The URL can be used to link to this page

09-26-88 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.247 Agenda September 26, 1989 Issue Statement: Consideration of appointments to the Advisory Board of Health. Background: There are currently three vacancies on the Advisory Board of Health. The City Council interviewed applicants on Wednesday, September 21. Copies of their applications are attached to this council letter. Recommended Motion: Appoint persons to the three unexpired terms that will expire January 31, 1989. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Interested persons have applied for appointment, and have been interviewed. 2. Appointments to fill the vacancies would help insure quorums at Advisory Board of Health meetings. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council may request that the vacancies be readvertised. 2. The Council may choose to fill only one or two of the vacancies. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the September 26 City Council agenda for council consideration. Respectfu ly submitted, James D Prosser City nager JDP /eja CITY OF RICHFIEILD, MIMNES ®TA Council Letter No. 246 Agenda September 26, 1988 Issue Statement: Amendment to the offstreet parking permit for Southdale Square at 2900 West 66th Street. Background: Carlson Real Estate Company, has requested an amendment to the existing offstreet parking permit for the Southdale Square at 2900 West 66th Street. The amendment would allow the construction of two additions to the existing Southdale Square building. These additions (shown on the site plan) would increase the building area from 83,073 square feet to 88,203 square feet which is about 5,130 square feet. The property is zoned C -2 general commercial. The existing building does not meet the setback requirements from 65th Street. The existing uses are permitted in C -2 district. Recommended Motion: Deny the offstreet parking permit amendment. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The site does not meet the parking requirements. The proposed addition without the 26 additional parking spaces could potentially cause problems. Parking Analysis Required # Proposed # Actual # Parking Spaces Parking Spaces Parking Spaces Proposed Retail 67,602 sq. ft. Existing Restaurants: Chuck E. Cheese (200 seats) Subway Sandwich (16 seats) Baker's Square (141 seats) Pannekoeken Huis (168 seats) 338 80 (approximately) 6 47 56 527 468 463 Analysis based on the following ratio: Retail - One parking space for every 200 square feet of gross floor area Restaurants - One parking space for every three seats Restaurants w /liquor - One parking space for very two and one -half spaces plus five spaces for each employee plus one space for each 25 feet of banquet or meeting area. The existing retail use, without the restaurants, requires 313 parking spaces. The addition of 5,130 square feet would require an additional 25 parking spaces. The parking analysis indicates that there is no a shortage of parking on the site. However, staff does not have any evidence to show that the existing parking situation is a problem. The service entrance at the northeast portion of the building would eliminate at least one parking space to provide access. 2. The applicant has indicated willingness to provide additional landscaping with boulevard trees and shrubs along Xerxes Avenue. The proposed landscaping in the parking area may improve the appearance. The impact of these shrubs would be very minimal. Maintenance of the landscaping would also be very difficult. 3. The screening wall to the north has needed to be repaired for quite sometime. The applicant has been made aware of the situation. However, no action has been taken. 4. The parking area is blacktopped extensively without adequate landscaping. 5. The curb cut at the southwest corner of the site from Xerxes Avenue does not meet the minimum width requirements of 26 feet. (Alternative Recommendation: Approve the amendment with the following stipulations: 1. The fence along 65th Street be repaired. 2. Underground sprinkler system be provided for the landscaped area along the boulevards. 3. The overall sign plan be approved by staff. 4. Parking at the northeast corner be designated for employees and service vehicles only. 5. The parking area be designated for one way traffic as shown in the 1982 plan. 6. The curb cut at the southwest corner of the site from Xerxes Avenue be brought into compliance with the city's minimum curb cut width requirement of 26 feet. 7. The occupancy permit not be issued until all improvements on the site are completed. Decision Mode: This item is on the City Council agenda for Monday, September 26, 1988. No public hearing is required on this item. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City anager 0 0 n .• II E 26'-0* k. _70 0 z 0 v cn,o ca M pin; _.!g AVENUE S. 7'-C- q25'-O* 10 L Q\ll r 4 K VINCENT AVENUE S. 0 O z to 26'-(r T W Ell _0 7 1 z m z m W Ell 7� BLOOMINGTON 16111 17 r1, CEDAR AVE ' \_ _ _ _I _ _ JI��': LONGFELLOW r1, 7 o - � _ rn .. =nn n= ; O .n < C � O Zm„ <r sd z z S 0 u v E z N ti XERXES AVE WASHBURN i VINCENT - - -J� UPTON - -� THOMAS SHERIDAN r RUSSELL n j QUEEN PENN AVE. L�.I, OLIVER �11 NEWTON MORGAN I LOGAN KNOX JAMES IRVING HUMBOLDT I � GIRARD FFEMONT �\ I, EMERSON II DUPONT ,1 �' COLFAX BRYANT ALDRICH LYNDALE AVE. I' GARFIELD I HARRIET GRAND ��I PLEASANT I PILLSBURY WENTWORTH I BLAISDELL 1 -'COLLET AVE. ��N Is1 JI I�� STEVENS �I I�pI1'i' 2n4 7 3rd —111 CLINTON �I 4111 Sin PORTLAND AVE. OAKLAND li PARK COLUMBUS ail �! CHICAGO ELLIOT 10 th III II I 2 1 h Y 131h ffpj 14111 ' IS "A yl 16 11, I71h B1h CEDAR AVE. LONGFELLOW 19th 20th 21 N 22nd STANDISH 23 .a a r O D O Z N O O ZONING 66TH ST W Limi cc m N Q r 0 w a z w U z i 2900 66TH ST W N MR MULTIPLE DWELLING LoMR -1 MULTIPLE RESIDENCE ® C -2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAND USE 2900 66TH ST W�` 66TH ST W m m N Q L 0 << 4: PARK DUPLEX SCHOOL ® APARTMENT ® COMMERCIAL Ur.Vr.LVI'lVlt:Nl PLAN 2900 66TH ST W , -o"/ S " "�/' 66TH ST W z cc n to t-: MIXED LAND USE INSTITUTIONAL VEA MEDIUM DENSITY / BUFFER PARKS AND OPEN SPACE `i, -0 N CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 245 Agenda September 26, 1988 Issue Statement: Amendment to the offstreet parking permit at 6438 Pleasant Avenue Background: Mr. John A. Bonnes, has requested an amendment to the existing offstreet parking permit at 6438 Pleasant Avenue. The site is used for a seven unit apartment structure which has seven parking spaces in the parking area west of the apartment building. The applicant proposes to provide for two additional parking spaces for a total of nine parking spaces. The ordinance requires fourteen parking spaces. The property is zoned MR -2, multiple residence district. The apartment building does not have the required sideyard setback therefore is nonconforming. There is a fifteen foot green area along the westerly and northerly property lines. The landscaped area along the westerly property line would be reduced to approximately seven feet. The landscaped area along the northerly property line would be eliminated. This is due to the expansion of the parking area to accommodate the additional parking spaces and turning radius. Recommended Motion: Approve the amendment to the offstreet parking permit with the stipulation that perimeter curbing be provided along the southern property line. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposal would provide for two additional parking spaces. This would potentially reduce tenant parking on the street. 2. The applicant proposes to build a new five foot high basket weave fence along the northerly property line. There is also an existing six foot high fence along the westerly property line. It is staff's opinion that the improvements would provide sufficient screening and buffer from the abutting single family residential uses. 3. on site drainage plan was approved by the city engineer. 4. Perimeter curbing will be provided in the parking area except along the southerly property line. 5. The trash enclosure would be sufficiently screened. 6. The width of the curb cut does not meet the minimum city requirement of 26 feet. However, there is not sufficient land to expand the existing 14 foot curb cut. Alternative Recommendation: Deny the amendment on the basis of the following: -the curb cut width does not meet the minimum requirement of 26 feet. /,:?-/ -the expansion of the parking area would reduce the landscaped area. Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for council action on the 26th of September, 1988. No public hearing is required for this item. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City fanager -pq-/,..2. ,f m m s a PLEASANT AVE. S. fm m x_ N —I Z N C F i L7 i MW o W i rn� Drn D� z� Z C rn ZO xERxEs AV, WAS" BURN VINCE MT lr` -�� UPTON THOMAS '"-- SHERIDAN N, RUSSELL II' OUEEN PCNN AVE, I! OLIVE: NEWTON h �_ .ORGAN LOG A N w O a . z M 1 XERxES AVE KNOX � IOGAN JAMES ,II KNOX IRVtMG fi• +'i:�4 '��•�II .LAMES NUYeOLDT ( 1 i i t•F•••••. t.. -��i�' IRVING CIRARD FRE.1tOHT °jr:r•`' III HUMBOLDT tr EMERSON • �� :£•,$•?iti :Y Y. DUPONT nI', : : ?rf.•.pr:ly ::i:j ^:•:s: :.>:::i� �K EMERSON r,T tit. ;rtitir.••i::r' ....::•::r 1 \��r_ /I. COLFAX � � 'rr''6:••�' :a•- nr.•.::a:.•'r ! e DUPONT •:: »...:.:•:i .n:•K•w• I BRYANT Ilt •'e'r: r;??rµ::•....• y,, 16 '�rtyi'Y:ieti. r ..a:..•, 'i r • 'ur: "::Liri. »fr..:: - '1= '1` I: X� ::•.»it�•:3itr:'•:.::',:.%r:-0. •t•:• .. •.. S`. rlr. COLFAX 'rifin'3.v »r:S.r+ :•y.f.•i:, •. iK.• bry AIDRICH •� t: •yrYy.F•rY: i`• :.. i7?: x.':'+: :•., `�+1�I+11 BRYANT LYNDA LE AVE i• _. w' rr » »:I•�r.' '! 'fit' . ^ 1 i 1 I . ii••SA-S •. :T, ! �t ALDRICH GARF I '/i r_� .�N Sii7:. •i::' t' L «Y 1`.• :i � / ~ -�C LYNDAIE AVE. HARRIET GARFIELD GRAND Irylr�- ��.� -�.. ��... }:' :`3 ^•ti�iiir... �� HARRIET PLEASANT �._ -- _ GRA MD PILLSBURY _I " _ I'�•� -e. PLEASANT WENTWO[TN PILLSBURY BLAISDELL WENTWORTH NICOLLET AVE.\\ ===Z BLAISDELL Isr � I• a �� -� �� —� I lip U STEVENS N(COLLET AVE. 1 1• �I '� ;I tXl 2.4 ' li ��.�.� "jam i II I. I• I( "EVENS 3.A � •" ;.y ;� � 2nA CLINTON ' i- �•�.r, �I II - I' J 3,4 Ij B,N ;�:I 9' 'I ••+e II ,r + \: `1�� CLINTON L .-�. PORTLAND AVE � -=--�' E.� II IJ OAKLAND ; Sift I I 11 PARK PORTLAND avE t�Ili I. " �' I' p •I I OAKLAND COLUMBUS piil II CHICAGO PARK b„� I' I: •• r,u '�� I COLUMBUS ELLIOT N tli I' I I 17— i111 I is II �. t n t CHICAGO ,tt lb (I Ii, li ELLIOT loth - t � It 16 2 to M ��i it ti —� ,— ;' 1' II ~ I11• t5 rA ( _^ • �, ^ -1r i� fl t 1 -�1 I• ^�1I 12 to _. 7I .�.��.\� i�...�I ti ` 13 rP �I BLOOMINCTON IT,P IB f• CEDAR AVE LONGFELLOW S T 2 Tz =nom �-c 2 � T r m 2 2 M . _ _ s s D v �I ZO P v P � . I t C 15 to w A. w BLDO.tNGTON 18 tN IT to IB to CEDAR AVE. LONGFELLOW IBt& 2096 21 p 2204 STANDISH 23,a x /02 �3 0) W co � r r 0 rn n D D cn ;.j pp- Z O -q z rn ■ WASHBURN VINCENT UPTON THOMAS It SNf RIDAN RUSSELL _ ��. Yu OUEEN PENN AVE OLIVER -=w NEWTON j; r MORGAN KNOX � IOGAN JAMES ,II KNOX IRVtMG fi• +'i:�4 '��•�II .LAMES NUYeOLDT ( 1 i i t•F•••••. t.. -��i�' IRVING CIRARD FRE.1tOHT °jr:r•`' III HUMBOLDT tr EMERSON • �� :£•,$•?iti :Y Y. DUPONT nI', : : ?rf.•.pr:ly ::i:j ^:•:s: :.>:::i� �K EMERSON r,T tit. ;rtitir.••i::r' ....::•::r 1 \��r_ /I. COLFAX � � 'rr''6:••�' :a•- nr.•.::a:.•'r ! e DUPONT •:: »...:.:•:i .n:•K•w• I BRYANT Ilt •'e'r: r;??rµ::•....• y,, 16 '�rtyi'Y:ieti. r ..a:..•, 'i r • 'ur: "::Liri. »fr..:: - '1= '1` I: X� ::•.»it�•:3itr:'•:.::',:.%r:-0. •t•:• .. •.. S`. rlr. COLFAX 'rifin'3.v »r:S.r+ :•y.f.•i:, •. iK.• bry AIDRICH •� t: •yrYy.F•rY: i`• :.. i7?: x.':'+: :•., `�+1�I+11 BRYANT LYNDA LE AVE i• _. w' rr » »:I•�r.' '! 'fit' . ^ 1 i 1 I . ii••SA-S •. :T, ! �t ALDRICH GARF I '/i r_� .�N Sii7:. •i::' t' L «Y 1`.• :i � / ~ -�C LYNDAIE AVE. HARRIET GARFIELD GRAND Irylr�- ��.� -�.. ��... }:' :`3 ^•ti�iiir... �� HARRIET PLEASANT �._ -- _ GRA MD PILLSBURY _I " _ I'�•� -e. PLEASANT WENTWO[TN PILLSBURY BLAISDELL WENTWORTH NICOLLET AVE.\\ ===Z BLAISDELL Isr � I• a �� -� �� —� I lip U STEVENS N(COLLET AVE. 1 1• �I '� ;I tXl 2.4 ' li ��.�.� "jam i II I. I• I( "EVENS 3.A � •" ;.y ;� � 2nA CLINTON ' i- �•�.r, �I II - I' J 3,4 Ij B,N ;�:I 9' 'I ••+e II ,r + \: `1�� CLINTON L .-�. PORTLAND AVE � -=--�' E.� II IJ OAKLAND ; Sift I I 11 PARK PORTLAND avE t�Ili I. " �' I' p •I I OAKLAND COLUMBUS piil II CHICAGO PARK b„� I' I: •• r,u '�� I COLUMBUS ELLIOT N tli I' I I 17— i111 I is II �. t n t CHICAGO ,tt lb (I Ii, li ELLIOT loth - t � It 16 2 to M ��i it ti —� ,— ;' 1' II ~ I11• t5 rA ( _^ • �, ^ -1r i� fl t 1 -�1 I• ^�1I 12 to _. 7I .�.��.\� i�...�I ti ` 13 rP �I BLOOMINCTON IT,P IB f• CEDAR AVE LONGFELLOW S T 2 Tz =nom �-c 2 � T r m 2 2 M . _ _ s s D v �I ZO P v P � . I t C 15 to w A. w BLDO.tNGTON 18 tN IT to IB to CEDAR AVE. LONGFELLOW IBt& 2096 21 p 2204 STANDISH 23,a x /02 �3 0) W co � r r 0 rn n D D cn ;.j pp- Z O -q z rn ■ ZONING 6438 PLEASANT AVE. S. MR-1 2 FAMILY RESIDENCE M MR MULTIPLE DWELLING MR-2 3-16 UNIT RESIDENCES C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL MR-3 17 AND MORE UNIT RESIDENCES t 6 tg. ml- PC-2 PLANNED GENERAL COMMERCIAL PMR PLANNED MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL--I& N =a a lilt low n ,111 llu, wmmf! I �mmmms I *1 :0 mmil rr WWI i I rte— -- � iz is Its ■ M IS- � a tt t it' St .I it 'r q �t t �t �i !_; �1 L to is !t a is tt t i I �� vv Or // CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 244 Agenda September 26, 1988 Issue Statement: Consideration of a lease between the City of Richfield and Wally McCarthy's Oldsmobile for use of certain City owned right -of -way property. Background: The City of Richfield has previously identified the fact that McCarthy's Oldsmobile uses a portion of City owned right -of -way to park vehicles for display and storage uses. At the August 3, 1988 Council Work Session, the Coucnil directed staff to negotiate a lease with McCarthy to resolve this matter. The City is now requesting that McCarthy lease the property north of the right -of -way line between Morgan Avenue and Knox Avenue from the City. The City has a similar lease with Walser Automotive for use of certain City owned property. The lease proposed by the City basically provides for payments of $2,000 per year for rent. That amount to be adjusted on an annual basis, but no increase shall be more than 10% per year. A condition of the lease is that the area be landscaped according to City specifications. The City staff has been in negotiations with Mr. McCarthy since November, 1986. While much progress has been made, two basic issues remain: -Mr. McCarthy is proposing to pay a lease amount of approximately $1,000 per year. The City has calculated that the lease amount should be $2,000 per year. The City's calculated lease amount is based upon a conservative rental value estimate prepared by the City Assessor. This square foot lease amount is the same for McCarthy, as it is for Walser although Walser leases a larger area and, therefore, pays a greater amount. -The landscaping specifications have not been agreed upon by Mr. McCarthy. Again, despite extensive negotiations, we have not been able to reach a final agreement regarding the landscaping in the ten foot boulevard strip. The City has proposed a ground area with shrubs and trees. McCarthy has proposed to install an aggregate material and place planters with landscaping materials at intervals along 78th Street. Although not ideal, the City has agreed to this alternative. However, Mr. McCarthy has not produced the final specifications requested by the City. Mr. McCarthy has been advised of the unresolved issues related to this lease and has been requested to attend the September 26, City Council meeting. 7r / /- / Recommended Motion: Approve the execution of a lease between the City of Richfield and Wally McCarthy Oldsmobile for certain City owned right -of -way in the amount of $2,000 per year. Advise Mr. McCarthy if lease is not executed within ten days, he will be required to remove his vehicles and other property from City owned right -of -way. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The City has a policy that parties using City owned right -of- way pay for this use. 2. McCarthy has agreed to enter into a lease with the City for use of this right -of -way. However, final terms,-,., baKQ not been agreed upon. 3. McCarthy Oldsmobile is currently using city owned right -of- way to park and display cars for sale. This is in violation of City code. 4. Installation of landscaping in front of this business will help improve the appearance of this area. 5. Installation of landscaping will help assure that vehicles will not be parked within ten feet of curb. Parking of vehicles within ten feet of curb inhibits the City's ability to properly plow snow. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the lease and request that McCarthy Oldsmobile cease using this property. 2. Do not approve the lease and let McCarthy Oldsmobile continue to use this property at no charge. 3. Approve the lease in the form agreeable to Mr. McCarthy. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the September 26, 1988 City Council agenda for Council discussion. Respectfu submitted, James .1 Prosser City M ager JDP /e j a .r i/ — Recommended Motion: Approve the execution of a lease between the City of Richfield and Wally McCarthy Oldsmobile for certain City owned right -of -way in the amount of $2,000 per year. Advise Mr. McCarthy if lease is not executed within ten days, he will be required to remove his vehicles and other property from City owned right -of -way. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The City has a policy that parties using City owned right -of- way pay for this use. 2. McCarthy has agreed to enter into a lease with the City for use of this right -of -way. However, final terms, have not been agreed upon. 3. McCarthy Oldsmobile is currently using city owned right -of- way to park and display cars for sale. This is in violation of City code. 4. Installation of landscaping help improve the appearance 5. Installation of landscaping will not be parked within t vehicles within ten feet of to properly plow snow. in front of this business will of this area. will help assure that vehicles en feet of curb. Parking of curb inhibits the City's ability Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the lease and request that McCarthy Oldsmobile cease using this property. 2. Do not approve the lease and let McCarthy Oldsmobile continue to use this property at no charge. 3. Approve the lease in the form agreeable to Mr. McCarthy. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the September 26, 1988 City Council agenda for Council discussion. Respectfu submitted, James ?Magoeir rsser City JDP /eja a. // -,� LEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEASE AGREEMENT is made this day of , 1988, by and between the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation (herein referred to as "Lessor "), and WALLY MCCARTHY'S OLSDMOBILE, INC. a Minnesota corporation (herein referred to as "Tenant "). RECITALS 1. Lessor represents to Tenant that Lessor is the owner in fee simple absolute of the right -of -way of the public street designated 78th Street (the "Street ") within the corporate limits of Lessor, and has the legal authority to enter into this Lease. 2. Tenant represents to Lessor that Tenant has the legal right and authority to enter into this Lease. 3. Tenant occupies the real property adjoining the Street on its north right -of -way line between Morgan Avenue and Knox Avenue ( "Tenant's Property ") which is used by Tenant for the conduct of an automobile agency for the sale of new and used motor vehicles, repair of motor vehicles, and related purposes ( "Tenant's Business "). 4. Lessor has informed Tenant that Lessor will permit continued use by Tenant of the portion of the Street between the face of the curb and its north right -of -way line ( "Boulevard Area ") adjacent to Tenant's Property for Tenant's Business, in accordance with and subject to the provisions in this Lease. 5. Lessor represents to Tenant that Lessor has undertaken and intends to continue a general city -wide policy and program to prohibit the use of city owned boulevard areas of public streets rights -of -way by adjoining commercial enterprises without a lease of such area, or a portion thereof, between Lessor and the adjoining commercial enterprise(s); provided, however, that the failure of Lessor to continue in the general implementation of such policy and program shall not constitute a default of Lessor's obligations hereunder. 6. Lessor represents to Tenant that Lessor has undertaken and intends to continue a general city -wide policy and program to require in connection with other regulatory activities of the City, that commercial enterprises, at their cost, beautify the adjacent boulevard area by landscaping or other appropriate means; provided, however, that the failure of the Lessor to continue in the general implementation of such policy and program shall not constitute a default of Lessor's obligations hereunder. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the representations, covenants and agreements of the parties herein contained, and intending to be legally bound thereby, the parties hereto hereby mutually agree as follows: 1 itr //- .i Section 1. Leased Premises. Lessor leases to Tenant and Tenant leases from Lessor the real property located within the corporate limits of Lessor, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: That part of the right -of -way of the Street, between Knox Avenue and the driveway entrance to Tenant's Property which lies between the north right -of -way line of the Street and a line parallel with and ten feet north of the face of the curb of the Street and that part of the right -of -way of the Street between said driveway and Morgan Avenue which lies between the north right -of -way line of the street and the face of the curb ( "Leased Premises "), extended easterly and westerly; together with the right of access to the Leased Premises. Section 2. Design and Maintenance. The Leased Premises shall be designed, laid out and constructed in accordance with the Plans which are attached hereto in Exhibit B, and Tenant may not thereafter modify or alter the Leased Premises without the prior written approval of Lessor. Tenant warrants to Lessor that all improvements will be established within six (6) months of the date of this Lease pursuant to Exhibit B and will be maintained in good condition thereafter. Prior to the completion of construction, as certified by the Lessor, Tenant shall not utilize or occupy any portion of the Leased Premises lying southerly of Line "A" as shown on Exhibit B for parking purposes. Tenant shall, during the term of this Lease maintain the premises in a safe, clean and operational condition and shall install and maintain the landscaping and other improvements shown on Exhibit B. Section 3. Term. The term of this Lease shall commence on the date hereof and continue until terminated in accordance with the provisions of Section 9. Section 4. Improvements. The Tenant at its cost shall cause the south ten feet of the Boulevard Area to be improved in accordance with the improvement plan described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof ( "Landscaped Area "). Such improvements shall be completed to Lessor's satisfaction not later than 90 days from the date of this Lease. A copy of the specifications for improvements shall be included in Exhibit C. Improvements shall be installed in accordance with specifications unless changes are authorized by Lessor. Section 5. Use. The Leased Premises shall be used by Tenant for the display of new and used motor vehicles, the maintenance of existing light standards and lights, the advertising of the business of Tenant by signs, pennants, banners, streamers and related materials and devices, and for related business purposes; provided, however, that all such activities are subject to the ordinances of the City of Richfield. Section 6. Maintenance. Tenant at its cost shall maintain the Leased Premises in good repair and condition. Except for 2 repairs or maintenance necessitated by vandalism to the Landscaped Area or the trees, shrubs, bushes, flowers, structures, or boxes therein or by causes not within the reasonable control of the Tenant, Tenant at its cost shall maintain the Landscaped Area in good condition. Section 7. Indemnity /Insurance. Tenant shall hold Lessor harmless from all damages arising out of any injury to person(s), including death, or damage to property occurring in, on or about the Leased Premises, except that Lessor shall hold Tenant harmless for damages resulting from the acts or omissions of Lessor or its officials or employees. Tenant shall also indemnify and save harmless (including defense costs) the Lessor from any liens or encumbrances caused or suffered by Tenant to be placed on the Leased Premises. Tenant at its cost shall maintain public liability and property damage insurance, with liability limits in the amounts customarily carried by Tenant, insuring against liability of Tenant arising out of and in connection with Tenant's use and occupancy of the Leased Premises. Section 8. Default. 8.01 The occurrence of any of the following shall constitute a default by Tenant: (a) Failure to pay rent, taxes or special assessments when due, if the failure continues for ten days after notice has been given by Lessor to Tenant. (b) Abandonment and vacation of the Leased Premises (failure to occupy the Leased Premises for 60 consecutive days shall be deemed an abandonment and vacation). (c) Failure to perform any other provision of this Lease if the failure to perform is not cured within 30 days after notice has been given to Tenant by Lessor. If the default cannot reasonably be cured within 30 days, Tenant shall not be in default if Tenant commences to cure within the 30 day period and diligently and in good faith continues to cure the default. (d) Lessor, at any time after Tenant commits a default, can cure the default at Tenant's cost. If Lessor at any time, by reason of Tenant's default, pays any sum or does any act that requires the payment of any sum, the sum paid by Lessor shall be due immediately from Tenant to Lessor at the time the sum is paid. 8.02 (a) Lessor shall be in default if it fails or refuses to perform any provision of this Lease that it is obligated to perform if the failure to perform is not 3 ,sr /' � cured within 30 days after notice of default has been given by Tenant to Lessor. If the default cannot reasonably be cured within 30 days, Lessor shall not be in default if Lessor commences to cure the default within the 30 day period and diligently and in good faith continues to cure the default. (b) Tenant, at any time after Lessor commits a default, can cure the default at Lessor's cost. If Tenant at anytime, by reason of Lessor's default, pays the sum or does any act that requires the payment of any sum, the sum paid by Tenant shall be due immediately from Lessor to Tenant, at the time the sum is paid. If Lessor fails to reimburse Tenant as required by this paragraph, Tenant shall have the right to withhold from future rent due the sum Tenant has paid until Tenant is reimbursed in full for the sum. Section 9. Termination. 9.01 Lessor may terminate this Lease upon the occurrence of any one of the following events: (a) An act of default by Tenant. (b) A local improvement of the Street consisting of expansion of the travelled portion, sidewalk, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, or water main located within the Leased Premises. Lessor shall give Tenant not less than 90 days notice of the termination of this Lease. Tenant shall, not later than the effective date of such termination, remove all fixtures from the Leased Premises. Failure to do so shall constitute an abandonment of all such fixtures to Lessor. Upon termination, Lessor shall refund to Tenant the prorata share of the rent paid for the unused term of this Lease. Such refund constitutes the sole and exclusive compensation available to Tenant per termination of the Lease and for the re- utilization of the Leased Premises for local improvement purposes. 9.02 Tenant or Lessor may terminate this Lease upon 90 days written notice to Lessor. Section 10. Notices. Any notice or communication that either party desires or is required to give to the other party shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first -class mail, and addressed as follows: 4 -rr// 6 To Lessor: City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 To Tenant: President Wally McCarthy's Oldsmobile, Inc. 1900 West 78th Street Richfield, MN 55423 Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of such change. Notice shall be deemed communicated within three days from the date of mailing. section 11. Rent. Tenant shall upon the execution of this Lease pay Lessor the sum of $2,000 rent for the Term (which the parties stipulate to be the fair rental value for the Premises when used in connection with Tenant's auto dealership). On or before the date on which the Tenant gives notice of renewal, the parties agree to negotiate in good faith the rent for such annual renewal term. The parties agree that in no event may the rent for any annual renewal term exceed the rent for the immediate preceding term by more than 10 %. If the parties are unable to agree upon a rent for the renewal term, then the Lessor shall have the right to reject the Tenant's renewal notice. This Lease shall then terminate upon the expiration of the then current term, unless Tenant tenders to Lessor an amount equal to one -half of the rent for the immediately preceding term, plus 10 %, in which case this Lease shall terminate 180 days following the expiration of the then current term. The negotiated annual rent for any renewal term shall be paid to Lessor on the first day of such renewal term. Failure to make any such payments when due shall, upon the giving of thirty (30) days written notice of termination, be grounds for immediate termination of this Lease. Section 12. Real Estate Taxes and Special Assessments. In the event that the Premises should become subject to either ad valorem real estate taxation or special assessments, Tenant agrees that, in addition to the rent payable to Lessor pursuant to Section 11, it will, for all the years in which this Lease remains in effect, pay to Lessor an amount equal to the real property taxes and special assessments due and payable in that year. Failure to make any such payments when due shall, upon the giving of thirty (30) days written notice of termination, be grounds for immediate termination of this Lease. Section 13. General Provisions. (a) Entire Agreement. Except as supplemented in a writing signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought, this Lease and the appendices contain all of the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties 5 '7-//-7 with respect to the subject matter of this Lease, and no other promises, agreements or understandings written or oral, regarding the subject matter of this Lease, shall be of any force or effect. (b) Modifications. No change, modification or waiver of any provision of this Lease shall be valid or binding unless it is in writing, dated subsequent to the date hereof and signed by the parties intended to be bound. No waiver of any breach, term or condition of this Lease by any party shall constitute a subsequent waiver of the same or any other breach, term or condition. (c) Counterparts. This Lease may be executed simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. (d) Headings. The headings used in this Lease are for convenience only and shall not be deemed to constitute a part hereof, and shall not be deemed to limit, characterize or in any way affect the provisions of this Lease. (e) Recitals Incorporated. The recitals to this Lease are incorporated into and constitute an integral part of this Lease. (f) Assignment. Tenant may sell or assign all or part of Tenant's right, title and interest to this Lease to any third party, related or unrelated to Tenant, in conjunction with an assignment as its interest in Tenant's property, without obtaining Lessor's consent provided that such third party agrees to assume all of Tenant's obligations and abide by all terms and conditions of this Lease. Upon any assignment consented to by Lessor, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, Tenant shall have no further liability to Seller under this Lease and Lessor shall look solely to such third party for performance. (g) Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. (h) Binding Effect. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Lease and the terms, conditions and covenants contained herein and transactions contemplated hereunder shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors, representatives and permitted assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Lease to be executed effective the date and year first above written. City of Richfield Attest: Its Mayor City Clerk Its City Manager Wally McCarthy's Oldsmobile, Inc. Its President 7 'i o STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1987, by and , the Mayor and City Manager, respectively, of the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 19872 by , the of Wally McCarthy's Oldsmobile, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public 0 W/d CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 243 Agenda September 26, 1988 Issue Statement: Consultant agreement for update of Richfield's Master Park Plan. Background: The Master Park Plan now being used was written in 1969 with public meetings in 1970 as a follow up for explanation and implementation direction. At that time the City established a policy of park development which placed emphasis on the complete development of one park at a time. Implementation of the Plan was slowed down when funding sources other than the Liquor Store profits were no longer available at the previous levels. The City's Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1982, states: The City Council is exploring the possibility of reassessing the park system to insure that it con- tinues to meet the city's needs. This reassessment is necessary because the master plan is ten years old, the city's population is getting older, the city's population is declining and types of recre- ational needs are changing. The reassessment will look at recreational programming (active and passive), demographic impacts including population density and mix patterns, economics and age characteristics, societal patterns and cycles within Richfield, energy impacts on Richfield, environmental considerations, and personnel needs, qualifications and finances. Interest in updating the Plan began anew as the City struggled with ways to complete the original Plan which includes upgrading several neighborhood parks as well as completing the City's primary community park at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield. Attention has also focused on the programmatic aspects of the park system as well as the physical aspects and there has been concern expressed about funding sources. The proposed 1989 Capital Budget includes $30,000 for updating the Master Park Plan. The project is to review the existing Plan and make any revisions deemed necessary. The study will include physical as well as programmatic aspects of the Richfield park system and will give consideration to possible funding sources for improvements to the system. The process of updating the Plan will include public input through community meetings as well as review of the comprehensive land use plan, transportation system and population characteristics. Although some of the work will be performed by the City staff and there will be input by the Community Services Commission, a consultant will tie the package together and provide an unbiased viewpoint. 77 /�f -/ City staff has met with Don Brauer, formerly of Brauer and Associates, the firm which did the current Master Park Plan. Mr. Brauer has agreed to be the consultant for the Study. It is hoped the new Plan will be completed early in 1989. Recommended Motion: Authorize an agreement between the City of Richfield and Don Brauer for consultant services related to the updating of the Richfield Master Park Plan for an amount not to exceed $30,000. Basis of Recommendation: 1. There is a desire to update the Richfield Master Park Plan. 2. Don Brauer is qualified and available to serve as consultant. 3. Sufficient funding is available for the work. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not update the Master Park Plan at this time. 2. Use another consultant for the work. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the September 26, 1988 City Council meeting. It is suggested the Council take action at this time to provide sufficient time to complete the Study for use in preparation and consideration of the 1990 Capital Budget and the 199111995 Capital Improvement Program. Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci Manager JDP /eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 242 Agenda September 26, 1988 Issue Statement: Second reading of an ordinance amendment correcting grantee on transfer of City cable television franchise ordinance. Background: On June 13, 1988, the City Council approved the second reading of an amendment to the cable franchise ordinance. The purpose of this ordinance amendment was to transfer the franchise to a new grantee (name change). In the process of adopting the ordinance, a technical error developed which has flawed the transfer process. The ordinance amendment furnished by the law firm of Herbst & Thue contained an incorrect name for the grantee. Thus, the ordinance amendment listed the grantee as "Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota, Inc." while the correct title should have been "Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc." This error in the ordinance must be corrected in order for the transfer to proceed as originally approved. At the September 12, 1988 City Council meeting, the City Council approved first reading of this ordinance and scheduled the public hearing and second reading for September 26, 1988. Recommended Motion: Adopt the ordinance amending the name change of grantee for the cable television franchise. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The transfer of the franchise to the new grantee was previously approved on June 13, 1988. 2. Within that approval process, there was an inadvertent error in the actual name of the grantee. 3. This error must be corrected to complete the name change process. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could decide not to approve this corrected ordinance. However, that would impair the transfer process previously approved. Discussion /Decision Mode: This ordinance should be completed as quickly as possible so that Rogers may proceed with the transfer as scheduled. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP:eja BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX NO. E2 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE TO CHANGE THE NAME OF GRANTEE. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. That Article I, Section 2, Paragraph J of said Appendix be amended to read as follows: J. "Grantee" is Regera- Gal9�eatems- e�frtnesaa -bm Partnersl °rig,-- afar�esata -�Mec gartriers�- -k Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. a Minnesota corporation ,- -as tl�e - Gerrerab - Partner SECTION 2. This Ordinance will be effective in accordance with the provisions of Article XIV of said Ordinance, including delivery to the City of the acceptance, opinion of legal counsel, guarantees and other documents as required by said Article XIV, and provided further, however, that it shall become effective only if all of the cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield adopt an ordinance similar to this Ordinance within ninety (90) days after the adoption of this Ordinance. Section 3. Subject to the provisions of Section 2 hereof, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this : _:1 day of Steven J. Quam Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk U CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 241 Agenda September 26, 1988 Issue Statement: Review Storm Sewer Study findings and discuss possible solutions. Background: In late July, 1987 an unprecedented amount of rain fell on the City of Richfield. Because of the flooding problems experienced in certain sections of the City, the City entered into agreement with Orr - Schelen - Mayeron and Associates, Inc. (OSM) for purposes of studying the City's storm sewer system. During the course of the Study, a public meeting was hosted by the Community Services Advisory Commission on May 24, 1988. The Community Services Commission established the following targets for consideration is preparing their recommendation: - Benefit /cost ratio for the improvement project must be greater than 1. - Projects considered for funding must be within areas where structural damage is likely to occur for rainfall events with a 2% or greater chance of occurrence. - Improvements should be constructed on public property. - Improvements should be funded through the storm sewer utility. - City should provide technical expertise and education to residents in areas not meeting these criteria. - City may reasonably support improvements with a total cost range from $500,000 to $1,000,000. The Community Services Commission unanimously recommends the City Council authorize the following improvements which are estimated to cost $161,000: Priority Ranking Site Location 1 A -1 Alley east of Xerxes south of 66th Street 2 L' -38 Intersection of Bloomington and 79th Street 3 H -8 Monroe Park 4 T -20 Stevens Avenue and 68th Street 5 P -16 Colfax Avenue and 77 -1/2 Street 6 0' -41 69th Street and 70th Street and Penn Avenue 7 C' -29 66th Street and Fourth Avenue 8 N' -40 66th Street and Newton Avenue In addition, some members of the Commission felt improvement should be made at Priority Ranking 9, Site B -2, an alley east of Xerxes Avenue, south of 69th Street. This improvement, in the amount of $430,000, would bring the estimated cost to $591,000. However, since the Commission review of the report, information has come forth that improvements being made by the City of Edina will offer flood relief to this site. The Commission, at their September 13, 1988 meeting, unanimously recommended the City Council pursue the Edina solution and not spend Richfield dollars on this project. The Commission also recommended the City Council authorize a maximum of $30,000 for technical expertise and assistance to be provided to Richfield residents upon request if the property owners wish to increase their level of protection at their own request. The concept of taking advantage of opportunities as they are presented was a common thread throughout the Commission discussions. An example of this opportunity has been briefly outlined above with regard to Site B -2. Other opportunities may be related to redevelopment projects or traffic improvements projects associated with I35W or I494. Copies of the Study report and an addendum have been made available to the City Council. The City Council, the Community Services Commission, the consultant and City staff discussed the report and the Commission recommendation(s) at the August 1, 1988 City Council study session. It was noted that the improvements recommended would increase the level of protection from flooding but there is no guarantee that properties will not flood. The city manager stated that an approximate 20% increase in the storm sewer utility will be proposed excluding the financing of the proposed storm water improvements recommendations. As requested, the formal presentation of the report to the public and Council is scheduled for September 26, 1988. People signing the attendance list for the May 24 Community Services Commission sponsored meeting were mailed notice of this Council meeting. Notice of the Council meeting has also been in the Richfield Sun - Current and on the cable television channel 34 Bulletin Board. Members of the City staff and the consultant will be available to discuss the report, its findings and the recommendation(s) of the Community Services Advisory Commission. The City Council is currently conducting budget hearings. It should be noted the proposed 1989 operating budget for the storm sewer utility and the proposed 1989 Capital Budget do not include any funding for storm sewer system improvements outlined in the report or as recommended by the Community Services Commission. Any authorization by the Council to proceed with improvements would necessitate action also being taken related to funding. Recommended Motion: Accept the report of the storm sewer system study conducted by OSM, order any improvements deemed to be in the best interest of the City and its residents, and authorize the necessary funding for those improvements and /or actions. Basis of Recommendation: 1. A complete and thorough study of the City's storm sewer system has been conducted by an independent consultant. 2. The Community Services Advisory Commission has met with the public, reviewed the report and its findings, and has made its recommendation(s) to the City Council. Alternative Recommendation: Do not authorize any improvements to the City's storm sewer system as the current level of protection is at an acceptable level for the majority of rainfall events. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been scheduled for the September 26, 1988 City Council meeting. Action is not necessary at this time and may be taken at any time. However, if improvements are to be made, it would be advantageous to provide sufficient time for establishing the funding process through budget considerations which are currently in progress and sufficient time to plan for construction and the whole of the process necessary before improvements can be in place. Respectfully submitted, James Znager rosser City JDP /eja n i I-(-- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 240 Agenda September 26, 1988 Issue Statement: Continuation of the public hearing to consider specially assessing the Interstate /Lyndale /Nicollet (ILN) area for current maintenance services for the period of January 1 - December 31, 1989 - City Project No. 846. Background: This public hearing was opened on September 12, 1988; however, the published legal notice contained an error which stated the hearing would be held on September 26, 1988. Therefore, the hearing was continued to consider the establishment of a special assessment district for current maintenance service costs in the ILN redevelopment area, that area approximately bounded by Lyndale Avenue, the railroad tracks, 77th Street and 78th Street including that property known as Hennepin County Property Identification Number 34- 028 -24 -33 -0073. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to all owners of multiple residential and commercial property in the area and published in the official newspaper as required by law. The higher level of maintenance proposed to be provided in the area includes landscape maintenance of common properties through f tree trimming, mowing, fertilizing and edging; irrigation maintenance; painting and repair of wood furniture; trash removal and general maintenance through repair and replacement of lights, sidewalks, curbs, furniture and plantings; and performance of other specialized maintenance functions. These items are extra services provided directly to the ILN project area and do not include services provided to the entire City. The estimated maintenance cost for the period January 1 through December 31, 1989 is $6,700. All multiple residential and commercial properties would be assessed on the basis of area, with each square foot of assessable property to be assessed equally, for the costs incurred in the maintenance of common areas. 1988 is the first year, and a partial year at that, of this special assessment for current maintenance services. Cost comparisons with previous years are, therefore, not available at this time. Recommended Motions Following the c ose of public hearing, adopt the resolution ordering the ILN maintenance work for the period January 1 through December 31, 1989 (City Project No. 846) to be done and the costs to be specially assessed. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Notice of proposed assessment has been published in the official newspaper. T" // 2. Each affected property owner has been notified of the proposed assessment. 3. Continued maintenance service for this area is recommended in order to sustain the current standards for landscaping and maintenance which have been successful over the past years in another redevelopment area. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Council may choose to establish a set rate and limit the maintenance performed to that dollar amount. However, due to variables such as weather and accidents, staff believes the redevelopment area could suffer if maintenance were to be limited. 2. Council may choose to have individual property owners perform maintenance of the common areas. This may, however, involve the City to a great extent to work out the details of the maintenance program. The special assessment as proposed does provide the coordination which may not be available through this possible alternative. Discussion /Decision Mode: A public hearing has been continued to the September 26, 1988 City Council meeting. City staff will be available to answer any questions which may arise before or during the hearing. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP /eja #7- '�— RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT FOR INTERSTATE /LYNDALE /NICOLLET (ILN) MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 1989 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1989 CITY PROJECT NO. 846 WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinance, the City Council of the City of Richfield did establish a special assessment district and did propose that certain current services be undertaken by the City in the Interstate /Lyndale /Nicollet (ILN) Redevelopment Area, the boundaries of which approximate Lyndale Avenue, 78th Street, the railroad tracks and 77th Street including the property known as Hennepin County Property Identification Number 34- 028 -24 -33 -0073, and that the cost of such services be specially assessed against benefited property, and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 7430, adopted by the City Council on August 8, 1988, fixed a date for a public hearing on the undertaking of such current maintenance service project for that area referred to as the ILN and the levying of special assessment to bear the cost thereof, and WHEREAS, the owner of each multiple residential and commercial property within the area proposed to be assessed for the service described in said resolution was mailed a copy of the required notice, and WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice of the hearing and one publication of the required notice was given at least two weeks in advance as required by law, and WHEREAS, the public hearing was held on September 26, 1988 at which time all interested parties desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the following examples of current services of the City shall be undertaken by the City within the ILN district, which area constitutes the special assessment district, with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against benefited multiple residential and commercial property within the district: Landscape maintenance of common properties; including, but not limited to, tree trimming, mowing, fertilizing, edging; Irrigation maintenance; Painting and repair of wood furniture; Trash removal and general maintenance; including, but not limited to, repairs and replacement of lights, sidewalks, curbs, furniture, plantings. 2. That the work to be performed may be by day labor, by City force, by contract or by any combination thereof. �. indL tine aesignaLea perioa or the project shall be from January 1 through December 31, 1989. Costs of the project shall be collected in the manner provided in the Richfield Ordinance Code. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 26th day of September, 1988. Steven J. Quam, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 7r( CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 239 Agenda September 26, 1988 Issue Statement: Public hearing on a planned unit development and conditional use permit for the HUB Shopping Center. Background: Bradley Real Estate Trust, owner of the HUB Shopping Center, has requested approval of a planned unit development and a conditional use permit for the center. The plan proposes the following: -to utilize the existing structure and refurbish; - internal remodeling; -to increase the total floor area by 2,598 square feet; -to open the lower level up by changing the grade at the southwest corner of the center; -to refurbish the facade with the addition of two architectural focal points (a tower and new facade on the 66th Street side and new facade on the north to northwest corner of the 65th Street side); - integrated signage and lighting; - additional landscaping and irrigation; -a maintenance program for the property to include all of the landscaped areas, sidewalks, public furniture, snow removal, and litter and trash removal; - redesigned parking and circulation; and - resurfacing of the parking lot and perimeter curbing. The implementation of the plan would take place in three Phases, as follows: Phase I: Arcade Area A. Dana's Anchor - Women's Clothing Retailer) B. Arcade Walkway and Arcade Signage C. HUB Tower and signage Anticipated Completion Date Phase II: Site Improvements & Renovation: March 1989 March 1989 March 1989 A. Sidewalk Oct -ober 1989 B. Site Lighting October 1989 C. Parking October 1989 D. Landscaping October 1989 _4 E. Remaining Signage F. Facade G. Bank Building Renovation H. Korner Plaza -Upper Level Phase III: Remaining Center A. Korner Plaza -Lower Level October 1989 October 1989 August 1989 Renovation August 1989 Renovation: Renovation April 1990 B. Lower Level and Warehouse Renovation April 1990 The applicant intends to complete Phase I by March, 1989, Phase II by October, 1989, and Phase III by April, 1990. The applicant has submitted a schedule of improvements in the attached letter from Bradley Real Estate Trust dated September 8, 1988. The property is within the LHN Redevelopment Area and is guided for Central Business District Development in the Comprehensive Plan. The property is zoned PC -2 planned general commercial. A further evaluation and discussion of the proposal is detailed in Attachment 1. Ordinance Requirement: 1. Section 530, outlines the requirements for PUD plan approval. 2. Section 545.09 outlines the requirements for conditional use permit approval. Recommendation: To approve the PUD Plan and the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. A final detailed landscaping plan be submitted for staff review and approval. 2. A final grading and drainage plan be submitted to the City Engineer, which has been certified by a registered engineer and indicates flood protection equivalent to 2 feet of freeboard above the 100 year flood elevation. 3. A resurfacing and perimeter curbing plan for the parking lot be submitted for staff review and approval. 4. All curb cuts, and driving isle widths meet the city requirements for offstreet parking areas. 5. All improvements meet city building and fire codes. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposal meets the city's LHN Redevelopment Plan. 2. The proposal is consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan requirements for the central business district. 3. The Planning commission approved the proposal, subject to staff approval of final submitted plans. 4. The proposal improves the traffic circulation, and aesthetics of the center. This plan could potentially increase the retail focus of the area. 5. The proposal does not substantially change the structure, other than the HUB Tower. 6. The total number of parking spaces would be adequate for the HUB Shopping Center as proposed. Alternative Recommendation: 1. To deny the PUD plan and the conditional use permit on the basis that the applicant has provided insufficient information to determine the impact of the plan. (Of primary concern is the final plan for grading and drainage). However, this would create difficulty in leasing arrangements with a number of potential new tenants. 2. Continue the public hearing until all final submittals are made. Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled before the City Council at 7:00 p.m. Monday, September 26, 1988. The public hearing will be held in the Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall. Mailed notices were sent to property owners within 350 feet of the HUB Shopping Center. The legal notice has been published in the newspaper. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP:sae '_� J HUB PROPOSAL ATTACHMENT I EVALUATION OF SITE DATA, PARKING & CIRCULATION SITE DATE EXISTING PROPOSED Total Land Area 578,974 sq. ft. 578,974 sq. ft. Total Floor Area 217,149 sq. ft. 219,747 sq. ft. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.375 0.379 Total Parking 895 905 -The floor area ratio of 0.38 is well below the allowable ratio of 0.52. -The new parking layout proposed would increase the total number of existing parking spaces by 10 spaces. -The parking layout indicates an improved traffic circulation pattern from both 65th and 66th Street. -The pedestrian circulation plan adequately addresses the need to provide for pedestrians under the LHN Guidelines. - Loading docks have been provided for on both the northeast and northwest corners of the center. These 2 service areas appear to be adequate in terms of circulation of trucks and separation from retail traffic areas. -The applicant will submit a plan of the parking lot indicating what areas they propose to resurface with 2" of bituminous cover or just seal coat, which will be subject to staff review and approval. In addition, all perimeter curbing is to be indicated on this plan, also subject to staff approval. EVALUATION OF LANDSCAPING, IRRIGATION AND MAINTENANCE -The landscape plan increases both the shrub massing and over story boulevard trees along the perimeter of the Center and within planted medians in the parking lot area. The plantings enhance the Center through screening the parked cars from the boulevard, and breaking up the horizontal planes of the building mass. -The property will be irrigated with an underground sprinkling system in the boulevard areas, also along vacated Pillsbury Avenue at the southwestern corner of the property, and along the main esplanade entry off 66th Street. The applicant will be responsible for the installation and the city will maintain the sprinklers in the boulevard areas. -A detailed maintenance program and commitment has been submitted by the applicant which addresses all maintenance concerns (see attached letter from Towle Real Estate dated August 30, 1988. -The plantings are responsive to the LHN Guidelines and provide additional screening to the residents to the north of the Center. (In addition, the city presently maintains a landscape buffer along 65th Street. EVALUATION OF SIGNAGE LIGHTING AND BUILDING MATERIALS SIGNAGE. A complete list of signage proposed and existing but renovated) has been submitted on plan sheets A9, A10, and All. The signage on the 60' high tower would be readily visible from the residential area to the north and south of the Hub Center. Under our sign ordinance, maximum height for outdoor advertising displays (billboards), is 27 feet with a special permit provision maximum of 48 feet. There is a limitation of two display faces and the display faces must not be visible from residential zoned property within 300 feet of the sign. -The requirement for directional signage by our ordinance is not to exceed 3' x 41. Both the existing and new proposed directional signage is shown as 712" x 2' x 011. -The remaining signage submitted appears to be in conformance with our sign ordinance. Under 530.01 Planned Unit Development (PUD) district, standards may be considered as merely guidelines and may be departed from in the approval process. In addition, 416.03 subd. 6. Special approval from Council. states in the case of an application for a sign of unusual height, or location, or location, the manager shall refer such sign to the Council for approval. - Public Safety has indicated they would further review the plans before issuing any permits, particularly for fire lane signage and access to the tower lighted signage area. - LIGHTING. Plan sheet A3a specifies lighting proposed for the HUB Center. Our ordinance requires that the lighting extends no glare beyond the perimeter of the property, which would allow for a range of approximately 5 foot candles or less. The plan appears to be within the requirements for illumination intensity and will utilize a combination of Cobrahead lights and shoe -box design lighting. The final lighting plan will be reviewed by the City Building Inspector for approval prior to the issuance of a permit. - BUILDING MATERIALS. The proposed building materials would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Materials proposed include: Earthtone face brick - for the columns and HUB Color textured modular blocks - for base of the and for base of Facia at the Canopy - dryvit with a green grout Tenant Signage - green sign board material. Tower; existing columns HUB Tower. like accent; 7G, Note: existing brick building facade will remain. The applicant has indicated the existing First Minnesota Bank will also be renovated with similar building materials as the HUB Center. - EVALUATION OF DRAINAGE do GRADING Staff's primary concern has been for the lower level drainage and grades at the southwest corner of the Center. A final grading and drainage plan must be submitted to the City Engineer, which has been certified by a registered engineer and indicates flood protection equivalent to 2 feet of freeboard above the 100 year flood elevation. - EVALUATION OF HANDICAP ACCESS Public Safety will require handicap access to the proposed lower level of the HUB Center as well as the 2nd floor of the existing First Minnesota Bank building. The applicant has indicated they will address this in the City Building Inspector's review prior to obtaining a permit. - TENANT MIX The proposed tenant mix includes: - softline /shoe; - grocery /drug; - service /service retail; - restaurant -no alcohol served; - gift /jewelry /confectionery; and - office /medical. No other details have been submitted on specific tenants and square footages proposed. However, the leasing agent for the applicant has indicated that they do not intend to create any changes which would adversely affect the parking of the center, such as a restaurant serving alcohol. (See attached letter from Towle Real Estate, dated August 17, 1988. N N N Z � c G . N 'j• Y N V b b Vl �• -�r. - /, OZ U. 2 - Ow �L _-1jjj�j�� w02 r MA 61 I��- �C�I i � '3AV 1311031N _ = M0113,1ON0'1 17-1 3AV VV032 %111.. r, 91 1Cr Y,lt N019NIIYOOip ��I` I' ''��jl'� j' (� -191 YI Sf �CUC'�C f" NolONtwo0lp r1 r1 "•-` - -L �� I II`J cn 41 SI C6 Y, i, 0 uII 4121 VI Of ij�.J `• —•J !��II eg. '�•`••: iy VI 11 W V101 OOborNp 1 W J I I W ;, 101113 snYnmoo ,� ++I :; �:::Dt�:::• Ili o9tlOtNC Xa•d i I' r: a:. S'I'N snawmo0 ON•1y0 ! •fir ... ._�I ..11:'�:: � jlj'J xa•d '3AV ONr11Yod to ..:;• ;.,,;`�,..,,1.. ONVINVO 499 Al 1N110 yI „',• y�y.jy.. . ' ON•11YOd ,7 w,7 W 1� ,�^,,.'i�+.�.,;� ,��„l. l.. .��• I� I„��' YI♦ SN3A31S I ��"��.' it II ' avi O IYI Il -ter 1j ••i i -'- Ir•� •I !1 SN3A31S '3Ar 1211001N - .•�-l�.Jl� ji ij ii �� 1s1 i M30SIVIa 1311 1,11aOM1H3M � II ^- �• —�,=„y (I 11 II :, I I , � 1130s)blp O AanpSTld 111 '� iii -Oa �-� ..•III AanB5111d Q 1N•Stl31d I��+�...•..a•'„� -�'� -_ �I.- ._.- .�.aaTS �•'i i! �tll Q ONbaO i11 w 1NVUS Z 13tatlsN �dT' I� • , �,•, ", 1 +11 ON• 0131da•O I I 'I �..�� -� �I`jj i 131aavN IL Q'3AV 31VONAl j / �\ �� ?2ii'�� - I;�- ,-, I §' 0131dava NotYOIa I1� �� ^- /; � \�•°�� '��. .3A. 31rONA1 O ■ 1Ne1aB ;�1��+��`..t.�✓% O '`��Y�,,, /di \�� ,� _ .r.�� i; No1a01tl LI =' ,% :yogi' `� •, I +�� %7dlOO it .- ( • ✓• :� i' I II 1.".J�J 1N•AYB VV/ u 1NOdno II — i ^. \\ c a. %Vd1Oo \ , O W =`, ,t II I NOSa3n 3 I x -� `� \\ �� ^4\ 3 •�+ � „ !��'� ANOdnO .tllp¢3LLirF7- _..•_- =- 1:itr` `�1'I,`�,�= _�� ^- -�:i1 NOSa3N3 ObvVilt (,.p 1Cl08nnN ;,1�� r-•-- :1` \; _,----- -._._- _ _•1_111j oa•a1. ONIAH1 IIIJ= 1' Ty,6� - II �•�'�� 10108N N S3n•r I n W XONX s3w•r w•OO1 >^- _ I 1� 1 _ j I` ^_j xONx 'I VOYOw L If r�l I F, N•001 NOM3N Y11Ar10 A ' - !�� II s :I AAiI NOl M3N rl, '3AV NN30 113A110 N33n •tom �,�II '3A• NN3d 113SSnY� N33n0 iI 11355 na S•IYONt _ �fC1�!_�;` - N•01a3NS SrVIONL IN2DNIA It NYnowsvM t L. .- _ `��'__ -_ -• Il�� -•�� 1N30NIA 3A• s3xa3% ":......_.,., -... .-„- n- .�,..�_� —` —'` _ - ..! .- - ---.. ,v,b NYnpNSVM 3A► S3XY3x N - � � w w ,- w •. w O Q V i. �i E 9 �u n 7223 n u 11 F WIM 11 h�ll iWt" r'r�^ f/ W W.P h WM 11 11 .�M�WWM �tIW11111VVIM �� Wr'MtIN1111tN 0 rrrrrrtri■rr iii �� M M!17 _ �xt-n &! mw MIMIC-IMMI M 11 ::E:�C•% ?4 ,`"�:iy,, ,rZ;ts Vii: �:Sf. �'li•:� �•ZS^ ,M1,til ^rtSil e' �c :rY�.'•: ��n'P�S'e «�.f �Z �, . ,�•l,•:l' :n %:s ?.:t;;' ^!4: it Airy h: .f .:��'•."•.-'''. %Si+is t:' 1t:.'i'�tf`i.!��YS�i'•rZ�.j��.. • MMFN— ��•IM• • • MF'1.•M/MI HNMN'M� Mpg 1 t. 1 �� MM 11. It W-210 MEN IMM 00 maim mm :: a MM IMIM MOWN MIM M of MM �M M M MM MIND -M MM Emu IMM �� _ S _ 1 ■� �� MINE Wl MM MM !wmww.�rr. �ww -- vwrwwvwr -- rM'11rfa'11r►'r' r111111�r11'I11V -- MM MM MM M- _- _- /My►WWrfr Mpg g= MM W-210 MEN IMM 00 maim mm :: MM IMIM MOWN MM MM !wmww.�rr. �ww -- vwrwwvwr -- rM'11rfa'11r►'r' r111111�r11'I11V -- MM MM MM M- _- _- /My►WWrfr Mpg g= W-210 MEN IMM 00 MIM M of MM �M M M MM MIND -M MM I !1 11 11 y U 1 IMMM • i u m Mu ago mu u� 11 u ua -uu u� emu, uu uu uu „. . �.. �.._ uuuu� •1 ay�:�7� u�uu u. iu--a' uuu u' uucu� unfit -u" uu uu HEM mm mm L N � - - - - - - �� •• �� : = -u uu uu uu -.�- .wrrw.�.. 'vwwwwirM 11 �uuHiis . Vlw ►.�MIM�.A►. 1Y'IiV'AMM_- ZZ"m MM MM MM • - - - - -- mm m� ,� -u uu u�u u■u mm MM MM - -� MM um �u !1 11 11 y U 1 IMMM • i WE m Mu ago mu u� u uu ua -uu u� u uu u �■ ;:_ . �.. �.._ uuuu� •1 ay�:�7� u�uu u. iu--a' uuu u' uucu� unfit -u" uu uu HEM mm mm ;. nrwv_wvw � u uu uu uu -.�- .wrrw.�.. 'vwwwwirM 11 �uuHiis . Vlw ►.�MIM�.A►. 1Y'IiV'AMM_- .. -_i -_ �w�!.S !1 11 11 y U 1 IMMM • i WE m Mu uu u uu u� u uu ua u uu u� u uu u �■ muuu� uuuu� iuuu uiu� u�uu u. iu--a' uuu u' uucu� �� uu uu uu ME uu uu uu �uuHiis IM mm MM MM u� mm MM MM uu uu uu uu uu ua uu �� MM �� mm • ^^^^^aaaa� >aoaa�ooQt rasQSr 11 11 Itt 1 a Aim M $88�3$8� ii It w ----- �u tl •w.. n 11 11 11 11 .1 U �1 H 1 1 / I E IMT1:390 V +rr M� wivwwww. s�` W� il v� MW OOOOQ t W MM MM 1M MM MM MM MM -M MM MM MM MM MM MM rMMN Mm . =all 'MME-1 MM aM Ma MM MM MM MM 5 m' 0 MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM :,-: F;-. OWN110110: MM MM MM M!Mw MM � MM M MM, , M M V +rr M� wivwwww. s�` W� il v� MW OOOOQ t W MM MM 1M MM MM MM MM -M MM MM MM MM MM MM rMMN Mm . =all 'MME-1 MM aM Ma MM MM MM MM 5 m' 0 MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM :,-: M- t W MM MM 1M MM MM MM MM -M MM MM MM MM MM MM rMMN Mm . =all 'MME-1 MM aM Ma MM MM MM MM 5 m' 0 MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM :,-: M- OWN110110: .. M... - _o E MW M A " - �_ __ _ _ I' I �a 1 m I i —1 1 x N � UI 11 I(N lid a� �, �, f� ��! 1 ?i �� s ;J• � � w , s fi r € t i t I t ,ti°'lj�t' =t� 1 ; I G1111111909oB0000090 11111IIBBB809B�BB9G. IIIIIIIEGG91o808u9 dog 1 `, �� -� •\ �1 i �• •'Ill + ., ' i� - ' v 1 Mn �I Q n ` I MCOLLET AVE. c � , t•s lii I T1,14 LANDSCAPE PLAN �•�� - -.- Richfield, Minn. li i I y. i '0 O O -- ►�� \.X � \, — s cs� 6z If 000000000 oocgoo 1 � .0000? , y` — -' Mn L - \I \O 0 0 O' �/ 00000 _ MCOLLET AVE. A2 TN __ /�, ■ U B ��.. PEDESTRIAN OROLLATION SITE PLAN AirhfinW. Minn. K°.,... " . � •_ Sr�gAR h�k� ls.lrx n.uo u - __... ... .. , . i I� pa I a •1 S H it `_.# AT 1% {{ N�\ 4 FMr II►ilil11 LLU IE .r. ` MCOLLET AVE. LZ F=Tfild. NGIS R.nr1 .r... .. .... ShepAlchitct.InC. Minn. •• 1 i I 1 .,I i I P 3) wo A 13 Z O Moo �► 0 . N 3y rt1► z- n= 0004 rz r -c r m 100 a(P 0 i c�pAich�le�,irtic [✓ �N! i LIGHTING PLAN " �� Richfield. Minn., A3a VA RICHFIELD, MN. - 1ST MN p m aD FIN 00) m • 0> z Ma m r0 m < > �m 0-,i z> U)< m a cn m II :. C. Lc :z O + f �f 10 C if 5 IT \ f i-7 _> �� -/ =O i cn O cn m no Z M Qr /ZM c� A EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS / "b Sur NOTEO AS �� SECTION .on� Shea Al�hitds,Inc. ..�... Richfie(d,IlAnn: �i �°,.., "' """"'�" ' 1 Via\ PON r oil - 4f '#• rri w MR, C , 0 kilo INS 'wi V on r Ipi wS t ■� • EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS / "b Sur NOTEO AS �� SECTION .on� Shea Al�hitds,Inc. ..�... Richfie(d,IlAnn: �i �°,.., "' """"'�" ' O -- -I m -1 z m P3 m r, m z LD L do PPP 'i Ir E9 pv lip id -i N EX Richfield, Mn. I A6 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS WE jo wo in Of toe, ) u 400 0 Zrn DQ 0 O(P .0 om w w �w'ar ) u 400 0 Zrn DQ 0 O(P .0 om w Ell al 1 m mli F 87 4 I'�Ili� Lv 4� so. IT g o_I ra o I JA8 'UB FShea Architects, Inc �� - /j 1 0) m mq m MO 0 > m �p a -40 m >_q m a { f rffl{? tf t�. t� ..0 I r 'fit }.a t tf� r ! T W �• r�1 "� 111 �1 i Ilk: � 1�1 ! 1111 T N Im a I ! t ! a f m rA 0 rr�a ri { f� s e ft 4 s 1111 {e t1t } 1 a { " f lilt fill! fits t d I v I I r -.4 m z O z q D • 1 t fl i' �r eft t • C7 n { lilt, ifs x Sri f 1 i i I �'• r �!9 app ! titre {' rtrx .e is C ee .. A9 %9AUB SIGNAGE DETAILS b F ii° �n,.,,, �' " ...•..• heaArchitectsInc. •. �m.sni,.n .*0 103k gor«,TC,msm,� -- -: e6n,.p.z,., -- it&�- /9 0) Ou —q m =o c%i a ..q0 ■ >M Z act) Z� 0 o> rC) rm Ma i m C� mr 0 U) cn ■ R �t' a f� Q: e [ f f��Aa ! f �¢Ya� f� e� 4 +{ 00 fIi'� { i�e3t yI'[ [ 4 f a fit? 1; V. =-1 0 m v z o �' m z o L 111Fi 0 illy, u ��e3fi E [ 4 r 9 I fr !� will fi t° [ t l�s�t ! f ��ri »o• �b �.d f r�E� — �d t� ! [ in f d if�rl r t 1 �If ! d i ford- [Etr If [ —4 —i —i —a —1 zzzzz z z z z f f ;fills [ { !la, [E t� f f�f � !Ef d� �t fsI •a� � kl e [ iE I �i �1 r � IN s•.. "°' " °° Architects, Inc_ SIGNAGE DETAILS a, :..> .... c•,,,,.•, µo 5— ft ' J00•� *JO V 257 store •*•mac s.'.w�soa. ce+,)a�va2s� #C �Q = 0 o m -jo .W >M z° DO ZG) 099a; 0 rc) rrn rnQ -q m C mr a LLD s•.. "°' " °° Architects, Inc_ SIGNAGE DETAILS a, :..> .... c•,,,,.•, µo 5— ft ' J00•� *JO V 257 store •*•mac s.'.w�soa. ce+,)a�va2s� #C �Q = 0 o m -jo .W >M z° DO ZG) 099a; 0 rc) rrn rnQ -q m C mr p m v I IEQ flit E • i m y= i (if F.0 z' 1 1 i $ i P f4( lit lit E E � RI aI i a ' tip €�E o ilia ' R I C ' IEi r�F�a 1�p w �i ai All M k "" �e�b , " " .. A. s w,. ,.w, hea Architects, Inc. %AUB SIGNAGE DETAILS ° "" ,4M — ero. ease im.so rn• sz.1�3 3 +?ow 2 s*n. .vino °' 0) C M O O ■ >m zo 0(/) z (� Z 0 r0 rm rno 1.4m C_ rn� W) C1 �� DRAINAGE q9A AND UT LRY PLAN ce. r w. � p 339 7M? BRADLEY rRr_sinrNT RFAI . ESTA I F TRUST September 8, 1988 Mr. James D. Prosser City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Re: The Hub Shopping Center Dear Jim, The following schedule outlines the time frames for improvements anticipated at the Hub Shopping Center. These time frames represent how the project is viewed given the current circumstances. it is probable that the time and scope may change based upon Tenant driven considerations. However, we will certainly do our best to meet this schedule: DANA'S Existing Area Expansion Area WALKWAY Interior Area with Skylight TOWERS Front and Rear FACADE Sidewalks /Columns Fascia Lighting PARKING New Layout Lighting Repair SITE Landscaping Front Rear. Commence October 1, 1988 completion March, 1989 Commence December 1, 1988 completion March, 1989 Commence December 1, 1988 Completion March, 1989 Commence June 1, 1989 Completion October, 1989 Commence June 1, 1989 Completion October, 1989 Commence June 1, 1989 Completion October, 1989 PARKING AREAS Recoat /Seal Commence August, 1989 striping Completion October, 1989 250 ROYLSTON STREET • L3os -ro N. N1ASSAC110SETTS 02116 • (617) 421-0675 6 James D. Prosser September 8, 1988 Page 2 BANK Exterior - Improvement December, 1988 Interior - Improvement December, 1988 Completion August., 1989 LOWER LEVEL Parking June 1, 1989 Landscaping April 1, 1990 Lighting Building Construction Please call with any questions. Thanks. Best personal regards. ELM:tj cc: Richard M. Heuer sincerely, EM August 30, 1988 Ms. Elizabeth Morrison City Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Hub Shopping Center Dear Elizabeth: W ileiA Direo Dial Number PLEASE REPLY TO: HUB Shopping Center 33 West 65th Street Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (612) 866 -3694 In the event that the Hub Shopping Center were to accept responsibility for site maintenance presently handled by the City of Richfield, the following items represent work we would anticipate performing as indicated 1. Litter and Trash: daily clean -up and empty trash containers twice weekly. 2. Landscaping: lawn mowing as needed. 3. Fertilizing: trees and shrubs once yearly with pellets or spikes in recommended doses, grass areas at least twice yearly with slow release fertilizer. 4. Pruning: trees and shrubs annually with other shoots pruned as they appear. 5. Watering: all trees, shrubs and grass should be watered as needed. During dry spells grass should be watered daily. Trees and shrubs should be given a good soaking twice a week. 6. Sidewalks: swept and kept free of litter as needed. Weeding, either chemically or by hand, as needed. "Round -up" hand applied with bruch, not sprayer, would be only acceptable chemical treatment. Sidewalks should be edged at least once a year. 7. Seed and Sod: as necessary to repair winter kill, salt damage, or other problems. 8. Snow removal: hand shoveling as necessary. 9. Furniture: repair, replace and maintain as needed. 10. Trees: replacement when lost due to accident or storm damage. I trust that this will provide the necessary general information regarding site maintenance which would represent an expanded scope of property maintenance responsibility. Sincerely, Allen Reischstadt Property Manager AR:ace TOWLE REAL ESTATE COMPANY 330 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 341 -4444 7('le(opier (012047-9389 N5 ilrr'ti Din,( I Dial Number August 17, 1988 Ms. Elizabeth Morrison City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Hub Shopping Center Dear Ms. Morrison: Enclosed is an existing layout of the Hub Shopping Center. The site plan is color coordinated to indicate the type of use which we would like to accomplish. As indicated, there would be some changes from the previous use in some areas. We do not intend any changes to adversely affect the parking at the Center. Such an example would be a restaurant with liquor. Should you have any questions, call at your convenience. Respect��ully yours, Ri�h rd L. Heuer Sr. Leasing Manager RLH /b enclosure TOWLE REAL ESTATE COMPANY 330 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 541 -4444 0 W W W/ LO t LO LO LO W 3 3nN]AU 13-l-lC:;IN =i 7 WWw I _I JNOZ ®' I , FQ- C:> LLJ pLuQ -� --- _ �, ----- ---- ---- ---- - - ---J U Q CD W 1- 4.O --- Od — V) W Wh-J >- \ONZWNW 'LtJ W \ \ 3 W E — ►- i Cr- L) -D w Y- O t- Uri -1-in -+ E J U- CDw(InU-d'U - U O O W W W r-t d U-- Q .C, EXHIBIT 4 The Hub Center Richfield, MN General Character Description Bradley Real Estate Trust proposes to change the character of The Hub Shopping Center by refurbishing the existing stock, and through better utilization of space; to accentuate The Hub Center in a sensitive and complimentary way as a focal point in the LHN commercial district and the community at large. • . EXHIBIT 6 The Hub Center Richfield, MN PUD Section 530.29 Compliance A�1_°�?/ Regarding the City of Richfield criteria for PUD district changes which require planning and council approval we offer the following information. Section 530.29 of the City code requires planning approvals for variations from existing PUD sites in specific areas. The following compares those percentages with this proposal. CE PUD REQUIREMENT EXISTING PROPOSED ACTUAL (a) Max. Compliance Exist. Floor New Floor Actual % Change Area Area % Chanae 10% 217,149 S.F. 219,747 S.F. 1.18% (b) Max. Compliance -- -- Actual % Change Changg 10% 0% (c) No Change -- -- No Change (d) Max. Compliance Exist. Bldg. New Bldg. Actual % Change Ground Area Ground Area % Chanae 5% 136,002 S.F. 138,600 S.F. 1.87% (e) Max. Compliance Exist. Parking New Parking Actual % Change Spaces Spaces % Change 0% 907 917 0% CE EXHIBIT 5 The Hub Center Richfield, MN Land Use Intensity Percentage GROSS LAND TOTAL FLOOR LAND USE INTENSITY AREA AREA PERCENTAGE Existing 578,974 S.F. 217,149 S.F. 37.50% Proposed 578,974 S.F. 219,747 S.F. 37.96% m rn co rn a� E n� U d 0 I N N O Z L m, 0 U LZ IJ a EI 74,� Q t5 t U N CD U d : Q d d C L O -- > to y C �j C O` 5 «. y O otS p l0 oiS Q V .ow ... Q, d U d N CL Q +` y d i3 cm Q y .i� >. = d � U U = p o U U W D a` O 74,� CITY OF RICHFIEILD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 238 Agenda September 26, 1988 Issue Statement: Public hearing on the sale of $3,275,000 Refunding Redevelopment Bonds. Background: On September 12, 1988, the City Council approved the sale of two refunding bond issues. One issue, $3,275,000 Refunding Redevelopment Bonds, were originally used for a private activity purpose, namely the redevelopment of certain business properties. According to the 1986 Tax Reform Act, where private purpose bonds are to be refunded, a public hearing is necessary between the actual sale of those bonds and the date that the bonds are closed (City receives the proceeds of the sale). Thus, a public hearing on September 26 is necessary. Proper legal notice of this public hearing has been published in the Richfield Sun and Minneapolis Star Tribune. Recommended Motion: Hold the public hearing required by law and take public comment given. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 requires that a public hearing for Refunding Redevelopment Bonds is necessary between the sale and closing of the bonds. Alternative Recommendation: 1. This public hearing is necessary to complete the bonds sale. Thus, if the hearing is not held, the bond sale would not be valid. Discussion /Decision Mode: In order to hold the public hearing within the legally proscribed period of time, the public hearing must be held on September 26, 1988. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City M ager JDP:eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 236 Agenda September 26, 1988 Issue Statement: Approval of the 1988 and 1989 wage and insurance provisions of the 1987 -1989 Master Labor Agreement with Local 49 of the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) and the City of Richfield. Background: The Metropolitan Area Management Association (MAMA) Negotiating Committee and Local 49 of the IUOE, which represents the City's 43 labor and trades maintenance employees, have reached an agreement over the wage and insurance reopener provisions of the current Master Labor Agreement. The Master Agreement includes 23 municipalities that, traditionally, have been involved in joint bargaining. A Negotiating Committee, representing the municipalities, has arrived at tentative contract language that has been presented to, and approved by, a majority of the metropolitan -wide Local 49 bargaining unit employees. The proposed contract language is now before the City Council for approval by the City of Richfield. Similarly, each of the other 22 cities represented by MAMA must gain approval by their individual City Councils. The current 1987 -1989 Master Contract provided for wage and insurance reopeners for 1988 and 1989. Lengthy negotiations have taken place since prior to January 1, 1988 for settlement of these two issues. Due to the concerns for the metropolitan municipalities' efforts to comply with the state's 1984 Comparable Worth Law, the negotiations have been an arduous process. Under the results of the metropolitan -wide Control Data Comparable Worth Study, most Local 49 represented positions which are male dominated classifications exceed the City's all employee pay line. Thus, in each municipality, there has been an effort to bring Local 49 wages in line with female dominated position classifications. One way to accomplish this is to grant smaller than average pay increases for those male dominated positions. Thus, allowing the female dominated positions to "catch up" over a period of a few years. Naturally, Local 49 has resisted this strategy. The changes for 1988 are as follows: Wages 1. All job classifications, except Maintenance I, receive an increase of one and one -half percent (1 1/230 on the base wage rate. Maintenance I positions receive three and one -half percent (3 1/2 %) on the base wage rate. Maintenance I workers are not above the pay equity line. 2. All job classifications, except Maintenance I, receive a lump sum payment equal to two percent (2 %) of the base wage rate for all hours the employee would be normally scheduled to work (excluding overtime hours). Payment to be made in two installments, one after the City has approved the contract and one on or as close to December 15 as possible. The rationale for the lump sum payment is that the base wage rate, which would be used for calculation of the following year's wages, would only increase one and one - half percent (1 1/2 %). Thus, facilitating greater equality with the female dominated positions. Tnsuranra 1. An increase the current contribution for health and life insurance per employee per month by $10.00, from $175.00 to $185.00 per month in 1988 and 1989. Additional language is added which states, "or an amount equal to that paid by the Employer for the Employer's non- management /non - essential Employees, whichever is greater ". This section does not pertain to Richfield in 1988, as each of the groups named does not receive $185.00 per month for health, life and dental insurance. However, it may impact the City in 1989 depending on what insurance contribution is made for our non - management /non - essential employees. The changes for 1989 are as follows: Wages 1. All job classifications receive an increase of one and one -half percent (1 1/2 %) on the base wage rate. 2. All job classifications receive a lump sum payment equal to two percent (2 %) of the base wage rate for all hours the employee would normally be scheduled to work (excluding all overtime hours). Payments to be made in three installments, on or about April 15, August 15 and December 15, 1989. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving the Master Labor Agreement with Local 49 of the International Union of Operating Engineers. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The settlement is an area -wide package negotiated by MAMA and will maintain the City's comparability to other jurisdictions with respect to Local 49 employees. 2. The settlement addresses the issue of comparable worth. However, while the settlement is not totally in conformance with the City of Richfield's Comparable Worth Plan, it achieves the desired comparable worth results in a majority of the cities represented by the MAMA group. As a part of the MAMA group, Richfield must accept this settlement structure to continue its association with the MAMA Master Contract. 3. The insurance increase maintains comparability for union and non -union employee groups. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City of Richfield could decide not to approve the recommended settlement with Local 49. However, this would likely necessitate Richfield dropping out of the Metropolitan Area Management Association and could require a separate Master Contract. In addition, Richfield Local 49 employees would not be paid comparably with other Local 49 employees in the metropolitan area. Discussion /Decision Mode: It is recommended that the City Council to adopt the attached resolution. This accounting personnel to modify payroll rates in a timely manner. JDP:eja act on September 26, 1988 will allow the City's records and adjust pay Respectfully submitted, James D. Prosser City Manager ?T�� j RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING WAGES AND INSURANCE BETWEEN CITY OF RICHFIELD AND INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 49 AFL /CIO FOR THE YEARS 1988 AND 1989 WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and the Metropolitan Area Management Association currently have a Master Agreement in effect for the years 1987 through 1989, and WHEREAS, the said Master Contract provides for reopener provisions for wages and insurance for the years 1988 and 1989, and WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Metropolitan Area Management Association have reached an agreement with the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 on wages and insurance for the years 1988 and 1989, and \WHEREAS, the personnel ordinance requires that contracts between the City and the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be implemented by council resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the labor agreement between the City of Richfield and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 for the years of 1988 and 1989 and order the provisions of the labor agreement implemented effective January 1, 1988. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 26th day of September, 1988. Steven J. Quam Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 18.12 have the ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of the job vacancy. 18.2 Employees filling a higher job class based on the provisions of this ARTICLE shall be subject to the conditions of ARTICLE XVI (PROBATIONARY PERIOD). 18.3 The EMPLOYER has the right of final decision in the selection of employees to fill posted jobs based on qualifications, abilities and experience. 18.4 Job vacancies within the designated bargaining unit will be posted for fivh (5) working days so that members of the bargaining unit can be considered for such vacancies. ARTICLE XIX INSURANCE 19.1 The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of one hundred seventy -five dollars ($175.00) per month per employee for group health and life insurance including dependent coverage for calendar 1987. 19.2 The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of one hundred eighty -five dollars ($185.00) per month per employee (or an amount equal -Co that paid by the EMPLOYER for the EMPLOYER'S non - management /non - essential employees, whichever is greater) for calendar 1988 and 1989. 19.3 By mutual agreement employees may use fifteen dollars ($15.00) of the per month per employee of health insurance dollars in 19.1 and 19.2 for dental insurance for all unit employees. -15- APPENDIX A WAGES A -1. The following wage schedule will be in effect from the first payroll period in 1987 through the last payroll period in 1987: MAINTENANCE III . . . . . . . . . . $ 12.60 per hour MAINTENANCE II . . . . . . . . . . 12.10 per hour MAINTENANCE I . . . . . . . . . . . 8.72 per hour A -2. The following wage schedule will be in effect from the first payroll period in 1988 through the last payroll period in 1988: MAINTENANCE IIi $ 12.79 MAINTENANCE II . . . . . . . . . . 12.28 MAINTENANCE I . . . . . . . . 8.85 - *The actual wage rate will be between $8.85 hour based on individual City comparable wo considerations. per hour per hour 9.03* per hour and $9.03 per rth A -3. The following wage schedule will be in effect from the first payroll period in 1989 through the last payroll period in 1989: MAINTENANCE III . . . . . . . . . . $ 12.98 per hour MAINTENANCE II . . . . . . . . . . 12.46 per hour MAINTENANCE I . . . . . . . . . . . 8.98 - 9.16 per hour B. All new employees hired after February 7, 1984 may be classified at the sole discretion of the individual cities covered by this AGREEMENT as MAINTENANCE I and receive Working Out of Classification pay as provided by Section C of this APPENDIX. C. WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION PAY C -1 Employees required by the EMPLOYER and who are adjudged by the EMPLOYER to be qualified to operate the following items of equipment will be paid the MAINTENANCE III rate of pay for those hours assigned to the unit: (Heavy Equipment items are those as listed in the LOCAL ADDENDUM to this MASTER AGREEMENT.) Slim MMA Metropolitan Area Management Alfociation of the Twin City Area TO: FROM: August 31, 1988 CITY MANAGERS /ADMINISTRATORS MAMA -LOCAL 49 JOINT NEGOTIATIONS CITIES: Blaine Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Burnsville Circle Pines Columbia Heights Cottage Grove Crystal Eden Prairie Edina r y i d 1 e Golden Valley Hopkins Minnetonka Mounds View New Hope Oakdale Richfield Robbinsdale Roseville St. Anthony St. Louis Park Woodbury Jerry Splinter, Chairman, MAMA -49 Joint Cities Negotiating Committee and Brooklyn Center City Manager SUBJECT: SETTLEMENT FOR CALENDAR YEARS 1988 -1989 The 1987 -89 MAMA- Local 49 Joint Bargaining Agreement provided for reopened negotiations on the issues of wage rates and insurance for calendar years 1988 and 1989. After many months of negotiations and mediation, the MAMA and Local 49 bargaining committees reached a tentative Agreement. The Union has ratified the Agreement. The ratified Agreement is proposed to the individual Cities listed above for their approval. The Agreement is, in the opinion of the MAMA Negotiating Committee, consistent with the individual Cities' efforts to comply with the State's 1984 Comparable Worth Law. The Agreement should also be of assistance to the individual Cities in meeting their statutory comparable worth goals and helpful in their bargaining and /or arbitration efforts with other male - dominated employee groups. The Agreement is as follows: MAMA -49 JOINT -2- August 31, 1988 NEGOTIATIONS CITIES 1. Wage Rates for 1988 All jobs, except the rate(s) for the job classification of Maintenance I, listed in each City's wage appendix should be raised by 1 -1/2% effective the first payroll period of 1988, and all employees should be paid a lump sum payment for all hours the employees would.be normally scheduled to work (.excluding all overtime hours) equal to 2% of the employee's base pay rate. Payment of the lump sum should be in two installments: 1. One after the City has approved the contract; and 2. One to be made December 15, 1988 or as close to December 15 as is practicable. The Maintenance I 1987 starting rate should be raised by 3.5% unless such an increase would place the rate above the City's 110% "all jobs" pay line. In such an event, the rate Will be raised by a percentage which will not put the rate above the City's 110% "all jobs" pay line. 2. Wage Rates for 1989 The base rate for all job classifications should be raised by 1.5% effective the first payroll period in January, 1989, and all employees should be paid a lump sum payment for all hours the employees would be normally scheduled to work (excluding overtime hours) equal to 2% of the employee's base pay rate. Payment of the lump sum should be made in three installments: 1. On or about April 15, 1989 for all hours normally scheduled (excluding overtime hours) for the months of January, February, March and April; 2. On or about August 15, 1989 for all hours normally scheduled (excluding overtime hours) for the months of May, June, July and August; and 3. On or about December 15, 1989 for all hours normally scheduled (excluding overtime hours) for the months of September, October, November and December. NOTE: The wage rates for the computation of overtime pay shall not include the lump sum payments. The overtime rate is to be computed only on the new base rates. The new APPENDIX A - WAGES (page 19) of the MASTER LABOR AGREEMENT is enclosed with this memorandum. MAMA -49 JOINT -3- August 31, 1988 NEGOTIATIONS CITIES 3. Insurance The City will contribute toward Health and Life Insurance an amount equal to the amount the City will pay for its non - management /non - essential employees or $185.00 per employee per month, whichever is greater. The new ARTICLE XIX - INSURANCE will read (a new page for your Master Labor Agreement is enclosed): "19.1 The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum one hundred seventy -five dollars (.$175.00) per month per employee for group health and life insurance including dependent coverage for calendar 1987. 19.2 The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of one hundred and eighty -five dollars ($185.00) per month per employee (or an amount equal to that paid by the EMPLOYER for the EMPLOYER'S non - management/ non - essential employees, whichever is greater) for calendar 1988 and 1989. 19.3 By mutual agreement employees may use fifteen dollars ($15.00) of the per month per employee of health insurance dollars in 19.1 and 19.2 for dental insurance for all unit employee." Questions should be directed either to Jerry Splinter, Chairman of the MAMA -49 Negotiating Committee at the City of Brooklyn Center, 561 -5440, or to Cy Smythe, Labor Relations Consultant to MAMA at 546 -1470. JS: hfc cc: William S. Joynes C. F. Smythe Tim R. Connors Walter I. Nielsen -�7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.237 Agenda September 26, 1988 Issue Statement: Continuation of the public hearing on the conditional use permit at 2617 West 66th Street. Background: The Ann Schoenhofen, Kimberley Poe, Rich Hagstrom owners of property at 2617 West 66th Street have requested a conditional use permit to allow a house cleaning business (home occupation) with a maximum of six outside employees. On September 23, 1988 staff learned the notice of the public hearing was not published in the newspaper as required by the ordinance. This was an oversight on the part of the Richfield Sun Current Newspaper. Recommended Motion: Take testimony from the public and continue the hearing until October 10, 1988. Basis of Recommendation: 1. City Attorney's office recommended this course of action. 2. Written notice of the public hearing on September 26, 1988 was sent to the property owners within 350 feet. 3. Legal notice will be published for Council hearing on October 10, 1988. 4. Staff has notified the applicants of this continuation. Alternative Recommendation: None Decision Mode: The item was originally scheduled for September 26, 1988. The City Council continue the public hearing. Respectfully submitted, Jam s D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP:sae I Y ur KIUMI -Itt_V 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, Minne'sotal. An Equal Opportunity Employer. 612- 869 -7521 Metro Building Systems DEPA Y N T HEAD OA YANASCR OAT[ TNt CITY NI EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF ALL FEDERAL EXCISE TAXES (FEDERAL CERTIFICATE ASSbT27) AND STATE SALES TAX (ACCT. NQ 0Ol /617). )U #K UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE DISCOUNT AMOUNT COOL AMOUNT Estimate #2 payment for AHA Phase II Sprinkler System CP799 412401.80 ►e $w� FUND DEPT. S.L. A< /. [. N CA. EMC /RY VENDOR PROS. • AMOUNT 7 �a 3 0 ooa /3a 1, /. ka AM T. OF CHECK 41,401.80 DATE 9/26/88 CHECK NO. MENNEN A.I.A. 1ETTEt IF TIANSI-MAI DATE 15 September 88rg0,1. 8726 B /C. TO: Sister Mary Walter Quvol Academy of the Hdly Angels 6600• Nicol let• Ave. S. Ri chfi e] d,• MN, 55423 ! E:. Phase I Z -.Fire Life. Safety Renovations Academy of the Holy Angelis WE ARE SENDING YOU SHOP DRAWING ❑ ATTACHED ❑ PRINTS ❑ UNDER SEP. COVER ❑ OTHER ❑ VIA ❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ REVISE & RESUBMIT ❑ )MES DATE DESCRIPTION 2 9S•ept 88 Appl•icatian For -Payment No. .2 . . . PeriQcJ rom 77 3�to 8/31/88 —Mei:ro 'Building System's ' -Amount $41,4-01.80 • . . . . Application for Payment No.. Z approved per Job .ins.pec.tians.. COPIES TO: OWNS ❑ GEN . CONT. ❑ MECH. ❑ ELEC. Contractor ❑ OTHER ❑ SIGNED: S _ T. Martinson Sr: Frieda Kalenze HOMAS H. STAHL, INC. ARCHITECTS 612- 881 -5610 00 WEST OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD RL.00MTNATnN _ mm 554;,n CITY OF RICHFIELD 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, Minnesota. An Equal Opportunity Employer. 612- 869 -7521 Gorham -Dien Mechanical • DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE MANAGER DATE THE CITY a EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF ALL FEDERAL EXCISE TAXES (FEDERAL CERTIFICATE A3697271 AND STATE SALES TAX (ACCT. 06 00246171. OU N. UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE DISCOUNT AMOUNT CODE AMOUNT Estimate #2 payment for AHA Phase I Sprinkler System CP799 54,806.00 3wre• FUND DEPT. SW. G.L. REF. [. or CA. MC/RV VENDOR PROD. • AMOUNT 113 ! '-"4700,2 & AM . OF CHECK 54,806.00 DATE 9/26/88 CNEax M0. IETTEI OF TIA181-11TAI GATE .15 Sept, 88 PRO.. 8628. C-•2 . . . TO•Sister Mary Walter Duval Academy of tine Holy Angels 6600 Nicoll et A,ve., S.• Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Phase II - Fire & Life Safety Renovations Academy of the holy Angels WE ARE SENDING YOU SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ PRINTS ❑ OTHER Z( ATTACHED UNDER SEP. COVER ❑ VIA ❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ REVISE a RESUBMIT ❑ IPES DATE DESCRIFTION 2 15 .Sept 88 Application . for. Payment .No,. 2 . . . _ ..P_er_iod -from l. /31/88_._to 8/29/88 Gdrham -Oi ed Mechani cal Amount $54,. 806.00 RE"l11lKS. . Application far Payment No..2.approved .per.. job inspection and certification of Emanuelson - Podas, Inc. dated 9/5/88 i COPIES TO: OINNIM ❑ GEN . CONT. ❑ MECH.E -Podas ❑ ELEC. Contractor ❑ OTH61 ❑ SIGNE _-.- T. Martinson 'Sr: Frieda Kalenze THOMAS H. STAHL, INC. ARCHITECTS 612 - 881 -5610 200 WEST OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD BLOOMINATON. MN 55420 CITY OF RICHFIELD 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, Hinne.vota. An Equal Opportunity Employer. 612- 869 -7521 Code Electric • KPARTMINT HEAD DATE MANAGER GATE THE CITY a EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF ALL FEDERAL EXCISE TAXES (FEDERAL CERTIFICATE ASS6727) AND STATE SALES TAX (ACCT. N0. SOtISl7). DU N. UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE DISCOUNT AMOUNT CODE AMOUNT Estimate #2 payment for AHA Phaee II Sprinkler System CP799 33,849.00 3euras FUND DEPT. SW. S.L. W. E. or CA. ENC/Rv VENDOR PROD. 1f AMOUNT 1,90 AM OF CHECK 33,849.00 OS CHECK M0. MIN8E11 •.1.A. IETTEI IF TIA181-ITTAt DATE 15 Sept 88 M0j. 8628 C -2 TO: Sister. Mary Walter, Duyal . . Academy of the Holy Angels 6600 Nicoilet Ave.- S.- Richfield., MN 55423 . . RE: Phase J I - F.i re. & Life Safety Renovations Academy of the Holy Angels WE ARE SENDING You SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ ATTACHED PRINTS ❑ LINOER SEP. COVER ❑ OTHER ® VIA ❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ REVISE 6 RESUBMI T ❑ )PIES DATE DESCRIPTION 2 9 Sept 88 Applioati•on -for. Payment -No.. 2 . . . . . . . _Period from commence 7 /30/88 to 8/30/88 Code *El ectri c ' . Amount $33;849.04,' • . . . . . ' Application for Payment Not approved per .job -i i:nSp.ection ,.and certification of Emanuelson - Podas, Inc. dated Sept. 5, 1988. COPIES TO: OWNER GEN . CONT. MECH. ELEC. OTHER SIG THOMAS H. STAHL, INC. ARCHITECTS 612- 881 -5610 200 WEST OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD BLOOMINGTON. MN 55420 "-:;r, CITE' OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 236 Agenda September 26, 1988 Issue Statement: Approval of the 1988 and 1989 wage and insurance provisions of the 1987 -1989 Master Labor Agreement with Local 49 of the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) and the City of Richfield. Background: The Metropolitan Area Management Association (MAMA) Negotiating Committee and Local 49 of the IUOE, which represents the City's 43 labor and trades maintenance employees, have reached an agreement over the wage and insurance reopener provisions of the current Master Labor Agreement. The Master Agreement includes 23 municipalities that traditionally have been involved in joint bargaining. A Negotiating Committee, representing the municipalities, has arrived at tentative contract language that has been presented to, and approved by, a majority of the metropolitan -wide Local 49 bargaining unit employees. The proposed contract language is now before the City Council for approval by the City of Richfield. Similarly, each of the other 22 cities represented by MAMA must gain approval by their individual City Councils. The current 1987 -1989 Master Contract provided for wage and insurance reopeners for 1988 and 1989. Lengthy negotiations have taken place since prior to January 1, 1988 for settlement of these two issues. Due to the concerns for the metropolitan municipalities' efforts to comply with the state's 1984 Comparable Worth Law, the negotiations have been an arduous process. Under the results of the metropolitan -wide Control Data Comparable Worth Study, most Local 49 represented positions which are male dominated classifications exceed the City's all employee pay line. Thus, in each municipality, there has been an effort to bring Local 49 wages in line with female dominated position classifications. One way to accomplish this is to grant smaller than average pay increases for those male dominated positions. Thus, allowing the female dominated positions to "catch up" over a period of a few years. Naturally, Local 49 has resisted this strategy. The changes for 1988 are as follows: Wages 1. All job classifications, except Maintenance I, receive an increase of one and one -half percent (1 1/2%) on the base wage rate. V�.f-4// / Maintenance I positions receive three and one -half percent (3 1/2 %) on the base wage rate. Maintenance I workers are not above the pay equity line. 2. All job classifications, except Maintenance I, receive a lump sum payment equal to two percent (2 %) of the base wage rate for all hours the employee would be normally scheduled to work (excluding overtime hours). Payment to be made in two installments, one after the City has approved the contract and one on or as close to December 15 as possible. The rationale for the lump sum payment is that the base wage rate, which would be used for calculation of the following year's wages, would only increase one and one - half percent (1 1/2 %). Thus, facilitating greater equality with the female dominated positions. Insurance 1. An increase in the current contribution for health and life insurance per employee per month by $10.00, from $175.00 to $185.00 per month in 1988 and 1989. Additional language is added which states, "or an amount equal to that paid by the Employer for the Employer's non- management /non - essential Employees, whichever is greater ". This section does not pertain to Richfield in 1988, as each of the groups named does not receive $185.00 per month for health, life and dental insurance. However, it may impact the City in 1989 depending on what insurance contribution is made for our non - management /non - essential employees. The changes for 1989 are as follows: Wages 1. All job classifications receive an increase of one and one -half percent (1 1/2 %) on the base wage rate. 2. All job classifications receive to two percent (2 %) of the base the employee would normally be (excluding all overtime hours). three installments, on or about December 15, 1989. a lump sum payment equal wage rate for all hours scheduled to work Payments to be made in April 15, August 15 and Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving the Master Labor Agreement with Local 49 of the International Union of Operating Engineers. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The settlement is an area -wide package negotiated by MAMA and will maintain the City's comparability to other jurisdictions with respect to Local 49 employees. 2. The settlement addresses the issue of comparable worth. However, while the settlement is not totally in conformance with the City of Richfield's Comparable Worth Plan, it achieves the desired comparable worth results in a majority of the cities represented by the MAMA group. As a part of the MAMA group, Richfield must accept this settlement structure to continue its association with the MAMA Master Contract. 3. The insurance increase maintains comparability for union and non -union employee groups. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City of Richfield could decide not to approve the recommended settlement with Local 49. However, this would likely necessitate Richfield dropping out of the Metropolitan Area Management Association and could require a separate Master Contract. In addition, Richfield Local 49 employees would not be paid comparably with other Local 49 employees in the metropolitan area. Discussion /Decision Mode: It is recommended that the City Council act on September 26, 1988 to adopt the attached resolution. This will allow the City's accounting personnel to modify payroll records and adjust pay rates in a timely manner. Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci Manager JDP:eja RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING WAGES AND INSURANCE BETWEEN CITY OF RICHFIELD AND INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 49 AFL /CIO FOR THE YEARS 1988 AND 1989 WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and the Metropolitan Area Management Association currently have a Master Agreement in effect for the years 1987 through 1989, and WHEREAS, the said Master Contract provides for reopener provisions for wages and insurance for the years 1988 and 1989, and WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Metropolitan Area Management Association have reached an agreement with the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 on wages and insurance for the years 1988 and 1989, and WHEREAS, the personnel ordinance requires that contracts between the City and the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be implemented by council resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the labor agreement between the City of Richfield and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 for the years of 1988 and 1989 and order the provisions of the labor agreement implemented effective January 1, 1988. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 26th day of September, 1988. Steven J. Quam Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIEILD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 235 Agenda, September 26, 1988 Issue Statement: Purchase of blacktop repair in excess of $5,000 at 72nd Street and Vincent Avenue. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. In late August of this year, a water main break occurred at 72nd Street and Vincent Avenue. A large portion of blacktop was removed because of mat sagging. This repair work would require extra manpower and unanticipated material expenditures for City forces to complete. It would also interrupt regularly scheduled work. Staff has obtained quotes from two blacktopping firms as follows: Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $5,895 Plehal Blacktopping, Inc. 5,670 Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase in the amount of $5,670 from Plehal Blacktopping, Inc. in order to repair this patch of street. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Plehal Blacktopping submitted the lowest quotation. 2. The street needs to be repaired before cold weather sets in. 3. The Water Maintenance Division budget contains funds for these anticipated repairs. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item is on the September 26, 1988 consent agenda. Respectfully submitted, James . Prosser City Manager JDP /eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 234 Agenda September 26, 1988 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 to repair cracks, fill "birdbaths" and paint four tennis courts at Christian Park. Background: In the spring of 1988, City staff initiated a program to repair and replace tennis courts throughout the City with the priority of repairs based on the condition of the courts. Courts at Augsburg Park, Jefferson Park and Sheridan Park were scheduled for repair and resurfacing in 1988. These courts were done earlier this summer. Funding has been included in the proposed 1989 park maintenance budget to perform major repair and replacement of tennis courts at Donaldson Park, Fairwood Park and Memorial Park. Tennis West is willing to honor, through the whole of this year, their spring bid of $2,880 to crackseal and fill birdbaths; slurry coat and paint two courts. Because sufficient funding is available in the park maintenance 1988 budget, staff suggests Tennis West be used to repair and repaint Christian Park this fall. The Christian Park tennis courts are next on our list to receive this type of work and the repairs are not as extensive as those needed at Donaldson Park, Fairwood Park and Memorial Park. Recommended Notion: Approve a purchase order to Tennis West for repair and repainting of four tennis courts at Christian Park in the amount of $5,760. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Money is already set aside in the 1989 Proposed Budget for major work on tennis courts rated a higher priority than Christian Park. 2. For the money available this year, Christian Park is the priority we can afford. 3. The fact that Tennis West will honor their April, 1988 bid makes this a feasible expenditure. Alternative Recommendation: Do not make the repairs and postpone the work until a later date, at which time it will probably be more costly. Discussion /Decision Mode: Staff is asking for approval at this time; if this item is dropped or deferred, we will not have time to accomplish the work this summer. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP /eja -- d /T CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 233 Agenda September 26, 1988 Issue Statement: Consideration of recommendations by the Southwest Institutional Network Group (SWING) including authorization for the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission to expend $17,660.50 to enhance the institutional subscriber network. Background: The Southwest Institutional Network Group (SWING) was established in 1987 to study the economic viability of requiring the cable company to build a 166 -mile institutional network. This group recently completed its study which included investigation of both commercial and school district users' needs and possible economic support of the network. A copy of the SWING report is attached to this Council letter. The SWING Committee was comprised of representatives from the cable industry, telecommunications industry, and the school district. The enhancement of the subscriber network doubles the channel capacity for institutional users, which include all five cities and school districts. The total cost of the network implementation is $35,321. The cost would be shared on a 50% cost share between the cable company and the SWSCC. t Recommended Motion: Approve the recommendations of the SWING Committee and authorize the SWSCC to contribute $17,660.50 out of the relief settlement proceeds to be received from Rogers. If Member Cities do not approve the relief settlement, the enhancement will be paid in a proportionate amount out of city franchise fees. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Approval will insure that the enhancement will proceed in a timely manner. 2. Rogers Cablesystems has committed to completing the project as soon as all five member cities approve the recommendations. 3. The enhancement will double channel capacity for the five cities. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the recommendations. However, if all five member cities do not approve the recommendations, the enhancement cannot be implemented. - ..;) -rr-i Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the September 26, 1988 City Council agenda for Council consideration. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser Cit anager JDP /ej __1 %f SUMMARY OF THE SOUTHWEST INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK GROUP'S STUDY OF THE VIABILITY OF THE INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK IN THE SOUTHWEST SUBURBS During relief negotiations with Rogers Cablesystems, Inc., in 1985, the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (SWSCC) agreed to temporarily relieve Rogers of their obligation to provide a 166 -mile institutional network throughout the Southwest suburbs providing 472 channels for video, voice and data transmission. The relief of this obligation was hinged on the formation of a study group to evaluate the viability of such a network in the area. The Performance Agreement of 1985 set out guidelines for the establishment of the study group, along with membership guidelines and the parameters of their study and report. In the Spring of 1987, the SWSCC and Rogers sought representatives from the community to serve on the study group named the Southwest Institutional Network Group ( "SWING "). SWING was made up of four appointees selected by the Commission and four appointees selected by Rogers. The Chairperson was named by the Cable Commission. The membership was made up of representatives from the cable industry, telecommunications industry and the school district. It was staffed by both the Commission and Rogers. SWING began their study in August 1987 by reviewing the original franchise provisions, along with the structure of the institutional network and its applications. A large part of their charge involved assessment of the financial viability of building such a network. Therefore, SWING initially reviewed potential uses by area businesses and followed a process of meeting with and surveying Eden Prairie businesses on their voice, data and video transmission needs over the next five or so years. Eden Prairie was chosen due to its density of new businesses. Twenty -nine area businesses and institutions were contacted to attend an informational meeting on January 21, 1988, and were sent a survey to complete on their technology needs. Ten people representing nine organizations attended the informational session. Eight organizations returned a completed survey. The survey and presentation to interested businesses did not prove fruitful in demonstrating backing for such a network. At the SWING meeting in March 1988, a member of SWING who is also a member of the Educational Cable Coordinating Committee (ECCC), requested that a separate process be used to review institutional uses within the school districts before SWING made its recommendations to the Cable Commission. -_� -17 I -net Report September 16, 1988 Page 2 In response to this request, SWING developed a needs assessment survey and distributed it to the ECCC representative from each of the five school districts, Hennepin County Library and Intermediate District 287. The survey requested projected uses of the technology for the years 1988 -1995. The three -month process of SWING's staff working with the ECCC to assess their specific needs resulted in a joint presentation put together by Rogers Cablesystems and the ECCC to explain uses of the technology, associated options, and costs of providing such services to the SW school superintendents and SWING. Two of the six involved school superintendents attended the presentation, although all had originally indicated an interest in attending on May 24, 1988. All representatives from the ECCC attended the presentation except the representative from the Hennepin County Library. The joint presentation included a description of the schools' need of the interactive classroom technology, along with an outline by Rogers of two options for meeting those needs. The first option involved expansion of the subscriber network to double the current capacity to all school institutions at a cost of $35,321. The second option, which had greater long -term use but limited the users to eight secondary schools, was a mini I- net at a cost of $643,691. Discussion occurred concerning variations of the options, as well as to compare the cable options with Northwestern Bell's recent proposal to the school districts. The SWING committee convened two more times to develop their recommendations to the SWSCC based on their consideration of the viability of an institutional network. Their evaluation was based on a study of the applications of the technology, as well as potential interest in the technology by revenue - generating users, as well as nonrevenue- generating users. SUMMARY OF SWING'S FINDINGS The Committee recognizes the unique limitations of coaxial cable I -net applications and the attendant marketing challenges. The following findings have been developed as a result of our study of the technology and economic feasibility of building and marketing an I -net in the SW franchise area: o The I -net applications discussed in the company's original proposal and included in the 1981 franchise document are rr� I -net Report September 16, 1988 Page 3 largely obsolete. Some of the technologies were never developed as originally conceived. o Some telecommunications needs are better served by alternative technologies which offer greater capacity, increased transmission speed and eliminate geographical limitations. o A survey of targeted Eden Prairie businesses and government agencies indicated minimal interest in the I -net and an unlikely near -term market among potential revenue - generating users. o There exists a strong interest among members of the Educational Cable Coordinating Committee to cablecast interactive classroom programming on a mini I -net connecting SW schools. However, among school district superintendents, there is no demonstrated commitment for capacity beyond that which may be provided on the residential network. o The Committee has been unable to identify any revenue - generating institutional users, either public or private, to support the building of an I -net. If the I -net were built today, it would be wholly- subsidized by the residential subscriber who would not realize any benefit to the residential network. The Committee, therefore, finds that the I -net is not economically feasible in today's market and in the foreseeable future. o The Committee identifies three costs: 1) a fully -built 166 - mile I -net at 3 -to -4 million dollars; 2) a 41 -mile mini I- net at $643,691; and 3) enhancement of the residential network for institutional uses by nonrevenue- generating public users at $35,321. o The company presently employs one full -time sales engineer, 80% time - dedicated, to market institutional uses to companies in the Southwest and Minneapolis franchise area. Oversight is provided by the local Vice President of Engineering. In addition, the company employs a business network manager at its U.S. corporate level to assist local efforts in the development of I -net business. RECOMMENDATIONS OF SWING In consideration of its findings and charge, SWING made the following recommendations to the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission: I -net Report September 16, 1988 Page 4 1) The requirement to build an I -net in the SW franchise area should be deferred for a minimum of five years or until such time as a sizable base of institutional users is identified and secured to finance the capital expense without cable subscriber subsidy. 2) Future study of the telecommunications market and economic feasibility of the I -net should be at the Commission's discretion. 3) An enhancement of the residential network should be implemented in a 50% cost -split with the participating school districts with a maximum cost contribution by the cable company up to $17,660.50. By the addition of equipment at Rogers' headend, the subscriber network's current capacity for video conferencing applications will double. With the addition of equipment, not only can two channels be transmitted per city, but once received at the headend, they can be discreetly routed to one or more cities. This doubles the capacity for the school's interactive classroom use. This recommendation permits each district to make an independent decision to participate if so desired. Any additional modulators, cameras, televisions or other equipment that may be needed in the schools should be purchased by the school districts. This offer is good until September 1, 1993. PRESENTATION TO SWSCC AND SWSCC'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO MEMBER CITIES SWING presented their report and recommendations to the SWSCC Operating Committee and Full Commission in the Fall of 1988. The Full Commission, at their meeting on September 7, 1988, accepted SWING's first two recommendations and decided to amend the third recommendation concerning funding due to the fact that all institutional users benefit from the enhancement made to the subscriber network. It is not only a benefit to school districts, but also to the individual cities, as the doubling of capacity will permit the cablecasting of two live programs simultaneously from an individual city which has become of concern to the Member Cities. The SWSCC's recommendations to the Member Cities are as follows: 1) The requirement to build an I -net in the SW franchise area should be deferred for a minimum of five years or until such time as a sizable base of institutional users is identified and secured to finance the capital expense without cable subscriber subsidy. I -net Report September 16, 1988 Page 5 2) Future study of the telecommunications market and economic feasibility of the I -net should be at the Commission's discretion. 3) The SWSCC recommends that the enhancement of the residential network be implemented in a 50% cost share between the SWSCC and the cable company of the $35,321 amount. The Commission, by contributing $17,660.50, is making sure the enhancement is begun prior to transfer of the system and completed shortly thereafter as the ordering of equipment allows. In order to recoup some of the cost in the future from the school districts, requests for channel time on the government and public access channel will be negotiated at a cost to the school districts. The Commission recommends approval by Member Cities of its three recommendations, along with an authorization for the SWSCC to pay the $17,660.50 out of the relief settlement proceeds to be received from Rogers, contemplating future action by the city council on the settlement offer. If, for some reason, Member Cities do not approve the settlement offer of Rogers at an upcoming meeting, the enhancement will be paid in a proportionate amount out of city franchise fees. The SWSCC urges your acceptance of their recommendations, with the Commission's cash contribution to the project in order that the enhancement can proceed in a timely manner. Rogers Cablesystems has committed to completing the project as soon as all five Member Cities approve the Commission's recommendations. SW2 9/16/88 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION C/O Herbst & Thue, Ltd. 950 Northland Plaza 3800 West 80th Street Blooinington, MN 55431 (612) 893 -6711 September 16, 1988 Mr. Jim Prosser City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Prosser: The Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (SWSCC) reviewed the study and report of the Southwest Institutional Network Group ( "SWING ") at the Commission meeting on September 7, 1988. As provided in the Performance Agreement of 1985, SWING was to study the economic viability of requiring the cable company to build a 166 -mile institutional network in the Southwest Suburbs. The group recently completed its study, as you know, which included investigation of both commercial and school district users' needs and possible economic support of the network. The Commission asks that you put the attached summary of the SWING process, along with the Commission's recommendations on page 4 of the attachment, on your next city council meeting agenda for review and approval. The Commission recommends acceptance of its three recommendations by your City. The request for approval includes authorization for the Commission to expend $17,660.50 out of the settlement proceeds, to match the cable company's contribution to enhance the subscriber network. As you'll recall, the enhancement of the subscriber network doubles the channel capacity for institutional users, which include all five cities and the school districts. The Commission felt that, at this point, it was critical to get the enhancement started, as Rogers Cablesystems is committed to providing it rather than to wait for a co- payment from the school districts. The Commission has taken the position that future loaning of the public and government access channels will be done on a cost basis in order to recoup some of the cost of this project from the school districts. Please understand, however, that the cities are direct beneficiaries of the enhancement as it doubles their channel capacity also - -this contributed to the Commission's decision to support the project financially. Please contact Ann Mathews of my office when your council has acted on the enclosed report. The cable company is prepared Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka & Richfield Mr. Jim Prosser September 16, 1988 Page 2 to order the equipment once all five cities have passed the three recommendations of the Commission. If you have any questions concerning this material, please call either Ann or myself. Ver truly yours, Adrian E. Herbst SW2 /kd Enclosures cc: Debra S. Cottone CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No-232 Agenda September 14, 1988 Issue Statement: Consideration of a Resolution Determining Results of the City Primary Election held on Tuesday September 13, 1988. Background: The Primary Election was conducted on Tuesday, September 13, 1988 for the election to the position of Ward 2 Council Member. Richfield City Charter Section 4.07 states that: "The council shall meet and canvass the election returns at the next regular or special council meeting immediately following any regular, primary or special election but in no event later than the Monday next following, and shall make full declaration of the results as soon as possible, and file a statement thereof with the City Clerk." Recommendation: Approve the resolution determing the results of the Primary Election held on Tuesday, September 13, 1988. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The election judges have certified the returns of the election. 2. The city charter provides that the city council declare the results of the election. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion /Decision Mode: This matter has been scheduled for consideration on September 14, 1988. Respect lly submitted, Jam D. Prosser Ci: Manager- TPF:njs a. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DETERMINING RESULTS OF PRIMARY ELECTION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD HELD ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1988 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the council, having received and considered the tally of votes by the judges of the Primary Election held September 13, 1988, the results are determined to be as follows: Total number of ballots cast: 1352 Total number of spoiled ballots: 99 Votes cast for Council Member - WARD 2: * Ivan Ludeman 545 Doug Wasko 280 * L. R. Wozniczka 463 nominees whose names will appear on November 8, 1988 General Election Ballots Attached Appendix A is complete tabulation of results. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following list of judges were those certifying returns of said election: Shirley Gisselquist (D) Ralph Roberts (R) Bernice Utter (D) Martha Grace (D) Edith Nye (R) Shirley Evenstad (R) Elaine Gilhousen (R) Fern Oreck (D) Margaret Fleming (D) Jette Floberg (R) Frederick Moore (D) Thomas Muilenberg (R) Jan Anderson (R) Linda Bloomgren (D) Merideth Anderson (R) Bob Mack (D) Alvina Mjerle (R) Kathy Barta (D) Catherine Alfano (D) Pat Bunting (D) Vernette Carlson (D) Gertrude Herll (D) Marion Horning (D) Dee Wilcox (R) Barb Cook (D) Marion Anderson (R) Sue Lewis (R) Clara Darsow (D) Carolyn Walker (D) Raymond Howe (D) Beverly Clark (D) Dorothy Hanson (R) Hazel Splettsoeser (R) Margaret Mortenson' (R) Phyllis Reinmuth (R) Lois Karnas (R) Howard Mortenson (R) Angela Aylward (D) Donna Jordahl (D) Vivian Bennis (R) Betty Halloran (R) Elizabeth Bowman (R) Muriel Bernstein (D) Muriel Findell (D) Warren Olson (D) Joan Pelfrey (D) Donna Vidas (R) Jeanne Frenz (R) Betty Funk (R) Claire Todd (D) Ray Johnson (D) Audrey Winslow (R) Sue Muilenberg (R) Corrine Cosgrove (D) Jean Lofstrom (D) Rosemary Koelln (R) Irene Anderson (R) Le Sveum (R) John Gera (D) Pat Toney (R) .. Resolution No. Page 2 Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of September, 1988. Steven J. Quam Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD Sample Ballot WARD 2 (Precincts 2A, 68, and 7A) NONPARTISAN PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 13, 1988 TO VOTE, COMPLETE THE ARROW POINTING TO YOUR CHOICE LIKE THIS: 4n--mt CITY OFFICES CITY OF RICHFIELD COUNCIL MEMBER WARD 2 (Vote For One) IVAN LUDEMAN 4M =[ PAUL WASKO K L. R. WOZNICZKA �■ �K .. v -I D -I Z -1 r -o ra m o ^c* o© 0 a < m -1 -J w L-1 --I f r c a' r I D 00 J I 1 1 Z m r ro , rmr y R O d 7 1 m G C -z-1 < N C C) m IL E O O. @ m r m O U. CL < -I < QI C) to lL N r Q• O ►+ O fie r - O -I Z r a' '1 1 ►+ Q' I 10 0 LJ w a) Z :1 z r O• •• N N I 1� N N m0 °a �0 N rt UI Ln a I-• M N M e J 1 I 1 LT N 3 I I I I•- N 10 1 1 1 d? f I i 0 ►+ O I N N N v 0 N 0 0• C UI r I D 00 J I 1 1 Z 1 -1 = x I W y R O d 7 1 m (, '0 r G: I Z r W W = y.- 0, UI 3 1 m . N N N N A r ArN NUIW CO L'i 10 W 0 A 10 0 LJ w a) N 4 4' 3 N I 1� N N N 1 �0 N r UI Ln D C1 I-• M A M e J 1 I 1 LT 0\ A I•- N 10 1 1 1 d? 1 1 - N O 7 1 < I D N N C F- r O N m I -J - - L'I U, Br', Z < 7 I N 1 O - Ol 10 0• LJ U O 1 1 1 a? CD I m M 1 c• V _I I N N 7 I I 1 al 1 1 —1 • r N r N I A U 1 1 1 A N r OG1 J 1 1 1 d? N N I I I rJ N r Ln r I G7 N N I r 1 I � i - - I N N I A A A r 10 1 O N r UI CO A LJ CD U N U J 10 N Y D rO(A JJ I W N 1 I I L� r 0• U7 Ln . O J• r ►• r NOA 0•A 1 .0 �a- O CA K) NOO OD 00 n) J A 1 I N N TJ N e A N D (*O(A Jr r O O 1 1 1 N Ln IP •0 A N I I I d? N N U A 0 I r r 1 I f N N 00 N r D UO•U ON 1 I r r -J 0` U N UI 0l 10 1 1 1 d? C4 r rt r N N Ln v r N A U V r J O •0 A N U+ .0 0 - NA W Y 0l 0' JUA UOUl U N A UI r N 10 J u d? Y d? 0 ►+ O I N rr v A N C 0 r I D r Z 1 -1 = x I W y —0 O d 7 1 m (, '0 ?< w G: I Z r m = y.- Q r O 3 1 m ? i✓ N 4 D R N I O M • v 1 w a) N 4 4' 3 N I 1� ID 0 CL N 1 m r D C1 I-• M I M v N m 4 I Z O S to 1 1 - N O 7 1 < I D _i C F- ._. m I -J 3 Br', Z < 7 I N 1 O - D < I< 3 r I CD I m M 1 c• V _I I 7 I I 1 al 1 1 —1 • r N N I c0 A N 1 I I D N I v I,'IN I N N I I I rJ N r Ln r I G7 I UN 1 I � i I I W I A U r I 1 A U r 1 O I 1 1 r r I W I I I I I 1 A L1 U 0 r r W A U O 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I i I 1 r r N .0 0• 0 r r O O O O o O Y 0 I.- CO UI r 0� r N N N U (A U W r 0 r 0) U r 0 Ut UI I.- r O L'I N r N r 1 r N •0 A W CD A O r P N N N Ln r r .0 N 0) r o, \0 Ln O U .0 r O CD r O e r O N 0 d° 0 0 N r-+ O A D r m m Os A of IL ►+ W M 0< m- rt N CL CL < 7 Z v O O D Z C) < H CI v N m cr cr v r C) O 1 QI 7 r V N N C' fn 7 A O D r U A r UI J A A N rJ \0 0 N 0 O r O N I.- U A U N A 0 10 r U 4 P.- Li •D 10 J N r N N Ui Lrl lP 0\ r 0 W 0. 01 J •0 N N J r O A r N U r N 140 N OD r AA rUl N r J U r A A r A r .J W r N m N N A N 10 0l LJ 0 r U J Ln UI d? d? Y. Y Li c H v t C T� A N rich 0 4 v N = x I W y M O d 7 C@ I m (, '0 ?< w G: I Z r m = y.- CD r 1 D m CL 0 - 1 -4 N 4 D R N I O M • v 1 C _ -4 N 3 = 1 D ID 0 CL N 1 " m Cr ', C Ln I m W-:c "D? J I s d = a UI < 7 I r i 7 N I M 1 v ►+ 1 M N I 1 —1 • I 1 c0 A N 1 I I D GJ NA I,'IN I N N I I I rJ N r Ln r D W LIO UN 1 r I W 0 U r D A U r J O I 1 r r I 1 A O A r D rO(A JJ I 1 I I L� A Ln e NOA 0•A 1 I I I OD U N r OD 00 n) J A 1 I N N I I J O A N D (*O(A Jr 1 r 1 1 0) U N r D N N U A 0 I r 1 I f 00 N r D UO•U ON 1 I r r -J O C4 r rt r AAU Ln v V CD .0 0 - NA W 0,1 00 .(? (D N J r r 0 A. iti / \ .$ ��5 f �.« . •'f w=A ow § ik 77 if i\7 \% It , \/ �A p ■ r$� ° »» , �, $��7 °\ ,� ate, `�.\. \ , . �Sw 2 \% \•� {o \70 �� .�' y`� it \e _ ice \ a■ rte, 0 @6 I ■ i= \,r & ,m c> �o,7 w.= ■+ it m < \C,� '2\ w f5.\ oo 5$$ } \1 ' ~/ ° 1-4 \ _sue '' @\.» < \% f\� e! iems \7� / $ °2 \ \pie °S te 6 \ §. 7 ° a 3 ;/ (D �� $ \ it t f/ \ \� $ \_ ®_ j § \-4 \f +» t \\ . 2 . .; @ It it . \ ° °° 00 \ 00 00 \ / 0 o 00 0 o 0 ? . \{ 2\ t { \ It A.