Loading...
10-23-95 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1995 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER MEETING WITH ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH COUNCIL LETTER NO. 278 ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 9, 1995 AND (2) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL OF OCTOBER 9, 1995 PRESENTATION OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA AGENDA APPROVAL COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR 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 ALSO 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 REMOVAL OF PARKING SPACES FROM THE LOTS OF CENTURY COURTS NORTH AND SOUTH C.L. 279 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR CAPITAL FUNDS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ADDITIONAL LOCKER ROOM SPACE FOR SPORTS OF ICE HOCKEY AND BROOMBALL AT CITY OF RICHFIELD ICE ARENA C.L. 280 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5;000 AND CONTRACT FROM LAMP SERVICE FOR INTERIOR LIGHTING REPLACEMENTS/MODIFICATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORES IN AMOUNT OF $14,535.09 C.L. 281 D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO ABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY FOR 1995 MODEL TRASH COMPACTOR UNIT MOUNTED ON -HEAVY-DUTY ONE TON TRUCK IN AMOUNT OF $46,753.50 C.L. 282 E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE ORDER TO ST. JOSEPH'S EQUIPMENT, INC. FOR BRADCO 9HD BACKHOE IN AMOUNT OF $7,108.88 C.L. 283 F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE RENEWAL FOR ACC DOG & CAT GROOMING, 6521 CEDAR AVENUE C.L. 284 G. ESTIMATE #3 PAYMENT FOR PAINTING LOGAN WATER TOWER; DELOUGHERY PAINTING COMPANY; $52,117.00 H. FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1995 CONCRETE STREET AND ALLEY REPAIR; ARCON CONSTRUCTION CO.; $5,024.70 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING FOR APPROVAL OF 27-FOOT HIGH OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGN AT 7200 CEDAR AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER. NO. 285 5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION ORDERING LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET MAINTENANCE WORK FOR PERIOD JANUARY THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1996, PROPOSED CITY PROJECT NO. 912 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 286 RESOLUTION CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO EXPAND BOUNDARIES OF 77TH STREET PROJECT AREA TO CEDAR AVENUE, SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN 77TH STREET PROJECT AREA FOR PERIOD JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1996, AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR NOVEMBER 27, 1995 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 287 AIRPORT BUSINESS 7. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT 77TH STREET PROJECT BUSINESS 77TH STREET PROJECT STATUS REPORT CORRESPONDENCE 9. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 10. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 11. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 12. 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. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 288 Agenda October 23, 1995 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for the construction of a small parking lot in the northeast corner of 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Background: One result of the 77th Street re-construction project has been a loss of parking (both on-street and off-street) in the area of 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Pursuant to a request from the public, the Richfield City Council, at its meeting of September 25, 1995, directed staff to construct a parking lot on City owned property in the northeast corner of 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue, also known as 7645 Lyndale Avenue. Staff has finalized the design of that parking lot and has solicited quotations from contractors to do the work. The quotes received are as follows: PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION Plehal Blacktopping, Inc. $10,214 Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $ 9,900 Minnesota Asphalt, Inc. $ 8,971 The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. Because of the lateness of the year, the desire to complete this project this construction season if possible, Council's previous direction concerning this project and the fact that obtaining council authorization would delay the beginning of this project for another three weeks, it is the desire of staff to proceed directly with construction. Recommended Motion: Approve the purchase in excess of $5,000 for Minnesota Asphalt, Inc. in the amount of $8,971. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City Council directed that a temporary parking lot be constructed at 77th and Lyndale. 2. It is very late in the construction season to undertake any new project. Alternative Recommendation: 1. .Council could require that this expenditure follow established guide lines and be brought back for formal approval 2. Council could also direct that this project be delayed until next construction season. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff requests that Council consider this item at its regular meeting of October 23, 1995. Respectfully submitted, James D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 28~ Agenda October 23, 1995 Issue Statement: Consideration of 1996 maintenance assessments for the 77th Street Project Area, proposed to be City Project 911.. Background: The following is a chronology of events to date relating to the 77th Street Project Area maintenance special assessment: • Resolution No. 7405, adopted in 1988, established a policy for assessing the costs. The Council resolution set up a special assessment district for the Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet (ILN) project area, an approximate two block area. The district included properties east of Lyndale and south of 77th Street, and the properties were assessed for current services required to maintain special landscape features and other public amenities on or adjacent to the right-of-way. • On June 12, 1994, the City Council took action to support the continuance of specially assessing a redefined ILN/expanded 77th Street Project Area for the period of January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995. Discussion was held- at the December 5, 1994 Council Study Session. As directed by Council, staff presented a redefined project area and estimated cost of current maintenance services to be provided to the redefined project area in 1995 for Council consideration. The expanded area was bounded by I-35W, 77th Street, 1- 494 and Portland Avenue. It was proposed that commercial property owners and multiple dwelling unit owners would be assessed on aper-square-foot basis under the proposed plan. However, all single family and two family residential properties, plus the two churches in the area, would be exempt from the special assessment levy. This was based on the rationale that generally there are negative impacts from businesses located close to single family residential properties, and the landscaping buffer insulates the residential property from these negative impacts generated by the businesses. The landscape buffer also permits a more intense use of commercial property, benefiting the area businesses. On February 13, 1995, the Council tabled consideration to expand boundaries of the redefined ILN/77th Street Assessment Project Area and order the undertaking of current maintenance service projects to the March 27, 1995 City Council meeting. On March 27, 1995, the Council further discussed maintenance of the 77th Street improvements, suggested an Open House .forum and took action to adopt Resolution No. 8238 expanding the boundaries of the 77th Street Project Area maintenance assessment district to an area approximately bounded by I-35W, 77th Street, I-494 and Portland Avenue for the 1995 assessment. l~-1 On July 11, 1995, the Community Services Commission hosted an Open House from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Council Memorandum No. 75 outlined the public notification of the Open House. After the Open House, the Community Services Commission held their regular meeting, and made the following recommendation for Council consideration for the 1996 77th Street maintenance assessment: No general fund monies should be expended for the additional maintenance costs arising from the 77th Street Project Area; and • Costs to maintain the expanded 1996 assessment district should be assessed to both commercial properties and multiple-family dwellings in the district. Multiple-family dwellings will be assessed one-third the rate paid by commercial properties. The Community Services Commission also recommended that the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) assessment district be reviewed by Council for possible inclusion of multiple- family dwellings in that assessment district with a similar one-third/two-thirds cost sharing with commercial businesses. On July 24, 1995, the Council adopted a resolution proposing to specially assess for the costs of current services provided within the 77th Street Project Area, and set a date of August 28, 1995 for the public hearing. Notice was duly published and each property owner that would be affected by the special assessment was mailed a notice. • On August 28, 1995, the public hearing was held to consider the assessment. At the close of the public hearing, the Council voted 2-2 on the motion to approve the adoption of the 1996 77th Street assessment. • On September 11, 1995, the Council met with the Community Services Commission to discuss different options and how the CSC came to the recommendation they did. Discussion was again held at the October 2, 1995 study session. At that time, Council directed staff to proceed with legal requirements to establish a 1996 special assessment district for the 77th Street project area, but to omit multi-family residential units from the proposed assessment roll, in order to make the 77th Street assessments more consistent with the existing policy of the LHN Assessment district. Since the adoption of the resolution for the 1995 maintenance special assessment, construction has continued along 77th Street to Cedar Avenue, a total project area of approximately 37 blocks. More landscaped areas will become the partial maintenance responsibility of the City in 1996. The additional maintenance costs will need to be ~-a spread over an enlarged assessment district to include properties benefiting from the new improvements. Some of these services include: Landscape maintenance of common properties including, among other things, tree trimming, mowing, fertilizing and edging. 2. Irrigation maintenance. 3. General maintenance including repair and replacement of lights, signs, curbs and plantings. These items are extra services provided directly to the 77th Street Project Area, and do not include services provided to the entire City. Most of the routine maintenance (mowing, weeding, litter cleanup) has been and will continue to be contracted, leaving City crews to perform repairs on irrigation, lights and signs. Estimated costs for the ILN/77th Street maintenance services from 1988 - 1996 were: Year Estimate Actual 1988 $7,001.47 1989 $7,254 $6,135.54 1990 $7,514 $7,762.52 1991 $7,780 $8,855.46 1992 $8,894 $7,031.70 1993 $9,200 $3,614.94 1994 -0 1995 $18, 000## 1996 $18,000## * The $0 estimate was provided to the Council in a 12/28/93 memorandum. ## There is a two-year guarantee on irrigation and landscape materials which will keep this amount at a reduced level for a period of time. After construction is completed and warrantees are expired, future estimated costs are $72,000. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution proposing to expand the boundaries of the 77th Street Project Area to Cedar Avenue, and specially assess for the costs of current services provided within the 77th Street Project Area for the period of January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996, and to set the public hearing date for Monday, November 27, 1995. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Resolution No. 7405, adopted in 1988, established a policy for assessing the costs. v~ 2. This policy allows staff to continue to provide excellent service to the 77th Street Project Area. 3. In keeping with the resolution establishing the 1995 expanded boundaries of the redefined ILN/77th Street Assessment Project Area and ordering the undertaking of current maintenance service projects, the attached resolution indicates the expanded boundaries east to Cedar Avenue and commercial property owners will be assessed on aper-square-foot basis. However, all single family and multi-family family residential properties, plus the two churches in the area, would be exempt from the special assessment levy in 1996, whereas multi-family residential properties were included in the 1995 assessment. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to establish a set rate and limit the maintenance performed to that dollar amount; however, staff believes the redevelopment area would suffer if limited maintenance was performed. Discussion/Decision Mode: Continued maintenance service for this area is recommended by staff in order to sustain current standards for landscaping and maintenance. Action on this item should be taken at this time in order to continue the special assessment process toward a 1996 project, proposed to be City Project No. 911. Staff is asking for action at this time in order to facilitate meeting state deadlines for publication of legal notices and notification of property owners. Respectfully submitted, James .Prosser City Manager JDP:ds Attachment ([,- L{ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE 77TH STREET PROJECT AREA FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1996 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1996 CITY PROJECT NO. 911 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That portion of the 77th Street Project Area (the "District") east of I-35W and west of Cedar Avenue is hereby established as a special assessment district for the purposes of assessing for current services provided by the City. 2. The following current services of the City are hereby proposed to be undertaken by the City in the District with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against benefited property within the District; • The trimming and care of trees and shrubs and the removal of any unsound trees from any street; • The repair of sidewalks; • The maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street rights-of--way; • Trash and litter removal. 3. -The area proposed to be specially assessed for such current services consists of each and every commercial lot and parcel of land within the District. It is proposed that the special assessments on the commercial property be made on the basis of area. 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish notice of a hearing by this Council at which the Council will consider the undertaking of such current services and the levying of special assessments to bear the costs thereof. Such notice shall be published in the official newspaper at least once, at least two weeks prior to the date of hearing. Such hearing shall be held Monday, November 27, 1995, commencing at 7:00 o'clock p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda. 5. It is hereby proposed that the project consist of the aforementioned services for the period from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996. The estimated cost of providing all of the aforementioned services during that period is $18,000. r lG~ Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of October, 1995. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk s CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 286 Agenda October 23, 1995 Issue Statement: Continuance of public hearing to consider specially assessing the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) area for current services for the period January 1 through December 31, 1996, City Project No. 912. Background: The City Council scheduled a public hearing for August 28, 1995 to consider the establishment of a special assessment district for current maintenance service costs in the LHN redevelopment area. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to all owners of commercial property in the area and was published in the official newspaper as required by law. The estimated maintenance cost for the period January 1 through December 31, 1996 is $47,600. All commercial properties would be assessed on the basis of area, with each square foot of assessable property to be assessed equally, for the costs incurred in the maintenance of common areas such as street islands, the civic plaza and sidewalks. On August 28, 1995, the City Council took action to continue the public hearing to September 11, 1995. On September 11, the City Council took action to again continue the public hearing to October 23, 1995, with further discussion to take place at the October 2, 1995 Study Session regarding inclusion of multi-family residential units on the assessment roll. Discussion was again held at the October 2, 1995 Study Session. At that time, Council directed staff to proceed with the original LHN assessment roll, leaving multi-family residential units in the LHN area off the assessment roll for 1996. This policy will be reviewed again for the 1997 assessment. Recommended Motion: Following the close of the public hearing, adopt the resolution ordering the LHN maintenance work for the period January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996 (City Project No. 912) to be performed and the costs specially assessed. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Notice of the proposed assessment has been published in the official newspaper.. 2. Each affected property owner has been notified of the proposed assessment. 3. Continued maintenance service for this commercial area is recommended in order to sustain the current standards for landscaping and maintenance which have been ~-i successful the past years. These current services have been provided and specially assessed to this commercial district since 1985. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: The continuance of the September 11, 1995 public hearing has been scheduled for October 23, 1995. Respect Ily submitted, James .Prosser City Manager JDP:ds Attachment ~~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1996 -CITY PROJECT NO. 91,2 WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinance, the City Council of the City of Richfield did establish a special assessment district and did propose that certain services be undertaken by the City in the Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet Redevelopment Area approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue and that the cost of such services be specially assessed against benefited property; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield did also by such resolution set the date of public hearing on the undertaking of such current service project and the levying of special assessment to bear the cost thereof; and WHEREAS, following due notice, such public hearing was held on October 23, 1995 at which time all interested parties desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard:. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the following examples of current services of the City shall be undertaken by the City within the LHN Redevelopment Project Area, which area constitutes the special assessment district with the exception of single family, two family and multifamily residential properties, with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against the benefited property within the district: a. Snow, ice or rubbish removal; b. Weed elimination; c. Elimination or removal of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 to 463.26; d. Installation and repair of water service lines; e. Street sprinkling or other dust treatment of streets; f. Trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees; g. Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks and other pedestrian walkways; h. Operation of the street lighting system; i. Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of--way; j. Maintenance of civic plaza; k. Snow removal and other maintenance of streets; I. Painting and repair of wood furniture; and m. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement. 2. The work. to be performed may be by day labor, by City force, by contract or by any combination .thereof. 3. The designated period of the project shall be from January 1 through December 31, 1996. Costs of the project shall be collected in the manner provided in the Richfield Ordinance Code. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 23rd day of October, 1995. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 2s5 Agenda October 23, 1995 Issue Statement: Consideration of a request by Naegele Outdoor Advertising for approval of a 27-foot high outdoor advertising sign at 7200 Cedar Avenue. Background: Naegele had an outdoor advertising sign located at Lyndale Avenue and I-494 which has been removed for Phase II of the Shops at Lyndale development. Naegele is proposing to relocate this sign on a vacant lot at 7200 Cedar Avenue. The sign ordinance prohibits outdoor advertising displays located closer than 660 feet from the right-of--way of Trunk Highway 77, unless the sign existed before this provision of the ordinance was adopted or the sign is a replacement for a sign legally. existing before the provision was adopted. The Council may approve the relocation if it finds that the relocation will lessen any adverse impact of the sign upon traffic safety and aesthetics. Naegele is proposing atwo-sided sign, 14 feet by 48 feet in area and 34 feet high. The maximum allowable height of outdoor advertising displays is 27 feet. The Council may approve a height of up to 48 feet if there are unique circumstances that prevent the sign from being visible from the abutting street,. and if the increased height would have no adverse impact on other properties. The sign ordinance requires that the sign face of an outdoor advertising display may not be visible from the boundary of any residentially zoned property located within 300 feet of the sign face. The applicant proposes to plant five pine trees on the property to screen the sign from the residential properties located behind 7200 Cedar. These pine trees will be 14-16 feet tall. The applicant believes the trees will obscure most or all of the sign face when they grow to 20 feet within five years. Residents within 660 feet of the location have been notified of this proposal. Recommended Motion: Deny approval of the proposed outdoor advertising sign at 7200 Cedar Avenue. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The ordinance requires that the sign face not be visible from any residentially zoned property within 300 feet of the sign. The applicant has not met this requirement. The proposed trees will not effectively screen the sign for several years. Staff believes the sign would still be visible from the properties to the west. ~I -i 2. The applicant has not met the requirements for the proposed increase in height. One, a sign 27 feet in height would be visible from the abutting street. The applicant is proposing a taller sign for visibility from TH 77, which is not the abutting street. Two, the increased height would likely have an adverse impact on the aesthetics and value of other properties within the area. 3. The replacement location would not lessen any adverse impact of the sign upon traffic safety and aesthetics. The previous location was in a commercial area with considerable distance to the nearest residential district. 4. The City Attorney has reviewed this proposal and has a number of concerns: • The sign will be visible within 300 feet of the boundary of residentially zoned property and will be for some time, even though the applicant plans to plant trees. The applicant is asking to increase the height of the sign from the ordinance limitation of 27 feet to 34 feet. There are conditions which the Council may allow a variance to the 27 feet limitation: (a) It cannot be located so as to be visible from the abutting street where it faces or the visibility would be obstructed; (b) It would unlikely have an adverse or detrimental impact upon traffic safety, pedestrian safety, aesthetics, or value of other properties in the area. If the Council approves the sign, the height of the sign should be established as a specific condition of the permit. The ordinance requires that outdoor advertising displays (signs like the one proposed) not be closer than 660 feet from the right of way of freeways (Hwy 77 is included). There was an exception for signs that existed in October 1987. The Council may approve a new location for an existing sign (which this is) if the new location lessens adverse impacts on traffic safety and aesthetics. • The ordinance required that all legally nonconforming signs were to be removed within 10 years of the adoption of the ordinance, which was October 1987. The sign at I-494 and Lyndale is subject to that provision. The City Attorney suggests and recommends that, should the Council approve this permit, that the permit (sign) should be removed in October 1997 since this is simply a continuation of the original permit at I-494 and Lyndale. ~-a Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay action. 2. Approve the proposed replacement location and increased sign height. Discussion/Decision Mode: Conduct a public hearing on the request by Naegele Outdoor Advertising for a sign at 7200 Cedar and approve/disapprove permit. Respectfully submitted, Jame .Prosser City M ager JDP:ds Attorneys of Law DERT A. AL.SOP ..JNAI,D H. BATTY STF,PIIEN J. BUBUL JOAN B. DEAN DANIEL J. GREF.N3WEIG DAVID J. KENNEDY CHARLES L.LEFEVERF. JOHN M. LEFEVRE, JR. ROBERT J. I.INDALL ROBERT C. LONG JAMFS M. STROMMEN CORRINE IIEINE THOMSON October 9, 1995 Jack Erskine City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Naegele sign relocation Dear Jack: KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED '' 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 337-9300 JAMES J. TIIOMSON, JR. LARRY M. WERTBEIM Facsimile (612) 337-9310 BONNIE L. Wn,K1NS JOE Y. YANG DAVID L. GRAVEN (1929-1991) WRITERS DH7ECT DIAL of COUNSEL (612) 337.9217 BRUCE M. BATTERSON ROBERT C. CARLSON ROBERT L. DAVIDSON BY FAX AND MAIL WELLINGTON H. LAw T. JAY SALMEN You requested advice concerning Naegele's request to relocate its outdoor advertising display sign from its location at the northwest quadrant of I-494 and Lyndale Avenue to a new location at 7200 Cedar Avenue. You asked whether City ordinances would permit the relocation and, if so, under what conditions. The relevant ordinance provisions are subsections 416.09 and 416.11, subdivision 5 of the Richfield City Code. Procedurally, subsection 416.09, subdivision 1 requires that Naegele obtain a permit for the sign to be located at 7200 Cedaz, after notice and public hearing. In addition to satisfying that procedural requirement, Naegele must also demonstrate-that its sign will comply with all of the conditions set forth in subdivision 2 of 416.09. (A copy of subsection 416.09 is enclosed.) Most of the conditions in subsection 416.09, subdivision 2 require no explanation. However, the conditions in clauses (f), (i), and (k) deserve further comment. Clause (f) requires that "the sign face of the outdoor advertising displays must not be visible from the boundary of any residentially zoned property which is located entirely or partially within 300 feet of the sign face." (Emphasis added.) Naegele's written materials indicate that the site does not presently satisfy this condition; however, the company proposes to plant trees that; over time, will obscure the sign face. Unless the trees totally obscure the sign face from the property boundary in question, the company has not complied with clause (f). .(Naegele also mentioned two other "perspective. studies" in its written materials, but I had some difficulty in interpreting the company's remazks without the benefit of the photos to which they refer.) CAH95197 RC160-3 '+-~! Jack Erskine October 9, 1995 Page 2 Clause (i) sets. a height limitation of 27 feet, but the council may increase the allowable height up to 48 feet by making two findings: (a) as a result of unique circumstances, a 27-foot high sign could not be located so as to be visible from the abutting street which it faces, or the visibility of the sign from the abutting street could be substantially obstructed; and (b) the increased height of the sign would. be unlikely to have any adverse or detrimental impact upon traffic safety, pedestrian safety, aesthetics, or the value of other properties in the azea. If the council. finds that both of the required .conditions exist, it may but is not required to permit an increase in the sign height: It is recommended that if the permit is approved, the height of the sign be established as a specific condition for the issuance of the permit, as provided in subdivision 1 of subsection 416.09. Clause (k) provides that outdoor advertising displays must not be closer than 660 feet from the right-of-way of certain freeways, including Highway 77. This limitation is subject to an exception for signs that, in October 1987, were legally located within 660 feet of a freeway, including I-494. Such signs may be relocated to another location along a freeway, provided that the council approves the new location. To approve a new location, the council must first find that the relocation will lessen adverse impacts of the sign upon traffic safety and aesthetics -- i.e., that the adverse impacts at the new location are less than those at the old location. If the council makes that finding, it may, but is not required to, approve the new location. As a legally nonconforming sign, the existing sign at I-494 and Lyndale Avenue is subject to the provisions of subsection 416.11, subdivision 5. Among other things, that provision requires that all permanent nonconforming signs must be removed within 10 years of the initial adoption of the sign ordinance, which was adopted in October 1987. Subject to that 10-year amortization provision, outdoor advertising displays are also governed by the requirements of subsection 416.09, subdivision 3. The limitations in 416.09, subdivision 3 aze in addition to, and not in substitution of, the 10-year limitation in 416.11. To avoid any dispute on the issue, however, it is recommended that, if the council makes the appropriate findings and approves a permitfor the sign relocation, the council should condition the permit upon the removal of the sign by October 1997. Please let me know if you have any further questions .regarding this matter. Sincerely, ~~~~.~~ C!/~` ~. Corrine Heine Thomson cc: John Dean CAH95197 RC160-3 ~~ ~ ~~~ Lease fJo. 11003 LEASE AGREEMENT . Agreement made _ I'ebruary 8th 19 9,5 , by and between Steen z~. ,Jensen ("lessor") , and Naegel e ~u~aooriAcTverti si ng ompany essee" , 1. Premises. The Lessor, as owner or agent oi' the owner, of the following premises: Street Address: 720o Cedar Avenue South C 1 ty Richfield Legal Description: ee aC e x 1 7 l~or llescription of Sign Lease Area .in the County~t~ of Hennepin State Of Minnesota does hereby lease and gran exc us~ve y o e essee, that .portion o e premises necessary to construct (1) outdoor advertising structure4,~bcwith sufficient access to allow Lessee to service and maintain such structureG 2. Term. This lease shall be for a term of (5.) years beginning. on completion of constru-~i on or Se tember 15th 19 95 whichever i s earlier. r~}x1 ~z~ 3. Rental. Yearly rental shall be As provided for on the Attached Rental Schedule ($-------------) Dollars payable monthly q.xi rom e o ice o essee. Lessor herewith acknowledges ~~-~~--~ -------- _~.,_.__,.,.. .-_ execution of this lease ~ shall become e ec ive upon approval by General Manager of Lessee, ~~ 4. Property. As between Lessor and Lessee all structures, equipment and aerials p-laced-"upon the premises shall remain the property of Lessee and Lessee granted the right to remove same from Lessor's premises within•a.reasonable period of•time after the expiration.of this Lease or any renewal thereof .• 5. I•lold Harmless. Lessee shall•save L-he Lessor harmless from all damage to persons or property y reason of Lessee's•use of the premises or from accidents resulting from the acts of its Agents, Employees or others employed in the construction, maintenance, repair or removal of its sign on the premises. • 6. Condemnation. Iri the event of condemnation or direct purchase sale~to a governmenta agency while this lease is operative, .Lessee agrees to make no claim to any proceeds due Lessor as a result of the condemnation, but retains a right to pursue compensation due it as a result of the taking and Lessor agrees to take no action inconsistent with Lessee's rights herein stated. 7. Cancellation of Lease. Lessee - If the view of the x-i~s~~ advertising sign ~~ erec e ereon-is partially or wholly obstructed,~or their advertising value impaired or diminished by reduced vehicular circulation, or the use of such signs is prevented or restricted by law, the_1p~~eo m~•• ----'' ~ - cancel this lease and receive the Lessor notice in writinr restriction of use. 8. Lessor's Repre° Lessor represe~s ancTr owner of the premis~ covenants that LP• ~- In the event ssor agrP ,.~~ansferP 9, LessP wry ~~ EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SIGN LEASE AREA For the Legal descriptive purposes of the attached Five (5) year lease agreement (#11003), the sign lease area is that area of #7200 Cedar Avenue South,' in the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, in the State of Minnesota, (P.I.N. 35-028-23 14-0075) necessary for the construction of the Lessee's Double-Faced sign structure on site and as highlighted on he site plan below; said Lease #11003 to include a sufficient access route to the sign lease area to allow the Lessee, Naegele, anon-exclusive right of Ingress and Egress over the subject premises for the purposes of the construction, servicing and maintenance of the Lessee's sign, structure provided for herein and located on the subject premises as noted and highlighted below. N 1/2 SEC 35 T2$ R24 14 - ~ ~ . ~. '. . o~- .,~ :. ~ ~ :.~ . ~ ,: SIGN LEASE AREA ~~ 4~ MICHAEL CRONIN ASSOCIATES September 28. 1995 Ms. Julie Urban Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Application of Naegele Outdoor Advertising for City Council approval of an alternate location at 7200 Cedar Avenue to replace the billboard located at 1494 and Lyndale Avenue, and increasing the permitted height of the billboard by 7 ft. to 34 ft. above ground level. Dear Julie, Enclosed is the completed "Application for Sign Permit" you provided to me, and ..additional materials for review by you and the Council. These materials are: 1. A site plan for the proposed sign and plantings dated 9/21 /95 2. An air photo of the site and surroundings, the scale is 1 in. = 100 ft. 3. Perspective studies of the proposed sign from three views, dated 9/25/95 4. Two boards with 20 photos of the vicinity taken this month Naegele is proposing this location as a replacement for its location at I-494 and Lyndale, within Phase II of the CSM Development. Should this replacement site be approved., Naegele. will waive any rights to compensation for the public taking of its billboard at I-494 and Lyndale. At our meeting with~Byron Wallace on August 4, 1995, in City Hall, we reviewed the proposed location point by point for compliance with the ordinance. We determined the replacement location at 7200 Cedar met all the requirements of the ordinance except the two thaf can only be approved directly by the Council, 416.09 (k) replacement locations, and (i), increased height. We also needed additional information and investigation of compliance with 416.09 (f), visibility of the sign faces from within a residence district less than 300 ft. from the sign. The additional materials submitted are the result of our investigation of the potential visual impact of the sign on specifically the 15 residentially zoned parcels on 18th Avenue located within 300 ft. of the sign, and any general impact outside that radius. 8809 West Bush Lake Road • Minneapolis, MN 55438 • 1612) 941-7487 • FAX (612) 941-2645 '~'~ Ms. Julie Urban September 28, 1995. Page Two The sole impact of this sign will be visual. It generates no trips or parking demands by customers, employees or deliveries. It is absolutely silent. It places no special demands on utilities and presents no hazard to the sanitary or storm sewer systems. No hazardous or noxious materials are produced or used on site. The billboard would be an economic and compatible use of the site until clear direction is provided for redevelopment, either of the site itself or in combination with the adjacent property. The visual impact of this sign, at the proposed height, on this property is mitigated by the existing buildings, homes, garages, and commercial structures, by the inplace and mature understory and overstory vegetation, and the planting of five 14 ft. to 16 ft. tall Scotch or White Pines on .the site. The air photo identifies the parcels in the vicinity within and outside of a 300 ft. radius of the sign faces. The segmentation into two arcs reflects the commercial district boundary and the invisibility of the sign faces (copy) to the properties located directly west of the sign that results from the "V" design of the sign. The photo boards show the potential view (or blocked view) of the proposed sign from different sites at the residential edge. The photos and the air photo indicate the potential of the character of the surrounding development to screen the sign faces and the sign structure, mitigating any visual impact. The potential of existing buildings and proposed plantings to reduce the visibilifiy of the sign from the rear is tested by the perspective studies. Three perspectives were chosen to test, two represented by photos, one not. The first study tests the view of Photo 2, from the sidewalk at the residential district boundary on 72nd Street, approximately 180 ft. from the sign. Absent the. proposed planting, the sign faces would be visible from this viewpoint. The proposed planting is designed to fill the gap between the vegetation on the rear property line of the site and the bush located on the north edge of the site. We have proposed three 14 ft. to 16 ft. tall Scotch or White Pines be planted in this area. The height was selected as the tallest that can be confidently transplanted. Within 5 years the trees can be expected to grow to 20 ft. The perspective indicates a 15 ft. planting will immediately obscure most or all of the sign face from this viewpoint. Within five years, the screening will grow to obscure any part of the sign face not immediately affected. 4-9 Ms. Julie Urban September 28, 1995 Page Three The second study,-from the sidewalk at 7221 18th Avenue, tests the impact of the homes in the area and the greater distance (220 ft.) in reducing or eliminating the visual impact of the sign face. The view to the sign will be rotated to the north in relation to the orientation of the. photo (the chimney stack in the photo behind the behind the garage is approximately 100 ft. south of the sign face). The effect of the 14 ft. roofline of the home is indicted in this study, as well as the effect of lengthening the viewing distance. The impact of the sign face, which is now being looked along rather than at, is minimal or totally obscured. The third study places the viewer in the. back yard of the homes directly behind the sign. At this point, the sign faces cannot be seen as the viewer is in the "shadow" created. by the "V" of the sign. The view, if any, would be into the dark sign structure. Here, the effect of being fairly close (a backyard width) to a typical backyard structure (a garage) is tested. It appears a garage will block the view of most, if not all the view of the structure. The two pines to be planted directly to the rear of the sign are intended to further obscure or soften this view. Again, the view from the closest homes will be along, rather than at, the sign face, or into the dark back of the sign structure. An interesting effect of perspective is illustrated in photo 17. While the utility lines shown in the photo are about the same height as the sign, the sign will appear to be under the wires. These studies confirm the observation made visiting the site the sign face (copy), at the proposed 34 ft. height; will not be visible from the boundary of any residentially zoned property which is located entirely or partially within 300 feet of the sign face. We are als© requesting the Council increase the allowable height for this sign by 7 feet from 27 feet to 34 feet as provided in section 416.09 (i). This is the minimum necessary to insure the visibility of the sign is not substantially obstructed, and is far less than the maximum allowable-height of 48 ft. Absent this increase in height the visibility of the sign to northbound travelers on Hwy. 77 could be substantially obstructed by the "Glare Paddles" installed on the top of the concrete median in the highway. The requested additional height will not increase the visual impact of the sign on adjacent properties, and therefore will not have any adverse impact on aesthetics, the value of other properties in the area, nor on traffic or pedestrian safety. ~{ -1C~ Ms. Julie Urban September 28, 1995 -Page Four A sign at the requested height will permit the bottom of the sign structure to be 17 ft., rather than 10 ft., above grade. This will be the height of the top of the adjacent Haeg Plumbing sign, and will provide for safe clearance for any vehicle that may enter the site. The additional height at the bottom of the sign will also provide an additional. safety margin to prevent access to the sign faces for vandalism or other mischief. This relocation is an ideal candidate for the replacement process provided in section 416.09 (k). The sign would be relocated from a nonconforming location to a conforming location, lessening any adverse impact on aesthetics at no public cost. The number of signs in Richfield would not be increased, and we would be able to continue to serve our clients with advertising to reach those who live, work and travel through Richfield. , The site at 7200 Cedar is a conforming and compatible site for the replacement of the billboard from I-494 and Lyndale. It will provide an economic use for this vacant property that will have no measurable impact on the use, enjoyment or redevelopment of the surrounding properties. We respectfully request the City Council approve this replacement site. If you need any additional information or materials, or have any questions or comments, please contact me at 941-7487, or Art Dean at Naegele Outdoor Advertising at 869-1900. Thank you. Sincerely, Michael. Cronin ~r/ L ~; N L ~ ~ ~ z ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ - o E . o ~U n ~ s"' 'o UU L ~ CD r ~ N ~ ~~ -..~~ 0,~i T . a~.-: a ~N ~ N Nom: ~ ¢ ~ti ,- Z rn W W a a~ a 0 W V N h W W W '~ Z W a. a 0 T Z W Q Q 0 W U r N 0 v- O d' __ __.~~---_ a-_ o _ . G __- , ~ ~, U N ~ ~ C N ~~ c~ z~ v~ ~ x -o ~~ ~~ _~ ~~vE a~ ~ ~ N ~ m c .°' .~~~o v .a c~~OU a, o ~ ~ c~ cn E > t N 'L7 _O O to N N p ~ ~ +r Q..Q ~ «s O ~~.rnc L.CI~ N.~ ~f-'i-t to :................................................. T co ~ Opz ~.. ~ H VJ 1~3~i1S ~N zL '~1 ~Z 4 ~-l E .t~ " r ~ ~ +M ~ y. ... i .. .:.: ` ,, t •; a' ~..~`t. ~~. ~A ~1 ., 1 KKK r,, _ a ! _~ >.x w-;~ r o' ~~ - ~.~?~ ~~1~, ~~d '-( T r ~. rw .-. ;.i~ . L ~a„ ,~ 1~~ ~ __._ !. .. 0/~ 3 s4f. f!.' r r ;fro 1 ~ ~~'.; ~ 1 31•'.Y~I ~,; S. v ~„ ~ 4 .. I `.~. ~~, ' '. ~~ ys^mmrr ~ • ~ M ~ r j ~ 3ti '\~ ~as~. - 1 .~.~' ,~ C, ~' •' 'i C~ i.~. + L v T, ,.. a.;, L:~• ,i~ `? ~~ ~ ~ _o T W N ti W N ~ W ~ Z. T 'a ac 0 w ( ~ ~/ i ~ 0 1 rY Q Z ~_. N ~-- W Q II J ~'Q. /~ Z LL Q ~ . T j nW 1..4 W ~ , VJ 4-13 rn Z N ~_ M ~ W N W O Q O U ~ Q Q ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ T ~ rr^^ ~ Y/ N N ~W N d. O ~ Q ~ = W >~ z ~ > ~¢ ~_ T T r W A 1 T Q 2 °~ N ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ N Q ~ IN o m J- = Z J ~ r ~ Q U W D W '~ VJ ~G CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 2s4 Agenda October 23, 1995 Issue Statement: Consideration of an application for a renewal of a commercial kennel license for ACC Dog & Cat Grooming, 6521 Cedar Avenue. Background: On September 11, 1995 ACC Dog & Cat Grooming submitted an application for a renewal of a commercial kennel license. On October 6, 1995 an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service Officer. There were no apparent problems found at that time. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the application for a commercial kennel license be approved. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to a commercial kennel license. Alternative Recommendation: 1. .The Council could decide to deny the request for a commercial kennel license; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. Discussion/Decision Mode: Recommendation to approve the application-for a renewal of a commercial kennel license for ACC Dog & fCat Grooming, 6521 Cedar Avenue, is presented for Council consideration at this time. Respectful) submitted, James D. rosser City Manager JDP:ds J ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 283 Agenda October 23, 1995 Issue Statement: Purchase of backhoe attachment in excess of $5,000. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. The revised 1995 Garage Motor Pool budget shows funds for a backhoe attachment for the skid steer loader. This attachment will be used in underground irrigation and streetlight repairs, tasks that staff is spending more and more time doing as the systems age. Staff obtained quotes from two vendors for the type of attachment required as follows: St. Joseph's Equipment, Inc. $7,108.88 Marv Haugen Enterprises $8,293.16 Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order to St. Joseph's Equipment, Inc. for the purchase of a Bradco 9HD backhoe in the sum of $7,108.88 (tax included). Basis of Recommendation: 1. St. Joseph's Equipment, Inc. submitted the low quote. 2. The 1995 Revised Garage Motor Pool budget contains $7,500 for this purchase. Alternative Recommendation: Reject the quotations and instruct staff to obtain new quotes; however, staff does not believe a better price could be obtained from a reputable vendor. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is requesting approval at the October 23, 1995 Council meeting in order to facilitate delivery of this equipment before the end of the year. Respectful) submitted, James D. tosser City Manager JDP:ds ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 282 Agenda October 23, 1995 Issue Statement: Award of contract for garbage compactor unit. Background: The Park Maintenance Division presently has over 300 55-gallon trash barrels located in 24 park areas in Richfield, and 14 containers at various locations around the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) area. During the summer months, two seasonal workers and a pickup truck are scheduled. nearly full time picking up bags of garbage from these containers and hauling them to the dumpsters at the Central Garage shop. The approximate costs to provide this service in 1995 were $2,000 for dumpster pick up, $10,000 for labor and equipment, and $4,000 for garbage can liners. Staff contacted three trash haulers about contracting this service, and none of the three were interested. Staff also contacted several communities (Bloomington, Eden Prairie and Plymouth) who have purchased their own small trash compactors, and each reported they were very pleased with the economy and increased efficiency of running their own machines. Staff time can be reduced by half, cost of liners can be reduced by at least half, and there will also be an estimated 50% savings on tipping fees. Staff has estimated the total costs savings each year at $8,000, with the added benefit of being able to do the job with less risk of injury to employees with the proper equipment. Adequate funding is available in the revised 1995 Park Maintenance budget. Bids were opened on October 5, 1995 from two vendors as follows: ABM Equipment & Supply, Inc. $43,900 Koenig Equipment, Inc. 46,802 Recommended Motion: Award a contract to ABM Equipment & Supply, Inc. for the purchase of a 1995 model trash compactor unit mounted on a heavy-duty one ton truck in the sum of $43,900 plus tax of 2,853.50 for a total of $46,753.50. Basis of Recommendation: 1. ABM Equipment & Supply submitted the low bid for the type of unit requested. 2. Staff contacted several users of ABM's compactors and received good references. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to reject the bids and direct staff to continue trash removal as it has been done in the past. ~~l Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is requesting approval at the October 23, 1995 Council meeting in order to facilitate delivery of the unit before the end of the year. Respectfully submitted, James D. sser City Manager JDP:ds b~~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening October 5, 1995 One New Side Load. Garbage Compactor Bid No. 95-22 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 one new side load garbage compactor, bid no. 95-22, as advertised in the ofl:tcial newspaper on September 27, 1995. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director Cheryl Krurnholz, City_Manager Representative Roxi Braa, Administrative Aide The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Bidder's Name/city Bid Security Total Bid Amount Koenig Equipment 5% Bid Bond $ 46,802.00 Mpls. ABM Equipment & Supply Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 43,900.00 Hopkins The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the October 23, 1995 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 2s1 Agenda October 23, 1995 Issue Statement: Approval of contract and purchase in excess of $5,000 for interior lighting replacements/modifications for municipal liquor stores. Background: Northern States Power (NSP) has been offering substantial rebates to public facilities which upgrade interior lighting and use less energy. A number of public sector facilities have taken advantage of this rebate, including the Richfield Ice Arena which underwent a similar program last year. The Municipal Liquor Operations has been working closely with NSP representatives to analyze the Liquor Operations' current utility infrastructure. As a result of that process, NSP representatives have assisted the City in creating specifications for the upgrade of interior facility lighting fixtures. After completing those upgrades, the replacement would offer substantially lower utility expenditures and a significant one-time rebate to the Municipal Liquor Operations. In October, five electrical contractors were contacted and supplied the specifications for the proposed replacement/modification project. Those five contractors were asked to submit quotations based on the electrical upgrade specifications. Northern States Power estimated that the total project cost would be just under $15,000 prior to rebate according to the specifications. In addition, the NSP rebate which would be paid directly to the City was estimated at just over $5,000. Thus, the net cost of the project. to the City would be approximately $10,000. The five quotes were submitted to the City for review and are stated prior to the rebate: Hansa $23,172.68 Rynerson Electric 31,399.00 Mayer Electric 19,287.75 Egan Electric 19,923.02 Lamp Service 14,535.09 After completion of all lighting upgrade and modification, NSP indicates that the total annual cost savings for electrical services to all three municipal liquor facilities would likely exceed $3,000. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council approve the quotation submitted by Lamp Service for $14,535.09 for the upgrade/modification of lighting of all three municipal liquor stores and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract. 3c-I Basis of Recommendation: 1. The annual cost savings for lighting would exceed $3,000 after the project is complete. 2. NSP has agreed to provide the City with a rebate of approximately $5,000 after the upgrade has been completed, provided that the project is complete before December 31, 1995. 3. Lamp Service is a qualified contractor that has worked with NSP on such projects in the past 4. Lamp Service has submitted the lowest quotation based upon the specifications. 5. The project is a budgeted item in the 1995 adopted budget. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could decide not to authorize the project. However, the opportunity for the current NSP rebates would be lost if the work is not completed during 1995. Discussion/Decision Mode: It is suggested that the City Council act upon this item at the October 23 City Council meeting so that a schedule for the timely completion of this project may be implemented. It is anticipated that work could be completed in late October, prior to the busy customer traffic which will be experienced during the holidays. Respectful) ubmitted, James rosser City Manager JDP:ds ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 280 Agenda October 23, 1995 Issue Statement: Approve a resolution of local application fora $50,000 grant for locker room improvements at the Ice Arena for 1997. Background: Richfield Ice Arena is the home rink for Richfield High School, the Academy of Holy Angels High School and Richfield Youth Hockey. With the addition of girls hockey at both high schools, and increasing participation by girls in the youth hockey program, questions of security. and privacy of the locker rooms were raised. When the Arena opened in 1971, the locker rooms had been designed without security and consideration to the privacy issues that gender equity would raise. There are two locker rooms, each with two changing spaces and one bathroom with showers. Currently, each changing space (approximately 8' X 10') is used as an individually locker room.. Each space is considered about 35 - 50% of the size necessary to comfortably house a team by today's standards. The City ordered a feasibility study this year to review the problem. The first phase of the study (copy attached) delineates the scope of the problem. The second phase will address interim solutions, such as renting trailers or remodeling the lounge space, more fully. The final phase, should it be considered necessary, would suggest options for expansion of the arena to add locker room space. Current estimates suggest an addition would cost between $150,000 and $200,000. The State of Minnesota has a grant program for its fiscal years (FY) 1996-97 for the construction of new arenas or the renovation of existing arenas. The maximum funds for renovation is $50,000 and calls for a local match of the same amount. Local funds would need to come from the Recreation Enterprise Fund. This project is not currently proposed for funding in the Capital Improvement Program. This grant program is also anticipated to be offered in the 1998-99 State funding cycle. It may be prudent to complete the feasibility study and review available funding for a future application. The application must have local approval submitted by early November for consideration of the FY 1996-97 funding cycle. Grant recipients will be notified in December 1995. Staff is recommending application for this year fora 1997 construction season because they anticipate fewer applications this cycle. The timing has been short and few communities are prepared to act. Recommended Motion: Approve the resolution and apply for the grant. ~~~f Basis of Recommendation: 1. Current locker room space is less than ideal, particularly in light of the increasing amount of play by girls. 2. The grant would cover approximately 25% of the project cost. Alternative Recommendation: Do not apply for the grant at this time. Complete the study, review the funding and apply during the 1998-99 funding cycle. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the Council meeting of October 23, 1995. Action is requested at this time to make. the final submission in early November. Grant selections will be made in December 1995. Respectfu submitted, James Prosser City Manager JDP:ds Attachment ~~J ~~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR CAPITAL FUNDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADDITIONAL LOCKER ROOM SPACE FOR THE SPORTS OF ICE HOCKEY AND BROOMBALL AT THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ICE ARENA WHEREAS, the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission (MASC), via the State Capital Bonding Fund, provides for capital funds to assist political subdivisions of the State of Minnesota for the development of sport facilities; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota, desires to construct and develop an additional locker room space for the sports of ice hockey and broomball. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that 1. The total cost of constructing said addition/expansion shall be $150,000- $200,000 and the City of Richfield is requesting $50,000 from the Mighty Ducks Capital Bonding Fund and will assume responsibility for a match requirement of at least $50,000. 2. The City of Richfield agrees to enter into necessary and required agreements with the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission for the specific purpose of constructing the locker room addition/expansion. 3. An application be made to the State of Minnesota, Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission, to be included in the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission's (Governor's) Capital Budget request for an amount presently estimated to be $50,000. 4. The City Manager or his designee is authorized and directed to execute said application and serve as the official liaison with the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of October, 1995. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CERTIFICATION hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and correct copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by the Richfield City Council at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of October 1995, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. MINNESOTA AMATEUR SPORTS COMMISSION FACILITY BONDING APPLICATION. ~~ A. Local unit of. Government responsible for project: City of Richfield, Richfield, Minnesota B. Primary contact person for the project: Name: "Alan K. Payne Title: Arena Manager Address: 636 East 66th Street, Richfield, Minnesota 55423, Count of Hennepin. Phone: H (612) 461-3507, W (612) 861-9351 C. Name of Project: Richfield Ice Arena Lockerroom Addition/Expansion. D. Type of Application: (check one) New Arena Grant XX Existing Arena Grant E. Federal Employer Identification Number: 416005494 F. Execution: IN WITNESS THEREOF, the applicant has caused this application to be executed on ,19 The City of Richfield By Title Endorsement Signature of person authorized to sign on behalf of the local unit. I hereby certify that the unit of local government identified hereby is willing and able to undertake the project described in this application. (Signature) ~{pate) (Title) [ XX ] 1996 Grant for construction in calendar year 1997 Hammel Green and Abrahamson, Inc. Architecture • Engineering • Interior Design 1201 Harmon Place Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403-1985 Telephone 612.337.4100 Telefax 612.332.9013 ~ ~r w -- --- ~ ~v~ ~ TO: Richfield Ice Arena Locker Room Study HGA Commission Number 969.002.00 FROM: Dan Swedberg OL~j DATE: 18 September 1995 SUBJECT: Data Gathering and Defuution of Need 38-~ ~C~~OC~aC~C~C~ ~ WR l T®t 5 DIRECT DIAL NUMBIDt 612/337-4123 The material for Phase I of this study was gathered by personal visits to the site, review of existing building drawings and a locker room needs assessment meeting held with high school and youth hockey leaders. This meeting was held on August 21,1995, and contained the following participants: Darrell Esala, RHA Brad Mitchell RHA Steve Carroll, RYH Al Payne, RA Willie Spelts, RHS Lynn Olson, HAGH Dan Swedberg, HGA From these investigations, issues appear to be as follows: 1. Adequacy of size of existing locker rooms. 2. Use of toilet and shower facilities with existing locker rooms. 3. Gender issues. 4 Access to existing locker rooms. 5. Accessibility for the differently abled. A detailed review of the issues is as follows: Size of locker rooms. Approximate changing space needed per person in a locker room is 2-1/2' wide by 4' deep. The four existing fenced in azeas at current facility aze 10' wide by 12-1/2' deep, yielding space for ten or eleven users. A standazd within facilities would be to provide a changing area of 2 to 2-1/2 times the size of existing room. Due to this diminished space, makeshift arrangements such as the following logistics for junior vazsity and varsity high school games must occur: Junior varsities change into playing uniform and equipment, utilizing two changing spaces per team. Varsity team occupies same locker room space, working on top of junior varsity belongings at third period of junior varsity game. At conclusion of junior varsity game, junior varsity team retires to locker room to remove skates only, and for this time period, both teams occupy the area. Junior varsity players then retire to spectator seating azea to wait beginning of varsity game at which time they move back through bench area into locker room to shower and change clothes and then move back through bench azea once again to move from locker room to spectator area. Page 2 ~'' ~ The need for additional changing space with security does not relate to only the high school teams, but all facility users. During practice and game conditions, two teams aze often on the ice at once, with two teams changing, ready to move onto the ice as the other teams leave. Adequately sized changing areas for each of the four teams that are secure aze needed. Even during summer hockey operations, up to 30 persons are on the ice at one time, with an additiona130 in dressing areas getting ready. It is cleaz that the adequacy of space size or inadequacy of building planning can have a significant affect on mood and performance of building users. The described locker room use does not meet standards for operation. 2. Toilets and showers. Each pair of changing spaces contains one toilet room azea of two urinals, one water closet and two lavs, an d a shower space of 8' square. It became cleaz from discussions with high school and youth hockey leaders that interchangeable use of the toilet room azeas by boys and girls occurring and was found to be acceptable, but that each changing space needed its own dedicated toilet and shower area. Four adequately sized changing spaces each with their own toilet and shower area and ability to secure could then adequately serve the azena for the interchangeability needed with use by males and females. Several stories were given demonstrating the loss of privacy by locker room users with current plan. Gender Issues. Last season, female hockey teams utilized the curvelineaz south lobby lounge space for changing area on a temporary basis. Due to office and conference room expansion into this area, it is not available for the coming season. Temporary spaces to create two additional changing spaces will be needed for the coming year. Use of public skating lounge on north side of lobby and upper four corners of arena concourse azeas were discussed as possibilities. It is uncertain that upper concourse area above locker rooms could be utilized due to need for continuous exiting in concourse space to either end and exit doors. It is clear that in the future more female teams will be practicing and having games within the arena. The need for privacy and security in changing areas becomes increasingly important. The ability to isolate male teams from female teams, which may practice before or after the male teams, will become an increasing need. Several experiences were related by the group where awkward conditions were created from lack of separation of changing azeas. 4. Access to locker rooms. Routes to existing locker rooms by players seem problematic for a number of reasons: A. Players entering the main east entry will circulate halfway azound azena in front of first row disrupting spectators. Also, the route involves walking through the player's box, disrupting teams on benches. B. Access to the west door neaz locker azea may be possible if a staff person is added for this function for keys to the facility aze only held by staff personnel. Leaving the west door unlocked could create security concerns. C. Access of each team through single door opening at back of penalty box scorer area currently creates congestion and may invite conflict. Accessibility for the differently abled. Existing locker rooms must utilize stairs to access new additions or major renovations would required an accessible route from new or major renovated locker rooms to arena surface. New or major renovated locker rooms would require accessibility throughout. DLS512M.WP6;mm ce: Those Present ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 279 Agenda October 23, 1995 Issue Statement: Request for an amended off-street parking permit to allow removal of parking spaces from the lots of Century Courts North and South. Back rg ound: Dominium, Inc., is proposing to install back-up fuel systems at the Century Courts apartment complexes. The fuel tanks must be located a safe distance from any building. To meet this distance requirement, the tanks for Century Courts North and South will be located in the parking lots. The tanks and related equipment will remove three parking spaces from Century Courts North, 6301-6335 Lyndale Avenue. The tanks will remove two parking spaces from Century Courts South,-7431-7521 Lyndale Avenue. The zoning ordinance requires multiple family uses to provide two parking spaces for every unit unless the Council approves a reduction in the parking requirement to not less than 1.25 parking spaces per unit. Century Courts North currently has 1.3 parking spaces per unit and Century Courts South currently has 1.9 spaces per unit. There is a sufficient basis for reducing the parking requirements. All of the units in the two complexes are one bedroom units. Counts of parking utilization indicate that approximately 60 percent of the parking spaces are currently used. The loss of five spaces between the two complexes will have a minimal effect on the parking supply. Recommended Motion: Approve the request for an amended off-street parking permit to allow an expansion and change in use with the following stipulation: 1. A stormwater drainage plan is approved by the City Engineer. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposed installation and operation of the fuel system will meet all Uniform Fire Code regulations. Warning signs will be posted. 2. There is sufficient basis for the Council to approve a reduction in the parking requirements for these two complexes. 3. The above-ground equipment will be protected by a chain link fence and screened with landscaping. ~A-r Alternative Recommendation: The Council may deny the off-street parking permit with a finding that the proposal would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties. Discussion/Decision Mode: Consideration of this item is scheduled on the consent calendar for the October 23, 1995 City Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, l James rosser City Ma er JDP:ds ~~r~ ~ W J~ WQ ~__ ~ __ __J ~ ~_ a _ fi3RD STREET ~ --~ i i I Q W J Q Z ~~ PARKING Ilia LOT AREA ~ ~ CENTURY COURT NORTH 6301 6315 6325 6335 Q NORTH 10-16-95 ~~~~ ~ ~~ i m z -a C ~ 1 ~ i n O C ~ ~ N i O C 2 -~ 0 VI LYNDALE AVENUE V V (71 <?I N ~+ ~ N can V ~7f " - - - - 2 V V O .p j O O r ~~ V A W z N ~ V V O w ~ ~ ~ I V A W J c rn r -~ O 70 D m A rn n CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 2~s Agenda October 23, 1995 Issue Statement: Meeting with the Richfield Advisory Board of Health. Background: The Special City Council meeting with the Richfield Advisory Board of Health is one of a series of meetings between the City's Boards and Commissions and the City Council. The purpose of this special meeting is to provide an informal opportunity for Health Board members to discuss with the City Council recent and current issues. It also provides a forum for an open dialogue between the City Council and the Advisory Board of Health. Issues to be discussed include the board's work in the area of family violence prevention and also to look at ways in the future in which to reduce the accessibility of tobacco to youth in our community. Recommended Motion: There is no action recommended. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Council has provided an opportunity for the Richfield Advisory Board of Health to meet jointly with the Council to discuss topics of mutual interest and concern. Any discussion which might ultimately lead. to an action would have the consideration for specific action scheduled for a regular Council meeting. Alternative Recommendation: 1. None. Discussion/Decision Mode: This special meeting has been scheduled for October 23, 1995. Respectf II submitted, James .Prosser City Manager JDP:ds Copy: Carlene Ulmer, Advisory Board of Health Chair