The URL can be used to link to this page

4-22-91 agenda3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 96 Agenda April 22, 1991 Issue of Statement: Proclaim April 21 -27, 1991 as Disability Action Week in the City of Richfield. Background: The Governor of the State of Minnesota and each of the South Hennepin communities are proclaiming Disability Action Week in recognition of the contributions made by disabled individuals in the State and communities in which they live. Recommended Motion: Approve the attached proclamation declaring April 21 -27, 1991 as Disability Action Week for the City of Richfield. Basis of Recommendation: The City of Richfield supports individuals with disabilities through their equal employment standard$, recreation programs, and building-codes regarding physical accessibility. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not declare any Disability Action Week for the City of Richfield. 2. Declare some other week as Disability Action Week for the City of Richfield. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the April 22 City Council meeting. A member of the Human Services Commission will be present to receive the proclamation. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City nager JDP:ds Attachment , ws IN 13 co 0 0 2-0 ui CL cri co 0 ca CL CL CC CL CC 0 Zak 4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 97 Agenda April 22, 1991 Issue Statement: Proclamation designating May 5 -11 as Water Works Week and designating May 11, 1991 as Water Works Day. Background: The American Water Works Association has declared May 5 -11 as National Water Works Week. This recognition has been nationwide for several years; however, this will be the second year Richfield has participated with a local celebration. Water personnel have planned an Open House at the Water Plant on Saturday, May 11 from 9:00 a.m. -3:00 p.m. Throughout the day, several pieces of equipment will be available for the public to inspect, along with tours of the Water Plant, including the new Water Interpretive Center. Recommended Motion: Approve an official proclamation designating May 11, 1991 as Water Works Day and May 5 -11, 1991 as Water Works Week in the City of Richfield. Basis of Recommendation: Richfield has an outstanding water treatment plant and distribution system, and should be recognized. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for Community Services Director accept the proclamation. JDP:ds Attachment the April 22, 1991 Council meeting. Don Fondrick will be present to Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City anager y d m N >4 m x a) 0 0 . o - o LO o �' ° r O � 3 O +) cd E 4-1 vi - O O c0 H b w tC a) G� 4-) �+ U r0-t a A -H O O t 0 a) 4a O 4a -H +) m X4-1 00 0 o�.caN ;. o, o 0) Uo Um w >4 � -a a) o, Y1 C ro O y-1 •• � ON a >r " r V) :C A H m O O 4-)r0 mm '0 4i{A00 N <r LL9 < 0 b a) a) '0 a) CO O�M44 >4 V m H N a co co ?+ x 0 a) m NcoN C -V 0 r � a) 4J M > O 4 h e t N H m 0 -ri • � CO 4-) rn oai m U)44 All z W 3 b A m 0 0 xx A O caA m H 3 a) 0, a) ,-1 N a) w td vma) Ero Oa) m3 NO • a) .0 W W b r m C O 3 0 ► N 0-P 3 3 N a) -P w .-1 a) +J 1~ , +i r. rn �G .0 H R3 -H +) 4J '-1 N m 9 .0 O 0 v\ ZO 3 µa •. .0 3 4+ 0 E -P N 0 � -ri W �H U b bo rlE a)+) O 0 a) -H m a) �O 3 3 a-) -H � ca 1-i < - U +) a 1~ .0 C V. N 0 0� ,a -� E�" H a) c0 a) +J a) 0 s~ N ca r-1 E U $4 C • 3 W N E (C 4) E U a) o a 3 O 0 -ri 0 O) U4-) 04-1 N m a +) a) +) -H b 0 -H cC • N O -r-1 m , ba� rooa� m N 94.010 C) x U NO UH w H m -P HO (1)03 10a 4) 0 0 H.9H0 b ro o ,C O a) 0 .0 -H w a) 4-) 3 r-q 10 Z W O a) (14 ca b CO 04 W> 4-) CC o w x ro 0 m +J N , 0 �C O oc 0 0 OC YI d v) E .0 O 0 WRf Wm WNA Wa U3 (D a a a s a o O C: E 4-) W a) W is O O C� ea 4-) /O �3 0 A _, � S +.. r� .0 f !.u�.Lw •r r ..- .. - � � s�:�', :.c:.`. ar. r n ^I/ �.!!jf r`� r'�s>4•r °4 a�s2` ,. r'y1i;,, °qy '\_ p u.�rt'�re f. �?` !�' `� �!(�c! `� xwE sr.: �i�i►°fsry�c ° b @a�rii�it r f�1►�'3,(` r `cc�j' �'Y � !?�YM1 ,t"`r,f' «tip" �l•��.Y ti ti^' %.h �.i+n- �,. 9E, �'rt''vfit 117)9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 98 Agenda April 22, 1991 Issue Statement: Award of contract for joint cleaning and resealing. Background: Cleaning debris from joints in concrete streets removes inflexible material that can cause the joint to erupt during times of expansion. After cleaning, the joints are resealed with material that expands and contracts with the pavement surface. This also will reduce water intrusion into the pavement base, which weakens the street surface. The area under consideration is Lyndale Avenue from 76th -78th Streets, and approximately eight alleys (71st -73rd Streets between First -Third Avenues; 67th -69th Streets between Pleasant and Lyndale Avenues, and 75th -77th Streets between Lyndale and Aldrich Avenues). Bids from four contractors were opened April 5, 1991 for the 1991 joint cleaning and resealing project with the following results: Progressive Contractors, Inc. $52,842.20 Thomas & Sons 53,081.00 Action Enterprises, Inc. 57,484.72 Palda & Sons, Inc. 68,820.03 The total Professional Services line item under the street maintenance budget is $260,012 for the sealcoating, concrete joint cleaning and sidewalk, curb and gutter repair projects. This includes both the contractor and City labor costs. The contracts are based upon estimated quantities. Payments will be made on actual work performed. Council would be authorizing contracts at the stated amounts, with the stipulation that the contract documents allow variances. The combined totals of the work in this Professional Services budget line item will not exceed the budgeted total. However, the sidewalk, curb and gutter repair and the joint repair contracts may individually exceed the total estimated contract totals. The 1990 contract price was $61,488.15. Actual monies paid was $54,389.43. Recommended Motion: Accept the bid minutes /tabulation and award a contract for the 1991 joint cleaning & resealing project to Progressive Contractors, Inc. in the sum of $52,842.20. /)A -1 Basis of Recommendation: 1. The quotation from Progressive Contractors, Inc. is the lowest responsible bid. 2. Progressive Contractors, Inc. is a well -known and reputable company. 3. This work is included in the 1991 budget. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may choose to reject all the bids and direct staff to obtain new quotations. However, the bids obtained are reasonable, and staff does not believe a better price from a reputable contractor could be obtained. Discussion /Decision Mode: Council may choose to delay award of this contract; however, the contract documents allow the bidders to withdraw their bids after 30 days of the bid opening. Staff is asking for approval at the April 22, 1991 Council meeting. ' Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City Manager JDP:ds Attachment CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening April 5, 1991 11:00 A.M. Joint Cleaning & Resealing Bid No. 91 -7 '7A - Z. Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for joint cleaning & resealing, bid no. 91 -7, as advertised in the official newspaper on March 20, 1991. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative Roxi Braa, Administrative Aide The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR BID TOTAL SECURITY Palda & Sons, Inc. 5% bid bond $68,820.03 St. Paul, MN Progressive Contractors, Inc. 5% bid bond $52,842.20 Osseo, MN Action Enterprise 5% bid bond $57,484.72 Suamico, Wisconsin Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. 5% bid bond $53,081.00 Rogers, MN The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the April 22, 1991 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk A H CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 99 Agenda April 22, 1991 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for a skid steer loader and sale of a loader 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 March 1, 1991, bids were opened in a formal process for the purchase of a skid steer loader and trailer. The specifications asked for a base bid and a trade -in price for a fully depreciated 1980 Waldon front -end loader. The low bidder with trade -in was Case Power Equipment at $10,220. After reviewing the bids, staff concluded that the City would benefit by selling the Waldon outright, and taking quotes on the loader and tractor with no trade -in. Council rejected the bids at,the March 25, 1991 meeting, and staff wrote to the vendors, asking for informal quotations. By using this process, a low quote of $14,408 was received from Case Power and Equipment for a skid loader and trailer. A bid of $5,105 was received for the Waldon loader from Northern Engine and Supply. The net cost to the City will be $9,303 for a new skid loader and trailer, or $917 less than the machine would have cost with a formal bid and trade -in. Recommended Motion: Approve the purchase of a new skid loader and trailer from Case Power & Equipment for the quoted price of $14,408, and approve the sale of the 1980 Waldon loader to Northern Engine & Supply for the quoted bid of $5,105. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The quote from Case Power & Equipment was the low bid with the informal quotations. 2. The bid from Northern Engine & Supply was the highest for the purchase of the Waldon. 3. There is sufficient funding in the approved 1991 Central Garage capital outlay budget for this purchase. Alternative Recommendation: Council could decide to reject all of the quotations; however, staff believes the prices received are the lowest that will be obtained for the equipment desired. '78 -) Discussion/Decision_ Mode: This item is scheduled for the April 22, 1991 Council meeting. Staff is asking for approval of this item at that time. Respectfully submitted, Jaime D. Prosser City Manager JDP:ds ") 0- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 100 Agenda April 22, 1991 Issue Statement: Purchase of a greensmower in excess of $5,000 for 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 purchased in 1981 by the Golf Course is scheduled to be replaced in 1991. The Central Garage approved 1991 motor pool budget contains $9,500 for this purchase. Staff solicited quotations in an informal bidding process, and received four as follows: Wayzata Lawn Mower Toro Greensmaster 3000 $10,250 Less Trade -In of 1981 Toro GM300 ( 500) Total $9,750 North Star Turf, Inc. Jacobsen Greens King IV $10,470 Less Trade -In of 1981 Toro GM300 ( 850) Total $9,620 Cushman Vehicle Ransomes Model XT3011 Greens 3000 $10,620 Less Trade -In of 1981 Toro GM300 { 1,000) Total $9,620 MTI Distributing Co. Toro Greensmaster 3000 $10,330 Less Trade -In of 1981 Toro GM300 ( 1,200) Total $9,130 Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order to MTI Distributing Inc. for a total of $9,130. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The four 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 1991 motor pool budget. /)0--/ Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to reject all quotations and instruct staff to obtain new and /or additional quotations. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item is on the April 22, 1991 consent calendar. Staff is requesting approval at this time in order to facilitate timely delivery of the unit. Respectfull submitted, James . Prosser City M ager JDP:ds `7 D CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 101 Agenda April 22, 1991 Issue Statement: Purchase of seasonal street maintenance supplies 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. Each year, the street maintenance division purchases asphalt and tar to use in the general street maintenance operation. The materials are used for cracksealing and patching throughout the summer months. Staff received two informal quotes from suppliers as listed below: Commercial Asphalt Co. Bituminous Roadway 2341 Mix 18.25 /Ton; $5,475 19.50 /Ton; $5,850 Driveway Mix 19.38 /Ton; 1,938 19.50 /Ton; 1,950 Subtotal $7,413 $7,800 SSI Tack 4.00 /Gallon; 800 No Bid Total $8,213 Not Applicable The 1989 purchase price for this material was $7,926, and the 1990 price for was $7,910. The 1989 and 1990 supplier was Commercial Asphalt Company. Recommended Motion: Approve a master purchase order for the purchase of these materials from Commercial Asphalt Company in the amount of $8,213. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Commercial Asphalt Company submitted the low quotation, and they have provided a quality product for the City for the past two years. 2. The materials are needed for the summer street maintenance operation. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not crackseal and patch during 1991. However, staff would consider this a detriment to our street system and it would not be in accordance with our pavement management program. 2. Purchase the materials from another vendor although this option would probably be more expensive. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item appears on the April 22, 1991 regular City Council meeting consent calendar. Respect- ly submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager JDP:ds CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 102 Agenda April 22, 1991 Issue Statement: Issuance of 1991 non - intoxicating malt liquor license for Paesano's Italian Buffet, located at 500 East 78th Street. Background: On December 12, 1990, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the non - intoxicating malt liquor license for Paesano's. The required license fees have been paid. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: • It should be noted that Mr. Gerald Baer and Mr. Robert Helman became the new owners of Paesano's on January 1, 1991. Mr. Gerald Lee Baer serves as the President /Manager, and Robert James Helman as Vice President. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. • All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The building and property continue to be owned by A. G. Bogen Company, and the lease agreement between the applicant and the landlord continues to be in effect with all payments current. • The applicant has supplied proof of liquor liability insurance coverage. This coverage indicates that John H. Crowther Inc. is also affording the required liquor liability insurance coverage. The applicant has supplied proof of worker's compensation insurance coverage. • An accountant's statement has been submitted by J B J P Inc. This statement covers October and November of 1990 and indicates that food sales accounted for 98% of the total sales, while beer sales accounted for 2% of the total. From January, 1990 through March, 1991 there were ten Public Safety contacts with Paesano's as compared with two for the previous year. Three of these contacts were of a criminal nature. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter. The environmental health staff.received two restaurant complaints during this same time period. Bloomington sanitarians were notified and there have been no other complaints since. Recommended Motion: Approve the issuance of the 1991 non - intoxicating malt liquor license for Paesano's Italian Buffet. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City codes and state statutes pertaining to non - intoxicating malt liquor license. -7e-) 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the license requested. Alternative Recommendation 1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing, however, if the hearing is continued beyond April 22, 1991, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell non - intoxicating malt liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. 2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the license. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statutes 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to non- intoxicating malt liquor. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. It is the opinion of the Public Safety Department that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to non- intoxicating malt liquor and therefore, it is recommended that the license not be revoked or suspended. Discussion /Decision Mode: The public hearing to consider the requests for the issuance of Paesano's Italian Buffet non - intoxicating malt liquor license has been scheduled for April 22, 1991. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the hearing beyond April 22, any subsequent hearing should be held before the license expires. y submitted, James • Prosser City ager JDP:ds E-2- PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS NOVEMBER 1989 - MARCH 1991 PAESANO'S RESTAURANT The criminal contacts for 1990 through March of 1991 were two malicious mischief, one domestic and one assault. 1989 MAR. 1991 Total Contacts 2 12 Criminal Contacts 2 6 "Bar Type" (Included in Crim. Contacts) (0) (4) Misc. non - criminal 0 6 Assists 0 (5) Traffic /Parking 0 (1) Inspections /Licensing 0 (0) The criminal contacts for 1990 through March of 1991 were two malicious mischief, one domestic and one assault. PAESANO'S RESTAURANT Partners /Officers Names and Title: Gerald Baer - President /Manager Robert Helman - Vice President /Secretary 12 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 103 Agenda April 22, 1991 Issue Statement: Award of contract for construction and installation of playground equipment at Taft Park. Background: The Taft Park playfeature improvement was planned to be a two year project with a total cost of $45,000, with $22,000 to be spent in 1991 and an additional $23,000 in 1992. The 1991 Capital Improvement Budget includes $22,000 in special revenue funding. Of the $45,000, $10,000 was anticipated in City labor and equipment charges, and $35,000 in playground equipment ($27,000 in a large continuous playfeature, and $8,000 in a preschool feature, diggers and spring animals.) During the planning process, it became apparent that it would be difficult to bid $27,000 worth of equipment over a two year period because different vendors equipment is not compatible. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Guidelines require different setbacks for different types of equipment. Therefore, designing the edging for the playground without knowing the parameters of the playground equipment is difficult. The existing equipment at Taft was installed in 1974/5 and is currently in poor condition. The life expectancy of playground equipment is approximately 15 years. Five sets of specifications were requested by various contractors. The base bid was for a major portion of the playground equipment for children in the 5 -12 year old age group. Alternate #1 is an expansion of that base which provides for more play features. A preschool feature, diggers, and spring animals will be added in 1992 to complete the project. The base bid is $17,090.26. The bid for Alternate #1 (as referenced above) is $5,044.27 for a total bid of $22,134.53. Costs for the City crews to grade the site, install the wood border and place sand under the feature are anticipated to be $8,050. The 1992 costs to complete the project as indicated above are $10,000 ($8,000 in equipment and $2,000 in City labor for installation).for a total two year project cost of $40,184.53. This would be a savings of $4,815.47 over the originally anticipated $45,000. There was a savings of approximately $10,000 after the tennis court bid opening over the estimated project cost. Staff is requesting to transfer tennis court project savings to the Taft playfeature project to cover costs for City crews. This represents a payment from special revenues to the General Fund. Consideration of the proposed $10,000 transfer is presented in Council Letter No. 109 regarding the proposed first reading of an amended transitory ordinance. �F- I Three bids were received at a formal bid opening April 9, 1991. A copy of the bid minutes /tabulation is attached. The bid from Miracle Recreation Equipment Co. has fewer components than the specifications requested. Staff recommends rejecting their bid on that basis. Recommended Motion: Accept the bid minutes /tabulation and award a contract for the construction and installation of playground equipment at Taft Park to Earl F. Andersen and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $22,134.53 for the base bid and Alternate #1. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Ear1'F. Andersen and Associates, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid. 2. There is sufficient money in the Capital Improvement Budget for the playground. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Council may choose to reject all bids and instruct staff to obtain new bids; however, staff does not believe a better price can be obtained from a reputable contractor. 2. Council may choose to award a contract for the base bid and not include the alternate. Because there is sufficient funding available, and because the structure is more complete in a variety of play events and provides more diversified exercises, staff believes the entire playfeature would be more beneficial to Taft Park and the people who use that park on a regular basis. 3. Council may choose not to install any playground equipment at Taft Park at this time. 4. Council may choose to charge City crew costs to the General Fund. Discussion /Decision Mode: In order to have the project completed according to the bid documents by June 21 to allow for a full summers use, staff is requesting a contract be awarded at this time. Respec ly submitted, Jamey Prosser City' nager JDP :ds Attachment 7 F-Z CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening April 9, 1991 10:30 A.M. Playground Equipment at Taft Park Bid No. 91 -6 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for playground equipment at Taft Park, bid no. 91 -6, as advertised in the official newspaper on March 27, 1991. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Don Fondrick, Administrative Services Director Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative Gretchen Blank, Leisure Services Coordinator The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR BID BASE ALTERNATE BID Odland Construction 5% Bid $18,594.00 $4,760.00 Stillwater Bond Earl F. Andersen & 5% Bid $17,090.26 $5,044.27 Associates Bond Bloomington Miracle Recreation 5% Bid $14,223.00 $4,315.00 Equipment Co. Bond Hastings The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the April 22, 1991 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 104 Agenda April 22, 1991 Issue Statement: Council consideration for a sign variance for Richfield- Bloomington Credit Union. 3`15 t-gST 7? J49ee4 Background: In 1988, the City Council revised the sign ordinance that limits where signs can be located, as well as certain other restrictions. The ordinance also allows the Council to approve signs of unusual height or location. The Richfield - Bloomington Credit Union has applied for a permit for a sign which, unless approved by the Council, would not comply with the ordinance. Specifically, they wish to erect a ground sign that is in front of the property line setback. City ordinance would permit a ground sign if located behind the setback. If it is in front, the ordinance requires that there be a 710" clearance below the sign face. Section 416.03, Subd. 6, allows the Council to approve a variance in this case. Recommended Motion: Approve the application and variance to the ordinance for a sign (as submitted to Public Safety) to the Richfield - Bloomington Credit Union. _ Basis of Recommendation: Staff has reviewed this request and finds it would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. In fact, it will be more aesthetically pleasing. It would also not provide any sight problems. Signs of this nature are allowed for churches, schools and park buildings if they are set back 10' from the property line. This one would be set back 2' from the property line. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not approve the variance. This would require them to construct a sign like this one behind the building setback line, or if it were in front of the building setback line, there would have to be a 710" clearance below the sign face. 2. Require the sign in some other location; i.e., 10' from the property line setback. Decision /Discussion Mode: Approve the sign variance for Richfield - Bloomington Credit Union as submitted to Public Safety. Respectfully submitted, 9 James Prosser City M ger JDP:ds Richfield City Code 416.03, Subd. 3 (Rev. 1988) "26 -z 1) number of sign faces 2) sign colors and construction materials 3) sign dimensions 4) type, direction, location and intensity of sign illumination and name of electrical contractor 5) method of construction 6) method of attachment to building or ground 7) stress sheets and calculations showing that the structure is designed to meet the dead load and wind pressure require- ments of the building code.. Subd. 3. Sien construction oermit exemptions. The following types of signs are exempt from the requirement of this subsection but are subject to all other requirements and standards applicable to signs: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) ( f ) (g) (h) Temporary election signs Home occupation signs Address signs Identification signs not exceeding two square feet in sign area Traffic signs Garage sale and estate sale signs Real estate signs Signs erected by governmental agencies in the discharge of their governmental duties (i) Signs warning the public of hazards high voltage lines (j) Temporary window signs (k) Institutional directional signs not feet in sign area. such as buried cable or exceeding four square Subd. 4. Permit fee. The application for a sign construction permit shall be accompanied by the fee provided in Appendix D of this code. The fee required in this paragraph is separate from and in addition to any other fees required by this code. Subd. 5. Aooroval of sien oermit aoolications. Upon presentation of application, permit fee, plans and specifications and other required information, the sign construction permit shall be issued by the building official, except as provided in subdivision 6 of this subsec_ion. Subd. 6. Soecial aooroval from council. In the case of an application for a sign of unusual height, or Location, the manager shall refer such sign to the council for approval. No permit for any such sign, so referred, shall be issued without first obtaining the approval of the council. Subd. 7. Variance -from germs of approval orohibited. No sign shall be erected, used or maintained in a :Wanner at variance from the provisions of this code or different from that approved by the council. Subd. S. (Repealed, Bill. No. 1983 -3) 36" I 6" 3" 10" m TOP VIEW 7'-0" 1 TOP VIEW 7'-0" (-;--3 12„ 3" METAL / FLASHING 10" SOLDIERING GRADE BELOW GRADE CONCRETE #3000 BASE .Seale ient D e s i n ClR/B CRED t'oh�` am9cla-jol-MAR °�<�;ti k;._ 141111MV Revised 1 (-;--3 12„ 3" METAL / FLASHING 10" SOLDIERING GRADE BELOW GRADE CONCRETE #3000 BASE .Seale ient D e s i n ClR/B CRED t'oh�` am9cla-jol-MAR °�<�;ti k;._ 141111MV Revised V +2 n f S � EX +t'rrriG a .s ✓t *�� 1 T SIGN YX TX 911 TROPERTY LINE . -, T � �— , � '- , .LI G cwt .i. .. . — i � � :, � w . • .._ � — — ! }•,}, A I T An A 11t.'%� N, ^ C Y ,i 2 A c, 3, . L • � �t (C Y--ATP- Of —25, POINTS /j.F / ♦, TAW —V EY U`FY of t`+GNf+ELD, `. "� , '.•ate, _ ..J+� ��LLE NOTE -a...� .t .� \ l�1 14G �JD� h:::unv ^;.G sP•F +"�:.iul. S'{s'!.:rN ` f � (ikAF5 iE 1 4f g rc 4E.. 4_47 E 'L � 'j- ls- - zresta- STCFf£ PsOG �` `~ \ -�� --� •'r' .� � MI/ 3 j.- � --♦ 'Y�.� __� � . ^ \�'�,F :� its j :TE n�CSrcrty�i.rw� +f � �- .,•+�, ^ J�'t► 14 go 0 JZ s aoAS- Pascual • • . - � . _ - � . - �, 1:-i_1 �C.aF+cLE'rE �JS�u_ �= - - --- - ;- -- --- --� �' ••. > -3irf! �� ewGrtt"'E GOl_Ar _, uuM OnsFr. r 3 ' { L iw � � �� ;' t�n� .•- �-= y��r"�: rSr� ��a3 ,. -_ o�s,�. •K. � ! { .� r� (T�FCL�� - �- �,.uier_T}�ct�vfr;ri '". =='. - - �• ___. _ .. • Z CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 105 Agenda April 22, 1991 Issue Statement: Public hearing on appeal of the Building Official's denial of a building permit for Video Update at 7645 Nicollet Avenue. Background: In January 1990, the Richfield City Council adopted an Official Map for 77th Street. The Official Map delineates the land needed for the 77th Street Reconstruction Project. This Official Map was adopted for the purpose of carrying out the policies of the City's Major Thoroughfare Plan and Community Facilities Plan. Once such an official map has been adopted, any building permit application which discloses that construction is planned within the proposed street area may be denied by the building official on that basis. In January 1991, the City received a building permit application for a 29 foot-by 30 foot addition to the south end of the Video Update building. The application disclosed that almost all of the building addition would encroach into the Official Map area for the 77th Street plan. The process for obtaining approval of a building permit in such cases is regulated by Minnesota Statutes, and involves the following steps: 1. An application for a building permit is made, the Building Official finds that the proposed building will encroach into a future street area as shown on the official map, and the building permit application is denied on that basis. 2. 3. 4. 5. The owner of the land makes a written appeal to the City Council. The City Council holds a public hearing to consider the application. If the Council denies the appeal, no permit will be issued and no construction may take place. The Council may authorize issuance of the permit with a six month delay. During this time, the City may institute proceedings to acquire the land designated for the future street. If no such proceedings are commenced within that period, the Building Official will issue the permit roviding the construction meets all of the requirements of he building code, the owner has secured an off- street parking permit from the Council, and all other applicable laws are met. :i Recommended Motion: Deny this request for a building permit which would encroach into the Official Map area of 77th Street. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Official Map for 77th Street has been adopted to put property owners on notice of the pendency of road improvements so that they may adjust their building plans equitably and conveniently before investments are made which will make later adjustments difficult to accomplish. 2. The draft Environmental Impact Statement for the improvement of 1494, with 77th Street as the new frontage road, is due this fall and, pending approval, will become effective next year. 3. Petitioner does not meet the hardship requirement for the Right -Of -Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF). 4. Legislation is currently pending in the state legislature which, if adopted, would facilitate the development of 77th Street as the new frontage road for 1494. 5. The proposed construction by petitioner would intrude into the proposed right -of -way and would be incompatible with the proposed roadway improvement. Alternative Recommendation: Approve the issuance of a building permit but delay the effective date for six months. A building permit may be authorized only if the following findings are made: 1. The entire property of the owner of.which such area identified for street purposes forms a part cannot yield a reasonable return unless a permit is granted; and 2. That balancing the interests of the municipality in preserving the integrity of the Official Map and of the comprehensive plan and the interests of the owner of the property in the use of the property and in the benefits of ownership, the grant of such permit is required by considerations of justice and equity. Basis of Alternative Recommendation: 1. Pending legislation may, if adopted, facilitate early acquisition of 77th Street properties. Such legislation should be acted upon within six months. 2. The draft EIS should be completed within six months. i Discussion /Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 P.M. on April 22, 1991. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of hearing was published in the Sun - Current and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. XRespec lly submitted, Prosser ger JDP:ds ..... L#U Eg x: 03Ad 1Sal '''g of � iii _ .�! :M•y: •� •• o sw W CL jlzo '3Ad 131" 103IN ' W Dr�:p�• '3Ad 113CISIVIO $ -3 miZ Q IL W H tn If- IT N {LI Q O cn O W Z W Q W J J O V Wgr CD Z lti Ic C a o? u � oc z �g 0 a' 4 ..... L#U Eg x: 03Ad 1Sal '''g of � iii _ .�! :M•y: •� •• o sw W CL jlzo '3Ad 131" 103IN ' W Dr�:p�• '3Ad 113CISIVIO $ -3 miZ Q IL W H tn If- IT N {LI Q O cn O W Z W Q W J J O V Wgr CD Z lti Ic C a o? u � oc z �g 0 a' 8 - � DONALD D. POTTER Video Update 7645 Nicollet Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Mr. James D. Prosser City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Request for Building Permit Video Update, 7645 Nicollet Avenue Dear Mr. Prosser: As you are aware, I have applied through my contractor, Robert Scherer of BKS Construction, for a building permit to enlarge my business premises. The permit has been denied as encroaching upon the "Official Map" of the City of Richfield. The official map anticipates the broadening of 77th Street and apparently contemplates the taking of my property. I desperately need the building permit to expand my business. Accordingly, I am appealing to the City Council to review the application and this letter at the March 25, 1991 meeting and make the determination to issue the permit. Specifically, I am asking the Council to determine the following: a. That my property cannot yield a reasonable return unless such permit is granted, and b. That considerations of justice and equity require the issuance of the permit when balancing the interest and use of the owner of the property with the interest of the municipality in preserving the official map. Background My property at 7645 Nicollet Avenue South, is the site of a former Super America. The building, constructed in 1965, sat vacant for several years until I purchase it in 1984, and had its conditional use rezoned to include video rental. I have occupied the space contl4 piously thereafter as a Video Update video rental store. 1. See Exhibit A, for location of Video Update store site; and Exhibit B for pertinent portion of official map. S- The site has little, if any other use. I have tried to sell the property, however, no one is interested in purchasing it in vrw of the undetermined effect of the 77th Street renovation. Store Size The problem I have is a lack of sufficient space to conduct my business. The building has approximately 1348 square feet of total floor space broken up as follows: two bathrooms and a combination furnace room /utility room /office consumes approximately 200 square feet of space, and the balance of the interior, 900 square feet is devoted to display, rental and storage of video cassettes. The lot size is approximately 18,269 square feet. 4 In the area devoted to cassette rental and storage, I have over 6000 movie boxes displayed with their cassettes stored seperately. The display area is ex remely cramped and does not adequately display the boxes. Moreover, there is little room display or storage of the additional sixty to i 3 iY '37 u i w � Y i crammed with movie boxes, I find my customers do not have sufficient room to browse. The inability to browse discourages customers from entering or returning to my store. r 1 The result has been a decline in revenues from 1989 to the present. When I first began doing business at 7645 Nicollet, in 1985 my yearly revenues totaled $184,685, and increased the following year. In 1988, and my store became more and more crowded, �evenues decreased from comparative months in earlier years. In 1989, revenues decreases to the point where I was realizing a negative cash flow and was forced to dip into my savings and retirement funds to stay in business. My property currently does not provide me with any income or return. If I cannot increase the size of my store, I will not be in business much longer. I have researched possible alternatives to my predicament, other than a lack of space, and determined them to be generally, nonfactors. I have outlasted most of the competing video stores within a one mile radius, and I have a broader, deeper selection than any new video store could possibly muster. I have been working with John Bedard, President of Video Update, Inc. Video Update, Inc. franchises video rental stores in Minnesota and throughout the United States. Mr. Bedard contends the store I had in 1985, was of good size for the time. Its size by 1987, and thereafter was too small to be competitive. Video Update, Inc. owns and operates two other stores on Nicollet, several miles from my store. The closer store, at 46th and Nicollet has 2200 square feet of space. Both stores have been in business less than a year. Both stores are experiepcing positive cash flow and are quite profitable.ti My planned addition would give me a minimum additional display space of 1000 square feet, or approximately 2348 square feet: 16n area comparable to the larger, successful video stores. 6. I opened for business in 1984, however my first full year of operation was 1985 and that has been used for comparison purposes. 7. Revenues and Net Income by years are as follows: Year Total Revenue Net Income 1985 $184,685 $44,440 1986 $237,585 32,431 1987 $183,209 ( 9,830) 1988 $126,803 2,104 1989 $119,973 (10,513) 8. A statement of John Bedard is attached as Exhibit E 9. See, statement of John Bedard, Exhibit E. 10. A map of the proposed addition and layout is attached as Exhibit F. I on Operating Costs My declining revenues have caused increasing problems as other other costs have increased. I purchased the building in 1985, and I do not rent, however, taxes have increased, along with wages, advertising, electricity, insurance, et cetra. However, the most serious and most damaging is the increase in the cost of movies. When I first began doing business in 1985, the cost of a good A title, such as "Splash" or "Color Purple" had a wholesale cost of approximately $54.00. The wholesale cost of "Ghost" due to be released March 21, is over $72.00 and carries a suggested retail of $102.95. This is a cost increase of 30 %. It has become more and more difficult to stay in business, and match income to expenses. If I did not own the building, I would have been able to move several years ago. Diversity The lack of space also prevents me from diversifying into areas related to video rental which could, in turn, allow my business to continue. Specifically, Video Update video rental stores have added profitable related items such as video game rental, candy (theatre size), clothing (movie logo T- shirts and sweatshirts) movie posters, books on tape, compact disks, and, the most obvious item,--video cassettes at consumer prices. Pat Donohue, Branch Manager of Sight and Sound Distributors, has advocated the expansion of smaller video stores into other revenue generating sources in an effort to stay comyTtitive with larger stores and increase store traffic. All of the above can add valuable revenue and foot traffic to a business. All of the above require space. Currently I am able to devote but limited space for game rental and a small number of movies for sale. With a larger space, I would be able to accomplish all of the above. 11. A statement by Pat Donahue is attached as Exhibit G. LACK OF MONETARY RETURN What all of the above emphasizes, is that while I have a large lot, it is occupied be a small building originally intended to be a gas station with two car repair stalls. I need more space to increase my business revenues. I am currently losing money, and have been for some time. If denied the building permit, and opportunity to expand, I will lose my business. PROPERTY OWNER v. OFFICIAL MAP Balancing both items equitably, the rights of the property owner vs. the city map, I believe the interest of the interest of the property owner, especially in this instance should prevail. A business property owner pays an inordinantly (compared to other property) high property tax for the privilege of conducting business on the property, with the hope of receiving an income. Unlike residential property, the pure, unadultered intent of owning business property it to receive a return on the investment in it. CONCLUSION My property as it currently exists cannot yJ91d a reasonable return, and has not done so for several years. In weighing the equity interests of the property owner agaisnt the official map, justice should prevail and the city council should grant my building permit. Donald D. Potter cc: Sivert Hendrickson Shawn Drill Byron Wallace -74th- - u 13 JO f04 _1 - .&%pt 1a y u 75th riyol W G n: a • _ R ?6th ,14 act 1% 84 -s- tSS 2 i b� : 3 17 `.. • t. q </ 1• 16111 »Ia, . •- s, •.: •• , �. ,., - o, .74111— ! IG dl.(,i11 = . (tb) 101- ,A�, .:. " 1�,• 1 4a1�,y,1 i (��i :;( 11:.• s•: 1• G 4 \: 'G• � .:�• 0 .�_�.,!., .2 tt,_– — 34111_.. �S ('p12 yam: :S ►� s)'Zo� • 7i 1 IS(4;��C,4� 2 IX'•�e� t IS(�,)• (si t UP(,i ) -�! u;,�� 4 =5 _! -:L_ 4i •lt:e •114•:: 1111 :1 ( 3L ' E a ,T. _ .Y��S� } o /t4' {/.��; � K(s4)�,,� a C; Ic�41' 3� 3 0 f. ..'Al: ' N K1.y SI -:L Q .14.t; +c 1.• N I<t• :C (tD s �, s (f a _ t f3(�t(s i < 13 A,� � : A ,s(r+� (w c S t:(a ?(W.; 1t 61-Y �� : `,(nl • (�l � .6114PG n(� 1��: t(In2t3j� c u (�'� c M :i. >-•:i s 11..t; w I° �� 0 7 ` ;o+SQ i�SS� I t ! _.. , u : a, ;c ►. z[ ►� c iii: .z: te' (1� . tc ' I a pelf Ids a % ST. s I s E. 75th s i • K(,f°' .G��a' ir. (,tr• nni� ' ,(psi ' :•(d.; ' • , j,��?c `r(h�� 1 ; "` '(n�s� 1'!~ �� I -►, �"s � 1st :3 . jW� 3ta t<ts al'; Is �� t - (S GL �' 1 1 - 15 1i.�� 2 :'' a(di1�(g61 :,y11(p>1 2 r (Ion —_ ( .s MAL -m ji. � l ?•:: ``' '3•:• fuss ' JM 2s 14 E 3 N 14�' 1'11; 14hd�G�� 14 60-z i) 3 %? _ _ Jt•' +L1, 11414 13 ( %►+14 13 Qs� '' S 11�4 ��, : ` 13 HS %J�4 tt�i 4 ' I .a �t W 1111.4 +..9y ts: t ;• t�11< t+ st { W s< 12 OIL rt�,s� '.s .#�,. rif��6,5s (,il 1:(t� n(tr�l)(It,�s <.• !14:< Q: <. 11111 3c l: 0 t n �� d` — ItG''i (�'`� tf1`�) t!'1o1 c n (4� �'e►•)� stC'�� 14. /1,0 ,t,2 di t 3 1 :34 ,.,5 t! MW _ 1'114!) 1 4:1! . b (to') (°fl (IlP ,n� lof►� 11 to Eio1, 4i1� a p >> 01 ,1 . f 1,t.S t e• 1• • ' •!4 Ti :!c - f1 d< ! 1 :!t t ' . E. tet. to ♦ ✓.wrK.'. 1 D. L Ri T OA Ybz I. 6 9D (,41. (,$) G JJP. 14 1 0A.010. 210 Plat Man EXHIBIT A x I 1! W o H � x 1' I ' i •' Ill , = -- nla ' �t Y �: �• �- 0(�Sl 13 (1b7 (to 4 :4.44 tK44 .mot: L,,:3 «,_ • l4 K �t'{P1 S :.:t: rK4. 114.4! Ujj = s .. ... 91. 77th} ST. s r» t lit t .•• 1 N :AA 41D P2, tet. to ♦ ✓.wrK.'. 1 D. L Ri T OA Ybz I. 6 9D (,41. (,$) G JJP. 14 1 0A.010. 210 Plat Man EXHIBIT A x I 1! W o H � x 1' I ' i •' Ill ZRA SZrZ— :.4— MAY_RC.N ANC ASSi:c:AT_S, INC. ' OFFICIAL MAP FOR ..o fulrtrellf ..o � ; RICHFIELD, MI! - r ^_ V11 , N > > 11 --K � W .1 C: SUNSET TERRACE `� 3 SUN E. TEARRL^ " I Lr ---�*' _ I E. 1RlI ONSET TERRAC& �� I 1 UNSE' ,ZLAQAZ: ,o ! N'Illmlq It,l to _ �� 01 ]Q ^� ►u I f'S°^f� 11 11 li, I I Iil 1 1 � I .�. --,I 1 a �n '� f—a l r+—, !� •,I I la �,.., �.cr: r•% JW . 1 4 Ir _ 4311 1.11i • I 1 � I „ I �� 1 / I 1 n I _ r 1 j Vil NAWTON 1 R1C„FIELO WI 1 ni � I � n 1 � C ' 1 � I HENNEPIN : :UNTY womumENT ♦r ' N1 I 11 1 I N i I I 11 I NI 1 I I! 1 1 1, IN i 1 1 1 N L I ui i I i Q t SCI K I ( > A.G. BCCEM COUPANY'S 1 A. Z. B EN COMPANY'S "; A.O. 9CGEN C^.NPANY•S Ir, NIC :LET AVE. AOON. NICGLL T AVE. AOON. �� I N1=-.ET AVE. AOON.iI I! N1:CL._' AVE 14 I� •` 1 �T w � V7� � S i/N I n 1 121 1 j I i� `= � 1' I x � iui` e �, a, -1J ,it �, » I I.f, l,�„ t Ii `�� titil 4 I : y I`.•Illfl It27 tall .. •. Y .• .• ..1'!\[ V \'. ^.1`. Y •.'Y`r . \\. ".'.� \�1S ..1fl: .a`.... ii DY'.•.• .:•: •.14r,: `. � . �""'•.�. �+� �� \ :^li • :`..'.Y .`� Vim.,.' \�C"C' .•r'�.� 5T1 '!0 3] of u, „I o+olrs 1 1 low Wo f Au saw p" wtwtplM Call17T W-cwN7 AT 1 P sP•. COIIKA SEC. S. T,2. 11.24 EXHIBIT B I �3 -Z . ,ply.e'C_ pry -�: =_a �r -.�.d - ij-- • - - - - -- _`4`.�- -+ oY �' t1 '� •u .ij 1 J 1 •,1 � ! � i1 '� d tee! -� ; r il 1� 01 i� 10- n V I ��r) n•n 7 �i JO �I W pY 1 v S n z i 0 0 0 �r ..,/.`"I y J � oz p UQ d LL R xJ l 01 �,� 11� ?93i to I o: o J= `o '!-'t 3 Z II r a �T da i o co z O� w Q i i 0� J O O Q 0 Z Z Q J rr .EX 7-411 .A7. .EXHIBIT C II' CL. p LL R O' Z III to t ku i W 00 Ak 8 ' o IL W r p[ X of , LL LL 1 Y 0 / i f � x� 'v v l� 41 , �0 0 I � � 1 .Z .EX 7-411 .A7. .EXHIBIT C qk I twl oil 1� c by qk It Or = z I or—, low ivy ' '.' � i�'„ � +• i I ! r I 1 Im 11 � 666'• - �,�' rt,� i� ra 3 L' yy 7 9 • � �_ � . � .•4. _ 1 J K F7 \laiY J ,y L tRilI1111pEI1Bitl" 5 � � � � Iij} I to! =111111 lill Ilitflf3 P! }s{i?ilfl(II �. 1111 ! }: _i ilRi{I t!i l ivy ' '.' � i�'„ � +• i I ! r I 1 Im 11 � 666'• - �,�' rt,� i� ra 3 L' yy 7 9 • � �_ � . � .•4. _ 1 J K F7 \laiY J ,y L STATEMENT OF JOHN M. BEDARD I, John M. Bedard, am the President of Video Update, Inc. Video Update, Inc. is an owner and franchisor of video rental stores, founded in 1982. Currently, Video Update has 60 company owned stores or franchises in eleven states and New Zealand. I have served as president of Video Update, Inc. since its inception. As president of Video Update, I am well acquainted with Mr. Potter, a franchisee located at 7645 Nicollet Avenue South, in Richfield, and have had an ongoing relationship with him since he purchased his franchise in 1984. I helped Mr. Potter establish his store as I have assisted numerous other franchisees. Mr. Potter has had more cause to consult with me in the past several years as he has struggled to make his store prosper. In the past several years, the video industry has experinced the increase in movie inventory availability and selection. Increase in availability and demand has required the expansion of video stores to approximately 2200 square feet or larger. Stores of this size advertise the availbility of large quantities of the new, popular titles. To stay competitive, the smaller retailers were forced to expand right along with the larger stores. Video Update, Inc. has opened a video store at 46th and Nicollet consisting of 2200 square feet of floor space and over 4000 video cassettes. During the last quarter of 1990, Video Update experienced monthly revenues of $30,000. Don Potter had monthly revenues of less than $8,000 for the same time period and he has more tapes available for rent and far superior movie selection. Monthly revenues of less than $8,000 will not permit Mr. Potter, nor the average video store to survive. Mr. Potter has been a victim of this trend in video rental to expand store size and selection. Not being able to expand his square footage along with his rental inventory, he was forced to expand his inventory alone. While the results were a stabilization in revenues or slight increase, as the inventory purchased exceeded the available space; a decline in revenue became inevitable. His display area is but 900 square feet in which he has over 6000 movies displayed. The quality of his selection, i.e. the range and diversity, is without .equal in Minneapolis. Howver the limited display area and lack of browsing capability detracts greatly from the quality movies he has to offer. EXHIBIT E S-6 Customers need room to browse; they need their own "space ". In Potter's store, customers literally find themselves touching shoulders when selecting a movie. It is my experience that this closeness and contact alienates customers. Based on my nine years experience in the video industry, I believe Mr. Potter would regain customers and revenues with a larger, more spacious store. He also needs the extra space to add the customer services and sale items which video stores have developed since 1984. Video game rentals did not exist in 1986, but are a valuable source of income today. Similarily, the 'sale of movies was not a large revenue source in 1985 or 1986; today most popular movies are available initially to the rental stores at a whole cost of $68.00, and many titles are later reduced to a suggested retail of $19.95 or less: stocking inventory for sale has become an additional revenue source as well. Clothing and theater size candy are two other options often found in video stores today which were not common earlier. I have reviewed Mr. store worked with him on the changes to be made in store could offer. It is expand, he will again operation and a return on he cannot expand, his store fail. Potter's planned addition to his the proposed layout and discussed sale items and the services his my opinion, that if permitted to realize a profitable business his considerable investment. If and his investment are doomed to i Jghn M. Bedard 6 resident eo Update, Inc. :�JC3:• � ; s +n 13771'. `:f L4 1 � • `^ ... +r` � . ,` l -A41 '1 r EXgIBI.1) (Page 0"0 N a a 1 • � �I o D � g r \ /, 31'1 S a � � • < 1 �` z , d 14 `41 1 �(,age 2)� WKM H O 4 W F �o w� z I I I u I n W ICI I ill �1 F I % 'J . j Il j i l I I.LI .I•n� �j'.'i e I i _ . _ U I � � I � I ill II:;!.I�• I ��II,�I v 'I III!•;I � j� i 11 ,I• ' j- i ( p � iFl I li Ii III __: _ . V �� • b ur 7-- t i Y 0 H I g -12 �lf EXHIBIT F (page 3) �3 � � 3 H O 4 W F �o w� z I I I u I n W ICI I ill �1 F I % 'J . j Il j i l I I.LI .I•n� �j'.'i e I i _ . _ U I � � I � I ill II:;!.I�• I ��II,�I v 'I III!•;I � j� i 11 ,I• ' j- i ( p � iFl I li Ii III __: _ . V �� • b ur 7-- t i Y 0 H I g -12 �lf EXHIBIT F (page 3) g -t9 STATEMENT OF PATRICK DONAHUE I, Patrick Donahue, am the Branch Manager of Sight and Sound Distributors' Minnesota facilities, located at 5186 West 76th Street, Edina, Minnesota. Sight and Sound is a full line distibutor of prerecorded video cassettes, with branch locations in the midwest, including: St. Louis, Missouri; Little Rock, Arkansas; Kansas City, Kansas; and New Orleans, Louisiana. An additional facility is being added in Kentucky. I have worked in the video business for the past several years, primarily in distribution to video stores, most significantly as manager of Metro Video Distributors, Minneapolis, Minnesota from 1987 to 1988, and in my present position with Sight and Sound from 1988 to the present. As Manager of the Minnesota branch of Sight & Sound, I have had the opportunity to become acquainted with Don Potter, and am familiar with his business operations, and the operation of video stores in general. Moreover, I have had the opportunity to observe trends in the video rental industry since its inception. The video rental industry is one that was born with the availability of the VCR to consumers in the mid 80's, and has been in a constant evolution ever since. When video rental first became an option to consumers-in 1983 or 1984, video stores were successfully located just about anywhere. Tapes available were limited due to demand and production costs, which in turn, limited the space needed for a retail stores selection. Since that time, mass production and consumer demand has vastly expanded the titles of tapes on video cassette to the tens of thousands. Retailers have been required to expand their selection as well as their establishments to satisfy customer demand. As the video industry evolved, the size of successful stores grew along with the number of cassettes they were required to stock. Small stores which could not grow, became casualties of the industry. EXHIBIT G i In addition, smaller stores were hampered by the increase in the cost of doing business. Wholesale prices of video cassettes have increased from $55.00 charged in 1984 to the $70.00 and a suggested retail of $102.95 currently being experienced. (Movies such as Pretty Woman, with a suggested retail of $24.95, are rare exceptions.) Wholesale costs are expected to increase further in the coming year. Each movie purchased is required to make more money before breaking even, or turning a profit. As costs increased and rental prices decreased or stayed the same, the small retail establishments were forced to decrease their purchases. With less tapes available for rental, consumers were forced to patronize larger video stores where the increased costs and deeper purchases could be spread across a larger rental inventory. In addition, the successful video store has expanded its retail base to include more than just video rental. Sight and Sound provides video games, candy, clothing, books on tape, and compact disc's as well as movies for rental and sale. Don Potter is, in my opinion, and exception to the small store demise described above, in that he has a large rental inventory, and purchases quantities of new titles more typical to that of a larger video store. The sole detriment to his success or failure would appear to be the size of his store. I know Mr. Potter has included video games in his inventory, and displayed movies and movie related clothing for sale. However, the small floor area of his store prevents him from fully utilizing his inventory and options. A larger place of busine-ss would greatly enhance his business assets, and business bilities. Dated: .. atrick Do Manager, Minnesota Branch Sight & Sound Video Dist. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 106 Agenda April 22, 1991 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading consideration of an amendment to the PC -2 zoning district for Hub West and approval of a preliminary planned unit development plan. Background: Bradley Real Estate Investment Trust has submitted a preliminary planned unit development plan to redevelop the area known as Hub West. The City Council, HRA and Planning Commission have previously reviewed the concept and approved other preliminary steps. The redevelopment area is west of the Hub Shopping Center to the Soo Line between 65th and 66th Streets. Snyder Drug and Hausers would be displaced by a new Rainbow food store. Kentucky Fried Chicken would be moved a short distance west, displacing a small commercial building, and Great Clips would be placed on the south side of the new Rainbow building. U.S. Swim would stay at its present location but expand to the entire building. The movement of the Kentucky Fried Chicken building to the west will be accomplished by a land swap necessitating the redefinition and amendment of the PC -2 district boundary. Similarly, a previous vacation of Pleasant Avenue behind U.S. Swim was not included in the district. A final development plan, conditional use permit application and a developers agreement must be considered by the Council before on site development can occur. Recommended Motion: Approve second reading of this proposed amendment which expands the boundaries of the PC -2 district and approve the preliminary planned unit development plan for Hub West. Basis of Recommendation: 1. On March 26, 1991, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request. 2. The rezoning would clarify the PUD boundaries, and facilitate the proposed redevelopment of the HUB West project area. 3. City surveys have suggested a demand for a Rainbow style grocery operation in Richfield. 4. An existing parking conflict would be resolved. 5. The rezoning is a result of the proposed land exchange between Hub West and Kentucky Fried Chicken, as well as a prior street vacation. 6. Before development can be initiated, application with a final development to the Planning Commission and City action. 9-/ a conditional use permit plan will be submitted Council for review and Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could decide to deny the rezoning. 2. The City Council could refer the amendment back to the Planning Commission with instructions. Discussion /Decision Mode: A public hearing and second reading is scheduled at 7:00 P.M. on Monday, April 22, 1991. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of hearing was published in the Sun - Current and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Respectfualy submitted, Jame Prosser City, anager JDP:ds *a Cz %lot as It -30 AHQ13`• it $1 NoW OuvIllood Pat *Vz Awnss"J ANVSVI'd owwwo O'S'A'slovs lNrlNt 11 . --__.- i .l...1 ,,vouovl Kum q-1 «Z is 3AV wfQ3* a, It it rl 11 W,, 'LOIT13 =4 '' pOrDIND c. rls NOW ONVUVW I #at ( 6= PV z 3 SN3AUS -JAV 1311Q*1w -MOSIVIS mclurnd ANVSVTW ouvwo "JAY wmmolv t*VANI lkodno C-1 NOSM31163 5=1= 7 L7 l L XOII.A C-71 livool 0014 V3Al -]AV Nuad 77, av01v3b'S SVOOML &"321441% -tz S3XV31 H U) uj U.1 IIMM 7w uj U co Zi 0 Now V 0 wmj N Ul ul V Z CZ I 0 LL. Nxx UV U- z oz Z U ownskswo AV q-1 «Z is 3AV wfQ3* a, It it rl 11 W,, 'LOIT13 =4 '' pOrDIND c. rls NOW ONVUVW I #at ( 6= PV z 3 SN3AUS -JAV 1311Q*1w -MOSIVIS mclurnd ANVSVTW ouvwo "JAY wmmolv t*VANI lkodno C-1 NOSM31163 5=1= 7 L7 l L XOII.A C-71 livool 0014 V3Al -]AV Nuad 77, av01v3b'S SVOOML &"321441% -tz S3XV31 H U) uj U.1 IIMM 7w uj U co Zi 0 Now V 0 wmj N Ul ul V Z CZ I 0 LL. Nxx UV U- z oz Z U q-3 Z/R zz Z1. e 0¢ N Z LLI a H 0 LLI U) o; CL W o3 m . CL iiA101,1 kill _ = _•!1F11Tr71Tv rh ■ N W N p fall 6 tls fill � � �' �� g •iii• '• — � 11 31 a! --1 g p•Mtl �IroS OUWi41 iMl � IlilltlltffA Mtt1'IIMMI'11 TMMMM.��fM111•t •IMMIIMII IIM MV�ti . q-3 Z/R zz Z1. e 0¢ N Z LLI a H 0 LLI U) o; CL W o3 m . CL 7 J c� a, °o I .j F, I � i 65TH STREET I � � I I 1: _ 66TH STREET m J J a I L g_ HUB CENTER PARCELS TO BE REZONED TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PC-2) SCALE: V= 80' N XMI.i .� J L o000 1 ismm ; r mm rr�r -mss rr MM ZAQ �e�e�� if y��e�� ►eoeo� �• ..- 11 e e i o e IIII .•• IIII /I� ....�..- _.._..►�►�elt ► / / / / / /� / / / //► ►.eoo, f I �i / / / //� Y / / / /e /I II // /I / //IIII ►�o��o* rIIIIII/ IIIIIIII iiiiiii. ►.ee.,11 viieii% iiiiiiii II/IIIIIIIII ♦ e e • !1 I� /// /III IIIIIIII/IIII I ►�eioi� 11 III /IIII IIIIIIII ►IIIIII/IIIII ►eeeee� 11 IIIIIIII IIIIIIII ►IIIIIIII/III foeeeeo II/I/I/ IIIIIIII IIIIIIII ;► ieieieieiei f I VIII/IIi �I /VIII iIIIIIIIIi ►eieioioioiei 11 II/I/IIi iII_I�III� IIIIIII� �:•�ioii�i!i, i1 ?►j %% % % %i III- - - -I -► 67TH tl - dl It 11 r�!t 11 it �e 11 n 11 rrr now ' ':•:' WWI i i►POPi!� rlmll != �O"e'�•iiei �eeeeoe� i�7�e�e7 Pe -o*,! KINK, ►�1�e� 11• °e°o°44 ► 180°0! zo v 11' MW� mm mm ee eeee.t ►i °�°� ►eeee♦ °� ° :•: °:,.; MME ►1 -m �� t1: : mm m ►•••••• ►.••��1 •�� Q • . ; .. . eeeeee• ee..ee ♦oe..� � .v�.eeeeeo.•ooe� ♦eeo .eo..o.e.00....o►••eo .see.e.oeee.••...� ♦eeo •.e...oeoeeo.e �.ai *R .e..e.e........ee••e.ee.o r•.•. it ��e�e�e�e�e�e�e�•�e�e�e�� ►eee•••� �� ►..e..ee.o.o� ♦..�11 ♦.e..e.oeeee.eeee..e.e.. •�•�.�.�•�•�• �ieoeoo °oeoeeeeo °eeo °eoo °oeoei �e °o °o °o•oo� �iee...• ►..e....e.ee.eo.ee••.oee.♦ .eooeeoeeoee►oe♦ ►� ►.e.oeeo..eo�e.e�ll ♦e.o..eeee..►e.♦ ►. ►...e..eeeeo� ♦..� 11 eeeeoee..o.e►.eo '� �i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i� °i °i °i� 1I ♦e.e.e e.....oeee.00eeoo...eeeo• eeo ♦.e• ►ee.oe..e...e...e.�•..e.ee ♦ee...♦ ♦.o.eeeoo.eee.ee..eee.oe• ►eeo.ee• ►eeeoe.eeoee.eeo.e•�� ♦e.e.oe ♦ee.ee...eooeeeose ♦ e. o. e • ► e e e. e.. a e.. e e o... •-••••••.-�-� ► ► e o. e.. e. o e e �♦ e o� I �� °� °�e� °�•� °�e�o�•�•�e�� ►eMV� 11 �eoe000000� � � ►o °ee °i 11 i°i °i °i °i °i °i °i ►° i° i° i° i° i° i° i° i° . °i °i °i °i °i °o °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i e�•� °�o�� °�� ► �e�o��°•°°• •� °�e�e� °��o�s�s�i °� °s °� °i a °� °� °� °� °� °i ► ei° i° i° i° i° i° i° i° i °i °i °i °� °i °i °s °i °s °i °i °i °i °i °i 0e•oeeoeeee� �ee0eo °e °�� 11 eeo..e..ee.e.e..o i.00eeeooe• •eeee..� 11 °i °e °e °o °e °e °o °e °e °i� !e °i °i °i °i °i °i a °� °� °� °� °� °i ► ei° i° i° i° i° i° i° i° i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i ♦oe.e♦ •ee.e.e..e..e.e.e.e.eeo.• ►.eoee.� ►e.. ;.o.e.o.eoe...eeeoeo.e �i °i °i °i °o °i °i � • �•! °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i • 11 +..e...eee.�e.ee.e ♦�.e.eee..e••eeee..��l ,• eo..ee.oes►..e.ee eeee.esoeee•e..e..� e° i° i° i eeeee♦ . S/ e.ee..ee.e..eee.o.• !�� ►. i' ♦e...eo...eee..eee' • E(i.e0000..000...00.. ��•...ee.ee.e.e.o.ee �1 ..e.ee.eeeee••ee.ee.� e.•eeeeeeeeee eeeeee i1 >♦ ♦oeeo..eeeo.e..e.e� - �••••••-re•�. eeo.. �..eo..00eo.00eoo..• �► eeeeee►eee:eee..eeeo.eee.e.e.e. ••eeeee.. eeeeeee..eeeeeeee.eee.e.• Pe -o*,! KINK, ►�1�e� 11• °e°o°44 ► 180°0! zo v 11' ►: °: ° :i ►ee•� °� °ii °i ►eeeee♦ 11 11• ee eeee.t ►i °�°� ►eeee♦ °� ° it 11 ♦eeeee• ►eeeee♦ •w�� mil• •�� Q • - M n U R WEST = SINGLE FAMILY F M.MQUASI-PUBLIC DADle k�Rm�-M, �eee.ee ie.eso• X=Ocm 11 - *. •w�� mil• •�� Q • - �eee.ee ie.eso• X=Ocm 00 00 �JS: � XX7QC� �� s!i�'N'.tiltirY".iN'.1ti�151ti - - .YtiNS .Y'.ti1Y ►••''•►- �!�!� XV61!: 11 11 e....e....e..< ►.e..e..e.e.ee �` ° 1 �.e'pppqqq. ppQQqq.. ••'000 QQ4! �ile!e', !"m"roa1 i•� ❖e•�•i y� v m—Re 11 wee ❖.•.•. .. :�:�:�:88� 388��88.888.:•:•: , , ❖.•.. .. ❖,►. ❖. �1 __.38� .... W I I -1� ....... rve • ❖�•�•�•�• •e ❖� ❖.1 ►•• ❖i 1 �l ❖� ❖.1 �� ••••••••• ❖AMR. �. ❖.•1 ►� � ❖1 1 ••••••••• ❖•••••••g•��. ooe•.1.•.. ►� �ee•�•�•eee.�.eeee�eeee� �eeee� 11 � ❖.•e ❖e•.1 ��e��e�� :�:e:�.�.�:e:�:�:�:�, e ❖. ❖. ❖. ❖.❖.•.� Pee�ee� :� iieieiiiiiei1 �iii111 Vii. •...: ................. � ..... �►•iiiiii! iiiisiiiiiiiiiiiii� i iiiiiiiiiiii1 �••ve•111 i �❖.•.•. ❖e• �eee�. e.•. eeeee�e�e�- •e�e�We•�v�e�eee•�ee�eee/ � � ❖.•.�. ❖.•e ❖e�•�•�• iiii 11 11 �iiiiii•: �iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiie1 �►i ♦ ❖. ❖. ❖.•i.� ►. ❖. ❖. ❖i ie ❖e ❖ee ❖.•.� ►ee ❖. ❖ei i 1 �eee�eee.�e�eeeee� ►ee�eeeeeeee111 ❖iO ❖i•: �i ❖�•W. w ❖ ❖.i ❖. ❖. ❖.•�•e•�•�•�•�•�1 �••e•�•�•�•�e� �. - • ewe e .................1 awe........ e. e • e... e �•eee ❖.• :OOC :.� ♦ � ►i•�•�•�•�•i•�•iii ►•�•i•�•i•�•i1 � � � i i :iii / ♦.. ♦ e e. ♦ e e.......... ♦. ♦.1 '�•iii•� ❖:• :1 : ❖i OR; 1; ►� li �. ••••••••1 ••• • R;1;•1►•i i.ee.eee♦ ►eel •e..ae...1 m�� ••••• ❖�•s•�•�•�•i... ►••''•►- �!�!� XV61!: 11 11 e....e....e..< ►.e..e..e.e.ee eEeee SEE 0024 11 ....e..ee..eee1 �e ❖�•� ❖e•�•e•• !"m"roa1 i•� ❖e•�•i y� v m—Re 11 wee ❖.•.•. '•••••m �•�•i•�•�•�•�•�•� �•�� ••••••••••••••••1 A001 Ogg* 11 x:11 �•_•_� �•♦••••••e�•••••••e••••s W I I -1� ....... rve Z.Ze �� it 11 If Ow 0 MEW M 60 ._e�.ir m .- . '•••••m • :.�. 1•.•1•.1 ►;�r� IS: �OOi r.r��•�� :OOC 000 Poo _J 00 000 000 l APR 18 191 11:44 HOLMES & GRAVEN BILL NO. 1991, AMENDUENT TO APPBNDIX I OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICEnuLD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAINs P.2 r2WA , Appendix I which describes the boundaries of the various zoning districts of the City is hereby amended in the following respects: I. Section 3, paragraph 38 Is hereby amended to read as follows: (38) The area lying between the center lines of the Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern Railway right -of -way and Nicollet Avenue and between the center line of 66th street and the south line of Nicollet Homes 2nd Addition except that part of the above described property described as follows: A. Beginning at the Southeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, then North along the center line of said Section 27, a distance of 686.9 feet to an extension of the south line of Tract C Registered Land Survey Number 692, then westerly along the extension of the south line of said Tract C 50 feet to the southeast corner of said Tract Cl, then westerly 148 feet along the south line of said Tract C to the southwesterly corner of Tract B Registered Land Survey Number 692, then north 154.13 ' feet then westerly to a point on the easterly line of Block 1. Richfield Plaza Addition 48 feet south of the southeast corner of Lot 5, Block 79, Nicollet Homes Second Addition, as measured at right angles to the south line of Nicollet Homes Second_ Addition;'then westerly 321.19 feet parallel to the north line of Block 1, Richfield Flaza, then southwesterly 181.21 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the southeast, radius 230 feet central angle 45 degrees, 08 minutes, 32 seconds, then southwesterly 47.92 feet tangent to said curve, then southwesterly 180.64 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northwest, radius 230 feet, central angle 45 degrees, then westerly 244 feet to the east right -of -way line of the Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern Railroad, then south along said railroad right -of -way line 474.14 feet more or less, then east and at right angles to railroad right -of -way 47.9 feet, then south and at right angles to the north right -of -way line of 66th Street 33 feet, then east and parallel to the north right -of -way line of 86th Street 33 feet, then east and parallel to the north right -of -way line of 66th street a distance of 221.1 feet to the west line of Pillsbury Avenue, then south 150 feet to the center line of West 66th Street, then easterly 1,020.4 feet to the point of beginning. B. APR 1S '91 11:44 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.3 2 APR 1B '91 11 ;45 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.4 q-10, APR 18 '91 11:46 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.5 q' 1 11. Section 79 Paragraph 2 is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) Beginning at the Southeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, then North along the center line of said Section 27, a distance of 685.9 feet to an extension of the south line of Tract C Registered Land Survey Number 692, then westerly along the extension of the south line of said Tract C 60 feet to the southeast corner of said Tract C, then westerly 148 feet along the south line of said Tract C to the southwesterly corner of Tract B Registered Land Survey Number 692, then north 154.13 feet then westerly to a point on the easterly line of Block 1, Richfield Plaza Addition 48 feet south of the southeast corner of Lot 59 Block To Nicollet Homes Second Addition, as measured at right angles to the south line of Nicollet home Second Addition; thence westerly 321.19 feet parallel to the north line of Block 10 Richfield Plaza, then southwesterly 181.21 feet along a tangential curve concave to the southeast, radius 230 feet central angle 45 degrees, 08 minutes, 32 seconds, then southwesterly 47.92 feet tangent to said curve, then southwesterly 180.64 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northwest, radius 230 feet, central angle 46 degrees, then westerly 244 feet to the east right-of -way line of the Minneapolis, Northfield, and Southern Railroad, then south along said railroad right -of -way line 474.14 feet more or less, then east and at right angels to the railroad right -of -way 47.9 feet, then south and at right angles to the north right -of -way line of 66th Street 33 feet, then east and parallel to the north right -of -way line of 66th Street a distance of 221.1 feet to the west line of Pillsbury Avenue, then south 130 feet to the center line of West 66th Street, then easterly 1,020.4 feet to the point of beginning. and B. 4 rl APR 1B '91 11:46 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.6 q -1a- and Of S APR 18 '91 11:47 HOLMES 8 GRAVEN P.7 q,i3 and and 6 APR 1B '91 11:47 HOLMES & GRAVEN and P.S 9, iq Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk RC145- -ass CITY OF $ICHFIELD By Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 7 /O CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 107 Agenda April 22, 1991 Issue Statement: Public Hearing and second reading consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance which relates to long- standing nonconforming uses and structures. Background: A number of nonconforming uses and structures have been discovered in the process of the City's housing maintenance inspection program. Many of these uses and structures have existed for a number of years in harmony with surrounding permitted uses, but without formal approval. Currently, there is no provision to recognize or accommodate uses and structures which are not permitted within the residential zoning district in which they are located. The proposed amendment provides two methods whereby, under proper circumstances, long- standing non - permitted uses and structures may be recognized by the issuance of a conditional activity permit or a nonconforming use permit. Recommended Motion: Approve second reading of this proposed amendment to Section 515 of the zoning ordinance, which would establish a procedure whereby certain non - permitted uses and structures may be made lawful and permitted. Basis of Recommendation: 1. This proposed amendment would allow the continuance of nonconforming uses and structures that have harmoniously coexisted with permitted uses for long periods of time. 2. A conditional activity permit may be issued in situations where the use could be permitted as a conditional use permit. The conditional activity permit may be approved if the use meets the following criteria: - has existed for at least 15 years. - no neighborhood complaints. - established by prior owner. - meets the standards for issuance of a conditional use permit. 3. A nonconforming use permit may be issued in cases where the use or structure is not permitted in the zoning district. The nonconforming use permit may be issued if the following criteria are met: - use has existed for at least 15 years. - no neighborhood complaints. - established by prior owner. - structure conforms or meets standards for variance. - structure meets building code or will be brought into conformance. 4. The proposed amendment would provide for an expeditious review and permit process that provides appropriate checks and balances with public hearings. 5. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the amendment on February 26, 1991. However, the Commission questioned the criteria which requires the use to be established by a prior owner. The Commission felt that the criteria requiring the use or structure to be in existence for at least 15 years was sufficient, at least when dealing with single family dwellings. 6. Two alternate ordinances have been submitted, as requested at the first reading. Alternate A has no changes from the first reading language. Alternate B offers the revised subsections as follows: 515.71 Subd. 3(g) "iv) the use was established either by a prior owner, or by the current owner upon a good faith belief that the use was lawful when established ". 515.73, Subd. 4(c) "iv) the use or structure was established either by a prior owner, or by the current owner upon a good faith belief that the use or structure was lawful when established ". 7. The permit fees would be established by amending Appendix D of the City Code at the next appropriate Council meeting. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could decide not to adopt this amendment. 2. The City Council could modify the amendment. 3. The City Council could refer the amendment back to the Planning Commission with instructions. Discussion /Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 P.M. on April 22, 1991. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of hearing was published in the Sun Current. Respect lly submitted, Jame Prosser City Manager JDP:ds ALTERNATE A BILL NO. 1991 - AMENDMENT TO SECTION 515 OF APPENDIX B TO THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD IQ--;2. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section $15 of Appendix B to the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield is hereby amended by adding thereto the following new subsections. 515.69. Curing Non - permitted Uses and Structures. Statement of Policy. The city council has become aware that there exists a number of instances of uses and structures which, for a variety of reasons, are not permitted within the residence district in which they are located. The council is, however, mindful that many such uses and structures have existed for long periods of time in harmony with surrounding permitted uses. The council believes that with respect to many such uses and structures, it is in the best Interest of the City and of the owners of the property on which such uses and structures are located, that they be allowed to continue. The council also believes that, in many Instances, requiring the owner of the Rrwerty to pursue the other procedures contained in this Code could result in an unnecessary hardship. Therefore, the procedures contained in Subsections 515.71 through $15.73 of this Code are intended to provide an expeditious and reasonable method whereby certain non-permitted uses and structures may be made - lawful and permitted. 515.71. Uses Allowed in the District with Conditional Use Permit. Subd. 1. Application. The owner of property containing a use which would be permitted as a conditional use in the district may make application to the Community Development Department ("Department") for a conditional activity permit ("CAP'). Application must be made on forms provided by the Department for that purpose. The application shall be accompanied by a fee in the amount established in Appendix D of this Code. MCI Subd 2. Department Review. Upon receipt of a complete application and required fee, the Department shall conduct such investigation of the matter as it deems appropriate The Department may involve other departments of the C" in its investigation and may require other and further Information from the applicant as may be required to complete its investigation. Upon completion of its investigation, the Department shall make a written report and recommendation to the planning commission. The report must contain an analysis of the criteria described in subdivision 3(g) of this subsection. Subd. 3. Planning Commission Review. U Public notice. Notice of the planning commission consideration of the application shall be made in the manner provided in Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subd. 3. LbI Public hearing The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on the application At the public hearing, the planning commission will consider the report and recommendation of the Department, and any information which the applicant or other interested parties wish to provide, and may consider such other information as the planning commission believes will assist it in reaching its decision. jej eD cision Following the public hearing, the planning commission will make Its findings and recommendation regarding the application. Its recommendation may also include conditions which It believes should be attached to the CAP or to the granting of the CAP. The findings of the planning commission must Include an analysis of the criteria contained in subdivision 3(g) of this subsection. Procedure following planning commission decision. The application will be referred to the city council for decision in accordance with paragraph (e) of this subdivision in the following instances: /D-Y 1 the planning commission specifically recommends such referral; L11 the planning commission recommends dental of the application; 111 the planning commission is unable to adopt a recommendation as to approval or denial; or iv the planning commission has recommended approval following a recommendation of denial by the Department. In all other instances, the application shall be referred to the Department for a decision in accordance with paragraph (f) of this subdivision. jej Referral to the council. 1) Public notice. The council may, but is not required to, give public notice of its consideration of the application. The council shall give notice of the time and date of its consideration to the applicant. ii Consideration. The council will consider the report and recommendation_ of the _ Department, any findings and recommendations of the planning commission, any information offered by the applicant or other interested persons and any other Information .which the council believes will assist it in consideration of the application. Following the receipt of all such information, the council wIU make Its decision concerning _the application. The decision must include findings regarding the criteria contained in paragraph (g) of this subdivision. If the council approves issuance of the CAP, It may place conditions on such approval or the CAP. Upon approval of the CAP and the satisfaction of any pre - conditions to Issuance, the Department shall issue the CAP. D- 5- 5,,,f Referral to department. The Department shall notify the applicant of any preconditions to issuance of the CAP, and if none, or when satisfied, the Department will issue the CAP subject to any conditions which the Department deems appropriate. W Criteria. No CAP may be recommended or approved unless the following criteria have been found to exist: i� the use meets all of the standards contained in this Code for the Issuance of a conditional use permit; ill the use has existed in substantially its present form for at least 15 years; during its existence no complaints of adverse neighborhood impacts have been reported to the city; Iv) the use was established by a prior owner, and v) if the CAP relates to an existing structure, the structure either conforms to the current requirements of the building code. or the requirements of the building code as of the effective date of the CAP; or the building official and applicant have agreed upon a compliance schedule which will bring the structure into compliance with the applicable building code according to the terms of the schedule. Dh CAP - effective date. The CAP shall be deemed effective on the date of Issuance unless the issuing authority determines that, for krood cause shown by the applicant, the CAP should be effective as of an earlier date. Q CAP; relationship to CUP. Once issued, a CAP shall be treated in all respects as a conditional use permit and shall be subiect to all of the provisions of this Code regulating conditional use permits. I0—�O 515.73. Use or Structure Not Permitted in the District. Subd. 1. Application. The owner of property which contains a use or structure which is not permitted _ ;n the district In which it is located may make application for a non - conforming use permit t"NUP "). Application must be made on forms provided by the Department for that purpose. The application shall be accompanied by a fee in the amount established to Appendix D of this Code. Subd. Z. Department review. Upon receipt of a eomplete application and required fee, the Department shall conduct such investigation of the matter as it deems appropriate. The Department may involve other departments of the City in its Investigation and may require other and further information from the applicant as may be required to complete its investigation. Upon completion of its investigation, the Department shall make a written report and recommendation to the planning commission. The report must contain an analysis of the criteria described in Subdivision 4(c) of this subsection. Subd. 3. Planning commission consideration. Lal Public notice. The planning commission may, but is not required to, rive public notice of its consideration of the application. The planning commission shall direct notice of its consideration to the applicant. jbj Consideration and decision. The planning commission will consider the report and recommendation of the Department, any information offered by the applicant or other interested persons and any other information which the planning commission believes will assist it in consideration of the application. Following the receipt of all such information, the planning commission will make its findings and recommendation eoncerning the application. The decision must include findings regarding the criteria contained in Subdivision 4(c) of this subsection. The planning 10 -7 commission may recommend that the council place conditions on approval or on the NUP. Subd. 4. Council consideration and decision. Lal Public notice. Notice of council consideration of the application shall be made in the manner provided in Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subd. 3. Lbl Public hearing. At its public hearing, the council will consider the report and recommendation of the Department, any findings and recommendations of the planning commission, any information offered by the applicant or other interested persons and any other information which the council believes will assist it in consideration of the application. Following the receipt of all such information, the council will make its decision concerning the application. The decision must Include findings regarding the criteria contained in paragraph (c) of this subdivision. If the council approves issuance of the NUP, it may place conditions on such approval or on the NUP. Upon approval of the NUP and the satisfaction of any pre- conditions to issuance, the Department shall issue the NUP. U Criteria. No NUP may be recommended or approved unless the following criteria have been found to exist: iZ any structure meets all of the standards contained in this Code for the issuance of a variance; ii the use or structure has existed in substantially its present form for at least 1S years; iii during its existence no complaints of adverse neighborhood impacts have been reported to the city; and the use was established by a prior owner. and /O -8 yj the structure either conforms to the current requirements of the building code, or the requirements of the building Bode as of the effective date of the NUP, or the building official and applicant have agreed upon a compliance schedule which will bring the structure into compliance with the applicable building code according to the terms of the schedule. JQ NUP - effective date. The NUP shall be deemed effective on the date of Issuance unless the council determines that, for good cause shown by the applicant, the NUP should be effective as of an earlier date. Lel NUP - effect on use or structure. Upon issuance of a NUP, the use or structure to which the permit relates shall be deemed a non - conforming uses or structure and shall be subject to all of the provisions of this Code regulating such uses or structures. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1991. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk RC160 -005 CITY OF RICHFIELD By Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 7 ALTERNATE B �A BILL NO. 1991 - AMENDMENT TO SECTION 515 OF APPENDIX B TO THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 515 of Appendix B to the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield is hereby amended by adding thereto the following new subsections. 515.69. Curing Non - permitted Uses and Structures. Statement of Policy. The city council has become aware that there exists a number of instances of uses and structures which, for a variety of reasons, are not permitted within the residence district in which they are located. -The council is, however, mindful that many such uses and structures have existed for long periods of time in harmony with surrounding permitted uses. The council believes that with respect to many such uses and structures, it is in the best interest of the City and of the owners of the property on which such uses and structures are located, that they be allowed to continue. The council also believes that, in many instances, requiring the owner of the property to pursue the other procedures contained in this Code could result in an unnecessary hardship. Therefore, the procedures contained in Subsections 515.71 throuzh 515.73 of this Code are intended to provide an expeditious and reasonable method whereby certain non - permitted uses and structures may be made lawful and permitted. 515.71. Uses Allowed in the District with Conditional Use Permit. Subd. 1. Application. The owner of property containing _a use which would be permitted as a conditional use in the district may make application to the Community Development Department ('Department ") for a conditional activity permit ( "CAP "). Application must be made on forms provided by the Department for that purpose The application shall be accompanied by a fee in the amount established in Appendix D of this Code /D -/D Subd. 2. Department Review. Upon receipt of a complete application and required fee, the Department shall conduct such investigation of the matter as it deems appropriate. The Department may involve other departments of the City in its investigation and may require other and further information from the applicant as may be required to complete its investigation. Upon completion of its investigation, the Department shall make a written report and recommendation to the planning commission. The report must contain an analysis of the criteria described in subdivision 3(g) of this subsection. Subd. 3. Planning Commission Review. W Public notice. Notice of the planning commission consideration of the application shall be made in the manner provided in Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subd. 3. (b) Public hearing. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on the application. At the public hearing, the planning commission will consider the report and recommendation of the Department, and any information which the applicant or other interested parties wish to provide, and may consider such other information as the planning commission believes will assist it in reaching its decision. W Decision. Following the public hearing, the planning commission will make its findings and recommendation regarding the application. Its recommendation may also include conditions which it believes should be attached to the CAP or to the granting of the CAP. The findings of the planning commission must include an analysis of the criteria contained in subdivision 3(g) of this subsection. (d) Procedure following planning commission decision. The application will be referred to the city council for decision in accordance with paragraph (e) of this subdivision in the following instances: /O -lI the planning commission specifically recommends such referral; ii the planning commission recommends denial of the application; the planning commission is unable to adopt a recommendation as to approval or denial; or iv the planning commission has recommended approval following a recommendation of denial by the Department. In all other instances, the application shall be referred to the Department for a decision in accordance with paragraph (f) of this subdivision. J!gl Referral to the council. 1) Public notice. The council may, but is not required to, give public notice of its consideration of the application. The council shall give notice of the time and date of its consideration to the applicant. ii Consideration. The council will consider the report and recommendation of the Department, any findings and recommendations of the planning commission, any information offered by the applicant or other interested persons and any other information which the council believes will assist it in consideration of the application. Following the receipt of all such information, the council will make its decision concerning the application. The decision must include findings regarding the criteria contained in paragraph (g) of this subdivision. If the council approves issuance of the CAP, it may place conditions on such approval or the CAP. Upon approval of the CAP and the satisfaction of any pre- conditions to Issuance, the Department shall issue the CAP. o -/,-Z- Q Referral to department. The Department shall notify the applicant of any preconditions to issuance of the CAP, and if none, or when satisfied, the Department will issue the CAP subject to any conditions which the Department deems appropriate. Criteria. No CAP may be recommended or approved unless the following criteria have been found to exist: 0 the use meets all of the standards contained in this Code for the issuance of a conditional use permit; ii) the use has existed in substantially its present form for at least 15 years; during its existence no complaints of adverse neighborhood impacts have been reported to the city; iv the use was established either by a prior owner, or by the current owner upon a good faith belief that the use was lawful when established; and v) if the CAP relates to an existing structure, the structure either conforms to the current requirements of the building code, or the requirements of the building code as of the effective date of the CAP; or the building official and applicant have agreed upon a compliance schedule which will bring the structure into compliance with the applicable building code according to the terms of the schedule. jt� CAP - effective date. The CAP shall be deemed effective on the date of issuance unless the issuing authority determines that, for good cause shown by the applicant, the CAP should be effective as of an earlier date. 4. io -13 Q CAP; relationship to CUP. Once issued, a CAP shall be treated in all respects as a conditional use permit and shall be subject to all of the' provisions of this Code regulating conditional use permits. 515.73. Use or Structure Not Permitted in the District. Subd. 1. Application. The owner of property which contains a use or structure which is not permitted in the district in which it is located may make application for a non - conforming use permit C'NUP") Application must be made on forms provided by the Department for that purpose. The application shall be accompanied by a fee in the amount established in Appendix D of this Code. Subd. 2. Department review. Upon receipt of a complete application and required fee, the Department shall conduct such investigation of the matter as it deems appropriate. The Department may involve other departments of the City in its investigation and may require other and further information from the applicant as may be required to complete its investigation. Upon completion of its investigation, the Department shall make a written report and recommendation to the planning commission. The report must contain an analysis of the criteria described in Subdivision 4(c) of this subsection. Subd. 3. Planning commission consideration. U Public notice. The planning commission may, but is not required to, give public notice of its consideration of the application. The planning commission shall direct notice of its consideration to the applicant. lbj Consideration and decision. The planning commission will consider the report and recommendation of the Department, any information offered by the applicant or other interested persons and any other information which the planning commission believes will assist it in consideration of the application. Following the receipt of all such information, the planning commission will make its findings and recommendation concerning the application. The decision must include findings regarding the criteria contained in Subdivision Sc) of this subsection. The planning commission may recommend that the council place conditions on approval or on the NUP. Subd. 4. Council consideration and decision. W Public notice Notice of council consideration of the application shall be made in the manner provided in Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subd. 3. (b) Public hearing. At its public hearing, the council will consider the report and recommendation of the Department, any findings and recommendations of the planning commission, any information offered by the applicant or other interested persons and any other information which the council believes will assist it in consideration of the application. Following the receipt of all such information, the council will make its decision concerning the application. The decision must include findings regarding the criteria contained in paragraph (c) of this subdivision. If the council approves issuance of the NUP, it may place conditions on such approval or on the NUP. Upon approval of the NUP and the satisfaction of any pre- conditions to issuance, the Department shall issue the NUP. W Criteria No NUP may be recommended or approved unless the following criteria have been found to exist: iZ any structure meets all of the standards contained in this Code for the issuance of a variance; ii the use or structure has existed in substantially its present form for at least 15 years; /0-ff iii during its existence no complaints of adverse neighborhood impacts have been reported to the city; iv the use or structure was established either by a prior owner, or by the current owner upon a good faith belief that the use or structure was lawful when established; and v1 the structure either conforms to the current requirements of the building code, or the requirements of the building code as of the effective date of the NUP; or the building official and applicant have agreed upon a compliance schedule which will bring the structure into compliance with the applicable building code according to the terms of the schedule. NUP - effective date. The NUP shall be deemed effective on the date of issuance unless the council determines that, for good cause shown by the applicant, the NUP should be effective as of an earlier date. Ue NUP - effect on use or structure. Upon issuance of a NUP the use or structure to which the permit relates shall be deemed a non- conforming uses or structure and shall be subiect to all of the provisions of this Code regulating such uses or structures. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1991. CITY OF RICHFIELD By Martin J. Hirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk RC160 -005 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 108 Agenda April 22, 1991 Issue Statement: Second reading and public hearing of an ordinance regulating the parking of unattached utility trailers on City streets. Background: Public Safety has received some complaints of trailers which are not attached to vehicles parked on public streets. These trailers include: Boat trailers Snowmobile trailers Utility trailers Construction trailers The current ordinances of the City do not regulate parking of these trailers. The current ordinances address trailers only if the trailer is attached to the vehicle and is parked more than 48 hours. Commercial trailers may be parked for a maximum of two hours. Boat, snowmobile, all- terrain and utility trailers under 10,000 pounds GVW are exempt from the two hour limit. These trailers are currently allowed to park for 48 hours, attached or unattached, to a motorized vehicle. Recommended Motion: Staff is recommending that an ordinance be enacted which will limit the parking of utility trailers, which include: Snowmobile trailers Boat trailers All- Terrain vehicle trailers Trailers under 10,000 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight that are unattached to a towing vehicle on City streets for more than two hours. This ordinance would not include campers or travel trailers. Basis of Recommendation: Staff consistently receives complaints regarding this issue. Current ordinances regulate commercial trailers over 10,000 lbs. and limit them to two hours. Other vehicles, including recreational vehicles or utility trailers attached to tow vehicles, can park up to 48 hours on City streets. Utility trailers unattached to tow vehicles are a safety hazard and City streets are not meant to be a storage area. Alternative Recommendations: 1. Restrict the parking of utility trailers entirely. This could create more confusion and is not necessary. 2. Do nothing. Leave the ordinances as is which would allow these vehicles to remain on City streets up to 48 hours. 3. Increase or decrease the number of hours from two on the parking of these vehicles. This, however is inconsistent with other ordinances (i.e., trucks, two hours). Decision /Discussion Mode: Second reading and public hearing of an ordinance regulating the parking of utility trailers on City streets. Council discussion at first reading included a desire to discuss extending the proposed two hour limit to three hours. Respectfully submitted, (z James Prosser City eZager JDP:ds //-Z BILL NO. 1991 AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XIII SECTION 1300, SUBSECTION 1305.27 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Subsection 1305.27 of Section 1300 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield is hereby amended by adding the following new Subdivision 6. Subd. 6. Utility Trailers. No person may park or let stand for more than two (2) hours on any public street or highway a utility vehicle as defined in Subsection 1325.03(c) of this Code when such utility trailer is unattached to a towing vehicle. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1991. CITY OF RICHFIELD By Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk /a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 109 Agenda April 22, 1991 Issue Statement: First reading consideration of a transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital improvements from the Special Revenue Fund. Background: On February 11, 1991, the City Council approved a transitory ordinance which appropriates special revenue funds in accordance with the 1991 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB). Subsequently, City staff proceeded with securing bids to perform the approved work. As a result of that process, it was found that the cost of tennis court improvements will be approximately $10,000 less than budgeted. Further, the Taft Park improvements total project cost over two years is now expected to come in roughly $4,800 less than expected for a total project cost of $40,184.53. The play features for Taft Park were bid and have come in at $22,134.53. The City force account costs to grade the site, install the wood border and place sand under the feature are expected to be $8,050. Another $10,000 in 1992 cost for other play equipment and installation will complete the project. This transitory ordinance amendment provides for the transfer of the $10,000 savings in tennis court improvements to the Taft Park project for 1991. The funds would be used primarily to cover the City's labor costs referenced above. The various approved appropriations for 1991 capital projects and the proposed revisions are outlined below: 1991 Approved Recommended 1991 Appropriation Revisions Veterans Memorial Park Park Shelter Building $230,000 $230,000 Wood Lake Nature Center Carpet 14,000 14,000 Tennis Court Improvements 34,000 24,000 Jefferson Park Roosevelt Park Washington Park Taft Park Play Feature 22,000 32,000 $300,000 $300,000 The adoption of revised transitory ordinance is necessary to authorize these appropriations pursuant to City Charter. Charter Section 7.12, Subd. 2 allows expenditures for capital Improvements from the Special Revenue Fund only by Ordinance. Recommended Motion: The City Council could give first reading consideration to the attached transitory ordinance providing for the expenditure of Special Revenue Funds for certain capital improvements. I cl�—1 Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City Council on February 11, 1991, gave second reading approval to an ordinance providing for Special Revenue funding for the 1991 CIB. 2. After receiving bids for the tennis court improvements, it was found that a $10,000 savings could be effected in completing the approved project. 3. The $10,000 could be transferred to the Taft Park play feature project to provide for additional capital funding for that project while staying within the originally approved $300,000 total appropriation for all projects. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Complete the project but do not approve the revision. The City would retain $10,000 unspent amount in Special Revenue Funds for 1991 and $10,000 less in General Fund revenues. 2. Do not complete the project this year. 3. Use the $10,000 to fund another project in the CIB. Discussion /Decision Mode: Council action on this item is requested at the April 22, 1991 City Council meeting. This would allow ample time to publish the notice of second reading for May 13, 1991 and the ordinance to become in effect. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City Manager JDP:ds / a- 1Z BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to expend money from the Special Revenue Fund for making of capital improvements listed in Section 2 hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements which are authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, Subdivision 2 of the City Charter, are as follows: Veterans Memorial Park Park-Shelter Building $230,000 Wood Lake Nature Center Carpet 14,000 Tennis Court Improvements 24,000 Jefferson Park Roosevelt Park Washington Park Taft Park Play Feature 32.000 $300,000 Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by Council action. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of May, 1991. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch Mayor /3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 110 Agenda April 22, 1991 Issue Statement: First reading of an ordinance amendment regulating recycling at apartment buildings in the City of Richfield. Background: Hennepin County recently amended Ordinance No. 13, which now requires owners of multifamily buildings to provide their residents with an opportunity to recycle by July 1, 1991. In conjunction with the County's requirement, cities in Hennepin County are required to adopt a similar apartment recycling ordinance by July 1, 1991. Owners of multifamily apartment buildings will be required to offer their tenants the opportunity to recycle those materials determined by the City to be "designated recyclables." Such materials will be identical to those items collected via the residential curbside program. If they desire, apartment owners will be given the authority to recycle materials in addition to those items identified as designated recyclables. Apartment owners will not receive a subsidy from the City or County for recycling activities. The County, however, is making available recycling bins at a reduced cost for apartment owners to purchase for their tenants. Recommended Motion: Approve first reading of the ordinance amendment specifically regulating multiunit apartment recycling and set a public hearing and second reading for May 13, 1991. Basis of Recommendation: 1. As landfill space in the metropolitan area becomes more scarce, it is critical that apartment buildings begin participating in recycling programs. 2. Increasing numbers of apartment dwellers are demanding that the opportunity to recycle be made available at their buildings. 3. Hennepin County requires cities to adopt apartment recycling ordinances. 4_ The Community Services Commission reviewed solid waste issues and at the March 26, 1991 meeting recommended approval of this ordinance amendment. /,3-/ Alternative Recommendation: Council could choose not to adopt Section 601 as written; however, the City has been a leader in recycling and solid waste management, and staff believes amending the ordinance at this time will insure that our City remains in step with County guidelines, and with metropolitan and statewide recycling trends. Discussion /Decision Mode: Staff is requesting approval of first reading at the April 22, 1991 Council meeting. If approved, a public hearing and second reading will be held on May 13, 1991. Respectfialy submitted, Jame ?anager rosser City, JDP:ds Attachment /3-;. BILL NO. 1991- AMENDMENT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY CODE; PROVIDING FOR RECYCLABLES COLLECTION AT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: I. Subsection 601.09, subdivision 8 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read: Subd. 8. MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. Multiple residence units having more than two family units and which require garbage and refuse pickup more frequently than once each week must either be equipped with containers and provided with pickup service as provided in this subsection or be equipped with a commercial incinerator complying with the requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and licensed by the city as provided in this section. Containers provided as an alternative to or in addition to such incineration must be at least one cubic yard in capacity, must be conveniently located in relationship to the residence units for which they are provided, must be watertight and rodent -proof with self- closing lids and be kept in an enclosing structure concealing them from public view. Property owners of multiple residential units must provide apartment dwellers at their units an opportunity to recycle materials defined as designated recyclables. If- eeatainers- €er- designated reeyclables- are- grevided;- the- eeatainers Containers for designated recyclables must be conveniently located in relationship to the residence units for which they are provided, must be watertight and rodent -proof with lids and be kept in a enclosing structure concealing them from public view. The structure must have a concrete floor and must be kept in a state of good repair at all times. All containers must be located so that their contents are inaccessible to'at least three feet above the base of the enclosing structure. The owner or operator of multiple residence property must provide for pickup from the containers. Refuse, debris, garbage, recyclables and other waste materials may not be permitted to be accumulated in or near the enclosing structures except in the containers. There shall be daily cleanup in and around each enclosing structure. II. This ordinance is effective July 1, 1991. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of 1991. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk