08-14-95 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
-MONDAY, AUGUST 14, 1995
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
6:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
MEETING WITH RICHFIELD FRIENDSHIP CITY COMMISSION
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 200
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 JULY 24,
1995; AND (2) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 24,.1995
PRESENTATION
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT
LISTED 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 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 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
. EXECUTION OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY
FOR 1995 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT PROGRAM C.L. 201
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AUTHORIZING USE OF $3,000 OF
MUNICIPAL STATE AID FUNDS AS CITY'S LOCAL SHARE OF FEDERAL ISTEA
GRANT TO COVER START UP OPERATING COSTS FOR I-494 INTEGRATED
CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT C.L. 202
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE FIRST
AMENDMENT TO CITY OF RICHFIELD GOLF COURSE LEASE AGREEMENT
WITH METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION C.L. 203
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING_ASSESSMENT
OF INSTALLATION OF FIRE,PROTECTION SYSTEM FOR ST.: NICHOLAS
EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 7227 PENN AVENUE C.L. 204
E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR
CONSULTING.SERVICES TOWARD COMPLETION OF UPDATE OF
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM BRAUER GROUP, INC. IN AMOUNT OF
$14,115 C.L. 205
F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 TO
REMOVE AND REPLACE RETAINING WALL AT 6600 THIRD AVENUE FROM
ELGARD BROS. LANDSCAPING, INC. IN AMOUNT OF $10,700 C.L. 206
G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR
CUSHMAN TURF TRUCKSTER UTILITY CART FOR USE AT RICH ACRES
GOLF COURSE FROM CUSHMAN MOTOR COMPANY IN AMOUNT OF
$9,648.90 C.L. 207
H. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR
1995 TORO GREENSMASTER 3000 MOWER AT RICH ACRES GOLF COURSE
FROM MTI DISTRIBUTING, INC. IN AMOUNT OF $10,101.53 C.L. 208
I. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR
TWO BACKWASH RECLAIM PUMP STARTERS AT WATER PLANT FROM
BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY IN AMOUNT OF $8,090 C.L. 209
J. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR
GEAR BOX FOR MILLING MACHINE FOR USE IN STREET MAINTENANCE
FROM ZIEGLER'S IN AMOUNT OF $13,017.79 C.L. 210
K. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR
REPLACEMENT TELEPHONE SYSTEM IN FINANCE DIVISION FROM CADY
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. IN AMOUNT OF $6,282 C.L. 211
L. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ITINERANT PLACE OF AMUSEMENT
LICENSE WITH FEE WAIVER FOR CHURCH OF ST. PETER, 6730 NICOLLET
AVENUE, FOR FALL FESTIVAL ON OCTOBER 7 AND 8, 1995 C.L. 212
M. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE
RENEWAL:
• ELAINE'S GROOMING; 7429 HUMBOLDT AVENUE C.L. 213
• PET FOOD WAREHOUSE, 710 WEST 66TH STREET C.L. 214
N. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE
RENEWAL:
• 7425 PLEASANT AVENUE; THREE DOGS AND TWO CATS C.L. 215
• 7232 11TH AVENUE; FOUR DOGS C.L. 216
PUBLIC HEARINGS
MUNICIPALALQUOR STORDEI AT 77OTHSSTREETI AND LYNDALE AVENUE OF
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 217
5. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING
SUBDIVISION WAIVER-FOR 7033 AND 7037 OAKLAND AVENUE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 218
6. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDNG SECTION
416.07, SUBD. 2 PERMITTING TEMPORARY BUSINESS DIRECTIONAL SIGN FOR
A BUSINESS RELOCATED WITHIN THE ILN REDEVELOPMENT AREA; HAGEN
MICROAGE, 515 WEST 77TH STREET
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 219
RESOLUTION
7. CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF RESOtUTION REGARDING FINDINGS
OF FACTS RELATED TO DENIAL OF COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE TO JOEL
D. LOCKETZ, DOCTOR OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, AT 710 WEST 66TH STREET
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 220
PROPOSED ORDINANCES
8. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
REZONE THE FOLLOWING MULTIPLE RESIDENCE PROPERTIES:
• 2400 WEST 64TH STREET FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENCE TO SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE AND 6400-6444 QUEEN. AVENUE FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENCE
TO HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY
• 2401-2421 WEST 65TH STREET, 2400-2420 WEST 65-1/2 STREET, AND 2412
WEST 66TH STREET FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENCE TO SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE
• 2405 WEST 66TH STREET FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENCE TO MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENCE AND 2409 WEST 66TH STREET FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENCE
TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL
• 2720-2730 WEST 66TH STREET FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENCE TO HIGH
DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY
• 2020 EAST 66TH STREET FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENCE TO SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE
• 2200-2208 EAST 66TH STREET FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENCE TO SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE AND 2216-2228 EAST 66TH STREET FROM MULTIPLE
RESIDENCE TO MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 221
9 PORTION OFTQUEEN AVENUEEBE ITWEEN 6ND AND 64TOHRSTIREETS VACATING
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 222
10. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCES
VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AND PORTIONS OF 77-1/2 STREET,
ALDRICH AVENUE AND COLFAX AVENUE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 223
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS
11. CONSIDERATION OF SETTING SPECIAL MEETING FOR 1995 REVISED/1996
PROPOSED BUDGET AND SETTING PRELIMINARY TAX LEVY
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 224
AIRPORT BUSINESS
12. CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT WITH METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS
COMMISSION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AND MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO PLACE ON HOLD PENDING
LITIGATION REGARDING RUNWAY 4-22
COUNCIL L1=TTER NO. 225
13. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
77TH STREET PROJECT BUSINESS
14. 77TH STREET PROJECT STATUS REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
15. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
16. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
17. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
18. 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.
l~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 225
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of agreement with. the Metropolitan Airports Commission, Federal Aviation
Administration and the Minnesota Department of Transportation to place on hold the pending
litigation regarding Runway 4-22.
Background:
The City of Richfield has been successful in securing an understanding with the Metropolitan
Council which permits the physical extension of Runway 4-22 without the noise redistribution
portion of the 4-22 project. The noise redistribution portion of the project is essentially placed
on hold to permit the cities of Minneapolis, Richfield, Bloomington and Eagan, the Metropolitan
Airports Commission and Metropolitan Council to look. at other alternatives. The alternatives
would be considered by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Council in
the spring of 1996. Given the possibility that the parties will reach an agreement that would
eliminate the noise redistribution portion of the project, the Metropolitan Airports Commission
has requested that the City place on hold the pending litigation.
Recommended Motion:
Approve an agreement with Metropolitan Airports Commission, FAA and MnDOT to place on
hold the pending federal and state litigation.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The special counsel for the City, Steven Pflaum, has recommended approval of the
agreement with the stipulations that will permit the City to continue litigation at a later
time.
2. It is appropriate for the City to attempt to reach an agreement regarding alternative
mitigation measures and avoid the expensive litigation.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide not to place on hold the litigation. It is likely then that the
Metropolitan Airports Commission would not continue discussions regarding alternatives
to the noise redistribution plan.
2. The Council could decide to drop the law suit without an agreement.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Discussion on this matter will be presented for action at the Council meeting of August 14,
1995. Council Members are encouraged to contact Steve Pflaum directly if they have
questions regarding the proposed agreement. Steve can be reached at 312/984-3641.
submitted,
City MIger
JDP:cak
//
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 224
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Setting special meeting for 1995 Revised/1996 Proposed budget and setting
preliminary tax levy.
Back rg ound:
City staff is now in the process of preparing the draft 1995 Revised/1996 Proposed
budget. Included in that draft document is the proposed preliminary property tax levy
for the Richfield HRA. The Truth in Taxation statute requires that a preliminary levy be
adopted by the local units of government and certified to the County Auditor on or
before September 15 of each year.
In order to review the draft budget document with the City Council prior to the
September 15 deadline, it is necessary to establish at least one special HRA meeting.
For the current year, staff is proposing that such special meetings be set for the
following date:
7:00 p.m. Wednesday, August 30, 1995
7:00 p.m. Tuesday, September 5, 1995
The above suggested meeting should provide adequate time to review the budget
document and proposed tax levy. The adoption of the preliminary levy and dates for
the Truth in Taxation public hearings could either be adopted at one of the special
meetings listed above or at the September 11, 1995 regular City Council meeting.
Recommended Motion:
Set the date of August 30, 1995 and September 5, 1995 (if necessary) as a Special City
Council meetings to review and discuss the 1995 Revised/1996 preliminary tax levy
prior to certification to the County on September 15, 1995.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. It is necessary to review and discuss the 1995 Revised/1996 Proposed budget and
1996 preliminary tax levy prior to certification to the county on September 15, 1995.
2. Draft budget documents will be available to City Council Members on August 18.
This will allow some time for Council Members to review the draft budget before the
scheduled meeting.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could schedule meetings on a different date(s) than those
suggested.
I1 ~~
2. The City Council could schedule additional sessions than those suggested.
3. The City Council could decide not to schedule any budget meetings and proceed
with the preliminary levy at a regular City Council meeting before September 15,
1995.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Because of the strict timeframe associated with the Truth in Taxation process, this issue
should be considered at the August 14, 1995 meeting so that a date for special
meetings may be established if the City Council wishes to use that process.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame .Prosser
City Hager
JDP:ds
~-/
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 223
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of first reading of ordinances vacating a public utility easement and
portions of 77-1/2 Street, Aldrich Avenue, and Colfax Avenue.
Background:
On May 8, 1995, the City Council approved the final development plan and conditional
use permit for Phase II of the Shops at Lyndale. Phase II includes land currently
occupied by portions of 77-1/2 Street, Aldrich Avenue and Colfax Avenue. The
development of Phase II will eliminate the need for public right-of-way. Vacation of the
streets would be appropriate.
A utility easement extends from 77th to 77-1/2 Street at Bryant Avenue. There are no
public utilities located in the easement area and there is no longer a public need for the
utility easement. Vacation of the easement would be appropriate.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of transitory ordinances to vacate a public utility easement and
portions of 77-1/2 Street, Aldrich Avenue, and Colfax Avenue, and set a second reading
and public hearing for August 28, 1995.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. These portions of the streets are no longer needed for right-of--way
2. There is no longer a public need for a utility easement from 77th to 77-1/2
Streets at Bryant Avenue.
3. Vacation of these streets and easement will make the land available to CSM for
development.
4. CSM cannot implement Phase II without vacation.
5. On May 8, 1995, the City Council approved the final development plan for the
area, which included these streets.
4. The vacation would be subject to existing utility easements along Colfax Avenue.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Delay this vacation at first reading.
2. Continue first reading of the vacation.
/~-I
Discussion/Decision Mode:
First reading consideration of the transitory ordinances is scheduled for August 14,
1995. No mailed or published notice is required for first reading. If first reading is
approved, a public hearing and second reading will be held on August 28, 1995.
Respectfully submitted,
James :Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
/ ~ !~
BILL NO.
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The following described land is subject to an easement ("Utility
Easement") for public utility purposes, as contained in deed Document Nos. 491673
and 491674 in the records of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles, and as shown on
Certificate of Title No. 80298:1.
The West 10 feet of Lot 11, Block 1, STRAND-BOWEN ADDITION TO
RICHFIELD, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Sec. 2 The fee owner of the land subject to the Utility Easement , CSM
Investors, Inc., has petitioned for the vacation of the Utility Easement.
Sec. 3. There are no public utilities located in the Utility Easement area. The
proposed vacation of the Utility Easement therefore will -not adversely affect the ability
of the City or other utility to maintain, repair, or replace public utilities.
Sec. 4. The Council finds that there is no longer a public need for the Utility
Easement, as described in Section 1 of this Ordinance.
Sec. 5. The Utility Easement, as described in Section 1 of this Ordinance, is
hereby vacated.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this this day of
1995.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
l®
BILL NO.
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING PORTIONS OF ALDRICH
AVENUE, COLFAX AVENUE,
AND WEST 77-1/2 STREET
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The following streets have been dedicated to the public for street
right of way purposes:
West 77-1/2 Street, as dedicated in the plats of STRAND-BOWEN SECOND
ADDITION, STRAND-BOWEN ADDITION TO RICHFIELD, and STRAND'S
SECOND ADDITION TO RICHFIELD, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Colfax Avenue, as dedicated in the plat of STRAND-BOWEN SECOND
ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Aldrich Avenue, as dedicated in the plat of STRAND'S SECOND
ADDITION TO RICHFIELD, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Sec. 2. The following land is subject to an easement for public right-of--way
purposes:
The East 30 feet of the West 320 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter
of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin
County, Minnesota
The described area is generally know as the westerly half of Colfax Avenue,
between 77th Street West and 78th Street West.
Sec. 3. CSM Investors, Inc. is the fee owner of the properties that abut the
streets to be vacated, with the exception of Lot ~, Block 1, STRAND'S SECOND
ADDITION TO RICHFIELD.
Sec 4. CSM Investors, Inc. has petitioned for the vacation of the following
portions of West 77-1/2 Street, Colfax Avenue, and Aldrich Avenue:
All of Colfax Avenue as dedicated in the plat of STRAND-BOWEN
SECOND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies south of
the westerly extension of the north line of Lot 11, Block 1 in said plat and
/~°`~
which lies north of the westerly extension of the south line of Lot 11, Block
2 in said plat; and
All of Aldrich Avenue as dedicated in the plat of STRAND'S
SECOND ADDITION TO RICHFIELD, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
which lies south of the easterly extension of the north line of Lot 1, Block
1, STRAND-BOWEN ADDITION TO RICHFIELD and which lies north of
the easterly extension of the south line of Lot 1, Block 2, STRAND-
BOWEN ADDITION TO RICHFIELD; AND
All of West 77-1/2 Street as dedicated in the plats of STRAND-BOWEN
SECOND ADDITION and' STRAND-BOWEN ADDITION TO RICHFIELD,
Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
The southerly one-half of West 77-1/2 Street as dedicated in the plat of
STRAND'S SECOND ADDITION TO RICHFIELD, Hennepin County,
Minnesota; and
The northerly one-half of West 77-1/2 Street as dedicated in the plat of
STRAND'S SECOND ADDITION TO RICHFIELD, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, which lies westerly of the southerly extension of the east line
of Lot 6, Block 1, in said Addition; and
The East 30 feet of the West 320 feet of the South Half of the Southeast
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24,
Hennepin County, Minnesota
(referred to herein as the "Vacated Area")
Sec. 5 CSM Investors, Inc. has agreed to convey to the City a permanent
drainage and utility easement over portions of the Vacated Area, as the City determines
to be necessary for the continued maintenance and operation of existing public utility
facilities. The proposed vacation of the Vacated Area therefore will not adversely affect
the ability of the City or other utility to maintain, repair or replace any utility facilities that
may be located within the area to be vacated.
Sec 6. CSM Investors, Inc. has agreed to convey to the City a temporary right-
of-way easement over a portion of the Vacated Area, which will permit the City to
continue to use and maintain the existing street improvements adjacent to Block 1 in
STRAND'S SECOND ADDITION TO RICHFIELD. The easement will continue in effect
until such time, if ever, as the northerly half of West 77-1/2 Street, as dedicated in
STRAND'S SECOND ADDITION TO RICHFIELD, is vacated.
Sec 7. The Council finds that, upon recording of the permanent drainage and
utility easement and the temporary right-of--way easement to be conveyed by CSM
G~
Investors, Inc., there will no longer be a public need for a street easement over the
Vacated Area, as described in Section 4 of this Ordinance.
Sec. 8. The street easement over the Vacated Area, as described in Section 4
of this Ordinance, is hereby vacated.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this this day of
1995.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. ferber, City Clerk
rn
a
m
rn
O
m
n
n
rn
v
rn
m
00
rn
D
n
m
v
. ,
PI
P
it ~
9~ i i
i~
LYND°1 C A\/C
- - - - -
/ D ~~
w
I
i
~~
~ ri i
~:, i
~~ I r-I-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 222
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of first reading of a transitory ordinance vacating a portion of Queen
Avenue.
Background:
On March 27, 1995, the City Council approved a request by Fraser School to amend
their conditional use permit to allow an expansion of the school. The expansion creates
a need for more parking, which can be provided along a vacated Queen Avenue. The
vacation has been delayed until agreement could be reached on a stormwater
management plan for the site. Staff has now approved the storm water management
plan.
All property owners adjacent to this portion of Queen Avenue have signed a petition to
vacate. In addition, the owners have signed an easement agreement that will allow the
businesses along this portion of Queen Avenue continued access to 64th Street.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of a transitory ordinance to vacate a portion of Queen Avenue,
subject to an easement, and set a public hearing and second reading for September
11, 1995.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. This portion of the street is no longer needed for public right-of--way.
2. Additional parking is needed for Fraser School along Queen Avenue.
3. Staff has approved the stormwater management plan for Fraser School.
4. The petitioning property owners have signed an easement agreement that allows
the businesses along the vacated portion of Queen Avenue access to 64th
Street.
5. The vacation would be subject to the existing drainage and utility easement.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Delay this vacation at first reading.
2. Continue first reading of the vacation.
q-I
Discussion/Decision Mode:
First reading consideration of the transitory ordinance is scheduled for August 14, 1995.
No mailed or published notice is required for first reading. tf first reading is approved, a
public hearing and second reading will be held on September 11, 1995.
Respectf submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
~a
BILL NO.
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATION OF A STREET EASEMENT FOR QUEEN AVENUE
BETWEEN 62ND AND 64TH STREETS
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The following described land is subject to an easement for public street
purposes for Queen Avenue:
The West 30 feet of the East 330 feet of the South 1/2 of the East 3/8 of the East 1/2 of
the North 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 29, Township 28, Range 24; EXCEPT the
south 33 feet thereof.
and
The West 30 feet of that part of the East 360 feet of the East 3/8 of the East 1/2 of the
North 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 29 Township 28, Range 241ying south of the
North 175 feet thereof; EXCEPT the south 33 feet thereof.
Sec. 2 The fee owner of abutting land, Whitbeck Fraser School, has petitioned for the
vacation of that part of Queen Avenue as described in Section 1 of this ordinance.
Sec. 3. The area to be vacated is occupied by the following utilities: public water main.
Provided that a drainage and utility easement is reserved in favor of the City of Richfield, the
proposed vacation of the street easement will not adversely affect the ability of the City or other
utility to maintain, repair, or replace any utility facilities that are located within the area to be
vacated.
Sec. 4. The Council finds that there is no longer a public need for a street easement over
that portion of Queen Avenue as described in Section 1.
Sec. 5. The street easement over that portion of Queen Avenue, as described in Section 1
of this ordinance, is hereby vacated; reserving, however, to the City of Richfield a drainage and
utility easement over the area vacated.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this _ day of ,
1995.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
Q_3
ui
a
z
a
D
N
ui
'a
J
J
W
N
W
Q
Z
Z
W
a
A.
STREET TO BE VACATED
8-4-95
NORTH
fi3RD ST.
G41t1 51.
8
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 221
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
First reading consideration of an ordinance amendment to rezone the following MR
(multiple residence) properties: (1) rezone 2400 West 64th Street from MR to R (single
family residence) and 6400-6444 Queen Avenue from MR to MR-3 (high density multi-
family), (2) rezone 2401-2421 West 65th Street; 2400-2420 West 65 1/2 Street; and 2412
West 66th Street-from MR to R, (3) rezone 2405 West 66th Street from MR to MR-2 (multi-
family residence) and 2409 West 66th Street from MR to C-2 (general commercial), (4)
rezone 2720-2730 West 66th Street from MR to MR-3, (5) rezone 2020 East 66th Street
from MR to R, and (6) rezone 2200-2208 East 66th Street from MR to R and 2216-2228
East 66th Street from MR to MR-2.
Background:
Over the past several years, staff has reviewed the zoning ordinance for revision and
update. Analysis indicates that the MR district is not effective because its provisions are
incomplete, outdated and ambiguous. The MR district has no density limitation and
incorporates the single family uses of the R district as well as two family and multi- family
developments.
The MR district was the original and only multi-family district when Richfiefrl's growth
occurred. Later, the MR-1 (two family), MR-2 (medium density multi-family), and MR-3
(high density multi-family) districts were created fo provide more precise controls for the
expanding variety of multi-family housing. When the MR-1, MR-2, and MR-3 districts were
added, all but 90 MR parcels were rezoned to fit into that classification system.
Staff reinitiated the rezoning process a couple of years ago when they began revising the
zoning ordinance. As a continuation of this process, these properties are being evaluated
and presented for reclassification to the most appropriate land use zone.
The proposed zoning designations for the subject parcels are consistent with the existing
land use and with the Comprehensive Plan.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of an amendment rezoning 2400 West 64th Street from MR to R;
6400-6444 Queen Avenue from MR to MR-3; 2401-2421 West 65th Street, 2400-2420
West 65 1/2 Street, and 2412 West 66th Street from MR to R; 2405 West 66th Street from
MR to MR-2; 2409 West 66th Street from MR to C-2; 2720-2730 West 66th Street from MR
to MR-3; 2020 East 66th Street from MR to R; 2200-2208 East 66th Street from MR to R;
and 2216-2228 East 66th Street from MR to MR-2 and set a public hearing and second
reading for September 11.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. This rezoning will help to bring the zoning map up to date with current land use
practices and the Comprehensive Plan.
-i
2. An MR zone is no longer an appropriate zoning district in the City and an update to a
more appropriate district is necessary.
3. The text of the zoning ordinance has been updated to eliminate the MR district. It is
appropriate to rezone the designated areas so the map is consistent with the text of
the ordinance.
4. The proposed R zoning is most appropriate for the existing single family and private
school uses and would ensure that higher density development (as allowed under the
MR provisions) does not occur.
5. The proposed MR-3 zoning is most appropriate for the existing 20 unit and 23 unit
apartment buildings while offering proper regulatory control for future land uses. The
MR-3 district allows multi-family dwellings with eight or fewer units. Dwellings with 9 to
25 units are allowed as a conditional use. ,
6. The proposed MR-2 zoning is most appropriate for the existing four unit and seven
unit apartment buildings and would ensure that higher density development does not
occur. The MR-2 district allows multifamily dwelling with eight or fewer units.
Dwellings with 9 to 25 units are allowed as a conditional use.
7. The proposed C-2 zoning is most appropriate for the existing office use and is
consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the parcel 2409 West 66th
Street as mixed land use.
8. The affected property owners have been notified of the proposed rezoning.
9. On July 25, 1995, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the rezoning.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could deny this rezoning at first reading.
2. The City Council could rezone the subject parcels to a classification which is
inconsistent with the existing land use, however, that could result in the creation of
nonconforming uses.
Discussion/Decision Mode:.
First reading is set for August 14, 1995. If approved, a public hearing and second reading
will be held on September 11, 1995.
Respe Ily submitted,
Ja s .Prosser
City ager
JDP:ds
REZONING PLAN ~'
EXISTING LAND USE EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING
-
J
~ ~
= J
N W Q
,,,~
W
w > U
w
~ > ui >
Q ~:
Q W Q >
W Q Q >
Q
!-
W Q Z
W
Z•• W
W:: :> J Z
W: :LLI
:>
J
J > W ~ > J W :; ' a W.
: Q
~ ~ W Q W W ~
N = Z N ~` :Z N Q ~Z
N d
- Q U
N
Z O` :Z N :Z
~ =
W
::::~:
W ~
••
•• ::: ~::~:~;~~ W
•
•
~ 64TH ST. °' ~ a ~
ST.
64TH 64TH
ST.
~'
....
....
....
....
•:.•.•.
~ ....
....
Q Z(~ ....
:: :'
~ -
V ....
'
m :
::.
N
HD '::: ^
ZJ S '::: ^
`
~
....
z •:::
Na .
•
a :::.
•: :•
:::................. .
65TH ST. 65TH ST. 65TH ST.
2400 West 64th St.
6400-44 Queen Ave.
MR
;:;:;:; MR-3 I
~ R • ~
N - ~~N~~G
ZO N ~ ~~
ComnunRy pevNopmaM DepertrnoM
~'~ REZONING PLAN
EXISTING LAND USE EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING
65TH ST. 65TH ST. 65TH ST.
J JJ
J
J
Q NG E ~ Q J•
INGLE F MI ~ ~ ;•
W Q J N
vii 65 1 ~ ~ N 85 1 2 ST. ~~ J ~ 65 1 2 ST. Q ~
W ~ J. ~ J"
F MILY ~2 ~,~, ~ ~, J r
SI GL ~' ~ C J- ~-
(J J
FAMILY OJ JJ J
30 UNIT INGLE ~ J J J-
APT. BLDG. AMILY J J ~ J JJ. JJJJJJJJJJ-
VAC. ; J J J J J
66TH ST. 66TH ST. 66TH ST.
2401-21 West 65th St.
2400-20 West 65 1/2 St.
2412 West 66th St.
MR JJJJJJJJJJ G-Z
MR-1 ~R • PLANNING
N
PMR ZO N 1 NG ~,
conn,.mlt,- oe,~lopm caparae.
_~
REZONING PLAN
EXISTING LAND USE EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING
66TH ST. 66TH ST. 66TH ST.
J J J J J J J J J
J J J J J J J J J J JJJ JJ JJJ
J ~ J J J J JJ JJJJJJJJJ J J J J J
J J J J J J J J
5 J J J J J J J J
i ~ JJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJ
ZI- D ~ JJJJJJJJJ 'JJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJ
= A J i- J J J J J JJJJJJJJJJJJ J J J J
O ~ Q W O J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J
J J J J J J
U ~ JJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJ
8 UNIT
~. APT. ui
~ BLDG. ui ~ u.i a ~
a ~ > a a a
J IIQ a J .~ Z
W 10 UNIT Z W W W W
N APT. w N w
BLDG. ~ _ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
7 UNIT
APT.
J BLDG.
z
4 UNIT
APT.
BLDG.
.67TH ST. 67TH ST. 67TH ST.
2405-09 West 66th St.
~ ,:
® MR JJJJJJJJJ C - 2 • . ~~ ~ ' ~G
N
MR-2 ~ R ZONING
cann.,nny oevelopmeM Daww~a+wM
~"~ REZONING PLAN
EXISTING LAND USE
ui PARK ui
~ N
~ 23 UNIT
w _
APT.
TWO ~ a a
U BLDG.
23 UNIT ~ ~
O
z APT. z =
_
~ COM ERCIAL BLDGS. v~ ~"
66TH ST.
EXISTING ZONING
u.i
a
z
w
V
z
u.i
a
a
O
s
H
PROPOSED ZONING
ui
JJJJJJJJJJJ~J+J J~J~J J J J • ^ ^ I
Q J J J J J J J J J J J J J
JJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ ^ ~ • I
J J J J J J J J J J J J J J ^^^
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJ ^^ ^ ^
Z J J J J J J J J J J J J J
J J J J J J J J J J J J J -^ ^^
W J J J J J J J J J J J J J ^^^
JJJJJJJJJJJJ J J J JJJ JJ ^ ^ •
U J J J J J J JJ JJJJ JJ J J ^•• I
^ ^ ^
Z JJJJJJJJJJJJ J J JJJ J J J ^^^
J J J J J J J J J J J J J ^^^
^ ^ ^
JJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJ 1 ^ ^
J J J J J J J J J J J J/ ^^^ ^
JJJJJJ JJJ JJ J JJJ JJJJJJJ ^ • • '~
J J JJJ J J JJJ J J J J ^•^
JJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJ ^^^ ^ I
J J J J J J J J J J J J J
J J J J J J J J J J J J J
66TH ST.
ui
a
N
Q
Ti
2720-30 West Stith St.
MR JJJJJJJJJJ C - 2
MR-1 ~ R
^•'•^•^•^ MR-3
.
.^.^.^
;
66TH ST.
~~ ~
G
REZONIN
PLAN
EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING
65TH ST. 65TH ST.
j
Q ui
Q ui
Q
Q
_
H
r
_
o F-
N
O
N
....
N
................ ....................
N
..................... .................... N
66TH ST. 66TH ST.
LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY EXCEPT 15 UNIT APT. BLDG. ON MR-2 PARCEL
2020 East 66th St.
~"~ REZONING PLAN
EXISTING LAND USE
65T H ST.
~ x
w
J O
VAC. = a } ~
~
Q x
W . FAM. N Q
U J ~-
Z O > Z Z W ~
N SIN LE Q M
N
N FA ILY ~ y
q 4 ~
yF~MUIS PISLL VAC.
V1
66TH ST.
EXISTING ZONING
6 5TH ST.
W
Q
Q N 'Q
N Q M
N N N
66 TH ST.
65TH ST.
LLI
Q
W
N Q
_
~ ~
Z M
N
N
66TH ST.
2204-28 East 66th St.
PROPOSED ZONING
~~
Bill No. 1995-
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX I
OF THE CITY CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix I which describes the boundaries of the various zoning districts of the City is
hereby amended in the following respect:
Section 3, Paragraph (63) is amended to read as follows:
(63) M-10 (SE corner 66th and Russell) Lots 4 & 5 Block 2. Tingdale Brothers
Lincoln Hills Addition.
Section 5, Paragraph (4) is amended to read as follows:
(4) M-9~W side of Queen, near 64th1 That area lying between the east lines of
both Leslie Terrace Addition and Harry Tickner's Subdivision of Lot 2, Richfield Gardens,
and the center line of Queen Avenue extended; and between the center lines of 62nd and
~s 63rd Streets.
Section 5, Paragraph (5) is amended to read as follows:
\5) r]i n 1 n Tt, + 1 t, + tl,° s ~ 1 • f D 11 .1 n °., ,~a
lllV U V \~ ~~
i J D
n~6~~ T' a 1 1? tl, T nl TS'11 A.1.1'+' °vr. + T + 1 .1 ~1~. * 22 f ~ ~ T + 7
b i ] [QQiC1CJII C~fCG+CJL ~V4 1 K
^~~ ~1^~'°.~Repealedl.
Section 5, Paragraph (13) is amended to read as follows:
(13) ~ ~ i titi, ,1 ~~ ,1 • >,~ T ,- ~ n 1 n ul,,,.>r ~. ^,,,a T ,.,-^ ~ n ^,,,a ~ 1 Tzl,,,.v ~ ;
] ]
>\r°~~] >~,,,.,a T.,II],-, A ,l,a;~;,,,, a Baled .
Section 5, Paragraph (15) is amended to read as follows:
(15)
~;^~~~°1a r^r~°„~ fRepealedl.
Section 5, Paragraph (24) is amended to read as follows:
(24) J
g- 9
Section' 12, Paragraph (35) is amended to read as follows:
(35~ M_10 (SW of 66th and Queenl All of Lot 3 and Lot 2 except for the east 33 feet
thereof, Block 2~ Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills Addition.
Section 12, Paragraph (36) is amended to read as follows:
(36,~~at 66th and Standishl Lots 13 and 14, Block 6, and Lots 10 and 11. Block
7 in New Ford Town Addition.
Section 13, Paragraph (15) is amended as follows:
X15) M_9 (W side of Oueen, near 64t_ 1 That area lying between the east line of Harry
Tickner's Subdivision of Lot 2, Richfield Gardens, and the center line of Oueen Avenue
extended; and between the center lines of 64th and 65th Streets.
Section 13, Paragraph (16) is amended as follows:
(,16) M-9 (N side~66th at Upton The west 1/2 of the south 1/2 of lot 12. Richfield
Gardens .
This amendment constitutes a rezoning of the following properties: (1) rezone 2400
West 64th Street from MR to R and 6400 and 6444 Queen Avenue South from MR to MR-3,
(2) rezone 2401, 24Q9, 2415, 2421 West 65th Street; 2400, 2401, 2408, 2409, 2414,, 2415,
and 2420 West 65 1/2 Street; and 2412 West 66th Street from MR to R, (3) rezone 2405 West
66th Street from MR to MR-2 and 2409 West 66th Street from MR to C-2, (4) rezone 2720
and 2730 West 66th Street from MR to MR-3, (5) rezone 2020 East 66th Street from MR to
R, (6) rezone 2200, 2204, and 2208 East 66th Street from MR to R and 2216, 2220, 2224,
and 2228 East 66th Street from MR to MR-2.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of August,
1995.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 220
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Continuation of consideration of a resolution regarding findings of facts related to the
denial of a commercial kennel license to Joel D. Locketz, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine,
at 710 West 66th Street.
Background:
At the June 26 regular Council meeting, Dr. Joel D. Locketz's application for a
commercial kennel license was reconsidered by the Council. The applicant proposed to
work out of the Pet Food Warehouse, 710 West 66th Street. Dr. Locketz's affiliation
with Pet Food Warehouse would be that of a leasee for space to conduct routine
wellness exams and certain preventative inoculations to dogs and cats.
The Council reviewed the independent hearing examiner's recommendations and
testimony from area veterinarians and other interested parties.
After Council discussion, the license was denied and the City Attorney was instructed to
prepare the findings of facts in support of the denial.
At the July 10, 1995 City Council meeting, the City Council lacked sufficient votes to
take action and tabled the issue until August 14, 1995.
Helen Winder, the attorney for Dr. Joel Locketz, has requested an opportunity to
address the City Council at the August 14, 1995 meeting.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the findings of facts related to the denial of a commercial kennel license to
Joel D. Locketz, D.V.M. at 710 West 66th Street.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. It is necessary that when the Council denies a license, the reasons; i.e., findings
of facts, for the denial be drafted and acted upon.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council may wish other facts included in the findings.
2. The Council could decide to reconsider the license request. However, it would be
appropriate to notify the persons who expressed interest in this issue prior to the
reconsideration so that their concerns could be expressed.
~~- i
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Recommendation to accept the findings of facts which. support the denial of a
commercial kennel license to Dr. Joel S. Locketz, 710 West 66th Street, is presented
for the Council's consideration..
Respectfully submitted,
a
Jame '. Prosser
City ager
JDP:cak
~~
RESOLUTION NO.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND DECISION REGARDING APPLICATION FOR
COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE AT 710 WEST 66TH STREET
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows:
I. The City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The City of Richfield (the "City") regulates, by ordinance, certain commercial
activities involving dogs and cats.
2. The primary source of such regulations is contained in subsection 905.31
which requires the issuance of a commercial kennel license as a precondition to
engaging in "the business of selling, boarding, breeding, showing, treating or grooming
dogs or cats..."
3. On or about March 28, 1994, the City received an application for a
commercial kennel license (the "Application") from Joel D. Locketz, D.V.M. (the
"Applicant." The specific activity for which licensure was sought was the vaccination of
dogs and cats at 710 West 66th Street.
4. The Applicant was proposing to sublease space at that address from Pet
Food Warehouse.
5. The Application came before the City Council for review and action at its April
25, 1994 meeting. Following a public hearing, the City Council voted to deny the
application.
6. At its May 9, 1994 meeting, the City Council reopened its review of the matter
in order to consider adoption of findings of fact. The. City Council at that time was
unable to agree on findings of fact. Accordingly, the matter was referred to a hearing
officer who would conduct further inquiry, hold further hearings and report to the City
Council
7. At its June 26, 1995 meeting, the City Council once again considered the
application. Before it on that date were the findings, conclusions and recommendation
of the hearing examiner.
8. The Applicant was present at the June 26, 1995 meeting, along with the
Applicant's legal representative, and was given an opportunity to present information
~~
and respond to .inquiries or to comments from others who were present and gave
information.
9. The Application was opposed by a number of individuals, including individuals
who were engaged in the practice. of veterinary medicine in the area, and such
individuals were given the opportunity to provide both written and oral information to the
City Council.
10. The area where the licensed activity is proposed to occur is a strip type
shopping center located at the intersection of 66th Street and Lyndale. The center,
which has been open for business for less than 10 years, has been very successful in
terms of the volumes of traffic and patrons it has attracted. The center is served by a
large common parking area which lies in front of the shops. The parking area is
frequently near maximum capacity. The shopping center also houses a restaurant.
11. Pet Food Warehouse, the tenant and principal occupant of the premises,
operates a retail outlet at this location. One of the special features of the Pet Food
Warehouse operation is that customers are encouraged to bring their pets with them
when they shop. Applicant's activity would be conducted in a portion of the premises
which has separate entrances and exits; however, neither the Applicant nor the
operators of Pet Food Warehouse indicated any plans to restrict entrance and exit to
the vaccination clinic from the store.
12. The shopping center which would house the proposed activity is part of an
area which is zoned Planned Multiple Residential (PMR). The City Council is given
great latitude in reviewing proposals for uses within PUD districts, and is given
discretion to plan the assemblage and combination of uses in a manner which would
not be available to it in traditional zoning districts. Section 530.05 of the Richfield
Ordinance Code provides in relevant part.
"530.05. Integrated desian. The PUD will consist of a
harmonious selection of use in grouping of buildings,
services, parking areas, traffic and pedestrian circulation
and open spaces and shall be planned and designed as
an integrated unit."
II. The City Council hereby makes the following conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The uses of land are regulated primarily through zoning and licensing. The
two forms of regulation should be viewed as complimentary to one another. Both are
intended to preserve, protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare. The
Council concludes that the activity for which the proposed license is required will
~-~
contribute to the intensification of a pattern of uses at shopping center which poses
significant difficulties in integration and harmonization. At best, excessive monitoring
and enforcement activities may be required, at worst, harm to the public safety and
welfare and economic damage to the shopping center may result.
2. The Council is concerned that permitting thelicensed activity to occur at a
location which uses one of the busiest parking lots and at one of the busiest
intersections of the city, -may create risks to public safety. Notwithstanding existing
leash and restraint regulations in the city, some owners of pets do on occasion allow
their pets to be at large. The risk of injury or harm is magnified in the close confines of
the busy parking area which would serve the licensed activity.
3. The Council is further concerned that permitting the licensed activity at the
proposed location may create risks to public health. Because of the size of the parking
area, the prompt removal of animal feces will be very difFicult. Permitting the licensed
activity would heighten the risk that animal feces may be tracked into the center's
restaurant and the potential for food contamination.
4. Although the clinic is proposed to only vaccinate well animals, the availability
of a veterinarian may prompt individuals to bring in sick animals for examination. This
will have the effect of exposing the other animals .at Pet Food Warehouse, and products
which are sold there, to illness.
III.. Based upon the foregoing, each of which serves as an independently
adequate basis, the Council hereby makes the following decision.
DECISION
The Application for a commercial kennel license by Joel D. Locketz, D.V.M. to
allow the vaccination of animals at 710 West 66th Street is hereby in all respects
DENIED.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
August , 1995.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 219
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amending Section 416.07, Subd. 2,
paragraph (g), clause (2), permitting temporary business directional signs.
Background:
In 1987, the Richfield City Council adopted a model sign ordinance in an effort to create
a community standard by limiting the number and sizes of signs a given business could
have. While the ordinance itself is quite complex, it has accomplished its intent -- less
sign pollution.
As a result of the 77th Street Project, the City Council amended the sign ordinance in
1993 to allow some off-site directional signs. in the 77th Street corridor. This
amendment allows off-site directional signs for businesses that abut I-494, 77-1/2
Street, I-35W, Lyndale, Portland, Nicollet, 12th and Cedar Avenues. It prohibits off-site
directional signs for businesses that abut 77th Street.
Recently, staff was asked by Hagen MicroAge, 515 W. 77th Street, to review the
ordinance. Mr. Hagen requested that he be allowed to put an off-site directional sign at
Lyndale and 77th, due to his relocation (CSM redevelopment of 77-1/2 Street). The
current ordinance prohibits such a sign of this nature. This has been confirmed by the
City Attorney. Staff has reviewed this with Mr. Hagen and explained that it would
require an ordinance change. Mr. Hagen requested staff to pursue the change.
First reading was held on July 24, 1995 and the public hearing and second reading
were scheduled for August 14, 1995.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct the public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amending Section
416.07, Subd. 2, paragraph (g), clause (2), allowing an off-site directional sign for a
business that has been relocated within the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN)
Redevelopment Area.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The ILN Redevelopment has had to relocate a number of businesses. This has
caused some hardships as well as opportunities. The developer and staff worked
with many business owners in an attempt to keep them in Richfield. One such
business was Hagen MicroAge. However, due to the new location, Mr. Hagen has
requested an off-site directional sign (currently prohibited by ordinance) which he
believes is necessary to direct his customers to the new location.
~' I
2. The proposed amendment provides for a temporary (one year) off-site sign to
accommodate situations like Hagen MicroAge. Mr. Hagen understands the one
year limitation and agrees with the concept.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Direct staff to provide for more or less flexibility on signage for businesses that
have been relocated due to a redevelopment project.
2. Do nothing: Allow the ordinance to remain unchanged. This would prohibit the
request made by Hagen MicroAge.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Conduct a public hearing and second reading to approve an ordinance amending
Section 416.07, Subdivision 2, paragraph (g), clause (2), permitting certain temporary
off-site business directional signs.
Respectful) submitted,
Jame .Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
~; a
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 416.07, SUBDIVISION 2, PARAGRAPH (G),
CLAUSE (2) OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE;
PERMITTING CERTAIN TEMPORARY BUSINESS
DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
THE CITY OF~ RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 416.07, subdivision 2, paragraph (g), clause (2) of the
Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows:.
(2) Business directional signs. In addition to the signs permitted under the
preceding provisions of this subsection 416.07, off-site directional signs may be placed
on properties that immediately abut 77th Street, subject to the requirements of this
clause (g-}{a-} ~g~2). A business directional sign requires a permit issued by the Council.
The application for such permit shall be made to the building official. Upon receiving an
application, the building official shall involve the planning and transportation divisions in
a review of the application. No such permit shall be issued without first obtaining the
approval of the Council.. The Council shall not approve the permit unless it determines
that all of the following conditions are or would be met.
(i) The sign must direct traffic to a business located on property
abutting I-494, but which does not abut on 77th Street, 77 1/2 Street, 1-35W, Lyndale
Avenue, Nicollet Avenue, Portland Avenue, 12th Avenue or Cedar Avenue. In the
alternative the sign must direct traffic to a business that has relocated within the
Interstate Lvndale Nicollet redevel,Qpmentprojgct area as the result of an acquisition
project undertaken by the i state county or housing and redevelopment authority.
The sign allowed under the preceding sentence shall be permitted for a period not to
exceed one year from the date that the acquiring authority obtained title to the property
from which the business relocated.
(ii) The permit application must be made by the business served by
the sign. If the sign is to be located on private property, the owner of the property must
consent to the application.
(iii) The sign must be placed at least 14 feet south of the south curb
line of the 77th Street roadway; and at least six feet from any other public roadway, as
measured from the back of the curb. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Section 416 to the contrary, a business directional sign may be located within the
unused right of way of a City street.
(iv) The sign location must not create a traffic hazard.
~-3
(v) The business served by the sign may not have more than one sign
face addressing each direction of 77th Street anywhere in the 77th Street Corridor. The
sign may be double-faced, or upon a showing of need, two separate single-faced signs
may be utilized to address each direction of 77th Street. Sign faces shall be positioned
at approximately right angles to the 77th Street roadway.
(vi) The business owner served by the sign must demonstrate that he
or she has cogtacted other eligible businesses in the vicinity to determine whether they
are interested in going together on one sign.
(vii) In no instance may more than three businesses be represented on
one sign face. Such signage shall comply with the following size requirements:
a) one business - 24 inches wide by 18 inches high
b) two businesses - 24 inches wide by 24 inches high
c) three businesses - 24 inches wide by 30 inches high
(viii) The business owner(s) being served by such signage are
responsible for the purchase and installation of the sign.
(ix) The sign must contain the name of the business (or businesses)
and an arrow indicating which direction to turn. In special circumstances, it may be
necessary to use text in lieu of an arrow to indicate the appropriate direction (i.e., next
left). In any case, the use of text shall be kept to a minimum.
(x) Signs may not contain advertising messages. The sign may
contain a color logo not to exceed 36 square inches for each business. In the case of
multiple businesses on one sign, logo placement shall be approved by staff.
(xi) The sign shall be mounted at a height of seven feet, as measured
from the bottom of the sign to the ground level at the top of the abutting street curb.
(xii) The sign shall have a medium blue background. All lettering and
arrows shall be white. All lettering shall be upper-case helvetica style, four inches in
height.
(xiii) The corners of the sign face shall be rounded. The sign face shall
have a white border just inside the edge. Such border shall be three-quarters of an
inch in width. The comers of the sign border shall be rounded to fit the sign face.
(xiv) The sign face shall be metal or other material as approved by the
City.
~.-~1
(xv) The sign shall be mounted on a single iron post of sufficient gauge
to safely secure the sign face. The business (or businesses) served by such signage
shall be responsible to contacting the utility companies before installing the post.
(xvi) The business (or businesses) being served by off-site directional
signage shall keep such signage in proper position, clean, and legible at all times.
Damaged signs shall be replaced by the business within 20 days of written notice to
repair such damaged sign by the City. Failure to repair damaged signs within the 20
days will result in revocation of the permit and removal of the sign by the City.
(xvii) In instances where the 77th Street off-site signage does not lead
traffic directly to the business via the north/south avenues, the business may install one
off-site directional sign near the end of the avenue, as approved by staff. This sign
shall be installed and designed similar to the 77th Street off-site sign, however, the sign
face shall be no more than six inches in height by 24 inches in length. In unique
circumstances (i.e., business with unusually long name) the Council may approve a
sign face that is more than 24 inches in length.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14tH day of
August, 1995.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
~J
__ n
e
a
B01 WEST 77 1 /2 STREET RICHFIELD MINNESOTA 55423 612-866-3441 FAX b 12-866-9127
June 18, 1995
Mr. Dennis Neudecker
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Dennis:
~~,.z9~
As per our phone conversation I would like to request permission to place a directional
sign on Lyndale Avenue for our new location at 515 West 77th Street. We are very
concerned about the ability of our customers to find us at our new location after being
at the old one for eighteen years. We, of course, will make every attempt to inform our
customers of this move, but with our Yellow Pages and White Pages address being
wrong for the next seven months we stand the risk of losing business. Over-the years I
have seen many instances where the city has allowed temporary signs to be put up to
redirect people to businesses and this is what I am requesting.
We would propose to place the sign at the location indicated on the attached map for a
period of one year. The sign would meet your specifications as outlined in your
regulations for the 77th Street corridor meaning the sign would be 24" wide by 18"
high, medium blue with the required white outline, curved edges, and would stand on
one post. The lettering would be white, uppercase Helvetica, four inches high, with a
directional arrow. The sign would face South.
I realize that this request is out of the ordinary, but as you realize, the circumstances of
our move are not ordinary and the granting of this request will help keep business in
Richfield. Thank you for your consideration.
S.inc rely,
Bryan( L. Hagen
President
~-,-
Z
N!
W
z
O
a
v
0
Lyndale Avenue
KENNEDY & l>rRAVEN
CHARTERED
Attnrne~s al I.aw
ROBERT A. AI SOP
^ONALU n. ISATTY
EPfiEN J. BUD!;L
~c)I1N B. DEAN
A1ARY C,. DOBBINS
CORRINE A. EiETNF.
DAVIDJ. KENNEDY
CHARLES L. LEFEVF.RE
JOHN M. LEFEVRE. JA.
ROBERT .r. LINDALL
ROBERT C. LONE.
JAMES M. STRONMEN
June 27, 1995
Mr. Dennis Neudecker
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
470 Pllisbur7 Center, Minneapdis, ltlnnesota 55402
(6121 337-9300
Facsimile (6121 337.9310
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL
(612) 337.9217
RE: Directional Sign for Hagen Microage
Dear Dennis:
6-~
JAMES J. T1IOMSON. JR.
LARRY M. WERTlfEIM
BONNIE L. WILRINS
JOE Y. YANG
DAVID L. GRAVEN (!929.19911
OF COUNSEL
ROBERT C. CARLSON
ROBERT L. DAVIDSON
WELLINGTON II. LAW
T. JAY SALMEN
This follows our conversation of today, in which you advised that Hagen Microage has requested
permission to install an off-premises directional sign, which would direct customers to their new
location on 77th Street. The request does not meet the requirement of the City Code, Subsection
416.07, subd. 2(g)(2}(i), which requires that the sign must drrect traffic to a business located on
property that abuts I-494 but does not abut on 77th Street and other named streets. In addition,
Subsection 416.03, subd. 7 does not permit variances to be given from the provisions of the sign
ordinance.
Therefore, it is my opinion that the reyuest by Hagen Microage does not meet the requirements
of the sign ordinance, and that a sign permit cannot be issued. An amend e-nt~to`~the provisions
of the sign ordinance would be needed in order to allow the si a installed.
Sincerely,
t,.._~
/'
Corrine A. Heine
cc: John Dean
.:.Ft'~~ i 7S
~,_ t ~.;, _ i ~ ., .
----
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 218
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and consideration of a resolution approving a subdivision waiver for
7033 and 7037 Oakland Avenue.
Background:
David Forest, the owner of 7033 Oakland Avenue, is requesting a subdivision waiver
that would allow the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to deed 10
feet of the property at 7037 Oakland Avenue to his property at 7033 Oakland Avenue.
The HRA purchased 7037 Oakland Avenue in July 1995. The HRA is considering a
builder/buyer team development of a new home through the Richfield Rediscovered
program and can sell part of the property at 7037 Oakland to the owner of 7033
Oakland if the City Council concurs.
The property at 7033 Oakland Avenue is currently 55 feet wide, which is narrower than
the other lots in the neighborhood. Adding 10 feet will bring the lot width closer to that
of the neighborhood standard. The lot at 7037 Oakland Avenue is currently 82 feet
wide and-will remain a sizable lot without the 10 feet. Both of the proposed lots meet all
zoning requirements.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution, approving the subdivision waiver for 7033 and 7037
Oakland Avenue.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Compliance with the regular platting requirements of Section 500.05, Subd. 1 of the
City Code would result in an unnecessary hardship.
2. Approval of the subdivision waiver would not interfere with the purposes of platting
regulations of Section 500 of the City Code.
3. Approval of the subdivision waiver would make the width of the lot at 7033 Oakland
more comparable with the lots in the neighborhood without reducing the viability of
7037 as a buildable lot.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council may deny this subdivision waiver if a finding of fact determines that the
proposal would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties.
~- I
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 14, 1995. The hearing
will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue.
Notice of hearing was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame .Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
~J
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBDIVISION WAIVER
(7033 AND 7037 Oakland Avenue)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which
requests approval of a subdivision waiver for the division of certain parcels of land
generally located at 7033 and 7037 Oakland Avenue South, legally described on
Attachment One, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof (hereafter the subject
properly); and
WHEREAS, the proposed division of land for which the subdivision waiver is
sought is as legally described on Attachment Two, attached hereto and hereby made a
part hereof; and -
WHEREAS, the two lots resulting from the subdivision waiver will comply with
Section 521.09 of the City Code relating to lot area and width; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the
subdivision waiver; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that compliance with the City Code Section
500.05, Subd. 1 would result in unnecessary hardship and that failure to comply
therewith will not interfere with the purposes of platting regulations of Section 500.01.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. A waiver for the subdivision of properly legally described in Attachment
One is hereby approved subject to the following condition:
a. That all future transfers of any of the property described in
Attachment One shall be by parcel or parcels described in
Attachment Two.
2. Upon compliance with such condition, City staff is authorized and directed
to take any action necessary to effectuate this resolution and to authorize the recording
of conveyances complying with the requests of this resolution.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
August, 1995.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
ATTACHIVIENT ONE
PARCEL A
7033 Oakland Avenue South
The north 55 feet of the west 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the
northwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 except street. Section 35, Township 028, Range
24.
PARCEL B
7037 Oakland Avenue South
That part of the west 1%2 of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4
of the northwest 1/4 lying north of the south 192 feet thereof and south of the north 55
feet thereof, Hennepin County. Section 35, Townshop 028, Range 24.
~.J
ATTAC~IMENT TWO
PARCEL A
7033 Oakland Avenue South
The north 65 feet of the west 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the
northwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 except street. Section 35, Township 028, Range
24.
PARCEL B
7037 Oakland Avenue South
That part of the west 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4
of the northwest 1/4 lying north of the south 192 feet thereof and south of the north 65
feet thereof, Hennepin County. Section 35, Township 028, Range 24.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 217
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration to construct a municipal liquor store at 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue.
Background:
City staff has previously recommended the construction of a municipal liquor store at
77th Street and Lyndale Avenue in order to help funding for continuing demands in the
area of capital improvements. At the June 12, 1995 Study Session, staff presented a
proposal to reconsider the option of adding a fourth liquor store in the area of 77th
Street and Lyndale Avenue. Adding turn lanes in that area would require taking of the
Conoco station located on the southwest corner of the intersection. After providing
space for #he.turn lanes, adequate land on this site is available to construct a liquor
store. The developer has indicated they have no desire or plans for the site.
The City Council directed staff to assemble more specific information concerning this
proposal and present it to the City Council at a future regular City Council meeting.
This Council Letter provides the additional information requested. The major issues to
be considered in reviewing the proposal for the fourth liquor store are as follows:
Land Acquisition
The addition of turn lanes in the 77th and Lyndale intersection would require the
acquisition of the Conoco station at 7700 Lyndale Avenue. Federal or MSA funding
would be available to provide for the construction of the turn lane. The price of the
acquisition is estimated to be between $500,000-$900,000. Once the land is
acquired, it would be purchased by the Municipal Liquor Operations Department for
approximately 25% to 50% of acquisition cost. Funding for the purchase would be
derived from a combination of MSA and development funds.
2. Construction Costs
A new liquor store at this site would be approximately the same size as the Cedar
Avenue liquor store and occupy about 5,500 square feet. The total cost to construct
the store would be approximately $716,000. This estimate is based upon the
square footage referenced at a cost of $70-$80 per square foot for the main floor
with a cost of approximately $25 for the basement. An itemized listing of the
structural and appurtenant components of the new store along with associated costs
is contained in Attachment A.
3. Staffina
In staffing the fourth store, it is not the City's intention to hire an additional store
manager. Initially, the store would share a store manager with one of the existing
stores. An additional assistant store manager would be hired for the new store.
4-I
However, that is the only full time position to be added to accommodate the fourth
store. Additional staffing would be provided principally by part time help.
4. Market Analysis
A sales forecast and market analysis for the proposed store was completed by
Grinstead and Associates in 1992. That initial work indicated the potential for a
sizable increase in sales and net profits based upon conservative estimates. With
the changes in the ILN and the identification of a precise location, the Grinstead firm
was asked to update the analysis previously performed so that projections would be
based upon the most current data available. See Attachment B.
5. Payment in Lieu of Taxes
Payments in lieu of taxes would continue to be paid to the-City on a per store basis
calculated from estimated market value.
6. Transfers to Special Revenue
According to the analysis performed by the Liquor Operations Director, the new
store would net additional revenue of $60,970 (considering the lost business to
other Richfield municipal liquor operations.) The net impact upon the Liquor
Operations ability to transfer funds to the Special Revenue Fund is indicated in
Attachment C.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing to gather public input and direct staff to proceed with the
construction of a municipal liquor store at the location of 77th Street and Lyndale
Avenue.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The addition of a fourth municipal liquor store has been studied by an independent
beverage marketing expert. That recommendation indicates that a new municipal
liquor store at this location would be profitable.
2. There are strong demands for additional revenues on an ongoing basis to support
capital improvements within the City.
3. The acquisition of the Conoco station provides a unique opportunity for the City of
Richfield to acquire a highly desirable retail location.
4. The 77th/Lyndale area is a highly desirable retail location and if this store proves
to be less profitable than desired, the site and the building could be sold to
another retail user.
5. As part of the budget process, the City Council has the opportunity to review
whether Richfield will operate four stores. If any of the stores do not generate a
profit, the Council could decide to cease operation of a store and sell the property.
~- ~
6. The type of building to be constructed at 77th and Lyndale would provide excellent
resale should the City Council determine that the fourth store was not necessary
at some time in the future.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could reject the concept for an additional store.
2. The Council could decide to construct the Lyndale store and close one other
store, now or at some time in the future.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This opportunity is linked to the availability of the Conoco site. If the Conoco site
becomes available, the City should be in a position to proceed with a store on this site if
the Council supports the addition of a fourth store. In order to continue this process in a
timely schedule, this item should be considered at the August 14, 1995 City Council
meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja s D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
ATTACHMENT A ~-~
CITY OF RICHFIELD
ACQUISITION OF 4TH LIQUOR STORE
CAPITAL COSTS
ESTIMATED USEFUL
ACQUISITION LIFE ANNUAL
COST (YEARS) DEPRECIATION
Land Acquisition ? N/A
Structure
(Based upon $70-80 sq.ft.; 1/3 cost for basement) $ 585,000.00 30 $ 19,500.00
5,500 sq.ft. each floor
Architectural Service 30,000.00 30 1,000
Site Observation 15,000.00 30 500.00
Refrigeration (product cooler) 35,000.00. 10 3,500.00
Shelving 10,000.00 10 1,000.00
Checkout (Point of Sale) fixtures 8,000.00 10 800.00
Signage 7,000.00 10 700.00
Communications 3,500.00 10 350.00
Alarm (intrusion, fire suppression) 2,500.00 10 250.00
Surveillance System 5,000.00 10 500.00
Point of Sale Registers 8,000.00 5 1,600.00
Blacktop, landscaping/irrigation 5,000.00 10 500.00
Miscellaneous (office equip, shopping carts,
janitorial supplies, credit card validator) 2,000.00 3 666.67
$ 716,000.00 $ 30,866.67
Attachment B /~ j~
CONSULTING REPORT TO CITY OF RICHFIELD
FOURTH MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
77TH STREET AND LYNDALE AVENUE
August 11, 1995
Grinstead & Associates
Marketing & Financial Consulting
P.O. Box 451
Hamel, Illinois 62046-0451
618-633-2762
Fax 618-633-2761
INTRODUCTION
The objectives of this report include:
• Evaluate the sales projections for three stores and the fourth store.
• Evaluate the planned size (5,500 square feet) of the fourth store.
• Evaluate the product mix (percentage of beer/liquor/wine) of the fourth store.
• Comment on the marketing strategy of the fourth store.
Our initial reaction to the site, location, exposure and accessibility. is as follows:
EXPOSURE
This specific location under consideration may have one of the best exposures that we have
ever studied. The fact that it will have exposure from traffic on Interstate 494 from
Bloomington traffic on Lyndale (south of I-494) and, obviously, from Richfield traffic on Lyndale
(north of I-494) and on 77th Street west makes it extremely desirable.
The fact that this is a free standing building intensifies the exposure factor. If this were part of
the strip center (next to Land's End, Boston Market, or the Computer Shop), the square
footage would have to be much larger to achieve the same exposure factor.
.DOWNSIDE RISK
- The fact that the pad is free standing and has terrific exposure provides the City an excellent
fall back position. A retail store with its wide expansion is easily adaptable to many other
commercial activities.
ACCESSIBILITY
This is the one negative factor. The accessibility will hurt the overall location's potential. Of
the 295 customers that we have interviewed in the Richfield municipal liquor stores, 94.24%
noted that one of the principal reasons that they shopped in this store today was the
convenience of the location.
Accessibility will definitely effect the mix of products purchased and it will not be a beer store
(as is the case of Cedar). The product mix will be skewed toward the shopped for items
(defined on page 6), and it should have the highest average sales per customer of any
Richfield municipal liquor store.
However, we believe that the negative aspects of accessibility are diminished by:
• The neighbors are a powerful retail draw.
• Phase I of The Shops at Lyndale include: Sportmart, PetSmart, Best Buy.
• Phase II will include Land's End, Boston Market (an upscale fast food), a video store
and a Computer Shop, a free standing restaurant.
• We believe Bloomington, Edina, etc. customers will not find the planned ingress/egress
.significantly inconvenient.
-1-
Also, there are four other benefits of this planned development which will deflect some of the
negative accessibility.
• Parking
Because this store will be free standing and a copy of the Cedar store, parking will be
extremely convenient and close to the Liquor store doors.
• 77th Street Expansion
We are very impressed with the development, expansion and the potential of 77th Street.
The increases on convenience traffic on 77th Street will offset some of the problems of
accessibility.
• Planned Executive Office Complex (on 77th Street, west of Phase I development)
This complex will bring many prospective customers into the immediate market.
• Bloomington Side
The Bloomington side which makes up our primary target market, also needs to be
developed. However, any Bloomington development will be constructed much later in time
than the Richfield side. Thus, customers will already be used to traveling across I-494.
We believe the timing on this planned development is quite attractive to the Richfield
municipal liquor operation.
IMAGE
We believe the City of Richfield will create a favorable image by being included in this
development in The Shops at Lyndale. Not only does it include the City as a retail participant
in a first class commercial development, it also conveys the image of maximizing efforts to
increase the benefits to the City of Richfield.
• We have not taken any in-store customer questionnaires since 1992 and it might be time to
do some. However, in our last customer analysis of Richfield customers, we were pleased
to note that supporting the community has been a stronger and stronger image of those
Richfield residents shopping in the liquor stores.
• If this were not the case, we would probably recommend that the City changes the name of
the liquor store to something that would be more appealing to Bloomington and other non-
Richfield customers. This would allow the City's Liquor Operations Director the flexibility to
use two sets of marketing and management formats.
COMPETITION
The differences between the Richfield municipal liquor stores and the privately owned
competitive stores, especially in Bloomington, i.e. Budget and MGM, were dramatic. For
example:
-2-
• Budget Liquors was very beer oriented, aimed directly at the blue collar consumer, and its
merchandising policy consisted of large case stockings scattered randomly throughout the
store. This store is located on south Lyndale and is 0.8 miles south of the location under
consideration.
However, during heavy traffic congestion, it will take three to five minutes to travel from
Budget to 77th Street in Richfield. The 77th Street expansion will allow the
Bloomington customers to take other routes into Richfield and conveniently travel to
The Shops at Lyndale. We noted how much we liked the 77th Street expansion and
Phis is why.
• MGM Liquors had a scattered layout. The customer enters the store into beer, with liquor
on both walls, with the wine in the middle of the store. They try to cater to a more. affluent
consumer than Budget Liquor does but end up with a confused image. This store is
located on south Lyndale and is 1.0 miles south of the location under consideration.
Because of marketing restrictions, these stores which have lower retail prices than Richfield
cannot promote this fact. Therefore, other factors such as complete .selection, clean and
attractive stores, and good service and helpful personnel make up reasons for shopping a
specific liquor store.
The managerial policies established and utilized in the Richfield municipal liquor stores and
the deep inventory buying discounts, made even stronger with the inception of the fourth store,
give this store the potential to be extremely profitable for the City of Richfield.
EXPANSION
If you have "x" number of dollars available to be spent for expansion, an investment in a fourth
store will be much more productive and will produce a much higher return on your investment
than any expenditure earmarked to remodel the Penn Avenue store. Again from our last
project, when Grinstead & Associates interviewed almost 300 customers in the City of
Richfield's municipal liquor stores, we see that only 2.03% of the customers live in
Bloomington.
Thus, a fourth store has the potential to draw from this market area and will not effect the three
existing retail liquor stores. The following chart shows-where the customers live (are coming
from to get to the Richfield municipal liquor stores).
-3-
City Customers-
@ Lyndale
Live In Customers
@ Cedar
Live In Customers
@ Penn
Live In All
Richfield
Customers
Minneapolis 54.64% 35.63% 40.54% 43.72%
Richfield 31.96% 51.72% 40.54% 41.02%
Edina 3.09% 1.15% 9:90% 5.08%
Subtotal 89.69% 88.50% 90.98% 89.82%
Boomington 2.06% 2.30% 1.80% 2.03%
The median travel radius of a liquor store is between 1 to 2.5 miles. Given that there is:
• easy accessibility to I-494 and I-35W;
• expansion of 77th Street and with Lyndale traffic;
• substantial drawing power of the other retailers in The Shops at Lyndale and enormous
drawing power of the Mall of America; and
• managerial expertise, experience and potential of Richfield's liquor management team
the City of Richfield's median travel radius has the potential to be very large at this fourth
liquor store. Therefore, this store's sales volume has the potential to be very, very
considerable. This is another reason why we discussed using another name.
EVALUATION OF SALES PROJECTIONS
When we originally worked on our sales projections at 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue in
1992, we were working with a location that would support a satellite store.
• This fourth store would serve a need and an area not presently effectively served, i.e.
south Richfield and Bloomington, by the three existing municipal liquor stores.
• This fourth store would be simple to operate and could probably be managed with the
constraints of the existing staff.
We do not view this store in the same light as a satellite store. As we stated in our
introduction:
• The terrific exposure, the potential to draw from a huge radius, the excellent tenant mix
(large retail draws as well as convenience oriented retailers), the ease of parking, the
77th Street expansion, the planned office complex, and the potential for attracting
Bloomington customers make this an interesting opportunity.
This was a hard location to analyze. We have tried to keep our sales projects at a
conservative level. When we project a specific sales volume, we also generate a range into
which we can feel confident that the actual first or second year sales will fall. The range at this
-4-
location is extremely large and is skewed up, i.e., much larger sales are achievable, than our
projections.
On one hand, this fourth store could live up to our glowing introduction and sales will far
exceed our projections.
On the other hand, the accessibility problem will intensify itself or the store will run as a
satellite store. We are fairly confident that accessibility will not intensify, and we are well
aware of the management's potential, experience and expertise. Therefore, we cannot
envision any conditions in which the store will be improperly managed or in which it will be
managed to not achieve its potential sales volume.
The following chart shows our five year projections of sales starting in 1996 and ending in
2000.
FOURTH STORE'S EFFECT ON SALES
Year Existing
Richfield
Liquor Sales
(3 stores) From Existing
Richfield
Stores New Sales
Generated
(benefit) Total Sales of
Fourth Store All Four
Richfield
Liquor Stores
1995 $6,700,000
1996 $6,990,300 $505,200 $1,515,500 $2,020,700 $8,505,800
1997 $7,129,100 $479, 800 $1,703, 000 $2,182, 800 $8, 832,100
1998 $7,263,500 $474,700 $1,888,100 $2,362,800 $9,151,600
1999 $7,393,300 $467,950 $1,971,300 $2,439,250 $9,364,600
2000 $7,525,400 $460,050 $2,059,750 $2,519,800 $9,585,150
• Note that between $460,000 and $505,000 of the fourth liquor store's sales volume will be
taken away from the three existing stores.
All other sales generated by the fourth store from $1.5 million to $2.0 million in sales will be
new, derived from a customer living outside of Richfield.
Appendix A shows the projected income statements for the existing three and for the potential
four stores from 1996 to 2000. We used your gross margin, depreciation, and miscellaneous
revenue figures. We made every effort to keep our sale projections conservatively low, and
our expense projection conservatively high.
EVALUATION OF PLANNED SIZE
We were told that the Cedar store size would be the model for this fourth store. We believe
that this size will be perfect for this location.
-5-
• It is large enough to allow management room for merchandising, inventory and selection,
and creating a shopping oriented environment.
On one hand, if the sales do exceed our expectation, you are going to wish the store was
larger. However, this size store can be geared to generate a substantial sales volume.
There are several liquor stores in the country that are this size and have a sales volume of
$3 to $5+ million.
• On the other hand, this store can be built at a reasonable per square foot cost. It will give
you a substantial return on investment. Also, in a worse case scenario, it will give you a
multi-use facility in a premium priced commercial area that should have the ability to be
sold quickly and at a reasonable price.
EVALUATION OF PRODUCT MIX
We project the product mix of this fourth store will be similar to that of the Lyndale store.
• This will be a "shopped for" store. Customers will make planned shopping trips or you will
be part of these shopping trips. We project that shopped for brands of liquor and wine may
exceed all other Richfield liquor stores.
• We recommend a good selection of domestic premium wines. When this store gets going,
you may want to consider placing a wine person in this store on a full time basis, selling
directly to customers and for wine merchandising.
This will not be a highly impulse store. This means that beer sales from the cooler, i.e. 6
packs and 12 packs, should be at a lower percentage than the other Richfield municipal
liquor stores. However, we do not recommend any changes in the size of the beer cooler
from the Cedar prototype. You will need extra room for new sizes for imported and unique
domestic brands and for wines.
MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING
If the fourth store does take off with a substantial sales volume, in two or three years you
might want to consider changing the fourth store's name to a generic name, i.e., Bottleneck,
Bloomfield, or Applejack's Discount Liquors. This would give you the flexibility of using two
sets of marketing and management formats.
We do not want to recommend this until we know the store can generate $3+ million in sales.
We believe that community support for the Richfield liquor stores and the benefits that they
generate has grown to the point where this fourth store does justify making no changes in the
name at the present time.
A name change would allow the City's liquor management the ability to price the fourth store
at a discount to attract a much larger customer base and from a larger radius. This may
dramatically expand the sales volume but would decrease the gross margin. At the same
-6-
time, management could maximize profits of the three established stores with the objective of
increasing the gross margin by 2.0% to 2.5%.
On of our observations of management is that they are still highly motivated, have a good deal
of expertise and experience, and have a good deal of potential. We highly recommend that
you utilize this talent pool to run the fourth store or a combination of these four stores. Then
as the fourth store increases in sales, you may wish to hire a fourth store manager to run the
stores in the conventional approach.
-7-
Appendix A
FIVE YEAR PROJECTED INCOME STATEMENTS
FOR THREE RICHFIELD LIQUOR STORES
AND
WITH A FOURTH STORE AT 77TH STREET AND LYNDALE AVENUE
FROM THE YEAR 1996 TO THE YEAR 2000
CITY OF RICHFIELD
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR PROJECTIONS
FOR YEAR ENDING
DECEMBER 31, 1996
Three
Stores Four
Stores Benefit
(Cost)
SALES $6,990,300 $8,505,800 $1,515,500
Cost of Goods Sold $5,522,337 $6,719,582 ($1,197,245)
GROSS PROFIT $1,467,963 $1,786,218 $318,255
GROSS MARGIN 21.00% 21.00%
EXPENSES
Personal Services $638,913 9.14% $765,522 9.00% ($126,609)
Other Services &
Charges $223,690 3.20% $289,197 3.40% ($65,508)
Supplies $17,476 0.25% $22,966 0.27% ($5,490)
Depreciation $64,800 0.93% $95,670 1.12% ($30,870)
Total Expenses $944,879 13.52% $1,173,355 13.79% ($228,476)
OPERATING $523,084 7.48% $612,863 7.21% $89,779
INCOME
MISC. REVENUE
Interest $50,000 $30,000
Commissions $23,000 $28,000
Other ($9,000) ($12,000)
Total Misc. Revenue $64,000 $46,000
NET INCOME ~ $587,084 ~ 8.40% ~ $658,863 ~ 7.75% ~ $71,779
CITY OF RICHFIELD
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR PROJECTIONS
FOR YEAR ENDING
DECEMBER 31, 1997
Three
Stores Four
Stores Benefit
(Cost)
SALES $7,129,100 $8,832,100 $1,703, 000
Cost of Goods Sold $5,631,989 $6,977,359 ($1,345,370)
GROSS PROFIT $1,497,111 $1,854,741 $357,630
GROSS MARGIN 21.00% 21.00%
EXPENSES
Personal Services $651,600 9.14% $794,889 9.00% ($143,289)
Other Services &
Charges $228,131 3.20% $295,875 3.35% ($67,744)
Supplies $17,823 0.25% $23,405 0.27% ($5,582)
Depreciation $66,000 0.93% $97,000 1.10% ($31,000)
Total Expenses $963,554 13.52% $1,211,169 13.71 % ($247,616)
OPERATING $533,557 7.48% $643,572 7.29% $110,014
INCOME
MISC. REVENUE
Interest $50,000 $40,000
Commissions $25,000 $30,000
Other ($9,000) ($12,000)
Total Misc. Revenue $66,000 $58,000
NET INCOME ~ $599,557 ~ 8.41% ~ 701,572 ~ 7.94% ~ $102,014
CITY OF RICHFIELD
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR PROJECTIONS
FOR YEAR ENDING
DECEMBER 31, 1998
Three
Stores Four
Stores Benefit
(Cost)
SALES $7,263,500 $9,152,600 $1,888,100
Cost of Goods Sold $5,738,165 $7,229,764 ($1,491,599)
GROSS PROFIT $1,525,335 $1,921,836 $396,501
GROSS MARGIN 21.00% 21.00%
EXPENSES
Personal Services $663,884 9.14% $823,644 9.00% ($159,760)
Other Services &
Charges , $232,432 3.20% $302,003 3.30% ($69,571)
Supplies $18,159 0.25% $23,794 0.26% ($5,635)
Depreciation $67,000 0.92% $99,000 1.08% ($32,000)
Total Expenses $981,475 13.51 % $1,248,441 13.64% ($266,966)
OPERATING $543,860 7.49% $673,395 7.36% $129,535
INCOME
MISC. REVENUE
Interest $50,000 $40,000
Commissions $27,000 $31,000
Other ($9,000) ($12,000)
Total Misc. Revenue $68,000 $59,000
~ NET INCOME ~ $611,860 ~ 8.42% ~ $732,395 ~ 8.00% ~ $120,535 ~
CITY OF RICHFIELD
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR PROJECTIONS
FOR YEAR ENDING
DECEMBER 31, 1999
Three
Stores Four
Stores Benefit
(Cost)
SALES $7,393,300 $9,364,600 $1,971,300
Cost of Goods Sold $5,840,707 $7,398,034 ($1,557,327)
GROSS PROFIT $1,552,593 $1,966,566 $413,973
GROSS MARGIN 21.00% 21.00%
EXPENSES
Personal Services $675,748 9.14% $842,814 9.00% ($167,066)
Other Services &
Charges $236,586 3.20% $304,350 3.25% ($67,764)
Supplies $18,483 0.25% $23,880 0.26% ($5,396)
Depreciation $68,000 0.92% $101,000 1.08% ($33,000)
Total Expenses $998,816 13.51% $1,272,043 13.58% ($273,227)
OPERATING $553,777 7.49% $694,523 7.42% $140,746
INCOME
MISC. REVENUE
Interest $50,000 $40,000
Commissions $27,500 $31,500
Other ($9,000) ($12,000)
Total Misc. Revenue $68,500 $59,500
NET INCOME ~ $622,277 ~ 8.42% ~ $754,023 ~ 8.05% ~ $131,746
CITY OF RICHFIELD
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR PROJECTIONS
FOR YEAR ENDING
DECEMBER 31, 2000
Three
Stores Four
Stores Benefit
(Cost)
SALES $7,525,400 $9,585,150 $2,059,750
Cost of Goods Sold $5,945,066 $7,572,269 ($1,627,203)
GROSS PROFIT $1,580,334 $2,012,882 $432,548
GROSS MARGIN 21.00% 21.00%
EXPENSES
Personal Services $687,822 9.14% $862,664 9.00% ($174,842)
Other Services &
Charges $240,813 3.20% $306,725 3.20% ($65,912)
Supplies $18,814 0.25% $23,963 0.25% ($5,149)
Depreciation $68,000 0.90% $101,000 1.05% ($33,000)
Total Expenses $1,015,448 13.49% $1,294,351 13.50% ($278,903)
OPERATING $564,886 7.51 % $718,530 7.50% $153,644
INCOME
MISC. REVENUE
Interest $50,000 $40,000
Commissions $28,000 $31,500
Other ($9,000) ($12,000)
Total Misc. Revenue $69,000 $59,500
NET INCOME ~ $633,886 ~ 8.42% ~ $778,030 ~ 8.12% ~ $144,144
,;
' ~ ATTACHMENT C ~ ''
~ < ~ tt
i
Municipal Liquor Operations
Fourth .Store Analysis
Five Year Projections
June 5, 1995
Executive Summary
Assumptions
The attached five year liquor operations projections compare the years 1996-2000 using a three
store versus a four store, municipal liquor operations configuration. The net difference between
the three and four store models is reflected in the column entitled "Benefit (Cost)".
The model uses the following assumptions:
• No new Liquor Store Manager will be hired for the fourth store. Instead a current Manager
will be used to supervise two stores, with the net addition of an Assistant Liquor Store
Manager.
• Current fixed costs for items such as word processing, advertising, insurance, etc. would be
distributed among four stores rather than three in the four store model.
• Available cash balances would be significantly depleted to construct the fourth store, resulting
in lower interest earnings for the first few years.
• Transfers to the Special Revenue Fund would be scheduled as follows:
1996 - $400,000
1997 - $450,000
1998 - $475,000
1999 - $500,000
2000 - $500,000
Summary of Cost Benefit Analysis
The analysis results in a conservative projection of an increase in Net Income of $45,970 in the
first year of operation, 1996. In the following four years the increases in Net Income are as
follows:
1997 - $ 72,727
1998 - $106,750
1999 - $151,940
2000 - $185,235
The analysis projects an ability in the second year to make a $50,000 increase in the contribution
to the Special Revenue Fund and to attain a $100,000 increase in the contribution by 1999. Even
with the increased contributions to the Special Revenue Fund, the Liquor Store Operations
project a five year growth in Net Income to $185,000 by the year 2000.
~N~-I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 216
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an application for a renewal of a residential kennel license for Carolyn
Kretchmer, 7232 11th Avenue.
Background:
On June 30, 1995, Carolyn Kretchmer submitted an application fora residential kennel
license. She owns four dogs. Ms. Kretchmer's application had all contiguous property
owners' signatures on it.
On July 7, 1995, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service
Officer. There were no apparent problems found at that time.
The City has adopted a policy that staff notify neighbors surrounding the area of the
residential kennel license. Staff received no calls or complaints from any of the
neighbors.
Although this application is for four dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of
six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the application for a residential kennel license be approved.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping of more than two dogs does
not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Ms. Kretchmer has been able to
do this.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny Ms. Kretchmer's residential kennel license. This
would mean that she would have to reduce the number of dogs she has from four
to two.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Recommendation to approve the application for a residential kennel license for Carolyn
Kretchmer, 7232 11th Avenue, is presented for Council consideration at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam .Prosser
City ager
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 215
Agenda August 14,.1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an application for a renewal of a residential kennel license for Claire
Todd, 7425 Pleasant Avenue.
Background:
On July 5, 1995, Claire Todd submitted an application for a residential kennel license.
She owns three dogs and two cats. Ms. Todd's application had all contiguous property
owners' signatures on it.
On July 11, 1995, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service
Officer. There were no apparent problems found at that time.
The City has adopted a policy that staff notify neighbors surrounding the area of the
residential kennel license. Staff received no calls or complaints from any of the
neighbors.
Although this application is for three dogs and two cats, it does not exceed the
maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22,
1991.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the application for a residential kennel license be approved.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping of more than two dogs and
two cats does not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Ms. Todd has
been able to do this.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny Ms. Todd's residential kennel license. This
would mean that she would have to reduce the number of dogs she has from
three to two.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Recommendation to approve the application for a residential kennel license for Claire
Todd, 7425 Pleasant Avenue, is presented for Council consideration at this time.
Respectfully bmitted,
James rosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~~l
Council Letter No. 214
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an application for a renewal of a commercial kennel license for Pet
Food Warehouse, 710 West 66th Street.
Background:
On July 12, 1995, Pet Food Warehouse submitted an application for the renewal of a
commercial kennel license. This license will be for the grooming of animals only. There
will be no kenneling of animals at any time.
On July 30, 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 been made aware of 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 commercial kennel license for Pet
Food Warehouse, 710 West 66th Street, is presented for Council consideration at this
time.
Respectfully submitted,
James rosser
City Ma ger
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA `~~
Council Letter No. 213
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an application for a renewal of a commercial kennel license for
Elaine's Grooming, 7429 Humboldt Avenue.
Background:
On July 7, 1995, Elaine Bergquist submitted an application for the renewal of-her
commercial kennel license. Ms. Bergquist's application had all contiguous property
owners' signatures on it.
On July 11, 1995, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service
Officer. There were no apparent problems found at that time.
The City has adopted a policy that staff notify neighbors surrounding the area of the
commercial kennel license when it is located in a residential neighborhood. Staff
received no complaints from any of the other neighbors.
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.
2. The City has previously issued a kennel license to Elaine's Grooming.
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 commercial kennel license for
Elaine's Grooming, 7429 Humboldt Avenue, is presented for Council consideration at
this time.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City M ager
JDP:cak
~1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 212
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Request by the Church of St. Peter, 6730 Nicollet Avenue, for an itinerant place of
amusement license for the 1995 Fall Festival to be held October 7 and 8, 1995.
Background:
In July, the Church of St. Peter submitted a request for an itinerant place of amusement
license for October 7 and 8, 1995. They are requesting that the fee be waived..
Recommended Motion:
Approve the license, fee waived, for October 7 and 8, 1995 for St. Peter's 1995 Fall
Festival.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to this license.
2. The City has previously issued this license in conjunction with the St. Peter Fall
Festival.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny the request. The Public Safety Department has
not found any basis for a denial. In addition, the Council has previously granted
this license in conjunction with the St. Peter Fall Festival.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The request for this license has been placed on the consent calendar for August 14,
1995.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
7~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 211
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Purchase in excess of $5,000 for a replacement phone system for the Finance Division.
Background:
The City Council 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 phone system currently in use in the Finance Division consists of nine push button
phones. The phones are outdated and have demonstrated the following problems: (1)
no feature to enable Finance Division employees to determine which phone is ringing,
(2) some of the phones do not have ability to pick up an incoming call on another
division phone, and (3) the method available to transfer a call or put a caller on hold
does not work consistently, resulting in callers being disconnected.
Finance staff recently obtained a quote for a new phone system from Cady
Communications, Inc. Cady Communications installed new phones in the Executive,
Administration, Personnel, and Assessing Divisions over the last two years and City
staff have been very pleased with the new phones. The Finance Division phone
system would be an expansion of the systems already in place and would eliminate the
problems with the current system. In addition, the system would include many features
not currently available, such as automatic route selection, directory functions,
programmable buttons, speakerphone, voice mail, and intercom. The total cost of the
phones and the related processor, software, and wiring is $6,690 including sales tax.
This cost includes installation and training.
The acquisition of a new phone system was not anticipated when the 1995 proposed
budget was prepared. However, the purchase can be included. in the 1995 revised
budget without increasing the total budget for the Administrative Services department
due to a reduction in expenditures for the Richfield Youth Employment Service
activities.
Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase agreement in the amount of $6,282 plus sales tax to purchase a
phone system from Cady Communications, Inc..
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The phone system in the Finance Division is outdated and does not enable the
employees to provide quality service to residents and other. City personnel.
~ K-I
2. Cady Communications, Inc. has previously installed high quality phone systems in
other City Hall divisions.
3. There are funds available in the Administrative Services Department budget to
purchase the phone system in 1995.
4. The upgraded phone system would add to the efficiency of the Finance Division.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose to deny the purchase of a new. phone system or require that
quotes be obtained from other vendors.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval of this purchase at the August 14, 1995 Council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City M ager
JDP:cak
~J
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 210
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Purchase of gear box for milling machine 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.
On July 19, 1995, the milling machine, a large grinder used to cut out deteriorated asphalt in
the street repair program, broke down. This is a critical unit for the asphalt repair crew, and
without it the eight-person crew's activities are severely limited. Garage mechanics checked
on parts and found that replacement gears would cost $9,000 and would take three weeks to
be shipped. A completely assembled gear box would cost approximately $12,000, and could
be shipped immediately, and be available in a couple of days. Renting a milling machine
costs $1,000/day, and the closest unit is in Iowa.
Due to the amount of work still to be completed to prepare the 1996 seal coat area, and the
short period of time left to finish the work, staff ordered the assembled gear box from Ziegler's.
The price came to $12,223.28 plus sales tax of $794.51 for a total cost of $13,017.79. The
- assembled gear box arrived on July 21 and was installed by Monday, July 24.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the purchase order to Ziegler's in the sum of $13,017.79 for a gear box for milling
machine.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The milling machine is an essential piece of equipment used in the street repair program.
2. The machine needed to be fixed on the most timely basis available, and staff chose that
option.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval of the purchase order to Ziegler's at the August 14, 1995 Council
meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
James osser
City Ma er
JDP:ds
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 209
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Award of purchase order for two backwash reclaim pump starters.
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 pump starters will be used to control the speed of the reclaim pumps during the
filter backwash process. They will match the return flow to the softening basins to
backwash flow to prevent flow surges in the plant.
Quotations were requested and received from two vendors with the following results:
Vendor Total Bid
Border States Electric Supply $ 8,090.00
Boustead Electric & Manufacturing 10,696.92
Recommended Motion:
Award a purchase order to Border States Electric Supply in the amount of $8,090.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Border States Electric Supply met all requirements and is a reputable supplier.
2. There are sufficient funds in the 1995 revised budget.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose not to accept any of the quotations and require new quotes be
obtained. However, staff does not believe better prices can be obtained.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff requests approval at the August 14, 1995 Council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
James rosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
(~1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 208
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Purchase in excess of $5,000 for mower at Rich Acres Golf Course.
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.
One fully depreciated Greensmower 3000, purchased in 1990 is scheduled to be
replaced in 1995. Staff solicited quotations in an informal bidding process, including
trade-in prices on the 1990 Toro GM3000 Greensmaster. Two vendors quoted on a
Toro Greensmaster 3000. Quotes are as follows:
MTI Distributing Co. $12,427.00
One set groomer attachments with pull arms 2,558.00
Less trade: Toro GM3000 -5,500.00
Sales tax 616.53
Total $10,101.53
Erv's Lawn Mower Repair $12,896.00
One set groomer attachments with pull arms 2,726.00
Less trade: Toro GM3000 -4,400.00
Sales Tax 729.43
Total $11,951.43
The Central Garage approved 1995 Motor Pool budget contains adequate funding for
this purchase.
Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase order to MTI Distributing, Inc. for a total of $14,985, less trade in of
$5,500.00, plus sales tax of $616.53 for a total of $10,101.53 for the 1995 Toro
Greensmaster 3000.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The mowers presently owned by the Golf Course are Toro brand, and parts would be
interchangeable with the new machine.
2. There is adequate funding in the approved 1995-Motor Pool budget.
~ H-1
3. MTI Distributing Company has proven to be a very reliable vendor for the City.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose to not purchase at this time and instruct staff to obtain new
quotations; however, staff believes these prices to be competitive.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is on the August 14, 1995 consent calendar. Staff is requesting approval at
this time in order to facilitate timely delivery of the unit.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City Ma ager
JDP:ds
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 207
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Purchase in excess of $5,000 for utility cart for use at the Golf Course.
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.
One 1989 Cushman Turf Truckster is fully depreciated and scheduled to be replaced in
1995. For heavy duty work, staff requested quotes on a 1995 turf tuckster, with a
trade-in of the fully depreciated unit, and received quotes from two vendors as follows:
Cushman Motor Company, Inc.
1995 Cushman Model 898630 $11,360.00
4 post rollover protection with belts 700.00
Less trade 1989 Cushman -3,000.00
Sales Tax 588.90
Total $ 9,648.90
MTI Distributing Company, Inc.
1995 Toro Workman Liquid Cooled $13,226.00
Less trade 1989 Cushman -4,000.00
Sales. Tax 599.69
Total $ 9,825.69
Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase order in the amount of $9,648.90 to Cushman Motor Company,
Inc. for a Cushman Model #898630 Turf Truckster (equipped as specified).
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Cushman Motor Company, Inc. submitted the low quotation for the heavy duty type
of equipment desired.
2. The Toro unit would require an additional $1,200 worth of optional equipment to
accept our existing attachments.
3. The adopted 1995 budget includes replacement of this unit. There is sufficient
funding available for this purchase.
~~l
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Council could direct staff to obtain additional quotes for this equipment.
2. Council could choose not to replace at this time.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval at the August 14, 1995 Council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
~F
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 206
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Purchase in excess of $5,000 to remove and replace a retaining wall located at 6600
Third Avenue.
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.
City staff has received several complaints about the deteriorating condition of the
retaining wall located on the boulevard at 6600 Third Avenue. The concrete block wall
is falling apart, creating a safety hazard as well as an eyesore. Breaking pieces of
concrete fall onto the sidewalk and 66th Street. The wall is beyond repair and must be
replaced.
Hennepin County was contacted regarding the retaining wall which is located partially
on private property and partially on Hennepin County right-of--way. This wall and others
in the City are so old records are not available as to who built the wall or who is
responsible for maintaining and replacing the wall. Generally, however; when the
County has built roads, the City has agreed to maintain sidewalks and walls on the
County right-of-way.
The City's engineering staff conducted a feasibility study of the wall at 6600 Third
Avenue which included analyzing several repair style alternatives. The most viable
solution is to remove-the wall, move it back three feet onto the homeowner's property,
and rebuild using lannon stone. This setback is in compliance with the ordinance for
new walls, fences and hedges. Once the work is accomplished, the homeowner has
agreed to take over maintenance and repair of the retaining wall. Staff has received a
signed right of entry form from the homeowner. Staff requested quotes from three
landscape companies, and quotations were received for the work as follows:
Elgard Bros. Landscaping, Inc. $10,700
L & R Suburban $10,885
JLM Landscape, Inc. $11,535
Hennepin County has agreed to pay 50% of the cost. The City's street maintenance
budget will fund the remaining cost for construction. This agreement for the County and
City to cost share related to construction of walls on Hennepin County right-of--way sets
a new precedent.
3F I
Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase order to Elgard Bros. Landscaping, Inc. for the removal and
replacement of a lannon stone retaining wall for an estimated $10,700.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Elgard Bros. Landscaping, Inc. submitted the low quote.
2. This retaining wall is falling apart and should be repaired.
3. The new wall will comply with ordinance setback requirements.
4. The cost sharing by the County and City for reconstruction of walls on Hennepin
County right-of--way sets a new precedent
Alternative Recommendation:
A no build option is not feasible due to possible liabilities arising from the hazardous
condition of the retaining wall as it currently stands.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
In order to complete this project before the construction season ends, staff is requesting
approval at the August 14, 1995 Council- meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam sf' .Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 205
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of authorizing payment of $14,115 for consulting services toward the
completion of the update of the Comprehensive Plan.
Background:
The Brauer Group, Inc. is providing consulting services to the City to complete the
update of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission has set a schedule to
complete the Comprehensive Plan update in the next few months.
In June, the Brauer Group spent 105 hours on the project for a monthly bill of $7,340.
In July, the Brauer Group spent 96 hours on the project for a monthly bill of $6,775 and
a total bill of $14,115.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the payment of the June and July invoices in the amount of $14,115 from The
Brauer Group, Inc. for consulting services toward the completion of the update of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Brauer Group, Inc. has provided consulting services to the City.
2. The Planning Commission has set a schedule for completing the Comprehensive
Plan in the next few months. The schedule requires the Brauer Group to spend
additional time on the project.
3. There are sufficient funds available for these services.
Alternative Recommendation:
Delay payment.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The bills were received June 30, 1995 and July 31, 1995. Council action would allow
for payment of bills.
Respe fully submitted,
Jam .Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 204
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Resolution adopting the assessment of the installation of a fire protection system for
St. Nicholas Episcopal Church, 7227 Penn Avenue.
Background:
On August 8, 1994 the City Council adopted a resolution declaring the adequacy of a
special assessment petition from St. Nicholas Episcopal Church and authorized the
execution of a memorandum of agreement for fire suppression improvements on behalf
of the City. The resolution authorized the use of the City's Permanent Improvement
Revolving (PIR) Fund to finance the project on an interim basis and to assume the
assessment roll upon completion of the project.
As has been the case with a number of other fire suppression projects within the City of
Richfield, the City has utilized Minnesota Statute Chapter 429 to provide for special
assessment financing for this type of improvement. The petition and memorandum of
agreement provided for fire suppression improvements which contemplate the use of
PIR Funds for interim financing and adoption of the assessment roll once the project
was completed. Thus, the annual special assessment payments at 8% interest will be
repaid to the PIR Fund as they are received. Additionally, the interim financing will also
carry the 8% interest rate.
The total costs incurred for the installation of the fire suppression improvements for St.
Nicholas Episcopal Church were $27,500.00. The entire assessment will be repaid
within a five year period.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution certifying the-cost of the installation of the fire
suppression system for St. Nicholas Episcopal Church, 7227 Penn. Avenue, to the
County Auditor.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Minnesota Statute 429.031 provides the legal basis to assess the cost for certain
fire suppression equipment by a qualified facility.
2. The cost of the fire suppression equipment must be certified to the County Auditor
in order for the City to collect the charges through the property tax process.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could decide not to approve the certification of the special
assessment. However, the certification process is the only process the City has to
collect the cost of the fire suppression system through the property tax process.
~,~ri
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The resolution adopting the special assessment for the fire suppression equipment
should be considered on August 14, 1995 to allow adequate time to prepare and certify
the assessment.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame .Prosser
City M Hager
JDP:md
~~L
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE
INSTALLATION OF A FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM FOR
ST. NICHOLAS EPISCOPAL CHURCH
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County,
Minnesota as follows:
1. Such proposed assessment roll is hereby accepted and constitutes the
special assessment against the property named therein - PID number
33-028-24-23-0005, 7227 Penn Avenue.
2. Such assessment in the amount of $27,500.00 shall bear interest at the rate
of eight (8%) percent from the date of the disbursement of the amount being
assessed, and shall be spread over a five (5) year special assessment roll.
3. The owner of the property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification
of the assessment to the County Auditor or prior to November 15, 1995, pay
whole of the assessment on such property to the City's Assessment Division
and may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City's Assessing Division of the
entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid.
4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment
roll to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County,
and such assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same manner
as other municipal taxes.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of August,
1995.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 203
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Authorization to execute first amendment to City of Richfield golf course lease
agreement with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC).
Background:
The City of Richfield and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) entered into a
lease agreement on November 20, 1978. Article 14 of the agreement indicates, in part,
that the premises shall be used in compliance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, with particular reference to the nondiscrimination clauses, and any
amendments to the Regulations. The Regulations have been amended with the
understanding that appropriate language be incorporated into lease agreements such
as the one between the City of Richfield and MAC.
The language proposed to be entered into the agreement as the first amendment to the
agreement reads:
This agreement is subject to the requirements of the U.S. Department of
Transportation's regulations, 49 CFR Part 23, subpart F. The Concessionaire
agrees that it will not discriminate against any business owner because of the
owner's race, color, national origin, or sex in connection with the award or
performance of any concession agreement covered by CFR part 23, subpart F.
The Concessionaire agrees to include the above statements in any subsequent
concession agreements that it enters and cause those businesses to similarly
include the statements in further agreements.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the first amendment to the City of
Richfield golf course lease agreement with the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposed language is in keeping with the original intention of the lease
agreement.
2. The Metropolitan Airports Commission, and the City of Richfield through the lease
agreement with MAC, is subject to certain commitments imposed by Federal Law
in furtherance and support of civil rights.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
3~~-!
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is on the August 14, 1995 consent agenda. Authorization to execute the
amendment is requested at this time so that the Metropolitan Airports Commission may
take action on the amendment at its meeting of August 21, 1995.
Respectfully submitted.,
Ja D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
~U
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 202
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Approval of a cooperative agreement and local funds needed for a federal grant to fund
the start up operating costs of the I-494 Integrated Corridor Traffic Management
demonstration project.
Background:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has obtained a federal
demonstration grant to install state of the art technology to coordinate traffic signals and
ramp meters in the I-494 Corridor at a cost of just over $7.0 million. The project is
sponsored jointly by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Hennepin County
and the Cities of Richfield, Bloomington and Edina.
Under the demonstration project, the ramp meters on I-494 will be linked by a
communication network that will be completed in 1995. All traffic signals on local City
and County streets in the I-494 corridor will be wired to the ramp meter signals in 1996.
When the project is finished, 67 traffic signals at the state, county and city levels will be
able to coordinate their signal timing, respond immediately to any changes in actual
traffic conditions, and improve traffic flow in the corridor.
There is a need for staffing to operate the new communication network and new signal
technology. MnDOT has received a federal grant to hire three staff who will be
responsible for operating the demonstration project. The three staff will include a traffic
engineer and two technicians. These people wilt operate the new equipment, train local
goverment staff on the new technology, and gather data needed to evaluate the
demonstration project's performance. MnDOT has agreed to finance these positions
once the demonstration project is completed in about three years. An attached draft
cooperative agreement between MnDOT and participating local governments, including
the City of Richfield, will be available for review at the Council meeting.
During the start up phase, the staff costs are anticipated to be $300,000. Under an
existing agreement among participating agencies the costs are to be shared according
to the following table.
TABLE
SOURCE OF-FUNDS SHARE FUND AMOUNT
Federal ISTEA Funding 80% $300,000
Local Share Requirement 20% $240,000
MnDOT 13% $60,000
Hennepin County 3% $39,000
Bloomington 2% $9,000
Edina 1 % $3,000
Richfield 1% $3,000
~~'I
From the above table the City's share of the cost is estimated to be $3,000 over three
years. The City of Richfield will try to use its Municipal State Aid Streets funds (gas tax
monies) as the source of funding for its local share. If these expenses are ineligible for
State Aid funding, funds from the City's transportation engineering operating budget will
finance the costs.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the use of $3,000 of Municipal State Aid funds as the City's local share of a
federal ISTEA grant to cover the start up operating costs for the I-494 Integrated
Corridor Traffic Management demonstration project.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The project is part of a federal demonstration project designed to improve traffic flow
on the freeway and local streets in the I-494 corridor.
2. The proposed local share of Richfield funds for the project is consistent with the cost
sharing agreement previously approved by participating governmental agencies.
3. The three staff people funded using this federal grant are needed to provide training
of City and Hennepin County staff to operate the new traffic signal technology.
4. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has agreed to finance the three staff
positions once the Integrated Cooridor Traffic Management demonstration project is
completed.
5. The three staff people will be employed by MnDOT.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A decision is needed in August 1995 to finance the start up operations of the ICTM
demonstration project.
Res Ily submitted,
i
Jame ~ .Prosser
City Manager
Attachment
JDP:ds
.~
,~ { n ~.
_.w ~~ ~_
ICTP
a
~ Q
N ~ N ~ ~
~ o C ~ in
N
~
LT
C
-O
CU ~
-
~
-O
~
CU
~ N U C U
~ l_
Q U
C
~
~
~
~ S
a~
• • •
+~ ~ > Q ~' ~ C O Cv C6 L U Cis CLS _
N ~ fn ~ - -O ,1CO-, ~' .6 C N 07 07 ~ ~ (n C aJ >
C CO f/J C i C -O C +~ },
CB ~' U .~ ~ O p) ~ Q O -O p '~-_~ C - C O C ~ > •a--' O
N U Cll i C6 CO N OJ +-' Cy C ' C
~ ~ ~ m ~ x ~ ~ U ~ o ~ -C . E - ° E " O -° Q- ° ° _E
~ ~ ~ - ° c c o ~ „- U ~ ° C ~ ° a~ ° cv cn ° o m o
a~ ~ ~ cn ° ~ O • y <n o- H a~ ~ o
0 o U ~ • ~ ° o ~ ~ ~~. •+~ ' U j a ~ ~ ~ m ~_ C U O ca ° ' ~ ° C °
U - C _ O '~ N C CB CB •~ Z~ +-~ O X O O C p C ~ -O CE
~ 'J O p 4J Cll i ~ C1J ~ (ll O -d CII ~ (ll '~ ~ Cv CB ~ E N CB +~-' ~, _ Q Cll ~ N
z~ U ~ +J ~ ~ ~ Q ~ U +J ?- z~ U ai -o ~ -> ~ za >~ tb
~ ~ L Y ~~ i °' ~ ~ O 4.1 C >~ C • C Cll ~~ C ~ CB N (~ O ~ ~ ~ (~ > C Z77 E ~
a~ ° ~ ° a> ~n o E ~ a' a> ° °o o ° ~ N }, ° . E U co ° cn ' ° ~ . > ° ,,,
• ~ U ~ ° ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ U cv c°a cB ~ ~ Q a~ ~ vi ~ °o rS z~ ~ ~+~ ~ to
N ,~ ~ - O ~ O N O U t37 Z~ C > O N N i C ~ -O N O L
a ~ ~ o >- `'" cn ct3 E -a ~ c U >. o • in z~ ~ ca ° ~ °- o _O
-C O O L > O- - CB 4J - CU OJ ~ •~ ~ ~ O O Cn t? i • i ~
~ a~ Q C °- °~ ~ - co ~ ~ ~ }' ~ U -o ~ a~ c ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ° -° co ~ F
~' C`a co o °c' a~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ o 00 ~ °' . a' ~ n c >o O ° a~ °- v cc
Cn ~ ~ ' C6 i ~ U N ~ ,~ _ ~ Cll = U ~ >' U Cll ~ ~ ~ E O > ~ O U C U C
i ' U '+~ E C 47 L E ~ N ~ cB ~ CB Z77 U Q C v- O p +-' ~ Cll ~ C6 - C
o E °}' cts cts ~ ° > ,a ' voi ~ o >- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °o ° ~ a> ~ •}-°, a' a' ~ ~ o E vi
E c ~ ° ~ cv o o m -a ~ cB U a~ E cB ~ +~ Q ~ C ° '
O L C Cll O ~ E ~ Cn O ~ O ~ C '~ O 07 ~ N ~ ~ ~ 4J ~ OJ ~ O O ~ - V
O f6 p L O O W N ~ ~ ~- i (U E +~ C37 ~ > i 'a ~ O ~ ~ d
CO N
+J O ~ N ~ C Y O ~ -O N 'O '+~ ~ (ll i i U ~ ;.~ O CB N Cll E L
i CB ~ ~ i O ~ 4J ~ +-' O C ~ C i O ~ O '~--' U O O O N O ~ Cv p~ U R
O E O Cll +-~ > > ~+ O CB O L U ~ - C ~ 'O +-~ ~--~ O CB >~ ~
t? ~ U U ~ ~ 4J O > ~ O O_ ~ O_ ~, O O - ~ O ~ >- C cC5 N C ~ L O c0
C a--~ O O ~ O N ~ O i ~ ~ +~ fl- ~ O O >~ >~ ~ ~ ~ Q- Cll -O ~ t? 4J O c~c ~ (n QJ C
CB ~ i? O ~--~ i O Cn N ~ ~ '~.'' ~ C v- (6 4J ~ C - ~ ~ L a--~ O O O ~ G (n C Q1 O
~ C C Q 'N ^~ ~ fn Cll v- ~ ~ O_ .~. ~ ~ ~ Cn CT (/J }' O U = U ~ Q- 4J `~ C Cll O~J E
~ C ~ E ' - N ~ C +-~ O U dJ N Cll ~ O ~ N Cll Cll +~ U i a= O CU Cy N O
O O cn O N O N O N C .N C O N ~ ~ ~ Z~ C C C (ll ~ C O CB O ~ ~ 4? ~
~ N c (B ~ C +~ ~ CU i ~ OJ C O a'' C C +. O C ~ Cll ~ -O - O C ~ ~ ~ O ~ t~ C
•N E ~ ~ ~ E ~ N ai E c' .~ '~ °- •`~ c~ .E o ~ ~ o ~ m ~~ o ~ `~ +~-~ ~ o d
o~ ~ ~ ~~ ° o ~ ~ E ~ °~ c° ~ ~ }' ' ~ cB c° .~ E ~ ~ c' cn ~ cn a U `O
O O X CU C (n CB (v j ~ t~ p Cll p) Q Q L C6 >- ~ `~ +~ C1J L cn p a~ O
U c ° >• Q . ~' ° U E D m > U ~ Q ~ ' ~ o N H- > ~ ~ . c o -a ~ ca - o ~i
The ICTM Project
is built upon
Mn/DOT's state-
of-the-art
freeway manage-
ment system. The
Traffic Manage-
mentCenter
provides the
communication
backbone for
ICTM.(above)
The regional
computer
integrates the
freeway and
arterial roadway
system control.
(right) Local
agencies access
SCATS through
remote work
stations.
(far right)
Video cameras
along the corridor
help detect
incidents.
Radio and traffic
control signs will
alert drivers to
problems ahead
and provide
alternate route
information.
,~
• • •
~ N
C6 d O N 67 L L N C
'~LF, ~ ~ cF O ~ ~ d C6 ~ U fB CO __ N N
d 'O N +-~ 'O ~ "L' • L C N O) p ~ N C N >
-O G C6 N ~ C O O O L ~ O .~ ~ C ~ (LC ~
O .~ O
N Ca ~ N . N O p N O- V O O (B ~ ' y O +., O a-+ O O L
~•~ - 0 5 c c o ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ c L c a> y ° N o o cv o
U N ~ ~ O ~ C ~ ~ O N ~ > fn O a7 U ~+-' p F'- N N ~ ~ +-'
N ~ p L a--+ N a-- y O N O N L O O
C Q ~ ~ +-~ O_ O d C d N ~ -O =_ U N N N O N U ,rN.l N > U N
C ~ L . U O) p +L., N > O '±-~ C}'O -O >~ >~ a7 N F- O C ~ N 'O N
O O U ~.., ~ C O L 'a=-~ '}, • U > >, N p ~ m L L C U p a--+ N L O C 7
U - C O •~ C'V ~ _ (II CLC N •L O) +-~ O 'X O O O ~ C ~ ~° Q CB y
-a m .L `° O o L cs 0 >o a.., L Q o cLE O N N o f '~ C6 C °° E h L
c~ O •~ o~ ° L v ° N +~ N o a~ ° 1- Q- ~ o ° N U L ci o ~
N d ~ +O+ N W O >' > Q .~ O ~ ~ L +O-' U U CII C +N-~ C i ~ •~ O ~ L U N r
~ ~ U i d U U aL-+ N +`.~ d c0 ~° O U ~ >~ a--~ ~ d Ca O E N N ~ >~ ~ O' N ~ oND
N N -O ~"' N Q 07 U d -O L Q7 ~ C6 x.57
t ~ L ~ a_+ i O_ L ~ O N C >~ O '~ N v0- ' O ~ CB ' N U O C ,a; ~ U ~ O O) E
~ O N Li") L Cl N f4 7 O U - N N L O ~ U C6 O l/J '~ N .> }, N
rn?~ o N~ °~ E N c ~ 2 o N o > >, +~ o_ c a' c L ~ U •-
.~ U '~ N N ~ >, L ~ L O N L U N CO C6 N ~ Q p j ~ ~ O ~ p -O '~ O C•O-
N •~ O L .Q O L O N ~ U Q7 O) C > ~ C U N .L N ~ O a-'' O N O O_ O L
O Vj Q" ~ O 41 N 'O N >~ N O = O- R C~6 ~ O ~ CB ~ 7 C 'y U ~ O ~ ~ 'V G O
d (Q fC L O d N •~ ~ N L N y ~ N O C N O L L +-~ L O L O N Q ~ R
a"' O O L N d ~ _ U 'O 2 H N +' O ~ ,~ • V O_ C p O U U U 'O
N CB O ~ (B • L a..' U y N `~ -_ ~ N U a--' >' U +O-i 'O ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a""~ U O U C
~ L O ~ C6 ~ ~ L O CO L +' ~ h-' iL-I G ~ N L ~ U CB i-+ O V
E a; ca ca L o > ,~*_-' N ~ o >, ~ L .~-~ Q ° O ~ a> ~ •}, ~ a~ -o ° a~ c vi ca
U fn O L ~ O O O ~ L O CO ~° U C7 ~° ° ~ cLC L a--~ O_ L O ~ O ' L L ~
o ~ ~ a> a> ~ a> '~ ~ ~ ° ° a> c a? .~ +~ - y o io =_ cv •L ° O O
C U O L ..° d ~ L L CC a"~ C6 U a--~ _ L L C O 'O ~'O
O N ~ N ~- O N ~ 07 N O O V
'~ p (B .F 'O ~ ~ N O C N U p ~ W N ~ O •~ i N ~ ~ ~ L > ~ 'O O O ~ L O
CC ~ N • y_ C ~ L O L ~ N •}, 'O C6 ~ N L L U O ;~ N i CO fn d E c O N
o E N ~ o E m ° > L a .°~ °o cB ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~' _ • o ~ ° ~ o o~ a~ a' m c`v >. d
N aL_-~ _y ~ d O a-+ ~ O N N p N O_ ~ N `~ O U ~ ~ O ~ U L C6 N ~ ~ 'O O ~ ~ d
O O L O N O O N N N U N O O ~ y ni (/~ ~ N 41 -O L O- N O ~ ++ ~ N C
CE ~ Q. d +-i L O Q. .N > C ~ N C ~ LB N a O - f- ~ .~ i O ,4; O ~ ~' ~ N O N O
+, N - C O_ O L U +-~ CC O +-~1 C fC ±-~ N ,~ '~.
ct ~ N ~ L N ~ +O-+ E a N L ~ FL U C ~ co >~ O U O `~ ~ O O C ~ O U `~ N O
67 O O C6 ±+ N U N N ~ N O Q ,~ 2 L N L ~ . _p ~ +., O U - (, F- O_ ~ y... d N ~
~ L O Q , C N +~ `~""' U O N N O ~ N d d }, V L ±-1 O ~ ~ i
O O c N ~ ~ O N O N O N C ~ C N N ~ t ti- p O O O ~ L C O fC N L O N ~
L N C f0 O • C +-1 N L y L ~ N G O +-~ O O +-' O C O O -O = N C ~° N rL.., O C
N - _
O ~ U N L O a-~ N p '~ ~ L ~ d C6 ~ a--~ '+~ C6 C6 ~ ~ p O U N O N O_ U O
~ ~ ~ o o ,~ o ~ ° ~- o O ~ ti '+J ~ ~ 'v -° a~ °3 c ~ a`~ m `n ai t ~ E
O O X N O N ~ Ca N ~ L F- cC O N O'1 Q Q L c6 >, CO `~ +L+ O L N N aL-+ O
U C N >~ Q . N O U E O m ~ V +'~-~ Q +L-+ N O N ~ > N c .~ O 'O H co O 1i
Minnesota Guidestar
Minnesota Guidestar, the state's Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program, is developing a better
statewide transportation system for Minnesota citizens and businesses through leadership in technology
testing and development, institutional progressiveness, and innovative partnerships.
ITS is a national effort to improve the movement of people and goods to bring travelers such benefits as a
cleaner environment, improved productivity, enhanced safety, and new business opportunities.
Minnesota Guidestar is directed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation's Advanced
Transportation Systems Office. In the spirit of cooperation and new business opportunities, the project
teams are partnerships between public, private, and academic sectors, all making contributions of time,
money and resources.
_ _
Partners in Motion
494 Transportation Corridor
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
1500 County Road B2 West
Roseville, MN 55113
(612)582-1461
Contains 10% post consumer material.
Minnesota Guidestar
Minnesota Guidestar, the state's Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program, is developing a better
statewide transportation system for Minnesota citizens and businesses through leadership in technology
testing and development, institutional progressiveness, and innovative partnerships.
ITS is a national effort to improve the movement of people and goods to bring travelers such benefits as a
cleaner environment, improved productivity, enhanced safety, and new business opportunities.
Minnesota Guidestar is directed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation's Advanced
Transportation Systems Office. In the spirit of cooperation and new business opportunities, the project
teams are partnerships between public, private, and academic sectors, all making contributions of time,
money and resources.
Partners in Motion
_ - 494 Transportation Corridor.
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
1500 County Road B2 West
Roseville, MN 55113
(612)582-1461
Contains IO% post consumer material.
~3A
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 2oi
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a resolution authorizing execution of the 1995 Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Subrecipient Agreements.
Background:
Subrecipient agreements have been prepared by Hennepin County which provide the
basis for implementing the specific activities of the 1995 Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant Program approved by the City Council February
27, 1995. The agreements are required pursuant to the Community Block Grant
Program Entitlement Grant Regulation. Before Hennepin County may disperse any
1995 CDBG funds, the agreements must be signed between Hennepin County, the
recipient, and the City of Richfield (the subrecipient).
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the proposed resolution authorizing execution of the subrecipient agreements
with Hennepin County for 1995 Urban Hennepin County Community Block Grant
Program.
Basis of Recommendation:
The 1995 CDBG Program as approved by the City Council on February 27, 1995, and
the signature authorizing execution of the subrecipient agreements would allow
Hennepin County to disperse the funds.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The resolution must be acted upon at the August 14, 1995 meeting to meet Hennepin
County processing deadlines.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame .Prosser
City Hager
JDP:ds
~A- ~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS WITH .HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR 1995 URBAN
HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has executed a Joint Cooperation Agreement
with Hennepin County for the purpose of participating in the 1995 Urban Hennepin
County Community Development Block Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County is the recipient of an annual grant from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposes of the program and the
City is a subrecipient under the program and receives a share of the grant; and.
WHEREAS, program regulations require that the City and County execute a
subrecipient Agreement and appropriate Third Party Agreement, which sets forth the
specific implementation processes for activities to be undertaken with program funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Richfield City Council hereby
authorizes -and directs the Mayor and City Manager to execute Subrecipent
Agreements, and any required Third Party Agreement on behalf of the City.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
August, 1995.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 200
Agenda August 14, 1995
Issue Statement:
Meeting with the Richfield Friendship City Commission.
Background:
The Special City Council meeting with the Friendship City Commission 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 Friendship
City Commission Members to inform the City Council of recent. and current issues. It
also provides a forum for an open dialogue between the City Council and the
Friendship City Commission.
Recommended Motion:
There is no action recommended.
Basis of Recommendation:
The Council has provided an opportunity for the Richfield .Friendship City Commission
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 to be considered for
specific action at a regular Council meeting.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This special meeting has been scheduled for August 14, 1995.
Respectfully submitted,
y
Ja a D. Prosser
City anager
JDP:jdv
Copy: William Bullock, Friendship City Commission Chair