11-1-93 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1993
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
I. 7:00 -8:00 P.M. REVIEW OF 1993 RESIDENT SURVEY WITH
DECISION RESOURCES, LTD.
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 28
II. 8:00 -8:15 P.M. DISCUSSION OF COMMUNITY APARTMENT PROGRAM
STATUS
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 29
III. 8:15 -8:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF POLICY AND STRATEGY
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AIRPORT RELATED ISSUES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 30
IV. 8:30 -8:45 P.M. DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCE RELATING TO
SIGNAGE IN THE 77TH STREET CORRIDOR
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 31
8 :45 P.M. ADJOURNMENT
AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE
UPON REQUEST. REQUESTS MUST BE MADE AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN
ADVANCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AT 861 -9702.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No.31
Agenda November 1, 1993
Issue Statement:
Discussion of ordinance relating to signage in the 77th Street
Corridor.
Background:
On October 11, 1993, the City Council gave first reading to an
amendment to the sign ordinance relating to the 77th Street Corridor.
With the completion of 77th Street, substantial reorientation of
businesses, including signage, will occur. A balance must be reached
between business needs, residential impact and aesthetic control.
Further modifications have been made based on review by the City
Attorney as well as issues raised by specific site applications.
Recommended Motion:
None required, for discussion only.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicable Corridor is generally defined as south of 77th
Street between I -35W and Cedar for a distance of about a standard
lot excluding frontage on major intersections and along I -494.
Signage both needed and appropriate for visibility to I -494 is
clearly not appropriate along 77th Street.
2. Simple directional signage is permitted to direct customers to
businesses along 78th Street that do not have direct access to
77th Street. A logo is permitted on the sign but no advertising.
A business such as Arby's would utilize this type of signage.
3. Pedestal signs are not permitted.
4. Ground monument signs are permitted in a landscaped or
specifically improved area. Lighting of such signs must not
impact residential areas north of 77th Street.
5. Wall signs are permitted on the front wall of a business facing
77th Street but not on side or rear walls.
6. Banners and similar promotional devices, projecting signs and
window signs facing 77th Street are not permitted.
Alternative Recommendation:
The Council may decide to consider a variety of additional
alternatives.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Second reading consideration is scheduled for November 8, 1993.
Res a tfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
OCT 29 193 12:23 HOLMES & GRAVEN
BILL NO 1993
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 416 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY
CODE; REGULATING SIGNAGE IN THE 77TH STREET
CORRIDOR
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
P.2
Subsection .416.07 of the City Code is amended by adding the
following:
(g) 77th Street Corridor. The following special provisions shall
apply to properties located in the 77th Street Corridor, defined as
that area bounded on the north by 77th Street, on the east by Cedar
Avenue /T.H. 77, on the west by I --35W, and on the south by a line
drawn parallel to and feet southerly of the southerly right of
way of 77th Street.
(1) Any sign otherwise.permitted under this section 416 is
permitted in the 77th Street corridor, except as expressly modified
in this paragraph (g)..
(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)(1). 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 Y -494, but which does not abut on 77th
Street, 77 -1/2 Street, I -35W, Lyndale Avenue, Nicollet
Avenue, Portland Avenue, 12th Avenue or Cedar Avenue.
(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 provi-
sion 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.
i
OCT 29 '93 12:23 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.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.
(iv) The business owner served by the sign must demonstrate
that he or she has contacted 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 repre-
sented on one sign face. Such signage shall comply with
the 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) The sign may contain a color logo not. to exceed 36 square
inches for each business. In case of multiple .signs,
logo placement will 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 boarder just inside the edge.
Such border shall be three - quarters of an inch in width.
The corners 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.
(xv) The sign, shall be mounted on- a single iron post of
sufficient guage to safely secure the sign face. The
business (or businesses) served by such signage sha.il be
2
OCT 29 '93 12:24 HOLMES & GRAVEN
0.4
responsible for 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 at the end of the avenue. This
sign shall be mounted at least five feet south of, and
approximately parallel to, the 78th Street roadway. 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 circum tances (i.e., business with unusually
long name) the Council may approve a sign face that is
more than 24 inches in length.
(3) Ground Monument Signs. A ground monument sign which is
otherwise permitted under this subsection 416.07 must conform to
the following requirements. The sign may not exceed 10-feet in
height and must be located within a Landscaped area at least
equivalent to the sign's area. The sign may be located outside of
a landscaped area if such a sign meets the following design
criteria:
a) it is located on a base of stone, or brick that is a
least three feet in height and 1508 of the width of the
sign face.
b) the stone or brick base contains a planter which occupies
at least 100% of the total surface area parallet to the
ground plane of the base and -is planted with annual or
perennial flowers.
Ground signs may be illuminated so long at light and glare from
such signs is not visible from residential property north of 77th
Street.
(4) Pedestal signs. Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subsection 416.07, pedestal signs are not permitted within the
77th Street Corridor. [city staff to design exceptions language.
(5) wall Signs. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
subsection 416.07, wall signs which face 77th Street are not
permitted, except as provided in this paragraph.
3
OCT 29 '93 12:25 HOLMES & GRAVEN
P.5
a) In MR -1, MR -2 and MR -3 zoning districts, one wall
sign is permitted per building. The sign may not exceed
six square feet in area. For multiple building complex-
es, one additional sign may be placed on the building
housing the complex office or building closest to the
street. .
b) In C -1, C-�2, C -3, and I zoning districts, wall signs
will be permitted only on buildings which have a primary
entry and orientation to 77th Street. Wall signs will
not be permitted on walls which serve as a side or rear
wall. The total sign area for wall signs may not exceed
15 percent of the total wall area of the.portion of the
wall of the building to which the signs are attached. In
the case of multiple occupancy, the total area of wall,
window, canopy or marquee signs which each occupany may
erect may not exceed 15 percent of the exterior wall area
of the portion of the building occupied by that occupancy
and to which the sign is affixed.
(6) Window Signs. Notwithstanding any .other provision of
this subsection 416.07, window signs are not permitted in or on any
windows facing 77th Street. Window signs will be permitted in or
on windows facing streets other than 77th Street, provided that the
signs meet the requirements of the applicable primary zoning
district.
(7) Projecting Signs. Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subsection 416.07, projecting signs are not permitted from any
building wall that faces-77th Street.
(8) Banners, wind devices,-promotional display devices and
fixed temporary ground signs will not be permitted within 300 feet
of the southerly right of way of 77th Street.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this
day of _, 1993.
Attest:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk-
4
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINMESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 30
Agenda November 1, 1993
Issue Statement:
Policy and strategy recommendations for airport related issues.
Background:
Recent developments regarding airport issues include the
following:
♦ New Ford Town and Rich Acres Acquisition
An open house to discuss the buyout process was held on October
19. HRA staff was present to discuss housing options in
Richfield including Richfield Rediscovered and Richfield.
Remodeling. The open house provided basic information regarding
the uniform relocation guideline process. A buyout schedule has
not been presented. In addition, very few details regarding
administration of the buyout were provided.
City staff and HRA Chair Tom Harms have a meeting scheduled with
Jeff Hamiel and Nigel Finney late Friday afternoon, October 29.
Staff will report on the results of this meeting to the City
Council at the Study Session.
♦ Mt. Calvary School Insulation
Mt. Calvary School is planning to expand /remodel in the next two
years. Mt. Calvary School officials have asked MAC for some
indication of when funding will become available to assist with
noise insulation. To date, MAC has been unwilling to provide any
assurances of funding availability. This is a major concern for
Mt. Calvary since it would be appropriate to noise insulate at
the time school renovations are undertaken. MAC has previously
insulated schools outside of 65 Ldn, however, funding of
insulation is provided primarily through Part 150 funds
currently. Because of this, MAC is reluctant to provide funding
for schools that are not within Ldn 65. Mt. Calvary will
apparently qualify for Ldn 65 insulation after the 1996 noise
contours are approved.
♦ 4 -22 Extension
Staff has received a memo detailing the revised scoping decision
for the extension of runway 4 -22 at MSP. The alternatives to be
studied in the revised EIS include:
1. No -Build (no change from DEIS)
2. No Build with Runway 22 SID
This is a new alternative that provides for a single
departure heading proceeding straight for three miles
followed by a right turn to the southwest over the Minnesota
River Valley. This would reduce noise in Burnsville and
Eagan. It would be used only in low traffic periods and have
relatively minimal impact upon Richfield.
3. Runway Threshold Alternative #1
This is a new alternative that provides for the runway
landing threshold to be moved 1200 feet southwest of the
existing landing threshold. The effect of this alternative
would clear up some airport design tolerance questions and
permit additional landing rollout for Runway 4 arrivals. The
impact on Richfield would be low to moderate.
4. Runway Threshold Alternative #2
This is the same alternative as #3 in the previous draft EIS.
This provides for the existing Runway 4 threshold to be
maintained and displaced 2750 feet from the end of the
pavement.
5. Flight Track Alternative A
This is a new alternative which provides for fanning
departing aircraft in all directions from 165 degrees to 365
degrees.
6. Flight Track Alternative B
This is a previously included alternative which provides for
current usage for departure headings at 200 degrees, 220
degrees, 290 degrees and 350 degrees.
7. Flight Track Alternative SID
This is a -new alternative which could be used in conjunction
with Flight Track A, B or no- build. It has a minimal impact
upon Richfield.
Three original draft EIS operational alternatives, B, B-
modified and C, have been dropped from further consideration.
Updated forecast activity will be used in the revised draft EIS
as well as a new base for 1992 for noise impact analysis. The
future year will be 1996. There will be no alteration of the
south of the runway 22 landing threshold over St. Paul to the
southwest. The rest of the mid -field taxiway concept remains the
same including the queue taxiway. This will solve several
concerns Richfield had raised in their comments and also raises
some new operational questions.
The preparation of the draft EIS is ongoing and public release is
expected in the next 30 -60 days.
Most importantly, we have confirmed that the alternative with a
displaced departure threshold closer to Richfield has not been
dropped. This is a key concern in terms of impact on Richfield.
♦ Aviation Development Guide
The Metropolitan Council is updating the guide to include
Development Concept 6 for MSP airport. Concept 6 is a north -
south runway with a west terminal. Completion of the update is
scheduled by the end of 1993.
♦ Governor's Task Force
The Governor's task force was assigned three charges:
Do current projections of future airport traffic properly
incorporate the effects of changes in the airline industry
including changes at Northwest Airlines?
♦ Is it feasible to shorten the dual track planning process so
that a final report and recommendation can be made to the
Minnesota Legislature by January 1, 1994 or January 1, 1995
instead of the current deadline of January 1996?
♦ Can a technically sound report be prepared if the task force
decides to shorten the timeframe within the new deadline
completion?
In response to the first question, the task force provided eight
recommendations. All of the recommendations expand the scope of
issues which should be considered as part of the aviation
activity forecast. Several of these recommendations are specific
responses to issues raised by the City of Richfield. (See
attached.)
In response to the second question, timing of the planning
process, the task force recommended that the schedule should be
retained with a completion date of July 1996. Perhaps the most
interesting aspect of this task force effort is that there seems
to be a growing consensus that issues raised earlier by Richfield
and a few others merit much more consideration.
♦ MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan
MSP is initiating an update of their long term comprehensive
plan. Part of that process will include development of an
environmental assessment or impact statements for changes
proposed in that plan. It is important that Richfield monitor
this effort to make sure that the environmental review adequately
addresses Richfield issues. The expansion concepts major
proposals for MSP include construction of the new north -south
runway, construction of a new passenger terminal for the
northwest side of the field, addition of 30 gates and
construction of an underground people -mover to connect to the new
terminal.
♦ FAA Airport Capacity Design Team
Two basic runway additions are being considered: the new north -
south runway, 17 -35 on the west side of airport south of the
parallel runways, and a new runway 11 -North 29- North, 800 feet
north of runway 11 -Left 29- Right. A comparison of these two
alternatives indicates a projected cost of the north -south runway
at $116 million and of the north parallel at $191 million. Both
have similar projected savings in terms of delay. Careful
analysis of the accuracy of these estimates is very important.
I
Recommended Motion:
With this background the following recommendations are provided
to address issues:
♦ New Ford Town and Rich Acres Acquisition
Staff will attempt to find out more about the acquisition
process. Staff will also assist in qualifying Rich Acres for the
buyout and work with MAC to identify funds to assist with funding
Rich Acres hardship cases.
♦ School Insulation
Staff will continue to work with MAC and legislators to determine
if there is a way to provide clear assurance of the timing of
insulation for Mt. Calvary School.
♦ 4 -22 Extension
Staff will provide comments to MnDOT regarding the scoping
decision to clarify the intent of the scoping study in regard to
the displaced takeoff threshold.
♦ MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan
Staff will establish a mechanism to monitor the development of
the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan. It will be important to
assure that environmental issues are adequately reviewed
especially in regard to north -south runway construction.
Alternative Recommendation:
A variety of alternative recommendations may be discussed at the
November 1 Study Session.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This matter will be discussed at the November 1 Study Session.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit anager
JDP:cak
September 30, 1993
Governor Arne Carlson
State of Minnesota
Capitol Building
St. Paul, MN 55155
Dear Governor Carlson:
At your direction, the Governor's Task Force on Dual Track Airport Planning has met on ten
occasions over the past few months to review the three charges assigned to the group. These
charges are as follows:
1. Do current projections of future airport traffic properly incorporate the effects
of changes in the airline industry, including changes at Northwest Airlines?
2. Is it feasible to shorten the dual track planning process so that a final report and
recommendations can be made to the Minnesota Legislature by January 1,
1994 or January 1, 1995 instead of the current deadline of July, 1996?
3. Can a technically sound report be prepared if the Task Force decides to shorten
- the time frame with a new deadline for completion?
In reviewing these charges, the Task Force considered information related to the process of
preparing aviation forecasts, assessing capacity at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport,
the schedule for completion of the planning studies, and the relationship of the prospective
environmental review process to the overall work program. Input to assist the Task Force in
its deliberations was provided by the staff of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the
Metropolitan Council. This information demonstrates that the dual track process is an iterative
process that requires constant reviews for any indications of a need to change either the
direction, timing or completion of the technical work in order to adequately compare the
alternatives of expanding the current airport or developing a replacement airport in Dakota
County. In addition to the staff input, the Task Force heard testimony from Northwest Airlines,
the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, then from members of the public at a separate
meeting. This information was also taken into account by the Task Force. in developing their
Findings and Recommendations.
The Task Force has concluded that the Dual Track Airport Planning Process is a technically
complex effort, requiring significant commitment and resources on the part of all involved in
its completion. The inherent uncertainties in the airline industry have been acknowledged in
the forecasting process, however as a result of these uncertainties, the Task Force feels that
the Dual Track Process should continue, at least until a new site has been located within the
Search Area and a development plan for a new airport has been completed. Concurrently, the
capability of the existing airport to accommodate additional aircraft traffic should be
accelerated to ensure an adequate comparison of the costs and benefits and their respective
'impacts on the economic development policies of the State of Minnesota.
Our second recommendation is that the current dual track airport planning process should be
retained with a completion date of July, 1996 for the recommendation to the Legislature. Any
shortening of the planning process would require major revisions to the environmental review
process. These revisions would limit public and agency review opportunities prior to a
legislative decision. The airport planning process cannot be expedited for completion by
January, 1994 or January 1995 if an adequate analysis is to be completed.
The recommendations of the Task Force related to the three charges, and recommendations
related to general issues discussed by the Task Force follow:
AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS
The individual alternative scenarios previously identified should be aggregated into
logical sets of future alternatives for further evaluation. The grouping of scenarios will
help to understand the cumulative impact of potential changes in factors affecting the
forecasts.
2. As substantive changes occur in the airline industry prior to the completion of the
planning process, the forecasts should be re- evaluated or revised on a continuing
basis. As new demand forecasts are developed, they should be evaluated against
future airport and airline capacity estimates.
3. A forecast scenario should be developed to evaluate the potential impact of the
termination of airline service by Northwest Airlines.
4. The impact of open skies in Europe should be monitored for impacts on both the
domestic and international segments of the airline industry. Attention should also be
given to changing conditions in bi- lateral agreements with Asian countries.
5. Special emphasis should be given to projections of growth in cargo and international
activity to determine their relative significance upon the existing airport or a new
airport.
6. The forecast process should consider the potential impact of other new airports, such
as Denver, as they come on line, and the potential impacts of such development
projects as those underway at Chicago and Detroit. The process should also take into
account changes in hubbing systems and Stage 3 aircraft as they are introduced.
7. The planning process should assess the impacts of each airport proposal, including the
no -build alternative, on economic development. It should also determine whether the
airport should be used as an economic development tool.
ii
8. The planning process should assess the economic impacts of the development costs
of each airport option, and should clearly propose approaches for payment of these
costs.
TIMING OF PLANNING PROCESS
The Dual Track Airport Planning Process should be continued, at least to the point of
selecting a site within the Dakota Search Area and development of a plan for an airport
on that site. A comparison of the costs and benefits of the proposed site and
development of Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport should be prepared to serve
as the basis for a recommendation to the Legislature.
2. The current Dual Track Airport Planning process schedule should be retained, with a
completion date of July, 1996 for the recommendation to the Legislature.
GENERALISSUES
1. The airport planning process should address offsite environmental concerns at both
Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport and the proposed new airport site on a
comparable basis.
2. The potential for landbanking should be evaluated as an ongoing part of the planning
process, and should be included in the environmental analysis for comparison with the
options of developing Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport or developing a
replacement airport. Pros and cons of this approach should be clearly identified as part
of this analysis.
3. The Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, and affected
communities should take strong action to protect development options (north -south
runway, west terminal) at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport.
4. Safety is an integral part of airport operations, and should be evaluated for the two
development options currently under study. This analysis should relate to both onsite
and offsite factors.
5. The comparative analysis of the two development options should identify and evaluate
both onsite and offsite costs as well as financing mechanisms, and should clearly
indicate the impact of development costs on Northwest Airlines and other operators
in terms of competitive factors.
6. Capacity of the existing airport site should be re- evaluated, with the variables that
affect airport capacity clearly identified. Technological changes that will affect airport
and airline capacity should be taken into account in this analysis and evaluated for
future benefits. The analysis should also take into account the environmental capacity
of the existing airport.
iii
7. The cost of development of new airport facilities on military operations at MSP should
be determined and included in the overall comparative analysis.
8. The airport planning process should be revised to allow opportunities for the Legislature
to review critical decisions that affect future directions of the process. The lack of
Legislative checkpoints between the initial legislation and the final recommendation to
the Legislature does not provide a sufficient level of legislative involvement.
9. Ground access impacts beyond the airport boundaries should be evaluated for each
option.
10. The impact of each airport development option on future economic growth and viability
of the State of Minnesota should be determined and included in the analysis of the
options. This analysis should include consideration of any lost economic opportunities
related to implementation of either option.
11. The impact of airport development on accomplishment of the economic development
goals contained in the 1992 Economic Blueorint undertaken by the Minnesota
Department of Trade and Economic Development should be determined to ensure a
healthy, growing and competitive Minnesota economy in the world marketplace.
12. The forecast process should consider the potential impacts of future changes such as
implementation of high speed rail service and technological advances in the area of
telecommunications.
13. The planning process should determine whether the new airport will shift the center
of gravity of the metropolitan area, and whether potential shifts could be mitigated by
land use planning.
14. The planning process should identify any limitations on economic development that
may result from either development of a new airport or continued expansion of
Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport.
15. If airport development is undertaken in order to stimulate continued economic growth,
the State should determine if the expected growth is compatible with goals for the
State and metropolitan area.
These recommendations were approved by the Task Force with one dissention at a meeting
on August 24, 1993, and are transmitted on their behalf. Representative Wagenius has
prepared her own comments which are attached as Appendix 1.
Sincerely yours,
Rich rd P. Braun
Chair
iv
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 29
Agenda November 1, 1993
Issue Statement:
Discussion of Community Apartment Program status.
Background:
The HRA has recently contracted with Project For Pride In Living
(PPL) and Affordable Suburban Housing (ASH) to undertake the
formulation and implementation of a program to improve apartment
living in Richfield and to more fully integrate the apartments
into the community.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a discussion with Mr.
status of the program.
Bill Schatzlein of ASH on the
Basis of Recommendation:
1. PPL and ASH representatives have conducted interviews with
many of the owners and managers of the apartment buildings.
2. They have met with staff including Public Safety personnel to
gain their knowledge and understanding of apartments.
3. The first meeting has been held with owners and managers to
form an association. The meeting resulted in the
identification of several areas where an association could be
of assistance.
4. The first meeting of the steering committee of the
association is being planned.
Alternative Recommendation:
Delay this discussion to a later date.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item will be ready for presentation at the November 1, 1993
meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam s Prosser
Cit natter
JDP:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No.28
Agenda November 1, 1993
Issue Statements
Review of 1993 resident survey.
Background:
The Council has previously authorized Decision Resources, Ltd. to
conduct a resident survey. The survey has been completed and an
analysis prepared by Bill Morris, President of Decision
Resources. Mr. Morris will the present the analysis at the Study
Session scheduled for November 1.
Recommended Motion:
Receive the analysis of survey from Decision Resources.
Basis of Recommendation:
The analysis will provide background information for Council
policy decisions.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented at the November 1 Study Session.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP:cak
decision
Zesources L.t+d.
i EXECUTIVE:,BIIMMAI�Y , ,
3128:Dean GQUr# • . Nf�nnapol, Minnesota S54t6 . • (612) 92(-O 7 • . �ax.(612) 92� =6166