Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
08-22-88 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 207 Agenda August 22, 1.988 Issue Statement: Settlement of claim wherein Trucker Construction, Inc. -is seeking reimbursement of costs which were incurred when pumping equipment was damaged as a result of the July, 1987 "superstorm". Background• The sludge~dewatering building was under construction at the time of the July, 1987 "superstorm". .Trucker Construction, Inc. was' the contractor for construction of the building which included responsibility for installation of presses and pumping equipment which the City purchased under another contract. It is the opinion of the contractor that reimbursement is warranted because the contractor: 1) Was not asked to carry flood insurance. 2) Feels the work was adequately protected according to the specifications. 3) Was requested to clean and/or immediately remove the new equipment as a result of an emergency situation. These and other points have been discussed with the contractor by the City staff and have been reviewed by the city attorney. It is agreed the contractor had a responsibility to protect the construction site and all materials, equipment and machinery under its control (including, specifically, the items damaged) from reasonably foreseeable risks. However, the contract terms do not deal with such a catastrophic event as the one which happened in July, 1987. It is the opinion of the City staff and the City Attorney that settlement should be made with Trucker Construction, Inc. for costs related to labor and materials furnished by Trucker ` Construction, Inc. and for services provided by General Repair Service who acted as a subcontractor to Trucker Construction, Inc. in this situation. Funding for this settlement has not been included in the project which is part of the water maintenance budget nor is it known whether this cost would be reimbursable by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Recom4ended Motion: Authorize payment to Trucker Construction, Inc. in the amount of $6,600 as reimbursement for costs incurred as a result of the July, 1987 "superstorm" with the following understandings: 1. -All parties by or through whom a claim may be made are satisfied. 2. The settlement fairly compensates the contractor for the actual expenses incurred as a result of the flood. 3. Trucker Construction, Inc. and all parties directly and indirectly related to the work performed by Trucker Construction, Inc. as a result of the July, 1987 flood are made whole for expenses incurred because of the storm. 4. The pumps which were damaged were owned by the City and not the contractor. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Additional work was required as a result of the July, 1987 "superstorm". 2. Trucker Construction, Inc. did perform the work. 3. All parties working with. Trucker Construction, Inc. as result of this work have been compensated. 4. The City and Trucker Construction, Inc. have agreed to the settlement. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Consider the work performed by Trucker Construction, Inc. to be part of the original contract requirements and, therefore, no .additional compensation is required.. 2. Consider the settlement as less than applicable to the situation and also reimburse the contractor for such items as profit and overhead. 3. Consider the settlement as more than applicable to the situation and continue to negotiate or enter into arbitration with Trucker Construction, Inc. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the August 22, 1988 city council agenda. As the work was performed approximately a year ago, it is suggested action be taken at this time to either approve the settlement amount or indicate a direction to be taken to achieve an alternate settlement. Respect lly submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP/sae CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 206 Agenda August 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Amendment to the offstreet parking permit at 7600 Cedar Avenue. South. Background• Mr. Erwi E. Stobbe, property owner of 7600 Cedar Avenue South has requested an amendment to the existing offstreet parking permit. The amendment would allow the construction of 18 garages in the existing parking lot. The primary use of the property is 23 one bedroom. dwelling units. The property is zoned C-2 general commercial district which allows apartments with a conditional use permit. The applicant proposes to maintain the existing two curb cuts which do not meet the City's minimum width requirement. Ordinance Requirements: Section 800 of the Richfield City Code outlines the requirements for parking areas. Reco^mended Motion: Approve the amendment to the offstreet parking permit with the following stipulations: 1. The curb cuts on Cedar Avenue be brought into compliance with City minimum width requirement of 26 feet. 2. The trash enclosure meet the City requirements. 3. The parking spaces for compact car and handicap parking be designated with appropriate sign age. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The construction of the garage would meet the City ordinance requirements for parking areas. 2. There are 38 parking spaces presently available on the site, which would be reduced to 35 spaces. However, the total number of available parking spaces would still meet the minimum number of spaces for a 23 unit apartment building. 3. The drainage plan was approved by the City Engineer. 4. The existing landscaping and screening meets the approved plan. 5. The existing curb cuts are 18 feet and 20.5 feed"which is substantially less than the 26 feet required. f-.-~;~ Alternative Recommendation: Deny the amendment because of the following reasons: 1. The total number of parking spaces would be reduced. 2. The curb cuts do not meet the minimum curb cat width requirement of 26 feet. Decision/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for City Council consideration at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 22, 1988. No public hearing is required. The applicant has been notified of the City Council meeting. JDP:sae Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser City anager m ' ' ~ N O ' ' s ~ - ~ > e ~ r - ~ _ XERXES avE F,~~ =-..---;~ --.~,._... ._ ._ ~n~. ___~;. w45NeuRN It `+ere. ~~ ~~-_-• r _ VINCENT ~~~~~-- - `v '~ ^~~ ~„_~ i LIPTON I~~_JL_;~ -C`_~___,^_~.,_~_~_,"_' IiC ~~ ~~~^-- II^^ ~~.^. SHERIOAN ~I ~) lu~i `_`_ ~` ~_ -_ __ RuSSEII I ;I ~ ~ =~ ~~ i J ~_ ~_ ~j 'f~~ PENNOUAVE. I ~I~. JL_~~_:--JL/~L DELVER I~~, 1~-'(~~^` ~~~. '.r i~ NEWTON Ir I~(u~' ~ ^^~L~ ~~~-7` MORGAN ~I -~t~-~'Ur ~~-%L-~ jI ~I r~_ LOG AN 1I ( ~( li _ r_~ _ KMOx AL .__. ~I I ~_-~.~CJ~ JAPES `\ \ i, I~ ~~~1~~ IRViNG ~ y~~~ _ ~~"~r~r~~ ,r ~~~ .. ~,~~.. ---... ___"5'`%. SAKE •~~^--fir GIRARD ~~ ~~=_~yyfr/~ ~~ ~~ FAEMONT ~JI~_~~_--v~--~~\~i~" E.+ERSON ~/ u~~~-~ ~v~ qr-~j~ ~t(-~Irr-1 r ~ s o DUPONT I u`~' ~ T p P~~OO_~_J~h~ COIFAX ; \`R ' BRrANT II ~I , ~. ~ ' \ ALORICN y~~u~,-~^1 LrNDALE AVE. I `~~^~~_~~ ~~ j~~-! t GARFIELD Ij I~-=~~ '~~~~~I I HARRIET I I~--'^~I~-^,~~ 1~~~-N GRIND li 4~~ ~ ~~= iu PILLSeunr II ~ ~ iI^^^~---'~~~~I~-~~~- WENTW08TN lu~~ '~i^-` r--. BLAISDELL f~~~ J' NICOLLET AVE. ~~~~~ Itl I ~~~ sTEVENS ~~~OI 2n4 IL^~_-JJ~II _~~ s.a i t-J~--1~, arNroN 1 I ~~~^^ i 41~ LJ t I s+n G~ ,~ I PORTLAND AVE. ,~ ~^- OAKIAND ~i O~ c41 I PARK j11 Q~ coLUreus did OC., II CHICAGO ~~ el ELL10T I'~ I I IO +e ;I O I 11 IA pl l I 121 II i. 13 fn I~~ 14 IA "~~ I ~ ::::: ... I IS to II lLOOMINGTON ' ~~~~ ~ ~ 16 tK i~ ~. :•• ..... ~ L~._Jj~ IT IK I ( -' ~ : ~--~I~J~~IJ~ :::::: .. CEDAR AVE. ' • ~ ^__ _i _ _~_ ~ ~~ (` IOrIGFEILOW ____~__ 'L1CT._____ .______ ______~_~_~ _ ---- C m . : > - - : 8 - : L 2 /~ !' ~ M a N N ~ e~+ ~ 1 I m ~. n n f1 ~ y i C ~ O 2~'n <r _;v z Z~ O v A A P a~ u ' a > > s N r .Pi y ~ 'I ~ a 0 O V N = s y P~ ti K ~~; XERXES AvE. WASHEIURN 1 I ~ VINCENT -JN uPTON _- THOMAS SNERIDAN RU35ELL ji OUEEN ~~,.'~. PENN AVE. Irrr---~~~t!!l1~~~ OUVER '^'L NEWTON I~ MORG4N ~~ IOGAN r Il KNOX r~'III JAMES ,=.1 ~' IRVING ~'li NUMBOIOT I `-r II GIRARD ___ ~L p FRENgNT `~\ I, EMERSON ~ II DUPONT ~I II ~ II.~~ COLFAX '~ I1~~ BRTANT ~I~ 4LDRICH III C LYNDALE AVE. I~ GARFIELD I,I .--y ~ I HARRIET ~I III GRAND '',~ .i,~ PLEASANT -~ I I PILLSBURr ~,, I --III ~ WENTWORTN r II BLAISOEII 1 NICOLLET AVE. __~ Id i, STEVENS 2nd -, ~ 3ra I CLINTON I 4111 I. ~,. PORTLAND AVE. OAKLAND L I PARK ~' coLUreus II CHICAGO i ELl10T ~ I IG +N li II IA ~~ 121N 13 tK 141N IS fN l1OOMINGTON 161N 171K 1• IA ~"~-_.y CEDAR AVE. C LONGFELLOW - Tl IN 20+n 21 s+ Y2 nA STANOISH 23 ra N a N O r° O nrn ~v O m ' ~ m -1 A IT T O~ N i : ~ ~ T ~ f ~ I v ~ .y ~ I 'Ni ~ 1 !~ ti ~ r 00 iii N Q i z z 111 a ~o a ..~ 21' Q K N ~ ~ N -~ I _. -ao ~ m v ~ 1T' ~ ~ N i w b ~~I 7 17TH AVE. S0. IOiN AVE. S. ~ I ~17 ~~- v IZ Z 2 O O C7 m v n ~v rn ^ y ~ I ^ I ~~ • • • • • • • • I ::• ~•~ ~ •~. •~• i ~', - . ::.~I~I~1~1 IIII1111 (Ilillllllililililllltlllll IITN AVE. 5. IITN AVE. S. IITN AVE. 50. 13TH AvE. S0. IITN AVE. S. U J = N_ _ __ I ~ __ - y ._ N IITN AVE. S. IIfM ^~ AVE. S, 15TH AVE. S. I H AVE. 5. ~i~ m ~N aOarIHGiON AVE. 5. I H A , L_i-L_~.i I i I I I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I i I i~ I C' IIiN AVE. S. i~ I i ~ ( i 12TN AvE. c, 121N AVE. $0. I I I ~II 17TN AVE. $~, 1]1M AVE. S, eI II- I = I .= I _ N _ I N in I~iM AVE. $. I~iN !^ AVE. S. ISTM AVE. S. i N AVE• S. ,~~h m y 8100Y1NGTON AvE. S. O 1 ,'N AV. ac 'D ~ I i a II y T I I _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ Z -~ mod/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 205 Agenda August 22, 1988 Issue Statement: ` City Council authorization of $7,915,000 advance refunding bond sale. Background: In conjunction with the City's financial consultant, Evenson- Dodge, Inc., the City examined its outstanding bond issues to determine if it would be advantageous to proceed with advance refunding of any issues. Refunding is advantageous under the following conditions: - The interest on outstanding bonds is greater than the current interest rate which can be obtained for refunding issues. - The net cost of issuance is less than potential savings on interest earnings. The cost of issuance includes bond consultant's fees, legal expenses, printing, escrow charges and similar expenses. The review of outstanding bond issues identified three suitable for advance refunding: General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1980 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1983 General Obligation Refunding Redevelop Bonds of 1983 The three issues provide approximate annual savings of: Total Savings $214,000 Present Value Savings 138,000 Average Ahnual Savings 14,000 ~ Finally, the cost of issuance would be approximately $68,000. This cost was considered before calculating total savings. Reco^.ended Motion: Adopt the resolution authorizing sale of $7,915,000 advance refunding bond sale. Basis of Reco®~endation: 1. The analysis of outstanding bond issues projects an annual savings if advance refunding of certain of these outstanding issues takes place now. 2. Any net savings will reduce the City's future spec~.al levy for retirement of bonded debt. Ultimately, this favors the taxpayer in the form of reduced or stabilized property taxes. o ~i Alternative Recommendation: 1. Disregard current advance refunding options and continue to retire the bonded debt as currently structured.. 2. Authorize an advanced refunding issue for either a lesser or greater issue amount based on refunding a different- number of current bond issues. Discussion/Decision Mode: It is recommended that the City Council act on this matter at the August 22, 1988 Council. meeting. The actual sale would be targeted for September 12, 1988. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP:eja cc: Steven Devich, Administrative Services Director Jean Mitchell, Finance Manager '`" d-,~ RESOLUTION NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF AGENDA PREPARATION. THE RESOLUTION WILL BE DISTRIBUTED MONDAY, AUGUST 22, PRIOB TO CITY COUNCIL MEETING. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 204 Agenda August 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Adoption of a resolution of opposition to multiple _posf- retirement inflater mechanisms applicable to local police and paid firefighter pension plans. Background: In 1987, the Minnesota legislature adopted a statute which provides for an additional inflation adjustment for Minneapolis police and paid firefighter pension plans. Originally, the bill was to affect all police and paid firefighter pension plans such as Richfield's, but was adopted with the much narrower application. While the law passed in 1987 did not directly affect local Police and Fire Relief Associations such as Richfield's, it is likely. that a similar bill will be reintroduced in the next legislative session. Such a bill would most likely be targeted toward relief associations like Richfield's and could have a very significant adverse financial impact upon the respective funds in future years. The legislation passed in 1987 makes provision for retirees to share directly in any investment income over a specified target amount. This "excess" income from investment returns is then distributed to eligible members in the form of a "Thirteenth Check." However, members do not share the risk or consequences of below targeted investment returns. Most local relief associations already have a built-in provision that escalates monthly retirement payments by the same percentage an active member's top wage rate is increased each year. Thus, if police officers get a 4X increase in pay, retirees also receive a 4A6 increase in retirement payments. ~ The proposed "Thirteenth Check" legislation would provide a double escalator for retirement payments. It would delay the City's progress toward having both the Police and Fire Relief Association retirement plans fully funded by the year 2010 as required by law. Ultimately, the City's taxpayers would have to make cash contributions in the form of taxes to make up the difference, if necessary. Reco~®ended Motion: Adopt a resolution of opposition to multiple post retirement inflater mechanisms applicable to local police and paid firefighter pension plans. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Opposing the "Thirteenth Check" legislation would be in keeping with the City's mandated goal of attaining full funding in the Police and Fire Relief Associations on or before December 31, 2010. 2. Both of the City's relief associations already provide for annual monthly benefit adjustments equal to the wage adjustment given to active police and firefighter personnel respectively. 3. A partner in the City's auditing firm of Deloitte, Haskins & Sells has reviewed the "Thirteenth Check" legislation and recommends that the City oppose the legislation. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City could not take a position pro or con on the "Thirteenth Check" legislation. 2. The City could support the "Thirteenth Check" legislation. Discussion/Decision Mode: The resolution is presented to the City Council at this time to allow ample time to prepare .for the next legislative session. Respect lly submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager JDP:sae i i~ ~~ RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION OF OPPOSITION TO MULTIPLE POST RETIREMENT INFLATER MECHANISMS APPLICABLE TO LOCAL POLICE AND PAID FIREFIGHTER PENSION PLANS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the establishment of multiple mechanisms to make post retirement adjustments to protect retirees in local police and paid firefighter pension plans is illogical, confusing, unnecessary and disruptive. If the legislature determines that "escalation" (pension adjusted by the percentage increase of wages of active members) presently in effect does not offer adequate inflation protection, that mechanism should be adjusted or abolished. However, no new mechanism such as that authorized for Minneapolis police or firefighters in Laws 1988, Chapter 574, should be authorized while "escalation" remains in effect. The City of Richfield will work with other especially effected Minnesota cities to discourage legislation patterned after Laws 1988, Chapter 574. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this resolution to the Senator and Representative who .represent this City and a copy to the League of Minnesota Cities. Adopted by the City Council on August 22, 1988. Steven J. Quam Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 203 Agenda August 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Second reading and public hearing of an ordinance amendment to Section 210.01, Subd. 4 of the City Code entitled Salary Review. Background: At the June 13, 1988 City Council meeting, while considering a proposed salary increase for the Mayor and Council Members, City staff was given direction to review potential inconsistencies between the City Charter, the Ordinance Code and City Policy concerning Council salaries. After a careful review of the three documents, it appears that one subdivision of the City Ordinance Code is not in agreement with the City. Charter and recently adopted Policy. Subdivision 4 of the City Ordinance Code, Section 210.01, now states that the City Council shall review salaries annually by December 1 of each year. However, insofar as the Policy and Charter tie City Council salary increases to years in which an .election is held, the current language of Subd. 4 appears to be inappropriate. Therefore, a modification to that language has been drafted and is submitted for consideration by the City Council. The City Council gave first reading to this ordinance amendment at the July 25, 1988 City Council meeting, and scheduled second reading and the public hearing for August 22, 1988. Recommended Motion: .Approve second reading of the attached ordinance amendment to Section 210.01, Subd. 4. Basis of Recommendation: 1. City Council has directed staff to find any inconsistencies between the City Charter, City Ordinance Code and City Policy on City Council salary increases. 2. The above-referenced section code has been identified as being inconsistent with Policy and City Charter and should be changed. 3. The change proposed herein would put the three documents in complete agreement. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could determine that it did not wish to amend the City Ordinance Code. 2. The City Council could elect to provide optional language in modifying Subd. 4. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has een p aced on the August 22, 1988 City Council agenda for second reading and the public hearing. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser Cit anager JDP:sae 6~ ~, BILL N0. 1988- AMENDMENT TO SECTION 210 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES. ORDAIN: Section 210.01, Subdivision 4 of the Richfield City Code relating to council review of salaries is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 4. A~~t~a~ Salary review. The council .shall review the salaries set by this .section a~~~al~y by December 1 in each year in which an election is held ursuant to section 200 of this code. Steven J. Quam, Mayor Attest: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk E CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 202 Agenda August 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Second Reading and Public Hearing of amendment to Subsection 715.17, Subd. 2 of the Richfield City Code of 1987. Background: - When the City originally built the present water system, the City also purchased various-sized water meters. These meters were then purchased by property owners for new construction or for conversion from private wells. The monies received from the sale of these meters was recorded as a liability in the Water Utility Fund and classified as "deposits." As of July 1, 1988, $533,583.67 has been collected for these deposits. Within the last three years, the Water Department has replaced all of these original meters. The replacement meters have been recorded as a capital outlay purchase. Deloitte, Haskins and Sells, the City's Auditor, has. recommended that the City consider an amendment to the above ordinance whereby the amount of the water meter deposits be considered contributed capital of the Water Utility Fund. This recommendation reflects a more appropriate way. of accounting for water meter costs, especially in light of the replacement meter program. The City Council gave first reading approval to this ordinance amendment at the July 25, 1988 City Council meeting and scheduled the public hearing and second reading for August 22, 1988. Recommended Motion: Approve second reading of the amendment to Subsection 715.17, Subd. 2 of the Richfield City Code of 1987. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The original water meters installed have been replaced as a direct cost to the Water Utility Fund. _~ 2. The deposits totalling $533,583.67 should be reclassified as contributed capital in the Water Utility Fund. Alternative Recommendation: Not approve the amendment. The financial records would then continue to reflect a liability for water meters security deposits. .~~ ,/ Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is placed on the August 22, 1988 Council agenda fir second reading and public hearing. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City Hager JDP:sae E SILL N0. 1988- AMENDMENT TO SUBSECTION 715.17, SUBDIVISION 2 OF TAE RICHFIELD CITY CODE OF 1987 THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Subsection 715.17, subdivision Z of the city code is hereby amended to read as followas Subd. 2. water meter fee. A eeees#aY-~e~p~oe~#t water meter fee shall a psi meie by customers for the furnish ng of water meters by the city. The customer shall pay the seeur#ey-~d~pc~~it f_ before the water meter is installed. The depee4b fee required by this subdivision is not a customer aerv~e deposit and is not computed with reference to or based upon service auppiied; the iepse#b fps is required to insure the safekeeping and proper maintenance of the meter only, and for no other purpose. The iepesib fee shall be equal to the actual cost to the city of obtaining the meter. The depee#t fee shall stand to the credit of the property where the metes installed, .rather than to the credit of the owner of the property at the time of the original depe•#t fee payment . Sf---4~~e---~e~c~y---f-s asa~sferredT--byte-~po$f-~-~s~3~-~rort--~bt--sefst~sded--le--the a ra a e i erne r--:tttk~~ - ~2rt -ttat~s~t~r±- - b n e--~rra~--~at4e- - $--s, e w degae#~-#~--~#er-tkereef---the-depee4~-a~ie#~-be-refer,ded-when ake--l-i"o-Per~~-~-~ge~r~tafletrt~,~-ifeeer:heebed- frcx~-~t~re--«ater e~-ebe:n-~c~-tire--meter--ttato--~etrr-rebe~rned-~a-fi~}te~-c~t+~+~-f~ saE#sfaelerr---eer:d~t#e~, The water meter fee is nonrefundable. Pa:sed this day of , 1988., by the Richfield City Cowl. E Leven J. Quam, Mayor Attest: omas P. Ferber, C ty lerk ~"~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 201 Agenda August 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Public hearing on an amendment to the conditional use permit for Walser Buick facility at 2100 West 78th Street and 7745 Penn Avenue South. Background: Walser Automotive has requested an amendment to the existing conditional use permit for their Buick facility at 2100 West 78th Street and Isuzu/Sterling .(old Mazda) site at 7745 Penn Avenue South. The amendment would change the previously approved: plan in the following ways: -A 1,363 square foot addition to the southwest corner of the Buick showroom instead of the approved 1,950 square foot addition to the southeast corner. -Elimination of the approved 768 square foot addition to the existing used car sales office. -The addition of a 2,552 square foot second, or mezzanine, leve'1 in the existing new car showroom building for .office space. The height of the building in the front would be raised from 14 feet to 24 feet. -Raising the roof on the northerly 35 feet of the existing Buick building from 14 feet to 18 feet to match the roof line of the remainder of the building. -Elimination of the ramp and the rooftop storage area which will reduce the proposed inventory parking. -New lighting plan for the site. -New concept for designated area car inventory parking rather than individual parking stalls. The property is zoned C-2 general commercial district. Auto dealership/service garage use is permitted with a conditional use permit. A summary of the previous approval and stipulations is attached for your information. Zoning Ordinance Requirements: 1. Section 545.09 indicates the regulations for granting of conditional use permit. 2. Section 520.19 indicates the performance standards for automobile sales lots and public garages. ~ ~~~ Staff Reco~~endation: Approve the conditional use permit amendment with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant provide a detailed sign plan for staff review and approval, to include signage designating stalls for customer and employee parking. 2. All the existing and new-signs conform with the city's sign regulations by December 31, 1988. This includes the three billboards and the time/temperature sign. 3. No inventory cars. are parked in the area designated for employee/customer or service parking. 4. .The fire protection plan be approved by staff. 5. All landscaped areas be maintained free from car overhangs at all times. 6. The applicant provide a-cash escrow in the equivalent amount of the cost of any incomplete improvements for the sites. 7. The existing and new curb cuts meet the City requirement of a minimum of 26 feet. 8. The occupancy permit would not be issued until all other approved .improvements are completed. Basis of Reco~~endation: 1. The Planning Commission recommended (4-1) approval of the amendment. 2. The proposed amendments will have the following effects: - Increase space for the sales, operations and administrative support functions of the dealerships requiring 24 additional designated parking spaces. The parking is summarized as follows: Approved Proposed Required Designated 191 p.s. 214 p.s. 215 p.s. Inventory 218 p.s. N/A N/A Total 409 p.s. 214 p.s. 215 p.s. Substantially more inventory cars were parked on this .site on June 16, 1988 than are currently permitted, approved or proposed. The City has served on petitioner a Notice of Non-Compliance with their conditional use permit and that they show cause as to why such permit should not be revoked. The Walser Buick facility is included in the notice. The proposed amendment relating to area parking of inventory cars could potentially reduce the existing parking problem on the surrounding streets provided the applicant implements the site plan. If the designated parking stalls are used for customers, employees, service and parts cars and not for inventory cars, there should be adequate parking and no spill over parking in the neighborhood. The applicant has agreed to bring the time/temperature sign into conformance with the sign regulations but proposes to retain the three billboards within the .lot. These existing non-conforming billboards are larger than currently allowable and the Planning Commission recommended that they be brought into conformance as a stipulation in the conditional use permit.. Staff has continued to receive complaints from residents regarding the glare from existing lighting. The applicant has submitted a detailed lighting plan for the Buick site which is being reviewed by staff. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may choose to deny the conditional use permit amendment. Decision/Discussion Mode: This item is scheduled for public hearing at 7:00 p.m., Monday, August 22, 1988. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall. Appropriate notices have been mailed to property owners within the surrounding area and legal notice has been published in the Sun Current Newspaper. Respec ully submitted, J s D. Prosser Ci y Manager JDP:sae ~~ ATTAC}N~EldT 1 APPROVED PROPOSED I I Parking I Parking Area/Emp/Bays I I Parking I Area/Emp/Bays I I I Required I I Shown 1. Buick Facility ( __~ I I -_~ ( Showroom i 4,550 s.f. 1 I 23 I i 1 7,020 s.f. 1 I 36 1 Office 2,324 s.f. 1 I 10 I I 1 6,206 s.f. 1 i 25 1 Service 41 Emp, 26 Bays i 119 I i 125 Emp, 31 Baysl i 118 1 Parts/Retail 11,144 s.f. 1 12 1 8,960 s.f. 1 9 I 13 Emp I I I I Used Car Sales I 2,220 s.f. 1 9 I I 1 1,350 s.f. 1 i 7 I 1 I Inventory I ( I 173 218 I i I I i 195 1 N/A 1 195 N/A I I Total 1 391 I I 195 1 195 2. New Isuzu/Sterling ( I I I j I Office/Showroom I 4,343 s.f. 1 18 1 2,000 s.f. 1 8 I 15 Emp I I I (office) 1 I 19 Inventory i I 41 1 I 2,343 s.f. 1 I 12 ( I I I (showroom) I I Total 1 I 59 I I I 20 I N/A GRAND TOTAL OF DESIGNATED PARKING 1 i 191 I I I I 215 I I 214 *Parking Requirement Based On The Following: Showroom:. 1 space for every 200 s.f. of gross floor area Office: 1 space for every 250 s.f. of gross floor area Service: 1 space for every bay and 1 space for every employee Parts: 1 space for every 1000 s.f. of gross floor area or 1 space for every 1-1/2 employees whichever is greater z//~/ DISCUSSION On July 14, 1986, the City Council approved a conditional use permit to allow the Walser Corporation to construct some additions to the existing Walser. Buick facilities at 21D-0 West 78th Street. The conditional use permit involved the construction of a 768. square foot addition to the existing used car sales office; a 1,950 square foot addition to the existing Buick showroom; the relocation of the ramp to the roof top storage area; and the installation of additional customer and display vehicle parking. The conditional use permit for the Buick facility involved a number of stipulations which are indicated in the following. 1. That a minimum of 173 parking stalls be provided on the Buick site for customer, service and employee vehicles. These spaces should be separated from display space and clearly marked. 2. That perimeter curbing be provided. The design and location of the curbing should be approved by the City Engineer. 3. .That there be no testing or servicing of vehicles on adjacent residential streets. 4. That trees be planted in the boulevard area between the Walser Buick north property line and the south curb of 77th Street consistent with the city's forestry policy. 5. That the existing wall along the north property be extended to east property line to close off pedestrian access to 77th Street. 6. That all new signage including the relocated sign be in compliance with the city's sign ordinance. 7. No vehicles are to be parked in the visibility triangles of the frontage road. 8. The city will study the feasibility of the installation of a traffic diverter at 77th Street and Morgan Avenue. 9. Walser Corporation and the city shall negotiate a satisfactory lease for the use of the frontage road right-of- way as shown on the applicant's plan, including landscaping. The lease shall be a renewable yearly lease with the city retaining the right to end the lease at the city's discretion. ~~T-a O y N V OV VO _ _V T _Y • ~ '~ > > 7 O ~ M ~ v f i~ •r y N N H H ti y r y~ XERXES AVE -- - WASMBURN I'IIII~~~~\\\\O~ ~------~ ~ -,~ VINCENT +..~,t LJ C-- '- ~.- it li LIPTON I. .-JI--~r~:---~_ ., ~~: ~i~ ;~ I -„~`. TNOYAS I'C~~:-- ~ LJE .--- ~ SNfRID4N ~ ~~~~- -~-_ .( RUSSEII I~ i ~ ~ 1 ~~ ~- -_ E OUEEN I PENN AvE. ~-~-~ ~ ~-- '~E R' ~- ~ -~ t--~ OLrvER ~ i~ i~J. 'L_, _~ NEWTON II .___,~~_L-:~J! IL ,~~ YORGAN ••..• O~~---L_JL--1C JAMES ;~~` : •Y I~CCC IRVING Y:~'•:••: :•'•:: ';:: ~~~~C~C ~~'1.~'r=' .44<...: a.•••• _'~~~J__ ARE ~G NUMBOLDT ~. --. -- GIRARD •' L-S'••'• • t / ' FREMp(T ~ i ~' ~'~.: r EMERSON t j-,•'^'~ `'•`' ••' r, I DUPDNT ~ ~ •' ~:::::I':~: •: ~ a I x ~ ~ t COLFAX I BRTANT I '::~::•: :: . ALORICN 'I ..•~ •:. .. • :{ . LYNDALE AVE. s.• '•~{. 6ARFIEID Ii HARRIET I GRAND I .[{ :•~ PLEASANT I ~~ • PILLSSUnr I ''' PENN AV I :.; : • WEMTWOBTN BlA15DELL NICOLLET AVE. Itt - v STEVENS t ~ 2R4 ~ ~y a.e I iD a1NTON 'A y I y 4tn ' Stn PORTLAND AVE. i OAKLAND ICI it PARK ~~ ~ COW YBUS ~ I~ CNICAGO ~~ I ElL10T ~II 10 to ~1 CCC I n to Ii CC~CCJC~C ~ IC tztn OCCC~~CC IS to ,', CCC7 ~aCCC 14 to ~' CC CC IS to I ~~~ ^L~~ BLOOMINGTON II Q`-J IB to !; CC] ~;C ~7C ITtn i I -y OC~~CC~aC Isrn _ C~C~~~CC CEDAR AVE. t -______ ^___,____ _____ IONGFEILOW ----~-----~SI_____________ ______ '~ JO V W M 1\ ~. V N r O =A~ ~_< 2~'~tl ~~ <r =v z .\ .~ •. b O ~ 7 1 y y ~ ~-~ ~ ~'3 I a 0 N N N y • P p O ' rof a > - o = ' '• = ~ ~ N NK N y `~•"' "'"~ ~ ~•"-"~-Wy:; XERXES AVE. "!'~ ~~-'-~~ WASMBURN JI i ~-~- I "~'-VINCENT '^. ~ ~~~.__ _-_~Y LIPTON .L ~ ~^t , .', .-.~, 0;.__,,, -~--J THOMAS --± 'SNERIOAN ~~ '~~n r=-= ~ RUSSELL J. ~~i I~~.'. I~ ~ QUEEN ~_J~ !: ^L-~~ r^ - ~~~t PENN AVE ~i' ;, ~~r--~~--•-G OIIVER J ^~OI'---T ~' NEWTON ,~0 ~~J~ YORGAN IOGAN ~ CCC~ • I~ .IAMES ~CCC~~II~ IRVING 7~0~~'I; NUYBOIDT 7CC~~ II ~ _ _ I GIRARD _ - -______ I, K - --~\ FREMONT i ~~\\ I, EMERSON J ~ ~ I' DUPONT I/ ~ II ~ i ,~ I' COLFA% ~ 'I ~ °' o ,P ~I BRTANT I ~!I ALDRICN 1~ IF1 LYNDALE AVE. J ICI GARFIELD ~ NARRIET (~ CCCC I ^^ II GRAND _ ~lll } ~ PI,EASINT ~~I l Palssunr CC II I~ WENTWORTM 1 CC] III BLAISDELL O~ , NICOLLET AVE. _ In ~~O 2eCVENS I~ O~ ' 3ra aINTDN ~~ ( 4/A ~, Stn I PORTLAND AVE. ^~ U~' ~ OAKLAND LJ ~_• I PARK /' I COLUMBUS r ~ x Y ~ I CNICAGO t" _ ~ I~ ELl10T II IO to OCC'' II to ~~~~~ 12 to IS to 14 to C IS to ~~~ ~ BLDOYINGTON 16 to le to CCC~~ CEDAR AVE. LONGFELLOW ~~C- ~[-] zo,n C l~_7C_] ~r ,~ 21 .T ~C~ zz Ae ~~(~~('~ STANDISN -~ zs ra n Y • M N 3 ~ J ~ '~ r O n O O "'~ N -i n rn v c~ oo n a N N N N N ~A 00 O f~ b ~ ~ b b ~ J ~J ~ ~ (~ ~/ ~:. }q- i Y oa a 0 .... o ~ o' ~o ~~ NT. n_ Z~ PENN AVE. S. Z • • .~ ~,. :,:: ~• . ~\ ~:~ , r-1- =- 1 A ~ •V i ~-- - a a ~t r" < n v' ~ - i z = n z o ~ z v ~0 n ~ ~o v N Z m n - v ~ O a D z ~ N m v 0 ~` r _.~ K o r - ~' . t m O -- ~ m • u. V ~• • ~ ~; ~ • ~ ~y ~ ~ • »~ 9 ~• • ,fie + Y _a ~ ~ m ~ ~ O r n N z m o --?s ~ ~ P ~i-~~F Y=~L ~ j~P g A V E-~,, ~ ~ I E°~ ~ ~ ~' Z ~Ej: ~ ~ . t^=$ 8 ~60~ l . its / ; ~ a: ~ 6 _ ~ _~ ~ ~ _. ~ . ~- '~~ I ~ a p /i - ` - - r--- - ~ ..... a j ~ _. ~~ ~~ / ,\ ~ / % ~ ~` '~ ~ ! ~ 4~ ~ ~ % ~. ~ / ~~~ i ~~ ~\ \~ ~ • ~~• ~ T. ;~ 7 ; _: ~ \~ . ~~ . ~• , • ~, - ,, -_ • ,, _. • • ~ ' _r 1 ~ • ~ • ~~ ~_ • `` • • ~ _ • -• \•~ • +\ • . ~~~ ~ ~~, ~- ~ . , - 0 _- ~ ~ t~ ~,~ ~ ~ €4 e M• w ~~11 I ~~ ~ f$ .T i~ i ~ E ± M • ~' w • ~+ ~, ~ w I ~ w ~ -r ~ }}~ ~ w • ~ bi ' I \ ~Lw-~~iy-~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ --~ ~a ~~'i ~~ K 8 • ~ • ~ • I • 1 ~.L I~.L • I . I • I ~ w ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~~ 0 +_ ~ ~ •i ~~ ~~ ~~ : I ~~ :~ AT rw ,„ 8• g~g ~O wow -~ w I w w I ~ ... w I w ~ w 1~I ~j ~1~1t•I ~i •i ~i ~i •I^ M ~1•I.I.I.I.I.~.i.i. il~ii~~ ------- I I wsTO~1 w~cNo ~IE. Inl AI n1111 N AIA In ltt ltt IA I111Aifl _ f $~$ ~~ - S O . 6~ 1.~. g o" ~ w.b. ~i - - -~~.:. , - ~s 1 ~ • ~ i` I l i l l ~ I~I~I~I~ ul~l ~l~lw a .0 '~ O v a v v o. Z W J JV, F k I~ f I ~~Y ~~ e 4 D r;~ ~,l -- i I n -' - -- _ - - - ~ • ~ ~'•~ `' `, -- = --#II-A-A 61A--IMF-R~~~ A V E . ~ I ~ 3RYIa ~ 1O'-~'- _. ~~/ N~ O~ O V -'I ND m~ 'o O nm zv Z~ PENN AVE. S. r_~_.__~ ~~\\ill~l~i~iii "~ ; •' . ~• ~~ ~~• ~ • •~ - • \ ~ ~: „; ~ • \~ ~ ~~'~• • .• _. •~ •~ .. . '\ ~ ' \ - i~~ ~~. ~- r 1 -- M 1 L.~ 7-~ 1\. J Cr ~.r r I ~~ r- - _ L I_ `~ ~ ' i \ i , \ ~, \ ~~ ~ i -; ~m m~ -o -~ aZ z~ 0~ ~y9 co w -~ N PENN ~AVE S j c . .~ r m m v m n m a~ C r r v m r r z G~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W N C C -r-1 ~rl ~ ~ m m ~ ~ m m ~ N v v m m n n m R+ n N m z m O 3 m n Z N Z Z N ..~. O O I~ iiill~l ~Ii~~l' c~'o ~ ~: o~ N PENN ~AVE S ~ /o •. ::. •'• ~ ~ v c ~ .X ~ -m . ~ Q Z ~~ D n c p D ~ N ~ ' m ~ ~ c n ~ D n r Z~ ~-J C N m N 0 "'~ u.. P i~ c m ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ y .y ~ v ~ m z a r ~® ~z rn ~ v .~ c ~ c v -+ m p _z ~' a .-~ r m rr n m z m z m N j 0 0 -- v~ Z~ v m m r O m z -o r a z ' '~' -/~- JAM[f w, LARNIN ROf[wT L NOr/MAN JACK r. DALY D. K[NN[TN LINGO R[N 'NDR[W W. OANI[Lf ON V OCLL R ANO[RSON ALD N. rR1[D[LL [RT f. WNIT LOCR .N [. MULLIGAN JCAT J. N[NN(ff EY JAGICf e. cwlcRaoN [DWARD J. DRIfCOLL JAMCS .. Mncr ocwc N. ruLLCR DAVID C. fCLLCwOwCN RICN ARD J KCCNAN JOHN D. rULLM[R wOf CRT C. fOYLC r RANK I. NARVCY RICNARO A. rORf CN LCR CNAwLCf f. MOD[LL CN RIfTO wN[w J DI[T[EN JOHN R. fCATTIC LINDA N. rlfN[R TNOMAf P. fTO LTMAN f TEVCN O. LCVIN IORR[fT D. NOWLiN MIC NA[L C. JACRMAN JOHN C. OICNL JON !. fWl[RZEWf RI TNOMAf J. rLYNN JAM[f •. OVINN TODD I. rwE[NAN fTCPNCN f.fOLOMON w[TEw R, ^[CK J[ROM[ N. KAMNRC f NCRwI LL OMAN RU RCTICN O[wALD L. f[CR JONM !, LVNDOUIfT DAYLC NOLAN TNOMAf f. MUM wNRCY, Jw. July 1, 1988 LARRIN HOFFMAN DALY 8c LINDGREN LTD DAVID J. P[AT , . ~ ~ IRANCIf E. OIf[wf ON MIC NA(L T, MCMIM ATTORNEYS AT LAW CNAwL[fw.W[AVER MCAMAN L. TALL[ WILLIAM R fRANDT VINCENT O. [LLA ISOO NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER TRAC• w. [IGMNORN•NICKS ANDwcw J MITCNELL 7900 XERxES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET JONN A. C0T7[R ~CATRICC A. wOTNW EILCR BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 wAUL f.. wLUNK[Tt wlKr DAww owwor ALAN L. RILDOW TELEPHONE 16121 835-3800 TELEPHONE 16121 338-8.610 `-KATNL[[N M, wICOTTC N[W MAN . CATN CwINE EARN CTT WILE ONw TELECOPIER 1812) 835-5102 TELECOPIER 18121 338.1002 J[rrwcY C. ANDERSON OANICL L. fOW L[S • TODD M. VLATKOVICN TIMOTNY J. MC MAN Uf NORTH. SUBURBAN OFFICE JILL I. Fwl[DC RS OwCOO RY L KORSTAD 8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE, SUITE 250 cwwlD A. Rrt[wsON LIfA A. DwAY COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA 55433 oAwr A, w[NNCR[ TNOMAf N. W[AV[R TELEPNONE 16121 786.7117 fNAN NON K. MC CAME RIDOC MIC MACL f. CONEN TELECOPIER 16121 788-6711 O[NIfE M. NORTON OAwY A, VAN CLEVC MIC NA[L f. fRAMAN JOf[PN w. OICRCR Reply to Bloomington J AC OUCLIN[ r. DICT2 DAYL[N L. KNACK woowcY D. ~..cs JVLI[ A. wRA3E CM wISTOPN [R J. NARRISTNAI RONALD M. STARR, JR fNAwON L. fRCNHA MARIRAY CA NAGA LITZAU Or COVNf[L Jofc-N Mena ' JONN A. NUGN RICNAwD A. NOROf YC MLfO ADMITT[D IN WIfCONf IN Mr. Towhid Razi City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Re: Walser Corporation Amendment to Conditional Use Permit. 2100 West 78th Street and 7700 Penn Avenue Dear Towhid: This letter accompanies the revised site and building plans for the renovation of the Walser Buick Dealership at 2100 West 78th Street and 7700 Penn Avenue (your case number 88-CUP-14). These revised plans include a number of significant changes from the plans submitted on June 6, 1988, particularly with respect to the site plan and the overall use of the Buick site. The first and most unportant change comes as a result of City and neighborhood concerns about the intensity of Walser's use of the Buick site. To address this concern, if the proposal to renovate the Buick building and improve the Buick site is approved as shown on the plans submitted today, Walser will relocate the Suzuki dealership out of Richfield and use the existing Suzuki building for Isuzu and Sterling sales. Isuzu and Sterling sales are currently made out of the Buick building. This means that: 1. The entire Suzuki operation, including 75 to 90 ' display/inventory cars, 17 to 20 employees, plus customer and service traffic and parking, will be eliminated. ~y~~ LARKIN, HOFF:~1A1t, DALY & LI\DGREti, LTD. Mr. Towhid Razi July 1, 1988 padre 2 2. The Suzuki building will be used for Isuzu and Sterling sales, which together do less volume than Suzuki glove. Therefore, there will be less activity on the Suzuki site; and less activity on the Buick site due to the relocation of .Isuzu/Sterling. 3. The Buick building will be used for Buick sales and service of Buick/Isuzu/Sterling. There will no longer be Suzuki service. Therefore, there will be less service activity on the Buick site. Removal of the Suzuki dealership will reduce considerably the intensity of use and amount of activity at both the Buick and the Suzuki sites, and will also reduce considerably the needs for employee, customer, service and inventory/display parking.. Removal of the Suzuki dealership is a major concession which is being made by Walser Corporation to address City and neighborhood concerns. To further address concerns about parking needs and activity levels on the Buick site, in addition to relocating the Suzuki dealership, Walser has also contracted for new car storage space out of the City ~' for both the Mazda and Buick dealerships. This will enable the general managers of the Buick, Mazda and Isuzu/Sterling dealerships to keep all display/inventory parking within designated areas by providing alternative off-site parking when designated on-site areas fill up. The site plan submitted today also includes revisions designed to address two additional issues which have come to our attention. First, as part of the relocation of Suzuki and use of the Suzuki site for Isuzu/Sterling sales, Walser will replace the existing lighting on this site with the new non-glare lighting fixtures which will be used throughout the Buick site. This will mean that all three Walser sites (Suzuki/Buick/Mazda) will have new, state-of-the-art lighting designed to eliminate glare into neighboring residential areas. An overall lighting plan is included in the materials submitted today. Note that the new lighting plan eliminates all of the "mid-pole" fixtures and uses only top-mounted lights directed down. Second, it has come to our attention that new car delivery trucks have been off-loading in public streets. We are addressing this issue by providing an extra wide drive aisle through the Buick site and an area ,in the employee/service parking area of the site where transports delivering cars to all three dealerships can off-load. In addition to providing for off-loading of new cars on-site, it is likely that in the future many transports will off-load at new car storage sites ~~ rather than at the dealerships. ~j~l ~~ LARKIN, HOFFMAIT, DALY 8c LINDGRE~, LTD. Mr. Towhid Razi July 1, 1988 Page 3 The staff report analyzing our June 6, 1988, submission materials recommended denial of the amended Conditional Use Permit because it would increase parking required and decrease parking provided. It is true that renovation of the Buick building will result in more parking being required,. under the City's parking requirements, than is required for the existing buick building; and that improvements to the Buick site plan will reduce the total number of parking spaces available, in order. to improve circulation and widen aisles for on- site deliveries. However, even though the parking required by ordinance will qo up, actual parking demand will be reduced considerably because of: 1. Removal of the Suzuki dealership. 2. Relocation of Isuzu/Sterling from the Buick building to the old Suzuki site. f 3. Elimination of Suzuki service from the Buick building. 4. Provision of off-site parking areas for new car storage. We have had some difficulty following the parking analysis set forth in the staff report and attachments. The table below sets forth how we calculate the parking required by the City for the uses shown in the plans submitted today and the parking provided in the new plans: PARKING CALCULATIONS Building Area Showroom Office Buick 7020 sq ft 6206 sq ft Used Cars 0 Isuzu/Sterling Totals: 1340 sq ft Parts 8960 sq ft 0 31 bays 25 employees 9020 sq ft 9886 sq ft 8960 sq ft 31 bays 25 employees ~~s LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY Sc LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Towhid Razi July 1, 1988 PARKING REQUIRED .Buick 35 25 9 93 Service 25 Employee Used Car 0 5 0 0 Isuzu/Sterling ,1Q ~, ~ ~ Totals : 45 39 9 118 = ?~l.l PARKING PROVIDED B i 1 Sh u _ ~ Buick 20 owroom customer Office 25 employee Parts 2 customer Se 93 rvice service 15 employee 7 employee 25 employee Used Car 3 customer 5 employee 0 0 Isuzu/Sterling 6 customer 4 empstyee 9 employee 0 0 Totals: 29 customer 39 employee 2 customer 93 service l2 employee _ ~ employee ~ employee 48 39 9 118 = ?,.14 Note that the parking being provided exceeds City requirements somewhat in order to provide separate customer parking for the used car office. Note also that 90 employee parking spaces are provided. The maximum number of employees actually on the site at any one time is estimated to be approximately 77. The plan therefore provides more than adequate employee parking. The site plan shows parking areas for customers, employees and service parking being striped. Each .parking space in these areas will be designated for its intended use. Display/inventory cars will not be parked in these spaces. Display/Inventory areas of the parking lot will not have individually striped parking spaces. Instead, display/inventory parking areas will be delineated in the parking lot with heavy lines. All display/inventory cars will be kept within these lines. The actual ~-- number of cars in display/inventory areas will depend on the type (size) of cars and the way in which the cars. are parked. For example, ri ~-ice LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY Bc LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Towhid Razi July 1, 1988 Paare 5 the general manager of each dealership may vary the method of displaying cars depending on the season of the year, the number of cars available, sales strategy, etc. As long as all display/inventory cars stay within the designated display/inventory areas, general managers will have flexibility as to how to display the cars. The one exception to this will be display pads, which will be used as intended. Display/inventory cars that will not fit in display/inventory areas will be stored off-site. Note also that the nearly 5,000 square foot addition to the existing showroom space in the Buick building will accomodate approximately 20 more display cars on the show floor itself. In addition to the changes in the site plan, some changes have also been made in the plans for the Buick building. With the elimination of Suzuki service there will no longer be a need for separate service entrances. The new floor plan .relocates the service entrance to the east side of the building and provides inside and outside stacking space for 18 to 20 vehicles. This change alone will significantly reduce congestion on the west side of the Buick building and improve traffic circulation throughout the Buick site. The revised floor plan also provides for better movement of vehicles in and through the building and la=ger service bays. The proposed addition to the southwest corner of the Buick showroom remains as shown originally, and the new mezzanine level remains generally in the same location and the same size as shown in the earlier. plan. Roof lines on the Buick building will remain as shown in the earlier plans, and there will still be no parking on any portion of the roof of the Buick building. There are also no changes with respect to the used car sales office. Walser Corporation is making every effort, in the plans submitted today and in the commitments made in this letter, to address all issues raised by the City and neighboring residents. The proposal which we put forward today is a considerable improvement over the plans submitted on June 6, 1988; and implementation of the new proposal will result in a vast improvement over the existing situation on the Buick site and the approved plans for the Buick site. We hope that the City will take this opportunity to work with us to improve significantly the existing situation. We must emphasize that denial of the requested amendment to the existing, approved Conditional Use Permit will result in renovation of the Buick facility under the currently approved plans, which are inferior to the proposal put forth today and do not address the significant issues discussed in this letter.. ~~,~ LARKI~, HOFFMA~', DALY ~c LINDGRE:~, LTD. Mr. Towhid Kazi July 1, 1988 Page 6 We look forward to meeting with you at 1:00 p.m., on July 12, 1988, to review these plans and answer any questions you may have. ' Sin ly, i Peter K. Beck, for LARRIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. PRB:DE6s city of richfield~y~ ;::. ) «) 6~0o Portland avenue • minnesota ssa2a June 22, 1988 Mr. John Oliva Director of Corporate Planning Walser Automotive 5555 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55435 Dear Mr. Oliva: On June 14, 1988 the City of Richfield Inspections Division reviewed the sites of Walser Mazda, Walser Buick and Walser Suzuki and note the following items of non-conformance with the approved Special Use permits and plans. The entire employee and service parking areas at Walser Mazda on the 77th Street side were occupied with new car inventory. An additional row of parking of display cars has been added, (striped), along the Morgan Avenue side of the dealership in violation of the Off-Street Parking permit and Special Use permit. The area along Morgan Avenue designated as customer parking is occupied by new car display. Three new light bases have been installed on the used car display area between the Mazda and Buick buildings. These were installed without permits, approved plans or inspections and must be removed. Landscaping along Penn Avenue on the Suzuki site has not been done. There were 112 vehicles on the Suzuki site whereas the plan that was submitted and approved shows 59 parking spaces. The lighting of the Buick site which glares on the residential area has not been corrected. Telephone Numbers: General C,ty Matters 16121 869-7521 =ubi~c Earet•~ Von-emergency i2d hrs) 1612) 866.5061 PCLICE FIFE. NIEJIC:.L EMERGENC'! DIAL 9-1-1 /-~~ John Oliva June 22, 1988 Page 2 A gravel surfaced area at the Masonic Lodge is being used by your firm for the parking of employees cars as well as new and used car inventory in violation of City Ordinances. City staff has advised you that City Council permission is required prior to use of this space for any use other than perking for the Masonic Order and City ordinances prescribe certain parking area standards. You have made no effort to make application to the City for use of this property. This use must be discontinued until an Off-Street permit is obtained. This letter is an official Notice of Non-Compliance with your Special Use permit. You must show cause why your Special Use permit should not be revoked within ten days of this notice. Sincerely, r Sivert Hendrickson ~~ Building Official SH:lkt cc: B. Wallace --~ ~~-` a7,(J city of richfield s~oo Portland avenue • minnesota ssa23 June 14, 1988 Mr. Brett Robinson Industrial Electric Company 600 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, MN 55404 Subject: Walser Buick - Parking Lot Lighting NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE Dear Mr. Robinson: As we discussed on 6/14/88, you have installed lighting bases at the Walser Buick site without approval or a permit. On May 31, 1988, I received a call from an electrician from your firm to inspect the trenching and underground wiring. I advised him that you had no permit and the work must sto until plans were submitted and approved. Your firm continued to work and installed three lighting bases without the required inspections or plan approval. The bases must be removed upon receipt of this Notice of Non- compliance. After receipt of parking lot lighting plans showing distribution of lighting .and approval of same, a permit will be issued and the. bases may be installed with the required inspections. If you have any questions regarding this Notice of Non-Compliance I may be reached at 866-5061, X 370. Sin erely, l~ Sivert Hendrickson Building Official SH:lkt Telephone Numbers: General City Matters: 16121 869-7521 n.,~.,. ^ .,. ., w. .: ~,~nrryr••• I'1 /I ti~..~ I~w~s~ t+~~ cnr:~ nr~~ irr ~rir?r •nnrnir i rrn ~`-~/ City Of Richfield • stoo Port,.r,d ~,. • Minr,..ota ss4z3 c,ey w~,.Q.r wro- couna~ .Av-MS D. Pratss- 8bN Gwm E01rir~ Garen Nan L~dpnan Apron Krsch A~NwI Sanddw March 18, 1988 Mr. John Oliva Director of Corporate Planning walser Automotive Corporation 5555 west 78th Street, Suite F Edina, MN 55435 Dear John: In response to your request and following our discussion dated March 14, 1988, I have prepared the attached cash escrow agreement which must be signed by walser Automotive Corporation along with a cashiers check made out to the City of Richfield in the amount of X35,448.00. ~ Following receipt of the cash escrow agreement and the check, the City of Richfield will issue a temporary occupancy permit which would be valid until July 1st, 1988 for the new walser Mazda site provided that the Suzuki site does not require any new conditional use permit or oftstreet parking amendment. Only the funds relating to each phase will be released as the issues relating to the individual dealership site is resolved to the satisfaction of the city. I would appreciate your cooperation in resolving a number of issues, i.e. ' -display pads on Penn Avenue for the Suzuki dealership. -lighting problems -screening/landscaping north of the site along 77th Street. -permanent signs for the Suzuki site. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, ~~ Towhid Kazi Acting City TK/~ls d~ Planner Telephone 969-7S21(612) M Egwl OppohuNly Employer ~~ ~~ CASH ESCROW AGREEMENT Walser Corporation DBA Walser Automotive does hereby tender e cash escrow to the City of Richfield (in the form of a cashiers check) in the amount of E35,448.00 for the following ir~eomplete improvements: . Phase 1. For Walser Buick Site - Approved lsndscaping and irrigation system 05,536.00) Phase 2. New Walser Mazda Site (former Viking Center) - Approved landscaping end irrigation system (513,912.00). -Including shrubs and trees along 77th Street -Complete all other improvements according to the city regulations. -The construction of barriers, cul-de-sacs, diverters or other traffic control improvements on 77th Street and MorQan Avenue if deemed necessary by the city (55,000.00) Phase 3. Walser Suzuki Site (former Mazda site) - Approved lendscapin and irrigation system as indicated in the plan (3,000.00). -Sign in conformance with the city regulations. Completion date of the improvements is June 1, 1988, except traffic control improvements on 77th Street and Morgan Avenue. The City of Richfield will refund the amount of 530,448.00 following an inspection and approval of the entire site by the City Manager's designee. The remaining 55,000.00 will be released only after the traffic control improvements are completed on 77th Street and Morgan Avenue if such are deemed necessary by the City. The City may use the cash escrow to complete the improvements it the undersigned does not do so within the time line given or 30 days otter notice. Walser Automotive Corporation hereby grants to the City, its employees and assignees, an access easement to the sites for the purpose of completing the above mentioned items. Any cost incurred by the City in excess of the escrow amount will be paid by Walser Automotive Corporation. The City will partially release the cash escrow upon verified completion of each phase end tendering of cashiers check in the appropriate substitute amount. The City will hold such escrow amount in a non-interest bearing account. Walser Corporation OBA Walser Automotive .gyp - ~~f~ ~~R~s Notwsst Bank Minnesota, N.A. Cashier's .~"~ ~q~fCli, 048 068919 ' AU M VE MAkCH 16~ 1988 Remitter Date tT-t/at0 ~~~*E~i3S, 448ANL000TS +35,448.00 Ray - e To tAs .CITY OF RICNFIELP Order of MC 1M7f CMKtYN x0.689 ~9~'- ~:091000019~: Authorized Signature 995132M 9?2 I~rt[ - `""•'" LTD H B L L D ice: c; tf00[wT 1 r0--rar C • OFFMd,1T ALY .ARKINr INDGRE~ r + ~ t i ~ ~t\tD„ •.ta • OiaT r'[rata T qnr O^trwtTr arrOOw[r /LTTORNE`/f ~-T lAW w ~~ rt • ~ ~ ~\ erOwtl• r O.rrt aOOw tlrt rD[aa R •r Ot wOOw t T a [ t•IaLr.r { twarDT •tr.ae r -wr[Dna ~IwcuT { tay OOOt wT O. OrrrTaOCa TOat• • trCrrOwY •rlCaO w t ryaarO.r 100 NORTNWCST[RN YINANCIA~ C[NT[R =000 -1-[R JA-IRAT TOW[R MNtr r rrTtrtaa •• J. r[rr[OOt• IOww • COTTLw• a C. [rlta00w TOO II[RIl[s AV[NV[ sOUTM SS2 ~OVTN NINTH s7RCCT Ot.TO1Ct • rOTwr[ratr r0 i OOrOCOaa t'.Va { .aural TT ~ • rra[• ~LGOMINaTCN, rINN [>1CTA SLR21 rINN[AOpLi ~ Y1NN[IOTA ~~~2 Or• Oa•ww OwaD• • r -VaatO , t.1,-r L ara00r O.YrD 4 Haat Nwtr •[l[~NONC 1~If1 ~~L~~~00 T[L[~NON[ II=I ~)~•~s10 a.Tra[tr r. aaCOTTt rtwraw wrcr.re.. accw.« •Oww a -VUrtr T[l[COt'1[R It1t) •f~•~10f T[ [COa1[R 14111 37.100! VTrtwrwt uww[••,.~awr- •tnrt• L ar Dtwtow NOt O• [ /e•at ~ O.rrtl a. {era[t .caws r. r.rVt• Mt1O r YyTaOV~[r OlCrarO a. -prOt rl[w .rNOTw• I Nwar Vt fr.awa[/ l rOOt as e«n{TO.«ew + er[Ta[r NORTH ~y~VbAN O-11C[ ir~a 1 ••rteta ~.[OOw• t. aOwt+aD dOwr O O[aTT,t w ~~~0 {t•R1NO~R0011 ORw[ •V1T[ =~O t.a1{ • KTtr.ow urea w -.tr[ TMOrat •. OTOatrar . YOa a. Ora• r [ OTtvtw O -[vrw - COON RA-10~, MINN[SOTA «1» trewt r rtav[a OOer[t+ O rOwarw t{r.rwOw 4. wC.w Or~00[ altra[a C Ataraw T[l[eNON[ (5121 70•)11) NICwa4 t COr[r •/Owr [ Or[ra O[rrtt r rOrTOw JOw /. Orrtrttr•ai T[L[CO-1[R I~ltl )~s-t)11 •a.• avaw Ca[vt TrOraO a -aTrw rKwata O Owawar •awt • OV1rr IOOt.r r OrC•[w Teeo .. -e[waw fTirrtr O •OLOrOr Reply to Bloomington IOCOVtalr[ • Or[Tt . - .[Tt.. .[t. ~ ~ ~ ~~~ Vieprt w uwrt[ /Vast . ~OaO[ Or[/Ora- Oraw rYrtTlCr {rOrOTOMtw J. raOrrOtwaa OtOaaO L O[C^ NraaO r. {Taws,•O dOrw • aVrOOVrOT O ti.tat rOUw jaaAlluT CaWa -•TLu trOral t. rYr-rOtT, JO M tiOVr1[a NO[\. rrTrt IOrr a wwVOw rlerue .. .ewew•t w0 YrrTT[I rr w{ew1.1r June 6t 198c City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Re: Walser Corporation Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 2100 West 78th Street 7700 Penn Avenue Dear Sirs: This: letter accompanies the application of Walser Corporation for an amendment to the approved Conditional Use Permit for Walser's Buick Dealership at 2100 West 78th Street and 7700 Penn Avenue (the Buick Property). On July 14, 1986, the Richfield City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of several additions on the Buick Property, subject to nine conditions. Walser has complied with the conditions attached to this approval, but. construction of the building additions has awaited completion of the Mazda facility next door. Walser is now preparing to proceed with the Buick facility, and would like to make some minor revisions to the building plans. for the Buick Property. ~~~~ Walser therefore submits this application for an amendment to the approved Conditional Use Permit for the Buick Property. The revised plan is illustrated on the enclosed drawings. LARI{I\, HOFF~tA~, DaL~ & LINDGRE~, LTD. ~ / ~~~ City of Richfield June 6, 1988 Paae 2 Changes from the approved plan are: 1. The 1,950 square foot proposed addition to the •outfieast corner of the existing Buick showroom will be dropped, in favor of a 1,151 square foot addition to the southwest corner of the Buick showroom, as shown on the plan. This will enable Walser to keep a second service entrance open on the east end of the building for service and parts delivery, therefore relieving potential congestion at the existing service entrance on the west side of the building. 2. Elimination of the proposed 768 square foot addition to the existing used car sales office. This will make additional parking spaces available-and will improve traffic flow in the western portion of the parking area. 3. The addition of a 2,760 square foot second, or mezzanine, level in the existing new car showroom building for office space. Relocating office space to this mezzanine level will allow for additional showroom space to be set aside on the first floor of the Buick showroom building. 4. Raising the roof on the northernly most 35 feet of the existing Buick building to match the roof line of the l remainder of the building. This will allow for several additional full service repair bays in this portion of the building, and will provide an opportunity to enhance the appearance of this portion of the building from the outside. 5. There will be no parking on any portion of the zoof of the Buick building and the ramp to the former rooftop storage area has been removed. 6. In addition to the changes outlined above, Walser is proposing to address city and neighborhood concerns with respect to lighting in the parking areas of the Buick Property by implementing, as a part of the amended Conditional Use Permit, a new lighting plan throughout the southerly portion of the parking ,area, as shown on the attached plan. This lighting plan has been specifically .designed to fully comply with City ordinance and to minimize to the greatest extent possible any glare into surrounding residential uses. • ~~~ • LwRKI:~, HOFF~tA\', DaLY & LIxDGRE\, LTD. City of Richfield June 6, 1988 ?age 3 John Oliva and myself, along with the project architects, will attend all public hearings to answer any questions and will be happy to meet• with City staff prior to that time to review the plans. Sincere y, ~ V !~.~~.~ ~ ~c Peter R. Beck, for LARRIN, HOFFMAN, DALY i LINDGREN, Ltd.• kw Enclosures PKB:DC4s " T oz7 June 21, 1988 Towhid Kazi Assistant City Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Sir, I appreciate your advising the property owners of the forthcoming hearing on Tuesday, June 28, 1988 regarding the Walser Corporation and their proposal for changing the Buick Facility. Due to previous commitments on that date, I shall not be able to be present at the council meeting. For over 5 years, the residents of Richfield have had to put up with the expansion of Walser Buick (ie Walser Corporation) and their .other car dealerships. I would like to impress on the Mayor and City Council that our residential neighborhood is slowly being destroyed by automobile dealerships and their expansions. I will not attempt to rehash all the problems that we, the homeowners, have had to put up with and accept over the years. They have been discussed at city council meetings over and over again. The previous city administration, prior to the last election., seemed fit to give the Walser Corporation pretty much what they wanted. Problems like employee parking, places to store new vehicles, increase in the amount of traffic on West 77th Street (yet to be resolved). It is time, we the people of Richfield, can say to to the Walser Corporation through our City Council and stop the expansion that has spread like a cisease. If they want to upgrade, expand or whatever, the existing business they have, other alternatives are available. The first is to move ou_ the Richfield boundaries. I want to thank you for this opportunity to express my views and I'm sure the views of my neighbors. I hope that the correct decision, which is to refuse the current request by Walser, will be handed down by the Council. It is time to STOP the expansion or upgrading of any sort and keep our community the residential community it should be. Sincerely, ~~ ~~. ~~ G. D. Fox Retired Resident of Richfield ~~~~ ~~~ - METES & BOUNDS Management Company 6625 Lyndale Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (612) 861-1627 July 12, 1988 Ms. Elizabeth Morrison City Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Parking by driveway at West 77th Street Dear Ms. Morrison: Employees of Walser are parking on West 77th Street in ~_ violation of the original agreement allowing the expansion of the use of this area. It creates a clear and present danger for our tenants and guests turning out of and into our driveway. The original Agreement and promises of Walser were that they would provide more than adequate parking for their employees. Please enforce the conditional use permit and see that the cars are removed immediately. Very truly yours, METES & BOUNDS MAI)TAGEMENT CO. /) BY f • J He ry see President JHS/cc Quality Apartment Living by METES & BOUNDS Management Company • 6625 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 ~`-~/ 8/12/88 Mr. Kazi, We are sorry we will be unable to attend the City Council meeting on August 22. Our June 17 letter to you (copy attached) is as pertinent for the City Council as for the Planning Cc~mission. We will appreciate if you will distribute it to the City Council members. Thank you. Loui Ragatz Attachment J Mr. Towhid Kazi Assistant City Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 7624 Oliver Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 June 17, 1988 Re: Public Hearing Notice - 6/13/88 Dear Mr. Kazi: We are appalled by the latest request from Walser Corporation for ... "relocation of the approved showman at the southeast corner to the southwest corner of the Buick facility (and) an addition of a 2,780 square foot SECOND or MEZZANINE I~VE:L within the existing car showman building for office space ... ~~~ We V~.:N'TLY OPPOSE approval of such a request. Reasons we believe are obvious. There is no end to Walser's requests for expansion. We as long-time residents of Richfield should not have to be constantly subjected to Walser proposals for ruination of o~ resi en is area. Walser has outgrown their present facilities and do not belong there anymore. Obviously, however, they are not going to move and the City of Richfield must insist and see to it that the residential neighborhood adjoining their operation is preserved. We believe we deserve this protection. They must not be allowed to take over. NOW they are proposing building tTPG~RDS! Obviously to preserve the previously approved 768 square foot addition to the existing used car sales office TO PARK MORE CARS. Their nerve and lack of catnnn sense/courtesy is inconceivable. When they moved in they knew they were moving to a residential area. Anything built UP4~,RDS is obviously going to create a-~ even more unsightly COhi- MERCIAL atmospher to o-thus wonderful residential areao Take a dive up the 7600 bock on Oliver, for example. This is what we are trying to preserve. Anything at the "mezzanine" level (whatever they want us to believe that means) is of course correspondingly objectionable. A second story is a second story, no matter what you call it. We urge that you do not let this happen. consideration. Thank you very much for your attention. cc: James Prosser, City Manager We cannot imagine it is even due serious Mr. & Mrs: ~/ August 17, 1988 ~ S~teven Quam, Mayor VJames Prosser, City Manager Martin Kirsch, Council Member Ivan Ludeman, Council Member Edwina Garcia, Council rlember Michael Sandahl, Council Member I feel that Walser should not be allowed to expand the Buick showroom for the following reasons: 1. This building would not be allowed to be built today. The set back is only 3 feet. The additio~t~-does change the "foot print". It makes it larger at ground level attd higher. 2. The Walser Corporation has shown that each increase in investment results in a dramatic increase in the intensive use of the property. They do this by. not allowing the employees to park on the Walser property and reducing. customer parking. The inventory is increased to an unsafe level. The side plan of the Walser property with lines of parking places in neat orderly rows does not exist. Walser looks. like a shiny dunk yard. 3. The traffic level is increasing on 77th Street, Oliver and Newton Avenues. The test drives continue. Walser is using the frontage road East and West of Penn Avenue, 77th Street, and Morgan Avenue for employee parking even though they have made many promises to provide employee parking. Indeed, Towhid Kazi of the Planning Department made a statement at the Planning Commission hearing that a Walser spokesman stated they (k'alser) cannot live with providing employee parking. 4. Increasing the~size of this building would result in more employees, heavier advertising,lnc3re traffic, and more parking problems resulting in lower property values for home owners. This would also result in a less livable enviornment for home owners and apartment dwellers. 5. The apartment industry is having a "lean" period at this time. There are many vacant units available in the Twin Cities. Allowing Walser to grow could cause people to move from our area. Empty apartments and loss of income for apartment owners cause a reduction of building maintenance and ease restrictions of the type of people allowed to move in. I recommend you look at the Lake Street area, the West Broadway area and the now being zedeveloped area of Hennepin Avenue. We do not want empty dealerships and a blighted Richfield. Let's learn f rom Minneapolis' bad experience about dealerships. aogc ~ 6. Richfield has four auto dealerships, three are detrimental to Richfield. The lots are over stocked. Employee and customer parking is not provided and they run their business on city streets causing traffic and parking problems. Walser leads this list. Let's not reward Walser by letting them build a 2 story car lot. 7. None of the management of Walser live in Richfield. When they identify their residences, with one exception, they all live in suburban areas that prohibit car dealers from operating the way they do in Richfield (no employee parking and limited customer parking). 8. I believe Richfield has ordinances as .stringent as Bloomington. Why do Bloomington dealers provide customer and employee parking and ours don't? Advise Walser that Richfield will not tolerate their method of operation, that they will have to conform to city regulations and that they will not be allowed to grow upward. Walser is in business to make a buck.. They can do this and not destroy the neighborhood if they limit inventory and provide the mandated customer and employee parking. Walser bought a con-conforming building with no reasonable right to expect authorization to enlarge this building. Please do not let them expand this building. Sincerely l 1~n / .~,,./^.I n/ //.~ ~~. ,James Bergi /~ ' 7627 Olive~Ave So. j Richfield, MN -~ y ...~ ~ ~~~ August 18, 1988 Dear City Council, Mayor Quam, and Mr. Prosser: I am writing to express my views regarding the Walser amendment and to urge the council to deny this permit. -- Walser has already proved that they do not comply with city stipulations. Please note the long list of items in the June 22, 1988 Notice of T?on- Compliance served upon Walser by the Richfield Building Official. They were cited for an additional row of parking of display cars, entire employee and service parking occupied with new car inventory, 112 cars on a site approved for 59, uncorrected lighting, installing electrical bases without permits, approval or required inspections, the list goes on. It seems Walser should have sanctions imposed for its flagrant disregard to the existing permit rather than. allowed to expand yet again. After the June 22nd neighborhood meeting held by Mr. Erskine and Mr. Prosser, I left the meeting feeling for the first time that there was a genuine concern by the City for maintaining a quality residential environment, and that maybe k'alser would be finally forced to "clean up its act". At that meeting, Walser was informed that they may be required to reduce their inventory to allow customer and employee parking if problems persisted. I was of the understanding that this could indeed be accomplished by a simple car count. k'alser's new request to no longer have individually striped parking spaces actually means more cars can be squeezed in and more difficulty in taking a car count. They blatently ignore parking requirements and continue to do business from city streets. .Expansion of this business should not be allowed. The removal of the Suzuki dealership has not reduced activity at the Walser site, and enlarging the Buick facility will surely increase activity. Customers continue to park on 77th Street for lack of on-site parking, and potential buyers continue to use Oliver Avenue as a test route. Please do not add to the deterioration of our residential neighborhood by allowing ~Jalser to expand. Sincerely, ~~~~ ~~~~ Cathy Bergin 7627 Oliver Av So Richfield, MN CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 200 Agenda August 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Approval audit services for the City's Electronic Data "Processing hardware and software systems. Background: In 1986 and 1987, the City converted to a new computer system. This change included both new hardware and software packages. As a result of this wholesale change in the Electronic Data Processing (EDP) equipment, the City's Auditors have recommended that a comprehensive examination of the EDP system be conducted. The recommended audit was to cover the following items: - Appropriate segregation of duties within the Data Processing Department (access to assets and records should not be vested in the same person; programmers should not have access to data files used for daily processing, etc.). - Adequacy of controls over unauthorized or unintentional modification or deletion of information entered into this system. - Adequacy of input and output controls to ensure the accuracy of data validation, correction and reentry of data. - Adequacy of controls in the system's development process, including system design, testing conversion, training and documentation. Adequacy of planning, both short-term and long-range. -- Due to the complexity and time requirements of such an audit, a multi-year appTOach was recommended. Thus, the City will be able to evaluate the need for EDP auditing services on a yearly basis. The first year plan would cover auditing the general controls of data processing function. If additional audit work is selected during ensuing years, different aspects of general control could be exawmined more closely and specific program application could also be audited. Under such an approach, an entire audit package could be completed in a period of four years. Insofar as the City has an ongoing contract for financial auditing services with Deloitte, Haskins & Sells, the additional cost of EDP services could be added as an addendum to that contract. It is estimated that the 1988 cost would be $7,000- $8,000, plus expenses. Any EDP auditing services for ensuing years would be treated on a year-by-year basis and would correlate directly with the amount of services being requested. ~~_~_~ Recommended Motion: Approve the attached proposal by the City's Auditor, Deloitte, Haskins & Sells, for EDP auditing services and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City's Auditor, Deloitte, Haskins & Sells, has recommended that an EDP audit of the City's EDP function be performed. 2. With the changeover in 1986 and 1987 of the City's hardware and software systems, an EDP audit would be beneficial. 3. The City's Auditors are very familiar with the functions performed by the City of Richfield and, therefore, are in a position to make a very comprehensive analysis of the EDP function as it relates to City services and- other City Divisions/Departments. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could request staff to solicit additional. quotations from other .auditing firms regarding EDP audits. 2. The City Council could decide not to do an EDP audit at this time and consider such an examination in future years. Discussion/Decision Mode: City staff would favor performing an EDP audit during 1988. In order to conduct the audit at a time most convenient for City staff and the Auditors, it is projected that work should begin during September or as soon thereafter as is mutually agreeable. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP•sae Deloitte Haskins+Sells G ~~.. Suite 1000 625 Fourth Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1660 ~ 612) 333-2900 tTT Telex: 4995620 Mr. Steve Devich Director of Administrative Services City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue So. Richfield, Minnesota 55423 July 25, 1988 Dear Mr. bevich: We are pleased to have this opportunity to submit a proposal to perform a review of controls over data processing for•the City of Richfield. We are confident that our Firm can provide you with the finest professional services available. The accompanying pages describes our plan for rendering the data processing services, based upon our discussions on April 28, 1988. Our professional fees are based on standard hourly rates for the actual hours worked by consultants assigned to the engagement. Our proposal reflects a multi-year approach to the conduct of our EDP review, enabling you to obtain continuing audit coverage of your data processing activities. Based upon our understanding of the work which must be accomplished during year one, as described in the following pages of this proposal, we agree to perform these services for $7-8,000 plus out-of-pocket expenses. The subsequent year fees will be based upon the exact scope of review you desire during these years. We will arrange to start the services your acceptance of this proposal. We on this engagement during September or as is mutually agreeable. as soon as possible after are prepared to begin work as soon after that date Sincerely yours, -~ OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES The major objectives of this review, as we understand it, are to: Test the appropriateness and adequacy of the system of internal controls over data processing, including the general control environment and controls over applications processed on the data processing system. Test the appropriateness of security over the computer system, to determine that access to computer resources is restricted to authorized individuals. Access to computer resources includes both physical access to computer hardware and logical access to computerized applications and computerized data. Review the procedures for controlling computer applications, to insure that all changes made to computer programs are properly authorized and reflect the intent of management. Review the procedures related to computerized applications, to insure that the system of controls adequately protects the financial .applications of the city. The review of EDP dependent controls will also consider the adequacy of manual financial controls to insure the adequacy of the system of internal controls as a whole. If weaknesses in controls are noted during our review, we will make specific recommendations for enhancing internal controls, environmental security, and operational procedures withing the data center and related user departments. The review and resulting reporting of recommendations will be performed in accordance with the guidelines established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) with respect to the audits of data processing centers. Other appropriate professional standards and procedures, including those established by Deloitte Haskins & Sells, will also be followed. Specifically, we will review and evaluate: Organizational procedures and methods as they affect controls with the data center and over computerized applications ~' ~ ~- yl Applications systems documentation standards for computerized applications ` General operating practices relating to system development, changes, security, and operations Application processing controls over the input of data, processing, output, and distribution of reports from the data center Controls over access to the computer facility, operational programs, and data files Compliance testing will be performed to ascertain the extent to which the system operates in accordance with processing controls and descriptions provided during our review. At the conclusion of our work, we will provide you with a report which will include: A description of the work which was done during the course of the review of the data center A discussion of any weaknesses in internal control which have been observed, including recommendations for improvement ENGAGEMENT PLAN We have designed a work plan for the City of Richfield that we feel is consistent with the needs of the organization as expressed to us by management. We will utilize evaluation guides and programs which we have specifically developed for the review of Data Processing Centers and will supplement these with other procedures necessary to comply with auditing standards. There are 11 major general control categories to be completed in the review of the adequacy of general controls at the data center. The categories of general controls that. we review include: Organization Standards and Documentation Physical Security System Security Administration Access Controls Analysis .Hardware Controls System Software Controls Application Development and Software Change Controls Operations Controls Backup and Recovery Disaster Recovery There are also four categories to our review of application controls. Each of these four categories must be completed for each application reviewed. These application control categories are: Application Overview Application Input Controls Application Processing Controls Application Output Controls Because the completion of all control categories in a single year review would not only be cost prohibitive, but would also not provide continuing coverage of data processing controls, we have designed our workplan in a multi-year approach. Our approach is designed to cover 2-3 general control review areas each year, rotating the coverage so that all general control categories would be covered at least every 4 years. Our workplan also includes the review of 1 application in years two, three and four including a review of input, processing and output .controls for each application. The specific applications to be reviewed may be determined each year according to the needs of management. Because the current year is the first year of our review, there are certain essential control categories that should be reviewed in .this first year. Because of the complexity of these areas and because there is a need to determine the adequacy of the fundamental control environment in the organization, our workplan is heavily weighted to the review of general controls during year one of our review. The workplan for subsequent years is designed to provide an ongoing analysis of the adequacy of the general control environment, and an expansion-into the control environment for specific financial applications. The specific tasks that we will perform in year one of our review are as follows: Project Start-Up and Detailed Planninct The purpose of this task is to establish the detailed interview schedules and test plans. The specific activities include: Meeting with key management and data processing personnel to finalize the specifics of the review and to identify the personnel to be interviewed. Establishing the interview and test plan v Review of Svstem Security Administration and Access Controls The review of security administration is performed to insure that access to system components (system. software, utilities, programs, data files, etc. ) is restricted, monitored and appropriately segregated, to protect the organization from unauthorized use, damage, .loss or modification to these resources. The review will also include a review of the appropriateness of microcomputer access to mainframe applications. Review of Application Development and Software Modification Controls The review of application development and software controls is performed to provide assurance that application software, such as programs and .job controls statements, are designed, implemented, and maintained in a controlled manner, and that changes to application software are made according to management's specific authorization and approval. General Controls Overview The general controls overview is performed to provide a basic level review. of fundamental general controls, including Operations Controls, Disaster Recovery, Backup and Recovery, Physical Security, Standards and Documentation, Hardware Controls and System Software Controls. An in-depth review of these categories is performed in years 2 - 4. Compliance Testinct• The purpose of this task is to perform specific compliance tests of the general controls and the applications controls documented above, to determine whether the controls are operating as described and to determine the extent of reliance that can be placed on these controls. Working Paper and Report Preparation• This final task involves the analysis, documentation, and review of any findings with relation to the review of data processing controls. The resulting written report will be prepared in draft form and reviewed with management shortly after the completion of our work. After the draft report has been reviewed, a final report will be produced and sufficient copies will be provided as needed by the City of Richfield. c. -~ / The specific tasks that we will perform in subsequent years of our review can be finalized in each year, but could be structured as follows: - Year Two: General Controls: Operations Controls Backup and Recovery Controls Disaster Recovery Controls Application Controls• Payroll Application Control Review The review of payroll application controls will include a comprehensive review of input, processing, and output controls for the application. Year Three: General Controls• Physical Security Application Controls• Accounts Payable Application Control Review Year Four• General Controls• Organization Controls Hardware Controls System Software Controls Application Controls• Utility System Application Control Review Qualifications The individuals who will be directly involved in providing services to the City of Richfield are: Herbert A. Leifeld - Manager, Computer Assurance Services Clifford W. Hoffman - Partner v // v Herb Leifeld will be the primary person conducting the data center review at the City of Richfield. He has over 10 years experience in data processing and auditing. His experience reviewing governmental computer systems makes him uniquely qualified to conduct the review at the City of Richfield. Cliff Hoffman will be the partner in charge of the engagement. He will be responsible for the overall coordination of the review. ~ ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. egg Agenda August 22, 1988 Issue Statement: __. Approval of approval of minutes and award of contrast for purchase of two automatic cardiac defibrillators for the Fire Division. Back~round- The Fire Division 1988 budget provides funds for the purchase of two cardiac defibrillators. This instrument will automatically shock a coronary victim's heart if the heart stops or goes into ventricular fibrillation. Early defibrillation has been cited as an important factor in surviving a heart attack. At present, heart attack victims must wait until the paramedic ambulance arrives with a defibrillator. Two units are being purchased so that the firefighters can attach a victim to the unit immediately, saving valuable minutes. The Fire Division expects to see an increase in survival rates for Richfield heart attack victims with these units. Three bids were received: Tau-Med $17,900 Physio Control $10,093.75 Alternate $16,316.25 First Medic $18,185.00 Recommended Motion: Approve the bid minutes and award the contract to Tau-Med, Inc. for two Heart Aid units at a cost of $17,900. Basis of Recoauendation: 1. The low pidder, Physio Control, could not meet the specification for a totally automatic unit. The Fire Division personnel had determined that this feature was desirable for the conditions in which the unit will be .used. 2. The Physio Control bid did not include the cost of a playback capability which allows the firefighters to review their use of the units at an emergency. Physio Control's price for the optional hardware and software to perform this function is $1400.00, which increases the total cost to $17,716.25. 3. The Tau-Med units are automatic and have the playback capability as specified. _ 4. The third bidder, First Medic, Inc., did not meet the specification for a hard copy readout of the EKG. r- i Alternate Recommendation: The analysis of the bids did not find any basis for recommending the Physio Control or First Medic units instead of the Tau-Med device . The Council could reject all the bids and request that the defibrillators be readvertised. Since these three companies are the only ones marketing this type of equipment, we would not expect that a new bid would differ from the one being considered. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the consent calendar portion of the August 22, 1988 City Council agenda. Respe lly submitted, Jam Prosser City Hager JDP/sae 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richtield~, Minnesota. An Equal Opportunity Employer. 612-869-7521 • Thomas A. Stahl, Inc. • 200 West Old Shakopee Road • Bloomington, Mn. 55420 AO OA OAT[ TNC e~Tr N- xsYrT -soY rMrYtNT oR ini f[O[IIAL [xG10[ TAx[! (-[O[RA6 C[IITI-IC1TL AO/0TlT) ANO OTAT[ !~-Lq TAU 11CCT. N4 OOl~OtT). K YNIT OtSC111-TION YMff IIMC[ MOOOYNT ArOYNL-. COO[ A11O11MT Estimate ~2 payment for professiona architectural & engineering services in conjunction w/ AHA Fire ProCection Safety Works 0,615.86 ~a• F{INO 0[-T. OW. O.L. Of/. [. M CA. iNC/NV 11[NO011 MlOO. • AtlOYMT / -s 99 990 //3/ / 90 0002 S~~ iis. ~i 1 p1 0,615.8 all 6 M 8/22/88 CIIlCK M0. 4~ ~.. ~-~ REVISED STATEMENT YEY~ER A.I.A. Auyust 5, 1988 Sister Mary 4Jalter Duval The Academy of the Holy Angels fi600 Nicollet Avenue South Richfield, ^1N 55423 RE: Phase I ~; II - Fire & Life Dafety Renovations/Sprinkler System The Academy of the Holy Angels 6600 Nicollet Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 INVOICE NO.~ 8628 C-2-1 For professional architectural and engineering services pertaining to a) the prep- aration of the construction documents, bidding and substantial construction completion of the convent area fire and life safety work and b) preparation of the construction plans, `bidding, and partial construction (through July 15, 1988) of Phase II fire/life safety work per plans dated June 15, 1988. - se I(Contract Amount) -------------------$104,720.00 rer NewMech and Hilite Electrical Fee: $104,720.00 x .09 x 100% ----------------------------$9425.00 Phase II(Contract Amount) ----------------- $441,433.00 Per Metro Systems, Gorham-Dien and Code Electric oAl ~J At162 21988 Fee: $441,443.00 x .09 x 92% complete -------------------$36,552.00 TOTAL FEE A & 8 ABOVE ___________________________________$45,977.00 Previously paid fee amount oer enclosed recap invoice --($36,683.00) PHASE I & YI FIRE/LIFE SAFETY FEE NOW DUE -------------------------------$9294.00 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES ___________________________________________________$1321.86 Construction plans and specs to bidders, suppliers, city and builder exchanges a. Reproduction costs - phase I -------------$354.16 b. Reproduction costs - phase II ---------___$gg0.71 ~,~,r~ c. Postage, handling, messenger costs -------$ 86,gg ~ ~~ BALANCE DUE THIS PERIOD ________________________________________________$10,615.86 TOTAL BALANCE NOW DUE_______________________________________________ _10,615.86 THOMAS H. STAHL. INC. ARCHITECTS - 81-5610 ?00 WEST OL.D SHAKOPEE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55420 CITY OF RICHFIE~$~ -- 6700 Portland ~-ve. So. Richfield, Minnesota. M Ilt~o An Equal Opportunity Employer. 612-669-7521 Code Electric itlt e1Tr~lc txtrT -ROII rl-TIIt11T of iti /tOtRAL txWK TAllt! (ftotR~l CtRTIFItlT[ A1NTlTI Mlo •TATt lAlti TAU (1CCT. 110 ~OtNITI. _ Il utllt otSCRVTION UMTlIIIC[ NfOOYMT ~YOYNT coot YIOUIR Estimate ~1 payment for CP799 AHA Fire & Life Safety Renovations 13,436,10 !)~ FYMO Ot-T. •W. o.L. RtF. t. N CA. tMC/R'V 1KNOOR F'ROS• • IYOYMT ~S Cf~jp / / ~f ODOG/ O3S`1/ ^'IG ./v p~ gIR 13,436.1 CK ~ 0 8/22/88 CHECK M0. /f~f)1~E~ A.La. r,.-,..~ , ..;.. , .: ~~ ,r ~~t~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~o~~~a ~?~ 9 August 88 ~• 8.628 C-.2 T0: Sister Mary •Wal•ter Duval • •Academy of the Holy Angels • • •6600 Nico•llet Ave: S.• • • •Ri chf i el d, MN •55423 • , ~: Phase II -Fire & Life Safety • • Renovations Academy of the •Holy Angels • wE AIDE sE~IDlI~c rou sE+oP olu-wlr~s ^ ATTACHED MINTS ^ UNDER SEP. COVER ^ OTHEA ~ VIA ^ FOR APAgVAI ^ ArMK)VEO AS NOTED ^ I~VISE 61E:SUBAAIT ^ )MES DATE DESCRIPTION 2 9 •AugUSt 8 Application fo•r Payment No. 1• _Period from commence to 7-29-88 • o e ectric • Amount $13,436•.10• . Application for Payment Np. 1 apprAved pier •job. inspection and. ~ certi.fiCati.on.of.Emdnueiso.n-P.odas, .IriC. dated $-8-88 . ~~~ PAI ~ AU6 2 ~ '195 corps To: o>NNeA O Y~ Q' ~ _ GEN . CONT. ^ g 0 ~EGH. o /a I EtFG. Contractor _ 0~ Sr. Frieda ~' SIGtHEO_~- .'~ • Kal enze • • .z THOMAS H. STAHL, INC. ARCHITECTS :612-881-5610 ,ti 7f1A`"Weer ni r ~u~vneee sue... ~~i~nn~rutcTnu ~u.:~~'"55x2 .. ... .. ~ ..~ ~~~. __- --- -' -~. ~.•-..~-c ~..~ .-.~....c~v moo. An Equal Opportunity Employer. 612-869-7521 • • Hilite Electric, Inc.. TY[IbTi NEAO R arc TN[ e1TT sxs/l-T IAOII Mr11tNT OF ALL RO[RAL txCl/t TAx[! (f[OLRA~ CtRTI/ICAT[ AlNTiT~ ANO lTATt !AL[! TAx (AGCY. 110 lOt1lIT~. ~. YNR 0[lCRI-TION {NIIT IMC[ MlOOYMT Ar01111T COOL AIIOYMT Estimate ~4 payment for CP799 AHA Fire & Life Safety Renovations $3,703.00 ~K iUNO 0[-T. MN. 1.1. ~[/. t. M CA. tNC/RV Y[NOOR MOl. r AYOYRT ~.~iy ~1 %G ~ O / / / / X10 O QO D 4' n :ice . ~ ~ . 7a "' . ~G _ All Ot CNtCII . 3,703.00 _ OA 8/22/88 CNlCK M0. L lEiiEl IFTBAiE~U-BRQ TO:•Sister Mary•Walter Duval • Academy of the Holy Angels •66b0 Nicollet Ave: S: • • •Riehfield, MN •55423• • ~'•Phase•I - Fire•& Life Safety Renovations Academy of the Holy Angels wE ~uE SENDING You s~~oP oR~-wiNC~s ^ ATTACHEC ~' ~~~ ^ ~ UNDER SEP. COVER ^ CTNER ~ VIA ^ FOR APPROVAL ^ A~'ROVED AS NOTED ^ REVISE6RFSUBMIT ^ hES DATE DESCRIPTION 2 9 ~.+~gust• 88 Appl icatiox~ for Rayment No. 3 - ~ . • -Period fr 88 to 7/22/88 Hilite Electric, Inc. • Amount X3703.00 ' ~~.~ vy ~ ? 'HOMAS H. STAHLk INC.~r. ~ s ARCHITECTS Appljcation fpr payment Nq. 3 apprpved per job ,inspection and recommendation of Emanueison-Podas, Inc. dated 8/8/88 . CFO ausa:2 ~. . GOPlES ro: owNER ^ -GEN .CONT. ^ 1ECN. ^ ELFC. Contractor ~ OTMEi! Srri~4ery ®' Ga~.der T. Martinson E elson-Podas ~`~~-881-5610 ~{ 6700 Portland I-ve. So. Richfield, Minnesota. An Equal Opportunity Employer. 612-869-7521 Metro Building Systems _~ r N[AO - R OAT[ TN[ Ciri tx[NIT FROr MrN[NT OF ALL F[O[RA~ LIICIO[ tAx[i (F'[O[RAL C[RTIFICAT[ A~OOT[T1 ANO [TAT[ fAlti TAx (ACCT. N4 ~ssnl. N YNR 0[iCRIFTION {RRT FRIG[ OI>1QOYNT ANIOYNT C00[ AYOYNT Estimate #1 payment for CP799 AHA Fire & Life Safety Renovations 13,347.00 wn~ FYMO 0[~T. OW. O.L. R[R [. M CA. iNC/RV 1KNOOR MOO. • AYOYNT ~7'~ y90 //3/ /~O aGGO/ /3 az'7 ,_^c< ,o, CNa1I 13,347.00 OA 8/22/88 CNlCK M0. ~Er~ell ~.~.a. IEtTEI IF iBl9~l~9BUpd Wrt 9 au9 ee . 6ae [.z TO: Sister Mary .Wal,ter Duval •Academy of the Holy Angels • • •6640 Nico-llet Ave: S.• •Richfield, MN •55423. ~~Phas,e I,I -Fire & Life Safety Renovations Academy of the Holy Angels wF AID SENDING 1r0U SF;IOP oRAwINGS ^ ATTACHED ~] MINTS ^ IMDER SEP. COVER ^ OTC © VIA ^ FOR APPROVAL ^ APnavEO As NoTEO O REVISE i RESUBAII T ^ ~~ Appl i.cation for Payment No..l .approved .per. our review and jo.b inspection conES DATE DESCRI~nonl 2 9 .Aug. Appl icati.on .for. Payment .No .•1 ~riod from commence to 7/31/88 ' Metro Building Systems • Amount $13,347.00. . P~1ia~t~6~'21988. PA ~D Q~Yy/fi'b' aa~o:. ,yam.. ~ .. . 'HOMAS H. STAHL, INC. ,.ARCHITECTS 00 WEST OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD DOMES TO: OwN91 ^ t~N . ~~' Metro ^ 1ECH- Bldg. ^ ~~' Contractor ^ . OTN6tSr. Frieda ^ . - Kalenze 'T. Marti risori ' 612-881-5610 81 AAM T N~TAN .' MN 5 5 4 ~ A ~`~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 198 Agenda August 22, 1988 Issue Statement: __ Purchase in excess of $5,000 for golf cart paths. - 8ackground• The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. The adopted 1988 budget for Rich Acres Golf Course includes $8,000 for improvements to golf cart paths. This funding includes all base grading work to be done by City staff and equipment, hiring a contractor to finish grade and install approximately 1,780 square yards of asphalt surface, and any other costs associated with the work. The base grading work is complete. 'The work to be done by a contractor is to be completed between September 1, 1988 and October 1, 1988. Three written quotations have been received for the work to be done by a contractor: Vendor Unit Price Estimated Total Plehal Blacktopping, Minnesota Roadways C Bituminous Roadways, Reco~~ended Motion: Authorize a purchase Plehal Blacktopping, in their quotation. Inc. $4.25 $7,565.00 o. $4.75 $8,455.00 Inc. $4.87 $8,668.60 order in the estimated amount of $7,565 for Inc. to do the golf cart. path work specified Basis of Recomiendation: 1. Improvements to the golf cart paths are needed and desirable. 2. The lowest quotation by a responsible vendor was submitted by Plehal Blacktopping, Inc. 3. Funding for the work is included in the adopted 1988 budget. Alternative Reco~oendation: 1. Do not do the work at this time. However, the base work has been done and a fall construction season is preferred. 2. Authorize the work to be done by another vendor. However, Plehal Blacktopping, Inc. is a reputable vendor and has submitted the lowest quotation. 3. Direct staff to obtain additional quotations. However, staff does not believe a less expensive unit price can be -~/ provided by a reputable vendor available to do the work this fall. Discussion/Decision Mode: Because the work is to be completed between September ~~ 1988 and October 1, 1988, this item has been scheduled for the August 22, 1988 consent calendar. It is recommended-the City Council take action at this time. JDP/sae Respectful y submitted, James D. rosser City Man er