_ w• Z
4
O
.O
_
v
in
I I
m
ro
I I
r- .�
r-
rt
n
I it
I d I
m
v
n
N
1
w
Z
I
I I
20
c
�
} i
"
)f •Ir.�
drive
� rn
aisle
.x
D
•
I
I I
w4
a
-
v
I
f
.I I
WEST
7 8th STREET
^+
INTERSTATE -
HIGHWAY NO. 494
N
O
O
fD
N
r+
co
I co I
POW
N m
C
m n
v X
r M
a M
Z z
a
r